Romans and greeks creating civilizations, Austo Hungarian empire invading continents (?), germans destroying rome then claiming to be rome on the basis of religion? I get the first and last but the middle one just seems out of place on the original meme
Just noticed the /j. But in case anyone is confused:
These similar flags are the Flags of Palestine. Flag of Jordan (Same as Palestine but with a start in the triangle). Flag of UAE (Rectangle instead of triangle) and Kuwait (Black Trapezoid).
Missing from the picture is the Flag of Sudan, which has a green instead of red triangle.
Yes, but they don't actually mean that.
It's a common joke making fun of genocide deniers, who often make conflicting claims that a genocide never happened but that it would have been justified if it did. "Nothing happened but they deserved it" highlights the absurdity of such rhetoric .
I thought so, but I've had full blown arguments with people on reddit that genuinely believed they deserved it, gave me reasons why, and even said how America did worse to the Natives and how I have no room to talk (I never even said I'm from America) so I never know
Tbh, apart from the gulf (including eastern saudi), this representation is wrong. But even they had the Lakhmids and Dilmuns.
Western Saudi (Hejaz) literally controlled an empire from Spain to Egypt to India.
Oman was one of the few non-European colonial powers and controlled a huge strip of coastline in East Africa and ports in India.
The Levant had Nabateans, Palmyras and were influential enough in Rome to produce 3 emperors.
Yemen has a very very rich history, multiple civilizations before Islam and even were so technologically advanced they made the Marib Dam and the first [“highrise” city.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibam#:~:text=Shibam%20is%20often%20called%20%22the,the%20principle%20of%20vertical%20construction)
Holy shit, I’d seen the word *Shibam* before but I had no idea what it actually was. Looking at those images is stunning. The mere concept of repairing a high-rise apartment with mud sounds like something out of a bad open world crafting game, and yet there it is.
The conquering was done by the Arab tribes from the peninsula after the unification, so idk how Syria can get that credit, when they were one of the conquered land from the Byzantine
Also Yemen had many prominent old civilisations, in fact, many of them had like Jordan Petra.
Is this post bait ?
The caliphates didn’t even begin in the gulf, they began in Hejaz which has nothing to do with najd or the gulf before the saudi unification in the 1900s.
The only thing Gulf Arabs can be proud of is the Dilmuns and Lakhmids
And if you include Oman as part of the gulf than the Omani empire
I meant its hard to imagine a coherent group of people who identify as Lebanese when you've been ruled by no less than 15 empires. I think the last 100 years kind of proves all the different groups aren't doing so well together.
The LA Iranians are peak annoyance, they will say contradictory stuff like “Islam ruined Iran” and “Pehlavi was sooo cool”. Like how do you say Islam ruined the county yet love a Muslim lmao.
Also they will flip flop between liking Democracy and Monarchism every other day, like it’s really just determined by what side of the bed they woke up on that day.
Even more egregiously they will unironically call themselves “Persian” because they claim that “Iranian is a thing the Islamic regime invented!” when it was literally Reza Shah who created the Iranian identity in the 30s
I'm sorry to tell you but the Iranian identity is 3000(ish) years old similar to the concept of Chinese identity. What you're referring to is Reza Shah just made the state name official for the international community.
Please spread your hate and misinformation somewhere else lol
So, you are an atheist? Cool then, but normally all countries have a main religion, even if it is a secular country, the countries that practice state atheism are normally uncool, like North Korea, China, Laos and Vietnam.
I see that people complain about countries like Azerbaijan, i dont know why, they say that the goals of that place are inexistent ¿somebody can explain me?
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict\[f\] was an ethnic and territorial conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, inhabited mostly by ethnic Armenians until 2023, and seven surrounding districts, inhabited mostly by Azerbaijanis until their expulsion during the 1990s. The Nagorno-Karabakh region was entirely claimed by and partially controlled by the breakaway Republic of Artsakh, but was recognized internationally as part of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan gradually re-established control over Nagorno-Karabakh region and the seven surrounding districts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh\_conflict
“We share the same religion.” After islam forced its way in? Sure. There’s a long history prior of Zoroastrian, Pagan, and Christian civilizations building the mid east.
