DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH.
Crusaders were mostly of Middle Eastern and African descent. The local Christians mostly fought in the Crusades
CRUSADERS WERE GENETICALLY DIVERSE
Davis, huh?
We know Europe is diverse. That doesn't mean niggers
The Christians who were already there weren’t crusaders. They were brave and vigilant, but separate
I read the study it said most Christian Crusaders were from Africa and The Middle East
It was common practice in the medieval age to recruit local peasants to infantry. Those """""crusaders"""""" were just some random Semite peasants who most likely decedent ancient Palestanians who converted into Christianity from Semitic paganism, and then into Islam and back into Christianity and now are muslims again.
Essentially those diverse """"crusaders""""" were Poor Fucking Infantry
And Africa doesn't mean niggers either. You know this better than anyone moses
>Israel
The Crusades were reactionary. So of course given the chance the local tried to repel the Muslims
i use the torah to wipe my ass
most crusaders were french
ohhh a eastern european jew
gottcha
Who would expect better from Christkikes?
You probably made that study kike
>doesnt know most crusader armies were made of mercenaries
a lot of those faggots were byzantine mercs
WE
What it shows is we've united before so we can unite again. If anything.
And the crusaders ultimately lost, proving that their diverse fighting force could not conquer the homogeneous Muslim population of palestine
>remarkable
No it’s not, we always knew this. It’s extreamly unremarkable since it’s been recorded in such a way sone... for ever, but the sharty s-oya at the farty guardian won’t let that stop them rehashing it to try to score toad points with the plutocracy.
>since
Why would anyone read the guardian anyway?
Does that mean the left can't bring the crusades as an atrocity commited by the WHITE MAN anymore?
>study finds
Sauce
This. Even the article says 'struck up with locals' implying they joined up with local Christians as the armies moved. Also north Africa wasn't full of niggers back then.
No it just means Richard the Lionheart was probably 1/2 Somali like Luke was half ewok after the battle of endor. (Yea im faagging it up that hard just for this thread)
WAmerican Journal of Human Genetics,
>race isn't genetic
>diversity is
My hands are rubbing on their own!
Flag checks out.
Yeah no, crusaders were european peasants and nobels. During the first crusade they even refused help from sunni muslims from egypt.
Using words so nebulous and misleading they might as well not mean anything.
Not all crusaders. #Crusaderphobic
#racist
Checked
So this is where they find one Arab bag carrier tagging along for pay and translate that into "remarkably diverse"?
You can have 10 white guys from different backgrounds and have diversity of thought. But that obviously doesn't count.
Instead you would have 10 people who thinks the same thing.
This. All these "news" sites say the word diversity and the normies assume it means they were black
This
YOU DARE INSULT EASTERN ROME?????!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?
>White Christians are so evil look at the Crusades
>Blacks were in the Crusades look how brave and heroic they were
Fuck this clown world
>Rape and Pillage Create Rape Babbies
THANKS SCIENCE
When north Africa and the middle east were whiter prior to a thousand years of being turked
>Armenians, Alans, and Turcopoles equals WE WUZ KANGS
The shitskins and semites have a rich history of being conscripted meatshields and royal dick washers or what I personally like to call "Janissary Petersons" :3