|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Oct 9, 2022 22:36:19 GMT
Here’s the challenge- have a Damascus, Syria or Baghdad, Iraq based empire dominate the Mideast after 1300.
After the end of the Umayyad Caliphate in 750 AD, Damascus, and Syria writ large, was never again a metropole for an Islamic or Mideastern empire.
After 1258, Baghdad, and Iraq writ large, was never again a metropole for an Islamic or Mideastern Empire.
At some point after 1300, in the case of Baghdad, or at some point after 800, in the case of Damascus, have one of these regions/capitals rebound to regional leadership, clearly standing above Persia proper, Constantinople, and Egypt as a center.
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Nov 4, 2022 2:27:56 GMT
Wasn’t Baghdad a better place to grow crops in Egypt this could at least be true at one time. Iraq was a part of the Fertile Crescent that birthed civilization
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Nov 19, 2022 11:19:01 GMT
How long do you need to overcome a historical trauma like that?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402 
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Nov 19, 2022 11:32:12 GMT
Wasn’t Baghdad a better place to grow crops in Egypt this could at least be true at one time. Iraq was a part of the Fertile Crescent that birthed civilization
Not really. The Nile is pretty damn reliable, with known but regular floods supplying more nutrients. Iraq has suffered from periodic periods of salt build ups which can greatly hinder cultivation. Also its a lot more vulnerable to invasion with no real natural borders. Hence the frequent waves of conquers who overrun it. Egypt is protected by deserts so you have to cross the Sinai, come from the south - which was done once but that's generally more a victim of Egyptian power or come by sea.
When I was at school - albeit the 60's and early 70's our definition in Britain included Egypt as part of the fertile crescent but possibly its definition has changed or is different in different areas.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,402
Likes: 12,012
|
Post by stevep on Nov 19, 2022 11:41:27 GMT
How long do you need to overcome a historical trauma like that?
Would depend on the circumstances but I think the real problem for Iraq as a centre of power was the Mongol conquest allowed Iran to re-emerge as a major centre of political power. Since the Arab/Muslim conquest and especially the moving of the caliphate to Baghdad Iraq had been the prime centre and due to its proximity had kept Iran largely under control. Then since most nomadic conquerors came from the east Iran tended to be a buffer and often split between different groups even as the Caliphate's military power declined.
After the Mongols, who devastated a lot of both regions, Iran seems to have started to emerge as a powerful state again and Iraq became either a border region or later a battleground between the dynasties in Iran and Anatolia [i.e. the Ottomans].
Iraq/Mesopotamia was one of the earliest centres of statehood and power we know of although often divided until the rise of Assyria and then the Neo-Babylonian empire. However even in those times it frequently saw nomadic attacks from north, east or south west which made its development vulnerable. It was only - apart from the brief Late Assyrian empire - really in Arab times it became the centre of an empire/state extended beyond the region of the two rivers so it could be argued that the period from ~700-1250 were the oddity in history as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fractal Multiverse's Energy on Nov 20, 2022 11:08:38 GMT
Well, one problem with Baghdad is that it isn't a "Capital Material". It faces a continuous onslaught from the Iranians (not happy under the Arab rule), Mongols (other nomadic tribes) and Turks (Turkic tribes and the Seljuk and the Ottoman Turks), if Anatolia is under the Byzantines or any other Christians like the Crusaders, then that threat as well.
Damascus faces multiple threats, too, but slightly well guarded compared to Baghdad. Though unguarded from the nomads, the inlets are situated quite faraway.
Back on AH, John7755 has written detailed timelines and many posts about the Ancient Nomads attacking various empires here. The inlets are mainly around Scythia-Caucasia and the good/bad old Central Asia-Iran pathway which most Eastern invaders took.
Dominating empire could be hard unless there is a new invading power from elsewhere, who establishes themselves there, first. Be it from Central Asia, Steppe or the Europe. A repeated problem that happened to most of the natives of this land, is that it is too good a land, where invasions happen every few centuries, at best. Each of the Hurrians, Babylonians/Assyrians, Anatolians/Hittites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arab Caliphs, Crusaders and the Ottomans, all considered themselves to be the Eternal Rulers of that land. Asking a 1900s French or a British general could give the same answer. We know what happened, right?
Quite challenging to have such a large empire last for so long (till the Modern era or into the Future). If you meant temporarily, you have either have a Sogut/Bursa in Damascus, rising an Ottoman Empire to the OTL borders, or put Christian conquest on steroids by making a Western European power pull off a Rashidun/Umayyad/Ottoman style conquest and settlement into the region. A child dynasty could later, pull this off.
After the Mongols, the native Arabs were really decimated (looted, destroyed and killed in large numbers) and fragmented beyond repair. A likely Turko-Arab Militaristic state could have prevented that. Let's see that later.
I am thinking of an Ottoman like Arab-Anatolian Empire that emerges if Sultanate of Rum was bigger, stronger and had Syria, too, eventually becoming Beyliks and you know what happened.
A more interesting one: Suppose a Western European pulls off a strong Crusade, conquers and settles the regions heavily, as did the Ottoman Turks by eventually settling more and assimilating the locals into some kind of a new religion emerging as did Sikhism or something like that, retaining their military might and later pulling off something like an Ottoman Empire.
|
|
