|
What did Hannibal look like?
|
Posted By:
Accipiter
Jul 03, 2005
|
Here's something for those of you with an interest in history:
It seems that there are currently at least two movies being produced about Hannibal Barca, the Carthaginian who fought Rome in the Second Punic War. One film company has cast Denzel Washington as Hannibal, the other has chosen Vin Diesel. Now a fuss has started over which actor is more realistic, racially.
Two articles discussing the question can be found at <a href="http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020716-074042-7469r" title="http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020716-074042-7469r">http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020716-074042-7469r</a> and at <a href="http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=112" title="http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=112">http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=112</a>, while a screenwriters' online forum concerning the topic is at <a href="http://pub19.ezboard.com/fobsscreenwritingforumfrm1.showMessage?topicID=115.topic" title="http://pub19.ezboard.com/fobsscreenwritingforumfrm1.showMessage?topicID=115.topic">http://pub19.ezboard.com/fobsscreenwritingforumfrm1.showMessage?topicID=115.topic</a>.
|
Comments
Smerk
in to mischief
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 | 11:16 PM
Vin Diesel looks medditerranean???? Eh...I suppose he may be better physically...but acting wise, I'd vote Denzel! |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 | 08:46 AM
Since when do Holllywood movies strive to be accurately portraying people? That's something new... |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 | 09:28 AM
LaMa has a good point. Look what Hollywood did to the reputation of William Bligh. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society, a skilled seaman and arguably the greatest navigator of all time. They assumed that because his crew mutinied he must have been a tyrant. Historical research showed that this is absolutely false. But thanks to Hollywood, no amount of truth will ever clear his name, at least among the uninformed.
So for Hannibal, use Brad Pitt, George Clooney or Mel Gibson. Then cast some up and coming blonde bombshell as a fictional love interest. That way they are guaranteed to make lots and lots of money from the teenage fans.
This was the same technique used by that theatrical whore, James Cameron, in Titanic. Even though the subject was one of the most famous events in history and there were 2500 people on board (some of them being the richest and most famous of the time), Cameron felt he had to invent characters to tell the story. It was an insult to the special effects team who did a fantastic job and the real victims of the tragedy. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 | 09:30 AM
Sorry. I drifted off topic. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 | 09:50 AM
I always imagine Hannibal looking somewhat like Howard Keel; and let's face it, whatever Hollywood do to the story the result is almost certain to be less entertaining than the Keel/Williams 1955 vehicle <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048239/">Jupiter's Darling</a>
Mind you that's <a href="http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/3384/">another thread entirely</a>. |
Ozymandias
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 | 01:05 PM
Uh, possibly Cameron used fictional characters because if he told a realistic Titanic story it would be a rip-off of A Night to Remember?
Are you opposed to, say, Saving Private Ryan because the characters were fictional and they could have used real people from WWII? By using what you said, are you opposed to The Grapes of Wrath? |
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 | 01:12 PM
Whether it's Vin Diesel or Denzel Washington, it's still going to be misinformative. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 06:27 AM
Whether it's Vin Diesel or Denzel Washington, it's still going to be misinformative.
Yeah, but just about every HW film is. Even when Oliver Stone took pains to be 'accurate' over Alexander to the extent of getting an <a href="http://www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/fox.html">Oxford Don</a> in to advise, the result was barely passable historically.
Titanic portrayed members of the crew as bullying cowards, when in fact they went down with the ship after helping hundreds into the lifeboats.
U571 portrayed a 'brave american crew' capturing an Enigma machine and helping win the war for the US. In fact naval Enigma had been captured from U110 by the British in May, 1941 (at which time the US was still at peace). Also although U570 was captured (by the British), U571 served to the end of the war.
Not to mention the countless films about the American war of independence that not only overlook the immense amount of aid and material provided to the patriot side by the French, but also glosses over that it was the culmination of a long-term British plan to get the clingy little money-pit of a colony to stand on its own feet for once. 😉 |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 06:46 AM
Well, if the movies were accurate instead of entertaining, we'd be paying $8 a pop to watch a segment of The History Channel. Since most people are already paying for cable or satellite (well, except me), which includes THC - I'm sure they don't mind that they just paid $8 to watch Brad Pitt have sex with a temple virgin.
If they wanted accuracy, they would have stayed home. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 | 09:28 AM
The guy in the middle.
http://i.tvspielfilm.de/img/gen/P/C/HBPCAJMaadg_Pxgen_r_360x240.jpg |
Hannibal
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 | 08:57 AM
Are you series. Hannibal was from Africa. The bust of him has African features. He was born in Carthage which is in Tunisia which is in Africa.
Why can't HW give the black community at least one thing about our history to be proud of instead of always tainting it. Africans have a great history of leaders but no one ever depicts it(in the proper way). |
Hannibal
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 | 08:58 AM
serious. lol. sorry |
Mario T Majors
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 | 05:48 PM
Hollywood movie makers are hardly known for historical accuracy, nonetheless, casting Denzel Washington as Hannibal is an incredible stretch even for an industry that that goes to ridiculous lenghts to be politically correct. Then again, let's not forget "The Shawshank Redemption", which was based on a novella by Stephen King; the character Red played by Morgan Freeman was white in the book (he was called Red because he had red hair). Additionally, let's not forget the Clint Eastwood movie "Unforgiven", it's the USA in the 19th Century and not once is the "N" word used. I could go on and on. |
John
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 | 07:33 AM
Hannibal was African, but in the classical period the term "Africa" referred to the North of Africa. The Carthaginians were Phoenicians, a people from the middle east. They were Semitic, like the Jews and Arabs, NOT black African. So Hannibal would have looked much like the middle eastern people of today. Vin Diesel looks the part I think. It is no way an insult to people of black African heritage to say hannibal wasnt black, its just stating a fact.
Also, there is no need to invent black African historical figures, there were plenty - for example the Egyptian Pharoah Taharqa (so important he was even mentioned in the Bible) was a black Nubian. Why dosnt Denzel make a film about him? |
Lotus
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 | 02:51 PM
A BROWN man...
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/HannibalFrescoCapitolinec1510.jpg/300px-HannibalFrescoCapitolinec1510.jpg">See pic</a>
"Hannibal's celebrated feat in crossing the Alps with war elephants passed into European legend: a fresco detail, ca. 1510, Capitoline Museums, Rome"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal |
Josu
|
Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 | 11:26 AM
Hannibal was 25% phoenicians (caucasian race, not black) and 75% iberian (ancient spaniard). His father was the great general Hamilcar Barca (50% phoenician 50% iberian). HAnnibal's mother was Didobal, a iberian. Hannibal's wife was too iberian (Himilce) |
Lotus
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 | 01:51 PM
Idea:
How about all the Hannibal "experts" making claims on his race and ancestry provide citations or references supporting your proposed racial classifications about the man. Whether you claim he's mostly Caucasoid or Africoid, etc
Please deal with geography AS WELL AS what the man looked liked/ color. Physical & color accuracy is often a more complex issue than just classifying "racial" categories that can be mistakenly & purposefully inaccurate. |
Rsj
|
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 | 09:56 PM
Hannibal would probably look more like Danny Thomas or Ralph Nader, both whose families came from Lebanon. Hannibal's bloodline was Phoenician. |
The Movie Guy
|
Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 | 04:47 PM
I wasn't around then, so I can't say for sure what he looked like.Since he was of African heritage one would suspect his skin tone to be of a brown complexion. Most of the paintings I've seen depict him as a large muscular build. My choice of actors would be: Vin Rhames or Micheal Clarke Duncan.
The same question arises frequently about Jesus. The fact is; he was Jewish, no African and certainly not American. |
kubulshankurbanda
|
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 | 01:58 AM
Whether it's Vin Diesel or Denzel Washington, it's still going to be misinformative.
Hollywood movies are misinformative at times i agree, check out the passion of christ, Jesus is potrayed as caucasian but the truth of the matter is that he is not...
and i want to correct the movie guys' statement on jesus and jews that "The fact is; he was Jewish, no African and certainly not American."
_ ever heard of the cohanim(kohanim) factor its a chromosomal gene which is a distinct signature haplotype of judaic origin, similar to what exist in major jewish population, who trace their ancestry to Aaron brother of Moses.This Kohen gene is completely absent in the gentile and non-jewish people.
_Lemba males from Africa carry a higher concentration of this jewish priestly DNA chromosome than Europeans and American Jewish population. The kohen concentration is up to 53.8% on Lemba males and 8.8% in Ashkenazis and other jewish groups.The research was done by America Israel and England to determine this...
hollywood is a wider scheme to deprive africa its heritage, they control the entertainment hence they can twist and do with it as they desire, It doesnt matter how much dark you paint africa but for crying out loud Hannibal was NOT caucasian...
he was NOT caucasian |
Тимур
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 | 11:36 AM
Are you series. Hannibal was from Africa. The bust of him has African features. He was born in Carthage which is in Tunisia which is in Africa. |
Евгения
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 | 11:39 AM
The bust of him has African features |
Яков
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 | 11:41 AM
This was the same technique used by that theatrical whore, James Cameron, in Titanic. Even though the subject was one of the most famous events in history and there were 2500 people on board (some of them being the richest and most famous of the time |
Dan
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 | 10:41 PM
Alexander Siddig played Hannibal in a movie in 2006. Tunisians are Caucasians like most North Africans. You can see plainly if you have eyes. They are similar to Southern Europeans but of course they are different. They should stop the politcal correctness. They found through DNA that they are Haplogroup E but a branch of E that is related to other North Africans to the middle east to Southern Europe. North Africans like to think they are Caucasian but they do not think they are the same as Europeans and some say they are unique compared to Middle Easterners. They do think they are different from Sub Saharan Africans. Somalis and some Eithiopians think they are more mixed race. They are mixed with Sub Saharan and Caucasian types that are more related to Arabs or Egytpians. You can plainly see it. Why do Black people and people who are poltically correct want to link two different groups of people the same. Is it to make them feel better? It is rather silly in my mind. I am a Historian and I think I look at history with a good rational approach. |
Jesiah Brock
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 | 12:07 PM
Sometimes it seems as though the world almost strives not to give people of color or anything/place associated with people of color the credit they deserve. Whether its historical figures such as Hannibal, Queen Sheba, Cleopatra, Nefertiti ect, or ideas that people of color were able to build grand structures such as the pyramids. If they weren |
mario majors
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 | 01:23 PM
Wheras I have to agree with the your view of Hollywood's ethnocentrism Jesiah, you are also making quite a leap. Cleopatra was a Ptolemy, and aside from her place of birth, she was quite Greek. Hannibal was Carthaginian, in other words he was Phoenician, which makes him a Semite. If by "person of color" you mean black in regards to either Cleaopatra or Hannibal, you are wrong and misinformed. I can certainly empathize with your position; my Sicilian grandfather was hardly lily white, and I highly doubt that my Roman ancestors ever spoke with British accents. However, I sincerely hope that when you "persons of color" you are not just referring to black, and I am sorry, Denzel Washington would be a poor choice to play Hannibal, just like picking James Caviezel was not an inspired choice to play Jesus; two wrongs do make a right. |
Jesiah Brock
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 | 02:03 PM
Well first of all we need to dismiss, completely and forever, any overlap between ancient geographical terms such as |
Mario Majors
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 | 02:40 PM
I can see from the link that you provided that you and I are on the same sheet of music Jesiah, although I still think that Denzel would be a bad choice; there are some people that have tried to depict the Punic Wars as race wars, which they were not. I believe that picking Denzel to play Hannibal would just give intemperate individuals fuel for their fire. I personally would prefer a modern day Omar Sharif shall we say. I can see that you taken the time to read up on your history, but meaning no disrespect, the ancient Greek name of Naples was Partenopolis, I have family there; the Romans called it Neapolis.
Cheers and best regards |
Emilio Primo
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 | 06:48 AM
Sorry Jesiah Brock, but were talking some 2000+ years ago, so the people who were living there more likely than not look nothing like the population there today. it is no doubt in that time span the population went through some drastic changes.
This is the reason that I get irate when people try to compare the ancient Phoenicians to the people of Lebanon today.
The thing of it is the is no source or reference that you can find that will tell you the racial characteristic of the Phoenicians of that time, except the Bible. Now you also have contemporaries of that time as well that speak of black cultures in Asia and Europe(So the refutes that myth of blacks only being a sub-Saharan culture)But the Bible, which states that the Phoenicians and the Canaanites were one and the same.
Now the question remains who were the Canaanites. The Bible states that they were descendants of Ham, son of Noah, father of the black race.
Even the History Channel depicts Hannibla Barca as black now. |
Jesiah Brock
|
Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 | 09:06 AM
Emilio,
I |
Emilio Primo
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 | 05:41 AM
Sorry Jesiah, I was making general comments in that post but the one directed at you had more to do with the disagreement I have in the picture you provided.
And in regards to Mario Majors:
I assume when you say "Semitic appearance" you mean "white" or "Middle Eastern" looking. It's funny or should I say hypocritical when folks like you assume Semitic automatically translates to "white" or "Middle Eastern" in appearance and then from the same line of thought you say African does not automatically equate to "black".
You and people like you always bring up that fact he was Phoenician, a Semitic peoples without even knowing who or what the Phoenicians were.
The Phoenicians who came to be called that by the Greeks actually called themselves Canaanites who resided in what is now modern day Israel and Palestinian territories.
The ONLY source that will describe in detail the appearance of the Canaanites/Phoenicians is the Bible.
Now lets not get into the religious aspect of the Bible because that doesn't have anything to do with the matter. The point of the matter is that the witters of the Bible as well as peoples in Biblical times held traditions of the ethnic make-up of men(And these traditions actually carried over scientifically to very recent times) and this tradition was that Noah's 3 sons started what is known as the different races of men.
This tradition held that whatever your racial make-up was then that means you were a descendant of one of Noah's sons in accordance with your appearance. For instance if you had a "Semitic appearance" then that means you were a direct descendant of Shem son of Noah and so fourth.
In Bible times traditionally it was held that the Canaanites(who were later called Phoenicians by the Greeks) were direct descendants of Ham son of Noah because of what they looked like at this time, and Ham traditionally speaking was considered the father of the black race. Hannibal Barca was a Carthaginian whose ancestry was that of a Canaanite or a Phoenician. Thus the History Channels latest portrayal of Hannibal Barca as................Black |
joe truch
|
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 | 08:55 AM
Novices!
Probably no one that has commented has been in the military, nor studied history.
First lets look to his army.
His most trusted were his African infantry. He didn't have to pay them. He did have to pay conscripts such as the Gauls, Celts and other Euro races. But here is the key factor to any military leaders. Put your most expendable and less trusted or valued troops in the deadliest part of battle. I bring to you the formation at Cannae. Middle of the formation were composed of the Euro folks (more expendable). The African wings (Infantry) was preserved for last and is the key piece that did the most damage. Would any Euro man put Africans ahead of his brothers? Uh, no! And now, novices, research the coin found in the Chiana (clanis) valley. This is the only picture of Hannibal with his most trusted elephant. If I were in his army, would I want a picture of an elephant driver, or that of my great commander. I think the answer is clear. Face the truth racists and deal with it. Hannibal was as black as obsidian. Oh, almost forgot. Livy, a historian who live to talk to survivors of Hannibal's day, states that Hannibal wore wigs, to disguise himself from time to time. The only race of men to quickly change their hair with wigs (like Egyptians) were African tribes/races. Do your homework next time and you will not be having this debate. Peace. |
The truth
|
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 | 02:30 PM
http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/punicwar/hannibalcoin.gif
click the link above to see the coin
Judging by the head on this coin Hannibal's facial features do not resemble those of a Negro at all. He seems to have looked very much like the ancient Romans and as a matter of fact, I look a little bit like him, but my nose is not big and I am a 100% white man with blue-green eyes. So how can this be? How can a black person look like a white person? Well, I think he had a tan just like a lot of Spaniards do, but his facial features resembled those of a white man. Skin colour doesn't say as much as face or head form do.
p.s
http://img.youtube.com/vi/ZVO6e4faGMM/0.jpg
http://www.scoolz.de/bilder/lupe/726fady_maalouf_m.jpg
Here is the younger version of Hannibal. This boy is from Lebanon and his pictures show how white some of the people over there look. |
That Guy
|
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 | 11:38 AM
I'll address the images you supplied. As I stated in earlier responses, you can not pull pictures of present day people from a particular area that has undergone significant social and genealogical change and compare them to people that lived there thousands of years ago. The first Egyptians that founded what we now know as Egypt (Kemit then) looked nothing like the present day Egyptians. Herodotus said the "Egyptians had BLACK skin and woolly hair" If this is true about the Egyptians why wouldn't it be true about the Carthaginians?
Hannibal was definitely a Black man. A recent PBS special showed where scientists did a DNA study of the ancient Phoenicians, who had settled in Lebanon, which indicated that they were not Lebanese, but had the same blood-line as the Egyptians, who still carry the DNA of the Black pharaohs -- a distictive blood-line from most other Arabs... |
someone from tunisia
|
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 | 08:41 AM
i want to correct something .. hannibal is not a black man .. and not every country in africa have black people .. espetially in north africa like tunisia. |
That Guy
|
Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 | 11:03 AM
Let me give some clarification on what I mean by black. Black or a person of color; a non European. The point I was trying to make was that it is not totally out the realm of possibility that Hannibal was black (or a person of color)like many would have us believe.
I used the example of ancient Egypt in my last post to prove that comparing people that live in a particular area today with people that lived there thousands of years ago can not always be accurate; especially when looking at North Africa (Were Carthage was established)
So with all due respect, there is nothing to correct. |
Denzel
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 | 05:22 PM
http://www.bible-history.com/rome/hannibal_coin_color.gif
http://topper10.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/hannibal.jpg
this is a negroid? definitely not. this man has caucasian feats. and all caucasian aren't "white" - caucasian is a term based on facial feature not on skin colour what is often misunderstood. yes even berbers and all semitic races are considered caucasian - and Hannibal was probably of phoenician origin (semites) with maybe a certain degree of berberic ancestry. he was probably dark skinned due to climate but not black (as Denzel i.e.)... for him to be black he would have to have some ancestry from central africa which is not the case... since climate over the generations and generations most likely resulted in different skin tones. but you must know that differences between negroid and what we call caucasian isn't aren't limited to skin color only - the populations weren't mixed for generations what resulted in those differences. however today because of more extensive mixing of races (to everyones pleasure) we are starting to look more and more alike - we'll have a single "race" in about next 500-1000 years for in most parts of the world if the trend keeps up. but back then the differences were far greater and believe me the guy on the upper images wasn't of negroid origin.. that's plain bollocks.
also only metion of black people mediteeranean civilizations knew of then were referred to as nubians. also egyptians weren't black they were dark skinned but that's a big differences qt;"In the 41st year of Thutmose's reign he received from the Hittites among other things eight male and female black slaves, calling it tribute. The Hittites must have thought of them as presents, probably quite valuable ones, as black persons were a rarity among them. Defeated nations like the Nubians which lost their independence and were administered by the Egyptians, paid taxes which often included slaves." black pharaohs, yeah right dream on... they weren't nords with blonde hair and pale white skin but they were not definitely black... if they were then greek are black, iranians are black, iraqi are black, turks are black etc... only "white" people then are nords, germans, saxons and slavs who were pretty much isolated from these mediteranean race in those time expact few tribes like illyrs and etruscians who mixed with phoenicians. if what some of you claim is right then also romans were black. and that is plain stupid... |
That Guy
|
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 | 10:50 AM
Denzel,
As I stated in my previous post which you are apparently responding to, Hannibal was a person of COLOR. I'm not saying that Hannibal looked like your average black guy in Harlem, New York, but he did not look like a European Caucasian like European artist have depicted. That was my only point. By your own admission you say that "he was probably dark skinned". If this is the case you would also have to agree that if we were to pick someone to play this character that best represented the historical accuracy of Hannibal it should be a darker skinned Denzel Washington than a lighter skinned Vin Dissel. I think thats fair and that was my only point.
On a separate issue, Id like to address your stance on Egyptians not being black. I believe you said "Black Pharaohs, yeah right dream on!" I'm sorry to disappoint you but "Black Pharaohs" ruled over Egypt for 75 years. They were the 25th dynasty of Egypt. Until recently, theirs was a chapter of history that largely went untold. Only in the past four decades have archaeologists resurrected their story |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
