Why is Eastern Medieval history much more interesting than European Medieval history, /his/? I'd much rather read about the empires of the Byzantines, Ottoman Turks, Arabs and Mongols than a bunch of small city states and kingdoms unsure whether they're secular or not, arguing over whether the Pope is their leader or not and then killing each other in the name of Christ.
>>1045936
Mmm.. Ok, why dont you do that then?
Wishes!
Medieval Caucasus, Anatolia and Khorasan were 'exciting' places to live in for sure.
>>1045936
k thanks for sharing your opinion.
Why is y more [opinion] than x?
>>1045936
Because you are entertained by large battles
Christianity is a bore, that's why.
Notice how European history because interesting again post-Enlightenment
>>1045936
I think what's interesting about Eastern Medieval history is the clash of completely different people and cultures. Unlike in Western Europe where the people there had more in common
>>1046095
the OP clearly listed the ERE you spastic
>>1045936
the Byzantine Empire IS European Medieval history though
>>1045936
Well that was the center of the world back then.
>>1046105
Byzantines were interesting because they were BTFO both by East and West.
>>1046127
>>1046146
>pakis
Tell me more about how you failed the ERE Heralius.
>>1046146
>>1046095
>>1046106
Bullshit, Asian here (Singachink)
I find the Catholic Church interesting because it's politicking prevented major invasions between Eurofaggot Kingdoms typical here of Asia. Sure we can talk about how rare East Asians fight one another, but this is largely due to the size of their Empires. Here in Southeast Asia you have shit like Thais invading and conquering Hindu States in what used to be the West of the Khmer Empire, or the Vietnamese ending the existence of the Hindu Chams. Not to mention.
The medieval Catholic church was literally like the Proto-UN of Europe. One finds that the major shitfights in Europe started due to Protestantism's balkanization of that faith.
>>1046175
he didn't though, he was a pretty gud Barrack emperor
too bad he couldn't foresee the future and the Arabs
>>1046177
>The Church was interesting because it made the region boring
>>1046189
How could he have foreseen that some irrelevant beduins would emerge from their deserts and conquer huge swathes of land in no time? It was a meme occurrence, like the Mongols.
>>1046177
didn't stop perfidious albion
Because we already know all about western Europe. We haven't quite gotten a popular image of Eastern Medieval history.
>>1046127
t. Mehmet/Dandolo/Boris
>>1046175
>failed
he literally saved ERE, barbarian scum. The Arab invasion was a fluke though
>>1046299
>The Arab invasion was a fluke
byzzies are just shit really
>>1046390
>fight in a war that lasted for almost 30 constant years
>morale is low, war exhaustion is high
>suddenly a bunch desert niggers invade fresh out of their conquests thirsty for more
>HURR ARABS SO GREAT ALLAH AKBAR DURK DURKA MUHAMMAD JIHAD
Not to mention that the Arabs inflated the number of their enemies in their battles to make themselves seem more heroic. But hey, at least the Byzzies didn't ruin themselves by constant civil wars and had their state divided into different caliphates.
>>1046428
>the Byzzies didn't ruin themselves by constant civil wars
lol
>>1046433
Iconoclasm barely counts as a civil war, although it ruined opportunities to reclaim back land from the Arabs
Western European medieval history: "If you don't pay me my tribute I'm going to gather all of my army of 50 men and invade your farm!!!"
Eastern European and Middle-East history: "If you don't pay me my tribute I'm going to gather my army of 20.000 men and rape and kill all of your men and women.
>>1046390
This to an extent.
>>1046428
It's always the same excuses brought up.
The Byzantines were actually in a strong position with a newly reformed army and outnumbered the arabs. They lost through the incompetence of their leaders and the Arabs tactical superiority. Your exhausted argument doesn't excuse those defeats, it's not like the byzantine soldiers were physically exhausted.
>>1046476
>The Byzantines were actually in a strong position with a newly reformed army
Yes, that's why the economy was so shit that they could barely pay off their soldiers.
>outnumbered the arabs.
Like I said, there are other factors that play role in a battle than just numbers. This isn't fucking EU4.
>it's not like the byzantine soldiers were physically exhausted.
When you're fighting in a very long war and then gain a short period of peace which is then ruined by a sudden declaration of war, would that leave you enthusiastic about it?
>>1046526
Like i said, the Byzantines had the stronger army, more men and better equipment. Shouldn't have lost, but they lost, fairly.
>>1046158
And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
-william blake talking the enlightenment ruining the beauty of his country due to the following industrial revolution.
>>1046532
>Shouldn't have lost
according to who?
did the Arabs have A**ah's help?
>>1046083
>
[historical meme]
>>1046540
No they had Khalid ibn Walid
Probably the greatest military general of all time.
>>1046540
>>1046526
I have to disagree with you. Sometimes things don't go well as expected. Romans should have won that fight but mind you Romans won a lot of fight they "should" have lost. Sassanid-Avar siege of Constantinople for example.
>>1046546
Well he was an opportunist. I doubt he had much belief in the new religion, but ride with the trends. He is glorified in the islamic tradition though
>>1046546
then why would they not win
there's no such thing as a sure win
>>1046552
>I doubt he had much belief in the new religion, but ride with the trends.
I disagree. He stepped down when the Caliph dismissed him, out of respect for the state and religion. If not, he could have easily took his men to revolt in civil war, as they were all extremely loyal to him and not the caliph. It's basically like Caesar stepping down when the Senate asked him to. Caesar would have only done that if he actually respected the republic.
>>1046559
The only sure win is belief in the almighty my brother
>>1046565
>praying to the moon
saracen pls
>>1046552
>Sassanid-Avar siege of Constantinople for example.
Explain why they should've lost that siege.
>>1046455
And then Constantinople got sacked by crusaders.
>>1046568
>praying to a dead jew
lmaoing at your life right nao
>>1046095
Yea, I don't hate christianity, it just bores me. It's why I'm more interested in ancient european history or late 1700's and up. Hell, I'd rather learn about Precolumbian American history which we know so little of.
And I agree Eastern medieval is more interesting.
>>1046428
Even with Roman sources Arabs are outnumbered.
Nice try tho
>>1046546
Aside from Sulla.
>>1046608
A repo isn't a sack my friend.
>>1046439
Yes, it sure was only Iconoclasm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_revolts_and_civil_wars
Not to mention that a huge part of how easy it was for Islam to conquer the Levant and Egypt was that its Christian but "heretic" inhabitants would rather be ruled by pagan Zoroastrians (how do you think the Sassanids held them so easily?) and Muslims than the emperors in Constantinople who beat and executed their priests, periodically ravaged and plundered their churches, and sold them and their wives and sons into slavery. It's pretty telling how easily a bunch of camelfuckers were able to BTFO Roman/Greek crossfuckers from land they'd controlled more on than off for over 500 years.
>>1048574
>he thinks revolts and usurpers count as civil wars
The only actual civil wars happened in 14th century
>>1046636
The God emperor is not dead, heretic.
