Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 233

Thread: Black Hannibal?

  1. #81
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Gatorade, is it in you?
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13,591

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by LinusLinothorax View Post
    *Kushites
    Numidians lived in the Maghreb.
    I think he confused Nubians with Numidians for a moment. We all have our brain-farts from time to time.

  2. #82

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    I don't really care enough to look it up, and I suspect I'm in the upper percentile of people who are interested in history.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  3. #83

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Oh hey, an Afrocentrism supporter, I have a legitimate question, it's the first reply of this thread.
    Why are you guys so obsessed with Egypt when there are great civilizations from Sub-Saharian Africa, namely Ghana, Songhay, Mali?
    Those are undoubtfully ''black'', most slaves to the Americas actually come from that area so it's definitely your heritage.
    Why are you demeaning it in favour of others?
    I'm not even interested in discussing whether Egypt is black or white. Let's say Egypt was black. So what? Most slaves don't come from there.
    It'd be like Greeks claiming Viking heritage. It makes no sense. Why ignore your ancestors and focus on those of others?
    I don't know if you are replying to me or not but I will bite. It isn't Afrocentric to say that black Africans have always populated all parts of Africa since before Europeans existed. The facts are that black Africans are the most diverse humans on earth and all other populations are a subset of African diversity. Those are the basic biological facts.

    However, because of European imperialism, as others have mentioned, early anthropology was based primarily on racist ideologies which tried to put Europeans and white skin at the top of the human evolutionary pyramid. Anywhere and everywhere ancient civilizations were found, even deep in Southern Africa had to somehow be connected to white skinned people. North Africa, because it is the jumping off point of human migration INTO Europe is a key piece of that evolutionary history, in addition to being an ancient repository of artifacts from ancient civilizations of which Egypt is only one. And because of this key piece of human evolutionary history, the white European racists have decided it must be attributed to white skinned people as part of their justification for black inferiority. So in reality the only ones "obsessed" here with Egypt are those claiming that not only Egypt but all of North Africa was originally populated by whites and that black Africans, despite being the first humans on earth and migrating all over the planet and surviving in all different kinds of environments, somehow magically didn't know how to cross the Sahara. It is blatant bunk but the people on this thread don't even know basic geography and OR history because they could care less about the fact that the majority of human history took place IN Africa before anybody migrated out. According to them nothing important happened until humans migrated to the Caucasus mountains and developed "Caucasoid" features and them RETURNED to Africa to set up civilization there, while leaving behind no advanced civilization of their own in the Caucasus or Northern Ice Caps.

    So ask these folks obsessing about Eurasians being in North Africa before black Africans why they are obsessed with Africa. North Africa is not an extension of Eurasia, it never has been and the people there are primarily African with some Eurasian mixture which has indeed happened over time, but those Eurasians aren't the "original" North Africans.

