Which Asian nations were never colonized by European nations?

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

Honorable Arab Empire & Caliphates

Ottomans despite being Hanafi Sunni Muslims are not and were never “Arabised” by any stretch of the imagination. Just look at their language, dress habits and culture in general.

As far as region of modern-day Saudi Arabia is concerned, it had been subdivided into 4 distinct regions since ancient times; Hejaz on the Western shore, Nejd in the Middle and “Al-Bahrain” on the East (which included Qatar & Bahraini Islands) with a vast ‘Rub al Khali’ or the empty quarter in the South.

Arguably, except for a brief period in the early 19th century when it was occupied by the Mohammad Ali Pasha of Egypt; Nejd plateau in central Arabia has been largely independent since the decline of Abbasside rule around 10th century. However, Hejaz, as well as the AG coastal region, was under the Ottoman. Ottoman took control of Iraq and Eastern Arabia after defeating the Safavids of Iran during the 1532-1555 Ottoman –Safavi wars.

To the best of my knowledge, Ottomans had 3 Vilayats (Provinces) in the Arabian Peninsula for about 400 years. These were Vilayet of Hejaz, Vilayet of Yemen and Vilayet of Basra. However, if we are talking about a conquest by a non-Muslim European nation, then I agree with you.

Not sure if serious or joking.

Sure, the same Ottomans whose entire bureaucracy was copied and stolen from past Arab Caliphates (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid), whose system was Arab in nature (Caliphate), whose titles were Arab (Caliph, Sultan), whose language was an Arabic dialect (Ottoman language was basically an Arabic dialect - to this day Turkish has more Arabic loanwords than any other foreign language and that despite the reforms 100 years ago that erased old Anatolian Muslim culture by large), the alphabet was Arabic, most of the land was Arab, population, huge influence on dress, culture, cuisine, music, poetry, architecture etc.

It is like claiming that water is not wet.

KSA is made up of many more historical regions. Al-Bahrain translates to Eastern Arabia which stretches from Southern Iraq to Eastern Oman in Sur.

That occupation was never a full occupation and lasted mere months. Proved unsuccessful.

Ottomans controlled less than 10% of modern-day Eastern Province of KSA and once again it was very short-lived and local rulers ruled.

Similarly in Hijaz. Sharifs of Makkah (second most important person after the Sultan/Caliph in Istanbul) was ruling and Ottoman presence (the "Ottomans were local Hijazi Arabs mostly) were limited to military garrisons in the cities.

That is why you cannot mention a single Arab-Turkish war other than the Arab revolt and successful Yemeni victories against the Ottomans. The Ottoman elite in Istanbul were more busy focusing on tiny Balkan that was more proximate to Istanbul. The few regions of the Arab world where the Ottomans were accepted allied with the Ottomans, hence why the local rulers remained in place and hence why you had no Arab-Ottoman wars (most Ottomans were Arabs to begin with) other than those I just mentioned and some sporadic revolts in modern-day Palestine where local rulers took power from other Arab rivals, mostly in modern-day Syria, Mount Lebanon (Lebanon) and Southern Syria.

Mongols were defeated by the Mamluks.

Qutuz and Baybars were Kipchak Turks not Arabs.

I do agree Saladin was more of an Arab than a Kurd.

Mamluks were a tiny minority limited to Cairo. All the fighting was done by the average Arab. Ever read the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and other historians (Arab and non-Arab) from that era? 99,9% of the people were Arab. The original Mamluks were not Turks either by originally pagan Caucasians brought to/bought by Arabs in Cairo as slaves/mercenaries who later took power after rebelling against their overlords. The Ottomans copied that system with the janissaries who were a power of their own for a long time until their time ended as well.

And let us be honest, those Kipchak Turks (few Mamluk dynasties) have little to nothing to do with Anatolians or modern-day Turkish people.

It's ridiculous to claim that Arabs somehow disappeared, lol. In fact the Mongols did 100 times more damage to Central Asia, South Asia and Iran than any Arab region with the exception of Baghdad which was ravaged due to the Abbasids (back then) losing their old power and mostly focusing on science, theology rather than military power as in the old days and the Abbasid Caliphate being ruled by local rulers (each province) and the capital (Baghdad) no longer having the power it once had.

