Vox.com is nearly as terrible a propaganda machine as Gawker, or the whole city government of Chicago. It is a machine, spewing lies for the benefit of its paymasters, filled with inane Social Justice Advocates. And they want you to know that Christians and Crusaders are as much a threat as militant Islamics.
Now, before I tear this pithy, oft-repeated argument a metaphorical orifice for the excretion of bodily waste, I will explain why this particular lie enrages me so. The Crusades touches upon a subject that has, in many ways, been my life’s work. The histories of the Byzantine Empire, the succeeding Ottoman Empire and the regional conflicts of Islam and Christianity have immense personal interest to me. In the interests of full disclosure, I will tell you that I am part Armenian by ancestry. Don’t let that influence you overmuch. I can’t begin to impart what I have learned on this subject in one post. Forgive this brief summary, but also allow me to recommend some reading material if you want to dig deeper yourself: John Julius Norwich’s three volume series on Byzantium and Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy by Emmet Scott. I have dozens more I can give you if you want to read more than that. If it exists in English and is a scholarly treatment on the subject, the odds are good I’ve read it.
Now, shall we see the best of Vox.com’s excuse for journalism?
Obama’s point was actually pretty simple. Let’s not pretend that Islam itself is to blame for ISIS or that Muslims are inherently more violent, he suggested, because the problem of religious violence is not exclusive to any one religion. In other words, don’t oversimplify the problem of ISIS to “Muslims are different from the rest of us.”
For an opening salvo in the ongoing Culture Wars, this is pathetic, worthy more of mocking than serious intellectual treatment. You see, Islam is different in this regard. Pew Research is widely regarded as Gospel by the Left. Let’s use their own data against them.
This study is oft-cited by them, because it shows that a majority of Muslims do not support the actions of terrorist groups and suicide bombers. Yet, look at the graphs. Double-digit percentages DO support these actions. In Palestine, support for suicide bombings is 46% (over 60% in Gaza). Even in moderate Turkey, it is 18%. Does anyone on God’s Green Earth think that 18% of Christians in America would support suicide bombings on Muslims? If so, that person is an unrecoverable addict to ignorance. And this is their data, not mine.
Many critics have described Obama’s assertion that Christians are equivalent to Muslims as insulting to Christians. Whether this is because they believe that Christians are inherently superior or that Muslims are inherently inferior is irrelevant. It is not so different from, say, 1960s white supremacists who called Martin Luther King an anti-white racist for asserting that white and black people are fundamentally the same.
Yes, it is different. Because we have data, right there, combined with common-sense understanding that terrorism is more likely to come from a specific source. A Muslim source. Think about it for a moment and chalk up all the terrorism to come from Christian extremist groups. Let’s be fair and include the Irish, quite possibly the only modern instance of organized Christian terrorism in recent memory. Islamic terrorism dwarfs it by orders of magnitude. Not only is identifying this not racist (as Vox.com implies here), but NOT identifying it is proof of a level of ignorance that should not be possible among anyone seriously claiming the title of journalist.
Amazingly, some have tried to dismiss Obama’s comparison altogether by arguing that, even during the Crusades, in fact Christians were the victims and Islam the aggressor.
And here comes the history lesson. It is true that Christians were not the aggressor. Your Social Studies teacher (why don’t they call that class history, I wonder?) lied to you. Your textbooks lied to you. Pop culture lied to you. President Obama is lying to you, right now. To understand the depths of lie, we must go back in history to a time before Mohammed, before Islam even existed, because this lie is so deep, so systemic, its tentacles reach into our entire understanding of European History. It hinges around a nation referred to repeatedly as the Byzantine Empire. Even now, some sense of the thing can be had in the phrase “byzantine politics”. That Empire is a black hole in history textbooks, and Leftists want to keep it that way, because any support for Islam in the West is likely to evaporate like a fart in a hurricane otherwise.
After the first Germanic invasion of the Roman Empire, in the Third Century, it became increasingly apparent that the Empire was too large to be ruled by Rome alone. The old classical civilization we know as “Roman” began to fall apart. Economic damage was great. Plagues and frontier wars increased. Sassanid Persia was a constant threat in the East. New religions (Christianity among them) sprung up all over the Empire. Much of the apocalyptic tone of early Christian writings serves as a dim cultural memory for what life in this time was like.
Christianity, in the person of Constantine, eventually reached the highest levels of State, and the Empire rapidly Christianized. The message of a better life in the next world reached receptive masses of people who knew their civilization was on the decline. Paganism hardly even put up a fight, and was extinguished in the Empire in a few generations. Rome’s syncretic meta-culture merged with Christianity to become what we now call “Western civilization.” Even as the second wave of German invaders entered the Empire, conquering vast territories, they were in turn converted by it.
There is an old quote that may or may not be apocryphal. But it captures the essence of how even the Germans felt about the situation: “An able Goth wants to be like a Roman; only a poor Roman would want to be like a Goth.” The height of the Germanic second wave captured approximately half the old Roman Empire.
500 AD. The classical configuration of the German successor kingdoms. The largest, most powerful realms were the East Roman Empire, the Ostrogothic Kingdom, the Vandal Kingdom, the Visigothic Kingdom and the Frankish Kingdom.
They were all Christian, by this point. Many had been for over a century. To see how pervasive the Roman influence was, look at a common Spanish surname: Rodriguez. This is a Latin pronunciation of a German name, Roderic (the Latinized variant would be Rodericus). The Germans were speaking Latin, by and large, within the old Empire. They embraced the culture, the language and the religion. Who knows what modern Europe might look like today if this had been allowed to continue? Even then, the Romans were not done.
Scratch two German Kingdoms, and part of a third.
What we call “Western” civilization was actually once Mediterranean civilization. The inner sea had produced a sort of united meta-culture over top the local polities, and the Romans brought them together into one Empire (often through violence, but also often enough through peaceful means). Christianity provided them with one religion. Greek and Latin with two languages. You see, Europe in those days really was a sort of union, not like the pathetic excuse for a modern European “Union”. Even the distant Franks considered themselves to be a part of it.
