Rantings of a Sandmonkey
A quick interactive regional history lesson for everyone!
fascinating. What is your take on this?
That was awesome.
Isn’t it fascinating – Egypt has been conquered so many times. Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantine, Arabs, Fatimid, Abbasid, Mamlukes, Ottomans, British. I think that covers it. No wonder Egypt is so f’d up!
Throughout history the world’s fascination with Egypt is truly amazing. I wonder if the world’s previous conqerors would take any interest in present-day Egypt…sadly, they’d probably skip right past it.
This is what I call hot piece of Real Estate.
Hey Sam, thought you would appreciate that link. Sorry to hear you won’t be back in the US anytime soon. Canada is the next best thing, and they probably won’t turn you over to the CIA like last time…………….
Last I checked, Jerusalem has been conquered 37 times. It’s amazing just to think about it. London’s been conquered, what? 3 times?
“Last I checked, Jerusalem has been conquered 37 times.”
Ironically, guess who was the fist to conquer it.
Damn we Jews were crappy conquerers
Yet another reason I read this blog every day.
It’s not very accurate.
Puniqe, explain yourself.
This one might be better for giving muslims some perspective on the middle east:
So cool!! Forgivingness and love conquers hate and violence.
Some borders are wrong. Some things are left out. Some things are misrepresented. Details, basically. The general gist of it is ok, but there are many historical errors.
I mean it is overly simplified just because it has to be to work in the form it is presented, but some errors can’t be explained just by that.
Could you clarify your statement “but some errors can’t be explained by that [simplification]“. For example…………?
There are many. For example:
The non-existence of the Parthians and how Mesopotamia is shown Roman.
The borders of the Sassanid empire, which are vastly exxagerated, and the way the Byzantines disappear at their appearance. (Note that there are parts where they have several states shown together at the same time, so there’s no reason why they would not have both of these shown, with the right borders, at the appearance of the Arab Muslim Khalifate.)
The way the crusaders disappear at the appearance of Salah-el-Deen when it was the Mammeluks later on (and after the Mongols had been stopped) that drove out the Crusaders.
The non-existence of the Mammeluks. I mean, it would have made a lot more sense to leave out Salah-el-Deen’s shortlived dynasty, between the Fatimids and them, than to leave them out.
I could have done a much better job.
Nobody alive today had anything to do with all that. Why can’t they just deal with what they got? Who cares what they did, what are they going to do for an encore? Well, that was a stupid question, we see what they’re doing for an encore.
“and they probably won’t turn you over to the CIA like last time…………….”
Heh??!! Sandmonkey, care to share the story with us?
Punique – I was also a bit surprised about the lack of Mamluks – I watched it twice to see if I hadn’t missed something …
Still, it’s pretty cool though
Cruzaders had to disapear at the first appearance of Salah al Din, after all he was a Kurd.
Yes, they could do it better, nevertheless it was quite a fun to watch.
Return to top of page
Copyright © 2013 · Sandmonkey by Adeptplus · Log in