Termination of Greco-Roman civilization and role of Islam, revisited by E. Scott

[Garrick]

Very challenging book by historian E. Scott:

Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Mohammed_and_Charlemagne_Revisited_-_The_History_of_a_Controversy

It is based on Pirenne study "Mohammed et Charlemagne" (1937)

"During the 1920s Belgian historian Henri Pirenne came to an astonishing conclusion:

the ancient classical civilization, which Rome had established throughout Europe and the Mediterranean world, was not destroyed by the Barbarians who invaded the western provinces in the fifth century, it was destroyed by the Arabs, whose conquest of the Middle East and North Africa terminated Roman civilization in those regions and cut off Europe from any further trading and cultural contact with the East. According to Pirenne, it was only in the mid-seventh century that the characteristic features of classical life disappeared from Europe, after which time the continent began to develop its own distinctive and somewhat primitive medieval culture."

For Scott,
"the evidence shows that classical civilization was not dead in Europe at the start of the seventh century, but was actually experiencing something of a revival. Populations and towns were beginning to grow again for the first time since this second century – a development apparently attributable largely to the spread of Christianity. In addition, the real centres of classical civilization, in the Middle East, were experiencing an unprecedented Golden Age at the time, with cities larger and more prosperous than ever before. Excavation has shown that these were destroyed thoroughly and completely by the Arab conquests, with many never again reoccupied. And it was precisely then, says Scott, that Europe’s classical culture also disappeared, with the abandonment of the undefended lowland villas and farms of the Roman period and a retreat to fortified hilltop settlements; the first medieval castles.


For Scott, archaeology demonstrated that the Arabs did indeed blockade the Mediterranean through piracy and slave-raiding, precisely as Pirenne had claimed, and he argues that the disappearance of papyrus from Europe was an infallible proof of this. Whatever classical learning survived after this time, says Scott, was due almost entirely to the efforts of Christian monks. "


...
According to Scott archaeological evidence indicates a sudden wave of massive destruction throughout the entire Mediterranean region in the seventh century of our era that can hardly be attributed to anything other than the Arab conquests?

If we follow Pirenne and Scott, termination of Greco-Roman civilization seems to coincide with the rise of Islam.

How much is it valid? What are pros and cons of Pirenne & Scott groundbreaking? Views, contestations, confirmations, etc...

 

[Boreas]

Very challenging book by historian E. Scott:

Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Mohammed_and_Charlemagne_Revisited_-_The_History_of_a_Controversy

It is based on Pirenne study "Mohammed et Charlemagne" (1937)

Calling this book challenging ???

What was Belgium like in 1958 (Human Zoo)

I am sure that in 1937, he wrote very good rational, objective book.

 

[Milan]

Delete,wrong thread

 

[Angela]

It's all hooey. The Arabs didn't make Italy a wasteland. That's on the Lombards and their eastern "cousins", the Byzantine Empire. The Arabs were actually very good stewards of Sicily, better certainly than the Spanish Bourbons. I'm not making excuses for the way they treated the Greek speaking Orthodox Christians who inhabited it, but one has to be objective in these matters. They didn't level the towns or monuments, or suck it dry of every ounce of wealth to ship elsewhere. In their own fashion, they grew to love it and took care of it, as the Moors did in Spain. Anyone with a brain in his head would, imo, have rather lived in Moorish Spain than in the Visigothic kingdoms.

The Gothic Wars:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(535–554)
The civilization of Andalucia:

How do you think Luni got to look like this? It was first the Germans and then the Vikings, in the latter case also pirates who arrived by sea.

Or Rome like this?

Who disrupted and tore up the roads, almost put an end to trade, tore down the buildings and built their camp fires in them, killed the peasants and disrupted agriculture?

You think the Arabs went up the peninsula and did that? How many times was Rome sacked, first by the Celts, and later on by the Germans?

