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.
Please add a story on the Mongol herds glory (and fall from) on your list of future reports !
I’m particularly surprised at the contrast between their Western ventures (frightening, but which did not last) and their Persian and Indian/Mughal conqests, which built empires lasting centuries ?
I don’t really think you can count their descendants, taking over India. Several centuries after their empire fell apart as their conquest of India and their rule of Persia actually ended before their rule over China. If anything they ruled Russia longer than any of their other conquest and Crimea was the last place that the Royal dynasty ruled uninterrupted from the empire
It still intrigues me that they both conquered unprecedented swathes of territories (in just 1, then in just a few generations) - only to crumble and get either defeated or absorbed quickly afterwards.
The exact opposite of say, the Roman Empire (or almost any other one, for that matter) ?
I agree with most of what you just said regarding why this topic is interesting, although I disagree that an empire conquering a lot of territory in a single generation or a few generations is actually uncommon you can see it in for example, Timur, Qin dynasty of China, Safavid Persia, Cyrus the great, Alexander the great and his father, Harsha in seventh century India, Gorid and Gaznavid empires, Seljuk empire, and honestly, most nomadic conquest from the step, Sargon the great, revolutionary and Napoleonic France, the unification of Japan in the 16th and start of the 17th century, among many other examples, and that’s with me making some effort to exclude edge cases.
I also don’t really think that Mogal rule of India can be said to have collapsed quickly given they remained powerful for multiple centuries before going into decline, but even leaving that aside, empires collapsing quickly is also pretty common. Just look at Alexander the Great, the Qin dynasty of China, the Hunic empire, Japanese empire during an after World War II, napoleonic France, among many other examples, and that is again with me filtering out a lot of cases because I am trying to focus on instances where the empire also conquered a lot of territory in a few generations immediately before the collapse or only a few decades before. In fact, this list is also shorter because I didn’t want to list every example, but if you look at my previous list of empires that conquered a lot of territory, you notice that a few I did not mention in the second list also collapsed extremely fast.
Also to be fair, Mongol rule over Russia and arguably China was pretty long, and in fact, even their record in Persia is pretty impressive for nomadic conquerors as many collapse immediately after their great conquering leader died instead of holding on for multiple generations. Obviously, like with their rule over China, how long they ruled Persia is a little hard to determine because of them conquering different parts of the area at different times, but I personally would count it from around 1220 AD and they collapsed in 1335, which is actually doing fine for nomadic conquerors as they generally don’t rule much longer than a century, although obviously, there are a few exceptions that ruled much longer.
Many thanks for all these examples, many of which I’m not familiar with and will now look into.
Nevertheless, I am under the impression that many don’t illustrate the point :
Alexander the Great never ruled, Napoleon built a short lived empire but left behind an impressive list of heritage (the institutional ones being much more impressive than the physical ones), the Moguls blended into their conquest and their culture of origins pretty much disappeared as they morphed into something entirely new. Japan is too small and I don’t count as true “empires” anything that didn’t last significantly more than 100 years, which disqualifies many of the other examples listed.
This leaves me still wondering about my original question : is there one (or several) specific traits of Mongol nomadic conquerors’ culture or behaviors that explain both the extraordinary extent of their territorial successes, as well as the extraordinary speed of their decay and disappearance in most of the places they had conquered ? Your point about the exception of Russia is well noted however.
I think I misunderstood you when you talked about a quick collapse. I took you to be implying that the collapse was very quick after the conquest, which is obviously not what you appear to have meant. There are indeed few examples of quick collapses once your empire has lasted a century because then you have had time to put in your roots. Also, most empires that manage to last more than a century generally assimilate to the natives and indeed not assimilating to the natives is probably among the bigger reasons. Why many empires don’t last longer than a century when they were made by foreign conquerers. There are obviously still quite a few counter examples. For example Hittite empire from the late 14th century BC, to its destruction, Asyria between 745BC and 605BC, all three non-greek Dynasties of Persia before Islam and Manchus in China and obviously Mongol rule over Persia is pretty much on the border of your definition for an empire and likely a case of collapsing because you did not sufficiently assimilate to the natives, resulting in a quick collapse of the power of the ruling class, but I think I actually either actively agree with or at least uncertain about your model now that I understood it better. I had mistakenly thought that you are suggesting. It is uncommon for an empire in the sense of an extremely large territorial unit to have been established through huge conquests in a short span of time or to collapse within a short span of time after the original conquest, but if you don’t actually think that I don’t think there’s actually much disagreement. Indeed, I think under your definitions, the collapse of Mongol rule in Russia was actually pretty quick as was there rule in China. I misunderstood you and my point was actually that it took a long time after their original conquest for them to collapse, not that the actual collapse in terms of loss of territory wasn’t rapid, although obviously they were signs of decay and decline long before the actual collapse. I also misunderstood you as suggesting that sudden huge conquests and quick collapses are both separately unusual instead of only indicating that their conjunction alone is unusual. When combined with your stipulation of more in a century between the conquest and collapse, I think it’s very possible that you might be right as a statistical matter, although I have not looked into it, and am uncertain.
