Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 28th, 2016, 11:13 AM   #31

JoanOfArc007's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: USA
Posts: 2,591

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
It is a popular misconception that the Christians in the Middle Ages were intolerance and that they supposedly “woke up” out of nothing in the Renaissance and then became tolerance. That is a popular misconception from prior WW2 in which today is rejected by the vast scholars on Medieval Europe for obvious reasons, and in which I know many Islamo propagandists who want to maintain that illusion whatsoever when they are suspended indefinitely and create new usernames with Christians symbol to hide their Islamic agenda.

I mean sheesh guy, if your not claiming these things about me, who are you talking about? Hmmm well I do have a feelign that the above insult is meant to be directed at me. Buddy I dont have any other accounts here. Next time btw at least have the cohones to quote me if your going to indirectly use a personal insult against me. .I mean what is this grade school...you have to resort to the above because what, you dont like what I write? I mean did you not see when I clearly said,

Agreed on the point that some Muslim empires were intolerant toward its minorities.

That destroys any sort of possibility of me being a Islamo propagandist. Btw what a laughable word this Islamo propagandist is, I mean imagine me calling you a Judeo or Jew Propagandist. Now that said, you want to be treated like a gentlemen, then act like one. So any sort of further direct or indirect suggestion by you that I am a Islamo propagansit is going to get you to be the first guy on my ignore list.







Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
Medieval Europe’s Christians fairly tolerated Muslims and Jews as underclass citizens
Not in England under Edward I, and not in Spain under Ferdinand II....in these instances Jews were not treated as any sort of citizens, they were instead ordered to be kicked out of the country. Actually I think an argument can be made that during the middle ages, Jews had it better in the Muslim majority countries. It was not just in England under Edward I and Spain under Ferdinand II, but you can find anti Jewish activities going on in England during the reign of Richard I. And of course...the Holocaust....no group of Muslims come close to being as bad as the Third Reich were. So at least in terms of a group which did the single greatest harm to Jews...were talking about Christian Europeans here...not Muslims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
when they ruled over them depending on the circumstances and some factors pretty much as the Muslims otherwise did. Like for instance in Spain, until the last phase, we have examples where Christian’s kingdoms tolerated non-Muslims while the Muslim Spain’s Almoravids and Almohads which ruled for a reign of 250 years were heavily intolerance and cruel like Isabella and Ferdinand.

In Crusader States we have first hand source from the Muslim traveler, Ibn Jubayr, who wrote that Muslims were better of being ruled by the Crusaders rather than the Muslims.
Those reports are true. Likewise in some of the Muslim majority empires of the middle ages, Christians had it better when compared to Christians in Christian majority Euro countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
Muhammad, the prophet of the Muslims, was certainly not tolerance as he distributed Jewish women to his army and picked the most attractive booty for himself alongside forced converted the rest, and not to mention that he expelled non-Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula during his deathbed. – Muhammed can certainly be put in the same league as Isabella/Ferdinand, Raynald De Chatillon and the Almoravids rulers.
This is talking more about your view on Islam, as opposed to the politics and situations of the middle ages. This thread is not about what folks think about Muhammad, or Jews such as Judith who was known for seducing and then Beheading Holofernes. So you want to try and dig up dirt on Muhammad, well guess what pal folks can do the same thing to Jewish figures like David and Judith. As for me, well that feeling doesn't exist in me...I can not find a reason to try and start a religious dispute.. I like all religions. To say things like David was intolerant, Islam is bad, Muhammad was intolerant, Judasim is bad...well its just not for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
As a student of history we have read on Medieval Spain, Crusaders States and even Byzantine Empire under Macedonian and Comnenians days when they ruled over the Muslims. Nothing suggests that the Christians were specific cruel comparing to the Muslims in the Middle Ages when they ruled over each others. Rather it was complex and it really varied depending what time and locations on the map.

Just because it was a popular misconception once from prior WW2 simply doesn’t imply it is facts today among the scholars on Medieval history.

To kick out Jews from England as ordered by King Edward I, to be tolerate toward non Catholics as Pope Sylvester II was, to be intolerant toward Christians as Al Hakim was, is not a complex thing, but its a part of history. Kicking out Jews from Spain is Cruel, doing bad things to Christians as Al Hakim did was cruel. Islam and Christianity otoh are religions which teach honorable values...

Last edited by JoanOfArc007; January 28th, 2016 at 11:19 AM.
JoanOfArc007 is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 28th, 2016, 03:55 PM   #32
Suspended until March 19th, 2018
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Posts: 1,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoanOfArc007 View Post
I mean sheesh guy, if your not claiming these things about me, who are you talking about? Hmmm well I do have a feelign that the above insult is meant to be directed at me. Buddy I dont have any other accounts here. Next time btw at least have the cohones to quote me if your going to indirectly use a personal insult against me. .I mean what is this grade school...you have to resort to the above because what, you dont like what I write? I mean did you not see when I clearly said,

Agreed on the point that some Muslim empires were intolerant toward its minorities.

That destroys any sort of possibility of me being a Islamo propagandist. Btw what a laughable word this Islamo propagandist is, I mean imagine me calling you a Judeo or Jew Propagandist. Now that said, you want to be treated like a gentlemen, then act like one. So any sort of further direct or indirect suggestion by you that I am a Islamo propagansit is going to get you to be the first guy on my ignore list.
I was not talking particularly to you. I putted an “s” in the word “propagandists”. - Obviously I have touched something and I am now 90% sure giving the way you are addressing it with long apology talk.

Quote:
Not in England under Edward I, and not in Spain under Ferdinand II....in these instances Jews were not treated as any sort of citizens, they were instead ordered to be kicked out of the country. Actually I think an argument can be made that during the middle ages, Jews had it better in the Muslim majority countries. It was not just in England under Edward I and Spain under Ferdinand II, but you can find anti Jewish activities going on in England during the reign of Richard I. And of course...the Holocaust....no group of Muslims come close to being as bad as the Third Reich were. So at least in terms of a group which did the single greatest harm to Jews...were talking about Christian Europeans here...not Muslims.
As usual. Nothing new from you resorting on distorting the point of mine in my posy by clipping it in the middle and attacking a point I haven’t made.

I did not say that Europe’s Christians tolerated Muslims and Jews as underclass citizens and quitted the sentence. I actually added that there were exemptions and the main point of my post was, very clearly, that the Christians’ treatment of the Muslims was not particularly worse/better than what the Muslims did when they ruled over the Christians in the Middle Ages perhaps except the Turks when they abducted Christians children to raise them as janisary.

So why are you resorting to distort my post like the suspended Agent Smith usually did?

Quote:
This is talking more about your view on Islam, as opposed to the politics and situations of the middle ages. This thread is not about what folks think about Muhammad, or Jews such as Judith who was known for seducing and then Beheading Holofernes. So you want to try and dig up dirt on Muhammad, well guess what pal folks can do the same thing to Jewish figures like David and Judith. As for me, well that feeling doesn't exist in me...I can not find a reason to try and start a religious dispute.. I like all religions. To say things like David was intolerant, Islam is bad, Muhammad was intolerant, Judasim is bad...well its just not for me.
The usual long and incoherently fog talk to hide the fact that Muhammad is not one of the tolerance nice guy you want him to be.

I said that Muhammad’s life and his treatment of the non-Muslims was certainly not something that should be putting in the same league as Alfonso X or Saladin where both these guys at least accepted others faiths as underclass citizens. Muhammad did not as he expelled and forced converted them pretty much as Isabella and Ferdinand did. Thus your conviction that Muhammad was particular tolerance is false.

