I thought Carthage to the west was more leaning towards Rome than to Egypt ?
Islam Nonexistant - What Religious Effects?
- Thread starter SavageDays
- Start date
I thought Carthage to the west was more leaning towards Rome than to Egypt ?
I thoroughly disagree - in fact, I consider the spread of Islam as being the latest direct cause of the Dark Ages in Europe, and destruction of coastal Mediterranean civilization at the hands of the Muslims was much to blame for the shift in focus of European development towards the states founded by Germanic tribes, who were far less advanced than the states that existed at the heart of the old Roman world. Also, one has to consider that most of the Islamic scientific advance stopped roughly within a century of the Islamic power being curbed.
Even then, while there were numerous thinkers who did advance science, philosophy, and even technology, when viewed objectively actual overall accomplishments of Islamic science were very often either via translation of earlier antique works, or via transmission of knowledge from the areas the Muslim states had contact with (i.e. the "arabic" numbers, which were an actual Indian invention, etc). In other words, while latter historians blame civilizations like the Byzantines for not advancing the technology much, one has to consider that the much-lauded Islamic civilization was not in any way superior in that regard, and when it got to preservation of knowledge, the Byzantines did the job just as well if not better.
So, on to the original question. I think the world without Islam would not experience Dark Ages as long and, well, dark as our own. There would be a surviving Mediterranean civilization on the northern shore of the Mediterranean, as opposed to surviving only in selected places. While Byzantium's long-term position between Europe, Asia, and Africa might be untenable, the Empire should at the very least be able to maintain its core territories, and remain a serious power for as long, if not longer, than OTL.
Another important effect is that without the need to divert the Imperial forces to keep the Arabs at bay, a full-on Italian reconquest might be possible. It is important primarily due to its effect on curtailing the power of the Papacy early on, thus perhaps leading to decentralization of church power in the Western Europe, where the Byzantines could not effectively reach.
We may not have the glory of the Umayyad Spain, but we will also be spared the Spanish Inquisition (who, ironically enough, learned their lesson from the Almohads and the Marinids quite well, and put it to the same shameful use), the ruin of Italy, and very likely the Crusades, which in turn were retaliation for four centuries of Islamic aggression and ended up being just as violent. Definitely no major Iconoclasm schism here; not quite sure what Persia's future might be ITTL, as after Heraclius it could have possibly recovered in another century or so, unless it were taken over by another power (or a steppe invasion).
Finally, let's think of Africa. Not just of relatively successful Mali, but also of the entire Eastern coast of Africa, and even North Africa, where slave trade prosperred thanks to the direct interference of the Arab raiders and would-be conquerors. Due to the geographical location of the Islamic centers of power, it was one of the possible natural routes of expansion, whereas the early European states had no ability to go there, and the Byzantines had no serious interest in the lands that were not a part of the old Roman territory. Without the disruption brought on by Islam, indigenous sub-Saharan cultures might have had more of a chance to develop, and, better yet, without the buffer of Islamic states around it, Aksum/Ethiopia might actually stand a chance at maintaining serious trade links with Europe, India, China, and developing into an indigenous African power.
All in all, we will end up in a world where OTL's Dark Ages will be merely a century-long interregnum, not a nearly-total collapse of European civilization. To think of what kind of wonders such a world would be able to produce. It would be a "short Dark Ages" TL here, because without the destruction brought forth by Islam, there would be no need to preserve antique knowledge that resulting survivalist cultures did not care for... simply because much of it would not have been destroyed in the first place!
I agree. And I think that without a strong papacy (maintainting 5 strong patriarchates instead), the Byzantines (Romans) doesn't have that bad reputation in western europe, becoming Constantinopla the spot for culture to spread from
Perhaps if the Byzantines can maintain its territorial integrity (remember Persia has received a cripling blow. given by Heraclius, that makes it in the brisk of collapse... Qadisiya (Sp) anyone?) and can mantain it's position as sole power in the zone, we can see a Byzantium with more resources to do the next step in culture and technology. 8 centuries of defensive war, in most cases successful defensive war, are a hard way to anyone to improve its technology, expect military technology as greek fire
I agree, from Egypt to Heracles Columns will continue under roman culture, as would do Italy and the Levant as a result of a stronger Byzantine Empire.
Syria and Egypt were two of the richest provinces in the empire. If they survived 8 centuries without them and with several crusades doing more to the bad than to the good of the Empire, I think without losing the Levant and Egypt, the crusades have no reason to be (and no papacy to call upon). The empire can survive until today, at least with the borders pre-1071
And preventing the crusades
A lot of black legend with the spanish inquisition. Not the worst of the inquisitions, ask the catars about the french inquisition, or the germans
Leo Caesius
Banned
Some day I'm going to have to make a long post addressing these pernicious memes, with a few PDFs from JSTOR attached just to hammer the last nail in its coffin. Suffice it to say that even most of the categories being bandied about are problematic in the extreme. "A surviving Mediterranean civilization"? What the Hell is that supposed to mean? Where did classical Islamic civilization come from, Mars?
The seeds of the division of the Mediterranean world and the Islamic conquest were sown not by Muhammad but by Justinian. If you draw a line diagonally from the Pillars of Heracles to Constantinople, you will discover the boundary first established by Justinian and later inherited by the Muslims. They were as much a cultural, political, and territorial successor to Late Antique Rome as Justinian's empire was, and much more effective at unifying the area and governing it to boot. A testament to this fact is that the boundary first established by Justinian still survives to this day, with some give and take, despite the conquest of the entire region by European powers and its complete political fragmentation.
This artificial boundary between the enlightened Byzantines and the barbaric Moslem hordes who destroyed their glorious empire belongs back in the Victorian Age, when at the very least people could be forgiven for swallowing this tripe. In the 21st century it's wholly lacking in any credibility.
The seeds of the division of the Mediterranean world and the Islamic conquest were sown not by Muhammad but by Justinian. If you draw a line diagonally from the Pillars of Heracles to Constantinople, you will discover the boundary first established by Justinian and later inherited by the Muslims. They were as much a cultural, political, and territorial successor to Late Antique Rome as Justinian's empire was, and much more effective at unifying the area and governing it to boot. A testament to this fact is that the boundary first established by Justinian still survives to this day, with some give and take, despite the conquest of the entire region by European powers and its complete political fragmentation.
This artificial boundary between the enlightened Byzantines and the barbaric Moslem hordes who destroyed their glorious empire belongs back in the Victorian Age, when at the very least people could be forgiven for swallowing this tripe. In the 21st century it's wholly lacking in any credibility.
I think you are deliberately misreading my statement. There is no denial that prior to the Islamic invasion, the Mediterranean civilization existed more or less on both sides of the sea. Post it, the civilizations on the northern shore of the Mediterranean were destroyed or greatly diminished - what the Germanic tribes did not do, the Muslims effectively finished. Or is the retreat of centers of power in Europe into the depth of the continent a figment of my imagination?
That's simply straight out of Machiavelli. (paraphrasing from memory) If a ruler wants to hold the country alien by language, custom, and religion, he can either heavily occupy it, exterminate it, or make his home there. Justinian did the first option. The Muslims did the third one - and political fragmentation amongst them ensured not only rise of individual dynasties such as the Umayyads and the Fatimids, but also ensured that there were local Muslim dynasties and power structures in every territory they have taken.
As far as Muslims being successors to Rome, it's in the eye of the beholder. And that is putting it mildly and politely. Not to mention that if you make that statement, you might want to clarify WHICH Muslims you are talking about. The Abbassids? The Fatimids? The Umayyads? The Osmanli?
Again, you are thoroughly and deliberately misstating what I said. I tend to think that the claim of "enlightened medieval Muslims" has very little credibility, and while it is true that the advanced cultures they took over did exhibit progress, in the longer run the progress has stagnated by the time their military prowess was insufficient to absorb and conquer new cultures. The argument I am making is that the medieval Muslims were nothing unique, and that the role usually attributed to them in the popular history could have been easily played by different civilizations, without all the negative side effects on development of Europe. We have had this conversation before. I am not going as far as to claim that the Muslims were unwashed barbarians or the like, but only that the popular perception - which is about the opposite of what you've stated - tends to ignore the immense damage the Islamic expansion and conquest have caused, and its effect on prolonging and worsening the Dark Ages per se.
Last edited:
Valdemar II
Banned
I agree with Midgaard*, that the Islamic conquest destroyed the trans-Mediterranean civilisation, the rise of Rhine and Po Valley happen in that periode to some point thanks to South French and Italian refugees settling there to get away from Muslim raiders, the serious effect of the Arabic raiding can be seen in such thing as the abandonment of Malta and the resettlement by Muslims.
*That would be correct spelling of Midgård
*That would be correct spelling of Midgård
*That would be correct spelling of Midgård
Heh... the reason for the spelling I am using now is because it was a name of my old band
Which, in turn, we tried to make so that people would not start scratching their heads in puzzlement. Did not help with the number of misspellings people here used when booking our shows... Leo Caesius
Banned
I'm not misrepresenting anything you've said. I think you made your point loud and clear, and unfortunately there really isn't much to it. But let's can the Machiavelli bullshit and talk facts here.
