Post-Classical map of India

Chinese Impact

Harun al-Rashid

This is a bad source, because the article is disorganized and disorderly.  For example, the article was talking about his life, and randomly adds a paragraph about his death and the events following it. Then, the article abruptly returns to talking about his life and his relationship with Charlemagne.  The article is also very disorganized.  Having all the points of his life thrown under a single section makes the article hard to read and takes away the reader's ability to focus.  It would have been better if there were individual sections discussing the different aspects of his life.  That way, the readers will be able to focus on small increments of information at a time.  I think this is an objective source as most of the information is fairly straight forward and factual.  For example, It shows Harun as being gruesome when he executed Ja' far, cut his body in two, and placed it on either side of a bridge for three years.  However, the article clarifies that this story was probably not true, and that the actual story was more realistic.

I have a couple of questions about the article. First off, did the Barmakids ever regain their prominent positions as administrators? And second, how was Harun as a ruler? was he benevolent, like Benjamin of Tudela describes him, or was he a tyrant? This Wikipedia page does answer most of my questions, as it is very specific and detailed.  I would go to a trusted site, such as an online database or a public library to find out more about him, rather than use Wikipedia.  If I Google searched his name, I would filter it by including specific words in my searches that will yield more specific results.  Furthermore, I would only look at the first 2 or 3 pages, because after that the results seem to become increasingly irrelevant.

I think Harun is so prevalent, because He is the caliph, which is a position higher than the king.  Because of this high position and power, I think it is natural for people to associate him with ridiculous and exaggerated stories that emphasize his power more.  I also think Wikipedia tempers his fame/notoriety, because the article denounces the exaggerated stories in the Thousand and One Nights tales as being fiction and states that he was much less legendary in real life.

Benjamin of Tudela

I don't think Benjamin of Tudela is biased toward either city, but I don't think that his view point can be taken seriously, because, I think that he looked only at the life of the wealthy/upper class when writing these descriptions and overlooked the lives of the majority, who were most likely not as prosperous. He went to both cities during a period of decline, but there is no evidence of decline in his description. In Constantinople, he described the enormous size of the city, its prosperity in trade, its magnificent churches such as the Hagia Sophia, and the wealth of the emperor. Similarly in Baghdad, he describes the magnificent palace of the caliph in which there are great riches, as well as the caliph's kindness and benevolence. He claims that the caliph built a hospital for the sick and poor on the banks of the Euphrates, as well as a mental institute called the Dar-al-Maristan where they kept charge of demented/insane people. Finally, he describes the enormous size of the city, being twenty miles in circumference. In both descriptions, he does not look into the lives of the poor or the general population, but focuses mostly on the wealthy merchants and rulers, and how prosperous they are. I believe that Benjamin of Tudela is is unbiased in terms of both cities as a whole, but I think his description only sheds light on the lives of the wealthy minority in each city and ignores the poorer majority. Therefore, I do not think that his description can be trusted completely.

The expansion of Islam map

Sources from the Past p.350

Compare the Quran's teachings on the relationship between Allah and human beings with the views of Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians discussed in earlier chapters.

The Quran's teachings on the relationship between Allah and human beings share similarities and differences with the Zoroastrian teachings on the relationship between Ahura Mazda and his believers. Like Allah, Ahura Mazda, the supreme Zoroastrian deity is taught to be an all-powerful god who shows benevolence to believers. However, the Quran requires followers to be modest, to observe fasting, and to "guard their private parts", while Zoroastrian teachings allow followers to enjoy the material world, which is considered a blessing. The Torah's teachings on Yahweh and his relationship with his followers is very similar to the teachings of the Quran on Allah's relationship with human beings. Like Allah, the Torah portrays Yahweh as a supreme deity who expects his followers to worship him alone.  He also demands his followers to observe high moral and ethical standards, just as Allah requires of his followers. The Quran's teachings on the relationship between Allah and human beings shares similarities and differences with the teachings of the relationship between the Christian God and his followers. Like Allah, the Christian God required followers to follow a strict moral code and judged their lives upon the day of judgement.  But, the Quran taught that Allah was the only god and was to be worshiped alone, while the Christians taught that salvation came through the son of God, Jesus Christ and that he is the savior who would bring individuals into the kingdom of God.

The Islamization of the Silk Road

Foltz's explanation for the spread of Islam does support Bentley's argument that conversions are brought about by voluntary association, pressure or force, and assimilation.  Voluntary conversion to Islam is seen when non-Muslims wished to convert to Islam even when Arab Muslims did not want them to join the faith.  This even goes to the extent that "by the early eighth century non-Arab converts were probably beginning to outnumber Arab Muslims." Conversion by force is also seen in the conversion of the Arabian tribes to Islam. A big part of the Muslim income came from raiding caravans, although "one couldn't raid clan members or groups with whom one had made a nonaggression pact." Because of this, the various tribes of the Arabian peninsula faced pressure to "sent emissaries to Muhammad in order to seek such pacts." Lastly, assimilation is also seen in the conversion of Central Asians to Islam.  Initially, Islamization took place mostly in the urban areas of Central Asia, where trade thrived along the silk roads.  The "Sufi shayks" spread Islam to the countrysides of Central Asia according to their own personal interpretations of the faith.  These personal interpretations "were accommodating towards pre-existing local beliefs and practices", leading to new expressions of Islam which differed from the original faith.

Liudprand of Cremona's view on Constantinople

Liudprand clearly has a very negative view on Constantinople.  He describes the poor way in which he was treated by the emperor upon his arrival to the city, "On the fourth of June, as I said above, we arrived at Constantinople and waited with our horses in heavy rain outside the Carian gate until five o'clock in the afternoon." He also describes the emperor as being disgusting. He is shown to be hideous in appearance and as treating his subjects with inferiority while exalting himself, "No one except Nicephorus wore any jewels or golden ornaments, and the emperor looked more disgusting than ever in the regalia that had been designed to suit the persons of his ancestors….".

I don't think I can trust this description as being accurate. Liuprand was from Rome and the Romans do not generally like the people of Constantinople. That could have been a big reason for him to hate Constantinople and express it in such a negative way. Therefore, this is most likely extremely biased and cannot be trusted.

Benjamin of Tuleda

Benjamin of Tuleda had a very positive view on Constantinople.  He describes the city as, "It is a busy city and merchants come to it from every country by sea or land, and there is none like it in the world except Baghdad, the great city of Islam." Constantinople is shown to be largely influential on a worldwide scale, and merchants come from every country by sea or land. This shows his view of Constantinople as a thriving center of trade and commerce. Benjamin also describes Constantinople as being very wealthy, "And in this church {Hagia Sophia} there are pillars of gold and silver, and lamps of silver and gold more than a man can count." His description shows that Constantinople had much wealth from its enormous prosperity in trade and commerce. This wealth is clearly reflected in the Hagia Sophia and its pillars and lamps of silver and gold. This also shows the importance of the church and the influence of Christianity on the citizens of Constantinople.

I think this description cannot be trusted, because that Benjamin describes everything in a positive way. Benjamin arrived in Constantinople during a period of political decline. Therefore, I assume that the city would have had many negative things going on during that time period, and it is hard to believe that the city would be as perfect as described by Benjamin. Therefore, I cannot trust this description.

Ibn Battuta's perspective of Constantinople

Ibn Battuta's has a generally neutral view on Constantinople.  He describes the trade and commerce of Constantinople in a positive light, "They are all men of commerce and their harbour is one of the largest in the world; I saw there about a hundred galleys and other large ships, and the small ships were too many to be counted." His view clearly shows Constantinople as a thriving center of commerce as their harbour is one of the largest in the world and there are more ships than he could count. Meanwhile, his description of the bazaars and the churches are negative, "The bazaars in this part of the town are good but filthy, and a small and very dirty river runs through them. Their churches too are filthy and mean." His description of the bazaars and the churches as being filthy show the uncleanliness and pollution that comes with a large population. He also describes the churches as being mean, showing that they are not the hospitable places he expected them to be.


I think this is the most trustworthy description out of all three.  Ibn Battuta describes the city in both positive and negative light.  It makes sense that as a result of the massive amount of trade and the huge population size of Constantinople, the city would be filthy.  His views seem the least biased out of all three, and therefore, I trust this description of Constantinople the most.