Will egypt ever become a superpower again?

It sure was a shit superpower
La
Nice meme

by the way, Egypt 150 years ago was bigger than that.

Attached: Egypt_under_Muhammad_Ali_Dynasty_map_de.png (1998x2253, 1.04M)

They were superpower ruled by the Black Nubian Bulls inseminating women all around the mediterrean

>Certainly not under Ramses 2 or Ancient Egypt
Why

Based and blackpilled

Ottoman clay

Ugh...

If they learn Haskell, then yes.

They were on their way to be Egyptian clay

He would sell the whole country if they told him to
Even if he wasn't controlled by them, he is also a very stupid """leader"""

>be Egypt
>only leader of not in the last thousand years was Albanian
Absolute state.

>Ottoman in the 19th
>Having any clay or power
lmao

Attached: 111.png (694x384, 27K)

>not
*note

>He would sell the whole country if they told him to
There are more angels to the islands thing.
And he told to fuck themselves with the Yemen war
>Even if he wasn't controlled by them, he is also a very stupid """leader"""
Better than what you have honestly who thinks he can combat Islamisim by some laws

I still don't understand how he can't speak decent fus7a and has to talk like a dirty peasant every time he appears

You just don't know much

He talks the local dialect. Everyone in power should follow suite t.bh

The bl*cks bulls were fucked by the berber bvlls and the turk bvlls who united their forces to beat the crap of their negroids friends.
I'm not sure if we're speaking about the same period tho. I'm speaking about the 10th Egypt.

Berber bvlls and nubian one did fought in ancient egypt too (sheshonq's dynasty)

Ancient Egypt was really great in so many aspects but it did peak in a military pov in the medieval period (fatimid, ayyubid, mameluk). Ancient Egypt had its moment and was a regional power tho, it's just that middle east had many other power houses.
Ancient egypt was conquered by persians, greeks, berbers, nubians, sea people etc. so it wasn't a military superpower.

>being proud that you're uneducated
To be expected from Egyptians really

lmao Egypt alone beat the crusaders, england included, in like 5 different crusades, they had many noteworthy leaders.

I'm always happy to learn.

Ban all.egyptian posters

Attached: images (2).jpg (247x204, 5K)

How? They don't have significant natural resources. They are not technologically advanced with native innovation capabilities. They don't have a large population on a global scale. They are not that rich with an economy strongly supported by tourism. They have an OK military for that area of the world but lack discipline and esprit de corps.

What on earth would they base their power on?

>it wasn't a military superpower
Yeah it wasn't a military superpower for its 3000 years no. People are always referring to BA Egypt when they say that.
And it wasn't under Ramses II that it reached its military but Thutmose and the battle of Megiddo
>berbers
Egyptianzed soldiers with Berber ancestry coup.
>sea people
Never happened
Doesn't have much to do with the education. His people don't talk this way so why should he
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baibars
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qutuz
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasser
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shajar_al-Durr

Their military can take over arabia easily

Black Bulls

>sea peoples made the hittite empire totally collapse
>meanwhile egypt survived
I think we all know who the superior civilization is...

Attached: sea peoples.jpg (1100x1449, 262K)

>Doesn't have much to do with the education. His people don't talk this way so why should he

Attached: 1395946918618.png (199x211, 8K)

They can't even rid North Sinai of ISIS.

Hittites diluted the sea peoples for pussy egy*tians

I mean the word "superpower" have a very specific meaning, and it's about dominating the world on a global scale, there is only 3 superpowers: usa, soviet and british empire
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

It's hard to use this word for pre-20th empires. I personally consider the mongole, achemenid, ummayad, ottoman empire as superpowers, but Egypt didn't conquer much, just regional conquests.

Egypt was certainly a strong regional power under some dynasties.

in the end, who cares about the military, Egypt did so much for human civilization.

>Better than what you have
Better in some aspects, worse in others. I think it's more worse than better.
Also everytime he speaks he tells some kind of stupid/funny story or even fucks it up and it becomes a meme, especially during his conferences.
>who thinks he can combat Islamisim by some laws
Those laws don't have anything to do with combatting islamism

>Never happend

The Hyksos never ruled some part of Ancient Egypt? I don't remember much.

I forget the semitic rulers of ancient egypt

>The rulers of the 14th dynasty are commonly identified by Egyptologists as being of Canaanite or West Semitic descent
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Dynasty_of_Egypt

Why would he speak your fus77777a, it's ugly and cringy

>sheshonq
Based. The berber man that destroyed the jewish menace's city Jerusalem

>not expecting everyone to know fus7a
This is why we are falling behind

Attached: 1528897681743.jpg (601x601, 83K)

t.mena diaspora that got lectured by his father who was raised during the peak of the pan arabism era

Jerusalem was ruled by berbers (kutama) until the crusaders took it.

if a man destroyed the jewish menace, it's lucius quietus tho, in a war named after his name en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitos_War

Probably hundred of thousands of death and the exodus of jews.

