PDF Hannibal The Conqueror Art Book

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Hannibal The Conqueror Art Book file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Hannibal The Conqueror Art Book book. Happy reading Hannibal The Conqueror Art Book Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Hannibal The Conqueror Art Book at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Hannibal The Conqueror Art Book Pocket Guide.
Text Source:

  1. Hannibal (Carthaginian general)
  2. Site Search Navigation
  3. The truth about Hannibal’s route across the Alps
  4. How (and Where) Did Hannibal Cross the Alps? | History | Smithsonian

One might argue that he blended a romanticized version of Robert E. Lee into his vision of Hannibal and not be far from the truth. And of course, all of those arguments, while even possibly valid, will miss the true value of a book like this. Hannibal was the Resistance fighting the Empire in Star Wars. Lee, faced with a choice between duty and the land that he was born and raised in fighting the overpowering union army as much as Sherman disappearing in South Carolina only to reappear in Vicksburg with Ulysses Grant.

Her is our charismatic leader who holds the alliance together like Captain Ready in the Destroyermen series by Taylor Anderson. Who else is there? So, one can read this and yawn at the numbers and details of the soldiers. There is so much more in this book. Sep 21, Ana rated it it was amazing Shelves: absolute , geopolitics-security , history , non-fiction , biography , ebook , war-stories.

That ought to tell you about his greatness, and especially the great fear he managed to instill in the strongest military power in the world, at the time of their prime. While much of the writing is concerned with military operations, strategy, logistics and operations theaters, it does not skimp on a fine analysis of the men invol This is an incredibly detailed work about Hannibal's military operations in the war that we know as the Second Punic War, but Rome knew as "The War Against Hannibal".

While much of the writing is concerned with military operations, strategy, logistics and operations theaters, it does not skimp on a fine analysis of the men involved, their motives, and their characters. Hannibal - for good reason - will forever be one of the greatest generals of the world. In my opinion, he stands unmatched to this day. Mar 24, Myke Cole rated it it was ok. Sorry to say that I couldn't finish this one.

While I know Dodge is traditionally acknowledged as a heavy-hitter in the field, I found so many glaring errors by chapter 5 that it left me feeling like he was hand-waving, without real command of the sources, relying on the ignorance of his audience to carry the narrative. This left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Pedagogic to the point of being patronizing. Skip it. Jul 17, Ian Mullet rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: people who are pissed that anthony hopkins co-opted the name of the baddest motherfucker ever. Dodge's Hannibal made me fall in love with the ancient world and was one of the first steps i took that ultimately led me to st.

Fair warning: I created this ebook version - but then I only do that for books I love! Dodge was a retired army officer, and puts a lot of thought into explaining Hannibal's strategic problems, and his solutions to them many of which were "first-evers" in known history, e. He also explores the fifteen years of "small war" after Cannae, which many other authors skip over.

Finally, he manages to cram in over pic Fair warning: I created this ebook version - but then I only do that for books I love! Finally, he manages to cram in over pictures, maps, and diagrams to keep things moving. Jun 03, Giacomo rated it liked it. There are many great books on Hannibal, and this is one of them. It is difficult to get through at times, but it provides a great deal of information on this intriguing man who had such an impact on history. Reading this together with a good book on his nemesis, Scipio Africanus, is highly recommended as it puts it all into perspective.

Jun 25, Sarahandus rated it did not like it Shelves: history. This book will be liked by those who are interested in the art of war. Battles are loving detailed and diagrammed. For myself, I learned more, very much more, than I ever wanted to know about the Roman legions. And to top it off after pages still had not gotten more than a mention of Hannibal. For those who are interested in battle strategy, this book can't be beat. It takes the reader from the early military histories of both Rome and Carthage, detailing through the centuries of evolution of their respective societies, especially of their armies, briefly summing up the first Punic War and then going into the second Punic War where the title figure comes in to play, and thus is what the bulk of the book is about.

Hannibal is a remarkable figure, certainly earning his rank among the greatest military commanders of all time. The bold decision to trek across the Alps, with an army in the tens of thousands, and successfully doing it by itself would have had him earned him praise in the annals of history. But beyond that, he turned out to be one of the greatest military tacticians in the history of warfare.

But as much effect as he had on his own successes, he had just as much on the Romans, as he forced them to change their strategy, taught them that they should isolate him, and how and when to fight him on the battlefield at selective times. The Second Punic War was truly regional, stretching from Italy to Spain to Sicily to northern Africa, and contained many more complex dynamics than I can talk about in this review. This book has good information setting up background of conflict, great history on the colossal war itself, and a good if preachy section at the end summarizing the conflict and broadening on certain themes touched throughout.

Bottom line: anyone with interest in history of war, or history generally, should read about the remarkable figure and story of Hannibal, whether from a source like this one, or a modern one like Ghosts of Cannae or The Punic Wars —two of the better non-fiction titles about the war—written by Robert L. The one star rating is entirely for this edition. The Kindle edition is an un-edited OCR with many, many errors. But shows as bnt and hut, np is up, beaching is reaching.

So many errors make the already dense 19th century history difficult. The book itself is well-written, well-researched and while Dodge frequently repeats himself I take that to be on a par with the writing of the time. I heartily recommend this narration of th The one star rating is entirely for this edition. I heartily recommend this narration of the Second Punic War but don't try to do it on the cheap with the buck Kindle edition. Pay the money to get a hard copy. May 28, Roberto Toro rated it it was amazing.

A very interesting book about Hannibal. Just finished this excellent book. He is especially focused on Hannibal's 16 year war against Rome. There is a detailed and breathtaking description of Hannibal's march across the Alps leading , soldiers 10, cavalry and elepha Just finished this excellent book.

There is a detailed and breathtaking description of Hannibal's march across the Alps leading , soldiers 10, cavalry and elephants. That feat alone would place Hannibal in military history. This was followed by several crushing victories over Roman armies which were not prepared for the Carthaginian general's strategic war, his cunning and his power.

Hannibal crushed the Romans at Lake Trasimene, at Geronium and of course at Cannae in a battle still studied at military academies for its brilliant strategy and the surrounding and destruction of a much larger Roman army by a brilliant Carthaginian maneuver. Historians often wonder why Hannibal did not march on Rome right after his famous win at Cannae. The author claims this was good strategic thinking by Hannibal who must have known that he would face an army up to 10 times his if Rome had to fight for her life.

He was apparently hoping instead to destabilize the Latin Alliance and then dictate peace terms to Rome. He had some successes in this including getting Capua, the second largest city in the alliance, to turn on Rome and side with Carthage. But it would not be enough. For 15 years Hannibal and his army fought in Italy and the Romans eventually stalled the Carthaginian genius by refusing to meet him head on in a battle.

Rome was so awed by Hannibal's military skills that they dared not fight him despite having a massive advantage in troop numbers. They simply followed Hannibal around Italy, skirmished occasionally and prevented him from destroying the alliance and sacking Rome. But they dared not fight Hannibal head on. It proved enough. Carthage was run by a group of corrupt oligarchs does this sound familiar For this, Carthage paid a price.

Hannibal (Carthaginian general)

Defeated in Spain, Carthage was forced to recall Hannibal to defend the city against the Romans led by Scipio. By this time the Carthaginian army was no match for the Romans having been depleted and exhausted by a 15 year campaign in Italy and the local conscripts were not experienced. The Battle of Zama was Hannibal's only defeat. Even that was based on some luck as the battle had been even until Roman cavalry returned from a pursuit unexpectedly and turned the battle.

Hannibal then spent some years in government and was close to returning Carthage to greater power, but the Romans would not let that be. They hounded Hannibal until cornering him and forcing him to commit suicide at age The author has a deep respect for his subject, almost a reverence. This helps the book also. The subject is well worthy of this reverence in my opinion. Hannibal was truly one of history's great leaders and this book makes his achievements clear in a great way. Mar 02, Eric Shoemaker rated it it was amazing. Outstanding look at the Carthaginian General, Rome's nemesis.

It's really in the middle of the two. The book is one of Dodge's 12 volume History of the Art of War which has been broken up into individual biographies. It is a typical 19th century "popular" history so it doesn't contain numerous footnotes one would expect from a more scholarly work. As this was just one part of a multi-volume work on the art of war, it is often less of a biography and more of a history.

  • Search This Blog.
  • Support Us!
  • Secret Wedding Savings!
  • Le Tour: A History of the Tour de France;

The illustrations and maps are very helpful if dated. I found the author's insights to be well presented. When ancient writers disagree, he does a good job of explaining why he prefers one over the other. He also tends to analyze what data is available and draw his own conclusions. For example, on the second battle of Nola against the Roman, Marcellus, the author does a good job of explaining why it was probably a draw and not a Roman victory. The major drawback, in my opinion, is that the author is too repetitive.

He frequently repeats his opinions of persons and political systems. The second weakness is the age of the book. Though the author uses what were "current" examples when written they are now very dated. So for the modern reader this can be confusing if the reader is unfamiliar with the U. In summation, I would recommend this book but with the caveats already mentioned.

Shelves: audiobook , non-fiction , text. I suspect that Hannibal reads better than it listens to. As an audiobook, it is a longer, more endless drudge than the Carthaginian General's Journey over the Alps. Dodge spares no detail, and begins his book with a lengthy discussion of the history of the military of Rome and of Carthage, detailing their units and formations and how they evolved over the centuries, as well as their arms and examples of their early wars, all sprinkled with much meticulously pronounced Latin.

Further, each chapte I suspect that Hannibal reads better than it listens to. Further, each chapter begins with a lengthy summary of the chapter to follow, which gives the actual listening to the book an odd sense of deja vu. The information presented is thorough, but -- in audio form -- came across as unengaging, the language a bit end-of-the-last-century stilted.

Bill Wallace's narration is clear and precise, but there's not a lot he can do to make it more exciting, esp. I made it a quarter of the way through, so perhaps it livens up later on. It does sound like it carries a wealth of information for a military scholar of the era, thus an "Okay" rating, but I cannot recommend it as an audiobook. Jul 26, Evan rated it it was amazing Shelves: history , rome. Hannibal Barca's life was incredible. This book is the third I have read on Hannibal, and I think I enjoyed it the most.

The beginning was a little tedious, going through all the Roman fighting arrangements especially over an audiobook. Once Dodge got into the 2nd Punic War, his insight was invaluable. He clearly illustrated the motives and circumstances that forced Hannibal's actions. His analysis of Hannibal and Alexander at the end was interesting as well. His insight on Hannibal's occupati Hannibal Barca's life was incredible. His insight on Hannibal's occupation of Italy after Cannae was the best I have read. I didn't necessarily care for his style of writing, but overall, a great account of Hannibal and Carthage.

Feb 05, Kamin rated it it was amazing. This is an amazing and eye-opening book detailing the Second Punic War and one of the greatest of history's generals, Hannibal. Dodge goes to the utmost length to explain the tactical limitations of the time and how much of a military genius Hannibal truly was. Nile valley civilizations still hold the oldest human bones. All world civilizations came out of the first man and woman on earth. These are historical facts. Thank you for truth. Your comments are eloquent and gratifying.

The truth shall set us free. Instead of wrecking our brains to prove he was black. The real question is why do they believe he was white. Since when Semite is a white person in any time. These fake Jews is what got the white man mind screwed up. Land of punt. I belive ur answers lie there. Ethiopia and somlia etria kneya. Its earliest inhabitants were divided into tribes and clans.

They were physically indistinguishable from the other indigenous inhabitants of early North Africa and, at the end of the Roman Empire, were often categorized as Berbers. From the 6th. Hannibal Barca was of Nubian decent! Numidian horsemanship, and animal breeding, and cavalry tactics eventually contributed to later developments in Roman cavalry. In his history of Rome Polybius underscores how important those cavalry advantages were to the outcome of the Second Punic War.

Numidians superiority was demonstrated by the cavalry leadership of Maharbal under Hannibal at Trasimene and Cannae and later by Masinissa at Zama under Scipio Africanus. For nearly 50 years Masinissa retained the support of Rome as he tried to turn the Numidian pastoralists into peasant farmers. He also seized much Carthaginian territory and probably hoped to rule all of North Africa.

Hannibal Barca was most definitely not black. I understand black culture wanting to claim him though, he was a badass. Most people here the name Africa and immediately think of some black villager. That doesn't even make sense Going by your presumptions, you're basically saying that he was a white male who became dark because of over exposure to the sun. Well, to that I say, posh!! No skin cancer? Because whites are very susceptible to that. And secondly, during that time period, in almost positive Africans populated Africa, guy.


Yeah, he was black. As usual, you people feel the need to lie to make yourselves feel superior White men make white babies, stupid. Your people have always been and will always be liars. But once the truth is told the lie can't exist. Good luck with that old white supremacist way of thinking. That's not going to work with this generation. Carthage was founded by Phoenicians from Tyre. Them looked like middle eastern Arabs. The Carthaginians probably did have some Black blood though due to proximity and intermixing.

Mostly Semitic though. They weren't white though any more than a Mexican or Hindu is white. It seems to point to a strong genetic affinity with modern day Lebanese people. I'm no expert but Levantine Arabs are not white or black. The evidence points to very little mixing with the local population and many modern day North African communities such as Barbers are likely descended from the Carthaginians, and they don't look white or black. I'm mixed race and I appreciate this man and his people for their history and success even if they were destroyed, I don't care if he was a Martian, he was a military genius.

I know it pains you to think that this great general was Black. I know that would pierce the lies that you have been taught and somehow dulls the privilege that you enjoy. Face the facts and accept history as you have done in all other instances. The reason the Sicilians are so dark and thus hated by the Italians is because of the mixing by Hannibal and his crew.

I know you want to believe that they were in the sun Actually thats not true he was a Black man and not caucasian, check out C. Ante Diop, as well as J. Clarke and other ancient historical accounts of the Phoenicians. The very fact that whites will not show any real depictions of Hannibal alone shows that he was black. If he had been white, they would show him! Instead, they keep showing that fake bust passing it off as him. If you noticed, the most famous black peoples Jesus, Israelites, Hannibal, Phoenicians, Philistines, pre-white Europeans, etc are often mysteriously lost when it comes to race.

This automatically makes them black. I am reading a book on the Punic Wars same title and they can tell you about Hannibal's family, status, early life, his attitude, what he said, what he thought, how he thought, what his moves were, what he wore, where he went, what year he went, how he went, when he died, how he died - yet they don't know what he looked like? One of the most famous men in history and most certainly Roman history? You know he was black.

Add to that the face that he was from a prominent family that basically ruled Carthage, there should be no reason we don't know what he looked like. The Punic Wars are essentially a race war. Let's say that Hannibal was white! Hell, evidence shows that even the European tribes that went along were blacks too As for the sun tan excuse That is easily defeated.

How come other whites did not get dark in the sun enough to be mistaken for black? Hell, how come we can see whites from back them at all if the sun works? Also, that Semitics excuse is another play on words in order to make us think 'not black. Also, all so-called Semites are black or black-like without any indication of whites. If anything, there might be some Indian related elements, but the African type black is still clear. So, it is easy to debunk these whites and their old time, BS excuses. Show what depiction? The only known images of Hannibal are on coins and those look anything but black, Roman nose yes, not black.

If you find any image of Hannibal, be sure to share it with the world. Deangelo Hill, Give a credible source, you're just spouting this stuff out as though you were the authority on it. Thank you Brotha.. Come on Mathew Beightol. The word Niger does not have different meanings in History. It refers to a black man all throughout history. So does Moor, Moorish, Moore. The very name Europa itself us from a black princess. Ethiopian does not mean black.

It means someone who comes from Ethiopia. The ancient Meditteranean was racially diverse and the concept of "race" in those times corresponded more to our idea of ethnicity. In truth, "black" people and "white" people are an invention of the sixteenth? Carthaginians was composed of Semitic colonists, native north Africans, and celtiberians-- it was a very diverse society. Our conception of race doesn't describe them, nor the Romans. Emperor Septimius Severus in the s could be described as "black," but such a description serves our current biases not the ancient ones.

The Romans were not Europeans as Europe and "whiteness" didn't exist yet nor were the Carthaginian Africans, because conceptually Africa and "blackness" didn't exist. It is my hope we postmodern people could acquire the cosmopolitanism of the ancients. Where have you been these last couple of years,all the lies that the Europeans has spread regarding the African race have been blown so far out the water that now history being taught in the schools have to rewritten.

I agree with Joe race is an invention and it would behoove us not to drink of that kool-aid If you read which I'm sure all of us do at least if your commenting I hope all of you do You know that black people made tremendous contributions to society, and to the world at large. So stop these petty arguments regarding skin hue and celebrate the accomplishments of these men and not the pettiness of Hannibal was light skin vs.

A fact that neither side is going to concede and quite frankly neither side should care what the other thinks anyway, because guess what it can't be proven. Hannibal is black skin tone to me, and Alexander is white skin tone to me Now does that make a difference to anybody I would hope not.

To insist otherwise is foolish, especially in the context of black vs. Yes, Carthaginians were originally Phoenicians - originally native to the Levant. By the time of the Punic Wars Carthaginian culture and ethnicity is believed to have been significantly integrated with the surrounding Libyans. The entire k-population of Carthage was either killed or enslaved and the city was burnt to the ground. Not too long ago researchers attempted to find possible descendants of Carthage through genetic testing.

The only people they found to be some degree of a match were modern Palestinians. It is extremely unlikely that Hannibal was caucasian-white or black although it is slightly more feasible that he could have had some Libyan ancestry but that is as unlikely as it is irrelevant. It does matter and I disagree that any history that was white washed and passed down to a race regardless if it I black history our Asian history should have be represented as truth.

The only history that I have seen corrupted in USA us black world history. The people have been lied to about the achievers that would make a difference to the children in the educational system when the lies taught show only as black children that they were only slaves. So not true, Even white children should have been taught that black history had many hero's so that an equal quality of respect to both races.

The world will know one day the truth so you need to get ready for a shock of Africa is the beginning of all human history and black was also the original hue of all races. Black can produce black or white but white can not produce a race of black. Color and who was what race matters to white, that is why they have taught that all greatness was white.

Jesus Christ people. Agenda, much! My guess is that Hannibal was probably a good mixture of lots of things. Rome was a Patriarchy. A Roman man would have taken his wife baby from rape, no matter the race that wasn't a valid concept at the time and thrown it off the Tarpetian Rock or exposed it to die. Roman didn;t tolerate bastards at all. The climate, the environment and also some interbreeding with Homo Neanderthals not all some native man and woman adapted to the different environment without interbreeding changing their phenotype gave rise to the "white" man and woman we think of today.

I'm so P'd that I had to write an email to the bio channel because I'm trying to tell my son about the greatest warrior that ever lived and when I Googled Hannibal Barca the first image to pop up was a European version of the real Hannibal. I mean, how dare they brainwash people with their lies. And the saddest thing is they their lies is seen as truth. So I told them that it's an abomination to do so when they damn well know the truth. They won't be happy with my email but I can't just sit here and say nothing.

They need to know we are not having their lies!!! B, since you mention Hannibal was Phoenician descent proves he was black aboriginal, since the Phoenicians were a branch of the SidoniansSidon the son of Canaan, the brother of Cush Ethiopia. Word origin? These were the same Phoenicians who populated many nations of Europe, e. Herodotus, and Diodorus of Silcily writes of this mixed Egyptian family blacks, so were the the Spartans. The Colchians, offspring of the "black woolly haired Egyptians". So, what does everyone think about the Sicilian people's history and lineage?

We have been an island conquered by so many over the centuries. I believe that all Sicilians have Hannibals' bloodline coursing through our veins, as well as Phonecian, Arab, Greek plus many others. I agree with everyone on the blog that we were all derived from 1 race, the African. What do the people on this blog think about the people of Sicily?

Since Hannibal conquered the island and changed the bloodline does that make Sicilians non white? They don't get it! They are white people! None -Zilch -Nada! Nobody on this planet places any merit on anything they say; including other white people. Every word is like a bounced check. Who cares if they disagree? Who cares if they complain? The real question is Are they socio-paths? Are they bi-polar? Or do they just have low self-esteem?

I care more about a dirty ditch than their opinion - whatever it is! You should be insulted by your own ignorant comment! There is no Berber race. You are mixed with many things. You are nothing more than an Arab-Berber who appropriated North Africa; and have the nerve to say someone else is stealing something. Well, we have skeletons and skulls and you have fairy tales written by Arab invaders. You need to remember: your stay in North Africa is temporary! Berbers have existed in North Africa for thousands upon thousands of years, and this is based on actual science.

Sub-Saharan contribution is noted but recent, as in mostly within the last years. We also find significant signatures of sub-Saharan African ancestry that vary substantially among populations. These sub-Saharan ancestries appear to be a recent introduction into North African populations, dating to about 1, years ago in southern Morocco and about years ago into Egypt" Berbers have lived in North Africa for a very, very, long time and they appear to have originally been from Near-Eastern Levantine people's who are today related to the inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent.

In most North African populations we also see substantial shared ancestry with the Near East, and to a lesser extent sub-Saharan Africa and Europe" Genetically speaking, they're their own thing with some small admixture from Sub-Saharan Africans and some Europeans but showing a close affinity to the populations of the Near East. While all humans originated in Africa, many left and some returned but long after they had significantly mixed with populations who had become very different from their African ancestors and had over thousands upon thousands of years adapted to the changes in geography and environment that became their homes for generations.

You've posted nothing that supports your claims and I have yet to see any evidence of skeletons and skulls that support your arguments for the areas that are discussed. Yet I find very reliable data about genetic and Berber existence for millenia in North Africa. And not or years, but 12, years. Well as I know Hannibal was a punic nobleman from anoble blood. I think he was a mix between some african blood and the semmetic blood from his ancestors..

BEING a Lebanese it is extremely important for me to help safeguard our Phoenico-Canaanite heritage from those seeking to arrogate and racialize it by my posting the link to this upload wherever it is required to refute the misinformation being disseminated about us. This is necessary on account of black academics of the extreme Afrocentrist bent in particular attempting to "claim" it as their own. To inspire and empower blacks while denigrating whites, they seek an historic racial role model in the person of our Hannibal who they perceive could well have put a halt to the beginnings of European imperialism in its infancy in the form of Republican Rome during the second of the Punic Wars Lat.

