Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 12th, 2012, 04:44 PM   #41

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,740

I agree to the point on "motivation"....Again its a direct result of political instability and weakness due to Arabs fragmentation....It even resulted in a much higher "Nostalgia", in the sense that people are missing a glorious past but are stuck within their leaders/management inefficiencies.
Essa is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 12th, 2012, 04:51 PM   #42
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essa View Post
I agree to the point on "motivation"....Again its a direct result of political instability and weakness due to Arabs fragmentation....It even resulted in a much higher "Nostalgia", in the sense that people are missing a glorious past but are stuck within their leaders/management inefficiencies.
I know right! I just wish I could take an average 1st world country person back in time to the era of The Ottoman Empire, and say, "Does THAT look like Islam teaching evil and oppressive nature??? I don't think so, looks more like cultural acceptance, religious acceptance, a love for advancement, and an overall care for citizens."
Locke is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 07:12 PM   #43

rehabnonono's Avatar
inveterate antagonist
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Posts: 2,178

Another reason was economic. Islamic empires/nations have not fared well since the Age of Sail destabilized their economies. Two main reasons for this was the growing irrelevancey the Silk Road and meager taxes it provided after the 1700s and the enormous resources, particularly of gold and silver pouring into Europe from the New World and other colonies that in turn imbalanced trade with the richer Western European countries. The resulting rise of Capital and the Industrial Revolution all took their toll on Muslim countries... because they could no longer afford the same training or weapons research as the increasingly industrialized West.
rehabnonono is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 07:53 PM   #44

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,499

I think you're right about that. From the moment the West found the New World and the age of colonization and discovery commenced, it was also the time that it tilted the balance of power in its favor against the Ottoman Empire that was the leading power of Islam as their respective sphere of influence overlap each other in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, unlike the West where social revolutions like the enlightenment, the reformation and the industrial revolution as you aptly pointed out, the same never occurred in the Islamic territories of the Middle East and Turkey itself had to call for help from Britain and France when Russia flexed to start its own power expansion using the Orthodox Church as the basis of which, the way Spain and Portugal carried the Catholic faith as amongst the excuse of their respective conquest of other territories and expansionist systems. That historical fact, caused severe problems over the Islamic nations to compete with the West in terms of economic and military might. It must be noted that their oil are under the control of the Western companies which obviously shows the impact of being stagnated under the Ottoman rule and the failure of their Caliphates to create economic progress within their society.

Thus, Israel as nation whose majority of their people are highly influenced by the European ways being Western themselves as they're migrants from U.K., France, Germany and other Western nations, took advantage of their capacity to use technology in their favor in the fields of the military, thus, winning wars against the Arabs despite their smaller number of military personnel, and augmented by the fact that they have alliance with the U.S. and U.K. With the military support of the present and former imperial powers, there is no room for defeat in war.
dagul is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 07:55 PM   #45
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,034

The stereotypes about desert warriors and other crap are really coming out in this thread.

The armies of egypt and syria are made out of conscripts from sedentary populations, they are not bedouins and don't practice raiding their enemies with swords and horses.

The republican guard of syria and syrian special forces were trained by Soviet and russian spetsnaz. Their military culture has nothing to do with ancient arabic warriors using swords on horseback. Their military is not descended from those traditions, neither is egypt's.

Last edited by deke; November 12th, 2012 at 08:01 PM.
deke is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 08:11 PM   #46

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,499

^In a sense you are right about them, but you know, it is different if the military people themselves know how to create or manufacture their own weapons, than, those who only knows how to pull the trigger of the gun and other basic mechanisms of weaponry like tanks and fighter planes. Israelis does not only know how to fire their weapons, but at the same time they also know how to make them, and that deep understanding of military science separates them from their Arab adversaries in war. They're like their American and British allies who use a tank of their own, as they created them, themselves. One who knows how to make his own weapon shall have certain advantage in the battlefield against those who are merely using those made by the others.
dagul is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 08:42 PM   #47

pablo668's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Perth, Western Australia. or....hickville.
Posts: 1,978

Well,

Loaded opinions, standpoints and stereotypes aside, the author of the article does have a point.
The average Joe Arab soldier is as good as any other soldier, it's the culture in the Arab cultures that holds back their armies.
It would be most useful to not judge the culture as good or bad so much as to state that it is somewhat incompatible with running a modern military organisation.

Also as was stated the political backgrounds/machinations also hamstring their armies command structures.
pablo668 is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 10:25 PM   #48

harbinger's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 719

Yes industrialization is a major factor,in the golden age of cavalry all the economy u needed to support a crack military were solid cavalry mostly and islam traditionally flourished in areas with great cvalary tradition.And gunpowder made them obsolete.Currently Most middle eastern countries have little industrialization or natural resources to support that industrialization except oil.Its no longer simple as taking care of your horses.
harbinger is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 10:28 PM   #49

rehabnonono's Avatar
inveterate antagonist
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Posts: 2,178

Quote:
Originally Posted by deke View Post
The republican guard of syria and syrian special forces were trained by Soviet and russian spetsnaz.
Many countries SFs are trained by the Russians, however very few of the client SFs soldiers ever reach the standard of any of the specialized Russian units, (Spetsnaz is simply a word that describes any of the many special purpose units). So my point is that unless a country has money to develop their own specialized high level training for their SFs, Fighter Pilots, Officers, etc. then it is unlikely they will have the same success as those that do. The larger the army... the more specialized the SFs can be.
rehabnonono is offline  
Old November 12th, 2012, 10:45 PM   #50

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,499

^I think it's not only the money, but also the technological prowess of the nations itself because there are weapons that a militarily powerful country like the U.S. possess, which are not available in the market. Also, when it comes to skills of the military personnel like the pilots of fighter planes, it takes certain level of historical participation in big wars before a nation can produce great fighter pilots. I am not a military expert, but there are things that these best fighter pilots of certain countries who are into the academe, that shall not share their idea with foreigners because it is a military secrete, not unless such nations are very close allies, like that of the U.S., U.K. and Israel. Moreover, during the height of U.S.S.R. during the Cold War, they were not able to surpass the U.S. in terms of air power as proven in South Korea and Vietnam. Thus, the truism that one cannot give what he does not have.
dagul is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
arabs, lose, wars


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who are the Arabs? Rosi Middle Eastern and African History 52 October 30th, 2013 01:22 PM
The Byzantines defeat the arabs and turks( arabs and later turks) Feeeen Speculative History 14 June 13th, 2013 02:12 AM
Would Japan Lose? mingming Speculative History 1 May 6th, 2011 09:19 PM
Why did Germany lose two world wars? Belisarius War and Military History 50 July 19th, 2008 04:59 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.