In the Footsteps of Rome: A History of Europe in Late Antiquity

[volksmarschall]

This is great! Out of interest can anyone recommend any good books for someone looking to get into Persian history?

Thanks for the kind comments! Below are a list of books I've read (entirely, or mostly) that serve as an appendix of reading on Ancient Persian history (books only, no journal articles since I don't think most people on the forum will have access to them since I get them for free because of my position! )

History of Iran: Empire of the Mind is the best Persian History I've read. Mostly because it's an intellectual and cultural history that shows just how enlightened and complex and amazing Persian philosophy, from Zoroastrian Persia to Islamic Persia is/was. Plus, you'll get a general overview of Persian history from Zoroaster to the present.

Sassanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire IMO, better than the next two I have listed below, not to say the others below are not good at all, I just liked this one more.

Decline and Fall of the Sassanian Empire and Sassanian Iran: Portrait of a Late Antique (Antiquity) Empire are other good reads on Ancient Persian history. These are the books I've covered, or mostly read. I couldn't speak on other books you might find at the library or on amazon.

Shadows in the Desert is a good book.

Now you've given me something to add to my 60 item amazon wishlist!

 

[Bah_meh]

Thanks! I will really have to look into those.

 

[ScribleScrable]

Thankfully, with the rise of "Late Antiquity" paradigm instead of that horrible phrase "Dark Ages", more people are being exposed to the great culture, philosophy, and even political culture that flourished from 400-1000, and that includes the Sassanids/Sassanians. (I've always spelled it Sassanid, hence why I write it that way, although I think more people spell it the other way now?). I'll certainly read the article, and probably keep it in one of my many folders (because I keep all articles I read in their associated folder: Byzantine History, Modern Islam, Religion, etc.)

And it's always nice to meet someone else who studied the same category of history (I concentrated in US Social and Islamic, also studied Philosophy -- concentrating in the Enlightenment and German Idealism (Kant, Hegel, Fichte, etc.) and Economics -- Neo-Keynesian Macro theory), although I actually write on the Byzantines (my department didn't have a Classics History program, I've just been collecting and reading Roman and Greek history for a long time, so that's who I actually write on, with 1 paper under review and another being worked upon). So do you author science papers or do you just work in, like, a lab or something?

Thanks again for the paper link, I'll make sure to tell you what I think. But if it has a lot of sources, I'll be well-pleased (references are the "quantifying" variable, if you will, on what is "good" history by my standards -- that's not to bash "popular histories" which I think are important, but such works are generally useless to what I do -- unless writing historiography, which I also do).

Cheers!

It was always Sassanid when I was in school, but I have noticed Sassanian has come increasingly into use recently.

As far as my profession, I worked in a lab for a couple years as sort of a jack of all trades, before they paid for me to go back to school to get a masters where I am now. Most of my time now consists of reviewing literature, assisting in a variety of procedures, and working on and presenting case studies. The workload is extremely variable, so some weeks I can spend hours writing and reading various histories between cases, and other weeks the only time I spend at home is spent sleeping.

At one point, I did consider going into Roman and Islamic studies for graduate work, but between a lack of funds and my unwillingness to go straight back to school, I passed on that opportunity. I'm very happy with where I am now, but this time period (I really like the Late Antiquity paradigm) continues to be a fascinating hobby of mine.

 

[volksmarschall]

It was always Sassanid when I was in school, but I have noticed Sassanian has come increasingly into use recently.

As far as my profession, I worked in a lab for a couple years as sort of a jack of all trades, before they paid for me to go back to school to get a masters where I am now. Most of my time now consists of reviewing literature, assisting in a variety of procedures, and working on and presenting case studies. The workload is extremely variable, so some weeks I can spend hours writing and reading various histories between cases, and other weeks the only time I spend at home is spent sleeping.

At one point, I did consider going into Roman and Islamic studies for graduate work, but between a lack of funds and my unwillingness to go straight back to school, I passed on that opportunity. I'm very happy with where I am now, but this time period (I really like the Late Antiquity paradigm) continues to be a fascinating hobby of mine.

It must be nice to work for a company that will pay for your education!

BTW, the article is pretty good. Mostly because I'll probably hunt down some of the references if I can find them. Unfortunately for me, I still need to make my mind up after I finish my Masters of Theology what field of history I'll get into. Either the Classics, or Early Modern Europe (I doubt very much I'll do US social, my other concentrated area of study, only because I'm American and already have read and own 100s of books on American history ). The Ancient world up through Late Antiquity and then then the age of empires in Europe have always been my two most beloved subjects of history (not counting American, my serious hobby of if you will - also because it's important to know one's own national history).

 

[volksmarschall]

Chapter 5: Persia in Late Antiquity

Chapter 5: Persia in Late Antiquity​

In the span of two years, the Sassanid Empire was struck with 11 usurpations or attempted usurpations, and civil strife, chaos, and political instability was abound throughout Persia. Sad, that an empire that was generally free of such civil chaos and backstabbing politics befitting of Rome had to strike the empire at such a critical moment in its history. Having been devastated by two bloody wars with the Byzantines in the past 50 years, and with the rise of a new power in Arabia – Persia was in a delicate situation when the Arab storm came bursting out of the desert.

