2000 years ago middle east and north africa were most developed regions in west
1000 years ago middle east and north africa were on par with europe
Today they are far behind Europe.
Proportionally with spread of Islam, state and relevance of these places diminished.
What made them fall behind so far?
Is it possible to conclude it was fault of Islam?
Even difference between Turkey and Greece, or Albania and Serbia, countries that should have similar cultures, is enormous and not just by economic but also moral progress.
What made these places today so backwards and would they form modern advanced secular nations if native's were never conquered and converted by araps?
>>711918
didn't colonialism and the age of sail decrease the value severely of large parts of africa and the middle east? People could simply sail around africa to get to the silk road and I know the vast amount of gold from mesoamerica tanked mali
>>711999
Literally this
Op is a whiggist moron
>>711918
The "west" was still an iron age shit hole while most of the middle east was already civilized for a couple of thousand years.
>>711999
Though Italy lost its position as the richest region because of explorations, it still never declined to that point.
Also why didnt Morocco undertake any voyages of exploration?
Im more focusing on parts of Roman Empire, as Mali was really far away kingdom, with its culture not so closely connected to arabs.
>>712007
That is my question, what made formerly most urbanized and richest place of roman empire fall so low in recent millenium?
>>711918
Actually the Middle-East and North Africa have gone through many ups and downs throughout history as has more or less every land inhabited by humans. Many of both the ups and downs have happened while the regions were primarily Islamic just as there were many ups and down when they were Zoranastrian, Christian, or Pagan. If you want to know the cause of the current horrible state, It primarily comes from the obsolesence of the Silk Road and other trade routes brought about by the Age of Sail causing the regions wealth to dry up leaving it weak and unable to resist foreign domination. This domination hampered any real ability to modernize which left the people poor and ignorant. And what do poor and ignorant people do? they flock to demagogues who promise that if only we purge "those" people everything will be good again. This of course only makes things worse and the people flock to them even more, whether they be Wahhabists saying "purge the infidel" or secularists like the Baathists who said "purge the non-Arab".
>>711918
>Today they are far behind Europe.
>Proportionally with spread of Islam, state and relevance of these places diminished.
this is stupid
>>712038
>Also why didnt Morocco undertake any voyages of exploration?
dunno, loads of countries didn't, plenty of european ones didn't. I think the death of the silk road was the main one, I was just using the mali one as an example of how a new source of resources can damage an area pretty bad.
>>712045
Maybe the rest just got richer while some places stayed stationary.
>>711918
>What made them fall behind so far?
>Is it possible to conclude it was fault of Islam?
It's the probable conclusion.
Islam doesn't really reward intellectual behavior. It's incredibly dogmatic. The "muslim golden age" should really be called "persian golden age". There was nothing islamic about it ; in fact muslim clerics persecuted the scholars at the time.
There's also an interesting case to be made that Islamic society is dysgenic, because of high interbreeding rates, admixture with sub saharan slaves, and low rewards (in terms of fertility) for intelligence, but this belongs more to the realm of the speculative.
>>711918
>Proportionally with spread of Islam, state and relevance of these places diminished.
?
also violent crime increases when ice cream sales go up, does that mean violent crime causes ice cream sales? or maybe because it's fucking hot, muh causality
>>712038
>Also why didnt Morocco undertake any voyages of exploration?
Funny enough, england approached them to colonize (as a measure against ibrean colonization) but Morocco was not interested. Colonies are expensive not only on coppers but manpower wise as well. IIRC the main excuse was that they needed their coffers full against eventual Iberian aggression. Didnt stop Morocco from colonizing other parts of africa tho
>>712076
Except that in some cases there is indeed a causation. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation, but sometimes there is indeed causation.
If we were to adopt your worldview, then I guess there's no way to establish that european colonization of Americas is responsible for the population drop of native americans, eh? I mean, ice cream something something hot weather something something.
>>712038
>Also why didnt Morocco undertake any voyages of exploration?
During the era where this was in vogue, Morocco was mired in a series of civil wars while most of its major ports were under attack or already occupied by Spain and Portugal, or else ruled independent of the Moroccan crown by pirate republics. On top of the huge cost of colonization, Morocco didn't exactly have a demographic surge to support thousands of skilled laborers in far away places until very recently.
>>712056
But lands like poland, novogord or muscovy while stationed in unhospitable lands far off from any important trade routes still went forward (true muscovy, later russia was still backwards compared to west) while having far worse starting conditions..
>>712093
>I guess there's no way to establish that european colonization of Americas is responsible for the population drop of native americans, eh?
The fact that like 90% of them died before the Spanish ever showed up, that does make it hard to establish.
>>712121
90% died exactly because they showed up, way colonial empire treated them later didnt help also.
>>712093
How do you tell it's an actual causation, and not just yet another correlation (or even a reverse causation relationship)?
>>712156
Not to who you are referring, but sharp distinction can be even seen in europe, modern western balkans today are sharply divided by places of former habsburg and ottoman rule.
And that divide started with ottoman conquests.
>>711918
Their lands used to be much more fertile. The Sahara didn't exist 10,000 years ago, but now it grows with every passing year. As the world gets hotter things are going to get even shittier; consider how important the ongoing drought was in causing the Arab Spring, by driving up food prices and causing water to become more scarce.
>>712114
but how were tiny lands like netherlands or sparesly populated ones like scotland able to start at least some colonization efforts.
Even Couronia (country only notable as funfact) tried.
>>712170
Other examples abound.
Meronite lebanese vs muslim lebanese
North african jews vs North african muslims
Parsees vs Persians
I'm probably forgetting many other examples.
>>712170
But that doesn't imply causation for Islam vs NotIslam anymore than it does for Ottoman/Turkish/non-Latin divides.
>>712175
World 4000 years ago was very warm.
Look at the nordic bronze age, it was so warm that they were able to cultivate grapes in dernark and still egypt flourished.
And there was little cold age in late middle age's and still egypt declined through that era.
>>712181
>scotland
The Netherlands were densely populated and rich. Scotland's attempts all failed, with the last attempt nearly taking down the entire country along with it. Scotland would have been the perfect warning for Morocco not to attempt colonization.
>>712182
These examples confound the issue further with almost all of them instances of a favored minority many times patronized by local or foreign authorities.
>>712186
Ottomans were only major country there through time of major decline in middle east, and still balkans were among wealthiest lands and large amount of scholars and disproportionally statesman were drawn from there.
>>712206
True for the Parsees, untrue for the others.
Meronite Lebanese were 90% of the Lebanese population just a century ago. A christian island in the middle east. Muslims were the minority.
I'm not particularly aware of north african jews being given preferential status (in Islamic times, that is. I know they were granted french citizenship, whereas muslims weren't).
>>712195
It wasn't just temperature but also rainfall.
http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html
Also I believe deforestation had something to do with increased desertification in the area as well.
>>712198
Important part is tried.
They had knowledge and ambition to try.
I doubt Morocco never made any attempts because of Scottish example.
>>712213
>Meronite Lebanese were 90% of the Lebanese population just a century ago. A christian island in the middle east. Muslims were the minority.
That still makes them minorities who managed a local majority in a small region. And I'm also fairly certain they had lots of preferential treatment by colonial authorities allowing them lots of access to European education and commercial enterprise.
>>712218
Sahara was in simmilar state today and when ancient egyptian civilization started, you could notice that if you read text you posted.
>>712220
It's not like Scotland got a trophy for participation that Morocco should feel bad for missing out on. All they got was their country losing independence for their troubles.
It's very clear anyway with all the loans and lack of settlers Scotland ran into that even attempting colonization was a huge expense, and an investment that would have just been wasted the second Spain or Portugal decided they wanted Morocco's fledgling colony that they could do nothing to defend. Remember, there's still the issue of Moroccan internal instability and the fact that most of its good ports were not even under their direct control.
>>712223
>That still makes them minorities who managed a local majority in a small region.
They were minorities when making up 90% of the population?
White people were minorities in America in the 1950s?