Islam brought an end to all of this. I cannot overstate the damage Islam did to Western civilization. In the 600s, even the semi-barbaric Lombards, who had established themselves in northern Italy, used gold coinage. The Carolingians, arguably the most powerful successor to the West Roman Empire, could only manage silver coinage, and even then not a whole lot of it. The inner sea became rife with Muslim pirates. Muslim invasions destroyed ancient monuments and wrecked ancient cities. Even after the devastating destruction Rome visited upon Carthage, that city had been rebuilt and repopulated within a few decades. It was even the capital of the Roman province and the Vandal Kingdom.
Carthage was completely destroyed by the Arabs, never to return. Islam flooded the Empire, licking its wounds from a freshly terrible war with Persia. In a century, two-thirds of the Roman Empire was in the hands of Islam. The connection between the Eastern and Western Roman worlds was severed. But, somehow, both survived. Charles Martel defeated the Muslims in France, and the Romans defeated them in two of history’s most brutal sieges at Constantinople.
But the economy was devastated. Literacy rates dropped through the floor, because subsistence farming became the norm. Trade was reduced by an order of magnitude, and it would be almost 600 years before the Italians brought it back. There was no time available for scholarly studies. Only the church could afford such extravagance, and even then only in moderation. Vox.com and the Social Justice crowd would have you believe Christianity is some backward, anti-science cult. The fact remains that the church was the only scholarly light in that age. Modern science would not exist without Christianity. This is how much damage Islam did.
Do you see what he’s working on? Yes. That’s a book. And Monks were pretty much the only ones who had them. Even Emperor Charlemagne was *barely* literate. Things were so bad, even Kings didn’t have time for books.
In modern politics, it is fashionable to think of an Islamic “Golden Age” of learning and prosperity. In reality, this was the final flowering of the conquered cultures. Most great Islamic philosophers and architects were converts to Islam. And Islam was serious about those conversions. Oh, “People of the Book” were periodically tolerated to some degree, but immense economic and social pressure was placed on them to convert. And convert they did. The Persians were also conquered by Islam. They practiced Zoroastrianism. Today, the only Zoroastrians you’ll find are in India, where some of them fled to escape Islam. The religion was equally effective in scouring the Middle East and North Africa of Christians and Jews. By 900 AD, the Islamic “Golden Age” had become a nightmare. The Arabs couldn’t run a whorehouse in port full of drunken sailors, much less a functioning multi-ethnic Empire.
Christianity seems to have done the same, some would say, except that when Christianity took over the Roman World, it did so largely peaceably. Christian nations functioned, and did so even after the population converted. Not so with Islam.
For nearly one thousand years, the rump state of the Roman Empire, which modern history contemptuously dismisses as the Byzantine Empire fought a life-or-death battle with Islam. And, in 1453 it lost. Istanbul, not Constantinople, as the song famously tells us. Anatolia, once one of the greatest bastions of Christianity would henceforth be Islamic. Can you imagine that titanic struggle? It is almost inconceivable to the modern historian, who has no contemporary basis for comparison.
Siege of Constantinople, 1453. You think the Alamo was a good last stand? This was history’s greatest siege, bar none. 7000 Christian militiamen and sailors against 100,000 Turkish soldiers for almost two months. Yet you will never see a movie about it — it would offend Muslims (even though Muslims WON).
Emperor Alexius asked Pope Urban II for help against the invaders. Even he could not have foreseen the response he got (he just wanted to borrow some knights). For a moment all of Europe and even the Byzantines themselves (Eastern Christians and Western Christians were not always very friendly) united against Islam. And Islam lost. Badly. Everywhere, Islam was on the defensive. They lost ground in Spain, the middle East, Anatolia and even Tunisia (where the Normans established an African kingdom in the 1100s). For a short time, it looked like Islam would be kicked out of the old territories of the Roman world, that 500 years of Islamic conquest would be reversed.
Alas, it was not to be. The Christians squabbled among themselves. The Fourth Crusade betrayed the Byzantines and gutted their strength. King Guy proved himself the worst ruler the Kingdom of Jerusalem would ever see, marching out to fight Saladin without even having a secured water supply, in the desert. Only in Spain would the reconquest become permanent, even then that war lasted 800 years. Elsewhere, it was all undone. Not only were the Crusades a defensive measure, a reaction to 500 years of Muslim conquest, they were an ultimately ineffective measure. Christians were their own worst enemies. Shortly after the Crusades were done, the Byzantine Empire would fall, and the with it the last great defensive bulwark in the East. The Balkans would henceforth be the plaything of the Ottoman Sultans. The resulting cultural and religious mess (wherever Islam goes, chaos follows) would be directly responsible for World War I, and as a result, indirectly for the World War II. Bosnia still seethes with the aftermath of centuries of Islamic rule.
For some reason, most of this history is censored from public schools and universities. Disdain for the Byzantine Empire is evident going back even to Gibbon’s time. But it metastasized with the advent of Leftism. Analyzed by itself, the Crusades look pretty bad for Christians, but that’s only because modern Social Justice Warriors have expanded on this and censored the entire Muslim Jihad. A millennium of violence was excised from the high school textbooks. Go pick one of those Social Studies books up. See if you can find even a hint of any of this. This is deliberate on the part of Leftist intellectuals. They know this and desire for the West to be destroyed. With the end of the Soviet Union, their best hope for the destruction of the West is Islam. They will suppress the truth at every opportunity in pursuit of their totalitarian, apocalyptic goals.
Islam is a plague, worse than the locusts of Egypt. It destroys entire civilizations, erases history and replaces it all with a religion that hasn’t advanced in 1400 years, a religion whose people have double-digit support for outright terrorism and suicide bombing. Even in Nazi Germany, it’s hard to imagine support levels like that.
To be crystal clear: this is not a fight over the fine-grain imperfections of Obama’s historical analogy or over the implications for US foreign policy. It is a fight over whether it’s okay to hate Muslims, to apply sweeping and negative stereotypes to the one-fifth of humanity that follows a particular religion. A number of Americans, it seems, are clinging desperately to their anti-Muslim bigotry and are furious at Obama for trying to take that away from them.
Vox.com conflates hatred of a belief system (Islam) for hatred of a people. Does that mean all Muslims are evil? No. Not even a majority are evil. No totalitarian regime in the history of Earth, not even the Nazis, not even the worst Muslim regimes, have ever managed to excise all the good from people. It is not possible to do. But Islam tries anyway. And that’s the whole point. Christians have done great wrongs, same as any other people. But Islam encourages the wrongs. Islam desires the wrongs. It will not stop until the world is Muslim, until every other culture and belief system has been systematically eradicated, as it has already achieved in its own territories (see: ISIS). And then it will work on those people it deems as insufficiently Muslim. Many of the worst victims of Islamic violence are other Muslims. Go ahead and preach female equality in the Sudan. I dare you.
It must be stopped. The Crusaders tried and failed. Too much petty bickering. Too many bad men seeking only power got involved. But the idea remains.
So let me say what ought to be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell: WE NEED ANOTHER CRUSADE. Not some namby-pamby nation building exercise. I mean rapid, violent, and complete destruction whenever *any* Muslim nation dares attack the West. Take ten of them for every one of us. Blow up one of our schools? We blow up ten mosques. They blow up our office buildings? We blow up whole cities. Escalate until even the most pig-headed (pun) Islamic says enough and cries uncle. Imams should fear us. Muslim fathers should hush their children at the first mention of Allahu Ackbar in a public space. Then, perhaps, the moderate Muslims everyone talks about will overthrow their extremist brethren, for fear that we will kill them if they don’t.
Let’s work on reducing that double-digit approval rating for terrorism, shall we?
Excellent. Thank you.
Thank you. I need to do more reading. Sigh.
Wonderful post – appreciate it!
Fascinating and timely. I fear this whole thing is about to go global, and that the time for serious cowboys-and-muslims is at hand. I have privately come to the same conclusions as you, in response to the fact that the only thing that seems to dissuade Islam is accurate, deliberate gunfire…
I shall be seeking out the works you mentioned above, and adding my own discoveries to our information base.
Blessed Be!
I enlisted after 9/11 with the expectation that we would implement a draft and actually clean out some rats’ nests. It’s pretty clear to me that no crusade is coming from the west for at least a generation. We live in dark times.
> The resulting cultural and religious mess (wherever Islam goes, chaos follows) would be directly responsible for World War I
What now? I thought conflict of interest between an emerging German Empire and the already established British Empire caused WWI. Balkans were only the pretext and a mere side show.
Also, I would suggest not conflating Ottoman rule with Islamic rule. I would argue–and many historians would agree–that the Ottoman Empire–especially after 1453– was basically a continuation of the Byzantine Empire, a version that adopted Islam as the state religion if you will. This is apparent in the government philosophy and statesmanship of the Ottomans, especially after the reforms of Mehmed II, which were adopted from Byzantine Empire. Also, Constantinople was reported to be in extremely bad shape since its sack by the Crusaders in 1203. Mehmed II reportedly wanted her, Constantinople, to return to its former glory by importing Jews, Christians and Armenians into the city, making it a cosmopolitan city again. Yes, Mehmed II did reluctantly let his army sack the city for three days–as the city did not surrender and this was martial law of the Ottomans because they financed and incentivized their military personnel through spoils of war, just like Romans did–but still, my point stands.
Were there incentives built into the Ottoman system to convert Christians and Jews to Islam? Absolutely. But other than paying Jizyah and being banned from government jobs, all non muslim communities–millets–self governed according to their own cultural rules. This is how after 300 years under Ottoman rule, Balkans are still vastly Christian. Banning all non state religions from government is not practice particular to Ottomans btw. Even USG does it. To test my claim, try having overtly race realist ideas and applying for a top government job in the US. The reality in the US is, If you’re not a progressivist™, you’re banned from government. Also imposing special taxes on particular groups of people is not particular to Ottomans or Islamic states either.
Finally, you can see that the Ottomans were not an “Islamic empire” by the fact that they adopted a by and large Frankish Legal system in the 19th century by the fatwa of Sheikh ul-Islam, ditching Sharia law. So the Islamic institutions were largely pretense, just like how the Roman Empire adopted Christianity into its state structure, preserving the essence. Ottoman Empire, after 1453, was as Islamic as China is communist today. Ok, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but you get my point.
Anyway, I don’t try to defend the Ottoman Empire, and I totally welcome it being stopped at Vienna and ultimately being repelled, however, I just felt the need to scrutinize parts of your narrative. Three more points:
1) Gibbon seems to think that the decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity were related. I still don’t understand the exact cause of the decline of the Roman Empire–and nobody seems to have come up with an all convincing theory yet–but, I suspect early Christianity may not be the friend of civilization you present it to be.
2) Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire may have proven disastrous for the Middle East as it was by and large a peaceful territory for centuries where Sunnis, Shiites, Christians and Jews lived side by side without massacres happening every now and then.
3) Your solution of intimidating muslims through bombing is silly. You should have understood by now that radical islamist desire to by ‘martyred’. They not only want it, but expect and want you to bomb them. This is actually the stated strategy of al queada. They want to lure West into a perpetual war with them. West can’t win without nuking islam to extinction. What the Middle Eastern and other islamic shit hole countries actually need is proper governance. Somebody has to invade and properly colonize them–as the Ottomans, Romans, Persians, and the West used to do when they invaded a country.
What now? I thought conflict of interest between an emerging German Empire and the already established British Empire caused WWI. Balkans were only the pretext and a mere side show.
The conflict between Britain and Germany was, indeed, a major cause of WWI (one among many). But so was the declining Ottoman Empire, the mess of the Balkans, the multi-ethnic nature of Austria-Hungary and Russia’s desire to push off internal problems at home by involving itself on the world stage (that and its historical rivalry with both Austria and the Ottomans). Looking at WWI solely through the lens of Britain vs. Germany is a gross oversimplification.
