How would have the Romans dealt with Islamic terrorism?

Same way the US is trying to deal with it, make payments and give protection to sympathetic Arabs and try to play them off one another.

Sums up Roman diplomacy to a T.

The Tanukhids are also a great example of that.

Americans build starbucks around the terrorists

Romans would have built baths and arenas around them until the terrorists were speaking latin. Unless they were north of the river Rhine. Then they're untameable.

They would have had a hell of a time trying to conqueror all of Arabia.

this is how christianized Romans dealt with it.

Actual Romans would have burned down their temples, their fortresses, the towns and their villages. They would have slaughtered their leaders, enslaved most of their people and scattered the survivors to the far corners of the Empire.

Romans wrote the manual on dealing with uppity Abrahamic religions.

>See how they dealt with Jewish "terrorism".
>Romans wrote the manual on dealing with uppity Abrahamic religions.
/thread
/Islam
PAX ROMANA

>this is how christianized Romans dealt with it.
And this is how pagan Romans dealt with it

>enemy is a bunch of horse archers
>make an immobile formation
jupiter's cock, crassus

>round them up
>crucify leaders
>enslave rest
>they revolt
>crucify population until it stops

Ouch byzaboos are gonna cry sooo much.

How do you call an object in free fall? A Byzantine Empire.

well done

...

Crucifixion

>mfw no Caligula's statue in Jerusalem

Collective punishment, and hostage taking.

They would oppress it. Then some soldiers would start believing Islam. Then It gets popular and even the Emperor himself becomes a Muslim

I don't get that image

>raze Mecca
>pile of muslim hands wrapped in bacon on the rubble
>leave

that's cause you're non-white

What is the Joseph Smitth meme?

Read up on the druids.

Several tonage of Nails and wood beams

>Romans
>Having bacon

Fuck off Gibbon.

Pork was by far the most common meat the Romans ate. Bacon is probably what the average Roman soldier ate most when he wasn't eating biscuits or bread.

/thread

If we are talking late republic/early empire like your image seems to suggest. Then I would guess they'd handle Islamic terrorist the same way they dealt with Jewish terrorists.

They wrote the manual but eventually succumbed to Christianity? I don't get it, are they good or bad at dealing with Abrahamics?

Kill all the men, breed all the women, and put the children in chains

Burn Mecca AND Medina but not before destroying the Kaaba and all the mosques/shrines

Loot whatever possible and torture anyone who resisted

First post best best

>convert to their religion

that was one short manual

I don't see how Crassus could have won at all. Not with that army on that battlefield against that enemy.

>Romans would defile/destroy the most significant victory trophy of the campaign
>they wouldn't preserve and prominently display it

what about pastapizza

He couldn't.

>Romans wrote the manual on dealing with uppity Abrahamic religions.
They also didn't write the manual on dealing with uppity desert tribes in the Sahara. Seriously good luck beating the Arabs when they all fuck off to the desert and you bankrupt yourself trying to defend the thousands of miles of border from Yemen all the way to Mesopotamia.

I mean all he really could do is hold his ground. If he retreated he would be run down. If he advanced, they'd retreat, and shoot him down. His best bet was to hope they'd run out of arrows and leave... too bad they brought so many arrows.

>If he advanced, they'd retreat
That was his only real chance, to send a large enough detachment after them so he could save the rest of his army.

He'd probably of had a better chance if he had surrendered, paid a ransom, and come back with a decent invasion plan.

m8 forcing muzzies to eat pork/defiling their corpses with pork isn't haram.

They'd probably turn Mecca into a pig farm.

Pork, yes. But they wouldn't have the incarnation of bacon as we know it.

>uppity Abrahamic religions still around
>Rome nowhere to be found

>probably of

This is a whole new level of cringe.

I think I know what website this one is from.

Depopulate Cyrenia after a revolt?

Yep I'm retarded.

You're aware that the arab armies that spread Islam initially were:
a: mostly conventional
b:Infantry centric
Right?

Fucking off back to the desert means the real threat is gone until they can mass again, and massing means they're going to have to fight a head to head battle with the legions sooner rather than later. Islam would end up being confined to a relatively small geographic area or flat out strangled in it's crib with the promise of superiority and victory proven false so early on.

There's a drawing of him looking really white.

>this is how christianized Romans dealt with it.

Pagan romans couldn't even effectively deal with the Christians and Jews. What makes you think they would have done any better with the muslims?

>Romans wrote the manual on dealing with uppity Abrahamic religions.

Yeah the manual on what NOT to do.

This.

For one he could have invaded through the north through Armenia. This would allow him to not only avoid the open desert, but he would have gotten more troops as well. Crassus was too much a jew to share the glory so he went full retard instead.

Islam ruining the empire like christianity

>they wouldn't have the incarnation of bacon as we know it.

Well the basics are there. Salting, curing and brining were established processes.

same thing they did to carthage

Is that Jesus without a beard?

Something of the sort, yes.

Except we (the Christians) are still around. Where's the mighty Roman Empire?

(((we)))

I'm basing my assumption off the precedence of Berber tribes, such as the Garamantes, who were fucking nightmare's for the governors of North Africa. In only a few cases did the Romans actually subdue/destroy these people, they mostly paid them to stop being shitheads and eventually developed beneficial relations with them.

Still alive and defending Christendom i see..... OH WAIT!

>believing Arab propaganda

> using sources from centuries after the battles where they basically made shit up.

> Not reading more modern research that determined most of these battles never even happened.

> The Byzantine military of the time would not be able to muster even close to the numbers the muslim claims, considering that under Heraclitus the army totaled about 80-90k.

Consider suicide Ahmed.

ALL THESE POSTS ARE ABOUT ROME COMBATING ISLAM AS A CONVENTIONAL OPPONENT WHEN OP ASKED ABOUT ISLAMIC TERRORISM AKA BURNING CHURCHES AND ASSASSINATING MAGISTRATES NOT A BUNCH OF CAMELFUCKERS DICKING OVER CRASSUS OR BYZANTIUM
Veeky Forums YOU ARE LETTING OP DOWN REALLY HARD RIGHT NOW

That kind of terrorism wasn't a thing until very recently. The Roman empire can't survive until very recently. If you want to look at Rome fighting a war against religious fanatics look at the Jewish wars like somebody allready mentioned.

SOUNDS LIKE Veeky Forums JUST ISN'T UP TO THE CHALLENGE OF EXTREME HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS
DODGE THE QUESTION MORE, PUNK

Crucifixion.

sounds like you need to go to a board that deals in hypotheticals instead of in History.

Like they did with Carthage.
Plunder , kill burn and keep nothing from their culture.
Eradication as in, total extermination.

You can find it on google maps actually :^)

Islam wouldn't exist if Rome didn't fall

>Mohammad lies about meeting angel - 610 AD
>Roman empire ends - 1453 AD

>Garamantes, who were fucking nightmare's for the governors of North Africa. In only a few cases did the Romans actually subdue/destroy these people, they mostly paid them to stop being shitheads and eventuall
They weren't subdued because it's typically cheaper to pay off raiding nomads than it is to spend troops on fighting them. The vast majority of Arabs had nothing in common with them, and would have been utterly unable to enagge in that kind of warfare.

If they did, guess what? They either get paid off or killed, whichever is cheaper. City-swelling arabs are a lot easier to retaliate against than nomads are.