back
45 comments
The Baghdad they are talking about here was largely destroyed in 1258 by the Mongols.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258)

Many of Asia's greatest cities were destroyed in the space of about 50 years: Constantinople in 1206 (almost Asian!), Beijing in 1215, Samarkand in 1220, Baghdad 1258. History might have looked very different if these cities had been saved.

For example, it's likely that much of the scholarship of western antiquity was lost in the closely spaced sacks of Constantinople and Baghdad. The Mongol destruction was particularly thorough in their destruction of scholarship: "The books from Baghdad’s libraries were thrown into the Tigris River in such quantities that the river ran black with the ink from the books."[1]

[1] http://lostislamichistory.com/mongols/

I think this is way overblown. The reality is that by 1258 Baghdad has lost its power and was replaced as the center of islam by cairo.

The mongols put in place the Ilkhanate and sientific and cultural work flurished for a time.

In Islamic memory the sack of Bagdad is legendary and it has been put as the explenation for the decline of islamic civilisation. I would be very hesetant of using "lostislamichistory" as a source.

Some of the same arguments could be made for china and the romans (eastern).

> The Mongol destruction was particularly thorough in their destruction of scholarship

Why did the Mongols hate books so much? Central Asian Turkic invaders (related to the Mongols) were also responsible for burning down one of India largest libraries (at Nalanda).

I don't understand why certain groups of people would be so bent on destruction. Destruction of life, property, art, culture, scholarship, literature, etc.

It is very sad.

Having listened to some history (some who don't like him would say pseudo-history) lectures by Dan Carlin on the whole Mongol thing, my takeaway was that the reason for all the murder is the classic dehumanisation approach.

Mongols did not consider the people they conquered to be far above cattle. When they took over cities they staged systematic executions where they would literally corral a hundred thousand people together, and have a thousand of their soldiers armed with axes be told "go collect 100 right ears to prove that you've killed your quota of people". As far as I can tell the way to get humans to do that to other humans seems, throughout history, to be to convince the murderers that the people they're killing aren't really human, they're just some sort of weaker other-species.

This is just my hypothesis, but I think it's for "brand". They didn't destroyed only books but basically everything, because of this many cities surrendered without even trying to fight back. In that case your civilization was preserved. That's why the mongols were able to conquer so much so quickly, fear build on these horrible actions.
Sorry, the 'Destruction of Baghdad destroyed the learning' is categorically false. If you will look at history, Islamic scholars kept churning out knowledge quite a bit after the destruction, and in terms of academic achievements, it doesn't seem to have had a LOT of interruption. My history professor explained it this way: If Cambridge/Boston MA area were to disappear tomorrow, we would most definitely lose a LOT in terms of knowledge and research. It would however not be a beginning of a dark age. I have been led to believe that modern historians mostly agree that the traditional interpretation of the sacking of Baghdad as being the ending of the Islamic Enlightenment is mostly overblown.
Maybe... But by then, the Reconquista was already well under way, Europe was sponging what remained of the Muslim world's technological advances through Spain and Sicily (they did science and tech long before art), Byzantium was basically decadent and oblivious to the fact that the Roman Empire was no longer relevant, and Eastern societal values were entrenched.

Plus, geographical context arguably played in Europe's favor for the latter: cut some trees and start planting likely yields more individualistic and competitive values (small kingsoms) than flood plains that require intense cooperation and submission to the greater good of society (large empires).

Yes, Dan Carlin's Series on the Mongols (Wrath of the Khans) discusses what-ifs at depth regarding the Baghdad of 1258. The destruction, in his estimation (iirc), set back the greater region by at least 200 years. It was absolutely devastating.

http://www.dancarlin.com/product-tag/mongols/ (free at the moment apparently, good listen)

I am a fan of Dan Carlin but people shoud not use him as a source for arguments. He has a flair for the dramatic and the grand story of the decline of islam is to good a story not to tell it.
Thanks for the reference!
A perspective on the cities of the Arab world that I found helpful:[1]

An old Arab saying goes, 'Cairo writes, Beirut publishes and Baghdad reads.' These three capitals, along with Damascus, were long the hubs of culture and education in the Arab world. ... a new set of cities started to emerge in the Gulf, establishing themselves as the new centers of the Arab world. Abu Dhabi, its sister emirates of Dubai and Sharjah and the Qatari capital, Doha ...

[1] I have no idea how accurate it is: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/10/abu-dhabi-...

