Heraclius
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22325
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 03:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Heraclius
Posted By: Adalwolf
Subject: Heraclius
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 02:48
|
The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius was one of the greatest Emperor's in Roman or Byzantine history. His reorganized the army, and personally led it into the field in a counter-attack against the Sassanids. He personally defeated a Sassanid general in battle! His campaign was the deathblow to the Sassanids, who were throughly drained from the war. The Arabs soon after defeated and replaced the Sassanids, and soon after that took over most of the lands Heraclius had relcaimed. I have not found much information on how the Arab armies defeated Heraclius's armies. Were the Byzantines outnumbered? Ill-led? (heraclius didn't take the field against the Arabs. he may have been too old) Or were the Arabs simply better led and out-fought/out-smarted the Byzantines? Any help would be appreciated. Also, what is your opinion of Heraclius and his deeds? ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Replies:
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 04:49
Well, I know you'll get some responses here. One reason was the arab leadership. khalid ibn al-walid was one of the greatest generals of the medieval era. The size of the opposing forces was rather great it seems. Now I don't believe most of the sources saying the byzantine army was 200,000- that was larger than the entire army of Justinian. At most I would believe 100,000. The arabs probably had at most 50,000. There is a wiki article that is pretty detailed. So basically, the arabs were better led. There are several strategical reasons that can be said accounted or set up the defeat but I'll let someone like BE or Heraclius explain those.
Edit: I got a bit carried away, some modern estimates place the size of Justinian's army at 300,000 or so. I forgot to add this, I simply think that is high, considering Justinian ruled over an empire much smaller than that of the emperors of old whose army was in that area. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 05:22
|
Hm. As I recall, that wikipedia article was written almost exclusively from an Arab propagandist's point of view (at least it was the last time I saw it...hmm...two months ago?). Detailed? Yes. Misrepresentative? Extremely.
Incidentally, I may have a bit to post here later.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 05:30
|
Ditto. I read that article about Herakleios, and also some about Byzantine-Sassanid-Muslim battles - and you are spot on about them. Contrary to popular belief, Herakleios was not present in the campaigns with Khalid. He was an ill, old man, who remained in Constantinople. The Byzantine and Sassanid Generals were not of the highest quality, and they were up against a giant among the generals world - Khalid ibn al Whalid. He was a genius on the battlefield, Yarmouk being a sound exemplification of his skill. So yes, the Byzantines and Sassanids were out-witted by him. Though quite good, the "Muslim" (I will use this term if that's OK) soldiers weren't spectacular. Nor were the Byzantines, Sassanids or their allies, in general. Of course there are exceptions. Khalid conquered the Sassanids and retook much of Herakleios's territory, which he had spent so many years retaking. In fact, he thought God had placed a curse on him. If Herakleios hadn't have been so down and ill at the time of Khalid's campaigns - who knows how things might have turned out, both in the war, and for Islam. - Knights - PS. I'm with Ako - future posting on this topic is pretty much inevitable...  ------------- |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 11:15
|
gentlemen let me begin by stating my agreement in regards to the military genius of both Heraclius and Khalid Ibn Al Walid. For now I would merely like to add the role of timing, motivation and chance in the conflict. It should be noted that the Arab invasions of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires occurred soon (relatively speaking) after Heraclius's eventual victory over the Sassanids with both empires exhausted from the colossal clash (this can not be blamed on Heraclius as he tried to make peace multiple times with generous terms prior to the battle of Nineveh). Hence both empires were drained of resources. Secondly there is the positive impact on morale that the new religion of Islam and there recent unification of the majority of the Arabs had on their morale. Then there's the effect constant warfare and religious conflict and divisions had on the exhausted Byzantine's morale (hint: not good). On a final note a sandstorm that supposedly blew up in the faces of the Byzantine army at Yarmouk which greatly aided the much smaller and Brilliantly led Arab army. These are contributing factors of importance to the Arab conquest nevertheless I believe they could not have achieved what they did without superior leadership which is exactly what they had due to to the abscence of Heraclius and the presence of Khalid. Regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 12:01
|
Thanks for the info. I need to read more about Khalid!
------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 15:44
|
Hello to you all
I have posted earlier an opinion that saying the Byzantines were exhausted was not true for various reasons.
The tide of Arab conquests was obvious in coming, it was the speed and determination that surprised the Byzantines. Hostilities began when a messenger for the prophet was killed by the Ghassanid vassals and this action was condoned by their Byzantine masters. Arabs sent several campaigns against the Ghassanids and they were intending on sending more and they did. The Byzatines had almost 10 years of total peace 5 of them on the constant threat of an Arab invasion and when it came they were prepared. Remember, Khalid routed 3 large Byzantine-Ghassanid armies other than in Yarmouk with basically the same army. He reached as far as Hims (Emessa) after conquering Damascus the year before Yarmouk and when the Byzantine counter attacked, he abandoned every major city except Damascus and masterfully lured the Byzantine to a pitched battle in Yarmouk besieging them in the valley and preventing them from water.
Heraclius was always thought to be a very wise and great man by the Arabs and they had much respect for him especially after his victory against the Persians. Arab traditions maintain that Heraclius admitted that Islam was the true religion and that the prophet a true one but he refused fearing the loss of his power. One Arab historian devoted a whole chapter for him in his great book about the Byzantines that I used to have but sadly was torn apart by one of my very young cousins 7 years ago.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 16:49
The best resource? The book "Sword of Allah".
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Oct-2007 at 17:54
|
In these early days I would rather use the term Arab soldiers over Muslim, because while the higher leadership were all Muslim at least publicly there were many Christian tribes- Arab ones that is that contributed soldiers to the armies of the early Caliphate who partook in battle and booty. They were all still bound by long standing Arab tribal notions of alliances. Source, Hodgson Venture of Islam Vol I. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 01:31
Its not just Arab traditions, its a confirmed Hadies:
------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 01:44
|
What is the nature of this source? You will forgive me if I dismiss it out of hand; it doesn't seem at all likely in light of the life and times of Heraclius. -Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 02:04
|
I have more to say on Heraclius personally later, but I agree that the
above text on Heraclius seems like wishful thinking. It is nearly
impossible to believe that a Byzantine Emperor like Heraclius, an
astute politician at that, would take up an obscure Bedouin heresy. If
he were going to become a heretic (and he never wavered from the
Orthodox fold, evident during the Monothelite compromise), he may as
well have become Monophysite. The staunch Orthodoxy of the man never wavered. Not in all the years when the Monophysite provinces fell away to the Sassanids, nor when the True Cross was taken by Chosroes, nor when the Sassanids were encamped as Chalcedon. In the bleakest of times he always remained an Orthodox Emperor. To suddenly reject all that during the easiest years of his reign is rather unbelievable. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 04:52
|
Your forgetting that he didn't reject it. He died an Orthodox Christian. The Sahih Bukhari is one of the most reliable compilations of Hadiths. Without going into the explanations of Hadith sciences (you can write whole books on the issue), in order for it to be admitted into the Sahih Bukhari it has to be an event that has numerous eyewitnesses, with excellent memory, and a very similar recollection. It is therefore very likely the event described happened. There are multiple different Hadiths in the Sahih Bukhari which refer to that event. A search for the name 'Heraclius' turns up the following results: http://www.usc.edu/cgi-bin/msasearch - http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/001.sbt.html#001.001.006 - 001.001.006 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.048 - 001.002.048 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/048.sbt.html#003.048.846 - 003.048.846 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.060 - 004.052.060 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.191 - 004.052.191 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.221 - 004.052.221 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.399 - 004.053.399 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.075 - 006.060.075 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/073.sbt.html#008.073.010 - 008.073.010 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/074.sbt.html#008.074.277 - 008.074.277 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.304 - 009.089.304 ------------- |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 07:37
How an intelligent person could believe this BS? It's pure wishful thinking and self delusion.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 08:26
|