What happened to Aquileia, which used to be a city of 100,000? What about the other Roman city they may recently have discovered which is now under the sea? Why did the Venetians have to retreat to their swampy islands in the lagoons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquileia

The book referenced in the OP is just another attempt to "whitewash" what happened to Europe at the hands of the Germanic tribes. All that "The Wandering of the Tribes" stuff is malarkey, imo. I don't even have to look up the book. Just look at the date: 1937. It might as well have come out of the Reichs Chancellory. As I posted on another thread, the biggest factor in the downfall of the Roman Empire was climate change, in my opinion. That caused the steppe lands to dry up, putting the Huns on the move and pushing the Germans in front of them. I might go with "The Stampeding of the Tribes" to describe it. The people who appeared at the frontiers weren't the semi-Romanized Germans of the border areas. They were totally unfamiliar with Roman civilization, illiterate, starving, and desperate. There were too many of them to hold back. (There were other causes as well, but that's the "proximate" cause.")

The Eastern Empire handled it better. They fought them, but they also bought them off with gold and food. As a result, and even weakened by the plague, and Christian, and riddled with corruption, and anything else you want to lay at the foot of the Roman Empire, the East was able to hold out for hundreds of years.

We've learned a lot since the days of Gibbons, you know.

Instead of reading 80 year old material, try..."The Fall of Rome and the Death of Civilization" by Bryan Ward-Perkins though the Oxford University Press. He knows what he's talking about because he's actually done a lot of archaeology in Italy, unlike a lot of these blow-hards.

Ed. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/dunkin/121011

 

[bicicleur 2]

things looked good for Europe at the time of Charlemagne
maybe he even prevented further expansion of Islam into Europe
but I don't think you can blaim Islam for the subsequent desintegration of Europe

 

[bicicleur 2]

Calling this book challenging ???

What was Belgium like in 1958 (Human Zoo)

I am sure that in 1937, he wrote very good rational, objective book.

it is clear you don't like the book, but you don't want to tell why

 

[Garrick]

You think the Arabs went up the peninsula and did that? How many times was Rome sacked, first by the Celts, and later on by the Germans?

Scott obviously has different opinion of those times. His book is an intriguing and controversial. Unfortunately I only partly looked it and I did not read the whole, although it can be ordered.

Of course you're right about the Celts and Germans but these topics are not in the focus of Scott. His logic is that due to constant Islamic threat, the Mediterranean coastal lands had to live in a state of constant alert, with fear of pirates and forays. And author thinks that destruction was due to Arab conquests of North Africa and the constant threats in the Mediterranean, (coastal settlements in Spain, southern France, Italy, Dalmatia, Greece, and all the Mediterranean islands).

Author considers that some important questions in science about that period are skipped and not addressed in the right way. Of course you can be right, question is whether he found appropriate answers.

 

[Angela]

Scott obviously has different opinion of those times. His book is an intriguing and controversial. Unfortunately I only partly looked it and I did not read the whole, although it can be ordered.

His logic is that due to constant Islamic threat, the Mediterranean coastal lands had to live in a state of constant alert, with fear of pirates and forays. And author thinks that destruction was due to Arab conquests.

Author considers that some important questions in science about that period are skipped and not addressed in the right way. Of course you can be right, question is whether he found appropriate answers.

The fact is that he's ignoring what we know from archaeology and historical record. Rome was not destroyed by Arabs. Neither was Aquileia, and I could go on and on. Charlemagne was not a Roman Emperor, no matter what he called himself, and the Lombard Kingdom was not a continuation of Rome. That's taking nothing away from Charlemagne's accomplishments.

Did the Arabs raid northern Mediterranean coastlines? Yes, they did. As I've posted about before, the entire Ligurian coast is dotted with "Saracen" towers. I used to play around them as a child. Look outs stayed there so they could raise the alarm if they saw ships coming. Despite that, Genova was sacked by them. My husband's ancestral village, littered with Greek ruins, was abandoned, and a safer site sought inland in the mountains. Tens of thousands of slaves were taken. The "Moors" from Spain established a beach head in southern France. They ruled all but a sliver of Spain.

All of that is true. However, the only reason that these places were so vulnerable to the Arabs is because the Empire had been destroyed. The Eastern Empire held them at bay for hundreds of years because they managed to hold on. If you want to put it that way, they are responsible for the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, but not the Western one.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's deliberately distorting the record out of some agenda.

As to the Christian monks saving some manuscripts, that's true, but most of them were saved by the Byzantine Empire, and by the "Moors" of places like Spain, who had gotten them from the Byzantines.

This is a review of the Ward Perkins book. It's available on Amazon. Very short read, but excellent.

 

[Garrick]

The fact is that he's ignoring what we know from archaeology and historical record. Rome was not destroyed by Arabs. Neither was Aquileia, and I could go on and on. Charlemagne was not a Roman Emperor, no matter what he called himself, and the Lombard Kingdom was not a continuation of Rome. That's taking nothing away from Charlemagne's accomplishments.

Did the Arabs raid northern Mediterranean coastlines? Yes, they did. As I've posted about before, the entire Ligurian coast is dotted with "Saracen" towers. I used to play around them as a child. Look outs stayed there so they could raise the alarm if they saw ships coming. Despite that, Genova was sacked by them. My husband's ancestral village, littered with Greek ruins, was abandoned, and a safer site sought inland in the mountains. Tens of thousands of slaves were taken. The "Moors" from Spain established a beach head in southern France. They ruled all but a sliver of Spain.

All of that is true. However, the only reason that these places were so vulnerable to the Arabs is because the Empire had been destroyed. The Eastern Empire held them at bay for hundreds of years because they managed to hold on. If you want to put it that way, they are responsible for the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, but not the Western one.

He doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's deliberately distorting the record out of some agenda.

As to the Christian monks saving some manuscripts, that's true, but most of them were saved by the Byzantine Empire, and by the "Moors" of places like Spain, who had gotten them from the Byzantines.

This is a review of the Ward Perkins book. It's available on Amazon. Very short read, but excellent.

Yes. And I found still some weaknesses Scott's approach.

But there are some strengths.

Fact is that Northern Africa was lost (there was Greco-Roman civilization and Christianity was spreading).

But what is more important what Scott emphasizes that, the Muslims constituted a constant threat in the Mediterranean, attacking ships of all types and taking prisoners (crew) into slaves. This is significantly distorted trade, broke connections, and reduced income. Maritime was recognizable feature of Greco-Roman civilization. And not only this, it diminished civilization values due to greater isolation. And it lasted a long time. Scott says they "terrorized the Mediterranean until after the end of the Napoleonic Wars".

Surely Scott exaggerates. But his thinking that due to constant threat of piracy and fear of people (crews) that they can be slaves, maritime, fisheries, trade, economy, social networks etc. were suffering. All this had bad consequences, the question is how much.

 

[bicicleur 2]

the latter is true
trade on the Mediterranean had become impossible because of the Muslims
furthermore the tolerant and civilised Morish people were not replaced by the Christians as acording to traditional history
the Morish Umayads were replaced by the fundamentalist Almohavides, and they were replaced by the Christian reconquistadores
something people outside Spain don't seem to realise

 

[Garrick]

Calling this book challenging ???

What was Belgium like in 1958 (Human Zoo)

I am sure that in 1937, he wrote very good rational, objective book.

You can see here we find weak and strong points of Scott's approach.

What is your point?

 

[LABERIA]

Scott obviously has different opinion of those times. His book is an intriguing and controversial. Unfortunately I only partly looked it and I did not read the whole, although it can be ordered.

Of course you're right about the Celts and Germans but these topics are not in the focus of Scott. His logic is that due to constant Islamic threat, the Mediterranean coastal lands had to live in a state of constant alert, with fear of pirates and forays. And author thinks that destruction was due to Arab conquests of North Africa and the constant threats in the Mediterranean, (coastal settlements in Spain, southern France, Italy, Dalmatia, Greece, and all the Mediterranean islands).

