Talk:Hannibal

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

There's a section called "Name" that explains, at some length, that the subject of the article is named "Hannibal" or "Hannibal, son of Hamilcar", or Hannibal the Barcid, but not Hannibal Barca. So why do we keep calling him "Hannibal Barca"?

I've never seen him called "Hannibal Barca" anyplace but Wikipedia. It seems to me that Wikipedia is renaming the guy. Why?

I think the article should be modified to stop with the new name, and the link Hannibal Barca should be marked "From a misspelling". Before I do any of this, I'd like to give the folks who prefer the new name a chance to explain their reason for the change. TypoBoy (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Read more ancient history books - you'll find the name, eventually. 104.169.24.168 (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Aside from this claim, with no citation, from an anonymous IP editor, nobody has argued that Hannibal's name was actually "Hannibal Barca", and the Name section of the article continues to assert that Hannibal's name was Hannibal, not Hannibal Barca. Nevertheless, the article has been modified to claim, with no citation, that his name was Hannibal Barca. I'm changing it back, and saying again that we should either cite a source for the name "Hannibal Barca" or else not publicize it. Wikipedia is not the place for renaming major historical figures TypoBoy (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t understand how his name isn’t Hannibal Barca when his dad is Hamilcar Barca. Surely he would’ve had a surname? 2A02:C7C:C0B2:2000:65E0:8825:8EB4:D890 (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not part of the community editing this article, so I won't start poking around in the article. But it seems there are a number of places where the article would be improved by citing a source. Pete unseth (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, bit of backstory here. Way back on 23 June 2017, 6 years ago now, I removed Tempalate:Infobox politician from this article, and replaced it with Template:Infobox military person. It seemed an appropriate edit - Hannibal is primarily known for being a military commander, with his political office as Suffet in 192, a decade after the end of the Second Punic War, being more of a historical footnote. With my limited historical knowledge at the time, I filled in the "battles" field with two conflicts - the Second Punic War and the Roman-Seleucid War. At the time I was unaware of his leadership in the Barcid conquest of Hispania or the even more obscure Pergamene–Bithynian War.

Fast forward half a year to 30 January 2018, and User:TiltuM adds an impressive and exhaustive list of every battle Hannibal commanded, including obscure battles in the Barcid conquest of Hispania and the Pergamene–Bithynian War. I found it an impressive effort.

This list would be the status quo for years, until 13 July 2020, when User:Avilich removed the list of battles and reduced it to wars, presumably because it cluttered up the infobox too much. Although I was disappointed to see the list disappear, I understood why it was trimmed. However, I still felt a select few battles were still notable enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox, so I added a handful back on 27 August 2020.

Fast forward another 2 years, and on 27 October 2022, User:YarmoukQadisiyah re-adds over a dozen battles, seemingly by scouring Wikipedia. This list seems to be the worst of both worlds - it both clutters up the infobox, and lacks the exhaustiveness of TiltuM's original list. However, I wasn't sure how to deal with it at first.

However, I believe I have a found a good solution today, when I stumbled upon a "Battle Record" section on Alexander the Great's article. So, based on TiltuM's original list from 2018, I have added a "Battle Record" section to Hannibal's article. This will allow us to have an exhaustive list of battles while not cluttering the infobox, though I do want to note that:

• I didn't research the battle record myself, that credit belongs to TiltuM
• It would be appreciated if the outcome of each battle were noted in the battle record - whether it was a victory, defeat or stalemate for Hannibal. However, I will leave this for future editors to research.

Koopinator (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hannibal is a descendent of Ham a “African” 2600:8806:901B:3400:892:5B9E:6EC9:CB12 (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is an oral tradition in my (Maltese) family that Hannibal was born in Malta. There are news articles and Reddit posts speaking about it.

The source given for Carthage to be Hannibal's birthplace is a recently written biography, not an academic source.

I don't know how to do this myself, but can I dispute the idea that Hannibal was born in Carthage? At least in the Wikipedia article, there is no concrete evidence saying that he is born there, but this article presents it as if it is simply the truth. Socracle (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I found the original source for the claim - "The Literary Panorama, Volume 10" by Charles Taylor, on page 615. I've edited the article to show this. Socracle (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The claim that "Hannibal is born in Malta" is not supported by modern-day history. All biographies, history books, and research will say he was born in modern-day Tunisia. For example: Hannibal by Eve MacDonald (Book Review) - World History Encyclopedia Or Britannica, ancient historians such as Polybious identify him as a Carthagenian general from Carthage which is tightly related to modern-day Tunisia, claiming he is from Malta is marginalized, and without evidence, the source "The Literary Panorama, Volume 10" by Charles Taylor, on page 615." is not a primary one. PrintHallo (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Please consult the source directly cited for what is already presented as a minority view. We don't rely on sources more readily because they're primary—exactly the opposite, we're an encyclopedia, a tertiary source that relies on secondary sources. Remsense ‥ 论 04:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This is the definition of primary and secondary sources:

Primary sources offer raw information, or the first-hand evidence compiled by research, whereas secondary sources interpret or analyze the information from primary sources.

Primary sources are raw data, which was one of the things I stated. Most of the secondary sources then analyze the primary source and state that Hannibal is from modern-day Tunisia.

Just because one source stated a theory on him being from Malta (which was apart of Carthage back then), and since carthage is mostly connected to Tunisia and not Malta, it is safer to say he was born in Tunisia..

