Mohammed And Charlemagne Revisited: The History Of A Controversy - Plot & Excerpts
This of course stands in striking contrast to the position of Hodges, Whitehouse, and a host of others, who found evidence of extensive trade between Islam and the outside world during the seventh to eleventh centuries. More recently, Michael McCormick has reiterated this criticism of Pirenne,[1] and the same has been forcefully restated by Thomas Glick. “In fact,” says Glick, “the Islamic conquest had more nearly the opposite effect than that posited by Pirenne: it opened the Mediterranean, previously a Roman lake, and, by connecting it with the Indian Ocean, converted it into a route of world trade.”[2] The evidence garnered over the past century by innumerable archaeologists working throughout the Middle East, has confirmed that, during the seventh to eleventh centuries there was indeed a vibrant trade conducted in the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Peninsula and India and South-East Asia. Of the existence of this trade, and its economic importance, there can be no doubt. This does not, however, I will suggest, present a problem for the Pirenne thesis.
What do You think about Mohammed And Charlemagne Revisited: The History Of A Controversy?
