If not because of islam, europe, north africa and the middle east would've never became culturally opposed and would've never severed the close relations they used during roman times.
And today, would probably be considered a single coninent
Looking back, was islam a good thing?
>would've never became culturally opposed
Before all this abrahamic bullshit, Greeks and Romans ran the entire Mediterranean and were gradually replacing the nafris and levant niggers that crawled out of arabia, bringing the Mediterranean back to its natural state so it could take over the world.
They really weren't, they mixed, you can even see to this day the consequences of this mix in southern italy where they can trace up to 30% of their ancestry to the levant and north africa
>Looking back, was islam a good thing?
I get what you mean but its hard to tell if islam being created is a good thing. Without them we maybe wouldn't use the arabic number system (which came there from India), also they saved a lot of scientific literature from the greeks and romans while this shit was burned in europe. But a christian middle east would probably be a lot more peaceful today, also Israel would never have been created because its unlikely white christians would be ok to bomb middle eastern christians for kikes.
Also a christian middle east would've meant more mixing between europeans and middle easterners, which would have whitened them but also browned us. Also having a common enemy which was Islam back then, united europe from time to time. Hard to tell honestly
YES
Indian numbers would've probably been introduced through iran regardless i think, maybe the common religion within mena and europe would've also prevented anatolia from being btfo by mongols and fueled further cooperation and exchange thus economical and technological development, is ambiguous i think
Bemp
That's due to Neolithic migrations to terronistan i think
Otherwise you'd have the Nafris at 40% wop DNA, seeing how many colonists the Romans sent there
Nah the neolithic ones were from neolithic anatolian farmers, the same strain that all europeans have, the natufian is only found among ancient levantines and afro-asiatic speaking related populaions, definitely entered during roman times, same way that jews and christianity i guess, levantoid and nafri migrants and slaves
>also they saved a lot of scientific literature from the greeks and romans while this shit was burned in europe
Are you insane? The only reason why Western Europe didn't have access to Greek and Roman sources is Muslim piracy.
They didn't "save" shit, and in fact the Muslims were the whole reason why you lost it in the first place.
They would not have been opposed if it wasn't for the kikes. Kikes has been putting Christians and Muslims against each other for 1500 years, it did not start with the mossad terrorism.
kikes were merchants, they went from countries to countries. Take the crusades, they told to Christians that Muslims were killing pilgrims, and they told to Muslims that Christians wanted to eradicate them all and conquer the Holy Land (this is what kikes still write in history books). Reality probably was that some Christian pilgrim was importuned or taxed to much, while no Christians had an attachment to Jerusalem.
Any time there is a conflict between Christians and Muslims, there are kikes to be found around. Often they convert, either to Islam or Christianity, but maintaining their religion.
Look at the Armenian genocide. Look at the Young Turks and their ethnic composition: even the Muslims there were converts from Judaism. What happen? "conservative" Jews in golemlands say the fault is Islam but they won't say shit about Jews in Thessaloniki.
Neolithic farmers carried Mena genetics as well, if you leave the haploautism for a second
Otherwise it'd make little sense, in Roman times there was far more migration from Italy to the Maghreb than the other way around
Memeflag
Not really, neolithic farmers were their own thing, they are found among both europeans and mena but the peak ammounts only in europe, the mena component that is pretty much the signature among them and found fully in saudis and yemenites is natufian, to a lesser extent chg, the neolithic farmers were barcin or anatolian to make it clear, they were as related to natufians as moroccans are to swedes. Southern italians have natufian dna, not found among spaniards or northwest italians for instance
Illustrative map for this matter.
Only during imperial rome they shifted towards mena
Is that analisis based on the genetic profile of the remains of 20 individuals as per usual? The concept that people who lived in the same macroregion had little to nothing to do with each other on a genetic level is quite hard to believe, as it is the idea that mass Roman migration to the Maghreb would leave no genetic trace but a few slaves to southern shitaly would much moreso
>a few slaved
user, 40% of italy population by the time of imperial rome were slaves lol
That was an analysis based on Rome itself iirc, not the whole peninsula
The fact that it's shaky due to being based on urban areas is demonstrated by the fact it vastly over-represents the post Roman European genetic influx, when we actually know that Germanic tribes were less than 5% of the population of Italy and hence could have never had this large of an impact if not in major urban areas more afflicted by their settlement
user, most slaves in the Roman period came from Europe if not Italy itself. Not only Roman records state this, but you can look at a map of Roman era trade routes and road net and you will see that transport from mainland Europe was cheaper.
Also even in the far flung opportunity they spent more time and cash to specifically import me/na slaves solely out of love for the BBC, the areas most afflicted by this settlement would be the fertile northern plains like the Po valley where most of the Roman agricultural production was located, not the south
As a whole the peninsula never shows significant ammounts of natufian or nafri ancestry except, of course, after roman times.
Romans never wiped out their vassals, they at most did when they conquered them but thats about it, genetic impact of romans never showed itself extremely significant, it wasn't in france, it wasn't in britain, it wasn't in spain.
At best they raped them once during the initial activities
Romans did not mass rape them, but they did import a shit ton of colonists from their overcrowded peninsula
>never showed significant amounts of natufian/nafri ancestry
And how many remains exactly would this analysis be based off? If they tested like 20 preroman samples half of which Greeks, that is not a massive burden of proof I think
The prefered places for agricultural powerhouses were always southern, what are you talking about, numidia, mauritania were some of the main slaves providers along during early roman periods, and so it was the levant, migrations for trade also were relevant.
Gaulish slaves in the south weren't useful and in fact romans didn't conquered in early imperial periods, where 40% of their population was slave, any considerable part of europe beyond the mediterranean coasts.
A considerable part if not all migration from the middle east to roman capital was always thorugh southern italy. How do you believe a neolithic pop would've reached in massive ammounts southern italy to muttify them but letting no trace on northeast italy anyway? Through sea? In the neolithic?
user the agricultural powerhouse of Roman Italy was the Po Valley, it was the Romans who started deforesting the area and draining swamps for the purpose of large scale agriculture. Quoting Polybius it was " the most fertile and the largest plain known in all of Europe", and Cato and Strabo remarked this too. It was certainly better suited for large scale agriculture than the rugged hilly areas of the south.
>mauritania were some of the main slaves providers along during early roman periods
Roman records of slave imports constantly underlined how most of these came from Europe, quoting some of the most significant ones
>ca 1.000.000 slaves taken in Gaul (caesarian campaigns)
>hundreds of thousands in Germany (150,000 in the Cimbrian wars alone)
> 350,000 in Epirus (macedonian war)
>500,000 in Dacia (trajan's invasion)
From ME/NA
> 50,000 in Carthage (third punic war)
>100,000 in the Levant (pompeian campaign)
Even in peace time European slave routes were more convenient due to vast pool of available manpower and geographic proximity leading to lower costs and quicker shipping times
>Muslim piracy
Oh so the muslim pirates stole all the scientific literature that was sent from Greece to the rest of europe by ships?
Go to school and learn something, Ivan