Talk:Hannibal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wellington

If Robert E. Lee deserves to be included in the introductory paragraph's list of great generals, then surely also do the Duke of Wellington and Georgy Zhukov to name just two? Wikipedia struggles with Americo-centricity, and this is a perfect example of it. I would rather not have a great long list of great generals there, but the point remains that though Sherman was of course a brilliant general his international historical renown is probably less than that of the other two mentioned. I've edited it to include Wellington and Zhukov for the moment, but I'd prefer simply dropping all three and leaving the list as short as possible. JF Mephisto 16:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

answering

The one who had modefied the ethnicity is me of course, however the one who keeps blaking it without citing why even tho the article of ethnicity puts on that Hannibal was Carthaginian which seems relevent but please of cours if someone disagrees be my guest...

The one blanking however needs to cite why before doing so

--marduk

Please sign your messages. Use the button on the toolbar which looks like a signature. Don't take the vandals too seriously we watch this page and revert the blankings within a couple of minutes. They give up eventually. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 21:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the Talk:Carthage page, you can see Marduk is not making edits in good faith or adhering to the Wikipedia dipute process. He/she/they/it is simply ranting, raving, and altering articles to suit his/her/their/its agenda, withough any historical sources - just their own ranting. This person doesn't need to be argued with - they just need to be reverted unless and until they can cite their points - and I highly doubt they can. - Vedexent 00:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "Marduck" understands what is meant by "cite". See WP:Cite. Marduck has certainly not provided citations to back up his own blanking in Carthage, specifically the depictions of Carthage in Romaan and Greek literature, and the Roman recolonization of the city well after the Third Punic War. This leads me to conclude that either Marduck doesn't understand what is meant by citation, or is hypocritically applying the "The one blanking however needs to cite why before doing so" to everyone but Marduck - Vedexent 12:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The amount of Trolls

Everyone will you please go to the article of Carthage and also read the page Talk:Carthage. Within the article a well thought out and well written article has been written about Carthaginian religious practices. However Vandals and Trolls such as Vedexent has defaced the article and made major deletions without citing why and providing sources. He is clearly a Historical Vandal who has a axe to grind against a people of a different race. He is a Graco-Roman apologist looking to slander Carthage and its like, he has done nothing constructive other then pount and wine on matters in which he has no bearing in nor do I think he has a single clue of Carthaginian History. He has done nothing but Rant Rave and pound his feet on the floor like a lunatic demanding and pounting, he is doing this under a shroud that he is concerned for sources(which I given a wealth of sources) but in reality he is nothing more then an Anti-Carthaginian historical revinist his actions have been noted and I have reported it to the Administration on several accounts. He needs to only be ignored or simply reputed

Now on to the more respectable Posters: Darkfred

Who ever is making these deletions without citing why and without a clear reason is a Vandal and a troll. The section in the ethnicity has been edited to include that Hannibal was Phoenician unless your a lunatic who disagree's with this then please tell us who you are so that we may note you as a TROLL.We don't need to argue with him/them/her/ or even argue with Vandals like Vedexent but simply repute them until they cry themselves to sleep

--- Marduk of Babylon

---

Woe is me. Yes I am a Troll. And this big bad troll objected to unilateral, uncited additions and deltions of the original article (the edit history is a matter of public record, you are free to examine the whole mess here). I am so mean that I didn't even take the issues to third party RFC arbitration, in case it was me that was over-reacting? - oh wait, yes I did here]. And Marduck lost the RFC process, so they have ignored it and continued to Rant. I am so unfair that I didn't consult an administrator! Darn, I did that too [1] [2]! And the admin agreed that Marduck is in the wrong and that if they continue to act in this manner the pages should be locked. Oh, I know! I bet I'm such a coward that I use anonymous edits to hide my identity so no one can tell who I am, or verify any of my edits, or conversations, or actions. Darn, that doesn't work either; I do all my edits as me, and like any Wikipedian my actions and statements are logged as a matter of public record, and darn it, I've been providing them! Make up your own mind.

I know! I am unfair to "Marduk". Yes. that must be it. I mean Marduk has worked long and hard with the people who objected to his edits to find a compromise and I have not acknowledged that ... well, actualy, no they havn't. I won't explain what they have been doing. I'll let "their" own actions in the edit history of Carthage, this article, and the Talk:Carthage speak on that. I know! Marduk has respected opposing cultural viewpoints, and when s/he doesn't "agree" with them, Marduk has added well cited counterpoints, using respected published works, lovingly footnoted and cited, and "big bad old Vexedent" won't even look at his sources! Hmm... no, that doesn't seem true either. I know! I have been using personal insults and threats against Marduk! Darn - no! Havn't been doing that either. But the begginings of threats and insults can be seen in Marduk's postings.

I know. I'm acting alone? No one agrees that Marduk's postings violate Wikipedia standards, rules, and ettiquite. I'm being unreasonable, no one agress with me (and I probably have no friends!). Oh wait.. there is this, this, and this (and these: [3],[4],[5]). Guess that isn't true either...

Remind me why I'm a Troll again? For the life of me, I can't see a reason other than the fact that I don't agree with Marduk, and have been trying to hold his/her writing to the same Wikipedia ettiquite, standards, and conventions that everyone uses, and when disagreements have being untractable, gone to neutral 3rd party RFC request. Oh my! Bad Vexedent! - Vedexent 11:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Side note to Marduk: It is really hard to misrepresent the facts when everything anybody does here is logged as a matter of public record. You might consider that anything you do and say can be looked up by pretty much any Wikipedian, so they can judge you by your own words and actions. Even if you go back and erase and edit things, that is logged as well. You might consider that. People can just read your edits, read talk:Carthage, read WP:Cite and see for themselves the "quality" and "wealth" of sources you have been properly citing and providing *rolls eyes* - Vedexent 11:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I love this! : "He needs to only be ignored or simply reputed". By all means! Refute me! Show me published academic papers! Show me Wikirules! Show me standards of academic publishing! Refute me, and I'll shut up. It would make a nice change from your usual bluster. Btw, mind telling me which admins? I'd love to see how you phrased it on their talk pages - LOL. I'm guessing you're lying about "reporting" me as well, but maybe not if you can provide user talk page links (remember that whole "you can't lie because it is all public record" bit?) - Vedexent 11:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Be advised

The current "edit war" being propagated by the the anon editor is to insert material from a website, contraty to the copyright guidelines of Wikipedia. See here , here and Wikipedia:Copyright problems - Vedexent 20:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Before this page gets locked AS WELL

Page Carthage has been locked by a sysop because of the edit war spaked by anon/marduk's edits. On the Carthage talk page we're trying to reach some sort of community consensus and middle ground to get the page unlocked by the sysop again. It might be wise to do the same here.

A very simular edit war is happening here as well. It might be wise to reach some sort of resolution before the page gets locked up.

Issue

The issue seems to be: Is the text repeatedly added and removed, shown in this edit, be allowed as part of the article, and is it relevant to what the article is discussing?

Votes

• Disagree: It should be noted that being on one side of these edit wars, I am probably not impartial. While I am trying to not let my personal feelings influence my view, perhaps my opinion should be read with that in mind. I have two objections. First, while the ethnicity of Hannibal might be mentioned, a general discussion of the ethnic background of the Carthaginian people probably belongs in an article about the Carthaginians in general (ironically, that one is locked right now). Secondly, the text in this edit is at least partly here, which seems to violate the Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright violations policies. - Vedexent 20:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree: since I exactly agree with Vedexent analysis (see above). gala.martin (what?) 21:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Who knows At this point there is not enough information to disagree with either text. Someone has to be able to find a reference for this, unless the dispute is a pure invention by either Vedexent or Marduk. The current agreed upon version (that vedexent favors) isn't much more than a statement of our own non-knowledge, and it isn't cited, which shouldn't be hard given its nature :).

I am not saying that Vedexent is doing the wrong thing, but he could have diffused this by either working in some of Marduks concerns (while rewriting the copy vio) or including an Wikipedia:Inline Citation as to why Marduk is wrong. This goes doubly for Marduk as well, the bar for including information by nature must be much higher than the bar for claiming ignorance. *steps off of wiki podium* If you will both agree I would be glad to attempt to combine your versions. I think Marduk would like at least a mention of his theory, and the whole wiki could probably benefit from at least a statement explaining the controversy (if in fact ther exists one outside of wikipedia). --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to stress it isn't my version. I have not been an editor on this page. My only concern has been a) That one person is trying to "steamroll" their version over the objections of many, without addressing their concerns, and much mroe recently, b) The copyvio issue. I don't have a version, I have objections to ideological steamrolling. If you are capable of working with marduk to incorporate their information into wikipedia, without violoating wikipedia policies, and in the appropriate articles, that would be great. It would add the information to wikipedia properly, and end the edit war. - Vedexent 21:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with you, Darkfred: "the bar for including information by nature must be much higher than the bar for claiming ignorance" is at the root of one of Wikipedia's systematic biases. A confession of ignorance looks neutral but is in fact highly POV.Dejvid 12:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats true, but it depends on the contex, a claim that wikipedia is ignorant is not nearly as POV as a claim that the noone knows or that there is no contention on a topic. Either way even a claim of ignorance should be referenced. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Put like that, I can agree with you.Dejvid 16:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree:I stand by Vedexent's reasoning, and would like to add that not only the info persistently included by "Marduk the anonymous aol IP" is not relevant here but it's also deeply flawed in many aspects and far from mainstream even within its narrow area of relevance. So let us be reasonable as to the criteria for additions. From the first time I perused this article's original text, I saw its great potential even for FA status; we just have to make it a little more concise and maybe check some typos. Now, as for the racialist discussion on Hannibal's "ethnicity", if it must exist here at all (which is in itself very disputable), it should be narrowed down to a short note with properly cited references. But we cannot allow this article's quality standards to be jeopardized by a single irresponsible anonymous who keeps adding wild & wandering theories with God knows what purpose (and then attacking as 'vandals' the very same people who care to clean up the mess he has done.) E.Cogoy 04:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hannibal- black, white or neither with refs??? The problem is that the whole question makes no sense in terms of the ancient world. One of the current versions states "As is often the case with ancient figures of Mediterranean origin, modern historians dispute the Ethnicity and coloring of Hannibal." Well this is simply not true. The question is totally irrelavent to them which is why it will be very hard to get a good reference to this. The ancient world was color blind - for them the division was babarian-civilized. The reason why it must be covered is because Hannibal is of interest to those without any deeper interest in ancinent history. The modern world is highly racially aware so that for a black person to portray Hannibal is political question. I think Hannibal was probably white but at the same time I suspect that if Hannibal were here today and someone asked him what he thought of a black person portraying him his reaction would be total bemusement.
• Forget references - historians don't busy themselves about anything so (in their opinion) silly. We will just have to state what for the historians is so obvious as to not be worth stating.Dejvid 11:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: Excellent point. On reading this, I went digging through the edit log. Originally the "Ethnicity section" was part of the general description of Hannibal basically said "We don't know, they didn't care" - so I have to wonder why it was there to begin with. The "Ethnicity" of Hannibal doesn't really have any bearing on his historical importance (unlike, say Rosa Parks). I don't see why that section couldn't be struck completely, since it doesn't seem relevant, and does seem to be a magnet for trouble - Vedexent 11:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason it is there is because Hannibal is not simply a historical person. He is also likely to appear in two Hollywood films. For the blogs it is big issue as to whether Denzel Washington should play Hannibal. Complete silence would indeed be a option. I suspect tho we need at least a "Serious historians show little interest in the ethnicity of Hannibal which is not relevant to his historical significance - this article follows that."Dejvid 12:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: My sense is that any text about Hannibal's racial characteristics should be short and agnostic, along the lines of "we don't know for sure and they didn't seem to think it was worth noting".

However, the question while not relevant then is "sort of" relevant now. A related dispute is the "Black Athena" controversy which is a scholarly dispute outside Wikipedia. I'm not saying that Black Athena or "Black Hannibal" is true. I'm saying that there may be significant bodies of scholars who believe it. If someone wants "Black Hannibal" to be mentioned in this article, they should provide citations. If someone wants "White Hannibal" to be mentioned, they should provide citations. Anything less is OR. In the absence of citations, it may be better to say nothing at all.

