Why does Northern Africa start more developed than other places?

[Byzantium2000]

One can only wonder how places like Anatolia or North Africa would look like if they would've stayed under roman rule. Romans once said that places like Hispania were so heavily forested that an squirrel could cross from the strait to the Pyrenees hopping from tree to tree, albeit this is probably a myth.

Well for one their would be a lot more farmland in Anatolia. The Byzantines after the lost of Egypt were forced to dramatically increase their agricultural technology and put it all into Anatolia and Sicily turning them into the breadbasket of the empire. Central Anatolia was filled with grain, olive, and fruit farms until the Turkmen arrived with thousands of grazing Goats and Horses after Manzikert. Western Anatolia lost many of its forests due to a need For the Byzantines to recover lost yields and was pushed to the max agriculture wise till the Turkish conquest of these regions and Byzantine abandonment cause the population to migrate out and the Goats to come in.

You might also see a less urbanized Greece. The Turkish invasion caused mass population movement and investment into the region as it became the Empire’s new economic heartland. Though with the reconquest of Crete guaranteeing the end of Arab raids Greece was slowly becoming a worthwhile gold mine through Urbanized sea trade but the loss of Anatolia forced it to become a breadbasket also.

Sicily without the loss of Carthage wouldn’t haven’t been pushed from 30% of the Empire’s food maker to 50% and farmed to the limit which was ended by the Arab conquest of it anyway though in the 800s.

 

[Rokh]

I recently read a very good book called 'Why the west rules the world...for now' by a Geographer/Historian called Ian Morris. It's a pretty long book, but it does contain lots of graphs that compare technological and social development between the East and West over the course of history. It's a pretty crude visual indicator, but the attached graph tracks social development from 14,000bc - 2000ce in the 'East' vs. 'West'.

In the CKII early starts most historians agree that Eastern cultures were significantly more developed than Western ones, hence why the west oftern refers to this period as the 'Dark Ages'.

View attachment 446521

This graph is very confusing to me. What does "social development" mean? What are "East" and "West" refering to? Is the Middle East in the east or in the west? And India?

 

[EmperorG]

Yeah like Byzantium2000 said, goats were a significant cause of the decline of these regions. I would say goats probably have caused more destruction to the environments of North Africa, Hispania, and Anatolia than anything else short of humanity itself. And where the Muslims went, the goats followed, so in a way the two are intertwined in responsibility for the desertification and aridization of much of the meds border regions.

 

[Wakizashi]

Yeah like Byzantium2000 said, goats were a significant cause of the decline of these regions. I would say goats probably have caused more destruction to the environments of North Africa, Hispania, and Anatolia than anything else short of humanity itself. And where the Muslims went, the goats followed, so in a way the two are intertwined in responsibility for the desertification and aridization of much of the meds border regions.

That is the first I have ever heard about that, despite having studied Arab history at length. What sources are there for that claim? Not saying it's wrong, just really curious.

 

[makaramus]

Really? Whoa. I would like to look into that. While I love history, that isn't a region I have studied (I was always more into Asian history myself). Vikings really went down there to raid? I always thought they stuck near the British Isles, France, and northern Spain previously.

Is there somewhere online I could learn more? Google has more or less failed me on this, and American schools certainly don't teach it lol.

they did go even "great city" wich is "constantinapol" or "Konstantinopolis" or "istanbul" whatever you like
wich... they failed... ofcourse tried many more times but after some time it turned into "raiding for trade" XD
they even reached to caspian sea and raided there.
sadly there was no river to india from mediterrian sea if there was one I am sure they would made visits there too

 

[neutrondecay]

Really? Whoa. I would like to look into that. While I love history, that isn't a region I have studied (I was always more into Asian history myself). Vikings really went down there to raid? I always thought they stuck near the British Isles, France, and northern Spain previously.

Is there somewhere online I could learn more? Google has more or less failed me on this, and American schools certainly don't teach it lol.

The Varangian Guard in Constantinople was made up almost entirely of vikings. And Harald Hardråde, often regarded as the last of the great vikings, campaigned extensively in the Mediterranean. I don't recall if he went to North Africa specifically, but his eponymous Saga provides plenty of evidence of Norse activity in the general area.

nd

 

[Vetgirig]

Besides alot of finds in Viking lands - there is also Viking finds in Istanbul:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_inscriptions_in_Hagia_Sophia

 

[De Vermandois]

Northwestern Africa was completely devastated by Banu Hilal invasion (that should be an event btw) in 11th century and lost its chances to recover under Almoravid and Almohad rule which only worsened the situation. So I kinda agree that it should have some bonus in 769 and 867, but definitely not in 1066 and later on.

 

[BoomKidneyShot]

Really? Whoa. I would like to look into that. While I love history, that isn't a region I have studied (I was always more into Asian history myself). Vikings really went down there to raid? I always thought they stuck near the British Isles, France, and northern Spain previously.

Is there somewhere online I could learn more? Google has more or less failed me on this, and American schools certainly don't teach it lol.

Dude, Vikings raided northern Iran a few times. I'm surprised using Google didn't work, searching "Viking raids" gets me to a decent Wikipedia article on the subject, which is a good start.

I recently read a very good book called 'Why the west rules the world...for now' by a Geographer/Historian called Ian Morris. It's a pretty long book, but it does contain lots of graphs that compare technological and social development between the East and West over the course of history. It's a pretty crude visual indicator, but the attached graph tracks social development from 14,000bc - 2000ce in the 'East' vs. 'West'.

In the CKII early starts most historians agree that Eastern cultures were significantly more developed than Western ones, hence why the west oftern refers to this period as the 'Dark Ages'.

View attachment 446521

How the hell do they quantify Social or Technological Development?

 

[WeissRaben]

North Africa was a wealthy and prosperous realm for centuries still after Islam arrived. Blaming its regression on Arab Muslims is just silly.

Conquests of any kind often lead to heavy disruption, and if the environment is one that has to be carefully kept working, said disruption can be fatal. It's not blaming muslims; it's blaming war.

 

[dark-mysterio]

I’m not blaming Arab Muslims, Im blaming the Bedouin Arabs and Mother Earth for the Desertification that arrived in the region during the Middle Ages. The Arab Muslims did however destroy Carthage, introduced the Bedouins to the region and cut the region off with trade from Europe and Constantinople for a while. Elvain would agree with me.

are you talking about the first arab invader or the hilalians/maqil invader ?

 

[elvain]

Had that Berber queen been able to withstand the arab invasion long enough to form an alliance with the Eastern Roman Empire, and the invaders may have been expelled from the area. Perhaps the desertification could've been avoided with the restoration of the irrigation systems.

A Mongol invasion or a similar destructive force, would caused the same gradual desertification and impoverishment. Look at Mesopotamia after the destruction of its irrigation channels. Berbers were doing okay-ish until the arabic invasion. Better than the Vandals, at least.

With their irrigation system gone, Berbers had to raise cattle to survive, leading to the gradual overgrazing of the fertile/arable land, turning it into drylands. Pre-Islam Berbers had some level or knowledge of mantaining the agricultural structure, but the tribes that survived the invasion were those that used to live on the mountain ranges, and thus were much more focused on raising cattle.

One can only wonder how places like Anatolia or North Africa would look like if they would've stayed under roman rule. Romans once said that places like Hispania were so heavily forested that an squirrel could cross from the strait to the Pyrenees hopping from tree to tree, albeit this is probably a myth.

You are almost right, except the fact that North Africa (namely the Roman province of Africa, islamic Ifrikiya, which is basically Tunisia and East Algeria) remained very fertile during Islamic times - which is after the Arab-Muslim invasion you speak about. It was among the most fertile regions of Mediterrean area during the 10th century

The Arab-Muslim conquest changed northing in this perspective. So the claim that "if Romans...." is simply invalid, because even when Arab and Berber dynasties ruled there, the region was as prosperous as before, despite gradual aridization (caused by ecologic/climate factors).

You are right, though, that the impoverishment was a result of Arab invasion. Just not the one you meant, which brought the downfall of Roman rule. 400 years after Islamization of the area, 90 years after Fatimids moved their capital from Ifriqiya to Egypt, tens of thousands or by some even a million of nomadic Hilalian and Sulaymi Arabs moved from South-East Egypt westwards. Fatimids sent those unruly tribes and promissed them their former land after sunni Berber Zirid dynasty rebelled against shiite Fatimids.

This was the invasion which destroyed the agricultural rich Ifriqiya, caused overal nomadization of the region, sped up aridization and also reshaped ethnic map of Maghreb. The impoverishment had nothing to do with the loss of Roman civilization. The change happened when Arab-Berber agricultural and city based civilization was invaded by Arab nomadic tribes.

SInce this time Berbers started mixing with Arabs and the whole Maghreb got Arabized. OTOH the negative elements of this Hilalian invasion were probably overrated by the greatest historian of the area Ibn Khaldun, and most historians since then (early 15th century) only copied his interpretation. The other fact is that during late 11th and 12th century in general Africa's aridization became unsustainable all around the Sahara. The desertification of the Sahel brought an end to Ghana empire on the other side of the Sahara.
So apropriating the downfall of North Africa to the Arab-Muslim conquest and fall of Roman civilization is just plain Romano-centric nonsense.

 

[Federalist girl]

So apropriating the downfall of North Africa with the Arab-Muslim conquest and fall of Roman civilization is just plain Romano-centric nonsense.

Thanks! This is useful. Tell me if I have this right:

In fact, wasn’t there a lot of continuity between Roman Africa Proconsularis and Islamic Ifriqiya in those initial centuries? Whether under Roman, Vandal, or Arab rule, the highly urbanized population of that region was pretty much still Latinized (or Islamized) Punic-Berber, right? The destruction of Carthage was undoubtedly very disruptive considering the scale of the city, but it also wasn’t the only urban center of the time.

