QuoteReplyTopic: Sassanids vs Arabs Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 23:39
What Albert Hourani wrote is totally false and relying on a sensational journalist (Zaidan) for your history is wrong too. Mawali weren't second class citizens, they had full rights since they were muslims. The guy thinks that the post-Islamic Mawali system is the same as the pre-Islamic one which is totally false. Many Mawali went to become governors. military commanders and high state officials. A huge minority of them were also scholars and judges and here are some names from different periods for your knowledge:
Dinar ibn Dinar, mawla (plr Mawali) and military commander for the Ummayyad clan.
Musa ibn Nusair and his family: The conqueror of North Africa and co-conqueror of Iberia, he was first a military commander, then a politician then commander again as well as military governor on all the lands west of Tunisia. His sons and family were also prominant politicians and military commanders. He was a Mawla for the Ummayyds
Ismael ibn Abi Al-Muhajir: The first conqueror of North Africa and several times governor. Mawla of Bani Makhzoum (from Quraish).
Yazid Ibn Abi Muslim: governor and military commander. Mawla for Al-Hajjaj.
Abdullah ibn Al-Habbab: Probably a Persian, a governor and mawla of Bani Saloul (from Al-Ansar).
Abdullah ibn Darraj: Governor and mayor, mawla for Muawiyah.
Salih Ibn Abdurrahman: High civil servant (at one time chief of the kharaj of Iraq, the wealthiest province in the Ummayyad empire), influential in the process of Arabization of the Diwans, Persian and Mawla for Bani Tamim (definitely of Asawirah origin).
Khalid ibn Al-Hasafan Al-Farisi: Mayor and governor (Sur or Tyre in Lebanon).
Al-Laith ibn Tamim Al-Farisi: Commander of the Ummayyad Syrian fleet.
So if all these Mawalis were in such total power, and this is a sample, and they were "second class" citizens, I wonder what will they reach if they were "first class" citizens? By the way all of these are in the "racist" Ummayyd period. Later periods even have more mawalis controlling the government.
Please again, read real history books by real historians.
I think saying the sources are false on one hand and not giving the reason and the sources you rely on in return on the other hand is a well known aged tradition which in brief is simple act of denial. As for Zaidan's I should say that this as a collection of the most of the available sources on Arab history itself and many arab scholars has considered it a great work ( as it afterall tries to keep the celestial role of Arabs and never tries to judge their long admired evil deeds) . And though it's rather old. Besides if you read the post you'll notice that it doesn't try to imply that the system was the same before and after arabic conquests. Actually the examples you given here are also available in that book, that books is a collection of infos extracted from various Arabic sources. But yet a wise reader wouldn't be misled by naming of those examples.
Yeah you know what I'm gonna read all real and vast history books in which you gather all your exquisite infos.
I think I gave ample evidence that what these guys said, particularly Zaidan, was wrong. Mawali were never treated as second class citizen's with no rights and had to pay jizyah like none muslims, it was the masses of ordinary people from conquered lands who were converts but were not included into the system of wala that the grossly exaggerated "second class" citizenship. Also, the shu'ubiyyah movement that came in the early abbasid era and was supported by them contributed to this false sense of victimization for the none Arab muslims and mawali. Remember, most of the historians of the later periods were none Arabs and reading the erroneous accounts of the Ummayyads highlights this fact.
As for Zaidan, please, could you point out who from Arab scholars who consider his work great? He was a writer of cheap historical books filled with false love stories for popular consumption. He was popular because he was the first modern historian but his work was already undermined when other historians, professional historians, like Muhammad Farid Bey, Muhammad Al-Khudari, Muhammad Abu-Hadid, Phillip Hitti and Nikola Ziyadah (all are contemporaries or of a generation after Zaidan).
Albert Hourani is a respectable historian but being respectable and knowledgable doesn't mean you are right and frankly I am not acquainted enough with his work, I only read one book, but he has his thoughts that others differ with.
"the early Caliphate insisted that conquests were to be the privilege of
the Arabs. Only Arabs served in the armies and only they benifited from
the conquered lands. However problems started to rise after much of the
conquered lands were consolidated. The great plague of Imwas (عمواس)
took the lives of at least 18 thousand troops who were experienced
veterans of both the Syrian and Persian campaigns. The total number of
dead in the Persian campaign was close to 20k men if not more and the
resources of Arab tribes were depleted. Arab tribes that were initially
banned from joining the conquests were allowed but even they found it
difficult to fill in the ranks. Add to that the existence of tens of
thousands of ex troops who were set free after they paid ransom and
returned to their homes in Syria and Iraq. The many nobles who were
also freed and didn't join the conquests many of them lost their lands
and privileges and particularly the cataphracts, or the Asawirah
(اساورة) were a problem. Many became muslims to escape enslavement or
death and them sitting idle was troublsome. Under the suggestio of
Salman Al-Farisi a system was devised. Since Arab armies were organised
into tribal regiments the mawali system was introduced by which each
tribe will boost its numbers to the required level by incorporating
these muslim Persians into their tribal system. The persian and to a
lesser extent greek and Armenians who joined the system became allies
to those tribes and took the surnames and by time became Arabised.
Al-Baladhuri in his book says that the Asawirah became mawalis, or
allies, to Bani Tamim after Soussa was taken and they lived in
Khuzestan till his days (middle of the 9th century). The Zatt and
Siabijah (سيابجة?) also were allies to other Arab tribes. Later many of
the Asawirah were moved into Lebanon, Tripoli region, where they were
essential in defeating the Jarajimah and the Byzantine invasion in
early 8th century"
A good analysis of the accounts of the historical events of the early 7th century at hand shows that the army of Sasanians wouldn't have make it without a notable destruction and losing many veterans. of course the cavalry as the most significant army unit of the Sassanians had suffered the same. So after suffering another defeat at hands of the Arabs taking the losses, much was not left of the Asawara as their mentioning in islamic resources is not much. but that could be true that many like some remainder of Asawaras in fear of their lives joined some Arabic conquests ( there's another story in islamic accounts telling about changing sides of thee Deylamite soldiers in service of Sasanians.) I may put here that it has long believed that many divisions of Iranian resistence armies changed sides because of the tyranny of the Sassanids. this of course would have given another good justification for the celestial cause of the Arab conquest.
"Al-Baladhuri mentions nothing about Rayy and Daylams outnumbering the
Arabs. He said that Urwah ibn Zaid Al-Khail Al-Tai was sent by the
commander in chief of the distric with a 8k strong force as well as
other allies to the city. He defeated the Daylams and forced a treaty
by which they and the Daylams will pay both Kharaj, land tax worth 20%
of the profits, and Jizyah. Rayy then rebelled again and again till
they were finally defeated Qarzah ibn Kaab during Uthman's reign. Then
he forced them to accept Arab settlment and placed many garrisons in
the mountains and forts."
Man, do not attempt to make your narration of history! If he didn't mention (which I'm not sure what you said is right) it doesn't mean his fellow arab historians didn't either.
First of all you got to re-specify for yourself where the region of Deylaman is. - The cities of Rayy ( Ragae) and Qazvin werent Deylamite cities as they were border cities of Iranian kingdoms. I wonder how you read the Al-balazhuri's book?!! Al balazhuri writes that Qazvin before Islam was a Fortress and there garrisoned always an army of Iranians in order to fight the Deylamites in times of war and to deal with bandits in times of peace. (Futuh Albaldan, printed in Egypt, page 329) this narration is also given by Al Masoudi and Ibn Athir. I think I see the way you read your source again! from your early remarks you were just mistaking Gilan for the whole Deylaman! see guys
Al Balazhuri writes that Urwah ibn Zaid on command of Umar with army of 8.000 Arab heads for Rayy and Dastbi and fights a joint army of people of Rayy and Deylaman. defeats them and kills many of them and after that Urwah himself goes to Medina to take the news of the victory. After that the cities of Rayy and Qazvin were captured. see the Jaziyah and tributes was for the city of Rayy which has nothing to do with Deylaman only to be in it's proximity. ( Futuh Al Baldan, page 325) however Baladhuri's source in this case is not complete comparing to his fellow arab historians as for example Tabari and some other name the battle fought outside the city of Hamadan (Ecbatana) the battle of Vajrud and describes that there were actually another joint army of Spahbod Esfandyar of Atarpatekan, brother of the glorious commander Rostam Farrokhzad.
Al Balazhuri also says that Bara ibn Azeb after capturing Qazvin proceeded to fight Deylamites. he also says that Kathir ibn Shahab in his letter to the caliph Umar informs him of his successes against the Deylamites. He says about Sa'ad ibn abi waqas the governor of Kufa coming to fight Deylamites. He also writes of Walid ibn Aqaba in time of Uthman who via Qazin attacked the Deylamites, Atarpatekan, Jeylan, Mogan, , Babr and Taleshan then returned. the same case goes for Saa'id ibn alasi who made Qazvin a garrison town.
he again tells of Rabi' ibn Khathim who in the time caliph Ali with 4.000 Arab headed for Qazvin to fight off Deylamites.
This was Al-Baladhuri's but his accounts including name of the Deylamites is not over here go on and read more.
Actually the accounts give us the estimation of about three centuries of constant fighting with Deylamites without being conquered or paying tribute.
Al Tabari writes of the events of 143 hidjra ( the Umayyeds are no more now): Mansur the caliph was informed of the recent great massacre the Deylamites done of Muslims. The caliph ordered the people of Kufa and Basra to be counted and whosoever has more than 10.000 Drahmas join the war against Deylamites.
Al Balazhuri writes when Harun Al Rashid was heading for Khurasan by the city of Wazvin people of the city yelled about the heavy taxes they were to pay and told him : "we are living at the gates of the enemy and we are continuously at Jihad with them so we prey for reduction of our taxes" Harun accepted and ordered that they shouldn't pay more than 12.000 drahmas annually.
"You are portraying the Daylams as if they were the 7th and 8th
centuries' Russian front but unfortunately this is not true. The
largest army ever to go to the land was a 12k strong army and it took
them little more than a month to force the Daylams to pay the tribute."
I don't know about your imaginations but i don't think that most people reading history would have such imaginations and comparisons in mind. Besides I never ever in these posts said that they fielded large armies as the fact to my opinion is vice versa, when looking at the histrical accounts that Arabs with army of 8.000 men easily defeated a joint army Rayy, Deylamites and Spahbod of atarpatekan, it is the most probable that one thinks of the fact that Iranians in the time of Arab conquest were badly in short of armies, that even a joint army is not big enough to at least repel an army of 8.000 in on it's soil. Now one of the books I suggest for those interested in Deylamite resistance against invading Arabs is exactly Al-baladhuri.
I don't see any ample evidence. cause I'm sure by referring again to the islamic sources one mya find the same Zaidan collected in his book. I m not a fan of him as i clearly feel his being pro-arab, the same case is with the post-umayyed historians, who you in a very innovative way, try to say that they wrote against Arabs and somehow in favour of non-Arabs only and only to show they dispresct to Umayyeds and back the Shu'biya. heh Again if you deny a source you need to give acceptable proofs not by just saying he's wrong! And the examples you gave exist actually in Zaidan's work.
I both agree and disagree with you on your first point. Yes the Sassanids were a divided empire with powerful regional nobles and people who only fight to seek wealth, but I disagree with you on the issue that this was their doom. This was the Sassanid system. It worked perfectly for hundreds of years and it survived many incidents where the existance of the empire was threatened an it survived. With the Arab invasion it was to be too much for them and the natural course of history came over them. 600+ years later the same thing will happen to the Arab empires with the Mongols and so on. The Asawirah joined because as one of them said after Qadisyyah and this is not an exact quote "they (Sassanids) are dying and we want to survive". Daylamites too joined the system when it was profitable and rebelled when they thought it was profitable like all wild and semi-nomadic tribal peoples of the world (including bedouin Arabs).
As for my quotes from Al-Baladhuri and others, well I have to admitt I didn't go and read the book from cover to cover, I just read the part about the early days of the conquests and the Ummayyad period. Your quotes are authentic obviously, since you quoted the same paragraphs in detail I earlier posted, and I don't find any contradictions or history manufacturing on my part. I said Daylamites paid tribute till they felt some weakness then they rebelled, then armies came an after a couple of years engagements and siege to their mountains peace and so on. The Daylamite "resistance" in the Islamic era was like their "resistance" during the Sassanid era, out of opportunism nothing more nothing less.
Finally about the failure of resistance of the Spahbods and other provincial nobles, well it was a direct result of the failure of the Sassanid system after Qadisyyah and particularly after Nihanwand which is why it was called "Fath Al-Futuh" or roughly "the conquest of conquests". After its collapse every noble was to himself which made it easier for the Arabs to finish the conquest.
"I both agree and disagree with you on your first point. Yes the Sassanids were a divided empire with powerful regional nobles and people who only fight to seek wealth, but I disagree with you on the issue that this was their doom. This was the Sassanid system. It worked perfectly for hundreds of years and it survived many incidents where the existance of the empire was threatened an it survived. With the Arab invasion it was to be too much for them and the natural course of history came over them. 600+ years later the same thing will happen to the Arab empires with the Mongols and so on. The Asawirah joined because as one of them said after Qadisyyah and this is not an exact quote "they (Sassanids) are dying and we want to survive". Daylamites too joined the system when it was profitable and rebelled when they thought it was profitable like all wild and semi-nomadic tribal peoples of the world (including bedouin Arabs)."
Believe it or not the long-time-believed-via-muslim-sources of Sassanid sudden fall mainly due to their inner problems, and corrupt government, corrupt religion is not professionally acceptable todays. As for years with addition of chinese annals and sources to Sassanian studies, comparative study of Sassanid military potence through Byzantine sources. And the fact that it was mainly due to Arab Muslim military might and intelligence, and their celestial mission, is now seem ridiculous in professional matters. Yet historical accounts testify the Arabic might and talent in military expeditions and governing an empire by destruction of the other people's culture, and plundering of they resources.
"This was the Sassanid system. It worked perfectly for hundreds of years and it survived many incidents where the existance of the empire was threatened an it survived"
Yes it did but it exhasuted mainly to external pressures from east and west especially upon it's end. And at last it was seen that all the military brilliance of the Sassanids faded away when great quantities of it's enemies actually wounded it. Arabs for example took a part of their kingdom first -which about ten years ago was captured and it's resistence potentials totally annihilated (the region of Khwarwarn, Iranak or like arabs say Iraq)- their capital Ctesiphon (whose early capture by the Arabs due to it's bad geographical poistion, gave the Arab enough gold to finance for many years many expeditions) was then times just nominally theirs and Arabs actually didn't do much endeavour to take it.
