The Arabs as a branch of Western civilization

[Verbose]

Arab civilization is not western, the expansion of islam destroyed the unity of the mediterranean world, which wouldnt have happened if it were the same civilization.

Not worse than that Muslim and Christian scholars inhabited the exact same conceptual universe presumably governed by divine laws working pretty much as laid down by the Greek philosophers. People from both sides would meet and discuss these things with no apparent problems after all.

Then there was political conflict and religious disagreement. But still, the real falling apart not just over religion and politics came later, with the Europeans striking out on a new and surprising tangent. That's when communication about the nature of the world really broke down between the two.

And Islam did open up a much greater world that the civilisation surrounding the Med hadn't really penetrated. Bad from the European perspective perhaps, but there are other.

 

[brachy-pride]

If Greek culture is considered to be part of the "western civilization", than Arabs (or general Arabic culture) should be as well.



The Mediterranean was already disunited.

I dont mean political unity, but civilizational, everybody around the mediterranean used to be christian and speak greek or soem kind of latin, that was broken with the islamic conquests, and it left western europe even more isolated.

 

[brachy-pride]

Not worse than that Muslim and Christian scholars inhabited the exact same conceptual universe presumably governed by divine laws working pretty much as laid down by the Greek philosophers. People from both sides would meet and discuss these things with no apparent problems after all.

Then there was political conflict and religious disagreement. But still, the real falling apart not just over religion and politics came later, with the Europeans striking out on a new and surprising tangent. That's when communication about the nature of the world really broke down between the two.

And Islam did open up a much greater world that the civilisation surrounding the Med hadn't really penetrated. Bad from the European perspective perhaps, but there are other.

I agree in that way

western europe was left very isolated, but islam expanded all the way from morocco to china and south east asia, and connected those lands. The first civilization extending all the way thru eurasia and africa.

Persia kept the mediterranean rather isolated before the islamic conquest, altough dont forget that there was considerable trade between egypt and india by sea

 

[Plotinus]

[Mott1] I'm not really sure what you meant by "uniquely". My point was simply that there are entire countries that are very Muslim and not at all Arab.

[brachy-pride] The Mediterranean was far less united than you imply before the Arab conquests. There were plenty of people who spoke languages other than Greek and Latin, such as Coptic or forms of Aramaic. Furthermore, most of the people who spoke these languages, although Christian, were Nestorians or Monophysites. And Nestorians and Monophysites hated the Greek-speaking Chalcedonian Christians far more than either lot hated the Muslims, owing to the general principle that people with slight ideological differences always hate each other more than people with large ideological differences. This is why, for the most part, the Middle Eastern Christians welcomed the Muslim invasions; it is also why, for the most part, the Arabs encouraged the churches within their territories, on the basis of the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

[Mott1]

Then there was political conflict and religious disagreement. But still, the real falling apart not just over religion and politics came later, with the Europeans striking out on a new and surprising tangent. That's when communication about the nature of the world really broke down between the two.

Whats this new suprising tangent?

And Islam did open up a much greater world that the civilisation surrounding the Med hadn't really penetrated. Bad from the European perspective perhaps, but there are other.

What greater frontier did the Muslims penetrate that the Persians, Greeks and Romans hadn't already discovered centuries before? The Romans discovered the 'Silk Road' through the introduction of silk from the Parthians.
The develpoment of the route began with the Han Dynasty, so Communication between the far East and West had already been established long before the Muslim conquests. If anything the rise of Islam disrupted trade and communication rather than open up a much greater world.

 

[Mott1]

[Mott1] I'm not really sure what you meant by "uniquely". My point was simply that there are entire countries that are very Muslim and not at all Arab.

I mean that Islam is a distinct Arabian concept, it is the central component of Arab identity. All other foreign cultural aspects are structured around Islam which forms Arabian culture.
I understand there may be regions that do not conform to Arabian culture where Muslims form a large part of the populous, however the societal make-up does not define the culture.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Via the Greek kingdoms in India left over from Alexander, Greek art came to have a heavy impact on Indian and hence all Buddhist art.

Wikis~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milinda

Oooh, thank you, that's exactly what I was going to post. I've been to see some examples of Japanese Buddhist masterpieces recently and it really is mindboggling to consider the confluence of ideas, culture and geopolitics that led to a particular sculpture being quite the way it is.

 

[Plotinus]

What greater frontier did the Muslims penetrate that the Persians, Greeks and Romans hadn't already discovered centuries before?

I suppose the trade routes into Africa would be the prime candidates here. There was much communication between Egypt and the Nubian kingdoms. Of course there had been before, even in the time of Justinian, but the dominance of Monophysitism in Nubia and Ethiopia had meant that links with the eastern Mediterranean had pretty much eroded. But they were largely restored after the Arabs conquered Egypt.

Plus, of course, the spread of Islam into the Maghreb and west Africa helped to open up trade routes there too, both across the Sahara and from the Sahel region eastwards. The Arabs of the Maghreb then traded with southern Europe. This is why much of the gold in Italy in the late Middle Ages had actually been mined in Mali. These trade routes certainly did not exist in antiquity. They began to develop in the late first millennium.

Also, never underestimate the importance of the Hajj for establishing links between different places. Many trade routes, such as those through eastern Egypt, remained open and flourishing partly because so many people passed through them on their way to Mecca.

 

[Mott1]

I suppose the trade routes into Africa would be the prime candidates here. There was much communication between Egypt and the Nubian kingdoms. Of course there had been before, even in the time of Justinian, but the dominance of Monophysitism in Nubia and Ethiopia had meant that links with the eastern Mediterranean had pretty much eroded. But they were largely restored after the Arabs conquered Egypt.

How did the dominance of Monophysitism sever the Nubian link to the Mediterranean? I understand this to be your field of expertise so sharing your conversance would be greatly appreciated.

Plus, of course, the spread of Islam into the Maghreb and west Africa helped to open up trade routes there too, both across the Sahara and from the Sahel region eastwards. The Arabs of the Maghreb then traded with southern Europe. This is why much of the gold in Italy in the late Middle Ages had actually been mined in Mali. These trade routes certainly did not exist in antiquity. They began to develop in the late first millennium.

As I understand it, Trans-Saharan trade did exist in antiquity although certainly not on the level of 8th century Islamic Maghreb. I believe salt was a commodity introduced to the classical Mediterranean world from West Africa.
Gold was a major import from West Africa during the Islamic period, however slaves were the main item of trade.
That being said should Islam be credited for opening this greater world? A world that was already known to the Mediterranean centuries before?

Also, never underestimate the importance of the Hajj for establishing links between different places. Many trade routes, such as those through eastern Egypt, remained open and flourishing partly because so many people passed through them on their way to Mecca.

I agree, historically religious pilgrimmages did help establish thriving trade communities, however they were not the instruments used for discovering new worlds or trade routes.

 

[Plotinus]

How did the dominance of Monophysitism sever the Nubian link to the Mediterranean? I understand this to be your field of expertise so sharing your conversance would be greatly appreciated.

Because Monophysites and Chalcedonians loathed each other, of course. The Monophysites' rallying cry was "I do not communicate with the synod" - meaning Chalcedon - while the Chalcedonian authorities in Constantinople tried an alternating approach of carrot (passing theological decrees in a slightly Monophysite direction) and stick (persecuting Monophysites) in an attempt to reconcile the two groups. They were only interested in reconciling Monophysites within the empire, though, and they were almost completely unsuccessful in doing so. The Nubians, being outside the empire, were of virtually no interest to the Byzantines - and the attempts to woo the ones inside the empire ended after the Muslim conquests anyway, since the areas the Muslims had conquered were precisely those areas that were full of Monophysites (and Nestorians, who hated both lots).

Now the Nubians were in quite close contact with Egypt - at least, with the Egyptian Monophysites, not with the hated Melkites (Egyptian Chalcedonians). That link became stronger after the Muslims conquered Egypt and the Chalcedonian Byzantine influence there waned. Indeed, the king of Makuria came to be considered the protector of religious interests in Egypt. So that's an example of a situation where Muslim dominance allowed Christian groups in different countries to come closer together, by removing the influence of hostile rival Christian groups. As I said before, you'll find far more bad blood between different versions of the same religion than you will between completely different religions.

As I understand it, Trans-Saharan trade did exist in antiquity although certainly not on the level of 8th century Islamic Maghreb. I believe salt was a commodity introduced to the classical Mediterranean world from West Africa.
Gold was a major import from West Africa during the Islamic period, however slaves were the main item of trade.
That being said should Islam be credited for opening this greater world? A world that was already known to the Mediterranean centuries before?

It depends on what you mean by "known to" and "opening up". The fact is that trans-Saharan trade was not very important in the centuries before the Muslim conquests, and it was much more important in the centuries after. I don't think that the ancient Mediterranean world can really be said to have "known" the sub-Saharan world in any meaningful way; ancient geographers thought that if you got too close to the equator you'd burn to death. In the eighth century, Pope Zacharias argued that there could be no human beings in the southern hemisphere for precisely that reason, since Adam lived in the northern hemisphere and none of his descendants could have crossed the lethal regions to the south of the Sahara. This situation had certainly changed by the late Middle Ages - witness the famous picture of Musa of Mali in the Catalan Atlas. Whether you want to credit that to "Islam", I don't know. But it should certainly be credited to Muslims, both Arabs and West Africans.

I agree, historically religious pilgrimmages did help establish thriving trade communities, however they were not the instruments used for discovering new worlds or trade routes.

Maybe not, but maintaing trade routes is just as important and as hard as discovering new ones in the first place. The history of Africa, above all, shows us that. Someone should make a scenario about it!

 

[Mott1]

Because Monophysites and Chalcedonians loathed each other, of course. The Monophysites' rallying cry was "I do not communicate with the synod" - meaning Chalcedon - while the Chalcedonian authorities in Constantinople tried an alternating approach of carrot (passing theological decrees in a slightly Monophysite direction) and stick (persecuting Monophysites) in an attempt to reconcile the two groups. They were only interested in reconciling Monophysites within the empire, though, and they were almost completely unsuccessful in doing so. The Nubians, being outside the empire, were of virtually no interest to the Byzantines - and the attempts to woo the ones inside the empire ended after the Muslim conquests anyway, since the areas the Muslims had conquered were precisely those areas that were full of Monophysites (and Nestorians, who hated both lots).

Aren't you generalizing a bit with the "carrot and stick" approach? The blue faction (one of the two dominant political factions in the Byzantine Empire)was very sympathetic toward Monophysitism. However I agree, for the most part the Monophysites were not very popular with the Byzantine ruling body, needless to say, neither were the Samaritans and espicially the Balkan pagans.
The Monophysites at least had representation in the high court of Byzantium, after all, Emperor Justinian was an ardent champion of Monophysitism.

Now the Nubians were in quite close contact with Egypt - at least, with the Egyptian Monophysites, not with the hated Melkites (Egyptian Chalcedonians). That link became stronger after the Muslims conquered Egypt and the Chalcedonian Byzantine influence there waned. Indeed, the king of Makuria came to be considered the protector of religious interests in Egypt. So that's an example of a situation where Muslim dominance allowed Christian groups in different countries to come closer together, by removing the influence of hostile rival Christian groups. As I said before, you'll find far more bad blood between different versions of the same religion than you will between completely different religions.

So the Nubians, being predominantly Monophysites, refused to trade with Byzantium which led to the subsequent erosion of communication. The Muslim invasion of Egypt resulted in the switch of sectarian subordinate jurisdiction which then restored trade with Nubia. Well you piqued my interest, I'll have to look into this. Be prepared to debate!

You stated that hostilities were more previlant between sects of the same religion. I disagree, I think that is a broad generalization.
Of course there was more bad blood between the various sects of Christianity than with Islam at the time, but these rivalries existed long before Islam. Islam was a new cult at the time it arrived on the scene where these inner religious rivalries had matured over the centuries. No one knew what to make of this new Islamic cult at first, but eventually (and it didn't take long) Islam came to be despised by most of the various religions and religious sects that were exposed to Islam first hand.

It depends on what you mean by "known to" and "opening up". The fact is that trans-Saharan trade was not very important in the centuries before the Muslim conquests, and it was much more important in the centuries after. I don't think that the ancient Mediterranean world can really be said to have "known" the sub-Saharan world in any meaningful way; ancient geographers thought that if you got too close to the equator you'd burn to death. In the eighth century, Pope Zacharias argued that there could be no human beings in the southern hemisphere for precisely that reason, since Adam lived in the northern hemisphere and none of his descendants could have crossed the lethal regions to the south of the Sahara. This situation had certainly changed by the late Middle Ages - witness the famous picture of Musa of Mali in the Catalan Atlas. Whether you want to credit that to "Islam", I don't know. But it should certainly be credited to Muslims, both Arabs and West Africans.

I meant "opening up a greater world" in the context Verbose employed which now that I think about it, is really rather vague.
I am really not disputing that knowledge of West Africa (particularly the Niger valley) was ameliorated in post-antiquity Mediterranean, however trans-Saharan trade did exist and the West African world was known in antiquity even if on an ambiguious scale.
Very soon after the Muslim conquered the Maghreb they took full advantage of the acquired knowledge of the trans-Sahran trade routes.
Sure the Muslim conquest can be credited for improving the trade routes and knowledge of the sub-Saharan lands, however I don't think it can be credited for discovering them.
Now the question is, did the Mediterranean as a whole benefit from this "gift" of the Muslim conquest? more importantly did the "gifts" the Muslim conquest
contributed to the Mediterranean world outwiegh the destruction it caused?

Maybe not, but maintaing trade routes is just as important and as hard as discovering new ones in the first place. The history of Africa, above all, shows us that. Someone should make a scenario about it!

I just don't see how you can claim that West Africa benefited from this improved communication to the Mediterranean world via Islam. Although the West African empires thrived for awhile, contact with the Mediterranean at the time of Islamic dominance would ultimately lead to their doom.

As far as creating an African scenerio, I nominate you. I can then demonstrate how West Africa along with the Mediterranean world would have entered a collective golden age (or Renaissance era) centuries before the European Renaissance in the absence of Islam.

 

[Plotinus]

Aren't you generalizing a bit with the "carrot and stick" approach? The blue faction (one of the two dominant political factions in the Byzantine Empire)was very sympathetic toward Monophysitism. However I agree, for the most part the Monophysites were not very popular with the Byzantine ruling body, needless to say, neither were the Samaritans and espicially the Balkan pagans.
The Monophysites at least had representation in the high court of Byzantium, after all, Emperor Justinian was an ardent champion of Monophysitism.

