Why were the Byzantines so bad at fighting the Muslims?

>11 people left on one side
>10s of thousands on the other
This is bullshit, no fucking way those numbers are correct

That's just bullshit

can't accept the truth?

>Goatfuckers in full damage control

Look at the wikipedia page for it now, those numbers were wildly incorrect. The muslims didn't have over 100,000 fucking soldiers, that would be ridiculous.

Good work lads.

How many wars did Protestants win against Islam? Just for the record.

t. Muhammad Al-Umayyadi

kebab BTFO

BUCCINATOR :DDDDDDDDDDD

Umayyad?

Lets be clear. Imagine, if you will, a state surrounded by enemies, on one side by among the largest empires in human history, certainly states far richer and larger than them. Now imagine that state holding out for at least six hundred years. There's a substantial difference between being "bad at fighting" and losing a few battles, but no decisive ones, for at least four hundred, and at most six/eight hundred years, while even winning some victories in the process.

because "Kebab"removal is just a meme

more pics of kebab dominating christcuks

Byzantines?more like Byzan-memes

t. Omayaddus Muslimus

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Covadonga
FTFY

yeah there was no historical sources to back up those numbers

Anyone here also thinks that military victories are linked to nationality? It makes so much sense to think like this.

Unprepared and unequipped to protect their borders.

I feel like if it weren't for the Turks converting to Islam, Byzantine would have never fallen.

What makes you think that? The mongols weren't muslims when they invaded Europe.

sys.Veeky Forums.org/derefer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBattle_of_Covadonga

>so bad at war that they have to creat fake numbers

the Mongols also didn't also expand into Nicaea despite conquering all of Anatolia.

because christianity is a false religion

t. Muslim AKA crypto Satanist

Actually according to Islam, Christianity is a revealed religion, just that the imperial church persecuted true christians who have hidden for centuries -adressed as Waldensians to give an example-

Islam and Christianity are sister faiths, at least with the top ten, we just differ in Atonement, Church and Trinity. Most of our values are the same.

How do Muslims view Atonement? Isn't Jesus the Messiah to them as well?

The death and resurrection of Jesus, as well as the forgiveness of sins, are mentioned. But the connection between that vicarious sacrifice on the cross and forgiveness is not made. The atonement is nevertheless central to Christian belief. The creeds assume the belief that humankind is totally helpless and lost in sinfulness, and completely dependent on the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to escape condemnation on the Day of Judgement and punishment in hell fire.

Islam relies solely on divine grace in the judgement, without any reference to atoning sacrifice. Finally, the relationship between humankind and God is direct, without any institution mediating that grace.

So they just don't have any need for the Atonement unlike the other two Abrahamic religions?

To give a direct answer, no: all the divine grace depends on what one does during his lifetime that determinates what one deserves (Gardens or Hellfire).

Isn't that sort of minimally disrespectful to Isaac or don't they really care that much about it? Sorry if I'm boring you btw.

The concept of 'atonement' itself is Christian concept. Sin and salvation from sin simply are not at the heart of Judaism and Islam, because neither of them are salvatory religions the way Christianity is. In mainstream Christianity all of mankind is cursed with original sin. So Jesus had to commit suicide on the cross, and sacrifice himself to himself to convince himself to forgive us. This view is unknown to Judaism and Islam because both religions believe grace and grace alone not sacrifice stone sins. Technically Judaism is not even a religion of theology. Judaism evolved a theology due to the Islamicate but at least officially there is no such thing as Jewish theology. Remember chazal, the sages of the Talmud legislated Halacha, they never legislated dogmas. Granted modern Judaism has devolved a lot from its original chazalic origins. As for this jurisprudential view of salvation in Islam, while this is a common sentiment amongst modernized bakris even classical Sunni theology did not exactly emphasize such a legalistic view of salvation. In eastern Christianity unlike western Christianity the goal is atonement and then theosis. In Islam the goal is theosis proper. It is not just a question of squaring away a laundry list of good deed verses bad deeds, but rather the goal is to progress into righteousness, and ultimately into full on taqwa. In the riwayah an Imam was asked what is Islam, He replied Islam is ecstatic Love. What that ecstatic Love is a different question than the often legalistic views of Sunnism and Judaism which often see juridical salvation as an ends unto itself.

Yes there is legalism but what is the legalism about ? The sirat is about bringing us into Imam-consciousness (G-d consciousness or taqwa). This is something jesus spends the gospel explaining to the Pharisees. They followed the letter of the law rather than the heart of the law. The law has a purpose and is not a means into itself.

I couldn't put everything in a single comment, so here is the remaining part.

Because of Greek peripatetics we are stuck in static ontology and no longer see dynamism. Walayah is not a station the way Greek nuanced Muslims think. For many modern Sufis and others engaging the Qur'an through Greek thought often 'walayah' becomes a station, a platonic sanctity. There is no room in the Qur'an for this static view of walayah.

Walayah is a symbiosis not a station, it is something given and received. Per Shi'ism Walayah is a Love given to the Divinity (the Imam) and in dialectic fashion it is also a Love received from the Imam. It is a non-stop action/energy between two parties, Divinity/Lahuti and adept/Nasuti. It is a double helix mapped even in the staff of Hermes/Idris that is so often used in Islamic occult lore.

In Hebrews 4:12 there is another sober warning “For the living Logos/Imam of God, and [the living] Energies, also sharper than a two edge sword, passing through, dividing both the soul and spirit, joints from marrow, judging the thought and intents of the heart”. In this verse, in English Bibles the Greek word "energea" (which is the origin of the English word energy) is just dropped from the text. The implication in the Greek is that the “logos” is one edge, and the “energy” is the other edge of the sword, implying that without this Energy, one is not fully armed. The energies/shekinah/sakinah/walayah of the Imam. When you become cosubstantial with the Imam you partake of walayah. Symbiosis in love, when give love and receive. And the culmination of that symbiosis is resurrection into eternal life at the holy resurrection.

Hope this replies your questions.

The Monk-- We do not forbid (eating) the meat. But we intend to have a light life, not material, in order to be nearer to God by lightening our body. The iron is purified from its impurities the closer it is to the fire. And as water becomes clearer, the water allows the sunlight to penetrate (it)--Don't you see that the rays let the light pierce through as far as they're thin and transparent? Don't you know that steam rising from the ground outshines the sunlight? The reason, O Prince, that is inside of us from God, becomes dark with luxurious life, and it keeps us away from God at the range of its darkness. And with our distance from God we attach ourselves to the corporal matters and to the love of the actual life. We avoid not only meat and women, but all corporal delights and everything that charms the five faculties. We expect, by using these privations, to obtain the graces of God in His eternal kingdom. He said,"you will not get the joy in the eternal world, if you don't endure the sorrows and difficulties in the perishable world."

The Moslem--God forbid! God, his Word and Spirit are always (present).

The Monk-- Is God's Word Creator or created?

The Moslem-- Creator.

The Monk-- You worship God along with his Spirit and Word, isn't it?

The Moslem-- I adore God, His Word and His Spirit.

The Monk-- Say now, then, " I believe in God, in His Spirit and in His Word."

The Moslem-- I believe in God and in His Spirit and in His Word. But I do not make them three, but one God.

The Monk-- This is my opinion, too; and my beliefs and those of all Christians of Orthodox faith. I like now to explain the meanings of the Holy Eternity: the Father is God; the Son is His Word; and the third (person is) the Holy Spirit.

To be fair they did last for over 600 years against Muslims which is more then can be said for some other people like the Persians or Visigoths.

sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/christ-muslim-debate.asp

The Byzantines won the War against the Arabs, lost the war to the Horseniggers.

When the Horseniggers arrived, Constantinople called in the Latins to help them, Crusades.

Horseniggers man. The bane of all civilized people.

>The Byzantines won the War against the Arabs, lost the war to the Horseniggers

Same with India. Defeated the Arabs and the advent of Islam but then the central asian horseniggers fucked up shit three centuries later.

then
>actually able to debate with caliph, saying his religino false
now
>isis kills you for praying in the wrong way

Shows how Islam changed through time.People say islam needs reform, but it had a reform, only in a more brutal and less tolerant way.

>Greeks are notoriously bad at war
Are you trying to be sarcastic? the greeks/Byzantines were such great warriors, the animal turks literally kidnapped many of the the Greek.Byzantine children and brainwashed them to turn against their own race. If you go through the ranks of great "turkish" generals,admirals,engineers, almost without exception they were Greeks.

so how did we end up in that situation alexander should have consolidated a Greek/Macedonian, race-based patriotism based on a Hellenic racial and religious structuring. Time after time, we learn that the only people who stay true to this (and thus why they are so successful) are the Jews.

The only hope for Europe is a raced-based nationalism that shitcans the idea if "muh civic nationalism" and reasserts our rights as an ethnicity.

Just an example of how we are losing: how many times a day do you read an article that mentions "white people?" It's never capitalized, Every other ethnic Group in the US--save for the one that founded the nation-- is given the status of a proper noun.

>save for the one that founded the nation

WASP is an acronym, and all capitalized technically...

>mfw filthy Germans assert they founded the nation

>Why were the Byzantines so bad at fighting the Muslims?
They weren't. They held on for 700 years while Persia, North Africa and much of Western Europe fell. They had the best trained armies of their time, the best fortifications and the best navy.

If the 4th crusade hadn't betrayed them from within and crippled them economically, we would still have the Byzantine Empire around today.

no it was fucked

they couldn't retake the interior of anatolia after Myriokephalon and this crippled the themata. the turks were only getting stronger and then the mongols, what now bitch?

by 1200 Constantinople was at the height of its splendor but otherwise the empire was in decay

>much of Western Europe
They didn't even take all of Spain

They did have most of Spain and significant swathes of France at one point. Sicily too.

...

I wouldn't consider their occupation of Frankish territory "significant swaths" nor were the under complete control. The Franks were a bunch of backwater rednecks compared to the Byzantines but they crushed the Arabs far more effectively.

They had Mamlukes, which devastated Byzantine cataphracts. Now if they were made up of infantry......

I kind of feel bad for Turks. They actually think that they are chinks from Central Asia. They have no identity.

Unlike those fully accurate muslim soldiers

>The Prince was laying down. He then stood up, glanced to the Moslem, laughed and told him,-- " Abu-Salamah, the Monk Christianized you and introduced you to the Christian's religion; you are then Christian."
BTFO

Horseniggees were better than mountain,swamp,snow and common niggers though.
Atleast in war till the normalization of guns.

>the turks were only getting stronger
Nigga the Turks got BTFO by the Mongols HARD. I imagine that the Byzzies would've taken advantage of the situation and reconquer much of Anatolia. As for the dealing with the Mongols it's unknown what would happen but they did ally themselves with them once.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine–Mongol_alliance

Why is Byzantine armor so aesthetic yet so underrated?

Why "God, His Word and His Spirit"?
Why not the ten sephirot?
This is cheap standard christian trick.

I would suggest everyone here to read about Nikephoros II Phokas (The Pale Death of the Saracens ) and John Tzimiskes. Those 2 had plenty of victories over Muslims.

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows."

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,"

The least this does is replying my doubt

>The death and resurrection of Jesus, as well as the forgiveness of sins, are mentioned.
no.
Jesus never got crucified or killed in Islam.

I've always loved sufism.
It's really fascinating.

...

Thank you.

we had a great run desu 1000 years is no laughing matter desu

Well, I'm shiite, not sufi.

The suffered the same decay of their military that the Western Roman Empire did, relying more and more on mercenaries. For the first few hundred years, they BTFO the Muslims.

the same could be said to america who btfo iraq

Allah didn't support Ba'athists Iraq because, as Osama bin Laden said, "Socialists are infidels wherever they are".

Because the Muslims only ever won.

If they lost, they were Arabs.

>crushed the Arabs far more effectively.
I don't think so.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(674–678)

I thank you for introducing me to this gem.

islam didn't change

what you're reffering to is the wahhabi sect

they are the sect of the saudi family

the saudis conquered arabia after the fall of the ottoman empire, became allies with USA/NATO and after the discovery of oil they became the powerful and influential faction in islam, with only iran and secular dictators opposing them

the wahhabis are basically the amish of islam, like the amish they take their holy book literally and live by it fanatically

WW I
Iraq
Afghanistan
Conquest of the Mughals by the Brits
Mahdist War
Somaliland Campaign
Barbary Wars

If it wasn't for the brilliance of Leo the Isaurian, Constantinople would have fallen in 718.

Shia is also better than mainstream sunni.

s/he said 'wars', so no place for Iraq or afghanistan (withdrawn countries) nor any other massacre

Why?

Most Wahhabis don't like Saudi Arabia because it is not radical enough for them

>no decisive ones
just because they didn't completely end the empire doesn't mean they weren't decisive

>not mentioning Kosovo 1389

DEUS VULT

Temporary victories in the long-run. The Crusaders were expelled from the Holy Land after nearly 2 centuries. Anatolia was never fully recovered from the Seljuks and Turkomans. And as a result, the Balkans would come under Muslim domination in the 14th and onwards.

Rome ended long before Islam imo

>Temporary victories in the long-run

In the long-run the Muslims ended up losing. Look at them now compared to the West. They are parodies of their former selves.

>hey Maslama, if you give me some of your grain and burn the rest, I'll surrender
>Rea... Really?
>Yeah totally

Why are Arabs so dumb