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 within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
I know that in Russian the Latin letter "H" is frequently replaced by "Γ". However shouldn't the main spelling be "Hannibal"? This would be consistent for instance with the spelling of the name Herzen and not "Gerzen". Tsf 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is traditionally known by "Gannibal" because he himself (supposedly) used the "G" form when he was living in Paris. But most contemporary accounts of his life use the "G" spelling, so it should probably be used here for consistency. Legis 13:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to depend heavily on one or two books written recently to the exclusion of the older documents written by people close to Pushkin. Rather than devoting huge sections to speculations the writer of article should balance the newer materials(if any) against the older hypotheses.What recent findings( if any) cast doubt on the veracity of the older documents and manuscripts should also be included. Any speculations should be put as such and the historical gaps should be reported as historical gaps. I also know that FVMMO inscribed on Gannibal's crest have been given a meaning other than the "homeland" which has been suggested by the article. The same sultan who suggested that meaning also gave a different meaning to another visitor. It has also been seen as an acronym for "Fortuna Vitam Meam Mutavit Oppido" Latin for "fortune has changed my life in the city". While so much remains to be known for sure-it may never be known- it is our duty as editors to point out facts as facts and speculations as speculations. By the way where is Logo in Ethiopia or Eritrea? I have worked around that area and i don't remember a town by that name.
Ironinmohscale 11:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that this article should be split to two parts, one dealing with Pre-Imperial- Russia-Gannibal and the other with his life at the Imperial court. Because his life in Imperial Russia has been so wonderfully documented, a proportionally greater amount of space should be devoted to it. Again what is not known for sure should be stated as such. Speculations and hypotheses, however interesting, should be described as such-speculations and hypotheses! Ironinmohscale 12:09 November 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, he is a historical figure in his own right, and not just due to the curiosity factor of his race or his great-grandson. True, his race is remarkable in the context of his stunning success story, but one does not become a renowned military commander or a governor for being a "curiosity", especially under the rule of Peter, who was famous for his disdain for nobility alone and favouring of talent and personal qualities over birth, as seen in his life-long closest friend, Menshikov, a former street urchin whom he granted the title of Knyaz (often mistranslated as Prince, but actually closer to Lord or Grand Duke). Thus, emphasizing the man's race is doing him a disservice; if such had been done upon him during his own youth, he would never have succeeded in life. 128.195.186.15 00:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Adieu[reply]
I disagree with the above comment. His race is important and emphasizing it is not a disservice to his legacy. Moreover, to think that his race was a burden or a serious disadvantage is to think that everybody throughout history has had the same prejudices our current society has. His race is important because it is not only an oddity, but because it shows us how other people in the past and in regions without enslaved Blacks thought about race. His story tells us the extend of the African Diaspora and it is a challenged to long-held views in the Americas about race relations. So, again, relegating his race to a minor point is to make a serious historical error. 98.249.6.179 (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The white Europeans of the XVIII century, and earlier had a deep contempt for other races. It's enough to recall the discussions if the American native people had a soul. To believe something else is a wishful thinking.
The existence of individuals of other races that achieved high social status in white societies during the history just only tells us that the societies were able to make exceptions for individual persons, and perhaps, at least some of them were not so fossilized as the USA in their racial divisions. Imperial Russia of the XVIII century was a very special society, where the absolute ruler had the power of offering social advancement to his faithful servants. Actually all nobles in Russia were servants of the tzar until 1760, and had to obey every whim of the emperor.--Jidu Boite (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The qualification that he was Ethiopian is a problem. At the time that he was taken, the Ethiopians (those south of the Mereb) lacked control of the region. Rather, the region, was autonomous under the "Lord of the Sea." If the descriptor "Eritrean" is to be removed i believe it would also be appropriate to remove the "Ethiopian" description. --Merhawie (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was no country by the name Eritrea then. Those who live in present day Eritrea have immigrated to that area from northern Ethiopia hundreds of years ago. I see people like you out in force to invent some history for yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldad8 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, at least 99.99% of the population of Russia at the time would not have understood or cared about the difference... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has to be clarified. Under "abduction" we read first that his father was chief in Eritrea, but the next paragraph locates his birth in Cameroon. Kipala (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank Tmcbride1 for recent contributions. It may require the help of others to continue this trend. Feedback? Historian 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennishidalgo (talk • contribs)
In the section "Popular culture" we can read: As new information emerges about the origins of Gannibal, both Gannibal and Pushkin have become popular figures in Gannibal’s native Cameroon. Are there sources that claim that Gannibal was from today's Cameroon? Dantadd (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there only slavery links int he "See Also" ?
Considering he was a noble of sort as child, taken hostage/enslaved only to be freed/ransomed by a Russian noble shortly thereafter ?
As was mentioned, there was no "slavery" (as known in the West) in Russian Empire of the time.46.39.169.168 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored what is widely acclaimed as Gannibal's portrait. This is the version on Russian Wiki.DanJazzy (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every source on the topic says that that photo is mis-cited, it is a portrait of General Ivan Ivanovich Möller-Sakomelsky. Just because a lot of people are wrong about the same thing doesn't make it right. The description of the file itself explains everything.
Русский: Портрет, некоторыми[1] исследователями атрибутированный, как портрет Абрама Петровича Ганнибала. По другим исследованиям это портрет И. И. Меллер-Закомельского. Окончательного варианта атрибуции нет. См. страницу обсуждения.
English: A portrait traditionally belived to be of Abram Petrovich Gannibal. According to research by Natalya Teletova[2] the painting is not of Gannibal. According to her, it shows a general Meller-Zakomelski. The order he is wearing was created after the death of Abram Gannibal.
From your own link.....Portrait of Ivan Ivanovich Möller-Sakomelsky (identified by Natalya Teletova,[1] others identify it as a portrait of Abram Petrovich Gannibal)
Clearly then , it appears that only one quoted source i.e. Natalya Teletova identifies this portrait as that of Muller-Sakomelsky. Why should we take her word over all the other sholars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJazzy (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because she was the one who reversed the others' claims. Name one "scholar" who says she's wrong then. The proof is in the medal he's wearing which is for an order named after General Gannibal. Decades of identification are hard to undo, especially when people like you refuse reason. The name of the file is Meller-Zakomelski.jpg - why would it not be him? JesseRafe (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"People like you" What on earth does that mean? You must always remember that WP:GF is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Having said that, you must have heard of peer reviewed scientific consensus. A dissenting voice does not mean that that would be the correct scholarly assertion. In other words,it is the minority viewpoint that must prove themselves. The overwhelming majority of scholars have determined the portrait to be that of Abram Gannibal. A misnamed file on Wikipedia does not change the facts.DanJazzy (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Name. A. Single. One. -- Do you not get it? For decades it was labeled as Gannibal, but by lazy people misreading that the only place his name shows up is on the medal for the order named after Gannibal. There is no evidence at all suggesting this painting is of him. At all. Except decades of mistakes. I know what you are trying to do about scientific consensus, but this is not a science issue or peer-reviewed blah blah blah, this is simply one error that lots of people had been making and it has since been identified and corrected. People like you means people who blindly do what they have been told because that's what those who have done before think. Since someone in 1870 made a mistake in identifying this portrait, people like you have been assuming they are right every since. It is simply not the case. Same a single "scholar" you are so found of who has identified Meller-Sakomelski as Gannibal. JesseRafe (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hostile tone? I think it's patently wrong of you to characterize those with a different POV from yours as "lazy" and the other slurs you chose to use. That was not necessary at all. Remember WP:EQWP:GFWP:DGFWP:AOBF I also find it extremely fascinating that you are willing to discredit the principle of peer reviewed scientific consensus just to get your way. (The collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.) Do you really believe that the analysis of ONE researcher constitutes a scientific consensus? If you can read Russian, go to page 164 of this book; [1]DanJazzy (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely incredible. You have made nothing but strawman arguments here. The principle of peer-reviewed scientific consensus is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It was never done to support the contention that the portrait of General Moeller-Sakomelski wearing a medal for an Order named after General Gannibal, but you blindly support that. This was a mistake, not the result of scientific consensus. It is not terribly important in the goings-on of the world and thus the fact that only one authority on the subject has pointed out the error is enough. Any information you have that supports it being Gannibal rather than S-M that is either from before Teletova's research or does not directly refute it is irrelevant and has been superseded. My tone was not hostile in the least but a response in kind to yours. And yes, it was factual. Relying on the decades-old mistakes of others rather than investigating the matter yourself or applying a dozen brain cells to a modicum of common sense is pretty much the definition of "lazy". JesseRafe (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article also mentions several other portraits which are not yet shown. Surely these are all in the public domain, so they should be found and added? FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The portrait discussed here is clearly of a black man. It is clearly of someone rich and in uniform. Muller-Zakomelsky was white and no 'darkening over time' makes hair that is kinky and black. If there was more than one man who was black perhaps it is a portrait of him. Otherwise this is ridiculous. Gannibal who chose his own name was the first engineer in Russia. He has the wrong medal on him? Well that doesn't make him white nor a portrait thinning his nose to fit in.
