The Early Islamic Conquests: New Acquisition and Discussion

Anonymous, Umayyad Caliphate
AE fals
Obv: KA/L/ON in left field, "bi-Hims" (in Arabic) in right field,
facing bust, beardless, wearing crown and chlamys, holding globus cruciger in right hand
Rev: Large m, E/M/I in left field, two birds eyes above, C/H/C in right field, "tayyib" (Arabic for "good") in ex
Mint: Hims (Emessa; struck 680-690 AD)
Ref:Album 110; SICA I, 542
(Reference information from Beast Coins)

(early Islamic coinage imitated existing coinage in an effort to make the coins more acceptable to the conquered populations)

The early Islamic conquests are one of the most dramatic series of events in human history. Within three decades, armies coming out of Arabia had conquered everything from Libya to Afghanistan, and within nine decades had increased Muslim control to Spain and the border with India. The whole balance of the regions involved had changed dramatically; the old powers were in retreat, and a new order and religion came to rule. Antiquity truly gave way to the Middle Ages.

The event that had softened up the region for the Muslims had been the longest and bloodiest of the Roman-Persian Wars, between the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire and the Sassanian Persian Empire in the early 7th century. During the conflict's final years, a man in Arabia named Muhammad had united most of the peninsula under the new religion of Islam, and after the Prophet's death, capable generals expanded the young caliphate into territories only just rebuilding after the past war. Land, water, and the need to keep Muslims united against external foes were the driving forces behind the early conquests. The Byzantines and Persians scrambled to organize coherent defenses against the invaders, and the two rivals even joined forces at one point, but were unsuccessful in stemming the tide that was the Muslim army. The Byzantine Empire came out very weakened and reduced in size, while the Sassanian Empire was completely wiped out.

The early Muslim conquests largely stopped with the end of the Umayyad Caliphate, in 751 AD.

Contrary to what may seem, the Arabs in general treated their conquered non-Muslim population well. Christians and Jews were given protected status, being considered "People of the Book", and as long as towns surrendered peacefully, agreed to pay the jizya tax, and promised not to take up arms against the caliphate, they would be left alone and provided defense by the Muslim armies.
Non-Muslims with useful skills were sought after and used to great effect in the administration of the early caliphates.

Byzantine and Sassanian empires, 600 AD:



Byzantine Empire and Rashidun Caliphate (as "Arab Caliphate"), 650 AD



The Arab expansion (dark red: 622-632; light orange: 632-661; beige: 661-750):



Caliph: the spiritual and political successor to Muhammad and leader of the Ummah (Muslim community)

Rasidun (first caliphate): era of the first four "Rightly-Guided Caliphs"

Umayyad (second caliphate): caliphs hailing from the Banū (clan) Umayya

Abbasid (third caliphate): caliphs descended from Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, Muhammad's uncle

Armies of the empires (equipment sometimes differed due to locality):

Arab:



Byzantine:



Persian:



More on the early conquests:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

http://historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistoriesResponsive.asp?ParagraphID=ebw

An awesome read about the conquests, highly recommended:



Well-written synopsis of the above book:

http://www.economist.com/node/94uncle

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wow Jango => thanks for the sweet thread-info (very cool)

Happy New Year, my friend (sadly, STAR WARS hasn't come to our "town" yet)

Oh, sorry => nice => wow, awesome 7th century addition (all I have is a Khusro II and a couple of Heraclius over-strikes for this illusive coin-century!!)

Man, you rock these rare coin collecting centuries, eh? (good for you ... very cool)

cheers

 

Very nice and excellent info.

 

Thanks guys!

 

Nice write up, thanks!

 

The last Byzantine-Persian war that lasted for about 25 years merely devastated both empires so severely that it made it easy to the Muslims to emerge. That the Arabs were made of pastoral/nomadic society unlike the agriculturally Byzantines/Persians was to the benefit of the Arabs as nomadic people tend to be less affected by plagues, in which was a factor that contributed to the success of the Muslims.

While the Sassanid Empire ended immediately their days as superpower, the Byzantine Empires in contrast “just” transformed from a superpower into a geopolitical power that lasted until about 1204 where it started to decline and ultimately fell in 1453.

