Arab conquest of France

[StonyArabia]

We created the largest empire, from Southern France to the borders of India/China they were called the Ummyads.

If it was not for internal fighting, we would have conquered most France and probably pushed into Germany

[Jehan]

lol you conquer nothing in France sand monkey.

[DarkWater]

If it weren't for internal fighting, Africa would rule the world

[StonyArabia]

lol you conquer nothing in France sand monkey.

Nope, we conquered Southern France, frog. We were only stopped at Tours because of Charles Martel had prepared, and there was some internal fighting within the Arab forces, however there was not, he would have conquered all of France and would even push into Germany. Martel even forced the church to sell land for training his military. All of Southern France, Sicily, and Iberia was under our control.

[Böri]

Arabs controlled like 40 years what was north Septimania back then. That was realm of Spanish Visigoths not the Franks. So, that land is today France but when Arabs took it that wasn't France yet.

Umayyad province of Narbonne.
720 AD to 760 AD. Franks took that region in 760's.

[Anglojew]

One of my ancestors was the Mahkir of Narbonne & another Charles Martel (blatant appeal to authority).

The Arabs were soundly defeated at Tours.

[Böri]

One of my ancestors was the Mahkir of Narbonne & another Charles Martel (blatant appeal to authority).

The Arabs were soundly defeated at Tours.

The Arabs and their North African Amazigh contingents weren't familiar with the weather. It was too cold since they are people of warm, desertic climates. They were getting flu and dying. That also played. In a military sense, they had upper hand on the Franks, back 8th century the Western civilization was in her genesis years and knight culture etc weren't developed, Franks were the weak side in reality.

[StonyArabia]

One of my ancestors was the Mahkir of Narbonne & another Charles Martel (blatant appeal to authority).

The Arabs were soundly defeated at Tours.

Interesting. The Arabs were only defeated at Tours, because one of the princes was an idiot and who had disagreement and thus there was a split that occurred. However this was the most decisive battle history, because it would finally halt the Arab expansions to the West. This of course did not stop Arab raids on France. However even if the split occurred, unlike Iberia, the Arabs were not used to the climate which was their downfall. It's the same when had attacked the Balkans and Anatolia, and the reason the Bulgarians defeated us, because the winter was harsh. The only true equal power to us at this time was the Jewish Khazar kingdom which we could not truly defeat. This why North Africa was then used as route, however if the battle of Tours had not occurred, we would mostly likely have pushed into Germany. When we finally defeated the Khazars in the Caucasus, the forces had to be called, to have a war with the Abbassids. Thus there was no renewed combats into Anatolia and Europe for a time. However we did attack Anatolia and defeated the Byzantines several times during the Abbassid times.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

When Arabs rape, pillage, and slaughter across the globe StonyArab is all for it. When Americans rape, pillage, and slaughter Arabs in Iraq he's all tears and idle threats of vengeance.

This is a good example of irony and proves what I've always said about weaker people: it's not the suffering you inflict on their person that offends them but rather that they're not the one's inflicting suffering upon you.

[Crn Volk]

Nope, we conquered Southern France, frog. We were only stopped at Tours because of Charles Martel had prepared, and there was some internal fighting within the Arab forces, however there was not, he would have conquered all of France and would even push into Germany. Martel even forced the church to sell land for training his military. All of Southern France, Sicily, and Iberia was under our control.

You would have eventually suffered the same fate as the Moors in Iberia.