Muslim Invasion Question
August 21st, 2011 at 9:37:28 PM
permalink
TRIVIA QUESTION
Muḥammad lived from (ca. 26 April 570 – 8 June 632). His followers tried to conquer much of the world. Incredibly they got to within 170 miles of Paris, before they were beaten in battle by a man known to history as "The Hammer" (in English).
I had an argument and I said almost no one can identify this battle without looking it up on the internet. Yet many historians believe this battle was of one of the most decisive in history. In fact it may have been the battle that prevented Islam from conquering all of europe. Personally, I had no idea that they got that close to Paris.
So here goes the questions. As always researching them on the internet will only be permitted if nobody knows the answer.
(1) What century was the battle? What decade if you are really good.
(2) What nearby cities gave their name to the battle (two possible answers)
(3) What was the first name of "The Hammer" who stopped the Islamic conquest of Europe
Muḥammad lived from (ca. 26 April 570 – 8 June 632). His followers tried to conquer much of the world. Incredibly they got to within 170 miles of Paris, before they were beaten in battle by a man known to history as "The Hammer" (in English).
I had an argument and I said almost no one can identify this battle without looking it up on the internet. Yet many historians believe this battle was of one of the most decisive in history. In fact it may have been the battle that prevented Islam from conquering all of europe. Personally, I had no idea that they got that close to Paris.
So here goes the questions. As always researching them on the internet will only be permitted if nobody knows the answer.
(1) What century was the battle? What decade if you are really good.
(2) What nearby cities gave their name to the battle (two possible answers)
(3) What was the first name of "The Hammer" who stopped the Islamic conquest of Europe
August 21st, 2011 at 10:27:23 PM
permalink
With no internet look up, it's
1) 700's (8th century)
2) Tours. I didn't know there was a second one
3) Charles.
1) 700's (8th century)
2) Tours. I didn't know there was a second one
3) Charles.
August 21st, 2011 at 10:31:33 PM
permalink
Sounds like good answers to me. Additionally, I think the battle was also known as the Battle of Poitiers (spell?).
August 22nd, 2011 at 12:51:47 AM
permalink
Battle of Tours.. (?).
Conquor has different meanings. The Pyrenees are not that much of a barrier. Official adoption of a religion often meant little to the people living in a city or region. That is why there are so many mussleman victories in Spain.
Conquor has different meanings. The Pyrenees are not that much of a barrier. Official adoption of a religion often meant little to the people living in a city or region. That is why there are so many mussleman victories in Spain.
August 22nd, 2011 at 6:53:45 AM
permalink
Quote: MarkAbeWith no internet look up, it's
1) 700's (8th century)
2) Tours. I didn't know there was a second one
3) Charles.
Excellent answer. I have to confess my ignorance that the Muslims got that close to Paris in the 8th century.
The cities of Tours and Poitiers were to the north and south of the battle. Historians have taken to calling it the battle of Poitiers in recent years because the smaller city was closer to the battle.
The year was 737 and Charles Martel was the grandfather of Charlemagne. "Martel" means hammer in English.
I was aware of the "War of the Holy League" from 1683-1699. Christians won great victories in that war on 11 September 1683 at the Battle of Vienna, and on 11 September 1697 in "The Battle of Zenta" in present day Croatia and forced Muslims out of Eastern Europe.
August 22nd, 2011 at 6:59:52 AM
permalink
What's amazing is the French were ever capable of being victorious in war.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 22nd, 2011 at 8:54:19 AM
permalink
Those of you looking for the posts about Mexico's war record, I split off those posts to Has Mexico ever Won a War?.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 22nd, 2011 at 9:03:33 AM
permalink
The selection of September 11 for bombing the world trade center was the same day as losing the critical battles in Europe. Some people feel that the hard line Islamics were saying that they were unfairly removed from Eastern europe and should be allowed to return to their old claim.
Much of this territory is now part of the European Union.
August 22nd, 2011 at 9:09:53 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartin
The selection of September 11 for bombing the world trade center was the same day as losing the critical battles in Europe. Some people feel that the hard line Islamics were saying that they were unfairly removed from Eastern europe and should be allowed to return to their old claim.
Much of this territory is now part of the European Union.
they can skip fighting for it, it appears as a group they are reproducing at more than a replacement rate, while the others are reproducing at a rate that will depopulate their group
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 22nd, 2011 at 9:51:41 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedWhat's amazing is the French were ever capable of being victorious in war.
Hundred Years war (eventually)
World War 1
French Revolutionary Wars
War of the Quadruple Alliance
Just from the top of my head.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:02:39 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinI was aware of the "War of the Holy League" from 1683-1699. Christians won great victories in that war on 11 September 1683 at the Battle of Vienna, and on 11 September 1697 in "The Battle of Zenta" in present day Croatia and forced Muslims out of Eastern Europe.
According to wikipedia, the Battle of Vienna was September the 12th, 1683.
(I've recently read a brief history of the Polish/Lithuania Commonwealth, which is fascinating, mostly driven from purchasing a rather fine board game called "God's Playground", which plays out some of the events of the period of ascendancy and descendancy of Poland).
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:25:12 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitHundred Years war (eventually)
As you say, eventually....
Quote:World War 1
That war was really won by the Royal Navy with help from the US Navy, by starving Germany into submission.
Quote:French Revolutionary Wars
French fighting French, the French had to win.
You forgot Napoleon.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 22nd, 2011 at 10:43:20 AM
permalink
100 Years War....
Start of both French and English nationalism and defintion. Kinda important. If you want to really define it, the French side lost the first two wars, and won the third, so that the throne of France was owned by the English King (they didn't give up their indirect claim till 1807, as I recall, the English (later British) crown was styled as including king of France until about then).
WW1
Were the French on the winning side? Did the French play a major factor in the war on the ground? Would they have lost if they didn't fight at Verdun and the Marne so successfully? They had to, else the tactic of the naval blockade wouldn't have worked.
French Revolutionary Wars
You don't know what the French Revolutionary Wars were then....
You also don't disabuse the war of the Quadruple Alliance, which the French did win.
I didn't forget Napoleon. I choose not to go for the obvious one, not least as many of Nappy's victories were short lived, while the victories above shaped the French nation for a long time.
Quote: NareedAs you say, eventually....
Start of both French and English nationalism and defintion. Kinda important. If you want to really define it, the French side lost the first two wars, and won the third, so that the throne of France was owned by the English King (they didn't give up their indirect claim till 1807, as I recall, the English (later British) crown was styled as including king of France until about then).
WW1
Quote:That war was really won by the Royal Navy with help from the US Navy, by starving Germany into submission.
Were the French on the winning side? Did the French play a major factor in the war on the ground? Would they have lost if they didn't fight at Verdun and the Marne so successfully? They had to, else the tactic of the naval blockade wouldn't have worked.
French Revolutionary Wars
Quote:French fighting French, the French had to win.
You don't know what the French Revolutionary Wars were then....
You also don't disabuse the war of the Quadruple Alliance, which the French did win.
I didn't forget Napoleon. I choose not to go for the obvious one, not least as many of Nappy's victories were short lived, while the victories above shaped the French nation for a long time.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:24:03 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitthey can skip fighting for it, it appears as a group they are reproducing at more than a replacement rate, while the others are reproducing at a rate that will depopulate their group
Much of Eastern Europe has reached maximum population and is already starting to depopulate. Hungary was the first country who began depopulating after 1980 (three decades ago). Russia began depopulating only for the last 15 years, but given it's size and it's former significance on the world stage the absolute numbers seem huge.
It does not seem that Muslims are emigrating to their old territories in Eastern Europe, but instead are trying to move to Nordic Countries, France, and UK.
The possible exception seems to be the very southeastern tip around Greece
Year Reached Maximum Population
1980 Hungary
1989 Bulgaria
1990 Albania
1990 Serbia
1990 Romania
1991 Croatia
1992 Moldova
1993 Belarus
1993 Ukraine
1994 Czech Republic
1995 Russia
1997 Kosovo
1997 Slovenia
2000 Montenegro
----- still growing
2011 Bosnia and Herzegovina
2011 Greece
2011 Macedonia
2011 Slovakia
August 22nd, 2011 at 12:31:49 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitWW1
Were the French on the winning side?
