How could the descendants of Romans get fucked this hard? Also...

you just got shit taste senpai, also muslim=/=arab

>ahmad massoud
>shamil basayev
>ibn khattab

>descendants of Rome

Stop samefagging the same post you fucking faggot. I have an extension that detects when a post is made by a new user or a one who already posted in the thread.

>descendants of Romans

Thank you for ruining my thread, motherfucker.

Suleiman the magnificent
Alija (the Balija) Izetbegovic
Bosnia is the heir of Rome and the one true Caliphate

>basayev
lol

>descendants of Romans

I think you mean Romans. Using Greek names for Roman stuff doesn't change the state.

>Khalid ibn al-Walid

That's why

>Romans
No, they were Greeks who pretended that they are Romans, peoples who conquered and subjugated them

But the Romans were pretending to be Greeks.

They were Romans though. The undisputed united Roman empire even said so.

They were just Romans who happened to also be Greek.

>How could the descendants of Romans get fucked this hard?

But the descendants of the romans didnt even fight in that battle

>They were Romans though
WEWUZ

WE

> The numbers are based on Arabic sources alone

> Believe those sources

it was byzantine source

Yeah a hundred years after the battle took place. Even then it matters little. The numbers are always exaggerated or an outright lie.

thats how history works

the early Muslim historians developed a sophisticated and rigorous historical method of determining which ones are reliable and which ones are not, which they called the science of hadith. The only ones that were deemed reliable were the ones that were passed down through an unbroken chain of narration connecting directly to Muhammad's companions and through multiple independent chains of narration. In contrast, such a rigorous historical method was non-existent in antiquity. In addition, Ibn Ishaq's earliest surviving biography of Muhammad recorded many of Khalid's battles. Ibn Ishaq was himself a student of Muhammad's nephew Urwah ibn Zubayr and thus had a direct connection to the events.

With all this in mind, I would say the historical accounts regarding Khalid's battles are more reliable than any of the accounts concerning the early Greek battles, like the Greco-Persian Wars (no contemporary accounts have survived, but we are dependent on later Greek historians who themselves depended on oral traditions, though their historical methods were nowhere near as rigorous as the science of hadith) and the battles of Alexander (hardly any contemporary accounts of his battles have survived, but we are mainly dependent on sources centuries after his battles).

>who is Ismaîl of Persia
>who is Nader Shah of Persia
>who is Akhbar of Mughals
>who is Babur of Mughals
Just on top of my mind. Study harder.

Conquering Loo's ain't an accomplishment, the British were able to do it so it must of been pretty easy.

but saddam wiped the floor with the majoos subhuman scum

>ywn electrify a lake full of subhuman majoos while surrounding them with mustard gas so they cant escape and picking off the stragglers with nerve gas

>Having to resort to using chemical weapons despite having the entire world's support

>Still lose miserably and spend 6 years fighting in your own territory

Arabs are incapable at modern warfare, that's why their "countries" are all pawns of other powers.