[Nattering Nabob]

Or was he one of those swarthy Mediterranean types?

Or do we even know?

I've seen a couple of representations of him as black and I was wandering if that was the case.

[Bosnjak]

No he was not, he was phonecian according to western sources. Berbic (Indo-Germanian Speaking Non-Arabs in North-Africa) said that Hannibal belonged to an indogenius berbic tribe.

Many of his Soldiers were Black, he lead several ethnicities with special war fare skills against rome.

[Zyx]

According to the Roman account, the Carthaginians were Blacks. I do not know if that means anything on Hannibal, but I imagine that he was since he was from a Carthaginian family. This came up in another discussion, so I would imagine as much.

I'll edit his post in the next 10 minutes with the research paper where I saw the Roman account.

Edit: http://wysinger.homestead.com/further_study_keita.pdf

A small note, but it's page 3.

. Moreover, as Snowden (1970)
notes, “Blacks” were described in ancient
Carthage and on the southern slopes of the
Atlas mountains, all at the latitude of north-
ern Egypt.

I don't feel like pulling up "Snowden" but, if you manage to, you can cite it here and I'd be grateful in putting it in my archives. Not that I ever need to make the statement to Black Carthaginians--I just like research of many sorts.

[Potemkin]

The source you quote simply suggests that there were black people in Carthage, not that all Carthaginians were black. Carthage itself was a colony of Tyre, a Phoenician city; the Phoenicians were a Semitic people who lived in what is now Lebanon. Hannibal would therefore probably have looked Jewish.

[Zyx]

That therefore doesn't relate with what you said prior. Your "therefore" assumes that there was no mixture of the indigenous people. Moreover, your "therefore" assumes that the invading Phoenicians were the dominant population in terms of numbers, since you say that their characteristics would weigh more heavier than the indigenous people.

All that I was trying to say was that it is likely that the Carthaginian people were "indigenously" Black and that Hannibal were likely a member of the indigenous population. It's possible that being a part of the royal family (if he was and if military necessarily needs to have invader roots), he was likely a mixture between Phoenicians and Carthaginian. I do not really think that this matters, though, and spoke to quickly. The source just came to mind and I recited it, but it's clear, now, that it's not the same as I remembered it.

I'd imagine that Snowden's "Blacks in Antiquity" would shed light onto the accuracy of the paraphrasing, but I didn't find it and don't find this question particularly important to continue searching for it.

A look back on your argument, Potemkin, with how Carthage was Phoenician since . . .. I think that you are thinking of 'colony' in the sense of England to the United States as opposed to England to India (the more likely arrangement.) No one in their right mind would claim that the Indians were Anglo-Saxons. There is a chance that some of their nobility may be or mixed, but it's just a chance that needs more of an investigation than thought exercising, no?

[Bosnjak]

@Potemkin Rather Lebanese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phoenicia_map-en.svg.

[InterestedInPolitics]

I don't know too much about Hannibal, but after watching a history channel special on him last night, he was a military genius. I thought at first his tatics wouldn't work against the Roman army, but I was proven wrong as I continued to watch the special. He was superior to any Roman general. Here is a question I have. Why did Hannibal want to destroy Rome? What did Rome do to him?

[Okonkwo]

Here is a question I have. Why did Hannibal want to destroy Rome? What did Rome do to him?

His father, Hamilcar was defeated by Rome in the First Punic War. Livius writes in his ab urbe condita that Hamilcar's father made him swear to avenge Carthago's defeat.

"I swear so soon as age will permit... I will use fire and steel to arrest the destiny of Rome."
-Hannibal's oath to his father.

[InterestedInPolitics]

It sounds like something out of a hollywood movie.

[Okonkwo]

It sounds like something out of a hollywood movie.

Naturally. The Latin originals are much more fun to read than one could actually imagine.
But there is a reason for its Hollywood-esque tone, Titus Livius made little distcinction between fact and fiction in his ab urbe condita. Historical writing as we know it had not yet gained the prevalence it had today.

[Potemkin]

Back in the day (about 100 BC, I believe), a clever Greek once said that the Romans may have no literature to speak of, but they make up for it with their history.

[Okonkwo]

Back in the day (about 100 BC, I believe), a clever Greek once said that the Romans may have no literature to speak of, but they make up for it with their history.

That's true, but it's pot calling the kettle black. The Roman writers were all in the tradition of a respective Greek "historian", as usual they weren't able to devise much upon their own but had a certain talent in improving other people's customs. I remember my old Latin teacher always used to call this "la morve romaine", Roman snot. He was an ardent classical philologist, he was convinced that the Greeks were - culturally speaking - vastly more sophisticated than the Romans.

[Potemkin]

That's true, but it's pot calling the kettle black.

The clever Greek was not just referring to the Romans' writing of history, but to their history itself, which was full of extraordinary characters caught up in extraordinary events. Even a straightforward recitation of the events themselves could have the force and majesty of a great epic. Why would the Romans need literature when they had their own history?

The Roman writers were all in the tradition of a respective Greek "historian", as usual they weren't able to devise much upon their own but had a certain talent in improving other people's customs. I remember my old Latin teacher always used to call this "la morve romaine", Roman snot. He was an ardent classical philologist, he was convinced that the Greeks were - culturally speaking - vastly more sophisticated than the Romans.

He was obviously right. The point, however, is that the Romans were aware of this and deferred to Greek culture. The Greeks were culturally vastly more sophisticated than anyone else at that time, as they kept reminding everyone (and still do, eh, noemon? ). The Romans, to their credit, accepted this and were able to understand and assimilate Greek culture. They "got it", to use modern parlance. We should give them credit for that.

[Einherjar]

This depends on what is meant by 'black'. In the modern day, 'black' is a general reference to a Sub-Saharan African.

Carthaginians and Numidians were in all probability very similar to modern North Africans, assuming no drastic changes occured - as seems to be the general case. Most 'native' populations have remained relatively unchanged since the Palaeolithic.

[Igor Antunov]

Possibly one with a dark tan as with today's northern africans.

[Dr House]

Who deleted my post?

It was a valid response.

[Oxymoron]

Hannibal was obviously dark skinned, I wouldnt say he was black.

[Igor Antunov]

Who deleted my post?

It was a valid response.

Sometimes the system fails to post your response, you have to double check to make sure. I've had many posts misteriously never show up.

Hannibal was obviously dark skinned, I wouldnt say he was black.

If he was living in the US and considered himself african-american he would be called black.

[Dr House]

I was kidding, Igor. I posted a picture of Hannibal Lecter and answered "no" to the OP question.

I always re-read my post after making it.

Then I probably deleted it. This isn't Gorkiy Park - SD