How long would medieval Muslims last if they had conquest France, UK and Italy?

[Ruggery]

If the Muslims in addition to Iberia, had taken France, Italy and the United Kingdom, would they have been expelled quickly or would they have lasted as long as Iberia?

[Damião de Góis]

They would have lasted less if they conquered more land than they did. Even in Iberia they established themselves in the south, lost the north quickly and would only raid the north from time to time. They weren't all united under the conquest of Europe and those who conquered Iberia got cut off from Damascus.

[Hamilcar]

They would have lasted less if they conquered more land than they did. Even in Iberia they established themselves in the south, lost the north quickly and would only raid the north from time to time. They weren't all united under the conquest of Europe and those who conquered Iberia got cut off from Damascus.

I disagree they would have lasted longer and yes probably like in iberia we would have seen new dynasties appearing but by taking italy, france and uk there would have been no authority of the church to support crusades and much of the crusader forces would have been used for djihad or exterminated and it would have probably ended up like modern day balkan with all these euro muslim countries

[Ruggery]

I disagree they would have lasted longer and yes probably like in iberia we would have seen new dynasties appearing but by taking italy, france and uk there would have been no authority of the church to support crusades and much of the crusader forces would have been used for djihad or exterminated and it would have probably ended up like modern day balkan with all these euro muslim countries

Well, if the Muslims were to conquer these 3 countries it would be a nightmare for Europe and Christianity because the defenses for the crusades would be weaker and the Muslims stronger.

[Damião de Góis]

I disagree they would have lasted longer and yes probably like in iberia we would have seen new dynasties appearing but by taking italy, france and uk there would have been no authority of the church to support crusades and much of the crusader forces would have been used for djihad or exterminated and it would have probably ended up like modern day balkan with all these euro muslim countries

That would only be possible if the entire muslim world mobilized towards that. They didn't have the manpower to conquer all Europe. Either way, crusaders wouldn't be so important for local reconquest movements.

[Hamilcar]

That would only be possible if the entire muslim world mobilized towards that. They didn't have the manpower to conquer all Europe. Either way, crusaders wouldn't be so important for local reconquest movements.

I know but I was just answering OP's question

[chinshen]

Long enough to turn it into a shit hole just like how the middle east is now.

[StonyArabia]

They would have lasted less if they conquered more land than they did. Even in Iberia they established themselves in the south, lost the north quickly and would only raid the north from time to time. They weren't all united under the conquest of Europe and those who conquered Iberia got cut off from Damascus.

They were cut from Baghdad not Damascus. The Ummyads took refuge in Spain from the Abbassids. The Abbasid actually committed a genocide against the Ummyads, this why the last Ummyad prince took refuge among the Berbers and then established the Ummyad Caliphate in Iberia. That said if the Arabs and their Muslim allies pushed further they would most likely have stayed longer, however the Arabs would suffer from the cold snowy European weather. When the Arabs attempted to invade the Balkans, the cold winter was the major reason for their defeat. It also depends if the Arabs had gained use of gun powder, which they did not until much later. People underestimate the weather. The reason Arab/Muslim Spain fell was due to internal rivalries which made them split into Taifes, in Arabic word meaning fragment.

[kundur]

Central Europe would have been too cold for the Arabs, being a desert people of the warm climates. Arabs develop flues at even 10 Degrees Celsius, let aside going through snowy European winters.
Iberia has a physical geography that looks like the MENA regions, it has warm-leaning mild climate. It is why Arabs and their Berber clients have been successful. Gaul or Brittany are other stories.

[Hamilcar]

They were cut from Baghdad not Damascus. The Ummyads took refuge in Spain from the Abbassids. The Abbasid actually committed a genocide against the Ummyads, this why the last Ummyad prince took refuge among the Berbers and then established the Ummyad Caliphate in Iberia. That said if the Arabs and their Muslim allies pushed further they would most likely have stayed longer, however the Arabs would suffer from the cold snowy European weather. When the Arabs attempted to invade the Balkans, the cold winter was the major reason for their defeat. It also depends if the Arabs had gained use of gun powder, which they did not until much later. People underestimate the weather. The reason Arab/Muslim Spain fell was due to internal rivalries which made them split into Taifes, in Arabic word meaning fragment.

In the case of western europe it wasn't the weather at all : "arabs" (more like north african soldiers) lost in France because their light cavalry was totally crushed by the " Iron wall"/ frank heavy cavalry and they also were far from their bases which is a clear disadvantage in War