The fall of Sassanids was marked by the various simultaneous blows from Byzantine-Turkic-Khazar alliance, which at that time really aimed to erase the Sassanids once for ever and thus free a vital part of the silk road to Byzantine empire. after that time Sassanids just lingered cause their traditional dignity didn't allowed them to believe that it was over, and actually they were waiting for another blow especially from Byzantine, or Turkic Khaghanate. but actually the two of them were -after striking that successful blow- involved in another series of wars with their neighbour, one of which resulted in the fall of Turkic Khaghante at the hand of the Chinese.
"With the Arab invasion it was to be too much for them and the natural course of history came over them"
You may go on insisting of this, good luck. vereything happened so far in history was the Natural course of history..hehe The Sassanids actually weren't natural enemy of the Arabs as they helped them many times (see the events of invasion of Arabia by the people of Ethiopia empire) but it should be taken into consideration that Arab invasions of Iran started almost as early as the Sassanids established their kingdom. Actually the opportunist Arabs always took advantage of a single weak point in Iranian world. By the time of the Shapur II the Arab invasion was almost successful and they penetrated into Sassanian heartland (Parsa) pillaging. But by the intervention of a might ruler Shapur II with Sassanian strong army they repelled and punished Arabs badly (ridiculuous that Arabs after their conquest of Iran did many evil deeds in Parsa region itself, stating taking revenge of those times) See the way they think of the other people guys!
"I said Daylamites paid tribute till they felt some weakness then they rebelled, then armies came an after a couple of years engagements and siege to their mountains peace and so on.."
And I said with reference of some sources NO, you dindt notice that the Jaziya and tributes you said before about Deylam was actually tributes the cityu of Rayy or Dastbi had to pay. And you obviouslywere wrong considering Rayy and Qazvin Daylamite cities. And Urwah ibn Zaid took no tribute from them as the accounts just tell of his victory over the joint army of the Deylamites and Persians in Vajrud after battle of Nahvand.
"The Daylamite "resistance" in the Islamic era was like their "resistance" during the Sassanid era, out of opportunism nothing more nothing less."
That's what I said in my previous post!
"Finally about the failure of resistance of the Spahbods and other provincial nobles"
At first I should make it clear that Deylmaties had no title Spahbod. and their failure was about the fact that many of them in charge of the regions or cities prefered to pay the tribute as they couldn't raise an army who could match the quantity of the Arab armies.
"well it was a direct result of the failure of the Sassanid system after Qadisyyah and particularly after Nihanwand which is why it was called "Fath Al-Futuh" or roughly "the conquest of conquests". After its collapse every noble was to himself which made it easier for the Arabs to finish the conquest."
Yes I agree, as many eastern governors were sometimes actually under control of the Turkics. But you are wrong it was not the failure of the Sassanid system after Qadisyyah and particularly after Nihanwand as it was the DIRECT result of the final destruction of iranian armies after the universal war of the byzantine-turkics and then the Arab invasiosn against them.
As for battle of Nahavand I say that it's a very good subject to study for the interested.
- Clear defensive stance of Iranians (which shows the strong probabilty of iranians being more less tha Arabs in conrary to the most islamic sources given numbers)
- The indication of the raw recruits from almost city of Iran in islamic sources (which shows indirectly the military shortage of the Iranians in terms of good soldiers)
- The clear mythicized scenes of the battle which actually turned into stories later times
- The indication of the fact by Islamic soucres, that Arabs somehow know that once Iranians are out of their defenisve positions, they could win the day.
By the way I noticed you said somewhere Deylamites changed sides. It is in some narration that Deylamite soldiers in service of Sassanids changed sides in battle of Qadesiya NOT the Deylamites as whole!
First I must commend your mastery in this topic so my hat is up for you!
Second, the Sassanids were weak, but were not a spent force. The Byzantine wars ended for ever before the Arabs ever even united in the Peninsula (in 628). The Turko-Persian war ended a year later. Seeing that the Turks chose the long way around the Caspian to Attack the Sassanids in the Caucasus I think this is evidence that they were too weak for a direct frontal attack in the Khorasan-Mazandran area. However if they did attack during theIslamic conquests there please correct me because I not well versed in that place's history during that period except from what I read about the conquests. Arab invasions started first in 635 and became at full speed in 636.
As for Persians helping Arabs, well it wan't out of charity, it was in their interests, Arab petty kingdoms of Yemen gave them Arabia Felix for free, even a stupid guy knows that this opportunity won't come again. The Petty kingdoms of Yemen were in long struggle with the Northern Arab tribes, Banu Tamim, Bakr Wail, Taghlub etc. and had no problem with the Sassnids who were close and had the might to end the joint Judeo-Ethiopean control on Yemen.
Finally about my note on the Daylams, well as I said before, these were free people, like Bedouins, Berbers other nomadic, semi-nomadic and clan based peoples of the world. They cherished their freedom and only money could insure their loyalty. The Daylams who fought for the Sassanids fought for money not Persian nationalism or freedom from the Arabs (in the political sense). They actually couldn't care less who governed the Iranian plateau. They just wanted money. The defeated Sassanid and their noble allies couldn't afford money but the Arabs could so they joined them. Pure legitimate opportunism.
