I'm not really sure what the difference was between the Germanic and Arab tribes, that the Arabs were able to propagate their language, their religion, and their culture throughout the territories they conquered (with the exception of Persia), whereas the only place the Germanics were able to do this was England.
It seems like the Roman Empire was so important in Western history because it filled the role that the Germanics could not fill with their conquests, and I don't understand why they couldn't furnish something like it.
The Arabs were unified by their faith.
The Germans were never a unified people until the concept of pan germanism was created in the 19th century.
>The Germans were never a unified people until the concept of pan germanism was created in the 19th century.
They were unified by the HRE and only got divided when decentralization processes prevailed within the Empire.
It takes a special kind of /misc/Hispanic monkey moron to make a borderline moronic thread like this. I'm speechless.
>It takes a special kind of /misc/Hispanic monkey moron to make a borderline moronic thread like this. I'm speechless.
What's so wrong about the thread?
>That's why they speak in such an outdated form of English, because they too want to live in this monarchistic dream world that never existed
Interesting take. The way the Quran was written in such stilted language (even for the time) reminded me of the KJV Bible, which used "thou" and "hath" even when those were becoming out of date.
>Which arabian empire?
The Rashidun, Umayyad, and Andalusi and Abbasid Caliphates. But I'm more focused on the initial decades and century.
>let's compare two random cultures separated by thousands of kilometers that are nothing alike, why had one of them at some formed a short-lived empire, and the other had not?
great thread you fat homosexual
>let's compare two random cultures that both formed successor states from the remains of the Roman Empire, and discuss why one of them formed smaller medieval kingdoms and adopted the language, religion, and customs of their subjects, while the other formed a vast, centralized empire, and imparted their language, religion, and culture to their subjects.
Ftfy.
>successor states from the remains of the Roman Empire
Roman Empire never controlled the Arabian Peninsula. Arabs formed a state on their own and then conquered some Roman territory. And besides that, having some loose connection to post-Roman territory is hardly a reason to call two cultures similar, and pretend there is some sort of connection between them. You gotta be the dumbest, blackest, most moronic gorilla Black person if you can't comprehend that. I suggest you off yourself and stop wasting oxygen that can be used by some more intelligent creatures, like say cows, or chickens.
>gotta
Black person
>The Rashidun, Umayyad, and Andalusi and Abbasid Caliphates.
Those are dynasties, they are not a common "arab" empire. In fact several aren't arab. And the answer is because they were united by islam. Germanics had no common denominator other than, more often than not, not intelligible languages
>And the answer is because they were united by islam.
The first inscription we have with any mention of Muhammad was minted in the 690s, nearly 70 years after Muhammad's death.
The first mention of something called "Islam", notably on the Dome of the Rock, came 70 years after Muhammad's death.
Roman sources record Muhammad leading an invasion of Palestine in 634 AD... 2 years after his death according to Muslim sources (compiled more than a century after that date).
Islam did not burst from the mind of Muhammad fully formed. It came out of interaction with the empire that the Arabs formed out of the Byzantine and Persian Empires.
>Germanics had no common denominator other than, more often than not, not intelligible languages
Besides... I dunno, all coming from a similar geographical area? They may have been separate tribes, but they all spoke Germanic languages and came from "Germania". Notably, most Germans were also Arian, and didn't convert to Catholicism until they had set their states up.
>Roman Empire never controlled the Arabian Peninsula.
The Arab tribes fought for quite a while as auxiliaries under the Romans and Persians, much like the Germanics had.
Also, Muhammad didn't come from Arabia, his base of operations was the deserts of Syria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_school_of_Islamic_studies
>The Arab tribes fought for quite a while as auxiliaries under the Romans
very few and saying that it makes them just like germanics is wayyyy more than a stretch
>Also, Muhammad's base of operations was the deserts of Syria
okay, you really are THE dumbest Black person on this board
i rest my case
Because Germanics like freedom, and Arabs clearly don't. Arabs remind me of the Victorian British. That's why they speak in such an outdated form of English, because they too want to live in this monarchistic dream world that never existed
germans are as collectivist as chinks, and their default mindset is doing whatever the hivemind expects them to do
They're collectivists in the right ways and individualist in the right ways.