I'm in an airport and don't have access to my books, but for the urban civilization of North Africa I can recommend Brett and Fentress's book on the Berbers. The archaeological evidence indicates that most of the Roman settlements in North Africa were completely abandoned by the time of Justinian, let alone Muhammad. The bulk of the territory was governed directly by a constellation of petty Libyan chieftains and only indirectly by Constantinople apart from a few military garrisons on the coast. So much for a "surviving Mediterranean civilization".
As far as Syria and Egypt, they were the wealthiest and most populous provinces of the Empire in the East, to be sure, but they chafed under Byzantine rule. The Byzantines were viewed by the bulk of the population as unloved foreign oppressors. Can they really be said to have been thoroughly integrated into Byzantine civilization? No, they cannot. A close reading of John Moschos' Spiritual Meadow, written a generation before the Islamic conquest, will be especially enlightening in this regard.
I always encourage people to go to the primary sources (such as the archaeological record or contemporary texts) and historicize the issue rather than subscribing to these ahistorical "grand narrative" views of history. Where you see destruction, I see continuity. The difference between the two of us is that I'm relying on the primary sources.
I'm in an airport and don't have access to my books, but for the urban civilization of North Africa I can recommend Brett and Fentress's book on the Berbers. The archaeological evidence indicates that most of the Roman settlements in North Africa were completely abandoned by the time of Justinian, let alone Muhammad. The bulk of the territory was governed directly by a constellation of petty Libyan chieftains and only indirectly by Constantinople apart from a few military garrisons on the coast. So much for a "surviving Mediterranean civilization".
As far as Syria and Egypt, they were the wealthiest and most populous provinces of the Empire in the East, to be sure, but they chafed under Byzantine rule. The Byzantines were viewed by the bulk of the population as unloved foreign oppressors. Can they really be said to have been thoroughly integrated into Byzantine civilization? No, they cannot. A close reading of John Moschos' Spiritual Meadow, written a generation before the Islamic conquest, will be especially enlightening in this regard.
I always encourage people to go to the primary sources (such as the archaeological record or contemporary texts) and historicize the issue rather than subscribing to these ahistorical "grand narrative" views of history. Where you see destruction, I see continuity. The difference between the two of us is that I'm relying on the primary sources.
Leo Caesius
Banned
And another thing. The island of Malta was depopulated because of piracy, which had been a problem in that area since the dawn of recorded history, regardless of what faith the pirates espoused (which is largely irrelevant at this point in history). It remained completely devoid of human life for over a century until it was resettled by Arabs in the 9th c. I determined all of this when I was researching the history of Malta to discover whether Punic had coexisted with Arabic (the answer is no).
Again, facts, people, not fantasy.
Again, facts, people, not fantasy.
Valdemar II
Banned
Well yeah, I don't find anything here that disagree with my comment, it was depopulated by Arab pirates* and later resettled by Muslims. Something that doesn't seem to have happen under earlier piracy periodes.
*I don't see the big differency between raiders and pirates.
Leo Caesius
Banned
"Arab" pirates at this point in history would have been highly anachronistic. There were none. The Arab presence in North Africa at this time was negligible and none were sailors, let alone pirates. The pirates were the same ones that had been pirating since the dawn of time. Some of them may have nominally become Muslim, but I don't think we can say this with any certainty.
As for whether the island had been depopulated as a result of piracy in the past, I am quite positive that it had, although it will be a while before I can get to my books and give you any specifics.
One more thing. It has become a truism that refugees fleeing the Ottomans kick-started the Renaissance. You, on the other hand, want us to believe that refugees fleeing the more civilized portions of southern Europe for the north to escape Arab Muslim raiders (for which I'd like to see some evidence, really) kick-started the Dark Ages? I find both ideas to be hard to swallow, not to mention completely contradictory.
Keenir
Banned
"preservation" and "use" are two different things.
um, the Inquisition and Crusades were also weapons against Christian heresies (ie Cathars) as well as against the Jews.
and didn't the French and German states invade and ruin Italy more than once?
They used it at least as much as the Arabs.
And yet, if the power of the Papacy were crushed (which I posited would happen with no Islam/Arab invasion), and without the constant threat of a religious enemy at the borders, I doubt the Inquisition would have become the force it was OTL.
By the time there were French and German STATES, it was hundreds of years after the advent of Islam.
I find it very hard to believe. Considering that the Arabs mustered large navies against Constans II (whom they have defeated numerous times) as early as mid-VIIth century, the existence of Arab pirates in large enough numbers by that point becomes almost a fait accompli.
I am not very knowledgeable about Maltese history in more than general detail, so no comment from me.
