{Short story - I have not vetted the facts herein}
Introduction - Carthage Before Hannibal
Carthage, one of the most famous cities of antiquity, was founded on the north coast of Africa by the Phoenicians of Tyre (sur) in 814 B.C. The founding of Carthage was closely followed by the establishment of other Phoenician cities in the western Mediterranean. From then on, Carthaginian power expanded into Spain, Sicily and numerous other places in the northern Mediterranean.
This brought them into direct conflict with the empires in Rome and Greece. At the start of the 3rd century B.C., Carthage was supreme in the western Mediterranean, enjoying the security of sea power and trading with her stations in Sicily, Sardinia, and Spain as well as with the shores of Africa.
Rome was painfully struggling to obtain mastery of central and southern Italy, where she had absorbed the power and culture of the Etruscans and gradually forged a federation of small states. It must have already become clear that there was not going to be room in the Mediterranean for both Rome and Carthage.
The clash came over Sicily in the First Punic War (264-241 B.C), at the end of which Carthage lost Sicily. The Roman victory in Sicily induced Rome to cross the narrow straits to Africa and attack Carthage directly. Fortunately for Carthage, a strong and honest man appeared in the person of Hamilcar Barca, a commander who had evacuated his forces undefeated from Sicily in the best tradition of Dunkirk. Hamilcar was able to put down a mutiny in the Carthaginian army and restore order to it.
The political situation at that time had a strangely modern flavor. Rome pursued a policy of cold war during which time it annexed Sardinia and Corsica, increased the reparations which Carthage was obliged to pay, and declared the Roman sphere of interest in Spain to extend from the North down to the river Ebro.
In Carthage, the peace treaty was in power with the commercially minded. Hamilcar Barca, on the other hand, had popular support and the command of the armed forces. With these he proceeded to develop the Carthaginian hold on Spain, ostensibly to enable Carthage to pay repatriation to Rome, but in fact, be- cause he saw in Spain a source of manpower and supplies and a base from which to attack Rome.
With his son-in-law Hasdrubal and his four sons Hannibal, Hasdrubal, Hanno, and Mago, the 'lion's brood' as he called them. Hamilcar barca soon succeeded in turning southern Spain into a sort of empire where new Carthage or Carthagena was founded.
In 228 B.C. he fell in battle and was succeeded by hasdrubal his son-in- law who, in his turn was murdered seven years later in 221 B.C.
The Rise of Hannibal
The army thereupon unanimously chose Hannibal to be their general in spite of his youth, "because of the shrewdness and courage which he had shown in their service."
Hannibal was then 26 years old. This strange man, whose name means "Joy of Baal", had accompanied his father on his campaign in Spain, at the tender age of nine. Hamilcar Barca had agreed to take him on his campaign on one condition, that before the sacrifice, which he was then making to the gods, Hannibal should swear eternal enmity to Rome.
No man ever kept a promise more faithfully. Hannibal's first military success was in Saguntum, which precipitated the Second Punic War. It is quite clear that Hannibal carried out a carefully prepared plan, which he had inherited from his father. His object was nothing less than the destruction of the power of Rome before Rome destroyed Carthage, and Rome's most vulnerable spot was in Italy itself where the Roman federation of states was still loose and the Celtic tribes of Gauls in the North were in revolt. But since Carthage had lost command of the sea to Rome, how was Hannibal to get to Italy with his troops?
The Romans never imagined for one moment that he could or would make the journey of 1500 miles overland from Spain, across the Pyrenees, the south of France, and the Alps; but that was exactly what Hannibal had decided to do. Having decided on his strategy and selected his theatre of operations? Hannibal followed two principles, which have grown no less important since his day: the seizure of the initiative, and the maintenance of the element of surprise. 218 B. C. may seem a long time ago. But, the manner in which Hannibal set about his task is identical with that which a competent commander would follow today.
Hannibal first secured his bases at Carthage and Carthaginian. Next he collected detailed information about the countries and peoples through which he proposed to pass. For this purpose he sent for messengers (liaison officers) from the Gaulish tribes and asked for detailed accounts of the terrain and the fertility of the country at the foot of the Alps, in the midst of the Alps, and in the plain of the river Po. Today, this aspect of Hannibal's planning would come under the heading of logistics. He also wanted to know the number of the inhabitants of the various populations, their capacity for war, and particularly whether their enmity against the Romans was maintained.
This would be called political intelligence. He was particularly anxious to win over the Gauls on both sides of the Alps, as he would only be able to operate in Italy against the Romans if the Gaul’s co-operated with him. He therefore planned a campaign of psychological warfare, to raise and maintain the morale of his supporters and to undermine the enemy's will and power to resist. The operations began in great secrecy in the spring of 218 B.C. after Hannibal delivered a morale boosting speech to his troops.
Moved by the emotions of indignation and lust for conquest, his men then leapt to their feet and shouted their readiness to follow Hannibal. He praised them for their valor and fixed the date of D- day, which was about the end of May. In this episode Hannibal's actions were paralleled two thousand years later by another young general of about his age, like him about to cross the Alps, and again like Hannibal, to make his initial reputation thereby: Napoleon Bonaparte. From Carthaginian Hannibal marched his army to Ebro and then to Ampurias, through the Pyrenees and along the shore of the Mediterranean through the South of France, fighting much of the way. As far as the Rhone, there is little doubt about the route which Hannibal's army followed: but from the Rhone over the Alps into Italy, Hannibal's route has been a bone of contention for two thousand years.
Crossing of the Alps
Hannibal left Spain for Italy in the spring of 218 B.C. with about 35,000 seasoned troops. His force included a squadron of Elephants. The Romans planned to intercept him near Massilia (Marseille) and, after dealing with him, to invade Spain. Publius Cornelius Scipio was in charge of this operation, while Tiberius Sempronius led another army in Sicily, destined for Africa. However, Scipio had to send his legions to deal with a Gallic revolt, and by the time he reached Massilia by sea, he learned that he had missed Hannibal by only a few days.
Thereupon, Scipio returned to northern Italy and awaited Hannibal's arrival. In the meantime, Scipio had sent his brother Gnaue to Spain with an army to cut Hannibal off from his brother Hasdrubal. It appears that Hannibal crossed the Alps somewhere between the Little St Bernard and Montgenevre passes. He did not begin to cross until early fall, which meant that he encountered winter like conditions in the Alpine region. His force suffered greatly from the elements and the hostility of local tribesmen. He lost most of his elephants, and by the time he reached northern Italy, his army was reduced to about 26,000 men, 6,000 of whom were Cavalry. However, the number was quickly raised to about 40,000 by the addition of Gaul’s.
Invasion of Italy
In the first engagement with Roman troops, Hannibal's cavalry won a minor victory over Scipio's forces near the Ticinus River. This was followed by a decisive victory at the Trebia River in December 218 B.C. over Roman legions led by Scipio and Sempronius, who was recalled from Sicily when Hannibal invaded Italy. Hannibal's superior numbers in cavalry and his skill in the combined use of cavalry and infantry were key factors in his success at Trebia, as in later victories. Hannibal had a decided advantage in northern Italy, where the Gauls were friendly to his cause and where his cavalry could operate in the broad plains.
The Romans therefore decided to withdraw to central Italy and await Hannibal who began to cross the Apennines in the spring of 217. The mountains again proved costly both to his army and personally to Hannibal, who lost the sight of one eye from an infection. The Roman consuls for 217, Gaius Flaminius and Servilius Geminus, had stationed themselves at Arretium and Ariminum to guard both possible routs, west and east, by which Hannibal might cross the Apennines. Hannibal selected Flaminius' western rout, but the consul refused to give battle alone. Allowing Hannibal to pass, Flaminius followed, harassing the Carthaginian army and hoping to meet Geminus farther south, where they would jointly give battle.
However, Hannibal ambushed Flaminius in a narrow pass near Lake Trasimene and destroyed almost his entire army of 25.000. At Rome, Quintius Fabius Maximus was elected dictator by the centuriate assembly. Rather than join battle with Hannibal, who had marched south into Apulia, he decided on a policy of caution and harassment that would keep Hannibal moving and gradually wear him down. Hannibal moved from Apulia into Campania, followed and watched by Fabius, who finally bottled him up in an area unfavorable to cavalry and decided to give battle. At night, however, Hannibal sent oxen toward Fabius' army with burning sticks tied to their horns; while the Romans investigated what they considered an attack; he escaped with his army to ADulia, where he wintered.
The Battle of Cannae
When Fabuis' tenure as dictator expired, the consuls for 216, Lueius Paullus and Gaius Varro, took charge of the war against Hannibal. On learning that Hannibal had captured the Roman depot at Cannae, in Apulia, the consuls decided to give battle, and Hannibal now faced two formidable armies. However, at Cannae he again selected ground favorable to his tactics and strong cavalry. While the Romans relied on their superior numbers, and their fighting skill. Hannibal's plan called for his cavalry, positioned on the flanks of a crescent shaped line, to defeat the Roman horsemen quickly and to attack the Roman infantry from the rear, as it pressed upon a weakened center of Spaniards and Gauls: his superior African troops, at the crucial moment, Were to press from the flanks and complete the encirclement. The plan succeeded and the Romans suffered 25,000 dead and l0,000 captured.
Hannibal's Political Strategy
The ancients were fond of debating why Hannibal did not immediately march on Rome following his victory at Cannae, but clearly he could not have taken the city after having taken part in numerous battles across Italy. His main objective was not the total destruction of Rome but a settlement that would free Carthage from Roman intervention. Hannibal had hoped that his victories would bring about the wholesale defection of Italian cities from the Roman confederacy. However, the only major defection from Rome was Capua. When it was obvious to Hannibal that he could not effectively surround Rome with a ring of hostile Italian states, he broadened the conflict to draw off Roman's manpower and to spread its resources thin. In 215 he made an alliance with Philip V of Macedon; doubtless he did not want Philip to invade Italy but merely to drain Roman strength by waging war in Greece.
The alliance came to naught because Hannibal could not supply Philip with a navy and because Rome checked Philip with its own navy and Aetolian allies (first Macedonian War, 214-205). Hannibal also brought Syracuse into the war against Rome. Hiero, ruler of Syracuse and long an ally of Rome, died in 215. His grandson, Hieronymous took control of the city and made an alliance with Hannibal. Hieronymous was soon killed in a revolt, but Punic agents gained control of Syracuse. However, Roman control of Sicily was generally restored by 211, when Syracuse fell.
First Reverses Following the defeat at Cannae, the Romans resorted back to Fabius' tactics of harassing Hannibal while avoiding formal engagements. This seemed to have rendered Hannibal's tactical skill and superior cavalry ineffective. Consequently, the Romans were able to retake Capua although their resources were heavily stretched by Hannibal 's international diplomacy. However, the real blow to Hannibal came from without. In 209, the Romans took Carthagena and forced Hasdrubal out of Spain.
This cut his main supply route off. When Romans discovered that Hasdrubal had crossed the Alps to link up with Hannibal they left a small force to watch Hannibal and marched quickly with their main force to the Metaurus River, where they defeated Hasdrubal. Hannibal learned of the defeat when Hasdrubal's head was thrown into his camp. Hannibal knew that he was without hope of reinforcement. For the rest of the Italian campaign he was generally restricted to Bruttium. Hannibal had no supporting navy and appeared indifferent to that Roman naval supremacy which in the first place was able to cut off reinforcements and in the second to bring about unimpeded the invasion of Carthage.
Although his tactics in the field, as attested even by Scipio, were brilliant, and he himself by his personal appearances and quick marches up and down Italy dazzled the Romans and complicated their strategy, he was at a decided disadvantage as regards reinforcements and provisions. In 204, the Italian general Scipio landed in Carthage and was so successful that the following year Carthage sued for peace, terms were agreed upon, and Hannibal was recalled.
The sight of Hannibal reinforced the Carthaginian will to resist, however, and hostilities were renewed. The two armies met at Zama in 202, in a battle that decided the outcome of the war. This time Hannibal met his match; he was outnumbered by a superior cavalry and was let down by the commercially minded rulers of Carthage. Hannibal, his army destroyed, escaped. Peace was made the next year. Rome severely restricted the Carthaginian navy and demanded a heavy indemnity. Carthage was forbidden to make war outside its African domain, and could fight within Africa only with Roman permission. Since failure to accept the peace terms would have meant the destruction of Carthage, Hannibal worked for their acceptance and retired to private life in 200.
