Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Why the West Rules ~ For Now (Read 17069 times)
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #30 - Feb 2nd, 2015 at 10:12pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2015 at 9:02pm:
The collapse of most of the big empires was like that. They were eventually replaced by any even bigger one, even with a similar time scale. None of this sets the Caliphate apart. What sets the Caliphate apart is it's failures.


What rubbish. You need glasses if you can't see from your own source that the Islamic Empire was unique in that it rose from the most sudden and catastrophic economic collapse the world had ever seen. Rome rose on a wave of long and steady continual growth, and capitalised on overrunning the most economically and developed - not to mention highly populated - centres of the western world. The circumstances between the two situations couldn't be more different. The "failures" you describe of Islam in fact made the Islamic centres the economic and cultural dominant centres of gravity in the entire western world - where there used to be nothing but desert and nomads. Your attempted portrayal of this Empire as "not even registering" and "achieving almost nothing" is beyond laughable.

The contradiction in your argument has also been noted. Stating here that there was nothing that set the rise of the islamic empire apart - in terms of what came before it on the one hand, while on the other hand repeatedly stating that the circumstances were in fact unique - where there was in fact an unprecedented catastrophic collapse, such that only a backward civilization like islam could take over.

Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 2nd, 2015 at 10:33pm by polite_gandalf »  

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48062
At my desk.
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #31 - Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm
 
Plenty of other empires rose from the ashes to build on what came previously. The Caliphate was the final pestilence to strike the west. It built an empire by locking the society into post-apocalyptic living standards. It has repeated this trick many times over, for example in Afghanistan. There is absolutely no reason (other than Islam) why the society, culture, economy, population etc should not have recovered rapidly to previous levels and then higher under a large, stable empire.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #32 - Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:53pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm:
Plenty of other empires rose from the ashes to build on what came previously.


Stop repeating the same bs after I refuted it:

the Islamic Empire was unique in that it rose from the most sudden and catastrophic economic collapse the world had ever seen

If you can't comprehend this obvious fact from your own source, then you are either blind or being a troll.

freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm:
It built an empire by locking the society into post-apocalyptic living standards.


The only area of western society that was "locked... into post-apocalyptic living standards" were the European areas that were not under the Islamic Empire. Where the islamic empire spread, prosperity returned, and the islamic economic centres quickly became the economic centres of the western world. If your logic had any semblance to reality, then the established, developed economic powerhouses in the west that were *NOT* taken over by Islam - such as Rome and especially Constantinople - would have been the economic centres of the world - not the built-from-scratch cities like Baghdad and Cairo.

The only leg you have to stand on is in arguing that the islamic empire failed to raise the west to the giddy economic heights of the Roman Empire. Where you definitely *DON'T* have any legs is in saying that economic development was "static" in the Islamic empire, and that Islam "did not even register" and "achieved almost nothing".
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #33 - Feb 3rd, 2015 at 2:10pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 1:13pm:
There is absolutely no reason (other than Islam) why the society, culture, economy, population etc should not have recovered rapidly to previous levels and then higher under a large, stable empire.


I can tell I *REALLY* have to dumb it down for you:

there are 2 good reasons: 1. the unprecedented catastrophic economic crash that occurred just before and 2. the data you refer to for these "previous levels" were not even from the same area - but economic centres that were *OUTSIDE* the Islamic Empire. They crashed before Islam existed, and they were never part of the Islamic Empire.

And here's how stupid your argument is FD: "there is absolutely no reason (other than Islam) why the society, culture, economy, population etc should not have recovered rapidly to previous levels and then higher under a large, stable empire."

- which "recovery" are we talking about FD? Rome? Constantinople? Breaking News FD - neither of these places were controlled by Islam - so why are you attributing Rome's  non-recovery to Islam? And yes, before you deny it, thats what you are doing. Think about it. Which centres under Islam stagnated or declined? Tell me, please - preferably by not comparing Rome with Baghdad. What did Islam take over? Damascus, Cordoba, Jerusalem etc - did *THESE* centres experience the type of rapid recovery you demand of a large stable empire? Why don't you look at the economic data for *THOSE* cities FD - you know, comparing like for like - instead of trying to compare apples and oranges.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 3rd, 2015 at 2:16pm by polite_gandalf »  

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48062
At my desk.
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #34 - Feb 3rd, 2015 at 7:56pm
 
Quote:
there are 2 good reasons: 1. the unprecedented catastrophic economic crash that occurred just before


How is the fact that there is a crash supposed to be an explanation for why the society did not recover from the crash. You cited reasons for the decline, like wars and mass migrations. The Caliphate eliminated these reasons.

Quote:
the data you refer to for these "previous levels" were not even from the same area - but economic centres that were *OUTSIDE* the Islamic Empire. They crashed before Islam existed, and they were never part of the Islamic Empire


Not a valid reason either. The economic success of the Roman empire was not that closely linked to geography, and especially not the geography that was inside Rome but outside the Caliphate. Rome's bread basket, for example, was within the Caliphate.

Quote:
which "recovery" are we talking about FD? Rome? Constantinople? Breaking News FD - neither of these places were controlled by Islam - so why are you attributing Rome's  non-recovery to Islam?


The riches of the city of Rome were obviously linked to it being the capital of the massive empire. However the capital did not need to be in the same city for the same thing to happen. Like I said earlier, there was no pot of gold or oil well in Rome that made it rich. In fact much of the Italian coastline was raided by Islamic slave traders, reducing it's population, so although they did not conquer it directly, they did control what happened there, in the Islamic way.

Quote:
Think about it. Which centres under Islam stagnated or declined?


Building a massive empire, and barely seeing an increase in living standards above the post-apocalyptic levels that preceded it, is hardly an achievement Gandalf. Are you suggesting that the Caliphate was so great because it did not take a catastrophic collapse and make it even worse? That is setting the bar pretty low.

Quote:
What did Islam take over? Damascus, Cordoba, Jerusalem etc


I have answered this already - stop pretending it was limited to a few desert cities. It took over the entire North African coastline. It even expanded into Spain and started on France. It went east to about Pakistan. All of this happened by about 750. It was about the same size as the Roman Empire. There is no reason at all why the economy and living standards should not have recovered under good governance. It even had the added advantage of controlling (taxing) the east-west trade route. Two clear examples had already been set, one contemporary, and one almost overlapping the empire. The reason it failed is that Islam placed itself above rational human inquiry into politics. They did not even have to come up with the right way themselves. They merely had to copy what had already been done, or better yet, improve on it. Instead they put their efforts into preventing it.

Quote:
Why don't you look at the economic data for *THOSE* cities FD - you know, comparing like for like - instead of trying to compare apples and oranges.


I am comparing like for like. Your argument that the Caliphate remained in some geographic backwater that prevented it from reaching the same standard of living as Rome or China is a furphy. I am particularly interested in what was so special about having a capital in Rome that made it impossible for the Caliphate to repeat the same success.

The Caliphate - yellow area captured by 750:

...

The Roman Empire at it's peak:

...
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #35 - Feb 3rd, 2015 at 11:01pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 7:56pm:
Building a massive empire, and barely seeing an increase in living standards above the post-apocalyptic levels that preceded it


And yet you don't even know the previous living standards of the areas Islam took over. Again, the "previous levels" you whine about were for the core region "Southern Mediterranean (Southern Europe)"  - which was basically the Italian Peninsula. It was here for a 500 year period from 250BCE to 250CE. The Islamic Empire 'cores' were  "Egypt (NE Africa), Syria-Iraq (SW Asia)" - between 700-1000CE. Two completely different geographical zones. Its there in Table 1 on page 14-15 of the PDF I linked to earlier.

The point being your logic that living standards barely increased under Islam assumes a like for like comparison between the standards of the Southern Mediterranean zone and the Egyptian/Syria-Iraq zone as if they were the same area - and is therefore flawed. The only way you can draw the conclusion you are making is if you knew the living standards in Egypt and Iraq-Syria both immediately pre and post circa 700CE - which you don't, because Morris doesn't provide them. He concentrates only on data within the identified 'core' of the day - he does not collect all data from all western regions and average it all out - he states this in the already mentioned PDF.

What we *DO* know though is that the economic and cultural centres of the Islamic Empire became, in a remarkably short time, the economic centres of the entire Western World, and lifted the 'social development' of the entire Western World.

freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 7:56pm:
I am comparing like for like. Your argument that the Caliphate remained in some geographic backwater that prevented it from reaching the same standard of living as Rome or China is a furphy. I am particularly interested in what was so special about having a capital in Rome that made it impossible for the Caliphate to repeat the same success.


Rome was born and developed on the shoulders of centuries of continual growth and development. Islam was born on the ashes of an unprecedented catastrophic crash in social development. Please look at your graph. Are you still going to peddle out the absurd lie that the decline that preceded the rise of Islam was not unique?

Also, I hope you understand that you are shifting your argument that the Islamic Empire "did not even register" and "achieved almost nothing" - to an argument that appears to be dependent on Islam achieving the same level of prosperity as Rome did. Nice attempt at deflection, but thats not my concern here - and I'll happily admit that the Islamic Caliphate didn't achieve as high a level of Morris's 'social development' as Rome did. My only interest here is exposing your stupid claim that the Islamic Empire "did not even register" (presumably on social development) and "achieved almost nothing" - for the stupidity that it is. The excruciating fumbling of your argument is on display when you conclude that the social development under the Islamic Empire "stagnated" or at best "barely saw an increase" - based on nothing else but a flawed comparison of data from two completely different regions - one under Islamic control, the other not. Of course it never dawned on you that for places like Baghdad and Cairo to go from nothing to the economic centres of the western world, it required something a little more than stagnant economic growth.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 3rd, 2015 at 11:16pm by polite_gandalf »  

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48062
At my desk.
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #36 - Feb 4th, 2015 at 7:45pm
 
Quote:
And yet you don't even know the previous living standards of the areas Islam took over. Again, the "previous levels" you whine about were for the core region "Southern Mediterranean (Southern Europe)"  - which was basically the Italian Peninsula.


Not Spain I take it? Was it the pot of gold under Rome, or the oil well that was the missing key ingredient?

Quote:
The point being your logic that living standards barely increased under Islam assumes a like for like comparison between the standards of the Southern Mediterranean zone and the Egyptian/Syria-Iraq zone as if they were the same area - and is therefore flawed.


Why is it flawed? This was not tied to geography by this stage. If anything the Caliphate had a huge advantage in controlling the trade route.

Quote:
The only way you can draw the conclusion you are making is if you knew the living standards in Egypt and Iraq-Syria both immediately pre and post circa 700CE - which you don't, because Morris doesn't provide them.


I have explained at length before that moving the capital should not make that much difference. You ignored this point. You are still ignoring it. Rome's wealth came from being the centre of a large empire that significantly overlapped with the Caliphates.

Quote:
What we *DO* know though is that the economic and cultural centres of the Islamic Empire became, in a remarkably short time, the economic centres of the entire Western World


The entire post-apocalyptic western world. Again, you set the bar incredibly low.

Quote:
Rome was born and developed on the shoulders of centuries of continual growth and development. Islam was born on the ashes of an unprecedented catastrophic crash in social development. Please look at your graph. Are you still going to peddle out the absurd lie that the decline that preceded the rise of Islam was not unique?


The causes of the decline were immediately removed by the Caliphate - except of course the political ones. It does not make sens to blame the low living standards before the Caliphate on was, mass migration etc, then hold out the same excuse for after the Caliphate took over. This is another point I have made at length several times, which you ignore.

Quote:
Also, I hope you understand that you are shifting your argument that the Islamic Empire "did not even register" and "achieved almost nothing" - to an argument that appears to be dependent on Islam achieving the same level of prosperity as Rome did.


If it was a truly great empire, it would have caught up to what came 100 years earlier, and gone past it. Plenty of past empires rose from the ashes and fringes to do this. Islam was not unique in the challenges it initially faced.

Quote:
Nice attempt at deflection, but thats not my concern here - and I'll happily admit that the Islamic Caliphate didn't achieve as high a level of Morris's 'social development' as Rome did.


Fail.

Quote:
he excruciating fumbling of your argument is on display when you conclude that the social development under the Islamic Empire "stagnated" or at best "barely saw an increase" - based on nothing else but a flawed comparison of data from two completely different regions - one under Islamic control, the other not. Of course it never dawned on you that for places like Baghdad and Cairo to go from nothing to the economic centres of the western world, it required something a little more than stagnant economic growth.


You keep insisting the comparison is flawed. I explain why it is not flawed. You repeat yourself and ignore what I posted. How long will you keep this up Gandalf? What was so special about Rome that prevented the Caliphate from reaching the same standard of living as the Roman Empire? Why have you gone silent about the causes of the decline in social development that you yourself brought up? Is it because they highlight how reasonable it is to expect a rapid recovery to Roman levels once these causes were eliminated? Was the Caliphate really confined to some geographic backwater that made it so weak? The truth is that the Muslims turned the Italian peninsula into a backwater by raiding it for slaves.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #37 - Feb 4th, 2015 at 10:03pm
 
right so if I understand correctly FD, your argument is that because there was considerable overlap between Rome and the Caliphate, the Caliphate should have achieved at least the same level of social development as Rome - and because it didn't it therefore "does not even register" and "achieved almost nothing" - right?

The most obvious flaw with this is that it was not the Caliphate that was the "successor" to Rome as you imply, it was the Eastern Roman Empire - or the Byzantine Empire. They recaptured much of the previous empire in the west - including Rome. Yet funnily enough they didn't succeed in raising social development much either. In fact it continued to fall - even at their greatest height. Moreover they couldn't even compete with the crappy Caliphate in owning the western economic 'core'. Why was that FD?

freediver wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 7:45pm:
If it was a truly great empire, it would have caught up to what came 100 years earlier, and gone past it. Plenty of past empires rose from the ashes and fringes to do this. Islam was not unique in the challenges it initially faced.


Clearly the words "unprecedented collapse" are having no effect on you. Its there in the graph FD, nothing, repeat nothing like what happened in the west circa 400-700 happened before in the history of western civilization. You simply pretend that "plenty of past empires" went through the same thing and came through with flying colours - but they didn't. Nothing like this ever happened before. So there's absolutely no point invoking past history as a relevant template for what you can reasonably expect to happen. The fact is, the Byzantine Empire took over more of the old Roman Empire than the Caliphate did (and certainly more prosperous areas), and their social development figures really didn't register, and unlike the Caliphate, was never the economic centre of the western world.

freediver wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 7:45pm:
I have explained at length before that moving the capital should not make that much difference. You ignored this point.


No, you don't understand the point. You said that the Caliphate created stagnated economic/social development where it ruled. While yes social development in the west had a stagnating trend during the centuries after the fall of Rome, this is not the same thing. Its a very important point FD, so try and understand it. Morris's social development scale is not a good measure of how well islamic rule improved social development in the areas in which it controlled - because as already explained, we see no comparison of the before and after picture of the Islamic cores. It is a linear scale of the entire west - seamlessly switching from one core to another and plots it as a single continuum. Thats fine for his purposes, but it is wholly inadequate for measuring the success or otherwise of the Caliphate in improving the social development in the areas they controlled. In fact we can prove that your argument is complete bunkum - we know for a fact that Islam *DID* raise the social development of the areas they controlled, because the islamic cores of Egypt/Iraq-Syria went from not being the western core - to being the western core in a matter of mere decades.

freediver wrote on Feb 4th, 2015 at 7:45pm:
The truth is that the Muslims turned the Italian peninsula into a backwater by raiding it for slaves.


You heard it here folks - the decline of the Italian peninsula after the fall of Rome comes down entirely to muslim pirates. Cheesy
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48062
At my desk.
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #38 - Feb 5th, 2015 at 12:58pm
 
Quote:
right so if I understand correctly FD, your argument is that because there was considerable overlap between Rome and the Caliphate, the Caliphate should have achieved at least the same level of social development as Rome


The overlap was not necessary at all. It was the size of the empire that mattered, and the pre-existing technology and culture. The Song Dynasty achieved similar levels to Rome at about the same time as the Caliphate, with what I think was an even smaller empire.

Quote:
and because it didn't it therefore "does not even register" and "achieved almost nothing" - right?


Look at the plot of the human development index. The Caliphate is a remarkable low point.

Quote:
The most obvious flaw with this is that it was not the Caliphate that was the "successor" to Rome as you imply, it was the Eastern Roman Empire - or the Byzantine Empire.


My argument does not require it to be the immediate successor. The Song dynasty achieved the same thing on the other side of Eurasia with a vastly different culture.

Quote:
Clearly the words "unprecedented collapse" are having no effect on you. Its there in the graph FD, nothing, repeat nothing like what happened in the west circa 400-700 happened before in the history of western civilization.


Only because living standards had not been so far above survival levels previously. You are yet to demonstrate how the extent of the collapse should have limited the extent of the recovery. In reality, the fact it had all been done before should have made it easier, and did elsewhere. It was an unprecedented rise going into to the Roman Empire, and unprecedented collapse afterwards. This should have been followed by an unprecedented recovery and then unprecedented growth. It was in fact, but not until the shackles of the Caliphate were lifted from the west.

Quote:
Its a very important point FD, so try and understand it. Morris's social development scale is not a good measure of how well islamic rule improved social development in the areas in which it controlled


A lot of these were the same areas. The Song Dynasty did not need to exactly sit on top of the Roman Empire to repeat its success, so you're argument that it was necessary for the Caliphate to exactly superimpose is hogwash. In fact in many cases, Morris shows the core moving completely away from the previous core in order to achieve greater development. There was no barrier, other than Islam's delusions of superiority, to the transfer of culture, technology etc. Goods, ideas etc were already travelling from all the way to China, and the Caliphate was at the centre of this trade route, able to capitalise on the best of everything.

Quote:
because as already explained, we see no comparison of the before and after picture of the Islamic cores. It is a linear scale of the entire west - seamlessly switching from one core to another and plots it as a single continuum.


Because that is what happened - the cores moved all over the place, bringing civilisation with it. This was the norm, not the exception. Only in the Caliphate's case do you see this as a barrier.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #39 - Feb 5th, 2015 at 3:28pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2015 at 12:58pm:
My argument does not require it to be the immediate successor.


True - your argument in fact hinges on an incredibly sophisticated formula for an empire to achieve the same, or better social development levels, than the previous: 1. simply emerge after the previous empire 2. not be islamic.

In view of this, you have some explaining to do for why the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire "failed" even more than the Islamic Empire.

freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2015 at 12:58pm:
Look at the plot of the human development index. The Caliphate is a remarkable low point.


That doesn't refute my point. Looking at a linear scale of overall western development that jumps from core to core - is *NOT* an indication that islam "does not even register" and "achieved almost nothing" in terms of social development. Again you have to compare the Egypt/Iraq-Syria core before and after Islam took over - which Morris doesn't do, though he does confirm that there was economic decline immediately before Islam arrived, and economic revival after Islam arrived. But to what extent we don't know. Nevertheless we do know that the western core went quite suddenly from the area around SE Europe (Byzantine Empire) to the Islamic Empire, and stayed that way for at least 3 centuries - this despite the Byzantine Empire remaining relatively prosperous and even experiencing some growth during the same time.

freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2015 at 12:58pm:
It was an unprecedented rise going into to the Roman Empire, and unprecedented collapse afterwards. This should have been followed by an unprecedented recovery and then unprecedented growth. It was in fact, but not until the shackles of the Caliphate were lifted from the west.


Nonsense - firstly, not even the Byzantine Empire could compete with Islam for the economic core of the western world. Secondly, there were no "shackles of the Caliphate" in the areas in the west that eventually became the western core (western Europe). Moreover, for about 500 years the western core was a combined effort of Islamic North Africa and Christian Southern Europe. Morris himself provides evidence that the foundations for the rise of Western Europe were firmly laid during the height of the caliphate - from around circa 900-1000. Which really just reaffirms the orthodox historical view that the transfer of knowledge that came from the Islamic world helped stimulate European growth.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
it_is_the_light
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Christ Light

Posts: 41434
The Pyramid of LIGHT
Gender: male
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #40 - Feb 5th, 2015 at 3:38pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 5th, 2015 at 3:28pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2015 at 12:58pm:
My argument does not require it to be the immediate successor.


True - your argument in fact hinges on an incredibly sophisticated formula for an empire to achieve the same, or better social development levels, than the previous: 1. simply emerge after the previous empire 2. not be islamic.

In view of this, you have some explaining to do for why the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire "failed" even more than the Islamic Empire.

freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2015 at 12:58pm:
Look at the plot of the human development index. The Caliphate is a remarkable low point.


That doesn't refute my point. Looking at a linear scale of overall western development that jumps from core to core - is *NOT* an indication that islam "does not even register" and "achieved almost nothing" in terms of social development. Again you have to compare the Egypt/Iraq-Syria core before and after Islam took over - which Morris doesn't do, though he does confirm that there was economic decline immediately before Islam arrived, and economic revival after Islam arrived. But to what extent we don't know. Nevertheless we do know that the western core went quite suddenly from the area around SE Europe (Byzantine Empire) to the Islamic Empire, and stayed that way for at least 3 centuries - this despite the Byzantine Empire remaining relatively prosperous and even experiencing some growth during the same time.

freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2015 at 12:58pm:
It was an unprecedented rise going into to the Roman Empire, and unprecedented collapse afterwards. This should have been followed by an unprecedented recovery and then unprecedented growth. It was in fact, but not until the shackles of the Caliphate were lifted from the west.


Nonsense - firstly, not even the Byzantine Empire could compete with Islam for the economic core of the western world. Secondly, there were no "shackles of the Caliphate" in the areas in the west that eventually became the western core (western Europe). Moreover, for about 500 years the western core was a combined effort of Islamic North Africa and Christian Southern Europe. Morris himself provides evidence that the foundations for the rise of Western Europe were firmly laid during the height of the caliphate - from around circa 900-1000. Which really just reaffirms the orthodox historical view that the transfer of knowledge that came from the Islamic world helped stimulate European growth.


many blessings

another freemasonic pantomime

from two of the resident masonic dupes

this is observed with lol

namaste
Back to top
 

ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : )  ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯
it_is_the_light it_is_the_light Christ+Light Christ+Light  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #41 - Feb 5th, 2015 at 6:39pm
 
as always your trolling is irrelevant.

You are not forgiven for being king troll here

and so it is

namaste
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48062
At my desk.
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #42 - Feb 5th, 2015 at 9:44pm
 
Gandalf why do you keep referring to a linear scale?

Quote:
Morris himself provides evidence that the foundations for the rise of Western Europe were firmly laid during the height of the caliphate - from around circa 900-1000.


How so?

Quote:
Which really just reaffirms the orthodox historical view that the transfer of knowledge that came from the Islamic world helped stimulate European growth.


Do you mean came through, or originated in?



Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #43 - Feb 6th, 2015 at 2:32pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2015 at 9:44pm:
Quote:
Morris himself provides evidence that the foundations for the rise of Western Europe were firmly laid during the height of the caliphate - from around circa 900-1000.


How so?


Says Morris:

Quote:
Christian Europe definitely saw a vigorous economic revival after 900, and by 1300 the richest area, Italy, was catching up with the Islamic core in Egypt.


Quote:
I suggest that
energy capture in the core remained fairly flat at about 25,000 kcal/cap/day
between 700 and 900, and then started rising in the 10th century, to 26,000
kcal/cap/day in 1000 and perhaps 27,000 kcal/cap/day by 1300. The
archaeological evidence from Europe (e.g., Graham-Campbell and Valor
2006; Grenville 1999; O’Keefe 2008; Woolgar et al. 2009) seems consistent
with this, with clear signs of increasing household inventories, more
substantial homes, more trade, and much more state spending. It is also
consistent with the assumption that Italy was the richest part of Europe.


http://ianmorris.org/docs/social-development.pdf pp53-54


freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2015 at 9:44pm:
Do you mean came through, or originated in?


Both. The Islamic Empire transferred and preserved knowledge  - eg Ancient Greek philosophy and knowledge from the far east - as well as made huge scientific and philosophical contributions of their own - which undoubtedly fueled the European revival.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48062
At my desk.
Re: Why the West Rules ~ For Now
Reply #44 - Feb 10th, 2015 at 12:35pm
 
Quote:
Says Morris:


Not the same thing that you say Gandalf. That is an aweful lot of interpreting you are doing there. I have seen a lot of explanations for the rise of western europe. Not one of them put the foundations in the caliphate. In fact, had the caliphate succeeded in taking and holding western europe via spain and france, it is highly unlikely that the recovery would have happened. As far as Italy goes, the Muslims went on to use it's coastline as a source of slaves, destroying most of the coastal centres. In the end it took American intervention to end the 'foundation' that the caliphate was building in Europe. Through some inexplicable coincidence, they were still following Muhammed's example a millenia later.

Quote:
Both. The Islamic Empire transferred and preserved knowledge  - eg Ancient Greek philosophy and knowledge from the far east - as well as made huge scientific and philosophical contributions of their own - which undoubtedly fueled the European revival.


Is that the extent of it? Knowledge from elsewhere, with a few meager contributions from within?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print