I think I misunderstood you when you talked about a quick collapse. I took you to be implying that the collapse was very quick after the conquest, which is obviously not what you appear to have meant. There are indeed few examples of quick collapses once your empire has lasted a century because then you have had time to put in your roots. Also, most empires that manage to last more than a century generally assimilate to the natives and indeed not assimilating to the natives is probably among the bigger reasons. Why many empires don’t last longer than a century when they were made by foreign conquerers. There are obviously still quite a few counter examples. For example all three non-greek Dynasty of Persia before Islam and Manchus in China and obviously Mongol rule over Persia is pretty much on the border of your definition for an empire and likely a case of collapsing because you did not sufficiently assimilate to the natives, resulting in a quick collapse of the power of the ruling class, but I think I actually either actively agree with or at least uncertain about your model now that I understood it better. I had mistakenly thought that you are suggesting. It is uncommon for an empire in the sense of an extremely large territorial unit to have been established through huge conquests in a short span of time or to collapse within a short span of time after the original conquest, but if you don’t actually think that I don’t think there’s actually much disagreement. Indeed, I think under your definitions, the collapse of Mongol rule in Russia was actually pretty quick as was there rule in China. I misunderstood you and my point was actually that it took a long time after their original conquest for them to collapse, not that the actual collapse in terms of loss of territory wasn’t rapid, although obviously they were signs of decay and decline long before the actual collapse.
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.
Good overview. One element missing is the role Arianism plays in Islam's spread to North Africa. The Vandals were Arians, in conflict with Rome on the very nature of Jesus Christ. They were persecuted especially after Rome recognized the Roman Tridentine version of Christianity. the Vandals were monotheistic but believed Christ was another prophet, in harmony with the Islamic view. The acceptance of Islam, therefore, could have been facilitated by a rejection of Roman and Byzantine versions of Christ.
There was a century without warmth due to volcanic activity , in Indonesia area , from 536 . Justinians plague etc. famine due to persistent cold wet summers . Sassanid and eastern Rome were totally weakened , barely able to man border forts . Western Rome fell to bits. Brittania went from Celt speaking to Germanic speaking as the Roman towns emptied due to plagues, hunger and cold. raiders, for that is what Islam is, found this to be a fertile ground for expansion , you pay less Sakhat or jizya than what the various emperors demanded.?time sxwere hard in the years before the Hejira . .. so look at climate … you missed that one.
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?).
Currently traveling in Granada and I'm really curious about the way the Moors learned from Romans and used geography and engineering to maintain their hold on the region. I hope you dig into that a bit, and also help us understand better the conquest of the Catholics that came next.
I had been expecting this article for some time. I like the way you explain geohistory.
A few ideas — let me know what you think.
I was thinking about the rapid expansion of Islam in relation to the expansion of Christianity over paganism, cf. Katherine Nixey. It is an equally fast phenomenon.
From the death of Muhammad (632) to the conquest of Spain (711) = 79 years.
From 313, the Edict of Milan of Constantine, which legally favored Christianity to the detriment of the ancient religions, to the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, where Christianity was declared the official religion of the Empire = 67 years.
The speed of the software is similar.
Let me now look at the hardware.
In terms of geographical spread, it is partly the same. The origin of Christianity lies in North Africa, which was also the first region to fall into Muslim hands, interestingly enough. By contrast, Europe resisted. Geography has much to say here. A comparison of both expansions could be quite fruitful.
A French historian, Joseph Pérez, says that Spain is the only country in Europe that consciously and explicitly refused to become Muslim. The Africans did not have such an option — those in the north, of course — and surely this was for geographical reasons. The French did not either, although in the opposite sense, because the Pyrenees provided them with a magnificent natural defense. Therefore, ideology could only offer a choice in between the geographical possibilities.
When I say software, I mean the speed at which both religions spread more or less across the same territory, which would be the hardware.
I think you are referring to something different, aren’t you?
Are you referring to the form?
Precisely in the area of Syria and the eastern part of the Empire, Christianity imposed itself in a very violent way (similar to that of Muhammad with the tribes). There were bands of monks who spread terror just with their chants of “Praise be to the Lord!”, which were interpreted by pagan cities as declarations of war. Not very different from “Allah is great!” as proclaimed by some fanatics.
It would be interesting to study this phenomenon from your point of view.
In contrast, in the West it was an intellectual and social phenomenon that came from the lower classes, until adopted by the upper ones.
There are historians who say that the Late Classical period was an intellectual ferment rarely seen throughout history. Many intellectual phenomena coexisted: astrology, paganism, Stoicism, Christianity–Judaism, Greek religions, etc.
In any case, the geo-historical study of the intellectual movements of this period — I am not sure whether anyone has done it.
The followers of Muhammad were very few compared with the vast territories they conquered in record time. Not to mention the population of Mecca as you say.
In general, the population remained quite passive: the same pagans converted to Christianity and later to Islam.
Minor quibble: Camels actually store fat in their hump, not water.
Per Wikipedia: "It is a common myth that a camel stores water in its hump, but the humps in fact are reservoirs of fatty tissue, which can be used as a reserve source of calories, not water.", whereas you wrote: "The cornerstone is the camel, which can eat the type of vegetation in this area and store water to sustain long trips in the desert."
Show the camel the respect it deserves ;) Without camels none of this would have been possible!
You're right you didn't... I'm so used to people thinking that they store water in their humps that I had made that assumption of you... my bad! I used to think that it was the breakdown of the fat in the hump that released water, and while true, it only releases a little, as compared to how much they store in their bloodstream. Go camels, go!
Did you guys ever check how ‘ahadith’ are comprised, checked for authenticity and validated? I always find it fascinating how such crazy ideas can exist entirely outside of the traditional chain of Islam in orientalist/crusader like circles
I don’t intend to become an Islam scholar so I might never know. But it all starts by the source material so I just ordered an approachable version of the Quran
Think of the analogy with computer "intelligence" and coordination.
Hardware = land + people
Firmware = religion, morals, etc
Operating System = Governments
Apps = markets, schools, services, hospitals
One reason why Islam spread so quickly is it combines Firmware and Operating System in one, whereas Christianity didn't. Sharia=Law.
This is very good for trading peoples.
However, it's not ideal for innovation.
Any computers that combine Firmware, OS (and sometimes Application layer too) are good at doing one thing, like a garage door opener, but can't scale to mine bitcoin or develop AGI.
The same with Islam: fast replication, but hits an innovation limit.
A few months ago I heard somebody say: “Judaism and Islam are similar in that both are from pastoral societies, without a state, so the religion had to act as morals and government. Meanwhile, Christianism was born under the Roman Empire, so it makes a difference between government and religion. That makes Christianity more compatible with many types of governments
pastoral moral system had to include laws as well, very interesting! Christianity had to survive in an environment where caesar was still king. "Give to caesar what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god" found in Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25
I might cover it soon, but what surprised me about looking into this is that the breaks within Islam seem to be the result of the nature of Islam.
I think a big part of it is that Muhammad died suddenly, and as he was winning, so there was little succession planning. Different clans and potential successors immediately started fighting.
Also, there's a nuance I only understood while writing this article: Although Muslims say the Quran is the literal word of Allah, it doesn't mean every sentence must be read literally. In fact, it's impossible, because some verses contradict each other (eg on alcohol, religious compulsion). Plenty is left for interpretation, and of course different groups interpret things differently, leading to constant schisms within Islam: if it weren't Shia vs Sunni, it would be Wahhabis vs Sufis, etc.
