This is basically under the assumption that the emperors would have been more competent if they were pagan, the problems of the roman empire after Constantine were problems that had been building up for a long while, I don't see how them being a different religion would mean they would be able to cope better.
Christ cucks couldn't agree on the specifics of the religion, so different sects emerged. Christians believed heretics to be worse than people from other religions, so anyone not from the main sect hated the central government.
Egypt and the Levant to some extent welcomed the Arabian invaders as liberators in some parts which undermined the defense of those parts.
Also, Rome was never pagan you infidels. Rome was heretic and beautiful. Hellenistic Romans could simply add gods from the conquered territories to the Patheon. Oh, you got a new God? No worries anon, your God can go to the pantheon too. Christians believed in one true God and brought the same baggage the israelites brought.
Are you forgetting that the Levent and Egypt also rebelled and split from the empire during the 3rd century. If not Christianity, it would have been for something else they would have been angry about. You’re exaggerating the loyalty of Egypt and the levant.
Which Muslims? Early Muslims of the initial conquest would have been obliterated. They were essentially just light cavalry, not even horse archer. They beat the Byzantines and the Sassanians only because both had already destroyed each others. Later Muslims, say the mughals, had firearms, artillery and very large armies. They would have annihilated the Romans.
>They beat the Byzantines and the Sassanians only because both had already destroyed each others
True for the Sassanians, not so for the Byzantines. The reason the Arabs won in the early Muslim conquest comes down to the fact that Rome had never faced and invasion of that scale from their Arabian border and were completely unprepared for such a scenario.
In fact we can probably say with some certainty that the reason the Arab conquest was so successful was because both the Sassanians and Byzantines destroyed/crippled their Arab client states who would have been in the perfect position to defend against such attacks.
Christian Rome was too bugman and didn't respond well to the initial string of muslim victories, believing they have lost divine favor. So the loss of the Levant suddenly turns into full rout of every Roman forces in the Middle East and North Africa. Eventhough local forces could have prevented Muslim conquest had they applied themselves. If you check the North African campaign, the Romans actually outnumbered the Muslim in quite a few battles but morale was all time low
Pagan Rome would have been able to absorb the losses
Greek Orthodogs are pagans already, so yeah, I guess they can, and they did.
arcadius, honorius and valentinian look like arabs
>look like arabs
*muslims no ethnic arab look like this
its like one of the most common faces in the arab world wym
I like how sculpture degradated
Nero first troony emperor
Ah, a good thread with shit replies.
This is basically under the assumption that the emperors would have been more competent if they were pagan, the problems of the roman empire after Constantine were problems that had been building up for a long while, I don't see how them being a different religion would mean they would be able to cope better.
I'm open to being proven wrong though.
NO NO NO NO!!!1!! YOU NEED TO TELL ME I SHOULD PRAY TO A STATUE AND LIGHT INCENSE STICKS AND POUR WINE OUT IN FRONT OF IT!!!1!!!
Christ cucks couldn't agree on the specifics of the religion, so different sects emerged. Christians believed heretics to be worse than people from other religions, so anyone not from the main sect hated the central government.
Egypt and the Levant to some extent welcomed the Arabian invaders as liberators in some parts which undermined the defense of those parts.
Also, Rome was never pagan you infidels. Rome was heretic and beautiful. Hellenistic Romans could simply add gods from the conquered territories to the Patheon. Oh, you got a new God? No worries anon, your God can go to the pantheon too. Christians believed in one true God and brought the same baggage the israelites brought.
I
Are you forgetting that the Levent and Egypt also rebelled and split from the empire during the 3rd century. If not Christianity, it would have been for something else they would have been angry about. You’re exaggerating the loyalty of Egypt and the levant.
Which Muslims? Early Muslims of the initial conquest would have been obliterated. They were essentially just light cavalry, not even horse archer. They beat the Byzantines and the Sassanians only because both had already destroyed each others. Later Muslims, say the mughals, had firearms, artillery and very large armies. They would have annihilated the Romans.
>They beat the Byzantines and the Sassanians only because both had already destroyed each others
True for the Sassanians, not so for the Byzantines. The reason the Arabs won in the early Muslim conquest comes down to the fact that Rome had never faced and invasion of that scale from their Arabian border and were completely unprepared for such a scenario.
In fact we can probably say with some certainty that the reason the Arab conquest was so successful was because both the Sassanians and Byzantines destroyed/crippled their Arab client states who would have been in the perfect position to defend against such attacks.
everyone should really read this, it opened my mind
some backward germoid batloid slavoid were pagan
Rome was Hellenistic
rome = germans
Tard moment
cope moment
Stupid moments
Gay moment
>Rome was Hellenistic
yooo it's the brainlet
>yooo it's the brainlet
no need to introduce yourself bud, everybody knows you here
Christian Rome was too bugman and didn't respond well to the initial string of muslim victories, believing they have lost divine favor. So the loss of the Levant suddenly turns into full rout of every Roman forces in the Middle East and North Africa. Eventhough local forces could have prevented Muslim conquest had they applied themselves. If you check the North African campaign, the Romans actually outnumbered the Muslim in quite a few battles but morale was all time low
Pagan Rome would have been able to absorb the losses
Yes.
christcucks are pagans
If muslims couldn't even beat a bunch of mountain latin peasants in Iberian mountains, less the Roman Empire in his glory days.
Stop using that sculpture as a representation of emperor Julian when it’s not him
Pagans were defeated by Christians across Europe. You really think they would have defeated Muslims?