Representaons of Hannibal (Modern vs Ancient) Hannibal Barca was the man responsible for the near-destrucon of the Roman Empire, and has been recognised as one of history’s greatest taccians. His daring exploits and impossible victories led to his fearful reputaon among the Romans and their allies, which includes both historians, Polybius and Livy, who are the main sources of informaon on the achievements and eventual defeat of Hannibal. Polybius stated, “So great and wonderful is the influence of a Man, and a mind duly fied by original constuon for any undertaking within the reach of human powers,” referring to Hannibal’s legendary iron will and determinaon. Livy similarly describes Hannibal, “He was fearless in undertaking dangerous enterprises, he was prudent in discharging them. Toil could not weary his body or subdue his spirit…” Both historians are in agreement that Hannibal accomplished more than what was thought possible at the me, destroying all who stood in his way. He is portrayed by Polybius as an inspiring leader, one led by example, as shown by his account of Hannibal, “…Despite his posion and his regal blood, Hannibal was oſten seen sharing sentry and picket duty with his men, and he neither slept covered from the elements, but amongst his men wrapped in nothing more than a cloak’...” On the other hand, while Livy concedes his greatness as a military taccian, he regularly condemns Hannibal of inhuman cruelty, (towards Romans and his own army), greed, dishonest and lacking proper reverence to the gods. However, his own wrings and the wrings of Polybius contradict those statements, and historical evidence highlights several flaws in this portrayal of Hannibal. For example, if Hannibal’s cruelty exceeded the bounds of tolerance; Why didn’t his army desert? The army in queson was culturally diverse, spent 15 years in hosle territory and never showed any evidence of rebellion or disharmony. His greed however, coincides with Polybius’ portrait of him as being quite well known for his love of gold and spoils of warfare. But the wrings of Livy and Polybius, although the closest picture in me we have of Hannibal, may or may not be accurate, for Livy was born almost 200 years later, and Polybius was only a child when Hannibal began his campaign. Livy speaks of his great qualies, but he adds that his flaws were equally great, among which he singles out his more than ‘Punic perfidy and an inhuman cruelty’. There is limited jusficaon in this viewpoint, other than the fact that he regularly ambushed his enemies. For the laer there is no more foundaon to the claim, than the belief that he acted in the general spirit of warfare. Livy is seen to sympathize most favourably with his enemy. Polybius merely says that he was accused of cruelty by the Romans and of greed by the Carthaginians. The general agreement among modern historians in relaon to Hannibal’s victories and defeats in bale, are that he was giſted as a military taccian and a source of inspiraon to his men. This is agreed upon by the vast majority of sources, including those that are thought to be bias. Today’s point of dispute in regards to Hannibal, is mainly his personality and whether his acons were cruel or merely a necessity of war. Modern sources suggests reading Polybius and Livy to gain a more authenc, primary outlook on Hannibal’s feats but then analysing any possible bias to discern the truth. Modern historians have a disnct advantage at uncovering the truth about Hannibal, as they are neither Roman nor Carthaginian. The famous general has now been integrated into the entertainment industry, with thousands of novels, ficonal and historically accurate, being published. Painngs created throughout history ensured his immortality, while the film industry created a portrait of a taccal genius and a heroic figure courageously fighng against a tyrannical overlord. (An example is ‘Hannibal: Rome’s Worst Nightmare’ 2006).