Hannibal Barca of Carthage, North Africa


Image: Coin bearing the image of Hannibal and his famed battalion of elephants.
In 247 B.C., the year Hannibal Barca was born, the Carthage empire was about 500 years old. Known as one of the greatest strategist in military history, the battles of Hannibal would strike a turning point in the history of the continent that would be called Africa.

Carthage had been settled by Phoenicians as a city-state in North Africa near the current Tunis. In his 1961 work, French Historian Gabriel Audisio comments that he considered "Hannibal to be neither a Phoenician, nor a Carthaginian, nor a Punic, but a North African... The majority of the Punic populace seems to have had African, indeed Negroid, ancestry." Whether described as Carthaginians, Phoenicians, or Punics of North Africa, according to Audisio's research they were certainly a mix of aboriginal North Africans that included the native Berbers, Moors and other groups. 

The Phoenicians were a Semitic language people. English writers and speakers can thank the Phoenicians for the current English phonic system. The English Alphabets were borrowed from the Phoenician script. Their cultural influence was wide throughout the Mediterranean Sea nations. They were known as skilled sea merchant traders. They ruled in pre-Roman and pre-historic Iberia (currently Spain and Portugal nations on the Iberian Peninsula), until losing against Rome in the Third Punic War. The city of Carthage was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC.

There is no picture of Hannibal in existence today. The coin above is frequently presented by commentators as a representation of Hannibal and his legacy of tamed elephants. While this writer was not able to find an academic source for this coin to confirm its date -- which was more than 2,000 years ago. The existence of such coinage during some point during our common age is no surprise in light of Hannibal's historical legacy.

What we do have are descriptions of Hannibal by commentators of his time. According to the Roman historian Levy of the first century of our era, Hannibal was "fearless, utterly prudent in danger, indefatigable, able to endure heat and cold, controlled in eating habits, unpretentious in dress, willing to sleep wrapped in military cloak, a superb rider and horseman." He was the son of the Carthage general Hamilcar Barca. There is no knowledge of his mother in the history records, not even her name. He had two brothers: Hasdrubal resided in Spain and Maharbal was captain of Hannibal's calvary.

Carthage and Rome were at war during the First Punic War (264-241 B.C.). Both empires were seeking supremacy over the Mediterranean. Hannibal's father, Hamilcar Barca, general of the Carthaginian mercenaries, was infuriated about the western Mediterranean losses of Sicily and Sardinia. When Hannibal was 17 years old, however, his father was killed in an ambush in Spain, which was primarily under the rule of the North African empire. Hannibal would son step fully into his military career.


Map of Carthage empire and Roman empire
In October 218 B.C., during the Second Punic War, Hannibal had arrived at the Alps. His soldiers are said to have stretched for more than eight miles at the Alps, the foothills of the Roman Empire. Hannibal's army of 100,000 men would trek and fight 1,500 miles to arrive at the Alps from Spain. Hannibal armies included Numidians, North Africans from an area roughly where Algeria now draws its boundaries. The Numidians were known as master horsemen who could guide their horses with their knees, leaving their hands free to use swords and throw javelins.They had fought attacks from European tribes like the Gauls.

Hannibal is said to have given this speech to the army of men who had survived and crossed the swift-flowing Rhone river:
"Why are you afraid?... The greater part of our journey is accomplished. We have surmounted the Pyrenees; we have crossed the Rhone, that mighty river, in spite of the opposition of thousands of Gauls and the fury of the river itself. Now we have the Alps in sight. On the other side of those mountains lies Italy.... Does anyone imagine the Alps to be anything but what they are--lofty mountains. No part of the earth reaches the sky, or is insurmountable to mankind. The Alps produce and support living things. If they are passable by a few men, they are passable to armies."
Hannibal lost half of his army in the first two weeks into the Alps. Landslides were touched off by mountain tribes. Men died during hand battle with tribesmen. Starvation and disease were also companions of the embattled lot. Polybus, a Greek historian and contemporary to Hannibal, described Hannibal's arrival to the Po Valley with about 26,000 men. At the Po Valley, Hannibal is said to have made this speech:
"Soldiers! You have now surmounted not only the ramparts of Italy, but also Rome. You are entering friendly country inhabited by people who hate the Romans as much as we do. The rest of the journey will be smooth and downhill, and, after one, or at most a second battle, you will have the citadel and capital of Italy in your possession."
Commentators have speculated on why Hannibal spoke these words because the men were about to face the most difficult part of the journey. Friends did not await in the Po Valley. Here, the Roman army would meet the men in battle. In retrospect, considering how far the men had come, there really was no going back at this point. The Carthaginians believed that Rome was considering an invasion of Africa. Hannibal believed he had to act through an overland attack on Roman to save Carthage. He would spend 15 years in Italy, winning many battles -- such as the Battle of Cannae where he lost 6,000 troops to Rome's 70,000 troops.

