646f9e108c It is 200 years before the birth of Christ and Rome is the new superpower of the ancient world. She believes she is invincible - but one man is destined to change that. He is a man bound by oath to avenge the wrongs inflicted on his home and, in pursuit of revenge, he will stop at nothing. Hannibal explores the man behind the myth, revealing what drove the 26-year-old to mastermind one of the most audacious military moves in history. With 40,000 soldiers and 37 elephants, he marched 1,500 miles to challenge his enemies on their own soil. It was an act so daring that few people believed it possible. Hannibal combines drama, the latest historical research and state-of-the-art CGI to bring this spectacular story to life. Please give citations for your claims - for example, that Scipio declared that Hannibal become governor of Carthage - Hannibal became Shophete after the Romans had left, not because of them. Carthage signed for peace but did not give up their brilliant general, but Rome's wrath was so much that he was eventually forced to flee the city.<br/><br/>You also claim that Hannibal honoured his agreement with Scipio and so did not return to Carthage to lead them in battle. I've found no such evidence of this, it was well known that he attempted to convince other rulers around the Mediterranean (such as Antiochus III) to make war with Rome. This behaviour is not in line with someone who agreed to never make war on Rome again.<br/><br/>Thirdly, you say that Scipio is the greater general of the two - this is very much debatable. Did he beat Hannibal at Zama? Yes, he did, but there were many reasons for this and his supposed higher quality as a general is not one of them. Leaving these reasons aside, Scipio was so successful because he emulated Hannibal, not because he came up with brilliant strategies of his own. He turned Hannibal's own tactics against him and quite brilliantly, but the point remains that they were not his tactics to begin with.<br/><br/>Finally, the film does flutter about Scipio's role in Roman politics - in real life, Scipio lost favour with the senate due to increasing pressure from his political enemies, and his popularity with the people, and dropped out of the public limelight entirely. It was not due to some honourable statement of his. I have a bad habbit comparing everything about the ancient world these days to Gladiator, which is fictional but one testosterone bomb of a movie, with insane effect and a Russel Crowe with an aura that would make him the roman equalliant to the legendary Erwin Rommel if he was a general in old rome for real.<br/><br/>But as a documentary rather than a big budget fictional Hollywood-movie, Alexander Sidding fits the role of Hannibal well and I was very satisfied with the outcome of this film, even though the roman players were not much to brag about. But its fantastic they finally make a REALISTIC movie, where telling the true story are in focus! Why invent a bullshit story when we have so many real stories to make movies about? Fact is often more amazing than fiction! I got what i hoped for and a good lesson in history, although I wish the movie had dwelled more with everyday life in Carthage. The name Hannibal means "son of Baal", Baal being an acronym for the god we all know as Satan, which could be interesting to dwell with.<br/><br/>But it is a movie i definitely will have in my movie collection. Absolutely. It will not get a 10 as Gladiator, but an good 7. 3 from the the top 10 for not having Riddley Scot to make the scenery, plus all the roman actors should get sacked, and we should have Russel Crowe as Scipio Africanus instead! Now that would be one hell of a movie..
confkatkecu Admin replied
295 weeks ago