African colonization of Europe

>>3111264
They had technological superiority at the time, and a logistical manpower advantage.

>>3111264
B8

>>3111264
WE WUZ KANGZ AND QWEENZ AND BISHUPZ AND ROOKZ AND NITEZ AND PAWNZ N' SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIET

>>3111264
They were more disciplined and organized thanks to the uniting power of islam

>>3111264
Bump

File: 438.png (11KB, 468x468px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 468x468px

What the fuck are you talking about ? Are you talking about those Moors in Spain ? i conquered vast part of Iberia i iz ruler of Europe ooga booga

>>3112255
The conqured most all of soured Europe and held it for hundreds of years.

>>3112298
*southern

File: sullastatue.jpg (14KB, 207x302px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 207x302px

>>3112298
Ok they held a vast part of Iberia,Sicily ecc. but speaking about black colonization sounds stupid to be honest

>>3112315
I never said black, I said African, and why does it sound stupid? That's what it was.

>>3112338
Because the concept of colonization is different from the arab concept of giving land to your vassals to control the land (I don't remember the exact name of it right now).
You can speak of colonization in the roman era where lands were given to the retired veterans of the Roman Army after Marius reform and special latin colonies where enstablished for the excessive population of Latium and Italy or again more simply you can speak of colonization in the 19th century.

>>3112395
It is the same. They ultimately fell under the rule of Africans.

Black African homosapiens sapiens colonized Europe, Asia, and the Americas and genocided the Neanderthal.

Never forget!

>>3112406
Ruling and colonising are two different things

>>3112416
Why is everybody bringing race into it?

>>3112406
Arabs didn't fell under african rule,not even once, arabs subjucated africans not the contrary

File: image.png (941KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 2048x1536px

>>3112418
They also settled the land and effected the population genetically, something Europeans largely were unable to do during their brief foray into Africa.

>>3112423
The moors were from Africa. I'm not talking about Arabs.

>>3112338
That's a weird way of speaking to call berbers africans, it's a bit like if you called georgians asians, it's technically coreect but you know perfectly well that by "asians" peple mean "mongoloids"

File: image.jpg (344KB, 1367x1366px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1367x1366px

>>3112502
I don't understand how that is a weird way of speaking. Berbers are Africans and everybody is aware of that.

File: Cantigas_de_Santa_Maria-181.jpg (495KB, 850x1176px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 850x1176px

>>3111264
al-andalus was a black nation

>>3111264
The Moors took most of Spain and for a couple of a hundred years before they were pushed back. They were there for around 800 years and the last 250 years all they had was the city of Granada. At the peak, the Moors held about 200,000 sq. miles. South Africa alone is 471,445 sq miles. To your other point about it being much earlier. Alexander the Great controlled more of Africa than the Moors controlled of Europe and that was in the 4th century B.C. Not to mention the Romans controlled North Africa.