Richard 17:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: It looks like there is a reasonable argument that the racial/ethnic background of Hannibal may be important. However, I would think this information be better as a "short agnostic" section, as Richard puts it, with a link to perhaps a more detailed discussion of the racial/ethnic characteristics of the Punic people in the Carthage article. Unless Hannibal's ethnicity was atypical for aristocratic Carhaginians of the time. - Vedexent 00:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assement, this seems to be where consensus is heading. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 03:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree Perhaps some more information could be provided as to the nature of what sorts of disputes exist. However, definite statements about race are impossible to confirm, and thus are inapproprate for this article. UnDeadGoat 23:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reduce size

This article is now well above the recommended size limit for Wikipedia articles. A large part of the content has now been copied to and merged with the Second Punic War article (which is also now too long, although not as much as this article). It needs to be condensed, but we should be careful, this should concentrate on the Second Punic War, and particularly the battles of Cannae and Zama, which ought to be adequately covered in their own articles. Mustafa Bevi 14:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

First 50 kilobytes is less than quite a few other pages but if you really want to cut it than move start a Hannibal in popular culture page and move the film stuff there.Dejvid 19:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The size needs to be reduce, and the sections that need work are the Battle of Tresimene, Battle of Trebbia and Battle of Cannae, we've got perfectly good main articles about these battles, what we need here is a summary and a bit of information into the tactics used by Hannibal in each of these battles. After all, the page is on Hannibal, his life, his tactics, his victories, his fate etc. This article has gone overboard, now if you want to be featured, use Attila the Hun perhaps as an example or perhaps Claudies. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

But his battle tactics are one of the key aspects of his success and the Fabian tactic of avoiding that strength was the key to his defeat. It must have a large place. Size is no longer so impotant now we can edit by section. Further you ignore my suggestion of moving the popular culture bit to a new section.Dejvid 10:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about the Second Punic War section, not the Pop Culture section, as that still isn't huge and is more about him as opposed to the Carthaginian Army. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal:Rome's Worst Nightmare

This mixture of a film and documentary that was actually quite interesting appeared in Australia Free-To-Air Television on Friday. But I have absolutely no information (eg. year it was filmed, what nation it came from etc.) Has anyone else seen this? Then please add it to the Hannibal in Film section. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just found these: [6] [7] Xemoi 06:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Size of article

This article is now 50K long, longer than the 32K limit recommended, longer even than the Second Punic War article. The reason is that the bulk of the content on the Second Punic War has now been copied to that article, in an attempt to merge them. The logical step is now to substantially condense the section on the Second Punic War, particularly where it deals with battles which have their own articles, as there is some danger of content being triplicated. If this is done then there is no need to turn "Hannibal in popular culture" into its own article. Any comments? Mustafa Bevi 15:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The next step should be to reduce the text in this article about the Second Punic War to 4-5 paragraphs with about 1 paragraph on each of the battles. There should be a reference to the Second Punic War article at the beginning of the section and references to each battle at the beginning of each paragraph.

The Second Punic War article also needs shortening. See my comment on Talk:Second Punic War.

Richard 16:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

All those in favour of reducing the article as suggested by Richard:-

Votes in favor

• For Mustafa Bevi 19:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• For Length of 32K is just a guideline. However, I think the length issue is not just one of download time and browser capacity but also one of reader fatigue. If an article is too long, the reader gets tired and won't read the whole thing anyway. It's better to be concise and to the point and then provide references to more detailed articles if the reader is interested.

• For An important point is that most of the info about battles is reproduced on their respective pages, often verbatim. For readers, it probably makes no sense going to a separate page about, say, the Battle_of_Lake_Trasimene just to discover that it contains almost nothing new (or perhaps just one or two short sections more.) Please check this[8]. E.Cogoy 21:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• For 1 paragraph on each of the battles looks good. If you look at featured articles, you see they make good use of the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with many articles. If there is a very well constructed article on the Battle of Cannae then why should we repeat the contents of that article? If you want this article to be FA, then you will vote For, if you want this article to remain Long and potentially not-to-the-point-and-therefore-not-interesting-for-the-reader then vote Against. Hannibal was a really interesting guy and had an exciting life, let us not make his article boring and lets at least give him justice and FA promotion :) Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• For. If the size of the article is less than 50k (even if more than 32k), reduction is not necessary. On the other hand, Second Punic War has its own article, that is linked here. So, the article about Hannibal should be just about Hannibal. The to do list above works, for me. gala.martin (what?) 12:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• For. This article is too heavy. What is the problem of giving a click if the reader (not the average one though) REALLY wants to see a more finicky account of wars and battles? S/he can do that. But this is about hannibal the man - and that subject, you have to agree with me, is large enough. Xemoi 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• For Richard may be trimming further than is necessary; but the point of having separate articles on the battles is so that these long descriptions can go there. (There should also be a separate article on the crossing of the Alps, which would have room for the controversies - and Livy's vinegar.) Septentrionalis 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• For Also, the amount of information about each battle should probably be reflective of (1) specific Hannibal-related awesomeness, including signature tactics, etc and (2) based on their importance to the war --- the battle of Zama is the decisive battle in the war, and the most known, yet it has the shortest section of any battle in this article. UnDeadGoat 23:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes against:

• Against for the reasons stated above. Dejvid 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Against I like the way it reads now, could be tightened but why remove information, wikipedia is not running out of diskspace, there is no rule against redundancy. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Against Removing the information regarding the events that led up to the battle would be denying the reader significant information in my opinion. The article is fine the way it is in my opinion.--Cannae777 14:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Against For the reasons stated above. --Chubdub 21:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• • Comment While it may be a good read the way it is. It is my view that an article is not good until it is Featured. I want this article to be featured and that's why we need to direct the information towards the main articles, if the reader wants information about them then they can read the main articles, it just means pressing a link. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• • • So your saying that your definition of good has nothing to do with the quality of the information, just that it meets a set of statistical guidelines? Ohh boy! I am not trying to be mean, it just seems that noone from the "for" side is taking into account the actual quality of the article in their reasoning. --Darkfred

I'm not saying that we need to get rid of the quality of information, just get it into the respective articles and make this article about Hannibal. I'll use an example to show what I'm saying:

Battle of Lake Trasimene

On the other hand, the Romans, greatly alarmed and dismayed by Sempronius’s defeat at Trebia, immediately made plans to counter the new threat from the north. The Roman senate resolved to elect new consuls the following year in 217 B.C. The two new consuls elected were Cnaeus Servilius and Gaius Flaminius. As both expected Hannibal to carry on advancing, the new consuls took their armies (one under Servilius to Arminum on the Adriatic, and the other under Flaminius to Arretium situated near the Apennine mountain passes) so commanding the eastern and western routes by which Hannibal could advance towards Rome.

could be summarized to:

Expecting Hannibal to carry on advancing to Rome, Cnaeus Servilius and Gaius Flaminius (the new Consuls of Rome) took their armies to block the Eastern and Western routes Hannibal could use to get to Rome.

While we go onto the topic of Rome, we only touch on it and then go back to Hannibal. I admit I could've written that better but you get the point. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

^{Talk to me} 01:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• • CommentThen take a look at our reasoning again. Besides, nobody is trying to remove information as you stated, just relocate it. The 'against' arguments are impressionistic, while ours are technical. Wikipedia is not an entertainment website and so it has to be bound by certain criteria if its content is to be taken seriously. E.Cogoy 01:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Good quality also means to be on topic. The article should be keen, just about Hannibal. If we want to deal with some battles here, we should contextualize the contents to the article. For instance, we can write about Hannibal's new ideas about strategy in this or that battle. But reproducing verbatim the content of the battle's articles is not keen, is not contextualized, is not good quality. (OK, the content in some cases has been moved from here to the battles'article; but that's not the point). gala.martin (what?) 19:57 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a problem that the battles do not focus on Hannibal enough but that is an argument for them to be rewritten. If we are going to do justice to him we should in detail discuss what Cannae and Zama say about his abilities and that means going in as much detail as now even if those details end up being different. Some people see the 32k limit as set in stone and forget that it dates from a time when Wiki was less sophisticated.Dejvid 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cogoy, I don't believe an encyclopedia is a technical document. It is information for the masses. It does not exists as s first party source, or even a collection of citations. What it is is an interesting way to read the information all in one place. Secondly, I don't mind if it is reduced in volume. What nobleeagle suggested is great! As information for the masses the second punic war is not where they are going to look first. And Hannibal at least deserves a well covered (but not detailed) description of the battle here. The information in one part of hannibal should not decrease in quality merely because it is covered elsewhere, that is someone reading about hannibal should be able to get a good idea of his entire life without clicking. Including major battles. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 16:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Condensation

Yes, I know that "condensation" is probably not the noun form of "condensing" when applied to words as opposed to liquid on a cooler surface. However, I can't quite think of the word to use unless it's abridgement.

Anyway, I just wanted to verify that User:Mustafa Bevi is making sure that the text being taken out is, in fact, in another Wikipedia article. My vote for shortening the article was based on the condition that text was being moved to other articles.

Second, I will comment that we didn't really reach consensus on this. There were 6 votes for shortening and 4 votes against. That's not consensus, that's tyranny of the majority. I voted in favor of shortening but I feel a consensus should be something like 80% to 90% in favor of something and even then only if the minority seems to be unreasonable.\

--Richard 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was not reached. If you are going to base your changes on a small majority it should be after the vote is no longer active (no-one has voted for a long time). I suggest further "condensation" should be halted until everyone has had their say is discussion. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nested articles

Well-nested articles lose no information. After sub-section headline, a Main article: note directs the interested reader to a fuller treatment of that sub-section. In the article's opening lines some linked word should always give a clue to the broader treatment, the next article "up" in the nesting, for those who want Hannibal's general context, but fewer details. Carthage might be the cue, or Punic Wars. Simply deleting information because our word quota or attention span is exceeded is jejune. --Wetman 05:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

Hannibal in film and television

You wouldn't get too many films and stuff related to Hannibal, so I think this section needs to be broadened so that we can include literature, film and even video gaming (to some extent). Just need to find a proper title that would encompass all of this. Then our job is simply to expand that section. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To-do list

Why the adding images and adding quotes items have been erased from the to-do list, if they have not been done? I think we need more Hannibal images in this article. Or, at least, it would be more valueable if we can add some Hannibal related images (hopefully, more related than Napoleon). I am not the only one to think like this, since also the editor of the to-do list had the same opinion. If images are not available, we can search for them (ok, where?), and anyway we should keep in mind that images are needed. Anyway, images not available does not imply images are not needed. Erasing items just to show that the article is OK does not work for me. gala.martin (what?) 22:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My reasons were simple and were stated in the history of the to-do list. Firstly, compare our images with that of Attalus I who is Today's Selected Article. We've actually got quite a few Hannibal related images and only a few that were indirectly related to Hannibal's legacy. This doesn't stop you from adding more images, it just tells you that images are not needed.

Secondly, the quotations bit is simply, the job is for Wikiquote, I have transferred existing quotations to Wikiquote and added the {{wikiquote}} template to the External Links section. Hope you understand my reasoning. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ehm (quite embarassed)... I had been looking for the history of the to-do list for ten minutes before writing the previous comment... I have seen the link there only now... Anyway, I agree about the quotations. As for the images, I believe that they really increase the value of the articles, expecially this one. If we can get more interesting images...why not? By the way, the upload of the bust closes this issue. Really a valueable add on. I do not know if the one who uploaded the bust image, did that after reading the to-do list. In this case, it would show that is useful to keep the image request in the list. gala.martin (what?) 03:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Has the Ethnicity debate been resolved?? As there is no Ethnicity section as stated in the To-Do List. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Image: Bust of Hannibal

I have just uploaded an image[[9]] which is perhaps the most famous representation of Hannibal, a bust apparently made during his lifetime (something which can also make it a crucial piece of evidence for the endless debate about his ethnicity.) Anyway, here’s what this website[10] had to say about it:

“The bust of Hannibal dates to about the second Punic War. It was originally found at the ancient city-state of Capua in Italia. Capua was closely allied to the general, was no doubt intended to be the Carthaginian political representative in Italy, and possibly commissioned the bust in honor of him. It also corresponds well with Carthago-Phoenicians coins and may be said to be a true likeness of that general.”

I just don’t know exactly <<where>> in the article it would be best to put the image (probably the introduction?). If anyone has an idea, please feel free to paste the image there or post a suggestion here. E.Cogoy 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I added it next to the intro, and moved the old intro image down to replace the Napoleon image that really shouldn't be on this article despite the crossing of the alps. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

We could add some info (see above) related to bust image (in the lines below the image). For instence, we could state that it is original. It is also remarkable that the bust was found in Capua, and that it was done when Hannibal was still alive (according to the website cited before). I did not edit, because I want to know if you consider this info reliable. gala.martin (what?) 12:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Split the article

If it is to large don't delete infomation but make two articles Hannibal In the second Punic war and Hannibal.

"Modern culture"

The "film" chart as it stands is unhelpful in the extreme, as it allows no room for explanation, and includes far too many documentaries, which don't really count. I propose a separate "modern culture" section at the end, which can develop subtopics as appropriate; see Nero for an example of what I'm talking about. UnDeadGoat 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with opinions regarding the formatting of the section but on Sunday, 14th of May, 2006 in the UK, the BBC showed 2 very well made (and more importantly, historically accurate) programs on Hannibal. The first was a so-called "docu-drama" which I thought managed quite well to combine elements of typical movie adaptations (ie. a decent actor's portrayal of the man, lots of men in uniforms fighting and marching, special effects etc.) while still keeping quite true to the historical facts. This was followed by a traditionally styled documentory on Hannibal, taking clips of the battles, columns of men, war elephants etc. from the docu-drama. I'm not sure if it's already listed in the section though (it seemed as though made pretty recently) but I definatly think the "docu-drama" especially deserves a mention for people wanting to see a historically accurate visual portrayal of Hannibal's exploits (maybe to compare against what I'm sure will be a cringly inaccurate portrayal by Vin Deasil in the upcoming "Hannibal movie", similar maybe to the infamous Braveheart movie which happened to be on at the same time on another channel). Canderra 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, on further inspection, it appears the "docu-drama" I was referring to was in fact the already listed "Hannibal - Rome's Worst Nightmare". Still, it was more accurate than your typical historical TV film and I quite recommend it to Hannibal fans (Although, some of this sense of accuracy could have been due to me comparing it with Braveheart which I watched afterwards on a different channel). Canderra 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Excessive info on an unrelated topic?

Masinissa, b. c.238, d. 149 or 148 BC, who later founded the nation of Numidia in North Africa west of Carthage. As a young Numidian tribal leader, he fought in Spain against the Romans during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC). In 206, however, he changed sides; he assisted Scipio Aficanus Major with the cavalry that defeated Carthage at Zama (202). Having been a leader of Hannibal's own cavalry and an expert on Hannibal's brilliant use of the cavalry, Scipio Aficanus made sure that he bought Masinissa with the promise of a future kingdom. With Roman support he established himself as the king of Numidia, which had previously been a collection of diverse, and seminomadic tribes. Rome offered no objections as he expanded his realm at Carthage's expense in later years. Masinissa turned many of the Numidians into peasant farmers. Upon his death,his sons divided his kingdom.

I can't see why we need such a huge paragraph on Masinissa's biography and Numidian history when a short description of his actions and 'betrayal' would be enough. What does it have to do with Hannibal Barca, anyway? Xemoi 19:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal's Ethnicity was African

Hannibal's Ethnicity was African - There is ample evidence supporting this from many historical sources. The picture that was placed up there IS NOT a recognized image of Hannibal. Pages with false and distorted info only pollute the wikipedia index. Please do not revert my changes without documenting. Why are people so insecure about this? 64.174.151.22 Talk 00:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I already reverted it. Why? Because

1. You erased an entire infobox. Don't do this. If you don't like the image, see point #2, but erasing the entire infobox either is deliberate vandalism (in which case it gets reverted), or accidental damage (in which case it gets reverted).
2. The image that was there was a depiction of Hannibal - and it is a recognized depiction of Hannibal as seen by the Romans. If this is a misidentified statue, please say so, and where you got your information. If it is an inaccurate depiction, you can explain this in the text. In fact, it may be interesting to the topic to explain why there are inaccurate depictions of Hannibal. Even better, add accurate representations of Hannibal, and point out why it is likely to be a better depiction. This actually improves the article.
3. You bolded large sections of your edit. This is just annoying.
4. Your edit was pretty POV.
5. Your edit smacked of at least unconscious racism. What the heck is an African of the "purist type"?
6. What the heck do rings have to do with it?
7. It can be argued that Carthage is not an African city, but a phonecian colony that just happened to be on the North African coast. In fact, if you dig into the historical records of the Mercenary War there's good evidence that the local people were oppressed by the "colonists", and since Hannibal seems to have been "high in the councils" of Carthage, it is not unreasonable to think he might have been of phonecian stock. The point is, that apart from going back in time and doing a complex physical evaluation and DNA testing, we probably won't ever know for sure. He could have been semitic. He could have been African. Who knows? No one really, we just have contesting theories.

I'm not saying your edit is wrong. It could be more accurate than what is is there now. Your edit did, however, run roughshod over half a dozen social conventions in Wikipedia, say nothing of basic manners.

Because you basically hacked out an "offending viewpoint" (or at least one that seems to be offensive to you), and put in an oppositely slanted one, rather than propose a counterpoint and supporting evidence in contrast to opposing views, I simply reverted your edit rather than go in and try and repair it - that's your job.

Feel free to add your ethnicity arguments back in - multiple viewpoints make for better rounded information - but please try and adhere to wikipedia editing style, rules and conventions, and basic good manners. - Vedexent 03:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, any arguments about ethnicity should be sourced to a reliable source, else it risks being considered original research and a violation of WP:NOR. --Richard 06:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

One of Hannibal Barca's ancestors was the Punic explorer Mago Barca. He travelled several times across the Sahara and established traderoutes between Carthage and the Sub-Saharan Black African population and friendly contact to the more Caucasian desert inhabitants, whose territory these routes crossed. Wandalstouring

There were several ways for black Africans to the Mediterannean like Egypt, where many Nubian mercenaries worked as archers, Tyros traderoute to Yemen and Somalia along the Red Sea and the Maghreb, there especially Carthage which had landroutes (to the Niger river) and searoutes (Senegal). The existence of Black Africans in the Mediterannean seems evident, among marines in the Persian navy, possibly some priests with Sub-Saharan Black African origins in Punic Africa, etc. Especially the abilities of Nubian archers were highly praised. But Roman texts refering to Hannibal and his troops as Afri and in translations African do not mean Black African, but originating from Punic Africa (area of modern Tunisia) and it usually means in of mixed African origin, especially Lybian(native sedentary Caucasian population of Punic Africa)-Punic. We have too little information about Hannibal Barca's family tree. Most likely he was of Phoenician-Cypriot ancestry like other Punics and for a member of old aristocracy it is likely to have some family link to the Sicilian Greek aristocracy. Black African origins can not be neglected, but are neither proven, although it is likely that the Barca family had connections to Sub-Saharan Africa and family links were a common practice to strengthen such bounds. Next week I will have the books handy to quote.Wandalstouring 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

During the Mercenary War independent Punic cities like Utica, which formally had a longstanding alliance with Carthage joined the rebels. It has to be stated, while the usual tribute for the Lybians was 10% (like the tax system in Israel), in wartime it could rise to 50% and the First Punic War was an especially long and expensive war, unseen before on such a scale. The Punic economy had been severely damaged, as can be seen by the lack of available trained rowers (Punic citizen militia units) for the fleet. The inability to finance the demands of the mercenaries and the high reparation payment demands by Rome are likely to have put a continuing effect to this constant rumor of oppression. But one must be careful to conclude the Lybians were constantly exploited. In former Punic Sardinia the native inhabitants revolted for almost a decade against the tremendously high demands of usual Roman peacetime taxiation and rule, resulting a very brutal conquest. Wandalstouring 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Its really simple actually. North Africa (The land of carthage.) has been inhabited and ominated by arabs (Yemen origin) for 6000 thousand years. Then Phoenician (Middle eastern people) migrants setup shop there. This is what we call NORTH AFRICA. While ALL of africa south of the sahara are black ethnic groups of a hundred diverseties north of the sahara (NORTH AFRICA THE SITE OF CARTHAGE) has been always has always will be and even today is ARAB.' Than k you and good night 74.236.92.108 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the preceding is just completely wrong. The aboriginal inhabitants of the lands that are now Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco were BERBERS, who are neither Arabs nor sub-Saharan Africans. All available evidence indicates that Berber is still the predominant anscestry of the people of that region, although Arab culture (and language) has been dominant for several hundred years.

Not quite right, sorry. We have prove that there was a constant immigration from south of the Sahara. Wandalstouring 19:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes exactly, thats what I said. Some people dont really get the concept of "Dominated". Its really sad when people try to hijack other people's history. Hannibal was semetic the carthaginians were semetic and the people before and after them were semetic. If your still in an ignorant idiot who somehow has come to think that ALL of africa is black through some sort of childish education then you really need to go and visit the north, south, west and east africa and realize that NO IT DOESN'T belong to just you. North is Semetic (Arab,Hebrew) south is white/black, east is half arab and Baggara and everything UNDER THE SAHARA is black see that part belongs to you. Hannibal was ARAB/Phoenician, thank you and good night 74.236.92.108 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That is explaining things on kindergarten level and calling someone an idiot does not support an argumentation. It is archeologically evident that there was a black minority in the kingdom of Garamantes for example. Concerning east Africa you mix up Semitic culture and Black African origin of most people there. Unfortunately for you people made it across the Sahara. Naturally they did not form the majority of the northern regions, but it would be like saying the USA live only Whites; no Blacks, no Natives and no Asians. It doesn't support the claim anyone had a specific racial origin, but it can be guessed what was most likely the case and if someone didn't fit the norm of people from a region this fact would likely be noted. That is logic and arguments, not insulting and telling half-truth. Wandalstouring 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your education is at a level below my apparent horrible "explanation". Garamantes are a berber people parts of there dominion is sub Sahara. Its pleasant to note that Carthage is 1,312 miles away from this area. Its also a great note that the Berbers are an Arab people of Yemen's origin who have dominated the entire region for more then about 6000 years ever since migrating from Arabia proper."Concerning east Africa you mix up Semitic culture and Black African origin of most people there. Unfortunately for you people made it across the Sahara"- wha? lol - This is just complete nonsense. - "but it would be like saying the USA live only Whites; no Blacks, no Natives and no Asians." we are talking about antiquity not the twenty first century. Rome imported "barbarian" slaves but that doesn't mean the population quota of the small minority suddenly bursts and replaces the first population. unless the minority in Carthage (black African minority, if there even was one which no proof or even legitimate claim to such has ever been made) had some some pretty hot beds haha. 74.236.92.108 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion archived per WP:TALK because it's going off-topic into a discussion of the Bible. Click on "show" to see it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It says here in WP that the Phoenicians were descended of Canaan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia. It also states in WP that their language was split of from the Canaanite language in the Semitic language family. Let's back track, Phoenicians are Zidonians and descended from Sidon. Sidon was Canaan's first born son (Gen 10:15). Canaan was Ham's youngest son (Gen 10:6). Therefore Phoenicians are directly in Ham's bloodline. Ham is the undisputed father of black mankind. For those of you who have adamantly stated that Hannibal was a Phoenician, I believe you. For those of you who have adamantly requested a verifiable source, you now have it. The Bible. The Phoenicians, Hannibal included were black. Tom 04/02/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC) I'm afraid that the Bible is only reliable for Biblic statements. Changing the article based on WP:OR original research interpretations of vague open-to-interpretation statements on the Bible will be inmediately reverted for WP:OR. For controversial changes, a WP:RS reliable source needs to be provided to support your statements. For very unlikely statements, you better have very good RS sources --Enric Naval (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC) There's nothing vague about my comment and the bible is the source of more genealogical articles listed here in WP than either you or I can count. Phoenicians are in Ham's blood line and are listed that way in the WP article on Phoenicia. I didn't make this up and I'm not changing anything. There is no controversy. The truth is what it is. I of course would entertain any cited alternate research. Tom 04/03/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I am so much not going to enter a discussion about how reliable the bible is for historical events, and much less get involved on any discussion involving the WP:TRUTH truth. Again: your argument is faulty, and changing the article on that direction will be reverted because of reasons explained already above --Enric Naval (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I understand your not wanting to enter a discussion about the accuracy of the bible. I'm sure that you would much rather say that this is a flawed analogy without having to cite any respected literature. Mine is not a faulty argument. It's not an argument at all. I only reported what has been written in the bible as well as other sources that say the Phoenicians are descended from Canaan. I created nothing. I only pointed it out. If you have an argument at all, it is with the historians, researchers, archaeologists and biblical scholars/theologians who have written this for centuries. Don't hate the messenger. It's not my fault, I didn't write it. If Hannibal was a Phoenician, then he also was a descendant of Canaan. If you can show that Hannibal was not a Phoenician, then this observation becomes untrue. Tom 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) By that logic, the Berbers, Minoans, Hittites and Mesopotamians were all black as well. In fact, unless you are going to claim that Noah's other two sons were not of the same race as their brother, I would love to hear why the Hebrew people were not also black.76.178.74.35 (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC) The early Hebrews were black. Amos 9:7 KJV. " Are ye not as the children of Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?" For the Egyptian and Ethiopian origin of the Jews, see: Gerald Massey: A Book of the Beginnings, Vol. II pt. 2, pp. 364-441, London, 1881. The Books of Kings state that Jerusalem was known as Jebus (i.e. Jebusites). Jebusites were close descendants of Canaan. See Gen:10:16. I can go on. Tom 05/04/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC) No, not really. Afro-centrist fantasy tales from the Nation of Islam pamphlet. Laughable at best. Sorry. Koalorka (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, Massey did put forward the idea that the Hebrews had their origins in Ancient Egypt...right after he said the same thing about the British. If you look at his comparison of vocabularies, the many of the Egyptian words compared to English were later compared to Hebrew, but with vastly different meanings.76.178.74.35 (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC) And none of that has any relevance to this article. Koalorka (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Please cite the references that you are using, if you want to be respected and believed. Koalorka is actually calling the bible afro-centric and Islamic. Please everyone, cite the book, page and paragraph where you citations can be found. Unless you're making it all up. Tom 05/04/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm ridiculing the childish Afro-centric interpretations of the Bible. I'll remind you, this is not a discussion forum and has no relevance to Hannibal's ethnic background. Koalorka (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Those claiming the Charles Picard have no basis for this belief since he's used as a source in recent anthropological studies on Punic Ibiza. Simply put, portraying Hannibal as European is a fraud.

Darfur

All you have to do is look at Darfur to end the BS about "black" Africans (whatever that is) being below the Sahara. Whenever Darfur or any 'accepted' black people in Africa are in the Northern regions, I never hear anything about a "sub-Saharan" at all! When Somalia was in the news, that showed you yet another look of Africans - a look that works well with the north and mixing. However, the blackness is still VERY present.

As far as Norhtwest Africa is concerned, all one has to do is look at the artifacts left and you will see clear black Africaness along with signs of mixing. They clearly mixed more than Northeast Africa given their closeness to Europe. When compared to ancient Egyptians, NW Africans are not as clear-cut African (the type that is undisputed - usually only one type that is pointed out with features that do not always resemble ancient blacks of African origins) as Egyptians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.91.23 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Those areas are sub-Saharan. Overlay a sattelite image of Africa with a map of its nations. Somolia is completely below the Sahara, and while part of Darfur does extend up into the desert, the conflict, and as such, pictures from the conflict have almost all taken place south of the desert belt.76.178.74.35 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Race controversey

Some morons today are claiming that Hannibal was a negroid racial type, based purely on the idea that he was born and raised on the continent of Africa. this espite the overwhelming evidence that proves beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that he was clearly caucasoid. the same troublemakers are also claiming that other famous peoples such as Cleopatra, as well as entire peoples such as the Ancient Egyptians, Libyans and Berbers were not as they appear in all the authentic artwork, and written descriptions, but were part of some mythical ancient black civilization, For shame people, for shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

As I pointed out we can not outrule that Hannibal Barca and many other important people in the Mediterannean had Black African ancestors. So what? Especially members of the Barca family are likely to have Black African relatives before moving to Iberia and intermarrying with the local nobility there (Imilke, Hannibal's wife was from Southern Iberia).Wandalstouring 12:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

People! This subject was already discussed! Please read fomer discussions in the Archive. You can find relevant discussion in Hannibal's Ethnicity. The Ogre 15:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, 64.174.151.22 (Talk) arguments, as referenced by Vedexent (African of the "purist type", "rings", etc.), mirror the arguments formely presented (check it!) by a Tom Bailey (Talk) in November 2005. This is strange... The Ogre 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out, his family had traditionally important ties to trade with Sub-Saharan Africa, so Black African ancestors are not impossible and I think I remember reading about sceletons with negroid features found in graves decorated with highly crafted artworks, so possibly even Punicnobility had some links to Africa, as well as to Sicilian Greece. This is not much to wonder about, for only the tolls from the cross-Sahara trade brought ~400 silver talents annualy (a budget, enough to finance a considerable military power by itself). But for we do not know for sure the Barca family did have intermarriage with Black Africans besides establishing the trade, it is only speculation. We can state that his ancestors among the Barca family had played a signifanct role in establishing important ties across the Sahara. Rings are nothing specifically Black African, see Plautus' comedy Poenulus about a Punic. The mentioned French source from 1870 is very likely racist, a thread that continues a long time into the last century in many works on Carthage. In British literature for some time the highest praise was to neglect their semitic origins. Today their Cypriot ancestry is often forgotten. Wandalstouring 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal was a negro like most if not all cathagian-rulers at that time:

http://www.whenweruled.com/articles.php?lng=en&pg=15

File:Hannibal head1.jpg

The Head of Hannibal

No proof there.

The article about Ethiopia is nice to read, but contains no surprising info. It was a very influential country at these times and one of the few rich territories Romans knew, but did not invade.

The coin of Hannibal Barca seems to show negroid features, but there are many coins with images of his family and there are no Black African features visible, so it is very unlikely. You do not need a negroid looking profile to have Black African ancestors, as well as people (like me) could look negroid on such a coin, although there was definetly no Black African in may family tree dating back for several generations. Wandalstouring 20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The coin of hannibal linked above does not seem to show Black African features, it definitely shows Black African features. Black African features are often rationalized away as being questionable when they describe early prominent historic figures, while caucasion images are considered accurate. Its almost as if the only true Black Africans were indigent. This debate is universal when dealing with prominent Ancient African Civilizations. I've yet to witness a debate over the blackness of an indigent Ancient African Civilization. On the other hand, I've yet not to witness a debate about of the blackness of a prominent Ancient African Civilization. Tom 10/26/06

Sure thing. You know that Wikipedia is about verifiability, right? And published works? And seious academic papers and not websites or personal interpretations of bad photos of ancient weathered coins? Both sides of this debate need to show valid references for their arguments, or go home. If both sides have credible references then perhaps both sides of the argument with their supporting references can be included in the article, and let the reader make up their own mind. But your squabbling is starting to sound like a playground - Vedexent (talk) - 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This coin, which deserves to be on the main page with the other coins can be found in the Museo Kercheriano, Rome and is said to be struck by Hannibal himself while he was in Italy. One could debate who is the greater authoriy on Hannibal, the Romans or the British. Col. Hennebert, a leading authority on Hannibal said "We do not posess any authentic portrait of Hannibal" (Histoire d'Annibal, Vol I, p. 495, Paris, 1870). One could wonder why other effigies of Hannibal make him look more like a Roman commander than a North African Commander. After all, these were the people he was conquering. One could also debate if Roman war attire is adequate for riding on an Elephant. I'd also like to comment on your opinion of this being a playground. It's not. There are many Scholarly Americans and a few British who have tried to write Blacks out of history. Not just ancient blacks, but well into the twentieth century. You see this trend with the Buffalo Soldier, who built Fort Seal Oklahoma, saved Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders and ended the Apache threat in Northern Texas. The USS Mason (the only black warship in WWII) which launched into a storm to save an American Fleet after the Mighty British Navy refused the mission. Their medals were held for fifty years and given to them by Bill Clinton after the Navy snuffed their paperwork. The 761st Tank Batallion who knocked down the gates at Hitlers death camps and saved many Jews including a boy who would later become a prominent Rabbi in Tel Aviv, who said that they looked like Black Angels coming through the Gates. (They were later given the name "Liberators" by the Jews that they saved). The Tuskegee Airmen who never lost a bomber to a German Fighter Pilot in a dogfight. I can go on. There was a concentrated effort to write these and other dynamic black figures out of history in the same lifetime as some of Wikipedias readers. Please understand that this is not a playground or an arbitrary sparring match. It is a serious quest for truth. Tom 10/27/06

Doesn't matter. There is no claim made on Hannibal's racial origin in this article, only his cultural heritage. I want a waterproof evidence for his race and there is none. You try to point out racial origin by feature on one old coin, while there are many old coins and Carthage only used few coining dies. For this reason your presentation his highly doubtable. Do you have a numismatic analysis for this coin, so we could at least verify what it supposedly shows and whether it is real or a motage. Thank you. None here wants to supress Black Africans (I'm personnaly working on the topic to present them more in wikipedia). We simply do not want to present hoaxes because it affects our serious material about verified Black African achievements and people. Besides stop mixing up the racial prejudiced US of 1950 and the Roman Republic or the Greeks. Read for example Homer, the Iliad, he gives a description of black soldiers without racial prejudices, vfurthermore we do have records of real and verified black soldiers and emperors throughout the antiquity, but NOT Hannibal. It may be possible that he had black African ancestry like other members of the Punic people, but that is all. Wandalstouring 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Think for a moment. You said "There's a chance that he may have had black African ancestry". Being from Africa I would think that there's only a chance that he had caucasion ancestry. The non African has to be proven, not the African. No one has been required to show definitive proof that he was Europeon in appearance. But yet they are believed. There are no waterproof Europeon effigies of Hannibal. Just a bunch of them. And the Europeon effigies of him vary greatly. And yet they are believed. The coin was not cast in Carthage. It was cast in Italy. So Carthages limitations in casting don't apply. One also may cast doubt on the Italian museum that possesses the coin. It amazes me that he can be portrayed as a Roman or Greek commander when he had none of their culture or blood running through his veins. Surely that has to create some questions. The fact that you are working on the topic to bring more Black History to Wikipedia shows the lack of correct Black History in Wikipedia. Thank you for your honorable efforts. That which I have presented here is as credible as the alternative speculations. Tom 10/27/06

No, it isn't, your sources prove nothing. First of all, Hannibal belonged without doubt to the Punic upper class. This means he had some Phoenician or Cypriot lineage. We do know that the Punic nobility intermarried with various groups they had contact with, like the Greek or the Samnites. We have no written source about intermarriage with Black Africans. It was reconstructed that the Punics did have traderoutes established across the Sahara and slaves were one of the most valuable articles, but the nobility was not born from slaves. In an old book on Punic graves that was still influenced by racial bias (it was from the 1950s) it was noted that a richly decorated grave was discovered, but it contained just the sceleton of a negroe woman. The interpretation went so far as to see a very loyal servant of the godess presented with a statue next to the grave and proposing she was likely a high ranking sacral prostitute. This is all clear evidence about black Africans in Carthage. The portrays of Hannibal with Greek feature are probably legitimate for as far as we know his teacher was himself raised after the Lycurgan education of Sparta. Futhermore it is proven that the Punics did adopt Greek customs. The helmet is a sign of his rank as strategus, showing him with a Romanized helmet, hairstyle etc. can be correct for he spent a lot of his time in Italy (there are Roman rumours he even had a mistress in Southern Italy) and got his hands on Roman armor. As far as facial features are concerned, the Greek portraying of that time idealised the facial features in accordance with certain rules concerning the perfect beauty, in contrary Roman and Italian portrays were highly accurate, even if the features were not complimentary. what you totally mix up is some basic knowlege about genetics. There is a genotype and a phenotype, the genotype is the genetic information where samples of your ancestors are preserved if you received these parts during the insemination. The penotype are the visible features and the do not contain all features contained in the genotype. While you have a strong emphasis on African Americans, genetically the carry quite a lot of DNA not found among Black Africans. So they have other ancestors from different areas as well (Natives, Europeans, Asians, etc.). Do you see the difference between African Americans and Black Africans (a lot of them have lightly colored skin)? The point is we do not have specifically Black African noted for Hannibal and unlike other famous persons of the Antiquity he was not named Hannibal the Black. This does not mean he did not have a Black African great-grandmother or else, but there is absolutely no prove. If you want to start contributing something useful, start an article about Punic burials and sceleton findings, there you will find scientific information how many sceletons with possible Black African features have been found. That's all. Wandalstouring 23:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think this coin held at Museo Kercheriano, Rome a fraud? Would you care to explain to the Museums curators why you think their exibit inaccurate? This world renowned museum displays this coin as a likeness of Hannibal. Col. Hennebert (whom I'm sure you're familiar with) has no respect for the most common and popular depictions of Hannibal. Is he also a fraud? If the Museum and Col. Henneberts display and opinion isn't proof please outline clearly the exact thing that you would need to observe to believe. Please also outline the strength of the evidence that governs your current belief. In other words outline what you currently consider proof and its strength. Also, if he were named Hannibal the Black most caucasions would probably say that it was synonymous with swarthy and not truly black. And so the debate would just continue. You mentioned that Roman portrayals were very accurate. This coin was cast in Rome and is displayed in a major Roman Museum. Do you now not believe the Romans? Do you have proof that Hannibal had a White African Grandmother? Finding the grave of one Black African woman of prominence in Africa would be like finding the grave of one prominent Native American in the USA. In other words , superficial at best. Do you suppose that the land was uninhabited before the whites came? I believe there were centuries of Black Africans living in that land before Rome ever knew it was there. Carthage was well endowed with natural resources. So the inhabitants of that land were not indigent. Modern historians would have us believe that these early inhabitants were just waiting for the whites to arrive to enslave them and show them what to do with their own natural resources. Many of the slaves were slaves of other prominent blacks in Carthage. Often times slave and slave owner looked alike. I am not declaring so much that what I'm suggesting is proof, as much as I'm declaring that the theory that he was white is at least equally suspicious and at best, also unproven. Tom 10/28/06

1. Your real knowledge of African history and Black African history is a big hole.

2. "Museo Kercheriano" Does not exist, but several black facts sites mention it -> a hoax. Of course it could be that they mean "Museo Kircheriano" that does exist, but such a simple fact shows that all these sites have copyedited information without verificating, even missing to delet the typos. Even the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a better copyedit besides being as fake.

3. The same for Col. Hennebert another hoax from http://www.users.fast.net/~blc/blac2.htm he is by no means a recognized authority on Hannibal. In 1893 he wrote a book: LA GUERRE that is all. At that time there were several ideas in France that the North Africans were strongly influenced by black Africans and this made them intellectually inferior, but very cruel and bloodthirsty. So if you want to use a source quote it in detail and not just some hearsay.

4. How to prove a likeliness would be numerical data from the lots of sceleton findings of Punic upper and lower class stating they do show some Black African features (from a serious author). This is noneexistant and Black African features of sceletons were noted even during deepest racial prejudices and there was no overwhelming black population nor were they found to dominate the nobility.

5. You mix up coins and marble portrays.

6. I checked the picture on the coin, it is a montage of the real coin in the museum. Wandalstouring 18:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Visit this site for more verification of Hannibal's origin. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Hannibal Wandalstouring 19:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mispelling noted. David Anthony Durham's website also mentions the mispelling. It originates from the publishers of J.A. Rogers book around 1936. I also couldn't find Col.Henneberts book on the web, but I'll keep looking. I do have to rely on a little hearsay however, a comment you made. You said that the museum was a hoax and then proceeded to spell it correctly proving that you know it's not a hoax, but simply mispelled. You said at first that this was just an old coin, then you said that you checked it out and that it was a montage of the actual coin in the museum, which means that you acknowledge the coin in the Museo Kircheriano. To say that it's a montage is unfair but I'm not going to deal with fairness right now. Let's suppose that's it is a montage, a composite of the original coin that you've acknowledged is in the Museum. That would be the same as acnowledging that you are aware of a coin bearing Black African features sitting in the Museo Kircheriano that's being displayed as a likeness of Hannibal. Unless you're claiming that this montage is a composite of re-arranged caucasion features. Since you think this montage a fraud, do you also consider the museum coin from which it was (by your own words) drafted, a fraud also. Where can I view the original coin that you checked the montage against. Is it on the Museums website. If so please give the web address. Oh by the way, I didn't display the coin on this site. I'm only commenting on it. Please respond with your opinion of the original museum coin. For more of these coins with elephants on their back side an an effigy of Hannibal on their front side go to <www.nok-benin.co.uk/prev-articles/royal_6.htm> Tom 10/28/06

The different spelling for the museum was just a suggestion. I checked it by looking into some history books on Punic coins. Hannibal had just one coining die, prior to the Barcids Carthage had only seven single coining dies in its empire (during several hundred years), they were very economic with them. There is only one type of Hannibal coins in the world and the one from the British museum is easily verifiable. Wandalstouring 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So you were not comparing it to the coin in Museo Kircheriano? Did you view the suggested website for more coins. I will find Col.Henneberts book "Histoire d' Annibal" and get back to you. The Volumn, page and copyright was given and is worthy of research. Tom 10/28/06

Go to <http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hannibal_(General)> and scroll down for an excellent article on Hannibal which lists as one of it's sources, E. Hennebert Histoire d' Annibal (Paris, 1870-1891 , 3 vols.). Hennebert is referenced in the same company as Polybius, W. How, Cornelius Nepos, W.T.Arnold, F.A.Dodge and a host of others. This should clear up any doubt as to whether Hennebert is a respected Authority on Hannibal. Tom 10/30/06

OK, so can you quote him directly please (book and page number). Wandalstouring 15:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(Vol I,p.495 Paris 1870) As I've read through these paragraphs, the Character of people who think Hannibal a Black African has really been attacked. One unsigned person even referred to us as being morons. Unfair and Personal. Tom 10/30/06

What does he write in Vol I,p.495 Paris 1870? Please quote word for word his argumentation for Hannibal being of Black African ancestry (None doubts that he was born in Northern Africa). No I didn't call you a moron, but the process of establishing your proof takes quite long. Some editors might get the idea you just wanted to spam. Wandalstouring 16:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood. Unsigned at the beginning of (Race Controversey) said that people who think Hannibal a Black African are morons. I hadn't commented in this section at that time, so I wasn't putting that on you. You only referred to me as believing in a hoax. Hennebert didn't say that Hannibal was Black. He said "We do not possess any authentic portrait of Hannibal" on page 495 in Vol I. Hence the significance of the coins portraying him as a Black African in The Museo Kircheriano, Rome. Remember earlier I wrote that I'm not so much proving that Hannibal was black (which is what I believe) as I'm establishing an equal possibility that he could have been. This may sound silly, but consider this parallel. Sec. Rice and Colon Powell have no lineage in Wash D.C. If everyone in the White House submitted a DNA sample for future historical reference, theirs would be to the White House as the one prominent black female remains that you said were found in Carthage. 2000 years from now it would have to be proven that they were Black Americans because of the limited black DNA samples that would exist currently at the White House. But yet Sec. Rice and Colon Powell are black commanders with a host of white and multi cultural subordinates in their command. Hannibal didn't live in a racist (Black African stay out) society. He commanded a multi cultural army from a multi cultural society. With the Museo coins as reference and the doubt placed on effigies of Hannibal by a recognized Europeon caucasion authority, I feel that I can make a legitmate argument that he was or at least could been Black African. I don't know if Hennebert saw the Black effigies of Hannibal. But I'm sure that he saw the Caucasion ones which are the basis of his doubt. Tom 10/30/06

No, you are stretching the interpretation too far. Hennebert said we didn't know how Hannibal looked like while many others said he looked like on the marble bust and coins, so if you want to take Hennebert seriously you have to say we do not know. We do know of so many Black Africans in Carthage and other caucasian majority groups in northern Africa. That is all. But I would appreciate if you did write an article on this topic instead of arguing for Hannibal being a Black African. We do have to cite in wikipedia recognized sourced if they state he looked like on the marble bust (and this image is properly sourced and verified, yours not). So get up and do some research on the Garmantes and Carthaginians and their Black Africans, but stop clinging to Hannibal, this is OR. Wandalstouring 22:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What does OR mean. The Museo Kircheriano, Rome is as reputable a source as any other sources in existence. The coins there and the coins displayed on the website above aren't renegade examples of Hannibal. I'm sure that they are unpopular however. I would be stretching only if the coins didn't exist. I stated earlier that I'm not sure if Hennebert saw the Roman Black effigies of Hannibal. But I am sure that he saw the caucasion ones that formed his opinion. By Henneberts opinion the caucasion effigies are the images that are stretched. He did not accept any of them as being legitimate. I also stated earlier that I'm not so much proving Hannibal black as I'm legitimately proving that he could have been. This is a fair and equitable discussion. Tom 11/07/06

No. Hennebert said the paintings from the bust are nonsense. Well, one has to reapproach them whether they didn't carry Greek influence. Such a fact as the Barcids being very dark compared to the average Roman is unlikely to have escaped Roman attention because Black Africans are already mentioned in the Trojan Wars, because Black Africans had a reputitian as marines and archers and are mentioned as such. No such thing exists for Hannibal. The coin you are refering to is a hoax, the real coin in the museum dos not look like that (yup, I asked an Italian to check). Wandalstouring 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are about to display the coins (plural) that are displayed in the Museo Kircheriano, Rome? There were several coins displayed above. Would your Italian friend like to comment in Wikipedia? Will he or she be taking current digital photos and displaying them here? Hennebert would not have to say that the paintings from the busts were nonsense. There would be no need to state the obvious. It was thought only a few paragraphs above that Hennebert was a hoax. Why didn't you comment on that, since you knew that Hennebert was not a hoax? Do you suppose that someone actually went to the length of creating these coins for the specific goal of stealing credit for Hannibals ethnicity? Do you think them a modern creation? Please have your Italian friend display the findings at the Museo Kircheriano, Rome. Since they checked. Tom 11/08/06

That would be asking way to much. Some people have a private live. Just prove your source of the coin and don't ask others to prove your sources. Wandalstouring 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You said that you asked an Italian friend to check in Rome for these coins and that they are not there. When I asked for your friend to comment in Wikipedia you said that that would be asking to much. In order for your friend to check the coins in Rome against these coins, your friend would have to have access to Wikipedia. So why not comment. You said that you checked out the coins yourself and that they were a montage of the coins in Rome, and then admitted that you only looked through Punic records. You said that Hennebert was a hoax just to discover that he's a well respected authority on Hannibal. You later said that Hennebert said the paintings from the busts are nonsense. So now you're quoting a man that earlier you said was a hoax? Is it too much to ask you the page and the volume that you found that in? I've listed my sources several times in paragraphs above. Produce your Italian friend and the Museo coins that differ from these. This should be a collaboration for truth, not a competition. Tom 11/08/06

You mix up things. First I checked the info you gave me. The museum did not exist and I found nothing about a Hennebert who is credited the big authority. All you have is Hennebert not clearly stating he was talking about any racial features, but doubting we know what Hannibal looked like from our sources. You have the picture of a coin which seems to show features like to a negroid person and in contradiction to Hennebert you use it to say Hannibal was of Black African ancestry because you feel it. Cool, some people feel differnt. So what, can you verify this image you have? I asked someone to take a look and say if it looked like in the museum, he said nope and I believed. If you disagree go to Italy and take a photo. Afterwards find a real scientific book discussing explicitly Hannibal's Black African ancestry. If you have these, welcome back and feel free to edit. You don't have it? - TYou are not allowed to put your original research into wikipedia. If you publish a scientific paper first elsewhere and it gets recognized, no problem. Just write your argumentation into such a paper, add your sources and visit the nearest history professor (They are usually very open minded to various approaches and there is some evidence for Black African presence in North Africa) and ask him whether he would help you to publish it. But here you are in the wrong place. Have a nice day. Wandalstouring 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have your Italian friends email to you? I'm assuming that you emailed the image to him in Italy for him to compare it with coins (again plural)in Rome. Would you at least forward that to Wikipedia. If you would like me to publish a work surely you'd be willing to forward an email of such great importance to Wikipedia. Since your friend won't comment himself. Tom 11/09/06

?I doubt people like their email adress published if it is no official adress. Will see what I can do. Wandalstouring 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Yes exactly, thats what I said. Some people dont really get the concept of "Dominated". Its really sad when people try to hijack other people's history. Hannibal was semetic the carthaginians were semetic and the people before and after them were semetic. If your still in an ignorant idiot who somehow has come to think that ALL of africa is black through some sort of childish education then you really need to go and visit the north, south, west and east africa and realize that NO IT DOESN'T belong to just you. North is Semetic (Arab,Hebrew) south is white/black, east is half arab and Baggara and everything UNDER THE SAHARA is black see that part belongs to you. Hannibal was ARAB/Phoenician, thank you and good night" 74.236.92.108 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A strange and condescending comment. If you chose to remain unknown thats your choice. The articles above challange Hannibals ethnicity based on Museum coins in Rome and doubt created by a noted scholar. Not the fact that he was African. But since you accused others of feeling that Hannibal had to be black because he was African, how do you explain your feeling that all of Carthage was Semitic. You seem just like those that you accuse. Carthage was a melting pot of diversity. There were also many dark skinned wooly haired Arabs and Phoenicians. The farther you go back in history the darker they become. If you read the bible (starting with Genesis) you will see that Ethiopia is riddled with Hebrews. I would also like to think henceforth that it would be beneath you to label someone an idiot for having a different opinion than your own. Tom 11/29/06

Iam sorry if I tried to get in the way of you people trying to hijack history, but you see when someone tries to steal my people's history trying to rob us of our identity and our hero's well then I cant stand for that. People just ignore this rehtoric historical vandals are nothing new we used to just ignore them and it worked now we are lending an ear to them only gives fuel to amount of crap there is. Agro Soy 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Also known before as 74.236.92.108.

First of all, there are no "Caucasoids" native to Africa and people need to stop throwing around these broad relative terms like "Black African" and "Negroid" when the data doesn't reflect such small categories for African populations. Ancient Egypt is another argument, but I'm not sure if Hannibal was biologically African or not, maybe, maybe not, but when it comes to native African civilizations, Africans relate to each other genetically before they'd relate to Europeans or so-called "Caucasoids", especially concerning recent common ancestry. No way can a "race" that derived from Africa indigenously cover "3 Continents" while the variety in Africa only be restricted to the "sub-sahara" or stereotypical "Negroid" types. Don't let the high gene frequency of middle eastern influence in North and East Africa fool anybody, that still doesn't account for the phenotypical diversity in related Africans.

Bio-Anthropologist Dr. Shomarka Keita writes:

"In general, this restricted view presents all tropical Africans with narrower noses and faces as being related to or descended from external, ultimately non-African peoples. However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident in Saharo-tropical Africa... and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. These traits are also indigenous. The variability in tropical Africa is expectedly naturally high. Given their longstanding presence, narrow noses and faces cannot be deemed `non-African.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Nilotic_peoples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africoid Taharqa 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He belongs to some immigrants, the Phoenicians, who are relatives of the Hebrews. Yes there are some finfings with sub-saharan features of the skeletons from North Africa during this period. No proof that someone of Carthage's aristocracy was descended from them, nor that any Punic was descended from them. wikipedia is no source and the map there is highly doubtful. Produce scientific works on the topic or keep quiet. Wandalstouring 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthropologists have studied skeletons from the Carthaginian cemeteries . Professor Eugene Pittard, then at the University of Geneva, reported that: "Other bones discovered in Punic Carthage, and housed in the Lavigerie Museum, come from personages found in special sarcophagi and probably belonging to the Carthaginian elite. Almost all the skulls are dolichocephalic ." Futhermore, the sarcophagus of the highly venerated Priestess of Tanit , "the most ornate" and "the most artistic yet found," is also housed in the Lavigerie Museum. Pittard says " The woman buried there had Negro features. She belonged to the African race !" Professor Stephane Gsell was the author of the voluminous Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord. Also based on anthropological studies conducted on Carthaginian skeletons, he declared that: " The so called Semitic type, characterised by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not [yet] been found in CarthageMahmud II 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Zidonians are the same blood. Zidonians are descendants of Zidon, Canaan's first son. Hannibal was black. Tom 01/14/08

As black as the US president(he is likely to be someone's son). Wandalstouring (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Zidonians and the Phoenicians were the same peoole; They settled up around modern-day Lebanon (Sidon and Tyre). Like everyone else living around the Mediterranean, they would have had darker skin than Northern Europeans, but lighter skin than Sub-Saharan Africans. Most likely they would have looked similar to the Arabs, Berbers and Lower Egyptians (as opposed to the peoples from the Northern coast).76.178.74.35 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is coinage with the portrait of his father here and here. And, of course, there's also the marble bust. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. Please explain.

This is pathetic, it's misguided Afro-centrists fools with a rather poor grasp of demography and racial distribution attempt to hijack history with silly theories. This casts a huge shadow of doubt over Wikipedia's credibility, this nonsense should nt even be acknowledged. The modern descendants of Carthage belong to the Caucasoid racial groups, such as Arabs, Berbers and various other INDIGENOUS North African groups. The only evidence to suggest any sort of Negro presence are the descendants of Blacks that were imported and fulfilled a servile role in Carthage, and the later Islamic kingdoms. I believe this stems from a picture published in a US textbook distributed among impoverished urban neighborhoods to promote education among African-Americans. The hoaxsters cannot be treated seriously. Koalorka (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then everything printed in the following paragraph imported from above has to be a lie and a hoax. Anthropologists have studied skeletons from the Carthaginian cemeteries . Professor Eugene Pittard, then at the University of Geneva, reported that: "Other bones discovered in Punic Carthage, and housed in the Lavigerie Museum, come from personages found in special sarcophagi and probably belonging to the Carthaginian elite. Almost all the skulls are dolichocephalic ." Futhermore, the sarcophagus of the highly venerated Priestess of Tanit , "the most ornate" and "the most artistic yet found," is also housed in the Lavigerie Museum. Pittard says " The woman buried there had Negro features. She belonged to the African race !" Professor Stephane Gsell was the author of the voluminous Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord. Also based on anthropological studies conducted on Carthaginian skeletons, he declared that: " The so called Semitic type, characterised by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not [yet] been found in CarthageMahmud II 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC) If what you say is true, surely you should have at least a speck of alternative research. Tom 05/09/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk)

Pittard says that the skulls were dolichocepahlic, a trait shared by both African and Semitic races (and to a lesser extent, some caucasian peoples). In addition, both of those sources are rather old (I think at least 70 years). The authors did not have access to DNA technology things like DNA, which allow us to make determinations based on something rather more reliable than the shape of someone's face (or the reconstruction of a nose without the aid of a computer based on 2,000 year old remains). They have found that modern North Africans, particularly Egyptians (likely due to the quanitity of preserved remains to check against), share a great genetic similarity to their ancient counterparts. There are also projects like National Geographic's Genographic Project, which have traced the migration of genetic markers. DNA evidence shows that North Africans migrated from and have a common geneology with the Middle East.76.178.74.35 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Pittard's job is very outdated, as above comment points out, and dates from times when Phrenology was still accepted. Research on races has changed a *lot* since 1929, so we should use more modern research. If Pittard's work is still valid, then there must be modern research using it as basis. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please cite the DNA research that out dates Pittard's findings. With it being modern research you shouldn't have too much of a problem with that. If ancient research isn't welcomed or valid, then why study the Phoenicians at all. You're only going to claim something to be outdated when it doesn't agree with you. It is known that the Carthaginians were of Phoenician stock. That's ancient history. I then show you in the bible, that the Phoenicians were descendants of Ham and you label it outdated information or afro-centric bull. You are not interested in where the truth will lead unless it leads to a conclusion that you've already made. If Pittard is outdated, if the bible is outdated, then the study of the Phoenicians and their artifacts is equally irrelevant. The farther you go back in the history of Phoenicians the darker they will get. Produce your modern DNA research and cite it clearly, please. Tom 05/10/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out a simple fact, Hannibal was the son of an Iberian princess, so in any case at most he was half black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaman13 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, this is not accurate; I have never seen any reliable source suggesting the Hamilcar took an Iberian wife (or any information about her, for that matter), and he did not campaign in Spain until ten years after Hannibal was born.98.145.6.72 (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Perennial racism

I just removed "The coin is not an accurate depection of Hannibal's features. He was ebony in skin tone with wooly hair. Hannibal was African, not Roman.[Stolen Legacy]" from the article. Note that this idea (that Hannibal was racially negro) is discussed at great length above. I'd just like to note 3 things:

• This is not a matter of conjecture. The Punic wars were fought during historical times. There were no photographs then, but there were books and descriptions and witnesses and paintings and sculptures. It's not a political matter but a historical one. Also, there were Black Africans involved in the Roman World, but from Nubia (and south down the Nile river valley). Sub-Saharran Africa is predominanly Black and Mediterannean Africa is predominately White. But Hannibal wasn't Arab either (a common misconception that counters the Negro misconception); the Arab conquests of North Africa were centuries later. The Cartheginians were predominantly Phoenician.
• We have to have some patience for the folks confused by this. In America "African" has been the politically correct synonym for "negro" for longer than many of these kids have been alive. Also, I saw a poster in a college office once depicting famous Blacks, and it included Hannibal (shown as Black).
• People who want an example of a great negro general don't need Hannibal. There's Shaka Zulu.

I suppose that people who don't know history, are doomed to invent it. Pete St.John 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in all acounts. Good phrase! "... people who don't know history, are doomed to invent it." Shan't forget. The Ogre 13:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

his mom is dead now who cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmtalktodapaw (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, the wave of misguided American Afro-centrist drivel is destroying our credibility.Koalorka (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving WP:OR original research. The Bible is not considered an source of accurate historical source. Also, the topic has been already discussed to death on this talk page and it has been dismissed for several reasons. Bringing it up the same proposal again and again with the same disacredited arguments is not helping.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article says that Hannibal was pheonician and it seems that no one disagrees. Thats okay because you can read in your bible that the Pheonicians are clear descendants of Noahs son Ham. I'd like to also note that heretofore no one has yet to disagree that Ham is the father of black mankind. This will be considered Afro-centric when in reality it is biblical. The Pheonicians were from the seed of "Sidon" the first son of Canaan (Ham's youngest son). Sidon's ofspring were called Zidonians/Pheonicians with one of there wealthiest colonies being Carthage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidon Tom 07/04/08 Here we go again..... Ham, Canaan and other misguided interpretations and invented Afro-centrist folklore. Koalorka (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC) So now even the bible is folklore, afro-centric and misguided when it doesn't agree with you. Read Gen 10:15-19 in the KJV and then go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidon here in WP. I didn't write the bible or the article on Sidon. Don't hate the messenger. Tom 07/05/08 Yes, the Bible is most definitely folklore. Particularly the old testament. I don't hate the messenger. I feel embarrassed by the messenger (you). Koalorka (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Film "Annibale" 1959, starring Victor Mature. Epic chronicles Hannibal's campaign over the Alps to Rome. PEACE BE UNTO YOU (PEACE BE UNTO YOU (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

Same as above. OR and use of Bible as source of accurate historical information.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does anyone have any sourced information that shows Phoenicia to not be of Sidonian origin. Does anyone have any sourced information that shows Sidon to not be of Hamitic origin. If the Old Testament is Folklore, then the Phoenicians that were spoken of in the Old Testament are folklore. If the Phoenicians are folklore, then the history of Hannibal is folklore. Moses will also have to be folklore since he wrote the first books of the bible. By deeming the Old Testament folklore you have removed the foundation of virtually all research that leads to the origin of Hannibal. Please present sourced information that removes Phoenicia from Sidon. Any personal attacks on me can only be in the absence of scholarly intent. Tom 07/05/08 Do you have sources to confirm Icelandic naval raiding parties reached the coast of ancient Bactria? Logic - you has none. Koalorka (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC) No I do not know of Icelandic naval raiding parties in Bactria, which is why I won't comment on it. Do you have any sourced information on Hannibal that separates him from the Phoenicians, Sidonians and the Hamites, since you did comment on it. If your next comment doesn't include any facts or sourced research regarding Hannibal, everyone is going to assume that you don't have any. And that you will then be reduced to making personal attacks to try to mask your lack of facts. Tom 07/06/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I need not provide any sources for what is already cited and sourced. Koalorka (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Someone got lots of time and little to think of other than his bible and that all Phoenician were black Icelandic raiders frequently visiting the Bactrian coast. Just stop it and paint someone else's skin colour. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Setting the Bible aside, I emphatically say that there is no historical or archeaological information known to man that separates the Pheonicians from the Canaanites. Your own history proves that the early Pheonicians were not white men. All of your history states that the Greeks were the first white men to possess an alphabet. But the Greeks learned to write from the Phoenicians between 1500-1000 B.C. For the Pheonicians to be white men would require you rewriting your own ancient history and repositioning Greece as the second white culture to possess an alphabet. Even those who hate black people to the core can't get away with that one. It is written in Greek chronicals that Pheonicians were Canaanites. In the Greek bible Pheonicians were Canaanites. The connection in history between the Canaanites, Sidonians, Pheonicians and Greeks go far beyond cooincidence. I don't need the bible to prove this point, I can use your own recorded history to prove this. You can label it afro-centric dribble all you want, but you will never be able to erase the truth from history. There is simply to much historical information available that proves this point. I don't care how much you attack me or (even now) attempt to discredit your own history. The farther you go back in time, the darker the Pheonicians will get. And their dark blood ran rich through Carthage. Tom 07/07/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 7 July 2008

My history? :) Man, I didn't know I had my own history. I suppose you refer to "white man history" or "western-centered history" or "european-centered history" or something.

About the Phoenician alphabet, I left you a message here. I respectfully think that you are simply making too wide assumptions about "all of your history" and jumping to conclusions. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The only assumption I'm making is that you are of Europeon descent just as you have assumed that I'm an afro-centric. If you don't know that the Greeks learned to write from the Phoenicians, then you don't know Greek history. If you don't know that the Phoenicians were Sidonians, then you don't know Phoenician history. If you don't know that the Sidonians were from the seed of Sidon then you don't know Sidonian history. If you don't know that Sidon was the oldest son of Canaan, then you don't know Canaanite history. If you don't know that the Canaanites were from the seed of Ham, then you don't know Hamitic history. I make no assumptions about Phoenician history. If you would do the research, you would find the same information. This is just something that you really don't want to know. Tom 07/08/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You are still using the Bible as source... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The nonsense of Hannibal being black keeps repeating itself. Besides not everybody accepts the Bible as a valuable etymological and historical document. In fact, most historians shiver from using it for arguments like these. Using the bible to make a point like this in fact undercuts the argument completely. -- fdewaele, July 8, 2008, 16:20 CET.

Then don't use the bible. Use Sidonian, Canaanite, Greek and Phoenician history and you'll find the same thing. I dare you to study the origins Phoenician history and not find the Canaanites. There's a difference between trying to win an argument and actually trying to be correct. Tom 07/08/08

Sorry, but WP:BURDEN the burden of proof is on you. It's not other editors' responsability to justify your changes (altought many editors will happily help you source a change that they think is correct, but this is not the case here). --Enric Naval (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept the burden of proof and I'll make it easy for you to source it. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan and read the whole page. I am not looking for a change in history, I'm trying to remove a change in history that never should have occurred. You can never remove from history that which really happened. The truth will always resurface to kill the lie. Of course I'm now expecting you to discredit the article on Canaan as well, so have at it. Tom 07/08/08

It says that the people of Canaan have their origins on the Arabian peninsula. So far the inhabitants of this area are part of the Caucasian race. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're speaking of modern history. This is about ancient history. There is no caucasian history prior to the Greeks. Caucasians were not the early inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula. Caucasians do not dominant it now, the Arabs do. Canaan later named Phoenicia by the Greeks became ethnically diverse around 1700 B.C. This is still modern in Canaanite history which extends back another two millennia. During the time of Hannibal Canaan still retained much of its original ethnicity. Especially in Carthage which is in Africa not Arabia. The Greeks learned from Canaans culture moreso than the opposite. The height of ancient Greek history is from the 8th to 2nd century B.C. There is no recorded caucasian history dating from 3000 B.C. With Greeks having the earliest recorded caucasian history and with recorded history extending two millennia before that, there is no other outcome but to uncover the recorded history of a darker people. i.e. Canaan/Pheonicia/Carthage. Tom 07/09/08

You suggest that the Lybians and the Arabians were all negroid? There are certain features of the bone structure that differ between the human races. If your claim is true, I have no doubt that you will present me the appropriate archaeological data with your next statement. And please tell me where I can find the articles about this sensational new discoveries. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm claiming that caucasians have no written history dating back to 3000 B.C. You said in your prior paragraph that Canaanites origins in Arabia were caucasian. Prove that. Present appropiate archaeological data to support that. A photo in Seti I tomb (1300 B.C.) showed the Libyan and Syrian as caucasian. So I'm not squabbling with you there. But you're still not talking about 3000 B.C. or a people with an alphabet. The Greeks learned to write from the Pheonicians not the Libyans or Syrians. Phoenicia leads to Canaan, Canaan leads to Ham. In order for the Pheonicians to be caucasian you have to rewrite Europeon history and make the Greeks the second caucasian race to possess an alphabet. Again, the farther you go back in Phoenician history the darker they get. And Carthage including Hannibal was of their seed. FOREVER. I will say this, The history of man on this planet leads to negroid supplanted only by Mendel's Law. Tom 07/09/08

Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources. It would be different if you pointed to the references that the article uses, but you don't mention any specific source, and you don't explain how it backs your theories. We are supposed to make the work of checking all the 41 references on that article to find if they back your arguments.

All this talk without citing any reliable source smacks of Original research and soapboxing. While WP:TALK indicates that there is a bit more freedom on talk pages, you can't expect that you are allowed to indefinitely violate reliability and verifiability.

This has gone too far already, with the same discredited argument being pushed repeatedly over months, and over complains of other editors. Start citing specific reliable sources to back your arguments and convince other editors, or I'll archive these conversations as being based on personal opinions and unreliable sources, and then remove any later attempt to bring the same argument again without addressing the lack of sources to counter the problems raised by other editors.

Finally, notice that wikipedia works by consensus and that it's very probable that the rest of editors will challenge your interpretation of the sources you bring using other sources, so you better bring strong and convincing sources, and understand that they might remain unconvinced, and that trying to force them to view things your way can be seen as disruptive will be seen as disruptive, after all the attempts to bring your theory here. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's connect it all up. On Phoenicians teaching Greeks the Alphabet see "Herodotus, The Histories", transl. Audrey de Selincourt, Penguin Books, 1972. ISBN 0-14-044034.

For Phoenicians being Canaanites "What needs to be made abolutely clear is the fact that what is called ancient Hebrew is nothing more than Canaanite Phoenician. The Hebrews adopted Phoenician as their own language, or, in otherwords, that what is called [ancient] Hebrew language was in fact "the language of Canaan." It is not merely poetic but literal and in the philological truth. One of the proofs for is taken from the Bible itself: Isaiah 19:18 says "In that day five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD Almighty. One of them will be called the City of Destruction -- City of the Sun (that is, Heliopolis)" Source: John McClintock, Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature

From the Catholic Encyclopedia showing Canaanites leading to Babylon (whose founder was Nimrod grandson of Ham, Gen, 10:8-10; Micah,5:6 KJV) "Even before the tribes who are introduced to us as Canaanites in the Bible penetrated into Palestine (between 3000 and 2500 B.C.) there must have lived for many centuries an older population, dwelling there partly in caves, but also possessing their primitive "towns" surrounded by earthen walls. This period is characterized especially by stone instruments and very primitive earthenware. The Canaanite tribes who gradually took their place came from the north and were for a long time, if not under the supremacy, without a doubt under the manifold influence of Babylon. which Sellin added in 1907 his labours at old Jericho. In the fifteenth century B.C., when the country was already politically subject to Egypt, the kings of the Canaanite towns used in their correspondence, not only with the Pharaos but also between themselves, the Babylonian cuneiform characters, and -- with the addition of a number of Canaanite words -- the language of Babylon as well. Macalister (Pal. Expl. fund Quart. Stat. 1905, 323 sq.) and, quite lately, Sellin (Mitth.und Nach. des Deutschen Palastinavereins, 1907, 70) found some scanty evidence that the Old Hebrew or Phoenician characters were also known in those days"

Rawlinson says the Babylonians were Ethiopians by blood, (Seven Great Monarchies, Vol. I,pp.29,34).

The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 8, p. 118,1959, and The New Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia, Vol. XII.pp. 4199-42000 and 1050-51, mentions the earliest Sumerians of Babylonia, to have been a non-Semitic Negritic people.

Psalms (KJV) 78:51; 105:23-27; 106: 21,22 refer to Egypt as the land of Ham. Whether through Canaan, Egypt or Babylon the history of Phoenicia will lead to the seed of Ham. Hannibal included. Do you need more sources? I have more. There is a wealth of history in existence for anyone who is really interested in a clear understanding of the past. The only question being, are you really interested in the truth, or just trying to win a debate? You decide. Tom 07/10/08

Well, let me see.

First you mention the undisputable fact that phoenicians teached the alphabet to the greeks.

Then you use several catholic sources that are based on the bible to say that phoenicians are the same as canaanites ("Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature" and

Then you use that same bible-based source that say that canaanites migrated to Phoenicia at the correct time.

Then you cite "Pal. Expl. fund Quart. Stat. 1905" and "Mitth.und Nach", but that's just copypasted from this article at Cyclopedia, probably the same place where you got all the other Cyclopedia info (but I'm not sure).

Then you cite "Seven Great Monarchies", but that's book from middle-end of siecle XIX, which means that the information is totally outdated with latter archeological discoveries. There is an online version. I can't see the page numbers, but on Chapter 3 "The People", it starts that all modern writers (modern on the siexke XIX!) says that the tribes were semitic with mixtures with other races at some places, and then it says that this is contradiction with what the bible says. I think that you cited what the book says that the Bible says! "the Scriptural statement concerning the first kingdom in these parts, which is expressly said to have been Cushite or Ethiopian (...) According to this passage the early Chaldaeans should be Hamites, not Semites—Ethiopians, not Aramaans", and then it goes to says that "It will be one of the objects of this chapter to show that the Mosaical narrative conveys the exact truth". So, not only it's outdated, but it's trying to show that the Bible is right over modern writers of the time.

Dunno about "The New Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia", but the Encyclopedia Britannica has an oline source whose "sumer" entry says that "Sumer was first settled (...) by a non-Semitic people who did not speak the Sumerian language." [11] and that were later infiltrated by semitic tribes, and says nothing about "Negritic", Negroid or Ethiopean.

The Britannica also says "Before the first excavations in Mesopotamia, about 1840, nearly 2,000 years had passed during which knowledge of the ancient Middle East was derived from three sources only: the Bible, Greek and Roman authors, and the excerpts from the writings of Berosus, a Babylonian who wrote in Greek. In 1800 very little more was known than in ad 800", which desacredits further the Seven Great Monarchies source, which was published on 1862, and has a lot of source from before 1840.

Following the Britanica lead, on the Mesopotamia, history of: Sumerian civilization it mentions tribes other than the semitics that had a different language, like the Subarians which appeared on northern Babylon, "but no definite statements about their past or possible routes of immigration are possible.".

On Britannica, neither the "Sumer" not the "Sumerian civilization" articles mention "ethiopic", "ethipia", "negro", "negroid" or "negritic" anywhere on the text, and I didn't find anywhere where they make any statement that pre-sumerians, sumarians or babylonians had ever anything to do with Ethiopia (maybe it mentions trade with Egyptians, but I don't think that it states direct trade with Ethiopia)

From Britannica, the only mention that could posibly sort of back your suppositions is from the Sumerian civilization article: "There have always been in Mesopotamia speakers of Semitic languages (which belong to the Afro-Asiatic group and also include ancient Egyptian, Berber, and various African languages). "

And then at the end you mention the Bible again with Psalms.

In other words, except one source that I couldn't check, all your sources are tainted by the Bible or cited from sources tainted by it, and one of them (the Seven Great Monarchies) is tragically outdated and tries to defend the Bible version against the new ideas that the archeological expeditions at Mesopotamia brought. The one that is not tainted (the Britannica) has changed its articles since its 1959 version and now says that the origin of those non-semitic tribes can't be determined.

So, sorry, but it's still heavily based on the Bible, and the ethiopean origin idea appears to have been dismissed on recent times. It's not a question of more sources, but of them being flawed. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We were not talking about Chaldea but Babylonia in reference to "7 great mon". Babylon is found on pg 34: "To the traditions and traces here enumerated must be added, as of primary importance, the biblical tradition, which is delivered to us very simple and plainly in that precious document the “Toldoth Beni Noah” or “Book of the Generations of the Sons of Noah” which well deserves to be called “the most authentic record that we possess for the affiliation of nations” “The sons of Ham” we are told “were Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan…And Cush begat Nimrod…. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar” It is the simplest and the best interpretation of this passage to understand it as asserting that the four races- the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans, and Canaanites- were ethnically connected, being all descended from Ham; and further, that the primitive people of Babylon were a subdivision of one of these races, namely the Cushites or Ethiopians, connected in some degree with the Canaanites, Egyptians, and Libyans, but still more closely with the people which dwelt anciently upon the Upper Nile". But that's biblical and you feel that biblical people probably didn't exist.

John D. Baldwin: "Prehistoric Nations" contends that the ancient Phoenicians were of Cushite of Hamite origin. Speaking of their stupendous architectural remains, he says:- "The Cushite origin of these cities is so plain that those most influenced by the strange monomania which transforms the Phoenicians into Semites now admit that the Cushites were the civilizers of Phoenicia". This is visual the same as an everlasting statue of George Washington.

Bunsen concludes, "Cushite colonies were all along the southern shores of Asia and Africa and by the archaeological remains, along the southern and eastern coasts of Arabia. The name Cush was given to four great areas, Media, Persia, Susiana and Aria, or the whole territory between the Indus and Tigris in prehistoric times. In Africa the Ethiopians, the Egyptians, the Libyans, the Canaanites and Phoenicians were all descendants of Ham. They were a black or dark colored race and the pioneers of our civilization. They were emphatically the monument builders on the plains of Shinar and the valley of the Nile from Meroe to Memphis. In southern Arabia they erected wonderful edifices (visual). They were responsible for the monuments that dot southern Siberia and in America along the valley of the Mississippi down to Mexico and in Peru their images and monuments stand a "voiceless witnesses." This was the ancient Cushite Empire of Ethiopians that covered three worlds. Some of our later books recognizing their indisputable influence in primitive culture, speak of them as a brunet brown race representing a mysterious Heliolithic culture. Again this is visual.

"In the oldest recorded traditions, Cushite colonies were established in the valley of the Nile, Barabra and Chaldea. This beginning must have been not later than 7000 or 8000 B. C. or perhaps earlier. (Rawlinson was citing Chaldea much later) They brought to development astronomy and the other sciences, which have come down to us. The vast commercial system by which they joined together the "ends of the earth" was created and manufacturing skill established. The great period of Cushite control had closed many ages prior to Homer, although separate communities remained not only in Egypt but in southern Arabia, Phoenicia and elsewhere." (Prehistoric Nations, pp. 95, 96.)

Back to pg 28 in "7 Great Mon" Speaking of Chaldea. "Scripture places the original occupation at a time when language had not yet broken up into its different forms, and when, consequently, races as we now understand the term, can scarcely have existed". Which means they were of simular ethnicity. Whether they were Semetic or not is not what's relevant. Whether they were African or European in appearance is what's relevant. I make one assumption here; that at the time that blacks and whites appear vastly different, that our languages were vastly different also.

In your paragraph earlier you mentioned that Rawlinsons research has been outdated by later archaeological discoveries (plural). So let's see some. On Jul,9th. Wandalstouring said "And please tell me where I can find the articles about this sensational new discoveries". I now ask this of you. Cite these sensational new discoveries that make what's presented here to now be outdated. And please include written observation of period monuments and artifacts. And please don't respond by saying that you are above having to prove what you say. Unless by discrimitory practice the burden of proof only applies to me. Unless WP has separate rules for you than it does for me. Tom 07/11/08

"Prehistoric Nations" from John D. Baldwin is from 1873, and you are still trying to use arguments from Seven Great Monarchies, which is a book published after being told that it's based on the Bible and outdated.

Not only dates, but Baldwin makes a very interesing clarification. See one page shown by JSTOR[12], and it says, for example "In the early traditions and literary records of the Greeks, Arabia is described as Ethiopia. The countries on the Upper Nhile are described as Ethiopia, because they were first colonies or dependent provinces of the more ancient kingdom of Ethiopia in what is now called Arabia." That introduces a lot of ambiguity, mentions to "Ethiopy" or "Ethipians" could be talking of Arabia and arabs.

Baldwin goes to quote someone called Forster: "it is matter of fact familiar to the learned reader that the terms Ethipia and Ethiopian are frequently subtituted in our english version of the Old Testament, where the Hebrew preserver the proper name of Cush, and the name 'Cush', when so applied in Scripture, belongs uniformly not to the Africans, but to the Asiatic Ethiopia or Arabia"

Baldwin also quotes "Strabo, correcting a popular error of the same kind in his day, say: "If the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfer with the meaning of the ancients""

And then Baldwin appears to continue debunking the Ethiopian-African link, but, unfortunately, I couldn't find a free online version of this book on Project Gutenberg so I can check it.

So, I think that it seems clear that the non-semitic populations that phoenicians are partially descended from are actually arabic and not african, thus Hannibal had arabic descendants and not african descendants, thus he shouldn't be declared "negro" or with negroid origins using that argument. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You actually sort of helped.

Baldwin stated in the literary records of the Greeks Arabia is described as Ethiopia. This is true. They told the Greeks who they were. The Greeks didn't fly over Arabia. They for a time lived with them.

What Forster says is true the name 'Cush', when so applied in Scripture, belongs uniformly not to the Africans, but to the Asiatic Ethiopia or Arabia" These civilizations as mentioned in my paragraphs above were birthed out of ancient Ethiopia. Phoenicia included.

What Strabo says is true: You cannot confine Ethiopian culture only to those who dwell only near Egypt or you will interfere with the meaning of the ancients.

As the Roman Empire was once vast, Ethiopia thousands of years before was vast. Only not through just conquest, but genetics. Their artifacts and their monuments leave clear evidence of who they were. They were not suspected by later cultures to be Ethiopian, they wrote and displayed themselves as Ethiopian. Modern researchers turn their backs on the visual proof (even you failed to address it) with a preferred belief that Ethiopia couldn't possibly have been so vast as to encompass Arabia, Asia and Africa 7000 years ago. But it did and they left us evidence of it.

Here's some more research showing Nubia/Cush/Ethiopia to predate Egypts dynastic period: Newer studies (Wendorf 2001, Wilkinson 1999, et al.) confirm these older analyses. Excavations from Nabta Playa, located about 100km west of Abu Simbel for example, suggest that the Neolithic inhabitants of the region were migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa, based on cultural similarities and social complexity which is thought to be reflective of Egypt's Old Kingdom.[2] Other scholars (Wilkinson 1999) present similar material and cultural evidence- including similarities between predynastic Egypt and traditional African cattle-culture, typical of Southern Sudanese and East African pastoralists of today, and various cultural and artistic data such as iconography on rock art found in both Egypt and in the Sudan.[3]

Recent data from other research suggests numerous trade contacts between the Nile Valley peoples from early times. The excavations of German archaeologist Gunter Dreyer (1999) at Predynastic Abydos for example unearthed obsidian bows, a material traced to the nearby Sudan or Ethiopia. Excavations at Hierakonpolis by archaelogist Renee Friedman (1998) also demonstrates ritual masks similar to those used further south of Egypt, and significant amounts of obsidian, also traced to Ethiopian quarry sites.[4]. As regards population types and origins, one contemporary review of older evidence acknowledges that "the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. Tom 07/11/08

A German archaeologist?! His work is Euro-centric and false, a lie perpetrated by evil racists that wish to conceal past African glory. Koalorka (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't make a working bow out of obsidian. I have doubts that you understand that correctly. For cultural influence you can take for example the child soldiers of modern Africa. Many of them are deeply influenced by the American Hip Hop. How many rappers did join these gangs in Africa?

Another example would be Jamaica. These people speek English. How many of them are white?

Most of child's toys used in America or Europe are produced in China. How many of the European or American children are Chinese?

Culture can be exported without genetic impact or only limited impact. It is well known that South Arabia and East Africa were economically and politically linked, but that doesn't make the people there blacks. The same would account for the USA, despite the large import from China, the largest part of the population is white. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, Tom, so, Ethiopia was a huge empire, I'm OK with that, but your arguments and sources still don't show that they were negroid, the say that Ethiopia originated in Arabia and expanded from there. Oh, wait a minute, all the stuff on your post that has new sources is copy/pasting from this wiki here, and it's an article about the relationship between Sudan and Egypt, not between Arabia and Upper Nile. The rest of your post is ignoring what the sources say about Cush and trying to make it look as if they beck your argument. Wtf. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I do a lot of copy/pasting. Learning is learning. And with you having access to the same information that I do, I'm surprised that we're having this debate. Lets go back to Baldwin. John D. Baldwin: "Prehistoric Nations" contends that the ancient Phoenicians were of Cushite of Hamite origin. Speaking of their stupendous architectural remains, he says:- "The Cushite origin of these cities is so plain that those most influenced by the strange monomania which transforms the Phoenicians into Semites now admit that the Cushites were the civilizers of Phoenicia".

By not acknowledging the Cushites for who they were, we rob ourselves of the history. And it's our loss because the wealth of their own era was enjoyed by them. They knew who they were, we are the ones who are missing out. We are also baffled by the missing links that we've created by the omission of the history that doesn't say what we want history to say. Although not predynastic, archaeology is finding more Pyramids in Sudan than in Egypt. I also mentioned that my latest copy/paste was about Egypt pedynastic period to add credence to Ethiopias prior existence. I also didn't say that Ethiopia was founded in Arabia, archaeology shows that Ethiopia included Arabia.

And Bunsen also said: They were emphatically the monument builders on the plains of Shinar and the valley of the Nile from Meroe to Memphis. In southern Arabia they erected wonderful edifices.

This archaoelogy will never go away. It will forever out live those who attempt to ignore and even deny it. Phoenicia was a blood child of Ethiopia and their history chronicalling this is immortal. If you chose to ignore this wealth of archaeology, Ethiopian history will not suffer or in anyway be diminished. You who do this however will forever live in the dark about the origins of Phoenicia. Tom 07/12/08

this is not the right forum for this

section header added after archiving so I can link directly to it --Enric Naval (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You provide no published reliable source that makes a link between the extension of Ethiopia and the ethnicity of Alexander. You are just claiming that the area was inhabitated by black people and then jumping to say that this means that Hannibal was black. This goes against original research policy.

Look, I understand that feel that justice has to been done, but wikipedia is not the place for promoting your personal opinion that Ethiopia has been mis-treated and ignored by historians. This is not the right forum for long discussions of this sort or for arguing about interpretations of historical evidence other than the ones given by published sources, this forum is for discussing improvements to the article, and this discussion has gone for too long without anything useful for the article coming out of it.

Try a forum dedicated to discussing historical matters. I'm sure that you will be able to find a forum that is happy to host this sort of discussions. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)