"The Moors civilized Europe" theory

Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
#61
https://home.isi.org/islamic-warrio...n-catholic-kingdom-visigoths-spain-ad-589–711

Muslim invasion of Iberia brought many improvements to the region, as the Muslim world then was a bridge that supply faraway innovations from middle east, china and india to the western end of the old world. But to say Iberia was a cultural wasteland under the Visigoths is ridiculous. Iberia at that time was by no means inferior to Byzantine. If the inferiority was indeed true, I don't think the gap was much.

By the way, I thought it was the Berbers who occupied Iberia.

Any argument that Europe was a barbaric wasteland awaiting Moorish civilization is laughable.
Ya, Moors didn't civilised Iberia. It improved Iberia.
 
Nov 2013
1,077
Olisipo
#62
Short answer.

Initialy they formed the bulk of the invading armies but were subject to a ruling minority of Arabs. Eventually some Berber Dynasties (eg. almoravids) succeeded in ruling most of Iberia.

Muslim influence in Iberia encompasses a large period of history and shouldn't be considered a one time event, there were periods of great enlightenment and advances brought by the Ummayads and Córdoba Caliphate (some said that Córdoba rivaled Bagdah in magnificiency), but some periods of civil wars and religious intolerance also happened.
 
Nov 2009
3,883
Outer world
#65
I expected better from you. So disappointing. You're Italian. Google Alessandro de Medici. Very tellingly, you're another person in this discussion who speaks of Africa as if it were one homogenized country. Africa is massive and diverse. Some parts were more developed than others. Would you say that Celtic tribes maintained parity with the Nubians when they conquered Egypt? We're illiterate Germans equal to the Axumites BC. Yes. Western Europe surpassed them as well as almost every other people on Earth in development and even the East did to varying extents. The point is, there were a lot of black moors (blackamoors), moors did contribute to the development to Western Europe (but did not civilize them) and Africa had civilizations before Europeans showed up... hell the North and Horn had it before the Greeks.
I beg your pardon?
Aside that you completely ignored three quarters of my post only to focus to one part and you managed to misunderstand that as well.
I said that the Africa, especially Subsaharan one, maintained a technological parity with Europe and then it was largely surpassed by Europe.
I never said that Africa had no civilisations, I said that by the time Europe began to interact more thoroughly, Africa had been left behind.
You said:
so many Moors were black that many Europeans began to refer to all Black Africans as Moors
and I explained you the etymology of the word Moor, apparently you considered that unworthy of your consideration and preferred to start your own personal crusade against my supposed dislike of Black people.
It's definitely me who expected better from you.
 
Dec 2015
3,491
USA
#66
do you believe Africa "civilized" Europe based on this thread?
Hi remgrade, I believe my earlier posts can help to answer your question.
The Christian Europeans of the middle ages(sometimes erroneously referred to as the dark ages) were influenced by the success of both Arab and African Muslims(who themselves were influenced by the work of Greeks and Indians) of the middle ages. But also, the Muslims of the middle ages or as they may have at the time been called...the Moors...learned from Christian Europeans such as Pope Sylvester II, also known as the scientific Pope.
I have rarely if ever heard modern day Muslims or Christians suggesting that the Moors civilized Europe.
Europe did not civilize Africa, Africa did not civilize Europe. I find that Africans, Arabs, and Europeans have influenced each other over the years.
 
#67
but isn't it conventional wisdom that the Arab World (Golden Age of Islam) was the most advanced society scientifically, technologically

and then the Arabic world brought Europeans much knowledge.....

and then somehow it shifted where Europe developed the vast majority of modern science and technology while the Arab World fell behind?

so the Arab World did have alot to do with the intellectual development of Europe to some extent
The Arabs inherited their golden age, from the Persian Empire that they plundered to ruin during their barbaric sacking of said Empire.

The Arabs golden age was built on the backs of those they destroyed.

As far as Moors civilizing Europe...laughable at best. Europe under the Greeks and Romans was advancing science and mathematics while the Moors were still called Numedians.
 

Lee-Sensei

Ad Honorem
Aug 2012
2,059
#68
Well i thought that all blood was red :suspicious:

You are clearly exaggerating a bit, don't you think? I'm not saying that there weren't no Black moors in Iberia with very dark skin colour...there certainly were, and some sure did stand out for their achievments and actions...but they certainly weren't the majority of the "moors", they were a minority.

Edit:

I'm very proud to be born in a country that had "moorish" presence, and i acknowledge their legacy in their works, architecture, language and landmarks (one of my lastnames as moorish origin). And as a funny fact in my country Northern portuguese still call "Moors", in an informal playful way, to the Southerners, not because we are dark skinned but because we live in lands that had the longest moorish presence.
No. It doesn't seem like I am. Not that it should matter, but the presence of brown and black people in parts of Southern Europe doesn't change the fact that the people are white. Many moors were black. That's a fact. It's why to many Europeans moor became a catch all term for black people. Look up the Corsican flag. Not all of them were black, but a lot of them were.
 

Lee-Sensei

Ad Honorem
Aug 2012
2,059
#69
I beg your pardon?
Aside that you completely ignored three quarters of my post only to focus to one part and you managed to misunderstand that as well.
I said that the Africa, especially Subsaharan one, maintained a technological parity with Europe and then it was largely surpassed by Europe.
I never said that Africa had no civilisations, I said that by the time Europe began to interact more thoroughly, Africa had been left behind.
You said:

and I explained you the etymology of the word Moor, apparently you considered that unworthy of your consideration and preferred to start your own personal crusade against my supposed dislike of Black people.
It's definitely me who expected better from you.
You're still wrong. Africa is large and diverse. Ethiopia would be classified as sub Saharan, but it was on a whole other level in its development than other parts of the continent. You made some generalizations and you need to acknowledge your mistake.

If it isn't racism, I'm sorry. It's just a little difficult to understand why some people are fighting hard against the idea that a lot of moors were black when all evidence in both art and writing tells us that a lot of moors were black. Are you going to talk about the Medici "Moor"?
 
Nov 2009
3,883
Outer world
#70
You're still wrong. Africa is large and diverse. Ethiopia would be classified as sub Saharan, but it was on a whole other level in its development than other parts of the continent. You made some generalizations and you need to acknowledge your mistake.

If it isn't racism, I'm sorry. It's just a little difficult to understand why some people are fighting hard against the idea that a lot of moors were black when all evidence in both art and writing tells us that a lot of moors were black. Are you going to talk about the Medici "Moor"?
Can you then point out one area of Africa, especially sub-saharan Africa, that kept on developing and was on par with Europe after 1500?
I mean, Europe has given Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Euler, Leibniz just to name a few.
What about Africa then?
The fact that most Africa was by then very underdeveloped in comparison with Europe, especially for what concerns science and education.
No, Africa wasn't all "huts and mud" as many stereotypes point out: Ethiopia has been a nation-state for many centuries, Ashanti, Songhai, Kanem, Sokoto and so forth were all developed states.
Yet, none of them contributed to the civilisation in a minimally comparable way to any European state.
As for the Alessandro de Medici, I don't see how a single individual can disprove some simple facts: no real genetic imprint has been left on Spaniards that may make we think that a significant portion of 'Moors' were Black people (as we intend, people of a very dark complexion from sub-saharan Africa), the etymology disproves it and the same current usage of the term (Ludovico Sforza 'the Moor' wasn't black at all for example), the fact that they were culturally Arabic when at that time only a tiniest fraction of Black people were Islamic and the fact that Moors in sources are confirmed to be Islamised Berbers.
'Moors' was also the name given to Saracens, whom we know today as Berber pirates from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya.
It's not being racist, it's acknowledging the obvious evidence.
There have surely been Black Moors but they were not the majority and the fact that there are paintings showing them in that way doesn't mean that Moors were all Blacks, otherwise we should believe Native Americans to be all cannibals and El Dorado to exist.
 

Similar History Discussions