How did a bunch of inbred camel fuckers from Arabia manage to conquer half of the known world?

How the fuck is that war not a big part of the reason why?

Because they were none of those things o begin with.

That map is wrong

Which would have meant a huge corps of well trained men with years of field experience, generals with ample experience in military strategy and planning, and economies geared toward wartime.

Unless of course you were reeling from plague, financial disaster, disrupted trade and industry, depleted and exhausted soldiers, constant political intrigue or succession crises. That’d fuck you up good

FUCK YOU EVERYONE DESERVES A WARMUP BEFORE WAR

BYZANTIUM DESERVED A WARMUP

What said.

byzantium a shit, it deserves to be shit on

The simplest explanation that is Islam is a good way of life (for some people).

This.
>traitorous Copts in Egypt literally coordinated with the Arabs and opened the gates from inside.
Although, I don't think this part has any proofs.
Essentially the Muslims took advantage of the situation, the Byzantine empire was already dead before the Arabs fucked them up. There was also a lot of incompetence on the part of the Greeks, a lot of traitors too, their politics was a huge fucking decadent mess. The Persians were in a similar boat, except they were unlucky during one battle with the Arabs and their elephants stomped on their own men. The Arabs did not fight in a situation where they would be at a disadvantage, they had the usage of camels which meant they are able to freely pass into Arabia when they needed to retreat and back out into the Levant/Mesopotamia/North Africa/Persia whenever they wished. Both empires employed Arab cavalry which would usually just defect to the Muslim side halfway through a battle so it didn't really do anyone any favors by hiring them. The Greek armies weren't trained for open field warfare, they were stretched very thin with heavy usage of garrison mercenaries.

There was nothing special about this expansion, it was just pure luck and taking full advantage of the situation on the Arab's part. For example, in the Battle of Tours the Arabs showed a complete disregard of basic tactics and charged their cavalry (pretty much their entire army was composed of cavalry during that battle) straight onto spearmen who did not budge and kept on going for hours on end. They were eventually massacred and forced to retreat, but this just went to show how brazen the Arabs were and just how much it cost them when they encountered an actual organised army who knew what they were doing.

There is also the fact that these muslim armies were composed of Arab tribes, so within these tribes you would make it a point to not disappoint your clan, and you would fight harder. Cont with a note:

The dhimmi cultures also did a lot of the technical work for them, they translated texts, built their ships, designed their cities (Baghdad was designed by an Assyrian and a Jew), etc. You'll see many cases in the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" of individuals inventing things, but most of these inventions are attributed to the dhimmi cultures. Once the muslims took all they could from the dhimmi cultures, they began to stagnate, for example their ships were always of lower quality and of archaic design compared to the European ships, their armor of worse quality, their philosophies outdated, their horses not fed as well (that's why they were mostly composed of light skirmisher cavalry as opposed to heavy chargers), the lack of innovation in weaponry (the Europeans invented the crossbow while the Arabs were stuck using average bows). This is further evidenced by the shocking successes of the early Crusaders who fought off and even chased down the Muslims even when vastly outnumbered, but this is another story.

So in short, it was mostly luck/common sense at first since they were fighting empires on the verge of collapse, but they began to stagnate anyway after using up all they could from the dhimmi cultures.

>This is further evidenced by the shocking successes of the early Crusaders who fought off and even chased down the Muslims even when vastly outnumbered, but this is another story.
I agree with your post but this is wrong. Crusaders were underdogs but that's not why they won. The Muslim factions in Islam during that time, Abbasid, Fatimid, Zangid, Ayuubid etc. viewed the Crusaders more as a nuisance than anything. All the different warlords and empires were more set on countering each other then dealing with the dirty uneducated invaders.

Some even allied with the Crusader States if it meant further in their own goals, which is why they lasted for more than a century.

dont forget that the conquest of the gothic kingdom in iberia was due to gothic nobles abandoning the field during a decisive battle and left the king and his army to be slaughtered to a man, causing the country to collapse overnight

>byzantium
Nice meme.

>800-814

>June 813, an Arab fleet of more than 100 ships attacked Sardinia, en route home they were almost totally destroyed

wow

>Roman

>the Byzantine empire
>The Greek armies

ROMAN*

>The Greek
They were romans and their forces were primarily of anatolian stock iirc.

>There was nothing special about this expansion
They had Khalid ibn al-Walid who was a damn great general.

>the Europeans invented the crossbow
Really?

Also what said.

Don't be a dingus.

>Additionally, traitorous Copts in Egypt literally coordinated with the Arabs and opened the gates from inside.

Oh man, I have a pasta ready for this:

Before the conquest, the Byzantine ruler of Egypt, Muqawqis, gifted the Islamic Prophet Mohammed with two Coptic slaves, one of them Maria, Al-Qibtiyya (or Mary the Copt), gave birth to a son, Ibrahim, with the Islamic prophet.

In 641 AD, after the Islamic Prophet's death, Muslim Arabs conquered Alexandria, until 645 when the Byzantine Empire recaptured it, but in a short period, the Arabs recaptured Egypt.

According to Islamic sources, Copts welcomed the invasion as a way to escape persecution at the hand of Byzantines while Coptic sources report that Copts did not welcome the invasion and resisted it, such as John of Nikiu.

Immediately after capturing Egypt, they placed the jizya tax on the Coptic population in return for protection and rights.

Some have estimated the jizya to be the equivalent of the 3 months salary of the average worker, and accounted tor one of the main reasons for large-scale conversion over time.

The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs constantly changed the governor of Egypt to avoid a threat to their power, so the governors collected as much money as possible by increasing taxes on Copts and forcing money out from popes. An example is Abdel Aziz Ibn Marwan who jailed Pope John the 3rd and then forced him to pay for his release. Similar instances occurred with Pope Alexander the 2nd and Popes Michael the 1st and the 3rd.

Pope Mina the 1st was forced to perform hard labor.

Copts tried to revolt on several occasions, mainly in the Delta. Copts in the east of the Delta revolted in 725 but were subdued.

cont.

They revolted again in the 750s against the Umayyads. The Umayyad governor, Hawthara, took the Coptic pope Khail hostage and transported him to Rosetta, threatening to kill him if he couldn't get them to end the rebellion. Copts attacked his army and destroyed the city and in response the Umayyad caliph Marwan ordered his troops to sack Coptic villages, churches and monasteries.

The most successful revolts were the Bashmuric revolts from 831-832. The Bashmurians were hard to conquer because their land was marshy. They resisted Arabs for a long time And defeated the expedition sent by the Abbasid governor Yazid as well as the strong army sent by caliph al-Ma'mum under the general Afshin.

The caliph then took command of the army and attacked the rebels, destroying and burning the entire Bashmuric region.

Following the crushing of the revolt, Copts were in despair and madd conversions to Islam occurred. The reason for the revolt in the first place was "oppressive taxation" meant to make Copts convert to Islam.

Poor Copts couldn't afford it and had to choose between jizya, death or conversion.

Back to the 8th century, Umayyad Caliph Yazid the 2nd ordered the destruction of church icons in the 720s and Abbasid Caliph Al Hadi ordered the destruction of churches in the 780s.

Because of mass conversion to Islam, Copts and Muslims were indistinguishable phenotypically so Abbasid Caliph Al Mutawakil (847-861) systematically differentiated them in other ways. Copts were forced to wear marked hazel clothes and forbid them to ride horses and ordered them to use saddles made of wood to mount other animals. They had to hide crosses during processions and funerals (which were outside) and ordered to put statues of dogs and monkeys in front of their homes.

These restrictions and requirements mirror the framework of dhimmitude outlined in a pact "agreed" on between Caliph Omar and Syrian christians.

cont.

Copts who wanted a career in government service had to learn Arabic. At the end of the Umayyad caliphates, 24K Copts had converted to Islam in part due to Umayyad caliph Omar II who increased the tax burden by decreeing that jizya would be collected on the dead as well. ON THE DEAD.

Some scholars believe that Muslims became the majority in the late 9th century or early 10th century, during the Abbasid Caliphate.

Things began to get better under the Shia Fatimid Caliphate. They tolerated Copts & gave many of them high positions in government service. This might have been because they needed the support of wealthy Copts since they ruled a mostly Sunni Muslim population.

The rise or Coptic bureaucrats created anger from the Muslim Egyptian population and spread anti-Coptic propaganda & attacked them in mobs.

The Fatimid caliph, Al Muizz, a very tolerant man, held debates between representatives of different religions in his palace. Some Fatimid caliphs allowed those who converted to Islam unwillingly to return to Christianity.

Al Muizz intervened in&stopped a Sunni Muslim mob to allow Copts to build a church. Fatimid caliphs joined Copts in religious celebrations.

This kind treatment came to an end with the 6th Fatimid caliph, Al Hakim Bi Amr Allah. In 1004, he ordered Coptic bureaucrats in high ranks to convert to Islam or be killed. He ordered all Copts wear a heavy wooden cross around their necks.

The slur used against Copts from that time until now, "blue bone," originates from the bruise that the cross would leave. Copts were also forced to wear black clothes to differentiate themselves from Muslims. This might be the origin of the dress of Coptic priests. Copts again could not wear silk, ride horses or have Muslim house servants. Al Hakim ordered the destruction of churches and confiscated Coptic property. In 1009 he ordered the complete destruction of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. His persecution of Copts led to mass waves of conversion. His rule was most likely when the Muslims became a significant majority. He cut off the tongues of Copts who dared to speak their native language of Coptic. There was no more hope for it's survival as a spoken language. At the end of the Fatimid caliphate in Egypt (1131-1145), most Copts lost their Coptic language and spoke Arabic. Saladin's uncle, Shirkuh, persecuted Copts severely. He killed many Copts, burned their churches and worsened their tax burdens. During the Crusades, the Muslim population and rulers treated the Copts with suspicion because they were afraid they were conspiring with the Christian crusaders, who were in fact brutal with Copts as well and banned them from performing pilgrimage to Jerusalem because they were considered heretics. I'm going to end with the Mamluks, who were Turkish&Georgian&Circassian& even Coptic slaves who were raised as Muslim and trained to become a warrior class. Under them, the Coptic population fell to the levels of today. Baibars, a Mamluk sultanate gathered all Copts and Jews in Cairo and attempted to burn them, but was stopped last minute by Mamluk princes. Mobs of Sunni Egyptian population in Cairo (do they ever get tired of mobs) demanded more restrictions on Copts.

After Baibar, Copts achieved high ranks as bureaucrats, and were met with hatred by the Egyptian Muslim population. Mobs in Cairo would wreak havoc when a Coptic civil servant ignored his restrictions by riding a horse, wearing silk or even walking with a confident demeanor. They would attack him and then enter a rampage and loot Coptic homes and churches.

These mobs spread anti-Coptic pamphlets and speeches. In 1321, after fires in Cairo, Copts were arrested and blamed for them, and more mob action follower that killed 100s of Copts and destroyed dozens of churches. The # of churches from 1200 to 1600 fell from 2048 to 112.

W/ mob action came the re-imposition of stricter dress & behavioral restrictions. Blue turbans were imposed in the 1300s, as well as an increase in jizya and a ban on Copts from riding horses. In the 16th century, black clothes and turbans were imposed, and during the 17th century, it went to blue and then to black again. In the late 17th century, they had to wear bells around their neck and they could not wear wool. In the 18th century, Copts were banned from using names used by Muslims and Coptic doctors could not examine Muslim patients.

For a few days, Copts were given the opportunity to terrorize Copts and loot their property. In 1300, it was decreed that whoever killed a Copt could claim his wealth and churches were ordered closed. With every riot, Mamluks would fire Coptic civil servants.

So many centuries later, more than a millennium, yet so little has changed. It's a miracle they've been able to keep their religion and keep their Coptic language, for at least, use during liturgical services. The coptic survival is not a sign of the grace of these Muslim rulers, but the perseverance of the Coptic people and of Christians around the Middle East.

>For example, in the Battle of Tours the Arabs showed a complete disregard of basic tactics and charged their cavalry (pretty much their entire army was composed of cavalry during that battle) straight onto spearmen who did not budge and kept on going for hours on end. They were eventually massacred and forced to retreat, but this just went to show how brazen the Arabs were and just how much it cost them when they encountered an actual organised army who knew what they were doing.

The army at Tours was mostly Berber, and it fell apart because they were only in France for spoils promised to them by the Arab commander. When the Franks started to pillage their camp, the army broke up to protect their treasure which exposed and killed the commander and thus destroyed all reason for the host to exist.

>The dhimmi cultures also did a lot of the technical work for them, they translated texts, built their ships, designed their cities (Baghdad was designed by an Assyrian and a Jew), etc. You'll see many cases in the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" of individuals inventing things, but most of these inventions are attributed to the dhimmi cultures.
The rapid expansions of Arab caliphates and principalities and the cultural output of the Islamic Golden Age are two separate ages, not parallel events. Also, there was a distinct difference between the Arabs of the initial conquest and those who came to be known as Arab Muslims of the late Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates. The latter are what you're referring to as dhimmi cultures, i.e. converted and mischling Near Easterners who identified with an Islamic upper class. They didn't take from dhimmi culture, they were said culture. Which makes the later arguments concerning technology unconvincing, and like the explanation of Tours in the previous post seems more based on video-game concepts. It doesn't fly with anecdotes like, say, Richard Lionheart's sea battle with larger Egyptian ships for example.

It was a tribal migration that was very flexible when moving back and forth between independent venture and confederacy. Individual tribes would move out and settle in an area and make allies and enemies on their own terms, but when needed they would band together with other tribes in the area to face a larger enemy. This was possible because their central authority, what would eventually be known as the Caliph, was first and foremost a judiciary allowing Arab tribes to settle their disputes without violence.

The civil wars began when the Caliph started to take on airs of an emperor reigning over an Arab Imperium.

Which is why the idea that the Byzantine-Sassanid War turning out differently would have changed anything is misguided. Had either side been more effective on the battlefield, the only change in the outcome would have been a series of Arabian kingdoms rather than one large Caliphate. The writing was on the wall ever since the demographic collapse of the region due to plague and famine. The Arabs succeeded because they could establish a powerbase among the growing percentage of tribal countryside folk that the older empires could not control as well.

Even before the 602-628 war, both empires were already weakened from the inside.