Printable View
1) Why and how did the Muslim Armies of the Arabian Peninsula advance so rapidly and so far?
2) What were the contributions of the Romans to Western Civilization? Be sure to include, engineering, architecture, government, artistic, and philosophical achievements.
For my midterm tomorrow I want to know everyones views on these questions as the answers vary on how one interprets it.
Thanks :beam:
if you can't answer the 2nd one, and you're in an ancient history class... ... maybe you shouldn't be passing anyway
and im not sure if you should be asking question 1 here.. Dont think it fits the time period
Whats up with some people being real assholes on these boards lately? I know the facts, I want to hear peoples opinions and views on the matter as well. If you don't want to contribute, don't bother posting anything at all then.Quote:
Originally Posted by runes
I am doing very well in my class, thank you for being concerned.
True, but I can't think of any other place I can get peoples opinion on the matter. True some people come here just because they love the game and mod, but I've noticed just as many go through these boards who have a vast knowledge of history who I'm sure would love to share their views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefy187
When you ask something likeQuote:
Originally Posted by tapanojum
- your tone makes it seem like you're just asking the people here to do your homework for you... :/Quote:
"Be sure to include, engineering, architecture, government, artistic, and philosophical achievements."
That is not "my tone", those are the given question on the study guide I copied down word for word. I guess I should of made that clear in the beginning, my apologies. There is no homework, I have a mid term coming up and I wanted to see other peoples views as I am discussing this with classmates as well.
I always see people discussing historical events and arguing for weeks about such things on this board. This is why I'm shocked to see that the only replies to my questions have been attempts at making me look stupid or lazy.
My bad, from now on I will stick strictly to the book and given facts and never wonder what views other peoples have on the subject and how they interpret the facts. :book:
I second intranetusa's post. That's the impression I got, too, and since I didn't think this was offensive per se, I refrained from stomping hard on your toes. That's not to say I wasn't a bit miffed by what seemed to be a very haughty demand. It wasn't even 'could you please help?', it was 'help please.' Imperative, not questioning.
But yeah, it's a matter of phrasing. 'Nuff said. Just gotta be more careful how you say it.
To the topic, though, I'll just say there's a pretty general consensus to what Romans have contributed. A body of law, a culture that by virtue of outlasting everything else in the region became the dominant cultural inspiration for succeeding ages, a religion that eventually became equated with the culture, a tempering of 'barbarian' violence that led to the Middle Ages as we know them. It's in a lot of books, and there's little anyone else can say that would differ, the Roman Empire is so monolithic.
The Romans also contributed to Western civilisation by destroying practically every other civilisation in the region except the Germans, permitting a sort of cultural homogeneity that permitted states to understand each other in a common context. But of course, those of us who play EB will know that said destruction is more a tragedy than anything else.
The Muslim armies were able to advance so fast simply because
1) They were light cavalry-based troops who understood and used to the max the value of mobility.
2) Their enemies were disunited, and where united, they had no answer to the Islamic tactics.
3) Religious fervour resulting in much higher morale and determination overpowering the enemy's.
4) Their initial speed gave them a momentum that was never lost. They moved and hit so fast the enemy could not respond.
5) They made alliances with people they didn't REALLY have to/couldn't beat up. I mean the Berbers.
6) Being nomadic in nature, they didn't have the habit of staying too long in one place to consolidate it, making them faster than even Alexander.
7) Their reputation preceded them, meaning they didn't have to fight their way through every single strongpoint. Most simply surrendered and gave the Muslims their loyalty/conversions allowing them to move on.
Thank you pezhetairoi, you are right. I should of phrased that better. In my defense I did say Help Please in the title:sweatdrop: . I am studying/talking to other people about this and quickly posted that up and ran off to continue my activities. My apologies for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
What I can't seem to find in the books or online is to why the Arab powers were allowed to consolidate so much strength? Much trade existed between the Arabs and other powers such as Byzantine, and the Arabs sharing the borders had some Hellenic influence. How was such unity and process of building strength undetected by the Byzantine Empire? Were their conflicts with the Sassanids so consuming that they failed to notice, or were they not able to do much?
I read that the Sassanids did not expect such strength and half-assed their efforts at first until it was too late.
What you said about the Romans is pretty much what the book says and as you say, cant really argue with that, although I quite don't understand their Philosophical achievements. Wasn't Roman Philosophy greatly based of the Greek Philosophy and nothing really innovative?
Thanks again, I really appreciate it.
On the philosophy part I am of the school that says the Romans in philosophical terms were like the guys who buy the rights to a new invention and market it. They become famous for it, but they didn't invent it.
I read that about the Sassanids, too. Quite frankly in Singapore there are very few books on the spread of Islam, only on the time period when Islam is pretty much set up and running. What I know comes by and large from the Cambridge history of the Middle Ages and by many fragments and passing mentions in books. Also primarily from a study of the Crusades and the forces the Europeans came up against, and extrapolating backwards.
The thing about the Arabs is that everyone underestimated them, as I see it. You wouldn't expect what seems to you to be a bunch of people sitting around in the sand and hobnobbing with camels to be capable of much, especially when you don't see more than a few of them at a time unless you go to their big towns (they're not even cities, man). I mean, at the time of Mohammad, his greatest victory (at Mecca? or Medina?) involved opposing armies numbering in the -hundreds-. Like, wow.
It wasn't so much as the Byzantines etc 'allowing' the Arab powers to consolidate that much power, but more of their absolute inability to have any say in it. At this period in time the Byzantines were only really in control of Asia Minor, Syria somewhat south past Antioch to somewhere around Jerusalem, and that was that. To presume that this geographical stance would have allowed them to intervene in Arab politics (remember, Mecca and Medina are all along the southern-half west coast of Arabia) would have earned them a laugh and a spit in the face from the Qurayshites or any other tribe. Furthermore, the Byzantines were more worried about the Sassanids than they could be about a bunch of sand-loving unwashed nomads. Same about the Sassanids.
Clearly, they didn't learn any lessons from the Huns.
Furthermore, how could they enforce it? An army? To reach Mecca from Syria is like travelling the whole length of the Persian or Byzantine Empire. The logistical nightmare to transport an army across leagues and leagues of featureless sand and rock and get it to its destination alive, not to mention that the Arabs would almost surely fight as guerrillas, makes it unthinkable. Not to mention that any despatching of an army to the Arabs, which had trade links with both the Sassanids and Byzantines, would be viewed by the other as a weakening of defences that would be exploited at home, or might be construed as a threat to the other since control of Arabia would allow one to 'outflank' the border and get into the heart of the other's territory. Either way, war would follow.
Another possibility as I see it is that the core of Islam was actually in the southern half of Arabia, beyond the Hellenistic Arab entities from a Byzantine/Sassanid POV. By the time the Muslims surged out and overran the Hellenistic Arab countries and began knocking on the gates of Damascus and Ctesiphon it was probably too late to do much. It takes time to muster a response where large states are concerned (as anyone with a huge empire in EB will discover when the need arises to focus an army on one particular area arises), however rich and powerful they may be. And time is what the Byzantines and Sassanids didn't have.
Further, the Arabs hit the Sassanids first. Though I don't know enough about the byzantine nature of Byzantine policy to be even halfway authoritative on this, I would guess that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hence a fatal slowness of response that resulted in Manzikert.
I remember reading a paper, I belive in 2001, about a long series of devastating wars fought between Byzantines and Sassanids that wrecked both empires. The last, the III Perso-Turkic War, was conducted immediately prior to the initial Arab attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by tapanojum
Anastasian War AD 502-505
Iberian War AD 526-532
Khosrau's War AD 539-545
Lazic War AD 547-562
Caucasus War AD 572-591
Perso-Roman Climax War AD 602-626
III Perso-Turkic War AD 627-629
_________________
Arab conquest of Sassanid Empire AD 633–656
Of course there also was that little Medieval Warm Period thingie that stared some time around AD 600.
So in a nut shell the answer to question number...
1) Why and how did the Muslim Armies of the Arabian Peninsula advance so rapidly and so far?
is....
the how...
Slight over population in Arabian Peninsula (more so after AD 700) due to the beginning of an extended period of warm-wet climate. And...
the why...
total exhaustion of Byzantines and Sassanids due to nearly continuous warfare for over a century. Plus several internal civil wars.
Actually the Arab conquest helped the Byzantines recover, as the Sassanids had them on the ropes.
I'll see if I can't find that paper for you?
All very good points. Of course an invasion of Arabia would be redicilous and unthinkable at the time but actions in strengthening their defenses would not have been. Egypt was the Byzantine Empires richest region, yet the Arabs marched almost unopposed through it. It just troubles me that a great power such as Byzantine would be so clueless of such activities in Arabia. Arabs first raided these provinces in hopes of ganing riches and retreating back into the deserts, but during these raids they realized how weak Byzantine and the Sassanids were. It's hard to believe that all these raids did not bring enough attention to the south as a hostile threat and some actions be taken, wether strengthening defenses our scouting parties.
I agree the Arabs were highly underestimated, as shows with the half-ass effort on the Sassanid side in the beggining.
So the Arabs had really nice timing? The two regional powers in the Area Byzantine/Sassanid were weak and exhausted due to their constant conflict.
btw, I believe the Turks were involved in Manzikert not Arabs.
Thanks again, this is all great insight!
Oops about Manzikert. It was Yarmuk I meant.
My point number 7 about surrendering to the invader is much more important than it would seem, really. Nearly all Syria welcomed the Muslims because of intra-CHristian differences. Also, it was good timing where the Byzantines were concerned because the Muslims attacked at a time when emperor Heraclius (who was actually a pretty competent commander) was ill shortly after having soundly thrashed the Sassanids.
That, incidentally, is a major reason why the Sassanids went down so quickly. They had just lost a major war with Byzantium in which Heraclius had advanced all the way to the gates of Ctesiphon before they signed peace. Thus they were exhausted. Then came the Arabs, who captured all the riches of the Sassanids, and turned them and their manpower against the Byzantines. Tada.
The second question is rather too large for me to bother answering; the first, a major factor is the different approach to warfare. Both the Sassanids and the Byzantines were far more dependent on set-piece battles on level terrain for their large numbers to be effective. The Arabs tended to draw them away from such terrain and engage them in areas where they had too few supplies and couldn't deploy the way they needed to; that, combined with the previous exhausting wars, certainly helped take over the Sassanid Empire and the outlying regions of the Byzantine one.
BTW Syria is actually from the Greek term Συριοι which denotes the christian community of that region. I belive the old arab term is something like Al-Sham, or Bilad Al-Sham.Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
Also the final group of Byzantine and Sassanid wars weren't normal wars. They've been called total wars.
All very good points. It seems in history that most of the great ancient cultures,etc, were lucky with timing or geography.
Darn my poor Armenians, always stuck in the middle:no:
You'll note the Norse (Danes and Nords) on the other hand, at near the same time. Again the Medieval Warm Period at work. With less ice at the poles comes longer summers and more rain, more food, more births, more babies, and more mouths to feed, which in turn means more the need to free more land from the hands of those who can not hold it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tapanojum
much like rice being plentiful in the east supporting an amazing populationQuote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Not in a modern sense, no; the respective empires were far from being "optimized" into full-scale wartime economies, fully operational ministries of war and propaganda and all that. But I agree that, ancient world logistics taken in consideration, it is a pretty sufficient expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Now, to OP's question:
1) Why and how did the Muslim Armies of the Arabian Peninsula advance so rapidly and so far?
Apart from the oft-mentioned good timing (the Byzantine Emperor on deathbed, the Persian Emperor not the best that have graced the Sassanid dynasty; the last two decades being constant -vicious- warfare between the two empires, etc.), I'd say that the early Arab generals were generally sorely underrated.
They did achieve amazing victories after all. Victories decisive enough to conquer Persia and drove Byzantium out of Syria quite completely.
Also, Turks aren't involved in Islamic affairs until about 1000 A.D. or some such.
Local factors also help. While the Sassanid Empire was outright conquered, the territories lost by the Byzantines to the Arabs embraced their new masters rather willingly. Blame it on Byzantine religious intolerance and exploitive taxes and stuff.
2) What were the contributions of the Romans to Western Civilization? Be sure to include, engineering, architecture, government, artistic, and philosophical achievements.
This is not an analytic question, but one based on facts and accepted lists. I'm sure you'll find your textbooks, wikipedia (yes, well, somewhat), and primary sources far more valuable than people giving armchair lectures on message boards. :yes:
[/HIS 105 student myself]
Thats more about math and very much more recent, due to a decreased rate of death. More to do with the introduction of western medicines used to counter major disease.
Beware those whom cast purls amongst swine.
sounds like an expert, or more like the history channel expert?
Dude...Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
crack a real book.
If you will read again that was Turkic not the bloody Oghuz Turks.
Again, the topic was Post-Roman Medieval not the modern period, but thats a given...Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Maybe I should've written 'religious wars of annihilation.'
....but I like to dumb it down,
still
...for some I may not be able to dumb it down, enough?
You wont find a real answer to these questions on the history channel, in a textbook, and certainly not at wikipedia. But, you can try.
Dude...
crack a real book.
the ones with words...
Also, there are some additional factual problems with your post, but I'm going to let them ride for now.
cause thats just how I am.
I'm not particularly clear about the exact differences between christians that led to them welcoming the far more tolerant Muslims in Syria, but I think it had to do with Monophysitism, and I'm not clear how that differs from Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity. It's clear indeed that there was a general sent by Abu Bakr, Mohammed's successor, named Omar (bin something, I remember not) who was quite the military genius. A pity the campaigns were not recorded, we may have drawn some lessons from them.
Amazing how much debate this is generating. I've been learning a lot here...
This happens to be an area of specialty for my own part, but I am not sure I've got the time to post an informative post about the whole ordeal; I'll let you guys know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
please do as I am, by all means not an expert. I only know the basic outline, a few details, roughly how the subject transpired, and some recent theory on the subject.
As to my above post...
In my line, with 16 years of research, for the newbees, we use the term expert as a pejorative
as in instant-expert
and there's no end to the instant-experts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
I though the Persians actually controlled Syrian and Egypt when the Arab attacks began? Weren't the Greeks reduced to Constantinople at the time? If so the Arab war was initially against the Persians with the Greeks just regained some lost territory in Anatolia in the wake of the former's collapse ?
Nope, this was just after the Greeks gave the Persians the thrashing of their lives, and forced them to return everything they had conquered from the Greeks, and I'm guessing some extras too. So the Greeks controlled everything all the way to Egypt at this time. You mix up the first Caliphate with the Ottoman Turks, I suspect... The Byzantines were only ever reduced to Constantinople in the 1450s when the Turks were knocking politely at their doors with big knockers.
Persian Cataphract, do post soon. Nothing better than the resident expert on this.
your right.
Constantinople in the 1450s
No, I was thinking of the AD 611 episode when the Persians took Syria and most of Anatolia. Heraclius countered in AD 613, but Shahrbaraz and Shahin defeated him near Antioch. Over the next 10 years the Persians took Palestine, Egypt and most of Anatolia. Meanwhile the Avars and Slavs took the Balkans and invaded Greece.
But Heraclius recovered in AD 622.
Oh, that one. As I read it I didn't get the impression they were reduced to SUCH bad straits. All that didn't happen concurrently, did it?
Which is why I wanted to start this topic. I learn much more through discussion than reading any book ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by pezhetairoi
The Arabs on the frontier within both the Sassanid and Byzantine Empire defaulted to the Invading Arabs naturally. The Christians in places such as Syria also joined the Arab armies because the Orthodox Church wasn't very nice and also taxed them very heavily. The Christians became aware of not only the Muslim tolerance of Christianity, but also their lower taxation than the Byzantines.
And to answer cmacq, The Byzantines controled much land including Egypt, which was their richest region, which also fell to the Arabs with very little resistance.
I don't know much about this period ,But AFAIK ,Romans (Or greeks !?) had better situation compare to Iranians. Before Yazdgerd III come to power ,Several kings set on the thrown and then did overthrown. This alone show the disasterious situation Iran had. While on the oher side ,Byzantines were vicotr of the war ,And thus had better military position. Also they had a good natural obstacle against arabs ,The sea.
And Heraclious was a competent emperor ,Unlike Yazdgerd III ,Who was a young boy when came to power. He was a good guy ,And certainly could be a good king ,But he wasn't the man to stop such a Sand Storm !
Please post yours TPC. Here is not enough resource (I mean trustable resources) regarding arab invasion. So your post would be appreciated a lot :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
:speechless:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
...
:dizzy2:
Curious to know where you got that from...
The term Syrioi already appears within the works of Herodotos who notes "The Kappadokai [Cappadocians] who are called Syrioi [Syrians] by Hellenes [Greeks]" -- Herodotos, Historia, book 1; section 72; line 1.
Also the word Syria appears with Plato; Aristoteles; Xenophon...
