Hannibal's Racial Background...

swords

New member
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

New member
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

Moderator
Staff member
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

New member
Attila the Professor said:
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

New member
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

New member
bob said:
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.
 

bob

New member
swords said:
bob said:
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

New member
bob said:
swords said:
bob said:
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

New member
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

Indyfan
bob said:
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

New member
00Kevin said:
bob said:
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

New member
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 **** 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

Moderator
Staff member
Nur - Ab - Sal said:
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 **** 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

New member
Attila the Professor said:
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 **** 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

New member
Nur - Ab - Sal said:
Attila the Professor said:
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 **** 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.
 
Top