Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hasdrubal, son of Hanno

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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time - Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Hasdrubal, son of Hanno

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Hasdrubal, son of Hanno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

During the 23 years of the First Punic War there were only four set-piece field battles. Hasdrubal commanded the Carthaginians in two of them and was a general officer (probably second in command) at the third. Yet there was no article on him. I assume because of an almost complete lack of information about him in the primary sources. So last Thursday I knocked one together; squeezing, I believe, the sources dry to do it. This is the first biography I have offered above GAN, so it probably needs a fair bit of attention. I do not think that it can aspire to FA because of the lack of information specifically about the subject. (But views on this would be welcome.) It may be that it cannot meet the A class criteria for the same reason, but that is why we are here. Any and all comments are most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• It's a little weird that the denarius image has both the PD-old-us template and an OTRS ticket suggesting copyright, but the OTRS ticket takes care of it. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  Hog Farm, if you look closely there are separate copyrights for the coin and photographs of it, because as a three-dimensional object it is not subject to scanning exception. Similarly, a photograph of a statue has separate copyrights for the statue and the photograph. (t · c) buidhe 12:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

All of the sources appear to be reliable for what they're cited for.

• Checks:
  • "Regulus was left with 40 ships, 15,000 infantry and 500 cavalry to overwinter in Africa." Checked one of the sources cited, Tipps, who does not give these figures on the cited page, but does mention figures on the next page (378)?

Tipps was there to support the "overwinter" bit. I didn't use him to support the numbers as he doesn't mention the 40 ships. (I could make the citations more specific if you think that would be helpful - I have a tendency to bunch cites at the end of a sentence.)

• • I don't think Tipps supports "inland". Instead, he seems to be contrasting Adys to smaller targets.

I am not sure that I grasp your point. Adys is an inland settlement, so paraphrasing "Regulus committed his relatively small holding force ... to a siege of .. Adys" as "Regulus chose to take his relatively small force and strike inland" seems straight forward to me; even a tad over-close[?] But I am always willing to be educated.

• • Citations for "Total misuse" and "recklessness" are correct, as is the last citation to Tipps 2003

(t · c) buidhe 18:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe. Comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright, seems fine. Passing (t · c) buidhe 12:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

• when the Romans invaded North Africa in 255 BC Unlink North Africa.

Done.

• Hasdrubal took part as a general in three of them This is a little bit vague to me. Are you referring he was general in three battles of the four and in the last one he was just a soldier or something else or he fought only three of the four battles all of them when he was general?

I'm not sure how to make it clearer. He took part in three of them, like it says. I could add "but not in the fourth", but that seems painfully redundant to me.

• Hrr. And that's one of the reasons I sometimes hate languages since some sentences could've two different meanings. Maybe one day we will find a new source who can clarify this.

• mid-3rd century BC it had come to dominate southern Spain Not Iberia? Since Spain wasn't a thing and the name Hispania was formed more than 30 years later?

I could say "Iberia", but virtually no reader will know what I am talking about, so it seemed an unnecessary elaboration. The sources usually, but not always, use "Spain".

• That's true you could say that but would you say "The Roman proconsul and general Julius Caesar pushed his army into France in 58 BC" or "The Roman proconsul and general Julius Caesar pushed his army into Gaul in 58 BC" since it's virtually unknown for most readers?

Thinking on this, you have persuaded me. Changed to Iberia as it is a modern word, if not too common.

• The Carthaginian senate appointed him as a general --> "The Carthaginian Senate appointed him as a general"

Oops. Done.

• Is there a link for Bostar?

• This isn't addressed.

No. And in my opinion not worth red linking. This is his one and only mention in history.

• Maybe you are right, unless, a new source would be published in the near future who gives us more info about him.

• Polybius is critical of this decision Polybius isn't here introduced and linked.

Tut, tut. Done.

• meant that they suffered few or no losses.[38][35][40] Re-order the refs.

Done.

• only 16 km (10 mi) from Carthage.[42][41] Same as above.

Done.

• despair the Carthaginians sued for peace.[43][41] Same as above.

Done.