Which arabian empire?
Arabs aren't a race and Germanics are Greeks are Rome. Meds aren't a race either. All civs were start ups set in motion by white euros that collapsed by race mixing into brown soup. No exceptions.
>Arabs aren't a race and Germanics are Greeks are Rome. Meds aren't a race either. All civs were start ups set in motion by white euros that collapsed by race mixing into brown soup. No exceptions.
Frick off, everyone with a shred of honesty knows its true.
I'm European, and very proud of European culture, but you can't expect to be taken seriously making such broad claims without the slightest shred of an argument.
Indisputable truth. Europhobe will seethe.
>Why were Germanics unable to build a vast, unified empire like the Arabs?
Wait until OP hears about the Fitnas, how 3 of the first four caliphs were assassinated, and the Arab-Persian-Syrian-Egyptian rivalries in the caliphate
>Wait until OP hears about the Fitnas, how 3 of the first four caliphs were assassinated
I know this.
>and the Arab-Persian-Syrian-Egyptian rivalries in the caliphate
I also know about this.
Why are you guys like this? I thought this was a legitimate place for people interested in history? I don't even see any of you engaging in arguments, it's just petty "Uh, nuh-uh, my team was better than yours?
It's very clear to me that, from the Arab Conquests until about the 1230s, the Muslim world was more materially rich and similar to the empires of the classical age. You could even push that date to the 15th century (the end of the Reconquista, the Rennaissance, the Reformation), but it seems like Europe really started getting going somewhere around the middle of the 13th century, whereas the Muslims, by contrast, started to decline (with the Ottomans as a big exception to that).
I'm not here to argue with anyone about modern politics. I'm actually trying to get at the history behind all that.
You asked about unity. Now you move goalposts and screech about material wealth.
>You asked about unity.
You gave several examples of civil unrest and intra-state civil war. I don't think you really get examples of the Muslim world being "divided" until several centuries after the emergence of the Arab empire (yes, the Egyptian and Spanish Caliphates, etc), but even then, the ground had already been laid for a vast realm of people speaking the same language and worshipping the same religion.
>Now you move goalposts and screech about material wealth.
Well... this is ultimately why unity matters, is it not? One of the notable things about the early Arab caliphates is that they were fabulously wealthy. Why was this the case? Because you had vast realms that were generally pretty stable, practiced the same religion, and spoke a lingua franca (Arabic). This gave them power over the European realms.
What I am trying to understand here is why the Europeans didn't have this during the Middle Ages. Anglo-Saxon England was fairly centralized; but it was limited to the island, and had difficulty repelling viking raids. France was divided. Germany was divided. Etc. I am not debating which one was better--Europeans or Arabs--I am just trying to understand the relative power of the caliphates during the middle ages.
The norse had pretty early unified realms. Much of scandinavia was under direct rule of either a norwegian or dane king for a long time. Cnut even established rule over norway, denmark and big parts of england, even if it didnt last too long. The norman conqueror who took over english rule not too long after was of norse descent too.
This is what confuses me. It's fairly clear that Europeans venerated the Roman Empire since (and even beginning fairly soon after) its fall. You would think that a European regent would want to create a successor, and yet I think that remained elusive until the modern era (WW1, by which time no one was really interested in doing it anymore).
In my view, the Normans in particular had a special ability to bring this about. They united all of the British Isles and half of France under their rule, they were really unstoppable. But this lost momentum after a while, and you never saw a "Norman identity" or "Norse identity" spread in the way an Arab one did. Maybe "Catholic", but... it doesn't seem the same.