You are ignoring thoroughly different circumstances. In XVth century, Europe was already on the verge of Renaissanse, which could be said to have started even earlier as changes to population structure brought on by Black Death increased the social mobility, led to increase in power of mercantile class, and to the rise of centralised states in the West. There was already a good base for the refugees from the falling Byzantium to build upon.
On the contrary, there was no such base in Europe in VIth-VIIIth centuries outside of the Byzantine territory, and if you look at the pattern, the invention of Greek Fire more or less proves that the same principle was at work. The rest of Europe at the time did not have social, technological, or educational base which could take advantage of the exodus, plain and simple.
That would explain why the medical curriculum in medieval Europe after the rise of the Salernitan school was dominated by Byzantine works such as Ibn Sina, Abu'l Qasim, and ibn Butlan.
The popes have much to answer for. Your point being?
That was not only uncalled for, but proving very little if anything. I said that the Byzantines used and maintained the antique knowledge to the similar extent, which, AFAIK, is rather hard to dispute.
Rise of Islam = weakening of Byzantine power
Weakening of Byzantine power = no chance in hell to retake Italy
No chance in hell to retake Italy = relative power vacuum
Relative power vacuum + political instability in the West = Pope Power!!!
Nothing anyone would have been able to predict at the time, but with hindsight being 20-20, I do think that the above chain of events was one of the major reasons for the rise of the Papacy. Given more time, and with Persia pacified, Byzantium could have taken stronger hold in Italy, and reduced the Papacy to a relatively subservient entity (considering that the Emperor's word still mattered in Rome even in the second half of VIIIth century).
Now, whatever the point about Islam might be, it is a major religious development that can, potentially, create very different Christianity down the line. I presume this is the kind of effects the original poster was looking for opinions on.
I am failing to see how the Arab Conquests can be not a disruptive discontinuity but nevertheless the source of new knowledge. If people wish to suggest a theme of continuity then this necessarily lessens the role of the Arabs as innovators as opposed to developers and conservers.
Simlarly to postulate that the Byzantine Empire was in decline and increasingly unstable, and yet to argue for continuity into the Arab period, would also seem to be contradictory.
I am wary of suggesting some sort of inevitable process of decay going on in the Late Roman Empire in the late 6th century. Although there are certainly signs of decline by the 7th century. It is also clear that the Islamic conquests are a discontinuity, but in some ways a positive one. However, there seems no reason the Empire might not have been shaken up and re-invigorated in other ways.
The notion of the Caliphate as a "Mediterranean" civilisation I find suspect. From 644AD the Egyptian grain stopped going into the Med and started going across the Red Sea, a very important symbolic and real shift. The Mediterranean was a backwater, or at least only one front for Islamic civilisation - it was safe for the Ummayads to flee across the Med, and North Africa was peripheral enough to see the rise of the Fatimids. The Abbasids one notes, did not feel the need to build their capital anywhere near the Mediterranean,
Simlarly to postulate that the Byzantine Empire was in decline and increasingly unstable, and yet to argue for continuity into the Arab period, would also seem to be contradictory.
I am wary of suggesting some sort of inevitable process of decay going on in the Late Roman Empire in the late 6th century. Although there are certainly signs of decline by the 7th century. It is also clear that the Islamic conquests are a discontinuity, but in some ways a positive one. However, there seems no reason the Empire might not have been shaken up and re-invigorated in other ways.
The notion of the Caliphate as a "Mediterranean" civilisation I find suspect. From 644AD the Egyptian grain stopped going into the Med and started going across the Red Sea, a very important symbolic and real shift. The Mediterranean was a backwater, or at least only one front for Islamic civilisation - it was safe for the Ummayads to flee across the Med, and North Africa was peripheral enough to see the rise of the Fatimids. The Abbasids one notes, did not feel the need to build their capital anywhere near the Mediterranean,
I would say it is at least a good indication. Southern Italy had access to the literary traditions of both the Greek- and Arabic-speaking world. The translations they made were of Arab works. Why? Where is the extensive body of Greek writing from the middle ages on clinical observation, medical theory, the formularies, antidotaries, surgical procedures? Is this simply a matter of modern publication bias? I doubt it.
It seems that you are equating medicinal accomplishment with overall advancement, which is like saying that France is a better team than Germany by the virtue of having a better goalkeeper. I think the picture is much more multi-faceted than that. Not to mention the little something in 1204 which destroyed much Byzantine knowledge and archives.
Keenir
Banned
so...Islam is to blame for the instability in France and such areas?
I'm sure the Copts didn't need the Inquisition to feel persecuted by the Byzantines....or for the Jews to feel slammed-into-a-wall by just about everyone.
I say "states" because it's easier than saying "social and-or economic and-or linguistic zones that may or may not have rulers in common"
...and because I know I always forget things to put in all-inclusive definitions like that.