Moslems II

[Gaius Octavius]

There is a Mozarabic Rite in the Roman Catholic Church. I don't know if it is practiced today, but it still exists.

[Gaius Octavius]

A nice description of the process of conversion here at subchapter 4

http://libro.uca.edu/ics/emspain.htm

Local factors influenced the speed of the process.

 

This site delves into a number of areas that are discussed in Our Forum, such as the After the Fall threads. A good free read.

 

Thanks Kosmo.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave

The "Enclyclopaedia of Military History" by Col. Trevor Dupuy states that the Byzantines suffered approximately 200,000 fatal casualties in the war with Persia. I don't remember what source he quotes but I have read his other books and he is usually pretty reliable as a historian. If that figure is true, then it certainly explains the attenuated state of Byzantium in it's war with the Arabs. I have no idea about Persian casualties though.

Apart from what Decimus Caesar mentioned above, one cannot forget the role played by the physical toughness of the Arab warriors, born and bred in a desert environment. It's important to remember that wars are ultimately won and lost by people and their good and bad qualities.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Another question. Were the Christian populations converted or displaced by the Arabs? If displaced, where did they go? Something tells me that a different answer will apply to different areas.

 

I believe the majority were either forced to convert or pay very heavy taxes or lest be killed depending on the mood of the Arabs. However, large pockets of Christians sucessfully resisted Muslim advance, e.g. Maronite Christians, Coptic Christians, Syrian Catholic church, Cappadocian Christians...etc[Note the names are kinda modern]

Edited February 15, 2007 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Rameses the Great]

However, large pockets of Christians sucessfully resisted Muslim advance, e.g. Maronite Christians, Coptic Christians, Syrian Catholic church, Cappadocian Christians...etc[Note the names are kinda modern]

 

They didn't resist or anything. Many refused to fight, such as the Copts, layed a welcome mat for the Arabs and were under their rule. Syrians were the same way, Maronites resisted because they had intelligence and will.

 

Now that my fury is out, Christians were valuable and many Muslim conquerors could not touch Christian aristocrats. For example, the reason why the Greek Orthodox Church in Alexandria survived so well, was becuase the Muslims could not kill them.

 

For example, my ancestors likely payed themselves out of trouble. Some had to relocate to Upper Egypt, where the Arabs could not figure out the Nubian style of fighting.

 

Now tolerance for Christians were in direct correlation with the emperor or regime that was in power. For instance, the Fatimids enjoyed great wealth incorporating Christians into their government living peacefully.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Another question. Were the Christian populations converted or displaced by the Arabs? If displaced, where did they go? Something tells me that a different answer will apply to different areas.

 

I believe the majority were either forced to convert or pay very heavy taxes or lest be killed depending on the mood of the Arabs. However, large pockets of Christians sucessfully resisted Muslim advance, e.g. Maronite Christians, Coptic Christians, Syrian Catholic church, Cappadocian Christians...etc[Note the names are kinda modern]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Pockets of Christians successfully resisted conversion to Islam, which is not the same thing as "resisting the Muslim advance". AFAIK these above mentioned groups did retain their religion and culture in a largely Islamic environment, but they had to cede political power to the Muslims nevertheless.

Regarding the "very heavy taxes"- do you have a ball park figure of how much they were taxed? As Ursus pointed out, it was far less than what the Byzantines were taxing them already.

[Gaius Octavius]

I believe that in the Balkans, there was a 5% additional tax. To what this was applied and how I don't know.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

I believe that in the Balkans, there was a 5% additional tax. To what this was applied and how I don't know.

The basic tax levied on non-Muslim subjects consisted of two parts, the jizya or poll-tax, and kharaj or land-tax. The 5% must have been in addition to that.

[Gaius Octavius]

I believe that in the Balkans, there was a 5% additional tax. To what this was applied and how I don't know.

The basic tax levied on non-Muslim subjects consisted of two parts, the jizya or poll-tax, and kharaj or land-tax. The 5% must have been in addition to that.

 

Good reason to switch as the Bosnians and Albanians did.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Yes. Ottoman rule in the Balkans was certainly brutal and autocratic. The Turks were often capable of fiendish cruelty. But I think it would be a mistake to single them out for that. I don't think Europeans had a better track record for humanity and clemency and their treatment of minorities has been no better. Just look at Vlad the Impaler and his colourful career. His defeat and death at the hands of the Turks is still celebrated to this day by his own countrymen. That should tell you something. The unbelievably cruel suppression of the Cathar heresy in France is another example. And as for the Auto da Fe and it's treatment of Protestants, Jews, Muslims and other "heretics", let's not even get into that

[Kosmo]

Vlad was no daisy, but he was not defeated by ottomans or killed by them. After spending a lot of time in a hungarian prison he became again ruler of Valahia and was killed after just a month by a boiar conspiracy.

And he was made somthing of a national hero by the right. Romania's most influential poet, Eminescu, considered him as a just ruler that ruthesly restored the law (probably because the gold cup at the fountain story and the use of boiars for the building of the mountain castle of Poienari) in his school book poem "the III Letter" and comunist nationalist propaganda glorified his fight for independence and against boiar traitors.

So, there is no celebration against Vlad in Romania, but lots of tourist souvenirs with him.

 

Ottomans were violent, but so was everybody. For example at the 1396 crusade crusaders looted and killed orthodox schismatics on the way in Serbia and Bulgaria and killed surendered ottoman prisoners from Vidin. That's why serbians fought for the ottomans and their intervention was decisive in the Nicopole battle and why Baiazid killed most captured prisoners.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Actually the accounts of Vlad's death are not consistent. I was just going by the more popular version -

"There are several variants of Vlad III the Impaler's death. Some sources say he was killed in battle against the Ottoman near Bucharest in December of 1476. Others say he was assassinated by disloyal Wallachian boyars just as he was about to sweep the Turks from the field or during a hunt. Other accounts have Vlad falling in defeat, surrounded by the bodies of his loyal Moldavian bodyguards (the troops loaned by Prince Stephen remained with Vlad after Stephen B

[Gaius Octavius]

Back to Romans & Moslems. And, please, no more tests. If you know the answer, don't try to embarrass a member. Thanks.