Talk:Second Punic War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Questions

Should it not be 202BC to 218BC? (Counting down to 0, not up) (by an IP editor)

from 202 BC to 1 AD are 202 years and from 218 BC to 1 AD are 218 years. Let's take a fictive person called Hanno, who is born in 236 BC. In 218 BC he is 18 years old and becomes a young officer in Hannibal's army. In 202 BC he is 34, has his midlife crisis and is no longer employed in the armed forces. I hope things are easier to understand now. Wandalstouring 13:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that there is no year 0. -- 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally forgot about that, thank you. Wandalstouring 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Maharbal

Every time I read a book about the Punic Wars I read Maharbal's comment. The funny thing is when I try to find out what happened to him after the Battle of Cannae I find no answer in my books or on Wikipedia. DOes anyone have any idea what happened to him. Was he KIA. Can some one please tell me. Thanks. Kyriakos 11:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's written in Livy as part of the aftermath of Cannae. Maharbal suggests to take Rome now and Hannibal says he has to think about it. Afterwards Maharbal disses Hannibal. Several months later Livy mentions that a Carthaginian spy is caught in Rome who had been active in the city during the first two years of the war. So probably the Carthaginians were quite informed about the whereabouts of Rome's defensive capabilities. It is quite often doubted whether this quote was true or not, however, we do have hints of an ongoing conflict between Maharbal (subordinate) and Hannibal from Polybius and Livy(surrender conditions for Roman units). Maharbal was second in command during the siege of Sagunt according to Livy and one of his strategams during an independent command in Numidia became a educational example for future generals. So far the conflict between him and Hannibal will be highlighted later, I think it is essential to understand the meaning of such a quote. Wandalstouring 14:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Utica! Its a wrong war!!

The battle of Utica, featured in the list of battles is in fact part of a different war. Please Correct.

Done Wandalstouring 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

One more battle

Hello! It seems to me that at least one battle is lacking. A Gaul ambush near Bononia in "Selva Litana" (where was it really?). (216 BC - same year of Cannae). 16,000 (or 25,000) romans and socii killed was not a bad result for anti-roman forces. See Livy XXIII, 24-25. or Here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.46.252.242 (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes,it happened. Wandalstouring 13:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Barcid Empire - examples of bad history

Describing the Barcid Empire as a "corporation" or "sharehold" is retrojective history, as both concepts were clearly alien at the time. As such, this is a good example of very bad history writing. Could someone please change it to properly explain the Empire without using inappropriate phrases? Ste175 10:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I summarized from Pedro Barcelo who stresses the complex economy of this hegemony. Wandalstouring 13:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Commanders

I've started a discussion on the template talk page about commanders for large, complicated wars. Because it would likely be same problem for other large conflicts (ie. World War II, Napoleonic Wars), we should probably try to find a standard to agree on. Oberiko 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We already had this discussion and agreed to some standards. independent command of a significant portion of one parties troops. Wandalstouring 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Captain Tyresias Skenderianus

Hannibal’s army, significantly supplemented, now stood poised to invade Italy. Scipio, severely injured in the battle, retreated across the River Trebia with his army still intact, and encamped at the town of Placentia to await reinforcements. Captain Tyresias Skenderianus in charge of the elephant legions of Africa, did not have adequate time to retrain a legion of elephants, which spelled disaster in the battle of Zarma. ??? The last sentence makes no sense Dobrin 21:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Punic Wars vs. Category:Second Punic War

Category:Second Punic War is itself a category within Category:Punic Wars. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

List-style section

It seems this, otherwise rather good, article, has some section made up of just unexplained lists of battle timelines. Can someone help to put them in correct Wiki format? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

A wikipedia user has edited in casualties into the war infobox, 600,000 for the Romans, 200,000 for the Carthaginians. This seems like original research, as there is no source given. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Just remove it. I have no idea how he derived these numbers because we don't have casualties for many engagements. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, definately sounds like original research (RockDrummerQ (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Incorrect Information on Start/Cause of War

There is no information on Hannibal's attack on Saguntum in 219 B.C. Ancient Rome, A Military and Political History (By Christopher S. Mackay) , along with sources at many university webpages (such as Ohio State Universities "EHistory" web content, ), have listed this date as 219 B.C. Hannibal's siege of Saguntum, a town that Rome had promised to protect, pulled Rome into war with the Carthaginians. Gerb0131 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Punici"

Before correction, a lede sentence went "They are called the "Punic Wars" because Rome's name for Carthaginians was Punici..." Well, any Latin student would know that they were in fact called Poeni (and sometimes Carthaginienses) as here, though Livy also used the adjective Punicus, e.g., in bellum Punicum. I don't possess a copy of the Sidwell & Jones source, so can't assess whether or how it was mis-cited, so am leaving that ref in situ for future consideration. Bjenks (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Why did Hannibal not attack Rome"

Someone wrote that Hannibal was indecisive in attacking Rome. How do you come to that conclusion? I can't find anything on why Hannibal did not attack Rome after Cannae and Capua's defection. I was also under the impression that Hannibal was limited logistically to launch an offensive on Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.194.128 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Does the lead image (the map) truly show all of Rome's dominions and allies in 218 BC?

I think this map isn't very accurate. It does show Rome in possession of and allied to all of southern and central Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, yet Rome's allies in the Western Mediterranean didn't end there. For instance, the Greek city-state of Massilia (modern-day Marseille, France) was clearly a firm Roman ally, seeing how Scipio's army was stationed there and ready to fight Hannibal before he changed course and chose to cross the Alps instead of follow the coastline all the way to Italy. For that matter, northern Italy up to the Alps was recently secured by the Romans in a series of hard-fought battles against the native Celts there. Even the stubborn Ligurians had been pacified. This map doesn't seem very accurate, in light of these Roman encroachments further north than the map depicts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PericlesofAthens (talk • contribs) 10:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

218 BC to 201 BC?

Wasn't it the Battle of Zama of 202 BC that marked the end of the Second Punic war? If so, Why isn't it 218 BC to 202 BC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koopinator (talk • contribs) 23:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)