Great map with the article, nice find.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the map in the infobox shows the battle taking place north of the Enipeus river, whereas the map under deployment shows the battle taking place south of the Enipeus river. It looks like the infobox map is correct, and the deployment map just needs its north indicator switched.
"Titus Lavienus had been one of Caesar's underofficers in Gaul..."
Shouldn't it be Titus Labienus? And just what the heck is an "underofficer"? I've spent years in the U.S. Army working with foreign troops and the only time I've heard this term is with the Germans or I've read it in some late 19th century British history. There are better, clearer military terms in modern English such as just plain officer, lieutenant, legion commander or "legate".
Where was he headed? From context it seems like it was probably Italy. Molinari 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
What happened to the Battle of Thapsus or the Battle of Munda? What about that peseky little war he took care of in Asia minor? The little pockets of Pompeian support that cropped up here and there in Hispania? Phrasulus was important - it was the defeat of Pompey, and it was a crushing blow to the conservative faction of the Senate, but the Roman world didn't fall into his lap after this. - Vedexent 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Couple problems I noticed with this article. Pila weren't a javelin throwing unit. Pila (singular pilum) were throwing spears given to each Roman legionary intended to be used just before a charge. He did not have "experienced pila" wielders, calling them experienced legionaries would imply that they would have been formidable in a pilum. Furthermore, there is no mention of one of the key tactics with these pila, in that most of Pompey's mounted soldiers were nobilitas. To appeal against their vanity, he ordered his soldiers to aim their pila at their faces with the intent of disfiguring them, breaking their will to fight. Ezedriel
Although it's generally accepted Caesar lost about 1200 men, perhaps the article ought to mention he claimed to have lost only 30 centurions and 200 legionnaires? 188.8.131.52 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
While it's true that Caesar's legions were understrength, it's hardly likely that Pompey had as many troops as are indicated. Delbruck's analysis suggests Caesar's account inflates Pompey's troop strength by perhaps twice the actual number. This analysis was based on some slips in Caesar's own account; for example, Caesar credits Pompey with c. 7,000 cavalry, but then goes on to give the individual contingents, with numbers, and they total only about half that. --Al-Nofi 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree though Caesar is generally without the defect of dishonesty. The question remains that he would've benefitted the larger the victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellsly (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is the word "phalanx" used in this article as if it were interchangeable with "formation" or "ranks"? This is not correct and should be changed. Romans of this period did not deploy the bulk of their forces in a phalanx. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The completely unsourced second and third paragraphs of the "Prelude" section appear identical to this web page, and may have been drawn in block from its same source:
I have wondered if the source is not a transcript or article on the History Channel series, but I have not been able to locate such. It seems possible, given the date of this web content, that it was pasted, part and parcel, from an earlier version of the WP article.
For a comparison of these two paragraphs, from WP and the totalwarrior page (accomplished by a paste, diff, then reversion), see these diffs:
In re: how these unreferenced paragraphs came into being: The edits were made by an IP editor, seemingly with an initial long paste, followed by a series of small revisions. E.g., the lengthy unsourced part, "...trench warfare of..." through end of paragraph, was added as a block on 27 May 2011, as shown here: . All of the edits pertaining to these final paragraphs were made without any addition of citations (e.g., no citations were later deleted).
This may suggest some unknown source (quelle), and unreferenced initial text cribbing from it (quelle →), and reverse "plagiarism" (→ totalwarrior). But given the earliest appearance date of the text at the totalwarrior site cannot be determined, the direction of the mass cribbing has to remain uncertain. It is possible it is not plagiarism (quelle → or totalwarrior →), but simply paraphrasing through a series of edits (though without citation, so still violating WP:VERIFY).
This is all the further time I can give to this. Minimally, this is very poorly created content, leaving us clueless as to the source of factual material. Possibly, it is plagiarism, either from the unknown quelle or from the totalwarrior site.
An article by Postgate (1905) makes it clear that "Pharsālia" (or Pharsālicum proelium and the like) was the name of the battle in ancient writers, not Pharsalus. Perhaps this should be noted. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)