• overcome the Carthaginian phalanx in their What's a phalanx? Maybe link it.

Good thinking. Done.

• withdrawn and a reinforcement of 140 elephants.[72][68] Re-order the refs.

Done.

• Roman commander, Lucius Caecilius Metellus, into battle.[77][74] Same as above.

Done.

• Hasdrubal was recalled to Carthage to be executed. After reading so many articles like this I assume which kind of dead he gained but most of the readers won't?

Umm. I am possibly being slow. I don't mention what kind of death he suffered and I don't expect a reader to work it out. Hr was executed. Method not specified. End of.

• Don't the sources say he was crucified? Since a lot of your articles say Carthaginian generals were crucified if they failed?

Some do, some don't. None of the more solid sources mention crucifixion for Hasdrubal, even those which do specify it for other Carthaginians.

• If mankind finds this out one day in a new source, then it should be added but, since our knowledge about the Punic Wars is limited this would be open to grab.

• This assumes, per G.K. Tipps, that all 114 captured Carthaginian vessels were sailing with the Romans --> "This assumes, per G. K. Tipps, that all 114 captured Carthaginian vessels were sailing with the Romans"

Done.

• Somehow this isn't addressed yet.

It is now.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

And he is back! Wonderful. And thanks for the comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent CPA-5: all addressed - but not necessarily agreed with. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah Eagle Eyes is back. If I were an author I'd name my superhero Eagle Eyes. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well since a lockdown is inching closer and closer here because a "tsunami" probably would happen in the hospitals and cases are skyrocketing and even recently broke the 1,000 cases per 100,000 per two weeks per the ECDC. I have a little bit more time for small reviews. But nominations over 40,000 bytes is too much since I don't have the time for it. But at least I'm a little bit happy to be more active online. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: I think that I have now picked up the bits I missed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, is there anything else? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hey Gog the Mild. I don't think there is. I'm only thinking about maybe adding "floruit"'s template since his birth date is unknown and his death date has also a circa date? MOS:CIRCA says that both should be unknown to use it if I'm not wrong? In my view, it could help the reader to point out when he was active. Of course, my views aren't part or aren't the guidelines in general so they're not important. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

CPA-5 Your views are always important. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day CPA-5, are you supporting here, or sitting this one out? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry I have problems with my monitor so I prefer not to be online that much and since Black Friday has passed and Cyber Monday is coming I'm not sure when I will get a new one. This year is gonna be a busy sales. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hog Farm

Hate to see this one stagnate, I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "Early in 254 BC the triumvirate of Carthaginian generals gave control of the army to the Spartan mercenary commander, Xanthippus and accompanied him when the Romans were decisively beaten at the Battle of Tunis" - I'm bad with commas, but I wonder if there should either be no comma after commander or one after Xanthippus

You are absolutely correct. Inserted.

• Link war elephant in the lead

Done.

• "and took a leading part in three of the four major field battles of the war" - Did he really play a leading part? He's barely mentioned at all in the Tunis summary.

I don't insist on "leading", but he was almost certainly second in command at Tunis, only giving up operational command as they marched to the battlefield.

Name

• Lead says His date of birth and age at death are both unknown, as are his activities prior to his coming to prominence in 255 BC. This section says Hasdrubal's date of birth and age at death are both unknown, as are his activities prior to his coming to prominence in 256 BC during the First Punic War. A bit of a contradiction here.

256 BC was a typo. Thanks for spotting it. (I blame the GAN reviewer for not picking it up.)

Invasion of Africa

• Is Bostar worth redlinking, or is this his only real appearance in the records?

CPA-5 asked the same question above. Yes. I have no objection to red linking it if that is the consensus. I suppose that someone might milk a four sentence stub out of the one and only mention of his name in the historical record one day.

Probably not worth redlinking then. I'm personally not a giant fan of three-sentence stubs. I could have nailed all the Missouri CSA units down by now if I'd just written half a paragraph based on McGhee, but I think the encyclopedia is better served when articles are given significant content.

• "and were joined by a third general, Hamilcar, the Carthaginian commander on Sicily " - This is the same Hamilcar as before, right?

