07-28-2003, 11:13 PM
What? Yeah, this happened. I think I missed how this has to do with the Mongolians being Chinese (or any of the other peoples they conquered). I didn't realize I needed a Mongolian history lesson. Of course, speaking of Islam, Tamerlaine's empire assimilated Islam (or the other way around, depending on how you look at it). Always a synthesis.
I misinterpreted your initial comment in re synthesis. I checked back, and your question on Mongols was not pointed at their ending 'the soire.' My error.
. . . (only halfheartedly practiced by the Christians, and practiced somewhat supersitiously by the Jews, and from the vantage of a "chosen people", an idea largely missing from Islam)
Not buying your characterization of Jews and Christians. The picture you paint is derogatory, and you can't back it up with fact. You just spouted a bit of Mohamaden propaganda, or did you not realize that?
You say this as though it was an afternoon. This process took a whole millenium! Sure, Persian influence grew over time; Persia is a natural administrative centre, with a rich, developed society and a connection to the east. Sure, the Ottomans took over, after a very, very long run; empires come and go. The Arabs were the driving force behind the entire business for at least a couple centuries, possibly longer. The Romans didn't have a much longer run than that. Neither have you Americans, so far.
I made no reference to time, I was explaining a cycle of transition. I disagree with you on how early and deep Persian influence was significant, and for how long, no matter. At this point, I don't much care: we disagree. But please refer back to my original point of disagreement.
The Romans didn't have a much longer run than that. Neither have you Americans, so far.
Which Romans? West or East? And as far as America, we are carrying on the globalism of the Age of Empires (1500-1920) via maritime trade, page out of the UK book, with European Enlightenment ideas as guiding principles. We have been at it for less than 100 years, which is roughly about how long ago we started to take on on the mantle from the Brits. The problem with time frame comparison vis a vis Romans and Arabs? Rate of change. In 100 years, the Indians might be writing brilliant treatises on how America rose and fell, in Sanskrit. Who knows?
But the Arab civilization was not a "romantic fiction", at least insofar as any individual nation or group can claim exclusive credit for anything, which is not very far at all.
The era that you first addressed, the era of the Islamic World being the pinnacle of civilization, was centuries after the base line Arab movement started, and well into the Persianization. That was my point in the first place. ;) Ponder this question, while you are at it. What was an Egyptian before Mohamaden's showed up with their jihad?
Did Mohamed change the world? Yep. Did he base it on a tribal model? Yep. Is a tribal model suitable to the post Enlightenment-Age? Nope. Why? Among other reasons, the weapons are simply too destructive.
Is there possibly a better synthesis between a pure Enlightenment model of the world and a purely tribal model than anything we have seen yet.
Gawd, I hope so!
I misinterpreted your initial comment in re synthesis. I checked back, and your question on Mongols was not pointed at their ending 'the soire.' My error.
. . . (only halfheartedly practiced by the Christians, and practiced somewhat supersitiously by the Jews, and from the vantage of a "chosen people", an idea largely missing from Islam)
Not buying your characterization of Jews and Christians. The picture you paint is derogatory, and you can't back it up with fact. You just spouted a bit of Mohamaden propaganda, or did you not realize that?
You say this as though it was an afternoon. This process took a whole millenium! Sure, Persian influence grew over time; Persia is a natural administrative centre, with a rich, developed society and a connection to the east. Sure, the Ottomans took over, after a very, very long run; empires come and go. The Arabs were the driving force behind the entire business for at least a couple centuries, possibly longer. The Romans didn't have a much longer run than that. Neither have you Americans, so far.
I made no reference to time, I was explaining a cycle of transition. I disagree with you on how early and deep Persian influence was significant, and for how long, no matter. At this point, I don't much care: we disagree. But please refer back to my original point of disagreement.
The Romans didn't have a much longer run than that. Neither have you Americans, so far.
Which Romans? West or East? And as far as America, we are carrying on the globalism of the Age of Empires (1500-1920) via maritime trade, page out of the UK book, with European Enlightenment ideas as guiding principles. We have been at it for less than 100 years, which is roughly about how long ago we started to take on on the mantle from the Brits. The problem with time frame comparison vis a vis Romans and Arabs? Rate of change. In 100 years, the Indians might be writing brilliant treatises on how America rose and fell, in Sanskrit. Who knows?
But the Arab civilization was not a "romantic fiction", at least insofar as any individual nation or group can claim exclusive credit for anything, which is not very far at all.
The era that you first addressed, the era of the Islamic World being the pinnacle of civilization, was centuries after the base line Arab movement started, and well into the Persianization. That was my point in the first place. ;) Ponder this question, while you are at it. What was an Egyptian before Mohamaden's showed up with their jihad?
Did Mohamed change the world? Yep. Did he base it on a tribal model? Yep. Is a tribal model suitable to the post Enlightenment-Age? Nope. Why? Among other reasons, the weapons are simply too destructive.
Is there possibly a better synthesis between a pure Enlightenment model of the world and a purely tribal model than anything we have seen yet.
Gawd, I hope so!
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete