U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old Yesterday, 10:08 AM
 
10 posts, read 258 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements





[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFaznhSBBKE[/url]

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8JDdPTHvWk[/url]

"The wildly accepted view one given by Chancellor Williams who wrote ”The Destruction of Black Civilization” is that upon hearing Alexander the great coming Empress Candace, or Amanirenas, gathered her black troops, lined them up across the first cataract along with herself and stood on top of two African Elephants on a throne and waited for Alexander to show up. Alexander the “great”, didn’t want to chance a loss and give up his undefeated winning streak. He definitely didn’t want to lose it to a woman so once seeing the black Queen on her Elephants and her black armies along with her, Alexander the “great” halted his armies at the first cataract, and turned back up into Egypt. Once he saw the deadly military tactician in all her glory and her black army with the latest iron weapons, he decided against an invasion and turned around.

The other view offered by William Leo Hansberry says that Alexander met semi-privately with Candace. Legend has it that Candace advised Alexander to leave the region immediately and if he refused, after defeating his army, she would cut off his head and roll it down a hill. You use your imagination and pick which one happened!"


The Alexander account makes sense due to the known fact that Nubia was essentially where the original "Egyptian" or more correctly Kemetic inhabitants migrated to after the Persian invasion, and sacking of the southern town of Thebes. These Africans in Nubia were known throughout the World as the treasurer trove of the ancient World's most valuable raw materials including gold, sacred ostrich feathers, frankincense, iron and myrrh etc etc. Of course if Alexander was any kind of conqueror he at least considered the taking the most land of Africa at the time. His divide and conquer schemes however would not have worked against the Africans, many of whom were already hip to the tactics of the European and Asiatic foreigners from when the encountered them in Kemet earlier.

[url]https://urbanintellectuals.com/empress-candace-ethiopia-332-bc-humiliated-alexander-great/[/url]


[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR6Q2E08xls[/url]

Last edited by Ta-Seti; Yesterday at 11:03 AM..

 
Old Yesterday, 09:40 PM
 
3,554 posts, read 2,537,081 times
Reputation: 6864
Why Asante/Sir Shawn/Unbreakable, you are re-invading the forum with TWO new sock-puppet identities!

Alexander never fought the Nubians because his intention was to march east.

Rome utterly defeated Nubia. The only "victory" that Nubia can claim is using 30,000 soldiers to sack three cities, two undefended,and one with only 1500 garrison troops, since the Roman Army was in Arabia. Rome came back to route the Nubian army, seized Pselchis and Premnis, burned Napata, and return triumphantly loaded with spoils and slaves. Candace tried to retaliate and was utterly defeated, and sent to speak with Caesar, who took a liking to her and granted her favorable terms.

Note, Candace tried to sue for peace before Petronius burned Napata.

LacusCurtius ? Strabo's Geography ? Book*XVII Chapter*1 (*25?54)

Note how Nubian troops are described:

As for those Aethiopians who extend towards the south and Mero, they are not numerous either, nor do they collect in one mass, inasmuch as they inhabitant a long, narrow, and winding stretch of river-land, such as I have described before;249 neither are they well equipped either for warfare or for any other kind of life. And now, too, the whole of the country is similarly disposed to peace. And the following is a sign of the fact: the country is sufficiently guarded by the Romans with only three cohorts, and even these are not complete; and when the Aethiopians dared to make an attack upon them, they imperilled their own country. The remaining Roman forces in Aegypt are hardly as large as these, nor have the Romans used them collectively even once; for neither are the Aegyptians themselves warriors, although they are very numerous, nor are the surrounding tribes

and

but Caesar; and when they had requested three days for deliberation, p139 but did nothing they should have done, he made an attack and forced them to come forth to battle; and he quickly turned them to flight, since they were badly marshalled and badly armed; for they had large oblong shields, and those too made of raw ox-hide, and as weapons some had only axes, others pikes, and others swords.

Last edited by cachibatches; Yesterday at 09:52 PM..
 
Old Today, 11:49 AM
 
10 posts, read 258 times
Reputation: 15
Again please stop with your baseless accusations about who you think I am.

Quote:
Alexander never fought the Nubians because his intention was to march east.
Ancient Europeans were the ones who told the story, and so far their credibility has been supported by recent archaeological findings. One of those findings occurring this year dealt with how one of those ancient Greeks properly described an ancient type of boat that was recently excavated. Another validation being the ancient Greek account of the Nubian pharaoh Taharqa once having dominion stretching as far into Europe as Spain;

" Later Spanish legendary chronicles (Florian de Ocampo's Cronica General, published 1553) also identify "Tarraco" as general of an Ethiopian army that supposedly campaigned in Spain in the 7th century BC before becoming Pharaoh. This event has also gives account for the name of the Spanish city of Tarraco (Tarragona)."

It would really not make sense for Alexander to not attempt to take Nubia from imperialistic stand point. The West does a great job playing Alexander up as this great conqueror, even though he only won against the already beaten down nations of the Near East, he overtook Kemet renaming the "black land" as "Egypt" which was on it's last leg. The Greeks unlike any situation in recorded history knew that the Africans of Kemet were their teachers of EVERYTHING, and as such they yielded their natural imposing of Greek culture on the land in favor of integrating into a conquered African nation's culture. That is a testament to how inferior to Greeks knew that they were to their African predecessors. The debt that Greece owes ancient Kemet is so profound that it has been demonstrated that over 50% of ancient Greek words are of "unknown" (to those too stubborn to concede to the obvious facts) and or ancient African origin.

Most of the black natives of ancient Kemet migrated south into Nubia directly following the raising of Thebes by the Persians. Those same Persian king who was feeling himself attempted to run up on Nubia, but that resulted in an absolute slaughter of those Persians that ancient Greek scholar Herodotus noted as "Cambyses lost Army". The remaining natives of Kemet then on their own ousted the Persians from the land.

The entire ancient World knew of and worshiped the Nubians as a home base for many of their civilizations (Kemet, Sumer, Indus Valley, Elam etc etc). It was very much known that Nubia was where the best of the best of the goods were located. Alexander is therefore a failure if he did not even consider taking the home base for most Africans at the time knowing the shear amount of gold was coming from there. What would be his possible reasoning if he was really on that kind of a war path? To any logical person however we all knew what happened. Alexander took Kemet, and thought he may try his luck with the Queen of Nubia. When he tried his luck by heading that way, he saw that the Africans were already prepared for him with iron weaponry and war elephants to boot. That European did not want those problems with the Nubians who were regarded as the most deadly warriors of the ancient World. The divide and conquer tactics that Alexander's father mastered would never work with the Nubians in the way that it worked for them in Kemet and the near East. The Nubians were ready to lay the smackdown like they did on everyone else (including the Kemites even during early dynastic times), and Alexander therefore said forget all of the gold and other goods he would rather retain his life and reputation.

Quote:
Rome utterly defeated Nubia. The only "victory" that Nubia can claim is using 30,000 soldiers to sack three cities, two undefended,and one with only 1500 garrison troops, since the Roman Army was in Arabia. Rome came back to route the Nubian army, seized Pselchis and Premnis, burned Napata, and return triumphantly loaded with spoils and slaves. Candace tried to retaliate and was utterly defeated, and sent to speak with Caesar, who took a liking to her and granted her favorable terms.

Note, Candace tried to sue for peace before Petronius burned Napata.

LacusCurtius ? Strabo's Geography ? Book*XVII Chapter*1 (*25?54)
Those are complete lies!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh2iFS_sO7g

Like the Egyptians are noted to have done by European researchers the Romans surely would have talked up a great victory against the Nubians, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT NUBIA WITH ALL OF IT'S GOLD AND OTHER GOODS NEVER PAID TRIBUTE TO ROME. Name one other place that the Romans supposedly defeated, and did not force them into colonial status. If the Romans defeated Nubia the way that they played it up then Nubia surely would have become a vassal state the same way that ancient Egypt had become.

In reality the Romans attempted to impose tax on two different Nubian reigns. On the first attempt the Nubians took an army of 30,000 warriors and destroyed what the Romans had stationed in southern Egypt. The result of the Nubians laying that butt whooping to the Romans, was Roman slaves being funneled into Nubia and Rome offering a peace treaty to Nubia. That peace lasted for a "short" period until the Europeans broke that treaty (breaking treaties appears to be an age old theme with Europeans). With the second attempt by Rome under Augustus Caesar to take Nubia for it's Gold reserves in the northern part. Kandake Amanishakheto who lost her left eye in battle lead a campaign against the Romans that beat them back into the Egyptian province where the Romans were defeated in Aswan then chased to Thebes where they were defeated, enslaved and their statuary was mocked and destroyed.

The Romans never touched Mereo which has long been the capital of the Nubia proper. Instead Nubia remained completely sovereign, and it's sovereignty was asserted to the Romans time and time again. To reiterate Nubia had everything good that there was to produce, and trade, and not a nair European nor Arab came and took the civilization over by force.
 
Old Today, 12:23 PM
 
3,554 posts, read 2,537,081 times
Reputation: 6864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ta-Seti View Post
Again please stop with your baseless accusations about who you think I am.



Ancient Europeans were the ones who told the story, and so far their credibility has been supported by recent archaeological findings. One of those findings occurring this year dealt with how one of those ancient Greeks properly described an ancient type of boat that was recently excavated. Another validation being the ancient Greek account of the Nubian pharaoh Taharqa once having dominion stretching as far into Europe as Spain;

" Later Spanish legendary chronicles (Florian de Ocampo's Cronica General, published 1553) also identify "Tarraco" as general of an Ethiopian army that supposedly campaigned in Spain in the 7th century BC before becoming Pharaoh. This event has also gives account for the name of the Spanish city of Tarraco (Tarragona)."

It would really not make sense for Alexander to not attempt to take Nubia from imperialistic stand point. The West does a great job playing Alexander up as this great conqueror, even though he only won against the already beaten down nations of the Near East, he overtook Kemet renaming the "black land" as "Egypt" which was on it's last leg. The Greeks unlike any situation in recorded history knew that the Africans of Kemet were their teachers of EVERYTHING, and as such they yielded their natural imposing of Greek culture on the land in favor of integrating into a conquered African nation's culture. That is a testament to how inferior to Greeks knew that they were to their African predecessors. The debt that Greece owes ancient Kemet is so profound that it has been demonstrated that over 50% of ancient Greek words are of "unknown" (to those too stubborn to concede to the obvious facts) and or ancient African origin.

Most of the black natives of ancient Kemet migrated south into Nubia directly following the raising of Thebes by the Persians. Those same Persian king who was feeling himself attempted to run up on Nubia, but that resulted in an absolute slaughter of those Persians that ancient Greek scholar Herodotus noted as "Cambyses lost Army". The remaining natives of Kemet then on their own ousted the Persians from the land.

The entire ancient World knew of and worshiped the Nubians as a home base for many of their civilizations (Kemet, Sumer, Indus Valley, Elam etc etc). It was very much known that Nubia was where the best of the best of the goods were located. Alexander is therefore a failure if he did not even consider taking the home base for most Africans at the time knowing the shear amount of gold was coming from there. What would be his possible reasoning if he was really on that kind of a war path? To any logical person however we all knew what happened. Alexander took Kemet, and thought he may try his luck with the Queen of Nubia. When he tried his luck by heading that way, he saw that the Africans were already prepared for him with iron weaponry and war elephants to boot. That European did not want those problems with the Nubians who were regarded as the most deadly warriors of the ancient World. The divide and conquer tactics that Alexander's father mastered would never work with the Nubians in the way that it worked for them in Kemet and the near East. The Nubians were ready to lay the smackdown like they did on everyone else (including the Kemites even during early dynastic times), and Alexander therefore said forget all of the gold and other goods he would rather retain his life and reputation.



Those are complete lies!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh2iFS_sO7g

Like the Egyptians are noted to have done by European researchers the Romans surely would have talked up a great victory against the Nubians, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT NUBIA WITH ALL OF IT'S GOLD AND OTHER GOODS NEVER PAID TRIBUTE TO ROME. Name one other place that the Romans supposedly defeated, and did not force them into colonial status. If the Romans defeated Nubia the way that they played it up then Nubia surely would have become a vassal state the same way that ancient Egypt had become.

In reality the Romans attempted to impose tax on two different Nubian reigns. On the first attempt the Nubians took an army of 30,000 warriors and destroyed what the Romans had stationed in southern Egypt. The result of the Nubians laying that butt whooping to the Romans, was Roman slaves being funneled into Nubia and Rome offering a peace treaty to Nubia. That peace lasted for a "short" period until the Europeans broke that treaty (breaking treaties appears to be an age old theme with Europeans). With the second attempt by Rome under Augustus Caesar to take Nubia for it's Gold reserves in the northern part. Kandake Amanishakheto who lost her left eye in battle lead a campaign against the Romans that beat them back into the Egyptian province where the Romans were defeated in Aswan then chased to Thebes where they were defeated, enslaved and their statuary was mocked and destroyed.

The Romans never touched Mereo which has long been the capital of the Nubia proper. Instead Nubia remained completely sovereign, and it's sovereignty was asserted to the Romans time and time again. To reiterate Nubia had everything good that there was to produce, and trade, and not a nair European nor Arab came and took the civilization over by force.
Nubia never paid tribute to Rome because Rome agreed to a treaty after repeatedly defeating her Nubia's massive 30,000 soldier army with two legions. The events that proceeded it, the sacking of the statues, involved the sacking of a small garrison while the Roman army was in Arabia.

Pathetic. Two legions--only two legions-routed the entire Nubian nation and burned Napata.

I have posted the link to the ONLY written history on the subject.

As for Alexander-he did not fight them, and did not want to. His aim was the riches of Persia and India.

Utter gibberish. The only "victory" you can point to is the sacking of a 1500 man garrison by 30,000. Candake did not "beat them back," she was beaten again and again until they went home loaded with gold and slaves.

Read the history Asante. I posted it to educate you on your foolishness. It is all there for you. As always, I am not arguing against you--you are hopeless, shamefully claiming victory in one war that didn't happen and another in which the Nubians were thoroughly trounced. I posted the truth so that anyone following the thread can see that Alexander never fought Nubia, and the Romans completely ravaged it. Fortunately, the source exists, and I have read it to share with others.

Last edited by cachibatches; Today at 12:37 PM..
 
Old Today, 01:27 PM
 
10 posts, read 258 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches View Post
Nubia never paid tribute to Rome because Rome agreed to a treaty after repeatedly defeating her Nubia's massive 30,000 soldier army with two legions.
That does not make any sense! If Rome came invade a nation for the sake of taking it's sovereignty and making it a vassal state, then after such an unprecedented defeat of the targeted nation they would force that nation to pay tribute like they did all of the others that they conquered. Quite simply the Romans got that butt's handed to them, and had to provide a peace treaty to the powerful African nation so that they did not reassert their original power north of the first cataract.

Quote:
The events that proceeded it, the sacking of the statues, involved the sacking of a small garrison while the Roman army was in Arabia.
That happened on Rome's second attempt at bat with Nubia. After the 30,000 Nubians swept the Romans away when they were stationed in southern Egypt, they took the remaining Romans as prisoner and relaxed under Rome's respect for it's authority.

Quote:
Pathetic. Two legions--only two legions-routed the entire Nubian nation and burned Napata.
First of all chill out!



If we're going to talk about "pathetic" then we can go to the Caucus prior to 2,000 BC.

As far as Nubians defeat of Rome, explain how that is pathetic! Let me know your peoples "proud" history, and I bet that we can name some "pathetic" instances. Napata at the time was long abandoned as the captial city of Nubia in favor or the island of Mereo. Meroetic Nubia is what this phase of the civilization has been officially called in case you did not know. The Romans never reached that Capitol city, and were pushed back into southern Egypt where they were soundly defeated in Thebes. This is when the Kandake cut the head off of the Roman statue, and brought it back to Nubia to be buried under a temple.

Quote:
I have posted the link to the ONLY written history on the subject.
The fact's of the subject end with Nubia retaining in full it's sovereignty, and Romans respecting Nubia so much (because Europeans only respect a butt whooping) paid for them to come up into their ranks and fight as mercenaries in their imperialistic wars. If you cannot point to Nubia ever having paid tribute to Rome nor Rome ever reaching Mereo then your claims of Romans winning that war as completely baseless, and Roman propaganda at best.

Quote:
As for Alexander-he did not fight them, and did not want to. His aim was the riches of Persia and India.
That makes NO SENSE, when it is a KNOWN FACT that the most of the World's gold, sacred ostrich feathers, frankincense and myrrh (all pivotal aspects of ancient civilizations) etc etc etc came from Nubia. The European Alexander simply did not want those problems with the Nubian army that he came across when he was smelling himself a bit much after conquering a dead Kemet. The ancient Greek ruler conquered the entire Near East including parts of India, but bypassed the greatest supply of treasure known to man at the time in Nubia....NOPE! Alexander got punked out by the Nubian queen and her Nubian army, and other ancient Greek writers are the ones who recorded the instance.

Quote:
Utter gibberish. The only "victory" you can point to is the sacking of a 1500 man garrison by 30,000. Candake did not "beat them back," she was beaten again and again until they went home loaded with gold and slaves.
No the Roman soldiers who were defeated at their station in southern Egypt were the ones who were brought back to Nubia as slaves. That fact is solidified by Nubia's complete sovereignty throughout Rome's reign across the ancient World.

Quote:
As always, I am not arguing against you--you are hopeless, shamefully claiming victory in one war that didn't happen and another in which the Nubians were thoroughly trounced.
Your Eurocentrism is cartoonish.
 
Old Today, 08:42 PM
 
Location: WV and Eastport, ME
11,229 posts, read 11,034,760 times
Reputation: 7449
Thread closed for moderator review.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top