tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post4148126154527374569..comments2024-03-27T08:39:28.807-06:00Comments on Wash Park Prophet: The Plague of JustinianAndrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-34901856845998727602010-11-05T11:15:49.975-06:002010-11-05T11:15:49.975-06:00...
"I'm also increasingly coming to the......<br /><br />"I'm also increasingly coming to the conclusion that big historical migrations/invasions are more frequently driven by push rather than pull factors". <br /><br />Both things matter: "pull" is a passive force: it just makes invasions easier by weakening the defenses, alienating the population... but if there is no "push" then nothing appears to happen... until it does. Rome suffered invasions before the ones that destroyed it but then the Empire was much more solid and could repeal them. Instead in the 5th century, the (Western) Empire was in disarray, as Rome tried to impose feudalism, triggering the Bagaudae, which in turn made Romans to hire some barbarians as mercenary governors (foederati) and the peoples of the Western Empire to allow other barbarians through (Vandals and such). At that time the power of Rome was clearly vanishing, the many invaders had it easy to poke holes through it all, and the locals often couldn't care less or even favored some times the invaders. <br /><br />I do not understand well your examples in this matter: all them have pull and push factors as I see them. <br /><br />"History doesn't tell us a lot about what may have been pushing the Goths and Turks into the Mediterrean, but my intuition is that there were events outside the historical record that were pushing them".<br /><br />Considering the negligible genetic impact of either population, what is clear is that they were not large migrations but rather armed forces of semi-tribal nature which found weak spots where they could plunder first, attempt conquer later and most often end up as mercenary forces for one of several factions already fighting locally. The Visigoths became the legal government of Rome in SW Europe almost overnight, as Rome could not face the combined force of Bagaudae and Vandals and at the same time fight against Goths in Italy, the Turks instead thrived as warriors for the Mongols and Arabs, while Byzantium became unable to hold in inland Anatolia for its own internal reasons. <br /><br />Both push and pull factors are at play: a push without a void is normally defeated. <br /><br />Of course there are always factors such as individual leadership or genius that cannot be controlled but these do not last. <br /><br />"Their invasions started centuries before the Roman Empire was actually weak".<br /><br />But they failed because there was not yet a pull factor.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-70443985830341596832010-11-05T11:15:33.805-06:002010-11-05T11:15:33.805-06:00"Europeans are mostly heirs to the Western Ro..."Europeans are mostly heirs to the Western Roman Empire, rather than the Byzantine"...<br /><br />Western Europe is but Eastern Europe (most of the Balkans and former Russian Empire for this) is of Byzantine heritage, with some Muslim inroads from the Ottoman and Mongol rules. <br /><br />"The point of mentioning the Plague is to suggest that maybe Justinian didn't overreach as much as it seems that he did in hindsight. I don't think that the Justinian Plague had anything to do with a weakened population".<br /><br />It's difficult to judge such things: the documentation is just not enough to know for sure. I am of the opinion that epidemics feed on weakened populations, the same that illness preys predominantly on those that are less healthy for other reasons. I also think that a strong society can withstand almost any epidemic: Europe did not collapse with the Black Death for instance: a few generations later it was as dynamic as ever or even more. In fact, the loss of work force allowed peasants to achieve better status, as for some time there was just not enough work force and lords competed with each other offering the best conditions. The quality of life of the survivors surely improved a lot after the Black Death, which acted more as a cleanser than as a destructor force. <br /><br />But it's a matter of opinion largely, I reckon. <br /><br />"the Justinian Plague appears to have arrived in the capital via a grain boat from Egypt"... <br /><br />IDK. I am familiar with the idea that the plague is endemic of Central Asia, at least that's what I have read regarding the Black Death. But there may be many other origins, including India (also high in the protective blood group B) or Congo. <br /><br />"and given our knowledge that it had its origins in China, presumably made its way there via Indian Ocean trade routes". <br /><br />The Silk Road went mostly through Central Asia, though there was also a sea route. Both could have brought anything from China to Egypt, Syria or directly to Byzantium. Also I must warn that the usage of the term Egypt by Byzantines in that period is confuse: think that Gypsy is a deformation of Egyptian... and what they meant was Syria or West Asia. <br /><br />...Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-53574189439425859702010-11-05T10:27:52.393-06:002010-11-05T10:27:52.393-06:00"the Monophysites were a heretical sect withi..."the Monophysites were a heretical sect within Orthodox Christianity, rather than Copts".<br /><br />No, several oriental churches were and are monophysites, i.e. they don't recognize Jesus as God but as mortal, regardless of his holiness and miraculousness. And this includes Copts, which is the common name for the adepts to the Church of Alexandria (Egypt, Ethiopia...) but also the Church of Jerusalem (extinct) and that of Antioch (Syrian Christians), as well as others as Nestorians and Arianists.<br /><br />It was the most common belief in the areas that are now Muslim, from Morocco to Iraq and even into Central Asia. AFAIK, Trinitarians are only, traditionally, the Churches of Constantinople and Rome (and their offshoots as Eastern European patriarchates and Protestant denominations). Check it up. <br /><br />In this sense Islam was not much more alien to them than was European Trinitarian churches, even if they may share other elements. <br /><br />"I'm fuzzy over how far up the Nile the Islamic empire penetrated in this time frame".<br /><br />Just Egypt (to the first cataract). The Muslim conquest of Nubia (modern Sudan) belongs to the time of the Mamluks and early Ottomans, though there were clashes earlier. In turn Nubia was also where Isianism resisted for longer and they were forced to convert to Christianity by the Byzantines. <br /><br />"but Coptic Christianity probably is one reason that Ethiopia remained relatively free of foreign influence for so much of his history relative to its neighbors and the Ethiopian power base is probably one of the reasons that Upper Egyptians were able to sustain themselves".<br /><br />Not really. Axum or Abyssinia (Ethiopia is a modern name) was always in contact with their neighbors, specially Nubia and Yemen (once conquered by Axum in a war of religion between Christians and Jews) but not so much with Egypt. Copts have persisted in Egypt the same that other Christians have persisted in other Muslim countries: because they were normally well tolerated, even if with a second tier status. <br /><br />However Nubians did attempt to ally with the crusaders at some point - can't recall the details though. Axum is mentioned in the Quran as a place that should be tolerated particularly because of some support they gave to Mohamed (again not sure of the details). In general the Quran is quite favorable to Christians, even if Mohammed claimed they had manipulated the New Testament, turning it partially invalid as divine revelation.<br /><br />You have to understand that in time of Mohamed Arabia was divided between many religious factions: Jews (in Medina and Yemen particularly), Christians, Arabian Pagans (Mecca), Zoroastrians (in the East). Mohamed had partial support from Jews and Christians because they perceived him as more akin (and vice versa). Originally Mohamed thought of making Jerusalem the holy city of Islam but after being betrayed by Mecca Jews he changed his mind and chose Mecca instead, what maybe helped his success, as he recycled a popular Pagan icon into the center of the new anti-Pagan religion. <br /><br />Mohamed was a heretic Christian/Jew but a Christian/Jew after all. That's important to understand. The tolerance of Islam towards Christianity (not to other religions, except Judaism) has no counterpart among Christians, who consider him a barbarian heretic and little more than the leader of a horde. <br /><br />"The contemporary divide between Christians and Muslims runs roughly a North-South line about two-thirds of the way South across Sudan"...<br /><br />That's relatively modern. Christianity has made inroads in Pagan Africa in the last century or so but the modern "Christian" Sudan used to be Pagan (traditional ethnic religions) and still is largely. It's more similar in this to Nigeria than related to the Medieval history of the region.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-72694486304529750242010-11-05T09:44:45.781-06:002010-11-05T09:44:45.781-06:00@ Maju
Perhaps because Europeans are mostly heirs...@ Maju<br /><br />Perhaps because Europeans are mostly heirs to the Western Roman Empire, rather than the Byzantine, and are writing the history books, the extent to which the Western Roman Empire was a thinly governed, thinly populated frontier compared to the Eastern Empire is often understated.<br /><br />Even at the empire's height, the predominant center of its population and economy was in the Levant, Anatolia, Greece and Egypt.<br /><br />The point of mentioning the Plague is to suggest that maybe Justinian didn't overreach as much as it seems that he did in hindsight. I don't think that the Justinian Plague had anything to do with a weakened population. Its lethality was extraordinarily high and highly indiscriminate between the healthy and the weak, and the first time a disease hits a population, it is at its most potent because no one has immunity. Also, while the Medieval Black Plague may have been introduced as a biological weapon in Crimea, the Justinian Plague appears to have arrived in the capital via a grain boat from Egypt, and given our knowledge that it had its origins in China, presumably made its way there via Indian Ocean trade routes. That it happened at that time and place was probably nothing more than really bad luck for Justinian's empire.<br /><br />I'm also increasingly coming to the conclusion that big historical migrations/invasions are more frequently driven by push rather than pull factors. This seems to be the case, for example, in the Uralic language group's incursion into Hungary, and the evidence that this is what was driving the Vedic expansion into India and Persia (i.e. the Saravasti River system's collapse forcing people to seek new homes) is also becoming clear, and the same climate change that dried up the Saravasti River was probably also responsible for the aggresive seeking out of new territory by Indo-Europeans in the Eastern Mediterrean and Balkans. The Vikings were on the receiving end of the Little Ice Age at its coldest part.<br /><br />Sure, there are pull factors as well, but the pull driven cases (e.g. the Out of Africa expansion, settlement of the Americas and subsequent European colonization of them, the settlement of Oceania, Bantu expansion, and LBK expansion) seem mostly to involve what amounts to "virgin territory" not settled to nearly the density of the people moving in.<br /><br />History doesn't tell us a lot about what may have been pushing the Goths and Turks into the Mediterrean, but my intuition is that there were events outside the historical record that were pushing them. Their invasions started centuries before the Roman Empire was actually weak.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-23544757215230788082010-11-05T09:19:46.092-06:002010-11-05T09:19:46.092-06:00@Michael Malak
First, I don't think you made ...@Michael Malak<br /><br />First, I don't think you made this assumption, but the Monophysites were a heretical sect within Orthodox Christianity, rather than Copts.<br /><br />Second, I'm fuzzy over how far up the Nile the Islamic empire penetrated in this time frame. I do think it is fair to say that Islam dealt a blow to Coptic Christianity in Lower Egypt (in addition to virtually destroying the Coptic language as anything but a liturgical language), but Coptic Christianity probably is one reason that Ethiopia remained relatively free of foreign influence for so much of his history relative to its neighbors and the Ethiopian power base is probably one of the reasons that Upper Egyptians were able to sustain themselves.<br /><br />The contemporary divide between Christians and Muslims runs roughly a North-South line about two-thirds of the way South across Sudan, roughly where the new country of South Sudan will be formed.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-61293332317091826822010-11-04T21:38:54.568-06:002010-11-04T21:38:54.568-06:00As for the main subject, I am under the impression...As for the main subject, I am under the impression that the hit (not yet demise) to the Byzantine Empire by Islamic expansion and others, underlines the weakness of the brief Byzantine re-expansion under Justinian within the context of the decline of all the Roman Empire since the Hellenistic reform, mostly under Christian rule. <br /><br />This Hellenistic reform, directly related to the Christian Coup, implied that Rome stopped being Rome and became Greece. The displacement of the capital to the East totally destroyed the economical premises on which the Roman Empire had been founded, which was that the Hellinistic provinces footed the bill and Rome (Italy) ruled overall and reaped at least some of the benefits. <br /><br />With the move of the capital to Byzantium (Nea Roma, Constantinople), the Western part of the Empire stopped being important and soon became prey of disintegrating forces, internal and external. Once the division of the Empire was institutionalized, the Western Empire was too poor and weak to stand for long and, excepted to some extent Italy, Africa (Tunisia) and maybe Iberia, the Eastern Empire had no interest in it (not in Gaul not in Britain). So the Germanic states became a meaningful alternative for the locals, specially the local early feudal elites. <br /><br />Justinian could not hope to take back all the former Western Empire: it was a pointless endeavor for such a Hellenistc "Rome", what he and his generals achieved was surely near the very limit of what was possible and desirable.<br /><br />Back to Byzantium, a key factor that is often mentioned is that this and its rival Persia had become exhausted in endless and mostly fruitless wars. This is maybe more important to understand that, simultaneous to the loss of the Levant and Egypt by the Romans, all Persia succumbed too. By comparison Byzantium did pretty well resisting at the Anatolian border. <br /><br />It seems to be a clear case that long wars are never useful and that they bring disasters. <br /><br />In this context the plague was probably just a co-factor, maybe even partly a product of the overall exhaustion, as often happen with diseases, which thrive much more easily in already damaged, weakened bodies.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-18722926060885511612010-11-04T21:21:25.388-06:002010-11-04T21:21:25.388-06:00Re. what Malak says: Christianism was not automati...Re. what Malak says: Christianism was not automatically removed by the expansion of Islam. In fact a key factor in Islamic expansion was sympathy between Monophysite Christians and Islam, and the (correct) impression by Christians that (early) Muslims were more tolerant towards their faith than Trinitarian Byzantines, who sought forced homogenization. The Arab Christan Ghassanids, who guarded the desertic border of the Levant for Byzantium, were particularly critical in the Muslim victory. <br /><br />Early Islam anyhow was based on the principle that Muslims did not pay taxes (infidels did). That prevented early Caliphs from promoting conversion too actively, conversion was considered a matter of personal spiritual choice, even if the state was a Muslim theocracy. While centuries later conversion was more encouraged (specially as Muslims began to be taxed), tolerance towards "the book's religions" remained high in most of the Islamic area (a major exception was North Africa in the Almohad/Almoravid rule but even then only against Christians, Jews remained protected). <br /><br />In general, while conversion to Islam has gradually decreased the number of Christians and Jews, to date rather large Christian minorities remain in nearly all West Asian countries and Egypt. <br /><br />In general religious "cleansing" (forced conversions, expulsions, local democides) seem to have happened by pulses of increased repression rather than as systematic policy. Examples are the expulsion/forced conversion of Muslims and Jews from Iberia in in the 1490s or the genocide of Greeks (where Greek means Anatolian Christian of Greek language) and Armenians by Turkey in the late WWI and post-war. Ironically enough, the expulsion of Greeks was promoted within a secularist context and on ethnic premises.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-45381859060178792132010-11-04T15:28:33.066-06:002010-11-04T15:28:33.066-06:00"Monophysitism was strongest in Syria and Egy...<i>"Monophysitism was strongest in Syria and Egypt, and disappeared when these areas came under Islamic control in the mid-600s CE</i>"<br /><br />Nit: Copts remained strong, if not a majority, in Upper Egypt until the middle of the last millennium. Even today, one of the 25 governors of Egypt is a Copt.Michael Malakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10007582156392845677noreply@blogger.com