It is an interesting theory and should be talked about in the article, but just putting it out there in the infobox is not the right decision in my eyes. The infobox should be for the most widely available data and most sure of, and since most sources agree that he is from modern-day Tunisia and only a few mention Malta, we should keep just that in the infobox. PrintHallo (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Precisely because we rely on secondary sources, it's not really our remit to decide which primary sources our favorite secondary sources should rely on. The point is we are not conducting our own in-depth analysis of primary sources.

More concretely, it's fine that you think both theories being represented in the infobox is unbalanced, but ultimately others do not agree with you. Let's be clear about what the issue actually is, without wading into areas that are irrelevant—what is relevant is to what degree our secondary reliable sources give credence to each position. It's perfectly normal for infoboxes to list both because it would be potentially misleading to list only one possibility if it didn't enjoy uncontroversial acceptance. Remsense ‥ 论 20:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, how about we keep it but with a note of it being theorized?

I will revert it because I already removed it again before I read this. Also, what do you think about putting the name in Arabic as well? Read note PrintHallo (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

No, there's no justification to haggle or horse-trade, especially when you try to make it a fait accompli. AFAIK it is correct the way that it was, and it's the consensus version at present. Remsense ‥ 论 20:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@PrintHallo it's unfortunate you've decided to pick up the exact same issue months later without any change in perspective, despite attempts to explain how relevant site guidelines apply here. keep doing it and we have to go to ANI about it. We simply do not care whether you personally like the claim or find it plausible, or whether I do. Remsense 🌈 论 10:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Upon further review, the source provided LITERALLY has nothing to do with the topic. The literary panorama, Vol 10, P615 does not mention Hannibal in any way. Provide a direct link to the page, please. PrintHallo (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

You might be looking at the wrong page. Here. Remsense 🌈 论 11:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It would have been preferable if the link had been provided from the beginning in the sources. I’ve reviewed pages 615–616, and they do not state that Hannibal was born in modern-day Malta. The mention is clearly hypothetical, using language such as "if it were", and is not directly related to Hannibal’s confirmed birthplace. Including such speculation gives undue weight to a fringe theory, in violation of WP:UNDUE. It also fails WP:V, as the claim is not supported by reliable, explicitly verifying sources.

By placing a minor and speculative position on equal footing with the mainstream, well-sourced view in the infobox, you are misrepresenting the balance of scholarly consensus. That’s precisely why I proposed months ago that this content be removed from the infobox and, if retained at all, be presented in the main article text with proper attribution as a theory, not fact.

Threatening me with ANI won't do it. PrintHallo (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It would have been preferable if the link had been provided from the beginning in the sources.

I agree—given I had to source it myself. I didn't add it to the article, and I don't myself think it's a compelling alternate theory. If it's due, which it might not be, then it should be in the article. That is the question we can meaningfully argue, not whether such a theory is attested at all. When you seemed willing to continue reverting without discussion, ANI is literally mine or any editor's choice. Now that we are talking, I clearly prefer that, and do really appreciate your taking me in good faith here. Remsense 🌈 论 11:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad we're finally on the same page. I personally believe the source is not reliable, and I’d like to clarify my reasoning—while acknowledging my limited familiarity with the book itself:

- The content originates from the 19th century, a period often marked by scholarly biases and limited archaeological understanding compared to today.

- The author appears to be engaging in speculation rather than presenting verified facts, which goes against WP:V (Verifiability).

The mainstream scholarly consensus identifies Hannibal’s birthplace as Carthage, in present-day Tunisia.

For these reasons, I believe it would be best to remove the claim from the infobox and consider removing it from the main article as well. It is currently mentioned there, but its relevance and reliability are questionable.

Looking forward to your response! :D PrintHallo (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

After conducting some research on the book, it appears that The Literary Panorama is not a reliable source (per WP:RS). This is because it contains numerous conjectures and unverified hypotheses, reflects a strong Eurocentric bias, and is not peer-reviewed — meaning it lacks the scholarly rigor and fact-checking expected of academic publications.

I look forward to your response.

Please note that if there is no reply within 3 days, I will assume there are no objections and will proceed with making the proposed edits. PrintHallo (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Seeing you have not replied to my messages within the timeframe I suggested, I will now apply the changes. If you keep on reverting it, I will get WP:3O and WP:ANI. PrintHallo (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

This article contains the sentence: "Carthage at the time was in such a poor state that it lacked a navy able to transport his army; instead, Hamilcar had to march his forces across Numidia towards the Pillars of Hercules and then cross the Strait of Gibraltar".

Everybody seems to marvel at Hannibal crossing into Italy over the Alps. But the Alps are solid ground and elephants can walk on solid ground.

Getting an army of elephants across seven, nearly eight, miles of open water without a navy seems a rather more noteworthy achievement. Will someone please explain this achievement in this or in another article. 51.9.18.88 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

According to Barcid conquest of Hispania, citing Dexter Hoyos, they apparently had sufficient transport ships to sail along the coast (much faster!) but couldn't manage a deep water crossing. Remsense ‥ 论 19:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The name Hannibal, derived from the Hebrew חניבעל (Ḥaniba‘al), features the Hebrew letter Ḥet (ח), pronounced with a guttural "ch" sound. Breaking down the name into its components, "Hanni" (חני) could mean "freed" and "Baal" might relate to "husband" or a reference to a deity. Considering his Canaanite background, it's plausible that his ancestors were connected to the ancient inhabitants of the region, potentially linked to the Hebrew tribes that dwelled in Canaan. Sshacked (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The name section clearly explains his name. KnowDeath (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

There have been many DNA @studies showing that the closest relatives to the Punics were Berbers (Tunisians), Maltese, and Sicilians. And many books proving Hannibal was at least mixed afri including sources of the old Roman historians. The Olive Man (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)