April 01, 2012
The fall of the Roman empire and the rise of Islam
Tom Holland in The Guardian:
Whenever modern civilisations contemplate their own mortality, there is one ghost that will invariably rise up from its grave to haunt their imaginings. In February 1776, a few months after the publication of the first volume of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon commented gloomily on the news from America, where rebellion against Britain appeared imminent. "The decline of the two empires, Roman and British, proceeds at an equal pace." Now, with the west mired in recession and glancing nervously over its shoulder at China, the same parallel is being dusted down. Last summer, when the Guardian's Larry Elliott wrote an article on the woes of the US economy, the headline almost wrote itself: "Decline and fall of the American empire".
Historians, it is true, have become increasingly uncomfortable with narratives of decline and fall. Few now would accept that the conquest of Roman territory by foreign invaders was a guillotine brought down on the neck of classical civilisation. The transformation from the ancient world to the medieval is recognised as something far more protracted. "Late antiquity" is the term scholars use for the centuries that witnessed its course. Roman power may have collapsed, but the various cultures of the Roman empire mutated and evolved. "We see in late antiquity," so Averil Cameron, one of its leading historians, has observed, "a mass of experimentation, new ways being tried and new adjustments made." Yet it is a curious feature of the transformation of the Roman world into something recognisably medieval that it bred extraordinary tales even as it impoverished the ability of contemporaries to keep a record of them. "The greatest, perhaps, and most awful scene, in the history of mankind": so Gibbon described his theme. He was hardly exaggerating: the decline and fall of the Roman empire was a convulsion so momentous that even today its influence on stories with an abiding popular purchase remains greater, perhaps, than that of any other episode in history. It can take an effort, though, to recognise this. In most of the narratives informed by the world of late antiquity, from world religions to recent science-fiction and fantasy novels, the context provided by the fall of Rome's empire has tended to be disguised or occluded.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 08:22 AM | Permalink






















Comments
I have a few related questions at http://www.brownpundits.com/the-rise-of-the-arab-empire/.
Posted by: omar | Apr 2, 2012 11:39:58 AM
Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, and India were once thriving civilizations that were in the forefront of mathematics, science and technology of their time. If the advent of Islam in these regions was so beneficial to learning, why was there, instead, a precipitous decline in progress in these areas following invasion? Notwithstanding that (predominantly) Jewish and non-Arab (Persian) subjects of the Islamic empire had helped preserve some of the knowledge from these civilizations that were plundered and destroyed, how much further might humanity have progressed had there remained an uninterrupted civilizational continuum in these regions?
Posted by: Sam | Apr 2, 2012 11:25:15 PM
Sam, "what if" is not always easy. Anyway, I would say that its misleading to put all conquests into the same template. For example, the fall of Levantine Roman possessions may have had more to do with collapse from within...and Persia recovered Persian identity and significant civilizational continuity eventually, even if in Islamic garb. The invasions of North India occurred after orthodox Islam had already gelled to a great extent and were led by Turks and Afghans who had already internalized Islam into their own identity. The "Arab imperialism" template may be misleading in this case. The Arabs got little or nothing out of that. Each case was different. No?
Mesopotamia was not a separate center of civilization by that point.
Posted by: omar | Apr 3, 2012 12:41:18 PM
Omar, Persia never recovered its identity - even though the Shah tried to reclaim it for himself. Neither has Egypt beyond milking the tourism cash cow. As for Ur, Lagash, and Hammurabi; long forgotten by their descendents. It isn't just in Pakistan that history begins with the invasion of Sindh, or where ancestry gets traced back to the Qureshis. It happens all over the Arab colonial world. VS Naipaul bluntly addressed this in his seminal books on the region, and in 2001: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/04/afghanistan.terrorism9
Posted by: Sam | Apr 6, 2012 2:34:04 AM
My very poorly informed opinion was that the Islamic conquests DID provide a cultural/scientific/artistic lift, because the collected talents of all the conqured regions were thrust together, and there was, for a time, great synergy.
Another factor: dimly recall Idries Shaw blaming the collapse of Islam on the Mongol horde. Even more dimly recall (probably wrongly) that Al Gazali "the proof of Islam" was effecting some evolution that was halted by the invasions from the east.
Again, I'm sure I mucked that up but those two factors, that the Islamic world collected and fostered talent, but was less apt to produce it internally, was coupled with pressure from the east to bring Islam's cultural evolution to a halt.
Now, Islam was already under constant stress because of it's endless war strategy (and perhaps the decadence of its elites), so it was vulnerable.
Any of this sound familiar?
Posted by: Carlos | Apr 6, 2012 7:44:05 AM
(its)
Posted by: Carlos | Apr 6, 2012 7:46:14 AM
Sam, I specifically left Egypt out of it. Egypt never recovered any continuity with its pre-arab past. True. But what I meant was that every case is different. Its history. Its one damn thing after another.
"Continuity" does not (to my mind) have much to do with public celebration of the Shah as Aryamehr, delusional heir to a 2500 year old empire. It has to do with the fact that Persian language, literature and cultural identity survived the arab conquest and rebounded. Iran today is a distinctly separate civilization from the Arab middle east.
The various Turkish Khanates actually ROSE to prominence and cultural glory AFTER the period of the Arab conquests. While they adopted the arab religion, they did not become "Arab" like North Africa became Arab. In fact, as part of a greater eruption of horse people power, they soon dominated the Eastern half of the Islamicate world. Their grand cities (Samarkand, Bokhara, so on) rose AFTER they had already internalized Islam as a part of their own identity.
The Turko-Afghan conquest of North India was facilitated by their having a common religion, but India is a big place. People tend to forget that by 1800, the ruling Muslim elite had lost control of big chunks of India...the Marhattas were the biggest power in North-West India for a while and the Sikhs soon ruled Punjab (which means from the trans-Indus Derajat to Kashmir to the Hill rajas to the edge of Sindh). The absorption of Islamicate invaders into India was already well advanced (and was probably delayed/deflected by British rule, who found it useful to divide their realm in as many ways as possible) and proceeds to this day. Barring a collapse of modern India from within (not likely, but not unimaginable) this process will continue. It would not be correct to say that there is no civilizational continuity between ancient Indian cultures and present day ones.
Posted by: omar | Apr 6, 2012 11:15:54 AM
Carlos, Ghazali as prime villain in the intellectual collapse of Islamicate civilization is a very superficial idea. He was not the executioner. Somehow (perhaps for reasons internal to its foundations, perhaps just one of those things that happen, with a thousand causes and material for many PhD theses) orthodox islam developed defenses (protected by notions of blasphemy and apostasy) that proved too good for their own good. Or whatever. Maybe we are over-rating the role of intellectual and ideology in history. This is a very involved subject, but I would say Ghazali was not the prime villain (though I do think the cult of Ghazali as superman is even sillier).
Posted by: omar | Apr 6, 2012 11:27:09 AM
Post a comment