Hi guys, I am looking for help in regards to some recommended reading.I need to write an analytical paper in regards to this subject, and I'm having a hard time deciding a position to take.I'm taking a class called History of the Ancient World, and I have a professor with a Masters' in African American History.() I've already given a fifteen minute class on the Battle of Zama. When presenting that project, I shot down the notion she presented that Hannibal was black.Not only was Carthage a Phoenician Colony, but period coins clearly show Caucasian features.To summarize, I've done all this research on that period of history and could use some guidance on writing an analytical paper.I't doesn't HAVE to be on this subject,but like I said, I've already done  a lot of research on the topic, and need help taking an analytical perspective on SOMETHING related to the topic.My current idea for the paper is that the defeat of Carthage, and the inheritance of its' colonies ( particularly Hispania) was the catalyst for Roman imperialism.

Can't help you with the topic at hand, but can give you some advice:  your job is to get a good grade, period.   Your job is not to educate the class or instructor.

During undergraduate studies I was talking European History after WWII and finally having had enough, had to inform the Italian instructor- in front of the whole class- that despite his continued insistence Italy did not win WWII, was not a full-term ally, and in fact was a relatively insignificant contributor to driving out the Germans.   I got a C despite acing all the exams.

So do yourself a favor.  You point of view is that of the instructor.  Write what he/she wants you to write.  Get an "A".   If you want to educate the instructor write a paper AFTER you get your grade and mail it to him/her.

Write a paper explaining how the Romans exploited the anger of the downtrodden and oppressed Numudian  natives to defeat the money-loving semetic carthaginians.   That should fit the professors prejudice nicely.

Sub-Saharan Africans and Saharan (North African) Africans are two wildly divergent subsets of ethnicity. Someone who lives in North Africa is going to look more like a Greek or a Turk than a Kenyan.

Asides from that:

You can write about how the Punic Wars were the catalyst for the Crisis of the Roman Republic a century and a half afterwards. The big social divides, the Marian reforms of the Army, the huge plantations that replaced the small farms, the increase of slave population, all can be traced back to Hannibal's invasion of Italy and the subsequent population drop (Italia lost around 45% of her pre-war population through battles and starvation.)

you're fudged dude... the terms you need are in victorian era race studies particularly the term "negroid" or Nubian. which have deep sub Saharan african roots  the egyptians were so mixed with greek & persian dna that they could not be considered "negroiod" either.  but since the african history libs profs need to feel important you end up with bull shit like Africans BUILT THE PYRAMIDS  Hannibal was an african while they ignore trueAsfrican triumphs like Timbuktu.

ask her if the Zulu are native to south africa? they are not the zulu came from modern day Nigeria. in fact south africais one of the few places with no known indigenous peoples.

"Hannibal" by Ernle Bradford is an excellent  1 volume book. It gives a  brief background on the events leading to the Second Punic War, and Hannibal`s early years growing up in what is now  Spain.

Make sure you include apartheid for extra points.