Also, I would suggest not conflating Ottoman rule with Islamic rule. I would argue–and many historians would agree–that the Ottoman Empire–especially after 1453– was basically a continuation of the Byzantine Empire, a version that adopted Islam as the state religion if you will. This is apparent in the government philosophy and statesmanship of the Ottomans, especially after the reforms of Mehmed II, which were adopted from Byzantine Empire. Also, Constantinople was reported to be in extremely bad shape since its sack by the Crusaders in 1203. Mehmed II reportedly wanted her, Constantinople, to return to its former glory by importing Jews, Christians and Armenians into the city, making it a cosmopolitan city again. Yes, Mehmed II did reluctantly let his army sack the city for three days–as the city did not surrender and this was martial law of the Ottomans because they financed and incentivized their military personnel through spoils of war, just like Romans did–but still, my point stands.
The Ottomans were not some kind of Islamic continuation of Byzantium. With them, the culture, language, and peoples of the old Byzantine world were gradually bled dry and reduced. The architecture of the Ottomans was the only solid continuation of Byzantine tradition. Their art was more influenced by Persian culture, otherwise. Their government was based on an entirely different model from Byzantium (that of the inter-ethnic millet system). Mehmed II, after taking Constantinople did indeed try to spin the conquest as an Islamic restoration of Byzantium (he would even organize an attack on Italy on the pretense of “uniting the Empire). But his successors largely abandoned this notion.
Islam has a history of doing exactly what the Ottomans did. They will take over a civilization and run it into the ground, but for a few generations, it will retain some of its previous character and glory while it slowly spins down. The original Caliphate did much the same for the Roman and Persian worlds, as the Ottomans did for the Byzantine world.
Were there incentives built into the Ottoman system to convert Christians and Jews to Islam? Absolutely. But other than paying Jizyah and being banned from government jobs, all non muslim communities–millets–self governed according to their own cultural rules. This is how after 300 years under Ottoman rule, Balkans are still vastly Christian. Banning all non state religions from government is not practice particular to Ottomans btw. Even USG does it. To test my claim, try having overtly race realist ideas and applying for a top government job in the US. The reality in the US is, If you’re not a progressivist™, you’re banned from government. Also imposing special taxes on particular groups of people is not particular to Ottomans or Islamic states either.
The millet system was a pragmatic move by the Ottomans. They ruled over a multi-ethnic empire that, if those non-Muslim ever united, could fall apart and be re-Christianized. That this was possible was noted by the character of Sultan Yahya, who converted to Christianity and attempted to overthrow his brother. It failed, but one wonders where history might have gone if he succeeded, however. The nature of the millet system meant that both the Balkans and Anatolia were a mess of Christians, Jews, and Muslims with no particular geographic expression. Genocide and population exchanges were what created a re-Christianized Balkans (with the notable exceptions of Albania and Bosnia), and a Islamicized Anatolia (with the exception of what remained of Armenia after the genocide).
Although, I agree with you regarding progressives in the US Government.
Finally, you can see that the Ottomans were not an “Islamic empire” by the fact that they adopted a by and large Frankish Legal system in the 19th century by the fatwa of Sheikh ul-Islam, ditching Sharia law. So the Islamic institutions were largely pretense, just like how the Roman Empire adopted Christianity into its state structure, preserving the essence. Ottoman Empire, after 1453, was as Islamic as China is communist today. Ok, maybe that’s an exaggeration, but you get my point.
The Ottomans were an Islamic Empire. Indeed, the Caliphate they ran actually outlasted the Empire itself, and was central to their claims of authority in the Muslim world. However, the Islamic character of the Empire produced an increasing level of technological and social backwardness compared to contemporary European nations. Some Ottoman sultans and statesmen realized this, and in the interests of holding on to power, made various attempts to try and meld Western thinking and Islamic religious practice. They were largely unsuccessful in this effort, but to this day Turkey remains something of an oddity in the Muslim world for having made the attempt.
It continued even after the Ottoman Empire fell apart, personified in the person of Ataturk. However, there are signs, now, that Turkey may be radicalizing, and what Western influence remains may be fading. This is to be expected. A century ago, Westernizing meant holding on to power in a world where the West was strong. Today it means losing power, as the West declines.
Anyway, the Islamic institutions were not pretense. They were deeply ingrained in the culture of the Muslim peoples of the Empire. That some statesmen fought against it in an effort to preserve their Empire does not mean the institutions were ephemeral. Rather, the opposite is true. It means they couldn’t simply wave their hands and make hundreds of years of Muslim tradition evaporate over night. And, this is the important thing to note: they FAILED to preserve their Empire (Islamic cultural backwardness was too strong) and were fortunate even to preserve a rump state in the form of modern Turkey.
1) Gibbon seems to think that the decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity were related. I still don’t understand the exact cause of the decline of the Roman Empire–and nobody seems to have come up with an all convincing theory yet–but, I suspect early Christianity may not be the friend of civilization you present it to be.
Read Emmett Scott’s book Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited. Gibbon was wrong on the point of Christianity weakening the Roman Empire. And, in fact, the Roman Empire was on the rebound when Islam showed up. If Islam had not shown up in the aftermath of the Roman-Persian war of the early seventh century, history most likely would have considered the empire to have never fallen in the first place.
2) Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire may have proven disastrous for the Middle East as it was by and large a peaceful territory for centuries where Sunnis, Shiites, Christians and Jews lived side by side without massacres happening every now and then.
Tell that to my own ancestors. The Ottomans did a good job of exterminating and exiling them. The Ottoman Empire, like Muslim regimes before (and after) it had a split personality where dhimmis were concerned. Sometimes, they would be honored with positions of power, like the Phanariote Greeks. Other times, they would be exterminated, hunted down, etc… like the Armenians. Largely this depended on the political situation, and whether those in power were of a relatively tolerant sect, or were more literal in their interpretation of Islamic scripture. ISIS today, of course, falls under the literalist camp. Ottoman sultans and political parties waffled on this, just as Muslims do today.
3) Your solution of intimidating muslims through bombing is silly. You should have understood by now that radical islamist desire to by ‘martyred’. They not only want it, but expect and want you to bomb them. This is actually the stated strategy of al queada. They want to lure West into a perpetual war with them. West can’t win without nuking islam to extinction. What the Middle Eastern and other islamic shit hole countries actually need is proper governance. Somebody has to invade and properly colonize them–as the Ottomans, Romans, Persians, and the West used to do when they invaded a country.