Sure they tried to pass on their crown to an heir. At times that worked, but when the king is dead, everyone tries to leverage their claim and there might be some unexpected deaths or political intrigues involved. And often it was just about who got the bigger army to the right place faster or someone else takes the opportunity to conquer the kingdom. If there is several heirs, the realm might also just be split between them and a bigger cohesive empire lost in the process.
They tried, the Dacians and the Vatican sabotaged every attempt.
The german tribes have a long tradition of not wanting to listen to outsiders and fighting between each other. Most of the time it was necessary for a big external enemy for them to unite, like when they fought the romans. And when that was over and Armenius thought he had some kind of higher authority because of it, he was quickly disposed and the tribes went back to minding their own business.
Under the HRE, they kind of acknowledged that there was an emperor around, but in practice everything was still divided in hundreds of little Grafschaften and the Kaiser was far away.
It was only with the immense threat of Napoleon, that something like a united germany started to form and it took a ton of propaganda to create something like a national identity.
There is still villages that have traditionally hated a neighbour village for hundreds of years. Although that mellowed out in the 20th century with more foreigners (germans from other areas @:^) moving in.
You can join the discussion whenever you're ready to talk history, but I've reported you to the jannies.
The Dacians... in Romania?
I could see how the papal scheme might undermine a vast empire. The popes hated being told what to do by the Holy Roman Emperors.
>Most of the time it was necessary for a big external enemy for them to unite
>And when that was over and Armenius thought he had some kind of higher authority
So they're very much a people of flat hierarchies. Odd how people don't have this conception of Germans today, given the whole WW2 stuff. But I could see the situation being as you say.
>but in practice everything was still divided in hundreds of little Grafschaften and the Kaiser was far away.
Right, okay.
>It was only with the immense threat of Napoleon, that something like a united germany
Do we see any kind of parallel between the Normans and Prussia?
Different cultures, I understand, but both seemed like fairly martial cultures, and unifying forces in the lands that they conquered. Also, fairly big fans of serfdom/slavery and hierarchy.
>There is still villages that have traditionally hated a neighbour village for hundreds of years.
I read about German villages, in the wake of the Reformation, that would adopt different prayer books in order to beat the neighboring villagers up over their choice. They would meet in a designated place and all.
Not sure if it's true, but I found it very funny.
Is there any argument to be made that Islam has a centralizing effect over its adherents?
If so, I think it would be more a consequence of the early empires than the other way around, but I think of the Ottomans, and it seems odd to me how they were not initially united, nor Arabs, but came to be so, unlike the Germans.
>The Dacians... in Romania?
No, the ones running Byzantium. The Germanics tried numerous times to centralize power, and the Vatican and the Byzantine Empire snuffed out each one. The HRE as a mess of memestates is a result of this.
>flat hierarchies
The traditional method of making important decisions was to call in a thing (pronounced ting). Basically an assembly where every free weapon bearing man could attend and had a right to speak. You had to convince the other man of your ideas. There were some men more important than other, like chiefs and elders, but no single man had a central position or the authority to make a decision for everyone else. Armenius for ed the alliance against the romans by holding a thing and convincing several tribes that he could lead the romans into a trap.
The icelandic parliament is still called althing. Before they came under the authority of the kind of norway, they did not have a ruler of the island and they solved all their politics in the thing.
>conception of Germans today
basically different people. I'd say that most tribal identity has been dissolved mostly by all of the devastating wars (esecially the 30 year war) and the industrialization with all the associated movement of populations.
>Normans and Prussia
I dont know to much about the normans, but I'd say that the prussians were also a product of all the long wars. Strong emphasis on martial traditions and blending that into the whole culture and .gov.
>Not sure if it's true
It is and more. You'd even have different dialects between villages, so you could immediately hear where the other belongs (if you didnt know them anyways). Imagine trying to marry someone from the other village. You'd basically be hated by both and would have to bail and go somewhere far away.
