Talk:Hannibal/Archive 1

message: This page is going to be moved to Hannibal Barca in the near future and Hannibal transformed to disambiguation page. Muriel 11:41, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Out of the hundred-odd link to "Hannibal", maybe 1-2 are not to Barca, and it's always going to be that way. Just create a Hannibal (disambiguation) and link to it from the top, a la London. Stan 13:35, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation page

message: Perhaps we don't have any information on who says specifically that Hannibal was one of the greatest Generals. By comparison to his record on the battlefield and his brilliant strategies at which he used to attain victory to other famous generals, I would write in this article "Hannibal was one of the greatest generals in history, says I" or simply leave that which is already writen.
Hannibal is ranked as one of the best military commanders in history - By whom? RickK 04:57, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxford Classical Dictionary. Most of my military history books are more specialized, so they don't have an opportunity to say "one of the best" about Hannibal. It would be good to have a specific source, like a top-10 list from some expert. I'm visiting library tomorrow, will see if I can find something. Stan 07:03, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Says He's the greatest? 

message: Please excuse my ignorrance as I know little about wikipedia.  Is BC and AD or BCE and CE the accepted format here?
:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) allows either. The year articles themselves use "BC", so it's slightly favored. Since all Hannibal dates are in the same era, it's good style to only use "BC" the first time and then piping, as in "202" for subsequent years. Exception is life dates, which are normally written "247-182 BC". Stan 12:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating system

message: In the last sentence of the second paragraph, I assume that Hannibal commited suicide, not Prusias?  The grammar makes it look like Prusias committed suicide, but it's ambiguous. -- Creidieki 17:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it was Hannibal who committed suicide, and I've changed the sentence to make that clear.  Prusias may have committed suicide too for all I know, but if he did, he did it mighty late for it to be about avoiding handing Hannibal over to the Romans.  Binabik80 01:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who committed the suicide? 

message: I removed the info that the 2006 film will be in Aramaic because I couldn't find anything anywhere to confirm it.  The fact that its star is an English-speaker & that none of the English-language sites I visited mentioned its language strongly indicates to me that it's in English. Binabik80 02:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the fact that Hannibal's native language wasn't Aramaic but Punic - We also know he was fluent in Greek. -Eltinwë 19:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 film in Aramaic? 

message: I notice there had been lots of discussion on the Hannibal coins.  According to a book written by the Chief of Staff of the British Museum and the Museo Kercheriano, Rome "There are no known possessions of any authentic portrait of Hannibal" . (Histoire d'Annibal, Vol. I, p. 495, Paris, 1870). Sorry to rain on y'all parade or race war but the coins whether they look black, white, chinese or lebanese, aren't authentic so you might as well use the color of what he wore in war to debate his race. In my opinion anyways I don't see how a coin could really prove a persons race.  I mean look at Socrates pictures he has some african features and look at haile sessies he isn't exaclty the most 'black' looking individually you will every see.  The point is it would be pretty tough to use a picture espcially one  a 3000 year old coin, to prove Hannibal was one race or another.  Not to mention even if they did have accurate picture of hannibal it might not be easy to sculp certain features into a coin, espcially considering how they could only smelt iron so the shaping of it was limited at best. Anonymous.
:Exactly! The Ogre 23:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hannibal Coins 

message: This should be a subsection. There's lots of discussion about which route he took etc, and the difficulties his forces faced. This is a great feat in the European imagination (Napoleon for one). It's not treated here at all, as of yet. --Wetman 04:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hannibal crosses the Alps

message: An attempt should be made to gather some of the many anecdotes told about Hannibal (and all Roman historical figures, for that matter) and either stick them into a big section at the end (as I did with two) or incorporate them into the body of the text. The most glaring ones, for which I couldn't find specific mention of in the two books I have on him are the Gisgo story from the field of Cannae, Hannibal's last words and any mention of the "Lion's Brood" of the Barca brothers.--Cannae 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stories 

message: Am I the only one who thinks it's stupid that the main picture in this article is a 15th century depiction of him as a stereotypical Moor, especially when there are dozens of coins that feature his actual phenotype and a pretty decent contemporary bust?--Eupator 01:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The frescoe as main pic 