We know Hannibal did not succeed, but are astonished by how close he came to success. The second of the Punic Wars was over. When Hannibal eventually retreated with his army to Carthage, his army was defeated by Scipio Africanus in the Battle of Zama.  Always sought by the Romans, when Hannibal was about the age of 64 and to be taken prisoner, he took poison and is recorded to have stated:
"Let us now put an end to the great anxiety of the Romans who have thought it too lengthy and too heavy a task to wait for the death of a hated old man."

Hon. Dr. John Henrik Clarke on Carthage

 

95 comments:

  1. This Carthaginian shekel is known to be from the time of Hannibal and is generally thought to bear his likeness. The image is much different than from the above coin.
    http://edgarlowen.com/greek-coins-punic.shtml

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hannibal was black. The painting in Egyptian pyramid's show black people but the thieving arabs have repainted them yello or brown..

      Delete
    2. wrong , north africa are white , we are imazighen . you can read about us

      Delete
    3. U do not represent the originals of any part of Africa north or south u and ur so called pale people all descend from us original people Moors of hue not pale like The ugly Europeans, Hannibal was not a North African European that is an oxymoron in fact

      Delete
    4. coins cannot be carbon dated therefore the dating of the refrence coinage is questionable,

      Delete
    5. the carthagian monarchy was totaly wiped out, half a million citizens of carthage were killed and the city razed. and any memory of the former state. so original artifacts are hard to find.we do know for a fact that european powers that be whitewash artifacts and make later artifacts and claim that they were made earlier.and I'm not being racist just stating facts, we do know that the restore black images by making them lighter Facts! Why? good question if you believe that race doesn't matter. For the issue of hannibal there is no known surviving image of the man, as of yet to be discovered. but what we do know is he was never called an african because the continent of alkebu lan wasn't named africa until hannibal lost the third punic war. also, a large fraction of his army was numadic warriors which we do have images of and they were ebony black,(numidian, similar to nubian) so why would numidian people of north alkebu lan(north africa) so most likley, hannibal was the same nationality of his army.??? and for the white people reading this, we do not blame you for not wanting to believe this truth and we realize you are just as much a victim of the vicious lies and propaganda that have been projected on all of us but the information age is so powerfull right now it can no longer be swept under the rug and put in the closets of the secret chambers

      Delete
    6. I have one more addition. how come there is never a deficiency in history when the nationality in question is clearly saxton? when a nation like the gauls, is in question theres plenty of citations to acknowledge there whiteness but whenever it is a black people theres never any forensic or arciologic evidence to support that they werent white is that strange to any one???

      Delete
    7. Because he who wins war writes history.

      Delete
    8. No, because he who wins war writes history. Any research to credit African history other than slavery would be damning to saxton and support their blatant imperialism. We all know history is eurocentric for anything that is great in history. Look at Nimrod, clearly it states he was a hamite but if you google his name the images are european. Carbon dating is approximate not exact its hypothesis is based on statistical analysis based on carbon dating. It is only as good as well the scientist prove it. There is Human error across the board. We just experiment until we reach a range of years and take an average. We dont know, we just make it sound like we do.

      Delete
  2. That is Scipio Africanus, Hannibal the fraud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scipio Africanus was a white roman

      Delete
    2. Yes you are correct. Hannibal was of Canaan. Maybe Philitine blood. Friend of the Sahara like Ghaddaffi.

      Delete
  3. Maharbal was Hannibal's cavalry commander, not his brother. Hannibal had two brothers, Hasdrubal and Mago. When Hannibal invaded Italy Mago went with him while Hasdrubal stayed in command of Carthaginian Spain. After the victory of Cannae Hannibal sent Mago to Carthage to ask for reinforcements - they sent him more useless elephants and no actual troops. Hasdrubal brought an army to Italy to try to meet up with Hannibal and pincer the Romans between them but was betrayed and killed in battle near the Metaurus river. His head was thrown in to Hannibal's camp to give him the news. Mago went back to Spain,then took troops to Ligurian Italy, and eventually, after a defeat there, embarked by ship for Carthage, but a thigh wound went gangrenous and he died on the way.
    Nobody knows who Maharbal was or what happened to him, except for the famous remark recorded in Livy, to Hannibal when he wdn't march on Rome immediately after Cannae. Livy records it as "The gods do not give everything to the one man. You know how to win a battle, but not how to use the victory."