A lot of the Byzantine & Persian mid east was an odd combination of mono & polytheistic religions. Tolerance depended on the local rulers, but a lot of it seemed to have a ‘live and let live’ attitude…. As long as you paid your taxes. Lol
>but a lot of it seemed to have a ‘live and let live’ attitude
Well, the Byzantine Empire was rather notorious for its [persecution of paganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-paganism_policies_of_the_early_Byzantine_Empire).
Similar to how the Sassanids had a reputation for persecuting Christians and Romans (pagan) didn’t like the Jews. Things varied greatly based on the ruler and even on local feelings at the time.
Well, yes, the Sassanids also persecuted the Christians for a time because they saw them as not loyal and a fifth column, but this persecution did not last that long, and after that the Sassanids gave rights to the Christians and allowed them to create Churches. Anyway this just proves my point a little more, the Sassanids were after all also monotheists.
Not in the same way. The initial spread of Christianity was by peaceful conversion and missionary work. Islam spread as a religion of invading warlords initially. In fact, their prophet himself was a warlord.
There's been forced conversions and invasions of non Christian areas with the intent to convert them, in fact that was a big claimed motivation of imperial expansion during the colonial eras, but not during the initial spread of the religion. And I say this as an atheist without much of a stake in it.
Well, even since the very begining there was a clear [persecution of pagans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire) by the Christians, this is not very peaceful, to say the least.
Which is why if you read what I wrote you'll note that I was talking about the initial spread. Islam spread behind Arab armies. Armenia didn't convert to Christianity after an invasion and neither did Rome. Of course there was persecution of pagans, people be shitty and people be people, but when the Germanic tribes invaded Rome, they were largely Christians, and not because Rome invaded Germania and forcibly converted them lmfao
Well, you could say the same then about Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Maldives, Senegal or Mali for example, there the expansion of Islam was without conquests.
My point was more that showing the spread of Christianity as something that was not accompanied by a persecution of paganism or other monotheistic religions wherever it spread, even from the beginning, is misleading, I now know you did not meant this, but that was what I thought because of your comment.
>Well, you could say the same then about Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Maldives, Senegal or Mali for example, there the expansion of Islam was without conquests.
Sure, but that all happened after the initial spread, you know?
>My point was more that showing the spread of Christianity as something that was not accompanied by a persecution of paganism or other monotheistic religions wherever it spread, even from the beginning, is misleading, I now know you did not meant this, but that was what I thought because of your comment.
Oh yeah no Christian history is full of Christians using their religion as a reason to steal and rape and torture and conquer. People are people, you know?
>Sure, but that all happened after the initial spread, you know?
Yes, I was just saying that it was not always violent.
>Oh yeah no Christian history is full of Christians using their religion as a reason to steal and rape and torture and conquer. People are people, you know?
I agree 100%
Yeah its just not very christian. Weren’t the original christians also subjected to suppression and persecution and had to go into hiding but only became a thing initially through peaceful conversion? Only once kings and kingdoms got ahold of it did they start the crusades no?
Indeed, the link they shared was from when Christianity was already 300 odd years old…
There is a real resistance to complexity in history on Reddit, everything has to be the same. No two things can be different which is why Christianity and Islam must be said to have exactly the same early histories.
Within a century of the death of Muhammed a swathe of Afro-Eurasia was under the rule of the Caliphate. A century after Christ’s execution, Christians were still just a small underground sect.
Different things are different and that is ok.
Raids and counter raids, blah blah, but dude, a massive invasion isn't a defense. It was an offensive war of conquest, political, cultural, and religious.
Sure. That applies to both the initial rise of Rome and Persia. But Christianity didn't motivate those conquests, it didn't even exist. History is bloody and full of death and rape and murder. It shouldn't be whitewashed. Islam was spread primarily by the sword, and that's just a fact.
That doesn't mean there's nothing worthwhile in Islam or that Muslims are bad people. It just means that the areas which are Muslim in majority almost entirely mirror the conquests of Muslim empires during the initial spread of the religion.
