Comments by "Mint" (@mint8648) on "CaspianReport"
channel.
-
38
-
18
-
14
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonjohns8145 the arab world is so vast that anywhere can be a considered an "edge of empire." the maghreb, and the mashriq can both be considered the heartlands of respective cultures as much as europe is. by all metrics, the ottoman-safavid wars are the spanish succession/30 years/napoleonic wars of the middle east - for example, nader shah is known as the napoleon of the east. i'm also curious as to why you consider the 100 years war in the same category as those other wars you mention, since it was only a war between a few countries, only took place in france, and is as much a war as the moroccan-algerian wars of the early modern period. obviously the arab wars aren't talked because they are overshadowed by the ottoman safavid wars, whose participants were not arab. however, it's worth noting that iraq and khuzestan, then known as arabistan, were ruled by autonomous arab tribes, and the two regions fought each other often on behalf of the ottomans and safavids. as for actual wars between the arab great powers, see the fatimid-hamdanid-abbasid wars of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1