What next after Mosul and Raqqa?

[McHrozni]

No, it's not "far more difficult" to come up with a test that is useless for saying anything about historical events.

Why would you call it absurd, then?

It may be far more difficult to understand (for one of us) why your method would yield useless statistics, and why testability is a red herring.

Useless statistic, eh? That's quite rich, considering you've just finished calculating the statistics of how much worse Timurid invasions were for the affected areas of the Islamic world to demonstrate the Hundred years' war had much less impact on France you know

A question for you, if the ability to test a hypothesis is a red herring, how do you suppose we can demonstrate which hypothesis or theory is more likely to approximate the reality better?

The only things I can think of is who can use CAPS LOCK more, who can use large fonts better and who can fling more insults. I find all three arguments unconvincing. Do you have a better proposal?

McHrozni

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Sure, sure, calculate your heart out. After you're done with the calculations explain how come the Ottoman Caliphate was able to dominate the Southeastern Europe, including the combined armies of Spain, Holy Roman Empire, Poland, and a coalition of Italian states, despite all that destruction from the Timurids which supposedly stunted for many centuries the development of the region which formed the backbone of its' power.

Did I say it was the only or sole reason? No, I used it as an example of a war that was of a different brutality magnitude than anything seen in Europe at the time, which you disputed. It is regardless more applicable to Iran, etc.

But indeed the Ottoman Empire is a good example of an Islamic society in the late medieval period that had significant advances in science and technology. But now I'm supposed to explain why their achievements were not on par with the most significant discoveries you can find in all Europe, I'm sure

Fine: Continuous land empires throughout history have generally not been responsible for the greatest advances in science and technology. Something about the social organization of an empire appears to cause stagnation in the development of new ideas.

The conditions that resulted in Europe being densely populated with smaller states, is, I believe, the most significant distinguishing factor in spurring the development of ideas. But those conditions have their roots in contingencies (e.g. wars, climate, disease) and conditions (e.g. climate, agricultural conditions).

I'm not going to bother with your insistence that history relies on testability, or that the kind of "tests" you suggest are useful. History is the study of the past. We can't do experiments on past events. We can, however, attempt to explain them through examination of the historical record.

 

[McHrozni]

Did I say it was the only or sole reason?

It was the only reason of any significance you mentioned, what am I supposed to conclude from that?

But indeed the Ottoman Empire is a good example of an Islamic society in the late medieval period that had significant advances in science and technology. But now I'm supposed to explain why their achievements were not on par with the most significant discoveries you can find in all Europe, I'm sure

Of course you are. You claimed the development of the Islamic world was critically stunted by the Mongol and Timurid invasions of 13th and 14th centuries, to the point it was unable to compete with Europe in 17th and 18th centuries and beyond.

Now explain how come an Islamic nation, whose power base was in no small part in affected areas, was able to compete with Europe on at least equal terms during 15th and 16th centuries, but wasn't able to continue the streak into 17th and 18th centuries and beyond. The assertion it was due to devastation in centuries prior to Ottomans (out) competing Europe for about two hundred years seems rather thin.

Fine: Continuous land empires throughout history have generally not been responsible for the greatest advances in science and technology. Something about the social organization of an empire appears to cause stagnation in the development of new ideas.

Either that or else states that were good in developing new ideas were the ones were also able to build and maintain overseas empires. It's the same thing, just with reversed cause and effect. If I'm correct I can find maritime empires which fell into decay and I'll be able to find states which were advanced before or even without significant maritime empires, whereas if you're correct maritime empires were fine for at least as long as they maintained overseas colonies and only decayed afterwards.

Spain and Portugal are examples of maritime empires who fell into decay and eventually lost their empires.

United Kingdom is an example of a state which was advanced without a maritime empire and actually lost a good proportion of it's colonies at one point, and still surged on to become the worlds' largest empire of all time after that.

Germany/Prussia is an example of a state which was advanced without a maritime empire and never had a significant maritime empire, only a few small colonies of very limited importance. Yet it still became one of the most powerful states in Europe or the world. It still is, even though it lost all of her colonies about a century ago and suffered from two devastating defeats.

This seems to fly in the face of your assertion and support my hypothesis. Will your response again be that one shouldn't test hypothesis of history?

Here's one more, Switzerland is highly advanced, even though it doesn't have a coastline, much less a maritime empire. It's also too small to have a major empire to begin with. It doesn't even have natural resources to speak of. How does your hypothesis explain Switzerland?

The conditions that resulted in Europe being densely populated with smaller states, is, I believe, the most significant distinguishing factor in spurring the development of ideas. But those conditions have their roots in contingencies (e.g. wars, climate, disease) and conditions (e.g. climate, agricultural conditions).

Didn't you say earlier that tribal conflict was devastating to the Middle East? What Europe experienced was little different, especially in Germany, which not only didn't fall behind, it overtook major maritime empires by late 19th century. How come the same thing that allegedly crippled the Islamic world also helped Europe? Can you explain this discrepancy in your claims?

I'm not going to bother with your insistence that history relies on testability, or that the kind of "tests" you suggest are useful. History is the study of the past. We can't do experiments on past events. We can, however, attempt to explain them through examination of the historical record.

Nonsense. Are you familiar with the phrase "History repeats itself"? Where do you think it originates from, anyway?

History is valuable because we can learn from it. If we can learn from it we can make predictions from it. Without that ability history would be a useless waste of time. Pardon me for having a significantly better opinion about the study of history than you do.

McHrozni

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I seriously do not understand why you still think I have ever intended to present an exhaustive list of factors. From the beginning I have made clear that I am presenting examples of factors that could explain the differences between East and West.

You are being disingenuous in insisting that any one cause must be a universal explanation. Moreover, you were the one who asserted that the 15th century was the period in which Europe's rise was inevitable. Timur's wars is an example, given that you are right, of something particular to the ME that could partially explain this discrepancy. The calculations you deride were in response to your own assertions that the 100 years' war was comparable to the Timurid conquests.

You know what another big factor is? Chance.

Since you have no interest in honest discussion, I'm out. I'll grant you the privilege of scoffing and declaring victory once again.

 

[McHrozni]

I seriously do not understand why you still think I have ever intended to present an exhaustive list of factors. From the beginning I have made clear that I am presenting examples of factors that could explain the differences between East and West.

If you think some other factors were the ones who made all the difference you're free to present them. In fact, I invite you to.

You are being disingenuous in insisting that any one cause must be a universal explanation.

There doesn't have to be one, but if the explanation only covers one particular set of examples and not any of the others it is significantly weaker than a different explanation which covers the entire spectrum of possibilities. In any case it needs strong corroborating evidence that it was indeed a special case which shouldn't be universally applied of which you provided none.

In short, an explanation that is not universally applicable is a special plea. This is not wrong per se, some special pleas are warranted, but you need about five special pleas to explain European burst of development from 15th century onward (becoming prominent and important in the 17th century) compared to the rest of the world. Some of your special pleas claim what strengthened Europe in one case also weakened a competitor in another, which makes them contradictory. Facing against that you have a theory which doesn't rely on special pleading and explains the entirety of differences in that time period and in any other period of history and makes testable predictions for the future.

But I'm sure you have all the evidence in the world needed to prove your five special pleas trump a functional theory. You're just too busy to provide them, right?

The difference in your approach of the issue, repeated by many, is that you seek to explain why Islamic world fell behind Europe, the book Guns, germs and steel sought out to explain why American peoples fell behind Europe and so on. The thing is Islamic world didn't fall behind Europe, China didn't fall behind Europe and American peoples didn't fall behind Europe, it was Europe that outpaced the rest of the world by a margin unseen since the invention of agriculture.

Why did nomadic peoples fall behind their agricultural neighbors? Was it because something held the nomads back or because agricultural peoples surged forward due to their newfound technologies? This is the exact same question as to why Europe outpaced any other group of peoples at the same time. You're looking in the wrong place.

Moreover, you were the one who asserted that the 15th century was the period in which Europe's rise was inevitable.

No, I didn't. I said the history was set in place by the time Qajar dynasty came to power in Iran and the rise of nationalism weakned the Ottoman empire. Qajar dynasty came to power in Iran in 1789, the rise of nationalism in Ottoman empire (and indeed elsewhere) became prominent from mid-19th century onward. You're off by about three centuries, this is about as bad as mixing up 30 years' war and World war 2.

Timur's wars is an example, given that you are right, of something particular to the ME that could partially explain this discrepancy. The calculations you deride were in response to your own assertions that the 100 years' war was comparable to the Timurid conquests.

No, it couldn't. For Timurids to have been a major factor, no Islamic state and no state from the region Timurids have struck should be able to challenge Europe on anything approaching equal terms between the end of the Timurid empire and late 16th century. Ottomans did just that and more and they were both Islamic and originated in an area affected by Timurids, therefore Timurid invasions weren't the decisive reason as to why Islamic world fell behind Europe. It is a fairy tale you made up and doesn't stand the most lenient of tests. End of story.

You know what another big factor is? Chance.

If it was random chance you wouldn't expect clustering of unusually successful states in one continent and in one period of time. You'd expect it to be spread out geographically and in terms of passage of time, you'd expect a colonial empire in Europe and another in India and a third in Central America, not four in Western Europe alone within a single century and the rest of the continent following suit, developing as much innovation in a decade as otherwise happened in a few centuries and then cutting that down to years and even less. You have two levels of clustering, in time and in space which you must now explain by random chance. Please do so without resorting to an infinite probability drive and tea.

Since you have no interest in honest discussion, I'm out.

Since when is challenging your claims anything other than an honest discussion?

McHrozni

 

[Mycroft]

The fight in Mosul has nothing to do with Christianity, so I am not sure why any of you bring that up.

For comparison? If you want to say a religion is uniquely bad, you have to compare it to other religions.

 

[Vixen]

For comparison? If you want to say a religion is uniquely bad, you have to compare it to other religions.

I don't see why? Radical Islamism is eschatogical (apocalyptic) in its own right. Its aim is to destroy all infidels.

Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism do not have such a mission.

 

[LSSBB]

I don't see why? Radical Islamism is eschatogical (apocalyptic) in its own right. Its aim is to destroy all infidels.

Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism do not have such a mission.

Deuteronomy 17:1-20 ESV

“You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever, for that is an abomination to the Lord your God. If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. ... "

 

[A'isha]

I don't see why? Radical Islamism is eschatogical (apocalyptic) in its own right. Its aim is to destroy all infidels.

Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism do not have such a mission.

The premillennial dispensationalism of Evangelical Christianity is just as apocalyptic as radical Islamic eschatology and also features the final destruction of all unbelievers.

Both even feature the Second Coming of Jesus to overthrow the Antichrist and a final battle between the believers and unbelievers at a prophesied geographic location in the Levant.

 

[Vixen]

The premillennial dispensationalism of Evangelical Christianity is just as apocalyptic as radical Islamic eschatology and also features the final destruction of all unbelievers.

Both even feature the Second Coming of Jesus to overthrow the Antichrist and a final battle between the believers and unbelievers at a prophesied geographic location in the Levant.

That might be true, but fact is the Bible clearly states that wrath belongs to God. Thus, we as humans should forgive our enemies as vengeance is God's alone.

It is incorrect to claim Christianity or Judaism promulgates violence against people who do not support their beliefs. In fact, Judaism does not seek to convert anybody.

If you look at Israel, the suicide bombers who clamber aboard buses packed with school children are not Jewish. It is not the Jews firing rockets on the Hamas (except in response to their aggression).

The major difference is, the jihadists urge their followers to inflict injury and death on 'infidels'. Once Mosul and Raqqa are retaken, the jihadist cause will be relegated to an online one.

 

[Polaris]

Sooooo....what's next after Mosul and Raqqa?

 

[A'isha]

That might be true, but fact is the Bible clearly states that wrath belongs to God. Thus, we as humans should forgive our enemies as vengeance is God's alone.

It is incorrect to claim Christianity or Judaism promulgates violence against people who do not support their beliefs.

The Bible (particularly the Jewish Old Testament) is full of commands to slay unbelievers. LSSBB posted one such passage above.

And it's common for Evangelical end times preachers to talk about how Jews who don't convert (which is a prerequisite for Jesus' return) will be murdered in death camps before Christ's return even happens.

If you look at Israel, the suicide bombers who clamber aboard buses packed with school children are not Jewish. It is not the Jews firing rockets on the Hamas (except in response to their aggression).

Palestinian terrorism in Israel is not apocalyptic, it's firmly rooted in the here and now.

 

[Vixen]

The Bible (particularly the Jewish Old Testament) is full of commands to slay unbelievers. LSSBB posted one such passage above.

And it's common for Evangelical end times preachers to talk about how Jews who don't convert (which is a prerequisite for Jesus' return) will be murdered in death camps before Christ's return even happens.


Palestinian terrorism in Israel is not apocalyptic, it's firmly rooted in the here and now.

That's poor logic. Just because one crackpot says it, doesn't make it so.

 

[Vixen]

Sooooo....what's next after Mosul and Raqqa?

I should imagine the US installing yet another Saddam...?

 

[A'isha]

That's poor logic. Just because one crackpot says it, doesn't make it so.

That's actually two crackpots (and pretty influential crackpots, too).

It also has its own Wikipedia entry.

EDIT: ‘Christians Just Want Jews Slaughtered and Converted’, written by, of all things, a Christian Dominionist (albeit one who staunchly opposes the popular Evangelical "end times" movement).

 

[ddt]

The difference in your approach of the issue, repeated by many, is that you seek to explain why Islamic world fell behind Europe, the book Guns, germs and steel sought out to explain why American peoples fell behind Europe and so on. The thing is Islamic world didn't fall behind Europe, China didn't fall behind Europe and American peoples didn't fall behind Europe, it was Europe that outpaced the rest of the world by a margin unseen since the invention of agriculture.

I think a key factor is that, around 1500, Europe consisted of a multitude of states who were in near-constant conflict, and war is always a major technology driver. At the same time, it was in a sense, one cultural sphere, with a common culture language (Latin) which enabled easy exchange of ideas. Thus, a Polish monk could write some novel ideas about cosmology, which then was picked up by an Italian scientist who also built on the invention of a Dutch lense grinder, as well as by a German astronomer who used the data from a Danish astrologer in service of the Austrian emperor.

Copernicus, Galilei, Van Leeuwenhoek, Kepler, Brahe

And if your own prince wouldn't sponsor your ideas, you could easily travel to the next country and try to interest another prince.

By contrast, most of the Islamic world was unified in the Ottoman Empire, and China was also one unitary state.

 

[LSSBB]

That's actually two crackpots (and pretty influential crackpots, too).

It also has its own Wikipedia entry.

EDIT: ‘Christians Just Want Jews Slaughtered and Converted’, written by, of all things, a Christian Dominionist (albeit one who staunchly opposes the popular Evangelical "end times" movement).

The inquisition in general was unkind, and a bit broad in it's 'heretic' net.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

 

[McHrozni]

Sooooo....what's next after Mosul and Raqqa?

An ISIS-like abomination reforms elsewhere, in Libya or Nigeria most likely. Yay for the great 'victory'.

ISIS is a symptom of a problem, it's not the problem itself. That's why I insist we should look at what motivates them.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I think a key factor is that, around 1500, Europe consisted of a multitude of states who were in near-constant conflict, and war is always a major technology driver. At the same time, it was in a sense, one cultural sphere, with a common culture language (Latin) which enabled easy exchange of ideas. Thus, a Polish monk could write some novel ideas about cosmology, which then was picked up by an Italian scientist who also built on the invention of a Dutch lense grinder, as well as by a German astronomer who used the data from a Danish astrologer in service of the Austrian emperor.

Copernicus, Galilei, Van Leeuwenhoek, Kepler, Brahe

And if your own prince wouldn't sponsor your ideas, you could easily travel to the next country and try to interest another prince.

By contrast, most of the Islamic world was unified in the Ottoman Empire, and China was also one unitary state.

That's a little bit better, but it clashes with the assertions made by TubbaBubba, that is was destruction by external forces and internal conflict that kept everyone else down. You disagree with him, I take it?

Your suggestion certainly is compelling and it is likely to have been a significant driver of development from the Renaissance onward.

Here's the thing though. All of the above was also true for much of Europe since about mid late 8th century AD/CE, and certainly true from 13th century onward. Yet it took about several more centuries for the historically barely paralleled (I find at most two in human history) burst of development to take place. Furthermore, the same thing about a somewhat unified cultural sphere, in constant near-conflict, was also true for the Islamic world for most of that period. Islamic world was also relatively more advanced than Christian world for much of the time and therefore presumably closer to achieving the said burst of development.

Ottomans didn't become the dominant Islamic state until the conquest of Mamaluk state in 1517, when the burst of development in Europe was already ongoing. They were able to challenge and defeat Christian powers since about a hundred years before that and up to 170 years after.

In all I think you're on the right track, but one key ingredient is still missing. I believe I made the case for what the key ingredient is.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Deuteronomy 17:1-20 ESV

“You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever, for that is an abomination to the Lord your God. If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. ... "

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the passage seems to be geographically limited to one specific area of the world and does not, in fact, call for the destruction of all infidels, just the ones residing in Israel.

This is awful by modern standards, yes, but you sought out to prove the call was to destroy all infields everywhere. If the best evidence of that is a passage that calls for the destruction of all infidels in Israel I call this evidence of your claim being a false equivalence.

McHrozni