Why is the Middle East as fucked up as it is today? Is it all because how the British and the French messed with their national borders after WW1 or did something already go terribly wrong long before that?
When hasn't shit been going wrong over there? You can hardly say its anything as recent as the British. Being the intersection point between three continents its always been pretty screwy. The birthplace of civilization, but still screwy.
You're speaking pretty relatively there. It was a time period of stability and growth but I hesitate to call that anything more than the result of an empire keeping its foothold strong. And that didn't last long.
>Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire
>British and French Mandates
>the US and USSR fighting proxy wars during the Cold War
>Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Shi'ite Iran fighting proxy wars today
Except the height of Middle Eastern civilization was reached under Islamic rule.
Just as an example, Baghdad, a city built by the Sunni Abbasid dynasty in the 8th century, was the largest, most sophisticated, and most technologically and infrastructurally advanced city the Middle East had ever seen up until that time.
Not really, they were in severe stagnation and had gone past the point of no return.
They were only postponing their demise by heavily taxing their subjects, which is why the Islamic conquests were welcomed as a relief by the poorer locals (the jizyah tax ended up being much cheaper than the Sassanian taxes).
>, if Sassanids and Rome and put them differences aside and crushed Islam when it started, the Middle East would be 10x better today
Part of the reason why many people turned to Islam is because the Sassanids and the Romans fighting made the middle east into a unstable shithole.
>Why is the Middle East as fucked up as it is today?
Iraq? We invaded the country and disbanded the military and the ex-army men became terrorists. Before that British drew borders to ensure a Sunni Majority to create a Kingdom for Faisal (the guy in Lawrence of Arabia) of course it entailed putting Sunni/Shia/Kurds together.
Saudi Arabia? Oil was discovered. Saudis discovered they needed to spread religious terror to legitimize their rule. OBL went to Afghanistan to fight Soviets, the rest is history.
Lebanon, France wanted to create a Maronite Christian state. But demographics went against them. Muslims became a larger majority. A terrible civil war broke out.
Syria? Alawites became the dominant force despite being a minority via military coup. A civil war follows the Arab Spring. The leftovers of Al Qaida in Iraq move into Syria.
Syria. Asads carries out a military coup.
Not really at all. The Sassanids were still economically powerful and stable, not undergoing any droughts or famines or any sort of outbreak of diseases and had plenty of manpower. The biggest issue was the death of the last great emperor, Khosrau II Parviz left a power vacuum with his son failing to hold the throne leading to a crisis over who would lead the dynasty for several years.
The reason why historians point out why Roman-Parthian, Roman-Persian, and Byzantine-Persian Wars had such a major impact on the Mediterranean and Near Eastern regions is because of the far ranging long effect influencing events the wars would have to coincidence with the rise of the Arab Caliphates and Islam's domination.
But severe stagnation is a bullshit. The Persians were not completely demoralized from their loss in the final war with the Byzantines, Heraculis was unable to siege or take Cestiphon or anything east of it, he was dangerously overextended and the war ultimately set things back to the status before it started under Khosrau II.
Had there been more time for Yazdegerd III to stabilize his rule and if certain mishaps didn't happen with coordinating between Persian and Byzantine forces to not underestimate the Arab threat, Islam very well could've been contained to Arabia at least for another century or two.
Long time ago, most of middle east was under the persian control.
Islam came then said fuck you fire worshipers.
And ever since then persian want to take vengeance from someone who passed away centuries ago, so they choosed a martyr and started disfigure his legacy.
>But it is impossible to know what could have happened if Islam did not come
So why do you go to the extreme and say 'it would definitely have been better'
Wishful thinking and shows you really don't belong in any historical discussion.
basically Sassanid Persians and Byzantines were fighting heavily before Islam came
The Byzantines had declined all the way back to Anatolia, and Persians were making their way into the region. The Byzantines were also suffering from severe plague. It is entirely possible that if Islam didn't come and caused Arabs to defeat the Persians, the Persians would have further expanded into Anatolia, and eventually reach Constantinople. I mean it is butterfly effect as fuck, but imagine if the ultra anti-Christian Persians sacking Constantinople, converting churches into fire temples, converting the Hagia Sophia into a huge Zorostarian temple and then eventually making it's way further into Europe. It could have potentially destroyed Christian nations.
We know that the Sassanid emperors had huge ambitions to be the Shah-en-Shah (King of all Kings). They wanted to take over the world
I mean it is actually possible, that Islam saved Christendom, and Arabs prevented the possible fall of Christianity in Europe
>converting churches into fire temples, converting the Hagia Sophia into a huge Zorostarian temple
I have many alt history fantasies about this. Especially if Mazdak's ideologies had spread and replaced Christian-European Pagan ideologies (not attacking Christianity here, just a thought)
My other fantasy is what if Muslims won in Tours.
I really must say but Islam is literally the greatest turning point in history