> And I'm also fairly certain they had lots of preferential treatment by colonial authorities allowing them lots of access to European education and commercial enterprise.
No doubt, but their more open-minded and enterprising culture cannot be chalked off to "affirmative action". As you probably know, many Lebanese christians emigrated to the new world, and became elites of Latin american countries. The richest man in the world (well, one of them), the mexican Carlos Slim, is a lebanese christian.
>>712223
Can you link any?
I know about jews in europe were aloved to be bankers while christians were not and that greeks and jew were favoured as merchants,
But can you link anything about maronites, copts or assyrians, especially as there were number of massacres against them.
>>712244
You are missing the point.
They tried as did every european country from Portugal to Denmark with acces to atlantic, and still Morocco did not.
Also by that time Europe was allready more advanced than north africa.
>>712251
>They were minorities when making up 90% of the population?
Of a small province. Mormons make up an overwhelming majority in some US counties that sure doesn't make them any less a minority in the country itself.
>No doubt, but their more open-minded and enterprising culture cannot be chalked off to "affirmative action".
It doesn't need to be chalked off, it's a point that muddies an already murky claim that religion can be causation but not these dozens of other social and economic factors that also correlate.
>>712236
The Sahara is still growing, retard. Its formation drove the formation of ancient Egypt, sure, but it's bigger now than it was back when the Pharaohs ruled Egypt.
Anyway, I was just using the Sahara desert as an example of what's going on in the middle east, a gradual drying-up.
>>712283
>Of a small province. Mormons make up an overwhelming majority in some US counties that sure doesn't make them any less a minority in the country itself.
But they lived within that province you stupid fuck. It's not like they were merchants in Constantinople.
For the same reason, Mormons are not a "favored minority" patronized by Washington.
>but not these dozens of other social and economic factors that also correlate.
Such as?
Your only arguments so far have been either erroneous claims (meronite christians being a favored minority), or vague claims (no, it's something else!)
At this point of our discussion I'm thinking you're a fanatic who can't be convinced, so I'm going to bed.
>>712277
That was never the point. The point originally made was that Morocco was not physically able due to their poor economy, demography, and political instability on top of their lack of ports.
>>712299
A fucking meme duchy in northern poland had colonies in America and Africa.
>>712291
Than Its pretty retarded of you to link unrelated article.
Could you link connected one, to prove why would sahara be growin as world was colder 700 years than 2000 years.
1000 years ago they were still far beyond Europe, aside from the declining Byzantine Empire.
Also, blaming Islam is certainly a stretch. More likely it was the maritime revolution, and the advanced weaponry the Europeans had. Middle Eastern/North African empires had large gunpowder armies, while Europeans had strong navys.
Let's look at the Ottoman Empire, a great land-based Middle Eastern empire who's rule extended to North Africa. Their prime was arguably under Suleiman the Magnificent's rule in the mid 1500's. During the Maritime Revolution in the 1600's, Europeans crashed their economy with New World silver, they lost their trade influence from the Silk Road because it became obsolete due to ships, and they lost even more money to supplying their army with guns. Western European states were sending all of their money into ships at this time, which proved to be more effective at the time. This lead to the fall of the Ottomans, along with overexpansion, corrupt officials (hey let's spend all our money on making turtles with painting on their back walk around tulip gardens in the middle of the desert), and Janissary revolutions. They suffered until the were finally extinguished in World War I, leading to modern day Turkey.
tldr: europeans get big ships, m.east/n.africa pumps money into guns and not ships and lose land-based trade influence, Europe also fucks over economy with silver, they eventually wither away.
