It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

History Channel Portrays Hannibal as Black, White People Cry Foul Over ‘Historical Revisionism’

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
He looks like a brother to me...

Like the ancient Egyptians the traditional historians made white and modern ones could be dark
edit on 10-6-2016 by Willtell because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Yeah, Hannibal was white, just like Face and Murdoch. BA Barrakus was black.

Seriously, what white people are complaining about this? People that watch the History Channel?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

To be honest I never saw the reference to Barbie or I would not have posted it being part Jewish myself, not a fan is a good way to put it sorry for including that link I should have read it more thoroughly but please do not think I would ever endorse a piece of evil trash like Barbie or any other Nazi, I have had a few biggoted moment's myself though and would be a bare faced liar to say otherwise but it was never race with me only religion (not that it make's it any better) but just watching Malcolm X daughter speech at Muhammad Ali's funeral wake, she said something that is totally correct, to love god is to love all people regardless of there religion.

Back to the thread, It is worth noting that if anything being a trade city there would have been merchant's from the whole known world and beyond in ancient carthage, from Celt's (Irish native's unsurprisingly have a lot of shared genetic markers with the Berbers of North Africa) and African's to people from much further afield including Arab's and East African's from the great civilization that then flourished on Africa's pacific coast and just maybe even china or from the ancient silk road civilization's that once prospered along that ancient trade route, that is before all roads led to Rome of course and though likely the equivelant of the Patrician class or nobility and probably likely to be less mixed (so probably more or less pure north african) there is a chance that Hannibal himself may have had mixed ancestry as a consequence, by the time of the Punic war's of course Carthage was an ancient city and Rome the new kid on the block.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

No problem mon , your posting always have gold love the knowledge you keep dropping
nuff respect..

Sorry the dude isn't Klaus Barbie the Nazi it's Klaus Dona the faker sorry for the misleading name mistake, must be getting old.hehehe.
edit on 10-6-2016 by Spider879 because: made correction.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
something like this very hard to tell, take Egypt for example. They started out as brown skinned africans but after various conquests by the Greeks, Romans, Persia even the Ottoman empire everything sorta got mashed together and gives us the multi faceted people that inhabit the area now.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Entirely possible, even probable. I can't imagine why people would get their knickers in a bunch over a black actor playing Hannibal. Weird world sometimes.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
To be honest, I never in, my readings about Hannibal, thought about the color of his skin.

He's Hannibal, for cryin' out loud...if not the greatest tactician in all of human history, certainly in the conversation of top two.

Black, white, purple, whatever, it's less than important in comparison to what he almost accomplished. The complete overthrow of the second, maybe third, greatest empire that ever existed--actually fourth. I'll leave it as a homework assignment to guess the other three...


Getting wound up over this is just silly.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Well I suppose we should also include the Mongol's as great tactician's, they had relatively few warrior's compared to some of the great empires and kingdom's they conquered, there tactic's were diverse but one was the classic bull's horn's or encirclement tactic, they would draw defenders and entrenched armies after them by sending a small force and making it look to the defender's as if they had forced the mongol's into retreat so they would often then set out in pursuit of them as they seemed to flee, right into the trap, of course they had the best bow and bowmen in the world and had grown up living on there horses so they were also the best cavalry but with the aid of the conquered chinese whom they used as foot soldiers as well as utilizing there engineer's they also became great siege master's, it was only the death of Temugen that stopped them completing there conquest of europe and only the fact they had left young unseasoned warriors to guard there conquests in mesopotamia that allowed the egyptian cavalry to sweep through and drive them northward.

History is full of great tactician's, it is hard to say whom really was the best as they worked with what they had but I regard George S Patten as one of the greatest in history, of course he is relevant because me MAY have believed that he was Hannibal reincarnated?.
www.reversespins.com...
thevelvetrocket.com...
www.history.com...

edit on 10-6-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Keep in mind that some of the most brilliant tacticians fought battles on the small stages of history rather than the large epic ones, some one should make a thread on that..I'd love to contribute...

edit on 11-6-2016 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman

I hate to go off topic, but the Roland reference made my morning. I always saw him as a Clint Eastwood or Hugh Jackman guy.

edit on 20160614 by ChildOfLoki because: Edited term.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: CoBaZ

originally posted by: abe froman
If Jesus can be white, I guess Hannibal can be black.

Up until recently people thought Roland Deschain was white....


I wonder how they Swapped Roland and Parkus, also how does it effect Delta Walker getting Upset that there is a "Honkey Mofo" in her head. Or how she calls him a Spook... Or how in the Hardback copy of the Seventh Book the pictures of Roland are white...



You know your going to watch it anyway...as am I !!
Does this mean Eddie will be black too, have they cast him yet?


A twist would be if they cast Eddie as Black also, then cast Delta Walker / Susanna as White.

That would set almost everything almost equal on how the dynamics play out...



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

They can have Hannibal. He won a lot of battles but lost the war and ended up having his entire empire crushed and all its citizens killed or sold into slavery. Then Hannibal had to kill himself or be taken as a slave himself. The Blacks can have him. I like winners representing me.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: acrefootjohnson
a reply to: Spider879

They can have Hannibal. He won a lot of battles but lost the war and ended up having his entire empire crushed and all its citizens killed or sold into slavery. Then Hannibal had to kill himself or be taken as a slave himself. The Blacks can have him. I like winners representing me.

He is for everyone to have , what ever his phenotype/complexion actually was, his tactics is still being taught at some military academies..or so I've been told.
edit on 12-9-2016 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Sargeras

Winning a lot of battles but losing the war is failure. It is the same thing we did in Vietnam. Hannibal was a failure because he could not defeat Rome despite being in Italy for over a decade. Rome defeated Carthage having been in North Africa just a few months! Hannibal had to flea then kill himself. Loser!



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: acrefootjohnson
a reply to: Sargeras

Winning a lot of battles but losing the war is failure. It is the same thing we did in Vietnam. Hannibal was a failure because he could not defeat Rome despite being in Italy for over a decade. Rome defeated Carthage having been in North Africa just a few months! Hannibal had to flea then kill himself. Loser!


Some comparison with Vietnam war maybe apt, lack of support from the home front, you see they had a senate that blocked him from accruing more arms, and men or what was necessary to finish the job, because they kept bickering among themselves and he had detractors among them, Hannibal was left largely to fend for himself and basically live off the land .
The true losers were the Senators.
www.ancient.eu...
edit on 12-9-2016 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Hey Spider,

The simple truth is that no one has any idea as to whether Hannibal was black or white. Any Roman images are from the time of Polybius (over a century later) or later on. Carthiginian coins were seized and melted to recast as Roman coins, so no images there.

We also have no DNA or skeleton to reconstruct his features. Therefore, the simple truth is that we have no way of knowing either way (unless we invent time travel!).

Here is a wonderful link on Hannibals' ethnicity and appearance from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Hannibal's ethnicity and physical appearance



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
Hey Spider,

The simple truth is that no one has any idea as to whether Hannibal was black or white. Any Roman images are from the time of Polybius (over a century later) or later on. Carthiginian coins were seized and melted to recast as Roman coins, so no images there.

We also have no DNA or skeleton to reconstruct his features. Therefore, the simple truth is that we have no way of knowing either way (unless we invent time travel!).

Here is a wonderful link on Hannibals' ethnicity and appearance from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Hannibal's ethnicity and physical appearance

That's my view as well , his complexion and phenotype is up for grabs but I find the opposition to him even being considered Black as off putting,there was never a time when the Carthaginians were not multi hued and they so were their ancestor founders the Phoenicians;

The original

The repo.
From tomb of Rekemhire the highest ranking official under the pharaohs Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II
See the top registrar, the traders there in have ppl of very dark hue although in a minority , one may guess that they represent Nahasi tradesmen but you could be wrong, they are dressed as Phoenicians and were more than likely Phoenician citizens, could they be of Nahasi extraction?? possible , although we have no reason to believe so than their extremely dark hue , but what is clear is they were deeply embedded in Phoenician society even before they leave for northwest Africa to found Carthage where they would mix with other extremely dark folks, btw the 3rd registrar showed Nahasi traders from the upper Nile beyond Kmt aka Egypt.
edit on 12-9-2016 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

Indeed. Race doesn't seem to have been an issue in antiquity - the issues seem to be much later constructs. I would though have to hazard a guess that the original Carthaginians (as in those who founded the city) were more Middle Eastern in appearance - but that would have been quickly subsumed as the city rapidly opened up to all comers (within a single generation).

Hannibal is fascinating though (as is Carthage). I will never understand how such a military genius (which he undoubtedly was) could absolutely crush Rome at Trebia, Lake Trasimene and then Cannae.......and then not march on Rome. The argument is that he didn't have any siege equipment but that doesn't wash with me. He was from the nation of the most able ship builders of the time - master craftsmen who could easily turn shipbuilding to siege equipment production. He had annihalated several Consular armies and wasted most of the senior Roman high command - to such an extent he remained in Italy for 10 years. And yet was never put under siege. A serious siege would have ended Rome and completely rewritten history. That said, never write off Rome!



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
To be honest, I never in, my readings about Hannibal, thought about the color of his skin.

He's Hannibal, for cryin' out loud...if not the greatest tactician in all of human history, certainly in the conversation of top two.

Black, white, purple, whatever, it's less than important in comparison to what he almost accomplished. The complete overthrow of the second, maybe third, greatest empire that ever existed--actually fourth. I'll leave it as a homework assignment to guess the other three...


Getting wound up over this is just silly.


He is up there but he is no Alexander or Julius Caesar and he is certainly no Genghis or Subotai. The Mongols were something else entirely. The recurved bows used had the same draw strength as English longbows but the added advantage of being used from horseback - so serious mobility. The longbows became obsolete because during the 100 Years War, the French got better at developing curved armour which was a problem for the English as they had to stand until the last minute firing - meaning they became easy pickings. The Mongols didn't have this disadvantage as they could simply ride straight up to the enemy, fire, and then wheel away again for a different unit to attack. Point blank range rendered even the hardiest and most sophisticated armour useless.

The Mongols also appear to have had a serious respect for anyone that could draw there bows - so i have a sneaky suspicion they may have been quite enamoured with the English! (who would have been the only people to be able to fully draw Mongol bows and vice-versa).

Back to Hannibal though, what downgrades him, for me, is that decision not to go for Rome when he had the chance to totally destroy it. Even the Goths under Alaric didn't have such a great opportunity to finish Rome.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Spider879

Indeed. Race doesn't seem to have been an issue in antiquity - the issues seem to be much later constructs. I would though have to hazard a guess that the original Carthaginians (as in those who founded the city) were more Middle Eastern in appearance - but that would have been quickly subsumed as the city rapidly opened up to all comers (within a single generation).

Hannibal is fascinating though (as is Carthage). I will never understand how such a military genius (which he undoubtedly was) could absolutely crush Rome at Trebia, Lake Trasimene and then Cannae.......and then not march on Rome. The argument is that he didn't have any siege equipment but that doesn't wash with me. He was from the nation of the most able ship builders of the time - master craftsmen who could easily turn shipbuilding to siege equipment production. He had annihalated several Consular armies and wasted most of the senior Roman high command - to such an extent he remained in Italy for 10 years. And yet was never put under siege. A serious siege would have ended Rome and completely rewritten history. That said, never write off Rome!

Mostly agreed but he never had the man power for a full frontal assault on the eternal city and the cause lay in the Carthaginian senate which was abysmally grid locked as our own..assuming you are an American off-course..







 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join