Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC) 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.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 5, 2020.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia
Hi T8612 and thanks for the input on elephants. Although some of it has puzzled me a bit, so I will lay out my concerns below and then give you a chance to come back at me.
I am aware of war elephants, I linked to the article in the sentence you edited. It is so poorly sourced as to not be much use in my opinion.
Miles, p. 240, explicitly states that the indigenous North African elephant, the ones he states are used by the Carthaginians, was not the African bush elephant (nor the Asian elephant), but a now-extinct relative of the African forest elephant which he says "measured around 2.5 m high at the shoulder".
Goldsworthy, p. 34, says they "were probably African forest elephants".
Lazenby, p. 27, states that "almost certainly" they were forest elephants.
So, could you specify your source(s) for removing my mention of "indigenous African forest elephants" and instead referring to African bush elephants?
I dug a bit on this. I was initially concerned by the existence of this article on North African elephant (Loxodonta africana pharaohensis), which supports the existence of a species of African elephant different from both the Forest and the Bush elephants, but apparently it seems that this "third species" of African elephant is erroneous. From what I read in Klaus Karttunen "Bird-Watchers and Story-Tellers" pp.196-7. It came from a supposition made in 1955 by an author named Deraniyagala. H. H. Scullard, the specialist of elephants in the ancient world, said the North African elephant was the same as the Forest Elephants, but they were separated by the desertification of the Sahara (here, p. 161); I suppose that the later statement from Miles, Goldsworthy etc. comes from there. So, in short, you can revert my edit (never trust Wikipedia lol); the article on the North African elephant may also have to be merged into that of the Forest Elephant. T8612(talk)20:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that. I suppose that speciating extinct animals must be tricky. I shall rewrite it a little - possibly tomorrow - now that that you have drawn my attention to it. Let me know if the revised version rings any further alarm bells. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've lightly copy-edited, and have some very subjective comments below. As always, feel free to disagree, take issue with, thank, revert, or yell at me about any or all of my comments:
Maybe it's just me being a little dense (Oh, oh! A straight line!), but the initial paragraph confuses me a little bit...
The Battle of the Bagradas River (the ancient name of the Medjerda), also known as the Battle of Tunis, was a victory by a Carthaginian army led by Xanthippus over a Roman army led by Marcus Atilius Regulus in the spring of 255 BC. I'd like to see a bit in the first sentence clarifying that the battle was, in fact, part of the First Punic War.
Done, although IMO this overloads the first sentence.
Eight years into the First Punic War the newly constructed Roman fleet established maritime superiority over Carthage. Perhaps say what year that is and link naval superiority?
Good point. Done
After landing on the Cape Bon Peninsular and a successful campaign, Regulus was left with 15,500 men to hold the bridgehead over the winter what 'bridgehead' is being referred to here? Our article says that Cape Bon is a peninsula, not peninsular. Left by who?
Peninsular is my poor spelling. I have expanded the rest a little; does that work?
Much better, thanks
Instead, Regulus advanced towards the city of Carthage and defeated the Carthaginian army at the Battle of Adys. Our article on the Battle of Adys says it took place in late 255 BC, yet this battle was in spring 255. Did I miss something, because to me it seems like a logistical impossibility that Adys could have been before Bagradas River.
Adys, which I also have up for GAN, was wrong. (And had "late" and "early" in the lead and infobox - gah!) Very good spot. Thank you.
Also, in the first sentence, you say the Roman Army was defeated by a Carthaginian army, but here Rome defeated the Carthaginian Army. Is there a difference?
A little, I think. The American revolutionaries defeated "the" British army during the war; defeated "a" British army at Saratoga; and boasted of having defeated "the" British army after this victory.
they were surrounded and wiped out. Approximately 2,000 Romans retreated 'wiped out' generally implies complete destruction (i.e. there would not be troops left to retreat.)
Good point. Amended.
500, including Regulus, were captured; the rest were killed 500 of the 2,000 who retreated or the other 13,000 who died?
That is a good point. Rephrased.
The Carthaginians were engaging in their traditional policy of waiting for their opponents to wear themselves out, in the expectation of then regaining some or all of their possessions and negotiating a mutually satisfactory peace treaty. were... until when? Killing 13,000 Romans doesn't sound like waiting for them to wear themselves out.
Right up until the end of the 23 year long war. Obviously it is difficult to summarise 23 years of tactics and strategy into a sentence. Tell me if I am not making it clear that it was Roman frustration with this policy which persuaded them to take the risky step of invading Africa. Once this was reduced to a garrison the Carthaginians felt that they could engage it. 13,000 was a bagatelle. Armies were often over 40,000. At Ecnomus each side had over 140,000; the Romans lost over 100,000 killed in the storm which struck their fleet evacuating Africa after Bagradas; in 250 BC they attacked Lilybaeum with 110,000 men.
he war there had reached a stalemate around what year?
Pretty much from 261 to 254 BC. I am generalising a little here.
Marcus Atilius Regulus and Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus so why is only Regulus mentioned in the lede?
Fair point. I have added that Longus commanded the force which withdrew to Sicily.
the battle was possibly the largest naval battle in history by the number of combatants involved clarify if you mean of all time or to that point
It means what it says: "in history". I don't think that a reader will think that history stopped in 255 BC.
certainly. That was more in case of to the point
Regulus was left with 40 ships, 15,000 infantry and 500 cavalry to overwinter in Africa I was under the impression that overwinter generally applies to animals, but could be wrong.
Traditionally the Romans would raise raise for war or just as like a yearly exercise?
Someone once calculated that the Roman Republic wasn't at war with someone something like seven years a century, so it is a bit moot. But you are correct that it needs clarifying, and I have.
Their army consisted of 100 elephants, 4,000 cavalry and 12,000 infantry; the latter would have included the 5,000 veterans from Sicily and many citizen-militia. perhaps clarify if this is what the army was always composed of, or specifically right before the battle?
Done.
but charged home what is meant by home here?
A quick Google throws up "charge home – that is to charge straight into contact with unbroken enemy ... units" from professor Toohey. A little discussion around it here.
firing into their rear and flanks. firing what, exactly?
"light cavalry skirmishers who threw javelins from a distance"
Thanks for that Eddie891. You picked up lots of areas where I had assumed knowledge, which was just what the article needed. Some responses above. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