Some might ask, why did Byzantium or the Sassanids never seek to control Arabia? After all, Arabia was always on the periphery of both great empires of Late Antiquity and it seems right that – if either power had seized Arabia, the future Arab conquests would not have happened. The reasons for this lack of interest in Arabia is very straightforward – Arabia was mostly a desert land with nomadic people and little arable land.[1] Most Arabs were nomadic wanderers who didn’t farm and therefore would not be taxable. The great empires of kingdoms until the onset of modernity were mostly agrarian empires whose power were based on agriculture. Even the Byzantine Empire, which had an extensive trading network – was still an agrarian empire at its heart. Therefore, both powers were looking at Arabia as unimportant land filled with people who would not contribute to their empires. Therefore, Arabia was neglected – but for good reasons. Even with the onset of Muhammad, the Arabs were still a highly nomadic people – even if the words of the Prophet had helped to unite them in a new vision of, and for, the world.

The extensive damage of the civil wars in Persia had serious ramifications for the empire. The Arabs had united and sought conquest against Byzantium and Persia in the aftermath of the death of Muhammad. In 634, an army of less than 20,000 under the command of Khalid ibn al-Walid had confronted an army of Byzantines and Sassanids, who had united to confront the common enemy, defeated the joint Byzantine-Persian army of nearly 150,000 at Firaz. It was one of the most lopsided victories in the history of military warfare. The majority of the Byzantine-Persian army was destroyed at virtually no losses for the Arabs. Employing hit and run tactics, and showing masterful use of the bow, the rout was immediate and dramatic. Iraq fell to the Arabs, and the last major hope for the Sassanids to preserve their empire seemed to have slipped away.

The Sassanids lost the help of the Byzantines, who fled to defend the Levant. There, the Arabs scored similar remarkable victories, taking Jerusalem by 637. Yet, in late 636, the last gasp of the Sassanid Empire was extinguished at the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah. Some 100,000 Persians, many of them poor farmers, had been rallied with an elite force of about 40 war elephants and heavy horsemen to defend the roads to Ctesiphon (the capital of the Sassanid Empire). The battle was brutal, but in the end, the Arabs won another amazing victory. Half of the Sassanid Army was lost, and the other half deserted over the course of the four day battle. Worst, the great treasures of the Sassanid Empire, order to accompany the soldiers on the travel by King Yazdegerd III as a form of morale boosting – was lost to the Arabs.

With the dramatic defeat of the second greatest power in the world of Late Antiquity by the upstart Arabs – the road to Ctesiphon had been cleared and the Sassanid Empire was on the verge of collapse. Yazdegerd III employed the tradition of calling upon his people as the King of Kings, defender of all things holy, in hopes to rally his people. The use of political theology in Zoroastrianism, in part – defender of all things holy, would eventually be incorporated into Islamic political theology as well as the aforementioned concept of the Circle of Justice. After a three month siege, the Arabs seized control of Ctesiphon, and the historic capital and agrarian heartland of the Sassanid Empire had fallen. Pushed inland to the Persian mountains and hills, Yazdegerd III would survive another 15 years before finally capitulating to the Arab conquerors.

Arab warriors invading the mountains of Persia. The fall of the Sassanid Empire was seen as a great shock, but considering the domestic turmoil of the past few years preceding the Arab conquests, it's not that surprising that the once mighty empire, it its hour of weakness, fell in the mere matter of a few years.
​

In Persia, Persian culture still flourished, even in the aftermath of the Arab invasion. Scattered in isolated towns, many of the Persians remained Zoroastrian. Being a monotheistic religion, they, along with Christians and Jews, were viewed by the Muslims as being “People of the Book,” ′Ahl al-Kitāb – even though this was amended to include the view of Zoroastrians as being a community that worshiped the One True God, but were not part of the Abrahamic tradition like Judaism and Christianity (which are explicitly called as being part of the same faith as the Muslims in the Qur’an).

The general benevolence towards the Zoroastrians had important influences upon Islam. Even after the fall of the Sassanid Empire, officially coming to an end in 651 with the death of Yazdegerd in the foothills of Persia even though Sassanid power had effectively been eclipsed with the fall of Ctesiphon in 637. The famous spiral minarets, with an eternal flame burning at the top of the tower as a reminder of God’s holy light – would soon be adopted by Islamic architects and added to Mosques as a decorative and theological piece (keeping the eternal flame to remind the faithful of God’s holy light, just like in the Zoroastrian tradition). To promote the idea of single monotheistic tradition, many Zoroastrian houses of worships were simply re-dedicated as mosques, but some of the larger temples retained Zoroastrian sections for the Zoroastrian faithful.

Persian philosophy continued to experience a renaissance for the next 400 years under Islamic rule. So, in a way, some scholars assert the even in the collapse of the Sassanid Empire – the soul of the empire, its love of poetry, aesthetics, and philosophy lived on with the Arab conquerors. Persian art and literature became fixtures of Islamic art and literature. The Arabs, who saw forms of “realistic” artwork as blasphemy (since only God has the power of creation), the Persian converts did not share this Arabic tradition and continued to pioneer depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, Prophet Moses, and Prophet Jesus in their artwork. The Islamic authorities never attempted to silence their work.

The fall of the Sassanid Empire is an important moment in the world of Late Antiquity. The vast empire would soon be carved up by the Muslim conquerors, and after the Sunni-Shia split, would become a beacon for the Shi’a sect while the rest of the Middle East remained predominately Orthodox Christian and Sunni Muslim until Christianity’s decline in the nineteenth century in its historic homelands.[2] Also, the fall of the Sassanid Empire had unintended benefits. With the inclusion of Persian culture and philosophy into Islam, Persian culture and philosophy are among the major factors in contributing to the Golden Age of Islam under the Abbasids, who will be the focus of the next chapter in my work.

Islamic calligraphy, like this one pictured above, which has perfectly linear and straight lines, are a reflection of art influenced by Persian calligraphy. Islamic art, attempting to mirror the perfectness of God, often created calligraphy with such elaborate artwork (symbolizing the complexity of God's creation), while the perfect edges and lines reflect the order of creation in the midst of chaos.​

>>> Continue to Chapter 6: The Rise of the Arabs and the Abbasid Golden Age​

[1]Land suitable for farming.

[2]Keeping true to OTL’s religious demographics of the region. In fact, in the early 1700s, nearly half of Palestine and a large minority of Syria were still Christian. The majority of Lebanon was also Christian, until the twentieth century. The Muslims never pursued a series of “forced” conversions contra to popular theory.

 

[Enewald]

What about the Tang forces sent to help the last Sassanids?

 

[stnylan]

I think one of the things that I find really really interesting about Late Antiquity - and for that matter all through the mediaeval period - isn't so much the decline and fall of the Empire, but that the decline was so protracted - it is almost like a zombie that refuses to die, not just in culture but in a political sense as well. Persia at least twice collapsed relatively quickly following a dramatic defeat or two - against the Arabs and against Alexander. Come to think of it, so too did a couple of "Mesopotamian" empires in even earlier times. I don't know if this difference is just a result of the Roman Empire's size, or because there really was some element of the Empire that was more cohesive (the wider Hellenistic/Graeco-Roman culture, perhaps), or even just blind luck. States in the antiquity and the mediaeval era just have much greater - fluidity is the word, I think.

In modern times such slow declines are a lot more common, and states are a lot more rigid. One only has to think of the Ottoman decline as being pronounced over a century, and also Manchu China.

Anyway, just a thought that re-occurred to me as I was reading the above.

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

I think one of the things that I find really really interesting about Late Antiquity - and for that matter all through the mediaeval period - isn't so much the decline and fall of the Empire, but that the decline was so protracted - it is almost like a zombie that refuses to die, not just in culture but in a political sense as well. Persia at least twice collapsed relatively quickly following a dramatic defeat or two - against the Arabs and against Alexander. Come to think of it, so too did a couple of "Mesopotamian" empires in even earlier times. I don't know if this difference is just a result of the Roman Empire's size, or because there really was some element of the Empire that was more cohesive (the wider Hellenistic/Graeco-Roman culture, perhaps), or even just blind luck. States in the antiquity and the mediaeval era just have much greater - fluidity is the word, I think.

In modern times such slow declines are a lot more common, and states are a lot more rigid. One only has to think of the Ottoman decline as being pronounced over a century, and also Manchu China.

Anyway, just a thought that re-occurred to me as I was reading the above.

A testament to the achievement of Roman Administration, to not only survive the politics of the republic, the expanse of the empire, the 'mad' emperors Caligula and Nero (Though both have seen their revisionists), the collapse, the Arab conquests, the various rebellions, and, perhaps most impressively, to last until 1453, at which point general Roman civilization had lived to the ripe old age of two thousand two hundred and six years. (Start date: 753 BC-End date: 1453. According to my calculations and Wikipedia.) The age of their civilization, in all of it's forms, is truly staggering. If one would take the conventional historians position and date the start of Rome's decline as beginning in the second century, it would still take twelve centuries before its completion, when the empire was finally, mercifully some would say, conquered into the Ottoman empire.

 

[volksmarschall]

What about the Tang forces sent to help the last Sassanids?

The Tang sent forces to help the Sassanids? Yazdegerd's son and a few other notables fled to China and took refuge in-exile there, if that's what you mean? Unless it's a blank spot in my classes and readings -- I don't recall the Chinese ever sending actual military forces to help the poor Persians out. Some of the expatriate Persians became commanders of the Tang army among other things.

I think one of the things that I find really really interesting about Late Antiquity - and for that matter all through the mediaeval period - isn't so much the decline and fall of the Empire, but that the decline was so protracted - it is almost like a zombie that refuses to die, not just in culture but in a political sense as well. Persia at least twice collapsed relatively quickly following a dramatic defeat or two - against the Arabs and against Alexander. Come to think of it, so too did a couple of "Mesopotamian" empires in even earlier times. I don't know if this difference is just a result of the Roman Empire's size, or because there really was some element of the Empire that was more cohesive (the wider Hellenistic/Graeco-Roman culture, perhaps), or even just blind luck. States in the antiquity and the mediaeval era just have much greater - fluidity is the word, I think.

