How the Middle East should have been Partitioned | History of the Middle East 1600-1800 - 1/21

[@aliyousefian8539]

It still astonishes me that we have access to these types of contents for free. Unbelievable effort and research.

[@HelicopterShownUp]

It's disappearing fast, censorship becomes a worse problem every year for educational creators it seems.

[@itzikashemtov6045]

Comments like those killing me, Just encouraging everything to be priced.

[@burtan2000]

@@HelicopterShownUpWhich is ridiculous... but i suppose we should expect it. Google is all like "don't be evil" and then becomes giant heartless greedy multinational corp like all the rest. I'd be less furious if they didn't show ads when they demonetize. They have EVERY incentive if demonetizing. It's fucking bullshit. Sometimes they just decide "oh we won't pay you" and we're supposed to be fine with it. But that money goes somewhere . i daresay it's encroaching on EVIL, the very thing they say not to do!

[@burtan2000]

@@itzikashemtov6045You misunderstand i think. We happy no cost money. It's priceless, but free. the best of life is priceless but free. Right?

[@BOZ_11]

@@itzikashemtov6045 "Just encouraging everything to be priced." ------ exactly, they're such idiots

[@KentMansley_Noticer]

I’m sure this will be uncontroversial

[@vos3373]

Only as controversial as the white man destroying the customs of a society it barely comprehended.

[@عليياسر-ذ5ب]

​@@vos3373Since when do barbarians think other than the Greeks?

[@concept5631]

Lol

[@didacclivilleoriol7057]

​@Savetion..What language is that

[@DonnellGreen]

@@didacclivilleoriol7057 Dutch

[@iloveapple530]

We should have give it all to Portugal, it's their land according to the teatry of Tordesilhas.

[@dasberk4971]

😂

[@turan_kaya]

I wonder if they ever abolished that or it's technically still valid , somehow

[@endo4137]

​@@turan_kayaIt sort of stopped being enforced when the iberian union was formed. Since Portugal and Spain were ruled by the same king/emperor, there was no point in enforcing the treaty. That's why Brazil ended up expanding much further to the west

[@erdnasiul87]

As a portuguese I can say that we don't want none of that $hit.

[@kelor123]

​@@erdnasiul87but u guys would get those sweet oil

[@user-lq5yx1ke5k]

As an Arab and a casual historian, I have never seen a better explanation on KZbin about the Middle East's religious/ethnic composition with historical context as well (aside from very minor mistakes in the beginning), great job 👍

[@Δ-Δ-Δ-Δ]

From which country are you from, Z?

[@ericfilipiachado820]

I think there is a better one on usefull charts done by al muchadima, but it's only on religion

[@animeXcaso]

How much is taught in school? And how much do we know?

[@somebodyanonymousx]

What were these minor mistakes?

[@nourahmed-sh2ox]

​@@somebodyanonymousxlike the story about the end of times somewhat contained some misunderstandings and gave credibility to some local myths and legends

[@TheLocalLt]

Worth noting that in addition to all of the powers mentioned (Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Kurds, Mamluks and Turks), Egypt was also ruled for short periods by the French (1798-1802) and British (1882-1922).

[@Threezi04]

Egypt wasn't really ruled by the British they were a loose protectorate so more like a vassal state that had foreign policy and finance handled by the British as well as allowing them to station troops but was otherwise self governing.

[@lukamg7368]

Berbers ruled it as well, the Fatimid dynasty and even during Pharaonic times (the Libyan dynasties)

[@Threezi04]

@@lukamg7368 Fatimids were Arabs bruh they even claimed direct descent from Muhammad. They were in the Maghreb yes but they were an Arab dynasty in fact they are among the most responsible for Arabisation of the Maghreb.

[@khalidibnelwalidd]

British actual residence was 1882-1956,i.e 74 years Not short at all

[@TheLocalLt]

@@khalidibnelwalidd yes post-1922 the British had garrisons in the country (only in Suez post-WWII), trained its army etc, but it was an independent state. Egypt didn’t even declare war on Italy and Germany for invading its territory in 1940-42 (no doubt partly swayed by Mussolini’s promise of continued independence for the Egyptian kingdom under Italy’s sphere of influence), instead blaming the British presence for the invasion and leaving it to the British to fight it out themselves. King Farouk’s continued Axis sympathies and obstinance to Allied operations eventually led to an ultimatum for him to either abdicate or appoint a more accommodating cabinet, which he reluctantly did (of course the gravity of the situation became more clear when the British started burning their archives with Rommel approaching Cairo, a day Egyptians gave the dark nickname “Ash Wednesday”). So while clearly still within the British sphere of influence post-1922, as was/is the case with other Arab monarchies in the region, it wasn’t actually under British rule.

[@oatdilemma6395]

In the end, the smaller states would be conquered by the bigger states, just like Europe.

[@عليياسر-ذ5ب]

Romans: Damn it, history repeats itself

[@Oujouj426]

Let 'em do it to eachother, worked out for us in the end, didn't it? Better than to engage in "white saviour colonialism".

[@Tsuruchi_420]

That didn't really happen in modern Europe though, didn't it?

[@Alruwaili11]

I wish the great power would fuck off so we Saudi can take all of Arabia and Jordan/Iraq/Syria

[@TeacosieRAF]

​@Tsuruchi_420 "Didnt happen" Poland-Lithuania, Sweden, French Empire, German empire Austria-Hungary, Russian Empire.

[@elifriedman8812]

This type of demographic composition map was actually true of much of Europe--especially eastern and central Europe--prior to the rise of ethno-nationalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. German and Jewish communities once dotted many urban areas and settlements across the region and the distribution of settlements of other ethnic groups was often a chaotic patchwork where neat borders often couldn't be drawn based on ethnic or religious lines. The rise of nationalism and periodic forced assimilation and/or expulsion of various minority groups through the promotion of cultural uniformity was the chief thing that allowed countries like Spain, France, Italy, and Greece to seemingly have neat borders lined up for different ethnic homelands--and even then, smaller sub-regional identities still persist in those places such as with the Catalans. Nearly every area of the Middle East was also ruled by a succession of various big sprawling empires or kingdoms run by foreign conquerors for extended periods of time who displaced local or native populations in order to lower the possibility of a regional revolt and guarantee more unity in the broader empire, such as with the Babylonians and Persians.

[@Macorian]

The point is that the idiotic idea of a "nation state" is desastreous. Countries were always mixed, and will always be.

[@williamsmeds1368]

Hey, Jabzy. Do you plan on covering the Finnish-Korean hyperwar?

[@skittlesnakes]

my great grand father in law removed 8 times fought in that war 😢

[@FF-le3ps]

@@skittlesnakes sad to hear about Asian on Asian violence 😔😔😔😔😔

[@Hession0Drasha]

Nokia vs samsung, so violent.

[@stateofflorida5082]

Never again will we see the glory of 8 inch average penis length 😔

[@drmodestoesq]

Fun fact: North Korea and Norway are only separated by a single country.

[@anonnymousperson]

Thank you for covering this Jabzy, I look forwards to the next few months of videos!

[@Da__goat]

Honestly this was pretty straightforward. It isn't biased mostly because it is simply presenting the facts in as best it can given any included inaccuracies that may arise with historical records written by people who might be inclined to include their own bias in them. And for that I do applaud Jazby. Well done sir! 10/10

[@badluck-cp8bv]

İ agree

[@ggoddkkiller1342]

This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow.. Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers. As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse. As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..

