but, because he's only interested in the military side, he's essentially producing an uncritical retelling of the muslim sources regarding the domestic concerns, and even appears to be doing it intentionally in order to avoid ruffling feathers. what's the point of that? i mean, why bother at all?
the reality is that much of what exists here is largely discarded by secular histories as myth. he forgets to tell you that much of this so-called history was written well after the fact and through a filter of religious control and is therefore no more reliable as actual history than the christian gospels or the jewish pentateuch. we just forget that this period was a dark age, because it's not some distant, ancient thing - it's in the historical frame. worse, the muslims often try to extricate themselves from the dark age they helped cause, and he's just repeating the propaganda about it.
i'm not going to get into this too much, but, for example, when an emperor has to pass laws about nepotism and corruption, what does that say about the society and the state of governance? you can present this as an example of wise leadership if you insist, but an emperor wouldn't pass anti-corruption laws unless corruption was rampant. further, while these laws did exist, there's little evidence that they had any effect.
rather, what you're listening to here is a founding myth, designed to present these rulers in an enlightened manner, in order to prop up the religion that created them and is no more reliable than stories about david (who killed a philistine with a slingshot) & solomon (who was wise and just). or about george washington and cherry trees. and, this is what happens when amateurs decide they're experts, on the fly.
but, that relates to the military side of it as well because these victories were so decisive and so sudden that they almost do seem like divine intervention, until you work in the reality of revolt. the narrative he's presenting here differs little from the religious narrative, until he picks up the gibbons halfway through and balances it out. but, historians don't take it seriously anymore. while some skirmishes seem to have actually taken place, it seems like the seventh century was a period of internal revolt in both of the major empires, and there was a kind of pan-semitism that developed that took them both down from the inside. these arab raiders were treated as liberators, and couldn't have succeeded otherwise.
but, he wouldn't want that to be true, because he wants battles and he wants one tribe to conquer another. so, he's buying into something that is generally seen as debunked by contemporary, mainstream history.
it's still a nice story, though.
bro.