>>712120
Actually Novogord was an extremely important trade center in the Hansa League. Russia had both the Black Sea trade as well as vast swathes of resources in in more or less uninhabited land behind it, Poland as well had access to routes bridging Eastern and Western Europe. But just like the ME and N.Africa these regions experienced both good times and bad. Poland went from the juggernaut of Central Europe to a partitioned memory. The Hansa lost it's usefulness. And Russian history is practically a Sine-Wave. And to say Poland or Russia were anywhere as advanced as the ME or N.Africa until relatively recently is a bad joke. Are we to say the bad times the places suffered were because they were Christian? Of course not, no more than the good times. The same goes for the current M.E and N.Africa. It has more to do with where they are than their religion. Look at where Non-Muslim countries in the same locations are, Christian Africa is just as much a shithole as Muslim Africa, Muslim Indonesia and Bangladesh are having the same economic booms and corruption problems as the Buddhist and Hindu nations around them, While Muslim Albania and Bosnia are in the same position the Christian Ex-Communist states that surround them are in.
>>712298
>But they lived within that province you stupid fuck. It's not like they were merchants in Constantinople.
That province was a small part of a larger countryside that includes what is now modern day Syria, Jordan, and Israel. The Ottomans, British, and the French did not just occupy the Lebanese mountains, they occupied all of it.
>Such as?
All the ones we already talked about. The kind that led to things like this:
http://www.cndl.edu.lb/index.php?pid=48
>>712333
Courland was a rich duchy centered around a group of trade cities, under the political protection of Poland-Lithuania. Morocco was a tribal confederation with its port cities and merchant classes dominated by Spanish and British control and bypassed by Atlantic and Mediterranean trade, which is why they resorted to piracy to divert some of this wealth to them.
>>712328
Novogorod exported its own resources and was in now way middle man on some important trade route.
Russian aces to black sea was much less important than baltic aces, and only resource it was rich in was wood,
Polands eastern borders were empty steppes of sparesly populated steppes of rebbelious cossacks and pillaging tartars (no important trade routes), and still they went throught renaissance and made great advancement in science.
All in all they were stationed for long time on eastern borders of civilizations.
And despite all this Poland became more developed 16th century, Russia century-two later.
While mena countries face continual stagnation last 700 years, despite geographicly more favourable position, and from jewel of west became its asshole.
>Christian Africa is just as much a shithole as Muslim Africa
Of 10 worst by HDI 7 are majority muslim, one is 40% with christianity 40% and there is not info on somalia.
>Muslim Indonesia and Bangladesh are having the same economic booms and corruption problems as the Buddhist and Hindu nations around them
One few places where islam spread relatively peacefully and was able to mix with local customs
>While Muslim Albania and Bosnia are in the same position the Christian Ex-Communist states that surround them are in
They are much much worse, with only country on par being moldavia that is failed state with country inside of it.
>>712333
>What made their economy shit?
Starting in the early 17th century, when small nations could still consider colonization, Morocco itself was being colonized. As other anons have said, its major Atlantic ports were controlled either by pirates or by the French who won a series of preferential trade deals from the sultan. By the middle of the 18th century Sultan Muhammad III was in a position to attempt to bring his country into the Atlantic trade network, and renovated the city of Essaouira with European experts. He had to populate the city but couldn't find anyone but slaves and their descendants, who rebelled.
Oh, and there was also a plague at the same time that cut Morocco's population in half.
>>712400
Again question is what made them tribal confederacy that couldnt manage to unite relatively homogenous population and resoreted to piracy, while every country in the north was able.
>Courland was a rich duchy centered around a group of trade cities
It could be richest duchy in the world (wasnt even in baltic), still doesnt make it sound less bad for Morocco
>>712460
>Again question is what made them tribal confederacy that couldnt manage to unite relatively homogenous population and resoreted to piracy, while every country in the north was able.
They were always that way, even in Roman times. Hell if you believed anything French imperialists wrote about North African demographics, it was Berber tribalism that brought down the region's stability and economy while the Arabs and Islam tried their best to make something that passed for productive civilization.
>It could be richest duchy in the world (wasnt even in baltic), still doesnt make it sound less bad for Morocco
That's where outside interference, internal instability, and plague comes in as >>712457
explains.
>>712439
>Of 10 worst by HDI 7 are majority muslim, one is 40% with christianity 40% and there is not info on somalia.
It's 6 Muslim to 4 Christian for the 10 lowest HDI African countries (and 4 Muslim in the 10 highest).
>>712520
Central-africa, Burundi and Mozambique are christian.
Eritrea is 50% christian and 48% muslim.
>4 Muslim in the 10 highest
countries that through 1000s of years were among richest on earth should not be compared to sub-saharic africa, (as if their failure is not great enough in itself).
>>712499
Germanics, Slavs, Finno-Ugrics were all tribal savages compared to berbers still they were able to make functioning states.
All colonizing countries also faced interference, internal instability, and plague, and were able to overcome it.
>>712572
All of these groups ceased being tribal societies by the Renaissance, while North Africa became dominated by tribes. There wasn't even a Morocco in the 17th century, but two or more small inland kingdoms that only united to form the modern state that exists today in the latter half of the 17th century. Morocco didn't even have a principal Atlantic port until a century after that when most of the New World had already been claimed by the major colonizing powers of the 18th century.
>>712572
>All colonizing countries also faced interference, internal instability, and plague, and were able to overcome it.
Not Courland or Scotland. They folded like a house of cards the moment their economic or political stability faltered.
>>712588
They ceased being tribal society under one set of philosophical rules and became more advanced, while anothers degenareted under other set.
Can it be concluded that these morals and philosophies had large influence in succes and failures of respective states?
>>712591
Again i answer to you.
They had knowledge, ability and ambition to try, something morocco didnt have.
>>711918
>1000 years ago middle east and north africa were on par with europe
They were ahead of europe.
>>712657
What makes you say that except muh dark age?
>>712605
No, the northern tribes ceased being tribes between the 10th and 15th centuries. North Africa however was invaded by a series of powerful tribal confederations that devastated the economic and political organization of the region periodically beginning all the way back in the 5th century and repeating up over and over.
Eastern Europe had a few such events, and they were equally no fun for everybody involved.
>They had knowledge, ability and ambition to try, something morocco didnt have.
For reasons already stated over and over again, yes. We're going in circles. Is the point here to say it was because of Christianity/Islam that this happened? The number of complex issues which are only the tip of the iceberg already makes that difficult to assert without also explaining why any of these dozens of other issues are not also causes.
I mean why didn't Poland-Lithuania have any colonies?
>>712664
Muslims were culturally and scientifically superior. Just 100 years later, crusaders began to dress themselves, their wives like the locals, around this time they began to bring muslims texts to europe, medicine, occult etc. You have texts translated from arabic to latin, not the otherway around.
But west has a fucked up inferiority complex "Hurr sandnigs were always in shit I refuse to accept they were better in anythin" But it is what it is. You can't have Avicenna being tought in European universities while claming you are equals to sandniggers.
>>712670
My point wasnt just colonization, it was that every possible part of middle east stagnated in every field compared to west.
And while eastern europe had its downfalls, it recovered again and again, never falling that far behind western, and enthusiastically accepting its ideas, something that didnt happen in mena.
Poland-Lithuania faced far worse internal problems than either of these states (two religious, aggressive neighbours and multiole ethnicities complete with decentralized government), and still fared better than any of islamic states.
>>712701
It is true that Islamic civilization was more advanced in early 1st millenium, while europe was still reeling from barbarian conquests, but not long after, west overshadowed it.
And while europe transcribed these texts and furthered that knowledge, middle east stayed behind.
And please stop displaying your inferiority complex, if i wrote anything racist you are free to link it
>>712773
I'm neither a sandnig nor a westerner so I don't care neither. By "Westerners" I wasn't meaning you but the general consesus.
You are right that muslims went downhill, but as 1000 years ago was not that time. I just corrected that. If anything I would label the islamic(or persian-arab) decline to mongol invasions.
Muslims are shit now, no argument about that, but to say europeans were their equals in 1016 is blatantly false.
>>712720
A lot of this was due to close cultural and diplomatic contact between more stable and successful Western nations. Russia, for example, was a lot more isolated than P-L until much more recently, and the difference in economic development was wide because of it.
The only successful Muslim power the Moroccans might draw upon for intellectual and economic development after the 16th century however was in rapid decline itself, and generally an enemy of Morocco to boot.
