Talk:Battle of the Trebia

Untitled

Trebbia River is flowing northward from the Apennines, not from the Alps.

Polybius reports that "not less than 10.000" infantry saved in Placentia and other, later, had been driven there by Scipio with "the most part of cavalry" (Stories, III,74). So how can Roman start with 26.000 men and have 20.000 casualties? (excuse me for my bad bad bad English)--151.37.226.15 14:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Has been corrected. The Romans hat two whole legions i.e. more than 40,000 men. --Proofreader 12:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The article states that

"No sooner had the cavalrymen shown up in the vicinity of the Roman camp, than Sempronius sent out his cavalry to drive them off, and shortly afterward, recklessly sent his entire army of 36,000 Roman infantry, 4,000 allied cavalry, and 3,000 Gallic auxiliaries, towards the battle. He was impatient to gain what appeared to him to be victory, though unaware of the trap set for him."

And that the Roman strength was 45,000. (Which is backed up by Polybius)

But as stated before, Longus left a base guard of 10,000 at his camp. This means that the figure for Roman infantry that Longus sent in pursuit could have been no greater than 26000. --- The estimation of Hannibal's forces is also problematic. For one, Hannibal had about three dozen elephants, not "three elephants". Also, the article does not take notice of the Gallic forces that had joined Hannibal after his 26,000 man army arrived in Italy (probably about 14,000),∐$<math><math><math><math>$</math></math></math></math> and the numbers are given in the description of Hannibal's deployment add up to 31,000, not the given 26,000.

Why keep the old image?

Hy, I tried to replace the old brown image with newer one from the US military academy. To my suprise this replacement was reverted with no explanation except "keep both images". Well I can only say that the newer image shows the locations of the troops in a better deatil (can you see the ambushed carthaginian troops in the old image?) and should logically replace the older image. The older image should be deleted in favour of the new. Flamarande 22:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The new image includes just the battle field, the old image shows a larger portion of territory, up to Clastidium, which had a significant role in the prelude to the battle. Beside, there is a discordancy between the two map (the positions of Roman and Carthaginian forces are reversed) and until now I didn't manage to investigate which image is exact. GhePeU 12:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

sacred band cavalry?

"The sacred band" referred to earlier infantry units fielded by Carthage - is there any evidence this was ever applied to cavalry? As far as I know, it was Numidian cavalry used to lure the Romans into battle. JW (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hannibal began the war?

The text of this article reads, "Hannibal began the Second Punic War in 219 B.C. by attacking the Roman-allied city of Saguntum..." I think that's not neutral POV, according to the sources. I'll check and see exactly what they say.Gallador (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting maps

The two maps of the battle currently appearing in this article have a dramatic conflict: the places of the two armies are reversed. Which is accurate? Shouldn't there be an explanation of the disparity, even if it's simply "it appears that Gonius erred in his depiction"? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Ah. I see now that this issue was raised two years back. However, there's still no resolution. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Which Scipio?

There are several references to Scipio on this page. Does it mean Scipio Africanus, or his father, Publius Cornelius Scipio? Or both? Can someone answer that and provide a link to the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egthegreat (talk • contribs) 05:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Answers

Hello guys. I'm a genuine Greek and Latin guy. The Greek and Latin guys had all this worked out long ago, you just don't have access to the articles. Harvard allowed Google to put much of its library online so now we have some access. Don't even think about buying articles online, they are way overpriced. It's a genuine racket. But, that is where the information is. I'll do the best I can with sources you can actually get. I must say, you have the usual expectations of non-ancient-historians. You hear about everything almost as soon as it happens and within a year or two can get the whole story, unless it is being suppressed. Polybius and Livy were working from a dozen or so hand-written paper manuscripts, which didn't even last their lifetimes. The general population couldn't read and didn't know a thing about it. As Mark Twain quipped somewhere, the ancient kings had no idea where half their kingdoms lay and couldn't have their borders surveyed. What I am saying, what you read is all you are going to get, my friends. There are no solutions. I mean, there are many, but who knows which is right? When that Vandal back then brought a manuscript from the library of Alexandria into the toilet with him that was the last anyone was ever going to know of many of these battles. If you could pick one book about WWII to survive, which would it be? Whichever one it is it wouldn't be enough. Feel grateful, you have two, Livy and Polybius. Saguntum. Hannibal did too start it. That was the casus belli. He had a dream, he said, to lay waste to Italy. He swore an oath never to make peace with Rome. Sure, bub. The best defense he might offer is that Rome made a treaty with a city they had formerly agreed was to be neutral. We don't read about Hannibal sending any old men to the Roman senate to work things out. Take a look at his career - wherever he went, blood baths. The sequence is this - there is peace. Hannibal levels Saguntum. Rome sends to Carthage offering peace. Carthage refuses to check Hannibal and accepts war. The fact that they were unhappy about Sardinia has nothing to do with it. The attack on Saguntum reopened the war. But, as I say, we are not given any clear motives, only the guesses of Polybius and Livy. Maybe none are right, maybe all are right. Where's the non-NPOV? Are we neglecting evidence? What evidence are we neglecting? Should we be making stuff up here just to be fair to Hannibal? I don't see any non-NPOV. The war starts with a declaration following the attack. I believe in modern times the custom is to identify the attacker as the aggressor. We wouldn't say, the United States started WWII by provoking Japan to attack Hawaii or that Poland started it by tempting the 3rd reich to attack it. If you fellows are interested in research, there are plenty mysteries to illuminate here. Maybe you can find something. Do a paper. Whoever first worked on this article found some solutions by making stuff up. That's not allowed. Better to present the problem, but that takes more work. If you can't put it in, don't meddle with the article. So much for that. I find much of the article is usable so I'm going to back it up with the apparatus. It borders on being corny in places but nothing I could really say, this is bad prose. I hope this will take care of some questions for you. Bonjour.Dave (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Highlight problematic approach - re-write is in order

This article doesn't appear meet the standards required of an encyclopedia entry. Too much of the original source material is dismissed out of hand with little or no explanation and much content that is included is speculation based on unreferenced secondary work. Yes the sources are confused and missing key information but that is the nature of historical sources in this period. You can't just fill in the rest with speculation without making this very clear.

The whole article has a pro-Roman and pro-Longus bias which is hard to justify in the face of the facts. For those not well versed in this area of history it must be confusing to read and appear contradictory. Less content, sticking to the establishable facts would be better - elements of common speculation such as the site of the battle are important but should be clearly identified, referenced and show a comprehensive survey of modern opinion.

--Dfairweather (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• So if you want, and are well aware of WP:Manual of Style procedures (really annoying if having to reformat and reclean an article having a long history of such work), rewrite it at your will! Good luck --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go in a week or two when I've got enough time to do it all in one go, unless anyone else wants to first of course. --Dfairweather (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Fairweather. This article does meet standards of an encyclopedia entry. The previous article did not meet such standards. It's too bad you find this annoying, Attilios. I wonder why you did not find the plagiarism and total neglect of the sources annoying in the previous article. That reminds me, Mr. fairweather - exactly what original sources got neglected? You do understand that interpretive accounts are not original sources? Hmn. Mr. Fairweather, I do agree with you on one point - it could use more secondary sources. I'm only trying to correct the flaws of the previous. I always like to encourage work, as that is the policy. Go ahead, my boy. Dig in. Let us see what you can do. Mr. Fairweather, you say we should stick to the etablishable facts. Let's have some more of those, hey? Make sure you establish them, however. Now, you talk about a comprehensive survey of modern opinion. I'd like to see that. Can you do it? I would interject that YOUR offhand opinion is not a modern survey. I'm getting off this article now. I see your overall opinions as off the mark. This article is far better than the previous, includes better sources and answers some of the problems raised in the discussion. I can't see how you would not see that, so there is a credibility gap here. Maybe you didn't like some of the things I said in correction or didn't like being corrected. Neither does any student. Time will tell. Now, Mr. Attilius, I saw your initial title corrections. Well, mine were OK but in fact I like yours better. However you did end up with two "sources" sections. I would say, do be careful will you? Don't "correct" just to be correcting, do BETTER than me. Now, as I do not like Mr. Fairweather's tone and I do not like Mr. Attilios' seconding of it, I am leaving this article to you for now. Later I will look at it again with fresh eyes and if it is worse I will say so and why. Meanwhile I mean to chide you for your tone but I do not mean to discourage you. Have at it. If I don't see a major redesign I will know you couldn't do it and then I will start expressing the problems in improvement tags. Oh, Mr. Fairweather, I don't know what you mean by "less content" when you seem to be proposing a great deal more content (however we can split off more articles if necessary). Frankly the truth of your words does not match your tone. I see you have no user page. I don't know WHO you are until I see your work. If you are going to stay with us, how about a user page? The flak is no worse than what goes around in universities all the time.Dave (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. One more thing, Mr. Fairweather. You claim the article is pro-Longus and pro-Roman. Keep in mind, the main sources are pro-Roman. Livy was very much pro-Roman and so was Polybius. Unfortunately there are no pro-Carthaginian sources to tell us any different. If the battle did not happen that way, you need to show that it did not happen that way, and you need sources to show that bias may have prevented the sources from telling it the way it was. Your own pro-Carthaginian views are not of interest. So, it isn't me or the article you want to address, it is the sources. My opinion, which I expressed above, is not in the article in any way nor do I base any view on it. I stuck to what the sources said. The only "source" I cut out was the novel. Novels are not sources. If you put it in again I will tag it as non-encyclopedic. Now, you tell us you are going to fix this all in a single session. What? Don't you want to do any reading, any lookups, any offline writing? A single session? I don't see how you are going to do that. You need to qualify yourself to work on this article by doing the homework; your offhand opinion is the problem with articles such as this. Exactly how are the sources pro-Roman? I probably should tip you off, it is a big subject and may require a new section if not another article. Even to say, "so-and-so thinks this part of the account reflects Roman bias" is going to take research and space in the article. That is all I wanted to say. So long now.Dave (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PPS. Whew. It appears that I am not off the article after all. I am gathering the secondary sources you requested, Mr. Fairweather. Now, with regard to your sudden presence on Wikipedia, either you were on before under another name or you are not familiar with the policies. Your statements lead me to think you had a sudden replacement in mind. I should warn you that you cannot do that. I will regard it as vandalism and will revert it. I am sure Mr. Attilios, a more experienced editor, was not suggesting that you could. You have to give reasons for what you do, so if you want to rewrite you have to state what you are rewriting and why. That gives the rest of us a chance to evaluate it. For myself I am interested in the best article that can be obtained. So if you do something and I see that it is better I will have no objection. I think Mr. Attilios sees that that is so. I see him making unobtrusive changes mainly for the better here and there. Wikipedia is based on successive alteration of what is there, and that is best; otherwise, anyone can just replace any article at any time. Chaos would result. I think once you start a rewrite, if you do, you will not find me unreasonable. Certainly it is not the work of a single session. I am saying all this under the presumption that there is a sincere persona under the name of Fairweather, which is the presumption that Wikipedia recommends and supports. I would only doubt it because your abrupt statements seem so far off the mark, but they may be characteristic of a novice. I find the fact that no one is rushing to carry on the usual juvenile (or hypocritical) confrontations reassuring. Maybe you are researching the topic and encountering the probems.Dave (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

