Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

[Cyclops]

... The Islamic World was intrinsicly violent in a violent world...

I think its fair to observe that the core of the Caliphate was probably intrinsically less violent than contemporary western europe, in that it was anciently civilised, had an elaborate legal administration and intellectual distaste for violence (hence the adoption of slave soldiers who ultimately usurp the rule). The advent of Turkish rule led to a period of more intense warfare, but I'fd guess the Caliphate had previously been almost on a par with contemporary East Rome (if not China: IIRC even muslim merchants were astounded at people travelling around Tang and Sung China unarmed).

Certainly it was a violent world but Islam had given a relatively stable structure for many centuries, and was undoubtedly more civilised on many different scales.

...In addition to that what is over correct? Pro-Barbarian sentiment over Rome is very old, in fact over a hundred years old, the problem is finding a source for it in ancient texts.

There's still a major cult of Rome. Caesar is still better known than Alexander.

This may be n part the work of the Catholic church but I was raised in that tradition and in Australian Catholicism Rome stands for pagan cruelty and pride.

I think the cult of Rome in the English speaking world is in part attendent on the cult of the British Empire.

Is there something like that in the Francophone world? IIRC Napoleon explicitly evoked the Roman Empire, in keeping with the French First Republic's evocation of the Roman Republic.

[TancredTheNorman]

I think its fair to observe that the core of the Caliphate was probably intrinsically less violent than contemporary western europe, in that it was anciently civilised, had an elaborate legal administration and intellectual distaste for violence (hence the adoption of slave soldiers who ultimately usurp the rule). The advent of Turkish rule led to a period of more intense warfare, but I'fd guess the Caliphate had previously been almost on a par with contemporary East Rome (if not China: IIRC even muslim merchants were astounded at people travelling around Tang and Sung China unarmed).

Certainly it was a violent world but Islam had given a relatively stable structure for many centuries, and was undoubtedly more civilised on many different scales..

Which Caliphate do you mean the Fatamid or Baghdad one? I'm not uninformed about either, I don't pretend to be an expert but I will agree that the East was at the time more "civilized" then the West. That of course is a relative statement, the stage, and a lot of other cultural things that never entirely left Europe were neglected in the Islamic middle east during the middle ages. In addition to that it doesn't prove the Crusaders were bloodthirsty monsters depicted by Terry Jones, or that the Islamic world was peaceful, the emergence of Turkish rule changed the balance of power, hurt the Byzantine Empire greatly, and forced Alexius Comnenus to come to terms with the Papacy so he could get Papal support (in the form of the Crusade). Terry Jones largely skipped the battles in Asia Minor that restored Byzantine power. His Crusades is on par with the History Chanel, tv documentary series have largely been going down hill for awhile it isn't just him.

There's still a major cult of Rome. Caesar is still better known than Alexander.

This may be n part the work of the Catholic church but I was raised in that tradition and in Australian Catholicism Rome stands for pagan cruelty and pride.

I think the cult of Rome in the English speaking world is in part attendent on the cult of the British Empire.

Is there something like that in the Francophone world? IIRC Napoleon explicitly evoked the Roman Empire, in keeping with the French First Republic's evocation of the Roman Republic.

That depends entirely on what you mean by the cult of Rome, to many modern Europeans Rome is the bogeyman depicted by Terry Jones, I would probably guess that the cult of Rome had a resurgence when Gladiator came out and has since gone into a decline.

[Cyclops]

I am barely informed on Islamic history, but I am gratified to find we are in basic agreement.

...That depends entirely on what you mean by the cult of Rome...

While Rome is aknowledged as cruel (something of a bogeyman I guess), I think its ascendancy is assumed to have been inevitable, rather than an involved contested evolution. "Then the Romans came along and the others all bowed to the inevitable, except Hannibal who had the temerity to resist, and he was inevitably beaten but he inevitable legions wearing the inevitable LS..." etc etc.

[Hax]

Hey guys, I have to run to philosophy class, but I'll post a bit about Islamic warfare and the caliphates when I get back, okay?

[TancredTheNorman]

I am barely informed on Islamic history, but I am gratified to find we are in basic agreement.



While Rome is aknowledged as cruel (something of a bogeyman I guess), I think its ascendancy is assumed to have been inevitable, rather than an involved contested evolution. "Then the Romans came along and the others all bowed to the inevitable, except Hannibal who had the temerity to resist, and he was inevitably beaten but he inevitable legions wearing the inevitable LS..." etc etc.

It is also worth noting that Western Christendom had no problems with the status quo before the rise of the Turks, in a way you could blame the Byzantines for losing the Battle of Manzikert. I'm glad we agree on the cult of Rome to in that case, it is ironic that the Cult of Rome transformed depictions of Rome from Gladiator to a certain Starz show deserving Damnatio Memoriae

Hey guys, I have to run to philosophy class, but I'll post a bit about Islamic warfare and the caliphates when I get back, okay?

Thank you, I look forward to reading it.

[Hax]

Right. When Islam was founded, in around 650 AD, Arabic society could be very cruel. As I'm no expert at all on pre-Islamic history, I can tell you fairly little about it, but it is generally accepted that the rise of Islam certainly made life easier for some inhabitants of Arabia. Whereas one was completely dependent on the protection of the clan before the founding of Islam, the Arabian tribes were now also united under a single religion.

Meanwhile, in Persia and Anatolia, the Sassanids and Byzantines had fought eachother nearly to death, so when the Arabian warriors arrived, they pretty much rolled over the Sassanid and Byzantine empires. There was some struggle over Persia, but before long, the Sassanid empire was completely destroyed, while the Byzantines still controlled much of Anatolia.

In any case, whereas Christianity has very little to say about warfare and prisoners of war, etc, the Qur'an is a lot clearer about it:

1) It is illegal to pursue a war after your enemy has surrendered
2) It is illegal to kill prisoners of war
3) It is illegal to harm nature when doing battle

Especially the really orthodox Muslims, people like Salahuddin Ayyubi, who pretty much single-handedly overthrew the Shi'ite Fatimid government of Egypt, abided to these rules. While Islam is not inherently more forgiving than other religions, it has some very specific rules when it comes to fighting other people, especially Jews and Christians (who are defended in the Qur'an as being Ahl al-Kitab (whether the Muslims really abided to this all the time is debatable, especially with the massacre of the Banu Qurayza)). Apart from that, Muhammad also stated that one should "seek knowledge wherever you can, even if you have to travel to China".

This, as well as the fact that Islamic philosophy (as first proposed by Al-Farabi) states that knowledge and reason are not in conflict with religious authority, made the Muslims, when they conquered the Levant and Persia, where science had been practiced for many centuries, quite interested in the workings of the physical world. And thus started what we know as the Islamic Golden Age: through the collection of Sanskrit (which had been brought to Baghdad's House of Wisdom), Greek, Persian, Syriac and Chinese scientifical works and the way this was expanded by Muslim scientists like Omar Khayyam, Al-Khwarizmi, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), ibn Rushd (Averroës), ibn Sina (Avicenna) as well as many others, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Also, one should understand that mass conversion of non-Muslims didn't start until at least the 10th century; as non-Muslims had to pay the jizya, the Caliphs actually tried not to convert anyone, as that would mean a loss of tax revenue. In the early history of Islam, Islam was exclusively a religion for Arabs; the Ommayad Caliphate was also an Arabic caliphate, ruled by Arabs, for Arabs; which is also one of the biggest reasons for the fact that they were overthrown by the Abbasids, who found quite some support from their Persian subjects.

Also, I'd like to say two things.

1) I'm not Muslim
2) Don't involve modern-day politics in this debate. We are merely looking at Islamic history, not at Islamic theology or at the actions of radical fundamentalist groups in Palestine, Afghanistan or any other place.

[cmacq]

We are merely looking at Islamic history, not at Islamic theology or at the actions of radical fundamentalist groups in Palestine, Afghanistan or any other place.

Indeed if one looks to history, one will find in this case, a very subtle yet enormous void between the ideal, and the practice. And of course, like the constitution of the former CCCP, this has to do with inception, insinuation, expedience, ambiguity, interpretation, contradiction, and blatant misrepresentation. Some claim each native word was god-given to favor-folk; as we all know, each word, has more than one meaning, so together they may be used as one sees fit. Nonetheless, I suggest one may find the notes, or tone of Islam's rhyme and reason, hidden at Naqran or Al-Hirah, possibly placed beside St. Aretas, or swept away like the Tayi, Abd Alqais, Taghlib, and Lakhum of old. Herein, we might see written how a radical pose was dropped to achieve a radical end, and fundamentally change, to better dictate free will, the Medieval Near East? The simple fact is, some words have great weight, while others aren't worth the breath, it takes to say them.

Personally, I don’t judge…
that’s just me!

For a move, I'll say 'Black Robe.'

Then again I just like the sound of 'this one.'