How were desert people able to defeat the two strongest empires at same time?

How were desert people able to defeat the two strongest empires at same time?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Byzantines and Sassanids were crippled by their previous war and infighting (especially the Sassanids). Furthermore, the Middle East was populated by disloyal subhuman masses of brown slaves (fellaheen to use Spenglerian language) from whom modern Arabs descend.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Idiotic misuse of fellaheen.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The Byzantines and Sassanids were crippled by their previous war
      This is why Byzantine gathered around 500k men for counter offensive in Syria which ended in Yarmouk?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This is why Byzantine gathered around 500k men
        They didn't
        No source even says that. Not even the highly exaggerated Arabic sources

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >overextended empire that needs to actively garrison the west against migratory invasions
        >Egypt and the Levant in schism with Constantinople
        >have 500k to throw around somehow
        The absolute fricking state of arab "sources."

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Theophanes the confessor? 100k+ soldiers battered to shit by Hejazi chads.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        What source says this? Romans could barely muster 40-60k troops at this time, 500k seems like a gross exaggeration

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          He's a dumb arab. A few years before heraclius was sending hundred thousand man armies constantly at the arabs according to arab sources he stretched the resources of his empire thin to create a 50k man army against the persians

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Byzantine gathered around 500k men for counter offensive in Syria
        The Byzantine Empire was not China. They didn't have this kind of capability.
        I think even the Chinese Empire didn't make campaigns this large.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      literally not true

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    allah

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    All their infantry being camel mounted gave them an enormous mobility advantage through the entire frontier. Byzantines and the persians had at most a few of these, centuries of fighting meant their army was mostly foot infantry because they could not afford a numbers disadvantage.

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Implying neither Byzantines nor Persians were desert people themselves

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because both empires had exhausted their resources and man power engaging in a 20-year total war that was supposed to be the war to final end the three centuries of on-again-off-again warfare since the reign of Constantius II. Furthermore, the Sassanids were in the middle of a civil war, and the opposition invited the Arabs to take over, similar to what would happen with the Romans after Manzikert. As for the Romans, they hardly had any troops protecting Egypt, and after Yarmulk, they decided to fortify the mountains, rather than try to reclaim lost territory. Honestly, if there wasn't a civil war caused by Justinian II and there weren't the Avars and Slavs, the Romans probably would have been able to reconquer lost territory.

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    They weren't all desert people
    They had highly competent commanders and a veteran army
    The Sassanid Empire was collapsing, in civil war and the borders fraying away and becoming independent
    Even the winner Byzantium had 3 of their field armies destroyed

    This of course should never discount for the fact the Arabs were outnumbered. They were lead by many competent commanders who fought well and defeated both Empires on the field. It wasn't an Alexander the Great deal with only one great commander sheprading a bunch of others. People suck off Khalid but if he never existed everything would happen the exact same because he was merely one man of many.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >People suck off Khalid but if he never existed everything would happen the exact same because he was merely one man of many.
      I thought the same thing until I read more about him. He was the only one who managed to almost kill off the Muslim movement in its' infancy while they were bullying the Quraysh coalitions with fewer men composed of a ragtag militia. His entire subtribe were the enforcers of the Quraysh, guy was made for war.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    How did these lose to random kingdom in Sudan twice?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Still enslaved and arabized them

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Power projection is harder in undeveloped far away shitholes

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Greeks and Persians blew their loads early against one another and muhammedins cleaned up shop.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      the two strongest empires destroyed each other in a 25-year war, fresh off the heels of another 19-year one, and often using said desert people as auxiliaries

      Byzantines had disloyal subjects in Egypt and also both sides were exhausted from wars.
      I personally wonder why Persians didn't offer a deeper resistance.

      Christians drove the remnants of the Roman Empire into the ground, basically banned books, and thought 'muh icons' was the only topic worth speaking about.
      Of course it'd give up all its land to the Muslims.

      He's a dumb arab. A few years before heraclius was sending hundred thousand man armies constantly at the arabs according to arab sources he stretched the resources of his empire thin to create a 50k man army against the persians

      Is that why they defeated them with bedouins while being outnumbered?

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    the two strongest empires destroyed each other in a 25-year war, fresh off the heels of another 19-year one, and often using said desert people as auxiliaries

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    sissy whitoid cope ITT

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, if the arabs lost at Yarmouk, would have been pretty kino borders.

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    They were skilled veterans under both the Roman and Sassanid armies, they served as auxillaries

    They profited of the last roman-sassanid war

    They were fueled by the zeal of islam

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Byzantines had disloyal subjects in Egypt and also both sides were exhausted from wars.
    I personally wonder why Persians didn't offer a deeper resistance.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >persians
      >resistance
      They were only problem for sissy romans

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Persians were beating arabs before this
        Romans survived arabs and persians

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The persians had a plague and a civil war after the war, the byzantines had more time to recover. There's more than 10 different sasanian kings between 628 and 632.

  14. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Persia was great with Zoroastrianism, damn Arabs

  15. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christians drove the remnants of the Roman Empire into the ground, basically banned books, and thought 'muh icons' was the only topic worth speaking about.
    Of course it'd give up all its land to the Muslims.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Forgot to post my pic.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Still never seen an Abrahamic disprove this, kek. The cope since this was first posted has been immeasurable.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's patently false, for starters. Technological development continued in the Medieval Era, and a lot of inventions that were merely experimental in the Ancient era became practical and widespread. Crossbows being the biggest and most obvious example. "Dark age" doesn't even refer to a loss of knowledge or technology, it refers to the fact nobody recorded much of contemporary history and thus historians are left with a hole devoid of good sources.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Of course things were developed, but the rate was atrocious. Par the course when following dogshit cults.
            It's called the Dark Ages because it was an entire millennium of Abrahamic fascism, where entire peoples were genocided, the Middle East ruled Europe, and Greek roots were crushed.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think you are answering to a shitpost. The Roman Empire in the East was Christian for over a thousand years.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's very sad how many bright minds were focusing on schizo nonsense for 1k years

  16. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nomadic arabs were used to warfare in hit and run raid tactics and had excellent cavalry.

  17. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine a time when you with your boys could conquer two greatest empires in a few years.
    Good times bro

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *