No Sorkoi, my point is that the Russian Empire was one of conquest, much like the Muslim Empire was. The point here is that Cairo did better than the center of the empire just like E. Germany did better than the center of the Soviet Empire.

"If you cannot distitigish between Arab and Islamic..." HA! We're talking origins, here. Islamic culture GREW OUT OF Arab culture. Exactly how many non-Arab muslims do you think existed in 630AD? "By 660 the Muslim armies and adminstators had moved..." You mean CONQUERED, numnuts, that's what we call it when "moved" comes along with soldiers and a permanent regime change. "to fertile crescent." Because it was a heck of a lot RICHER, with more stuff to STEAL. Why else do you think? "The fertile crescent remained centre of Muslim power for next 600 years." Yeah, after the CONQUEST. "Alexander moved from backwoods state of Makedonia (Pella) and decided to estabolish his capital of his empire in Babyolon not Pella." Ummm, so? How did it do? And why was this done? Those are the key questions. "If you cannot tell the difference between a Pyrmid and a Moseque- perhaps you are more need of education than I." Yeah, pyramids are the square, pointy things full of tombs, and the mosques are the round things full of weapons, right? Are you really so ignorant that you think Egyptian architecture ENDED with the Pyramids? Good lord, you are pretty poorly informed about these things! Ever heard of the Library of Alexandria? Did you ever wonder what the "of Alexandria" part meant? Funny thing, it wasn't a pyramid. Here's two nice trivia questions for someone with your talent: How many centuries passed between the destruction of Egypt's pre-Islamic society and the construction of a theatre or stadium in Egypt with a capacity matching the one destroyed at Oxyrhynchus? What does this say about the nature of the arts under the conquering society? "Islamicate archetectural style which can be easily recognizied by the most even untutored -" By the untutored, yes, we have your example, but not by the tutored, who are familiar with, for example, Byzantine construction. So what you are saying is "Ignorant people like Sorkoi all know that..." "this style while having many continuties with what went on before is not reducible to them." BULLCRAP. PROVE IT. SHOW ME A FEATURE, ANY FEATURE AT ALL, IN TENTH CENTURY "ISLAMIC" ARCHITECTURE I CAN'T FIND AN EARLIER EXAMPLE OF. Or Admit you are shooting your mouth off in ignorance. Like I said, you're in MY briar patch now. For the most part, the Muslim conquerors advanced nothing by themselves, all they did was order dhimmi slaves to copy the Hagia Sophia and others. Some slaves developed Byzantine and Persian and Visigothic lines a bit further before Islamic/Arab oppression stifled them, but that's it.

"--I thought that I stated that I understood that this was the root of your argument..." 1. Indeed you did. I was not suggesting you did not- I was making it clear to some others on the list what the actual core of the disagreement is about. "were going to far(especially in the Islam Saves the West paradigm..." 2. I don't think I did say Islam saved the 'West'. However, the formation of distinct European identity in 9th century - arises when Charlemagne (my spelling is no better than yours) given the epitaph pater Europa - the areas under his rule are beginning of Europe- his rule is basically what the East Romans and Muslims don't control of what is left of the Roman empire. The shattering of the unity of Mediterranean by Muslim conquest was major force for the development of distinct European identity. This fairly well established. "Ugh. Is the Renaissance(I can't spell so shoot me) only occurred in the MEd and was a monolithic event? I don't think so. Even if you restrict it to the subject of Art there were multiple places and times where the Enlightenment took root and took off. Again, you're being rigidly selective in your choices to show Islam in an excellent light." 3. I do not think that I am. Most of the reading that I have done would say the Renaissance begins in Italy and spread to rest of Europe. The Enlightenment is something much latter- the Enlightenment refers to 17-18th century thinkers and thought in Europe – following the wars of reformation and counter-reformation- we are talking Kant, Goethe, Voltaire et al. Maybe we are talking past each other? 4. I agree the Dark Ages were not Dark - in fact on world level you have Islamdom, China and India thriving- the what people normally refer to by the Dark Ages was basically end of the classical Roman literate culture in the western part of the former empire and while HISC is correct to claim that it lived on in monasteries etc. in Iona and the British isles but as you got closer to the lands ravaged in post-Roman collapse less of that learning circulated. But I would accept the picture of the Dark Ages is exaggerated in relation to past version of Dark Ages. This of course does not mean that much of North-Western Europe was the geopolitical equivalent of Byzantium or Islamdom at the time. To suggest otherwise is engage in a fantasy. “Tercio may no more about it than I, and he probably does, but the fact that Aquinas and the other humanists of Europe(a part of the Enlightenment) occured without the return Hellenic texts from Islamic lands suggests a) the texts weren't that important in launching the Enlightenment or b) that the texts were being used without Islamic sphere contribution(which Tercio hits on with the Greek scholars moving west and is the central component of HISC) or c) the Hellenic texts only sped up the Enlightenment as opposed to causing it.” 5. I am not sure about Enlightenment bit (see above). Also I am not sure how you return Hellenic texts from Islamicate lands: firstly because many of those texts emerged in regions which now were part of Islamdom, and secondly there was no Hellenistic civilization to return those texts to. The Romans had taken care off that. "Unfortunately, the paradigm that is bust is the one associated with 19th century philosophers like Weber, Marx, Mill etc who did not have historical information and their narrative of Western civilization which is fully self contained become the dominant paradigm. It this paradigm which is busted. " Not entirely sure where you're going with saying that JS Mill et al are wrong. I'm not that familiar with their positions-care to clarify? 6. The person I missed out from the above list is the most important and that is Hegel. These thinkers were involved in trying to answer the question of why the West was industrialising etc and why it was different from the Rest. They did this by assuming a ‘triumphal teleology’ and worked backwards. Arguing that it was the innate characteristics of Europe that led to its becoming more powerful than rest of the Afro Eurasian civilisations by 1800-1850s. The selected what they considered to be unique about Europe and then argued that these were the causes of modernity/development. The trouble is that they did not know that much of what happening in the rest of the world and often when facts contradicted their accounts they were economical with the facts e.g. Hegel, Marx, Weber... This internalist version of the rise of the west has been dominant paradigm for last 100 years or so- it this paradigm that is collapsing in face of new studies undertaken by variety of scholars- in range of fields (e.g Chinese industrial production in 18th century, income per capita comparisons between England and India, critique of Parker's military revolution thesis...) This is rather complex field- I am for brevity sake just sketching out the broad outlines. “Ah, this one becomes hard. This is the sam

I understand the difference. Arabs hate the Jews and Islamics worship death.

"No Sorkoi, my point is that the Russian Empire was one of conquest, much like the Muslim Empire was. The point here is that Cairo did better than the center of the empire just like E. Germany did better than the center of the Soviet Empire." But surely this depends on maintaining the centre of the Islamicate empire was Arabian peninsula and not the Fertile crescent. The orginal Russian state was based around Kiev- however it centre shifted to Moscovy. On what ground do you maintian that islamcate empire centre was not the fertile crescent? Could clarify this point, please.

"I understand the difference. Arabs hate the Jews and Islamics worship death." I understand bigotry.

First, Kiev has little to do with the historical less since I am discussing the modern Soviet/Russian Empire (albeit related since that was a continuation of the older Tsarist Empire). Second, neither the fertile crescent nor Arabia did better than the peripheries of the Muslim Empire. At least not to my understanding. However, my education is in modern history, not the middle ages. In any case, as I understand it, the older, peripheral portions of the Muslim Empire, Egypt and Turkey for example, while not doing well compared to Europe by 1500, were certainly doing better than the Empire's center.

Mike_Golf wrote: "By 1980 East Germany, although stripped bare by the USSR in 1945-1950, had a per capita income of nearly $6,000/year, Moscow's per capita income was slightly under $1,800/year." Well. Germany - including the parts that formed later the GDR (German Democratic Republic - East Germany)- was an industrialized country with a well educated population before the countrie was split in two by the allies (after some ethnic cleaning in the eastern part of Germany; I know that because my parents were forced out of Danzig and Königsberg in Prussia to settle new in Hamburg in the west where I was born). This educated workforce made the GDR successful. And West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany - the "good guys") transfered a lot of money to our brothers and sisters in East Germany. So they got billions of real western currency). In the end nothing could stop this crazy communist puppet regime to go down. I will always be thankful that the US freed us from facism, defended us against communism and later agreed to reunification. I regret the ehnic cleanings in Prussia we are trying to avoid today. But that is history.

Lets see if we can actually discuss this without too many silly invectives: "HA! We're talking origins, here. Islamic culture GREW OUT OF Arab culture." Most people who know about this would argue that Islam grew out a near eastern cultural mix, rather than a specifically Arab one. Hence the commonality of references like the flood story earliest record of which is in Sumerian. Also because Arab simply meant 'bedouin' it did not at the time refer to a distinct ethnic identity. People on mesopotiam flood plain could be Arabs (i.e nomadic) during some period and settled during others- they could have family were settled and some who were nomadic. Mecca was not settled urban centre. Most of those who resisted Islam were nomads. "Exactly how many non-Arab muslims do you think existed in 630AD?" Depends on whether you continue Jew tribes of peninsula as Arabic or not- or Persians- the early Islamic state called themselves Muslim/muhajurin -to denotes more a movement than a pure ethnic mobilization. In terms we do not know how many "non-Arabs" there were but if you do I suggest you publish your information since it would be a major breakthrough in studies of late antiquity. "By 660 the Muslim armies and adminstators had moved..." You mean CONQUERED," Actually the conquest of Syria had already taken place a decade before. I was refering to establihment of imperial admin which moved from one area controled by Muslims to another area controlled by Muslim. " numnuts," Is this relevant or mere projection. " that's what we call it when "moved" comes along with soldiers and a permanent regime change. "to fertile crescent." Because it was a heck of a lot RICHER, with more stuff to STEAL" In that case all empires steal and plunder. Why did Alexander move his capital from Pella to Babylon. There is no doubt the fertile crescent is far richer but also had greater prestige as being the centre of empires from Sargon onwards? "The fertile crescent remained centre of Muslim power for next 600 years." Yeah, after the CONQUEST. The point being? Is Washington Dc capitl of the US after European conquest/colonization? Does it matter? Alexanderia become the capital of Ptolemiad kingdom after the CONQUEST and...? I am not sure what your point here perhaps you could be clearer. "Alexander moved from backwoods state of Makedonia and decided to estabolish his capital of his empire in Babyolon not Pella." Ummm, so? How did it do?" And why was this done? Those are the key questions." According to you the Makedonian did for the women and loot? WOuld that be correct? " Yeah, pyramids are the square, pointy things full of tombs "So far so good- but rather sketchy considering this your 'briar patch'. "...and the mosques are the round things full of weapons..." Are you being sarcastic or stupid- its difficult to tell sometimes. "Are you really so ignorant that you think Egyptian architecture ENDED with the Pyramids?" I never said Egyptian architecture ended with the Pyramids nor would I say that Islamic architecture is restricted to Moseques. I just used two paradigmatic examples in the hope you would understand them as examples. " Good lord, you are pretty poorly informed about these things!" In rush to inform me how poorly informed I am - you seem to showing rather uninformed ability to read. "Ever heard of the Library of Alexandria? Did you ever wonder what the "of Alexandria" part meant? Funny thing, it wasn't a pyramid." Funnily, I have heard about Libarary of Alexanderia- the one destroyed by Caesar's legions? Is that the one? Where did I say it was a pyramid? I note you have not cited the point where I said it was a pyrmid. " Here's two nice trivia questions for someone with your talent: How many centuries passed between the destruction of Egypt's pre-Islamic society and the construction of a theatre or stadium in Egypt with a capacity matching the one destroyed at Oxyrhynchus?" Is this a rhetorical question? Many of (note carefully the qualifier- before you ride off into sunset again)of classical buildings had with advent of chrisanity fallen into dis-use or had re-apporated prior to the arrival of Muslim armies. "What does this say about the nature of the arts under the conquering society?" That Islamicate culture that developed had a different conception of arts than the one enjoyed by classical Roman culture which had a different conception of arts than those enjoyed by the early christian culture. "Islamicate archetectural style which can be easily recognizied by the most even untutored -" By the untutored, yes, we have your example, but not by the tutored, who are familiar with, for example, Byzantine construction. So what you are saying is "Ignorant people like Sorkoi all know that..." I would not put it like that. It is absurd to suggest that there is no Islamicate archeticture- but you know that is hang over of read

Mike I am not trying be difficult. I am just trying to get some handle on what you are saying. I guess my point that given the the lenggth of history- there were several centres of Islamdom- by 1258 the Mongol invasions had destroyed the fertile crescent and turned into fronter zone- as consequnce the centre of Islamic empire shifted to Egypt and subsequently to Turkey - rather like the ROman empire shifted from Rome to Constantinople. As centre changes so does the periphery- so by time of the Ottoman empire Baghdad become a sleepy backwater while COnstantinople was one largest cities in the world.