PDA

View Full Version : Hannibal's Racial Background...


swords
02-01-2003, 01:23 AM
There's always been debate concerning Hannibal(The third century B.C General), and his racial background. Of course he was in the service of the Carthaginians, and was a resident from the city of Carthage(located in northern Africa), which leads one to believe he was Semitic, or Arabic. His army didn't have soldiers in the sense, like the Roman Legions of Rome, but were recruited as mercenaries.

Within this army, a variety of different ethnic groups were under Hannibal's command: Spanish, Semitic, Greek, and African warriors. Perhaps Hannibal wasn't born a Semitic, because Phoenicia(the name of this northern African/Middle Eastern/empire, controlled by Carthage)had a variety of different races in it's boundaries.

I believe there is a possibility Hannibal may have been African. Agree, or do you believe Hannibal was born under a different ethnic origin from the one I just mentioned? (feel free to correct any mistakes I surely made. This is just all from the top of my head(from history books and so forth), so there may be errors)

bob
02-01-2003, 05:00 AM
Why not?

It really does depend on what you mean by African though i would not discount the possibility of him having Black African blood but i feel that for him to be ethincally something different from the ruling class of carthage would be unlikely. I think that he was probably Arab but who knows?

Attila the Professor
02-01-2003, 08:18 AM
Well, his father, Hamilcar Barca, was also a general. I don't know how things were then, but for this family to have such military success...I don't know.

swords
02-01-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Attila the Professor
Well, his father, Hamilcar Barca, was also a general. I don't know how things were then, but for this family to have such military success...I don't know.

Well you may be right, since there is no record of a successful African campaign in this regard. You may argue though, that Hannibal was unable to conquer Rome, which suggests lack of skill on his part(due to African inexperience?). Then again, Carthage didn't back him up as they should have(he was lacking siege equipment and men). And plus add the success of his previous campaigns(Cannan)(sp?) being the most notable, paints him as a worthy adversary.

Interesting point...

bob
02-01-2003, 03:50 PM
If Hannibal was black i find it absolutely extraordinary that out of all the vile propoganda Rome threw at him and Carthage they didnt even mentiont that.

swords
02-01-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by bob
If Hannibal was black i find it absolutely extraordinary that out of all the vile propoganda Rome threw at him and Carthage they didnt even mentiont that.

I don't think it mattered to those ancient civilizations. Romans commented how pale the Anglo/Saxons looked, which were more a oddity to them(they never seen such a white skinned race before). Based on race, anyhow, I don't think there was a bias.

Gregoire Defence
02-01-2003, 04:34 PM
I don't really see any evadence to support your claim swords. But interesting nonetheless.

Leia Organa Solo
02-01-2003, 05:04 PM
Maybe. It is possible.

bob
02-02-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by swords
Originally posted by bob
If Hannibal was black i find it absolutely extraordinary that out of all the vile propoganda Rome threw at him and Carthage they didnt even mentiont that.

I don't think it mattered to those ancient civilizations. Romans commented how pale the Anglo/Saxons looked, which were more a oddity to them(they never seen such a white skinned race before). Based on race, anyhow, I don't think there was a bias.

Of course there was racism in ancient Rome, why do you think there was such prejadice aganist Non-Italian Emperors (i.e Hadrian). There may not have been the type of racism we see now but they would HAVE MENTIONED IT!, even if it was not done for propoganda it would have been something worthy of mention if just to establish the seperateness between the barbaric Carthaginians and the Romans.

And i think they had seen White people before as they were white, and they had links with (and controlled some of) Gaul and the Balklans at the time of Hannibal which were certainly just as white as them in some ways. And a large chunk of Celts were in Hannibals army.

swords
02-03-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by bob
Originally posted by swords
Originally posted by bob
If Hannibal was black i find it absolutely extraordinary that out of all the vile propoganda Rome threw at him and Carthage they didnt even mentiont that.

I don't think it mattered to those ancient civilizations. Romans commented how pale the Anglo/Saxons looked, which were more a oddity to them(they never seen such a white skinned race before). Based on race, anyhow, I don't think there was a bias.

Of course there was racism in ancient Rome, why do you think there was such prejadice aganist Non-Italian Emperors (i.e Hadrian). There may not have been the type of racism we see now but they would HAVE MENTIONED IT!, even if it was not done for propoganda it would have been something worthy of mention if just to establish the seperateness between the barbaric Carthaginians and the Romans.

I say the only bias the Romans had were against people who couldn't read and write. As for Carthagian barbarism, well the Romans considered every civilization barbaric. I think the Romans respected the Carthagians, for they were excellent in battles waged in the sea, which was more than the Romans could perfect(although the Romans learned to dock alongside enemy ships, and board it to wage their own kind of war. Man to man, the Roman way).

Plus the fact that Cornelius Scipio himself copied Hannibal's tactics, shows a degree of Roman respect for the guy, regardless of race, which, it seems, didn't even matter to the Romans. No, I don't think they were racist in that sense, for all slaves were not one race i.e black, white, but all civilizations were either offered two choices: recognize Roman authority, or be subject to slavery.

bob
02-05-2003, 01:10 PM
I maintain that they would have mentioned it. The Romans were clever people in that they stole so much from other cultures in the Med but at this time they ruled a very much White Empire and it is human nature for Romans (most of which had never travelled before outside of Italy) to be scared of the unknown they commented on the 'barbaric' Celtic troops and Elephants then when you have armies of people whose skin colour you have never seen before you are going to think that worthy of note - racist or not.

00Kevin
02-05-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by bob
I maintain that they would have mentioned it. The Romans were clever people in that they stole so much from other cultures in the Med but at this time they ruled a very much White Empire and it is human nature for Romans (most of which had never travelled before outside of Italy) to be scared of the unknown they commented on the 'barbaric' Celtic troops and Elephants then when you have armies of people whose skin colour you have never seen before you are going to think that worthy of note - racist or not.

HOORAY!!!!!! BOB'S 1000TH POST!!!!!

KEEP IT GOING BOB!

sorry, back to the topic...........

bob
02-08-2003, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by 00Kevin
Originally posted by bob
I maintain that they would have mentioned it. The Romans were clever people in that they stole so much from other cultures in the Med but at this time they ruled a very much White Empire and it is human nature for Romans (most of which had never travelled before outside of Italy) to be scared of the unknown they commented on the 'barbaric' Celtic troops and Elephants then when you have armies of people whose skin colour you have never seen before you are going to think that worthy of note - racist or not.

HOORAY!!!!!! BOB'S 1000TH POST!!!!!

KEEP IT GOING BOB!

sorry, back to the topic...........

:) do i get inducted into the Inner Mysteries of the Raven now i am a veteran?

Nur - Ab - Sal
12-24-2003, 05:54 AM
Yeah and Jesus Christ was an aryan...

There are always people who think in a racial way.In the end of 19th. Century german scientist were saying that
people who doubtlessly were Jews or other Semites were
in fact germanic Aryans (Jesus Christ is the most well known example). Today western-educated Africans go the same way and try to steal the heritage of the other race
(semitic) which have nothing common with you.To me saying that Hannibal was black is the same racist shit as saying that Jesus was an aryan.To me that is nonsense becouse:
Africa only in its southern part is a black continent.
Its northern part was always habited by members by various mediteranean races -Jews and Arabs today are direct descendants of these races.If today Marocco or Tunisia are white and have nothing common with blacks,
3000 years ago it was the same way.Phoenicians were white Semites, habitants of the mediteranean shores and they were colonizing North Africa habited by Berbers and other
non-black tribes.All North Africa WAS and IS a zone of
non-black semitic race which mingled with other non-black
mediterranean races.Blacks were living beyond Sahara in their own world and this is idiotic that you are trying so
hopelessly to link yourself with us.Better explore your
own kingdoms and history of the black land, messing with
others people heritage will not make any good to you.Beside
if Romans would saw that Hannibal - which they hated so much is a black man, their writers would inform us about it becouse, they informed us about variety of things from his life.Hannibal was a son of traditional semitic-phoenician family and it is possibly that they were mixed with local berbers or other peoples but not with distant
tribes of the Black Africa.

Attila the Professor
12-24-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Nur - Ab - Sal
Yeah and Jesus Christ was an aryan...