left or right

The article is very confusing due to its treatment of the conflicting sources regarding the positions and strength of the armies.

• The map in the infobox contradicts the map used further below
• The map quotation states that "This article adopts Mommsen's classic view that the Romans camped on the right bank and crossed to the left." yet numerous sections below permit both possibilities.
• The prelude again takes a strong view on positions "Tiberius sent an unspecified number of cavalry across the river with 1,000 infantry. They caught the Carthaginians pillaging there and drove them into Hannibal's camp (clearly on the left bank). The Carthaginians acquired reinforcements and sallied out to push the Romans back across the river, where the Romans sent for reinforcements from their camp (proving a right-bank location).", while the battle and aftermath section allow both possibilities.
• The numbers section goes to great length to explain why both roman armies were likely not merged, yet the battle section totally ignores is and gives numbers for the merged case.

As a result, the article is inconsistent and hard to read. There are, in my opinion, two possible solutions:

1. If one side (on both the issues of location and number) has a clear majority of scholars arguing for it, the entire article should follow this side and present the dissenting side only in a separate section to avoid confusion.
2. If both sides are equally represented, then all sections of the article should present both cases, not only some (while others only take one side). --Xeeron (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Date of the battle

The lede states that the battle took place "on or around the winter solstice." Appian says this: "The river Trebia separated the hostile armies, which the Romans crossed before daylight on a raw, sleety morning of the spring equinox, wading in the water up to their breasts." - Roman History 7,6. Can someone explain or give a source for the current winter solstice date? Failing that I will go ahead and adjust the lede accordingly. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

missing word

The following sentence seems to be missing a word at the end. "Yet while harassing the Romans, the Carthaginian cavalrymen turned aside to pillage Scipio's abandoned." I can't fix it because I don't know what word belongs there. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate sentences

• A cold snap had set in and the precipitation had turned from rain to snow and ice. All the elephants but one (or several in Polybius) died along with "many men and horses".
• The storm was followed by a cold snap. All the elephants except one, and many of the horses died.

Hanberke (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hanberke: Yep. Thanks. Work in progress. I am reluctant to remove old text until I know that I have my new text lined up. Although, checking, they are both old text. Sorted. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Trebia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 08:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias ^talk 08:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Briscoe, John (2006): the page range needs a pp.

