Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:00, 13 April 2009

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hannibal. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hannibal at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Biography / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Additional information: /  This article has failed an A-Class review. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military / Politics and Government / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Tunisia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

Template:WP1.0

Hannibal received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archived Talk Pages

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 --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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

Last years

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

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)

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.

Background and early career

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 , 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/archive2#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 " 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Coin

In this article there is an image with this caption:

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)

1. De Beer, Sir G. (1974) Hannibal: the Struggle for Power in the Mediterranean p.91. Thames and Hudson, London.
2. Hannibal ad Portas. Konrad Theiss Verlag, Stuttgart, 2004.

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• Start-Class Classical warfare articles
• Classical warfare task force articles
• Failed requests for military history A-Class review
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (military) articles
• Top-importance biography (military) articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• B-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
• High-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
• All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
• B-Class Africa articles
• Unknown-importance Africa articles
• B-Class Tunisia articles
• Unknown-importance Tunisia articles
• WikiProject Tunisia articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• B-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists