How were Muslims able to defeat Byzantines, Crusaders, and Vikings in battle? They were able to defeat the best Europe had to offer until colonialism.
>>18576551>How were Muslims able to defeat Byzantines, Crusaders, and Vikings in battle?Allah, my lord
>>18576551"Muslims" are no more a unified group politically than "Christians", "Buddhists"...
The Crusaders did in fact win militarily and held control of the Levant for centuries.
>>18576551>How were MuslimsTurks, you mean Turks.
>>18576720Turks got raped hard until Slavic Jannisaries.
The initial wave out of arabia was a historical fluke. Mohamad actually convinced people they go to brwnoid heaven if they die in battle (lots of women and parties) so they had a +100 morale buff. After the initial wave of zealotry and the muslims became urbane softies who only believed islam was like a vibe and an aesthetic they fell off crazy. At that point they needed people who could actually fight to keep their empires alive.So here come the Turks/Berbers who hard carried the muslim civilization for about a millenia.
>>18576551Because once a upon a time, Asia and North Africa were on equally footing with Europe. Did you somehow forget that the Iranians were locked into a centuries long war that ended in a stalemate? Naturally the successors of the Sassanids would continue their success until the 18th century
>>18576724>manizert
>>18576551>Byzantines, Crusaders, and Vikings>the best Europe had to offer lmfao
>>18576720no he means arabs, the ones that fucked persia and the greeks up by pretending they had bigger armies by circling around in their horses to make larger clouds of dust as they marched, something any functioning army would have noticed through scouts and spies
>>18577032The Arabs didn't fight the Crusaders or Vikings. Nor did they defeat Byzantium.
>>18577040>tis but a feint, our glorious greek emperor didn't want or need egypt and syria>Crusaders or Vikingsvikings couldn't have beaten big organised armies, they only succeed in western europe because of inbred feudal germans being in chargeas for crusaders, the term is so broad it doesn't even make sense to use it in this context, and even then I'd say the seljuk armies had more than a few arabs in them, or the armies in iberia, the point is OP is a fucking faggot
>>18577047That's like saying black armies are far superior to European, Arab and Asian armies because the USA's armed forces is full of blacks. You are deliberately avoiding the fact that Turkic leadership and Turkic heavy infantry and cavalry was what continuedly btfo'd Europeans and not the canon fodder of Arabs they used.
>>18577047>>tis but a feint, our glorious greek emperor didn't want or need egypt and syriaObviously I mean past the 7th century, when the empire was actually defeated for good.>vikings couldn't have beaten big organised armiesThey did? What are you talking about?>they only succeed in western europe because of inbred feudal germans being in chargeOther than your retarded statement, Bulgaria, Estonia, the Arabs in Iberia and even North Africa were defeated by Vikings.>as for crusaders, the term is so broad it doesn't even make sense to use it in this contextIf you mean those that went to Outremer, their nearly sole enemy was the Turks. Not the Arabs, the Turkic rulers preferred using a mix of Turkmen nomads, settled Turks as their elite cavalry and a portion of locals as footmen. The armies were still majority Turkic, and all the leaders were Turks. The only independent Arabic rulers were in Damascus and they decided to work with the Crusaders against the Turks. That'd be like saying the Welsh defeated France in the first half of the Hundred Years War because some of them were soldiers in the English armies.
>>18576551Technological parity
>>18577047The arabs entered a steep decline and emperors like Basil II were clawing back Syria. If not for the turks its very probably the byzantines wuld have reconquered the east.
