Talk:Hannibal

Archived Talk Pages

Archive       see here [1] for threads started before 2006-04-13.             see here [2] for threads started before 2006-05-14.

Some more trimming needed

Hannibal is universally ranked as one of the greatest military commanders and tacticians in history, along with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon I of France, the Duke of Wellington, Georgy Zhukov and Robert E. Lee.

he is universally ranked as one of the greatest military strategists and tacticians of the Western world, alongside Epaminondas, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Robert E. Lee, Scipio, Gustavus Adolphus, Erwin Rommel, Turenne, The Duke of Marlborough, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon among others.

These two parts are quickly becoming boringly long and unmanageable, since every new guy (not infrequently, an anon) adds a new general based on their own personal likings. We have to trim down these references to other historical figures. I guess someone with a good understanding of Military History should make the necessary cuts. Xemoi 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Editted to reflect the names of the most famous great commanders, the ones who transcend most national borders and are spoke of with admiration internationally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.189.198 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Amusing to see Robert E. Lee on that list - a great example of ethnocentrism. Lee wasn't even the greatest general of the Civil War. Hannibal belongs right at the top, in an exalted class that includes Alexander and just a few others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Its an insult to Hannibals memory as one of the finest tacticians in history to be named alongside the likes of Zhukov and Lee who are easily dwarfed by him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.150.227 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There was an unsourced claim about being universally acclaimed as the greatest of generals. I replaced it with a source saying that he was the greatest of three generals of the age and that Scipio Africanus called him the greatest general, and I changed it. Notice that Alexander the Great hadn't still been born and Hannibal couldn't be compared to him by his contemporanians. Doh, scratch that, not only he was born before, but Hannibal himself said that Alexander the Great and Pyrrhus of Epirus were greater generals than him [3] --Enric Naval (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert of my caption changes

I recently changed the caption under the image of the battle of cannae from one which provides virtually no useful information on the battle to one explaining what the image is showing (surely what the caption is for?). This was reverted by another editor back to the previous, uninformative, caption.

Currently, without an informative caption, not only is an opportunity lost to present important information regarding what the image is showing, but the image is quite misleading as it only shows the positions of the armies at least 3/4 way through the battle, when one would presume an image of a battle shows it shortly after commencement. The present lack of caption information under most battle images is surely one of the main detractions from those parts of this otherwise great article. Not wanting to simply re-revert to what I feel is an entirely positive change however, I thought I should make my case here. Canderra 14:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the edit summary, I didn't just remove it, I moved it to the main article on the Battle of Cannae, which is the right place for that kind of detailed information. Actually, I think the best thing would be not to have any image on individual battles at all on this article, unless they are really necessary to describe Hannibal's methods. Now, in case you're not aware of our current discussions about shortening this article a little bit and strictly concentrating on Hannibal himself, please note that the individual section on each battle is not supposed to be a painstaking military description, but only a quick note on the exploits of Hannibal as a general. For more general info, we have separate articles on each of those events, which you could contribute to, if you have more data.E.Cogoy 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok, fair enough. There does seem to be quite a lot of detail about each individual battle (as talked about in the discussion you mention). I think the article is very well written and informative as it is though, wish it had been around during my high school history days. Good luck with the attempt at gaining featured article status, it looks as though it must be very nearly there. Canderra 20:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Trimming the battle sections

I agree that the battle sections need to be trimmed. I would propose that each section be trimmed to one or two paragraphs that answer the following questions:

1. Why did the battle take place? Who was attacking, who was defending, why was it worth fighting the battle instead of avoiding it? What was at stake?
2. What was the troop strength of each side and approximate composition of the forces?
3. Who won? How decisive a victory was it?
4. Were there any important personages that were captured, wounded or killed?
5. Were there any notable strategies or tactics that make this more than just one of many battles? (e.g. Cannae was particularly notable for thousands of years afterward). Don't describe the strategy or tactic in detail, just give a one or two sentence summary as to why the strategy or tactic was notable.
6. Were there any brilliant moves or notable errors that contributed to the outcome of the battle?
7. What was the impact of the battle on the overall campaign? Did it make any difference or was it just another battle?

Anything that is not a direct and concise answer to one of these questions should be left for the article on the battle. I'm sure that I've left something out but I think this is the first cut.