In 196 Hannibal attacked the position, power, and corruption of the aristocrats so vigorously that they told the Romans he was scheming with Antiochus III of Syria and planning another war with Rome. A Roman investigation commission was sent to Carthage on a pretext, but Hannibal knew it was aimed at him, and he eventually made his way to Antiochus.
The charge that Hannibal had plotted with Antiochus is unsupported, but after he became a member of the Syrian court he certainly advised the King to attack the Romans. After Antiochus IIIs defeat, Hannibal went to Prussia in 183 B.C., but the Romans, by what means it is unknown, put themselves in a position to demand his surrender. Unable this time to escape arrest, Hannibal took his own life rather than suffer further humiliation.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
In the story of Hannibal above, his allies the Gauls are mentioned. These people were the original inhabitants of northern Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, and northward into Britain - Phoenicians maintained a large trade in TIN with them there - (used in the making of BRONZE). They did not call themselves Gauls, but rather, they were identified by their city. Gaul is the Roman name for the territory that they lived in. By the end of the B.C. millennium, they too would fall to Roman power.
One of the last, or perhaps the last of the original Gallic civilizations to be destroyed were the Arverni of southern France. They were an advanced culture who lived in cities and were wealthy in gold and silver, (as attested to by the huge booty taken from them by the Romans).
Their demise came about because of a revolt against Rome by another Black Gaul city "Carnutes". In early 52 B.C, Carnutes used the turmoil that accompanied the death of Publius Clodius Pulcher; a Roman politician, as an opportunity to rebel; they slaughtered all of the Romans in their territory.
Seeing this, "Vercingetorix" a young nobleman of the Arvernian capital city of Gergovia, moved to join the rebellion. He was however rebuffed by the nobles of Gergovia, forcing him to raise an army in the countryside. He then returned to Gergovia and took the city, whereupon he was declared king.
In most historical accounts, it is said that Vercingetorix unified ALL of the Gaul's under his command.
In his campaign against Julius Caesar, Vercingetorix was at first successful, but over time, the tide began to turn. The end came at the Battle of Alesia, the capital city of another of the Black Gaul people, the Mandubii. At Alesia, Vercingetorix made his last stand. Caesar instead of making a direct assault, surrounded the city with fortifications in order to starve them out. When Vercingetorix sent for reinforcements, Caesar built another set of fortifications to his rear, to hold back the reinforcements. When the reinforcements arrived, they were of insufficient number to break through Caesars line. After many loosing battles, Vercingetorix was forced to mount his horse, ride out and surrender to Caesar.
Vercingetorix was taken prisoner and imprisoned in the Tullianum in Rome for five years before being publicly displayed in Caesar's triumph in 46 B.C, after which he was executed. Gergovia, Alesia, and perhaps all the other Black Gaullic cities were destroyed and the people displaced. The destruction was so complete that at this time, the only known evidence of their existence is Roman coins (such as the one above), and written Roman accounts.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this guy supposed to be black? Is that what we are saying here? I have seen some funny stuff in my life but this takes the cake. Black Gallic cities. Someone start the twilight zone music.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Hammer, why don't you enlighten Mike by presenting your real facts to back up your big mouth? OK, you can run now.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
From the Hannibal story, we read Quote: "Rome was painfully struggling to obtain mastery of central and southern Italy, where she had absorbed the power and culture of the Etruscans and gradually forged a federation of small states."
These Etruscans along with the Minoans (the original Greeks) were the original "High" civilizations of Europe.
Their final defeat came about with a Caucasian uprising (a combination of both Latins (Romans) and their fellow Caucasians, the Hellenes (known now as Greeks) that drove the Etruscans from Rome in 509 B.C. (Whites had already over-run Greece 300 years earlier). Later, it was a coalition of Caucasians that led to the Etruscans' withdrawal from the whole of Latium in 475 B.C. After this defeat, the Etruscans continued to decline, until finally Etruria was incorporated into Rome. Over time the Etruscans ceased to exist as a separate people, and they along with their culture and technology were totally absorbed into Rome.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Is this guy supposed to be black? Is that what we are saying here? I have seen some funny stuff in my life but this takes the cake. Black Gallic cities. Someone start the twilight zone music.
TheAmericanPatriot - Please see my last post on the "Was Hannibal Black" thread. Look at the pretty pictures and read the text very carefully. That should clarify things for you.
BTW - You believed that Phoenicians and Persians were White, before I taught you different - didn't you! Well you have a lot more to learn. Just remember what I always say - "Whites Lie". Just as America was built on the backs of Blacks, so too was White History and White knowledge - world Wide. A last thought - I take it, that you now see that ignorance is not confined to just Blacks - isn't that just so democratic?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
In a frieze in the fifth-century B.C. Tomb of the Leopards in Tarquinia, Italy, an Etruscan couple admires an egg, symbol of immortality.
Posts: 3773 | From: unfinished thought | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Even among ancient writers, there was difference of opinion as to whether the Etruscans were Autochthonous (indigenous) or originated from Asia Minor. The earliest historical account of the Etruscans was given by Hesiod who mentions the Etruscans in the "Theogony". However it is fair to say that the works of such early writers as Hesiod and Homer consist of an equitable mixture of legend and fact, stemming from the period around 750 BCE in Ionian Greece, part of Asia Minor. Homer himself is probably not one, but the collected oral traditions of many authors.
The first reasonably believable account was given by Herodotus in the 5th Century BCE. He writes that the Etruscans originated in Lydia, in Asia Minor, and that due to a famine in the area, they invented a number of games to take their minds off the lack of food:
"...After some time, the famine had not improved, so they drew lots, and half the population, and eating on the following day without playing. In this way they got through 18 years. Things got worse, however, rather than better, and the king therefore divided all the Lydians into two groups and drew lots to decide which should stay and which should emigrate, putting himself at the head of those who were to remain and appointing his son, who was called Tyrrhenus, as the leader for those who had to leave. Those Lydians whose lot it was to leave went down to Smyrna and built boats on to which they loaded all their possessions and sailed away to seek a life elsewhere. After sailing past many lands they came to Umbria in Italy where they built cities and still live to this day, changing their name from Lydians to Tyrrhenians after the king's son Tyrrhenus who had led them...."
However, despite the fact that he travelled widely, the accounts of Herodotus were prone to inaccuracies.
It has been suggested that the Etruscans were part of the famous Pelasgians, or Sea Peoples of Lemnos, and the evidence is that the Pelasgians were a mixture of various peoples including some of the biblical Canaanites who later became the Phoenicians. There are many ancient references which use the terms Tyrrhenian and Pelasgian interchangeably.
Hellanicus of Lesbos, another Greek historian writing in the fifth century BC, mentioned a group of Pelasgians who arrived in Italy and there changed their name to Tyrrhenians.
Roman authors confirmed an eastern origin for the Etruscans. Virgil referred to the town of '. . . Cerveteri, built on an ancient rock where once the Lydians, a race distinguished in war, settled the hills of Tuscany.' And Seneca (who died in AD 65) stated that '. . . Asia claims the Etruscans as her own.' Tacitus (first to second centuries AD) accepted the story as told by Herodotus. Other tales also locate the Etruscans in Asia Minor, linking them with the Pelasgians; and refer to Tyrsenians or Tyrrhenians on the islands of Lemnos, Imbros and Lesbos, just off the Asian coast in the northern Aegean, and on Delos, the holy island in the centre of the Cyclades.
The Etruscans referred to themselves as Rasenna, but to the Romans and Greeks they were Etrusci, Tusci, Tyrrheni, or Tyrseni. To the modern Italians they are still Etrusci and the name of the Etruscan Sea is still the Tyrrhenian, after perhaps 3,000 years.
But in the first century BC, a dissenting voice spoke up. Dionysius, another Greek historian from Halicarnassus, writing four centuries later than Herodotus, declared a different finding:
"I do not believe that the Tyrrhenians were a colony of the Lydians, for they do not use the same language as the latter, nor can it be alleged that, though they no longer speak a similar tongue, they still retain some other indications of their mother country."
The controversy was to rage on until the late 20th century.
Perhaps the strongest evidence put forward by the Eastern providence school is the Lemnian inscription. Excavations on Lemnos turned up a community there which dates to around 600 BCE and which links the Etruscans to that place.
posted
Mike111 you are contradictorily. You pluck objects from the same western sources you declare fabrication when you do not like what you see… This is underlined by your stupid narrow-minded American attitude in declaring the world either white or black. That is one point that I find rather disturbing, you have taken the attitude of your former white masters. "If it ain't white it must be a Nigga."
Look at these two a Bedouin and a tourist. Is this Bedouin a man of colour? Yes! Does this make him a Nilotic Black? No! Does this make him a European? No! He is just plain and simple a Middle Eastern man, end of story
In the spirit of Mike111... This picture proves that Etruscans were Bedouins and that tourism already existed in the antiquity! Posts: 41 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
The researchers examined genes on the men’s Y chromosome which is passed down from father to son, and compared them to the genes of other men from areas that had no link to Phoenician settlements. From the research emerged a distinctive Phoenician genetic signature, in contrast to genetic traces spread by other migrations, like those of late Stone-Age farmers, Greek colonists and the Jewish Diaspora. The scientists thus concluded that, for example, one boy in each school class from Cyprus to Tunis may be a descendant of Phoenician traders
posted
Finished - As you must have noted from Herodotus and the others - they didn't know sh1t as relates to the Etruscans. That still holds true today, nobody knows for sure how they came to be there. That they were related to the people of Troy is a possibility. But which way the exchange went can not be known at this time - don't forget that Grimaldi man (the first modern humans in Europe) entered Europe at Gibraltar.
Phoenicians were Canaanites, not Babylonians. Strictly speaking, Babylonians were not Mesopotamian's; they are an invading people called Amorites. Other tribes among the Amorites are Hebrews, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites and Aramaeans. The most famous non-Hebrew Amorite king was Hammurabi of Babylon - you should have no trouble looking him up. But I caution you to be careful what sources you use.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pulp - You are a junior member for a reason; please give yourself a few years before you make declarative statements.
To your point: there are only two or three races - depending on how you want to look at it; Black, White/Mongol (the two were once the same), in that order. Logically then, all that do not fit into one of those categories must necessarily be a hybrid - or as I jokingly like to say - a Mutt.
The gentleman that you featured appears to be what is generically called an Arab. However, except for the people in the reservations of Southern Saudi Arabia, there are few actual Arabs left in the world.
This is an ancient Arab - (blow-up from an ancient Assyrian relief). As you can see, they were Black people.
The people that we call Arabs today, are mainly of Turkish genes mixed with the genes of the indigenous peoples that came under the control of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Among these are non-Black Berbers, Egyptians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Saudi Arabians, and of course Turks in Turkey who are mixed with the original Black Anatolian's.
There are many genetic studies which prove that Bedouin genes are in fact Asian (that's where Turks came from), feel free to peruse the old threads for these studies. BTW - did you know that Jews - or rather Khazars, are also Turks. (Jews are not to be confused with Hebrews - Hebrews were Black people.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike111 you are nothing but a American fool who has lost his roots because he was torn out of his traditions and born as a slave with no past. That’s why you guys keep looking for your past and reflect your unknown past in other people’s history. Face it American you have no past and no future. The reason why Barack Obama made it so far is because he has direct African roots and maintained his line of ancestry something the majority of you Americans never can do. Mike111 I was born in Africa and travelled large parts of the world, so I advise you travel the world instead of having a fixed mentality and vision of the world as it should be after your conception.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pulp - all I did was to honestly answer your post - you can look-up everything that I said. So why are you being so mean?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pulp. You have 4 posts. You're new here. How would you know Mike 111 as you say that Mike111 I was born in Africa and travelled large parts of the world?
Someone completely new to this site wouldn't know that.
How about the next statement? A person new to the site would never make a judgment about all its members and have the audacity to tell people he doesn't know of what to do. You write:
so I advise you travel the world instead of having a fixed mentality and vision of the world as it should be after your conception.
Djehuti, we know your new alias as Pulp.
As this thread is about Hannibal, here's a question: is this individual on the front of a coin with an Indian elephant wearing a diadem?[/i]
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
I should clarify. [1] The spikes at the top of the head surely look like twisted plaits, but [2] at his temple, there are what appears could be leaves on a band around the temple seen also above the ears and running around the forehead.
Is [2] a diadem or just more plaits? Or, does someone have a larger, clearer picture of this particular coin where the details are easier to see?
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc - My analysis indicates that there is a fillet (headband) there, and possibly a garland like below. If so, then that would be more in keeping with kingly presentation. I could not discern what the protrusion on the chest was.
posted
Pulp wrote as follows:"Mike111 you are nothing but a American fool who has lost his roots because he was torn out of his traditions and born as a slave with no past. That’s why you guys keep looking for your past and reflect your unknown past in other people’s history. Face it American you have no past and no future. The reason why Barack Obama made it so far is because he has direct African roots and maintained his line of ancestry something the majority of you Americans never can do. Mike111 I was born in Africa and travelled large parts of the world, so I advise you travel the world instead of having a fixed mentality and vision of the world as it should be after your conception." ---------------------------------------------
Stop the nonsense and grow up.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes it seems that the Afrocentric research at this site after Blacks in the Diaspora has come off from its real purpose: to liberate Blacks and show how White supremacy is based on falsified history and fake portraits. I do not describe to views which make Afrocentricity a kind of reversed racism, because in this way nothing will be resolved. Here I notice a lot of blanket statements which need to be qualified and underscored with dates and sources or arguments to make any sense. There is always a reason and a rationale behind certain Eurocentric practises which should be unearthed, dated and shown to be invented towards keeping white power. This site offers a great opportunity, while it lasts, for Black researchers (and White researchers) from different parts of the world to freely communicate, inspire each other, offer new sources, and think along with each other. So this site should be used with great care, as long as it lasts. Personally I’m totally blown away by the fact that I can directly communicate with others who actually do research, because I almost never meet them where I live.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Pulp - all I did was to honestly answer your post - you can look-up everything that I said. So why are you being so mean?
Do not aknowledge these rude people who abuse a perfect opportunity for Blacks to make progress.
I follow you!
This thread was started to compare notes on how and when and why images of Blacks were altered to suit White Supremacy.
I'll be much obliged if you and others care to contribute. Let us pin this thing down, for once and for all.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Hanni - Though White people have undoubtedly destroyed all images of Hannibal, and replaced them with fakes - All is not lost. As you have seen, it is possible to cross-reference artifacts and history, in order to get at the truth.
I think of Snowden who wrote how 20th century American researchers projected 20th century racist ideas on the Classical Greeks, when they interpreted certain images or literary sources. Snowden showed that the Greeks understood colour as an adapatation to environment and which did not speak of personal merit. They were not against race-mixing.
This attitude to colour might have persisted till 1770, because untill then European nations were not defined by colour. Then I do not see anyone responding to my theory about Black elites. These classical states were multi-ethnic, but perhaps ruled by Africans, symbolised by the Classical Moor type in their art.
It's already established that not all Blacks look alike, and some can have Nilotic features, but are still Black of identity.
The purpose is to show history as it really was, with Blacks on the continent and in Diaspora, as the first people and bringers of the first civilisation. Not to show Blacks as superior beings.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
And this is what I am pondering about, puzzled about in that portrayal of the man some say is Hannibal:
I don't know if I am stretching my imagination, but it almost does appear that there is some "flourish" in the center of his forehead which rather resembles a raised flower. There does appear to be a pad surrounded circular petals.
There does appear to be a rising on the chest. Like a half-sphere you noted and I am just noticing. To me, it's ambiguous. Either it's (?) imagined or a charm / medallion?
I wish someone had an enlarged, clearer picture of this coin.
For one thing, the figure surely has twisted plaits above some "purported" (by me) diadem. But, the "extensions" at the forehead almost clearly aren't. We can see the way that plays out [with your, Mike, "uncivilized" plaits :-) ] on the web page with the five men below.
Plaits don't lie flat on the forehead in the three below as the "extensions" do on the forehead of the figure represented in the coin. Conversely, they raise above the forehead, stand away from it:
The purported diadem is in the same position and has the same shape as this one:
and could (if it is a diadem) be in the same "genre" as this one:
Egmond. I agree. We (collectively) are our own best resources and can enrichen each other by sharing. In economics, each nation has a comparative advantage over every other and if world trade is based on each using its comparative advantage, we reach the optimum standard of living. That's the advantage of free trade. Same with knowledge, I agree.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Egmond. I agree. We (collectively) are our own best resources and can enrichen each other by sharing. In economics, each nation has a comparative advantage over every other and if world trade is based on each using its comparative advantage, we reach the optimum standard of living. That's the advantage of free trade. Same with knowledge, I agree. .
ISN’T THERE ANY POSSIBILTY THAT WE, WITH A CONCERTED EFFORT, CAN CLEANSE THIS FORUM FROM PERSONS WHO ABUSE THIS RARE OPPORTUNITY FOR PANAFRICANISM WITH THEIR MULTIPLE NICKS?
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Gergovia, Alesia, and perhaps all the other Black Gaullic cities were destroyed and the people displaced. The destruction was so complete that at this time, the only known evidence of their existence is Roman coins (such as the one above), and written Roman accounts.
Are there any sources for this; Black Gergovia? Where did you read about the Roman accounts? This could prove that the original Black Europeans survived, at least till Roman Times.
posted
The Surinam con-artist with his ugly, high-pitched effeminate voice, who has harrassing us with his forthy nicks, insulting and poisoning good threads; now leads the moral outrage!
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington:
Egmond. I agree. We (collectively) are our own best resources and can enrichen each other by sharing. In economics, each nation has a comparative advantage over every other and if world trade is based on each using its comparative advantage, we reach the optimum standard of living. That's the advantage of free trade. Same with knowledge, I agree. .
ISN’T THERE ANY POSSIBILTY THAT WE, WITH A CONCERTED EFFORT, CAN CLEANSE THIS FORUM FROM PERSONS WHO ABUSE THIS RARE OPPORTUNITY FOR PANAFRICANISM WITH THEIR MULTIPLE NICKS?
posted
. . Roman Silver Denarius With Head Of Captive Gaul 48 B.C. (The "REAL" Vercingetorix).
. . .
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WHITE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED CONTROL OF HISTORY!! . . . . Silver Roman denarius, issued by the moneyer Lucius Hostilius Saserna at about 48 BC: obverse: noble Gaul with fibula and paludamentum. For someone, this coin might have depicted the real face of Vercingetorix, at the time captive in the Tullianum. For someone else, the coin simply show a Gaulish. Reverse: naked auriga of a biga; on the biga, a warrior with helm and shield
Portrait vercingéto
Stater of Vercingetorix (72 BC-46 BC), chieftain of the Arverni.
Stater of Vercingetorix (72 BC-46 BC), chieftain of the Arverni.
Statue de Vercingetorix à Alesia
Español: Escena de la rendición de Vercingetorix ante César.
My research is based on personal descriptions first, and then next on images. I feel this to be a better method to identify ethnicity. And I have introduced the idea of a ruling Black/Coloured elite, who remained Black through intermarriage. Here an example of Anne van Cleves, Henry VIII's wife. Both his first Spanish wife, as well as Anna Boleyn, Elizabeth I' s mother were described as 'swarthy' and 'very dark.' Yet no such portraits are to be found (on the web). They just show us White women!
quote: Signature look: Described by the French ambassador, Charles de Marillac, as tall and thin, "of middling beauty, with a determined and resolute countenance." She was dark haired, with a rather swarthy complexion, appeared solemn by English standards, and she looked old for her age. She had a full face, high forehead, brown, heavy-lidded eyes, a long, slightly bulbous nose, and a pointed chin. Though unfairly characterized by many as Henry's "ugly wife" because of his dismissal of her, Anne of Cleves was considered by many to be as handsome as other women. It may have been her shyness, her awkwardness, and inability to speak English as well as her ungainly German fashions that affected Henry's perception of her. He called her the "Flanders Mare". Three months after the divorce, it was reported by the French Ambassador that "Madame of Cleves has a more joyous countenance than ever. She wears a great variety of dresses and passes all her time in sports and recreations." (It is likely she found Henry as unattractive as he found her). She and the King remained friends, and she was close to his children.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic