History Channel Reveals Controversial Historic Fact In New Series

History Channel Reveals Controversial Historic Fact In New Series 

History channel’s most recent series is a story that depicts the fall of Rome over a 700-year invasion. However, it’s latest episode which aired on Monday, portrays Hannibal of Carthage as a black man, causing a lot of white historians to debate over the inaccurate fact.

Played by black British actor Nicholas Pinnock, Hannibal was famous Cathaginian who became problematic to the empire. At the age of 26 he became a general in the army and united all barbarian tribes with the aim of stopping the imperial rise of the Roman empire but didn’t succeed.

He is remembered especially for riding on war elephants, whose sole purpose was to stomp the Roman army.



see what people have said about the movie;

This is remarkable! Finally showing the many faces who made outstanding moves which changed the course of history.

 

American Mysteries & Conspiracies1 day ago (edited)

Hannibal Barca was NOT a "black African" and this is 100% historical fact. This type of liberal trash and purposeful changing of history is why Disney owns a large share of the History network and their Mickey Mouse club show anchors.

 

oakridgevarsity

100% historical fact? Since it is 100% historical fact im sure you will have no problem pointing those out for me, but ive been looking at these posts and formed a general idea for why the pro white Hannibal guys have been getting cut up on this thread. Here it is. You are dealing with people that have not seen their names in these Textbooks, whose history is supposedly started in the early 1600's when colonists brought slaves. Now those who had the proper support at home, I.E good diets to not suffer from malnutrition, an excess of resources, so that they have time to think, have taken the time to do their own research. Much different than the average white in America who has been told that the white man has invented and done everything on Earth worth mentioning directly or INDIRECTLY. So in Short this history stuff is really these black peoples favorite subject, while most of the pro whites have feel good rhetoric, the pro BLack has Real good sources. I would like to see some of your Real good sources, i'm talking 100 % historical.

 

Weshta reum

+Jackson Neptune Dude, the only way I can explain to myself why sub saharan africa or black africa was so backwards and still savage for such a long time, it's because the people there were very few in number and they had very little contact with ousiders. If you really really want to tell me black people had that much more contact with other civilizations than what is considered to be true, then why were they described as litteral savages with no centralised form of authority in the 14th century by Ibn Khaldoun ? On another note, i'll have to ask you where you live, because black africans from Africa don't try to justify to themselves that they wuz kangz n sheit, and that the big bad whity took their place, only american negroes do that.

 

Mark Schultz

The History channel is in need of a History class.