--Richard 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Tresimene needs to be shortened and Zama expanded. After that I think this should be ready for PR. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Does anyone reckon we're ready for Peer Review?? Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've put it up for Peer Review as most of the To-do list has been completed. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Map

I don't know where this map came from, but the scale at the bottom is CLEARLY wrong. Italy is about 1.5 miles long.

You're kidding me, right? Aaрон Кинни (t) 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, honestly the scale never claims to be of "that" particular map, it just says "scale of miles", Which I guess is some sort of universal constant since the other maps look to have the same scale. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 05:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The United States Military Academy has posted a corrected version of this map, available at the following URL:

http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ancient%20warfare/ancient%20warfare%20maps/HannibalsRoute.gif

140.158.46.108 18:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Date of death

His date of death is 183 BC. I'm certain of it. I'm going to change and then footnote it. With several sources. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal Barca

Could we bring him in accordance with the rest of his family? They are all named with their prename and their family name Barca. Besides Hannibal in Punic is as common as John in English and in each war are several Hannibals of whom we do know not the full name. In case of Hamilcar Barca he was fully named to avoid confusion with another Hamilcar commanding the fleet. In case of Hannibal Barca there is Hannibal Monomachus in his staff, advocating to eat humans for better provision etc. Wandalstouring 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

He's commonly referred to as just "Hannibal", so in my opinion that's how it should stay. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And how do we label an article about the Punic name "Hannibal"? Besides ALL the other Hannibals are also commonly labeled only Hannibal. Wandalstouring 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"During his invasion of the United States of America..."

I don't know enough about Hannibal to know what that's supposed to say, but come on. That's not even funny. Someone who knows, please fix that. Thor Rudebeck 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A series of vandalisms were committed by user:Fuzzybunny17 on the 11 October 2006. The vandalism has been removed and the user warned. Canderra 21:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Hannibal

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, move the films and books list there, so this article gets much shorter. I deleted the GI Joe a real American hero plot. It has nothing to do with this biography. perhaps it is the origin of Hannibal invading the US. Wandalstouring 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Last years

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

Who wrote it?

Who Wrote that Hannibal said, "So soon as age will permit...I will use fire and steel to arrest the destiny of Rome."?

It's a good quote, but getting the source from a website about a movie (Reverse Spins, Patton, the Second Coming of Hannibal) is not the best way to prove he said that.

So who wrote it? Livy? Dio Appian? I know Polybius didn't. Some one help!

Try Livy Wandalstouring 22:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Appian, I believe. Aaрон Кинни (t) 18:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

While it correponds with Livy's stance Polybius wrote about the oath Hannibal allegedly made to his father "never have good will towards the Romans" (Polyb. 3.11.7). Polybius apparently also wrote a treatise titled, "Wrath of the Barcids" which may be where the quote came from. ForestJay 09:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Appian's style (who also said Hannibal's army was a serpent sweeping across the mountains blah blah blah...) I personally feel Polybius' account is probably the most accurate (especially in light of the whole Lipari island trickery by the Romans), but hey, whatever's clever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.236.66 (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The article's contrast of Hannibal with Nero

"When Hannibal's successes had brought about the death of two Roman consuls, he vainly searched for the body of Gaius Flaminius on the shores of Lake Trasimene, held ceremonial rituals in recognition of Lucius Aemilius Paullus, and sent Marcellus' ashes back to his family in Rome. By contrast, when Nero had accomplished his march back and forth to and from the Metaurus he flung the head of Hannibal's brother into Hannibal's camp."

The unsourced comments regarding Hannibal's chivalry towards the Romans should be retained. But the following contrast with the Roman general Nero should be left out. The author who put this comment in does not have a point or just leaves it out. Sometimes a writer will leave a proposition unstated because it is too obvious and he assumes the reader has alread figured that out, and other times the proposition if left unstated because the writer wants to avoid responsibility for saying it.

Comparing Hannibal with a single Roman general seems to me meaningless. Certainly not every general officer that served Rome was personally identical to Nero just because he was of the same nationality; and likewise not every Carthaginian general officer was as chivalrous as Hannibal (e.g. Hannibal Monomachus, whose cruel acts were mistakenly attributed to his commander). This would be a generalization. We must also keep in mind that the Carthaginians were the invaders, and the Romans had their backs to a wall and were fighting for their survival. In my opinion Nero's action was pointless, but pardonable. The Carthaginians probably would have done the same thing if Africa was invaded and they captured a Roman general. And in fact they did; Regulus, a commander in the First Punic War, was captured a sent to Rome as an envoy to plead Carthage's cause. He didn't, but returned as a point of honor and was tortured to death.

Justinus Magnus 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop, Hannibal is also credited for slaughtering turncoat cities. This is all about one Roman general who used psychological warfare and the only record of something like this during the whole Second Punic War. Don't turn this into a chivalry discussion, our sources are scarce and must be read critically for all our ancient writers had political ambitions. Wandalstouring 17:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hannibal's Chivalry" was the wrong title to use, whether he was or was not is not discernible nor was it my concern. Napoleon said, "If you wage war, do it energetically and with severity. This is the only way to make it shorter, and consequently less inhuman." Severity in war has always been required and is no reflection upon how honorable a particular general is, nor does it take into account his objectives. If Hannibal was seeking to terrorize the Italians into joining him by destroying their towns (e.g. Acerrae, Nuceria) then he failed. However, these tactics may have worked elsewhere and have nothing to do with morals, especially when referring to ancient warfare when this was common place. You contrasted Hannibal with a Roman general and left no conclusion, this was my chief concern. Hannibal treated the corpses of generals different from one Roman general; this is frivolous. If clarity was the reason why you avoided answering this before, then that problem as been solved. Justinus Magnus 20:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Source it. Wandalstouring 19:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal: Eastern or Western?

Look, if a lot of people consider him to be one of the greatest military leaders of the Western world - and a lot of people do - then the claim that he is widely thought of in those terms is true regardless of how North Africans in the 21st century view themselves. Nevertheless, it is perhaps best, as has now been done, to take out any reference to the eastern world or the western world altogether. --D. Webb 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just did it. 201.37.71.146 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That Eastern Western discussion is pointless. He was one of the best military leaders and his influence on military strategy and tactics is worldwide. Wandalstouring 01:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Same here He was eastern carthage the phoenicians more specif are an eastern people the carthaginian culture is EASTERN in terms of architecture, trapping and clothing is a ringing bell that says EASTERN PEOPLE!. But the debate is pointless he was an inspiration to the entire world a Carthaginian dream, of no boundries no borders no seperation a unified and a consolladated world... Besides you can make more profit that way ;) lol. 72.17.209.226 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you sign your comments. Well, the Phoenicians are considered part of the Polis culture and not the Eastern kingdom culture. They economically have far more in common with the Greeks who also deeper influenced their lifestyle than the Assyrians from whom the Phoenician colonists were escaping. Some of them settled in Greece and contributed to the development of Greek culture with novelities like the trireme. Especially for Hannibal you have to consider that he was raised by a Greek teacher and deeply rooted in the Greek culture (which had great influence in Carthage with its mixed Phoenician/Cypriot/Greek/Lybian/Italian/black African(declining order of influence) population). Following your arguments of Eastern/Western the specific American culture would be simply impossible because most inhabitants have ancestors who one day immigrated to America. Do you then say that African Americans have an African culture and Irish Americans a Celtic culture when they both hang out in baggy jeans and listen to hip-hop? Wandalstouring 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Phoenicians aren't a Polis people nor are they considered such as you seem to suggest. They are in fact in close relationship with the Canaanites, the Phoenicians are simply indistinguishable from the descendants of coastal-dwelling Canaanite. And who are they running away from? What are you talking about, if you mean to say there origins well thats something we all would like to know. There is no conclusion as of yet where the Phoenicians origin lay or wether they migrated or ran is question not an answer. They are of course an eastern people according to there Mediterranean sub-stratum ethnicity. And Hannibal wasn't raised by a Greek teacher he was of course raised by his own father a full blooded Carthaginian he did however have a mentor who was Greek. Something to consider the Carthaginians placed no heed to where or what ethnicity a person is you can be from whatever corner of the world and still be considered Carthaginian they were in a way much like America is today a country of a diverse people and background with little if any discrimination.72.17.209.226 18:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Any serious scientific author considers them part of the Polis culture. Ameling Walter, "Karthago: Studien zu Militär, Staat und Gesellschaft" ISBN 3-406-37490-5 (dissertation) Source your comments that they were not and provide a source saying they are Eastern people + a clear definition what that is! So far any discussion is pointless. Wandalstouring 20:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Source my comments? They are not comments these are the facts and the very concensus of the subject. I dont have need to pay anymore attention to this mummers farse 72.17.209.226 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And I think you only read a historic fiction book and know nothing about Polis, Phoenicians or Carthage. Wandalstouring 22:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Carthaginian culture was Eastern as was mentioned clothing, architecture, location, and origins means they are Eastern. Wandal I have seen nothing but Psedu-historic rehtoric from you explaining a wide diminsion of radical theory's frankly I woulden't be suprised if you came out and said "The Carthaginians are a mars people". hence forth this debate is pointless... Jehuty Strife 19:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Culture in Carthage's empire was mixed. It was influenced by Greek and Egyptian culture. The problem is what is Eastern for a Chinese audience for example? Instead of such stupid labels, that are not a shared view by the Greek authors, who considered them the western barbarians and the Persians the eastern ones. Wandalstouring 08:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

