Umayyad Siege of Constantinople (Byzantine Empire) 

Guess you have never hear about Santa Claus beating up Arius.

@@paulmayson3129 shit, I thought Dovahhatty was just shitting around😩🤣🤣

@@paulmayson3129 You hear that Santa Claus 1v1 with Zeus 🥶

@البتّار الازدي Arius Is Heretic, servant Of Satan.

bang apa kabar

@@bulgariainsight429 maybe,but Constantinopolis was most hard city to be taken until to 1204,so I can't be so sure that without Bulgarians Eastern Romans will lose,depend how bad was situation in 717,in other hand and Romans and Bulgarians destroyed Umayyad forces in two ways:1.Roman navy with Greek fire. 2.Bulgarians with horse archers and other units paralyzed the Umayyad army in land and in water.

Constantinople was a very well located city giving an advantage for its navy also its a very well fortified city. No empire whatsoever could take it until the cannon et gunpower age. The Umayyads were amongst the fiercest conquerors the world had ever seen and were hyper aggressive. They did indeed lose in Constantinople but who knows that without the Abbasid revolution what would have happened.

@العقيلي الأمويhonestly both sides lost more 60% in war and in peace.

الاختباء داخل اسوار القسطنطينيه ليست نصر

يا أخي لو كان الروم من حاصرو دمشق و خسرو المعركة لكان لنا رأي آخر. ألم يحتار المسلمون مئات المرات؟ ألم تحاصر الأحزاب المدبنة؟ هذا ليس اختباء لأن أسوار المدينة جزء من السلاح تستخدم ضد العدو، و إلا فما فائدة أسوار المدينة؟ و أيضا لا تنسى أن الروم قد دمرو جيش الأمويين برا و بحرا و تعتبر هذه المعركة من المعارك الفاصلة في التاريخ، و لهذا فالافصل أن نراها من زاوية موضوعية و تاريخية حتى لو تمنينا لو كان النصر من حليف الأمويرن

Makes sense, I noticed similarities when I read it in the books

@البتّار الازدي in the battle of the Blackwater, the use a green substance known as wildfire (basically just green Greek fire) to defend the capital city from a naval siege.

*ummayad invasion

@@alangervasis conquest. Unlike white racist facist european colonialism

@@factualdilemmas2666 Cringe

@@henricoz_9745 you are cringe

@@chocolate6315 Ok, Chocolate

من اي بلد اخي؟

From Pakistan my dear brother

Bulgarian do nothing Byzantine navy destroy arab supply line in sea that's why arab force had to retreat and Bulgarian just ambushed those fleeing arab

@@sultanabunasrsaifal-dinal-7782 and where are you from

@@ahmedazr5526 السلام علیکم ، میں یمن سے ہوں

what movie is that called

@@markmesseha4518 omar tv series

700 years later 😢😢😢 oh no 1453

@@khalednajada2514 it wasn't the same

@@theresecoco1887 doesnt you get banned lmao

@@theresecoco1887 yes why you are ashame from it

@@theresecoco1887 you are sweet and based ⚔️❤️

Blugars did nothing to umayyad neither dare approach to umayyad and clash in combat..the umayyad withdraw because of bezntyine and their powerful weapon which called greek fire killed half of umayyad army and their navy..and also due to bad cold weather and begin stravation arab had retreat..the wall of constaninople were protected fortified very well

@@ghostd69 True

@@ghostd69 The Bulgarians ambushed the Arabs on one major occasion though

The entire history of Islam is the story of blood, war, and aggression...so it's actually a bit difficult to pick out the most effective criminal regime among all of those.

@@martinusv7433 Oh really, prove it then, and compare it to the Catholics and Protestants who enslaved people in South Asia and Africa and killed the Native Americans.

So what ?

And Leo III ?

@@kihuu4055 Hiding behind the walls of Constantinople is not bravery :)

@@sultanabunasrsaifal-dinal-7782 *Mehmed The Conqueror* Was The Worst Nightmare For People Who Hide Behind Walls. ⚔️

@@thegreatseljuks The Romans could not defeat the Caliphate (632-750) only the first and second sieges of Constantinople .he was Great Sultan

He tricked one guy

@@MohamedMohamed-ws7mq figuratively, "the umayyad", ofc he was a one guy. That one guy should had beheaded Leo

Doubt

@@perunswrath6023 it would most likely have had desolved

I've seen many of them in new Jersey lol

In really this guy don’t look much Roman.

@Niagara Falls Technician Who asked you respond me.

@@ThaValentin i did

Edhaje Is from south Borneo

Edhaje it's from indonesia

@@ChillingBoy1111 free papua free riauu bebas riau dari jawa maling

Yup, The byzantine empire literally cheated.

Uh-huh

@ابو أسلم البربري the only time they close to their golden age is when basil 2 era they reconquer Balkan and little part of levant

@ابو أسلم البربري Islamic world is always disunited there is 3 chaliphate in that time

@ابو أسلم البربري only in early umayyad , golden Age of abbasid and early and middle Ottoman they United

It was only 1204 from which they never recovered.

Yes untill ottoman ships start walking

@@yousif9375 with the help of their hundreds of thousands of men compared to the byzantines handful of thousands and a group of Italian volunteers

@@jxnt2039 Please don't talk about numbers in sieges Constantinople was the most powerful city in Europe so it counts as really huge advantage And BTW Most of ottoman empire battles against Europe was with Europian advantage

@@theresecoco1887 Who is that ? Even the European sources admits that their armies had the advantage even with the tools not just that even the king's of Europe who participated in wars with ottomans got overthrown by their people after.

Source of Hadith please?

Well ,in this order of thoughts,the greatests of all great soldiers ,the world ever seen,sacked Baghdad.

@البتّار الازدي lol no Its not... And even then, the allied forces took back Constantinople and Jerusalem in WW1

@البتّار الازدي cope harder, 6 day war losers hahaha

@البتّار الازدي why is that relevant, eh? Abdooool, what you can say about me doesn't change the fact that your cult is a bs lie. Period.

If in fact it appears in the Christian bible.And according to the bible Omar means "Long life"

Yes bro :). And I also forgot to tell you Tha Saint Omar's day is the Nov. 16 :)

I also forgot to tell you that I am 15 years old :)

Free palestine, india and spain(Cordoba).

@@residentevilvillage1842 cordoba? (can you wait 1000 years??)

Free India

@@sultanmahmudghazni6272 Free or Genocide of hindus?

@@Rimsim1520 No genocide. Just free from Earth

The turks didn't defeat the empire, the crusaders did.

@@xiuhcoatl4830 They did, the Seljuks conquered all of Anatolia, the Ottomans conquered Constantinople.

@@salamyaya162 No, they just conquered Anatolia from the byzantines and the capital, when that city was the only thing that remained from the empire. By that time the empire was taken by others

@@xiuhcoatl4830 They defeated it in Anatolia at least.

@@salamyaya162 Yeah in Anatolia too. Christianity made the romans weak, that's why they lost

yes.

Western was better defeated the Huns

@GREAT TURK KHANETE that was the Eastern Romans tho lmao

@GREAT TURK KHANETE Western Romans were the real Romans spoke Latin and governed by the same Senate who governed the Romans during the republic and not to mention Italy is were the real Romans originated. meanwhile east were just bunch of Greeks who's only Roman in name.

Well this victory didn't change the reality of the Eastern Roman Empire which at this point lost about two thirds of its territory to the Arabs losing the Holy cities of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth and Antioch and having Edesa another holy city for Christadom having being sacked several times.

Ward

@@italoferreira5880 Long live the Republic! Please write down the entire title, o stranger.

@@gafurgafurov8238 Man, it's the Witcher 3 main theme - The sword of destiny. Long live the republic

@@italoferreira5880 Many thanks! May the Gods of Rome restore Italy to its former riches and glory! Greetings from Antiochia in Scythia (Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan).

@@gafurgafurov8238 The Republic is still alive.

In that 70 percent of that barren desert. Yes. Umayyads conquered desert tribes ahahahah

@@gfdsdfdsfds9179 lol persia Egypt north Africa Pakistan uzbekistan spain are desert???and not conquest desert tribe they conquest land from mightiest Byzantine and Persian empire also defeated india turks and chiness which your roman empire only draming

@@gfdsdfdsfds9179 Lol umayyad at that time controling trade routes from spain - china.

@@gfdsdfdsfds9179 Caucasus, central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Spain,purtugual, France, Mediterranean islands,Persia like mostly areas of Umayyed are not desert

@Terry Cupboards it’s cuz of the damnwall and also ottomans were too

Aa türk

@@Ss97sand yes baby

Bulgarian*, not turk.

​@@DimitarFCBM Yes, today's Bulgar's are mostly Slavic people, but Bulgar Khans, army and elite class, everything that today's Bulgars are proud of were Turkic in origin. Volga Bulgars even converted to Islam. But after converting to Christianity in Balkans, they intermixed with Slavic majority and gradually became Slavs themselves and forgot their Turkic legacy. Hungarians, Avars and Pechenegs also faced similar fates.

@@omerfaruk6082 The bulgars are not turks , the turks are bulgars because the bulgar element is much more older than the turkic ! a parth of the bulgars became the turkic people but the other parth of the bulgars never were turks by name , one parth of the bulgars became christians mixing with the slavs and the roman thracians on the balkans forming the modern bulgarian people , the other half became muslims later are knowed to be the tatars and in modern time the tatars are the muslim volga bulgars , they say that they are BOLGAR even in modern days also the Ottomans , the tribe KAI are tatars IYI and the Ottoman empire origin is a muslim bolgar empire ! the modern turks are a mix of the ottoman tatar tribe , the seljuc turks , greeks , armenians , kurds , balkan bulgarians , arabs , albanians , serbs and others , the modern turkish nation is a mixed nation created in the time of the Ottoman empire , The modern christian bulgarians are relatives with the modern turkish people by their tatar origin , also with the tatars in Russia but also with the slavic russians , serbians and other slavic nations by their slavic DNA So the truth is that all of the modern nations are mixed and are relatives by some things !!!

You're living in a ilusion.

Umayyad were illigal arabs in power instead of Ali the real Emir al mueminin and these bedouins arabs inslave the country which is now syria, so Umayyad are arabs from Mecca not middle eastern, because middle east was a roman proince for 1000 years untill the arabo-muslims from Mecca invaded middle east like what is syria now and they could install new border, but the wrong family who were tyrans enslaved the people of middle east, so Umayyad are from Mecca and arabs of mecca hate Umayyad and no arab supported Umayyad only their slaves in middle east those who were later arabized. Umayyad were only a virus in islamic khalifat instead of Ali the real Khalif of Islam.

@@bozoqturkmni8137 just like you lol you are enjoying the results of Arab braveness.

Hahaha leo weren't syrian he begged muslama to help out him aganist prev-empror and reach him to the throne..after death of musalam..he backstabbed the umayyad Blugars did nothing to umayyad neither dare approach to umayyad and clash in combat..the umayyad withdraw because of bezntyine and their powerful weapon which called greek fire killed half of umayyad army and their navy..and also due to bad cold weather and begin stravation arab had retreat..the wall of constaninople were protected fortified very well

@@ghostd69 yes hes a trickster he was syrian too, just google it lol he was ethically Syrian he killed 150,000 muslims in the siege

@@markv1158 Umayyad didn't reach that number..they were 90k half of umayyad army killed due to greek fire and cold weather and begin stravition to death..so no he didn't kill anyone neither he played a role to defeat umayyad

@@ghostd69 The Arabs lost, get over it

@@RedWolf75 lost but all of you get conqerd later and istanbul become a muslim lmao

And a Christian

@@dewd9327 Indeed.

