History thread

  • Guest, it's time once again for the hotly contested and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and fill out your bracket!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Once again, only you can decide!

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
I've been listening to the History of Byzantium podcast lot trying to get caught up, and there are some things that keep bothering me. I know there are some people here who are well read or history buffs so I was hoping you could help out or point me in the right direction for answers.

I'm up to the mid 700s in the podcast timeline and I'm having trouble understanding the emergence of the muslim powers. He explains this a bit in the podcast, but not really. I get the demographic shift and the huge impact the plague and Persian wars had on the Roman ability to field an army or raise funds for war. But what I specifically don't get is the arab tribes.

So the arabs are out there in the desert, fucking around for hundreds of years, while Rome is dominating the West. Then at some point after the plague decimates the Western population centers, the tribes unite and become a nation centered around a Caliphate. I don't understand how they get the numbers to challenge even a diminished Roman state. And then, with Rome having like a thousand years of martial tradition, how did they come up with the technology and tactics to beat them? It really seems just kind of glossed over like "oh, suddenly there was a Caliphate, and they went from kooky tribesmen to the greatest military power in the West, maybe the world."

One thing he does specifically talk about in the podcast is how the muslim historians are full of shit, their answer to everything is basically "allah wills it" so there's no real reason to pursue that as a source.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
@Amod please give this thread a catchy title. "The History Thread: A Journey Through the White Male's Oppression of Women and Minorities" or something
 
  • 1Solidarity
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Blazin

Creative Title
<Nazi Janitors>
6,379
33,478
We have some great history buffs, and while I love history I don't know well enough off the top of my head with out doing re reading. I believe it was largely attributed to superior use of calvary, resulting in the arab armies defeating far larger forces, but like all history I'm sure it's more complicated than just that
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,377
I've been listening to the History of Byzantium podcast lot trying to get caught up, and there are some things that keep bothering me. I know there are some people here who are well read or history buffs so I was hoping you could help out or point me in the right direction for answers.

I'm up to the mid 700s in the podcast timeline and I'm having trouble understanding the emergence of the muslim powers. He explains this a bit in the podcast, but not really. I get the demographic shift and the huge impact the plague and Persian wars had on the Roman ability to field an army or raise funds for war. But what I specifically don't get is the arab tribes.

So the arabs are out there in the desert, fucking around for hundreds of years, while Rome is dominating the West. Then at some point after the plague decimates the Western population centers, the tribes unite and become a nation centered around a Caliphate. I don't understand how they get the numbers to challenge even a diminished Roman state. And then, with Rome having like a thousand years of martial tradition, how did they come up with the technology and tactics to beat them? It really seems just kind of glossed over like "oh, suddenly there was a Caliphate, and they went from kooky tribesmen to the greatest military power in the West, maybe the world."

One thing he does specifically talk about in the podcast is how the muslim historians are full of shit, their answer to everything is basically "allah wills it" so there's no real reason to pursue that as a source.

The muslim conquered north africa and the middle east, but didn't conquer the eastern roman empire (constantinople) until 1453. That empire was greatly diminished by that time. It took the Turks bringing cannons to get through the walls.

They were also defeated by Charles Martel and the Franks in the mid-700's at Tours. They were turned back from Europe on both sides. So saying they were the greatest power in the world is misleading I think. They controlled a lot of territory.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Blazin

Creative Title
<Nazi Janitors>
6,379
33,478
look up al-Walid, the general who led many of those early victories (early 600s)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
The muslim conquered north africa and the middle east, but didn't conquer the eastern roman empire (constantinople) until 1453. That empire was greatly diminished by that time. It took the Turks bringing cannons to get through the walls.

They were also defeated by Charles Martel and the Franks in the mid-700's at Tours. They were turned back from Europe on both sides. So saying they were the greatest power in the world is misleading I think. They controlled a lot of territory.

