Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treaty of Lutatius/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2020 [1].

Treaty of Lutatius

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regular reviewers of my articles from the First Punic War may well be pleased to hear that we have finally reached the end of the war. This article covers the peace treaty that ended the 27-year-long conflict. A departure for me, being the first time I have nominated a non-conflict article for FAC, so I suspect that it needs lots of feedback. It has been through both GAN and ACR, and so I hope that it is approaching the standard required for here. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
  • Licensing and source information is adequate (t · c) buidhe 21:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi buidhe and many thanks for the prompt reviews. Harrias, bless their little cotton socks, has come up with a far more appropriate map. So I have swapped out the second map. You will probably wish to check over the licensing and sourcing of the new one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's an improvement! Happy to approve it. (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—pass
  • All sources appear to be reliable
  • Source checks:
    • Wardle: I have trouble finding support for the content. The paper doesn't mention Atticus and deals mostly with religious issues, so maybe you could make it clearer what information is supported by this source rather than Ziolkowski. Also, ideally "some historians" is attributed to at least one who holds this viewpoint.
Wardle mentions Atticus on p. 382, but only as "A. Manlius Torquatus". He only summarises Ziolkowski's argument here. He agrees with him on the political point, but not on the "religious issues" you mention. Arguably you could simply say "Ziolkowski" instead of "some historians". I cited Wardle to show that Ziolkowski's argument was not a single "wild guess", and that at least another historian had agreed with him. T8612 (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In line attributed to just Ziolkowski. I see what you mean about Wardle. I have cut the cite to them to just one page. The reason for Wardle is as T8612 suggests, to demonstrate that Ziolkowski's view is not just a "rogue hypothesis" and is part of the "representative survey of the relevant literature". I would be happy to take it out if you prefer. The relevant text is

Ziolkowski stresses another ... dimension: ... [Cerco's] opponents wanted the war to continue ... the opposition, led by ... A. Manlius Torquatus

The religious mechanisms are not really relevant.
    • Hoyos 2000: Supports "appeal to Rome", but not the previous two sentences. Maybe citations could be moved to make it more clear what is being supported.
Done.

(t · c) buidhe 21:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Your comments responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support comments from T8612

  • "where they were rejected by the popular assembly."There were several assemblies. In this case, it's the Centuriate Assembly (Goldsworthy p. 129).
Thanks. Tweaked.
  • "A commission of ten..." I would add a "then" or something similar in the sentence to better show the chain of events.
Added.
  • I would add the opinion of Scullard (in CAH 7-2 pp. 565-6), who says the first treaty was "somewhat lenient" for Carthage. Then, he says that the clause on respective allies in the second draft was a compensation given to Carthage after the bigger fine. This would play a role at the beginning of the Second Punic War, as Saguntum became a Roman ally after the conclusion of the treaty [you can also put this in "aftermath" as you mention Saguntum there]. Scullard also mentions there was a declaration of friendship between Rome and Carthage, which explains the help given by Rome during the Mercenary War (see p. 568).
You are fond of Scullard aren't you. I was not inclined to add modern historians' subjective views of the treaty, if only because there is no consensus:
  • Miles: "The terms agreed in 241 were harsh".
  • Goldsworthy: "the peace terms made it clear that [Carthage] had been defeated".
  • Bleckmann (in Hoyos): "remarkably moderate".
  • I also checked two others who didn't give a subjective opinion.
  • Bagnall: "realistic and reasonable" - whatever that means.
However, I should probably add a bit on these conflicting modern views. Added.
Clause on allies: Both Lazenby and Goldsworthy (the only two I have checked) state that the only changes in the second draft Polybius mentions in his "Book 1" were the increased indemnity/reduced time to pay and the evacuation of the islands between Sicily and Italy. When discussing the start of the Second Punic War in a later he contradicts himself in passing. Most sources incline towards ignoring or dismissing this, but I can expand on it if you think it worthwhile.
My understanding was that Saguntum was not an ally; rather the Romans had agreed a vague treaty of friendship and support - possibly deliberately.
Saguntum became an "ally" of Rome after the treaty of Lutatius, so Carthage said the treaty only covered allies at the time of the treaty, while Rome said new allies were to be included too. In fact Scullard develops this in details in the CAH vol. 8, p. 39. Strangely, Polybius talks about the "respective allies" in another book of his Histories.
Let me do a bit of research and I'll consider tweaking the aftermath. But not if it's just Scullard.
@Gog the Mild: you have some details on Saguntum and the Treaty of Lutatius in Hoyos, Unplanned Wars, pp. 175-178. T8612 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this is from 23 years after that part of the treaty was signed I don't want to bloat the Aftermath with it. On the other hand, if Saguntum was an ally, then it does need including somewhere on some level. On the third hand the sources seem to split about 50:50 on this. So I have gone with Goldsworthy, who acknowledges (p. 144) the debate, and summarised the situation in a footnote. See what you think.
Declaration of friendship: well, possibly; so why did they then cynically ignore this clause less than two years later, To OR, politics sounds like a more likely explanation than scrupulous adherence to the treaty.
Bleckman in Hoyos' Companion (pp. 180-1) said "Because the peace of 241 had been passed with an extremely slender majority and in a climate of intense conflicts in domestic politics, it is not surprising that only a few years later, when Carthage had become defenseless, the treaty was “corrected” by forcing the cession of Sardinia, an especially bitter blow to Carthage." Perhaps you could add "extremely slender majority" somewhere to explain the change in Roman behaviour. I would also add something on this in the lede, that the Lutatii passed their peace treaty despite considerable opposition in the Senate. I also found a source in German on this if you want.
Yes, I have read Bleckmann.
Thanks, but there are plenty of English sources. Not all agree on the strength of the opposition and definitely not that that was why the Romans seized Sardinia. I am not happy using "there was a declaration of friendship between Rome and Carthage" to "explain the help given by Rome during the Mercenary War", and then that the "extremely slender majority" explains "the change in Roman behaviour". That's not what a consensus of sources say. I think that for once we are best just stating the facts.
  • "These were all formalised in the Treaty of Lutatius, named after Catulus." I would add that Catulus had remained in Sicily as proconsul (Broughton, vol. I, pp. 219-220).
OK. Added.
  • "Hiero, the king of the Roman satellite kingdom of Syracuse". It's Hiero II, as there was a Hiero I before (although several sources call the older one Hieron, perhaps to distinguish between them).
Regnal numbers added.
  • Perhaps you can tell that Sardinia was taken by the consul Titus Manlius Torquatus, also nephew of Torquatus Atticus (Broughton, vol. I, p. 223). After this, he closed the gates of the Temple of Janus for the first time during the Roman Republic (Hoyos, Unplanned Wars, p. 130).
You don't think that that is getting, quite a bit, off topic? ("It stays focused on the main topic".)
A bit yes, you can leave it out, although you should add the event in Punic Wars. To continue my OR, I think Torquatus made a political statement after capturing Sardinia, "now , the war is over" (meaning that the Lutatii had not ended the war).

[As an aside, I think the Torquati were among the "anti-Carthaginian" faction at Rome, which pushed for continuing the war and taking Sardinia, against that of the Lutatii brothers, who obviously were for peace and helping Carthage during the Mercenary War. The sudden shift in Roman policy regarding Sardinia would be explained by the censor of 236 who changed the composition of the senate by appointing new senators favourable to the former faction. But that's completely original research lol.]

I am sure that there was a whole snakepit of personalities and politics that we only get the faintest flavour of, and that sounds more convincing than a lot of stuff in the RSs.
  • I would add in the infobox, and perhaps the first lede sentence, a mention to the addendum following the taking of Sardinia, at least the date.
Done.
Wait, you wrote "With a codicil added in 218 BC", but Sardinia was taken in 237 BC.
That's because I am an idiot. I was working on Punic Wars and confused the date of the start of the Second with the end of the First! Thanks. Fixed.

T8612 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T8612 and thanks for the prompt review of this. Some good points, as usual. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Responded. I'll come back more fully when I have done some reading. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi T8612, I have responded to your follow up points. Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, two final suggestions:
  • "which ended the First Punic War after 23 years." sounds a bit weird to me. Perhaps add "of conflict" at the end, or "started in 264" or "23 years before". Just a matter of style.
That reads oddly to me, but done.
  • "Sicily became the first Roman province as Sicilia, governed by a former praetor." At the time it was just a praetor (not a "former" one), although the provincial system was formally organised later, in 228 BC, with both Sicily and Sardinia governed by a praetor (their number was raised to four that year). The definite source on this is: T. Corey Brennan, The Praetorship in the Roman Republic, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 85-93. [That's a great source btw, lots of info on other things, not just the praetorship]. Moreover, I would also mention that Syracuse remained independent, as shown on the map above. T8612 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two very good points. Thank you, and done. I have no idea where I got "former" from! Plus, half the cites of that paragraph seem to have gone MIA - I have reinserted them.
T8612 Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Next up: First Punic War. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, supporting now. Are you planning to make a featured topic on the First Punic War? T8612 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: Thank you. No, there are too many petty skirmishes and red links which may never be articles. The article itself will be my last on the First Punic War. (Although I may do bios on some of the more notable Carthaginians, and possibly take them to GAN.) I will be moving on to some 2PW articles for a while. I may try for a good topic on the Punic Wars - only trepidation about trying to get 2PW to FA stops me going further; I already have PWs in (I think) good shape and have just started on 3PW. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Girth Summit

Not much from me - a very good read, just a few points to consider:

  • In the lead: "...consul Gaius Lutatius Catulus defeated a Carthaginian fleet a..." - WP:SOB, and way to reword?
Done.
  • First punic war: "demographically exhausted" - can we link that to something, or explain it? (I appreciate that you touch on the lack of available adult Roman citizens, but perhaps it could be made more explicit that this phrase means 'running out of bodies')
Tweaked.
Good thinking. Done.
  • Treaty: "This caused him to be eager to conclude..." Perhaps 'This made him eager to conclude might be slightly less awkward?
"Awkward! My prose, awkward? The cheek! That's the problem with the younger generation: no respect for their elders. Mutter. Mumble. Changed.

That's about it. GirthSummit (blether) 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Girth, appreciated. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support from this cheeky whippersnapper. GirthSummit (blether) 19:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Hog Farm

I might wind up claiming WikiCup points for this. Hog Farm Bacon 01:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a Carthaginian fleet was defeated by a Roman fleet" - The piped link is only to defeated. That's a bit MOS:EGG-like, I'd recommend changing the piping to was defeated, to make it clear that something more than just defeat is being linked.
Done.
  • "to agree a peace treaty with the Romans," - I feel like there should be a "to" between agree and a
I see what you mean, but that would communicate something subtlety different. How it is is how it is supposed to be. I have changed "agree" to 'negotiate'. Does that help?
  • "In the event the war lasted 23 years, with the maritime aspect the largest and longest naval war of the ancient world" - I'm not sure exactly what's wrong here, but this don't quite read right to me. I think "in the event" is throwing me off. Basically, this isn't grammatically correct in the language of redneck, but it may be fine in other things of English
It is, but you are right in that it is overly convoluted. Now simplified.
  • "and in a hard-fought battle" - Same with the MOS:EGG issue above. Personally, I'd make the piped part "a hard-fought battle"
I'm not seeing this. You would expect "hard fought battle" to send you to a battle, which it does; so why is it EGGy? It is not normal practice to include definite or indefinite articles within pipes. Eg The [[Battle of the Aegates]] and not [[the Battle of the Aegates]]. It is so universal that I would guess that there is a policy on it somewhere.
  • You mention in the first sentence of the lead and in the infobox that it was amended in 218 BC. There's no content about a 218 amendment, but there is content about a 237 amendment.
That's because I am an idiot. The Second Punic War started in 218 BC and I clearly have that date jammed in my mind. Thank you. Amended.
  • Adrian Goldsworthy is a duplink
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.

That's about all I can find. Willing to discuss/retract any of these. The only of these I'd consider not a nitpicky prose issue is the amendment date issue. Hog Farm Bacon 01:58 9 August 2020 (UTC)

This might be a brEnglisg / amEnglish thing, but I disagree with Hog Farm about the language issues (agree a treaty and in the event) - I think they're both fine as they are (although, personally, I'd have a comma after event...). GirthSummit (blether) 06:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ Girth Summit|, that' cus you're in the "Today, I had breakfast" school of commaisation, while I am in the "Today I had breakfast." (When I first started copy editing Wikipedia it looked to me as if in a significant minority of articles someone had scattered commas at random.) You may want to run an eye over my changes to check that I haven't messed anything up. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I had breakfast. Once I'd finished, I read your comment. Having checked your diff, I am satisfied that you haven't made a mess of anything. GirthSummit (blether) 11:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prompt service again Hog Farm, thank you. Your comments all addressed above. The diff is here. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to support. Hog Farm Bacon 11:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Harrias

I reviewed this at its A-class review, and it has been generally improved since then, so I don't expect to find much.

Good morning Harrias. How are you enjoying the weather? Let's see what you have for me.
On account of being British, I'm going to complain: it's too hot. We have three fans running in the house, and it's still ridiculous. I've got to lead a 7-mile run this evening, and frankly I'm not looking forward to it much. Harrias talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:-) I know what you mean. I run cold and even I aren't happy. I went up a steep hill in north Derbyshire over the weekend and had shorts on for only the second time in the UK in over 25 years. I don't envy you at all: lots of hydration!
  • "Rome then sent a commission of ten to settle the matter." I think something like "Rome then sent a ten-man commission to settle the matter." might flow better and sound less archaic, but it isn't something I'm going to press.
I'm writing about the 3rd century BC, I'm trying to sound archaic. Fixed.
  • I'm going to do that thing again, where I raise something that I've ignored in countless article before. Why is the footnote stating "Hamilcar Barca was the father of Hannibal." necessary? Is it relevant enough to this article to warrant a footnote, rather than being a fact determinable by following the wikilink?
I'm with you but if I hadn't at least one, and probably several, reviewers would have been vehemently insisting that I "had" to include it. It is a minority opinion, but a strong one, so I have been inserting it preemptively. I would be more than happy to take it out.
It seems unnecessary to me, but I'm not fussed. Harrias talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Done.
  • "..the Romans sank 50 – 20 with all hands – and captured 70." On first reading, I was a little confused, thinking this meant "50–20 with all hands". This is probably me being an idiot (unspaced versus spaced endash etc.), but could the punctuation or phrasing be tweaked around a bit to avoid this?
You don't want to go with your plan A? Tweaked.
  • "It is possible that for political and prestige reasons Hamilcar did not wish to be associated with the treaty which formalised Carthage's defeat in the 23-year-long war." This sounds like POV; ideally it would have inline attribution; whether to one person, or saying that it is the consensus view among historians.
Fair enough. I have gone with "Several modern historians have raised the possibility that ..." I already have three cites at the end of the paragraph, would you like me to duplicate them at the end of this sentence and/or add some more?
No, that's fine. Harrias talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This made him eager to conclude a definitive peace and thus claim the credit for bringing the lengthy war to a close." Goldsworthy explicitly suggests that this might have made Catulus "more conciliatory", hence why the deal was subsequently rejected by Rome and harsher terms were agreed. I think this suggestions is worth mentioning.
Sorry Harrias, I am not sure that I (fully) get your point here.
I think it would be worth explicitly mentioning that Goldsworthy suggests that because Catulus was "eager to conclude a definitive peace and thus claim the credit for bringing the lengthy war to a close", he was "more conciliatory" than he perhaps should have been. Harrias talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am still scratching my head a bit. Is that not what is already said? I don't want to single Goldsworthy out as this is the consensus. I shall try to make it a bit more obvious. I have changed it to "This caused him to be flexible during the negotiations as he was eager to conclude a definitive peace while he still had the authority to, and thus claim the credit for bringing the lengthy war to a close." How's that?
Yeah, I prefer that. For me, the article hadn't been explicit enough that Catulus gave more generous terms because of his eagerness. Harrias talk 11:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A commission of ten was then sent.." As above.
Done.
  • "The historian of ancient Rome Adam Ziolkowski argues there was a faction in Rome opposed to the treaty, and possibly to ending the war at all, which was led by the ex-consul Aulus Manlius Torquatus Atticus." Do we know why?
Wardle summarises "... were keen to conclude a formal peace, and so to secure the glory for having ended the war, whereas their optimate opponents wanted the war to continue so that they might have a chance at glory ..."
Is this worth explaining in the article? Harrias talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ziolkowski's theory is one of many, and is not emphasised by most historians. It is there because T2612 wanted it to be given a little more weight. If you are not happy with it - which is your entitlement - I would far rather trim it than expand it.
Done.
  • Pointless comment: "The Carthaginians sent a force to retake the island. When it arrived its members also mutinied, joined the previous mutineers, and killed all of the Carthaginians on the island." – This is still my favourite thing ever.
I have read a lot on the Punic Wars over the past year. I have ceased to boggle at the lack of grasp of the absolute basics of military leadership (Hannibal aside) shown by the Carthaginians. It is the Monty Python school of waging war. Wait until the Third Punic War: Romans declare war; land an army in Africa; demand that Carthage hand over all of their weapons and armour and burn all their ships. And the Carthaginians do! Three guesses as to what happens next?

That's it from me. Harrias talk 08:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias and many thanks for that. Your points above all addressed, albeit a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: A couple of replies to your replies. Harrias talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Harrias, and back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suits me, happy to support this. Cracking work as always. Harrias talk 11:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Treaty_of_Lutatius/archive1&oldid=973393259"