Muslim Conquests

Khaled "No truce with the Majoos" ibn al-Walid

Khalid "No more shi'a after qadissiya" al-Walid

Khalid "Turn the Ajam into Jam" al-Walid

Khalid "I love the reek of a dead Greek" al-Walid

Khalid "bye-bye-zantine" al-Walid

>Persians and Byzantines had just concluded a thirty year war
>Both sides were heavily depleted of their main reserves of man power and veteran soldiers and generals
>Persians had an additional seven years of civil war within the Sassand dynasty until a 12 year old grandson of their last great ruler is installed on the throne
Even then it took the Arabs over 20 years to pacify the Persians and even then on top of that still never fully directly conquered them. They had to settle with the mountainous areas being held by the Persians and other Iranians being made into "vassals".

Also can't forget the return of Justian's Plague which wiped out roughly half of western Persia's population, which also did not help things in the least.

> "At Battle of Mu'tah I broke nine swords in my hand. But I have never met an enemy like the Persians. And among the Persians I have never met an enemy like the army of Battle of Ullais."

So basically if they had larger the Persians wouldn't have been conquered.
>They had to settle with the mountainous areas being held by the Persians and other Iranians being made into "vassals".
That's how a lot of Muslim conquests tended to be. Arab, Turkic or Persian.

* larger hordes

>if
>but
>if

Majoos got conquered hard

radicalisation plus they weren't up against all that much in the short-term

The Persians lost but stop acting like the entirety of the Sassanid empire fell to directly to the Rashidun Caliphate. Significant parts of northern Iran, areas in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and such held out and bleed the Caliphate of its manpower so badly they had to resort to coercing the Iranian holdouts to accept vassaldom. It wasn't a question of them surviving, it was a question of how high the price in lives the Arabs were willing to take to take down those holdouts and the cost was too high for the net result.

But don't act like the Arabs didn't lose battles at times. First time they got in Pars, they got overconfident and had two of their armies wiped out and the Arab commander killed. And the third army was routed and forced to retreat.

Tabristan for example held out for 120 years before they became "vassals" in name to the Abbassids after they converted to Islam in the late 8th century.

>That's how a lot of Muslim conquests tended to be.
Eh, not really. When the Safavid Persians or Ottoman Turks took territory, they fully annexed it. Only exception with the Turks being the Mamlukes in Egypt I think.

Did the Justinian plague effect Arabia at all?

No. We know it affected the Byzantines and even more so the Persians. On top of the civil wars that went on for seven years following the Persian loss in the final Roman-Persian War, the plague wiped out half of the western Sassanid Empire's population and Al-Tabari also tells us that the Persians were experiencing major overfloodings causing widespread famine affecting the agricultural heartlands for the Sassanids due to the spillage from the Euphrates and Tigris.

So yeah, somehow the Arabs were not at all affected by this.

A lot of areas they took over resented their current leaders and at firs teh Muslims were much much more tolerant. They were a tiny minority after all so they couldn't really afford not to tolerate Christians and jews for the first several centuries.

In comparison the Eastern Romans were cracking down on the 'heretical' beliefs of the further flung African provinces for ages.

Consider this. In the middle east and north africa to this day there is still the widest variety on christian sects dating to this time period. In the West and in the Orthodox east most of these variation of Christianity were stamped out.

Another big factor was that the Byzantines and Persians literally just fought a ridiculously pyrrhic war for both of them. They really weren't prepared for the Bedouins to assemble and suddenly take over.

And lastly the Arabs took over a lot of desert land that they were accustomed to where as the former rulers or both Persian and the Roman empires had troops ready for various diverse terrain. Having most of your troops be good at one kind of combat is trouble for empires with very diverse lands but when you first start conquering with an army completely focused on one landscape you can really out do your opponents, just like the mongols did. As they took more land they could rely on the local armies for more niche conquests.

>im-fucking-plying
The poo in loos were lucky they had a large stable kingdom when the Ummayads invaded. If India was the same as when the Turks invaded a few centuries later we would have seen a Abbasid caliphate that stretched from Spain to SEA.

>. Significant parts of northern Iran, areas in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and such held out and bleed the Caliphate of its manpower so badly they had to resort to coercing the Iranian holdouts to accept vassaldom.
>Ummayads conquer all the cities
>Pashtuns do what they do best in these situations and run away to the mountains to launch guerrilla attack safely
>" Yeah we fugged you A-rabs XDDD "
Also
>(f)ersian defense force

>Tabristan for example held out for 120 years before they became "vassals" in name to the Abbassids after they converted to Islam in the late 8th century.
The Mongol empire did the same. You were still conquered.

You aren't Mongol. You aren't even a real Turk. You are just a cockroach who larpes as the guys who invaded his ancestor's home land and pretends to be 100% pure Mongol or some shit, Memet.
>Ummayads
Umayyads*
Also they ended up getting over thrown by the Abbassids who were entirely reliant on Iranians to run not only their government but their military as well.

Stop projecting.

We know you nothing of what you talk about.

Why are you trying to shit up a good thread?

>(it's another (f)ersian chimps out thread

>Also they ended up getting over thrown by the Abbassids who were entirely reliant on Iranians to run not only their government but their military as well.

>Arabs literally use you as cattle
>t-they need us!

I'm not. (f)ersians need to be put in their place however.

>>Arabs literally use you as cattle
>literally

The only thing they didn't do is eat you (f)ersians but that's only out of pity because of how pathetic you (f)ersians are.

Actually, the plague did affect Arabia, and is even blamed for pushing out Arab tribes to migrate elsewhere.

Harun al-Rashid was the last true Arab nationalist Abbasid caliph. He executed a bunch of powerful Persian families who infiltrated his reign

However after his death Amin and Mamun fought, and Mamun (who was half Persian) won so after that point Persians held a somewhat better position than before but it was still an Arab empire through and throufh

Oh my god. This combined with all the other stuff makes it sound like the Happening for Persia.
>Finish a huge and costly war with no real rewards
>Go through a civil war right after
>Plague comes rolling
>half of the population dies from it
>Natural disasters happen
>Causes famine which kills even more people
>Zealous barbarians start attacking from the south

You are retarded.

why did you place religion in quotes, are you implying islam is not a religion?

but the roman empire did stop them

>tfw normie text books call that an empire
>even though there were no emperors

Asspained (f)ersian detected

If only the Bulgars didn't betray their Muslim brothers

Here's them slaughtering Christians if that will make your kebab heart feel better

I didn't know Bulgars were Muslim

Danube Bulgarians were never Muslim - first they were pagan all archaeological and written evidence points towards Tengrinism. Their empire however consisted of people who were christian as well as slavic polytheists, They were Christianized in the 9th century

The Volga Bulgarian however were first Tengrinists then converted to Islam in the Xth century.

At the time of the Arab invasions neither Bulgar group was Muslim so the whole point of both posts is void

All the areas they took were weakly controlled.
They were turned back by a stable nation, Frankia, and then their Empire splintered like all quick conquests do, like Alexander's and the Mongols'

Wrong, cockroach.

lol

The Abbassids were never really able to divorce themselves from being militarily independent of the Persians. The Bramakids are a pretty good example of Persians running the Abbassids government before their fall.

>infiltrated his reign
There was no infiltration. The Abbassids from the get-go rising to power and beating the Umayyads was hugely due to the Iranians and Persians, especially the manpower they drew out in the East from Khorasan. al-Rashid was simply a ghost of the Umayyad beliefs which is why his reign was starting to make the Caliphate stifle and decline before his sons took over.

Also no real surprise that Ma'mun reign was another golden age for the Islamic world given his patronage of higher culture, arts, and sciences.

This guy along with Subutai and Bai Qi stand as the three anointed champions of Khorne. They were literally war incarnate in human form.

>Bai Qi
Who?

1) The Romans and the Persians were exhausted from years of war with each other

2) The Byzantines were really bad rulers of the Levantine and Egypt, it didnt help that a giant ass plague (The fact its called the Plague of Justinian tells you alot) killed alot of people. The original Arabs were welcomed as liberators

3) The original invasions were, for their time fairly tolerant and lenient. I would say they were even more liberal than ISIS. They most certainly would not have crucified christians just to spite them.

4) The North African Vandals were poorly led and prepared. The Iberians were not much better

5) They had the greatest general of the day and a form of warfare well suited to their areas of conquest

But they had a lot of trouble against byzantine infantry in the beginning

He might be doing (((this))) meme wrong and trying to imply Islam is Jewish.