[@Historian212]

@@ggoddkkiller1342Thank you.

[@Historian212]

It is absolutely biased, in many ways. Not “simply presenting the facts” at all. Subtle language is hiding things like Ottoman colonialism and modern Druze life in “the Levant,” aka Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Whatever one’s opinion of the current situation is, that term simply obscures the plain truth. Also the term ”Arabization” to represent centuries of forced conversions (on pain of death), destruction of native tribal cultures, etc.

[@dr.vikyll7466]

​@@Historian212conversion was for the most part coerced not forced. Same with the reconquista until the ending phase.

[@robertalaverdov8147]

You mean to tell me that an area with thousands of years of history is intrinsically complicated and more than some people riding camels.

[@MindToPage]

If you think about it it is just people riding camels though

[@Enyavar1]

@@MindToPagealthough they did battle with the _horserider_ tribes. And let's not forget the heretic spoilsports who brought tanks to perfectly fine cavalry battles.

[@snakey934Snakeybakey]

I'm 34 minutes and so far and as someone who has studied every religion developing in the Middle East, and the tribal differences ad nauseam, I want to thank you so far for how well this video is done. Explains things simply, in an easy-to-follow away, without really oversimplifying or dumbing down any of it.

[@ggoddkkiller1342]

This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow.. Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers. As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse. As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..

[@ThePoutinePrince]

most well adjusted turkish nationalist

[@Manpacxs]

@@ggoddkkiller1342 not mentioning all these things is not the same as a mistake, cmon.

[@ggoddkkiller1342]

@@ThePoutinePrince You are always free to confute anything i write if you can manage, but ofc your kind usually chooses to be smart ass rather than being actually smart..

[@ggoddkkiller1342]

@@Manpacxs Hmm, if they are intentional they wouldn't be mistakes perhaps you are right.

[@000Dragon50000]

It's shocking just how different the political landscape would look (in terms of progressive/moderate/conservative social policy, in particular) if different groups of people who were already living in the area had won certain conflicts.

[@Trump2024asw]

Same story the whole world an timeliness over. An it's rarely the good guys who win until the end at least.

[@darthparallax5207]

I would hazard to guess zero difference. The region hit the jackpot on oil. Ijs that discovering silver mines in South America didn't magically make Spain more progressive. I'd say it made them much more corrupt after discovering cheap wealth than they were before discovering it. Its not plausible that dumping that much wealth on any nation state would somehow not lead to fast corruption and decadence and generally leaning on humanities more negative impulses. Most likely the worst excesses of even the United States of America can be plausibly explained that we do not actually struggle anymore as much as our pioneer and revolutionary ancestors, so it's very easy to fall into the habits Great Britain had. Whether it be Saudi Arabia or Oman, someone was going to get a huge amount of oil eventually. The wealth itself was very likely to make it cheap and affordable to remain coarse and not be motivated to progress very much. When the Ottomans made a lot of money being the middle men of trade, they were not motivated to change their ways as urgently as Portugal was motivated to start the Age of Exploration. And further though the Roman Republic began somewhat moral, when it reached the power of an empire, it lost much of the motivation to be so moral. Suffering builds character and luxury spoils it. But suffering is tragic and I would still alleviate suffering by sharing wealth with the poor. If no oil had been found in the desert I think they would have been likely to depend more on history and cultural learning centers for prestige on the world stage and been that much % more a little more peaceful land. It's hard to be sure but I feel that assuming that giving the oil to someone else and expecting them to be more noble with it is naive. They are likely equal as people but the oil itself is a temptation that would test any culture. 🤔

[@000Dragon50000]

@@darthparallax5207 I was talking about other leaders in the area who had less backwards values winning militarily. Sure cruising off Oil would have always been a thing, but if the leadership aren't bigoted zealots, and don't rely on bigoted zealots to retain power, then who knows what could have happened as history marched ever forward.

[@meaghanorlinski8464]

@@Trump2024aswwho is good and who is bad? Everyone justifies their own violence and expansionism.

[@Trump2024asw]

@@meaghanorlinski8464 That's the key good guys don't harm innocents unnecessarily both sides have made it clear there bad guys but America acts like only one is an the restvof the world the other. Times like this I praise God for giving me two middle 🖕 fuck all degenerative killer's.

[@thattubechannel]

In the Middle East particularly, Western colonial powers didn't draw many borders themselves. Nearly all were legacy borders from the Ottoman Empire, or already under the direct control of local warlords and therefore self asserted. Even while ostensibly under control of European powers Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel all asserted their own borders through a mix of military and political power. This is why the modern borders of the Middle East mirror closely the independent rulers and internal administrative divisions of Islamic, and even pre-Islamic empires that came before it.

[@lampad4549]

Thank you, people have blame this problems on western colonialism forgetting that non white people have agency to.

[@animeXcaso]

Not mentioning how the hated "straight line" borders actually cut through DESERT!

[@islammehmeov2334]

The FUCK are you taking about during the OTTOMAN EMPIRE there wes no iraq or syria jordan they were artificial created

[@someguy4512]

@@animeXcaso not rly, there was no straight line borders imposed by the ottomans.

[@Cheese0603]

I think he is referring to the sykes picot borders @@someguy4512

[@korakys]

This is absolutely amazing! And only part 1 of 10 planned?! I don't even know where you will go from this as it is already so comprehensive! Not since the days of Masaman have I been so excited for a youtube mapping project.

[@sepep6288]

6 points to consider when identifying an 'Arab':- 1- People migrate and intermix , and there is no single nation on earth with a pure heritage. Trying to divide people into certain ethnicities and races is impossible and absurd. And it is absolutely okay for a nation to claim more than one heritage. 2- Arabic is a civilizational language much like Latin, Turkish or English which are spoken by millions of non native descendants today. 3- Unlike the original latins who are no longer traceable today, the original Arabic speakers still maintain their pure paternal lineages and many of them refuse to intermarry with Arabized non-Arabs. In fact there are various conflicts between the Arabised and the original Arabs around the Arab world, such as the example of Iraq mentioned in the beginning of the video, northern Syria and Sinai in Egypt. 4- Even if you could distinguish between the Original Arabs and the Arabised Arabs, there is still the question of what are these original Arabs and what are there origins? The original Arabs are divided into two groups, each claims to be the 'true Arabs'. The first is the Qahtanites, thought to be the first inhabitants of western Arabia, and their native language was Himyaric. The second is Adnanites, Armeiac descendants who settled western Arabia and intermixed with the Qahtanintes and the Arabic language was formed by their interactions. They claim they are the descendants of Ismael, the Egyptian son of Abraham. In addition to these two groups, there are tens of other extinct ethnic groups that have settled Arabia in the recorded history, and possibly contributed to the Arabic language and culture such as Thamud, Magan, Nabatians, Sebeans, and others. 5- The 'Arab world' is furthermore divided by vast deserts which divide the Arab world into small habitable green pockets, such as the levant, the Nile valley, south Iraq, Oman, Yemen and the Maghreb. This geographical diaspora has maintained a level of cultural distinction in each pocket. 6- Finally the most important point is that Pan-Arab nationalism and Anti-Arab Nationalism (Pharoanism, Phenoacianism, Pan-Berbeirsm, Pan-Nubiasm,..etc) are very politicized. Modern Arab nationalism was ironically enough started mostly by Christian Arabs in order to find a common cause with Muslim Arabs in their fight against the Ottomans but the idea was ignored and ridiculed by most of Arabs due to the awareness of the immense tribal, regional, ethnical , and religious diversity of the Arab world. Later on the Hashimites adopted the idea and used it to justify their rule over the Arab world but the ideology only really kicked in due to the Arab-Israeli conflict which required a strong bond between the different Arabic speaking nations to protect their holy Islamic and Christian sites. An interesting example of how the ethnic heritage of a nation can be politicized is Egypt. Despite being ruled by an Albanian dynasty and with a mostly Arabized population, Egypt adopted Pan-Arabism in the 20th century which allowed it as the most developed country in the region to project its influence upon the smaller newly formed other Arab nations. However, in the last decade Egypt's geopolitical role diminished due to internal instabilities and instead of influencing other Arab countries, it became a victim of the never ending Arab conflicts surrounding it. It became a battlefield between the Saudi-backed military junta and the Qatari-backed Islamists. In addition to being subject of trst attacks from groups based in Libya, Sudan and Syria. As a result Pheroanism gained popularity among Egyptians as a way to escape the chaos of the Arab world and the foreign interferences by fellow Arab nations.

[@Morso8]

Very good comment except for 4 and 6

[@sepep6288]

​@@Morso8 why do u disagree with 4 and 6?

[@dinosaurusrex1482]

Turkish is a civilizational language?

[@sepep6288]

@@dinosaurusrex1482 yes, what i mean is that turkish at some point in history became dominant many aspects such as trade, science, politics and islamic theology so strangers seeked to learn it to benefit from it

[@dinosaurusrex1482]

@sepep6288 turkey doesn't have much influence anymore, though.

[@GLCxGLA]

yeah alot of lebanese do identify as phoenicians, mostly christians, but has seen an increase in the muslim population aswell

[@riverman6462]

A Hausa(Nigerian) Muslim who speaks Arabic is still a Hausa Muslim. It only makes sense if he finds more in common with his Hausa brethren, than Arabs.

[@jaif7327]

@@Darius-_it’s weird because the phoenician identity and language itself died out centuries before the islamic expansion and that’s just the “islamic” expansion, arabic (itureans) was around much longer in lebanon than in most other arab countries lol

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

​@@riverman6462people in Lebanon speak Arabic as as their first language And phoichen identity was dead by the time of the islamic conquest

[@LucidFL]

The Muslims are not Lebanese. They are Palestinian invaders

[@rakantarabzouni3650]

And they're immediately ridiculed

[@Croz89]

I think realistically, the fall of the Ottoman Empire was going to result in bloody conflict regardless of the interference of the French and British. Whether it made things worse is a difficult question to answer, perhaps letting them duke it out by themselves for a decade or so would have resulted in a new era of stability, or maybe they'd be just as much as war in the modern day in this alternate timeline as they are in ours.

[@subutaynoyan5372]

Funnier part is, since Turkish dominion ended, nobody could form a more peceaful and serene order in the vast region and before Turks rose to sultanhood from mercenary status, Muslim world were busy eating eachother for centuries in early medieval times.

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

It's not as if bloody conflict did not happen during the Ottoman empire.

[@DespothLord]

Because Turk's are warriors and they kept whole islam world safe meanwhile arabs constantly backstab Ottomans.Arabs never contributed half of Balkans did.@@subutaynoyan5372

[@3three3]

​@@FrancisFjordCupolaNo one is saying it was bloodless... but it was relatively peaceful.

[@Qwerka]

@@FrancisFjordCupolaGive me source, now.

[@lahma69]

Wow, what an incredibly complicated mix of cultures, religions, identities, and beliefs you have described here.. Truly fascinating though. Thanks for the excellent, well-researched content!

[@here_we_go_again2571]

@ lahma69 "Fascinating" Hmm... When a large enough number of them move to YOUR country they eventually attempt to take over YOUR country

[@eklezia2829]

42:28 For a bit of an extra information, Bashi Bozouk means “not right in the head” in Turkish (Başı Bozuk). So they were expectedly - brutal.

[@spacesloth7866]

Tintin moment

[@ggoddkkiller1342]

This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow.. Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers. As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse. As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..

[@p1xelat3d]

Lmao

[@p1xelat3d]

​@@ggoddkkiller1342 are you turkish?

[@ggoddkkiller1342]

@@p1xelat3d Yep, im Turkish.

[@Pineplle06]

I think a history of Central America would be nice, I feel like they are forgotten between North and South America.

[@hispalismapping155]

He won't even know what the reserva misquita was.

[@عليياسر-ذ5ب]

​@@hispalismapping155Britain: Descendants of criminals, what do you expect?

[@anti-spiral159]

I mean, the whole of history has more interesting topics than central america, but they have a lot to tell, more so out of corruption and terrorism sadly.

[@DarthFhenix55]

​@@anti-spiral159I mean, that's subjective tbh. Like, the rise of the timurids and the Mughal can be classified as an interesting topic or useless I information depending where you live for example.

[@Pineplle06]

stuff like the general captaincy of Guatemala and the federal republic of central America, as well as Panama and pre Colombian Mesoamerica could make a decent video

[@scott2452]

Great video! It shows the rich diversity of the region while starting to show just how complex a task drawing borders would have been. On top of religion, tribe & ethnicity one would need to consider: 1. The viability of the proposed state (could it be effectively governed? Access to freshwater/trade? would it be able to defend borders? etc) 2. Who would receive power in the new state? 3. Competing historical claims 4. What the people in any new state want. 5. What other powers would agree to based on their own geopolitical interests.

[@Handle0108]

There’s a simple solution, create a large Arab state ruled by the Hashemite descendants of the prophet. This was the “obvious” answer and the promise of the British/French to the Arabs. But then the British and French betrayed the Arabs and signed the infamous Sykes-Picot.

[@puraLusa]

​@@Handle0108San Reno conference. Sykes-picot was denied by league of nations, never took efect. Peeps avoid san reno cause that would question lebanon, jordan, syria and iraq as much as israel.

[@Handle0108]

@@puraLusa all those states were creations of European imperialists, Arabs were a United nation before that. It’s unfortunate what France and Britain did.

[@sucloxsucloxsson]

@@Handle0108yeah and as the video explained for almost 45 minutes that would’ve been a horribly inefficient, ethnically and religiously messy, state bursting at the seams from internal conflict. Quit larping

[@Handle0108]

@@sucloxsucloxsson I am actually Middle Eastern for your info, don’t pretend to be a smart-ass when it comes to the Middle East from watching one video mate. I am well aware of the politics in our region, and I am hundred percent certain that an Arab state with the Hashemite kingdom at the leadership position would be the best government.

[@matthewclaridge8063]

We (as a species) are still getting used to living together in large groups. For the vast majority of human history our thinking was 'only my family matters,' which progressed to 'only my tribe matters,' which progressed to 'only my town matters,' which has now progressed to 'only my country matters. Learning to tolerate, how to learn to live together in larger and larger groups. Has been a slow and often bloody process. But when you consider that In the last ten thousand or so years. We've gone from being a species that lives in small nomadic hunter gatherer groups to being a species that lives in villages (mostly in the countryside) to being a species that lives in large cities (about 80% of us now do) we should appreciate the speed and magnitude of the progress we've made and maybe even give ourselves a pat on the back...

[@z.p9997]

Nation's were formed out of forced assimilation, and genocide and expulsion of people's, that's the only reason they exist.

[@shaydowsith348]

perhaps in the future.... only my planet matters....

[@je_re]

Your videos are so informative and well made, excited to watch the whole series

[@Saufs0ldat]

It's funny to me how we live in an age where ethnostates are viewed as a bad thing, but simultaneously the west gets blamed for not drawing borders along ethnic lines in the middle east and Africa. It's also kind of arrogant to think that imposed borders can prevent wars in regions that were never peaceful to begin with.

[@juliank6793]

I think "along ethnic borders" is usually the criticism, but it comes from a place of being completely arbitrary, not necessarily inadherence to ethnic groups. They also wouldn't be "ethnostates" as much as nation-states, because ethnostates heavily implies exclusionary practices which dispel minorities or enforce certain cultural practices over others.

[@skrimslisnjor9493]

I completly agree with your last point but... I think you're confused about "ethnostate" and "nation state". An ethno-state is a state that exclude people from other ethnicity, while nation state accept minority. And a nation is not the same as an ethnicity. It's a bit controversial to take this exemple, but let say the USA, there is an "USA" nation. With people feeling americans. But those americans can be hispanic, afro-american, etc

[@BountyFlamor]

What's arrogant is to act like independent countries could not be expected to negotiate and redraw their borders themselves. Instead some colonial power many decades ago is blamed.

[@juliank6793]

@@BountyFlamor Once you draw borders, they're fixed. I'm sorry, but no, you can't expect countries to just "negotiate and redraw their borders themselves" lmao. What an incredibly naive idea. Have you ever bothered to look into how these negotiations would work? Any time in history where two countries meet to discuss borders and one side just willingly gets absorbed, annexed, or split by another? When you set a border, it's going to be defended militarily, you can't just redraw it.

[@BountyFlamor]

@@juliank6793 You must have never heard of a young country called South Sudan, just to name one example. Of course, there was violence involved, but it ended in negotiations and the two parties managed to do it by themselves.

[@assyriancomedycentral1753]

"The term 'Kurdish mountains' is misleading, my friend. The Kurds are an Iranic-speaking, nomadic group with historical ties to Turks, Arabs, and Iranians. However, the Kurds historically have no specific region within Assyria."

[@DonKrieg-382]

But sar kurds were there since pre cambrian age and predates tribolites kurds are ancient saar 😢

[@assyriancomedycentral1753]

@ yeah whoever told you that is lying to you. There’s no book or piece of history that you can trace back that can be held as evidence. Assyrians have been around since the neolithic era. They pretty much pre-date every one.

[@antoniomoreira5921]

Not sure it's the right niche but if anyone's interested in Early Modern warfare, Ottoman, Safavid, Moghul, etc., I hotly recommend Schwerpunkt's videos series

[@DonnellGreen]

Kings and Generals along with Dose of History has crazy good Middle East history videos too

[@ggoddkkiller1342]

This was mostly correct but there were some huge mistakes and clear bias through it, for example in Ottoman religious minorities could operate their own religious institutions, their own government institutions, their own schools, their own courts, they could even issue their own laws! Care to share which European empire gave such rights to any religious minority? But even then they were still ''persecuted'', i really wonder how exactly. Jizya tax was very very small price for having such rights and it wasn't even a high tax, for example wealthier regions like Greece never had any problems paying Jizya tax for over 500 years while only really poor regions like Serbia struggled to pay it so blood tax was collected instead. And those children perhaps were taken forcefully but they weren't becoming slave soldiers at all. They were receiving 4 years long education and depending on their success they were receiving further education and becoming Ottoman officials or were enlisted into Janissary corps which was receiving one of highest salaries among all Ottoman standing army but they were still ''slaves'' somehow.. Also claiming Muhammad Ali Pasha was a bashi-bazouk is a massive mistake, i really wonder where he could learn such a thing! Ali Pasha was an Albanian who received at least 10 years of education to become a ''general'' (Pasha is actually a Turkish rank close to general) to lead armies and govern provinces. But he indeed raised a small army of Albanians as bashi-bazouks. There was never an official Ottoman unit as bashi-bazouks but especially during war times Pashas were often raising irregular armies as bashi-bazouks so it just means irregular soldiers. As one of correct information, the infighting between Arabic tribes had been quite common as mostly Arabs were ruling themselves not Ottoman which allowed a lot of powerplay between tribes. In late 18th century first Saudi rebellion happened along with their radical ideology, same as their late atrocities they were quite brutal burning down towns and slaughtering ''non-Muslims'' as they wished. Ottoman ordered Ali Pasha to raise a large army in Egypt and end their rebellion. Ali Pasha did so without much resistance from Saudis but he had a large intact army now while Ottoman was quite weak so he decided his payment wasn't enough and asked for more by force. He never ever became ruler of Egypt, this is another huge mistake ''history channels'' are often making. Muhammad Ali Pasha remained as OTTOMAN GOVERNER of Egypt even after defeating Ottoman, only became governer of Syria etc as well. Ottoman attacked him back only few years later but didn't remove him from his position entirely only revoked his governship from other regions while he and his dynasty remained as governers of Egypt. Even in 1914 Egypt was still officially a part of Ottoman until WW1 began then British finally ended it by using the war as an excuse. As last even this map isn't enough to explain struggle in the region as more and more foreign powers kept always involving, for example Russian empire's invasion of Caucasus changed power balance entirely and Armenians became a russian proxy since then. It was somehow claimed that Armenian population disappeared because of genocide but it is completely false as in 1914 Russian empire invaded eastern Turkey so Ottoman wasn't even controlling Armenian majority cities in 1915 rather they were under control of RUSSIAN EMPIRE! After Ottoman defeats against russian empire Armenians wrongly believed Ottoman was about to collapse and rebelled as a russian proxy in late 1914. But ofc they were wrong and Ottoman displaced them into Syria and Lebanon to suppress their rebellion then most of them decided to migrate into Russian empire over Caucasus mountains. The whole point of this displacement was moving Armenians away from front lines with russian empire which was supplying them arms but ofc even Armenian rebellion is somewhat forgotten thanks to re-writing history efforts and ''historians'' like this guy..

[@sweeeita]

nothing short of an amazing effort, while I heard about most this information here and there I have never seen it played out like this. thanks to you the middle east has a new prospective in my eye. if a KZbin video ever deserved a standing ovation this definitely deserves one, thank you.

[@InfiniteCuriosity1210]

@30:18 The Ottoman census of Jerusalem also known as the nufus, is a valuable source of information for understanding the city's social and urban history. It is considered the most comprehensive census records available for any Ottoman city. Don't know why you would use european sources when you can use Ottoman sources as it was under ottoman administration at the time.

[@Roland_Deschain]

Likely not convenient

[@ashkanfakharfirouzeh8803]

As a muslim and an iranian i gotta say kudos man the info is so correct and i learned a lottt

[@poltergijstt]

I love opening my KZbin and seeing Jabzy has once again, uploaded a quality video :). Thanks Jab! Can't wait for more

[@SpaceMonkeyBoi]

I can only imagine that the comment section will continue to develop peacefully and civilly as the video gets older.

[@evilemperorzurg9615]

The big issue is that the idea of the nation state is uniquely European. It works well in Europe and east Asia where people have been relatively homogeneous culturally, ethnically, and religiously for centuries an their colonies in the Americas but it doesn’t work well in places like South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East where tribes and empires have been the mainstay of the regions. What exactly is an Iraqi? Is a Sunni Kurd just as iraqi as a Shia Arab? Are Tajiks, Pashtos and Hazsras all equally afghans? It all gets worse when resources are discovered such as oil, minerals, or even water. Even if a map could more easily be drawn along ethic or religious lines would Saudi Arabia willingly give up its oil reserves in the east? Would Afghanistan give up its rivers in the south? Would Iran sacrifice land on all its borders?

[@rowantharwat9195]

Egypt has always been what you may call a nation state. The idea of a nation state didn't really start with europe, more so the modern shape/style of a nation state

[@zhcultivator]

Which Is more reason why a Supranational political and economic union of mutual cooperation like the EU would be the best thing to happen for the Middle East imo. And in fact the Ottoman Empire should have created a Supranational "Commonwealth of mutual political, economic and military cooperation" between it's constituent parts in the 20th century before ww1 and just avoid joining ww1 in general.

[@felixer6308]

The nation state is not "natural" and has to be created by human force, like any society. It only "works" in Europe because all the wars and forced conversions and ethnic cleansings and expulsions and genocides and language campaigns have already happened in the past, during the Middle Ages and the World Wars. Europe didn't just naturally have neat borders with ethnically homogenous populations, it took a lot of enforced suffering to get there. The Iberians forced Jews and Muslims to convert or flee. The French committed linguicide on the Occitan language, look up La Vergonha. The Greeks and Turks had a forced population exchange. And so on... Meanwhile in the Ottoman Empire everybody was coexisting relatively peacefully until the rise of nationalism, and with the creation of nation states came the suffering. Not to say that the empire should have remained in place, I don't know that.

[@evilemperorzurg9615]

@@felixer6308 I see what you are getting at but in an imperial system there is an inherent supremacy of one group over others

[@artair70]

@@felixer6308 "Meanwhile in the Ottoman Empire everybody was coexisting relatively peacefully" Hahahaha NO

[@Theziz8]

My man...I'm from the Middle East and I find this amazing. You've done your research, amazing job.

[@Kidd-In-Charge]

The most in-depth middle east discussion I have EVER seen, I cannot believe this is only part 1 of ten!! Are you setting out to make an entire college course for free?

[@shamimshahrezaei7705]

Very detailed video about the complex political dynamics of a region that has too often been generalized from the outside view. Thank you!

[@nolianpazac8440]

Incredibile video ! great value!! thank you for this masterpiece !

[@stevene6181]

Q:How divided is the Middle East? A: Yes.

[@Mr.BlueOfficial]

The timing of this series is almost eerie, great work

[@HistoryOdyssey1]

Great video as always.

[@potato_nugget]

One very important mistake this map makes is dividing sunni school of thoughts across border lines. This simply isn't the case. People almost always only identity as sunni and look at all of the schools of thoughts when deciding on an issue And I don't mean that as in "we all live in peace" but rather, in most places, if you ask someone "are you a maliki or shafihi?" you'll get a blank stare because either they don't know what either of those things are, they just use elemets from both of them, or they never thought about it. It's like asking "are you an Oxford comma user?" the person you're asking obviously use one or the other, or just a mix of both, but it's not something most people pay attention to/know what it means or care about much

[@andrewwilcke9378]

Levant gonna be totally peaceful and uncontroversial.

[@banna314]

FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT, Despite few small inaccuracies (which is still more accurate than 99% of content available) I am happy you pointed out that problem of the middle east is not as simplistic as border disputes

[@Stef-bat]

Wow jus wow , great job dude one of the Best videos on this topic

[@nagibhanna1]

Brother, At 11:40 you mentioned Al Sunni twice, al Sunni wanted abu bakar when al Shai'a wanted Ali.. Thank you for a great video, I know now about my origin more than what I learned in 35 years, keep up the good work

[@historyotd9094]

This video is a banger mate. Good job! It was super interesting and thorough.

[@mohammedraheef1415]

This was a great watch, jam packed with general and complex history.

[@doctor_meme9881]

Man you're so underrated

[@jurajsoltis5077]

Wow, what a video. Great job on this. I can't even imagine how much time this took to make

[@WillsB1985]

Aside from a few inaccuracies here and there, I really love your videos and appreciate the amount of research you've done.

[@dogukan127]

Man, this is some comprehensive take. Great work!

[@butters1984]

Absolutely amazing video.

[@rod9829]

Insightful and thorough

[@brucedobson5285]

Great video. A Tour de force. Really puts things in perspective.

[@CliffCardi]

Skyes: “How should we divide up the Middle East…….straight line?” Picot: “Straight line.”

[@michaelhoffmann2891]

On another note: do you have a schedule for the other 9 parts? I think I'll subscribe and hope you keep it up. Amazing work!

[@peterwainio2134]

I see you've made another fantastic video as usual! Just as a little request though, can you start including your sources in the description of your video, or in a pinned comment?

[@JabzyJoe]

I completely get that. But when it comes to sources for these videos the list is almost endless. I don't tend to pick out 3 or 4 books to use as sources. It tends to be 1 chapter or article to help write essentially 2 or 3 lines. By the point I list is almost so long it starts to become as useless as not having one. If there's anything you want a source on in particular though, I can send that over.

[@Game_Hero]

@@JabzyJoe I get that, but it would really give justice to the amount of work you put into them, a triumphant list proving your efforts and credibility even more. And I really like looking at this sort of behind-the-scenes and even read the said sources because I like many others are interested. So you really should consider doing it anyway, a bibliography is a badge of honour amongst historians.

[@p00bix]

​@@JabzyJoe Full Bibliographies are vital for any sort of history documentary. I greatly appreciate your content--and am seriously impressed that you aren't just paraphrasing Wiki articles and the likes, as I've seen FAR too many history KZbinrs do--but at the moment there's not really a way for people to assess how reliable your videos are.

[@jacklaurentius6130]

@@p00bixand that’s a good thing. KZbin videos should be held in contempt in lieu of a traditional education with accredited professors and textbooks.

[@jacklaurentius6130]

@@p00bix you completely misunderstood.

[@retf8977]

Great video, but there are some corrections: 1-At the time of the rise of the Saudi state, al-muntafiq didn't settle or control Eastern Arabia anymore, rather it was under the control of the Bani Khalid, a subtribe of the previously ruling banu jabr clan, rather, the Muntafiq power base was in southern Iraq, at the city of Basra. The ottomans officially integrated them into the administrative structure by making the district (sanja) of muntafiq but they still had major power in the vilayet of basra. But still, the saudis did indeed battle them and they battled the Saudis too. 2-The Kharijites, pronounced khar-ij-ite, not kha-ji-rite, weren't really the predecessors to the ibadis, rather the ibadis are the only surviving kharejite sect 3-I wouldn't say salafis reject all other madhabs, more like they don't view the scholarly differences as compulsory and more arbitrary than other sects, that is if you can call salafism a sect, since in most cases its an outside term 4-Nubians are well respected in Egypt and the views of some racists and TV hosts like Tamer Amin, who mirrors government sentiment who sometimes clashes with nubians due to their housing crisis, do not reflect the views of the general Egyptian populace. Its pretty saddening that you fell into this trap of generalisation. Other than that, amazing job on the research, it's really rare to see someone so committed to a video about the middle east

[@lllll4691]

I agree

[@helloxonsfan]

Excellent vid...!!! ... Just became your newest sub...!!! 👍🏽 👍🏽 👍🏽

[@rojehsaadi9605]

Nice one bro looking forward for the next one

[@nylonnalini]

There is a sect of Syriac Christians who have been living in Malabar/Kerala since 52AD - now a large community in modern Kerala. There is also a smaller community of Malabar Jews since 380BC - the "Cochin Jews". Most have emigrated to Israel now. Do a video on them sometime

[@mejestic124]

economic migration is not very interesting

[@mejestic124]

@@henryhudson9556 wow😦 when? where?

[@rauhau_]

Great video

[@rauhau_]

@Savetion.. no thanks

[@sultanskinny]

The problem was never the drawing of the borders but the enforcement of the nation state within a territorial entity. The League of Nations and later UN forced these borders to be recognized under a new world order to a region and people that never enforced such rigid divisions. There’s a lot of emphasis on the religious and ethnic differences causing conflict within these borders but these are more a side effect of the enforced notion of a nation state as opposed to just sporadic ethnic-religious conflict. The borders aren’t the problem. It’s the forced notion of nation states.

[@khoivo7947]

I do wonder that even if the Europeans did not enforce the notion of a nation-state, would the various ethnicities in the region come up with it themselves, especially after having observed it from the foreigners.

[@longiusaescius2537]

Balfour

[@zakback9937]

@@khoivo7947 Nope, it was reactionary in some parts like Algeria and Morocco.

[@MA-go7ee]

Whenever people act like european partitions caused all the problems in Africa and the Middle East I just laugh. Most of these places will have ethnic strife regardless of how you divide them. In fact, they had strife before, so why would anyone expect them not to have any after? In parts of Africa there are groups living within fifty miles of each other who co sider themselves completely different tribes to their neighbours. Unless one plans to divide Africa and the Middle East into ten thousand countries, you will always have antagonistic groups in the same state.

[@عليياسر-ذ5ب]

Roman: the least European Berber

[@TheSkcube]

Granted it's not the cause of all the problems, but the current issues are very much the result of european partition and nation building. You also don't need to divide Africa or the middle east into small nation states to realize that leaving an ethnic group like the kurds without a nation of their own is a folly of European nation building.

[@عليياسر-ذ5ب]

@@TheSkcube Nationalism is a very modern idea in history

[@domca4617]

@@TheSkcube Even if they did it back then, all the surrounding nations would unite to divide the territory among themselves.

[@TheSkcube]

@@domca4617 by that logic we shouldn't have created a Jewish state surrounded by Arab states.

[@whiteknightcat]

I believe the greatest thing everyone who watches this should be grateful for is ... that there wasn't a quiz afterwards.

[@aasante3437]

I hope we will be able to get a video series like this for South Asia (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc) and Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Indonesia, and The Philippines).

[@Thigamabob]

Include Sri Lanka as well.

[@theArab__]

Druze dude here, small correction, the biggest Druze population is found in southern syria on the Druze Mountain region.

[@naptimusnapolyus1227]

I'm an Arab history Nerd and this is Impressive. bro did his research 🗿👍

[@Squirrel_Xi]

This is sooo cool pls continue this alhamdullilah someone finally looking at our islamic history without negativity

[@worlddj1364]

Islamic history is history. Trying to enforce it with the same ideal and actions is the problem.

[@EsotericCat]

Its crazy how crazy humans are. Like the arbitration and randomness of divisions have such cascading effects, people be weird.

[@koordrozita7236]

Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, almost all Northern Africa partly Omman, UAE, and Yemen were not Arabs but linguistically Arabised. It is similar to English speaking Scots or Welsh or Irish. Not English.

[@onetruesavior69]

You can thank "Islam" for that.

[@hellofolks2039]

Apparently, all Arabs were not really Arabs but “Arabized Arabs”. Get a life bro. We have always been and will remain Arabs. Cope🫶🏻

[@Respecteddude666]

​@@onetruesavior69 The ppl of those countries doesn't mind the expansion of islam so if you wanted to be islamophobic then go somewhere else

[@Fai9albinKhalid3]

Wth? Southern Syria, the whole Yemen and the whole Arabian peninsula, and southern Jordan and southern Palestine, southern Iraq all of these had Arabs, even before Christ was born

[@Toix]

@@Fai9albinKhalid3the Arabian Pan and the Arab Gulf is Arab lands, the rest isn’t. Learn your own history… Arab colonialism happened.

[@TheOghuzKhan]

Watching a similar video about Europe would be interesting. :)

[@ronnykie8204]

39:10 The only people to speak Northern-western Iranic languages after the Parthians (descendants of the Medes) are Kurds and Balouch. They, of course, speak their own dialect not just because of the vast regional locations but also because they derive more than just one empire. The best way to look at it is by comparing the development of the Northern-western Iranics. The earliest peoples who can claim ancestors of Kurds would be the Anatolian Northern-western Iranics, Hurrio-Mittani and the Zagrosians raiders nomadic tribes, the Gutians. But the main arrival of the Northern-western Aryans/Iranics was the Median tribe. After fighting the semitic Akkadians, Assyrians etc. Only the Medians merged victorious.

[@Tacticalerth]

No one is iranic it is a gay word

[@persianwarrior8633]

@@Tacticalerth kurd meaning whore litatly

[@shadowborn1456]

​@TacticalerthNo the word gay means turkic 🦃🦃🦃🦃🦃🦃🦃🦃

[@SacredDreamer]

Jaw Dropping STUDY ! I Appreciate the great effort you took !! Thank You. I will listen again.

[@lincolnhuntermusic]

Thank you very much for that information... It's so much more than us in the west would ever be privileged to know❤

[@goldnile718]

This is so comprehensive. Love the work you’ve put into it.

[@FF-le3ps]

Yes been waiting for this series for so long ❤❤❤❤❤

[@arzoun666]

I really loved the depth of this video. It is very well animated and narrated. My only critique is the lack of categorisation of the Arabic ethno-linguistic subgroups. I don't see why you'd go into detail about the different kinds of Turkics, Iranics, etc but never even mention that the Arabs are not just sedentary and nomadic peoples of different Islamic/Christian sects, but are also divided into well-defined groups such as Levantine, Mesopotamian, etc. This is an essential categorisation that explains why there was a clear struggle in uniting countries like Syria and Egypt under the UAR and such.

[@a.thales7641]

Maybe because they aren't Arabs but arabised?

[@mahermonzer4364]

Amazing Video, great information. I learned some of it in History here in Lebanon but not all. Outstanding effort.

[@Burak-xq2fj]

Wow, This might be the best summary of the middle east. Well done sir :)

[@amerhamad-zp6ge]

Egyptians are not arabs. They are cousins. True, a big part of Egyptians are mixed with Arab, but not pure arab blood.

[@jokr611]

There is no pure blood anywhere in the world not in England not in China not in Egypt not in India so this is not an argument. Egyptians are Arabs period

[@avery.a5948]

They generic Arabs

[@usernotfound40412]

26:30 On a side-note, since we're on the subject of partition and Shah Dehlawi is mentioned, it is often thought that the partition of India in 1947 was a consequence of developments in the 1940s. People also claim that it really started with the breakdown of the Khilafat Movememt (1920-24), after which communal politics took a decisive root in politics of the Indian Sub-Continent surviving and thriving to this date. However, the movement of Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, his seminary at Delhi (Madrasa-e-Rahimiya, from where he gets his name) and the work of his disciples, most notably Syed Ahmed Barelvi, has been largely ignored in popular memory or history. This is supposed to have created the base on which the "two nation theory" that birthed Pakistan was built on in the late 1880s by Syed Ahmed Khan, and put into action by Jinnah in 1947. Dehlawi's primary target in the 1750s were the nascent sub-continental power: the Marathas, after they had taken up the Mughal Kings protection under the 1752 Ahadnama. His "reform" of Indian Islam is very much talked about but his views on non-muslims are open up for everyone to see. He supplemented his views with war, by his participation in the 3rd Panipat War in 1761. This was short-lived as the Marathas recaptured Delhi in 1771 and ruled it till 1803. Later, his descendants and students at his seminary produced and "educated" Syed Ahmed Barlevi in early 19th century who would wage perhaps the world's first armed Jihad against a non-muslim nascent power: the Sikhs. He was killed by the Sikhs in war. Indian Sunni Muslims (including Pakistan, Bangaldesh and by consequence Taliban ruled Afghanistan) to this date associate and trace their reform with these 2 folks largely. Unsurprisingly, the theocratic nature of Pakistan and Afghanistan, along with their focus on militarily supplementing it should come as no surprise to any unbiased observer of history. Even India's loose religious Hindu right wing consolidated thanks to the idea of Pakistan. Finally the views of the successors of Dehlawi and Barelvi (direct descendants and seminary "students") and the Jihad/Wahabi Movement against the British Empire in (then) India's North Western Frontier Province during the 1850s down to the 1890s is criminally understated in modern historical discourse. Terming the Dehlawi and Barelvi movements as anti-colonial is dishonest because it puts them into a single bracket with India's other peaceful and even violent anti-colonial movements. It was pure Islamic exceptionalism and fundamentalism resulting from a loss of state power after 600 years which was finally crushed by the British. Many trickles of this movement (albeit with less communal hatred) merged with the Aligarh Movement. This movement was actually India's first real Muslim Reform Movement and according to Jinnah his "Mulsim Arsenal" from where prominent voice (and subsequent genocide) for India's partition emerged.

[@savioblanc]

I have always found it interesting to hear modern day Indians, seemingly of Hindu origin, complain about the British ruling over them, saying India would be this world power had the Brits not looted them and I look back to Indian history prior to the British takeover and all I see is the chaos that came with the collapse of the weakening Mughul Empire. The idea that there would be a united India, a rich nation state, is laughable to say the least. If anything, Hindus have benefitted the most with the arrival of the European colonizers, as they helped fight the local Indian Muslim rulers with a zeal that hadn't been seen in the subcontinent for a few centuries. Heck, the Hindu Vijaynagara Empire, the last bastion of South Indian Hindu unity, had just collapsed to a coalition of South Indian Muslim kingdoms by the time the French and British started making their inroads into India. Had this not happened, there was a high chance all of India would be a smogasboard of Indo-Muslim sultanates, with a smattering of Hindu kingdoms, aligning themselves likely with their Muslim brethren in Arabia and Central Asia, due to their leaders being of descent from those places.

[@usernotfound40412]

@@savioblanc Don’t know where you’re coming from but you’re understanding of medieval Indian history is very good but not accurate and critical. Let me help you with this. I agree with your sentiment and general argument but disagree with your conclusion and colonial framing. Your first complaint is actually correct. Indians across the political spectrum complain about the British loot of India. Left and centrist parties are more enthusiastic about placing the blame on the British since in their period of socialist post-colonial rule (1947-1990) India was anything but developing and rich. These people usually find a good excuse for their inefficiency and corruption by blaming the British. And that is not entirely without credible reasons. However, like the British, Indians are also fed up with blaming the British. Now that the mantle has passed down to the right wing, it is following the same lane. The latter part is problematic. The chief argument against colonialism is precisely this. It does not allow native ways of experiencing the world and by extension, industrialization and modernization. It does this by indulging in sheer violence and extracting resources at will or at unfavorable terms to the colony. I don’t think you or anyone else can contest this definition. The British rule was a systematic loot in the sense that it turned a 'rich state-poor society' into a 'poor state-very poor society'. This pessimistic belief that India would remain poor regardless of the British effectively whitewashes the colonial rule and its effects which simply cannot be compared to railways, telegraph wires, and weapons. This is a huge “what if” scenario that you cannot simply steam-roll by denying agency to the people and time. If you can find any map of India between 1770-1800, you will see how much of the Indian subcontinent was back under non-Muslim rule. Barring the Gangetic Valley, Hyderabad, and South India, all of it was largely under Hindu/Sikh rule. Chaos precedes stabilization, 1707-1761 were periods of extreme instability for reasons you already know. But the relative stability that was brought to the sub-continent after these years was strategically disturbed by (largely) the British right from the 1780s-1830s. All of this was violent. The British are not to be charged for this now. It is just a nation’s view of what happened to it. It is not necessary that the colonizer share this thought. Again, you simply cannot conclude that a united India sans the British was impossible. It was a different possibility that was denied. A blanket judgment putting it as preposterous and far-fetched sounds good in a British history book. Indians simply cannot leave it at that. Agreed that Hindus benefitted the most from the arrival of the European colonizers. But this “benefit” was snatched from them too soon to accrue any dividend. I disagree with your ‘zeal’ comment. My reading of Indian military history tells me that this “zeal” was the lowest when Indians were fighting for the British. Rather it was good generalship, discipline, and diplomacy that was always lacking in Indian powers, which the British provided. You are accurate in understanding that Muslims would have steamrolled all of Deccan post the Vijaynagara collapse, but for some strange reason, they never did it (except for the sack of its capital). Do you know the reason? As soon as they won, the Mughals consolidated in the north and started attacking the Deccan for the next 100 years till it was finally extinguished under Aurangzeb. Here again, a new quasi-“colonial” power ended a trajectory that Deccan (and India in general) would be a “smorgasbord of Indo-Muslim sultanates, with a smattering of Hindu kingdoms”. Just 50 years after Aurangzeb’s victory over the Deccan, the Marathas in turn occupied most of it, stretching their empire from the Aravali hills of Delhi to the same Tungabhdra of the Vijayanagara Empire. It was hard to imagine this if one were living in the 1680s or even the 1560s but it did in fact happen. They managed to maintain it for 80-100 years even after stretching their nominal rule over Delhi, enclaves in South India, and all of central and western India. There's a reason why India is largely Hindu majority today and its not simply because Hindus are resilient, but due to the limited state control that non-Muslim polities managed to capture in the 18th century, followed by their quick capitulation under the British who had less business in conversion and massacres but more in obtaining wealth and power. In the Punjab of the 1700s, it was impossible to imagine that a minority would come to overthrow their fiercest oppressors in their own heartland and take absolute control for 50-60 years: the Sikhs. Again their rule was ended by the British. I have a reason why this line of thinking was not mainstream in India until a few years ago. Because Indian historical writing followed a largely post-colonial rather than a decolonial line of thinking. Post-colonial scholars love to blame the British. De-colonial thinking frames the problem from a different perspective.

[@hellomoto2084]

​@@savioblancindia was still a hotchpotch of kingdoms under britsh rule . 565 in total, these many kingdoms and when Brits were about to leave they told these kingdoms to either join india or pakistan or be independent. It was statesmanship of sardar Vallabhbhai Patel , which made most of these kingdoms part of India . British never wanted a united India , then again , a person from a former colonial power reduced to margins of world history will never recognise this fact . As for detailed reply , read what ever the other guy has said. One more thing , the Mughal empire stopped sending donations to Mecca effectively ending any links with them on political level . Mughals fought Persians for centuries and at least once invaded central Asia although they failed . So much for musliam sultanates feeling more at home with kingdoms of Arabia etc lol

[@hellomoto2084]

You are a gem brother.

[@tarunrao9643]

Commenting to save this gem of a comment

[@fbm010]

As an Arab I see this documentary as the most informative and unbiased documentary on the subject, I even learned new things about my history, thank you for your great effort

[@faisalalsanea4025]

Witch school did you go most arab schools in arabian nations teach this !!!!!

[@fbm010]

@@faisalalsanea4025 not all of it, especially the tribal history, for example I didn’t know that al sabah and al khalifah comes from bani utbah tribe

[@Bunny-zn7ke]

​@@fbm010google search.

[@arome5901]

Love all your videos and your insight in these topics. Keep it up.

[@prxnv]

Thank you for explaining so well! Subbed

[@lazygongfarmer2044]

Very interesting video, really enjoyed it. I would love to learn more about the cultural distinctions between the majority Arab countries, which are rarely talked about and much simplified here in the West

[@papazataklaattiranimam]

Arabic proverb cited by the North African analytic historian Ibn Khaldun of the fourteenth century: dawlah 'ind al-turk, din 'ind al-'arab wa adab 'ind al-furs Power (rests) with the Turk, religion with the Arab, and culture with the Persian.

[@tekhayat5995]

Zirto

[@shadowborn1456]

Stop it you clown 😂

[@Hun_Uinaq]

Never have I ever been so fascinated and engrossed in a video that ultimately gave me a confused and massive headache! Very well done indeed. I learned a lot.…… I think. I’m not so sure I’ll remember all of this. But, it was extremely interesting. I now need a beer.

[@dannyarcher6370]

I love how we Europeans and diaspora live rent free in all their Middle Eastern heads.

[@dragonmaster3207]

Vis versa as well.

[@FreeFallingAir]

This was fantastic, Subscribed!

[@WhatIsThisForAgain]

Well, this type of division ignores a few important factors: These groups did not historically divide themselves by ‘rulers’, but rather by important cities. Cities naturally originate from geography and climate; food and water access being likely the most important factors. Food commodities did not travel long in old times till modern engine powered vehicles and refrigeration, with perhaps exceptions of water routes carrying grains. Also, mountains and other hard-to-cross areas like big rivers, lakes, deserts etc. made for good borders between more centralized powers. In areas where population density was low, such as mountains and desert, rule was established via tribes, some of which still seem to have some sort of impact. I guess before the times of nationalism and national military mobilization, countries and borders didn’t really mean much in this area. Countries were a sum of loosely coupled cities that paid varying degrees of taxed and provided some number of soldiers during war. Even control of natural resources come into play later on, since trade was not this controlled and regulated.

[@sywu111]

2:15 - with Arabs today is as with Slavic people - we all share common linguistic ancestry, but we assimilated so many other genes-pools, other religions, & even other cultures, that today it is near to impossible to find our common traits... Let it be Croats-muslimanBosnyaks-Serbs conflicts or Poles-Russians-Ukrainians conflicts, just to say the most important ones!😅

[@gabrielsotelo2484]

Before i watch: spicy

[@Sr_Lobo_92]

Great content! Just one minor suggestion: you should put your sources in the video description or at the end

[@rudolphmiller]

I am astonished, great work

[@54032Zepol]

GEN Z generals "write that down! Write that down!!"

[@shahabsara1760]

this was fun to watch. the distinction made between shias and sunnis was a little simplistic tho. Shias have more sects because they have been prosecuted minorities, but Shia schools too have historically had major disagreements, specially with regards to the Hellenic concepts and their application to Islamic theology. A good example of this would have been the Minha episode during the Abbasid rule.

[@taggymcshaggy6383]

aye he aknowledges he simplifies the situation alot as discussion of the complexities and history of each religious sect would be too long and require alot of videos

[@lewstherintelamon4289]

Awesome video! The claim that Europeans somehow screwed up the political situation of an entire region always leaves me flabbergasted. I always ask people if they really think that there was love, light and laughter everywhere under Ottoman rule. And if they believe so, how the Balkan Wars were a even thing.

[@I.58.I]

National Identity + the europeans screwed up dividing Iraq for example

[@jamalakinade8175]

Except it did dumass

[@BIGDADDUI]

Not a single lebanese here likes the ottomans, the Europeans were so much better at ruling, but still they had their faults

[@longiusaescius2537]

The Brits definitely did

[@BIGDADDUI]

@@AI-uk1ct finally someone talked about the famine, they only brought small portions of food for the big boy leaders here, and the rest were stolen by high profile corrupt officials A third of our population died, it was horrible It was proportionally worse than the holodomor We never recovered

[@Samz_Sii]

This video gave me a head ache and i'm probably gonna rewatch this a lot while also needing a lot of time to process the information

[@michaelhoffmann2891]

My take-away is that there is no partitioning that would have worked (or would work even today) unless you go down to "countries" the size of dish towels. 🙄 The comparison is to Europe is interesting when considering that the "Goths", "Vandals", "Franks", "Alemanni", even "Huns" were conglomerations of tribes where the origin mattered less and less. We can't even be certain that the name-giving tribe was the dominant one (likely in the beginning but not necessarily later on). For some reason tribalism became a non-issue, with distinction being defined by the rulers, religion and finally the nation-state.

[@dl2839]

Can you imagine what it would be like if people tried to divide the US along racial and religious lines?

[@michaelhoffmann2891]

@@dl2839 I wonder if and how you kept a straight face while typing this. Well done!

[@dl2839]

@@michaelhoffmann2891 If you look at a religious map of the US you'd see it split between Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, and Mormons with a few other groups mixed in. The Ancestry map would be split between African, German, Mexican, Irish, English, Italian, Polish, Japanese, Portuguese, Cuban, Navajo, Soiux, Chippewa, Fillippino, Norwegian, Chinese, Dutch, and French. Ultimately, it would be border gore galore, and pure cancer to look at if it became dividing lines for nations.

[@taggymcshaggy6383]

@@dl2839 theres alot more than that lol. add in Scots, nigerians, lithuanians, russians, ukranians, jews etc

[@Zoltan1251]

@@dl2839 Isnt the issue Islam in reality? With christianity you are dealing with one dude that lived long time ago and its mostly spiritual, while Islam is dealing with who is the real dude right now and its inherently political religion.