Done.

• Collins, Roger (1998): if Briscoe above uses "Cambridge: Cambridge University Press", this should do the same for "Oxford University Press". (Add a location.)

Done.

• Fronda, Michael P. (2015): it doesn't really matter, but is there a reason that this is from a different version of A Companion to the Punic Wars to the others used? (This is also the case for Zimmermann, Klaus (2015) [2011].)

I think that I used my hard copy for most and checked a couple on line. But they check out as identical, so I have standarised.

• Hoyos, Dexter (2005): needs an endash in the year range in the title.

Done.

• Jones, Archer (1987): to be consistent with the other references, include the state in the location.

Done.

• Lazenby, John (1998): as above, to be consistent with the other references, include the county in the location.

Done.

• Mahaney, W.C. (2008): per MOS:INITIALS the initials should probably be spaced out: Mahaney, W. C.

Done.

• Rawlings, Louis (1996): the page range is missing an endash. Be consistent between this and Sabin, Philip (1996) as to whether you code it as issue 67 or volume 67.

Done.

• Scullard, Howard H. (2006) [1989]: this looks like a chapter from the previous book in the series to Briscoe, John (2006), but the books are formatted quite differently; for example, the first lists the volume number in Roman numerals using the |volume tag, the second states "Volume 7, Part 2, 2nd Edition". I would try to make these two books consistently formatted if possible.

I have tweaked a little, but the VIII and 7 are reproduced as they are on the title pages. As I consider the m to be part of the titles I am loath to change either.

Done.

• Tipps, G.K. (1985): per MOS:INITIALS the initials should probably be spaced out: Tipps, G. K.

Done.

• Walbank, F.W. (1990): per MOS:INITIALS the initials should probably be spaced out: Walbank, F. W.

Done.

• These are all minor points, and otherwise the references are provided in a consistent and appropriate manner.
• All sources appear to be to reliable secondary sources.

Addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Images

• It would be nice if File:Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War-fr.svg was in English. (This tool can help.)

Handy tool. Done.

• Again, File:218 aC GALLIA CISALPINA.png would be more useful in English. Not an svg, so no fancy tool for this one.

I had this in a previous review. There is Latin or nothing. As I give nearly all of the place names in Latin in the article, I consider this image better than not having it, but could delete it if the cost:benefit doesn't work for you.

• File:Mommsen p265 (cropped).jpg needs a US PD tag.

Done.

• It could maybe do with some better battlefield maps, but not a major issue for GA. :P

Prose review to follow. Harrias ^talk 07:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Prose

• "..accept it largely at face value, and the details of the battle in modern sources are largely based on.." Slightly irritating repetition of "largely" here; could the second one become "predominantly" or similar?

Fixed.

• "In 218 BC a Carthaginian army under Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum.[38][39] In spring 219 BC Rome declared war on Carthage." Should these years be the other way around?

Yes. (I can't handle this backwards counting.) Fixed.

• "..marching north in May 218 BC He entered Gaul.." Missing full-stop.#

Stray upper case. Fixed.

• Link "velites" on first use. Also, javelin.

Both done.

• "javelinmen" looks awful to me, I would favour javelin-men. But if BrEng sources support "javelinmen", then so be it. (And yes, I know, swordsmen, pikemen, spearmen, riflemen. Fine, I've talked myself out of this one. I should just delete it, but blah.)

I am going with your second, third and fourth thoughts. Javelin-men or javelin men look semi-literate to me.

• "..the small Roman cavalry reserve, to which Scipio had attached himself.." Not sure the comma is necessary here.

Uum. Well. If you are sure. I am so parsimonious with commas that I cannot recall ever being asked to remove one before. (It looks wrong to me though.)

Well, now I feel bad; I love commas, and other punctuation. Harrias ^talk 13:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It makes a refreshing change from being asked to insert, what to me seem to be, random commas, usually by Americans. Rereading, that phrase now means something subtlety different from what I wrote, but I doubt anyone will notice. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• "..by his 16-year-old son." Come now, give the lad a name: "..by his 16-year-old son, Scipio Africanus." You'd have to tweak the next sentence accorindingly, changing "Scipio" to "Publius" for clarity.

Why? He's linked, if anyone cares. Unnecessary detail IMO. Sigh. Done.

Because otherwise it is an unnecessary WP:EASTEREGG. If he is worth mentioning to and linking, he is worth naming. Or something like that. You know that I just make this rubbish up as I go along... Harrias ^talk 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah; I know. Per WP:WHATHARRIASSAYS.

• "Two days after Ticinus.." Because you never named the battle as such in the article, this sounds odd.

Ah! Good spot. And masterly use of understatement. Fixed.

• Move the link to Po (River) up the first use, in the Carthage invades Italy section.

Done.

• "..8 kilometres (5.0 mi).." Drop the miles figure to one sigfig.

Done. It is supposed to do that automatically.

• "..the Senate ordered this to move north to assist Scipio." Just for ease of reading, maybe change to "ordered this army to"

Done.

• "..camping one to seven miles apart (2–12 km)" These figures should be given the other way around (kilometres then miles) to be consistent with other usage.

They should, and done. I was just blindly copying the source.

• "..each others forces.." Missing an apostrophe.

Added.

• "..about 5 miles (8.0 km).." As above regarding both the order and number of significant figures.

Both done.

• Link "Roman citizens" to Roman citizenship.

Done.

• "..and a 90 centimetres (3.0 ft) shield." This needs to be hyphenated: "a 90-centimetre (3 ft) shield."

Done.

• "The close order North African infantry.." close-order?

Done.

• Note 9: "These elephants were typically about 2.5-metre-high (8 ft) at the shoulder.." I don't think that usage should be hyphenated? It certainly should be "metres" rather than "metre" at least.

Actually, neither of those were an error. (Which is certainly a change.) My seconds shall call on you, siree: style guides at dawn!

Go on, explain it to me. I would agree if we were saying "a 2.5-metre-high elephant", but this way around, I don't see why it is? Harrias ^talk 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, it trritates me to have to say that the source I drew that from agrees with you in both respects! Grr.. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• "..that 8,000 of the close order infantry were Gauls.." close-order?

Done.

• "In addition there were the elephants." Worth repeating that there were whatever was left of the 37 that set out, I think.

I had left that out to avoid irritating repetition, but now repeated.

Reviewed to the end of the Opposing forces section so far. Harrias ^talk 11:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff Harrias. Thanks. All now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• "..in an old watercourse full of brush." Is there a link to an article or Wiktionary that we can use here for "brush"?

Linked to Shrubland.

• I don't know if "..to drive in the Roman pickets.." would be accessible to a leyperson.

I like the idea of a leyperson. Tweaked the language and linked pickets.

• "two-and-a-half miles (3 km)" Again, this needs to be flipped. It is also worth noting that 2.5 miles is four km.

Oops. Done.

• The numbers in the Opposing forces section don't match those in the Formations section, I take it this is due to the losses suffered from the harrying of the Numidian cavalry? It seems quite a big discrepancy though, unless I'm missing something? The numbers at the start of the Engagement section then seem slightly different again? I'm sure it does all make sense, but they all refer to slightly different groups, which makes it hard to follow and rationalise.

I think part of the problem is because I skip the light infantry, having mentioned them in the previous section. I have now included them, and the maths should be easier. Yes, the Carthaginians are down the 2,000 with Mago, but I am unsure what I can do about this if a reader has not been paying attention. (But if they haven't, I doubt they will spot a discrepancy.)

• You probably need to establish Philip Sabin's credentials, though it will break that sentence up horribly.

Done.

• "Eventually the strain told and the units Latin allies and Gauls on the flanks and the velites to the rear started to break up." Missing an "of" after units?

Indeed. Added.

• "Livy retails dramatic.." "retails"? Doesn't that mean sells?

Wiktionary: "To repeat or circulate (news or rumours) to others." (And it gives quotations from 1982 and 1998.)

• "..and another 15,000 Romans and taking 15,000 prisoner." I'm not keen on the repetition of and quickly here. Maybe you should add a comma ;)

Sorry, you have lost me here.

• There are a few duplicate links; I imagine you might have the checking tool, but if not there is "javelin" in the first paragraph of Roman, "skirmishers" in the first paragraph of Carthaginian, "Sicily" in Aftermath, and "Publius Cornelius Scipio" in Subsequent operations. I think the repeat link for Publius Cornelius Scipio is justified, as it is a long time since he was mentioned, and many readers would be more interested in reading about him after this second mention than after the first.

Yes, the last was deliberate. The others were due to too much editing subsequent to my pre-GAN dup check. Now tidied I think.

And... that's a wrap. Harrias ^talk 09:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks Harrias. One of your reviews feels as good as an ACR. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That'll do me; passing. I reserve the right to come up with a whole load of new things to complain about if this hits ACR or FAC. Harrias ^talk 11:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Juan Valdez mercado jr

reference my journey 2001:4455:6ED:A400:F147:A6DC:B598:5070 (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)