Talk:Hannibal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Peer review Hannibal has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
To-do list for Hannibal: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Archived Talk Pages

    Archive

          see here [1] for threads started before 2006-04-13.      

          see here [2] for threads started before 2006-05-14.      

    [edit] Some more trimming needed

    Hannibal is universally ranked as one of the greatest military commanders and tacticians in history, along with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon I of France, the Duke of Wellington, Georgy Zhukov and Robert E. Lee.

    he is universally ranked as one of the greatest military strategists and tacticians of the Western world, alongside Epaminondas, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Robert E. Lee, Scipio, Gustavus Adolphus, Erwin Rommel, Turenne, The Duke of Marlborough, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon among others.

    These two parts are quickly becoming boringly long and unmanageable, since every new guy (not infrequently, an anon) adds a new general based on their own personal likings. We have to trim down these references to other historical figures. I guess someone with a good understanding of Military History should make the necessary cuts. Xemoi 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

    Editted to reflect the names of the most famous great commanders, the ones who transcend most national borders and are spoke of with admiration internationally.

    Amusing to see Robert E. Lee on that list - a great example of ethnocentrism. Lee wasn't even the greatest general of the Civil War. Hannibal belongs right at the top, in an exalted class that includes Alexander and just a few others.

    Its an insult to Hannibals memory as one of the finest tacticians in history to be named alongside the likes of Zhukov and Lee who are easily dwarfed by him.

    [edit] Revert of my caption changes

    I recently changed the caption under the image of the battle of cannae from one which provides virtually no useful information on the battle to one explaining what the image is showing (surely what the caption is for?). This was reverted by another editor back to the previous, uninformative, caption.

    Currently, without an informative caption, not only is an opportunity lost to present important information regarding what the image is showing, but the image is quite misleading as it only shows the positions of the armies at least 3/4 way through the battle, when one would presume an image of a battle shows it shortly after commencement. The present lack of caption information under most battle images is surely one of the main detractions from those parts of this otherwise great article. Not wanting to simply re-revert to what I feel is an entirely positive change however, I thought I should make my case here. Canderra 14:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

    As I said on the edit summary, I didn't just remove it, I moved it to the main article on the Battle of Cannae, which is the right place for that kind of detailed information. Actually, I think the best thing would be not to have any image on individual battles at all on this article, unless they are really necessary to describe Hannibal's methods. Now, in case you're not aware of our current discussions about shortening this article a little bit and strictly concentrating on Hannibal himself, please note that the individual section on each battle is not supposed to be a painstaking military description, but only a quick note on the exploits of Hannibal as a general. For more general info, we have separate articles on each of those events, which you could contribute to, if you have more data.E.Cogoy 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

    Ah ok, fair enough. There does seem to be quite a lot of detail about each individual battle (as talked about in the discussion you mention). I think the article is very well written and informative as it is though, wish it had been around during my high school history days. Good luck with the attempt at gaining featured article status, it looks as though it must be very nearly there. Canderra 20:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Trimming the battle sections

    I agree that the battle sections need to be trimmed. I would propose that each section be trimmed to one or two paragraphs that answer the following questions:

    1. Why did the battle take place? Who was attacking, who was defending, why was it worth fighting the battle instead of avoiding it? What was at stake?
    2. What was the troop strength of each side and approximate composition of the forces?
    3. Who won? How decisive a victory was it?
    4. Were there any important personages that were captured, wounded or killed?
    5. Were there any notable strategies or tactics that make this more than just one of many battles? (e.g. Cannae was particularly notable for thousands of years afterward). Don't describe the strategy or tactic in detail, just give a one or two sentence summary as to why the strategy or tactic was notable.
    6. Were there any brilliant moves or notable errors that contributed to the outcome of the battle?
    7. What was the impact of the battle on the overall campaign? Did it make any difference or was it just another battle?

    Anything that is not a direct and concise answer to one of these questions should be left for the article on the battle. I'm sure that I've left something out but I think this is the first cut.

    --Richard 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

    I think Tresimene needs to be shortened and Zama expanded. After that I think this should be ready for PR. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Peer Review

    Does anyone reckon we're ready for Peer Review?? Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

    Right, I've put it up for Peer Review as most of the To-do list has been completed. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Map

    I don't know where this map came from, but the scale at the bottom is CLEARLY wrong. Italy is about 1.5 miles long.

    You're kidding me, right? Aaрон Кинни (t) 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well, honestly the scale never claims to be of "that" particular map, it just says "scale of miles", Which I guess is some sort of universal constant since the other maps look to have the same scale. --Darkfred Talk to me 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    The United States Military Academy has posted a corrected version of this map, available at the following URL:

    http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ancient%20warfare/ancient%20warfare%20maps/HannibalsRoute.gif

    140.158.46.108 18:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Date of death

    His date of death is 183 BC. I'm certain of it. I'm going to change and then footnote it. With several sources. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Hannibal Barca

    Could we bring him in accordance with the rest of his family? They are all named with their prename and their family name Barca. Besides Hannibal in Punic is as common as John in English and in each war are several Hannibals of whom we do know not the full name. In case of Hamilcar Barca he was fully named to avoid confusion with another Hamilcar commanding the fleet. In case of Hannibal Barca there is Hannibal Monomachus in his staff, advocating to eat humans for better provision etc. Wandalstouring 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

    He's commonly referred to as just "Hannibal", so in my opinion that's how it should stay. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    And how do we label an article about the Punic name "Hannibal"? Besides ALL the other Hannibals are also commonly labeled only Hannibal. Wandalstouring 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Hannibal's Ethnicity was African

    Hannibal's Ethnicity was African - There is ample evidence supporting this from many historical sources. The picture that was placed up there IS NOT a recognized image of Hannibal. Pages with false and distorted info only pollute the wikipedia index. Please do not revert my changes without documenting. Why are people so insecure about this? 64.174.151.22 Talk 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    I already reverted it. Why? Because
    1. You erased an entire infobox. Don't do this. If you don't like the image, see point #2, but erasing the entire infobox either is deliberate vandalism (in which case it gets reverted), or accidental damage (in which case it gets reverted).
    2. The image that was there was a depiction of Hannibal - and it is a recognized depiction of Hannibal as seen by the Romans. If this is a misidentified statue, please say so, and where you got your information. If it is an inaccurate depiction, you can explain this in the text. In fact, it may be interesting to the topic to explain why there are inaccurate depictions of Hannibal. Even better, add accurate representations of Hannibal, and point out why it is likely to be a better depiction. This actually improves the article.
    3. You bolded large sections of your edit. This is just annoying.
    4. Your edit was pretty POV.
    5. Your edit smacked of at least unconscious racism. What the heck is an African of the "purist type"?
    6. What the heck do rings have to do with it?
    7. It can be argued that Carthage is not an African city, but a phonecian colony that just happened to be on the North African coast. In fact, if you dig into the historical records of the Mercenary War there's good evidence that the local people were oppressed by the "colonists", and since Hannibal seems to have been "high in the councils" of Carthage, it is not unreasonable to think he might have been of phonecian stock. The point is, that apart from going back in time and doing a complex physical evaluation and DNA testing, we probably won't ever know for sure. He could have been semitic. He could have been African. Who knows? No one really, we just have contesting theories.
    I'm not saying your edit is wrong. It could be more accurate than what is is there now. Your edit did, however, run roughshod over half a dozen social conventions in Wikipedia, say nothing of basic manners.
    Because you basically hacked out an "offending viewpoint" (or at least one that seems to be offensive to you), and put in an oppositely slanted one, rather than propose a counterpoint and supporting evidence in contrast to opposing views, I simply reverted your edit rather than go in and try and repair it - that's your job.
    Feel free to add your ethnicity arguments back in - multiple viewpoints make for better rounded information - but please try and adhere to wikipedia editing style, rules and conventions, and basic good manners. - Vedexent 03:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    And, of course, any arguments about ethnicity should be sourced to a reliable source, else it risks being considered original research and a violation of WP:NOR. --Richard 06:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    One of Hannibal Barca's ancestors was the Punic explorer Mago Barca. He travelled several times across the Sahara and established traderoutes between Carthage and the Sub-Saharan Black African population and friendly contact to the more Caucasian desert inhabitants, whose territory these routes crossed. Wandalstouring
    There were several ways for black Africans to the Mediterannean like Egypt, where many Nubian mercenaries worked as archers, Tyros traderoute to Yemen and Somalia along the Red Sea and the Maghreb, there especially Carthage which had landroutes (to the Niger river) and searoutes (Senegal). The existence of Black Africans in the Mediterannean seems evident, among marines in the Persian navy, possibly some priests with Sub-Saharan Black African origins in Punic Africa, etc. Especially the abilities of Nubian archers were highly praised. But Roman texts refering to Hannibal and his troops as Afri and in translations African do not mean Black African, but originating from Punic Africa (area of modern Tunisia) and it usually means in of mixed African origin, especially Lybian(native sedentary Caucasian population of Punic Africa)-Punic. We have too little information about Hannibal Barca's family tree. Most likely he was of Phoenician-Cypriot ancestry like other Punics and for a member of old aristocracy it is likely to have some family link to the Sicilian Greek aristocracy. Black African origins can not be neglected, but are neither proven, although it is likely that the Barca family had connections to Sub-Saharan Africa and family links were a common practice to strengthen such bounds. Next week I will have the books handy to quote.Wandalstouring 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    During the Mercenary War independent Punic cities like Utica, which formally had a longstanding alliance with Carthage joined the rebels. It has to be stated, while the usual tribute for the Lybians was 10% (like the tax system in Israel), in wartime it could rise to 50% and the First Punic War was an especially long and expensive war, unseen before on such a scale. The Punic economy had been severely damaged, as can be seen by the lack of available trained rowers (Punic citizen militia units) for the fleet. The inability to finance the demands of the mercenaries and the high reparation payment demands by Rome are likely to have put a continuing effect to this constant rumor of oppression. But one must be careful to conclude the Lybians were constantly exploited. In former Punic Sardinia the native inhabitants revolted for almost a decade against the tremendously high demands of usual Roman peacetime taxiation and rule, resulting a very brutal conquest. Wandalstouring 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Its really simple actually. North Africa (The land of carthage.) has been inhabited and ominated by arabs (Yemen origin) for 6000 thousand years. Then Phoenician (Middle eastern people) migrants setup shop there. This is what we call NORTH AFRICA. While ALL of africa south of the sahara are black ethnic groups of a hundred diverseties north of the sahara (NORTH AFRICA THE SITE OF CARTHAGE) has been always has always will be and even today is ARAB.' Than k you and good night 74.236.92.108 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry, but the preceding is just completely wrong. The aboriginal inhabitants of the lands that are now Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco were BERBERS, who are neither Arabs nor sub-Saharan Africans. All available evidence indicates that Berber is still the predominant anscestry of the people of that region, although Arab culture (and language) has been dominant for several hundred years.

    Not quite right, sorry. We have prove that there was a constant immigration from south of the Sahara. Wandalstouring 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

    Yes exactly, thats what I said. Some people dont really get the concept of "Dominated". Its really sad when people try to hijack other people's history. Hannibal was semetic the carthaginians were semetic and the people before and after them were semetic. If your still in an ignorant idiot who somehow has come to think that ALL of africa is black through some sort of childish education then you really need to go and visit the north, south, west and east africa and realize that NO IT DOESN'T belong to just you. North is Semetic (Arab,Hebrew) south is white/black, east is half arab and Baggara and everything UNDER THE SAHARA is black see that part belongs to you. Hannibal was ARAB/Phoenician, thank you and good night 74.236.92.108 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    That is explaining things on kindergarten level and calling someone an idiot does not support an argumentation. It is archeologically evident that there was a black minority in the kingdom of Garamantes for example. Concerning east Africa you mix up Semitic culture and Black African origin of most people there. Unfortunately for you people made it across the Sahara. Naturally they did not form the majority of the northern regions, but it would be like saying the USA live only Whites; no Blacks, no Natives and no Asians. It doesn't support the claim anyone had a specific racial origin, but it can be guessed what was most likely the case and if someone didn't fit the norm of people from a region this fact would likely be noted. That is logic and arguments, not insulting and telling half-truth. Wandalstouring 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    Your education is at a level below my apparent horrible "explanation". Garamantes are a berber people parts of there dominion is sub Sahara. Its pleasant to note that Carthage is 1,312 miles away from this area. Its also a great note that the Berbers are an Arab people of Yemen's origin who have dominated the entire region for more then about 6000 years ever since migrating from Arabia proper."Concerning east Africa you mix up Semitic culture and Black African origin of most people there. Unfortunately for you people made it across the Sahara"- wha? lol - This is just complete nonsense. - "but it would be like saying the USA live only Whites; no Blacks, no Natives and no Asians." we are talking about antiquity not the twenty first century. Rome imported "barbarian" slaves but that doesn't mean the population quota of the small minority suddenly bursts and replaces the first population. unless the minority in Carthage (black African minority, if there even was one which no proof or even legitimate claim to such has ever been made) had some some pretty hot beds haha. 74.236.92.108 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Darfur

    All you have to do is look at Darfur to end the BS about "black" Africans (whatever that is) being below the Sahara. Whenever Darfur or any 'accepted' black people in Africa are in the Northern regions, I never hear anything about a "sub-Saharan" at all! When Somalia was in the news, that showed you yet another look of Africans - a look that works well with the north and mixing. However, the blackness is still VERY present.

    As far as Norhtwest Africa is concerned, all one has to do is look at the artifacts left and you will see clear black Africaness along with signs of mixing. They clearly mixed more than Northeast Africa given their closeness to Europe. When compared to ancient Egyptians, NW Africans are not as clear-cut African (the type that is undisputed - usually only one type that is pointed out with features that do not always resemble ancient blacks of African origins) as Egyptians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.91.23 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    Those areas are sub-Saharan. Overlay a sattelite image of Africa with a map of its nations. Somolia is completely below the Sahara, and while part of Darfur does extend up into the desert, the conflict, and as such, pictures from the conflict have almost all taken place south of the desert belt.76.178.74.35 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


    [edit] Race controversey

    Some morons today are claiming that Hannibal was a negroid racial type, based purely on the idea that he was born and raised on the continent of Africa. this espite the overwhelming evidence that proves beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that he was clearly caucasoid. the same troublemakers are also claiming that other famous peoples such as Cleopatra, as well as entire peoples such as the Ancient Egyptians, Libyans and Berbers were not as they appear in all the authentic artwork, and written descriptions, but were part of some mythical ancient black civilization, For shame people, for shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

    As I pointed out we can not outrule that Hannibal Barca and many other important people in the Mediterannean had Black African ancestors. So what? Especially members of the Barca family are likely to have Black African relatives before moving to Iberia and intermarrying with the local nobility there (Imilke, Hannibal's wife was from Southern Iberia).Wandalstouring 12:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    People! This subject was already discussed! Please read fomer discussions in the Archive. You can find relevant discussion in Hannibal's Ethnicity. The Ogre 15:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    By the way, 64.174.151.22 (Talk) arguments, as referenced by Vedexent (African of the "purist type", "rings", etc.), mirror the arguments formely presented (check it!) by a Tom Bailey (Talk) in November 2005. This is strange... The Ogre 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    As I pointed out, his family had traditionally important ties to trade with Sub-Saharan Africa, so Black African ancestors are not impossible and I think I remember reading about sceletons with negroid features found in graves decorated with highly crafted artworks, so possibly even Punicnobility had some links to Africa, as well as to Sicilian Greece. This is not much to wonder about, for only the tolls from the cross-Sahara trade brought ~400 silver talents annualy (a budget, enough to finance a considerable military power by itself). But for we do not know for sure the Barca family did have intermarriage with Black Africans besides establishing the trade, it is only speculation. We can state that his ancestors among the Barca family had played a signifanct role in establishing important ties across the Sahara. Rings are nothing specifically Black African, see Plautus' comedy Poenulus about a Punic. The mentioned French source from 1870 is very likely racist, a thread that continues a long time into the last century in many works on Carthage. In British literature for some time the highest praise was to neglect their semitic origins. Today their Cypriot ancestry is often forgotten. Wandalstouring 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Hannibal was a negro like most if not all cathagian-rulers at that time:

    http://www.whenweruled.com/articles.php?lng=en&pg=15

    Image:Hannibal head1.jpg
    The Head of Hannibal

    No proof there.

    The article about Ethiopia is nice to read, but contains no surprising info. It was a very influential country at these times and one of the few rich territories Romans knew, but did not invade.

    The coin of Hannibal Barca seems to show negroid features, but there are many coins with images of his family and there are no Black African features visible, so it is very unlikely. You do not need a negroid looking profile to have Black African ancestors, as well as people (like me) could look negroid on such a coin, although there was definetly no Black African in may family tree dating back for several generations. Wandalstouring 20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    The coin of hannibal linked above does not seem to show Black African features, it definitely shows Black African features. Black African features are often rationalized away as being questionable when they describe early prominent historic figures, while caucasion images are considered accurate. Its almost as if the only true Black Africans were indigent. This debate is universal when dealing with prominent Ancient African Civilizations. I've yet to witness a debate over the blackness of an indigent Ancient African Civilization. On the other hand, I've yet not to witness a debate about of the blackness of a prominent Ancient African Civilization. Tom 10/26/06

    Sure thing. You know that Wikipedia is about verifiability, right? And published works? And seious academic papers and not websites or personal interpretations of bad photos of ancient weathered coins? Both sides of this debate need to show valid references for their arguments, or go home. If both sides have credible references then perhaps both sides of the argument with their supporting references can be included in the article, and let the reader make up their own mind. But your squabbling is starting to sound like a playground - Vedexent (talk) - 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

    This coin, which deserves to be on the main page with the other coins can be found in the Museo Kercheriano, Rome and is said to be struck by Hannibal himself while he was in Italy. One could debate who is the greater authoriy on Hannibal, the Romans or the British. Col. Hennebert, a leading authority on Hannibal said "We do not posess any authentic portrait of Hannibal" (Histoire d'Annibal, Vol I, p. 495, Paris, 1870). One could wonder why other effigies of Hannibal make him look more like a Roman commander than a North African Commander. After all, these were the people he was conquering. One could also debate if Roman war attire is adequate for riding on an Elephant. I'd also like to comment on your opinion of this being a playground. It's not. There are many Scholarly Americans and a few British who have tried to write Blacks out of history. Not just ancient blacks, but well into the twentieth century. You see this trend with the Buffalo Soldier, who built Fort Seal Oklahoma, saved Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders and ended the Apache threat in Northern Texas. The USS Mason (the only black warship in WWII) which launched into a storm to save an American Fleet after the Mighty British Navy refused the mission. Their medals were held for fifty years and given to them by Bill Clinton after the Navy snuffed their paperwork. The 761st Tank Batallion who knocked down the gates at Hitlers death camps and saved many Jews including a boy who would later become a prominent Rabbi in Tel Aviv, who said that they looked like Black Angels coming through the Gates. (They were later given the name "Liberators" by the Jews that they saved). The Tuskegee Airmen who never lost a bomber to a German Fighter Pilot in a dogfight. I can go on. There was a concentrated effort to write these and other dynamic black figures out of history in the same lifetime as some of Wikipedias readers. Please understand that this is not a playground or an arbitrary sparring match. It is a serious quest for truth. Tom 10/27/06

    Doesn't matter. There is no claim made on Hannibal's racial origin in this article, only his cultural heritage. I want a waterproof evidence for his race and there is none. You try to point out racial origin by feature on one old coin, while there are many old coins and Carthage only used few coining dies. For this reason your presentation his highly doubtable. Do you have a numismatic analysis for this coin, so we could at least verify what it supposedly shows and whether it is real or a motage. Thank you. None here wants to supress Black Africans (I'm personnaly working on the topic to present them more in wikipedia). We simply do not want to present hoaxes because it affects our serious material about verified Black African achievements and people. Besides stop mixing up the racial prejudiced US of 1950 and the Roman Republic or the Greeks. Read for example Homer, the Iliad, he gives a description of black soldiers without racial prejudices, vfurthermore we do have records of real and verified black soldiers and emperors throughout the antiquity, but NOT Hannibal. It may be possible that he had black African ancestry like other members of the Punic people, but that is all. Wandalstouring 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Think for a moment. You said "There's a chance that he may have had black African ancestry". Being from Africa I would think that there's only a chance that he had caucasion ancestry. The non African has to be proven, not the African. No one has been required to show definitive proof that he was Europeon in appearance. But yet they are believed. There are no waterproof Europeon effigies of Hannibal. Just a bunch of them. And the Europeon effigies of him vary greatly. And yet they are believed. The coin was not cast in Carthage. It was cast in Italy. So Carthages limitations in casting don't apply. One also may cast doubt on the Italian museum that possesses the coin. It amazes me that he can be portrayed as a Roman or Greek commander when he had none of their culture or blood running through his veins. Surely that has to create some questions. The fact that you are working on the topic to bring more Black History to Wikipedia shows the lack of correct Black History in Wikipedia. Thank you for your honorable efforts. That which I have presented here is as credible as the alternative speculations. Tom 10/27/06

    No, it isn't, your sources prove nothing. First of all, Hannibal belonged without doubt to the Punic upper class. This means he had some Phoenician or Cypriot lineage. We do know that the Punic nobility intermarried with various groups they had contact with, like the Greek or the Samnites. We have no written source about intermarriage with Black Africans. It was reconstructed that the Punics did have traderoutes established across the Sahara and slaves were one of the most valuable articles, but the nobility was not born from slaves. In an old book on Punic graves that was still influenced by racial bias (it was from the 1950s) it was noted that a richly decorated grave was discovered, but it contained just the sceleton of a negroe woman. The interpretation went so far as to see a very loyal servant of the godess presented with a statue next to the grave and proposing she was likely a high ranking sacral prostitute. This is all clear evidence about black Africans in Carthage. The portrays of Hannibal with Greek feature are probably legitimate for as far as we know his teacher was himself raised after the Lycurgan education of Sparta. Futhermore it is proven that the Punics did adopt Greek customs. The helmet is a sign of his rank as strategus, showing him with a Romanized helmet, hairstyle etc. can be correct for he spent a lot of his time in Italy (there are Roman rumours he even had a mistress in Southern Italy) and got his hands on Roman armor. As far as facial features are concerned, the Greek portraying of that time idealised the facial features in accordance with certain rules concerning the perfect beauty, in contrary Roman and Italian portrays were highly accurate, even if the features were not complimentary. what you totally mix up is some basic knowlege about genetics. There is a genotype and a phenotype, the genotype is the genetic information where samples of your ancestors are preserved if you received these parts during the insemination. The penotype are the visible features and the do not contain all features contained in the genotype. While you have a strong emphasis on African Americans, genetically the carry quite a lot of DNA not found among Black Africans. So they have other ancestors from different areas as well (Natives, Europeans, Asians, etc.). Do you see the difference between African Americans and Black Africans (a lot of them have lightly colored skin)? The point is we do not have specifically Black African noted for Hannibal and unlike other famous persons of the Antiquity he was not named Hannibal the Black. This does not mean he did not have a Black African great-grandmother or else, but there is absolutely no prove. If you want to start contributing something useful, start an article about Punic burials and sceleton findings, there you will find scientific information how many sceletons with possible Black African features have been found. That's all. Wandalstouring 23:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    Do you think this coin held at Museo Kercheriano, Rome a fraud? Would you care to explain to the Museums curators why you think their exibit inaccurate? This world renowned museum displays this coin as a likeness of Hannibal. Col. Hennebert (whom I'm sure you're familiar with) has no respect for the most common and popular depictions of Hannibal. Is he also a fraud? If the Museum and Col. Henneberts display and opinion isn't proof please outline clearly the exact thing that you would need to observe to believe. Please also outline the strength of the evidence that governs your current belief. In other words outline what you currently consider proof and its strength. Also, penis he were named Hannibal the Black most caucasions would probably say that it was synonymous with swarthy and not truly black. And so the debate would just continue. You mentioned that Roman portrayals were very accurate. This coin was cast in Rome and is displayed in a major Roman Museum. Do you now not believe the Romans? Do you have proof that Hannibal had a White African Grandmother? Finding the grave of one Black African woman of prominence in Africa would be like finding the grave of one prominent Native American in the USA. In other words , superficial at best. Do you suppose that the land was uninhabited before the whites came? I believe there were centuries of Black Africans living in that land before Rome ever knew it was there. Carthage was well endowed with natural resources. So the inhabitants of that land were not indigent. Modern historians would have us believe that these early inhabitants were just waiting for the whites to arrive to enslave them and show them what to do with their own natural resources. Many of the slaves were slaves of other prominent blacks in Carthage. Often times slave and slave owner looked alike. I am not declaring so much that what I'm suggesting is proof, as much as I'm declaring that the theory that he was white is at least equally suspicious and at best, also unproven. Tom 10/28/06

    1. Your real knowledge of African history and Black African history is a big hole.

    2. "Museo Kercheriano" Does not exist, but several black facts sites mention it -> a hoax. Of course it could be that they mean "Museo Kircheriano" that does exist, but such a simple fact shows that all these sites have copyedited information without verificating, even missing to delet the typos. Even the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a better copyedit besides being as fake.

    3. The same for Col. Hennebert another hoax from http://www.users.fast.net/~blc/blac2.htm he is by no means a recognized authority on Hannibal. In 1893 he wrote a book: LA GUERRE that is all. At that time there were several ideas in France that the North Africans were strongly influenced by black Africans and this made them intellectually inferior, but very cruel and bloodthirsty. So if you want to use a source quote it in detail and not just some hearsay.

    4. How to prove a likeliness would be numerical data from the lots of sceleton findings of Punic upper and lower class stating they do show some Black African features (from a serious author). This is noneexistant and Black African features of sceletons were noted even during deepest racial prejudices and there was no overwhelming black population nor were they found to dominate the nobility.

    5. You mix up coins and marble portrays.

    6. I checked the picture on the coin, it is a montage of the real coin in the museum. Wandalstouring 18:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    Visit this site for more verification of Hannibal's origin. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Hannibal Wandalstouring 19:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    Mispelling noted. David Anthony Durham's website also mentions the mispelling. It originates from the publishers of J.A. Rogers book around 1936. I also couldn't find Col.Henneberts book on the web, but I'll keep looking. I do have to rely on a little hearsay however, a comment you made. You said that the museum was a hoax and then proceeded to spell it correctly proving that you know it's not a hoax, but simply mispelled. You said at first that this was just an old coin, then you said that you checked it out and that it was a montage of the actual coin in the museum, which means that you acknowledge the coin in the Museo Kircheriano. To say that it's a montage is unfair but I'm not going to deal with fairness right now. Let's suppose that's it is a montage, a composite of the original coin that you've acknowledged is in the Museum. That would be the same as acnowledging that you are aware of a coin bearing Black African features sitting in the Museo Kircheriano that's being displayed as a likeness of Hannibal. Unless you're claiming that this montage is a composite of re-arranged caucasion features. Since you think this montage a fraud, do you also consider the museum coin from which it was (by your own words) drafted, a fraud also. Where can I view the original coin that you checked the montage against. Is it on the Museums website. If so please give the web address. Oh by the way, I didn't display the coin on this site. I'm only commenting on it. Please respond with your opinion of the original museum coin. For more of these coins with elephants on their back side an an effigy of Hannibal on their front side go to <www.nok-benin.co.uk/prev-articles/royal_6.htm> Tom 10/28/06

    The different spelling for the museum was just a suggestion. I checked it by looking into some history books on Punic coins. Hannibal had just one coining die, prior to the Barcids Carthage had only seven single coining dies in its empire (during several hundred years), they were very economic with them. There is only one type of Hannibal coins in the world and the one from the British museum is easily verifiable. Wandalstouring 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    So you were not comparing it to the coin in Museo Kircheriano? Did you view the suggested website for more coins. I will find Col.Henneberts book "Histoire d' Annibal" and get back to you. The Volumn, page and copyright was given and is worthy of research. Tom 10/28/06

    Go to <http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hannibal_(General)> and scroll down for an excellent article on Hannibal which lists as one of it's sources, E. Hennebert Histoire d' Annibal (Paris, 1870-1891 , 3 vols.). Hennebert is referenced in the same company as Polybius, W. How, Cornelius Nepos, W.T.Arnold, F.A.Dodge and a host of others. This should clear up any doubt as to whether Hennebert is a respected Authority on Hannibal. Tom 10/30/06

    OK, so can you quote him directly please (book and page number). Wandalstouring 15:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

    (Vol I,p.495 Paris 1870) As I've read through these paragraphs, the Character of people who think Hannibal a Black African has really been attacked. One unsigned person even referred to us as being morons. Unfair and Personal. Tom 10/30/06

    What does he write in Vol I,p.495 Paris 1870? Please quote word for word his argumentation for Hannibal being of Black African ancestry (None doubts that he was born in Northern Africa). No I didn't call you a moron, but the process of establishing your proof takes quite long. Some editors might get the idea you just wanted to spam. Wandalstouring 16:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

    You misunderstood. Unsigned at the beginning of (Race Controversey) said that people who think Hannibal a Black African are morons. I hadn't commented in this section at that time, so I wasn't putting that on you. You only referred to me as believing in a hoax. Hennebert didn't say that Hannibal was Black. He said "We do not possess any authentic portrait of Hannibal" on page 495 in Vol I. Hence the significance of the coins portraying him as a Black African in The Museo Kircheriano, Rome. Remember earlier I wrote that I'm not so much proving that Hannibal was black (which is what I believe) as I'm establishing an equal possibility that he could have been. This may sound silly, but consider this parallel. Sec. Rice and Colon Powell have no lineage in Wash D.C. If everyone in the White House submitted a DNA sample for future historical reference, theirs would be to the White House as the one prominent black female remains that you said were found in Carthage. 2000 years from now it would have to be proven that they were Black Americans because of the limited black DNA samples that would exist currently at the White House. But yet Sec. Rice and Colon Powell are black commanders with a host of white and multi cultural subordinates in their command. Hannibal didn't live in a racist (Black African stay out) society. He commanded a multi cultural army from a multi cultural society. With the Museo coins as reference and the doubt placed on effigies of Hannibal by a recognized Europeon caucasion authority, I feel that I can make a legitmate argument that he was or at least could been Black African. I don't know if Hennebert saw the Black effigies of Hannibal. But I'm sure that he saw the Caucasion ones which are the basis of his doubt. Tom 10/30/06

    No, you are stretching the interpretation too far. Hennebert said we didn't know how Hannibal looked like while many others said he looked like on the marble bust and coins, so if you want to take Hennebert seriously you have to say we do not know. We do know of so many Black Africans in Carthage and other caucasian majority groups in northern Africa. That is all. But I would appreciate if you did write an article on this topic instead of arguing for Hannibal being a Black African. We do have to cite in wikipedia recognized sourced if they state he looked like on the marble bust (and this image is properly sourced and verified, yours not). So get up and do some research on the Garmantes and Carthaginians and their Black Africans, but stop clinging to Hannibal, this is OR. Wandalstouring 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    What does OR mean. The Museo Kircheriano, Rome is as reputable a source as any other sources in existence. The coins there and the coins displayed on the website above aren't renegade examples of Hannibal. I'm sure that they are unpopular however. I would be stretching only if the coins didn't exist. I stated earlier that I'm not sure if Hennebert saw the Roman Black effigies of Hannibal. But I am sure that he saw the caucasion ones that formed his opinion. By Henneberts opinion the caucasion effigies are the images that are stretched. He did not accept any of them as being legitimate. I also stated earlier that I'm not so much proving Hannibal black as I'm legitimately proving that he could have been. This is a fair and equitable discussion. Tom 11/07/06

    No. Hennebert said the paintings from the bust are nonsense. Well, one has to reapproach them whether they didn't carry Greek influence. Such a fact as the Barcids being very dark compared to the average Roman is unlikely to have escaped Roman attention because Black Africans are already mentioned in the Trojan Wars, because Black Africans had a reputitian as marines and archers and are mentioned as such. No such thing exists for Hannibal. The coin you are refering to is a hoax, the real coin in the museum dos not look like that (yup, I asked an Italian to check). Wandalstouring 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    You are about to display the coins (plural) that are displayed in the Museo Kircheriano, Rome? There were several coins displayed above. Would your Italian friend like to comment in Wikipedia? Will he or she be taking current digital photos and displaying them here? Hennebert would not have to say that the paintings from the busts were nonsense. There would be no need to state the obvious. It was thought only a few paragraphs above that Hennebert was a hoax. Why didn't you comment on that, since you knew that Hennebert was not a hoax? Do you suppose that someone actually went to the length of creating these coins for the specific goal of stealing credit for Hannibals ethnicity? Do you think them a modern creation? Please have your Italian friend display the findings at the Museo Kircheriano, Rome. Since they checked. Tom 11/08/06

    That would be asking way to much. Some people have a private live. Just prove your source of the coin and don't ask others to prove your sources. Wandalstouring 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    You said that you asked an Italian friend to check in Rome for these coins and that they are not there. When I asked for your friend to comment in Wikipedia you said that that would be asking to much. In order for your friend to check the coins in Rome against these coins, your friend would have to have access to Wikipedia. So why not comment. You said that you checked out the coins yourself and that they were a montage of the coins in Rome, and then admitted that you only looked through Punic records. You said that Hennebert was a hoax just to discover that he's a well respected authority on Hannibal. You later said that Hennebert said the paintings from the busts are nonsense. So now you're quoting a man that earlier you said was a hoax? Is it too much to ask you the page and the volume that you found that in? I've listed my sources several times in paragraphs above. Produce your Italian friend and the Museo coins that differ from these. This should be a collaboration for truth, not a competition. Tom 11/08/06

    You mix up things. First I checked the info you gave me. The museum did not exist and I found nothing about a Hennebert who is credited the big authority. All you have is Hennebert not clearly stating he was talking about any racial features, but doubting we know what Hannibal looked like from our sources. You have the picture of a coin which seems to show features like to a negroid person and in contradiction to Hennebert you use it to say Hannibal was of Black African ancestry because you feel it. Cool, some people feel differnt. So what, can you verify this image you have? I asked someone to take a look and say if it looked like in the museum, he said nope and I believed. If you disagree go to Italy and take a photo. Afterwards find a real scientific book discussing explicitly Hannibal's Black African ancestry. If you have these, welcome back and feel free to edit. You don't have it? - TYou are not allowed to put your original research into wikipedia. If you publish a scientific paper first elsewhere and it gets recognized, no problem. Just write your argumentation into such a paper, add your sources and visit the nearest history professor (They are usually very open minded to various approaches and there is some evidence for Black African presence in North Africa) and ask him whether he would help you to publish it. But here you are in the wrong place. Have a nice day. Wandalstouring 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    Do you have your Italian friends email to you? I'm assuming that you emailed the image to him in Italy for him to compare it with coins (again plural)in Rome. Would you at least forward that to Wikipedia. If you would like me to publish a work surely you'd be willing to forward an email of such great importance to Wikipedia. Since your friend won't comment himself. Tom 11/09/06

    ?I doubt people like their email adress published if it is no official adress. Will see what I can do. Wandalstouring 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    "Yes exactly, thats what I said. Some people dont really get the concept of "Dominated". Its really sad when people try to hijack other people's history. Hannibal was semetic the carthaginians were semetic and the people before and after them were semetic. If your still in an ignorant idiot who somehow has come to think that ALL of africa is black through some sort of childish education then you really need to go and visit the north, south, west and east africa and realize that NO IT DOESN'T belong to just you. North is Semetic (Arab,Hebrew) south is white/black, east is half arab and Baggara and everything UNDER THE SAHARA is black see that part belongs to you. Hannibal was ARAB/Phoenician, thank you and good night" 74.236.92.108 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    A strange and condescending comment. If you chose to remain unknown thats your choice. The articles above challange Hannibals ethnicity based on Museum coins in Rome and doubt created by a noted scholar. Not the fact that he was African. But since you accused others of feeling that Hannibal had to be black because he was African, how do you explain your feeling that all of Carthage was Semitic. You seem just like those that you accuse. Carthage was a melting pot of diversity. There were also many dark skinned wooly haired Arabs and Phoenicians. The farther you go back in history the darker they become. If you read the bible (starting with Genesis) you will see that Ethiopia is riddled with Hebrews. I would also like to think henceforth that it would be beneath you to label someone an idiot for having a different opinion than your own. Tom 11/29/06

    Iam sorry if I tried to get in the way of you people trying to hijack history, but you see when someone tries to steal my people's history trying to rob us of our identity and our hero's well then I cant stand for that. People just ignore this rehtoric historical vandals are nothing new we used to just ignore them and it worked now we are lending an ear to them only gives fuel to amount of crap there is. Agro Soy 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Also known before as 74.236.92.108.


