Originally posted by XIII

The original explosive of Islam was an imperial expansion,

"Imperial", I don't think, is the right word here. That's an adjective of Emperor/Empire. The Arab invasions were simply barbarian invasions and the unified product was a Caliphate, not an Empire! :p ;)

Sorry if you think I'm being picky, but my education is ancient/medieval and that word has quite a specific meaning in this historical context. "Imperial" in this area and time, could refer only to the Byzantines :)

EDIT: (removed and reposted)

B'ah whatever! :p I never had a formal education in history - I meant imperial as in a power-grab. ;)

Whatever its name, the Islamic Caliphate was really an empire IMO.

OK, but you know how technical things like that get people up! ;)

REMOVED EDIT: I also think your underplaying religious motivations here. Islam was the very foundation of the Umma. To the early Arab conquerors the whole world was divided into two areas: Dar al-Islam (the House of Submission) and the Dar al-Harb (the House of War). It was the Moslem's relgious duty to fight jihad against the infidel.

Maybe, but the initial raids into Roman and Persian territories were for loot, and only by border tribes which weren't even Islamic yet for the most part.

It was only after a united force of several Arab clans had defeated a Byzantine army in Palestine that the Muslim-driven newly unified Arab nation thought they had any real chance in battle against the exhausted Romans and Persians. ;)

A good portion of the Arab military that initially carved into Syria and Egypt wasn't Muslim, and a great many Christians actually joined up with the Arabs to overthrow their harsh Byzantine and Persian overlords (harsh, due to the demands of war with each other). ;)

We can say many things now in hindsight, after Islam is firmly implanted in the Near East, but in the 630s, things were still a bit fluid. ;)

I still say it's an empire. It had a lot more land and power than the Byzantines ever had.

Originally posted by aaminion00
I still say it's an empire. It had a lot more land and power than the Byzantines ever had.

It's not ruled by an Emperor, so it's not an Empire in that sense. Historians only use the term "Empire" generically when referring to modern times, even though this anachronism has begun to infect medievalists and classicists too. But just call it a Caliphate - it saves a lot of confusion! ;)

Great article:goodjob:

and emperor and caliph is more or less the same thing

Originally posted by calgacus


"Imperial", I don't think, is the right word here. That's an adjective of Emperor/Empire. The Arab invasions were simply barbarian invasions and the unified product was a Caliphate, not an Empire! :p ;)

Sorry if you think I'm being picky, but my education is ancient/medieval and that word has quite a specific meaning in this historical context. "Imperial" in this area and time, could refer only to the Byzantines :)

EDIT: (removed and reposted)
My hero and best pal, the Islamic/Arab Empire was an Empire. You obviously don't know the definition of an empire, but luckily, I do.
__
em·pire ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mpr)
n.

A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
The territory included in such a unit.
An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire.
Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: “There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the... Asians” (James Traub).
__

The word "Empire" has nothing to do with what the leader calls himself, whether it is a British King, a Persian Sultan, or an Arab Calpih.

kthxbai.

Hello there. Pls refrain fr name-calling. Discuss your issue politely. Thanks - XIII.

actually it does--a king rules a kingdom, an emperor an empire , its proper speech, its not an insult to call the islamic califate just that, it was. it doesn't effect the size, power, influence that it had at the time-it had plenty of both:)

Yeah Pawpaw, unfortunately for Musa, he seems to have missed the point. :( Well, you've done OK, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself to such folk :)

I thought you were sort of diminishing the Islamic Caliphate's power by saying it wasn't an empire, but if it's merely a choice of words then I'd have to completely agree with you.

Originally posted by aaminion00
I thought you were sort of diminishing the Islamic Caliphate's power by saying it wasn't an empire, but if it's merely a choice of words then I'd have to completely agree with you. A rose by any other name would sick as thoroughly.

I must agree with Calgucus that the role of religion should not be neglected. While it is easy to disregard it in a survey like this, it is none the less central. These were Crusades, as much as the Christian Crusades were. Or call it Jihad. Another rose with another thorn.

J

Originally posted by calgacus
Yeah Pawpaw, unfortunately for Musa, he seems to have missed the point. :( Well, you've done OK, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself to such folk :)
"Buddy pal," again, look at the definition I kindly provided :D
The Persians had a King, but we don't call their empire a kingdom. It does seem like you are trying to diminish the Muslim Empire by saying it wasn't an empire, when it was. An empire is a vast territory, under the control of a single authority. Is there any reason why you say it isn't an empire?

Originally posted by Musa

"Buddy pal," again, look at the definition I kindly provided :D
The Persians had a King, but we don't call their empire a kingdom. It does seem like you are trying to diminish the Muslim Empire by saying it wasn't an empire, when it was. An empire is a vast territory, under the control of a single authority. Is there any reason why you say it isn't an empire?

Yes. Read my previous posts. ;)

Your definition is anachronistically generic. Empire has a more specific meaning in the context of the Late Antique Period which makes calling the Moslem Caliphate an "Empire" seem
really cool
Be thouself also cool (< I presume you can guess that I did not originally say that ;) ) Using the term "Empire" could maybe be acceptable, but the adjective "Imperial" suggests that the rulers called themselves by the Latin titles used by Roman Emperors, who were the enemies of the Arabs.

".An empire is a vast territory, under the control of a single authority. Is there any reason why you say it isn't an empire?
Well, Islam was united only under Rasidum and Umeyya Caliphs. Since 632 to 750. Later it separated in many independent "kingdoms". Since 750 you cant speak about the whole Islam as the "Muslim Empire" but an Abbasid Empire, Fatimi Caliphate, Andalusi Caliphate, Tahiri Empire, Gazzani Empire... and so on.

Originally posted by Thorgalaeg
".
Well, Islam was united only under Rasidum and Umeyya Caliphs. Since 632 to 750. Later it separated in many independent "kingdoms". Since 750 you cant speak about the whole Islam as the "Muslim Empire" but an Abbasid Empire, Fatimi Caliphate, Andalusi Caliphate, Tahiri Empire, Gazzani Empire... and so on.
But after the Caliph Umar, there WAS an united Islamic Empire, stretching from North Africa to Persia. Later yes, they were split, but that didn't stop them from making significant landgrabs from the Byzantines and from Spain. Also shown was that during the Crusades, the Muslims did band together and beat the Crusaders.

But after the Caliph Umar, there WAS an united Islamic Empire, stretching from North Africa to Persia. Later yes, they were split, but that didn't stop them from making significant landgrabs from the Byzantines and from Spain
I agree, I said it already in my post.
A tiny summary:

Rasidum Caliphate (or Medina Caliphate) 632-661
-Abu Bark (632-634), Ridda wars (internal wars) no expansion
-Umar (634-644), great expansion, empire stretching from Egipt to Persia
-Utman(644-656), No expansion, the Quran is wrote
-Ali (656-651), No expansion, Siffin conflict (Islam splits in Sunnies, Shiies and Jariyies)

Umeyya Caliphate (or Damascus Caliphate, AKA Arab Empire) 661-750
-Muhawiyya (661-680), some expansion (in the Mediterranean sea mainly)
-Yazid I (680-683), no expanison, internal conflicts (Hussayn, the Shii Iman, is killed, Zubayr´s insurrection in Meka)
-Marwan (683-685) (internal conflicts Zubayr´s and Mujtar´s insurrections)
-Abd al Malik (685-705), insurrections are finished, great expansion in orient and North Africa
-Al Walid (705-715), Empire at his size peak (Magreb and Iberia (711) are conquered)
-Umar II (715-720), social and religious reforms.
-Umar II succesors revoked the reforms, this caused Mawlas (No-arab muslims) and Shiis great insurrections.

-750 Umeyyas are defeated in Zad battle. Abbasid Caliphate (AKA Islamic Empire) begins and Empire begins to split (Iberia and Magreb first (756) and a century later mostly islam is splited in many states.

Also shown was that during the Crusades, the Muslims did band together and beat the Crusaders.
Indeed, things were much more complicated.

Crusades were for the muslim world a conflict localized only in Siria. So, in a first moment only the Fatimi caliphate fought against crusades. Fatimi (shiis) and Abbasid caliphs were enemies. In fact, Abbasid Caliph supportes the Handani state (sunni) which fought against crusades and Fatimis. Later Fatimis contracted turkish soldiers to fight against Handanis and crusaders, but this soldiers rised against Fatimis (Sal al Din) and finished with Fatimis, crusaders (end of the first Latin Kingdom in Jerusalem in 1187) and Handanis, founding the Ayyubi State. Many years Later, Ayyubis´s Turkish slave soldiers (Mamluks) rised (1250) against Ayyubis, finishing the Ayubbi state. Mamluks expelled all the crusaders from Siria in 1291.

So, crusades were a very long and complicated phenomenon. There were countless alliances among crusades and muslim factions against other muslim or even other crusaders groups. It is not correct to say that Muslims did band together against crusaders

Taken out of my Islamic article thread... Oh, mighty are the powers of mine Powa Stick... :p