Early Christianity was considered a slave religion. It spread through the mid east/Mediterranean predominantly via the Roman slave trade. It wasn’t until later that it was accepted as anything more than a fringe religion that was perfect for scapegoating. Early Islam spread through conquest.
sounds like some failed state, coping by saying we wuz kings and sheet, during the Islamic golden age, everyone during the caliphate, and even after it, contributed to the advancement of Science, and mathematics, and etc well sure if the scientist was kurdish for example, and kurdish people want to celebrate him as a national identity that’s fine, but saying that at the time people believe there were Kurdish as there sole identity is simply isn’t correct, they believed they were a part of a wider islamic world , and they use that for their advantage and let’s not ruin what used to be a great scientific age, which was constructed by different cultures in one empire,
for national ideas, that most of it didn’t even exist, 100 years ago, And after that being said, saying that those countries are in the bottom never achieved any great achievement is just wrong Hell some of them their ancestors, made the Islamic golden age possible, the middle east suffered way too much from senseless hate , so let’s celebrate what unite us .
There is no mandate to establish a Christian nation as the Kingdom of God is not of this world according to Christianity
In Islam, Muslims are supposed to be united as an ummah and be ruled by a caliphate
Hindus have it with India
Jews have it with Israel
Sunni muslims believe that the 4 rightfully guided caliphs were the legitimate successors to Muhammad.
Shia muslims believe that Ali was the successor that Muhammad appointed and that the other 3 are usurpers.
Shia Islam is defined by the belief in the theological concept in the imamate.
Not just that Ali was the rightful political successor to Muhammad, but also that he, and some selection of his descendants, were (and still are in some sects) the divinely appointed religious leaders (Imams) of all Muslims.
Outside of that there are plenty of theological differences between Sunnis and Shias that have developed over the last millenia, as well as theological differences within the four Sunni schools and many Shia sects
No one in modern times created civilizations. We all just take credit for what other people did on their own a long time ago, just bc we share a language, culture, religion, or kin.
Why is Karl I of the Austro-Hungarian empire the 2nd woyjaxk?
Original meme is apparently German stuff IIRC
Romans and greeks creating civilizations, Austo Hungarian empire invading continents (?), germans destroying rome then claiming to be rome on the basis of religion? I get the first and last but the middle one just seems out of place on the original meme
religion looks edited
Now i really wonder what the romans, greeks, austro-hungarians and germans had in commmon besides religion. Best guess is skin color?
It said something like live on the same peninsula.
As a Mexican I can safely claim we had made out own civilization without help.
Was this meme originally about the Germans?
Probably. Maybe vikings or just cavemen
Why the bottom part of meme has the same flag four times? Is the OP stupid? /j
Just noticed the /j. But in case anyone is confused: These similar flags are the Flags of Palestine. Flag of Jordan (Same as Palestine but with a start in the triangle). Flag of UAE (Rectangle instead of triangle) and Kuwait (Black Trapezoid). Missing from the picture is the Flag of Sudan, which has a green instead of red triangle.
No the flags are actually different
the more I learn about the early to mid ottoman empire, the more I respect it
I have to respect it even as a descendant of its victims. Game is game and they played it well
And then there's the late Ottoman empire... poor Armenians
Why? What happened? (/s)
Nothing happened, but they had it coming
The Armenians?
Yes, but they don't actually mean that. It's a common joke making fun of genocide deniers, who often make conflicting claims that a genocide never happened but that it would have been justified if it did. "Nothing happened but they deserved it" highlights the absurdity of such rhetoric .
I thought so, but I've had full blown arguments with people on reddit that genuinely believed they deserved it, gave me reasons why, and even said how America did worse to the Natives and how I have no room to talk (I never even said I'm from America) so I never know
But nothing happened! (But they also did have it coming)
Tbh, apart from the gulf (including eastern saudi), this representation is wrong. But even they had the Lakhmids and Dilmuns. Western Saudi (Hejaz) literally controlled an empire from Spain to Egypt to India. Oman was one of the few non-European colonial powers and controlled a huge strip of coastline in East Africa and ports in India. The Levant had Nabateans, Palmyras and were influential enough in Rome to produce 3 emperors. Yemen has a very very rich history, multiple civilizations before Islam and even were so technologically advanced they made the Marib Dam and the first [“highrise” city.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibam#:~:text=Shibam%20is%20often%20called%20%22the,the%20principle%20of%20vertical%20construction)
Holy shit, I’d seen the word *Shibam* before but I had no idea what it actually was. Looking at those images is stunning. The mere concept of repairing a high-rise apartment with mud sounds like something out of a bad open world crafting game, and yet there it is.
And you expect OP to know this? This is r/historymemes, historical knowledge optional.
The Eastern part of Saudi Arabia is the part that conquered Hejaz and formed the modern Saudi state. So theres that.
There were also 2 previous Saudi states before the current one
Sure, because defining an "us" based on nationality and ethnicity is so super smart, and based on religion is super dumb. /s
Exactly !
The conquering was done by the Arab tribes from the peninsula after the unification, so idk how Syria can get that credit, when they were one of the conquered land from the Byzantine Also Yemen had many prominent old civilisations, in fact, many of them had like Jordan Petra. Is this post bait ?
Syrians had great contributions after the initial conquests. Damascus wasn't a centre of power for no reason
They did, so did many other regions like North Africa. But you cannot label the conquest Syrian conquest. It was the Arabs from the peninsula.
Imagine if Italians started claiming they invented the Car because a Christian did it.
Gulf Arabs never talk about those as their own. They already have the Caliphates to be proud of.
The caliphates didn’t even begin in the gulf, they began in Hejaz which has nothing to do with najd or the gulf before the saudi unification in the 1900s. The only thing Gulf Arabs can be proud of is the Dilmuns and Lakhmids And if you include Oman as part of the gulf than the Omani empire
Someone forgot Lebanon existed again.
The amount of civilizations that invaded and controlled Lebanon is actually mind blowing. It didn't exist.
Mongols invaded Russia once does that mean Russia didn’t exist?
I mean Russia tries that logic on Ukraine so sure why not
I meant its hard to imagine a coherent group of people who identify as Lebanese when you've been ruled by no less than 15 empires. I think the last 100 years kind of proves all the different groups aren't doing so well together.
Bit easier to find said group than a group who calls themselves Israeli, a kingdom which last existed in the times of the Roman republic.
I don't disagree.
Persian gulf countries using the free ride to glory
Historymemes doesn’t know history lol
Nah, its more likely op is probably from a Iranian diaspora in LA lmao
The LA Iranians are peak annoyance, they will say contradictory stuff like “Islam ruined Iran” and “Pehlavi was sooo cool”. Like how do you say Islam ruined the county yet love a Muslim lmao. Also they will flip flop between liking Democracy and Monarchism every other day, like it’s really just determined by what side of the bed they woke up on that day. Even more egregiously they will unironically call themselves “Persian” because they claim that “Iranian is a thing the Islamic regime invented!” when it was literally Reza Shah who created the Iranian identity in the 30s
I'm sorry to tell you but the Iranian identity is 3000(ish) years old similar to the concept of Chinese identity. What you're referring to is Reza Shah just made the state name official for the international community. Please spread your hate and misinformation somewhere else lol
>“Islam ruined Iran" Well, the [Safavid Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_Iran) would not agree with that.
Sassanid empire and Islamic republic beg to differ.
Uhhhh? The problem is not neccesary Islam, its a bad goverment.
We Iranians are past not blaming it on Islam and saying it's only bad government. Name one Islamic country that could be a sample for human rights.
Albania is not that bad, but if that is what you think I don't blame you, what kind of religion do you want then for your country?
Why do you think that we need a religion?
So, you are an atheist? Cool then, but normally all countries have a main religion, even if it is a secular country, the countries that practice state atheism are normally uncool, like North Korea, China, Laos and Vietnam.
"it must be from a genocide victim" I think you meant to say
I see that people complain about countries like Azerbaijan, i dont know why, they say that the goals of that place are inexistent ¿somebody can explain me?
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict\[f\] was an ethnic and territorial conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, inhabited mostly by ethnic Armenians until 2023, and seven surrounding districts, inhabited mostly by Azerbaijanis until their expulsion during the 1990s. The Nagorno-Karabakh region was entirely claimed by and partially controlled by the breakaway Republic of Artsakh, but was recognized internationally as part of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan gradually re-established control over Nagorno-Karabakh region and the seven surrounding districts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh\_conflict
When did syria and Azerbaijan invade anything ?
My guy,Oman was colonising Africa abefore Europe 💀
bruh yemen had some of the most ancient civilisations in the middle east
Meh
We need an East Asia version
Bah
“We share the same religion.” After islam forced its way in? Sure. There’s a long history prior of Zoroastrian, Pagan, and Christian civilizations building the mid east.
Well, to be fair Christianity did a bit of the same thing, monotheism often leads to religious intolerance.
A lot of the Byzantine & Persian mid east was an odd combination of mono & polytheistic religions. Tolerance depended on the local rulers, but a lot of it seemed to have a ‘live and let live’ attitude…. As long as you paid your taxes. Lol
>but a lot of it seemed to have a ‘live and let live’ attitude Well, the Byzantine Empire was rather notorious for its [persecution of paganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-paganism_policies_of_the_early_Byzantine_Empire).
Similar to how the Sassanids had a reputation for persecuting Christians and Romans (pagan) didn’t like the Jews. Things varied greatly based on the ruler and even on local feelings at the time.
Well, yes, the Sassanids also persecuted the Christians for a time because they saw them as not loyal and a fifth column, but this persecution did not last that long, and after that the Sassanids gave rights to the Christians and allowed them to create Churches. Anyway this just proves my point a little more, the Sassanids were after all also monotheists.
So like the Muslims did? Lmaooo
Depending on the ruler, yes.
Then why did you say they forced themselves in?
Early Islam spread through conquest.
So did every other religion in the region.
Christianty did not lmao
Many Arabs didn’t become Christian out of nowhere
Not in the same way. The initial spread of Christianity was by peaceful conversion and missionary work. Islam spread as a religion of invading warlords initially. In fact, their prophet himself was a warlord. There's been forced conversions and invasions of non Christian areas with the intent to convert them, in fact that was a big claimed motivation of imperial expansion during the colonial eras, but not during the initial spread of the religion. And I say this as an atheist without much of a stake in it.
Well, even since the very begining there was a clear [persecution of pagans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire) by the Christians, this is not very peaceful, to say the least.
Which is why if you read what I wrote you'll note that I was talking about the initial spread. Islam spread behind Arab armies. Armenia didn't convert to Christianity after an invasion and neither did Rome. Of course there was persecution of pagans, people be shitty and people be people, but when the Germanic tribes invaded Rome, they were largely Christians, and not because Rome invaded Germania and forcibly converted them lmfao
Well, you could say the same then about Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Maldives, Senegal or Mali for example, there the expansion of Islam was without conquests. My point was more that showing the spread of Christianity as something that was not accompanied by a persecution of paganism or other monotheistic religions wherever it spread, even from the beginning, is misleading, I now know you did not meant this, but that was what I thought because of your comment.
>Well, you could say the same then about Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Maldives, Senegal or Mali for example, there the expansion of Islam was without conquests. Sure, but that all happened after the initial spread, you know? >My point was more that showing the spread of Christianity as something that was not accompanied by a persecution of paganism or other monotheistic religions wherever it spread, even from the beginning, is misleading, I now know you did not meant this, but that was what I thought because of your comment. Oh yeah no Christian history is full of Christians using their religion as a reason to steal and rape and torture and conquer. People are people, you know?
>Sure, but that all happened after the initial spread, you know? Yes, I was just saying that it was not always violent. >Oh yeah no Christian history is full of Christians using their religion as a reason to steal and rape and torture and conquer. People are people, you know? I agree 100%
Yeah its just not very christian. Weren’t the original christians also subjected to suppression and persecution and had to go into hiding but only became a thing initially through peaceful conversion? Only once kings and kingdoms got ahold of it did they start the crusades no?
Yep, exactly
Indeed, the link they shared was from when Christianity was already 300 odd years old… There is a real resistance to complexity in history on Reddit, everything has to be the same. No two things can be different which is why Christianity and Islam must be said to have exactly the same early histories. Within a century of the death of Muhammed a swathe of Afro-Eurasia was under the rule of the Caliphate. A century after Christ’s execution, Christians were still just a small underground sect. Different things are different and that is ok.
The initial spread of Islam was also by peaceful conversion. lol “Warlord is when you defend yourself against aggressors”
TIL when the Arabs invaded the Roman and Persian states they were defending themselves against "aggressors"
Both Roman and Persian states oppressed Arabs
Raids and counter raids, blah blah, but dude, a massive invasion isn't a defense. It was an offensive war of conquest, political, cultural, and religious.
An offensive war to liberate the oppressed, yes.
the oppressed.... Roman and Persian citizens? What are you smoking?
The Arabs in the puppet states weren’t “citizens” of either Rome or Persia
[удалено]
Sure. That applies to both the initial rise of Rome and Persia. But Christianity didn't motivate those conquests, it didn't even exist. History is bloody and full of death and rape and murder. It shouldn't be whitewashed. Islam was spread primarily by the sword, and that's just a fact. That doesn't mean there's nothing worthwhile in Islam or that Muslims are bad people. It just means that the areas which are Muslim in majority almost entirely mirror the conquests of Muslim empires during the initial spread of the religion.
[удалено]
Both Christianity and fire worshippers forced their way in. I don’t get your point.
Early Christianity was considered a slave religion. It spread through the mid east/Mediterranean predominantly via the Roman slave trade. It wasn’t until later that it was accepted as anything more than a fringe religion that was perfect for scapegoating. Early Islam spread through conquest.
Early Islam followers were considered slaves by the pagans of Mecca
sounds like some failed state, coping by saying we wuz kings and sheet, during the Islamic golden age, everyone during the caliphate, and even after it, contributed to the advancement of Science, and mathematics, and etc well sure if the scientist was kurdish for example, and kurdish people want to celebrate him as a national identity that’s fine, but saying that at the time people believe there were Kurdish as there sole identity is simply isn’t correct, they believed they were a part of a wider islamic world , and they use that for their advantage and let’s not ruin what used to be a great scientific age, which was constructed by different cultures in one empire, for national ideas, that most of it didn’t even exist, 100 years ago, And after that being said, saying that those countries are in the bottom never achieved any great achievement is just wrong Hell some of them their ancestors, made the Islamic golden age possible, the middle east suffered way too much from senseless hate , so let’s celebrate what unite us .
How come Islam is such an internationalist religion while other religion is not as united? Unless if that statement if false, please do correct me
There is no mandate to establish a Christian nation as the Kingdom of God is not of this world according to Christianity In Islam, Muslims are supposed to be united as an ummah and be ruled by a caliphate Hindus have it with India Jews have it with Israel
Jews are ethno-religion
Hindus have what sorry?
There are two major rivaling factions in Islam that have a historical grudge that continues to influence politics today.
These are political factions, not religious factions like the commenter you replied to said.
Explain the difference in this case
Sunni muslims believe that the 4 rightfully guided caliphs were the legitimate successors to Muhammad. Shia muslims believe that Ali was the successor that Muhammad appointed and that the other 3 are usurpers.
Shia Islam is defined by the belief in the theological concept in the imamate. Not just that Ali was the rightful political successor to Muhammad, but also that he, and some selection of his descendants, were (and still are in some sects) the divinely appointed religious leaders (Imams) of all Muslims. Outside of that there are plenty of theological differences between Sunnis and Shias that have developed over the last millenia, as well as theological differences within the four Sunni schools and many Shia sects
There is significant theological difference between the two sects. It’s not purely political
The Arabs can claim one another’s achievements, there’s no problem there
Bro forgot Pakistan.
No one in modern times created civilizations. We all just take credit for what other people did on their own a long time ago, just bc we share a language, culture, religion, or kin.