Justinian was certainly not a champion of Monophysitism - on the contrary, he persecuted them cruelly. Jacob Baradaeus, the main leader of the Monophysites at the time, was a particular target. Justinian's wife, Theodora, was sympathetic to the Monophysites, and this is why Nubia became Monophysite: both Justinian and Theodora sent rival missionaries there at the same time, but Theodora's got there first and convinced the Nubians that they represented the imperial faith more accurately.

Towards the end of his life, Justinian underwent a sort of conversion to the extreme version of Monophysitism associated with Julian of Halicarnassus (apthartodocetism). However, that didn't do much to endear him to the Monophysites, most of whom were far more moderate and regarded Julian as a heretic.

I haven't heard that the Blues were particularly sympathetic to Monophysitism. In fact, it used to be thought that the Blues were more Chalcedonian and the Greens were more Monophysite, but I believe that these days most scholars don't think religion played much of a role in their activities. They were basically the equivalent of gangs of football hooligans.

It's important to recognise, in general, how important this sort of thing was in international politics during this time. That is, countries allied with those who had the same religion, and sometimes making an alliance with a more powerful neighbour could entail adopting their religion. Just look at the conversion of the Bulgars in the ninth century: one moment they were trying to ally with Byzantium, and becoming Orthodox, and the next they were trying to ally with the Holy Roman Empire, and becoming Catholic. Which form of Christianity was adopted depended almost entirely upon which powerful neighbour the alliance was made with.

You stated that hostilities were more previlant between sects of the same religion. I disagree, I think that is a broad generalization.
Of course there was more bad blood between the various sects of Christianity than with Islam at the time, but these rivalries existed long before Islam. Islam was a new cult at the time it arrived on the scene where these inner religious rivalries had matured over the centuries. No one knew what to make of this new Islamic cult at first, but eventually (and it didn't take long) Islam came to be despised by most of the various religions and religious sects that were exposed to Islam first hand.

I don't think that's accurate. In fact I think you'll find that most Christian authors, in later centuries as well as earlier ones, were far harsher to those they considered heretics than they were to Muslims. Compare, for example, John of Damascus' anti-Muslim writings to his anti-iconoclast writings. The latter are far more fervent and voluminous. Of course, John could write books attacking the theological policies of the Byzantine emperor only because he lived in an area under Muslim rule, which no doubt helped. But then go to a completely different century and period and compare Peter the Venerable's anti-Muslim writings to, say, his anti-Petrobrusian writings. He loathed the Petrobrusians but he was careful to give the Muslims a fair hearing and did his best to do so. He even had the Koran translated into Latin for the first time for the purpose. His anti-Muslim writings certainly weren't in the same league as his rants against the Jews. Similarly, it always seems to me that the Crusades against the Muslims never had quite the same degree of bitterness and general bloodthirstiness as those against the Cathars, the Waldenses, the Hussites, and so on.

I just don't see how you can claim that West Africa benefited from this improved communication to the Mediterranean world via Islam. Although the West African empires thrived for awhile, contact with the Mediterranean at the time of Islamic dominance would ultimately lead to their doom.

I don't see why, really. That did happen to the Songhai empire, which got wiped out (under very obscure circumstances) by troops from the Maghreb. But Ghana and Mali before it crumbled for entirely different reasons. Other Muslim empires of West Africa, such as the Hausa states or Kanem-Bornu, lasted for a long time and, similarly, were not brought down by Mediterranean powers. I'd say that these empires benefited enormously from the increased trade both to the north and to the east, which was helped by the cultural uniformity throughout the Muslim world as well as the other factors we mentioned before.

As far as creating an African scenerio, I nominate you. I can then demonstrate how West Africa along with the Mediterranean world would have entered a collective golden age (or Renaissance era) centuries before the European Renaissance in the absence of Islam.

Aha, you need to pay closer attention to my sig...

 

[Mott1]

Justinian was certainly not a champion of Monophysitism - on the contrary, he persecuted them cruelly. Jacob Baradaeus, the main leader of the Monophysites at the time, was a particular target. Justinian's wife, Theodora, was sympathetic to the Monophysites, and this is why Nubia became Monophysite: both Justinian and Theodora sent rival missionaries there at the same time, but Theodora's got there first and convinced the Nubians that they represented the imperial faith more accurately.

Towards the end of his life, Justinian underwent a sort of conversion to the extreme version of Monophysitism associated with Julian of Halicarnassus (apthartodocetism). However, that didn't do much to endear him to the Monophysites, most of whom were far more moderate and regarded Julian as a heretic.

Fair enough, Justinian may not have exactly championed the cause of Monophysitism however he was not the tyrant you make him out to be. The fact that he married a devout Monophysite affirms his tolerance. His union with Theodora was one of mutual respect, and there is no doubt that Theodora was a passionate Monophysite activist.
Together they did advocate for reconciliation between the Orthodox and Monophysites, of course this was initiated by Theodora who did have tremendous influence over Justinian.
Justinian targeted Jacob Baradaeus because he violated the prevailing laws, it was not out of any personal campaign to persecute Monophysites. Besides in the end Justianian never had him arrested and simply tolerated Jacob dispite the laws. I would call that leniency, wouldn't you?

I haven't heard that the Blues were particularly sympathetic to Monophysitism. In fact, it used to be thought that the Blues were more Chalcedonian and the Greens were more Monophysite, but I believe that these days most scholars don't think religion played much of a role in their activities. They were basically the equivalent of gangs of football hooligans.

Thats true, however these factions did have alot of political pull, witness the Nika riots. The Blues tended to be favored by the elitists who supported Monophysitism such as Theodora and the Monophysite Emperor Anastasius.

I don't think that's accurate. In fact I think you'll find that most Christian authors, in later centuries as well as earlier ones, were far harsher to those they considered heretics than they were to Muslims. Compare, for example, John of Damascus' anti-Muslim writings to his anti-iconoclast writings. The latter are far more fervent and voluminous. Of course, John could write books attacking the theological policies of the Byzantine emperor only because he lived in an area under Muslim rule, which no doubt helped. But then go to a completely different century and period and compare Peter the Venerable's anti-Muslim writings to, say, his anti-Petrobrusian writings. He loathed the Petrobrusians but he was careful to give the Muslims a fair hearing and did his best to do so. He even had the Koran translated into Latin for the first time for the purpose. His anti-Muslim writings certainly weren't in the same league as his rants against the Jews. Similarly, it always seems to me that the Crusades against the Muslims never had quite the same degree of bitterness and general bloodthirstiness as those against the Cathars, the Waldenses, the Hussites, and so on.

I am sure we both can perennially dig up past Christian accounts to substantiate our argument, so to base your conclusion on this method alone can not be considered an accurate evaluation.
For example Philip Hitti's account of the early Muslim invasion of Egypt (which by the way is based on the chronicles of the Muslim Hakam) contradicts the testimony of the Monophysite John bishop of Nikiu. John describes the Muslim invasion of Egypt as merciless and brutal. Not only did the invaders slay the Byzantine troops when they captured the city of Bahnasa, but they put the sword to all that surrendered and spared none, including women and children.
He describes that the Monophysites who immeditately apostisized from the Christian faith, had embraced the faith of the beast.
He goes on to to say that many of the Monophysites fled in horror of the Muslim invasion and compared Muslim rule "heavier than the yoke which had been laid on Isreal by Pharaoh" and prayed to the Almighty to free them as He once freed teh Isrealites. You know as well as I that Egypt has ever been a safe haven for all Monophysites under Byzantine rule.
I can list many other accounts of native Christians of the Middle East who express fear, forboding and hate of Islam unparalled to any other religion or inner religious sects.
You mention the accounts of Peter the Venerable. Peter never endured first hand the brutality of the Islamic movement to even establish the great animosity he had toward the Petrobrusians. Bad blood only exists if one or a group of people experience a negative act intimately.

I don't see why, really. That did happen to the Songhai empire, which got wiped out (under very obscure circumstances) by troops from the Maghreb. But Ghana and Mali before it crumbled for entirely different reasons. Other Muslim empires of West Africa, such as the Hausa states or Kanem-Bornu, lasted for a long time and, similarly, were not brought down by Mediterranean powers. I'd say that these empires benefited enormously from the increased trade both to the north and to the east, which was helped by the cultural uniformity throughout the Muslim world as well as the other factors we mentioned before.

Well I agree some African Empires outlasted others, however I was not implying that their doom was exclusively the result of mediterranean military campaigns. It was also the ideology they have adopted from their Mediterranean nieghbors that led to their stagnation, vulnerablity and inevitable collapse.

Aha, you need to pay closer attention to my sig...

You are correct, I did not see your sig. That is great work! To bad I don't own civ3. Do you plan on creating civ4 scenerios?

 

[Plotinus]

Fair enough, Justinian may not have exactly championed the cause of Monophysitism however he was not the tyrant you make him out to be. The fact that he married a devout Monophysite affirms his tolerance. His union with Theodora was one of mutual respect, and there is no doubt that Theodora was a passionate Monophysite activist.
Together they did advocate for reconciliation between the Orthodox and Monophysites, of course this was initiated by Theodora who did have tremendous influence over Justinian.
Justinian targeted Jacob Baradaeus because he violated the prevailing laws, it was not out of any personal campaign to persecute Monophysites. Besides in the end Justianian never had him arrested and simply tolerated Jacob dispite the laws. I would call that leniency, wouldn't you?

Not really, to be honest. I'm not sure why you say that Justinian tolerated Jacob: on the contrary, Jacob spent pretty much his entire ministry on the run. He may not have been arrested but he certainly wasn't permitted to stay in place as bishop of Edessa, which is what he supposedly was.

Justinian had two methods of dealing with the Monophysites. The first was to try to convince them that Chalcedonianism did not necessarily entail Nestorianism. This was the motivation behind the Three Chapters affair and the Second Council of Constantinople, where Justinian basically forced the church to condemn the writings of long-dead theologians (something that had not happened before). Of course it didn't work. His second method was to exile leading Monophysites, ban their books, and send the troops into the churches. Thus we find Severus of Antioch, the leading moderate Monophysite of the first half of the sixth century, being hounded from one place to another, writing most of his books in exile. Philoxenus of Mabbug was also exiled, though he died before the more serious persecutions of the 530s.

