A Thousand Years Of Missing History: Islamic Heritage

[Ayura]

www.muslimheritage.com


Not exactly "Military" but history nonetheless. Some of you knowledge seekers may find alot of articles in here very fascinating as do I.


Salam.

[M_S]

Amazing

Makes you wonder why they arent making any progress today...

We should learn about what ended their golden age and make sure to prevent that happening us.

[Azide]

Amazing

Makes you wonder why they arent making any progress today...

We should learn about what ended their golden age and make sure to prevent that happening us.

People might predict what is about to happen, but other people are to stupid to give a **** untill its too late.

Take global warming for example, where ****ed!

[Ayura]

Amazing

Makes you wonder why they arent making any progress today...

We should learn about what ended their golden age and make sure to prevent that happening us.



Don't forget, this in a period of 1000 years. Ten times the amount the west have had the pleasure of.


I too would like to know more about the historical nature of the decease of the Golden Age. It would be most interesting. Anyone have anything?


There is only one thing I know about this end of the Golden Age, and that's in the Hadiths (Narrations of the prophet). I don't think it is wise for me to say it on this forum for various reasons.



Salam.

[Ayura]

Amazing

Makes you wonder why they arent making any progress today...

We should learn about what ended their golden age and make sure to prevent that happening us.

People might predict what is about to happen, but other people are to stupid to give a f*** untill its too late.

Take global warming for example, where f***!



Why - I agree. Too often people of power become only indulged in themselves. Power is the key to show ones true morality. Often men are misguided through the whispers of Satan (Shaytaan).


A saying of mine is:

"Competition leads to regression - Co-operation leads to progression"


Israel is a fine example of this.


Salam.

[M_S]

I would like to say that the muslim golden age didnt last 1000 years, the timespan im familiar with is from 750-1300 AD.

The muslim empire had to few people to hold on. Being at war with the europeans and fighting internally were the major problems. While the europeans were developing relatively safely on an odd peninsula, the middle east was open for invading mongols.

[Ayura]

I would like to say that the muslim golden age didnt last 1000 years, the timespan im familiar with is from 750-1300 AD.

The muslim empire had to few people to hold on. Being at war with the europeans and fighting internally were the major problems. While the europeans were developing relatively safely on an odd peninsula, the middle east was open for invading mongols.


Care to elobarate abit more please?


Especially on the "fighting internally"...

[Lokos]

The European 'Golden Age' has lasted for well over five hundred years, not the one hundred Ayura suggests.

Furthermore, Europe has also been fighting constant 'internal' wars - of a far more brutal nature than those waged by the Arabic caliphates. The Thirty Years' War, which consumed 30% of Germany's (well, the German states', in any case) civilian population, did not considerably slow down - let alone halt - the effects of the rise of the European system.

Lokos

[Son_Of_Suvorov]

Amazing

Makes you wonder why they arent making any progress today...

We should learn about what ended their golden age and make sure to prevent that happening us.

Might religious zealotry (of the type propagated by websites such as the one linked to) have anything to do with it? How many people do you see running around yelling that the reason most R&D used to happen (not true for the last 8 or 10 years, btw) in the USA is because some dude named Jeebus "died for our sins"? If you look at history, it really doesn't seem to matter what religion a certain political/economic group has, but rather how the members of that group behave. Using religion as an excuse for tyranny over others never seems to lead to lasting civilizations (which I think is a large reason why all the Arab caliphates, Tatar khanates or the Ottoman empire no longer exist).

[ogukuo72]

Contary to being lost history, it's a very well studied and well known period of history indeed. In fact, you get constant reminders that we owe Muslims the numbers, algebra, for preserving the teachers of Aristotle and Plato, etc.

If you include the Ottoman Empire, I think we can push the Golden Age nearer towards 1000 years.

But then, scholars would have to deal with such inconvenient things as Muslim wars of aggression against the west (e.g. the Ottoman invasion of Austria), the treatment of minorities (e.g. the massacres of Bulgars and Greeks), the tortures and killings of Christian prisoners of war (e.g. on Malta), and numerous other evils.

In fact, while almost all well-published scholars like Karen Armstrong made sure to always mention that the fall of Jerusalem during the First Crusade was accompanied by a massacre by the Crusaders, none of them saw fit to mention that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was also accompanied by a massacre, including women and children who were sheltering within the Hagia Sophia.

Nowadays, you get a very rose-tinted view of Muslims in the "Golden Era" as highly civilised, cultured and unwarlike. They were civilised and cultured, but they were just as blood thirsty and warlike as the Crusaders.

[M_S]

The European 'Golden Age' has lasted for well over five hundred years, not the one hundred Ayura suggests.

Furthermore, Europe has also been fighting constant 'internal' wars - of a far more brutal nature than those waged by the Arabic caliphates. The Thirty Years' War, which consumed 30% of Germany's (well, the German states', in any case) civilian population, did not considerably slow down - let alone halt - the effects of the rise of the European system.

Lokos

Europe is famous for its wars, but also for its ability to recover when its population gets decimated, which isnt that strange considering that you can almost find fresh water everywhere, and being able to conduct agriculture easily.

The muslims didnt have the same kind of land (at least not generally), there, fresh water were concentrated to specific areas, so there was concentrated population centers around these areas.

These centers took a long time to develop into flourishing cities. But when war came and cities were razed and populations slaughtered, all that remained was desert people who didnt care about glory or development. The middle east simply couldnt support the same amount of people as europe could.

While europe populations could fight "internally" and thus in the long end preserve a general and common mentality, the muslims fought against europeans and most importantly against mongols, who truely destroyed the muslim civilizations aspire to development, this did happen during a long period of time, but culminated when Baghdad fell to the mongols.

No this is a very narrow explanation, trying to make it wider is not worth it on a military forum.

[M_S]

I would like to say that the muslim golden age didnt last 1000 years, the timespan im familiar with is from 750-1300 AD.

The muslim empire had to few people to hold on. Being at war with the europeans and fighting internally were the major problems. While the europeans were developing relatively safely on an odd peninsula, the middle east was open for invading mongols.


Care to elobarate abit more please?


Especially on the "fighting internally"...

Well the muslim empire was vast, stretching from India in the east to Spain in the west, and often the roads passed through vast deserts, this made an administration the the muslim empire almost impossible.
Soon enough, leaders of provinces far away from the middle east (which was traditionally the center of the "empire") saw their chance to break free so they wouldnt have to pay taxes etc. And the Caliph who ruled at that time simply didnt have the resources to supress such provinces. The caliph didnt have the manpower. This problem was partly solved in the beginning by bringing nomadic turks from central asia and using them in the army but in the end it resulted in the collapse of the arabic rule over their own land.

[Lokos]

all that remained was desert people who didnt care about glory or development

... The above is an assertion without a real basis in fact. More centers of Islamic civilization were left relatively unscathed than were destroyed by the Mongols. The impact of Mongol brutality was most keenly felt in what is today the territory of Iraq, following the fall of Baghdad.

While europe populations could fight "internally" and thus in the long end preserve a general and common mentality,

This statement doesn't make sense. Because they fought internally they were able to preserve a general and common mentality in the 'long end'? Could you rephrase this, please?

and most importantly against mongols, who truely destroyed the muslim civilizations aspire to development

Only a relative few centers of Islamic civilization were destroyed by the Mongols. Most survived relatively intact - albeit under the Mongol yoke.

The middle east simply couldnt support the same amount of people as europe could.

For a very long time it supported a greater population than Europe. In fact, the rise of fertile Europe was a relatively recent development by the time the Mongols arrived on the scene. Two thousand years before that, the Middle East was the most fertile region on the planet. Many areas of the Middle East (especially in Iran) remained cultivated until the widespread devastation brought on by the Mongol invasion.

Lokos

[M_S]

all that remained was desert people who didnt care about glory or development

... The above is an assertion without a real basis in fact. More centers of Islamic civilization were left relatively unscathed than were destroyed by the Mongols. The impact of Mongol brutality was most keenly felt in what is today the territory of Iraq, following the fall of Baghdad.

While europe populations could fight "internally" and thus in the long end preserve a general and common mentality,

This statement doesn't make sense. Because they fought internally they were able to preserve a general and common mentality in the 'long end'? Could you rephrase this, please?

and most importantly against mongols, who truely destroyed the muslim civilizations aspire to development

Only a relative few centers of Islamic civilization were destroyed by the Mongols. Most survived relatively intact - albeit under the Mongol yoke.

The middle east simply couldnt support the same amount of people as europe could.

For a very long time it supported a greater population than Europe. In fact, the rise of fertile Europe was a relatively recent development by the time the Mongols arrived on the scene. Two thousand years before that, the Middle East was the most fertile region on the planet. Many areas of the Middle East (especially in Iran) remained cultivated until the widespread devastation brought on by the Mongol invasion.

Lokos

Keep in mind that my post didnt cover everything, several hundred pages of text would be required, when you simplify, then the text gets easily misunderstood.

But sure i will elaborate and respond to your arguments:

Some of your statemens doesnt contradict my statements.

You write that there was more people in the middle east than it was in europe for a long time, well that was then. Around the 13th and 14th century that wasnt a fact anymore, by then the europeans were beating the middle easterners in numbers.

Until that time, civilizations in the middle east was at least equal to the european civilizations.

The muslims couldnt afford to loose some of their centers, they were isolated, as the europeans saw them as the enemy and fought them and the mongols invaded them. And the centers which the mongols did raze werent ANY centers, Baghdad was the major place for science by that time.

Adding that they fought eachother, created a line of isolated countries with a too low population to compete with other nations

"While europe populations could fight "internally" and thus in the long end preserve a general and common mentality"

By this i mean, while europeans fought eachother and some lost and some won, usually the two fighting sides had enough similarities in culture and mentality to preserve a firm common base on which even the loosers could develop from, this was not the case when the mongols defeated the muslims.

Finally the mongols reached todays syria, although they got beaten in the same area.

[Kingtabed3]

ISLAM IS WAR. ALWAYS. We Templars will be as well, considering the foe then the hebe.

[Lokos]

Around the 13th and 14th century that wasnt a fact anymore, by then the europeans were beating the middle easterners in numbers.


I don't dispute this.

Until that time, civilizations in the middle east was at least equal to the european civilizations.

Agreed.

And the centers which the mongols did raze werent ANY centers, Baghdad was the major place for science by that time.

Baghdad was only one centre of learning in a network of such centres throughout the Middle East. Granted, it was a terrible loss, but similar such losses occurred in Russia, too, when Kiev was utterly destroyed by the Mongols. Russian civilization, however, survived as a whole and even managed to flourish and expand. Furthermore, Rome was sacked a number of times in its history - well before the total collapse of the Empire. These instances did not destroy Roman civilization.

The slow decline of Islamic civilization cannot be attributed to Mongols or 'internal fighting' alone.

Adding that they fought eachother, created a line of isolated countries with a too low population to compete with other nations

The average European state did not have a large population to draw upon.

this was not the case when the mongols defeated the muslims.


You yourself state that the Mongols did not 'defeat' the Muslims as a whole. They smashed certain Muslim states, but they were in turn defeated by the Mamelukes. Soon thereafter, Muslim rule in the Middle East collapsed.


ISLAM IS WAR. ALWAYS. We Templars will be as well, considering the foe then the hebe.

I wonder how long you'll be gracing the board with your presence...

Lokos

[M_S]

Around the 13th and 14th century that wasnt a fact anymore, by then the europeans were beating the middle easterners in numbers.


I don't dispute this.

Until that time, civilizations in the middle east was at least equal to the european civilizations.

Agreed.

And the centers which the mongols did raze werent ANY centers, Baghdad was the major place for science by that time.

Baghdad was only one centre of learning in a network of such centres throughout the Middle East. Granted, it was a terrible loss, but similar such losses occurred in Russia, too, when Kiev was utterly destroyed by the Mongols. Russian civilization, however, survived as a whole and even managed to flourish and expand. Furthermore, Rome was sacked a number of times in its history - well before the total collapse of the Empire. These instances did not destroy Roman civilization.

The slow decline of Islamic civilization cannot be attributed to Mongols or 'internal fighting' alone.

Adding that they fought eachother, created a line of isolated countries with a too low population to compete with other nations

The average European state did not have a large population to draw upon.

this was not the case when the mongols defeated the muslims.


You yourself state that the Mongols did not 'defeat' the Muslims as a whole. They smashed certain Muslim states, but they were in turn defeated by the Mamelukes. Soon thereafter, Muslim rule in the Middle East collapsed.


ISLAM IS WAR. ALWAYS. We Templars will be as well, considering the foe then the hebe.

I wonder how long you'll be gracing the board with your presence...

Lokos


The russian losses could eventually be repaired once a strong russian state was created which protected the russians in their develoment.
The arab muslim states, after the mongol invasion never again had complete control over their own fate, and therefore could not develop freely.

I still put weight on the nature of the region with concentrated populations, sure some other states survived a direct military invasion, like muslim Egypt but the muslim "network" couldnt repair damage as rapidly as the europeans, due to less population and isolation.

Anyway, they had only about 200-300 years before most of the muslim empire got under the turks and became less prioritized.


"The slow decline of Islamic civilization cannot be attributed to Mongols or 'internal fighting' alone."

I agree, but these are two major reasons.

[M_S]

Contary to being lost history, it's a very well studied and well known period of history indeed. In fact, you get constant reminders that we owe Muslims the numbers, algebra, for preserving the teachers of Aristotle and Plato, etc.

If you include the Ottoman Empire, I think we can push the Golden Age nearer towards 1000 years.

But then, scholars would have to deal with such inconvenient things as Muslim wars of aggression against the west (e.g. the Ottoman invasion of Austria), the treatment of minorities (e.g. the massacres of Bulgars and Greeks), the tortures and killings of Christian prisoners of war (e.g. on Malta), and numerous other evils.

In fact, while almost all well-published scholars like Karen Armstrong made sure to always mention that the fall of Jerusalem during the First Crusade was accompanied by a massacre by the Crusaders, none of them saw fit to mention that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was also accompanied by a massacre, including women and children who were sheltering within the Hagia Sophia.

Nowadays, you get a very rose-tinted view of Muslims in the "Golden Era" as highly civilised, cultured and unwarlike. They were civilised and cultured, but they were just as blood thirsty and warlike as the Crusaders.

I dont count the turks in the golden age, they were good fighters but lacked the same interest in science as the prior arabs. But this is a great generalization.

Sure the muslims did their share of dirty atrocities, but the christians were at that time (750-1250) far worse, the situation got even when the turks began their war against europe (they had different attitudes to how to fight a war, deriving from mongol tactics)

[Clearday-TRForce]

note: "The people of the Middle Ages held the belief that the physical world, particularly the stars, locations of the planets, and other astronomical occurrences, had a strong influence on their daily lives. In April and May, the city had faced unseasonable weather including heavy rains and hailstorms. Although these signs did not bode well, the defenders held firm and concluded that the city would fall only when the moon gave a sign. On May 22nd, the moon did just that by phasing into a long and dark eclipse. One can only imagine the overwhelming sense of dread Constantinople's defenders must have felt as the moon turned a deep crimson color with a slim crescent -- the image of the Turkish standard flying over The Conquerer Sultan Mehmet's camp. Conversely, the Turkish army certainly would have viewed this as a sign of imminent victory and their morale must have increased dramatically.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/library/graphics/eclipsecont.jpg


However, the portents of disaster did not stop there.

On the 26th, a dense fog rose over the besieged city. By nightfall, the fog lifted and the defenders were horrified to see the windows and rooftops of the city flickering with ominous shades of red. Even the enormous copper dome of the Hagia Sophia, the main cathedral of the city, appeared to be engulfed in flames. This final event certainly would have had a profound effect on the defenders of Constantinople, and Mohammed may have realized it -- for three days later, he began to incessantly pound the city with his cannons, threw his entire force into the fray, and had control of the city by the end of the day.




regards
CDTRF

[M_S]

note: "The people of the Middle Ages held the belief that the physical world, particularly the stars, locations of the planets, and other astronomical occurrences, had a strong influence on their daily lives. In April and May, the city had faced unseasonable weather including heavy rains and hailstorms. Although these signs did not bode well, the defenders held firm and concluded that the city would fall only when the moon gave a sign. On May 22nd, the moon did just that by phasing into a long and dark eclipse. One can only imagine the overwhelming sense of dread Constantinople's defenders must have felt as the moon turned a deep crimson color with a slim crescent -- the image of the Turkish standard flying over The Conquerer Sultan Mehmet's camp. Conversely, the Turkish army certainly would have viewed this as a sign of imminent victory and their morale must have increased dramatically.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/library/graphics/eclipsecont.jpg


However, the portents of disaster did not stop there.

On the 26th, a dense fog rose over the besieged city. By nightfall, the fog lifted and the defenders were horrified to see the windows and rooftops of the city flickering with ominous shades of red. Even the enormous copper dome of the Hagia Sophia, the main cathedral of the city, appeared to be engulfed in flames. This final event certainly would have had a profound effect on the defenders of Constantinople, and Mohammed may have realized it -- for three days later, he began to incessantly pound the city with his cannons, threw his entire force into the fray, and had control of the city by the end of the day.




regards
CDTRF

The capture of constantinopel was the starting point for the reappearance of the ottoman empire, which developed the militaristic skill of the muslims.

With that said, whats the relevance in this discussion?

[Clearday-TRForce]

The capture of constantinopel was the starting point for the reappearance of the ottoman empire, which developed the militaristic skill of the muslims.

With that said, whats the relevance in this discussion?



I try to make a different approach,sure it was a militaristic skills of Turks and also the muslims.

[Clearday-TRForce]

ISLAM IS WAR. ALWAYS. We Templars will be as well, considering the foe then the hebe.


I wonder how long you'll be gracing the board with your presence...

Lokos... :lol: I dont wonder...

[ogukuo72]

Contary to being lost history, it's a very well studied and well known period of history indeed. In fact, you get constant reminders that we owe Muslims the numbers, algebra, for preserving the teachers of Aristotle and Plato, etc.

If you include the Ottoman Empire, I think we can push the Golden Age nearer towards 1000 years.

But then, scholars would have to deal with such inconvenient things as Muslim wars of aggression against the west (e.g. the Ottoman invasion of Austria), the treatment of minorities (e.g. the massacres of Bulgars and Greeks), the tortures and killings of Christian prisoners of war (e.g. on Malta), and numerous other evils.

In fact, while almost all well-published scholars like Karen Armstrong made sure to always mention that the fall of Jerusalem during the First Crusade was accompanied by a massacre by the Crusaders, none of them saw fit to mention that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was also accompanied by a massacre, including women and children who were sheltering within the Hagia Sophia.

Nowadays, you get a very rose-tinted view of Muslims in the "Golden Era" as highly civilised, cultured and unwarlike. They were civilised and cultured, but they were just as blood thirsty and warlike as the Crusaders.

I dont count the turks in the golden age, they were good fighters but lacked the same interest in science as the prior arabs. But this is a great generalization.

Sure the muslims did their share of dirty atrocities, but the christians were at that time (750-1250) far worse, the situation got even when the turks began their war against europe (they had different attitudes to how to fight a war, deriving from mongol tactics)

You are right, but I was not criticising the Muslims, or even the Turks. Rather I am criticising the selective way in which some historians choose to examine only part of histories. More often than not, you will find that these historians are not Muslims themselves, but Western leftist historians.

I would suggest that such a one-sided way of looking at history is ultimately a disservice not only to those in the West, but also to the Muslims themselves.

[M_S]

Contary to being lost history, it's a very well studied and well known period of history indeed. In fact, you get constant reminders that we owe Muslims the numbers, algebra, for preserving the teachers of Aristotle and Plato, etc.

If you include the Ottoman Empire, I think we can push the Golden Age nearer towards 1000 years.

But then, scholars would have to deal with such inconvenient things as Muslim wars of aggression against the west (e.g. the Ottoman invasion of Austria), the treatment of minorities (e.g. the massacres of Bulgars and Greeks), the tortures and killings of Christian prisoners of war (e.g. on Malta), and numerous other evils.

In fact, while almost all well-published scholars like Karen Armstrong made sure to always mention that the fall of Jerusalem during the First Crusade was accompanied by a massacre by the Crusaders, none of them saw fit to mention that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was also accompanied by a massacre, including women and children who were sheltering within the Hagia Sophia.

Nowadays, you get a very rose-tinted view of Muslims in the "Golden Era" as highly civilised, cultured and unwarlike. They were civilised and cultured, but they were just as blood thirsty and warlike as the Crusaders.

I dont count the turks in the golden age, they were good fighters but lacked the same interest in science as the prior arabs. But this is a great generalization.

Sure the muslims did their share of dirty atrocities, but the christians were at that time (750-1250) far worse, the situation got even when the turks began their war against europe (they had different attitudes to how to fight a war, deriving from mongol tactics)

You are right, but I was not criticising the Muslims, or even the Turks. Rather I am criticising the selective way in which some historians choose to examine only part of histories. More often than not, you will find that these historians are not Muslims themselves, but Western leftist historians.

I would suggest that such a one-sided way of looking at history is ultimately a disservice not only to those in the West, but also to the Muslims themselves.

If you are referring to a historical "tolerance level" comparison between the muslim and the christian civilizations, including "war ethics", then I must say that most historians do agree on that the muslims did in general conduct less atrocities, but now im talking about a time period between 750-1250AD.

The turks are not included in this timespan as an independent fighting force, fighting in the name of islam. The turks arent famous for war ethics, and as i mentioned before, their tactics derived from mongol warfare. The mongols were famous for their bloodthirst, often slaughtering the whole population of a resisting cities.

[Ayura]

ISLAM IS WAR. ALWAYS. We Templars will be as well, considering the foe then the hebe.


What are you talking about?

[supercontra]

Europe's progress speeded up when religion lost it's power over the state and everyday life of people. Moslem contries have stagnated for the same reason

[M_S]

Europe's progress speeded up when religion lost it's power over the state and everyday life of people. Moslem contries have stagnated for the same reason

I agree, this one of the other great factors.

[Miles.]

Europe's progress speeded up when religion lost it's power over the state and everyday life of people. Moslem contries have stagnated for the same reason

That can't be disputed by anyone.

Right on, SuperContra.

[Thor]

The muslim "golden age" is a myth created by themselves. They need this myth to hang on to.

The small part that actually existed only involved a small part of the society.

[Echo7]

Europe's progress speeded up when religion lost it's power over the state and everyday life of people. Moslem contries have stagnated for the same reason

I'm inclined to agree.