Anybody got a link to the great turningpoint battles against the Muslims

[chequita guevara]

Seeker? So the Saxons are the be-all-and-end-all of the Dark Ages? France, Spain, Italy, Germany, North Africa don't count? What happened to the Roman roads? The aquaducts? How many tall buldings did the Saxons manage to create? When did they start building stone castles again? Yeah.

During Charlemange's time, the Eastern Roman Empire was not a dying, decrepit empire. That took another 500 hundred years.

[Thorgal]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The victory was real, it's importance as a turning point is not. Had the Moors not been defeated at Tours, it is unlikley that what was left of Christian Spain would have held.

It was the turning point in Spain certainly. BTW No had existed Covadonga defeat and ulterior chaos in the muslim military in north Spain, the moors could have focused totally in France couldnt them? I mean, "what if" works in both ways.

[chequita guevara]

There's a reason one is famous in Europe and the other isn't.

[Thorgal]

Wow, I was expecting you would come with something better.

So, you mean historical facts relevancy depends of his fame. Then Montecasino was way more important for WW2 outcome than lets say, the battle of Prokhorovka, wasnt it?

Martel was sacralized as national hero by the Carolingians, and the Carolingians were the center of Europa as it was the Sacred Roman Empire at the time. In fact there was another more important battle in France against the arabs when his forces were at the peak of his momentum, the mostly unknow battle of Tolousse, some years before Tours, but since the general who won it was not frankish...

[Seeker]

I only studied the saxons. There is only so much time in one's schedule after all.

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Napoleon's "Battle of the Nile" could also be considered a turning point in the fortunes of Islamic civilization against the west. Outside of Cairo Napoleon's starving and sick army defeated a muslim force several times their size, demonstrating unequivocally the weakness of the Ottoman Empire. It triggered a reaction among conservatives within the empire. Some regions of the empire closed themselves to foreigners entirely, and some began to put severe pressure on non-muslims, even "the people of the book", to convert. After peace with France was established the sultan attempted to reform the army, but conservative forces rebelled, eliminated the units trained by the French and deposed the sultan. Not only did napoleon's humiliation of thye Mameluks expose Islamic civilization's weakness, but a cycle of reaction was established that continues today.

Erm, the Ottomans had been steadily weakening since at least 1683 and the second retreat from Vienna.

Most historians would argue that it was the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji between Russia and the Ottomans in 1774 that first proved the Ottomans were in deep decline. Certainly, its from then that reforms were started within the Empire, especially military and educational reforms.

The French invasion of 1798 represented the first time a European power had direct rule over an Arab country. It split off (an already semi-autonomous) Egypt from the Ottoman Empire, but more importantly, it brought the first clocks, printing presses and accurate surveys of population and land resources.

It began the first stages of the colonisation of the Middle East; Napoleon's peace treaty with the Mamluks was identical to the one used 30 years later in Algiers. But it also was the first time that many Arabs had large and open contact with Europeans, and so began to develop new ideas and methods of dealing with the world. Its no coincidence that many of the first attempts to adopt Western industrial and social models were in Egypt, or that Egypt has since then spent most of its modern history trying to Europeanise itself.

By 1874 the Khedive of Egypt, Isma’il would be claiming that, “Europe’s influence has transformed Cairo. Now… we are civilised".

Ironically, Egypt was colonised only 9 years later.

[Vince278]

Attaturk.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil


Erm, the Ottomans had been steadily weakening since at least 1683 and the second retreat from Vienna.

Most historians would argue that it was the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji between Russia and the Ottomans in 1774 that first proved the Ottomans were in deep decline.

Yes, but Napoleon's invasion left a deep scar in the psyche of the Islamic middle east, especially after the British who presented themselves as 'liberators' insisted upon trying to stay in Egypt. It turned out that the British occupation force was extremely undersized and the Ottomans were able to overrun them without modernized forces. In fact disease had virtually finished off the British force before it surrendered. The lessons that conservatives took home from this episode were: (1) that westerners were evil and a threat to Islam - therefore large segments of the empire were to be completely closed to foreigners, (2) western reforms weren't really necessary and might in fact be subversive of good Islamic morals and (3) despite the prophet's instructions that they were to treat "the people of the book" with respect Christian and Jewish non-believers were thought to have aided the westerners and so it would be a good idea to diminish their numbers.

French and British sources independently estimated that half the population of Egypt was still Christian at the end of the eighteenth century. Judea also had large Christian and Jewish populations, but after the British were thrown out these areas were closed off to outside influence and harsh economic and legal measures were taken to induce non-Muslims to convert. When these areas were re-opened around mid-century they had become 90% Muslim.

[chequita guevara]

I'm not so sure we should necessarily trust those British and French sources. After all, "protecting" those Christian elements would have been a strong selling point to colonize Egypt back home.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
Erm, the Ottomans had been steadily weakening since at least 1683 and the second retreat from Vienna.

Actually, that was the 3rd retreat, the 1st two being in 1529 and 1532. The point at which the Ottoman decline began was probably the mid 1550s. When Suleyman gave the kapakulu (inluding the janisaries) the right to marry and have children, he created a self-perpetuating class, that decided it wanted to have its children, and not the state, inherit its wealth. The interest of the slave-caste divurged from that of the state, and became increasingly more conservative and unwilling to risk itself in war. When the Ottomans were fought to a standstill by the Austrians and where forced to acknowledge for the 1st time a European power as its equal in the 1590s, that's when they reached their senith and began their downturn. It is also when they were forced to return large chunks of Saffavid territory.

Had Europe not torn itself apart in the Thirty Years War, the Ottoman weakness would have been apparent much sooner. Even still, it was the incomptency of Kemal Mustafa before Vienna that laid bare the Ottoman Empire before Europe. Had he considered the approaching amries of Austria, Poland, France, and Savoy a threat and fortified his camp, they might not have been routed so utterly. After that day, Europe no longer feared the Turk.

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Yes, but Napoleon's invasion left a deep scar in the psyche of the Islamic middle east, especially after the British who presented themselves as 'liberators' insisted upon trying to stay in Egypt. It turned out that the British occupation force was extremely undersized and the Ottomans were able to overrun them without modernized forces. In fact disease had virtually finished off the British force before it surrendered. The lessons that conservatives took home from this episode were: (1) that westerners were evil and a threat to Islam - therefore large segments of the empire were to be completely closed to foreigners, (2) western reforms weren't really necessary and might in fact be subversive of good Islamic morals and (3) despite the prophet's instructions that they were to treat "the people of the book" with respect Christian and Jewish non-believers were thought to have aided the westerners and so it would be a good idea to diminish their numbers.

French and British sources independently estimated that half the population of Egypt was still Christian at the end of the eighteenth century. Judea also had large Christian and Jewish populations, but after the British were thrown out these areas were closed off to outside influence and harsh economic and legal measures were taken to induce non-Muslims to convert. When these areas were re-opened around mid-century they had become 90% Muslim.

I'm sorry, but thats mostly rubbish.

(1) Westerners had always been considered dangerous. Even so, no restrictions were made on their travels. In fact, the European powers were allowed to set up schools and Universities in Syria, and were also granted (admittedly at gunpoint) concessions for trading, as well as specific legal rights 'the Capitulations'.
(2) Then why did Muhammad 'Ali in Egypt set out ambitious reform programs. Why did the Ottoman Sultan create a Nizam-i-Cedit (new order army), and then shell the Jannisaries when they opposed his reforms? ('the auspicious event'). Why did they set up a decree mandating universal primary education in 1834. Why did they seize religious property (waqf property), turning the major religious positions into state appointments and limiting religious control over higher education?
(3) Utter, utter rubbish. The Ottoman Sultan declared in 1808 that, “I recognise no differences between my subjects�. The heads of the religious communities(called millets by Westerners, but that's actually inaccurate) were given more rights, including greater authority to collect taxes. Tax rates were normalised between subjects. Further, although the Greeks in Istanbul were increasingly badly treated, communities of Jews, Armenians and so-on were still allowed to function in the higher ranks of the bureaucracy.
There were religious riots in Syria-Lebanon, especially after the 1830's, but the impact of these has been exaggerated, not in the least because that's where a lot of American, French and British writers, teachers and journalists lived, and also expressed the greatest imperial interests. "Oh nos! The Christians are being hurt! Lets use this opportunity to intervene". The near civil war in the Kurdish regions was not reported to anywhere near as great an extent, if only because that was a political battle, not a religious one.

Finally, the French census I talked about, "l'Description D'Egypte", commissioned in 1798, reported about 30% of the population of Egypt was Christian, no where near 50%. Nor was there anywhere a policy of 'reducing' Christian or Jewish numbers. Not only is there no evidence for this, at all, but of these so-called 'closed areas', many Christians and Jews benefited from the increased trade with the European powers that was opened up by 1798, and 1774.

The most common reaction to European power in this period is aptly demonstrated by the Qadi of Istanbul in 1774, who, when asked to discover a religious explanation of what had just happened, wrote that:
“It is impossible to obtain from us an explanation of why things have turned out as they have".

Confusion was by far stronger than any so-called conservative reaction.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Oerdin
How was Mexico?

The Aztecs were busy winning over the hearts... not so much the minds, of their enemies.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Whoha
The Aztecs were busy winning over the hearts... not so much the minds, of their enemies.

Was that a sly reference to their practice of cutting the hearts out of sacrificed enemies?

[Dinner]

The Ottoman Sultan might have said there was no difference but the reality is he charged an extra tax on nonchristians. The idea was that 1) the Koran specifically says to do this and 2) poverty stricken farmers close to subsistance level will convert in order to avoid paying taxes. The Ottoman Janisaries were also Christian boys stolen from their parents as children and raised as muslims for the purpose of reducing the number of Christians and increasing the number of muslims in the Empire.

Dr. Strange loves comments seem to be historically correct even if you don't like them.

[Thorgal]

While it is true that the Quran stablishes an special tax for non-muslims: the Jyzia, it stablishes another special tax only for muslims: the Zakhat. You should see the relative amount of both taxes before make conclusions. OTOH the Quran says that only non-muslim males reasonably wealthy should pay the jizya.