The degree to which Theodora was a Monophysite is, I think, uncertain. Certainly she sympathised with them. But I don't see her marriage to Justinian as demonstrating any kind of tolerance. I think it just shows that Justinian didn't actually care very much about what people believed, per se. He only cared about unity within the empire. That's why he tried to persuade or force the Monophysites to rejoin the church. They could still be Monophysites, for all he cared, provided they were united to the Chalcedonians. What people actually believed wasn't really either here or there. It's exactly the same as Constantine's interventions in the Donatist schism and the Arian controversy. Constantine kept changing his mind about Arianism because he didn't really care about the theology - he just wanted everyone to agree. Similarly, Justinian persecuted the Monophysites because he couldn't tolerate division in the empire. If the Monophysites and the Chalcedonians had been prepared to put up with each other and share an ecclesiastical system - just as Justinian and Theodora themselves could live together - then he wouldn't have cared what they believed. But as long as they were at odds with each other, he was happy to resort to whatever methods he thought necessary to try to force them together.

I am sure we both can perennially dig up past Christian accounts to substantiate our argument, so to base your conclusion on this method alone can not be considered an accurate evaluation.
For example Philip Hitti's account of the early Muslim invasion of Egypt (which by the way is based on the chronicles of the Muslim Hakam) contradicts the testimony of the Monophysite John bishop of Nikiu. John describes the Muslim invasion of Egypt as merciless and brutal. Not only did the invaders slay the Byzantine troops when they captured the city of Bahnasa, but they put the sword to all that surrendered and spared none, including women and children.
He describes that the Monophysites who immeditately apostisized from the Christian faith, had embraced the faith of the beast.
He goes on to to say that many of the Monophysites fled in horror of the Muslim invasion and compared Muslim rule "heavier than the yoke which had been laid on Isreal by Pharaoh" and prayed to the Almighty to free them as He once freed teh Isrealites. You know as well as I that Egypt has ever been a safe haven for all Monophysites under Byzantine rule.
I can list many other accounts of native Christians of the Middle East who express fear, forboding and hate of Islam unparalled to any other religion or inner religious sects.
You mention the accounts of Peter the Venerable. Peter never endured first hand the brutality of the Islamic movement to even establish the great animosity he had toward the Petrobrusians. Bad blood only exists if one or a group of people experience a negative act intimately.

Well, of course Christians who suffered under the Muslims characterised them as irredeemably evil, far more than those Christians who flourished under the Muslims. But I don't really see that that proves very much. That's how people in antiquity and the Middle Ages always wrote about their immediate opponents. Just look at Tertullian's comments about the Roman authorities, for example, during the times of persecution - or Origen's, or Tatian's, or any of the others. And from a Christian point of view, that's a tradition that goes back to the New Testament, with its "abomination that causes desolation" and all the rest of it.

And it's not just persecutors who get described like that. Look at, say, Irenaeus' comments about the Gnostics; or Gregory of Nyssa's comments about Apollinarius; or the Arians' charges against Athanasius; or indeed any book entitled "Against X" from any time between the second century and the seventeenth. The quotes you give seem to me no different in tone from any of these, in which the writers invariably characterise their opponents as wicked, inspired by Satan, sinful, driven by lust or hatred, murderers, and anything else you care to think of. After all, you point out that Peter the Venerable wasn't being persecuted by the Muslims, but he wasn't exactly being persecuted by the Petrobrusians either, was he!

Basically, everyone in antiquity and the Middle Ages exaggerates about pretty much everything. If X was persecuted by Y, and X writes about how Y is more wicked than anyone else, you can't conclude that Y really was more wicked than anyone else, because everyone during those periods claimed that their opponents were more wicked than everyone else. Every single text I have ever read from antiquity and the Middle Ages attacking someone on doctrinal grounds begins by claiming that this opponent is a worse heretic than anyone else in history. Often, authors devote some time to showing why this is so. It's just rhetoric.

Well I agree some African Empires outlasted others, however I was not implying that their doom was exclusively the result of mediterranean military campaigns. It was also the ideology they have adopted from their Mediterranean nieghbors that led to their stagnation, vulnerablity and inevitable collapse.

Which ideology do you mean?

You are correct, I did not see your sig. That is great work! To bad I don't own civ3. Do you plan on creating civ4 scenerios?

Alas, my computer won't run Civ IV, so it's not very likely...

 

[Adler17]

The question was, are the arabs a part of the western civilization. A good question indeed. And one with two correct answers: Yes and no.
While in Europe people reigned, who could not read and write, like Carolus Magnus, the scientific heart of the western hemisphere was Arabia. Because here scientists were able to work. Because here no fundamentalist church was against that, but even supported a science, as Mohammed, god be with him, said: "Who goes to look for knowledge, is on the way of the Lord, until he returns." Or: "Look for knowledge, even if it was in China."
For a long time people like Carolus Magnus had to be envious when seeing the great scientist not being in Aix- la- Chapelle (Aachen) but in Baghdad, where people like al Mansur or Al- Mamun let the greatest heads of their time come to him. Cairo had in 988 the first university, a hospital, which was revolutionary modern. People like Rhazez (Bekr Muhammed al- Rhazi) or Avicenna (Ali al- Hussein ibn Sina) were great scientist, and indeed here most of the great scientists of the medievel times lived, among them not only Arabs or muslims, but also Jews and Christians. Words like Alcohol are still found in most of the European languages, as they were originally Arabic. Or Algebra. There is no wonder, that the most enlighted rulers of Europe like Frederic II. of Hohenstauffen, "imported" Arab scientists to their courts. And it is unfair, to say, the Arabs only transferred the wisdom of the Greeks and Indians to us. They did much more. Arab, not Latin was the lingua franca of thescientists of that time.
However this strong influence was over shortly after the renaissance started. There are several theories why this happened, but IMO a conglomerate of all is true. At first, the European nations lost the fundamentalism against new ideas, so that the renaissance started. In the Arab world however two of the main centers of Arab science were lost: Baghdad to the Mongols and Grenada to Spain. Also a more fundamentalist point of view was now ruling and unfortunately is still ruling. Since the 9th century only 100.000 books were translated into the Arabic, so many like books atre translated every year into Spanish. And the best Arabic scientist emigrate to work free in other countries. And just this isolationism added with fundamentalism is still the dividing factor of the civilizations. Without them the Arab civilization could be a part of the western civilization. But as long as fundamentalism and stagnation of science and liberty of human rights are not totally accepted, the Muslim world will not recover. And are not part of the western civilization.
So at the beginning I said, they were and were not part of the western civilization. So I have to make that clear: If you mean the modern civilization the old Arab heritage is in. If you mean the medievel civilization, yes, they were very much influenced, if that was possible, but it would not be fair to say the Arab civilization was part of the western one, as the latter was cought in a dark age, like the Arab civ was and is until now. It would be a too great offense of the Arab civilization.

Adler

 

[Plotinus]

Because here no fundamentalist church was against that, but even supported a science, as Mohammed, god be with him, said: "Who goes to look for knowledge, is on the way of the Lord, until he returns." Or: "Look for knowledge, even if it was in China."

But, Adler, there wasn't a fundamentalist church opposing science in Europe, either, during the Middle Ages. Charlemagne couldn't read, but he did decree that free schools should be opened throughout his empire (later, Alexander III would make this the responsibility of all bishops!). There are many reasons why the Arabs were more scientifically advanced during this period than the Europeans, but a repressive religion on the part of the latter was not one of them.

 

[Mott1]

Not really, to be honest. I'm not sure why you say that Justinian tolerated Jacob: on the contrary, Jacob spent pretty much his entire ministry on the run. He may not have been arrested but he certainly wasn't permitted to stay in place as bishop of Edessa, which is what he supposedly was.

Justinian had two methods of dealing with the Monophysites. The first was to try to convince them that Chalcedonianism did not necessarily entail Nestorianism. This was the motivation behind the Three Chapters affair and the Second Council of Constantinople, where Justinian basically forced the church to condemn the writings of long-dead theologians (something that had not happened before). Of course it didn't work. His second method was to exile leading Monophysites, ban their books, and send the troops into the churches. Thus we find Severus of Antioch, the leading moderate Monophysite of the first half of the sixth century, being hounded from one place to another, writing most of his books in exile. Philoxenus of Mabbug was also exiled, though he died before the more serious persecutions of the 530s.

The degree to which Theodora was a Monophysite is, I think, uncertain. Certainly she sympathised with them. But I don't see her marriage to Justinian as demonstrating any kind of tolerance. I think it just shows that Justinian didn't actually care very much about what people believed, per se. He only cared about unity within the empire. That's why he tried to persuade or force the Monophysites to rejoin the church. They could still be Monophysites, for all he cared, provided they were united to the Chalcedonians. What people actually believed wasn't really either here or there. It's exactly the same as Constantine's interventions in the Donatist schism and the Arian controversy. Constantine kept changing his mind about Arianism because he didn't really care about the theology - he just wanted everyone to agree. Similarly, Justinian persecuted the Monophysites because he couldn't tolerate division in the empire. If the Monophysites and the Chalcedonians had been prepared to put up with each other and share an ecclesiastical system - just as Justinian and Theodora themselves could live together - then he wouldn't have cared what they believed. But as long as they were at odds with each other, he was happy to resort to whatever methods he thought necessary to try to force them together.

I am not in disagreement with you Plotinus. My point is that Justinian was not intolerant toward Monophysitism on the basis of theology but rather as an element that caused conflict within his sovereignty as you have basically surmised above. Didn't Justinian once support the establishment of a Monophysite institution with the intention of curtailing the hostilities that exsited between the two sects? Justinian did sponser a conference where delegates from both sects (including Severus) attended, however these attempts at reconciliation were fruitless. These efforts at least demonstrate the level of Justianians tolerance and it is not through any fault of his own that the Chalcedons and Monophysites could not reconcile their differences. Both sects were against the idea of separate Christian institutions in the Empire which Justinian favored if only to alleviate the hostile schism between the two.
Essentially my only disagreement is how you phrased Justinians campaign to extinguish division within the empire. You stated that he cruelly persecuted the Monophysites, this gives me the image of Byzantine troops rooting out all Monophysites and exterminating them savagely with methods like crucifixion. In reality this was not the case. As you said Justinian only targeted the influential figures that were actively violating the prevailing law, i.e. his revision of the Corpus Iuris Civilis.

Well, of course Christians who suffered under the Muslims characterised them as irredeemably evil, far more than those Christians who flourished under the Muslims. But I don't really see that that proves very much. That's how people in antiquity and the Middle Ages always wrote about their immediate opponents. Just look at Tertullian's comments about the Roman authorities, for example, during the times of persecution - or Origen's, or Tatian's, or any of the others. And from a Christian point of view, that's a tradition that goes back to the New Testament, with its "abomination that causes desolation" and all the rest of it.

And it's not just persecutors who get described like that. Look at, say, Irenaeus' comments about the Gnostics; or Gregory of Nyssa's comments about Apollinarius; or the Arians' charges against Athanasius; or indeed any book entitled "Against X" from any time between the second century and the seventeenth. The quotes you give seem to me no different in tone from any of these, in which the writers invariably characterise their opponents as wicked, inspired by Satan, sinful, driven by lust or hatred, murderers, and anything else you care to think of. After all, you point out that Peter the Venerable wasn't being persecuted by the Muslims, but he wasn't exactly being persecuted by the Petrobrusians either, was he!

Basically, everyone in antiquity and the Middle Ages exaggerates about pretty much everything. If X was persecuted by Y, and X writes about how Y is more wicked than anyone else, you can't conclude that Y really was more wicked than anyone else, because everyone during those periods claimed that their opponents were more wicked than everyone else. Every single text I have ever read from antiquity and the Middle Ages attacking someone on doctrinal grounds begins by claiming that this opponent is a worse heretic than anyone else in history. Often, authors devote some time to showing why this is so. It's just rhetoric.

You have basically validated my point. For the reasons you mention above, You can not solely rely on past historical accounts to establish your claim that animosities were more profound between inner religious sects. As I stated, this is simply a broad generalization. I did not imply that religious animosity is only achieved through persecution, any personal encounter between two opponents which results in a negative actuality will achieve an antipathic relationship. In the case of Peter the Venerable, Peter's aversion of the Petrobrusians was based on personal qualifications, however he was acrimonious of Islam based on Quranic scripture and not on any real antagonistic encounter with Muslims.
You state:

of course Christians who suffered under the Muslims characterised them as irredeemably evil, far more than those Christians who flourished under the Muslims. But I don't really see that that proves very much. That's how people in antiquity and the Middle Ages always wrote about their immediate opponents.

Would this not apply to inner religious rivalries as well? The claim that there were Chrsitians who flourished under Islamic rule is something I disagree with, however that is another argument entirely, I don't believe there were any religious minority groups in the medieval period that prospered under an oppressive institution, be it Islam or any other doctrinal ideology.

 

[Plotinus]

This all seems fair enough, although I have to say I've never heard that Justinian tried to allow a distinct Monophysite church in addition to a Chalcedonian one. That would have been a very strange policy given the complete inability of any ancient Christians to consider even the possibility of having more than one legitimate church structure. To their minds, schism was pretty much indistinguishable from heresy, and there would have been quite enough passages in Church Fathers accepted by Chalcedonians and Monophysites alike to make such a policy impossible for either lot.

The claim that there were Chrsitians who flourished under Islamic rule is something I disagree with, however that is another argument entirely...

I'm very puzzled by this, though, as it's a simple and uncontroversial fact that many Christians flourished under Muslim rule. We've already mentioned John of Damascus, who did extremely well under the Muslims and was able to write books bitterly denouncing the religious policies of the Byzantine emperors, which he could hardly have done so easily had he been living under their rule. There were plenty of other Christians who did well too. In the ninth and tenth centuries, for example, the Church of the East did well under the Abbasids, who were happy to encourage them once they worked out that these Christians were the hated enemies of the Byzantine Christians (being Nestorian, and therefore even worse than Monophysites). Thus we find Timotheos I chatting happily with the caliph al-Mahdi - in Arabic, of course, since most educated Christians at this time were bilingual in Arabic and Syriac. Many Christians were rich or privileged in other ways during this period - many physicians to the aristocracy and even to the court were Christians. The most famous was Hunain ben Ishaq, personal physician to the caliph, who translated hundreds of Greek works into Arabic.

Now of course you could argue that they didn't flourish as well as they would have under Christian rule, or that even while some were flourishing others were doing very badly, or something like that. But there's no denying the fact that many did flourish.