message: Okay, we seem to have some disagreements over the meaning of "Hannibal" - while everyone is virtually agreed on bal meaning Baal (logical, considering the Phoeniciansworship Baalim.  On the Second Punic War, it says, "Beloved of Baal".  On the Barcid family page, it originally said "grace of Baal" (formatted today to say "grace of Baal" or "mercy of Baal").  On the Hannibal page, it's different, saying "mercy of Baal."  Can we reach some consensus on the matter and standardize this throughout Wikipedia? -Eltinwë 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why standanize when they are all, no doubt, imperfect translations of the Punic word?  The inconsistency is a warning to the reader that all are only aproximations.  ie It's a featur not a bug. Dejvid 16:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, I guess.  But perhaps, then, they should all be presented? -Eltinwë 17:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: All would be a solution certainly.Dejvid 18:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of name? 

message: How can Scipio be universally ranked when his name is relatively unknown in Non-European history...let alone in mainstream history? I think his importance is better suited for the "greatest military strategists and tacticians of the Western world", which is already located in the Legacy section of the article.
:That's a farce.  Anyone even vaguely familiar with military history knows who Scipio is, and his status as one of the greatest commanders is unquestioned.-66.254.232.219 19:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without trying to launch into a great debate, I think Scipio's place is uncertain in history. Both Dupuy and Dodge rate him well after Hannibal and Dodge places him after Claudius on the Roman side, so its best to leave it open ended about whether or not he is considered one of the best ever. Perhaps it should be rephrased to say that Scipio is ranked by many as one of the greats of military commanding.--Cannae 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scipio  

message: The problem is that we don't have any portrait that definitely depicts Hannibal. That's the usual way in archaeology: We have a coin portrait and so we can compare our marbles and bronzes. Or vice versa. But there were at least three statues of Hannibal in Rome, as Pliny gives in n.h. 34,32. I feel that images of these statues and other portraits would present the viewer with a more accurate portrayl of Hannibal. And besides one neo-classical painting, the article lacks any image that illustrates Hannibal's crossing of the Alps. --chub 22:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no "definite" portraits of Hannibal. But even aside from that, the reason I removed the image tag is that it implies that there is a problem with the article; there isn't. If you can find public domain photos of those statues, by all means, put them in. But the article itself does not suffer for lack of them; why does it matter exactly what he looked like? That tag is for articles with no images, or articles that need visual representation to make their point clear. This doesn't. Kafziel 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It matters a lot. He certainly did not resemble the guy in that 15th century pic. I think a contemporary depiction of Hannibal is definite, at leats as close as one can get. Any image of the  Tarentum bust is in the Public Domain. --Eupator 04:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for more images 

message: Drawn in by the copyedit request, I have started by compressing the lead section (the article as a whole needs to lose weight). I have also tried to fix some problems of chronology there. Some of the detailed information I have shifted to appropriate subheads in the rest of the article. PaulV 17:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: Thanks for the good read, I haven't looked at who the major contributers are, but the article itself is great. Has it been included in feature articles? If not you might consider nominating it. A good first step would be getting a peer review from the guys over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Classical warfare task force --Darkfred Talk to me 21:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amazing article

message: : The guy blanking the page and the guy who keeps modifying ethnicity seem to be two different people. The fellow who is adding the ethnicity changes seems to be doing so in good faith. And references for this have been given earlier (on the talk page). I wish he would leave in the known disputes but this is the only problem I see. I will continue to revert the page blanker when he appears. 
As for the other fellow you need to have a conversation with him here on the talk page if you disagree. Start by adding the unreferenced template to what you disagree with then state why here on the talk page. Hopefully you can both agree on a version together. --Darkfred Talk to me 21:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking page

message: Considering the military achievements of Trebia,Lake Trasimene and Canaae.
I think their should be some description of the actual battles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.5.23 (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannae 

message: There have been many confusions over which war Hannibal fought in, the main argument is; did he fight in the first or Second Punic War? I have recently edited the article to say that he fought in the Second, I know this from many sources and logically deduced that he could not have possible fought in the first Punic war. The First Punic War was 264 - 241 BC, Hannibal had only been born in 247 BC, and could not have commanded or fought at the age of six.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryAddict2000 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, thanks for sorting that one out! The only problem is that the sentence was about his father. Paul B (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusions

message: The two last sentences of this paragraph, if correct, are misplaced: at this point of the story, Hannibal is dead! Sapphorain (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exile (195–183/181 BC) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hannibal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140915064333/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ha/Hannibal.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ha/Hannibal.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I support removing Willis speculation about syphilis which is clearly made invalid by the epidemiological history of that disease which did not exist in the old world in this period. The speculation is not important or notable enough to warrant inclusion in spite of its being clearly mistaken.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That handbook is not a reliable source for the presence or absence of syphilis in the old world. Try to read the introduction to History of syphilis - the pre-columbian hypothesis has been all but abandoned.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I wasn't mentioning it as a source of support for the syphilis assertion; I was trying to inoculate this discussion against other editors doing so.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes I agree with both editors above. In fact I am very suspicious of the suppossed source (I can find no mention of either the author or the work cited, I think it might be a hoax). Even if this were to turn out to be a reliable source, being in apparent conflict with current scientfic consensus, it would require some supporting sources. Paul August ☎ 13:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was added here, by an IP with no other edits. I think this is probably a bit of sneaky vandalism. Paul August ☎ 13:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If so it is actually quite humorous. The title alone being "Ancient Warfare re-examined: a Post-Structural Marxist Critique". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But you see, I would never put any kind of elephant-sized academic absurdity past anyone who is a self-proclaimed post-structuralist. I would not even bat an eye if the article were genuine. So it must be investigated...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is cited as a book published by OUP and there are no internet hits whatsoever with the title. That screams hoax to me. I am by the way a self-proclaimed post-structuralist.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are? Well then, you have the correct knowledge base to evaluate this particular incident. Ta!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Syphilis

message: Regarding the color illustration of "Hannibal Crossing the Alps": it is clearly not a painting but rather an old book illustration.  However, no source, no book title, author's name, or illustrator's name is given.  I suspect from the artistic style that both the book and the illustration are no longer under copyright, but Wiki needs to be sure.  The lack of source and artist credit is disturbing merely from a reference/encyclopedia point of view.
Regarding the illustration of "Hannibal Crossing the Alps"; the "Alps" weren't named until the 1600s AD. Othelllo (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ...And? Sapphorain (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art: ''Hannibal Crossing the Alps'' 

message: I suppressed this section, providing an exact copy of a blog post  in approximate English, containing an unsourced claim, and illustrated by three images from commons titled "Hannibal", but for which title no satisfactory source is provided.Sapphorain (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hannibal as Black African 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hannibal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140107025738/http://www.shadowlineonline.com/webcomics/hannibal-goes-to-rome/ to http://www.shadowlineonline.com/webcomics/hannibal-goes-to-rome/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Our international team, led by Bill Mahaney of York University in Toronto, have finally provided solid evidence for the most likely transit route: a pass called the Col de Traversette. This narrow pass between a row of peaks is located on the border slightly south-east of Grenoble in France and south-west of Turin in Italy. Our findings are published in Archaeometry.
"The Traversette – found at about 3000m above sea level – is a torturous path even today. The route was first proposed over a century ago by the biologist and polymath Sir Gavin de Beer, but was not previously widely accepted by the academic community.
"Up to this point, many scholars have instead favoured other routes across such as the Col du Clapier, about 2400m high and further north, which is certainly less treacherous today. This popular choice was largely down to the writings of both modern and ancient historians such as Livy, who lived in Padua around 200 years after the historical event but never actually visited the site of the crossing in his lifetime. So it may be that many of Livy's accounts are more fictional than factual."
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-05/ancient-horse-dung-bacteria-is-helping-to-show-where-hannibal-crossed-the-alps
:Kortoso (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traversette 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Hannibal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160304025715/http://www.alanemrich.com/Class/Class_Practical_Latin.htm to http://www.alanemrich.com/Class/Class_Practical_Latin.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does anybody know the origin of this Hannibal Barca coin and if it was a contemporary portrayal of him? I can't really find any information on it and Wikicommons doesn't give any particulars about the coin. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. For starters, Carthage was finally sacked and destroyed in 146 BC, not 149 BC. And we in fact do have some coins proven to have been minted by the Barca family during their time of power in Carthage. However, we do not know if certain coins depict Hannibal or someone else in the family, such as his father Hamilcar Barca. We also have verified coins depicting Hannibal's little brother Hasdrubal Barca. For the most part, though, Carthaginians mostly minted coins depicting deities, ESPECIALLY the goddess Tanit (usually accompanied by the Greek Pegasus). Pericles of AthensTalk 17:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since added a couple coins depicting Hamilcar Barca and two that possibly even depict Hannibal, or rather Melqart with the possible facial features of Hannibal. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: These coins are rare, and most of them on the web are protected by copyrights (so that you'd need explicit permission from the original creator of the image), even though they're flat pieces of ancient art, made by original artists, or minters I should say, who died thousands of years ago. I'll try to track down info about the pic you've shared, TheAstuteObserver, to see if we can add that image to the article with relevant info for the caption. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hannibal Barca Coin 

message: A feature story by an essayist, not a professional historian and thus having no authority on the subject, doesn't have its place anywhere in the main sections of the article. It could possibly be given as a link in the « see also » section, but no more. Sapphorain (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Paul August ☎ 22:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything in the essay that is factually wrong? Seems useful to cite an article that gives an overview of the suggested crossing places. It doesn't seem the article advances a contentious theory or anything like that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "professional" historian is not a Wiki criterion for being a reliable source.  Actually he is a profession expert on travel and that is his topic here. He retraces famous routes and is sought after as an expert by editors of leading publications of the sort Wikipedia favors--such as Smithsonian magazine. Rjensen (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   Alright, since you are yourself a recognized professional historian, I will take your word for it (i.e., that this particular essayist has sufficient expertise in the subject). I would definitely not take your word if you were not an expert yourself in history.  But this raises a general problem.  When you state that being a professional historian is not a wiki criterion for being a reliable source in history, I presume you mean it is not necessarily a condition: then who is to decide in general, within wikipedia, whether a source by such a non professional historian is acceptable in the encyclopedia?  Sapphorain (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case the author is a famous expert on how difficult were famous historical journeys. Many top publications publish his travel essays. If there is a question I suggest looking to the publication to judge its standards. In this case Smithsonian is a high prestige publication of a leading world-class history museum.  Its articles meet Wiki criterion for reliability.  I've been on the editorial boards of a half-dozen scholarly journals. Scholarly history journals use "blind editing" -- an author sends in an article. step 1) the editor & assistant editors read it for quality control; many are rejected at this stage. 2) the editor sends an anonymous copy of the article to one or more experts in the field for their quality evaluation. 3) if the outside experts disagree then it goes to more experts until a consensus to publish/reject is made.  The outside experts do not know who wrote it or the credentials of the author. The reviewers usually make suggestions for changes and rely on its content with respect to the state of scholarship in the field.  (If the article shows unawareness of the published scholarship on the topic, it will get rejected.) Top history journals reject 80%-90% of submissions.  Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smithsonian magazine 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hannibal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101031649/http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/hannibal.html to http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/hannibal.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: hannibal was probably some shade of brown like most people of modern day tunisia and north africa.thinking all africans are the same is just as ignorant as thinking all asians are the same.north africa has more in common genetically,culturally and historically with southern europe and the middle east than it does with sub saharan africa.it's important to be as accurate as possible with as little bias as possible.it's not a contest  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.249.141 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Hannibal, coming from an aristocratic family, was most likely descended directly from the 9th-century-BC Phoenician colonists (from what is now Lebanon) who founded the city of Carthage. Yes, he was a North African in terms of his homeland, but his Punic-speaking people originally came from West Asia. The Berbers and Numidians who surrounded the Carthaginians were certainly North African natives, though. In either case is there some sort of point you are trying to make about the article? Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion about the topic of any given article. We are only allowed to talk about ways to improve the existing article. If you have suggestions (and reliable sources to back them up), then we are all ears. --Pericles of AthensTalk 23:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  hannibal was north african  

message: The Punic script comes out as empty boxes on my computer, and no doubt on most other computers too, so it is useless. It would be better to take a screenshot and include it as an illustration. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see them and didn't install anything special. T8612 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be seen when I use Safari, but not when I open the page with Chrome. Kanjuzi (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punic script 

message: What is "brq ḥnbʿl;"? If it should be there, can we write in in a way that is more understandable? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the transcription of his name from Phoenician ("Barca Hannibal"). T8612 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence in lead