restructuring the article

I think the article is too much centered on the battles during the first years of the Second Punic War in which Hannibal played an important role, but this isn't sufficient for a biography. I suggest to reduce the detailed reports of the battles, but give a better overview of Hannibal's role and plots.

The Strategema(once a standard handbook for generals in Europe) mentions many plots of Hannibal. I suggest to add some of them as sidequotes like in the Jeanne d'Arc article.

Strategus of Punic Iberia

• the situation in Iberia (current research on who ruled: Carthage and Gades or Carthage, division of the income between Carthage, Gades and the Barcids
• political influence and family connections of the Barcids in Carthage
• assasination of Hasdrubal the Fair(who was behind the Celtic assassin, discussion of political motives Hannibal, Romans, Iberians, Celtiberians, etc.)
• election by the army (appointing subcommanders from his family - takeover by several young commanders, more aggressive campaigning, increased spoils for soldiers)
• The Iberian troops under Hannibal (system of Iberian levies and reliability, securing loyality with Iberian hostages, military reforms by Hannibal and his predecessor Hasdrubal - Hannibal was second in command while Hasdrubal was strategus, introducing Sarissae among the Numidians, improved integration of Slingers and Lybian infantry)
• diplomatic connections to the Gauls(-> discussion of possible objective, a tin traderoute through Garonne and Auronne (also source for mercenaries) + alliance with Gauls in Gallia cisalpina)
• campaign against Central Iberia (Andobales)
• campaign against Sagunt (beginning diplomatic clash with Rome)
• campaign north of the Ebro (difficult fighting, establishing Barcelona, discussion of research on legal situation of the Ebro Treaty that was according to some scholars supposedly made by Hasdrubal the Fair in the legal form of a Berkit, but not recognized by the Carthaginian government (as the dispute between Hannibal and the Romans shows). A Berkit was a legal form a Punic strategus could use to make a declaration of intent, but it required the verification of the leading political institution to make it binding after his term of office.)

Second Punic War

• events leading to the outbreak of the war and the role of the Barcid's party in the government (+Hannibal and the Punic supreme command, communication problems, questionable agreement on his overland strike across the Alps)

• In Gaul
  • Overland Journey to Italy (+hiring Celtic mercenaries, feats such as ferrying elephants) and arrival (loss of most war elephants)
  • Battle of Ticinus
  • Battle of Trebia
  • Gallic allies (plots for his assassination and countermeasures, freeing Gallia cisalpina and forging an alliance, recruiting an army to strike against Rome)

• In Italy
  • March through the swamps (loss of an eye) + Battle of Lake Trasimene (arming his troops, selling weapons to the enemy) (+ slipping through the defences to Southern Italy)
  • Fabius Cunctator vs Hannibal (Fabian strategy vs the rapid destruction of enemy forces by Hannibal, two armies shadowing each other, Hannibal does not suceed to ambush, but gets almost eliminated by surprise while making camp, plot of Fabius to catch Hannibal fails, Hannibal using psychological warfare and spaing Fabius' lands)
  • Battle of Cannae (Hannibal's most credited victory,prelude to the circumstances of the battle, Hannibal's speech to encourage his troops)
  • Effects of Cannae (Hannibal offers peace terms to Rome, political changes, new alliances for Carthage - Hannibals prediction fails. Romans operate with small armies to secure their hold on the cities, Hannibal splits his army and the Punics under Hannibal, Mago and Hanno counteroperate with small armies. Dispute whether or not Hannibal could assault Rome, Maharbal quote(Livy). Reinforcing Hannibal vs the strategy of opening multiple theatres chosen by the Punic supreme command. his political enemy Hanno(who as general achieved the greatest expansion of Punic territory in Africa, than called Lybia) points out why Hannibal's achievements are problematic(Livy)
  • Freeing Italy (Hannibal and the Punic's behaviour in allied cities: Capua, Tarent,(Livy, Polybius) Romans and Punics vs turncoats, etc.)
  • Punic faith (Livy pointing out Punic faith with examples, Polybius pointing out for example an authority conflict between Maharbal(also one of the commanders featured in the Strategema, is known to have had an independent Punic command in Africa) and Hannibal)
  • Hannibal's alliances (Capua, Syracuse, Macedon)
  • Why Hannibal didn't succeed in Italy (how long did the war there continue, battles, ambushes, troop supply, retreat to Croton)
  • Death of his brothers

