NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Islamic Conquests Up To 700 A. d. Islamic Conquests Up To 700 A. d. Islamic Strengths / Roman Weaknesses? In the two decades after the Byzantine occupation of Ctesiphon in 629 the newly formed Islamic state had destroyed the Sasanian Empire whilst severely damaged the Byzantine Empire. ?
These gains were by no means temporary. ? Indeed our period sees the strengthening and expansion of these gains into northern Africa and the Mediterranean Islands. Yet, before Muhammad? s extraordinary rise to power there had been no Islamic state at all. ? In a little over a decade Muhammad and his followers had converted a raft of separate and nomadic tribes into a state capable of defeating both the region? s great powers. ?
This conquest was as unexpected as it was remarkable. ? I will attempt to highlight both the Arabian strengths and the Byzantine and Persian weaknesses before examining their relative importance. The Arabs strength was primarily based on their unity. ? Whilst nomadic warriors were mobile and effective, they had previously lacked the unity of purpose and unity of action to pose a serious threat to either of the great powers. ? These nomadic tribes were more likely to raid the great powers in a snatch and grab fashion. For this reason neither empire devoted significant resources to the defence against the Arabs. ?
Instead Arabian allies, like the Ghassnids and the Lakhmids, were employed to keep the nomads in check. ? In hindsight it is clear that if harnessed correctly these nomadic tribes, and their sedentary and tribal brothers, could provide an imposing and effective force. ? It was Muhammad and most significantly the new religion of Islam that finally harnessed this power. It is important to note that Muhammad? s Islamic state did not destroy the tribal system that underpinned Arabian life. ?
Instead, we should see the Islamic state as a? supra-tribe? . ? Muhammad and Abu Bakr utilised the strong control that tribal leaders could exert over their kinsmen by associating a tribal leader with the state. ? The status of the leader and the status of the state were inextricably linked. ?
Thus the Islamic state? s leaders could rely on tribal leader? s to organise and control their own tribesmen. ? Therefore we see the Islamic state, not as a mass of homogenous Muslims, but a series of tribes linked by Islam and a common acceptance, at least in the early stages, of centralised authority. ?
Significantly the nature of Islam itself aided the development of social and political unity. ? The umma, or community of believers, was based on principles that encouraged not only political and social cohesion but expansion. The monotheistic nature of Islam consciously implied the need to expand. ? Muslims were taught that the House of Islam and the House of War were separate. ? The people of the world could be sharply divided into Muslims and non-Muslims, and as the Qu?
ran says? There is no God but God? . ? By implying the universal and unique nature of god, and the overriding moral authority of God, Islam provided the impetus for political unification and centralisation. ? As Muhammad was God? s presence on earth it is easy to see how he was associated with power. ? His perceived relationship with God aided the construction of a legal system less reliant on blood feuds and retaliation, as well as legitimizing centralised taxation and control. ?
Once Islam and the Islamic state? s power had been created and legitimized successive leaders furthered centralisation and control. ? Sedentary tribes were given precedence over nomadic ones. ? Indeed Nomadism was frowned upon by the Islamic state. ? By emphasising the dominance of the sedentary tribes around Medina, notably the muharijun and the Quraysh, the state associated power with sedentary, centralised tribes. ? Further actions show a desire for the nomads to settle. ?
Upon conquest individuals were only permitted to receive the lucrative ata, or stipend, if they settled: ? the sooner one settles, the sooner one receives the stipend? . ? This desire for settlement can surely be seen as a form of control. ? By encouraging settlement the central authorities encouraged further control. The centralised administrative structure enabled the Islamic state to organise and fund the conquests. ?
Traditionally historians viewed the Islamic conquests as economically driven migrations, but evidence points to a more organised and strategic movement. ? The first settlers or soldiers that had conquered territories did not bring women, children and animals with them. ? This implies a stage-by-stage approach to conquest: overpower the occupiers and then allow controlled migration. ? The interpretation that the Islamic conquests were a collection of random and eclectic raids is also questionable. ?
It can be persuasively argued that the conquests were centrally controlled. ? The best example of central directive authority is Umar? s decision to switch the great Khalid from the Iraqi frontier to the Syrian frontier. ? Donner furthers these arguments by suggesting that the state had the power to tax and recruit from all tribes via state run agents. ? He argues that Umar formed conquest parties by instructing his network of agents to contribute recruits to the Islamic cause. ? No historian seems to suggest that the Muslims had any technological superiority over the great power, and in most cases they were numerically outnumbered. ?
It has been suggested that there were more Arabs fighting for the Byzantines than there were for the Muslims at Yarmuk. ? Similarly, at the decisive battle of Qadisiyya, the Persians, under the command of Rustam, were numerically superior to the Arabs. ? Evidence is sparse and unreliable, but the way in which the Muslims consistently defeated both empires suggests that in military terms they must have had some advantage. ? Whether this advantage was due to intelligent strategy, religious fanaticism, a crop of talented generals or better communications is in some ways irrelevant. ? It would be extremely hard not to suggest that the Arabs had some kind of military advantage. The Byzantine entry into Ctesiphon in 628 is a false indicator of Byzantine strength. ?
The Persians were suffering from a series of internal crisis? s and the Byzantines ultimate victory was largely a result of Turkish assistance. ? Most significantly the entry into Ctesiphon was the culmination of two decades of damaging warfare with the Persians. ? It was remarkable that Heraclius managed to raise the necessary resources to launch his counter-offensive against the Turks. ? At the time the Persians occupied large parts of Palestine and Syria and the imperial authorities faced a financial crisis. ?
The melting down of bronze statues and the removal of plate from churches highlight the financial plight of the empire. ? Similarly the need for Turkish allies shows us the severe recruitment crisis faced by Heraclius. ? Heraclius? remarkable comeback was achieved at a cost. ? Generations of civilians in Syria and Palestine had grown up without imperial rule. ?
The populations of these important border lands were alienated from the email. ? The religious divisions that plagued the near east can only have intensified this alienation. ? Whilst we must not suggest that the division between Monophytism and imperial orthodoxy encouraged active resistance to the Byzantines, it cannot have encouraged passionate resistance to Muslim invaders. ? In Egypt however the religious divisions were more pronounced. ? These divisions, which were inextricably linked with cultural divisions, created a popular attitude that was ambivalent at best to Byzantine rule. ? The situation in Egypt was not helped by the appointment of the militantly orthodox Cyrus as governor. ?
The war with Persia had economic and political effects. ? The Byzantines needed time to recover administrative control over its peoples, as well as time to recover the economic and military resources that were so depleted during the Persian wars. Again the lack of evidence makes it difficult for us to ascertain the precise reasons for Byzantine military failure, but the apparently large number of Arabs in the Byzantine army shows us of the recruitment problem. ? The surprise element of the Muslim conquests exemplifies certain Byzantine weaknesses. ? The Byzantines lacked the intelligence gathering sources to recognise the threat from the Muslims and as a result had to fight on the Muslim?
s terms. In previous wars the Byzantines used attritional methods to defeat their enemies, but as the disastrous defeat at Yarmuk suggests the significant early conflicts were large battles. ? The Byzantine defences, in relation to the Arabian desert, were clearly inadequate. ? Much responsibility for the maintenance of city walls was given to city dwellers, perhaps symptomatic of a lack of imperial control. Residents of the frontier cities were only too keen to make peace with the Muslims. ?
It is debatable whether this was due to cultural and religious differences with the imperial authorities, or to a rational and pragmatic belief that Muslim rule was the most advantageous way forward. ? Some historians suggest that the defence in depth policy that necessitated the self-protection of cities played into the hands of the Muslims. ? The strategy of leaving the elite and mobile forces behind the frontier was tantamount to letting the Muslims invade the border-lands. ? However, it can also be argued that this policy was also the saviour of the empire. ? These mobile forces were able to restrict the Muslims behind the Anatolian plateau and thus protect Constantinople.
Again the viability of this argument is largely irrelevant. ? The Roman Empire lacked the resources; the strategy and the military might to defeat the Muslims. ? The dearth of men, money and close-knit administration was primarily the result of the sapping Persian war, as well as the cultural and religious divisions that beset the empire in the 7 th century. The Byzantine Empire, in part at least, survived the 7 th century, but by the middle of the 7 th century the Sasanian Empire had been totally destroyed. ? The Sasanian Empire had of course experienced the same debilitating effects of war that the Byzantine Empire had. ? Thus we can say that both empires were stretched in terms of resources, as well as psychologically war-weary. ?
Short-term problems also afflicted the Sasanian's with the floods and plagues of the early to mid 7 th century being the prime examples. ? More long term, structural weaknesses were exposed as a result of the Byzantine war. ? The dynastic rule of the Sasanian house caused problems in terms of succession. ? It was difficult for new rulers to gain the credibility and respect that was needed to maintain the support of the independently minded aristocracy. ? The ten different Sasanian Kings between 628 and 632 bear testament to this problem. ? Internal struggles, as in the Roman Empire, plagued the Sasanian Empire. ?
Bloody fights for succession and the Madzakite revolutions of the 5 th and 6 th centuries are indicative of an empire with severe political and social problems. ? Again, there is little in the way of military evidence to explain the chronic poor performance of the Sasanian's. ? We can point to lack of resources and war exhaustion, but at the decisive battle of Qadisiyya Rustam had a significantly larger force under his command than his Muslim counterpart. ? The loss of this key battle and the subsequent loss of the capital Ctesiphon highlight another weakness. ? The location of Ctesiphon, without the protection of strong enough natural or man-made barriers, hastened the decline of the empire. ? The Sasanian empire, with Ctesiphon acting as a fulcrum for political, military and administrative activity, survived the death of Peroz in 484 at the hands of the Hepthalites and the Roman invasion of 627 - 8, but without Ctesiphon it stood no chance of defending itself from the Muslims.
It is clear than Sasanian and Roman weaknesses played a significant role in the success of the Islamic conquests. ? Both empires were slowly recovering from a long and damaging war and we can say with some certainty that their military status was perilous. ? Both empires were ill-prepared for an attack from the Muslims and as was often the case in this period the external pressures of the 7 th century intensified existing internal problems. ? It would be wrong however to underplay Arab strengths. ? The unity of purpose and organizational power of the Islamic state was remarkable. ? In less than 40 years Muhammad and his successors under the umbrella of Islam had created a centralised Arabian state capable of defeating both powers. ?
The strength of Islam in creating the state and in providing the ideological underpinning for centralisation and expansion was extremely significant. ? It is for these reasons that I believe that Arab strengths were more important than Roman and Persian weaknesses. ? Yes, the position of the great powers was perilous, but the phenomenal rise of the Islamic state was needed to fully exploit both powers? weaknesses.
In the two decades after the Byzantine occupation of Ctesiphon in 629 the newly formed Islamic state had destroyed the Sasanian Empire whilst severely damaged the Byzantine Empire. ? These gains were by no means temporary. ? Indeed our period sees the strengthening and expansion of these gains into northern Africa and the Mediterranean Islands. Yet, before Muhammad?
s extraordinary rise to power there had been no Islamic state at all. ? In a little over a decade Muhammad and his followers had converted a raft of separate and nomadic tribes into a state capable of defeating both the region? s great powers. ? This conquest was as unexpected as it was remarkable. ? I will attempt to highlight both the Arabian strengths and the Byzantine and Persian weaknesses before examining their relative importance. The Arabs strength was primarily based on their unity. ?
Whilst nomadic warriors were mobile and effective, they had previously lacked the unity of purpose and unity of action to pose a serious threat to either of the great powers. ? These nomadic tribes were more likely to raid the great powers in a snatch and grab fashion. For this reason neither empire devoted significant resources to the defence against the Arabs. ? Instead Arabian allies, like the Ghassnids and the Lakhmids, were employed to keep the nomads in check. ?
In hindsight it is clear that if harnessed correctly these nomadic tribes, and their sedentary and tribal brothers, could provide an imposing and effective force. ? It was Muhammad and most significantly the new religion of Islam that finally harnessed this power. It is important to note that Muhammad? s Islamic state did not destroy the tribal system that underpinned Arabian life. ? Instead, we should see the Islamic state as a? supra-tribe? . ?
Muhammad and Abu Bakr utilised the strong control that tribal leaders could exert over their kinsmen by associating a tribal leader with the state. ? The status of the leader and the status of the state were inextricably linked. ? Thus the Islamic state? s leaders could rely on tribal leader? s to organise and control their own tribesmen. ?
Therefore we see the Islamic state, not as a mass of homogenous Muslims, but a series of tribes linked by Islam and a common acceptance, at least in the early stages, of centralised authority. ? Significantly the nature of Islam itself aided the development of social and political unity. ? The umma, or community of believers, was based on principles that encouraged not only political and social cohesion but expansion. The monotheistic nature of Islam consciously implied the need to expand. ? Muslims were taught that the House of Islam and the House of War were separate. ?
The people of the world could be sharply divided into Muslims and non-Muslims, and as the Qu? ran says? There is no God but God? . ? By implying the universal and unique nature of god, and the overriding moral authority of God, Islam provided the impetus for political unification and centralisation. ? As Muhammad was God?
s presence on earth it is easy to see how he was associated with power. ? His perceived relationship with God aided the construction of a legal system less reliant on blood feuds and retaliation, as well as legitimizing centralised taxation and control. ? Once Islam and the Islamic state? s power had been created and legitimized successive leaders furthered centralisation and control. ?
Sedentary tribes were given precedence over nomadic ones. ? Indeed Nomadism was frowned upon by the Islamic state. ? By emphasising the dominance of the sedentary tribes around Medina, notably the muharijun and the Quraysh, the state associated power with sedentary, centralised tribes. ? Further actions show a desire for the nomads to settle. ? Upon conquest individuals were only permitted to receive the lucrative ata, or stipend, if they settled: ?
the sooner one settles, the sooner one receives the stipend? . ? This desire for settlement can surely be seen as a form of control. ? By encouraging settlement the central authorities encouraged further control. The centralised administrative structure enabled the Islamic state to organise and fund the conquests. ? Traditionally historians viewed the Islamic conquests as economically driven migrations, but evidence points to a more organised and strategic movement. ?
The first settlers or soldiers that had conquered territories did not bring women, children and animals with them. ? This implies a stage-by-stage approach to conquest: overpower the occupiers and then allow controlled migration. ? The interpretation that the Islamic conquests were a collection of random and eclectic raids is also questionable. ? It can be persuasively argued that the conquests were centrally controlled. ? The best example of central directive authority is Umar?
s decision to switch the great Khalid from the Iraqi frontier to the Syrian frontier. ? Donner furthers these arguments by suggesting that the state had the power to tax and recruit from all tribes via state run agents. ? He argues that Umar formed conquest parties by instructing his network of agents to contribute recruits to the Islamic cause. ? No historian seems to suggest that the Muslims had any technological superiority over the great power, and in most cases they were numerically outnumbered. ?
It has been suggested that there were more Arabs fighting for the Byzantines than there were for the Muslims at Yarmuk. ? Similarly, at the decisive battle of Qadisiyya, the Persians, under the command of Rustam, were numerically superior to the Arabs. ? Evidence is sparse and unreliable, but the way in which the Muslims consistently defeated both empires suggests that in military terms they must have had some advantage. ? Whether this advantage was due to intelligent strategy, religious fanaticism, a crop of talented generals or better communications is in some ways irrelevant. ? It would be extremely hard not to suggest that the Arabs had some kind of military advantage. The Byzantine entry into Ctesiphon in 628 is a false indicator of Byzantine strength. ?
The Persians were suffering from a series of internal crisis? s and the Byzantines ultimate victory was largely a result of Turkish assistance. ? Most significantly the entry into Ctesiphon was the culmination of two decades of damaging warfare with the Persians. ? It was remarkable that Heraclius managed to raise the necessary resources to launch his counter-offensive against the Turks. ? At the time the Persians occupied large parts of Palestine and Syria and the imperial authorities faced a financial crisis. ? The melting down of bronze statues and the removal of plate from churches highlight the financial plight of the empire. ?
Similarly the need for Turkish allies shows us the severe recruitment crisis faced by Heraclius. ? Heraclius? remarkable comeback was achieved at a cost. ? Generations of civilians in Syria and Palestine had grown up without imperial rule. ?
The populations of these important border lands were alienated from the email. ? The religious divisions that plagued the near east can only have intensified this alienation. ? Whilst we must not suggest that the division between Monophytism and imperial orthodoxy encouraged active resistance to the Byzantines, it cannot have encouraged passionate resistance to Muslim invaders. ? In Egypt however the religious divisions were more pronounced. ? These divisions, which were inextricably linked with cultural divisions, created a popular attitude that was ambivalent at best to Byzantine rule. ? The situation in Egypt was not helped by the appointment of the militantly orthodox Cyrus as governor. ?
The war with Persia had economic and political effects. ? The Byzantines needed time to recover administrative control over its peoples, as well as time to recover the economic and military resources that were so depleted during the Persian wars. Again the lack of evidence makes it difficult for us to ascertain the precise reasons for Byzantine military failure, but the apparently large number of Arabs in the Byzantine army shows us of the recruitment problem. ? The surprise element of the Muslim conquests exemplifies certain Byzantine weaknesses. ?
The Byzantines lacked the intelligence gathering sources to recognise the threat from the Muslims and as a result had to fight on the Muslim? s terms. In previous wars the Byzantines used attritional methods to defeat their enemies, but as the disastrous defeat at Yarmuk suggests the significant early conflicts were large battles. ? The Byzantine defences, in relation to the Arabian desert, were clearly inadequate. ?
Much responsibility for the maintenance of city walls was given to city dwellers, perhaps symptomatic of a lack of imperial control. Residents of the frontier cities were only too keen to make peace with the Muslims. ? It is debatable whether this was due to cultural and religious differences with the imperial authorities, or to a rational and pragmatic belief that Muslim rule was the most advantageous way forward. ? Some historians suggest that the defence in depth policy that necessitated the self-protection of cities played into the hands of the Muslims. ? The strategy of leaving the elite and mobile forces behind the frontier was tantamount to letting the Muslims invade the border-lands. ?
However, it can also be argued that this policy was also the saviour of the empire. ? These mobile forces were able to restrict the Muslims behind the Anatolian plateau and thus protect Constantinople. Again the viability of this argument is largely irrelevant. ? The Roman Empire lacked the resources; the strategy and the military might to defeat the Muslims. ? The dearth of men, money and close-knit administration was primarily the result of the sapping Persian war, as well as the cultural and religious divisions that beset the empire in the 7 th century. The Byzantine Empire, in part at least, survived the 7 th century, but by the middle of the 7 th century the Sasanian Empire had been totally destroyed. ?
The Sasanian Empire had of course experienced the same debilitating effects of war that the Byzantine Empire had. ? Thus we can say that both empires were stretched in terms of resources, as well as psychologically war-weary. ? Short-term problems also afflicted the Sasanian's with the floods and plagues of the early to mid 7 th century being the prime examples. ? More long term, structural weaknesses were exposed as a result of the Byzantine war. ? The dynastic rule of the Sasanian house caused problems in terms of succession. ? It was difficult for new rulers to gain the credibility and respect that was needed to maintain the support of the independently minded aristocracy. ?
The ten different Sasanian Kings between 628 and 632 bear testament to this problem. ? Internal struggles, as in the Roman Empire, plagued the Sasanian Empire. ? Bloody fights for succession and the Madzakite revolutions of the 5 th and 6 th centuries are indicative of an empire with severe political and social problems. ? Again, there is little in the way of military evidence to explain the chronic poor performance of the Sasanian's. ? We can point to lack of resources and war exhaustion, but at the decisive battle of Qadisiyya Rustam had a significantly larger force under his command than his Muslim counterpart. ? The loss of this key battle and the subsequent loss of the capital Ctesiphon highlight another weakness. ?
The location of Ctesiphon, without the protection of strong enough natural or man-made barriers, hastened the decline of the empire. ? The Sasanian empire, with Ctesiphon acting as a fulcrum for political, military and administrative activity, survived the death of Peroz in 484 at the hands of the Hepthalites and the Roman invasion of 627 - 8, but without Ctesiphon it stood no chance of defending itself from the Muslims. It is clear than Sasanian and Roman weaknesses played a significant role in the success of the Islamic conquests. ? Both empires were slowly recovering from a long and damaging war and we can say with some certainty that their military status was perilous. ? Both empires were ill-prepared for an attack from the Muslims and as was often the case in this period the external pressures of the 7 th century intensified existing internal problems. ?
It would be wrong however to underplay Arab strengths. ? The unity of purpose and organizational power of the Islamic state was remarkable. ? In less than 40 years Muhammad and his successors under the umbrella of Islam had created a centralised Arabian state capable of defeating both powers. ? The strength of Islam in creating the state and in providing the ideological underpinning for centralisation and expansion was extremely significant. ?
It is for these reasons that I believe that Arab strengths were more important than Roman and Persian weaknesses. ? Yes, the position of the great powers was perilous, but the phenomenal rise of the Islamic state was needed to fully exploit both powers? weaknesses.
Free research essays on topics related to: byzantine empire, islamic, muslims, byzantine, nomadic tribes
Research essay sample on Nomadic Tribes Byzantine Empire
