Early islamic fighters split the tip of their swords...

>early islamic fighters split the tip of their swords, and according to science this made them twice as powerful as any western edged weapon in history.[3][4][5][8]

wow

wow

>western

Exactly, since we all know that the Katana is the most powerful edged weapon in the history of men.

La Fata Illa Ali, La Saif Illa Dhulfiqar

Meh, they didn't achieve success because of superior weaponry, I'd still take a falcata over that.

What's the problem with it.
My scimitar would demolish your steel block that you call a sword. Even the katana would fair better against a scimitar.

Don't underestimate the power of my سيف. I killed 99 infidels with my split end سيف . While you were doing infidel sex I studied the سيف

im honestly curious how the split and those chainsaw edges do in cutting in slashing compared to the katana

Early Islamic fighters, being Arabic men, primarily used straight swords. Curved swords were largely popularized later in history, and the earliest recording use of a scimitar is found over a century after Islam was founded. The splitting of a sword is a popular feat originating in the boasting or celebration of a warriors strength. Khalid being one of the most widely renown warriors of the first Muslim army, is said to have broken many swords in battle, and the famous Zulfiqar of Ali follows this.

The splitting of a sword treads the line of reality and fiction. After all, the Arabs are known for their poetry and storytelling traditions, where great allegories and metaphors are used for description which are not always taken literally. The splitting of a curved sword particularly would make sense, if such weapons were even available at the time, as their design isn't ideal for bashing against armor. But more suspect with straight swords, especially if you consider the popular accounts invaded people had of their Arabian conquerors, where the Arabs were described as a people who's shining and sharp swords contrasted with their shabby dress.

But still, it's more believable considering that the Arabs swordsmithing simply didn't compare to the armor of their enemies, especially the Romans.

that's a xboxhueg empire

You must mean Byzantines, the Romans fell to Germanics long before Muslims showed up in history.

>"But still, it's more believable considering that the Arabs swordsmithing simply didn't compare to the armor of their enemies, especially the Romans."
Which is why we destroyed the Byzantine Empire.

But people used lance or pikes, not sword to fight in wars.

I don't like how people portray the early Muslims nowadays in the west, they were very smart and knew how to
>divert enemy armies towards places that weren't useful
>exploit holes in enemy defenses
>exploit geography to flank
>mass forces at critical points
>adopt and react to tactics from both Persians and Byzantines
>create new command structures on the fly and properly channel all their new troops in an organized matter
Even if they were outnumbered and on paper had the disadvantage with equipment and so on they more than made up for it with pure skill.

My favorite is the "wave of reinforcements" moved they pulled off a couple times where they would send small number of troops out at a time, one group after another to give the impression they were massing a huge force. Their enemy would fear an attack and mass their army there, only to get pooped on from a completely different direction, or sometimes never engage at that spot at all and attack somewhere else entirely.

ROMA INVICTA

WE WUZ A REPUBLIC N SHIET

They still had swords in case the spear's shaft suffered a catastrophic failure of its structural integrity

Fucking this.

Khalid ibn al-Walid was a fucking beast.

...

Yeah some would have swords, but a spear don't broke often, so the quality of the sword wouldn't matter that much, would it ?

...

How do 300 people kill 124k
Did they have a tank

victory-or-death-is-what-they-had.

>300
They should make a movie out of that kek
The Umayyads were pretty shitty compared to the Rashidun in terms of battle strategy.

>(medieval estimates)
There was probably around 1 thousand of them.

they-should-i-love-the-reconquista-period-of-war-between-the-muslim-world-and-spaniards.

should elaborate that most of the losses are the 60 000 captured christian Arabs executed by Muslims after battle

> Neither army strengths nor casualties are known with certainty. Asturian accounts stated that only 10 men survived with Pelagius.


>being this delusional

fuck islam

that didn't happen..
pic related

why were battles back then so fucking shit
umayyad caliphate could only muster 1400 men what the fuck?

They were attacking not even a castle with a few peasants inside. Why would they need more people to do that?

In related news, that battle is so unimportant is a miracle chronicles even mention it. Hell we're only speaking about it because Spanish nationalism made it into a legend.

this
the falcatas in a single cut takes your arm

Kilij > rest

Bush beats the shit out of all of you

They had the whole summer to kill them?

Didn't help them against the Mongols

only mongols helped against mongols basicly

I love this design. Seems like a powerful mix between axe and sword.

You destroyed more than that
>Persia
>Buddhist Afghanistan
>India
>North Africa
Even reaching as far as Tibet and fighting the Chinese