Talk:Hannibal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Hannibal/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 19, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
June 28, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
September 26, 2006 WikiProject A-class review Not approved
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Hannibal:

This article mentions around 217 BC he "executing the first recorded turning movement in military history". I was wondering if the author(s) could compare this as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guiling

Thank you.

Art: Hannibal Crossing the Alps[edit]

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)

...And? Sapphorain (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Cannae[edit]

Considering the military achievements of Trebia,Lake Trasimene and Canaae. I think their should be some description of the actual battles.

Cannae[edit]

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)

Confusions[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 20:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

Exile (195–183/181 BC)[edit]

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)

Patronym[edit]

I'm not saying Wandalstouring or Ameling were lying, but it's uncommon enough to see the guy called "Hannibal Barca" instead of "Hannibal". Absolutely nothing at Google Books, the Internet Archive, &c. back him up that this guy was commonly called "Hannibal Barca son of Hamilcar Barca". It's more likely that what was intended was "Hannibal son of Hamilcar". That's common enough that we don't have to remove it as but I still don't see it treated as a real patronym or see any Carthaginian sources for its use. It'd be good if someone could check the source to see if it's being misrepresented or has any further sources for this idea.

If it's not just hogwash, we also need the Punic form of the name. I assume it would be something close to TRQLMḤ NB LʻBNḤ but that's based on Hebrew and there might have been some other way to say it in Punic. — LlywelynII 05:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hannibal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Syphilis[edit]

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)

  • On one hand, the source offered for the assertion that Hannibal had syphilis is one that I cannot find anywhere. Does this exist, and does it say what the editor says it does: Willis, T.E, 'Ancient Warfare re-examined: a Post-Structural Marxist Critique', p.228, 1968, Oxford University Press, ISBN 1405125683. I cannot find this source existing anywhere. Just as importantly, I cannot find other sources that repeat the speculation. It does now seem that it is at least possible that syphilis existed in the Old World during Hannibals' lifetime, see Southern Europe: International Dictionary of Historic Places by Trudy Ring, Noelle Watson & Paul Schellinger. Routledge (2013), p. 424. But this assertion, if the source actually exists and actually makes this assertion, is still unsupported WP:FRINGE WP:SPECULATION. I think even offering the barest mention -- any mention at all -- of such an unsupported assertion is automatically WP:UNDUE. I strongly advise that we do not include any mention of it it in the article.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You are? Well then, you have the correct knowledge base to evaluate this particular incident. Ta!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hannibal Barca Coin[edit]

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)

No one (yet) knows what Hannibal Barca looks like because of the [Battle of Carthage] where [Carthage] was destroyed circa 149 BCE. Othelllo (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Hannibal as Black African[edit]

I suppressed this section, providing an exact copy of a blog post [1] 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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hannibal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Traversette[edit]

"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." [1]

Kortoso (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

hannibal was north african[edit]

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)

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)

Smithsonian magazine[edit]

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)

I agree. Paul August 22:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
"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)
@Rjensen: 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)
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)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)