    Climate change has been like an on-off switch in the Sahara. In dry times the lakes dwindled and the plants declined to niches. Then, when moister times returned, the lakes filled and parts of the Sahara were transformed to savanna. Human communities have pulsed here like the explosion of plants after a rare rain. When moist eras visited, they thrived. When the dry times returned, they shrank or collapsed.
    How does one locate waterways of long ago? From way up high. Using radar images taken from space, Migrations Project team members Kevin White and Nick Drake have been able to map the location of mineral residues from ancient lakes and springs, then steer their Land Rovers to those spots, where paleoanthropologists Robert Foley and Marta Mirazón Lahr discovered stone tools, arrowheads, fireplaces, graves, and other clues to human occupation.
    The earliest modern humans in the region were hunters and gatherers who lived in a savanna landscape about 130,000 years ago. Those people cleared out when the rains tapered off about 70,000 years ago, but then the rains returned and people moved in again. This back-and-forth migration is called the Saharan pump, a movement of people in and out of northern Africa as the climate shifted. Scratched on the desert's rocks are the memories of a wetter Sahara, when water-dependent creatures such as lions, elephants, and rhinoceroses lived here.
    A funny thing happened when the most recent wet phase ended. About 5,000 years ago the rains stopped once more, the lakes disappeared, and the desert took hold. Yet this time the people stayed. Rock art suggests they had already made the transition from hunting to raising livestock. Next came the rise of a society that would begin building towns and make the transition to agriculture: the Garamantian civilization.
    The Garamantes flourished here in a climate much like that of the Sahara today. Many scholars assumed they were desert nomads, but excavations at their capital city, Garama (near modern-day Jarmah), and land surveys by Mattingly's team have shown they were sedentary people living off oasis agriculture. They constructed a sophisticated irrigation system that allowed them to grow wheat, barley, sorghum, date palms, and olives. Underground canals—called foggaras—tapped into groundwater and directed it to fields without loss to evaporation. Six hundred miles of these canals can still be detected. The system worked well for hundreds of years. And then the "fossil" water, stored up in wet times, started to give out, and the civilization collapsed.
    The Sahara seems like a barrier at first glance, severing Africa into two pieces. But for the humans who have lived in Libya for thousands of years, it has been a corridor. Gold and ivory and slaves came north from sub-Saharan Africa; olive oil, wine, glass, and other goods from the Mediterranean flowed south. This trade creates a lasting image in our minds: the caravan wending its way through huge dunes.
    The Saharan corridor may even have been one of the pathways our ancestors followed when they left the eastern part of the continent to populate the rest of the world. Scholars have long assumed that early humans expanded beyond sub-Saharan Africa into Eurasia by migrating either along the Nile River and across the Sinai or across the Red Sea. Now another notion is being explored: that the Fezzan may have been part of a long migratory corridor leading some modern humans to the shores of the Mediterranean and from there across the Sinai. Perhaps, through this sea of sand, our ancestors trekked from the Great Rift Valley and into our lives.
    Mattingly says he likes archaeology because "it has lessons for today." Fifteen hundred years after the fall of the Garamantes, the Libyan government is now building the Great Man-Made River, a series of huge aqueducts to mine ancient underground water reserves below the Sahara and use them to make the desert bloom. The water being pumped was deposited tens of thousands of years ago, in much wetter times. Already the water table is declining because of the pumping. The project has an estimated life span of only 50 to 100 years, a blink of the eye in this region.
    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/10/fezzan/bowden-text




    And if I put a room full of black Africans from across the continent in a room with Africans in America you would not be able to tell who was "former slave" from West Africa from the rest in most cases. Black Africans across Africa all generally look the same even though there is tremendous diversity in black African populations.



    Last edited by ArmoredCore; June 18, 2016 at 12:15 PM.

  4. #84
    Campidoctor
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,952

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    I get the suspicion that ArmoredCore is either a troll or a completly unconvincible agendist. Either the first or second, further discussion is a waste of time.

  5. #85
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Gatorade, is it in you?
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13,591

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Condottiere 40K View Post
    I don't really care enough to look it up, and I suspect I'm in the upper percentile of people who are interested in history.
    Come on, it's not really that difficult, is it?

    Numidians = the semi-nomadic Berber guys who lived around Carthage in ancient Tunisia.

    Nubians = blacks who lived in Sudan below ancient Egypt (at the southern end of the Nile) and had a civilization that was very similar to ancient Egypt (and for a little over a century conquered and controlled the whole of Egypt).

  6. #86

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    The facts are that black Africans are the most diverse humans on earth and all other populations are a subset of African diversity. Those are the basic biological facts.
    This is a false assertion that could only be made by someone who knows next to nothing about evolutionary biology. For this to be true, out-of-Africa populations would have had to experience absolutely no drift over ~80,000 years, no unique random mutations, no selection pressure from the new environments they entered, no selection pressure from new cultural developments, no selection from technological developments, no selection from environmental change, no introgression from Neanderthals and no introgression from Denisovans. We know for certain all these things did in fact happen, but anyone with any understanding of evolutionary biology would assume that would be the case with every factor except the introgression.

    In summery, that is an astoundingly ignorant claim, and yet I'm sure you heard it somewhere, which leads me to the conclusion that you are ideologically motivated and have no interest in biological facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  7. #87

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    I don't know if you are replying to me or not but I will bite. It isn't Afrocentric to say that black Africans have always populated all parts of Africa since before Europeans existed. The facts are that black Africans are the most diverse humans on earth and all other populations are a subset of African diversity. Those are the basic biological facts.

    However, because of European imperialism, as others have mentioned, early anthropology was based primarily on racist ideologies which tried to put Europeans and white skin at the top of the human evolutionary pyramid. Anywhere and everywhere ancient civilizations were found, even deep in Southern Africa had to somehow be connected to white skinned people. North Africa, because it is the jumping off point of human migration INTO Europe is a key piece of that evolutionary history, in addition to being an ancient repository of artifacts from ancient civilizations of which Egypt is only one. And because of this key piece of human evolutionary history, the white European racists have decided it must be attributed to white skinned people as part of their justification for black inferiority. So in reality the only ones "obsessed" here with Egypt are those claiming that not only Egypt but all of North Africa was originally populated by whites and that black Africans, despite being the first humans on earth and migrating all over the planet and surviving in all different kinds of environments, somehow magically didn't know how to cross the Sahara. It is blatant bunk but the people on this thread don't even know basic geography and OR history because they could care less about the fact that the majority of human history took place IN Africa before anybody migrated out. According to them nothing important happened until humans migrated to the Caucasus mountains and developed "Caucasoid" features and them RETURNED to Africa to set up civilization there, while leaving behind no advanced civilization of their own in the Caucasus or Northern Ice Caps.
    Ok I'll skip the thing about the race of North Africans, but I have nothing to object about the rest. Considering however that we are past the 19th Century idea that ''blacks didn't have civilizations'', does it really matter?
    Because at the end of the day the whole purpose of Afrocentrism isn't just to prove that there were successful black communities, there were and that's what you have addressed, it's to give a background to African Americans that isn't just slavery to avoid an inferiority complex towards ''whites'' or ''Asians''. That background however doesn't really come from North Africans.
    Again it'd be like Italian Americans claiming Viking heritage.
    I'm basically repeating my argument but it seems to me you have addressed only a part.
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    So ask these folks obsessing about Eurasians being in North Africa before black Africans why they are obsessed with Africa. North Africa is not an extension of Eurasia, it never has been and the people there are primarily African with some Eurasian mixture which has indeed happened over time, but those Eurasians aren't the "original" North Africans.
    This goes back to the issue about 19th century anthropology; the thing is, now it is widely accepted as rubbish. The whole ''white'' group of people is also a gross generalization. Let's take Berbers as an example as they are at the core of the issue.
    I'm assuming 19th century anthropology places them in the ''white'' group of cultures? It doesn't take a genious to realize it's a bold claim. And they aren't black either.
    So, the whole distinction between ''black and white'' is weak. Let's move elsewhere, where would they put Indians in that distinction? Some are rather dark skinned, some light skinned, none of them have anything in common with Europeans or Africans.
    So why are we still using the whole black or white way of defining people when it's outdated and doesn't include at least a third of the people on earth?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    And if I put a room full of black Africans from across the continent in a room with Africans in America you would not be able to tell who was "former slave" from West Africa from the rest in most cases. Black Africans across Africa all generally look the same even though there is tremendous diversity in black African populations.
    I don't know about that. I have a moderately good eye and I'm often able to distinguish Chinese from Japanese for instance. I haven't developed the same eye for blacks but I'm sure blacks in Africa can distinguish each other (say East Africans from Namibians etc.). Black Americans are mix of all the West Africans plus a few others so it might be harder.

  8. #88
    Kyriakos's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    Posts
    8,250

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Ehm, presenting the color used in a tomb painting or similar as info on what color of skin the people depicted have... is not a good idea at all. Cause you'd have to argue that ancient Minoans were often cyan or pale green-skinned.

    Colors in art tend to have symbolic element very often. Not always, but it is a great mistake to point at brown/black color in egyptian forms painted and argue this shows they were brown/black.



    Last edited by Kyriakos; June 18, 2016 at 03:42 PM.
    Λέων μεν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δε βούς, ἄνθρωπος δε νῷι
    "While the lion prevails with its claws, and the ox through its horns, man does by his thinking"
    Anaxagoras of Klazomenae, 5th century BC










  9. #89

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Black Americans are mix of all the West Africans plus a few others so it might be harder.
    And 20 to 30% English and Scottish on average, but I can see why that might feel weird for them to be interested in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    Ehm, presenting the color used in a tomb painting or similar as info on what color of skin the people depicted have... is not a good idea at all.
    Yeah, this is a good point. Also Egyptians had only four pigments that they used for painting skin colors - carbon black, red ochre, yellow ochre, and limestone white. For some reason they didn't mix them until later periods, so skin tones are always one of those four. In some cases the same individual has been painted in more than one of the pigments so that in one depiction they are red ochre and another they are yellow ochre. That is probably why the Nubians are carbon black instead of dark brown and the Libyans are limestone white instead of some lighter shade of brown.

    EDIT: Also, two depictions of Ptolemy I Soter:





    How representative is the Egyptian style?
    Last edited by sumskilz; June 18, 2016 at 04:17 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  10. #90
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    22,219

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    I have a bit of an art background so I'll throw in a theory. If the paint needed to be heated then that could drastically change the colours of the paint when used. It could also be that the paints they had produced were of a certain colour when painting and dried into a slightly different shade or hue. Or the materials they used could only produce an intensity in those four colours and their other colours were sub par. It's really just chemistry if you can figure out the science, I don't think they could have calculated what they would end up with if what I said was true. It was probably a case of trial and error and it really takes a master to be able to figure out the recipe and do this efficiently. I don't know if there was a business aspect to this in Ancient Egypt but it may have even been a trade secret.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; June 18, 2016 at 04:31 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  11. #91

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    I have a bit of an art background so I'll throw in a theory. If the paint needed to be heated then that could drastically change the colours of the paint drastically when used. It could also be that the paints they had produced were of a certain colour when painting and dried into a slightly different shade or hue. Or the materials they used could only produce an intensity in those four colours and their other colours were sub par. It's really just chemistry if you can figure out the science, I don't think they could have calculated what they would end up with if what I said was true. It was probably a case of trial and error and it really takes a master to be able to do this efficiently. I don't know if there was a business aspect to this in Ancient Egypt but it may have even been a trade secret.
    That's interesting. I've seen a few conference presentations on the topic, but I've never heard anyone talk about investigating the process used in creating the paints, usually they seem to just be analyzing them to determine the ingredients.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  12. #92
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    22,219

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    The processes to mixing paints were very difficult and time consuming. Too much heat, the right amount of an ingredient or the timing being off would make the difference. Today knowing the ingredients would be much easier because of chemistry so the product could probably be replicated. The colours that they chose to use could be because of anything from symbolism or maybe a more worldly reason, such as those being their best colours.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  13. #93

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    That is a very scientific-grade post.

    ..
    .

    And no, 'barbarbar' saying people were not just north europeans (who obviously wouldn't come into the picture much at the time), but anyone other than Greek #1
    There is no doubt that the Mediterran civilizations considered all Northern Europeans as less civilized. If they talked about big empires and civilizations they acknowledged each other to a certain degree and meant regions around the Mediterran and the Near East (e.g. when talking who was a Great king or not). That was what I was refering to. Yes, everyone was a barbarian to a Greek, but in terms of civilization the guys around down south were considered more advanced than the folks up north.

    Persians are not said to be brown either. No such reference in Greek history. The people termed as 'dark-skinned' ("melampsoi") are Ethiopian mostly in the same sources. The term acquires more openly negative connotation with Rome, and its term for 'black', which is the so-called 'n word'.
    You miss the point. The issue is that this is considered whitewashing of history when Greeks and Romans would be offended to be lumped together with Northern Europeans of the time. They rather would be equated with Egypt or Persia who at least were civilizations rival Great kingdoms and overall the Mediterran region had more contact with each other than with anyone either in Northern Europe or beyond the Sahara. That's what I meant with brown people. Southern Europeans, North Africa and the Levant were more of a crosspollinating melting pot of cultures than with anything north or south of it.

    Best case in point of this is probably where the Roman empire's borders ran and that the Romans erected border fences to not let any white people in. The main reason is that the Mediterran was a good conduit for communication and trade.

    The ancient travel networks do not really promote the African idea but also segregated Southern Europe from Northern Europe.
    Last edited by Mangalore; June 18, 2016 at 06:00 PM.
    "Sebaceans once had a god called Djancaz-Bru. Six worlds prayed to her. They built her temples, conquered planets. And yet one day she rose up and destroyed all six worlds. And when the last warrior was dying, he said, 'We gave you everything, why did you destroy us?' And she looked down upon him and she whispered, 'Because I can.' "
    Mangalore Design

  14. #94

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyriakos View Post
    Ehm, presenting the color used in a tomb painting or similar as info on what color of skin the people depicted have... is not a good idea at all. Cause you'd have to argue that ancient Minoans were often cyan or pale green-skinned.

    Colors in art tend to have symbolic element very often. Not always, but it is a great mistake to point at brown/black color in egyptian forms painted and argue this shows they were brown/black.



    Note that the Egyptians also depicted the Keftiu (Cretans) in the same colors in their tombs.....




    The Keftiu are shown, unexpectedly, with a dark red skin colour, just as one finds in Cretan painting. They have long hair with curls on the top of the skull. They wear sandals with straps, along with colourful leggings (view bs-38422). They bring the products of their crafts, mainly vessels of gold (view bs-38424, view bs-38426, view sh-85) and silver (view sb-145, view bs-38425) in the form of decorated with, or shaped like. animals (lion, bull, ibex): jugs, drinking cups, amphorae, rhytons (view bs-38421). They also provide the products they have obtained by trade: ingots and rings of silver, daggers, chains (view bs-38420) and pieces of lapis lazuli. These riches will be piled up at the feet of the scribes (view bs-38428).
    Accompanying text: ""Coming in peace by the Great of Crete, islands that are in the middle of the sea, bending, bowing of the head, because of the power of His Majesty, the King of Lower Egypt, Menkheperre, given life forever, on learning of his strength in all foreign countries, their tribute being on their backs, in order that they may be given the breath of life, desiring to be faithful (literally: to be upon the water) to His Majesty, to ensure that his power protects them. It is the confidant of the King, Mayor of the City, Vizier Rekhmire, who receives all the tribute of all foreign countries, which are brought due to the power of His Majesty."
    http://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/nobl...mire100_03.htm

    Not sure that this color is necessarily "symbolic" as brown skin is a real skin color.

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Ok I'll skip the thing about the race of North Africans, but I have nothing to object about the rest. Considering however that we are past the 19th Century idea that ''blacks didn't have civilizations'', does it really matter?
    Because at the end of the day the whole purpose of Afrocentrism isn't just to prove that there were successful black communities, there were and that's what you have addressed, it's to give a background to African Americans that isn't just slavery to avoid an inferiority complex towards ''whites'' or ''Asians''. That background however doesn't really come from North Africans.
    Again it'd be like Italian Americans claiming Viking heritage.
    I'm basically repeating my argument but it seems to me you have addressed only a part.

    This goes back to the issue about 19th century anthropology; the thing is, now it is widely accepted as rubbish. The whole ''white'' group of people is also a gross generalization. Let's take Berbers as an example as they are at the core of the issue.
    I'm assuming 19th century anthropology places them in the ''white'' group of cultures? It doesn't take a genious to realize it's a bold claim. And they aren't black either.
    So, the whole distinction between ''black and white'' is weak. Let's move elsewhere, where would they put Indians in that distinction? Some are rather dark skinned, some light skinned, none of them have anything in common with Europeans or Africans.
    So why are we still using the whole black or white way of defining people when it's outdated and doesn't include at least a third of the people on earth?


    I don't know about that. I have a moderately good eye and I'm often able to distinguish Chinese from Japanese for instance. I haven't developed the same eye for blacks but I'm sure blacks in Africa can distinguish each other (say East Africans from Namibians etc.). Black Americans are mix of all the West Africans plus a few others so it might be harder.
    I don't understand why it is "Afrocentric" for Africans to debate history and facts about history. So everybody else can debate, study and argue over history but Africans can't? I personally study a whole lot of history so it is not only Africa and I have studied many parts of African history. History is fascinating to me period. So I debate facts. If someone is incorrect it should be shown where they are incorrect.
    Last edited by ArmoredCore; June 18, 2016 at 07:40 PM.

  15. #95
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Gatorade, is it in you?
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    13,591

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Firstly, just wanna say that I'm impressed with your knowledge about paint, Oda. Nicely done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mangalore View Post
    There is no doubt that the Mediterran civilizations considered all Northern Europeans as less civilized. If they talked about big empires and civilizations they acknowledged each other to a certain degree and meant regions around the Mediterran and the Near East (e.g. when talking who was a Great king or not). That was what I was refering to. Yes, everyone was a barbarian to a Greek, but in terms of civilization the guys around down south were considered more advanced than the folks up north.



    You miss the point. The issue is that this is considered whitewashing of history when Greeks and Romans would be offended to be lumped together with Northern Europeans of the time. They rather would be equated with Egypt or Persia who at least were civilizations rival Great kingdoms and overall the Mediterran region had more contact with each other than with anyone either in Northern Europe or beyond the Sahara. That's what I meant with brown people. Southern Europeans, North Africa and the Levant were more of a crosspollinating melting pot of cultures than with anything north or south of it.

    Best case in point of this is probably where the Roman empire's borders ran and that the Romans erected border fences to not let any white people in. The main reason is that the Mediterran was a good conduit for communication and trade.

    The ancient travel networks do not really promote the African idea but also segregated Southern Europe from Northern Europe.
    I agree with this assessment overall about 80%, but there's a few things that should probably be mentioned. I'm not sure if the word "segregated" is the right one to describe Southern and Northern Europe even in antiquity. Even before the Romans conquered large swaths of Northern Europe, there were enormously lucrative and important trade routes like the tin trade route leading to the British Isles and the amber trade route leading all the way to the Baltic Sea in what is now Lithuania and Poland. Another curious thing happened long before the Romans conquered the whole of Western Europe: the Celtic peoples surrounding the Mediterranean were already deeply influenced by Greek and Phoenician/Carthaginian colonists along the shores of modern-day Spain and France (and northern Italy for the Romans). For instance, the idea of minting coin currency was adopted by various non-Hellenic peoples in the European hinterland, as far as the British Isles. Evolving military technology was often traded from one side to the other, but this wasn't the only trade-off.

    Despite the convincing Roman propaganda that the various Gauls were only uncivilized barbarians, some of them actually knew how to read and write in Greek. Further to the east, Greek influence on the Thracians was even more pronounced, and to a lesser extent the nomadic peoples hovering around the Crimean Peninsula. Again, this was all before the Romanization of Western Europe. Had Carthage been given more time to assimilate its subjects in Iberia like they did in Libya, the Iberian tribes would have surely been more amenable and culturally closer to them as well. The Romanization of Iberia and Gaul (and to a lesser extent the frontiers of Germania Inferior + England and Wales) was absolute by the time of the Five Good Emperors.

  16. #96
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    22,219

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    "I dabble sir, I dabble"
    It took me many months of watching paint dry for me to master.

    I don't even see why we have to keep debating this. Like really History Channel should know better. Everyone should know better. I mean no offense to ArmoredCore but honestly this debate is over. He's just holding out in what is left of the forests planning his next offensive with whatever forces he can scrounge up cause everyone basically destroyed this thread with their saturation bombing.

    The DNA won this argument end of story.
    As for the possibility of Blacks in Carthage: the only Blacks that may have resided in Carthage were slaves brought by Libyan tribes in the far south. These tribes lived in the Fezzan and the southern tip of Cyrenaica and raided in the far south in what would be modern day Sudan and the edges of Libya, who knows maybe they managed to raid as far as Chad. Selling slaves to the Carthaginians was very profitable for them.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  17. #97

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    I don't understand why it is "Afrocentric" for Africans to debate history and facts about history. So everybody else can debate, study and argue over history but Africans can't? I personally study a whole lot of history so it is not only Africa and I have studied many parts of African history. History is fascinating to me period. So I debate facts. If someone is incorrect it should be shown where they are incorrect.
    Hey I didn't come up with the term Afrocentric. As far as I know, the creators of the ideology did and the whole ''black Egypt'' theory and derivates come from the same people.

  18. #98

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Hey I didn't come up with the term Afrocentric. As far as I know, the creators of the ideology did and the whole ''black Egypt'' theory and derivates come from the same people.
    And again, since when were Africans not able to debate and discuss history like anybody else, especially African history? I don't see where Egypt is in Europe or Asia.

  19. #99
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    These people are not what the "original" North Africans looked like going back thousands of years.
    Nobody is denying that there are people in North Africa who look like this, but these are people with foreign blood.
    You have claimed that the native North African people I posted are not "true" North Africans, because they aren't black and therefore must have "foreign blood". Unfortunately for you, the facts do not support this. Kenza Morsli recently gave an interview, where she said her ancestry is 100% Berber. To recap, Kenza is the girl in the middle of my original post:

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1204 View Post
    This is Algerian singer Kenza Morsli:

    The Berbers are the indigenous people of North Africa; i.e. they were there before the Turks, before the Arabs, and before the Carthaginians, too. Kenza is Berber. She is a native North African. She does not have "foreign blood" as you put it. Within Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia it's very known that Berbers are pale. There are some tribes that are known for red hair and green eyes.
    Last edited by bigdaddy1204; June 18, 2016 at 09:33 PM.

  20. #100

    Default Re: Black Hannibal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    And again, since when were Africans not able to debate and discuss history like anybody else, especially African history? I don't see where Egypt is in Europe or Asia.
    Where exactly did I imply any of that?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •