Hannibal Thoughts: Based or Cuck?

Interesting. Care to explain, fren?

There are a few men that are born where everything goes right for them; right ancestry, intellect, opportunity. You see it Napolean, Hannibal, and Alexander the great. It's pretty much a success recipe.

I CONSIDER

Attached: 19A2AAB0-1418-415B-A4B2-55DC2946C10D.jpg (200x331, 12K)

WHAT PART OF "ESSE DELENDAM" DON'T YOU BARBARIANS UNDERSTAND??

Carthage was a Semitic empire. Hannibal (((Barca))) was a Semite, possibly a Jew.

THAT CARTHAGE MUST BE DESTROYED

Attached: F44C0BFE-61EA-46B8-82C9-064B7978F596.jpg (184x274, 11K)

Based Cato, he pretty much wanted the destruction of Carthage.

Attached: DB6960D1-5711-4433-A65E-83064AC40BF4.jpg (666x357, 46K)

Hannibal ("mercy" or "favor of Baal"), Carthaginian general and statesman, son of Hamilcar, was born in 249 or 247 BC. Destined by his father to succeed him in the work of vengeance against Rome, he was taken to Spain, and while yet a boy gave ample evidence of his military aptitude. Upon the death of his brother-in-law Hasdrubal (221) he was acclaimed commander-in-chief by the soldiers and confirmed in his appointment by the Carthaginian government. After two years spent in completing the conquest of Spain south of the Ebro, he set himself to begin what he felt to be his life's task, the conquest and humiliation of Rome. Accordingly in 219 he seized some pretext for attacking the town of Saguntum (modern Murviedro), which stood under the special protection of Rome, and disregarding the protests of Roman envoys, stormed it after an eight months' siege. As the home government, in view of Hannibal's great popularity, did not venture to repudiate this action, the declaration of war which he desired took place at the end of the year.

Attached: download.jpg (201x251, 10K)

a failure
not even in top 10 greatest people in maghrebian history

Of the large army of Libyan and Spanish mercenaries which he had at his disposal Hannibal selected the most trustworthy and devoted contingents, and with these determined to execute the daring plan of carrying the war into the heart of Italy by a rapid march through Spain and Gaul. Starting in the spring of 218 he easily fought his way through the northern tribes to the Pyrenees, and by conciliating the Gaulish chiefs on his passage contrived to reach the Rhone before the Romans could take any measures to bar his advance. After outmaneuvring the natives, who endeavored to prevent his crossing, Hannibal evaded a Roman force sent to operate against him in Gaul; he proceeded up the valley of one of the tributaries of the Rhone (Isère or, more probably, Durance), and by autumn arrived at the foot of the Alps. His passage over the mountain chain, at a point which cannot be determined with certainty, though the balance of the available evidence inclines to the Mt. Genèvre pass, and fair cases can be made out for the Col d'Argentière and for Mt. Cenis, was one of the most memorable achievements of any military force of ancient times. Though the opposition of the natives and the difficulties of ground and climate cost Hannibal half his army, his perilous march brought him directly into Roman territory and entirely frustrated the attempts of the enemy to fight out the main issue on foreign ground. His sudden appearance among the Gauls, moreover, enabled him to detach most of the tribes from their new allegiance to the Romans before the latter could take steps to check rebellion. After allowing his soldiers a brief rest to recover from their exertions Hannibal first secured his rear by subduing the hostile tribe of the Taurini (modern Turin), and moving down the Po valley forced the Romans by virtue of his superior cavalry to evacuate the plain of Lombardy.

Attached: hannibal.jpg (200x249, 12K)

>was a Semite, possibly a Jew
Semite yes, Jew no. Carthage was a Phoenician colony. Phoenicians are the branch of Canaanites that didn't become Jews. Today they have been partially arabized and are known as the Lebanese

And it’s beautiful. Add trump to that list

Well. The Carthaginians were Semitic speakers of Punic. They used Carthaginian Shekels as currency. I could imagine a dialect of Punic with a Gaulish substratum being spoken.

Attached: Harbour Porpose Pic 8.jpg (840x525, 59K)

In December of the same year he had an opportunity of showing his superior military skill when the Roman commander attacked him on the river Trebia (near Placentia); after wearing down the excellent Roman infantry he cut it to pieces by a surprise attack from an ambush in the flank. Having secured his position in north Italy by this victory, he quartered his troops for the winter on the Gauls, whose zeal in his cause thereupon began to abate. Accordingly in spring 217 Hannibal decided to find a more trustworthy base of operations farther south; he crossed the Apennines without opposition, but in the marshy lowlands of the Arno he lost a large part of his force through disease and himself became blind in one eye. Advancing through the uplands of Etruria he provoked the main Roman army to a hasty pursuit, and catching it in a defile on the shore of Lake Trasimenus destroyed it in the waters or on the adjoining slopes. He had now disposed of the only field force which could check his advance upon Rome, but realizing that without siege engines he could not hope to take the capital, he preferred to utilize his victory by passing into central and southern Italy and exciting a general revolt against the sovereign power. Though closely watched by a force under Fabius Maximus Cunctator, he was able to carry his ravages far and wide through Italy: on one occasion he was entrapped in the lowlands of Campania, but set himself free by a stratagem which completely deluded his opponent. For the winter he found comfortable quarters in the Apulian plain, into which the enemy dared not descend. In the campaign of 217 Hannibal had failed to obtain a following among the Italians; in the following year he had an opportunity of turning the tide in his favor. A large Roman army advanced into Apulia in order to crush him, and accepted battle on the site of Cannae.

Attached: images.jpg (178x180, 7K)

>This scares the white race

Attached: Barbarians_Rising_Hannibal_Cast_Bio-E-min_t750x550.jpg (686x385, 80K)

fucking niggers

Punics, never change.

Hannibal does not look Semetic.

Thanks mainly to brilliant cavalry tactics, Hannibal, with much inferior numbers, managed to surround and cut to pieces the whole of this force; moreover, the moral effect of this victory was such that all the south of Italy joined his cause. Had Hannibal now received proper material reinforcements from his countrymen at Carthage he might have made a direct attack upon Rome; for the present he had to content himself with subduing the fortresses which still held out against him, and the only other notable event of 216 was the defection of Capua, the second largest city of Italy, which Hannibal made his new base.

In the next few years Hannibal was reduced to minor operations which centered mainly round the cities of Campania. He failed to draw his opponents into a pitched battle, and in some slighter engagements suffered reverses. As the forces detached under his lieutenants were generally unable to hold their own, and neither his home government nor his new ally Philip V of Macedon helped to make good his losses, his position in south Italy became increasingly difficult and his chance of ultimately conquering Rome grew ever more remote. In 212 he gained an important success by capturing Tarentum, but in the same year he lost his hold upon Campania, where he failed to prevent the concentration of three Roman armies round Capua. Hannibal attacked the besieging armies with his full force in 211, and attempted to entice them away by a sudden march through Samnium which brought him within 3 miles of Rome, but caused more alarm than real danger to the city. But the siege continued, and the town fell in the same year.

Attached: 41-hannibal-barca-part-2.jpg (2000x1500, 1.3M)

There's definitely something to Trump's dynamic personality that has elements of greatness not witnessed in this age of PC culture. The only way a man like that survives is by being his own boss in a succesful business.

Many of them had Berber ancestry.

Ah, that's very interesting. I wasn't aware of that bong bro. Thanks!

I'm fascinated by the deliberate ignorance of one of antiquity's greatest generals. Very little beyond what I've posted ITT can deter what anyone can ascertain from history.

Bunch of faggots lol. Will continue posting in a bit.

Attached: 41-hannibal-barca-part-2.jpg (2000x1500, 942K)

In 210 Hannibal again proved his superiority in tactics by a severe defeat inflicted at Herdoniac (modern Ordona) in Apulia upon a proconsular army, and in 208 destroyed a Roman force engaged in the siege of Locri Epizephyrii. But with the loss of Tarentum in 209 and the gradual reconquest by the Romans of Samnium and Lucania his hold on south Italy was almost lost. In 207 he succeeded in making his way again into Apulia, where he waited to concert measures for a combined march upon Rome with his brother Hasdrubal. On hearing, however, of his brother's defeat and death at the Metaurus he retired into the mountain fastnesses of Bruttium, where he maintained himself for the ensuing years. With the failure of his brother Mago in Liguria (205-203) and of his own negotiations with Philip of Macedon, the last hope of recovering his ascendancy in Italy was lost. In 203, when Scipio Africanus was carrying all before him in Africa and the Carthaginian peace-party were arranging an armistice, Hannibal was recalled from Italy by the "patriot" party at Carthage. After leaving a record of his expedition, engraved in Punic and Greek upon brazen tablets, in the temple of Juno at Crotona, he sailed back to Africa. His arrival immediately restored the predominance of the war-party, who placed him in command of a combined force of African levies and of his mercenaries from Italy. In 202 Hannibal, after meeting Scipio in a fruitless peace conference, engaged him in a decisive battle at Zama. Unable to cope with his indifferent troops against the well-trained and confident Roman soldiers, he experienced a crushing defeat which put an end to all resistance on the part of Carthage.

Attached: 1438225753.jpg (339x328, 64K)

yeah Carthaginians were baal worshiping baby killing degenerates Hannibal was the only good one cato did nothing wrong

Hannibal was still only in his forty-sixth year. He soon showed that he could be a statesman as well as a soldier. Peace having been concluded, he was appointed chief magistrate (suffetes, sofet). The office had become rather insignificant, but Hannibal restored its power and authority. The oligarchy, always jealous of him, had even charged him with having betrayed the interests of his country while in Italy, and neglected to take Rome when he might have done so. The dishonesty and incompetence of these men had brought the finances of Carthage into grievous disorder. So effectively did Hannibal reform abuses that the heavy tribute imposed by Rome could be paid by installments without additional and extraordinary taxation.

Seven years after the victory of Zama, the Romans, alarmed at this new prosperity, demanded Hannibal's surrender. Hannibal thereupon went into voluntary exile. First he journeyed to Tyre, the mother-city of Carthage, and from there to Ephesus, where he was honorably received by Antiochus III of Syria, who was then preparing for war with Rome. Hannibal soon saw that the king's army was no match for the Romans. He advised him to equip a fleet and throw a body of troops on the south of Italy, adding that he would himself take the command. But he could not make much impression on Antiochus, who listened more willingly to courtiers and flatterers, and would not entrust Hannibal with any important charge. In 190 he was placed in command of a Phoenician fleet, but was defeated in a battle off the river Eurymedon.

Attached: ksdjghsljdhgsljdfhg.jpg (606x898, 92K)

>t. trust me dude

He was a based Black man.

Attached: 5DA273D8-72C8-4F96-9714-E9A427882D98.jpg (900x489, 190K)

We'll get to how you're wrong in like two minutes, hang on.

Can't and wont cite a source, adorable.

CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/21/carthaginians-sacrificed-own-children-study

From the court of Antiochus, who seemed prepared to surrender him to the Romans, Hannibal fled to Crete, but he soon went back to Asia, and sought refuge with Prusias, king of Bithynia. Once more the Romans were determined to hunt him out, and they sent Flaminius to insist on his surrender. Prusias agreed to give him up, but Hannibal did not choose to fall into his enemies' hands. At Libyssa, on the eastern shore of the Sea of Marmora, he took poison, which, it was said, he had long carried about with him in a ring. The precise year of his death was a matter of controversy. If, as Livy seems to imply, it was 183, he died in the same year as Scipio Africanus.
lol oh you!

Attached: 070fc6caecbd7465db762a6b9ac897da.jpg (225x353, 15K)

>no mention of Baal
2/10 would reply to again

I fucking knew it. Some one always has to try and make him out to be black African.

As to the transcendent military genius of Hannibal there cannot be two opinions. The man who for fifteen years could hold his ground in a hostile country against several powerful armies and a succession of able generals must have been a commander and a tactician of supreme capacity. In the use of stratagems and ambuscades he certainly surpassed all other generals of antiquity. Wonderful as his achievements were, we must marvel the more when we take into account the grudging support he received from Carthage. As his veterans melted away, he had to organize fresh levies on the spot. We never hear of a mutiny in his army, composed though it was of Africans, Spaniards and Gauls. Again, all we know of him comes for the most part from hostile sources. The Romans feared and hated him so much that they could not do him justice. Livy speaks of his great qualities, but he adds that his vices were equally great, among which he singles out his "more than Punic perfidy" and "an inhuman cruelty." For the first there would seem to be no further justification than that he was consummately skilful in the use of ambuscades. For the latter there is, we believe, no more ground than that at certain crises he acted in the general spirit of ancient warfare. Sometimes he contrasts most favorably with his enemy. No such brutality stains his name as that perpetrated by Claudius Nero on the vanquished Hasdrubal. Polybius merely says that he was accused of cruelty by the Romans and of avarice by the Carthaginians. He had indeed bitter enemies, and his life was one continuous struggle against destiny. For steadfastness of purpose, for organizing capacity and a mastery of military science he has perhaps never had an equal.

Attached: images.jpg (186x272, 6K)

Any time.

Attached: Harbour Porpoise Smiling.jpg (478x306, 27K)

ITT: faggots attempt to smear one of the greatest generals of antiquity and fuck up even when providing 3rd rate sources.

I watched a two and a half hour documentary about him.

I dont get why the idea of Hannibal being black upset so many people here. There were some few % (5-10%) of negroid remains in all carthagian graves in north africa, blacks existed there as a relatively important population. Garamantes and others north african raided sub-saharan africa in the carthagian times and brought a lot of slaves, one of them could have been hannibal's mother.
And many historically great maghrebian leaders in the medieval era were mixed/blacks.

Hannibal was mostly likely partially iberian tho, considering his family/origins.

I read some of those queer books with no pictures in them about him. I'm sure its the same.

He wasn't black you brain dead fucking nigger. He was Phoenician with a possible Berber admixture. Stop trying to steal other people's history you fucking shit brained ape.

>dis nigga readin books n shit
lmaoooooooo

First you call him a failure and now you call him black.

Attached: Fin Whale.jpg (1600x1109, 171K)

That's wonderful. I like to read true crime stories and biographies. I can get through books on antiquity, but I just enjoyed the documentary a lot more. I read your posts and it confirmed everything I saw on the history doc.
Don't be rude for no reason. I didn't insult Hannibal.

OP, are you retarded? Hannibal had nothing to do with Rome, he eats brains and drinks wine

Yes, these in particular:

Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Edition

Chambers Biographical Dictionary, 5th Edition (p.663)

Benet's Readers Encyclopedia, 4th Edition (p.445)

The MacMillan Dictionary of Military Biography (p.152)

Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography (p.313)

Hutchinson Paperback Dictionary of Biography (p.223)

Concise Biographical Dictionary of Famous Men and Women (p.269)

Who's Who in the Roman World (pp.131-34)

Let me know if you're going with the 'hannibal was a nigger' or 'hannibal was a jew' approach if you can, thanks.

I wasn't being rude, but you can continue being a faggot if you'd like.

>t. trust me dude

You are safe behind a keyboard hiding behind a fake flag. You wouldn't dare say that to me in person. Continue to be a little shit you worm.

Dude was next level based. What are you on about?

Please stop projecting your internet tough guy persona onto others, all I've done is summarize Hannibal of Barca. All you've done is fag up this thread.

Now, now, boys. Let's be civil.

Attached: Fin Whale Pic 2.jpg (500x280, 14K)

Its cool, but he seems mad. Maybe if he puts on a cape, he can be supermad :^)

Lel.

Attached: Harbour Porpose Pic 7.jpg (3060x2040, 905K)

more based than all posters on Jow Forums combined.

Could have just as likely been Hamitic

He basically took his elephants for a really long walk and went back home. Pretty cool dude.

carthago delenda est

Neo-Punic did have a Berber substratum.

Attached: Harbour Porpoise Pic 4.jpg (3008x2000, 153K)

carthage also believed in human sacrifice while romans detested it. so which would you rather have create our foundations for civilization ?

Carthaginians were Semitic in origin and they literally worshiped Moloch.

The conditions that led to the development of christianity, and its spread would have been radically different. That alone would have radical consequences. The foundations of medieval Europe also were laid in the late Roman empire. Whether Carthage became "new rome" or ended up being a flash in the pan we are talking about changes to history so profound its impossible to imagine. This would have totally remade the world.

CARTHAGO DELENDA EST

>only to have Carthage refuse to give him additional support.
They couldn't. Their armies in Spain and North Africa were getting terrorized by Roman armies under Scipio

Because Hannibal was semitic, a Phoenecian descendant just like the people of Rome and Etruria

When Hannibal was closest to Rome, able to see its walls, he just didn't have enough manpower to conduct a prolonged siege. The other military forces in Italy would surround him eventually with the force he had too.

>not reading the greatest history of Rome ever penned

Attached: 2019-08-05 10.50.36.jpg (342x342, 22K)

he did the right thing
had little chance at sacking rome
he's smiling in heaven watching his grandkids bring down rome and fight off neo-roman empire (usa)

>one of antiquity's greatest generals
>never achieved his primary objective
I agree he was daring and in possession of a determination unequaled by almost any man in history, but he was an utter failure if you want to talk about results. The best he achieved was hardening the temper of the Roman people, who vowed never again to have their lands ravaged by a foreign state.

his grandkids destroyed rome in 455 lol and sacked it to the grounds, also in 846

This guy is this mad about a guy being more right than him about a guy who lived two millennia ago

and got Spain back for hundreds of years

>The Second Punic War, as it has been declared, was the most important war in history; and it is not too much to say that it decided the fortunes of the Mediterranean civilization for six centuries to come; for by delivering into Rome's hand the undisputed control of the sea, it opened the way to a career of further conquest, and, what is perhaps even more significant, it so changed the trend of her political development that from this time onward we can begin to discern the domineering and despotic temper which was to colour the whole course of her Imperialism.

Attached: robinson_rome.jpg (301x475, 25K)

Hannibal's terrorizing of Rome is what engendered the imperial spirit, according to Robinson.
>She had entered the war as the head of a confederacy of allies; but in the course of the ordeal, when her back was against the wall, she had swept aside all niceties of political privilege and ruled them like a dictator. Her ruthless demands for men and money had placed an almost intolerable strain upon their loyalty; and when this failed them, as at Capua and Tarentum, she had struck back with a ferocity which must have cowed the rest. Even the twelve Latin colonies which had pleaded utter exhaustion were subsequently compelled to supply double contingents; and when the war was over Rome's attitude did not alter- she still continued to treat even her more privileged allies rather as subjects than as equals.
>In 188, it is true, she admitted Arpinum and two other towns to full citizenship; but there the extension of the franchise stopped short. Even members of 'Latin' communities who had migrated to the capital and thereby legitimately established their claim to civic rights, were frequently struck off the register, so jealous had the citizen-body become of its valuable privileges.

Attached: robinson_rome_2.jpg (342x342, 26K)

>455
>846
Rome died long before that.

rome is still alive (you) but it will die

Hannibal worshiped Moloch. Remind you of anyone today? A certain international tribe

some Algerian cocklord thinks they got somethink better to show

>No captain in antiquity can claim precedence over Hannibal. His control of men was unequalled; for, whereas Caesar or Alexander commanded their own countrymen, the Carthaginian could rely on no argument of patriotism to keep his motley host together through the distant and wearisome campaign. These men must have followed him for himself alone. His imperious authority held them in a sort of willing servitude; and their complete confidence in his genius was never falsified. His ingenuity of resource was unfailing, whether for ambush, for use of terrain or for swift tactical adjustment. There was a Semitic quality about his cunning; and he was even known, for purposes of gaining information, to go muffled in the disguise of cloak and wig. There was something Semitic, too, about the dogged pertinacity of the man. Nothing could turn him from his lifelong purpose of waging war on Rome, not even the disappointment of his early hopes and the sadly nerveless attitude of the home government. Yet autocrat though he was by temperament, he never fought for his own hand; and with a selfless patriotism which is almost unique in history, he was content at the last to serve the country which had deserved so ill of him, by voluntarily relinquishing the power which a lesser man would have turned into a despotism.

Attached: B9E66B06-99E0-4B5E-ABD6-EAE504E87BD5.jpg (371x512, 45K)