@Muslim terrisost do you even know english? I literally just said Emperor Leo the Syrian was a Christian. You must either be drunk or high or both.

refugee ? the levant and egypt were part of the roman empire for hundreds of years and even before the various greek kingdoms that ruled too for hundred of years you arnt a refugee in ur own country and syria is litterly the land of the first christians they spoke aramaic the same language jesus and the bible was written in

@@aroundtheworld2813 That's true I agree.

Omar ibn Al khattab series

​@Buwaider i mean no one told you to use them

😉 Kaloyan RomanSlayer ?

Muslim no arab

All muslim

​@Sayyad Albashar just like ottomans

@@robot2098no its was the arabs.

Blugars did nothing to umayyad neither dare approach to umayyad and clash in combat..the umayyad withdraw because of bezntyine and their powerful weapon which called greek fire killed half of umayyad army and their navy..and also due to bad cold weather and begin stravation arab had retreat..the wall of constaninople were protected fortified very well

@@ghostd69 But you still can't deny the fact that Arabs broke the Roman Empire / Byzantine Empire.

But in fact the constaninople has fallen by muslims

@@ghostd69 If the Bulgarians hadn’t interfered then the Arab would take Constantinople.

@@maulanakarman8955 Blugraian did nothing they were just standing still from far away distance from umayyad..arab sieged consantinople for 2 years without seening any movement and result from blugraian..when they realized that there is no point to keep up the siege they decided to retreat and raise up siege due to begin exhuasted and stravition..the army suffers loses due to bad weather..also greek fire used by bezntyine played a big role by annihilating and killing many of arab army..constantinople were very well guraded and procted..even blugraian during their wars with bezntyine they failed to took over consantiniple

@Ad oh sry, my bad, imma edit it rn.

Blugars did nothing to umayyad neither dare approach to umayyad and clash in combat..the umayyad withdraw because of bezntyine and their powerful weapon which called greek fire killed half of umayyad army and their navy..and also due to bad cold weather and begin stravation arab had retreat..the wall of constaninople were protected fortified very well

Nah it would over in 6 days remember 1967 😂😂

@@rickyyacine4818 indian lmao

@@rickyyacine4818 it s 2022 not 1967

The Eastern Roman Empire aka Byzantine was relying on the Hellenised areas in eastern Mediterranean. Hellenised since antiquity either from Greek colonization or Alexander's conquests. After the adoption of Christianity the Roman Empire achieved some status of being homogenous since the ethnic identities stopped to be important. To be Roman meant to be Christian and that was the important. After the fall of the Western side, the Hellenised eastern Roman part and it's people continue to call themselves Romans since they were Christians and subjects of the empire that has became by then a very traditional and important aspect of their cultural and political identity. They were Greeks or Hellenised of course but that wasn't a thing for them. They were the Romans, just that. Only after the events of 1204 The Byzantines started to mention their ethnic origin as Hellenes due to their very dramatic downhill their relationships with the Western/Catholics Europeans have took as a way to separate and reestablish themselves very uniquely against the people who traditionally thought they have something in common (former western part of Roman Empire). So, until the 15th century many Byzantine scholars have point out and call their people as descendants of the Hellenes thus when the Byzantine had to make communities abroad, they weren't Roman but Greek communities named officially even in the 15th century and before. So, we can say that for the Byzantines after the 13th century the term Romios and Hellenes were almost synonymous and meant the same people. The Byzantines before had less identification with the term Hellene which had traditionally canotations of paganism.

@@ΡωμανόςΔ́Διογένης-θ6δ Is a very complicated issue when you wanna (historically) see how much certain areas were Hellenised or romanised and to what degree. In fact we don't have the necessary accounts from the people themselves to make absolute conclusions. The Anatolian region was Hellenised before Rome, that is for sure. If the people there adopted a Greek identity too? Hmm we don't know that. Must probably they didn't. And why should they after all...it wasn't necessary for the Hellenistic kingdom's to create a nation state ideology. So everyone could maintain their own origins and personal history inside this Greek world were Greek language, Greek education and thinking was the base and therefore after time their differences with the rest of the Greek speaking people were only the stories of their origins as people but not really anything else. The eastern world didn't ever adopted the Roman culture per se. Meaning, Roman culture in the eastern provinces always get through Hellenistic/Greek tradition that Rome had also adopted and Rome was basically relying too for those regions. Latin never spoken in the east and wasn't also necessary to be spoken, Greek was more then enough to make the imperial law be understood and respected. So, the Anatolian population by the 4th century had already lost its indigenous languages, spoken solely Greek, participated in a Greek culture and had the Roman law. But we can surely believe they could identify as Lycians, Carians etc without a problem. Fact is, and that's the most important key, Roman culture wasn't so strong, even in the West besides that the Latin was the official language, until the 3th century the Celtic and other local identities never really could be faded away. It was Christianity that made the empire hold. Christianity homogenized the areas and brought the idea of Roman as one thing. We tend to give it little importance nowadays but the new religion gave the bases for all people to adopt a new identity. All people in the empire, either Celtic, italic, Roman, Greek, Carian etc was a Christian..and that's all. The importance here is to understand, that because Christianity was adopted from the Roman Empire, to be Roman therefore meant to be Christian. So all those regions and people adopted the name Roman, not in the basis of its ancient culture or years of Roman attempts to romanized them, but in the basis of religion, who after years became culture and ethics.

@@ΡωμανόςΔ́Διογένης-θ6δ Of course old Latin and Greek literature and knowledge couldn't be forgotten or dismissed. We see that many times over the centuries, a rise and fall in the love and understanding of the importance of Greek and Latin culture inside the Christian Roman Empire and in different regions. But Romanitas after the 4th-5th century meant the Christianity. In the West, based in Latin language and in the East in Greek. That haven't changed. So under that prism, the Byzantine empire was a homogenous empire with the ideology of Christianity and Romanitas. So for a long time wasn't any problems in the identity of the people, they were all the same in a way. Different linguistic groups never been a problem for the eastern Roman Empire still. They were all Romans. So, as I said, the 1204 was an important event for the Byzantines. They started to realize their differences with that new West. They realized that they weren't all the same, all Christians. Nations started to appear. Individual people etc. To be Roman was started to seen as a little vague. But at that time we see the Byzantines making the term Roman, an ethnic ideology. Their land became Rhomania, their language romeika, they started to consider Roman as their enthic ideology but not as italic. They started to consider themselves children of the old hellenes and romans together, either by culture, law, history or nation based. And that was their ideology mainly until the 1453 fall and even much later. Inside the ottoman empire, that identity became even more connected with the Orthodox religion along side all the other. We have to came until the 18th-19th century to see the new solely hellenic idea to prevail. It seems that those people, because of the historical reality of each time they had to be more and more specific and unique in order to keep survive, maintain their communities from foreign threats etc. Totally logical and normal.

@@ΡωμανόςΔ́Διογένης-θ6δ All in all, is really over simplistic to give one and only nationality to the Byzantines and Romans in general. Because they never were one and based in one. They based in one culture for sure. The Greco Roman culture and later in Christianity. The Christianity of Rome of course was also based on Greco Roman culture though. So we see the cultural continuation always to continue, even with the new religion. So is difficult to answer to absolute questions for nation identities of states that never been based on national identities. And we shouldn't. For example, in the 19th-20th century the Orthodox people of Cappadocia, did continue to maintain their Orthodox religion, specific culture linked to the other Greek speaking Orthodoxs in old basis of Romaninas in the East. Did they consider themselves Hellenes? They did.... But what Hellenes meant to them? Hellenes were the people who spoke the same language (mainly) the same religion, the same tradition, the same origin, the same history (based on the eastern Roman Empire) soo they were the same nation (the new ideology of the 19th century). So the modern Greeks are coming from this very complicated centuries old tradition that is actually started with the Greek colonization in antiquity and never meant to be based on blood but on culture and ethics. So in a sense Hellenism and the many faces of it continued and that's an amazing story of a culture.

@@ΡωμανόςΔ́Διογένης-θ6δ Researching ethnic identities from a bygone ancient period it's truly truly difficult, especially when we talk about an environment with almost the same culture and religion. Jewish identity in Europe is relatively easy issue to explore since they were a specific group with very define key characteristics to be asserted exactly for the reason to make them "survive" as a culture. The Carians, Phrygians and other Anatolian people aren't like that. Many tried to spot when and where they totally vanished as separated groups...but that isn't really an easy task. Even later in the 7th century, authors could refer to some of them as a group of people and scholars today they would make assumptions for a different group maintaining their unique identity but that can be hardly the actual truth. You see, even today, we have examples around us that make identities even more complicate to really understand. The Vlachs of modern Greece for example, even if it's a common knowledge that are a group of people that have no link with some older Hellenic people, having a Latin language, being from a well known group in the Balkans etc they have no intention to be regarded as different but only Greeks. Even if they are keen to maintain their culture, having institutions and gatherings and want to be known as Vlachs still they only want to be considered inside the Greek world. You see there a local strong identity, that someone else could easily misunderstood as "separate" but when they talk about how they want to be considered is a different result. The same "double" identity or even "triple" can be waited for any other group in the Byzantine empire. And surely we have to except something like that since we have no indications for local individualities that have made their existence in the empire difficult. Except some examples of course. About Hellenism though, is also a different issue. Saying enmity for Hellenism is also somehow misleading about the actual enmity those early Christians had. Byzantines have kept Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and Homer among others to be their primal and most important texts for their education and cultural basis. This is also Hellenism and there's no enmity at all. So what meant Hellenism for them? We see many authors use the word Hellenism the way we say "pagan" today. In some texts, Byzantines could refer to groups that have no link with anything Greek to be practiced Hellenism. So for quite some time that word didn't meant greekness per se but paganism. And that normal cause Romanitas also could mean something pagan if wasn't Christianity. Moreover the people of Greek peninsula and western Asia Minor which were ethnically Greeks without a doubt wouldn't use that phrase as something bad but they also did that...which makes even more clear the different meaning of the word Hellenism those people had from us today linking it to greekness. Another example is from western texts. We see western Europeans to use the term Greek for every monk in some monastery being of an Orthodox denomination. But some of those monks we know they were from Syria, Egypt, Commagene etc and had nothing to do with some Greek background. So why they've been called Greeks? One reason is because the Westerners after the split many times referred to the eastern church as the Greek church and their people Greeks. But that term also had notations of "heathens". So you see, enmity wasn't really about the Greek lineage and history (the opposite) but rather about paganism and for many reasons Hellenism or Greek (for the West) took that meaning to cover all separate pagan religions known in the empire. So, the byzantines could perceive easily thyselfs as children/product of Greeks and Romans without breaking with tradition. We have to find the right key words to actually see through their eyes to understand how they combined their traditions, both officially and locally. Of course Roman culture effected the eastern provinces, but for the Hellenistic East to be truly honest, Rome hasn't really brought something tremendously different from what ever they already had before. The culture of Rome wasn't anyway different from the Hellenistic one. The chances Rome had over the years, were changes that came naturally through time and isn't really that we can pin point the actual origin of those changes inside a multicultural empire. Christianity came from Judea for example and not from Rome. So changes always happened inside the state. But being Rome the one who brought it is also quite disputable. Is more that because of the situation that all those regions became one state changes affected them all. And via versa of course.

Fort comme un Français ou un Romain

Trying to get some ego boost from another country's history? 🤭

@@huskytail The history of another country? Present-day Bulgarians have nothing to do with the historical Bulgarian Khaganate. They are crooks who claim the legacy of the old Turkic people.

