Heraclius and the Muslim Conquests
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 05. 2024
- The year was 629 AD. In the aftermath of the ultimate Roman victory over Persia, both empires were devastated and needed time to restore their strength. Among his first decisions, emperor Heraclius began using the greek title “Basileus” to replace latin roman terms such as “Augustus”.
⏰ Timestamps
0:00 - Post war interlude
4:37 - Muslim invasion
7:05 - Battle of Yarmuk
8:06 - Defensive breakdown
11:54 - Heraclius' last year
🤝 Support
You can support me and donate a Follis or more on Patreon :
/ ancientsight
🎵 Music
www.epidemicsound.com/
Forever to Run STEMS INSTRUMENTS - Howard Harper-Barnes
March Towards the End STEMS INSTRUMENTS - Bonnie Grace
Force Matrix STEMS INSTRUMENTS - Jon Bjork
Protector Of The Sky - Jo Wandrini
Disciples of Sun Tzu - Christian Andersen
The Thin Line STEMS INSTRUMENTS - Hampus Naeselius
📚 Main sources
- Walter E. Kaegi, Heraclius Emperor of Byzantium: Cambridge; 2003
- Hugh Elton, The Roman Empire of Late Antiquity; 2016
- Morisson Cécile, Le Monde Byzantin I - L'empire rome d'Orient (330-641): puf; 2012
🌐 Internet sources
- Wikipedia fr eng, 2022
- The History of Byzantium Podcast thehistoryofbyzantium.com/
- Roman Emperors : www.roman-emperors.org/
- Byzantine Battles : byzantium.gr/battles.html
- Historical Map Animators, CZcams
The life of Heraclius belongs to kind Shakespearean tragedy. Dedicating his life to restoring the Empire only to see his life's work crumble in his final years
Good
@@TruthSeeker8834wdym
@@anto-sk4ce It's Good that his empire crumbled. Arabs or persians should have wiped out that human worshipping den.
Honestly he was also one of the people who was responsible for all of the territory loss the Persians. He and his father revolted during the Persian war causing major major territory loss.
@@ozberkoz yeah but i think the losses would have been greater with phocas, and more importantly phocas wouldn't have been able to reconquer all that stuff
The red on the map is getting smaller and smaller😢
But will continue to fight for the next centuries
😂😂
Criminally underrated channel
The true “fall” of the classical empire.
Agreed. From now the Empire will be another, adapt for survival and evolve to something different.
The Golden age of the new era will be with the Macedonians.
No, the "classical empire" (whatever that means). The identity of the empire is not dependent on its size. I guess the WRE became the Italian Empire, when it lost its southern provinces to the Vandals.
People that say that actually mean "That's the point where I don't like it anymore, so I pretend that the empire falls when I want it too".
Back when Byzantium was barely talked about, Romaboos said the true fall of Rome occurred with the death of Marcus Aurelius.
@@Michael_the_Drunkardhe means the empire of classical antiquity, it really shouldn’t be that hard to understand. Besides he’s right, never again would the Romans be the Mediterranean spanning superpower it had once been. It was now a changed “Medieval” Roman Empire.
Yeah sure it wasn't Justinian closing philosophical institutes of Greece or theodosian enforcing Christianity and abolishing paganism it was the Muslims who ended classical age
@@miracleyang3048 yeah, I tend to think an invasion which fundamentally changed the defining characteristic of the near East since Alexander the Great, its Greekness, is more important of a watershed moment than Justinian closing Athens’ platonic academy.
The Emperor Heraclius was one of the better Roman Emperors to rule the empire. His reign marked the transition from the Late Roman Empire to the Medieval Byzantine Empire. The empire was reduced to Anatolia, the Balkans, and islands in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas. The Greek language replaced Latin spoken at the imperial court. And Heraclius's grandson, Constans II, would introduce the Theme System to help ensure that Greco/Roman heritage survived for another thousand years.
*Medieval Roman Empire, Byzantine is holy Roman propaganda
@@tuffmbassador522the Eastern Empire alone isn’t really the Roman Empire, and the term Byzantine isn’t meant to delegitemize it just to distinguish it from the Classical Roman Empire, it was governed from Constantinople and Greek, and had its own history separate from the history of the Roman Empire
@@Avinkwepafter the west fell the east become the only Roman Empire and Rome fell in 1453
@@barrett206 after the west fell the east wasn’t really the Roman Empire. Japan isn’t the Japanese Empire just because it never got conquered
@@AvinkwepThe Japan one is much different from this. Japan destroyed the idea of Imperialism and embraced the West-like democracy ideology. Meanwhile, The Eastern Roman Empire was still The Roman Empire and it was legitimately Roman, the only difference is that it is decreased in terms of land and power. This is different from powers like UK or France because they abandoned colonialism and imperialism ideology and they officially do it.
0:29 not true actually, while the title Augustus lost its significance to Basileus and Autokrator, it was still included in documents in its Greek form (Αύγούστος) until the 15th century. The title didn't go anywhere.
Romaboo Ramblings made a video about this a while ago.
Quoicoubeh
The primary title of the Emperor was always changing. First Caesar and Augustus, then Imperial, then Dominus in the late empire.
Yes.
I wonder why the Emperor highly disapproved of his governors paying tribute for peace with the Arabs, he himself was getting older and less capable of defending the provinces, a temporary halt to the Arab momentum could prove very beneficial and allow the Romans to gather their forces and return to fight another day. Losing Syria and Palestine might have been expected and inevitable, but Mesopotamia and Egypt were avoidable.
Amazing video btw.
My guess is that he aimed to somewhat reexecute what he had done with the persians. Retreating into Anatolia and gathering what money he could to counter attack. Perhaps he could not even stick to a coherent plan by then.
Thanks, I do enjoy watching your videos as well. These drawing are a nice pleasant way to present the narrative
@@ancientsight that is a good explanation, I kinda forgot that he didn't know how permanent the Arab conquest was going to be and assumed his tactic with the Persians would work again. My bad, I spoke from hindsight. Or yeah, he was sort of losing it especially after Yarmouk and lost the strategic genius he had in his better days. Truly he lived too long.
On the other hand thanks for the compliment, and I'm glad you enjoy the videos! I wish I could make maps as well as you though.
@@byzansimp
He was too arrogant to admit that Arabs were superior
Also agreeing to such peace is indirectly admitting that Islam is stronger than christianity
@@baha3alshamari152the arab hordes aren't superior to the Byzantines nor the Sasanids, but just lucky enough that both these empires had been exhausted waging war against one another.
The issue is that it would lead to a breakdown of imperial power because govenors would be comfortable with doing their own thing in terms of dealing with the muslims. Its possible that the govenors would even start splitting off like we saw with the exarchate of north africa later on in the war.
furthermore the loss of prestige would cause the people in constantinople to wonder if heraclius was a coward and was unfit for office.
The roman very well might have been completely conquered or at least defeated in africa quicker if heraclius was allowing such measures.
If there was even one big civil war it would have been over for the romans, they were in a bad situation in both asia and europe.
Keep up the good work bro!
I feel bad for Heraclius, he didn’t deserve so many hardships lol
The man was really fighting against the trends of his time.
Man failed so many times.
Always love to see that you uploaded keep up the great work
I like your way of drawing these maps. Good job
5:22
And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah, "They are dead." Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not.
I feel he didn’t aim to disrespect the prophet there, if he did it was incidentally
Can't wait for next vid! Heraclians struggle for survival needs more coverage.
I agree !
The map is really beautiful and how the story in itself is amazing! I like this video! Also, Emperor Heraclius deserved better. Aside from the fact that he attempted to forcefully convert the Jews, he is definitely one of the best Imperators of the Roman Empire because it is him who helped the Empire survived for so long in many years to come.
@@JingLi-pw3du What?
Hadrians literally destroyed the Jews on mass but yet “Ohhh Roman emperor tries to forcefully convert Jews oh my god!!” You serious?
@@WarriorofChrist612 What are you even talking abou?
The crazy stuff is that when Heraclius defeated once and for all Persia he was considered a demigod to his peope and in the last 5 years of his reign everything got f*.
i guess that's what happens when you start worshiping creation
@@m.khalid334 you are a follower of Muhammad you have no right to speak
What good timing. I was literally just reading about this earlier today.
Your videos keep getting better
Just looking to produce quality stuff for quality viewers
Very excited to see what happens next. Great job as always!
It’s you again!
@@Caligulashorse1453 I think we'll be seeing each other across youtube pretty regularly lol
The ancient world is over. 😊
@@ZachRULES96😢
you are not mentioning the reason of the battle of mu'tah and the pre of the battle details like the killing of the messanger that the prophet sent by the ghassanids
Indeed, I did not mention it for two reasons :
1. My sources, which give narratives from the roman point of view, did not specify it or did not emphasise on it.
2. This video series is about the roman understanding of the events. From this point of view, this early clash was more of an unspecific arab incursion with no impact to their way of seeing and dealing with the Arab tribes.
These are my reasons for such a choice but indeed you made an interesting point. I could have sacrificed the focus on the roman point of view for a deeper understanding of the battle of Mu'tah.
Yay new video! I can't wait to see what golden age Heraclius has in store for the Empire now that the worse is behind them!
i like the change in color for the slavs in the balkans. Before it was too close to the red color of the Romans. It made it seem like they were vassals of them.
such a late-roman-thing to do: while external enemies attack they squabble over theological nonesense and plan to overthrow a successfull emperor
Bear in mind, the main way records came down was through the church, so it's likely that they emphasized theological debates when they may not have been as important as they may appear. I honestly can't figure out if the average person actually gave a crap about Christ's divine nature or not.
@@TheDirtysouthfan in hindsight my comment was very biased by my modern stance towards religion as being not important at all.
yet for those people 1,5milenia earlier it was as real as their daily life - and thus for rulers extremely important to control and shape the religion they claim gives them the right to rule.
Also maybe you are right: nobody really cared but for the monks who wrote the history we now read
This actually marks the end of the ancient world.
You really need to do some earlier videos on the roman empire like the year of the 4 emperors or Augustus. Not saying i don't enjoy eastern roman history, but it would be interesting to see your take.
Maybe
3:04 it funny until the 1900s the Ottoman had to pay us we Arab nomads money so we don’t raid their supply lines in Iraq and levant. Something never changed.
Great video
True, this weird relation between settled empires and Arab tribes existed for quite some time.
Great episode!!
Incredible video
Was the man named Theodore that defended the city of Babylon the same Theodore that was the brother of Heraclius? I’m just unsure due to the fact that they have different symbols above their names.
Haha, I knew you were going to ask this question !
No, there is no mention of both those Theodore being the same. This was simply a common name among the byzantine elite at the time.
I'm not crying, u are....
When’s the Burgundian’s video coming out?😅
In a matter of days
@@ancientsightnice
These maps are stunning
This is going to be interesting clash
When is the Glorious reign of Constans II coming out?
The Burgundian Kingdom is next as a standalone episode probably for 25-30 september. I have been delayed because a book I ordered was late. Constans' episode will be next and since research and maps are already done, perhaps no more than 10 days later. But don't take these dates for granted.
@@ancientsight sounds good I enjoyed your Seubi stand alone video
Another great video. Cant wait until we get to the macedonian dynasty to see the comeback.
7:40 NOOO MY DOOM STACK!!!
May have it been possible that the economic situation effected the moral of the troops during the arab invasions?
On an indirect level at least, a bad economy meant bad government finances. For example, it seems that the presence of Sakellarios (treasurer) Theodore Trithyrius as a commander at Yarmuk was meant to appease the troops who feared not to be paid.
@@ancientsight i has no idea that an economic minister of the empire had to participate in battle because things were that bad, btw i can't wait on Constans II i believe he is underrated
This is where real men cry
The rise of islam was probably one of thr single most important moments in human history ever
At that point the Mediterranean was Roman and persia was in the east
With the germanic conquest of the west and the islamic conquest of the east you saw the true death of the Mediterranean civilization forever split in half
And the new east became islam and the west became Christianity
Rome as a concept died forever with middle eastern people seeing themselves by religion and euroepans by an entirely different race
I agree with most of what you say. Especially the concept of "mediterranean civilisation".
