This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject 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 ourproject page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see ourtalk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAfrica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of theWikiProject 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
In the surroundings of Tuoro sul Trasimeno, where the battle took place, there are a number of places which, after more than 2000 years, retain a particular meaning: one isSanguineto (place of blood), of course. Other ones areOssaia (charnel house,place of bones),Sepoltaglia (place of burial),Caporosso (cape red),Piegaro (subdued place),Preggio (fromPeggio,worse),Pugnano (place of battles),Pian di Marte (field of Mars). --Cantalamessa22:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have some fairly recent (August 06) pictures of the site and the surrounding area. Should I link them to the article or to the entry on location? --rqde11:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is not correct. The Romans had marched through a first defile, and then through a first section of a beach. Then, they marched throughanother defile, which opened up onto another beach. Only after their whole force marched through this second beach were they attacked by the Carthaginian force.Aryault, Theodore (1891).Hannibal. New York: The Riverside Press. pp. 300–302. . Onthat page specifically one can see how the battle really went down, and this accords with the ancient sources as well.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk)02:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was featured as an "On this day..." item on June 21, 2012, but the event occurred on June 21st according to the Julian calendar. Should the date in the article and the "On this day..." item be changed to the date according to the current (Gregorian) calendar?Wkharrisjr (talk)17:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of subjective judgement that wikipedia should really avoid underWP:NPOV (specifically,WP:SUBJECTIVE is relevant). I don't have access to Liddell Hart's book to check, but if he claims that Trasimene is the greatest ambush in history, we should attribute the claim to him; if he says that other people have claimed it, we should say that "Liddell Hart says that X, Y, and Z believe..."; if he says it is generally accepted, we should say that. What we shouldnot do is assert that Trasimene is the greatest ambush in history as fact.Caeciliusinhorto (talk)11:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, I don't know what the correct fixis, as I don't have access to the book which is cited. Sure, I could just remove the sentence altogether, but if, for instance, the book cited claims that the battle is generally considered to be the greatest ambush in history, that's an important thing for the article to state, and I don't believe that simply removing the claim would be more of an improvement than letting someone who actually has access to the book check the citation to see what the sentence ought to say.Caeciliusinhorto (talk)12:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After 15 seconds of searching amazon books, I found that Hart really said it. This article is poorly written. If you're a fan of this topic, please do go ahead and fix the whole thing... Lingzhi ♦ (talk)13:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let us compare the existing map created with "infobox|map_type=Italy|map_relief=1"(called "Infobox map" here), with the "OSM map". My question is: how far away is Rome? How dangerous was this battle for the Roman people?
I use the "Infobox map":
1. Rome is not visible but Lake Trasimene is visible.
2. A click on the map gives a bigger map but the location of Lake Trasimene has vanished.
3. Another click on the map gives a fullscreen map but neither the location of Lake Trasimene nor the one of Rome is shown.
I use the "OSM map" instead:
1. Rome is not visible but Lake Trasimene is visible.
2. A click on the map gives no reaction.
3. I read "interactive fullscreen map". I click these words.
4. A genuine fullscreen map appears with Rome on it. The location of the battle is shown in black. You can click on it and verify it and get the date. You can estimate the distance between Rome and Lake Trasimene.
5. You can rescale the map as you like and new information appears.
You are clearly an enthusiast, I assume that you created it. It is difficult to articulate how poor this map is for this article. PingingHog Farm, who opined on this map for a different article, andCatlemur who was kind enough to assess the GAN.
At least this will spur me to finish getting this to FAC so that more editors can look at it and come to a definitive opinion.
The OSM map doesn't work on my browser; I click "interactive fullscreen map" and I get a massive fullscreen map without the location of the battle. So for me, it is another map taking up space (and contraveningMOS:SANDWICH I will note) in an area of the article thatalready has three maps. I'm not sure why the comparison to the Infobox map specifically, surely a better comparison is withFile:Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War-fr.svg, which already presents a lot of good information. If the interactive features worked for me, maybe I'd love it, but they don't, so for me it is worthless and pretty unattractive.Harrias(he/him) •talk21:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Just a check: OSM does not work correctly if you use an older version within the history of an article like the one created by me at 17:05, 20 July 2021. Please check the same OSM map withinBattle of Messana for usability. I am still searching a map that can be used interactively and is usable on any device and any browser. Thanks a lotRuedi33a (talk)21:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that OSM does show what it intends to on the Messana article. The issue is that it's almost incomprehensible to the average reader. I still can't figure out what any of these many numbered circles mean except that they're battles, and some of these are even showing multiple wars. Shoving a variety of numbered circles that have no meaning and obscure the map in user's faces is not the answer. And frankly, I'm not sure of the value of having this at the top of the article - it's useful to have a campaign map in the body of articles when discussing troop movements, but this means little at the top of the article. The dots are also too close together to be meaningful - atBattle of Messana, the "current battle" dot is almost completely obscured by others. I just don't think this is a useful map. And it's certainly not a replacement for the navboxes hidden on mobile, as the main feature of those is the names of the places, which I can't figure out how to produce on these OSM maps. It's gonna be