Western Civilization. Franks and Vikings - Essay Example

?Western Civilization: Three Topics The sections from the Koran mentioned here (Reilly 249-254) reveal that Islam is a complex religion, calling on symbolism and poetry as well as commandments and historical writings about the life of the prophet Mohamed. The opening section describes a stirring scene with “coursers” which must be fast Arabian horses, which are dashing towards the foe. At first sight this is a violent image, and the writer manages to convey some of the excitement of the chase. Immediately after the description of the warlike horses, however, the tone of the writer reveals some criticism of the passion of the fight, since he talks of man, meaning mankind, saying “And lo! In the love of wealth he is violent” (Reilly 250). What the Koran seems to be implying is that human beings are violent, because they are greedy, but that one day they will face judgement for their violent acts, because “On that day will their Lord be perfectly informed concerning them” (Reilly 251). The Koran describes violence, but it does not promote it, and in fact criticizes it. In the second section there is a description of some very harsh justice, suggesting that people should fight back when they are attacked: “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors” (Reilly, 252). Islam is therefore a religion that does not glorify violence for its own sake, but merely allows it in self-defence.. In family matters, there is also some guidance on punishment for wrongdoing, but it has definite limits: “And if they repent and improve, then let them be” (Reilly, 254). Overall, then, the key message of this passage is that Islam is not violent and that righteous people will be mindful of the way that Allah watches what people do. 2. The Germanic tribes north of Rome were much less organized than the Roman Empire had been, but they had the advantage of strong leadership in the form of their local chieftains, and loyal following in the warriors who banded together and were willing to fight or farm, depending on the needs of the time. The lack of a controlling center in Rome allowed them to take part in a wider range of trade activities, reaching even outside the limits of the formerly Roman territories. This meant that the Franks took over in a way which “actually led to the spread of Roman and Christian civilization beyond Rome’s frontiers” (Lewis, 153). The social structure was more flexible than the Roman structure, which had depended on large armies and a system of either conscription or professional soldiering, both of which required significant amounts of central funding. The Franks managed their affairs locally, becoming involved in small skirmishes here and there, but generally preserving their civilization as a whole made up of independent parts. One of the great strengths of the Franks was their ruling dynasty of the Merovingians who were a very ancient family that commanded the loyalty of wide territories. After the death of Clovis there was some debate about who should take over particular territories. Over the centuries, as the generations succeeded one another, the lands were repeatedly divided up, which created the potential for rivalries and divisions to split the Franks into factions. They were at a disadvantage compared to the Romans because they had a lower level of education: “Compared with the Roman Empire, the Frankish kingdom was a feeble political structure, yet its role in the building of European civilization was important (Lewis, 155). Many of the kings and their immediate circle were not able to read and write, but this caused them to forge an important strategic alliance with the monasteries. The oldest children of monarchs were brought up to be rules, but younger siblings were often sent to the monasteries to acquire useful skills. This link between Church and State was a very important dimension of the Frankish rise to power, because it gave access to great moral unity and material wealth. The decentralized form of government of the Franks formed the core of what was to develop into feudalism – a constellation that forced monarchs nobles and churchmen to share power and work together to achieve common goals such as stability and prosperity. This complex web of loyalties was the glue that kept society together, and in many countries it lasted right down until the nineteenth century (Lewis, 155). One of the greatest emperors of all time, Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, was a Frank, and he had both earthly and spiritual authority over a territory that reached over most of contemporary Europe and beyond. Another thing that worked in the Franks’ favour was that they did not have the difficulty of old enmities between the Eastern and Western branches of the Roman Empire. They could start afresh and build their own alliances and spread their reach as far as they wanted to. 3. The Norsemen, also called Vikings, were a collection of Germanic tribes living on the Northernmost fringes of Europe in territories that we nowadays would call Scandinavia. This northern climate was not very good for providing food, and they were motivated by a need to obtain more land so that they could pasture their animals and grow their crops to feed an ever growing population. People tend to think of Vikings as being hit and run raiders, sailing along the coasts and up the rivers, pillaging as they went and stealing whatever they could find. They certainly did engage in these activities, but there is plenty of evidence also that they settled in the lands that they visited: “The Anglo-Saxons were forced to surrender the eastern half of England (The Danelaw) to the invaders, and the Frankish rulers were compelled to yield a large territory along the Channel that was called, after the Norsemen, the duchy of Normandy” (Lewis 174). This permanent settlement allowed Danish customs, particularly the legal system, to become part of the British way of life in the eastern half of the country. Similar settlement along the northern coast of what is present day France ensured that Viking genes mixed with those of other peoples. Part of their language was passed on to other modern European languages, and many place names bear witness to Viking settlers having lived there. The arrival of the Arab civilization brought cultural enrichment to Europe including spectacular architectural styles which transformed the visual appearance of many cities. North Africa, once the location of several magnificent ancient civilizations, and later a colony of both Greece and Rome, became again a cultural center for the new religion of Islam, and provided a base for Arab expansion to the West. The Arabs were warlike in their early expansion phase “Within a decade after Muhammad’s death, the hard-riding Arab horsemen conquered Persia and took Egypt and Syria from the Byzantine Empire, and within a century, their empire (caliphate) (from the Arabic word for “successor” of the Prophet) stretched from Persia to Spain” (Lewis 160). It was only when this expansion collided with the equally warlike Franks, that a final boundary line between Christian and Muslim empires was drawn. After around 1000 AD, there was a more fruitful kind of contact between the two mighty empires: “where the warriors stopped, the traders took over” (Lewis 160). New, exotic goods such as spices became available and there was a greater sharing of knowledge, and study of ancient texts, including Greek classics which had been lost in the West but had survived in libraries in the East. Contact with the Arabs therefore brought renewal to Europe. Arabic scientific and medical knowledge was passed on to European cultures, including the way of writing numerals which persists to this day. Overall, then, the Vikings and Arabs brought war to the fringes of Europe, and helped define its boundaries, but they also contributed a great deal of intellectual and cultural value when they stayed to build up settled communities. References Lewis, Gavin. WCIV. Boston: Cengage, 2012. Reilly, Kevin (Ed.) “From the Koran.” In Worlds of History: A Comparative Reader, Vol. 1. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004, pp. 249-254. Read More