No Islam

[Calgacus]

you have a point...ama...

why is it that, when the Roman Empire was dominant, people read 'The Odessy'? or ate Persian food in Rome?
(ie the cherry comes from the Persian part of the Black Sea)

When you have to nitpick with single examples, that is generally an admission that you have lost the central debate. So sure, the Romans just loved Greek and Persian stuff.

And American people never wear Harris Tweed jackets or read Graham Greene novels.

 

[Keenir]

When you have to nitpick with single examples, that is generally an admission that you have lost the central debate.

I was struck by how the "central debate" was about the way the "Hellenic culture" lasted for so long, despite that span of time being filled by many disparate Greek-derived cultures.

So I selected one of the longest-lasting Greek pieces of literature that was known and recited throughout the "Hellenic culture" era.

So sure, the Romans just loved Greek and Persian stuff.

more than they loved Iceni or Aramaic fashions, yes.

 

[Calgacus]

I was struck by how the "central debate" was about the way the "Hellenic culture" lasted for so long, despite that span of time being filled by many disparate Greek-derived cultures.

So I selected one of the longest-lasting Greek pieces of literature that was known and recited throughout the "Hellenic culture" era.



more than they loved Iceni or Aramaic fashions, yes.

You seem to be agreeing with me now.

Kalvan's point was "in terms of cross-fertilization of ideas, his legacy exceeded even the islamic one". To which you responded with " I agree that there are a lot of places in India and Afghanistan and Egypt named after Alexander. anything else?". Now we have pointed out the huge influence of Hellenic culture all across the Middle East, and you respond with mentioning "many disparate Greek-derived cultures".

Yes, the cultures were different. But they were mostly a fusion of Greek and local cultures. How did the Greek culture get there? We're not just talking about the kind of influence that comes from trading links, we're talking about the kind of influence that comes from being first ruled by Greeks (and Macedonians), then ruled by various offshoots of Greco-Persian (or whatever) dynasties). So, as you agree that all these cultures had heavy Greek influences, you agree with Kalvan's initial point about the impact of Alexander?

 

[Keenir]

You seem to be agreeing with me now.

Kalvan's point was "in terms of cross-fertilization of ideas, his legacy exceeded even the islamic one". To which you responded with " I agree that there are a lot of places in India and Afghanistan and Egypt named after Alexander. anything else?". Now we have pointed out the huge influence of Hellenic culture all across the Middle East, and you respond with mentioning "many disparate Greek-derived cultures".

Yes, the cultures were different. But they were mostly a fusion of Greek and local cultures. How did the Greek culture get there?

Alexander conquered them, and his empire soon afterward fell apart. rather like Rome in eastern Iraq/Iran and Germany.

We're not just talking about the kind of influence that comes from trading links, we're talking about the kind of influence that comes from being first ruled by Greeks (and Macedonians),

how long did Alexander rule Sogdia?

then ruled by various offshoots of Greco-Persian (or whatever) dynasties). So, as you agree that all these cultures had heavy Greek influences, you agree with Kalvan's initial point about the impact of Alexander?

[/quote]

with the exception of Central Asia, Alexander didn't introduce Greek culture to any part of his empire.

now that you've explained the point, yes. however, in his posts, Kalvan appeared to be confusing the Alexandrian and post-Alexandrian Hellenic Realm with the Hellenic Realm (full stop)

the latter includes the Athenian League, Sparta as a powerful nation, Troy, Lydia, Caria, etc.

I was arguing about the latter.

 

[Keenir]

So, as you agree that all these cultures had heavy Greek influences, you agree with Kalvan's initial point about the impact of Alexander?

ps: Alexander was Macedonian, not Greek.

nobody in the Greek world (except maybe nowadays) counted Macedonia as part of Greece.

 

[Calgacus]

ps: Alexander was Macedonian, not Greek.

nobody in the Greek world (except maybe nowadays) counted Macedonia as part of Greece.

Yes, well I mentioned Macedonian as kind of an afterthought. They may have been Macedonian but the culture they spread was primarily Greek. I wasn't just referring to the Alexandrian conquest, but also Hellenic expansion both before and after. Nonetheless, one has to credit his empire with a great influence on this. Most of the Hellenization and fusion of cultures probably happened in the reigns of his successors.

Also, did you mention Troy? You do realise Troy was unoccupied in that period, at least until the Romans built Ilium on the same site? I presume you meant somewhere else.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think it's a bit dubious to say Alexander's legacy exceeds Islam's - it was undeniably significant, but Islam's is still with us and his is not so much. Time matters. Also, Alexander diffused some Greek ideas east, but there doesn't seem to have been a lot of East brought West...

You seem to be agreeing with me now.

Kalvan's point was "in terms of cross-fertilization of ideas, his legacy exceeded even the islamic one". To which you responded with " I agree that there are a lot of places in India and Afghanistan and Egypt named after Alexander. anything else?". Now we have pointed out the huge influence of Hellenic culture all across the Middle East, and you respond with mentioning "many disparate Greek-derived cultures".

Yes, the cultures were different. But they were mostly a fusion of Greek and local cultures. How did the Greek culture get there? We're not just talking about the kind of influence that comes from trading links, we're talking about the kind of influence that comes from being first ruled by Greeks (and Macedonians), then ruled by various offshoots of Greco-Persian (or whatever) dynasties). So, as you agree that all these cultures had heavy Greek influences, you agree with Kalvan's initial point about the impact of Alexander?

 

[Calgacus]

I think it's a bit dubious to say Alexander's legacy exceeds Islam's - it was undeniably significant, but Islam's is still with us and his is not so much. Time matters. Also, Alexander diffused some Greek ideas east, but there doesn't seem to have been a lot of East brought West...

Oh yes. I wasn't saying Alexander's influence was greater than that of Islam. I think the Roman influence might have been greater (on Europe) but not the Alexandrian Greek, although it's difficult to quantify these things. My chief concern was with contradicting the view that Keenir seemed to be putting forward, that Alexander had no legacy other than the cities named for him.

And on the time aspect, it's too early to say what the impact of Islam is. Maybe in a thousand years we can say for sure, as its impact is still ongoing.

 

[Keenir]

Also, did you mention Troy? You do realise Troy was unoccupied in that period, at least until the Romans built Ilium on the same site? I presume you meant somewhere else.

wait....are you suggesting that Troy wasn't a Greek city-state?

 

[Keenir]

Oh yes. I wasn't saying Alexander's influence was greater than that of Islam. I think the Roman influence might have been greater (on Europe) but not the Alexandrian Greek, although it's difficult to quantify these things. My chief concern was with contradicting the view that Keenir seemed to be putting forward, that Alexander had no legacy other than the cities named for him.

apologies, Calgacus-bey, but you misread my posts....I was not putting forward a view, but was contradicting another's view - that Alexander's Macedonian legacy (on the world) was greater than Mohammad's Arab legacy (on the world).

ps: so you're agreeing with me, not vise versa, it seems.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Oh yes. I wasn't saying Alexander's influence was greater than that of Islam. I think the Roman influence might have been greater (on Europe) but not the Alexandrian Greek, although it's difficult to quantify these things. My chief concern was with contradicting the view that Keenir seemed to be putting forward, that Alexander had no legacy other than the cities named for him.

And on the time aspect, it's too early to say what the impact of Islam is. Maybe in a thousand years we can say for sure, as its impact is still ongoing.

I would have to agree. I don't think anyone had more influence on Europe than the Romans, by orders of magnitude - including their influence on Islam...

 

[Calgacus]

apologies, Calgacus-bey, but you misread my posts....I was not putting forward a view, but was contradicting another's view - that Alexander's Macedonian legacy (on the world) was greater than Mohammad's Arab legacy (on the world).

ps: so you're agreeing with me, not vise versa, it seems.

You said:

I agree that there are a lot of places in India and Afghanistan and Egypt named after Alexander. anything else?

It sounded distinctly like you were belittling the Hellenic achievements. But I must have misread that....

 

[stevep]

except that the sentance was

I was referring to your sentence, not a preceding one. That did refer to blue-arshed barbarians rather than their descendants.

then what did you mean by "a lot worse" ?

As well as overwhelming and destroying a lot of barbarian [or shall we say culturally undeveloped societies] Islam also destroyed a lot of developed ones. They expanded religious bigotry into areas that even Christianity might not have reached. Also the nature of their origins as a faith spread primarily by conquest and with scant regard for agricultural populations, quite possibly did more damage to the ME than all the waves of conquerors, Muslim and non-Muslim who have plagued the region in the centuries since. Does that answer your question as to a lot worse that what you listed?

Steve

 

[Keenir]

It sounded distinctly like you were belittling the Hellenic achievements.

belittling the Alexandrian achievements, yes; the Hellenic achievements, no.

But I must have misread that....

that was my counter to the earlier statement.

so you didn't misread it...you just missed a post (which is easy enough to do)

 

[Keenir]

As well as overwhelming and destroying a lot of barbarian [or shall we say culturally undeveloped societies]

the Indonesians are still around with their culture largely intact...the Mayans were torn from their culture {wait, that wasn't Islam's doing}

Islam also destroyed a lot of developed ones. They expanded religious bigotry into areas that even Christianity might not have reached. Also the nature of their origins as a faith spread primarily by conquest and with scant regard for agricultural populations, quite possibly did more damage to the ME than all the waves of conquerors, Muslim and non-Muslim who have plagued the region in the centuries since. Does that answer your question as to a lot worse that what you listed?

these points have all been addressed more than once already. (mostly in reply to Midgard)

 

[Calgacus]

belittling the Alexandrian achievements, yes; the Hellenic achievements, no.