Quote:
To kick out Jews from England as ordered by King Edward I, to be tolerate toward non Catholics as Pope Sylvester II was, to be intolerant toward Christians as Al Hakim was, is not a complex thing, but its a part of history. Kicking out Jews from Spain is Cruel, doing bad things to Christians as Al Hakim did was cruel. Islam and Christianity otoh are religions which teach honorable values...
Again. When I said “complex” I was clearly referring to the misconception about Medieval Europe where the grade of toleration varied depending on what eras and places we are talking about. Of course Edward 1(Longshanks?) kicking out of the Jews is not a complex thing to understand. Just as Muhammad’s kicking out of the Jews neither is.
El Cid is offline  
Old January 29th, 2016, 12:44 AM   #33

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,055

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoanOfArc007 View Post
I mean sheesh guy, if your not claiming these things about me, who are you talking about? Hmmm well I do have a feelign that the above insult is meant to be directed at me. Buddy I dont have any other accounts here. Next time btw at least have the cohones to quote me if your going to indirectly use a personal insult against me. .I mean what is this grade school...you have to resort to the above because what, you dont like what I write? I mean did you not see when I clearly said,

Agreed on the point that some Muslim empires were intolerant toward its minorities.

That destroys any sort of possibility of me being a Islamo propagandist. Btw what a laughable word this Islamo propagandist is, I mean imagine me calling you a Judeo or Jew Propagandist. Now that said, you want to be treated like a gentlemen, then act like one. So any sort of further direct or indirect suggestion by you that I am a Islamo propagansit is going to get you to be the first guy on my ignore list.









Not in England under Edward I, and not in Spain under Ferdinand II....in these instances Jews were not treated as any sort of citizens, they were instead ordered to be kicked out of the country. Actually I think an argument can be made that during the middle ages, Jews had it better in the Muslim majority countries. It was not just in England under Edward I and Spain under Ferdinand II, but you can find anti Jewish activities going on in England during the reign of Richard I. And of course...the Holocaust....no group of Muslims come close to being as bad as the Third Reich were. So at least in terms of a group which did the single greatest harm to Jews...were talking about Christian Europeans here...not Muslims.



Those reports are true. Likewise in some of the Muslim majority empires of the middle ages, Christians had it better when compared to Christians in Christian majority Euro countries.



This is talking more about your view on Islam, as opposed to the politics and situations of the middle ages. This thread is not about what folks think about Muhammad, or Jews such as Judith who was known for seducing and then Beheading Holofernes. So you want to try and dig up dirt on Muhammad, well guess what pal folks can do the same thing to Jewish figures like David and Judith. As for me, well that feeling doesn't exist in me...I can not find a reason to try and start a religious dispute.. I like all religions. To say things like David was intolerant, Islam is bad, Muhammad was intolerant, Judasim is bad...well its just not for me.




To kick out Jews from England as ordered by King Edward I, to be tolerate toward non Catholics as Pope Sylvester II was, to be intolerant toward Christians as Al Hakim was, is not a complex thing, but its a part of history. Kicking out Jews from Spain is Cruel, doing bad things to Christians as Al Hakim did was cruel. Islam and Christianity otoh are religions which teach honorable values...
There's normally 2 sides to every story.

Al Haken I wasn't particularly intolerant for his times but the Christian martyrs more or less committed suicide deliberately by shouting on street corners etc. His hand was forced.

Similarly Ferdinand - not really a chap to mess with - initiated his anti-jewish laws after provocations from radical jewish leaders especially in Sevilla. They were actively trying to reconvert conversos whose families converted to christianity up to 100 years before. Maybe they miscalculated?

Every ruler in those days had the ability to be exceedingly cruel, best to just keep your head down.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old February 5th, 2016, 06:17 PM   #34

Ichon's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: .
Posts: 3,088

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimthann View Post
Yes, I seem to recall much the same.

It should be made clear that it was not that there was a close relationship between Muslims and Jews, but rather a close relationship between Jews and the Witizan Visigoths. The Witizans were Arianist Christians and were far more lenient in their treatment of Jews than the Catholic Rodrigans. Thus, when the Witizans required men to aid them in their coup d'etat, it was to North Africa with the financial support of the Jews that they turned.
Thanks for this detail, haven't seen it before explained so succinctly but that makes a lot more sense in the political power blocs of the times.
Ichon is offline  
Old February 5th, 2016, 11:58 PM   #35

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,055

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimthann View Post
Yes, I seem to recall much the same.

It should be made clear that it was not that there was a close relationship between Muslims and Jews, but rather a close relationship between Jews and the Witizan Visigoths. The Witizans were Arianist Christians and were far more lenient in their treatment of Jews than the Catholic Rodrigans. Thus, when the Witizans required men to aid them in their coup d'etat, it was to North Africa with the financial support of the Jews that they turned.
This is not today's thinking. As Semper Victor pointed out to me back a long - and I subsequently came across in my own readings - Arianism was extinguished 100 years before and was not a factor in the Muslim conquest of Spain. The Goth kingdom was long since Catholic.

Jews were increasingly outlawed by the Goths until under the brutal Egica they were more or less banned altogether. It was only the dysfunctionality of the Gothic State in failing to enact their own laws that allowed them to survive at all. This is why they helped the Muslims.

Luis A Garcia Moreno - probably today's leading Visigodista - does not see 'Witizans' in the plot of 711. The sons were only small children and, whilst Witiza doesn't seem to have been as brutal as his father Egica, they were all part of the same Wamba line who Rodrigo was employed under - at a time when Egica had disenfranchised and/or exiled two thirds of the Gothic nobility. Rodrigo was probably this Duque de la Betica who held military command in the south and possibly fought the first small invasion of 710. Moreno asserts that there WERE traitors in Rodrigo's own forces at Guadalete - which lasted a week by the way - but he does not identify them except they were possibly sympathisers of one of the other pretenders to the throne - Sunifriedo in Toledo.

Witiza died a natural death - a violent event would be recorded - and then Sunifriedo in Toledo and Agila in the North East split away. Rodrigo was asked by the Gothic nobility to take over and restore the state. He vanquished the first and was fighting against the 2nd in the Basque country when the invasion of 711 occurred.

Witiza probably died only in early 710 without any obvious succession as his sons were too young and couldn't be 'associated', leaving behind all the chaos which would foment the 711 invasion. Poor old Rodrigo you could say.

Last edited by johnincornwall; February 6th, 2016 at 12:02 AM.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old February 7th, 2016, 05:01 AM   #36

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,055

I've realised I haven't clarified Gothic aid to the invading Tariq in Moreno's thinking. Incidentally Moreno is what you might call a true historian, rather than an author who regurgitates what someone else wrote at one time or another. He has re-read and examined all available sources, arabic and latin, taking account of the much later compositions and additions (and fabrications), and sifting out original errors in translating arabic letters. For example the word 'Guadalete' seems to have come from Jimenez de Rada, who wrote in the 13th century. Moreno insists he has mis-translated/read a word like Valdeluc (or something, can't remember!) which interprets as Battle of the Lake. But I'm sure Guadalete will stick now forever!

Moreno's best assessment:

Count Julian/Urban of Ceuta - former Imperial governor of Ceuta and Tangier area, who seems to have married into Gothic nobility and therefore came into lands in Spain, including around Algeciras. At the time of Imperial collapse he seems to have defected to the Goths of Toledo and even fought the Imperial governor of Carthage, before it was evacuated. For some reason he seems to have desired to overthrow the Gothic monarchy, providing his own 4 ships to transport the invaders (who had none so far west). Though he did not participate directly he eventually settled around Cordoba. There are legends about Rodrigo having violated Count Julian/Urban's daughter but, though nice and poetic, it not a very likely reason to destroy a kingdom. The timescales involved meant Rodrigo had been so little time on the throne that firstly any sleight must have been under Witiza, whilst Julian had already met and plotted with the Caliphate commander in chief Musa in North Africa, possibly this even was even before Witiza's death. Plus there had been a smaller scale 'test' invasion of about 400 troops in 710. Though this is clearly in mozarabic chronicles, it has been airbrushed from arabic ones, as has it's leader Tarif, most likely because they were sent packing by Gothic troops possibly under Rodrigo, possibly Teodomiro.

Exiled Visigoths - Around 150-300 Goths were in the invading forces - nobles/families expelled by the Egica/Witiza regime or possibly much more recently for supporting the usurper Sunnifriedo at Toledo. The mystery traitors within Rodrigo's own army were destroyed in the battle of Guadalete, although the distraction probably caused the final muslim victory.

Pacting forces - the remnants of Rodrigo's army from Guadalete, together with some other garrison troops, fought another battle in front of Ecija against Tariq's advancing army. Once again they were defeated, but this was followed by a session of negotiations and agreements, whereby the 2 forces - Tariq's collection including some Goths on the one side, the Visigothic remnants of the Witiza/Rodrigo nobility on the other. It is possible that Tudmir/Teodomiro of later Orijuela fame was one of these nobles, who agreed to join up with a view to conquering the whole country and Teodomir actually led one column to take Orijuela, where he is at that time recorded as an invader. Witiza's brother swiftly went to take control of Toledo, and although he was expelled later by rebelling local Goths (who Tariq bloodily suppressed), it is another indication that the Witiza clan and Rodrigo's forces were all part of the same regime.

At this point it was still thought that Tariq was assisting the Goth plotters to take ver Spain. It was only when Musa invaded the next year it became clear that it was a final takeover - and from there whether an individual area/town resisted or pacted was up to them. Co-ordinated resistance was rare over the next 7 years.

Last edited by johnincornwall; February 7th, 2016 at 05:04 AM.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old March 10th, 2016, 05:25 AM   #37

King Saul's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 14

I've read a lot of academic literature on this and it seems to follow along these lines. Not all of my sources are here because I can’t remember all of their names.
IN Spain
In the early Middle Ages, Jews often supported Muslims, with a few exceptions. From the mid 11th century onward, Iberian Jews usually supported Christian powers, at times financing campaigns and other times providing troops. Jewish notables were granted fiefdoms with the requirement that they maintain horse and arms and be prepared to asist in the defense of whomever they were vassals to.

In the Levant
Jews defended some fortified walls during the first Crusade against the crusaders, many of whom were killed and their properties stolen by the crusaders after Jerusalem fell. Afterward, they were largely neutral and they were left alone enough to not flee or cause any real issues for the crusaders. As for Muslims, there were small numbers of Muslim troops which fought for the crusaders for pay, but there were large numbers of native christians, and some Muslim converts who fought in Turkopole formations. Those formations did not only consist of horse archers but also functioned in support of shock cavalry when needed. There is incomplete (so the actual amount is higher) documentation which reveals Arab, Armenian, Maronite, and other Fiefholders. In order to have equal weight in upper level courts, local Arab Christians who were granted fiefdoms usually converted to Latin rite. In the 1130s the Marshall of the city of Jerusalem was an Arab Christian, almost certainly a convert to Latin rite, and likely from Melkite rite, who was in charge of its defenses.

I’m a nerd with a BA in history (too poor for an MA.), and a minor in Judaic studies.

Sources:
Ray, Jonathan Stewart. 2002. The medieval Sephardic frontier: the Jewish experience in reconquest Iberia.
Netanyahu, B. 1995. The origins of the Inquisition in fifteenth century Spain. New York: Random House.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan Simon Christopher. 2009. The crusades: a history. London: Continuum.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan Simon Christopher. 1973. The feudal nobility and the kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174-1277. [Hamden, Conn.]: Archon Books.
Ḳedar, B. Z. 2006. Franks, Muslims and oriental Christians in the Latin Levant: studies in frontier acculturation. Aldershot, Great Britain: Ashgate Variorum.
Harari, Yuval. 1997. "The military role of the Frankish Turcopoles: A reassessment".Mediterranean Historical Review. 12 (1): 75-116.

Last edited by King Saul; March 10th, 2016 at 05:29 AM. Reason: Edited because I'm seeing if my browser is buggy.
King Saul is offline  
Old March 10th, 2016, 06:52 AM   #38

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,055

Quote:
Originally Posted by King Saul View Post
IN Spain
In the early Middle Ages, Jews often supported Muslims, with a few exceptions. From the mid 11th century onward, Iberian Jews usually supported Christian powers, at times financing campaigns and other times providing troops. Jewish notables were granted fiefdoms with the requirement that they maintain horse and arms and be prepared to asist in the defense of whomever they were vassals to.
6.
The Visigoths heavily persecuted the jews, hence the initial over-whelming and much needed participation of the jews in the islamic invasions and conquest (and administration thereof). This initial persecution arises partly from the conversion of the Visigoths to Roman Catholicism under Recaredo (no one knows why it caused it, but it coincided), but also from the perception that Jews in Palestine aided the Sassanids in their attack on the Eastern Empire. This is slightly paradoxical because the Goths were at the time trying to drive out the Empire from Iberia, but they were partly modelled along Imerial lines and were fellow Roman Catholics.

There then followed a fairly sizeable period where jews spread out across Iberia in muslim and christian territories in relatively persecution-light times whilst at the whim of individual governors or rulers. High offices are well-known of course. The Caliph Abderraman III wasn't a particular fan, nor Almanzor the dictator, but Alhaken (in between the 2) was more tolerant.

Under the more fundamental Almoravids and ultimately the wholly intolerant Almohads, jews were eliminated from Almohad territory, either by expulsion north or more unpleasant means. Hence your assertion above - because they only lived in Christian territories!

They then lived in Iberia until the more Catholic fundamental expulsions of Ferdinand and Isobel. Never far from the odd legal or physical attack, like the massacre in Barcelona or the persecutions of 1390-1415. Or the attack by the foreign crusaders in 1212 on the jews of Toledo which had to be stopped by Alfonso VIII's troops prior to Las Navas.

It wasn't so much who the jews 'supported', more always a precarious existence, and very complex. Families might live peacefully a generation or two just like other citizens, or may come across some persecution.

Last edited by johnincornwall; March 10th, 2016 at 06:57 AM.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old March 10th, 2016, 07:07 AM   #39
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,787

Jews were not a political entity neither were they a large part of any militia. They were merely civilian subjects involved in trades, intelligentia, science and culture and sometimes the bureaucracy. They were by no means a political group in the middle ages to take sides let alone a state. Most often they would ally with whoever was the best chance of winning. They did have a better experience under Muslims of Spain and other areas compared to Christian Europe hence, they might have preferred Muslim rule but that cannot just be deduced as all Jews supported Muslims. They were by no means a political factor outside Khazaria.
greatstreetwarrior is offline  
Old March 11th, 2016, 12:35 AM   #40

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 6,055

Quote:
Originally Posted by greatstreetwarrior View Post
Jews were not a political entity neither were they a large part of any militia. They were merely civilian subjects involved in trades, intelligentia, science and culture and sometimes the bureaucracy. They were by no means a political group in the middle ages to take sides let alone a state. Most often they would ally with whoever was the best chance of winning. They did have a better experience under Muslims of Spain and other areas compared to Christian Europe hence, they might have preferred Muslim rule but that cannot just be deduced as all Jews supported Muslims. They were by no means a political factor outside Khazaria.
Agreed. Some muslim rulers were pretty unpleasant so it can't be generalised.

They had local political groups - each town had an aljama (IE community) which is thought of today as a community of jews or muslims within Christian lands (eg the Aragon of the 13th/14th centuries). But the term was also used for christian communities if you look back into sources.

So the Aljama would have elders, represent it's people to the lord or king, gather communal taxes and negotiate same, deal in legal matters etc. And there would be links between these. But as you same some 'national policy' is not really applicable.
johnincornwall is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
allies, crusades, east, jews, middle, muslims, spain



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What do the Crusades mean in the Middle East? Salah Middle Eastern and African History 106 April 7th, 2011 04:25 PM
Israel and the Middle East Ckris Middle Eastern and African History 215 November 20th, 2010 04:58 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.