Good video
One of the best time periods
dont worry, things will get better...
until they get worse
You'll just have to wait 2 centuries for the good times to come back...
@@christophernakhoul3998and then ....
Again.....
Heraclius was probably the best one could hope for for dealing with this kind of situation and the crazy good and experienced muslim commanders.
Oh no its every Arab's favorite few decades coming up. Were never gonna hear the end of this.....
lol, admit it, you'd definitely like it if you were me.
"By late antiquity, there was a single Greco-Roman Empire, but perhaps today we see more clearly the continuity of its dual nature than the ancients did. Both civilizations co-existed and both survived through the Middle Ages down to the present day;"
RONALD MELLOR, THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN GREEK AND ROMAN IDENTITY, p.118
God knows I've dreaded the release of this video...
It was one thing after another. First the Avars. Then the Sassanids. Then the Arabs. Then the Bulgars... The Romans were felled by blow after blow.
Respect to my man Heraclius the greatest enemy king.
I don't know, alexios komnenos was a respectable foe of the muslims and did what he could to hold us off though his work was undone later by the mamlukes and anatolian beyliks.
The Official lang of the empire became the Greek language.
Gosh this video was hard to watch, such a heroic, desperate and tragic fortune. The sassanids must have felt the same.
if it weren’t for the Rashidun caliphate , Heraclius would’ve passed as the greatest byzantine emperor
Im from Egypt 641 the year which ruined Egypt until now
You mean when Egypt started its Golden Age?
The Romans literally taxed Egyptians to death and persecuted the Coptic church and killed so many of its followers that they called that era the era of martyrs
Egypt died after that it entire cultural heritage was forgotten by inferior one
@@baha3alshamari152 Bashurian revolts, the Caliphate did the same thing except they more successful as they eventually broke the Copts and they gradually converted as a result.
Battle of Mutah was strategical victory of muslims
@Imperialmonarchist Whome ? And what he saying ?
Romans didnt defeat the Persians, it was a stalemate, with neither side taking extra territory.
well just because it was status quo antebellum does not mean there wasn't a winner. The war ended on Roman terms and the Persians accepted them. There were no net changes but they retook all conquered territories the Persians conquered which included the territories won by Maurice at the expense of Persia. Not to mention it was the Persians that had to pay the indemnity, free all prisoners, and gave back all relics back.
@@mikehuang4834 yea but in terms of damage caused Sassanids caused way more for the Byzantines than they did on them.
@@KoroushRP sure, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a winner in the war. Damage has nothing to do with the end result. Hannibal and Carthage did more damage but Rome won the war. You can say the Persians performed better in this context too but the Romans won the war.
@@mikehuang4834 they didnt win the war. They literally wom nothing and lost more than Persia
@@KoroushRP What are you even talking about? The Romans won everything they wanted from the end of the war because every term that was set was set by them. And each was accepted by the Persians at their own expense. The Romans won back all territory that they never properly reconquered. The Persians willingly ceded them by withdrawal of troops. You don't think the Persians wanted to keep all that territory? The Romans does not pay the indemnity as a loser should. It is Persia. The Romans do not have to release any prisoners nor ransom the return of their own. Persia does. The Romans retrieved all of their old relics. The Persians does not. It is clear that it ended in favor of the Romans because they set the terms and the Persians accepted them without offering any of their own. Persia was left in anarchy while the Romans were slowly recovering. Those that are able to set the terms of the peace are the winners. Those that have to accept them are losers. It's not very hard to understand.
What a fucking tragedy.
It was a glory!
Someone's tragedy is other's GLORY
It is glory
The times of the Romans & Persian were over when they refused the Prophet Mohammed sa. Call.
the things are really amzaing, i am really amazed and
the prophecy \ "promise of Allah" really fullfied .
muslime emeaged as "super power" and providing the Truth for all the nations.
like Quran said in sura chapter: ar-rūm, 'The Romans'.
the Romans and The sassanids were deafeted also.
""Within three to nine years. To Allah belongs the command before and after. And that day the believers will rejoice.
In the victory of Allah. He gives victory to whom He wills, and He is the Exalted in Might, the Merciful.
[It is] the promise of Allah. Allah does not fail in His promise, but most of the people do not know."""
sura aR-Rum(Roman) 30 :4- 6.
just imagine..
The Bedouin muslims, who are hungery and poor prople ,
Oppressed, persecuted, tortured, killed by the "Arab Quraish tribe people"
like,they wiil defeat the superpowers.? that times "usa and Russia "
really amazing !!!
Why do you mention the greek name taking over the Latin
Please Urdu and Hindi language translation
I added them both for this video with an automatic translation. I hope it is good enough.
@@ancientsight thanks bro
@@ancientsightI couldn't find the translation
@@insafahmed6164 Go in the video settings -> subtitles -> select your language. Then click on the subtitles button
Seriously, how did the Byzantines lose all that to the Arabs? I know many people argue about the impact of the justinian plague and the Roman-Persian wars, but considering that the Byzantines were more advanced and wealthier than the Arabs, and the Arabs were fighting on two fronts, it seems like the Byzantines could have easily defeated them
Why did they lost ?.
There are many reasons that they lost.
1) Byzantine-Sassanid War, an almost 30 year war that devastated the Empire as you said
2) Superior Arab Leadership in Khalid, one of the best generals of all time, his counterpart Heraclius was old & sickly
3) Religious fervor and unity allowed for better motivation in the side of the Arabs
4) Roman overconfidence, they won against the Arabs in the past and did not understand the new foe. There was nothing in the Strategikon that dived into the warfare of the Arabs. Most fortifications were positioned in the north against the Sassanians, not the south towards the Arabs.
5) Arabs were well keen on fighting in the desert and were very mobile while the Romans were more heavily armored and slower
6) The area of the Roman Empire that the Arabs conquered were predominantly Jewish and Monophysite Christians, groups that had no love for Constantinople that persecuted them. Many willingly gave up just as they had done so earlier with the Persians.
7) Arabian Pennisula was closer to Palestine, Egypt and Syria than Constantinople and the Imperial Heartland was
8) Romans blunders, amassing one super army to fight a small but mobile force, risking all the eggs in one basket by fighting a pitch battle at Yarmuok. After one massive defeat, the whole of the East was open and Heraclius abandoned it all in favor of his old strategy of staying in Anatolia. Unlike last time where his personal leadership turn things around, there was no one like that anymore. He died before he got the chance to do it again and his successors were busy squabbling and the Arabs consolidated their gains.
9) Failure of Roman and Sassanid coordination. They plan on fighting together to push the Arabs back but Persia could not gather enough forces early enough and Romans decided to fight early. Arabs were able to beat both separately at Yarmuok and Al-Qadisiyah
The saddest part of all this was that all of it could have been avoided. Romans and Persians actually had the closest relationship that they ever had in their history that both leaders were allies and friends (Maurice and Khosrow). It is tragic that the warmest relations between the two followed with the most bitter (The 26 year war). Had they kept their alliance in tact and Maurice stayed in power and his son succeeded him, the two Empires would have never fought each other and would be in peak shape. Plus, both sides would be working together from the very beginning and fight the Arabs if Islam does unite it in this new timeline. In original timeline, the Persians were invaded first while the Byzantines watched and had to deal with a Civil War right before.
@@mikehuang4834 The Romans couldnt defeat the arabs with 50k troops in Yarmouk. What makes you believe that they could have defeated the arabs with more troops and resources (that they supposedly would have had in alternate timeline with no 30 year perso-byzantine war). You can hardly fit more than 50 k troops in a battlefield in syria, both logistically and due to space issues. The supposedly "unexhausted" byzantines would still lose against the arabs even with persian help, due to their inadequate battle doctrines (reliance on slow Heavy cavalry and horse archers to create breakthroughs in arab lines, which was redundant as more mobile arab cavalry always rushed to kill the byzantine breaktrough before it could develop), and commanders (such as Vahan) who simply were outmatched by arab commanders Khalid Ibn Walid and abu Ubayda, who were superior in tactical flair and maneuvers, whereas Vahan only had the skill to make frontal attacks and ordered retreates, keeping 0 units in reserve. No byzantine commanders knew how to use their numerical superiority to their advantage, they were used at fighting pitched battles against an equal foe such as sassanids and letting their subordinates fight their battles on a tactical level. Meanwhile Khalid took a more active approach and rotated troops between both his flanks, allowing him to defeat the roman army piece by piece. Mobility and tactical genius will always win out against more numerous, advanced, heavy and slow armor.
Another reason from mentioned in this reply is Khalid Ibn Walid who didn't lost a battle in his life. If there were 2 people, like to see against is Julius Ceaser vs Khalid Ibn Walid
@@nazeem8680 I will never say the Arabs would never win but it would certainly be much harder. I did mention other things like the Arabs might not be fully united in an alternate timeline to even be relevant like their history before Islam. They may not have the confidence to try and conquer but simply raid just because they may have less resources and their enemies perhaps 2 to 3 times as more. The Arab conquest also may not have been as quick and as significant but more gradual. I would like to believe the Romans won't make the blunders Persia did and gamble one big battle after another. They might learn after one such defeat hopefully and adequate resources would still be available even after a Yarmuok. One Field Army was able to push Khalid back from most his Roman conquests just because he feared his smaller army being wiped out piecemeal by that juggernaut. He needed to regroup. If that was the case and there were multiple 50k+ field armies already there, I find it hard for the Arabs to keep their conquests, especially if they employ Fabian tactics like with Hannibal soon after. The Romans can play the longer game as shown by the almost 30 year war, the Arabs with so few successes might not be able to keep the pressure
mashaAllah
☹️ *promosm*
Lmao did you just showed battle of Mutah and Khalid Bin Walid lost?
Don't just blindly believe the Wikipedia.
In the battle of mutah 3k Mujahideen-E-Islam faced the big army of Romans which was around 200k and after the first 3 leader of Muslim army get Shahid Khalid bin Walid took the leadership on his hands and on that day he broke 9 sword's and at last the Muslim army was victorious on roman army, only 12 man from the Muslim army get Shahid and comparably the Romans faced heavy causalities. When the Muslim army was pushed back to the mountains they didn't leave the battle and romans in fear they also didn't charge in mountains out of fear. Then the roman army have already taken heavy causalities so they didn't further charge on Muslim army and retreated. After the Roman army retreated Khalid bin Walid also didn't took any actions after that they leave the Battlefield victorious. It is impressive in itself that Khalid Bin Walid succeed to save the 3k army and it's even more impressive that he conquerored the battlefield. On that day when Khalid Bin Walid took the leadership on his hands our prophet said now Allah has take out one of his sword from the sword's. From that day Khalid Bin Walid got the title of Saifullah which means ( sword from the sword's of Allah ). He was never defeated in a battle or get killed even when he was not Muslim he won all the battle's and after he became Muslim he fought more then 200 plus major and minor battle's and was never defeated for once.
He crushed the two superpowers of his time, he crushed the Persian empire, he crushed the Romans. He conquered Iran, he conquerored Iraq, he conquered Syria, he conquered Armenian, he conquered Jordan, and many many lands. He is the undefeated soldier. He is the undefeated commander. He is the undefeated Ruler. Who was always victorious on each and every battle. He is the sword from the swords of Allah.
HE IS KHALID BIN WALID R.A
Is it the middle of the end (The Fall of Whole Roman Empire)
I would say midlife crisis of the eastern Roman’s
Its the beginning of a new era. Even though the Romans will struggle with the next few centuries, they will continue to be the greatest civilization in Europe.
It's over.
Muslims did not loose the battle of muta..make sure you are right
I can't watch anymore...
I witness no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messneger. May allah guide us all
the byzantines got divided because of religion, the arabs got united because of religion
WISH CRISTIANS RULE BACK CONSTANTINOPLE
Historically incorrect. It was the romans who attacked first. . I suppose believing in inherently incoherent superstitions like the trinity renders one rather susceptible to inaccuracies.
I reccomend purchasing a strong rope and a stool.
Also, the Arabs attacked Ghassanids first.
@@maxg8766 pigeaterplease
@@maxg8766what are you talking about? The Ghassanids killed an envoy sent by the prophet Muhammed first. That is an act of war. Your knowledge about the subject is poor.
@@IMHS21 This is true, thank you for clarifying. But, I meant the Arabs were the ones who moved to engage. The above comment implies that the Byzantines moved their armies first. Furthermore, Arab raids started before envoys were sent, although this is debated.
@@maxg8766 thx for your response. The history is far more elaborated than what was shown in the video and can easily sketch a wrong picture.
Basically the muslims were at war with the Quraysh in the south and the leader of the Quraysh colluded with the byzantines and there vassal state (the ghassans) to bring the prophet down.
Good work mate.
Thanks man, glad you appreciate it !
7:56 Best thing ever happened
All thanks to kalid ibn walid a 6 stars general he was too dangerous it good thing he died early 640 other wise things would get uglier fun fact he nearly killed Muhammad in the battle of uhud in 625 by quraish trip his 1 of billion general rare and dangerous individual 🤔😐
@@Imperialmonarchist true but when u fight him on pitch battle u better extra savvy to take him down u need at least narces or balicarics level kalid is type of guy who wait and then u at most distracted u come with finish blow
the greatest tragedy in history
You seem insincere. One indication is that you mentioned both empires were "vanquished" to undermine the victories of Muslims and conveniently missed details on the number of soldiers in both armies - for those who don't know, Muslims defeated better equiped armies having more than 2x soldiers (some estimates even say 5 times) compared to them in some battles.
Disappointing.
I always strive for the most unbiased narrative one can write with my source material. The term "vainquised" does fit with the historical consensus about the battle of Firaz.
About the number of soldiers, well yes, I do not mention them. But you can watch the previous videos and see that I rarely if ever talk about these debated details. That is because this is not a millitary history channel. These videos are about broader geopolitical narratives of various states of late antiquity with information relevant to them.
Still, I can understand why you may feel that way. If you want a video documentary about the detailed millitary achievements of the muslims conquests, well I can recommend the many hours documentary of Kings and General. But I guess you already know.
Allahu Akbar!
In this map is shared one land ara with name albania wich is totally lie and prapaganda just with one reason and this reason is to make normal albania of balcan as they are comes from this region albania in caucas . But there is non history facts about and those people of this albania of caucas doesnot even exists and albania in balcan is named to late from others as Albania with meaning alba wich is white color in latin
But we as albanian we don’t call our selfes alban but Arber and shqiptar and ilir and in name of ilirian tribes what about this albania in caucas is you thet share this video Schould explane us where did. this name come from what are those people whan are they named in history who do they live where are they ? Or is just matter of prapaganda of Slavs wich are comes in balcan and try to make history with albanian balls
The regions of Caucasus back then were named Albania and Iberia
Later on a region in Balkans was named Albania and Spain and Portugal were named Iberia
There was also a region in central Russia called Bulgaria and the name was later used for a country in Balkans
@@baha3alshamari152 alshamari I won’t know where you come from but I wanna say thet albanian in balkan we have nothing to do with this region is no any data thet emigrants come in balkan from east just from balcan to east I thing from albanian territory .
@baha3alshamari152 is right, as far as I know, there is no claimed nor proven connection between the ancient kingdom of Albania in the caucasus and the modern country of Albania in the Balkans. This is not a matter of propaganda or anything, just a coincidence that both states have the same name.
Rashidun Caliphate
Russians in Ukraine rashists
The worst thing that ever happend to the world, the rise of islam. One of the greatest mistakes in history
Keep seething
You are the mistake of your parents....
stay mad or join us and find true peace
And now continued in US and UK. Having highest conversion rate
@@izharulhaqtruthrevealed1185 Alhamdulilah 💪🏽💪🏽☝🏼