2601:C4:C300:5560:0:0:0:5 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gannibal was the first black engineer in Russia, but definitely not "the first engineer" in the history of that country. Eriba-Marduk (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP, are you talking about this image?Meller-Zakomelski Plenty of "white" people have skin that dark. Also, this is a freaking painting, not a photograph. And your assertion that white people don't have black hair? Are you kidding me??? Further, this is absolutely not "kinky" hair, but straight hair with curls at the bottom. Have you seen no other depictions of aristocracy of this era? The all wore their hair or their wigs in this fashion. So are you acknowledging that "darkening over time" happened to his skin, but contesting that would make his hair "kinky and black"? Because it's not the former and the latter is irrelevant. Everything else you said is a platitude, a non sequitur, or false. It doesn't contribute to the discussion in improving the article or attributing the appropriate image. JesseRafe (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Abram Petrovich Gannibal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I've asked MezzoMezzo to take a look at the lead sentence. Linking to the WP:NEOLOGISM Afro-Russian seems inappropriate instead of Russian or Russian of unknown African origin. The url there doesn't actually use the neologism; it just indicates that he was of African origin. More importantly, MOS:OPENPARA stipulates that-- "the opening paragraph should usually provide context. In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Per policy, linking to Russian or Russian of unknown African origin therefore appears to be more appropriate. Soupforone (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Wikipedia has an entry on "Afro-Russians" where the subject is a prominent entry. There is absolutely no dispute that he was a Russian of African origin. Seeking to deny this fact is highly inappropriate. DanJazzy (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I wrote. I already noted in the lede that he was a Russian of unknown African origin[2], but you pointed that phrase instead to Afro-Russian[3]. This is inappropriate since (a) Afro-Russian is a WP:NEOLOGISM, (b) the external url in the lede doesn't even indicate that he was Afro-Russian, and (c) MOS:OPENPARA stipulates that the lede should indicate either the individual's nationality or, if necessary, his nationality and ethnicity. That would be either Russian or Russian of unknown African origin. Soupforone (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again I disagree. Other pages of prominent figures mention their origin. I don't see why an expection should be made for this case only. Furthermore,MOS:OPENPARA stipulates, inter alia, that-- "the opening paragraph should usually provide context....Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."
I submit that the subject is most notable partly due to this African origin. DanJazzy (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree.DanJazzy (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I’m rather sorry for being so late. My surge protector burned out a few nights ago, and while I can use my mobile, I’m not used to it plus I have work stuff I’m behind on. I may not be able to contribute substantially for another day or two.
In the meantime, I’d like to make a suggestion as a third party if you both consent to that.
You both have a disagreement about interpretation of policy regarding the lead section of an article. A third or fourth individual opinion might bring minimal benefit, but such opinions might not be representative of community sentiment on the issue.
Would it be possible, then, to open a request for comment ( [WP:RfC] ) and then raise awareness about it on wikiprojects related to the subject of this article? That way the result would be both more representative, as well as out of the hands of you two and me - it would be a community decision.
If that’s okay with you both, then I can suggest a neutral wording for the RfC, and if that’s okay, then open an RfC in a few days (not with my mobile. That would be a nightmare). MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice MezzoMezzo. That sounds like a workable idea; please suggest the appropriate phrasing. Soupforone (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Soupforone and DanJazzy: Alright, I'm on a different computer for today and tomorrow, so I'm connected for now. Let's see if we can get this rolling. As you guys probably know, the wording for a Wikipedia:Requests for comment should be brief while the arguments will be listed under those commenting (that includes you two) in the bulleted discussion. And those should also be brief. Here's what I'd like to suggest now:
"Should the lead to this article describe Gannibal as an Afro-Russian nobleman, or a Russian nobleman?"
Then you guys would probably be the first two responding, giving summarized versions of the arguments above. We can publicize it, others will comment, a closer separate from me will wait until the commenting has completed, and there it is, the community decides. Is the above plan and wording acceptable to both of you? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MezzoMezzo, that phrasing is not bad, thanks. However, there were actually three suggested demonyms-- Russian, Afro-Russian, and Russian of African origin (alt. Russian of unknown African origin). Could you please therefore rephrase the suggested wording with these three demonyms? Also, it would perhaps be easier to understand if they were enumerated (1, 2, 3). Soupforone (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i completely agree with Soupforone on the phrasing.DanJazzy (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, here comes version 2.0:
"Should the lead to this article describe Gannibal as a/an
Thanks MezzoMezzo. That's better, but the nobleman qualifier should probably be the same for all three demonyms (i.e., Russian nobleman, Afro-Russian nobleman, Russian nobleman of African origin). Soupforone (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DanJazzy and Soupforone: Guys, I'm very sorry! I did get a surge protector only to discover that the problem is with the outlets in my computer room, but not the lights in that room. I'm calling an electrician to just fix it for me, but for now, I'm on a different computer and won't log out until I get this done. I'll make sure to include the "nobleman" title with the third choice and get this RfC up and running now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead to this article describe Gannibal as a/an
A or C.-The subject is notable for his nobility as well as his African origin. This was an extremely rare feat for an African to break into the ranks of the nobility in medieval Russia. To be quite honest, this would be remarkable if it happened today. Imagine an individual born in Cameroon being at the center of power in the Kremlin. Therefore, I submit, bearing in mind MOS:OPENPARA, that we go with A or C. Thank youDanJazzy (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
B or C- Afro-Russian nobleman is inappropriate since it's a WP:NEOLOGISM, and the external url in the lede doesn't indicate this. More importantly, MOS:OPENPARA stipulates that the lede should indicate either the individual's nationality or, if necessary, his nationality and ethnicity. That would be either Russian nobleman or Russian nobleman of African origin. Soupforone (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A or C - Being an Afro-Russian (of note) is probably the most notable aspect of this individual. I have no opinion on the correct nomenclature beyond this.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with C, but I would remove the citations from thelead (since it's all covered in the article) and rewrite the lead to: Abram Petrovich Gannibal, also Hannibal or Ganibal, or Abram Hannibal or Abram Petrov (Russian: Абра́м Петро́вич Ганниба́л; 1696/98 – 14 May 1781), was a military engineer and general. Kidnapped as a child from sub-Saharan Africa, he was presented as a gift to Peter the Great; he was raised in the Emperor's court household as his godson. Gannibal eventually rose to become a prominent member of the imperial court in the reign of Peter's daughter Elizabeth. He is a great-grandfather of the author and poet Alexander Pushkin. auntieruth(talk) 15:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
auntieruth Thanks for your contribution. Is there a particularity compelling reason as to why you omitted the fact that the subject was also a nobleman of the Russian empire?DanJazzy (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C/3 Russian nobleman of African origin sounds more encyclopedic. I agree we should avoid "Afro-Russian" as non-standard terminology/neologism. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C As the most logical choice. We have little knowledge at all about where in Africa he came from at all, and it is possible that we will never get any solid factual information thereon. Collect (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C/3 Russian nobleman of African origin, I also agree with DynaGirl Dougmcdonell (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C Invited by the bot. Has the important information content, the two key items. So does "A" but avoid that per reasons given by Soupforone. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A historical biography by Gannibal's son-in-law, Rotkirkh, was largely responsible for the myth, propagated by some historians, that Gannibal was born in Cameroon. Recent research has established that the general was born in Central Africa, in an area bordering Lake Chad in present-day Cameroon.
This makes no sense to me. First we say the Cameroon thing is a myth, and then we say it's true after all. So is the myth no longer a myth? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries] 10:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence other than prejudice that Gannibal was enslaved. He was kidnapped. There is no evidence that he was 'freed' though he was adopted. Gannibal is never referred to as a former slave. Kidnapping was rife during this time. Usually for a ransom. Napata102 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
