So how much Crusader ancestry do Levantine Christians really have?

[Bobby Martnen]

Does anyone have info on this?

[Sikeliot]

Probably 3-5% in some of them, which is most likely British, Norman, and other French.

[Bobby Martnen]

Probably 3-5% in some of them, which is most likely British, Norman, and other French.

Is it widespread throughout the entire population, or just seen in certain regions?

[StonyArabia]

The Sunni Levantine Muslims have more Crusader admixture than their Christian counterparts

[Sikeliot]

Lebanese Muslims have more. And it is of Western European origin.

[Bobby Martnen]

The Sunni Levantine Muslims have more Crusader admixture than their Christian counterparts

Not according to Y-DNA, is this an autosomally based conclusion?

[Bobby Martnen]

Lebanese Muslims have more. And it is of Western European origin.

How? Why would Crusaders mix with their enemies more than their co-religionists?

[Sikeliot]

How? Why would Crusaders mix with their enemies more than their co-religionists?

Rape.

[StonyArabia]

How? Why would Crusaders mix with their enemies more than their co-religionists?

Rape, which would explain Levantines are fairer than us Arabians, look at Southern Iraqis/Arabians, this how the Levant used to look like, before the Crusader savages raped them.

[Sikeliot]

Rape, which would explain Levantines are fairer than us Arabians, look at Southern Iraqis/Arabians, this how the Levant used to look like, before the Crusader savages raped them.

Levantines at one point would have been like Cypriots.

[Bobby Martnen]

Are Levantines now more Euro-shifted than Cypriots?

Also, how does this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7316281.stm) square with Moslems being more European than the Christians, because that article makes it seem like Christians are more European/Crusader by descent?

[StonyArabia]

Levantines at one point would have been like Cypriots.

Your forgetting that Cypriots have significant Greek admixture. The original Levantines were Arabian like, just like ethnic Saudis, Southern Iraqis, Ethnic Jordanians, Ethnic Omanis, you get the idea. The Crusaders changed some of their genetics bringing in red hair, blond hair, blue eyes that sometimes pops up, and you see some Levantine siblings looking Arabian and the other looking European.

Arabians can get green eyes without admixture but it's very rare and combined with dark skin.

[Sikeliot]

Your forgetting that Cypriots have significant Greek admixture..

They don't.

[Oneeye]

Deus Vult

[Hadouken]

Your forgetting that Cypriots have significant Greek admixture. The original Levantines were Arabian like, just like ethnic Saudis, Southern Iraqis, Ethnic Jordanians, Ethnic Omanis, you get the idea. The Crusaders changed some of their genetics bringing in red hair, blond hair, blue eyes that sometimes pops up, and you see some Levantine siblings looking Arabian and the other looking European.

Arabians can get green eyes without admixture but it's very rare and combined with dark skin.

you cant explain the difference between levantines and arabians by crusaders and "rape" wtf are you talking about

levantines are predominantly an east mediterranean cretan like population with significant (will look later how much on gedmatch) arabian admix

[Sikeliot]

Levantines would have started out like modern Cypriots (who do not actually have much Greek admixture at all). Levantine Muslims might have around 3-5% British or Norman DNA which is why they shift slightly toward Europe.

[Hudayar]

Was there ever a mass migration or a large scale migration from Europe to Middle East/Kingdom of Jerusalem?
If yes then they might have European admixture
If not then only a small part of them has European admixture

"rape" etc cannot change an entire population's genetic make up significantly. Only population movements can.

[Bobby Martnen]

Levantines would have started out like modern Cypriots (who do not actually have much Greek admixture at all). Levantine Muslims might have around 3-5% British or Norman DNA which is why they shift slightly toward Europe.

Do Levantine Christians have any Crusader in them, or just the Moslems? I'm confused lol

[Sikeliot]

levantines are predominantly an east mediterranean cretan like population with significant (will look later how much on gedmatch) arabian admix

They would not have ever been like modern Cretans, who have roughly 15% North European admixture. Crete is basically like Sicily but there might be a couple percentages more North European.

[Sikeliot]

Do Levantine Christians have any Crusader in them, or just the Moslems? I'm confused lol

The Muslims have more.

[StonyArabia]

They don't.

Explain how Cypriot speak Greek, have Greek holidays and religions, and want to be part of Greece. Levantines had Greco-Roman, Anatolian input


you cant explain the difference between levantines and arabians by crusaders and "rape" wtf are you talking about

I am just joking.


levantines are predominantly an east mediterranean cretan like population with significant (will look later how much on gedmatch) arabian admix

I doubt that, the original Levantine seems pretty Arabian like, but with Med and Anatolian influence later on. I don't think Lebanese or Palestinians are going to be similar to Cretans. Palestinians especially have good amount of Egyptian not only Arabian input there.

[Sikeliot]

Explain how Cypriot speak Greek, have Greek holidays and religions, and want to be part of Greece.

The native Levantine population adopted the more historically significant Greek culture and language of their conquerors. Same with Pontians, who are basically like Armenian.

I'd say the same is true for Sicily and Crete also but they were closer to Greeks genetically than would have been the original Cypriots.

[Sikeliot]

I doubt that, the original Levantine seems pretty Arabian like, but with Med and Anatolian influence later on. I don't think Lebanese or Palestinians are going to be similar to Cretans. Palestinians especially have good amount of Egyptian not only Arabian input there.

Cretans today are more Levantine than the Minoans were. Minoans were similar to modern Sicilians but with even more Sardinian-like ancestry which pulled them southwest. Modern Cretans are as West Asian as Crete has ever been.

[StonyArabia]

The native Levantine population adopted the more historically significant Greek culture and language of their conquerors. Same with Pontians, who are basically like Armenian.

I'd say the same is true for Sicily and Crete also but they were closer to Greeks genetically than would have been the original Cypriots.

I was just having a little bit of fun, with this thread. However I do maintain Muslims having more European admixture is simply due to forced intermarriage or rape by the Crusaders. The others were just jokes.

If you look at Levantines, their admixture fits within the frame work of their geography.

[Bobby Martnen]

Explain how Cypriot speak Greek, have Greek holidays and religions, and want to be part of Greece. Levantines had Greco-Roman, Anatolian input


Same reason Americans speak English, have a lot of English derived traditions, but are mostly non-English by descent.

[Sikeliot]

I was just having a little bit of fun, with this thread. However I do maintain Muslims having more European admixture is simply due to forced intermarriage or rape by the Crusaders. The others were just jokes.

If you look at Levantines, their admixture fits within the frame work of their geography.

Not just in Lebanon but also Palestine there are some people with western subclades of R1b, like those in France or the UK.

[Hadouken]

Explain how Cypriot speak Greek, have Greek holidays and religions, and want to be part of Greece. Levantines had Greco-Roman, Anatolian input



I am just joking.



I doubt that, the original Levantine seems pretty Arabian like, but with Med and Anatolian influence later on. I don't think Lebanese or Palestinians are going to be similar to Cretans. Palestinians especially have good amount of Egyptian not only Arabian input there.

no modern levantine populations is "that" close to cretans . but for example lebanese are something like 70% cretan 30% saudi or something . I will look up soon

[Bobby Martnen]

Not just in Lebanon but also Palestine there are some people with western subclades of R1b, like those in France or the UK.

Is there any I-M253 in either? Apparently that's the best sign of Northern European/Germanic admixture.

[Hadouken]

a Lebanese guy . some of his population mix mode

53.9% Jordanian (derived) + 46.1% Greek_Cretan (derived) @ 3.72

70.1% Cypriots (Behar) + 29.9% Yemenese (Behar) @ 2.39

74.9% Cypriot (derived) + 25.1% Yemen (derived) @ 4.05


he can also be modelled as roughly 60% Armenian and 40% Algerian/Tunisian

[Dick]

Is there any I-M253 in either? Apparently that's the best sign of Northern European/Germanic admixture.

There is but it isn't necessarily from Crusaders. It could be from a NPE holiday fling on the beach in Lebanon or from an American soldier from a few decades. It dosn't have to be from centuries ago .

[Bobby Martnen]

There is but it isn't necessarily from Crusaders. It could be from a NPE holiday fling on the beach in Lebanon or from an American soldier from a few decades. It dosn't have to be from centuries ago .

genealogical research and y-111 testing can resolve that

[Dick]

genealogical research and y-111 testing can resolve that

There are only 2-3(very little to go with on ftdna) so far and their subclades are Anglo-Saxon, nothing to do with French. Probably from American or British soldiers.

[Bobby Martnen]

Can you please post a link to the website with those results?

[Dick]

Can you please post a link to the website with those results?

I'll need to log on to ftdna. Maybe tomorrow I will. It's already late in EST time.

[Sikeliot]

no modern levantine populations is "that" close to cretans . but for example lebanese are something like 70% cretan 30% saudi or something . I will look up soon

Cretans are no different than any other island Med populations.

[Pahli]

Take McCree900, he is Palestinian but looks nothing like South Arabians (Gulf States) and is also genetically different from them, but of course has overlaps with them due to his Arabic ancestry.

[Böri]

The light features in some Lebanese are mostly due to Crusaders but don't forget medieval Turkoman effect (also the very low East Eurasian in Levant also result of the Turkmen elites ruling the region). Starting from the 19th century there is also a Circassian effect.


Was there ever a mass migration or a large scale migration from Europe to Middle East/Kingdom of Jerusalem?


After the fall of Jerusalem and the success of the 1st Crusade in 1099, a huge movement of armies together with civilians were launched.
It's known as the Crusade of 1101. It was to populate Levant with Western Euros.

Upon their arrival in Asia Minor, Seljuks of Rum (Kilij Arslan I) with the support of his Seljuk cousins ruling Syria and the other Turkmen warlords and chieftains (like Danishmend, Artuks) defeated the Crusade.
It was 3 bloody battles. Lombards (Germanic north Italians), French Nivernois and Germans were involved.
All 3 battles were won by Turks, Turks also captured alive many young girls and boys. Some of them ended in Iran or even Central Asia.

So the answer of your question is no, there was an attempt but foiled by the Seljukians.

[Pahli]

Why is this Turkish moron constantly trying to spread some bullshit, Turkmens barely had any impact on Levantine genetics, if anything the Levant populations had an impact on them. Crusader admixture in the Levant is not very high anyway, its probably limited to some specific areas.

[Böri]

Calm down Kıro, I say that Turkmen effect is low. Turkmens were the uppest class in the Muslim side. They were rulers, military leaders and elite chieftains. The genetic contribution in the gene pool of natives was thus limited. Many were dying in combats.

[Pahli]

Calm down Kıro, I say that Turkmen effect is low. Turkmens were the uppest class in the Muslim side. They were rulers, military leaders and elite chieftains. The genetic contribution in the gene pool of natives was thus limited. Many were dying in combats.


The light features in some Lebanese are mostly due to Crusaders but don't forget medieval Turkoman effect (also the very low East Eurasian in Levant also result of the Turkmen elites ruling the region). Starting from the 19th century there is also a Circassian effect

There is barely any Turkmen effect in the Levant if any. You always try to turn things to Turks in some way or another. That would be similar to me claiming Persians attributed to their genetical pool (which they didn't)

[Tauromachos]

Does anyone have info on this?


Interesting topic.

But hard to discuss or determine since the input Crusadors left probably became much diffused over the centuries blending into
the local genepool unless there are some groups which remained more isolated

I would expect certain fringe groups in the Levante to carry more of it than the average Levantine.

For example the Maronites in Lebanon.

[Kamal900]

Muslims have more European ancestry alongside with other foreign admixtures than their christian and druze counterparts.

[Kamal900]

Take McCree900, he is Palestinian but looks nothing like South Arabians (Gulf States) and is also genetically different from them, but of course has overlaps with them due to his Arabic ancestry.

Pretty much, especially with Yemenite Jews.

[crazyladybutterfly]

Rape.

very unlikely
contrary to rape on christian done by the muslims fighting crusaders
there is no historical testimony of the crusaders rape towards muslim females
the church prohibited it , as it was sex outside marriage, and obviously someone who travels miles in the name of religion isnt going to break such simple rule for temporary pleasure.
rape of the christian woman was condoned by the islamic imams and leaders . there are testimonies written by muslim historians about it , written with a prideful tone.

this doesnt mean that the crusaders didnt commit atrocities. they plundered and murdered. but rape was neither widespread nor condoned. the priests made it sure the soldiers got it .

the crusader army was the least rapey and morally rightful army of the medieval age.

[crazyladybutterfly]

Rape, which would explain Levantines are fairer than us Arabians, look at Southern Iraqis/Arabians, this how the Levant used to look like, before the Crusader savages raped them.

lol your dearling muslim talked about raping christian girls in their chronicles. where s the proof that crusaders mass raped muslimas? there s none. not saying it didnt happen . but it must have been extremely rare as it was against the christian religion.

