You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #81: The Romans didnt start collapsing until 500 AD [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-05 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. The Romans didnt start collapsing until 500 AD
Edited on Mon Jul-25-05 11:01 PM by K-W
and were still a major military power in the world and were setting up thier new capital in the middle east. Byzantium was the Roman Empire. It was the continuation of the same extended occupation.

It doesnt matter if Islam existed. Islam didnt sprout from thin air, it was a product of the history that preceded it.

I never said that every square inch of the middle east was occupied at all times, thats silly.

If they didn't develop commercially as fast as Europe did from let's say 1700AD ff., that isn't the fault of non Moslems, because the non-Moslems (Europeans) weren't there controlling anything for most of the last 2000 years. The Europeans were too busy warring with each other.

First, there were still European forces in the area, there were still townships controlled by British and French forces.

But this is the more important point, even if what you are saying is correct it is moot, because all of the trade routes, all of the surrounding areas, all of the places they could hope to trade with were controlled by either a European or an Asian force both of which were hostile to them and wanted to prevent thier development or were being invaded by a European or Asian force.

The ocean was controlled by European forces. Europe had major economic control of the region. You are right, the crusades had failed to hold the middle east. But by the time that happened European nations were able to cut the region off, and prevent trade which is neccessary for development.

As for your last paragraph you are spinning history.

You are focusing on the one period where they were allowed some level of independent development, and thus it is when thier religion developed a good deal(of course). But to argue that because during this one period they werent neccessarily occupied (although they certainly were under attack and economically isolated) it means the religion wasnt in a large part a product of thier history of being kicked around is silly. That is the cultural heritage that led to the society where Islam developed. And then it isnt too long until that window of independence is shut for good. And the religion develops alongside continued occupation and intereference through the present day.

Edit: I am off to sleep so I may not be able to pick this conversation up again. But its nice to discuss these issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC