Character Analysis: The Fallacy Of Hannibal

Another ancient one-sided perception of Hannibal is in the source: “Hannibal turned back once more towards Placentia, and after marching about ten miles went into camp. The next day he advanced against the enemy with twelve thousand foot and five thousand horse. [2] Nor did the consul Sempronius, who had now returned from Rome, decline the combat. That day there were only three miles between the two encampments. On the following day they fought, with great spirit and with shifting fortunes. At the first encounter the Romans had so far the best of it that not only were they victorious in the battle, but they pursued the beaten enemy to his camp, and were soon attacking the camp itself. Hannibal stationed [p. 177]a few defenders on the rampart and at the gates1 and received the rest in a crowded throng within the enclosure, where he bade them watch intently for the signal to sally forth.” [2] This written source perspicuously outlines the chronology of the Second Punic War, and Livy’s one sided perception, on how they fought with ‘great spirit and shifting fortunes’, in order to embellish the Roman Empire’s image, ultimately resulting into him going into great length to demonise Hannibal. A final source to quintessentially exemplify the ancient Roman depiction of Hannibal is: “Hannibal moved out of his winter encampment. He had tried before this to cross the Apennines, but had failed because of the intolerable cold. [2] And the delay had been

The epic The Iliad by Homer argues that Achilles reaction in many situations is rage. Achilles choice to respond in such a way is very significant. It shows that this emotion is very influential in his day-to-day life. However, there has been much discussion as to whether Achilles’s rage is a virtue or a vice. Other characters throughout The Iliad have commented on his rage, such as Athena, who says, “I came to see if I could check this temper of yours,” (Homer, 235) in a discussion she has with Achilles about his quarrel with Agamemnon. Athena’s comment suggests that it takes a lot of effort to put Achilles’s rage into check. Achilles seemingly uncontrollable rages creates a man throughout The Iliad who “like[s] fighting and war” (234). Most men in this epic longed to end the war; Achilles on the other hand yearned for more battle. Achilles drive for battle makes it evident that his rage and the manifestation of it in other characters as seen throughout The Iliad is not a virtue, but a vice.

Carthage was the first real foreign power Rome would come across outside of Italy, its origins from a Tyre colony to the capital of the great commercial empire in northern Africa (Morey, 1901) are lost to the ravages of time. The journey discussed below will be the similarities with Rome in its rise to power, and how Rome was able to become a force of the Sea as well as on land.

In the Greek society, Achilles has the role of the aggressive soldier. From the very first lines of the epic, we are introduced to Achilles’ murderous rage:

In the Iliad, at the start of the Trojan War, Ajax, son of Oileus, is recognized as the best of the Greeks with a spear and the fastest runner, second only to Achilles himself. He also possesses skills in interpreting divine phenomenon. After observing the “light-feet” of charging soldiers and a falcon pursuing its prey, he concluded that the gods are with them and convinced greater Ajax to proceed offensively (Homer p. 245). These attributes give him an unwavering sense of confidence in matters on and off the battlefield. It is this same confidence that creates discontent for him among some of his contemporaries and the gods.

The award-winning author, Luis Alberto Urrea, creator of The Hummingbird's Daughter, Into the Beautiful North, and The Devil's Highway, describes The Devil’s Highway which occurred in May of 2001, one of many that impacted the desert on undocumented immigrants. which is a desert located beyond Sonora, Mexico. It is a desert which few turn to in able to cross over. A group of illegal Mexican were left for dead after attempting to cross; they were left stranded after traveling for days in the wrong direction, through mountains, desert and only a small amount of water along with a few personal items. The Devil’s Highway name was set out to one’s belief “bad medicine” (5). Even though the desert is an obstacle itself, there are still other physical

54) Despite his success, Agricola never let people’s high opinions of him go to his head. As a result, he treated soldiers under his command fairly and for that, they confided their trust in him. Agricola’s leadership was also great because of his ambitious and passionate nature. Early in his youth, he had a passion for military glory, which Tacitus described as “… thankless in an age in which a sinister construction was put upon distinction and a great reputation was as dangerous as a bad one.” (p.55) Because of his well-disciplined upbringing and humility, however, this passion became motivation to succeed in Roman conquest, not his own. Together, those qualities made Agricola an adept leader who did not accept the glory that leaders traditionally receive. Conversely, Rome had been ruled during and around A.D. 98, when the Agricola was completed, by tyrants who governed for their own benefit. Tacitus’ book shows, however, that Agricola nevertheless served the interests of his legions and the Roman Empire, not its emperor.

(and not on Hannibal). This was a good time to start a war as Rome was

The Trojan War is described as one of histories most legendary battles. This battle is told to have lasted ten years, resulting in the eventual collapse of Troy, under the siege of Greek forces. Modern knowledge of the Trojan War has survived mainly through the account given in Homer’s Illiad, and while having proved to be a rich source of inspiration for other writers, artists, and even filmmakers in recent history, much speculation still exists surrounding his account. I will analyze modern interpretations of the Trojan War and examine both speculation and support for Homer’s account. Concluding with sufficient evidence that has been collected surrounding this epic battle, proving Homer’s account of a massive battle between these two powerful city states to not be just a tale of myth and legend, but actual history.

In this critique of Julius Caesar’s book, The Gallic War, I will be discussing the purpose and accuracy (or in this case, inaccuracy) over his adventures and military campaign against the Gallic tribes. There is a constant debate between historians: The Myth of Certainty. History is all about interpretation and finding truth out of subjectivity. History can often be lost in time as the firsthand accounts will eventually fade out. Even if firsthand accounts remains intact, it is not completely objective. Every person has their own agenda and is biased in one shape or form, no matter how much they try not to be; Julius Caesar is not an exception. I will start this critique by stating the author’s main purpose for writing his book. Secondly I will attempt to decipher the accuracy and inconsistency of Julius Caesar’s account. Finally, I will express my opinion over his commentaries over the Gallic War.

Many people consider him the father of history; others prefer to call him the father of lies. Whatever may be your perception of Herodotus’ work, the truth is that Herodotus began a new manner of writing history in which human psychology takes a fundamental place. He was the first historian who really considered the reasons why things happen and did not limit his narrative to just facts. His book The Histories evidences all the distinctive features that he employs through his description of facts as well as the intrinsic analysis that he includes to his storyline about controversial topics like the definition of what heroes really are. Indeed, The Histories’ book 7 reveals Herodotus’ astonishing and unique view of heroism. During his

Barry Strauss, professor of classics at Cornell University attempts to redefine a one of history’s biggest love affairs, the Trojan War. Strauss explains how certain events and characters from Homers “The Odyssey” might have actually existed, but also uses modern discoveries from the Bronze Age to compare Homers account to those of Egypt, the Middle East, and etc. While Homer’s epic should not be read as a historical document which recounts the Trojan War hundred percent accurately, it can still be seen as document which embodies some historical truth. The novel as a whole explains the customs, economic standing, fighting styles and beliefs of the Greeks. Strauss’s writing style allows for the book to be accessible to both students and historians. He argues that just like Franz Ferdinand was the spark which ignited World War 1, Helen on the other hand was just a spark which escalated an existing tension between the Greeks and Trojans. Strauss’s personal input on the war itself gives the novel a different outlook on the Trojan War because, it allows for readers to see beyond the facts and make connections with ideas that Strauss had made with recent discoveries and Homers epic.

What makes a villain a villain? Is it the senseless violence inflicted upon the innocent? Or is it the oh so tragic backstory that is dramatically revealed just when the audience was really starting to hate them? Or is it when they...you know...eat people? When is it too much? When does a villain become a villain? Is it not all just based on our society’s views on what is right and what is wrong? After binging Hannibal, this is pretty much all I could think for several days. One moment you’re hoping that whoever this cannibalistic serial killer is, gets caught and put away for a long, long time and then the next moment, you’ve fallen in love with him. It’s really quite a rollercoaster. This show raises a lot of questions about morality, it

Hannibal Barca, lived around 247-182 B.C. As the son of Hamlicar Barca, the general of the Carthage army, and empire builder during the first Punic war, Hannibal was trained and mentored by his father. Hannibal was considered to be one of the world’s greatest military strategists. This great strategist at twenty-five years of age was the general of the Carthaginian Empire that reached across the northern tip of Africa. His career as the top military leader of Carthage began at the beginning of the second Punic war where Carthage fought against the Roman republic.

"Among the praiseworthy deeds of Hannibal is counted this: that, having a very large army, made up of all kinds of men, which he commanded in foreign lands, there never arose the slightest dissention, neither among themselves nor against their princes, both during his good and bad fortune." (The Prince Chapter XVII)