Impact of Crusades

Originally posted by Peter III Does anyone know what the most expensive European crusade was? Besides the Reconquista, I always thought the Cathar Crusade was a really costly one, both in the amount of lives lost and the amount of money spent.

Originally posted by R_AK47 The idea of peacefull conversions to islam in conquered countries is a myth.

Originally posted by rider   No it is not... actually, during the 7th century, in the territories that the Muslims conquered, many people converted peacefully because in that way their lefe was easier and they hadn't got to pay many taxes.

Originally posted by R_AK47 Originally posted by rider   No it is not... actually, during the 7th century, in the territories that the Muslims conquered, many people converted peacefully because in that way their lefe was easier and they hadn't got to pay many taxes.     I see, they were apparently simply bullied and bribed into converting to islam during that time period.  This doesn't sound very peacefull to me either.

I feel the need to clarify what actually occurred in the 7th century Near East, as the understanding presented here needs some rectification. The situation for the peoples living in the Byzantine Near East at the time of the Arab invasions was pretty awful. On the one hand, they were persecuted for being mostly Monophysite rather than Orthodox Christians, and persecuted heavily. The Byzantines throughout their history were notoriously intolerant of heretics.

Also, the local population was traumatised and fearful after having suffered heavily from the recent Byzantine-Persian war. Although Byzantium had won, the populations in the region had suffered heavily. Exhausted by warfare, the local population anxiously sought a power who had the military strength to guarantee them some peace.

Taxes were also very high. The Byzantine armies operated on a very expensive basis, something which would only change after the Arab invasions when the Byzantines developed their thema system of military and political organisation. The Byzantine bureaucracy was huge, corrupt and expensive. The Byzantine court also taxed heavily to fund its extravegant ceremonies, imperial largesse and other court paraphernalia. Egypt itself simply had its grain taken so the Byzantines could continue distributing free bread in Constantinople.

Finally, the Byzantines were a largely Hellenic people. The peoples in Palestine, Syria and Egypt had much stronger Semitic roots. They could hardly fail to notice that their rulers were, to a significant extent, foreign.

Now that the situation is in its proper context, what happened after the Arab armies began their invasion could be better understood. The Arabs operated on a militarily efficient basis, possessing excellant logistics, good cavalry, a strong martial tradition and also being imbued with the ideological strength of a powerful new faith. When the Arabs conquered these regions, they did so quickly. With the Arabs in charge, a number of key changes took place.

Firstly, government was more tolerant to the Monophysites than that of the Orthodox Byzantines so the local Christian got a better deal there. This was persuasive, not coercive, for the local man to convert.

Also, the Arab military was successful in holding these regions against counter-attack and even pushed further afield, the local peoples could now expect a measure of security which was lacking under the Byzantines. Also, the success of the Arab military impressed them. To a medieval mind, military success was an indicator of who God truly favoured. The locals looked at Arab success and benevolence compared to the Byzantines and drew their own conclusions.

The Arabs were also Semites, ethnically closer to the local peoples than the Byzantine Greeks. Taxes were also lower under the Arabs than under the Byzantines, because the armies, bureaucracies and courts were replaced with much more cost effective models. The locals therefore found it much easier to identify with their new lower taxing, Semitic rulers than the distant, high taxing Greek ones.


Edited by Constantine XI - 15-Aug-2006 at 22:45

Second that. Indeed it is a great post.

Originally posted by Seko Interesting. Any references on the bullying/ bribing to convert matter?

See AM 6135 where caliph Omar is taking off the crosses from christian buildings and AM 6182 where caliph Abu l-Malik is trying to destroy some christian temples. But the belief of muslims wasn`t strong and I think the muslim rulers started these persecutions only to spite Byzantine governement. According to Nicephorus (see his �Breviurium�) alexandrian patriarch Cyrus even tried to baptize Omar and his army. He had a big influence on Omar and he needed to marry Eudocia Augusta or one of Heraclius` daughters to him and to pay him a tribute but Heraclius rejected, sent his general Marianus against Omar and crushed Cyrus` hopes. The fact that it was possible shows us the weakness of muslims` belief � a man who saw Mohammed and was his close friend could betray his prophet.

 

�Passions of thwenty monks from the monastery of Saint Saba� is a story of monks killed by muslims in 796 or 797.

Edited by Philhellene - 17-Aug-2006 at 07:10

Originally posted by Philhellene See AM 6135 where caliph Omar is taking off the crosses from christian buildings and AM 6182 where caliph Abu l-Malik is trying to destroy some christian temples. But the belief of muslims wasn`t strong and I think the muslim rulers started these persecutions only to spite Byzantine governement. According to Nicephorus (see his �Breviurium�) alexandrian patriarch Cyrus even tried to baptize Omar and his army. He had a big influence on Omar and he needed to marry Eudocia Augusta or one of Heraclius` daughters to him and to pay him a tribute but Heraclius rejected, sent his general Marianus against Omar and crushed Cyrus` hopes. The fact that it was possible shows us the weakness of muslims` belief � a man who saw Mohammed and was his close friend could betray his prophet. �Passions of thwenty monks from the monastery of Saint Saba� is a story of monks killed by muslims in 796 or 797.

I appreciate the time you took to share your personal views. Now, back to the quotes from those books as well!

Originally posted by rider   Originally posted by R_AK47 I see, they were apparently simply bullied and bribed into converting to islam during that time period.  This doesn't sound very peacefull to me either.   This is plain stupid...

Edited by R_AK47 - 17-Aug-2006 at 19:51

This is a weak arguement.

First of all, no quotes were given for verification.

Second, let's say Philhellene presented an adequate resemblance of Theophanes original writings. Where did Theophanes get his information from? Especially since he is supposed to have lived over 100 years later than the death of Caliph Omar.

In summary we could assume that Theophanes, a Greek ascetic, who founded a monastary and was an iconodule, was partial to his religion. He also held office under Constantine V. We could assume that his statements about Omar and the Prophet Muhammad were questionable due to his loyalties to Byzantium/Eastern Orthdoxy.

Next, the opinion and following deductions from Philhellene are personal and not necessarily the judegment that most readers would make. How come? Why would Philhellene call the beliefs of muslims as 'wasn't strong' at that time. That they were interested in spiting the Byzantines, due to removing Christian symbolism from newly conquered buildings? Looks more like a process of removing idol imagery per the Islamic faith instead of spiting a conquered foe. Then he goes on an interesting leap of faith by saying that Omar was tempted into Christianity because Cyrus tried to baptize Omar and his army. OK. Not really. Doesn't mean a thing. Lastly, he wrote: "The fact that it was possible shows us the weakness of muslims` belief � a man who saw Mohammed and was his close friend could betray his prophet."

Wrong. It was nearly impossible no matter how hard Omar's enemies tried to convert him or renounce his marriage offers. Omar had the world at his beckoning. He was a close companion of the Prophet. He was given the title of Caliph. Now does anyone actually believe that such a man would turn tail or even come close to renouncing his religion and the power of office under such circumstances? Aledging a weakness can be done by people of any stripe. As is the case attempted by those above.

Without reference to the writings of Theophanes we are left to debate the material presented by Philhellene. I'll provide a couple links on Omar regarding his history.

    http://anwary-islam.com/companion/umar-bin-khatab.htm


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_ibn_al-Khattab

Edited by Seko - 17-Aug-2006 at 21:12