I just finished reading a history book about the founding of Islam......

[Ned]

Bebro, Here, check this out. The year here is 846.

http://www.ashland.edu/~jlewis8/intranetpages/Medieval%20Chronology%20and%20History%20of%20the%20Popes.htm

[BeBMan]

It seems to me, the strong hostility against the west (esp. US and Israel) of many (fortunately not all) Arabs and the rise of fundamentalism is caused also by the failure to modernize their own countries. In many of these countries you have political structures that seem "feudal" - no democracy, but kingdoms, emirates etc., mostly authoritarian states were the majority of the people can´t participate politically (and hasn´t much to get economically either).

Fundamentalism seens to be a way out for many there, but, as "experiments" in Iran and Afghanistan have shown, it is no real solution to improve their situation.

[BeBMan]

Ned, unfortunately I can´t access this site...

[Spiffor]

Ataturk has overthrown the Sultan of the Ottoman empire, a 17-18th century style ruler, with an extensive bureaucracy, and not the "ruler of the believers" like the Caliph was AFAIK. Centuries before, the Sultan has conquered Arab lands, which were ruled by the Caliph.

The Caliph was out of the picture for long before 1920.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ataturk has overthrown the Sultan of the Ottoman empire, a 17-18th century style ruler, with an extensive bureaucracy, and not the "ruler of the believers" like the Caliph was AFAIK.

Yep, but interestingly Ataturks modern view seems not to be shared by the majority of the Turks, it is just for the elite, eg. the military which has intervened (or at least threatened to intervene) often to secure the Kemalistic traditions.

Islamic parties are strong in Turkey too (I even think the current government is from such a party). So we have strong historic roots of a more traditional view on Islam even in a country like Turkey with good relations to the west.

Edit. oh and I didn´t mean there was a unified Arab caliphate after the early middle ages....

[Ned]

Spiffor, I don't make distinctions between Arabs and other followers of the Islamic faith. But you do. Are you suggesting that only the Arab and Iranian fundamentalists are the problem?

You seem to ignore the very agressive attacks by Chechans fundamentalists, and isolated bands of lawless fundamentalist that haunt Central Asia, including East Turkestan, aka, Shinkiang Provence.

I also note that the entire world of Islam, not just the Arabs, were up in arms over our liberation of Iraq. They seemed to view our efforts as an attack on Islam by "crusaders." Even the American who fragged the 101st command in Kuwait did so in the name of Islam.

[Ned]

Bebro, here is a copy of a portion of the timeline:

791-792 Byzantine Empress Irene imprisoned by son; regains power.

797 blinds son Constantine and takes full power. (Proposal to marry Charlemagne?)

795–816 Pope Leo III

802-810 Byzantine Emperor Nicepherus I deposes Irene

810-813 Byzantine Emperor Michael I Rangabe

813-820 Byzantine Emperor Leo V the Armenian

813 Synod of Mainz declares 4 days of Christmas celebrations

814-840 Louis the Pious (le Débonnaire) rules Franks. Crowned at Rheims, 816. In 817 he divided kingdom among his sons

816–817 Pope Stephen V

816-17 1st Monastic Reform Movement Benedict of Aniane; for strict observance of Benedict’s rule

817–824 Pope Paschal I

820-829 Byzantine Emperor Michael II the Amorian ; end of Syrian, start of Phrygian, dynasties.

824–827 Pope Eugenius II

827 Pope Valentin (40 days)

827–844 Pope Gregory IV

829-842 Byzantine Emperor Theophilus

837 New division of Frankish Kingdom between Louis the Pious and son Lothar I

840–855 Lothar I King of franks, crowned 823

770-840 Einhard, Scholar of Charlemagne’s court

844 ? Pope John (diaconus) The mythical papess Joan or John VIII

844–847 Pope Sergius II

840-876 Louis the German, King of Germany

843 Treaty of Verdun divides Franks into German (-911), French (-987), and Italian (-875) lines.

846 Arab sack of Rome

847–855 Pope Leo IV

855–858 Pope Benedict III

855 Pope Anastasius.

855 Lothar divides Italian Kingdom among his sons

855-875 Louis II (in Italy)

858–867 Pope Nicolas I

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ataturk has overthrown the Sultan of the Ottoman empire, a 17-18th century style ruler, with an extensive bureaucracy, and not the "ruler of the believers" like the Caliph was AFAIK. Centuries before, the Sultan has conquered Arab lands, which were ruled by the Caliph.

The Caliph was out of the picture for long before 1920.

The Sultan was the Caliph.

[BeBMan]

Thanks Ned, this is interesting, I will try to find more background on this

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The now peaceful Japanese people were in semi-constant warfare during their whole medieval period, until 1600 when Tokugawa unified Japan (there were some short periods of unifications behind one Shogun before)

This isn't really accurate. Japan was relatively peaceful for most of the medieval period under the long-lasting Kamakura and later Ashikaga shogunates. The only period of semi-constant warfare occured during the Sengoku (Warring States) period which lasted from the start of the Onin War in 1467 to the unification of Japan under Toyotomi Hideyoshi in 1590. A long civil war, no doubt, but hardly the defining characteristic of the entire medieval period.

Japanese Samurais tried to invade their neighbours as soon as their civil war was over.

