How do you view the Middle Ages?

[Rodion Romanovich]

After 1000, the Islamic world in the Near East began its decline, whereas the Europeans began their steady ascendancy.

Just curious, this isn't a question directed at you only but also for other posters - which measure exactly is used for decline, ascendancy, darkness and greatness? I assume you refer to military and economical strength mostly?

[Hurin_Rules]

Just curious, this isn't a question directed at you only but also for other posters - which measure exactly is used for decline, ascendancy, darkness and greatness? I assume you refer to military and economical strength mostly?

Well, that's a great question, and one I was trying to get at in my post assessing the 'decline' of Europe after the fall of Rome. One of the problems with such value judgements is that they often tell one more about one's own prejudices than historical developments.

Was the Muslim world 'declining' after 1000? In some areas, yes. The crusaders conquered areas near the very core of Islam-- it was raids near Medina that actually provoked some of the Muslim counter-crusade-- while Mongols sacked the great jewel in Islam's crown, Baghdad, in 1260 (or was it 1258? Can't remember OTOMH). Yet, perhaps the greatest Muslim victory over Christian forces occured well after this, in 1453, with the conquest of Constantinople, and the Ottoman Turks kept expanding into the 16th century. So even militarily, the decline came somewhat after 1000.

Intellectually, Islam was as advanced as the West at least until the 16th century (Muslim medical and scientific texts were one of the basis of the West's Renaissance in the early modern period).

The point: if one is going to talk about decline, it is usually best to quantify it in some way, and to explain specifically what one means by decline: military? political? economic? etc. Same holds true when talking about the decline of Europe or Rome or China, for that matter. That makes for a much more edifying discussion.

[Watchman]

From what I've read I'm under the impression the militarization to resist the invaders - both Crusaders and Mongols - had the unfortunate side effect of also ushering about a new emphasis on religious orthodoxy (no doubt useful for unifying people and bolstering the troops for the battle against the enemy though) which in turn led to a disregard of, shall we say, much higher learning (warlords and soldiers not being the most famous patrons of arts and sciences, at least ones that don't let them show off or aren't useful on campaign) and intellectual rigidity. Baghdad was sacked (probably repeatedly, don't remember if Timur came that far) and Egypt came under the dominance of what can probably be classed as a military junta with rather pressing military concerns. That kinda seems to knock down two of their most important and famous sources of cholarship and higher learning. Out in the Iberian peninsula the Moors weren't having exactly a good time either, what with all those internal wars, dynastic changes and the Reconquista. That's still one less.
Asia Minor pretty much fell into anarchy after the Seljuq collapse (not that it had been exactly a center of high culture before), and the Ottomans for their part had other issues to take care of. Once they became ascendant they seem to have contracted the ossification already mentioned too, plus to boot developed an arrogant superiority complex as well as some rather serious internal issues that didn't exactly help bring any reform or really new way of thinking along no matter how dire the need.

It's not like the Islamic regions forgot already extant knowledge or something; they just got stuck in an endless series of invasions, wars, civil strife and general turmoil plus eventually the virtual collapse of the old overland trade routes (partly as result of continuous warfare and unrest, partly as the Europeans started hauling the goods by ship around Africa) gutting a large chunk of their economic base. When you think about it it's not all that unlike what happened to Europe (or at least the southern and western parts thereof) when West Rome came crashing down.

Warlords, general chaos and economic difficulties were never much good for anyone's high culture. Around the same time Europe was getting out of its recession period - in no small part helped by the fact the Muslims had kindly not only preserved the ideas accumulated before the fall for them to draw on, but also improved upon them - and gaining momentum fast, with well-known results...

[ChewieTobbacca]

Watchman... good point.

In many ways, the analogy to Rome is similar to the Islamic situation. They went through great expansion but when internal and external strife, economic difficulties, and so on set in, they saw a decline in society. Though parts of it still survived and would not decline (militarily at least) for many more years - such as the Ottoman Empire, which would not be stopped until Vienna in 1683, society had declined noticeably. That analogy could be that whereas Rome had the Byzantine Empire survive and carry on its legacy, and it would not decline military for many more years, it could never get back to its old status of dominance and culture.