Destruction of the Library in Alexandria

[Rameses the Great]

The same motive that the Muslims would have had - to destroy anything that would go contrary to their faith. Are you seriously suggesting that Christians did not burn "heretical" books and works that did not confirm with their faith?

 

Where did I say that? Your taking my reply out of context.

 

So let's see some links and other sources about this "new research". And just because research has been revived regarding a certain myth does not necessarily mean that myth has been proved as historical fact

 

So, can I say that Romans copied everything from the Greeks? No. Can I say that all Roman pagans were self hating Christians? No. Can I say that the Muslims definantly did not burn the library? No. There are people who believe in many theories about how the library was burned, so why disclaim this one?

 

Oh yes we do. Did you even bother reading the links that I quoted earlier?

 

Yes I did, and I challenged your stance.

 

There are four explanations:

 

Caesar's conquest 48 BC;

the attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century;

the decree of Theophilus in 391;

the Muslim conquest in 642 or thereafter.

 

All have explanation, pros and cons. The point is it is a legitimate theory, and if people find the need to bring it up by all means do so.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Where did I say that? Your taking my reply out of context.

 

QUOTE You asked me "who else could have had a motive in burning the library" - which means you are implying that only the Muslims could have had such a motive. This is obviously wrong. Many other people, including the Christians, could have had a motive for doing so, for the simply reason that many works in that library were of a "heretical" content. So your contention that only the Muslims could have had a motive for burning the librari is WRONG.

 

So, can I say that Romans copied everything from the Greeks? No. Can I say that all Roman pagans were self hating Christians? No. Can I say that the Muslims definantly did not burn the library? No

That was not the answer to my question. You said there is new "research" about Muslims burning the library, I challenged you to produce links and sources, you did not, therefore your contention regarding this new "research" is WRONG

 

There are people who believe in many theories about how the library was burned, so why disclaim this one?

Because this particular one is not a theory - it is a myth propagated three hundred years after the supposed event by a fanatical, lying bigot with ulterior political motives. And just because "there are people who believe in it "does not mean it should be taken seriously. Many people believe the British Royal family are actually descended from alien reptilian creatures, does that mean we should take them seriously?

 

Yes I did, and I challenged your stance.

You obviously didn't, otherwise you wouldn't have been even making the above statements

 

the decree of Theophilus in 391;

Ah! So in other words you admit you were wrong earlier - people other than the Muslims did have a motive for burning the library.

 

All have explanation, pros and cons.

Oh really? And what are the "pros" of the "Omar burnt the library" myth?

Edited January 17, 2007 by Gladius xx

[Rameses the Great]

The Library of Alexandria

Destruction of the Library of Alexandria

 

You asked me "who else could have had a motive in burning the library" - which means you are implying that only the Muslims could have had such a motive. This is obviously wrong. Many other people, including the Christians, could have had a motive for doing so, for the simply reason that many works in that library were of a "heretical" content. So your contention that only the Muslims could have had a motive for burning the librari is WRONG.

 

I agree the Christians could have a motive, but it would not to be to burn the library and all its contents. Many Christians works and poems were held in the library itself. Also, how dumb would the Christians be to burn the books of their own heritage? To the Arab Muslim invaders, this was seen in a different light differing from Quranic law. Also a lot of Persian and Iraqi works have also been destroyed by Muslims.

 

Because this particular one is not a theory - it is a myth propagated three hundred years after the supposed event by a fanatical, lying bigot with ulterior political motives. And just because "there are people who believe in it "does not mean it should be taken seriously.

 

Your lying biggot, happens to be a bunch of Egyptian intellectuals. Again, you are assuming a biased postion in this matter.

 

Caesar's theory has a better case of not being in this discussion then the Muslims. He burnt his ships in an effort to destroy the Ptolemaic fleet. The fire spread to the harbor, and burnt a part of the library.

 

BTW, a crew of Polish and Egyptian archeologists are trying to find out the cause so we should find out in time.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Gentlemen, we are all incorrect for we made too much assumptions without considering other details/circumstances. So did the Muslims actually burn the Great Library or was it a different part/library? Who knows? Was it really the Christians or was it the Jews or was it the pagans themselves? Who knows?

 

So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? Unfortunately most of the writers from Plutarch (who apparently blamed Caesar) to Edward Gibbons (a staunch atheist or deist who liked very much to blame Christians and blamed Theophilus) to Bishop Gregory (who was particularly anti-Moslem, blamed Omar) all had an axe to grind and consequently must be seen as biased. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in destroying some part of the Library's holdings. The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000 scrolls for the Library long after Julius Caesar is accused of burning it.

 

It is also quite likely that even if the Museum was destroyed with the main library the outlying "daughter" library at the Temple of Serapis continued on. Many writers seem to equate the Library of Alexandria with the Library of Serapis although technically they were in two different parts of the city.

 

The real tragedy of course is not the uncertainty of knowing who to blame for the Library's destruction but that so much of ancient history, literature and learning was lost forever.

 

Link to article

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

I agree the Christians could have a motive, but it would not to be to burn the library and all its contents. Many Christians works and poems were held in the library itself. Also, how dumb would the Christians be to burn the books of their own heritage?

You're talking as if Christianity was some monolithic organization with absolutely no divergence of opinion within it's ranks. Different sects of Christianity hated each other as much as they hated infidels, and the Library at Alexandria did contain works that were considered heretical by the prevailing Church establishment. So yes, the y would have had a very good reason to get rid of these works. Again, your argument holds no water.

Also a lot of Persian and Iraqi works have also been destroyed by Muslims.

That is besides point. We're talking about Alexandria, Egypt, here, not about Persia or Iraq

Your lying biggot, happens to be a bunch of Egyptian intellectuals. Again, you are assuming a biased postion in this matter.

No, I was referring to the Patriarch Hebraeus, otherwise known as Abu'l Faraj. I was referring to one person, not "a bunch". So you're saying Egyptian intellectuals cannot be bigoted and cannot lie?

BTW, a crew of Polish and Egyptian archeologists are trying to find out the cause so we should find out in time.

Yes, that'll be the day

Until then, let me kick back on my couch with a good history book and wait till the cows come home

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Uh Gladius, I think you've mixed up your responses with your quotes.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Uh Gladius, I think you've mixed up your responses with your quotes.

Yeah I know Flavius. That's what happens when you try to respond to a post and deal with two sick, cranky kids in your lap!

[Caesar CXXXVII]

And how fitting that Caesar and the Christians--who together more than anyone made way for the collapse of classical civilization--should have destroyed the Library as well. That it was an "accident" in both cases is even worse: the bastards didn't even know what they were doing.

 

 

So , Let say that the destroyers of classical civilization = 100 %.

"Caesar and the Christians who together more than anyone" = more than 50% a least ! Let say some 75%

If so , the Christians = 37.5% and Caesar = 37.5%

Now , in order to know what those 37.5% means , MPC must give us an estimation about "the collapse of classical civilization" , How much was destroyed ? when ? for how long ? Did the Chinese were a "classical civilization" and if they did , how Caesar and the christians "made way for their collapse" . And on

You know , science... Notions...estimations...numbers...accusations...We must know !

 

Now I suppose you did not call Caesar and the christians bastards Literally (didn't you?) but as a word of disgrace , but why if they "didn't even know what they were doing" ? Do you call a baby who rip (sp) a book , a bastard ?

[Rameses the Great]

FVC, put it best we just don't know. I'll let it go on that note.

[Kosmo]

We don't know much about how it was this library, what was for and what was inside, but some things are clear. During the late period of Ptolemies it was less important. During Roman times it also lost prestige and probably dwindelled toghether with the Museion. Certainly after III Century AD it was hit as all roman world. For sure this library was expansive to guard, repair buildings and books, pay for staff, reasearch and copy of fragile papiry. After the great crisis and the rise of christianty it's obvious that was less interest in culture and old monuments than in defences of the empire. Many books were not intersting for the people of the V century but interested those who made the library.

We call it antiquity as a whole, but between Alexander and Omar it was almost a 1.000 years. Many things could and did happen to some books in this huge span of time.

[Gracchi]

A great waste , thats for sure, christian /muslim mob, both as bad as each other, in concerning knowledge that didnt/does fit there view of things.