In any case the Mongols would never have been able to conquer Arabia due to geography, their small numbers (Arabs far outnumbered them) and the fact that much of Arabia was still inhabited by warlike nomads who mastered the same tactics the Mongols did and who would have defeated them in their own home turf.

 

[Nein]

Not sure if serious or joking.

Sure, the same Ottomans whose entire bureaucracy was copied and stolen from past Arab Caliphates (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid), whose system was Arab in nature (Caliphate), whose titles were Arab (Caliph, Sultan), whose language was an Arabic dialect (Ottoman language was basically an Arabic dialect - to this day Turkish has more Arabic loanwords than any other foreign language and that despite the reforms 100 years ago that erased old Anatolian Muslim culture by large), the alphabet was Arabic, most of the land was Arab, population, huge influence on dress, culture, cuisine, music, poetry, architecture etc.

It is like claiming that water is not wet.

KSA is made up of many more historical regions. Al-Bahrain translates to Eastern Arabia which stretches from Southern Iraq to Eastern Oman in Sur.

That occupation was never a full occupation and lasted mere months. Proved unsuccessful.

Ottomans controlled less than 10% of modern-day Eastern Province of KSA and once again it was very short-lived and local rulers ruled.

Similarly in Hijaz. Sharifs of Makkah (second most important person after the Sultan/Caliph in Istanbul) was ruling and Ottoman presence (the "Ottomans were local Hijazi Arabs mostly) were limited to military garrisons in the cities.

That is why you cannot mention a single Arab-Turkish war other than the Arab revolt and successful Yemeni victories against the Ottomans. The Ottoman elite in Istanbul were more busy focusing on tiny Balkan that was more proximate to Istanbul. The few regions of the Arab world where the Ottomans were accepted allied with the Ottomans, hence why the local rulers remained in place and hence why you had no Arab-Ottoman wars (most Ottomans were Arabs to begin with) other than those I just mentioned and some sporadic revolts in modern-day Palestine where local rulers took power from other Arab rivals, mostly in modern-day Syria, Mount Lebanon (Lebanon) and Southern Syria.



Mamluks were a tiny minority limited to Cairo. All the fighting was done by the average Arab. Ever read the works of Ibn Taymiyyah and other historians (Arab and non-Arab) from that era? 99,9% of the people were Arab. The original Mamluks were not Turks either by originally pagan Caucasians brought to/bought by Arabs in Cairo as slaves/mercenaries who later took power after rebelling against their overlords. The Ottomans copied that system with the janissaries who were a power of their own for a long time until their time ended as well.

And let us be honest, those Kipchak Turks (few Mamluk dynasties) have little to nothing to do with Anatolians or modern-day Turkish people.

It's ridiculous to claim that Arabs somehow disappeared, lol. In fact the Mongols did 100 times more damage to Central Asia, South Asia and Iran than any Arab region with the exception of Baghdad which was ravaged due to the Abbasids (back then) losing their old power and mostly focusing on science, theology rather than military power as in the old days and the Abbasid Caliphate being ruled by local rulers (each province) and the capital (Baghdad) no longer having the power it once had.

In any case the Mongols would never have been able to conquer Arabia due to geography, their small numbers (Arabs far outnumbered them) and the fact that much of Arabia was still inhabited by warlike nomads who mastered the same tactics the Mongols did and who would have defeated them in their own home turf.

Ottomans copied the Ghulam system for their Jannisaries.

Military slaves began with the Abbassids. When it came to Muslim armies, slave soldiers became our best soldiers because they had nothing to lose they believe their service was to spread Islam while at the same time they believed they were slaves only to Allah.

Ottomans ruling not just from Arabs it also comes from Persians, Romans/Byzantines, Mongols and the past Turkic Empires.

Ottomans ruling system biggest part comes from the Seljuks afterall the Ottomans are Seljuks and their successors.

You honestly think the Ottomans copied the Arabs and their ruling systems if not the Ottomans would not last for 600 years.

Tell me where does the brother killing come from?? It comes from ancient Turkic and Mongol traditions to ensure a stable successor. Brother killings were rare in Arab ruling systems especially in Monarchy.

Mamluks were called Dawlat ul Turkiyya by the Arabs themselves. Ayn Jalut the commanders were Qutuz and Baybars but yes the Mamluk soldiers were a minority as most regulars were either Egyptians or Arabs.

Kipjacks and Oghuz Turks are different but both come from the same family of the Turkic peoples they just branched out. Kipchaks of today are Kazakhs, Tatars and the Kyrgz while Oghuz Turks of today are the Turkish, Turkmens and the Azerbaijanis.

Mamluks had two different dynasties ruling one was Bahri aka Turkic one while the other was the Circassian one.

 

[Yankee-stani]

Afghanistan for better or worse I despise the country but admire their guts for fending all types of invaders

*Ask the Soviets and all others

Compared to the Yanks at least the Soviets admit they lost the songs from the 80s touch on that never will see it with Yanks when they leave be it Iraq or Afghanistan runaway all the time even rice farmers Vietnamese beat them and still wont admit

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

Ottomans copied the Ghulam system for their Jannisaries.

Military slaves began with the Abbassids. When it came to Muslim armies, slave soldiers became our best soldiers because they had nothing to lose they believe their service was to spread Islam while at the same time they believed they were slaves only to Allah.

Ottomans ruling not just from Arabs it also comes from Persians, Romans/Byzantines, Mongols and the past Turkic Empires.

Ottomans ruling system biggest part comes from the Seljuks afterall the Ottomans are Seljuks and their successors.

You honestly think the Ottomans copied the Arabs and their ruling systems if not the Ottomans would not last for 600 years.

Tell me where does the brother killing come from?? It comes from ancient Turkic and Mongol traditions to ensure a stable successor. Brother killings were rare in Arab ruling systems especially in Monarchy.

In islamic times the Ghulam system was first used by Arabs. It was a system prevalent in pre-Islamic times where pre-Islamic Arabs used foreigners in the same fashion due to Arabs controlling the most important trade routes of the ancient world for ages. So-called Arab slavery was the by far largest in the Muslim world too. In reality slavery was common all across the world. Already covered that topic on PDF a few months ago.

I was just, rightly, saying that Ottomans were Arabized (or if that word is somehow offensive highly influenced) by Arabs and what I wrote. That does not mean that Ottomans did not have influences elsewhere or their own distinct culture. The guy was just claiming that Ottomans had nothing to do with Arab civilization with obviously is nonsense and not even the most hardcore Turkish Kemalish that hates Islam and Arabs would agree with it, hence the frequent use of Arabized, Arabparast etc. (Iranian nationalists use the same word, lol) for conservative Muslim Turks.

Sure, Seljuks might have had a say here but let us not fool ourselves here. The entire Ottoman bureaucracy, vilayet (Arabic word as well), titles (Caliph, Sultan), religious legitimacy, system (Caliphate) was taken/copied straight from the Arabs. Let's not even talk about the majority of the population and lands which were Arab.

Ottomans first became relevant in the 1400's and it was under Selim I that the Ottomans reached Arab lands. If you read history, there were not any Arab-Ottoman wars back then, since local Arab rulers pledged allegiance to the Ottomans (which were the strongest military power in the region back then, especially initially) as the Arab world was weakened after almost 1000 years of dominance, numerous civil wars, dynastic fights, crusades, mongol invasion, Portuguese etc. Speaking about Portuguese, pledging allegiance to Selim I, the Portuguese played a role here as they were constantly trying to attack mainly Arabia as Arabs were controlling the main trade routes of the world (maritime and land). Which made the European powers try to find a maritime route to India far from the Arab world, hence how they discovered the new world. That is another story.

BTW, in reality Arabs were highly respected in Ottoman society (high circles) but it cannot be ignored that the last 2 centuries + of Ottoman history was plagued with defeats, backwardness (compared to other regions of the world) and neglect of Arab regions. For instance small tiny Balkans was much more infested in because of geography, it was closer to the capital (Istanbul) and served as a buffer to Europe and European powers.

Is copying Arab systems supposed to be a bad thing, when the same Arabs ruled the Caliphate for almost 1000 years and much larger territory than the Ottomans while being significantly more influential on pretty much every front? Not sure about that.

Brother killing brother might be much more prevalent in Turkic/Mongol cultures (not an expert, lol) but dynastic wars (brother, cousin etc. fighting for power) was pretty damn common among Arab dynasties as well and pretty much most dynasties in old times.