In modern times such slow declines are a lot more common, and states are a lot more rigid. One only has to think of the Ottoman decline as being pronounced over a century, and also Manchu China.

Anyway, just a thought that re-occurred to me as I was reading the above.

A testament to the achievement of Roman Administration, to not only survive the politics of the republic, the expanse of the empire, the 'mad' emperors Caligula and Nero (Though both have seen their revisionists), the collapse, the Arab conquests, the various rebellions, and, perhaps most impressively, to last until 1453, at which point general Roman civilization had lived to the ripe old age of two thousand two hundred and six years. (Start date: 753 BC-End date: 1453. According to my calculations and Wikipedia.) The age of their civilization, in all of it's forms, is truly staggering. If one would take the conventional historians position and date the start of Rome's decline as beginning in the second century, it would still take twelve centuries before its completion, when the empire was finally, mercifully some would say, conquered into the Ottoman empire.

Viritually no historian I've ever read credits the Roman Administration with their longevity. I mean, during it's 1,123 year span, Byzantium had 105 civil wars and riots, averaging out to 1 every 10.5 years. Hardly a stable political system that produced dozens of usurpations. Roman administrative capabilities were so decentralized, even long before the Palaiologoi where generals and councilors were running amok and fighting among each others for petty power and politics (as reflected in Decline and Fall with the "rise of the despotates").

Most historians consider the survival of the Byzantines as: 1) Luck, 2) The Walls of Constantinople (quite literally impregnable unless an inside job -- like 1204, or the arrival of cannons -- like 1453) 3) Superb individual emperors who would arise in the empire's most desperate times. I mean, Basil II reverses much of the losses of the past few centuries and is considered, not Justinian, to be the real "renaissance" of Byzantium culturally, militarily, and politically, and even economically. Crudely put, no Basil II, possibly no Byzantine Empire by the end of 11th century as both the Muslims and the Bulgarians had the empire on the ropes, which were dramatically reversed with Basil's campaigns against both powers. The Komnenoi were somewhat average by comparison, and certainly benefited from the Crusades, but their restoration/recovery made the empire again into a strong regional power (still below the Arabs however, and still in a delicate position as evidenced by the empire's capitulation 20 years after the end of the dynasty by 1204).

Luck was the biggest factor from my studies. The Mongol Invasion was directed by Byzantine diplomats against their enemies (helping them along), and then the campaigns of Timur were directed against the Ottomans right when the Ottomans were gearing up for the final blow in the late 1300s and early 1400s, culminating in the Battle of Ankara, 1402, in which Timur defeated the Ottomans which set the Ottomans back by about half a century (the great Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun had directed Timur against the Mamluks mutual enemy in the Ottomans). The Byzantine Administration was by in large incompetent and obsolete. The Theme System had been neglected that by the end of the Komnenoi, and during the Palaiologoi was in decline and failure to enact serious reforms outside of the minor changes that did occur only worsened the political position of the empire.

And "Roman" civilization does not begin in 753. Rome was founded as an Etruscan colony, but on the limits of Etruscan rule, the city blended itself with other nearby Italian cultures creating a cosmopolitan culture (Roman Culture) that eventually came into conflict with its colonial masters. Many of the displaced Latins found refuge in Rome and slowly began to demographically outnumber the original Etruscans. Early Roman artifacts and building structures mirror the same style of that of the Etruscans (this is generally universally accepted by Roman historians that it was founded as an Etruscan colony, or very much influenced by it -- I mean, the founding of Rome on the seven hills is also a well-known Etruscan tradition, to found cities on hills for defense reasons rather than in the plains or valleys like other Italian cultures). But as the city grew in power and grew distant from the Etruscans, it had sort of de-facto independence status and overpowered its legitimate founders. The Roman founding myths of Romulus and Remus are believed to have begun sometime during the Roman-Etruscan Wars, to shed Rome of its Etruscan heritage (naturally, since they were their enemies) and to legitimize the conflict between Rome and Etrusca.

The Etruscan origins of Rome, or Roman Cult Religion, are the two areas that I would plausibly write my dissertation on if I decided upon a PhD in the Classics/Ancient History!

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

-snip-

I would not go so far as to claim the administrates were the sole, or even the main reason Rome survived the way it did. However, the administers did create the systems and institutions which would keep the Empire afloat for years, whether it be the decentralized system of Rome, the system of making professional soldiers during the Marian reforms, or the monumental task of keeping the Empire relatively in the black and under nominal rule from Rome. This is even more amazing when one considers the fact that they were so sparsely spread out (1:1300), a fact you yourself mentioned in chapter one.

 

[volksmarschall]

I would not go so far as to claim the administrates were the sole, or even the main reason Rome survived the way it did. However, the administers did create the systems and institutions which would keep the Empire afloat for years, whether it be the decentralized system of Rome, the system of making professional soldiers during the Marian reforms, or the monumental task of keeping the Empire relatively in the black and under nominal rule from Rome. This is even more amazing when one considers the fact that they were so sparsely spread out (1:1300), a fact you yourself mentioned in chapter one.

We are centuries removed from the very administrative reforms you've listed, which, by the implementation of the Tetrarchy (294 CE), had no serious influence over the Roman Empire anymore. The Marian Reforms are a Republican reform for the late 100s BCE! By the middle of the fourth century, the "professional" legions had largely evaporated and the army was comprised mostly of Barbarians, mercenaries, and other "non-Romans." The Roman Empire lasted as long as it did by sheer luck. As I mentioned, the ERE's best rulers seemed to have come onto the scene right when they were needed most, like Basil II or Alexios I. The Roman administrative state was so prone to epistemic violence, that it often created more problems that it solved (hence why Byzantium had a civil war or major revolt every 10.5 years). Rome also lasted as long as it did because it was the sole superpower during Pax Romana, 27 BCE to 180 CE in which no other power serious could challenge her power. The Roman-Persian Wars, although grand in scale, the Persians just didn't have the resources or manpower that Rome had to wither the storm (as shown in Chapter 2, in disproporitionately came at the expense of the Western portion of the empire), hence why they collapsed much sooner and quicker than Rome (continuing with the ERE; also due to having been wrought with civil war right upon the eve of the Muslim Invasions as I just covered).

Most historians would assert Byzantium just got lucky, and having the most complex and scientifically advanced military fortress in the world, the Walls of Constantinople, didn't hurt either! Dozens of armies would throw itself against those walls and fail to conquer it.

The Roman Republican Administrative System was far superior and "fair" than anything the empire produced. Which is what I'm most saddened by as a historian who writes and studies extensively on. The Fall of the Roman Republic led to the corruption, murderous politics, and constant civil strife that would follow after the death of Augustus Caesar, the first, and still greatest of all the Roman emperors (with Marcus Aurelius and Constantine possibly coming a close second and third respectively). Aurelius was the most lofty soul I've ever read -- you should read him, his letters and writings have largely been translated. Can't help but feel sorry for the man. The 13 civil wars of the Roman Republic all set the stage for the rise of the empire, and it seems the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. After the Pax Romana, 108 additional civil wars and revolt struck the Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire afterward.

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

We are centuries removed from the very administrative reforms you've listed, which, by the implementation of the Tetrarchy (294 CE), had no serious influence over the Roman Empire anymore. The Marian Reforms are a Republican reform for the late 100s BCE! By the middle of the fourth century, the "professional" legions had largely evaporated and the army was comprised mostly of Barbarians, mercenaries, and other "non-Romans." The Roman Empire lasted as long as it did by sheer luck. As I mentioned, the ERE's best rulers seemed to have come onto the scene right when they were needed most, like Basil II or Alexios I. The Roman administrative state was so prone to epistemic violence, that it often created more problems that it solved (hence why Byzantium had a civil war or major revolt every 10.5 years). Rome also lasted as long as it did because it was the sole superpower during Pax Romana, 27 BCE to 180 CE in which no other power serious could challenge her power. The Roman-Persian Wars, although grand in scale, the Persians just didn't have the resources or manpower that Rome had to wither the storm (as shown in Chapter 2, in disproporitionately came at the expense of the Western portion of the empire), hence why they collapsed much sooner and quicker than Rome (continuing with the ERE; also due to having been wrought with civil war right upon the eve of the Muslim Invasions as I just covered).

Most historians would assert Byzantium just got lucky, and having the most complex and scientifically advanced military fortress in the world, the Walls of Constantinople, didn't hurt either! Dozens of armies would throw itself against those walls and fail to conquer it.

The Roman Republican Administrative System was far superior and "fair" than anything the empire produced. Which is what I'm most saddened by as a historian who writes and studies extensively on. The Fall of the Roman Republic led to the corruption, murderous politics, and constant civil strife that would follow after the death of Augustus Caesar, the first, and still greatest of all the Roman emperors (with Marcus Aurelius and Constantine possibly coming a close second and third respectively). Aurelius was the most lofty soul I've ever read -- you should read him, his letters and writings have largely been translated. Can't help but feel sorry for the man. The 13 civil wars of the Roman Republic all set the stage for the rise of the empire, and it seems the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. After the Pax Romana, 108 additional civil wars and revolt struck the Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire afterward.

I will look him up on amazon and online, though your comment on the luck of the Empire intrigues me. Which historical theory do you subscribe to, if any? Great Man, Social cycle theory, Sociocultural evolution, or something else? In essence, do you believe it was dumb luck the Empire got Basil when it did, or was it because the Empire needed Basil that he became an extraordinary ruler?

 

[volksmarschall]

I will look him up on amazon and online, though your comment on the luck of the Empire intrigues me. Which historical theory do you subscribe to, if any? Great Man, Social cycle theory, Sociocultural evolution, or something else? In essence, do you believe it was dumb luck the Empire got Basil when it did, or was it because the Empire needed Basil that he became an extraordinary ruler?

Annales School, "Total History" (look at as many things as possible: weather, economics, social theory, politics, military, great men), however, unlike the traditional Annales School, I have a greater respect for political history, which men like Braudel and the other French Annales historians rank lowly or lowest on their list of importance. As you know from reading Decline and Fall, that AAR reflects my emphasis on covering as many things as possible to paint the most historically accurate picture of an event or time period. The problem of course with this school of historical theory is it sort of becomes a jack of all trades, master of none. I have a preference towards cultural history as a personal taste.

Most Annales historians would attribute luck to a lot of things. Like Braudel's analysis of the Battle of Lepanto. It would have turned into a disaster had Don John of Austria not arrived in time, which Braudel concludes was the benefit having having caught strong winds to catch up with the rest of the Imperial Fleet, then the battle -- well, we all know what happened then. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II Volumes I and II is simply the most impressive book of history I've ever read, and transformed me to embrace the Annales School. He covers economics, social history, geographic, politics and military in his account, and all of his analyses are thorough. Each individual section could have been a stand lone book of its own. I would recommend that too, as a reflection of my biases!

And yes, history only gets one run. Basil II was the greatest Byzantine emperor (imo, also a lot of historians say the same). It's unknown if someone would have ruled if he would have been as successful (we can't go back and test this). What we know is this: He beat back the Bulgarians and the Muslims and the apex of the empire was reached under his rule. Before he came to the throne, Byzantium was in a very dire position.

 

[Dr.Livingstone]

Annales School, "Total History" (look at as many things as possible: weather, economics, social theory, politics, military, great men), however, unlike the traditional Annales School, I have a greater respect for political history, which men like Braudel and the other French Annales historians rank lowly or lowest on their list of importance. As you know from reading Decline and Fall, that AAR reflects my emphasis on covering as many things as possible to paint the most historically accurate picture of an event or time period. The problem of course with this school of historical theory is it sort of becomes a jack of all trades, master of none. I have a preference towards cultural history as a personal taste.

Fascinating, the theory certainly holds appeal in it's all-expansiveness.

Most Annales historians would attribute luck to a lot of things. Like Braudel's analysis of the Battle of Lepanto. It would have turned into a disaster had Don John of Austria not arrived in time, which Braudel concludes was the benefit having having caught strong winds to catch up with the rest of the Imperial Fleet, then the battle -- well, we all know what happened then.

Yes, it's one of the turning points in both History and Literature. Had the Hapsburg fleet lost, not only would the Ottomans gain influence, but the first ever modern novel may of been lost. Let us not forget a certain Castellian who took part in the battle, was wounded, and then wrote a seminal comedy.

The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II Volumes I and II is simply the most impressive book of history I've ever read, and transformed me to embrace the Annales School. He covers economics, social history, geographic, politics and military in his account, and all of his analyses are thorough. Each individual section could have been a stand lone book of its own. I would recommend that too, as a reflection of my biases!

Once again, my amazon wishlist seems to grow exponentially in relation to reading your aars. Not that I'm complaining though!

And yes, history only gets one run. Basil II was the greatest Byzantine emperor (imo, also a lot of historians say the same). It's unknown if someone would have ruled if he would have been as successful (we can't go back and test this). What we know is this: He beat back the Bulgarians and the Muslims and the apex of the empire was reached under his rule. Before he came to the throne, Byzantium was in a very dire position.

A question for the Time travelers then of the future then! If that never comes to fruition though, at least we will still have Historians bickering about it until the end of time...

 

[volksmarschall]

The goal of the Annales Historians was to include as many relevant topics of history as possible with the hopes of creating the all-elusive "objective" history. Bruadel gives little importance to military history, even if he includes it. He considers the Battle of Lepanto "A Victory that Led Nowhere." And considering the amount of time he devotes to economics, trade, and demographics, one might believe him to be right -- Europe would have overtaken Turkish supremacy of the Mediterranean with, or without, the battle (his assertion).

And historians, at least the good ones, don't often debate about "What if," because that's a true sign of intellectual immaturity. :rofl: "Well, if Hitler did this, then he would have won the war..." Well, Hitler and the Germans lost the war. We can't go back and re-run it. While I think historical revisionism (in the sense of paradigm shifting and the reaximination of 'orthodox' history is legitimate (I promote it after all, since "Late Antiquity" overturned the "Dark Ages," to which few historians, except for Marxist historians (for obvious reasons) are about the only people who still use the term all together). Indeed, most historical scholarship is nothing but an ongoing discussion about the 'legitimacy' of prevailing theories of histories on a specific topic, person, or event. Historical negationism (the illegitimate distortion of the history to make something appear better), however, now that is something I don't indulge in. Soviet historiography, mostly propaganda from Soviet historians and their Western lackeys, is probably the most glaring example I could highlight. (One of the rare moments I will send you to wikipedia).

The "great" historian Eric Hobsbawm is probably the greatest practitioner of historical negationism. Mostly because he was a marxist and communist who did not break, like the majority of Anglo-American Marxist intellectuals, with the Soviet Model after the invasion of Hungary in 1956 (he was one of the few to defend the crushing of the revolution and constantly portrayed Stalin in a positive light, even going as far as saying his actions against the Ukrainians were legitimate -- lost all credibility with me with that statement). By contrast, E.P. Thompson is a much better and honest Marxist historian, whose work the Making of the English Class a lot of interesting anecdotes.

