text:
Hannibal

Hannibal (247 – between 183 and 181 BC) was a Carthaginian general and statesman who commanded the forces of Carthage in their battle against the Roman Republic during the Second Punic War.

Hannibal's father, Hamilcar Barca, was a leading Carthaginian general during the First Punic War. His younger brothers were Mago and Hasdrubal; his brother-in-law was Hasdrubal the Fair, who commanded other Carthaginian armies. Hannibal lived during a period of great tension in the Mediterranean Basin, triggered by the emergence of the Roman Republic as a great power with its defeat of Carthage in the First Punic War. Revanchism prevailed in Carthage, symbolized by the pledge that Hannibal made to his father to "never be a friend of Rome".

In 218 BC, Hannibal attacked Saguntum (modern Sagunto, Spain), an ally of Rome, in Hispania, sparking the Second Punic War. Hannibal invaded Italy by crossing the Alps with North African war elephants. In his first few years in Italy, as the leader of a Carthaginian and partially Celtic army, he won a succession of victories at the Battle of Ticinus, Trebia, Lake Trasimene, and Cannae, inflicting heavy losses on the Romans. Hannibal was distinguished for his ability to determine both his and his opponent's respective strengths and weaknesses, and to plan battles accordingly. His well-planned strategies allowed him to conquer and ally with several Italian cities that were previously allied to Rome. Hannibal occupied most of southern Italy for 15 years. The Romans, led by Fabius Maximus, avoided directly engaging him, instead waging a war of attrition (the Fabian strategy). Carthaginian defeats in Hispania prevented Hannibal from being reinforced, and he was unable to win a decisive victory. A counter-invasion of North Africa, led by the Roman general Scipio Africanus, forced him to return to Carthage. Hannibal was eventually defeated at the Battle of Zama, ending the war in a Roman victory.

After the war, Hannibal successfully ran for the office of sufet. He enacted political and financial reforms to enable the payment of the war indemnity imposed by Rome. Those reforms were unpopular with members of the Carthaginian aristocracy and in Rome, and he fled into voluntary exile. During this time, he lived at the Seleucid court, where he acted as military advisor to Antiochus III the Great in his war against Rome. Antiochus met defeat at the Battle of Magnesia and was forced to accept Rome's terms, and Hannibal fled again, making a stop in the Kingdom of Armenia. His flight ended in the court of Bithynia. He was betrayed to the Romans and committed suicide by poisoning himself.

Hannibal is considered one of the greatest military tacticians and generals of Western antiquity, alongside Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great, Julius Caesar, Scipio Africanus, and Pyrrhus. According to Plutarch, Scipio asked Hannibal "who the greatest general was", to which Hannibal replied "either Alexander or Pyrrhus, then himself".

Name
Hannibal was a common Semitic Phoenician-Carthaginian personal name. It is recorded in Carthaginian sources as. It is a combination of the common Phoenician masculine given name Hanno with the Northwest Semitic Canaanite deity Baal (lit, "lord") a major god of the Carthaginians ancestral homeland of Phoenicia in Western Asia. Its precise vocalization remains a matter of debate. Suggested readings include Ḥannobaʿal, Ḥannibaʿl, or Ḥannibaʿal, meaning "Baʿal/The lord is gracious", "Baʿal Has Been Gracious", or "The Grace of Baʿal". It is equivalent to the fellow Semitic Hebrew name Haniel. Greek historians rendered the name as Anníbas (Ἀννίβας).

The Phoenicians and Carthaginians, like many West Asian Semitic peoples, did not use hereditary surnames, but were typically distinguished from others bearing the same name using patronymics or epithets. Although he is by far the most famous Hannibal, when further clarification is necessary he is usually referred to as "Hannibal, son of Hamilcar", or "Hannibal the Barcid", the latter term applying to the family of his father, Hamilcar Barca. Barca is a Semitic cognomen meaning "lightning" or "thunderbolt", a surname acquired by Hamilcar on account of the swiftness and ferocity of his attacks.

Barca is cognate with similar names for lightning found among the Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Arameans, Arabs, Amorites, Moabites, Edomites and other fellow Asiatic Semitic peoples. Although they did not inherit the surname from their father, Hamilcar's progeny are collectively known as the Barcids. Modern historians occasionally refer to Hannibal's brothers as Hasdrubal Barca and Mago Barca to distinguish them from the multitudes of other Carthaginians named Hasdrubal and Mago, but this practice is ahistorical and is rarely applied to Hannibal.

Background and early career

Hannibal was one of the sons of Hamilcar Barca, a Carthaginian leader, and an unknown mother. He was born in what is present-day northern Tunisia, one of many Mediterranean regions colonised by the Canaanites from their homelands in Phoenicia, a region corresponding with the Mediterranean coasts of modern Lebanon and Syria. He had several sisters whose names are unknown, and two brothers, Hasdrubal and Mago. His brothers-in-law were Hasdrubal the Fair and the Numidian king Naravas. He was still a child when his sisters married, and his brothers-in-law were close associates during his father's struggles in the Mercenary War and the Punic conquest of the Iberian Peninsula.

After Carthage's defeat in the First Punic War, Hamilcar set out to improve his family's and Carthage's fortunes. With that in mind and supported by Gades, Hamilcar began the subjugation of the tribes of the Iberian Peninsula (Modern Spain and Portugal). Carthage at the time was in such a poor state that it lacked a navy able to transport his army; instead, Hamilcar had to march his forces across Numidia towards the Pillars of Hercules and then cross the Strait of Gibraltar.

According to Polybius, Hannibal much later said that when he came upon his father and begged to go with him, Hamilcar agreed and demanded that he swear that as long as he lived he would never be a friend of Rome. There is even an account of him at a very young age (9 years old) begging his father to take him to an overseas war. In the story, Hannibal's father took him up and brought him to a sacrificial chamber. Hamilcar held Hannibal over the fire roaring in the chamber and made him swear that he would never be a friend of Rome. Other sources report that Hannibal told his father, "I swear so soon as age will permit...I will use fire and steel to arrest the destiny of Rome." According to the tradition, Hannibal's oath took place in the town of Peñíscola, today part of the Valencian Community, Spain.

Hannibal's father went about the conquest of Hispania. When his father drowned in battle, Hannibal's brother-in-law Hasdrubal the Fair succeeded to his command of the army with Hannibal (then 18 years old) serving as an officer under him. Hasdrubal pursued a policy of consolidation of Carthage's Iberian interests, even signing a treaty with Rome whereby Carthage would not expand north of the Ebro so long as Rome did not expand south of it. Hasdrubal also endeavoured to consolidate Carthaginian power through diplomatic relationships with the native tribes of Iberia and native Berbers of the North African coasts.

Upon the assassination of Hasdrubal in 221 BC, Hannibal, now 26 years old, was proclaimed commander-in-chief by the army and confirmed in his appointment by the Carthaginian government. The Roman scholar Livy gives a depiction of the young Carthaginian: "No sooner had he arrived...the old soldiers fancied they saw Hamilcar in his youth given back to them; the same bright look; the same fire in his eye, the same trick of countenance and features. Never was one and the same spirit more skilful to meet opposition, to obey, or to command[.]"

Livy also records that Hannibal married a woman of Castulo, a powerful Spanish city closely allied with Carthage. The Roman epic poet Silius Italicus names her as Imilce. Silius suggests a Greek origin for Imilce, but Gilbert Charles-Picard argued for a Punic heritage based on an etymology from the Semitic root m-l-k ('chief, the 'king'). Silius also suggests the existence of a son, who is otherwise not attested by Livy, Polybius, or Appian. The son may have been named Haspar or Aspar, although this is disputed.

After he assumed command, Hannibal spent two years consolidating his holdings and completing the conquest of Hispania, south of the Ebro. In his first campaign, Hannibal attacked and stormed the Olcades' strongest centre, Alithia, which promptly led to their surrender, and brought Punic power close to the River Tagus. His following campaign in 220 BC was against the Vaccaei to the west, where he stormed the Vaccaen strongholds of Helmantice and Arbucala. On his return home, laden with many spoils, a coalition of Spanish tribes, led by the Carpetani, attacked, and Hannibal won his first major battlefield success and showed off his tactical skills at the battle of the River Tagus.

Rome, fearing the growing strength of Hannibal in Iberia, made an alliance with the city of Saguntum, which lay a considerable distance south of the River Ebro, and claimed the city as its protectorate. Hannibal not only perceived this as a breach of the treaty signed with Hasdrubal, but as he was already planning an attack on Rome, this was his way to start the war. So he laid siege to the city, which fell after eight months.

Hannibal sent the booty from Saguntum to Carthage, a shrewd move which gained him much support from the government; Livy records that only Hanno II the Great spoke against him. In Rome, the Senate reacted to this apparent violation of the treaty by dispatching a delegation to Carthage to demand whether Hannibal had destroyed Saguntum in accordance with orders from Carthage. The Carthaginian Senate responded with legal arguments observing the lack of ratification by either government for the treaty alleged to have been violated. The delegation's leader, Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, demanded Carthage choose between war and peace, to which his audience replied that Rome could choose. Fabius chose war.

Overland journey to Italy
This journey was originally planned by Hannibal's brother-in-law Hasdrubal the Fair, who became a Carthaginian general in the Iberian Peninsula in 229 BC. He maintained this post for eight years until 221 BC. Soon the Romans became aware of an alliance between Carthage and the Celts of the Po Valley in Northern Italy. When Hannibal arrived in the Po Valley, roughly 10,000 Celtic tribesmen joined his army.

The Celts were amassing forces to invade farther south in Italy, presumably with Carthaginian backing. Therefore, the Romans pre-emptively invaded the Po region in 225 BC. By 220 BC, the Romans had annexed the area as Cisalpine Gaul. Hasdrubal was assassinated around the same time (221 BC), bringing Hannibal to the fore. It seems that the Romans lulled themselves into a false sense of security, having dealt with the threat of a Gallo-Carthaginian invasion, and perhaps knowing that the original Carthaginian commander had been killed.

Hannibal departed Cartagena, Spain (New Carthage) in late spring of 218 BC. He fought his way through the northern tribes to the foothills of the Pyrenees, subduing the tribes through clever mountain tactics and stubborn fighting. He left a detachment of 20,000 troops to garrison the newly conquered region. At the Pyrenees, he released 11,000 Iberian troops who showed reluctance to leave their homeland. Hannibal reportedly entered Gaul with 40,000 foot soldiers and 12,000 horsemen.

Hannibal recognized that he still needed to cross the Pyrenees, the Alps, and many large rivers. Additionally, he would have to contend with opposition from the Gauls, whose territory he passed through. Starting in the spring of 218 BC, he crossed the Pyrenees and reached the Rhône by conciliating the Gaulish chiefs along his passage before the Romans could take any measures to bar his advance, arriving at the Rhône in September. Hannibal's army numbered 38,000 infantry, 8,000 cavalry, and 38 elephants, almost none of which would survive the harsh conditions of the Alps. Hannibal outmanoeuvred the natives who had tried to prevent his crossing, then evaded a Roman force marching from the Mediterranean coast by turning inland up the valley of the Rhône. His exact route over the Alps has been the source of scholarly dispute ever since (Polybius, the surviving ancient account closest in time to Hannibal's campaign, reports that the route was already debated). The most influential modern theories favour either a march up the valley of the Drôme and a crossing of the main range to the south of the modern highway over the Col de Montgenèvre or a march farther north up the valleys of the Isère and Arc crossing the main range near the present Col de Mont Cenis or the Little St Bernard Pass.

Recent numismatic evidence suggests that Hannibal's army passed within sight of the Matterhorn. Stanford geoarchaeologist Patrick Hunt argues that Hannibal took the Col de Clapier mountain pass, claiming the Clapier most accurately met ancient depictions of the route: wide view of Italy, pockets of year-round snow, and a large campground. Other scholars have doubts, proposing that Hannibal took the easier route across Petit Mount Cenis. Hunt responds to this by proposing that Hannibal's Celtic guides purposefully misguided the Carthaginian general.

Most recently, W. C. Mahaney has argued Col de la Traversette closest fits the records of ancient authors. Biostratigraphic archaeological data has reinforced the case for Col de la Traversette; analysis of peat bogs near watercourses on both sides of the pass's summit showed that the ground was heavily disturbed "by thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of animals and humans" and that the soil bore traces of unique levels of Clostridia bacteria associated with the digestive tract of horses and mules.

Radiocarbon dating secured dates of 2168 BP or c. 218 BC, the year of Hannibal's march. Mahaney et al. have concluded that this and other evidence strongly supports the Col de la Traversette as being the "Hannibalic Route" as had been argued by Gavin de Beer in 1954. De Beer was one of only three interpreters—the others being John Lazenby and Jakob Seibert—to have visited all the Alpine high passes and presented a view on which was most plausible. Both De Beer and Siebert had selected the Col de la Traversette as the one most closely matching the ancient descriptions.

Polybius wrote that Hannibal had crossed the highest of the Alpine passes: Col de la Traversette, between the upper Guil valley and the upper Po river is the highest pass. It is moreover the most southerly, as Varro in his De re rustica relates, agreeing that Hannibal's Pass was the highest in Western Alps and the most southerly. Mahaney et al. argue that factors used by De Beer to support Col de la Traversette including "gauging ancient place names against modern, close scrutiny of times of flood in major rivers and distant viewing of the Po plains" taken together with "massive radiocarbon and microbiological and parasitical evidence" from the alluvial sediments either side of the pass furnish "supporting evidence, proof if you will" that Hannibal's invasion went that way. If Hannibal had ascended the Col de la Traversette, the Po Valley would indeed have been visible from the pass's summit, vindicating Polybius's account.

By Livy's account, the crossing was accomplished in the face of huge difficulties. These Hannibal surmounted with ingenuity, such as when he used vinegar and fire to break through a rockfall. According to Polybius, he arrived in Italy accompanied by 20,000 foot soldiers, 4,000 horsemen, and only a few elephants. The fired rockfall event is mentioned only by Livy; Polybius is mute on the subject and there is no evidence of carbonized rock at the only two-tier rockfall in the Western Alps, located below the Col de la Traversette (Mahaney, 2008). If Polybius is correct in his figure for the number of troops that he commanded after the crossing of the Rhône, this would suggest that he had lost almost half of his force. Historians such as Serge Lancel have questioned the reliability of the figures for the number of troops that he had when he left Hispania. From the start, he seems to have calculated that he would have to operate without aid from Hispania.

Hannibal's vision of military affairs was derived partly from the teaching of his Greek tutors and partly from experience gained alongside his father, and it stretched over most of the Hellenistic World of his time. The breadth of his vision gave rise to his grand strategy of conquering Rome by opening a northern front and subduing allied city-states on the peninsula, rather than by attacking Rome directly. Historical events that led to the defeat of Carthage during the First Punic War when his father commanded the Carthaginian Army also led Hannibal to plan the invasion of Italy by land across the Alps. The task involved the mobilization of between 60,000 and 100,000 troops and the training of a war-elephant corps, all of which had to be provisioned along the way. The alpine invasion of Italy was a military operation that would shake the Mediterranean World of 218 BC with repercussions for more than two decades.

Battle of Trebia
Hannibal's perilous march brought him into the Roman territory and frustrated the attempts of the enemy to fight out the main issue on foreign ground. His sudden appearance among the Gauls of the Po Valley, moreover, enabled him to detach those tribes from their new allegiance to the Romans before the Romans could take steps to check the rebellion. Publius Cornelius Scipio was the consul who commanded the Roman force sent to intercept Hannibal. He was also the father of Scipio Africanus.

He had not expected Hannibal to make an attempt to cross the Alps, since the Romans were prepared to fight the war in the Iberian Peninsula. With a small detachment still positioned in Gaul, Scipio made an attempt to intercept Hannibal. He succeeded, through prompt decision and speedy movement, in transporting his army to Italy by sea in time to meet Hannibal. Hannibal's forces moved through the Po Valley and were engaged in the Battle of Ticinus. Here, Hannibal forced the Romans to evacuate the plain of Lombardy, by virtue of his superior cavalry. The victory was minor, but it encouraged the Gauls and Ligurians to join the Carthaginian cause. Their troops bolstered his army back to around 40,000 men. Scipio was severely injured, his life only saved by the bravery of his son who rode back onto the field to rescue his fallen father. Scipio retreated across the Trebia to camp at Placentia with his army mostly intact.

The other Roman consular army was rushed to the Po Valley. Even before news of the defeat at Ticinus had reached Rome, the Senate had ordered Consul Tiberius Sempronius Longus to bring his army back from Sicily to meet Scipio and face Hannibal. Hannibal, by skillful maneuvers, was in position to head him off, for he lay on the direct road between Placentia and Arminum, by which Sempronius would have to march to reinforce Scipio. He then captured Clastidium, from which he drew large amounts of supplies for his men. But this gain was not without loss, as Sempronius avoided Hannibal's watchfulness, slipped around his flank, and joined his colleague in his camp near the Trebia River near Placentia. There Hannibal had an opportunity to show his masterful military skill at the Trebia in December of the same year, after wearing down the superior Roman infantry, when he cut it to pieces with a surprise attack and ambush from the flanks. However, most or all of his war elephants had died of injuries or the cold that winter and none took part in the succeeding battles at Lake Trasimene and/or Cannae.

Battle of Lake Trasimene
Hannibal quartered his troops for the winter with the Gauls, whose support for him had abated. Fearing the possibility of an assassination attempt by his Gallic allies, Hannibal had a number of wigs made, dyed to suit the appearance of persons differing widely in age, and kept constantly changing them, so that any would-be assassins wouldn't recognize him. In the spring of 217 BC, Hannibal decided to find a more reliable base of operations farther south. Gnaeus Servilius and Gaius Flaminius (the new consuls of Rome) were expecting Hannibal to advance on Rome, and they took their armies to block the eastern and western routes that Hannibal could use.

The only alternative route to central Italy lay at the mouth of the Arno. This area was practically one huge marsh, and happened to be overflowing more than usual during this particular season. Hannibal knew that this route was full of difficulties, but it remained the surest and certainly the quickest way to central Italy. Polybius claims that Hannibal's men marched for four days and three nights "through a land that was under water", suffering terribly from fatigue and enforced want of sleep. He crossed without opposition over both the Apennines (during which he lost his right eye because of conjunctivitis) and the seemingly impassable Arno, but he lost a large part of his force in the marshy lowlands of the Arno. He arrived in Etruria in the spring of 217 BC and decided to lure the main Roman army under Flaminius into a pitched battle by devastating the region that Flaminius had been sent to protect. As Polybius recounts, "he [Hannibal] calculated that, if he passed the camp and made a descent into the district beyond, Flaminius (partly for fear of popular reproach and partly of personal irritation) would be unable to endure watching passively the devastation of the country but would spontaneously follow him... and give him opportunities for attack."

At the same time, Hannibal tried to break the allegiance of Rome's allies by proving that Flaminius was powerless to protect them. Despite this, Flaminius remained passively encamped at Arretium. Hannibal marched boldly around Flaminius' left flank, unable to draw him into battle by mere devastation, and effectively cut him off from Rome, executing the first recorded turning movement in military history. He then advanced through the uplands of Etruria, provoking Flaminius into a hasty pursuit and catching him in a defile on the shore of Lake Trasimenus. There Hannibal destroyed Flaminius' army in the waters or on the adjoining slopes, killing Flaminius as well (see Battle of Lake Trasimene). This was the most costly ambush that the Romans ever sustained until the Battle of Carrhae against the Parthian Empire. Hannibal had now disposed of the only field force that could check his advance upon Rome. He realized that without siege engines, he could not hope to take the capital. He opted to exploit his victory by entering into central and southern Italy and encouraging a general revolt against the sovereign power.

The Romans appointed Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus as their dictator. Departing from Roman military traditions, Fabius adopted the strategy named after him, avoiding open battle while placing several Roman armies in Hannibal's vicinity in order to watch and limit his movements. Hannibal ravaged Apulia but was unable to bring Fabius to battle, so he decided to march through Samnium to Campania, one of the richest and most fertile provinces of Italy, hoping that the devastation would draw Fabius into battle. Fabius closely followed Hannibal's path of destruction, yet still refused to let himself be drawn out of the defensive. This strategy was unpopular with many Romans, who believed that it was a form of cowardice.

Hannibal decided that it would be unwise to winter in the already devastated lowlands of Campania, but Fabius had trapped him there by ensuring that all the exit passes were blocked. This situation led to the night Battle of Ager Falernus. Hannibal had his men tie burning torches to the horns of a herd of cattle and drive them up the heights nearby. Some of the Romans, seeing a moving column of lights, were tricked into believing it was the Carthaginian army marching to escape along the heights. As they moved off in pursuit of this decoy, Hannibal managed to move his army in complete silence through the dark lowlands and up to an unguarded pass. Fabius himself was within striking distance but in this case his caution worked against him, as rightly sensing a trick he stayed put. Thus, Hannibal managed to stealthily escape with his entire army intact. What Hannibal achieved in extricating his army was, as Adrian Goldsworthy puts it, "a classic of ancient generalship, finding its way into nearly every historical narrative of the war and being used by later military manuals". This was a severe blow to Fabius' prestige and soon after this his period of dictatorial power ended. For the winter, Hannibal found comfortable quarters in the Apulian plain.

Battle of Cannae
In the spring of 216 BC, Hannibal took the initiative and seized the large supply depot at Cannae in the Apulian plain. By capturing Cannae, Hannibal had placed himself between the Romans and their crucial sources of supply. Once the Roman Senate resumed their consular elections in 216 BC, they appointed Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus as consuls. In the meantime, the Romans hoped to gain success through sheer strength and weight of numbers, and they raised a new army of unprecedented size, estimated by some to be as large as 100,000 men, but more likely around 50,000–80,000.

The Romans and allied legions resolved to confront Hannibal and marched southward to Apulia. They eventually found him on the left bank of the Aufidus River, and encamped 6 mi away. On this occasion, the two armies were combined into one, the consuls having to alternate their command on a daily basis. According to Livy, Varro was a man of reckless and hubristic nature and it was his turn to command on the day of battle. This account is possibly biased against Varro as its main source, Polybius, was a client of Paullus's aristocratic family whereas Varro was less distinguished. Some historians have suggested that the sheer size of the army required both generals to command a wing each. This theory is supported by the fact that, after Varro survived the battle he was pardoned by the Senate, which would be peculiar if he were the sole commander at fault.

Hannibal capitalized on the eagerness of the Romans and drew them into a trap by using an envelopment tactic. This eliminated the Roman numerical advantage by shrinking the combat area. Hannibal drew up his least reliable infantry in the centre in a semicircle curving towards the Romans. Placing them forward of the wings allowed them room to fall back, luring the Romans after them, while the cavalry on the flanks dealt with their Roman counterparts. Hannibal's wings were composed of the Gallic and Numidian cavalry. The Roman legions forced their way through Hannibal's weak centre, but the Libyan mercenaries on the wings, swung around by the movement, menaced their flanks.

The onslaught of Hannibal's cavalry was irresistible. Hannibal's chief cavalry commander, Maharbal, led the mobile Numidian cavalry on the right; they shattered the Roman cavalry opposing them. Hannibal's Iberian and Gallic heavy cavalry on the left, led by Hanno, defeated the Roman heavy cavalry, and then both the Carthaginian heavy cavalry and the Numidians attacked the legions from behind. As a result, the Roman army was hemmed in with no means of escape.

Due to these brilliant tactics, Hannibal managed to surround and destroy all but a small remnant of his enemy, despite his own inferior numbers. Depending upon the source, it is estimated that 50,000–70,000 Romans were killed or captured. Among the dead were Roman consul Lucius Aemilius Paullus, two consuls for the preceding year, two quaestors, 29 of the 48 military tribunes, and an additional eighty senators. At a time when the Roman Senate was composed of no more than 300 men, this constituted 25–30% of the governing body. This makes the battle one of the most catastrophic defeats in the history of ancient Rome, and one of the bloodiest battles in all of human history, in terms of the number of lives lost in a single day.

After Cannae, the Romans were very hesitant to confront Hannibal in pitched battle, preferring instead to weaken him by attrition, relying on their advantages of interior lines, supply, and manpower. As a result, Hannibal fought no more major battles in Italy for the rest of the war. It is believed that his refusal to bring the war to Rome itself was due to a lack of commitment from Carthage of men, money, and material—principally siege equipment. Whatever the reason, the choice prompted Maharbal to say, "Hannibal, you know how to gain a victory, but not how to use one."

As a result of this victory, many parts of Italy joined Hannibal's cause. As Polybius notes, "How much more serious was the defeat of Cannae, than those that preceded it can be seen by the behaviour of Rome's allies; before that fateful day, their loyalty remained unshaken, now it began to waver for the simple reason that they despaired of Roman Power." During that same year, the Greek cities in Sicily were induced to revolt against Roman political control, while Macedonian King Philip V pledged his support to Hannibal— initiating the First Macedonian War against Rome.

Hannibal also secured an alliance with newly appointed tyrant Hieronymus of Syracuse. It is often argued that, if Hannibal had received proper material reinforcements from Carthage, he might have succeeded with a direct attack upon Rome. Instead, he had to content himself with subduing the fortresses that still held out against him, and the only other notable event of 216 BC was the defection of certain Italian territories, including Capua, the second largest city of Italy, which Hannibal made his new base. However, only a few of the Italian city-states that he had expected to gain as allies defected to him.

Stalemate
The war in Italy settled into a strategic stalemate. The Romans used the attritional strategy that Fabius had taught them, which, they finally realized, was the only feasible means of defeating Hannibal. Fabius received the name "Cunctator" ("the Delayer") because of his policy of not meeting Hannibal in open battle, but through attrition. The Romans deprived Hannibal of a large-scale battle and instead assaulted his weakening army with multiple smaller armies in an attempt to both weary him and create unrest in his troops. For the next few years, Hannibal was forced to sustain a scorched earth policy and obtain local provisions for protracted and ineffectual operations throughout southern Italy. His immediate objectives were reduced to minor operations centred mainly around the cities of Campania.

The forces detached to 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 up his losses. His position in southern Italy, therefore, became increasingly difficult and his chance of ultimately conquering Rome grew ever more remote. Hannibal still won a number of notable victories: completely destroying two Roman armies in 212 BC, and killing two consuls, including the famed Marcus Claudius Marcellus in a battle in 208 BC. However, Hannibal slowly began losing ground—inadequately supported by his Italian allies, abandoned by his government, either because of jealousy or simply because Carthage was overstretched, and unable to match Rome's resources. He was never able to bring about another grand decisive victory that could produce a lasting strategic change.

Carthaginian political will was embodied in the ruling oligarchy. There was a Carthaginian Senate, but the real power was with the inner "Council of 30 Nobles" and the board of judges from ruling families known as the "Hundred and Four". These two bodies came from the wealthy, commercial families of Carthage. Two political factions operated in Carthage: the war party, also known as the "Barcids" (Hannibal's family name), and the peace party led by Hanno II the Great. Hanno had been instrumental in denying Hannibal's requested reinforcements following the battle at Cannae.

Hannibal started the war without the full backing of Carthaginian oligarchy. His attack of Saguntum had presented the oligarchy with a choice of war with Rome or loss of prestige in Iberia. The oligarchy, not Hannibal, controlled the strategic resources of Carthage. Hannibal constantly sought reinforcements from either Iberia or North Africa. Hannibal's troops who were lost in combat were replaced with less well-trained and motivated mercenaries from Italy or Gaul. The commercial interests of the Carthaginian oligarchy dictated the reinforcement and supply of Iberia rather than Hannibal throughout the campaign.

Hannibal's retreat in Italy
In March 212 BC, Hannibal captured Tarentum in a surprise attack but he failed to obtain control of its harbor. The tide was slowly turning against him, and in favor of Rome.

The Roman consuls mounted a siege of Capua in 212 BC. Hannibal attacked them, forcing their withdrawal from Campania. He moved to Lucania and destroyed a 16,000-man Roman army at the Battle of the Silarus, with 15,000 Romans killed. Another opportunity presented itself soon after, a Roman army of 18,000 men being destroyed by Hannibal at the first battle of Herdonia with 16,000 Romans dead, freeing Apulia from the Romans for the year. The Roman consuls mounted another siege of Capua in 211 BC, conquering the city.

Hannibal's attempt to lift the siege with an assault on the Roman siege lines failed. He marched on Rome to force the recall of the Roman armies. He drew off 15,000 Roman soldiers, but the siege continued and Capua fell. In 212 BC, Marcellus conquered Syracuse and the Romans destroyed the Carthaginian army in Sicily in 211–210 BC. In 210 BC, the Romans entered into an alliance with the Aetolian League to counter Philip V of Macedon. Philip, who attempted to exploit Rome's preoccupation in Italy to conquer Illyria, now found himself under attack from several sides at once and was quickly subdued by Rome and her Greek allies.

In 210 BC, Hannibal again proved his superiority in tactics by inflicting a severe defeat at the Battle of Herdonia (modern Ordona) in Apulia upon a proconsular army and, in 208 BC, destroyed a Roman force engaged in the siege of Locri at the Battle of Petelia. But with the loss of Tarentum in 209 BC and the gradual reconquest by the Romans of Samnium and Lucania, his hold on south Italy was almost lost.

In 207 BC, 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 of his brother's defeat and death at the battle of the Metaurus, he retired to Calabria, where he maintained himself for the ensuing years. His brother's head had been cut off, carried across Italy, and tossed over the palisade of Hannibal's camp as a cold message of the iron-clad will of the Roman Republic.

The combination of these events marked the end to Hannibal's success in Italy. With the failure of his brother Mago in Liguria (205–203 BC) and of his own negotiations with Phillip V, the last hope of recovering his ascendancy in Italy was lost. In 203 BC, after nearly fifteen years of fighting in Italy and with the military fortunes of Carthage rapidly declining, Hannibal was recalled to Carthage to direct the defense of his native country against a Roman invasion under Scipio Africanus.

Return to Carthage

In 203 BC, Hannibal was recalled from Italy by the war party in Carthage. After leaving a record of his expedition engraved in Punic and Greek upon bronze tablets in the Temple of Juno Lacinia at Crotona, he sailed back to Africa. His arrival immediately restored the predominance of the war party, which placed him in command of a combined force of African levies and his mercenaries from Italy. In 202 BC, Hannibal met Scipio in a fruitless peace conference.

Despite mutual admiration, negotiations floundered due to Roman allegations of "Punic Faith," referring to the breach of protocols that ended the First Punic War by the Carthaginian attack on Saguntum, and a Carthaginian attack on a stranded Roman fleet. Scipio and Carthage had worked out a peace plan, which was approved by Rome. The terms of the treaty were quite modest, but the war had been long for the Romans. Carthage could keep its African territory but would lose its overseas empire. Masinissa (Numidia) was to be independent. Also, Carthage was to reduce its fleet and pay a war indemnity.

Carthage then made a terrible blunder. Its long-suffering citizens had captured a stranded Roman fleet in the Gulf of Tunis and stripped it of supplies, an action that aggravated the faltering negotiations. Fortified by both Hannibal and the supplies, the Carthaginians rebuffed the treaty and Roman protests. The decisive battle of Zama soon followed. The defeat removed Hannibal's aura of invincibility.

Battle of Zama (202 BC)
Unlike most battles of the Second Punic War, at Zama the Romans were superior in cavalry and the Carthaginians had the edge in infantry. This Roman cavalry superiority was due to the betrayal of Masinissa, who had earlier assisted Carthage in Iberia but changed sides in 206 BC with the promise of land, and due to his personal conflicts with Syphax, a Carthaginian ally. Although the ageing Hannibal was suffering from mental exhaustion and deteriorating health after years of campaigning in Italy, the Carthaginians still had the advantage in numbers and were boosted by the presence of 80 war elephants.

The Roman cavalry won an early victory by swiftly routing the Carthaginian cavalry. The Romans were also successful in limiting the effectiveness of the Carthaginian war elephants, with tactics such as playing trumpets to frighten the elephants and cause them to run into the Carthaginian lines. Some historians say that the elephants routed the Carthaginian cavalry and not the Romans, whilst others suggest that it was actually a tactical retreat planned by Hannibal. Whatever the truth, the battle remained closely fought. At one point, it seemed that Hannibal was on the verge of victory, but Scipio was able to rally his men. Scipio's cavalry, having routed the Carthaginian cavalry, attacked Hannibal's rear. This two-pronged attack caused the Carthaginian formation to collapse.

With their foremost general defeated, the Carthaginians had no choice but to surrender. Carthage lost approximately 20,000 troops with an additional 15,000 wounded. In contrast, the Romans suffered only 2,500 casualties. The last major battle of the Second Punic War resulted in a loss of respect for Hannibal by his fellow Carthaginians. The conditions of defeat were such that Carthage could no longer battle for Mediterranean supremacy.

Peacetime Carthage (200–196 BC)
Hannibal was still only 46 at the conclusion of the Second Punic War in 201 BC and soon showed that he could be a statesman as well as a soldier. Following the conclusion of a peace that left Carthage saddled with an indemnity of ten thousand talents, he was elected suffete (chief magistrate) of the Carthaginian state. After an audit confirmed Carthage had the resources to pay the indemnity without increasing taxation, Hannibal initiated a reorganization of state finances aimed at eliminating corruption and recovering embezzled funds.

The principal beneficiaries of these financial peculations had been the oligarchs of the Hundred and Four. In order to reduce the power of the oligarchs, Hannibal passed a law stipulating the Hundred and Four be chosen by direct election rather than co-option. He also used citizen support to change the term of office in the Hundred and Four from life to a year, with none permitted to "hold office for two consecutive years."

Exile (after 195 BC)
Seven years after the victory of Zama, the Romans, alarmed by Carthage's renewed prosperity and suspicious that Hannibal had been in contact with Antiochus III of the Seleucid Empire, sent a delegation to Carthage alleging that Hannibal was helping an enemy of Rome. Aware that he had many enemies, not the least of which were due to his financial reforms eliminating corruption, Hannibal fled into voluntary exile before the Romans could demand that Carthage surrender him into their custody.

He journeyed first to Tyre, the mother city of Carthage, and then to Antioch, before he finally reached Ephesus, where he was honourably received by Antiochus. Livy states that the Seleucid king consulted Hannibal on the strategic concerns of making war on Rome. According to Cicero, while at the court of Antiochus, Hannibal attended a lecture by Phormio, a philosopher, that ranged through many topics. When Phormio finished a discourse on the duties of a general, Hannibal was asked his opinion. He replied, "I have seen during my life many old fools; but this one beats them all." Another story, according to Aulus Gellius, is that after Antiochus III showed Hannibal the gigantic and elaborately equipped army he had created to invade Greece, he asked him if they would be enough for the Roman Republic, to which Hannibal replied, "I think all this will be enough, yes, quite enough, for the Romans, even though they are most avaricious."

In the summer of 193 BC, tensions flared up between the Seleucids and Rome. Antiochus gave tacit support to Hannibal's plans of launching an anti-Roman coup d'état in Carthage, yet it was not carried out. The Carthaginian general also advised equipping a fleet and landing a body of troops in the south of Italy, offering to take command himself. In 190 BC, after having suffered a series of defeats in the Roman–Seleucid War, Antiochus gave Hannibal his first significant military command after spending five years in the Seleucid court. Hannibal was tasked with building a fleet in Cilicia from scratch. Although Phoenician territories like Tyre and Sidon possessed the necessary combination of raw materials, technical expertise, and experienced personnel, it took much longer than expected for it to be completed, most likely due to wartime shortages.

In July 190 BC, Hannibal ordered his fleet to set sail from Seleucia Pieria along the southern Asia Minor coast in order to reinforce the rest of the Seleucid navy at Ephesus. The following month Hannibal's fleet clashed with the Rhodian navy in the Battle of Side. The faster Rhodian ships managed to heavily damage half of Hannibal's warships through the diekplous manoeuvre, forcing him to retreat. Hannibal had preserved most of his fleet; however, he was in no position to unite with Polyxenidas' fleet at Ephesus since his ships required lengthy repairs.

The ensuing Battle of Myonessus resulted in a Roman-Rhodian victory, which cemented Roman control over the Aegean Sea, enabling them to launch an invasion of Seleucid Asia Minor. The two armies faced off in the Battle of Magnesia, north-east of Magnesia ad Sipylum. The battle resulted in a decisive Roman-Pergamene victory. The truce was signed at Sardes in January 189 BC, whereupon Antiochus agreed to abandon his claims on all lands west of the Taurus Mountains, paid a heavy war indemnity and promised to hand over Hannibal and other notable enemies of Rome from among his allies.

According to Strabo and Plutarch, Hannibal also received hospitality at the Armenian royal court of Artaxias I. The authors add an apocryphal story of how Hannibal planned and supervised the building of the new royal capital Artaxata. Suspicious that Antiochus was prepared to surrender him to the Romans, Hannibal fled to Crete, but he soon went back to Anatolia and sought refuge with Prusias I of Bithynia, who was engaged in warfare with Rome's ally, King Eumenes II of Pergamon. Hannibal went on to serve Prusias in this war. During one of the naval victories he gained over Eumenes, Hannibal had large pots filled with venomous snakes thrown onto Eumenes' ships. Hannibal also went on to defeat Eumenes in two other battles on land.

Death (183–181 BC)
At this stage, the Romans intervened and threatened Bithynia into giving up Hannibal. Prusias agreed, but the general was determined not to fall into his enemy's hands. The precise year and cause of Hannibal's death are unknown. Pausanias wrote that Hannibal's death occurred after his finger was wounded by his drawn sword while mounting his horse, resulting in a fever and then his death three days later. Cornelius Nepos and Livy, tell a different story, namely that the ex-consul Titus Quinctius Flamininus, on discovering that Hannibal was in Bithynia, went there in an embassy to demand his surrender from King Prusias. Hannibal, discovering that the castle where he was living was surrounded by Roman soldiers and he could not escape, took poison. Appian writes that it was Prusias who poisoned Hannibal.

Pliny the Elder and Plutarch, in his life of Flamininus, record that Hannibal's tomb was at Libyssa on the coast of the Sea of Marmara. According to some, Libyssa was sited at Gebze, between Bursa and Üskudar. W. M. Leake, identifying Gebze with ancient Dakibyza, placed it further west. Before dying, Hannibal is said to have left behind a letter declaring, "Let us relieve the Romans from the anxiety they have so long experienced, since they think it tries their patience too much to wait for an old man's death".

Appian wrote of a prophecy about Hannibal's death, which stated that "Libyssan earth shall cover Hannibal's remains." This, he wrote, made Hannibal believe that he would die in Libya, but instead, it was at the Bithynian Libyssa that he would die.

In his Annales, Titus Pomponius Atticus reports that Hannibal's death occurred in 183 BC, and Livy implies the same. Polybius, who wrote nearest the event, gives 182 BC. Sulpicius Blitho records the death under 181 BC.

Ancient world
Hannibal caused great distress to many in Roman society. He became such a figure of terror that, whenever disaster threatened, Romans would exclaim "Hannibal ad portas" ("Hannibal is at the gates!") to emphasize the gravity of the emergency, a phrase still used in modern languages.

His legacy would be recorded by his Greek tutor, Sosylus of Lacedaemon. The works of Roman writers such as Livy (64 or 59 BC – AD 12 or 17), Frontinus (c. AD 40–103), and Juvenal (1st–2nd century AD) show a grudging admiration for Hannibal. The Romans even built statues of the Carthaginian in the streets of Rome to advertise their defeat of such a worthy adversary. It is plausible to suggest that Hannibal engendered the greatest fear Rome had towards an enemy. Nevertheless, the Romans grimly refused to admit the possibility of defeat and rejected all overtures for peace; they even refused to accept the ransom of prisoners after Cannae.

During the war there are no reports of revolutions among the Roman citizens, no factions within the Senate desiring peace, no pro-Carthaginian Roman turncoats, and no coups. Indeed, throughout the war Roman aristocrats ferociously competed with each other for positions of command to fight against Rome's most dangerous enemy. Hannibal's military genius was not enough to really disturb the Roman political process and the collective political and military capacity of the Roman people. As Lazenby states,

It says volumes, too, for their political maturity and respect for constitutional forms that the complicated machinery of government continued to function even amidst disaster—there are few states in the ancient world in which a general who had lost a battle like Cannae would have dared to remain, let alone would have continued to be treated respectfully as head of state.

According to the historian Livy, the Romans feared Hannibal's military genius, and during Hannibal's march against Rome in 211 BC a messenger who had travelled from Fregellae for a day and a night without stopping created great alarm in Rome, and the excitement was increased by people running about the City with wildly exaggerated accounts of the news he had brought. The wailing cry of the matrons was heard everywhere, not only in private houses but even in the temples. Here they knelt and swept the temple-floors with their dishevelled hair and lifted up their hands to heaven in piteous entreaty to the gods that they would deliver the City of Rome out of the hands of the enemy and preserve its mothers and children from injury and outrage. In the Senate the news was "received with varying feelings as men's temperaments differed," so it was decided to keep Capua under siege, but to send 15,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry as reinforcements to Rome.

According to Livy, the land occupied by Hannibal's army outside Rome in 211 BC was sold by a Roman while it was occupied. This may not be true, but as Lazenby states, "could well be, exemplifying as it does not only the supreme confidence felt by the Romans in ultimate victory, but also the way in which something like normal life continued." After Cannae, the Romans showed considerable steadfastness. As an example of Rome's confidence, after the Cannae disaster she was left virtually defenseless; however, the Senate still chose not to withdraw a single garrison from an overseas province to strengthen the city. In fact, they were reinforced and the campaigns there maintained until victory was secured; beginning first in Sicily under the direction of Claudius Marcellus, and later in Hispania under Scipio Africanus. Although the long-term consequences of Hannibal's war are debatable, this war was undeniably Rome's "finest hour".

Most of the sources available to historians about Hannibal are from Romans. They considered him the greatest enemy Rome had ever faced. Livy gives us the idea that Hannibal was extremely cruel. Even Cicero, when he talked of Rome and its two great enemies, spoke of the "honourable" Pyrrhus and the "cruel" Hannibal. Yet a different picture sometimes emerges. When Hannibal's successes had brought about the death of two Roman consuls, he vainly searched for the body of Gaius Flaminius on the shores of Lake Trasimene, held ceremonial rituals in recognition of Lucius Aemilius Paullus, and sent Marcellus' ashes back to his family in Rome. Any bias attributed to Polybius, however, is more troublesome. Ronald Mellor considered the Greek scholar a loyal partisan of Scipio Aemilianus, while H. Ormerod does not view him as an "altogether unprejudiced witness" when it came to his pet peeves, the Aetolians, the Carthaginians, and the Cretans. Nonetheless, Polybius did recognize that the reputation for cruelty the Romans attached to Hannibal might in reality have been due to mistaking him for one of his officers, Hannibal Monomachus.

Military history

Hannibal is generally regarded as one of the best military strategists and tacticians of all time, the double envelopment at Cannae an enduring legacy of tactical brilliance. According to Appian, several years after the Second Punic War, Hannibal served as a political advisor in the Seleucid Kingdom and Scipio arrived there on a diplomatic mission from Rome. "It is said that at one of their meetings in the gymnasium Scipio and Hannibal had a conversation on the subject of generalship, in the presence of a number of bystanders, and that Scipio asked Hannibal whom he considered the greatest general, to which the latter replied 'Alexander of Macedonia'.

To this Scipio assented since he also yielded the first place to Alexander. Then he asked Hannibal whom he placed next, and he replied 'Pyrrhus of Epirus', because he considered boldness the first qualification of a general; 'for it would not be possible', he said, 'to find two kings more enterprising than these'.

Scipio was rather nettled by this, but nevertheless he asked Hannibal to whom he would give the third place, expecting that at least the third would be assigned to him; but Hannibal replied, 'to myself; for when I was a young man I conquered Hispania and crossed the Alps with an army, the first after Hercules.'

As Scipio saw that he was likely to prolong his self-laudation he said, laughing, 'where would you place yourself, Hannibal, if you had not been defeated by me?' Hannibal, now perceiving his jealousy, replied, 'in that case I should have put myself before Alexander'. Thus Hannibal continued his self-laudation, but flattered Scipio in an indirect manner by suggesting that he had conquered one who was the superior of Alexander.

At the end of this conversation Hannibal invited Scipio to be his guest, and Scipio replied that he would be so gladly if Hannibal were not living with Antiochus, who was held in suspicion by the Romans. Thus did they, in a manner worthy of great commanders, cast aside their enmity at the end of their wars."

Military academies all over the world continue to study Hannibal's exploits, especially his victory at Cannae.

Maximilian Otto Bismarck Caspari, in his article in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1910–1911), praises Hannibal in these words:

Even the Roman chroniclers acknowledged Hannibal's supreme military leadership, writing that "he never required others to do what he could not and would not do himself". According to Polybius 23, 13, p. 423: "It is a remarkable and very cogent proof of Hannibal's having been by nature a real leader and far superior to anyone else in statesmanship, that though he spent seventeen years in the field, passed through so many barbarous countries, and employed to aid him in desperate and extraordinary enterprises numbers of men of different nations and languages, no one ever dreamt of conspiring against him, nor was he ever deserted by those who had once joined him or submitted to him."

Count Alfred von Schlieffen developed his "Schlieffen Plan" (1905/1906) from his military studies, including the envelopment technique that Hannibal employed in the Battle of Cannae. George S. Patton believed himself a reincarnation of Hannibal—as well as of many other people, including a Roman legionary and a Napoleonic soldier. Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., the commander of the Coalition of the Gulf War of 1990–1991, claimed, "The technology of war may change, the sophistication of weapons certainly changes. But those same principles of war that applied to the days of Hannibal apply today."

According to the military historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge, "Hannibal excelled as a tactician. No battle in history is a finer sample of tactics than Cannae. But he was yet greater in logistics and strategy. No captain ever marched to and fro among so many armies of troops superior to his own numbers and material as fearlessly and skilfully as he. No man ever held his own so long or so ably against such odds. Constantly overmatched by better soldiers, led by generals always respectable, often of great ability, he yet defied all their efforts to drive him from Italy, for half a generation. Excepting in the case of Alexander, and some few isolated instances, all wars up to the Second Punic War, had been decided largely, if not entirely, by battle-tactics. Strategic ability had been comprehended only on a minor scale. Armies had marched towards each other, had fought in parallel order, and the conqueror had imposed terms on his opponent. Any variation from this rule consisted in ambuscades or other stratagems. That war could be waged by avoiding in lieu of seeking battle; that the results of a victory could be earned by attacks upon the enemy's communications, by flank-manoeuvres, by seizing positions from which safely to threaten him in case he moved, and by other devices of strategy, was not understood... [However,] for the first time in the history of war, we see two contending generals avoiding each other, occupying impregnable camps on heights, marching about each other's flanks to seize cities or supplies in their rear, harassing each other with small-war, and rarely venturing on a battle which might prove a fatal disaster—all with a well-conceived purpose of placing his opponent at a strategic disadvantage... That it did so was due to the teaching of Hannibal."

In modern Tunisia
Due to his origin and connection with the territory belonging to modern-day Tunisia, he is widely revered as a national hero in the Arab nation.

Hannibal's profile appears on the Tunisian five-dinar bill issued on 8 November 1993, as well as on another new bill put into circulation on 20 March 2013. His name also appears in that of a private television channel, Hannibal TV. A street in Carthage, located near the Punic ports, bears his name; as does as a station on the TGM railway line: "Carthage Hannibal".

Plans envisage a mausoleum and a 17 m high colossus of Hannibal on the Byrsa, the highest point of Carthage overlooking Tunis.

Other

The teenaged Sigmund Freud regarded Hannibal as a "hero"; the founder of psychoanalysis portrays an idealized image of the Carthaginian general in his analysis of his "dreams of Rome" in The Interpretation of Dreams. Freud then associates this phenomenon with the adage "All roads lead to Rome". He writes in The Interpretation of Dreams: "Hannibal and Rome symbolized for the adolescent that I was the opposition between the tenacity of Judaism and the organizing spirit of the Catholic Church".

Kocaeli in Turkey has a cenotaph built in Hannibal's memory. Even though the location of Hannibal's tomb could not be determined precisely in the studies carried out due to Atatürk's great interest, a monumental cenotaph was built in 1981 in the south of present-day Gebze as an expression of Atatürk's will and Atatürk's respect for Hannibal.

David Anthony Durham's novel Pride of Carthage is a fictionalized account of Hannibal's conquests. It was followed by The Risen – an account of Spartacus' slave revolution.

Since 2011, Hannibal has appeared as one of the main characters, with Scipio Africanus, of the Ad Astra manga in which Mihachi Kagano traces the course of the Second Punic War. The two generals appear as allies in the Drifters manga, having been teleported to another dimension to wage war together.

Tunisia's home and away kit for the 2022 FIFA World Cup was inspired by the Ksour Essef cuirass, a piece of body armor believed to be worn by Carthaginian soldiers under the command of Hannibal.

title: Hannibal


text:
Talk:Henry the Fowler

Unsorted text
Fr. Jonat -- I think it would be a good idea to review how Michael Tinkler et al. have been adding the names of saints and kings, so that you don't accidentally create somebody twice or get people with the same name confused. I'm still trying to figure it all out, myself! I think (the last time I looked, that people were creating saints without the "St." -- like Benedict, Adalbert of Prague, etc. There are a bunch of important Matildas in the Middle Ages -- and when you talk about any of the French/German nobility and royalty, they use the same names over and over again. JHK

 * I've been wondering about this too, and have opened up discussion at talk:Naming conventions. -- Claudine

--- It does get confusing. I agree to creating the pages without saint. The first names were a very important part, they did not just name a person, because it was a pretty name. A name was like a royal title. Oftentimes the person had a different name in reality. But same first names were a family and continued the royal line. Only later last names were used. H. Jonat     and yes JHK  , the previous note signed  H.J. was mine. --- I think it needs to be more specific than "was associated with." Was she his mistress? Did she go to the French court and met him on the way to the loo? JHK

So, i guess by this last paragraph:

His son Otto succeeded him as Emperor Otto I ("the Great"). His second son, Henry, became duke of Bavaria. A third son, Brun (or Bruno), became archbishop of Cologne. His son from his first marriage, Thankmar, rebelled against his half-brother Otto and was killed in battle in 936. His daughter Gerberga married Duke Giselbert of Lorraine and subsequently King Louis IV of France. His youngest daughter Hedwige of Saxony married Duke (Hugh the Great) of France and was the mother of Hugh Capet, the first Capetian king of France.

......that, since Henry was a decendant of Charlemange, that through him, his daughter marrying in to what would soon after become the ruling family of France (the Capets) that the Capets are indeed in that way a long decendant of Charlemange? -Tate

Proper grammar please
The following sentence is grammatically incorrect:

He appears in Return to Castle Wolfenstein when the nazi tryning wake him from the death so we can win the war. He is the last boss.

Not to mention very biased. "We"? In addition, shouldn't the title be more formal, as "Henry I of Germany", just as Frederick Barbarossa's article is called "Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor". -Alex, 12.220.157.93 07:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Henry's Parents
Anyone have any insight into Henry's parents? This page says they were Otto the Illustrious and Hedwiga, a descendent of Charlemange, but Otto's page says he married Hathui, a daughter of a Duke of Austria. Was Hedwiga Otto's mistress, though that's not so likely, i suppose, if she were of "royal" blood. I'll question this on Otto's talk page too, since it's the same question for him, but backwards, i guess. Lindsay H. 08:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He was the third son of Otto the Illustrious and Hathui (Hedwige), daughter of Henry of Franconia. Neither was of royal blood. Srnec 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong picture, again
The "Bamberg Horseman" or "Bambergian knight" seems to be a multiple personage: he portrays Henry I and his son Otto the Great at the same time. Wikipedia says so.

Indeed the historians don´t know exactly which person is depicted; maybe it is Henry II who founded the diocese Bamberg. Certainly neither Henry the Fowler nor Otto the Great are personified.

Alfred E. Neander 19:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I´m from Franconia. I´ve never heard that the "Bamberger Reiter" should be Henry I. Most probable theories name german king Philipp of Schwaben or Stephen of Hungary; others say its not a real person but a symbol for Staufer Dynasty or a "universal king" or even the Messiah.Kleeblatt (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Article moved
Henry I aka "the fowler", "Heinrich der Vogler":

It is a legend that a delegation of German tribes met Henry in the woods to offer him the king´s crown while he was bird-hunting. The sport of catching birds in traps was regarded as a pleasure of the common man, not of noblemen. So the picture of Henry as "the fowler" shows him as a rustic, vital man, a future king of the common people, it became quite popular in the 19th century.

There are still several (!) places of the legendary event, e.g. the "Finkenherd" in Quedlinburg.

Maybe Henry I was busy with hunting birds when the delegation came, maybe he wasn´t. Maybe there never was a delegation, at least he was elected just by the Franconians and his own people, the Saxons.

As a matter of fact, Henry was the first king of his name to be king, and should be mentioned by his regnal name. Even in Germany he is better kown as Heinrich I., and less as Heinrich der Vogler.

Alfred E. Neander 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough, the most popular poem praising Henry as a fowler oder Vogler ("Herr Heinrich sitzt am Vogelherd") was written by Johann Nepomuk Vogl, and one of the pictures portraying him as bird-hunter was painted by Hermann Vogel. Coincidence?

Alfred E. Neander 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

first German king
"Henry I is therefore considered the first German king"

Why is that so? First East Frankish king after the Carolingian dynasty was Conrad I. In some German sources Conrad is considered first German king, in most English sources it is Henry. Is there a reason to pick Henry? --MacX85 (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In old german empire (Holy Roman Empire of German Nation) they saw a direct line from Frankish Empire to Germany and therefore Karl der Große (eng. Charlemagne) was regarded as first Emperor and all after him (frankish and german) are one line; Karls was and is today counted als Karl I. In 19th century till Nazi time prussian and nationalist historians regarded Henry as first king, but in Southern Germany Konrad I was regarded as the first one (well, he was Duke of Frankonia and elected at Forchheim). Today modern german historians agree: There is no exact date or person when "Germany" started. It was a process of transforming East Frankish Empire to Germany. It started with treaty of Verdun 843 when Lothar, Karl and Ludwig divided the Empire. They didn´t want to create new states or nations, just wanted to divide their heritage among some guys of the same familiy, but in fact they made way for that what became Germany and France. And remember oaths of Straßburg 842. Ludwig "germanicus" got a territory that was similar to later Germany. Another date was 911, when after dead of Ludwig the Child east frankish princes decided not to elect a carolingian but Konrad I. He failed as king, but later Henry of Saxony was elected. Both Konrad and Henry were related to Carolingian dynasty and their voters didn´t have in mind to create a new "german nation", they just wanted a king more powerfull than this weak west-frankish carolingians. Another dates were 936 when Otto became king and at least 962 when Otto became emperor. At the latest since 962 we can talk about "Germany". So between 843 and 962 there was a time of change and transforming. All kings between Ludwig and Otto can be seen as "East Frankish Kings" and "German Kings". A similar process happened in the west transforming "West Frankish Kingdom" into "France". Please notice: In Germany this king is "Heinrich I" (Henry I). "Heinrich der Vogler/Finkler" (Henry the Fowler) is unhistoric and not common use in Germany. It was so in 19th century till nazi time, but not before and today.Kleeblatt (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually "der Vogler" stems from 12th century documents which makes it more or less historic. I hear it from time to time but then again not many people do know him that well which is strange given his historical relevance.
 * What you said about continuity from the Carolingians over the Ottonians is right. However I think there are good reasons to call Henry the first king or founder of the medieval German kingdom. He got to be king of something which before was solely ruled by Franks (from differing dynasties). Even Conrad I. has been related to the Carolingians. Henry needed to wage war against different tribes in order to be acknowledged king over all of them and he succeeded and established one of the most powerful dynasties since Charlemagne.
 * Also the realm has been in a state of decay for quite some time due to inner struggles and invading magyars. Henry pretty much dealt with it and united the tribes under one king. (Bavarians had one of their one at that time)
 * There might be no clear break between Frankish and German kingdom in terms of nominal kingship but there is sure a qualitative one with and after Henry's reign.
 * I wouldn't say however that in 962 you can talk about "Germany" when before you couldn't. Otto I. did link the Roman imperial dignity to his Eastern Frankish kingdom which would get to be a tradition of its own. It didn't have a stronger impact upon the feeling of unity among German tribes, you might even say it was counterproductive in that regards. To speak of "Germany" as a kingdom of its own it needed to be seperated from France which have both been part of the Frankish kingdom before. You could say the progress of seperation has been completed with Henry's reign in the East (a Saxon on the Frankish throne) and Hugh Capet's in the West (who was Frank but no Carolingian).--MacX85 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Henry I and Himmler
''Henry returned to public attention as a character in Richard Wagner's opera, Lohengrin (1850). There are indications that Heinrich Himmler imagined himself the reincarnation of the first king of Germany.'' Pretty dubious statement out of a pretty dubious book.--Tresckow (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Thanks Srnec, I read your comments with interest. PeterSymonds (talk)  00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
The original title of this article was Henry the Fowler. It should be returned there; the relevant naming convention says  If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. This is as overwhelmingly common, in English, as Henry the Lion, which is one of the examples. Let's move back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support and agree that he is most commonly known as "Henry the Fowler". Olessi (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Cursory Google Books scan: Olessi (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Henry I of Germany: ~50
 * Henry the Fowler: ~600
 * Did you check the searches for the relevance of the hits? Were they found in books on the appropraite subject matter (German history, medieval history, etc.)? Also, I think the real contest is between "Henry I" in reference to a certain German king and "Henry the Fowler" in reference to the same person. Both on their own are ambiguous; "of Germany" is just a disambiguator that conveniently avoids unnecessary punctuation. I don't think authorities on this period of German history, like Timothy Reuter, Karl Leyser, D. S. Bachrach, etc. use "the Fowler" but instead prefer the numeral. Srnec (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I have not found "Henry I of Germany" to be a reference to anyone but "Henry the Fowler". Since "the Fowler" is used more commonly than "I of Germany", there is a variety of books using that designation to refer to him. I'm not sure of the need to focus on authorities, as "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." Olessi (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I was confusing. All I was saying was that "Henry I" and "Henry the Fowler" are both ambiguous (one more so). "of Germany" is just a disambiguator. The contest should not be between the full phrase" Henry I of Germany" and "Henry the Fowler" but only between "Henry I" and "Henry the Fowler", making sure that in all instances we are comparing references to the German king, not other kings or the minstrel. I'm not sure that readers of the general audience are going to be confused by Henry I of Germany, since I doubt that most of them have ever heard of this guy unless they are German (in which case they probably know his numeral about as well as his nickname). Srnec (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not German, and I've heard of him, and would expect him to be at Henry the Fowler. English speakers who have not heard of him should be introduced to him under the name they can repeat without literate anglophones looking oddly at them. Both benefit from the change. Searches under Henry I return large numbers of false positives; both Henry I of England and Henry I of France occur in many books that mention Germany. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If an Anglophone could not understand who "Henry I of Germany" was but knew "Henry the Fowler", I would not call him literate. Srnec (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A literate Anglophone can work out who Charles I of France is too; but will still look funny at those who do not call him Charlemagne. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I don't see why German readers should come here; de:Heinrich I. (Ostfrankenreich) seems a sound article, although we would not try to distinguish between Germany and East Francia in that manner, especially in this period. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't work out who Charles I of France is. Charlemagne or Charles the Bald? "Henry I of Germany" is on the same level as William I of England or Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor: it requires no "working-out" for the well-read. "Charles I of France" is almost never used, especially today. The same cannot be said of "Henry I of Germany": the Britannica uses it, the Columbia, and Encarta. Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia by John M. Jeep use it. In a recent article on the "Saxon military revolution" by B. S. Bachrach and D. Bachrach, they use both, but he is introduced in the abstract by his ordinal. As an aside, how do you feel about moving Willy and Fred? Srnec (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Charlemagne. Charles the Bald is Charles II, as his article says. I am shocked to find that we are not using Frederick Barbarossa; William I of England is a borderline case. If WP:NCNT did not insist, we would be using William the Conqueror, as you can see from its talk page. I supported the move.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles the Bald is the second emperor Charles, but not the second Charles of France. Srnec (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It should say so; who, do you suppose, intervened? Charles the Simple is the third Charles of France, and the fourth is Charles le Bel, whom we list, reasonably, as Charles IV of France. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles the Fat, of course. If Charlemagne is Charles I, there is a problem with the enumeration. Srnec (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There appears to be: We do not number Charles the Fat; the French WP uses Roman numerals, and calls both Charles III; presumably Charles le Gros is Emperor Charles III. If this is on topic, I would call it another reason to avoid numerals when epithets are conventional. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Before the admin closes this as move, let me just go on record saying that I agree that epithets should be preferred when the enumeration is disputed or when they overwhelm other names by orders of magnitude. I do think that consistency in naming persons in a line of succession should not be discarded willy-nilly. In the case of the (early) Carolingians, the choice for nicknames is clearcut. In the case of Henry the Fowler it is not: the academic literature comes at least close to favouring the number, which cannot be described as obscure. I doubt that Henry is mentioned enough in the English literature for the nickname to truly "overhwelm" the ordinal, which is not disputed and is not confusing. It is not at all comparable to "Charles II of France". It is useful to remember that both "Henry I" and "Henry the Fowler" are ambiguous and that the nickname is neither contemporary nor accurate, but is the result of legend (probably the reason that academia does not like it).
 * Charles the Fat is without doubt the third Emperor Charles and the second Charles of West Francia (France), while Charles the Bald is the second Emperor Charles and the first Charles of West Francia (France), and Charlemagne is the first Emperor Charles and never ruled an entity known as West Francia (France), but was the first Charles to be king of the Franks (Francia). The English enumeration practices can be confusing and they do differ, but I don't think any scholar would ever use a numeral for the Great or the Bald, though the Fat as "Charles III" I have seen (the imperial enumeration is clearcut and best-known; note how the enumeration of later emperors Henry is actually a royal enumeration). Srnec (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additions
I added his place of birth and death. 24.31.169.252 (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Heinrich or Henry?
Shouldn't this article be about Heinrich?Presidentbalut (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that articles should be named based on how the subject is generally referred to in reliable English-language sources. That would be Henry in this case. Oh, and I hope you have not spammed this question on too many talk pages.  You would have gotten the same answer if you had just posted this on a single German Henry's talkpage. Indrian (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think his name is Heinrich. Not Henry.

So wikipedia's policy is to give people wrong names?68.45.174.58 (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it odd to translate his name. You can see how confusing it is in this article. Heinrich der Vogler is "Henry". Whereas Heinrich Himmler is "Heinrich". Why?HeinrichMueller (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you go by the name given in the sources it would be "Heinricus" or "Henricus". "Heinrich" is a modern German form as well. Also it's a regnal name which is always translated even today.--MacX85 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Was Henry canonized?
The punctuation of this sentence-- "Matilda bore him three sons, one called Otto, and two daughters, Hedwig and Gerberga, and founded many religious institutions, including the abbey of Quedlinburg where Henry is buried and was later canonized." --gives us to understand that Henry was canonized. However, if one searches the internet data, it appears that Matilda is the only one who was canonized, having founded many religious institutions, including the abbey of Quedlinburg..."

Question: Is Henry a Saint, or is this just bad writing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.177.74 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Godwin's Law?
'Nazi ideology referred to Henry as a founding father of the German nation, fighting both the Latin Western Franks and the Slavic tribes of the East, thereby a precursor of the German Drang nach Osten."

Do not most people hold Heinrich der Vogler to be the Founding Father of the German Nation? HeinrichMueller (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

He certainly is a founding father of the medieval German kingdom. The German nation however grew over the centuries into what it is today with many political breaks.--MacX85 (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Recently, Someone has been changing Historical pages.
I am 70 years old. I have been a genealogist for 52 years. Lately (especially this past years, or so), someone has been changing historical pages on Wikipedia pages. Adding the wrong Houses, names, family, duplications, inaccuracies, and some are just shear fantasy. Leaving out children, and adding children that they do not have. It is hysterically sad, really. Many of these pages are lacking any sort of viable sources/ references, and the pages are not set up correctly. I pity anyone who visits Wikipedia looking for accurate/ factual answers.

Furthermore, I do not know who is responsible, because their are so many names listed on the talk pages. What I do know, is that Wikipedia is fast becoming utter rubbish. If something is not done about it, Wikipedia, will no longer be a viable resource for research. If it were just a few pages, then I would try to fix them myself. However, there are so many errors, that it has become completely overwhelming. I am too old, and have no time for this rubbish.

Originally, I used direct resources overseas for my research, while living in England. Wikipedia was great in the beginning, until they let every Tom, Dick, and Mary edit pages. In future, I will no longer use Wikipedia as a resource for my research. It is just becoming too inaccurate, and way to unorganized to be of any use to any serious genealogist.

Perhaps, in future, people will use Wikipedia to get a good laugh. What a mess. I am so gone.

S.M. Randall Randallratzancestry (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Henry the Fowler


text:
Hansie Cronje

Wessel Johannes "Hansie" Cronje (25 September 1969 – 1 June 2002) was a South African international cricketer and captain of the South Africa national cricket team in the 1990s. A right-handed all-rounder, as captain Cronje led his team to victory in 27 Test matches and 99 One Day Internationals. Cronje also led South Africa to win the 1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy, the only major ICC title the country has won to date. In the 1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy Final, Cronje played a major role with the bat with his 61 not out, leading the team to victory by 4 wickets. He was voted the 11th-greatest South African in 2004 despite having been banned from cricket for life due to his role in a match-fixing scandal. He died in a plane crash in 2002.

Early life
Cronje was born in Bloemfontein, South Africa to Ewie Cronje and San-Marie Cronje on 25 September 1969. He graduated in 1987 from Grey College in Bloemfontein, where he was the head boy. An excellent all round sportsman, he represented the then Orange Free State Province in cricket and rugby at schools level. He was the captain of his school's cricket and rugby teams. Cronje earned a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of the Free State. He had an older brother, Frans Cronje, and a younger sister, Hester Parsons.

His father Ewie had played for Orange Free State in the 1960s, and Frans had also played first-class cricket.

First-class career
Cronje made his first-class debut for Orange Free State against Transvaal at Johannesburg in January 1988 at the age of 18. In the following season, he was a regular, appearing in all eight Currie Cup matches plus being part of the Benson and Hedges Series-winning team, scoring 73 as an opener in the final. In 1989–90, despite playing all the Currie Cup matches, he failed to make a century, and averaged only 19.76; however, in one-day games he averaged 60.12. During that season he scored his maiden century for South African Universities against Mike Gatting's rebels.

Despite having just turned 21, Cronje was made captain of Orange Free State for the 1990–91 season. He scored his maiden century for them against Natal in December 1990, and finished the season with another century and a total of 715 runs at 39.72. That season he also scored 159* in a 40-over match against Griqualand West.

In 1992–93, he captained Orange Free State to the Castle Cup/Total Power Series double.

In 1995, Cronje appeared for Leicestershire where he scored 1301 runs at 52.04 finishing the season as the county's leading scorer.

In 1995–96, he finished the season top of the batting averages in the Currie Cup, his top score of 158 helped Free State chase down 389 to beat Northern Transvaal.

In 1997, Cronje played for Ireland as an overseas player in the Benson and Hedges Cup and helped them to a 46-run win over Middlesex by scoring 94 not out and taking three wickets. This was Ireland's first-ever win against English county opposition. Later in the same competition, he scored 85 and took one wicket against Glamorgan.

Debuts
Cronje's form in 1991/92 was impressive especially in the one-day format where he averaged 61.40. He earned an international call up for the 1992 World Cup, making his One Day International debut against Australia at Sydney. During the tournament he played in eight of the team's nine games, averaging 34.00 with the bat, while his medium pace was used in bowling 20 overs.

After the World Cup Cronje was part of the tour to the West Indies; he featured in the three ODIs, and in the Test match at Bridgetown that followed, he made his Test debut. This was South Africa's first Test since readmission and they came close to beating a strong West Indian side, going into the final day at 122/2 chasing 200 they collapsed to 148.

India toured South Africa in 1992/93. In the first one-day international, he hit the famous six when his team needed 6 runs off only 4 balls, and was awarded Man of the match for his bowling. In the one-day series, Cronje managed just one fifty but with the ball he was economical and took his career best figures of 5/32, becoming the second South African to take five wickets in an ODI. In the Test series that followed he scored his maiden test century, 135 off 411 balls, after coming in at 0–1 in the second over he was last man out, after eight and three-quarter hours, in a total of 275. This contributed to South Africa's first Test win since readmission. At the end of the season in a triangular tournament with Pakistan and West Indies he scored 81 off 70 balls against Pakistan.

In South Africa's next Test series against Sri Lanka, Cronje scored his second Test century, 122 in the second Test in Colombo; the victory margin of an innings and 208 runs is a South African record. He finished the series with 237 runs at 59.25 after scoring 73* in the drawn third Test.

Stand-in captain
In 1993–94, there was another Castle Cup/Total Power Series double for Orange Free State. In international cricket, he was named as vice-captain for the tour of Australia despite being the youngest member of the squad. In the first ODI of the triangular tournament with New Zealand and Australia, he guided South Africa to victory against Australia at the MCG with 91*, which won him the man of the match award. He scored 71 in a rain-affected first test at Melbourne before a tense second test that South Africa won by 5 runs. An injury to captain Kepler Wessels meant Cronje was captain for the final day of the match. Between the second and third tests, the one-day tournament continued, now with Cronje as captain, South Africa made the final series but lost it 2–1 to Australia. He became South Africa's second-youngest Test captain, after Murray Bisset in 1898–99, when he led the team for the third test at Adelaide but it was an unsuccessful start to his captaincy career as the series was squared.

In February 1994, there was the return series as Australia toured South Africa. Cronje started the ODI series with scores of 112, 97, 45 and 50* and when Australia played Orange Free State in their final match before the first Test, Cronje hit 251 off 306 balls, 200 of these came on the final day in which 294 runs were added. Despite this, Orange Free State lost the match. In the first test at Johannesburg, he added another century as South Africa won by 197 runs. This innings was the end of a 14-day period in which he'd scored 721 runs against the Aussies. However, he failed to reach fifty in the next two tests and four ODIs as both series were drawn.

There was another drawn series when South Africa toured England in 1994. Cronje scored only one century on the whole tour and scored only 90 runs in the three-test series. In October 1994, South Africa again came up against Australia in a triangular one day series also featuring Pakistan. Cronje scored 354 runs at an average of 88.50. Despite this, South Africa lost all their matches. This series was Bob Woolmer's first as coach and Kepler Wessels' last as captain. Cronje, who'd previously been vice-captain, was named as captain for the test series with New Zealand in 1994–95.

Permanent captain
South Africa lost the first Test in Johannesburg but before the second test the two teams plus Pakistan and Sri Lanka competed for the Mandela Trophy, New Zealand failed to gain a win in the six-match round robin stage while South Africa beat Pakistan in the final. This changed the momentum as South Africa secured wins in Durban and Cape Town, where Cronje scored his fourth test century. He was the first captain since W. G. Grace to win a three-match series after being one down.

In early 1995, South Africa won one-off tests against both Pakistan and New Zealand. In Auckland Cronje scored the only century of the match before a final day declaration left his bowlers barely enough time to dismiss the Kiwis.

In October 1995, South Africa won a one-off Test with Zimbabwe. Cronje scored a second innings 54* to guide them to a seven wicket win. In two one-dayers that followed, he took five wickets as South Africa comfortably won both. South Africa won the five Test series against England 1–0 despite Cronje struggling, scoring 113 runs at 18.83. However, he top scored in the one-day series that they won 6–1.

In the 1996 World Cup, he scored 78 and 45* against New Zealand and Pakistan, respectively, as South Africa won their group but in the Quarter final with West Indies a Brian Lara century ended their ten-game winning streak.

The 1996–97 season featured back-to-back series with India. The first away was lost 2–1. The home series was won 2–0. In the six tests combined, Cronje managed one fifty. Cronje produced better form against Australia, averaging over 50 in both test and ODI series although both were lost.

Cronje started 1997–98 by leading South Africa to their first series victory in Pakistan, his batting continued to struggle with his biggest contribution being taking the wickets of Inzamam-ul-Haq and Moin Khan in the Third Test.

Better form
Cronje once again came up against Australia and once again ended on the losing side. In the triangular one day series they won the group with Australia just scraping through, they also won the first 'final' but South Africa lost the last two finals. During the group matches Cronje had threatened to lead his team off after Pat Symcox had missiles thrown at him, Symcox had the last laugh ending the match with 4/24. Before the Test series started he scored consecutive centuries against Tasmania and Australia A these were his first in two years.

In the first Test, Cronje scored 70 as South Africa saved the match; in the second Test, he lasted 335 minutes for his 88. Despite this, they lost by an innings. In the third Test, they scored 517 and although Mark Taylor carried his bat for 169, Australia needed to bat 109 overs to save the match. Mark Waugh batted 404 minutes, and, despite controversy when Waugh hit one of his bails off (under Law 35 he was adjudged to have finished his stroke and therefore given not out), South Africa fell three wickets short. Cronje put a stump through the umpires' dressing room door after the match and was lucky to avoid a ban.

Cronje missed the first Test of the series with Pakistan because of a knee injury. The second Test at Durban was lost, but he top scored at Port Elizabeth with 85, to help square the three Test series 1–1. There was still time in the season for a two-Test series with Sri Lanka. The first was won with Cronje scoring 49 and 74; in the second Test, he took 3/14, his best bowling in Tests, and smashed 82 off 63 balls, his fifty being brought up with three consecutive sixes off Muttiah Muralitharan, and was reached off just 31 balls; at the time, it was the second fastest in Tests after Kapil Dev's. In the triangular series, which South Africa won, he scored only one fifty at East London where he also took 2/17 off 10 overs.

During the 1998 Test series against England, Cronje scored five consecutive fifties, having failed to score one in the nine previous Tests against them. In his fiftieth Test, at Trent Bridge he scored 126, his sixth and last Test century and his first in 29 matches. During his second innings of 67, he passed 3,000 runs—only the second South African to do so. However, England won the Test, and the one at Headingley, to win the series 2–1, Cronje finished the series as South Africa's top scorer with 401 runs at 66.83.

Whitewash, tie and forfeit
In the West Indies series of 1998–99, Cronje captained South Africa to their only whitewash in a five Test series. His best batting against West Indies came when playing for Free State; he scored 158* as they chased down 438 and made up a first innings deficit of 249. In the ODI series he was South Africa's top scorer and took 11 wickets at 14.72 as South Africa won 6–1.

In March 1999, they toured New Zealand, beating them 1–0 in the Test series and 3–2 in the one-dayers.

At the 1999 World Cup, Cronje finished with 98 runs at 12.25 as South Africa were eliminated after the famous tied semi-final against Australia at Edgbaston. In the first match of the tournament versus India, Cronje came onto the field with an earpiece wired to coach Bob Woolmer, but at the first drinks break match referee Talat Ali ordered him to remove it.

In October 1999, Cronje became South Africa's highest Test run scorer during the first Test against Zimbabwe. The two Test series was won 2–0 thanks to innings victories. South Africa won the series with England in the fourth Test at Cape Town, Cronje's fiftieth as captain.

The fifth test of the 1999–2000 South Africa versus England series at Centurion was ruined by rain, entering the final day only 45 overs had been possible with South Africa 155/6. On the final morning as they batted on, news filtered through that the captains had met and were going to "make a game of it". A target of 250 from 70 overs was agreed. When South Africa reached 248/8, Cronje declared; both teams then forfeited an innings leaving England a target of 249 to win the Test, which they did with two wickets left and only five balls remaining. It ended South Africa's 14-game unbeaten streak in Test cricket. It was later learnt Cronje accepted money and a gift from a bookmaker in return for making an early declaration in this Test (see below).

Cronje top scored with 56 after South Africa were left reeling at 21–5 in the Final of the triangular tournament which featured England and Zimbabwe.

On 31 March 2000, his cricket career finished with a 73-ball 79 against Pakistan in the final of Sharjah Cup 1999/2000.

Statistics
Under Cronje's captaincy, South Africa won 27 Tests and lost 11, completing series victories against every team except Australia.

He captained the One Day International team to 99 wins out of 138 matches with one tied match and three no results. He holds the South African record for matches won as captain, and his record of captaining his side in 138 matches stands bettered only by Graeme Smith's 149 matches as ODI captain. His 99 wins as captain makes him the fourth-most-successful captain worldwide in terms of matches won, behind Ricky Ponting, Allan Border and Mahendra Singh Dhoni and in terms of percentage of wins (73.70), behind Ponting and Clive Lloyd.

Between September 1993 and March 2000, he played in 162 consecutive ODIs, a South African record.

Cronje has the record for playing the most consecutive ODI matches as captain (130) and is the only player to play in 100-plus consecutive ODI matches as captain.

Match fixing
On 7 April 2000, it was revealed there was a conversation between Cronje and Sanjeev Chawla, a representative of an Indian betting syndicate, over match-fixing allegations. Three other players, Herschelle Gibbs, Nicky Boje and Pieter Strydom, were also implicated. After an enquiry by the King Commission, Cronje was banned from any involvement in cricket for life. He challenged his life ban in September 2001 but on 17 October 2001, his application was dismissed.

After 13 years, on 22 July 2013, the Delhi Police registered a first information report for match-fixing in 2000; the charge sheet in the case involved several South African cricketers including Cronje.

Death
On 1 June 2002, Cronje's scheduled flight home from Johannesburg to George was grounded. He then hitched a ride as the only passenger aboard a Hawker Siddeley HS 748 turboprop aircraft. Near George airport, the pilots lost visibility in clouds and were unable to land, partly due to unusable navigational equipment. While circling, the plane crashed into Cradock Peak, in the Outeniqua Mountains northeast of the airport. Cronje, aged 32, and the two pilots were killed instantly.

In August 2006, an inquest into the plane crash was opened by South Africa's High Court. The inquest concluded that "the death of the deceased Wessel Johannes Cronje was brought about by an act or omission prima facie amounting to an offence on the part of pilots."

Conspiracy theories that Cronje was murdered on the orders of a cricket betting syndicate flourished after his death and were most recently re-floated by former Nottinghamshire coach Clive Rice in the wake of the death of Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer in March 2007. It was alleged that he was murdered to hide the truths behind match-fixing.

Personal life
Hansie Cronje married Bertha Hans on 8 April 1995. They had no children. Hansie's widow later married Jacques Du Plessis, a financial auditor, in 2003. It was reported that the private ceremony was attended by Hansie's parents and siblings, and close friends Jonty Rhodes and his wife Kate.

In 2008, a biographical film titled Hansie: A True Story was released, where Frank Rautenbach played the part of Cronje.

title: Hansie Cronje


text:
User:Herman

Hi,

My name is Herman Beun. I am from the Netherlands, but live currently in Brussels (Belgium) where I work as an aide to a Dutch member of the European Parliament.

More on me can be found at my homepage.

Nice, now we can get some seriously in-depth info in the EU :-) Welcome! --Anders Törlind

So, we meet again. See you. Wilfried.

title: User:Herman