Author considers that some important questions in science about that period are skipped and not addressed in the right way. Of course you can be right, question is whether he found appropriate answers.

So, you want to discuss about a book that you have never read, just based in the wiki article? This is really fun.

 

[Angela]

I don't think anyone has disputed here the role of Arab piracy in the Mediterranean, the raids against northern Mediterranean coastlines etc.

The point is that this has absolutely nothing to do with the fall of the Roman Empire. It HAD ALREADY FALLEN, so the major premise of his book is incorrect.

The invasions of North Africa started some time after 642AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_the_Maghreb

Spain was invaded in 711AD.

Sicily was invaded in 787AD

It was from those areas that much of the piracy was launched.

By that time the west had already been ravaged by the Germanic tribes, including the Vandals in North Africa. Rome was sacked by the Vandals in 455AD. The Gothic War which laid waste to Italy was OVER by 554AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(535–554)

The major destruction had already taken place. Now, did the depredations of the Arab pirates hamper the little trade that still took place? Yes, but that's a far cry from what Scott claims.

Frankly, I don't know why you aren't as upset by the devastation wrought by the Vikings in the Mediterranean. They were slavers, and raiders, and disrupted trade too.
See: Luni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luni,_Italy

"It was repeatedly sacked by sea pirates, Saracens in 849 and Vikings in 860." So, am I supposed to give the Vikings a pass because they're Europeans and not Muslims?

What about your own area. Look at what happened to it during the invasions. Why is all your ire always reserved for Muslims?

The following site provides a simple explanation and the dates for the decay of the economy.
http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/birth/5/FC41-1

 

[Garrick]

So, you want to discuss about a book that you have never read, just based in the wiki article? This is really fun.

No, you didn't understand.

I hold the book in my hand, and I read as much as for time which I had, and I will have the book soon.

What do you don't like, because it has a lot of positive surveys in Amazon, 5 star = 73% (56 surveys).

https://www.amazon.com/Mohammed-Charlemagne-Revisited-History-Controversy/dp/0578094185

It is not a measure of quality, although there are serious comments, but the number of surveys tells about popularity the book.

 

[Regio X]

(...) As I posted on another thread, the biggest factor in the downfall of the Roman Empire was climate change, in my opinion. That caused the steppe lands to dry up, putting the Huns on the move and pushing the Germans in front of them. I might go with "The Stampeding of the Tribes" to describe it. The people who appeared at the frontiers weren't the semi-Romanized Germans of the border areas. They were totally unfamiliar with Roman civilization, illiterate, starving, and desperate. There were too many of them to hold back. (There were other causes as well, but that's the "proximate" cause.")
(...)

Just for the record, time ago I saw this study/theory about, apparently not so plausible: http://www.historyoftheancientworld...-can-be-explained-by-biology-researcher-says/

 

[Angela]

I don't see any "epigenetic" changes here:

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"Roman historians recognized what they considered to be a decay in the traditional Roman character from the late Republic onwards. Symptoms included a falling birth-rate, a growing gap between rich and poor, and declining attachment to ancient traditions. Modern historians have tended to focus on economic and political changes, but this new theory suggests that the root cause was, in fact, a mass change in temperament driven by prosperity.[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]One, the gap between rich and poor, can be explained by economic and political factors, and the other two have to do with changes in society which tend to come with increasing sophistication. The same thing is occurring in western societies today. I don't argue it's not worrisome and that cultural changes like this don't have their part to play, of course.

The point I was trying to make is that despite all the problems it faced, problems also faced by the eastern half of the Empire, without the stampeding of the Germanic tribes in front of the Huns, and the way in which Rome handled it, it might have been able to go along for longer, as did the said Eastern Roman Empire. [/FONT]