The great Hannibal according to history channel

[Fedor]

History channel should stick to the new shows that they have like bigfeets and aliens. This is Hannibal portrayed in History channels new series Battle B.C.

 

 

[Caesar CXXXVII]

History channel should stick to the new shows that they have like bigfeets and aliens. This is Hannibal portrayed in History channels new series Battle B.C.

 

 

 

 

He looks like a tribal chief from North Sudan or something...for Carthage sake !

[Northern Neil]

He looks like a tribal chief from North Sudan or something...for Carthage sake !

...or even an African American bodybuilder. How long must this madness persist? Do these idiots not realise that the Sahara in ancient times presented a barrier as impenetrable as an ocean, and that North Africans were as separate from Black Africans as they were from Chinese and Amerindians? If I was a native of the Maghreb, I would be very annoyed indeed about this. A contemporary bust shows him thus:

[Aurelia]

And this is a contemporary coin.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2009 by Aurelia

[Late Emperor]

He wasn't even a north african: ethnically he was a non-arab semite middle-easterner (a phoenician) and he had been born in Spain.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Late Emperor

[Ursus]

The history channel is basically sensationalist garbage at this point. I haven't bothered watching anything seriously on it in two years at least. Everytime I flip past it's either about Doomsday Biblical Prophecies or reality TV programs that don't even pretend to be about history.

[Melvadius]

Basically every time this topic raises its head on any website I have this strong urge to batter my head against the table. It is one of the most common no-win situations in history (Cleopatra is another) as there are so many 'modern' vested interests who will ignore histrical evidence as twisted by those who disagree with them. I have seen some posters, on other sites, who rather than touting Hannibal as a Black sub-Saharan African instead claim him as a White Arayan.

 

Both sides have very little concept of the natural barriers to the spread of particular racial groups and the consequent slow mixing of races throughout much of history. I would agree however that portraying Hannibal Barca as they have done makes a mockery of any claims the History Channel may make for 'objective' research in making this programme - apart from anything else the 'garb' he is wearing looks more like something one of Spartacus's relatively poorly equipped men would have worn into a fight than someone who apparently led from the front in several major battles

[Lanista]

All the statues of Octavian make him look great, but some commentators say that he was a scrawny bloke with crap hair and bad teeth - you know, the Imperator equivalent of Shane McGowan and he didn't look anything like this:

 

http://www.ancient-bulgaria.com/images/emperor_octavian_augustus_statue.jpg

 

Be like Ursus - if you don't like what the History Channel puts on, don't watch it. Does it really matter that the bloke they have playing Hannibal doesn't look like 2000 year old artists representation? Clearly, this series was done in the style of "300" replete with all its flashy visuals, uberblood and naked man-flesh. The show is supposed to entertain and inform, right - I can't imagine anyone who had an interest sparked in Ancient History by this writing to archaeologists saying "Those coins and statues of Hannibal you've got are fake, man. Check this out..."

 

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/news_impact/2009/03/large_hannibal%20history.jpg

 

Sheesh.

[Late Emperor]

Clearly, this series was done in the style of "300" replete with all its flashy visuals, uberblood and naked man-flesh. The show is supposed to entertain and inform, right - I can't imagine anyone who had an interest sparked in Ancient History by this writing to archaeologists saying "Those coins and statues of Hannibal you've got are fake, man. Check this out..."

 

In this case they should call their show: Fictionary Channel.

[Lanista]

Well, no, because the information therein was more or less OK. But look - I just don't go through life disappointed - I love programmes like this and the fact that they have an idealised actor playing the role doesn't bother me in the slightest. See - I know what Hannibal supposedly looked like, I know what he was probably kitted out with - as I would guess most people on this website do. So - why the angst?

 

As Mel says above, discussions like this also make me want to bang my head against a wall, but for different reasons - I've never really "got" going onto UNRV or RAT raging about the inaccuracies of a film/programme to a bunch of people that have probably seen it and already know that its inaccurate in one form or another. (well, unless its Braveheart, of course - but that's different!)

 

And its been said a zillion times - if it inspires kids to go and find out more, then its all to to the good as far as I'm concerned.

 

Cheers

 

Russ

Edited November 9, 2010 by Lanista

[GhostOfClayton]

I think (at UNRV) we tend to pick fault with the historical accuracy of these things recreationally. Like the old ladies who supposedly took their knitting along on an afternoon to watch Madame Guilotine do her grizzly work.

 

Especially the Brits. There's nothing Brits like better than to have a good old winge! I love it.

[Late Emperor]

Well, no, because the information therein was more or less OK. But look - I just don't go through life disappointed - I love programmes like this and the fact that they have an idealised actor playing the role doesn't bother me in the slightest. See - I know what Hannibal supposedly looked like, I know what he was probably kitted out with - as I would guess most people on this website do. So - why the angst?

 

As Mel says above, discussions like this also make me want to bang my head against a wall, but for different reasons - I've never really "got" going onto UNRV or RAT raging about the inaccuracies of a film/programme to a bunch of people that have probably seen it and already know that its inaccurate in one form or another. (well, unless its Braveheart, of course - but that's different!)

 

And its been said a zillion times - if it inspires kids to go and find out more, then its all to to the good as far as I'm concerned.

 

Cheers

 

Russ

 

There's a big difference between inaccuracy and completely twisting history: if a WW2 documentary depicted Roosevelt as a native-american, Hitler like a blonde tall norwegian and Stalin as a mongol with moustaches, then people that actually know how they looked like, would likely complain and rightly so.

[Lanista]

I think (at UNRV) we tend to pick fault with the historical accuracy of these things recreationally. Like the old ladies who supposedly took their knitting along on an afternoon to watch Madame Guilotine do her grizzly work.

 

Especially the Brits. There's nothing Brits like better than to have a good old winge! I love it.

 

I like my role as "defender of quality tat."

[GhostOfClayton]

I like my role as "defender of quality tat."

 

Keep up the good work!

[Lanista]

There's a big difference between inaccuracy and completely twisting history: if a WW2 documentary depicted Roosevelt as a native-american, Hitler like a blonde tall norwegian and Stalin as a mongol with moustaches, then people that actually know how they looked like, would likely complain and rightly so.

 

Well quite - as we have photographic evidence of those people. I'm not saying that Hannibal looked anything like the bloke in ancient battles or whatever it was called, but at the end of the day, the designers of that programme decided to give it the "300" styling, hence the look of the actor. That's not completely distorting history. Saying that Hannibal lost at Cannae would be, though. On a slightly different angle - should we deride the Spartacus movie because we're not sure that Spartacus was a dead ringer for Kirk Douglas. Or have a pop at "I Claudius" because the sets don't look that great?

 

All of these programmes show dramatised versions of history - they have to entertain as well as inform: and the entertainment comes first, because if its not entertaining, the vast majority of people won't watch it, if people don't watch it the advertisers won't want to use the commercial slots, if the advertisers don't use the commercial slots, programmes don't get made and the company loses money and then decides that making said documentaries is a bad idea and then you're on UNRV crying into your beer because there aren't any documentaries (or movies for that matter) set in ancient times.

 

These programmes are not directed at Roman historians who are expected to know this stuff anyway. As I say above, no kid who's inspired into learning about Hannibal off the back of the programme is going to send outraged emails to historians arguing the case for "Hannibal looks nothing like the bloke on Ancient Warriors - you guys have it all wrong."

 

That's just silly.

 

My own interest in Ancient History was inspired by watching "The 300 Spartans" on ITV when I was very young - about five or six. I've not written to 20th Century Fox to complain that the phalanx in the initial battle was only one rank deep and that there were actually six to seven thousand Greeks at the battle, not just the Spartans and the Thespians. Here's why: that movie made me fall in love with Ancient Greek History, so I went off and learned as much as I could about it. So now I know a good deal about the Battle of Thermopylae. But I still love the movie.

 

Cheers

 

Russ