Re: Arab slave import determined history

On Jun 13, 6:58 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
a...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 12, 3:42 pm, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <hv0m2s$in...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 William Black <william.bl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 12/06/10 11:32, M Winther wrote:

Europe also suffered Mongol invasions.

The Arabs made it to Vienna as well,  but saying Europe suffered Mongol
and Islamic invasions is putting rather strongly.

Turks. Arabs made it north across the Mediterranean to Sicily and Spain.
I suspect (or vaguely recall :-)) raids into mainland Italy as well.
There were sieges of Constantinople, but not (AFAIK) any major thrusts
into its European hinterland.
The obvious question is what would qualify as "European hinterland"?
The Arabs had been very active in the Southern France (pretty much
occupied Acquitane
and penetrated into the Central France as well (Tours).

I don't think that is literally true.

'Occupation' in modern sense can't be applied literally to the Middle
Ages so we are in an agreement on that.

 What does seem to be
true is that there were several places where Arab "gangs"
operated, including one nest of pirates.  

Army led by the emir of Cordoba is hardly a 'gang'. In 732 the
invading Muslims defeated the Duke of Aquitaine, sacked Bordeaux and
got as far as Poitiers.


They lived by
robbery.

Campaigns of 721 and 732 were attempts of the full-scaled invasions by
the big (by the standards of times) armies, not the actions of some
small 'gangs' and, being in-land invasions, they were hardly a piracy.

As for living by robbery, well, following this definition, most of the
English operations during the 100YW would fit just fine into this
category (with Ed Senior, Ed Junior, etc. being 'gang leaders'). Not
to mention that robbery was a vital part of a warfare all the way into
the modern times.



 I'd not call that controlling or occupying the
region.

As for Tours, that was a raiding party in force (or if you wish,
an intelligence gathering party.)

If you noticed, for this ocassion I used word 'penetrated'.
'Intelligence gathering party' had been led by the emir of Cordoba and
included contingents from Africa, on their way they won a major
victory and sacked a major city. So, if anything, they were not
something one can easily shrugg off.

 They were not there for
conquest and had little logistical support.

Funny as it may sound, I share your opinion (perhaps because Gibbon
though otherwise :-)). 'Logistical support' is a tricky issue and we
do know that the invaders of 721 and 732 had baggage train and ability
to besiege the major cities (Tuluza and Bordeaux). Living off the land
was a commonplace, especially for the mobile armies strong in cavalry.
So, with the same success one can make an analogy with the
_conquering_ Mongolian army (as those conquering Central Asia,
Northern China and Russia) or with their _raiding_ expeditions (like
one of Subedey and Jebe or forces of the Western Campaign). In both
scenarios you have a high-ranking leadership and size of the force is
not necessarily indicative of the task (Western Campaign, IIRC,
involved the same or even greater force than conquest of Russia and
the same leaders).



 After being
seen off by Charles Martel, they did not return.

Not exactly true: the Arabs remained in the Southern France ( Nîmes,
Agde, Montfrin, Avignon, Arles, Aix-en-Provenceand, Béziers, Narbonne
and other places had been held by Islam since 725) and in 736 they
launched a big-scale (alledgedly) naval invasion under command of
Abdul Rahman's son. They landed in Narbonne and Charles Martell
defeated them at Arles and retook a number of the places they hold but
failed to take Narbonne.

What I do agree with is that all of the above did not mean occupation
in the modern sense: enough boots on the ground to keep a close
control over all teritory (and we know what heppens when you do not
have enough of these boots). The common (means 'happened often but not
always') Medieval model was to keep the fortified places controlling
the countryside and terrorizing the locals into certain degree of
submission. Within this model _some_ of the places in the area still
could be held by unconquered opponents (with the mutual raids and the
local successes and failures).


Indeed, the region around Barcelona was mainly Christian
during the entire time and, for a while, semi-attached to
France.

--
   --- Paul J. Gans- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Arab slave import determined history
    ... small 'gangs' and, being in-land invasions, they were hardly a piracy. ... conquest and had little logistical support. ... model of operations was different from the Mongolian so the point I ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: Arab slave import determined history
    ... I suspect ) raids into mainland Italy as well. ... small 'gangs' and, being in-land invasions, they were hardly a piracy. ... conquest and had little logistical support. ... respect to "Arab" threats to Vienna) is that the specifically Arabian ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: Arab slave import determined history
    ... I suspect ) raids into mainland Italy as well. ... small 'gangs' and, being in-land invasions, they were hardly a piracy. ... As for Tours, that was a raiding party in force (or if you wish, ... conquest and had little logistical support. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: Arab slave import determined history
    ... There were sieges of Constantinople, but not any major thrusts ... small 'gangs' and, being in-land invasions, they were hardly a piracy. ... conquest and had little logistical support. ... respect to "Arab" threats to Vienna) is that the specifically Arabian ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: Good books
    ... about both the domestication of animals ... Conquest very often moves east-west and not north south. ... can it be that you are talking not about specific invasions ... out - somewhat north, then a long, long way, eastward, then southward and ...
    (soc.history.medieval)