And then you referenced me as a source of something I did not say. Look at your post. Please be careful and check how your posts look like.
@alexmilman
I know it was non-existent at the time. I just used the term Russia out of sheer habit and it was supposed to denote modern-day Russia's borders. In that case, the answer to your question is that small piece of land above Armenia. [\QUOTE]
Most of that piece (if not all of it) is today's Azerbaijan.
Yes. I don't see how they aren't. At the time, They, as well as Caucasians, were know to have had blue eyes, fair skin, and blond hair and given their beauty, Europeans adopted the term to refer to themselves. [\QUOTE]
The people who live in Caucasus tend to have black hairs and their skin is darker than one of the imaginable "Nordic" type. Here are typical Georgians
![]()
And here are Armenian children:
![]()
Here are Spaniards:
![]()
Furthermore, the Caliphate certainly had a access to the Caspian sea which means that they did have access to blond, fair skinned, and blue eyed slaves.
They did because these slaves had been transported there from the areas far away from the coast. Sometimes all the way from the Baltic region. Extensive slave trade all over the Eastern Europe is a well known fact just as the main consumers of that merchandise.
Then comes your "criteria". It implies that the blond, blue eyed slaves would be high-valued because of their appearance. This kind of implies that the scope of their usage was mostly in the sexual area (for the males as well?). But did it ever come to your attention that criteria of beauty was not uniform all over the world and that one prevailing in the Arab/Ottoman World did not necessary had fixation on the blond hairs? The Ottomans clearly preferred Circassian women (black hairs, black eyes, prominent eyebrows). Here is a painting of the (Circassian) wife of the last Caliph of Islam, Abdülmecit II
![]()
My point isn't that slaves aren't valuable, just that they aren't an impetus for colonization.
As I already said, this is so obvious that it does not worth arguing. Especially by using the wrong arguments.
You need much greater motivations than just slaves for colonization. Like you said, if they ever run out of slaves some how, they can always go raiding for more.
If you are talking about the Crimean Tatars, you keep quoting out of context. While there were numerous slaves who stayed permanently within the Khanate, the main purpose of raiding was to capture the new slaves for selling to the Ottoman Empire. However, it can be said that Crimea had been colonized (not in the sense of "became a colony") by the Tatars because they had been relative newcomers who settled there, established their own government, created their own economy, etc. Probably it would be a fair guess to assume that most of the slaves who remained within the Khanate had been working within that economy.
You haven't addressed my argument in the first place. Europe offer more valuable things than just slaves but Muslims don't know about that.
The Muslims did not fell from the Moon and Europe was not completely insulated from the rest of the world. Both sides knew their neighbors quite well before Muslim expansion started. And expansion was not a blitzkrieg: it was taking decades and, in the case of the Turks (Seljuks then Ottomans) centuries.
In the case of Constantinople the main motivation, besides a pure prestige, was the fat that it was the greatest marketplace in the region controlling some of the most important trade routes. Whoever owned it was getting huge income just from the custom dues, let alone other factors.
And then you referenced me as a source of something I did not say. Look at your post. Please be careful and check how your posts look like.
Most of that piece (if not all of it) is today's Azerbaijan.![]()
The people who live in Caucasus tend to have black hairs and their skin is darker than one of the imaginable "Nordic" type. Here are typical Georgians
![]()
And here are Armenian children:
![]()
Here are Spaniards:
![]()
Then comes your "criteria". It implies that the blond, blue eyed slaves would be high-valued because of their appearance. This kind of implies that the scope of their usage was mostly in the sexual area (for the males as well?). But did it ever come to your attention that criteria of beauty was not uniform all over the world and that one prevailing in the Arab/Ottoman World did not necessary had fixation on the blond hairs? The Ottomans clearly preferred Circassian women (black hairs, black eyes, prominent eyebrows). Here is a painting of the (Circassian) wife of the last Caliph of Islam, Abdülmecit II
As I already said, this is so obvious that it does not worth arguing. Especially by using the wrong arguments.
If you are talking about the Crimean Tatars, you keep quoting out of context. While there were numerous slaves who stayed permanently within the Khanate, the main purpose of raiding was to capture the new slaves for selling to the Ottoman Empire. However, it can be said that Crimea had been colonized (not in the sense of "became a colony") by the Tatars because they had been relative newcomers who settled there, established their own government, created their own economy, etc. Probably it would be a fair guess to assume that most of the slaves who remained within the Khanate had been working within that economy.
The Muslims did not fell from the Moon and Europe was not completely insulated from the rest of the world. Both sides knew their neighbors quite well before Muslim expansion started. And expansion was not a blitzkrieg: it was taking decades and, in the case of the Turks (Seljuks then Ottomans) centuries.
In the case of Constantinople the main motivation, besides a pure prestige, was the fat that it was the greatest marketplace in the region controlling some of the most important trade routes. Whoever owned it was getting huge income just from the custom dues, let alone other factors.
@alexmilman
Oh yeah! I did that because I didn't know how to insert quotes from other sources in my posts. I apologize.![]()
Well, it does.
Your "at that time" is not backed up by anything substantial and so far you did not produce anything besides pure generalities.
How about, instead of presuming something, you stick to what was actually written?
BTW, did anybody wrote that both female and male slaves had been kept exclusively for sex? Anyway, within this line of thought the countless black slaves probably indicate that their owners had quite diverse preferences which more or less kills the whole "beauty" argument.
Did I wrote that? BTW, both female and male slaves would be needed just for this reason?
I'm afraid that a number of the Caliphate Arabs with the ...er.... "diverse" views in the sexual area would not be enough to motivate conquest with this explicit purpose.![]()
But it does not make sense to argue with me on that subject because this was not my position to start with.
To start with, there was an intensive Muslim trade all the way to the Baltic coast. Then, to conquer Scandinavia or Poland Caliphate would have to start with conquering quite a few territories in between. And the closer you get the more information is available to you.
As formulated, question does not make too much sense. As I said, the reasons were numerous and as far as the economic reasons are involved, control of the slave trade from the Black Sea area would be one of them.
" creating a complete mess.As a result, it is almost impossible to answer to your posts: the editor keeps adding "
In my opinion, I see the Roman and Arab expansions as conquests rather than colonization. The only colonial part of both empires is when there was actual settling by Romans/Arabs. The former did this much more than the latter. The latter mostly took part in cultural change as being Arab is apparently a privilege since Muhammad was an Arab.I actually see absolutely no reason to interpret the current Arab world as anything but the aftermath of an extensive, long-running, very violent but most of all very successful colonial effort on par with anything the Romans or 19th c. British did. If the definition of colonialism manages to exclude the Romans or the Caliphates it's a useless definition.
In my opinion, I see the Roman and Arab expansions as conquests rather than colonization. The only colonial part of both empires is when there was actual settling by Romans/Arabs. The former did this much more than the latter. The latter mostly took part in cultural change as being Arab is apparently a privilege since Muhammad was an Arab.
Problems with colonizing Europe. (as in Americas style)
1. Europe's most attractive resource is it's plentiful arable land and good temperate climate. However this has bred a high population density. So either the Europeans would have to have extremely poor agricultural technology (and thus a low population as in parts of fertile Africa when the Europeans came) or the colonizing power would have to commit genocide by the millions at least (something that the Europeans never did). In short you need a culture substantially worse than the Europeans OTL but just as powerful technologically and in development. And you need to play the Europeans off one another to kill and enslave large swathes of the population, and gradually finish up with the rest.
5. If you look at actual possible PoDs, you would need Europe at its absolute nadir, say AD 900. Then have the Muslim world undergo rapidly the industrial, scientific, agricultural revolutions. But then the problem would be to get the Muslims to totally displace and exterminate the Europeans (and taking the arable land for Muslim ME settlers) as opposed to just ruling them. So we need a virulent strain of radical Islam that kills everyone who refuses to convert being the de fact ideology in ME in conjunction with industrial/scientific/agricultural revolutions, plus a Europe that is more hard-core Christian than they were in AD900, refusing to convert, and then the Muslims feeling justified to kill tens of millions. Otherwise if conventional conquest is all that's possible, Europe is probably not worth doing as there is little economic benefit (less than Africa certainly). Imperial powers would instead opt for proxy states instead as well as trade and economic concession and open access to markets.
@metalinvader665
Actually, I think we should think about what sort of industrialization the Middle East would have. Based on the inventions being made during the Golden Age, we see great deals of interest and advancement in water contraptions. Eventually, I presume, such inventions would lead to the development of something similar to the water turbine. This means that an industrialized Middle East may be based on hydroelectricity as opposed to coal or steam.
@alexmilman
That's true but how would the Caliphate conquer all of that territory and not over-extend? Over-extension was a problem all Caliphates have faced.
Do you know how to fix this problem since I'm pretty new here and just today have I figured out how to quote others.
In my opinion, I see the Roman and Arab expansions as conquests rather than colonization. The only colonial part of both empires is when there was actual settling by Romans/Arabs. The former did this much more than the latter. The latter mostly took part in cultural change as being Arab is apparently a privilege since Muhammad was an Arab.
@metalinvader665
Do you think Middle Eastern and North African bodies of water are prone to drought because of recent news or historically? Historically, water in those areas was very carefully managed and, although not having as much rivers as Europe, still had plenty. Hydroelectric power in this circumstance would be feasible.
@alexmilman
I guess you could have an Islamic power in Western Anatolia conquer Constantinople and colonize Europe however I think that's pushing it.
I suspect that the terminology is all confused. "Colonization" Roman style is not the same as modern "colonialism".