    ReplyDelete
  4. He is know for the man who "Defeated The Romans"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Too bad Hannibal was NOT black. He was a Carthaginian, which means he was descended from the Phoenician settlers who founded Carthage. The Phoenicians were Semitic people from what is today Lebanon. There are two contemporary likenesses of Hannibal. In neither is he portrayed as anything resembling a "black" person

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless you are 2000 years old there's no way to verify that "any" of what you say is correct. I'm not likely to trust any likeness of Hannibal Barca simply because each one of them looks different. Next defining what a "black" person looks like varies wildly from person to person. I know Vin Diesel got a lot of flack wanting to play Hannibal and honestly I think it's a good choice because Carthage is noted to have been a good mix of people and this is noted by many of their minted coins depicting a good range of phenotypes.

      Delete
    2. Bob, you are clearly an idiot. It is fools like you who think they can lie to change the likes of history. Hannibal was indeed a man of color and that color was BLACK. Despite the fact that he was a military genius, defeating his enemies and having his men pillage and rape italian women leaving hundreds of little BLACK babies behind....clearly that has no base for your diabolical lying? You can't change what happened in history or the mark of who created that history. In fact, most of Europe's dirty little secrets have to do with any ties with BLACK people, kings, nobles, family crests reflect the truth of what color and features were UNDENIABLY BLACK...your lies are unacceptable.
      You people always try to wipe out what you are afraid of. ..BLACK PEOPLE ARE THE LIGHT SOURCE OF THE PLANET, FIRST PEOPLE WERE BLACK, THERE IS NOT A PART OF HISTORY THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE BLACK PEOPLE, just idiots like you who lie and try to erase the truth. ..stop lying! !!

      Delete
    3. Well put... Truth hurts sometimes..

      Delete
    4. Robbin Jackson, you clearly don't understand. Your stance comes from a vengeful and spiteful one. You use this page's propaganda to make you feel better about your inferiority complexes. But let me try to explain to you the real truth...

      Hannibal was a military genius, he did the best with what he could work with, after all Carthage was weakened greatly after the first Punic war, and they began to lose political and military influence with the rise of Rome. There's no denying that. His victories were great, but relatively small. The experienced Legions of Rome were not stationed in Italy; the ones that had commanders with great leadership, and discipline. When Hannibal reached Italy, the Romans were caught by surprise, and on a second's notice raised an army of completely new recruits of young inexperienced boys. An experienced army like Hannibal's would undoubtedly win several victories before being stopped with the odds stacked as they were. In conclusion, he did not defeat the real armies of Rome, only the recruits, so real pride cannot be fully extracted from his accomplishments militarily, although strategically yes.

      Things were different back in those times. The word "black" (latin: niger) had different associations. Compared with a Mediterranean person, someone from Ireland or Scythia was noticeably white and someone from Africa was noticeably black. To depict someone we think as black back then, a Roman would use the term "Ethiopian" to describe the appearance of someone with a (sun) burned face -- not the nation of Ethiopia. Hannibal may have been of darker skin than that of a Roman, but he would not have been described as a Ethiopian.

      Delete
    5. LET ME CORRECT YOU ABOUT YOUR WRONG HISTORY. HANNIBAL WAS IN FACT OF AFRICAN DECENT. THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT IT IS A FACT. HERE IS SOME ITEMS THAT MAY HELP YOU WITH THE TRUTH: LOOK UP PHOENICIAN HISTORY, CHECK ON THE HISTORLY OF CARTHAGE. CHECK WHERE THESE PLACES WERE LOCATED AND GUESS WHAT YOU WILL FIND THE REAL REAL

      Delete
    6. Robbin Jackson Thank you, I'm really tired of all this lies....

      Delete
    7. TOO BAD HE WAS BLACK. HATE TO SEE A BLACK MAN/WOMAN CONQUER THE "EUROPEAN MAN"

      Delete
    8. The truth is being told by he Black Woman. If he was mad before now he's really mad. He can't stop our people! Justice or Ese!

