Just noticed that there is a programme on the Moors tonight at 9pm.
Having just completed a Moorish campaign I might watch it.
Printable View
Just noticed that there is a programme on the Moors tonight at 9pm.
Having just completed a Moorish campaign I might watch it.
What's it called, I might check it out. That's if I can get it, i'm watching History right now and it the guide says nothing about the Moors.
Bit late but its called 'The Moors', I'm watching it at the moment and its very good. I've already seen Toledo, Cordoba and Valencia which was interesting to see in real life. And its suggested a possible explanation to the mystery of why Moorish troops were described by eyewitness accounts as 'Black as Pitch' when their commanders were frequently pale skinned and red haired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xehh II
It was very good and what follows is a sort of potted version of the understanding I gained from it.
It appears that the Muslim princes of El Andalusia were a little too liberal for their own good. Not only were they tolerant of other religions but their main focus was on promoting culture and learning. Cordoba for example had no less then seventy libraries containing over half a million books and scholars from all over Europe travelled to Spain to study everything from medicine to mathematics’ alongside Muslim, Jewish and Christian academic's. There are texts still in existence of books translated from Greek and Arabic, some copied from text by scholars as well known as Aristotle the prefaces of which include introductions by German scholars who worked on their translation into Latin, and the margins of which contain notes and explanations in just about every European language in existence at the time.
Modern Muslim fundamentalists attribute the loss of Spain directly to this obsession with logic over the divine revelations of Allah, and in part they are correct, but only in part.
The fact is that the Muslim princes of Andalusia were so focussed on culture and learning that they neglected their military and their defences. The people of Andalusia were not required to serve in the armed forces and so their army was hard pressed to find enough men to man the countries defences. Not only that but money was spent mainly on art, culture and learning rather than fortresses and weapons and the countries safety was largely reliant upon the goodwill which was fostered with its Christian neighbours.
Thus when their Christian neighbours began raiding and destroying the border provinces, and demanding money in return for protection the Muslims found themselves with little choice but to pay the tribute or suffer the destruction. Large area's of northern Andalusia were laid waste, crops burned in the fields, tree's cut down and irrigation canals broached. In desperation, the Muslim princes began to hire mercenaries, initially from the Christians themselves, but when these proved less than reliable they turned to the ruler of Al Maghreb (Morocco) across the Mediterranean Sea.
The warriors sent to aid the Andalucian princes were apparently not the same tribes of Berbers who assisted in the original invasion of Spain but were from further south in the Sahara region and were probably a mixture of Almohads and Almoravids. This explains the eyewitness accounts of these men being 'black skinned' tribesmen by Christians who fought them, as opposed to the lighter skinned warriors who originally helped to conquer Spain. They were also accompanied by camels and some accounts claim even elephants.
This would also appear to explain the anomaly between armies of dark skinned troops being led by pale skinned generals. The dark skinned troops were the mercenaries from Morocco and presumably the lighter skinned generals were those of their employers who felt obliged to accompany them into battle. Whatever, the truth of this, it seems that these imported troops were a mixed blessing. Whilst they provided skilled manpower to combat the Christian raiders they were also extremely fundamental in their faith and they did not appreciate the way the people of Andalusia worshipped logic and beauty above the divine words of Allah. It appears that soon after their arrival they began to deliberately vandalise the art and cultural buildings which had been so lovingly created by their employers and so the Princes found themselves trapped between raiding Christians destroying their crops and angry allies destroying their artwork and demanding a return to fundamental teachings.
At about this point it appears the entire kingdom fractured under the combined stress as cities decided to follow their own path. Some attempted to ally themselves with nearby friendly Christian rulers, others adopted the fundamentalist ideals of their new protectors. Civil war and chaos ensued, even between different factions of Almohad and Almoravid tribesmen as it seems everyone tried to grab or save what they could by whatever means seemed most suited to them. Palaces were burned to the ground, books destroyed, people were executed and murdered by their own countrymen and the enemy alike.
Thus when the reconquista started in earnest Andalusia was little more than a wasted shell of independent cities trying desperately to survive and by 1492 only Gharnatah (Grenada) was left in Muslim hands.
You do well to weep like a woman for that which you could not defend like a manQuote:
On Monday 2 January (1492) Isabella and Ferdinand left the camp with their army duly drawn up. The were dressed in Moorish robes especially designed and tailored for the occasion. As they came near to the Alhambra, Abu Abd-Allah rode out, accompanied by many of his knights, with the keys of the city in his hand. He tried to dismount in order to kiss the king's hand, but the king would not allow it.
Instead, the Abu Abd-Allah kissed Ferdinand on the arm and gave him the keys of the city, saying 'Take the keys of your city, for I, and the men who are within, are your vassals.'
Admonishment by the mother of Sultan Abu 'abd-Allah Muhammad XII, the last Nasrid King of Gharnatah (Grenada) when he began to weep for the loss of his city.
King Ferdinand took the keys and gave them to the queen . . . It was the end of Moorish rule in Spain.
Conclusion
I thought it was very interesting. I think its broadened my understanding of the background to the Moorish faction, though how much of it is accurate and truthful is difficult to judge except where there was physical evidence such as the annotated books and burnt palace ruins. It certainly didn't match the accepted history of Spain or the Reconquesta, but according to the programme that history has been rewritten at least twice most recently at the insistence of General Franco. So, basically its 'bollocks' like most history and its just a question as to how much of the information presented on the programme was 'bollocks' too.
Couple of more the controversial claims was that El Cid former ruler of Valencia though not actually Muslim was quite happy to allow Muslims to live freely in his city and probably hired himself and his army out to Muslim Princes when the price was right.
Also there was a long interview with the Countess Medina Sidona who claims that her ancestor the famous Christian Knight was most likely a Muslim, and that her family history was carefully rewritten to avoid the undue attentions of the inquisition. I actually found her evidence for this a little less than convincing but she seemed adamant about it.
There were also all sorts of weird architectural anomalies such as Christian churches built after the Recoquista but with quotes from the Quoran combined with Christian icons, and supposedly Christian kings who built their palaces in Moorish styles complete with Arabic inscriptions and referring to themselves as Caliph rather than King. Indeed it seems that even Isabella and Ferdinand were not fanatically anti-muslim at all and were quite happy to embrace the ideals and culture of Muslim Spain so long as it didn't conflict with their own plans and power-base.
All interesting stuff and as usual much more messy and confusing than past historians would like us to beleive.
++++
Hmm! this begining to turn into a bit of blog. I'm still trying to make sense of the eyewitness accounts of Christian witnesses who claim that the warriors they fought were 'black as pitch' and other references which claim that Berbers (which theoretically included the Almohad and Almoravid's) were lighter skinned frequently with red hair. Either these were two different ethnic groups from the same area or someones not telling the truth.
Interestingly, this book http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Moor-Jo...9221289&sr=8-3 and the comments posted about it suggest that I'm not alone in this confusion and it appears the enthnic/genetic history of the Moors is a bit of controversial issue.
Thank you, Didz, for calling attention to the show. Unfortunately I could not find it on the History Channel in my area. Fooey.
I did very much enjoy your summary and will add more digging into this bit of real history to my spare time list.
I constantly find that this game helps give a better appreciation of the history of the real world and I have to give considerable credit to the designers for their obvious love of the subject. And, it is finding the commentary such as yours that propels me into more research and so the cycle continues.
Thanks,
John
I didn't get it on my History Channel either.
hey nice summary and analysis and u are quite right about written history being bollocks for example Sri Lanka where i come from has a written history of about 3000 years. unfortunately the main source the "maha vansa" was written and maintained bt the buddhist monks. and any king who tried to reduce the clergy's influence at courst was conviniently ignored in the histories(or maybe later removed) while anyone who allowed the clergy to participate in the running of the country and built lots of temples etc etc usually had a lot written about him and got a title like great or.. u get the picture.
ok got a bit sidetrakced just wanted to say nicely written thanks
Yes! sorry the programme didn't finish until 10:30 pm and I was keen to summarize as much as could whilst it was fresh in my memory. That in turn led to me getting dragged into a lot of secondary research initially because I haven't got a photographic memory and therefore needed to check things like the name of the Nasrid King of Grenada to make sure I got it right. The net result being that I didn't actually finish until about 1am and I've just been back and corrected some of the spelling mistakes and added the internet link to the book I mentioned but forgot to link.
Anyway, I'm glad you found my efforts worthwhile. Like Techstrider I find that playing games such as MTW2 act as the catalyst that encourages me to want to learn more about the history of the subject I'm playing, and that in turn actually enhances the enjoyment I get from playing the game.
I feel I've gained a much greater appreciation of the Moorish faction from doing this and the fact that Moors seem to have got a pretty raw deal from historians merely increases my desire to try and uncover the truth. It seems that the Moors have been more or less squeezed out of history by the combined efforts of historians from both the Christian and Muslim factions.
Spanish historians have worked long and hard to eradicate the contribution that the Moors had over the cultural and ethnic history of Spain and repainting the Reconquista as a Holy Crusade when in fact it was more like a scrabble for land and power. And families like the Medina-Sidona family are only now beginning to accept that their ancestors were actually Muslim and that there is Moorish blood in their veins and not just on their hands.
