Luckily, we have someone like you here to set the record straight on what Islam is and isn't.
In the Footsteps of Rome: A History of Europe in Late Antiquity
- Thread starter volksmarschall
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Luckily, we have someone like you here to set the record straight on what Islam is and isn't.
I'd much not prefer to get into the nitty-gritty of Islamic theology, and just portray the historical movement and its influences and inheritance of Greco-Roman customs and philosophy. After all, "In the Footsteps" of Rome entails that I will be highlighting the influences and legacy of the Roman Empire that was inherited by the successor kingdoms and empires throughout Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
My problem with the negativism toward Islam is 1) it's just not historically accurate, 2) I find it's mean spirited and borders on not "Islamophobia" but an outright hatred bordering on either ultra bigotry or outright racism, 3) did I mention contemporaneous assertions about what Islam is or especially, the Sharia, are not historically accurate? :wacko:
I mean, the Abbasids allowed for Jews and Christians to hold political office (even if meager like local magistrates and or tax assessors/collectors for their local communities), in order to rise in the social class of the Ottoman Empire, you had to not have been born Muslim (only non-Muslims, for example, could join the Janissary Corps - but they would convert upon entering, but were also given the opportunity to leave but with the knowledge that they would likely return to their underclass lives, while once in the Janissary corps, afforded a high degree of prestige and moderate wealth). Find me a "Christian" and "Western" society in this same time period that had such benevolent views towards people of other faiths... When Ferdinand and Isabel reconquered "Spain" they proceeded to kick out all the Jews and Muslims, the Mamluks and Ottoman Empire welcomed the Jews, considered a "people of the book" (I'll get into that more), with open arms. The more modern conflict between Palestine and Israel is just a little over 100 years old, and begins with the Jewish Aliyah's into Palestine in the late nineteenth century. Early Islam and its successor caliphates were by far, the most tolerant and enlightened societies in the world; far surpassing any European proto-kingdom of the time.
Just occasionally butchering every Latin that lived in Constantinople.
I've read plenty that makes me declare the Byzantines the most intolerant and superstitious of all the Late Antiquity and medieval societies, jut like what Enewald said about the Massacre of the Latins (actually, this is one of the reasons historians speculate about the 1204 Crusade which ended up sacking the city). Perhaps the most famous, isn't necessarily Byzantine since it occurred under Theodosius at Thessaloniki where he and the Christian (Byzantine)/Roman Army killed between 7,000-10,000 Pagans in the city and then Saint Ambrose, in Milan, forbade the emperor from entering and "Defiling" the cathedral and prevented him from taking Communion until Ambrose felt Theodosius had truly repented for his "sins." Every heresy that emerged was stamped out; and while that is somewhat expected considering the times, Islamic tolerance -- or even one might go as far as saying a universalism that included the Jews, Christians, and eventually the Zoroastrians, is something that no Western European and Christian kingdom or empire can say it also share during the same time period.
However, just like what I wrote in Decline and Fall (whatever Chapter was the "Council of Constantinople"), the late Byzantines under the Palaiologoi moved to a general embrace of some degree of tolerance towards Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Armenians (Oriental Orthodox). However, the religious establishment was pissed off at the free allowance of worship and church/mosque building, I've read the letters of the bishops and the various Patriarchs who were angry at the emperor and saying he had lapsed on his Christian duty to promote the one true faith. I feel Michael VIII and Andronikus II, whom are the subject of these critiques, did it more out of necessity than a general view of equality among co-religionists. While the Umayyads start to separate and disintegrate the tolerant atmosphere of the Abrahamic co-religionists the "people of the book," for about 150 years -- there seems to have been a view within Islam that Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians all worshiped the same God, just through their different means, and therefore were all likely to get to Heaven and there was no need for conversion. This changed by the late 700s, but Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians all retained an ability to hold political office and take leadership roles in the community throughout Islamic history until the end of the Ottoman Empire.
When we get to the "Moors," who I'll naturally be covering their wars with the Iberian kingdoms fought from 870-onward, I'll be using the extensive historical archives and even paintings, that show many Christians (again, counted "among the believers") and their contributions of service to the Muslim Umayyads in Spain and North Africa...
Last edited:
Chapter 6: The Rise of the Arabs and the Abbasid (Islamic) Golden Age
Early Islam is, perhaps, one of the most misunderstood religions, if not societies in human history. The early Islamic community had no understanding of the firm distinctions that are abound today. In fact, the Jews and Christians were initially counted “among the people the book,” and “among the believers” and were openly welcomed into the “Islamic” community. Christians in Arabia and Ethiopia additionally played an important role in Muhammad’s survival, consolidation, and eventual rise to power. The Constitution of Medina is also one of the earliest recognizable documents that proclaims, and endorses, religious pluralism, toleration, and an implicit universalism that is far more ‘radical’ than the Edict of Toleration, or Edict of Milan, during the reign of Constantine I.
Having achieved their base of power in Arabia, centered around Mecca, and transforming the city for a holy site for pagan pilgrims around Arabia into a holy site for believers – the birth of Islam can be seen from the purview of this event. However, it was not long after this great triumph that Muhammad died on his final hijra, and his death would lead to the formation of a unique Muslim identity and lay the foundations for the Shi’a-Sunni divide. At his death, there are competing stories as to who would succeed the prophet as the “Commander of the Believers.” The most commonly accepted of these stories is that it passed to the most-qualified leaders of Muhammad’s movement – the most prominent of which is Abu Bakr. The second story, held by the eventual Shi’a community, and supposedly contained in the works of the Hadith, although few scholars believe its authenticity, is that Muhammad had raised the hand of Ali in proclamation that he should be the next caliph. Naturally, this story is after the first in which Abu Bakr succeeded Muhammad.
Thus, we start with the chronological history of Islam after the death of Muhammad and with the first of the “Rashidun” caliphs - Abu Bakr. Strictly speaking, there was no unified caliphate before the Umayyads. Abu Bakr was the first of the four “Rightly Guided Caliphs,” who held the title Amir al-Mu'minin, or “Commander of the Believers.” There is a general acceptance within the early community that these men, starting with Abu Bakr, were legitimate in the succession and leadership of the religious movement in the aftermath of Muhammad’s death.
A romanticized painting of the 'first caliph,' Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad who led the Believers' Movement to great new heights.
Almost immediately, Abu Bakr led the believers community, which included some Christians and Jews, into a conflict with Byzantine Empire and eventually the Sassanid Empire. As we covered in Chapter 5, the Arab invasion of Persia benefitted from a decades of wars with the Byzantines and a civil war, effectively leaving the Sassanid Confederacy depleted an unable to defend themselves. Although, I will not be going into detail about the fall of the Sassanids, as we already touched upon that in the prior chapter, I will focus on the importance of the influence of Persian art, architecture, and philosophy upon Islam following this great victory over one of the two superpowers of Late Antiquity.
Like a storming beast, the Rightly Guided Caliphs led the community of believers into successful conquests of the Byzantine territories in the Levant, Iraq, and even managed to penetrate into Asia Minor on several occasions. The Byzantines were utterly decimated at the Battle of Yarmouk, where a Byzantine army of 100,000 men were eviscerated by an Islamic army of around 20,000 or so men. The Byzantines, tired and exhausted from decades of war and a brutal march south in the dead of summer, were butchered like cattle on the field. Half of the Byzantine army perished in the engagement, and those lucky enough to survive fled back to Asia Minor and Constantinople. During the engagement, most of the Byzantine administration, which had accompanied the army into battle, were killed.
The destruction of the Byzantine army at Yarmouk allowed for the consolidation of the Levant, Iraq, and Egypt under Islamic control. The emperor Heraclius, a great patron and skilled ruler, was nonetheless overmatched by the fervent rise of this new religious and political force south of his border. Although he had managed to weather the war with the Sassanids, he died in 641 all the Byzantine lands in the Levant, Iraq, and nearly all of Egypt and would soon lose the remnants of North Africa as the Islamic armies pushed west – where they would not stop until their defeat at the Battle of Tours in 732 C.E.
A stylized and completely inaccurate portrayal of the Battle of Yarmouk, in which the Byzantines were expelled from the Levant at the hands of a superior foe.
The Rightly Guided Caliphs presided over an important maturity stage of the believers’ movement. Soon after the death Ali ibn Abi Talib, the final of the these caliphs in 661, the Islamic community of believers had encompassed nearly all of the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, the Levant, and Egypt, and parts of North Africa. After his death, and the successful and astonishing conquests against the Byzantines and Sassanid Persians, the road had been laid for the emergence of the pure Islamic Muslim identity during the Umayyad Caliphate.
The Umayyads were an ancient family or tribe from the Arabian Peninsula. Initially opposed to Muhammad in his early years, they had become his most ardent supporters and skilled leaders in the diverse religious community that was born in the aftermath of Muhammad’s successful conquest of Mecca. In part, this past history of the Umayyads having opposed Muhammad fueled the war between the Sunni (who followed the Umayyads) and the Shi’a (who supposedly followed Ali and his descendants). It was during the consolidation of power under the Umayyads that a distinct Muslim identity was formed apart from the ‘community of believers,’ a certain elevation of the followers of the Prophet above the Jews, Christians, and even the Zoroastrians who had been included as fellow believers in the One, True God (since they were monotheists).
However, it is with the rise of the Umayyads and the fostering of this unique Muslim identity, that the influence of Rome is also seen. The Umayyad court practices and rituals were simply borrowed from the Byzantines and molded to fit the new dynasty in Damascus. Taxes and laws, all of which were inherited from their conquests of the Byzantine territories, were kept and simply renamed in Arabic. Even before the rise of the Ottomans many centuries later, already, by the late seventh and early eighth century, there seemed to be an understanding among the Umayyads and the Islamic community that they were part Roman, at least, heirs to the Roman tradition.
As we shall find out later, with the Abbasid Golden Age, Roman and Greek art, philosophy, and mathematics will flourish under the reign of the Umayyads and Abbasids whereas it had been curtailed, stymied, and rejected by the Byzantines through theological controversy, and a complacency among the Byzantines – who, like their Roman forebears, saw all who were not “Roman” (or in this case Greek) as Barbarians not worthy of civilization. Yet, the rise of the Umayyads is pivotal in the evolution of Islam and Islamic history. As mentioned, the Sunni-Shi’a divide has its roots with the Umayyad rise to power and the backing of the Umayyads by a majority of the community (the Sunni) while a small minority opposed them (the future Shi’a). The roads were now leading to the terrible Battle of Karbala, and the schism of the community of believers in this terrible event.
Chapter 6: The Rise of the Arabs and the Abbasid (Islamic) Golden Age
Early Islam is, perhaps, one of the most misunderstood religions, if not societies in human history. The early Islamic community had no understanding of the firm distinctions that are abound today. In fact, the Jews and Christians were initially counted “among the people the book,” and “among the believers” and were openly welcomed into the “Islamic” community. Christians in Arabia and Ethiopia additionally played an important role in Muhammad’s survival, consolidation, and eventual rise to power. The Constitution of Medina is also one of the earliest recognizable documents that proclaims, and endorses, religious pluralism, toleration, and an implicit universalism that is far more ‘radical’ than the Edict of Toleration, or Edict of Milan, during the reign of Constantine I.
Having achieved their base of power in Arabia, centered around Mecca, and transforming the city for a holy site for pagan pilgrims around Arabia into a holy site for believers – the birth of Islam can be seen from the purview of this event. However, it was not long after this great triumph that Muhammad died on his final hijra, and his death would lead to the formation of a unique Muslim identity and lay the foundations for the Shi’a-Sunni divide. At his death, there are competing stories as to who would succeed the prophet as the “Commander of the Believers.” The most commonly accepted of these stories is that it passed to the most-qualified leaders of Muhammad’s movement – the most prominent of which is Abu Bakr. The second story, held by the eventual Shi’a community, and supposedly contained in the works of the Hadith, although few scholars believe its authenticity, is that Muhammad had raised the hand of Ali in proclamation that he should be the next caliph. Naturally, this story is after the first in which Abu Bakr succeeded Muhammad.
Thus, we start with the chronological history of Islam after the death of Muhammad and with the first of the “Rashidun” caliphs - Abu Bakr. Strictly speaking, there was no unified caliphate before the Umayyads. Abu Bakr was the first of the four “Rightly Guided Caliphs,” who held the title Amir al-Mu'minin, or “Commander of the Believers.” There is a general acceptance within the early community that these men, starting with Abu Bakr, were legitimate in the succession and leadership of the religious movement in the aftermath of Muhammad’s death.
A romanticized painting of the 'first caliph,' Abu Bakr, the successor of Muhammad who led the Believers' Movement to great new heights.
Like a storming beast, the Rightly Guided Caliphs led the community of believers into successful conquests of the Byzantine territories in the Levant, Iraq, and even managed to penetrate into Asia Minor on several occasions. The Byzantines were utterly decimated at the Battle of Yarmouk, where a Byzantine army of 100,000 men were eviscerated by an Islamic army of around 20,000 or so men. The Byzantines, tired and exhausted from decades of war and a brutal march south in the dead of summer, were butchered like cattle on the field. Half of the Byzantine army perished in the engagement, and those lucky enough to survive fled back to Asia Minor and Constantinople. During the engagement, most of the Byzantine administration, which had accompanied the army into battle, were killed.
The destruction of the Byzantine army at Yarmouk allowed for the consolidation of the Levant, Iraq, and Egypt under Islamic control. The emperor Heraclius, a great patron and skilled ruler, was nonetheless overmatched by the fervent rise of this new religious and political force south of his border. Although he had managed to weather the war with the Sassanids, he died in 641 all the Byzantine lands in the Levant, Iraq, and nearly all of Egypt and would soon lose the remnants of North Africa as the Islamic armies pushed west – where they would not stop until their defeat at the Battle of Tours in 732 C.E.
A stylized and completely inaccurate portrayal of the Battle of Yarmouk, in which the Byzantines were expelled from the Levant at the hands of a superior foe.
The Umayyads were an ancient family or tribe from the Arabian Peninsula. Initially opposed to Muhammad in his early years, they had become his most ardent supporters and skilled leaders in the diverse religious community that was born in the aftermath of Muhammad’s successful conquest of Mecca. In part, this past history of the Umayyads having opposed Muhammad fueled the war between the Sunni (who followed the Umayyads) and the Shi’a (who supposedly followed Ali and his descendants). It was during the consolidation of power under the Umayyads that a distinct Muslim identity was formed apart from the ‘community of believers,’ a certain elevation of the followers of the Prophet above the Jews, Christians, and even the Zoroastrians who had been included as fellow believers in the One, True God (since they were monotheists).
However, it is with the rise of the Umayyads and the fostering of this unique Muslim identity, that the influence of Rome is also seen. The Umayyad court practices and rituals were simply borrowed from the Byzantines and molded to fit the new dynasty in Damascus. Taxes and laws, all of which were inherited from their conquests of the Byzantine territories, were kept and simply renamed in Arabic. Even before the rise of the Ottomans many centuries later, already, by the late seventh and early eighth century, there seemed to be an understanding among the Umayyads and the Islamic community that they were part Roman, at least, heirs to the Roman tradition.
As we shall find out later, with the Abbasid Golden Age, Roman and Greek art, philosophy, and mathematics will flourish under the reign of the Umayyads and Abbasids whereas it had been curtailed, stymied, and rejected by the Byzantines through theological controversy, and a complacency among the Byzantines – who, like their Roman forebears, saw all who were not “Roman” (or in this case Greek) as Barbarians not worthy of civilization. Yet, the rise of the Umayyads is pivotal in the evolution of Islam and Islamic history. As mentioned, the Sunni-Shi’a divide has its roots with the Umayyad rise to power and the backing of the Umayyads by a majority of the community (the Sunni) while a small minority opposed them (the future Shi’a). The roads were now leading to the terrible Battle of Karbala, and the schism of the community of believers in this terrible event.
Last edited:
Fascinating as always - great to see this continued!
Poor Heraclius, he really had no luck at all did he?
Poor Heraclius, he really had no luck at all did he?
Fascinating as always - great to see this continued!
Poor Heraclius, he really had no luck at all did he?
His luck ran out after the rise of Islam in Arabia. Oh well, some people just aren't that lucky I guess.
Great to see another update here, and about the thrilling rise if Islam as well
Yeah, but I'm stuck with the annoyance of writing history only updates again as I'm trying to get to my brief playthru with the Abbasids. I was on the verge of putting this into the eternal "on hold" status as I actually have 3 other AARs, as you know, whose updates are more based on gameplay developments, even if I hate screeshots for the sake of history book AARs -- they are just so aesthetically out of place from my POV.
Well, with the Abbasids, at least when I played with them there was another civil war!
Again, mostly because I suck at the game and have no idea what I'm doing whenever I play CK2. Thanks Chattus! Too bad my work on Paradox which earns me nothing materially gets praise while my actual work is completely unnoticed as of today! :rofl:
Your style is certainly not to blame. To some of your elaborations I may object but I think some generalizations are needed and it's all in the safe confines of academic credibility.
Regarding your description of the supposed exemplary tolerance of the early Muslim faith I would like to point out that (as discussed before) this tolerance may have simply been a necessity given the governance of a vast populace of unbelievers did not allow forced mass conversions. For a likewise tolerant society I am tempted to point to the Norman kingdom of Sicily, but I am not too familiar with that matter.
Last edited:
Your style is certainly not to blame. To some of your elaborations I may object but I think some generalizations are needed and it's all in the safe confines of academic credibility.
Regarding your description of the supposed exemplary tolerance of the early Muslim faith I would like to point out that (as discussed before) this tolerance may have simply been a necessity given the governance of a vast populace of unbelievers did not allow forced mass conversions. For a likewise tolerant society I am tempted to point to the Norman kingdom of Sicily, but I am not too familiar with that matter.
Yeah, the problem with this, is that it's still an AAR, even if its like 85-15 history with the other 15 being the little spots of actual game play from the game itself! Naturally, I need to do a lot of summarizing to speed up to the actual "AAR" part. I said Justinian was a great ruler, well, I know a lot of historians who don't think that, and I'm one of them, but in the spirit of majoritarian scholarship, I said that anyways since, Byzantine historiography being my field of work, hell, I just wrote a 35 page paper, under review, on the subject, I'm decently versed and I think a majority of historians, albeit a slight majority, think rather positively of him and his reign so I just repeated their lines rather than my own (much of the historical updates are majority-based views of the historians I've read, not necessarily that of my own, although I'm generally in agreement with the majoritarian trends).
I've heard your concerns with Islamic tolerance before, but while I don't really write on Islamic history professionally (only on a rare occasion do I do something with it, maybe every other year), I was trained in the field in the university, and I wouldn't go that far. They seemed to be very egalitarian by default, at least until the middle Umayyads and the formation of a distinct Islamic Identity. A decent introductory book is Fred Donner's Muhammad and the Believers (2010, 2012 reprint) which covers the early years of "Islam." I find problems with some of Donner's language, like calling the early movement ecumenical -- that's terribly anachronistic although, all things considered, I guess its more employed for a modern audience to understand the analogy, although I wrote a review that was generally favorable, but I did criticize him for some of the modern language he used to describe a seventh century movement that otherwise had no understanding of ecumenism. The "People of the Book" concept seems to be well-established and mostly genuine. I think the tolerance of the Ottomans towards religious minorities is more befitting the realization that political governance would be best suited for all parties if the local figureheads remained in charge, rather than some Sunni Islamic official of employed from the Court in Constantinople.
I've already shortened the planned sections on Islam and the Umayyads, just so I can speedily get to my brief play thru with the Abbasids, then move on to Italy, Francia, the Moors and proto-Spanish and reach the conclusion that this AAR was intended for.
Cheers!
Oh, I do not take so much offence in the belief of historically practiced Islamic tolerance. I just generally tend to believe that every belief system that assumes itself to contain the sole beneficial truth of salvation (i.e. Islam, but also Christianity and other faiths) must, if it wants to take itself seriously, insist in its structural integrity and paramountcy. I merely see Islamic tolerance as a political necessity that arose out of its surroundings that helped it sustain said paramountcy. It was more beneficial to the spread of Islam because it minimized resistance. I remember reading about a German Islamic scholar (whose name I unfortunately can't seem to remember) who insisted that Islam thrived as it was an amalgamation of the competing diverse Arab believe systems of that time. Islam tolerated Judaism and Christianity because they lent credence to Islam in the same way Judaism lent credence to Christianity.
On a similar note that's exactly why inner-Islamic tolerance did not exist in a comparable fashion. One should not forget the grand scale persecutions of the zindiqs by al-Mahdi.
I hope that came across in an understandable fashion. The limitations of a second language speaker, you understand...
Also I am looking forward to your remarks on Italy.
On a similar note that's exactly why inner-Islamic tolerance did not exist in a comparable fashion. One should not forget the grand scale persecutions of the zindiqs by al-Mahdi.
I hope that came across in an understandable fashion. The limitations of a second language speaker, you understand...
Also I am looking forward to your remarks on Italy.
Last edited:
I only today discovered this AAR thanks to the ACAs. I don't know how I missed it. It was certainly worth the long read to get current, though!
Oh, I do not take so much offence in the belief of historically practiced Islamic tolerance. I just generally tend to believe that every belief system that assumes itself to contain the sole beneficial truth of salvation (i.e. Islam, but also Christianity and other faiths) must, if it wants to take itself seriously, insist in its structural integrity and paramountcy. I merely see Islamic tolerance as a political necessity that arose out of its surroundings that helped it sustain said paramountcy. It was more beneficial to the spread of Islam because it minimized resistance. I remember reading about a German Islamic scholar (whose name I unfortunately can't seem to remember) who insisted that Islam thrived as it was an amalgamation of the competing diverse Arab believe systems of that time. Islam tolerated Judaism and Christianity because they lent credence to Islam in the same way Judaism lent credence to Christianity.
On a similar note that's exactly why inner-Islamic tolerance did not exist in a comparable fashion. One should not forget the grand scale persecutions of the zindiqs by al-Mahdi.
I hope that came across in an understandable fashion. The limitations of a second language speaker, you understand...
Also I am looking forward to your remarks on Italy.
Ich spreche Deutsch! (Well, I actually only translate it, I probably couldn't keep up in a conversation with an elementary school, just like with Latin, Greek, and French, I can really only read it as a non-native speaker who doesn't ever practice the speech, outside of a few words for phonetic effects when I'm lecturing. Although, reading Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel in my philosophy studies hasn't hurt!
). Although I'm pretty sure dialogue is only meant to be in English since we're not in the German side of the forum.While I'm certainly sympathetic to that mantra of thinking, as an Orientalist, such a terrible word, someone who studies primarily the eastern side of the classical world, I think that mode of thought, however much I do agree to a certain extent that religions (as any other form of hierarchical societal structures form) need to move in that direction out of simple necessity -- that view still negates the entire foundation contained in the Qur'an that explicitly states, Jews and Christians as belonging to the "People of the Book" and that conversion of them is not necessary. The Qur'an is also very clear that the Dhimmi are to be a tolerated and included class among the "believers." Now of course, the one problem with the quoting of the Qur'an, just like for the first 50-60 years of Christianity, is that the holy book is compiled after the fact, and while I'm not cynical enough to assert that these passages were deliberately inserted to reflect 50 years of inter-religious community practice, nor am I endorsing this speculation, but it's still a gap in the chronological history. Of course, I believe the passages to be genuine on account of the Constitution of Medina alone.
If you ever recall the rename of that German scholar, please do state his name somewhere. I'll have to add him to my collection!
Hahaha, Italy...yeah, if we ever make it to the country/king that I actually spent the most time playing as!
My first, and probably only venture into CK2 AARs since I'm horrible at the game, as you'll going to find out when we get back to gameplay history!
I'm moderately surprised that this AAR never really crossed my radar before, given my interest in the subject matter and fondness for the history-book format in general, but now that I have come across it, I'm hooked. I thoroughly enjoy both the writing style and the amount of attention to detail for real-world historical trends in economics, society, and beliefs that you've obviously put into it. Keep up the good work!
I've noticed that you make frequent reference to Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome as you go. I just want you to know that I'm actually working my way through it myself; it's definitely a fascinating read.
