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

.r.

.r.

Veteran
Joined
Jul 2, 2015
Messages
14,122
Reputation
4,870
Daps
65,185
Gawds Plan said:
What proof is there of Hannibal being black? I can’t really find none besides the coin.
Click to expand...

:smugdraper:

Did You Know Hannibal of Carthage was Black? | Urban Intellectuals

In 247 B.C., the year Hannibal Barca was born, the Carthage empire was about 500 years old. Known as one of the greatest strategist in military history, the battles of Hannibal would strike a turning point in the history of the continent that would be called Africa.



Carthage had been settled by Phoenicians as a city-state in North Africa near the current Tunis. In his 1961 work, French Historian Gabriel Audisio comments that he considered "Hannibal to be neither a Phoenician, nor a Carthaginian, nor a Punic, but a North African... The majority of the Punic populace seems to have had African, indeed Negroid, ancestry." Whether described as Carthaginians, Phoenicians, or Punics of North Africa, according to Audisio's research they were certainly a mix of aboriginal North Africans that included the native Berbers, Moors and other groups.
Hon. Dr. John Henrik Clarke on Carthage
Black History Heroes: Hannibal Barca of Carthage, North Africa



 
CoryMack

CoryMack

Superstar
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
10,222
Reputation
1,807
Daps
37,329
Sukairain said:
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.
Click to expand...

You’re basically right, but Rome’s alliance system came out of that militaristic attitude. You know that Rome started as basically a small trading/military post on the Tiber river, but they were eventually able to conquer the entire peninsula. Their alliance system, though weakened, did give them an advantage until Hannibal and after. Hannibal came as close as anyone to breaking that alliance. Many of the southern confederates who wouldn’t side with Hannibal outright quit sending money and men to Rome after cannae and were punished for it once the Romans had the war in hand. And we know what happened to the Capuans for siding with Hannibal.

Dodge says that from its founding Rome learned its lessons militarily, which is why they were able to not only defeat Hannibal but eventually conquer the world. They won and lost against their immediate neighbors, taking in each lesson along the way, en route to conquering the peninsula while the rest of the world was watching Alexander. They were able to use what they’d learned about being steadfast during times of trouble to win the first Punic war. They learned about the importance of a navy in that war, and were naval powers from then on. They were able to beat Hannibal in the 2nd Punic war by studying his method. Dodge makes that very clear. The Romans had a war machine but Hannibal taught them how to use it.

Rome was a military state vs the commercial state of Carthage. Fundamental difference, and a huge one. Historians have said that those wars decided the way in which civilization would be spread from that time until today - the sword (them) vs. by commerce (us).

Another reason I say Black people need to study that conflict.

Hannibal lost at zama because by that time his army was basically trash. His veterans had mostly died off after 16 years of campaigning. His army was mostly bruttians he’d brought - some say forced - from Italy, and fresh recruits. Both his brothers had been killed and his own government had betrayed him. Didn’t have his trained Calvary, as he’d lost some of them to the Romans. Scipio not only had the Calvary now, but he had the most seasoned soldiers in the war: the 5th and 6th legions, who were some survivors of cannae who’d been banished to Sicily as a punishment for surviving cannae and now had something to prove. He’d also had 16 years of studying Hannibal’s victories and method. But he wasn’t Hannibal's equal.
 
BuckFilly

BuckFilly

Superstar
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
6,142
Reputation
-371
Daps
12,855
Reppin
pg
CorporateTrapper said:
100%


Pops had me reading about all types of shyt when I was 8-9 years old

Malcolm X

Marcus Garvey

Mandela

L'oveture

Dessalines

Etc etc

At the time I hated it because I just wanted to watch SpongeBob and play basketball but looking back I understood what he was doing because he knew I wasn't going to learn none of this at school
Click to expand...

I wish my pops had me on that shyt
but when you know better, you do better
so my son got a head start cause ima hip him to this shyt early
 
BuckFilly

BuckFilly

Superstar
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
6,142
Reputation
-371
Daps
12,855
Reppin
pg
Sukairain said:
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 :wow:
Click to expand...

whats wild is that probably 95% of black kids are never taught this in school
not wild really since its by design
 
Gunz&Butta

Gunz&Butta

All Star
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
4,907
Reputation
500
Daps
10,478
Reppin
DMV
No. We dont have neanderthal DNA. What the fvck was all that carnage about anyway?:patrice:
 
CoryMack

CoryMack

Superstar
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
10,222
Reputation
1,807
Daps
37,329
Gawds Plan said:
What proof is there of Hannibal being black? I can’t really find none besides the coin.
Click to expand...

There alot out there. I don't remeber the site but a Brother did a study that said the Carthaginians were the original Caananites . According to the site the carthaginians were actually called the Kaani' Anu, or something like that. Dr. Ivan Van Sertima (RIP) said the ancient egyptians/kushytes called themselves the Anu. So the people who founded Carthage, and Tyre and Utica, etc. were just the descendants of the ancient Kushytes who were expanding along the coast west of Egypt.

That coin is important because at the time of the ambush at lake trasimene Hannibal had only 1 elephant left from all the ones he'd started out with. He'd lost the rest en route to Italy or in battles in Italy. When Hannibal took his army from Northern Italy into the central and southern regions he took his army through a swamp called the Arnus Marsh. He only had one elephant left at this point, his favorite, "Surus." This was right before the ambush at lake trasimene, which is where the coin with Hannibal with the plats on one side and the elephant on the other was found.

He had that coin minted to commemorate his victory at the lake, which was a common practice in the ancient world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top