meaningless for almost everyone.Hog FarmTalk01:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be noted that this battle did not take place at the beginning of summer, but in the mid to early spring? Due to Roman calendar problems this could have happened in what we now consider April (Mommsen, Bk III, Ch V.)174.21.7.105 (talk)18:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article could really use a map (or more than one) of the battlefield, showing the positions and movements of the various forces and units. The verbal description gets confusing, particularly in that the line of the lakeshore is not now where it was then. Surely a battle as notable as this has a map of it somewhere.Piledhigheranddeeper (talk)15:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The article is very detailed in other respects but it is surprising not to see a map.Kanjuzi (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC) I have added a map found in another article, but it may be the wrong map. Themap given on page 301 of Theodore Ayrault Dodge's 1901 book "Hannibal" (mentioned in a comment byUser:SteveMooreSmith3 above) shows the battle as taking place further to the east, which may be correct. If so, it should be possible to copy and insert Dodge's map instead, since it is out of copyright. If the matter is in doubt, both maps should be inserted. At any rate, it is very odd to find that this article is given "featured" status when this matter is not dealt with.Kanjuzi (talk)10:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for maps at FAC, although they are a nice extra. Sadly, the map added does not match the text nor the consensus of modern HQ RSs. A good representation is Goldsworthy's map on page 186 ofThe Fall of Carthage. If anyone fancies turning it into a copyright-free map, or putting a request in atWikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, that would be helpful.Gog the Mild (talk)12:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting. But what are HQ RSs? – I see from the Internet that the majority of maps show the battle on the first plain, but are there any good reasons for ruling out Dodge's view that it was the second plain further east?Kanjuzi (talk)18:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead and infobox state Roman losses as 25,000 (the entire army) killed or captured. This is unsourced and incorrect information. The article clearly states 15,000 killed (or killed or captured) in the Casualties and Follow up section. The information in this section is sourced to a modern source. That source (Goldsworthy 2006, p. 189) states 15,000 killed and/or captured and 10,000 scattered and fled (eventually ending up at Rome to form the nucleus of a new army).
HiLuciusHistoricus and thanks for bringing this here. The first paragraph of "Casualties and follow up" section givesthree different primary sources - Fabius Pictor, Polybius and Livy - each of whom give different figures. Currently the whole of the paragraph is cited to pages 21 and 189 of Goldsworthy 2006, who gives the same three sets of figures. First things first: are we agreed that the article and its source does give three differing accounts of the casualties? Can we also agree that Goldsworthy doesnot himself state anything, he distances himself by stating what the sources say - which the article also does. The cite to page 21 is to pick up "Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts". Because of this - and a couple of other factors - the article only uses Polybius' figures in the lead and infobox. With hindsight it would have been better if this preference for Polybius were overtly stated in the article rather than in a cite to the source. With double hindsight it would be nice if some modern HQ RSs could be found overtly stating what they, rather than the primary sources, believe the casualties to have been - a point we may return to.
From my PoV you seem to have picked out Fabius Pictor, ignoring Livy and Polybius, for no reason. I assume you have one and am eager to hear it. Note that the policyWP:PRIMARY means that if Fabius did fight at Trasimene we should place even less weight on his account than if he didn't.
If any of this is unclear, do please come back to me. I assume that if you disagree with an of the above you don't need an invitation. I have some thoughts on how we might move forward, but let us try and reach agreement on the basics first.Gog the Mild (talk)14:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HiGog the Mild, could we agree on giving the casualty numbers as around 15,000-16,000 killed and at least 6,000 captured? Polybius, Livy and Fabius Pictor mention 15,000 killed with Appian stating 16,000 killed. Goldsworthy mentions the 15,000 killed as well, referencing Pictor and Polybius. Goldsworthy also mentions that 6,000 Romans and Italians were capture the following day (stating Polybius).
If you like round numbers, we could go for 15,000 killed and 10,000 captured or fled. I don't like the 25,000 captured or killed because we got a bit of a consensus when it comes down to the number of killed Romans and Italians. Although, I have to admit, the consensus is among the ancient historians.
I made a mistake when it comes to the number of scattered and escaped Romans and allies. I mixed it up with the Battle of Trebia; after their defeat there 10,000 Romans and Italians escaped and formed the nucleus of a new army at Rome.LuciusHistoricus (talk)13:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easy to do: three battles in a row beginning with T - nearly as bad as Carthaginian names - two where a large Roman force punches through and escapes. When I rewroteBattle of the Trebia the casualty section was a nightmare to write - have a look at it some time. I am not a fan of round numbers and I like your proposal. Let me do a little research. OK, checking the half dozen modern sources willing to give hard numbers, they all say 15,000 killed, so let us go with that; and either 6,000 or 10,000 captured. Not a one mentions "fled". So how about "15,000 killed; 6,000 - 10,000 captured" for the infobox and I write up something similar for the lead? That leaves open the fate of the up to 4,000 Romans who may have avoided both categories. I would prefer not to mix captured and fled - one means they escaped to fight another day, the other means they didn't. I am most unhappy about having a separate category for "fled" without any modern sources to back it up. What do you think?Gog the Mild (talk)14:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your proposal: 15,000 killed and 6,000–10,000 captured. And indeed, let's leave the "fled" out (we have no idea what happened to them -- they might have been captured as well, but we simply don't know).LuciusHistoricus (talk)14:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedFA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
.svg)