Unless I’m wrong (and I could be, I’m far from an expert) the urban civilization didn’t disappear after the Roman and Byzantine governors left, and neither did the population. Ifriqiyans were known as an actual cultural group, aren’t they?

So it’s not so much that the change in the flags flying over the city made any difference, the Romanized population was still there and they didn’t disappear after Islam took over any more than they disappeared when the Vandals briefly took over.

I had no idea about the Fatimids sending those populations over though. I’ve always wondered when urban culture disappeared in North Africa, and I guess this answers that.

Do you think the game accurately reflects this change from the early bookmarks to 1066?

 

[elvain]

but to answer the OP

Yes North Africa was pretty much a rich region in the early medieval period. If you play the early bookmarks 867 and 769, North Africa, especially Kingdom of Africa, should be among the richest regions of the Mediterrean. That is correct. At the same time the central and western parts of Maghreb were not that rich and developed, but the tribal structure of local populations joined with islamic teaching gave them military power which made them relatively stronger than their neighbours. The game unfortunately does not reflect this very well, but if these regions have strong military, it is correct.

We should also keep in mind one thing:

The same global environmental process which made Europe warmer in the 11th and 12th centuries, resulting in unprecedented demographic expansion (which later caused also economic and political expansion) is the same process which also made other regions of northern hemisphere warmer, such as the Sahel, North Africa, Middle East and the Asian Steppes.
While Europe had abundant sources of water, these other regions did not, and warmer climate there meand aridization. In the steppe and semi-desertish regions it caused either collapse or decline of agricultural empires (Ghana, Central Asian kingdoms such as Samanids), or migration of local nomads (Asian steppe, Sahara). For the richer regions directly neighbouring to those steppe or semi-desert areas it meant invasions of the steppe/semi-desert nomads. This is the start of Mongol migrations, Turks flooding Persia and the Middle East all the way to Anatolia, Hilalian Arabs flooding Ifriqiya, Saharan Berbers migrating either to the Sahel or Morocco.

We all know the consequences of this and we all tend to associate the results to the cultures and institutions of named regions. But the fact was that from the developed regions of the Western Old world, Western Europe was probably the only one which wasn't exposed to invasions (it had enough of them in previous centuries) and enjoyed both positives of this warmer period. North Africa OTOH suffered both negatives (aridization + being target of migration).
The fact that Western Europe had just developed some innovative technologies and institutions which allowed it to boost the development even more is something which gave it relative advantage to other regions. The biggest advantage, however, was that it was the only developed region safe from external invasions. OTOH, its demographic explosion caused expansion of its social, political and economic system... which lasted another few centuries (that is due to social, political and other conditions, but the initial kick was from mother nature and geigraphy).

In fact, wasn’t there a lot of continuity between Roman Africa Proconsularis and Islamic Ifriqiya in those initial centuries? Whether under Roman, Vandal, or Arab rule, the highly urbanized population of that region was pretty much still Latinized (or Islamized) Punic-Berber, right? The destruction of Carthage was undoubtedly very disruptive considering the scale of the city, but it also wasn’t the only urban center of the time.

Unless I’m wrong (and I could be, I’m far from an expert) the urban civilization didn’t disappear after the Roman and Byzantine governors left, and neither did the population. Ifriqiyans were known as an actual cultural group, aren’t they?

To be honest, I'm far from being expert on Late antiquity. I only have what one semester lecture and few additional books taught me.
But as far as I know the Islamic period of Maghreb, the original Romanized/Latinized population remained in place. Some of the city elites probably left, but that was joined by Arabic city elites, which caused that the urban population of Maghreb was Arabized quite briefly.
While the destruction of Cartaghe deffinitely was fatal for the city itself, we should keep in mind that at the same time the center of political and economic power moved to the newly founded capital Kairouan, which was by far the largest urban center of the region by the Hillalian invasion in 1050's.

You are of course right that Cartaghe was definitely not the only urban center of the area and even if not a single person moved to Kairouan (which is very improbable), the urban life did survive and as far as we know, did flourish also under Arab-muslim rule. I can't really compare it to the Roman pre-Vandal period, but it certainly was at least as developed as Pre-Islamic, or more.

So it’s not so much that the change in the flags flying over the city made any difference, the Romanized population was still there and they didn’t disappear after Islam took over any more than they disappeared when the Vandals briefly took over.

I can't say for sure, since I don't know the history of the area in Vandal period, but this is how I would describe it. It doesn't mean I'm right, though.

I had no idea about the Fatimids sending those populations over though. I’ve always wondered when urban culture disappeared in North Africa, and I guess this answers that.

I'm glad I could be helpful. As I said, the political aspect in this migration might be overrated ever since Ibn Khaldun, who wrote the history of Maghreb 3 centuries after these events (OTOH his standards as a historian were equaled by others (both in the West and the East) only in the late 19th century). There is only abundant evidence that these tribes were causing Fatimids a lot of problems, that the Fatimids had promised these tribes their previously owned lands and that it happened after the Zirids broke apart from their previous overlords. The migration might as well be caused also by other factors (considering the power of these tribes, it is doubtful that the Fatimids were powerfull enough to force them to move).

Do you think the game accurately reflects this change from the early bookmarks to 1066?

I am partialy responsible fot the current setup, so it is hard to say objective answer. I would say that it does its best possible with existing mechanics. Or almost the best...

The game still fails to represent the tribal structure of North African Berbers as well as the Arabic and other semi-desert tribes and societies. The tribal government in early bookmarks in Morocco does not reflect the Berber tribes and the Iqta government does not reflect the tribal society of Hilalian nomadic tribes, but...

If I ever find some time for modding again, I would love to do a mod to improve it. Or dream that a DLC or at least a patch with improvement of Arab tribes will come.

 

[elvain]

...

You might also ask elvain. He's kind of the resident expert on Islamic and Middle Eastern history around here. He also did a really nice writeup on the Middle East that talks about the population density and power of the Maghreb and the rest of the Middle East and how they might have been improved pre-HF.

Thanks for your kindness, but I don't think you shuold do this. I'm not an expert. I've studied it, read a few books etc, am very interested in the area, but no, I'm far from beinf expert. Although I sometimes am arrogant enough to pretend being one.

North Africa peaked during the Carthaginian-Roman era. Cartage became very rich through the trade with classical Egypt, the Achemenid Persia, Greece and the later Hellenistic kingdoms.

Roman North Africa became the main source of grain from the Roman West, and thus became of great interest for the Republic and later the Empire. Since it had to feed italy, senators and emperors heavily invested on their provinces' infrastructure, on top of the benefit of trade that it still enjoyed, albeit a that time the trade lines had moved more to the east (Antioch, Alexandria) and north (Rome).

The collapse of the Western Roman Empire started the region's decline, as the market for the north African grain (Italy) seemingly vanished. The Vandals weren't able to keep the irrigation infrastructure in the same shape that the Romans-Numidians did, and agriculture slowly started to decline. The arabic invasion only worsened this, as the irrigation canals were heavily damaged during the wars between the arabs and the Berbers. However, the trade with the East, and now, with sub-Saharian African somehow keep the region afloat, in spite of the gradual collapse of the agriculture system.

Sadly, while that meant that the region became somewhat more prosperous during the High-Late Middle Ages, it never recovered the glory that it had during the Classic Ages. And eventually, when bigger routes of trade opened during the Early Modern era, now without their grain marked, the region gradually became impoverished.

While I disagreed with you in your posts, this is something I can mostly agree. The Maghreb has indeed peaked during the era you mentioned. But I can't agree with your assumption that Islamic conquest of the region in the 7th century caused its continual decline. You yourself mentioned some kind of decline during the Vandal era. Then this refion of 'Exarchate of Africa' or muslim 'Ifrikiya' was conquered by the Byzantines/East Romans. The main question is, is there any proof of any steady rise of prosperity between East Roman re-conquest and Islamic conquest some 150 years later? I am no expert on late antiquity, so I am really wondering how big was the rennaissance of this area into the golden age under Romans, which was then interrupted by the muslim conquest.

During Roman era, the area produced mostly grain. Later it shifted into other agricultural goods. But we should keep in mind other aspects, especially economic and "geo-political". During these centuries in question the population of Italy was reduced how many times? Rome fell from 1 million to some 50K, why should Africa produce grain for export to Rome when the demand was reduced this dramatically? During the era of instability inside the Roman empire in the 5th-7th century, the demand dramatically declined, the trade routes were cut, long before Arab-Muslim conquest of North Africa. This was the time when there was no longer the need for grain production and North Africa started producing other products, this was the time, when North African population started declining, while it was still under Roman control or in the Roman sphere of influence. Yet you blame the Arab conquest and "wars between Arabs and Berbers.
I don't say that the rebeliousness of Berbers against Arab rule didn't affect the region, but the military operations didn't last long there, nor had they devastating effects, not as devastating as other economic factors caused by the general decline of Mediterrean stability and trade.
The speed of Arab conquest of so large areas was not a reason, but a result of deep crisis in the Mediterrean Roman world. Africa under Aghlabids in the 9th-10th century flourished as much as never since the Roman era, so don't tell me fairy tales about Arab conquest causing the decline of this area. It was internal crisis of Roman world, which caused this decline throughout the empire. Arabs took advantage of that, didn't cause it. You confure causes with consequences.

Again, sustainable irrigation was the key. And, while they weren't paradisaical grasslands, they weren't as arid as they're now. On the classic era, North Africa had the grain and the trade. On the Middle Ages, they only had the trade. Once America appeared on the maps, the trade value of the region was bound to dwindle.