At the same time Muslim historians are trying equally hard to claim that the Moors of Spain were not true Muslims at all, but were Christians pretending to follow the true faith in order to corrupt the word of Allah with false teachings based on science and logic.
And into this sandwich of propaganda history it appears that even the descendants of the Moors themselves are trying to dis-associate themselves from their ancestors. Those still in Spain find it hard to admit their ancestors are were not the perfect Christians and of pure white ethnic stock as described in the Spanish history books. Those in Morocco apparently don't want to be associated with the Moorish tribes of African descent with their darker skins, nor with the large numbers of Moorish émigrés expelled from Spain by the inquisition and now labelled as fake Muslims, and so have tried to re-invent their ethnic roots to avoid both extremes.
So, apparently it is very hard to determine today, exactly who or what the Moors were as nobody actually wants to accept ownership of the heritage even though everyone wants a slice of the credit for their achievements.
The academic's who travelled to Al Andalusia to study in the Moorish Libraries and work with the Moorish academic's and who brought back knowledge like our current number system (1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0), algrebra, chemistry and poetry conveniently forgot the names of the Moorish academic's that passed this knowledge to them, or helped them to discover it.
The Moors even passed onto their Christian neighbours the art of mass paper production, which enabled the explosion of learning and record keeping in the Europe.
Anyway, in terms of the game, it seems that combining Christian Mercenaries with Moroccan Mercenaries is a not particularly accurate historically and I ought to try and keep them separate and base their employment on specific cities to reflect the current policy of the local Sultan or Caliph. I should also avoid spending money on troops or military buildings, and give preference to culture and trade (which I actually do so that’s ok). And I should seek to placate my Christian neighbours with large tribute hand-outs. Hmm! not sure about that, I don't think I'm that cultured:egypt:
i agree that this game made me start reading about history much more as well. i started reading up on the crusades etc. have got the western perspective but still to readup on any eastern texts regarding this. problem is finding english translations.
at the moment ive got a biography of Tarmalene and also a work of fiction based on the time of Tarmalene so its going to be interesting to see how the fiction and facts combine. well i'll get to that once ive read the first book of the ramayana series. The Ramayanaya is supposed to be a book of indian history like the Maha Bharata but they are highly ficitonalised to include gods, mythical creatures etc. the book i'm reading is an english series from an indian author. this too i suppose is a fictionalisation based broadsly on timelines and people from the Ramayana.
oh and if u do continue to research the moors and come accross any mention of sri lanka i would be intereseted to know. the muslims of sri lanka are called "Sri Lankan Moors" just wondering if there is any connection. the sri lankan muslims are descendants of muslim/arab traders who arrived in the country probably during the time of the middle ages, definitely before the first eauropean arrived so simetime before 1500 (when the portugese first landed) however we wear turkish not moorish hats (if one does indeed exist) at weddings lol probably too confused to know who we are lol
The origin cannot be known without knowing how far back you can trace your family tree.
In my case, my family can trace the family tree to Central Asia (after many, many years of research). So we are very certain who we were, and where we came to India from. There are however still some geneological questions in my mind. White skin, green eyes run in parts of the family since about 1820 ish. Other than recent (1900ish) German influence nobody knows where that came from. (Greeks ?)
Didz, thanks for the heads up on the show. I think the History channel is different on the Isles than on the mainland. It was'nt on here at that time I even went to bug my neighbour's to make sure I had the right channel. Maybe I got the time wromg. Anyway your writeup gives an excellent picture.
unfortunatley keeping family records doent seem to be something my fammily seem to be interested in. although my dad did try to build one. i should give him a call, however i doubt he managed to go back far enough to be able to determine the externeal influence in our blood :)
A lot of the Indian Ocean influence comes from Muslim Arab traders.
The Central Asian influence comes from the Mongols, the Timurids and their successors. Which is the case for many families in Pakistan, Afghanistan and North India.
However the genetics are hard to trace because we have more in common genetically to the Western Europeans than the East Asians.
Your welcome. The summary I've given is really only a fraction of the information covered by the programme so its worth keeping an eye open for it on your TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
The architecture itself was stunning, particularly the Christian Churches built with Muslim arches, decorations and quoatations from the quoran. I suspect most tourist just assume that they are looking at a Muslim building, or one which has been converted from a Mosk into a church. And some were, but apparently not all, some were purpose built by the Christian Kings after the reconquista, but before the inquisition.
I suppose my next logical action is to book a holiday in Spain and go and have a look, but I might do my walking tour of the Peninsula Battlefields first.
Its always difficuly, I've had trouble tracing my own genetic history and basically had to rely upon the rather sketchy evidence of the origins of my surname. I suppose a gene test might shed more light on it, but even then, if you are interested in your ancestoral background then a gene test is not going to show the timeline as part of the mix so the blood in our viens at the minute might be the result of quite recent intermixing of partners with different ethnic roots rather than an indication of long distant ancestry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
It also occurs to me that it is perfectly possible that Moors never actually existed.
By that I mean that the term itself might be nothing more than an arbitary label used by chroniclers and historians to group a whole confederation of quite seperate factions which never considered themselves to be one entity at the time. For example, it does not seem likely that the Andalucian Muslim's considered themselves to be part of the same nation as the Almohad and Almoravid mercenaries they hired to fight for them, and it even seems unlikely that the Berbers considered these tribes to be an intregal part of their nation even though they supposedly were according to the maps on the internet. Likewise, Al Maghreb (Morocco) may not be a country at all but is more likely a description of an area, like we might say North Africa today rather than Libya. Tunisia, Algeria etc. So, the actual people who were approached by the Andalucian's for help were probably not Moroccan but could have been any one of a number of tribes and families who ruled lands along the North African coast. The Muslim accounts actually mention the names of several rulers who attempted to assist. advise and make demands upon the Andalucian's including one guy whose name I haven't got to hand who stated that he would only send warriors to assist if the Andalucian's sorted out their differences and united under a single prince. Evidence, once again that Muslim Spain was fragmented and difficult to negotiate with.
That's a good idea.
I have'nt been myself but everyone I know who's been there comes back with a far greater sympathy, understanding and appreciation of Islamic culture.
Particularly I've heard only great things about Granada, Sevilla and Cordoba.
Those are supposed to be good places to go with a lady, lots of monuments on the fringes of town, golden sunsets over archers and towers.
Only if she's hot about military history...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
... or sunsets and ...
EDIT: Oh I see the typo now dopp LOL ! Damm ! Definetly NOT a phrase to use for seduction.
Seeing the Alhambra was one of the greatest experiences of my life. I've never seen a building as profoundly beautiful and moving anywhere in the world.
It's a shame to think that the love of beauty and knowledge that led the Moors to create this (among others) was also to cause their destruction at the hands of barbarians (both Christian and Muslim, by the sounds of things - which just goes to show barbarity is no respecter of religion).
And re Isabella/Ferdinand respecting Muslims when they didn't conflict with politics later - didn't they go back on their promises and persecute/forcibly convert/exile all the moors (muslims) about 10 years later?
Since this is mainly focused on Moorish history, I have moved it to the Monastery.
Mine is fascinated with English castles...Quote:
Originally Posted by dopp
I'm green with envy (honest)...
Honey don't you love the archers over the sunset ?
/Sinan gets a slap/ ... "go back to your awful, violent video games !!! No sex for you for 1 week !!"
Thanks dopp I'll definetly remember to choose my words VERY carefully if I ever go there. (LOL) If I said that it would be a D I S A S T E R.
Was this the Bettany Hughes-presented programme?
BTW Didz you might find something in here if you do a search for "Moors" or "Moorish Spain". IIRC I posted some in 2004. Also on the Tuareg.
Earlier than that I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moah
The Alhambra Decree was signed by Ferdinand in March 1492 just two months or so after the surrender of Grenada. However, I think its wrong to see this decree as 'proof positive' of Ferdinand and Isabella's animosity towards muslims, or indeed their dedication to the Catholic faith.
The Alhambra Decree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_decree is essentially concerned with the expulsion and oppression of Jews but was also the beginning of the persecution against those who were still practicing Muslims.
The Alhambra Decree was more or less forced on Ferdinand and Isabella by a Dominican Friar called Tomás de Torquemada. Isabella was apparently particularly dubious about it primarily because of the concerns she had about the possible economic impact the expulsion of so many merchants and traders would have on her domain and apparently it was Ferdinand who was at first persuaded to accept it (Men - no balls you see).
Isabella was right to be concerned, the expulsion of the Jewish and Muslim traders turned Spain from the gateway for all trade and learning between East and West into an introverted commercial backwater, which it is still struggling to recover from today, and led directly to the rise of Amsterdam and Venice as the new trading capitals of Europe.
It was also apparently a very close run thing. There is a Legend that one Spanish Nobleman called Don Isaac Abravanel, a jew also known as Yitzchak ben Yehuda Abravane, who had heavily financed Ferdinand's war against the Muslim Princes approached Ferdinand and offerred him a further 600,000 crown's for his revocation of the edict. Apparently, Ferdinand hestitated which is not surprising as 30,000 crowns had more or less finance an entire campaign so 600,000 was an absolute fortune. He was still dithering when apparently Friar Torquemada dashed in to the Royal presence and thrusting a crucifix aloft, and exclaimed: "Judas Iscariot sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver; Your Highness is about to sell him for 600,000 ducats. Here He is; take Him and sell Him." before strutting from the room, leaving the crucifix behind on the table.