:inquisitive:
Sweet, I'm insulted. What has the internet come to. :laugh4:
Did you miss the part where I said "[/HIS 105 student myself]"? That was supposed to indicate very much that I am not an expert on the matter. What I said was to be taken very generally; after all, that is what the impression the OP gives. 100's classes are very general in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
My mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
That's still not right. While Emperor Heraclius certainly had full backing from the Church, the Sassanids weren't exactly fighting a "Zoroastrian Crusade" or some such.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Just where you get the impression that I'm a "History Channel expert" is beyond me, but the OP's second question can be very effectively started off from a college textbook, and certainly answered in a class from that alone, if he(?) wishes not to pursue the answers further for whatever reason -- after all, those books are precisely intended to provide general pictures from which more specific details can later be studied on your own by more specialized texts...and debunked, if need be.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Or do you really think you can cover all that stuff from Seneca to Marcus Aurelius, Virgil and Ovid, Horace and Juvenal; all the engineering achievements of the Empire, all the science, the scholarly contributions, the nuances of Roman society...without summarizing, in one post, and without adhering to one disputed viewpoint or another, for that matter?
And no offense, but your claiming that "Syria" came from a name for "Christian community [in the region]" is positively wut?
But what is the use of a book without pictures or conversations?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Well then, educate me. I'm not so arrogant as to claim I know everything, or anything, as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
Oh, and Persian Cataphract, It would be wonderful if you'd spare the time to post. :bow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tapanojum
assholes? loose your impudent attitude mate.
When someone responds to a post with a personal attack they are, in my eyes, an asshole or something of that equivalent.Quote:
Originally Posted by KARTLOS
Thanks to everyone contributing. The Mid Term was very easy, although the essay question about the Arabic rise to power was removed from the test. It was still very interesting to hear other peoples views on the matter and all the other great information.
100's classes, like mentioned above, tend to leave out a lot of details and are very general leaving me wanting to know more.
Thanks once again, good stuff :2thumbsup:
I'm not studying history in any way, academically.
But the thought occurred to me. Why did Islam spread so fast? was it really all military? If it was how did they achieve a conquest about as amazing as Alexander's? (actually, more a measure of my lack of appreciation for Alexander, conqueror of the known world- insomuch as this only means Persia). The only reason I don't think it's more amazing is because it seems to have taken more than one generation to do it.
Why did Islam spread? Part of the story might be that, in Arab-ruled territory, non-muslims had to pay a poll tax, the jizyah. Some people are said to have converted for financial reasons.
Which is a bit sad, if true...
Alright, boys and girls, here is my promised entry on this issue (The Islamic expansion vis-a-vis to the fall of the Sassanian empire). I shall heed a warning, or a disclaimed if you will, before I venture into controversy, as I am not a stranger to this concept, but I will not ordain special treatment to any entity, no matter its presupposed size/populace or doctrinal beliefs. I post this because some individuals have genuinely expressed enthusiasm over my take on the issue, and so I shall provide it. My perception as an individual and as an accomplished scholar, not as an EB member, or a part of the EB entity. This will very likely end up offending many sensibilities, and will almost as likely be regarded as a controversial stance, vis-a-vis to modern "academical" perceptions of the early Islamic conquest. In other words, this may appear to be more than an elaborate rant, rather than a treatise. You have been warned.
First of all, expressed in the most blunt and frank language possible, I personally have issues against Islam as a religion, and I do not view Islamic history favourably. Call it bias if you will, but it's not just some issues, au contraire, it is many issues that plague my sensibilities. I will not go into detail on what has formed my parameters of thought, nor why my opinion passionately disregards historical personalities such as Mohammed Ibn Abd'allah, Ali Ibn Abu Talib, Muthanna, Sa'ad Ibn Abi-Vaghas, Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, Hajjaj Ibn Al-Yussuf, Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, Husayn Ibn Ali or the personalities of a countless myriad. I have issues with praise of these men, and I have issues with people who respect them and worse, subject them to worship of personality. This is a completely different discussion, but for the sake of intellectual dishonesty, I shall lay all the cards on the table; I am not a muslim. I speak on behalf of Iran's Mandaean ethno-religious minority, and even though I am an atheist, I know enough Medieval Mandaean history, in addition to the fall of the Sassanians to be able to judge harshly, but also prudently with a just verdict; Yes, in spite of the bias.
Now, over to the substance, the years before the expansion of Islam ignited, the Sassanians, under the late Chosroid age, fought a long and devastating war against the Maurikian Byzantines; This war was particularly long and brutal. The Sassanians had committed many injustices, and the Byzantines, after a certain stage of the conflict (The Sack of Jerusalem and the capture of the "True Cross" as a war trophy) began to regard this a "holy war". Some have called this conflict a "Crusade" even, however personally I'd consider that an injustice to its commonly established definition. Regardless, this was a highly turbulent age, which saw the rapid rise of the Sassanians, way, way beyond the old boundaries of the old Achaemenid empire; The Levant, Egypt, the whole of Asia Minor, coastal Arabia, parts of Africa, Rhodes, Cyprus and even the surroundings of Carthage saw itself annexed rapidly by the Sassanians. This was a time when the Sassanians struck swiftly and with utmost precision; Undefeated. The Turks under the "Blue" or "Heavenly"/Gök banner tried to capitalize on the "weakness" of the Sassanians, but were beaten back brutally, only to find the Sassanians driving them back as far as the frontiers of the Lake Balkhash, taking over the former possessions of the once feared Hepthtalites. This is, naturally, a huge area, and certainly merited for emperor Chosroes II his adoption of his title, the "Victorious". His two subordinates, Shahrvaraz (Sarbaros acc. Theophanes), and Shahin, two of the most shrewd generals of the time, were his arms to the reaches in the west, while his Armenian ally, Smbat of the Bagratids, was the shield against the Turks to the East. It was a moment of great triumph; His great ancestor Perozes almost lost his empire to the Hepthtalites, and when Chosroes "The Immortal Soul" had crushed them, a great enemy to the East had been pacified; Phocas, often called a usurper, had misruled the Byzantine empire after murdering Maurice. Chosroes enjoyed many stacked factors which served as a starting point for extensive conquest, and as he was the benefactor of Maurice, he used the murder as a pretext to invasion.
Before we continue to the very core of the last Persian-Roman war, I feel that it is my obligation to delve further into the Sassanian perception of the Hellenistic period, and the Phil-Hellene policies of the Arsacids (Colloquially and inaccurately called the Parthian dynasty), their predecessors. The Sassanians themselves were descended from a Parthian clan; They were not originally native to the heartland of the proper Persians. I do not refer to the blanket term of "Persian" otherwise inaccurately synonym with "Iranian", but of the area that constitutes the modern Pars province. The Bazrangids should be accredited with this title by such rationale. Nevertheless, the Sassanians considered themselves the truthful and righteous heirs to the Achaemenid legacy, which they deemed unfit for the Arsacids, mostly due to their Phil-Hellene stance on issues. This is factually a postulate ridden with contradictions, since the Sassanians also attempted to make themselves legitimate by claiming Arsacid spouses who gave birth to children of twin royal lineage (An example would be Ardashir's marriage with Myrod, an Arsacid maiden in which Shapur is said to have been the result of the union, per acc. Karnamag Ardashir-i Papakan). However upon the inspection of Medieval Zoroastrian literature such as the Arda Viraz, we may see that the Sassanians took the Graeco-Macedonian invasion and the Hellenization of the "Dominion of Aryans" very harshly. Very unlike the Arsacids who made use of both the Achaemenid and the Alexandrian legacy in order to bolster themselves. Thus the image of lost glory was very vivid even back then, even if mostly oral tradition prevailed. Some authorities such as Hagop Kevorkian Prof. Ehsan Yarshater argue that the Sassanians were ignorant of the Achaemenids, however they tend to take a more "archaeological" perspective to certain matters. This contrasts the Roman admiration of Alexander The Great, and the many attempts of defeating "The East", which many of you already are familiar with.
So the Sassanians expand from the Iranian heartlands, almost expanding as far as Xinjiang in modern China (Tarim Basin), up to Lake Balkhash and most of the surround Caspian Area, almost all of the colloquial Transoxiana, as far as Egypt, the Tripolitanian strip... A very impressive, by anyone's standards, amount of land. However the Sassanians forget the one crucial military axiom during conquest: Allocation of reserves and the dangers of geographically soft shoulders. The Sassanians were not the only ones on the rise; The Khazars to the West began to establish themselves as a regional power, and would become pivotal to Byzantine recovery. However the one thing that prevented the war from ending in utter defeat for the Byzantines, was not merely the deposing of Phocas, nor the succession of emperor Heraclius, but an event involving a letter; Scholars still argue whether it was an act of Chosroes ill-timed jealousy of Sarbaros' success, or a clever act of Byzantine forgery that resulted in Sarbaros' army turning neutral; Certainly Theophanes' account reminds a great deal about Plutarch's passage on Surena's murder on the orders of the jealous High King Orodes. As usual, Graeco-Roman accounts on "Eastern" intrigues are usually over-simplified and trivialized, and dismiss many vital details or possibilities. There was no tanglible excuse for Chosroes sending such a letter, and may facilitate the idea of the Byzantines pulling a clever diplomatic trick. It may also explain why the Byzantines went relatively unopposed until the great battle of Nineve. The battle is described as pure butchery, with no one gaining the upper hand until Heraclius smote Rhazates in personal combat; There is little to say about Heraclius' rather unchivalry approach to the offer of personal combat, but may be excused by the rather war-weary attitude of the emperor. Nonetheless, the battle ended in a very convenient victory for the Byzantines and the spark of desperation for the Sassanians; Now the weaknesses began to show.
Now, to the contrary of the implications sprung from "popular opinion", there was no way the Byzantines were going to have a chance in annexing the entire Sassanian dominion; Logistically and strategically, the Persians did a lot more damage to material Byzantine interests, and the army brought from the field of death at Nineve, was not suited for a prolonged campaign. The Sassanians could not appreciate these facts, and when Heraclius' army appeared outside of Ctesiphon, panic ensued amongst the nobles. This is where Persian judgement faltered: The nobles assassinated the emperor Chosroes II, and instead put his son, virtually a mad man who spent years in the prison, Kavadh II, also dubbed "Shiroye", upon the throne. What ensued was nothing short than a catastrophe; The fratricide of all his male siblings, only sparing his two sisters, Azarmedukht and Purandukht. Both Theophanes and Sebeos of Armenia make out some rather fantastic accounts of this event, but nonetheless it did not carry any positive effect and most certainly contributed to the future succession of weak rulers who were never recognized by the local populace only growing more frustrated out of disbelief. In short, the empire was on the verge of civil war. The Turks, though ultimately unsuccessful in defeating the Sassanians, were becoming a threat in the eastern frontiers once more.
The Byzantines were just as badly off, even though they recovered the Levant and Egypt; Armenia was gained due to diplomatic terms. The war, which had protracted for more than twenty-five years took an enormous toll on both powers. In this crucial moment of recovery, or if you will attempted recovery, the Islamic expansion beckoned and the Ridda Wars had just commenced under the leadership of Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, otherwise known as Syaif-Allah, or "Sword of God". Some of his finest "battles" encompassed his conflicts with the Persians and the Byzantines, and these include Ulleis/Al-Lees, Al-Firaz and perhaps most known of them all, the battle of the Yarmuk river, often considered macro-historically important to worldly history. Many are quick to give praise to Arab leadership in those battles, and some have equated them to Alexander's triumphs. I beg to differ. Specifically Khalid's battles against the Persians were little more than elaborate raids, and what most people did not know is that the added Islamic glea for conquest further stiffened the necks of the muslims when it came to diplomacy, but also contributed for some terrible events. Please read on.
Previously, the Arabs of the Hejaz were subject to aid, sent by both Sassanians and Byzantines by a regular basis through their Lakhmid and Ghassanid clients. This included surplus dates and grain, and trading grants. However whence Islam emerged, it did not improve the relationship between the countries; To the Sassanians, it carried negative force. This has been used by religious revisionists such Syed Maududi as a legitimate pretext of war against the Sassanians, but to Iranologists on the other hand the beginnings of Islam implies a series of taunts against Iranian integrity. This involves passages from the Sirat narrated by Sir William Muir, quoting Mohammed expressing wanton over "subduing the Ajam", the infamous hadith of Mohammed slandering empress Purandukht (And specifically her coronation) through a saying which everyone by modern standards would deem misogynistic. The arrogant daw'at sent by Mohammed to Chosroes II (Which resulted in the famous response of the emperor tearing up the letter in pieces) lead to a series of curses against the Iranian nation, and finally an outright declaration of war through the invasion of Yemeni'ite kingdom, the then clients of the Sassanians.
It was not that much opportunity than the sheer inhumanity of the Islamic advances that bolstered the early expansion. That both the Byzantines and the Sassanians had grossly underestimated them in battle, in addition to overestimating their sense of chivalry added fuel to a small flame. The "battle" of Ulleis for instance was a raid on a Persian encampment that had briefly settled down; Al-Tabari cites that they had settled down in order to eat. What resulted was a carnage, but not from the muslims outperforming the Sassanians, but rather the capture of fugitives. It is said that during the battle when the odds looked grim to Khalid, that he had prayed to Allah to give him victory and in exchange to not leave a single man of the enemy faction alive. No, apart from the muslim victory, Ulleis was situated along a small river, which he had ordered to be dammed so that nothing but a dry riverbed would show. The reader may fill in the blanks by wish, for what ensued was nothing more than massacre of Persian and Christian Arab blood pouring down "like river". Al-Tabari, citing 70,000 Persian and Christian Arabs in the enemy army, would ultimately make this blood-bath, though naturally inflated in number, still quite a gruesome and barbaric act of religious gratification. Again, I will not delve into the details, and there are many other battles, worse than this. Greeks and Iranians may have fought each other to the degree of extinction, but never was there foul play like this. This is "brilliance" on par with Genghis or Attila.
However as far as battles go, what Islam exchanged in its toll against Iran was her culture; Much due to certain Islamic decrees, among them Caliph Umar's infamous quotation of the redundancy of the literature in the "Ajami libraries", featured in one of Ibn Khaldun's passages on the Persians, we may verily well bear witness to the very explanation as to why during the span of eight centuries of Post-Hellenistic Iran, available historiography is scarce. Some have falsely attempted to blame this on the Mongols. With this said, I also wish to link to some of the more controversial entries I've submitted to Wikipedia discussions, which you may refer to here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sa...e#Civilization
Very briefly abridged, the success of the Islamic invasions is a combination of many things. Besides seizing the moment, it tackled two very weakened powers, under a religious banner, and with a particularly unrelenting attitude to political matters and a taste for statuating examples, which may entail horrific deeds, you will finally end up with the same successful model of Attila The Hun or Temujin of the Mongols. A very good piece of literature on this subject is Zarrinqub's "Two Centuries of Silence"; Especially if you can acquire a copy not printed in Iran (It is currently banned, but during the Shah's regime, the book was quite censored, even though Zarrinqub was one of the most esteemed court historians). Other authorities who assume a particularly critical stance towards Islam for example Dr. Shoja'eddin Shafa who has been been known to oppose concepts such as "Islamic Art" or "Islamic Science", deeming them fallacies by the weight and argument of definition. So my perception, no matter how controversial it may sound, is not a rarity at all within the circles of Iranology.
If there is anything else you'd like to know, let me hear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
I'll have to relocate where I read that, but it looks like your right and I was wrong.
thanks
hope you did wellQuote:
Originally Posted by tapanojum
Your post was extremely informative. The paper I referred to above, which I still haven't relocated, actually called the last Perso-Roman War a Crusade, but I didn't want to use that term. I though it may upset some, so I tried to use an equivalent phrase. I wonder, have you published on this subject, and if so could you please provide us a title?Quote:
Originally Posted by Persian Cataphract
The points about the rise of Islam raised above are all very interesting.
My own dimly recollection is that the Sassanians and Byzantines were punching each others eyes out when teh Arabs came rolling out of the sands. Both societies were under immense military, social, religious and climatic pressure.
The Byzantines had problems holding both Syria and Egypt: cultural differences expressed themselves in religious schisms such as monophysitism. Many people in these parts of the Empire were ready to co-operate with Persians or Arabs against their current rulers.
Were the Persians in a spot of religious turmoil too? Was their a Christian party in the state? I forget the details.
The Arabs emerged from the desert at a crucial tipping point. Both great Empires were exhausted by an intense series of wars on many fronts and wracked by disunity.
I don't think they had an unstoppable military machine, just a unified core of believers and some strong leadership.
Full credit must be given to the qualities of Islam in binding diverse peoples together and recreating and extending the kind of common cultural millieu that Cyrus established. A lot of it was the old Persian Empire and I think that was more important even than the Macedonian and Roman
Definitely much of Islam was founded on well established pre-existing civilisations and ideas. I'm reading the Qu'ran at the moment and the first sura is a re-capping of the Herbrew scriptures. Persian culture must have played a big part once the Persian realm was conquered. Specific respect is paid to the Christians, Jews, and one other mob I forget who.
I guess Persian culture didn't really play a similar "carrier" role for Islam that Greek did for Christianity. The Qu'ran was spread in Arabic exclusively whereas the Gospels were actually written in Greek (and thence into Latin for further spread).
Nevertheless Persian supplied the literary context for much Islamic culture, especially among the elite. Persian writing was most likely suppressed under the early Arab rulers but frankly they didn't stay that Artabic for long, immersed in the sophisticated cosmopolitan lands of Cyrus and Alexander's domains.
The dominance of Persian culture is demonstrated by the fact that it was the "court language" of Muslim India and much of central Asia up until the 20th century.
Very informative post. I wish I was able to express my ideas and thoughts as clearly as you have.
To answer your first question their mobility and skill allowed them to out manoeuver their sassanad and byzantine enemies, who were exhausted from their conflicts. They also had skilled leaders and excellent motivation
The second question covers architecture, learning, giving Christianity status and power, uniting Europe into one political entity, bridges and roads, introducing laws bureaucracy and the senate, Latin, a blueprint for an effective army, and arguably the most important serve as preserver of the fantastic Greek efforts made in science, historiography and in politics.
Good Luck, hope you pass.
Thanks! Aced it for sure :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynchius
@Cataphract
I'm not sure I understood the paragraph on Muhammad and Purandukht and whatnot... Were you saying that the war between the Arabs and the Sassanids began because Muhammad sent an insulting letter to Khosroes and then both sides proceeded to escalate the situation against the backdrop of the last Perso-Byzantine war until Muhammad made the first move and declared war first? o.O And what are the Ajam?
And as far as I know, I though Islamic art was largely Persian in nature, tempered with Islamic rules like the prohibition against portrayal of animals/plants/people in artwork?''
EDIT: Do tell us about yourself, Cataphract, I'm wondering about your background... It is rare to find people who even know anything about this timeperiod.
I am saying that the conflict gained more momentum as Mohammed ibn Abd'allah continuously sought to push his fame, as a prophet, beyond Arabia. Here is a quote from Al-Bukhari's hadith, which is a verified passage ("Sahih"):
In accordance to tafsir, this was uttered by Mohammed as a reaction to the coronation, or more likely the investiture, of empress Purandukht, daughter of Chosroes II. Here is a random quote from an islamic apologist by the name of "Ameer Ali", which I pulled out of Google, verifying the tafsir:Quote:
"...A people that leave its leadership to a woman will never succeed"
The Ajam was furthermore the Arabic "equivalent" to the Graeco-Roman "barbarian", and the Iranian "Aner"; It originally meant non-Arab or those "who mumble" or "speak gibberish". Later it extended as a way of designating Iranians, which turned "Ajam" into a way of saying "mentally backwards" or with less political correctness, "retarded". As for the passage quoted by Sir William Muir, I shall provide it:Quote:
Ameer Ali: That tradition as quoted by Imam Bukhari has to be understood in its historical perspective. It pertained to Zoroastrian, not Muslim rulers. The Prophet’s observation is said to have been made when he was told that a daughter of the emperor of Persia, Khusrow II had ascended the throne. He was slain by his son Kavadh (Qobadh II) who took over the reins. However, after a few months Kavadh died. This was in 628. Then there was utter anarchy for five years and one prince after another was crowned as emperor. They did not rule for more than a few months. Under the succession of short-term rulers, two daughters of Khusrow II – Purandukht and Azarmidukht were crowned one after the other and overthrown by Yazadegard III, a grandson of Khusrow II, in 633. It is possible that the Prophet reacted to this chaotic state of affairs and when informed of a woman, who enjoyed no status in the Persia of those days, having been crowned, opined that the act would bring no prosperity to the country. Again, we have to take into account the conditions prevailing at that time in Persia, which was a beehive of unbelief, corruption, nepotism, and immorality (135).
Hishami's "Sirat Rasul'allah", ordained by secular scholars as superior to hadith in providing factualities of Mohammed's biography, is a recension of Ibn Ishaq's original; Henceforth, it is also praised more by muslims who consider it somewhat less blasphemous to Islamic sensibilities, as it also bears the marks of self-censorship. Indeed, it is intellectually honest of you to point out the oxymoron of "Islamic Art".Quote:
Muir, in The Life of Mahomet, quotes Hishami:
The Coreish, hearing that Abu Talib lay at the point of death, sent a deputation in order that some contact should be made to bind both parties, after his decease should have removed all restraint upon Mahomet. They proposed accordingly that they should retain their ancient faith, and that Mahomet should promise to refrain from abuse or interference; in which case they on their part would agree not to molest him in his faith. Abu Talib called Mahomet, and communicated to him the reasonable request. Mahomet replied -" Nay, but there is one word, which if ye concede, you will thereby conquer Arabia, and reduce Ajam under subjection." "Good!" said Abu Jahl, " not one such word, but ten." Mahomet replied,-" Then say,-There is no God but the Lord, and abandon that which ye worship beside him." And they clapped their hands in rage;-" Dost thou desire, indeed, that we should turn our gods into one God? That were a strange affair!" And they began to say one to another, "This fellow is obstinate and impracticable. Ye will not get from him any concession that ye desire. Return, and let us walk after the faith of our forefathers till God determine the matter betwixt us and him." So they arose and departed. Hishami, p.136.
On my background, I have little to share. I am a 24 year old technical consultant with accomplished studies in computer science and military history, born from the south-western reaches of Iran, near the hills of Susa, and near the suburbs of once ancient nexus of knowledge, Jundishapur, in the city of Ahvaz. Now ironically stuck in Scandinavia for almost 20 years. My father, a goldsmith by traditional profession, has helped to perpetuate a long tradition of smith-crafting within the Mandaean community. Almost like a true privilege, I am descended from an ancient clan, which has roots in the late Arsacid period, when many small noble houses were taking shape; It is no coincidence that I slipped into Iranology, upon learning this special position. There is no conventional pedigree chart to speak of, but rather ancient archives and recension from Medieval originals and drafts, maintained by priests and roughly 1400 years of inbreeding, resulting from the Islamic invasion (Which lead to the religion closing its doors to the outside and assuming new religious symbols, most popularly a cross draped over with a white cloth). This enclave's specialty is Astrology, and has by many foreigners been called "Star Worshippers". It is commonly established that Mandaeans indeed do appear to be one of the "Ahl-Kitaab" or "Book of the People" in the Qur'an; I title that I resent by nature and by passion.
Some dispute exists over the ethnical affiliations of the Mandaeans; Some claim they were thoroughly Iranicized, but some schooled in Assyriology maintain that they were "true Chaldaeans"; I take a stance in the middle, but both groups admit that they were not immediately descended of the very small ex-Jewish minority that conducted an exodus out of Judaea after the devastating Jewish revolt, as they could not have sustained until this very day without proliferating their creed. I do however, with utmost confidence claim descent from the Parthians, which has resulted in a particularly dear affiliation with Parthian history. I do especially associate myself with the finding of a great statue, dated 100 CE, excavated outside of Ahvaz, in Shami, around the times when the Mandaeans established themselves in that area... Before I tell you which one, you may want to take a bold guess.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Like you didn't see that one coming... :grin:
Thanks again TPC:2thumbsup:
I certainly cannot add anything substantial to what Persian Cataphract has said on the reasons how and why Islam launched its conquest of Sassanid Persia and Byzantine Egypt and Levant. However, I think that what is no less interesting is, why and how Islam was able to sustain that amazing conquest. And here I would underline two factors which might be of more general validity for other conquerors: INTEGRATION and TOLERANCE (always very relative term, of course).
By integration I mean the extraordinarily easy way for anybody, who happened to be on territory just conquered by Muhhamad´s followers, how to become a "citizen" of Umma - just admit that there is no god except for the God and that Muhhamad is His Prophet and one instantly become a moslem with all rights and duties. This factor must have had a significant impact, at least on the more ambitious people...
The tolerance on the other hand provided a way for those intransigent enough to stick to their original faith and culture. They could do so (if they happened to belong to the "Book-people") for the minor trouble of paying a certain tax, which was lower than regular taxes under Byzantine rule anyway.
Sketching my picture possibly with exceedingly broad brush I would say that it was the unique combination of these two factors - Integration and Tolerance - which allowed or at least made easier so rapid expansion under first khalifs.
Sometimes people in the "West" (BTW - I am European and Roman-Catholic, to play with cards on table as well) are led to believe that Islam is essentially and inherentlyintolerant religion. Such a thesis can hardly face the fact that extraordinary plurality of ancient religions and traditions (Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, etc.) could survive on territory of so-called Islamic countries while enclaves of original worships do not exist in "Christian" Europe. :shame:
I'd beg to differ; Those minorities that you have cited survived in spite of the Islamic onslaught, and they did so either by keeping their mouths shut, or by conversion under pretense; A method which has met mixed results historically, amongst Zoroastrians. Islam is by no means a tolerant system; The caliphate itself is not the stereotypical image of a theocracy (How regal it may have been), but many times, where science and the arts flourished, it retained quite a secular nature, especially during the "Golden Age" of the thoroughly Persianized Abbasids. This is where religious policies may have been more relaxed and more influence given to nobility and aristocracy rather than the high clergy. This is not a testament to the ideological corpus of Islam. That science, or the arts blossomed during this age, is not an attribute of Islam. It would equally be absurd to ordain Zoroastrianism the origin of conventions, such as the Parthian Battery or the lustful murals or "morally decadent" mosaics of Bishapur. The Sassanians were relatively tolerant, but the orthodox Zoroastrian clergy of this time, and particularly under the patronage of the zealot Mobed of Mobeds, Kartir, were not; The clergy pursued aggressive religious policies at times where the power of the nobility and the crown was diminished. Ironically this "orthodox" form of Mazdaism was quite Hellenistic, unlike the Eastern Zoroastrianism of the Scythic East, which was brought along with the Parthians in their conquests westwards. The succession by investiture, by itself, is ample proof of this peculiar trivia.
We must not forget that when Islam descended upon Iran, a great cultural calamity had commenced. Libraries were destroyed, priests and literate men were murdered, fleeing clansmen sought their ways to the Turks, the Chinese, the Indians and the Armenians, the Middle Persian language, and script effectively outlawed for over two centuries. That we Iranians speak Iranian still, is not a testament to the magnamity of Islam. Far from it. It is a testament of the immortality of Iranian culture. No matter how much beating it may take, nor minding how much it is able to bleed, it will last until the very end of time, no matter the greatness or the dangers of its adversaries. Islam? An ideology easily defeated by the pen, even if it managed to kill many Iranian horsemen during the "age of prolification". Make no mistake, Islam is not tolerant, not by a long shot. I find the same quality in any self-touted monotheist religion, even if variable, but Islam is truly the worst of them all. It manages to dwarf the horrific conduct of Europeans against the native Americans, by one, ONE decree. To this day this decree has plagued Iranology much, much more than the invasions of Alexandros of Macedonia. Eight glorious centuries, eight centuries on how the Iranian language evolved in a crucial stage, and eight centuries of achievement. All lost, because a desert prophet, a pedophile and a murderer, had a brief orgasm on the very thought of worldly conquest.
I do not make any excuses; Iranians have a more than a splendid account on imperialism on their own behalf, in fact, I have made calls against exposure to hypocrisy. Iranians are no doubt the masters of the empire. But the Islamic invasion stands unique still, because it deviates from the previous notions of "greatness" or "glory", by conquest, perceptions rather inspired by materialistic goals. No, the Islamic invasions, was not merely a wanton for lands or riches, but indeed a physical attempt at fulfilling the prophecies of Mohammed Ibn Abd'allah. Only a madman would deny bribes, and concessions of land, only to repeat a religious "invitation".
Let us cut the political correctness. We speak of a religious group of people who took offence at the Pope reciting a Byzantine emperor's interactions with a Persian emissary. Do you people want a true showcase of tolerance, and the introduction of a man who practically brought a social revolution to the known world? Look no further.
The only people that were allowed to retain their religious beliefs in an Islamic nation were those that the Muslums thought followed the same God. Thus, only Christians and Jews. Monotheists (including Zoroastrians) were not permitted to continue their religion. Eventually, the Islamic nations concluded that the Christian idea of the Trinity was polytheism, and thus they were not worshiping the same God as themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin
I do not wish to offend, V.T. Marvin or any like-minded travelers, yet I fear I must respectively disagree with his opinion of tolerance and integration. I belive this memory has more shadow then substance, as I perceive the above topic as a historic note to all human-kind, that should be long remembered. Although my understanding of this subject, is overall, far less robust than that of The Persian Cataphract, I know enough to say, I must strongly agree with him on all points.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
And...
regarding this concern, in my humble opinion for our day and age, all those that do not heed this message, do so only at the greatest peril.
:surrender2: O.K. friends, I am no expert in early medieval history of that region. I based my previous post on what I know about the state of things in Levant just before and during the First Crusade - i.e. 400 years after the Arabian blitz which is the topic here - so I admit that I might be somewhat ahistorical. Classical (including EB :beam: ) and Medieval eras are just my leisure time hobbies to relief me of the horrors of present days (by reading about the horrors of distant past).
I still think that the original question why the first caliphs were able to expand so quickly and why the conquered population showed so little willingness to resist the conquerors is still valid and unanswered. Sheer exhaustion of Byzantines and Sassanids - while it must certainly have played a major role (and I was NOT denying that) - does not answer that fully, given the extraordinary endurance of that conquest later on.
The question I raised myself in the course of my suggestion on relative tolerance and integration in my previous post was not yet addressed at all. So I beg those who who disagree with the notion of relative tolerance of the caliphs toward other religions to suggest their explanation on why we can still even today meet a wide variety of religious minorities in the so called Middle East who survived there throughout the more than one millennium of islamic rule. That is a vast amount of time to convert anybody and everybody if the rulers did really tried to do so. Apparently they did not enough.
Compare that with Europe: in lets say 18th century (disregarding areas under Ottoman rule) Europe was TOTALLY christianized (with the obvious exception of the Jews) and (as far as I know) NOT A SINGLE "pagan" religious enclave have survived there. Or does anybody know about an uninterrupted tradition of tree worship in some isolated Alps valley, passed from druid to druid over centuries up until today? My assumption is that the early Christian rulers simply put more effort to ensure that ALL their subjects are of the same religion as they are than did the caliphs. (That equals relatively more tolerance.) Does anybody have any other explanation?
BTW - I would be also much interested if someone could write something or provide reference to some scholarly publications on the process how Armenia was christianized under Trdad III. How large was the community of Christians there before his conversion and the sudden conversion of the whole kingdom? :book:
P.S.- While knowing very well that one cannot be totally "objective" and cannot disentangle himself from his own personal and historical context, please, let us avoid projecting current political controversies back onto the history discussed here.
Dear Sir, I promise my opinion is subjective and its scale and scope is not restricted to the here and now. Nor, am I burdened by an innate need to rationalize or make apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin
[COLOR="black"]'However as far as battles go, what Islam exchanged in its toll against Iran was her culture; Much due to certain Islamic decrees, among them Caliph Umar's infamous quotation of the redundancy of the literature in the "Ajami libraries", featured in one of Ibn Khaldun's passages on the Persians, we may verily well bear witness to the very explanation as to why during the span of eight centuries of Post-Hellenistic Iran, available historiography is scarce. Some have falsely attempted to blame this on the Mongols. With this said, I also wish to link to some of the more controversial entries I've submitted to Wikipedia discussions, which you may refer to here'
This is interesting to me because I'm doing an essay: 'discuss the cultural politics involved in the development and management of libraries in antiquity. I think I could expand the question to include the role of cultural politics in the destruction of libraries. In addition I was hoping to write about more than the Library at Alexandria which is obviously invoked by the question. Unfortunately I know very little about the destruction of
the Persian libraries. If anyone wants to discuss this issue, or the essay question in general,(since discussing academic assignments seems to be O.K) please don't hesitate to give your two cents.
On the Persian Catephracts' original post I have a couple of thoughts. First;y there seems to be a conflation between military excellence and morality which I find questionable. You say that if the Arabs were brilliant militarily it was military brilliance comparable to that of Temujin. But Temujin was a great military commander. Chivalry is not a necessary component of
military excellence (see the Romans). Second there seems to be a contradiction between you expounding upon the glories and strength of the Sassanids and characterizing the Arabs as weak borderline-savages.
If the Sassanid dynasty was so great and mighty surely it could bot have been rolled up by the glorified cattle raiders you suggest the Arabs were. Nice or not the Arabs of that great explosion were great warriors. Third I have to point out that the Sassanids were not exactly Angels or embodiments of chivalry (see the sack of Jerusalem and a lot
besides).
