7 ms·
> During this period, from the late fourth to the mid-seventh century AD, Christianity became the dominant religion, towns expanded across the country and Egypt
by declan_roberts 2mo ago
> During this period, from the late fourth to the mid-seventh century AD, Christianity became the dominant religion, towns expanded across the country and Egypt served as one of the empire's richest provinces.
It's easy to forget how different the Middle East looked before the conquest of Islam starting in 600 AD.
- dismalaf 2mo agoNot just Islamic conquest but Arab conquest. Up to this point Arabs lived mainly in, well, Arabia. The indigenous peoples of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc..., were all non-Arab. Nowadays those indigenous groups are known as Copts, Syriacs, Chaldeans, etc...
- einpoklum 2mo agoLocal populations adopted Arabic. Somewhat like, several centuries earlier, they adopted Greek; and elsewhere and at other times, Latin. The peoples of the regions were not replaced by Greek or Roman colonists.
- taeric 2mo agoLegitimate question, in the early days was this a large distinction? Specifically, my understanding was that the earliest raids where this distinction is most accurate, they didn't actually change the local societies much. Mostly were raids for resources and did not stay. That is, until the Islamic raids started, the indigenous groups took losses, but were not nearly as transformed. Is that not accurate?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- thaumasiotes 2mo agoWell, the distinction mattered. But because the distinction mattered, the modern labels aren't really accurate. Arabs were the highest-prestige ethnicity within their empire. But they were numerically insignificant. You have "Arabs" and "Copts" in Egypt today, but most of the "Arabs" are Copts whose ancestors decided they wanted more respect. Same thing is true farther west, where the "Arabs" are Berbers.
- taeric 2mo agoThat isn't really addressing my question, I don't think? The assertion is that most of the Arab mixing into region came at the same time as the later invasions. Yes, they would have remained fewer in absolute numbers. But they weren't even there after the earlier raids.
- senderista 2mo agoWe call Arabic speakers “Arabs” but there wasn’t that much genetic replacement.
- dismalaf 2mo ago85% of Egyptians have some Arab DNA. Only 15% don't have Arab DNA. Even if the amount of DNA only adds up to 20% of their mix (the average), it's still very significant.
- senderista 2mo agoBlack Americans have on average 20-25% European ancestry but we don’t call them “Europeans”.
- gaiagraphia 2mo agoIsn't this fuelling the conflict in Darfur? UAE-backed Arabs trying to muscle out the Africans?
- throwaway30213 2mo agoAnd indigenous groups in France (just to use an example) are called Occitans, Bretons, Catalonians, Flemish, Alsatians, Corsicans, etc., etc. This isn't a unique phenomenon.
- dismalaf 2mo agoFlemish, Alsatians and Corsicans are literally Dutch, German and Italian, who are just part of France due to recent history. Occitans and Catalans are near Spain. Bretons are Celts just like Gauls, whom you missed. You also missed other Celtic groups. And they (Celts) were the majority before invasions, still the majority. Indigenous doesn't mean minority, it means the original inhabitants.
- trhway 2mo ago>It's easy to forget how different the Middle East looked before the conquest of Islam starting in 600 AD. it naturally looked differently due to different climate. For example there was booming agriculture in Carthage back then - modern Tunisia. The climate warming during the first millennia made Mediterranean Basin less grain-production and animal farming suitable while more suitable for the nomadic Arabs riding out of Arabia. That warming also made life more convenient (in particular conditions became much better for agriculture, the backbone of the civilization) in the previously cold and swampy Mid and North Europe where as a result we see the wave of rise of the civilization. Coincidentally, we have Caliphates decline and Reconquista happening when the climate started to cool down toward the Little Ice Age. The map of Reconquista looks like a geographical climate regions map https://stuffedeyes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/what-was-the-reconquista-map.png https://stuffedeyes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/what-was-... (compare to https://www.spanish-town-guides.com/photo/spain_climate_map.gif https://www.spanish-town-guides.com/photo/spain_climate_map....)
- gaiagraphia 2mo agoIslam has sure done a number on cultural diversity in the world. It's such a shame that the various cultural holdouts in the Middle East never get much attention when they're systematically wiped off the map. The Mandaeans in the marshes near Basra will probably be next to disappear into the sands of time. Not even a whisper in the media. Oil sure has a way of drowning out 'human rights' in conversation.
- senderista 2mo agoTry reading about Kafiristan, where primitive Hinduism (think Rig Veda) survived for 3500 years before being wiped out in the 1890s by a British-appointed Islamic despot.
- gaiagraphia 2mo agoAlways amazed me how the Kalash in Chitral Valley have managed to peacefully get on with things. I guess the terrain helps. I always like to think how the region would've looked if all these remnants of peoples had thriving nations.
- senderista 2mo agoThe Kalash are very similar genetically and culturally and are also facing cultural genocide by Islamists. Truly one of the most fascinating ethnic minorities extant.
- openuntil3am 2mo agoChristianity is no different.
- jsemrau 2mo agoPlease educate yourself more on this. Step out of your bubble. Christian nations have created the cultural and technical achievements over the last thousands of years. There is nothing even remotely comparable.
- hechang1997 2mo ago> It's easy to forget how different the Middle East looked before the conquest of Islam starting in 600 AD. It’s easy to forget because it’s a fabricated perspective. Islamic/Arabian conquest of MENA isn’t really that different from what Romans or Persians did. That region is literally the source of human civilization (in the Old World at least) and had seen empires come and go ever since the Bronze Age, and along with them all sorts of cultures and religions. What fundamentally changed the dynamics of the region is not the islamic conquest but the shift of the center of the global trade away from Middle East and the Mediterranean to the Western Europe.
- wqaatwt 2mo agoIt is somewhat different. Romans or Greeks didn’t really violently impose their culture, religion and language to a comparable degree. Without the Islamic invasions Egyptian would likely still be speaking Coptic these days.
- ghostDancer 2mo agoThat's not exactly true. Spain, Portugal and France, at least, speak languages derived from Latin, while the original languages went extincted. And Christian religion taken by the Romans annihilated all the rest of religions in Europe.
- madspindel 2mo ago> And Christian religion taken by the Romans It was not taken by the Romans. It was persecuted by the Romans for nearly 300 years.
- ghostDancer 2mo agoIn the beginning it prosecuted the Christians but later the Roman empire embraced Christianity and imposed all through the empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_as_the_Roman_state_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_as_the_Roman_stat...
- soperj 2mo agoYou had one group of people who believed in God that were completely wiped out by another who also believed in the same God.
- Chu4eeno 2mo agoTwo, don't forget the jews.
- madspindel 2mo agoAllahu akbar = (Our) God is greater It's true that Islam is a Christian heresy but to be fair, Islam tries to be it's own State Religion only for the Arabs. So in that sense it's not the same God since they don't believe in the Trinity.
- asabil 2mo agoIncorrect translation, Allahu Akbar means “the god is the greatest” Allah is not a name that came with Islam but existed before, it just means deity. the Al prefix is the definite singular form. It just says one thing: god is a singleton and nothing is above it.
- madspindel 2mo agoNo, the correct translation is "God is greater". And it was used as a war chant against Christians. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKCx0JHzPs2/ https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKCx0JHzPs2/
- thisislife2 2mo agoWhen Indian army regiments, with predominantly Sikh soldiers, fight any army, they rally themselves for battle with cries of "Wahe Guru ki Khalsa, Wahe Guru ki Fatah" (which roughly translates to "[We] the pure are of the almighty, and the triumph in making is also of the almighty). Pakistani army, predominantly Muslim soldiers, do use the rallying cry of "Allahu Akbar". It's debatable whether these chants are meant more for themselves, than directed at their "enemies".