The collective Muslim armies of history could be obliterated by a couple of carrier groups...*IF* the US is considered a "Chrisitan" military, then clearly in the battle the combined might of Christian versus Muslim power, Christian power wins. It's kind of a no-brainer.

A dumb question. Playing along though, Christianity has got to win. Christians conquered all of Africa and the Americas. Islam conquered huge swaths of territory too, but then Christians even dominated most of those places. And Pakistan is the only Muslim country (for now) that even has a nuclear bomb!

By that standard the religion of Kim Il-sung must be equal in power to Islam, because the North Koreans are the only Kim-worshippers with nukes, and Pakistan is the only Muslim country with nukes. 1-1, tie.

When did the Kim Caliphate forge one of the largest empires ever? Oh, that's right. Never. This stupid topic is about relative military strength, and with four "Christian" nuclear powers and one Muslim one then that dramatically goes in the Christians' favor. The history of Islam is filled with military triumphs that stretch from Siberia to Comoros. Korea can't compare.

The Mongols were Buddhists, and they conquered the largest empire ever to exist on Earth.

OK. And the combined Christian empires of the 18th and 19th centuries covered basically everything but Korea, Japan, Thailand, most of China, the Ottoman Empire, and Iran. And only Japan was completely independent. This isn't about specific empires, but the religions as a whole throughout history.

Tuesdayists will prevail, trust me.

World Trade Centre sat on New York
World Trade Centre had a great fall
And all the Christian Crusade Army (aka US Army)
Couldn't put World Trade Centre back together.

/\
/ | \
|
|
....moron...

(Oh poop...my arrow fell apart...)

None of you Americans in this thread make sense at all. Military prowess is about skill, the ability to triumph in warfare despite inferior numbers or other disadvantages. Military might/power is about the overall capability to wage a successful war thanks to numbers and quality of troops, equipment, logistics, economy... Learn your own language.

FSM FTW! hehehe

see krellin
you can't even make your arrows work. Who's the moron?

I
I
I
\ /
V
...moron???

@uly - You don't think the Christian Crusaders on their horses with their swords ransacking the Middle East had a superior techonolgical and skill advantage over the typical peasant trying to survive in a harsh environment?

As far as early Christianity spreading... Martyrdom can really affect those who view it in person and spread via word of mouth. People have always viewed someone who died for a cause without being violent themselves as somehow being special, their cause righteous, and those who opposed and killed them as monsters. Jewish leaderhsip and Rome killed Christ (not blaming the Jews, just the Pharasees and Saducees along with the Herod and Pilot and their directive from above to keep the peace). Others like Paul who were imprisoned or the Apostles who were martyred contributed to the view that there must be something special in this new fangled Christianity.

./\
/ | \
. |
. |

hehehe

^^ Not only you don't make a point, you don't even make sense.

^real moron^

Just showing krellin and Nike how an arrow *should* be done.

I put 2 "^" there, not 1 ;)

Also, sorry for being a little harsh, I accidentally closed a window with an almost finished extensive wiki edit so all other lifeforms must pay for it :)

Dumb thread as others have said, but i will play along. I mean there is no question that Muslims had a greater military prowess than christians before the invention of the gun. Muslims were able to stop the mongols which christians were not able to do, and they defeated the greatest christian empire of the Early Medieval world. They expanded largely at will until the widespread use of the musket as an infantry weapon. The great Christian triumphs of the period, the reconquista and the crusades, had success largely because of internal islamic squabbles. After the Christians made a shit-ton of money off the new world and colonization though, the muslims couldn't keep up. Even then though, until the nineteenth century, they successfully held Christian expansion at bay.

That is my two cents

"Muslims were able to stop the mongols which christians were not able to do"

I agree with your wider point about Muslims having greater prowess before the gun (and really, who couldn't?), but the Mongols did sack the capital of the Caliphate, Baghdad, and ransack a huge portion of the Muslim world. Apart from Russia and unsuccessful forays into Eastern Europe the Mongols didn't really do too much damage to Christendom, and it was Christian Russia which finally broke what remained of their power later on.

But again, one of the more stupid threads we've had.

I do think that this thread is stupid, but as a student of the Middle East, I can at least point out a few things. Saying that the muslims stopped the mongols is just odd. Half the Muslim world, basically everything east of the Levant, crumbled completely during the Mongol invasion. The Muslim world in the 13th century was extremely fragmented, with the Turkish migrations completely rewriting the map of Asia, and caliphal authority virtually non-existant due to a lot of factors I won't go into here. From the strong, united Mongol point of view, it was basically just riding through. I believe that what stopped the Mongol advance had nothing to do with the combatants, but with the administrative capability of their empire. They just could not expand further than Russia and Baghdad and still keep any form of centralised control. Even what they had was too much, and the empire immediately fell apart into factions when Genghis died, although this also had to do with the hereditary laws of the Turko-Mongol nomads, where possessions were split between the sons.

The bottom line,
A Muslim army defeated a Mongol Army in a set battle at the height of Mongol power, that cannot be said of any christian army.

An easy counter to that is that the Mongols never faced a strong Christian army. If they had gotten to France and won you'd have a point, but all the opposition they got from Christians came from the divided Russians and Romanian peasants.

Don't forget the crusaders, Invictus. Although they were hardly that strong, and they were very back-and-forth when it came to the Mongols. Actually, some Frankish knights surrendered to Hugalu Khan and fought with him against the Mamlukes of Egypt. One hell of a strange army that one.

France would put up a stronger resistance than Poland and Hungary combined (with help of Templars, Hospitallers and Bohemians) only thanks to its landscape being less suitable to Mongolian style of warfare. Divided feudal France was no powerhouse in the 13th century. If the Bohemian main army made it to Legnica in time, the Allied force facing Mongolians there and simultaneously at Mohi would be the biggest force Europe mustered in that century.

Haven't faced a strong army?

An 25,000 man army of Hungarians, Teutonic Knights and Templars faced the Mongols at Mohi, define strong christian army for me please

At Legnica a 30,000 man army of Poles, HRE, Hospitaller and Templar troops were dispatched by an inferior force.

I am no expert on this, but those aren't exactly minor armies, nor are those minor christian powers.

Exactly. Although saying that HRE had an army is over-the-top.

In the modern era, there is no question who is more powerful if America is to be considered a "Christian" army.

But I will also say that it's a dumb question because it has a lot of answers that could be technically correct, depending on time period and perspective.

In absolute terms, America and her allies kick ass when it comes to Christians v. Muslims.

"A Muslim army defeated a Mongol Army in a set battle at the height of Mongol power, that cannot be said of any christian army."

In the Mongols' defense, they *were* fighting with only half of Hulegu's available forces. The il-Khan was on his way back to Mongolia to throw his weight around in the succession dispute after the death of Guyuk (?) Khan.

"Apart from Russia and unsuccessful forays into Eastern Europe the Mongols didn't really do too much damage to Christendom, and it was Christian Russia which finally broke what remained of their power later on."

Are you kidding? Leaving aside the entire generation of kings & princes killed by the Mongols in Eastern Europe, the cities that ceased to exist, and the massive body count, the 'Mongol Yoke' is generally considered to be the reason why Russia was so backward compared to the rest of Europe for so many centuries.

Muslims because they've been more willing to slaughter & enslave the conquered populations. How many great civilizations have been felled by murderous reactionary Islamic conquerors? I can't count that high. It's sick that we lost most of what Rome, India & Persia offered the world because of Christianity & Islam.

At Legnica a 30,000 man army of Poles, HRE, Hospitaller and Templar troops were dispatched by an inferior force.

Oh wow. Except...a few centuries before the Mongol empire the most powerful Chinese warlords boasted armies of one million.

Mongols faced a weak, divided, militarily pathetic China. Had they faced China under the Tang, nobody would be discussing the 'Mongol Empire' today.

That said, the Mongols still had difficulties fighting the Chinese, which tells you about how overrated their military prowess was.

From a military standpoint, I am of the opinion that the modern U.S. military is the single most effective force in recorded history. But I think over all, the Muslims have to take the cake. The expansion of Islam in the 6th and 7th centuries was largely unprecedented. The only thing stopping the from a total conquest of Europe, was the terrain of France + Martell+overextended supply lines, and the Byzantines, who were Roman.If one or the other was gone, there would be no Christianity today.

And even today, it has taken 10 years of brutally expensive fighting to defeat a vastly inferior force of Muslims in Afghanistan.

"Oh wow. Except...a few centuries before the Mongol empire the most powerful Chinese warlords boasted armies of one million. "

Considering I was using this number to compare europeans to europeans, find the 1 million man european army and I will consider your comment relevant

Okay, I have a few things to say on this

"It's sick that we lost most of what Rome, India & Persia offered the world because of Christianity & Islam."
I'll agree with you on Rome and Persia, but I disagree on India. Jalal-ud-Din Muhammad Akbar was the 3rd (?) ruler of Mughal India, and he really set the tone for respect and peaceful coexistence between all religions in India, including Christianity. Much of the destruction came later, when the British were conquering India. That might have been what you intended, but India as a whole wasn't harmed too much during the Mughal invasions, not to the extent Rome and Persia were.

Also, since the Mongols weren't initially Muslims, I'm going to consider all comments on the Mongols irrelevant.

My position is that overall, the Arabs were better warriors than Christians. In open combat, Christians almost always lost. However, I view this is moreso because of two things 1) Bad tactics on the hands of Christian leaders and 2) Superior technology that the Muslims had (Composite bows, horse archers). The combination of the two meant that early on Christians couldn't respond to their disadvantage with innovative tactics, and thus lost.

I mean, the only reason Islam is around today as a major religion is because of the environment it was formed in. When Islam broke out from the Arabian Peninsula, the Byzantines and Persians had just finished a decades-long war, and the Byzantines had won. So what did the Byzantines do? Stopped paying the tribes on the border to be their watchmen. So they didn't give the Byzantines warning when the Arabs marched through. All of a sudden, Damascus was under attack, the whole Levant fell in a matter of years, and Constantinople was under siege. What did the Byzantines do afterward? (I think in the 1000s now, when they were on the upswing against the Muslims). They dismantled their very successful "farm" system of raising and training troops. It was very much a feudal system, but they didn't replace it with anything. They just got rid of it, because the Emperor at the time feared the military.\

But I rant. Muslims historically overpower Christians, but major successes on both sides must be taken with a grain of salt because oftentimes one power was stepping into a vacuum of power caused by internal divides or weaknesses