I like how you laid out your values and point of view at the start. I do think your account is slightly biased though you acknowledge that. If you could elaborate on what the cultural politics behind the destruction of the Persian libraries were I would be grateful (or if anyone else could). In addition, though I don't want to hijack the conversation) if anyone has any any interesting thoughts on the cultural politics involved in the development of libraries in antiquity in general I'd love to hear them.
It needed to be hijackedQuote:
Originally Posted by Bartix Elite Guard
Said I'd get back to you, as I just found it. It was from a dictionary's etymology for Syria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
I did research it further and found the term actually refers to a western dialect of Aramaic as Assyrian is an eastern dialect of the same. The dictionary must have traced the word back to a usage associated with the Aramaic Christians of the 6th century, whom with at the time it was synomenous. It was a stupid mistake on my part, I should have been more careful. Again thanks for the correction.
I have stressed the importance of intellectual honesty from the very beginning; I'm rather fed up with apologetics on behalf of Iranian splendour, and it is indeed true that none of the imperial Iranian dynasties were peace-loving hippies. No one is claiming that. I mean look at me, I call myself "The Persian Cataphract", is that not a testament to a great tradition of war? I'll have it said again; The Iranians always get high when they speak of imperialism, and always get particularly grumpy when defeated by others. That's not what this issue is about. No one lasts forever, not even the eight century legacy that spanned the Post-Hellenistic Greater Iran. It's a fact of life. No one is disputing that. The Sassanians certainly had their weaknesses, in fact, they had like any other declining society its own share of cultural squalor, social injustices (I kind of beat you to the discrepancies occuring in the Levant during the Sassanian invasion of Syria, so you're kind of repeating what I have been saying) and decadence... But that's not what I'm talking about now am I?
No, what I'm stressing is that the "Arabs" (If we even need to persist using this ambiguous and flawed phrase) made use of... "Unusual" methods while conducting warfare. Previously Huns or even Gök-Turks at some point in history indulged in such practices as well, though more for practical purposes, rather than immediately religious issues. You see, I set the distinction between the brilliance of Alexander and Cyrus, and that of Attila or Genghis. It is one thing to have an enemy; It is another thing to break the scruples of rudimentary military courtesy. Neither Iranians nor Romans took glea in utterly crushing down a foe to the last man. Now even Temujin had his qualities, as a human being; For instance the Khwarezmids could at least retain the one ancient scruple of not killing the emissary, which they failed to do. It resulted in utter massacre and destruction. The Islamic invasion however is the physical and geo-political embodiment of a desert prophet's wishes of proliferating his creed; Aptly to his expectations, to the global scale. One has to realize the breadth of the issue; The muslims did not expand for the same geo-political reasons other imperialistic dynasties or militaries within Greek, Roman, Iranian, or Indian cultural spherae.
There is neither glory nor a true showcase of competence or brilliance in the warfare that the muslims brought; I do not merely speak of Arabs. Cosmospolitan Arabs who lived in the cities such as Iranian-influenced Hatra, Mâzûn (Oman), Palmyra, Lakhmids (Muntherids), Ghassanids and Nabataeans deserve any credit that may be bestowed upon them. Saba, Himyar and the advanced cultures around Yemen, and the future vassals of the Sassanians. These were civilized men, well aware of the art of trading, philosophy, poetry and whatnot. Even the most backwater Arabic tribe at the time, the Quraysh, had their social qualities. Even there Mohammed Ibn Abd'allah found his share of enemies; Even intellectuals! Even in those impoverished areas so otherwise patronized in Islamic sources. I'm not speaking of Arabs. I speak of muslims. There is nothing to be mistaken of. Islam changed warfare in that region, especially by adding another dimension to diplomacy and by the popular axioms of warfare.
It begins with the daw'at; It offers three "options" to the host: Convert to Islam or pay Jaziya (Penalty taxes), or solve it by the sword. That's it. No trivializing, no bullshit, that's what was offered on the table. It didn't matter if Sassanians offered more wheat surplus, dried foodstuffs or dates... Riches... Incredible bribes or even concessions of land! Think about it. When Sassanian officers offer themselves up for duels or wrestling matches in order to spare the lives of as many soldiers as possible, muslims would find a way or another to resort to foul play not even allowed in Pankration and later pursue to slaughter the enemy army who suddenly finds itself without a general to begin with! In an age where the Sassanians were at their most weakened stage, scourged by Heraclius' incursions, the loss of Armenia, Turkic invasions from both the Western and Eastern Gök/Heavenly Khaganates, and finally the alienation of the Lakhmid bulwark. Yeah, brilliance... Let's give the muslims an applause and a standing ovation. I may be biased, and if I need to be candid this is about as biased as it can get, but I do not defile my surroundings with lies. No matter how harsh my judgement is on the muslims of the Early expansion, I don't make up stuff. You'll have to read it from Byzantine, Armenian, Indian and Islamic sources; Especially the Islamic sources put a particularly disturbing accounts that gives it all some kind of a positive light. This is something many, if not most Iranologists have a problem with, at the pathological level. It's not about acceptance, it's about the subjectivities that arise regarding the context of the conflict.
I'm not going to dispute that the muslims emerged victorious. It's a fact of history. No one can dispute it. But we cannot overlook details like these. This is one very crucial occasion when the Sassanians almost mortally wounded the muslims and had a chance to redeem themselves for the losses in the desert. The Sassanians not only wasted a chance to give ample retribution, but probably overestimated their enemy into thinking that such a loss would permanently dishearten the muslims. The same mistake was repeated at Al-Qadisiyya when the Sassanians felt content bargaining with the muslims when the night was about to fall; Most casualties resulted due to the Sassanian blunder at the "Night of Clamour", where a few muslim warriors wrought complete havoc at the Sassanian encampment where most soldiers were asleep. That is foul and barbaric, not brilliance per tactical finesse.
Your words, my intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
Indeed, a bit out of context, yet I believe a hammer has struck a nail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
I do recall, when reading Armenian history a couple instances where I thought even in the ancient world, were a bit dirty.
Trying to recall by memory from over 3 or 4 years ago but I'll do my best. Don't count this as anything solid and correct me where I'm wrong.
One occasion where the Arab leaders invited most of the Armenian princes and nobles from around Armenia to a council or meeting of some sort in a church located in Nakhichevan . Ended up in locking them inside and burning the church, thus efficiently removing much of the nobility.
Another instance..
An Arab army marched across during winter over one of the lakes in Armenia, but it was completely frozen on top. Suddenly the ice gave away and most of the men marching drowned or froze to death. The few hundred remaining survivors wandered around and received help from an Armenian Mansion or fortress or something of this sort. Even though the lives of several hundred Arabs were saved by this estate in the time of war, the Arab armies continued the same harsh policies and tactics on Armenia.
Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I'm having trouble finding these sources again. If anyone knows what I'm talking about let me know, I want to read about it again and get things straight.
That is precisely what I was talking about. I think there is in fact very little difference between us on the description of historical events:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
1.- "Convert to Islam" = "integration"
2.- "pay Jaziya" = "tolerance"
3.- "solve it by the sword" = admittedly no equivalent on my part
Enslavement and despoiling plus Option 3 were a "standard" of the times, that is what victors usually did to the vanquished. Compare with the conduct of the Assyrians, the Romans (remember Carthage, Corinth, Dacia, etc.)
What I still think made the Arabic conquest so special was the option 1 in its "instanteness" and the relative mildness of option 2. Compare that with the priviledge of roman citizenship which used to be granted to the subjugated populaces only after a prolonged time of loyal service to the Empire.
IMHO, the controversy stems from ascribing different (moral) values to the terms used in the course of discussion, which is absolutely natural and there should be no problem with that.
I still disagree with your (PK's) conflation of military skill and morality. They have nothing do do with each other. The Romans were morally worse than the Muslims when it came to war in many ways as has just been described. Ghengis was an excellent commander, Nomad or not and should be compared with Alexander. Alexander massacred a whole town while they were offering symbols of peace. You can dislike Muslims all you want but your argument that they were worse than the usual standards of ancient warfare is weak in my opinion. Alexander did not observe 'rudimentary military courtesy' when he put whole populations to the sword and wrecked Persepolis and neither did the Romans when they raised towns and even cut the animals in half. There was no chivalry, decency or military courtesy, of civilized values in any of that that can be contrasted with Muslim alleged barbarism.The Sassanids were as bad. I hardly see how the treatment of diplomats is important in the context of such slaughter.
Anyway if you want to say anything about the cultural politics of the destruction of the Persian libraries I would be interested. It might help with my assignment, and your case against the Muslims, because, Persepolis aside, high-cultural vandalism was generally not part of 'civilized' ancient warfare. I'm afraid the massacres and sneaky tactics were.
