• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abbasid Caliphate

Originally posted by tuna

Same would go for the Papacy. If Rome falls to a non-Catholic power, the Papacy can temporarily move to another city...

Doesn't need to be the case with non-Christians.
Just think of the Pope giving up Rome and moving to some backwards village in Southern France...
(read: Avignon :D)

*Imagines himself "evacuating" the Pope and giving him a nice little villa just next to the Royal Palace. Then I won't have to walk too long to behead him...*

And, to remain On-Topic, I really would like to see a box reading "Jihad Sultans: The Sequel to Crusader Kings" :D
 
Just to be pedantic...

I don't think Farsi even existed before they started using the Arabic script - it would either be Early or Middle Persian at that period of history...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abbasid Caliphate

Originally posted by Sonny


There must be some provision for abolishing a caliphate as Saladin abolished the Fatimid Caliphate.:)

And the Papacy was not exactly tied down in Rome during the CK period.;)

Exactly. I suppose we will see some sort of unruly percentage or something. When the pope start to loose control over their own city its time to move to a more secure location. Perhaps within the realm of the one with the most piety points. Although this could create some damn funny results if it happened to be Norway or something. Just imagine "The pope moves to Trondheim" event.:D Also I would really like that if one does a military conquest of Rome one should have the option to abolish it (should be hard and with low chance of success).:)
 
Originally posted by Demetrios
Just to be pedantic...

I don't think Farsi even existed before they started using the Arabic script - it would either be Early or Middle Persian at that period of history...

Languages change in 1400 years. It was interesting to see at one point vowel sounds where represented by letters. I dont understand why the greek alphabet did not catch on better, although it did influence Farsi at one point. SInce its Indo-European like Farsi, it looks like it would be better suited to reflect all the sounds. BY 612 Persian culture had been around for a long time (1200 years at least), I dont understnad how it was totally replaced by Arab culture in just a few hundred years.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abbasid Caliphate

Originally posted by Idiotboy


Just imagine "The pope moves to Trondheim" event.:D
Or even better: The pope moves to The Faroes:D

Anyway nice post. (Thats mean I agree with you. Nothing els:D)
 
Originally posted by senex
BY 612 Persian culture had been around for a long time (1200 years at least), I dont understnad how it was totally replaced by Arab culture in just a few hundred years.

Replaced by Arab culture?! Persian culture completely transformed what Islam had been till the conquest of Iran. Although the basic framework of Islamic culture was Semitic, everything Persian ultimately dominated it.

There are some good books on this subject (in English and French) I'll try to find a few of them and post the info here. Definitely worth reading if the subject's of interest to you :)
 
Forgive me, I just found this discussion, and thought I might be of some use, or more precisly, perhaps some valued info.:p

In 945 an Iranian shi'ite dynasty, the Buyids took control of Baghdad. Thus Baghdad went to them completely, the Caliphs of Baghdad were Persian and Shi'ite as of then.

The Abbasid Dynasty's demise was complete. Independant states were born from it's ashes: Tahirids, Saffarids, Samanids, Buwahids, Ziyarids, and Ghaznavids in the east; Hamdanids in Syria; Tulunids followed by Fatimids in Egypt. Although this trend may have been regretable from the point of view of Baghdad, it was highly succesful ever more so for the spread of Islamic culture, faith, and way of life. Each of these dynasties emulated the court at Baghdad, attracting scholars, poets, musicians, architects, and craftsmen. Under the Samanids, in Kurasan, Persian, written in the Arabic alphabet, reached a level of a literary language.

The Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt was established in 903 under Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi as the first Fatimid Caliph. In 969, Jawhar, the general of al-Mu'izz, the fourth Fatimid Caliph, conquered Egypt with an army of 100,000 men and began the construction of a splendid new capital, in which today is referred to as Cairo (al-Qahira). From 975-996 under Caliph al-Aziz, Fatimid Egypt endured it's golden age. Egypt became the richest and most stable power in all the Islamic world. The Fatimid navy dominated the Med, and Alexandria was once again, the center of commerce and trade of the middle east, bringing in luxeries of spices, silk, and tea from far east nations, and selling them all over the prospering populace, and Islamic world. This was short lived however, when al-Aziz died, his son, al-Hakim came to power, and he began the fall of the Fatimid Dynasty as a whole. He was most acclaimed for his severe persecution of Jews and Christians, and stern ordiances of forbidding women to leave their homes. Some radical groups considered him semi-divine, and one of these has survived to this very day (present modern day 2002;)), the Druze of Lebanon and Syria. Despite all of this, the Golden Age endured, but the decline had begun...The high point was reached in 1036-94, when the Caliphate of al-Munstansir took Baghdad breifly. This was the last of it's Golden Age however, as when he died in 1094, Fatimid power had decreased and overtaxation of the Egyptian populace, led to serious problems.;)

Meanwhile, the only survivor of the Abbasid massacre of the Umayyads, 'Abl al-Rahman (the Immigrant) reached Spain, and in 756 accepted by the various Arab factions as their ruler. Under the Umayyads Al-Andalus, as the Arabs called the Iberian peninsula, became the heaviest urbinized and richest country in Europe. They encouraged all the grand innovations they brought from the East. They also introduced a few "cash" crops; sugar, indigo, cotton, and saffron. In 929, 'Abd al-Rahman III took the title of Caliph, in act of all defiance against the dying Abbaysid enemies. During his reign, Cordoba was the capital of the Umayyad dynasty in modern-day Spain, and was the richest, most urbanized, and sophisticated in all of Europe, with it's population at the time around 500,000, where as Paris was still only a mere 38,000.;) It was most famous for it's Mosques, palaces, and libraries, in which is believed one such library held over 500,000 manuscripts. In the 10th century, this chamberlain dude, called Mansur, led something like annual campaigns against the Christian northern Kingdoms. In 997, he sacked and destroyed, the shrine of Santiago de Compostela, the principal pilgram site for Christians at the time. Mansur died in 1002, and with him the Ummayads. Beber disaffected soilders, sacked and burnt the glorious city of Cordoba in 1018. It came to an end in 1030ish with a group of disgrunted Cordobadans, that simply abolosihed the Ummayad Caliphate. In it's place, came many disfactured small Kingdoms. Some Arab, some Berber, and one Slavic, go figure.;)

The Reconquista in Spain started around 1085, with Alfonso VI taking Toledo, the former capital of the Visigoths. This was in part due to the demise of the former Ummayads, and also, the failure to unite against the Christian rulers. Eventually this became serious to the former Ummayad kingdoms of Iberia, and they were forced to ask the Almorayids in Northern Africa for assistance.

The Almoravids' modern descendants are the Toureg, whom inhabit the Western Sahara in Morocco today. They were a puritan reforming movement dedicated to the ideal of "jihad" and had crossed into Spain as well as conquered large areas of Ghana. They were veils over their faces originally to keep the Sahara sand out, but more so during this time to instill fear among their foes, and succeeded. In 1086, the fearsome Yusuf ibn Tashufin founder of Marrakesh, led his armies to victory over the Christian armies in Spain. Then killed or exiled the various Islamic leaders of the area, the ones whom called upon them to help, and took their Kingdoms, and thus the start of Almoravid dynasty in Spain. But once more, in 1147, the Almoravid, like the Ummayad lost to the Berbers in the area, and then emerged the Almohads in Spain.

The Almohads by 1150 had an empire that streched from Spain to Egypt. In 1170, they chose Seville as their capital, where they built two of their finest works of architecture, the Torre del Oro and the Giralda (later transformed). Like their predecessors, and the ones before them, they did not last long however. In 1212, in the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, their armies were annialated by a coalition of Christian kings, and the survivors fled Spain, whench, the Reconquista moved relentlessly forward.

And I guess I'll save Granada and others for another day perhaps.:D

BTW, I had my book with me for dates and names, so please, don't give me too much credit, I have a bad memory.:p
 
te lo agradezco mucho

Euro-maniac -
thanks for the brief synopsis. I thought that the abbasids fell in 11th century when conquered by seljuk turks. THe part about Spain was the most interesting to me.
 
Re: te lo agradezco mucho

Originally posted by corbulo
Euro-maniac -
thanks for the brief synopsis. I thought that the abbasids fell in 11th century when conquered by seljuk turks. THe part about Spain was the most interesting to me.

Abbasid Caliphate wasn't "conquered" per se, but the strings just passed on to the Seljuks :) The control of Baghdad (thus the Caliph) was prime real estate for any aspiring dynasty in the Sunni world.
 
Re: te lo agradezco mucho

Originally posted by corbulo
Euro-maniac -
thanks for the brief synopsis. I thought that the abbasids fell in 11th century when conquered by seljuk turks. THe part about Spain was the most interesting to me.

You are most welcomed. I love Middle Eastern history, depite some specifics that I have.;)
 
Re: Re: te lo agradezco mucho

Originally posted by tuna


Abbasid Caliphate wasn't "conquered" per se, but the strings just passed on to the Seljuks :) The control of Baghdad (thus the Caliph) was prime real estate for any aspiring dynasty in the Sunni world.

The Abbasids were first conquered by the Persian Buyid dynasty in the 900s, and then control passed to the Seljuks, as Tuna states. However, as the Seljuks collapsed in the late 12th century, the Abbasids ceased to be puppets and regained their temporal power in southern Iraq. They remained independent until the Mongols came...
 
Re: Re: Re: te lo agradezco mucho

Originally posted by Demetrios


The Abbasids were first conquered by the Persian Buyid dynasty in the 900s, and then control passed to the Seljuks, as Tuna states. However, as the Seljuks collapsed in the late 12th century, the Abbasids ceased to be puppets and regained their temporal power in southern Iraq. They remained independent until the Mongols came...

One question about the Buyids: They are often blamed for the decay of Baghdad during their time in power, more than two centuries prior to the arrival of Mongols; since they were Shi'is, Baghdad under the Buyids became a divided city, most neighborhoods were run virtually independently by Sunni and Shi'i strongarms, much of the city was decimated due to perennial conflict.

Was there no way that the Buyids could do away with the Sunni Abbasid caliphs? It strikes me as a little odd that a Shi'i dynasty could be established in a traditionally Sunni city (pretty much the heart of the Sunni world even) and then simply maintain the status quo.
 
The Buyids weren't openly Shi'ite; they were suspected of having such tendencies, but were publicly orthodox. And no, they coldn't do away with the Caliphate - it gave them legitimacy and great prestiege (to talk in CK terms :D ).

They didn't set up Baghdad as the center of their empire - the heart of the Buyid state always remained on the Iranian plateau and more specifically at Shiraz. The head of the family was as often located at Shiraz as at Baghdad...
 
Originally posted by Demetrios
The Buyids weren't openly Shi'ite; they were suspected of having such tendencies, but were publicly orthodox. And no, they coldn't do away with the Caliphate - it gave them legitimacy and great prestiege (to talk in CK terms :D ).

They didn't set up Baghdad as the center of their empire - the heart of the Buyid state always remained on the Iranian plateau and more specifically at Shiraz. The head of the family was as often located at Shiraz as at Baghdad...

*throws away all his books and places Demetrios on his library shelf*

Actually never even bothered to check with my sources, always assumed that Baghdad would be where the center of Buyid power located at :) It does make sense now, considering the inhospitable political climate facing them in Baghdad...

I had once read an amazing (i.e. hillarious) account of Turkic soldiers' troubles in Baghdad in 9th century. It was the Turkish translation of a 9th century text in "Belleten" (one of the official publications of Turkish History Society), but the author's name escapes me now. One amusing detail was how they began to "loot" one of the marketplaces in Baghdad, which turned out to be a misunderstanding as they thought the goods were free for anyone to take :D
 
The Buyids were openly Shi'ite.;) It was in 945 they occupied Baghdad. They were a Persian-speaking military elite, whose leaders only learned Arabic subsequent to their occupation of Baghdad. They took all economic and political power to themselves, even issuing coins in their own names with Shi'ite slogans.

Also, if you don't mind, care to listen to a brief synopis on the Seljuks?

It was the arrival of the Seljuks in Islamic lands during the 12th century, that saved the Caliphate of Baghdad from succumbing to the Isma'ilis (as the Turks and numerous other tribal dynasties referred to the early Shi'ites as).

Oghuz Turks were the predecessors of the Seljuks. Their homeland was in the vast steppe north of the Caspian and the Aral Sea. The Muslims encountered the Turkish-speaking horsemen and archers of this region when they were conquered as the Muslims crossed the Oxus in the 7th century. They were recruited to the caliphal armies and some Turkish commanders were powerful enough to establish their own dynasties (ever noticed oriental eyed Turks?;)). The powerful Ghaznavid dynasty's most famous ruler was Mahmud of Ghazna, conquerer of northern India, and was founded by a military commander who'd served the Samanids.
Around 960, a group of Oghuz clans abandoned their pagan faith, and embraced Islam. Their ancestral, semi-legendary leader was named Saljuq (Seljuk). When he died, his son Arslan took control of the clans, who began to take the territory of the Ghaznavids. Arslan's nephews, Tughril and Chaghri Beg crossed the Oxus and took the key town of Merv (in Persia of course;)). In 1040, they defeated the armies of Mahmud Ghazna and marked the begining of Seljuk supremecy.

It was between 1040 and 1060, the war between Seljuks and Buyids were fought, in the process winning and losing Baghdad several times. The Buyids, even went as far as allying with their enemies against the Seljuk "menance" the hated Fatimids, but to no avail. At last in 1060, the city of Baghdad fell to Tughril Beg and his troops put an end to both the Shi'ite authority (until Tamerlane) and put an end to Fatimid dreams of universal domination.

In 1058, the Caliph of Baghdad crowned Tughril Beg "King of the East and West," delegating the defense of the Seljuk "Empire" to him. His title was Sultan, a word that simply means "power" but is most known in today's world with the rulers of the Middle East. The Seljuks were now responsible to defend the Sunni faith from schism within and without. It remained in the hands of the Seljuks, and later Ottomans (Seljuk decendants) until 1926.

The enemy without was *da dum dum* none other than the horrible Greek barbaric heathenous scum of the Earth, the EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE! :eek: :p

Seriously though, it was in the mindset, faith, economic, and political sense of the Seljuks. The Eastern Romans had taken advantage of the weakened Buyid rule, and regain important territory in Anatolia (Asia Minor), Armenia, and Syria. The Byzantines were catastrophically deafeated at Manzikert in 1071, and the Emperor was taken prisioner. This defeat marked the long delcine of this Empire, and the long incline of another: the Ottomans. Anatolia ceased to being a land of Greek speech, as Turkoman tribes and other Turkish groups (most noteworthy the Osmanlis) sought greener pastures in the Seljuk conquests, settled down, and eventually founded many rival local dynasties (again most notablly the Osmanlis). Byzantium's loss of their richest lands was a deadly blow, and never recovered.

Ok, I am done for now, wow! That took a long time to write, I hope you'll read it and like it hoho!:D

EDIT: Sorry I forgot, again, I often forget names and dates so I have a book to help me with it.:)
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by tuna


*throws away all his books and places Demetrios on his library shelf*

Actually never even bothered to check with my sources, always assumed that Baghdad would be where the center of Buyid power located at :) It does make sense now, considering the inhospitable political climate facing them in Baghdad...

*Pulls out ruler lists*

From my notes, the residence of the Senior Buyid Emir was at:

Karajil (932 - 937)
Shiraz (937 - 949)
Rayy (949 - 976)
Shiraz (976 - 978)
Baghdad (978 - 999)
Shiraz (999 - 1062; the Shiraz emirate survived 7 years past the conquest of Baghdad by the Seljuks)

As you can see, the senior member of the family wasn't based in Baghdad for very long at all, though a junior member of the family usually reigned there.

And EM, the Buyids had obvious Shi'ite tendencies, but they definitely did not dare to publicly profess their unorthodox beliefs, whatever they felt in private. The population they ruled was just too orthodox to dare to do so...
 
Originally posted by Demetrios


And EM, the Buyids had obvious Shi'ite tendencies, but they definitely did not dare to publicly profess their unorthodox beliefs, whatever they felt in private. The population they ruled was just too orthodox to dare to do so...

The fact that the Buyid coinage held Shi'ite slogans on it, kinda shows they must have had some openess about it. As for the rest of it, it could be private, I just assume they were due to the coinage, but I may be wrong.