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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Heraclius

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Heraclius
    Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 08:26
Originally posted by Unknown

Roman - Byzantine Empires brought not only peace but also helped people living into those isolated and underdevelop areas to become humans in terms of education, trade and etc.

Al Jassas you justified the imperialistic nature of Islam, it wanted to conquer the world. North Africa and Levent were some of the most advanced Byzantine territories, with lot of freedoms, people were getting education, they could speak Greek and Romans, they could write, they had freedoms. So who started the war? There was not a single arab into those areas, North Africa had a mix of local tribes, Berbders, Carthaginians, Vandals (who were a German tribe) Greeks, Romans and Jews and Levent had Assyrians mixed also with Romans, Armenians, Local tribes and Greeks. I wonder what the heck Arabs were doing in North Africa, Levent, and even to SPAIN and how all those nations living in the areas occupied from Islam dissapeared into few years (Shall i use the g-word?). Those areas were quite advanced and had nothing to do with the recked and "below the poverty line" areas that Islam created.

Is there any justification for invading and occupying Levent, North Africa, Asia Minor and even Spain since there was not a single arab there?


 
Your ignorance amazes me...
Roman Empire helped the people become human? I did not know they had divine powers. The Roman Empire had been as oppressive as any of late antiquity. I can see Cyrus' human rights grant as something more glorious. Roman citizenship surely brought some benefits, but the people brought under its fold did not all recieve it within their childrens lifetimes even, up until Caracalla at least.
 
 
 
 
The Byzantines offered freedoms in the Levant in the 600s Unhappy. Silly the Monophysites and Copts were persecuted and murdered due to their deviation from official Orthodoxy, not to mention that they handed over and welcomed in a lot of cases the Arab armies who brought freedom of religion something that had not been a feature of Byzantium at the moment.
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 08:27
Originally posted by Unknown

Is there any justification for invading and occupying Levent, North Africa, Asia Minor and even Spain since there was not a single arab there?


 
Was there any justification for the Romans to conquer all these territories should they not have been returned to the previous peoples and states?
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: 28-Nov-2007 at 08:53
Hello to you all
 
First of all I did not mean that the people deserve what they got, I meant that the tax you have to pay when things such as I said happen was war, and you either win the war or you lose it, the Byzantines lost the war and the levant became Islamic territory. Byzantines tried and succeeded in retaking some of the place in central anatolia the malatya and Maras, peace came and then war and they lost those territories againg. Its war, you reap what you saw.
 
As for you unknown, I must admit you never cease to amaze me, man we are talking about the 7th century not the 20th century, there were no human rights, developement of the savage nations or economic relief. People of the levant went from slavery for their own ruler, and in many city states from absolute freedom, to servitude. The last people in the world you can call tolerant or freedom loving were the romans who massacred every one who challanged Pax Romana not only militarilay but culturally or have you forgotten about Nero and co. The people of the levant were civilised before Rome came and they continued to be civilised after it. I can dare say that most institutions that Rome ever claim were started by those "underdeveloped" nations. Aristotles praised Cathage and its institutions saying it had the best constitution in the world and that was before Rome was even on the map. What did the "humane" Romans did after conquering them, read Livy and you will find how much "humanity" they gave to carthage.
 
Islam is a religion, and abstract idea, not an institution, it is people that do good or bad things in its name, some Islamic empires were good and some were terrible.
 
You need to rid your self of westers graeco-roman ego-centristic supremecy and read history as it is, the world did not start in Athens and will not end there.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943
  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 12:41
Originally posted by Al Jassas

First of all I did not mean that the people deserve what they got, I meant that the tax you have to pay when things such as I said happen was war, and you either win the war or you lose it, the Byzantines lost the war and the levant became Islamic territory. Byzantines tried and succeeded in retaking some of the place in central anatolia the malatya and Maras, peace came and then war and they lost those territories againg. Its war, you reap what you saw.
 
