Muslims cant fig-

>Muslims cant fig-

Other urls found in this thread:

meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Muslims are wea-

Muslims can't fig- what?

Muslims can't figure out how to stop being barbaric savages?

>Muslims Always lose wa-

>Byzantine-Persians weakened after exhaustive wars with eachother
>North-Africa nothing but berber nomads

Yes, Mudslimes can't fight.

>Muslims weren't a constant threat to the Western wo

It must be hard to defeat 2 empires that fought each other for 200 years to exhaustion and a disorganized and decentralized state

Yes indeed

When you are almost always outnumbered and face an enemy with better equipment and your army consists of arabs with light weapons

look at this fucking idiot

They still outnumbered muslims and had way better equipment and command

Arabs suck at conventional warfare.

meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

>Modern retarded smelly shitskin arabs guided by western puppet leaders
>Old arabs with a true warrior spirit and great command

inb4 weakened empire excuse

>beating up two highly weakened and plague infested empires is now a feat to be impressed by

Seefaggot

Muslims had that based General, Khalid ibn al-Walid, one of the most based Generals of his times . He alone made more for his faith than countless other Arabs after him. Still Ayrabs are very bad at war, and for the same reason Walid was retired. Envy. Like holy shit, Ayrabs hate each other and despise anyone than could shadow them. So the caliph than had the best general of his time dismissed him because he feared people would change sides. If you look at modern arab armies or arab inspired ones (Iraq, Iran and Afghans share that same culture) it explains a lot about them. They don't transmit they knowladge unless it's family, so they armies vary a lot in quality, than tends to be very low.

Since our information on those battles all come from Arab sources I'm going to bet the figures are at least a little inflated. Don't worry everyone does it.

Yes yes, my muslim daddy could beat up your christian daddy and so on and so on...

>Believing the sources about force sizes
Its almost like you dont know how self aggrandizing propaganda works

>muslims can't fig-ht off the French for shit

gaines 15/16 of Spain.
Comes in contact with Frankish territory.
Starts to withdraw almost immediately.

Took Jerusalem and held it for 400 years.
Loses one major battle to Fench Leader allowing everyone inside to be slaughtered.

First one they lost to a Frankish lord, second one they lost to a Norman lord.

muslims have been outnumbered in most their wars and they've still put up a fight or won them

Being that Franks and Normans are the same now?

So you agree They suck at killing the French.

Even today, France repeatedly bombs the, daily while their ground troops shoot their heards of goats for target practice... orchestrates one small attack in Paris at must vulnerable places as a retaliation.
France proceeds to bomb tenfold.

FACT: FRANKS are the most POWERFUL race in the world

all venice's fault. fourth crusade and late to the last defense of constantinople. happily trading with the ottomans afterward, I'm glad they learned their lesson once the turks came after them.

...

see

Frankish isn't even a race?

Basically all those numbers in the wiki's are unreliable at best, based solely on Arab sources at the worst.

After your conquest you've grew weak and fallen into hedonistic pleasure, while more vigorous people like the Franks and the Turks took over what you were incapable of defend.

tl :dr Arabs were the Westerners of the Middle-Age

>Christians can't fig-

Have to be honest, that's less of the religion and more of the barbaric culture.

They can fight in numbers :)))))))

The Christian devastation in this thread

Just to reiterate, the Byzantines were on high morale after defeating the Sassanids and had a new highly trained, reorganised army.

And yet look where Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Turkey are today. The four leaders of the Islamic empire, 2 of them failed states, the other a Western dependent bloated monarchy and the fourth a roach.

Just because your ancestors were tough and impressive doesn't mean you are.

I can't seem to remember what happened to those empires?

>Russian
>European

get off my board slavshit

Neck yourself Paco.

I can't seem to remember what's happening in the islamic world right now?

>muslims conquered other muslims
>when they got to europe they got disintegrated by a frenchie

An incredibly important factor in their conquest of Mediterranean regions is the incredible amounts of disarray in the area. I mean for Christ's sake, just a few years before Constantinople was taken, it was part of the little known Latin empire, which was then retaken by the original Byzantines, leaving the Palaiologos in charge, scrambling to get their shit together. The Byzantine empire fell because of how fucking pathetic the past few leaders were. The rest of Europe hated them for their failed promises made during the late Crusades to the Franks (who took Constantinople in the first place) and the fact that they fucked out of the Catholic church.

>90% is desert

I thought Christianity was a religion of peace not like those bloodthirsty Muslims?

well to be fair if you look at colonialism in a purely religious standpoint the brits the french and the dutch took a much less shall we say belligerent approach to spreading the lords name then say the Spaniards or Portuguese

Dumbass the Byzantines fell 500 years after the initial Muslim conquests

Didn't the Muslims get BTFO by a couple of steppe hunter gatherers and horses?

>fights against level 1 civilizations
>most die from plagues

pretty impressive.

yeah but then Mamluks happened, and the Mongols became Muslim too.

What is this? A picture for ants?

...

You were saying OP?

Thank God for Charles Martel. Deus Vult.

Nothing compared to how the Islamic empires have ended up.

Nigga the fuck you sayin

>beating a dying empire who seek for money and who just move to Provence,anyways

Both the Sassanids and Byznatines were suffering from a resurgence of a certain plague. Western Persia lost over half its population and most of its agricultural croplands for 7 years and the year following its end was when the Arabs started attacking Persia.

Are you retarded?

WE

WEREN'T

SHEEEIIIT.

This is a lesson /pol/ and the alt-right should learn.

You are acting like the fourth crusade and the Byzantines downfall in the 13th and 14th century is the reason they were conquered quickly by the Arab invaders. The Byzantines had just won a war against the Persians and had a powerful veteran army and the were still defeated 600 years before the fourth crusade

>barely defeats a raiding party
Lmao martel would have been crushed if he faced a centralized large Muslim army at the time, he defeated a small raiding force at the very edge of the Muslim world. He defeated a force in northern France of soldiers who took commands from Baghdad

>a powerful veteran army

You realize that after war you have money, morale, and recruitment number issues, right? This isn't like your video games where you send your dudes out to fight and they level up. You have to actually take a lot of factors into account. The Byzantine army didn't level up and have a huge force of veterans to deploy against level 1 Arab invaders.

This board is retarded sometimes. Jesus fucking Christ.

>Byzantines had just won a war against the Persians

Heraclius defeated the Persians in several pitched battles that destabilized the Persian monarchy. He had to make a side deal with Sharvaraz (whom had conquered Egypt and Syria, and still held them at the war's conclusion) just to get half his empire back. He had a scant few years to reoccupy territory that had been severed from the empire for several years when the Arabs started raiding and cutting up Byzantine armies.

In short, the period of recovery Byzantium needed to face the Arabs never arrived, and the arab invaders were assisted by their own disaffected, unpaid, veteran countrymen who had been fighting FOR the Byzantines in the previous war.

How come Shia and Sunni Muslims want to grab each other by the throats but Catholic and Protestant Christians get along well?

>but Catholic and Protestant Christians get along well?
No they don't. It's just that they're too civilized to kill one another over it.

>No they don't.
t. Tyrone Mickey O'Really

Catholics and protestants don't get along at all. Even in modern times there is a lot of animosity. It's just usually kept to insults or calling each other heretics or the Whore of Babylon.

As for Sunni and Shia, they hate each other over who was supposed to rule the caliphate after Mohammad died. Whereas protestants and Catholics fight over who should rule after Jesus died. Protestants say the people and they all answer to god themselves, and Catholics say it is the church as an intermediary between god and man as Jesus was the intermediary between god and man.


So, basically, the debate between the factions isn't all that different.

>person with no knowledge of history

>Empty worthless desert

that empire lasted a matter of years before collapsing into disarray under its own weight, whereas the Byzantines - the heirs of antiquity - survived centuries of devastating raids and warfare before having their 10th century revival and getting their balls back. had they not badly mismanaged their recovery, they could have reconquered egypt and palestine.

>Catholic and Protestant Christians get along well

Here's your (You)

To add to this, Heraclius did not feel confident in trying to force Shahrabaraz out of Egypt and Syria and other parts of the Levant his deputies held for Persia. It took a month or two of negotiation and treaties on the side with the Persian commander to get him to leave those lands through political arrangements.

...

Shut the fuck up with your dumb projections. The main Byzantine army facing the Arabs were VETERANs who heavily outnumbered the Arabs. Veteran armies don't just exist in video games. All the things you listed leads to the battlefield, and the Byzantines had the more experienced and better equipped army the day of the battle. Yes of course morale played a point that's exactly what I'm saying, that's how battles were won at the time, it's not an excuse for losing, breaking the their morale is the strategy of every commander
Like I said, I understand the position the Byzantines were in, and a more powerful empire would have defeated the Arabs but that does not excuse them losing everything, even with all those setbacks they had a larger and bunch better equipped and well supplied force and they still lost

>sandniggers
The Holocaust is nothing compared to what I'd like to see done to the goatfuckers and their cocksucking prophet.

The Arabs were veterans as well, toughened by wars fighting as federates for both sides. Additionally the Arabs had good leadership, and a string of victories lent weight to their morale.

The brief resolvency of both empires after the Byzantine-Sassanid war hides just how exhausted, depleted, and divided both empires were.

The Persians had a string of weak, ineffective claimants to the Sassanid throne. Unlike the Byzantines, who withdrew their armies to Anatolia at the cost of Syria, Palestine and Egypt - in effect trading land for time to regroup their army - the Persians fought a series of very desperate, pitched battles with the Arabs that they all lost. Their army was destroyed early on which is why they lost even the Iranian heartland to the Arabs.

My point is that the Byzantines survived AT ALL is a massive accomplishment, and is a sign of strength and not weakness attributable to their army.

>20000 soldiers led by the king of Andalusia
>small raiding force
Pick one


IT IS NOTHING BUT A SMALL DEFEAT WE WUZ 100 BILLION AND 20000 SOLIDERS ARE NOTHING BUT A LITTLE PATROL TO US

IN FACT IT WAS NOT A PATROL BUT PEOPLE WHO WENT IN VACATION IN FRANCE THESE POORS PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T AT ALL INVADERS WERE ATTACKED BY BARBAROUS FRENCH

APOLOGIZE FOR THESE POOR VACATIONERS NOW !

For you Achmed

That's not a fucking argument, and the figures for the battles against the Byzantines came from Byzantine records

>636
>Venice fault

I saw the same post, but did not even bother to correct him.

You expect too much from this board. Most of them are high school students, who know the extra bits from vidya and youtube videos.

That was from a time when Arabs were stronk.

And then during the Caliphate made them complacent and invading Turkics became their rulers or threw the Arabs back into Desert Niggers.

>That's not a fucking argument

Yes it is

>, and the figures for the battles against the Byzantines came from Byzantine records

muh my fancy arab chronicle tell me that we wuz ze invizibl soldierz of allah so we cannot be defeated

Veeky Forums isn't your shithole, Achmed

It's not by yelling allah akbar every ten second that you convince anyone

seriously though what the fuck happened to the arabs? back in the middle age you would get stories like arab pirates raiding st gotthard pass in switzerland, arab mercenaries in fucking china during the an lushan rebellion. and arab adventurers travelling africa, asia and the indian sea writing books about their journey and empire stretching from spain to india

how come theyre reduced to this

See

Put of order the last time that I know a Arab state winning against a non Arab state is the Ottoman–Mamluk War of 1485–91.Am I missing something here? That looks like a 500 plus year losing record.

>Frence guy with blue yes

No

fuck sake, I type like a retard

>French guy with blue eyes

>Byzantine records
>fancy Arab chronicles

>1/5 of all french people have blue eyes
>see! no french people have blue eyes lalala
i'll have what you're smoking

Similar shit has happened so many times with empires being conquered.

It's almost as if an empire gets weaker before it falls or something.

>(((adult population)))

>Byzantine records
>knowing anything about what happen in France

If you're not aware internet didn't exist at that time

Anyway you were BTFO by the Big French Cock and seing your posts, i think your ass still hurts about it

the streets of paris will run red with mudslime blood brother

>the streets of paris will run red with mudslime blood brother
Pretty sure French blood has been spilled first several times

That graph is completely false on the right

Now show a map of inbreeding

they got rich and fat. when you're rich and fat, you have time to argue theology and have endless civil wars about who is right and who should rule. over time they lost their edge and the turks came in to be their warriors of choice.

Yeah the revolution back in kill all monarchs jazz sure was rowdy.

Persians won the Battle of the Chains and what you fail to realize was the resumption of hostilities between the Rashidun Caliphate and the Sassand Empire was due to effectiveness of Persian counter-raiding into Muslim lands.

Of course the main reason why the Sassanids fell was because they had almost a decade of civil war following the end of the last Byzantine-Persian War, and on top of that severe flooding and inundation of the Tigris and Euphrates destroyed a major part of agricultural lands in western half of the Sassanid Empire. We also know there was a resurgence of Justinian's Plague that wiped out over half of Western Persia's entire population.

This plague also affected the Byzantine Empire as well but its influence and impact is not as well documented as that on the Sassanid Empire. Either way, neither empire was prepared nor at their nominal strength levels when the Arabs showed up.