Battle of Lake Trasimene is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2023.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 11, 2020 Good article nominee Listed January 20, 2023 Featured article candidate Promoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 21, 2011, June 21, 2012, June 21, 2015, June 21, 2021, June 21, 2022, and June 21, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: African / Roman & Byzantine / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 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 our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Tunisia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (assessed as Low-importance). Phoenicia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 is Sanguineto (place of blood), of course. Other ones are Ossaia (charnel house, place of bones), Sepoltaglia (place of burial), Caporosso (cape red), Piegaro (subdued place), Preggio (from Peggio, worse), Pugnano (place of battles), Pian di Marte (field of Mars). --Cantalamessa 22:48, 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? --rqde 11:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Before this could happen, Hannibal decided to lure Flaminius into a pitched battle, by devastating the area he had been sent to protect."

In the sentence above, who is 'he'?

Flaminius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.202.111 (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FlaminiusSteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2011 (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 through another 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. . On that 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]

• Nevermind, I misread the lede of the article. Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of subjective judgement that wikipedia should really avoid under WP: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 should not do is assert that Trasimene is the greatest ambush in history as fact. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:BOLD] and ((sofixit))  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  As I explained above, I don't know what the correct fix is, 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]

The deletion is commented with "WP:FAOWN", but this is a "Good article" not a "Featured article". @Gog the Mild: please explain. Ruedi33a (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This map seems appropriate for Punic Wars, but not for a single battle of one of these wars. T8612 (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2021 (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.

My summary: OSM location map should be used instead of Infobox map. Ruedi33a (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You are clearly an enthusiast, I assume that you created it. It is difficult to articulate how poor this map is for this article. Pinging Hog Farm, who opined on this map for a different article, and Catlemur 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.
• FAOWN - apologies, I meant WP:BRD. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Also pinging Harrias, who assessed Battle of the Trebia for GA, and where I recently also reverted the same map. We may as well centralise the various discussions. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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 contravening MOS:SANDWICH I will note) in an area of the article that already has three maps. I'm not sure why the comparison to the Infobox map specifically, surely a better comparison is with File: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) • talk} 21:18, 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 within Battle 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 lot Ruedi33a (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 - at Battle 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 Farm _Talk 01:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. The best map here is the mentioned File:Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War-fr.svg. I will delete this OSM map as it does not improve the articles. Ruedi33a (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also pinging Robinvp11 to join the discussion if he wants to. Ruedi33a (talk) 21:53, 20 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]

It says hanibal took over when his father died in 22BC. This should be 228 BCE. 80.189.95.18 (talk) 22:55, 21 June 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. The map given on page 301 of Theodore Ayrault Dodge's 1901 book "Hannibal" (mentioned in a comment by User: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 of The Fall of Carthage. If anyone fancies turning it into a copyright-free map, or putting a request in at Wikipedia: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]

I agree that the present map is not very informative. I found this map more helpful: https://www.livius.org/pictures/a/maps/map-of-the-battle-at-the-trasimene-lake/ Bill (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]