ITT Muslim victories

>wars with Persians

That last war against them was 800 years before the Sack of Constantinople.

>Crusader conquests

Crusaders managed to BTFO the "strong" Byzantines with only one crusade in 1204 but didn't manage to defeat the muslims with 10 different ones.

Muslims were BTFO so hard that it took 100 years to regain the territory that they lost and it costed them their entire civilization and golden age..

>100 years to regain the territory

They regained it, you did not.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iconium_(1069)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert_(1054)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Philomelion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hyelion_and_Leimocheir

> Crusaders managed to BTFO the "strong" Byzantines with only one crusade in 1204 but didn't manage to defeat the muslims with 10 different ones.

Norwegian crusade, Venetian Crusade, third crusade, crusade of 1197, sixth crusade, the barons crusade etc. etc.

>K-kebab remover..

911

Yes, because a single Serb noble ruling over a few bumfuck hills can raise 60 000 troops.

Fucking wikipedia man.

How comes the Ottomans were so strong militarily but so shit in regards to science & tech?

In before muh cannons, that was a Hungarian guy.

>/pol/

Like a parody

>Turks
>contibuting to the world
404 not found

Is iran the only muslim country which cares about science?

>How comes the Ottomans were so strong militarily but so shit in regards to science & tech?

They could levy huge numbers of troops. Whenever they faced off against numerically similar enemies they tended to get BTFO'd, which is why they lost the majority of the Russo-Turkish Wars.

> How comes the Ottomans were so strong militarily

They really weren't anything special.

It took them over a 100 years to take out Hungary.

They were similar to some Chinese dynasties, just send massive armies somewhere until they run out of manpower.

>Crusaders "BTFO"ing Byzantines

Thats where your wrong kiddo.

"Meanwhile, news of the advance of the Byzantine army soon reached Antioch. Realising that he had no hope of defeating Manuel, Raynald also knew that he could not expect any help from king Baldwin III of Jerusalem. Baldwin did not approve of Raynald's attack on Cyprus, and in any case had already made an agreement with Manuel. Thus isolated and abandoned by his allies, Raynald decided that abject submission was his only hope. He appeared before the Emperor, dressed in a sack with a rope tied around his neck, and begged for forgiveness. Manuel at first ignored the prostrate Raynald, chatting with his courtiers; William of Tyre commented that this ignominious scene continued for so long that all present were "disgusted" by it. Eventually, Manuel forgave Raynald on condition that he would become a vassal of the Empire, effectively surrendering the independence of Antioch to Byzantium."

But your Wrong.

post the ones where serbs fought alongisde turks

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople_(1204)

>The Crusaders looted, terrorized, and vandalized Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient and medieval Roman and Greek works were either stolen or destroyed. The famous bronze horses from the Hippodrome were sent back to adorn the façade of St Mark's Basilica in Venice, where they remain. As well as being stolen, works of immeasurable artistic value were destroyed merely for their material value. One of the most precious works to suffer such a fate was a large bronze statue of Hercules, created by the legendary Lysippos, court sculptor of Alexander the Great. Like so many other priceless artworks made of bronze, the statue was melted down for its content by the Crusaders. The great Library of Constantinople was destroyed as well.

And that's why the Ayyubid muslims ceased to exist after each crusade you named right? .. oh they didn't, winning a few fights doesn't win the war.

>Although the Barons' Crusade returned the Kingdom of Jerusalem to its largest size since 1187, the gains would be dramatically reversed merely a few years later. On July 15, 1244 Jerusalem was not simply captured but was reduced to ruins and its Christians massacred by Khwarazmians from northern Syria (new allies of the Sultan of Egypt As-Salih Ayyub). A few months later, in October, Ayyub and the Khwarazmians achieved a major military victory at the Battle of La Forbie, which permanently crippled Christian military power in the Holy Land.

>The campaign was largely successful in capturing the important cities of Acre and Jaffa, and reversing most of Saladin's conquests, but it failed to capture Jerusalem, the emotional and spiritual motivation of the Crusade.

nigga you what

Venice deserves to be destroyed for unleashing that carnage on Constantinople

I know, but its not impressive considering the army was gutted by the emperors after Manuel and there was barely a garrison in Constantinople.

Tt was a Byzantine pretender who paid them to take the city for him instead of going to Egypt. Instead got sacked.

>implying they didn't know his promises were load of shit but just went with it for the shekels

>Fucking wikipedia man.

I'm not defending it but they usually "cite" multiple sources with multiple different estimates. The 70k troops prolly comes from an Ottoman scribe fellow who wanted to make the battle seem le super epic for his people.

And can anyone explain how the early Muslims (Rashidun Caliphate I guess based on OP's pic comp) was able to wreck shit so hard so fast?
>inb4 Persia/ERE weakened by constant warfare
I'm aware that was a contributing cause, but looking at the numbers the Romans were still able to muster superior/equal numbers for quite a few of those battles.

The Rashidun were playing the new meta. In the Classical world you achieved hegemony by conquering, subverting, or allying with city-states which served as a base for the de-facto subjugation of the rural tribes. But after the plagues and wars of the past few centuries the Middle East and North Africa had collapsed demographically and cities were gradually dominated by the rural tribes who fared somewhat better as a population. So rather than take an army and march on a city they would make the rounds subjugating the countryside. The cities would then fall in line, and when the Romans did show up with an army they wouldn't face a tiny raiding force but a large coalition of Arab and Syrian and Iraqi tribes - many of which were veterans of the Roman army themselves.

Nice nitpicking of battles, still does not change the fact that it took them a 100 years to take out Hungary.

It took them nearly 200 years to conquer modern day Bosnia lol.

>apologist byzantiboo autist
>nitpicking muslim victories in a war that was 95% muslim victories
>thinks conquests take a few days to do

Byzanboo here.

Is not me

Is Me

Khalid ibn-Walid's line ended when Muawiya murdered his son and grandson.

Bums me out. Such a great mans line should be afforded some respect but i guess that would be too much for the arabs.

>nitpicking muslim victories in a war that was 95% muslim victories

lol no, they lost over 20 of them just trying to conquer fucking Serbia lol.

>thinks conquests take a few days to do

Well, not few days, but also not 200 fucking years for Bosnia lmfao

They'd put out a call that they were going to war and every two bit Bedouin and Turk with a sword would come and get paid in booty. Due to the tribal aspect they'd also be fairly disciplined. The problems arise when they stopped winning.

Yes.

>being this upset over the Ottoman empire

>muslims don't post on /pol/

>Well, not few days, but also not 200 fucking years for Bosnia lmfao

The crusaders spent more then 200 years in the middle east and anatolia without much success.

> The crusaders spent more then 200 years in the middle east and anatolia without much success.

It's the opposite you retard, they conquered the Levant in a couple years and it took the Muslims over 200 years to take them out.

>they conquered the levant

grabbing a few undefended cities by surprise, raping and killing locals, and than getting fucked in pitch battles with Saladin isn't taking the whole levant, my dear, 14-year old Deus-vulting edgelord.

Serbia stronk, right?

1453...

>80.000 strong army with a shitload of cannons beating a starved city with 7.000 soldiers in 53 days
>achievement

> grabbing a few undefended cities by surprise, raping and killing locals

That did not happen lol.

Even at the start of their conquest, the Seljuk united and tried to stop them but got BTFO'd at Antioch lol.

> and than getting fucked in pitch battles with Saladin

Top kek;

Battle Montgisard
Battle Arsuf
Battle Jaffa
Battle of Acre

> Serbia stronk, right?

I am not Serbian lol.

The funny part is that the cannons barely did much because they took too much time to reload and the defenders fixed the holes swiftly. It was the kerkoporta and the ships being taken on land that won the Ottoman the siege

It was actually one of the gates being opened by someone(still not proven who) through which the Ottomans finally stormed in.

>mobile
>/pol/
have you considered suicide?

>That did not happen lol.
>I am not Serbian lol.
>lol
kys

that's what the kerkoporta is

Not true. The Russo-Turkish wars outcomes has nothing to do with the numbers but more about instability, lack of organisation and the Janissary's decadence.

Pre 17th Century Ottomans did well not because they had numbers advantage but because they were very organised and quick most of the time.

"...producing a force of 105,339 men. It is clear, therefore, that Ottoman military supremacy was not attained by superiority in numbers, as often claimed by their defeated European enemies. Superiority in the quality of command, discipline, training and tactics must, rather, have been the decisive factor."

-History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey Vol. 1 by Stanford J. Shaw

It took them 2 hours to conquer Hungary

Keep in mind that the Ottoman Empire actively had standing armies in 3 different continents...

Are you honestly claiming the Ottomans didn't possess a numerical advantage versus opponents like the various Balkan states they swallowed up or Byzantium at its death bed? It's not a surprise that these are the conflicts where the Ottomans were the most dominant, and whenever they faced off against a unified European foe capable of mustering similar numbers, they tended to get their asses kicked (e.g. Lepanto).

And Russia won 2 of the first 3 Russo-Turkish Wars, which began in the 17th century anyway. Not only that, but they did this facing numerical odds against them most of the time, e.g the Don Volga campaign of 1569.

Nice try though. Pound for pound the average European soldier was better than the average Turk.

> Pre 17th Century Ottomans did well not because they had numbers advantage but because they were very organised and quick most of the time

They had a numerical advantage in basically every war they fought.

At Mohac they had three times the cannon number and two-three times the total amount of troops lol.

> ...producing a force of 105,339 men. It is clear, therefore

Fucking lol, Hungary, arguably the main Ottoman opponent in Europe prior to the Habsburgs for over a 100 years, had a recorded army of 8000 cavalry and 20 000 infantry AT THEIR HEIGHT.

Fucking hell.

Serbanon here, sensing a distinct lack of an argument.

Stay mad, byzaboo

Yeah, I have no idea where he got the idea that Turks didn't possess a numerical advantage in most of their wars. It's true that when they faced off against Holy League type alliances, the odds tended to be a bit more even - even then they weren't exactly equal though, during most pitched battles of the Great Turkish War, the Turks had the advantage in terms of numbers.

But the thing is most of the wars the Turks fought they didn't fight against pan-European alliances and they overwhelmingly had a numerical advantage.

That's true for most Asia vs Europe wars, come to think of it. Asiatics are just subhumans.

>Nice try though. Pound for pound the average European soldier was better than the average Turk

Depends on which country, and what time, and what soldier you are referring to.

>Science
Thats because of their Domestic policy
It was good to goverance but shit for growth in Economy, Science, Phil, and pretty much everything. The opposite was the same for the Mughal who had the biggest Science Innovation outside of the west at the time but had a shitty military compared to the Ottomans and Safavid and couldn't control the Maratha revolt.

Also the meme that a civilization is either good at everything or bad at everything is flawed for several reasons.

>good to governance

Do you realize how much land the T*rks had allowed to go out of cultivation by the beginning of the 19th century you dumb Turd?

Theres no historical evidence of that. Every byzantaboo just uses that as an excuse

...

>recorded army of 8000 cavalry and 20 000 infantry AT THEIR HEIGHT.

Wrong, Look up the Battle of Mohi, they had more then that in the 13th century.

>You are a retard you are wrong, i am right!

They have NOT taken all of the levant, they took some of it when there wasn't an united muslim power controlling all of it.

Pic related is the map of the Levant.

Take a look at the later battles against the Mamlukes, which were actually united. The crusaders didn't win a single pitched battle against them.

>against pan-European alliances

Battle of Nicoplis and Battle of Varna amongst many others.

>Asia vs Europe wars, come to think of it. Asiatics are just subhumans.

Then the europeans should have showed their power by invading large portions of Asia, but you couldn't even progress farther then the Levant, too bad.