I see you are a cultured man as well, can't say the same about the rest of maghrebis who don't know shit about their history, or most people who don't like learning about history.

they only care about football and shitty culture, zero culture. The state of maghreb is pathetic, expect some educated elites in the big cities.

maybe in few decades it will change for the better.

>brits made the largest indian empire
>brits made the largest egyptian state
really makes you think...

Attached: brit-meetup.png (2236x1356, 1.31M)

They can only advance when they consolidate with their true identity and stop being servant-likes to other recently imposed identities/cultures. But stupid people will always be stupid which makes it impossible to reason with them.

I would argue that the Mughal empire was bigger than british India. Even the Maurya empire was bigger than british India.

British india was more like the Delhi Sultanate in its size.

none of those included the southern states or burma, so you are wrong

self-imposed*** identities/cultures, that's the worst part.

But to be fair, the maghreb and especially Tunisian natives always loved to LARP, from carthage to roman, greek, turks, arab.

Attached: [email protected] (640x405, 37K)

Well, the Brits only ruled the orange part, so basically 40% of India was never british.

Attached: integration-of-princely-states-3-638.jpg (638x479, 97K)

>self-imposed*** identities/cultures
Yep, forgot to write that
>carthage to roman, greek, turks, arab
No there were always various rebellions against all invaders(you can find them if you search hard enough), most are probably forgotten.
It's when they moved to the big cities that they forgot their identities, just like how the people who moved to the cities in morocco gulped the propaganda while those who stayed in the inner cities/villages didn't.

Oh yeah sure, neither the greek, turks, arabs or roman never ruled over the majority of population of morocco or algeria. They stayed independant in their moutains and such.

Like you say, it's in big cities that the amazigh forget his identity and adopt an other one.

but Tunisia is the place in the maghreb where foreign culture (full carthganization expect the country side, arab (kairouan), hilalisation and total arabization, heavy romanization with a massive population in roman carthage, total ottoman control)

tunisia is the gateway between the amazigh maghreb and foreign cultures. that's why you don't basically any amazigh today there.

that's very wrong. The princely states were proper subjects to the crown, they only weren't British possessions. That's not different from the Mughal practice or the practice in any islamic empire, where the tax collectors were local authorities, but had autonomy in their internal affairs after fulfilling their obligations to their master, similarly to feudal Europe. In fact if anything the British East India Company tried to continue the Mughal practice and act like the new Mughal Imperial Court. By your logic the Mughals ruled even less than the Brits, since their authority was even more indirect.

>full carthganization
Carthage was basically like two cities.. they used berber armies/mercenaries
>arab (kairouan)
Kaiouan was destroyed like 3 times and repopulated by berbers each time
>hilalisation and total arabization
most arabization didn't come from them
>hilalisation
mostly expelled according to history
>heavy romanization with a massive population in roman carthage
same as carthage
>total ottoman control
That's when things got messy and some started getting identified as arabs, and just before them the berber hafsids controlled tunisia, east algeria and west libya.
But here is a fun fact, all maps in the last few centuries show north africa as the barbary land/coast.

Attached: 49206129_2130483507009372_2740928195640426496_n.jpg (440x598, 60K)

Weren't they nominally independant? De jure independant? But de facto partially vassal?
> Ramusack 2004, pp. 85 Quote: "The British did not create the Indian princes. Before and during the European penetration of India, indigenous rulers achieved dominance through the military protection they provided to dependents and their skill in acquiring revenues to maintain their military and administrative organisations. Major Indian rulers exercised varying degrees and types of sovereign powers before they entered treaty relations with the British. What changed during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is that the British increasingly restricted the sovereignty of Indian rulers. The Company set boundaries; it extracted resources in the form of military personnel, subsidies or tribute payments, and the purchase of commercial goods at favourable prices, and limited opportunities for other alliances. From the 1810s onwards as the British expanded and consolidated their power, their centralised military despotism dramatically the political options of Indian rulers." (p. 85)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state

It's not like it was a full and total administration/control.

Attached: main-qimg-13d30461cb23216777dcc19193756b73-c.jpg (600x582, 101K)

also vandals built a pretty nice kingdom there too
>tfw no tunisians larping as people with germanic heritage

Vandals have an undeserved bad reputation (their is name is literaly associated with destruction) when they ruled well and had a prosperous kingdom.

Gr**ks ruined it like they ruined the very cool gothic Italy.

