What kind of tactics allowed for such rapid expansion, and why couldn't they hold onto it all?
>>459496
>fought two sides that had weakened each other after centuries of war (Byzantines and Persians)
>Persians were attacked around the time they had over 30 rulers attempt to seize the throne
>Arabs killed their best general... because the caliph was paranoid about his image
>over-expansion in Europe and South Asia
>forces became too greedy with raiding... was one of their major downfalls at Poiters-Tours, and the Indian subcontinent
every day I thank God the franks held back the muslim hordes.
>>459574
So basically like most other empires. Rise through large forces and luck (right people at the right place at the right time), then bogged down with corruption and over-extension.
>>459581
The Muslim army that Charlemagne faced was merely just a raiding party compared to what the Byzantines had to fight against on constant time flow. They also had to face Slavic and steppe nomad invasions from the north as well.
>>459496
they basically did the same thing as the mongols
1: unite the tribes
2: light cavalry zerg rush
3: progress grinds to a halt as they expand to fit territory suited to cavalry and can only expand by pushing into territory less fit for cavalry
4: What's the point of paying taxes to someone 1000 miles away if our armies are just as good as their's and there is no need for us to team up against anyone else? Empire splits up.
>>460335
>merely just a raiding party
My favorite meme
>>460335
Charlemagne didn't fight muslims. Charles Martel did.
>>460335
>charlemagne
Honestly fuck off, you dont even know who fought the battle, stop trying to discredit them with this "merely a raid" shit
>>460335
Charles Martel (not Charlemagne) fought 70-80,000 Muslims. It was not just a raid
Imagine if two heavyweights just beat the everloving fuck out of each other and then some middleweight stomped them while they're down
>>460411
Well their troops were so diluted and useless with newbies by then it was a raiding force.
>>460411
Based Dornishmen
>>460411
I thought it was around 20000
>>460335
>>(You)
>>459574
>Killing Khalid Ibn Al Walid
What? I thought he passed away?
>>460494
He also did it with no cavalry, just spent months with his infantry training them to resist cavalry
>>459574
>Killed their best general
Wrong. Khalid was recalled because he kept disobeying orders, often conquering areas that werent planned on being conquered. He did of old age.
>>459496
>What kind of tactics allowed for such rapid expansion
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. Remember, one day you will appear before Allah and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not astray from the path of righteousness after I am gone."
- Muhammad
>>460651
That's nice, but it was mostly luck and weak enemies
>>460668
Even the weak bizantyne and persian empire had more men,generals and experience than some arab nomads.
Luck was a factor but it was far from being the biggest one.
>>460453
Kek.
>>460668
define luck and roman or persian fielded armies that outnumbered muslims in most of the battles.
>>461191
>Even the weak bizantyne and persian empire had more men,generals and experience than some arab nomads.
Yes, but they didn't expect the Arabs. It's pretty hard to put up a fight with something you don't expect and don't understand at all.
And they weren't 'some Arab nomads', most of the fighters in Arabia at the time had long been employed by both the Byzantines and the Persians
>>460335
it was 50,000 men strong
>>460651
First monotheists to incorporate the concept of holy war effectively.
>>460429
10/10 reference nigga.
>>459496
>rapid
compared to Alexander, Genghis Khan this is snail pace
Mostly because natural conversion desu, thats what happened in indonesia, africa and large part of post-persia asia
