Trey'von Knowles's Blog, page 27
January 19, 2025
They Are Not Like Us
They Are Not Like Us. They do not listen to the shepherd but climb the gate to cause havoc.
We are the sheep and Jesus is our shepherd he warns us about them.It is written in John 10: 8-18. 10 “Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.
7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
The King of England lives in the Dragon House of Vlad the Impaler
The King of England lives in the Dragon House of Vlad the Impaler
Note: These are the people you are dealing with. The eat people.
Vlad III, commonly known as Vlad the Impaler (Romanian: Vlad Țepeș [ˈvlad ˈtsepeʃ]) or Vlad Dracula (/ˈdrækjʊlə, -jə-/; Romanian: Vlad Drăculea [ˈdrəkule̯a]; 1428/31 – 1476/77), was Voivode of Wallachia three times between 1448 and his death in 1476/77. He is often considered one of the most important rulers in Wallachian history and a national hero of Romania.
He was the second son of Vlad Dracul, who became the ruler of Wallachia in 1436. Vlad and his younger brother, Radu, were held as hostages in the Ottoman Empire in 1442 to secure their father's loyalty. Vlad's eldest brother Mircea and their father were murdered after John Hunyadi, regent-governor of Hungary, invaded Wallachia in 1447. Hunyadi installed Vlad's second cousin, Vladislav II, as the new voivode. Hunyadi launched a military campaign against the Ottomans in the autumn of 1448, and Vladislav accompanied him. Vlad broke into Wallachia with Ottoman support in October, but Vladislav returned, and Vlad sought refuge in the Ottoman Empire before the end of the year. Vlad went to Moldavia in 1449 or 1450 and later to Hungary.
Relations between Hungary and Vladislav later deteriorated, and in 1456 Vlad invaded Wallachia with Hungarian support. Vladislav died fighting against him. Vlad began a purge among the Wallachian boyars to strengthen his position. He came into conflict with the Transylvanian Saxons, who supported his opponents, Dan and Basarab Laiotă (who were Vladislav's brothers), and Vlad's illegitimate half-brother, Vlad Călugărul. Vlad plundered the Saxon villages, taking the captured people to Wallachia, where he had them impaled (which inspired his cognomen). Peace was restored in 1460.
The Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed II, ordered Vlad to pay homage to him personally, but Vlad had the Sultan's two envoys captured and impaled. In February 1462, he attacked Ottoman territory, massacring tens of thousands of Turks and Muslim Bulgarians. Mehmed launched a campaign against Wallachia to replace Vlad with Vlad's younger brother, Radu. Vlad attempted to capture the sultan at Târgoviște during the night of 16–17 June 1462. The Sultan and the main Ottoman army left Wallachia, but more and more Wallachians deserted to Radu. Vlad went to Transylvania to seek assistance from Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, in late 1462, but Corvinus had him imprisoned.
Vlad was held in captivity in Visegrád from 1463 to 1475. During this period, anecdotes about his cruelty started to spread in Germany and Italy. He was released at the request of Stephen III of Moldavia in the summer of 1475. He fought in Corvinus's army against the Ottomans in Bosnia in early 1476. Hungarian and Moldavian troops helped him to force Basarab Laiotă (who had dethroned Vlad's brother, Radu) to flee from Wallachia in November. Basarab returned with Ottoman support before the end of the year. Vlad was killed in battle before 10 January 1477.
Books describing Vlad's cruel acts were among the first bestsellers in the German-speaking territories. In Russia, popular stories suggested that Vlad was able to strengthen his central government only by applying brutal punishments, and many 19th-century Romanian historians adopted a similar view. Vlad's patronymic inspired the name of Bram Stoker's literary vampire, Count Dracula.
The name Dracula, which is now primarily known as the name of a vampire, was for centuries known as the sobriquet of Vlad III. Diplomatic reports and popular stories referred to him as Dracula, Dracuglia, or Drakula already in the 15th century. He himself signed his two letters as "Dragulya" or "Drakulya" in the late 1470s.
His name had its origin in the sobriquet of his father, Vlad Dracul ("Vlad the Dragon" in medieval Romanian), who received it after he became a member of the Order of the Dragon. Dracula is the Slavonic genitive form of Dracul, meaning "[the son] of Dracul (or the Dragon)". In modern Romanian, dracul means "the devil", which contributed to Vlad's reputation.
Vlad III is known as Vlad Țepeș (or Vlad the Impaler) in Romanian historiography. This sobriquet is connected to the impalement that was his favorite method of execution.[12] The Ottoman writer Tursun Beg referred to him as Kazıklı Voyvoda (Impaler Lord) around 1500.[12] Mircea the Shepherd, Voivode of Wallachia, used this sobriquet when referring to Vlad III in a letter of grant on 1 April 1551.
Vlad was the second legitimate son of Vlad II Dracul, who was himself an illegitimate son of Mircea I of Wallachia. Vlad II had won the moniker "Dracul" for his membership in the Order of the Dragon, a militant fraternity founded by Sigismund of Luxemburg, King of Hungary. The Order of the Dragon was dedicated to halting the Ottoman advance into Europe.
Since he was old enough to be a candidate for the throne of Wallachia in 1448, Vlad's time of birth would have been between 1428 and 1431. Vlad was most probably born after his father settled in Transylvania in 1429. Historian Radu Florescu writes that Vlad was born in the Transylvanian Saxon town of Sighișoara (then in the Kingdom of Hungary), where his father lived in a three-story stone house from 1431 to 1435. Modern historians identify Vlad's mother either as a daughter or kinswoman of Alexander I of Moldavia or as his father's unknown first wife.
Vlad II Dracul seized Wallachia after the death of his half-brother Alexander I Aldea in 1436. One of his charters (which was issued on 20 January 1437) preserves the first reference to Vlad III and his elder brother, Mircea, mentioning them as their father's "firstborn sons". They were mentioned in four further documents between 1437 and 1439. The last of the four charters also refers to their younger brother, Radu.
After a meeting with John Hunyadi, Voivode of Transylvania, Vlad II Dracul did not support an Ottoman invasion of Transylvania in March 1442. The Ottoman Sultan, Murad II, ordered him to come to Gallipoli to demonstrate his loyalty. Vlad and Radu accompanied their father to the Ottoman Empire, where they were all imprisoned. Vlad Dracul was released before the end of the year, but Vlad and Radu remained hostages to secure his loyalty. They were held imprisoned in the fortress of Eğrigöz, Emit, according to contemporaneous Ottoman chronicles.
Their lives were especially in danger after their father supported Vladislaus, King of Poland and Hungary, against the Ottoman Empire during the Crusade of Varna in 1444. Vlad II Dracul was convinced that his two sons would be "butchered for the sake of Christian peace," but neither Vlad nor Radu was murdered or mutilated after their father's rebellion.
Vlad Dracul again acknowledged the sultan's suzerainty and promised to pay a yearly tribute to him in 1446 or 1447. John Hunyadi (who had by then become the regent-governor of Hungary in 1446), invaded Wallachia in November 1447.
The Byzantine historian Michael Critobulus wrote that Vlad and Radu fled to the Ottoman Empire, which suggests that the sultan had allowed them to return to Wallachia after their father paid homage to him. Vlad Dracul and his eldest son, Mircea, were murdered. Hunyadi made Vladislav II (son of Vlad Dracul's cousin, Dan II) the ruler of Wallachia.
First rule
Upon the death of his father and elder brother, Vlad became a potential claimant to Wallachia. Vladislav II of Wallachia accompanied John Hunyadi, who launched a campaign against the Ottoman Empire in September 1448.
Taking advantage of his opponent's absence, Vlad broke into Wallachia at the head of an Ottoman army in early October. He had to accept that the Ottomans had captured the fortress of Giurgiu on the Danube and strengthened
The Ottomans defeated Hunyadi's army in the Battle of Kosovo between 17 and 18 October. Hunyadi's deputy, Nicholas Vízaknai, urged Vlad to come to meet him in Transylvania, but Vlad refused him. Vladislav II returned to Wallachia at the head of the remnants of his army. Vlad was forced to flee to the Ottoman Empire by 7 December 1448.
We bring you the news that [Nicholas Vízaknai] writes to us and asks us to be so kind as to come to him until [John Hunyadi] ... returns from the war. We are unable to do this because an emissary from Nicopolis came to us ... and said with great certainty that [Murad II had defeated Hunyadi]. ... If we come to [Vízaknai] now, the [Ottomans] could come and kill both you and us. Therefore, we ask you to have patience until we see what has happened to [Hunyadi]. ... If he returns from the war, we will meet him, and we will make peace with him. But if you will be our enemies now, and if something happens, ... you will have to answer for it before God.
https://crosssides.blogspot.com/January 17, 2025
I See You Dragon
I See You Dragon by Trey Knowles:
I See Her and these are her deeds.
Dragon: - Flying Around and Deceiving Nations by the use of ideology.
Steal Kill and Destroy: - Colonize.
Weaponry: - Be fascinated with destruction and making weapons to have supremacy. Palestine, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The use of Sorcery: - Putting people against each other. Using people as Pawns: Selling and giving people weapons around the world. Exposing people to things that are ungodly, so they can curse themselves, so that you can have the upper advantage. Putting Homosexual laws of marriage. Using Democracy for disobedience. Master minding the minds of people so they can live by your standards so you become the dominating image.
Cosmetics: are used to cover up their sinful deeds and to justify them.
Democracy: means the will of the People: When the snake tempted Eve she gave in. Disobedience curse.
Just like the days of Noah: The Falling angel is responsible for teaching people to make weapons and cosmetics, for which he was cast out of heaven.
Note: The phrase "the devil comes as light" means that Satan, often referred to as "the devil," can disguise himself as something good or seemingly harmless, appearing as an "angel of light," essentially deceiving people by presenting evil in a positive way; this concept is directly referenced in the Bible, specifically in 2 Corinthians 11:14 which states, "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
God does not teach anyone to do evil, so it does not come from God.
Come out her my people for she will perish.
https://crosssides.blogspot.com/January 16, 2025
They Hated Me Without Reason
Note: Is it a cross or was it a Tree?
King James Version: The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Acts 5:30
NIV Version: The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. Acts 5:30
Something is wrong with this. Was it a Tree or a Cross these are two different things.
I see you covering up your tracks. We are living in illusion. My God has the last say.
I see your sorcery. You cause my people to sin and follow your ways. You are against my Jesus and my people. I will expose you and your deeds, in fact, you exposed yourself in the book of Talmud.
They Hated Me Without Reason by Trey Knowles
Lynching was the widespread occurrence of extrajudicial killings which began in the United States' pre–Civil War South in the 1830s, slowed during the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, and continued until 1981. Although the victims of lynchings were members of various ethnicities, after roughly 4 million enslaved African Americans were emancipated, they became the primary targets of white Southerners. Lynchings in the U.S. reached their height from the 1890s to the 1920s, and they primarily victimized ethnic minorities. Most of the lynchings occurred in the American South, as the majority of African Americans lived there, but racially motivated lynchings also occurred in the Midwest and border states. In 1891, the largest single mass lynching in American history was perpetrated in New Orleans against Italian immigrants.
Lynchings followed African Americans with the Great Migration (c. 1916–1970) out of the American South, and were often perpetrated to enforce white supremacy and intimidate ethnic minorities along with other acts of racial terrorism. A significant number of lynching victims were accused of murder or attempted murder. Rape, attempted rape, or other forms of sexual assault were the second most common accusation; these accusations were often used as a pretext for lynching African Americans who were accused of violating Jim Crow era etiquette or engaged in economic competition with Whites. One study found that there were "4,467 total victims of lynching from 1883 to 1941. Of these victims, 4,027 were men, 99 were women, and 341 were of unidentified gender (although likely male); 3,265 were Black, 1,082 were white, 71 were Mexican or of Mexican descent, 38 were American Indian, 10 were Chinese, and 1 was Japanese."
A common perception of lynchings in the U.S. is that they were only hangings, due to the public visibility of the location, which made it easier for photographers to photograph the victims. Some lynchings were professionally photographed and then the photos were sold as postcards, which became popular souvenirs in parts of the United States. Lynching victims were also killed in a variety of other ways: being shot, burned alive, thrown off a bridge, dragged behind a car, etc. Occasionally, the body parts of the victims were removed and sold as souvenirs. Lynchings were not always fatal; "mock" lynchings, which involved putting a rope around the neck of someone who was suspected of concealing information, was sometimes used to compel people to make "confessions". Lynch mobs varied in size from just a few to thousands.
Lynching steadily increased after the Civil War, peaking in 1892. Lynchings remained common into the early 1900s, accelerating with the emergence of the Second Ku Klux Klan. Lynchings declined considerably by the time of the Great Depression. The 1955 lynching of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old African-American boy, galvanized the civil rights movement and marked the last classical lynching (as recorded by the Tuskegee Institute). The overwhelming majority of lynching perpetrators never faced justice. White supremacy and all-white juries ensured that perpetrators, even if tried, would not be convicted. Campaigns against lynching gained momentum in the early 20th century, championed by groups such as the NAACP. Some 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress between the end of the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement, but none passed. Finally, in 2022, 67 years after Emmett Till's killing and the end of the lynching era, the United States Congress passed anti-lynching legislation in the form of the Emmett Till Antilynching Act.
Collective violence was a familiar aspect of the early American legal landscape, with group violence in colonial America being usually nonlethal in intention and result. In the 17th century, in the context of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the British Isles and unsettled social and political conditions in the American colonies, lynchings became a frequent form of "mob justice" when the authorities were perceived as untrustworthy. In the United States, during the decades after the Civil War, African Americans were the main victims of racial lynching, but in the American Southwest, Mexican Americans were also the targets of lynching as well.
At the first recorded lynching, in St. Louis in 1835, a Black man named McIntosh (who killed a deputy sheriff while being taken to jail) was captured, chained to a tree, and burned to death on a corner lot downtown in front of a crowd of more than 1,000 people.
According to historian Michael J. Pfeifer, the prevalence of lynchings in post–Civil War America reflected people's lack of confidence in the "due process" of the U.S. judicial system. He links the decline in lynchings in the early 20th century to "the advent of the modern death penalty", and argues that "legislators renovated the death penalty...out of direct concern for the alternative of mob violence". Between 1901 and 1964, Georgia hanged and electrocuted 609 people. Eighty-two percent of those executed were Black men, even though Georgia was majority white. Pfeifer also cited "the modern, racialized excesses of urban police forces in the twentieth century and after" as bearing characteristics of lynchings.
Lynching as a means to maintain white supremacy:
Lines of continuity from slavery to present:
A major motive for lynchings, particularly in the South, was white society's efforts to maintain white supremacy after the emancipation of enslaved people following the American Civil War. Lynchings punished perceived violations of customs, later institutionalized as Jim Crow laws, which mandated racial segregation of Whites and Blacks, and second-class status for Blacks. A 2017 paper found that more racially segregated counties were more likely to be places where Whites conducted lynchings.
Lynchings emphasized the new social order which was constructed under Jim Crow; Whites acted together, reinforcing their collective identity along with the unequal status of Blacks through these group acts of violence.
Lynchings were also (in part) intended as a voter suppression tool. A 2019 study found that lynchings occurred more frequently in proximity to elections, in particular in areas where the Democratic Party faced challenges.
Statistics for lynchings have traditionally come from three sources primarily, none of which covered the entire historical time period of lynching in the United States. Before 1882, no contemporaneous statistics were assembled on a national level. In 1882, the Chicago Tribune began to systematically tabulate lynchings nationally.
In 1908, the Tuskegee Institute began a systematic collection of lynching reports under the direction of Monroe Work at its Department of Records, drawn primarily from newspaper reports. Monroe Work published his first independent tabulations in 1910, although his report also went back to the starting year 1882.
Finally, in 1912, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People started an independent record of lynchings. The numbers of lynchings from each source vary slightly, with the Tuskegee Institute's figures being considered "conservative" by some historians.
Based on the source, the numbers vary depending on which sources are cited, the years that are considered by those sources, and the definitions that are given to specific incidents by those sources. The Tuskegee Institute has recorded the lynchings of 3,446 Blacks and the lynchings of 1,297 Whites, all of which occurred between 1882 and 1968, with the peak occurring in the 1890s, at a time of economic stress in the South and increasing political suppression of Blacks.
A six-year study published in 2017 by the Equal Justice Initiative found that 4,084 Black men, women, and children fell victim to "racial terror lynchings" in twelve Southern states between 1877 and 1950, besides 300 that took place in other states. During this period, Mississippi's 654 lynchings led the lynchings which occurred in all of the Southern states.
The records of Tuskegee Institute remain the single most complete source of statistics and records on this crime since 1882 for all states, although modern research has illuminated new incidents in studies focused on specific states in isolation. As of 1959, which was the last time that Tuskegee Institute's annual report was published, a total of 4,733 persons had died by lynching since 1882.
The last lynching recorded by the Tuskegee Institute was that of Emmett Till in 1955. In the 65 years leading up to 1947, at least one lynching was reported every year. The period from 1882 to 1901 saw the height of lynchings, with an average of more than 150 each year. 1892 saw the most number of lynchings in a year: 231 or 3.25 per one million people.
After 1924 cases steadily declined, with less than 30 a year. The decreasing rate of yearly lynchings was faster outside the South and for white victims of lynching. Lynching became more of a Southern phenomenon and a racial one that overwhelmingly affected Black victims. There were measurable variations in lynching rates between and within states
https://crosssides.blogspot.com/
Alkebulan Invasion of Scipio Africanus
Note: Africa true name is Alkebulan
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus was a Roman general and statesman, who was one of the main architects of Rome's victory against Carthage in the Second Punic War. Often regarded as one of the greatest military commanders and strategists of all time, his greatest military achievement was the defeat of Hannibal at the Battle of Zama in 202 BC. This victory in Africa earned him the honorific epithet Africanus, literally meaning 'the African', but meant to be understood as a conqueror of Africa.
Scipio's conquest of Carthaginian Iberia culminated in the Battle of Ilipa in 206 BC against Hannibal's brother Mago Barca. Although considered a hero by the Roman people, primarily for his victories against Carthage, Scipio had many opponents, especially Cato the Elder, who hated him deeply. In 187 BC, he was tried in a show trial alongside his brother for bribes they supposedly received from the Seleucid king Antiochus III during the Roman–Seleucid War. Disillusioned by the ingratitude of his peers, Scipio left Rome and retired from public life at his villa in Liternum.
Scipio was elected unanimously to the consulship of 205 BC amid much enthusiasm; he was 31 and still technically too young to be consul. When he entered into office, he demanded that the senate assign him the province of Africa and threatened to take the matter to the popular assemblies if it refused to do so. Despite fierce opposition from the princeps senatus, Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, the senate bowed to his pressure and he received Sicily with permission to cross into Africa if he wished.
Fabius' opposition may have been related to jealousy of Scipio's popularity, but also was likely informed by the failed African campaign. 255 BC under Marcus Atilius Regulus during the First Punic War, which saw the Carthaginians' war efforts renewed. The senate, regardless, assigned Scipio no additional soldiers, leading him to recruit an army of volunteers; Livy reports that from his clients and supporters in Italy, he mustered some 30 warships and 7,000 men.
He spent most of his consulship preparing his troops in Sicily for the invasion of Africa. He captured Locri on the toe of Italy that year, and left one Pleminius in command there. After Pleminius assumed command, he robbed the city's temple and tortured and killed two military tribunes. For these crimes, the senate had Pleminius placed under arrest; Scipio was also implicated but was cleared the next year.
Invasion of Africa
His imperium was prorogued into 205 BC and in that year, he crossed with his men into Africa and besieged Utica before withdrawing and pretending in the winter to negotiate with the Carthaginians. During those pretended negotiations, Scipio mapped out the enemy camps and launched a night attack that was successful in destroying them and killing a large number of the enemy. The armies then fought in the Battle of the Great Plains some time early in the new year (his imperium was prorogued until the war's completion) and after capturing Syphax of Numidia, restored Massinissa to the kingdom. The Carthaginians reacted to the defeat by recalling their generals Hannibal and Mago from Italy and launching their fleet against Scipio's to cut off their supply lines.
Scipio was forced into a naval battle near Utica, but was able to avert disaster, losing only some sixty transport ships. Another set of peace negotiations occurred, with the Carthaginians eventually agreeing to abandon all territorial claims in the Mediterranean and beyond, limit her rights to expand in Africa, recognize Massinissa's kingdom, give up all but twenty of her ships, and pay a war indemnity. However, during the negotiations, the Carthaginians – suffering from starvation – attacked a Roman food convoy, leading to protests to be sent and envoys exchanged.
Amid further attempts to remove him from command – one of the consuls of 203 BC, Gnaeus Servilius Caepio, attempted to substitute himself for Scipio to claim credit for the final blow against Carthage; the consuls of 202 BC coveted the African command for the same reason – Scipio refused peace terms at a parley with Hannibal in 202 BC. With the support of Masinissa's Numidian cavalry, the Battle of Zama was fought shortly after; the Romans won and Carthage then again sued for peace.
In the new year, 201 BC, Scipio remained in Africa to conclude negotiations, which saw Carthage's territory kept to the status quo ante bellum, Carthage restore to the Romans all captured goods and persons, Carthaginian disarmament of all but ten triremes, and Carthage needing to ask for Roman permission to make any war. Massinissa's territory in Numidia was to be confirmed; and a war indemnity of 10,000 talents was to be paid over the next fifty years. Although the consul of 201 BC, Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus attempted to oppose the peace so that he could continue the war in Scipio's place, the peace terms were ratified by the assembly in Rome, bringing the war to a final close.
https://crosssides.blogspot.com/
January 15, 2025
Hannibal The African Warrior
Note: Hannibal was African and Black. Hannibal whose full name is Chenu Bechola Barca was an intelligent warrior of Carthaginian origin whose military prowess and antics is still being taught in western schools to this day.
The Carthaginian civilization in present-day Tunisia was founded in 3422(African era), -814 by the primordial Blacks of the Middle East (Phoenicians), who were then governed by Queen Dido-Elissar. Carthage had a rather powerful economy through which they conquered the Maghreb, Sicily, Libya, Southern Spain, Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearic Islands. At the time, Carthage-Roman relations were relatively peaceful until -264, when a conflict commenced.
The conflict between Carthage and Rome began when Italian mercenaries seized the Messana port in Sicily. They imposed their authority with the help of the Carthaginian military and refused the African authority by requesting aid from Rome to totally get Carthage of Messana. Rome in response, not wanting to see the Carthaginian domination near its terrain, decided to take not just Messana, but the whole of Sicily.
It was this conflict that degenerated into the first Punic war which lasted for 23 years, causing hundreds of thousands to die, and rendering Carthage militarily and economically handicapped. Carthage lost Corsica, Sicily, and Sardinia and also paid reparation to Rome.
The Barca family were descendants of Queen Dido-Elissar, they were known for their military prowess and the name Barca is the origin of the name of the present-day city Barcelona. Hannibal’s Father General Hamical Barca, in his bid to restore some dignity, fought and won back the north-east of Spain, and made his son Hannibal swear in the course of a ritual to one day defeat Rome and exterminate the European empire.
Chenu Bechola Barca, also called Hannibal which means “he who has the favor of Baal [God]” was born in -247. As a child, he started accompanying his Father Hamilcar to battles, by the time he was 25, he took up his family’s legacy after the death of his brother-in-law Hasdrubal the fair.
The second Punic war started after Hannibal against the counsel of Carthaginian authorities, attacked Saguntum, a Roman ally. The empire responded vehemently by daunting the again balanced economy of Carthage when the Carthaginian heads refused to publicly denounce Hannibal’s act.
Hannibal set out for Italy from Africa with 15,000 men which included 13,000 blacks. He conquered the hostile tribes one after another and advanced the Franco-Italian border with his men, and there they were faced with the Pyrenees massif. 7,000 of his men, exhausted from the task abandoned their ranks in the process but this did not deter Hannibal from crossing the mountains and arriving the Rhone, which he also crossed with his little Indian and African elephants.
The Roman authorities were in shock to hear that Hannibal was able to go through this tasking terrains. Hannibal continued undeterred and even had more men join his army. He arrived the foot of the Alps, climbed the mountain ranges, and though he about half of his troops, losing his men in their thousands to ravines, hostile tribes, and the winter cold, he arrived Italy after 15 days of hell through the Alps, with 22,000 men, 12,000 of which were Africans.
Having found out what great loss Hannibal and his men had encountered while traveling through the Alps, the Italian general, General Scipio, waited confidently with his great army for the first battle, he was defeated and had to be made to retreat by his son in other to escape impending death. Hannibal advanced unhindered, he had General Simpronius to deal with next.
The Carthaginians attacked the Romans unexpectedly, pretended to be conquered and retreated, this plan by Hannibal was as a result of his understanding of General Simpronius choleric nature. As expected, the General pursued Hannibal and his men and fell into an ambush.
The Romans were encompassed, and the Africans dealt ruthlessly with them. Hannibal’s elephants were as wild as lions, the killings were terrible, those who managed to escape Hannibal and his men didn’t escape the winter cold. Lake Trebbia was taken by Hannibal.
Enthralled by Hannibal’s military prowess, 60,000 Gaulics joined his army, and next, he prepared to face the newly elected General Flaminius. While crossing the swamps, he caught an eye infection that caused him to be partially blind, but strategically General Flaminius was killed and 50,000 Romans fell when Hannibal encircled them with men who hid by his sides as he faced the Romans alone. The gates were then open to Hannibal and his men.
The Romans were frightened, they destroyed their bridged, burnt down farmlands and hid in wooden fortifications. Hannibal, faced with Roman authorities was unwilling to face the battle squarely, so he started to take Rome city by city. At Capua, the Carthaginians were surrounded by the Romans, again, Hannibal came up with a strategy.
He ordered that woods be attached to the horns of 2,000 cows, in the middle of the night, the woods were lighted up, and this made the frightened cows run in one direction, leaving the Romans to believe that the Carthaginians were on the run, they left their post to pursue the Carthaginians, and Hannibal escaped with his men.
The Romans, angered by this decided to face the Carthaginians at Cannae. 80,000 Romans faced 40,000 Carthaginians in battle. The Carthaginians were able to pull the Romans to the middle, and 70,000 Romans were butchered, while Hannibal lost only 6,000 men as compared to the Roman loss. Hannibal portrayed his very African humanity at all times and as was his custom gave dignified burials to high ranking fallen enemies.
The state of affairs was quite calm for 15 years as only minor battles were fought. Hannibal took over most of the ports and sent his brother Mago to Carthage to inform the authorities about his victories and begging for aid to defeat the Roman city, but he didn’t receive the support he pleaded for.
The second Punic war ended when Hannibal had to go back to Carthage to protect his homeland because Scipio, the son of General Scipio attacked the Carthaginian possessions in Spain, and had started causing Carthage to succumb under his attacks. Hannibal’s negotiations with Scipio failed, and the battle started. Mago and Hanno Barca died in the battles against Scipio. It ended in Zama with Carthage defeated.
Hannibal subsequently became the Head of the Republic and was able to revive Carthage’s economy to a level that caused the Romans to panic. Carthaginian senators became agitated out of fear of retaliation and Hannibal was forced to flee. He went on exile to Tire in Lebanon which is the home country of the Phoenicians.
Again he tried to defeat the Romans but failed, on realizing that he had been tracked, he left for Armenia. There he established a city. In Crete, exhausted form leaving like a fugitive, he committed suicide by poisoning at age 64.
Carthage was plunged into another war with the Romans who were still irritated at remembering Hannibal and his victories over them. The land was encircled by the Romans, and after 3 years of resistance, Carthage was defeated and the entire capital with all its magnificence was burnt down by the Romans for 70 days. 50,000 Carthaginians who survived were sold into slavery, and in 147 BC, Carthage was annihilated after over 7 centuries of existence.
General Chenu Bechola Barca will always be remembered for his military exploits, and to this day, he is considered as one of the greatest military generals that existed. He recorded victories in almost impossible situations and would most likely have remained victorious if he had gotten the support he requested of Carthage authorities after the battle of Cannae. His military science is still taught in western schools to date.
https://crosssides.blogspot.com/
January 14, 2025
Law & Order Conquest of America
https://crosssides.blogspot.com/
January 12, 2025
Conquest Power
Conquest Power:
Examples:
The act of taking control of a country or city through force.
A country or city that has been taken control of through force.
Success in defeating or dealing with something difficult or dangerous.
The winning of favor, affection, love, etc.
A person whose favor, affection, etc., has been won.
Anything acquired by conquering, as a nation, a territory, or spoils.
Conquest Power:
Whether driven by lust for power, riches, or some other force, for centuries, leaders have used their power to overtake an existing society and bend it into something new.
Throughout history, many different kingdoms have risen and fallen; many empires have been born out of nothing and then collapsed to ruin. Many have led large armies to the brink of death in order to wrestle power away from mighty rulers, while others have relied on their ability to rally the masses behind their cause, noble or otherwise.
What is clear throughout history, from Julius Caesar to Genghis Khan, is that it takes a distinct personality to embark on a conquest and an even stronger desire to achieve some goal in order to overcome the difficult challenges that await.
While there is no handbook to guide one in a conquest, there are similar motivations connecting some of history’s greatest conquerors. For example, the reason empires may expand is so they can grow both physically, culturally, or both. From 336–323 B.C.E., Alexander of Macedonia (also known as Alexander the Great) not only conquered most of the known world, he also spread Greek culture from Egypt to India. He encouraged cultural exchange in his empire, remaining tolerant of the different lifestyles in his new territories.
During the second century B.C.E., the Roman Empire conquered Macedonia and incorporated that kingdom and Greek culture into its empire. Over the course of the reign of the Gupta Empire between 320 C.E. and 550 C.E., its lands grew from a small portion of northern India to eventually stretch from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal. This physical expansion coincided with cultural growth for the Gupta Empire as well, and education and art flourished.
The spoils of war can be a significant motivation for conquest. In the 13th century C.E., when Genghis Khan led the Mongols into battle, many of the soldiers were motivated to win the riches they usually lacked, being a nomadic people. Julius Caesar was motivated by wealth as well, and in fact, it was this motivation specifically that led to his conquest of Gaul (a region of Western Europe) in 58 B.C.E. But perhaps a more sustainable motivation than plunder is control over trade.
For the Mongols, controlling the Silk Road--a network of trade routes stretching across Asia, East Africa, and into Europe--was another attractive motivator for expansion. Early on, attacks by Mongols targeted states that controlled parts of the Silk Road. Chandragupta I of the Gupta Empire strategically married the Licchavi princess in order to incorporate mines of iron ore, a valuable trade commodity, into his kingdom.
Legendary conquerors, such as Alexander, Julius Caesar, and William the Conqueror, created and then expanded their lands because of a desire to rule, combined with great personal ambition. This ambition pushed them to continue to expand their influence and spread their empires to include more land, more people, and, by way of taxes and tribute, more wealth.
Alexander became king of Macedonia at just 20 years old, killing his enemies before they could challenge him and crushing rebellions. He led his conquests with an unparalleled military acumen. Julius Caesar held different titles in Rome, ranging from military tribune to praetor to member of the First Triumvirate. In these positions, he consolidated his own power and expanded Rome's influence and wealth through military conquest. William the Conqueror harnessed a similar resolve as Alexander and Caesar, establishing the power of the state of Normandy and drastically altering English society in his conquest.
As king of England, he redistributed the state's wealth, transferring power to his people, the Normans. Each of these leaders’ charisma helped them to gain military support that was crucial in their conquests while also protecting their positions as rulers.
One's perceived right to rule, not just desire, has also motivated history's ancient conquests. Alexander believed himself to be the half-human son of of the god Zeus, and thus entitled to his success. William led the Norman Conquest in 1066 because he believed he was the rightful heir to the English throne.
King Edward had promised that William would be his successor, but he had also made this promise to several others, causing several nearly simultaneous battles for the crown after his death. William eventually prevailed, assuming what he believed to be his rightful position, and changed England forever in his conquest. Some historians theorize that Genghis Khan also believed that his fate was to rule, although the foundations for this idea are unclear.
The draw of power, which can come in many forms, is difficult to quantify but overwhelms those that desire conquest. Conquerors face overwhelming dangers for a chance to rule but believe the reward outweighs the risk.
https://crosssides.blogspot.com/
January 11, 2025
Ashkenazi Jews and the British Banking System
Ashkenazi Jews and the British Banking System:
The Rothschild family is a wealthy Ashkenazi Jewish noble banking family originally from Frankfurt. The family's documented history starts in 16th-century Frankfurt; its name is derived from the family house, Rothschild, built by Isaak Elchanan Bacharach in Frankfurt in 1567. The family rose to prominence with Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812), a court factor to the German Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel in the Free City of Frankfurt, Holy Roman Empire, who established his banking business in the 1760s.
Unlike most previous court factors, Rothschild managed to bequeath his wealth and established an international banking family through his five sons, who established businesses in Paris, Frankfurt, London, Vienna, and Naples. The family was elevated to noble rank in the Holy Roman Empire and the United Kingdom.
During the 19th century, the Rothschild family possessed the largest private fortune in the world, as well as in modern world history. The family's wealth declined over the 20th century, and was divided among many descendants. Today, their interests cover a diverse range of fields, including financial services, real estate, mining, energy, agriculture, winemaking, and nonprofits. Many examples of the family's rural architecture exist across northwestern Europe. The Rothschild family has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories, many of which have antisemitic origins.
The Rothschild banking family of England is the British branch of the Rothschild family. It was founded in 1798 by Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777–1836), who first settled in Manchester before moving to London, Kingdom of Great Britain (in present-day United Kingdom). He was sent there from his home in Frankfurt by his father, Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812). Wanting his sons to succeed on their own and to expand the family business across Europe, Mayer Amschel Rothschild had his eldest son remain in Frankfurt, while his four other sons were sent to different European cities to establish a financial institution to invest in business and provide banking services. Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the third son, first established a textile jobbing business in Manchester and from there went on to establish N M Rothschild & Sons bank in London.
From the family's home base in Frankfurt, the Rothschild family not only established itself in London but also in Paris, Vienna and Naples in the Two Sicilies. Through their collaborative efforts, the Rothschilds rose to prominence in a variety of banking endeavours, including loans, government bonds and trading in bullion. Their financing afforded investment opportunities, and during the 19th century, they became major stakeholders in large-scale mining and rail transport ventures that were fundamental to the rapidly expanding industrial economies of Europe.
Changes in governments, wars and other such events affected the family's fortunes, both for their benefit and to their detriment at various times. Despite such changes, the British branch of the Rothschild family is arguably the most prominent of all the Rothschild branches, partly due to its elevation to the British peerage and its continued high-profile philanthropic activities.
https://crosssides.blogspot.com/
War of the Conquest the Killing of Indigenous
War of the Conquest the Killing of Indigenous People by Trey Knowles:
Note: All of North America was Indigenous People of different tribes Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy, how many people of these tribes are left today.
The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was a theater of the Seven Years' War, which pitted the North American colonies of the British Empire against those of the French, each side being supported by various Native American tribes. At the start of the war, the French colonies had a population of roughly 60,000 settlers, compared with 2 million in the British colonies. The outnumbered French particularly depended on their native allies.
Two years into the war, in 1756, Great Britain declared war on France, beginning the worldwide Seven Years' War. Many view the French and Indian War as being merely the American theater of this conflict; however, in the United States the French and Indian War is viewed as a singular conflict which was not associated with any European war. French Canadians call it the guerre de la Conquête ('War of the Conquest').
The British colonists were supported at various times by the Iroquois, Catawba, and Cherokee tribes, and the French colonists were supported by Wabanaki Confederacy members Abenaki and Mi'kmaq, and the Algonquin, Lenape, Ojibwa, Ottawa, Shawnee, and Wyandot (Huron).
Fighting took place primarily along the frontiers between New France and the British colonies, from the Province of Virginia in the south to Newfoundland in the north. It began with a dispute over control of the confluence of the Allegheny River and Monongahela River called the Forks of the Ohio, and the site of the French Fort Duquesne at the location that later became Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The dispute erupted into violence in the Battle of Jumonville Glen in May 1754, during which Virginia militiamen under the command of 22-year-old George Washington ambushed a French patrol.
In 1755, six colonial governors met with General Edward Braddock, the newly arrived British Army commander, and planned a four-way attack on the French. None succeeded, and the main effort by Braddock proved a disaster; he lost the Battle of the Monongahela on July 9, 1755, and died a few days later.
British operations failed in the frontier areas of the Province of Pennsylvania and the Province of New York during 1755–57 due to a combination of poor management, internal divisions, effective Canadien scouts, French regular forces, and Native warrior allies. In 1755, the British captured Fort Beauséjour on the border separating Nova Scotia from Acadia, and they ordered the expulsion of the Acadians (1755–64) soon afterwards. Orders for the deportation were given by Commander-in-Chief William Shirley without direction from Great Britain. The Acadians were expelled, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to the king. Natives likewise were driven off the land to make way for settlers from New England.
The British Pitt government fell due to disastrous campaigns in 1757, including a failed expedition against Louisbourg and the Siege of Fort William Henry; this last was followed by the Natives torturing and massacring their colonial victims.
William Pitt came to power and significantly increased British military resources in the colonies at a time when France was unwilling to risk large convoys to aid the limited forces that they had in New France, preferring to concentrate their forces against Prussia and its allies who were now engaged in the Seven Years' War in Europe.
The conflict in Ohio ended in 1758 with the British–American victory in the Ohio Country. Between 1758 and 1760, the British military launched a campaign to capture French Canada. They succeeded in capturing territory in surrounding colonies and ultimately the city of Quebec (1759). The following year the British were victorious in the Montreal Campaign in which the French ceded Canada in accordance with the Treaty of Paris (1763).
France also ceded its territory east of the Mississippi to Great Britain, as well as French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River to its ally Spain in compensation for Spain's loss to Great Britain of Spanish Florida (Spain had ceded Florida to Britain in exchange for the return of Havana, Cuba). France's colonial presence north of the Caribbean was reduced to the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, confirming Great Britain's position as the dominant colonial power in northern America.
In British America, wars were often named after the sitting British monarch, such as King William's War or Queen Anne's War. There had already been a King George's War in the 1740s during the reign of King George II, so British colonists named this conflict after their opponents, and it became known as the French and Indian War.
This continues as the standard name for the war in the United States, although indigenous peoples fought on both sides of the conflict. It also led into the Seven Years' War overseas, a much larger conflict between France and Great Britain that did not involve the American colonies; some historians make a connection between the French and Indian War and the Seven Years' War overseas, but most residents of the United States consider them as two separate conflicts—only one of which involved the American colonies, and American historians generally use the traditional name. Less frequently used names for the war include the Fourth Intercolonial War and the Great War for the Empire.
In Europe, the French and Indian War is conflated into the Seven Years' War and not given a separate name. "Seven Years" refers to events in Europe, from the official declaration of war in 1756—two years after the French and Indian War had started—to the signing of the peace treaty in 1763. The French and Indian War in America, by contrast, was largely concluded in six years from the Battle of Jumonville Glen in 1754 to the capture of Montreal in 1760.
Canadians conflate both the European and American conflicts into the Seven Years' War (Guerre de Sept Ans). French Canadians also use the term "War of Conquest" (Guerre de la Conquête), since it is the war in which New France was conquered by the British and became part of the British Empire.
In Quebec, this term was promoted by popular historians Jacques Lacoursière and Denis Vaugeois, who borrowed from the ideas of Maurice Séguin in considering this war as a dramatic tipping point of French Canadian identity and nationhood.
At this time, North America east of the Mississippi River was largely claimed by either Great Britain or France. Large areas had no colonial settlements. The French population numbered about 75,000 and was heavily concentrated along the St. Lawrence River valley, with some also in Acadia (present-day New Brunswick and parts of Nova Scotia), including Île Royale (Cape Breton Island). Fewer lived in New Orleans; Biloxi, Mississippi; Mobile, Alabama; and small settlements in the Illinois Country, hugging the east side of the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
French fur traders and trappers traveled throughout the St. Lawrence and Mississippi watersheds, did business with local Indian tribes, and often married Indian women. Traders married daughters of chiefs, creating high-ranking unions.
British settlers outnumbered the French 20 to 1 with a population of about 1.5 million ranged along the Atlantic coast of the continent from Nova Scotia and the Colony of Newfoundland in the north to the Province of Georgia in the south.
Many of the older colonies' land claims extended arbitrarily far to the west, as the extent of the continent was unknown at the time when their provincial charters were granted. Their population centers were along the coast, but the settlements were growing into the interior. The British captured Nova Scotia from France in 1713, which still had a significant French-speaking population. Britain also claimed Rupert's Land where the Hudson's Bay Company traded for furs with local Indian tribes.
Between the French and British colonists, large areas were dominated by Indian tribes. To the north, the Mi'kmaq and the Abenakis were engaged in Father Le Loutre's War and still held sway in parts of Nova Scotia, Acadia, and the eastern portions of the province of Canada, as well as much of Maine.
The Iroquois Confederation dominated much of upstate New York and the Ohio Country, although Ohio also included Algonquian-speaking populations of Delaware and Shawnee, as well as Iroquoian-speaking Mingos. These tribes were formally under Iroquois rule and were limited by them in their authority to make agreements.
The Iroquois Confederation initially held a stance of neutrality to ensure continued trade with both French and British. Though maintaining this stance proved difficult as the Iroquois Confederation tribes sided and supported French or British causes depending on which side provided the most beneficial trade.
The Southeast interior was dominated by Siouan-speaking Catawbas, Muskogee-speaking Creeks and Choctaw, and the Iroquoian-speaking Cherokee tribes.
When war broke out, the French colonists used their trading connections to recruit fighters from tribes in western portions of the Great Lakes region, which was not directly subject to the conflict between the French and British; these included the Hurons, Mississaugas, Ojibwas, Winnebagos, and Potawatomi.
The British colonists were supported in the war by the Iroquois Six Nations and also by the Cherokees, until differences sparked the Anglo-Cherokee War in 1758. In 1758, the Province of Pennsylvania successfully negotiated the Treaty of Easton in which a number of tribes in the Ohio Country promised neutrality in exchange for land concessions and other considerations. Most of the other northern tribes sided with the French, their primary trading partner and supplier of arms. The Creeks and Cherokees were subject to diplomatic efforts by both the French and British to gain either their support or neutrality in the conflict.
At this time, Spain claimed only the province of Florida in eastern America. It controlled Cuba and other territories in the West Indies that became military objectives in the Seven Years' War. Florida's European population was a few hundred, concentrated in St. Augustine.
There were no French regular army troops stationed in America at the onset of war. New France was defended by about 3,000 troupes de la marine, companies of colonial regulars (some of whom had significant woodland combat experience). The colonial government recruited militia support when needed. The British had few troops. Most of the British colonies mustered local militia companies to deal with Indian threats, generally ill trained and available only for short periods, but they did not have any standing forces. Virginia, by contrast, had a large frontier with several companies of British regulars.
When hostilities began, the British colonial governments preferred operating independently of one another and of the government in London. This situation complicated negotiations with Indian tribes, whose territories often encompassed land claimed by multiple colonies. As the war progressed, the leaders of the British Army establishment tried to impose constraints and demands on the colonial administrations.
https://crosssides.blogspot.com/