The invasion of Korea after unification was almost solely attributable to Hideyoshi; it was his dream of conquest that led to the samurai's foreign adventures. When Hideyoshi died, the samurai came back to Japan and didn't venture overseas again for centuries. The invasion of Korea was the work of one man, not a goal that the Japanese people shared.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Yet, the wars between Islam and the West are two-way streets. But for most of history, Europe was on the defensive.

Because it was too much divided between kingdoms and fiefdoms too much involved in fighting each other rather than uniting behind a common enemy. Crusades were the few occurences where hints of European unity existed, and they weren't "defensive" at all.

Europe was really defensive until 732. It was rather defensive until the 14th century, when it became fully offensive until the 20st. Does it mean European are more or less warlike ? No, it does only mean they had enough force to be on the offensive from 14th century on, and the Arabs weren't enough.


Bebro :
I see two key elements that explain the recurrent use of religion by Arabic rulers :

- Islam is about 600 years younger than christianty and its existence had a huge impact on the expansion of the Arab empire and population. In comparison, Rome used its state-religion to consolidate its empire, not to conquer it. As such, Islam is closely bound to politics from the beginning.

- Sunni Islam is not organised enough to have any equivalent of the pope. The pope had the most organised power structure in medieval Europe, and had huge influence in the politics of kigdoms. In order to build more modern administrations, the Kings had to get as much power as possible, which put them at odds with the pope. In the fight for power that ensured (sometimes militarily), the pope eventually lost, and the King's mundane power was admitted as being superior as the pope's on Earth. In short, it meant the Kings could only strive by ripping the pope of many of his powers. It was the beginning of the separation between state and church, a process that still continues today.
In Sunni Islam, there was not such a hard opponent to the caliph. The caliph would claim the title of "Ruler of the believers" and assume himself as the one religious authority. This means the basic mechanics of separation between church and state didn't happen until the Turks went on their conquest, with their policy of relative religious tolerance.
Shiite Islam was closely bound to Persia, so the religious authority pretty much applied to only one country. The big Ayatollahs (who never had as much powers as the pope anyways) had not the biggest feature of the pope, which is to rule the religious matter of several divided countries.

20st century independant Arabic countries are closely tied to Islam in this respect, but most are not Islamic countires, because their ruling elites didn't want to share power with the clergy, or were animated through socialistic ideals. The rise of Islamist countries is quite recent, and can be seen as a reaction to the forceful separation between Church and State. I expect the iraqi Shias to have strong religious demands in this context.

[BeBMan]

Ned, I found an interesting site about the Arab attack http://web.genie.it/utenti/i/inanna/...rraneo-2-i.htm

It describes the attack (scroll down a bit), but the Arabs were unable to enter the walls. However, they plundered two churches outside the walls, killed all defenders there, and took gold etc.

[Spiffor]

Drake :
I didn't know Hideyoshi had such an impact on the Korean conquest. I thought all surviving clans actually agreed on this one except the Tokugawa one.

For the rest of the medieval period : I stand corrected I thought civil wars were the common way to put a new clan at the shogun position, and the periods of peace were much shorter than what you said.

[JohnT]

In regards to the Moslem "sack" of Rome, here's what Will Durant says:

"Fortified by mastery of the Mediterranean, the Saracens now looked appreciatively on the cities of Southern Italy. As piracy was quite within the bounds of honored custom at this time, and Christians and Moslems raided Moslem or Christian shores to capture infidels for sale as slaves, Saracen fleets, mostly from Tunisia or Sicily, began in the ninth century to attack Italian ports. In 841 the Moslems took Bari, the main Byzantine base in SE Italy. A year later, invited by the Lombard Duke of Benevento to help him against Salerno, they swept across Italy and back, despoiling fields and monasteries as they went. In 846, eleven hundred Moslems landed at Ostia, marched up to the walls of Rome, freely plundered the suburbs and the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, and leisurely returned to their ships. Seeing that no civil authority could organize Italian defense, Pope Leo IV took charge, bound Amalfi, Naples, Gaeta, and Rome in alliance, and had a chain stretched across the Tiber to halt any enemy. In 849 the Saracens made another attempt to seize the citadel of Western Christianity. The united Italian fleet, blessed by the Pope, gave them battle, and routed them - a scene pictured by Raphael in the Stanze of the Vatican. In 866 the Emperor Louis II came down from Germany and drove the marauding Moslems of south Italy back upon Bari and Taranto. By 884 they were expelled from the peninsula.

... Italy, perhaps Christianity, had had a narrow escape; had Rome fallen, the Saracens would have advanced upon Venice, and Venice taken, Constantinople would have been wedged in between two concentrations of Moslem power. On such chances of battle hung the theology of billions of men."

Source: The Story of Civilization, vol 4: The Age of Faith, Will Durant (1950). Page 290.

[Drake Tungsten]

I didn't know Hideyoshi had such an impact on the Korean conquest. I thought all surviving clans actually agreed on this one except the Tokugawa one.

Every daimyo agreed to the Korean invasion, including Tokugawa Ieyasu. They didn't really have a choice; Hideyoshi was in full control of all of Japan by that time.

I thought civil wars were the common way to put a new clan at the shogun position, and the periods of peace were much shorter than what you said.

The shogunate was transferred hereditarily, although there were often struggles within the ruling family over who would succeed the old shogun. These succession struggles rarely turned into wars however (the Onin War being the biggest exception).

Struggles between noble families existed throughout the period, but rarely reached a level that could be considered a civil war. Most struggles were small scale engagements over land or to settle vendettas.