History questions not worth their own thread IV

[Yui108]

Had Charles Martel lost at Tours, could the Umayyads have realistically conquered France?

Almost certainly not.

 

[madviking]

There would've been another battle in which Charles the Hammer won which would've occurred which would've equaled Tours in our timeline.

 

[innonimatu]

2. I just read the auto-biography-cum-memoir-cum-reflections of Bernard Lewis. He seems to be in the right in his arguments with Said, but does anyone have any opinions or evaluations on his work and worth as a whole?

Somehow I'm not surprised that his auto-biography tries to create the impression that he was right!

I can't comment on the specifics of the conflicts between the two, or why Edward Said particularly disliked Bernard Lewis among orientalists. But one of Said's overall ideas was that "social scholarship" of the kind orientalists (and in fact any other specialized cultural studies) engage(d) in both influences and is influenced by political agendas, that is surely true. The act of studying a different culture is never neutral, can never be neutral. Foucault would say that it adds to the resources, the technologies of power, of domination, available to people interested in the areas under study. Said went beyond that, of course, and argued that there was among orientalists, and especially with Lewis, a deliberate ill will towards the object of their study, that orientalists willfully served imperialist interests. That I can't comment about, I never bothered reading Lewis' work.

 

[Yui108]

Somehow I'm not surprised that his auto-biography tries to create the impression that he was right!

I can't comment on the specifics of the conflicts between the two, or why Edward Said particularly disliked Bernard Lewis among orientalists. But one of Said's overall ideas was that "social scholarship" of the kind orientalists (and in fact any other specialized cultural studies) engage(d) in both influences and is influenced by political agendas, that is surely true. The act of studying a different culture is never neutral, can never be neutral. Foucault would say that it adds to the resources, the technologies of power, of domination, available to people interested in the areas under study. Said went beyond that, of course, and argued that there was among orientalists, and especially with Lewis, a deliberate ill will towards the object of their study, that orientalists willfully served imperialist interests. That I can't comment about, I never bothered reading Lewis' work.

The final claim seems a little spurious though doesn't it? Even without a reading of Lewis's oeuvre, the vast majority of which was written after the dissolution of the British Empire casting him as both an apologist and tool of the British Empire seems rather odd, especially considering his great academic lauds.

The first point of Said's you outlined is, however, entirely reasonable.

 

[Tee Kay]

There would've been another battle in which Charles the Hammer won which would've occurred which would've equaled Tours in our timeline.

Or wouldn't have. Or in another ten years. Or hundred years. Or not in France at all but Italy. Or the Umayyads withdraw on their own accord. And so on and so on.

 

[christos200]

Had Charles Martel lost at Tours, could the Umayyads have realistically conquered France?

Conquer France? Maybe.

Keep France for as long time as Spain? No.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Because they were so aiming to conquer France at Tours.

 

[Ergo Sum]

The final claim seems a little spurious though doesn't it? Even without a reading of Lewis's oeuvre, the vast majority of which was written after the dissolution of the British Empire casting him as both an apologist and tool of the British Empire seems rather odd, especially considering his great academic lauds.

The first point of Said's you outlined is, however, entirely reasonable.

I get the impression there was great deal of personal antipathy between Said and Lewis that may have distorted their academic debates. For instance check out Lewis' review of Orientalism on NYR and Said's response. Reading these you can see how bitterly they reference each other and the lengths they go to smear each other, accusing each other of misreadings, mistranslations, strawmen, etc. Said also comments at length on the sorts of questions you're asking IIRC.

 

[Masada]

Even without a reading of Lewis's oeuvre, the vast majority of which was written after the dissolution of the British Empire casting him as both an apologist and tool of the British Empire seems rather odd, especially considering his great academic lauds.

The fall of the British Empire hasn't ended apologism: Nial Ferguson. I also tend to agree with Said, Lewis was, at times, hilariously biased and given a hell of a lot of slack precisely because he was considered an intellectual titan.

 

[christos200]

Because they were so aiming to conquer France at Tours.

No, but if they found no resistance, why not?

 

[Masada]

Yes, magic could have caused that.

Moderator Action: Infracted for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[christos200]

Are all of you in these subforum such jerks?

Moderator Action: Also infracted for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: I'm getting very tired of having to moderate discussions like this where people belittle each other and rubbish opposing views without bothering to make any substantial points. I'm worried that this forum is starting to turn into a cosy clique where anyone who expresses any opinion that diverges from what the forum members consider orthodoxy just gets laughed out of town.

It's not acceptable. It's not polite, it's not welcoming to newcomers, and it's as far from the ideal of civilised, intellectually informed, and (dare I say it) academic discourse as could be.

Like all humanities disciplines, history goes through phases and fashions, and notions considered mainstream one decade are rubbished the next - and then resuscitated half a century later. If you do nothing but stick doggedly to what you consider orthodoxy and react to variant opinions with mockery instead of sympathy, that's a recipe for bad scholarship in the future. Quite apart from being rude.

Everyone, please, try to be a bit more pleasant and open, both socially and intellectually, in this forum.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[LightSpectra]

Moderator Action: I'm getting very tired of having to moderate discussions like this where people belittle each other and rubbish opposing views without bothering to make any substantial points. I'm worried that this forum is starting to turn into a cosy clique where anyone who expresses any opinion that diverges from what the forum members consider orthodoxy just gets laughed out of town.

It's not acceptable. It's not polite, it's not welcoming to newcomers, and it's as far from the ideal of civilised, intellectually informed, and (dare I say it) academic discourse as could be.

Like all humanities disciplines, history goes through phases and fashions, and notions considered mainstream one decade are rubbished the next - and then resuscitated half a century later. If you do nothing but stick doggedly to what you consider orthodoxy and react to variant opinions with mockery instead of sympathy, that's a recipe for bad scholarship in the future. Quite apart from being rude.

Everyone, please, try to be a bit more pleasant and open, both socially and intellectually, in this forum.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

The subject of Poitiers/Tours comes up at least once a month without fail, and there's never anything new in any of those discussions; it's always the same debunking of the same silly trope. So it's not a board clique mocking dissenters, it's a handful of regulars exhausted with the Sisyphus-ian task of continually folding the tripe.

Almost every discussion on this board does involve a bit of hostility at some point, granted. But it's not between two educated people whose legitimate discussion gets out of hand, it's nigh-universally because an obviously unread person is making wild, unsupported claims and refusing to back down to evidence, which is frustrating to just about everybody.

 

[christos200]

Your opinion. Everyone can say his opinion.

 

[Arakhor]

And all opinions should be weighted by the context and worth of the source. I don't expect the Bible to provide accurate answers on modern science, but I do expect it to have authoritative ideas on Judaeo-Christian theology.

 

[innonimatu]

The final claim seems a little spurious though doesn't it? Even without a reading of Lewis's oeuvre, the vast majority of which was written after the dissolution of the British Empire casting him as both an apologist and tool of the British Empire seems rather odd, especially considering his great academic lauds.

I don't know, there is something I find disturbing indeed about the possible consequences of the works of these western "experts" on the arabs: there has been a noticeable reaction against modernity, a retreat to alleged ancient and virtuous islamic principles (let's call things by its names, religious fanaticism). I'm not going to claim that western orientalists supplied the narratives about ancient islam that the modern fanatics later disseminated and emulated; but I wonder how much they helped the process along. And this recent (since the late 1970s?) "reactionary islam" has certainly helped derail countries from the path of modernity, confuse and split opposition groups within each country, condition their political evolution and even help throw some into civil wars. All put together, if orientalism has contributed, ideologically, to those political conflicts then it has weakened arab countries, depicted them as "failed states", made them vulnerable to a new imperialism which even included the old "conquer the place and appoint a government", British Empire style.

Ideology spreads. If you paint another people's past in a certain way, and your media is capable of spreading the message worldwide (which western media certainly has been) it will reach and influence that people. It will influence the elements among that people who are looking back into what they believe is the past for ideas for a future order. It happened in Europe, with romantics looking back to an idealized gothic age, nazis and their silly ideas about the "aryan race", fascists and the italian imperial rome delusions, corporativism and the idea of the old medieval guilds... coudln't it have happened with orientalists and... "radical islam"?

In short: if orientalists have depicted arabs and islam in general as an aggressive, immutable and un-reformable culture, and if groups among the arabs have in recent decades been trying to impose just such an ideology on modern arabs... how much did the ideas of orientalists, spreading through many channels (scholarly works, books, newspapers, movies, etc), contribute to the formation of this modern reactionary ideology among some arabs? Was it all "home-grown", or did it drink also from foreign sources, among those the idea of "classical islam" built by orientalists?

(This, mind you, is not something that Edward Said ever wrote about (afaik). It's just something I'm wondering about.)

The subject of Poitiers/Tours comes up at least once a month without fail, and there's never anything new in any of those discussions; it's always the same debunking of the same silly trope. So it's not a board clique mocking dissenters, it's a handful of regulars exhausted with the Sisyphus-ian task of continually folding the tripe.

If the question is, as it was, whether the arabs could have conquered France, it's much like that other one which pops up frequently, about whether the Mongols could have conquered Europe. No, form many good reasons. But it is is about whether they intended to do so, if it proved feasible... well, I'm on the side of those who think that there might have been plans to followed up the raid with an attempt to seize yet more ground if it had been successful. We know it couldn't have happened (with the splitting of the caliphate and the trouble in still not totally conquered Hispania), but the intention to try it could well have existed by the time of that battle. That had been the pattern so far. And if the merovingian kingdom had been in so sorry a state as Hispania at the time it might have been in serious trouble. It wasn't, though: the terrain was different, the social structure was different, and the internal political situation of the kingdom was different.

 

[Masada]

I don't know, there is something I find disturbing indeed about the possible consequences of the works of these western "experts" on the arabs: there has been a noticeable reaction against modernity, a retreat to alleged ancient and virtuous islamic principles (let's call things by its names, religious fanaticism).

Salafis aren't reactionaries. If anything, al-Wahhab was the most aggressive religious reformer of Islam since the Prophet. He just happened to approach the issue of rapid change through Islam. It's what allows his successors to make fiqh for things like cars and mobile phones. You find me the Quranic injunction against women driving. I know actual reactionaries who refuse to issue fiqh on cars because there's nothing in the Qur'an or Sunnah to inform such a decision. They argue, quite cogently, that doing so would constitute a dangerous innovation.

The subject of Poitiers/Tours comes up at least once a month without fail, and there's never anything new in any of those discussions; it's always the same debunking of the same silly trope. So it's not a board clique mocking dissenters, it's a handful of regulars exhausted with the Sisyphus-ian task of continually folding the tripe.

Oh, I wouldn't mind so much if people defending the proposition knew something about the subject.

 

[innonimatu]

Salafis aren't reactionaries.

Ok, good point. Still there is a disturbing correspondence about what those people want and what some western scholars say are the "natural characteristics of arab culture" when they attempt to explain the phenomenon. I fear some kind of feedback loop there.

 

[Yui108]

I don't know, there is something I find disturbing indeed about the possible consequences of the works of these western "experts" on the arabs: there has been a noticeable reaction against modernity, a retreat to alleged ancient and virtuous islamic principles (let's call things by its names, religious fanaticism). I'm not going to claim that western orientalists supplied the narratives about ancient islam that the modern fanatics later disseminated and emulated; but I wonder how much they helped the process along. And this recent (since the late 1970s?) "reactionary islam" has certainly helped derail countries from the path of modernity, confuse and split opposition groups within each country, condition their political evolution and even help throw some into civil wars. All put together, if orientalism has contributed, ideologically, to those political conflicts then it has weakened arab countries, depicted them as "failed states", made them vulnerable to a new imperialism which even included the old "conquer the place and appoint a government", British Empire style.

Ideology spreads. If you paint another people's past in a certain way, and your media is capable of spreading the message worldwide (which western media certainly has been) it will reach and influence that people. It will influence the elements among that people who are looking back into what they believe is the past for ideas for a future order. It happened in Europe, with romantics looking back to an idealized gothic age, nazis and their silly ideas about the "aryan race", fascists and the italian imperial rome delusions, corporativism and the idea of the old medieval guilds... coudln't it have happened with orientalists and... "radical islam"?

In short: if orientalists have depicted arabs and islam in general as an aggressive, immutable and un-reformable culture, and if groups among the arabs have in recent decades been trying to impose just such an ideology on modern arabs... how much did the ideas of orientalists, spreading through many channels (scholarly works, books, newspapers, movies, etc), contribute to the formation of this modern reactionary ideology among some arabs? Was it all "home-grown", or did it drink also from foreign sources, among those the idea of "classical islam" built by orientalists?

(This, mind you, is not something that Edward Said ever wrote about (afaik). It's just something I'm wondering about.)



If the question is, as it was, whether the arabs could have conquered France, it's much like that other one which pops up frequently, about whether the Mongols could have conquered Europe. No, form many good reasons. But it is is about whether they intended to do so, if it proved feasible... well, I'm on the side of those who think that there might have been plans to followed up the raid with an attempt to seize yet more ground if it had been successful. We know it couldn't have happened (with the splitting of the caliphate and the trouble in still not totally conquered Hispania), but the intention to try it could well have existed by the time of that battle. That had been the pattern so far. And if the merovingian kingdom had been in so sorry a state as Hispania at the time it might have been in serious trouble. It wasn't, though: the terrain was different, the social structure was different, and the internal political situation of the kingdom was different.

Great post! What you said provides the grounds for some awesome future study IMO. Intellectual origins of Wahhabism and the current bent in rightist Islam could be a very fruitful field of study. I guess to analyze Lewis's role in this it would require a pretty comprehensive survey of what he's done.