Debates Surrounding Hannibal Barca.

[Valkraye]

Hi there,

For a rather important school project that will have a lot of weighting in my HSC/ATAR (or for any non-Australians the magical end-of-school-number that decides my future) I need to choose a topic in history that is debated by historians. The topic needs to have "solid" historians on both sides, preferably a mix of ancients and modern though it isn't required.

I had hoped to do Hannibal and his effect on the expansion of the Roman Empire through his actions in the Second Punic War. The specific question is either "Did Hannibal ironically aid in the expansion of the Roman Empire?"

OR

"How have historians views changed concerning Hannibal's role in the expansion of the Roman Empire?"

If anyone could come with ANY major points of contention surrounding Hannibal and the historians on either side of the debate or historians that would argue that Hannibal didn't help Rome's expansion, can you please list them here.

Any help would be hugely appreciated,

Thanks,

Phill

[Hanny]

Hi there,

For a rather important school project that will have a lot of weighting in my HSC/ATAR (or for any non-Australians the magical end-of-school-number that decides my future) I need to choose a topic in history that is debated by historians. The topic needs to have "solid" historians on both sides, preferably a mix of ancients and modern though it isn't required.

I had hoped to do Hannibal and his effect on the expansion of the Roman Empire through his actions in the Second Punic War. The specific question is either "Did Hannibal ironically aid in the expansion of the Roman Empire?"

OR

"How have historians views changed concerning Hannibal's role in the expansion of the Roman Empire?"

If anyone could come with ANY major points of contention surrounding Hannibal and the historians on either side of the debate or historians that would argue that Hannibal didn't help Rome's expansion, can you please list them here.

Any help would be hugely appreciated,

Thanks,

Phill

You should consider the impact of the Punic wars rather than Hannibal, as its the former which authors use rather than the latter to explain Roman emirical ambitions. D Hoyos is probably the best Australian author for the modrn period where you live, but you can find oddles of online edu course notes and source packets with a search.

If you are set on makeing Hanny the focus, then you will miss the principle point, as it was only portions of Spain that Rome gained, and you will be drawn into the pysclogical impact of Hanny on the Roman national mentality, from then on no rival, or raqther no one with a mil potential to threaten Rome, was tolerated in the Med.

[Valkraye]

You, sir or madam, make a very valid point.

I might change the question around to the Punic Wars rather then Mr. Barca himself. And thank you for the name of the historian too, that will help a lot.

Though it comes down to the point of contention again; does anyone really argue that the 2nd Punic War/Hannibal didn't aid/expand the Empire?

There is both the physical land gains plus the "motivation" to renew the military system through the Marian Reforms and all that. I can't find a solid historian that argues against that, which is the main problem.

[Hanny]

You, sir or madam, make a very valid point.

I might change the question around to the Punic Wars rather then Mr. Barca himself. And thank you for the name of the historian too, that will help a lot.

Though it comes down to the point of contention again; does anyone really argue that the 2nd Punic War/Hannibal didn't aid/expand the Empire?

There is both the physical land gains plus the "motivation" to renew the military system through the Marian Reforms and all that. I can't find a solid historian that argues against that, which is the main problem.

in a larger sense the debate was did Rome blunder into Empire or did it do so by design, for that debate you should find it easier to find authors from both sides, from that you could extrapolte authors argumnets and justification to fit your chosen topic.

[Valkraye]

That too sounds like a good option. I will check with my teacher and see which better fits the overall project.

Is that or looking into whether Caesar deserved the praise he received, if he was a flawed genius sort of thing.

Thank you for your time, good sir. Please, if you or anyone can help in anyway, it would be massively appreciated

[Hanny]

That too sounds like a good option. I will check with my teacher and see which better fits the overall project.

Is that or looking into whether Caesar deserved the praise he received, if he was a flawed genius sort of thing.

Thank you for your time, good sir. Please, if you or anyone can help in anyway, it would be massively appreciated

Your welcome.

Post in this thread when your ready to start your research, and ill help.

[ray243]

You, sir or madam, make a very valid point.

I might change the question around to the Punic Wars rather then Mr. Barca himself. And thank you for the name of the historian too, that will help a lot.

Though it comes down to the point of contention again; does anyone really argue that the 2nd Punic War/Hannibal didn't aid/expand the Empire?

There is both the physical land gains plus the "motivation" to renew the military system through the Marian Reforms and all that. I can't find a solid historian that argues against that, which is the main problem.

Perhaps it is wiser if you read a little more about the subject before choosing that as a topic? If it is likely that no one is arguing against that point of view, then perhaps there is no such debate that exist within the academia?

Looking at a Roman history textbooks is in my opinion a good way to start off because most textbook will introduce the readers to what are the debates that has been debated before and what debates are still on-going.

[Cornelius Plautus]

"Did Hannibal ironically aid in the expansion of the Roman Empire?"


"How have historians views changed concerning Hannibal's role in the expansion of the Roman Empire?"

ll

The former seems easily doable, but the latter seems less relevant and frankly less interesting.

For the former, there are plenty of ancient sources for you to use: try Polybius' Rise of the Roman Empire
or Livy's Ab Urbe Condita Book XXI. Both of them provide detailed descriptions of the Second Punic War.

If I were you, I'd suggest beginning with the military reforms the Romans had to make because of Hannibal's victories... like Cannae (hint, hint).

Good luck!

[Valkraye]

The military reforms of Rome after Cannae run into the problem of there is no debate surrounding the issue. Interesting as anything but historians are pretty unanimous on all points

As for the reading of text books I have read a couple of them as well us much of Adrian Goldsworthy's texts on the subject. The textbooks all seem to present the "facts" (for any postmodernists out there) and not really differ from one another and Goldsworthy's texts intrigued me to study and attempt to do this project on Hannibal. My teacher and I can only really come up with a question based around "why didn't Hannibal take Rome?"

Other options are too look at how the history of Hannibal has been constructed through time, from the ancients to the modern historians.

I am in the process of reading Polybius' Rise. But there was another ancient I remember reading about a while back who attacked another Roman when they interpreted the actions of Hannibal as bad because they were Roman. It was quite a while ago though...

Cheers for all the ideas though so far everyone.

-----

Perhaps, sticking to the overall Roman theme of the project, The 'Battle' of Teutoburg forest? I'd prefer to stick to Hannibal/The Punic Wars but it might work as a Plan B.

[ray243]

My teacher and I can only really come up with a question based around "why didn't Hannibal take Rome?"

One of the most interesting debates that is still being debated I think. If you are checking out on this topic, you might want to read this essay.

Hannibal's Mules: The Logistical Limitations of Hannibal's Army and
the Battle of Cannae, 216 B.C.
Historia 45.2
1996

[Tankfriend]

I am in the process of reading Polybius' Rise. But there was another ancient I remember reading about a while back who attacked another Roman when they interpreted the actions of Hannibal as bad because they were Roman. It was quite a while ago though...

One of the major difficulties of the Punic Wars topic is that there are only very few actual sources around about them.
As Cornelius Plautus mentioned before, Polybius and Livy are the usual sources to start out with as they've got the most to say about the Punic Wars.
You might also take a look at book 6 of Appian's Roman History - that's specifically dealing with the war against Hannibal.
In any case: Always try to cross-refere to sources of other authors. Especially Livy is taken with a grain of salt for his pro-Roman attitude in some passages.

[Angrychris]

Thread has already been done. CLose it up mods.........CLOSE IT UP.......lol i dont care.