Print Page | Close Window

Sassanids vs Arabs

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Post-Classical Middle East
Forum Description: SW Asia, the Middle East and Islamic civilizations from 600s - 1900 AD
Moderators: Sparten, Azimuth, es_bih
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=15048
Printed Date: 23-Oct-2019 at 17:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Sassanids vs Arabs
Posted By: Hellios
Subject: Sassanids vs Arabs
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 04:36

Hi,

 

In a recent discussion about how & why the Arabs conquered the Sassanids, somebody made a comment to me that I would like to verify.  Below you can see the person quoting me followed by his reply.  Is his reply is true?  Thanks.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellios http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?p=53386#post53386 - - - - - - - - thx haj. i was just trying to figure out if the arabs felt that if they didn't conquer the sassanids the sassanids would eradicate them. thx again.


His reply: "No because you have to realize something, the arabs had nothing to even be conquered. look at alexander's empire, look at any empire of those times, they conquered all territory, skipping over arab land, which was modern day saudi arabia. because other than sand and a few animals and some bedouin tribes there was absolutely nothing there, not a building not a thing to be seen. thats why Islam was important for those Arab tribes, Islam provided an excuse for them to unite under one banner."




Replies:
Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 05:34
The first part of his response is true, The arabian peninsula inclueded only sand and a few nomadic tribes. I add to this the superstitution of the people at this time has avoided them to go to the deserts.
 
"thats why Islam was important for those Arab tribes, Islam provided an excuse for them to unite under one banner."
 
well, by this part i must say this is his own opinion. Islam has united all arabic tribes, but with sword and violence. Specially jewish tribe must suffer under the new religion, they were converted with violence.


Posted By: Darigh
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 05:38
na, Jews like Bani Nazir tribe in Madine & other one has been beheaded by Mohammad

-------------
ei darigh az Irane man ke viran shavad


Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 07:47

If you look at the facts, there was no happy convert, islam or get your head chopped.



Posted By: ok ge
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 11:39
Originally posted by Maziar Maziar wrote:

Specially jewish tribe must suffer under the new religion, they were converted with violence.
I think you overstepped the fact that with this "new religion", those Jewish tribes that "suffered" where the one that betrayed the treaty with the "Prophet" and co-operated with the invading Arab tribes. The jewish tribes of Yemen did not face any prosecution and they continued to live peacefully for over 1400 years and till now.  The "Prophet" died and his armor was mortgaged to a Jew of the Madinah, so I'm not sure how did he escape the so-claimed force conversion of Jewish tribes. You also again stress on one historically debated incident to built a concolusion that this "new religion" means a new era of prosecution, where actually it is the total opposite to the biased conclusion presented here. Refer back to Moorish Spain, Jews of Morocco and Syria, Jewish exodus from Europe to the Ottoman controlled areas and finally Jews of the Balkan, and compare them to the ill-treatment they received else where. Afterall, the biggest massacre of Jews in the history was not far from what you live in now Maziar.
 
Originally posted by LilLou LilLou wrote:

If you look at the facts, there was no happy convert, islam or get your head chopped.
Present those facts that you claim to have, to support this absurd statement of yours that "No happy convert" in Islam. After all, this is a history section of the forum, not a fiction one.


-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 13:32
In the q'uran, it says for all unbelievers(non-muslim) to be slaughtered wherever they could be found, many people instead of getting killed decided to convert to save their lives when the arabs took over the sassanids.


Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 17:37
Originally posted by ok ge ok ge wrote:

Originally posted by Maziar Maziar wrote:

Specially jewish tribe must suffer under the new religion, they were converted with violence.
I think you overstepped the fact that with this "new religion", those Jewish tribes that "suffered" where the one that betrayed the treaty with the "Prophet" and co-operated with the invading Arab tribes. The jewish tribes of Yemen did not face any prosecution and they continued to live peacefully for over 1400 years and till now.  The "Prophet" died and his armor was mortgaged to a Jew of the Madinah, so I'm not sure how did he escape the so-claimed force conversion of Jewish tribes. You also again stress on one historically debated incident to built a concolusion that this "new religion" means a new era of prosecution, where actually it is the total opposite to the biased conclusion presented here. Refer back to Moorish Spain, Jews of Morocco and Syria, Jewish exodus from Europe to the Ottoman controlled areas and finally Jews of the Balkan, and compare them to the ill-treatment they received else where. Afterall, the biggest massacre of Jews in the history was not far from what you live in now Maziar. 
 
It is not difficult to prevaricate the history or to give the false color to historical facts. No, difficult is to accept the truth. What can i say, if i read about rudeness of muslims to jews, from the very first years of Isalm until now? How can i close my eyes (and my mind) to the historical facts about slaughtering jews by the hands of Muslims? for sure they were not as horrible as the Houlocaust, but butchering is butchering.
 
We have discused this many times befor, didn't we? Neither you can convince me nor i you, so what to do now? lets each of us believe in what we like to believe.


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 17:38
Oh does it now, you wouldn't have any sources to back up these ridiculous accusations would you.......
 
Arabs did not simply run around with big swords chopping off everybodies head, you have no understanding and knowledge about this period, this is a "history" forum not any Tom, Dick and Harry's place to invent biggoted porky pies.
 
At that period the poor were oppressed, Blacks didn't have a great time, Woman were material objects, there was huge social inequalities and no notion of juctice and human rights as we have come to expect as the norm today.
 
Islam for most of the average population was LIBERATION. Bilal a Black African was treated as an equal, freed and had a powerfull position. Infact many Black Africans had ihgh positions because positions were given on merit not on social statuses solely. The poor peoples rights were  protected, they were also financially protected from usury and extortionists. Woman were given rights and in the early years led prayers, were leaders, Clerics and so on. There were so many positiveaspects which are merely ignored.
 
Albanians, Bosnians, Turks, Malaysians, Indonesians, Berber-Magreb North Africans, Black Africans were NOT converted to Islam by any sword!!!
 
Jews enjoyed Golden Ages with Islamic civillisation, look at theearly Caliphs, Al-Andalus, the Ottomans, infact Jews and Muslims hardly had any problems till the era of WW1.
 
This anti-Arab racism and biggotry is getting to disgusting epidemeic proportions I'm just sick of it, everyone thinks they can get a word in and join the Caravan in attacking Arabs. Arabs were and ARE a great nation, this biggotry and ignorance about Arabs and stereotyping them all as bad is awfull.
 


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: ok ge
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 01:21
Originally posted by LilLou LilLou wrote:

In the q'uran, it says for all unbelievers(non-muslim) to be slaughtered wherever they could be found, many people instead of getting killed decided to convert to save their lives when the arabs took over the sassanids.
 
Ah, so you understood the verse better than most Muslim scholars. I wonder why they failed to slaughter the non-believers when they invaded the Sassanids. Oh by the way, maybe you can tell us why do we have Zoroastrains till now in Iran? or Why do we have Christians till now in Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon? Egypt took hundred of years before Muslim population passed it to the majority. I guess they are good at hiding.
Please read the Muslim scholars interpretation of your verse instead of Jihadwatch.com and second hand processed information.
 
Originally posted by Maziar Maziar wrote:

What can i say, if i read about rudeness of muslims to jews, from the very first years of Isalm until now?
 
You over-stepped AGAIN my question. I mentioned to you Jews of Yemen who came under the Muslim domain during the life of the prophet. Why did he retaliate against the Jewish tribes of Madinah but not the one in Yemen? 
Also, you say the rudeness of Muslims to jews from "the very first years of Islam till now", then it must be a consistent rudeness. Which I again ask you to show a proof of this consistent behavior as you claim in HISTORICAL FACTS.
 
Originally posted by Maziar Maziar wrote:

  for sure they were not as horrible as the Houlocaust, but butchering is butchering.
You again take one debatable incident and shape it as the consistent behavior of Muslims. Butchering is Butchering? For some reason your theory suggest that the Jews were not so smart escaping from a European Butcherer to a Muslim Butcherer.
 
Originally posted by Maziar Maziar wrote:

  We have discused this many times befor, didn't we? Neither you can convince me nor i you, so what to do now? lets each of us believe in what we like to believe.
I am not here to change people minds. Im here just like any other member, to enjoy discussing real history and to oppose exaggerated claims and statements  of those who think they can lay those statements without any scrutiny.


-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: ok ge
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 01:26
By the way, Hellois had a question regarding the Sassanid invasion. I actually can locate the first post that deviated the discussion away from the original question. If you would like to have a thread regarding atrocities in Islam of Jews and Quranic verses, then you can locate where this thread would fit properly. Definitely not under here.

-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 12:09
Originally posted by ok ge ok ge wrote:

By the way, Hellois had a question regarding the Sassanid invasion. I actually can locate the first post that deviated the discussion away from the original question. If you would like to have a thread regarding atrocities in Islam of Jews and Quranic verses, then you can locate where this thread would fit properly. Definitely not under here.
 
That's very sad, you quote my post and give me answers, and now you take me away a posibility to answer you back, really sad...
 
But it's ok, you are the moderatore, i won't conteradict.


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 12:19
Maziar, u never seem to get enough of anti-Islamic/Arabic propaganda, which u also call beliefLOL. The sassanians lost get over it.
 
 I think it is important to note that the early period till the caliphate of Ali is termed islamic, there onwards it is mulsim states and polities.
 
As for the original question, Hellios i think it has been kind of answered before in other topics, i would advise a search. I may even look it up and post it here.
 
Also it may help if you make clear as to what y mean by Arabs, is it a reference to the people or the geographical area of Arab  dispersion. Depending on which the answer may be a yes and no one.


-------------
"We didnt land on Israel, Israel landed on us!!"--Palestinian X
http://www.antiwar.com - antiwar.com
http://www.crimesofwar.org - crimesofwar.org


Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 12:52
I am someone who says his critics freely everywhere. And for sure i have the right to critisize islam too. If you want to dissmiss my critics as "anti-islamic" so i am so sorry for you.
How about more objectivity?


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 13:42
Maziar, you of all people can't ask for objectivity, especially when you tenor has been consistantly anti-Islam and anti muslim  throughout the time you have been on this forum. You have a right to your opinions, but don't be surprised when they are challenged. Freedom of speech cuts both ways.
 
The Sassaniads Empire was born in battle and it died in battle. It ruled Arab lands as well. Now we can all admire its achievements and you can very legitamatly bask in reflected glory. But to portray it as some sort of holy land populated by angelic beings is ridculous.
 


-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: ok ge
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 15:39
Maziar, You claimed that Jewish tribes were forced to convert, and I asked you if you can explain then why do we have Jewish Yemani tribes or why at the death of the prophet would his armor be mortgaged to a Jew of Madinah?  You decided to switch claiming that there is consistent "rudness" and "butchering" of Jews by Muslims. I asked you for proof and  again you have chosen to over-step those questions. Does it matter now if you can answer or not?
I politely asked you to open a proper thread that discuss what you want to discuss and not deviate this topic to an anti-Islamic compaign. So you even had the option again to continue your irrelevant criticism in a new thread.  If you had any answers, you would have gladly opened that thread upon my request to provide the answers, but you didn't. Yet to hijack a thread, that is honestly what I see a really sad thing.
 
P.S: If I can hide the stars, I would have done that as I'm not the moderator of this section. Therefore count me as a regular member.


-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 15:51
When did the Arabs actually overthrow the Sassanids? Was it a long drawn out campaign, or a single battle? 


Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 17:28
Originally posted by Adalwolf Adalwolf wrote:

When did the Arabs actually overthrow the Sassanids? Was it a long drawn out campaign, or a single battle? 
 
"The Persians were unprepared for the fury of the Islamic Arabs in the 7th century. The Sassanid dynasty of Persia ended in battle in 636. The Persians did not have a capital with defenses comparable to Constantinople. Muslim conquest of Persia was completed by 651."
 
"The Sassanid dynasty ended when Yazdegerd III lost a 14-year struggle to drive out the early Caliphate (the first of the islamic empires).".
 


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 18:44
Thanks for the information!


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 01:46
Yes I think "His" reply is accurate. The big empires, Sassanids, Romans and Ethiopia avoided the barren peninsular mostly. Staying to the fertile ground around it in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Yeman.
Ethiopia did attack Mecca in 570 to be defeated by the Quraish, and Justinian nearly led the Romans in an attack against the Hijaz. But there really wasn't any reason to conqurer it.

Even the Ottomans didn't bother to control the desert. The only places of signifcance are Mecca and Medina, and before Islam, or to non-muslims, they aren't worth the effort.


-------------
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 02:27
The Hijaz was part of the Roman province of Arabia patrea.


-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: kingofmazanderan
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2006 at 21:19
Ok wait Bulldog you said that Islam made it easier for blacks because they had a hard time during that period.  I know for sure that Muslim arabs constantly made incursians into Africa to take blacks as slaves.  Please tell me how this makes things easier on the black.


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 00:35
Originally posted by Maziar Maziar wrote:

I am someone who says his critics freely everywhere. And for sure i have the right to critisize islam too. If you want to dissmiss my critics as "anti-islamic" so i am so sorry for you.
How about more objectivity?
How about intelligent criticism? The kind that doesnt make others believe you are a dumb idiot? That kind of criticism is appreciated in all cultures.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 00:40
Originally posted by kingofmazanderan kingofmazanderan wrote:

Ok wait Bulldog you said that Islam made it easier for blacks because they had a hard time during that period.  I know for sure that Muslim arabs constantly made incursians into Africa to take blacks as slaves.  Please tell me how this makes things easier on the black.
 
Very simple statement.
 
In my opinion, all Islam is is a Creed based on Monotheism with a guidebook describing how a Muslim has to live his life. Yes many Muslims can use it for good or bad.
 
As far as Africa goes, Islam also made slaves out of Circassians, Turks, Persians, French, Italians, Spaniards, West Africans, East Africans, Central Africans, Berbers, and finally Indians.
 
The only thing you need to realize is the status of the slave, as in, is Slavery in Islam the same thing as slavery in the Modern day Western definition.
 
The Eras of the Mamluke Empire, Ghaznavid Empire, Delhi Sultanate and Ottoman Empire beg to differ.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 17:38
Quote
The only thing you need to realize is the status of the slave, as in, is Slavery in Islam the same thing as slavery in the Modern day Western definition.
 
The Eras of the Mamluke Empire, Ghaznavid Empire, Delhi Sultanate and Ottoman Empire beg to differ.
 
Regardless of cultural background, a slave in the Islamic Middle East was:
 
1. owned
2. subject to beating
3. did not have the same rights as a free man
4. female slaves were raped and impregnated
5. some male slaves were made eunuchs
 
Now as the empires mentioned above, the "military-slave" (i.e. the "mamluke") was the freest of slaves in Islamic societies.  They "slave-master" was essentially the head-of-state (either an amir, a sultan, or a caliph).  The circumstances of their rise to rulership essentially followed the same lines:  namely, a power vaccuum occurred within the state, and the most powerful leader was the "general" of the "slave-army".  He then takes power, and becomes the new ruler.  We note, then, that they were no longer "slaves".   Hence, nothing is really changed when mentioning the names of such empires.  Their rise to rule was purely opportunistic, not the result of benevolence on the behalf of the former rulers. 


Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 01:58
Even it differed in early times of the Hilafet and Abbassid times.

-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 12:29
Not really.  The only real difference was in the frequency of slaves.  Remember, most slaves were the result of captures either by slave traders or by conquest of non-Muslim neighboring states.  As Islam expanded, slaves became more scarce.  The other difference then was where they were coming from.  Africa presented opportunities for slave traders, and to this day, slavery is still practiced there among some Islamic countries against non-Muslim inhabitants.  Because one cannot enslave a Muslim, there is an effort by some Muslims NOT to proselytise natives in order to maintain a steady supply of slaves.  Some still do find their way to Saudi Arabia, although the Saudi government officially banned slavery.  The problem is with the Wahhabis.  They still recognize slavery as Islamic.


Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 14:48
Sure, but still slaves were differed, by area. And I believe early times they had more rights, like at the times of 4 Khalif.
 
Also, late in Abbasid times Turkish Qulams were very famous and they were not really slaves even though they were called so.
 
Thats why I asked.


-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 15:46
Originally posted by Mughaal Mughaal wrote:

Originally posted by Maziar Maziar wrote:

I am someone who says his critics freely everywhere. And for sure i have the right to critisize islam too. If you want to dissmiss my critics as "anti-islamic" so i am so sorry for you.
How about more objectivity?
How about intelligent criticism? The kind that doesnt make others believe you are a dumb idiot? That kind of criticism is appreciated in all cultures.

(The emphasis is mine)

Does the second sentence of your statement reflect the type of "intelligent criticism" you would--as you claim--like to see?

-Akolouthos


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2007 at 22:51
Quote Sure, but still slaves were differed, by area. And I believe early times they had more rights, like at the times of 4 Khalif.
 
Also, late in Abbasid times Turkish Qulams were very famous and they were not really slaves even though they were called so.
 
Thats why I asked.
 
Doubtful.  I remember reading an account of one of the future Rasidum caliphs.  He was beating one of his slaves while Muhammad looked on and laughed.  As for the Qulams, I could not find anything on them.  If they were so privileged, than they were an exception, rather than the rule.  In all regions and in all times, however female slaves were the sexual playthings of their male masters, and some of their children were sold to others.


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 00:24
I would love to see that account of the "Rasidum" Caliph please. Where? When?
 
Definitely, slavery was practiced differently in all areas of the Islamic World: slaves were given previliges under Islam, but the way the muslims practiced it or not practiced it, differed time and place. And sex slavery still exists in Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, UAE, and African Nations.
 
You need to realize the laws regulating slavery in Islam were much better than the laws regulating slavery in the European Empires.
 
Muslim Slave Empires:
Ghaznavid Empire
Dehli Sultanate
Mamluke Empire
Ghourid Kingdom
 
Muslim Empires Using Slaves as a Fighting Force:
Ottoman Empire
Safavid Empire
Sokoto Khilafat
Al Murabitun Empire
Al Muhaddith Empire
Ummayud Khilafat
Abbasid Khilafat


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 00:28
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:



Does the second sentence of your statement reflect the type of "intelligent criticism" you would--as you claim--like to see?

 
It should be realized that when we come to debate about issues, we should do so for the sake of seeking the truth; not for furthering our own agendas.
 
Im all for tolerating ignorant claims, as i would appreciate all others tolerate my own. I am also capable for tolerating arrogant statements, whether intentional or unintentional.
 
What i dislike is stubborness and placing the blame on others when you know you were wrong. Freedom of Criticism doesnt imply you can go about running false statements (when youve been educated) without criticism being placed on your stubborn idiocy.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 00:35
Originally posted by kingofmazanderan kingofmazanderan wrote:

Ok wait Bulldog you said that Islam made it easier for blacks because they had a hard time during that period.  I know for sure that Muslim arabs constantly made incursians into Africa to take blacks as slaves.  Please tell me how this makes things easier on the black.
 
In the sense that, slavery will exist in one form or another (sex slavery exists today). When it does exist, follow these rules that make it easier upon the slave, rather than more abusive rules conjured up by the self/society.
 
There are actually types of Slavery that Islam doesnt agree with, but then again, how many people can follow Islam to begin with (even among Muslims).
 
What you see is people mixing their culture with religion and now you have different methods of praciticng the same religion in all parts and places of the world.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What is slavery? Owning another man as property.
How was it transacted in Africa? One African Kingdom raided a weaker tribe and sold the tribesmen to sellers.
 
What is modern day slavery? Sex Slavery, the buying and selling of children and teenagers (at younger ages) for the carnal pleasures of men/women.
How does it exist? In thirld World nations, pimps approach poor people, give false promises of giving their daughters a better life - poor people sell their children and got a few dollars lasting a couple of months. Daughter is forever entering the world of slavery.


-------------
Mughal e Azam


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 14-Jul-2007 at 01:11
Quote I would love to see that account of the "Rasidum" Caliph please. Where? When?
 
Hadith of Abu Dawud, vol. 2 chapter 597, #1814
 
This was prior to Abu Bakr becoming caliph.
 
Quote Definitely, slavery was practiced differently in all areas of the Islamic World: slaves were given previliges under Islam, but the way the muslims practiced it or not practiced it, differed time and place. And sex slavery still exists in Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, UAE, and African Nations.
 
It is a given that regardless of "privileges" they were still exploited.
 
Quote You need to realize the laws regulating slavery in Islam were much better than the laws regulating slavery in the European Empires.
 
There is no debate that slavery in Islam was relatively better than slavery in the European Empires.  Even some slaves under European masters had "privileges".  However, when it came (or come) to blacks, many of them died in the countries of their masters more than they did among the Europeans, usually due to disease because they were taken out of their environmental context.  Now, regardless of the Islamic regulations, when one human has power over another, the tendency is to exploit them.  The "regulations" set out to keep abuses at a minimum, but human nature will always find ways to circumvent them. 
 
Quote Muslim Slave Empires:
Ghaznavid Empire
Dehli Sultanate
Mamluke Empire
Ghourid Kingdom
 
Again, these were NOT "slave empires".  Once the "slave" has the power, he is NO LONGER a slave.
 
Quote Muslim Empires Using Slaves as a Fighting Force:
Ottoman Empire
Safavid Empire
Sokoto Khilafat
Al Murabitun Empire
Al Muhaddith Empire
Ummayud Khilafat
Abbasid Khilafat
 
These were the most "privileged" of the slaves.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 01:07
Hello to You all
 
Dear Sharrukin you need to chill out a little. I already talked about slaves in another ost so feel free to read it and then comment on it.
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=20082 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=20082
 
As for the Jews Beni Quraidhah, well unfortunatly the rules of war during that period in Human history said that allies who betray treaties are killed, it was done by the Romans, Byzantines, Sassanids, Arabs, Mongols, English, French etc. So though brutal as it was, it was the law then and everyone accepted it. Yes it was a terrible fate and many objected especially that forgivness was preferred but it was done. All those who took part in the rebellion were killed and those who did not were not.
 
Finally for the war with the Byzantines and Sassanid, well they asked for it and got it. The Prophet sent emisseries to the two great ruler and their vassals and they were either humiliated or killed which also during those days was a declaration of war. Even worse, the Persian governer of Yemen, which was under a brutal occupation, was asked to attack muslims which he did not, instead he became muslim and shook of Sassanid authority. Persians have for long humiliated Arabs and ruled them with terror and After the Arabs were victorious in Dhi Qar things were about to change. Early Muslims had far more zeal in the begining to take down the Byzantines because they were far more stronger and war was already being fought before the prophet died.
 
A final note to you and All people writing history here is that remember, we are talking history. many costums that were accepted 100 years ago are now considered war crimes like deliberate bombing of civilian targets. Back in the early 19th century surrender after heroic resistance was considered honourable and the commander was often rewarded even if his country lost the war but now he is court martialled and might get his head chopped off. Back then collective punishment was accepted if the populace was hostile and were active in resistance nowadays it is a war crime. Do not make the mistake of judging 7th century practices no matter how savage they were with a 21st century meter.
 
Thank you
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 09:30
No offense, but there is no excuse for savagery. At the time of prophet Mohammad, Arabs were famous for being savage, but Mohammad came to teach them act civilized and behave properly. Is this one of prophet Mohammad's teaching to slaughter the people who has broken their words? I doubt. I think some Muslim fighters didn't act properly at the first days of Islamic history and gave a bad name to Islam especially Hajaj ibni Yousef who was famous for his savagery.


Posted By: YusakuJon3
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 00:38
One has to consider that at the time when the Arabs began to confront the Sassanid Persians (starting in 611 AD when they won a battle on the deserts of Mesopotamia), the latter were quite weakened due to their centuries-long conflict with the Byzantine Empire.  Soon after the peace treaty was signed to end that war, they were simply too badly beaten to put up a resistance to the Arab armies which invaded their territory.  There was really no chance given for them to make a recovery and build up their defenses in time to deal with the onslaught, and so they fell apart.
 
Were there not an ongoing war with Byzantium, the Sassanids might've been able to more strongly defend their frontier.  Crossing the deserts to get to the Arab heartland was a different matter all together.


-------------
"There you go again!"

-- President Ronald W. Reagan (directed towards reporters at a White House press conference, mid-1980s)


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 01:24
Hello Yusaku
 
I have indicated in an earlier post that saying that the reason for the speed the Arab conquest came about was the weakness of the enemy was a myth especially for the Byzantines. Arabs defeated Sassanids in the famous battle of Dhi-Qar in 609 during the hight of the Sassanids just before they crushed the Byantines in those years and in Iraq. The subsequent raids reached as far as present day Mosul and Sassanids tried and failed. When Arabs were united and started their expansion the only disadvantage of the Sassanids was the civil war. But in all the battles they were far more than Arab forces and when Yazdegerd came the resistance was indeed stif and even successful. Remeber, Mazandran held out for 60 years after the they managed to literally completely annihilate a 20 000 strong army that deeply hurt the Arabs and made them hell bent on crushing them which was done later.
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Maziar
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2007 at 23:15
Originally posted by Mughaal Mughaal wrote:

Originally posted by Maziar Maziar wrote:

I am someone who says his critics freely everywhere. And for sure i have the right to critisize islam too. If you want to dissmiss my critics as "anti-islamic" so i am so sorry for you.
How about more objectivity?
How about intelligent criticism? The kind that doesnt make others believe you are a dumb idiot? That kind of criticism is appreciated in all cultures.


yea, i can see the brilliance of  intelligent criticism in your so called answer.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2007 at 13:55
Originally posted by Mughaal Mughaal wrote:

It should be realized that when we come to debate about issues, we should do so for the sake of seeking the truth; not for furthering our own agendas.


Ideally, yes, but it's a rare achievement when people have a personal stake in the disputed topic. For example, if you are a Muslim yourself, then you do further your own agenda by giving slavery in the Islamic world a favourable comparison with European slavery.

I'll agree that slavery was generally more varied in Islamic cultures than European ones in the post-classical age, but slaves in both cultures did fulfill many of the same functions as well. Black slaves for example were used for hard manual labour on plantations and in mines in the Middle East just like in the American south states, although to a lesser extent as the need for manual workers was greater in the American plantations. Slaves could also be household manservants with a comparatively high living standard in renaissance Italy and early modern Europe, as had been the practice in Islamic regions for centuries and earlier in the Roman Empire.

That being said, the Europeans never came near the Islamic world's use of slaves in nearly every branch of society. As far as I know there was never a European army which relied heavily on slaves, nor were there artist slaves such as musicians or artisan slaves, cook slaves or eunuchs (exempting Byzantium). As a whole paying a labour force was the norm rather than buying it.

From a moral point of view, the Quran's regulation of the slave-master relationship was truly progressive in the 7th century. It urges (though does not command) Muslims to treat their slaves well and considers it a pious act to give them their freedom. In the 19th century however this was no longer as progressive, and the Quran's acceptance of slavery might have contributed to its endurance in the Middle East when most European states had abolished it. Even though certain individual Muslims freed their slaves as an act of piety, no popular emancipataion movements on par with those in Europe and America were to be found, and it was only through pressure from European nations that it was finally abolished in the 20th century.

Btw. we seem to have two parallel threads here.

-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: -ohcrapitsnico-
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2007 at 16:39
Originally posted by LilLou LilLou wrote:

If you look at the facts, there was no happy convert, islam or get your head chopped.

 
Don't speak in absolutes the majority of converts did so peacefully. Look at East Africa, West Africa, Indonesia, the Mongols, etc etc.


-------------
Allahu Akbar


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2007 at 20:34
Originally posted by -ohcrapitsnico- -ohcrapitsnico- wrote:

Don't speak in absolutes the majority of converts did so peacefully. Look at East Africa, West Africa, Indonesia, the Mongols, etc etc.


Absolutely. The Arab conquerors of the 7th century put very little effort into converting the subjugated peoples and the Muslims remained a minority elite in most provinces of the Caliphate well into the times of the Abassids. There were a handful of Muslim potentates in this periods who flirted with religious fanaticism, like Caliph Hakim of the Fatimids (ruled 996-1021), but these may be considered as exceptions to the rule. Caliph Hakim for example was not so much a fanatic as a run of the mill madman. Sure, he had the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem destroyed, a huge affront to the Christians, but he also ordered things like the killing of all dogs in Egypt, a ban on chess and a curious law which commanded people to work at night and sleep during mornings.

-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2007 at 20:46
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Absolutely. The Arab conquerors of the 7th century put very little effort into converting the subjugated peoples and the Muslims remained a minority elite in most provinces of the Caliphate well into the times of the Abassids.
 
Didn't Mohammed and Umar deal rather harshly with the pagan and Jewish Arabs of the peninsula who refused to convert?
 


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2007 at 21:39
That I cannot say, though it wouldn't surprise me, considering the pagan Arabs' treatment of Muhammed and his followers. Even so, it is not a general characteristic of the Arab conquests.

-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2007 at 21:44
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

That I cannot say, though it wouldn't surprise me, considering the pagan Arabs' treatment of Muhammed and his followers. Even so, it is not a general characteristic of the Arab conquests.
 
What exactly did the pagan Arabs do that made them into the aggressors and Muhammed and his followers into passive reactors?
 


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2007 at 22:06
They persecuted and killed Muslims because they feared the new religion.  It was not until after this persecution that one of the most grossly misrepresented revelations (in recent times, by both muslim and anti-muslim extremists) came to Muhammad - where god allegedly granted Muslims the right to self defence - "kill them where ever you find them [unless they convert]".  Extremists take this out of context and apply it universally to all non-Muslims when in fact it only refers to the meccan pagans, over a millenium ago.

-------------


Posted By: ok ge
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2007 at 17:25
As Zagros mentioned, when taking the verse along with the remaining following verses, the context becomes clearer. Here is the complete four verses togather (Yusuf Ali meaning translation):

2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
2:192 But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
2:193 And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.


As highlighted. The condition for stopping the war is the cease of opression, not the conversion of the unbelievers (verse 193, bolded). Otherwise, the fighting will continue till justice is established or for the unbelievers to join the Muslim side (verse 193)


-------------
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.


Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 04:05
"look at alexander's empire, look at any empire of those times, they conquered all territory, skipping over arab land"
 
Alexander made plans to conquer Arabian territory, but died shortly thereafter, ending the furture plan of Arabian conquest.


-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 05:48
I beleive he has already made a recce, and was sailing for Yemen within a few days.

-------------
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 13:02
But amazingly he died despite being a young man, and all of us with an interest in military history were robbed of what would have been an exciting campaign.

-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 03:50
As with the life of Cyrus the Great. There is so much more he could have done with his new empire after the battle against the Massagetae.

-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 07:44
Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

No offense, but there is no excuse for savagery. At the time of prophet Mohammad, Arabs were famous for being savage, but Mohammad came to teach them act civilized and behave properly. Is this one of prophet Mohammad's teaching to slaughter the people who has broken their words? I doubt. I think some Muslim fighters didn't act properly at the first days of Islamic history and gave a bad name to Islam especially Hajaj ibni Yousef who was famous for his savagery.


We had a thread that had been opened discussing Basil II's acts against Bulgarian POWs i.e. the systematic blindings. Most of us agreed that we cannot condemn such acts as evil due to the fact that it was another time and another set of principles. This act had been done by one of the most religious Emperor's of the Age. Mind you that he lived like a monk and had been very pious. This is a cross reference to a similar event in a similar setting and time, and not so far removed from the previous act discussed.

I have attended a "Muslim-Jewish relations" seminar here at UIC a few years back; a rather interesting class, which made the news for its innovating appraoch and topic. We had international scholars such as Azim Nanji attend. One in particular actually discussed the context of the massacre and the constitution of Medina. I am a bit short on time, but if I find the notes or any article corresponding online I will be glad to share.

The massacres were enacted and decided by a Judaic convert. Furthermore, this act was done outside of Islam the faith, and should be discussed and looked at outside that scope and inside a more political and legalistic one.


-------------



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 07:53
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor Byzantine Emperor wrote:

Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

That I cannot say, though it wouldn't surprise me, considering the pagan Arabs' treatment of Muhammed and his followers. Even so, it is not a general characteristic of the Arab conquests.
 
What exactly did the pagan Arabs do that made them into the aggressors and Muhammad and his followers into passive reactors?
 


Well the whole context of the Hijra came out of the oppression and harassment that Muhammad and his followers received at the hands of Meccans. While preaching in the early years he had been abused on a continuous basis from being cursed, shoved, or have objects thrown at him. His followers were abused as well and oppressed. The move to Abyssinia *Ethiopia* under the protection of the kingdom's Christian king came out of attempts to kill off the fledging Muslim community. Islamic reverence for animals, etc... i.e. spiders came out of Islamic parables such as that Muhammad escaped with his life as a Spider spun a web over the cave where he escaped to... misleading his would be assassins... who continued the chase... the context of the parable obviously hints at acts of violence against the Prophet and the community... there were other cases such as assassins sent out against the Prophet in Medina...





-------------



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 07:56
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor Byzantine Emperor wrote:

Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Absolutely. The Arab conquerors of the 7th century put very little effort into converting the subjugated peoples and the Muslims remained a minority elite in most provinces of the Caliphate well into the times of the Abassids.
 
Didn't Mohammed and Umar deal rather harshly with the pagan and Jewish Arabs of the peninsula who refused to convert?
 


No they did not. The Massacre is a singled out incident that is not reflective of general treatment. Upon defeat and a peaceful entrance into Mecca the Meccans were asked to convert, which they did. Christian Arabs who participated in the wars, and remained a powerful non-tribute paying force even in the time of Muawiyah enjoyed much the same treatment as did Muslim Arabs...


-------------



Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 07:58
Originally posted by -ohcrapitsnico- -ohcrapitsnico- wrote:

Originally posted by LilLou LilLou wrote:

If you look at the facts, there was no happy convert, islam or get your head chopped.

 
Don't speak in absolutes the majority of converts did so peacefully. Look at East Africa, West Africa, Indonesia, the Mongols, etc etc.


LiLou by looking at facts I find a multitude of "happy" converts...


-------------



Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 12:37
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

As with the life of Cyrus the Great. There is so much more he could have done with his new empire after the battle against the Massagetae.
 
Yes, that's a good analogy, except of course that Alexander wasn't killed by a woman. LOL


-------------
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2007 at 03:39
Lets get back this thread's main topic
 
Originally posted by Hellios Hellios wrote:

Hi,

 

In a recent discussion about how & why the Arabs conquered the Sassanids, somebody made a comment to me that I would like to verify.  Below you can see the person quoting me followed by his reply.  Is his reply is true?  Thanks.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellios http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?p=53386#post53386 - - - - - - - - thx haj. i was just trying to figure out if the arabs felt that if they didn't conquer the sassanids the sassanids would eradicate them. thx again.


His reply: "No because you have to realize something, the arabs had nothing to even be conquered. look at alexander's empire, look at any empire of those times, they conquered all territory, skipping over arab land, which was modern day saudi arabia. because other than sand and a few animals and some bedouin tribes there was absolutely nothing there, not a building not a thing to be seen. thats why Islam was important for those Arab tribes, Islam provided an excuse for them to unite under one banner."

 
the replay isnt entirely true, that Arabian peninsula was not just "sand and few animals and some bedouin tribes", it has a very strategic location in the middle of the old world, its southern part was and still a fertile land which exported many types of products and was the link between India and the Roman Empire.
 


-------------


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 25-Dec-2007 at 11:50
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa Darius of Parsa wrote:

As with the life of Cyrus the Great. There is so much more he could have done with his new empire after the battle against the Massagetae.
 
Yes, that's a good analogy, except of course that Alexander wasn't killed by a woman. LOL


He was killed by microscopic, single celled beings instead


-------------


Posted By: hani
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 00:52
Originally posted by Hellios Hellios wrote:

Hi,

 

In a recent discussion about how & why the Arabs conquered the Sassanids, somebody made a comment to me that I would like to verify.  Below you can see the person quoting me followed by his reply.  Is his reply is true?  Thanks.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellios http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?p=53386#post53386 - - - - - - - - thx haj. i was just trying to figure out if the arabs felt that if they didn't conquer the sassanids the sassanids would eradicate them. thx again.


His reply: "No because you have to realize something, the arabs had nothing to even be conquered. look at alexander's empire, look at any empire of those times, they conquered all territory, skipping over arab land, which was modern day saudi arabia. because other than sand and a few animals and some bedouin tribes there was absolutely nothing there, not a building not a thing to be seen. thats why Islam was important for those Arab tribes, Islam provided an excuse for them to unite under one banner."

 
 

The reply is absolutely correct. Ancient conquest was done for a reason, usually financial. It was normally nomadic people or poor people attacking the more well off settled people on raids to steal their money and food, and sometimes to got lucky and an entire empire that was already in severe decline fell (i.e. Arab conquest). Other cases usually involved empires conquering areas that could provide additional tax and resources to their empires. The idea was not land grab to create a bigger map. Empty or poor land had not value. Even as late a few centuries ago Ottomans did not conquer Arabia with the exception small coastal areas. There was nothing there to conquer until oil came into the picture late in the 20th century.



Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 15:09
hani again, i would like one of those days you continue arguing your point instead of making one comment and disappear for months, but anyway with your history in racist comments you will be banned if you continued arguing, so far your strategy is good for your survival Wink.
 
so your above post as usual isn't logical,  lets say Arabs lands ( Arabian peninsula and some surroundings) as the replay has nothing to even be conquered and as you said empty or poor land had no value.
 
then Why did the Ethiopians and the Persians conquered Yemen?!
 
as i mentioned earlier Arabian peninsula is not just desert, it has a variety of geographical features plus the location, add to that it was mentioned that more than 2000 years ago Alexander the Great was planning to conquer Arabia.
 
therefore the "replay" is NOT absolutely correct.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: hani
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2007 at 21:50
Originally posted by azimuth azimuth wrote:

hani again, i would like one of those days you continue arguing your point instead of making one comment and disappear for months, but anyway with your history in racist comments you will be banned if you continued arguing, so far your strategy is good for your survival Wink.
 
 
 

Here you go again, lose an argument and out of frustration you try blow people up, amazing how things sometimes resemble the real world. It is because of this destructive behavior of people like you that this forum has been in such a severe decline.

You know what, I make it easy for you and ban myself and join the rest of the people that actually had something to say. Now you can go tell all the 4 people that may read this thread, including yourself, how wonderful the 100000 years of Arabian history has been, and who knows you may actually convince yourself Wink

Best of luck

Hani
 


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2007 at 05:23
lol
 
how pathetic iam thinking that you actually continued the discussion when i saw "hani" in the last replay!!
 
and i cannot ban anybody by myself , we have to discuss it in the mods room and i must present a good reason for that.
 
 
back to the topic, you are the one who gave up discussing and obviously has nothing to say.
 
so sorry to tell you , again you are wrong you did not join the people who had something to say, you joined the people who had nothing to say, and give up any discussion that present solid facts.Broken%20Heart
 
Big%20smile
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 09:25
I remember the battle of al quadish, damn cant spell it correctly, for the first three days, the sassanids were winning till a sand storm hit, making the Persian elephants go ballistic killing most of the Persians at that time. then out of the chaos, the Persian general was beheaded. the sassanids had great armies, amazing technology but on that faithful day, they were defeated by fate.

the romans, we had better fortification, bad ass ones at that, better defenses and better infantry, if I could recall it is only the northern part of Iran that remained unconquered. Mazandaran I think it is called.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 10:22
The elephants were taken on by the Saadi tribe on the third day, they alone lost 500 men and never participated in any conquest after that. they heated their spears and attacked the elephants putting down their eyes. The route happened on the fourth day of battle when lancers attacked the Persians from behind and spearmen took down their cavalry.
 
As for Mazandran and the Daylam in present day Gilan, these people, like the maronites in mount Lebanon, copts in upper Egypt and Armenian, accepted Arab suzernity and paid a yearly tribute to the Caliphs on the condition that arab armies passed their lands and manned outposts, the Mazandranis revoked the treaty when the Arab civil wars started only to be subdued again, and this time for good because Arabs and muslim persians settled in the area, around 715-717.
 
Al-Jassas 


Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 16:05
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The elephants were taken on by the Saadi tribe on the third day, they alone lost 500 men and never participated in any conquest after that. they heated their spears and attacked the elephants putting down their eyes. The route happened on the fourth day of battle when lancers attacked the Persians from behind and spearmen took down their cavalry.
 
As for Mazandran and the Daylam in present day Gilan, these people, like the maronites in mount Lebanon, copts in upper Egypt and Armenian, accepted Arab suzernity and paid a yearly tribute to the Caliphs on the condition that arab armies passed their lands and manned outposts, the Mazandranis revoked the treaty when the Arab civil wars started only to be subdued again, and this time for good because Arabs and muslim persians settled in the area, around 715-717.
 
Al-Jassas 


cool, thanks for clearing it out didnt know that, I heard from a persian friend that there was a convert persian named salam who told them how to beat the elephants and the rout happened when rustam the leader of the persians was killed.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 18:31
Salman al-Farisi was a guid in the conquest of Persia and his help in Iraq was minimal since Iraq was already settled by large numbers of Arabs. He was an old convert and helped negotiate many treaties including the use of some 12 thousand cataphracts in the muslim armies.
 
Al-Jassas 


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 18:38
Originally posted by JUliusAugustus JUliusAugustus wrote:

I remember the battle of al quadish, damn cant spell it correctly, for the first three days, the sassanids were winning till a sand storm hit, making the Persian elephants go ballistic killing most of the Persians at that time. then out of the chaos, the Persian general was beheaded. the sassanids had great armies, amazing technology but on that faithful day, they were defeated by fate.

the romans, we had better fortification, bad ass ones at that, better defenses and better infantry, if I could recall it is only the northern part of Iran that remained unconquered. Mazandaran I think it is called.
 
Actually, I don't know if you're aware but recent archaeological studies from NE Iran have shown Sassanid expertise in fortification to be equal to that of the Romans.  But for some reason this was never applied on the Western frontiers or even the capital cities.
 
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=43991&sectionid=351020105 - http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=43991&sectionid=351020105  


-------------


Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2008 at 19:50
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Actually, I don't know if you're aware but recent archaeological studies from NE Iran have shown Sassanid expertise in fortification to be equal to that of the Romans.  But for some reason this was never applied on the Western frontiers or even the capital cities.
 
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=43991&sectionid=351020105 - http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=43991&sectionid=351020105  
 
The persians built so powerful fortifications in Nisibis that the roman-byzantines impressed and scared built for counter impressive fortifications in Daras 17 km away (one seen the other), not equaling the persian work; Nisibis was used by the sassanians as their unconquering base for attack the empire. Unfortunatelly i haven never seen good studies about this question.


Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 04:22
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Salman al-Farisi was a guid in the conquest of Persia and his help in Iraq was minimal since Iraq was already settled by large numbers of Arabs. He was an old convert and helped negotiate many treaties including the use of some 12 thousand cataphracts in the muslim armies.
 
Al-Jassas 


salman al farsi, is the translation to the name, salman the persian? interesting, Ive read a sufi book with his name in it,  heard he was a persian noble then christian then slave then muslim convert. is this true?


Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 04:24
Originally posted by Ikki Ikki wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Actually, I don't know if you're aware but recent archaeological studies from NE Iran have shown Sassanid expertise in fortification to be equal to that of the Romans.  But for some reason this was never applied on the Western frontiers or even the capital cities.
 
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=43991&sectionid=351020105 - http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=43991&sectionid=351020105  
 
The persians built so powerful fortifications in Nisibis that the roman-byzantines impressed and scared built for counter impressive fortifications in Daras 17 km away (one seen the other), not equaling the persian work; Nisibis was used by the sassanians as their unconquering base for attack the empire. Unfortunatelly i haven never seen good studies about this question.



thanks zagros and ikki, I think they didnt expect an attack from the south, or the east.


Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2008 at 17:42
Originally posted by JUliusAugustus JUliusAugustus wrote:




thanks zagros and ikki, I think they didnt expect an attack from the south, or the east.
 
Don't forget that sassanians sustained a long war with the Hephtalytes, in fact if i remember well one Great King died against they. Althought by the time of the arab invasion sassanians had conquered the eastern lands i think they always put an eye they. But sure, they never expect an attack from their arab allieds. In fact, many people forget that without the support of Ghassanids and Lakhmids, arab allieds and auxiliars of byzantines and sassanians respectivelly, men who knew the inner parts of both empires and who knew perfectly the military capabilities of both empires, the arab conquest was impossible.


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 05:11

The main reason of the fall of the Sassanids is a compound of major and minor reasons, as to which studying only on the islamic sources one may most probably notice that the minor reasons, which actually most of the times were intended to aim at infertilizing of any future full scale resistence (cultural, religious, nationalistic) to the conquered countries now in hands of new sudden empire of the Arabs, but when one studies the lesser sources citing the same events of the early 7th century like chinese for example or a comparative study of the islamic sources gives the idea that the major reasons could be different to what always considered major.

To my opinion the major reasons of the sudden fall of the Sassanids at the hands of the Arabs consisted of primarily the actual geographical position the kingdoms of Iranians which made them always vulnerable to invasions(because of thosands  of miles frontiers in east and west the iranian kingdoms always had to defend against the most formidable forces of the history, this factor without exception led many of dynasties in Iran regardless Iranian, turk, etc. to it's doom or having had the chance, weakend them). The case of the Sassanids actually is good example of this I quote "they born in battle and they died in battle". Conisdering the last years of the Sasanids especially time of Xosrow II we notice an alliance against them betwen Byzantium and the Turkic empire including Khazars (and surrpise that the Arabs always attacked Sasanians and started their migrations eversince but the situation was not quite favourable for them to inflict what they did centuries later to the Iranian lands, so they waited for the adversary they couldnt match normally to get wounded enough) at the beginning of these full scale wars Sasanians seemed to be successful but the total exhaustion of the military forces (defenders) of the kingdom had started dramatically and the heavy taxes day by day to provide cosntant military force  on the people of kingdom, in addition to that the result of the continuous exterior pressure on not only kingdom but iranian culture regions on the populace, just worsened the inner situation for them too ( rather minor reasons comparing to the above-mentioned).

So easy to tell that after losing war to the mighty Byzantine-Turkic alliances and the nominal surrender of the Ctesiphon the capital and the most populated city of those times, to the Byzantine emperor Herakelios, only about a decade to fall suddenly to the pillage of the neighboring Arab tribes ( that resulted in a considerable weakness and destruction of key military sectors as  factual defensive elements of the Iranian civilization inside the kingdom) the Sasanian seemed to be a good prey for an opportunist adversary.

As for the quality of the battles fought between, considering this epidemic tradition of exaggerating and making story of it after battles of both Arabs and Persians many key facts like the quantities are not to be trusted:

- For the early clashes the numbers given by the Arab and Muslim scholars are rather exaggerating and somehow contradicting themsleves, (unfortunately the Arabs knew the cultural policies very well too and they did their best in obliterating as much the old iranian documents whatsoever) an example of this is Al-Masoudi's narration of battle of Al-Qadesiya which estimates the Muslims 88.000 and the Pagans (Iranians) 60.000 contrdicting some other sources like Tabari's.

- At the battle of Nahavand one thing could draw attention of even an easy reader - 1.the DEFENSIVE STANCE of the Iranian army  2. the raw recruits (showing that the military potentials this time did reached the end) - though the number of the Sasanian iranian troops in most of the islamic sources stated about three times larger than muslims'.

So IMHO for the Arabs it was clear that they will gain victory and form the Arabs eyes it was obvious putting down the Sasanids and thus the victories did not actually seemed that miracle to them. Even at the time of the Caliph Abu-Bakr it was obvious as we can see in examples like the letter Muthna sent to the caliph on the ease awaiting the Muslims to conquer huge deal of lands. So I may say this after all the Sasanians never attacked Arabs or ruled their lands (it's clear, lack of interest) and they didnt die in bed but they fell in a full scale battle from every direction fo their kingdom which they defended in vain to their dignity.

"As for Mazandran and the Daylam in present day Gilan, these people, like the maronites in mount Lebanon, copts in upper Egypt and Armenian, accepted Arab suzernity and paid a yearly tribute to the Caliphs on the condition that arab armies passed their lands and manned outposts, the Mazandranis revoked the treaty when the Arab civil wars started only to be subdued again, and this time for good because Arabs and muslim persians settled in the area, around 715-717. "

Tapurestan (Mazandarn) resisted for two centuries with much greater resistence than in Mount Lebanon..heh and Expecially Deylaman never bowed down to the Muslim Arabs and chose the alternative waging war on them even invading them occasionally and the Arabs whose armies at the same time were conquering Spain were still cautious at starting struggles with the Deylamites until the time Deylamites alongside and after the Ziarid movemnet (equal national or expansionist movement) captured city of Baghdad itself..;) I know you know it well my friend as the full detail of what I said can be found in Islamic sources themselves.



Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 06:11
Please don't dig up this rusty thread, or we may have another Persian/Arab confrontation.Wink


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 11:07
Greetings Suren, a rusty thread? yes! But why would be always a confrontation when it comes to discussing critical points of the Iranian history?! I think talking about it is the complete right of anyone especially the Iranians. I respect all the arab nations and I think it is better to regard history professionally than just make it a tool to insult others.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 12:31
Hello to you all
 
First of all, calling the conquest of Persia a piece of cake is actually stupid for several reasons most important of these reasons is the simple fact that the conquest wasn't completed till nearly 10 years after it started, except in Gilan and Mazandran which needed 70 years more but that is a different story. Persians rebelled again and again, whole provinces had to be reconquered two or even three times, Kerman and parts of present day Fars and harsh measures were taken to stop the insurgency, mainly total population transfer and in some cases even enslavement like what happened in Istakhar.
 
Second, about the confusion in numbers, well it is natural, only 4 years after the conquest were the armies of the Caliphate registered into tribal based regiments in the diwan and started to get salaries rather than booty. Plus the confusion in the total number of troops arose from the continous shift of troops between each front. Arab tribes wanted to fight the Byzentines but dreaded the Persian front after the battle of the bridge. Omar had to order troops to be shifted from the Syrian front to the Persian front and vise versa depending on the situation. Khalid was transferred to the Syrian front because of the immense numbers the Byzantines gathered and distributed all over major bases. When Qadisiyah came, Khalid had to send reinforcements to Saad ibn Abi Waqqas on the Persian front and although the Arabs started the battle with 35k they might have ended it with some 50k or more troops. This is why you get conflicting numbers.
 
Third, about the number of Byzantines and the Sassanids, well I see no problem with the 200k men Arab sources mention for several reasons, first these were the total numbers gather by the Byzantines not the total number gathered for one battle. Al-Baladhuri who wrote a special book about the Syrian campaign, and probably the earliest book about the conquests too, mentions nothing about the legendary 250 thousand in Yarmouk mentioned by later books, he says Byzantines had no more than 100k but he does insist that Yarmouk was a total rout for the Byzantines and that no less than half of them were killed, which is reasonable if you know how did the battle actually proceeded. Also when you carefully read history books you will find that arabs were never that much outnumbered, many times they matched or even outnumbered their foes but in major battles they were certainly outnumbered mostly 3:1 or 2:1. The second reason for believing the the Sassanids and Byzantines could muster such numbers is the nature of the war. The very existence of both empires was threatened. If the Byzantines could muster that number and more just two years after their great defeat at the hands of the Persians in a border war, why couldn't they muster it after nearly 10 years of relative peace in a war for their very existence? 
 
As for Mazandran, Gilan and Lebanon, well have you ever heard of Anjar? there is a great Ummyyad palace there in the heart of Lebanon. Lebanon rebelled several times and succeeded only because of the Arab civil wars, When Abdul-Malik stabilised the situation, he entered the mountain and defeated its inhabitants and introduced Arabs settlement in the south, where shia are the majority, and Maronites in the middle. Mount Lebanon would never make trouble again till the crusades. As for Mazandran, well its rulers in the beginning accepted suzernity paying only a nominal tribute. Later they rebelled and succeeded. Because of its thick forests and relative isolation, Arabs ignored it and the long civil wars cancelled the thought of conquest. When the Ummayyads stabilised their rule their eyes were fixed on the richer and more important Transoxania. They planned and executed the conquest of that region and succeeded in 9 consecutive campaigns lead by the brilliant Qutaibah ibn Muslim. However they didn't forget Mazandran and Qutaibah began the conquest that was completed after his murder. The capital then, Gorgan, fell in 716 and bridgeheads on the Caspian were established. Amol fell twice but returned to the rule of the Isbohbodh with the condition of allowing Muslim settlement all over Mazendran. Troops were withrawn to strategic forts deep inside Mazandran but the civil wars and the wars with the Turks during Hisham's rule led to the withdrawal of all troops from Mazandran. Only during the Abbasids did a full and total occupation of Mazandran happen, during Al-Mansur's reign. As for the Daylams, they never rebelled in the first place to be conquered, they were organized in clans with no city or even a big town at all. They lived in small villages and always paid tribute on time. When Mazandran was conquered Muslims began to settle in the Daylam and Gilan. Tax records from the Abbadis era, about 100 years before the Zairids revolted, show that Daylam and Gilan were taxed as full provinces of the Abbasid empire (source: Al-Kharaj by Qudanah ibn Jaafar).
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 22:19

No one called it a piece of cake but yet no one ever call it a miracle and according to many facts the so-called military brilliance of the Arab armies which is at some points considerable was not the main case for the total Arab conquests. (if it was not Arabs to place the last strike on Sasanians the so-called honour would be the Turkics or Khazars or possibly Byzantines) What you say do not says anything about the contradictions of numbers. and in contrary to your saying I put Al-Masoudi's account on the battle of Qadesiyah itself. one can see the tradition of the exaggeration of the hsitorical accounts in all aspects of the arabic historiography or literature ( there's a particular word in Arabic language "Gholov") an example of this one can see in how the narrations of Yemen embassy firstly to the roman court then after the failure to the Persian court, became mythicized perhaps in order to keep it in the oral traditions of the generations to come. ( see Al-Dinouri's "Akhbar al-Taval")

So "Also when you carefully read history books you will find that arabs were never that much outnumbered, many times they matched or even outnumbered their foes but in major battles they were certainly outnumbered mostly 3:1 or 2:1. The second reason for believing the the Sassanids and Byzantines could muster such numbers is the nature of the war. The very existence of both empires was threatened"

the books you say are exactly the islamic arabic sources which themselves are contradicting in some manners. And the exact debate is that whether -in this lack of any rather than islamic pro-arab sources - theArabs actually outnumbered the enemy or it was by any chance vice versa. ( a good subject to study and research for those interested)

Mazandaran was called in those times Tapurestan and the region of Gilan was offtopic as those mountaneous parts of the Alborz mountans were called Deylaman. what you state for tapurestan is somehow authentic but as for Deylam, again accordinbg to the islamic sources they never rebelled against arabs casue the Arabs never managed to conquer them even in time of the peak of their power were unable to subdue them. (in which the easy golds of mainly Ctesiphon and other important resources of Persians and byzantine lands, financed and realized their greed to campaign as far as Hispania and even eastern parts of France) the reason for their failure in Deylam is clear, though numerous and able to pay the cost for continuous campaigns the mountains was not their favourite ground. it si interesting that in todays Mazandaran region of Iran there is mountain, that is believed to be the last stand of the Spahbods of Tapurestan, a harsh mountain that one, the Arabs marked their inability in that location in history, by giving that mountain the name "Khateer" (Arabic. dangerous). So If you still insist that Deylam paid any taxes to Arabs I suggest to open a thread related and focused on this and we start a full scale discussion about it with refrence of  our sources, as I think there's many facts in those islamic histories itself which neglected delibately over times.



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 23:23
What in god's name is with this site, I wrote a long a detailed reply and it got lost in cyberspaceCryCryCryCry.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 03:11

Hello to you all

I will try to make this as short as possible.
 
The very existence of the Sassanids and the Byzantines was threatened by the Arab conquest. The Byzantines holy lands and most profitable provinces were under direct threat so was the empire itself, as it is evident from the early sieges by the Arabs to its capital. same thing goes for the Sassanids. If a country's very existence is threatened it will do what ever it could to save itself, it was evident by the quick response of Heraclius which took him just 2 years to rebuild the Byzantine armies and reconquere the lands lost to the Persians. I think if two years were enough to build an a great army then 10 years of peace and stability is enough for the Byzantines to regain their strength and the Byzantines were no short of allies by the way during the Arab conquests. actually the majority of Arab tribes fought against the Arabs and only after Yarmouk did they change sides. Same thing goes for the Sassanids, the period of civil wars ended with the coming of Yazdgerd III into power before the conquests started. Plus the Sassanid system was based on the powerful regional noble families that controlled most of the Sassanid empire and only joined during major campaigns. It was their failure to support the shah during the last Byzantine war that lead to the defeat and with the Arab conquest came an even bigger danger, the Arabs will not accept anything less than total submission and reduction of their status in society into ordinary citizens. With such threat they resisted and united behind Yazdgerd but to no avail. Even after his defeat at Qadisiyyah and flight they continued to resist and at Nahavand it was an alliance of almost all the Persian nobles and peoples that fought there against the Arabs and their defeat ended all hopes of resistance.
 
As for the exaggeration I think I gave a clear answer above, a 2:1 or 3:1 superiority isn't extraordinary nor gathering 90-120k men for one battle impossible when your major supply bases are just 5 Km aways and there is a village every 5 Km and a big town every 25 Km or so, which was the case for all major battles in the conquests. Arab Armies weren't small either but remember, they were fighting on two and three different fronts at the same time. The contradiction in numbers can be solved by looking at different sources and getting the whole picture and then determining the real numbers by your self. Most 9th century historical sources, Al-Baladhuri, Ibn Khayyat, Al-Waqidi and others give fairly reasonable numbers of both dead and combatants. It was beginning with Al-Tabari in the late 9th and early 10th centuries that real exaggeration started because unlike most of the people above, he didn't use documents and early books, he used chains of narrators most of them were accused of being liers by Hadith scholars but he accepted them none the less.
 
As for the daylams, most sources agree that Daylams after Nahavand accepted peace under several terms, they got autonomy but had to pay a tribute plus jizyah for any Daylamite who whiches to reside among muslim controlled territory. Arabs got the control over all plains and got the rights to control certain roads. After that peace the Daylams did practically nothing and remained divided into small clans and didn't bother Arabs. Later their lands became majority muslim with the settlement of many shias after the Abbasid revolt and the region was officially consolidated and made part of Qazvin province.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 12:34

"I think if two years were enough to build an a great army then 10 years of peace and stability is enough for the Byzantines to regain their strength and the Byzantines were no short of allies by the way during the Arab conquests. actually the majority of Arab tribes fought against the Arabs and only after Yarmouk did they change sides. Same thing goes for the Sassanids, the period of civil wars ended with the coming of Yazdgerd III into power before the conquests started" 

Actually the sources refer even to earlier changing sides of the Arab tribes which were kind of abundant both in Syria and in Iranak (Iraq). And Especially changing sides of the christian Arabs was a significant scene in battle of Yarmuk itself not after it.

 "the Arabs will not accept anything less than total submission and reduction of their status in society into ordinary citizens"

ordinary citizens? I don't think they wanted to incorporate the "Mawalis" into ordinary citizens. (For those inetersted, read the Arab sources which our friend Al Jassas himself cited in his response)

"Even after his defeat at Qadisiyyah and flight they continued to resist and at Nahavand it was an alliance of almost all the Persian nobles and peoples that fought there against the Arabs and their defeat ended all hopes of resistance."

It didnt end any hopes of resistence but rather than putting down the authority over them. Yet about the important eastern provinces except that the probable fact that they weren't in good relation with Sasanians, it is more important to consider that major parts of greater Khorsan could had been still occupied by Turkic Khaghanate from their last confrontations with Sasanians in the eastern frontiers. So it is a good matter to study that it wasn't only only the Arab pressure trying to going inward Iran. As in some years earlier than beginning of Arab conquest there are evidences in sources that Iranians piad off an Arab invasion just to enable themselves to face the more important threat from the turkish Khaghanate in eastern frontiers.

"As for the exaggeration I think I gave a clear answer above, a 2:1 or 3:1 superiority isn't extraordinary nor gathering 90-120k men for one battle impossible when your major supply bases are just 5 Km aways and there is a village every 5 Km and a big town every 25 Km or so, which was the case for all major battles in the conquests. Arab Armies weren't small either but remember, they were fighting on two and three different fronts at the same time"

it is clear, how is that clear? when there are just islamic pro-arabic sources to claim such a thing and like always preaching that the social corruption of Iran by the Sasanids was the main reason of their decline and the troops always outnumbered Arabs at least two times?! yeah I do continue on looking up different sources.

"As for the daylams, most sources agree that Daylams after Nahavand accepted peace under several terms, they got autonomy but had to pay a tribute plus jizyah for any Daylamite who whiches to reside among muslim controlled territory. Arabs got the control over all plains and got the rights to control certain roads. After that peace the Daylams did practically nothing and remained divided into small clans and didn't bother Arabs. Later their lands became majority muslim with the settlement of many shias after the Abbasid revolt and the region was officially consolidated and made part of Qazvin province."

No most sources do not agree that Deylamites accept peace, the source please? after Nahavand the Arabs garrisoned at Ecbatana proceeded toward Ray having heard of a new gathering of resistent army. An army formed by joining of the Deylamites who on lead of their commander "Muta" descended the mountains and the men pf Spahbod of Atarpatekan, the brother of the great commander Rustam Farrokhzad. The battle ensued in Vajrud near Qazvinwas a defeat for the joint army with Muta killed honorably during the battle (like always we have it in arabic sources a huge army of persians, zealot  lesser arabs, dead of the infidel commander of the persians, the godsend honour for arabs). It was that time they took Qazvin and no further than Qazvin into the mountains, even for the negotiations. And the Deylamites DID NOt remain scatterd rather well organized somehow on backing many continuous attempts of different Caliphs to subdue them. And they certainly did bother Arabs again according to arabic sources as they constantly raided and pillaged the cities locate by their mountains, especially Qazvin where Arabs Ghazis feared to go and preferred going to Spain frontier in return, so this fact made famous the name of Qazin in the newly built Arab empire.

The fact that their land welcome some Arab penetrations during the days of decline of Abbasid power was that the Shiite missionary were kind of succesful and some became muslim at free will ( And though during Abbasids they suffered some serious defeats, losing several vital fortresses to Arabs, but they again not completely overthrown in a way to descend the mountain again just to capture then province of "Jebal" from the caliph and Baghdad herself, dethroning the Caliph and succeding his son in place.) But not actually putting an end to it as their motibation for this is doubted to be nationalistic.



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 15:01
Hello asawar
 
Obviously you don't know what the mawali system means do you? Only muslims can be mawalis and mawali status actually a privilege.
 
The early Caliphate insisted that conquests were to be the privilege of the Arabs. Only Arabs served in the armies and only they benifited from the conquered lands. However problems started to rise after much of the conquered lands were consolidated. The great plague of Imwas (عمواس) took the lives of at least 18 thousand troops who were experienced veterans of both the Syrian and Persian campaigns. The total number of dead in the Persian campaign was close to 20k men if not more and the resources of Arab tribes were depleted. Arab tribes that were initially banned from joining the conquests were allowed but even they found it difficult to fill in the ranks. Add to that the existence of tens of thousands of ex troops who were set free after they paid ransom and returned to their homes in Syria and Iraq. The many nobles who were also freed and didn't join the conquests many of them lost their lands and privileges and particularly the cataphracts, or the Asawirah (اساورة) were a problem. Many became muslims to escape enslavement or death and them sitting idle was troublsome. Under the suggestio of Salman Al-Farisi a system was devised. Since Arab armies were organised into tribal regiments the mawali system was introduced by which each tribe will boost its numbers to the required level by incorporating these muslim Persians into their tribal system. The persian and to a lesser extent greek and Armenians who joined the system became allies to those tribes and took the surnames and by time became Arabised. Al-Baladhuri in his book says that the Asawirah became mawalis, or allies, to Bani Tamim after Soussa was taken and they lived in Khuzestan till his days (middle of the 9th century). The Zatt and Siabijah (سيابجة?) also were allies to other Arab tribes. Later many of the Asawirah were moved into Lebanon, Tripoli region, where they were essential in defeating the Jarajimah and the Byzantine invasion in early 8th century. Also Al-Baladhuri mentions nothing about Rayy and Daylams outnumbering the Arabs. He said that Urwah ibn Zaid Al-Khail Al-Tai was sent by the commander in chief of the distric with a 8k strong force as well as other allies to the city. He defeated the Daylams and forced a treaty by which they and the Daylams will pay both Kharaj, land tax worth 20% of the profits, and Jizyah. Rayy then rebelled again and again till they were finally defeated Qarzah ibn Kaab during Uthman's reign. Then he forced them to accept Arab settlment and placed many garrisons in the mountains and forts.
 
As for the Daylams. The Daylams always were rebelling when they feel weakness from the authorities, then Arabs send forced and force them to be tribute and stop bothering them. They pay the tribute for a couple of years then they rebel and so on. These were the Daylmas of the Qazvin-Zanjan region, the other Daylams of Rayy already submitted and didn't make much trouble. After a long peace they rebelled for a long time during the civil wars but when Al-Hajjaj came he massacred them mercilessly and forcefully pascified them. Again peace came for a long time till the Abbasids revolted and with them the daylams who also supported the abbasids. Then the Abbasids sent many expeditions to pascify them and they all succeeded. The Land was fully conquered for good during Al-Mamun's regin by Abu Dalaf and Al-Afshin.
 
You are portraying the Daylams as if they were the 7th and 8th centuries's Russian front but unfortunately this is not true. The largest army ever to go to the land was a 12k strong army and it took them little more than a month to force the Daylams to pay the tribute.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 21:57

"Obviously you don't know what the mawali system means do you? Only muslims can be mawalis and mawali status actually a privilege." Said Al Jassas

Let me ask you the same question: Obviously you don't know what the mawali system means do you?  for the response firstly take a glance at these citations:

"The term gained prominence in the centuries following the Arab Muslims conquests in the 7th century, as many non-Arabs such as Persians, Egyptians, and Turks converted to Islam. These converts were treated as second class citizens by the ruling Arab elite - they continued to pay the tax required of nonbelievers and were excluded from government and the military."

Hourani, Albert. A History of the Arab People . Chapter 1. Mas'udi The Meadows of Gold Trans. and Eds. Paul Lunde and Caroline Stone.

What is the meaning of "Mawla" pl. "Mawali":

In the pre-islamic era it meant a social class, higher than a slave and lower than a freeman. (The history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 4, intrudction, chapter "Mawali in the time of Jaheliya (ignorance)")

-----------------------

Those captives of wars who accepted Islam, were often granted freedon but under the name of Mawla would they remain protege of their first masters and because as for the Islamic law they wouldn't be enslaved, therefore these freed slaves had a particular position between slavery and freedom. The Umayyeds called any non-Arab with this name and sometimes they called them redskins (ahmar) and in the culture of the Arabs every non-Arab is nicknamed ahmar. (the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 4, chapter "Mawali in Islam" )

Pay heed to some privilges the celestial Arabs granted to them (As for the case of Iranians specially to humilate them, cause they long considered Iranians as Imperial people and always took pleasure in doing so) 

...As a result either the "dhmmis" and the new converts to Islam were much oppressed; the Umayyeds treated them like the slaves and called them "Mawali" and they believed them slaves as the saviour of the Mawalis (they savde them from infidelty and converted them to Islam)(the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 2, chapter "the age of the Umayyeds from 41-132 hidjra)

..they (Arabs) never walked in the same line with them and called them "Olooj" (pl. arabic Alaj meaning infidel and ignorance) (the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 2, chapter "the age of the Umayyeds from 41-132 hidjra)

..Hadjaj ibn Yusef ordered to stigmate the Mawalis after their support to the rebellion of the ibn Ashaas.. (the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 2, chapter "the age of the Umayyeds from 41-132 hidjra)

..Mawalis were not allowed to let their daughters marry without the permission of their masters. (the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 4) 

..Mawalis were nevertheless considered lower than Arabs. Yet in the beginning of the Islam they were given the occupations which needed trust, they could study and were paid well in return. But even in those times the notable roles like arbitrage were excluded cause due to the Arabs belief, only the noble and  wellborn people could attain such roles. (the history of the islamic civilization, by Jorji Zeidan, band 4, chapter "Mawali in Islam")

So I suggest the readers to study the islamic sources on "mawali" to check the state of privilege per se



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 23:39

Hello Asawar

What Albert Hourani wrote is  totally false and relying on a sensational journalist (Zaidan) for your history is wrong too. Mawali weren't second class citizens, they had full rights since they were muslims. The guy thinks that the post-Islamic Mawali system is the same as the pre-Islamic one which is totally false. Many Mawali went to become governors. military commanders and high state officials. A huge minority of them were also scholars and judges and here are some names from different periods for your knowledge:

Dinar ibn Dinar, mawla (plr Mawali) and military commander for the Ummayyad clan.

Musa ibn Nusair and his family: The conqueror of North Africa and co-conqueror of Iberia, he was first a military commander, then a politician then commander again as well as military governor on all the lands west of Tunisia. His sons and family were also prominant politicians and military commanders. He was a Mawla for the Ummayyds

Ismael ibn Abi Al-Muhajir: The first conqueror of North Africa and several times governor. Mawla of Bani Makhzoum (from Quraish).
 
Yazid Ibn Abi Muslim: governor and military commander. Mawla for Al-Hajjaj.
 
Abdullah ibn Al-Habbab: Probably a Persian, a governor and mawla of Bani Saloul (from Al-Ansar).
 
Abdullah ibn Darraj: Governor and mayor, mawla for Muawiyah.
 
Salih Ibn Abdurrahman: High civil servant (at one time chief of the kharaj of Iraq, the wealthiest province in the Ummayyad empire), influential in the process of Arabization of the Diwans, Persian and Mawla for Bani Tamim (definitely of Asawirah origin).
 
Khalid ibn Al-Hasafan Al-Farisi: Mayor and governor (Sur or Tyre in Lebanon).
 
Al-Laith ibn Tamim Al-Farisi: Commander of the Ummayyad Syrian fleet.
 
So if all these Mawalis were in such total power, and this is a sample, and they were "second class" citizens, I wonder what will they reach if they were "first class" citizens? By the way all of these are in the "racist" Ummayyd period. Later periods even have more mawalis controlling the government.
 
Please again, read real history books by real historians.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 01:11
I think saying the sources are false on one hand and not giving the reason and the sources you rely on in return on the other hand is a well known aged tradition which in brief is simple act of denial. As for Zaidan's I should say that this as a collection of the most of the available sources on Arab history itself and many arab scholars has considered it a great work ( as it afterall tries to keep the celestial role of Arabs and never tries to judge their long admired evil deeds) . And though it's rather old.
Besides if you read the post you'll notice that it doesn't try to imply that the system was the same before and after arabic conquests.
Actually the examples you given here are also available in that book, that books is a collection of infos extracted from various Arabic sources. But yet a wise reader wouldn't be misled by naming of those examples.

Yeah you know what I'm gonna read all real and vast history books in which you gather all your exquisite infos. 


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 01:53

Hello Asawar

I think I gave ample evidence that what these guys said, particularly Zaidan, was wrong. Mawali were never treated as second class citizen's with no rights and had to pay jizyah like none muslims, it was the masses of ordinary people from conquered lands who were converts but were not included into the system of wala that the grossly exaggerated "second class" citizenship. Also, the shu'ubiyyah movement that came in the early abbasid era and was supported by them contributed to this false sense of victimization for the none Arab muslims and mawali. Remember, most of the historians of the later periods were none Arabs and reading the erroneous accounts of the Ummayyads highlights this fact.

As for Zaidan, please, could you point out who from Arab scholars who consider his work great? He was a writer of cheap historical books filled with false love stories for popular consumption. He was popular because he was the first modern historian but his work was already undermined when other historians, professional historians, like Muhammad Farid Bey, Muhammad Al-Khudari, Muhammad Abu-Hadid, Phillip Hitti and Nikola Ziyadah (all are contemporaries or of a generation after Zaidan).
Albert Hourani is a respectable historian but being respectable and knowledgable doesn't mean you are right and frankly I am not acquainted enough with his work, I only read one book, but he has his thoughts that others differ with.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 02:55
"the early Caliphate insisted that conquests were to be the privilege of the Arabs. Only Arabs served in the armies and only they benifited from the conquered lands. However problems started to rise after much of the conquered lands were consolidated. The great plague of Imwas (عمواس) took the lives of at least 18 thousand troops who were experienced veterans of both the Syrian and Persian campaigns. The total number of dead in the Persian campaign was close to 20k men if not more and the resources of Arab tribes were depleted. Arab tribes that were initially banned from joining the conquests were allowed but even they found it difficult to fill in the ranks. Add to that the existence of tens of thousands of ex troops who were set free after they paid ransom and returned to their homes in Syria and Iraq. The many nobles who were also freed and didn't join the conquests many of them lost their lands and privileges and particularly the cataphracts, or the Asawirah (اساورة) were a problem. Many became muslims to escape enslavement or death and them sitting idle was troublsome. Under the suggestio of Salman Al-Farisi a system was devised. Since Arab armies were organised into tribal regiments the mawali system was introduced by which each tribe will boost its numbers to the required level by incorporating these muslim Persians into their tribal system. The persian and to a lesser extent greek and Armenians who joined the system became allies to those tribes and took the surnames and by time became Arabised. Al-Baladhuri in his book says that the Asawirah became mawalis, or allies, to Bani Tamim after Soussa was taken and they lived in Khuzestan till his days (middle of the 9th century). The Zatt and Siabijah (سيابجة?) also were allies to other Arab tribes. Later many of the Asawirah were moved into Lebanon, Tripoli region, where they were essential in defeating the Jarajimah and the Byzantine invasion in early 8th century"


A good analysis of the accounts of the historical events of the early 7th century at hand shows that the army of Sasanians wouldn't have make it without a notable destruction and losing many veterans. of course the cavalry as the most significant army unit of the Sassanians had suffered the same. So after suffering another defeat at hands of the Arabs taking the losses, much was not left of the Asawara as their mentioning in islamic resources is not much. but that could be true that many like some remainder of Asawaras in fear of their lives joined some Arabic conquests ( there's another story in islamic accounts telling about changing sides of thee Deylamite soldiers in service of Sasanians.)
I may put here that it has long believed that many divisions of Iranian resistence armies changed sides because of the tyranny of the Sassanids. this of course would have given another good justification for the celestial cause of the Arab conquest.

"Al-Baladhuri mentions nothing about Rayy and Daylams outnumbering the Arabs. He said that Urwah ibn Zaid Al-Khail Al-Tai was sent by the commander in chief of the distric with a 8k strong force as well as other allies to the city. He defeated the Daylams and forced a treaty by which they and the Daylams will pay both Kharaj, land tax worth 20% of the profits, and Jizyah. Rayy then rebelled again and again till they were finally defeated Qarzah ibn Kaab during Uthman's reign. Then he forced them to accept Arab settlment and placed many garrisons in the mountains and forts."

Man, do not attempt to make your narration of history!
If he didn't mention (which I'm not sure what you said is right) it doesn't mean his fellow arab historians didn't either.

First of all you got to re-specify for yourself where the region of Deylaman is.
- The cities of Rayy ( Ragae) and Qazvin werent Deylamite cities as they were border cities  of Iranian kingdoms. I wonder how you read the Al-balazhuri's book?!!
Al balazhuri writes that Qazvin before Islam was a Fortress and there garrisoned always an army of Iranians in order to fight the Deylamites in times of war and to deal with bandits in times of peace. (Futuh Albaldan, printed in Egypt, page 329) this narration is also given by Al Masoudi and Ibn Athir.
I think I see the way you read your source again! from your early remarks you were just mistaking Gilan for the whole Deylaman! see guys

Al Balazhuri writes that Urwah ibn Zaid on command of Umar with army of 8.000 Arab heads for Rayy and Dastbi and fights a joint army of people of Rayy and Deylaman. defeats them and kills many of them and after that Urwah himself goes to Medina to take the news of the victory. After that the cities of Rayy and Qazvin were captured. see the Jaziyah and tributes was for the city of Rayy which has nothing to do with Deylaman only to be in it's proximity. ( Futuh Al Baldan, page 325) however Baladhuri's source in this case is not complete comparing to his fellow arab historians as for example Tabari and some other name the battle fought outside the city of Hamadan (Ecbatana) the battle of Vajrud and describes that there were actually another joint army of Spahbod Esfandyar of Atarpatekan, brother of the glorious commander Rostam Farrokhzad.

Al Balazhuri also says that Bara ibn Azeb after capturing Qazvin proceeded to fight Deylamites. he also says that Kathir ibn Shahab in his letter to the caliph Umar informs him of his successes against the Deylamites. He says about Sa'ad ibn abi waqas the governor of Kufa coming to fight Deylamites.
He also writes of Walid ibn Aqaba in time of Uthman who via Qazin attacked the Deylamites, Atarpatekan, Jeylan, Mogan, , Babr and Taleshan then returned.
the same case goes for Saa'id ibn alasi who made Qazvin a garrison town.

he again tells of Rabi' ibn Khathim who in the time caliph Ali with 4.000 Arab headed for Qazvin to fight off Deylamites.


This was Al-Baladhuri's but his accounts including name of the Deylamites is not over here go on and read more.

Actually the accounts give us the estimation of about three centuries of constant fighting with Deylamites without being conquered or paying tribute.

Al Tabari writes of the events of 143 hidjra ( the Umayyeds are no more now): Mansur the caliph was informed of the recent great massacre the Deylamites done of Muslims. The caliph ordered the people of Kufa and Basra to be counted and whosoever has more than 10.000 Drahmas join the war against Deylamites.

Al Balazhuri writes when Harun Al Rashid was heading for Khurasan by the city of Wazvin people of the city yelled about the heavy taxes they were to pay and told him : "we are living at the gates of the enemy and we are continuously at Jihad with them so we prey for reduction of our taxes" Harun accepted and ordered that they shouldn't pay more than 12.000 drahmas annually.

"You are portraying the Daylams as if they were the 7th and 8th centuries' Russian front but unfortunately this is not true. The largest army ever to go to the land was a 12k strong army and it took them little more than a month to force the Daylams to pay the tribute."

 I don't know about your imaginations but i don't think that most people reading history would have such imaginations and comparisons in mind. Besides I never ever in these posts said that they fielded large armies as the fact to my opinion is vice versa, when looking at the histrical accounts that Arabs with army of 8.000 men easily defeated a joint army Rayy, Deylamites and Spahbod of atarpatekan, it is the most probable that one thinks of the fact that Iranians in the time of Arab conquest were badly in short of armies, that even a joint army is not big enough to at least repel an army of 8.000 in on it's soil.
Now one of the books I suggest for those interested in Deylamite resistance against invading Arabs is exactly Al-baladhuri.

 



Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 03:09
I don't see any ample evidence. cause I'm sure by referring again to the islamic sources one mya find the same Zaidan collected in his book. I m not a fan of him as i clearly feel his being pro-arab, the same case is with the post-umayyed historians, who you in a very innovative way, try to say that they wrote against Arabs and somehow in favour of non-Arabs only and only to show they dispresct to Umayyeds and back the Shu'biya. heh
Again if you deny a source you need to give acceptable proofs not by just saying he's wrong!
And the examples you gave exist actually in Zaidan's work. 


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 03:33

Hello Asawar

I both agree and disagree with you on your first point. Yes the Sassanids were a divided empire with powerful regional nobles and people who only fight to seek wealth, but I disagree with you on the issue that this was their doom. This was the Sassanid system. It worked perfectly for hundreds of years and it survived many incidents where the existance of the empire was threatened an it survived. With the Arab invasion it was to be too much for them and the natural course of history came over them. 600+ years later the same thing will happen to the Arab empires with the Mongols and so on. The Asawirah joined because as one of them said after Qadisyyah and this is not an exact quote "they (Sassanids) are dying and we want to survive". Daylamites too joined the system when it was profitable and rebelled when they thought it was profitable like all wild and semi-nomadic tribal peoples of the world (including bedouin Arabs).

As for my quotes from Al-Baladhuri and others, well I have to admitt I didn't go and read the book from cover to cover, I just read the part about the early days of the conquests and the Ummayyad period. Your quotes are authentic obviously, since you quoted the same paragraphs in detail I earlier posted, and I don't find any contradictions or history manufacturing on my part. I said Daylamites paid tribute till they felt some weakness then they rebelled, then armies came an after a couple of years engagements and siege to their mountains peace and so on. The Daylamite "resistance" in the Islamic era was like their "resistance" during the Sassanid era, out of opportunism nothing more nothing less.

Finally about the failure of resistance of the Spahbods and other provincial nobles, well it was a direct result of the failure of the Sassanid system after Qadisyyah and particularly after Nihanwand which is why it was called "Fath Al-Futuh" or roughly "the conquest of conquests". After its collapse every noble was to himself which made it easier for the Arabs to finish the conquest.
 
AL-Jassas


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 12:25

"I both agree and disagree with you on your first point. Yes the Sassanids were a divided empire with powerful regional nobles and people who only fight to seek wealth, but I disagree with you on the issue that this was their doom. This was the Sassanid system. It worked perfectly for hundreds of years and it survived many incidents where the existance of the empire was threatened an it survived. With the Arab invasion it was to be too much for them and the natural course of history came over them. 600+ years later the same thing will happen to the Arab empires with the Mongols and so on. The Asawirah joined because as one of them said after Qadisyyah and this is not an exact quote "they (Sassanids) are dying and we want to survive". Daylamites too joined the system when it was profitable and rebelled when they thought it was profitable like all wild and semi-nomadic tribal peoples of the world (including bedouin Arabs)."

Believe it or not the long-time-believed-via-muslim-sources of Sassanid sudden fall mainly  due to their inner problems, and corrupt government, corrupt religion is not professionally acceptable todays. As for years with addition of chinese annals and sources to Sassanian studies, comparative study of Sassanid military potence through Byzantine sources. And the fact that it was mainly due to Arab Muslim military might and intelligence, and their celestial mission, is now seem ridiculous in professional matters. Yet historical accounts testify the Arabic might and talent in military expeditions and governing an empire by destruction of the other people's culture, and plundering of they resources.

"This was the Sassanid system. It worked perfectly for hundreds of years and it survived many incidents where the existance of the empire was threatened an it survived"

Yes it did but it exhasuted mainly  to external pressures from east and west especially upon it's end. And at last it was seen that all the military brilliance of the Sassanids faded away when great quantities of it's enemies actually wounded it. Arabs for example took a part of their kingdom first -which about ten years ago was captured and it's resistence potentials totally annihilated (the region of Khwarwarn, Iranak or like arabs say Iraq)- their capital Ctesiphon (whose early capture by the Arabs due to it's bad geographical poistion, gave the Arab enough gold to finance for many years many expeditions) was then times just nominally theirs and Arabs actually didn't do much endeavour to take it.

The fall of Sassanids was marked by the various simultaneous blows from Byzantine-Turkic-Khazar alliance, which at that time really aimed to erase the Sassanids once for ever and thus free a vital part of the silk road to Byzantine empire. after that time Sassanids just lingered cause their traditional dignity didn't allowed them to believe that it was over, and actually they were waiting for another blow especially from Byzantine, or Turkic Khaghanate. but actually the two of them were -after striking that successful blow- involved in another series of wars with their neighbour, one of which resulted in the fall of Turkic Khaghante at the hand of the Chinese. 

"With the Arab invasion it was to be too much for them and the natural course of history came over them"

You may go on insisting of this, good luck. vereything happened so far in history was the Natural course of history..hehe The Sassanids actually weren't natural enemy of the Arabs as they helped them many times (see the events of invasion of Arabia by the people of Ethiopia empire) but it should be taken into consideration that Arab invasions of Iran started almost as early as the Sassanids established their kingdom. Actually the opportunist Arabs always took advantage of a single weak point in Iranian world. By the time of the Shapur II the Arab invasion was almost successful and they penetrated into Sassanian heartland (Parsa) pillaging. But by the intervention of a might ruler Shapur II with Sassanian strong army they repelled and punished  Arabs badly (ridiculuous that Arabs after their conquest of Iran did many evil deeds in Parsa region itself, stating taking revenge of those times) See the way they think of the other people guys!

"I said Daylamites paid tribute till they felt some weakness then they rebelled, then armies came an after a couple of years engagements and siege to their mountains peace and so on.."

And I said with reference of some sources NO, you dindt notice that the Jaziya and tributes you said before about Deylam was actually tributes the cityu of Rayy or Dastbi had to pay. And you obviouslywere wrong considering Rayy and Qazvin Daylamite cities. And Urwah ibn Zaid took no tribute from them as the accounts just tell of his victory over the joint army of the Deylamites and Persians in Vajrud after battle of Nahvand.

"The Daylamite "resistance" in the Islamic era was like their "resistance" during the Sassanid era, out of opportunism nothing more nothing less."

That's what I said in my previous post!

"Finally about the failure of resistance of the Spahbods and other provincial nobles"

At first I should make it clear that Deylmaties had no title Spahbod. and their failure was about the fact that many of them in charge of the regions or cities prefered to pay the tribute as they couldn't raise an army who could match the quantity of the Arab armies.

"well it was a direct result of the failure of the Sassanid system after Qadisyyah and particularly after Nihanwand which is why it was called "Fath Al-Futuh" or roughly "the conquest of conquests". After its collapse every noble was to himself which made it easier for the Arabs to finish the conquest."

Yes I agree, as many eastern governors were sometimes actually under control of the Turkics. But you are wrong it was not  the failure of the Sassanid system after Qadisyyah and particularly after Nihanwand as it was the DIRECT result of the final destruction of iranian armies after the universal war of the byzantine-turkics and then the Arab invasiosn against them.

As for battle of Nahavand I say that it's a very good subject to study for the interested. 

- Clear defensive stance of Iranians (which shows the strong probabilty of iranians being more less tha Arabs in conrary to the most islamic sources given numbers) 

- The indication of the raw recruits from almost city of Iran in islamic sources (which shows indirectly the military shortage of the Iranians in terms of good soldiers)

- The clear mythicized scenes of the battle which actually turned into stories later times

- The indication of the fact by Islamic soucres, that Arabs somehow know that once Iranians are out of their defenisve positions, they could win the day.

By the way I noticed you said somewhere Deylamites changed sides. It is in some narration that Deylamite soldiers in service of Sassanids changed sides in battle of Qadesiya NOT the Deylamites as whole!



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 14:51
Hello asawar
 
First I must commend your mastery in this topic so my hat is up for you!
 
Second, the Sassanids were weak, but were not a spent force. The Byzantine wars ended for ever before the Arabs ever even united in the Peninsula (in 628). The Turko-Persian war ended a year later. Seeing that the Turks chose the long way around the Caspian to Attack the Sassanids in the Caucasus I think this is evidence that they were too weak for a direct frontal attack in the Khorasan-Mazandran area. However if they did attack during theIslamic conquests there please correct me because I not well versed in that place's history during that period except from what I read about the conquests. Arab invasions started first in 635 and became at full speed in 636.
 
As for Persians helping Arabs, well it wan't out of charity, it was in their interests, Arab petty kingdoms of Yemen gave them Arabia Felix for free, even a stupid guy knows that this opportunity won't come again. The Petty kingdoms of Yemen were in long struggle with the Northern Arab tribes, Banu Tamim, Bakr Wail, Taghlub etc. and had no problem with the Sassnids who were close and had the might to end the joint Judeo-Ethiopean control on Yemen.
 
Finally about my note on the Daylams, well as I said before, these were free people, like Bedouins, Berbers other nomadic, semi-nomadic  and clan based peoples of the world. They cherished their freedom and only money could insure their loyalty. The Daylams who fought for the Sassanids fought for money not Persian nationalism or freedom from the Arabs (in the political sense). They actually couldn't care less who governed the Iranian plateau. They just wanted money. The defeated Sassanid and their noble allies couldn't afford money but the Arabs could so they joined them. Pure legitimate opportunism.
 
AL-Jassas


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 16:50

"Second, the Sassanids were weak, but were not a spent force"

If they weren't a spent or weakened force by extrenal factors, they would have certainly acted differently facing Arabs. some scholars facing this fact suggested that Sassanid armies during a long time battle with Roman armies, adapted the tactics and warfare, which were aimed to work out confronting the Romans; I don't deny this reason, but I do insist these are all minor causes to what really happened, in brief, lack of troops for defending Iran.

If one reads history of the Sassanian from beginning to end, will observe that this was not the first attpemted Arabic invasion in Iran. As there are accounts that during the Turco-persian wars, Iranians used a rather rational policy and made peace with Byzantines, piad off the invading Arabs and proceeded to face the Turks on the northeastern frontiers. the point is before and after Islam Arabs always tried to launch an Invasion of Iran for sake of plunder. though the fact the Islamic government united Arabian tribes to a greater extent. Yet the stories that Arabs never dared or even dreamed of attacking the land of Kasra is fictional story.

 "The Byzantine wars ended for ever before the Arabs ever even united in the Peninsula (in 628). The Turko-Persian war ended a year later. Seeing that the Turks chose the long way around the Caspian to Attack the Sassanids in the Caucasus I think this is evidence that they were too weak for a direct frontal attack in the Khorasan-Mazandran area"

In 628 emperor Herakelios after siegeing Ctesipon, signed a favorable treaty on his terms with the new king Kavad II son of the former slain king Xosro II. But even after Byzantine departure there's no account of the full departure of the Turkics and Khazars from Iranian lands in north. But yes why did Heraklios signed the treaty in haste and left his allies? it is could be to many causes; Herakelios was afraid of the byzantine frontiers and even was not quite confident of his allies ( Maybe Yabghu-Khan the Turk khan upon the serious defeat of the Sassanids mostly have his own plans for Iran in the future.). The other reason is the same which acted dramat in the turning point of the war from Sassanids to the Alliance, that was "Shahrvaraz" - one of the commanders of the Sassanian armies in victories over Byzantines in Asia minor - who as result of conflicts commited by Xosrau II revolted and did not attend to the rest of the Sassanian wars against the alliance, continuing seprataely with his notable amount of elite troops in Calcedonia. According to Tabari Shahrvaraz upon his enemity with the king until his death was still present on the Roman soil and we should say his presence was one of the reasons of the Herakelios departure to confront him, as again according to Tabari, Shahrvaraz and his men suffered defeat and the Romans pursued and killed them.

But the scene is not over yet, As soon Yabghu khan had to haste to secure his eastern frontiers and left his son "Buri-Shad" in his place. and again in 628 - the year of most of the changes happened against Sasanids as near as their- after return Yabghu Khan attacked gergia and captured and plundered city of Tiblisi. This time we see the Turkic invasion of Aran or Agvanak more inside the Sassanian lands in the book "Tarikh i Aghvanak". Later in 630 they attacked Armenia. in the clashes between Sassanid sent forces of 10.000 men the truks mangaed to eliminate almost all of the Iranian army. But the sources doesn't give account of no Turkish penetartion deep into Khurasan during the wars of the Alliances mostly in the west. ( As the Sassanids surely had already drawn most of their troops from the east to the west) 

So it's not about chosing a long way through Cacausus mountains to be weak! this could have the following reasons:

-They wanted to joing the Byzantines in the siege of Tiblisi.

- Many of the allies of the Turkics were Khazar and Dulu, as for which this way was better.

- No account that the Turks at the same time didn't took advantage of the east.

"However if they did attack during theIslamic conquests there please correct me because I not well versed in that place's history during that period except from what I read about the conquests. Arab invasions started first in 635 and became at full speed in 636"

Now if you note that in 630 there was a serious defeat of the Sassanids at the hand of the Turks in Armenia, it is far from reason that their penetrations and frontier attacks did not last after the year 630 maybe just not documented. And guess what dear reader the Arab invasions already started .In fact there was during the time of Xosro II himself (start of the Byzntine-Turkic Persian wars) a battle fought between a division of Iranian armies and Arabs, in which the division were annihilated ut they didn't take it into account. ( Unfortunately I dont remember the source but i will put it as soon as i remember)

"As for Persians helping Arabs, well it wan't out of charity, it was in their interests, Arab petty kingdoms of Yemen gave them Arabia Felix for free, even a stupid guy knows that this opportunity won't come again. The Petty kingdoms of Yemen were in long struggle with the Northern Arab tribes, Banu Tamim, Bakr Wail, Taghlub etc. and had no problem with the Sassnids who were close and had the might to end the joint Judeo-Ethiopean control on Yemen."

Reading islamic history books like Tabari's or Dinouri's you will notice that in fact Arabs pleaded firstly the romans after their refusal pleaded many times Sassanians until they said yes and dispatched troops to reconquer Yemen. no more saying!

"Finally about my note on the Daylams, well as I said before, these were free people, like Bedouins, Berbers other nomadic, semi-nomadic and clan based peoples of the world. They cherished their freedom and only money could insure their loyalty. The Daylams who fought for the Sassanids fought for money not Persian nationalism or freedom from the Arabs (in the political sense). They actually couldn't care less who governed the Iranian plateau. They just wanted money. The defeated Sassanid and their noble allies couldn't afford money but the Arabs could so they joined them. Pure legitimate opportunism."

I did emphasized that they werent quite subjects to the Sassanids. But fortunately according to accounts like Al-Baladhuri it is obvious that doesn't mean they were ready to accept invaders in Iranian soil, as they shortly after the battle of Nahvand. joined the remainder of Sassanids, people of rayy to fight the Arabs. thus not feeling like to be subjects to the Sassanids they clearly appreciated freedom of Iran. And they did care who goverened Iranian plateau as they were historically related to the Medes tribes.  please don't try to impy such theories.

As for opportunism I think they had right to use it. As that was their home and Arabs were simply blood-thursty Invaders. Invasion and defense there's a huge difference between these two.



Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 12:38

"The Byzantine wars ended for ever before the Arabs ever even united in the Peninsula (in 628)"

Look at the dates of the first Muslim waging wars on the Ghassani and Byzantines:

battle of Muttah 629

battle of Tabuk 630

conquest of Mecca 630

this shows that even the Muslims hadn't still expand their control over Mecca to the south, it is obvious they were matcless in Arabia and thus its actual rulers, why? the reason why is that they waged two wars to Byzantines and allies before actually conquering Mecca!

So what we have here Byzantine-Turkic vs Sassanid war nominally ended in 628 with Turksstill proceeding further successful attack most notable of them annhilation of teh Sassanid army in Armenia in 630 (plus unkown situaton of the Sassanid control over parts of its huge land of Khurasan at the time).

So I think what you're saying thenceforth is also exactly admission of the Muslim military mights before and after 628.



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 22:04
Hello asawar
 
Mutah came during the truce of Hudaibiyyah between the prophet and Mecca a couple of years before. The Ghassanid king killed the messenger of the prophet so the prophet sent a raiding party that didn't succeed. Meccans took the chance and broke the truce which lead the prophet to conquere the city in the same year (8 AH). Tabuk came when the ghassanids were preparing for a showdown and an invasion into Hijaz. The prophet gathered the army and waited for them at Tabuk but they didn't show because the Byzantines weren't enthusiastic about invading Arabia in summer. That show of force lead most but not all of Arabia (Yemen and Nejd didn't join the prophet) to accept the prophet's authority only to rebel (only the three cities and some nearby tribes didn't rebel) after the prophet died. It took Abu Bakr two years to subdue the tribes all over Arabia (which is larger than both Persian and the Byzantines levant together) and afterwards the conquests started.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2008 at 01:03
"The Ghassanid king killed the messenger of the prophet so the prophet sent a raiding party that didn't succeed. Meccans took the chance and broke the truce which lead the prophet to conquere the city in the same year (8 AH)"

I personally think it wasn't just a raiding party, rather than a punitive expedition to take revenge and subsequently subdue Ghassanids but have you ever asked yourself what it actually represents:
- Ghassanids were border buffer state of the Byzantines, so waging war on them was actually waging war on Byzantium itself (I'm not that stupid to neglect this fact). So what would make Muslim newly established state, which had still hadn't expanded it's control over it's inner enemies in the peninsula, wage war on this strong enemy?! yeah I know the army of Byzantines was as big as 200.000 or 100.000 vs. 3000 Muslim Arabs like always (one shouldn't ask him/herself why on earth if it was a minor threat would Herakelios send such a big army or if  taking a look at the unstable situations of those days Byzantium could they provide such a big army for a so-called minor threat! possible exaggerations again)

Wasn't that Tabuk which took place in the same year of conquest of Mecca?

By the way when Abu Bakr was so-called busy on Ridda wars the so-called raiding parties of mostly Bedouins were already pillaging without trouble Khwarwran (Iraq and Hira) borders.

Reading those one starts to believe that the power of the muslim state after establishing in Medina was powerful enough to wage wars on foreign neighbours not having subduing its Arab adversaries in Mecca and other places in Arabia.




Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 18:40
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello to You all
 
Dear Sharrukin you need to chill out a little. I already talked about slaves in another ost so feel free to read it and then comment on it.
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=20082 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=20082
 
As for the Jews Beni Quraidhah, well unfortunatly the rules of war during that period in Human history said that allies who betray treaties are killed, it was done by the Romans, Byzantines, Sassanids, Arabs, Mongols, English, French etc. So though brutal as it was, it was the law then and everyone accepted it. Yes it was a terrible fate and many objected especially that forgivness was preferred but it was done. All those who took part in the rebellion were killed and those who did not were not.
 
Finally for the war with the Byzantines and Sassanid, well they asked for it and got it. The Prophet sent emisseries to the two great ruler and their vassals and they were either humiliated or killed which also during those days was a declaration of war. Even worse, the Persian governer of Yemen, which was under a brutal occupation, was asked to attack muslims which he did not, instead he became muslim and shook of Sassanid authority. Persians have for long humiliated Arabs and ruled them with terror and After the Arabs were victorious in Dhi Qar things were about to change. Early Muslims had far more zeal in the begining to take down the Byzantines because they were far more stronger and war was already being fought before the prophet died.
 
A final note to you and All people writing history here is that remember, we are talking history. many costums that were accepted 100 years ago are now considered war crimes like deliberate bombing of civilian targets. Back in the early 19th century surrender after heroic resistance was considered honourable and the commander was often rewarded even if his country lost the war but now he is court martialled and might get his head chopped off. Back then collective punishment was accepted if the populace was hostile and were active in resistance nowadays it is a war crime. Do not make the mistake of judging 7th century practices no matter how savage they were with a 21st century meter.
 
Thank you
 
Al-Jassas
 
Wrong. The Moslems sent a diplomat not to the Romans but to one of their allied kingdoms. What that kingdom itself did does not act as a pretext of right for the Moslems to attack the Romans.
 
The reason the Persians fell was because of of the Gokturks and their recent war with the Romans. As nice of a story it is that you are presenting again, it isn't taking seriously by actual historians today. It was an opertunistic conquest, not a made for Hollywood awe and glee celestial campaign.


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 02:09

That story is disappointing!

- Persian humiliated Arabs? how? when? where?!! in the fables? I think it was more Arabian jealousy of the Iranians. No recorded invasion of Arabia by Iranians only defending. let alone that Iranians even accepted the Yemeni Arab request for help to drive out the Habashis!!

- Did the Byzantine, Sassanids ask for it and got it?! Sending emissaries to tell you yield your home or pay a homage tribute if not there will be blood! No wonder cause I know the way Arab Muslims think always thought of the other nations throughout history ( a matter they best preserved in their traditions till now)

- About Persian governour of Yemen it's just a story of his orders to attack muslims. And he certainly did surrender to Islam, cause he wasn't blind and was observing the situation.



Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2008 at 08:13

"well unfortunatly the rules of war during that period in Human history said that allies who betray treaties are killed, it was done by the Romans, Byzantines, Sassanids, Arabs, Mongols, English, French etc. So though brutal as it was, it was the law then and everyone accepted it"

Oh nice topic "it was done by the others"!, but let me ask you this question: "if it was done by the others, were they preaching a faith claiming to be the last or did they claim that they (romans, Sassanids,.....) had a celestial mission for the mankind during human history so on and still insisting on it???? 

let's compare this two events with difference of about ten years:

actual capturing of Ctesiphon by Byzantines, much less pillaging (Byzantines)

capturing of Ctesiphon by Arab Muslims claiming to be the saviours, total pillage with no mercy (Arab Muslims)

The long recorded tradition of beheading the prisoners of war to disheart the enemy by Arabs.



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 16:23
Hello to you all
 
I am back!
 
Carpathian, this is history and as far as I know political correctness wasn't there when these events were written.
 
As for the rules of war, well they change and what is accepted in one era is not in the other. All the other peoples who performed such massacres did them well before the Geneva conventions which came to stop such acts but no one can deny that before the conventions these were perfectly legal acts.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 17:13
Read my last post please.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 18:27

I read it and I think my post earlier answered it.

Byzantines didn't have the stomach nor the resources to conquere all Persia. They knew it was more expedient to capture the capital, force a truce for a certain number of years and hope that events later would help them finish the Sassanids once and for all. As it turned out, the Sassanids immediately went into civil conflict changing 11 emprors in some 20 years. Only when Yazdgerd came did peace finally came on the sassanids. By this time Arabs came and wanted Iraq (which comes either Uruk or Sumerian root for lowlands) as well as Khuzestan, the Arabs came to stay. They never had any plans to go beyond the mountains. Arabs have been recorded as being living there for nearly a mellenium and they wanted to clear it from the Persians. What happened is that things changed (Omar famously said "I wish a mountain of fire was between Persia and the Arabs"). When Omar knew that Persians were preparing for a comeback he authorized the Nehavand expedition and a complete conquest for the land.

As for massacres and murder of POWs, it did happen but it was rare. Only few incidents were ever recorded and in any given case POWs could only be killed on the expressed orders of the Caliph and many were not. Instead they bought their freedom.
 
As for pillaging, well fortunately we have a census ordered by Omar (see Kitab Al-Kharaj by Abu Yusuf) for those paying Jizyah and living in the Sawad of Iraq and Khuzestan. Those were found to be more than 600k able bodied working men. Multiplying by 4 (assuming there were 4 people who didn't pay jizyah for every one who pays it and this is about the standard) we find that Iraq alone from today's Baghdad to the Gulf coast and having the river Karkhah as the boundry between Iraq and Khuzestan had 2.4 million. Iraq at the turn of the last century didn't have that much. And from all this land only a small size was taken and most of those lands were imperial holdings or holdings of the previous Arab rulers, the rest were left for the people with a fixed tax of 10% of the total value of the produce of the land. The local nobility or Duhqans continued to exercise power almost unchallanged all over the conquered lands so hardly any large scale pillaging occured, except for the city of Ctesephon which was natural.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Asawar Hazaraspa
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2008 at 10:05

"By this time Arabs came and wanted Iraq (which comes either Uruk or Sumerian root for lowlands) as well as Khuzestan, the Arabs came to stay. They never had any plans to go beyond the mountains. Arabs have been recorded as being living there for nearly a mellenium and they wanted to clear it from the Persians. What happened is that things changed (Omar famously said "I wish a mountain of fire was between Persia and the Arabs"). When Omar knew that Persians were preparing for a comeback he authorized the Nehavand expedition and a complete conquest for the land."

Yes, I have heard that some say the Prophet himself promised Syria, Iraq, Iran and Eygpt to his followers. On the other hand Arabs invasions was always accompanied with pillage and some sort of opportunist migration. ( By the time of early Sassanids there are accounts of the presence of some Arab tribes settled under protectorate of Shahanshah in Kerman province, the very tribes which earlier came for plundering the lands of south Iran).

The interesting is that the saying related to Omar ibn Khattab caliming he wanted only a firewall of some sort could be only a myth. Arabs though not very keen on living in the lands of Iran ( cause the climate of the most of Iran is not so generous), but on pillaging its cities. 

Iraq itself wasn't a homeland to Arabs since a millienium but the another semitic people like Babylonian, Akkadian, Assyrian, etc. Arabs presence always marked by migrations from Arabia since ancient times until some 200 years ago in which Arab tribes still were migrating into Khuzestan province and south Iraq.

"As for massacres and murder of POWs, it did happen but it was rare. Only few incidents were ever recorded and in any given case POWs could only be killed on the expressed orders of the Caliph and many were not. Instead they bought their freedom."

Heh, wrong it did happen even without the very order of the Caliph. First I should point out again that if everyone on those times did such slaughters ( which I doubt the other did with harshness of the Arabs), those others than Arabs weren't claiming to be the saviours of the people of the world and have still insisted on the holiness of the conquests, cherish the commanders of the conquest like they live, even to day we live now!

Some example of the slaughters without permission; Abu Musa Al-Ashaari ordered at the siege of Shushtar that Arabs bring forth the Iranian prisoners of the former wars and behead them to intimidate the defenders. (Dinavari, Akhbar Al-Toval).

"As for pillaging, well fortunately we have a census ordered by Omar (see Kitab Al-Kharaj by Abu Yusuf) for those paying Jizyah and living in the Sawad of Iraq and Khuzestan. Those were found to be more than 600k able bodied working men. Multiplying by 4 (assuming there were 4 people who didn't pay jizyah for every one who pays it and this is about the standard) we find that Iraq alone from today's Baghdad to the Gulf coast and having the river Karkhah as the boundry between Iraq and Khuzestan had 2.4 million"

Well we see again that Arabs thought or think that Jiziya is a natural thing and duty of  anyone. it's booty after pillaging! the statistics are given variously in most of the islamic sources as well.

"Iraq at the turn of the last century didn't have that much. And from all this land only a small size was taken and most of those lands were imperial holdings or holdings of the previous Arab rulers, the rest were left for the people with a fixed tax of 10% of the total value of the produce of the land. The local nobility or Duhqans continued to exercise power almost unchallanged all over the conquered lands so hardly any large scale pillaging occured, except for the city of Ctesephon which was natural"

Pillagin of the city of Ctesiphon was natural. yeah Arabs needed resources of the capital of the others to be able to fund their further expeditions to spread the faith which of course were costly (so it's natural even today that they sack any place).

Wrong again! see guys! the Dehgans were allowed as long as the Arabs needed them. As you can see after a century they disappear to great extent, e.g. the richest in Parsa province ( the very heartland of Persians) were therefore a Arab chieftain who become like other landlords.

Wrong again as pillaging occured to great extent especially for the case of Iranians, for which Arabs held a great envy for centuries, exampls of which, detailed I will give in the next post.



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2008 at 16:36
Hello Asawar
 
First about Jizyah. Again and again, this was a tax like any tax. Persians in the conquered areas were not muslims and so didn't fight in the Islamic armies. However if they chose to do so they didn't pay this tax nor if they were living in border areas.
 
As for pillaging, Arab armies, like all conquering armies, only pillaged conquered cities and from what we know no mass murder happened in the early conquests though it did happen later. Cities that gave in peacefully, like most Syrian and many Iranian cities, faced no pillaging at all in the early conquests except in Damascus and all the confiscated property and enslaved people were freed after that.
 
As for murdering POWs, again I never said it didn't happen, it did but it wasn't wide spread and was only on the express orders of the Caliph. For the case that you gave, Tustur settled peacefully then rebelled that is why some POWs were killed and the city pillaged, but another source, Futuh Al-Buldan says that all those enslaved were later freed on the orders of Omar and returned to their homes.
 
Finally for the Duhqans, their power was reduced well after the conquest. After the conquest they were badly needed to administer the conquered areas and had excessive powers. After the Arabisation of administration by the time of Abdul-Malik he decided to strip them from such powers gradually. Sawad was settled and local government strengthened. Courts were established at the Kurah or county level and the need for the Duhqans was all but ended by the time of the Abbasids.
 
Al-Jassas



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net