Yep.

• " This column was thrown back by the Carthaginians – it is assumed at the line of their fortifications, although this is not certain – and driven down the hill in disorder" - Is this assumption about the line of fortifications a consensus of historians, or is it just Goldsworthy? I feel like it needs some attribution

Removed.

• "and at around this time a large group of recruits from Greece arrived in Carthage" - At least in my somewhat nonstandard use of English, recruits implies something a little different than a hired mercenary, which Xanthippus seems to be.

A "recruit" can be a mercenary. One can recruit mercenaries. Eg, Miles "New mercenary soldiers had been recruited in mainland Greece". Goldsworthy "added drafts recruited in Greece". Lazenby "The Carthaginians sent a number of recruiting officers to Greece."

Sicily

• " Hasdrubal, hearing that one consul (Gaius Furius Pacilus) had left Sicily with half of the Roman army" - Did the Romans go back to Rome, or to Africa, or where?

Back to Rome. Now added.

Images

• Personally, I feel like a map of the fighting in Africa would be more relevant and helpful than, say, the elephant statuette image

References

• Is it really necessary to author-link Walbank twice?

No. Fixed.

Infobox

• Are the sources clear enough about when he died that we can really say without reservation that it occurred in 250 BC?

This is 2,270 years ago. We can't say for certain that Elvis is dead, and they televised his funeral. Hasdrubal was recalled in 250 BC and executed. The primary source puts these two facts in the same sentence. The secondary sources do the same "recalled to Carthage and executed" or variations. It depends how certain you want to be. Maybe they waited 50 years and then executed him. The sources don't explicitly rule this out.

I've slung a c. into the infobox next to that then, to reflect the slight ambiguity.

Fair enough.

That's it from me

Cheers Hog Farm. Your comments all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Supporting, although I handled one small item myself, so you might want to check on that. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hog Farm. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from Harrias

• "..he is distinguished by modern historians from other Carthaginians named Hasdrubal by the cognomen.." I found this a little confusing at first, and potentially slightly ambiguous. How about "modern historians distinguish him from other Carthaginians named Hasdrubal by the cognomen.."

OK.

• You might be shocked, but I have some significant concerns about how much information is provided that is not directly related to Hasdrubal. The whole two-paragraph "Background" section, and then the first three paragraphs of the "Invasion of Africa" are (in my opinion) more detailed than is necessary to provide context for the subject of Hasdrubal. Beyond that, much of the article is giving pretty detailed accounts of the battles Hasdrubal is involved in, without necessarily connecting Hasdrubal to many of the events. For example, the "Battle of Tunis" section does not mention Hasdrubal until the final paragraph. In fact, it reads more like an account of Xanthippus than of Hasdrubal.

As it stands, I feel I have to oppose this article, as I believe it is not "focused on the main topic" as required by A2. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from, but disagree, and don't wish to gut what I see as a full treatment to generate what IMO would be an inferior coverage just to get a blue A. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Just checking you had seen this. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Harrias Thanks for the ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies Harrias, I think that I answered your previous ping on autopilot. Yes, that was my response. I could expand on it, but it gets across my opinion, if perhaps a little over-bluntly. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from PM

I tend to agree with Harrias. I looked at this earlier, and it seemed to me to be a summary of the First Punic War rather than a biographical article, and decided not to look at it in detail. Now that I have read Harrias' concerns and looked at the article myself, I can only join him in opposing. The actual facts about Hasdrubal himself are very sparse, essentially that : 1) he was a general in three battles of the war, 2) he may have made the decision to confront Regulus, 3) he and the rest of the triumvirate were supplanted by Xanthippus, 4) he trained and drilled his army in Sicily, 5) he initiated the Battle of Panormus and escaped, 6) he was executed for failure around 250 BC. It just isn't enough to base a biographical article on. If this is all there is on him, they really are passing mentions, so I'm not sure he even has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, and therefore there is a question of whether he meets the GNG. Perhaps it would be better to abandon this idea, merge anything unique into the First Punic War article, and redirect this there? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

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.