Quote:
Originally Posted by smrk2
You know, that's an excellent point. I didn't remember his take on the rise of Islam; I mostly remembered the Byzantine stuff and Charlemagne. This week I went through this again up to Charlemagne (I burned it to mp3 so I could listen instead of watch) and I think 'lack of nuance' is a pretty diplomatic and generous description of his treatment of Islam; I'd say it's plainly hostile to Islam. Still fascinating but it begs for a counterweight. Will have to pay extra attention to the crusades and after on this relisten to see if he's more equitable.
Well to a certain extent I'm glad he doesn't engage in PC equivocating about the richness of Arabic culture in the 7th century, because certainly the Arabic conquests
were brutal and bloody. But so were those of the Romans, the Goths, and the Franks. The Middle Ages were not a happy, feel-good time. They were violent as hell. But by the same token, I simply don't believe it's accurate to say that Islamic culture completely consumed and replaced Greco-Roman culture--indeed, with the integration of Egypt and Persia, the Islamic world essentially became the heirs of these cultures and the Western core. True, it was not until the Abbasids that much of this previous knowledge was made available--that's the main reason I say that I hope the treatment will be a little more nuanced in the future.
I simply get wary when the Battle of Poitiers/Tours is presented in the Gibbon cliche of Eastern/Islamic barbarism vs. Western/Christian "civilization." Yes, it's true that the heirs of European Christendom produced the Enlightenment, secularism, tolerance, and modern culture, but there was no way of knowing this if you were an 8th-century observer. In fact, were you a neutral 12th-century observer, I think you'd be far more likely to say that the converse was probable, as it was Islamic societies that were richer, more technologically advanced, and "tolerant" for the standards of the time.