If Mohammed had come to power 10 years later than he actually

File: 1488468256685.jpg (22KB, 476x477px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 476x477px

>630 AD
>Romans

>>2620369
It's fair to call them Romans. It's what the Arabs called the Byzantines and it's what they called themselves. Especially at this time

>>2620361
Maybe if the Romans/Sassanids weren't total retards, and simply keep their border troops from their warring.
>>2620369
You know what he means.

>>2620361

I honestly have no idea

>>2620361
Both empires most likely would have had more reinforced borders. However, by that point they may very well have been at war once again.

File: thinking-face.png (53KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 256x256px

>>2620369
>1400AD
>still Romans

>>2620361
They'd still be successful. They had Khalid bin Walid and his strategy was amazing

He'd tire the enemy out and make it seem like the Muslims were afraid of confrontation. Finally when he fought he had the infantry retreat and let the enemy chase them. THEN he'd attack their rear with his reserve cavalry and outflank the enemy.


Other than this look at the odds in the battles fought after Muhammad. Also, all of the muslims' wars with Rome and Persia were fight after Muhammad died. And most of them in Umar's reign which was from 634-646. Roughly ten years later.


And the odds were like 1 Muslims against 9 in Ajnadein where the Muslims won.

The main reason was Khalid bin Walid, Arabs' flexibility and mobility plus their commitment to die for Allah.

Just look at ISIS


They basically have the do or die attitude of the early Muslims. They're managed to hold of Russia, USA, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Syria and Iraq for 3 fucking years now.

>>2620361
If the Romans/Byzantines and Persians had kept peace for 10 years, then no, Muhammad would not have been nearly as successful. He might have still "won", but it would have been much slower and much harder.

>>2622098

Kek even in warfare all Muslims can do is lie and cheat!

>>2622098
This, I think the Muslims still would've conquered large swaths of Persia and the Middle East.

However, Heraclius was a great general also so anything could have happened.

>>2621598
Where the fuck are you getting 1400 from?

>>2622926
Muhammad didn't even direct the raids that conquered Persia/Egypt/Syria, he was dead.

Learn history before you post here.

>>2620361
I am almost certain that the numbers of the Byzantine and Sassanian armies during this period are wildly exaggerated, even by modern scholars. Like, by the end of the final Byzantine-Sassanian War, the Byzantine couldn't raise an army of 25,000, and the Sassanians an army of 12,000, yet we're supposed to believe that just six years later, the Byzantines were able to raise several armies exceeding 50,000 men, up to 150,000? And the Sassanians at least four armies of 30,000?

Can someone enlighten me on this? Is this pro-Arab bias to make Khalid-ibn-Walid look better? Or is this an area where little recent study has been done? Or am I missing something.

>>2623100
Numbers are always exaggerated but the Arabs weren't rolling in with massive armies either.

Chances are that both the Byzantines and the Sassanids had larger armies than the Arabs, but not monumentally larger.

Khalid ibn Walid was a great commander and deserves his accolades regardless.

>>2622102
Loads of CIA money helps too.