Chief Butthurt Generators since the Fall of Rome:

Oh boohoo we lost Spain after taking it for like 700 years boohoo whatever shall we do.

Turks/Kurds came a bit later on, but they did just as good as a job defending Jerusalem from retarded Crusaders.
The idiots brought heavy metal armor to fight in a desert. Who does that?

by the 13th century you were in full damage control in Spain and it would only take untill the end of the century until you were completely pushed out outside of granada and a few (southern regions I think algarves), which kept existing until 1492 because it was good for trade according to castille
not to mention you were ruled by the berbers, who used their military to defend you pussies
Also the crusades were ALWAYS mostly fought by turks, also fatimids got btfo
Nah mate your glory period in spain was over since the taifas

All empires corrode over time/lose territories.
The point is I don't care that we ended up gradually losing territory from Spain.

The fact of the matter is that we had brought prosperity from southern France all the way to India. Spain and Portugal were miles ahead of their fellow European countries because of us, and they were better for having us.

Depends where you start from. lad.
You could argue that the story began circa 700 AD.

Here you go a map, I was wrong, the decline in the 13th century was worse than I remembered

What amazigh tribe are you exactly in emirates? The masmouda who created the almohad empire? The zenegas of the almoravid empire? The zenetas who conquered it in first place? The zirid of Grenada? The nafusa who founded the emirate of Cordoba? :^)

Islam reinvigorated a dying middle east I'll give you that
I'm not sure how it is relevant to 1096-1206 though, remember for catholics crusades were a flat gain, reopening trade routes and ending arab Mediterranean dominance, the craving for wealth of the east caused by this (and the mongols) would result in the age of exploration
Face it lad, by this time it only went down for the arabs

>Face it lad, by this time it only went down for the arabs

After 600 years of being on top, you gotta step down someday. Realize that it hasn't even been 600 years since the first contact with the Americas (unsurprisingly, Spain and Portugual, former colonies of the Umayyad Empire, did this first).

Spain and Portugal basically declined by the 18th-19th century, and now Britain is on its way out too.
How long do you think the U.S will be on top? How long do you think China will be on top after that?
Every empire falls, mate. It's only a matter of time before every ruler is weaker than the last. That's why we put "the Great" or "the Magnificent" after the name of certain rules. It indicates that all the other rulers who came before or after never rose to that level of competence.

>600 years of being on top
I contest that
1/2

>we

>600 years

kek. Arabs lost egypt to turkic tulunid in 800, and middle east as a whole since 900 ad to turkic seljukid, ikshidid, burid, zengid, mameluk, rasulid, bahri, zengrid, Maghreb in 739 to rustamid, zirid, beghwatra etc.

Arabs were relevant for 2 centuries max and licked turkic feets for 1100 years.

they were amazing even when bullied
2/2

I don't think arabs even fought a single battle against crusaders.

It was turks/kurds/berbers and sometimes blacks. Blacks defended fatimid Jerusalem when Christian came.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talas

We beat the Tangs and took control over Central Asia from them.

After that we became bros with the Tangs and helped them shut down a massive rebellion by sending a few thousand soldiers.

And no, we didn't "steal" paper from them. Nor did we ever claim to have invented paper.

>600 years

Turks and persians completely overshadowed arabs in relevancy after 2 centuries

I was referring to this battle yes, thanks for being excellent at noticing it my audience
nevertheless they were better than you

>nevertheless they were better than you

Why do you say that?

their economy was larger than that of your empire
their population was bigger
They were way more efficient at organizing things, i.e. they didn't start to fall apart when they couldn't conquer their neighbours anymore
more stable government

>their economy was larger than that of your empire
>their population was bigger
Literally answered your own point, my friend.

It's hard to scale economies that existed nearly a thousand years ago to today, but I would contest to that point anyway. Abbasid virtually controlled the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean trade routes at its height.

Either way, the populations were relatively the same, I think around 50 million if I recall correctly.
>They were way more efficient at organizing things, i.e. they didn't start to fall apart when they couldn't conquer their neighbours anymore
more stable government

Debatable because we lasted longer and had to deal with massive rebellions and uprisings and then came to us for help. The Tang Emperor was literally shitting his pants when the rebels came knocking on his palace door.

Your claims lack a lot of merit, honestly.
Honestly man I don't really care much. The Abbasid Empire did way more shit in terms of science, trade, commerce, etc.
Tang dynasty was just another empire in a long line of Chinese Empires that ruled over the same group of people for centuries.

we lasted longer while they had to deal with massive rebellions and uprisings and then came to us for help******

Pop went from 50 to 80 million(which the abbasids never reached)through their reign, and the country stayed together until the very end, meanwhile your empire crumbled all the way to baghdad throughout the 9th century and later to egypt, the interregnum between them and the next chinese empire(song, who I prefer imo) was very short, the next all dominating calliphate wouldn't come until Suleiman the Magnificent
Not only that even when central authority declined at the end the country still prospered and stayed intact, I call that better than the abbasids who just crumbled to their core while the ummah prospered, however outside of their control
also you can't beat woodblock printing lad, only thing that could compare from you is algebra, which a persian actually worked out, and existed before him even
You relied a lot on the persians, the chinese relied only on themselves
The chinese did have a larger economy than the abbasids, however the largest economy at the time was india, but it wasn't united(so was it on top?)

>Pop went from 50 to 80 million(which the abbasids never reached)through their reign, and the country stayed together until the very end, meanwhile your empire crumbled all the way to baghdad throughout the 9th century and later to egypt, the interregnum between them and the next chinese empire(song, who I prefer imo) was very short, the next all dominating calliphate wouldn't come until Suleiman the Magnificent

I don't see population as a metric for greatness. China has always had a large empire, but that's because Han Chinese breed like rats due to heavy emphasis on farming.

And do you think the Tang declined smoothly? I literally just told you that they had a rebellion which nearly wiped the government out. We actually helped the Tang government maintain order and then began good trading ties with them.
>also you can't beat woodblock printing lad, only thing that could compare from you is algebra, which a persian actually worked out, and existed before him even

Woodblock printing has existed long before the Tang, lad.

Literally everything you mentioned so for has never been exclusive to the Tang dynasty. They're all properties of China.
China is a unique case because it is a homogenous region of the world that had a tradition of new families taking power, the families being corrupt and getting overthrown, and then being replaced by another ruling family. Rinse, wash, and repeat for another 3,000 years and you have yourself China.

The Chinese people had already gotten used to this cycle.
China and the Arab Empires are two different cases.

This thread is enough to prove Arabs trigger people Kek

This.
People take it as a personal insult if you say that Arabs were on top at a point in history.

You are saying population(the main source of economy back then) wasn't impressive? Population has many implications, namely that you need a good administration, that you had much manpower and talent to draw from, they also had to largest territory of any chinese empire until the qing
Also Chang'ang was the greatest city in the world ever(maybe excluding rome) at it's peak under the tang, not even baghdad could compare, in this population is definitely an important metric for greatness back then

The administration was so functional that it could work while the central government declined, and that was only at the end of the tang, when you talk about the 9th century I show you the abbasids 9th century which had the same story, but with the country actually crumbling
Woodblock printing was popularized during the tang, just like how algebra was rediscovered by the persians

>things mentioned never been exclusive to the tang dynasty
They pretty much were back then, china had lived through a 400 year interregnum after the fall of the han, who were prosperous but were a distant memory for the chinese, they also weren't as efficient as the tang

Also woodblock printing is relevant because it got popularized during the tang, but they also invented things like that waterwheel clock

Also why I necessarily contest arab prominence here is because this is the great golden age following 400 years in which it was anything but certain that the dynastic cycle would continue, this was a watershed dynasty, also the arabs were never on top of the chinese, any trade had to be done with mutual consent.

Don't try to lecture me on tang history please, I know about the An Lushan rebellion and tibet

Also contemporary arabs have nothing on the song anyway, but I think you know that

I'm going to sleep, I'll reply to you tomorrow

Once you hit 50 million people, an extra 30 million isn't gonna be that big of a difference.
Like I said, China has always had the largest population. Nothing new to Tang Dynasty.
>They pretty much were back then, china had lived through a 400 year interregnum after the fall of the han, who were prosperous but were a distant memory for the chinese, they also weren't as efficient as the tang
whatisthesuidynasty.jpg

>Also woodblock printing is relevant because it got popularized during the tang
By that logic, so did the Abbasid Caliphate when they popularized the use of paper.
>but they also invented things like that waterwheel clock
Good job.
>Also why I necessarily contest arab prominence here is because this is the great golden age following 400 years in which it was anything but certain that the dynastic cycle would continue, this was a watershed dynasty, also the arabs were never on top of the chinese, any trade had to be done with mutual consent.
Yeah, no. We were on top and helped them out. You don't give help to someone who is above you.
>Don't try to lecture me on tang history please, I know about the An Lushan rebellion and tibet
You've obviously been ignoring it since it is a major part of Tang history, especially in relation to the Arabs.
>Also contemporary arabs have nothing on the song anyway, but I think you know that
I honestly don't care about the Song. They got demolished by the Mongols which led to them spreading to us.

Anyway, at our height, we beat the Chinese. There's no denying that. Militarily we were superior, even when they invented gun-powder and we overall did more sciencey shit.

Building an empire like the Tang isn't a difficult feat. You are basically ruling over a single ethnic group/culture, minus a few irrelevant tribes here and there.
The fall and rise of dynasties is literally ingrained in Chinese culture. It is part of their Confucian system with the mandate of heaven and whatnot.

Anyway, good night