The rashidun conquests

how did they manage to do it against logistically and numerically superior foes? the answer i get often us that the sassanids and the byzantines were tired of each other but it's pretty week considering the fact they were fielding 3-4 times the size of the muslim armies the Byzantines had somewhere around 100-150k at yarmouk and the persians had as much as 80-200k in al qadisayyah
i get the muslims were extremly zealous in their fighting had a good terrain advantage and a great general who made good use of calvary combat but is that really enough to take down one of the greatest empires in the world at the time and severely weaken the other?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_al-Qādisiyyah
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nahāvand
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarah_ibn_Shaddad
poemhunter.com/antarah-antar-ibn-shaddad/
quora.com/How-was-Arabia-before-the-birth-of-Islam-Were-they-progressive-What-was-their-culture
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>is that really enough to take down one of the greatest empires in the world at the time and severely weaken the other?
Evidently it is. Plus don't forget that Rashidun's enemies were further weakened by a severe plague and a draught. l

they had god on their side against the byzantine redditors

La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah

The desert, which previously acted as a formidable border defence suddenly became an undefended express highway into the Empires. Add quality troops, well used to the Sassanid and Roman way of warfare aswell as light hit-and-run activities that were lead by one of the truly great military leaders of the period and you have a recipe for a proper threat even if the two empires weren't severly weakened by plague, a devastating war, social upheaval and civil war.

>numerically superior foes
How did they have superior numbers when the Byzantines and especially Persians had a resurgence of Justinian's Plague in their lands for almost a decade right before the Arab Muslims showed up?

Probably because the two empires controlled regions that were vastly more populous.

basically thisthey also had another advantage in which they could reinforce their armies with new recruits while initially the Muslims couldn't

Half of the entire Persian population was dead by the time of 637 AD. That's not even getting into the flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates and the major famine and destruction of croplands recorded by Tabari in Persia along with the 7 years of civil war. I don't see much in the way of "outnumbering" the Arabs there with said repeated mitigating disasters.

What's the population numbers of arabia and the Sassanid Empire at the time?

yet they still did i think you underestimate how large the persian empire was compared to the desert nomads that the arabs were essentially were
even if they had 1/4th of their population left the could still outnumber them easily
see these 2 major battles for more
here's the battle of al qadisyah for reference
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_al-Qādisiyyah
and the battle of nahavand
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nahāvand
they had roughly 4x times men if the field here potentially even more

i also forgot to mention that the arabs were relatively struck by disease just as the persains and the byzantines were (the ghassandis and those from medina were especially affected) and they also had continuous infighting between the tribes till the arabian peninsula was united

No they weren't.
I don't think you understand that both the Byzantine Empire and Sassanian Empire had at least half of their populations dead. The Persians on top of that having nearly a decade of constant civil war, and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flooding in Mesopotamia across Iraq in their most vital breadbasket cropland territories and farmlands lead to mass starvation and death from famine on top of the disease ravaging through the Persian lands. More than half of the population was dead, what remained does not equate to being men of fighting age.

I'll trust Al-Tabari who actually measured the soil and used both Greek, Persian, and Arab sources and documented the disasters going on over wikipedia articles that use "SwordofAllah.com" as their sources and citations. Did the Persians outnumber the Arabs in early battles? Probably? By 4 times as many men? Not likely.

yes they were it was part of their culture you dumb fuck anatara ibn shadad was famous for writing poetry boasting about his strength against other tribes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarah_ibn_Shaddad

how ever were the byzantines and the sassanids weakened they still in arguably had the numerical superiority
the two battles were from the beginning of the conquest (al qadisyah) to the battle that ended the sassanid empire (nahavand) trought the beginning to the end the persian fielded massive armies that outnumbered the muslims
you can dispute it was 4x even though sword of allah (which tbf is just assumed to be wrong because of it's title) is one source out of 20 or so reliable ones the persians undoutebly outnumbered the arabs greatly through the whole campaign
and as this guy said the arabs were also struck by the drought and disease that came from their desert terrain and were infighting prior to the rise of the islamic empire

Wrong.
>arguably had numerical superiority
Sure, initially in the first few years. You don't however lose over half your population to plague, mass starvation, and numerous battle and still keep fielding tens of tens of thousands of men constantly. That is logistically impossible.

>sword of allah
>disputed
Of course it is, because the majority of citations they use is from the fucking Koran, not attested sources contemporary to the battle or even period.

prove that it wasn't then

but they did navahand was the last major battle and they still fielded 100k+ men
and wtf are you on about dude?
it cites historians whose credibility you might question but how can they cite the quran when this battle was years after the death of Mohamed?
did you look up the source?
it's a book by akram a.i on the life of khalid ibn al walid there's no mention of the quran
there's also books by western historians if you don't trust that

>how can they cite the quran when this battle was years after the death of Mohamed?
Falling for the jew 3.0

huh?
what does that have to do with anything?
it's like saying you fell for the jew because something was supposedly in the bible but it was after the death of jesus
also good job ignoring literally every other point

I just want to mention right now for those that don't know, that "Sword of Allah" was Khalid's nickname and the title he was referred to with, so...

A combination of luck, skilled leadership and war weary enemies I suppose.

1000/2 is still larger than 100.
How many fuckin goat herders do you think a desert can sustain?

