What y'all think about the Muslim Conquests?

>>68372
It makes me butthurt

I prefer the Ottoman conquests

>>68372

They're whitewashed by history to make the Crusades look like violent and aggressive acts instead of the self-defense it truly was. Nor is the sheer barbarity of their invasions discussed what so ever as it's terribly politically incorrect and may upset someone's tummy.

>>69326
Basically the opposite of this. /pol/tards can't stomach that islam wasn't always ISIS.

It also led to the Muslim golden age.

File: nick beard.jpg (48KB, 469x463px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 469x463px

>>68372
They don't matter and if you disagree, you're an islamophobe racist.
However, the EVIL Christian CRUSADES are the worst thing to happen to the Middle East.

File: 1411318740956.jpg (173KB, 960x779px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 960x779px

>>69326
>Crusades
>Self-defense

>>69381
Which was later ended by the Mongols. Gr8.

>>69360
>All this proof to support the argument

File: 1444295948896.jpg (6KB, 240x229px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 240x229px

>In 698 AD Hasan ibn al-Nu'man returned and defeated Emperor Tiberios III at the Battle of Carthage. Roman imperial forces withdrew from all Africa except Ceuta. Roman Carthage was destroyed—its walls torn down, its water supply cut off and its harbours made unusable.It was replaced by Tunis as the major regional centre.

I like to see this as the end of Antiquity.

File: 1437196223005.jpg (21KB, 319x297px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 319x297px

>>68372

ALLAHU ACKBAR!

File: Just.jpg (20KB, 600x421px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x421px

>>69660

just fuck up my empire

>>69602
Proposed without evidence, dismissed without evidence senpai

>>69432
Are prophylactics not self-defensive measures?

>>68372
Worst thing that happened in history along with Napoleon's defeat.

>>69750
>I did just as bad as him, so it's okay.

Never happened, was a hoax

>>69689
Is "latiif" actually the Arabic word for "cute"? Does it have the same feeling as English "cute" or Japanese "kawaii", or is it an approximation?

Regardless, if it does mean "cute", it is a masculine adjective, so that's a trap. Should have been "latiifa(t)" for a girl.

>>69660
To be honest I see the end with the fall of WERE as the end of Antiquity in Europe while the fall of the Sassanid Persian Empire in the Near East and Central Asia as the signifier for Asia.

>>69912
The actual fall of the WRE meant fuck all in terms of changes between era, the end of urban civilisation in places like Gaul and Italy did not come until late in the following century.

>>69976
Maybe. But symbolically the fall of the Romans and Persians within less then two centuries of each other and the advent of the Middle Ages, societal regression, the dark ages, and the rampancy of illness and plagues and great nation-states splintering apart is why I consider both to be the launching point of the end of the Classical era.

File: carthage01.jpg (138KB, 890x594px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 890x594px

>>69660
this, they destroyed a city that almost rivaled Rome. It is still a ruin to this day.

>>68372
Shitholes, glad Spain kicked them out like they deserve.

>>69660
Didn't the Arabs sack Cestiphon, which WAS the most populated city in the world?

>>70193
>>69660
I thought the Romans destroyed Carthrage and salted the earth

>>70321
Everywhere they go they turn it into shitholes.
Must be why Romans are beloved and arabs are hated by Spain, the Balkans, etc - you know where they got kicked out of.

>>70359
The salting was symbolic. The Romans didn't have enough salt to seriously salt all of Carthage's municipal soil. Salt was expensive.

Plus even if they did have enough salt, a few centuries of runoff and you have your soil back and still got a perfectly good harbor point nearby.

>>68372
Interesting but ultimately negative.

File: fb-400x400.jpg (12KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x400px

>>70359
It's OK when Rome does it

>>70377
>Everywhere they go they turn it into shitholes.
Not at all true historically.

>Must be why Romans are beloved and arabs are hated by Spain,
Yes, certainly had nothing to do with Christian or European affiliation or the general European sense of "Rome was the good old days". Yep, not that at all.

>the Balkans, etc - you know where they got kicked out of.
Generally the same as above.

>>70470
Carthaginians were a bunch of baby-killing sandniggers

>>70359
yeah there are a lot of conflicting stories about how Carthage was supposedly destroyed, it won't be long until it's revealed as a massive hoax to promote anti-roman and anti-islamic sentiments

>>70489
it's interesting how every nation defeated by Romans was somehow of lesser morale, savage, etc.

it's almost as if history was skewed to fit the victor's narrative

>>70527
It's almost as they really were fucking barbaric you cultural marxist.

From infrastructure, management, hygiene and millitary Romans had the upper ground for their time.

>>70552
>implying that phoenicians and the vandals were barbarians. That's pure roman propaganda.

>>70700
Did they poo in the loo?
Did they have proper infrastructure?
Did they have proper tactics?
Did they have good infrastrucutre?

These are pretty much the 4 big questions they need to pass to be considered non-barbaric.

>>68372
I think the current one is pretty interesting

>>68372
I think we don't understand them as well as we think we do, and are probably more Arab Conquests than Muslim.

>>70359
They destroyed Carthage, then rebuilt it and it became ten times larger than it was under the Punics and was the third biggest city in the world for 500 years and one of the most important Christian centres.

>>70767
What's the difference between proper and good infrastructure?

Many cultures used chamber pots, were they all barbaric?