为什么阿拉伯文明从未从蒙古人的入侵中恢复过来？
Why did the Arab civilization never recover from the Mongol invasions?
译文简介
网友：阿拉伯文明的星辰自863年拉卡翁战役败于东罗马帝国后便开始逐渐沉沦，这也是阿拉伯帝国扩张的最高水位线。阿拉伯文明与罗马帝国面临着同样的问题：一个基于奴隶制的社会。奴隶制经济的社会本质上是不稳定的，它造就了一个严重分化的社会，分为极度富有、极度贫穷和奴隶。
正文翻译
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年拉卡翁战役败于东罗马帝国后便开始逐渐沉沦，这也是阿拉伯帝国扩张的最高水位线。阿拉伯文明与罗马帝国面临着同样的问题：一个基于奴隶制的社会。奴隶制经济的社会本质上是不稳定的，它造就了一个严重分化的社会，分为极度富有、极度贫穷和奴隶。除了少数中间商群体外，没有中产阶级，生产也仅限于初级产品和日常商品。这样的社会只有在不断扩张、掠夺战利品、新奴隶和金银时才能繁荣。一旦扩张停止，经济便会停滞。
阿拉伯帝国便是如此。随之而来的是通货紧缩——战利品和掠夺不再流入哈里发国——而应对措施却是通货膨胀，即通过贬值迪拉姆。阿拔斯黄金时代随着败于东罗马帝国而结束，随后帝国试图重新征服。哈里发国分裂为三个部分——科尔多瓦哈里发国（929年）和开罗哈里发国（973年）意味着阿拉伯帝国的分裂、贫困和解体。漫长的衰落开始了。这些世纪（863年至1254年）与西罗马帝国的衰亡类似——原因基本相同。
当阿拔斯王朝仍在巴格达掌权时，三个哈里发国彼此争斗（类似于三世纪危机？）。这消耗了每个哈里发国的财力，而与此同时，东罗马帝国和西班牙的基督教王国正在进行重新征服。
（译注：三世纪危机（Crisis of the Third Century）是指罗马帝国在公元235年至284年间经历的一系列严重的内外危机。这段时期也被称为“帝国的军事无政府状态”或“帝国的危机时代”，是罗马帝国历史上最动荡和衰落的阶段之一。）
第一个倒下的是科尔多瓦哈里发国，于1031年灭亡。开罗的法蒂玛哈里发国于1174年被库尔德阿尤布王朝取代，而阿尤布王朝又在1250年被其奴隶士兵马穆鲁克推翻。到1254年，巴格达哈里发国已沦为一个小国。它失去了西班牙和摩洛哥，被基督徒和柏柏尔人占领；埃及被法蒂玛、阿尤布和马穆鲁克占据；从伊拉克到印度的领土则被花剌子模人占领——而花剌子模人随后又被蒙古人征服。
1254年，巴格达哈里发国的领土缩小到今天的阿拉伯半岛、叙利亚、约旦和伊拉克西部。它的西面是十字军，北面和东面是蒙古人，西北是土库曼人，南面是马穆鲁克——所有这些势力都对它充满敌意。它已经贫困不堪，疲惫不堪。
最后一位哈里发穆斯塔西姆既愚蠢又软弱。他在回复旭烈兀的信中称这位蒙古领袖年轻无知，并自称能够召集整个伊斯兰世界的军队。这种言论伴随着对旭烈兀使节的不尊重行为，使节们在巴格达街头遭到群众的嘲弄和奚落，这无疑是挑衅性的夸夸其谈：埃及的马穆鲁克苏丹国对哈里发充满敌意，而叙利亚的阿尤布小领地统治者们则专注于自保，十字军则宣布中立。
旭烈兀于1258年1月22日抵达巴格达东郊，受到当地什叶派的欢迎。蒙古人随后通过在整个城市周围建立栅栏并在内部挖掘壕沟来严密包围巴格达；这些防御工事在一天内完成。他们用砖块建造了投石机和弩炮的土堆，并准备了弹药——蒙古人使用了棕榈树和郊区建筑中的石头，直到他们在三天路程之外的哈姆林山脉找到了合适的岩石。为了防止任何人利用底格里斯河逃跑，旭烈兀下令在河的两侧建造浮桥。尽管巴格达的防御薄弱——被洪水削弱的城墙年久失修，守军最多只有5万人，且在大维齐尔的突围失败后，他们缺乏训练且战斗力低下——旭烈兀仍然精心策划了他的行动，以应对所有可能的情况。
