Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (140261)	7/14/2004 1:15:41 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Umayyad were fairly "tolerant" with obeying citizens but were extremely ruthless (this is a great understatement) against cultural diversity or political defiance. This partially explains why the countries with less developed political organization actually became "Arab" while Persians and Europeans resisted. In time the Iranians played on differences between Arab tribes and shifted the Caliphate from Umayyad to Abbasids who agreed to move the Capital to Baghdad and include Iranians in the government. The significance of moving the Capital is that Baghdad is only 60 miles away from the Ctesphone [sp?] the capital of Persian Empire. The Iranians went further and married into the Abbasid dynasty and eventually helped a half Iranian Caliph (Mamoon) to power, whom I believe later wiped them all out! In general, maintaining an empire without a good measure of social justice and prosperity is not possible. The Romans, like the Arabs, were successful in maintaining their empire because they assimilated the locals on a cultural level and maintained some measure of social justice. The Persians had a different approach that is best described as confederation. And the Vikings were yet even more "hands-off". Last year on this thread I discussed how there are three major ways to colonize: The way of the Romans, the way of the Persians, and the way of the Vikings. The Roman way is what most people think of when they think of an Empire and is the most obvious. The Persian way is by putting in place a leadership loyal to the central command and leave them alone in their internal matters, within confines of Federal law. The Viking way is to use trade routes for gains. Should the trade come under threat, use military power to punish the dissent and get the hell out ASAP. US foreign policy has slowly shifted from the Vikings', to the Persians', and now increasingly towards the Roman model.

To: epicure who wrote (140261)	7/14/2004 6:11:18 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I forgot to elaborate about the Umayyads. They were in fact quite generous (financially) and tolerant so long as there was no hint of threat to their ruling status. They were also amongst the most skilled politicians the world has seen ("if there exists but a hair between the people and I, it shall never be broken. For when they pull, I will let lose and when they let lose, I shall pull so that I have something to give back the next time they pull" -- Muawiya, the founder of Umayyad). Finally, they were also the least faithful of all Muslim Caliphs, and this allowed them more flexibility in some matters. Unfortunately they were also the most ruthless dynasty to rule the Islamic empire. In the end, it was this ruthlessness and unwillingness to share power that brought their downfall. When they fell, every single trace of them was removed off the face of the Earth. Not only the entire dynasty and its servants were killed, but every grave, monument, and even Mosque attributed to them was destroyed as well (I think somethings from Marvan remains but that is because he refused to rule).