Submitted via IRC for Bytram
DNA from medieval Crusader skeletons suggests surprising diversity
European soldiers and civilians poured into the Levant in the 12th and 13th centuries, often killing or displacing local Muslim populations and establishing their own settlements in an effort to seize control of sites sacred to three major religious groups.
But in a new study, DNA from the skeletons of nine soldiers hints that the armies of the Crusades were more diverse and more closely linked with local people in Lebanon than historians previously assumed. The genetic evidence suggests that the Crusaders also recruited from among local populations, and European soldiers sometimes married local women and raised children, some of whom may have grown up to fight in later campaigns.
For centuries, the mingled, charred bones of at least 25 soldiers lay buried in two mass graves near the ruins of the Castle of St. Louis, a 12th- to 13th-century Crusader stronghold near Sidon, in south Lebanon. Several of the skeletons (all apparently male) bore the marks of violent death, and the artifacts mingled with the bones—buckles of medieval European design, along with a coin minted in Italy in 1245 to commemorate the Crusades—mark the pit's occupants as dead Crusader soldiers, burned and buried in the aftermath of a battle. From nine of them, geneticist Marc Haber and his colleagues at the Wellcome Sanger Institute obtained usable DNA sequences, which offer a rare look into the ranks of the soldiers who fought on one side of the 200-year series of wars.
The American Journal of Human Genetics, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.03.015
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 24 2019, @02:40AM (4 children)
The Crusades were a religious war. Sure, the wealthy saw economic opportunity in the war, but it was primarily a religious war. The poor also saw economic opportunity, but it was still primarily a religious war.
Today's Islam recruits and accepts from all demographics, everywhere. So did the church. All that was necessary to join up with a crusading army, was to profess a belief in Christ. Christianity had it's followers almost everywhere - northern Europe, east Africa, southern Europe, western Africa, pretty much everywhere. If you could get to the army, and express a desire to kill Muslims, you were as good as in. The potential for economic gain drew people from everywhere.
Oh - that bit about a diversity of people being found in a common grave? It seems a presumption, to me. A bunch of soldiers are detailed to dig a mass grave, then to gather up bodies off of the battlefield to put in that grave. How many of us believe that the grunts were very particular about which army the dead may have belonged to? How many graves around the world have former enemies lying side by side? Many, I would say.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday April 24 2019, @03:43AM (2 children)
I'm sure you're right about dead soldiers being buried together, but there were many Christians living in the Middle East and I'm sure many of the young men would have been keen to join up to fight, even if out of a sense of adventure. Young men have always been like that.
Many of the crusading armies were also poorly supported and supplied, so I imagine any reinforcements would have been very welcome.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @07:38AM
Let us not jump to hasty conclusions based on Runaway's shipboard experiences.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @08:20AM
Nothing like Millennial Incels.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @03:45AM
Sort of like how my troll posts get modded up on this site but factual posts get modded down. It is all the same in the end.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @04:03AM
The genetic evidence suggests that the Crusaders also recruited from among local populations, and European soldiers sometimes married local women and raised children, some of whom may have grown up to fight in later campaigns.
This is only a 'surprise' if you've never been exposed to the history of occupation forces anywhere/anytime.
And as for 'European' DNA in the Levant, let's not forget that the Romans were there a wee bit before the Crusaders, and then the Byzantine empire (aka the late Eastern Roman Empire) wasn't exactly terra incognita as far as 'Europe' (aka the late Western Roman Empire) was concerned.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @05:18AM (4 children)
"killing or displacing local Muslim populations and establishing their own settlements"
Say what? Biased much? Yep.
Christians wanted to be able to visit. Muslims blocked that with violent attacks.
Also, how exactly were there local Muslim populations in the first place? The answer is similar: killing or displacing local non-Muslim populations and establishing their own settlements.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 24 2019, @06:58AM
Evidently the author garners his knowledge of Middle Eastern history from the gay fascist porn movie, "300", [historyvshollywood.com] by gay fascist porn director Frank Miller, long lost identical twin of Trump's Rasputin, Stephen Miller. Even Runaway agrees, so it must be true, eh?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @10:03AM
before the crusades, jerusalem was shared between Jews, Christians and Muslims. It was never blocked. Of course, the "king" that control it may ask for taxes, but not even that was the issue.
The issue was that "Muslims where evil" as they say that Jesus is not a God son, it's just a prophet. Blasphemy in those times, so they could not be trusted to manage the "holy" places
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @03:10PM
If the country doesn't want to let you in its territory, what makes you think you have a right to break in?
Build the wall.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 24 2019, @05:59PM
Yes, biased towards an accurate representation of the historical record.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @06:22PM (5 children)
"European soldiers and civilians poured into the Levant in the 12th and 13th centuries, often killing or displacing local Muslim populations and establishing their own settlements in an effort to seize control of sites sacred to three major religious groups."
Someone needs to kill or displace the author of this anti white propaganda. The desert rats invaded Aryan lands constantly, slaughtering thousands, and the christian religion was used as a PC motivator to slowly, partially kick the invading vermin out at great cost. Now self hating whites regurgitate lies taught to them by Jews while other college "educated" idiots think it's accurate history.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:32PM (3 children)
Parent should be modded +1 informative.
The Muslims were the invaders. In some cases the rightful inhabitants won their land back, as the Christians did in Spain in the late 15th Century.
Are you against defense? Do you favor invasions but only if they are done TO you?
Your kind is sick and weak, a cancer on nations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:46PM (1 child)
Your kind is stupid, ignorant, racist, and not too bright. This is why we cannot have white supremacy! Because you fail intellectually.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @11:38PM
You'll be crushed by people who will take your things from you.
You have no back bone. Others do your fighting for you.
Let me guess never been in the military have you?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Thursday April 25 2019, @03:29AM
Here's a Handy Dynamic Battle Map showing the military ventures from both sides. Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo [youtube.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24 2019, @09:48PM
Speaking of revisionist history:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/give-notre-dame-a-modern-roof-the-alt-right-will-hate [thedailybeast.com]