In the end, Abravanel only managed to get the date for the expulsion extended by two days, after which he left Spain and settled first in Genoa, then Corfu and finally Venice where he helped the Venetian Princes negotiate commercial contracts with Portugal.
Tomás de Torquemada got what he wanted which was the title of Grand Inquisitor, but had already been helped to that goal by the mysterious murder of his two rivals, Inquisitor Pedro de Arbués in Zaragoza in 1485, and Santo Niño de La Guardia, or the Holy Child of La Guardia, in 1491, both supposedly and conveniently killed by Jews. The damming evidence in the latter case being the existence of a communion wafer in the backpack of the accused. No doubt he used it to bludgeon his victim to death.
Its interesting to speculate what might have been had Ferdinand had more balls, or been more greedy. The face of the world might have been very different today, not to mention the relationship between Christians, Muslims and Jews.
lol Didz i love the way u write and your sense of humor. i nearly spat my mouthfull of chicken pastr on my screen lol
keep the info coming
:laugh4: Yes, I like to try and add a bit of 'zest' to story. Some of these historical accounts are so dry and up themselves its hard to imagine that they are talking about real people.Quote:
Originally Posted by crpcarrot
The idea of some power-mad monk brow-beating the dithering King Ferdinand into ignoring common sense is just so vivid an image it deserves a bit more colour. One can only imagine what words were exchanged between Isabella and Ferdinand behind the closed doors of their bedchamber that night. Thats if he didn't end up sleeping in the corridor.:inquisitive:
As for Tomás de Torquemada he sounds like the Popes answer to Heindrich Himmler, apparently he prossessed himself around Spain with a escort of 250 armed guards and a 50 man mounted escort.
Even Pope Sixtus IV's was forced to admit that his conduct at the inquisition in Seville,And hows this for a real twist:Quote:
without observing juridical prescriptions, have detained many persons in violation of justice, punishing them by severe tortures and imputing to them, without foundation, the crime of heresy, and despoiling of their wealth those sentenced to death, in such form that a great number of them have come to the Apostolic See, fleeing from such excessive rigor and protesting their orthodoxy.
It appears that our friend Tomás de Torquemada may actually have been of jewish ancestry.
Apparently the contemporary historian Hernando del Pulgar, writing of Torquemada's uncle Juan de Torquemada, said that his ancestor Alvar Fernández de Torquemada had married a first-generation Jewish converso (convert). It should be noted that del Pulgar was a converso himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torquemada
Sorry..Yep! thats the lady. I had to look her up on the internet too as I hadn't paid much attention to her name during the programme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
http://www.bettanyhughes.co.uk/welcome.htm
from what i've learned, green eyes are more prevalent in areas that are ethnic intersection points on the globe. where peoples of various different ethnic backgrounds have settled over time. places like iberia, asia minor, the caucauses etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
Isn't that a spelling error?
M-O-O-P-S
The correct way to spell it.
If anybody is interested, the documentary can be found on YouTube under the title, "Islam in Europe: When The Moors Ruled in Europe". There are 11 parts but every one of them is worth watching.
I'm currently in a Moorish campaign myself and have shared much of Didz's Moorish-related experiences both in-game and out.
Excellent.
THANKS for the link.
Well done sir, now I can watch it again whenever I need to refer to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miracle
Thanks for the Youtube link!
You're linking to a book written by a man who also put forth the argument that Sub-Saharan Africans explored and colonized the New World before the Vikings or the Spanish?!? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I hate to cite Wiki but its entry on the Berbers is damn impressive, and goes so far as to include recent results from genetic testing which helps a great deal in determining who the Imazigh were and where their real origins lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berbers
Edit - Sorry, didn't mean to come across as belligerent or accusatory in my initial response but it is the 'scholarship' of individuals like Van Sertima that can taint serious academic research on this subject or worse, lend credence to revisionistic thinking and skew the public perception of reality.
Whilst, I was not aware of the background of this author it still serves to make my point, which was, not a recommendation to buy his book, but an example if read in conjunction with the comments it provoked of the confusion that exists over their enthnic and genetic origins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spino
If I was pushed to voice my own conclusions from what little I have read. I would say that logically the only sensible conclusion is that 'The Moors' never existed. I think what we today refer to as 'The Moors' were in truth never a single ethnic group.
History suggests that the first 'Moorish' invasion of Spain included warriors from several ethnic backgrounds led by Sultans/Caliphs who led confederations of tribes rather than a single nation.
