Talk:Hamilcar Barca

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Biography / Classical Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Phoenicia B‑class High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article seems oddly NPOV -- pro-gallant Romans and anti-untrustworthy Carthaginians. Can we have a little more evenhandedness after 2,200 years? --Michael K Smith^Talk 18:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karthago delenda est. — LlywelynII 03:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the Hannibal article: "In light of Hamilcar Barca's cognomen, historians refer to Hamilcar's family as the Barcids; however, scholars debate whether the cognomen Barca (meaning "thunderbolt") was applied to Hamilcar alone or was hereditary within his family."

Since there is an article on the

Is this statement original research? Are there any sources out there that support it? It seems like original research to me. I think it's best if we remove it (unless relevant sources are provided, of course), and I plan to do so, unless there are any objections. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I will now remove the statement. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The revision that questions the well-known and long assumed derivation of "Barcino" (written in Greek-transliterated Iberian as "Barkeno") cites a source which, in fact, says nothing like what the contributor of the revision is contending it says - does not even imply it. Considering the time lines, that place-name being attested on coins from the "last decades of the 3rd-century B.C." belies neither that the town could have been named/renamed in honor of Hamilcar or the Barcids, nor that Hamilcar himself could be considered to have "founded" it by enhancing its significance as a settlement or port. Seems rather to bolster the traditional opinion. Neither the cited source nor the contributor offers up an independent lexeme in ancient Iberian with a root like "bark*" or "barke*" that would support the contributor's apparent bias that the name is other than from Phoenician. Is it just the thrill of iconoclasm with this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.136.34 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to cop an attitude. The legend that the Carthaginians founded Barcelona and that it was named after Hamilcar Barca has no archaeological or linguistic support. Etymological consensus has long been that the town was named Barkeno by the early Iberian inhabitants of the area, not by the Carthaginians.^[1][2] Josep Padró i Parcerisa says: "It was probably on the Montjuic site that the drachmae with the inscription Barkeno in Iberian characters were minted in the third century B.C."^[3] There is no archaeological evidence that the Carthaginians had a settlement on the site of present-day Barcelona. Carlstak (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Dietler-López-Ruiz book, Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations, says on page 75: "...while Montjuic, though still largely unknown, seemed to have been an important port and probably the city of Barkeno..." Montjuïc is a hill in Barcelona overlooking the harbour, southwest of the city center. Carlstak (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]