Who Were the Mamluks? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#51

Post by kashprime » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

Amezarak wrote: post #43

beat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One interesting thing that comes from the book is realizing just how tremendously important the early Islamic expansion and empire was, filling the vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire with a new culture, devoted to advancing technology, peace, trade, and preservation of the writings of earlier civilizations. Without them, we might have lost most of the writing of ancient Greece.

> Without them, we might have lost most of the writing of ancient Greece. This is a really bizarre interpretation, considering that the 'writing of ancient Greece' was only endangered due the destruction of the eastern Roman Empire (and the Persian Empire) by the Muslim conquests. The era of the conquests was extremely chaotic and a major setback for civilization in the region. The historical record practically falls…

I think the sack of Constantinople by the Latins in their 4th crusade did more to secure Byzantium's decline than any single action by the Arabs. The Turks merely delivered a coup de grace centuries later.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#52

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 5:28 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #44

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I question the "devoted to peace" part. They were devoted to expanding Islam by force, and peace after they had conquered you. I once saw a comparison of the battles fought against Islam in the Crusades, and the battles fought by Islam in expanding. Islam fought maybe ten times more battles to expand than the Crusades fought against Islam. (And much of the Islamic expansion was against civilizations that were already…

> I question the "devoted to peace" part. They were devoted to expanding Islam by force, and peace after they had conquered you Also known as an empire. >Islam fought maybe ten times more battles to expand than the Crusades fought against Islam. What a strange comparison. Without seeing the details, it seems to be comparing the battles sanctioned by the Pope during a few centuries against any expansion battle by any…

> Also known as an empire.

That still doesn't make them devoted to peace, though.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#53

Post by billfruit » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #20

beat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One interesting thing that comes from the book is realizing just how tremendously important the early Islamic expansion and empire was, filling the vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire with a new culture, devoted to advancing technology, peace, trade, and preservation of the writings of earlier civilizations. Without them, we might have lost most of the writing of ancient Greece.

> filling the vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire What about the "other" Roman empire, the Byzantines? They seemed to have filled the vacuum even better.

It does seem amazing to me that on one occasion, the Eastern Empire even occupied Rome itself for a few brief years during/after tge Gothic wars.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#54

Post by ptrincr » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

halflings wrote: post #39

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I question the "devoted to peace" part. They were devoted to expanding Islam by force, and peace after they had conquered you. I once saw a comparison of the battles fought against Islam in the Crusades, and the battles fought by Islam in expanding. Islam fought maybe ten times more battles to expand than the Crusades fought against Islam. (And much of the Islamic expansion was against civilizations that were already…

North Africa was christian? The amazigh were animists, and Islam was present before any large scale invasion, and was mostly spread by amazigh tribes themselves. (at least in the case of Morocco)

The North African Christian church even had it's own schism, Donatism, between the 4th and 6th centuries, centered in Carthage.

    Donatism had its roots in the long-established Christian community of the Roman Africa province

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#55

Post by beat » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #20

beat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One interesting thing that comes from the book is realizing just how tremendously important the early Islamic expansion and empire was, filling the vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire with a new culture, devoted to advancing technology, peace, trade, and preservation of the writings of earlier civilizations. Without them, we might have lost most of the writing of ancient Greece.

> filling the vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire What about the "other" Roman empire, the Byzantines? They seemed to have filled the vacuum even better.

The Byzantines were an eastern empire, not a western one - more aligned with the Orient than with Europe. That said, pretty much the moment Islam appeared, they ripped Egypt and the Levant out of Byzantine hands - reducing the "Byzantine empire" from "empire" to "regional kingdom that will eventually get sacked". Less than a century after Islam started, they were laying siege to Constantinople. Over the next couple of centuries, Constantinople lost 90% of its population.

Basically, they only lasted meaningfully for a few centuries, between the fall of the western empire and the rise of the Islamic empire. If you count the transition from the original Islamic conquest to the Ottoman empire as a single continuous system (as you're doing with the western Roman empire and the Byzantine empire), then the Islamic empire lasted for north of 13 centuries, finally dying only in the 20th century, the end of WWI.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#56

Post by beat » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #29

beat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One interesting thing that comes from the book is realizing just how tremendously important the early Islamic expansion and empire was, filling the vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire with a new culture, devoted to advancing technology, peace, trade, and preservation of the writings of earlier civilizations. Without them, we might have lost most of the writing of ancient Greece.

I question the "devoted to peace" part. They were devoted to expanding Islam by force, and peace after they had conquered you. I once saw a comparison of the battles fought against Islam in the Crusades, and the battles fought by Islam in expanding. Islam fought maybe ten times more battles to expand than the Crusades fought against Islam. (And much of the Islamic expansion was against civilizations that were already…

I meant peace internally, not externally. Certainly, they were a profoundly aggressive, conquering empire. On the other hand, for centuries they treated the conquered cultures much better than the Romans ever did, which was one of the keys of their success.

Don't mistake classical Islam for contemporary Islam. Different beasts.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#57

Post by beat » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:07 PM UTC

projectramo wrote: post #28

beat wrote: post #16

If you're interested in this kind of history stuff, I recommend reading The Silk Roads , by Peter Frankopan. It's a recent (2015) epic-scope history book, from the beginning of written history to the present day, based on the idea that the Middle East, rather than Europe, is the true center of civilization - that the area stretching from the eastern Mediterranean to western India has been foremost, and remains foremo…

Thanks for the recommendation. (I was under the impression that the true center of civilization was China.)

China wasn't expansionist, though. They never grew much beyond their current borders. They were good trading partners, but didn't have the complexity and drive of the middle eastern civilizations, from the early Persians through the Ottomans.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#58

Post by Amezarak » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

kashprime wrote: post #51

Amezarak wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without them, we might have lost most of the writing of ancient Greece. This is a really bizarre interpretation, considering that the 'writing of ancient Greece' was only endangered due the destruction of the eastern Roman Empire (and the Persian Empire) by the Muslim conquests. The era of the conquests was extremely chaotic and a major setback for civilization in the region. The historical record practically falls…

I think the sack of Constantinople by the Latins in their 4th crusade did more to secure Byzantium's decline than any single action by the Arabs. The Turks merely delivered a coup de grace centuries later.

The Fourth Crusade was devastating, but Rome had already lost nearly all its territory to the Arabs by that time - which is in part what set off the crusades in the first place. The Muslim conquests had taken all Roman territory outside Anatolia by 730, many centuries before the Fourth Crusade.

The period surrounding the Muslim conquests is almost as disruptive in the historical record as the Bronze Age collapse. A lot of writing either gets lost or destroyed during that period. Sources dry up after ominous allusions to doom and gloom. The Latin sack was bad for Constantinople, but isn't nearly that bad.

The emperors were also very aware that the loss of nearly all their holdings was the beginning of the end, and that they were essentially caretakers, only able to delay the end. It's very sobering reading what they wrote.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#59

Post by beat » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

cat199 wrote: post #25

ng12 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> filling the vacuum caused by the collapse of the Roman empire What about the "other" Roman empire, the Byzantines? They seemed to have filled the vacuum even better.

Sorry, this is history from a western/anglo-centric perspective. The eastern empire simply doesn't exist after 1054.

The eastern empire lost most of its territory by 800, reducing it to a dying regional power.

But yeah, totally a European perspective. Aside from the Romans, "Europe" barely comes into play in history, until Spain reached America and started bringing back enormous piles of gold.

Re: Who Were the Mamluks?

#60

Post by ivanhoe » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

dfsegoat wrote: post #8

Tying things back to today: A Mameluke Sword is what you see US Marine Corps. officers carry on specific formal occasions (or in recruiting commercials!): "Marine Corps history states that a sword of this type was presented to Marine First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon by the Ottoman Empire viceroy, Prince Hamet, on December 8, 1805, during the First Barbary War, in Libya, as a gesture of respect and praise for the Mar…

what's exactly the distinction between swords and sabres in English? In my native language we'd call this a sabre (sablja), as word sword (mač) is used only for straight double-edged blades.