Yes, but so were the Belgians.
Quote:Did the French play a major factor in the war on the ground? Would they have lost if they didn't fight at Verdun and the Marne so successfully?
Would they ahve had to fight so hard, and at so much loss of life, if they had kept the Germans from getting deep into France to begin with?
Quote:They had to, else the tactic of the naval blockade wouldn't have worked.
They did. But by then the English were fighting on that front, too.
Quote:You don't know what the French Revolutionary Wars were then....
It stirred after I posted. As I recall, several Euopean monarchs got upset that the French did not believe Louis XVI when he said he was the state, and instead introduced him to Mme. Guillotine. So they tried to roll back the French revolution and reinstate a monarchy.
They failed misserably, and yes, the French won. But the whole thing ended with France an Empire under Napoleon, so.... Well, to this day France still doesn't have a monarch.
Quote:I didn't forget Napoleon. I choose not to go for the obvious one, not least as many of Nappy's victories were short lived, while the victories above shaped the French nation for a long time.
I'd say napoleon did more than anyone else to shape modern France. The French took up his swollen head with a vengeance, did they not?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 22nd, 2011 at 1:19:46 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedWhat's amazing is the French were ever capable of being victorious in war.
If you are including the war of 737, can anyone say that the French or France existed at that time. In fact, they might have been Franks which today we would classify as German.
August 22nd, 2011 at 1:24:19 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedQuote: thecesspitWW1
Were the French on the winning side?
Yes, but so were the Belgians.
And...?
Quote:
Would they ahve had to fight so hard, and at so much loss of life, if they had kept the Germans from getting deep into France to begin with?
They did. But by then the English were fighting on that front, too.
As were the Canadians and several other nations I could go look up. None of whom would have probably done quite so well on their own... I'll call the French in WW1 and let them know that Nareed has a great idea to keep the German's out of Flander's field much better. The Schlieffen plan was well executed, and given the nature of the mobile war in 1914, I don't see it going any other way. Without the counter attack at the Marne, Paris would have fallen (the Germans this time came about as close as the Muslim invasion 1000+ years earlier).
Course, 26 years later, different story, and Paris falls after the French command completely and utterly fails. A surprise at the time given the technical and numerical superiority of the individual units involved.
Quote:It stirred after I posted. As I recall, several Euopean monarchs got upset that the French did not believe Louis XVI when he said he was the state, and instead introduced him to Mme. Guillotine. So they tried to roll back the French revolution and reinstate a monarchy.
They failed misserably, and yes, the French won. But the whole thing ended with France an Empire under Napoleon, so.... Well, to this day France still doesn't have a monarch.
And....? You'll find that the French DID have a monarch again, and didn't become a republic for the last time until around 1870 (Franco-Prurussian wars that also formed modern Germany, and the in which the French were throughly defeated).
I guess you just wanted to make some off hand comment that the French are lousy fighters? Case : Not Proven. The French never win wars : Busted (with several worked examples)
Quote:I'd say napoleon did more than anyone else to shape modern France. The French took up his swollen head with a vengeance, did they not?
Not a clue. Not even sure what you mean by this. I don't recall the last time a Frenchman boasted about Nappy to me...
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 22nd, 2011 at 1:27:32 PM
permalink
Quote: matildaIf you are including the war of 737, can anyone say that the French or France existed at that time. In fact, they might have been Franks which today we would classify as German.
Good point. The concept of Europe actually became much clearer as a result of the battle against the Muslims in 737. The Carolingians secured the region of the Aquitaine (i.e. Southern France). But they preferred their capital to be in Aachen which is in present day Germany. His empire included much of present day Germany, Switzerland and all of the BENDELUX countries.
Tours is not shown on the map below, but it is on the Loire river.
August 22nd, 2011 at 1:49:43 PM
permalink
Although I view myself as a history buff, it was easier to answer pacomartin's question since I had played Age of Empires II: The Conquerors. For $19.95 or less, you too can relive Charles Martel's old glory in the Battle of Tours.
Age of Empires
Age of Empires
August 22nd, 2011 at 2:13:41 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitAnd...?
So? :P
And mexico was on the winning side in WWII. And they made perhaps a tiny iota's difference in how the war turned out. Being on the winning side means nothing in and of itself.
Quote:I'll call the French in WW1 and let them know that Nareed has a great idea to keep the German's out of Flander's field much better. The Schlieffen plan was well executed, and given the nature of the mobile war in 1914, I don't see it going any other way.
Well, for starters they shoudl have had better palnners in their general staff. They knew Germany was chomping at the bit to declare war and had been for years.
Quote:I guess you just wanted to make some off hand comment that the French are lousy fighters? Case : Not Proven. The French never win wars : Busted (with several worked examples)
Did I sau the French never win wars? I said it was surprising, or amazing, that they were capable of winning a war. I admit the implication is they're bad fighters, and that they're often not victorious in war, but the claim was never made that they've never won a war.
Quote:Not a clue. Not even sure what you mean by this. I don't recall the last time a Frenchman boasted about Nappy to me...
It means you don't dislike the French.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 22nd, 2011 at 2:47:59 PM
permalink
I tend to avoid disliking an entire country full of people. It's not very productive. I've found that arseholes, douchenozzles and fucktards are equally spread across the world.
For a continental country which doesn't have the luxury of being completely surrounded by the sea, I suspect the French have had an equal measure of glorious wins and inglorious defeats that are about the average of nations in that general area.
The Schlieffien plan was audacious, as it ignored the neutrality of Belgium, and thus gave cassus belli to the British. It was also probably doomed from the start, as engaging the Belgians (who were no little force, even if only a small portion of the size of the main armies) also delayed the north flank long enough for the trench lines to form. The French would have trouble deploying forces along the Belgian border (generally that sort of thing is seen as a aggressive move).
So what should the French have done?
For a continental country which doesn't have the luxury of being completely surrounded by the sea, I suspect the French have had an equal measure of glorious wins and inglorious defeats that are about the average of nations in that general area.
The Schlieffien plan was audacious, as it ignored the neutrality of Belgium, and thus gave cassus belli to the British. It was also probably doomed from the start, as engaging the Belgians (who were no little force, even if only a small portion of the size of the main armies) also delayed the north flank long enough for the trench lines to form. The French would have trouble deploying forces along the Belgian border (generally that sort of thing is seen as a aggressive move).
So what should the French have done?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 22nd, 2011 at 3:33:42 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitThe Schlieffien plan was audacious, as it ignored the neutrality of Belgium, and thus gave cassus belli to the British. It was also probably doomed from the start, as engaging the Belgians (who were no little force, even if only a small portion of the size of the main armies) also delayed the north flank long enough for the trench lines to form.
It was doomed from the start, yes, but not because of anything the Belgians did. Schlieffen had contemplated also going through the Netherlands. That the Germans didn't do, and that's one major delay.
Quote:So what should the French have done?
Hired Germans on their general staff? I'm serious. The German people had a long and fine military tradition. The French had Napoleon, long dead, forgotten and buried.
I'm more familiar with WWII. I can tell you exactly what the French did wrong then: 1) they assumed they'd re-fight WWI (which is a common failing among military strategists the world over, always fighting the last war) and 2) they failed to recall that in the battle between warhead and armor, warhead always wins.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 22nd, 2011 at 4:05:27 PM
permalink
Germany had no such thing. Germany had existed for about 44 years at the start World War 1. Joffre was a fine French general for instance.
But if you want to go ahead and continue to define a nation's military by stereotypes, go ahead, fine. Not very useful for assessing history. Once you get to WW2, your assessment is much more accurate of the state of the French military, but even that misses the subtleties.
I'm not claiming that the Belgian were the key factor in world war 1. I'm claiming that they made a contribution, as did a lot of the minor nations (and despite most of their country being occupied for most of the war too). The Germans avoiding Holland would have brought more arms to bear against France, quicker. It did mean they had to secure a flank later, but this wasn't really key to the Schliffen plan, only once they started the race to the sea... by which point the idea of a quick win was over.
But if you want to go ahead and continue to define a nation's military by stereotypes, go ahead, fine. Not very useful for assessing history. Once you get to WW2, your assessment is much more accurate of the state of the French military, but even that misses the subtleties.
I'm not claiming that the Belgian were the key factor in world war 1. I'm claiming that they made a contribution, as did a lot of the minor nations (and despite most of their country being occupied for most of the war too). The Germans avoiding Holland would have brought more arms to bear against France, quicker. It did mean they had to secure a flank later, but this wasn't really key to the Schliffen plan, only once they started the race to the sea... by which point the idea of a quick win was over.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 22nd, 2011 at 4:34:12 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitGermany had no such thing. Germany had existed for about 44 years at the start World War 1. Joffre was a fine French general for instance.
Ok. Prussia, which was the heart of Germany, had a long military tradition.
Quote:But if you want to go ahead and continue to define a nation's military by stereotypes, go ahead, fine. Not very useful for assessing history.
The Germans, or their predecesors, went a long way towards bringing down the Roman Empire. In WWI what failed were the politicians and the Navy. In WWII, had Hitler been less insane and less enamored of Mussolini, they might have conquered a big part of the USSR and might have fortified France to the point the Allies would never have dreamt of landing there. But either time there was nothing wanting about the German armies.
Quote:I'm not claiming that the Belgian were the key factor in world war 1. I'm claiming that they made a contribution, as did a lot of the minor nations (and despite most of their country being occupied for most of the war too).
The biggest contribution by Belgium was their alliance with Great Britain, and the latter's willingness to enter the war "over a piece of paper." I've nothing against Belgium, but in a major conflict spanning the continent a small nation can only do so much.
Of course, a small country can make a small yet crucial contribution. Look up the role of Poland in the Enigma breakthrough. That was worth
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 22nd, 2011 at 7:36:12 PM
permalink
While WWII is interesting, I would like to stick with the subject of the original post. What if Charles Martel had lost in 737. This was still a few decades before Egbert was even born. Egbert has the claim of being the first West Saxon king who can had a position equivalent to the King of England.
But if the Muslim army had kept going with the speed that they overan Spain, they might have taken Paris, London, and the other little towns that would some day grow up to be the cities of Europe. I don't think any city in Northern Europe had more than a few tens of thousands of people. The whole world was fewer than 300 million.
paraphrasing the 18th century scholar Gibbons:
Muslims had a victorious march from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire. If they repeated this distance again the Saracens could make it Poland orthe Highlands of Scotland. The Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames.
Would we be reading the Koran in the schools of Oxford ? Would the dominant religion of the world be Islam?
The driving economic force that sent Columbus on his first voyage and the Portuguese to Africa was a desire to find a new way to the East by avoiding the overland routes controlled by the Muslims. Without this economic need, perhaps the European ships would never have set sail around Africa and to the New World. Perhaps the Aztecs who had the superior civilization would have discovered an Islamic Europe?
But if the Muslim army had kept going with the speed that they overan Spain, they might have taken Paris, London, and the other little towns that would some day grow up to be the cities of Europe. I don't think any city in Northern Europe had more than a few tens of thousands of people. The whole world was fewer than 300 million.
paraphrasing the 18th century scholar Gibbons:
Muslims had a victorious march from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire. If they repeated this distance again the Saracens could make it Poland orthe Highlands of Scotland. The Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames.
Would we be reading the Koran in the schools of Oxford ? Would the dominant religion of the world be Islam?
The driving economic force that sent Columbus on his first voyage and the Portuguese to Africa was a desire to find a new way to the East by avoiding the overland routes controlled by the Muslims. Without this economic need, perhaps the European ships would never have set sail around Africa and to the New World. Perhaps the Aztecs who had the superior civilization would have discovered an Islamic Europe?
August 22nd, 2011 at 9:57:20 PM
permalink
The dominant religion may well have been Islam. There's an article here : http://failuremag.com/index.php/feature/article/charles_the_hammer_and_the_battle_of_tours/ which claims that in the short term the Islamic nations were better organized, more enlightened and generally more civilized than the western European Christian Franks. This might have led to an early enlightment, but the view seems to be only too a point.
I'm not so sure about that, but the general view seems to be that the Battle of Tours was a rather key event in western European history, and certainly I think Carolus Magnus and the Frankish empire wouldn't have happened without Charles Martel's victory. And he did cause a mini bright spot in the Dark Ages.
I'm not sure if it's a definite that Islam = slower growth overall. If the Americas were invaded later or not at all, the Aztecs and Iroquois confederacy might well have been much more advanced. It might be such that Europe isn't the epicentre for the 1000-1500 period of history and development (or is that my European upbringing in general? probably) and near East is more in focus.
Cheers, I hadn't read much on this period of history for a long time.
I'm not so sure about that, but the general view seems to be that the Battle of Tours was a rather key event in western European history, and certainly I think Carolus Magnus and the Frankish empire wouldn't have happened without Charles Martel's victory. And he did cause a mini bright spot in the Dark Ages.
I'm not sure if it's a definite that Islam = slower growth overall. If the Americas were invaded later or not at all, the Aztecs and Iroquois confederacy might well have been much more advanced. It might be such that Europe isn't the epicentre for the 1000-1500 period of history and development (or is that my European upbringing in general? probably) and near East is more in focus.
Cheers, I hadn't read much on this period of history for a long time.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 23rd, 2011 at 2:42:38 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitAztecs and Iroquois confederacy
Pretty good. The Incas might have invaded the "soft underbelly" while they were occupied by a war in Europe.
As much as we rightly now admire pre-Columbian American civilizations, they had a ways to go. The wheel, a written language, and stepping into a bronze age were going to have to be the next steps.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 23rd, 2011 at 5:58:30 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartin... Would we be reading the Koran in the schools of Oxford ?
In this post, I am showing both a major shortage of historical knowledge and a substantial lack of awareness of Muslim culture, both of which I acknowledge up front -- maybe an answer to my question would help just a little.
Considering the schools of Oxford as a basis, where are the major (comparable?) universities in today's Muslim world? I have known faculty members from Cairo University and met people who studied in Istanbul and in Lahore, but I have not been convinced yet that these are really major universities of the world. Is it reasonable to assume that had the invasion been successful then there would still be major universities at Oxford reading any texts at all? Is development of a true university on that level a part of Muslim culture?
August 23rd, 2011 at 6:37:26 AM
permalink
Quote: DocIn this post, I am showing both a major shortage of historical knowledge and a substantial lack of awareness of Muslim culture, both of which I acknowledge up front -- maybe an answer to my question would help just a little.
Considering the schools of Oxford as a basis, where are the major (comparable?) universities in today's Muslim world? I have known faculty members from Cairo University and met people who studied in Istanbul and in Lahore, but I have not been convinced yet that these are really major universities of the world. Is it reasonable to assume that had the invasion been successful then there would still be major universities at Oxford reading any texts at all? Is development of a true university on that level a part of Muslim culture?
Al-Azhar University in Cairo is the oldest Islamic Arabic University in the world (founded 10th century), as Oxford is the oldest English Language University in the world (founded 11th century, but expanded greatly in the 12th century).
I was paraphrasing Edward Gibbon, the 18th century historian who wrote The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Oxford was the center of English intellectual life in his lifetime.
Had the Muslims won the battle of Tours and subsequently invaded Northern France, the Anglo Saxon kingdoms, and the low countries, it may be that the Vikings would have still conquered them and established the Duchy of Normandy. The world might still resemble what we have today.
August 23rd, 2011 at 6:44:24 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitAs much as we rightly now admire pre-Columbian American civilizations, they had a ways to go. The wheel, a written language, and stepping into a bronze age were going to have to be the next steps.
Some did have written languages, and written math for that matter.
But militarily they were no match for Europe. besides, any invading Aztec, Inca or Tlaxcaltec force would have died in droves of the same diseases that did many of them in when the Europeans arrived on this hemisphere.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:04:36 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedSome did have written languages
From what I know about it, the Aztecs were on their way with developing something like hieroglyphics, but had not reached that level. Pre-heiro's you might call them [actually called codices]. Certainly these were used to tell stories, still it wasnt a written language. I don't think the other American civilizations got any further?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:29:24 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitFrom what I know about it, the Aztecs were on their way with developing something like hieroglyphics, but had not reached that level. Pre-heiro's you might call them [actually called codices]. Certainly these were used to tell stories, still it wasnt a written language. I don't think the other American civilizations got any further?
They weren't really around then, but the Maya had a written language and a holy book, the Popol Vuh. They also had written math, including a peculiar numbering system that is missunderstood as having anticipated the number 0. That is, they had symbol to denote nothing, but they dind't use it in any kind of exponential notation.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:30:45 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedSome did have written languages, and written math for that matter.
But militarily they were no match for Europe. besides, any invading Aztec, Inca or Tlaxcaltec force would have died in droves of the same diseases that did many of them in when the Europeans arrived on this hemisphere.
That presupposes that there wouldn't have been the same disease effect in reverse.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:45:15 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitThat presupposes that there wouldn't have been the same disease effect in reverse.
There wasn't. The Europeans didn't die en-masse from diseases indigineous to the Americas, while the native populations did drop like flies at a DDT factory from European diseases.
But disregarding that, the Europeans had guns, the natives didn't. The Europeans had wagon trains which gave them a huge logistical advantage, the natives didn't know the wheel (not for transportation). The Europeans had horses, which gave them cavalry, the natives didn't.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 23rd, 2011 at 9:23:19 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedThere wasn't. The Europeans didn't die en-masse from diseases indigineous to the Americas, while the native populations did drop like flies at a DDT factory from European diseases.
But disregarding that, the Europeans had guns, the natives didn't. The Europeans had wagon trains which gave them a huge logistical advantage, the natives didn't know the wheel (not for transportation). The Europeans had horses, which gave them cavalry, the natives didn't.
In many areas, particularly engineering, the Aztecs had the superior civilization. Obviously in guns the Europeans excelled. There was a number of books in Oaxaca, so the glyphic language was more developed.
I am assuming that if the Europeans had not done the Atlantic transit because a Muslim Europe had the land route to Asia, it might have been another hundred years before the Aztecs crossed. They may have developed the gun and some other instruments that would give them the upper hand.
The disease question is much more difficult. There is no way in a few centuries for the New world civilizations to equal out the domestic animal balance. As a result, the citizens of the New world were inherently more susceptible to old world diseases like Smallpox. Although the New World did give some things like syphillis to the Old world, the mass killing diseases were all one way. If the Aztecs had discovered Europe, they would probably have spread the same diseases.
Large animals domesticated in New World were alpacas and llamas.
Large animals domesticated in Old World were camel, cow, donkey, goat, horse, sheep, and the water buffalo.
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:04:19 AM
permalink
Ah yes, very wise Pacomartin, I'd read before somewhere about the difference that the Western Civilisations had a greater exposure to domestic animals, that helped build up herd immunity (hey hey) from common diseases.
I was thinking about this earlier... can we say that a Muslim Europe would be significantly different in terms of innovation and development? Is there something in the world view and culture of Islam that would mean the progress of civilisation would be retarded over that of a Christian culture? In other words, did the areas which were under Muslim rule at the same period show a large difference in the change from say 700-1400AD to that of the Christian areas in the same time period? Obviously we could assume that there's no change in the Americas.
I don't know, but it's possibly a key answer. Europe was very unsettled during that period. Struggle and strife is both a negative and positive force for change.
I was thinking about this earlier... can we say that a Muslim Europe would be significantly different in terms of innovation and development? Is there something in the world view and culture of Islam that would mean the progress of civilisation would be retarded over that of a Christian culture? In other words, did the areas which were under Muslim rule at the same period show a large difference in the change from say 700-1400AD to that of the Christian areas in the same time period? Obviously we could assume that there's no change in the Americas.
I don't know, but it's possibly a key answer. Europe was very unsettled during that period. Struggle and strife is both a negative and positive force for change.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:06:04 AM
permalink
The French were on the winning side in WWOne but it was with American troops and victory was had despite the French weaponry involved. French weaponry made good stills but some were so poorly made that parts were not really interchangeable at all. And Blackjack Pershing killed a great many US troops by equipping them with French weaponry.
Flanders Fields contain munitions from both wars to this day. Belgians on the winning side of WWone? Pyrrhic victory for sure.
WW2: French tactics won, it was the Germans who made use of them though. The French army and the BEF were defeated by Germany using French tactics under the German name of Blitzkrieg. And numerical or weaponry superiority makes no difference when the French government was in such shambles that some military units were afraid to fire off ammunition for fear that the French army would never re-supply them if they did. The Maginot Line held. It was not breached. It was simply a silly static fortification that Germany never intended to attempt to breach. Why should they attack a heavily fortified position head on when an end run was so much more inviting?
Flanders Fields contain munitions from both wars to this day. Belgians on the winning side of WWone? Pyrrhic victory for sure.
WW2: French tactics won, it was the Germans who made use of them though. The French army and the BEF were defeated by Germany using French tactics under the German name of Blitzkrieg. And numerical or weaponry superiority makes no difference when the French government was in such shambles that some military units were afraid to fire off ammunition for fear that the French army would never re-supply them if they did. The Maginot Line held. It was not breached. It was simply a silly static fortification that Germany never intended to attempt to breach. Why should they attack a heavily fortified position head on when an end run was so much more inviting?
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:11:26 AM
permalink
Superior civilization?
An imperial power made enemies and those enemies were the ones to aid the Conquistadors who had guns and above all else armor and horses as well as having the good fortune to face an enemy that rarely engaged in ambushes, the one thing that would have given little advantage to the Conquistadors.
An imperial power made enemies and those enemies were the ones to aid the Conquistadors who had guns and above all else armor and horses as well as having the good fortune to face an enemy that rarely engaged in ambushes, the one thing that would have given little advantage to the Conquistadors.
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:14:32 AM
permalink
Trade undoubtedly already existed. Some crops in South America were also found in ancient African civilizations and Belgian beer is made with fungii from South America.Quote: pacomartin
I am assuming that if the Europeans had not done the Atlantic transit because a Muslim Europe had the land route to Asia, it might have been another hundred years before the Aztecs crossed. They may have developed the gun and some other instruments that would give them the upper hand.
August 23rd, 2011 at 10:24:11 AM
permalink
Quote: pacomartinI am assuming that if the Europeans had not done the Atlantic transit because a Muslim Europe had the land route to Asia, it might have been another hundred years before the Aztecs crossed. They may have developed the gun and some other instruments that would give them the upper hand.
I fail to see any use of guns beyond simle cannons with a bronze age technology. For real guns, even the popguns the Spaniards had, you need steel.
Quote:Large animals domesticated in New World were alpacas and llamas.
And largely confined to South America. The Aztecs probably wouldn't even have had pack animals for their war. That's logistics hell.
One thing, though, if the Aztecs were to conquer a few towns, they would sacrifice many captives to their gods. That would ahve horrified the Europeans and galvanized them to expell the Aztecs.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
August 23rd, 2011 at 12:23:24 PM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffTrade undoubtedly already existed. Some crops in South America were also found in ancient African civilizations and Belgian beer is made with fungii from South America.
Really? Belgian beer has South American fungi? Got a link for that? Very interesting.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
August 23rd, 2011 at 12:36:07 PM
permalink
Ahh... this came from another source in my feed today ::
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-beer-yeast-20110823,0,5421077.story?track=rss
Lager yeast's ancestor found in Argentine forests... not clear how the yeast came to Europe, or if this is the actual source of lager yeast, or just another close relative.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-beer-yeast-20110823,0,5421077.story?track=rss
Lager yeast's ancestor found in Argentine forests... not clear how the yeast came to Europe, or if this is the actual source of lager yeast, or just another close relative.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