??? Are you trying to imply that once America appeared on the maps North Africa started to get arid? Under what causality? Did the grain trade between Europe and North Africa stopped with discovery of America? Did Europeans import grain from America?
Discovery of America resulted in new sources of Gold and Silver and reduced the necessity of Trans-Saharan gold trade. But that was already in deep decline by 1400's, so what is this supposed to mean?
The entire Africa withessed gradual aridization due to natural causes all the way from 11th century, in the same period when Europe witnessed exceptional warm period. During colder period of late 13th and 14th century Europe started struggling, while North Africa started recovering. Was it because the nomadic Arabs mixed Berbers miraculously repaired those Roman irrigation systems you claim to be the key? No. It was climate which was no longer as arid as in previous centuries.

Human activities had indeed played large role in fates of this area, but the period of recovery in 13th and 14th centuries brought no big change to the way how North Africa was administered. There were still continuous wars between dynasties in Morocco, Ifriqiya and nomadic tribes of Arab, Berber, or now (newly) mixed Arab-Berber origin. No dramatic change, the political life of the "recovery" period was no different from previous centuries (except the 11th, which really witnessed dramatic demographic and socio-economic change). It was the climate what changed. Nothing else.

One can only wonder how places like Anatolia or North Africa would look like if they would've stayed under roman rule. Romans once said that places like Hispania were so heavily forested that an squirrel could cross from the strait to the Pyrenees hopping from tree to tree, albeit this is probably a myth.

Well for one their would be a lot more farmland in Anatolia. The Byzantines after the lost of Egypt were forced to dramatically increase their agricultural technology and put it all into Anatolia and Sicily turning them into the breadbasket of the empire. Central Anatolia was filled with grain, olive, and fruit farms until the Turkmen arrived with thousands of grazing Goats and Horses after Manzikert. Western Anatolia lost many of its forests due to a need For the Byzantines to recover lost yields and was pushed to the max agriculture wise till the Turkish conquest of these regions and Byzantine abandonment cause the population to migrate out and the Goats to come in.

You might also see a less urbanized Greece. The Turkish invasion caused mass population movement and investment into the region as it became the Empire’s new economic heartland. Though with the reconquest of Crete guaranteeing the end of Arab raids Greece was slowly becoming a worthwhile gold mine through Urbanized sea trade but the loss of Anatolia forced it to become a breadbasket also.

Sicily without the loss of Carthage wouldn’t haven’t been pushed from 30% of the Empire’s food maker to 50% and farmed to the limit which was ended by the Arab conquest of it anyway though in the 800s.

Let's keep in mind other things than just Islamic invasions, mates.
I'm by no means an expert on Byzantine history, but I believe you know it much better than I that ... wasn't there an internal demographic crisis inside the empire during the 10th and 11th centuries? Could you explain what was exactly the reason of extensive Armenian colonization of Anatolia during these centuries? Wasn't it that Anatolia was under some kind of economic or demographic pressure? Maybe caused by extensive agriculture, which switched it into breadbasket covered with grain fields instead of its previous eco-system? Didn't the aridization and depopulation of its eastern parts start before the Turks have arived? You know Byzantine history much better than I do, so I believe you know this better... so was there really no economic crisis in the Byzantine empire in the 10th and 11th centuries?

 

[Byzantium2000]

Thanks for your kindness, but I don't think you shuold do this. I'm not an expert. I've studied it, read a few books etc, am very interested in the area, but no, I'm far from beinf expert. Although I sometimes am arrogant enough to pretend being one.


While I disagreed with you in your posts, this is something I can mostly agree. The Maghreb has indeed peaked during the era you mentioned. But I can't agree with your assumption that Islamic conquest of the region in the 7th century caused its continual decline. You yourself mentioned some kind of decline during the Vandal era. Then this refion of 'Exarchate of Africa' or muslim 'Ifrikiya' was conquered by the Byzantines/East Romans. The main question is, is there any proof of any steady rise of prosperity between East Roman re-conquest and Islamic conquest some 150 years later? I am no expert on late antiquity, so I am really wondering how big was the rennaissance of this area into the golden age under Romans, which was then interrupted by the muslim conquest.

During Roman era, the area produced mostly grain. Later it shifted into other agricultural goods. But we should keep in mind other aspects, especially economic and "geo-political". During these centuries in question the population of Italy was reduced how many times? Rome fell from 1 million to some 50K, why should Africa produce grain for export to Rome when the demand was reduced this dramatically? During the era of instability inside the Roman empire in the 5th-7th century, the demand dramatically declined, the trade routes were cut, long before Arab-Muslim conquest of North Africa. This was the time when there was no longer the need for grain production and North Africa started producing other products, this was the time, when North African population started declining, while it was still under Roman control or in the Roman sphere of influence. Yet you blame the Arab conquest and "wars between Arabs and Berbers.
I don't say that the rebeliousness of Berbers against Arab rule didn't affect the region, but the military operations didn't last long there, nor had they devastating effects, not as devastating as other economic factors caused by the general decline of Mediterrean stability and trade.
The speed of Arab conquest of so large areas was not a reason, but a result of deep crisis in the Mediterrean Roman world. Africa under Aghlabids in the 9th-10th century flourished as much as never since the Roman era, so don't tell me fairy tales about Arab conquest causing the decline of this area. It was internal crisis of Roman world, which caused this decline throughout the empire. Arabs took advantage of that, didn't cause it. You confure causes with consequences.


??? Are you trying to imply that once America appeared on the maps North Africa started to get arid? Under what causality? Did the grain trade between Europe and North Africa stopped with discovery of America? Did Europeans import grain from America?
Discovery of America resulted in new sources of Gold and Silver and reduced the necessity of Trans-Saharan gold trade. But that was already in deep decline by 1400's, so what is this supposed to mean?
The entire Africa withessed gradual aridization due to natural causes all the way from 11th century, in the same period when Europe witnessed exceptional warm period. During colder period of late 13th and 14th century Europe started struggling, while North Africa started recovering. Was it because the nomadic Arabs mixed Berbers miraculously repaired those Roman irrigation systems you claim to be the key? No. It was climate which was no longer as arid as in previous centuries.

Human activities had indeed played large role in fates of this area, but the period of recovery in 13th and 14th centuries brought no big change to the way how North Africa was administered. There were still continuous wars between dynasties in Morocco, Ifriqiya and nomadic tribes of Arab, Berber, or now (newly) mixed Arab-Berber origin. No dramatic change, the political life of the "recovery" period was no different from previous centuries (except the 11th, which really witnessed dramatic demographic and socio-economic change). It was the climate what changed. Nothing else.



Let's keep in mind other things than just Islamic invasions, mates.
I'm by no means an expert on Byzantine history, but I believe you know it much better than I that ... wasn't there an internal demographic crisis inside the empire during the 10th and 11th centuries? Could you explain what was exactly the reason of extensive Armenian colonization of Anatolia during these centuries? Wasn't it that Anatolia was under some kind of economic or demographic pressure? Maybe caused by extensive agriculture, which switched it into breadbasket covered with grain fields instead of its previous eco-system? Didn't the aridization and depopulation of its eastern parts start before the Turks have arived? You know Byzantine history much better than I do, so I believe you know this better... so was there really no economic crisis in the Byzantine empire in the 10th and 11th centuries?
I know it is hard for a Byzantinophile to not blame others than Romans for Roman problems, but let's think if there wasn't something wrong also inside the empire before those invasions happened.

Crisis? Anatolia was going through a golden age in the 900s and early 1000s. The Byzantines had managed to end the Arab naval raids with the reconquest of Krete and Cyprus, and ended the Arab land raids by reclaiming the rich fertile Cilicia valley and pushing into Syria with the reconquest of Antioch. These areas however were almost completely devoid of the native Greeks that had been pushed out and Islamized by the Muslims. So the Emperors settled these areas with Loyal Armenian Miaphysites alongside slavs from the Balkans and Greeks from western Anatolia. That’s why Cilicia is Armenian ingame 1066 beyond.

At the same time Greeks, Armenians, and Italians were pulled from southern Italy and Anatolia to repopulate and stabilize newly flourishing Greece. This ment that Emperors like John tzimiskes and Basil ii had to resettle and encourage Armenians from reconquered Armenia to settle in Anatolia itself. All the ethic groups of the Empire were shifted around to stabilize new territory and restrengthen old territory, Bulgarians once annexed were resettled In eastern Anatolia to counter the growing Armenian population and its growing nobility.

When the Turks started to raid Armenia more and more Armenian peasants and nobles migrated to central Anatolia and the Cilician valley.

Until the Turkish raids began in the 1040s Anatolia exploded with population growth and immigration which led to historians today saying the Empire in 1025 had a population from 12 to 18 million as those peoples migrated to other parts of the empire at the same time. Immigration would continue come in till Manikert. But after wards significant population centers were pulled into Europe from central and eastern Anatolia
by The Komneoi to deprive the Turks of citizens and strengthen Greece and the western Anatolian frontier .

Now Western Anatolia being turned even more into a farm paradise was The Byzantines shifting all their resources there now that inner Anatolia and Cilica were out of their hands after Manikert and southern Italy by the Normans. The forests there got raped, but that came to an end to when Michael Palaiologos did a forced migration of much of western Anatolia’s population to Greece, Thrace and Constantinople allowing the Turkmen to graze and raid western Anatolia with Byzantine defenses and population down.

Now the Turks arriving in Anatolia had a far more immediate impact then the Arabs just taking control of North Africa due to Anatolia not being to support the thousands of Goats, Horses and other animals the Nomadic Turkmen brought with them. That and the population emigration to Europe.

I mean most of Byzantiums agricultural decline and prosperity can be attributed to pressure from outside political entities.

 

[elvain]

Crisis? Anatolia was going through a golden age in the 900s and early 1000s. The Byzantines had managed to end the Arab naval raids with the reconquest of Krete and Cyprus, and ended the Arab land raids by reclaiming the rich fertile Cilicia valley and pushing into Syria with the reconquest of Antioch. These areas however were almost completely devoid of the native Greeks that had been pushed out and Islamized by the Muslims. So the Emperors settled these areas with Loyal Armenian Miaphysites alongside slavs from the Balkans and Greeks from western Anatolia. That’s why Cilicia is Armenian ingame 1066 beyond.

At the same time Greeks, Armenians, and Italians were pulled from southern Italy and Anatolia to repopulate and stabilize newly flourishing Greece. This ment that Emperors like John tzimiskes and Basil ii had to resettle and encourage Armenians from reconquered Armenia to settle in Anatolia itself. All the ethic groups of the Empire were shifted around to stabilize new territory and restrengthen old territory, Bulgarians once annexed were resettled In eastern Anatolia to counter the growing Armenian population and its growing nobility.

When the Turks started to raid Armenia more and more Armenian peasants and nobles migrated to central Anatolia and the Cilician valley.

Until the Turkish raids began in the 1040s Anatolia exploded with population growth and immigration which led to historians today saying the Empire in 1025 had a population from 12 to 18 million as those peoples migrated to other parts of the empire at the same time.

Now Western Anatolia being turned even more into a farm paradise was The Byzantines shifting all their resources there now that inner Anatolia and Cilica were out of their hands after Manikert and southern Italy by the Normans. The forests there got raped, but that came to an end to when Michael Palaiologos did a forced migration of much of western Anatolia’s population to Greece, Thrace and Constantinople allowing the Turkmen to graze and raid western Anatolia with Byzantine defenses and population down.

Now the Turks arriving in Anatolia had a far more immediate impact then the Arabs just taking control of North Africa due to Anatolia not being to support the thousands of Goats, Horses and other animals the Nomadic Turkmen brought with them.

I mean most of Byzantiums agricultural decline and prosperity can be attributed to pressure from outside political entities.

Aha.
From my reading of Byzantine history I was under impression, that during the centuries just before Seljuk invasion Armenians did settle in vast areas of Eastern Anatolia... and by that I don't mean just reclaimed Cilicia, or Armenian princedoms conquered by the Byzantines, like Vaspourakan etc., but also areas like Armeniacon and other central and eastern Anatolian themes - areas which were Byzantine/Roman for over a millenium, not a few decades. Was this wrong? Were there no Armenians in that time period?
I've read about the population peak under Basileios II., but how much of that was due to conquest of populous areas in Northern Syria, southern Italy and Sicily and how much of it was due to demographic changes, and didn't these demographic trends change at the end of Basileios' rule?

Also, AFAIK, the Turkish raids didn't start before 1060's, right? What I had in mind whether in the 5 decades between Basil II.'s death and Manazkert, the empire was in ideal economic condition? From what I have read I didn't have the impression, I thought that the empire was somehow exhausted by half a century of continuous wars on both fronts... or is this impression wrong? I thought that if some state was in constant state of war for half a century it would have some impact, but maybe Byzantine empire is the only exception in human history ever?

 

[Byzantium2000]

Aha.
From my reading of Byzantine history I was under impression, that during the centuries just before Seljuk invasion Armenians did settle in vast areas of Eastern Anatolia... and by that I don't mean just reclaimed Cilicia, or Armenian princedoms conquered by the Byzantines, like Vaspourakan etc., but also areas like Armeniacon and other central and eastern Anatolian themes. Was this wrong? Were there no Armenians in that time period?

Also, AFAIK, the Turkish raids didn't start before 1060's, right? What I had in mind whether in the 5 decades between Basil II.'s death and Manazkert, the empire was in ideal economic condition? From what I have read I didn't have the impression, I thought that the empire was somehow exhausted by half a century of continuous wars on both fronts... or is this impression wrong? I thought that if some state was in constant state of war for half a century it would have some impact, but maybe Byzantine empire is the only exception in human history ever?

Elvain did you even read the post I did say the Armenians settled all of Anatolia due to incentives from the Emperors, openings in land due to population migrations to Greece and the southern Balkans and later running from the Turkmen raids Nah the Turkmen raids began by the 1040s in Anatolia and we’re in Armenia by the 1020s.

The Empire continued to expand into the Middle East up till the arrival of the Selijuks with the conquest of Edessa and subjugation of Aleppo. The Empire was going through a economical crisis due to rampant corruption and inflation, and the rise in power of the Anatolian nobility but until the 1050s wasn’t seriously being pressed in Italy or Europe.

The Empire was going through a crisis but not nearly of the likes of the Muslim and Slavic invasions with this one being mostly internally political.

Also I kinda feel like your last line was kinda of talking shit.

This isnt Byzantine fanboying if it was then I would be talking about oh how the Turks demolished Constantinople, how the Fourth Crusade was all the West’s fault. How Justinian was a god who didn’t ravage the hell out of Italy.

