[HN Gopher] The Central Problem: the world of Late Antiquity fro...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Central Problem: the world of Late Antiquity from its Persian
       centre (2021)
        
       Author : diodorus
       Score  : 51 points
       Date   : 2022-01-17 21:47 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.historytoday.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.historytoday.com)
        
       | arketyp wrote:
       | The scholastics read Aristotle and the development of Western
       | philosophy sprung from pretty much antique sources, AFAIK. It's
       | logical, I guess, that the dark ages of Europe were the golden
       | age of somewhere else. But it does not follow that a shift in
       | center of gravity of power justifies talking about a shift of a
       | center in terms of legacy and what became "modernity", the latter
       | which I suppose would motivate a certain perspective on history.
        
         | MomoXenosaga wrote:
         | Yes always amusing that civilization started in Greece
         | apparently conveniently ignoring what was going on in India and
         | China. You can thank centuries of colonial white superiority
         | for that.
        
           | jhgb wrote:
           | For someone living in Europe, you see Greek roots everywhere
           | but Chinese roots nowhere, so I'm not sure that anyone is
           | "conveniently ignoring" anything, rather than simply teaching
           | or learning local history.
        
             | james-redwood wrote:
             | True. I suppose what they're trying to say is that we don't
             | recognise Indian and Chinese classical history as much as
             | we should, which is valid considering it was
             | extraordinarily sophisticated. That being said, besides
             | knowledge and technological transfer, it does not form a
             | core part of European history in the same way Rome and
             | Greece does.
        
             | MomoXenosaga wrote:
             | My own country wouldn't exist if it wasn't for trade with
             | Asian countries.
        
           | Bayart wrote:
           | The root civilizations of the West are originated from the
           | fertile crescent (Egypt, Mesopotamia) and have nothing to do
           | with neither India nor China. If anything, during the
           | Neolithic and Bronze Age innovations moved from the West to
           | the East.
        
         | Symmetry wrote:
         | Western philosophy maybe but Western science owes its early
         | foundations to al-Biruni, al-Khwarizmi, ibn Sina, etc. That all
         | began to fad in the 11th century as the Islamic equivalents of
         | the gnostics eclipsed the equivalents of the scholastics. Then
         | the Mongols came through and killed all the city dwellers in
         | the region. But an awful lot of what later western scientists
         | would build on came from that region.
         | 
         | EDIT: And I'm not actually sure you can say central Asia didn't
         | have a big philosophical impact. I seem to recall that ibn
         | Sina's argument for the existence of God came to be pretty
         | popular among Christians and Jews as well.
        
           | james-redwood wrote:
           | I find it strange that we see much of the golden age of the
           | Middle East through the eyes of Islam. We refer not to the
           | period as say for instance the Perso-Arabic (indeed, much of
           | it was Persian though) golden age or something equivalent but
           | rather the Islamic one, even though Islam had little to do
           | for it. Some comments also mention the cities sacked as
           | Islamic, and not say Persian for instance.
           | 
           | Of course, it is a very decidedly modern and political
           | framing, but inaccurate and bizarre nonetheless. As much as
           | calling the Renaissance in Europe the 'Christian Golden Age'.
           | 
           | It is also worth noting the interplay and knowledge transfer
           | from China, India, Japan, and various South East Asian
           | countries into Persia too: in an attempt to hold up this
           | narrative, we forget to see some of the things that we give
           | 'Islam' exclusive credit for that were actually merely
           | translated from the Eastern original.
        
             | Symmetry wrote:
             | It behooves me to use widely accepted terms if I want to be
             | understood. The early Islamic Central Asian efflorescence
             | benefited a lot from being able to draw on both India and
             | Europe for inspiration as well as possibly the high degree
             | of numeracy caused by the Silk road.
        
           | foobarian wrote:
           | I can't help but think of Intel reading this. What happened
           | to the Islamic world that they didn't capitalize on that
           | progress and reach industrialization first? Was it the Mongol
           | setback, or did European infighting force the tech
           | advancement until it surpassed the East?
        
             | bigthymer wrote:
             | A user below mentioned that once the land-based trade
             | switched to water-based, central Asia lost their main
             | source of wealth since all of the overland trade was taxed.
             | I agree.
             | 
             | Another reason the Islamic world didn't reach
             | industrialization first is because of a lack of capital
             | concentration and resulting lack of a large merchant class.
             | Christian Europe practiced primogeniture so large estates
             | passed to a single, next heir. Islamic laws resulted in
             | accumulated wealth being dispersed among more inheritors
             | each successive generation. Furthermore, the Muslim world
             | did not indigenously develop a legal corporate form that
             | lasted beyond the life of any of the partners further
             | limiting the ability to form large companies.
             | 
             | If you have access, check out some of Timur Kuran's papers
             | on Google Scholar.
        
             | inglor_cz wrote:
             | There isn't any consensus on this.
             | 
             | Mongol raids destroyed a lot of Islamic cities, including
             | Baghdad, a centre of learning. [0]
             | 
             | Fundamentalist ideas and sects rose to the fore, such as
             | the Hanbalis [1], who were suspicious or hostile towards
             | secularism and secular science.
             | 
             | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)
             | 
             | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali
        
               | trhway wrote:
               | Before Mongols there were Seljuks
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuk_Empire. And
               | fundamentalists of course played a major role. Good movie
               | illustrating it
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physician_(2013_film)
               | The movie also points out the conduit role Jews played
               | between Muslim and Cristian worlds and thus the results
               | of the persecution.
        
               | foobarian wrote:
               | Amazing movie tip, thank you very much!
        
             | Symmetry wrote:
             | That's hard to answer. The philosophical, mathematical, and
             | scientific flourishing in the the silk road cities of
             | central Asia in particular during the Islamic golden age
             | seems to have ended in the 1000s. Some people blame the
             | influential book The Incoherence of the Philosophers[1],
             | maybe they're right or maybe it just captured the zeitgeist
             | and was effect rather than cause.
             | 
             | Before too long the Mongols came. Plan A for China was
             | originally to kill everyone, burn the fields, and raise the
             | biggest herds ever on the resulting grassland. Thankfully
             | this was quickly abandoned for Plan B, conquer and tax the
             | people. But Plan B needed larger armies than Plan A and
             | when Khwarezmia offered an unforgivable insult while the
             | bulk of the Mongol army was needed pacifying China they got
             | the Plan A treatment and why it seems so weird to us that a
             | contender for largest city in the world could have ever
             | been in Turkmenistan.
             | 
             | [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Phi
             | loso...
        
             | eternalban wrote:
             | I've thought about this as well. Various factors
             | contributed to ultimately displace the trade routes from
             | land to water. These factors range from Mongol invasions,
             | to geography. When trade stopped the flow of ideas stopped.
             | 
             | The current geopolitical conflict is about preventing the
             | shifting of trade routes back to land from Western
             | controlled waterways. It is amazing to me to consider for
             | example Armenia's history and see the constant back and
             | forth between a west and east aligned contenders and see
             | its echo it contemporary events. Ditto for the overall high
             | level connectivity between east and west, and how its
             | shifts mirror civilization balance between East and West.
        
               | zozbot234 wrote:
               | > The current geopolitical conflict is about preventing
               | the shifting of trade routes back to land from Western
               | controlled waterways.
               | 
               | The "One Belt One Road" initiative is literally being
               | marketed as an attempt to re-establish those same land-
               | based trade routes. Though it's also criticized by some
               | since it's perceived as coming with too many strings
               | attached.
        
           | futharkshill wrote:
           | What on earth are you talking about? Some science yes, but
           | certainly there were scientist from the "West", e.g.
           | aristoteles
        
             | Symmetry wrote:
             | Aristotle was part of the incredible flowering of math and
             | philosophy in Ancient Greece between 600 and 300 BC or so.
             | There was a similar flowering in western Asia between 750
             | AD and 1050 AD or so. The one doesn't contradict the other.
             | When Western doctors were treating patients in 1400 AD they
             | were working from ibn Sina's (Avicenna's) Canon of Medicine
             | rather than Hippocrates (though ibn Sina owed a lot of
             | Hippocrates). When Colubus was trying to persuade everyone
             | the Earth was small he was arguing mostly about al-Biruni's
             | book on the topic (though al-Biruni owed a huge debt to
             | Eratosthenes). Again, this is more about science than
             | philosophy which in Europe did tend to go directly from the
             | Ancient world to the Renaissance as far as I can tell.
        
       | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
       | > Indeed, in the 620s the Persian shah Khusro II almost captured
       | Constantinople and was on the verge of destroying the Roman
       | Empire. What would have happened had he succeeded remains one of
       | history's great counterfactual questions.
       | 
       | Not really. There were a lot of people that "almost" captured
       | Constantinople. Persians, Arabs, Bulgars, various other Steppe
       | nomads.
       | 
       | Constantinople due to its geography was pretty close to as
       | impregnable as could be given ancient technology (especially when
       | they had naval superiority).
       | 
       | It was only the Crusaders of the 4th crusade in the 1200's and
       | the Ottoman Turks in 1453 that successfully conquered
       | Constantinople. The former had naval superiority thanks to the
       | Venetians, and the latter had gunpowder.
       | 
       | In fact, because of the strength of its defenses, one of the main
       | strategies of the the Byzantine Empire was the tie down the bulk
       | of the enemy's armies before the wall of Constantinople, and then
       | attack their rear, which is exactly what the Emperor Heraclius
       | did to the Persians leading to their defeat.
       | 
       | In addition, the outcome of the war didn't matter so much,
       | because it exhausted both Empires and made them ripe for being
       | conquered by the Arab Muslim armies (the Byzantine Empire pretty
       | much lost all their Middle Eastern provinces, and the Persian
       | Empire was completely conquered).
        
         | Pigalowda wrote:
         | Heraclius deserved better for the incredible effort he put in.
         | Sad thing to watch it go up in smoke 10 years later. Same could
         | be said for the Sassanids though.
        
         | inglor_cz wrote:
         | In contemporary IT terms, Constantinople acted as a honeypot
         | for attackers.
        
       | eternalban wrote:
       | Two items from the author of the book itself that delve deeper
       | into the geopolitical background of this historic period:
       | 
       |  _" Roman historians claim that the Sasanians were aiming to
       | recreate the first Persian empire of Cyrus the Great. This meant
       | pushing the Iranian border with Rome further and further west.
       | Unsurprisingly, Rome and Iran were nearly constantly at war. The
       | two powers competed for even the smallest advantage along an ill-
       | defined and porous frontier running south from the Caucasus into
       | Arabia. Each war was worse than the last, and conflict spread
       | southward as far as Ethiopia, with Iran and Rome eventually
       | contesting control of the India trade through the Red Sea. The
       | 6th-century Roman emperor Justinian could not break the Persian
       | monopoly there, so he and his successors tried to dominate the
       | overland silk trade from China.
       | 
       | This evolved into a world war when the Turks got involved. In the
       | 6th century the Turkish nomads of Inner Asia were the foremost
       | military power of the age. They had overthrown the Huns who
       | menaced Iran from the east, and had built an empire stretching
       | from the borders of China to the Caspian Sea. With Roman backing,
       | the Turks aimed to disrupt the Persian monopoly on the India
       | trade by flooding Iranian markets with cheap Chinese silk which
       | they had received as tribute from rival Chinese dynasties. Iran
       | retaliated, and the armies of the Persian king Hormizd IV fought
       | Roman and Turkish troops on multiple fronts and emerged
       | victorious - further proof that the Iranian war machine was more
       | than match for its rivals."_
       | 
       | [https://www.asor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Bonner-Febru...]
       | 
       | --
       | 
       |  _Lessons from the Last Empire of Iran_ goes a bit deeper and
       | concludes:
       | 
       |  _I wrote The Last Empire of Iran to tell the story of the
       | Sasanian dynasty from beginning to end. It is a narrative that
       | covers some of the most important events of human history. And
       | over the past 1,400 years, the story has lost none of its power._
       | 
       | https://quillette.com/2020/07/31/lessons-from-the-last-empir...
        
       | pm90 wrote:
       | The book itself is $100. I get that it's a scholarly work but ...
       | I find it hard to justify spending that much as someone not in
       | the field professionally.
        
         | wombatmobile wrote:
         | Would your life be better if you spent $100 on junk food,
         | alcohol, pot, gasoline or Netflix instead?
        
           | pm90 wrote:
           | Yes, actually it would be. Those are all things required to
           | live a life that I find fulfilling.
        
             | wombatmobile wrote:
             | It's your life, your money, and your choice.
        
         | a11r wrote:
         | Perhaps search for a library that has it.
         | https://www.worldcat.org/title/last-empire-of-iran/oclc/1138...
        
           | pm90 wrote:
           | Amazing, thanks! I did try looking up in my local city
           | library (it didn't have it) but using your link I found
           | there's a Uni library nearby that does have it!
        
         | yetanotherloser wrote:
         | OK, no dog in this particular fight but as a general
         | principle... why? You can burn through a hundred bucks
         | remarkably easily on subscription TV or live sports or computer
         | games or board games or a few trips to the cinema or a day out
         | or a really good bottle of something... what is it about a book
         | that makes it "hard to justify"? ok, if you can't afford $100
         | for anything, you can't afford $100 for anything and that's a
         | different (and worse) category of problem. But if you're lucky
         | enough to have money to spend on yourself, why should an
         | interesting book - which you can pick up secondhand and flip if
         | it's not for you - rank low?
         | 
         | "When I have a little money, I buy books; and if I have any
         | left, I buy food and clothes." - Erasmus
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-01-19 23:02 UTC)