Oh-kay.
I watched the whole thing. Did a remarkable job trying to cover so much. However, the accuracy far outweighed some nitpicks. (castle origin, ad the like).
The most important one is not even a nitpick, but an important detail:
Re this:
Quote:
"Less than a generation after the Prophet's death, Christian North Africa has fallen to Islam."
What he said is accurate, but it overlooks something of importance that makes the Muslims look stronger than they were. Eastern Rome and Persia had just fought a knock-down drag out war. Persia lost, Byzantium won, but it was an exhausting victory for both sides. That war had closed down in 628 CE with the Byzantine seige of Ctesiphon. Off in Arabia, Muhammad died in June 632. Islam attacked both empires in force just after---in that weakened state == in 636 they defeat the Persians at al Qadisiya, and the Byzantines at Yarmuk. Syria is lost to the Christians as a result; the Persians left in even worse shape. In 642 Persia falls to them after the Battle of Nihawand. Alexandria came under seige, and was betrayed and surrendered by a Quisling character also in 642. By 668 Eastern Rome has lost Egypt, the Holy Land, and Syria. But you can see that though that was a stunning advance, its because of the great `world war' level of fighting between Persia and Byzantium that had ended barely a decade before.
The rest of the video is very accurate about the progress of the Muslim expansion and imperialism. But it overlooks the role played by the fact that Islam split into competing Caliphates such as the Fatimids and Abassids (we are talking about simultaneously existing in the Bagdad area, as verusu North Africa centered around Egypt. This phenomena would occur in other places. Spain would become one. And this is not even mentioning the split between Sunni and Shi'ia, which creates the Persian elements associated with Iran and alot of Iraq. But this factors more for understanding some of the politics, and does not change his message.
Particularly important was his reminder of a "forgotten" little remarked upon period--- all the Islamic incursions in Europe prior to the Crusades launch of 1095- -- the forgotten history of the Mediterranean and the sea-raiding. The last strong phase of the Byzantine navy is important in this period, as is the rise of the city states of Naples, Genoa, Venice. But like many things in the Middle Ages, fighting among themselves was just as common. Same with the Muslims.
Another good reminder was the
even more forgotten and overlooked Balkan wars breaking away from Ottoman rule in the 19th Century. That recent. Some may have heard of Armenia --- its connection to the Greek East and the Greek War of Independence was playing out as late as the atrocities there just after WW I. The Serbian issues of the 90's also have some ties there, but go all the way back to the original fall of the Balkans to the Ottomans. The 19th C and Turkish policy toward Palestine and sell of land there has more to do with creating the present, incidentally. 19th C outside American history -- and 1870-to WW I is oddly strongly neglected in American attention regarding other countries---just flashes of the British Empire's work --- holds many keys to those interested.
He was absolutely right in what he said about slavery and how it operated. The last vestiges (before its considerable revival under the bad leadership of the 21st C) of the North African slavery is the famous Barbary Pirates phase. Appropriately enough, the birth period of the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Navy in international action was retaliating against this, and setting a new tone.
His concluding remarks, though said in pundit fashion, were very telling and on the mark about the absolutely destructive effects of PC-Leftism on Europe in the undermining of their history, the promotion of self-hatred, and the carrying too far "self-criticism" when other cultures records on almost all points is far worse. His concluding message that the gift of Western civilization will be lost if Europe (and America) continues on its course of self-attack and self-hatred, is true enough.
Fortunately it looks like the PC-Left and especially the more Obamian agenda, was sharply refuted last month in America, and it looks like its nature is becoming more clearly seen to rank and file. But as the history shows, the overall selective omission of pretty much everyone else's record while ripping Europe's is an ongoing destructive thing to be mindful of.
Remark: What makes it important is its accurate narration of much of the sequence. But even in the commentary posted here, its easy to slip into the mistake of thinking it is part of some plan. When you read of those periods, only in the general sense of the religious command, could the expansions be said to have been planned, and at times were reacting to something, as much as causing it.
This is important to note, because he is far more accurate about the destructive impact of the regressive left agenda today on Europe in their `western shaming' and running down European history (we see it spectacularly here too), and how at a time when surrounded by `sociopathic and destructive cultures' it is the worst thing to do. But like all things, pay more attention to the narrative fact sequence on its own merits, rather than the tone presented. That also goes for this commentary. Investigate on your own.
Rating: Excellent and fairly accurate overview of sequence of events. Encourage further reading and study to form your own opinions about how much of it is part of some movement, or was the chaotic forces of the Medieval Ages and the post Roman collapse period taking effect.