Another thing to mentioned is how the armies faced off at the time - Byzantine and Sassanid typically do several one to one combat between their best fighters before joining battle. Their best fighters were typically the commanders and usually ended 50/50. However, the muslim army apparently had specialist fighters for this exact purpose and they were NOT commanders. Because they were specialised, they also won most of the one to one combat. Therefore, Byzantine and Sassanid armies typically lost, I think 75% (guesstimate!) of their commanders while the Muslim army lost none. Hence, the Muslim army were winning battles against leaderless armies until the Byzantine leaders wised up to the tactic - and refused any one to one combat after losing a few battles this way.
Thanks Tomas, interesting read as always, it's fun to see the application of the geographic lens to historical events!
I have some criticism however if you will permit,
1. Mecca as a backwater
- Shoemaker's argument is reasonable, but it is presented as settled fact when it is actually a minority scholarly position, Hoyland/Donner and other heavyweights in this field have pushed back quite firmly
- Similarly, one cannot argue simultaneously that (a) Mecca was an insignificant backwater with no real trade, and (b) Muhammad's identity as a trader was central to his pacifying-for-commerce strategy. These don't sit comfortably together. If Meccan trade was negligible, the trader-as-pacifier story loses much of its force..
2. Missing major causal factors
- whatever one may think of whether his legacy was exaggerated, the story of 632-636 cannot be told without Khalid Ibn Walid. The pace of expansion is unlikely to have occurred without having such an excellent cavalry commander
- Little ice age/plague hammered the old empires disproportionately
- The extent of internal division within Byzantine territories effectively made the conquest quite straightforward - elites often preferred Jizya & protection over persecution from rival factions and handed the keys over.
3. Overreaching with Zakat argument
- Zakat has always been quite heavily regulated on what it can be spent on i.e. redistributive for the poor. You have a point in that there was a definite binding up of zakat with political allegiances in the founding period (vs. it being a private religious duty) but framing it as a 'subscription clan leaders used to control members' is a misreading.
- Zakat collection was patchy and often delegated, plus the revenue collected was insignificant compared to Jizya and Kharaj (you may be interested in Kharaj too fyi)
4. The part I enjoyed less however was the polygamy-as-sexual-frustration-valve argument which is crude. Treating an institution that exists across many cultures as essentially a mechanism for redirecting sexually frustrated young men into warfare is quite thin analysis. The 72 virgins gloss too is a tired trope which you correctly note as a later development, but then deploy it anyway.
n.b. A note on Jizya - functioned as tax for military upkeep - correct - however it was often bypassed where minorities committed to military service (many examples from Syria and Armenian minorities serving as auxiliary troops in exchange for Jizya exemption). It is also a contract by which minorities were (in theory) assured of freedom of life, property, to practice their own religions and legal systems, in exchange for funding for military upkeep.
I saw the controversy on Mecca, and I agree I’m only maybe 75% confident that it was below 600 people. But between the location today, and the fact that it had no agriculture back then, I think the 75% is reasonable. I would change my mind with other evidence. Most importantly, since calories couldn’t be generated locally, what was generated locally that could buy the food needed to feed a bigger city?
Connected to trade. There’s very little north of Mecca besides Medina. Which justifies some trade up to Medina or so, and then a tiny bit to the Levant, but that’s about it. So I didn’t say there was no trade. I said there was little. Or at least that’s what I meant!
2. These sound possible. Thanks for adding them!
3. I touch in some of these things in the next article. Agreed that I might have gotten the tax details right, but I’m pretty confident that the structure is there (financing expansion through taxation of conquered lands).
4. I don’t find your arguments against the polygyny side as convincing as the rest of your points. But I’d be happy to hear stronger ones!
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).
In my experience, asking AI to analyze history is a waste of time, especially when the subject is outside mainstream consensus.
Please add a story on the Mongol herds glory (and fall from) on your list of future reports !
I’m particularly surprised at the contrast between their Western ventures (frightening, but which did not last) and their Persian and Indian/Mughal conqests, which built empires lasting centuries ?
I don’t really think you can count their descendants, taking over India. Several centuries after their empire fell apart as their conquest of India and their rule of Persia actually ended before their rule over China. If anything they ruled Russia longer than any of their other conquest and Crimea was the last place that the Royal dynasty ruled uninterrupted from the empire
Interesting, thank you !
It still intrigues me that they both conquered unprecedented swathes of territories (in just 1, then in just a few generations) - only to crumble and get either defeated or absorbed quickly afterwards.
The exact opposite of say, the Roman Empire (or almost any other one, for that matter) ?
I agree with most of what you just said regarding why this topic is interesting, although I disagree that an empire conquering a lot of territory in a single generation or a few generations is actually uncommon you can see it in for example, Timur, Qin dynasty of China, Safavid Persia, Cyrus the great, Alexander the great and his father, Harsha in seventh century India, Gorid and Gaznavid empires, Seljuk empire, and honestly, most nomadic conquest from the step, Sargon the great, revolutionary and Napoleonic France, the unification of Japan in the 16th and start of the 17th century, among many other examples, and that’s with me making some effort to exclude edge cases.
I also don’t really think that Mogal rule of India can be said to have collapsed quickly given they remained powerful for multiple centuries before going into decline, but even leaving that aside, empires collapsing quickly is also pretty common. Just look at Alexander the Great, the Qin dynasty of China, the Hunic empire, Japanese empire during an after World War II, napoleonic France, among many other examples, and that is again with me filtering out a lot of cases because I am trying to focus on instances where the empire also conquered a lot of territory in a few generations immediately before the collapse or only a few decades before. In fact, this list is also shorter because I didn’t want to list every example, but if you look at my previous list of empires that conquered a lot of territory, you notice that a few I did not mention in the second list also collapsed extremely fast.
Also to be fair, Mongol rule over Russia and arguably China was pretty long, and in fact, even their record in Persia is pretty impressive for nomadic conquerors as many collapse immediately after their great conquering leader died instead of holding on for multiple generations. Obviously, like with their rule over China, how long they ruled Persia is a little hard to determine because of them conquering different parts of the area at different times, but I personally would count it from around 1220 AD and they collapsed in 1335, which is actually doing fine for nomadic conquerors as they generally don’t rule much longer than a century, although obviously, there are a few exceptions that ruled much longer.
Many thanks for all these examples, many of which I’m not familiar with and will now look into.
Nevertheless, I am under the impression that many don’t illustrate the point :
Alexander the Great never ruled, Napoleon built a short lived empire but left behind an impressive list of heritage (the institutional ones being much more impressive than the physical ones), the Moguls blended into their conquest and their culture of origins pretty much disappeared as they morphed into something entirely new. Japan is too small and I don’t count as true “empires” anything that didn’t last significantly more than 100 years, which disqualifies many of the other examples listed.
This leaves me still wondering about my original question : is there one (or several) specific traits of Mongol nomadic conquerors’ culture or behaviors that explain both the extraordinary extent of their territorial successes, as well as the extraordinary speed of their decay and disappearance in most of the places they had conquered ? Your point about the exception of Russia is well noted however.
I think I misunderstood you when you talked about a quick collapse. I took you to be implying that the collapse was very quick after the conquest, which is obviously not what you appear to have meant. There are indeed few examples of quick collapses once your empire has lasted a century because then you have had time to put in your roots. Also, most empires that manage to last more than a century generally assimilate to the natives and indeed not assimilating to the natives is probably among the bigger reasons. Why many empires don’t last longer than a century when they were made by foreign conquerers. There are obviously still quite a few counter examples. For example Hittite empire from the late 14th century BC, to its destruction, Asyria between 745BC and 605BC, all three non-greek Dynasties of Persia before Islam and Manchus in China and obviously Mongol rule over Persia is pretty much on the border of your definition for an empire and likely a case of collapsing because you did not sufficiently assimilate to the natives, resulting in a quick collapse of the power of the ruling class, but I think I actually either actively agree with or at least uncertain about your model now that I understood it better. I had mistakenly thought that you are suggesting. It is uncommon for an empire in the sense of an extremely large territorial unit to have been established through huge conquests in a short span of time or to collapse within a short span of time after the original conquest, but if you don’t actually think that I don’t think there’s actually much disagreement. Indeed, I think under your definitions, the collapse of Mongol rule in Russia was actually pretty quick as was there rule in China. I misunderstood you and my point was actually that it took a long time after their original conquest for them to collapse, not that the actual collapse in terms of loss of territory wasn’t rapid, although obviously they were signs of decay and decline long before the actual collapse. I also misunderstood you as suggesting that sudden huge conquests and quick collapses are both separately unusual instead of only indicating that their conjunction alone is unusual. When combined with your stipulation of more in a century between the conquest and collapse, I think it’s very possible that you might be right as a statistical matter, although I have not looked into it, and am uncertain.
I think I misunderstood you when you talked about a quick collapse. I took you to be implying that the collapse was very quick after the conquest, which is obviously not what you appear to have meant. There are indeed few examples of quick collapses once your empire has lasted a century because then you have had time to put in your roots. Also, most empires that manage to last more than a century generally assimilate to the natives and indeed not assimilating to the natives is probably among the bigger reasons. Why many empires don’t last longer than a century when they were made by foreign conquerers. There are obviously still quite a few counter examples. For example all three non-greek Dynasty of Persia before Islam and Manchus in China and obviously Mongol rule over Persia is pretty much on the border of your definition for an empire and likely a case of collapsing because you did not sufficiently assimilate to the natives, resulting in a quick collapse of the power of the ruling class, but I think I actually either actively agree with or at least uncertain about your model now that I understood it better. I had mistakenly thought that you are suggesting. It is uncommon for an empire in the sense of an extremely large territorial unit to have been established through huge conquests in a short span of time or to collapse within a short span of time after the original conquest, but if you don’t actually think that I don’t think there’s actually much disagreement. Indeed, I think under your definitions, the collapse of Mongol rule in Russia was actually pretty quick as was there rule in China. I misunderstood you and my point was actually that it took a long time after their original conquest for them to collapse, not that the actual collapse in terms of loss of territory wasn’t rapid, although obviously they were signs of decay and decline long before the actual collapse.
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.
Good overview. One element missing is the role Arianism plays in Islam's spread to North Africa. The Vandals were Arians, in conflict with Rome on the very nature of Jesus Christ. They were persecuted especially after Rome recognized the Roman Tridentine version of Christianity. the Vandals were monotheistic but believed Christ was another prophet, in harmony with the Islamic view. The acceptance of Islam, therefore, could have been facilitated by a rejection of Roman and Byzantine versions of Christ.
Very interesting
There was a century without warmth due to volcanic activity , in Indonesia area , from 536 . Justinians plague etc. famine due to persistent cold wet summers . Sassanid and eastern Rome were totally weakened , barely able to man border forts . Western Rome fell to bits. Brittania went from Celt speaking to Germanic speaking as the Roman towns emptied due to plagues, hunger and cold. raiders, for that is what Islam is, found this to be a fertile ground for expansion , you pay less Sakhat or jizya than what the various emperors demanded.?time sxwere hard in the years before the Hejira . .. so look at climate … you missed that one.
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!
Just about to reply that their was plague at the time that reduced Sassanid and Byzantine manpower. Good job!
It didn't skip India; it took a lot of time, but eventually the Indian kings were defeated and Islam spread to india in 1192
Currently traveling in Granada and I'm really curious about the way the Moors learned from Romans and used geography and engineering to maintain their hold on the region. I hope you dig into that a bit, and also help us understand better the conquest of the Catholics that came next.
I’ll touch on it but unfortunately won’t dig into it too much 😩
I had been expecting this article for some time. I like the way you explain geohistory.
A few ideas — let me know what you think.
I was thinking about the rapid expansion of Islam in relation to the expansion of Christianity over paganism, cf. Katherine Nixey. It is an equally fast phenomenon.
From the death of Muhammad (632) to the conquest of Spain (711) = 79 years.
From 313, the Edict of Milan of Constantine, which legally favored Christianity to the detriment of the ancient religions, to the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, where Christianity was declared the official religion of the Empire = 67 years.
The speed of the software is similar.
Let me now look at the hardware.
In terms of geographical spread, it is partly the same. The origin of Christianity lies in North Africa, which was also the first region to fall into Muslim hands, interestingly enough. By contrast, Europe resisted. Geography has much to say here. A comparison of both expansions could be quite fruitful.
A French historian, Joseph Pérez, says that Spain is the only country in Europe that consciously and explicitly refused to become Muslim. The Africans did not have such an option — those in the north, of course — and surely this was for geographical reasons. The French did not either, although in the opposite sense, because the Pyrenees provided them with a magnificent natural defense. Therefore, ideology could only offer a choice in between the geographical possibilities.
Very interesting!
The software is dramatically different though, how can it be comparable?
When I say software, I mean the speed at which both religions spread more or less across the same territory, which would be the hardware.
I think you are referring to something different, aren’t you?
Are you referring to the form?
Precisely in the area of Syria and the eastern part of the Empire, Christianity imposed itself in a very violent way (similar to that of Muhammad with the tribes). There were bands of monks who spread terror just with their chants of “Praise be to the Lord!”, which were interpreted by pagan cities as declarations of war. Not very different from “Allah is great!” as proclaimed by some fanatics.
It would be interesting to study this phenomenon from your point of view.
In contrast, in the West it was an intellectual and social phenomenon that came from the lower classes, until adopted by the upper ones.
There are historians who say that the Late Classical period was an intellectual ferment rarely seen throughout history. Many intellectual phenomena coexisted: astrology, paganism, Stoicism, Christianity–Judaism, Greek religions, etc.
In any case, the geo-historical study of the intellectual movements of this period — I am not sure whether anyone has done it.
The followers of Muhammad were very few compared with the vast territories they conquered in record time. Not to mention the population of Mecca as you say.
In general, the population remained quite passive: the same pagans converted to Christianity and later to Islam.
Yeah for me hardware is everything that is physical, like computers. That can be geography, but also brain structure.
Software is how you configure them, which mostly means politics, incentives, religion… basically ideas.
You are right.
If ideation is the evolutionary response to an environment that changes at great speed (Lewis Dartnell), then software comes from hardware.
We should be able to find common intellectual patterns in the same geographical locations.
Ideas, politics, and religions are largely determined by the shape of the territory. The other part is interaction with others.
Very interesting article!
Minor quibble: Camels actually store fat in their hump, not water.
Per Wikipedia: "It is a common myth that a camel stores water in its hump, but the humps in fact are reservoirs of fatty tissue, which can be used as a reserve source of calories, not water.", whereas you wrote: "The cornerstone is the camel, which can eat the type of vegetation in this area and store water to sustain long trips in the desert."
Show the camel the respect it deserves ;) Without camels none of this would have been possible!
Thanks!
I don’t think I say he stores water in the humps though! Only that it stores water. Which is true!
You're right you didn't... I'm so used to people thinking that they store water in their humps that I had made that assumption of you... my bad! I used to think that it was the breakdown of the fat in the hump that released water, and while true, it only releases a little, as compared to how much they store in their bloodstream. Go camels, go!
It's not clear that he was really from Mecca
https://www.kyleorton.com/p/review-the-sacred-city-2016-location-of-origins-of-islam
A few days ago I’d have thought this was crazy. Seeing that there are so few sources about this outside of the Quran, I’m open to it
Did you guys ever check how ‘ahadith’ are comprised, checked for authenticity and validated? I always find it fascinating how such crazy ideas can exist entirely outside of the traditional chain of Islam in orientalist/crusader like circles
I don’t intend to become an Islam scholar so I might never know. But it all starts by the source material so I just ordered an approachable version of the Quran
Software you mention could be critical.
Here's how:
Think of the analogy with computer "intelligence" and coordination.
Hardware = land + people
Firmware = religion, morals, etc
Operating System = Governments
Apps = markets, schools, services, hospitals
One reason why Islam spread so quickly is it combines Firmware and Operating System in one, whereas Christianity didn't. Sharia=Law.
This is very good for trading peoples.
However, it's not ideal for innovation.
Any computers that combine Firmware, OS (and sometimes Application layer too) are good at doing one thing, like a garage door opener, but can't scale to mine bitcoin or develop AGI.
The same with Islam: fast replication, but hits an innovation limit.
Super cool metaphor.
A few months ago I heard somebody say: “Judaism and Islam are similar in that both are from pastoral societies, without a state, so the religion had to act as morals and government. Meanwhile, Christianism was born under the Roman Empire, so it makes a difference between government and religion. That makes Christianity more compatible with many types of governments
pastoral moral system had to include laws as well, very interesting! Christianity had to survive in an environment where caesar was still king. "Give to caesar what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god" found in Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, and Luke 20:25
Interesting post and please ignore the AI slop accusors, I sense it's a jealousy thing. 😉
How did the family fight between the brothers that produced the two forms of Islam affect the outcome and development and spread
I might cover it soon, but what surprised me about looking into this is that the breaks within Islam seem to be the result of the nature of Islam.
I think a big part of it is that Muhammad died suddenly, and as he was winning, so there was little succession planning. Different clans and potential successors immediately started fighting.
Also, there's a nuance I only understood while writing this article: Although Muslims say the Quran is the literal word of Allah, it doesn't mean every sentence must be read literally. In fact, it's impossible, because some verses contradict each other (eg on alcohol, religious compulsion). Plenty is left for interpretation, and of course different groups interpret things differently, leading to constant schisms within Islam: if it weren't Shia vs Sunni, it would be Wahhabis vs Sufis, etc.
Roger, are you a doctor who was previously in the Bay Area?
Another thing to mentioned is how the armies faced off at the time - Byzantine and Sassanid typically do several one to one combat between their best fighters before joining battle. Their best fighters were typically the commanders and usually ended 50/50. However, the muslim army apparently had specialist fighters for this exact purpose and they were NOT commanders. Because they were specialised, they also won most of the one to one combat. Therefore, Byzantine and Sassanid armies typically lost, I think 75% (guesstimate!) of their commanders while the Muslim army lost none. Hence, the Muslim army were winning battles against leaderless armies until the Byzantine leaders wised up to the tactic - and refused any one to one combat after losing a few battles this way.
That’s crazy!
Thanks Tomas, interesting read as always, it's fun to see the application of the geographic lens to historical events!
I have some criticism however if you will permit,
1. Mecca as a backwater
- Shoemaker's argument is reasonable, but it is presented as settled fact when it is actually a minority scholarly position, Hoyland/Donner and other heavyweights in this field have pushed back quite firmly
- Similarly, one cannot argue simultaneously that (a) Mecca was an insignificant backwater with no real trade, and (b) Muhammad's identity as a trader was central to his pacifying-for-commerce strategy. These don't sit comfortably together. If Meccan trade was negligible, the trader-as-pacifier story loses much of its force..
2. Missing major causal factors
- whatever one may think of whether his legacy was exaggerated, the story of 632-636 cannot be told without Khalid Ibn Walid. The pace of expansion is unlikely to have occurred without having such an excellent cavalry commander
- Little ice age/plague hammered the old empires disproportionately
- The extent of internal division within Byzantine territories effectively made the conquest quite straightforward - elites often preferred Jizya & protection over persecution from rival factions and handed the keys over.
3. Overreaching with Zakat argument
- Zakat has always been quite heavily regulated on what it can be spent on i.e. redistributive for the poor. You have a point in that there was a definite binding up of zakat with political allegiances in the founding period (vs. it being a private religious duty) but framing it as a 'subscription clan leaders used to control members' is a misreading.
- Zakat collection was patchy and often delegated, plus the revenue collected was insignificant compared to Jizya and Kharaj (you may be interested in Kharaj too fyi)
4. The part I enjoyed less however was the polygamy-as-sexual-frustration-valve argument which is crude. Treating an institution that exists across many cultures as essentially a mechanism for redirecting sexually frustrated young men into warfare is quite thin analysis. The 72 virgins gloss too is a tired trope which you correctly note as a later development, but then deploy it anyway.
n.b. A note on Jizya - functioned as tax for military upkeep - correct - however it was often bypassed where minorities committed to military service (many examples from Syria and Armenian minorities serving as auxiliary troops in exchange for Jizya exemption). It is also a contract by which minorities were (in theory) assured of freedom of life, property, to practice their own religions and legal systems, in exchange for funding for military upkeep.
Love this! Thanks for the pushback.
I saw the controversy on Mecca, and I agree I’m only maybe 75% confident that it was below 600 people. But between the location today, and the fact that it had no agriculture back then, I think the 75% is reasonable. I would change my mind with other evidence. Most importantly, since calories couldn’t be generated locally, what was generated locally that could buy the food needed to feed a bigger city?
Connected to trade. There’s very little north of Mecca besides Medina. Which justifies some trade up to Medina or so, and then a tiny bit to the Levant, but that’s about it. So I didn’t say there was no trade. I said there was little. Or at least that’s what I meant!
2. These sound possible. Thanks for adding them!
3. I touch in some of these things in the next article. Agreed that I might have gotten the tax details right, but I’m pretty confident that the structure is there (financing expansion through taxation of conquered lands).
4. I don’t find your arguments against the polygyny side as convincing as the rest of your points. But I’d be happy to hear stronger ones!
Thanks again
Great article, well researched! 🎉 👏
by the sword. convert or die. I have lived in islamic countries.