When The Moors ruled in Europe

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Karlos wrote:

From what I've read in history books, the crusades has had hardly any effect in the muslem world.

I know history is written by the victors, but I'm surprised by that conclusion. If said historians honestly believe that simultaneously getting their arse kicked by Christendom from the West and the Mongols from the East (many of whom later converted but not before extensive damage to eastern territories) had "little effect" on the rise of fundamentalist views and the subsequent decline of free thinking in the Islamic world, then their reasoning utterly escapes me.

It's not their conclusion, it's my conclusion.
The crusades were terribly bad organized. Especially in the beginning, it were just a horde of farmers who were being slaughtered or being enslaved.
Later expeditions were more successful, but to maintain influence in that area was too expensive and dangerous. (maintaining an army in a land far away while being at war with a couple of neighbours is not exactly the most ideal situation).
No, the impact of the crusades have been highly exaggerated in my eyes. The impact of the Monguls however is something I still have to learn about.
Still, the Ottoman empire was really something to reckon with, until the 20th century.

[Dandy]

Karlos wrote:
@SuperTurbo

...
Pity they didn't finish what they started. We could have had your "modern society" half a millenium sooner.
...

Yes.
And today we would live in the mediaeval times then, I guess from looking at the majority of the islamic countries today?

[Karlos]

Dandy wrote:

Yes.
And today we would live in the mediaeval times then, I guess from looking at the majority of the islamic countries today?

Why? The comparison between the current timeline and an alternate one is totally invalid. You cannot assume any such parallels after such a major divergence.

Instead, I suggest that had the moors have spread their model of civilisation across all of europe, there would be no real threat of conflict with Rome (its far more likely that a treatise would have been set up recognising Rome as the religious centre of catholicism) and therefore it's unlikely there would have been the subsequent 8 centuries of Christian-Islamic conflict over the middle eastern territories. No conflict, no support for fundamentalism.

Pan european Islam in the more tolerant, enlightended moorish mold would not have required military assistance from more fundamentalist groups such as the almoravids in order to try and protect itself from christian armies. Again, a safe, content population is not given to supporting extremist viewpoints.

Far from your assertion, I reckon that had their culture have flourished, we could be several centuries ahead of where we are now.

[Dandy]

Karlos wrote:

Dandy wrote:

Yes.
And today we would live in the mediaeval times then, I guess from looking at the majority of the islamic countries today?

Why?
...

Simply because you assume that if Islam had spread all across Europe back then, we would have had a civilized Europe much earlier.

But I fail to see that Islam improved development of civilisations in the Islamic world since then - so why do you asssume that it would have been different if Islam had spread across Euorpe back then?

I`d say that`s at least a very optimistic assumption!

[Karlos]

But I fail to see that Islam improved development of civilisations in the Islamic world since then - so why do you asssume that it would have been different if Islam had spread across Euorpe back then?

I agree that existing societies don't reflect that view. However, did you not read any of the text of my post or check any of the articles about the peak of Moorish influence in Europe?

I can see no reason to assume that such a culture would not have continued to excel if it had been allowed to do so. It's a perfectly simple extrapolation that had this culture survived to usurp the existing ones within europe and the ensuing conflict with Catholicism not occured (at least not on the scale and duration of the crusades) there would have been no real support for the sorts of extremists that gained the upper hand during that time.

In my opinion, no existing muslim culture in the world today can claim to be remotely like that which existed during the peak of Islam's "golden age" simply because they've lost the inquisitiveness and ambition for intellectual advancement that the earlier civilisation had. That's a direct consequence of a change in motivation brought about by centuries of pointless conflict.

That's not a reflection on Islam, that's just a reflection on people.

[Dandy]

Karlos wrote:

But I fail to see that Islam improved development of civilisations in the Islamic world since then - so why do you asssume that it would have been different if Islam had spread across Euorpe back then?

I agree that existing societies don't reflect that view.

O.K. ...

Karlos wrote:

However, did you not read any of the text of my post or check any of the articles about the peak of Moorish influence in Europe?

Of course I did...

Karlos wrote:

I can see no reason to assume that such a culture would not have continued to excel if it had been allowed to do so. It's a perfectly simple extrapolation that had this culture survived to usurp the existing ones within europe

And exactly here I see the crux of the matter.

I can't recall one single event in history where an intruding culture has been welcomed by the original culture.

I don't know of any culture that resistance-less adopted the culture of the intruders.

E.g. Germany has been invaded many times in the past - but none of those invaders stayed for ever - let it be the Romans, the Goths, the Huns, the Vikings, the French (Napoleon), the Allies after WW II; and there was always violence involved when they invaded Germany.

So chances that the Germans would have unsolicited adopted the invaders culture were minimal anyway.

Karlos wrote:

and the ensuing conflict with Catholicism not occured (at least not on the scale and duration of the crusades) there would have been no real support for the sorts of extremists that gained the upper hand during that time.

Not quite sure what you mean with "conflict with Catholicism" - are you talking about the conflict between Catholicism and Islam?

If so, please keep in mind, that from 31. October 1517 onwards not all Christians were Catholics...

Karlos wrote:

In my opinion, no existing muslim culture in the world today can claim to be remotely like that which existed during the peak of Islam's "golden age" simply because they've lost the inquisitiveness and ambition for intellectual advancement that the earlier civilisation had.

That's a direct consequence of a change in motivation brought about by centuries of pointless conflict.

That's not a reflection on Islam, that's just a reflection on people.

Agreed, but I think it's much better for a society to be secular than to be attached to one specific religion.

I think it's a bad thing if religion dominates life.

This can lead to prosecution of science and scientists, as it happened in Europe some centuries ago...

[metalman]

Karlos wrote:

Dandy wrote:
But I fail to see that Islam improved development of civilisations in the Islamic world since then - so why do you asssume that it would have been different if Islam had spread across Euorpe back then?

I can see no reason to assume that such a culture would not have continued to excel if it had been allowed to do so. It's a perfectly simple extrapolation that had this culture survived to usurp the existing ones within europe and the ensuing conflict with Catholicism not occured (at least not on the scale and duration of the crusades) there would have been no real support for the sorts of extremists that gained the upper hand during that time.

The Caliphate of Córdoba was financially exhausted by its expensive military campains fighting against the invading Fatimids in an Islamic civil war. The small Christian kingdoms of Northern Iberia paid yearly tribute to the Caliphate of Córdoba in exchange for peace with the Moors of Al-Andalus (Iberia) until its break up into the Taifa kingdoms (1031). The Moors Taifa kingdoms each centered upon their own capital city then attacked each other whenever they could gain advantage by doing so. It was not until Ferdinand (The Great) of León became king of Castile in 1035, and the king of León in 1037, that territory was taken back from the Moors, by any of the Christian Kings.

A stronger alternate history case could be made that had Carthage prevailed over the Romans, Phoenician culture would have spread all across europe, Roman ambitions to conquer the world would have been checked, no Roman conquering of Palestine, no obsession with prophets of the jewish god Jehovah, and therefore, no subsequent 8 centuries of Jewish-Christian-Islamic conflict over the middle eastern territories. Instead, today we would go pray at Temples of "the one true god" Melqart.

Islam has had 1000 years to again develop another Islamic paradise.  Proclaimed Islamic paradise's since then have had one thing in common,  Mutaween ( religious police) enforcement of Sharia. This golden age of al-Andalus only happened because its rulers were Islamic heretics.