Prove that it was then.

i already did dumbass there's an entire column of war poetry
>"He earned his freedom after another tribe invaded the lands of the Banu ʿAbs."
>poemhunter.com/antarah-antar-ibn-shaddad/
but if that's enough for you retard here have some more
quora.com/How-was-Arabia-before-the-birth-of-Islam-Were-they-progressive-What-was-their-culture
G. E. Grunebaum
“In the century before the rise of Islam the tribes dissipated all their energies in tribal guerrilla fighting, all against all.”
(Classical Islam – A History 600-1258 – 1970)
Maxime Rodinson
“Manslaughter carried severe penalties according to the unwritten law of the desert. In practice the free Arabs were bound by no written code of law, and no state existed to enforce its statutes with the backing of a police force.The only protection for a man's life was the certainty established by custom, that it would be dearly bought. Blood for blood and a life for a life. The vendetta, tha'r in Arabic, is one of the pillars of Bedouin society.”
(Mohammed, 1971)
i avoided mentioning anything that's not by a western writer so you don't throw a hissy fit but there's more by muslims
go ahead prove that it wasn't then
retard

user you have to understand that most arabs lived like nomads at the time. There were a few trade based city states at the coasts but still not enought to rival the roman and persian population centers. The nomad way of life never can sustain the same amount of people as agriculture can with the same amount of land. Its the same with the mongols for example, they united all the mongol and turkic tribes and yet at most they fielded 40k men in battles.

>the Byzantium's had the flu so its not their fault they lost despite outnumbering their foes 4:1

Allah's will

>the answer i get often us that the sassanids and the byzantines were tired of each other
Byzaboos coping mechanism

>war poetry
Not a source.

>literature depicting the lifestyle of people at the time down to a t, written by one of the most renowned warrior and poets to come out of the Arabian peninsula is not a source
how can you be this stupid?
and what about the other 2 sources by western writers then?

>he literally can't read
Sudoku

i think you may just very well be legitimately retarded get yourself checked user
can't you grasp a simple point?
and if you're saying antarah couldn't read then i'm afraid you're too far gone for anyone to help you?
do you think the creator of one of the seven hanging odes couldn't read?

i think you may just very well be legitimately retarded get yourself checked user
can't you grasp a simple point? you should end yourself

can you only understand memes you autist?
no u

can you only understand memes you autist?
no u

aight then fuck off
i've proven my point if you can't prove or refute anything then keep acting like a retard for all i care
have fun you inbred fuck

You only proven you are a mental invalid who needs to sudoku yourself.
>calling anyone inbred when you type like a retard nigger and are probably an Ayyyrab
Top kek.

do please go on the both of you this is fun
>sudouku
>top kek
>mental invalid
user i...

it must be also Allah's will to fill the Bosphorus with hundreds of thousand Arab corpses a few years later

1453
that's really all i need to say

brah if you're an Arab you have no right to talk about it when you needed the fucking Turks to carry your asses for centuries. Not to mention that by 1453 Constantinople was already in ruins thanks to the Crusaders.

>Not to mention that by 1453 Constantinople was already in ruins thanks to the Crusaders
lmao yea in ruins because of something that happened more than 200 years before and even before then was at the brink of collapse from all sides from centuries of constant defeats and land losses. Byzantines bent over and took Muslim dick for 800 years just admit it before you make yourself look dumb

not an arab
well at least not fully i might have some arabic blood but idk
burger btw my family came for north africa but they were originally from the Caucasus as far as i can tell
besides what is Constantinople to Jerusalem and and antaqiyah and alexandria and Carthage etc etc

>lmao yea in ruins because of something that happened more than 200 years before
ok then in that case
1258
that's really all I need to say

>Constantinople
needed the crusades to weaken Byzantium, if it wasn't for that then Constantinople would've never fell
>Jerusalem
hahahahahahahahahaha

>never fell
let's not get to ridiculous now user
you wanna argue that it was weakened sure but the defeat of the byzantines was inevitable
>Jerusalem
unironically more important
so important in fact that Christians tried to take it back like what 11 times?

Y bulli anons?

>the defeat of the byzantines was inevitable
yes they said the same thing before the Macedonian dynasty and the Komnenian dynasty happened
>unironically more important
Tell us again who holds it now

Why does it matter who holds it now? Why are you even getting so worked up about this?

argue it all you want but it was plagued broke ill-defended and vastly outnumbered and outequipped and surrounded on all sides with no way to reinforce those situations are not comparable
also the fucking jews
because abdel nasser was a stupid nigger and so was that bitch anwar saddat

>Why does it matter who holds it now?
He started it by bringing up 1453 while talking about something that happened centuries ago
>Why are you even getting so worked up about this?
Why are you?

dude you started this by saying arab bodies littered the bosphorus i only mentioned 1453 after that

>ARABS WON CUZ ALLAHS WILL INSHALLAH
>was it also his will for Arabs to get BTFO badly at both sieges of Constantinople
>1453 1435 NEVAH FORGEEET

i didn't write that first comment tho
and he who btfos last btfos best
or something

I don't care who did and who didn't
don't complain if you don't know how it started lmao

i did know tho
i'm just saying i didn't start it

Lul

mashallah

i am very confused atm

I'm hungry

I'm thirsty...

wow slut

I'm horny

slut 2x

Wow, rude! I haven't drank water in hours!

THE RIPPER, I'M CHUMS WITH DUNGEON KEEPER

because subhanallah they were led by the salaf and they carried out the will of God on earth and followed the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH), unfortunately the people soon descended into apostasy and innovation and as such what had been given to them was taken away, until eventually you reach such a sad state as today where 80% of the people who call themselves "Muslim" are basically indistinguishable from a kuffar and grovel before the holders of worldly power.