Yes, don't take it the wrong way. It's just that the word "deserved" implies a certain rigtheousness on the aggressor's part, like how a murderer deserves to be put in prison. Losing a war however does not mean you deserve the wrath of your conquerors, even if that is what you get.
 
Originally posted by Unknown

Roman - Byzantine Empires brought not only peace but also helped people living into those isolated and underdevelop areas to become humans in terms of education, trade and etc.
 
This is only true for the favoured classes of the Empire, who constituted a significant minority (estimates vary but we're talking 10-20%). The average inhabitant of the Roman Empire was an uneducated, illiterate peasant who existed at a subsistence minimum.  

Originally posted by Unknown

Al Jassas you justified the imperialistic nature of Islam, it wanted to conquer the world. North Africa and Levent were some of the most advanced Byzantine territories [...]Those areas were quite advanced and had nothing to do with the recked and "below the poverty line" areas that Islam created.
 
You can't draw a direct line from the Arab conquests in the 7th century to the present situation in the Arab world. Yes, North Africa and the Levant were relatively advanced areas of the Roman Empire, and they continued to be so under the Caliphates. These regions did not "become" backwards until modern times, when Europe raced ahead with its industrialisation. I'd argue there was no regression in the Arab world itself, but there was progress in the outside world which it fell behind.

Originally posted by Unknown

Is there any justification for invading and occupying Levent, North Africa, Asia Minor and even Spain since there was not a single arab there?
 
This simply isn't true. There were many Arabs in the Roman Empire; there were two Arab emperors even, and at Yarmuk part of the Roman army consisted of Arabs.
Back to Top
Leonardo View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 778
  Quote Leonardo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 13:21
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all
 
First of all I did not mean that the people deserve what they got, I meant that the tax you have to pay when things such as I said happen was war, and you either win the war or you lose it, the Byzantines lost the war and the levant became Islamic territory. Byzantines tried and succeeded in retaking some of the place in central anatolia the malatya and Maras, peace came and then war and they lost those territories againg. Its war, you reap what you saw.
 
As for you unknown, I must admit you never cease to amaze me, man we are talking about the 7th century not the 20th century, there were no human rights, developement of the savage nations or economic relief. People of the levant went from slavery for their own ruler, and in many city states from absolute freedom, to servitude. The last people in the world you can call tolerant or freedom loving were the romans who massacred every one who challanged Pax Romana not only militarilay but culturally or have you forgotten about Nero and co. The people of the levant were civilised before Rome came and they continued to be civilised after it. I can dare say that most institutions that Rome ever claim were started by those "underdeveloped" nations. Aristotles praised Cathage and its institutions saying it had the best constitution in the world and that was before Rome was even on the map. What did the "humane" Romans did after conquering them, read Livy and you will find how much "humanity" they gave to carthage.
 
Islam is a religion, and abstract idea, not an institution, it is people that do good or bad things in its name, some Islamic empires were good and some were terrible.
 
You need to rid your self of westers graeco-roman ego-centristic supremecy and read history as it is, the world did not start in Athens and will not end there.
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
Your biased "view" of Roman history confirm me that we have nothing, absolutely nothing, in common, and this pleases me. Thank you very much for remembering it to me onother time.
 
 
 
 


Edited by Leonardo - 28-Nov-2007 at 13:50
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 14:17
I would like to ask everyone in the thread to stick to discussing the topic and providing evidence, rather than resorting to attacking the other person. We have some of our smartest members contributing to this thread and it would be a credit to everyone if we could continue to discuss things politely and without personal attacks.
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
  Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 14:24
On the issue of freedom, the Roman Empire, and religious issues, there is plenty to be said.

Firstly, the Late Roman state was very oppressive regarding religion. However I find it hypocritical that Muhammad demand Heraclius allow the worship of Islam in Byzantine lands when Muhammad himself was intolerant enough to smash all the pagan idols when he entered Mecca.

On the issue of being part of Rome, Rome was a franchise. Being a part of Rome came with advantages and disadvantages. Early in the Empire, the provinces surrendered a certain amount of autonomy and freedom but also gained a good defence force, relative peace, large scale public works, and some access to the benefits of Roman urban culture. As the Empire aged it failed to progress in many ways - the disadvantages increased and the advantages decreased. In the case of the Late Roman Near East the benefits of bearable taxation, religious tolerance, and effective defence had been hugely compromised by the time of Islam's arrival. Compared to Byzantium, Islam offered these benefits once again in greater abundance for a time. To say Rome was either bad or good is itself in error, Rome's ability to provide benefits to its provinces varied over the lifetime of the Empire.
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: 28-Nov-2007 at 14:46
Hello constantine
 
I admit that the post above did have several grave generalizations but what I protested is inserting concepts of a modern era, namely the so called "war on Terror" into a historical debate about a time when such notions did not exist. Mr. Unknown transforms Rome into a modern day US that fights for freedom and justice and is surrounded by Barbarians who hate for its freedom, doesn't this remind you of some one?, which is nonsense.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 17:36
Such an intriguing thread that I felt compelled to have a say.
 
Regarding the Arab invasions, a void was left in Syria after the Byzantine-Persian wars at the time of Hercalius. When the Byzantines did assert control after her middle eastern lands it was nominal. The border guards were often made up of local Arabs themselves. Thus a void of sorts. Then it was to face the Arab incursions.
 
Yes the Monophysites or Copts  tended to accept Islamic dominance over Byzantine rule since it was less of schism (levantine versus Greco-Roman lifestyles as well) and were promised better tolerance. Even though Heraclius did consider the benefits of Islam himself it was not a pragmatic thing to do and he surely was met with skepticism and repulsion by his court over it (according to Arab sources). The thing is that he wanted unity over his Christian subjects. That was elusive. His middle eastern subjects did welcome the Arabs though, especially after the battle of Yarmuk.
 
Now for a couple of arguementative corrections.
 
Originally posted by ConstantineXI

 
Firstly, the Late Roman state was very oppressive regarding religion. However I find it hypocritical that Muhammad demand Heraclius allow the worship of Islam in Byzantine lands when Muhammad himself was intolerant enough to smash all the pagan idols when he entered Mecca.
 
Looking back into the past is frought with a risky bit of judgmentalism. This may be one of those instances where asserting common sense in order to learn about the past is difficult. Muhammad certainly did smash the 360 idols at the Kabah. Especially the cult of Hubal - the moon god. The prophet was a monotheist. He spent his adult life after the age of 40 as a start up whose opposers were pagans or polytheists themselves. After the return to Mecca in full force of ten thousand believers, his own opposing tribes were met with non-violence even though the muslims had the upper hand. One of his first duties was to reclaim the Kabah as a house of worship for monotheists. A house believed to have been first built by Adam and rebuilt many times over since then. Rights of passage were taught to Arabraham at this house as well. At Muhammad's arrival there would be no false idol worship but a return to the purity of his ancesters dedication. 
 
Believers were taught that idols of any kind would corrupt and hence have no power of their own other than the power people give them in their hearts and minds. Worship would be dedicated to the one God only. I see no problem with this line of thought. Even in our current politically correct attempts at seeking the varacity of good versus evil, some measures to maintain monotheism were needed by active demonstration. The least thing he was, was a hypocrite though. Instead, Muhammad was definately true to his word.
 
In comparison, wasn't it Jesus who went on a rampage in the Temple over his disagreements with the money exchangers? You may think that is hypocritical of his peaceful nature as well. But that is just more political shaping spoken by modern man. Jesus was a monotheist and had no desire for hypocrisy as he showed his displeasure with those priests who bartered in religion and currency exchange in order to make financial gains in a house dedicated to worhsip.
 
Originally posted by Unknown

On the other hand, it may be the brutality of Mohhamend and his followers that turned many arab christians into the cult of islam. They were scared from the atrocities of Mo, while the pensila was not well funded from Heraclios. Mo has asked Herclios to turned into islam but of course he denied...
 
and
 
Islam, it wanted to conquer the world. North Africa and Levent were some of the most advanced Byzantine territories, with lot of freedoms, people were getting education, they could speak Greek and Romans, they could write, they had freedoms. So who started the war? There was not a single arab into those areas, North Africa had a mix of local tribes, Berbders, Carthaginians, Vandals (who were a German tribe) Greeks, Romans and Jews and Levent had Assyrians mixed also with Romans, Armenians, Local tribes and Greeks. I wonder what the heck Arabs were doing in North Africa, Levent, and even to SPAIN and how all those nations living in the areas occupied from Islam dissapeared into few years (Shall i use the g-word?). Those areas were quite advanced and had nothing to do with the recked and "below the poverty line" areas that Islam created.
 
This is only a sample of your immature, idiotic and insultive attempts at beautifying your historical affinity at the cost of denigrating an opposing religion. For every deisred praise upon your dearly beloved Byzantines also exists the opposite examples of extremes. Back in those days educated masses was a misnomer. Rarely more than 15 percent of the population would know how to read or write. All of those ethnicities mentioned also were conquered peoples. By whom before the Arabs? Oh dear, the Byzantines perhaps? With no wars either? Please, spare us the baloney and over-glorification.
 
Cult-      /kʌlt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
 
 In your disrespect of Islam you called it a cult. According to the deifnition above it certainly has rites and passages. Veneration of it's leader and has sacred idiologies. Yet to the adherents it isn't a cast off nor unorthodox. If so then so is every other major religion of the world.
 
Word of advice. Stick to the topic about Heraclius and his contemporaries. Your personal bias is your own displeasure. Don't make it ours.
 
Regarding Herclius, I wonder if he even met Muhammad. I don't think so. He may have had letters of correspondence though. He did not fight against him but against Omar and Khalid. After Yarmuk Heraclius did not personally defend Jerusalem, where he once proudly paraded the True Cross.
 
 


Edited by Seko - 28-Nov-2007 at 17:59
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 19:19

Yes, it is a very interesting exchange of communications. I believe, however, that we would be naive to assume that Arab biases arent included. Now, this is not to say that such things listed therein arent true, or a partial version of the truth. The exchahge doesnt seem at all to contradict what we know of Heraclius. He was diplomatically wise so his courtesy shouldnt at all seem out of place.

Having said that I think we all can agree of how absurd of a request that was sent his way. After all he was at present struggling with other heresies(Islam was viewed in the same light) in his empire.

Also in so far as Heraclius' questioning goes, there was a question of apostates. Specifically questioning if Abu Sufyan knew of any such who have turned away from Islam. Abu Sufyan's reply was that of a negative however he had a son-in-law by the name of Ubaidullah b. Jash who married his daughter and migrated to Abyssinia and adopted Christianity and died a Christian. How Sufyan himself had no knowledge of this seems odd to me. Either way this could possibly be seen as proof of some of the biases that are held within this written tradition.

 
"Ubaydullah went on searching until Islam came; then he migrated with the Muslims to Abyssinia taking with thim his wifewho was a Muslim, Umm Habiba, d. Abu Sufyan. When he arrived there he adopted Christianity, parted from Islam, and died a Christian in Abyssinia.
(Ibn Ishaq, tr. Guillaume, 1967, p.99)
 


Edited by arch.buff - 28-Nov-2007 at 19:24
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
DuxSyargius View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 04-Dec-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote DuxSyargius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 19:46

I am a Johnny-come-lately to this thread, but whay not right?  I am surprised that some very important points did not get mentioned when discussing the Arab conquest over Byzantium:

The plagues of the 6th century were still affecting the Byzantines during the 630s.  Less soldiers, less money, less effective govt.

Mounted nomadic armies were usually more effective against sedentary civilizations.  The fact that the Byzantines did not have the support over the Levant was a "force multiplier" for the Arabs.  Even if they did defeat an Arab Razzia, it was hard to hold on to the territory in question when the local populace doesnt really care for you.

The immediate successors of Muhhammad were obedient and noble.  We are talking about a very young civilization here (Islamic, not Arab).  Kind of how Rome was during the Punic wars:  selfless acts, honor, courage....  Byzantium was in essence "born old".  It was born with all of the decadence that comes with a civilization that has been around for millenia.  Disagree?  Notice the Byzantine resurgance coincides with the fragmentation of the Abbasid caliphate and its adoption of Persian habits.
 
The most important (IMHO) fact that was not mentioned is the key difference between Arab nomads and say, the Avars:  Islam.  Now, I am only going to speak of the secular impact of Islam, but it was one hell of a tool for an invader!  It was very similar to Christianity for one and it certainly appealed to those who wanted to remain Christians:  you just pay a tax and that is pretty much it.  You can be as heretical as you want!  How many invaders offered such a sweet deal during this era?  A good example was the collapse of Roman Gaul in the 5th century.  If you had the choice between slaving away on an estate for a Senator living in Rome (who didnt offer much guarantees of protection) or the Goths who exploited you the same way but were there in the area protecting you, which would you choose?  I think the average Egyptian or Syrian could have cared less about who ruled over them a that point.  This is my opinion but I think many would agree that most Christians during this era were more concerned with the after life rather than what was going on in the here and now.  Suffering under the Muslim yoke but remaining Christian surely meant salvation in the end.  Good for the soul but bad for any Empire.  In short, the Arabs had an answer for most of Byzatium's weaknesses.
 
As for Heraclius, he was a great man indeed.  Concerned, patient, intelligent, and courageous.  It was just bad timing for him.  But he did lay the foundation for a more defensive empire that stood the test of time while so many other civilizations didnt.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 02:02
For a western source on the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, read the Chronicon Pasachale  written anonymously it ends in 628 when the author must have died but it gives details of the first 18 years of his reign.
 
Liverpool University press has published an english translation it covers the years 284-628 briefly but gives details on Heraclius
 


Edited by vibo - 17-Dec-2007 at 02:03
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 05:26
I don't see how it has Arab biases, in fact the absence of bias is what leads me to believe in its veracity, especially when we consider Herculius would very soon become the "enemy", be far more useful from a propaganda point of view at least; to portray him insulting the bearer, tearing up the letter etc.
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566
  Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 18:07
Originally posted by DuxSyargius

.
 
The most important (IMHO) fact that was not mentioned is the key difference between Arab nomads and say, the Avars:  Islam.  Now, I am only going to speak of the secular impact of Islam, but it was one hell of a tool for an invader!  It was very similar to Christianity for one and it certainly appealed to those who wanted to remain Christians:  you just pay a tax and that is pretty much it.  You can be as heretical as you want!  How many invaders offered such a sweet deal during this era?  A good example was the collapse of Roman Gaul in the 5th century.  If you had the choice between slaving away on an estate for a Senator living in Rome (who didnt offer much guarantees of protection) or the Goths who exploited you the same way but were there in the area protecting you, which would you choose?  I think the average Egyptian or Syrian could have cared less about who ruled over them a that point.  This is my opinion but I think many would agree that most Christians during this era were more concerned with the after life rather than what was going on in the here and now.  Suffering under the Muslim yoke but remaining Christian surely meant salvation in the end.  Good for the soul but bad for any Empire.  In short, the Arabs had an answer for most of Byzatium's weaknesses.


Add the fact that Islam is much less complicated than Christianity with it's Holy Triads etc which are complicated even for an educated person ( personally I have difficulty to understand how exactly it's one God), much more for the average Syrian or Egyptian farmer
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 19:31
Originally posted by Sparten

I don't see how it has Arab biases, in fact the absence of bias is what leads me to believe in its veracity, especially when we consider Herculius would very soon become the "enemy", be far more useful from a propaganda point of view at least; to portray him insulting the bearer, tearing up the letter etc.
 
Well I cant say I agree with you in regards to biases held within the document, for reasons that I have listed above. Also, you say that the document takes special care to sidestep propaganda. However, could not one see it the exact opposite way? For instance, instead of demonizing the great Christian Emperor would it not be wise to show instead that the Christian leader respects, and not insults, the true faith, Islam.
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 19:33
Originally posted by Vorian

Originally posted by DuxSyargius

.
 
The most important (IMHO) fact that was not mentioned is the key difference between Arab nomads and say, the Avars:  Islam.  Now, I am only going to speak of the secular impact of Islam, but it was one hell of a tool for an invader!  It was very similar to Christianity for one and it certainly appealed to those who wanted to remain Christians:  you just pay a tax and that is pretty much it.  You can be as heretical as you want!  How many invaders offered such a sweet deal during this era?  A good example was the collapse of Roman Gaul in the 5th century.  If you had the choice between slaving away on an estate for a Senator living in Rome (who didnt offer much guarantees of protection) or the Goths who exploited you the same way but were there in the area protecting you, which would you choose?  I think the average Egyptian or Syrian could have cared less about who ruled over them a that point.  This is my opinion but I think many would agree that most Christians during this era were more concerned with the after life rather than what was going on in the here and now.  Suffering under the Muslim yoke but remaining Christian surely meant salvation in the end.  Good for the soul but bad for any Empire.  In short, the Arabs had an answer for most of Byzatium's weaknesses.


Add the fact that Islam is much less complicated than Christianity with it's Holy Triads etc which are complicated even for an educated person ( personally I have difficulty to understand how exactly it's one God), much more for the average Syrian or Egyptian farmer
 
This is a very true statement Vorian, and I completely agree.
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 22:43
Originally posted by Constantine XI

On the issue of freedom, the Roman Empire, and religious issues, there is plenty to be said.

Firstly, the Late Roman state was very oppressive regarding religion. However I find it hypocritical that Muhammad demand Heraclius allow the worship of Islam in Byzantine lands when Muhammad himself was intolerant enough to smash all the pagan idols when he entered Mecca.
The difference being the idols were pagan symbols, not Judeo-Christian ones, therefore not worthy of toleration. Also it was a symbolic act of uniting disparate groups locked in perpetual vendettas. As opposed to a brief time when Christians and Old Faithers co-existed in power, by this time the latter had been banned from public offices.
Originally posted by Constantine XI

On the issue of being part of Rome, Rome was a franchise. Being a part of Rome came with advantages and disadvantages. Early in the Empire, the provinces surrendered a certain amount of autonomy and freedom but also gained a good defence force, relative peace, large scale public works, and some access to the benefits of Roman urban culture. As the Empire aged it failed to progress in many ways - the disadvantages increased and the advantages decreased. In the case of the Late Roman Near East the benefits of bearable taxation, religious tolerance, and effective defence had been hugely compromised by the time of Islam's arrival. Compared to Byzantium, Islam offered these benefits once again in greater abundance for a time. To say Rome was either bad or good is itself in error, Rome's ability to provide benefits to its provinces varied over the lifetime of the Empire.
Agreed. Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniana of 212 had extended citizenship to all freeborn of the Empire, though state sponsored Christianity had put a damper on tolerance, in the Levant there was the complication of an urban Hellenic minority and largely rural Semitic populace of differing faiths. Persecuted by the Rhomaioi, the Jews had welcomed the Sassanids, and for almost a generation lived under their protection. When Heraklios reincorporated the lost provinces, this group was under suspicion and persecution, especially with the requirement to convert to Christianity, so they went over to the Muslims during the invasion.
 
It wasn't an invasion, so much as a series of escalating raids. Towns were one and lost and campaigns revolving around precious water sources, had Yarmuk been a Roman victory or a draw there wouldn't have been a drastic change in the situation. A consolidation of the Caliphate in Baghdad and in former Sassanid lands, still schismatic division between Sunni and Shia and a seesaw struggle.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

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 0.109 seconds.