My point was that they are largely entwined. It also seemed clear that you didn't consider Alexander to have had much of an impact at all. I disagree on that score.

Not that it matters. I sense the thread is moving onto an altogether different trajectory, one which may or may not feature incandescent rage from Abdul. Far be it from me to seek to divert the unstoppable march of history.

I'm just off to get some popcorn.

 

[stevep]

Thud!

Philip's much repeated statement, this time focusing on mathematics: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1219999&postcount=170

I would agree with him here. Mathematics is mathematics. What we are arguing is that the same discoveries could be made under different circumstances. You seem to be arguing that without Islam those discoveries could not be made. Rather like saying that get rid of Columbus and the Americas would not have been discovered by medieval Europe. Or that without western science [as developed in western Europe] no one elsewhere in the world could possibly have developed a theory of gravity say.

you yourself point out that, without Islam, things would be very different: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1218180&postcount=115

As I say above. The path would be very different in many ways. It might still have led to similar destinations, especially in terms of technology. [Not necessarily in the same places or time periods but difficult to see that a development of modern science would never have been possible].

you then state that the absence of Islam would very likely change Europe (countering Philip's claim) : https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1221539&postcount=180

This is actually a post of Philip’s? The 1st couple of sections of his reply to my point of view demonstrate what I think is the key point over which we’re disputing.

the Pasha points out that the opposing claim is rather nebulous ("some culture would eventually discover" such-and-such) : https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1219091&postcount=141

No. He is actually blandly stating he sees no reason why he should provide evidence to support his claim that no other culture could have played the role he allocates to Islam. [Can you imagine if someone said western European culture was the only one that could develop a concept of human rights and democracy what the reaction would be?]

Faeelin points out about mathematics and the #0 : https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1217588&postcount=96

He pointed out that a lot of work on maths was done in the Islamic world but I don’t know anyone was denying that?

Ran speculates as to what will happen to the regions within Dar-al-Islam in a world without Islam: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1222644&postcount=191

He speculates on possible political, religious and demographic changes but I don’t see him saying anything in that post about scientific and technical changes, let alone saying that without Islam those would be impossible.

Pasha points out that Europe had & did nothing with the same number that Philip was claiming anyone would use: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1217566&postcount=95

I think he was actually saying that anyone could use it. Has the concept of zero been around for that long? I’ll be blunt that I don’t know enough about the history of mathematics. I will agree that at that time the Islamic world was more open to new ideas than the Christian one. However this is considerably different now and for quite a while. As such no reason that status then would be eternal, or that the necessary developments wouldn’t occur elsewhere, including in whatever replaced Islam in TTL for instance.

Philip keeps trying to get me to agree that a non-Islamic superempire would make the same decisions and do the same things as an Islamic superempire & that you can simply "Turtledove it" {file the names off of OTL, and pass it off as ATL} : https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1221539&postcount=180

That is actually the same links the third above. Sounds like he was mainly replying to the Pasha there? The main point is that your using would and would not and he’s using could. I.e. he’s still asking why it is impossible for an alternative to have a similar effect rather than being a carbon copy.

Calgacus himself agrees that the butterflies argue against the same exact thing happening, minus Islam: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1224908&postcount=216

Calgacus starts “While surely not impossible that”, which is the gist of the argument. He does say that something very similar to the Islamic empire that developed is highly unlikely. However I’m still unconvinced that you have to have something ‘virtually’ identical to that empire to achieve the scientific impact that resulted from it?

Ran points out that things would have changed, in the absence of Islam, that would've kept things from being just like if Islam existed (thus countering Philip's claim) : https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1217907&postcount=112

Yes. I think Philip has tried arguing that you could have an empire/state similar to the Caliphate in the absence of Islam, to meet the Pasha’s demands that only such a state would make the developments the Pasha considers so essential to achieve a modern scientific culture. On this point I disagree with him as I don’t see a massive mega-state, even one that stays united a lot longer than the Caliphate, necessary, or possibly even beneficial for such a destination.

the Pasha agrees that maybe things could have happened without Islam exactly like they did with Islam, but the odds are vanishingly slim: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1224703&postcount=212

See my reply to the previous point. However with this sentence “An entire civilzation interacting with Europe for 1,000 years is infinitessimally likely to have the same impact as some other civilziation or series of them over the same period” I think there’s a typo in there? [Suspect missing a more to fit the Pasha’s aims but that doesn’t make much sense grammatically, at least to me]. Given the violence of the relationship and that fact that for the majority of the period Islam was on the offensive I would also suspect that a series of smaller civilisations would probably have more impact, in terms of non-military ideas at least.

question - is the burden of proof only on one side, if two sides are both making accusations? https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1224200&postcount=208

Pardon? I am saying why I objected to the Pasha’s comments and giving some history in response to him querying my saying "as so often". I.e. I am giving proof for the statement I made. Has he denied any of the statements I have made?

As I said I’m no fan of Islam or any other system which demands total abdication of responsibility. That’s the major reason why I’m an atheist. However I’m probably less of a ‘danger’ [not sure what word would best fit but I think you get my meaning] to it than he is with his excesses. Having put up with various fairly evasive statements and a couple of wisecracks it was not Philip who descended into personal abuse or suddenly started making wild claims about turning it into a Islam v Christianity pissing match! I know of no mention in any post where Philip has been critical of Islam. The only thing he has disagreed with as far as I can see is the Pasha’s claim to Islam being the only possible path to a scientific revolution. If that’s being critical then heaven help us. I have also got fed up, as you could probably tell with his behaviour so reacted a little more strongly than I tend to do.

is that a good start?

I wouldn’t say it’s a good one but we might be getting somewhere. I hope we’re genuinely arguing at cross purposes and missing the point of what each of us are saying. Although I’ll admit your too frequent use of abuse and wisecracks gives me concern. If you read this and think through what I say then hopefully you will see what I am trying to get across. Answering those points, rather than what you might think I’m saying is what I'm after. Also I hope you see I’m trying to respond to your points, albeit my interpretation of them sees them as somewhat flawed.

I’ve spent a lot of time on this tonight and wouldn’t be able to do it again as a few thing to catch up on before I go on holiday on Friday. As such will have a brief look in the next couple of evenings but won’t be able to contribute like this again.

Steve

 

[stevep]

the Indonesians are still around with their culture largely intact...the Mayans were torn from their culture {wait, that wasn't Islam's doing}

So you think pre-Islamic Indonesia was a primitive culture? [Even if we take your view that its still largely intact].

these points have all been addressed more than once already. (mostly in reply to Midgard)

Not in this thread. Plus you asked a question and I gave an answer.

Steve

 

[Keenir]

My point was that they are largely entwined. It also seemed clear that you didn't consider Alexander to have had much of an impact at all.

well, they didn't speak Macedonian in Afghanistan fourteen centuries after he died.

*agrees to drop it*

Not that it matters. I sense the thread is moving onto an altogether different trajectory, one which may or may not feature incandescent rage from Abdul.

nah, I think the "rescue Constantinople, 1454" will get that.

I'm just off to get some popcorn.

if you happen to get some Three Musketeers, I'd appreciate one or two, if please.

 

[Keenir]

I would agree with him here. Mathematics is mathematics. What we are arguing is that the same discoveries could be made under different circumstances. You seem to be arguing that without Islam those discoveries could not be made.

without algebra, doesn't a lot of mathmatics go up in smoke?

Rather like saying that get rid of Columbus and the Americas would not have been discovered by medieval Europe.

not disputing that...otherwise I'd have to reply to two dozen (at least) other threads.

Or that without western science [as developed in western Europe] no one elsewhere in the world could possibly have developed a theory of gravity say.

the Mayans had the most sophisticated astronomical knowledge on Earth...did they have a theory of gravity? (I'm honestly asking - I haven't been reading much about them lately)

[Can you imagine if someone said western European culture was the only one that could develop a concept of human rights and democracy what the reaction would be?]

someone did, once, actually...the reply was that human rights exist in Islam, along with a form of democracy.

I think he was actually saying that anyone could use it. Has the concept of zero been around for that long?

the concept did indeed exist in ancient Babylonia and Sumeria (which used Base 60) and Classical and Ancient India.

but one reason why some civilizations (Christian Europe being just one example) abandoned the Zero by the wayside was a theological one: Zero means the absence of anything -- which in Christian theology (continuing the example) is an impossibility.

Calgacus starts “While surely not impossible that”, which is the gist of the argument. He does say that something very similar to the Islamic empire that developed is highly unlikely. However I’m still unconvinced that you have to have something ‘virtually’ identical to that empire to achieve the scientific impact that resulted from it?

analogy -
if I cut and cook a steak (only I use pig rather than cow), how many kosher- and halal-eating men and women can I serve at a restaurant?
non-analogy -

once the Roman Empire collapsed, western Europe didn't re-invent concrete for over a thousand years, despite being surrounded by many Roman-era things made from concrete.

heck, there are still things nowadays that we still have no idea how the original builders managed it.

I wouldn’t say it’s a good one but we might be getting somewhere. I hope we’re genuinely arguing at cross purposes and missing the point of what each of us are saying. [/quote

tis possible.

I’ll admit your too frequent use of abuse

I apologize for any abuse.

and wisecracks gives me concern.

'wisecracks'?

I’ve spent a lot of time on this tonight and wouldn’t be able to do it again as a few thing to catch up on before I go on holiday on Friday.

have a fun holiday!