RGB - That might be a potential middle ground--an imperial complex outside of the preexisting city. Still open for ideas though!
asd21593 - Stavros Braveheart? It'd be even funnier if it was Stavros Blomfeld
Winner - An allusion to the Shining? When? *confused* My story is too big... :rofl:
Laur - I didn't say Carpettown was a bad idea, I just said it's falling in line with alot of other names, like Neapolis.
As for the very long name... I could
definitely see that, for the capital or for the fortress-complex next to it. Maybe the official name gets changed to the long, imperial title, but people continue to refer to the city as "Isfahan" as a shorthand?
Leviathan07 - Here's the problem.
I like all those names. So which one gets the love, and which ones are left in the cold? Dilemnas, dilemnas...
Vesimir - I <3 Asterix comics!
Enewald -Gabai is a definitely possibility. I'm not making any decisions yet, another thing I might do is take the names people offer that don't make the cut, and use them elsewhere. There's alot of building coming down the line, now that Thomas III has cash.
4th Dimension - That would be like breaking the 18th wall...
Nekhara - I would be honored if AP decided to keep us informed of their exploits!
The_Archduke - Sometime I'd like to compile my previous 'guesses' as to the post-CK world together just to compare them.
Hannibal X - I'm pretty sure if it was Anthony or Andrew, the Scots would have still butchered the Greek.
AlexanderPrimus - Thank you for the hilarity.
armoristan - Thomas III (or T3 if you want my shorthand) is a weirdy? Really? Nah...
Well, ladies and gentlemen, we've truly got an embarassment of riches on our hands. Calipah has finished compiling the replies of Dr. al-Jedawi to questions everyone had regarding the
paper delivered by the good doctor on the history of the Hejaz:
==========*==========
1) Doctor, getting away from the Hedjaz for a moment, can you summarize Roman history for us, specifically in the period of about 1300 to the present?
Sir, to ask such a question, in this time and age, is rather alarming, if not disheartening. You strike me as a well-educated and well-rounded person, and I am confident you had been exposed to Modern Roman history somewhere in the course of your studies, no? If not – and I then must posit the blame on your educators - I highly recommend Rustum Jalalallah’s ‘Exhausted Historia: The Roman Empire from the Principate to the Republic (42 BC – 1829 AD)’ as a starting point for your scholarly voyage. Good luck, you’ll need bucket loads of it. However, I must say that this is still very outrageous in every way, and I must raise my voice in protest. The culpability of not only our schools, but that of the media, is eminent to everyone here I hope – we are, in our modern day trash-culture discouraged to read and inquire - we have become lazy and on the constant prowl for base entertainment, giving little thought to fact and actual events! Take the ‘Rome Arisen’ series by the BBC – utter rubbish! If history were such a splatter of oozing sex and action, the Empire wouldn’t have been built in the first place. Please, I beg you, turn off your TV and READ!!
*Audience claps*
2) I'd like to know a little about the religious composition of Arabia throughout the centuries, percentages and such.
I’m afraid it is a relatively tricky question to answer. Percentages and statistics after all, are a trapping of the modern state and its bureaucracy, and we can only guess as to what the religious composition of any given society was before the availability of polls and scientific censuses. I fathom that much of the Middle East – and Im assuming by Arabia you generally mean the areas encompassing the Arab world and not the peninsula alone – remained for the most part post-Muslim in their religious makeup. Whilst there was a limited Orthodox infiltration (which encountered mind you, not only Muslim, but also native Christian resistance) - and especially in the northern fringes nearer to the Anatolian core – attributable more to a Greek influx than anything else – most Muslims had more or less fallen under three broad religious traditions stemming from an Islamic ethos – the Aeonite reformation, the institutionalized Muhajirun, and the Guides of the Guide movement emanating from Persia. Questionably, there are many elements one must take into account: syncretism, identity politics of Self and Other (the Jewish faith is a good example here) and of course, the mere fact that before the Modern era, centralized authority was limited in the scope of its impact over the lives of the vast majority of people. Given that, ‘Muslims’ adapted to the advance of Christendom instead of joining it wholesale. And yet….then again, you did have the missionizing influence of the Madaba Metropole, as well as cyclical conversion campaigns centered from Jerusalem and Alexandria before the breakdown of the Komenid Empire. Actually, I really do not know how to address this question. It needs further research I dare say.
3) Doctor, How do you order the Roman Empires? I heard you mention the fifth empire, which has always made me wonder. Wasnt the Roman Empire a single entity throughout its history? and if the Komnenoi empire is the fifth, what was the fourth and third?
Most academics and scholars agree that there are, broadly speaking, five major ‘episodes’ that define this ramshackle entity we know as the ‘Roman Empire.’ First is the Principate period of the Julio-Claudians, followed by the Flavian-Severian, and then the Dominate, which ends with the reign of Emperor Heraklios at the onset of the Arab invasions. The fourth is more or less the epoch of the ‘Byzantine-hellenic’ Empire, which was succeeded by the revitalized Komenid ‘Grand Imperium’ marked by the ascension of Demetrios Megas. Arguably, some scholars add the ‘Industrial Emporia’ as the sixth Empire since it saw the rise of the Industrial council as the prime mover– a definite break with past continuities of political modus operandi. Others expand it to include the ‘Republican Restoration’ of the 19th century – but again, there is wide consensus over the ‘five’ eras but not so much beyond that.
Now as to whether the Empire was a single entity throughout its history – as a civilizational idea, much in the same sense of China, it was -but as a politically defined parameter, I can adamantly say no – state sovereignty did not overlap with geographically defined sovereignty except perhaps in Anatolia and the Balkans – after moving of course, from the Imperial core in Italy. The Empire has, one must recognize, been constantly reconstituted and dismantled with each succeeding dynasty. Nothing, in both form and function, lasts forever in the march of human history – except the Chinese and their Empire, but they’re exceptional devils as we all know. For the rest of us, we’re iconoclasts by nature, even in the name of preservation. We like to destroy and recreate – its in our makeup. I hope that answers your questions.
4) Can you explain more how the Christian Hedjaz contributed to the rise of the Aeonites?
A ‘Christian’ Hedjaz is perhaps a wrong moniker on my part. As you know, the Hedjaz of all the provinces in the Empire remained resolutely traditional in its Islamic orientation and even rejected the Taymiyyite ‘Muhajirun’ discourse coming from the Madhab of Damascus. Well, the area remained such a bastion of conservatism until the Aeonite reformation – the Medina school is well renowned for its Protestant Ulema – but that is attributable to other variables beyond the scope of my discussion. But back to the question at hand - The fall of the Hedjaz broke the back of established Islamic institutions and symbols as I already covered. This created a vacuum that could not be filled by Imperial Christianity, but instead, with a ‘revitalized’ Islam that distanced itself from the failures of the reifed faith, but retained its ‘victorious heart’ as it were. Aeonism’s growth is mainly a result of the interplay between people seeking to keep on to the old religion of the past, but redefining it to suite the framework of their present reality. It is an epistemological process one could say, a play on perceptions, and it has, for all intents and purposes, worked.
5)I'm more interested in this "Greco-Slavic racial superiority on a fallout ridden wasteland."
What is there to say? The Great War against the forces of totalitarianism was fought and won. Simple as that. Mind you, I am a man who enjoins peace, but I sorely regret that we didn’t eradicate that northern menace off the face of the earth. At times I am tempted to say we should not have restrained ourselves to 'tactical' nuking – pfah. But in all seriousness, this is a free country! To think of the many innocents extinguished on the pyre of that evil Empire - I shudder in disgust at our failure...yes I call it a failure, for having let that blight get away without punishment was and remains a great offense to humanity. Aeon's mercy on all, but for some, and especially those bastards, none should be given!
6) I would like to ask you a question on Thomas I's invasion in 1190. We know how history has played out with the success of his son over the area. However, what if Thomas I was successful a mere 50 years before his son? What if Thomas I's armies had crushed the Seljuks at Kirkuk and the Romans had continued its drive deep into the heart of Persia? Could Mecca have been taken? Also, how would the Romans under Thomas I have coped with such vast conquests? Would it have been as peaceful or could it have led to Roman atrocities and the very real possibility of a civil war between Christianity and Islam? We could also speculate that perhaps it is not Thomas II but actually Sulieman Arslan back in 1190 that actually shaped the modern world as it is? After all, had he not been victorious, it could have held immense implications for the world as a result?
Hypothetical scenarios are not in my area of expertise I’m afraid, but I’ll play ball for the sake of the argument. We can, of course, only fathom what would have happened, but the Romans are good at one thing – they are pragmatic and practical for the sake of power, so I do not think, if such a thing came to pass that they would necessarily depart from their politically-ingrained standard-operational procedures (if the civil servants would allow me to rob them of that term!) *audience laughs* Yet as to the question of ability, at the height of the Seljuk Empire, I do not think the Romans would have been able to muster the necessary tactical depth to capture Mecca. In fact, the very conquest of the Hedjaz was a result of the Sheriff’s invasion of the Jordanian plains in 1238AD – the Roman Empire had never contemplated the question of invading the holy cities in the first place. I reckon they would have opted to leave that hornet’s nest alone – and rightly so, look at what happened subsequently. Again, this is playing with too many ‘what ifs,’ and I’ve already indulged myself to play in this most unconventional game too far for comfort’s sake *laughs*
7) Professor,
- Would you characterize the rise of Aeonism in the Muslim world, as a schism or as a reformation, and why?