[Böri]

very unlikely
contrary to rape on christian done by the muslims fighting crusaders
there is no historical testimony of the crusaders rape towards muslim females
the church prohibited it , as it was sex outside marriage, and obviously someone who travels miles in the name of religion isnt going to break such simple rule for temporary pleasure.
rape of the christian woman was condoned by the islamic imams and leaders . there are testimonies written by muslim historians about it , written with a prideful tone.

this doesnt mean that the crusaders didnt commit atrocities. they plundered and murdered. but rape was neither widespread nor condoned. the priests made it sure the soldiers got it .

the crusader army was the least rapey and morally rightful army of the medieval age.

Didn't the war between Crusaders and Saladin break because a Templar raped and murdered Saladin's sister? Or the gang rape of Greek nuns in Constantinople in 1204...

[crazyladybutterfly]

Didn't the war between Crusaders and Saladin break because a Templar raped and murdered Saladin's sister? Or the gang rape of Greek nuns in Constantinople in 1204...

i cant find proof of the first one ... can you?
regarding the second , that couldnt even be considered as a crusade lol


About a century after 1187, some Christian chroniclers, based in France, write that Reynald actually captured Saladin’s sister (or his aunt; they evidently haven’t all heard the story told the same way) in that caravan. However, none of them suggests that he did her any kind of harm; indeed the best-known of them, the “Eracles”, specifically states that after the fall of Jerusalem she helped her brother Saladin by bringing twenty camel-loads of rosewater to use in re-purifying the Dome of the Rock.
4. In 2005, Monahan and Scott write into the KoH script that Reynald captured and killed Saladin’s sister; either because they want to whitewash Saladin by implying that he only attacked the Franks as a result of frightful provocation (there’s no doubt that they did deliberately portray Saladin as much more peaceable than he was), or just because they want to bump up the shock-blood-and-horror quotient of the movie generally. This is the first time since 1187 that anyone at all has suggested that Reynald harmed Saladin’s sister in any way.
http://oltramar.livejournal.com/44483.html

[Annie999]

My great grandather who was 100% Lebanese had an european phenotype plus he was blond and blue eyed. We have a family tree and the family seem to be in Lebanon for generations, so the only explanarion I find for the looks is crusaders blood, or what else?

[crazyladybutterfly]

My great grandather who was 100% Lebanese had an european phenotype plus he was blond and blue eyed. We have a family tree and the family seem to be in Lebanon for generations, so the only explanarion I find for the looks is crusaders blood, or what else?

no indoeuropeans in prehistory?

[Böri]

It's funny (or maybe pathetic) an Islamophobic Greek comes here and pretends that Crusaders were not rapey LOL :)
Because the Greeks themselves are a very proof that they were.

Actually what Crusaders did to Greeks in 1204 in Constantinople was comparable with Berlin 1945.

Study and Teaching Guide for The History of the Renaissance World
By Julia Kaziewicz
p.182
https://i.hizliresim.com/rJ2yV3.jpg

Same in the Levant.
Btw Reynald and his monk soldiers raped and murdered all women together with Saladin's sister in the caravan they stormed.

[crazyladybutterfly]

written by an historian...
ANDREW HOLT, PH.D. – HISTORY, RELIGION, AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS


On the Islamic side, for example, perhaps the best known text revealing this reality for captured Christian women during the crusading era is found in Imad ad Din’s account of the aftermath of Saladin’s conquest of Jerusalem. Although undoubtedly engaging in some degree of hyperbole, Imad ad Din highlighted the triumph of Muslim warriors who, in his words, “deflowered,” “tamed,” and “stripped of their modesty” thousands of Christian women. Why was this an important topic for Imad ad Din to so gleefully highlight in the wake of the conquest? Because the mistreatment of the enemies’ women in such a way suggested both the totality of the conquest and the humiliation of their enemies.

it was the Pope who called for the crusade and put it under the oversight of the Church, requiring participants to take pilgrimage vows (later known as crusading vows) demanding the monk like virtues of chastity and humility for the duration of the crusade.

The thinking behind requiring such vows, at least as espoused by clerical writers of the time, was that since this was a type of holy war, the warriors needed to be holy. The success of holy wars did not depend on the prowess of the fighters, but rather the good will of God, who enabled victory for those who were faithful to him. If such warriors claiming to represent God sinned during the course of the crusade, then they no longer represented him, and thus lost his favor and would surely lose on the battlefield as well (e.g. example of the events at Antioch).

Obviously, the vow of chastity prohibited, in theory at least, the customary practice of raping captured women during the course of the crusade. Unchastity in any context, customary or not, was forbidden

A number of books published since the 1970s claim that the participants of the First Crusade regularly engaged in rape. An oft-mentioned line I came across was that the knights and pilgrims who participated in the First Crusade all “took time off “for the rape of Muslim women as they made their way on their crusade. On further inspection, it turns out that nearly all of these secondary source claims can be traced back to one book- Susan Brownmiller’s now classic and once bestselling work, Against our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, published in 1975. So I checked the reference in Brownmiller’s book and, disappointingly, she did not provide a footnote for this information.

Moreover, and in contrast, a few crusades historians have highlighted that the clerical Latin sources of the First Crusade do not claim the crusaders raped captive women.

First, let me begin by considering how some, specifically, crusades specialists have dealt with the issue of the crusaders possibly committing rape. Concerning the sources, Yvonne Friedman in her essay, Captivity and Ransom: The Experience of Women, very briefly addresses this topic and correctly notes that no Christian chronicler of the First Crusade would boast of the rape of women as Imad ad Din (mentioned earlier) did (pgs 127-128). To the contrary, she highlights the well known reference to Fulk (Fulcher) of Chartre, where after the successful battle of Antioch, he boasts not of how the crusaders raped captured women, but instead of how they did not rape captured women. Specifically, he notes how the crusaders did the captive Muslim women “no evil” and instead only drove lances into their bellies.

ust as the reforming monks sought to impose monastic virtues on priests during the Gregorian Reform, during the First Crusade they attempted to do the same with lay participants through the imposition of pilgrimage vows of humility and chastity. This was also a period when canonists like Ivo and Gratian were starting to address the topic of rape as a major sin, with major penalties. In keeping with such views, the later twelfth-century historian William of Tyre claimed clerical leaders imposed specific prohibitions on the crusaders that included drinking, swearing, and sexual immorality to include rape.

What about Muslim sources for the First Crusade? They said many negative things about the crusaders, describing them as everything from polytheists to barbarians. Rarely do they miss an opportunity to highlight the primitive and violent nature of the crusaders. The more substantive sources are from decades later, written around 1160 or later. Yet according to the Islamic history scholar Carole Hillenbrand, in some cases, later accounts may be based on earlier surviving contemporary sources such as Islamic poetry.

So what do these sources say about the first crusaders committing rape against Muslim women?

Nothing, really.

whatever the reason, there is nothing in Islamic sources for the First Crusade that supports the idea that crusaders raped captive women.

Thanks to the work of S.D. [Shelomo Dov] Goitein in the Cairo Geniza, the discovery of a few letters, two discovered in 1952 and one in 1975, have given us some insights into the crusaders’ actions during the massacre that took place after their conquest of Jerusalem. The letters reflect the awareness of the elders of Ascalon of the predicament of the Jerusalem Jews, who they had been in correspondence with in the immediate wake of the conquest. The most telling point of the letters, for our purpose here, is the claim by an elder of Ascalon reporting to other Jews on the situation in Jerusalem, who at one point notes, “We have not heard, thank God, the exalted, that the cursed ones known as Ashkenaz, violated or raped women as others do.” Let me highlight how the writer makes it a point to include this in his note, which suggests how unusual it was for the time, as the “cursed” crusaders do not act on this issue in the same way “as others do.”

https://apholt.com/2015/01/06/medieval-warfare-and-rape-lessons-for-the-present/

[Kamal900]

written by an historian...
ANDREW HOLT, PH.D. – HISTORY, RELIGION, AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS


On the Islamic side, for example, perhaps the best known text revealing this reality for captured Christian women during the crusading era is found in Imad ad Din’s account of the aftermath of Saladin’s conquest of Jerusalem. Although undoubtedly engaging in some degree of hyperbole, Imad ad Din highlighted the triumph of Muslim warriors who, in his words, “deflowered,” “tamed,” and “stripped of their modesty” thousands of Christian women. Why was this an important topic for Imad ad Din to so gleefully highlight in the wake of the conquest? Because the mistreatment of the enemies’ women in such a way suggested both the totality of the conquest and the humiliation of their enemies.

it was the Pope who called for the crusade and put it under the oversight of the Church, requiring participants to take pilgrimage vows (later known as crusading vows) demanding the monk like virtues of chastity and humility for the duration of the crusade.

The thinking behind requiring such vows, at least as espoused by clerical writers of the time, was that since this was a type of holy war, the warriors needed to be holy. The success of holy wars did not depend on the prowess of the fighters, but rather the good will of God, who enabled victory for those who were faithful to him. If such warriors claiming to represent God sinned during the course of the crusade, then they no longer represented him, and thus lost his favor and would surely lose on the battlefield as well (e.g. example of the events at Antioch).

Obviously, the vow of chastity prohibited, in theory at least, the customary practice of raping captured women during the course of the crusade. Unchastity in any context, customary or not, was forbidden

A number of books published since the 1970s claim that the participants of the First Crusade regularly engaged in rape. An oft-mentioned line I came across was that the knights and pilgrims who participated in the First Crusade all “took time off “for the rape of Muslim women as they made their way on their crusade. On further inspection, it turns out that nearly all of these secondary source claims can be traced back to one book- Susan Brownmiller’s now classic and once bestselling work, Against our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, published in 1975. So I checked the reference in Brownmiller’s book and, disappointingly, she did not provide a footnote for this information.

Moreover, and in contrast, a few crusades historians have highlighted that the clerical Latin sources of the First Crusade do not claim the crusaders raped captive women.

First, let me begin by considering how some, specifically, crusades specialists have dealt with the issue of the crusaders possibly committing rape. Concerning the sources, Yvonne Friedman in her essay, Captivity and Ransom: The Experience of Women, very briefly addresses this topic and correctly notes that no Christian chronicler of the First Crusade would boast of the rape of women as Imad ad Din (mentioned earlier) did (pgs 127-128). To the contrary, she highlights the well known reference to Fulk (Fulcher) of Chartre, where after the successful battle of Antioch, he boasts not of how the crusaders raped captured women, but instead of how they did not rape captured women. Specifically, he notes how the crusaders did the captive Muslim women “no evil” and instead only drove lances into their bellies.

ust as the reforming monks sought to impose monastic virtues on priests during the Gregorian Reform, during the First Crusade they attempted to do the same with lay participants through the imposition of pilgrimage vows of humility and chastity. This was also a period when canonists like Ivo and Gratian were starting to address the topic of rape as a major sin, with major penalties. In keeping with such views, the later twelfth-century historian William of Tyre claimed clerical leaders imposed specific prohibitions on the crusaders that included drinking, swearing, and sexual immorality to include rape.

What about Muslim sources for the First Crusade? They said many negative things about the crusaders, describing them as everything from polytheists to barbarians. Rarely do they miss an opportunity to highlight the primitive and violent nature of the crusaders. The more substantive sources are from decades later, written around 1160 or later. Yet according to the Islamic history scholar Carole Hillenbrand, in some cases, later accounts may be based on earlier surviving contemporary sources such as Islamic poetry.

So what do these sources say about the first crusaders committing rape against Muslim women?

Nothing, really.

whatever the reason, there is nothing in Islamic sources for the First Crusade that supports the idea that crusaders raped captive women.

Thanks to the work of S.D. [Shelomo Dov] Goitein in the Cairo Geniza, the discovery of a few letters, two discovered in 1952 and one in 1975, have given us some insights into the crusaders’ actions during the massacre that took place after their conquest of Jerusalem. The letters reflect the awareness of the elders of Ascalon of the predicament of the Jerusalem Jews, who they had been in correspondence with in the immediate wake of the conquest. The most telling point of the letters, for our purpose here, is the claim by an elder of Ascalon reporting to other Jews on the situation in Jerusalem, who at one point notes, “We have not heard, thank God, the exalted, that the cursed ones known as Ashkenaz, violated or raped women as others do.” Let me highlight how the writer makes it a point to include this in his note, which suggests how unusual it was for the time, as the “cursed” crusaders do not act on this issue in the same way “as others do.”

https://apholt.com/2015/01/06/medieval-warfare-and-rape-lessons-for-the-present/

And...why does it bother you that much? This thread has nothing to do about the historical events during the crusades and so on. Please, stick to the topic.

[Lavrentis]

levantines are predominantly an east mediterranean cretan like population with significant (will look later how much on gedmatch) arabian admix

Ignorant post with agenda.

They are Cypriot-like, not Cretan like.

Levantines are certainly not 70% Cretan or even Sicilian, what the hell are you talking about? If anything, the European shifted Levantines are closer to Sicilians. Cretans have different components from Sicilians, since going by Y-DNA, Sicilians are more Germanic and Italic. Cretans are more Greek.

