Why did Byzantines always lose against Muslims

I've been reading about various battles and wars between the Byzantines and Arabs and later Turks. Most of these battles (which took place before 1204) resulted in massive defeats for the Byzantines? Why? Were they just incompetent at warfare?

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    arab military success only lasted until the mid 9th century. As for the turks that was largely due to byzantine self harm to an absurd degree

  2. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    If they always lost why did they survive against them for 600 years and push into Syria?

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      arab military success only lasted until the mid 9th century. As for the turks that was largely due to byzantine self harm to an absurd degree

      Laughably moronic. For as long as the Abbasid caliphate existed it routinely humiliated the greeks, plundered central anatolia, and litteraly forced the Byzantine "empire" into providing tributary payment. There was a few decades following the Collapse of the Abbasids that the greeks had slight success in reconquest, this was litteraly just Antioch lmao. Look at a map and seriously Tell me this a reconquest of Syria

      Not long after the next Muslim power arised, the Seljuk turks, and the Byzantine state returned to its submissive role.

      https://i.imgur.com/LGpAShn.jpeg

      I've been reading about various battles and wars between the Byzantines and Arabs and later Turks. Most of these battles (which took place before 1204) resulted in massive defeats for the Byzantines? Why? Were they just incompetent at warfare?

      After Justinian, the byzanitines really never had impressive Generals. The state just became more fat and bloated and corrupt. It existed as long as it did simply due to inertia.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        >plundered central anatolia
        Stopped happening by the end of the 700's.
        >and litteraly forced the Byzantine "empire" into providing tributary payment
        This didn't happen
        >There was a few decades following the Collapse of the Abbasids that the greeks had slight success in reconquest, this was litteraly just Antioch lmao
        Armenia, Mesopotamia, Edessa, Cilicia, Cyprus, Krete etc etc. This had been the case since the early 800's. not 'a few decades'. The Abbasids alongside their vassals couldn't do anything even with their struggle. The Fatimids were regularly on the backfoot and couldn't stop them from campaigning deep into the Levant.
        >The state just became more fat and bloated and corrupt
        Nice buzzwords care to ever mean anything

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >plundered central anatolia
          >Stopped happening by the end of the 700's.
          >and litteraly forced the Byzantine "empire" into providing tributary payment
          >This didn't happen
          >There was a few decades following the Collapse of the Abbasids that the greeks had slight success in reconquest, this was litteraly just Antioch lmao
          >Armenia, Mesopotamia, Edessa, Cilicia, Cyprus, Krete etc etc. This had been the case since the early 800's. not 'a few decades

          >>"The Abbasid army set out from Raqqa on 11 June 806, crossed the coastal region of Cilicia and the Taurus Mountains, and invaded the Byzantine province of Cappadocia. The Abbasids met no opposition and raided at will, capturing several towns and fortresses. Celebrated in Arab histories was the siege, fall, and sack of the city of Herakleia; its name was later given to a victory monument erected by the Caliph near Raqqa. The Byzantine losses forced Nikephoros to seek peace terms in which he offered a resumption of tribute payments in exchange for the Abbasids' withdrawal. However, this time Harun exacted an additional personal tax levied on the Emperor and his son and heir, Staurakios, as a token of their submission to the Caliph. "

          The peace terms are even funnier
          , if you betray once the [Caliph] is away,
          it is because of your own ignorance and blindness.
          [...] [Nikephoros] has paid the jizya and fear of the sword has made him bow his head,
          for death is what he dreads."

          >The state just became more fat and bloated and corrupt
          >Nice buzzwords care to ever mean anything

          How else do you describe a state which saw a civil uprising of some upstart general or eunuch during every monarchs reign? Routine blindings sudden monastery careers, and military failures.
          the greek state was almost a soap opera

          The byzaboo can only exist in a state of ignorance. When one investigates the greek empire one realizes they were even more pathetic than you could imagine.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Entire argument is based off of one example to cover 600 years of relations
            Damn, I think you're just moronic

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Entire argument is based off of one example to cover 600 years of relations
            >Damn, I think you're just moronic

            It breaks your entire timeline and the war was caused by a byzanintim who reneged from the previous trend of it paying it's b***h payments. What more do you want? Delusional ignorant moron.
            Just as pathetic as the failed state you worship lmao

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            Calm down for a minute and think for at least more then 10 seconds before you start typing something

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >empty seethe response out of pure spite
            Yawn. At least be fun, moron.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            In 972, Tzimiskes turned against the Abbasid Empire and its vassals, beginning with an invasion of Upper Mesopotamia. A second campaign, in 975, was aimed at Syria, where his forces took Emesa, Heliopolis, Damascus, Tiberias, Nazareth, Caesarea, Sidon, Beirut, Byblos, and Tripoli, but temporarily cutoff Jerusalem supplies despite failed to take it.

  3. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Because the muslims had incredible morale

  4. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Because God is the Greatest and as always the truth wins, mashallah.

  5. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    why did they have to betray him bros...aaaaaa

  6. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    If I had a time machine, I'd go back before Doukas could betray Romanos IV at Manzikert and disembowel him with a wooden cooking spoon.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/svlu8nq.png

      why did they have to betray him bros...aaaaaa

      Manzikert wasn't even that bad, all things considered, by all accounts Alp Arslan's demands were fairly reasonable, Armenia, indemnity and an imperial marriage

      which fine, it's not fun, but the empire could live with that, and an imperial marriage would have given Arslan a good incentive to keep the leash on other Turks trying to raid too far into Anatolia

      It's the complete and utter shitshow of incompetence and civil wars AFTER that which cost Byzantium half it's empire

  7. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    They won plenty of battles, though? If they constantly lost they wouldn't have kept existing for 800 years after the initial Arab conquests or taken land back several times. You don't regain land by losing battles, after all. The empire was never fully conquered by the caliphates despite being much closer than Spain was.

  8. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Phokas "pale death of the Saracens" raped the muslims though. He even retook Antioch which was a huge city at the time. Requenquest of Crete was also a major deal , making the Med into primarily Byzantine sphere of inluence.

    The biggest upset in the 11th century wasn't the muslims, but the increasingly bold Normans that conquered Sicily and then raided the Greek coast. The sack of Thessalonica in 1185 was as shocking as Manzikert for the Byzantines at the time.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >He even retook Antioch which was a huge city at the time
      He didnt. His subordinates went against his orders and did it themselves and he chimped out alienating himself from his supporters

  9. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    I had a schizo theory that a lot of islamic history is forged but I tried pouring through the sources and realized none of it really matters and even if I could create a counter narrative no one would care.

    Still; it seems HIGHLY unlikely that the muslim armies never lost a battle, their champions always beat the opponents, and so on. The roman army in particular was larger, better trained and equipped. They had curbstomped ghassanid arabs in the past with ease. My theory suggests they actually took over through more migration and exploiting the breakdown of the roman east but this got lost and overwritten in history with larp battles that islamic authors only mention

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine coping this much that there is no possible way the Romans you weeb over could have been this badly humiliated by nomadic armies that outmaneuvered them. Like it's somehow not been the case with the Mongols or Turkic successes in the Crusades. There is no way they could have beaten my precious Romans.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      >I had a schizo theory that a lot of islamic history is forged
      That's not schizo, that's the standard pov of anyone who studies the SIN (standard islamic narrative).

  10. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Too many high intensive wars with the Bulgarians.

  11. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    FYI
    Macedonian defeated the Arabs in late 10th century, and reclaimed parts of Syria.
    It's just that when Doukids took over they made moronic decisions
    To save money, Constantine X withdraw garrison of 50,000 from the east, which allowed Turks to invade.

  12. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    They didn't always lose. After Heraclius they weathered a dangerous crisis period of living with the most powerful polity on the planet for centuries, and when it broke up they re-asserted themselves for a time as the most powerful state in the Eastern Mediterranean. But their victories never matched their defeats in scale, that's what makes their story the most epic tragedy of the Middle Ages.

  13. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Byzantines always lose against Mu-ACK

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      >Why did Byzantines always lose against Mu-ACK
      Reminder the Arabs in their most desert actual ocean scared state still scrounge up a navy large enough and produce an admiral capable enough to obliterate the Greek navy. Lmfao

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        > in their most desert actual ocean scared state
        What is this meme I keep hearing? Arab nabateans were very involved in overseas trade they've found their inscriptions even in Soqotra, so were the Omani and Yemenites.

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        >Reminder the Arabs in their most desert actual ocean scared state still scrounge up a navy large enough and produce an admiral capable enough to obliterate the Greek navy. Lmf-ACK

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          >Ignoring most of the battles where they end up getting curb stomped.

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        Ghost of Justinian: Oh boy…destroyed the Vandalic kingdom was mistake, wasted resources on western conquest.
        Ghost of Belisarius: …

  14. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Oh? The Roman Empire continue strong in the 13th century despite the hiccup of the latin shenanigans while the caliphate dies like a sick dog in a ditch to christianophiles, georgians, and armenians.

  15. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Inbred circlejerk thread.
    Byzantium was beaten by latins.

  16. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    It had bad geographic position, open to attack friom all directions. The same reason ottomans got obliterated eventually.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      >The same reason ottomans got obliterated eventually.
      Wonder event 1853 turn out if Spanish, Austrian, Persian, Egyptian, Neapolitan British (switch side) and Balkan rebel gang up on constantinople?

  17. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Why did Byzantines always lose against Muslims
    Too much Black admixture. The Meds by that time had become too brown due to centuries, if not millennia of gene from from sub saharan africa.

  18. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    First
    >Why did Byzantines always lose against Muslims
    but then
    >Ignoring most of the battles where they end up getting curb stomped.

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      i'm not OP. I don't need to move any goalpost to enjoy the fact that they were humiliated in most engagements.

  19. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >i'm not OP. I don't need to move any goalpost to enjoy the fact that they were humiliated in most engagemen-ACK

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      Is that gonna bring back Constantinople? I see you gave up on argumentation.

  20. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Too much power was concentrated in the hands of largely autonomous governors/generals. There were no clear or consistent rules around succession/right to rule either. The throne was always up for grabs if you were powerful enough. This meant there were always internal divisions and palace intrigues that could be exploited by outside powers, whether they be Latins or Muslims. This political weakness was their downfall, not military incompetence.
    t. Turk

  21. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    but they didn't. they survived several sieges of the capital by arabs and beaten the turks many times. but every time they lost, it was a great excuse for someone to start yet another civil war and desintegrate the empire from the inside, as it happened e.g. after manzikert and myriokefalon and were too moronic to hire turks as mercenaries for these civil wars. even in the last days of despotate of morea, after constantinople had already fallen, the two brothers hired turks to fight against each other.

  22. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Any another polity that would experience even 1% of the incursions the Romans did would have been conquered 10 times over
    See the visigoths of spain, skullfricked by a small expeditionary force of the caliphate 1000s of kilometers away from home, all while the Romans were holding the front against the caliphate at the peak of its strength, with the caliphate being just another front among several other opportunistic invaders

    Of course this facts attracts copious amounts of seethe and revisionism by non-Hellenes

  23. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Leo III thought that God chastized the Empire because of icons but the iconodules won and icon veneration became normative in Byzantine Christianity. Then the Empire spent the next centuries losing until it disappeared. Orthobros will never recover.

  24. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Byzantines
    *Romans

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      t. redditor

  25. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Extremely corrupt aristocracy with private armies and who would backstab the emperor whenever given the chance and/or fight over the throne for succession
    >Centuries of war with Persians, Huns, and Germanics
    >Empire's population is devastated by the plague and never recovers its prior numbers.
    >Justinian blows through the royal treasury on his autistic Italian campaign, territory which becomes a black hole for money for centuries to come.
    To say the odds were stacked against Eastern Rome was an understatement. However, it is very impressive they were able to last 800 more years despite all this. Geography was not their friend and they did the best they could. Their successors the Ottomans met essentially the same fate, being slowly chipped away by outside invaders.

  26. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Byzantines
    *Hittites

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