Had the Muslims managed to conquer Constantinople already in 717 when the most of Europe was underdeveloped and Pagan the east Europe could have been Muslim today. When the Muslim Turks finally took Constantinople in 1453 they managed only to conquer weak Slavic-Balkan areas the next 100 years in Europe, otherwise the Austrian Habsburgs Empire and Tsar Russia were to powerfull and they slowly defeated the Turks onwards. The Byzantine Empire simply gave time to the Austrians and Russians to emerge when Constantinople first fell very very very late in 1453. Had they fall during the Arab Siege of Constantinople in 717 it will be very speculative what would have had happen to east Europe.

The invasions of the Arabs fulfilled and turned the Roman Empire into a fully Byzantine one. Byzantine Empire was completely different in 717 and onwards comparing to earlier: Latin was replaced with Greek as language, the title “Augustus” was replaced with “Basilius” which is “King” in Greek, Monophysitians Christians were no longer part of Byzatium as they now had Chalcedonian Christians after they lost Middle East, and the Theme-system, a military system, was fully incorporated.

If one just looks at the maps before and after the Arab invasion it may seem like the Romans was done it terribly. Well it is not as none could had predicted the Arabs would arise out of nothing from the desert that the Romans and Persians prior had seeing as something periphery. While the Arabs in the beginning had a bigger empire than Byzantine at a time the steam eventually went out and their empire shattered into fractions, and onwards the Byzantines won their geopolitical power back in the days of Mecedonians Dynasty and Comnenian days.


Heraclius with Heraclius Constantine, solidus, 4,42 gram. – It was during Heraclius’ reign that the Battle of Yarmouk took place and was lost which means the end of Syria and Levant and part of Iraq. Note that it was not Heraclius to blame that his army lost, there was little or nothing he could do after the long war with the Persians:







Heraclius with Heraclius Constantine, both entronched, miliaresion, 6,86g. Sear 795



An Alexandria minted diodenummi of Heraclius, Egypt was lost after Heraclius’ death.





Constans II, minted in Syracuse, that looks far better in hand. Constants II built a fleet force that became crucial during the first Arab siege of Constantinople.



Contants II, half follis and minted in Carthago, between the croos you should see a “C” and a “T” which is not quite visible. Also lost to the Arabs after Constant II’s death:




Leo III the Isaurian with Constantine V, follis. Note that the three X’s don’t imply year 30 here. It was during Leo III’s reign that the second Arab Siege of Constantinople found place. It lasted for 1 year and the Arab army was humiliated utterly, especially thanks to the Greek Fire on ships:



Leo III the Isaurian with Constantine, milliaresion, the legends can be read somehow as “Jesus Christ (may he) Conquer” and reverse: “Leo and Constantine Grace(fom God) Kings(of the Romans)”:




And finally an Arabo pseudo-byzantine after Constans;





Here an illustration that should imagine the Arab second siege of Constantinople with the Greek Fire:

 

…and Kharaj which was a landtax plus some socio-discrminatory laws like they only had to ride on donkeys while horse was reserved to the Muslims or their testimony was only 50% reliable against a Muslims in the court plus other various things.

The toleration did not occur in whole as there were some considerably exemptions such as in the Arabian Peninsula where Jews/Christians were killed or expelled, or in the Maghreb plus the Almoravid Dynasty and Alhohad Caliphate in Muslim Spain. The things in Afghanistan and India(only initially here) went very different as there were forced conversions and destructions of non Muslims very similar to what the Christians committed in South America.

That is certainly true.

The early Muslims were of desert nomad origins and thus they were unskilled comparing to the Byzantines/Persians which were of agricultural societies.

The early Muslims were the most tolerance as they were very dependent on the Christians’ skills (and the Persians as well) and as they were more focusing on securing their Diwan(rule) rather than proselytize in first place.

Like for instance the translation of ancient Greek texts such of Platon and Aristoteles from Greek into Arabic were indeed not carried out by the Muslims as it was actually native non-Arabs Christians of Middle East that took the brunt of translating it into Arabic for the Arabs in the House of Wisdom.

 

excellent job VK!

arab-byzantine is high on my list, i hope i nail one this year.

here's a coin that is relevant to the spread of islam, an "arab-sassanin" coin of tabaristan. this was the southern part of the black sea, taken by the umayyids not to long before this coin was minted.

 

@Herberto yes all very true. Toleration was not 100% universal, but for the most part conquered peoples after the conquests lived unmolested and nearly the same way as before the Muslims arrived, in a few cases even better than how they lived before. Only over time did the situation change for non-Muslims that conversion to Islam would have served them better societally and economically (the central Islamic lands did not become majority-Muslim until the 9-10th centuries. Egypt until 1100-1200 I believe, I might be off by a century or two).

Nice coins all by the way.

 

Forgot to mention. The early caliphates were the largest empires the world had seen up to that point, with the Umayyad topping out in size. Just the fact that the Muslims became so successful in such a relatively short time astounds me. They took advantage of a really perfect opportunity in history.

Now for something a little shinier, my Abbasid dirham from Madinat al-Salam (Baghdad; 771-772 AD):

 

Where are all the regulars of eastern coinage? Still on holiday vacation?

 

OK.. VK. Here are 4 coins. The first is a silver dirham from the Umayyad era and struck in Kerbala in the year 97 A.H. The second is a silver dirham from the Abbasid era. The 2 others are anonymous from the Umayyad era. One of them shows the Star of the Morning ( Najmat Al Sobh ).It's the last coin.

 

The mint name on the first coin looks more like دربجرد (Darabjird), Klat 298.2.

 

That's very plausible. In which country do we find Darabjird? Is this a rare mint.

 

I believe Darabjird is in Fars province, Iran. In the Checklist, Album rates dates for the 90s at Darabjird as common.

 

I'm not a collector of Islamic coins but still have a few. That happens when you collect for a long time and don't throw out things you don't develop as a continuing interest as so many people do. No one pays much for the grade coins I buy so there is no pressure to cash in the chips.

I don't recall anyone posting things like these. Maybe no one cares. First I have as AR Miri (1.4g) of Timur with Suyurghatmish, 1383 AD (AH 785). Timur is known in English literature as Tammerlane.


CNG once posted a lot of them with the comment, "The result is a mass of confusing coinage which still awaits a comprehensive study." I'm solid with that theory.

The second is even more confusing since it is countermarked. I have it as AR Tanga (4.7g) of Timur with c/m of Abu Sa'id 1451-1469. The coin was dated by the seller as AH 852 (1448 AD) which is after the death of Timur so I assume this is the countermark??? This date would be in his early period while fighting for power but I am way short of understanding this coin either. I bought it because I considered it attractive and something I did not have but later decided that I was not going to learn Arabic to the point that I would be able to collect these. If any of you can read these and would be willing to walk me through what you see here, I would be quite happy.


How did I get interested enough to buy these? Tammerlane was subject of an early poem by Edgar Allen Poe. Timur was considerably more interesting in real life being credited with killing 5% of the world population at the time. I know I could be a great deal more interested in these coins if I learned to read the language.

 

The side to the left reads clearly " There is no God but Allah . Mohamed is the Messenger of God." All this is in a square. Above the square, I can read Abu B...
Then, to the right of the square I think it's " Ali Al Murtada ".
The side to the right should be turned 90 degrees clockwise. Only the countermark (looking black) is correctly right and straight, where I can read " Sa'id " and possibly " Al Ta'en".
On this same right side, outside the countermark, I can read " Sultan"and his kingdom or his property. Other letters are clear but they are just parts of a word whose letters are either hidden by the countermark or erased due to erosion. Of course we can always try to guess or make more efforts or researches. I shall be ready to help in. Good Luck..

 

Thank you. The problem I have with many of theses is I can recognize the material in the square but the date/mint material is around the edge and not on flan or well struck in many cases. There is a long standing question in my mind is what side to put up in cases like this reverse with countermark. Since the c/m was not just some little thing but remade the coin to large degree, I put it upright rather than the host. I found it interesting that another example of this same coin is currently being offered on eBay by the same seller I used 5 years ago. Of course it looks very different with different parts obliterated by the c/m.

 

A very informative thread. Kudos to all.

 

Doug, on your first coin the obverse (left) bears a short form of the kalima, la ilah illa Allah / Muhammad rassul / Allah ("There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the apostle of Allah"); between lines at center is fi sanat ("in the year"); at the lower left is the date 785 in numerals; in the margin (off flan) should be zarb Samarqand ("was struck at Samarqand"). The reverse (right) names Timur as gurkhan and cites his nominal Chaghatayid overlord, Suyurghatmish. The legend as transcribed by Album (SICA-9, 834-837) and transliterated by me is Suyur- / -ghatmish yarlaghi amir / Timur gurkhan / agmanu.