Levantines don't have Greek ancestry in order to be close to Cretans. They are close to Cypriots because of their shared Levantine ancestry. I already explained that there is no Levantine in Crete, the exotic Cretan spectrum is Armenian, because the Byzantines settled Armenians here.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lavrentis]

Cretans today are more Levantine than the Minoans were. Minoans were similar to modern Sicilians but with even more Sardinian-like ancestry which pulled them southwest. Modern Cretans are as West Asian as Crete has ever been.

MENA ancestry in Cretans is Armenian, not Levantine. The Byzantines settled Armenians here after kicking out the Arabs.

Phoenicians never conquered Crete or parts of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[crazyladybutterfly]

It's funny (or maybe pathetic) an Islamophobic Greek comes here and pretends that Crusaders were not rapey LOL :)
Because the Greeks themselves are a very proof that they were.

Actually what Crusaders did to Greeks in 1204 in Constantinople was comparable with Berlin 1945.

Study and Teaching Guide for The History of the Renaissance World
By Julia Kaziewicz
p.182
https://i.hizliresim.com/rJ2yV3.jpg

Same in the Levant.
Btw Reynald and his monk soldiers raped and murdered all women together with Saladin's sister in the caravan they stormed.

i am not greek and you re talking about the 4th crusade
which again can barely be considered as a true crusade


The Fourth Crusade (1202–04) was a Western European armed expedition called by Pope Innocent III, originally intended to reconquer Muslim-controlled Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt. Instead, a sequence of events culminated in the Crusaders sacking the city of Constantinople, the capital of the Christian-controlled Byzantine Empire.

When Innocent III heard of the sack, he sent a letter to the crusaders excommunicating them and ordering them to return to their holy vows and head for Jerusalem. Out of fear that this would dissolve the army, the leaders of the crusade decided not to inform their followers of this. ... from wikipedia

The notoriety of the Fourth Crusade comes from its (originally) unintended conquest of Constantinople, in which Christians fought Christians—to the horror of Pope Innocent III and to the scandal of modern-day Catholics.

Forgiving the debt was out of the question, so Dandolo proposed the Crusaders help the Venetians conquer the Croatian city of Zara (previously under Venetian control). Dandolo’s offer proved problematic, as Zara was controlled by King Emeric of Hungary, who had previously taken the Cross; therefore, his lands were protected by the Church, and attacking a Crusader’s land resulted in excommunication.



The Crusaders were thus faced with a serious moral quandary. They did not have the money to pay the Venetians, but the Venetian plan to keep the Crusade from crumbling threatened their souls. Debate raged among the Crusaders about their choices; eventually most decided to accept Dandolo’s offer.

When news of the Crusade’s diversion reached Pope Innocent III, he sent a letter to the leaders forbidding them from attacking Zara; they ignored the letter and hid it from the rank and file. As the Crusaders besieged the city, its inhabitants lowered banners with crosses over the walls to remind them they were attacking fellow Christians. The tactic did not work, and eventually the Zarans sued for peace. When news of the fall of Zara reached the pope, he wrote another letter to the Crusade's leaders, excommunicating them.

As they wintered over in Zara, the Crusaders were approached by envoys from an exiled Byzantine prince with a truly remarkable offer. The envoys told the Crusaders that Prince Alexius Angelus needed their help to free his deposed and imprisoned father, Emperor Isaac II, and return his family to power.

In return, Alexius promised, among other things, to pay the Crusaders 200,000 silver marks, enough to pay off the Venetian debt with a surplus to finance the campaign to the Holy Land. Pope Innocent III soon got wind that Crusaders were thinking of going to Constantinople, so he wrote another letter, warning them against such action. Once again, his protestations were ignored.

Alexius V played tough with the Crusaders and ultimately ordered the murder of Alexius IV. Unable to finance their journey from Constantinople to Jerusalem and faced with the murder of Alexius, who owed them money, the Crusade's leaders decided to attack Constantinople a second time—which they did, brutally.

The sack of Constantinople in 1204 remains one of the enduring memories of the Crusades. It is often used to further the falsehood that the Crusades were primarily “land-grabs” or motivated by greed and desire for booty. Despite the clear papal protestations at the time, blame is still placed inappropriately with the Church for these tragic events.

Yet the Fourth Crusade was not motivated by greed. Neither was it part of some Roman plot against the East. The Crusaders desired to campaign in the Holy Land with the ultimate goal of liberating Jerusalem.

https://www.catholic.com/index.php/magazine/online-edition/the-real-story-of-the-fourth-crusade



THIS WAS ANYTHING BUT A CRUSADE. HOW COULD IT BE A CRUSADE WHEN ...
1 THEY ATTACKED CHRISTIANS
2 THEY ACTED AGAINST THE POPE WILL
3 THEY WERE EXUMUNICATED
4 THEY ACTED IN THE INTEREST OF SOMEONE ELSE POLITICS

[crazyladybutterfly]

And...why does it bother you that much? This thread has nothing to do about the historical events during the crusades and so on. Please, stick to the topic.

because people accused a group of people of widespread rape?

[Lavrentis]

It's funny (or maybe pathetic) an Islamophobic Greek comes here and pretends that Crusaders were not rapey LOL :)

She is Italian you fucking retard. You know that, but you pretend that she is Greek just to find a reason to spread your agenda.


Actually what Crusaders did to Greeks in 1204 in Constantinople was comparable with Berlin 1945.

The Byzantines did the same thing to Catholics in earlier times, except for raping: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

What happened in Constantinople in 1204 was a revenge of what the Byzantines did earlier.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Annie999]

no indoeuropeans in prehistory?
Not sure in history but my g-grandpa never spoke of any ancestry other than lebanese and syrian.

[Kamal900]

because people accused a group of people of widespread rape?

But that's something unrelated to Italians and so on, and we can't exactly verify on what the crusaders actually did in today's Palestine and so on, but I did read some of the historical documents written by local Muslims themselves saying that they were treated good and so on. The point is that you shouldn't give your enemies the attention they seek, that's all. Trolls thrive when people give them attention. All of the Abrahamic religions are bad.

[Böri]

There was no Italian crusader in the sense of the modern Italians. There were only Norman warlords (Viking descent) coming from Italy who were outstanding warriors and they were mastering the ancestors of people like Sikeliot. And later some Germanic north Italians (Lombards). That's all.

You shouldn't imagine Crusaders like modern Pizza or Pasta chef Mediterranid Italians, they were more like modern Swiss or North French (the bulk).

[crazyladybutterfly]

After the death of Nur ad-Din in 1174, Imad ad-Din was removed from all his bureaucratic duties, and was banished from the palace. He went to live in Mosul and later entered the service of Saladin,

Often Saladin could be just as brutal as the less noble minded military rulers of his era, but those actions are typically not highlighted in modern accounts. He was certainly no worse than many medieval military leaders, Christian or Muslim, and undoubtedly has his moments of compassion, but if we are going to judge him by modern standards, as so many seem to do when celebrating his legacy for compassion, then it is important to note that there also took place incidents of horrifying cruelty under his command.

. Saladin first offered the 200 captured knights the opportunity to convert to Islam. They all refused

While the vast majority of the Christian population of Jerusalem were able to pay the ransom and leave, not all could, and thousands of Christians were left behind to be claimed as slaves by the Muslim conquerors. The Christian women and girls were then, according to Imad ad-Din, subjected to mass rape by Saladin’s soldiers.

“Women and children together came to 8,000 and were quickly divided up among us, bringing a smile to Muslim faces at their lamentations. How many well-guarded women were profaned, how many queens were ruled, and nubile girls married and noble women given away, and miserly women forced to yield themselves, and women who had been kept hidden stripped of their modesty and serious women made ridiculous, and women kept in private now set in public, and free women occupied, and precious ones used for hard work, and pretty things put to the test, and virgins dishonoured and proud women deflowered, and lovely women’s red lips kissed, and dark women prostrated, and untamed ones tamed and happy ones made to weep. How many noblemen took them as concubines, how many ardent men blazed for one of them, and celibates were satisfied by them, and thirsty men sated by them and turbulent men able to give vent to their passion….”

And he goes on…

While there is undoubtedly some poetic license being employed by Imad ad-Din here, there is nothing to suggest it is entirely so, as historically this would not have been out of keeping with the treatment of captured enemy women. Indeed, in reading about recent treatment of Yazidi women by the soldiers of the so-called Islamic State, I was reminded of Imad ad-Din’s words here. Since the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself owned slaves including at least one that bore his child, the rape of slaves taken as war booty has been considered acceptable for Muslim men. Saladin would not have been acting out of turn in allowing his troops to behave this way as this sort of behavior was relatively normal for medieval combatants on all sides- Christian or Muslim (although not necessarily in the case- specifically- of the crusaders, who were vowed to chastity).

https://apholt.com/2017/07/25/saladins-legacy-some-thoughts/

there is nothing in the NEW testament that condones sexual slavery , there is in the old but it goes against christian teachings , contrary to the quran and the hadiths ...

[crazyladybutterfly]

There was no Italian crusader in the sense of the modern Italians. There were only Norman warlords (Viking descent) coming from Italy who were outstanding warriors and they were mastering the ancestors of people like Sikeliot. And later some Germanic north Italians (Lombards). That's all.

You shouldn't imagine Crusaders like modern Pizza or Pasta chef Mediterranid Italians, they were more like modern Swiss or North French (the bulk).

oh really? how do you know? so the pope calls for a crusade and no italian joins? :picard2:

[crazyladybutterfly]

There was no Italian crusader in the sense of the modern Italians. There were only Norman warlords (Viking descent) coming from Italy who were outstanding warriors and they were mastering the ancestors of people like Sikeliot. And later some Germanic north Italians (Lombards). That's all.

You shouldn't imagine Crusaders like modern Pizza or Pasta chef Mediterranid Italians, they were more like modern Swiss or North French (the bulk).

oh really? how do you know? so the pope calls for a crusade and no italian joins? :picard2:

[Tauromachos]

But that's something unrelated to Italians and so on, and we can't exactly verify on what the crusaders actually did in today's Palestine and so on, but I did read some of the historical documents written by local Muslims themselves saying that they were treated good and so on. The point is that you shouldn't give your enemies the attention they seek, that's all. Trolls thrive when people give them attention. All of the Abrahamic religions are bad.



Yes but its even more unrelated to Greeks who were not western but Orthodox"Byzantine Christians" at the time.
Because this Turkish moron calls an Italian member here Greek and claims that Greeks are a proof that Crusadors were rapey :picard2:

[Lavrentis]

Yes but its even more unrelated to Greeks who were not western but Orthodox"Byzanitne Christians" at the time.
Because this Turkish moron calls an Italian member here Greek and claims that Greeks are a proof that Crusadors were rapey :picard2:

That sneaky cunt knew that she is Italian, but called her Greek because he wanted to find a chance to spread his agenda.

Rapes did happen in Constantinople when the Crusaders captured it, but it was a revenge for the Byzantines killing Catholics in Constantinople some times earlier: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins

The Crusaders/Latins had captured other places across Greece, such as Athens, Peloponnese etc. Rapes didn't happen there though. Which again proves my point: what happened when the Crusaders captured Constantinople was a revenge to the Byzantines killing Catholics in Constantinople years earlier. There were no rapes in other places in Greece captured by the Crusaders/Latins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kamal900]

Yes but its even more unrelated to Greeks who were not western but Orthodox"Byzantine Christians" at the time.
Because this Turkish moron calls an Italian member here Greek and claims that Greeks are a proof that Crusadors were rapey :picard2:

As a Greek, you should know that their behaviour is common against your own people and so on. Greeks are not even Catholics either since most are of Greek Orthodox domination, and most Christians in the Levant including the Bedouin ones are of Greek Orthodox origins too. I mean, the Crusaders were also against the Byzantines as well. It's mind boggling that regardless on the economic situation in today's Greece, the country still manages to be far more richer and stable than their Turkish and Albanian counterparts.

[Böri]

oh really? how do you know? so the pope calls for a crusade and no italian joins? :picard2:

It depends on what you mean by 'Italians,...

We know from the warlords that they were Germanic.

There were Germans, North French, South French and from Italy there were only the Norman caste ruling the ancestors of people like Sikeliot.
The Mediterranid Italian pasta/pizza chefs weren't Crusaders.





The Crusaders: Or, Scences, Events, and Characters, from the Times of the Crusades
Vol. I (published in 1834 A.D.)
by Thomas Keightley
page 91, 92
https://i.hizliresim.com/pGRyda.jpg
https://i.hizliresim.com/bLlqqZ.jpg

*Hard-fought battle refers to the battle of Dorylaeum 1097.

Crusaders were mostly Gotho-Germanic race.
The bulk was Frankish. Even Pope Urban II praised the Frankish race in his crusade-launching Clermont (in France) speech and said Frank race was chosen by God and only them could stand Turks.

LOL he didn't go to Naples to ask Meds to fight off Turks. :)


NOTE: I thought crazylady was Greek seriously.

