Featured articleBattle of Zama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 9, 2023Good article nomineeListed
May 13, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 24, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the battle of Zama commenced with a charge by 80 war elephants?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 19, 2004, October 19, 2006, October 19, 2007, October 19, 2009, October 19, 2010, October 19, 2012, and October 19, 2015.
Current status: Featured article

Result parameter[edit]

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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that some sort of record? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did know it was coming! I should make a start later this afternoon, once I'm done with the source review on Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I have just emailed another editor about Hajj; thanks. You are clearly not as busy as I had supposed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

2. Verifiable with no original research:

  1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
  2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
  3. it contains no original research; and
  4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
All done.
Done.
Added.
The on line version is Chichester, the hardback is Oxford. I have access to both, although so far as I have been able to tell they are identical.

Images[edit]

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

  1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
  2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Don't be so sure. In Italy a photograph of the exterior wall of a public building is copyright, unless you can establish that the architect has been dead for 90 years. "If in doubt, tag it."
Yes. Perhaps "Photons striking your eyes and causing your central nervous system to create the illusion that your monitor contains the illusion of a monochromatic photograph of a carved relief of Polybius'?
You just can't get proper craftsmen these days! (Did you see what I ditched?)
There is a dearth of even vaguely relevant and acceptable (File:Schlacht bei Zama Gemälde H P Motte.jpg, shudder!) PD images. Given that I personally don't see the point of them outside maps and similar I find this especially annoying.

Prose review to follow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

3. Broad in its coverage:

  1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
  2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Relevant Featured article criteria:

1b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Whoops. It is frustrating how I can proofread something several times and still miss obvious points. Thanks. Gone.
You make a good case, and so retitled "Roman preparations".
Fair. Trimmed. Possibly not quite as much as you would prefer.
Cut.
Some of that trimmed.
I would like to keep the numbers in. Let me know if it is something you feel really strongly about and would like the full explanation. I think the net reduction is about what you were looking at anyway.
Trimmed.

Right, that's all I have time for right now, will come back to this later. Feel free to shout at me in the meantime. If you think I'm being completely unreasonable, and our interpretations of the criteria are just too wildly apart, shout even more, and I'll withdraw from the review for someone else to look at it. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Stick with it. I'm a big boy, I can handle a reviewer ripping the heart out of my prose politely challenging my tendency to verbosity. It's character forming. And you do it so well. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, given I said there were no 3a concerns, and I've been telling you to cut stuff, my only remaining issue with the balance will probably see potentially see something added in. The article deals at length with Scipio's arrival in Africa, his preparations and his campaign through Africa, but as to Hannibal's return, as far as I can see, all we get is "Carthage also recalled both Hannibal and Mago from Italy.." and then "The Carthaginian Senate repeatedly ordered Hannibal to advance from its base at Hadrumetum (modern Sousse) and deal with Scipio's army, but Hannibal delayed until he had been reinforced by 2,000 Numidian cavalry led by a relative of Syphax – they were reputed to be elite troops." When did he return to Africa, how many men did he bring back with him, where did he land? Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Laughs long and loud. The first two paragraphs of "Prelude", bar the first two sentences, are the new material covering this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I deserve that. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written:

  1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
  2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
I like bullet points. They are a good way of conveying information. I clearly got a bit carried away here. Fixed.
I have gone with "especially in terms of cavalry."
Looks a bit better to me too. Done.
Done.
Gah! Done.
Lol. Sorted.
It works for me, but tweaked anyway.
Death to commas! Done.
Rolly eyes!
Inserted.
Also inserted. AirshipJungleman29 will be so happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am. I am referring to "a combat". As in Wiktionary's first definition "A battle, a fight (often one in which weapons are used)."
Hmm. That reads clunkily, and worse, to me. How about if I insert a semi colon?
Seriously, how does that improve flow? Happy to tweak, but not convinced that is the tweak we need.
Done
Sliced a little differently, to similar effect. See what you think.
I like that. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum, done.

Done. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Harrias, a lovely level of detail which is much appreciated. All addressed, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good here, passing. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of Zama; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Gog the Mild: Very nice; you have done it once again. I will approve this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

42.9% on Earwig, but I see mostly titles. Bruxton (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In theory, but they tend not to be written by military historians. There's a long note 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Background too big?[edit]

Hey @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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Massylii role in the battle[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 : [1][2][3][4][5] Tayeb188 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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"[6]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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kiffer, André Geraque (2019-12-07). Battle Of Zama, October 19, 202 Bc. Clube de Autores.
  2. ^ gamal, omar; gamal, ahmed (2020-06-23). Kings of the ancient world. Lulu Press, Inc. ISBN 978-1-716-80906-4.
  3. ^ Plutarch (1989). The Lives of Aristeides and Cato. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-85668-421-0.
  4. ^ Sallust (1838). Jugurthine War, And, Conspiracy of Catiline: With an English Commentary, and Geographical and Historical Indexes. Harper.
  5. ^ Fleischer, Aylmer von (2004). Retake Your Fame: Black Contribution to World Civilization. Revised and Expanded Edition, Volume 1. Aylmer von Fleischer.
  6. ^ Gabriel, Richard A. (2008-06-30). Scipio Africanus: Rome's Greatest General. Potomac Books, Inc. ISBN 978-1-59797-205-5.

Why does the painting keep on getting deleted?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Categories