5 ms·

Many of Asia's greatest cities were destroyed in the space of about 50 years: Constantinople in 1206 (almost Asian!), Beijing in 1215, Samarkand in 1220, Baghda

by jvm 11y ago

Many of Asia's greatest cities were destroyed in the space of about 50 years: Constantinople in 1206 (almost Asian!), Beijing in 1215, Samarkand in 1220, Baghdad 1258. History might have looked very different if these cities had been saved. For example, it's likely that much of the scholarship of western antiquity was lost in the closely spaced sacks of Constantinople and Baghdad. The Mongol destruction was particularly thorough in their destruction of scholarship: "The books from Baghdad’s libraries were thrown into the Tigris River in such quantities that the river ran black with the ink from the books."[1] [1] http://lostislamichistory.com/mongols/ http://lostislamichistory.com/mongols/

winter_blue 11y ago
> The Mongol destruction was particularly thorough in their destruction of scholarship Why did the Mongols hate books so much? Central Asian Turkic invaders (related to the Mongols) were also responsible for burning down one of India largest libraries (at Nalanda). I don't understand why certain groups of people would be so bent on destruction. Destruction of life, property, art, culture, scholarship, literature, etc. It is very sad.
- 100timesthis 11y ago
  This is just my hypothesis, but I think it's for "brand". They didn't destroyed only books but basically everything, because of this many cities surrendered without even trying to fight back. In that case your civilization was preserved. That's why the mongols were able to conquer so much so quickly, fear build on these horrible actions.
- swombat 11y ago
  Having listened to some history (some who don't like him would say pseudo-history) lectures by Dan Carlin on the whole Mongol thing, my takeaway was that the reason for all the murder is the classic dehumanisation approach. Mongols did not consider the people they conquered to be far above cattle. When they took over cities they staged systematic executions where they would literally corral a hundred thousand people together, and have a thousand of their soldiers armed with axes be told "go collect 100 right ears to prove that you've killed your quota of people". As far as I can tell the way to get humans to do that to other humans seems, throughout history, to be to convince the murderers that the people they're killing aren't really human, they're just some sort of weaker other-species.
ddebernardy 11y ago
Maybe... But by then, the Reconquista was already well under way, Europe was sponging what remained of the Muslim world's technological advances through Spain and Sicily (they did science and tech long before art), Byzantium was basically decadent and oblivious to the fact that the Roman Empire was no longer relevant, and Eastern societal values were entrenched. Plus, geographical context arguably played in Europe's favor for the latter: cut some trees and start planting likely yields more individualistic and competitive values (small kingsoms) than flood plains that require intense cooperation and submission to the greater good of society (large empires).
nickik 11y ago
I think this is way overblown. The reality is that by 1258 Baghdad has lost its power and was replaced as the center of islam by cairo. The mongols put in place the Ilkhanate and sientific and cultural work flurished for a time. In Islamic memory the sack of Bagdad is legendary and it has been put as the explenation for the decline of islamic civilisation. I would be very hesetant of using "lostislamichistory" as a source. Some of the same arguments could be made for china and the romans (eastern).
benten10 11y ago
Sorry, the 'Destruction of Baghdad destroyed the learning' is categorically false. If you will look at history, Islamic scholars kept churning out knowledge quite a bit after the destruction, and in terms of academic achievements, it doesn't seem to have had a LOT of interruption. My history professor explained it this way: If Cambridge/Boston MA area were to disappear tomorrow, we would most definitely lose a LOT in terms of knowledge and research. It would however not be a beginning of a dark age. I have been led to believe that modern historians mostly agree that the traditional interpretation of the sacking of Baghdad as being the ending of the Islamic Enlightenment is mostly overblown.

by jvm 11y ago

winter_blue 11y ago

> The Mongol destruction was particularly thorough in their destruction of scholarship Why did the Mongols hate books so much? Central Asian Turkic invaders (related to the Mongols) were also responsible for burning down one of India largest libraries (at Nalanda). I don't understand why certain groups of people would be so bent on destruction. Destruction of life, property, art, culture, scholarship, literature, etc. It is very sad.

100timesthis 11y ago
This is just my hypothesis, but I think it's for "brand". They didn't destroyed only books but basically everything, because of this many cities surrendered without even trying to fight back. In that case your civilization was preserved. That's why the mongols were able to conquer so much so quickly, fear build on these horrible actions.
swombat 11y ago
Having listened to some history (some who don't like him would say pseudo-history) lectures by Dan Carlin on the whole Mongol thing, my takeaway was that the reason for all the murder is the classic dehumanisation approach. Mongols did not consider the people they conquered to be far above cattle. When they took over cities they staged systematic executions where they would literally corral a hundred thousand people together, and have a thousand of their soldiers armed with axes be told "go collect 100 right ears to prove that you've killed your quota of people". As far as I can tell the way to get humans to do that to other humans seems, throughout history, to be to convince the murderers that the people they're killing aren't really human, they're just some sort of weaker other-species.

ddebernardy 11y ago

Maybe... But by then, the Reconquista was already well under way, Europe was sponging what remained of the Muslim world's technological advances through Spain and Sicily (they did science and tech long before art), Byzantium was basically decadent and oblivious to the fact that the Roman Empire was no longer relevant, and Eastern societal values were entrenched. Plus, geographical context arguably played in Europe's favor for the latter: cut some trees and start planting likely yields more individualistic and competitive values (small kingsoms) than flood plains that require intense cooperation and submission to the greater good of society (large empires).

nickik 11y ago

I think this is way overblown. The reality is that by 1258 Baghdad has lost its power and was replaced as the center of islam by cairo. The mongols put in place the Ilkhanate and sientific and cultural work flurished for a time. In Islamic memory the sack of Bagdad is legendary and it has been put as the explenation for the decline of islamic civilisation. I would be very hesetant of using "lostislamichistory" as a source. Some of the same arguments could be made for china and the romans (eastern).

benten10 11y ago

Sorry, the 'Destruction of Baghdad destroyed the learning' is categorically false. If you will look at history, Islamic scholars kept churning out knowledge quite a bit after the destruction, and in terms of academic achievements, it doesn't seem to have had a LOT of interruption. My history professor explained it this way: If Cambridge/Boston MA area were to disappear tomorrow, we would most definitely lose a LOT in terms of knowledge and research. It would however not be a beginning of a dark age. I have been led to believe that modern historians mostly agree that the traditional interpretation of the sacking of Baghdad as being the ending of the Islamic Enlightenment is mostly overblown.