Was there anything historically or culturally significant about this place before Islam? Or was it really just a piece of desert?
>>321619
Trading settlements, small kingdoms and desert nomads.
Just nomads that were looked down upon by the other semitic civs and would attack caravans making their way to Egypt
There is a reason no empire or nation gave a fuck about that place and it was always left out as conquered territory in different maps showing the outstretch of empires before the arab expansion.
The Sabaean Kingdom was pretty notable I think. They had pretty advanced agriculture, they built a bunch of big dams for irrigation.
>>321619
Nothing much other than nomads. Civilizations in Yemen were notably significant though.
>>321619
The Kaaba is pretty historically interesting. It had massive cultural significance for the area.
>>321693
I've heard there were quite a few "Kaabas" doted around the penninsula before Islam. Is that true?
>>321619
Nice poetry, interesting lifeway.
This brings me to my next question. How was it that the Arabs managed to accomplish what they did? I doubt Islam allowed them to defeat the technologically superior nations near them.
>>321713
The Byzantines and Persia had just fought a massive war by the time Islam had emerged. Islam took advantage of that and expanded into weakened Byzantine/Persian territories.
>>321713
Byzantine-Sassanid wars completely crippled both sides politically, economically and militarily.
The Sassanids were facing open rebellions and religious discord. Literally any organised fighting force could have defeated them at that point.
Literally neither side had any army for the Arabs to lose to.
Nabataea was pretty cool
>>321713
Rome and Persia had been at war for a total of almost 700 years on and off.
They were both stretch to their limit with no resources, people tired of the nobles shit, daily riots and your average case of political corruption.
Add to the fact that the Sassanid also suffered their throne usurped just as the invasion happened and the King was like 12 years old at the time and inexperienced you got yourself a free buffee.
But lets not forget that the arabs also had a competent commander that actually knew his shit.
>>321713
Islam united warring Arabs, and the fact that the biggest neighbors they had warred themselves down to the nub allowed them to conquer them easily.
A big percentage of the fighting forces of Byzantium and Persia were unpaid Arab mercenaries, so that helped with motive.
As for North Africa and Spain, those areae were either sparsely controlled by greater powers, in North Africa's case, or involved with nation wide civil war, like Spain.
As soon as the Muslims ran up against a moderately competent Nation, they were repelled.
They came about at the right time in the right climate to sweep up available territory.
>>321713
Mohammed (PBUH) was chosen.
>>321701
there is a lot of them. local kings/tribe leader usually built those as it generate income from pilgrimage. one of those was in yemen
>>321720
>>321726
Adding to this, we also have to recognize that the Arabs did the thing that barbarians usually do - they left the good stuff intact. Roman and Sassanid infrastructure and customs were left alone so long as they didn't conflict with Islam. It's also worth noting that the Eastern Roman Empire wasn't rotting away internally the way that the Western half had been; consequently, the Arabs were able to keep their inheritance intact since the human technology to maintain the infrastructure was still there.
>>321720
Which only means they didn't face lots of strong garrisons that would have slowed them down with attrition, forcing both empires into open battle after battle which the Arabs and their allies kept winning. This, along with previous civil/religious mismanagement and demographic shift due to plague and migration from North Africa to Iraq, meant that the Arabs turned Mesopotamia and Egypt against their previous masters by uniting the semi-nomadic countryside and handily accepting surrender treaties with each city, tribe, or noble they came across.
Rome send an expedition to yemen that got lost and ducked by the desert
>>321726
>Literally neither side had any army for the Arabs to lose to.
They had several, each of which were defeated and which directly led to the ERE pulling back into Anatolia and the Sassanid imperial regime collapsing entirely.
>>321758
>Roman and Sassanid infrastructure and customs were left alone so long as they didn't conflict with Islam.
I guess that didnt extend to libraries and knowledge huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians#Rashidun_Caliphs_.28642.E2.80.93661_CE.29
>The Arab Commander Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas wrote to Caliph Umar ibn al-Khatta-b asking what should be done with the books at Ctesiphon. Umar wrote back: "If the books contradict the Qur'an, they are blasphemous. On the other hand, if they are in agreement, they are not needed, as for us Qur'an is sufficient." Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books, the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were thrown into fire or the Euphrates.
>>321713
If I could go back in time the first thing I would do is prevent this from happening.
>>321619
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilmun
>>321776
>I guess that didnt extend to libraries and knowledge huh?
No, it did. We don't have any contemporary sources on any destruction of city infrastructure or even of libraries. The only mention of such events are clearly apocryphal legends written centuries later, alongside other stories like the Caliph Umar and his BFF the Coptic Patriarch's Indiana Jones adventure into the pyramids.
Most cities that declined did so either from destruction events during the Byzantine-Sassanid war, plagues that continued throughout the 6th and into the early 7th century, or they were abandoned for new towns without any signs of sudden violence such as the Dead Cities in northern Syria.
>>321713
Islam is really the biggest factor. It completely transformed Arab identity and social structure. Geographically it's an untapped connecting point between east and west. Muslims also contrary to belief weren't just conquerors, they pursued diplomacy in addition to proselytism, along with intelligent (as opposed to overpowering) battle tactics when it came to fighting. When the Caliphate became a solid entity it didn't rule with an iron fist and let locals integrate their knowledge into Arabic knowledge under the condition that they don't try to sabotage the state, which was a positive change for a lot of people stifling/ignored under Byzantium or Persia or whomever.
>>321776
He said the same thing for the Library of Alexandria.
The Arabic fascination with book knowledge didn't really emerge until the Abbasids showed up. Still, they kept the roads and maintained the other civil engineering. Cities need to drink, after all.
>>321813
>alongside other stories like the Caliph Umar and his BFF the Coptic Patriarch's Indiana Jones adventure into the pyramids.
Where does one read about this??
>>321778
>not wanting to aid it and save Europe from Catholicism
>>321813
>We don't have any contemporary sources on any destruction of city infrastructure or even of libraries.
That would be kinda hard considering the arabs controlled everything and persians were not known for their historical documentation since they believed in oral histography.
So I guess its just another case of perception of the individual and as you said "apocryphal legends".
>>321827
Now that I think about it, it could have been another caliph. But Umar did have other tales if I'm wrong on him exploring the pyramids.
The Quran was the first book ever written in Arabic.
Keep in mind, they are located 200 miles from Mesopotamia that had writing for thousands of years. In 500AD, there were Greek, Sanskrit, Phoenician, Persian, Roman, Chinese libraries, and even Mayan hieroglyphs on the other side of the world but not one piece of Arabic text.
>>321841
That's where archaeology steps in to feed us clues once we know where to look, and still we come up dry looking for evidence on some big fire or thriving library at Ctesiphon that was suddenly snuffed out.
We do have a lot of Christian and Jewish sources however, as well as conquest stories of various Arab tribes remembering feats and deeds of their ancestors, and none of them ever mention the Arabs burning down Ctesiphon or a great library therein. Same for Alexandria.
>>321863
They didn't really need it. They had cities but no empires. The occasional kingdom or 2 was mostly just towns and roads. There wasn't much to write down
>>321863
>Keep in mind, they are located 200 miles from Mesopotamia
More like 800
>>321778
Among many other consequences, wouldn't the dark ages have lasted a lot longer that way?
>>321896
Muhammad et Charlemagne, yeah.
>>321872
I am sure the archeologists will be able to carbon date as to no burning took place 1300 years ago when all that remains of Ctesiphon is a arch.
>Same for Alexandria.
Which is why christian copts still stick to the idea to this very day that muslims are responsible for it.
Hell, we even got arab sources for it.
>>321896
>>321778
If you want to actually change the fate of the Romans, you'd have to make them win the Teutoberg and provide them with arms technology to actually go out and conquer the rest of Europe.
Also agriculture. Those climate changes are happening one way or another, so you best help them secure a good food supply.
>>321920
>I am sure the archeologists will be able to carbon date as to no burning took place 1300 years ago when all that remains of Ctesiphon is a arch.
Actually yes, they can. Not carbon dating exactly, but by looking at each layer of sediment around the time of a supposed event we can find traces of big events like human habitation/abandonment as well as construction and destruction. It's been done with lots of cities over the past century and it's pretty accurate.
>Which is why christian copts still stick to the idea to this very day that muslims are responsible for it.
>Hell, we even got arab sources for it.
Unless you've got a secret tome that no Middle Eastern historian has ever seen with this source, the best source we have is a 13th century copy of a 10th century source of a burning of the Library of Alexandria under the Caliphate. We even have Coptic sources on the conquest of Egypt, but no such mention of this.
It's doubtful the Library even existed past Caesar's conquest of the city, and it might have gone even before then.
>>321948
Same thing could be said about the Parthians, whom were nothing more than a Satrapy of iranic steppe nomads whom took advantage of the decline of the Seleucids and the disaster that empire was followed by the Sassanids taking advantage of weakened Parthians.
Truly war is hell cause you never get a moment to rest and rebuild your forces without someone taking advantage of your weakened state.
>>321948
It's almost as if the rise of every power came on the backs of someone else's decay.
Who'd a thunk it?
>>321977
you'd think that the big dogs of history were apex predators.
but it turns out they were more scavengers
>>321619
It's not like God put the oil there in 1900, Anon. It was always there.
>>321619
Who are the Nabateans? Who are the Sabeans?
>>321985
It's not like apex predators were always apex predators.
>>321955
>Unless you've got a secret tome that no Middle Eastern historian has ever seen with this source
Sorry bruh, but only the Coptic Patriarch's Indiana Jones would know that.
Just 5 different arab historians/writers stating the same guy did, but they lived around 400-500 years after the events of the burning like the source you stated so its another question of everyone favourite argument; perception.
Hell, Im more preplexed one arab would actually go out and say "we did it" and would like to know why.
>>322007
indeed
>>322024
>Hell, Im more preplexed one arab would actually go out and say "we did it" and would like to know why.
It was probably a moralizing story where a lesson is contrived by casting famous people in character. Umar was probably famous for being No Fun Allowed, always super serious and didn't care about anything except piety, and that the story was meant as a criticism of rulers closer to the original source centuries later who might have been censors of some kind. Like how Voltaire wrote his Muhammad play to actually criticize the authorities around him without getting into trouble.
That or it could have just been legend from previous events where a library was destroyed such as the Roman conquest or the two Christian riots that got corrupted with Umar after the fact, which then got recorded centuries later once the myth became more popular and confused for historical truth.
I still don't understand what you mean by perception, but it's very clear all evidence points to the Library of Alexandria (and Ctesiphon) not being burned down in Umar I's reign.
>>322095
>I still don't understand what you mean by perception
The perception of one self holds for different historical events since we do not have all the facts or they are clouded by different opinions and takes of them cause of how old the events were.
>but it's very clear all evidence points to the Library of Alexandria (and Ctesiphon) not being burned down in Umar I's reign.
Like thats your perception of the events with the evidence you gathered while someone else might believe it was Umar that did it or someone else thinks it was Caesar. Hell, for all we know it could have been some drunk Seleucid ruler that partied tonight the night before and torched the place cause "fuck knowledge".
But its like religion, everyone wants to be right but we dont truly know cause none of us were back there when Moses parted the sea or Jesus did his party tricks while Muhammed was hounded by Gibril to write his memoars.
Sure it might sound like some retarded fallacy argument but with what information we get we cant always be sure since historians since Herodotus and Dio have been known to crunch the numbers.
Why does everyone lessen any kind of achievement outside of Europe on here?
Turn a critical eye elsewhere and all these point you bring up are applicable to literally every major power throughout history.
>>322141
That's why we can compare how much evidence one perception has over another, point out holes in the story of a perception, corresponding source evidence to corroborate a source, and have physical evidence such as the existence of a destruction layer or a physical site where such an event would have happened.
Not all perceptions are made equal. Some are simply better supported and probable than others.
>>322162
>Why does everyone lessen any kind of achievement outside of Europe on here?
Because everyone likes to lessen everyone else's achievements and it isn't strictly limited to not-Europe. You visit some of the Viking threads? The norse are reduced to petty pirates that never threatened any states at all despite them conquering swathes of land in Britain and becoming the lords of the early Rus state.
There are other examples, but it's the most readily found on here. It's not strictly Eurocentrism, just favoritism and cherry-picking in general.
>>322162
I don't think that's the issue here. The thread is simply asking about the importance of the area known today as Saudi Arabia before Islam, which is a fair question. You could make the exact same thread about the importance of Italy before Rome, or of Scandinavia before the Vikings, etc. No one's asking the same of Iraq, Egypt, or China though, because it's already common knowledge that these places had things going on for as long as anyone can remember.
>>322162
it's either
(a. you are accused of being Eurocentric
or
(b. you are accused of being anti-European
since the this board is on 4chan and half the people on the board are from /pol/ (other is from /lit/) probably much safer to choose the former.
>>322176
Exactly
But unless you can provide 100% certain evidence that neither library werent burned down during the founding of the caliphates just like I have to provide 100% that the arabs did it to support my argument, we still cant be sure and have to question every angle.
I provided a quote from Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari whom was a historian that lived around 100 years after the Ctesiphon library burning and said the Umar ordered it.
You called it a apocryphal legend with the evidence that out of the one arch that remains of the entire city without any other archeological sites we could tell that that wasnt the case.
So who knows, maybe its just butthurt persian propaganda like the circumstances surrounding the destruction of Athens or its fact.
Point is we will never know for 100% unless we build a time machine and record it for ourselves.
>>322237
al-Tabari was born 200 years after Ctesiphon was conquered. We can never be 100% sure even of events within our own lifetimes, but that's no argument to judge two theories as being equal, especially when the original citation claiming to be from al-Tabari on the wiki page links not to any citation of al-Tabari himself but to a 20th century Lebanese historical fiction author. The quote itself appears no where in any translation of al-Tabari I can find.
We have good reason to believe one perception, and a good many reasons to not believe the other.
Gonna chime into this library of Alexandria debate with this article by Bernard Lewis:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1990/sep/27/the-vanished-library-2/
Basically the Library of Alexandria and its destruction is a myth constructed by European historians of the time looking for clues to what happened to Alexandria's great library when all mention of it ceased after the ancient period. So they started looking for any and all mention of a library that may have been damaged and imagined these events to be THE event for THE library.
All three or four stories about the destruction of the library are weak sauce, but the last one involving Umar is probably the weakest of them all for the above stated reasons. Like Lewis says, it's most likely a story made up on the spot to justify Saladin's purge of Fatimid Shi'a books after his conquest of Egypt.
>>322330
Guess I stand corrected, since they mentioned in another article that it was a "account two centuries later" and not the initial one I linked.
Guess thats one less sin of the arab conquests back.
>>322388
Also this adds another question similar to the Alexandria book burning one.
Why would another arab scholar do this to make his own people look bad?
Why would a lebanese historian feel the need to add this around 1300 years later?
>>321726
No, the crippling of the Sassanid Empire was right at the final stand against Heraclius after their last army was defeated and they sued for peace, a major plague broke out near Ctesiphon. That plague would wipe out over half the Sassanid Empire's popualation and persisted right until the year before the Muslim/Arab Caliphate started raiding and invading the Sassanid Empire's western boarders.
Many of the veteran commanders and nobles whose experience from the last war would've been needed were killed. More then anything, that plague nailed in the final nail in the Persians defeat.
>>322443
Abd al-Latif was.
>>322448
I didn't see that name mentioned, only following the chain in replies earlier to point out al-Tabari was and is a Persian historian.
>>322456
See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1990/sep/27/the-vanished-library-2/
al-Tabari did not write about Alexandria's library. It's not even certain he even wrote about Ctesiphon's library as this is never mentioned in any translation of al-Tabari's account of the conquest of Iraq. All Al-Tabari has to say about Ctesiphon is that the Arabs surrounded it, and it surrendered after the Shah fled.
>>322472
He talks about the plague and disasters following Khosrau Parviz's death. You are missing my point earlier though:
I said I followed these replies about "Why would another *arab* scholar do this to make his own people look bad?":
>>322431
>>322424
>>322388
>>322330
>>322237
That's it. I'm not saying about about the Alexandria library burning.
>>322486
What is it with people thinking Arabs are one people?
They aren't unified now, let alone back then.
Bad mouthing the other tribe's people is standard Arab bullshit that dates back thousands of years.
>>322493
I was just saying al-Tabari is Persian, he's not an Arab.
>>322498
sorry m80
i was replying to the
>Why would another *arab* scholar do this to make his own people look bad?
part
>>322507
Its cool dude
