Talk:Punic people/Archive 1

Naval Trade

The text states that Their naval presence and trade extended throughout the Mediterranean to the British Isles, the Canaries, and West Africa. The source I can see is only a snippet view. We have no idea what is being discussed when it states "sail up the Atlantic coasts of Spain and France, perhaps even reaching the British Isles." Other references from the same book:

Page 86 states that a voyage in the 5th century B.C. by the Carthaginian Himilco went possibly as far as the Cassiterides Islands (Great Britain and Ireland) (although there is some doubt if the Cassiterides actually refer to GB&I.)
Page 97 notes the path of that same voyage to Britain and Hibernia in 650 B.C.

I don't think it's perhaps a good source for this assertion. Certainly there are far more sources that dispute the fact that the Phoenicians ever reached as far as the British Isles. But what about balancing the article a little so that the contested fact of reaching the British Isles is represented? The British Navy is about the best source I can fine to state the reached the British Isles, but there's very little information available about the authors on Google Books. Does anyone have a better source? The current source is too indefinite. --HighKing (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of name 'Punics' requires serious support

What is the basis for calling the Carthaginians "the Punics"? This sounds like a neologism to me–maybe even an original coinage, which as basically a non-word, would be even worse than the proscribed Original Research. Need to see a consensus for use of this term from published, peer-reviewed secondary sources, or the article must be renamed to simply Carthaginians.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds to me a lot like referring collectively to Gaelic-speaking people wherever they are found as "the Gaelics". It just isn't an established convention.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. The article acknowledged right up front that it's referring to the same people as the term "Carthaginians". The latter is the term I've always encountered, and Carthaginians redirects here. Why isn't this at Carthaginians? Largoplazo (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name Berber comes up once in this article and the reason they are called the Punics and not the Phoenicians is that the Berbers intermixed, had a massive influence on the myths, gods, armies, and Carthage itself in every aspect. From foundation till destruction Berbers where part of the story literally and not only part according to the foundation myth of Carthage they allowed the Phoenician queen to stay and wanted to marry her proving extensive contacts from the start and in the end with Berber kingdoms who supported and later sided with Rome and condemned them. The Berbers had a massive influence on Carthage and along with the Phoenicians the founders of the Punic race. This article is lacking massive specific portions of the story that it's clearly deliberate. Funny that people try to let out the people (Berbers) who along with Arabs thought us that history as they were the ones that provided Europe with the ancient knowledge that was lost in Europe after Rome's demise and was acquired back through Al-Andalus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.243.19 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology section

Should a section on the modern meaning of the word Punics be included? Des Vallee (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]