Talk:Battle of Canusium

Article Edited For English Comprehension

I edited this article in an effort to make the English easier to understand. Does this address the complaint?Gallador (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Canusium versus Asculum.

Going back a few years, the old page of "Battle of Asculum (209 BC)" seems to have been redirected to this page (Battle of Canusium) in 2007. There were reasons given in the old talk page, but not here, so I'm collecting some links here in case anyone could use it to resolve the issue, as there still seems to be some confusion about the name and/or location of this battle. I claim no special knowledge of the matter, I only note that:

1. The text of this page links explicitly to "Canusium", which redirects to Canosa di Puglia.
2. See also the old talk page Talk:Battle of Asculum (209 BC) with reasons being given for the 2007 redirection.
3. But, as an alternative claim, the page of Ascoli Satriano, one of the places with the historical name of "Asculum", claims that it was the location of two early Roman battles, referring both to the Battle of Asculum (279 BC) of the Pyrrhic War as well as the "Battle of Asculum (209 BC)" (which now redirects to this page).
4. And the disambiguation / list page of the old name of "Asculum" also claims the same thing, that Ascoli Satriano is the site of both these battles.
5. This is also (implicitly) claimed in the "see also" link at the start of the page for Battle of Asculum (279 BC) which also refers explicitly to the "Battle of Asculum (209 BC)".

So, to summarize: Where did this battle take place, Canusium (Canosa di Puglia) or Asculum (Ascoli Satriano)?

If the redirection was correct and Canusium is indeed the correct location, then perhaps the other three pages should be changed accordingly... Fred Johansen (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Canusium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605234913/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2036.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/2036.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)