Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Radio War Nerd EP #251 — Arab Conquests, Part 3: From Khorasan to Egypt (Patreon)

Published:
2020-10-25 16:52:26
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

Content

Guest: Aamer, podcaster & writer

Recorded: October 21, 2020

In Part 3 of our series on the Arab Conquests in the 7th century (EP #246, #249), the third caliph Umar seizes Sassanid-controlled Iraq, triumphs at the Battle of Nahavand, and chases the Sassanid Empire all the way to Central Asia and extinction . . . meanwhile to the west, the Muslim army crosses the Sinai, defeats the Byzantine Empire at Heliopolis and Alexandria, and takes control of Egypt . . . 

First - we discuss the latest grim news out of Nagorno-Karabakh . . .

At 25:25 - we're joined by Aamer for Part 3 of our series on the Arab Conquests . . . 

*Maps

*Battle of Qadisiyah, Iraq

*Nahavand, Persia (Iran)

*Conquest of Egypt, 639 -642

*Map of Caliphate, 654 AD

Follow Aamer on Twitter here. Check out Aamer's true crime podcast Das Criminal here. Sign up for Aamer's new substack here.

Total time: 2:15:54

Direct link to this episode's mp3 here 

Files

Comments

Kyle Erickson

As a fellow Anglo who learned Arabic in school, I stand with John in his fight against the ع

Kevin Walsh

Hallowe'en has a specific Irish connection - it's the evening before one of the four traditional quarter festivals - Samhain (1st November) - start of Winter, Imbolc (1st February) - start of Spring, Bealtaine (1st May) - start of Summer and Lughnasa (1st August) - start of Autumn. Mayday and Lughnasa aren't celebrated any more, and St Brigid's Day is barely a thing, but Hallowe'en is still going strong.

Nicknimh

This mfer said "dookie."

mark (edited)

Comment edits

2026-09-07 15:00 I've always wondered what the significance of the kaaba was especially in pre islamic times. Or what exactly is the kaaba in the first place. Maybe you can ask Aamer about it? In fact maybe you should consider a q&a section in the podcasts? You had this once and it worked well.
2020-10-29 09:19 I've always wondered what the significance of the kaaba was especially in pre islamic times. Or what exactly is the kaaba in the first place. Maybe you can ask Aamer about it? In fact maybe you should consider a q&a section in the podcasts? You had this once and it worked well.

I've always wondered what the significance of the kaaba was especially in pre islamic times. Or what exactly is the kaaba in the first place. Maybe you can ask Aamer about it? In fact maybe you should consider a q&a section in the podcasts? You had this once and it worked well.

Paul M

You can't really do a short version, but I'm going to try. In early Christianity, there was a debate over the relationship between Jesus and God the Father. The Gospel of Mark gives some evidence that early Christians believed that Jesus "became God" at Baptism. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, argues that Jesus was always the eternal God. By the third century, the different views of Jesus as subordinate to the Father (whether it was believed Jesus was adopted at baptism or was a lesser god) was grouped under the heresy of Arianism and the church called the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople to sort it out. The mainstream position was like god and Jesus being one, but Arianism was popular, particularly among Roman elite (including, likely, Constantine). Arianism wasn't really compatible with monotheism, but it made sense to the Roman elite. Anyway, the Council of Nicaea was supposed to have established Trinitarian Christianity, but left enough loopholes that Arias thought it was ok. The Council of Constantinople modified it to make things clear that the church father elite position was the orthodox view. But there were still questions over the nature of Jesus. The next debate was over a position popularized by Nestorius. This is where the Neoplatonism comes into play, but I won't go into the philosophical jargon. The gist was that some objected to calling Mary Theotokos (Godbearer). The Nestorian view (still practiced today in Iraq, parts of Syria, and in the diaspora) was that Mary was the mother of Jesus, i.e. she only gave birth to the human, and not the mother of God, but that Jesus was still God. There was a fully human and fully divine nature to Christ at birth (so he wasn't adoptionist). Cyril of Alexandria opposed this saying there was only "a nature of the word of god made flesh" (a nature = miaphysite). This was accepted and Nestorianism was condemned as a heresy and they were mostly relegated to the Persian Empire. But then Cyril's formula was debated. On the extreme, you had Jesus being only God and therefore never actually suffered on the cross as a human. Related was the idea that his humanity was lost like a drop of vinegar in the ocean (Eutychianism). More commonly, it was a mix of human and divine. Anyway, Monophysitism includes the drop of vinegar formula, which Miaphysites don't believe. Also, they follow St. Cyril's words. This debate resulted in the Council of Chalcedon. Unlike the first three Councils, the Church in Rome was more interested in this one. They pushed it in the direction of Jesus having a fully human and a fully divine nature, but to square it with St. Cyril, they say he has only one hypostases (sometimes translated as person). This position was rejected in Armenia, Egypt, and Ethiopia. The Roman Emperor (in Constantinople) tried to come up with ideas of keeping church unity (like One Will), but that never worked either because the Latin Church rejected it or the Egyptian. Eventually with the loss of Rome to Germans and the loss of Egypt to Arabs, there was less need. The Roman Catholic Church, for its part, has made amends with some of the Church of the East, saying that the debate of Theotokos was really a mistranslation between Greek and Aramaic. Miaphysitism is still mostly on the outs. There were also Chalcedonians in Alexandria, so there is an emperor's church (Melkite), but for the most part, Egyptian Christians had their faith repressed. And the reason we go with Miaphysite over Monophysite is in part because the persecutors called it Monophysite. (I said you can't do a short version)

Keith O Brien

The etymology of Nagorno-Karabakh is a mixture of Russian and Turkish - Nagorno -'mountainous' (as Mark said) and Kara -'black' Bakh -'garden'. Hence the name of the Thomas de Wall book on the early nineties conflict. Iirc, de Waal mentions Armenian nationalist demonstrations from the late 1980's where chants of 'Garabagh' could be heard. Interesting that the Armenianized version of the Turkish word was used and not the traditional 'Artsakh'.

radiowarnerd

Maybe Artsakh was a minor or archaic noun brought back for political reasons. That happens a lot.

joe

Actually, the "bakh" part is from Persian, so the etymology of NKB is actually a mix of three languages!