- How did Constantinople react to the advent of Aeonism?
- What, in your opinion, caused the splintering of the Graeco-Muslim culture in the near east?
- What would you say were the main causes for the collapse of imperial power in the region?
Addressing the first question, Im prone to say that the Muslim World had lost its ‘center’ of orthodoxy with the imbalance caused by the fall of Mecca and Medina. This invariably resulted in a spin-off effect of multiple reformations that included Aeonism. A schism is perhaps also one way of looking at these reformations – it depends on how one perceives events I suppose. I’m a historian, I don’t make such judgments. As to Constantinople’s response, it is too much of an exhaustive and encompassing subject, and I would suggest instead you look up Prof. Manfred al-Manfaluti’s spectacular work
Crucible of the Crescent which touches upon the Imperial response over the course of the 14th century, exacerbated as you might know by the Bubonic plague. As to the ‘splintering’ of culture – I do not recognize such terms in the lexicon of debating and discussing ‘culture.’ Frankly, I do not understand this question. As to the last matter, Aeonism was merely one malaise that deepened the crisis of the prolonged Imperial ‘overstretch’ – the preonia system, political discord, fragmentation, and growing stratification.
8)Two questions to the professor
First, the Byzantine Emperors called themselves the Vice Regents of God. The Empire was hailed as a Christian Empire. Didn't the tolerance towards the conquered Hedjaz hurt the emperors standing with the church and the ordinary citizens of the Empire? I doubt the average Anatolian farmer would understand why tolerance was needed towards the Holy Muslim Cities.
Secondly about the Aeonites, where do they stand within Islam. Would one characterise them as a new schism, like with the Sunni and Shi'a, a new School of Law within the Sunni Islam, or an almost separate religion like the Ahmadiyya?
The average Anatolian farmer would have most likely never left the valley he was born in, let alone care much for what was happening outside the proximities of his ‘SMA’ – Standard Market Area. Questionably, this assumption that simply because Anatolia was the bastion of Orthodoxy in the Empire does not necessarily translate into total popular adherence to ‘intolerance.’ Many people dealt with Muslim Turks on a daily basis, and a vast majority of the peasantry were rather ambivalent. The urban landscape is radically different of course as ideological institutionalization permits a high degree of ecclesiastical control – a sort of hermeneutical ‘give and take’ interaction with the public. But I digress: Whilst the Emperor was the Vice Regent of God, he was in the end, a secular Ruler, and burning Mecca to the ground would have brought the Empire on its head – the fact that a good bulk of the population was still very much Muslim in its orientation comes into play here. The Patriarch can only do so much in the face of political reality. As to the second question, it really depends on whom you ask, but the general consensus is that Aeonism represents ‘Islam’ and ‘post-Islam.’ It is within, and beyond. Well, that’s what the typical ‘Imam Hadi’ would say I guess, but Im not sure a Muhajiri would agree.
9)Professor,
For the benefits of my students back home, what are the basic ideas and philosophies behind Aionism and what is your interpretation of how the previous centuries shaped and created them?
Dear sir, I cant believe Im saying this but check Wikipedia, or google it for the Holy’s sake. There’s a Grand Ma’bad of Sayyida Fatima just on the other side of the Road. I’m a historian, not a missionary!
10)Professor,
In your opinion, would you consider the Aionite Movement as a successor to Orthodox Christianity or to the Sunni Islam of the Region? Could the Aionites have gained momentum had Thomas II not invaded the Hedjazi Realm?
11) Professor, as I understand from your discourse, because of the taking of the holy cities, the unity of Islam, as a religious movement, was broken. And because of this, several distinct islamic rites and traditions have developed, based on the local interpretation of Islamic orthodoxy, These traditions were, after political reunion, unable to going back to one Islam. Is this in any way comparable with the way distinct christian traditions were and are unable to unite, maybe because they all profess to be the one true religion?
And do you see aionite as a Islamic tradition or as a branch that has split off, like christianity from judism?
I already addressed these questions I believe.
12)Professor, if an African Lion and a large octopus met on neutral ground; who would win?
Such audacity and lack of face! By the blood of the humble ancestors, wheres security?!WHERE ARE THEY?! How the hell did this creature get into Allied territory to begin with?!Have we lost our vigilence so?! Oh Lordy Lord...I...Ach Allah in Heaven Sublime! I know what you are, an Octopoi terrorist! PURPLE SUICIDE BOMBER!
[Emergency Transcript Copy – Iskanderiyya Tegmata-Shurta Police Department.]