Why the Middle East has been so bloody almost all the time? - Page 8 - Historum

**clement** · November 14th, 2011, 06:56 PM

Quote:

All of them along the Mediterranean coast, as I stated. Again, I don't think you're actually reading.

Personally I'd compare them to the coastal raids of the Barbary states on Spain & France, as far as their reach into the areas they targeted goes.

The difference being that barbary pirates never established a state in spain, France or ITaly.

However, I do agree that we have overestimated the impact of the crusades in the muslim world, ignoring far greater geopolitical shifts in the region. The turkish invasions of the 10th and 11th century were certainly more traumatic and decisive than the crusades, while the mongol invasion was more destructive.

The turkish advance in the ME was a major historical turning point, it put an end to the previous arab domination in the western part of the muslim world (from present day Iraq to spain) and replaced it by a more turko-persian culture.

Qutuz · November 15th, 2011, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clement

The difference being that barbary pirates never established a state in spain, France or ITaly.

Well no. But they did occupy Toulon for the winter one year, during which the city was turned into an outpost of the Ottoman Caliphate.

Ottoman_occupation_of_Toulon

And they certainly sacked far more cities than the Crusaders ever did. They just didn't have any reason for staying around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clement

The turkish invasions of the 10th and 11th century were certainly more traumatic and decisive than the crusades, while the mongol invasion was more destructive.

The turkish advance in the ME was a major historical turning point, it put an end to the previous arab domination in the western part of the muslim world (from present day Iraq to spain) and replaced it by a more turko-persian culture.

I'd disagree with this. I guess it depends on whether you view it through the lense of ethno-centrism or not. The original interactions with Turks were obviously destructive, as they were barbarian hordes, almost identical to the Tatars (this is what the Arabic speaking world uses to refer to the Mongol invaders).

But once the Turks became Muslims, then they became the leaders of the Muslim world, and leaders like Mahmud al-Ghaznawi, Alp Arslan, Nur ud-Deen Zenki, Sayf ud-Deen Qutuz, Muhammad al-Fatih etc. are undoubtedly some of the greatest Muslim leaders ever to have existed.

Thitelli · November 23rd, 2011, 09:48 AM

Because it was controlled by the wrong people , attack at the wrong time and fell without anyone helping it. The Middle-East could be a stable place if it was better drived.

EpicHistory360 · November 26th, 2011, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thitelli

Because it was controlled by the wrong people , attack at the wrong time and fell without anyone helping it. The Middle-East could be a stable place if it was better drived.

Driven? It has had leadership problems as of late, but throughout all of history I wouldn't say it was the person ruling it as much as the people under said rule.

EpicHistory360 · November 26th, 2011, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qymaen

This basically. Constantinople and, by extension, the Middle East was known as the "Crossroads of the World".

Never confronted that fact. Good point.

blowe46 · November 26th, 2011, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qutuz

Well no. But they did occupy Toulon for the winter one year, during which the city was turned into an outpost of the Ottoman Caliphate.
Ottoman wintering in Toulon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And they certainly sacked far more cities than the Crusaders ever did. They just didn't have any reason for staying around.

I'd disagree with this. I guess it depends on whether you view it through the lense of ethno-centrism or not. The original interactions with Turks were obviously destructive, as they were barbarian hordes, almost identical to the Tatars (this is what the Arabic speaking world uses to refer to the Mongol invaders).

But once the Turks became Muslims, then they became the leaders of the Muslim world, and leaders like Mahmud al-Ghaznawi, Alp Arslan, Nur ud-Deen Zenki, Sayf ud-Deen Qutuz, Muhammad al-Fatih etc. are undoubtedly some of the greatest Muslim leaders ever to have existed.

I think it's a little reductive to group to the Seljuks, the Ghaznavids and ottomans into one. Mind you , they were all Turks so it's still a valid grouping.

Qutuz · November 26th, 2011, 02:05 PM

Don't forget the Mamaleek.

Sorry, but I don't quite follow with what your objection to mentioning these Turks together is?

**Kirialax** · November 26th, 2011, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qutuz

Sorry, but I don't quite follow with what your objection to mentioning these Turks together is?

The fact that they were different groups in different periods focused in different geographic regions should be more than enough reason to not mention them together.

Qutuz · November 26th, 2011, 02:44 PM

Nope, still not following.

Clement mentioned that Turks (didn't specify any location) had a negative impact on Islamic society, I merely countered that some of the greatest Muslim leaders were Turks.... Can you explain why I am supposed to have limited it to one time period or location?

He did mention time period, and a few of those leaders fit into that time period, most are not far beyond it.

I think this is really getting a little petty...

**Frank81** · November 27th, 2011, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qutuz

All of them along the Mediterranean coast, as I stated. Again, I don't think you're actually reading.

Personally I'd compare them to the coastal raids of the Barbary states on Spain & France, as far as their reach into the areas they targeted goes.

Sorry again but I've to insist that the area of operation of Crusader wars was far more extensive than that.

[quote]Not sure if you got it, but I chose the number 1400 because it roughly means "since the beginning of the Islamic period" (in Hijri years anyway). Therefore the Byzantine-Persian wars are not really included. The claim made by someone was that Islam was the reason for any violence there.

And that's not my claim. I've clearly stated that Islam in my opinion has been a minor cause of war in the ME. But, did the history of the ME begin with Islam? No, don't try to limit it to that short and last period of the ME history. The original question is ME across history, not only across the Islamic period.

Quote:

In other words roughly what I said, apart from the Christian and Mongol incursions (1945-2011 is also another period of foreign incursions), not really a lot of violence. Thank you.

In comparation to whom? Relativelly peaceful periods in the ME could be violent with standards of other places. War has been mostly more violent and envolved in the ME because the ME has been the main centre of civilization in the world for most of the time, or the crossroads of the different civilizations. For example, war in Anatolia during the 8th century (a relativelly peaceful age in the heart of the ME) was far more intense than in any other place of the western world, the Carolingian campaigns of the same age palished in from of it. Also, violent times during the last 1400 years have been very long in the area.