| Joshua Connolly wrote: | ||
Well, the reason I say that they're not totally analogous is that the vast majority of deaths in the New World caused by the Spanish were really due to disease, which I'm not really sure you can 'blame' them for. Likewise, it's possible to argue that the situation with the Spanish was better than the central Americans were dealing with prior, what with the Aztecs doing a number of things which 'supposedly' horrified the Spanish when they arrived. On the other hand, the vast majority of deaths in India were directly caused by the Muslim attempts at converting the Hindus. I'm not so aware of any arguable subsequent increase in conditions either. There might very well be something like that here as well. |
Ah, but the many of the Aztecs (all the Mexican Nahua-speakers) were happy (or at least prepared) to die. All part of the cosmology . . . :-)
The Indian situation is vastly complex, and never involved any Islamic Arab attempt at conquest. The original Islamic "intrusion" into the Indian subcontinent was primarily carried out by recently converted Turks, such as the Ghaznavids. Just as in the West, attitudes and approaches varied by ruler. It kind of depended on whether they saw the "Hindus" as monotheists or polytheists, and this varied. Certainly, there was an improvement in agriculture techniques (if not production) after the "Islamic" advance, simply by the introduction of Persian farming practices into the northern region of the subcontinent. It can also argued that, after some initial damage caused by over-taxation and poor tax collection practices, that the economy improved overall due to the re-introduction of coinage and increased trade outside of the subcontinent. One of the problems in looking at the Islamic conquest of India is that the new rulers are very recently converted Turks----was it their (however imperfect) faith that caused damage, or was it the general Turko-Mongolian attitude towards sedentary agrarian civilizations? Certainly the early Chingiz-Khanites, several generations later, were responsible for immense destruction in the Islamic world, but this had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with "barbarism" (I really hate to use that word, but I am paraphrasing Grousset).
Totally agreed on the issue of religious schism!!!
Orthodox against Catholic, *everyone* against Arians, Sunnis vs. Shi'a . . .without end!!!
Much of the violent reputation of the Muslim effect on North India comes from the brutal campaign of Temur il-Lenk!!! Possibly the most bloody-minded leader in recorded history . . . .
Darn, these sorts of threads are incredibly addictive!!!
I really need to get back to work . . . :-(