Talk:Battle of Zama

This guideline is in place precisely to prevent this sort of argument. Hypothetically Next someone adds "Hannibal goes into exile" etc etc. It's bloat and it doesn't improve the article.Pipsally (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

{{Talk:Battle of Zama/GA1}}

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Zama}}

Sorry if this is a pointless question, but what happened to the image on this article? I feel it could benefit with one. 86.145.154.160 (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

:It's a good question. If you mean either this - :File:Slaget ved Zama - Cornelis Cort, 1567.jpg - or this - :File:Schlacht bei Zama Gemälde H P Motte.jpg - they disappeared because they have multiple inaccuracies. As Wikipedia we need to be able to reliably source everything we show, as well as everything we write. There is a serious dearth of accurate images of ancient battles and soldiers in the public domain. Any suggestions would be gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

:I'd like to add here that I think Gog's objections to the image is very relevant. A 16th century depiction of a 2nd century BC battle should always assumed to be historically inaccurate and biased. The purpose of 16th century artists was not to provide anything we would understand as "realism" but rather to contextualize it to their own time. They're only relevant to illustrate the legacy of an historical even, not the event itself.

:This is no different from being skeptical of 16th century written histories of the 2nd century. We would never quote Erasmus as a source for what happened in ancient times, so why should we accept Cornelis Cort uncritically? Peter ^Isotalo 01:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

::Obviously we don't, but the Cort is an attractive image, and demonstrates Early Modern interest in the battle. It may be true that a 16th century depiction of a 2nd century BC battle should be assumed to be historically inaccurate, but I don't know what you mean by biased - since the 17th century rather admired Hannibal etc it is probably less biased than any Roman image of the battle, not that we have any. Neither part of "The purpose of 16th century artists was not to provide anything we would understand as "realism" but rather to contextualize it to their own time" is true. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

:::Your argument here is about aesthetics and I believe it flies in the face of MOS:PERTINENCE. I also think you know pretty well that 16th century understanding of history was not exactly what extremely lacking compared to today.

:::If you want to describe the historiography of the battle, I think you should. That's when Cort and the likes could fit in. But please don't pit your opinions about attractiveness against concerns about accuracy. Peter ^Isotalo 09:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

:::The image presently at the article is an interesting example of painting mimicking tapestry art, but it seems highly, even ridiculously, inaccurate: the elephants' front-facing eyes with furrowed, scowling brows; the impossibly gigantic howdahs; the line of elephants facing the line of Romans, when a major tactical innovation was to open Roman ranks and leave avenues down which the elephants ran, relatively harmlessly (do we have any examples of the Mahouts getting their beasts to turn to face the Romans?); etc. If we were to keep the image, its inaccuracies should be labeled, so as not to mislead readers. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

::::It's a painting copying a tapestry which copied an engraving, which if nothing else shows the high level of interest, focused on Scipio, in the Renaissance in the subject. I'm all in favour of analysing images of battles against historical reality, but if we start down that path there is an awful lot of work to do. A gap of some 1,700 years is by no means required for images to be inaccurate. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

:::::We should be careful not to give the wrong impression, and images of fanciful dress, tactics, etc., can do just that. There's been a resurgent interest in tapestry recently, which includes designs and derivative paintings. Shouldn't we be able to refer to catalog entries detailing how ahistorical a particular design has been found to be? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

:::::::In theory, but they tend not to be written by military historians. There's a long note [http://www.italian-art.ru/canvas/15-16_century/r/roman_last_third_XVI_century/zamas_battle/index.php here, in Russian] on another Cort painting version. The original set of tapestries, for Francois I, were burnt in the Revolution, but the Louvre has a set of copies from c. 1690 (see commons). Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

::::::::I would not object to including iconic but inaccurate paintings of historical events, but not merely as decoration or some sort of art historical footnote. Other than adding a splash of color, this painting provides zero relevant information about the battle. On the contrary, it's actively misleading from what we know about modern historical research of the period. There's already a pretty clear argument against it in MOS:PERTINENCE already and this isn't just some minor quibble about the wrong shade of helmet ornaments. For crying out loud, there's a Roman soldier rushing elephants in a colorful silk nightgown brandishing a goddamn cutlass. Peter ^Isotalo 02:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

::::I think that my comments at the top of this section, so I shall just add that I broadly agree with Peter's comments; the argument seems to be personal aesthetics against several policies. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey {{ping|Gog the Mild}}, is the background too big? I may be overreacting but we've got four paragraphs on the background and four on roman preparations. Then we have a paragraph on an invasion of Africa and then four paragraphs on a bunch of battles before this battle. Then, we have another two paragraphs detailing Hannibal's return and then finally two paragraphs on the prelude to the battle before the article on the battle actually begins. That kind of seems like a little too much background. Though, I would like to hear your opinion on this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|Onegreatjoke}} Best place for discussion on this at the moment is the ongoing FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Zama/archive1. There has been discussion both ways regarding the length of the background detail! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Its well known that the Massylii,led by Masinissa were crucial in the battle with the Numidian cavalry they helped Romans achieve the battle so they deserve their place between the participants i dont understand why you deleted them. Tayeb188 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:It is not well known at all, although it may be your personal opinion or interpretation. This is known as WP:OR and is not allowed. Could you produce high quality WP:RSs which state this. The ones I have access to describe the battle as one between the Romans and the Carthaginians, with only passing references to the Numidians on both sides. In a similar way to little being made of many of the "Carthaginians" being Bruttians or Moors. And "deserve" is not relevant; what you or I may think doesn't count, the question is "What do the HQ RSs say?" Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

::there is no Wikipedia:No original research over here,i dont know where did you get your sources from but it's well known among historians that Massylii with the commend of Massinissa did participate in this battle, Numidians on both sides were commended by their own chieftain who came to support their allied weather it was the king Syphax on the Carthaginians camp or Massinissa on the Romans one.it's literally stated everywhere and again im very surprised that you didn't know about it.here are some contemporary sources that attest it : {{Cite book |last=Kiffer |first=André Geraque |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9KftDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA24&dq=numidia+massinissa+battle+of+zama&hl=fr |title=Battle Of Zama, October 19, 202 Bc |date=2019-12-07 |publisher=Clube de Autores |language=en}}{{Cite book |last=gamal |first=omar |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3lkFEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT47&dq=numidia+massinissa+battle+of+zama&hl=fr |title=Kings of the ancient world |last2=gamal |first2=ahmed |date=2020-06-23 |publisher=Lulu Press, Inc |isbn=978-1-716-80906-4 |language=en}}{{Cite book |last=Plutarch |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iFbwDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA232&dq=numidia+massinissa+battle+of+zama&hl=fr |title=The Lives of Aristeides and Cato |date=1989 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-85668-421-0 |language=en}}{{Cite book |last=Sallust |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vlpOAAAAYAAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA324&dq=numidia+massinissa+battle+of+zama&hl=fr |title=Jugurthine War, And, Conspiracy of Catiline: With an English Commentary, and Geographical and Historical Indexes |date=1838 |publisher=Harper |language=en}}{{Cite book |last=Fleischer |first=Aylmer von |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4_qEBAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT177&dq=numidia+massinissa+battle+of+zama&hl=fr |title=Retake Your Fame: Black Contribution to World Civilization. Revised and Expanded Edition, Volume 1 |date=2004 |publisher=Aylmer von Fleischer |language=en}} Tayeb188 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:Gog the Mild is right on this point - we aren't writing history here, we are summarising the histories that have already been written by historians. Our own feelings about what is/isn't right or just don't matter - we follow the sources. This article isn't denying the presence of Numidian forces in the battle - they are mentioned right there in the lead - but for us to list Numidia as one of he belligerents, we would need reliable (modern) scholarly sources to do similarly. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

::i gave some sources above this comment,im by no means writing history here.Im just making things clear as if you did a little bit of researches,you would find that indeed the king of Massylii Massinissa did participate in this war and i think by denying it,you are the one writing history over here.and if you are searching about history,you need to take consideration sources that were close to the event,and that's what i did as Salluste did confirm the presence of Massinissa in the battle. Tayeb188 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:::Nobody is denying his involvement - that's already mentioned there in the article (and in the lead section, no less). The point we're making is that we don't use our own evaluation of what is fair, or what people deserve, to determine how we write the article - we follow the sources. Do any of the sources you're citing here describe it as a battle between 'Rome and Numibia' against Carthage (which is what your change to the 'belligerents' field of the infobox would imply)? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

::::"if you are searching about history,you need to take consideration sources that were close to the event,and that's what i did as Salluste". Possibly. But if one is writing a Wikipedia article one is required to use modern sources. Sallust, from more than 2,000 years ago is not a reliable source. He is a WP:PST and so should be used sparingly and with care, if at all. Even allowing for that, Sallust is not considered a significant source for the Punic Wars, eg see Mineo, Bernard (2015) [2011]. "Principal Literary Sources for the Punic Wars (Apart from Polybius)". In Hoyos, Dexter (ed.). A Companion to the Punic Wars. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 111–128. ISBN 978-1-1190-2550-4. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::i dont see why Salluste would have lied in the presence of Massinissa in the battle but apart from this,i gave you 4 sources and all of them attest that Massylli led by Massinissa have fought with the Romans in the battle even Polybius that you mentioned said that "the spies left the day before Massinissa arrived"{{Cite book |last=Gabriel |first=Richard A. |url=https://books.google.fr/books?id=WqzA1NamOfgC&pg=PA182&dq=Polybius+massinissa+battle+of+zama&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp28bCtoT_AhVeVKQEHQ4fBLkQ6wF6BAgEEAU#v=onepage&q=Polybius%20massinissa%20battle%20of%20zama&f=false |title=Scipio Africanus: Rome's Greatest General |date=2008-06-30 |publisher=Potomac Books, Inc. |isbn=978-1-59797-205-5 |language=en}}so if massinissa,king of Massylii have fought in the battle with the Romans why can't he be in the belligerents section? Tayeb188 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::I think that Girth Summit has answered that perfectly well. As we seem to be going in circles I am going to cease responding unless you make a new point. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

::::keep in mind that after the battle of Zama,Massinissa did unify Numidia to a single entity so we can say that Numidia is a unified version of the Massylii kingdom but you are right in the belligerent section it should be Massylii not Numidia. Tayeb188 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::Do any of the sources describe it as a battle between 'Rome and Massinissa' against Carthage? Or do they describe it as a battle between Rome and Carthage, in which Massinissa played and important role? As I've said, nobody is denying his involvement, that's already prominently noted in the article, but I'm not seeing the reason to add him to the info box like that. Please, in your next post, cite the wording of the sources that make you think we should do this. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::I note that you have edited the article again to your preferred version, with a misleading edit summary. Can I urge you to revert this - if not it is unlikely to end well. I appreciate that Wikipedia's way of doing things can sometimes be frustrating, but this is not the way to handle it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::i dont understand here,what are you waiting for i litteraly proved that massinissa was part of the battle with scipio what else do you want ? Tayeb188 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::the belligerent section is for the participant in this battle if sources described as a battle between Rome and Carthage it doesn't mean they were without their allies i dont understand your point over here. Tayeb188 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::It's OK for you to not understand. It's not OK for you to reinstate your edit when you know that multiple people disagree with you. You need to convince people before you make the change. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::i thought we have agreed on it that is why i changed the version but from what i see we didn't,i gave you proof that Massinissa did participate in this war and i wanted to put it in the belligerent section(literally a section for the participant of the battle) so technically if he did participate with his own army he can be in the section but again i dont understand why you disagree with this,if you could explain the real reasons why you dont want to put it there it would be really helpful Tayeb188 (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::The 'belligerents' section of the infobox is there to list the main belligerents in the battle, not all the participants. If we were to add all of the allies of all of the people who fought alongside or against Rome, we would have an awful lot of articles to change, and probably a lot of excessively long and complicated infoboxes. As I understand it, most sources characterise Zama as a battle between Rome and Carthage, while acknowledging that both sides had allies on the field. Unless you can demonstrate that most sources characterise it differently, our infobox must reflect that. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

I brought it back but it got deleted again. It's a good painting, and it's not misleading at all. It's obviously a medieval representation. 74.79.75.186 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

:Because there was consensus at FAC that it was misleading, inaccurate and unsourced. Images, at least for FAs, need to meet the same standards as the prose. Just as we couldn't use prose from a romantic novel loosely based on the battle, we can't include an "imaginative reconstruction" as an image. Any reader looking at it would be actively misled. Why do you want to include it if you know it doesn't accurately represent the battle? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I propose removing the circas for all strength numbers. They look silly and I think readers are smart enough to understand all strength numbers are approximations. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

:The figures with "circa" are approximations, as indicated by the sources, and so it is appropriate to indicate this. I don't see that it is our role to guess what information readers will understand without our providing it. In what way (or why) do you feel that showing that some figures are approximate looks silly? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

::@Gog the Mild So there were exactly 20,000 Carthaginians killed, exactly 20,000 captured and exactly 4,000 cavalry on the Carthaginian side? Otherwise these numbers will need circas as well. Besides the 29,000, the 30,000, the 40,000 and many others are given without circas in the article and in the sources. I propose to remove the circas because the historians in the citations don't use them as well. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

:::The sources, and so the article, all give the figure of 20,000 Carthaginians killed. And so we use it. Wikipedia is a tertiary source: your opinion or my opinion on what the sources say is irrelevant; our role as editors is to reflect them. (I, like you, am quite sure that there were not exactly 20,000 dead Carthaginians. So what? Wikipedia cares nothing for our opinions, only for what the sources say. Also note that as an FA a strong consensus has already been established for the current version of the article, absent new information from the sources.) The sources and so the article state that the precise Roman numbers are uncertain; and so if we give them we need to also reflect this aspect of what the sources say. The accepted way of doing this, especially in infoboxes, is by using the circa template. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Have a look at the numbers involved section. You used circas when the historians that were cited didn't. So you will have to adapt some of your circas. Either use circa for all the strength numbers in the infobox or remove them. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::That is what I am referring to. Circas are consistently used when it is clear that the sources are not certain about a number and not when they supply a specific figure. Your proposal would inaccurately represent the sources and the numbers involved section. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::But that is not what you did in one of your last edits. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Could you show the diff? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::::@Gog the Mild They usually give a total of 29,000 (Miles 2011)(Taylor 2019)} or 30,000 (Lazenby 1998)(Taylor2019) although Nigel Bagnall gives 40,000.(Bagnall 1999). Of these, slightly more than 6,000 were cavalry.(Lazenby 1998).

::::::::They are clearly approximations, but given as exact numbers. So according to your proposal we should use them as exact numbers. That means no circas. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::What happened to "that is not what you did in one of your last edits"?

:::::::::What the article says is a summary of what the sources say. You need to quote the sources, not the article. The sources are what counts. As I thought I made clear above, in the post commencing "The sources ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::@Gog the Mild You edited in the circas.

::::::::::I just had a look at the battles of the Second Punic War and non of them had circas in them. So again: I suggest we remove the circas. Otherwise this battle is breaking with the style of the Battles of Second Punic War. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::I will wait a further week, if no one objects to my latest suggestion, I will implement it.

:::::::::::I reiterate: I suggest removing the circas to have uniformity with all other Battles of the Second Punic War which do not use them. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There are 4 strength numbers for the Romans (all from renowned historians), but no uniformity. I suggest using as range because the real strength number is somewhere in between the extremes. There is some precedent to this suggestion (see: the casualties at the Battle of Cannae). LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:Good idea. We could. The infobox when I nominated the article for FA gave a range and that gained consensus there. I suggest using the range which was supported then. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

::@Gog the Mild Then I don't get why you fought me on my earlier edits when I tried to use a range? Which range would you like to use? LuciusHistoricus (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

:::It's late here. I'll reply with the why and my preferred range in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Apologies, both RL and Wikipedia have been busy. Originally I put a range in, and a circa, to show the consensus of the HQ RSs. I excluded Bagnall as a single, unexplained outlier - worthy of going in the article, but not the infobox because of WP:UNDUE. You introduced Bagnall's number - well, ok, it's a bit subjective - and made it a range. Which it isn't. Either the vast majority are correct, or Bagnall is. There is zero support in the sources for any figure between {{circa|30,000}} and 40,000.

::::So I would suggest removing Bagnall's figure from the infobox as undue and using the range {{circa|29,000|30,000}} as the consensus of the HQ RSs. Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::@Gog the Mild Hi Gog, no apologies needed, I've been busy as well ( working on some C class pages ;-) and enjoying my holiday). I agree with you about Bagnall (although his numbers have some merit). I would prefer a 29,000 – 35,000 range (this would include Goldsworthy's numbers), but would also agree with 30,000 (not a range). After doing some more research I found most historians to agree on around 30,000. This would give the infobox some uniformity, since the strength numbers for Hannibal are round numbers as well. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::Just to be sure, you are proposing a Roman strength of {{circa|30,000}} with sub-totals of {{circa|24,000}} infantry and {{circa}} 6,000 cavalry, yes? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::@Gog the Mild I would prefer the numbers without 'circa', but a compromise seems the right way to go forward so... Let's agree on c. 30,000 with c. 24,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::::And done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::@Gog the Mild I forgot the c. for the cavalry. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::Also done. I did wonder, but I didn't want to start the conversation all over again. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)