Scan barcode
A review by aorth
In the Shadow of the Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World by Tom Holland
4.0
An enlightening read. There's no doubt that the fall of the Roman and Persian empires are closely connected to the rise of Islam, but the who, what, when, where, and why are more complicated than Muslims care—or dare—to admit.
Tied up in this historical drama are a long line of revisionists: the Achaemenid Persians and their Zoroastrian priests (mowbeds), the Western Romans and Virgil's Aeneid, the Jews and their Talmud, the Sasanid Persians and their Zoroastrian priests, and the Eastern Romans and their councils and creeds. Add to that a dozen bands of ascetics, heretics, and nomads, and lastly—seemingly out of nowhere—the empire of the Arabs.
The historical context for the explosive rise of the Arab empire is fascinating. Two story lines in particular struck me as significant. First, it seems that activities like burning copious amounts of frankincense, gathering around well springs, climbing on top of pillars, and worshiping stone cubes were commonplace during classical antiquity in the Near East. When the Roman empire adopted Christianity and started cracking down on these "pagan" practices in the fourth century, it was Arab tribes such as the Nabataeans—long time merchants of said frankincense—who lost their livelihoods. As the Arabs were a nomadic people inhabiting the wild fringes between the Roman and Persian empires, they eventually found lucrative new occupations as mercenaries for the warring empires—the Romans had the Ghassanids, Persians the Lakhmids. Later, in the sixth century, the bubonic plague would devastate the heavily urbanized Roman and Persian empires, again halting the cash flow to the Arabs. The plague didn't reach the depths of the desert, though...
The traditional Muslim account throws all of this background out the window. According to Islamic tradition the prophet Muhammad was an illiterate merchant who lived in the middle of the desert when he received the revelations of the Qur'an. Any of the striking similarities with other Abrahamic texts and traditions, Zoroastrian prayers, pagan rituals, and place names are explained away as God sending an updated version of his message to the world through a new prophet. For most Muslims it is simply enough to start world history from "Muhammad received revelations from God." Everything after that follows naturally for them. How the Qur'an actually came into existence still a mystery for the rest of us. Who wrote it? In what language was it written? Who was its audience? How many times was it edited? By who? Did Muhammad know about the Nicene Creed?
The reality is that there is very little surviving evidence from contemporary sources—Arab or otherwise—to support any of the miracles associated with the awesome rise of the Arab empire. The Battle of Badr? No sources outside of the Qur'an. Mecca, the "mother of cities", full of grapes and olives, located in the Hijaz? Location not mentioned in the Qur'an or on any maps until decades after Muhammad's death. The Islamic position that Christ didn't die on the cross? That's the same message that the heretic gospel of Basilides said four hundred years earlier. The intimate details we "know" about Muhammad's life and character from the biography (sira) of the prophet? Published over one-hundred-fifty years after Muhammad's death by Ibn Hisham, with zero surviving sources. The Meccan Ka'aba (cube) is the house of God? Arabs worshiped carved stone cubes all over Arabia for at least five hundred years before Muhammad (from Petra in the north, to Yemen in the south). Neither the shahada (testament of faith), "Muslim", "Islam", nor Muhammad's name appear anywhere in public for over fifty years after the Prophet's death. Muslims pray five times per day? Zoroastrians pray five times per day (and the names of their prayers are even the same)! And on and on it goes. Whatever really happened at the end of the ancient world we may never know, but the traditional Muslim account is definitely not it.
There is so much to be learned in this book. The text is thoroughly footnoted, endnoted, accompanied by maps, pictures, a concise timeline of major events, a list of characters, an index, a glossary, and a bibliography of primary and secondary sources (thanks to the extensive bibliography I've now added three more books to my "to read" list). I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in a detailed account of the struggle for power in the Near East during classical antiquity.
Tied up in this historical drama are a long line of revisionists: the Achaemenid Persians and their Zoroastrian priests (mowbeds), the Western Romans and Virgil's Aeneid, the Jews and their Talmud, the Sasanid Persians and their Zoroastrian priests, and the Eastern Romans and their councils and creeds. Add to that a dozen bands of ascetics, heretics, and nomads, and lastly—seemingly out of nowhere—the empire of the Arabs.
The historical context for the explosive rise of the Arab empire is fascinating. Two story lines in particular struck me as significant. First, it seems that activities like burning copious amounts of frankincense, gathering around well springs, climbing on top of pillars, and worshiping stone cubes were commonplace during classical antiquity in the Near East. When the Roman empire adopted Christianity and started cracking down on these "pagan" practices in the fourth century, it was Arab tribes such as the Nabataeans—long time merchants of said frankincense—who lost their livelihoods. As the Arabs were a nomadic people inhabiting the wild fringes between the Roman and Persian empires, they eventually found lucrative new occupations as mercenaries for the warring empires—the Romans had the Ghassanids, Persians the Lakhmids. Later, in the sixth century, the bubonic plague would devastate the heavily urbanized Roman and Persian empires, again halting the cash flow to the Arabs. The plague didn't reach the depths of the desert, though...
The traditional Muslim account throws all of this background out the window. According to Islamic tradition the prophet Muhammad was an illiterate merchant who lived in the middle of the desert when he received the revelations of the Qur'an. Any of the striking similarities with other Abrahamic texts and traditions, Zoroastrian prayers, pagan rituals, and place names are explained away as God sending an updated version of his message to the world through a new prophet. For most Muslims it is simply enough to start world history from "Muhammad received revelations from God." Everything after that follows naturally for them. How the Qur'an actually came into existence still a mystery for the rest of us. Who wrote it? In what language was it written? Who was its audience? How many times was it edited? By who? Did Muhammad know about the Nicene Creed?
The reality is that there is very little surviving evidence from contemporary sources—Arab or otherwise—to support any of the miracles associated with the awesome rise of the Arab empire. The Battle of Badr? No sources outside of the Qur'an. Mecca, the "mother of cities", full of grapes and olives, located in the Hijaz? Location not mentioned in the Qur'an or on any maps until decades after Muhammad's death. The Islamic position that Christ didn't die on the cross? That's the same message that the heretic gospel of Basilides said four hundred years earlier. The intimate details we "know" about Muhammad's life and character from the biography (sira) of the prophet? Published over one-hundred-fifty years after Muhammad's death by Ibn Hisham, with zero surviving sources. The Meccan Ka'aba (cube) is the house of God? Arabs worshiped carved stone cubes all over Arabia for at least five hundred years before Muhammad (from Petra in the north, to Yemen in the south). Neither the shahada (testament of faith), "Muslim", "Islam", nor Muhammad's name appear anywhere in public for over fifty years after the Prophet's death. Muslims pray five times per day? Zoroastrians pray five times per day (and the names of their prayers are even the same)! And on and on it goes. Whatever really happened at the end of the ancient world we may never know, but the traditional Muslim account is definitely not it.
There is so much to be learned in this book. The text is thoroughly footnoted, endnoted, accompanied by maps, pictures, a concise timeline of major events, a list of characters, an index, a glossary, and a bibliography of primary and secondary sources (thanks to the extensive bibliography I've now added three more books to my "to read" list). I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in a detailed account of the struggle for power in the Near East during classical antiquity.