 

[TheDungen]

Really? Whoa. I would like to look into that. While I love history, that isn't a region I have studied (I was always more into Asian history myself). Vikings really went down there to raid? I always thought they stuck near the British Isles, France, and northern Spain previously.

Is there somewhere online I could learn more? Google has more or less failed me on this, and American schools certainly don't teach it lol.

Unsure about raiding but they went there to trade and were very popular as mercenaries with the rulers of north africa. The vikings called North Africa Blåland, blue land, because when they first saw it it has been that blue land in the distance. And Vikings raided through the entire miditeranean, one viking chief sacked rome... or well he sacked a city in italy that he thought was rome but then didn't turn out to be rome but still it's a great story.

Again, sustainable irrigation was the key. And, while they weren't paradisaical grasslands, they weren't as arid as they're now.

Actually one of the ancient writers, I don't recall which one now, maybe Homer? Never the less he described north africa as a blooming garden. And it's not so strange I have heard historians hypothesize that the first nile civilisations (precursors of Egypt) came to be because the rivers which crossed the Sahara dried out and people migrated to the remaining source of water. Before that the sahara was more like a savannah (it has been desert to and from with the climate cycles though) And that's not all that long ago, the climate change induced desertification of the Sahara may well have been around well into written history. There's a thousand years between ancient greece and the invasion elvain mentioned, the gradual progression of climate change may well have played a part medieval warm period not even taken into account.

It should be noted though just because it gets warmer doesn't mean it gets drier, that that is the case with the Sahara is because of the specific weather patterns of the region and how they are affected by rising temperatures.

The Varangian Guard in Constantinople was made up almost entirely of vikings. And Harald Hardråde, often regarded as the last of the great vikings, campaigned extensively in the Mediterranean. I don't recall if he went to North Africa specifically, but his eponymous Saga provides plenty of evidence of Norse activity in the general area.

The varangians came down the rivers though.

Dude, Vikings raided northern Iran a few times. I'm surprised using Google didn't work, searching "Viking raids" gets me to a decent Wikipedia article on the subject, which is a good start.

I assume you mean the caspian sea route? Yes there was raiding there but mostly the vikings came down that way to sell slaves to the muslim empires centered in Baghdad. Also probably furs and amber, goods they sold to Byzantium too.

So apropriating the downfall of North Africa to the Arab-Muslim conquest and fall of Roman civilization is just plain Romano-centric nonsense.

I think they mostly get their invasions mixed up, the vandals messed the region up pretty badly, but then it came back under roman rule with Justinian and prospered for another five hundred years.

 

[elvain]

Elvain did you even read the post I did say the Armenians settled all of Anatolia due to incentives from the Emperors, openings in land due to population migrations to Greece and the southern Balkans and later running from the Turkmen raids Nah the Turkmen raids began by the 1040s in Anatolia and we’re in Armenia by the 1020s.

The Empire continued to expand into the Middle East up till the arrival of the Selijuks with the conquest of Edessa and subjugation of Aleppo. The Empire was going through a economical crisis due to rampant corruption and inflation, and the rise in power of the Anatolian nobility but until the 1050s wasn’t seriously being pressed in Italy or Europe.

The Empire was going through a crisis but not nearly of the likes of the Muslim and Slavic invasions with this one being mostly internally political.

Also I kinda feel like your last line was kinda of talking shit.

This isnt Byzantine fanboying if it was then I would be talking about oh how the Turks demolished Constantinople, how the Fourth Crusade was all the West’s fault. How Justinian was a god who didn’t ravage the hell out of Italy.

I did read it, but I kinda don't understand the chronology. Armenians were increasingly inhabiting Anatolia all the way through the 10th century. But you explained it to me. Thank you!

As for the Turkish raids into Anatolia - the chronology also somehow doesn't fit. 1020's make no sense... By 1040's Seljuks didn't even get to Western Persia - only after their victory at Dandaqan over Ghaznawids in 1040 they started moving westwards... with Armenia being targeted after 1044 and Anatolia first in late 1050's, but mainly in 1060's.

My question was whether the empire collapsed only because of the Turkmen invasion, or the reasons were also internal, or whether the reasons were mainly internal. We all know that during the 1050's or even earlier the empire fell into deep crisis and remained there all the way until its collapse in Anatolia. The Turks didn't launch a planned invasion, it was several raids which appeared to transform into permanent seizure of what once was economic and political core of one of the greatest medieval empires.
Nobody with your knowledge of Byzantine history could believe that one of the strongest empires in medieval era could collapse after several raids and one single battle without deep internal crisis.... and you know it very well how deep the crisis was... and that it wasn't the Turks who caused it. They just took advantage of it, because during 1070's they were much more busy with their internal struggles and fight with Fatimids over Syria and Hijaz than with capturing Anatolia. Yet they did take it. Permanently. Were they that strong? We know they weren't.

Anyways, apologies for that sentence in my previous post. It's just so obvious that you are indeed a Byzantine fanboy. You have amazing knowledge, but you are a fanboy. Unfortunately it's way too obvious.