>>65612 the ERE and Persians rekt each other and Europe was weak from the collapse of the western roman empire a century or so ago. plus the Arabs were newly united under the banner of Islam. So it was their newly found strength compared to the relative weakness of everybody else that gave them the opportunity to expand so much.
>>65612 >a small tribe Hundreds of not too small tribes. >so much land Most of it was empty land. It looks impressive on a map, but there arent many major cities, compared to its size. Syria and Mesopotamia are the jewels here. >why Because the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Persian Empire had just finished killing all of each others soldiers, and emptying each others' treasuries. It was the perfect moment to strike, and the Arabs lucked out to have ended their tribal warfare phase and be in possession of a few tens of thousands of unemployed veteran warriors at this golden moment. Comparable to the Ottoman arrival on the Balkans at its weakest point in centuries.
>>65920 Sardinia was not conquered by arabs, the most they could do was holding a small region in the southern part pf the island around 1015 AD (so even in a different period than that of a map) to then lose it and getting completely slaughtered after like only after a winter or so by the Sardinian Giudicati + Pisans and Genoans.
>>65612 >small tribe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Mecca Muhammad organized a lot of the tribes in Western Arabia. 10k fighters is not a small number. After uniting Arabia it was easy to overthrow the aging Byzantine lands in Syria.
After they controlled Syria, the population under Islamic control would have been rather large.
>How did the Mongols, a small band of tribes, conquer most of Asia
>>65820 you are uneducated, the treasures of khosrow was claimed by the muslim conquest of persia and(khurasan) which includes afghanistan and pakistan and parts of india. the roman forces were wiped out in the battle of yarmouk, go get educated.
>>66066 That didnt mean that there wasnt a single person with a sword in Byzantium, nor that there werent two coins left to rub in Persia, you dumb sack of shit. Stop taking things literally and stop bringing nationalism, patriotism and religious zeal into historical discussion.
Every single book on the matter points out that both Persia and the Roman Empire were tired of war, and both were in their worst state in decades.
>>66151 And they got booted out just like in Spain. Guess that's what ends up happening when you try to ban delicious and healthy Italian and Spanish pork cuisine. Salame, prosciutto, jamon, mortadella, and all other pork products and pork-based dishes... they're worth genociding muslims over.
>>66327 >Neither of which made much of an impact on Europe
Except the Kingdom of Sicily, Normandy and the invasion of England, Scandinavia, and the forming of Russian states, not to mention the economic impact of 100 years of damaged stability on the Carolingian empire. Yeah not much impact there. And the Mongols and Turks definitely didnt fundamentally tear down and rebuild Muslim society from the ground up.
>>66113 every single book on the matter you claim to have read(how many books ?), but there's more historians in the middle east than you can count, so shush, i've been studying arabian history for three years IN arabia. nationalism patriotism and religious zeal ? are you murican ? because muricans usually twist facts and denounce them, especially if they are ignorant. and by the way, khosrow's treasure wasn't two coins left to rub, it was enough that everyone in the conquest got wealthy,and go read the battle of yarmouk you idiot because it's not even close to byzanta.
>>66633 Not him, and no bully, but the source material on this stuff is shit unfortunately. Furthermore, anon is right regarding current academia. The Sassanid-Byzantine war absolutely drained both empires, and the highly mobile arab raiders encountered so little resistance that they just kept going. Not saying Abu Bakr wasnt a genius or that the Arabs werent superior in arms, but they did strike at a lucky time. If you want a bibliography I can give it to you, but you dont seem very reasonable.
>>66723 Kennedy, Hugh. The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State. London: Routledge, 2001. http://bookzz.org/book/1172851/668aaa A well-balanced study of the social and political considerations associated with the compositions of the caliphs’ armies and their corresponding impact upon the caliphate over its first three hundred years.
Hodgson, Marshall G. The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. http://bookzz.org/s/?q=venture+of+islam&t=0 A classic survey of Islamic history in three volumes, including consideration of all aspects of the caliphate.
Kennedy, Hugh. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates. 2d ed. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, 2004. http://bookzz.org/book/1187443/c018a4 Provides an excellent introduction to Islamic history through the 11th century as well as a fine bibliographical essay and a list of general and more specialized works in Western languages, including available translations of primary sources.
>>66723 luck had nothing to do with it, they saw a chance they took it with full determination, just like they took quraish then beat khaybar then beat bani qurayza then they beat al yamama kingdom and the list keeps going, most historians say that their success was built on strategy and determination, flanking their enemy and herding them like goats, that was their strategy and it worked.
>>66883 Yeah you areally correct luck is the wrong word, but if muhammad was born in the 90Ad then the chances of Muslim armies succeeding are much smaller. To say that Muslim empire was created by accident is propostorous, but it is true that the Muslims did invade at the most oportune time.
>>66883 >studying history from a proud point of bias and this is why you do not study Islamic history in an arab country. You would have been better of in Cambridge or Oxford. You cant even criticize muhammeds boneheaded moves, or ethical issues.
Shit, at the battle of the trench Muhammed cheerfully orders war crimes to be committed against the Banu Qurayza. In a western class a similar act, like when Charlemagne slaughtered the Saxons, would be condemned for the obvious moral fallacy, and studied from a neutral point of view. You HAVE to study from an apologists point of view.
>luck had nothing to do with it
I cant think of one war in the history of the world where that is true.
>>66995 sure, if i was born a hundred years ago i won't be the same person i am right now. of course, the law of diminishing returns applies to empires as well, in the sassanid byzantinian time of decline it was someone's time to rise.
>>67025 actually you can if you're talking to an educated person because they give explanation, i've said to many of my colleagues who are local, why was mohammad strict, i used the word barbaric actually, two got pissed off and asked me to explain myself and why am i talking shit, others explained to me that the arabs at that time were super degenerates, they would bury their daughters alive to prevent futuristic dishonoring and they would drink wine day and night. the bani qurayza there was a treaty that they broke, which called upon their destruction, if bani qurayza kept their word, they'd still exist today. judes backstabbing is very common in hijaz history.
>>67345 if members of a tribe do a bad thing(e.g.killing) and the rest of the tribe is siding and protecting the wrongdoers, all of them are punishable.
>islam is a religion of peace and tolerance that's a misconception because the truth is islam is basically peace with god(not with other men) by submission and worship. is tolerant because god may tolerate your sins, but you may not tolerate other's sins, that's why they have sharia law, to not tolerate sinners.
>>67294 The problem is that ALL of your colleagues should have said ok, lets examine your statement from a historical/ethical point of view and decided whether such behavior was barbaric at the time. The fact that 2 of 4 took offense to a very reasonable line of inquiry is a huge problem.
>>67716 at what point did i say i only asked four ? been here for three years and only talked about it to four of my colleagues ? i must be anti-social. sure they are protective and proud, they hate insults, but they're not as vicious and hostile as you may imagine.
>>65612 The ERE and Sassanids were constantly at war. The Arabs rose up during a time of relative peace between the two, so a rebuilding phase. So the armies the arabs fought were basically hastily cobbled together vets of previous wars and fresh recruits. Obvious low morale. They basically relied on their sheer numbers to overwhelm the smaller Arab armies.
Thread replies: 48 Thread images: 4
Thread DB ID: 69410
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.