There are always people who think in a racial way.In the end of 19th. Century german scientist were saying that
people who doubtlessly were Jews or other Semites were
in fact germanic Aryans (Jesus Christ is the most well known example). Today western-educated Africans go the same way and try to steal the heritage of the other race
(semitic) which have nothing common with you.To me saying that Hannibal was black is the same racist shit as saying that Jesus was an aryan.To me that is nonsense becouse:
Africa only in its southern part is a black continent.
Its northern part was always habited by members by various mediteranean races -Jews and Arabs today are direct descendants of these races.If today Marocco or Tunisia are white and have nothing common with blacks,
3000 years ago it was the same way.Phoenicians were white Semites, habitants of the mediteranean shores and they were colonizing North Africa habited by Berbers and other
non-black tribes.All North Africa WAS and IS a zone of
non-black semitic race which mingled with other non-black
mediterranean races.Blacks were living beyond Sahara in their own world and this is idiotic that you are trying so
hopelessly to link yourself with us.Better explore your
own kingdoms and history of the black land, messing with
others people heritage will not make any good to you.Beside
if Romans would saw that Hannibal - which they hated so much is a black man, their writers would inform us about it becouse, they informed us about variety of things from his life.Hannibal was a son of traditional semitic-phoenician family and it is possibly that they were mixed with local berbers or other peoples but not with distant
tribes of the Black Africa.

Nur-ab-Sal, regardless of the historical facts, this was formally an intelligent discussion. We have no room for an us/them mentality.

Nur - Ab - Sal
12-25-2003, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by Attila the Professor

Nur-ab-Sal, regardless of the historical facts, this was formally an intelligent discussion. We have no room for an us/them mentality. [/B]

I don't have such mentality.I just don't like all that
Farrakhan-like racist shit and I don't like when someone
tries to steal achievements of the other people.Tolerance doesn't mean that we have to tolerate unfair way of thinking.Why everybody always want to take heritage of
Jews,Phoenicians and other Semites? Maybe becouse it's
so great?

Venture
12-26-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Nur - Ab - Sal
Originally posted by Attila the Professor

Nur-ab-Sal, regardless of the historical facts, this was formally an intelligent discussion. We have no room for an us/them mentality.

I don't have such mentality.I just don't like all that
Farrakhan-like racist shit and I don't like when someone
tries to steal achievements of the other people.Tolerance doesn't mean that we have to tolerate unfair way of thinking.Why everybody always want to take heritage of
Jews,Phoenicians and other Semites? Maybe becouse it's
so great? [/B]

Chill out, calm down, and relax. I'm a big proponent of God's People myself, and have no physical drop of Jewish blood in me. What it boils down to is this: No one here was there, no historical reference to Hannibal's ethnicity is given, and speculation is still a well-established way to get the dendrites pumping. By the way, welcome to the Raven.

Nur - Ab - Sal
12-26-2003, 12:54 PM
OK thanks Venture

Attila the Professor
12-26-2003, 07:00 PM
It was...a misunderstanding.

Sorry about that, Mr. Sal...I like your name, by the way.

Venture
12-27-2003, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by Attila the Professor
It was...a misunderstanding.

Sorry about that, Mr. Sal...I like your name, by the way.

As I...what does Nur-Ab-Sal mean, Mr. Sal?

Nur - Ab - Sal
12-27-2003, 01:45 AM
People have you ever played "Fate of Atlantis"? There was a
mysterious guy named Nur-Ab-Sal (Atlantean King who was a spiritual guide of Sophia Hapgood) so I took his name becouse I didn't want to have another Indy-like name.

bob
12-27-2003, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Nur - Ab - Sal
Yeah and Jesus Christ was an aryan...