对巴格达城墙的进攻始于1月29日或30日。第一个突破口出现在东南角的阿贾米塔附近，靠近旭烈兀的营地，时间是2月1日，但蒙古人被击退；接下来的两天里，进一步的突破使他们得以进入并控制了东城墙，到2月4日，他们已经占领了东城墙。
失去勇气的穆斯塔西姆准备投降。在派出由他的儿子和继承人艾哈迈德率领的代表团后，哈里发于2月10日投降，代表团确保了其家人的安全。穆斯塔西姆带着他的家人和3000名显贵投降。旭烈兀要求穆斯塔西姆命令城市居民放下武器后离开城市；那些服从的人被屠杀。
通常情况下，当一座城市因围困而投降时，古老的规则是征收火税并让城市免受破坏——就像1189年耶路撒冷的情况一样。但蒙古人并不遵守这些规则。相反，他们洗劫了整个城市并将其烧毁。结果是城市的彻底毁灭和大约20万居民的屠杀。通常，只有在城市被攻陷时才会允许这种行为，但蒙古人并不在乎古老的战争规则。
阿拉伯帝国已经在其死亡阵痛中挣扎了大约200年。它已经破产，没有资金修复巴格达的城墙。整个围城持续了两周——但通常，被围困的城市可以防御数月。
巴格达的洗劫标志着拥有500年历史的阿拔斯哈里发国的终结——尽管该王朝的一名成员最终逃到了开罗，马穆鲁克在那里拥立他为穆斯坦绥尔二世，但他和他的后代只是马穆鲁克国家的傀儡，从未在更广泛的伊斯兰世界获得太多认可；他们后来在1517年被奥斯曼人篡位，奥斯曼人一直保留着哈里发的头衔，直到20世纪。这也标志着权力从巴格达转移到了像大不里士这样的城市，大不里士是旭烈兀在围城后建立的伊儿汗国的首都。
阿拉伯心脏地带成为了蒙古帝国的一部分——确切地说，是旭烈兀的伊儿汗国。阿拉伯帝国不复存在。
直到1260年，局势才发生转变，在艾因贾鲁特战役中，马穆鲁克在拜巴尔的领导下击败了蒙古人基特布加。结果，整个近东（除了耶路撒冷王国和奇里乞亚亚美尼亚）都落入了马穆鲁克的统治之下。
阿拉伯人被征服、粉碎、贫困和分裂。西班牙和马格里布被基督徒和柏柏尔人（阿尔摩拉维德、阿尔摩哈德和马林王朝）占领。心脏地带首先被蒙古人摧毁，随后被马穆鲁克占领。埃及被马穆鲁克占领。灌溉系统被蒙古人摧毁。
再也没有奴隶来修复灌溉系统、城墙和建筑。阿拉伯人自己对此过于骄傲。对他们来说，除了战争之外的体力劳动有损他们的尊严。他们宁愿让一切腐朽，也不愿修复事物。他们变得贫困和破产。渐渐地，他们退回到了部落文化。
奴隶制的诅咒也使经济陷入瘫痪。在奴隶制社会中，资本主义无法发展，所有经济都停滞在集市经济中。基督徒在金钱方面比阿拉伯人表现得更好，经济活动的中心不仅转移到了君士坦丁堡，还一路转移到了意大利。
总的来说，阿拉伯文明的崩溃与西罗马帝国的崩溃相似。不同之处在于，定居在罗马土地上的蛮族迅速学习了罗马文明、拉丁语并建立了封建社会，而在东方却没有发生这样的复苏。征服者都是穆斯林，他们希望延续奴隶制社会，只想统治和掌权。哈里发的权威消失了，伊斯兰世界实际上已经失去了领导者。
巴格达的洗劫和阿拔斯哈里发国的崩溃所带来的灾难本质上是道德上的。失去了奴隶，又过于骄傲而不愿自己劳动，阿拉伯人将无法实现经济复苏。伊斯兰世界可以在一个领袖的领导下统一的想法已经破灭。宗教狂热和原教旨主义是被击败和压迫者的最后避难所，阿拉伯人转向内部，放弃了理性，转向了《古兰经》。当西方基督教世界发生宗教改革时，伊斯兰世界却没有发生类似的事情。它在心理历史上陷入了后期的极端退化心理阶段。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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年拉卡翁战役败于东罗马帝国后便开始逐渐沉沦，这也是阿拉伯帝国扩张的最高水位线。阿拉伯文明与罗马帝国面临着同样的问题：一个基于奴隶制的社会。奴隶制经济的社会本质上是不稳定的，它造就了一个严重分化的社会，分为极度富有、极度贫穷和奴隶。除了少数中间商群体外，没有中产阶级，生产也仅限于初级产品和日常商品。这样的社会只有在不断扩张、掠夺战利品、新奴隶和金银时才能繁荣。一旦扩张停止，经济便会停滞。
阿拉伯帝国便是如此。随之而来的是通货紧缩——战利品和掠夺不再流入哈里发国——而应对措施却是通货膨胀，即通过贬值迪拉姆。阿拔斯黄金时代随着败于东罗马帝国而结束，随后帝国试图重新征服。哈里发国分裂为三个部分——科尔多瓦哈里发国（929年）和开罗哈里发国（973年）意味着阿拉伯帝国的分裂、贫困和解体。漫长的衰落开始了。这些世纪（863年至1254年）与西罗马帝国的衰亡类似——原因基本相同。
当阿拔斯王朝仍在巴格达掌权时，三个哈里发国彼此争斗（类似于三世纪危机？）。这消耗了每个哈里发国的财力，而与此同时，东罗马帝国和西班牙的基督教王国正在进行重新征服。
（译注：三世纪危机（Crisis of the Third Century）是指罗马帝国在公元235年至284年间经历的一系列严重的内外危机。这段时期也被称为“帝国的军事无政府状态”或“帝国的危机时代”，是罗马帝国历史上最动荡和衰落的阶段之一。）
第一个倒下的是科尔多瓦哈里发国，于1031年灭亡。开罗的法蒂玛哈里发国于1174年被库尔德阿尤布王朝取代，而阿尤布王朝又在1250年被其奴隶士兵马穆鲁克推翻。到1254年，巴格达哈里发国已沦为一个小国。它失去了西班牙和摩洛哥，被基督徒和柏柏尔人占领；埃及被法蒂玛、阿尤布和马穆鲁克占据；从伊拉克到印度的领土则被花剌子模人占领——而花剌子模人随后又被蒙古人征服。
1254年，巴格达哈里发国的领土缩小到今天的阿拉伯半岛、叙利亚、约旦和伊拉克西部。它的西面是十字军，北面和东面是蒙古人，西北是土库曼人，南面是马穆鲁克——所有这些势力都对它充满敌意。它已经贫困不堪，疲惫不堪。
最后一位哈里发穆斯塔西姆既愚蠢又软弱。他在回复旭烈兀的信中称这位蒙古领袖年轻无知，并自称能够召集整个伊斯兰世界的军队。这种言论伴随着对旭烈兀使节的不尊重行为，使节们在巴格达街头遭到群众的嘲弄和奚落，这无疑是挑衅性的夸夸其谈：埃及的马穆鲁克苏丹国对哈里发充满敌意，而叙利亚的阿尤布小领地统治者们则专注于自保，十字军则宣布中立。
旭烈兀于1258年1月22日抵达巴格达东郊，受到当地什叶派的欢迎。蒙古人随后通过在整个城市周围建立栅栏并在内部挖掘壕沟来严密包围巴格达；这些防御工事在一天内完成。他们用砖块建造了投石机和弩炮的土堆，并准备了弹药——蒙古人使用了棕榈树和郊区建筑中的石头，直到他们在三天路程之外的哈姆林山脉找到了合适的岩石。为了防止任何人利用底格里斯河逃跑，旭烈兀下令在河的两侧建造浮桥。尽管巴格达的防御薄弱——被洪水削弱的城墙年久失修，守军最多只有5万人，且在大维齐尔的突围失败后，他们缺乏训练且战斗力低下——旭烈兀仍然精心策划了他的行动，以应对所有可能的情况。
对巴格达城墙的进攻始于1月29日或30日。第一个突破口出现在东南角的阿贾米塔附近，靠近旭烈兀的营地，时间是2月1日，但蒙古人被击退；接下来的两天里，进一步的突破使他们得以进入并控制了东城墙，到2月4日，他们已经占领了东城墙。
失去勇气的穆斯塔西姆准备投降。在派出由他的儿子和继承人艾哈迈德率领的代表团后，哈里发于2月10日投降，代表团确保了其家人的安全。穆斯塔西姆带着他的家人和3000名显贵投降。旭烈兀要求穆斯塔西姆命令城市居民放下武器后离开城市；那些服从的人被屠杀。
通常情况下，当一座城市因围困而投降时，古老的规则是征收火税并让城市免受破坏——就像1189年耶路撒冷的情况一样。但蒙古人并不遵守这些规则。相反，他们洗劫了整个城市并将其烧毁。结果是城市的彻底毁灭和大约20万居民的屠杀。通常，只有在城市被攻陷时才会允许这种行为，但蒙古人并不在乎古老的战争规则。
阿拉伯帝国已经在其死亡阵痛中挣扎了大约200年。它已经破产，没有资金修复巴格达的城墙。整个围城持续了两周——但通常，被围困的城市可以防御数月。
巴格达的洗劫标志着拥有500年历史的阿拔斯哈里发国的终结——尽管该王朝的一名成员最终逃到了开罗，马穆鲁克在那里拥立他为穆斯坦绥尔二世，但他和他的后代只是马穆鲁克国家的傀儡，从未在更广泛的伊斯兰世界获得太多认可；他们后来在1517年被奥斯曼人篡位，奥斯曼人一直保留着哈里发的头衔，直到20世纪。这也标志着权力从巴格达转移到了像大不里士这样的城市，大不里士是旭烈兀在围城后建立的伊儿汗国的首都。
阿拉伯心脏地带成为了蒙古帝国的一部分——确切地说，是旭烈兀的伊儿汗国。阿拉伯帝国不复存在。
直到1260年，局势才发生转变，在艾因贾鲁特战役中，马穆鲁克在拜巴尔的领导下击败了蒙古人基特布加。结果，整个近东（除了耶路撒冷王国和奇里乞亚亚美尼亚）都落入了马穆鲁克的统治之下。
阿拉伯人被征服、粉碎、贫困和分裂。西班牙和马格里布被基督徒和柏柏尔人（阿尔摩拉维德、阿尔摩哈德和马林王朝）占领。心脏地带首先被蒙古人摧毁，随后被马穆鲁克占领。埃及被马穆鲁克占领。灌溉系统被蒙古人摧毁。
再也没有奴隶来修复灌溉系统、城墙和建筑。阿拉伯人自己对此过于骄傲。对他们来说，除了战争之外的体力劳动有损他们的尊严。他们宁愿让一切腐朽，也不愿修复事物。他们变得贫困和破产。渐渐地，他们退回到了部落文化。
奴隶制的诅咒也使经济陷入瘫痪。在奴隶制社会中，资本主义无法发展，所有经济都停滞在集市经济中。基督徒在金钱方面比阿拉伯人表现得更好，经济活动的中心不仅转移到了君士坦丁堡，还一路转移到了意大利。
总的来说，阿拉伯文明的崩溃与西罗马帝国的崩溃相似。不同之处在于，定居在罗马土地上的蛮族迅速学习了罗马文明、拉丁语并建立了封建社会，而在东方却没有发生这样的复苏。征服者都是穆斯林，他们希望延续奴隶制社会，只想统治和掌权。哈里发的权威消失了，伊斯兰世界实际上已经失去了领导者。
巴格达的洗劫和阿拔斯哈里发国的崩溃所带来的灾难本质上是道德上的。失去了奴隶，又过于骄傲而不愿自己劳动，阿拉伯人将无法实现经济复苏。伊斯兰世界可以在一个领袖的领导下统一的想法已经破灭。宗教狂热和原教旨主义是被击败和压迫者的最后避难所，阿拉伯人转向内部，放弃了理性，转向了《古兰经》。当西方基督教世界发生宗教改革时，伊斯兰世界却没有发生类似的事情。它在心理历史上陷入了后期的极端退化心理阶段。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
评论翻译
很赞 ( 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”?
写得太棒了！这是一次历史性的壮举，但当你写道：
“它造就了一个严重分化的社会，分为极度富有、极度贫穷和奴隶。除了少数中间商群体外，没有中产阶级，生产也仅限于初级产品和日常商品。这样的社会只有在不断扩张、掠夺战利品、新奴隶和金银时才能繁荣。一旦扩张停止，经济便会停滞。”
以及……
“他们过于骄傲，不愿从事体力劳动。对他们来说，除了战争之外的体力劳动有损他们的尊严……”
这些描述似乎预示了当前西方‘文化’的困境。中产阶级的消亡——是的，即使在‘社会主义’的欧洲也是如此——而现在，无论是生产还是人口，都不再扩张，反而在收缩。我也经常遇到那些不愿从事体力劳动的人。
或许我们的社会已经达到了格拉德威尔所说的‘临界点’？
（译注：格拉德威尔”通常指的是马尔科姆·格拉德威尔（Malcolm Gladwell），他是一位英裔加拿大作家、记者、演讲家，以深入浅出地探讨社会科学研究而闻名。他的作品涉及社会学、心理学和行为科学等领域。）
Murray - the Roman Empire was over a thousand years with spectacular wealth disparity.
@Murray——罗马帝国存在了一千多年，财富差距极其悬殊。
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) ….. :-)
确实——如果你指的是东罗马帝国，它存在了远超一千年的时间。
但东罗马和西罗马的崩溃原因与Susanna的解释完全相同。一个在公元400年左右崩溃，另一个在1450年左右被土耳其人彻底摧毁。至于起点……神话传说可以追溯到公元前750年左右，但在我看来，追溯到台伯河边的第一个小部落村庄有点牵强。作为一个发展的文明……我会将其再推后200年——到罗马王政时代末期。
（译注：罗马王政时代是罗马历史的第一个阶段，大约从公元前753年（传统上认为罗马建城的年份）持续到公元前509年，以罗马最后一位国王塔奎尼乌斯·苏佩布斯（Tarquinius Superbus，又称“高傲者塔奎尼”）被推翻为标志。罗马王政时代由七位国王统治，他们通过选举或继承获得权力；信仰多神教。）
此外，西罗马帝国经历了许多几乎完全崩溃的动荡——革命、内战，因为那1%的人（？）千方百计让自己变得更富有（例如克拉苏）。我认为所有国家都会经历这些动荡。在某些情况下，我甚至认为，尽管它们表面上仍然是同一个国家，但实际上已经完全不同了……法国、俄罗斯、日本、中国……的革命。
那时的变化更慢——没有汽车，没有互联网（也没有该死的手机）…… :-)
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.
感谢回复。我对结尾的‘临界点’评论感到有些恼火，它似乎有些夸张。不过，现在和过去确实有不同之处。通信速度似乎是一个重要因素。让我们往好的方面想吧。
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。虽然这与问题无关……
但在你的一篇帖子中，你提出了对选举制度的调整建议。你研究过塔斯马尼亚的选举制度吗？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，谢谢你的建议。我目前对美国政治感到麻木不仁。希望我能抽空看看塔斯马尼亚的治理方式。
补充：当我浏览维基百科关于哈尔-克拉克方法的介绍时，它似乎是一种排序选择的制度。这值得尝试。但在这里，由于美国的两党垄断，除非我的同胞们奇迹般地觉醒，否则什么都不会改变……
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众。我们这里曾举行过一次‘具有约束力’的公投。人们被问到：
1. 是否希望改变选举制度；
2. 希望采用哪种制度，有四种选择：MMP（混合成员比例制，如德国）、单记可转移投票制（STV，一种改良的哈尔-克拉克制）、补充成员制（SM）和优先投票制（PV，如澳大利亚……除了塔斯马尼亚）。
在公投前的三个月左右，我们进行了广泛且相当不错的教育宣传……然而，它在一定程度上被政客们操纵了……因为他们意识到FPP（简单多数制）不受欢迎，所以他们大力支持MMP，这种制度对他们操纵权力的影响最小。让我非常失望的是，结果正是如此。我原本希望采用STV……因为在这种制度下，选举权力掌握在选民手中。
在MMP中，一半的议员通过FPP选举产生，另一半由政党根据选民投票比例任命。
因此，尽管它某种程度上是半比例制的，但选举权力仍然掌握在那些该死的政客手中——更糟糕的是，在我看来，那些‘比例制’议员不需要面对选区的竞选压力。所以我们最终得到的还是一个由政党机器控制的议会。
这是一种糟糕的制度——一种你并不真正想要的比例选举制。
STV将权力交还给选民。
我也会采用澳大利亚的强制投票制度。哦，我知道在美国，人们会抱怨自由（‘自由’？），所以在美国历史上，只有一次投票率超过72%……通常（在200多年的历史中）投票率在60%到70%之间。而在这里，尽管投票是自愿的（但登记是强制的），投票率通常达到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.
目前还没有到那个地步。从8世纪到10世纪末，东罗马帝国实际上比它的所有同行都要公平得多。尤其是在司法实践方面。任何人都可以——而且经常——获得申诉的机会。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处