It do be like that sometimes
By - KirstieMaynard
It’s highly unfortunate everything that happened afterwards for them.
Yes, also why is the levant a desert now?
tbh not the entire levant a desert
there are some temperate areas, especially in the mountains and the coastline
sadly, my hometown is in an area which is worse than a desert, cuz we have really humid air, as well as like 37 degrees celsius on a good day, not to mention the tree-felling downbursts in the 1 yearly week of winter
not to mention the yearly rocket season (tho we dont have it as bad, but were close to a major population center, which gets bombarded every summer, so we get some trickles
Rocket season is the best description I have ever heard for that.
Also the entirety of the shfela is a fucking armpit.
Hamas has a weird tendency to shoot rockets at Israeli cities during summer (and mostly during summer). I seriously don't know why is that a thing.
(I heard from someone it has something to do with the summer vacation in the Israeli education system but I'm not sure)
Like fireworks rockets or artillery rockets? I’m guessing the latter
37 degrees celsius is 98.6 degrees fahrenheit
Does the weatherman give reports like "today's weather: 38C, high humidity. Partly cloudy with a 55% chance of rocket barrage"?
And where is that hometown of yours? My guess is probably like Bat Yam or something
close, but not quite
It's not? The areas near to the coast have Mediterranean climate, just like Italy or Greece. If you go inland sure, but I don't think it was much different back in the day in this regard.
I’m from the Levant and my country has almost every biome except a desert
>my country has almost every biome except a desert
Lucky World Generator Seeds
Now if only I can download Prepare Carefully in real life
Where are the cedar trees on Lebanons flag
Only half of it
Climate change is a bitch
And it's only going to get worse. Weeks of 120°F (48.9°F) temperatures will make it literally impossible to live in places. Those people are going to migrate and well... other humans aren't exactly going to just accept that.
120°F is equivalent to 48°C, which is 322K.
^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
Thanks bot, no need to yell.
#IT IS EMPHASIZING IMPORTANT INFORMATION
^(what is this for)
Thank you for clarifying 120 Fahrenheit is also 49.8 Fahrenheit, but I think you should have added Celsius too.
So it was just climate change i thought it was Saddam
I remember people laughing at Prince Charles saying climate change is worsening middle east conflict.
Like duh, even the most basic logic would put hotter temperature = more tensions, anger.
Especially when it’s the kind due to Earth rotational change. With people stuff on top it’ll be much worse.
There's been a very serious drought in large parts of the Levant. Drought was one of the reasons for the Syrian Civil War breaking out. Sheer desperation and no work to be found in the agricultural industry, which meant people travelled to the cities.
Over farming and climate change
Water is also being closee upstream by turkey
Only some of the Levant is a desert, there are temperate areas with Mediterranean weather and the desert isn't just a wasteland for some people, using amazing agricultural technology Israel has been able to make the desert bloom and now there are a ton of farms in the negev
The Middle East is like playing civilization and stopping your research tree after algebra, and putting all of your resources into building armies, but then your attacks get repelled and youre on the back foot for the rest of the game.
maybe we're in a civ party waiting for a turn to pass
Each failed attack just makes the enemy stronger
It's highly unfortunate everything that happened afterwards *to* them, too
When you got early game build but late game rolls over
When you are number 1 in kahoot in the first 3 questions then get the 4th wrong
I would argue that there was a period of time in the 50s and 60s where things were looking up for some Middle Eastern states, but then that all went to shit really fast.
Yeah, the Cold War proxy conflicts really did a number on the Middle East.
The same situation was impending in Indian sub continent but Indian Non Alignment helped and all the fragmented states, kingdoms etc were united to avoid such a state. Fair to say successful to some extent.
Not only do the Balkans love Tito, but Indians too?
Nehru should be thanked for India's Non Alignment in the Cold War but unifying India was the work of Sardar Vallabhai Patel.
Good thing that western countries and especially the US had the wisdom to stop interfering and messing with Middle East countries after the USSR fell.
(obvious giga ultra mega **/s**)
Don’t forget American-backed coups against Iran, Syria and Egypt!
Egypt? What year?
In ‘52, not necessarily a direct involvement like with the ‘53 coup against Mossadeq in Iran, but attested by Miles Copeland Jr., the CIA helped in coordinating the Free Officers’ Coup that placed Nasser in power.
Iran is the one that really hurts, IMO. Could have had a large secular democratic predominantly muslim nation to offset the loony toon show that is Saudi Arabia, instead we have two loony toon nations that just stir up such hatred.
I mean, it's thr Cold War, it kinda fucked over everybidy but Western Europe.
IIRC Syria used to be a popular tourist destination, less so now though I’d imagine
The regimes you're thinking of were probably very corrupt and authoritarian, which is a big part of why populist Islamist movements succeeded in some places.
In the modern Middle-East there are two trends one can go for, secular authoritarianism, or Islamic democracy. People can be free from state tyranny, or free from religious tyranny, but not both. Then of course there's the authoritarian theocracies which offer the worst of both worlds.
Don't get me wrong, at least under secular autocrats a modern global culture could grow in cities, and in time that might have lead to liberalisation, but it was still far from utopia.
And in the end secular authoritarianism would lead to Islamic authoritarianism or democracy as seen inTurkey.
Perhaps, but it also made Turkey by far the most modern and developed country of the sort, with the most genuine chance of going back to secular democratic traditions.
The fact that Turkey went down the Islamic authoritarianism route doesn't mean that every country necessarily would. Turkey got to where it is under secular ideals, if the government continues to push its hardcore religious ideologies then don't expect progress and growth to continue much longer.
Fair enough, but they are the exceptions. Notably Lebanon has people of different religions, including a large Christian minority. I do think Christianity may play a role, but as you say the fact that it's got different religious groups makes a state religion basically impossible without violence.
Israel was basically settled by westerners, and is not really part of the Arab world, so I think it's fairly clear that they won't necessarily follow local trends.
Jordan is very much a monarchy. While maybe not an absolute monarchy, it is hardly a modern democracy either. Still compared to the other countries around, especially Saudi Arabia, it is definitely much much better.
*Laughs in Jordanian*
>In the modern Middle-East there are two trends one can go for, secular authoritarianism, or Islamic democracy. People can be free from state tyranny, or free from religious tyranny, but not both.
This is a commonly said claim by Western authoritarianism apologists, and it really does not hold up. The success of some Islamist parties happened in the last 10 years (20 if you count Hamas), and Islamism weren't particularly strong or cohesive political movements back in the 50s or 60s, nor ones with a lot of support internally or externally. Islamists won elections after the Arab Spring in Egypt (not lasting long before half the country demanded the president resigns), in Tunisia (where they stayed in power for 2 years then lost), and in Morocco (where they lost the last election).
Those governments were also not particularly corrupt back in the 50s and 60s when things were still forming, nor was it obvious that they would be authoritarian states. Many of them were revolutions either against colonial forces, or against monarchies.
My grandfather served in the navy during the Korean War and was stationed in the Mediterranean. He recalls visiting the Middle Eastern countries and how they were culturally modernizing, with women no longer having to wear hijabs, and the call to prayer being sang live by a guy calling out from the Mosque tower as opposed to being blasted on loudspeakers throughout the city.
Mostly because they focused on trying to kill Israel rather than help their own citizens.
Let’s see how advanced you are after all your major cities get torched by the Mongols
Don't forget Tamerlane rolled in 100 years later to mop up the rest!
Finally! Someone gets it. Mongols absolutely laid waste to the middle east
I’m still pretty advanced after 2020’s 5G tower fiasco.
Bit of a blind spot in my historical knowledge; I'm aware of the Islamic Golden age and that we owe a lot to it's scientific advancements but but not really what brought it to an end. Presumably corruption and infighting?
Quite literally that. Corruption, infighting, differences in religious views hell they were already doing that since the beginning
To be fair, I could list at least six empires of the top of my head that could be chalked up to the exact same fate.
That's why its my default guess for when I'm not sure haha
True. But with the Caliphate’s who I refer to as “The Caliphate of the week” kept on taking massive L after massive L, and each and everyone of them are either taken down through military blunders, incompetent rulers, corruption all across the board, or about ones views on who the religious ‘heir’ is, or in fighting.
Like they start out wiping out what’s left of the Sassanids and end up just like the Sassanids less than a couple of centuries later. Like they were beaten by dirt poor Byzantines several times, and I’m still not sure if they knew how to siege considering the siege of Constantinople.
It’s like watching a 4 year old trying to fight a 5 year old and the 4 year old takes every opening the 5 year old gives them only to end up not using said openings.
What's a (massive) L?
‘L’ in this case stands for loss. Basically, bad things kept happening to the caliphate in power.
Also repeated Mongol invasions towards the end
Yup mongol invasions is the nail to the coffin
And then Mongolia just went “I sleeeep and became what they are now?” We could really use another Mongol invasion to shake things up!
*GK_Temu has logged in*
Don't behead the Khan's emissaries!
Not to mention the crusades.
The crusades were rather taking advantage of an already unstable situation in the region. The reason the earlier crusaders were so successful is that the Muslims thought they could arrange themselves with them to fight their internal enemies
Only the first one was really successful. The others didn't come close to completing their objectives.
I can never forgive the Fourth Crusade.
*Laughs in Enrico Dandolo*
Even if we do not buy into the conspiracy theory around it, it ‘achieved’ Venetian objectives regardless.
I'm not sure conspiracy is accurate, from the records the Crusaders didn't have money for the Venetian ships that were supposed to take them to Egypt. And one of the Byzantine princes said they'll pay if they help defeat the reigning monarch. He didn't pay after he usurped the throne, then the sacking happened.
Indeed, that is why I’m saying ‘even if’, because that point has been argued by historians as well - that the Venetians machinated the failure for personal gain (that is, to its full extent), I do not believe it myself, I’m more convinced by the narrative of an unforeseen chain of events (perhaps my wording is confusing though?).
Several of them did succeed in prolonging and reinforcing the Crusader kingdoms which lasted almost 200 years. So that means they completed their objectives at least partially. For example the Third Crusade failed to reconquer Jerusalem but it did manage to reconquer other critical cities like Acre and Jaffa and secured virtually the entire Levantine coastline for the Crusaders.
That’s what I meant with earlier. They at least kept alive their broken princedoms on the coast
Incorrect take. The crusades did not destroy nor really contribute to the declining of the islamic world, their impact was far too minimal outside of Europe. Their impact was far more profound on European culture/development internally.
Yes, but it was far from a one-way street. The contact between the Christian and Muslim worlds turned out highly profitable to both, and the Muslim kingdoms adopted numerous European inventions, especially in the realm of agriculture and warfare.
Weapons like the crossbow for example had virtually disappeared from the Middle East but were re-introduced by the Crusaders.
People often think of the Crusades and the Crusader kingdoms as existing in a sort of constant state of war with the Muslims, but in reality the situation was pretty peaceful most of the time and both sides often preferred trading and negotiating with one another. The 6th Crusade even managed to retake Jerusalem through negotiations rather than through military action.
The Crusades definitely did not cause or contribute to the decline of the Islamic world, quite the contrary since it led to newfound unity and innovations. The Mongol invasions on the other hand, while also bringing new innovations, were a lot more destructive and did a lot more to bring about the decline of the Islamic empires.
Agreed, I mostly meant that in terms of the impact it had on state-formation in Europe itself & in shaping mentality here. There certainly was not a one-way street in overall terms.
As well as one religious leader banning math
Did they literally ban math?! I guess that's every school kid's dream, but wtf?
Mongols then European colonialism. Later US interventions. Now is China's time to troll them.
Or in a simpler word imperialism did a big number on them and infighting and corruption is the result of imperialism.
That one amazing Islamic history youtuber's thoughts are that the golden age of Islam (a term he doesn't like) merely came to end as the Islamic world entered a period of decline that was a cyclical thing for most empires and political entities, as the Islamic empires increasingly spent wealth on foghting each other over investing in academia and such, drying up funds for innovation
>That one amazing Islamic history youtuber's thoughts
Its Al Muqadimmah isn't it?
Oh yeah those guys
> Presumably corruption and infighting?
Too many converts to Islam As well! The practice of taxing Dhimmi at a greater rate, encouraged people to ofcourse convert for tax benefits. Unfortunately for the Caliphates, they had begun to rely on the Dhimmi tax rate.
The mongol invasions and the destruction of Baghdad made a big impact on the whole Islamic World, because with the fall of the Abbasid caliphate, the Muslims became even more divided amongst themselves than before.
I think there are things that led to the downfall of the arab golden age and there are things that really knocked down or kept down the arab speaking world, in my personal order:
A sailing route to india. The silk road was like a river of money flowing through the middle east, but when traders could sail around africa faster and safer than by land, the money stopped.
Mongol invasions. It was the most direct thing, they were beaten, conquered and subdued, with all the destructions of war. A big setback but it shouldn't have been insurmountable.
The cold war & post WW1 borders. After the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, the Sykes-Picot agreement drew new borders in the middle east according to english and french interests and maybe even a european vision of where tribes and religious communities should rather live. The cold war proxy conflicts exacerbated these instabilities further and suppressed the nationalistic and ethnic movements for decades. It's been like this for over 100 years now.
Personally I haven't heard much about corruption and infighting increasing towards the end of the golden age. Those exist in all human societies and the arab golden age was prosperous most likely despite this and not because it was absent.
It also has to do with the borders drawn by the british and the french making no sense when they left the middle east. Dividing some cultures and forcing others together. Same story as in Africa.
You should also read about the arabian participation in WW1. There was basically a moderate regime the british promised to support if they help in WW1, but after the war ended the british didn‘t help which lead to the saudis taking over arabia. The middle east probably would‘ve turned out quite differently if the saudis never gained power. I hope I recalled that correctly but as I said: it is worth a reading.
And many more reasons. History is complex and there are never just a few things responsible for certain developements
I believe the people they initially promised it to was the hashemites, tge same people who today rule Jordan.
And get this, Jordan is a totally normal country that anyone can visit and is generally liked internationally without the international fuckery the Saudis are known for.
They could've been the ones to rule Arabia.
Hashemites were also set up as rulers of Iraq and Syria. We could have had moderate, modern monarchies all over the Middle East. But any hope for a reasonably strong and independent regime in Syria was war crimed to death by the French and their moronic attempts to keep their little empire, eventually leaving a weak and dysfunctional republic that was easily overthrown by ba'athist dictators.
And Iraq is just a sad case of the West abandoning its allies. Something the West still hasn't learned (judging from the recent sad example of Afghanistan) is that if you set up a liberal, pro-Western government somewhere you actually need to keep supporting them or else they'll just be overthrown by anti-Western elements again (whether these be Soviet-sponsored military officers as in Egypt, Syria and Iraq or radical islamists as in Afghanistan).
It's always the short sighted sociopaths who wind up making all the fucking decisions.
Laurence of Arabia (I forget his actual name) embedded himself with the Arab tribes, came to understand them and their culture, and he himself tried telling the out of touch aristocrat fucks in charge that fucking over the Arabs was a stupid fucking decision but did they listen? Of course not.
Imagine how things could've been different had they actually honoured their word. The Hashemites would control all that oil wealth, the version of Islam being promoted internationally would be a, well, non-fundementalist fanatic version of Islam, land to establish the state of Israel could've been successfully negotiated for without multiple wars that resulted in the mass expulsion of local arabs, minorities in the middle east wouldn't be in such dire straits and perhaps even there'd be less animosity and conflict between shias and Sunnis as well as Muslims and non-muslims in general.
But that's the way it's always been hmm? Greedy out of touch self centred short sighted wealthy inbred fucks making all the decisions, then when things go bad, they send in decent honest people to kill other decent honest people to try to clean up their fuck-ups.
Yeah, T.E. Lawrence had a better understanding of the whole geopolitical situation on the region, having fought alongside the arabs for so long (so much he got them to capture Damascus from the Ottomans first, in a attempt to convince the british government to go along with giving the promised to the arabs);
But instead, they decided to go with Sykes and Pikot, two assholes that carved the region based only in their own economical interests, creating a clusterfuck of religious and ethnical conflicts on the way.
The problem is rather that you can't just set up a western liberal government. Don't get me wrong, it _is_ the superior form of government, but it has certain cultural and political prerequisites. You can set it up early, but in that case you need to use _civilian_ measures to actually build up the infrastructure and civil society to make it work.
It’s worth noting that for about 18 of the 20 years we were in Afghanistan we were “on the way out”. So if you’re in the new government that is being stood up by a foreign power, but also told that said power is going to leave “any day now” I imagine you would also have pretty loose loyalties to that fledgling government.
Except that goes on for 18 years straight… So you can imagine the surprise when the foreign power publicly announces a departure in 6 months after signing a treaty with the *insurgent old government*. And then actually holds to that deal and leaves. No one wants to be the “employee of the month” in that situation.
I mean, the Hashemites couldn't hold their own country, even with British support. They controlled the Hejaz, Syria, and Iraq, and lost all of that.
That time was long past the Golden Age. In that era, the Islamic countries were at least on par and often superior to the military power of their European adversaries.
The Islamic Golden Age rather describes the period from the Abassid dynasty (~800 CE) to some time between the Mongol and rise of the Ottoman Empire.
But I suppose in this context we're considering the Ottoman Empire as its successor? In that case I'd still put the decay of their power as the reason why the British and French were able to take their terriories to begin with.
The mongols then ottomans followed by the British, we kinda spent the last 1000 years in constant conflict
(Fucking ottomans even sold the wall around. Baghdad as building material!!)
The mongols no more no less
They got Empired
Infighting, the crusades, the mongol invasion, the reconquesta. It didn't really go to shit until the 20th Century. The situation in the Middle East was more comparable to Eastern Europe, at least when we're talking about the more urbanized regions (Egypt, Levant, Iraq).
Having a democracy more progressive than the Netherlands at the time and then the president getting replaced with a secular fascist who then fuels an islamofascist uprising and then everybody forgets about the democracy ever existing
Replaced.... by the British and Americans...
I agree and I’m from Middle East 🤝
mother actor ruined by heroin
As a Egyptian i can tell Some Middle eastern Cities under ottoman rule were vibrant but mostly was shit. Now oil money made their elite wayy rich but in gulf there are poor but they are way better than they were in under truks. But complete opposite happend in Iraq,Syria and Lebanon. They were good then under Truks but now shit maily 3 reason 1. Brits and French, 2. Crap Baathist Socialists 3. WarDog dictators. And after fall of dictators Islamists came to power. Democarcy is not for all its hard amd messy.
Mongols razed a few too many libraries and mosques.
What Sykes Picot does to a mf'er
That is way overstated. The Middle East was fucked way before that. The fall of the Ottoman empire would have always caused a massive power vacuum.
True, but I believe that more "natural" borders could've brought at least a relative level of peace after an initial period of bloodshed.
Yeah I agree. A lot of people trapped behind borders that hate each other. What could possibly go wrong?
It is less the borders and more "the west" not burning bridges with rational rulers and letting the house of Saud come to power there. People will always have issues with borders, but they haven't always resorted to bombing each other to "fix" it (at least as a first step...)
The USA literally stole democracy from Iran.
First CIA sponsored coup was in Syria
Following the string of coups, the baathists took over and turned the country into a dysfunctional dystopia
Didn't know that wow. Thank you
'Stole' implies they themselves have a democracy
They did have a democracy though? Until the 1950s when the British and the US overthrew the democratically elected leader for the shah, who was then overthrown in the Islamic revolution
I think he's talking about the US.
Talking bout the us
It implies that they had a democracy
Meant the US
To a quite high extend we can thank the british and the french for that.
For sure, though at some point you gotta take responsibility as a country for decades of mismanagement, corruption, and infighting. Blaming everything on another country is popular, but doesn’t fix the problem
in Europe it took a millennium of fighting and politics to get borders that they still argue about on minute scales, Africa and the Middle East were largely drawn up borders by colonials in a stretch of 100 years with the purpose of exploiting for resources and labor. it doesn't fix the problem but it isn't inaccurate to say the issue might not be there without euro intervention
The middle east existed throught that millennia too
The solution wasn't border changes, but such a traumatic continental mass murderer repeating itself twice in a generation that it traumatised Europeans. But you can do that, or just recognise that the fundamental factors here are irredentism and the will to cooperate. It is not about borders, but about attitude.
Um... and who can we blame that for? That kinda tends to happen when you need a bloody revolution/coup d'etat to get rid of colonialism, a power vacuum manifests and is ripe for the taking.
So do you think that western intervention and colonialism had no harm at all? What if they were bound to fix those problems but colonialism prevented that from happening? The Americans and British overthrew legitimate governments in the middle east, replaced them with dictators, and gave power to hardline groups such as the Taliban and ISIS. The Syrian civil war is literally a cesspool of foreign power and influence. Israel and Palestine was directly caused by the British. Why are people so intent on whitewashing history.
I agree with you. It's even more shown in the unification of Arabia, as the British and French made an agreement with sherif/emire of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali, and completely refused to recognize their victory, establishing mandates dooming the sherif to a Saudi takeover. Then the Saudis did their damage control against the west which ruined the region.
Mostly the west, but then the Saudis took a hammer to the poorly crafted shack.
Yeah but apparently saying "colonialism bad" is a terrible immoral thing to say on Reddit. I swear this shit literally only happens on Reddit.
the downvotes to your comment show the sorry state of affairs in this sub
If you care enough, I downvoted him because he believes America gave power to Taliban when in fact they supplied the mujahideen with weapons, the Taliban were merely kids in those days. Taliban didnt excist untill 1994. The Russia-AFghan war was between 1979 till 1988 I believe.
The same for his comment with ISIS, but I'm not going to expand on that because thats a clusterfuck wich will take me a full day explaining what the F happened with those guys.
As for his main point that Western intervention and colonialism caused a lot of problems, thats true. But that isnt the point he replied too. The OP's argument was; You can't point every problem to Western intervention. Wich is correct in my opinion.
To put it in the words of a man way smarter then I am.
>On this point, this chapter argues that Middle Eastern international society, to the extent that it can say it preserves a stable order, is relatively weak due primarily to the interference of extra-regional great powers, the absence of a unifying vision of regional order among its diverse members, the institutional fragility of Middle Eastern states, and the prominence of violent illicit non-state actors, all of which provide means and incentives for states to pursue their narrow self-interests without sufficient regard for the broader interests of all regional states. In other words, despite overwhelming historical, civilizational, and even political affinities among Middle Eastern states, the region is characterized today by a relatively underdeveloped international society that is matched by the dysfunction of its interstate system
I honestly believe that we too often think about a cause as a or b. While most of the time we it’s a and b at the same time.
Of course it is futile to only blame international powers to the decades of instability. It is also futile to blame this instability on only internal corruption and infighting.
We have to blame both and stop looking at it as a thug of war where, the blame tips to one side by decreasing the blame for the other side. ( not saying that that was what you’re saying. Also excuse my english).
Where I come from, the infighting and international influence come hand in hand as well as the leftover instability left by the division of borders. And now, every section in my country is backed by an international power that finance or help them in order to keep their influence/interest or even just for the sake of not letting the other international power have more influence.
Same thing for the sections, they are fighting their own war. Not being merely puppets of a bigger power but rather siding with them for the benefice of mutual interest.
But with the wave of uprising that have spread through the arab region, where the people were fed up of the corruption and sections conflict, one of the big factor slowing down or even preventing real changes from happening were the bigger international interest that had to be protected. I won’t blame someone from thinking that international influences are the greater weight, I also won’t blame someone from my country saying that corruption and sectarianism are the real devils.
This subreddit is filled with people substituting HOI4 for real knowledge.
I still feel that if Wilson wasnt as much of a bigot as he was the League would take a more harsh stance on itself not existing.
No way France and Britain would comply with a more harsh mandate system or decoloniztion.
Or the fact that they haven't reformed Islam yet, which results in societies ruled with medieval policies.
People take reforming Islam and think of it the wrong way. Simply saying "let's ignore this part of the Quran" will never work. What we need to do is either claim we are reinterpret the Quran or claim that we are returning to the ways of the first community.
Well firstly in Europe the legitimacy of the church took significant hits resulting in the reformation, which further weakened it.
Then Europeans traumatised themselves with religious wars which made them realise maybe it's not that important, which in turn lead to greater religious liberty and peace.
Followed by the development of philosophy, science and politics at times in contradiction to traditional religion and even to the point of anticlericalism.
Finally with religion being one's own private affair. You would not recognise a Christian, an atheist, a Jew or a Buddhist, and that's how it should be. This is part of why Islam is more controversial. Muslims generally show off more and are more pious, actually considering it more of an identity. Europe has long since supplanted it with nationalism.
But then the question is: why isn’t there nationalist identity in the middle east?
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Return to the ways of Mohammad, marry children.
Most of the middle east was under Ottoman control, which didn't have particularly medieval policies compared to other European empires.
Sad to see honestly. Christianity had it's dark age but moved on. Problem is that some countries for asinine reasons weaponized its negative aspects and created a sub culture that is almost impossible to eradicate completely. Ffs, so sad from the region's that gave birth to human civilization and advancement.
It's almost like nonstop destabilization from outside powers and the installation of theocratic dictators for the purpose of buying oil can have negative impacts on a state.
It’s almost like being located in the middle of the world causes you to be attacked by every single country in existence.
Yeaaaaaaa. It's totally be someone else's fault *for a thousand years.*
Try since the 1890s.
what region gave birth to human civilization?
Economically, yes this is accurate. Culturally, they maintained some of their old beliefs but we just became more aware of what's "right and wrong" in that time period.
Economically as well as scientifically.
When the ultra-orthodox rulers started placing bans on "blasphemous" content and limited theological and scientific discussion, that's when the decline started.
i freaking read middle east as middlearth lmao
Probally tho you in r/lotrmemes for sec.
The first millenium was between the year 1 (there is no year 0) and the year 1000. OP probably means the second millenium.
The Islamic Golden Age goes from around 800 AD to the Mongols in the 1200s, so it works for both (or neither).
Their water sources do be disappearing
They were doing fine under secular democracy’s in the 50-70s but once the Islamic governments took over it all went down hill. But America funded and trained those Islamic rebels because they were afraid of communism taking over. At least in the case of Afghanistan.
Like all miserable things that happen on this world, we can trace back this to vile Anglo and their cousin Fr\*nch
The French you mean?
Why did you censor them?
It's like some colonial powers came and occupied it and then left after planting a war crime committing Cancer in it, it really feels like that's what happened
You could argue the Ottomans fucked up by joining ww1 but their empire was already in shambles and the colonial powers were vultures praying on the weak forming nations.
Bruh we hate the Ottomans almost more than France/UK anyway, they did massacres like any other conquer, I'm not making the argument in favour of Ottomans they are fucking animals
Yeah a lot of their ways if ruling and conquering foreign peoples were this:submit to absolute subjugation or die. Even subjugation it was common to appoint proxy rulers that were extraordinarily cruel to keep down the likelihood of a rebellion. The Ottomans were very cruel and that's why a lot of battles against them was. "We're either going to win or die." You would see a lot of that in the Balkans.
I've read a lot about the Balkans, the similarity between the middle east and the Balkans is astonishing to me especially between Syria and most of the Balkans
No that can't be. I would've been told about that in history class if it was the case. Surely my government wouldn't leave that part out.
This is what happens when you trust the British
Make The Ottoman Empire Great Again
Foreign powers ruined the Middle east
\*cries in lebanon\*
Saudis (the family) are thristy for oil.
Wasn’t too good under the Ottomans too