 

[volksmarschall]

Chapter 6: The Rise of the Arabs and the Abbasid (Islamic) Golden Age

Chapter 6: The Rise of the Arabs and the Abbasid (Islamic) Golden Age​

Before the rise of the Prophet Muhammad in Arabia, Arabia was a diverse land religiously and politically – although the land was largely a barren desert with the notable exception of several important oases and a few areas of arable land that was still hard to cultivate due to the rugged nature of the terrain. Southern Arabia does receive enough rainfall to be fertile-enough land for farming but the majority of the Arab peoples were a nomadic desert culture that valued water above all things.

As I mentioned, the two great empires to the north – the Byzantines and the Sassanids were always on the periphery of Arabia, or more precisely, Arabia was always on the periphery of the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires. But the worthlessness of Arabia to the two agrarian empires was the main reason both powers bypassed the interest of an invasion for nomadic people would be hard to settle, and the Arab Peninsula had virtually arable land near the empires. It was Southern Arabia, not northern or central Arabia, that had land suitable for agricultural cultivation.

The many tribes constantly fought for power – mostly for economic reasons. The most powerful of the pre-Islamic Arab tribes were the Quraysh. The Quraysh had centered their political power in the city of Mecca, one of the few semi-urban regions in the entire peninsula. Sitting on top of a large oasis, the city was also a famous religious destination for pilgrims of the region – containing the famous Ka’ba Shrine. The Quraysh society was centered around caravan trading, subsistence agriculture, and the importance of the religious pilgrimage during pilgrimage season. In ancient Arabic society, there was a period of several months of truce to allow people to practice their religious faiths and embark on the journey to Mecca. During the peace, Mecca was the center of the Arab world – and made a great fortune on the influx of travelers heading to the Ka’ba.

A modern picture showing the Ka'ba Shrine in the heart of Mecca. This is the most holy site in Islam, and the shrine is traditionally believed to have been founded by Abraham, the patriarch of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the Abrahamic sisterhood of religions).
​

Arab religious society was not monotheistic, nor was it universal. Rather, the religious makeup of the peninsula was very diverse, as I mentioned above. The religious nature of the region is what historians and religious scholars consider henotheism, the belief that there is one universal, or supreme God, but that there are other minor gods as well (part of the pantheon). In that sense, Greek Paganism was actually a form of henotheism, as men like Plato and Aristotle believed in One God, but lived in a society that reverenced the larger pantheon. The same holds true in Arabia. The elusive One True God was to be worshipped or paid homage at the Ka’ba Shrine, which is why many Arab pilgrims flocked to Mecca and allotted great power to the tribal confederacy that controlled the city and the shrine itself. Among the Arab religions at this time, there was no understanding of an immortal soul, or life after death. Rather, “immortality” was seen through one’s life legacy, known as khulud. Performing heroic deeds in one’s life that would be remembered for generations to come, as the Arab peoples were an oral society that practiced the great art of oral tradition – would bring about one’s “immortality.” This is different from the Greeks, who believed that one had an immortal soul that went to the realm of the afterlife (Hades) upon death.

When Muhammad took control of Arabia, and Muslims looked back upon their non-Islamic past, they would call this era of “paganism” and political and religious disunity as the Jahiliyya, or the “age of ignorance.” Worse, the center of this ignorant age was the Ka’ba Shrine. Although the elusive One God of Arab henotheistic society was rumored to be contained in the shrine itself – much like how God was contained in the Old Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, the Shrine contained many statues of the various other gods of the Arab pantheon as well.

Muhammad was born in 570 C.E. to a cadet branch of the Quraysh tribe that his uncle was chief of. He was soon orphaned as a young boy, only to be taken in by his uncle – Abu Talib. Muhammad was raised as any other Arab was raised, illiterate, a nomad, but raised very religiously (Arab Henotheism). He soon wed the lovely and powerful Khadija, a famous trader and merchant who had amassed great wealth, who is counted as among the first converts upon Muhammad’s revelation. He had four daughters with her, of which Fatima is the most important for the development and evolution of the Islamic world.

In 610 C.E., Muhammad was at Mt. Hira outside of Mecca where he received a great revelation from God during the 27th day of the month of Ramadan. He soon returned home exclaiming to have had a vision of the Divine, and the “Believers” movement was born (historians do not use the term “Muslim” to refer to the first followers of Muhammad). In Muhammad’s message, he preached that there was One True God, the God of Abraham, and that the Arab people should turn away from their current “sinful” lifestyle and come together to build a new community of faith and radical egalitarianism where all would be equal as compared to the static and hierarchal society of the pagan Arabs. Naturally, this message was not appealing – especially to the reigning Quraysh who saw Muhammad and his band of radical followers as a danger to their power and authority. Almost immediately, the Quraysh stroke and oppressed Muhammad and the Believers’ movement.

Why? As I mentioned, it threatened Quraysh authority. Much like the message Jesus preached which was seen as a message of treason to the Roman-Jewish authority, as well as blasphemy to the most conservative of Jews – Muhammad’s message create a sense of fear from among the powerful in the Quraysh tribe. Muhammad’s rejection of Arab Henotheism threatened to destroy the religious pilgrimages of which Mecca was dependent upon for their survival. His message of equality appealed to the poor and disposed (this would later be used by Muhammad’s successors to create Arab unity behind the Islamic religion). The economic power of the Quraysh was also threatened. For the next seven years, Muhammad received several more progressive revelations, preached his message despite persecution, and had gathered a large enough following that in 622 C.E., the Quraysh expelled Muhammad and his “Believers” from the city of Mecca. It was during this trialing time that the archangel Gabriel is believed to have taken Muhammad on his famous “Night Journey” (the Mihraj) to Jerusalem, whereupon he ascended into heaven on a winged-horse to meet with the great prophets of God in the past: Moses and Jesus.

To the north of Mecca, the city of Medina had been more hospitable to Muhammad’s message and opened their doors to him (Medina was also a rival to the Quraysh in Mecca). Realizing the danger, the Quraysh attempted to assassinate Muhammad but this plot ultimately failed – and Muhammad and his supporters made their journey to Medina to find safe heaven. This journey is remembered as the Hijra, 622 C.E., which begins the start of the Islamic Calendar.

A depiction of the hijra, 622 C.E., when Muhammad and his believers traversed the deserts of Arabia to safe passage in Medina. The date, 622, marks the beginning (Year 1) of the Islamic Calendar.
​

In Medina, Muhammad preached his message of personal piety and equality and was well-received. The Quraysh were fearing that Muhammad was planning a strike against them from his new powerbase in Medina. A large war party was sent north but was defeated at the Battle of Badr (624 C.E.) as the Believers took the high ground protecting the only oasis water well between the two cities and held it against the Quraysh attacks. For the next six years, Muhammad and the Believers fought a long war with the Quraysh, eventually leading to the capture of Mecca in 630 C.E. During one of the battles, the Battle of Uhud (625 C.E.), Muhammad was wounded but his forces rallied and saved themselves from defeat. The wife of one of the major Quraysh leaders, Hind, was even believed to have eaten the liver of Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib, one of Muhammad's uncle and closest confidants who was killed ensuring Muhammad's safety. The Battle of al-Khandaq was the great turning point in the war – and the Believers defeated the Quraysh and paved the way for their triumphant entry into Mecca by 630.

After capturing Mecca, the Believers forced the conversion of the Quraysh, all of whom converted. At the Ka’ba, Muhammad’s victory was proclaimed. Bilal, one of Muhammad’s most trusted lieutenants who was rumored to have the most beautiful of singing voices, climbed to the top of the Ka’ba and called for a universal prayer of all Believers. At the prayer, Muhammad dictated the terms of the new religion and its authority: higher social standing for women, love-relationships would be contained to marriage, Arab Henotheism was to end, and Muhammad would be recognized as a Messenger of God. Afterward, the Ka’ba was sacked – all henotheistic and pagan influences of the past were destroyed. The Ka’ba would now become a pilgrimage site for Believers only, and to make the bridge between the Ka’ba being a site for the new religion worshipping the God of Abraham, a new myth (traditional story) was created that asserted that the Ka’ba had been built by Abraham to worship God before it was captured by the pagan Arabs and converted into the famous shrine and object of idol worship during the Quraysh. Mecca was now under Muhammad’s control, and the birth of Islam was imminent.

>>> Continue​

 

[etranger01]

I've always found the periods in which new religions are founded to be incredibly fascinating, especially religions that changed the shape of the entire planet like Islam. A great look into pre-Islamic history!

 

[Enewald]

Those victorious always rewrite history.

 

[stnylan]

A storm starts, causing destruction but also enabling new life.

 

[volksmarschall]

I've always found the periods in which new religions are founded to be incredibly fascinating, especially religions that changed the shape of the entire planet like Islam. A great look into pre-Islamic history!

Understanding the background, culture, and history of a region in which a religion begins is always important to understand religion in its proper context. You can't get Islam right without first understanding the history and culture surrounding its beginning. And although 3.5 pages (in Word) is hardly scratching the surface in an area that I know extremely well from my concentrated studies -- I hope that by highlighting the most important things (as determined by me! ) may always lead others to take an interest in the subject. Hence our whirlwind tour across the Europe, the Middle East and Africa continues. Plus, I find the level of hatred and animosity and confusion toward and of Islam as something appalling as an academic.

Those victorious always rewrite history.

Myth is the most powerful form of persuasion, and has long lasting impacts upon culture and society. I mean, the Ka'ba being built by Abraham seems to be a far stretch when earliest accounts of the Ka'ba in existence in Mecca date to the 6th Century B.C.E.

A storm starts, causing destruction but also enabling new life.

A storm rises in the east, and it will not be contained. Nor will its cultural, architectural, or intellectual contributions that often get overlooked either. I mean, the Muslims essentially created modern algebra and mathematics taking Greek mathematics to a whole new height! Now we all know who to blame for our woes in calculus...