Muhammad

>loses Battle of Uhud
How the hell does a prophet lose a battle?

>Arabs
>Cavalry.
K.

>Arabs never used cavalry

>t. retard
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_guard

>pedophile worshiping the moon god and writing a book on shrooms is a great general

>I know literally nothing about the Arab conquests of the Middle East

If Muhammad told his followers to drink camel piss, you reckon they'd do it?

muhammad is not infallible, the quran themselves had a part where he were reprimanded because he neglected the poor and focused on the rich during his teaching, and his sucessor abu bakar said to the demoralized people of medine who were grieving so much after he died, that muhammad was while being a prophet was also just a man like other,muhammad the man has died while god still lives.

also muhammad was more a statesman than a general, before battle he would ask for the opinion of his more experienced companion for example during the battle of the trench where he was outnombered by the ten thousand armies of the meccan tribe, originally he wanted to engage them away from medina so their families werent endangered, but his companion, salman the persian proposed that he should instead defend medina and dug a trench (first time this kind of strategy were used by arab tribes) around it to stop the meccan cavalries, muhammad listened to his advice and won the siege

There are a lot of spergs on Veeky Forums but you take the price.

How anyone can follow Islam with access or knowledge of other religions is beyond me. Jesus was a thousand times more pious and devine in character than Muhammad.

I reckon it's more of a political/socio-cultural thing, due to the polygamous nature of the Islamic faith many men were forced to go out and conquer to get their women from others. This kind of attitude/thinking caught on and was normalized through the generations. It took centuries for conquered people to accept Islam, Persia being an exception where it was just one century just because the muslims massacred everybody due to constant rebellions against Islam.

Why do people apply the label Byzantium to a time that predates its historical usage?

Because it's used as a derogatory term.

i prefer the term eastern hellenic despotate myself

But what about the history? Why won't anybody please think about the history?

That's like, your opinion man.
lol Christianity was a pathetic cult at it's start and Romans never accepted it until Constantine forced it on them and spread through America and Africa by genocide and enslavement. Get off your moral high horse and stop pretending your Jewish cult is some pacifistic hippie religion that spread love and tolerance..Islam spread through East Asia by trade and that's where most of it's follower are today.

Christianity didn't need sword to spread through Roman Empire and did so in spite of resistance from the state.

Also, if Quran is perfect and literal Word of God then how come Prophet Muhammad thought that Mary is a part of Trinity? If Quran is infallible and Muhammad legit, God would surely tell him the truth?

>through America and Africa
>Africa
Ah, yes, famous Ethiopian genocide after which Axum became one of the first Christian states.

>Islam spread through East Asia by trade and that's where most of it's follower are today.
Islam literally wouldn't exist without violence. Christianity exists in spite of violence and persecution.

Christianity: Eternal Life
Islam: 0

>I know literally nothing about religions or their history at all
How does it feel to be a sheltered brainlet who will never be able to comprehend facts due to your autistic prejudices?

greatest posthumous general

You're thinking of Saladin, Muhammad was a charismatic leader but not a general

Anything is possible
>Calls Christianity a cult
>Islam could never exist without Christianity
Go back to your fanfiction, Mehmet

Came here just to post this.

KYS OP brainlet

Lol the Double-Standards of Veeky Forums.
>OMG Genghiz Khan is so amazing he conquered so many states, many of which were in deep trouble and division, why are horse archers OP?

>Lol Muslim Conquests are overrated. Byzantines and Sassanids were weak already!

Nobody in this thread has said this.

Arabs fought primarily as light infantry. They were up against people who had bigger cavalry and way better than the small one they had, if the Cataphracts and the Savaran are any indication.

Referring to the board.

Saladin wasn't even that great. He lost to Baldwin IV when he was a teenager and a couple of times to Richard the Lionheart. Richard in turn never lost a battle

You have been playing too much Age of Empires son.

Byzantium is retrospective term given to the Roman Empire by historians after it collapsed. It was the Roman Empire

You're confusing Muhammad with Khalid

Muhammed, by the time of his death had united the less relevant half of the arabian peninsula, typically relying on better strategists than himself.
Ghengis Khan had by his death created the largest and most martially formidable state in existance.
There is no comparison though tbf, Muhammed is much more consequential from a historical perspective - as a statesman and relgious leader, not a general.

Yeah, this. Muhammed wasn't a general but was a charismatic leader that brought a new Abrahamic religion to the world, no matter if you hate it or not

Age of Empires would have me believe that Arabs rode camels to battle and threw scimitars.

When the average Arab warrior of the 600s AD was a cunt on foot chucking spears or shooting arrows.