On your first point, it is hardly "integration" to invade another land and dictate such terms. That the invading muslims had the audacity to make such a demand only throws more fuel to a bonfire. In this case, the muslims invaded only for spreading their creed; Instead of bargaining like any other civilized nation, they dismissed briberies, and concessions of land. It's madness, not integration. The Sassanians integrated their Lakhmid allies to Persian culture by offering estates, and arable lands, in exchange of serving as allies in war. Equally, the Sassanians put high esteem to the loyalty of the Armenians, and more significantly, the nobility of Persarmenia. There are of course cases such as the Lazic, and Iberian wars, as well as the uprising of the Mamikonaean house, but these were rather politically charged cases, where the Sassanians had reason to suspect Roman intervention, which lead to quasi-religiously inspired campaigns. Whatever the case, it does not bear relevance to even comparing it to the purely religiously fueled and inspired invasions of Islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin
On your second point, the poll tax, otherwise known as Jaziya, you label it as a showcase of "tolerance". Jaziya is not a concept, nor a measure of tolerance. It is, in all possible definition, a penalty demanded from muslim overlords in "ensuring protection" for those who paid. A threat. Extortion. Jaziya can be translated to "We can't ensure your protection if you do not pay". It fundamentally differs from the previous caste society which was the primary organization of the Sassanian administration, which revolved around a feudalistic model with nobility, clergy, scribes and artisans providing the societal layers. The communal mechanics work differently and in combination with the Partho-Sassanian economy model... I'd say if the Jaziya ever was a measure of tolerance, it's a flawed model. The problem is that thanks to the divine representation of Islamic laws, the Shariah that is, it puts a greater emphasis to the malicious point-of-view in ordaining it a superior system; Sassanian castes (Feudalism) worked because it was forged out of economical and practical reasons; Jaziya works like a parasite, leeching blood out of the few and deviating.
Your third point, well Marvin (You don't mind if I call you that?) I believe we have reached an agreement; The problem is that we differ on the mentality. Diplomacy was not some simpleton game of ABC politics, unlike the daw'at which was repeated relentlessly. Diplomacy involves at least two parts. The daw'at, ergo, is not diplomacy; It's an ultimatum.
Sure they do. Especially if the aggressor touts itself "Religion of Peace" (Oh, like you didn't see that one coming...). Jokes aside, I'm not really referring to military skill or morality in my criticism of muslim methods. I'm speaking of the context and the mentality of the transgressions of the Early Islamic expansion, and as a matter of a fact, they fought differently than the Romans and the Persians, their politics looked differently than that of the Romans and the Persians, but most importantly they fought for vastly different reasons. By association to religion, their methods of war inevitably drag along moral and ethical matters. Today, countries like Syria, Iraq and Iran are predominantly muslim. Obviously for a reason, and not because uncle Harry accidentally caused a country with Zoroastrian roots to turn into a predominantly Shi'ite state when he masturbated in the shower... :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartix
I'm not here to give you a free ride on your school-related assignments. I'm going to concede on the points that previous showcases of utter barbarity do exist, which does not exclude Alexander, or some Roman generals and whatnot... I know all about that, no need to repeat. But they did not invade, loot and cause misery because some prophet or religion inherently told them to commit such things. It's a huge difference when you do these things as if they were ordained by God. This also puts a different spin to the destruction of the academy in Alexandria, vis-a-vis to the religiously inspired destruction of literati all the way from Ctesiphon to Chorasmia. You see what I'm getting at? I'm not disputing what you're saying; I'm all too familiar with Alexander's atrocities, I got fellow Iranians still calling that man wicked and evil. Rome's defiling of Carthaginian hegemony? Well, at least scholars know of it and question the magnamity of Rome in such events. Hell, I'll even pull the times when the Romans acted like sons of motherless goats against the Parthians (Which no less fuelled the Sassanians into a series of releasing angst, mildly put), or when Sassanians themselves directly stomped the Kushan empire and the subsequent Hephtalite threat. I know. Believe me, I do. You can disagree with me all you want, but the last thing you will call me is "intellectually dishonest". But all of this differed in comparison to the Islamic invasions.
The main passage that might be of interest to you as a source, will inevitably be a verse from Ibn Khaldûn's "Muqadimmah" in the chapter "On the Persians". I cannot remember which passage, but I will dig it up later. If you also want the passage of Hajjaj Ibn Youssuf's atrocities in Chorasmia, I'll find the correct citation from Al-Tabari's historical chronicle on the conquest of Media.
'The main passage that might be of interest to you as a source, will inevitably be a verse from Ibn Khaldûn's "Muqadimmah" in the chapter "On the Persians". I cannot remember which passage, but I will dig it up later. If you also want the passage of Hajjaj Ibn Youssuf's atrocities in Chorasmia, I'll find the correct citation from Al-Tabari's historical chronicle on the conquest of Media.'
Cheers
'I'm not here to give you a free ride on your school-related assignments. I'm going to concede on the points that previous showcases of utter barbarity do exist, which does not exclude Alexander, or some Roman generals and whatnot... I know all about that, no need to repeat. But they did not invade, loot and cause misery because some prophet or religion inherently told them to commit such things. It's a huge difference when you do these things as if they were ordained by God. '
Why? Do yo think it mattered to the victims?
'This also puts a different spin to the destruction of the academy in Alexandria, vis-a-vis to the religiously inspired destruction of literati all the way from Ctesiphon to Chorasmia. You see what I'm getting at?'
Not really. Your whole position is premised on the assumption that Islam is bad and therefore atrocities by the Muslims MUST be worse than comparable atrocities by other cultures BECAUSE it is Muslims who committed them. While internally consistent it has little argumentative value because all your really saying is 'I don't like Islam' or 'I don't like Religion or whatever.' Circular reasoning. That is unless you can explain the quality of difference between Muslim barbarism and Roman and other barbarisms. You keep stating the existence of this difference without really qualifying it.
I don't think you are intellectually dishonest at all.
Well, I have not said that Jaziya is a "showcase of" tolerance, but that it is a relatively tolerant measure - to be able to stick to my faith and customs for a certain fee, no matter how high it was. Yes, it is an extortion. Yes it is a blackmail. Yes, it is a totally unacceptable discrimination by modern standards. But consider other options of that times - either change your faith or die. For a reference to usual European practice in these matters I would point out to the Chronicles by Gregory of Tours (on mass slaughtering of christian heretics (Arians), jews and pagans in Meroveic France).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
I would just say it in this way: Today, countries like Syria, Iraq and Iran are predominantly muslim (while 18th century Europe was completely christian). Obviously for a reason... This is the difference between our arguments, Persian Cataphract, in the emphasis we put somewhere and in the significance we ascribe to certain events. Both of us have good reasons for it and apparently neither will convince the other completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract
You are a undisputed authority in this community on Iranian history, but I think that your pre-formed judgements and the fervor with which they are presented does not serve your overall argument well. No offense itended. Sincerely, Marvin:yes:
Which isn't true at all either. Yes Europe was predominantly Christian (and still is today), but it never has been completely or even close to completely Christian. Jews and even Muslims did live in Europe, and especially the Jews did make up a significant percentage of the total people in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by V.T. Marvin
Ad Tellos Athenaios
You are quite right Tellos, but I have already made this reservation in my post from 11-24-2007, 18:00 - "in lets say 18th century (disregarding areas under Ottoman rule) Europe was TOTALLY christianized (with the obvious exception of the Jews) and (as far as I know) NOT A SINGLE "pagan" religious enclave have survived there." (emphasis added) so I did not felt it as necessary to repeat this disclaimer again.
Ad Persian Cataphract
Just one more comment. You have written yourself has on 11-22-2007, 20:26 that "The caliphate itself is not the stereotypical image of a theocracy (How regal it may have been), but many times, where science and the arts flourished, it retained quite a secular nature, especially during the "Golden Age" of the thoroughly Persianized Abbasids." (emphasis added) What is interesting for me is how the Abbasid caliphate has become "thoroughly Persianized". Apparently because lots of Persians did willy-nilly convert, thus become "citizens" of muslim Umma, thus were able to retain their positions in the state apparatus, thus unknowlingly secured some sort of cultural continuity which in the end have Persianized the caliphate.
Did terrible atrocities happen in the process? Yes they did! Was forcing people to convert or pay a poll tax morally wrong? Yes it was! I am not denying that. But I do not see why these atrocities and wrong things should be regarded as WORSE than any other. Benign conquerors like Cyrus the Great seems to be a rare exception rather than a rule in world history. Sad indeed, but true.