• Return to Africa
  • Conflict with the governing body prior to the battle of Zama(Hannibal doesn't support fighting a battle, gains amnesty for Hasdrubal Gisco who later commits suicide to avoid being lynched, meeting between Scipio and Hannibal)
  • Hannibal's role in the peace treaty between Rome and Carthage(Polybius)

Civilian career

• Hannibal as businessman (information lacking), detoriating economic situation in Punic Africa
• Hannibal as suffet(his supporters, political and economic reforms, political tricks and resulting problems, intervention of Rome and his escape)

In exile

Expanded about the different stations during his exile and the political circumstances he encountered and advised. (We have plentyful of quotes from this part of his life). His career as nauarch and his inventions could be expanded.

• Seleucid Empire (advisor, nauarch, diplomat)
• Armenia (advisor)
• Bythnia (nauarch)

Wandalstouring 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, pooped??

He pooped in a period of tension in the Mediterranean, when Rome (then the Roman Republic) established its supremacy over other great powers such as Carthage, Macedon, Syracuse and the Seleucid empire.

Its in the intro. Is that supposed to be worded like that??

Avkrules 04:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

no.poop is a common word usedby vandals in various articles.Somehow they seem fascinated by poop. Wandalstouring 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination?

Should this article be nominated for Featured Article status?

In its current state it provides an extremely good account of the individual and is well sourced. The last peer review was almost a year ago now and most of the recommendations have been implemented in some form. So, what is the enxt step for getting this article to Featured Article status? Canderra 12:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose it. Wandalstouring 08:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Headline Article?

Why is there a section by italicized "Headline Article" with nothing else under it?

result of creative vandalism. Wandalstouring 08:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mom?

Okay, so who was Hannibal's mom? Is it unknown? I can't find it anywhere! Stormy16 12:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Our Greek and Roman sources do not give her name nor the names of his sisters. Wandalstouring 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

i cant either —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.128.158 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Racist POV pushing on this talk page

I just noticed that those IPs that have been starting discussions about Hannibal being black are most surely only one user: User:Tom_Bailey, who is probably not using his old account any more because anyone can check his contributions and notice that he been pushing that Pope Victor I‎ and Ludwig van Beethoven were negros, and that african-american Benjamin Banneker had a prodigious photographic memory [4], when it was in fact a legend (see current version)

I can assume good faith (he really believes that he is right) but not that his suggerences are neutral, and certainly not that we should dedicate any space on the talk page to discuss what is obviously racial POV pushing. Too much editor time has been wasted already :P.

Any more attempts at racial POV pushing will be mercilessly removed and the editor warned for POV pushing. (notice that this doesn't include rational discussions making reasonable assumptions based on WP:RS|WP:RS reliable sources and avoiding WP:OR original research)

Also see Talk:Hannibal/archive2#this_is_not_the_right_forum_for_this --Enric Naval (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

One comment was moved to User talk:98.222.125.65 --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistancy regarding the Peace

In the section "Return to Carthage" it mentions the Roman terms being very modest, while in the following section "Battle of Zama" it gives the impression that they were very strict. Yet... the terms were very very similar. Which is it? Are they modest or are they strict? Farkeld (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The first terms demanded half the silver and left Carthage 20 warships. after Zama it w3as twice the amount of silver and half the ships. That's the difference. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Images of Hannibal

In this sentence at the end of the "Exile and Death" section, it says that "Effigues of Hannibal: From Hannibal, there are no authentic effigies. Busts come from the early modern times, coins do not show the head of Hannibal [32]" Yet in the beginning there is a bust of Hannibal supposedly made by the Romans and in the "Battle of Lake Trasimene" section there is a coin with a picture of Hannibal. How is this not contradictory? Ace blazer (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)