Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Medieval and Byzantine History Medieval and Byzantine History Forum - Period of History between classical antiquity and modern times, roughly the 5th through 16th Centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 23rd, 2012, 12:30 AM   #61
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 178

Thanks for flavour on Arab armies, Essa! (And for latest part, Rolling Wave! And everyone else: this is a really interesting thread and your posts have taught me a lot!)

Is this book any good on Caliphate Military, or could you recommend any other?

The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State (Warfare and History):Amazon:Books
The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State (Warfare and History):Amazon:Books

AndreasK is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 23rd, 2012, 12:44 AM   #62

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,784

Thanks Rollingwave for the added 'dimension'.....I should be looking into that.
Essa is offline  
Old July 23rd, 2012, 04:23 AM   #63

Darth Roach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
From: Jelgava, Latvia
Posts: 1,325

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essa View Post
Point taken Roach....

If you read my earliest post on this you'd see that I've stated 'Core' as well as 'Supplementary' reasons.
But your core reason is wrong, too.
Darth Roach is offline  
Old July 23rd, 2012, 11:48 AM   #64

Ankrom's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 169

From, "Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire"....

"...the Sasanians ruled their realm by what we have termed the Sasanian-Parthian confederacy. This was a predominantly decentralized, and dynastic system of government...", p3.

"As we shall see, had it not been for the Parthian withdrawal from the Sasanian-Parthian confederacy toward the end of the rul of Khusrow II Parviz, the Byzantines might very well have become a client state of the Sasanians.....", p3.

"The debacle of the Sasanian-Parthian confederacy during the last years of the Sasanian/Byzantine wars, however, had a far greater consequence for late antique Iranian history: the ultimate defeat of the Sasanians by the Arab armies and the eradication of their empire by the middle of the seventh century.", p3.

"The conquest of Iraq occurred precisely during the period of internecine warfare between the Pahlav and the Parsig. The two factions, engrossed in their strife in promoting their own candidates to the throne, were incapable of putting up a united defense against the encroaching Arab armies.", p4.

"The subsequent conquest of the Iranian plateau, moreover, was ultimately successful because powerful Parthian dynastic families of the "kust-i khwarasan" and "kust-i adurbadagan" abandoned the last Sasanian king, Yazdgird III, withdrew their support from Sasanian kingship, and made peace with the Arab armies.", p4.
Ankrom is offline  
Old July 23rd, 2012, 11:59 AM   #65
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 178

Interesting...

Is this a full-blown book or an article, and where is it available?
AndreasK is offline  
Old July 23rd, 2012, 12:03 PM   #67
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Karachi
Posts: 1,015

A book .
Lazyman is offline  
Old July 24th, 2012, 01:16 AM   #68

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,784

Thanks for the references Ankrom..

What you've provided is one theory of how Iranians view the conquests. I don't wanna assume a 'Bias' in it although I've seen the tendency in many Iranian sources to devalue the Arab conquest and attribute it (as much as possible) to external reasons without giving sufficient credit to Arab effort....

As far as I know, the Parthian Empire lasted until around 230 AD or something, and since that time the Sassanids were in control. So this makes their reign until Arab conquests close to 400 years....It is debatable that any Parthian influence have survived that long.

On another note, the Parthian history itself is not comprehensive, at least to the degree of the Sassanid....Below is an abstract from Wiki:

Native and external sources
" Local and foreign written accounts, as well as non-textual artifacts have been used to reconstruct Parthian history.[145] Although the Parthian court maintained records, the Parthians had no formal study of history; the earliest universal history of Iran, the Khwaday-Namag, was not compiled until the reign of the last Sassanid ruler Yazdegerd III (r. 632651 AD).[146] Indigenous sources on Parthian history remain scarce, with fewer of them available than for any other period of Iranian history.[147] Most contemporary written records on Parthia contain Greek as well as Parthian and Aramaic inscriptions. "

Now looking at the issue again....

There is no denial in any source that the Persian state was weakened, for sure that was one reason for the conquest. However, the point is that weakness is a political one, one that had no material bearing on the quality of the Persian military force.....

The proof is obvious, the whole campaign took several years to fully overthrow the Sassanids, it had above 10 or 11 battles (other than seiges), in all battles fought the Sassanids outnumberd Arabs by at least 3:1 or 2:1....

It makes sense to have the Sassanid weakness as a supplementary reason but in no way that could qualify as a 'main' or 'core' reason for the conquest !!....Credit should be given where it should be, Empires don't fall so easily....
Essa is offline  
Old July 24th, 2012, 01:26 AM   #69

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,784

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Roach View Post
But your core reason is wrong, too.
I think any religious or other idea is what drives humans with vigor and motivation 'in a consistent' way to reach goals....

The Momentum Arabs gained through Islam was something unprecedented in their history before, that translated into a resilient mentality when approaching wars....

You may want to dig for reasons for Arab conquests, but the 'Core' reason in all cases remain the same and present for an empire streaching from China to France.
Essa is offline  
Old July 24th, 2012, 09:45 AM   #70

Ankrom's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 169

Quote:
Originally Posted by Essa View Post
Thanks for the references Ankrom..

What you've provided is one theory of how Iranians view the conquests. I don't wanna assume a 'Bias' in it although I've seen the tendency in many Iranian sources to devalue the Arab conquest and attribute it (as much as possible) to external reasons without giving sufficient credit to Arab effort....
Then I am assuming you have read her book and checked her historiography and methodology.

Quote:
Native and external sources
" Local and foreign written accounts, as well as non-textual artifacts have been used to reconstruct Parthian history.[145] Although the Parthian court maintained records, the Parthians had no formal study of history; the earliest universal history of Iran, the Khwaday-Namag, was not compiled until the reign of the last Sassanid ruler Yazdegerd III (r. 632651 AD).[146] Indigenous sources on Parthian history remain scarce, with fewer of them available than for any other period of Iranian history.[147] Most contemporary written records on Parthia contain Greek as well as Parthian and Aramaic inscriptions. "

Yeah, I prefer reading the actual book. Wikipedia? The 3 references are all from 1983! Don't you think there might have been some further scholarship in Sassanid historiography since then?
Ankrom is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Medieval and Byzantine History

Tags
arabs, fall, persia, quickly


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Byzantines defeat the arabs and turks( arabs and later turks) Feeeen Speculative History 14 June 13th, 2013 02:12 AM
The Fall of the Roman Empire / The Fall of the Eurozone Caracalla European History 4 May 25th, 2012 03:37 AM
Why the former Spanish Empire balkanized so quickly, while the Portugese one Haven't Clendor American History 10 September 25th, 2011 05:26 PM
Europeans have been developing really quickly. etamaze General History 6 August 7th, 2011 08:01 AM
How come Persia was powerful? throughthepastdarkly Ancient History 9 September 18th, 2008 06:53 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.