Bella Punica, lit. Phoenician Wars. And to this end they also even cite the pseudohistory that, because of the father's location of birth and the non-European element of their ethnic extraction, Septimius Severus, who was of Phoenico-Roman descent with some possible Libyan patrilineage and born in the Maghgreb, and his eldest son and successor, Caracalla, who was half Syrian, were the first black African emperors of Rome.

In an attempt to prove this wrongful claim they often selectively use a few Carthaginian coins, for example, featuring the head of a Negro and an African elephant on the reverse to lend credence to the falsehood that both our Hannibal and the Carthaginian citizenry to which he belonged were sub-Saharan Africans. Mintings that very well may simply symbolize that the Phoenicians who colonized much of North Africa and even circumnavigated the Dark Continent were familiar with this race and animal type. The obvious problem with them is twofold in that there is no written identifier on the coins with an exergue that one can attribute as even representing the great general or one of his fellow citizens, and also that the portrayal on such coins are both rare and atypical of the Caucasoid morphology of the people in question.

In reality the ethnic group which founded and peopled this city-state and others like it throughout the Mediterranean were Phoenicians, whose motherland is in modern-day Lebanon, located in the northern portion of ancient Canaan. They also don't take into consideration that the peoples of North Africa differ from those of sub-Saharan Africa in that, then as now, they are primarily Caucasoid in race and of the Mediterranean extraction, and share more in common with the Middle East than they do the rest of the Dark Continent.

They wrongly assume that it was among a Negroid people that we settled instead of a Caucasoid one, and that we knew not how to practice endogamy to perpetuate ourselves, thus we became assimilated and mixed and "black," as if being a brown-skinned mulatto would even make one a Negro. If they were familiar with the extant histories, they would know that it was the physically similar native Numidae mod. Berbers that we conquered and ruled from Carthage and her civic satellites as a dominant minority.

They would also know that the ancients differentiated between us and the half-bloods that we engendered with the locals, called Libyphoinikes, and that neither Hannibal nor the upper-class Carthaginians to which he belonged were ever referred to as being anything other than full-blooded Phoenicians Lat. Poeni, Gr. Phoinikes, i. It is due to the facial reconstruction of a skeletal find such as this as well as DNA mapping and sites like Phoenicia. Very well said sir. I really like this especially because I have some Berber ancestry.

It makes me smile to hear that you appreciated my comment, friend. I'm ashamed of what I read in these comments. The only race of people I am ashamed of however, is the human race.

Site Search Navigation

In , racists from many perspectives gather to point fingers of hate at people who had nothing to do with Hannibal, the ancient Romans, or even the slave trade. Being of French-Celtic descent, I can assure you, white people have not been immune to the evil of slavery or oppression. It is an evil of mankind, all races, all ethnicities have suffered from it. Should I still hate the British because of what happened in Scottland years ago? To speak of Hannibal with pride due to his race, yet speak from a position of anger over slavery, is to ignore the fact that Hannibal, being in the ruling class of a slave-holding nation, probably had slaves himself.

According to the narrative here, those slaves would be black as well as the masters. If you want truth in history, you must accept the negative as well as the positive. I think it's time we move past segregating ourselves based on the color of the skin of people involved in events none of us were part of, and start embracing our collective humanity as members of the human race. What about the virtual slavery the British have over the Irish today.

Should they move past it? What about the 13 former soviet states? What about Africans in America and Palestinians in Palestine who are murdered and suffer under white supremacist governments that sanction land theft, rape, and murder? This is all today - not "" years ago Mauri means black-skinned people! Now this is well-documented history facts that Euro-centrists deny. You are right, Lebanese people are not Black. They are a mixed group of Greeks and Persians and some Roman and Englishmen in recent times. There is no such thing as a Caucasoid race; and Caucasian people are not European.

Those are the people who planted their seeds into your people generation after generation. Now, you have a love affair with your ancestors rapists. The Arab and European created a bunch of Confused Mullatoes who despise all things Black and African; because it makes them feel white and superior. You are not a African. And you are not b Arab or c European. You are d All Of The Above - a mixed group of barbarus. You forget. The word Mauri means black-skinned people. This is how the people who first encountered North Africa defined them!

Uchenna, if you knew anything about the history of the Middle East in general or that of my people in Lebanon, anciently Phoenicia, in the north of Canaan, then you would know that we founded Carthage in the year BCE, and that the Persian Empire was created by its founder, Cyrus, later in the year BCE, thus making it impossible for them to expel us from the Levant as you say. And yes, according to the Genographic Project launched by the National Geographic Society, we in the Phoenician homeland of Lebanon are indeed their direct descendants and are indigenous to the area.

DNA doesn't lie, and it of course has the last word on the issue of our ancestral identity, which is also, then as now, Caucasoid and of the Mediterranean extraction. Also, the etymology of the word mauros from which the words Moor and Mauretania derive is Greek in origin and simply means dark, not black melas. Of course a black supremacist such as yourself should know this already, as those like you often vaunt having a superior intellect.

Being superior to us nonblacks you would also know that Egypt, for instance, which many extreme Afroncentrists feebly attempt to claim and cite as being a solely sub-Saharan African achievement, has Kemet as one of its native names, a word which simply means Black Land, and did not at all identify its inhabitants as being blacks, sc.

Being well educated you also would know that the words Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid are anthropological designations applied to different branches of humanity for the sake of taxonomy and medical research. You would also know that the term blackness like that of whiteness is a social construct and has no real bearing on anthropology.

But since you do not know these things, one is forced to assume that you are ignorant, an outright liar, or probably just a combination of both. Oh snap! Wait - you said Lebanon, Persia, Phoenicians? OK, when Noah's family got off the boat, who were the first to inhabit the land of Canaan. Was it Ham's son Canaan? Who were the Jebusites? Facts people! The 3 races theory was some racist pseudo-science crap. There are no races. But, there were originally 6 kinds of people -today there are five- and there is no sub-Saharan Africa. You say study some real history and then mention Zeus; as if he's an historical figure.

And the mis-shapen coin? Well, that's just stupid! Anthropologists have already proven who these people were. According for you to Roman mythology your history involving Rome began inside B. When a good basket, floating to the Tiber River, came ashore near a good place called eight hills. Punic Wars city.

Who cares what you assume! It took European think tanks decades to conjure up a tale that would sound valid enough to explain away the facts. Well, the hieroglyph for Km is a crocodile skin signifying that they are referring to Black skin. They referred to the black land as iAt; which is a feather, a hawk, and a mound; signifying that they are referring to land.

The Desh'rt was included as part of K'mt - not the red side. See, this is all just white-washing; that you are eager to accept because you are now regarded as "kind of" white. And you place value in that. I would be embarrassed! It's all stupidity. There is no such thing as a middle east. How is the western-most part of a region considered the middle:? Oh and the Ancient Greek word for "darkness" is Erebus. You're just repeating whatever some European said to make yourself feel better. And, I don't mind. Believe what you want - just be careful when start calling that bull-crap facts Okay, youngster?

First, we have no certain contemporary image from his own time to show us what he looked like. The primary source closest to his time is the Greek historian Polybius who lived almost a century later, and he gives no verbal description. No other ancient sources that have survived do either. We do have the curious information that he was possibly prone to disguising himself at times. There may be a few silver coins from the Punic culture in Spain, most likely minted around the mid-to-late 3rd century bce in what soon became known as Carthago Nova now Cartagena , but these coin images are arguable because they may depict his father, Hamilcar, or other relatives instead.

So we are left with mostly modern interpretations from long after the Roman Empire. Second, regarding his DNA, as far as we know, we have no skeleton, fragmentary bones, or physical traces of him, so establishing his ethnicity would be mostly speculative. If still the same relative ethnic or DNA group, which is also very difficult to prove since so many different peoples have moved into the region since, including peoples from Arabian homelands, his original ancestry would be located in what is modern Lebanon today.

As far as we know, little to no Africanization—if that is an acceptable term—happened there in that region before or during his era. So attempting to say much about his original ancestry from Phoenicia is very difficult. On the other hand, since the Phoenicians arrived and then later settled in what is now Tunisia relatively early, possibly beginning around almost 1, years before Hannibal, it is very possible his family had intermixed in DNA with peoples then living in North Africa. The distance between the Nile and Tunis is almost four times as far as the distance between the Nile and Tyre, but that may not be as important as our lack of knowledge about any potential spreading of African DNA overland across North Africa at that time, which is again possible but not known.

The barrier of the Sahara would otherwise make any such ancient DNA distribution from south to north difficult but not impossible.

The Art and Making of Hannibal: The Television Series

If our human ancestry derives originally from Africa, it was so long ago, possibly hundreds of thousands of years in the past, who can realistically say what that original DNA was like and what people looked like then? We still must have much more hard science conducted for years into the future to even come close to understanding that prehistory. I must add just as a personal note that my own father had some African ancestry because it appears in our DNA even if it may not show in external phenotypes.


The truth about Hannibal’s route across the Alps

Ultimately, this is a difficult question that may be even more difficult to answer simply because of lack of information. History is an imperfect record and the further back we go, all too often the less evidence survives. You know Black is another word for African, or of African decent. In the same way a person who's ancestors originated from china is chinese. No one would argue against that. Yet people spend all this time and effort trying to prove someone from north africa is not african?

There are many types of chinese with many different features based on which part of china they are from, some are tall some are short. The same with Africa, east african have different features than west, south , north ect. The world has been blinded by white supremacy, Hanibal was an African of African decsent another word for African decent is black. There is no point in arguing about my beautiful black brothers and sisters. We don't have to prove anything to anyone. Those that can't accept the truth will eventually die by the lie.

We don't need to claim anyone or anything since we are not interested in telling "his" "story" we know our story and before it's over this world will once again belong to the original and strongest people of this world, the black man and yes it will a wonderful world worth living in and you caucasion people and those claiming to be caucasion won't even matter. That is the future that you have backed yourselves into and your ancestors are going to hate you for it; you are just incapable of living without believing your own hype!

It's really sad. All we black people have to do is watch you implode. We don't need your past cause we own your future. I would like to point out that in fact there are albeit few images left to us of Hannibal. One of them, the more detailed, is on his tomb in Turkey. There, a detailed face shows curly hair and facial image similar to the one on the coin previously mentioned. This link with the Lusitanians has never been spoken of so I am contributing it here as it is relevant to this blog.

The names Hamilcar, Hannibal and Hasdrubal are still household names in Portugal and I know personally some who I believe to have Carthaginian descent and who definitely have the same curly hair and facial features. Curiously also the African mercenaries, including Numidians, returned later in the 8th century in the 'Moorish' occupation known as 'Al-Andaluz'.

These moorish people who returned here were a mixture but most were Berber tribesmen. They also left their mark here genetically. I believe the image of Hannibal on his tomb in Turkey to be a good likeness after all it was done to honour him. So, we cannot say that Hannibal was Carthaginian in a 'pure' sense anyway, because his mother was a Lusitanian. Indeed Rome may have wiped Carthage from the map however, Hannibal had and always will have a strong link with Portugal Lusitania and may well have descendants here.

Some of my friends certainly bear similarity to his image and I have suggested they take a DNA test. To all peoples, whom fane to have insight or intelligence hear this. He was a man. That is it. No color or creed, no need to say more. The true historical crime is the tragedy of today. What will people say a thousand years from now. What a wicked group of humans we are. This descent into moral ineptitued is what is killing all mankind.

How (and Where) Did Hannibal Cross the Alps? | History | Smithsonian

Be it reverse or perverse rascism, it is alive in every aspect of all races and denominations of man. If your strength is only garnered by the degredation of another than you are now the master to slaves. History is truth. Quit lying for it to fit any of your needs. Those whom wanted to tell the story did, and thats very simple. But to be here on this site railing against another for their ignorance is suspect.

Suspect that maybe you are lying, and much like a foolish child you think yelling louder, or being more bullish will make your sentement more true. It does not. As a proud human im embarrased at the low level of intelegent conversation. Instead pointing fingers behind vailed pc screens be a leader of conversation. Teach by example with evidence and insight.

Lend a helping hand to your brother instead of being jealous of them in a sinful display of what is leading down fall of or species. I came her to get insight and yet have found fools waxing and waining. For shame. Be a leader of coversation. Be a commander of concensus not a follower. Be proud of you because of you. God bless. Post script: this was written by a white man. Whatever Hanibal was, it should be noted that he was eventually defeated by the Romans at the battle of Xama.

African Carthage fought two wars against European Rome. They lost both. Also, if you read history, there were seven black emperors of Rome itself, such as Serious Severus, decended from the defeated Carthaginian civilization, which had become a province of Rome, Rome having rebuilt the city. Also, the early church leader, Saint Augustine, who is depicted as black by the Catholic church, was from the region of ancient Carthage. These facts bear testimony to the evidence of an African phenotypic presence in North Africa.

So I watch the barbarians on the History channel and they portrayed Hannibal as a black man which is truth an I go on YouTube and thesesom called white film just can't seem to accept the truth. They're saying he's everything other than black sand I'm like man wtf, dude ID from North Africa And well, Africa is a continent filled with people!