Contingency and the rise of Islam

[TimCallahan]

While I believe there are broad patterns to be perceived in history, I believe that contingency also plays a part. This is particularly true of the spread of Islam, largely through conquest, from the Arabian peninsula. Consider the following:

1) Two powerful empires that could have blocked military excursions from the Arabian peninsula, The Eastern Roman and Sassanid Persian empires, had just exhausted each other in a twenty-five year war when the Muslims erupted from Arabia. Had they not gotten involved in that debacle, they probably would have stopped the Muslims cold.

2) Having overrun Egypt, the Muslims moved west, converted the Moors and attacked Spain. There they easily overthrew a weak, corrupt, poorly organized state, the Visigothic kingdom, and moved on to the conquest of another such state, the Frankish kingdom. That the Muslim expansion not occurred at a time when most states in their path were weak and ill organized, the spread of Islam would not have been so rapid and dramatic.

3) The Moors were stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours. This was in northern France. Had they won that battle, France, as well as Spain, would have been under the rule of the Moors and all Europe would have been open to Muslim conquest.

4) Following the Battle of Tours (732), the Umayyad Caliphate was overthrown by the Abbasids (750). While the Abbasids triumph was nearly complete, the Umayyads held on in the Iberian peninsula. Had the Umayyads not been overthrown, they could have mounted a second, larger assault on the Frankish kingdom, possibly conquering it. Had the Abbasids managed a complete conquest of the Umayyad Caliphate, including Spain, they, too could have made a second attack on France. As it was, the Umayyad emirate in the Iberian peninsula lacked the military resources that had been avialable to the Umayyads as a caliphate. Further, they had a hostile power now just to the south of them. Thus, these two events, the Battle of Tours in 732 and the incomplete overthrow of the Umayyads in 750, effectively ended Muslim into western Europe.

All or any of these events - the 25 year long war between the Byzantines and Persians, The general timing of the Muslim expansion, the Battle of Tours and the Abbasid overthrow of the Umayyads - could have easily gone another way, causing vast changes in the history of Europe, north Africa and the Middle East.

 

[Brainache]

Isn't this true of just about all of History? If things had been different, they would be different.

Imagine if Alexander The Great had not died so young and had managed to consolidate his conquests into an Empire. If he had produced a strong successor, etc... The Roman Empire might never have arisen.

If Rome was never dominant in the Mediterranean Jerusalem might not have produced the Messiah cults, therefore no Jesus...

No Xtianity, no messianic tradition, no Mohammad, no Islam...

The world as it is now is contingent upon so many things having happened the way that they did, that I think it is pretty safe to say that changing almost any one of them would produce a very different world to the one we know.

Would it be better, or worse?

Who can tell?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If wishes were fishes, you would never be hungry. Unless, you were allergic to fish.

 

[Virus]

Yes. I think that this is true. Imagine if the Tamerlane never turned his wrath on fellow Muslims and bought the West valuable time.

 

[angrysoba]

While I believe there are broad patterns to be perceived in history, I believe that contingency also plays a part.

I'm not sure what you mean when you distinguish between broad patterns and contingency.

Surely the "patterns" are mostly discerned with hindsight but all the interesting bits that we usually care about are contingent.

About the only thing that studying counterfactual history is useful for, in my humble opinion, is to remind us that what happened didn't inevitably happen.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I think the plague also played a big role.
The epidemic weakened both the West and the Persians.

 

[Humes fork]

Actually it is a question among historians if events are shaped by extra-ordinary individuals or by larger forces and the famous historical individuals simply were at the right places at the right times.

For example, consider the three main cultural regions of Eurasia: Europe, the Middle East and East Asia. For the vast majority of history, Europe was the most backward and least developed region. How come that this region ended up being the one that conquered large parts of the world? Why not the Middle Easterners or the Chinese? Why did English, rather than Persian or Chinese, end up being the global lingua franca?

 

[Beerina]

You'll note that what made Europe dominant, which in turn lead to US dominance, has fled that continent.

If only one could figure out what it was. Ah, well. They're doing Ok, I guess, throwing each other into jail for making shirts with 6 buttons instead of 7. It's democracy, so it's all good.

 

[angrysoba]

Actually it is a question among historians if events are shaped by extra-ordinary individuals or by larger forces and the famous historical individuals simply were at the right places at the right times.

According to Harry Flashman, in Royal Flash:

Scholars, of course, won’t have it so. Policies they say, and the subtly laid schemes of statesmen, are what influences the destinies of nations; the opinions of intellectuals, the writings of philosophers, settle the fate of mankind. Well, they may do their share, but in my experience the course of history is as often settled by someone having a belly-ache, or not sleeping well, or a sailor getting drunk, or some aristocratic harlot waggling her backside.

I think that's a pretty good expression of contingency in history.

For example, consider the three main cultural regions of Eurasia: Europe, the Middle East and East Asia. For the vast majority of history, Europe was the most backward and least developed region. How come that this region ended up being the one that conquered large parts of the world? Why not the Middle Easterners or the Chinese? Why did English, rather than Persian or Chinese, end up being the global lingua franca?

Ah! There's a whole cottage industry of books on this subject:

Kenneth Clarke's Civilization
Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel
Niall Ferguson's Civilization
Ian Morris's Why The West Rules... For Now

 

[TimCallahan]

I'm not sure what you mean when you distinguish between broad patterns and contingency.

Surely the "patterns" are mostly discerned with hindsight but all the interesting bits that we usually care about are contingent.

About the only thing that studying counterfactual history is useful for, in my humble opinion, is to remind us that what happened didn't inevitably happen.

One pattern seen in history is that empires continue expanding to just beyond their ability to defend their territories with their own troops, They then have to include foreign auxiliaries, cease expanding, weaken - often ravaged by their foreign troops - and fall. This was true of the Egyptian Empire in the Bronze Age, the Assyrian Empire and theRoman Empire.

A pattern evident in European history is that one power block threatens to create a pan-European empire. The others form an alliance against this force and manage to defeat it at the climax of a cycle of escalating wars:

power block - time period - decisive conflict

Hapsburgs - 1500s to early 1600s - Thirty Years War

France / Louis XIV - early 1700s - War of the Spanish Succession

France / Napoleon Bonaparte - early 1800 - Napoleon's invasion of Russia

Triple Alliance vs. Triple Entante - early 1900s - World War I

Germany / Hitler - middle 1900s - World War II

World War I was slightly different from the others, in that it involved two power blocks, rather than a power block vs. an alliance against it.

 

[TimCallahan]

Actually it is a question among historians if events are shaped by extra-ordinary individuals or by larger forces and the famous historical individuals simply were at the right places at the right times.

For example, consider the three main cultural regions of Eurasia: Europe, the Middle East and East Asia. For the vast majority of history, Europe was the most backward and least developed region. How come that this region ended up being the one that conquered large parts of the world? Why not the Middle Easterners or the Chinese? Why did English, rather than Persian or Chinese, end up being the global lingua franca?

I think Jared Diamond was right in Guns, Germs and Steel, that Europe's geography allowed for the survival of many independent states, thus increasing the chance new ideas and technologies would be utilized, i.e. if one king turned you down you could go to another, then another, etc.

In China, the single central government's decision to scrap the Treasure Fleet and not allow their culture to be "corrupted" by outside influences caused them to stultify. Likewise, Islam usually had very few states and often was held by a monolithic empire.

 

[Mark6]

In China, the single central government's decision to scrap the Treasure Fleet and not allow their culture to be "corrupted" by outside influences caused them to stultify.

Basically, they decided "We are the bestest, and should ignore the rest of the world because nothing good will ever come out of it." Which is quite amazing, if you think about it. Not the decision itself -- history had plenty of governments that arrogant or more, -- but that they got away with it for centuries. Any European king who tried a stunt like that would have his country invaded within generation.

 

[gumboot]

For example, consider the three main cultural regions of Eurasia: Europe, the Middle East and East Asia. For the vast majority of history, Europe was the most backward and least developed region. How come that this region ended up being the one that conquered large parts of the world? Why not the Middle Easterners or the Chinese? Why did English, rather than Persian or Chinese, end up being the global lingua franca?

I think Europe's biggest advantage was that there were a disparate group of different cultures. This environment tends to lead to more culture-sharing, which develops a wider culture that actively seeks to assimilate anything that might be useful. That characteristic alone put them centuries ahead of either China or the Middle East. And the English were the greatest of all the assimilators, which is why they claimed the largest empire the world has ever seen.

The value of being able to look at a newly-encountered "inferior" culture and identify aspects of that culture which will make your own stronger cannot be understated. The English were masters at it, and everywhere they went they looted the cultural capital of indigenous peoples to improve their own. That alone is the reason, in my opinion, that such a small island managed to rule a quarter of the earth.

 

[Humes fork]

Ah! There's a whole cottage industry of books on this subject:

Kenneth Clarke's Civilization
Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel
Niall Ferguson's Civilization
Ian Morris's Why The West Rules... For Now

I think Jared Diamond was right in Guns, Germs and Steel, that Europe's geography allowed for the survival of many independent states, thus increasing the chance new ideas and technologies would be utilized, i.e. if one king turned you down you could go to another, then another, etc.

In China, the single central government's decision to scrap the Treasure Fleet and not allow their culture to be "corrupted" by outside influences caused them to stultify. Likewise, Islam usually had very few states and often was held by a monolithic empire.

Actually I'm familiar with Jared Diamond's account and I think it has points, but I also think he overlooks certain issues. Think of cultural issues. In China, merchants were despised, in England they were respected. The Chinese cultural trait was clearly for their disadvantage. Can it really be connected to geography?

Also, is it necessary for a united country to stagnate, and be closed for new innovation? Diamond seems to assume it. If so, then we should expect the US to be stagnated, and Europe to be considerably more innovative than the US. Which is not really the case.

Likewise, early modern England seemed considerably more innovative than early modern France. The former was relatively liberal, the latter very autocratic and traditionalist. I don't think this can be explained by geography. By Diamond's theory, we should expect the opposite situation as the English were (relatively) more isolated on their island, and the French residing on the continent.

Another case in point: How come the Dutch were able to out-compete Portugal for being the main traders of spice to Europe? They were better organized, had better institutions (they invented ththe concept of owning shares) and had beneficial cultural attributes like religious tolerance. Unlike the Portuguise, they didn't preach Christianity to every people they encountered, and they allowed the Jews expelled from Portugal a refuge, plenty of them becoming successful traders. Why was this the case for the Netherlands, and not Portugal? I can't see how Diamond's theory can explain it.

I think Europe's biggest advantage was that there were a disparate group of different cultures. This environment tends to lead to more culture-sharing, which develops a wider culture that actively seeks to assimilate anything that might be useful. That characteristic alone put them centuries ahead of either China or the Middle East.

Wait a moment here. China was actually consolidated much earlier, and the Chinese nationality has existed for two millennia, longer than any European nationality. Shouldn't the various parts of China have been better culture-sharers with each other then, rather than the semi-isolated parts of Europe?

 

[gumboot]

Wait a moment here. China was actually consolidated much earlier, and the Chinese nationality has existed for two millennia, longer than any European nationality. Shouldn't the various parts of China have been better culture-sharers with each other then, rather than the semi-isolated parts of Europe?

No, the opposite is true. Once a single national identity is consolidated, it tends to reduce cultural diversity, particularly with totalitarian regimes such as existed in China. There's also less conflict, and conflict is the key to innovation and diversity. With a large stable state you end up with a much more monochromatic culture, which then becomes insular (which is exactly what happened with China, and is increasingly true of somewhere like the USA).

Because Europe remained a disparate group of cultures for so much longer, it retained greater cultural diversity for much longer. The various competing cultures would naturally look to gain and exploit advantage over each other, resulting in a far more innovative environment where cultures sought to borrow from each other to get ahead of the competition.

Once these separate attitudes are engrained in the cultural psyche they tend to have a reinforcing effect and dictate the way the culture behaves.

China cuts itself off from the rest of the world, refusing to assimilate new advances, and quickly finds itself a backward, undeveloped nation.

Europe, in contrast, sees nation states actively going out into the world to find new cultures, seizing characteristics of those cultures, and absorbing them into their own to make them superior (and to give them an advantage over the other European states they're in competition with). Thus in a short space of time the European states were able to conquer virtually the entire world and experienced an explosion of cultural, technological, and scientific advancement.

Again, I don't think it a coincidence that the state which was the most enthusiastic at absorbing other cultures was also the one which claimed by far the biggest slice of the global pie.

And that's why English is today the international language.

 

[gumboot]

Actually I'm familiar with Jared Diamond's account and I think it has points, but I also think he overlooks certain issues. Think of cultural issues. In China, merchants were despised, in England they were respected. The Chinese cultural trait was clearly for their disadvantage. Can it really be connected to geography?

Yes, but why were they despised in one and valued in the other? Because the geographic situation had made contact with other cultures a good thing in one society, and a bad thing in the other. It still comes back to Diamond's premise.

As to your other points, I don't think you can take an argument on a continental level explaining why Europe did better than China, and reapply the same argument to sub-levels to explain why one European nation did better than another.

 

[Robrob]

As to your other points, I don't think you can take an argument on a continental level explaining why Europe did better than China, and reapply the same argument to sub-levels to explain why one European nation did better than another.

I agree. Diamond's premise concerns influences on continental scale (South America vs. Europe) and not really sub-cultures. For example, Mayan vs. Aztec. Much of Diamond's argument is about native species of potential domestic animals, grains, etc... The Mayans had the same domestic animals/plants as the Aztecs and the English had the same animals/plants as the French.

 

[marplots]

What if the one ring had never been forged?

 

[gumboot]

Actually it is a question among historians if events are shaped by extra-ordinary individuals or by larger forces and the famous historical individuals simply were at the right places at the right times.

I suspect it's a bit of both. There are certain events in history that are probably more or less inevitable, and the famous figures we remember just happened to be at the right place and time, as you say. If Columbus hadn't reached the New World someone else was going to within short order, and it's unlikely the end result would have been substantially different.

But then there's other instances where I really do think individuals can make quite a difference. If you swapped out Alexander of Macedon with a thousand other men, how many would have built the empire he did? It's irrefutable that he was extraordinary. Yes, his father had been planning a war on Persia, but Alexander turned that into one of the most staggeringly successful campaigns of conquest in history, and most of the evidence suggests that much of his achievement was down to him personally.

Great Times will turn ordinary men into Great Men, but Great Men can turn ordinary times into Great Times.

 

[TimCallahan]

One of the great turning points in European / Christian vs. West Asian / Muslim power was the crushing defeat inflicted by the allied Christian fleet (Spain, Venice etc.) on the Ottoman fleet at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. Both sides started out with roughly 300 ships. By the end of the battle the European fleet had about 280 ships, and the Ottoman Turks had about 20.

The main element that gave the European fleet such an advantage as to lead to such a lopsided victory was gunpowder. The European ships had far more cannon than did those of the Turks, and the European soldiers were armed with arquebusses (sp.?), while the tTurkish soldiers wee armed with bows. Since both civilizations were exposed to cannons and other firearms, one wonders why the Europeans so favored cannon on their ships as opposed to the Turks.