    First of all, there are no "Caucasoids" native to Africa and people need to stop throwing around these broad relative terms like "Black African" and "Negroid" when the data doesn't reflect such small categories for African populations. Ancient Egypt is another argument, but I'm not sure if Hannibal was biologically African or not, maybe, maybe not, but when it comes to native African civilizations, Africans relate to each other genetically before they'd relate to Europeans or so-called "Caucasoids", especially concerning recent common ancestry. No way can a "race" that derived from Africa indigenously cover "3 Continents" while the variety in Africa only be restricted to the "sub-sahara" or stereotypical "Negroid" types. Don't let the high gene frequency of middle eastern influence in North and East Africa fool anybody, that still doesn't account for the phenotypical diversity in related Africans.

    Bio-Anthropologist Dr. Shomarka Keita writes:

    "In general, this restricted view presents all tropical Africans with narrower noses and faces as being related to or descended from external, ultimately non-African peoples. However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident in Saharo-tropical Africa... and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. These traits are also indigenous. The variability in tropical Africa is expectedly naturally high. Given their longstanding presence, narrow noses and faces cannot be deemed `non-African.'"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Nilotic_peoples

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africoid Taharqa 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    He belongs to some immigrants, the Phoenicians, who are relatives of the Hebrews. Yes there are some finfings with sub-saharan features of the skeletons from North Africa during this period. No proof that someone of Carthage's aristocracy was descended from them, nor that any Punic was descended from them. wikipedia is no source and the map there is highly doubtful. Produce scientific works on the topic or keep quiet. Wandalstouring 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


    Anthropologists have studied skeletons from the Carthaginian cemeteries . Professor Eugene Pittard, then at the University of Geneva, reported that: "Other bones discovered in Punic Carthage, and housed in the Lavigerie Museum, come from personages found in special sarcophagi and probably belonging to the Carthaginian elite. Almost all the skulls are dolichocephalic ." Futhermore, the sarcophagus of the highly venerated Priestess of Tanit , "the most ornate" and "the most artistic yet found," is also housed in the Lavigerie Museum. Pittard says " The woman buried there had Negro features. She belonged to the African race !" Professor Stephane Gsell was the author of the voluminous Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord. Also based on anthropological studies conducted on Carthaginian skeletons, he declared that: " The so called Semitic type, characterised by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not [yet] been found in CarthageMahmud II 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

    Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Zidonians are the same blood. Zidonians are descendants of Zidon, Canaan's first son. Hannibal was black. Tom 01/14/08

    As black as the US president(he is likely to be someone's son). Wandalstouring (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    I believe the Zidonians and the Phoenicians were the same peoole; They settled up around modern-day Lebanon (Sidon and Tyre). Like everyone else living around the Mediterranean, they would have had darker skin than Northern Europeans, but lighter skin than Sub-Saharan Africans. Most likely they would have looked similar to the Arabs, Berbers and Lower Egyptians (as opposed to the peoples from the Northern coast).76.178.74.35 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    There is coinage with the portrait of his father here and here. And, of course, there's also the marble bust. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

    I don't understand your comment. Please explain.

    This is pathetic, it's misguided Afro-centrists fools with a rather poor grasp of demography and racial distribution attempt to hijack history with silly theories. This casts a huge shadow of doubt over Wikipedia's credibility, this nonsense should nt even be acknowledged. The modern descendants of Carthage belong to the Caucasoid racial groups, such as Arabs, Berbers and various other INDIGENOUS North African groups. The only evidence to suggest any sort of Negro presence are the descendants of Blacks that were imported and fulfilled a servile role in Carthage, and the later Islamic kingdoms. I believe this stems from a picture published in a US textbook distributed among impoverished urban neighborhoods to promote education among African-Americans. The hoaxsters cannot be treated seriously. Koalorka (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    If what you say is true, then everything printed in the following paragraph imported from above has to be a lie and a hoax. Anthropologists have studied skeletons from the Carthaginian cemeteries . Professor Eugene Pittard, then at the University of Geneva, reported that: "Other bones discovered in Punic Carthage, and housed in the Lavigerie Museum, come from personages found in special sarcophagi and probably belonging to the Carthaginian elite. Almost all the skulls are dolichocephalic ." Futhermore, the sarcophagus of the highly venerated Priestess of Tanit , "the most ornate" and "the most artistic yet found," is also housed in the Lavigerie Museum. Pittard says " The woman buried there had Negro features. She belonged to the African race !" Professor Stephane Gsell was the author of the voluminous Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord. Also based on anthropological studies conducted on Carthaginian skeletons, he declared that: " The so called Semitic type, characterised by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not [yet] been found in CarthageMahmud II 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC) If what you say is true, surely you should have at least a speck of alternative research. Tom 05/09/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk)

    Pittard says that the skulls were dolichocepahlic, a trait shared by both African and Semitic races (and to a lesser extent, some caucasian peoples). In addition, both of those sources are rather old (I think at least 70 years). The authors did not have access to DNA technology things like DNA, which allow us to make determinations based on something rather more reliable than the shape of someone's face (or the reconstruction of a nose without the aid of a computer based on 2,000 year old remains). They have found that modern North Africans, particularly Egyptians (likely due to the quanitity of preserved remains to check against), share a great genetic similarity to their ancient counterparts. There are also projects like National Geographic's Genographic Project, which have traced the migration of genetic markers. DNA evidence shows that North Africans migrated from and have a common geneology with the Middle East.76.178.74.35 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    Pittard's job is very outdated, as above comment points out, and dates from times when Phrenology was still accepted. Research on races has changed a *lot* since 1929, so we should use more modern research. If Pittard's work is still valid, then there must be modern research using it as basis. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    Please cite the DNA research that out dates Pittard's findings. With it being modern research you shouldn't have too much of a problem with that. If ancient research isn't welcomed or valid, then why study the Phoenicians at all. You're only going to claim something to be outdated when it doesn't agree with you. It is known that the Carthaginians were of Phoenician stock. That's ancient history. I then show you in the bible, that the Phoenicians were descendants of Ham and you label it outdated information or afro-centric bull. You are not interested in where the truth will lead unless it leads to a conclusion that you've already made. If Pittard is outdated, if the bible is outdated, then the study of the Phoenicians and their artifacts is equally irrelevant. The farther you go back in the history of Phoenicians the darker they will get. Produce your modern DNA research and cite it clearly, please. Tom 05/10/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] "During his invasion of the United States of America..."

    I don't know enough about Hannibal to know what that's supposed to say, but come on. That's not even funny. Someone who knows, please fix that. Thor Rudebeck 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    A series of vandalisms were committed by user:Fuzzybunny17 on the 11 October 2006. The vandalism has been removed and the user warned. Canderra 21:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Cultural depictions of Hannibal

    I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

    Good idea, move the films and books list there, so this article gets much shorter. I deleted the GI Joe a real American hero plot. It has nothing to do with this biography. perhaps it is the origin of Hannibal invading the US. Wandalstouring 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Last years

    In the part 'Exile and death (195–183 B.C.)' it is stated that Hannibal was hunted down at the Bithynian court by a Flaminius. If you follow this link you get to a Gaius Flaminius who died in 217 BC. This is inconsistent, obviously. Which one is wrong? Is there an other Flaminius or wasn't there a Flaminius in Bithynian... Alex 16:02, 18 october 2006 (CET)

    [edit] Who wrote it?

    Who Wrote that Hannibal said, "So soon as age will permit...I will use fire and steel to arrest the destiny of Rome."?

    It's a good quote, but getting the source from a website about a movie (Reverse Spins, Patton, the Second Coming of Hannibal) is not the best way to prove he said that.

    So who wrote it? Livy? Dio Appian? I know Polybius didn't. Some one help!

    Try Livy Wandalstouring 22:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    Appian, I believe. Aaрон Кинни (t) 18:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    While it correponds with Livy's stance Polybius wrote about the oath Hannibal allegedly made to his father "never have good will towards the Romans" (Polyb. 3.11.7). Polybius apparently also wrote a treatise titled, "Wrath of the Barcids" which may be where the quote came from. ForestJay 09:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] The article's contrast of Hannibal with Nero

    "When Hannibal's successes had brought about the death of two Roman consuls, he vainly searched for the body of Gaius Flaminius on the shores of Lake Trasimene, held ceremonial rituals in recognition of Lucius Aemilius Paullus, and sent Marcellus' ashes back to his family in Rome. By contrast, when Nero had accomplished his march back and forth to and from the Metaurus he flung the head of Hannibal's brother into Hannibal's camp."

    The unsourced comments regarding Hannibal's chivalry towards the Romans should be retained. But the following contrast with the Roman general Nero should be left out. The author who put this comment in does not have a point or just leaves it out. Sometimes a writer will leave a proposition unstated because it is too obvious and he assumes the reader has alread figured that out, and other times the proposition if left unstated because the writer wants to avoid responsibility for saying it.

    Comparing Hannibal with a single Roman general seems to me meaningless. Certainly not every general officer that served Rome was personally identical to Nero just because he was of the same nationality; and likewise not every Carthaginian general officer was as chivalrous as Hannibal (e.g. Hannibal Monomachus, whose cruel acts were mistakenly attributed to his commander). This would be a generalization. We must also keep in mind that the Carthaginians were the invaders, and the Romans had their backs to a wall and were fighting for their survival. In my opinion Nero's action was pointless, but pardonable. The Carthaginians probably would have done the same thing if Africa was invaded and they captured a Roman general. And in fact they did; Regulus, a commander in the First Punic War, was captured a sent to Rome as an envoy to plead Carthage's cause. He didn't, but returned as a point of honor and was tortured to death.

    Justinus Magnus 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Stop, Hannibal is also credited for slaughtering turncoat cities. This is all about one Roman general who used psychological warfare and the only record of something like this during the whole Second Punic War. Don't turn this into a chivalry discussion, our sources are scarce and must be read critically for all our ancient writers had political ambitions. Wandalstouring 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    "Hannibal's Chivalry" was the wrong title to use, whether he was or was not is not discernible nor was it my concern. Napoleon said, "If you wage war, do it energetically and with severity. This is the only way to make it shorter, and consequently less inhuman." Severity in war has always been required and is no reflection upon how honorable a particular general is, nor does it take into account his objectives. If Hannibal was seeking to terrorize the Italians into joining him by destroying their towns (e.g. Acerrae, Nuceria) then he failed. However, these tactics may have worked elsewhere and have nothing to do with morals, especially when referring to ancient warfare when this was common place. You contrasted Hannibal with a Roman general and left no conclusion, this was my chief concern. Hannibal treated the corpses of generals different from one Roman general; this is frivolous. If clarity was the reason why you avoided answering this before, then that problem as been solved. Justinus Magnus 20:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    Source it. Wandalstouring 19:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Hannibal: Eastern or Western?

    Look, if a lot of people consider him to be one of the greatest military leaders of the Western world - and a lot of people do - then the claim that he is widely thought of in those terms is true regardless of how North Africans in the 21st century view themselves. Nevertheless, it is perhaps best, as has now been done, to take out any reference to the eastern world or the western world altogether. --D. Webb 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    Just did it. 201.37.71.146 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    That Eastern Western discussion is pointless. He was one of the best military leaders and his influence on military strategy and tactics is worldwide. Wandalstouring 01:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    Same here He was eastern carthage the phoenicians more specif are an eastern people the carthaginian culture is EASTERN in terms of architecture, trapping and clothing is a ringing bell that says EASTERN PEOPLE!. But the debate is pointless he was an inspiration to the entire world a Carthaginian dream, of no boundries no borders no seperation a unified and a consolladated world... Besides you can make more profit that way ;) lol. 72.17.209.226 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    I appreciate that you sign your comments. Well, the Phoenicians are considered part of the Polis culture and not the Eastern kingdom culture. They economically have far more in common with the Greeks who also deeper influenced their lifestyle than the Assyrians from whom the Phoenician colonists were escaping. Some of them settled in Greece and contributed to the development of Greek culture with novelities like the trireme. Especially for Hannibal you have to consider that he was raised by a Greek teacher and deeply rooted in the Greek culture (which had great influence in Carthage with its mixed Phoenician/Cypriot/Greek/Lybian/Italian/black African(declining order of influence) population). Following your arguments of Eastern/Western the specific American culture would be simply impossible because most inhabitants have ancestors who one day immigrated to America. Do you then say that African Americans have an African culture and Irish Americans a Celtic culture when they both hang out in baggy jeans and listen to hip-hop? Wandalstouring 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

    Phoenicians aren't a Polis people nor are they considered such as you seem to suggest. They are in fact in close relationship with the Canaanites, the Phoenicians are simply indistinguishable from the descendants of coastal-dwelling Canaanite. And who are they running away from? What are you talking about, if you mean to say there origins well thats something we all would like to know. There is no conclusion as of yet where the Phoenicians origin lay or wether they migrated or ran is question not an answer. They are of course an eastern people according to there Mediterranean sub-stratum ethnicity. And Hannibal wasn't raised by a Greek teacher he was of course raised by his own father a full blooded Carthaginian he did however have a mentor who was Greek. Something to consider the Carthaginians placed no heed to where or what ethnicity a person is you can be from whatever corner of the world and still be considered Carthaginian they were in a way much like America is today a country of a diverse people and background with little if any discrimination.72.17.209.226 18:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    Any serious scientific author considers them part of the Polis culture. Ameling Walter, "Karthago: Studien zu Militär, Staat und Gesellschaft" ISBN 3-406-37490-5 (dissertation) Source your comments that they were not and provide a source saying they are Eastern people + a clear definition what that is! So far any discussion is pointless. Wandalstouring 20:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    Source my comments? They are not comments these are the facts and the very concensus of the subject. I dont have need to pay anymore attention to this mummers farse 72.17.209.226 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    And I think you only read a historic fiction book and know nothing about Polis, Phoenicians or Carthage. Wandalstouring 22:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

    The Carthaginian culture was Eastern as was mentioned clothing, architecture, location, and origins means they are Eastern. Wandal I have seen nothing but Psedu-historic rehtoric from you explaining a wide diminsion of radical theory's frankly I woulden't be suprised if you came out and said "The Carthaginians are a mars people". hence forth this debate is pointless... Jehuty Strife 19:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    Culture in Carthage's empire was mixed. It was influenced by Greek and Egyptian culture. The problem is what is Eastern for a Chinese audience for example? Instead of such stupid labels, that are not a shared view by the Greek authors, who considered them the western barbarians and the Persians the eastern ones. Wandalstouring 08:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] restructuring the article

    I think the article is too much centered on the battles during the first years of the Second Punic War in which Hannibal played an important role, but this isn't sufficient for a biography. I suggest to reduce the detailed reports of the battles, but give a better overview of Hannibal's role and plots.

    The Strategema(once a standard handbook for generals in Europe) mentions many plots of Hannibal. I suggest to add some of them as sidequotes like in the Jeanne d'Arc article.