>british empire
>didn't have an emperor (except for india)

also they had a caliph who was basically an emperor and functioned like a monarch

Harun al-Rashid is universally considered to the be the apogee of the caliphate, his age was the golden age. It wasn't "declining". In fact he even btfo the Byzos in several campaigns.

I think the quotes might be because Islam, even relative to other religions, was used for purposes other than controlling large numbers of people as per religion's role in the pre-englightenment. It had rules for economic practice, dress, military organization and strategy, and especially politics. Unlike other religions of the time, especially in contrast to Christianity and Judaism, which had post-Roman institutions of law and government with some key bonds to religious institutions for the sake of checking both the power of kings and priests in the early feudal system, Islam during this era had rulers that were both religious figures and rulers.

TL;DR: the other abrahamic religions had kings that fought in the name of god and whichever prophet they revered, Islamic rulers rode into battle as both both king and religious figure (though not prophets as we all probably know by now is the high of heresy). While all religions were used as a tool of conquest, Islam is one of the few that was deliberately designed with conquest and expansion in mind. To call it a religion would most definitely garner quotes, as it is also an expansionist political ideology using "Abrahamic Values 2: Electric Boogaloo" as it's justification for said imperialist (not in 19th century or marxist terms) actions and rules.

(pic unrelated until you think about it)

Wow how "lucky" of them, God was really on their side.

Islam is proto-Ba'athism. Read "In Memory of the Arab Prophet" by Michel Aflaq, he describes it pretty good.

Muhammad didn't create a new religion, he just took what was already there and gave it a vibrant Arab spirit with a heart for conquest.

Hi rebbit

>make a genuine thread trying to make good discussion
>2 replies

>shitpost bait thread
>10 billion replies

yeah i think im done with this board

His son is considered greater than him.

>that underage amerimutt persiaboo who chimps out in every thread
would love to beat the shit out of you, you're cancerous. not even persians are this obsessed with themselves.
oh and, the "roach" maymay does not trigger us. what triggers us is your wh*Te subhumanness and inferiority
now get the fuck out of here before i kick your mongrel skull in.

oh and, stop that "le assimilated anatolian" meme. or else i'll create lots of anti iran threads to set your underage anus on fire. wh*Te subhuman.

>or else i'll create lots of anti iran threads
Might as well do it already. Persians have infested this board.

actually i did for 1 month ago when their wewuzzing level reached a new peak (ie Nader was a Persian) but now i stopped it because i'm bored there's no incentive for me to create lots of anti iran threads but persiaboos are working hard on that.

>autism
Go back to Veeky Forums

Stop replying to yourself.

>posts chart that literally shows T*rks are mongrelized mutts

They're so obnoxious.
>Nader Shah was PERSIAN because PERSIAN is a cultural identity
>Azeris? Lol no they are ethnic Persians deluding themselves they're Turk

These

also most of the area the Arabs conquered was just open terrain with low populations outside of Egypt and the Levant, North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula were easy pickings that only took a few battles to fully secure.

Once the Arabs hit a major obstacle however, their advance was halted, with the defeat at Tours stopping all muslim advance into Western Europe permanently and the Walls of Constantinople leading arab armies to their doom time and time again until the advent of gunpowder.

Stop replying to yourself.

>I know nothing about genetics
fuck off imbecile
yeah i agree it's cancerous

>I know nothing about genetics
at least you agree with your shortcomings.

I know you are retarded.

>knowledge about genetics
I doubt whatever loots around in that tiny inbred brain of yours counts.

Caliph was more like a pope

>now get the fuck out of here before i kick your mongrel skull in.
Calm down keyboard warrior

You could kind of call the pope and emperor, like how the papacy once controlled big chunks of central Italy.

Not at all.

>cockroach e-thuggin' now

I can easily beat the shit out of any wh*Te subhuman itt and wipe the floor with him. It's proven as a fact that wh*Tes are sissy faggots with inferior genetics and low testosterone. Hence i want no wh*Te subhumans in this thread or else i'll 9/11 your mothers

>that only took a few battles to fully secure.
Well of course. It's the Persians and Romans fault that they thought they could zergrush the Arabs.

Just before the arabian conquest (litterally, IIRC Heraclius, the roman emperor had just gotten back to Constantinople) the ERE and the Sassanid Empire had fought a devastating, decades long war that deeply exhausted both states and basically ruined the latter. Before this time many different arabic tribes had served as mercenaries/allies in both states' armies as borderguards and raiding forces. The pre-islamic arabic tribes were basically to the eastern border what the germanic tribes were to the WRE's european borders.
When the arabs united, under great military leadership, it was a reasonably easy affair for them to conquer the Sassanid Empire and most of ERE's MENA as the two empires had no real miltary might left to repell them with.

Sure thing anatolian rape baby go make a thread about superior civilization.

No you can't manlet. You roaches are barely 5 feet tall.

i have different question
how big was arab population as they were conquering middle east from byzatines/persians? How did they muster such a manpower from some desert shitholes?

Taking 20+ years to defeat an exhausted Persia wracked with civil wars, a boy ruler, and plagues is not "easy".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain#Moorish_conquest
>Both Muslim and Catholic sources tell us that Jews provided valuable aid to the invaders.[33] Once captured, the defense of Córdoba was left in the hands of Jews, and Granada, Málaga, Seville, and Toledo were left to a mixed army of Jews and Moors.

why are the jews so mean to Europe?

Uh, no sweetie, you should know that the Roman Empire had completely recovered by the time the Arabs attacked, and that they fielded over 100000 elite crack Roman cataphract legionnaries at Yarmouk (as alleged by ALL ancient sources), and I'm not even counting the allies kouffar tribes they brought with them against the arab soldiers wielding only their faith.

Truely the fact than the followers of Muhammad (PBUH) who were composed of a handful of militia exhausted after the internal struggle of the Arab penisula's unification, managed to beat the 200000 Romans (as alleged by all ancient AND present sources), is the proof Khalid ibn Walid was truely the best commander in history and God's chosen.

Has there ever been another battle as decisive with such a disparity in number as Yarmouk, where Heraclius in person converted to Islam after his 500000 Adeptus Astartes lost to 20 good goatherds at the height of the Roman Empire's golden age? I think not.

The will of allah

Khalid Bin Al-Waleed was just too op, undoubtedly best general in history, plebs like Byzantines never stood a chance.

...

>the tl;dr is bigger than the extended text

I mean there have been greater and longer lasting empires the successor to the Islamic-Umayyad Arab-Caliphate (661-750C.E.), which was the "Abbasid-Caliphate," (750-1258 C.E.), how about the Roman Empire, the Macedonian Greek-Em Timurid-Empire (1370-1420), the Spanish Empire (1492-1975), the British Empire (1783-1947), how about the Islamic Gunpowder-Empires being "the Ottoman-Empire," (1299-1923), the Safavid Dynasty of Persia (1501-1736), and the Mughal-Empire (1526-1857), or the Portuguese Empire (1470-1975), the Soviet Union (1922-1991), the Third Reich being "Nazi-Germany," (1939-1945), "Imperial-Japan (1868-1945), and of course the American-Empire.
What the Arabs did was similar to what the Mongols conquer a lot of territory incredibly fast. pire, the Russian-Empire (1721-1917), the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918), the Mongol-Empire (1221-1368), the

he's definitely up there with Naim-Puliyan Bany al-Parte,Iskandar Zulkarnain,Ghuslian Qaysar,Jan Geis Kahan,Yahya Masjidul Tal Duke of Mahal-Baharuum and Khader Faizton

> people unironically think conquering the world's greatest superpowers at the time wasn't an amazing achievement because they were at war a couple years before

That's like Central America conquering the entire US and most of Russia after WW2, it doesn't matter than the world powers weren't at their peakhey they're still leagues beyond anyone else

how are ancient anatolians northwest asian?

(you)

The Greeks and Persians feared the desert warrior

Except in this case:

>Persians lost half their population to a plague that was going on since the last year of the Roman-Persian War
>7 further years of civil war
>Numbers of both the Byzantine and Persian armies despite the massive bleed off of manpower and soldiers is somehow taken at face value despite hyperbole hugely inflating them from "Islamic" sources

This would be like if Canada took over the US after 60% of the US's population was dead and 25% of the remainder sitting out hte war.

>Canada

Alex Jones can solo fucking Canada

Google him

youtube.com/watch?v=XkINjqLet-U
trust me i can make you my bitch easily, wh*Te subhuman

What "large stable kingdom" are you referring to?

Can't see shit, cockro*ch.