You just named some of the most culturally devoid places on the planet, if you ask me, these cities are jokes compared to the old arab world.

But then, the arab world is a joke right now, it's hard to really point out what the center of the arab world is, other than to really just look at a proxy of who has had the most oil money and oil geopolitical relations with the west the past 50 years, which are the places you mentioned. Take away the oil and these cities are nothing, attract no academics or entrepreneurs, engineers, medical professionals or journalists. As for artists, writers, film makers, it's tiny.

Of course after some time, an oil-subsidised society attracts enough talent to be meaningful without oil, but if you visit these places I still think you'll find a pretty empty place that runs on fossil riches. Although to their credit, they're aware of this and are trying to diversify.

Take Abu Dhabi, they mentioned having a GDP larger than any arab country save for Suadi Arabia. It's economy consists 85% of oil exports, a place of 2 million people. To act like that's some kind of cultural capital like the journalist does is a joke.

It's a fluff piece by a journalist from the Emirates if you ask me.

> It's economy consists 85% of oil exports, a place of 2 million people.

To be fair, you could also say that many nations are very dependent on digging things out of the ground. That probably isn't related to whether they're cultural capitals.

Russia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Russia_E...

Norway https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/No...

Mongolia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Mongolia...

Colombia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Colombia...

its economy. It's = it is or it has.
This comment offers no basis or substance; it's just ignorance and ridicule. Why do people think the latter is a substitute for the former? The less they know the more hyperbolic they are.
“This is the greatest city that Allah, may he be raised from the rising of the sun in the morning until the setting of the sun in the evening, and also in the nighttime, and in the hours before the dawn, has seen fit with which to bless the world. And this age is the perfect age.”

— Haroun Al Raschid, The Sandman, issue 40, Ramadan

The illustrations in that issue are breathtaking.
An interesting fact about Baghdad is that the name itself isn't Arabic, but rather Persian. It translates to something like "given by God". This reflects the long multicultural history of the city and region.
It means The Garden in Persian
The name dates to middle Persian when Bagh meant god, not garden, as it does in modern Persian/Farsi. Cf Sanskrit Bhaga.
First, we destroy a place/city/habitat, and then after completely ruining beyond any hope of recovering, make a museum or write a posthumous article about it.
and by 'we' you mean the Mongols who sacked and razed this version of Baghdad to the ground in 1258, right?
I would wager that there was a version of this city, more recent than 1258 that the residents were happy with.
We did not destroy anything. Our beloved leaders did. Let's keep that distinction in mind about who to blame.
When your government goes to war it does it in your name. When a soldier kills somebody in that war he kills in your name. That's why it is called a representative government, the people vote for these guys, these guys represent the people. That's the foundation of a representative government. You can argue the process is corrupt, i'd argue it is because people stopped caring about the process at first place.
Agree. And also, don't forget no WMD was ever found in Iraq. What a mess that whole region is in now.
"Your" government? This assumes a democracy, no?
As long as you choose to fund the US government, instead of funding another government, you have culpability.
"Before the invasion in March 2003, polls showed 47-60% of the US public supported an invasion"
Manufactured Consent talks all about that. With propaganda you can get any group of people in the world to attack some other random group. Does not mean anyone actually supports it, just that they can be coerced into doing so. Polls as justification for popular mandates is itself a sham. Polls lie.
Maybe, if not for various manipulations, more people would have supported the invasion.
This reduces to all elections being non-binding as they're subject to manufactured consent, and thus doesn't stand up.
That's right.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” - W. Churchill

Either the majority of Americans are culpable or America is not a democracy
America is a representative republic, and one where the representatives in power have incentive to continue maintaining that power. This is to detriment of their constituents.
Yeah, I don't think it's too difficult to pick the correct answer there...
Correct, the USA is a Republic.
Only the ignorant call America a democracy. Also:

  George W. Bush: 50,456,002
  Al Gore: 50,999,897
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

PS: The supreme court chose 7–2 not to count 70,000 ballets in Florida when 537 votes was the margin of victory. That's all kinds of sketchy, but... America FUCK YEA!!!

Florida: The Dance State?
The leaders didn't elect themselves.
No it takes Goldman Sachs.
Isn't the US a democracy? That means the citizenry accept culpability in their leaders' actions.

(Personally, I don't think the US is a democracy, and you're off the hook)

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iraq/gdp : http://country.eiu.com/iraq Strong economic growth since establishment of new government.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iraq/gdp-per-capita

I wonder where that growth went?