Why didn't Arabs conquer all of Europe?

The Arab war machine was based on promoting and legitimizing adventuring tribal leaders and mercenaries under the nominal authority of Medina. By the time it reached Spain and India, the Umayyads had taken power and consolidated their rule in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt by forcing out rival families into North Africa, Spain, and Transoxiana. Once there, these tribes were no longer out to conquer and settle a new region under the Umayyad banner, but instead set down roots and consolidate their own local power bases, which meant more internal struggles within these regions. Whenever they did try and expand further into France, India, or Anatolia, it was at this point under the command of regional powers attempting a raid in order to pay off their local troops and nobles. They didn't expand because their governments could not handle expansion.

You would still get some Arabs to gather up a small war band to conquer and settle in Southern France, Italy, or the Aegean every now and then, but for the most part these went unsupported by the more major powers nearby for political reasons.

They just had luck with the visigoths cuz they were involved in a civil war

Because of Karl "the hammer" Martell

wonder how he got that name...

they were already stretched out trying to invade Hindu kingdoms on the east, if they had put all the strength in one direction or the other, they would have succeeded

*Charles Martel

>wonder how he got that name...
Smashing Lombards for the Pope.

>the Arabs didn't invade Constantinople

>Why didn't Arabs conquer all of Europe?
Because back then it was a shithole and nobody wanted a piece of it. Why do you think the Mongols avoided it?

>Karl "the Hammer" the Hammer

Turks aren't Arabs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(674–678)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717–718)
>inb4 I was only pretending to be retarded

Kek, nice to know
What language? Google tells me in latin hammer means malleo

>Why do you think the Mongols avoided it?
because the generals were all called back before they could reach the Atlantic like they were previously instructed you absolute moron

The Latin is Carolus Martellus.

It was an allusion to Judas Maccabeus, another "Hammer".

Why do you think they were called back? They had a closer look and found an impoverished people not worth conquering.

>Why do you think they were called back?
Ogedei's death required the election of a new Khan

>Decisive Byzantine victory

so the Germans never invaded Russia because they eventually lost?

WHERE THE FUCK DID THE BUTTER GO?

his wife cleared the table while he was reading

They still could have kept most of their forces in place just in case the new ruler wanted to continue. The fact is Europe (well most of it) at that time was not a prestigious target nor were they filled with enough riches.

and there weren't any great grasslands in Europe either

>Constantinople and Vienna
Please fuck off, it's clear he meant the Turks, not the Arab invasions

Then maybe those replies should've just greentext Vienna only

Probably some old French dialect, "Martelle" litterally means "To hammer" in french.

Why didn't Arabs conquer all of Africa?
Did they fear the black warrior?
This question is more important. Such a big continent and still undeveloped.

Except they did.

They tried to but were fucked by the Byzantines and the Bulgars and then they went to try their luck on the other end, ended up conquering Iberia and then were stopped in France, which now allows Western autists to say "we wuz saviors of Europe"

Pretty obvious

lolwat

>this is what europeanmoors actually believe
Natural borders, inner strife and the cost of further conquest prevented the arabs, not the battle that your learned in your spanish high school

Wasn't it more like 124,000,000 dead on the muslim side?

Nice shoop.

>Goatfucker defence force.How may I help you sir?

Probably much the same reasons they didn't conquer Europe, plus the Sahara.

>REEEEEE IT'S OBVIOUSLY FAKE!111
>heh heh fucking byzantines LOL!1 look at these anti-heraclius and muslim accounts telling how they lost with an army somehow bigger than their pre-sassanid war army to a bunch of Arabs!

How did the Arabs have the manpower to conquer and hold so much land so quickly?

They went as far as they could reasonably hope to. They weren't going to be making any serious inroads into France, regardless of how Tours turned out, and the Ottomans reached the limit of their abilities at Vienna

They didn't. They instead had the political ability to organize themselves and integrate themselves into local politics, usually exploiting local aristocrats who were eager to throw off or resist a more onerous neighbor.

Enslaving people and converting them to your religion sounds like conquest to me.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
>the absolute fucking STATE of Arab """""warriors"""""

in north africa, but that's about as far as the arabs got

They tried but were stopped. First by Leo the Isaurian, then by Odo of Aquitaine, then by Charles Martel and finally by the Berbers (who thus saved Europe from future invasions)

this is also true. They were pillagers more than conquerors, just like the Huns

Besieging a city and failing to take it is not an invasion of said city

>goatfucker

Zoophilia is actually outlawed in islamic countries while several wester countries and US states allow it.

...

Most "soliders" they recruited in their conquests, especially europe, were local tribes that were recruited on the promise of pillaging cities

It's faked numbers. For fucks sake does no one cross check images posted here?

S E E T H I N G

>against the Franks
FUCK OFF SNOWNIGGER MONGREL

IT'S WE FRENCH THAT BTFO'D THEM AND NOT THE "FRANKS"

ITT: Stupidity
More Stupidity
Some More Stupidity
Historical Inaccuracy
Made up numbers

For the fools in this thread whose sole achievment was reaching the higher levels of ignorance, keep in mind the following:
1- Arabs fought and destroyed simultaneously the Byzantines and the Sassanids, despite the superioty of those in terms of numbers, conquering the Levant, Egypt, Iraq and Persia roughly the same decade, surpassing most of those "Empires" you love talking about on this board.
2-This was followed by the conquest of North Africa, Sindh and Iberia.
3- After the many defeats of the "native" Iberians facing the Arabic armies, they apparently succeeded in the Battle of Covadonga, with the sources cited being christians under the Arabic rule.
4-This "reconquest" of Iberia took the "native" Iberians around 450 years to complete.

The reconquista was defacto over after Covadonga. The muslim states just became vassals of the christian kingdoms, and that is why they survived for so long

The Arabic Al-Andalus wasn't even at the peak of its power at Covadongo. What you stated is not an accurate description of the aftermath of the supposed battle.

>1- Arabs fought and destroyed simultaneously the Byzantines and the Sassanids, despite the superioty of those in terms of numbers, conquering the Levant, Egypt, Iraq and Persia roughly the same decade, surpassing most of those "Empires" you love talking about on this board.
and then you talk about made-up numbers

>its a Veeky Forums thinks real life is a video game and you should at all times attempt to conquer all the land

>Arabic Al-Andalus
No such thing. Obviously you haven't study the period as you are what is commonly known as a "brainlet"

Elaborate your point.

Like it or not, Arabic was the language of humanities, science and literature in Al-Andalus as was the case in Persia. The racial origins of the Andalusians are irrelevant and even then it was a mix of Arabic principally and Berber.

It was mostly iberian onverted to Islam user, then berbers, then arabs.

muslims and anti-heracleus Byzantine sources aren't things you can take for granted

Gonna need some source on that, the nations of France and Germany only emerged after the late 9th century

>100 years after the death of their prophet, Jihads were being called to regions north of the Loire,
>100 years after the death of the prophet, the lightning fast conquests of his followers had covered 19/20 of the the miles between Mecca and London.
There are a lot of reasons why conquest passed the Pyrenees wasn't very tenable though.
>Completely hostile populations (no Berbers to convert, no Spanish Jewry to conspire with (not kidding))
>Stark climatic differences, dense and dank forests weren't as familiar to the jihadists and were more conducive to attrition, they were basically just desert hordes that demanded the submission of the people they encountered like Dothraki.
>The Umayyads were still beholden to Damascus which wasn't terrible interested in rural France, communication times with cordoba were already obscene and it made more sense to prioritize the more formidable, familiar, wealthier and closer domains of the Byzantines.
Basically the profits wouldn't have justified the costs.

>Arabic was the language of humanities, science and literature
Barely anything was written in arabic.Like nothing.I am sorry to tell you my goatrapist friend that you are just dumb

>Implying the Arabs didn't besiege and fail to capture Constantinople tons of times.

A society is evaluated by the impact of its prominent men, not by its general populace. Most scholars, scientists, poets and philosophers were at the very least culturally Arabic if not racially, and even then most of them had mixed Arabic and Berber origins even though they were born in Iberia.

If you don't want to to rely on the sources, then try to use logic. Which of these two would have a bigger population, and thus a bigger army? The byzantines, occupying some of the most fertile land in the Old World or the Arabic people, living in an infertile land?

There is no point in debating you. Your attachement to ad hominems seems to be superior in your being to the search for truth.

You say it like this erases all previous military achievment. You evaluating a military power based on their ability or inability to capture the capital shows your low standards. Seems that to you admirers of the byzantine empire, the "empire" is effectively constantinople.

>that one butthurt Arab quoting everyone and expecting anyone to take him seriously

>Tell a lie
>Get call out for your bullshit
>lmao XD I will just make another thing up.
Are Ayyyyyrabs actually this pathetic irl?

> That troll who has absolutely nothing meaningful to say, but has the urge to hijack the thread, which leads to him choosing to attack someone defending his opinions with reasonable arguments. He feeds on replies like this one, yet ignores that his trollish hunger will not be satiated, the endgame for him is self-loathing and a deep sadness for his miserable state of being.

>need source for that

The kingdom was literally called the Kingdom of the French(regnum francorum), and France(francia) is first mentioned during the the third century.

Frank is a bullshit term invented by anglos during the renaissance, there is no such thing as franks only French

The reason that paved the way for Arab saracens managing to kick out Byzantines from Levant, North Africa and Egypt and conquer the sassanids was because both of those empires were engaged in a 343 year long bloody struggle. After the victory of the Byzantines the Sassanids were basically greatly reduced in strength, troops and most of their cities had been sacked. The Byzantines were also shortly afterwards the war, preoccupied with a full Slavic/Bulgaria/Avar invasion in Macedonia, Thrace and central Greece.

The Arabs were very lucky the Byzantines were at their weakest during that time, as it was an empire with more soldiers,a large navy, better technology, and better military infrastructure.

Do you have any sources for your alternative history speculation?

