為什么阿拉伯文明從未從蒙古人的入侵中恢復(fù)過來？
Why did the Arab civilization never recover from the Mongol invasions?
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
網(wǎng)友：阿拉伯文明的星辰自863年拉卡翁戰(zhàn)役敗于東羅馬帝國(guó)后便開始逐漸沉淪，這也是阿拉伯帝國(guó)擴(kuò)張的最高水位線。阿拉伯文明與羅馬帝國(guó)面臨著同樣的問題：一個(gè)基于奴隸制的社會(huì)。奴隸制經(jīng)濟(jì)的社會(huì)本質(zhì)上是不穩(wěn)定的，它造就了一個(gè)嚴(yán)重分化的社會(huì)，分為極度富有、極度貧窮和奴隸。
正文翻譯
Susanna Viljanen
The star of the Arab civilization had been sinking ever since losing the battle of Lalakaon 863 to the Eastern Roman empire and the high water mark of the Arabic extent.
Arab civilization had exactly the same problem as the Imperial Rome: a society based on slavery.
A society whose economy is based on slavery is inherently unstable. It produces a society which is horribly divided into filthy rich, dirt poor and slaves. There is no middle class except middleman minorities, and no production beyond primary production and daily commodities. Such society can thrive only as long as it expands, hoards loot, plunder and new slaves and gold and silver. Once this expansion ends, the economy stultifies.
This happened to the Arab Empire. What ensued was deflation - loot and plunder no more flowed in the Caliphate - and it was treated with inflation - by debasing the dirham. The Abbasid Golden Age ended with the defeat to the Eastern Roman Empire - and it went for reconquest. The Caliphate disintegrated in three - the Caliphate of Córdoba (929) and Caliphate of Cairo (973) meant the fragmentation, impoverishment and the disintegration of the Arab Empire. The long whimper had begun. Those centuries (863 to 1254) are analogous to the decay of the Western Roman Empire - the causes are basically the same.
While the Abbasids still retained the power in Baghdad, the three caliphates were in each others’ throats (Third Century Crisis, anyone?). These sapped the monies of each caliphate, and meanwhile the Eastern Roman Empire - and the Christian kingdoms of Spain - were on reconquest.
The first to fall was Caliphate of Cordoba, in 1031. The Fatimid caliphate of Cairo fell on the Kurdish Ayubbid dynasty in 1174 and the Ayubbids to its own slave soldiers, Mamluks, in 1250. By 1254, the Caliphate of Baghdad was nothing but a rump state. It had lost Spain and Morocco to Christians and Berbers, Egypt to Fatimids, Ayubbids and Mamluks, and the territory from Iraq to India to Kwarizmians - which in turn were conquered by the Mongols.
In 1254, the Caliphate of Baghdad was shrunk to modern day Arabia, Syria, Jordania and western Iraq. It had Crusaders in the west, Mongols in the north and east, Turcomans in northwest, Mamluks at south - and all were hostile. It had impoverished and worn.
The last Caliph, Al-Musta'sim, was both stupid and effete. Al-Musta’sim’s reply to Hulegu's letter called the Mongol leader Hülegü young and ignorant, and presented himself as able to summon armies from all of Islam. Accompanied by disrespectful behaviour towards Hülegü's envoys, who were exposed to taunting and mockery from mobs on Baghdad's streets, this was just antagonistic bombast: the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt was hostile towards the caliph, while the Ayyubid minor rulers in Syria were focusing on their own survival, and the Crusaders declared themselves neutral.
Hülegü reached the eastern suburbs on 22 January 1258, where he was welcomed by the local Shi'ites. The Mongols then closely invested Baghdad by erecting a palisade around the whole city and digging a moat inside this circumvallation; these fortifications were completed within a day. They constructed mounds out of bricks for their mangonels and ballistae and prepared their ammunition - the Mongols used palm trees and stones previously used in building the suburbs until they found suitable rocks in the Jebel Hamrin mountains, three days transport away. To prevent anyone from using the Tigris to escape, Hülegü ordered the construction of pontoon bridges across the river on both sides of the city. Despite Baghdad's frailty - the flood-weakened walls were in disrepair and the garrison, at most 50,000 strong before the dawatdar's failed sortie, was untrained and largely incapable Hülegü meticulously planned his operations to cover all eventualities.
The assault on Baghdad's walls began on either 29 or 30 January. The first breach was made in the southeast Ajami tower, near Hülegü's camp, on 1 February, but the Mongols were driven back; further breaches over the next two days enabled them to access and seize control of the east battlements by 4 February.
Losing his courage, al-Musta'sim prepared to surrender. After sending out an embassy led by his son and heir Ahmed, who secured guarantees of safety for his family, the caliph surrendered on 10 February, bringing his family and 3,000 dignitaries. Hülegü asked al-Musta'sim to order the population of the city to leave the city after laying their weapons down; those who obeyed were slaughtered.
Normally, when a city had surrendered as a result of siege, the age-old rule was to carry out a fire tax and leave the city unharmed - as had happened to Jerusalem in 1189. But the Mongols did not play by the rules. Instead, they sacked the whole city and burned it down. The result was a complete destruction of the city and a massacre of some 200,000 inhabitants. Normally this was allowed only if the city had been conquered by assault, but the Mongols did not care of the age-old rules of warfare.
The Arab Empire had been more or less in its death throes for some 200 years. It was bankrupt, and there had been no funds to repair the walls of Baghdad. The whole siege lasted for two weeks - usually a besieged city could defend itself for months.
The sack of Baghdad marked the end of the five hundred-year-old Abbasid Caliphate - although a member of the dynasty eventually made it to Cairo, where the Mamluks installed him as Al-Mustansir II, he and his descendants were puppets of the Mamluk state and never gained much recognition in the wider Muslim world; they would later be usurped by the Ottomans 1517, who maintained the title of caliph up to the 20th century. It also marked a shift of power away from Baghdad and towards cities like Tabriz, the capital of the Ilkhanate, the khanate founded by Hülegü in the aftermath of the siege.
The Arab heartlands had become a part of the Mongol Empire - to be exact, Hülegü’s Il-Khanate. The Arab Empire was no more.
The tables would turn only in 1260 and battle of ‘Ain Jalut, where the Mongols under Kitbugha would be crushed by Mamluks under Baibars. As result, the whole Near East (sans Kingdom of Jerusalem and Cilician Armenia) fell under the Mamluk rule.
The Arabs were conquered, crushed, impoverished and fragmented. Spain and Maghreb was lost to Christians and Berbers (Almoravids, Almohads and Marinids). Heartlands were first devastated by the Mongols and then lost to Mamluks. Egypt was lost to Mamluks. The irrigations had been destroyed by the Mongols.
There were no more slaves to repair the irrigations, the city walls, the edifices. The Arabs themselves were simply too proud for that. For them, physical labour beyond warfare was below their dignity. They rather let everything to decay than repair the things back into shape. They had become impoverished and bankrupt. Little by little they decayed back into tribal culture.
The curse of slavery had also rendered the economy into disrepair. In slave-owning society, no kind of Capitalism can ever evolve, but all economy is stultified into bazaar economy. The Christians had proven to be far better with money than the Arabs, and the centre of economical activity shifted, not only to Constantinople, but all the way to Italy.
All in all, the collapse of the Arab civilization resembles the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. With the difference that the Barbarians who settled in the Roman lands were quick to learn the Roman civilization, Latin language and set up Feudal society, no such recovery happened in the East. The conquerors were all Musli..., they wanted to perpetuate the slave-owning society and they wanted only to rule and reign. The authority of the Caliph was gone, and the Islamic world had been effectively leaderless.
The disaster which followed the sack of Baghdad and the collapse of the Abbasid Caliphate was essentially moral. Deprived from the slaves and being too proud to work themselves, there would be no economic recovery for the Arabs. The idea that the Islamic world could be unified under one leader, was gone. Religious fanaticism and fundamentalism is the last refuge of a beaten and downtrodden man, and the Arabs turned inwards, abandoned rationality, and turned on Qura’an. While there happened the Reformation in the Western Christianity, nothing similar has happened in the Islamic world. It has gotten stuck in the later infanticidal psychoclass psychohistory-wise.
阿拉伯文明的星辰自863年拉卡翁戰(zhàn)役敗于東羅馬帝國(guó)后便開始逐漸沉淪，這也是阿拉伯帝國(guó)擴(kuò)張的最高水位線。阿拉伯文明與羅馬帝國(guó)面臨著同樣的問題：一個(gè)基于奴隸制的社會(huì)。奴隸制經(jīng)濟(jì)的社會(huì)本質(zhì)上是不穩(wěn)定的，它造就了一個(gè)嚴(yán)重分化的社會(huì)，分為極度富有、極度貧窮和奴隸。除了少數(shù)中間商群體外，沒有中產(chǎn)階級(jí)，生產(chǎn)也僅限于初級(jí)產(chǎn)品和日常商品。這樣的社會(huì)只有在不斷擴(kuò)張、掠奪戰(zhàn)利品、新奴隸和金銀時(shí)才能繁榮。一旦擴(kuò)張停止，經(jīng)濟(jì)便會(huì)停滯。
阿拉伯帝國(guó)便是如此。隨之而來的是通貨緊縮——戰(zhàn)利品和掠奪不再流入哈里發(fā)國(guó)——而應(yīng)對(duì)措施卻是通貨膨脹，即通過貶值迪拉姆。阿拔斯黃金時(shí)代隨著敗于東羅馬帝國(guó)而結(jié)束，隨后帝國(guó)試圖重新征服。哈里發(fā)國(guó)分裂為三個(gè)部分——科爾多瓦哈里發(fā)國(guó)（929年）和開羅哈里發(fā)國(guó)（973年）意味著阿拉伯帝國(guó)的分裂、貧困和解體。漫長(zhǎng)的衰落開始了。這些世紀(jì)（863年至1254年）與西羅馬帝國(guó)的衰亡類似——原因基本相同。
當(dāng)阿拔斯王朝仍在巴格達(dá)掌權(quán)時(shí)，三個(gè)哈里發(fā)國(guó)彼此爭(zhēng)斗（類似于三世紀(jì)危機(jī)？）。這消耗了每個(gè)哈里發(fā)國(guó)的財(cái)力，而與此同時(shí)，東羅馬帝國(guó)和西班牙的基督教王國(guó)正在進(jìn)行重新征服。
（譯注：三世紀(jì)危機(jī)（Crisis of the Third Century）是指羅馬帝國(guó)在公元235年至284年間經(jīng)歷的一系列嚴(yán)重的內(nèi)外危機(jī)。這段時(shí)期也被稱為“帝國(guó)的軍事無(wú)政府狀態(tài)”或“帝國(guó)的危機(jī)時(shí)代”，是羅馬帝國(guó)歷史上最動(dòng)蕩和衰落的階段之一。）
第一個(gè)倒下的是科爾多瓦哈里發(fā)國(guó)，于1031年滅亡。開羅的法蒂瑪哈里發(fā)國(guó)于1174年被庫(kù)爾德阿尤布王朝取代，而阿尤布王朝又在1250年被其奴隸士兵馬穆魯克推翻。到1254年，巴格達(dá)哈里發(fā)國(guó)已淪為一個(gè)小國(guó)。它失去了西班牙和摩洛哥，被基督徒和柏柏爾人占領(lǐng)；埃及被法蒂瑪、阿尤布和馬穆魯克占據(jù)；從伊拉克到印度的領(lǐng)土則被花剌子模人占領(lǐng)——而花剌子模人隨后又被蒙古人征服。
1254年，巴格達(dá)哈里發(fā)國(guó)的領(lǐng)土縮小到今天的阿拉伯半島、敘利亞、約旦和伊拉克西部。它的西面是十字軍，北面和東面是蒙古人，西北是土庫(kù)曼人，南面是馬穆魯克——所有這些勢(shì)力都對(duì)它充滿敵意。它已經(jīng)貧困不堪，疲憊不堪。
最后一位哈里發(fā)穆斯塔西姆既愚蠢又軟弱。他在回復(fù)旭烈兀的信中稱這位蒙古領(lǐng)袖年輕無(wú)知，并自稱能夠召集整個(gè)伊斯蘭世界的軍隊(duì)。這種言論伴隨著對(duì)旭烈兀使節(jié)的不尊重行為，使節(jié)們?cè)诎透襁_(dá)街頭遭到群眾的嘲弄和奚落，這無(wú)疑是挑釁性的夸夸其談：埃及的馬穆魯克蘇丹國(guó)對(duì)哈里發(fā)充滿敵意，而敘利亞的阿尤布小領(lǐng)地統(tǒng)治者們則專注于自保，十字軍則宣布中立。
旭烈兀于1258年1月22日抵達(dá)巴格達(dá)東郊，受到當(dāng)?shù)厥踩~派的歡迎。蒙古人隨后通過在整個(gè)城市周圍建立柵欄并在內(nèi)部挖掘壕溝來嚴(yán)密包圍巴格達(dá)；這些防御工事在一天內(nèi)完成。他們用磚塊建造了投石機(jī)和弩炮的土堆，并準(zhǔn)備了彈藥——蒙古人使用了棕櫚樹和郊區(qū)建筑中的石頭，直到他們?cè)谌炻烦讨獾墓妨稚矫}找到了合適的巖石。為了防止任何人利用底格里斯河逃跑，旭烈兀下令在河的兩側(cè)建造浮橋。盡管巴格達(dá)的防御薄弱——被洪水削弱的城墻年久失修，守軍最多只有5萬(wàn)人，且在大維齊爾的突圍失敗后，他們?nèi)狈τ?xùn)練且戰(zhàn)斗力低下——旭烈兀仍然精心策劃了他的行動(dòng)，以應(yīng)對(duì)所有可能的情況。
對(duì)巴格達(dá)城墻的進(jìn)攻始于1月29日或30日。第一個(gè)突破口出現(xiàn)在東南角的阿賈米塔附近，靠近旭烈兀的營(yíng)地，時(shí)間是2月1日，但蒙古人被擊退；接下來的兩天里，進(jìn)一步的突破使他們得以進(jìn)入并控制了東城墻，到2月4日，他們已經(jīng)占領(lǐng)了東城墻。
失去勇氣的穆斯塔西姆準(zhǔn)備投降。在派出由他的兒子和繼承人艾哈邁德率領(lǐng)的代表團(tuán)后，哈里發(fā)于2月10日投降，代表團(tuán)確保了其家人的安全。穆斯塔西姆帶著他的家人和3000名顯貴投降。旭烈兀要求穆斯塔西姆命令城市居民放下武器后離開城市；那些服從的人被屠殺。
通常情況下，當(dāng)一座城市因圍困而投降時(shí)，古老的規(guī)則是征收火稅并讓城市免受破壞——就像1189年耶路撒冷的情況一樣。但蒙古人并不遵守這些規(guī)則。相反，他們洗劫了整個(gè)城市并將其燒毀。結(jié)果是城市的徹底毀滅和大約20萬(wàn)居民的屠殺。通常，只有在城市被攻陷時(shí)才會(huì)允許這種行為，但蒙古人并不在乎古老的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)規(guī)則。
阿拉伯帝國(guó)已經(jīng)在其死亡陣痛中掙扎了大約200年。它已經(jīng)破產(chǎn)，沒有資金修復(fù)巴格達(dá)的城墻。整個(gè)圍城持續(xù)了兩周——但通常，被圍困的城市可以防御數(shù)月。
巴格達(dá)的洗劫標(biāo)志著擁有500年歷史的阿拔斯哈里發(fā)國(guó)的終結(jié)——盡管該王朝的一名成員最終逃到了開羅，馬穆魯克在那里擁立他為穆斯坦綏爾二世，但他和他的后代只是馬穆魯克國(guó)家的傀儡，從未在更廣泛的伊斯蘭世界獲得太多認(rèn)可；他們后來在1517年被奧斯曼人篡位，奧斯曼人一直保留著哈里發(fā)的頭銜，直到20世紀(jì)。這也標(biāo)志著權(quán)力從巴格達(dá)轉(zhuǎn)移到了像大不里士這樣的城市，大不里士是旭烈兀在圍城后建立的伊兒汗國(guó)的首都。
阿拉伯心臟地帶成為了蒙古帝國(guó)的一部分——確切地說，是旭烈兀的伊兒汗國(guó)。阿拉伯帝國(guó)不復(fù)存在。
直到1260年，局勢(shì)才發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)變，在艾因賈魯特戰(zhàn)役中，馬穆魯克在拜巴爾的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下?lián)魯×嗣晒湃嘶夭技?。結(jié)果，整個(gè)近東（除了耶路撒冷王國(guó)和奇里乞亞亞美尼亞）都落入了馬穆魯克的統(tǒng)治之下。
阿拉伯人被征服、粉碎、貧困和分裂。西班牙和馬格里布被基督徒和柏柏爾人（阿爾摩拉維德、阿爾摩哈德和馬林王朝）占領(lǐng)。心臟地帶首先被蒙古人摧毀，隨后被馬穆魯克占領(lǐng)。埃及被馬穆魯克占領(lǐng)。灌溉系統(tǒng)被蒙古人摧毀。
再也沒有奴隸來修復(fù)灌溉系統(tǒng)、城墻和建筑。阿拉伯人自己對(duì)此過于驕傲。對(duì)他們來說，除了戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)之外的體力勞動(dòng)有損他們的尊嚴(yán)。他們寧愿讓一切腐朽，也不愿修復(fù)事物。他們變得貧困和破產(chǎn)。漸漸地，他們退回到了部落文化。
奴隸制的詛咒也使經(jīng)濟(jì)陷入癱瘓。在奴隸制社會(huì)中，資本主義無(wú)法發(fā)展，所有經(jīng)濟(jì)都停滯在集市經(jīng)濟(jì)中?；酵皆诮疱X方面比阿拉伯人表現(xiàn)得更好，經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)的中心不僅轉(zhuǎn)移到了君士坦丁堡，還一路轉(zhuǎn)移到了意大利。
總的來說，阿拉伯文明的崩潰與西羅馬帝國(guó)的崩潰相似。不同之處在于，定居在羅馬土地上的蠻族迅速學(xué)習(xí)了羅馬文明、拉丁語(yǔ)并建立了封建社會(huì)，而在東方卻沒有發(fā)生這樣的復(fù)蘇。征服者都是穆斯林，他們希望延續(xù)奴隸制社會(huì)，只想統(tǒng)治和掌權(quán)。哈里發(fā)的權(quán)威消失了，伊斯蘭世界實(shí)際上已經(jīng)失去了領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。
巴格達(dá)的洗劫和阿拔斯哈里發(fā)國(guó)的崩潰所帶來的災(zāi)難本質(zhì)上是道德上的。失去了奴隸，又過于驕傲而不愿自己勞動(dòng)，阿拉伯人將無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇。伊斯蘭世界可以在一個(gè)領(lǐng)袖的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下統(tǒng)一的想法已經(jīng)破滅。宗教狂熱和原教旨主義是被擊敗和壓迫者的最后避難所，阿拉伯人轉(zhuǎn)向內(nèi)部，放棄了理性，轉(zhuǎn)向了《古蘭經(jīng)》。當(dāng)西方基督教世界發(fā)生宗教改革時(shí)，伊斯蘭世界卻沒有發(fā)生類似的事情。它在心理歷史上陷入了后期的極端退化心理階段。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
The star of the Arab civilization had been sinking ever since losing the battle of Lalakaon 863 to the Eastern Roman empire and the high water mark of the Arabic extent.
Arab civilization had exactly the same problem as the Imperial Rome: a society based on slavery.
A society whose economy is based on slavery is inherently unstable. It produces a society which is horribly divided into filthy rich, dirt poor and slaves. There is no middle class except middleman minorities, and no production beyond primary production and daily commodities. Such society can thrive only as long as it expands, hoards loot, plunder and new slaves and gold and silver. Once this expansion ends, the economy stultifies.
This happened to the Arab Empire. What ensued was deflation - loot and plunder no more flowed in the Caliphate - and it was treated with inflation - by debasing the dirham. The Abbasid Golden Age ended with the defeat to the Eastern Roman Empire - and it went for reconquest. The Caliphate disintegrated in three - the Caliphate of Córdoba (929) and Caliphate of Cairo (973) meant the fragmentation, impoverishment and the disintegration of the Arab Empire. The long whimper had begun. Those centuries (863 to 1254) are analogous to the decay of the Western Roman Empire - the causes are basically the same.
While the Abbasids still retained the power in Baghdad, the three caliphates were in each others’ throats (Third Century Crisis, anyone?). These sapped the monies of each caliphate, and meanwhile the Eastern Roman Empire - and the Christian kingdoms of Spain - were on reconquest.
The first to fall was Caliphate of Cordoba, in 1031. The Fatimid caliphate of Cairo fell on the Kurdish Ayubbid dynasty in 1174 and the Ayubbids to its own slave soldiers, Mamluks, in 1250. By 1254, the Caliphate of Baghdad was nothing but a rump state. It had lost Spain and Morocco to Christians and Berbers, Egypt to Fatimids, Ayubbids and Mamluks, and the territory from Iraq to India to Kwarizmians - which in turn were conquered by the Mongols.
In 1254, the Caliphate of Baghdad was shrunk to modern day Arabia, Syria, Jordania and western Iraq. It had Crusaders in the west, Mongols in the north and east, Turcomans in northwest, Mamluks at south - and all were hostile. It had impoverished and worn.
The last Caliph, Al-Musta'sim, was both stupid and effete. Al-Musta’sim’s reply to Hulegu's letter called the Mongol leader Hülegü young and ignorant, and presented himself as able to summon armies from all of Islam. Accompanied by disrespectful behaviour towards Hülegü's envoys, who were exposed to taunting and mockery from mobs on Baghdad's streets, this was just antagonistic bombast: the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt was hostile towards the caliph, while the Ayyubid minor rulers in Syria were focusing on their own survival, and the Crusaders declared themselves neutral.
Hülegü reached the eastern suburbs on 22 January 1258, where he was welcomed by the local Shi'ites. The Mongols then closely invested Baghdad by erecting a palisade around the whole city and digging a moat inside this circumvallation; these fortifications were completed within a day. They constructed mounds out of bricks for their mangonels and ballistae and prepared their ammunition - the Mongols used palm trees and stones previously used in building the suburbs until they found suitable rocks in the Jebel Hamrin mountains, three days transport away. To prevent anyone from using the Tigris to escape, Hülegü ordered the construction of pontoon bridges across the river on both sides of the city. Despite Baghdad's frailty - the flood-weakened walls were in disrepair and the garrison, at most 50,000 strong before the dawatdar's failed sortie, was untrained and largely incapable Hülegü meticulously planned his operations to cover all eventualities.
The assault on Baghdad's walls began on either 29 or 30 January. The first breach was made in the southeast Ajami tower, near Hülegü's camp, on 1 February, but the Mongols were driven back; further breaches over the next two days enabled them to access and seize control of the east battlements by 4 February.
Losing his courage, al-Musta'sim prepared to surrender. After sending out an embassy led by his son and heir Ahmed, who secured guarantees of safety for his family, the caliph surrendered on 10 February, bringing his family and 3,000 dignitaries. Hülegü asked al-Musta'sim to order the population of the city to leave the city after laying their weapons down; those who obeyed were slaughtered.
Normally, when a city had surrendered as a result of siege, the age-old rule was to carry out a fire tax and leave the city unharmed - as had happened to Jerusalem in 1189. But the Mongols did not play by the rules. Instead, they sacked the whole city and burned it down. The result was a complete destruction of the city and a massacre of some 200,000 inhabitants. Normally this was allowed only if the city had been conquered by assault, but the Mongols did not care of the age-old rules of warfare.
The Arab Empire had been more or less in its death throes for some 200 years. It was bankrupt, and there had been no funds to repair the walls of Baghdad. The whole siege lasted for two weeks - usually a besieged city could defend itself for months.
The sack of Baghdad marked the end of the five hundred-year-old Abbasid Caliphate - although a member of the dynasty eventually made it to Cairo, where the Mamluks installed him as Al-Mustansir II, he and his descendants were puppets of the Mamluk state and never gained much recognition in the wider Muslim world; they would later be usurped by the Ottomans 1517, who maintained the title of caliph up to the 20th century. It also marked a shift of power away from Baghdad and towards cities like Tabriz, the capital of the Ilkhanate, the khanate founded by Hülegü in the aftermath of the siege.
The Arab heartlands had become a part of the Mongol Empire - to be exact, Hülegü’s Il-Khanate. The Arab Empire was no more.
The tables would turn only in 1260 and battle of ‘Ain Jalut, where the Mongols under Kitbugha would be crushed by Mamluks under Baibars. As result, the whole Near East (sans Kingdom of Jerusalem and Cilician Armenia) fell under the Mamluk rule.
The Arabs were conquered, crushed, impoverished and fragmented. Spain and Maghreb was lost to Christians and Berbers (Almoravids, Almohads and Marinids). Heartlands were first devastated by the Mongols and then lost to Mamluks. Egypt was lost to Mamluks. The irrigations had been destroyed by the Mongols.
There were no more slaves to repair the irrigations, the city walls, the edifices. The Arabs themselves were simply too proud for that. For them, physical labour beyond warfare was below their dignity. They rather let everything to decay than repair the things back into shape. They had become impoverished and bankrupt. Little by little they decayed back into tribal culture.
The curse of slavery had also rendered the economy into disrepair. In slave-owning society, no kind of Capitalism can ever evolve, but all economy is stultified into bazaar economy. The Christians had proven to be far better with money than the Arabs, and the centre of economical activity shifted, not only to Constantinople, but all the way to Italy.
All in all, the collapse of the Arab civilization resembles the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. With the difference that the Barbarians who settled in the Roman lands were quick to learn the Roman civilization, Latin language and set up Feudal society, no such recovery happened in the East. The conquerors were all Musli..., they wanted to perpetuate the slave-owning society and they wanted only to rule and reign. The authority of the Caliph was gone, and the Islamic world had been effectively leaderless.
The disaster which followed the sack of Baghdad and the collapse of the Abbasid Caliphate was essentially moral. Deprived from the slaves and being too proud to work themselves, there would be no economic recovery for the Arabs. The idea that the Islamic world could be unified under one leader, was gone. Religious fanaticism and fundamentalism is the last refuge of a beaten and downtrodden man, and the Arabs turned inwards, abandoned rationality, and turned on Qura’an. While there happened the Reformation in the Western Christianity, nothing similar has happened in the Islamic world. It has gotten stuck in the later infanticidal psychoclass psychohistory-wise.
阿拉伯文明的星辰自863年拉卡翁戰(zhàn)役敗于東羅馬帝國(guó)后便開始逐漸沉淪，這也是阿拉伯帝國(guó)擴(kuò)張的最高水位線。阿拉伯文明與羅馬帝國(guó)面臨著同樣的問題：一個(gè)基于奴隸制的社會(huì)。奴隸制經(jīng)濟(jì)的社會(huì)本質(zhì)上是不穩(wěn)定的，它造就了一個(gè)嚴(yán)重分化的社會(huì)，分為極度富有、極度貧窮和奴隸。除了少數(shù)中間商群體外，沒有中產(chǎn)階級(jí)，生產(chǎn)也僅限于初級(jí)產(chǎn)品和日常商品。這樣的社會(huì)只有在不斷擴(kuò)張、掠奪戰(zhàn)利品、新奴隸和金銀時(shí)才能繁榮。一旦擴(kuò)張停止，經(jīng)濟(jì)便會(huì)停滯。
阿拉伯帝國(guó)便是如此。隨之而來的是通貨緊縮——戰(zhàn)利品和掠奪不再流入哈里發(fā)國(guó)——而應(yīng)對(duì)措施卻是通貨膨脹，即通過貶值迪拉姆。阿拔斯黃金時(shí)代隨著敗于東羅馬帝國(guó)而結(jié)束，隨后帝國(guó)試圖重新征服。哈里發(fā)國(guó)分裂為三個(gè)部分——科爾多瓦哈里發(fā)國(guó)（929年）和開羅哈里發(fā)國(guó)（973年）意味著阿拉伯帝國(guó)的分裂、貧困和解體。漫長(zhǎng)的衰落開始了。這些世紀(jì)（863年至1254年）與西羅馬帝國(guó)的衰亡類似——原因基本相同。
當(dāng)阿拔斯王朝仍在巴格達(dá)掌權(quán)時(shí)，三個(gè)哈里發(fā)國(guó)彼此爭(zhēng)斗（類似于三世紀(jì)危機(jī)？）。這消耗了每個(gè)哈里發(fā)國(guó)的財(cái)力，而與此同時(shí)，東羅馬帝國(guó)和西班牙的基督教王國(guó)正在進(jìn)行重新征服。
（譯注：三世紀(jì)危機(jī)（Crisis of the Third Century）是指羅馬帝國(guó)在公元235年至284年間經(jīng)歷的一系列嚴(yán)重的內(nèi)外危機(jī)。這段時(shí)期也被稱為“帝國(guó)的軍事無(wú)政府狀態(tài)”或“帝國(guó)的危機(jī)時(shí)代”，是羅馬帝國(guó)歷史上最動(dòng)蕩和衰落的階段之一。）
第一個(gè)倒下的是科爾多瓦哈里發(fā)國(guó)，于1031年滅亡。開羅的法蒂瑪哈里發(fā)國(guó)于1174年被庫(kù)爾德阿尤布王朝取代，而阿尤布王朝又在1250年被其奴隸士兵馬穆魯克推翻。到1254年，巴格達(dá)哈里發(fā)國(guó)已淪為一個(gè)小國(guó)。它失去了西班牙和摩洛哥，被基督徒和柏柏爾人占領(lǐng)；埃及被法蒂瑪、阿尤布和馬穆魯克占據(jù)；從伊拉克到印度的領(lǐng)土則被花剌子模人占領(lǐng)——而花剌子模人隨后又被蒙古人征服。
1254年，巴格達(dá)哈里發(fā)國(guó)的領(lǐng)土縮小到今天的阿拉伯半島、敘利亞、約旦和伊拉克西部。它的西面是十字軍，北面和東面是蒙古人，西北是土庫(kù)曼人，南面是馬穆魯克——所有這些勢(shì)力都對(duì)它充滿敵意。它已經(jīng)貧困不堪，疲憊不堪。
最后一位哈里發(fā)穆斯塔西姆既愚蠢又軟弱。他在回復(fù)旭烈兀的信中稱這位蒙古領(lǐng)袖年輕無(wú)知，并自稱能夠召集整個(gè)伊斯蘭世界的軍隊(duì)。這種言論伴隨著對(duì)旭烈兀使節(jié)的不尊重行為，使節(jié)們?cè)诎透襁_(dá)街頭遭到群眾的嘲弄和奚落，這無(wú)疑是挑釁性的夸夸其談：埃及的馬穆魯克蘇丹國(guó)對(duì)哈里發(fā)充滿敵意，而敘利亞的阿尤布小領(lǐng)地統(tǒng)治者們則專注于自保，十字軍則宣布中立。
旭烈兀于1258年1月22日抵達(dá)巴格達(dá)東郊，受到當(dāng)?shù)厥踩~派的歡迎。蒙古人隨后通過在整個(gè)城市周圍建立柵欄并在內(nèi)部挖掘壕溝來嚴(yán)密包圍巴格達(dá)；這些防御工事在一天內(nèi)完成。他們用磚塊建造了投石機(jī)和弩炮的土堆，并準(zhǔn)備了彈藥——蒙古人使用了棕櫚樹和郊區(qū)建筑中的石頭，直到他們?cè)谌炻烦讨獾墓妨稚矫}找到了合適的巖石。為了防止任何人利用底格里斯河逃跑，旭烈兀下令在河的兩側(cè)建造浮橋。盡管巴格達(dá)的防御薄弱——被洪水削弱的城墻年久失修，守軍最多只有5萬(wàn)人，且在大維齊爾的突圍失敗后，他們?nèi)狈τ?xùn)練且戰(zhàn)斗力低下——旭烈兀仍然精心策劃了他的行動(dòng)，以應(yīng)對(duì)所有可能的情況。
對(duì)巴格達(dá)城墻的進(jìn)攻始于1月29日或30日。第一個(gè)突破口出現(xiàn)在東南角的阿賈米塔附近，靠近旭烈兀的營(yíng)地，時(shí)間是2月1日，但蒙古人被擊退；接下來的兩天里，進(jìn)一步的突破使他們得以進(jìn)入并控制了東城墻，到2月4日，他們已經(jīng)占領(lǐng)了東城墻。
失去勇氣的穆斯塔西姆準(zhǔn)備投降。在派出由他的兒子和繼承人艾哈邁德率領(lǐng)的代表團(tuán)后，哈里發(fā)于2月10日投降，代表團(tuán)確保了其家人的安全。穆斯塔西姆帶著他的家人和3000名顯貴投降。旭烈兀要求穆斯塔西姆命令城市居民放下武器后離開城市；那些服從的人被屠殺。
通常情況下，當(dāng)一座城市因圍困而投降時(shí)，古老的規(guī)則是征收火稅并讓城市免受破壞——就像1189年耶路撒冷的情況一樣。但蒙古人并不遵守這些規(guī)則。相反，他們洗劫了整個(gè)城市并將其燒毀。結(jié)果是城市的徹底毀滅和大約20萬(wàn)居民的屠殺。通常，只有在城市被攻陷時(shí)才會(huì)允許這種行為，但蒙古人并不在乎古老的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)規(guī)則。
阿拉伯帝國(guó)已經(jīng)在其死亡陣痛中掙扎了大約200年。它已經(jīng)破產(chǎn)，沒有資金修復(fù)巴格達(dá)的城墻。整個(gè)圍城持續(xù)了兩周——但通常，被圍困的城市可以防御數(shù)月。
巴格達(dá)的洗劫標(biāo)志著擁有500年歷史的阿拔斯哈里發(fā)國(guó)的終結(jié)——盡管該王朝的一名成員最終逃到了開羅，馬穆魯克在那里擁立他為穆斯坦綏爾二世，但他和他的后代只是馬穆魯克國(guó)家的傀儡，從未在更廣泛的伊斯蘭世界獲得太多認(rèn)可；他們后來在1517年被奧斯曼人篡位，奧斯曼人一直保留著哈里發(fā)的頭銜，直到20世紀(jì)。這也標(biāo)志著權(quán)力從巴格達(dá)轉(zhuǎn)移到了像大不里士這樣的城市，大不里士是旭烈兀在圍城后建立的伊兒汗國(guó)的首都。
阿拉伯心臟地帶成為了蒙古帝國(guó)的一部分——確切地說，是旭烈兀的伊兒汗國(guó)。阿拉伯帝國(guó)不復(fù)存在。
直到1260年，局勢(shì)才發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)變，在艾因賈魯特戰(zhàn)役中，馬穆魯克在拜巴爾的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下?lián)魯×嗣晒湃嘶夭技?。結(jié)果，整個(gè)近東（除了耶路撒冷王國(guó)和奇里乞亞亞美尼亞）都落入了馬穆魯克的統(tǒng)治之下。
阿拉伯人被征服、粉碎、貧困和分裂。西班牙和馬格里布被基督徒和柏柏爾人（阿爾摩拉維德、阿爾摩哈德和馬林王朝）占領(lǐng)。心臟地帶首先被蒙古人摧毀，隨后被馬穆魯克占領(lǐng)。埃及被馬穆魯克占領(lǐng)。灌溉系統(tǒng)被蒙古人摧毀。
再也沒有奴隸來修復(fù)灌溉系統(tǒng)、城墻和建筑。阿拉伯人自己對(duì)此過于驕傲。對(duì)他們來說，除了戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)之外的體力勞動(dòng)有損他們的尊嚴(yán)。他們寧愿讓一切腐朽，也不愿修復(fù)事物。他們變得貧困和破產(chǎn)。漸漸地，他們退回到了部落文化。
奴隸制的詛咒也使經(jīng)濟(jì)陷入癱瘓。在奴隸制社會(huì)中，資本主義無(wú)法發(fā)展，所有經(jīng)濟(jì)都停滯在集市經(jīng)濟(jì)中?；酵皆诮疱X方面比阿拉伯人表現(xiàn)得更好，經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)的中心不僅轉(zhuǎn)移到了君士坦丁堡，還一路轉(zhuǎn)移到了意大利。
總的來說，阿拉伯文明的崩潰與西羅馬帝國(guó)的崩潰相似。不同之處在于，定居在羅馬土地上的蠻族迅速學(xué)習(xí)了羅馬文明、拉丁語(yǔ)并建立了封建社會(huì)，而在東方卻沒有發(fā)生這樣的復(fù)蘇。征服者都是穆斯林，他們希望延續(xù)奴隸制社會(huì)，只想統(tǒng)治和掌權(quán)。哈里發(fā)的權(quán)威消失了，伊斯蘭世界實(shí)際上已經(jīng)失去了領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。
巴格達(dá)的洗劫和阿拔斯哈里發(fā)國(guó)的崩潰所帶來的災(zāi)難本質(zhì)上是道德上的。失去了奴隸，又過于驕傲而不愿自己勞動(dòng)，阿拉伯人將無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇。伊斯蘭世界可以在一個(gè)領(lǐng)袖的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下統(tǒng)一的想法已經(jīng)破滅。宗教狂熱和原教旨主義是被擊敗和壓迫者的最后避難所，阿拉伯人轉(zhuǎn)向內(nèi)部，放棄了理性，轉(zhuǎn)向了《古蘭經(jīng)》。當(dāng)西方基督教世界發(fā)生宗教改革時(shí)，伊斯蘭世界卻沒有發(fā)生類似的事情。它在心理歷史上陷入了后期的極端退化心理階段。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 9 )
收藏
Well done!
An historical tour-de-force but when you write ….
“It produces a society which is horribly divided into filthy rich, dirt poor and slaves. There is no middle class except middleman minorities, and no production beyond primary production and daily commodities. Such society can thrive only as long as it expands, hoards loot, plunder and new slaves and gold and silver. Once this expansion ends, the economy stultifies.”
And …..
“…… were simply too proud for that. For them, physical labour beyond warfare was below their dignity …”
These do rather presage the ned for the current Western “culture”. The evisceration of the middle class - yes even in “soshullist” Europe - and now no longer expanding but retracting, both in production and in population. All too often too, I come across people who won’t do manual work .
Perhaps our society has reached a Gladwell “tipping point”?
寫得太棒了！這是一次歷史性的壯舉，但當(dāng)你寫道：
“它造就了一個(gè)嚴(yán)重分化的社會(huì)，分為極度富有、極度貧窮和奴隸。除了少數(shù)中間商群體外，沒有中產(chǎn)階級(jí)，生產(chǎn)也僅限于初級(jí)產(chǎn)品和日常商品。這樣的社會(huì)只有在不斷擴(kuò)張、掠奪戰(zhàn)利品、新奴隸和金銀時(shí)才能繁榮。一旦擴(kuò)張停止，經(jīng)濟(jì)便會(huì)停滯?！?
以及……
“他們過于驕傲，不愿從事體力勞動(dòng)。對(duì)他們來說，除了戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)之外的體力勞動(dòng)有損他們的尊嚴(yán)……”
這些描述似乎預(yù)示了當(dāng)前西方‘文化’的困境。中產(chǎn)階級(jí)的消亡——是的，即使在‘社會(huì)主義’的歐洲也是如此——而現(xiàn)在，無(wú)論是生產(chǎn)還是人口，都不再擴(kuò)張，反而在收縮。我也經(jīng)常遇到那些不愿從事體力勞動(dòng)的人。
或許我們的社會(huì)已經(jīng)達(dá)到了格拉德威爾所說的‘臨界點(diǎn)’？
（譯注：格拉德威爾”通常指的是馬爾科姆·格拉德威爾（Malcolm Gladwell），他是一位英裔加拿大作家、記者、演講家，以深入淺出地探討社會(huì)科學(xué)研究而聞名。他的作品涉及社會(huì)學(xué)、心理學(xué)和行為科學(xué)等領(lǐng)域。）
Murray - the Roman Empire was over a thousand years with spectacular wealth disparity.
@Murray——羅馬帝國(guó)存在了一千多年，財(cái)富差距極其懸殊。
Indeed - well over 1,000 years if you mean the Eastern Empire.
But both East and West collapsed for the identical reasons to Susanna’s explanation. One in circa 400 CE and the final destruction by the Turks in circa 1450. The start … well the mythology is 750 BCE odd, but tracing back to the first small tribal village by the Tiber is a bit of a push in my opinion. As a developing civilisation ….. I’d push that out by another 200 years - to the end years of the Kingdoms.
Additionally, the Western empire fluxed - lots of almost total breakdowns - revolutions, civil wars as the 1% (?) finagled to make itself even richer (e.g., Crassus). I think all countries go through these fluxes. and in some cases that I might argue, flux so much that though they are apparently still the same, in reality they are not ….. French, Russian, Japanese, Chinese ……….. revolutions.
Things moved more slowly then - no cars, no internet (and no bloody cellphones) ….. :-)
確實(shí)——如果你指的是東羅馬帝國(guó)，它存在了遠(yuǎn)超一千年的時(shí)間。
但東羅馬和西羅馬的崩潰原因與Susanna的解釋完全相同。一個(gè)在公元400年左右崩潰，另一個(gè)在1450年左右被土耳其人徹底摧毀。至于起點(diǎn)……神話傳說可以追溯到公元前750年左右，但在我看來，追溯到臺(tái)伯河邊的第一個(gè)小部落村莊有點(diǎn)牽強(qiáng)。作為一個(gè)發(fā)展的文明……我會(huì)將其再推后200年——到羅馬王政時(shí)代末期。
（譯注：羅馬王政時(shí)代是羅馬歷史的第一個(gè)階段，大約從公元前753年（傳統(tǒng)上認(rèn)為羅馬建城的年份）持續(xù)到公元前509年，以羅馬最后一位國(guó)王塔奎尼烏斯·蘇佩布斯（Tarquinius Superbus，又稱“高傲者塔奎尼”）被推翻為標(biāo)志。羅馬王政時(shí)代由七位國(guó)王統(tǒng)治，他們通過選舉或繼承獲得權(quán)力；信仰多神教。）
此外，西羅馬帝國(guó)經(jīng)歷了許多幾乎完全崩潰的動(dòng)蕩——革命、內(nèi)戰(zhàn)，因?yàn)槟?%的人（？）千方百計(jì)讓自己變得更富有（例如克拉蘇）。我認(rèn)為所有國(guó)家都會(huì)經(jīng)歷這些動(dòng)蕩。在某些情況下，我甚至認(rèn)為，盡管它們表面上仍然是同一個(gè)國(guó)家，但實(shí)際上已經(jīng)完全不同了……法國(guó)、俄羅斯、日本、中國(guó)……的革命。
那時(shí)的變化更慢——沒有汽車，沒有互聯(lián)網(wǎng)（也沒有該死的手機(jī)）…… :-)
Thanks for the reply. I was annoyed that the closing “tipping point” comment seemed somewhat hysterical. However, there are differences between now and then. Speed of communication seems significant. Let’s think good thoughts.