@@turkcukayi Hahah, if present day Bulgarians have nothing to do with those who created the state and set its base, and its political structure, what do YOU have in common with people one thousand years ago who were already mixed with Slavs and Thracians and everyone on the territory? Stop the embarrassment and stick to your country. You never know if your ancestors were not in fact Greek, Bulgarian or Armenian 🤭

@@huskytail The rulers and elements that founded the state are Turkic. However, since most of the peoples he ruled were Slavs, they became Slavs and assimilated over time. During the reign of I. Boris Turkic titles and customs were abandoned.

Turkic peoples destroyed Umayyad Empire many times like Tervel Khan , Suluk Khagan, Barjik etc. Bulgar Khaganate, Khazar Khaganate and Turgesh Khaganate destroyed them with very small army

But Suluk Khagan lost some battles because of huge army of Umayyads

@@Nomadicenjoyerplus Suluk Khaqan lost more than 5 battles and was killed in the Battle of Khristan Ginaral nasry bin seiryy destroys tuergsh , Barjik was killed in the Battle of Parwan Khazar become vassl to Caliphate in 737

@@sultanabunasrsaifal-dinal-7782 Khazar Empire was never vassal of any state he was always fully independent

@@Nomadicenjoyerplus Can you give me a clue?

Yeh Bulgarians were rich and had major trades

Not bulgarians

Bulgarians didn’t exist in that time

Bulgarians were nobody in history

BULGARs

No they didnt destroyed 60% of arabs army lol 😂😂the one who killed 60%of the Arabs army is the blagues and cold winter historians claim that the blague kill 1 million arabs warriors wich is 😂 fantastic exagération but this show as how thé blague destroyed Arab army, the Arab army itself that besiege constantinople was at Best between 30 to 40000 soldiers some 10000 die in battle wish last for year with romans and balgirians the rest is lost to blague and the remainder 10000 retreat to Syria, in Arab source the Arabs mention there wars with balguarians and that the *balguars* ambush them in the mountains killed some warriors but they counterattack managed to defeate the balguarians several times

@@egriz4461 bullshit. Why is Khan Tervel called "the Saviour of Europe" then?

@@aleksk4151 lol propaganda yiu shose ta call him by that name there no single Arab source mention trevel or defeate they just mention some skimishs with some People (the bulgars) beside this the Arabs subjicated the Khazars khaganate who destroyed in turn the bulguar state and sent the remain flee to modern Day bulguaria so the Arabs are the one responsable of the établissement of your country lol

@@taliblarabi9203 yes there was

Are you referring the Bulgars as Khazars?

Cry rafidi cry

@@aslampervez9370 momin has nothing pleasing in this world, therefore every human baby cry at the beginning of his birth, but you nasbi munafiqeens has alot in this world to enjoy

@@aslampervez9370 Tell me the name of 1 ummayad ruler who was just,give me only 1 name,you remember that terrorist hajjaj the governor,yes they are ummayad

Cry rafidhi cry

Bukanya udah ya coba cari dah

Kalo abbasid gua kurang tau

@@blackshirtsocialist1457 zaman Abbasid zaman keemasan ilmu pengetahuan dan seni. Dari segi politik vassal Abbasid yaitu kerajaan Dinasty Aghlabiyyah menguasai pulau Sisilia dan selatan Italia. Adapun umat Islam sempat menguasai Perancis selatan dan sebagian pegunungan Alpen. Perancis dan Swiss. Di Perancis pada abad 9-10 itu benteng terkuat umat Islam itu berada di kota Fraxinet (Fraxinetum) umat Islam menyebutnya Farakhsanit, dikuasai oleh umat Muslim dari Andalusia. Sampai hari ini reruntuhan benteng Muslim di bukit Fraxinet masih ada. kekuasaan koloni Islam Fraxinet berkembang sampai pegunungan Alpen yang disebut mereka Jabal Munjawas sesuai dengan penyebutan lokal zaman itu Mon Jovis atau Mon Jupiter pada zaman Romawi.

@@blackshirtsocialist1457 maksud aku sejarahnya pada masing-masing Dinasty yang tidak terpotong pada satu peperangan atau penaklukan saja tetapi naik dan turunnya secara lengkap seperti kerajaan lain pada daftar Video. Saya rasa itu menarik bagus buat data sejarah semua orang.

@@Yudha752007 ya ku juga tau Islam pernah nguasain Prancis selatan

Most of them died there

@Spolierman the abbasids got their ships burned by the byzantine cheirosiphones while they got running for their lives from the byzantines and the bulgars. The ottomans just took a debilitated city that had been already destroyed by the crusaders before...

Not enough of them to take Constantinopole tho :)

@@bartdr5146 Just enough to take pretty much everything else and convince the byzantine emperor that the world was ending ;).

@@xiuhcoatl4830 Most of them dead during conquering byzantium lands and persia

Umayyad conquest : central asia, sud France ,sind, part of china , Caucasus,north africa,spain ! If they came with the full census, Byzantium would have been a child in front of them

didn't need at the time they had the entire iberian peninsula.

@@E001-f8g Umayyads never conquered China also they conquered south Central Asia not all of Central Asia

@@MK-ov2hr not all of china but part of .. Qutayba an commander of the Umayyad completed the conquest of the Sihon river basin with its cities, then entered the land of China and penetrated there, and reached the city of Kashgar and made it an Islamic base

@@E001-f8g But Xinyiang (kashgar is a part of it) thas Not China Land in this time the Tibeteans conquered it from the Tang and the inhabitans of Xinyiang or east Turkestan theire iranic peoples like tocharians in this time to say the Umayyads conquered Part of china because it is now in china would not make sense also the Tang beatet the Umayyads in Battle of Aksu

hahaha nice joke bro

Lol

They got half of the territory that had been ruled by the Romans + got the Persian and Central Asian territories and the borders of Hindustan

They got half of the territory that had been ruled by the Romans + got the Persian and Central Asian territories and the borders of Hindustan

😍

They are still Turkic in Volga

@@Nomadicenjoyerplus ithil*

Blugars weren't turkic Blugars did nothing to umayyad neither dare approach to umayyad and clash in combat..the umayyad withdraw because of bezntyine and their powerful weapon which called greek fire killed half of umayyad army and their navy..and also due to bad cold weather and begin stravation arab had retreat..the wall of constaninople were protected fortified very well

@@ghostd69 Very small Turkic tribe Bulgars massacred your arabic jarabic ancestors 😅😅😅😅😹😹😹😹😹

You know Yazid 😅

Bruh, most of Turks at the time were slaves and servants to the Umayyads, hell even Central Asia itself was conquered by them.

@@salamyaya162 Umayyads conquered Iranic central asians like Sogdians and Chorasmians and not Turkic central asians kid😅🤣 Turks had more than 10 states in that time which defeated Caliphates many times

@@papazataklaattiranimam Bro, Just search about *Battle* *of* *Oxus* *River* *(651)* Rashidun Caliphate defeated both Sassanid empire and Turkic khaganate in single battle and crossed Oxus River & successfully raided into today Uzbekistan territory Later Umayyed general Qutaiba bin Muslim & Nasir bin Sayyar conquered today Uzbekistan & Tajikistan territory from Turkic khaganate

@@papazataklaattiranimam So, Rashidun & Umayyed Caliphate conquered large part of Central Asia from non-muslim Turks

Gods will to get burned alive by greek fire?

anything to spread Allah's religion@@artilleriman

@@bababoi9294 It only spread his followers in the water lol

@@artilleriman Adhan is heard daily in Constantinople

@@jotaro3927 Because over 700 years after this humiliation mehmed took the crumbling city that was a shadow of its former self. Byzantium lasted almost 400 years against the Turks and Western Europeans

Abbasid never seige Constantinople

The abbassids mostly were keeping the status quo, they didn launch any massive conquests just raids. To keep the neighbouring countries in check and govern their stats more efficiently

They never did.

Ameen ya rabbal alameen . One day i wish to do ziyarah at hus maqbarah. Sultan Mehmet 2

Anathema to godless Mehmed.

Barbarian

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - Sword of Destiny

Revenge of the Easterners