The Fall of Eastern Christendom

[domagoj]

I made this topic to discuss the Fall of Constantinople,and what should have been done to prevent it.


My personal agenda is against the Pope,who called and supported the Crusaders sacking Byzantia,also Venice for telling them to conquer Constantinople.I always thought that the popes then were retarded.I am a catholic,but popes,old guys who wanna get some fun....

[Bulgaroktonos]

The Byzantine Empire was too decadent. If Isaac II wouldn't have called the Crusaders for help they would never have conquered it. Mighty empires need to degenerate before being conquered by 'younger' and more dynamic empires. History shows us that in nearly every case.

The separation from the western christianity was disastrous too. The christian world would only have be able to fight the muslims when it were united. From a darwinistic sight it's better that the muslims now rule Constantinople because they were stronger and united against christianity.

[domagoj]

But the loss of such a great city...such a tragedy.

[Bulgaroktonos]

Only a coward cries instead of acting.

[domagoj]

What should i do...go suicide bombing?Times have changed.

[elvain]

Yes, times have changed.
so just face the reality ;)

The empire was in permanent crisis from the end of 12th century - for over 2 centuries. It lost all its main population bases - first the Balkans and then Anatolia. Anatolia was lost also due to a civil war (battle of Manzikert wouldn't have been so disasterous, if the emperor had survived)
Both the Crusaders and the Ottomans intervened as allies of a Byzantine fraction in Byzantine civil wars. As was Christian Roman empire successor of the Pagan empire, so was Muslim Sultanate of Rum a successor of the Christian Rome.
People in the Balkans usually see the Ottomans as The Evil, but on the muslim side, they are seen as the true successors of Rome.

The Ottomans got Eastern Rome by power of their armies. So did the Franks and later the German Holy Roman Emperors. The only difference is that we (the western christians) see ones as Us(christians), and the others are Them (muslims). Byzantine empire is for us some kind of lost paradise, because The Greeks (Romans/Byzantines) taught the West.

Today Istanbul is a connection between Europe and Islam - connection between two great civilizations of the West, what more could the city become?

[domagoj]

God doesnt exist.

[elvain]

God doesnt exist.

that is question of theology and philosophy, not a question of history
what does it to do with fall of Constantinople?

[domagoj]

Dunno.

[Bulgaroktonos]

(battle of Manzikert wouldn't have been so disasterous, if the emperor had survived)


The emperor survived the battle !

Suicid bombing is a good beginn. :D

Today Istanbul is a connection between Europe and Islam - connection between two great civilizations of the West, what more could the city become?

Islam is a great civilisation of the west ???!!!

[domagoj]

Indeed i do not think of Islam as a great civilization,my opinion is that they are a bunch of primitve brutes.
Thats my view of Islam.

[elvain]

Islam is a great civilisation of the west ???!!!
there are several divisions between the west and the east.
Islam is as Western as Orthodox christianity. There are many divisions East/West.
You seemed to take religions into account and it is pretty well known that there are 3 big western monotheist (Abrahamic) religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, while the East is understood as Chinese, Japaneese and Indian religious traditions.

That said Islam is one of 3 great western civilizations.

[Bulgaroktonos]

Maybe it's routs are western but today it is an asiatic religion.

@domagoj : There was a time in which islam was a religion of culture and progress. It's just 1300 years ago...

[elvain]

Indeed i do not think of Islam as a great civilization,my opinion is that they are a bunch of primitve brutes.
Thats my view of Islam.

that is very primitive view of one of the world's greatest civilizations.

When Europe was being christianized in pretty barbaric ways, it was muslim scholars who preserved wisdom of old Greeks. Aristotle - as barbaric pagan philospher - was almost forgotten in Great Christian Europe. His - and many of ancient Greek, all of Indian, Persian and Chinese - wisdom got to Europe through Arabic scholars and translations.

You idealize one civilization and forget that the civilization that saved most of the Ancient World's wisdom was Islam.

Maybe it's routs are western but today it is an asiatic religion.
I think we are discussing middle ages, aren't we?
In Middle Ages it was Islam and Byzantine civilizations who were great civilizations and your "West" (Western christians) was primitive rural society compared to them

[maks]

Islam in my eyes is just as barbaric and destructive as christianity and judaism, thus being genuinely western religion. (Let's face it, truly eastern religions had their moments of shame, but never as much as abrahamic ones.) Civilizations, on the other hand, may do remarkably well despite any superstitious heritage.


I think we are discussing middle ages, aren't we?
In Middle Ages it was Islam and Byzantine civilizations who were great civilizations and your "West" (Western christians) was primitive rural society compared to them

I guess Bulgaroktonos referred to your remark on modern Istanbul. Which is perfectly legit anyway.

[Bulgaroktonos]

Maks is right. Turks for example are an race from farest asia.

And why was Aristoteles etc. barbaric ? This must be irony. The greeks invented the name 'barbar' because everything they understood when they met other people was 'bar bar'

[elvain]

I guess Bulgaroktonos referred to your remark on modern Istanbul. Which is perfectly legit anyway.That's right. then ok.
I just meant that it is great to be place where 2 great civilizations meet.

Maybe it's routs are western but today it is an asiatic religion.

@domagoj : There was a time in which islam was a religion of culture and progress. It's just 1300 years ago...in 8th century Islam absorbed all Old World's wisdom. In following 2 centuries it created the greatest culture ever seen in the Old World. At its peak, Islam stopped to watch what is happening in it's barbaric neighbourhood - especially in Catholic Europe, which was seen as the same barbaric region it was 2 centuries ago.

Rome collapsed when the Romans thought there is no progress outside the Empire. The Islamic Caliphate collapsed when the Muslims thought there was no progress outside the world of Islam. Now you say that there is no progress in Islam, while it is more than clear that the social turbulences in Islamic societies are very similar to those in Europe 150 years ago. Islam today is very progressive and expanding.

Having Istanbul, where both world meet is a great gift for both Europe and Turkey.

Aristotle was Pagan - that was the same as Barbar for ancient Greeks. It was works of Ibn Rushd (Averroes) that showed the Christians that he is compatible with Monotheism. Islamic writings and translations of Aristotle and other ancient Greek=Pagan philosphers were one of the main impulses that started Rennaissance. Why do you think there is no mention of most of great philosophers of ancient Greece in Byzantine scholarship?

Turks are a race?

[Bulgaroktonos]

Islam today is very progressive and expanding.

It's very expansive. OK (I live in Wuppertal in central Germany and they want to convert a church next to me into a mosque) but it's definetly not progressive. Do you think Osama Bin Laden is verry progressive ?!

Ancient Greeks were pagans too. You have to different between ancient greeks and christianized greeks. Over that I never heared christians named non-christians as barbarians. Mostly they were called infidels.

Turks are a race?

Dunno but if they aren't are race they are at least a folk.

[maks]

it is more than clear that the social turbulences in Islamic societies are very similar to those in Europe 150 years ago.

Do you mean that traditionally muslim countries tend to get more secular (I can see that point) or do you imply something else?

[Bulgaroktonos]

This would be a joke. Ahmadinedschad (?) and his fight for freedom and secularism.

[elvain]

Ancient Greeks were pagans too. You have to different between ancient greeks and christianized greeks. Over that I never heared christians named non-christians as barbarians. Mostly they were called infidels.My point was that the word 'Pagan' had - in mediaeval Christian Europe - the same meaning as Barbarian for Ancient Greeks or for us today: Uncivilized

I'm affraid we're getting bit too off-topic but anyway...
Dunno but if they aren't are race they are at least a folk.a Nation?