Afghanistan for better or worse I despise the country but admire their guts for fending all types of invaders

*Ask the Soviets and all others

Compared to the Yanks at least the Soviets admit they lost the songs from the 80s touch on that never will see it with Yanks when they leave be it Iraq or Afghanistan runaway all the time even rice farmers Vietnamese beat them and still wont admit

It is a myth that Afghanistan was never conquered. We Arabs conquered it. If I am not wrong, the Persians ruled much of it too (not sure if they conquered it all but after all they neighbor it) and I think that Sikhs conquered large parts of it as well.

The reality is that many of those regions of the world such as Arabia, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Thailand, China, Japan etc. have a lot to thank their geography. Not necessarily some kind of special and unique warrior gene or superpowers. We Arabs have a warrior history like few others, but I don't have any illusions of us having some kind of special gene that made us what we are or were. Geography, environment, challenges, threats, frequent wars and conflict is what shapes societies.

Look at Yemen. Famously known as the Afghanistan of the MENA. So hard to govern that not even Yemeni governments ever had full control of it. Look at the problems related to manhood, weapon usage (there are more weapons in Yemen per capita than anywhere outside of the US), blood feuds, tribalism etc. Cool on paper often and very much contrary to the current wave of liberalism, feminism, "we are all cucks etc. mantra" but in reality such things have their downside as well. Afghanistan can attest to it too.

 

[Yankee-stani]

It is a myth that Afghanistan was never conquered. We Arabs conquered it. If I am not wrong, the Persians ruled much of it too (not sure if they conquered it all but after all they neighbor it) and I think that Sikhs conquered large parts of it as well.
[/QUOTE]

Still invaders were fended off and forced to wither away links to their former homelands Yanks prolly the only ones not mingle along cause of walling themselves in

 

[Jaanbaz]

The ramblings of an illiterate, ignorant, most likely low IQ Qadiani individual with enormous and obvious inferiority complexes. Talk about a godforsaken brain.

Yes, Arabia, one of the most ancient regions in the world, home to some of the most impressive, most influential and oldest civilizations, home to more World UNESCO Heritage sites (cultural) than any other region in the Muslim world, home to one of the most influential civilizations in the world currently (Arab) and prior to that (Semitic - the oldest in the world) and home to Prophets, numerous famous ancient rulers (some of the most famous in history - Queen of Sheba, Queen Zenobia - to mention a few), 1000's of scientists from the Islamic Golden Age, prior and after (more than any other region), the richest area in the world in terms of natural resources and minerals, home to the most holy sites in the second largest religion (Islam), the same religion that originates in Arabia, one of the most important and strategic locations in the world since time immortal between the 3 main continents in the world and most important waters etc. A region that used to be one of the wealthiest (incense route), a mysterious and majestic region in ancient history since the time of the Sumerians who themselves were originally from Eastern Arabia and whose Epic of Gilgamesh and "Garden of Eden story" is based on the Eastern Arabian Dilmun civilization. The same region that ancient Greeks, Romans, Hebrews, Persians, Portuguese and others tried to conquer but never were able to. The region that is most mentioned in the Bible after Palestine etc. One could go on.

Yes, the same Mongol savages that were defeated by Arabs and who never conquered any other Arab land than parts of modern-day Iraq and Syria and who would never have been able to conquer a huge and geographically impossible region to control like Arabia. Great joke from this troll.

Ironically the Turks who would later be back stabbed by Arab centuries later were the ones to save Islam. ''Arab'' armies were nowhere to be seen when Halagu Khan flattened Baghdad. Like I said had the Turks not defeated Mongols then well there probably wouldn't have been any cities called Medina or Mecca. Rest of your post is silly and a usual copy and paste with lots of fairy tales.

 

[Dubious]

Please refrain from chest thumping and mud sliding!

 

[DejanSRB]

This list is BS.

Only Asian nations that were never colonized are Japan, Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and Vietnam.
All others were subjected to the Europeans.

 

[vostok]

This list is BS.

Only Asian nations that were never colonized are Japan, Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and Vietnam.
All others were subjected to the Europeans.

China too, I think. Yes, they lost some terriories in 19 ct. to European nations, but Osmans also did.