Goverance was a terrible word to describe it. I know how shitty Ottomans made any land they rules, my people had to endure 400 years of their autism.

I meant that their system was good to maintain a large amount of land without collapsing at least for more than a century, however it was shitty if you lived in those lands or if you want the land to grow in any way, one could blame the Ottomans for the Middle East Falling behind, a century of Mamluks rule in Iraq helped it recover and grow while centuries of Ottoman rule made it stagant and decline untill the Germans started to have interests in the area. Same for Egypt and How Ali Pasha was far better than the Ottomans and independent Oman where it became an advanced empire while Yemen remained behind

Who cares

...

Why are 99% of Islamic academic and scientific achievements done by Iranians and other non-Arabs?

...

>Look up the Battle of Mohi

It's been acknowledged by now that previous estimates of Mohi were very exaggerated. Likely they had no more than 20,000 men present.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Constantinople

Reminder that the roach motel of "istanbul" only exists because of the eternal Anglo's plotting, sweety.

>Using saladin as an example when he was regularly humiliated by king Richard

> Wrong, Look up the Battle of Mohi, they had more then that in the 13th century.

There are no proper numbers for the Battle of Mohi, some historian state Bela had as few as 6000 men.

> They have NOT taken all of the levant

They did.

> Pic related is the map of the Levant.

No, that is a poor job at MS paint.

> Take a look at the later battles against the Mamlukes, which were actually united. The crusaders didn't win a single pitched battle against them.

They did, you are just limited to the fuckery of wikipedia;

"In 1279, 200 horsemen from the garrison of Margat used this tactic against the 5000 Muslims who were trying to prevent them from ravaging the neighborhood of Crac des Chevaliers. The Hospitallers, knowing it would be suicidal for them to confront this force in the open, therefore allowed themselves to be chased until they had almost reached Margat itself before turning on the Muslims and routing them with the loss of only one mounted sergeant." - Unknown Crusader Castles, page 72, Kristian Molin

GG Mamluks.

> Battle of Nicoplis and Battle of Varna amongst many others.

Both had Ottoman numerical superiority in most sources.

> Then the europeans should have showed their power by invading large portions of Asia, but you couldn't even progress farther then the Levant, too bad.

Who is Alexander the Great?

What is the Roman Empire?

Reminder that muslim countries never won a modern conventional war against westerners.

...

A*GLO BTFO!!!

It was the other way, retard

> It was the other way, retard

Richard won every single engagement he fought against Saladin, from the small skirmishes to the large battles and sieges.

He won literally every time.

>There are no proper numbers for the Battle of Mohi, some historian state Bela had as few as 6000 men.

European revisionism

>They did.

If they had taken all of the levant the muslim powers there would have been reduced to just those in Egypt and Anatolia, this was however not the case. Look at any map of that time and see for yourself

Additionaly you failed to secure the conquests by eliminating the nearest muslim powers nearby so therefore you did not "BTFO" the muslims who were always only a few days of marching into your territory.

>They did, you are just limited to the fuckery of wikipedia

Small skirmish not a real battle, real battles have generals that apply some kind of strategy.

>GG Mamluks

They took your castles and kicked you out of their lands and you never returned.

>Who is Alexander the Great?

Didn't fight against muslims, only reconquered the Persian Empire and his conquests came to a halt in the jungles of India.

>What is the Roman Empire?

Didn't even conquer the Persians, which at their time were less powerful then the Achaemenids.

>Reminder that muslim countries never won a modern conventional war against westerners.

And in the future europeans will be a thing of the past, ethnic youth in France and Germany are already a minority, imagine how it will look in 50 years?

>one more muslim rape in our country and we will rise up, this time for real!

That's what europeans believe before they are charged for hate speech in their own cucked countries.

> European revisionism

No, there is literally not a single source about Hungarian numbers, the numbers we have are all modern historians guessing.

> Additionaly you failed to secure the conquests

lol what?

I failed?

Fucking hilarious.

> Small skirmish not a real battle

Yeah, over 5000 involved troops in the 13th century is a battle.

> They took your castles and kicked you out of their lands and you never returned.

Me?

I never owned any land or castles in the ME.

> And in the future europeans will be a thing of the past, ethnic youth in France and Germany are already a minority, imagine how it will look in 50 years?

Very soon people will stop aging and dying.

Not to mention that the machine singularity is only a decade or two away, it will make all of history nothing more than noise.

>Yeah, over 5000 involved troops in the 13th century is a battle.

According to european revisionists who also said that Bela had only 6000 troops.

>I failed?

Yes, "you" as incrusaders. There were still 2 muslim power in near proximity

>I never owned any land or castles in the ME.

same shit

>Very soon people will stop aging and dying.

Go play some more Deus Ex to fulfill your transhumanist fantasies.

>machine singularity

Wow you are a fucking larper, you have nothing to contribute to this history discussion.

>Then the europeans should have showed their power by invading large portions of Asia, but you couldn't even progress farther then the Levant, too bad.

Alexander steamrollered his way into Afghanistan and modern day Pakistan.

Trajan up to the Arabian Gulf.

Napoleon took a relatively small French Army and steamrollered his way across all of North Africa.

Do NOT kid yourself.

>amongst many others.

List them then.

The fact is that the Ottomans fought, in most of their wars against European states, with a significant numerical advantage.

Don't modern day Turks unironically believe that the Ottoman Empire was some sort of benign blessing for Christians?

> According to european revisionists

No, that is a historical fact.

There are no primary sources stating Bela's army strength.

> Yes, "you" as incrusaders.

I am not a crusader.

> Go play some more Deus Ex to fulfill your transhumanist fantasies.

No need, just wait a bit and see.

> Wow you are a fucking larper, you have nothing to contribute to this history discussion.

Hilarious stuff m8.

>Didn't even conquer the Persians, which at their time were less powerful then the Achaemenids.

You mean the Parthians, and they defeated them in most engagements in the Imperial period. Obviously they're not going to launch a full on land invasion of Parthia, there's no point in doing so, they already occupied a near unmanageable total landmass.

>being proud of being known as jobless, shiftless, unproductive brown rapists in European countries

What do Muslims mean by this?

Yes, they believe Armenians and Greeks "betrayed" them by rising up. They honestly believe that the subject non-Muslim peoples of the Empire owed the Porte loyalty. It's astonishing how delusional Muslims are, then again these are people who believe conspiracy theories about Jews training sharks to attack Egyptians swimming in the Nile.

Reminder that the silver from the americas saved yurop , otherwise they would be speaking arab now.

The spanish naval army of the battle of lepanto was bought with that silver.

By Europe you mean Malta and perhaps some islands that would be retaken sooner or later.

no, I mean , the whole continent.
without resources, without the control of the mediterranean sea, without trade routes europe was doomed.

But I guess Allah is not that cool with his people.

> no, I mean , the whole continent.

Fucking hilarious.

> without resources, without the control of the mediterranean sea, without trade routes europe was doomed.

Dude, the Ottomans could not even conquer Croatia for fuck sake, you think Spain financed the entirety of the continent lol?

> But I guess Allah is not that cool with his people.

Of course hes not, far more Muslims were killed by other Muslims since the 7th century splits than Christians killed Muslims.

Yes, because the reconquista was only started after the Americas was taken. And it wasn't all the internal wars in Europe that weakened them, and the muslims just kept winning as soon as proper national states was created in Europe.

>Serbian Empire
>Empire

The hell?
It was barely a principality, often the vassal of the king of Hungary. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with the Serbs but that seems like some kind of revisionist bullshit.

> you think Spain financed the entirety of the continent lol?

No need. Do some research kid. The silver from america in europe devalued ten times the muslim silver.

Is like finding an oil source, so big that it devaluates the oil from $50 to $5. Qatar, Arabia et al would break into pieces.