Do you mean that traditionally muslim countries tend to get more secular (I can see that point) or do you imply something else?
Well, many of the things that happen are side effects of large social changes within entire societies. The societies are changing, that's why there is more violence. If you look at Europe 150 years ago (demographic explosion, birth of "mass societies") it was full of atentates, social turbulences and houndreds of thousands emigrants (to America).
It would be wrong to exoect the same result as in Europe, but they definitely are very dynamically changing.
It's very expansive. OK (I live in Wuppertal in central Germany and they want to convert a church next to me into a mosque) but it's definetly not progressive. Do you think Osama Bin Laden is verry progressive ?!
Would you mind if there is a football pitch which is not used by a club in decline, to be used by new club which desperately needs its own pitch?
I don't know the situation in your city, but I guess that the church isn't used very much. How much respect did "civilized" christian immigrants to America have shown to religious symbols of local populations? They massacred them and built churches and pubs at their holy places. Now you mind when muslims want to have mosques in Europe.

Yes, Islam is expansive, because there is demographic explosion in Muslim countries. What did the Europeans do 150 years ago? They massively migrated to a country which promissed them better life. Uncivilized barbarians! :rolleyes:
This would be a joke. Ahmadinedschad (?) and his fight for freedom and secularism.George Bush and his fight for freedom and secularism?
I seriously doubt that Iranians will do the same as "free and secular" Americans - re-elect nationalist and religious fanatic.

EDIT: In muslim countries many imams are disqualified from public life, because the (mostly) secular regimes find them too religious. So they go to Europe and continue in their activities in Europe where they are tolerated. Believe me, imams in European and American mosques are far more radical than imams in most of Muslim countries.
And young people who feel abandoned by the majority and experience crisis of identity (all their live they live in Germany, but the society ostracizes them as Turks and Muslims, are you so curious they will - abandoned and frustrated - find their identity in a mosque with radical imam?)

[NikeBG]

I'm affraid we're getting bit too off-topic but anyway...
a Nation?
The Turks are only a nation (in the modern English meaning of "nation") as far as by "Turk" we mean only the people from Turkey and not all the Turkic people. But if we mean the Turkic people, then they're a bit more than an ethnos (well, the Turkicness, if I may say so, is mostly a linguistic element, but it more often gets associated as ethnical or sometimes religious one (by the Turkic people themselves)).

What did the Europeans do 150 years ago? They massively migrated to a country which promissed them better life. Uncivilized barbarians! :rolleyes:
If you're talking about the Americans, they are uncivilized barbarians indeed, so... :p (btw, for those who haven't understood - that was a joke ;) )

Now, about Eastern Islam (sorry, Elvain, but Islam is strongest in Northern Africa and the Middle (or Near) East, both of which aren't considered Western) : Western "Christianity" (well, it's true that most Western nations today aren't very Christian by belief anyway) - I have to admit that Turkey is actually a rather good example of a Muslim state, which has become a pretty fine and secular place. They might have been a thorn in our side for the last 6-7 centuries (and still are, maybe), but you've gotta admit Ataturk has done some pretty great job in changing the country for the better. Much much better. At least compared to the other Islamic states, most of which are on the level of "uncivilized barbarians" (or have enough oil to buy themselves out). And before Elvain gets pissed off, I'll say that on that level are also many "Christian" nations, including my own, unfortunately...

Now, about the actual topic of the fall of Christendom - well, besides the obvious faults of the 4th Crusaders (and the previous ones too, of course) and the resulting Latin Empire, besides the absolutely greatest reason for the fall - the internal demoralization of "the Shield of Europe", as a specific event, among all the others, I'll mention the rejection of the Bulgarian and Serbian rulers to create a joint Byzantine-Bulgarian/-Serbian fleet to repulse the Ottomans before they could create a foothold on European soil. Alas, our rulers didn't believe the offer (maybe with right, maybe not) and we all know what happened next.

Speaking of what happened next, I'd say this is the perfect place to "advertise" one Bulgarian movie from 1987 whose English subtitles I had edited around a month ago. I've uploaded it to ThePirateBay with English and Bulgarian subs, so you should be able to understand it, if you want to watch it. It's about the process of the Islamization of the Rhodope Mountains around 1668. And before Elvain again gets pissed off that it's a propaganda against the Turks and the Muslims, I'll quote my favourite part from the synopsis (which is why I used that specific one): "And, surprisingly, this isn't a "vile Turk" story. Director Ludmil Staikov has much more ambitious goals, including an examination of the power of religion and of the destructiveness of violence and fanaticism. Not all of the Christians are good, nor all of the Muslims bad." True, that can be seen much better in the even greater masterpiece of the book, but the movie's a real classic too. Here's the link: Vreme Razdelno (http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4718538/Vreme_Razdelno___Time_of_Violence_(1987)) (Time of Violence/Parting).

P.S. The movie is *most definitely* not suitable for children, with or without parental guidance. It's also not really suitable for the weak of heart as well (or at least the second chapter of the movie).

[Bulgaroktonos]

Elvain is Czech I wonder why he defends the turks so much ? Did he convert to islam ?

[Mephistopheles]

No, he just has common sense.
I support Elvain's views, but don't want to participate in the discussion because I don't cooperate with such vocabulary. We're a couple of centuries past such mindsets.

[domagoj]

Elvain,as i see you say of me as having a primitive view of Islam.Say that to millions of people hurt,killed,raped,kidnapped by the Muslim people.Yet,i think you can see no truth.I think i understand you.These periods were turbulent and maybe Christians did it too,but,there are no record of Christians doing Evil.Muslims did save Antiquoe artifacts,because they viewed them of better importance.It was a whole new world to them.To Christians it was something explored.If Christians..hmm.went to the Arabian Peninsula and find some artifacts,they WOULD save them because it would be NEW to them.

I am NOT Christian so i do NOT speak lesser of Islam.

[jediguardian]

"there are no record of Christians doing Evil"
I lol'd.
Christians did terrible things as well. Catholics mostly. Inquisition anyone?
I am orthodox christian btw.
Also it was Byzantia that didn't want to make a union with Bulgaria and Serbia. In fact they let the turks on the Balkans so they could attack and weaken Bulgaria, thats how much they hated us. Their hatred is the reason their empire fell.
I'll read the whole topic and edit if I have anything to add.

EDIT:
Main thing is that domagoj should read some history books.

Medieval turks are a linguistic group. The Ottoman empire was multiethnical islamic country just like Byzantia was multiethnical Christian country. The "turks" term standing for people living in Turkey was invented by Ataturk a 100 years ago to parry the European nations pretensions for compensations.

"At least compared to the other Islamic states, most of which are on the level of "uncivilized barbarians" (or have enough oil to buy themselves out). And before Elvain gets pissed off, I'll say that on that level are also many "Christian" nations, including my own, unfortunately..."
Bulgarians were way more civilized than byzantines actually. The communist theories about small turk tribe being sucked into the slavic sea are far from the common sense.


"Would you mind if there is a football pitch which is not used by a club in decline, to be used by new club which desperately needs its own pitch?"
It is different. If, lets say, africans start popullating your country and become as much as your own people and start asking for more and more won't you do anything about it to stop the changing of the your countries population?

[domagoj]

Evil on Purpose wise guy.

[jediguardian]

So chasing "witches" wasn't evil on purpose? It is all a point of view. Wise guy.

[NikeBG]

Elvain is Czech I wonder why he defends the turks so much ? Did he convert to islam ?
Elvain is Czech, yes, but I think he's studied the Muslim culture very well, has travelled to Palestine etc. and has seen a lot with his own eyes. And, believe me, when he speaks about those things, he usually knows most of what he's talking about. ;)
And, btw, I wouldn't say he's specifically defending the Muslims - it's more like he's defending his notion of the actual truth. And although I don't always agree with him, I agree that's admirable...

Also it was Byzantia that didn't want to make a union with Bulgaria and Serbia. In fact they let the turks on the Balkans so they could attack and weaken Bulgaria, thats how much they hated us. Their hatred is the reason their empire fell.
Uh... no. What I'm talking about was the Byzantine offer from 1351 to Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Alexander and Serbian Tsar Stefan Dushan to help with the feeding of the sailors, so they can guard the Dardanelles against the Turks. According to the Bulgarian Chronicle from the XV c., the Bulgarians and Serbs laughed at the envoys, mentioned in a typical Balkan manner their mothers and wives and sent them off, saying "when the Turks come, we'll protect ourselves".
And the Byzantines let the Turks on the Balkans not to weaken Bulgaria, but they used them as mercenaries in their own civil wars (Andronicus the Old vs. Andronicus the Young, John Cantacozenos etc). They just realised a bit too late that the Ottomans have established themselves on the Balkans too well and have became basically a strong wolf against many small lambs.

Bulgarians were way more civilized than byzantines actually. The communist theories about small turk tribe being sucked into the slavic sea are far from the common sense.
That's modern nationalistic crap and anyone who's actually *studied* the medieval Bulgarian and Byzantine cultures can say it is so. Or lie. Or just not understand what culture means and fall prey to the sensations many medias and parties use today as a modern form of nationalistic "candy"...

[maks]

there are no record of Christians doing Evil.Muslims did save Antiquoe artifacts,because they viewed them of better importance.It was a whole new world to them.To Christians it was something explored.

Curses! I'm driven unable to read this thread with a straight face! >.<

[Bulgaroktonos]

Bulgarians were way more civilized than byzantines actually.

:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:

This must be a joke ! The sucessors of Rome with their famous capital, richer than all other cities of the world, in compare to a half-nomadic tribe in the Rhodopes ... I can't believe it.

EDIT : Would you mind if there is a football pitch which is not used by a club in decline, to be used by new club which desperately needs its own pitch?
I don't know the situation in your city, but I guess that the church isn't used very much.

I've never seen a football club with suicid bomber fans ...

[elvain]

Now, about Eastern Islam (sorry, Elvain, but Islam is strongest in Northern Africa and the Middle (or Near) East, both of which aren't considered Western) : I know we all know what is general meaning of "the West". I just wanted to emphasize that WE (We - Western or even Eastern Christians - and Muslims have common origin, in terms of religion)


Speaking of what happened next, I'd say this is the perfect place to "advertise" one Bulgarian movie from 1987 (...) And before Elvain again gets pissed off that it's a propaganda against the Turks Thanks for the link. I will certainly check it out :go:
Just don't get me wrong. No way I'm trying to deny the "evil" done by the Ottoman empire to the nations of the Balkans.
I'm just fighting words of injustice, which say that Islam or Muslims are "more primitive and barbaric than Christianity".
I'm just trying to emphasize that religion has little to do with this primitiveness. It is social frustration which has always been covered by more noble ideas - just to cover the inability to overcome it.

Elvain is Czech I wonder why he defends the turks so much ? Did he convert to islam ? I don't care who is this against, if Turks or whoever. I just fight these words of hatred injustice against any group of people (I did so, when IWM flooded us with his Muslim predjudices against "Christians" or "the West". It is kind of my obsession.

It has no connection to my national or religious views, as I don't care what is the others' confession or nationality. But if you care, I am half Czech and half Slovak and grown up in "atheist" family of half protestant (lutheran) and half catholic origin. After my last visit to Palestine I consider myself as Christian more than anything else.

as i see you say of me as having a primitive view of Islam.Say that to millions of people hurt,killed,raped,kidnapped by the Muslim people.Yet,i think you can see no truth.I think i understand you.
I apologize, but I doubt you understand. Those millions of killed or hurt people won't change the fact that your view of Islam is primitive. Being hurt gives you no right to hate.
It helps others to understand you. But it is very "Western" (Western=Abramic) idea that there should be something more than primitive revenge. Understandable, but still primitive revenge.

These periods were turbulent and maybe Christians did it too,but,there are no record of Christians doing Evil.Muslims did save Antiquoe artifacts,because they viewed them of better importance.It was a whole new world to them.To Christians it was something explored.If Christians..hmm.went to the Arabian Peninsula and find some artifacts,they WOULD save them because it would be NEW to them.
You are so very wrong. Learn some history. History books are full of evidence of "Christian" evil (as they are full of "Muslim" and others' evil).
1) Christians preserved very little of Ancient wisdom (by will). Thankfully they haven't destroyed it all. As said above, Ancient Greek philosophy wasn't saved in Constantinople or even in "the West", but in Syria and Andalusia, which have fallen under rule of Islam.

2) look at America and how much was saved in the last "civilized" centuries. Be gratefull that the continent was far enough and that the massive colonization took place long after the miracles of the Americas were already forgotten (to be found later). I don't want this discussion to turn into "who did worse massacres and when". All cultures did them.


It is different. If, lets say, africans start popullating your country and become as much as your own people and start asking for more and more won't you do anything about it to stop the changing of the your countries population? I would "defend" my country. But how does it help you to see who is more "barbaric" or "civilized". It only says who came there first. "We" invented a concept of human rights and representative democracy (please don't take me literaly). But when it seems that we may lose the majority (to decide), we steadily start denying our own principles of human rights and deny the acccess to full rights to the "others". How is it more civilized than Islam which will most probably change it (what we would call barbarism)?
"We" have full right to defend our values on "our land". But it is question of land and power, don't mess it up with "barbarism" and "civilizedness", please. "We" will always be found more civilized than "They" - whoever says that.
btw, how you want to distinct "Europeans by origin" from "Muslims by origin"? Trace the origin 3 generations back like in 1933-1945?

Evil on Purpose wise guy. "Path to Hell is paved with good intentions." Anyone?

but I think he's studied the Muslim culture very well, has travelled to Palestine etc. and has seen a lot with his own eyes. And, believe me, when he speaks about those things, he usually knows most of what he's talking about.
Don't over-estimate me ;) However, I have studied Anthropology and "Western history" aswell.

I support Elvain's views, but don't want to participate in the discussion because I don't cooperate with such vocabulary. We're a couple of centuries past such mindsets. Thanks. Also I think I have wasted enough my time in this - most probably pointless - discussion.

[domagoj]

They were fighting for what they believed in,and that was very primitive.
I dont think of Christianity as a lesser evil than islam,religion is war.I absolutely hate religion.
Yes i know about the heavy tax inflicted by the Byzantines on Copts in Egypt.
Hehe elvain,i admit i am primitive,but there are many things you cant understand :)

[domagoj]

LOL!WHen i looked at what i wrote i almost suffocated.

[Bulgaroktonos]

After my last visit to Palestine I consider myself as Christian more than anything else.

This sounds interesting. Did you see to much of muslim cruels in palaestine or what changed your mind ?

[NikeBG]

As said above, Ancient Greek philosophy wasn't saved in Constantinople or even in "the West", but in Syria and Andalusia, which have fallen under rule of Islam.
Uhm, you're wrong about the Constantinople part. Most of the ancient Greek heritage was preserved and the idea that "Romeans/Byzantines despised the ancient Greeks simply because they were Pagan" is somewhat of a myth (of course, they medieval Romans didn't really like their ancient faiths, but they also didn't dismiss their achievements (especially since it was not the Greeks' fault Christ wasn't born before Socrates)). F.e. in the Magnaura School in Constantinople (what could be called the first real medieval university in Europe) many of the "old-school" subjects were thaught. And f.e. the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon, who studied there and showed great skills in rhetorics and knowledge of ancient Greek literature, was called by the Byzantines, with a bit of admiration, "half-Hellene" as a sign of his knowledge, skills etc. So it's right to say that the ancient philosophies and knowledge was mostly forgotten in Western Europe, while it was somewhat preserved in the Islamic world, but that Islamic world acquired it from Byzantium, which did preserve it. And thanks to which Bulgaria, in my "personal" plan, had the chance to develop in a very peculiar symbiosis which had a great role in the cultural evolution of my country (as well as that of Serbia, to some extent Russia etc).

This must be a joke ! The sucessors of Rome with their famous capital, richer than all other cities of the world, in compare to a half-nomadic tribe in the Rhodopes ... I can't believe it.
First, Constantinople wasn't really the richest city in the world, since there were several bigger and probably richer cities outside of Europe (or what most Europeans consider to be Europe).
Second, the Bulgars took the Rhodopes rather late, it was maybe among the last acquired Bulgarian lands. You probably meant Moesia, which was the first province acquired by the Bulgars and which the Byzantines used the most (together with Scythians) to designate them.
Third, you make it sound as if semi-nomadic (that's the correct term) is something bad and low! As one Russian historian has said: "The horseman, standing high on his horse, can see much further in this world than the farmer, whose eyes are stuck at his plow". It's generally clear that steppe people (nomads) are much more... how to say... adaptable and quickly assimilate the best of all the cultures they have contact with (from China to Rome f.e.) into their own culture (not to mention that usually creates an interesting religious and even ethnic tolerance). :p
Fourth, the Bulgars weren't a tribe, but a polyethnos. Kinda like the Huns. There were many tribes, some of them with quite different origins (Turkic, Iranic, Ugric, Slavic, even Germanic), cultures, way of life etc. united into one polyethnos.

[elvain]

This sounds interesting. Did you see to much of muslim cruels in palaestine or what changed your mind ?
this is way too off-topic, so check your PM box for my answer. Briefly, if there was cruelty it was mostly from Israeli side. But the cruelty has nothing to do with my identity.

Uhm, you're wrong about the Constantinople part.
You are right, but I was unclear(to keep that loooong post as short as possible). I meant "the important part of Ancient greek philosophy, that helped to form The West as we know it."
The empire was too busy (struggling to survive and reform itself) to excercise the most basic of Arts - philosophy/metaphysics - also because Christian theology seemed to be sufficent. The hardcore philosophy wasn't excercized much - most of it was only traded further to east and there further developed and though Sicily and Andalusia got to "the West". Western philosophy had main sources in Damascus, Palermo and Cordoba rather than in Constantinople (though I don't try to deny it may have gone through).
Law and other practical arts, on the other hand, were well preserved in Constantinople, of course.
However, I must admit that my information is rather general, than very detailed, so I might be influenced by some myths.

EDIT:

Hehe elvain,i admit i am primitive,but there are many things you cant understand :)

I am far from saying you are primitive. Your view of Islam is, but how can I hudge you in person?

I've never seen a football club with suicid bomber fans ...

from what I know, Germany has more problems with crazy students shooting their mates and teachers or rising neo-nazism, than with suicide bombers. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[elvain]

Some self-promotion, which has some connection to this topic...

To all who are interested in the Dark Ages, we are just finnishing* Arabia Universalis mod (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=259566) (for EU2), covering period of 711-1031.

Some screenshots from the scenario:
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1945/screensave26.jpg
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8317/screensave27.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/2280/screensave30.jpg

Ingame screenshots and the mod are made by Cool-Toxic, I made most of the map West from Tibet.. it has special taste for me, as it is the first "real" use of my entire map of Regions of Medieval Europe (with some changes).


* well, finnishing is kind of exaggeration, but the map and basic scheme of the mod is going to be finnished soon

[Mephistopheles]

Do you plan on running an online campaign with that mod?
I'm pretty sure that an online EU2 campaign with some KoH2-veterans would be quite a lot of fun.
(Unfortunately the singleplayer for EU2 just isn't very good.)