Speaking of, just checked duolingo.
Why is there no arabic course, lol?
I realise their speech and alphabet is a bit weird, but c'mon, russians and chinese have one.
Fucking dothraki and high valyrian as incubated courses, as well(there are however german and swedish courses for arabs, because of course)

Also not to forget the Byzantines during the reign of Constans II were also engaged in fighting off the Lombards in southern Italy, while at the same time he was fighting off the Arabs.

>yfw the last Byzantine Sassanid war was alternate history

South Euros kept them at bay.

By the way here is a source

straw man much? I'm talking about what you stated as a possible aftermath. The war you mentionned may have weakened both sides, but you seem to forget that there was a six year gap between this war and the Arabic conquest, and that the Arabic armies were invading both empires at the same time.

>6 years are enough to recover from a 30 year war that left the entire middle east in devastation

Sufficient enough when the Arabic armies were still numerically inferior and had worse equipment, adding to that the two fronts that these armies were facing.
And a genuine question: why do you admire the byzantine empire so much?

Retard!
Most laws come because of occuring incidents.
Western countries do not have zoophilia laws because it basically does not happen here.

Well the Franks/French did come from Germania. Were the "eastern Franks" then conquered or were they the same people? I read they were the same tribe but the eastern population didn't settle in former Roman urban areas and therefore didn't adopt Latin laguages, later becoming the Germans.

>still numerically inferior and had worse equipment
nice memes
>And a genuine question: why do you admire the byzantine empire so much?
Because they compose half of my country's history. Here's a better question, why do you like the Arabs so much?

There's no point in debating if you are going to bring up the classical "nice memes" response.

> Because they compose half of my country's history. Here's a better question, why do you like the Arabs so much?

Your country being? I assume it's Greece. I'm Arabic. Now here's another good question. Why do you hate Arabs so much?

This thread is proof that you'll never have a good thread when people, for some reason, take pride in or support historical entities like sports teams.

>dismisses that the Byzantines and the Sassanids were weakened from one of the longest wars in history
>expects to have a serious discussion

>Why do you hate Arabs so much?
I don't hate the Arabs, just how they're called to be so great because they took advantage of two handicapped empires, one being bankrupt and overextended from also having lands that weren't secure in the west and the other suffering from disease and civil war. The Arabs on the other hand were also more motivated from the rise of their new religion and if there's one thing that gives them an advantage over the Byzantines and the Sassanids is that they were much more efficient in the desert since they live in it while also having extreme mobility with light cavalry compared to the Byzantines and the Sassanids who relied on more heavy troops.

Eastern Franks carry various meaning

It can refer to the Riparian Franks as opposed to the Salian Franks aka Western Franks.

It can also refer to the Riparian Franks that settled into Thuringia, these are the Franconians.

Finally, it can also refer to all Germans(meaning East of the Rhine) as opposed to the Gauls(West of the Rhine) regardless of Ethnicity.

The genuine Eastern Franks are the Franconians btw.

>dismisses that the Byzantines and the Sassanids were weakened from one of the longest wars in history

I did not dismiss it. I'm just saying that both empires were still formidable forces at the time of the conquest.

>I don't hate the Arabs, just how they're called to be so great because they took advantage of two handicapped empires, one being bankrupt and overextended from also having lands that weren't secure in the west and the other suffering from disease and civil war. The Arabs on the other hand were also more motivated from the rise of their new religion and if there's one thing that gives them an advantage over the Byzantines and the Sassanids is that they were much more efficient in the desert since they live in it while also having extreme mobility with light cavalry compared to the Byzantines and the Sassanids who relied on more heavy troops.

Every force in history made use of what it had available, why resent my people for doing as such? And let's not deceive ourselves. Not my people, nor the byzantines, nor the persians had any valid claim to the the Levant and Egypt.

Are you american?

Thanks for the insight. I know a large portion of the French population is ethnic Gaul/Celtic, but it's not like the French/Frank rulers weren't Germanic, is it?
What I've read is that the Franks came from Germania and established a Kingdom in modern France, then expanding east.

>What I've read is that the Franks came from Germania and established a Kingdom in modern France, then expanding east.

That's the dominant and accepted theory

But the reality is that "Frank" is a term created in the Renaissance

Clovis was a French not a "Frank"

>Thread about arab conquest
>Turns into another ouiaboo discussion
Ouiaboos are literal colon cancer

>Formidable forces.

They were, no denying that, however consider that Heraclius went into Mesopotamia with perhaps a big maximum of 50k professional (and by professional I mean they still got training before getting in there, considering the rest of the field armies were out of the picture), and came out with around 25k men iirc.

Now consider that the empire was broke, had lost the tax revenue of the levant and egypt for a decade, had had the avars pillage Thrace for the same amount of time, and Heraclius had to put everything back together again while paying back the church """"loans"""" and securing the frontiers with what able bodied young men hadn't been killed off by the recurring plague.
Whatever he managed to scramble to send down to Yarmouk when the Arabs invaded must have been the only field army of professionals the whole empire could muster at that point, and he still had to put it together, it wasn't actually already operational and ready to go.

The Roman Empire was still formidable sure, but it's army was at its lowest point since a very long time,

And they were the winners, imagine the state of the persians.