Why do you have to fuck with my thread? Goddamn nazi mods

Yeah but the mulsims beat the brakes off of the romans, and only by sheer luck didn't succeed in their siege of Constantinople in the 700s.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
We have some great history buffs, and while I love history I don't know well enough off the top of my head with out doing re reading. I believe it was largely attributed to superior use of calvary, resulting in the arab armies defeating far larger forces, but like all history I'm sure it's more complicated than just that

The arab armies were actually largely lacking in cavalry, at least according to the podcast I'm listening to and his sources. And it makes sense, given the place they came from and the resources they would have available. It doesn't make sense how you have centuries of Rome establishing the cavalry as the dominant military tactic/unit throughout the west only to be beaten down by arab foot soldiers.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Blazin

Creative Title
<Nazi Janitors>
6,379
33,478
The muslim conquered north africa and the middle east, but didn't conquer the eastern roman empire (constantinople) until 1453. That empire was greatly diminished by that time. It took the Turks bringing cannons to get through the walls.

They were also defeated by Charles Martel and the Franks in the mid-700's at Tours. They were turned back from Europe on both sides. So saying they were the greatest power in the world is misleading I think. They controlled a lot of territory.

The technological advantage and tactical advantage the Roman empire had over its foes far exceeded the Byzantine Empire had over their's (1000 yr later). Again over simplification, but one built an empire the other inherited the remenants
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,377
Why do you have to fuck with my thread? Goddamn nazi mods

Yeah but the mulsims beat the brakes off of the romans, and only by sheer luck didn't succeed in their siege of Constantinople in the 700s.

Reading the story of the siege of the early 700's, I wouldn't characterize it as sheer luck at all. The muslims never even made a move on the walls, they tried to starve them out, and that failed because they lost at sea.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Blazin

Creative Title
<Nazi Janitors>
6,379
33,478
The arab armies were actually largely lacking in cavalry, at least according to the podcast I'm listening to and his sources. And it makes sense, given the place they came from and the resources they would have available. It doesn't make sense how you have centuries of Rome establishing the cavalry as the dominant military tactic/unit throughout the west only to be beaten down by arab foot soldiers.

Well I disagree with that assessment, mobility and cavalry was their primary advantage
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

TomServo

<Bronze Donator>
6,305
8,095
If you are seriously willing to put the time in, I can share with you a good source for thie history of islam that really is quite key to understanding the byzantium stuff. PM me if you want.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Blazin

Creative Title
<Nazi Janitors>
6,379
33,478
Battle of Ajnadayn (634ce) 8000 men 4000 Cavalry

in all seriousness if the podcast is ignoring the influence of light mobile cavalry in the Muslim expansion then it may not be a very good source, I'm no expert so won't push it any further.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Reading the story of the siege of the early 700's, I wouldn't characterize it as sheer luck at all. The muslims never even made a move on the walls, they tried to starve them out, and that failed because they lost at sea.

I'll have to read up on it some more, the problem is I don't really know what sources are good. According to the podcast they did try the walls a couple of times, during the siege of the 700s, but greek fire = no blockade so they got starved and returned to Iraq miserable and defeated.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Regime

LOADING, PLEASE WAIT...
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
16,349
37,559
WW2 in color on Netflix is one of the best generic series examining the military history of WW2.

Ken Burns WW2 is probably the best for cultural history.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Cad

<Bronze Donator>
24,487
45,377
I'll have to read up on it some more, the problem is I don't really know what sources are good. According to the podcast they did try the walls a couple of times, during the siege of the 700s, but greek fire = no blockade so they got starved and returned to Iraq miserable and defeated.

It's not a subject I've studied a lot but my understanding is that the geography of constantinople made it a virtually impossible fortress for the siege weapons of the day given the Theodosian walls. Had Constantinople been built out in the plain they would have been conquered in the 600's but held that incredible natural advantage. Then the Franks were quite strong on the Western side and those 2 things basically saved Europe. There's obviously a lot of detail missing there but luckily by the time Constantinople fell in the 1400's the European countries were far too strong to be threatened. In the 600's in would have been ugly.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Well I disagree with that assessment, mobility and cavalry was their primary advantage
Maybe I'm just confused or maybe it comes later in the story. But the story this guy is telling is that mobility is the primary Roman advantage and that arabs have very little as far as cavalry goes.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user