Is there a black version of Ghengis Khan or Alxander the Great?

[LiveFromLondon]

@CorporateTrapper why aint you post names breh

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Sonni Ali Ber, Askia the Great, Piye, Ramses the Second, Abdallah ibn Yasin, Taharqa, Thutmose I, King Narmer, Sundiata Keita.

Not sure why ppl are saying Mansa Musa. He wasn't a warrior king, didn't find any new empires and did not brutally expand the geography of his empire via wars. There were no major wars under Mansa Musa.

 

[Mook]

But come to think of it, there is perhaps no greater military commander in history than Toussaint L'Ouverture. Guys like Alexander, Hannibal, and Scipio Africanus had the resources of entire states behind them. Taking nothing away from them, they were all remarkable in never tasting defeat (excluding Zama where Scipio beat Hannibal), but marshalling the resources of large and powerful states is not near as difficult as leading a slave revolt; and in that context what Toussaint achieved was the greatest achievement. Many men have carved out empires and many men can boast undefeated records in generalship, but only one has ever freed a nation of slaves from their oppressors

How we forget this dude. Haiti had a top 3 military off that win too.

 

[CoryMack]

You right, If I remember correctly weren't the Carthaginians using mercenaries during the first Punic War which backfired because they basically couldn't afford to pay them after taking the L?

Yeah and his old man wiped em out in the mercenary war. I read that’s where Hannibal got his idea from that he used at lake trasimene.

But Carthage used mercenaries in all their wars. That’s what their army was made up of for the most part, with a core of Carthaginian officers and Calvary called the sacred band. That was another reason they lost. Roman armies were citizen-soldiers.

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

That's incorrect the Mali empire did not have the military prowess of either the Mongols or Greeks. To answer the op the closest is shaka Zulu but the Zulu did not have a huge empire either. African warlords that create big successful empires are few and far in between. Most great empires in Africa were born of great wealth and culture.

Wrong

Hannibal is the answer and should have been the second post in here.

 

[Ill-Mind]

Hannibal

 

[K.O.N.Y]

Much respect to all who said Hannibal Barca.

I’ve only studied ghengis a little but what the mongols did was impressive. He had excellent generals like tsubodi, who is himself not as well known but is comparable to some of the top military minds in history from what ive read.

I’ve studied Alexander but I won’t get into him too much. He was an excellent general of course.

But neither did what Hannibal did. Both Alexander and ghengis were monarchs with absolute say and control of the resources of the State. They could raise armies and call for reinforcements at will. Hannibal was just a general of Carthage, subject to recall at any time, and his own govt basically betrayed him. And there was a difference in their opponents. After the Persians alexander was attacking people who had no idea why or even who he was. Rome was at its fighting peak when Hannibal invaded Italy and both of em knew exactly what they were doing.

Hannibal left new Carthage with 100,000 men and fought his way thru northern Spain. He was only 31. He had about 50,000 when he reached the foot of the alps and only 26,000 left when he crossed into Italy. He was the first general to cross the Pyrenees and then the first to cross the Alps with an organized army.

Then he gave the romans hell for the next 16 years and never lost a major engagement on Italian soil. He was the first and only commander in history to use his entire army to set an ambush, at lake trasimene. He wiped out his third Roman army, en route to the massacre at cannae where he killed between 50 - 70,000 and lost only about 6,000 himself. They still teach that battle in military academies all over the world today. He actually got most of southern Italy to leave their Roman alliance and side with him. It’s also why they say southern Italians are so much darker than the northerners, because that’s where Hannibal’s army spent most of its time.

I could keep going. I’ve probably read most of the seminal works about him. Out of them all I always recommend ‘Hannibal’ by T.A. Dodge. Most of what you’ll read worth reading I’ve found was taken from dodge but he rarely gets the credit.

His book is the best because dodge actually went to Italy
and walked the ground Hannibal campaigned on. He’s not just getting his info from other books. Dodge was himself also a soldier. An officer in the union army who lost a leg at Chancellorsville in the civil war, so basically what you’re getting is a military history. No opinions and embellishments, just a soldiers view of Hannibal’s campaigns.

If you go into it knowing Hannibal is Black, and he was, you’ll be straight. There’s a coin online of Hannibal with the plats in his hair and an elephant on the other side. That was minted to commemorate his victory at lake trasimene.

No bullshyt his old man hamilcar was a beast too. He’s the one that conquered southern Spain and it was his plan Hannibal carried out.

All Black people should study the Punic Wars. They contain every lesson and answer to our problems. And it was the last time we’d meet white folks in war on close to even terms.

its sunday and i felt like i just went to church

 

[Indiglow Meta (R$G)]

I'M UPSET























*Insert Deflection Emoji*

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

I learned about Hannibal in hs

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

I think the reason we aren't taught about it is because its relatively irrelevant. We're Americans, of course we're only gonna learn American stuff with an occasion European story. Historical Events and figures from Africa were rarely, if ever relevant to the western world.

America is literally the only country that does this.

Everyone else learns about their history then the world history. Regardless every Black person should be looking beyond what is taught in school anyway to get an accurate depiction of history.

 

[BaltimoreTwilightMarauder]

America is literally the only country that does this.

Everyone else learns about their history then the world history. Regardless every Black person should be looking beyond what is taught in school anyway to get an accurate depiction of history.

It might be because, to other countries, the world is relevant. In America, the only thing that matters IS America itself. We're the strongest civilization to ever exist, we as Americans tend to forget this. The "f everyone but America" mindset is very strong. Just look at how we view soccer.

 

[Reece]

You mean a psychopath that went around raping and killing people just because they can...

And somehow they become people of worthy of praise and acclaim because us current humans are like thousands of years removed...

So all we talk about is how skilled and adept they were at war and diplomacy and not telling the truth about what they did...

Which is rape and kill a bunch of people because they can...

Yeah I am sure there is some African version of that...every race got some historic honorable psychopath that they like to prop up as some great guy...

Facts. I read a few books on Alexander the Great and I was not even 40 pages in. They be skipping over all the gruesome shyt these mofos did in Hollywood movies.

 

[Sukairain]

Hannibal didn’t have the resources of the state behind him, which is why he lost. Carthage wasted men and money trying to keep the Romans outta Spain instead of reinforcing Hannibal in italy. Hannibal was basically using his own money to fund his campaign. Carthage sent him some money and small reinforcements after cannae but not much.

He couldn’t have known it when he started out but he never really had a chance. He was basically on his own once he crossed the alps. That’s why what he did was so special. Rome was a founded as a military state and was at its peak and still rising during the 2nd Punic War; Carthage was a commercial state on the decline militarily. Hannibal and his father are basically why Carthage is spoken about in a military sense. By Hannibal’s time Carthage's military strength had been drastically weakened because of their loss in the first Punic War. They’d basically been a naval power up until then, but by treaty they had to get rid of their navy and Rome now controlled the sea. Another reason Hannibal couldn’t really be reinforced in Italy.

The reason I place Hannibal above all others is because of the aggressive nature of his campaign, which came out of an understanding of Carthage’s political situation. His family understood back then the nature of the European. They knew he couldn’t be trusted and would never be satisfied until he had it all. And their taking the fight to the Italians on their soil instead of sitting back waiting to be attacked and then defending deserves the utmost respect.

But I feel you on the Haitians. Overcame overwhelming odds to do what they did and have been punished for it ever since.

First of all, thank you for your reply and mad respect for all your knowledge and posts in this thread. It's great to see somebody with your passion and interest in ancient history.

I'm actually writing an Honour's thesis right now on the growth of Roman imperialism during the period 280 - 168 BCE, and the Second Punic War plays a key role in my study. My interpretation of it is that the source of Roman power did not lie in the militaristic attitudes and culture of Roman society and politics; rather, the true source of Roman power laid in their alliance system and their ability to get their allies to deliver on their military commitments year after year. Even for those scholars who argue that it was a manpower advantage that allowed the Romans to constantly lose battles but always win wars, they overlook the importance of the alliance system. During the mid-Republican period, all Roman armies were comprised 50% of allied infantry and 66% of allied cavalry; overall, less than half of a Roman army was actually Roman. The rest were Italians to begin with, and later on, Greeks, Numidians, Gauls, Iberians and so on. So as far as Rome's manpower advantage goes, the only advantage was that less than half of their armies were made up of Roman citizens, whereas most other states fielded a combination of their own citizens and mercenaries. From the 86,400 they brought to Cannae, 40,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry were Italian allies, against 40,000 infantry and 2,400 cavalry who were Roman.

In the example of the Second Punic War, we can see that Rome's enemies perceived the importance of their alliance system to the power of the state, hence Hannibal focused his campaign strategy on breaking the alliance system through sparing and freeing allied soldiers in Roman armies but executing and capturing all Romans. He knew that the Italians were only in bed with the Romans because they had no choice in the matter, and would surely abandon their alliance when they saw somebody who could defeat them come around. When Varro, the surviving consul from the defeat at Cannae, spoke to envoys from Capua after the battle, he was on some "thank God you're here to save me" type shyt. When the envoys returned home, the Capuans decided "we better go over to Hannibal," perceiving the weakness of Rome at that moment. And his eventual defeat at Zama was because Scipio was able to get the Numidian king to break his alliance with Carthage and come over to his side, which gave the Romans access to the same Numidian cavalry Hannibal had wrecked them with throughout the war.

 

[MostReal]

Nimrod

Yeah he was really bad

 

[Living Bait]

General Butt Naked