    [edit] Background and early career

    [edit] Strategus of Punic Iberia

    • the situation in Iberia (current research on who ruled: Carthage and Gades or Carthage, division of the income between Carthage, Gades and the Barcids
    • political influence and family connections of the Barcids in Carthage
    • assasination of Hasdrubal the Fair(who was behind the Celtic assassin, discussion of political motives Hannibal, Romans, Iberians, Celtiberians, etc.)
    • election by the army (appointing subcommanders from his family - takeover by several young commanders, more aggressive campaigning, increased spoils for soldiers)
    • The Iberian troops under Hannibal (system of Iberian levies and reliability, securing loyality with Iberian hostages, military reforms by Hannibal and his predecessor Hasdrubal - Hannibal was second in command while Hasdrubal was strategus, introducing Sarissae among the Numidians, improved integration of Slingers and Lybian infantry)
    • diplomatic connections to the Gauls(-> discussion of possible objective, a tin traderoute through Garonne and Auronne (also source for mercenaries) + alliance with Gauls in Gallia cisalpina)
    • campaign against Central Iberia (Andobales)
    • campaign against Sagunt (beginning diplomatic clash with Rome)
    • campaign north of the Ebro (difficult fighting, establishing Barcelona, discussion of research on legal situation of the Ebro Treaty that was according to some scholars supposedly made by Hasdrubal the Fair in the legal form of a Berkit, but not recognized by the Carthaginian government (as the dispute between Hannibal and the Romans shows). A Berkit was a legal form a Punic strategus could use to make a declaration of intent, but it required the verification of the leading political institution to make it binding after his term of office.)

    [edit] Second Punic War

    • events leading to the outbreak of the war and the role of the Barcid's party in the government (+Hannibal and the Punic supreme command, communication problems, questionable agreement on his overland strike across the Alps)
    • In Gaul
      • Overland Journey to Italy (+hiring Celtic mercenaries, feats such as ferrying elephants) and arrival (loss of most war elephants)
      • Battle of Ticinus
      • Battle of Trebia
      • Gallic allies (plots for his assassination and countermeasures, freeing Gallia cisalpina and forging an alliance, recruiting an army to strike against Rome)
    • In Italy
      • March through the swamps (loss of an eye) + Battle of Lake Trasimene (arming his troops, selling weapons to the enemy) (+ slipping through the defences to Southern Italy)
      • Fabius Cunctator vs Hannibal (Fabian strategy vs the rapid destruction of enemy forces by Hannibal, two armies shadowing each other, Hannibal does not suceed to ambush, but gets almost eliminated by surprise while making camp, plot of Fabius to catch Hannibal fails, Hannibal using psychological warfare and spaing Fabius' lands)
      • Battle of Cannae (Hannibal's most credited victory,prelude to the circumstances of the battle, Hannibal's speech to encourage his troops)
      • Effects of Cannae (Hannibal offers peace terms to Rome, political changes, new alliances for Carthage - Hannibals prediction fails. Romans operate with small armies to secure their hold on the cities, Hannibal splits his army and the Punics under Hannibal, Mago and Hanno counteroperate with small armies. Dispute whether or not Hannibal could assault Rome, Maharbal quote(Livy). Reinforcing Hannibal vs the strategy of opening multiple theatres chosen by the Punic supreme command. his political enemy Hanno(who as general achieved the greatest expansion of Punic territory in Africa, than called Lybia) points out why Hannibal's achievements are problematic(Livy)
      • Freeing Italy (Hannibal and the Punic's behaviour in allied cities: Capua, Tarent,(Livy, Polybius) Romans and Punics vs turncoats, etc.)
      • Punic faith (Livy pointing out Punic faith with examples, Polybius pointing out for example an authority conflict between Maharbal(also one of the commanders featured in the Strategema, is known to have had an independent Punic command in Africa) and Hannibal)
      • Hannibal's alliances (Capua, Syracuse, Macedon)
      • Why Hannibal didn't succeed in Italy (how long did the war there continue, battles, ambushes, troop supply, retreat to Croton)
      • Death of his brothers
    • Return to Africa
      • Conflict with the governing body prior to the battle of Zama(Hannibal doesn't support fighting a battle, gains amnesty for Hasdrubal Gisco who later commits suicide to avoid being lynched, meeting between Scipio and Hannibal)
      • Hannibal's role in the peace treaty between Rome and Carthage(Polybius)

    [edit] Civilian career

    • Hannibal as businessman (information lacking), detoriating economic situation in Punic Africa
    • Hannibal as suffet(his supporters, political and economic reforms, political tricks and resulting problems, intervention of Rome and his escape)

    [edit] In exile

    Expanded about the different stations during his exile and the political circumstances he encountered and advised. (We have plentyful of quotes from this part of his life). His career as nauarch and his inventions could be expanded.

    • Seleucid Empire (advisor, nauarch, diplomat)
    • Armenia (advisor)
    • Bythnia (nauarch)

    Wandalstouring 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


    [edit] Seriously, pooped??

    He pooped in a period of tension in the Mediterranean, when Rome (then the Roman Republic) established its supremacy over other great powers such as Carthage, Macedon, Syracuse and the Seleucid empire.

    Its in the intro. Is that supposed to be worded like that??

    Avkrules 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


    no.poop is a common word usedby vandals in various articles.Somehow they seem fascinated by poop. Wandalstouring 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Featured Article nomination?

    Should this article be nominated for Featured Article status?

    In its current state it provides an extremely good account of the individual and is well sourced. The last peer review was almost a year ago now and most of the recommendations have been implemented in some form. So, what is the enxt step for getting this article to Featured Article status? Canderra 12:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    I would oppose it. Wandalstouring 08:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Headline Article?

    Why is there a section by italicized "Headline Article" with nothing else under it?

    result of creative vandalism. Wandalstouring 08:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Mom?

    Okay, so who was Hannibal's mom? Is it unknown? I can't find it anywhere! Stormy16 12:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Our Greek and Roman sources do not give her name nor the names of his sisters. Wandalstouring 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    i cant either —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.128.158 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] The Perennial racism

    I just removed "The coin is not an accurate depection of Hannibal's features. He was ebony in skin tone with wooly hair. Hannibal was African, not Roman.[Stolen Legacy]" from the article. Note that this idea (that Hannibal was racially negro) is discussed at great length above. I'd just like to note 3 things:

    • This is not a matter of conjecture. The Punic wars were fought during historical times. There were no photographs then, but there were books and descriptions and witnesses and paintings and sculptures. It's not a political matter but a historical one. Also, there were Black Africans involved in the Roman World, but from Nubia (and south down the Nile river valley). Sub-Saharran Africa is predominanly Black and Mediterannean Africa is predominately White. But Hannibal wasn't Arab either (a common misconception that counters the Negro misconception); the Arab conquests of North Africa were centuries later. The Cartheginians were predominantly Phoenician.
    • We have to have some patience for the folks confused by this. In America "African" has been the politically correct synonym for "negro" for longer than many of these kids have been alive. Also, I saw a poster in a college office once depicting famous Blacks, and it included Hannibal (shown as Black).
    • People who want an example of a great negro general don't need Hannibal. There's Shaka Zulu.

    I suppose that people who don't know history, are doomed to invent it. Pete St.John 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

    You are correct in all acounts. Good phrase! "... people who don't know history, are doomed to invent it." Shan't forget. The Ogre 13:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

    his mom is dead now who cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmtalktodapaw (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you, the wave of misguided American Afro-centrist drivel is destroying our credibility.Koalorka (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)