There are always people who think in a racial way.In the end of 19th. Century german scientist were saying that
people who doubtlessly were Jews or other Semites were
in fact germanic Aryans (Jesus Christ is the most well known example). Today western-educated Africans go the same way and try to steal the heritage of the other race
(semitic) which have nothing common with you.To me saying that Hannibal was black is the same racist shit as saying that Jesus was an aryan.To me that is nonsense becouse:
Africa only in its southern part is a black continent.
Its northern part was always habited by members by various mediteranean races -Jews and Arabs today are direct descendants of these races.If today Marocco or Tunisia are white and have nothing common with blacks,
3000 years ago it was the same way.Phoenicians were white Semites, habitants of the mediteranean shores and they were colonizing North Africa habited by Berbers and other
non-black tribes.All North Africa WAS and IS a zone of
non-black semitic race which mingled with other non-black
mediterranean races.Blacks were living beyond Sahara in their own world and this is idiotic that you are trying so
hopelessly to link yourself with us.Better explore your
own kingdoms and history of the black land, messing with
others people heritage will not make any good to you.Beside
if Romans would saw that Hannibal - which they hated so much is a black man, their writers would inform us about it becouse, they informed us about variety of things from his life.Hannibal was a son of traditional semitic-phoenician family and it is possibly that they were mixed with local berbers or other peoples but not with distant
tribes of the Black Africa.

I see where you are coming from on this to a certain extent, i think you may have put it in the wrong way though.
I disagree with you on several points though:
1. Black Africans played a role in ancient egypt it is believed that some Pharoahs may have been black but interestingly because of the culture colour was not such a large issue for them. Africa is not only in its southern part a black continent it is far more complex than this.
2. There have been a lot of movement of peoples in the last 2500 years, simply because in Northern Africa most people are more lightly coloured does not mean that it has always been so; remember the Arabs turned up in the 8th century. While it is likely that the ethnic mix was similar then it does not rule out the possibility that there were black african groups that have been swamped much like the native British in England by the Saxons.
3. Hannibal could have been black or not but that does not take away the fact that he was an African.
4. There are actually very sparse liteary sources for the Punic wars and it is conceivable that this could be missed in the mists of history.

While i personally doubt very much that he was black it is possible that he was so and not worth dismissing out of hand in such hysterical language.

Hannibal
02-11-2004, 01:41 AM
There are always people who think in a racial way.In the end of 19th. Century german scientist were saying that
people who doubtlessly were Jews or other Semites were
in fact germanic Aryans (Jesus Christ is the most well known example). Today western-educated Africans go the same way and try to steal the heritage of the other race
(semitic) which have nothing common with you.To me saying that Hannibal was black is the same racist shit as saying that Jesus was an aryan.To me that is nonsense becouse:
Africa only in its southern part is a black continent.
Its northern part was always habited by members by various mediteranean races -Jews and Arabs today are direct descendants of these races.If today Marocco or Tunisia are white and have nothing common with blacks,
3000 years ago it was the same way.Phoenicians were white Semites, habitants of the mediteranean shores and they were colonizing North Africa habited by Berbers and other
non-black tribes.All North Africa WAS and IS a zone of
non-black semitic race which mingled with other non-black
mediterranean races.Blacks were living beyond Sahara in their own world and this is idiotic that you are trying so
hopelessly to link yourself with us.Better explore your
own kingdoms and history of the black land, messing with
others people heritage will not make any good to you.

********************************
Racism has so permeated this world that often we don't know how poisoned we are with it. We point it out in others (so we think) while we are dripping its venom from our own mouths.

Africa, in its history, (before the Greek invasions) was totally black....and so was India. Jews and Arabs did not enter en-masse until the 7th century A.D.

North Africa was ruled by the Egyptians and the Olmecs (ancestors to the so-called Berbers or Amazigh). To see what they looked like look at any Olmec statue, the Sphinks, or better yet, pictures drawn by the ancient Egyptians themselves (they have dark skin, wear afros, and look like the average NBA team).

Stop kidding yourself about stealing heritages, its not blacks that are doing the stealing.

And Hannibal undoubtedly was either fully black or had black blood. So unless we want to start calling most Black Americans white, since they are mixed with white blood, we must call Hannibal a Black African.

Nur - Ab - Sal
02-11-2004, 02:12 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hannibal

Africa, in its history, (before the Greek invasions) was totally black....and so was India. Jews and Arabs did not enter en-masse until the 7th century A.D.

North Africa was ruled by the Egyptians and the Olmecs (ancestors to the so-called Berbers or Amazigh). To see what they looked like look at any Olmec statue, the Sphinks, or better yet, pictures drawn by the ancient Egyptians themselves (they have dark skin, wear afros, and look like the average NBA team).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Man you are completely illiterate! Olmecs have nothing common with Berbers and they aren't their ancestors.They lived in Mesoamerica and never contacted with other continents. Maybe you should read some books about it
There weren't any black tribes in North Africa. All mediterranean region was always inhabited by mediterranean races which have nothing common both with nordics and blacks. Read yourself scientific literature-present research on genetic material proved that mediterranean was ALWAYS inhabited by separate races. It is obvious that you are an american, becouse only you can be so bad educated and use so fantasy-like arguments. You live in a world of your own imagination-if you want to discuss, first EDUCATE YOURSELF and don't screw that egyptians had afros and look like NBA becouse I am studying ancient history and I know egyptian art-they really don't look like afroamerican antisemites.

And one more thing: could you tell me what word "Amazigh" means?

Pale Horse
02-11-2004, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by Nur - Ab - Sal
It is obvious that you are an american, becouse only you can be so bad educated and use so fantasy-like arguments.

Careful please.

bob
02-13-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Hannibal


Africa, in its history, (before the Greek invasions) was totally black....and so was India. Jews and Arabs did not enter en-masse until the 7th century A.D.

North Africa was ruled by the Egyptians and the Olmecs (ancestors to the so-called Berbers or Amazigh). To see what they looked like look at any Olmec statue, the Sphinks, or better yet, pictures drawn by the ancient Egyptians themselves (they have dark skin, wear afros, and look like the average NBA team).

Stop kidding yourself about stealing heritages, its not blacks that are doing the stealing.

And Hannibal undoubtedly was either fully black or had black blood. So unless we want to start calling most Black Americans white, since they are mixed with white blood, we must call Hannibal a Black African.

Talk about one extreme to the other!
Black India?
Erm the Olmecs were in central america not africa.
I contest that Africa was totally black, just look at any Egyptian wall painting.
An average NBA team! i have nothing to say

Hannibal
02-17-2004, 08:24 PM
Let me get this right, I am uneducated and illiterate but you debate about the origins of Egyptians, Olmecs, and Berbers but do not know the word "Amazigh"...AND ARE TOO IGNORANTLY LAZY TO LOOK IT UP!

When you look it up, also look up the "Mande" language which the Olmecs, Original Berbers, and "Mandingo" people of Africa all used. The Olmecs came from Africa to America and were the founders of the Mayan Culture. That is why Mayans had Pyramids and Egyptians did too. Did you think it was just coincidence??

You can then go back and look at Olmec statues, the Sphinx, and "Ancient Egyptian" self portraits (not those after Greek Invasions). Then come back and apologise to me.

bob
02-20-2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Hannibal


When you look it up, also look up the "Mande" language which the Olmecs, Original Berbers, and "Mandingo" people of Africa all used. The Olmecs came from Africa to America and were the founders of the Mayan Culture. That is why Mayans had Pyramids and Egyptians did too. Did you think it was just coincidence??



There is no evidence that the Olmecs were Africans, they fit into South American history there is no proven African link, this whole arguement is based on those heads which i believe has already been explained.
I have a few problems with you claiming that there is a link with the pyramids:
1. I may be wrong but the Olmecs didnt build pyramids
2. There are thousands of years seperating Mayan and Egyptian pyramids.
3. They serve completely different purposes.
4. IF the Olmecs were from Africa then they probably were not Egyptians, are you saying that all African civilisations carry around the blueprints for pyramids with them. And how exactly did so many Africans travel? and pass on their knowledge without leaving any genetic evidence/ where are the black native South Americans?
5. The real reason why there are similarities is because a pyramid is a convenient shape for a monument for cultures without advanced knowledge of masonry, and certain types of maths (i.e. the Egyptians couldnt build arches for instance because of this)

Hannibal
02-21-2004, 11:13 AM
I appreciate your argument Bob; at least you are basing it on what you believe is correct science and not racism. However, the Olmecs left writing in America and traces of their spoken language still survive in the Mayan language. Modern linguistic studies show that it was closely related to the "Mande" language of Africa (the Mandingo language). This language was the language of the original Berbers (who call themselves Amazigh, the Romans called them Berbers or "barbarians") and its roots can still be found in their language.

In addition to the language, skeletal remains of African people have been found in Olmec sites as well as in other ancient America sites. The native Americans even told the Conquistadors that they knew of Black people. And added to all the above, you cannot dispute the statues are of Black Africans. Its just racism to attempt otherwise. If they were statues of caucasians there would be no debate and we would be saying that vikings or semites birthed the Mayan civilization.

If your hypothesis concerning pyramids are true, then why are they not found in other societies...China, or Europe. But they are very common throughout Africa...north and south.

No, it is sad to say that racism has stolen the history of Africa which, along with India, created the oldest civilizations of the world and had a trading empire from the old world to the new, thousands of years before Greek civilization flourished.

Hannibal
02-21-2004, 11:31 AM
Talk about one extreme to the other!
Black India?

Yes Bob, ancient India was undoubtedly populated by people as black as tar. The Dravidians. No, they did not look like Africans and they were not Africans; but we were talking skin color weren't we? They were Black.

But back to the original point; Hannibal was probably as black as anyone from the Sudan or Ethiopia.

bob
02-21-2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Hannibal
I appreciate your argument Bob; at least you are basing it on what you believe is correct science and not racism. However, the Olmecs left writing in America and traces of their spoken language still survive in the Mayan language. Modern linguistic studies show that it was closely related to the "Mande" language of Africa (the Mandingo language). This language was the language of the original Berbers (who call themselves Amazigh, the Romans called them Berbers or "barbarians") and its roots can still be found in their language.

In addition to the language, skeletal remains of African people have been found in Olmec sites as well as in other ancient America sites. The native Americans even told the Conquistadors that they knew of Black people. And added to all the above, you cannot dispute the statues are of Black Africans. Its just racism to attempt otherwise. If they were statues of caucasians there would be no debate and we would be saying that vikings or semites birthed the Mayan civilization.

If your hypothesis concerning pyramids are true, then why are they not found in other societies...China, or Europe. But they are very common throughout Africa...north and south.

No, it is sad to say that racism has stolen the history of Africa which, along with India, created the oldest civilizations of the world and had a trading empire from the old world to the new, thousands of years before Greek civilization flourished.

Thanks for responding to my points

I cannot claim that i have any great expertise on this subject....

But where are the Pyramids in South Africa, and west Africa for that matter where the migrants would logically be embarking for America the only pyramids i know of are in Egypt and Nubia.

- About the natives telling the conquistadors about black people... well this is thousands of years after the event, (how many Africans actually migrated btw) and also the Aztecs seemed to have a folk memory of white people...
This just shows how unreliable memory is particularly when it is manipulated by people looking for something in particular.

- However the fact that NO authority in any book i have ever read on history or archaeology seems to mention your claims.

- It is an extraordinary claim to make that a huge group of
people (including architects,engineers,priests,warriors etc) crossed the Atlantic ocean and not only survived but created a great civilisation and to prove that requires extraordinary evidence for me to be convinced like that (i.e. contempory written records/inscriptions, similarities in burial practice, African artifacts in the Americas, farming methods) rather than just those Olmec heads!

The thing that i really find unpalatable about this otherwise enjoyable debate, is your slinging of the racism card; let us turn this on its head aren't we being prejadiced against the native people of the Americas in assuming that a great civilisation cannot emerge from the indigenous people.

Do you have any reputable evidence to support your claims (links), excavation reports, articles and can you explain why apart from racism this is not accepted?

Strider
02-21-2004, 08:53 PM
You both state very logical points. Myself I do not believe the two civilizations could posably have made comunication at that point in time. But you never know, maybe a legendary place known as "Atlantis" :) made it possible.

Pilot
02-23-2004, 02:28 PM
Two points. One is that China does have pyramids, they were found fairly recently. Two, the Romans referred to anyone who was not Roman or Greek as barbarians. It wasn't just a term applied to the Berbers.

Pale Horse
07-08-2011, 05:14 PM
Archeology was seriously discussed.

Sharkey
07-08-2011, 07:59 PM
Archeology was seriously discussed.
Yeah, you're all over this thread...an Jesus was an Aryan. Riveting.

Rocket Surgeon
07-08-2011, 09:49 PM
Archeology was seriously discussed.
Hey now...

...you're being sarcastic, right?:o