Its no wonder people converted to islam so quickly the feats of their first empires would have made anyone think god...

That map is exaggerated

This

Romanians didn't even have a standing army left after the battle of yarmouk yet somehow the Arabs couldn't conquer Anatolia.

God was on the Basileus' side

Dude they didn't even want most of their subjects to convert, in fact they expressly forbade it. The Umayyads' economy relied on the jizya. I can't remember the name of the Caliph off the top of my head, but he was actually interested in following the teachings of the Koran and allowed anybody who wanted to convert, and the vast majority did instantly. Probably mostly to save money.

>Lost only half of my empire
>Proof that God is on my side
That kind of optimism is almost admirable

Southern Italy (the boot, not Sicily) was never successfully conquered/consolidated by arabs. Seems disingenuous to include it. Also, weren't there centuries in between a lot of these conquests? Did the so-called arab empire ever include all these territories at once?

the umayyads did i believe

Yeah same with Sardinia, especially during the period indicated by that picture (700-850 ad) when massive Arab fleets are recorded to have tried to conquer Sardinia but failed

>people converted to Islam so quickly

They didn't. It took centuries for Persia to become fully Islamized. Egypt was majority Christian until about 1500.

Those are all still Christians though, just different types of Christians. A better example to compare with would be that there were still Hellenists in the Peloponnese until about the 11th century.

The height of the Arabs conquests was within the first century of their existence. They conquered all of Persia with relative ease, all of Byzantine controlled Syria, afrua, Egypt Levant with relative ease, and conquered Iberia essentially without a fight. It is not accurate to include Crete, Sicily, italy, or Cyprus though.

>its no wonder people converted to islam so quickly
This is how we know that you're a brainlet.

>A better example to compare with would be that there were still Hellenists in the Peloponnese until about the 11th century.

user, I...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniots

>they were literal desert nomads not 20 years before if that doesn't impress you than frankly nothing will
Desert nomads who had made up a large portion of the ERE's and Sassanid's military defenses. Both empires used arabian soldiers in their own military and propped up various arabian tribes and kingdoms as buffer-states and proxy-armies.
With that being said only a fool wouldn't consider the arabian conquests impressive.

The continental territories, yeah. Sicily, southern Italy, Sardiania and Cyprus not at that time though. It's amazing how much they expanded in such a short time.

Here's a map of the Rashidun Caliphate, the very first "dynasty" which began the conquests and only lasted thirty years. They were then replaced by the Ummayad Dynasty who then stretched the territory further into Spain.

>1500
are you stupid or something?
the copts were at most 15% in Mameluk eygpt
and maybe 2% Catholics in Jerusalem
well tbf it was quite rapid in comparison to Christianity at c10 even the far away provinces like Andalusia were majority muslim

didn't they also go as far as samarkand and modern day pakistan in the east and controlled sicily and malta as well?
also the entire red sea coast but don't quote me on that

Also the Byzantines and Persians had exhausted one another with war. No doubt an impressive achievement, but it isn't likely they would have done as well at any other time.

> southern Italy, Sardiania

Never controlled stably

>Cyprus

Not until several centuries later by the Ottoman empire

>>The Maniots at that time were called "Hellenes"—that is, pagans (see Names of the Greeks)—and were only Christianized fully in the 9th century AD, though some church ruins from the 4th century AD indicate that Christianity was practiced by some Maniots in the region at an earlier time. The Maniots were the last inhabitants of Greece to openly follow the pagan Hellenic religion.

9th century, close enough

Not stably, sure. But they still went and conquered those areas and held Sicily for 250 years.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Sicily
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirate_of_Bari

> But they still went and conquered those areas and held Sicily for 250 years.

>Sicily

Yes, that's why I didn't include it

>Bari

That's one city

Central Asia was mostly Abbasid doing, with a decent chunk during the Ummayads
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Transoxiana
As for the Indus, parts (Sindh and Multan) were conquered during the mid-late period of the Ummayads.

Obviously.

No. They didnt. Sicily, yes. But they never got the boot. Arabs managed to briefly set up one small port on the heel before being promptly annihilated a mere thirty years later. To try and frame this as some sort of conquest of southern Italy is beyond disengenuous; it's retarded.

>Bari
>one (1) city ruled over by non Arabs
>dis means southern Italy was Ar - aab! >Abdul! Get my green crayon!!
Truly, Arabs are worse than any nigger.

God had other plans for them.