Talk:Hannibal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.189.198 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 June 2006

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 May 2007

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.150.227 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 July 2007

There was an unsourced claim about being universally acclaimed as the greatest of generals. I replaced it with a source saying that he was the greatest of three generals of the age and that Scipio Africanus called him the greatest general, and I changed it. Notice that Alexander the Great hadn't still been born and Hannibal couldn't be compared to him by his contemporanians. Doh, scratch that, not only he was born before, but Hannibal himself said that Alexander the Great and Pyrrhus of Epirus were greater generals than him [1] --Enric Naval (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree, when I think antiquity I think Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal (and maybe Scipio). Since then maybe the Khan and Napoleon. The rest I think are high second tier (Wellington, Frederick, Phillip of Macedon, Gustavus Adolphus, and so on). But he has few peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.57.251 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How come Plutarch is on the list? He is a historian, not a general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.65.201 (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

It sounds like Appian's style (who also said Hannibal's army was a serpent sweeping across the mountains blah blah blah...) I personally feel Polybius' account is probably the most accurate (especially in light of the whole Lipari island trickery by the Romans), but hey, whatever's clever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.236.66 (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this whole page needs to be re-written! Although good overall, it relies far too heavily on Livy, an author who was known to draw extensively on unreliable and unverified sources and who displayed a strong pro-Roman bias. As an example, the characterisation of Hannibal as a hater of Rome since childhood clearly came from Polybius (Histories III.11-12), yet Polybius used far more benign language than Livy. Furthermore, the context provided by Polybius (an author with a much stronger and even-handed reputation), shows clearly that Hannibal likely said it only because he was in great danger at the time and needed to convince Antiochus that he was truly a friend against Rome. As such, the story can only be regarded as apocryphal at best, and is not a view that should be given the undue weight that Livy has ascribed. There are numerous other examples of Livy's inaccurate and/or unreliable accounts (the alleged lack of food/supplies following Cannae is in stark contrast to Polybius' frequent references to fertile fields and good harvests!), but the above suffices for the immediate purpose of drawing attention to this important issue. I am me not you (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

The culture of the Carthaginians can be discussed, but there is no doubt that Hannibal was Eastern when we talk about genetics. Phoenicans were a semitic people related to modern Arabs and Jews. --159.81.72.11 (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

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.)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Racist POV pushing on this talk page

I just noticed that those IPs that have been starting discussions about Hannibal being black are most surely only one user: User:Tom_Bailey, who is probably not using his old account any more because anyone can check his contributions and notice that he been pushing that Pope Victor I‎ and Ludwig van Beethoven were negros, and that african-american Benjamin Banneker had a prodigious photographic memory [2], when it was in fact a legend (see current version)

I can assume good faith (he really believes that he is right) but not that his suggerences are neutral, and certainly not that we should dedicate any space on the talk page to discuss what is obviously racial POV pushing. Too much editor time has been wasted already :P.

Any more attempts at racial POV pushing will be mercilessly removed and the editor warned for POV pushing. (notice that this doesn't include rational discussions making reasonable assumptions based on WP:RS|WP:RS reliable sources and avoiding WP:OR original research)

Also see Talk:Hannibal/Archive_2#this_is_not_the_right_forum_for_this --Enric Naval (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

One comment was moved to User talk:98.222.125.65 --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistancy regarding the Peace

In the section "Return to Carthage" it mentions the Roman terms being very modest, while in the following section "Battle of Zama" it gives the impression that they were very strict. Yet... the terms were very very similar. Which is it? Are they modest or are they strict? Farkeld (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The first terms demanded half the silver and left Carthage 20 warships. after Zama it w3as twice the amount of silver and half the ships. That's the difference. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you. I found that in Livy now too. Yet I wonder whether those terms should be considered strict compared to the first after having won such a decisive victory over Hannibal. Farkeld (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Images of Hannibal

In this sentence at the end of the "Exile and Death" section, it says that "Effigues of Hannibal: From Hannibal, there are no authentic effigies. Busts come from the early modern times, coins do not show the head of Hannibal [32]" Yet in the beginning there is a bust of Hannibal supposedly made by the Romans and in the "Battle of Lake Trasimene" section there is a coin with a picture of Hannibal. How is this not contradictory? Ace blazer (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been some sources that attributed the coins to Hannibal, but it is not sourced. The coins can show any bearded man or god. There is some dispute whether the bust from Capua shows Hannibal, but that's an argument from excluding all other known personalities and wanting to find a Hannibal. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the shekel currently shown, and labelled as bearing the image of Hannibal, likely shows the Punic god Melqart (analogous to the Roman Hercules and the Greek Herakles). The reasons are two: 1) The figure is shown with a club, the primary accoutrement of that god; 2) Of the Punic pantheon, Hannibal seems to have favoured Melqart above most if not all others, Melqart's image would thus be the natural choice for Hannibal to place on his coinage. Lastly, while it might remain a possibility that the coin bears the image of Hannibal in the guise of Melqart (such images of rulers as gods were not uncommon at the time), without an unimpeachible image of Hannibal with which to compare it, this remains speculation. I vote that the coin goes.Catiline63 (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In light of no opposition, I have edited this bit.Catiline63 (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Illustration of bust found in Capua is described as a "later work". How much later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.33.236 (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Smith article (reference 2) intimates that it may have been one that was commissioned by Caracalla (emperor AD 198-217). If not, probably best just to guess a date anywhere between the 1st century BC and the mid 3rd century AD.Catiline63 (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hannibal's name

Roman historians invariably give the general's name in it's latinised form: "Hannibal". Greek historians as the hellenised form: "Annobal" or "Annibal". As the Carthaginian alphabet had no vowels, their names are hard to render into English and thus are open to interpretation. Thus in Anthony Birley's brief discussion of Carthaginian names (in Septimius Severus: the African Emperor pp5-13. Routledge, London. 1971, rev. 1988) we learn that the god known by his anglicised form as "Melqart" is correctly rendered in Punic as Mlkqrt, Mlk'shtrt, or Mlks'htrt. "Milk'ashtart" is an acceptable version in Punic "vowelified" for English. Similarly, the anglicised "Bomilcar" is correctly (in Punic) Bdmlqrt; "Bodmelqart" after the insertion of vowels. Anglicised "Adherbal" is Punic 'drb'l; "Aderbal" after vowels are added.

Unfortunately, Birley does not provide the names "Hannibal" and "Hanno" in the original Punic, although does give the "correct" versions of the Carthaginian names after the addition of vowels: "Annobal" and "Anno". Thus until someone more versed in the Punic alphabet can come up with a purely Punic version of Hannibal's name (probably something like 'nn'b'l, "Annobal" is the closet we have. Catiline63 (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Late Punic did have symbols for vowels and there is a consensus to write Hannibal in English like this. I will check some Punic dictionary, but this will possibly take until next year. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is to prevent bastardised variants like "Hanniba'al", with its latinised beginning and Punic stem, not that the anglicised (that is, latinised) "Hannibal" is incorrect. I just think that also having the correct native version of his name would add to the page (as is the practice with many non-English wiki biography pages). Also, I think "late" Punic may only have developed (attained vowels) after Carthage's conquest by Rome in 146 BC, and hence may not have been prevalent in Hannibal's day. There are certainly Romano-Carthaginian names attested (such as Galeo, Anno, Annobal) which have vowels, but these are all of Imperial provenance. Catiline63 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why I said it will take me until next year to check that. If I remember correctly the introduction of vowels was after the Second Punic War and before the Third. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The usual transliteration of the "-bal"/"-ba'al" element of the name is "B'L", cf the Henchir Kasbat inscription in honour of another man named Hasdrubal (published by Poinssot and Chabot in the late '30s), which is transliteration "ZRB'L" or "W#ZRB'L", depending exactly where the breaks are. The transliteration and interpretation of Punic and Neo-Punic inscriptions is never an exact science, and I don't personally know any inscriptions with Hannibal in them (I'll keep looking!), I would expect it to be *NB'L. At least part of the reconstruction of the vowel sounds is based on a small number of bilingual inscriptions, such as the two from Thugga/Dougga, the inscriptions of which site I am in the middle of publishing an article on. The version of the name used in Roman North Africa by the 3rd Century was Annobal - this is attested in the inscription from the theatre at Lepcis Magna, which was built by Annobal Tapapius Rufus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.162.118 (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the Greek or Latin versions of his name start with A or H is quite immaterial, I think, for the Punic version. The first letter of is a Het and should be transliterated as "ch" or "h". So who came up with "annobal" as a Punic version? The so-called "h" in Hannibal is the same Het as in Haifa, which is never transliterated as "Aifa" either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.42.185 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing "Latinized" about "Hanni-" (it is no more natural to the Latin language than "Anno-"). The "H" is an original Ḥet that is believed to be part of the Punic etymology, the root חנן, meaning "to be gratious" or "to bless". I have added modern scholarly sources now (I won't list or quote them here, too): most of them assume that "Ḥannibaʿal" or something close was indeed the correct version, and provide different explanations for it, all involving the root חנן; only one goes with a different etymology, without an initial Ḥet: its version is, however, not Annobal but Adnibaʿal (root אדן "lord") and it only mentions the recorded name Annobal as evidence that Hannibal/Annibal (=Adnibaʿal) is a name distinct from Annobal (Ḥannobaʿal). It's true that late Punic merged and/or dropped many of its guttural consonants, but omitting them from our versions of classical Punic names would be like calling Henry VIII "Enry" based on 20th century Cockney. When Birley writes, mentioning the (Latin-spelt) name of a citizen of Leptis Magna in 8 BC, that "'Annobal' is the name more familiar to Romans as 'Hannibal'", this does not equate saying that "Hannibal" was a distortion and that citizens of Carthage at the time of the Second Punic War pronounced the name 'Annobal'; all he says is that these are variants of the same name. Hell, it is not even clear how that particular citizen of Leptis Magna in 8 BC pronounced his own name, we only know how he spelt it with a foreign alphabet.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hannibal's filiation

Is there any ancient evidence that the Carthaginians employed filiation in naming, i.e. "Hannibal, son of Hamicar"? As far as I'm aware this is an assumption based upon contemporary Greek and Roman naming practices, but was not one followed by the Carthaginians at the time of Hannibal. If there is no evidence of this practice "Hannibal" will have to stand as his full name in the introduction (itself anglicised!). Catiline63 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, every inscription in Punic where they list themselves with names they mention their affiliation consisting of their father, their mother(rare) or their husband at least and often going quite back in ancestry. I don't have examples at hand, but that isn't too difficlut to look up. Search for some publications on Punic inscriptions and you will find out. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement on filiation is yours, thus the job of including a reference is also yours. You cannot just say "there are loads, just look up stuff yourself" and expect your edits to remain. Your statement = your citation. No matter, to prevent his filiation being excised again, I've started your work for you by adding a note which will suffice as a place-holder until you come up with something better. If you would like to continue my defence of your assertion, I would appreciate it greatly. Catiline63 (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. It's within the guidelines for Punic people because they have this naming convention. I'm a bit under stress, so it will take some time to look it up, however, it's relatively easy. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked one of my German sources where it says explicitly that this is the normal formula. If need is, I can check for English sources, but as I said this will take some time. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The inscriptions collected as the Receuil des Inscriptions Libique (RIL) have a number that have filiation such as this, one example being, I think, the Mausoleum of Atban at Dougga, RIL 1. However, some, for instance the so-called Masinissa Bilingual from the same site, RIL 2, I believe do not. It appears to depend on the context. The Masinissa Bilingual is a temple dedication, but the Mausoleum is a tomb monument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.162.118 (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Image and race

The images in the article depict him as a white skin man with "European" features which he was not. The history channel with their vast resources of world class historians, researchers, etc depict both Hannibal and his father as black men. http://www.history.com/video.do?name=Battles_BC&bcpid=10177853001&bclid=13604320001&bctid=13969231001 I know that he might have been protrayed a certain way by certain people exmaple: In Asia there are pictures of Jesus as Asian man etc. Plain and simple hannibal was not Caucasian. I think this article needs improvement there should be a better representation of him and what he looked like there is only one small picture of him with brown skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.72.18 (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone studying history knows that Hannibal most likely looked like any other man descended from Phoenicians, which is pretty much like a modern Libanese. If I'm not mistaken, his mother was even Celtiberian meaning he could have been somewhat fairer skinned than most other Kart Hadastim.

The History Channel is not a credible source, at all. It's objective is to entertain, not to educate; and this is blatantly obvious looking at the grave historical errors they make constantly. I presume you're actually talking about that Battles B.C program? I haven't seen it myself but apparently they even depicted Roman legionaries in muscle cuirasses instead of the Lorica Hamata. If you show us any credible and academically valid source saying he was a black man, as in sub-Saharan African, then we might consider changing it.

Also, North-Africans and Levantine people (such as Phoenicians and Libyans, the two most dominant populations in Carthage) are considered Caucasian. But really, Caucasian is an outdated and wrong terminology, honestly I can't believe that the US even uses it.

If this post was motivated by 'black revisionism', I'd suggest you to look for real black African empires such as Kush, Axum, Zimbabwe, Makuria, the Songhai empire, Ghana, Bornu, Mali... or leaders such as Jugurtha, Piye (and his successors who were the 25th dynasty of pharaohs and by origin Nubian invaders),...really there is no shortage of fascinating black African empires and leaders, and thus no need to 'claim' historical figures who most likely were not black. Instead, rise awareness of these people who were certainly black.

In short: we don't know for sure what he looked like, but everything points towards him looking like a modern Lebanese man: Olive skinned with dark hair. Maraud (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I followed the link. No black man appears. The accuracy is bullshit. Stop racial POV pushing. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The History Channel credible. Good one. Almost had me there... Stop trying to manufacture history based on bogus politically correct cultural relativism. Koalorka (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"I followed the link. No black man appears.. Wandalstouring 14 March 2009. Funny I guess in your mind that is what Caucasian people look like.

Maraud. The history channel is a very credible source that’s why their description of him and his father are most accurate. The link is a tiny clip of an entire series if you are interested in it watch the series and see that Hannibal’s father is portrayed as a dark skin black African man and Hannibal himself as a lighter skin black man with one discolored eye. When did back became limited to black was limited to "sub-Saharan Africa". I don't know what being black means to you or what you think a black person should look like, but in case you haven't realized black people do not have one color especially on the African continent where there is a lot of contact from different groups of people. Skin complexions range from very dark to very light. North Africans were not all "Caucasian" as you claim. They were a mixed race people so save the Bullshi…. and come up with something better than the garbage you are spewing.

The earliest depictions of Hannibal where of him as a black or brown skin man not "European". And 'black revisionism' seriously do you think before you speak? Leave the bais and racism at home, because I don't recall claiming that Carthage was a black empire either so your foolish ramble is pointless. So called majority or not Phoenicians or their descendants were not the only people who occupied Carthage or North Africa for that matter. There is no historic account the claim Hannibal was of Phoenician or Levantine decent. Just because he lived in Carthage does not mean he was. I suggest you find more information on what you are talking about and find something to back up your claims instead of senseless attacks and ramble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.72.18 (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Earliest depictions"? The image on the article depicting him as a brown man on a elephant was painted about 1700 years after his death :-/ Surely those are the first depictions made with colours, but I wouldn't vouch for their historical accuracy... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've grown up with black Africans, so I know what they look like. Sorry, this is no credible source simply because they say his brother Hasdrubal encircled the Romans at Cannae. Verify that with any other source. Verify the "black" man Hamilcar Barca with any ancient source. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We had endless and senseless discussion on this issue with an editor calling himself Tom. I think we can safely ingnore this topic from now on. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Too funny take a look at this crap "I've grown up with black Africans, so I know what they look like. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You've grown up around black Africans really? Let me guess all black Africans are the same right and the people you grew up around, come from the same ethnic groups and look the same and have the same skin complexion as every other black African right?. Wow these are the once that deem themselves as intellectuals. The earliest depictions of Hannibal was a black or brown man on an elephant and a picture like that is posted on this very article, how about you verify that Hannibal was "Caucasian" or show the historic account the claim Hannibal was of Phoenician or Levantine decent. I really did not start this topic to speak to you so ignore it as you please. Like I am going to ignore you and your foolish ramble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.72.18 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your tone is quite aggressive and disdainful, however as I'm bored I'll respond (in kind).

History Channel credible? Under what rock have you been living? Try picking up an academic book about Carthage.

As for black Africans being limited to Sub-Saharan Africa, more correctly would be to say that they also lived in the Sahara itself.I also fully realize there are 'shades' of black, which is only logical since skin colour follows ethnic clines which are in a gradual continuum. (thereby debunking your attempt to call me a racist, as I don't even account for races) My point was however that the coastal regions were by and large not inhabited by people we would describe as black, they were described as a people with olive coloured skin (what you call brown, I just use a more literary way to describe it) and pretty much looked like the modern inhabitants of the region.

As I already said, I also don't follow the Caucasian/Mongoloid/Negroid typology, as that is unscientific. However according to that idiotic typology North Africans ARE Caucasian. Calling them mixed race is also stupid because races don't even exist!

The earliest depictions of him are colourless, I don't know where you derive the skincolour from a marble buste.Or maybe you know of some depiction thousands of scholars don't know, then by all means link it.

As for your other comments,

- Firstly I didn't say you were a black revisionist, I said 'if', since Hannibal's figure is indeed surrounded by them and your claim he was black was in line with that. Personally I find them as vile as white revisionists and their insane Nordic theories.

- you said Hannibal was black but not the Carthaginian empire? How's that possible, his mother was Celtiberian (as in Spanish), and his father Punic from an old Phoenician family.

- You say they were not all Phoenician. Bravo, I said myself that there were Libyans, and they were probably the majority.

- As for no sources of Hannibal being of Phoenician descent, that claim is so idiotic I don't even know where to begin. Oh I do know, go to the library and read a book. (or don't you believe that Roman accounts, both first and second hand, bustes, murals, statues,... are trustworthy? And instead you'll follow goofy theories from people who don't know what they're talking about (I.E. the History Channel).

- Lastly you say he might've lived in Carthage but not be Carthagininan? So you ignore the fact we know his ancestors, that his name is Punic, that he was part of an influential Punic family, that we know his father as one of Carthage's great generals, that non-Punic Carthaginians were extremely rarely allowed any position of influence To end my post, please show proof of your claims with academically valid sources, contemporary depictions of him being black (I don't deny him being 'brown' though the term olive-coloured is more frequently used for Mediterraneans. I'm espacially interested in this elusive depiction of him sitting on an elephant), of his father being black, of him not being Punic and just living in Carthage,... as all those claims go against consensus by history scholars, a consensus reached by examining all accounts and evidence.

In short, prove anything you said and put up or shut up. Maraud (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For those who want to utilise TV channels as academically valid historical sources, how about the BBC's Hannibal - Rome's Worst Nightmare, which had olive-skinned Alexander Siddig as Hannibal... ;o) Catiline63 (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it appeared on the TV, it must the ultimate verdict. I guess we can close this now, Hannibal was "White" (whatever that means), thanks for coming out. :P Koalorka (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit Hannibal was, in fact, a time traveling Starfleet physician from the 24th Century! First you had Sisko having to impersonate Gabriel Bell in the early 21st Century and now this. Heavens, the crew of Deep Space 9 have been all over the time-space continuum. But seriously, Battles BC is clearly trying to capitalize on the popularity of 300, and I'd say it's about as historically accurate. Speaking of which, that seems to be where our anonymous afrocentrist got the bit about all the major Roman and Persian generals in the ancient world being "African". Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hannibal was black; there isn't a historical source that can claim otherwise. Living in Carthage does not equal to being white or whatever some of you are claiming. 1st of all the Phoenicians were not European or “white”. Even as a child growing up in Rome and learning about the Punic wars I was told that Hannibal was a black man and this is our history not yours. I don’t know if people forget that North Africa was occupied by many different people and contrary to what you say were a mix group of people, so do you mean to say that just because carthage was founded by the Phoenicians there we no black Africans there? Example South Africa was colonized by the dutch does that mean all south Africans are white? I’ve read a lot of rubbish but no one has provided a source that states otherwise and that because there is non. Throughout Europe and especially in Rome (also Persia) the top the military men and generals were in fact black Africans.

It would be best to study real (military) history and not write about what you think or how you feel so for the editor stating either put up or shut up please do the same and the other stating the Phoenicians were are considered "white" read the wiki article on white people it list a whole list including South Asians yes I'm sure the people of Sri lanka, and Bangladesh and Indonesia are all white. The "race" game is a funny one isn't it people get add to a certain group at times and its usually the "white" group. It like these people belonging to this "white group" go around and claim everyone’s history and accomplishments for themselves it quite shocking especial when the fact show in plain colors they were in no way associated.... The same editor writing rubbish with is claiming that his mother was Spanish and his father came from a punic family where did you get that outlandish claim from? Find one historical source to back it up? And you claim there are 1st hand roman sources that Hannibal was white? Where are those sources because as a child learning about Hannibal in Rome. I was taught he was black. I have never heard a single historian, book or professor claim he was anything but a black man. Yet the geniuses of Wikipedia say he isn't black but do not provide anything to support their claims other than insults Lastly I’m guessing you are all Americans because this is something American tend to do even Europeans do not do this; ………. Ancient Roman and Greek history is not “white” history it exactly what it is Roman and Greek or Mediterranean history. This cannot even be disputed Hannibal was a black man. Just like his father, now what his mother was is uncertain but he was indeed black. Othet than insults just provide facts to surport our claims.

There is no ancient source that can be used to claim that Hannibal was either white or black - the whole question is an anachronism. Race in the ancient world was associated with the color of peoples skin. Trying to make Hannibal either white or black is imposing modern divisions on the past in a way that distorts our understanding of that time.Dejvid (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, any proof for what you're saying? We know his father's family's origin, which is Punic. And we know his mother's, which was Iberian.

That doesn't sound like a black African heritage to me.

I'm also wondering what kind of history you're learning, since Hannibal's skin color is a) trivial to real history and b) almost certainly what we call 'olive-coloured' due to both his Phoenician and Iberian ancestry.

And for your info, I'm European and quite the lover of real African history. I suggest you look up Mali,Kush, Axum, Zimbabwe, the various Ghana-based empires, Makuria, Ethiopya, Abyssinia,... There's no shortage of glory to be found in those. (and if anything this 'black revisionism' is typically American, since no one here in Europe, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa even questions Hannibal's origin)Maraud (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Anon: obviously not read the Archive discussions have you? I also think you're getting "white" (a skin colour) mixed up with "caucasian" (a skull-type). Races can possess non-white skin and still belong to the caucasian grouping. Nor am I American, and it's disappointing that you have to resort to national stereotypes in order to put your case across. I think there's a word for that... Catiline63 (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I’m sorry if this is a little long, I felt the need to cover all the bases on this one. May I interject some Classically-minded realism into this increasingly vitriolic debate. The concept of race is a particularisation of the debate about identity (see M. Cassel’s excellent work Identity for more on this). There are few sources from the time of Hannibal which have survived. This makes accurate discussions on this (and any other)subject hard. I have collated those of the references to Hannibal’s identity that I could find from near the same time from a search of the excellent Perseus Database. They are as follows:

Diodorus Siculus’ Library (1st Century BC) XIII.43, where he is described as the leading citizen of Carthage;

Polybios’ Histories (2nd Century BC, n.b. contemporary with the events he describes, a rarity in Classical scholarship) I.31, described as a Carthaginian general; I.41, described as Hannibal, son of Hamilcar; I.64, where his father’s name is given as Hamilcar Barcas; III.9, the same; III.71, he had a brother called Mago; IV.2, he was elected general by the Carthaginians; VII.9, the preamble to the treaty with Philip V of Macedon, where he is described simply as ‘General’; IX.22, he had an older brother called Hasdrubal, they are described as Carthaginian by implication; IX.25, where he is described as Carthaginian in a comment told personally to Polybius by Massinissa, a Libyan ruler; XV.4, described as one of the Carthaginians; XV.8, the same; XVIII.37, the same; XXI.17, described as ‘Hannibal the Carthaginian’; XXI.45, described as ‘Hannibal son of Hamilcar the Carthaginian’;

Livy’s History of Rome (late 1st Century BC/early 1st century AD, n.b. that Livy was a Roman propagandist, and therefore not well disposed to Rome’s great enemies) contains references to Hannibal as well, but I have not been able to collate these yet, as the site was undergoing maintenance when I was searching.

Further references are found in Pausanias (2nd Century AD), Strabo (1st Century AD), Appian (1st Century AD), and Plutarch (1st Century AD), amongst others. “Libyan” and “Carthaginian” were used interchangeably by the Roman writers, and nothing of any import can be placed on this. Having written a Master’s thesis on the shifting patterns of identity in a particular area of North Africa (the country around the town of Dougga, Tunisia – see other posts in this discussion) in the Roman period, I know that self-references changed hugely through the period. Identity was rooted in places, and not in supposed types or races. No inhabitant of the ancient Mediterranean considered themselves white, black, brown, olive-skinned or anything else. They considered themselves Roman, Carthaginian, Alexandrine, Athenian, Libyan etc. It is invidious to superimpose modern constructions of identity upon the modern world. Hannibal was not white, black, brown or anything else, nor was he Celt-iberian or Phoenician. He was a Carthaginian. I am almost certain that that was how he would have described himself, and surely that is what matters. Let us celebrate his life for what it was, let us all accept that the history of these empires belongs to all of us, and please, please, please stop being pettily vitriolic about race and identity, concepts which were immeasurably different in the ancient world. 86.140.162.118 (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)SCH 23rd May 2009

The going consensus is that black Africans are primarily of Sub-Saharan origin and that their influence and geneology is restricted to that region. We read in Prehistoric Nations, "In the oldest recorded traditions, Cushite colonies were established in the valley of the Nile, Barabra and Chaldea. This beginning must have been not later than 7000 or 8000 B. C. or perhaps earlier. They brought to development astronomy and the other sciences, which have come down to us. The vast commercial system by which they joined together the "ends of the earth" was created and manufacturing skill established. The great period of Cushite control had closed many ages prior to Homer, although separate communities remained not only in Egypt but in southern Arabia, Phoenicia and elsewhere." (Prehistoric Nations, pp. 95, 96.) Hannibal was of Phoenician stock and should be included in this leanage, unless someone has research that places him outside of this leanage. Bunsen concludes by saying, "Cushite colonies were all along the southern shores of Asia and Africa and by the archaeological remains, along the southern and eastern coasts of Arabia. The name Cush was given to four great areas, Media, Persia, Susiana and Aria, or the whole territory between the Indus and Tigris in prehistoric times". The blood of black Africans was not only in Carthage, but far beyond. Egypt's Pharonic and laymen history is riddled with Cushites, not to mention the 25th Dynasty. A study published by the University of Chicago shows Pharonic activity in Ethiopia that predates Egypt. They traveled the world then as they live all over the world now. In terms of the Berbers being considered caucasion: Encyclopedia says the "Almoravides were Berbers and were largely mingled with pure Negroes" (Vol. 21, p. 128, 14th edition.) Col. Hennebert, an authority on Hannibal says "We do not possess any authentic portrait of Hannibal" (Histoire d'Annibal, Vol. I, p. 495, Paris 1870). Looks like the coins at the British Museum and the Museo Kercheriano, Rome struck by Hanibal when he was in Italy are the reigning source of what Hannibal looked like. Especially since they were commissioned by him. There are several of them and they depict him in appearance as a pure African with rings in his ears. Of course on could say that all of these sources (non of whom are black) are perpetrating a hoax. Tom 02/19/10

Point being?Catiline63 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coin

In this article there is an image with this caption:

File:Hannibal.gif

Silver double skekel, c. 230 BC showing the god Melqart, the Carthaginian equivalent of Herakles/ Hercules, and a war elephant. There are no known authentic images of Hannibal and there is no proof that even Carthaginian coins show his likeness.

It seems likely to me that this image (Hannibal.gif) was included as an example of a depiction of Hannibal, then given a caption exactly contrary to that. It is not made clear to the reader why the image is included in the article; it seems only to serve to confuse.

Also: "Skekel"? Is that a misspelling of Shekel?

Misha Vargas (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's shekel. Well, the image is quite often said to depict Hannibal, so this article is the perfect place to make a sourced statement against that. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What is your source that it depicts Melgart rather than Hannibal? Or is this just something you heard? 41.245.156.197 (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two references for this statement. Click on them in the article or read them when opening the discussion with the edit function here. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two references to articles or whatever, but there is no actual link to text, or even quotations. Therefore it is unclear exactly what is said in those two references. Would it be possible to quote from the references? As there is no link or web-based text of them. 41.245.156.197 (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There exists something called paper. Why don't you just get yourself the books from a library and check the page that is given if you have any doubts. That's exactly what references are for. I'm not going to fetch any source some editor requests. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be offensive. I merely asked if you (or anyone else) could link to a site with that text(if one exists), or failing that, quote the relevant passages from the book, as many people's local libraries don't have that. There's no need to be insulting. 41.245.156.197 (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is there insulting? Wandalstouring (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Route over the Alps

This article is not the place for a detailed critique of Hannibal's possible route, but it can pretty conclusively proved that he didn't cross by the Little St Bernard (the distance is too great. the pass is clearly differentiated by ancient authors from Hannibal's pass and it would have brought him to the wrong place for Polybios' subsequent narrative). If no one objects I would propose to remove the reference to that pass as a possibility and delete the photo which is accordingly irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.94.120 (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Please sign your comments using four tildes like this: ~~~~ Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Not accurate?

Apparently the bust and coin are not accurate depictions. It's a pity the "source" for the reasoning behind coin can not be seen. As for the bust, there are apparently two links, one which doesn't exist, and the other appears to be some sort of historical fiction segment in a 19th century magazine, whereupon one character, when seeing the bust, says that he doesn't believe it. The same piece then goes on to say that even though some people have no verified likenesses, the oral descriptions and common knowledge make up for it. What is interesting is what is "accurate" or "verified". If somebody had the time and desire, one could make s very strong case that "there are no known likenesses of Abraham Lincoln", and claim that the photographs, the likenesses on money etc are just "imagination" or "Eurocentrism". The central issue here is not whether the historical verification of whether these likenesses are accurate, it is merely because these likenesses show an obviously Mediterranean Caucasoid man, as do ALL depictions of ALL Carthaginians and ALL Phoenicians(from who the Carthaginians are descended) and some "Afrocentric" people refuse to accept the truth as "Hannibal was born on the continent of Africa". By this same token we could claim that any Ancient (or even Medieval) historical figure's representations may not be entirely accurate. The fact that these representations were made IN THE TIME OF HANNIBAL by PEOPLE WHO WERE EITHER CARTHAGINIAN THEMSELVES OR HAD CONTACT WITH CARTHAGINIANS makes them more reliable than some "History Channel" fluff piece. 41.245.156.197 (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no denying the coin is Carthaginian, just who's depicted on it. The modern historical and numismatic consensus is that it depicts Melkart/Hercules/Herakles). The reason being that, if you have no further evidence (such as we have with some depictions of Commodus), it's always a reasonable bet to conclude that a guy with a big beard an a big club over his shoulder is Melkart/Hercules rather than a someone pretending to be Melkart/Hercules.

The bust is Italian.

Not sure why you've embarked on a tirade regarding Hannibal's ethnicity. I think I also speak for Wandalstouring in stating that Hannibal was not black, but of "olive" skin tone similiar to today's north Africans.Catiline63 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was the point. The Carthaginians themselves depicted themselves as they themselves looked. It is outrageous that now over 2 000 years later a bunch of people who never actually saw a real Carthaginian in person can claim that the depictions are not authentic, or are "Eurocentric" or any other meaningless term. If Carthaginians themselves made these depictions then clearly that is how they looked? The problem was the way the captions etc were worded make it appear that Hannibal looked nothing like these depictions, yet even if they aren't him(which is pretty unlikely) then he would have looked very very similar anyway. The whole idea of "not authentic" comes from "Afrocentrist" and Neo-Nazi idiots who refuse, purely for POV reasons, to believe that Hannibal was Mediterranean. 41.245.148.16 (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A claim is being made that there is a "modern historical and numismatic consensus" that the coins do not depict Hannibal. References are given. I myself wonder if the consensus is as strong as the caption implies. However, it is up to skeptical folk to do a bit of research. Nonetheless, I would ask those who support the current wording to confirm that the references given claim there is a consensus rather then simply claim it is not likely to be Hannibal. If you are inferring from two claims that there is a consensus then that would be OR.Dejvid (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC

41.245.148.16: "The problem was the way the captions etc were worded make it appear that Hannibal looked nothing like these depictions". No, the captions just state that no authenticated images of Hannibal exist, not that they "look nothing like" him. That interpretation is false, but wholly yours. "Yet even if they aren't him (which is pretty unlikely) then he would have looked very very similar anyway". Apart from the POV claim about likelihood (based on...?), your "all Carthaginians looked the same" argument doesn't really wash. Historians cannot attribute images to historical personalities based on the "they all looked alike" argument. See Arles portrait bust for an example of such practice (a bald man, let's call him Caesar!). "The whole idea of "not authentic" comes from "Afrocentrist" and Neo-Nazi idiots who refuse, purely for POV reasons, to believe that Hannibal was Mediterranean". So what are you accusing me of here exactly? You've obviously not read my previous posts supporting the idea that Hannibal was likely looked much like today's inhabitants of north Africa (and the Middle East). I think it certain that he wasn't black.

41.245.148.16 and Dejvid: No-one is arguing that the coin wasn't produced by Carthaginians. The point is that it is not certain whether the image on it depicts a real Carthaginian person or a god, Melkart, but the image possesses the divine attributes of Melkart. Yes, it could be Hannibal as Melkart. It might also be Mago as Melkart or Hasdrubal as Melkart or [insert your choice of Carthaginian here] as Melkart. The game can go on forever, but until better evidence arises the sensible (and yes, possibly false) default position must be maintained - and has been by those cited - that a guy who looks like Melkart is to be assumed to be Melkart.

Dejvid: "I myself wonder if the consensus is as strong as the caption implies. However, it is up to skeptical folk to do a bit of research". Indeed it is, and we'll welcome the contribution. Re OR. On the contrary, if I inferred from these references that there wasn't a consensus, then that would be OR.Catiline63 (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See:

“ "The only portrait of him which has any claim to authenticity, and this only because probably copied from some portrait existing at the time - the Capuan bust in the Frontispiece; — shows noble, lineaments ; but these are marred by the Roman idea of the man, — by an attempt to express cruelty and passion." (bust image Theodore A. Dodge "Hannibal" ”

And also several pages of analysis of coins and busts at Indigenous races of the earth, dismounting, among others, any likeness with African types found by Visconti.

(Some supporting sources mentioning the issue in passing: "(...) specialists are nowadays inclined to view the effigies on these types of coins as deities"[3] "Robinson dates the series to the years following 218. He further believes that the features of the head are basically those of Hannibal. The idea is attractive. It cannot be proven."[4])

Can someone add this to the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits by TruHeir/76.118.238.21

user: TruHeir (see his talk/discussion history for his history of disruption) and his sockpuppet user: 76.118.238.21 appear to have something against the Capuan bust image of Hannibal, as she/he has removed it several times despite the efforts of myself and other editors. The reasons she/he has given are that the Capuan bust image shows a "Roman" (!) and that it is "not authentic". The text attached to the caption addresses the issue of the authenticity of this image, and states that while it "may not be" an authentic image of Hannibal, it is at least an authentic Capuan/Roman representation of him. As references are given for this statement, TruHeir/76.118.238.21's assertion that the image is of a "Roman" and "not authentic" appear to be - at best - OR.

However, despite my suggestion that she/he should seek a consensus before deleting such a famous image, and directing her/him to this page - where the advantage of retaining "possible" images of Hannibal has been discussed - TruHeir/76.118.238.21 prefers to delete the Capuan image without any discussion. She/he has since threatened to report me for vandalism for reverting her/his edits. Catiline63 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

roman pic

Here is the entire dicuss from my page, for someone who hasn't seeked seek consensus, I sure have been talking to you a lot (Its funny how you can talk to me on my page but come here and call me a sock and claim I didn't seek consensus, when you were the one that left me a warning 1st. TruHeir (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your statement: "image of roman (sic) which cleary state (sic) that "it is not authentic" (sic) and definately (sic) not of hannibal (sic)" is OR. The text attached to the image clearly states that it is Roman/Capuan and only "MAY not be" an authentic image of Hannibal - not that it is "not authentic... definately not of hannibal", as you so confidently aver. The first statement is sourced, yours is not. If you have a better source, give it. Nor is the image of a "Roman" - the helmet alone is a give-away for that. Catiline63 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is doing anything based on opinions it’s you. 1st of all you changed the original writing under the bust to support your illegitimate claim that is vandalism. Also those "sources" you speak of do not support or authenticate that this roman image is of Hannibal in anyway. It would be best if we actually look time out to find an authentic image other than partake in this edit war.

From Adrian Goldsworthy, Cannae p.24 (2001): "A bust which me be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". This reference has been attached to the image for months and has been repeatedly deleted by you, despite my repeated attempts to draw your attention to it. More references follow. The same image appears on the cover of Goldsworthy's The Fall of Carthage (2000) as "Hannibal in later life" and in Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army p.41 (2003) as "A bust that purports to show Hannibal in later life". The bust appears also on the cover of Serge Lancel's Hannibal (1995) as "Roman bust of Hannibal. Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Naples". From Philip Matyszak Chronicle of the Roman Republic p.95 (2003): "Bust, thought to be of Hannibal, found in Capua". Brian Todd Carey's Hannibal's Last Battle: Zama and the Fall of Carthage (2007) also uses the image as its cover illustration.

There you go, 5 scholars - and the museum which possesses the bust - all agreeing that the bust either is of Hannibal or may be of Hannibal. Once again, all I ask is that you provide just one source which supports your opinion that the bust "is not authentic and definately not of hannibal", as you so confidently aver. Without a source for this statement, your opinion is nothing but OR. Catiline63 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Understand that I have a life in the real world, if you leave me a message I will respond to you when I can , so please spare the hounding. Anyway you say you want me to provide a source that say the image is not of Hannibal, because you have provided 5 scholarly sources that say otherwise. Well I don’t need to provide a source because, you have already done it and have proven my point. NONE of the “sources” you provided states that the picture is of Hannibal. You yourself said that all the sources you listed said MAYBE the picture if of Hannibal, then you went on to add a quote from one of your “sources” saying “"A bust which me be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". You have basically proven my point if your sources aren’t sure whether or not the image is authentic and you actually have a quote from one saying that there are no definite images of Hannibal then that image should definitely not be there.TruHeir (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 3 views:

1) That the bust IS of Hannibal.

Supporters: Lancel Hannibal cover (1995): "Roman bust of Hannibal. Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Naples". Goldsworthy, The Fall of Carthage cover (2000): "Hannibal in later life" Carey Hannibal's Last Battle: Zama and the Fall of Carthage cover (2007).

2) That the bust IS POSSIBLY/PROBABLY of Hannibal.

Supporters: Matyszak Chronicle of the Roman Republic p.95 (2003): "Bust, thought to be of Hannibal, found in Capua". Goldsworthy The Complete Roman Army p.41 (2003): "a bust that purports to show Hannibal in later life". Goldsworthy Cannae p.24 (2004): "a bust which may be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". This citation has been attached to the image for months.

3) That the bust IS DEFINITELY NOT of Hannibal.

Supporters: You.

Lancel, Carey, and the MA, Naples assert that the image is of Hannibal. Matyszak asserts that it is "thought to be" of Hannibal. Goldsworthy vacillates between 'it is' and 'it may be', but nowhere - nowhere - states that the image is definitely not of Hannibal. This measure of scholarly uncertainty does not equate with your view that it is not of Hannibal, which remains only your opinion. I continue to await your sources with interest... The rest of this discussion can be continued in the proper forum, the Hannibal discussion page, a suggestion that has already been made by admins Backslash Forwardslash and Nja247... Catiline63 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Catiline I hope you know this is not personal, this is about improving the page .The last I checked the people you listed (that you are now claiming support the image) did/ do not support it at all. It seems like your twisting your words around because, when you originally listed them as sources. The references you provided indicated that they were all unsure whether the image is actually of him or not and you also went on to say “Adrian Goldsworthy, Cannae p.24 (2001): "A bust which me be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him" That is basically the end all be all of this debate, your own source discredited your claim. It is odd that you insist on using this image that no one has authenticated or validated to be him, all the ppl you listed just say “maybe” and If your source said there are no definite images of him, then on earth are you using this picture of this “roman mystery man” to represent him in the 1st place. TruHeir (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous articles on ancient history that use portrait busts which are uncertain to depict specific historical figures (see Cleopatra). That's also true of more recent figures (eg Christopher Marlowe). In other cases we only have imaginary portraits (see Cincinnatus).

As far as the "possible" portraits are concerned, as long as they are properly captioned they should be included, because there is reason to think that they represent the person, and that improves the articles by giving us all the relevant information. Imagine if this were other historical information. Let's say some historians thought that Hannibal had, say, lost his hand in a battle, and others thought he hadn't. Would we include the information? Of course we would, with the explanation that some historians did not agree. It's the same here. Information is included, not supressed. Readers should know and be able to see that there is an image which many historians take to be a depiction of Hannibal. Paul B (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats just it paul the original caption under the bust that stated it may not be authenthic was removed by the editor, who changed to wording under the bust to "support her claim" and that is the one you added back on to the page. Not the orginal this I had been talking to about this dispute on our user pages but full the need to come on here and insult me. By calling me a sock. That is why I brougth our entire conversation on this page. What I suggested was the we take time to find an acurate image which wasn't surrounded with a bunch of "MAYBE'S"TruHeir (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

TruHeir, your summary appears incomplete and I present a full version below. As you can see, at no point was the image caption ever removed - to "support my claim" or otherwise - and the wording was only ever slightly changed ("reputed" added, "authentic" changed to "veristic") a full 5 days after your first removal. Moreover, it still conforms with the source assessments which I have presented in full elsewhere. I queried whether you were a "sock (?)" (note the question mark), because you have vacillated between usernames (anon IP, TH, anon IP, TH). I shall assume that this switching back and forth was an accident on your part. As you can see, your original edits were made without comment or with comment that were unsupported by the sources given (that the image is of a Roman). You were also directed to this page on the 4th and 5th June, but have only today - and after continued reverts - decided to do so.

1843, 2 Jun: 76.118.238.21 removes image without comment.

1053, 3 Jun: I restore.

1425, 3 Jun: 76.118.238.21 removes with comment "bust of roman soilder not of hannibal".

1038, 4 Jun: I restore with comment "see discussion page on representation of Hannibal".

1628, 4 Jun: 76.118.238.21 removes without comment.

0044, 5 Jun: I restore with comment "RVV. See discussion pg".

0152, 5 Jun: 76.118.238.21 removes without comment.

0235, 6 Jun: 67.187.80.65 restores without comment.

1346, 6 Jun: TruHeir removes with comment "revert vandalism".

1605, 6 Jun: I restore with comment "RVV".

2231, 6 Jun: TruHeir removes with comment "undid rest. article after vandl. image of roman which clearly state that "it is not authentic" and definately not of hannibal has been removed. The vandal has been warned 4 the last time".

0028, 7 Jun: I restore with comment "RV of SOURCED statement: "A Roman marble bust of Hannibal originally found at... Capua". The image only "MAY not" be an authentic representation. Your opinion is OR".

0048/50, 7 Jun: I alter the caption with the comment "wording clarified" to "A Roman marble bust traditionally reputed to be of Hannibal, originally found at the ancient city-state of Capua in Italy. The image may not be a veristic representation. (Italics represent changes.)

0308, 7 Jun: 76.118.238 removes with comment "reverting after vandalism".

0958, 8 Jun: Paul Barlow restores with comment "restore image".

1415, 8 Jun: TruHeir restores to status quo ante. Catiline63 (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no "accurate image that isn't surrounded by a bunch of maybes". If there were, it would have been used in the article, and before that in books about Hannibal. This is the nearest we can get. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1) TruHeir, when you first deleted the image (as 76.118.238.21) at 1843 on 2 June, the accompanying caption read "A Roman marble bust of Hannibal originally found at the ancient city-state of Capua in Italy. This image may not be authentic". References for this statement were given, the main one being Goldsworthy Cannae p.24 (2001), the verbatim of which I reiterate: "a bust which may be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". Apart from the caption's mention of discovery site (though see Matyszak), Goldsworthy's text and that of the caption were substantially identical: in sum, a possible bust of Hannibal. That is, the reference was cited correctly. However, your belief was that there was something so drastically wrong with the image and the reference/citation that all warranted summary deletion instead of, say, discussing your worries on this page first - as I repeatedly directly you to when I repeatedly restored the image.

2) I claim only that the image is at least possibly of Hannibal, and as such is worthy of retention in the article. In doing this I do nothing that is not substantiated by the sources (above), some of whom go even further and state that the bust IS him. I have given the verbatim assessments of all my sources. Nor did the wording of the original caption covey the message that the image had been incontravertabily identified as that of Hannibal (see point 1).

3) You claim that the bust cannot be Hannibal. In doing so you provide no sources that support your view. Instead you claim that because there is no outright agreement across my sources (some assess it's him (despite your curious view that none do); some assess it's possibly him), it follows that it cannot be Hannibal. Further, that it is an "image of roman... definately not of hannibal (all sic)" and a "roman (sic) mystery man". The image is thus be deleted, without discussion. Such logic elludes me, but visitors to this page can decide who has understood and utilised the sources best.

In sum, if the sources state that the bust is or is possibly Hannibal it's to be included. They do, so it is. Catiline63 (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I have brought back the original image with it original caption (which clearly disputed its authenticity.)untill this is resovled... Partaking in an edit war is not what I seek or insulting other editors because they oppose my view by calling them socks is not what I seek to do either. I never claimed the bust can not be, I said that it wasn't of hannibal, because all the sources you listed does not support that its of him either, You have done the work of disproving it for me. NONE not one of your "sources" say that it is an image of hanibal. They are all surrounded but a bunch of "maybe's". I want to validate the authenticity of the image and that it hard to do when all it's own sources can not support it either... The more the reason why it should not be in the article. clearly talking to you isn't going anywhere you insult me and just go around in circles so I am going to ask Admins to intervene TruHeir (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You again comment "NONE not one of your "sources" say that it is an image of hanibal". I reiterate the sources' statements:

1) That the bust IS of Hannibal.

Lancel Hannibal cover (1995): "Roman bust of Hannibal. Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Naples".

Goldsworthy, The Fall of Carthage cover (2000): "Hannibal in later life".

2) That the bust IS POSSIBLY/PROBABLY/MAY BE/IS PURPORTED TO BE/IS THOUGHT TO BE of Hannibal.

Matyszak Chronicle of the Roman Republic p.95 (2003): "Bust, thought to be of Hannibal, found in Capua".

Goldsworthy The Complete Roman Army p.41 (2003): "a bust that purports to show Hannibal in later life".

Goldsworthy Cannae p.24 (2004): "a bust which may be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". Catiline63 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is the roman bust relevant/reliable

Is the roman bust relevant/reliable to the article, "sources does not seem to support its authenticity.TruHeir (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. And it should be there, with the text stating that it may not be a wholly authentic image. You've got at least two reliable sources stating that the image is him. Paul got it right when he said: "Readers should know and be able to see that there is an image which many historians take to be a depiction of Hannibal." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• YesGiven there are no 100% reliable images then "maybe" is pretty good. Dejvid (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes Are we now to remove all the images in the article for the prophet Muhammad because they perhaps do not depict the actual man Muhammad as accurately as possible? No. That would be absurd. Or how about the two conflicting portrait paintings (one ugly, one handsome) of the Hongwu Emperor of Ming Dynasty China? Are neither to be used if there is some question about which one is totally authentic? Again, there's no reason for that. Same with Hannibal, except in this case we have a fairly contemporaneous bust made by his arch rivals, the Romans. The image is encyclopedic, well-sourced, and useful.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That was my doing, I brought back the text which stated that the "image may not be authentic" after it was removed by another editor, However I do not see any sources that support that the image is indeed of Hannibal. Like I said before NONE of the sources say so they all say maybe. Catiline63 left a quote from one of his sources on my talk page .." From Adrian Goldsworthy, Cannae p.24 (2001): "A bust which me be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him" Then when Paul and I had a discussion on my page. I suggested that we find an image that wasn't surrounded by a bunch of maybes and paul responded by saying "There is no "accurate image that isn't surrounded by a bunch of maybes". If there were, it would have been used in the article, and before that in books about Hannibal. . Paul B (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC). Now if 2 of the others including the "sources" say that there is no authenticated images of hannibal and the sources provided can not support that the roman bust is indeed of him then why is the image trying to be pasted of as hannibal in the 1st place? How do we know that it is the best or even real when here is nothing to back it up or there to compare it to? It should not be thereTruHeir (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No text has been removed or obscured: indeed, the references to the image have been augmented in that the full assessments of Matyszak, Lancel, and Goldsworthy are given in the footnote. And your continued denials along the lines of the above "I do not see any sources that support that the image is indeed of Hannibal" fly directly in the face the testimony of Lancel ("Roman bust of Hannibal") and Goldsworthy ("Hannibal in later life"). I fail to see how these can be clearer in their opinion that the bust is of Hannibal. Catiline63 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should be kept, because like it or not, it's the image most associated with how Hannibal looked. That's how he is seen by noawadays people and by the old Romans themselves. Whole generations have been brought up in the belief that it is the most accurate depiction of this great general. It is thus very relevant to the article. -- fdewaele, 11 June 2009, 13:40 CET.

• Is it relevant? Yes. Is it reliable? Not really. Should it be included in the article? Of course. Should mention of its dubious accuracy be made? I think so. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Quadell I do think it should be there if its not reliable 76.118.238.21 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have changed the captions. I think picture should say as it was until this whole thing is over

fdewaele, I do not get you. you said something about how the romans saw him, chinese people have paintings if jesus as a chinese man, does that make jesus chinese. the dispute was not about the "accurate depiction of this great general"76.118.238.21 (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, then why don't you see what happens if you go to the Jesus page and try deleting images there? After all - as that page itself admits - "no undisputed record of Jesus' appearance is known to exist". Depictions are often as relevant as "true" images. Catiline63 (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This debate is over. Not a single editor has agreed with TruHeir's 'argument'. Furthermore the tag he placed some while ago claiming that the article uses unreliable sources is also wholly unwarranted, since all the relevant sources are about as reliable as one can get. Paul B (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Catiline63, That was my response to what someone else wrote, was your dispute over appearance? I thought it was over sources. If you wanna talk about appearance, It would be useless to do that on the Jesus page, because like you said 'After all - as that page itself admits -"no undisputed record of Jesus' appearance is known to exist".' That can apply to Hannibal too, there is no record of his appearance. But here you tried to pass this picture of as authentic and tried to change to captions under the picture. Which said it might not be.

this Admin seem to agree that it is not reliable and does not think there is anything wrong with questioning it's authenticity "Is it relevant? Yes. Is it reliable? Not really. Should it be included in the article? Of course. Should mention of its dubious accuracy be made? I think so". – Quadell 12 June 2009--- Contributions/76.118.238.21 (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and mention of its uncertain authenticity has always been made. BTW, throughout this discussion you seem to have confused two separate issues. It is uncertain whether the bust is intended to portray Hannibal, but that's quite distinct from the question of whether it is an accurate portrayal of him, even if it is supposed to depict him. It's generally taken to date from after his death, but of course it may rely on a tradition of representations going back to his lifetime. However even contemporary images probably followed Hellenistic conventions quite closely, and in this respect are likely to be somewhat stereotyped. Paul B (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting Paul B you said that “throughout this discussion you seem to have confused two separate issues” What two separate issues did I confuse? My whole agruement in this dispute was about the source, You where the one who went on the Admin notice board to say it was over a too European image of the great “general”. By doing you changed it to an issue about appearance [[5]], I think it is you who has confused 2 separate issues not meContributions/76.118.238.21 (talk)

I've already said what they are. If you don't understand plain English there's not much more I can do. My comment on the board was based on my estimation of your real motives, since the sources are obviously reliable by any standards. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude your like a see through shirt. Your plain english did not say anything. I'm still wanting on the 2 issues you say I have confused? When it was no one but you, who "confused 2 issues and tried to change this dispute from a question of authenticity and sources to something about appearance. Buddy not try to lie on me when it was you who did it. Maybe those "sources were reliable by your standards, because if it was reliable by any standardslike you say. I don't think the Admin would agree that it was not reliable. Last but not least the admin has already cleared up the dispute yet you are still here pointlessly going on and on talkingContributions/76.118.238.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

This level of obtuseness is difficult to reply to. The two issues: issue one is is it intended to represent him?. Issue two is: does it actually look like him? The rest of your post garbles the the question of what "reliable sources" means. The reliable sources issue that concerns us is published professional historical opinion about the bust. These sources are impeccable. You are confusing this with the question of whether the image itself is reliable as a portrayal of Hannibal, and, as I say, even within that you are confusing the two separate issues I mentioned. WP:RS does not address the reliability of the image as a record of his appearence, which is impossible to know, short of the invention of a time machine. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

More babbling sorry that does not say where I confused 2 issues. Thoese "sources" were going aganist each other so they couldn't have been impeccable, Hell they didn't even agree. My question was about the reliabilty of the sources (that were at war with eact other) and the authenticity of the image.

I did not confuse it with anything else because I never brought up anything else. You don't like being caught in your own lie do you? You claimed that I confused two issue. When you were asked to list the 2 issues at 1st, you made up some crap about “how your plain English already explained it” when infact you hadn’t mentioned anything. Now in you attempt to explain these 2 issues. You write starting with a personal attack “This level of obtuseness is difficult to reply to. The two issues: issue one is is it intended to represent him?. Issue two is: does it actually look like him? ”

What you call issue 2; does it actually look like him? is all you buddy. I never said whether it looked like him or didn’t. Neither did anyone. You were the one that tried to say this dispute was over a “too european image of the great general” and brought up appearance. So don’t try to putthat on anyone else. Now maybe you are the one who don’t understand plain English, But you made a claim accusing me of confusing 2 issues; so show me the issues that I supposedly confused, and tell me where I did that. You are getting on my last nerves making claims that I did something when it was You who did it. If you can not provide where you claim I made these alleged confusions then shut upContributions/76.118.238.21 (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are simply too hopeless to reply to. Histoians often do not agree. We report their disagreements, which is what this article does. In practice this is a very minor disagrement. Some say yes, some say maybe. Catiline63 has repeated this point to you ad nauseaum. We report the scholarly uncertainty, just as with the portrait of Christopher Marlowe. Why, I wonder, are you not fixated on deleting that image too? Try reading policy. Paul B (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Too funny, this is the best you can come up with after I told you to show me where I said the things you claim I said " You are simply too hopeless to reply to. Histoians often do not agree. We report their disagreements, which is what this article does. In practice this is a very minor disagrement. Some say yes, some say maybe. Catiline63 has repeated this point to you ad nauseaum. We report the scholarly uncertainty, just as with the portrait of Christopher Marlowe. Why, I wonder, are you not fixated on deleting that image too? Try reading policy. Paul B 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see your still writing more pointless baffling and babbling. The only thing catline63 said was that the “sources” he provided to support the image were reliable and you said the same thing. I think the world you used was impeccable. I said that it couldn’t be because the sources we going against each other and now you write this crap. This crap that does not have a thing to do with what I asked you to show me, which is where I did the accusations you made about me. I guess this is what you do when you cannot back up your claims, (because the thing you say never happened and you are just a liar who tried to put what you did on someone else.) How humiliating ouch:-) and what is this "We" you said after your mentioned historians. You mean liars and people like you write history? God help us all. I've had enough of your Bullshit- You can go and find someone else to try to lie on.Contributions/76.118.238.21 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I never opined whether the image is authentic/reliable/whatever, but have only presented what the sources think (and you'll note that their conflicting opinions). What I haven't done is delete the image without discussing the issue and contend - without source - that the image is that of a "roman soilder" (sic). Catiline63 (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Catiline63, you say “I never opined whether the image is authentic/reliable/whatever, but have only presented what the sources think (and you'll note that their conflicting opinions).” I have to ask what conflicting opinion are you talking about? Also you added those “sources “because you agree that the picture is an authentic image of Hannibal, you changed the captions under the picture that said it "may not be authentic" and the sources you gave said it could be of hannibal not that it was. You said some of your sources said it is of him and others said it could be of him. Isn't that an issue right there. Your sources are in a basically at war with each other, how does that help to detriming the authenticity of the picture Contributions/76.118.238.21 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Either way the Admin has cleared it up so this baffling and babbling is pointless. Altleast we agree its over. Hasta la vista, baby! Contributions/76.118.238.21 (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As you well know by now, TruHeir, scholarly opinion (i.e. the opinions of the sources I have provided, vide supra) conflicts insofar that some state that the image is of Hannibal, while others give that it is possibly/reputed to be him. The original caption addressed this uncertainty. You, however, took it upon yourself to repeatedly delete the image and caption - despite these further references being provided - contending that is was a "roman soilder (sic)": a bizarre conclusion that no one has agreed with. But as you rightly observe, the matter is cleared up now and sense has prevailed. Catiline63 (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a scholar would put his career's reputation on the line by claiming that the bust portrays a Roman soldier! He'd be laughed right out of the room and right out of his cushy tenured position. Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

needs better referencing plange 05:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)