It seems that those who remained to settle in Al Andalucia evolved into a completed new ethnic and cultural group over the next 400 years. Which became so distinct from its original roots that whenever it appealed for assistance from Al Maghreb the men that were sent were so alien in appearance and attitudes that they simply couldn't wait to get rid of them again.
Even when in the 12th Century the Almovids ousted the Andalucian Caliphs and took control of Spain personally, (closely followed by the Almohads) it seems that Spain itself managed to seduced and remould them so that by the time of the fall of Grenada the Nasrid king and his people really had little in common at all with the tribes of North Africa, and upon their explusion established completely new and seperate communities.
It aapears to me that even south of the Straits of Gibralter the tribes that occuped Al Maghreb were not of the same ethnic stock or of identical cultures. The quoram might prohibit the killing of other muslims but it doesn't demand interbreeding or close inter-ethnic relationships and it seems that what the Andalucia's called Al Maghreb was home to a wide range of different tribal groups some of which are represented in the game and others that are not. We can even see this same pattern in some moderm muslim states.
How history can take all these disperate tribes and ethnic groups with their variations in culture and and lump them into a single all encompassing class called 'The Moors' is probably nothing more than a vestage of western arrogance and ignorance.
The equivalent would be a muslim historian deciding that the French, English, German and Italians were all 'The Europeans' or perhaps like the Romans just referring to the whole lot as 'The Barbarians'. (Actually they do, but that just confirms my point)
Anyway thats my view, though of course its more convient to keep them as 'The Moors' for the purposes of the game.
I also want to shared my thought on this, might not be 100% right but they are probably well-known.
You also cannot forget that in mid 8th century, somewhere around 750, a great civil war between Islamic faction occured in Middle East. The result of this was not just the overthrown or fell of the Ummayad Caliphate but also shaken the whole Islamic empire which is at its peak, from Spain, Morroco, into the most corner of Arabian Peninsula. It's true that the new Abbasid had quickly took control of the former Ummayad's dominion, but by this time, most of its former territory has lost control from the central government, and some gone as far as independence/seceding. You can note that from these, at least until modern time, not a single state ever managed to subdue or control the whole Arabian Peninsula, something only Ummayad ever did.
Now back to the Moors, from the point of the Ummayad disintegration in 750s. Without any support or "true central government", the Moors must now of course rely on its own for many things, including military and defense. This was something the Moors in general probably did not need to think of previously, given the fact that any forces or troops from the rest of former Ummayad empire could came there at any time (because it was one of the territory). But then, not only the Moors lost support, the Ummayad refugee which managed to escape the killings in Middle East also found safe haven at Islamic Spain (Moors), and slowly they took control of the Islamic Spain territory. And you have to remember, Ummayad are the arc-enemy of Abbasid Caliphate, which by that time has control over some of Ummayad's former territory. No way, it could rely on "its Arabian brothers" for support or help.
The evident of this thousand years old quarrel even still exist today, you can just take a look at map of Middle East today and read their state law and philosophy/doctrine system, or you can also just turn on your TV and switch into news channel...
Getting past the Libyan desert and the empty gulf before it is AFAIK somewhat easier said than done, mind you, especially if the locals are being uncooperative. The distance from one end of the Med to the other can be surprisingly long in many ways, and its eastern and western halves tended to have considerable trouble getting to the other effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tran
AFAIK the Islamic expansion westwards along the North African coast and then into the Iberian peninsula was achieved mainly with troops recruited from the locals, with an increasingly small Arab core giving the marching orders.
It appears you somehow miss my point. My point, as I stated before, was that the Moors since fall of Ummayad was no longer subject to control or has any kind of support from "central government" like before. It has to rely on its own since no one else care about them then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
No. My counter-point is that Tunisia already, nevermind Iberia, was so far away from the center of the Caliphate they were in practice on their own to begin with. With those kinds of distances the local "satraps" tend to be de facto kings in all but name only, and certainly cannot count on much real support from their distant nominal superiors for problem-solving.
If that's what you wanted to say, then I accept. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
@TranQuote:
Originally Posted by Tran
You mentioned a couple of things which I haven't come across in my initial reading. Namely, the Ummayad dominion and the Abassid Caliphate.
I've been concentrating my reading on the history of Al Adalucia and working south and east into Al Maghreb. As I've been doing so I've become more and more convinced that this region was not a single unified nation but a conglomerate of individual (if allied) tribal groups and small Kingdoms.
But at the same time I also became convinced that they had to have some sort of overarching control to manage their affairs and co-ordinate their governance. I just hadn't managed to work out who or what exercised that control and where from.
It seems from your initial post that you have done the reverse and so you have a good understanding of the situation further in the East and how it might have affected Al Magreb and Al Andalucia.
So, I suspect that the Ummayad dominion and the Abassid Caliphate are the over-arching controllers of Al Magreb and possibly Al Andulcia missing from my reading so far and I'd be interested to hear more from you about who they were and how they exercised their control over the kings, Princes and Chieftains of their Eastern provinces.
For instance: Were they the Moors and how did their rule interface with that of the Nasrid princes?
Picking up on Watchman's point, there are certainly examples from the earlier history of the Persian Empire of 'Satraps' in outlying provinces becoming almost independant rulers. Indeed it seems to have been a feature of this style of governance. What I'm not so clear about is whether these 'Satraps' were ethincally and genetically related to the ruling dynasty or whether they were local nobility merely pledged to the vassalage of their superiors at the centre of power.
I don't really think the Ummayad Caliphate was like the Holy Roman Empire in which they were more like confederation of tribal groups and small Kingdoms or states. The Ummayad did have more influence and exercise more control over its subjects and territories, whether it was gained by peaceful submission (such as in Egypt), military conquest (like in this case Spain), or through other means. I'd rather call them more as territories with "limited autonomy" who are faithful of their Ummayad government. However like you said, it might have similiar characteristic with earlier Persian Empire, although I can't be sure since I don't know much about Persian history.
Control, as far as I know, was mainly through the spread of Islam, installation of trusted Ummayad people in high offices, and also through marriages with local rulers or people which they had subdued. About this last point, basically the Ummayad tried to gain trust and loyalty from the numerous people it encountered. Be it Berbers, Persian, or Egyptian. I read one article in the past, that even in Spain, supposedly one of the Arab military generals married a local Spanish ruler (or the other way around) who later converted, through this they managed to calm and gain trust from the many non-Muslim Spanish subjects.
Extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Africa
Woopee! I found quite a nice potted history of North Africa under the Moors on wiki whilst I was trying to find an answer to the question on the history quiz. Just proving the old adage that you always find what you’re looking for when you’re not looking for it.
Anyways, the story goes like this:
In the 7th century, (so before the first invasion of Spain) a host of Arabs, believers in the new faith of Islam, emerged from Egypt and conquered the whole of North Africa from the Red Sea to the Atlantic before continuing into Spain.
Christianity virtually disappeared throughout North Africa, although in Egypt, orthodox Christianity was to remain the main faith for another 500 years, despite being required to pay a special tax called the jizya in order to be defended by Muslim armies. (This tax was not abolished until 1855.:inquisitive: )
It is claimed that the safety of the Orthodox Christians in Egypt was guaranteed by the Christian Kingdom of Aksum (modern day Ethiopia), who already had a history of offering sanctuary to early Muslim converts from persecution by pagan Arab tribes and now threatened the new Muslim rulers of Egypt that they would dam the Nile and prevent water reaching their lands if they began to persecute the Christians in their newly acquired territories.
Lake Tana, the source of the Blue Nile was in their dominion so the theory is that they were planning to dam its output. How true this story is depends on how much faith one puts on the ability of the Aksum King to make good his threat.
It seems more likely that the Muslim rulers of Egypt were on good terms with the Aksum dynasty and that what actually took place was a friendly diplomatic exchange, in which the potential vulnerability of the Nile might have been nothing more than a bargaining chip on the table.
Whatever, the truth of the diplomatic exchanges the fact remains that the Christian Coptic Church survived in Egypt for 500 years after its annexation by the Arabs.
It seems that nothing much happened in the Geo-political sense over the next 300 years. In Spain the new Muslim princes were gradually being corrupted by science, logic and art, as already mentioned, and the Christian Princes were beginning to set up their protection rackets to exploit the weakness of their Muslim neighbours
Then, in the 11th century there was a sizable Arab immigration, into North Africa (not sure why yet), but it resulted in a large absorption of Berber culture.
Now, I’m not quite sure what the author means by ‘absorption’.
Does he mean that the large influx of Arabs subsumed the Berber culture and effectively reduced its dominance of the region, or does he mean the opposite. e.g. That the Arabs moving into the area absorbed the Berber culture and became more Berber-like.
My guess is probably the former, which would explain for instance why in the 8th century the Berbers who assisted in the invasion of Spain were replaced culturally and ethnically by a quite different but still supposedly Berber warrior class during the Reconquista period.
In effect the nature of the Berber culture and even its genetic stock evolved in the 300-700 years intervening between the orignal invasion of the Iberian Peninsula and the Reconquisa.
The Berbers adopted the speech and religion of their conquerors and from this base it spread south across the Sahara.
