Always love your work man!🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤❤

There is a little mistake in video regarding conquest of magrheb it was carried out by musa he conquered entirely magrheb along with his son Marwan not tariq, when he took last city which its tanger in magrheb he sent tariq and appointed as govonor there according to sources

modern spain will go down next few years..... politicly and economicly... population eather.

Umayad caliphate with the berber général Tariq ibn Ziyad were not arab. They were berber. No ?

How come you call the Army “berber”? They were mostly Arabs not only berbers

Yeah it was actually shown in the video but not mentioned I noticed

Thanks. I was wondering if it was an Arabic name originally. Now I know!

​@BillGreenAZ arabic name originally took it's name for the amazigh warrior named Tariq ibn Ziad

@@reactivist6526 well some say he was actually persian! ( im an amazigh so there is no bias)

@@ayoubzahiri1918 well people say a lot of stuff and no he was never a persian and there is no such historical record of it, the latter is opposite and there is always some bias in human beings that's how Allah swt created us,he either was an amazigh from the mountain tribes or an arab which there are only a small claim that he was an arab or a persian but there is higher chances and proofs which are historical that he was an amazigh, thank you for the response.

I love this guy

Not real, ships belonged to Julian the governor of Ceuta so how can he burned it

​@@IM-wq6wuwhere did you see that

​@@IM-wq6wu Source:Trust me bro

Not right😂

Thank you so much for the support! Very kind of you.

the thumbnail doesn't look so unbiased tbh

100% biased

@@hassan021 yeah they are always biased

yet calling the Muslims enemies

The statement "Nobody ever covers (insert favorite historic country) and it's a shame" is actually false. It honestly depends on where you live and it also depends on the student, as well as the school. My father was in the military so I had to change school a lot. I attended school in Eastern US, SW US, Germany, Japan, and I also attended a prep school my sophomore year, so I have some experience. The thing I noticed was in Japan we mainly learned Chinese and Japanese history, I don't think the Romans, England or France was ever mentioned. In the Eastern US we where taught the usual England, France, and central Europe, but in SW there was an entire course dedicated to the HIstory of Spain. It mainly focused on Spain from 1300 - 1800 but it was there. Lastly that year of prep school I mentioned you where given the option of what history period interested you most, because they offered multiple courses. From India 500 BCE - 1000 CE to Eastern Europe during the middle ages, and South America Pre-Colonialist period. Like I said it depends on a lot of factors on what people are being taught.

​@@DustinBarlow8PToday the information is easier to get than before, the fact that universities only focus in a general way on the stories of specific regions, does not mean that more research can be done to get a variety of videos on UKposts, which is a global web where people from all over the world see you. Also, I am not saying anything false, I want you to search all the UKposts channels that use military history as a theme, they all focus mostly on medieval and modern conflicts in Northern and Central Europe, while in the South (Spain , Portugal, Italy, Greece) is only done very rarely and only when dealing with conflicts related to the history of the main countries of Northern and Central Europe. That is why in my comment I thanked the History Marche, for taking battles in Spanish history like Nördlingen a few months ago and now Guadalete; but also, it is the only channel that has focused on providing in its videos an international variety of battles by taking conflicts from the Middle East, Asia and even India (which is one of the most unknown). On the other hand, with my comment on the site of the battle, I only did it as a contribution, since I know that only those who have read research directly from the country of origin of the battle are the only ones who will have information that is not found globally.

The "Dark ages" are a revisionistic term from the Renaissance that's not taken seriously by historians. The most advanced culture in Europe during the Middle Ages was the French Kingdom, which experienced a cultural renaissance of the arts and architecture (the Carolingian renaissance).

@@Shush187 the Middle Ages were actually an improvement on all levels from the violent times of antiquity. On a technological level, hygiene level, etc. People in places like Ancient Rome actually had horrendous hygiene and life expectancy was only high for the nobility.

Christianity, which literally started as a Judaic conspiracy to break the power of Rome (just as many emperors and statesmen had warned), is what helped to plunge Europe into the "Dark Ages". So many of the innovations from Greece and Rome were virtually lost for centuries. It wasn't until Christianity was made amenable to European customs and sensibilities that Europe started to recover. As long as Christianity was controlled by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and the masses were taught about the religion from the priests, the religion was able to do some good and bring a semblance of unity however once every yokel was able to read the Bible for themselves and the Reformation began, the religion reverted back to the subversive Levantive cult from which it had originated. And although we had the Renaissance and the Age of Exploration post Reformation, we also had bloody conflicts like the 30 Years War which wiped out between 1/2 to 3/4 the population of Central Europe. The Renaissance and Age of Exploration occurred despite the Reformation. Today Europeans have lost their way and are increasingly becoming disconnected from their ancestors, history and traditions but most importantly they have lost their essence, lost contact with their spirit, their very being.

@@Bahamut3525 The French Kingdom happened long after Al-Andalus and dark ages. During 40 year war, Europe was shattered and completely in dark ages. Al-Andalus contributed to it as it was the most powerful empire at time and sold everything from oranges to Damascus steel. Nobody was buying from Europe in that time. So it was a huge set back for Europe in 1453 to 1480s.

@@Bahamut3525 don’t deny we all know the truth…

Both are north African (Tunisian both if you consider Carthage back then it stretches from Tunisia to morroco )

Hannibal is originally Phoenician@@anisben9775​

@anisben9775 I appreciate the input, but that alone doesn't explain much. It doesn't help that we know very little about him prior to his appointment as General. It's possible he had an especially educated upbringing or that he was simply a gifted natural in the art of warfare, or both.

@@CranialAxe it was a metaphor because I'm north African..its just a coincidence that both are north africains and Great generals in their Era. .

حنّبعل كنعاني شامي فلسطيني وقائد طارق بن زياد كان هو موسى بن نصير فلسطيني ليسوا من شمال افريقيا

First time we have notice of "burn the boats" was Alexander the Great the year 332 B.C. in phoenicia. The spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés did the same the year 1521 in the current México.

@feylezofi That is just propganda It was a ruse made by Europeans scholars to justify the victory of Zaid bin Tariq+parts of the ships were of Julean and he can't burn his ship as the are loaned to him for the attack+the caliphate would not have approved of such suicidal act of his commander and would be questioned and probably punished for such Act if it did happened

That story is not authentic duh..those muslims dont simply destroy ships that worth a lot money back then..tariq is a prophets companion..he wont do that such things, yeah sounds great but not islamic teachings, that not what prophets taught them lol

The Umayyads are descendants of Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan Al-Umayyad Al-Qurashi, the founder of the Umayyad state. Their origin goes back to the city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, and to this day their descendants and their tribe are present in Saudi Arabia.

Ouais parce que la vision franchouillard de l’histoire est très partiale !

Oui oui la baguette ooh lala 🍆

According to The Encyclopaedia Britannica: “Most of the classical literature that spurred the European Renaissance was obtained from translations of Arabic manuscripts in Muslim libraries.” (1984), Vol. 15, p. 646. Bertrand Russell in ‘History of Western Philosophy,’ London, 1948, p. 419. "Our use of phrase 'The Dark ages' to cover the period from 699 to 1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe... "From India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished. What was lost to Christendom at this time was not lost to civilization, but quite the contrary..."To us it seems that West-European civilization is civilization, but this is a narrow view." Professor, Reverend, W. Montgomery Watt reminds us in The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe (Edinburgh: University Press, 1972: “It is clear that the influence of Islam on Western Christendom is greater than is usually realized. Not only did Islam share with Western Europe many material products and technological discoveries; not only did it stimulate Europe intellectually in the fields of science and philosophy; but it provoked Europe into forming a new image of itself. Because Europe was reacting against Islam, it belittled the influence [of Muslim scholarship].... So today, an important task for our Western Europeans, as we move into the era of the one world, is to correct this false emphasis and to acknowledge fully our debt to the Arab and Islamic world." Tim Wallace Murphy, A Templar Historian wrote a book called What Islam Did For Us, on page 215 sums up as follows: "even the brief study of history revealed in these pages demonstrates that the European culture owes an immense and immeasurable debt to the world of Islam. Muslim scholars preserved and enhanced the learning of ancient Greece, laid the foundation for modern science, medicine, astronomy and navigation and inspired some of our greatest cultural achievements. If it were not for the inherent tolerance for the People of the Book that was manifest within the Islamic World for over 15 centuries, it is highly doubtful that the Jewish people could have survived as a racial and religious entity, and we would have lost their contribution to art, medicine, science, literature and music which is almost beyond measure. We in the West owe a debt to the Muslim world that can never be fully repaid. Despite our common religious and spiritual roots, we have thanked them with centuries of mistrust, the brutality of the crusades and imperial takeover that conducted with callous indifference to the needs of the peoples we exploited"

Arab betrayal as usual

@@Mauri7782 What betrayal are you talking about? It was common at that time that every caliph would dismiss the military leaders of previous caliph, even if they were Arabs like Muhammad bin al-Qasim and Qutaiba bin Muslim...

@@ammaraimene again you clarify arabs are traitors

@@Mauri7782 أنإلي مثلك عايشين في وهم و جهل يبدو أن لا حل له

@@Mauri7782 طارق مجرد مولى (عبد) موسى بن نصير تحت امرة الخليفة الوليد

Varna Ottomons ki war thi ?

@@blacksheep6174yes

This morden calculation. But orginal army was around 70-1 lakh.

@@addamsays8087 After the fall of the Roman Empire, it was very difficult to gather more than 10 thousand soldiers, so how did King Rodrigue gather an army of 33 thousand, this seems strange to me , Because in those times, the king who won the war used to praise himself more, those who were his historians, who used to write all the details of that rule in their books, used to exaggerate the things of the king. It seems to me a lie that King Roderic has collected an army of 33 thousand. Yes, it is possible that King Roderic has collected an army of 10 to 15 thousand.

​@@Omi9762I wonder, why was it so hard for nations to gather so many soldiers after the fall of the Western Roman Empire?

@@jx_1132 1). Limited resources: Unlike the large empires of the ancient world, medieval kingdoms and principalities often had limited resources and struggled to maintain large, standing armies. The feudal system of governance, which was prevalent in much of medieval Europe, relied on local lords and nobles to provide soldiers for the king or prince, and these lords could only provide a limited number of troops. 2). Logistics: Medieval armies often faced significant logistical challenges, particularly when it came to supplying and feeding their soldiers. The lack of efficient transportation and communication networks made it difficult to move large numbers of troops and supplies over long distances. 3). Technology: Medieval weapons and armor were often heavier and more cumbersome than the weapons of the ancient world, which made it more difficult to equip and mobilize large armies. The cost of producing high-quality armor and weapons was also a limiting factor for many medieval armies. 4). Tactics: The tactics of medieval warfare often relied on smaller, more mobile units of soldiers, such as knights and cavalry, rather than large formations of infantry like those used by ancient armies. This made it easier for medieval armies to operate with smaller numbers of troops. 5). Political fragmentation: Medieval Europe was characterized by political fragmentation, with numerous small kingdoms and principalities competing for power. This made it difficult to create large, centralized armies that could be mobilized quickly and efficiently.

@@jx_1132 Limited resources: Unlike the large empires of the ancient world, medieval kingdoms and principalities often had limited resources and struggled to maintain large, standing armies. The feudal system of governance, which was prevalent in much of medieval Europe, relied on local lords and nobles to provide soldiers for the king or prince, and these lords could only provide a limited number of troops. Logistics: Medieval armies often faced significant logistical challenges, particularly when it came to supplying and feeding their soldiers. The lack of efficient transportation and communication networks made it difficult to move large numbers of troops and supplies over long distances. Technology: Medieval weapons and armor were often heavier and more cumbersome than the weapons of the ancient world, which made it more difficult to equip and mobilize large armies. The cost of producing high-quality armor and weapons was also a limiting factor for many medieval armies. Tactics: The tactics of medieval warfare often relied on smaller, more mobile units of soldiers, such as knights and cavalry, rather than large formations of infantry like those used by ancient armies. This made it easier for medieval armies to operate with smaller numbers of troops. Political fragmentation: Medieval Europe was characterized by political fragmentation, with numerous small kingdoms and principalities competing for power. This made it difficult to create large, centralized armies that could be mobilized quickly and efficiently.

There are no sources because 95% about Islam is fairytales, including Islam itself.

Kings and Generals have a bunch of Muslim conquest videos

What ? Muslims conquest And battle's Are pretty well documented.

​@@mannyfresh2938I sense a hint of propaganda from their video. They don’t easily believe in Muslim sources but at the same time fully believe in roman and greek history. Among the history channel Epichistory is pretty non-biased to me

​@@TruthSeeker8834how about K&G?

Actually, it's one western sided hisotry. In reality, a Spanish ruler called the Muslims for help against German visigoth as they were oppressed. It's hard to justify how little numbered Muslims could take over Andalucía without local support. They ruled for nearly 1000 years majority were local moriscos (spanish heritage). Even Alfonso El Cid some said he was a hidden Muslim.

@@ALGfunk And this you found out because the Spanish ruler was your drunk grandpa?

so andulus is from the word vandal, they dropped the letter V from the start

That's one theory.

​@@mercianthane2503theory ? you think the vandal kingdom didn't exist ?

@@Sina.575 The kingdom? Yes. Is "vandal" the origin of the name "Al-Ándalus"? Most likely not, since there are other theories of its origins.

@@mercianthane2503 well Al Andalus does mean the land of the vandals in Arabic.

Agreed. It was Musa and his sons who conquered Morocco. They reached the city of Taroudant in the south. They didn't stop in Tangier.

These youtube "history channels always play down Arabian history" atleast its better than fox news"

No it was tarik ibn ziyad who conquered morocco and iberia🇵🇹🇪🇸🇲🇦

​@@warlordpesco2081lol no tariq bin ziyafh is famous for conqeuring spain

no , it was tarik ibn zyad

They are so close to each other that Spain still colonizes parts of it..

@@furii4308 and how many Morrocans are here visa versa. I love Morocco and we go there 2 or 3 times a year, the people are lovely and the food is amazing

@@Roberto-tu5re There are a lot of Romanians in Spain as well. Will that justify colonizing them?

@@furii4308 Theres also alot of English here too, although I am half Sicilian so my heritage is very mixed from Greek and the Moors etc. So my comment was aimed at humour only.

@@furii4308 maybe you guys should stop illegally immigrating here.

Bc he black

Glad you like them! Thanks so much for the feedback.

Yes, gribaltar is the anglicized name for Jabal Tariq (جبل طارق) which in Arabic means Tariq's Mountain, as he had to cross it when entering the peninsula.

Thats not reconquista thats conquista itself the re is much later

@@zakariaalami1491 yes . I was mistaken. This is the conquest by muslims.

I pray we get to see a new reconquista within our lifetimes 🙏🏿

I appreciate that!

Glad you enjoyed! Thanks for joining the premiere

​@@HistoryMarche There is a little mistake in video regarding conquest of magrheb it was carried out by musa he conquered entirely magrheb along with his son Marwan not tariq, when he took last city which its tanger in magrheb he sent tariq and appointed as govonor there according to sources

@@HistoryMarche "Give him alms woman; for there is nothing like the sorrow of being blind in Granada".

Do you mean that they do speak about other battles like Simancas, Bairén, Río Salado o Navas de Tolosa in a technich or tactic point of view and that Rio Guadalete is intentionally Neglected. If so, you lie

the ostrogothic kingdom fell even earlier

The legacy of the Visigoths was carried in the Reconquista up to the modern Kings of Spain however. Every modern European country is a successor to the Germanic Kingdoms.

@@Bahamut3525 Yes, but in legal terms they had no successors, like the Roman Empire did have in the East... And I would argue with your second sentence as well, Slavic countries really have nothing to do with the Germanic kingdoms for example.

@@mastermindd When I spoke of Europe, I spoke of the Occident (Western & Northern Europe). Not the slavic center and east.

@@Bahamut3525 Then specify it more accurately next time

Arabanese was spoken by natives who converted

And the language of the original Christian Kingdoms in Asturias founded by Pelayo-Bable

Thanks so much! Actually, I am already working on Manzikert, it should be finished in about 30-40 days.

@@HistoryMarche another great news! And Again thank you!

I'm excited about doing Manzikert too. Been wanting to do it for a long time, but for some reason it just kept getting postponed. But it's finally happening hehe

cap

100k? 💀ok bro

Bruv the sources are exaggerated. It would be logistically and politically impossible for them to find such a massive army . also the defection of flank compromised the whole position they held

This is some herodotus level exaggeration

Thank you so much for supporting my work. Very kind of you.

Both from North Africa, what is today Tunisia. Interesting

@@MrEnric98 tariks origins are debated most likely he was from northern morocco tribe since he was the governor of tangier before crossing to iberia

it's a fake story though

​@@akiogood4712avg jealous guy

@@Beyondme488 I'm not jealous. it's literally a fake story fabricated by christian losers who tried to find a justification for why they lost. Islamic scholars consider the alleged burning of ships as a fake story

Fake story I'm north African as well

@@brahimbougandoura7912 avg jealous guy , the story is well documented by historians .

Even in the Dna of spanish people (they dont like that but is true)

"Give him alms woman; for there is nothing like the sorrow of being blind in Granada".

30000 + vs 12000. The 30000 being more heavily armored. Even with the betrayal, there is something not adding up. 3000 losses for the Umayyads? It seems far more likely that the traitors attacked the Visigothic main army if such numbers are to be believed.

it make sense as it is bc 3000 loses to the army that won is a lot like all early muslim battles the hight moral and cohesion of muslim is way higher than their enemys thats why they win @@ParleLeVu

​@@ParleLeVuSoldiers die more from retreating than from pitched battle.

​​@@ParleLeVuof the 30,000 Visigothic troops half of them could have been Sisberto and Oppa's troops. Also the victors of battles always exaggerate the numbers of their enemies and usually sugar coat their own losses. I'm not saying that's what happened for sure but it's a possibility. Have you noticed with the wars of the past 200 years or so the loser always seems to be blamed for starting the war lol?

@@ParleLeVu Visigothic army was about 24.000, 5.000 light infantry (mostly armed peasants) plus 3.000 heavy cavalry in the center whith Roderic, and two wings of 4.000 heavy cavalry each one, which deserted. The muslim army went from be doubled to have a 50% more troops. Very experienced troops (light cavalry and spearmen) which surrounded and defeat Roderic's army. Shortly after the muslim army won anothe battle in Écija and easily took the capital, Toledo. There was no more resistance until they reached the northern mountains.

The destiny of traitors is never worth mentioning. Sisberto is never heard from again, and Oppa fled to Toledo but was later captured and executed. Ignoble ends to treacherous scum

@@ntluck1592 it reminds me if the story of Romanos IV and Andronicos Dukas and the battle of Manzikert. It also come to mind an ancient Italian saying: "Peggio è l’invidia dell’amico che l’insidia del nemico" [worse it's the envy of a friend then the threat of an enemy]

​@@ntluck1592depends if you are a Communist or a fascist, you can't just call them traitors. You are Germans after all 😅

Fathimiyah lost🏳️🏳️🏳️ crazy mad dinasty

lost

​@@Emarrylwin

​@@allahbukanorangyaman Are you a Fatimid supporter calling the Umayyad mad dynasty?

@@miracleyang3048 no im supporter Islam 😎

Sources for your claims?

​@@WoL0WizZaRDIn fact, he is right, Spanish historians have long debated the location during the 19th and 20th centuries, because Guadalete does not match the information described about the site of the battle in the sources, which is why it is considered an error. It is currently more accepted that the battle took place closer to Algeciras (which was Tariq's main base) and that the closest site to the sources is next to the old Laguna de La Janda. I heard all this from a podcast by a historian named Fernando Diaz Villanueva, in which I interview an expert on the subject, so without saying the sources, Franksgarp's comment is correct.

@ How do they explain the losses, though? If the traitor Visigoths every actually engaged, then 36000 vs 12000 does not lead to only 3000 losses for the Umayyads. Something is not adding up.

​​​​@@ParleLeVuI had to search and listen to the podcast again in order to remember exactly what they said; The reality is that they never speak of numbers because the sources generally always tend to exaggerate them, but what is affirmed is that the population in all of Visigothic Hispania was less than 5 million, but that several facts must be added that would explain not only the little resistance that there was after the battle, but also the very possible lack of Visigothic forces to face the Invasion (which is likely due to antecedents that they were not capable of raising very large armies unlike the Franks, since the century before the conquest, the Byzantines came to reconquer the south of Hispania with not many troops and the Goths were unable to expel them quickly), since some sources mention that at that time there were great droughts that led to massive famines and also few years before the Invasion, there were outbreaks of the Bubonic Plague, also add the Civil War situation in which the kingdom was just when Tariq and Musa undertook their attack (internal struggles that must have caused many casualties in the Visigoths), in addition to It must be taken into account that the Muslim troops defeated the garrisons that left Cordoba to attack them before Rodrigo arrived (skirmishes that reduce the available troops), so it is very likely that the actual estimate of troops would be much less of the 30,000 soldiers, they may not have been very different from those of the Muslims, perhaps they did not exceed 20,000 and if you subtract from there those who retreat for treason in the middle of battle, they may remain in numbers similar to those of the invaders (So the most realistic estimate would be 20,000 vs 12,000). Another important point to take into account and that our historians mention in the podcast, is that the Moroccan population, recently converted to Islam before the Invasion, had been romanized for centuries (at least those who lived in the cities), so a good part of Tariq's contingents (mainly the infantry), was armed very similar to the Visigoths who had heavy infantry (that is, they knew the ways of fighting and had similar weapons) and if you add to that the defensive positions, that would explain the little mortality of the Moors and instead that of the Visigoths is explained by the fact that behind their backs, according to the sources, was the Laguna de La Janda, that explains the great mortality since when the flanks fled for treason and being almost bagged, most of them ended up dying from trying to swim away in their retreat across the lagoon, in fact King Rodigo himself died that way according to the sources, as they emphasize in the podcast, so the casualties were due more to the withdrawal than to the fight with the invaders itself... I hope this has solved your doubts.

Thanks. Great recap. Arabs were never known as great pitched fighters, so the Berbers doing the heavy lifting in the melee makes sense, due to the background as a Roman (and Vandal/Visigothic) province. @

Amazigh and the arabs got expelled

Both sides were disunited. It was 8 centuries where alliances continually changed, muslims againts christians, muslims against muslims, christians against christians, and, yep, christians and muslims against christians and muslims. 8 crazy centuries, like Game of Thrones.

That's not true Bro I geuss you the people of portogal got some of Amazigh native blood because the Amazigh dinestys ruled portogal many times like the Aftasid family in the time of divided city states

You have amazigh blood than Arabic be sure. Only 2 or 3% of modern North Africa is Arab genetically.

@@walideg5304how do you know what blood he has?! You guys are funny

@@Ibn-Abdurrahman arabs loves to spread lie to look good, arabs didn't kill all amazigh&andalusians but the like of belive that arabs are majority of north africa and andalusia. arabs were few in andalusia and north africa, The Moroccan amazigh ruled andalusia until its fall after clean it from the trash rulers by the true muslims al morabitin. I've never meet a liar like an arab, no honor just shame.

Moors didnt colonize nor migrated to the Iberian Penninsula specially not in the middle ages were armies were very small 3k to 8k small. nonetheless Moors for example are actualy related to iberians but not for the reason you may think. Both were colonize by the Romans for at least 1000 years and later both also by the Germanic Goths

It seems to be a legend. First time we have notice of "burn the boats" was Alexander the Great the year 332 B.C. in phoenicia. The spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés did the same the year 1521 in the current México.

@@angelcamachodelsolar It is historical event

@@jamshidkarimov1021 In the historical sources that we handle Tariq has a few boats, and it took days if not weeks to cross the strait all his troops. So there wasn't enough boats to retreat to Africa if they were defeated.

Dark ages. Europe never truly civilised. We gave them so many opportunities to get civilised but all our military expeditions were in vain 😀

What arabs

@@oussamamarroqino2579 the Muslim army was both Berber and Arab

Except there are many accounts saying there was a betrayal that destroyed the Visigoth ruling class. It is pretty well established in the records and created a lot of tension across Europe toward these betraying people.

@@oussamamarroqino2579 it was berber and arabs both .

True, for sure this channel used christian sources, acording to them in all battles they lost coz someone deserted xD

Haha All I see in every Historical video About Arabian History in comments section That are Berbers or Some mad Turks and Persians Who try to steal The Arabian Golden Age That’s a fact

انت مسلم ؟

No man !! thats 800 years obfff😂

@@RAmi_RAmi247 what are you saying mate? 😂

Once the ruling class was fell, there was little to no structure to hold anyone to take what they wanted. These farctured realms (think of the Lombards and Charlemagne) often were working for the enemy trying ti carve some power for themselves. Kingdoms were just under the king's rule, but there was no real grasp of "Nation" (or "Res Pubblica") as the Roman had.

Dark ages applies to Europe. We had nothing to do with that.

@@Mohammadkwt and yet Islamic armies were so small like Europe. Muslims conquered Egypt with just 12,000 men. Why? (And please don’t tell me Allah was on your side).

​@@Shimra8888 Nothing wrong with believing God (Allah) had a role in the battles, God decides the outcome of all. Early Islamic Armies had very high morale and were under 1 banner, leaving little to no division, regardless, the early Islamic battles are something to marvel at, always interesting to see battles of smaller armies defeating larger ones.

muslim never fought for their self but for others they had bettter ecnomical social and political values than that of their time thats why from every corner people invited muslim to rule over them from hispania to india bangladesh to indonesia