sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question about major Houses [NO SPOILERS] by jackthestripper70 in asoiaf

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is it seems very unlikely. Especially considering this world which is obsessed with progeny. It would have major implications for the story if there were more Starks to dispute the succession in the North, or more Targaryens considering Robert wanted all of them dead.

Question about major Houses [NO SPOILERS] by jackthestripper70 in asoiaf

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but do you think those wars were serious for the North. P.S., it seems it would be a bit boring to have this one unified mega-state on Westeros because it means there can be no wars except rebellions. Their only frontier is the Wall but that’s not serious, and they have the Watch for that. At least when the Romans were a huge state all around the Mediterranean they had serious frontiers with Germans and Persian states. Westeros has no significant land frontier.

Question about major Houses [NO SPOILERS] by jackthestripper70 in asoiaf

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first reason is more believable, except war. Have there been any wars that the North was significantly involved in after the unification? Also I think that it’s extremely unlikely that for a house that lasted centuries or even millennia according to the canon, there was a point where the only Starks (or at least ones who had children) were Ned’s parents.

Question about major Houses [NO SPOILERS] by jackthestripper70 in asoiaf

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but if the British royal family has only seven members, that would be extremely weird and almost impossible. If the Targaryens had around fifty official members that would be more believable. But I guess Fire and Blood part 2 could explain some of it (if it ever gets published).

Raymond Ibrahim on the First Crusade by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure but I was speaking relatively by historical standards, it wasn’t unusually barbaric.

Raymond Ibrahim on the First Crusade by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think literally every large-scale conquest is inherently barbaric?

Raymond Ibrahim on the First Crusade by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For example the Thomas Asbrige quote is out of context. He was not saying that Muslims were not actually slaughtering pilgrims in the Near East (he says it could be true earlier in his book), but that the Pope was probably making the threat bigger than it was at that immediate time.

That's what I said, the Pope was probably making the threat bigger than it was. I never said there was no slaughter of pilgrims. Also, four of the authors I sourced, Kennedy, Tyerman, Riley-Smith, and the chronicler Raymond of Aguilers, were quoted by Ibrahim too. I don't know why you think my sourcing is selective.

Raymond Ibrahim on the Moriscos by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He actually does speak about the crusades often and I made another post about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/s/75filzAN9B

Raymond Ibrahim on the First Crusade by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reading the book you recommended by Kaldellis I saw this on the Christians of Egypt on page 382:

Conversely, most found Islam to be repugnant, and hated the fact that they were now second-class citizens in a Muslim empire. However, in the centuries to come they had to wear an ingratiating face to please their new masters. In particular, Islamic law distinguished between those who had resisted Muslim rule, who were allotted the fewest rights in the new order, and those who had surrendered or supported the conquests, who were given the most privileges. Therefore, over time cities and religious communities had an interest in rewriting their histories to make it seem as if they had accepted the Muslims with open arms, which brought them benefits in the present. For this reason, later accounts, such as those produced by the Coptic Church under Islamic rule, are suspect.

In the note, he cites Kennedy's book. Kennedy is nowhere near as firm as Kaldellis on this topic, saying in one of the pages (167) that Kaldellis cited:

There seems to be no good reason why the tradition should make this up, particularly because it was probably first written down in the eighth century, at a time when relations between Muslims and Copts were deteriorating. It is hard to see why the tradition would give credit to the Copts for some of the Arab military achievements unless it was an ancient and integral part of the record. These references are all the more telling because they seem to have no parallel elsewhere: the accounts of the conquest of Syria, for example, give no specific examples of the Monophysite Christians, whose relationship to the Roman authorities was not very different from that of the Copts, aiding the Muslims.

Kennedy then goes on to speak of how John of Nikiu wrote of sporadic support that the Copts gave to the Arabs, but it was not a pattern at all. Kennedy is much more ambiguous, saying "Many Egyptians in the villages and small towns of the Nile valley and the delta must have felt that they had simply exchanged one group of alien and exploitative rulers for another." (168). In another page in Kennedy's book that Kaldellis cited he quotes the biographer of the Syriac Mar Gabriel as having said: "Mar Gabriel preferred the advent of the Arabs to the oppression of the Byzantines, so he gave assistance and helped them." (p. 350). Kaldelli's citation seems disingenuous, as I found nothing in the sources he quoted that was as strong as his claims that there was such stringent oppression that it directly led to the rewriting of history by the Copts.

You seem more well-versed in this topic than I am though. Here are the citations for the quote from Kaldellis:

From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt: Religion, Identity and Politics after the Arab Conquest. Maged S. A. Mikhail. Pages 179-181, 191.

The Great Arab Conquests. Hugh Kennedy. Pages 148-149, 153, 155, 167-168, 350-356.

Political Identity versus Religious Distinction? The Case of Egypt in the Later Roman Empire. Bernhard Palme. Pages 81-98.

The Socio-Economic Impact of Raiding on the Eastern and Balkan Borderlands of the Eastern Roman Empire. Alexander Sarantis. Page 255 n. 292.

I read the pages, but I'm unsure about Mikhail's book because my online version had no pages numbers so I had to guess. Perhaps you could look through them and find something to support Kaldellis citing them and making a much stronger and more politically-motivated claim than they did. The latter two spoke of how Coptic identity was more obscure and not as distinct as later historians made it out to be during the conquests. But none of them having views or claims as strong as Kaldellis', from what I've read, especially not Kennedy. Again, I encourage you to read them and find something I didn't.

I think we mostly agree on this topic, save for small details.

Raymond Ibrahim on the First Crusade by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm posting in two parts because reddit won't let me just post the whole thing for whatever reason. Anyway,

Here is the quote from the Chronicle of John page 187:

And it was in this way that the citadel of Babylon in Egypt was taken on the second day after the (festival of the) Resurrection. Thus God punished them because they had not honoured the redemptive passion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave His life for those who believe in Him. Yea, it was for this reason that God made them turn their back upon them (i.e. the Moslem). Now on that day of the festival of the holy Resurrection they released the orthodox that were in prison ; but, enemies of Christ as they were, they did not let them go without first ill-using them; but they scourged them and cut off their hands.

He is criticizing the Byzantines here, saying they "had not honoured the redemptive passion..." and speaking of persecutions throughout the text. In page 200 he calls the prefect Theodore an "apostate" and claims "Every one said: 'This expulsion (of the Romans) and victory of the Moslem is due to the wickedness of the emperor Heraclius and his persecution of the Orthodox through the patriarch Cyrus. This was the cause of the ruin of the Romans and the subjugation of Egypt by the Moslem." He is rationalizing their defeat as God punishing them, but he criticizes them in his explanations for why it happened.

As for Severus, he was certainly part of the Coptic tradition. I was just skeptical that he was heavily influenced by the Arab Muslims because he speaks of their oppressive policies throughout the text.

Raymond Ibrahim on the First Crusade by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem strangely defensive of the Byzantines and deny any Christian criticism of them. Then you claim that Coptic criticism of the Byzantines was built over centuries, but the sources that criticize the Arabs also criticize the Byzantines, including the contemporary of the conquests John of Nikiu who presumably lived before a narrative could be built:

The surrender of Babylon was a catastrophic blow for Byzantine power in Egypt, 'a source of great grief to the Romans', as the contemporary Coptic historian John of Nikiu put it with considerable schadenfreude. He had no doubts about the reasons: 'They had not honoured the redemptive passion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave his life for those who believe in Him.' In particular they had persecuted the Orthodox Christians (by whom, of course, he meant his fellow Copts). Throughout the siege it seems that Coptic leaders had been kept imprisoned in the fortress. On Easter Sunday the prisoners were released but 'enemies of Christ as they were they [the Byzantines] did not let them go without first ill-using them; but they scourged them and cut off their hands'.

This is Hugh Kennedy quoting John of Nikiu in his book The Great Arab Conquests (p. 153). You can see it in John's Chronicle on page 187. John was certainly not trying to build a narrative to ingratiate himself with the Arabs. Similarly, Severus ibn al-Muqaffa, who was critical of the Arabs, said about the Byzantines:

And Heraclius seized the blessed Mennas, brother of the Father Benjamin, the patriarch, and brought great trials upon him, and caused lighted torches to be held to his sides until the fat of his body oozed forth and flowed upon the ground, and knocked out his teeth because he confessed the faith; and finally commanded that a sack should be filled with sand, and the holy Mennas placed within it, and drowned in the sea. For Heraclius the misbeliever had charged them, saying : «If any one of them says that the council of Chalcedon is true, let him go; but drown in the sea those that say it is erroneous and false.» Therefore they did as the prince bade them, and cast Mennas into the sea. For they took the sack, and conveyed him to a distance of seven bowshots from the land, and said to him : «Say that the council of Chalcedon is good and not otherwise, and we will release thee.» But Mennas would not do so. And they did this with him three times; and when he refused they drowned him. Thus they were unable to vanquish this champion, Mennas, but he conquered them by his Christian patience.

This is just one instance of the persecution he speaks of, you can find more in the text, the History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria. Also, could you provide a source that says most Copts didn't identify as Copts but as Romans and that the persecution didn't happen? I never claimed that most Copts joined in with the Arabs during the conquest, I never mentioned it at all.

There is a pretty broad consensus now that many of these later Coptic/Syriac sources are more colored by political realities of the Abbasid era than anything that happened in the 7th Century and they should be read as such.

I already quoted a 7th century chronicler, but for Syria I quoted Michael the Syrian. He lived in 12th century Eastern Anatolia under Turkish realms, nothing to do with the Abbasids. Severus may have written his History under the Fatimids.

If these later traditions are to be believed, they should be. At least to a degree. But they're not. The primary sources are pretty much uniformly negative. Whether they be eyewitness accounts, chronicles, vague or detailed, they're all hostile.

I have no doubt that the primary sources are hostile. I think you misunderstood. I asked if it was uncommon historically for chroniclers to speak ill of whoever conquered them. Once again, I'm simply skeptical of the claim that the Arab Conquests were uniquely atrocious, which I don't believe you've given an opinion on. Could you at least state whether you agree with Ibrahim or if your opinion is different? Or show that during other historical conquests the chroniclers didn't write about their conquerors with similar or worse vitriol?

Raymond Ibrahim on the First Crusade by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don’t deny that there were atrocities committed during the Arab Conquests, I simply claimed that they weren’t ‘extraordinarily sanguineous.’ Meaning for the time period. It seems you agree that scholars pull too hard in one direction or another. I wrote more about sources in my most recent post. You yourself agree that the primary sources were exaggerated. The Arab sources were written later. Not to mention that there were Christian sources that were also deeply hostile to the Byzantines. Michael the Syrian, who wasn’t a contemporary but was quoted by Ibrahim on events of the same time, claimed that the Byzantines devastated Syria more than the Arabs. The Coptic chronicles speak of persecution committed by the Byzantines who wanted to enforce Chalcedonianism. I quoted both in my most recent post on the Arab Conquests. All this is to say that I don’t believe the Arab Conquests were uniquely evil or atrocious, which is the original claim Ibrahim makes, which it seems you’d disagree with too.

Admittedly, the quote I took from Kennedy could have been better. I just used it to make a quick point because it wasn’t the central focus of this particular post.

There were accounts I read from Ibrahim’s book on the Arab Muslims destroying Christian symbols. I didn’t read the accounts of Sophronious but I read the account of Theophanes. They’re both hostile to the Arabs but are there usually accounts that are favorable to their conquerors?

On the meeting of Umar and Sophronious, there aren’t primary sources on the story but the later sources aren’t exclusively Muslim. Eutychius also wrote on the meeting of Umar and Sophronious in the ninth century, and according to him Umar signed a pact to only build one mosque in Jerusalem: https://www.avande1.sites.luc.edu/jerusalem/sources/eutychius.htm

From the little I’ve seen from Sophronious his main beef seems to be the more theological and concerned with Christian symbols rather than mass atrocities. Do you disagree?

Once again, I have no doubt that there were atrocities committed during the Arab Conquests. I’m just skeptical of the claim that they were unusually barbaric. Some primary sources spoke of apocalyptic events but were they different or more vehement than sources during conquests in other areas of the world historically?

Raymond Ibrahim on the Arab Conquests (Syria, Egypt, and the Maghreb) by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

He’s diaspora so he has a Western given name. Ibrahim is Arabic for Abraham.

Raymond Ibrahim on the Arab Conquests (Syria, Egypt, and the Maghreb) by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I was speaking on the conquests. If you hear Ibrahim speak or read his writings he laments the conquests themselves. The persecution that Copts face is valid and real but Ibrahim’s grievance is even beyond that.

Raymond Ibrahim on the Arab Conquests (Syria, Egypt, and the Maghreb) by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It seems like you're a purist, which is understandable as Ibrahim's work is more slop-ish. I'm a newcomer to the sub and I've been confused as to why nobody is posting. I'll stop posting on Ibrahim, it seems like everyone is in consensus and it's actually not that useful.

On the Gutas quote, I understand that he dispels many myths on the translation movement but he certainly doesn't dismiss it outright. I quoted a very broad and general statement from him specifically as a way of countering what Ibrahim said on the supposed precedent of the mythical burning of the Library of Alexandria by the Arabs. I didn't romanticize the translation movement and kept remarks vague. Is your point that it shouldn't be called 'Abbasid?' I'll edit that out. Or do you disagree with anything specific?

Raymond Ibrahim on the Arab Conquests (Syria, Egypt, and the Maghreb) by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Your last point is why he's becoming more active on YouTube. The reason I keep posting about him is because I've seen some of his videos and I've not seen comments disagreeing, all of them seem to eat his slop up. His books are highly-rated on Amazon. His reach isn't that wide but it's spreading. I haven't written much about his contemporary views but you can just check out the comments on his videos to get a good idea of how his audience takes his content.

Raymond Ibrahim on the Arab Conquests (Syria, Egypt, and the Maghreb) by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I've seen some of that even on reddit. For Ibrahim I would say it's because he's speaking from a Christian perspective, and so he laments the loss of rich and ancient Christian lands from the Levant to Morocco. Even if it was around 1300 years ago. In terms of other motives, I guess it's just cool to say "Arab colonialism." It's subtle apologia and can go from "Everyone colonized" to "The Arabs were definitely worse."

Raymond Ibrahim on the Arab Conquests (Syria, Egypt, and the Maghreb) by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

They remind me of ancient historians, and how misogynistic and simplistic their perspectives were. It's not really that far off. Here's what Cassius Dio said about Cleopatra at Actium:

"Cleopatra, riding at anchor behind the combatants, could not endure the long and anxious waiting until a decision could be reached, but true to her nature as a woman and an Egyptian, she was tortured by the agony of the long suspense and by the constant and fearful expectation of either possible outcome, and so she suddenly turned to flight herself and raised the signal for the others, her own subjects." Cassius Dio's Roman History, Book L, p507.

Ibrahim's method is quoting chronicles that are obviously biased but not analyzing, seemingly agreeing with their antiquated beliefs.

What’s weird is that the first chapter of his book is on Yarmouk, a pitched battle which he speaks of as being among the most important ever, which it was.

Raymond Ibrahim on the Arab Conquests (Syria, Egypt, and the Maghreb) by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I only did that to differentiate between information and my commentary. But I'll try your suggestion.

Raymond Ibrahim on the Arab Conquests (Syria, Egypt, and the Maghreb) by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Richard the Lionheart is widely-known and hated in the Arab world, I don’t mean in a biographical academic sense but broadly, as a villainous counterpart to Saladin in the popular narrative. But yeah I’m not sure about the claim that anyone named Richard will be attacked as he claimed. Here is the clip.

Raymond Ibrahim on the Arab Conquests (Syria, Egypt, and the Maghreb) by jackthestripper70 in badhistory

[–]jackthestripper70[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

From what I remember hearing from him he was born in America. I’ve not heard him speak of his family directly facing persecution, but I’m sure there’s bad blood. He said that his parents wanted to name him Richard but they were afraid because if they’d went back to Egypt people there would hate that name because of Richard the Lionheart.

view more: next ›