Individual Muslims want to be martyred, yes. But they also want to achieve something glorious before they die. So a Muslim terrorist who flies a plane into a building has become a martyr. A Jihadi who dies in his sleep because a fuel air device was detonated on his camp is just dead. They don’t need proper governance. What you propose is perpetual occupation. It won’t work. What you do with Islam is this: wall it off and leave it alone until they bother you. And they will. Islam will test you to see if you are weak and soft, from time-to-time. When they test you with a terrorist attack or something similar, you strike back. For every one of your buildings they destroy, you blow up ten. For every one they kill, you kill ten. If they blow up a church, blow up ten mosques. If they attack a holy site, bomb Mecca. If you capture a terrorist, crucify him in public view.
They’ll get the message. For awhile, anyway. Then, a few decades later, they will test you again and you’ll have to rinse and repeat. The alternative is nuking the entire region, as you say, but I view that as unethical… unless they use a nuke on us. Then we would be justified in such action.
>was, indeed, a major cause of WWI (one among many)
No, it was THE cause the war was called WORLD war. Otherwise, it would have been called Third Balkan War or something.
>The nature of the millet system meant that both the Balkans and Anatolia were a mess of Christians, Jews, and Muslims with no particular geographic expression. Genocide and population exchanges were what created a re-Christianized Balkans
This is not particular to Ottomans. USSR, (e.g. moving Azeris into Armenian territory and vice versa), China and many other empires throughout history used populations transfers as a control method. Because it works. However Balkans cannot have been too de-Christianized as the population exchanges and genocides–of muslims–you mention don’t amount to large numbers.
> However, the Islamic character of the Empire produced an increasing level of technological and social backwardness compared to contemporary European nations. Some Ottoman sultans and statesmen realized this, and in the interests of holding on to power, made various attempts to try and meld Western thinking and Islamic religious practice. They were largely unsuccessful in this effort
If you examine the character of the Ottoman statesmanship and the structure of higher management, it is very distinct from Islam. Islam is quite clear in its prescription as to how the Islamic state should be run, who runs it etc. The Caliphate title, as you mention, was largely a tool Ottomans used to claim authority–just like Mehmed II claiming himself to be ‘Kayzer-i Rum’ meaning Caesar of Rome.
The problem with Ottoman Empire was that it was a medieval Empire and was not equipped to deal with industrial empires. Replace Ottoman Empire with contemporary China, and you’d have exactly the same result. I don’t see how Islam has a crucial role here. Also I would argue that westernization project was as successful as it could be given the population stock. To see this, compare modern Turkey with its Christian neighbors such as Georgia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Greece, and decide for yourself how they fare compared to each other. The real problem with contemporary Middle Eastern and Caucasian countries is their average IQs. You can only do so much with an average IQ of 90. A nation needs >120 IQ men to be governed effectively.
>It means they couldn’t simply wave their hands and make hundreds of years of Muslim tradition evaporate over night. And, this is the important thing to note: they FAILED to preserve their Empire (Islamic cultural backwardness was too strong) and were fortunate even to preserve a rump state in the form of modern Turkey.
Or, they were simply too late–as was China–to catch up with the industrialized west given the quality of the population they had at hand [close to 1 SD lower IQ compared to West].
>Read Emmett Scott’s book Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited. Gibbon was wrong on the point of Christianity weakening the Roman Empire. And, in fact, the Roman Empire was on the rebound when Islam showed up. If Islam had not shown up in the aftermath of the Roman-Persian war of the early seventh century, history most likely would have considered the empire to have never fallen in the first place.
Henri Pirenne’s theory is very interesting and well worth taking seriously. However, Emmett Scott doesn’t seem to do it justice, especially not by citing crackpots like Heribert Illig. I’ll reserve judgement on the subject until it’s better researched.
>ell that to my own ancestors. The Ottomans did a good job of exterminating and exiling them. The Ottoman Empire, like Muslim regimes before (and after) it had a split personality where dhimmis were concerned. Sometimes, they would be honored with positions of power, like the Phanariote Greeks. Other times, they would be exterminated, hunted down, etc… like the Armenians. Largely this depended on the political situation, and whether those in power were of a relatively tolerant sect, or were more literal in their interpretation of Islamic scripture. ISIS today, of course, falls under the literalist camp. Ottoman sultans and political parties waffled on this, just as Muslims do today.
Ottoman reaction to Armenians is classic imperial response to an insurgent group. This is apparent through the fact that right until late 19th century they didn’t oppress Armenians. Population transfers and genocides were pretty much go to methods for empires when dealing with internal enemies. Armenian genocide has nothing to do with the fact that they were dhimmi. Look up what Sultan Selim (16th century) did to Alawites who cooperated with Persians enemies.
>A Jihadi who dies in his sleep because a fuel air device was detonated on his camp is just dead.
No. You don’t understand islamist mindset. It’s simple: If you’re an islamic fighter and you are killed, then you’re martyr.
>What you propose is perpetual occupation. It won’t work.
What I propose is proper colonization. This used to be well known before the cult of equality, progressivism and cultural relativism became mainstream: if you want to stabilize and make a profit out of a region, you simply occupy it with overwhelming force and then govern it with competent statesmen: British ruled india with less than a hundred thousand men. The same is valid for Africa. If we don’t colonize it, it will colonize us. Look what happened to Rome when they failed to colonize the Barbarians. The number one problem in the world today is lack of proper governance. Third world countries sorely need good governance. But it doesn’t stop there, bad governance is coming to first world too. In fact, it originates and spreads from the first world–democracy. This is the real decline.
No, it was THE cause the war was called WORLD war. Otherwise, it would have been called Third Balkan War or something.
By this same logic, it would have to be called the “Anglo-Germanic War” and not a World War. Sorry, but no.
This is not particular to Ottomans. USSR, (e.g. moving Azeris into Armenian territory and vice versa), China and many other empires throughout history used populations transfers as a control method. Because it works. However Balkans cannot have been too de-Christianized as the population exchanges and genocides–of muslims–you mention don’t amount to large numbers.
Except the Ottomans didn’t need to do population transfers, except to add Turks to a region they wanted stronger claim to. They conquered many peoples and nations, so their empire was *already* multi-ethnic. The population exchange between Turkey and Greece alone amounted to nearly 2 million people (and this was when populations were much lower than today). Then take into account the extermination and exile of Armenian populations prior to this, or the Balkan wars which moved large groups around there.
If you examine the character of the Ottoman statesmanship and the structure of higher management, it is very distinct from Islam. Islam is quite clear in its prescription as to how the Islamic state should be run, who runs it etc. The Caliphate title, as you mention, was largely a tool Ottomans used to claim authority–just like Mehmed II claiming himself to be ‘Kayzer-i Rum’ meaning Caesar of Rome.
No, it’s pretty consistent with Islamic tenets. Consider the Jannissaries, the application of taxes on dhimmis, the constant Jihad on the borders of the Empire, etc… Secondly, your thesis of Mehmed II just “claiming” the title of Kayser-i Rum is inconsistent with your previous assertion that the Ottoman Empire represented a continuation of Byzantium (which would make the title valid and relevant, no?).
The problem with Ottoman Empire was that it was a medieval Empire and was not equipped to deal with industrial empires. Replace Ottoman Empire with contemporary China, and you’d have exactly the same result. I don’t see how Islam has a crucial role here. Also I would argue that westernization project was as successful as it could be given the population stock. To see this, compare modern Turkey with its Christian neighbors such as Georgia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Greece, and decide for yourself how they fare compared to each other. The real problem with contemporary Middle Eastern and Caucasian countries is their average IQs. You can only do so much with an average IQ of 90. A nation needs >120 IQ men to be governed effectively.
The first part is correct, but insufficient. The Ottoman Empire’s medieval mindset was indeed a major issue. But where did that mindset come from, I wonder? I suggest that Islam may have had something to do with that. Now, I did as you asked and did some quick comparisons between Turkey and Greece, as a baseline. Consider average GDP per capita (strongly in favor of Greece). And this is a Greece going through severe economic troubles and a Turkey which controls one of the great trade cities of the region. Now, Turkey as a whole remains more powerful, to be sure, but it also has approximately 5 times the population of Greece as well and has a better strategic location.
Now, IQ is, indeed, relevant. But consider the possibility that a backward religion like Islam is a dyscivic force. Over time, such a belief structure can shape the population through small-scale natural selection. Remember that what we call the Islamic world was once the cradle of civilization. Clearly, something changed.
Ottoman reaction to Armenians is classic imperial response to an insurgent group. This is apparent through the fact that right until late 19th century they didn’t oppress Armenians. Population transfers and genocides were pretty much go to methods for empires when dealing with internal enemies. Armenian genocide has nothing to do with the fact that they were dhimmi. Look up what Sultan Selim (16th century) did to Alawites who cooperated with Persians enemies.
They did oppress Armenians. But, as I mentioned before, it was a sort of split personality. Some sultans and statesmen were more favorable to dhimmis, and others were less favorable. However, your point about internecine conflict in Islam is on point. However, the fact that they also war amongst their own does NOT preclude the possibility that they may care even less for the dhimmis.
No. You don’t understand islamist mindset. It’s simple: If you’re an islamic fighter and you are killed, then you’re martyr.
To who? You might think you’re going to Paradise, but the Muslims who just want to be left alone (still a silent majority, around 60-80%, depending on estimates) will see that their Jihadis are FAILING. Notice that, when the West was ascendant, Muslims were more favorable to secular dictators than theocrats, because the theocrats led them to ruin. They are still human, same as you and I, and can respond to the same incentives. But you must be CAREFUL with them. Col. Tom Kratman has proposed effective means of dealing with them in his Carrera series books.
What I propose is proper colonization. This used to be well known before the cult of equality, progressivism and cultural relativism became mainstream: if you want to stabilize and make a profit out of a region, you simply occupy it with overwhelming force and then govern it with competent statesmen: British ruled india with less than a hundred thousand men. The same is valid for Africa. If we don’t colonize it, it will colonize us. Look what happened to Rome when they failed to colonize the Barbarians. The number one problem in the world today is lack of proper governance. Third world countries sorely need good governance. But it doesn’t stop there, bad governance is coming to first world too. In fact, it originates and spreads from the first world–democracy. This is the real decline.
I don’t agree. I prefer the wall it off and periodically bomb it strategy. But hey, your favorite color might be red instead of my favored blue. Whatever. That being said, before you could do any of what you are proposing, the West would need to fight back against the effort being made to colonize it, today, right now, in the form of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of invaders. When this problem is dealt with, that’s the time to revisit this.
>By this same logic, it would have to be called the “Anglo-Germanic War” and not a World War. Sorry, but no.
No. You’re not being intellectually honest. It is factually wrong to say that the mess in the Balkans caused the WW1. It didn’t. It was a side show. Without it, there would still be a WW1. Whiteout Germany and Britain, there would be no WW1.
>Secondly, your thesis of Mehmed II just “claiming” the title of Kayser-i Rum is inconsistent with your previous assertion that the Ottoman Empire represented a continuation of Byzantium (which would make the title valid and relevant, no?).
Claiming to be Caesar of Rome doesn’t make one so and doesn’t mean one uses it seriously. Kayser-i Rum title was a tool to claim authority over unconquered land and to increase authority on already controlled land. What I mean when I say that the Ottoman Empire can be considered a continuation of East Roman Empire, is that its institutions, culture, and by and large the way its nations interacted, are in the spirit of the latter.
> The Ottoman Empire’s medieval mindset was indeed a major issue. But where did that mindset come from, I wonder? I suggest that Islam may have had something to do with that
Would it be different if it was Byzantine Empire or Chinese empire instead of Ottoman Empire? I don’t think so. Both were medieval and ill-equipped to deal with industrial powers.
>Now, I did as you asked and did some quick comparisons between Turkey and Greece, as a baseline. Consider average GDP per capita (strongly in favor of Greece). And this is a Greece going through severe economic troubles and a Turkey which controls one of the great trade cities of the region. Now, Turkey as a whole remains more powerful, to be sure, but it also has approximately 5 times the population of Greece as well and has a better strategic location.
What about Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia? Also, Greece’s current per capita GDP is very illusory–sustained through debt. Historically–before their entry into EU– they fared similarly to Turkey. Now given regional IQ averages, and the fact that IQ – GDP per capita correlation is about 0.8, one would expect to see an economic development ordering of Armenia >= Georgia >= Bulgaria >= Greece >= Turkey. Although not exactly true, this is close to reality with the exception of Greece, which can be expected to return to normal soon.
>Now, IQ is, indeed, relevant. But consider the possibility that a backward religion like Islam is a dyscivic force. Over time, such a belief structure can shape the population through small-scale natural selection. Remember that what we call the Islamic world was once the cradle of civilization. Clearly, something changed.
I absolutely agree that there is a clear line between moslem and christian communities in the Middle East. Even though they live side by side, Christian communities are much more orderly, clean, and have levels of higher trust. I didn’t see this for myself, but many people that travel to the region report this. However, this is consistent with their IQ averages. The Jizyah system actually explains this effect: only the more rich and well-off Christians were able to stay Christians and consequently they enjoyed a eugenic effect over time. Ashkenazim Jews enjoyed a similar effect in Europe.
The essence of the problem at hand is this: does islam diminish nations’ average IQs or are low IQ nations more prone to become moslem? Remember that all those Middle Eastern countries below the 30th parallel have average IQs below 85. Add the fact that Indonesia with an average IQ of 87 is not faring that bad despite having a majority moslem population. All this data point to a different reality than a one in which the nominally dominant religion of a nation largely determines the degree to which it is civilized; it rather looks like IQ averages and political stability are the driving components.
Finally, Sumerians, Babylonians, Urartians didn’t have technically or culturally superior civilizations than contemporary Middle Eastern cultures. They didn’t have much to show in science department except for a few algebraic trick and a couple of astronomical observation. They didn’t have extreme architectural achievements save for an irrigation system here and there. And it looks like they were very superstitious people. So something might not have changed.
>They did oppress Armenians. But, as I mentioned before, it was a sort of split personality. Some sultans and statesmen were more favorable to dhimmis, and others were less favorable. However, your point about internecine conflict in Islam is on point. However, the fact that they also war amongst their own does NOT preclude the possibility that they may care even less for the shimmies.
My point is that Ottoman statism was pretty pragmatic. They didn’t act on religious grounds. If a millet caused problems, they dealt with it the most effective way they knew how. In this respect, they thought like Roman rulers. To drive my point home, a common saying amongst the Ottoman ruling elite was ‘etrak-i bi-idrak’, which means ‘obtuse turk’. So the ruling class didn’t have a favorite millet–be it moslem or not.
>But hey, your favorite color might be red instead of my favored blue. Whatever. That being said, before you could do any of what you are proposing, the West would need to fight back against the effort being made to colonize it, today, right now, in the form of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of invaders. When this problem is dealt with, that’s the time to revisit this.
Those issues are not unrelated. A century ago, West was a civilizing force in the world, colonizing it instead of being colonized. Then they started apologizing and handing their colonies over to local people, which led to a deficit in governance, which led people to start fleeing, immigrating to West. Now the West is so weak that it’s willingly importing these people in. It’s almost like the West is suicidal. As I said before, Rome’s unwillingness or ineptitude to colonize the Barbarians ultimately led to its demise.
No. You’re not being intellectually honest. It is factually wrong to say that the mess in the Balkans caused the WW1. It didn’t. It was a side show. Without it, there would still be a WW1. Whiteout Germany and Britain, there would be no WW1.
I’m pointing out the absurdity of the argument. You argue that the war was solely dependent on a conflict between Britain and Germany. If so, by your own standard, it would not be a World War, and the other events would be mere sideshows. However, World War I indirectly lead to Bolshevism’s ascendance, it destroyed Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (the chaos of that meltdown continues to this day). These things indicate that something else was going on. Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were not minor statelets. They were (admittedly dysfunctional) Great Powers in their own right.
Claiming to be Caesar of Rome doesn’t make one so and doesn’t mean one uses it seriously. Kayser-i Rum title was a tool to claim authority over unconquered land and to increase authority on already controlled land. What I mean when I say that the Ottoman Empire can be considered a continuation of East Roman Empire, is that its institutions, culture, and by and large the way its nations interacted, are in the spirit of the latter.
Mehmed II took it seriously enough. While we cannot know for sure, I suspect that in his mind, at least, he *was* the new Roman Emperor. That died with him, however. Institutional continuity with Byzantium was limited to two primary features: architecture and the tradition of appointing the Patriarch of the Greek church. And the latter was for more pragmatic concerns, as they didn’t wish for a Greek revolt (obviously they got one anyway, eventually).
Would it be different if it was Byzantine Empire or Chinese empire instead of Ottoman Empire? I don’t think so. Both were medieval and ill-equipped to deal with industrial powers.
If it were the Byzantine Empire, I suspect it would have been different. Even as it shed territory, wealth, and military power, the late Byzantine Empire was becoming an intellectual and cultural powerhouse. Its philosophers, artists, and intellectuals would find their way to Italy where their contributions to Western thought and art were substantial. If the Ottomans hadn’t pressed on her borders, who knows where the Empire might have gone? Post-1204 it was never going to be a military superpower as it had been before, but it is possible it would have created a much more functional and dynamic ethnic Greek state that would be in a better position today.
As for China… well, that’s an interesting thought. We are witnessing China attempting to do that just now. Of course, we don’t know if they will succeed. I wouldn’t bet on it, personally. But the Japanese and South Koreans managed it, so who knows…
What about Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia? Also, Greece’s current per capita GDP is very illusory–sustained through debt. Historically–before their entry into EU– they fared similarly to Turkey. Now given regional IQ averages, and the fact that IQ – GDP per capita correlation is about 0.8, one would expect to see an economic development ordering of Armenia >= Georgia >= Bulgaria >= Greece >= Turkey. Although not exactly true, this is close to reality with the exception of Greece, which can be expected to return to normal soon.
My review was cursory, so I chose the one that appeared to be the most obvious refutation of your position. I have limited time to interact with you (no offense intended — I work two jobs, and run this blog, it’s tough!). I don’t have the IQ figures you are using, but presuming that your figures are correct, I have no issue with the order you’ve presented. Note, however, that the Muslim country is on the bottom here. I suggest there is a dyscivic force within Islam that at least partially explains that. IQ shapes culture, to a certain extent, but the reverse is ALSO true, remember.
I absolutely agree that there is a clear line between moslem and christian communities in the Middle East. Even though they live side by side, Christian communities are much more orderly, clean, and have levels of higher trust. I didn’t see this for myself, but many people that travel to the region report this. However, this is consistent with their IQ averages. The Jizyah system actually explains this effect: only the more rich and well-off Christians were able to stay Christians and consequently they enjoyed a eugenic effect over time. Ashkenazim Jews enjoyed a similar effect in Europe.
I would agree with your first point, but not the second. The mechanism behind the high Ashkenazim IQ is poorly understood because it is not known precisely where they come from in the first place. Also, consider that it could be the simple fact that any population in crisis, being hunted or persecuted, is likely to lose its dumber members before its more clever ones. That, too, has a tendency to weed out the unfit. Wealth is not necessary to explain the difference. Also, it could be my theory, that Islam exerts a dyscivic pressure on its population, weeding out the clever in favor of the easily-controlled. Islam is a political ideology as much as it is a religion, and Marxism had a tendency to exterminate its own intellectuals from time-to-time. The Muslims appear to do the same.
The essence of the problem at hand is this: does islam diminish nations’ average IQs or are low IQ nations more prone to become moslem? Remember that all those Middle Eastern countries below the 30th parallel have average IQs below 85. Add the fact that Indonesia with an average IQ of 87 is not faring that bad despite having a majority moslem population. All this data point to a different reality than a one in which the nominally dominant religion of a nation largely determines the degree to which it is civilized; it rather looks like IQ averages and political stability are the driving components.
Why not both?
Finally, Sumerians, Babylonians, Urartians didn’t have technically or culturally superior civilizations than contemporary Middle Eastern cultures. They didn’t have much to show in science department except for a few algebraic trick and a couple of astronomical observation. They didn’t have extreme architectural achievements save for an irrigation system here and there. And it looks like they were very superstitious people. So something might not have changed.
The Sassanid Empire was at least as culturally and intellectually powerful as the late Roman Empire. These days, Persia is a backwater. I go by the name ThalesLives on Twitter, a reference to Thales of Miletus. Thales made a boatload of profit correctly predicting an eclipse, because he had a direct line to some Babylonian astronomical data, and the rest of the Greeks did not. Western civilization, as we think of it today, is a remnant of what was once Mediterranean civilization. Carthage, Egypt, Persia, Babylonia, Sumer… these were as much ancestors of the West as Greece or Rome. But Islam cut us off from them, and eventually exterminated or subverted them.
They are, today, doing the same to the West.
My point is that Ottoman statism was pretty pragmatic. They didn’t act on religious grounds. If a millet caused problems, they dealt with it the most effective way they knew how. In this respect, they thought like Roman rulers. To drive my point home, a common saying amongst the Ottoman ruling elite was ‘etrak-i bi-idrak’, which means ‘obtuse turk’. So the ruling class didn’t have a favorite millet–be it moslem or not.
They tried to be, in some ways. They largely failed. I’m surprised you didn’t mention the Jannissaries, however. Their role was very similar to the Praetorian Guard. But, anyway, I suspect that the things you are seeing as Roman or Byzantine are simply generic traits shared by most large, multi-ethnic empires (even Muslim ones). The Umayyads and Abbasids were little different. Oddly enough, though, the early Rashidun Caliphate may have had some significant late-Roman influence. It’s a period that is of immense interest to me, for it shows that early Islam may have been more Christian-like than we thought. No proof, though, just interesting speculation.
Anyway, the Ottomans favored Islam, as most Islamic states do. They tried to be secular, at times, and it has made modern Turkey an interesting place, but they largely failed, and are backsliding today. That’s how it goes.
Those issues are not unrelated. A century ago, West was a civilizing force in the world, colonizing it instead of being colonized. Then they started apologizing and handing their colonies over to local people, which led to a deficit in governance, which led people to start fleeing, immigrating to West. Now the West is so weak that it’s willingly importing these people in. It’s almost like the West is suicidal. As I said before, Rome’s unwillingness or ineptitude to colonize the Barbarians ultimately led to its demise.
This is partially correct. The first part is on the money. But the second part is off. Withdrawing from the colonies need not have led to a general collapse into Marxism and feel-good politics. The problem is that the West LET THESE PEOPLE IN. It didn’t have to. What you’re discussing here is an almost Marxist-like dialectic, wherein Imperialism, when it fails, must necessarily lead to reverse-colonization. It doesn’t have to at all.
Rome collapsed because of Islam. The Germans gave it a lot of trouble, but in the end it converted them to Roman civilization, religion, and manners even if in somewhat debased form. The Roman world was on the rebound, even if slow and difficult. There are other posts on this blog on the subject, if you’re interested I suggest you give them a read. Obviously the Roman world had less luck with Islam, which is why we are having this conversation.
Henri Pirenne’s theory is very interesting and well worth taking seriously. However, Emmett Scott doesn’t seem to do it justice, especially not by citing crackpots like Heribert Illig. I’ll reserve judgement on the subject until it’s better researched.
Have you read this book? He cites Illig’s theory as one of many explanations for the period in which there is little archaeological evidence in Europe. I.e. very little building, coinage, etc… and then proceeds to inform the reader that Illig’s theory would have many “problems” to solve to be taken seriously. Emmett Scott does not provide any support for Illig, but correctly cites it as one proposed (but far-fetched) explanation for the dearth of artifacts.
Personally, I don’t support this Phantom Time business any more than you do. But, that being said, the dearth of historical evidence during this period is what gave rise to the theory. A more credible explanation might be that Europe was too busy fighting for survival to worry about buildings and coinage, which is the one Emmett Scott favors as well.
Where did you get your map of the empire?
If as proposed by another commenter a colinization regime were to be adopted the only way it would work would be to adopt a convert or die program also. And you would have to be as brutal as Tamerlane in it’s execution. Maybe the Chicoms could pull it off but nobody in the west would have the stomach or support for such a venture.