Would world be a better place today if muslims conquered Europe in the middle ages?
They did, they captured the majority of the Iberian peninsula and penetrated into France but were beaten.
From the other direction, they besieged Constantinople twice but weren't able to sack/capture it, which is why they couldn't penetrate into Europe through the Balkans.
Also they captured Sicily (and held it for centuries) and raided Italy as far as Rome a couple of times, but that wasn't fruitful either
Anatolian turks are mongrels and their language is Turkic and closer to mongolian and other east asian languages. Arabs are semitic/afroasiatic in language and genetics.
I'm surprised you think so, you might want to get those eyes checked lad
>rabian attacks on the island of Sardinia, less important than those on Sicily, failed to achieve its conquest although they induced its separation from the Roman Empire, giving birth to a period of Sardinian independence, the era of the giudicati.
That was literally in the first paragraph.
No but after looking at your map the world would be a much better place if the Roman empire had never collapsed.
North Africa would be the best travel destination in the world, and Europe would be much less gay.
>i'm not even muslim
Then you're brainwashed. The vast majority of scientific achivements during the middle ages were done by the Persians and even Arab historians agree. And the patrons of science were often heretics. Harun al-Rashid (founder of the ohuse of wisdom) was m'utazila which are considered heretics now and even jailed one of the founders of major schools of islamic jurisprudence.
Depends if it was through spain, it would means mainly berbers and seeing andalucia it could have been good and even better that how was europe at that time.
If it was through anatolia it'd have been arabs and europeans would get slit throated and their wife taken to harems.
Rapebabies is just a meme. The fact is those are the people who chose Islam. Nobody called themself Turk or something else if they were muslims. There is no racial superiority in Islam.
Check the millet system. There is no Turk or Greek on that map.
Italy's and Byzantium's economies were wrecked precisely because of Mudslimes. They also occupied and Islamified Persia. Arabs are a race of herders and will revert to being herders once the oil runs out.
Greeks kept the roman empire alive for a thousand years even though arabs tried their hardest to destroy it all that time and ultimately failed because it was turks who finally conquered it. What have arabs shitskins ever done except destroy everything in their path for their little dominatrix god and his little sub bitch of a prohpet :^)
>Arabs dominate only of the plains, because they are, by their savage nature, people of pillage and corruption. They pillage everything that they can take without fighting or taking risks, then flee to their refuge in the wilderness, and do not stand and do battle unless in self-defense. So when they encounter any difficulty or obstacle, they leave it alone and look for easier prey. And tribes well-fortified against them on the slopes of the hills escape their corruption and destruction, because they prefer not to climb hills, nor expend effort, nor take risks. Whereas plains, when they can reach them due to lack of protection and weakness of the state, are spoils for them and morsels for them to eat, which they will keep despoiling and raiding and conquering with ease until their people are defeated, then imitate them with mutual conflict and political decline, until their civilization is destroyed.
>do not stand and do battle unless in self-defense
Yes, sure, 15 million square kilometers of self-defence. Astounding cognitive dissonance there lad.
1 most of those "battles" are made up
I know because we have barely any information about muslims raid in Sardinia and they were fewer and always in the coasts, mostly in unspecified locations
2 Sardinia was never conquered
Sardinia was never occupied by Arabs/Moors stably, let alone completely conquered like Sicily, if anything South Italy should be green because we know that a lot of cities there were actually conquered and it's documented
>muslims attack europe
>europe does it back
>m-muh white guilt
>muslims do it again
muslims have invaded europe more than europe has invaded the middle east
what should we be guilty about again?
>Whereas plains, when they can reach them due to lack of protection and weakness of the state, are spoils for them and morsels for them to eat, which they will keep despoiling and raiding and conquering with ease until their people are defeated
Why would anything change? Christianity was as primitive as Islam back then. The only real difference would only be religion. Europe still would become more developed then the rest of the world and colonize other continents. Europe was destined to succeed - climate, big population, dense cities, livestock, diseases immunity gained through the ages - religion wouldn't change Europe's destiny.
Europe succeeded by putting religion in the background and away from science and politics. Islam is political and ever present by definition. There is no equivalent of
Yes, they weren't jihadi retards at that time and probably became so because of us.
>Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so
It would be an Aryan paradise
GERMAN KEKOLDRY FOR ISLAM IS NOTHING NEW
Nah tbch, Christianity is more beautiful and humble
I won't believe your lies today unholy trips
that's basically saying "look how rich we priest motherfuckers are lmao but you, simple believer, should give to charity and be humble"
even if it's not his personal stuff that's still put on display for everyone to see, how is that humble? when niggers do the same thing with chains you'd consider that to be bad, no?
>this is what thirld worders actually believe
spent some time here and let's see how your opinion of priests change, literally one of the dirties categories there are, and all the worst they claim to be "humble".
Why do Muslim want to conquer Europe so bad?
Anyway it'd just mean that more of Europe would look like what Albania and Kosovo do today. Those are European Muslim countries. Not great but not as bad as Yemen or Pakistan or anything.
Priests aren't rich you goof, that stuff is for everybody. It's not like clergy just sit in rooms of hoarded gold. I can walk into pretty much Cathedral in the world and admire it.
Robes, statues, icons, cathedrals, etc. are expensive and take a lot of work, but the beauty is intended for everyone.
whatever, I only see Catholics around me so I'm going to talk about them if I want to.
> beauty is intended for everyone.
oh yes I'm going to get myself a nice pack of beauty for dinner tonight, thanks Church!
Reminder that Odo the Great > Karl the Cuckold.
Those frankish fucking shits almost doomed the rest of europe by backstabbing their christian brothers desu. Time and time again, germanics proved to be muslim enablers.