I think that there are clear parallels between this and Genghis Khan. Both united warring tribes within Herding societies into centralized political authority and turned them into vehicles for external expansion against much larger Agrarian empires. The biggest difference is that in the Middle East, religion played a much bigger role.
Lovely post and I agree with most of it, although I would like to add a few thoughts regarding the Roman Persian war.
Firstly, I think that war was essential to Islam conquering Arabia because in the normal course of events, neither power would have permitted one single force to take over Arabia. It’s just that they were too busy fighting each other to do anything and afterwards, they were pretty exhausted. Secondly, Persia descended into a pretty chaotic civil war for four years after losing the war and ended up with a child king at the end with the actual government being run by a bunch of regents instead of a single king. This is a major problem both because of normal in fighting issues, but also because central authority was dramatically damaged and obviously no regent has the kind of legitimacy that an adult Kingwood and thus has less political capital. Also just easier to conquer a chaotic government recovering from a civil war instead of a prosperous and stable kingdom that has not undergone any recent problems.
On the Roamen front, the Persians had taken over a lot of their territories, including Egypt the Levant and parts of Anatolia, before being finally defeated, which meant that the territories had been outside their control for over a decade in many cases, which doubtless made them easier to conquer an integrate. And while they weren’t in civil war, when the conquest started their political stability during this period was generally pretty bad and got worse with time. Although I expect, this was also in part consequence of losing legitimacy on account of losing wars. Add in the fact that they had pretty much thrown everything they had into fighting the persons and with us pretty exhausted and it’s not surprising that they collapsed so fast, especially since in places like North Africa, the Arabs were pretty good at integrating other nomadic tribes into their military force, which obviously increased their military power. By integration, I don’t mean hear that they were treated like Arabs, but they became part of the Arab military, and this was obviously a force multiplier for them as it has always been for nomads, integrating other nomadic groups into their army.
Honestly, the whole thing reminds me of the step where the moment a single leader can get their snowball rolling by uniting the entire step under their leadership. They immediately become capable of taking over a huge empire. Although of course many of the advantages that the step gives you don’t exist for the Arabs. The obvious solution of course is to never let the step unite under a single leader and the same applies to Arabia, but as I mentioned earlier, being distracted, fighting each other meant nobody was keeping an eye on that.
Thank you! Perfect addition, and it highlights some of the topics for the next article. Some things I didn't know (Persia had taken Egypt just before!)
I think you mean steppe, not step. Just adding in case somebody reading yout comment is confused.
Sorry about the misspelling. I’m using speech to text, which unfortunately is very prone to this type of mistake.
Persia didn’t exactly take Egypt precisely, they occupied it for almost a decade and a half, but after their capital was threatened, they agreed to a peace deal where they returned it. It’s just that holding a territory for a few years after such a long occupation isn’t going to be enough to restore your old grip, although this is actually less applicable to Egypt, since it took longer for the Arabs to get there, compare to say Syria and it was also occupied for a shorter time compared to areas closer to Persia. Although mind you, I recommend you crosscheck the dates because it’s been several years since I read about this topic, so it’s entirely possible I’m mixing up the dates a little.
In addition to the war between Rome and Persia weakening both powers was that both hired the tribes of Arabia as mercenaries- which gave them insights to both militaries. Then the plague hit the urban areas - which being more nomadic allowed the Arabian tribes to escape most of the impact of. Under the Sword of Islam (Tom Holland) and Patricia Crone both explore some of the foundational parts of Islam’s spread. Curious how it reached all the way to Indonesia- mostly skipping India (another centralized, dominant religion?).
What terrible researched, ai-slop factory is this? Very clear that you composed this article based on the average reddit corpus.
Not even going to waste my time on the 100s of factual problems and terrible takes. Monotheism predates 'judeo-christian'... it comes from Abraham and Adam.
Interesting article.
I think that there are clear parallels between this and Genghis Khan. Both united warring tribes within Herding societies into centralized political authority and turned them into vehicles for external expansion against much larger Agrarian empires. The biggest difference is that in the Middle East, religion played a much bigger role.
Genghis Khan built unity through:
* Forced restructuring of tribes
* Merit-based advancement
* Military organization
* Shared spoils and success
* Strict legal code (Yassa)
I had the same thought! I asked ChatGPT pro about it and it told me it's not the case, but I intuit you (and I!) might be more right than wrong.
From what I can tell, the best parallel is between Arabs and Mongols. Islam took a life of its own (as memes do).
Lovely post and I agree with most of it, although I would like to add a few thoughts regarding the Roman Persian war.
Firstly, I think that war was essential to Islam conquering Arabia because in the normal course of events, neither power would have permitted one single force to take over Arabia. It’s just that they were too busy fighting each other to do anything and afterwards, they were pretty exhausted. Secondly, Persia descended into a pretty chaotic civil war for four years after losing the war and ended up with a child king at the end with the actual government being run by a bunch of regents instead of a single king. This is a major problem both because of normal in fighting issues, but also because central authority was dramatically damaged and obviously no regent has the kind of legitimacy that an adult Kingwood and thus has less political capital. Also just easier to conquer a chaotic government recovering from a civil war instead of a prosperous and stable kingdom that has not undergone any recent problems.
On the Roamen front, the Persians had taken over a lot of their territories, including Egypt the Levant and parts of Anatolia, before being finally defeated, which meant that the territories had been outside their control for over a decade in many cases, which doubtless made them easier to conquer an integrate. And while they weren’t in civil war, when the conquest started their political stability during this period was generally pretty bad and got worse with time. Although I expect, this was also in part consequence of losing legitimacy on account of losing wars. Add in the fact that they had pretty much thrown everything they had into fighting the persons and with us pretty exhausted and it’s not surprising that they collapsed so fast, especially since in places like North Africa, the Arabs were pretty good at integrating other nomadic tribes into their military force, which obviously increased their military power. By integration, I don’t mean hear that they were treated like Arabs, but they became part of the Arab military, and this was obviously a force multiplier for them as it has always been for nomads, integrating other nomadic groups into their army.
Honestly, the whole thing reminds me of the step where the moment a single leader can get their snowball rolling by uniting the entire step under their leadership. They immediately become capable of taking over a huge empire. Although of course many of the advantages that the step gives you don’t exist for the Arabs. The obvious solution of course is to never let the step unite under a single leader and the same applies to Arabia, but as I mentioned earlier, being distracted, fighting each other meant nobody was keeping an eye on that.
Thank you! Perfect addition, and it highlights some of the topics for the next article. Some things I didn't know (Persia had taken Egypt just before!)
I think you mean steppe, not step. Just adding in case somebody reading yout comment is confused.
Sorry about the misspelling. I’m using speech to text, which unfortunately is very prone to this type of mistake.
Persia didn’t exactly take Egypt precisely, they occupied it for almost a decade and a half, but after their capital was threatened, they agreed to a peace deal where they returned it. It’s just that holding a territory for a few years after such a long occupation isn’t going to be enough to restore your old grip, although this is actually less applicable to Egypt, since it took longer for the Arabs to get there, compare to say Syria and it was also occupied for a shorter time compared to areas closer to Persia. Although mind you, I recommend you crosscheck the dates because it’s been several years since I read about this topic, so it’s entirely possible I’m mixing up the dates a little.
In addition to the war between Rome and Persia weakening both powers was that both hired the tribes of Arabia as mercenaries- which gave them insights to both militaries. Then the plague hit the urban areas - which being more nomadic allowed the Arabian tribes to escape most of the impact of. Under the Sword of Islam (Tom Holland) and Patricia Crone both explore some of the foundational parts of Islam’s spread. Curious how it reached all the way to Indonesia- mostly skipping India (another centralized, dominant religion?).
Ah I didn't know the plague part. Interesting.
I'll discuss the Indonesia thing!
What terrible researched, ai-slop factory is this? Very clear that you composed this article based on the average reddit corpus.
Not even going to waste my time on the 100s of factual problems and terrible takes. Monotheism predates 'judeo-christian'... it comes from Abraham and Adam.
How did the family fight between the brothers that produced the two forms of Islam affect the outcome and development and spread
Roger, are you a doctor who was previously in the Bay Area?