Who conquered the world?

Status
Not open for further replies.

waraich

Banned Member
Sure. Or was it that the Khaliphate has ACTUALLY TRIED TO conquer Europe and didn't succeed?! I am not talking about the recon force that Charles Martel defeated and that is highly overestimated. What do you know about Khan Tervel? A.K.A. The Saviour of Europe and the battle for Constantinople?

Spain was the major europian country which muslims ruled for 800 years,we are proud of that.:D
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=ebw
HISTORY OF THE ARABS


The Arab conquests: 7th century AD

One of the most dramatic and sudden movements of any people in history is the expansion, by conquest, of the Arabs in the 7th century (only the example of the Mongols in the 13th century can match it). The desert tribesmen of Arabia form the bulk of the Muslim armies. Their natural ferocity and love of warfare, together with the sense of moral rectitude provided by their new religion, form an irresistible combination.

When Muhammad dies in 632, the western half of Arabia is Muslim. Two years later the entire peninsula has been brought to the faith, and Muslim armies have moved up into the desert between Syria and Mesopotamia.
The great Christian cities of Syria and Palestine fall to the Arabs in rapid succession from AD 635. Damascus, in that year, is the first to be captured. Antioch follows in 636. And 638 brings the greatest prize of all, in Muslim terms, when Jerusalem is taken after a year's siege.

It is a moment of profound significance for the young religion, for Islam sees itself as the successor of Judaism and Christianity. The city of the people of Moses, in which Jesus also preaches and dies, is a holy place for Muslims too. Moses and Jesus are Muhammad's predecessors as prophets. A link with Muhammad himself will also soon emerge in Jerusalem.

Muslim Persia: AD 637-751

Persia falls to the Arabs as a consequence of the battle of Kadisiya, close to the Euphrates, in 637. After their victory the Arabs sack the city of Ctesiphon (carefully sharing out the famous Spring Carpet). The last Sassanian emperor, Yazdegerd III, is five at the time. He and his court escape to the east, but he is eventually assassinated, in 651, at Merv. His name remains, even today, in use in the chronology of the Parsees. They number their years from the start of his reign in 632.

Meanwhile the Arabs win another victory over Persian forces at Nahavand in 641. They capture Isfahan in 642 and Herat in 643. Persia becomes, for a century, part of the Umayyad caliphate.

The final push eastwards for Islam, in the central Asian plateau, is in more difficult terrain and is more protracted. Throughout the second half of the 7th century there is fighting in and around the Hindu Kush, but by the early years of the 8th century the Arabs control the full swathe of territory from the Arabian Sea in the south (they enter Sind and move into India as far north as Multan by 712), up through Kandahar and Balkh (either side of the Hindu Kush) to Bukhara and Samarkand in the north, beyond the Amu Darya.

At this northern extreme they are neighbours of the T'ang Chinese. The eventual clash between these two powers, an encounter won by the Arabs, comes in 751 at the Talas river.

Muslim North Africa: from AD 642

The Arab conquest of Egypt and North Africa begins with the arrival of an army in AD 640 in front of the Byzantine fortified town of Babylon (in the area which is now Old Cairo). The Arabs capture it after a siege and establish their own garrison town just to the east, calling it Al Fustat.

The army then moves on to Alexandria, but here the defences are sufficient to keep them at bay for fourteen months. At the end of that time a surprising treaty is signed. The Greeks of Alexandria agree to leave peacefully; the Arabs give them a year in which to do so. In the autumn of 642, the handover duly occurs. One of the richest of Byzantine provinces has been lost to the Arabs without a fight.

The Arabs continue rapidly westwards along the coast of North Africa, capturing Cyrenaica in 642 and Tripoli in 643. But these remain largely ineffective outposts. For nearly three decades the Arabs make little progress in subduing the indigenous Berber inhabitants of this coastal strip.

The turning point comes in 670 with the founding of a new Arab garrison town at Kairouan, about sixty miles south of the Byzantine city of Carthage. From this secure base military control becomes possible. Carthage is destroyed (yet again) in 698. By the early 8th century northwest Africa is firmly in Arab hands. In 711 an Arab general takes the next expansionist step. With a Berber army he crosses the straits of Gibraltar and enters Spain.

Arabs in Spain and France: AD 711-732

The short journey across the water from Africa, bringing an army into Spain in 711, begins the final thrust of Arab expansionism in the west. In a frequently repeated pattern of history the invaders, invited to assist one side in a quarrel, rapidly take control and suppress both squabbling parties. Within a few months the Arabs drive the Visigoths from their capital at Toledo.

Soon governors appointed by the caliph in Damascus are ruling much of Spain. The Arabs press on northwards. Their armies move into Gaul, and here at last they are halted - near Poitiers in 732.

The Arabs and Constantinople: AD 674-717

In the overwhelming assault on the Byzantine empire by the Arabs during the 7th century, only one campaign is consistently unsuccessful. This is their frequently repeated attempt to capture Constantinople itself.

The city is first unsuccessfully attacked, by sea and land, in AD 669. The last of several expeditions ends in disaster for the Arabs in 717, when a fleet of some 2000 ships is destroyed by a storm and the army straggles homewards through a wintry Anatolia. From the mid-670s the Byzantines have one strong psychological advantage - a mysterious new device in their armoury which becomes known as Greek fire.

Greek fire: AD 674

In AD 674 a Muslim fleet enters the Bosphorus to attack Constantinople. It is greeted, and greatly deterred, by a new weapon which can be seen as the precursor of the modern flamethrower. It has never been discovered precisely how the Byzantine chemists achieve the jet of flame for their 'Greek fire'. The secret of such a lethal advantage is jealously guarded.

Contemporary accounts imply that the inflammable substance is petroleum-based, floats on water, and is almost impossible to extinguish. It can be lobbed in a canister. But in its most devastating form it is projected, as a stream of liquid fire, from a tube mounted in the prow of a ship. Sprayed among a wooden fleet, its destructive potential is obvious.
Arabs and Muslims: 8th century AD

During the explosive first century of Arab expansion, the relationship subtly changes between two concepts - Arab and Muslim. At first they are inseparable. The Muslim armies are made up entirely of Arab tribesmen, and it is taken for granted that only Arabs can be Muslims. Between campaigns the Arab armies stay together in winter camps or garrison towns. They are an occupying force, having little link with the inhabitants of the conquered territories.

But by the early 8th century, when the Muslim expansion has reached something approaching its peak, there are not enough Arabs to provide the troops.

Out of necessity, people of other groups begin to be received into Islam, fighting alongside the Arabs. Berbers do so in the west, and Persians in the east. Inevitably there are resentments. Non-Arabs often feel they are treated as second-class Muslims, particularly when it comes to sharing out loot after a campaign. And the conversion of outsiders to Islam brings a financial burden. Non-Muslims are charged a poll tax, which is not paid by believers. The spread of the faith is a drain on the treasury.

These various tensions, and the inevitable difficulty of controlling the vast new empire, result in a rebellion in 747 against the Umayyad caliph.
 
Last edited:

thunder299

New Member
Zulkarnain

Quran and many other holy books refer the one great conqueror of world and he is zulkarnain.The fact is that and it is surely true.
 

BuSOF

New Member
Spain was the major europian country which muslims ruled for 800 years,we are proud of that.:D
Spain was the major european country? No, you poor, uninformed fellow! Spain didn't even EXIST at that time. You could be proud of whatever you like. Fact is that Spain turned into a political power MUCH, MUCH later and at that time nobody gave a damn about it. The GLOBAL POWER of the time you are referring was the Eastern Roman Empire, a country which turned out to be too powerful for the Arabs to defeat it. Never mind! The extend to which you know world history is all too obvious. Take care!
 

waraich

Banned Member
Spain was the major european country? No, you poor, uninformed fellow! Spain didn't even EXIST at that time. You could be proud of whatever you like. Fact is that Spain turned into a political power MUCH, MUCH later and at that time nobody gave a damn about it. The GLOBAL POWER of the time you are referring was the Eastern Roman Empire, a country which turned out to be too powerful for the Arabs to defeat it. Never mind! The extend to which you know world history is all too obvious. Take care!
The Berber Moorish armies swept through Hispania and, in the summer of 711, won a decisive victory when the Visigothic king, Roderic, was defeated and killed on July 19 at the Battle of Guadalete. Afterwards, Tariq was made governor of Hispania but eventually was called back to Damascus by the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I, where he spent the rest of his life in a prison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_ibn-Ziyad

Only few thausand soldiers of tariq bin ziyad defeated strong army of King Roderic of Hispania most shame full defeat in history of europe;)
 
Last edited:

Misguided Fool

New Member
Waraich, your historical knowledge seems to be very biased and limited.

The muslims invented hardly anything. Most of the "innovations", especially the military inventions (eg usage of gunpowder) originated in China.

I quite like the way you think that the richest and most prosperous areas of the world, China, India, Italy, the Balkan peninsula and Europe were too "backward" to be conquered? How does that work?

How does a huge area of arid and desertified land become superior to areas of the world blessed with natural resources and the population to use them?

Let me show you two maps (although they're both of the current day, so one could argue that there would've been changes - however, the world terrain has remained generally unchanged since the last ice age, and islam hasn't expanded for a few centuries now). http://media.photobucket.com/image/satellite%2Bworld%2Bmap/bennettatoms/world_map_small.jpg
http://creationwiki.org/images/thumb/6/6d/Christ_Islam_map.JPG/350px-Christ_Islam_map.JPG

What you should see is that islam is predominant in areas that are mostly desertified.

Let me give you an example. In 1400, India and china contributed 20% of world GDP EACH. The rest of the world made up the other 60%. (Source Freakonomics, Steven Levitt).

And if the Islamic world was as advanced as you say, in the past, why is it the most backward and economically, socially and politically inferior geopolitical bloc in existence today? Howcome it didn't keep up with those backward worthless areas as they caught up and outpaced it after the zenith of the Ottoman empire in the 1650s?

I'm afraid you're talking gibberish.

Also, this Iskander Zulkarnin figure you seem to be talking about: i've searched google and i repeatedly come up with Alexander the Great. The first post described him like some mythical figure from lore, but it turns out it's just (once again) lack of historical knowledge and biased perspective.
 
Last edited:

waraich

Banned Member
Waraich, your historical knowledge seems to be very biased and limited.

The muslims invented hardly anything. Most of the "innovations", especially the military inventions (eg usage of gunpowder) originated in China.
MF ,
Please update yourself and read this article , shocking for you:shudder

Setting the Record Straight: The Miracle of Islamic Science
http://sakooterspeaks.wordpress.com...cord-straight-the-miracle-of-islamic-science/

I quite like the way you think that the richest and most prosperous areas of the world, China, India, Italy, the Balkan peninsula and Europe were too "backward" to be conquered? How does that work?
Persian and Roman empires were most strongest and richest empires , Muslim(Chaliph) conquered the world strongest empires .:)

How does a huge area of arid and desertified land become superior to areas of the world blessed with natural resources and the population to use them?
World oldest civilizations were found near indus,nile and oxus , wake up man :shudder you need refresher course about old civilizations of world:D

Let me show you two maps (although they're both of the current day, so one could argue that there would've been changes - however, the world terrain has remained generally unchanged since the last ice age, and islam hasn't expanded for a few centuries now). http://media.photobucket.com/image/satellite%2Bworld%2Bmap/bennettatoms/world_map_small.jpg
http://creationwiki.org/images/thumb/6/6d/Christ_Islam_map.JPG/350px-Christ_Islam_map.JPG

What you should see is that islam is predominant in areas that are mostly desertified.

Let me give you an example. In 1400, India and china contributed 20% of world GDP EACH. The rest of the world made up the other 60%. (Source Freakonomics, Steven Levitt).

And if the Islamic world was as advanced as you say, in the past, why is it the most backward and economically, socially and politically inferior geopolitical bloc in existence today? Howcome it didn't keep up with those backward worthless areas as they caught up and outpaced it after the zenith of the Ottoman empire in the 1650s?

I'm afraid you're talking gibberish.
Also, this Iskander Zulkarnin figure you seem to be talking about: i've searched google and i repeatedly come up with Alexander the Great. The first post described him like some mythical figure from lore, but it turns out it's just (once again) lack of historical knowledge and biased perspective.
Era of Iskander was (326BC) too earlier than the rise of islam , you are totally confused here again.:eek:nfloorl:
 
Last edited:

Misguided Fool

New Member
MF ,
Please update yourself and read this article , shocking for you:shudder

Setting the Record Straight: The Miracle of Islamic Science
http://sakooterspeaks.wordpress.com...cord-straight-the-miracle-of-islamic-science/



Persian and Roman empires were most strongest and richest empires , Muslim(Chaliph) conquered the world strongest empires .:)



World oldest civilizations were found near indus,nile and oxus , wake up man :shudder you need refresher course about old civilizations of world:D


Era of Iskander was (326BC) too earlier than the rise of islam , you are totally confused here again.:eek:nfloorl:
Wow.

Okay.

The persian empire was not the richest. If you think it was, prove it.

The Muslims didn't conquer the Roman empire, but they did wrest control of anatolia and the north african coastline, as well as Palestine and Syria. Anatolia was quite rich in manpower, but like the rest of the "great conquests" you seem to describe, it was mostly worthless desert / mountainous regions.

The world's oldest civilization might have been found in those areas, but at the time they were far more temperate. And they were never, NEVER the richest. Stop deluding yourself. The reason the Europeans sailed west was to reach India and Cathay (China). If the Caliphate was as rich as you say it was, howcome these were the areas to be colonized last by the western powers? ;)

Well, Zulkarnin or whatever that the first poster seems to talk about i've found is a name for Alexander the Great. So maybe he's just totally out there when it comes to historical knowledge ?:rolleyes:

Seriously, read a non state history book. Even wikipedia's better than what you seem to "know".

The Caliphate was never the greatest empire in terms of manpower, wealth, technology or unity. It might be up there in terms of land area.
 

waraich

Banned Member
Wow.

Okay.

The persian empire was not the richest. If you think it was, prove it.

The Muslims didn't conquer the Roman empire, but they did wrest control of anatolia and the north african coastline, as well as Palestine and Syria. Anatolia was quite rich in manpower, but like the rest of the "great conquests" you seem to describe, it was mostly worthless desert / mountainous regions.

The world's oldest civilization might have been found in those areas, but at the time they were far more temperate. And they were never, NEVER the richest. Stop deluding yourself. The reason the Europeans sailed west was to reach India and Cathay (China). If the Caliphate was as rich as you say it was, howcome these were the areas to be colonized last by the western powers? ;)

Well, Zulkarnin or whatever that the first poster seems to talk about i've found is a name for Alexander the Great. So maybe he's just totally out there when it comes to historical knowledge ?:rolleyes:

Seriously, read a non state history book. Even wikipedia's better than what you seem to "know".

The Caliphate was never the greatest empire in terms of manpower, wealth, technology or unity. It might be up there in terms of land area.

I believe the strongest kingdom ever was the kingdom of King Suleman (AS) , ruled also invisible creators of God named GIN in Holy Book Quran.Their population is nine times greater then human.

When Muslims attacked Iranians (Persian empire) they were only 15000 or less but persian army was arround 2 Lac or more but the way they crossed river dajla , their horses flying over the river with divine power the iranian ran away from battle field with out any fight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nihawand

Similarly muslim army defeated romans with help of Allah with less army .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk
 
Last edited:

riksavage

Banned Member
I believe the strongest kingdom ever was the kingdom of King Suleman (AS) , ruled also invisible creators of God named GIN in Holy Book Quran.Their population is nine times greater then human.

When Muslims attacked Iranians (Persian empire) they were only 15000 or less but persian army was arround 2 Lac or more but the way they crossed river dajla , their horses flying over the river with divine power the iranian ran away from battle field with out any fight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nihawand

Similarly muslim army defeated romans with help of Allah with less army .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk
Can we stick to proven fact and not fantasy? 'Horses flying over the river with divine power', how come these same 'flying horse's' didn't rock-up during the Crusades or GWI & II, when the infidels attacked the Muslim world?
 

waraich

Banned Member
Can we stick to proven fact and not fantasy? 'Horses flying over the river with divine power', how come these same 'flying horse's' didn't rock-up during the Crusades or GWI & II, when the infidels attacked the Muslim world?
In modren world it is difficult to believe these stories but it is part of our history ,how bani israel with Musa (AS) crossed the river when Pharaoh attacked them ?Do you believe this or not ? Dead body of Pharaoh is proof of this event.
http://islamicb.blogspot.com/2009/02/miracle-of-quran-dead-body-of-pharaoh.html

Saladin defeated crusades with help of Allah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin

What do you mean by infidels --- mogols?

Yes , they defeated muslims abasi empire but later on converted to islamic faith and their rule Ottoman Empire continued uptill 1924 when britishers break this empire and divide muslims into many nations which we think biggest loss of muslim nation .
 
Last edited:

Misguided Fool

New Member
In modren world it is difficult to believe these stories but it is part of our history ,how bani israel with Musa (AS) crossed the river when Pharaoh attacked them ?Do you believe this or not ? Dead body of Pharaoh is proof of this event.
http://islamicb.blogspot.com/2009/02/miracle-of-quran-dead-body-of-pharaoh.html

Saladin defeated crusades with help of Allah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin

What do you mean by infidels --- mogols?

Yes , they defeated muslims abasi empire but later on converted to islamic faith and their rule Ottoman Empire continued uptill 1924 when britishers break this empire and divide muslims into many nations which we think biggest loss of muslim nation .
1) No credible historian claims the bible is a reliable source. No non islamic historian considers the Koran a reliable source.
How does a dead body of a Pharoah prove anything? How is that causally linked?

2) The Mongols as we know them weren't muslim; maybe their descendants who adapted to the local way of life (eg, the Mughals, descended from Ferghana, a breakaway state of the Timurid empire, the Qing Empire, the result of the Manchu-Mongolian domination of China, the Golden Horde).

The British and Russian Empires broke up the Ottoman and other Muslim Empires a long time before 1924, de facto if not de jure.
 

Cinncinatus

New Member
Who conquered the world? There have been many claims of who in fact conquered the world. Predominately, Christians believe that it was Alexander The Great . However, the Muslims on the other hand claim it was it Zulkarnain. Well in the Islamic teachings and ancient scriptures including one of the most read, regarded and most common book in the world, The Qur'an it is collated that it was Zulkarnain however there were numerous Zulkarnains hence which one would be the one that conquered the world?

So people what are your views and believes on who conquered the world and also what are your thought towards the opposition.
It depends what they mean when they say "the world" and the geographical knowledge of the time. In Alexanders days, the Macedonians were still discovering as they went along. Their vision of the "world" was growing every day. So to them, it seemed Alexander had conquered the world. The same thing happened with the Romans. In fact, the word "Mediterranean" actually means "middle of the world" in Latin, illustrating that all the Romans thought the "world" was the Mediterranean area. Therefore, the Romans also conquered their known world (except for middle and southern Germany). So far though, no one has actually conquered the whole world.
 

canned happines

New Member
No one person has conquered the world. If anything HUMANS have conquered the world. There has always been and will always be resistance to such an attempt.
 

Cinncinatus

New Member
No one person has conquered the world. If anything HUMANS have conquered the world. There has always been and will always be resistance to such an attempt.
As I said in my last post, I agree with you, however ancient civilizations believed the "world" to be much smaller and thus thought they had conquered all or nearly all of it.
 

Hellsworth

New Member
No one person has conquered the world. If anything HUMANS have conquered the world. There has always been and will always be resistance to such an attempt.
The only way anybody could ever even dream of "conquering the world" is if there is a universal acceptance to move into the next stage of humanity. Meaning the world unites under one name - Earth. Whether it would be a collection of rulers, a global dictator, or something else, no one really knows. It might not be just one man/woman. I believe this is the only way anyone could ever conquer the world. I wouldn't even really call it conquering the world. To conquer, is to assimilate the enemy against their will. To unite would mean the people of Earth would agree unanimously that it is in humanities best interest to combine our efforts to progress into the future unhindered by divisions among land, people, and various ruler's individual interests.
 

Craftsmen

New Member
When will Gubbas not understand that the world wasn't just where they lived, here in Australia, NZ, Fiji and Northern America we just went on with our lives. Whilst there in the known world they were busy killing each other and stealing the resources of other people and their land. So well practiced in the art of war were they that when they decended upon the unknown world, they were able to steal and plunder without any real opposition.
 

gregovitch

New Member
the britishcame the closest to coquering the world, ours was the largest e,pire even when you take into account the ancient empires
 

The Swordman

New Member
Talking about control

By now no political or military power got the whole planet Earth under control, so no absolute empire ever exists.
If we associate concepts of "conquest" with "control", the British Empire was the best. They got almost complete control of the sea, were always on top for economics and technology until the end of 1800s.

For modern days, it's time to consider multinational ecomic enterprises. They are completely off control from national government, got enormous wealth and are able to get a lot of military power (contractors).

:flame
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
By now no political or military power got the whole planet Earth under control, so no absolute empire ever exists.
If we associate concepts of "conquest" with "control", the British Empire was the best. They got almost complete control of the sea, were always on top for economics and technology until the end of 1800s.

For modern days, it's time to consider multinational ecomic enterprises. They are completely off control from national government, got enormous wealth and are able to get a lot of military power (contractors).

:flame
I believe the United States has more control over the earth than any power ever has. The USN dominates every ocean on earth, there are no powers that even have local superiority. At no time in human history has a single power truly dominated the worlds trading system, the US can isolate virtually any nation from global trade at any time. In an era of globalization that constitutes massive and historically unequaled power. It doesn't look like changing any time soon either.
 

GI-Gizmo

New Member
World conquerors . . .

The world meant different things to different people depending on many things. The known world changes in size depending on what year it is, every group had a different view and ideas of what was over the horizon. I think the most domination a single group had over the rest of the world had to be European conquest, exploration and colonialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The fact that European power was fragmented instead of centralized spurred innovation and discoveries that gave Europeans a gigantic leap forward in technological dominance compared to the rest of the world. The United States is more influencial, dominant and advanced than any other nation or empire in history. US ideological influence has spread across the globe and changed the planet forever. Without such a
powerful force the world would experience alot more wars, corruption and other major problems. Such dominance is a sort of oil that keeps the global machine running smoothly and keeps certain parts in their place.
Historically there has been many powerful world conquerors; Persia, Rome, Mongols, Britain, Spain, etc. Whether it was an empire or a religion many forces have spread their influence across the world and been conquerors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top