We're the steppe warriors better or the arabs that took over the middle east? Seems like arabs were good at beating everybody except the turks. The turks kicked everybody ass except the mongols and were able to finally beat the romans. Thoughts?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Turks are a tad bit stronger but they got really luck just like the crusaders by reaching the middle east when arab and persian civilizations started to decline
Arabs and Persians conquered the Turkics forced them to Islamicize.
False. Turkics were NEVER conquered by Arabs or Persians. Islam reached them through merchants, travelers and sufi mystics.
Khazar Khaganate?
Khazars were not conquered by Arabs.
Arabs have been dogshit at war since the year 1000. The Byzantines started kicking their shit in around that time and would have probably managed to reconquer Syria and Egypt. Turks saved Islam.
You're a moron.
In the early middle ages, arabs but then turks
They barely reconquered northern syria
Byzantines were stopped by Turkic ruled Arabs.
Arabs were so dog shit that every Arab c**t outside of the Berber zone were ruled by Turkic warlords. Egypt and Iraq were ruled by a super minority of Turks that forced their court language to be only Turkic and was met with extreme seethe by the Araps because Islam makes Arabic the holiest language and you know how moronic these peoples are. Despite being outnumbered 100 to 1, they were able to force such degrading conditions on the Arabs, i fail to see how this is even a question.
Also
>inb4 ROACH REEEEE
I hate the roaches, I just hate the inbred Arabs more
Firstly, which arabs?
The Turks were miles better than the North African and Egyptian Muslims, worse than the Syrians, and Peninsula Arabs, and on par with the Iraqi Arabs.
>North African and Egyptian Muslims, worse than the Syrians, and Peninsula Arabs, and on par with the Iraqi Arabs.
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAH
the most historylet post of all time
Yes the Fatiminds regularly got stomped by the Turks, even when using units raised from Tunisa. Reference the Wars between said Dynasty and the Seljuk Empire. The Abbasids were Kurdish dynasty and their fighting elite was primarily Mamelukes so Circassians, Armenians, and Georgians as Turkish slaves were seen as too risky at this point.
The North Africans were excellent sailors, but awful on land. The Moroccans and Iberians muslims never really fought the turks in a meaningful sense so I didn't include them, though the Almoravids or Almohads would've been comparable to the Iranics and fared well in the hills and mountains and poorly on the plains.
The Syrian and Peninsula Arabs regularly beat back and raided the Turks, while the Iraqis, perhaps due to their position, kept the Turks in place but were unable to drive them off from lands taken, see Seljuk invasion.
The best warriors in the medieval middle east were probably the Druze or Georgians.
>Druze
Druze were always being ruled by Arabs and Persians.
>Georgians
Often ruled by Arabs, Persians, and Turks, but sometimes ruled themselves.
>best warriors in the medieval middle east
If we're using 'in' it was probably one of the Monastic Orders, they all regularly punched above their weight
What are you talking about fricking moron ?
Syrians/Levantines and Iraqis/peninsular arabs were constantly getting btfo by everybody while north africans/berber remained independant for the majority of the middle ages
No, he's right, mulatto. Your entire region was conquered by Arabs. There was not a single independent Berber state.
No he is not
Name one single native dynasty/state from the levant/mesopotamia in the middle ages while there is plenty in the maghreb
>muh mulatto
Seething homosexual detected
>Name one single native dynasty/state from the levant/mesopotamia in the middle ages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uqaylid_dynasty
>maghreb
All of these are Arab dynasties ruling over Berbers and still do today.
>ignore the almoravids, almohads, zyanids, zirids, kutamas, barghawatas, merinids, hafsids, hammadids and many more
>bring only one obscure emirate wich isnt even levantine/mesopotamian (1) while ignoring the 1000 years before and after where they ruled by others
Kek
MDS at its peak
I think we really that great if we provoke that much cope and seethe
arab dynasty and the other arab dynasty and many more arab dynasties ruling over the berbers
only one levant mesopotamian emirate when i asked for one
Any more cope berber mulatto?
Idrisids, Aghlabids, modern day Morrocco. We simply ruled over you even after the caliphate disintegrated.
>arabs
Yuck
After watching Dune 2 I discovered that gulf Arabs have their own warrior ethos similar to Turkics
There's no point in arguing who's better, both deserve respect
Arabs were better before 1000, Turks were better in the era between 1000 and now
Turks have a better track record, they managed to keep the greatest city of the white race and arabs didn't.
The greatest city of the brown race* That place was ruled by brown Armenoids and Arab dynasties.
There's no comparison. Bedouin were great at desert warfare, but that's about it. Settled Arabs were indifferent fighters at best. Turks on the other hand could fight in any climate, they were better riders and had more horses, and they also had a massive range advantage.
Definitely turks, they were forced to convert by judeo christians and muslims
They had more of a warrior class in retrospect
When the Arabs were at their military peak, they were butchering Turkic tribes from Khazaria to the edges of Transaxonia. The Turks on the other hand only took over Arab territory through a coup d'etat as warrior slaves in the Levant and through puppet caliphs during the more decadent eras of the Abbasids. Other than it it's just been vassals in yemen and the Hejaz where the Ottoman governor just paid off hostile tribes from robbing and killing the caravans headed to the Hejaz.
Don't forget the Turkics were the ones who lost Jerusalem. It was the Kurds and some Arabs who got it back.