Why do I get the feeling your rejecting the source not because you know anything about its authenticity (because you surely don't) but because you don't like what it contains? Weighing up the opinions of a few Christians with ruffled feathers, and a historical eyewitness source backed up by transparent and often revised historiography*, of course I choose the latter. Unless someone can shed doubt on the authenticity of that particular hadith. There isn't anything even extraordinary in there. Heraclius received a letter from the Prophet, and this is the eyewitness report of those who delivered it. So he was sympathetic to Islam, what do you care? If you can take the fact that most of his compatriots converted to Islam within the next 150 years, surely you can take the fact that Heraclius didn't. *see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography#Islamic_world - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography#Islamic_world ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 10:21
|
Its just a letter sent. And he was courteus in reply. It dose not say he converted or anything, just that as Omer said, he was sympathetic. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 13:21
It's only your islamic religious bigotry that prevent you to understand how ridicoluos are those claims.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 14:01
|
"Islamic religious bigotry" ? I don't know, you display bigotry on a continuous basis, and here it goes again. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 14:34
I think, Omar, that the initial phrasing is what led to such a vehement denial. The issue was initially put to us as a situation wherein Heraclius "admitted that Islam was the true religion," which is untenable. That he may have been sympathetic seems like it may be in character with the rest of what we know of Heraclius; the general picture of Heraclius that emerges, with regard to the advent of Islam, is of a man who didn't fully understand the nature of the controversy. That said, the initial phrasing--and it was not your phrasing, nor do I think it was intentionally misleading--would lead us to believe a bit more.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 16:05
|
Nobody is claiming that he was a "closet" muslim. Just that his reply was rather courteous and one of a man who clearly wanted to learn more. ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 20:09
|
Hmm, that is an interesting account nonetheless. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Oct-2007 at 21:08
Exactly. His courteous response does not deem him a Muslim, nor does it make it "false," or "Islamic bigotry." It certainly may have happened that way that he had been given to reply rather courteously. Now as far as him proclaiming the true religion or not that can be also inserted by a forgivable bias of the eyewitness accounts who just like their Christian counterparts would have been given to be more in favor of their own religious view than the other. Either way I do not see it as very unlikely that such a courteous response would have been given. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 07:49
|
I read through the entire thing again. The first time I read it I was
under the impression he was swayed by Islam, but the second read
dispelled this thought. The account in many ways appears very authentic, especially the part where Heraclius tests his court's faith in that little false command. For some reason that part struck me as especially authentic. I think the authors may have indulged slightly with regards to the "foreseeing" that Heraclius did, and identification of the Arabs as the new conquerors. While not an impossibility, I find it suspicious as it smacks of Arab attempts to gain credibility for their expansion subsequently by associating these with "prophecies" by their first great enemy. The accommodating and courteous nature of the reply is totally typical of Byzantine diplomatic protocol. While I don't think Heraclius would be "sympathetic" to heretical beliefs (as that is the only way a Byzantine Emperor could view Islam), it does look perfectly feasible that he would want to be polite and promote cordial relations (while he also gains useful intelligence, as the account shows him doing). ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 08:00
|
Sahih al-Bukhari was a 9th century Muslim author, hence he wrote his accounts 2 centuries after Heraclius's lifetime. Also the hadith is basically oral tradition until the moment when it was written down, therefore it was rightfully labeled as "tradition". In Western histriographies such an account is often considered unreliable or at least it's wise not too trust it too much. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 08:07
|
Sahih Bukhari collected accounts, he did not record them. He is no more unreliable than herodotus. Also Sahih Bukhari is not the only one, it exists in multiple places, including a biography of Muhammad written shortly acfter his life time. Secondly, why would they write that as propaganda. Herculius would shortly become the main enemy of islam, having him kill the messenger in a fit of anger would be far more useful as a propaganda tool then what is actually related. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 09:03
|
Herodotus is considered unreliable for many of his claims, and especially when it's about details and their accuracy. Generally the larger the distance between an author and the things he described (in time, in space, in the number of people involved in retelling), the more inaccurate the source is. Imagine a dialogue of the length of the one mentioned here how much would change after being retold tens of times until it was written.
Is there any contemporary account (preferably of a eye-witness)? Is this account confirmed by an independent contemporary testimony(a Byzantine one, for instance)? These are key questions in estabilishing a source being of high reliability.
Please note I am not discussing about propaganda, simply about the inaccuracy of the oral tradition.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 09:56
|
@Constantine: I would completely agree with your analysis in the last post. Also, as the narrator is an Arab, he may have interpreted/been fooled into thinking Herclius was more pro-Arab than he really was. (Note that Abu Sufian was not a muslim at the time of the story, but was before his death) @Chilbudios: Your correct in pointing out that al-Bukhari wrote his book 2 centuries after the event, but you shouldn't discount the oral tradition of those centuries, or the work that has already been done by Bukhari and all previous and subsequent Hadith scientists in identifying which have been distorted by oral transmission. As the lifetime of the prophet was known to be of historical and religious importance, a huge amount of emphasis was placed on keeping that history accurate. Your not talking about legends transmitted from grandfather to grandson, your talking about transmission from scholar to scholar in the university. USC doesn't have the Isnad (chain of narrators) on its website, so I can't tell you how many transmissions it went through, typically 3-5 I think. The criteria for one to be classed as Sahih, is quite strict, and requires the narrators to have the sort of accurate memories that don't exist in the modern literate world. One of the requirements is that the event is witnessed by multiple independent people (although they are probably all Arabs) ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 11:51
|
A fragment of the isnad can be deduced from the accounts you presented: Abdullah bin Abbas retells a story he knows from Abu Sufyan bin Harb with the latter visiting the court of Heraclius. I'm not sure how hadith scholarship (which Muslim university in 7th century?? the two fellows involved in this bit of transmision certainly were no hadith scholars, both are relatively famous figures in the history of early Islam) could guarantee the truth of a story which came to them after a chain (I'm sure an isnad could be much longer than 5 narrators) of such retellings, it only could guarantee for the verosimility of the story, the real possibilities of the transmission to really have happened, on the trustworthiness of the persons involved in the retelling etc., but none of these can guarantee the accuracy of the story itself. Modern western scholarship, AFAIK, does not take hadith transmission to be very accurate. And it's not an anti-Islamic bias, it uses the same measure for any written source. |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 20:27
|
I would just add that those cultures with oral traditions are generally known for amazing memory; such as the ability to recite an historical account to the letter. I don't know much about this particular case you fellows are discussing, but just thought I would mention that. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 21:51
|
EDIT ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2007 at 22:12
I have heard about that too relating to many various oral traditions. The Arabic oral tradition is excellent in quality, and authenticity, and like you mentioned amazing memory. From Hodgson, and from Nashat my Middle Eastern History seminar we get the confirmation of that being true. ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2007 at 01:58
|
Does anyone have any byzantine sources on the battle? I would be curious what the numbers listed from them would be. At least we could compare those with the arab sources instead of just going with arab sources and our own discretion.
I still wonder about those numbers; 100,000 byzantines versus less than 50,000 arabs, just doesn't seem like something the byzantines would do, especially with a man like heraclius as emperor. Its just hard to believe the byzantines outnumbered an opponent by that much, throughout their history it is an endless parade of engagements where the basic criteria is the byzantine army is alway outnumbered. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2007 at 17:50
|
A decent introduction to Yarmuk is the Osprey title: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1855324148/ref=cm_cr_dp_orig_subj/104-3997531-4527141 - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1855324148/ref=cm_cr_dp_orig_subj/104-3997531-4527141 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 08:33
|
The problem with the Byzantine empire was the bad relations with the Monophysites. Many of them turned into the cult of islam. Whether it was the bad relations with the patriarche or some other problems, many Christians turned into islam because they felt rejected. 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. However Heraclios was a great leader and emperor but he died when europe was needed him more. His regime started a 1000 years war between the byzantine empire and islam and saved europe many times from islam. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 10:22
|
Hello to you all
I was on my way to taking a siesta but I found this interesting "response" from our friend unknown.
Well unknown I would like to advise you to stick to history and leave ideology behind if you want to continue to be a part of this forum or else you will be banned like many other people before who inserted their ideology into history or analysis.
Islam is not a "cult", of course you should know that since a third of your country's population is muslim. Byzantines fell because they were lousy rulers and their military was not top notch pure and simple. They tried to reconquere what they lost during the 50 years of Islamic civil wars and failed. The local population if you read history carefully continued to be a majority christian well into the 9th century and in some places like nothern palestine they were in the majority untill the 19th century. The prophet forced nobody to convert as did the muslim empires after him or else you would have been a muslim wouldn't you. Last time I checked Macedonia was ruled for some 500 years and it is still a christian country. Nor were muslims "brutal" towards christian arabs, some parts of present day Saudi Arabia had christian tribes as late as the 10th century. Islam was seen as a force of union between the tribes and it fitted many Arab traditions that were against christian doctrines at that time. Finally if you read the thread carefully you would find that the prophet asked Heraclius to convert politely and the vassals killed the messengers of the prophet which was and still is a formal declaration of war. The levant was taken in a legitimate war that was started by the Byzantines's vassals, pure and simple.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 11:18
|
btw, I LIVE IN greece, meaning macedonia north greece, when i loged in. In few words you said that islam is the religion of tolerance. Here some refs from your holy books and Mo's bio Sirat p. 369 talks about violence on non-muslims From the qu'oran To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged—and verily, God is most powerful for their aid—(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right (for no cause) except that they say, “our Lord is God.” (22:39-40a) “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256a). When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to [accept] Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4294 According to Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 131, Non-Muslims had to pay for jizya tribute, wear distinctive clothing (it reminds me of david's star during the nazi era) and mark their houses (which must not be built higher than Muslims’ houses), must not scandalize Muslims by openly performing their worship services, nor build new churches or synagogues. Those who owned land were also required to pay a land tax. Actually asking other kings to "convert or die" was a usual practice like asking for ransoms from prisoners. I cover many of the Heraclius Bukhari Hadith in POD fairly extensively because they are so moronic. Anyone with half a brain exposed to the full complement of them will laugh themselves silly. I used them for comic relief in the midst of the terrorist raids. And what's the point? Even if there were actual historic evidence that Heraclius liked Islam, which there isn't, what effect would that have on the actual nature or veracity of the religion? ------------- |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 17:26
Pure and simple? I consider pure and simple this as a proof that it was a post factum islamic fabrication to justify the islamic aggression against the Byzantines.
 |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 19:35
|
Hello to you all
Please, if you have anything about Islam say it in other threads and I will be happy to discuss the issues with you there, but in the mean time this thread is about Heraclius and I already said most what I want to say.
As for you Leonardo, last time I checked PC talk and international law rhetoric did not exist back when historians mentioned what was said in my previous post. So There was no agression on the part of muslims or anything else, Byzantines interferred with internal affairs between Arabs and they got what they deserved, this happened 1400 years ago, get over it man.
Almost every war in history was unprovoked so why what was legitimate for Byzantines and Romans before (invading Arabia reaching as far as Najran and encouraging Ethiopeans to invade Arabia as well as forcing tribute among other things) is not for the Arabs who just were taking an opportunity of a mistake by the Byzantine to start a war that lead to the conquest of the levant and North Africa. As far as I am concerned Heraclius was given an opportunity, keep your lands and your titles but let us punish the agressors and let the Islamic faith be freely allowed in your dominion, he refused and he got what was coming. It was the 7th century and that sort of action was the norm.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 23:45
Of course there was aggression on both sides; it was a war after all. And who can say who deserved what; did the Byzantines deserve the Arab conquest for blocking the Islamic faith any more than the population of Jerusalem deserved the massacre of 1099 for blocking Christian pilgrims? "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
Indeed, but it was an unrealistic demand. Heraclius was already trying to stamp out the Monophysites, it would have been entirely contrary to his policy of religious unity to allow another sect to enter. I'd also like to add that the Arab conquest of the Byzantine territories wasn't especially dramatic. The Levant and Egypt was were the Monophysite creed found most of its followers, and these people felt alienated from the central government in Constantinople which by no means would grant them freedom of worship. The Arabs however did, in addition to lower taxes, and many were only too happy to switch sovereign. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 07:55
|
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? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 08:26
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
 . 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.------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 08:27
Was there any justification for the Romans to conquer all these territories should they not have been returned to the previous peoples and states? ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 12:41
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.
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.
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.
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2007 at 13:21
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.
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date 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.
------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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
|
Posted By: Seko
Date 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.
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.
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-
  https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fcult"> /kʌlt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
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.
------------- |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date 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)
------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: DuxSyargius
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date 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
|
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 18:07
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 |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 19:31
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. |
Posted By: arch.buff
Date Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 19:33
This is a very true statement Vorian, and I completely agree. ------------- Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 22:43
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.
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.
|