The breakup of abbsid cliphate

Abbas Al Saffah 749-54 was the founder of the Abbaside dynasty.Baghdad became the Capital of the Empire under Caliph El Mansur which started the Golden Age of Arab and Islamic Culture.The cultural expansion continued under different rulers headed by Caliph Al Mamun who ordered the translation of the works of Aristotle,Hippocrates,Galen,Euclid,Ptolemy and others.New discoveries were added by Arab scholars in Astrology,Medicine,law etc.This expansion continued for 500 years until  1258 when Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols.

Though my favorite historical entity, it really just lost its power at a slow continuous rate until those demons ransacked beautiful Baghdad in 1258. I guess though they were so great that they carried on in the mamluks in Egypt.

It happened quite early, and it is a trend that started with the first Khalifahs of the dynasty. When they moved the capital into the Sassanid cultural sphere they did retain absolutist theories, but also the court ceremonial which allowed for a quick acendancy of viziers alongside the need for new powerbases for the Abbasid dynasty that alienated itself first with the Syrian Arab armies that supported their predecessors, and the new reliance on non-Arab converts, which upset traditional segments of  the ruling elite largerly of Arab ethnic heritage up to now.

These challenges were met with an introduction of Turkish troops, and court ceremonial such as the exectutioner on the Khalifah's side. The ceremonial highly elevated the Khalifah, however, it also distanced him, and brought him under ever increasing influence of the viziers. By the death of al-Wathiq Turkish power was on a definite rise. And we can see already by the reign of al-Musta'in in 862 that the Turkish army viziers were key in his rise to the Khalifate

The abbasids ended when they betrayed the Arabs and the Arab ethics and Persified in everything. They used the Persians as veziers and administrators and Turks as soldiers and kicked Arabs from every important position and in the end, the became prisoners in their own palaces doing nothing while the veziers sold entire provinces and used nepotism and fraud to control the caliphate.

 

Al-Jassas

 

Originally posted by xi tujue Turks for the abbasid Caliphate Janissaries for the Ottomans

Originally posted by Al Jassas The abbasids ended when they betrayed the Arabs and the Arab ethics and Persified in everything. They used the Persians as veziers and administrators and Turks as soldiers and kicked Arabs from every important position and in the end, they became prisoners in their own palaces doing nothing while the veziers sold entire provinces and used nepotism and fraud to control the caliphate.   Al-Jassas

Al Jassas, isnt that little too much arabo-centric view?? Blaiming other for the faillure of their own...

Couldnt believe actually that you could write down such a garbage.

What are your trying to say?

The Persians abolished the status of the Calpih as princip and made him sort of a Pope?

BTW according to the Prophet(PBUH)

and I quote(or try )

Arabs are not above other people and other people above Arabs like black isn't above white & white isn't above black.

SO i don't think prefering other people is betraying

The Ummayads were rather Arab centric, the Abbasids relied upon converts, and dissatisfied Arabs in the Iraq, and Khurasan that did not enjoy the privileges of the Syrian settlers. I forget the name of the specific Khalifah but he was very opiniated on his "pure" Arab ancestry, and having no Persian or any other blood in him.
The downfall did not happen due to the betrayal of Arabs, but due to the ineffectual establishment of absolutism. The Khalfiah rather quickly raised himself on a diadem, and was excluded from "commoners" a rather un-Islamic notion. Furthermore, the establishment of the Shari'ah among the Sunni community, and also the disiluionment and rift by the Shi'a fostered the right conditions for a reliance on mercenaries, and mercenaries usually are good for a while, but as in the case of the middle Roman Empire they ended up with a heavy reliance upon them, and they acknowledging their importance took political power behind the scenes. This however would have happened one way or another. The failure to establish absolutism that is functional once that movement had been started was a fatal blow to Khalifah soverignty. If they had been able to balance the absolutist magnificence, with on hands rule then they would have suceeded or had at least better chances.