On the subject of book recommendations for Late Antiquity / medieval history, what are your thoughts on the works of John Julius Norwich, if any? His A Short History of Byzantium was one of the books that years ago first got me interested in that general era of history and in the history of Eastern Rome / the Byzantines in particular, and I've been wondering if any of his other works would be worth a read.
I've noticed that you make frequent reference to Chris Wickham's The Inheritance of Rome as you go. I just want you to know that I'm actually working my way through it myself; it's definitely a fascinating read.
On the subject of book recommendations for Late Antiquity / medieval history, what are your thoughts on the works of John Julius Norwich, if any? His A Short History of Byzantium was one of the books that years ago first got me interested in that general era of history and in the history of Eastern Rome / the Byzantines in particular, and I've been wondering if any of his other works would be worth a read.
That's exactly why I wrote in English.Ich spreche Deutsch! (Well, I actually only translate it, I probably couldn't keep up in a conversation with an elementary school, just like with Latin, Greek, and French, I can really only read it as a non-native speaker who doesn't ever practice the speech, outside of a few words for phonetic effects when I'm lecturing. Although, reading Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel in my philosophy studies hasn't hurt!
If you read Hegel and understand him that's quite an accomplishment. Although I adore his conception of god he made my head hurt when I took a course in Geistesgeschichte. His style is quite willful.Well, I reckon I am by far not an expert on that matter and my concept of Islam may be unjustly tilted towards Contemporary History. I just tried to clarify what came across my mind when I read your commentary. If you could point me to a scholar that discusses the unnecessity of Jewish and Christian conversion in early Islam I would be quite thankful. Does Fred Donner touch that subject?
Wickham is great. I had his book for a while, but never got to reading it until 4-5 months ago when I was preparing a paper on Byzantine historiography from Gibbon to the present. And I used it as a convenient 'excuse' to finally read his great work. Yeah, he's a superb historian. The AAR is meant to be a little homage to him in concept, design, and outgrowth (of course, with some inclusion of my game play), even if that's only been in like 3 or 4 posts so far! :glare:
I used Norwich (I had read him already, and have his other 3 volumes in full on the Byzantines) for the same paper (as you could gather, I used most of the contemporary Byzantinists for the last section of that paper when talking about contemporary and popular histories). My problem with Norwich is two-fold: He has an overly positive view of the Byzantines, just like Lars Brownworth and Roger Crowley who essentially eulogize the empire's demise while glossing over the decadence of their civilization and the constant civil wars and instability, and his work is non-academic (there's nothing new or insightful from him). His full three volume history of which A Short History was the condensed version are all fine works of popular history. Nothing particularly no for someone like me who writes on the Byzantines somewhat professionally, but he's alright in my book. He should be owned by anyone in the field just because...
And since you're already in the Historiography Society community group, you can look at the Roman and Byzantine threads for a larger list of works in Late Antiquity dealing with the Romans and Byzantines if interested. I would recommend Norwich's full three volume history if you've read his condensed book.
No mention of Khalid Ibn Walid?
Shameful!
Yes, per the purposes of brevity, none of the Arab generals get mentioned. Sad, I know, but I'm not here to write a history paper published by the respected journal known as the Paradox Forum!
That's exactly why I wrote in English.
I'm re-reading Phenomenology right now, of course, my English translation.
As someone who primarily studies/studied the German philosophers, ca. 1780 (with Kant)-1830s, the Idealists and Romanticists, I like to read in German first, then get an English copy, read the English translation, and decide if the translation was good or not. I actually like Fichte the best of them all.Donner talks about the issue, but never goes into good detail. His is more a popular history than academic. He does devote a good amount of time on how the relationship sours with the Umayyads however. He's a decent read. Again, I criticized his use of anachronisms (like calling the movement ecumenical, it wasn't, and can't be since that concept is an eighteenth and nineteenth century idea). I think Jonathan Berkely's book, The Formation of Islam is a little bit better. The real problem is, however, that we just don't know enough about early Islam. Not enough primary sources, and the lack of archaeological evidence (no evidence to suggest forced conversions or anything like that) in-of-itself, isn't strong evidence either. I believe Donner admits that in his book, while archaeology suggests tolerance, there just isn't enough in archaeology to hang the argument upon.
Ah yes, the wonderful world of history, and being a secondary historian looking back on things...
Last edited: