- Mar 2013
- Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
Ehm? No. Muslim Cordoba did peak in 1000 CE or so? Right? – Then Constantinople was hardly a “pity recovering from a very traumatic period”, rather it was an apogee of Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian Dynasty, and Constantinople was a prestigious and wealthy capital during that time.By the time Cordoba peaked, Constantinople was a pity recovering from a very traumatic period.
Constantinople had about half million (or 1 million) population from the timeline of 400-630 CE. Then due to the exhaustion of Byzantine-Sasanian war in 602-628, they lost the whole Middle East to Rashidun Caliphate soon after, and then the number of population of Constantinople fell. During the 800s Constantinople again regained the former number once again with 0,5-1 million, and it lasted until 1204-5 where it dropped down to 50.000 due to the Latin Sack.
Half million (or 1 million) population in Constantinople for 5-6 centuries (400-630 and 800s-1200) sounds pretty good, and much better than what Muslim Cordoba achieved.
Europe anno 1200 was of course more developed than Europe anno 1000. - Europe anno 1000 was more developed than it was during the time of Plato. So “dark-age-sunk” is not quite a term that should be used to label 11 th century’s Europe.Too early, Cid, too early. The results of the impressive economic development of feudal Europe were still to be seing by that time.
That depends on what you use as criterium for a “hospital”. Hospital as we know it today are from Byzantium according to David C. Lindberg and Timothy S. Miller when emphasizing that it was a place to help and find a cure to the patients rather than a place just to die in.Hyperbole at its best. For example, hospitals were first developed in ancient Egypt. But hospitals as we know them, with separate sections for specialities, were developed in the Islamic world. They even developed mental hospitals first.
Here is what David C. Lindberg states in “The Beginnings of Western Science” on page 348:
I have also a third academic source, but I think this is sufficient for now.
Then just check John Philoponus and Isidore of Militus eventual. And when Byzantines managed to come with the first criticism of Aristotle’s physics by introducing the Theory of Imputus, or when the Byzantines made sundial device with complex small gears, or when they invent the counterweight trebuchet then Byzantines hardly “were unable to improve and do better”.A careful reading of most of this "Byzantine" breaking advances you posted are like that.
"Preservation of classical texts". That was a common Byzantine limitation, too overwhelmed by their past they were unable to improve and do better. Muslims took this classical background and pushed ahead, there's nothing in the Byzantine Empire as the mind of Ibn-Khaldun, for example.
Ibn Khaldun was born and died in Hafsid Sultanate and Mamluk Sultanate. It is safe to say that the Byzantine Empire’s contribution to science surpassed both these two sultanates even if you lumped them together.
So what? All empire lost and gains. – Rashidun Caliphate only lasted for about 30 years. Umayyad? Only about 100 years before it escaped to Spain, which lasted for about 200 years before it also fell. Abbasid? Practically 50 years before the fragmentation.In terms of military the idea is ironic, considering the Byzantines lost 70% of their empire to the Arabs by the 8th century, and were destroyed by a Islamic power.
Byzantine Empire did a better job here as they lasted as a “vast” empire for about 240 years before it shrunk. From 800-1200 they even played important role and were still there unlike the other Caliphates/Sultanates which often had only about 100-200 years of span before they fell.
Here the timeline and territorial area of Byzantium:
Frankly, Byzantines are doing a much better job than any of these various Islamic states did in Eurasia in MIddle Ages.
Frankly, this is rubbish. True, from 636-717 Byzantium was in defensive mostly. After 717 the direction pretty much shifted in BOTH directions:That was the wish of the Byzantines. They were happy to survive in a corner of their empire, regularly punished by their much powerful Caliphal neighbours, also paying tribute with regularity. Only after the fragmentation of the Caliphate they could rise again.
It appears to me that it is rather Byzantines(ONE state) that are punishing and assaulting (various) caliphates and sultanates that replaced each others in their short lived span of life. And even when the Caliphate was in one piece (Umayyad) in 717 they were completely shattered by Byzantium.
And during the Macedonian Dynasty and Komnenian Dynasty it was Byzantium that were constantly in offensive in most of its time.
I think it is rather you who are making hyperbole and distorting it by lumping together all Muslim caliphates/sultanates in ONE ENTITY and then concluding that they did better than Byzantine Empire which was ONE STATE by the way.Hyperbole at its best.
Comparing whole "Islamic world" with Byzantine Empire is like comparing the whole Christian Europe with Fatimid Caliphate.
Brazil has won 5 world cups, they had Pele, Garrincha, Zico, and Ronaldo Lima. But you know what? Brazil is nothing in comparison to Europe. Because Europe has won 11 world cup (lumping together Germany, Italy, France, England and Spain). Europe has also produced much more top-class players: Eusebio, C. Ronaldo, Di Stefano, Butrageuno, Puskas, Cryff, Zidane, Baggio, Rossi, Totti, Beckenbauer, Muller, Bobby Charlton and Ian Rush.
Most debaters with knowledge on football/soccer would easily realize the above comparison is crappy because I am comparing one country(Brazil) with a whole continent(Europe).
So, why are you comparing the entire Muslim world in Middle Ages with Byzantine Empire? - Select ONE caliphate/sultanate around Eurasia, and then let me show you how Byzantine Empire dwarfs them when taking into consideration their military, scientific and cultural achivements.
101.5 KB Views: 69
58.1 KB Views: 112