Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited

by Emmet Scott

During the 1920s Belgian historian Henri Pirenne came to an astonishing the ancient classical civilization, which Rome had established throughout Europe and the Mediterranean world, was not destroyed by the Barbarians who invaded the western provinces in the fifth century, it was destroyed by the Arabs, whose conquest of the Middle East and North Africa terminated Roman civilization in those regions and cut off Europe from any further trading and cultural contact with the East. According to Pirenne, it was only in the mid-seventh century that the characteristic features of classical life disappeared from Europe, after which time the continent began to develop its own distinctive and somewhat primitive medieval culture. Pirenne’s findings, published posthumously in his Mohammed et Charlemagne (1937), were even then highly controversial, for by the late nineteenth century many historians were moving towards a quite different namely that the Arabs were actually a civilizing force who rekindled the light of classical learning in Europe after it had been extinguished by the Goths, Vandals and Huns in the fifth century. And because Pirenne went so diametrically against the grain of this thinking, the reception of his new thesis tended to be hostile. Paper after paper published during the 1940s and ‘50s strove to refute him. The most definitive rebuttal however appeared in the early 1980s. This was Mohammed, Charlemagne and the Origins of Europe, by English archaeologists Richard Hodges and David Whitehouse. These, in common with Pirenne’s earlier critics, argued that classical civilization was already dead in Europe by the time of the Arab conquests, and that the Arabs arrived on the scene as civilizers rather than destroyers. Hodges and Whitehouse claimed that the latest findings of archaeology fully supported this view, and their work was highly influential. So influential indeed that over the next three decades Pirenne and his thesis was progressively sidelined, so that recent years have seen the publication of dozens of titles in the English language alone which fail even to mention his name. In Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited historian Emmet Scott reviews the evidence put forward by Hodges and Whitehouse, as well as the more recent findings of archaeology, and comes to a rather different conclusion. For him, the evidence shows that classical civilization was not dead in Europe at the start of the seventh century, but was actually experiencing something of a revival. Populations and towns were beginning to grow again for the first time since this second century – a development apparently attributable largely to the spread of Christianity. In addition, the real centres of classical civilization, in the Middle East, were experiencing an unprecedented Golden Age at the time, with cities larger and more prosperous than ever before. Excavation has shown that these were destroyed thoroughly and completely by the Arab conquests, with many never again reoccupied. And it was precisely then, says Scott, that Europe’s classical culture also disappeared, with the abandonment of the undefended lowland villas and farms of the Roman period and a retreat to fortified hilltop settlements; the first medieval castles. For Scott, archaeology demonstrated that the Arabs did indeed blockade the Mediterranean through piracy and slave-raiding, precisely as Pirenne had claimed, and he argues that the disappearance of papyrus from Europe was an infallible proof of this. Whatever classical learning survived after this time, says Scott, was due almost entirely to the efforts of Christian monks. The Pirenne thesis has taken on a new significance in the post 9/11 world. Scott’s take on the theory will certainly ignite further and perhaps heated debate.

Genres: History, Islam, Nonfiction, Religion, Medieval, Medieval History

272 pages, Paperback

First published December 16, 2011

Reviews

[Steve]

My, my, my, what a curious read this was!

Initially pleased at finding a recent review of the debate about the causes of the transition in Europe from the ancient Graeco-Roman world to the medieval age, it took about fifteen minutes of reading Emmet Scott's Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy (2012) before I had to stop and do a little research on whom and what I actually had before me, because the undisguised hostility towards everything Arab in this book became evident right away.

I soon found that Scott is a stalwart at The New English Review, a website promoting right wing positions with an emphasis on anti-Islam and pro-Christian articles (the publisher of this book, in fact) and with a bent for invective.(*) Fortunately, though his animosity towards Arabs (and towards any historian who asserted that the preservation of classic Greek literature and philosophy by some Arabs was of some benefit to the West, indeed that there is anything positive about Islamic culture that didn't originate somewhere else) is unmistakable, he left most of the ad hominem invective out of this book.(**)

In fact, Scott is clearly very well read, and though he apparently holds no academic position(***) most of this text is well founded and formulates a strong defense of Henri Pirenne's thesis that the arrival of the Arabic tide and not the Germanic invasions was the death knell of classical Graeco-Roman civilization. His more recent references will provide me with some more food for thought about this debate in the near future.

But the constant repetition of his view that the Arabs were only destructive of civilization, invented nothing of their own and simply passed on Chinese and Indian innovations to the West became a bit tedious. In fact, he argues that the ideas of iconoclasm (which was the cause of serious problems in Byzantium for a century) and of holy war (viz. the Crusades) are due to Islam; in other words, the only ideas the West received which actually originated with Muslims were destructive. He even blames the atrocities of the conquistadors on the Spaniards' interaction with the Muslims. OK, then...

What was most curious is that Scott is favorably disposed towards Heribert Illig's relatively recent and very extreme claim that somehow or other nearly three centuries of history in Europe were manufactured. Yes, he asserts that the years between 614 and 911 (the Dark Ages) never existed, that Emperor Otto III had these years inserted into the calendar around the year 1000 (by the new Ottonian reckoning). How this could have occurred without any trace in the written record I have no clue, because Otto and his helpers were not supernatural. It appears that professional historians are not falling all over one another in order to provide an extensive response to this remarkable assertion. I found a few rejoinders online, but, frankly, I too find the suggestion so unlikely as to be hardly worth my time.

Particularly telling for me personally is the fact that this three century gap is not consistent with Chinese records. The Chinese have been keeping chronicles continuously since before the founding of the Han dynasty at the end of the 3rd century BCE. There is no three century gap in these records. They include evidence of interactions with the later Roman Empire towards the end of the Han dynasty (there is even a trace of the Roman-Persian conflicts in these annals); so, pre-614. But when Western and Chinese historians compare notes they do not find a discrepancy of three centuries in their time keeping. I expect the same can be found when comparing Persian and Western chronicles (though I have no familiarity with the former at all). Given the continuity of Islamic records, as well, I don't see how three centuries can suddenly disappear in a consistent manner. Certainly the contortions Scott performs to re-date Western-Islamic interactions are unconvincing to me.

As I said: curious.

When I read Pirenne's Mahomet et Charlemagne a few weeks ago it didn't occur to me that his theory would attract the favor of modern anti-Muslims, but, of course, that is surely because I am a pathetic member of some fifth column or other. In the memorable words of the current inhabitant of the White House, how sad!

[Fair warning: Trolling comments get deleted and their authors get blocked.]


(*) Here is an excerpt from one of Scott's articles in that website:

How Western Liberals Helped Create Radical Islamism - Emmet Scott (2012)

The policies pursued by the left (and I include here zealots like Richard Dawkins of no overtly political affiliation), far from creating a secularist utopia, are in danger of producing a theocracy more fanatical and more obscurantist than anything Europe has ever experienced. The modern left in fact constitutes an enormous fifth column placed right at the heart of the West; a fifth column actively and openly involved in undermining every attempt to defend the freedoms and humanitarian traditions it professes to believe in.

(**) Nonetheless, Scott asserts that various named (and respected) historians involved in the debate about the transition to the middle ages manifested "bad faith" and that some of them (named) deliberately tried to mislead their readers.

(***) Which is no problem for me; some of my favorite historians were never professors.

[Elentarri · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, Emmet Scott provides an overview of Henri Pirenne's controversial hypothesis that the rise of Islam and it's blockade of Mediterranean trade lead to the extinction of classical civilization; and also considers the arguments put forward by Pirenne's many detractors.  Scott then reviews the current archaeological and textual evidence in both Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and proceeds to pick holes in erroneous arguments or add additional evidence to other arguments.  The evidence Scott presents covers a wide area, from what is now the British Isles, Spain, North Africa, France, Italy, Germany, as well as the heart of the old Roman Empire, Byzantium and the Middle East.  His thesis is well argued and presented.  This book was pleasant to read and easy to understand.

In the end, Scott summarises the evidence that shows classical civilization was experiencing a revival (something he attributed to early Christianity, which was fairly different from what Christianity eventually became from the Middle-Ages onward) at the beginning of the 7th century, with expanding populations and towns.  Archeological excavations have shown that Middle Eastern town and cities were thoroughly destroyed by the Arab Conquest (which was probably aided by the Persians, who were not so much conquered as converted) and never rebuilt.  At this time, Europe's classical culture vanished fairly quickly.  This is attributed to the Arab/Muslim blockade of the Mediterranean sea through piracy and slave-raiding, and the Muslim's religious directive of total war.  Continuous raiding resulted in coastal dwellers abandoning their undefended lowland farms and estates and retreating to fortified hilltop stronghold, which eventually became medieval castles. The capture of Egypt by the Arabs also meant no papyrus was traded to Europe.  This had a profound impact on literacy - there simply was no alternative inexpensive and abundant material to write on, or make books out of - so literacy plummeted and disintegrating/moldering papyrus works could not be replaced (except in some monasteries, which preserved some of the classical literature).  Who knew papyrus was that important? Scott also takes a look at what made the Arabs/Islamic conquest so different from all the other wars, and the ultimate impact this had on the European people.

This book contains a great deal of information, and ideas/hypotheses, which are all very interesting and provide quite a lot of thought-food.

Note: It is not absolutely necessary to read Mohammed and Charlemagne by Henri Pirenne before reading Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited by Emmet Scott. Emmet Scott summarises all the pertinent information in his book.

[Max Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a fascinating book. It is the history of an idea by historian Henri Pirenne. He wrote a book that was published posthumously called "Mohammed et Charlemagne" (1937). The idea that Pirenne put forth was that the Roman civilization in Europe was not destroyed by the barbarians, but was experiencing a resurgence, when Islam killed it. Of course this idea went against the idea that was becoming prevalent, that Islam was the civilizing force that introduced civilization to Europe that has become the basic idea that is taught now.

Mr. Scott goes through and shows how this idea that Pirenne put forth is the right idea, and give the current archeological evidence that supports it. With all of the information that I've gotten recently about Islam, and Medieval Europe this idea sounds right and there is a lot of evidences that the author brings to the table. The thing that really struck me is how much impact the loss of cheap papyrus had. Once cheap papyrus was not available, the only writing material was parchment, very expensive, once writing became super expensive it obviously became less practiced. The law of supply and demand. Only the Christian Monks thought what they had to write was worth the effort and expense.

I remember now why I bought this book. I bought it before I took some scouts on a week long hike into the Chicago Basin in Co. It was a fun read.

[Frederick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good read, very enjoyable and easy to understand. There is a great deal of information to consider and further reading would be required to understand all of the implications. I do think he stretches things just a bit but his point about how the Islamic Conquests changed Europe is very revealing.

[Gavin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Propaganda masquerading as (cherry picked/poorly researched) history. As a historian, I recommend that you run, don't walk away when you see this book. I feel sullied for actually looking at this book.

[Charlie Kester · Rating 4 out of 5]

Makes a cogent argument. Without having seen any of the responses from the other side, I'm inclined to agree with his thesis.

[John Malhaz · Rating 1 out of 5]

The subject of Pirenne’s research and conclusions are of a great value. However in all the attacks on islamic invasions and the end they brought on Western (Roman) civilization there is a gap. The gap is 21 years between the beginning of Islam and the wars or invasions led by the followers of Muhammad.

So if an author dedicates 500 pages to a subject and a few lines to explain this gap, in my opinion he is a fraud and a liar.

You cannot claim that Islam brought an end to communications between Egypt and Europe in 620 AD if the invasion of Egypt by muslim warriors happened after 630 or can you? Emmet Scott does and even more.

He cannot distinguish between Arab mercenaries fighting on the side of Sassanid Persia against Bizantium and muslim warriors conquering Persia.

He has very shallow knowledge of Islam, especially of this early period, which explains why such mistakes are allowed.

I tried to do some research on the author but there is nothing on Emmet Scott, is he a professor, an independent researcher?

In order to make the unsupported claims of such significance you must be a star in the subject matter. Who is he?

I don’t know but I read the book and I am very much disappointed, a person with a decent college degree will not be able to digest this amount of lies and stupidity.

[Boris · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very academic and contrarian look at what led to the ultimate decline of Classical Civilization in Western Europe

What was interesting was how the 'barbarians' embraced Roman law and culture and preserved it until the conquest of the Middle East and North Africa by the Arabs starting in the 7th century. I recall that Alaric was actually a Roman general whose conquest of Rome was more a political and military dispute and was also an admirer of Roman civilization.

Another interesting point was the collapse of trade also caused the use of papyrus for writing materials to disappear and which caused a precipitate decline in literacy and presumably the acquisition and dispersion of knowledge. Papyrus was the cheap writing paper of the era and was replaced by the rare and expensive parchment.

[M. MOUNIR · Rating 1 out of 5]

AN EXTREMELY BISAES ANTI-ISLAMIC PROPAGANDA

If a fraction of one star were possible i would give it. There is nothing base bad or basterdly that this author does not lay at the door of Islam. Things that happened before the rise of Islam, Christian antisemitism is according to this biased writer is all due to his bugaboo, Islam, the atrocities of Meso Mexico were learned from the Moslems. The benevolent capture of Jerusalem by the 3rd Calif Omar, is according to this author either a myth or never occurred. That writer, he never rises to the title of author, is so dishonest, that if you ever meet him and he shakes your hand "count your fingers he may have stolen some of your fingers"

[Banks R Chamberlain · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well done

The author carefully built his argument.

He dealt with a complex subject in a very orderly compelling manner.

While I did not check his references thoroughly in his footnotes, I did sample a few that were entirely consistent with my understanding of the subjects. Again, well done.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

As others have said there is a tone of anti-Arab propaganda to the book. I think Pirene's original hypothesis makes sense and some of the points raised in the book about Islamic raiding and piracy having a negative impact on 7th,8th and 9th century European economy and the loss of papyrus as a resource in Europe harmed learning and literacy are true and cannot be denied. However, the author goes into periodic rants about the evil of Arab/Muslim behavior and nature that detracts from his arguments. Other things that bothered me are how he went about making his arguments. He often states his conclusions and then says words to the effect of "I will explain or back that up later". He likes to have his cake and eat it too also. He says Alkwarizmi, who brought algebra to Europe through his translated works had no original thoughts, he was just repeating the Greek Diophantus. So the Arabs and Islam should not get credit for algebra. Later he says that Alkwarizmi was not an Arab, he was a Persian, so the Arabs and Islam should not get credit. Basically, it does not matter if, why or how algebra got to Europe, just don't give credit to the Arabs or Islam. He also throws in fringe ideas about there being no history actually occurring between about 700 and the year 1000 based on the lack of archaeological evidence in those years. He dismisses the idea but keeps bringing it up and supporting it when describing archeological digs. He also talks about some archeologists backdating finds from the 10th century 100 or 200 years just to fill in these blanks. He says they are wrong, but then suggests backdating events in the history of Islam to line them up with the Persian wars. This is to prop up another theory that says the Persian armies actually pulled off the Arab conquest of Rome because Arabs were not capable of doing it.

I would like another, different book that looks at the same era and events and argues Pirene's hypothesis based on modern evidence in a more rational, calm way and without the fringe theories popping in.

[Christopher Earl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant book only marred by an political undertone of anti Islam

[Christopher Earl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like John Oneils holy warriors written from a right wing political angle spoils the good work

[Christopher Earl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book only marred by a political undertone of anti Islam