[Tauromachos]

That sneaky cunt knew that she is Italian, but called her Greek because he wanted to spread his agenda.


Yes he is a Troll obviously..

Anyway i'm not going into discussions about what Crusadors did or did not and why they did it..
This would be going to long and is also not directly related to the threads topic.

[Tauromachos]

As a Greek, you should know that their behaviour is common against your own people and so on. Greeks are not even Catholics either since most are of Greek Orthodox domination, and most Christians in the Levant including the Bedouin ones are of Greek Orthodox origins too. I mean, the Crusaders were also against the Byzantines as well.

Yes sure i know that,don't worry
They also robbed and plundered Constaninople and other Byzantine communities but to discuss all this would take to much time and effort here

[crazyladybutterfly]

they often departed from italy

The flower of the medieval cavalry departed for Constantinople and Jerusalem by choosing the way to Bari. Thus, in October 1096, they went down to pray on the tomb of St. Nicola Ugo of Vermandois, Roberto di Fiandra, Stefano di Blois, Roberto di Normandia, Drogone di Nesle , William the Carpenter and Clarambaldo of Dandeuil. A month later they joined Lord Bari Boemondo, and his nephew Tancredi, both protagonists of the poem of the Tasso (La Libera Gerusalemme). The well-known chronicler of the First Crusade, Fulcherio of Chartres, who was present, did not merely signal the passage from Bari, but stressed the tribute that the knights wanted to make to the relics of St. Nicholas

http://www.basilicasannicola.it/page.php?id_cat=2&id_sottocat1=92&id_sottocat2=105&id_sottocat3=0&titolo=La%20Prima%20Crociata%20e%20il%20concilio%2 0di%20Bari

Puglia in the Crusader era played a significant role. Its ports allowed the landing of pilgrims and riders, it was the outpost of monastic knights who had several settlements in Puglia, often associated with masseries that produced wheat and legumes, foodstuffs sent to crusaders, especially at times of difficulty. We can well say that without the Southern Italy, and especially without Apulia and Sicily, the Crusades would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, given the role of Granada in the Terrasanta of these regions. And in Puglia the traces of crusaders and military orders are in many cases visible, especially in the north of Bari, which we will deal with.

Sovereto in the Middle Ages was a stopover for both pilgrims and crusaders heading to the Terrasanta along the consular road Appia-Traiana, not far from the area. The farmhouse was equipped with a hospital run by a knightly order. On what order there are different hypotheses. Some scholars (Bramato and Marinelli) believe that it was the Templar, while others, particularly the local historian Gaetano Valente, claim that the hospital was run by the Giovanniti and that the Templars were never present in Sovereto.

Molfetta. Here, in the west area, you can see the ruins of the Crusade Hospital and the Basilica of Our Lady of the Martyrs. In 1095 Ruggiero Norman, the second son of Roberto the Guiscardo, built two hospitals in Molfetta, one of which only partially came to our day.

Barletta, a very important center in the Crusades. This city can well be considered the crossroads of knightly orders, as it had the main seats in the South of all orders. However, the traces of these settlements are all disappearing and today we can only see the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher.

In Canosa, adjacent to the Cathedral, there is the tomb of Boemondo, son of Roberto Guiscardo and one of the protagonists of the crusade, who left Bari, together with his nephew Tancredi and other nobles, at the head of seven thousand infants and four hundred knights in large part Bari. He died in 1111 and was buried in the mausoleum for his will and his mother. It is one of the most unique Romanesque buildings with oriental influences in Puglia.

to Siponto at the church of S. Leonardo that, with the annexed hospital, was the main center of the Teutonic order in Puglia until the 15th century

http://www.medievale.it/articoli/itinerari-crociati-a-nord-di-bari/

Slower and better organized was the expedition of the princes, Germans, French and Italians, accorded with the Holy See. In the various countries, the crusaders gathered around some principles: in the Rhineland region, around Goffredo di Buglione, Duke of Lower Lorraine (Belgium) and his Baldovino brother, who started along the Danube and Morava and came to Ugo Vermandois, Stefan of Blois, Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders. Those who, crossing the Alps and reaching Brindisi, headed for Durazzo and Thessaloniki to Constantinople: some, however, scared for the difficulties, went back. The papal legate Adhemar de Monteil and Raimondo Count of Toulouse crossed northern Italy and drove along the Dalmatian coast to Durres; while from Brindisi, the Italo-Norman crusaders, who were led by Boemondo and his nephew Tancredi, arrived in Constanta, in April 1097

http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/crociate_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29/

[Kamal900]

Yes sure i know that,don't worry
They also robbed and plundered Constaninople and other Byzantine communities but to discuss all this would take to much time and effort here

Indeed, which is why you shouldn't give them much attention which is a complete waste of time and energy.

[Lavrentis]

they often departed from italy

The flower of the medieval cavalry departed for Constantinople and Jerusalem by choosing the way to Bari. Thus, in October 1096, they went down to pray on the tomb of St. Nicola Ugo of Vermandois, Roberto di Fiandra, Stefano di Blois, Roberto di Normandia, Drogone di Nesle , William the Carpenter and Clarambaldo of Dandeuil. A month later they joined Lord Bari Boemondo, and his nephew Tancredi, both protagonists of the poem of the Tasso (La Libera Gerusalemme). The well-known chronicler of the First Crusade, Fulcherio of Chartres, who was present, did not merely signal the passage from Bari, but stressed the tribute that the knights wanted to make to the relics of St. Nicholas

http://www.basilicasannicola.it/page.php?id_cat=2&id_sottocat1=92&id_sottocat2=105&id_sottocat3=0&titolo=La%20Prima%20Crociata%20e%20il%20concilio%2 0di%20Bari

Puglia in the Crusader era played a significant role. Its ports allowed the landing of pilgrims and riders, it was the outpost of monastic knights who had several settlements in Puglia, often associated with masseries that produced wheat and legumes, foodstuffs sent to crusaders, especially at times of difficulty. We can well say that without the Southern Italy, and especially without Apulia and Sicily, the Crusades would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, given the role of Granada in the Terrasanta of these regions. And in Puglia the traces of crusaders and military orders are in many cases visible, especially in the north of Bari, which we will deal with.

Sovereto in the Middle Ages was a stopover for both pilgrims and crusaders heading to the Terrasanta along the consular road Appia-Traiana, not far from the area. The farmhouse was equipped with a hospital run by a knightly order. On what order there are different hypotheses. Some scholars (Bramato and Marinelli) believe that it was the Templar, while others, particularly the local historian Gaetano Valente, claim that the hospital was run by the Giovanniti and that the Templars were never present in Sovereto.

Molfetta. Here, in the west area, you can see the ruins of the Crusade Hospital and the Basilica of Our Lady of the Martyrs. In 1095 Ruggiero Norman, the second son of Roberto the Guiscardo, built two hospitals in Molfetta, one of which only partially came to our day.

Barletta, a very important center in the Crusades. This city can well be considered the crossroads of knightly orders, as it had the main seats in the South of all orders. However, the traces of these settlements are all disappearing and today we can only see the Basilica of the Holy Sepulcher.

In Canosa, adjacent to the Cathedral, there is the tomb of Boemondo, son of Roberto Guiscardo and one of the protagonists of the crusade, who left Bari, together with his nephew Tancredi and other nobles, at the head of seven thousand infants and four hundred knights in large part Bari. He died in 1111 and was buried in the mausoleum for his will and his mother. It is one of the most unique Romanesque buildings with oriental influences in Puglia.

to Siponto at the church of S. Leonardo that, with the annexed hospital, was the main center of the Teutonic order in Puglia until the 15th century

http://www.medievale.it/articoli/itinerari-crociati-a-nord-di-bari/

Slower and better organized was the expedition of the princes, Germans, French and Italians, accorded with the Holy See. In the various countries, the crusaders gathered around some principles: in the Rhineland region, around Goffredo di Buglione, Duke of Lower Lorraine (Belgium) and his Baldovino brother, who started along the Danube and Morava and came to Ugo Vermandois, Stefan of Blois, Robert of Normandy, Robert of Flanders. Those who, crossing the Alps and reaching Brindisi, headed for Durazzo and Thessaloniki to Constantinople: some, however, scared for the difficulties, went back. The papal legate Adhemar de Monteil and Raimondo Count of Toulouse crossed northern Italy and drove along the Dalmatian coast to Durres; while from Brindisi, the Italo-Norman crusaders, who were led by Boemondo and his nephew Tancredi, arrived in Constanta, in April 1097

http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/crociate_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29/

Why are you even bothering with this? Only someone with no knowledge on history would say that there were no Italians in the Crusades or that Italy didn't play a major role in the Crusades. Even the Crusades themselves were called from Italy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Böri]

The 'Italian, Crusaders weren't Italic people you ignorant freaks.
They were offspring of Norse men. People like Bohemondo of Toranto, Tancredi and their warriors were all Normans. They were a caste of people who didn't mix with natives and they were elite class.


https://i.hizliresim.com/0Bo57Z.jpg


Even Pope's legate, bishop Adhemar of Le Puy who was leading the campaign was sent from Italy but he wasn't Italic-Med. He was French.
Crusades were north western Euro and mostly Frank/French campaigns. French were followed by Germans.

LOL no matter how much you look for, there was no Italian Med crusaders. I don't know if they took some few chefs to have pasta/pizza cooked for them :)

[crazyladybutterfly]

It depends on what you mean by 'Italians,...

We know from the warlords that they were Germanic.

There were Germans, North French, South French and from Italy there were only the Norman caste ruling the ancestors of people like Sikeliot.
The Mediterranid Italian pasta/pizza chefs weren't Crusaders.



Crusaders were mostly Gotho-Germanic race.
The bulk was Frankish. Even Pope Urban II praised the Frankish race in his crusade-launching Clermont (in France) speech and said Frank race was chosen by God and only them could stand Turks.

LOL he didn't go to Naples to ask Meds to fight off Turks. :)


NOTE: I thought crazylady was Greek seriously.

again what makes you think that south italians didnt join?

this isnt modern italian but it says siciliani... meaning that south italian DID participate. the nobility was norman but they needed soldiers , do you think the priests proselitized only towards the normans and not the natives? how many normans do you think there were in southern italy ? come on

Se non è stare mai messo in dubbio il contributo reso da Veneri, Toscani e Liguri alla storia delle crociata, tanto da fame il solo vessillo di italianità in quest'epopea della civiltà occidentale, oggi non può essere ignorato come questo sia stato approntato in base al particolare rapporto avuto da Federico II con la Terrasanta. In vero, tutte le crociate partite dall'Occidente per la Terrasanta nella prima metà del Duecento hanno come protagonisti degli Italiani o se meglio si preferisce degli Italici, Lombardi o Siciliani che siano, certamente imperiali quando servono Federico II e la sua politica euro-mediterranea improntata alla riforma di un regno di pace e di giustizia. Le spedizioni condotte a Damietta o a Gerusalemme, sempre sotto l'egida dell'imperatore normanno-svevo, piuttosto che interrompere le relazioni diplomatiche e commerciali tra le due sponde del Mediterraneo, l'Italia e la Palestina, alimentano scambi di uomini, di idee, di merci trasformando questo spazio in un arcipelago della conoscenza. Anche quando i pellegrini sono per lo più inglesi o francesi, viaggiano su navi provenzali o templari, il ruolo degli Italiani rimane decisivo per lo svolgimento della crociata perché al tempo dello Stupor mundi tutti i suoi regni sono inseriti nel progetto salvifico delle Scritture, mai così vicini sebbene così distanti. Il modello di potere elaborato sull'esperienza sapienziale di re Salomone avvicina il mondo cristiano occidentale a quello orientale islamico trasformando la crociata, agli occhi del papa e dell'imperatore, in «opus pacis».
http://www.archiviostorico.info/libri-e-riviste/7151-gli-italiani-e-la-terrasanta

[crazyladybutterfly]

The 'Italian, Crusaders weren't Italic people you ignorant freaks.
They were offspring of Norse men. People like Bohemondo of Toranto, Tancredi and their warriors were all Normans. They were a caste of people who didn't mix with natives and they were elite class.


https://i.hizliresim.com/0Bo57Z.jpg


Even Pope's legate, bishop Adhemar of Le Puy who was leading the campaign was sent from Italy but he wasn't Italic-Med. He was French.
Crusades were north western Euro and mostly Frank/French campaigns. French were followed by Germans.

LOL no matter how much you look for, there was no Italian Med crusaders. I don't know if they took some few chefs to have pasta/pizza cooked for them :)

only nobles joined the crusades in your deluded mind ? :picard2:

[Abdelnour]

Does anyone have info on this?

I cannot give you an exact answer, but I can speak for my own personal experience.

My families last name is Sawaya, which I have been told was a transliteration of the Sovoy, which is a area between France/Italy.

The story is that Crusaders settled in the Levant and decided to stay. The surname obviously was used to determine where they are from, not any other meaning.

Obviously the population was quickly absorbed, so 3-5% sounds reasonable.

For more information about Sovoy/Sawaya, please check this link:
https://www.ancestry.com/boards/surnames.savoia/3/mb.ashx

[Tauromachos]

only nobles joined the crusades in your deluded mind ? :picard2:

Its almost nonesense that the were exclusivly Nordic.
They came from all parts of what belonged to the Western Latin dominated world back then.

Northern Europe,Central Europe and Spain.

I don't know about Italy but Iberians were for sure a significant part of the Crusadors

[Böri]

again what makes you think that south italians didnt join?


Because the historical sources are clear and they gave enough details.
Most of the Crusaders were Franks from north and south France. You had Lutheringians etc.
Their leaders were all Franks too. Hugues of Vermandois, Godfrey of Boulognes etc.

And were there crusaders from Italy? Yeah... But only the Norman elite caste :)
The names you try to pass as Med (Bohemondo, Tancredi) were the names beared by Norman lords.
They controlled anything south of Rome.

And their army was clearly referred to as Normans.

The Italic Meds living around Naples and Sicily were their subjects in the Medieval south Italian feudal context. They were peasants and serfs working the land and paying taxes to their Crusading Norse-origin ruling elite ;)

[Sacrificed Ram]

Levantines were crusaders. Maronite, Melkite and Greek churches had their own military knight orders and confraternities.

About italians in Crusades, I know only genoveses and venetians sold weapons for both sides and they were also the bestest crossbow mercenaries among egyptians.

[crazyladybutterfly]

Because the historical sources are clear and they gave enough details.
Most of the Crusaders were Franks from north and south France. You had Lutheringians etc.
Their leaders were all Franks too. Hugues of Vermandois, Godfrey of Boulognes etc.

And were there crusaders from Italy? Yeah... But only the Norman elite caste :)
The names you try to pass as Med (Bohemondo, Tancredi) were the names beared by Norman lords.
They controlled anything south of Rome.

And their army was clearly referred to as Normans.

The Italic Meds living around Naples and Sicily were their subjects in the Medieval south Italian feudal context. They were peasants and serfs working the land and paying taxes to their Crusading Norse-origin ruling elite ;)

so peasants joined the crusades from every part of europe BUT italy ? :rolleyes:

[Böri]

so peasants joined the crusades from every part of europe BUT italy ? :rolleyes:

The People's crusade led by Peter the Hermit monk involved some Frank knights and civilians from Rhine Valley cities. They were Germanic race people too. Kilij Arslan crushed them, many were taken as slaves by Turks.
Later the Barons' crusade (First Crusade) was a Frankish action with Norman support from southern Italy. So also a racially Germanic action.
There weren't Italic Meds. LOL forget about it.

In early 10th century, Southern Italy was controlled by Byzantines (mainland) and Arabs (Emirate of Sicily).
Italic Meds were subjects to Arabs and Hellenes. Normans freed them and later enslaved them.

The Crusades and the Expansion of Catholic Christendom, 1000–1714
By John France
p.27
https://i.hizliresim.com/g9WYJ3.jpg

So Greeks took Normans as mercenaries, but later Normans conquered all south Italy in cooperation with their Lombard cousins.
The Italic Meds were terrorised and forced into submission. They continued their lives in the feudal medieval context as agriculturalists and farmers paying tax to their Norse lords. :)

It's those Normans who fought Turks at Dorylaeum in 1097 and later created the Norman state in Antioch.

[crazyladybutterfly]

The People's crusade led by Peter the Hermit monk involved some Frank knights and civilians from Rhine Valley cities. They were Germanic race people too. Kilij Arslan crushed them, many were taken as slaves by Turks.
Later the Barons' crusade (First Crusade) was a Frankish action with Norman support from southern Italy. So also a racially Germanic action.
There weren't Italic Meds. LOL forget about it.

In early 10th century, Southern Italy was controlled by Byzantines (mainland) and Arabs (Emirate of Sicily).
Italic Meds were subjects to Arabs and Hellenes. Normans freed them and later enslaved them.

The Crusades and the Expansion of Catholic Christendom, 1000–1714
By John France
p.27
https://i.hizliresim.com/g9WYJ3.jpg

So Greeks took Normans as mercenaries, but later Normans conquered all south Italy in cooperation with their Lombard cousins.
The Italic Meds were terrorised and forced into submission. They continued their lives in the feudal medieval context as agriculturalists and farmers paying tax to their Norse lords. :)

It's those Normans who fought Turks at Dorylaeum in 1097 and later created the Norman state in Antioch.

again how does this prove that peasants and other lower classes didnt fucking join the crusades? because they fucking did lol

[Oneeye]

This is like claiming that there are more people of viking descent in other parts of Europe rather than Scandinavia. xD

[Böri]

again how does this prove that peasants and other lower classes didnt fucking join the crusades? because they fucking did lol

Because history records all participation from Italy as Norman. Contemporary chronicles and genealogical (of the leaders) information all point out Norman origins and the armies who fought each other in Asia Minor and Levant are always mentioned as 'Normans on one side facing Turkomans on the other side,. There is no mention of Italian or non-Norman people from south Italy.

The Norman army which took part in First Crusade was formed based on race, because there were Normans from Normandy in France (led by Robert of Courthouse) and Normans from south Italy (led by Bohemond and Tancred).

Deal with it.

The Normans
By Marjorie Chibnall
p. 96
https://i.hizliresim.com/vJpAZv.jpg

Why would there be Italic Meds in a Norman contingent formed on basis of race, so much racially-based that it included Germanic Norman people from both Normandy in northwestern France and from Normans of South Italy and not Franks like South French, Lithuringians etc?

[Tacitus]

Two studies:
1) Can't access the full paper right now, but only 2% of the Y-DNA found was "Western European": https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080328-crusaders-dna.html. Y-DNA in this case is more important than auDNA since on a macro-scale like this it takes into consideration any potential large-scale patrilineal migrations that might have taken place (such as thousands of European men invading a small region on a mass scale). Bear in mind this study is nearly 10 years old so it might be outdated.

2) The recent paper on Canaanite DNA: http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30276-8

The Canaanites inhabited the Levant region during the Bronze Age and established a culture that became influential in the Near East and beyond. However, the Canaanites, unlike most other ancient Near Easterners of this period, left few surviving textual records and thus their origin and relationship to ancient and present-day populations remain unclear. In this study, we sequenced five whole genomes from ∼3,700-year-old individuals from the city of Sidon, a major Canaanite city-state on the Eastern Mediterranean coast. We also sequenced the genomes of 99 individuals from present-day Lebanon to catalog modern Levantine genetic diversity. We find that a Bronze Age Canaanite-related ancestry was widespread in the region, shared among urban populations inhabiting the coast (Sidon) and inland populations (Jordan) who likely lived in farming societies or were pastoral nomads. This Canaanite-related ancestry derived from mixture between local Neolithic populations and eastern migrants genetically related to Chalcolithic Iranians. We estimate, using linkage-disequilibrium decay patterns, that admixture occurred 6,600–3,550 years ago, coinciding with recorded massive population movements in Mesopotamia during the mid-Holocene. We show that present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age. In addition, we find Eurasian ancestry in the Lebanese not present in Bronze Age or earlier Levantines. We estimate that this Eurasian ancestry arrived in the Levant around 3,750–2,170 years ago during a period of successive conquests by distant populations.


We next tested a model of the present-day Lebanese as a mixture of Sidon_BA and any other ancient Eurasian population using qpAdm. We found that the Lebanese can be best modeled as Sidon_BA 93% ± 1.6% and a Steppe Bronze Age population 7% ± 1.6% (Figure 3C; Table S6). To estimate the time when the Steppe ancestry penetrated the Levant, we used, as above, LD-based inference and set the Lebanese as admixed test population with Natufians, Levant_N, Sidon_BA, Steppe_EMBA, and Steppe_MLBA as reference populations. We found support (p = 0.00017) for a mixture between Sidon_BA and Steppe_EMBA which has occurred around 2,950 ± 790 ya (Figure S13B). It is important to note here that Bronze Age Steppe populations used in the model need not be the actual ancestral mixing populations, and the admixture could have involved a population which was itself admixed with a Steppe-like ancestry population. The time period of this mixture overlaps with the decline of the Egyptian empire and its domination over the Levant, leading some of the coastal cities to thrive, including Sidon and Tyre, which established at this time a successful maritime trade network throughout the Mediterranean. The decline in Egypt’s power was also followed by a succession of conquests of the region by distant populations such as the Assyrians, Persians, and Macedonians, any or all of whom could have carried the Steppe-like ancestry observed here in the Levant after the Bronze Age.

There. Nine pages of shitposting undone by a five minute search on Wikipedia. :coffee:

[crazyladybutterfly]

Because history records all participation from Italy as Norman. Contemporary chronicles and genealogical (of the leaders) information all point out Norman origins and the armies who fought each other in Asia Minor and Levant are always mentioned as 'Normans on one side facing Turkomans on the other side,. There is no mention of Italian or non-Norman people from south Italy.

The Norman army which took part in First Crusade was formed based on race, because there were Normans from Normandy in France (led by Robert of Courthouse) and Normans from south Italy (led by Bohemond and Tancred).

Deal with it.

The Normans
By Marjorie Chibnall
p. 96
https://i.hizliresim.com/vJpAZv.jpg

Why would there be Italic Meds in a Norman contingent formed on basis of race, so much racially-based that it included Germanic Norman people from both Normandy in northwestern France and from Normans of South Italy and not Franks like South French, Lithuringians etc?

how many fucking norman do you believe there were in italy? lol
south italians would be plotting very close to north italians , at least, if this was the case.
during the norman conquest many south italian mercenaries joined the norman army btw... i read that these so called norman soldiers were probably mostly italian lol

[JMack]

There weren't Italic Meds. LOL forget about it.


1- Original Italics were a mix of Dinaric, Alpine, CM, Med and Nordid
2- Venetians, Lombards and other North Italians are Italians as South Italians
3- We know for certain many Venetians and Lombards joined the crusades and many of them can have Mediterranean phenotypes
4- I don't know what you're trying to prove but even in the darkest parts of South Italy the average population is 1000x lighter than Turks (I know it will hurt you)

Get lost shitskinned piece of shit.

[Böri]

how many fucking norman do you believe there were in italy? lol
south italians would be plotting very close to north italians , at least, if this was the case.
during the norman conquest many south italian mercenaries joined the norman army btw... i read that these so called norman soldiers were probably mostly italian lol
There were enough Norman elites in south Italy and Sicily to raise half of the Norman contingent of the First Crusade. Other half were Normans from French Normandy.

1- Original Italics were a mix of Dinaric, Alpine, CM, Med and Nordid
2- Venetians, Lombards and other North Italians are Italians as South Italians
3- We know for certain many Venetians and Lombards joined the crusades and many of them can have Mediterranean phenotypes
4- I don't know what you're trying to prove but even in the darkest parts of South Italy the average population is 1000x lighter than Turks (I know it will hurt you)

Get lost shitskinned piece of shit.

Niggah, Triggered? South Italians were dominated by North Africans and Arabs. South Italians score more Arab than us in K36. Lombard expedition was called Lombard, not Italian back then.
Your ancestors were farming wog agriculturalists dominated by anything from Arabs to Normans. There were no Med Italics among Crusaders.
Go prepare me some pizza instead of crying now Giovanni. :)

[JMack]

South Italians were dominated by North Africans and Arabs. South Italians score more Arab than us in K36. Lombard expedition was called Lombard, not Italian back then.
Your ancestors were farming wog agriculturalists dominated by anything from Arabs to Normans. There were no Med Italics among Crusaders.
Go prepare me some pizza instead of crying now Giovanni. :)

Personally I don't care, I also have Venetian ancestry and my Venetian surname actually originated in Lombardy :). I was just attesting the obvious fact that Southern Italians are whiter than you shitskins. Turks, a mix of Chinese and Pakis, trying to call someone ''dark'' is laughable.

[Böri]

I descend straight from Seljuks you cunt. I am not Chinese or Paki. You have Calabrian and Portuguese ancestry you mongrel agriculturalist, meaning you score Arab, North African and SSA genes.

[Hadouken]

Ignorant post with agenda.

They are Cypriot-like, not Cretan like.

Levantines are certainly not 70% Cretan or even Sicilian, what the hell are you talking about? If anything, the European shifted Levantines are closer to Sicilians. Cretans have different components from Sicilians, since going by Y-DNA, Sicilians are more Germanic and Italic. Cretans are more Greek.

Levantines don't have Greek ancestry in order to be close to Cretans. They are close to Cypriots because of their shared Levantine ancestry. I already explained that there is no Levantine in Crete, the exotic Cretan spectrum is Armenian, because the Byzantines settled Armenians here.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder something ...is nobody able to use your ethnicity/island in a post without getting accused of an agenda ? how stupid is that . I dont have any agenda

they are indeed more cypriot like than cretan BUT it also depends on how you model them . instead of 70% cypriot and 30% yemen that I showed you could also make it 50% cretan as I also showed in one oracle

and cretans are relatively close to cypriots (and sicilians) anyway just more north/west shifted a little but it also depends on person . there have been cretan results posted I think you have ignored it for whatever rason

and last but not least : I didnt say Cretans = Levantines . especially because I said that the Levantines have arabian admix which makes a differences ...so dont worry and chill dude seriously wtf

[Lavrentis]

I wonder something ...is nobody able to use your ethnicity/island in a post without getting accused of an agenda ? how stupid is that . I dont have any agenda

they are indeed more cypriot like than cretan BUT it also depends on how you model them . instead of 70% cypriot and 30% yemen that I showed you could also make it 50% cretan as I also showed in one oracle

and cretans are relatively close to cypriots (and sicilians) anyway just more north/west shifted a little but it also depends on person . there have been cretan results posted I think you have ignored it for whatever rason

and last but not least : I didnt say Cretans = Levantines . especially because I said that the Levantines have arabian admix which makes a differences ...so dont worry and chill dude seriously wtf

Okay you're right.

Btw I didn't say that you said that Cretans are Levantines. But you said that Levantines are 70% Cretan and that's wrong man, it really is very wrong. Levantines cannot be easily modeled as something anyway

[Bobby Martnen]

I cannot give you an exact answer, but I can speak for my own personal experience.

My families last name is Sawaya, which I have been told was a transliteration of the Sovoy, which is a area between France/Italy.

The story is that Crusaders settled in the Levant and decided to stay. The surname obviously was used to determine where they are from, not any other meaning.

Obviously the population was quickly absorbed, so 3-5% sounds reasonable.

For more information about Sovoy/Sawaya, please check this link:
https://www.ancestry.com/boards/surnames.savoia/3/mb.ashx

What is your Y-DNA haplogroup?

[Abdelnour]

What is your Y-DNA haplogroup?

I haven't taken a DNA test yet, though I should now considering the topic at hand and what I have written earlier.

When I do, I'll make sure to post it on this site and then PM you when I do post it.

[Hadouken]

Okay you're right.

Btw I didn't say that you said that Cretans are Levantines. But you said that Levantines are 70% Cretan and that's wrong man, it really is very wrong. Levantines cannot be easily modeled as something anyway

yes I think that it was too fast from me to say 70% cretan . it is rather 70% cypriot

but 50% cretan + 50% yemen or something makes sense . I will look later into more results of lebanese

I also find interesting that they can be modelled as 60% Armenian and 40% Algerian/Tunisian

[Kelmendasi]

yes I think that it was too fast from me to say 70% cretan . it is rather 70% cypriot

but 50% cretan + 50% yemen or something makes sense . I will look later into more results of lebanese

I also find interesting that they can be modelled as 60% Armenian and 40% Algerian/Tunisian
We could basically call them a mix of East Med and SW Asian, probably around 70-80% East Med and 30-20% SW Asian on average or something similar

[Anthropos]

You can't expect all European genetic influence to be of crusader origin. Also, didn't the overwhelming number of crusaders return back home? The crusades probably resulted in more genetic flow to Europe than out of Europe.

[Hadouken]

We could basically call them a mix of East Med and SW Asian, probably around 70-80% East Med and 30-20% SW Asian on average or something similar

in what way ? if you talk about admixture components then this wouldnt be accurate . if you mean as a population then yes 70-30 makes sense

[Bobby Martnen]

I haven't taken a DNA test yet, though I should now considering the topic at hand and what I have written earlier.

When I do, I'll make sure to post it on this site and then PM you when I do post it.

Awesome! If you belong to I-M253, R1b, or a subclade, you're probably of Western European paternal origin.

[Sikeliot]

Ignorant post with agenda.

They are Cypriot-like, not Cretan like.

Levantines are certainly not 70% Cretan or even Sicilian, what the hell are you talking about? If anything, the European shifted Levantines are closer to Sicilians. Cretans have different components from Sicilians, since going by Y-DNA, Sicilians are more Germanic and Italic. Cretans are more Greek.


There is Germanic influence in northwest Sicily but if you removed it, these people would plot outside of Europe and be almost identical to Tunisian/Moroccan/Algerian Jews. Sephardim with North African input. It is people in northeastern Sicily who are closer to Cretans, but with slightly less North European.

Western Sicilians when you remove any Norman are basically genetically identical not to Cretans, but to North African Jews. You see this in many results that have lower North European input, they are close to Moroccan Jews.

[Bobby Martnen]

There is Germanic influence in northwest Sicily but if you removed it, these people would plot outside of Europe and be almost identical to Tunisian/Moroccan/Algerian Jews. Sephardim with North African input. It is people in northeastern Sicily who are closer to Cretans, but with slightly less North European.

Western Sicilians when you remove any Norman are basically genetically identical not to Cretans, but to North African Jews. You see this in many results that have lower North European input, they are close to Moroccan Jews.

Makes sense, but what is the point of removing the (admittedly small - 6-8% IIRC) amount of Norman that West Sicilians have?

[Sikeliot]

Makes sense, but what is the point of removing the (admittedly small - 6-8% IIRC) amount of Norman that West Sicilians have?

I was demonstrating that western Sicilians are more like Sephardi Jews with a small Germanic component, and they have ancestry that Cretans do not have.

Though I think through GEDmatch we see that Lebanese Muslims have a minor Western European (likely Germanic) input also.

[Teucer]

Rape, which would explain Levantines are fairer than us Arabians, look at Southern Iraqis/Arabians, this how the Levant used to look like, before the Crusader savages raped them.


Levantines at one point would have been like Cypriots.

So Cypriots are like the original Levantines (Arabians by your description), and yet do not match with Arabians at all today?

When did the Cypriots experience such a rush of Northern European dna like Lebanese muslims to suddenly become East-meds?

Either you are over-estimating how much Arabian ancestry the Levantines had before the Muslim expansion, or Cypriots received a comparable influx of European dna for them to still be similar to Lebanese people today.

Which is it?

[Sikeliot]

So Cypriots are like the original Levantines (Arabians by your description), and yet do not match with Arabians at all today?

When did the Cypriots experience such a rush of Northern European dna like Lebanese muslims to suddenly become East-meds?

Either you are over-estimating how much Arabian ancestry the Levantines had before the Muslim expansion, or Cypriots received a comparable influx of European dna for them to still be similar to Lebanese people today.

Which is it?


I am unclear what you mean.

Cypriots are similar to Levantines but with more Caucasian type ancestry and likely very minor Greek. Lebanese people are almost pure Canaanite, but the Muslims have slightly elevated Sub-Saharan African, a tiny bit more Arabian, and a 3-5% Norman input.

[Hadouken]

Though I think through GEDmatch we see that Lebanese Muslims have a minor Western European (likely Germanic) input also.

I am interested to see that . I dont know what you mean exactly can you show it ?

[Teucer]

Rape, which would explain Levantines are fairer than us Arabians, look at Southern Iraqis/Arabians, this how the Levant used to look like, before the Crusader savages raped them.


Levantines at one point would have been like Cypriots.


I am unclear what you mean.

Cypriots are similar to Levantines but with more Caucasian type ancestry and likely very minor Greek. Lebanese people are almost pure Canaanite, but the Muslims have slightly elevated Sub-Saharan African, a tiny bit more Arabian, and a 3-5% Norman input.

It wasn't directed at you Sikeliot. It was at Nabatea thinking Levantines used to be Arabians when it is palpably false.

[Sikeliot]

I am interested to see that . I dont know what you mean exactly can you show it ?

Here is a Sicilian's result. Notice that the Lebanese Muslim appears in their top 20. The Christians do not. A distance of 16.58 for the Muslims and the last thing on the list is at a distance of 19, so that means the Muslims are at least 3% closer.

# Population (source) Distance
1 South_Italian 4.4
2 East_Sicilian 4.53
3 Italian_Jewish 4.84
4 Central_Greek 5.96
5 Sephardic_Jewish 6.52
6 Italian_Abruzzo 6.76
7 West_Sicilian 6.78
8 Ashkenazi 6.88
9 Algerian_Jewish 7.45
10 Tunisian_Jewish 10.49
11 Libyan_Jewish 11.58
12 Greek_Thessaly 11.83
13 Tuscan 11.85
14 Greek 12.11
15 Cyprian 13.66
16 Lebanese_Muslim 16.58
17 Syrian 17.22
18 North_Italian 18.37
19 Turkish 18.87
20 Bulgarian 19.3



Going by the averages spreadsheet,

Lebanese Muslims:
North Sea: 2.43 --> peaks in Dutch
Atlantic: 5.62 --> peaks in Basques, French, Brits, and Irish. This is likely elevated due to Norman input.
Baltic: 2.09


Lebanese Christians:
North Sea: 1.49
Atlantic: 2.78
Baltic: 1.14

[crazyladybutterfly]

I descend straight from Seljuks you cunt. I am not Chinese or Paki. You have Calabrian and Portuguese ancestry you mongrel agriculturalist, meaning you score Arab, North African and SSA genes.

you are fucking deluded if you think you re identical to people from this region.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/AD_750OguzYabgu.png/250px-AD_750OguzYabgu.png

you have anatolian admix and let s underline that the anatolians were no less woggish than south italians , you kazakh wannabe

[Hadouken]

Here is a Sicilian's result. Notice that the Lebanese Muslim appears in their top 20. The Christians do not. A distance of 16.58 for the Muslims and the last thing on the list is at a distance of 19, so that means the Muslims are at least 3% closer.

# Population (source) Distance
1 South_Italian 4.4
2 East_Sicilian 4.53
3 Italian_Jewish 4.84
4 Central_Greek 5.96
5 Sephardic_Jewish 6.52
6 Italian_Abruzzo 6.76
7 West_Sicilian 6.78
8 Ashkenazi 6.88
9 Algerian_Jewish 7.45
10 Tunisian_Jewish 10.49
11 Libyan_Jewish 11.58
12 Greek_Thessaly 11.83
13 Tuscan 11.85
14 Greek 12.11
15 Cyprian 13.66
16 Lebanese_Muslim 16.58
17 Syrian 17.22
18 North_Italian 18.37
19 Turkish 18.87
20 Bulgarian 19.3



Going by the averages spreadsheet,

Lebanese Muslims:
North Sea: 2.43 --> peaks in Dutch
Atlantic: 5.62 --> peaks in Basques, French, Brits, and Irish. This is likely elevated due to Norman input.
Baltic: 2.09


Lebanese Christians:
North Sea: 1.49
Atlantic: 2.78
Baltic: 1.14

is that eurogenes k15

[Teucer]

Here is a Sicilian's result. Notice that the Lebanese Muslim appears in their top 20. The Christians do not. A distance of 16.58 for the Muslims and the last thing on the list is at a distance of 19, so that means the Muslims are at least 3% closer.

# Population (source) Distance
1 South_Italian 4.4
2 East_Sicilian 4.53
3 Italian_Jewish 4.84
4 Central_Greek 5.96
5 Sephardic_Jewish 6.52
6 Italian_Abruzzo 6.76
7 West_Sicilian 6.78
8 Ashkenazi 6.88
9 Algerian_Jewish 7.45
10 Tunisian_Jewish 10.49
11 Libyan_Jewish 11.58
12 Greek_Thessaly 11.83
13 Tuscan 11.85
14 Greek 12.11
15 Cyprian 13.66
16 Lebanese_Muslim 16.58
17 Syrian 17.22
18 North_Italian 18.37
19 Turkish 18.87
20 Bulgarian 19.3



Going by the averages spreadsheet,

Lebanese Muslims:
North Sea: 2.43 --> peaks in Dutch
Atlantic: 5.62 --> peaks in Basques, French, Brits, and Irish. This is likely elevated due to Norman input.
Baltic: 2.09


Lebanese Christians:
North Sea: 1.49
Atlantic: 2.78
Baltic: 1.14

Why is there such a difference between Central Greek and just Greek here. Are the results just averaged out in the latter's case?

Also, what are the sample sizes of these results? How reliable are they?

[Sikeliot]

is that eurogenes k15

Yes. Anyway as you can see, Lebanese Muslims have elevated Western European components compared to the Christians.

[Sikeliot]

Why is there such a difference between Central Greek and just Greek here. Are the results just averaged out in the latter's case?

Also, what are the sample sizes of these results? How reliable are they?

Central Greek = Athens and North Aegean islands
Greek = a complete mainland average

[crazyladybutterfly]

There were enough Norman elites in south Italy and Sicily to raise half of the Norman contingent of the First Crusade. Other half were Normans from French Normandy.


Niggah, Triggered? South Italians were dominated by North Africans and Arabs. South Italians score more Arab than us in K36. Lombard expedition was called Lombard, not Italian back then.
Your ancestors were farming wog agriculturalists dominated by anything from Arabs to Normans. There were no Med Italics among Crusaders.
Go prepare me some pizza instead of crying now Giovanni. :)

they talked about ITALOnorman because they were like a mix of both , now tell me why wouldnt have they wanted natives if they needed as much men as possible? :rolleyes:

and even if south italians didnt engage in the crusades and have ZERO norman admixture , lol, what makes you think that i would accept you and the other members bullshitting about history?

the crusaders werent rapey as your degenerate chinky muslim ancestors who had THOSE WHO YOUR RIGHT HAND POSSESSES for fucking centuries.
the fact that i might not have ancestors who didnt engage in the crusades doesnt change history lol

[Kelmendasi]

in what way ? if you talk about admixture components then this wouldnt be accurate . if you mean as a population then yes 70-30 makes sense
Interesting, I meant it in terms of admix. Why isn't it accurate?

[Hadouken]

Yes. Anyway as you can see, Lebanese Muslims have elevated Western European components compared to the Christians.

mine :

North_Sea 5.88
Atlantic 1.14
Baltic 2.58

as you see similar . I even have double north sea which peaks in northwest europe :D

I doubt it means much for the lebanese

[Sikeliot]

mine :

North_Sea 5.88
Atlantic 1.14
Baltic 2.58

as you see similar . I even have double north sea which peaks in northwest europe :D

I doubt it means much for the lebanese



It does when you consider Kurds are Indo European and likely started out with more. Lebanese Muslims did not always have theirs until the Normans came.

[crazyladybutterfly]

It does when you consider Kurds are Indo European and likely started out with more. Lebanese Muslims did not always have theirs until the Normans came.

wait .... are you able to timetravel and take these people samples? :confused:

because there is no fucking historical proof that the crusaders mengled with lebanese muslims lol

probably some clans/tribes that converted to islam just happened to be slightly more northern shifted than the ones who didnt...

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Rape, which would explain Levantines are fairer than us Arabians, look at Southern Iraqis/Arabians, this how the Levant used to look like, before the Crusader savages raped them.

Complete and total nonsense.

[Böri]

you are fucking deluded if you think you re identical to people from this region.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/AD_750OguzYabgu.png/250px-AD_750OguzYabgu.png

you have anatolian admix and let s underline that the anatolians were no less woggish than south italians , you kazakh wannabe

There was no Kazakh living there back then. Even Kalmyks werent there. it was paradise under control of our Khazar kagans who set an example (structurally and through culture and symbols) for the Rus states later which inherited from Khazaria. Slavs and Vikings learnt from Turks what a state was.
You cant compare with south Italian low class environment mastered by Normans.
Guys who came from the Oghuz state (Seljuks) were number 1 warriors in the world. Nobody could face them. Pope deployed Crusaders, and the vanguard army of Crusaders were Normans. So, Norman were best thing West could deliver. They defeated Turks at Dorylaeum in 1097. 10k Normans vs 8k Seljuks, Seljuks were winning but lost when 40k other Crusaders arrived.
However, Turkomans eliminated Norman (Antioch) army at Field of Blood (Ager Sanguinis) in 1119 with Ilghazi Bey and equality/draw was reached later Turks turned stronger.

[MINARDOWICZ]

Rape, which would explain Levantines are fairer than us Arabians, look at Southern Iraqis/Arabians, this how the Levant used to look like, before the Crusader savages raped them.

Sorry, I usually agree with you, but this information is not correct. The shift happened long before the rape (which had a small but genetically noticeable impact on Levantines). It is not as if they were all pure Natufians then the Normans and Brits came along and raped modern Levantines into existance. The component % does not match up. They are north shifted, but it seems to be of a Southern European origin, or something SIMILAR to that.

If what you said was correct (that the main influence that changed Levantines to what they are now) was British, the ratios would be WAY different. The med components are something to keep an eye on.

If you want to believe emotionally influenced theories, you can, but you are smarter than that.

The main thing you will see, that shows the rape happened is not written on the faces of Levantines, but in their HAPLOGROUPS, specifically ydna.

[Sikeliot]

Sorry, I usually agree with you, but this information is not correct. The shift happened long before the rape (which had a small but genetically noticeable impact on Levantines). It is not as if they were all pure Natufians then the Normans and Brits came along and raped modern Levantines into existance. The component % does not match up. They are north shifted, but it seems to be of a Southern European origin, or something SIMILAR to that.


Most likely French.

[Hadouken]

Interesting, I meant it in terms of admix. Why isn't it accurate?

because they also score other stuff


# Population Percent

1 East_Med 39.02
2 West_Asian 17.09
3 West_Med 13.15
4 Red_Sea 12.24
5 North_Atlantic 6.07
6 Northeast_African 4.32
7 South_Asian 2.87
8 Sub-Saharan 2.85
9 Siberian 1.26
10 East_Asian 0.69
11 Baltic 0.44



# Population Percent

1 Mediterranean 32.08
2 Caucasian 28.52
3 SW_Asian 13.93
4 Horn_Of_Africa 9.18
5 NE_European 7.35
6 W_African 3.36
7 S_Indian 2.21
8 E_Asian 1.26
9 Omo_River 1.16
10 Siberian 0.57
11 Oceanian 0.23
12 Amerindian 0.14

[StonyArabia]

This forum has weird obession with Levantines to be honest.

[JMack]

This forum has weird obession with Levantines to be honest.

Not only with Levantines. Some ethnic groups here are the target of personal obsessions of some members. I have seen different members obsessed with Iberians, Sicilians, Italians, South Asians, Finns and many other groups I can't remember now.

People visiting TA would have the impression of an alternative reality where Finns and Russians are Mongoloids, South Asians are Onge/Australoids, Sicilians and Southern Italians are Levantines, Iberians are North Africans, Arabians are mulattos, (Anatolian) Turks are Central Asians, Levantines look mostly like Ashkenazi Jews or Southern Europeans and so on.

[Bobby Martnen]

Here is a Sicilian's result. Notice that the Lebanese Muslim appears in their top 20. The Christians do not. A distance of 16.58 for the Muslims and the last thing on the list is at a distance of 19, so that means the Muslims are at least 3% closer.

# Population (source) Distance
1 South_Italian 4.4
2 East_Sicilian 4.53
3 Italian_Jewish 4.84
4 Central_Greek 5.96
5 Sephardic_Jewish 6.52
6 Italian_Abruzzo 6.76
7 West_Sicilian 6.78
8 Ashkenazi 6.88
9 Algerian_Jewish 7.45
10 Tunisian_Jewish 10.49
11 Libyan_Jewish 11.58
12 Greek_Thessaly 11.83
13 Tuscan 11.85
14 Greek 12.11
15 Cyprian 13.66
16 Lebanese_Muslim 16.58
17 Syrian 17.22
18 North_Italian 18.37
19 Turkish 18.87
20 Bulgarian 19.3



Going by the averages spreadsheet,

Lebanese Muslims:
North Sea: 2.43 --> peaks in Dutch
Atlantic: 5.62 --> peaks in Basques, French, Brits, and Irish. This is likely elevated due to Norman input.
Baltic: 2.09


Lebanese Christians:
North Sea: 1.49
Atlantic: 2.78
Baltic: 1.14

So that's 10.14% Norman for Muslims and 5.41% Norman for Christians. There must be a significantly higher amount of Arabian in the Muslims than the Christians.

[Sikeliot]

So that's 10.14% Norman for Muslims and 5.41% Norman for Christians. There must be a significantly higher amount of Arabian in the Muslims than the Christians.

Yes. They balance out.

I would say the Christians have no Norman or anything European but all MENAs have MINOR elements of those components. If 5% is the base then I'd say Muslims have 5% of Norman.

[Bobby Martnen]

Yes. They balance out.

I would say the Christians have no Norman or anything European but all MENAs have MINOR elements of those components. If 5% is the base then I'd say Muslims have 5% of Norman.

Christians do have some minor Norman, but almost certainly no more than the equivalent of a great-great-great-grandparent. (1/32=3%)
Sicilians probably have about twice that, and are roughly equivalent to someone who is 15/16 Calabrian and 1/16 German/Dutch

Am I about right?

[Bobby Martnen]

mine :

North_Sea 5.88
Atlantic 1.14
Baltic 2.58

as you see similar . I even have double north sea which peaks in northwest europe :D

I doubt it means much for the lebanese

Average Kurd: (source:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QWzK3Zb7fxky6bguizFty2gXbEmJ3GZkQZOLfYDMzUQ/edit#gid=0)

North Sea: 1.93
Atlantic: 3.66
Baltic: 2.32

Also, Lebanese Christians have more West Med than Lebanese Druze or Muslims, which could be genetic influence from Italian or French Crusaders.

[Rædwald]

Not Enough

https://i.imgur.com/wV8lMiK.gif

[Sikeliot]

Christians do have some minor Norman, but almost certainly no more than the equivalent of a great-great-great-grandparent. (1/32=3%)
Sicilians probably have about twice that, and are roughly equivalent to someone who is 15/16 Calabrian and 1/16 German/Dutch

Am I about right?

No. Sicilians are not very different to the Calabrese and have only slightly different admixture. People in northeast Sicily are exactly the same as Calabria.

I have explained this so many times and am tired of doing so, I will do it one more time so it finally sinks in.

1. Northeast Sicily = exactly like Calabria
2. Southeast Sicily = close to Apulia and to Peloponnesian Greeks, only with slightly more Near Eastern
3. West-Central Sicily = close to Sephardim and Moroccan Jews, only with minor Germanic input, NOT like Calabrese + Norman ==> in the end they are close to Ashkenazi Jews
4. Trapani = Like Palermo or Agrigento, but with a small shift toward Iberia

[Hadouken]

Average Kurd: (source:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QWzK3Zb7fxky6bguizFty2gXbEmJ3GZkQZOLfYDMzUQ/edit#gid=0)

North Sea: 1.93
Atlantic: 3.66
Baltic: 2.32

Also, Lebanese Christians have more West Med than Lebanese Druze or Muslims, which could be genetic influence from Italian or French Crusaders.

be careful about the kurdish samples in calculators . many calculators use dubious samples especially gedrosia . on some calculators I dont even get Kurd in my top 5 loool

[crazyladybutterfly]

There was no Kazakh living there back then. Even Kalmyks werent there. it was paradise under control of our Khazar kagans who set an example (structurally and through culture and symbols) for the Rus states later which inherited from Khazaria. Slavs and Vikings learnt from Turks what a state was.
You cant compare with south Italian low class environment mastered by Normans.
Guys who came from the Oghuz state (Seljuks) were number 1 warriors in the world. Nobody could face them. Pope deployed Crusaders, and the vanguard army of Crusaders were Normans. So, Norman were best thing West could deliver. They defeated Turks at Dorylaeum in 1097. 10k Normans vs 8k Seljuks, Seljuks were winning but lost when 40k other Crusaders arrived.
However, Turkomans eliminated Norman (Antioch) army at Field of Blood (Ager Sanguinis) in 1119 with Ilghazi Bey and equality/draw was reached later Turks turned stronger.

fucking paradise? they were fighting each other in the best possible scenario . why did the turks even had to leave their lands to serve as mercenaries ? :rolleyes:

[crazyladybutterfly]

Yes. They balance out.

I would say the Christians have no Norman or anything European but all MENAs have MINOR elements of those components. If 5% is the base then I'd say Muslims have 5% of Norman.

:picard2: of course it s normans and not indoeuropean populations... and their descendants.
years of war and conquests bbut lets blame people who had to make a vow of chastity lol

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/AlterOrient2.png/800px-AlterOrient2.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Map_Hittite_rule_en.svg/1024px-Map_Hittite_rule_en.svg.png

[wvwvw]

:picard2: of course it s normans and not indoeuropean populations...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/AlterOrient2.png/800px-AlterOrient2.png

That Map is BS since Myceanean influense was extended to middle East, Asia Minor and Northern Africa (besides Europe)

[Sikeliot]

:picard2: of course it s normans and not indoeuropean populations... and their descendants.
years of war and conquests bbut lets blame people who had to make a vow of chastity lol

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/AlterOrient2.png/800px-AlterOrient2.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Map_Hittite_rule_en.svg/1024px-Map_Hittite_rule_en.svg.png



if Jordanians, Syrians, and Palestinians do not have the northern components as much as Lebanese Christians then yes I can attribute it to Normans. The Muslims obviously do have it though, I will look into it later to see about the components the Christians have.

[Böri]

they talked about ITALOnorman because they were like a mix of both , now tell me why wouldnt have they wanted natives if they needed as much men as possible? :rolleyes:

and even if south italians didnt engage in the crusades and have ZERO norman admixture , lol, what makes you think that i would accept you and the other members bullshitting about history?

the crusaders werent rapey as your degenerate chinky muslim ancestors who had THOSE WHO YOUR RIGHT HAND POSSESSES for fucking centuries.
the fact that i might not have ancestors who didnt engage in the crusades doesnt change history lol

Norman master race was leader.
I added historical sources and quoted from historians.
The Norman contingent in the Crusader army was half French Normans and half South-Italian Normans. Bohemond and Tancred were leader of the south Italian part and obviously their men were also Norman descent you can just speculate about their admixture with natives and that's all.

Normans created Antioch principality in the Levant as you know.
They promised to give the city to Byzantines but after capturing it they kept it for themselves.

Crusaders broke Turks' invincibility reputation during 1st Crusade.
In 1101, Seljuks of Rum defeated the Crusade and restored Turks' image.

In the Levant, turning point battle was when the Muslim side won first ever major victory and stopped the Crusader expansion was when the Turkomans led by Ilgazi Bey (Artukid) wiped out the Norman army of Antioch.

https://i.hizliresim.com/EyRkyz.jpg

Only 2 knights manage to escape, the rest was killed or captured by Turkoman soldiery.

Only Turkomans were match of Norman Crusaders as the Gesta Francorum said. And being warrior fit only Turks and Franks.

Siberians prevailed over Vikings ;)

[crazyladybutterfly]

Norman master race was leader.
I added historical sources and quoted from historians.
The Norman contingent in the Crusader army was half French Normans and half South-Italian Normans. Bohemond and Tancred were leader of the south Italian part and obviously their men were also Norman descent you can just speculate about their admixture with natives and that's all.

Normans created Antioch principality in the Levant as you know.
They promised to give the city to Byzantines but after capturing it they kept it for themselves.

Crusaders broke Turks' invincibility reputation during 1st Crusade.
In 1101, Seljuks of Rum defeated the Crusade and restored Turks' image.

The turning point battle in the Levant, when the Muslim side won a major victory and stopped the Crusader expansion was when the Turkomans led by Ilgazi Bey (Artukid) wiped out the Norman army of Antioch.

https://i.hizliresim.com/EyRkyz.jpg

Only 2 knights manage to escape, the rest was killed or captured by Turkoman soldiery.

Only Turkomans were match of Norman Crusaders as the Gesta Francorum said. And being warrior fit only Turks and Franks.

the middle east and turkey could have been so much better if it wasnt for islam...

[MINARDOWICZ]

Most likely French.

Still doesn't add up to much influence from them... Distant Autosomal and definite ydna influence.

[Bobby Martnen]

Still doesn't add up to much influence from them... Distant Autosomal and definite ydna influence.

As far as Rethel is concerned, Y-DNA influence is all that matters.

[Sikeliot]

The Muslims have it, not the Christians.

[Bobby Martnen]

The Muslims have it, not the Christians.

Either way, Levantine Christians are still more compatible with Western societies, even if they don't have as much Western DNA.

[Leto]

Either way, Levantine Christians are still more compatible with Western societies, even if they don't have as much Western DNA.
Lebanese Christians even feel more comfortable speaking English and French than Standard Arabic, which is a very bookish and archaic language based on medieval books.

[Sebastianus Rex]

Probably 3-5% in some of them, which is most likely British, Norman, and other French.

If one analyses the numbers of the origins/nationalities of the Crusaders, the English were not too relevant during the Crusades, their numbers were much smaller than French/Norman & HRE (Holy Roman Empire) states (those were by very far the most relevant contributors), Papal/Italian states and even Polish/Lithuanian/Teutonics.

As usual they get alot more credit than they deserve thanks to the film/TV industry but their numbers were actually modest.

[AK-47]

Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 lists Lebanese Christians, as follows.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QWzK3Zb7fxky6bguizFty2gXbEmJ3GZkQZOLfYDMzUQ/edit#gid=0
Lebanese Christian.
North Sea- 1.49
Atlantic-2.79
Baltic-1.14
Eastern Euro-0.71

[Sikeliot]

If one analyses the numbers of the origins/nationalities of the Crusaders, the English were not too relevant during the Crusades, their numbers were much smaller than French & HRE (Holy Roman Empire) states (by very far the two most relevant contributors), Papal/Italian states and even Polish/Lithuanian/Teutonics.

As usual they get alot more credit than they deserve thanks to the film/TV industry but their numbers were actually modest.

So Norman and Italian would've been larger contributors.

[Sikeliot]

Lebanese Christians even feel more comfortable speaking English and French than Standard Arabic, which is a very bookish and archaic language based on medieval books.

Arabic language is dying among Maronites in favor of French. Maronites seem to assimilate well into Latin European cultures for a reason.

[Sebastianus Rex]

So Norman and Italian would've been larger contributors.

Yes.

French, Norman and Holy Roman Empire (comprising German/Austrian and some Italian states) were by far the largest contingents. Other Italian (Papal states), Flemish and Polish/Lithuanian, Teutonics were also larger than English. Danish (Scandinavians) and some eastern christians (Byzantines, Armenians, Turkopoles, etc.) also had significant participations.

[Leto]

If it's 3% or so, it's barely worth a discussion, to be honest.

[Bobby Martnen]

Arabic language is dying among Maronites in favor of French. Maronites seem to assimilate well into Latin European cultures for a reason.

Because Maronites are closer to people like French and Italians than they are to their Moslem Arabic neighbords.

Kind of the opposite to how Spaniards are closer to Mexicans and Peruvians than they are to their Portuguese and French neighbors.

[Leto]

Some Crusader blood in this one


Kit A691049

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 East_Med 39.67
2 West_Asian 21.67
3 West_Med 12.71
4 Red_Sea 10.16
5 North_Atlantic 6.52
6 Baltic 3.39
7 Northeast_African 1.62
8 South_Asian 1.59
9 East_Asian 0.93
10 Oceanian 0.83
11 Sub-Saharan 0.7
12 Siberian 0.23

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Lebanese_Muslim 3.32
2 Syrian 5.79
3 Cyprian 7.27
4 Lebanese_Druze 8.4
5 Lebanese_Christian 9.09
6 Samaritan 9.15
7 Jordanian 9.19
8 Palestinian 9.59
9 Kurdish_Jewish 10.25
10 Iranian_Jewish 10.36
11 Assyrian 11.14
12 Tunisian_Jewish 11.49
13 Libyan_Jewish 12.28
14 Sephardic_Jewish 13.04
15 Turkish 13.73
16 Georgian_Jewish 14.15
17 Bedouin 14.56
18 Italian_Jewish 14.78
19 Algerian_Jewish 14.85
20 Ashkenazi 15.9

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 95.8% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.2% La_Brana-1 @ 1.9
2 96% Lebanese_Muslim + 4% Finnish @ 2.11
3 95.9% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.1% Southwest_Finnish @ 2.12
4 95.8% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.2% North_Swedish @ 2.15
5 95.8% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.2% Belorussian @ 2.15
6 96.1% Lebanese_Muslim + 3.9% Estonian @ 2.16
7 96.1% Lebanese_Muslim + 3.9% East_Finnish @ 2.17
8 94.7% Lebanese_Muslim + 5.3% Hungarian @ 2.2
9 95.4% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.6% South_Polish @ 2.2
10 95.8% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.2% Estonian_Polish @ 2.21
11 95.6% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.4% Southwest_Russian @ 2.21
12 96.1% Lebanese_Muslim + 3.9% Lithuanian @ 2.22
13 95.8% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.2% Russian_Smolensk @ 2.23
14 93.8% Lebanese_Muslim + 6.2% Serbian @ 2.23
15 95.6% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.4% Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 2.24
16 95.7% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.3% Polish @ 2.24
17 95.5% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.5% Ukrainian @ 2.25
18 95.9% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.1% Swedish @ 2.25
19 86.6% Lebanese_Muslim + 13.4% Ashkenazi @ 2.26
20 95.1% Lebanese_Muslim + 4.9% Austrian @ 2.28

[Mingle]

Why do Lebanese Muslims have more crusader blood than Lebanese Christians?

[Sikeliot]

Why do Lebanese Muslims have more crusader blood than Lebanese Christians?

Same reason Sicilians from Trapani have more than those in Messina.

[Mingle]

Same reason Sicilians from Trapani have more than those in Messina.

And what would that reason be?

[Tauromachos]

And what would that reason be?

Maybe he means the regions in the Levant were Crusadors entered and had more influence were mostly Muslim.

Though i find the assumption also wierd that Crusadors would have mixed more with Muslims and woudln't have made
contact with the local Christians and intermingled with them.

[Mingle]

Though i find the assumption also wierd that Crusadors would have mixed more with Muslims and woudln't have made
contact with the local Christians and intermingled with them.

Not really an assumption but something shown in their DNA.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Tapatalk

[Sikeliot]

And what would that reason be?

They had no incentive to mix with Christians, their goal was to convert Muslims to Christian. So their influence was concentrated in Muslim areas. Trapani had more Muslims and more Arabic speakers than Messina also, and in Lebanon, the Muslims were the targets, not the Christians.

[Scar]

Almost none. Negligible influence, the blonde and blue eyed Levantines we often see here can also be found in parts of the Middle East (Iran, Afghanistan) with zero European influence.

[Haider]

Maybe he means the regions in the Levant were Crusadors entered and had more influence were mostly Muslim.

Though i find the assumption also wierd that Crusadors would have mixed more with Muslims and woudln't have made
contact with the local Christians and intermingled with them.

Because the Crusaders hated everything and everyone non-Catholic, and the Christian population was a mix of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (Syriac), so they actually despised the native Christian population. Remember, we're talking about the same people who later sieged and sacked Constantinople.
But of course, their main focus was the Muslims, so they didn't bother with the Christians, although the Maronites (who are originally Syriac) did establish contact with the Catholic Church in the end.

And they didn't intermarry with Muslims, if they even raped Orthodox women during the siege of Constantinople, you can only imagine all the mass rapes and other atrocities they committed against the Muslim population during centuries of Crusader rule. So yeah, that's how Muslims have more European DNA, it's hardly something to feel proud about.

[Leto]

And they didn't intermarry with Muslims, if they even raped Orthodox women during the siege of Constantinople, you can only imagine all the mass rapes and other atrocities they committed against the Muslim population during centuries of Crusader rule. So yeah, that's how Muslims have more European DNA, it's hardly something to feel proud about.
Says an Arab whose ancestors conquered and forcefully subjugated huge swaths of territory - from Morocco to India and even parts of Europe (Spain, Portugal, Southern Italy, later Byzantium) BEFORE the Crusades which were actually a response to the Islamic enroachment.

[Bobby Martnen]

And they didn't intermarry with Muslims, if they even raped Orthodox women during the siege of Constantinople, you can only imagine all the mass rapes and other atrocities they committed against the Muslim population during centuries of Crusader rule. So yeah, that's how Muslims have more European DNA, it's hardly something to feel proud about.

Well, Levantine Moslems have more peninsular Arab DNA than European DNA, which means Moslem Arabs did even more raping than Crusaders.

[Sikeliot]

Almost none. Negligible influence, the blonde and blue eyed Levantines we often see here can also be found in parts of the Middle East (Iran, Afghanistan) with zero European influence.

Afghanistan has significant NE European type DNA (Steppe).

[anonaimous]

The most common R1b STR-haplotype in Lebanese Christians was otherwise highly specific for western Europe and was unlikely to have reached its current frequency in Lebanese Christians without admixture. We therefore suggest that the Islamic expansion from the Arabian Peninsula beginning in the seventh century CE introduced lineages typical of this area into those who subsequently became Lebanese Muslims, whereas the Crusader activity in the 11th–13th centuries CE introduced western European lineages into Lebanese Christians.

From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427286/

Thus, Lebanese Christians have higher crusader admixture than Lebanese Muslims. Anyone who claims different must read the above peer-reviewed genetic study. Furthermore, you're right. It wouldn't make any sense for Lebanese Muslims to have higher crusader admixture considering the profound relationship established between the crusaders and the Maronite community throughout the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th Crusades.

'In 1097 The Crusaders set off from Europe to deliver the Holy Land from the hands of Islam. By 1099 the Crusaders had reached Lebanon, after a three month siege of Arqah, the fortified birthplace of the Roman emperor Alexander Severus, by Raymond of Saint Gilles the Count of Toulouse, the Crusaders headed south through Tripoli, Batroun, Byblos (Jbeil), Beirut, Sidon, and Tyre towards their goal, Jerusalem.

For three centuries the Maronites were cut off from the rest of the world, blockaded with in their mountains; and when the Crusaders swarmed into the East, their discovery of the Maronites came as a surprise. The Holy See itself was astonished to learn of their continued existence when their disappearance had been taken for granted. Subsequently there were strong ties formed between the Maronites and the Crusaders, particularly after the arrival in the East of St Louis, King of France.

William, archbishop of Tyre and chancellor of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, states in his Chronicle that when the Crusaders arrived at Tripoli, Maronites descended from the mountains 'to come and testify to the Crusaders tender sentiments of fraternity' and that the Crusaders 'addressed themselves to the fideles of Lebanon, as to wise and sober minded men, and having exact knowledge of the roads and localities, to ascertain what would be the safest and most practicable road to Jerusalem'. The Maronites thus joined the Crusaders and accompanied them to Jerusalem.'

From: https://phoenicia.org/maronites.html