>tfw you'll never sack Rome with your vandal bros

Another fun fact, there are houara people near the nile. During the mamluk dynasty they were used to keep the arab tribes in check. At the end of the mamluk dynasty they began cooperating with the arab tribes in killing the mamluks and due to this they were labelled as arabs from there on.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houara
Also france was responsible of the arabization of north africa, idk if you can read arabic but here is a pic (i still didn't verify the informations in it tho, but i heard it from multiple sources) It basically says napoleon the third wanted to rule an arab north africa and middle east and it is he who first created the idea of a pan arabist mena.

Attached: 26219309_1674102092647518_5221465556638881896_n.jpg (480x653, 47K)

They paid taxes, they served in the army. They had no right for independent foreign policy and their trade was ruled by brits. That's as far the imperial integration COULD even get in any era before.
The British did not create the Indian princes, but Muslim rulers only intervened and re-created their appointed local dynastic rulers, if they had a strong reason to do so. Brits ruled over India and if there would've been a massive princely state resistance or rebellion they would've been crushed and added to the directly administered territories.
Even in the first places, the princely states existed because they were allies.

Their local autonomy only makes a meaningful distinction from the modern society of British administration with more universal, nation-wide legislation, their local rule would be normal in Mughal India or any other empire before.

Remember that even in France, after the rule of the Sun King, who declared himself to be the state and was a prime example of total absolutism, local nobles were able to have a great deal of authority over their land even in metropolitan France, right until the Revolution, which abolished most local authorities and differentiating customs and unified the nation.

Napoleon III was a fucking autist and a failure at everything he did

Attached: napoleon III.jpg (720x985, 116K)

Oh yeah sure France did indeed contribute greatly to the arabization of the maghreb, like the post-colonial leaders.

But the native berbers dynasties like the almohads and the almoravids were the first one to create the first wave of arabization of north africa, directly (culture, institution etc.) and indirectly (moving the hilalis tribes that became their mercenairies around the maghreb)

Here, you have over 25 pages of "Comment la Berbérie est devenue le Maghreb arabe" by the best expert in north african history.
persee.fr/doc/remmm_0035-1474_1983_num_35_1_1979
it's a must-read.

All in all, the total arabization was just recent (basically the pan arabism era) but some arabization was done for various reasons throught history.

Attached: The cleansing of the maghrebi dialect.png (289x419, 219K)

>also vandals built a pretty nice kingdom there too
nothing left of it tho, and they basically didn't leave any apparent genetic imprint.

>No Napoleon III
>No 1870, thus no WW1 and no WW2, thus no 1917, no Soviet union
wew

sadly the 19th is the period where many regions in asia, africa, middle east that always were virtually independant before for technical and practical reasons become ruled by a strong central autority for the first time in their history :(

like 1912 and before france 80% of morocco was never ruled by the moroccan king, french conquest was the first time they were conquered/ruled, are you familiar with the bled siba? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bled_es-Siba

medieval France was indeed a prime exemple of that, most of the country was ruled by local rulers. King directly ruled the royal domain around paris, that's all

Attached: Map_France_1030-fr.svg.png (800x911, 467K)

There was many stages/waves of arabization in the maghreb, it's a really complex processus and it happend on many centuries, from the aghlabid/idrissid to the medieval berber dynasties to the ottoman and colonial period.

Pic related.
The berber dynasties (almoravid, almohad and then marinid/zianid/hafsid) paradoxally were the ones that arabized the maghreb the most

You should read "Peuplement et arabisation au Maghreb occidental: dialectologie et histoire", a very serious book and it sum up the subject very well.

Attached: book.png (608x800, 314K)

and if you can't/doesnt want to read an academic book that's pretty long, this video is decent youtube.com/watch?v=412mpy3dVHI

genetic trace*

>The berber dynasties (almoravid, almohad and then marinid/zianid/hafsid) paradoxally were the ones that arabized the maghreb
Yeah i heard about that but didn't find any source.
Alright i'll check them

Attached: 800px-Sifaks_El_Madher.jpg (800x1067, 212K)

the whole chapter "les almohades et l'arabisation de la berberie" is free on google books.google.fr/books?id=ABBjDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT160&dq=almohad almoravid arabization paradox&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp4POVo9jfAhUAD2MBHSWzAaQQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=almohad almoravid arabization paradox&f=false

pretty good chapter. Read it all!

About the picture. I just checked there was acutally a 1913 arab congress in france where arab nationalism began. This is actually funny and ironic because it's the brainwashed people who think they are arabs who accuse the berber movement to be a french/west/jewish conspiracy/invention used to divide the muslims/arabs...
will do