Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The breakup of abbsid cliphate

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Ahmed The Fighter View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Lion of Babylon

Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
  Quote Ahmed The Fighter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The breakup of abbsid cliphate
    Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 13:02

Wht you think ?

 

"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
Back to Top
Moustafa Pasha View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 133
  Quote Moustafa Pasha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 08:40

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.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 04:03
It basically lost its territories one by one until that faithful year.
Back to Top
-ohcrapitsnico- View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03-Nov-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote -ohcrapitsnico- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 21:19
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.
Allahu Akbar
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 23:30
What do people think of the significance of the importation of turks in the army?  I've only read one book specifically on the Abbasids, but the turks turned into like a praetorian guard formation for them is how I saw it.  Perhaps also the division among Islam because of the overthrow of the "legitimate" Umayyads by an usuper.
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 03:05
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


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 03:09
Originally posted by Justinian

What do people think of the significance of the importation of turks in the army?  I've only read one book specifically on the Abbasids, but the turks turned into like a praetorian guard formation for them is how I saw it.  Perhaps also the division among Islam because of the overthrow of the "legitimate" Umayyads by an usuper.


They rose to power rather quickly, the Abbasids needed direly a loyal army corps that would counter growing resentment among older factions who did not favor them. Among them were the Syrian Arab armies and aristocracy, and furthermore, the Alids, and their followers who were essentially betrayed by the Abbasids first by them not putting an Alid on the throne, and secondly by the brutal persecution that the Abbasids carried out after securing power even though they came to power by claiming to be fighting for the Alid cause.

Alids were the descendants of Ali, in particular of Ali and Fatima.


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 07:28

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

 

Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 09:22
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, 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

 



^ The Ottomans did the same (but they lasted the longest among the Turkic empires)

It's hard to keep the aristocracy content & "loyal" It's easy to import Troops/people who have no real shot at the 'title' or influence

But in the long run we see that these proof to be a problem aswell

Turks for the abbasid Caliphate
Janissaries for the Ottomans
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of Númenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1399
  Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Nov-2007 at 23:09
Originally posted by xi tujue

Turks for the abbasid Caliphate
Janissaries for the Ottomans
An interesting comparison, the two examples do seem to have a lot of similarities.
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 19:37
There is no similarities between the two. The Abbasid decline started way earlier when the empire started Persification during Al-Rashid's time well before the Turks. The recruitment institution was gradually abndoned, tight central governance was abandoned and replaced by local client dynasties with only nominal alligiance to the capital. Corruption in local administration and nepotism in high state offices crept slowly into the state. And most importantly abandonment of legal proceedings and rights became the rule not the exception. In the Ummayads time, due process was important and many times the sword of Al-Hajjaj was stopped by order of the Caliph who was also a judge. But in the Abbasids, murder and conspiracy was the rule. By the time the Turks came, the caliph was so weak that they controlled the government through the veziers they forced on him. Those veziers would bribe their lives from the Turks so that they could stay in office. The coup d'grace came with the seljuqs who turned the caliph into a muslim pope. There was no Abbasid state what so ever. It briefly returned during Al-Nasir's rule and ended with the sack of Baghdad.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
  Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 23:11
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.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 14:45
Actually no, what I wrote is the true.
 
The prophet (PBUH) warned of betraying Arabs and preferring others to them or indeed to give preference for any group on the other. The prophet and Islam in general stresses on meritocracy that is why during the Ummayyads, there were no Arabs in the Navy simply because Arabs were not good sailors. Persians who prove themselves in battle could join the Mawali system where there were no discrimination, Musa ibn Nusair and many others were mawali and nobody had objections because the guy was good. Even in administration christians were preferred by the so called "fifth righteous" caliph Omar ibn AbdulAziz over muslims in middle and sometimes upper level administration. Due process was very important so much that when the People of Smarqand appaled the war actions of Qutaibah during the conquest the judge ordered and the government accepted the ruling of withdraw from the city and declaring a truce and then if no peace war.
The Abbasids under the influence of divine right and other persian influences considered all the system of Arab and ideed Islamic ethics garbage. The imported the theory that the ruler has absolute powers and nothing limits him no even law from the Persians. They abandoned the old Arab traditions of humility and ruler/subject interaction with the Persian notions of pompous grandeur building huge palaces and stealing money from the treasury and imposing taxes despite being forbidden by islam. Betrayal became the rule and the masscre of the Ummayyads after amnesty, a horrendous act that even in the savage pre-Islamic culture was not heard of, is a prime example and the mastermind was persian because the massacre ended all the trouble that can come from the ummayyads. No, if you read Islamic history from primary sources as I did you would find that what I said was the true no offence.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Nov-2007 at 17:17
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
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Nov-2007 at 08:00
Yes
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Nov-2007 at 16:20
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.
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2007 at 01:47
Originally posted by Justinian

Perhaps also the division among Islam because of the overthrow of the "legitimate" Umayyads by an usuper.
 
Umayyads were the ones who initiated and scratched the division and discrimination in Islam. That's why they were handed their crowns to carry it all the way to Andalucia.
 
If it was for Umayyads, Islam would not develop into a world religion as it is supposed to be, but only stay as an Arabic religion.


Edited by Kapikulu - 09-Nov-2007 at 01:49
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.080 seconds.