"Second, the Sassanids were weak, but were not a spent force"
If they weren't a spent or weakened force by extrenal factors, they would have certainly acted differently facing Arabs. some scholars facing this fact suggested that Sassanid armies during a long time battle with Roman armies, adapted the tactics and warfare, which were aimed to work out confronting the Romans; I don't deny this reason, but I do insist these are all minor causes to what really happened, in brief, lack of troops for defending Iran.
If one reads history of the Sassanian from beginning to end, will observe that this was not the first attpemted Arabic invasion in Iran. As there are accounts that during the Turco-persian wars, Iranians used a rather rational policy and made peace with Byzantines, piad off the invading Arabs and proceeded to face the Turks on the northeastern frontiers. the point is before and after Islam Arabs always tried to launch an Invasion of Iran for sake of plunder. though the fact the Islamic government united Arabian tribes to a greater extent. Yet the stories that Arabs never dared or even dreamed of attacking the land of Kasra is fictional story.
"The Byzantine wars ended for ever before the Arabs ever even united in the Peninsula (in 628). The Turko-Persian war ended a year later. Seeing that the Turks chose the long way around the Caspian to Attack the Sassanids in the Caucasus I think this is evidence that they were too weak for a direct frontal attack in the Khorasan-Mazandran area"
In 628 emperor Herakelios after siegeing Ctesipon, signed a favorable treaty on his terms with the new king Kavad II son of the former slain king Xosro II. But even after Byzantine departure there's no account of the full departure of the Turkics and Khazars from Iranian lands in north. But yes why did Heraklios signed the treaty in haste and left his allies? it is could be to many causes; Herakelios was afraid of the byzantine frontiers and even was not quite confident of his allies ( Maybe Yabghu-Khan the Turk khan upon the serious defeat of the Sassanids mostly have his own plans for Iran in the future.). The other reason is the same which acted dramat in the turning point of the war from Sassanids to the Alliance, that was "Shahrvaraz" - one of the commanders of the Sassanian armies in victories over Byzantines in Asia minor - who as result of conflicts commited by Xosrau II revolted and did not attend to the rest of the Sassanian wars against the alliance, continuing seprataely with his notable amount of elite troops in Calcedonia. According to Tabari Shahrvaraz upon his enemity with the king until his death was still present on the Roman soil and we should say his presence was one of the reasons of the Herakelios departure to confront him, as again according to Tabari, Shahrvaraz and his men suffered defeat and the Romans pursued and killed them.
But the scene is not over yet, As soon Yabghu khan had to haste to secure his eastern frontiers and left his son "Buri-Shad" in his place. and again in 628 - the year of most of the changes happened against Sasanids as near as their- after return Yabghu Khan attacked gergia and captured and plundered city of Tiblisi. This time we see the Turkic invasion of Aran or Agvanak more inside the Sassanian lands in the book "Tarikh i Aghvanak". Later in 630 they attacked Armenia. in the clashes between Sassanid sent forces of 10.000 men the truks mangaed to eliminate almost all of the Iranian army. But the sources doesn't give account of no Turkish penetartion deep into Khurasan during the wars of the Alliances mostly in the west. ( As the Sassanids surely had already drawn most of their troops from the east to the west)
So it's not about chosing a long way through Cacausus mountains to be weak! this could have the following reasons:
-They wanted to joing the Byzantines in the siege of Tiblisi.
- Many of the allies of the Turkics were Khazar and Dulu, as for which this way was better.
- No account that the Turks at the same time didn't took advantage of the east.
"However if they did attack during theIslamic conquests there please correct me because I not well versed in that place's history during that period except from what I read about the conquests. Arab invasions started first in 635 and became at full speed in 636"
Now if you note that in 630 there was a serious defeat of the Sassanids at the hand of the Turks in Armenia, it is far from reason that their penetrations and frontier attacks did not last after the year 630 maybe just not documented. And guess what dear reader the Arab invasions already started .In fact there was during the time of Xosro II himself (start of the Byzntine-Turkic Persian wars) a battle fought between a division of Iranian armies and Arabs, in which the division were annihilated ut they didn't take it into account. ( Unfortunately I dont remember the source but i will put it as soon as i remember)
"As for Persians helping Arabs, well it wan't out of charity, it was in their interests, Arab petty kingdoms of Yemen gave them Arabia Felix for free, even a stupid guy knows that this opportunity won't come again. The Petty kingdoms of Yemen were in long struggle with the Northern Arab tribes, Banu Tamim, Bakr Wail, Taghlub etc. and had no problem with the Sassnids who were close and had the might to end the joint Judeo-Ethiopean control on Yemen."
Reading islamic history books like Tabari's or Dinouri's you will notice that in fact Arabs pleaded firstly the romans after their refusal pleaded many times Sassanians until they said yes and dispatched troops to reconquer Yemen. no more saying!
"Finally about my note on the Daylams, well as I said before, these were free people, like Bedouins, Berbers other nomadic, semi-nomadic and clan based peoples of the world. They cherished their freedom and only money could insure their loyalty. The Daylams who fought for the Sassanids fought for money not Persian nationalism or freedom from the Arabs (in the political sense). They actually couldn't care less who governed the Iranian plateau. They just wanted money. The defeated Sassanid and their noble allies couldn't afford money but the Arabs could so they joined them. Pure legitimate opportunism."
I did emphasized that they werent quite subjects to the Sassanids. But fortunately according to accounts like Al-Baladhuri it is obvious that doesn't mean they were ready to accept invaders in Iranian soil, as they shortly after the battle of Nahvand. joined the remainder of Sassanids, people of rayy to fight the Arabs. thus not feeling like to be subjects to the Sassanids they clearly appreciated freedom of Iran. And they did care who goverened Iranian plateau as they were historically related to the Medes tribes. please don't try to impy such theories.
As for opportunism I think they had right to use it. As that was their home and Arabs were simply blood-thursty Invaders. Invasion and defense there's a huge difference between these two.
"The Byzantine wars ended for ever before the Arabs ever even united in the Peninsula (in 628)"
Look at the dates of the first Muslim waging wars on the Ghassani and Byzantines:
battle of Muttah 629
battle of Tabuk 630
conquest of Mecca 630
this shows that even the Muslims hadn't still expand their control over Mecca to the south, it is obvious they were matcless in Arabia and thus its actual rulers, why? the reason why is that they waged two wars to Byzantines and allies before actually conquering Mecca!
So what we have here Byzantine-Turkic vs Sassanid war nominally ended in 628 with Turksstill proceeding further successful attack most notable of them annhilation of teh Sassanid army in Armenia in 630 (plus unkown situaton of the Sassanid control over parts of its huge land of Khurasan at the time).
So I think what you're saying thenceforth is also exactly admission of the Muslim military mights before and after 628.
Mutah came during the truce of Hudaibiyyah between the prophet and Mecca a couple of years before. The Ghassanid king killed the messenger of the prophet so the prophet sent a raiding party that didn't succeed. Meccans took the chance and broke the truce which lead the prophet to conquere the city in the same year (8 AH). Tabuk came when the ghassanids were preparing for a showdown and an invasion into Hijaz. The prophet gathered the army and waited for them at Tabuk but they didn't show because the Byzantines weren't enthusiastic about invading Arabia in summer. That show of force lead most but not all of Arabia (Yemen and Nejd didn't join the prophet) to accept the prophet's authority only to rebel (only the three cities and some nearby tribes didn't rebel) after the prophet died. It took Abu Bakr two years to subdue the tribes all over Arabia (which is larger than both Persian and the Byzantines levant together) and afterwards the conquests started.
"The Ghassanid king killed the messenger of the prophet so the prophet
sent a raiding party that didn't succeed. Meccans took the chance and
broke the truce which lead the prophet to conquere the city in the same
year (8 AH)"
I personally think it wasn't just a raiding party, rather than a punitive expedition to take revenge and subsequently subdue Ghassanids but have you ever asked yourself what it actually represents: - Ghassanids were border buffer state of the Byzantines, so waging war on them was actually waging war on Byzantium itself (I'm not that stupid to neglect this fact). So what would make Muslim newly established state, which had still hadn't expanded it's control over it's inner enemies in the peninsula, wage war on this strong enemy?! yeah I know the army of Byzantines was as big as 200.000 or 100.000 vs. 3000 Muslim Arabs like always (one shouldn't ask him/herself why on earth if it was a minor threat would Herakelios send such a big army or if taking a look at the unstable situations of those days Byzantium could they provide such a big army for a so-called minor threat! possible exaggerations again)
Wasn't that Tabuk which took place in the same year of conquest of Mecca?
By the way when Abu Bakr was so-called busy on Ridda wars the so-called raiding parties of mostly Bedouins were already pillaging without trouble Khwarwran (Iraq and Hira) borders.
Reading those one starts to believe that the power of the muslim state after establishing in Medina was powerful enough to wage wars on foreign neighbours not having subduing its Arab adversaries in Mecca and other places in Arabia.
As for the Jews Beni Quraidhah, well unfortunatly the rules of war during that period in Human history said that allies who betray treaties are killed, it was done by the Romans, Byzantines, Sassanids, Arabs, Mongols, English, French etc. So though brutal as it was, it was the law then and everyone accepted it. Yes it was a terrible fate and many objected especially that forgivness was preferred but it was done. All those who took part in the rebellion were killed and those who did not were not.
Finally for the war with the Byzantines and Sassanid, well they asked for it and got it. The Prophet sent emisseries to the two great ruler and their vassals and they were either humiliated or killed which also during those days was a declaration of war. Even worse, the Persian governer of Yemen, which was under a brutal occupation, was asked to attack muslims which he did not, instead he became muslim and shook of Sassanid authority. Persians have for long humiliated Arabs and ruled them with terror and After the Arabs were victorious in Dhi Qar things were about to change. Early Muslims had far more zeal in the begining to take down the Byzantines because they were far more stronger and war was already being fought before the prophet died.
A final note to you and All people writing history here is that remember, we are talking history. many costums that were accepted 100 years ago are now considered war crimes like deliberate bombing of civilian targets. Back in the early 19th century surrender after heroic resistance was considered honourable and the commander was often rewarded even if his country lost the war but now he is court martialled and might get his head chopped off. Back then collective punishment was accepted if the populace was hostile and were active in resistance nowadays it is a war crime. Do not make the mistake of judging 7th century practices no matter how savage they were with a 21st century meter.
Wrong. The Moslems sent a diplomat not to the Romans but to one of their allied kingdoms. What that kingdom itself did does not act as a pretext of right for the Moslems to attack the Romans.
The reason the Persians fell was because of of the Gokturks and their recent war with the Romans. As nice of a story it is that you are presenting again, it isn't taking seriously by actual historians today. It was an opertunistic conquest, not a made for Hollywood awe and glee celestial campaign.
- Persian humiliated Arabs? how? when? where?!! in the fables? I think it was more Arabian jealousy of the Iranians. No recorded invasion of Arabia by Iranians only defending. let alone that Iranians even accepted the Yemeni Arab request for help to drive out the Habashis!!
- Did the Byzantine, Sassanids ask for it and got it?! Sending emissaries to tell you yield your home or pay a homage tribute if not there will be blood! No wonder cause I know the way Arab Muslims think always thought of the other nations throughout history ( a matter they best preserved in their traditions till now)
- About Persian governour of Yemen it's just a story of his orders to attack muslims. And he certainly did surrender to Islam, cause he wasn't blind and was observing the situation.
"well unfortunatly the rules of war during that period in Human history said that allies who betray treaties are killed, it was done by the Romans, Byzantines, Sassanids, Arabs, Mongols, English, French etc. So though brutal as it was, it was the law then and everyone accepted it"
Oh nice topic "it was done by the others"!, but let me ask you this question: "if it was done by the others, were they preaching a faith claiming to be the last or did they claim that they (romans, Sassanids,.....) had a celestial mission for the mankind during human history so on and still insisting on it????
let's compare this two events with difference of about ten years:
actual capturing of Ctesiphon by Byzantines, much less pillaging (Byzantines)
capturing of Ctesiphon by Arab Muslims claiming to be the saviours, total pillage with no mercy (Arab Muslims)
The long recorded tradition of beheading the prisoners of war to disheart the enemy by Arabs.
Carpathian, this is history and as far as I know political correctness wasn't there when these events were written.
As for the rules of war, well they change and what is accepted in one era is not in the other. All the other peoples who performed such massacres did them well before the Geneva conventions which came to stop such acts but no one can deny that before the conventions these were perfectly legal acts.
I read it and I think my post earlier answered it.
Byzantines didn't have the stomach nor the resources to conquere all Persia. They knew it was more expedient to capture the capital, force a truce for a certain number of years and hope that events later would help them finish the Sassanids once and for all. As it turned out, the Sassanids immediately went into civil conflict changing 11 emprors in some 20 years. Only when Yazdgerd came did peace finally came on the sassanids. By this time Arabs came and wanted Iraq (which comes either Uruk or Sumerian root for lowlands) as well as Khuzestan, the Arabs came to stay. They never had any plans to go beyond the mountains. Arabs have been recorded as being living there for nearly a mellenium and they wanted to clear it from the Persians. What happened is that things changed (Omar famously said "I wish a mountain of fire was between Persia and the Arabs"). When Omar knew that Persians were preparing for a comeback he authorized the Nehavand expedition and a complete conquest for the land.
As for massacres and murder of POWs, it did happen but it was rare. Only few incidents were ever recorded and in any given case POWs could only be killed on the expressed orders of the Caliph and many were not. Instead they bought their freedom.
As for pillaging, well fortunately we have a census ordered by Omar (see Kitab Al-Kharaj by Abu Yusuf) for those paying Jizyah and living in the Sawad of Iraq and Khuzestan. Those were found to be more than 600k able bodied working men. Multiplying by 4 (assuming there were 4 people who didn't pay jizyah for every one who pays it and this is about the standard) we find that Iraq alone from today's Baghdad to the Gulf coast and having the river Karkhah as the boundry between Iraq and Khuzestan had 2.4 million. Iraq at the turn of the last century didn't have that much. And from all this land only a small size was taken and most of those lands were imperial holdings or holdings of the previous Arab rulers, the rest were left for the people with a fixed tax of 10% of the total value of the produce of the land. The local nobility or Duhqans continued to exercise power almost unchallanged all over the conquered lands so hardly any large scale pillaging occured, except for the city of Ctesephon which was natural.
"By this time Arabs came and wanted Iraq (which comes either Uruk or Sumerian root for lowlands) as well as Khuzestan, the Arabs came to stay. They never had any plans to go beyond the mountains. Arabs have been recorded as being living there for nearly a mellenium and they wanted to clear it from the Persians. What happened is that things changed (Omar famously said "I wish a mountain of fire was between Persia and the Arabs"). When Omar knew that Persians were preparing for a comeback he authorized the Nehavand expedition and a complete conquest for the land."
Yes, I have heard that some say the Prophet himself promised Syria, Iraq, Iran and Eygpt to his followers. On the other hand Arabs invasions was always accompanied with pillage and some sort of opportunist migration. ( By the time of early Sassanids there are accounts of the presence of some Arab tribes settled under protectorate of Shahanshah in Kerman province, the very tribes which earlier came for plundering the lands of south Iran).
The interesting is that the saying related to Omar ibn Khattab caliming he wanted only a firewall of some sort could be only a myth. Arabs though not very keen on living in the lands of Iran ( cause the climate of the most of Iran is not so generous), but on pillaging its cities.
Iraq itself wasn't a homeland to Arabs since a millienium but the another semitic people like Babylonian, Akkadian, Assyrian, etc. Arabs presence always marked by migrations from Arabia since ancient times until some 200 years ago in which Arab tribes still were migrating into Khuzestan province and south Iraq.
"As for massacres and murder of POWs, it did happen but it was rare. Only few incidents were ever recorded and in any given case POWs could only be killed on the expressed orders of the Caliph and many were not. Instead they bought their freedom."
Heh, wrong it did happen even without the very order of the Caliph. First I should point out again that if everyone on those times did such slaughters ( which I doubt the other did with harshness of the Arabs), those others than Arabs weren't claiming to be the saviours of the people of the world and have still insisted on the holiness of the conquests, cherish the commanders of the conquest like they live, even to day we live now!
Some example of the slaughters without permission; Abu Musa Al-Ashaari ordered at the siege of Shushtar that Arabs bring forth the Iranian prisoners of the former wars and behead them to intimidate the defenders. (Dinavari, Akhbar Al-Toval).
"As for pillaging, well fortunately we have a census ordered by Omar (see Kitab Al-Kharaj by Abu Yusuf) for those paying Jizyah and living in the Sawad of Iraq and Khuzestan. Those were found to be more than 600k able bodied working men. Multiplying by 4 (assuming there were 4 people who didn't pay jizyah for every one who pays it and this is about the standard) we find that Iraq alone from today's Baghdad to the Gulf coast and having the river Karkhah as the boundry between Iraq and Khuzestan had 2.4 million"
Well we see again that Arabs thought or think that Jiziya is a natural thing and duty of anyone. it's booty after pillaging! the statistics are given variously in most of the islamic sources as well.
"Iraq at the turn of the last century didn't have that much. And from all this land only a small size was taken and most of those lands were imperial holdings or holdings of the previous Arab rulers, the rest were left for the people with a fixed tax of 10% of the total value of the produce of the land. The local nobility or Duhqans continued to exercise power almost unchallanged all over the conquered lands so hardly any large scale pillaging occured, except for the city of Ctesephon which was natural"
Pillagin of the city of Ctesiphon was natural. yeah Arabs needed resources of the capital of the others to be able to fund their further expeditions to spread the faith which of course were costly (so it's natural even today that they sack any place).
Wrong again! see guys! the Dehgans were allowed as long as the Arabs needed them. As you can see after a century they disappear to great extent, e.g. the richest in Parsa province ( the very heartland of Persians) were therefore a Arab chieftain who become like other landlords.
Wrong again as pillaging occured to great extent especially for the case of Iranians, for which Arabs held a great envy for centuries, exampls of which, detailed I will give in the next post.
First about Jizyah. Again and again, this was a tax like any tax. Persians in the conquered areas were not muslims and so didn't fight in the Islamic armies. However if they chose to do so they didn't pay this tax nor if they were living in border areas.
As for pillaging, Arab armies, like all conquering armies, only pillaged conquered cities and from what we know no mass murder happened in the early conquests though it did happen later. Cities that gave in peacefully, like most Syrian and many Iranian cities, faced no pillaging at all in the early conquests except in Damascus and all the confiscated property and enslaved people were freed after that.
As for murdering POWs, again I never said it didn't happen, it did but it wasn't wide spread and was only on the express orders of the Caliph. For the case that you gave, Tustur settled peacefully then rebelled that is why some POWs were killed and the city pillaged, but another source, Futuh Al-Buldan says that all those enslaved were later freed on the orders of Omar and returned to their homes.
Finally for the Duhqans, their power was reduced well after the conquest. After the conquest they were badly needed to administer the conquered areas and had excessive powers. After the Arabisation of administration by the time of Abdul-Malik he decided to strip them from such powers gradually. Sawad was settled and local government strengthened. Courts were established at the Kurah or county level and the need for the Duhqans was all but ended by the time of the Abbasids.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum