Never mind，As long as you can correct your map mistakes.

Also Tarentum, in Italy, is actually Naples. Tarentum it's located near Brundisium.

You also forgot Rshtuni's assaults into Armenia

@@user-nw3kv2qf9oAll the way to Dagestan and Chechnya.

rashidun never lost to the romans, not a single battle (while fighting more than 30 battles and the sassanids at the same time) , while being heavily ouytnumbered and out equipped in every battle (litteraly every battle), they were just truely superior in every war

Is it though like they were a massive empire and in almost every battle out numbered the arabs who fought both persia and Byzantium at the same time...

@@faarisjaber Yeah they were powerful still. But at the time of the Ummayyads the persians had been oblitarated already and the romans were pretty battered. Plus they had lost most of their territory. The Ummayyads prepared huge offencives for years and were pushed out by the romans.

@@folkeklarstrom3668 i was referring to the rashidun

@@faarisjaber Oh ok

@@faarisjaber yes bro u r right the rashidun were really legendary, I mean in recorded history you wont find better in term of feat and amazing conquests, people keep bringing the "sassanid and romans where exhausted after civil war blah blah blah..." argument, but they really don't know what they are talking about, Rashidun were really something exceptionnal, outnumbered in all battles, about 97% win rate while being outnumbered, not trained for big campaigns, no good equipment, difficult logistics... They started with legendary difficulty, they managed to do legendary victory.

Man has the guns pointed to the sky. He just conquered half of Persia & Rome in 10 years. He's celebrating

His title was al Faruq meaning the one who distinguishes the bad and good,according to Muhammad Satan feared Umar

☠️☠️💀🗣️🫸🏴

Same it’s insane

Nah I really doubt there was even a chance. Even if they could it would just be reversed soon after.

@@TheSphee131 Considering that the Caliphate was weakened by that time + the catastrophic effect that the loss of their western lands would have, yeah, I don't think that the Romans would lose the Eastern Provinces quickly tbf.

@freshrussianmeat3890 Roman Empire*

@freshrussianmeat3890 Rome wasn't even the capital of the Roman Empire at the late Roman Empire, Greek was the second most spoken language of the empire for most of it's history and they beated back the Muslims many times, it was the "Roman" church who destroyed the empire in the 4th Crusade, letting the remains rot and making them food for the Ottoman Turks

Honey Mad made two videos about it: Sassanid empire every month,including it's fall, and all the Muslim conquests between 622 and 750.

True

yes but in reality the slavs didnt capture all of Peloponnesus. Corinthos, Patras, Monveassia. Mani and etc were not taken by the Slav..

@@DCCrisisclips even though I am Greek, I must have known these...

An alliance with the Sassanids would have stopped the Arab advance. Who knows, maybe the Romans would have kept control of the Levant and Africa.

The Byzantines and sassanids already tried it together

​​@@BasedAlaricwell they could wait, not like Arabs could win the war of attrition without a major decisive battle

@@reubenmatthews5615 Why formalize an alliance if the countries were already forced to fight against the same enemy? Islam would have destroyed them regardless of whether an alliance had been concluded or not. Nothing would change

@@reubenmatthews5615no it wouldn’t, they did have an alliance at the battle of Firaz and they still got bent over.

Yea they only toke costal towns in fact the berbers start to spread Islam through trade

I never heard of this

you mean byzantines?

@@Mo-hi9hw Eastern Romans never identified themselves as "Byzantines". They are called like that because their capital, Constantinople used to have the name of "Byzantium". Eastern Romans refer themselves to "Romans"

The Arabs took the islands, then the Byzantines took them back, then the Arabs took them back and finally the Byzantines took them back

Yeah Rashidun caliphate conquered greek islands and Sicily. And withdrew it after murder of caliph Usman.

Also Siege of Contantinopole (655)

Died of Edema Died of tuberculosis Deposed & mutilated 10 year old boy put on the throne Year of the 4 Emperors Part 2

This blue color are south slavic tribes.

south slav tribes but it is quite exaggerated though.

They'd have to go through France to get there, or Illyricum, then cross the Alps. They certainly raided the coasts of the rest of Italy, though.

​@@histguy101they can go directly from Sicily

@@mahdimehdi445 Then they'd have to conquer Sicily & southern/central Italy first.

@@histguy101 they did btw

that's kinda cope even though they were exhausted they outnumbered the arabs in almost every battle and not to mention the arabs also had their own civil war.

The timeline ends at 719

@@histguy101 so? These areas are presented on map as Bulgarian even if they were captured century later

Did you see how many times the Byzantines won in this video?😂 Also you got the cities from slavs

@@constantinexii8182 I am not even Bulgarian lol

Nah, more like where Liberation Began 🗿

No, Muslims, the sahabas R.A (who conquered Rome and Persia) identified as muslims before identifying as Arabs

@@Khalid-Ibn-Al-Walidit’s not this or that,they were proud arabs and proud muslims

@@Khalid-Ibn-Al-Walidthey both arab and muslim

Romans and Persians were exhausted.

@@vf7058 Please go back and study the battles of that particular war, and you will realize that neither the persian or byzantine army wasnt exhausted. There is nothing called "exhausted" in war - what does it mean? The muslims had also fought the war against the quraish and the ridda war for 20 years before that war, werent they exhausted? A state doesnt work like a human body, therefore the exhausted "analogy" is invalid and more of an excuse by historians to give a cheap explanation to why the world was opened to islam.

@@nazeem8680 You can't compare last roman-persian war to the arab wars. Persians and Romans fought a total war for two decades. War exhaustion was enormous. Even basic lifetime items like currency of the era are marked by this conflict. Romans had hexagrams, small coins with inscription "May God help the Romans" a symbol of desperate defense against Sassanids. Also Romans did not fully recovered from plagues of the 6th century. Muslims fought on one front while Romans and Persians had warlike neighbors. Plenty of Roman offensive campaigns were halted due to another tribal invasion. Muslims were lucky. With prime Heraclius and Persians Islam would become a local Arabic religion.

@@vf7058 There is nothing called luck. God grants victory to whomever he pleases. Byzantines and Persians were vastly superior in strenght and still they lost. You must realize that all these silly explanations you come up with are cope and excuses and anecdotal evidence. You still cant come up with a definiton of what "exhaustion" in war even means. The arabs were also hid by plague, the arabs had war for 30 years prior aswell, fighting each other and with persians and byzantines in their wars. why were they not exhausted aswell?? there is nothing called exhaustion in international politics. if anything, war gives you military experience and strenghtens your armies and give you experienced commanders. Muslims didnt fight in one front. muslims fought in 3 fronts: persians in the east, byzantines in the west, Khazars to the north. so no, arabs didnt fight in one front.

@@vf7058 Also. maybe you should actually study the battles of this war instead of just looking at this map which doesnt show how big the byzantine armies were (so much for exhaustion when you bring 50k roman soldiers to the battle of yarmouk and battle of ajnadayn??), This exhaustion argument is really popular amongst armchair generals who didnt study the war but only looks at this map and thinks wow! the byzantines didnt even put up a fight....they must be so exhausted". Byzantines are not exhausted if they are able to field 3 field armies to defend syria, and another army to defend egypt, plus garrisoning all the major cities. your argument makes no sense if you actually study the war.

It happened later l, the Byzantines qonquered many lands, most of the Levant and even campaigning successfully against the Arabs in Egypt

@@constantinexii8182 The Byzantines did not invade most of the Levant. They only controlled Antioch and some coastal cities, but the main important cities (Damascus, Homs, Ramla, and Jerusalem) remained under Arab sovereignty, even though they were subjected to some Byzantine raids. The situation was similar to the Arab raids on Anatolia during the era of the Caliphate