Talk:Cretan War (205–200 BC)

Comments

What can be done to improve this atricle.

Improvements

I've edited the article for grammar and style, which was quite needed. Beyond that, I think it's a great start for an article, but it could use some more work in a few areas. First, I believe that all articles are improved by the addition of a picture, if available. Second, the middle section describing the war itself is kind of sparse. Are there any specific battles that can be mentioned by name? Finally, I do not know what can be done about this, but I find it confusing to read about a war with so many combatants, and trying to remember who was on which side, who they were, and why they were fighting. I have a similar problem in writing my own articles, so that's not something I expect is easy to fix. But it's there. Thank you for requesting an assessment, and good luck! LordAmeth 11:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The other major issue—perhaps more important than any particular question of content or organization—is the fact that the article doesn't cite its sources. This really needs to be fixed. Kirill Lokshin 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction/summary needs to include a complete summary, specifically indicate the outcome of the war. The article has a very casual style, for example the last sentence — "This lead to an Aetolian offensive that was easily squashed by Philip." — I suggest a more encyclopedic tone. The article could benefit from inline references as well. — ERcheck (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A request for assessment was made — from my review, I find that is remains in class B. — ERcheck (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

The article needs citations to move up. Kirill Lokshin 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Abydos

I was left with a few questiosn following the reading of this article, where the inhabitants of Abydos really called Abysians? As well, the ending of the section reads rather poorly: The people of Abydos fought bravely and heroicly until nightfall and forced the Macedonians to retreat. That night they sent their two most prominent citizens to Philip offering to surrender him the city. All the Abydosians after they surrendered the city felt ashamed that they had betrayed their fallen comrades so that night they all commited suicide Should this be true it definitly needs ot be re-written.--Dryzen 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake. After futher research I found out that the real name of the inhabitants of Abydos were called Abydenians. I found the name Abysians from a source but Polybius says that they are called Abydenians and I think that Polybius is a better source. Kyriakos 09:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Nom on Hold

This article has come along very nicely and lacks only inline citation in the Prelude section to pass.

I would suggest also working on the writing further. For instance, the word "then" is over used. For example, in the intro:

The Macedonian fleet was defeated by the allied fleet at Chios but Philip then defeated the Rhodians at Lade. Philip then swept through Asia Minor where he plundered and captured many cities Caria. Philip then attacked Athens which was convinced by Attalus to declared war against Macedon. Rome then declared war on Philip so Philip abandoned his Rhodian campaign which left Rhodes with their new Cretan ally Knossos to defeat their main Cretan enemies, Olous and Hierapytna and force them to sign a treaty favourable to them.

I'd also avoid passive constructions like the "war was fought," which makes the passage feel a little fuzzy to english readers. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit Flag

Someone added a coyedit flag. With this in place, it is a little difficult to justify a GA promotion. Does anyone know what kind of changes the editor who placed the flag would like to see? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It was recommended on its Military history A-class review. (To see the review go onto the Military history banner and click on the failed) Kyriakos 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied enough with it to promote the article. If no one objects to removing the flag, please do. At that point, I'd be happy to list it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I've promoted the article. In your quest for FA, please consider the language suggestions above and the peer review process. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 11:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues to address

I've started giving this a copyedit, through the piracy and war section, but I'm going to stop for the time being since I think that the article needs enough work that a polishing task like copyediting is a little premature just yet.

This article is well researched (although I would like to see a little more use of secondary sources for interpretation and opinions), and contains a lot of good information. The problem is that these facts aren't tied together--they're just thrown at you, one after another. Someone in a section above here noted the problem with overreliance on "then this happened. Then that happened. Then the other happened." constructions in this article. This problem isn't just stylistic; it deprives the facts of their relation to each other, and leaves the article without narrative flow; it's also much easier to leave important and relevant information out when you aren't tying an article together into a coherent narrative. This is a particular problem when trying to explain the strategy and tactics of the war. For example, to look at the battle of Chios. We have the following facts:

1. Philip's fleet was going to besiege Chios.
   • This is presumably part of a strategy of reducing the northern islands before moving south towards Rhodes, but it would be nice if that was explicit.
2. The allied fleet attacked it in the straits between Chios and the mainland.
   • This is the first time the allied fleet has appeared in the article. Where was it coming from? What were its objectives?
3. In the early going, Attalus' squadron got separated from the main fleet and was pursued to shore by ships from the Macedonian fleet, apparently including Philip's ship.
   • Was this the whole Macedonian fleet in pursuit, or just a squadron? Is this before the main bodies of the fleets have engaged, or during that engagement? Was Attalus out in front of the fleet, or split off to the side in the fighting, or what?
4. The Macedonian right breaks and the Pergamese push through to Chios.
   • How does this relate to what happened to Attalus? For that matter, when did the fleets come together? Was the Pergamese fleet just trying to get through to Chios, or did they pursue and inflict damage on the Macedonian right?
5. The same occurs on the Macedonian left/allied right.
   • Was the breakdown on the left influenced by the collapse of the right? See also the same questions as above regarding breakthrough vs. pursuit.
6. The Rhodian admirals, after the victory, decide to sail home.
   • What were the strategic implications of the victory? Was the Macedonian fleet crippled? Was Chios now safe from siege? Why did the Rhodians sail home instead of continuing to operate in this region?

In cases of causality, of course, we are limited to stating what ancient sources and modern analysis provide us with, but there has to be more to say than these disjointed facts. Try to flesh out the article in a way that answers these questions, and the similar questions one might ask of other passages. FA is a reasonable goal for this article, with enough work, but it's going to require thought about how to make this tell a coherent story to the reader. Feel free to ask me about any parts of this that need clarification. I'll be glad to help out as I can with the article, although this is not a period I'm very familiar with. Good work so far, and keep at it; this can get to where you want it to be, with thoughtful effort. --Robth^Talk 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job improving that section; those questions are now answered, and the reader gets a coherent story instead of a few disjointed facts. What's next is to go through the rest of the article, ask similar questions, and tie all the facts you have together into a unified narrative. For example, the first sentence of the section after Chios/Lade is "Before the King of Pergamum, Attalus, set out to campaign he added additional strength to the city walls." That was the point at which I stopped copyediting, because to know what to do as a copyeditor with that sentence, I needed to know;

1. Why was Attalus going campaigning?
2. Where was he going?
3. When did this happen in relation to the previously described events?

A reader will need to know the same thing. These are the sort of questions that you have to ask yourself at every point. A good article, and especially a good history article, tells a story. With every event in the article, ask yourself if the article is giving the facts of what happened or telling the story of what happened. Again, I'll be glad to help out in any way I can with this process. --Robth^Talk 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very much improved, and I have completed my copyedit. The one section that still stands out as poorly integrated into the narrative is that on the battle of Lade. How did Philip's fleet bounce back from a crippling defeat in which they held a two-to-one numerical advantage to win a victory at even odds? Could a more thorough description of the circumstances of the battle be given? I would also suggest a little more work on the 'Aftermath' section. As a whole, however, I am quite impressed with the progress that has been made here. --Robth^Talk 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Phoenice

There's some confusing/contradictory wording:

First Macedonian War came to an end with the signing of the Treaty of Phoenice, under the terms of which the Macedonians were not allowed to expand eastwards.

and

The Treaty of Phoenice prohibited Philip from expanding westward into Illyria or the Adriatic Sea,

I expanded the treaty article a bit, using the terms as reported in Livy, and they're not very illuminating on either point. It seems to me that the treaty may more accurately be described as a mutual peace between Rome, Aetolia, and Macedon, leaving Rhodes as the major power in the East left out, and thus Philip's natural enemy (with Carthage in the West occupying Rome). That is to say, the treaty was less about constraining Philip, than focusing his efforts. In any case, the wording above sounds like a contradiction even if strictly true, so I suggest a rewording describing the treaty more accurately. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Cretan War → Cretan War (205–200 BC) – The only move I see in the history of this article was a capitalization difference, so technically this wouldn't be a controversial move that requires this kind of a discussion, but it is a featured article so I'm erring on the side of caution.

I don't see proof of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the ancient war over the 17th-century war, Cretan War (1645–69) that is currently disambiguated only using a hatnote. I'm not exactly sure what the ancient war's article title should be, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be at this title that implies that it's the primary topic. I went to investigate a bit and found:

• At https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cretan+War%22+-Wikipedia+-%22Books,+LLC%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1&pws=0 the first five pages showed me numerous hits to books about later wars, incl. some about one of the Cretan Revolts in the 19th century, sometimes as the "Cretan War of Independence". Hits to the ancient war did not dwarf the others, rather, they were in a minority. Note also that a fair few books used the term "First Cretan War" referencing the ancient war, some prefixing it with "so-called".
• Special:WhatLinksHere/Cretan War seemingly has a lot going for the ancient war, but it's mostly because of the myriad of links from three navbox templates. I looked into the list and quickly found misplaced links, references to the 17th c. war: Bartolomeo Contarini, List of Serbs, Stojan Janković (arguably this one is ignorable because it's overlinked ambiguously, but still), Petar Mrkonjić, Outline of the Ottoman Empire, Index of articles related to the Ottoman Empire, Anne Hilarion de Tourville

I'm going to create the unambiguous redirect and move the templates to use it temporarily. It'll be a brief WP:BRINT issue, but that is harmless and it will give us a clearer picture of what actually links here.

-- Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support, no primary topic. Cretan War should be a disambiguation page. Red Slash 19:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Additional comment: WhatLinksHere is now cleared and there are a total of 17 links referring to the ancient war. So that 17:7 ratio (70%) in favor of the ancient war, that could have been piling on since 2006, isn't particularly impressive. Plus all the unambiguous links to the other war. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Without an indication of time, it sounds like something modern and continuing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Excessive use of primary sources

• RSN noticeboard discussion

There is an excessive use of sources from the ancient world (Polybius and Livy) and inadequate use of modern, secondary sources. This is an old FA, not up to current standards, and needs some work if it is to retain its FA star. Bencherlite^Talk 18:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Antagonist

Is it POV to say Philip was the "antagonist" of this war? Brutannica (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Reply. It is possibly not the most POV phrase but Philip, unprovoked, started a war against state which sought peace. Hence, the usage of the word. Kyriakos (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Name

Also, why is it called "the Cretan War?" Crete seems to play a fairly minor role, both in the politics and the fighting. Brutannica (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Reply. The name Cretan War is the name that has been historically given to it. While I am unable to give you a definite reason why, I could hazard a guess. I think that it has to do with the fact that Philip provoked the war by harnessing the Cretan states against Rhodes. It was probably from this opening act that the name has been derived. Kyriakos (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Macedonians plundered mythical city?

"After the Macedonians captured Thyatira, they advanced to plunder the plain of Thebe," Thebe is linked to the mythical Cilician Thebe! Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reply. Thanks for the noticing that. I will change the link! Kyriakos (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Corn?

I've found two separate mentions of corn in this article. Corn didn't esist in the Old World until it was brought back from the Americas by European explorers over 1,500 years AFTER the Cretan War. Please refrain from re-adding any mention of the plant to the article, this is the second time I've fixed it. 65.209.62.115 (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cretan War (205–200 BC)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Very nice!--Yannismarou 08:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 12:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

FA standards

This article is no longer up to FA standards. Several entire paragraphs rely exclusively on Polybius or Livy and lack modern sources, especially in "Roman intervention". Among the latter, Hammond and Walbank are the best sources on Macedonia, but Walbank's Commentary on Polybius is missing, as well as Paul Cartledge's works on Sparta. T8612 (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)