The new Arabic immigrants also became firmly established along the eastern seaboard of Africa, settling and developing new flourishing colonies, such as Mombasa, Malindi and Sofala, and establishing themselves as a major, maritime and commercial, power in the Indian Ocean.
At first these Arab immigrants to Africa recognized the authority of the Aghlabite Caliph of Baghdad. The Aghlabite dynasty, had been founded by Ibrahim I ibn al-Aghlab, who was one of Haroun al-Raschid, the fifth Abbasid Caliph’s, generals and now ruled this area as a vassal of the caliphate.
However, early in the 10th century the Fatimid dynasty based in Cairo established itself as the dominant faction in Egypt, and wrested control of both Egypt and Al Magreb from Abbasid control.
It's not mentioned but I suspect this ties in with Trans comments about civil war etcetera in North Africa and eventually led to the rise to power of other dynasties such as Almoravides and Almohades.
Eventually the Turks, are desitned to conquer Constantinople in 1453, and seize Egypt in 1517, establishing the regencies of Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli (between 1519 and 1551). However, these events takes us beyond the fall of Grenada and so it appears that at the time of the reconquista Al Magreb was indeed in a state of turmoil as suggested by Tran.
The Fatamid dynasty had just wrested control of Egypt and was presumably still trying to subjugate the lands in Africa ruled by the Aghlabite Dynasty.
The Aghlabites were already under attack from the Turks who had invaded their possessions in Italy and under this combined pressure they eventually lost their grasp on power sometime around 909 AD.
The Fatamid dynasty in turn then found itself unable to keep control of its new possessions and lost at least Al Magreb it to the Almoravides and Almohades dynasties. These new dynasties seem to have arisen from the Arabized Berber culture that had evolved from the earlier Arab immigrations.
And so it was these relatively new dynastic powers which were then invited to assist the Andalucian’s to defend their possession in Spain.
I’m sure its not actually that simple but it confirms my suspicion that significant changes were taking place both culturally, ethnically and politically across North Africa over the period of relatively peaceful Muslim rule in Spain.
The mystery still exists however, as to the source of the Black Moorish warriors reported by Christians on the battlefields of Spain.
The absorption by Arabs of the Berber culture doesn’t really help much, and I suspect these troops must have come from other parts of the empire. Perhaps, these men were from other vassal states ruled by the new Almoravid and Almohad empire?
If so which, where and why were they sent rather than local warriors?
And how does this information tie in with Trans information on the Ummayad Caliphate?
Ah! think I may have found the answer to the last question. It seems the Ummayad Caliphate was overthrown by the Abbasid Caliphate sometime around 750 AD. So, Trans information is a preface to the stuff I've just summarised. That would also partly explain why I hadn't come across them before in my reading, though to be honest I hadn't heard about the Abbasid's either.
This get more like peeling the skin from an union every day.
BTW: On a lighter note I think I've hired a mercenary to help me invade Spain. I mentioned it too her last night and she said 'Yeah! sure just book the tickets and I'll come.' She's not into history but she does like architecture so it should work out all right as we are unlikey to find much accurate history in Spain anyway. Any advice on agents/tours etc. welcome.
berber defines people who speak the same language group rather than ethnicity. morroc today is an extremely ethnically diverse country and it would be hard to identify someone as "berber" purely on appearence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
the almoravids were a southern berber group and people from that area of morroco do tend be more likely to more negroid (blacker) features. the people from that region would have been in contact with south west africans for a long time because of the saharan trade routes - some of which would have included black slaves.
the almohads were from the atlas mountains, and quite likely they may have originally been paler.
a good way to think of it is to compare it with the term roman - by the time of the empire that doesnt signify a particular ethnic type, but rather people who lived within the empireQuote:
Originally Posted by Didz
one possibilty is that they were slaves? the black slave trade was widespread through the muslim world at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
a morrocan example from a bit later is that moulay ismael (ruling in the 1600's) used and army of 150 000 black slaves!
here is a link to moulay ismaels "black guard", quite interesting,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Guard
Yes, that is interesting. It obviously relates to a period much later than the ReConquista but given that the Caliphates that ruled Al Magreb had access if not ownership of most of Africa from the Atlantic to Indian coast they would also have had access to warriors of similar ethnic roots.Quote:
Originally Posted by KARTLOS
It makes sense too, for the same reason given in the Wiki article you linked, that in a time of trouble and turmoil amongst the Arabs princes foriegn mercenaries and slaves might provide a safer source for loyal troops.
There was also a sound precedent for this from earlier history where the Eyptian Pharoah's hired Numidian warriors to bolster his armies, so perhaps thats the answer. Either that or becuase there was a risk of civil war or betrayal at home you would not want to send your own loyal troops abroad, so hire some mercenaries and send them instead.