>Islam has a centralizing effect
Yeah of cause. One ideology and immense pressure to bow to its authority (convert or die, leave and we kill you) and the in-group effect that comes with it. That very much superseded any tribal affiliation.
You could argue that you have a unifying identity to a degree with Christianity, but that again turned into more infighting (protestants vs. catholics)
Christianity reduces ethnic pride and cohesion in northern europeans, a sort of deradicalising agent. That's partly why you see pan-germanic sentiments rise up as people became more educated about their ancestral religions. Romonkeys and christ golems tore the spiritual heart out of northern europe and left a gaping hole.
>That's partly why you see pan-germanic sentiments rise up as people became more educated about their ancestral religions.
You're absolutely right. Go proselytize on /misc/.
>>The Dacians... in Romania?
>No, the ones running Byzantium.
This board is introducing me to so many tribal allegiances I didn't even know were possible.
Unlike Arabs, many speak different languages
Because they don’t need to. There are diminishing marginal returns to scale.
You're speaking Germanic right now son, not Arabic.
>You're speaking Germanic right now son, not Arabic.
What's your point.
Btw, for anyone just popping in, this is NOT a "Why were the Germanics so stupid," question, or a "Why were the Arabs so CHAD, Alhamdulilah" question.
I am interested in why the Arabs and Germanics, despite conquering parts of the Roman Empire in relatively rapid succession, constructed different kinds of state apparatuses. The Holy Roman Empire was a collection of smaller states, Visigothic Spain suffered from instability of succession (which was the main reason the Arabs were able to take control of the peninsula), and many places that the Germans had conquered kept their Romance substraits.
WE
you tell him... these chuds need to learn that we wuz kangs and europe always was Black clay
You are on the same intellectual level as we wuz Black folk.
>I'm not really sure what the difference was between the Germanic and Arab tribes
Top moron OP, have a bump for you gay thread and anyone posting ITT eat a dick. homosexuals anyone promoting shit like this.
Because there was no german king that unified all the tribes by force and made them have the same religion and language, etc., like it happened with the arabs.
Because arabs are mongrel mutts and recruit anything and anyone to destroy the native culture
Oh please STOP.
This is NOT the thread to be posting this.
>People are closely related to their direct neighbors.
Brilliant observation skills there, Anon. Anyway, here's a PCA chart showing the closest genetic relatives to three Ancient Egyptian mummies.
But... anon... they cluster with the MIDDLE EASTERN populations!
Arabs have slave trade
Because they had slaves from the places *they conquered*, which is what I'm asking about, dummy.
That's abaolutely not what you are asking about you braindead brown homosexual, you don't even understand your own posts
Euros keep to themselves. Technically you could call 'the west' an unified empire or people individualists.
Why did you pick the Germanics specifically, of all people? Most tribal groups didn't form great empires.
Off the top of my head Arabs and Germanics were the ones to conquer former territories of the Roman Empire.
The British were the only Germanic-speaking country to give this an honest attempt, even then it was a kind of dutiful burden and industrious thing, rather than having an explicit culture of conquest such as Rome or the rise of Islam.
Rome was a financial system that their military and religious traditions helped to establish. Anglos for a time had piety, and various cultural mutations that helped forge military pursuits that gained them land and influence, but since civilizing and urbanizing they (along with the French and Dutch, and quite unlike the Spaniards) have always more veered into a spectrum of soft power which favored less brutish means and ends. This is why they developed the scientific and industrial revolution, why we communicate in their languages right now.
the same reason why the arab failed to conquer Europe
Conquering Europe is hard which is why Europe opt to conquer else where
unless you're French
What was the British Empire? stupid monkey rat
Because they are genetically inferi-- uhhh I mean, it was purely socio-economic factors.
They did.
Because when you give Germanics an empire, they go on a genocidal rampage killing every single thing they lay their eyes on. See: Barbarian invasions, Anglo-American settler colonization, Belgian Congo, German Namibia, Nazi Germany, etc.