Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/15/2003 10:21:17 PM EDT
Was it the Crusades? The last of the Crusader states fell in like 1300. Were there other more recent victories? I know the Turks and Afghans have won battles, but they are not Arabs. Asked to reveal his recipe for winning wars, Israeli General Moshe Dayan replied: "Fight Arabs."
Link Posted: 4/16/2003 3:31:30 PM EDT
I would count the Ottoman empire as arab, even though they were "Turks" (there was no turkey at this time as you know). There was a Large contingent in the Ottoman govt that was Arab. Their was strife between the Turkik elements of the empire and the Arabs. Especially with regard to Arabs wanting an Arab caliphate. Any way due to the fact that the Ottomans were fairly secular, I count them as an arab force. As a large pat of their people were arab. They baisically kicked European ass all the way to Vienna. If Vienna would have fallen we might be Ottomans right now. Here is a question from my up coming history final. The period 1071 - 1699 witnessed a renewed Islamic assault on Western civilization, an assault led by the Turks, who ultimately destroyed the Byzantine empire, occupied southeastern Europe, and dominated the Mediterranean for centuries. In a well organized essay, describe this Islamic assault in terms of the most important military or political events and social movements. Who were the important Islamic leaders and dynasties? What European or Christian leaders and coalitions opposed this Islamic expansion? Why did some Protestant states support the Turks? What role did the sense of holy war play in this struggle? What was the fate of Christians and Jews in the conquered lands? You are proably right about the "arabs" not winning a battle from about 1300-1400 onward, but it is because they became part of the Ottoman Empire. I hope this helped some what.
Link Posted: 4/17/2003 7:18:13 AM EDT
If you count the Ottomans as Arabs, they beat the Russians at Plevna, in the Balkans, I want to say late 1800's. Lost the war but won that battle as I recall. Ottomans also defeated the British at Kut during WW I. Sudanese beat mixed British/Arab (mostly Arab) force at Khartoum late 1800's. Beleive they also beat a mixed British/Egyptian force around the same time.
Link Posted: 4/17/2003 8:01:43 AM EDT
I forgot about the English problems in the Sudan. But are the Sudanese black (or is it African-American? [;)]) or Arab? I don't really know. Turks are not Arabs, and I don't think the Arabs can take credit for Ottoman victories. After all, the Turks conquored the Arabs. And most of the big Ottomon victories were fought with Turks and European/Antolian subjects, not Arabs. Even the final crushing of the Crusader states was performed by Egyptian Malmalukes (sp?), and they were really not Arabs but former slaves from the Asian steppe. Even Saladin was a Kurd, but I have the impression that his force was for the most part Arab.
Link Posted: 4/17/2003 4:30:09 PM EDT
I don't recall the answer to the original question re the last time an arab army defeated a western one, but let me address the issue of the Sudan. The speak arabic as their language, and are 99% muslim by faith. This is all the result of the slave trade indulged in for centuries by their arab neighbors. They are not arab, but are african in origin.
Link Posted: 4/20/2003 10:06:03 AM EDT
if you count the Turks,as Arab, Gallipolli?
Link Posted: 4/22/2003 1:32:15 PM EDT
Just what is an Arab? It's not a religion, it's not a nationality, I don't think it's a race. I would guess our troops in Iraq have a few ideas as to what an Arab is. Just food for thought.
Link Posted: 4/22/2003 7:33:04 PM EDT
Just what is an Arab?
View Quote
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
a : a member of the Semitic people of the Arabian peninsula. b : a member of an Arabic-speaking people.
View Quote
Under that definition, I’m not sure the Ottoman Empire qualifies.
Link Posted: 4/26/2003 6:15:00 PM EDT
I would not tell either a Turk, nor an Arab, that Turks and Arabs are the same thing. Not twice, anyway; if "over there" you would probably die. I believe that is pretty well definitive. They are racially VERY distinct. It takes an incredible ignorance to equate them. I didn't say stupidity, mind you, but ignorance.
Link Posted: 4/26/2003 6:27:27 PM EDT
Didn't Algeria defeat France in their colonial war? Wasn't that in the 50's?
Link Posted: 4/27/2003 8:27:29 PM EDT
I don't think the French really lost any big battles in Algeria. They beat the Algerian guerillas, but the terrorism continued. France and De Gaulle got tired of the terrorism and eventually sold the colonists out and withdrew.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 1:01:55 PM EDT
Well if the Turks aren't Arabs but Western, how about the Arabs kicking the Turks out of Arabia area in WWI? You might better phrase the question Moslem Army against Christian Army. As noted the Arabs basically are a Semitic Tribe/"Nation", mostly from the oh say the middle of Lebanon east through Syria and Iraq and winding south to include the "Marsh Arabs" in the Basra to the Gulf Area. West of there you get Egyptians, north Lebanese, Armenians, Turks, Kurds, Assyrians, "Chaldeans??)and east Persians/Aryans. Notice that these quasi racial delineations do not fall easily into the current political delineations nor are all Arabs Shiites. In Iraq, Most Shiites are Arabs and most other "nationalities" are Sunni or Christians. Again the political boundaries do not coincide with religious boundaries. Get your souvenir program, can't tell the players without a program. I was in a Armenian Restaurant one time and two different groups of people coming in got in a discussion over a table reserved for a group that hadn't arrived, and somebody called somebody else a Persian and I thought we were going to be in an all out every man for himself movie brawl.
Top Top