The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
here's why Muslims were never a threat to Europe (actual military science)
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 18th, 2026 12:20 AM Author: Natalie Harp's husband the way muslims fought was to use harassing attacks. In order for that to be effective you have to be able to withdraw. Muslims could do that in the desert. They could literally just run away into the desert and you couldn't cath them. That made them impossible to defeat in the desert.
In Europe the Muslims had zero ability to retreat and they had to maintain yuge supply lines. It was impossible for them to ever muster the kind of forces they would have needed to storm Europe. They could bring maybe 5% of that to Tours. They were fucked from the start at Vienna too for the same reason. That battle would have been a cakewalk if it didn't happen so far away from the desert |
Date: August 18th, 2026 12:32 AM Author: The Penis Nah I don't think that's fully it. For instance Rome was never even able to fully conquer germania past the Rhine and they had control of most of Europe and much of the territory that later became muslim. Rome absolutely could operate east of the Rhine. Augustus's armies campaigned deep into Germania. Teutoburg was bad but not proof that Roman troops physically could not fight there. But it became less attractive as a sustainable site of permanent conquest. They were most successful along the Mediterranean, because the sea itself gave them a logistical center, but into continental interiors it became more costly. Islamic empires were similar, and also expanded along north africa, near east etc. Reasons they couldn't expand further into the continental interior were probably similar. I think we agree on the main points, but I just don't think the desert was that important per se. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074820) |
 |
Date: August 18th, 2026 12:44 AM Author: Natalie Harp's husband I'm talking about hit and run tactics Muslims used in the era of Mohammed and onward. I don't think they had their shit together in Roman times (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074833) |
|
Date: August 18th, 2026 12:45 AM Author: The Penis There were no muslims in (western) Roman times. I'm using it as an example. I'm saying if the Roman Empire could never fully conquer Europe because of how costly war in the interior continent becomes, how the fuck were muslims supposed to do it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074834) |
|
Date: August 18th, 2026 12:46 AM Author: peeface (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074836) |
|
Date: August 18th, 2026 12:50 AM Author: hank_scorpio Rome was dealing with enemies in every direction, the muslims had a mostly peaceful eastern front, absent civil wars and were dealing with a europe that was worth a lot more, how much is it worth to take northern germany when the sum total of the economic benefit was...idk doods in furs shooting bears? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074840) |
|
Date: August 18th, 2026 1:11 AM Author: Natalie Harp's husband Your were just claiming Ottoman Turks were thirsty for frozen muddy Europe. Hungary was going to be their launchpad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074875) |
|
Date: August 18th, 2026 1:46 AM Author: hank_scorpio are you familiar with the concept of 1000 years? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074920) |
|
Date: August 18th, 2026 1:17 AM Author: peeface they had metal working, a large agricultural surplus, and good land. the romans certainly spent a lot of effort subduing britons who offered much less in return.
two other solid strikes against going into germany:
- there were no cities or large urban settlements and a lack of centralized government. rome would have needed to somehow create a social structure in order to rule these people.
- we look at the rhine as a defensive barrier, but it was also a good natural offensive barrier. once the romans went past it, they would be committed to expansion beyond anything the empire had or would experience. |
|
Date: August 18th, 2026 1:19 AM Author: gibberish (?) It was hard to make wine in Germany. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074889) |
|
Date: August 18th, 2026 1:19 AM Author: Natalie Harp's husband No it wasn'tz Germans drank a fuckload of wine (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074890) |
|
Date: August 18th, 2026 1:24 AM Author: The Penis Point taken. Although doods in furs shooting bears is an exaggeration. There would have been taxable villages, farmland and livestock. But regardless it would come down to cost-benefit, and no way additional campaigns between the rhine and elbe were more worthwhile than protecting what they already had. The Ottomans actually did something similar. They conquered the Balkans and much of Hungary until returns became progressively nastier. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074895) |
|
Date: August 18th, 2026 1:15 AM Author: gibberish (?) I had a professor compare the Vikings and the sea to how Muslims used the desert. Hit quick and retreat back somewhere your opponent can't go. Steppe tribes used similar tactics. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074880) |
|
Date: August 18th, 2026 1:15 AM Author: Natalie Harp's husband Yeah Vikings would come up the river at night, hit you and then run back to the boat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894351&forum_id=2],#50074883) |