Why is Eastern Medieval history much more interesting than European Medieval history, Veeky Forums...

Correction: Roman Catholicism is a bore

Orthodoxy and Pauline Christianity is very exotic.

the Byzantine Empire IS European Medieval history though

Well that was the center of the world back then.

Byzantines were interesting because they were BTFO both by East and West.

...

Is this bait?

Enlightenment turned Europe into a depressing nihilist mood.

>pakis

Tell me more about how you failed the ERE Heralius.

...

Bullshit, Asian here (Singachink)

I find the Catholic Church interesting because it's politicking prevented major invasions between Eurofaggot Kingdoms typical here of Asia. Sure we can talk about how rare East Asians fight one another, but this is largely due to the size of their Empires. Here in Southeast Asia you have shit like Thais invading and conquering Hindu States in what used to be the West of the Khmer Empire, or the Vietnamese ending the existence of the Hindu Chams. Not to mention.

The medieval Catholic church was literally like the Proto-UN of Europe. One finds that the major shitfights in Europe started due to Protestantism's balkanization of that faith.

he didn't though, he was a pretty gud Barrack emperor

too bad he couldn't foresee the future and the Arabs

>The Church was interesting because it made the region boring

How could he have foreseen that some irrelevant beduins would emerge from their deserts and conquer huge swathes of land in no time? It was a meme occurrence, like the Mongols.

didn't stop perfidious albion

Because we already know all about western Europe. We haven't quite gotten a popular image of Eastern Medieval history.

t. Mehmet/Dandolo/Boris

>failed
he literally saved ERE, barbarian scum. The Arab invasion was a fluke though

>The Arab invasion was a fluke

byzzies are just shit really

>fight in a war that lasted for almost 30 constant years
>morale is low, war exhaustion is high
>suddenly a bunch desert niggers invade fresh out of their conquests thirsty for more
>HURR ARABS SO GREAT ALLAH AKBAR DURK DURKA MUHAMMAD JIHAD
Not to mention that the Arabs inflated the number of their enemies in their battles to make themselves seem more heroic. But hey, at least the Byzzies didn't ruin themselves by constant civil wars and had their state divided into different caliphates.

>the Byzzies didn't ruin themselves by constant civil wars

lol

Iconoclasm barely counts as a civil war, although it ruined opportunities to reclaim back land from the Arabs

Western European medieval history: "If you don't pay me my tribute I'm going to gather all of my army of 50 men and invade your farm!!!"

Eastern European and Middle-East history: "If you don't pay me my tribute I'm going to gather my army of 20.000 men and rape and kill all of your men and women.

This to an extent.
It's always the same excuses brought up.

The Byzantines were actually in a strong position with a newly reformed army and outnumbered the arabs. They lost through the incompetence of their leaders and the Arabs tactical superiority. Your exhausted argument doesn't excuse those defeats, it's not like the byzantine soldiers were physically exhausted.

>The Byzantines were actually in a strong position with a newly reformed army
Yes, that's why the economy was so shit that they could barely pay off their soldiers.
>outnumbered the arabs.
Like I said, there are other factors that play role in a battle than just numbers. This isn't fucking EU4.
>it's not like the byzantine soldiers were physically exhausted.
When you're fighting in a very long war and then gain a short period of peace which is then ruined by a sudden declaration of war, would that leave you enthusiastic about it?

Like i said, the Byzantines had the stronger army, more men and better equipment. Shouldn't have lost, but they lost, fairly.

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
-william blake talking the enlightenment ruining the beauty of his country due to the following industrial revolution.

>Shouldn't have lost
according to who?
did the Arabs have A**ah's help?

>
[historical meme]

No they had Khalid ibn Walid

Probably the greatest military general of all time.

I have to disagree with you. Sometimes things don't go well as expected. Romans should have won that fight but mind you Romans won a lot of fight they "should" have lost. Sassanid-Avar siege of Constantinople for example.
Well he was an opportunist. I doubt he had much belief in the new religion, but ride with the trends. He is glorified in the islamic tradition though

then why would they not win

there's no such thing as a sure win

>I doubt he had much belief in the new religion, but ride with the trends.
I disagree. He stepped down when the Caliph dismissed him, out of respect for the state and religion. If not, he could have easily took his men to revolt in civil war, as they were all extremely loyal to him and not the caliph. It's basically like Caesar stepping down when the Senate asked him to. Caesar would have only done that if he actually respected the republic.

The only sure win is belief in the almighty my brother

>praying to the moon
saracen pls

>Sassanid-Avar siege of Constantinople for example.
Explain why they should've lost that siege.

And then Constantinople got sacked by crusaders.

>praying to a dead jew
lmaoing at your life right nao

Yea, I don't hate christianity, it just bores me. It's why I'm more interested in ancient european history or late 1700's and up. Hell, I'd rather learn about Precolumbian American history which we know so little of.

And I agree Eastern medieval is more interesting.

Even with Roman sources Arabs are outnumbered.

Nice try tho

Aside from Sulla.

A repo isn't a sack my friend.

Yes, it sure was only Iconoclasm.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_revolts_and_civil_wars

Not to mention that a huge part of how easy it was for Islam to conquer the Levant and Egypt was that its Christian but "heretic" inhabitants would rather be ruled by pagan Zoroastrians (how do you think the Sassanids held them so easily?) and Muslims than the emperors in Constantinople who beat and executed their priests, periodically ravaged and plundered their churches, and sold them and their wives and sons into slavery. It's pretty telling how easily a bunch of camelfuckers were able to BTFO Roman/Greek crossfuckers from land they'd controlled more on than off for over 500 years.

>he thinks revolts and usurpers count as civil wars
The only actual civil wars happened in 14th century

The God emperor is not dead, heretic.