感謝回復(fù)。我對(duì)結(jié)尾的‘臨界點(diǎn)’評(píng)論感到有些惱火，它似乎有些夸張。不過，現(xiàn)在和過去確實(shí)有不同之處。通信速度似乎是一個(gè)重要因素。讓我們往好的方面想吧。
I agree. Not apropos of the question …..
But in one of your posts you propose an adjustment for elections. Have you looked at the Tasmanian system? It appear to come close to - well - the least obxtionable.
我同意。雖然這與問題無(wú)關(guān)……
但在你的一篇帖子中，你提出了對(duì)選舉制度的調(diào)整建議。你研究過塔斯馬尼亞的選舉制度嗎？它似乎接近——嗯——最不令人反感的制度。
Oh thanks for the tip. I am currently wallowing in catatonic state about USA politics. Hopefully I will take a peek at Tasmania governance.
amendment: So, as I peruse the Wikipedia about Hare-Clarke method, it seems to be a ranked choice sort of system. That would be great to try. Except with the duopoly we have here in USA, nothing is going to change unless by an amazing miracle my fellow citizens wake up…
哦，謝謝你的建議。我目前對(duì)美國(guó)政治感到麻木不仁。希望我能抽空看看塔斯馬尼亞的治理方式。
補(bǔ)充：當(dāng)我瀏覽維基百科關(guān)于哈爾-克拉克方法的介紹時(shí)，它似乎是一種排序選擇的制度。這值得嘗試。但在這里，由于美國(guó)的兩黨壟斷，除非我的同胞們奇跡般地覺醒，否則什么都不會(huì)改變……
It isn’t the citizenry that matter. We here had a “binding” referendum. People were asked:
If they wanted to change electoral system, and
What kind of system they preferred, with four options to choose from: MMP Mixed Member Proportional - as in Germany), single transferrable vote (STV - a modified Hare-Clarke), supplementary member (SM), and preferential vote (PV - as in Australia … except Tasmania).
There was an extensive - and reasonably well done - education programme for three months or so before the referendum …… however it was hijacked to an extent by the POLITICIANS …. as they recognised that FPP was unpopular, so they heavily supported MMP, that reduced their manipulative powers, least. MUCH to my disgust, this is what happened. I wanted STV …. where the electoral POWER resides with the voters.
In MMP, half the pollies are elected FPP and half are appointed by the parties - but on the basis of a secondary vote according to the percentage dictated by the voters.
So though it is sort-of, semi proportional - the electoral power remains with the bloody pollies and - worse, far worse in my opinion - those “proportional” MPs are not required to face the fire of an electorate campaign. So we get a parliament of party hacks anyway.
A Bastard of a system - the sort of proportional election that you have when you are not having a proportional election.
STV reverts the power to the voter.
I would also adopt the Australian system of compulsory voting. Oh I know that in the USA you will have a bleating about freedom (Freedumb), so only once in US history have you had more than 72% cast a vote …. normally (in 200 odd years) it is mid to high 60s%. Well here it is still voluntary too, (though compulsory to register), but usually 85% turnout.
真正重要的不是普通民眾。我們這里曾舉行過一次‘具有約束力’的公投。人們被問到：
1. 是否希望改變選舉制度；
2. 希望采用哪種制度，有四種選擇：MMP（混合成員比例制，如德國(guó)）、單記可轉(zhuǎn)移投票制（STV，一種改良的哈爾-克拉克制）、補(bǔ)充成員制（SM）和優(yōu)先投票制（PV，如澳大利亞……除了塔斯馬尼亞）。
在公投前的三個(gè)月左右，我們進(jìn)行了廣泛且相當(dāng)不錯(cuò)的教育宣傳……然而，它在一定程度上被政客們操縱了……因?yàn)樗麄円庾R(shí)到FPP（簡(jiǎn)單多數(shù)制）不受歡迎，所以他們大力支持MMP，這種制度對(duì)他們操縱權(quán)力的影響最小。讓我非常失望的是，結(jié)果正是如此。我原本希望采用STV……因?yàn)樵谶@種制度下，選舉權(quán)力掌握在選民手中。
在MMP中，一半的議員通過FPP選舉產(chǎn)生，另一半由政黨根據(jù)選民投票比例任命。
因此，盡管它某種程度上是半比例制的，但選舉權(quán)力仍然掌握在那些該死的政客手中——更糟糕的是，在我看來，那些‘比例制’議員不需要面對(duì)選區(qū)的競(jìng)選壓力。所以我們最終得到的還是一個(gè)由政黨機(jī)器控制的議會(huì)。
這是一種糟糕的制度——一種你并不真正想要的比例選舉制。
STV將權(quán)力交還給選民。
我也會(huì)采用澳大利亞的強(qiáng)制投票制度。哦，我知道在美國(guó)，人們會(huì)抱怨自由（‘自由’？），所以在美國(guó)歷史上，只有一次投票率超過72%……通常（在200多年的歷史中）投票率在60%到70%之間。而在這里，盡管投票是自愿的（但登記是強(qiáng)制的），投票率通常達(dá)到85%。
Not at this point. The time from the 700s to the late 900s Eastern Rome was actually pretty fair compared to all its peers. Esp when you look at the judicial practices. Anyone could and often did get to redress their claims.
目前還沒有到那個(gè)地步。從8世紀(jì)到10世紀(jì)末，東羅馬帝國(guó)實(shí)際上比它的所有同行都要公平得多。尤其是在司法實(shí)踐方面。任何人都可以——而且經(jīng)常——獲得申訴的機(jī)會(huì)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處