      Delete
    9. If anyone says that he was white they're idiots. With that being said I would say he was almost certainly not black either. The Carthaginians descended from the mercantile Phoenicians who probably looked something like a modern day Levantine Arab of today. I'm no expert but Levantine Arabs aren't black or white. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/asia/lebanon/phoenicians-text/4

      Here is a good article that I found on the genetic history of the region based on Carthaginian grave sites. It seems to point that the Carthaginians didn't mix much with the locals and were similar genetically to modern day Lebanese people

      Delete
    10. There's only only three races really Caucasoids, Mongolia and Negroid. Think of it as Caucasian, Asians and subsaharan black. its based on facial features, bone structure. There is different shades of skin within each one. Blacks are negroid and are from sub Saharaan Africa. Not from Egypt or any place in the middle east or North Africa. North Africans are not negroids hence their different facial structures.if you want to find other negroids look to the Australian aboriginals their hair and facial structurea look familia.a misshapened coin struck coin won't change history. Learn real history if you don't like it it's fine it doesn't change who you are now. If shouldn't mater if we were descendents of zues himself it doesn't all of a sudden change me.

      Delete
    11. North Africans are mixture of arabs today. But your misinformed there were black pharaohs.

      Delete
    12. You are here telling others to learn history when you are the one lacking in knowledge or common sense, Why is it so difficult for some to understand that The modern day Egyptians are NOT the same race as the ancient Egyptians? HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OR READ THAT ANCIENT EGYPT WAS INVADED BY THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOW LIVING THERE?

      If i were to go by your logic, i would have come to the conclusion that the ancient americans were whites and not native Indians.

      We will just ignore the fact that the hieroglyphs and paintings were that of blacks but, how many Arabs do you know who wear dreadlocks, braids, Wigs and use Pick comb/soul comb to groom their hair?
      How many arabs do you know name their children Khufu (Akufu), Khafre, Tutu Ankoma or Shabaka?

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/4SoH.jpg

      http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/31-01-2013/123637-egyptians_jews-0/

      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/22/e6/44/22e64432616da87b832aa4b52bfd0aae.jpg

      http://newsrescue.com/dna-evidence-on-egyptian-pharaohs-ramses-iii-a-sub-saharan-african-black/#axzz43wHF4wp2

      Do you understand the difference between Ancient and Modern?

      Delete
  6. If the Moroccans are African in the France of today, so now is Hannibal African in the ages of historical time. The Europeans (know when this political term came into being) began to migrate to the continent that would be called Africa after the Moors and Phoenicians lost control of southern "Europe" from the Romans. For the Phoenicians (Hannibal of Carthage), there were three Punic wars with Rome. Those who resided on the African continent were defeated as Hannibal marched through the Alps to meet Rome on its home turf. Mr. Bob -- there were no "whites" or "Europeans" in Africa in any real numbers before this. Modern day Spain, Portugal and southern France were part of the African kingdoms/empires/nations (call them what you will) of the Moors, Phoenicians and Numidians of the African continent. These were not people of European heritage. Carthage was the central city of the North African Phoenician kingdom, whose borders changed based on its many battles in history. The Phoenician's borders changed based on who was writing the history and maps and the political conditions. Africa controlled much of the Mediterranean Sea regions during the historical time of Hannibal, especially the trade. The Phoenicians would be considered African based on their origin and the location of the Roman-sacked city of Carthage. The Phoenicians bordered Kemet, now known as Egypt. All humans originated in Africa, even the Phoenicians and the Egyptians. Nile valley civilizations still hold the oldest human bones. All world civilizations came out of the first man and woman on earth. There are no traces of Neanderthal bones or DNA in Africa, ask scientists. These are historical facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for truth. Your comments are eloquent and gratifying. Very tired of ignorant people trying to irradicate BLACK HISTORY. The truth shall set us free.

      Delete
    2. 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.

      Delete
    3. Land of punt. I belive ur answers lie there. Ethiopia and somlia etria kneya.

      Delete
  7. Hannibal Barca was most definitely not black. He was a Caucasian man that spent a lot of time marching/ fighting under the Sun. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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. So... Yeah, he was black.

      Delete
    2. As usual, you people feel the need to lie to make yourselves feel superior... it's ok stupid because you don't know anybetter. Understand this "tan Boy" I don't care how dark you people try to get out in the sun, YOU CAN'T MAKE BLACK BABIES!!!! THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE TO LIE THAT IS WHY YOU ARE SO MAD ABOUT HANNIBAL'S VICTORY...they raped the hell out of all of thoes Italian women, leaving behind a legion of little curly headed brown skinned babies....White men make white babies, stupid.
      Hannibal was a military Genius, so was Queen Hapshepsut, King Ramasese and Queen Anna Nazinga. They were not ALIENS and they were not WHITE.... STOP LYING, you have no leg to stand on.

      Delete
    3. 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.

      Delete
    4. he was semitic. probably looked like modern Arabs

      Delete
    5. 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. Probably 10-15 %? Mostly Semitic though.They weren't white though any more than a Mexican or Hindu is white.

      Delete
    6. if you need to know the truth about Hannibal, ask the Italians.

      Delete
    7. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/asia/lebanon/phoenicians-text/4

      Here is a good article that I found about the genetic history of Carthage based on grave sites. It seems to point to a strong genetic affinity with modern day Lebanese people. Now if anyone says that Hannibal/the Carthaginians were white they are idiots. 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.

      Delete
  8. Actually thats not true he was a Black man and not caucasian, check out C. Ante Diop, as well as J.H. Clarke and other ancient historical accounts of the Phoenicians.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 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(!), then at least 80's of his army were hard-core black! 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.' Whites are not Semites and they even say that they speak Indo-European languages, so that takes them out of the mix right there! 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      Delete
    2. Hannibal was black these are facts

      Delete
    3. Deangelo Hill, Give a credible source, you're just spouting this stuff out as though you were the authority on it.

      Delete
  10. Thank you Brotha..thank you for standing up to inferrior lies and their insignificant authors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Visit my channel on YouTube "Hamitic Renaissance"

      Delete
    2. AS regards the race and ethnic extraction of our Hannibal and the upper-class Carthaginians to which he belonged (I'm Lebanese), I would like to introduce you to our ancestor Arish, the Beloved, risen from the necropolis of Carthage herself, of whom we in the Lebanon are most proud and honored to call one of our own:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJiMvJlg39w

      Delete
  11. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 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 ?century-- a function of the racist transatlantic slave trade. 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 200s 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. joe joe joe what the hell are you talking about. 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. everything that you stated is so wrong in many different ways, except the fact that during ancient times race were not as important as it is now, why because to see with the visual eye laid to no questions. And so that you know AFRICA and BLACKNESS have existed from the times of earth's existance

      Delete
  13. 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 you shouldn't need any validation from anybody that black/brown/beige colored people have contributed to the world in many ways. 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. dark skinned or that Alexander was a light vs dark because they didn't see it that way so why are we(modern man) wasting so much time proving or disproving the fact. 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. MY REALITY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are these "tremendous contributions to society?"

      Delete
  14. - Nobody can be certain exactly what Hannibal looked like unless they have been alive for the past 2,197 years. To insist otherwise is foolish, especially in the context of black vs. white. 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. However, evidence also suggest while there was a significant racially mixed population, the aristocracy & ruling class (which includes Hannibal's lineage) did not miscegenate with other cultures. FYI- in the Third Punic War Rome committed what some consider the first large-scale genocide. The entire 500k-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. Subjugating History to advance a worldview or ideology at one’s own convenience is the work of a special kind of scum and is to be practiced where such tactics are not only embraced but are the pinnacle of cognitive expression – Cable News or the History Channel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oh it is easy u can read the Greek and Roman historians. they describe him. period.

      Delete
  15. - Nobody can be certain exactly what Hannibal looked like unless they have been alive for the past 2,197 years. To insist otherwise is foolish, especially in the context of black vs. white. 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. However, evidence also suggest while there was a significant racially mixed population, the aristocracy & ruling class (which includes Hannibal's lineage) did not miscegenate with other cultures. FYI- in the Third Punic War Rome committed what some consider the first large-scale genocide. The entire 500k-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. Subjugating History to advance a worldview or ideology at one’s own convenience is the work of a special kind of scum and is to be practiced where such tactics are not only embraced but are the pinnacle of cognitive expression – Cable News or the History Channel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i agreed with you. however, histories are told by historians, passed has no evidence as history.

      Delete
    2. 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.

      Delete
  16. every historian knows he wasnt white for sure..

    ReplyDelete
  17. They left out how they Raped Italian women and enslaved them.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jesus Christ people. Agenda, much! "Dark skinned, curly-haired babies in Italy" only proves the ethnicity of the army of rapists, not the general who probably ordered, or at least condoned, the rape. My guess is that Hannibal was probably a good mixture of lots of things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      Delete
  19. People became "white" because the original man from "Africa" (who was darker hue and had the phenotype of the Sub-Saharan African Man & Woman of today) migrated from "Africa" into Europe. 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. The Original Man Was The "Black" Man We Think Of Today!

    ReplyDelete
  20. 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!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @B, since you mention Hannibal was Phoenician descent proves he was black aboriginal, since the Phoenicians were a branch of the Sidonians----Sidon the son of Canaan, the brother of Cush (Ethiopia). Word origin? These were the same Phoenicians who populated many nations of Europe, e.g., Inchus and Melea (from Melas "black, ink"), the grandparents of Cadmus, who took the Phoencians knowledge to the pre-Greeks of Argos....Herodotus, and Diodorus of Silcily writes of this mixed Egyptian family -----blacks, so were the the Spartans. The Greek Classical depicts Europeans, but many were still black (Herodotus, Histories, 2.104, 6.72). The Colchians, offspring of the "black woolly haired Egyptians"

      Delete
  21. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  23. White people seek out African websites so they can post, "They were not Black, Blah Blah Yada Yada Blah"!

    They don't get it!
    They are white people! 0 credibility! 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.

    question: If I think Mandela is my grandfather, do really you think I give a shit if they believe it or not? Who cares if they disagree? Who cares if they complain?

    The real question is...why do they care so much what anybody else believe?
    Hmmm!
    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!

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is an insult to me and all the Tunisian people hannibal was a berber from phoenician decent just like me and the other 90% of the tunisian peole we are neither black nor white we are our own race it's called BERBER ! why do black people feel the need to steal and appropriate other race national hereos ? you did that to the egyptians now the tunisians are next ??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should be insulted by your own ignorant comment! There is no Berber race. You are neither Black nor white because you are MULLATOES! You are mixed with many things. And Phonecians are Kananu, those are descendants of Kham (both and all African) and before Tunis became Masyli- it was ALL African. 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!

      Delete
    2. 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 1200 years. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257290/

      "The indigenous North African ancestry may have been more common in Berber populations and appears most closely related to populations outside of Africa, but divergence between Maghrebi peoples and Near Eastern/Europeans likely precedes the Holocene (>12,000 ya). 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 1,200 years ago in southern Morocco and about 750 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.

      "The indigenous North African ancestry is more frequent in populations with historical Berber ethnicity. 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 1000 or 2000 years, but 12,000 years.

      Delete
  25. 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 ..

    ReplyDelete
  26. 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.e. mod. Lebanese).

    It is due to the facial reconstruction of a skeletal find such as this as well as DNA mapping and sites like Phoenicia.org that provide the evidence necessary to prove exactly who our olive-skinned ancestors were, as well as to affirm that their direct descendants are alive and well today and living in their motherland of Lebanon.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to introduce you to our Arish, the Beloved, risen from the necropolis of Carthage herself, whom we in the Lebanon are most proud of and honored to call one of our own:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJiMvJlg39w

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well said sir. I really like this especially because I have some Berber ancestry.

      Delete
    2. It makes me smile to hear that you appreciated my comment, friend. Also, John Oates, the other half of Hall & Oates, one of my all-time favorite music groups, is part Berber in descent. :)

      Delete
  27. I'm ashamed of what I read in these comments. The only race of people I am ashamed of however, is the human race. In 2016, 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 800 years ago? Ridiculous. 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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 "400" years ago...

      Delete
  28. Mauri means black-skinned people!


    The Lebanese coast was conquered by the Achaemenid Persians who forced the Canaanites (Kananu) to relocate to Carthage (Tunisia) and Cadiz (Spain). 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). But, those are Lebanese NOT Canaanites!


    There is no such thing as a Caucasoid race; and Caucasian people are not European. And of course you “share more in common with the Middle East than [you] do the rest of Africa”. 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!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. ACTUALLY, Mr. 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 814 BCE, and that the Persian Empire was created by its founder, Cyrus, later in the year 550 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. the race of Negroes, but rather emphasized the fact that it was the fertile black alluvium deposited annually by the life-giving Nile which enabled its civilization to even exist, which contrasted their other word of Deshret applied it, the Red Land, used to describe the desert regions surrounding their society on which they could not grow crops or domesticate livestock.

      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. And you would also know that Caucasoids are not only native to Europe, but also the continent of Asia—that is, North Asia, Western Asia, Central Asia and Southern Asia—as well as North Africa. 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

      Delete
    3. 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!

      Delete
  29. Well yeah, N. Africa is white today...not true for yesterday

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wrong! 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.


    The entire continent is Africa and ALL indigenous people are Black. 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!

    ReplyDelete
  31. you cannot have a genetic history based on grave sites. genetic history is based on genetic material. Anthropologists have already proven who these people were.

    ReplyDelete
  32. According for you to Roman mythology your history involving Rome began inside 753 B.C. When a good basket, floating to the Tiber River, came ashore near a good place called eight hills. As outlined by this legend the basket carried twin babies, Romulus AND ALSO Remus. its mother feel the daughter of any nearby king, IN ADDITION TO it's father, are supposed to be Mars, the god of war. their uncle am your villain, exactly who had set them with the basket on the river to protect his brand towards throne. Punic Wars city

    ReplyDelete
  33. 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. their word for "black" or "very dark," was, in fact "Moros".


    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?

    ReplyDelete
  34. 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. After Hannibal’s life, the Romans likely recalled every silver Punic coin they could find—including any that might have shown Hannibal—and melted them down to make new Roman coins with their own images. 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. From what we think we know about his family ancestry, however, his Barcid family (if that’s even the right name) has been generally understood as descending from Phoenician aristocracy. 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 1,000 years before Hannibal, it is very possible his family had intermixed in DNA with peoples then living in North Africa. But this too seems quite distant from any potential Nilotic DNA stream including via the “superhighway” of the Nile River. 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. New studies suggest that around Hannibal’s time there was likely more trans-Saharan travel via Garamantian oases [i.e., oases controlled by the Garamantes, a Berber people], so we shouldn’t deny any possible Africanization of the region of Carthage.

    If Africanization was part of Hannibal’s heritage, I and other scholars would be most interested in seeing the evidence, as we should always be ready to learn and change our perceptions when needed. 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. Sadly, “race” has too often been a divisive political term.

    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. For now, that seems true of Hannibal’s ethnicity.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This whole 'debate' going on here is so incredibly odd. We don't, and can't, possibly know what Hannibal did or did not look like. We have no skeletal fragments or DNA of either him or any known relative, nor do we have any depiction that can be attributed to him without doubt, neither can any be accurately dated. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Romans eventually completely destroyed Carthage. Barely anything remains.

    All we really have is the myths / origin story of the barca family and carthiginians being descendents of phoenician sailors. These are originally from modern day lebanon but would probably have looked more like kurds or yazidis (one of the few 'preserved' groups as they do not allow marriage outside of their social group because of their religious views) than that they would resemble the people who live there today. Even so, this doesn't exclude the possibility that there would've been 'african influence'. However, the natural sahara barrier would've made travel from south to north africa very difficult. It's more likely that the 'original inhabitants' either travelled to north africa going west along the coast from the nile delta in Egypt, south from spain, or by sea over the mediterranean as the phoenicians reputedly did. Even so, considering all three possibilities it's probable that whoever 'originally' lived there were very mixed ethnically and probably looked the part, too.

    Whatever the case, I think we can, with near certainty, exclude two possibilities: Hannibal being a white skinned, blue eyed blonde, or: Hannibal being 'African' in the sense of having an appearance 'typical' of central Africa. Knowing that, I really wouldn't classify him as either white or black. Carthiginian society was in all likelihood diverse and distinct in its diversity.

    Moreover, his appearance wasn't distinct enough in his time to warrant comments about it in the literature we do have on Hannibal (mainly polybius and livy - polybius being the most important as he was a contemporary and actually present during the destruction of carthage) - and I think this is crucial. In his later years, after gaining most of his fame, Hannibal spent all of his time in exile in the levant and asia minor. I would wager he blended in quite well among both locals and the 'greek' aristocracy if nobody felt the need to remark on Hannibal's 'exquisite appearance'. Neither did Polybius ever remark on strange looking carthiginians.

    In the end, what disturbs me about this debate and site is that it seems to be a very typical manifestation of racial debates in the United States. Don't subject historical figures who lived more than 2300 years ago to your internal racial debate.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 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.

    ReplyDelete

POWr Mailing List