They took full advantage of their environment and continued to improvise, adapt and overcome allowing them to be an elite navy compared to their neighbors

The importance of fact checking and using multiple sources of legends and myths and now with the advantage of cutting edge modern day technology to almost verify such such events is implied heavily in historical research. This false tale of child sacrifices has spread from generation to generation up until the 20th century.

It is sad to see the evidence of only one side of the story here. They could've even been more well off than the Carthaginians. However, the only evidences we have that are accurate to report on are from imported goods from Carthage. They were common and plain handmade wears for multiple uses.

Coins have always been a form of capsulizing history as they tell different stories and can almost help us distinguish the type of society they were and what kind of influence they have. For the coins to be commonly found spread out. Interesting enough, there are still mint grade coins to this day in collections.

As mentioned previously, little is known about Numidian architecture due it being mostly undiscovered. I wonder though how much more advanced or how much little they were compared to their neighboring enemies over the same body of water.

I find it interesting that so much light was shed upon Carthage and how the society carried themselves. Wealth was starting to be concerning because Aristotle commented on Carthage: "that such a preoccupation with wealth would lead inevitably to a self-interested oligarchy dominating society."

From this line, we can see the Carthaginians were superior. Evidences such as them being much better in trade and finances because of knowledge of routes while dominating the Mediterranean trade. They had a better fleet with better ships, skilled sailors which led to better discoveries.

Known as the Numantine War, there were many deaths but I want to focus on the ones that are unrelated to physical warfare. Famine and disease started to spread throughout and many even went to the point of suicide rather than surrendering to Rome.

I think it is important that the mentioning of the neglect is important because the amount of social development they achieved over time. Numidian soldiers were often found in the Carthaginian armies and seen as just warriors and not the type that were educated. Interesting enough, Numidian horsemanship, cavalry tactics and methods influenced the Roman cavalry and how they went about their methods.

The fear that is spoken about here refers to Carthage because it was in North Africa, not too far from Italy. Carthage sent out a fleet of ships and soldiers to different parts of the Mediterranean to alert everyone of their presence. When they had conquered three islands off the coast of modern day Italy, Rome was shaken to the core from their leadership to citizens.

This was yet another crucial example of the rise and fall of an empire. Carthage was one of the most powerful cities in the area due to their extensive knowledge of the trade routes and the Mediterranean harbors. They were seen as a threat to the Romans and were taken out of the equation in a sense because they were breached, taken over and added as another collection to the vast Roman Empire.

So my earlier point seems to be wrong in that the Greeks actually did not consider any Babylonian writing to be true and therefore probably were not affected by the comparison. This is a bit ignorant in my opinion. I understand that prejudice was obviously rampant during this time but to completely disregard the literature and art that comes out of a culture simply because you believe it is barbaric is a bit extreme.

Since Berossos writes like this, it creates a divide between who the elites actually were and how they were depicted. Berossos depiction may actually be historically correct and this may make them more entitled to not want to include him in their circle. The Chaldeans are displayed in a better light.

This may have led to his inability to integrate into the Greek masses. Since it is a historical retelling, people may have been offended or hurt by the language and traits he uses in the writing. Because they are seen as favored or unnecessarily involved in affairs, this could have caused some bad blood.

This is interesting because he wrote a lot about Greek matters even though they never fully accepted him into their "friend" circle. I feel like it would make more sense to admit people who are not Greek because it gives more outlooks when making decisions. It helps create meaningful conversations that would otherwise be difficult to have.

There is again this close-knitness and segregation of people who do not fit in with these ideals. It is an elitist ideal but it was probably the norm at the time. I think this is what makes it a little difficult when studying history because we cannot be sure if what we are reading is accurate or just written by those who have the actual luxury of being literate and writing.

This is an example of the author touching one of his main points. This really helps me understand what he means by universal but exclusive. It illustrates that even when he catered to Greek minds, it was still the question of ethnicity and origin.

He did seem to become somewhat successful. His writing being in Greek and tailored to Greek mindsets was definitely one of the components that helped him become noteworthy. For it to still be a point of discourse today shows that he did make it seem very close to Greek literature and did deserve a place.

This is different from Greek myhtology I think. Greek mythology tends to separate the gods and the mortals through their character traits and their relationships to each other. Also in Greek mythology, humans were esentially created just to worship the gods, not be like them.

This is most likely to get across a larger audience. Many people in Babylon probably were not literate or he does not consider any other languages to be academically useful. There could be some sort of Greek superiority complex that makes people ,more inclined to print texts in the language.

The rest of the books seem to be more about retelling history. Since the creation of man is not as evidence supported, it would make it seem like the book is about myths but after you go past that one, it is all really just someone's accounts of the time period. Would be interesting to read more direct quotes.

This is similar to a religious text. Most religious texts try to describe how the world came about and where man comes from. It is similar to books such as the Quran or the Bible.

Why change part of their physical identity but keep the culture alive? Writing is how we keep track of history so it would be interesting to know why they decided to keep the language instead of writing in Greek. It could be because of the views of Greek people being more well of and established.

The use of the words universal and exclusive are extremely opposite to each other so it is a bit weird to see it in this context. How can something be universal but exclusive? Hopefully the rest of the article is able to clear this up a bit.

It is interesting to see this type of separation even back then between people who may not have been much different from each other. Their real only difference was ethnicity and/or religion. However, they still took into account the way they acted and their mannerisms.

I wonder how they may define elite in this statement. When I think of elite, I think of a group of people who are better or think they are better than more people and have access to resources others don't have. Maybe in this statement they may mean people who are physically superior as well as more educated and trained.

I think this is a really important point to make. Almost like "nature vs nurture". If he had been a king during our current time, he could have been a completely different ruler and may not have been powerful at all. The history of Numidia helps shape who he is as a ruler and why the people followed him.

When we compare this to most Roman and Greek structures it is interesting to see that there are not many remains of this civilization. Rome and Greece were generally populated by a lot of people and hustle and bustle but there are still some standing structures and statues and archaeological sites. Something must make Carthage different because of its population and time period?

I always think the word "uncivilized" is only just an impact of colonization. The fact that it is missing info about daily life and social and economic affairs gives us enough info to not jump to conclusions like these. It is also not our place to say whether or not an ancient civilization is civil or not.

What could have changed his mind? How did the Carthaginians react? Just how strong was this alliance to begin with?

I kind of wonder how exactly a marriage strengthens alliances. I know it has been going on for centuries but I feel like just bringing two different families together does not actually unify two countries or cities just because of the vastness of the places. Also, marriages may not always work out so that may create more tension for both sides.

This is interesting that the people in the city did not want to fight for their city. At this time, nationalism was obviously very important in terms of your social status and wealth so it must have been necessary to fight. I would like to know what it is that kept these men from wanting to fight for their city that the commanders had to look elsewhere. Is it because they did not want to or was there a literal shortage of men in general?

What if translations are different from one another and have different interpretations of certain words?