You mean the influence where they sacked Constantinople in 1453 after centuries of attempts, destroying the Christian Byzantine empire and sending huge numbers of Byzantine writers and intellectuals fleeing to settle in Europe?
It was bloody all around, because there wasn't a whole lot of stability. But this didn't stop these different cultures from exchanging knowledge and goods as well, as Islamic empires, Italian merchants, and other players all had high levels of development and innovations that were quickly copied. I'm sure the sacking of Constantinople did lead to an influx of knowledge into Western Europe, but it was all these different factors that led to the appearance of the Renaissance.
It was an exceptional event. Most wars in that era were nobles fighting over thrones; the Islamic invasions were a bit more intense than that in that they were from a totally separate religio-cultural tradition and would overturn the entire power structure and ultimately even push peasants to convert.
In a war between kings of the same religion, the priests/imams and lower nobles (i.e. intellectual and writer classes) could potentially stay in their posts even as the front line moved over them. Not so true when it's an entirely different religion.
The funny thing is that Ottomans saw this whole event through a very different lens. They didn’t call themselves the Ottomans or Turks. They, along with their predecessors The Sultanate of Rum (Rome), and the Seljuks, considered themselves the continuation of the Roman Empire.
After the conquest of Constantinople, Mehmed II crowned himself the Caesar of the Roman Empire.
Turks waged a war of expansion to reclaim the Roman Empire for themselves. The religion was just a side effect.
They claimed these titles because they intended to or did conquer Roman territory, and it was a prestigious title.
See https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/59352/did-the-se... for a reasonable discussion.
Yeah I guess the calling it a cultural continuation of Rome is wrong.
It's kind of hard to describe this in words because "culture" implies so many things like language, customs, and religion. The "Turkish Rome" didn't really inherit any of those traits.
However, while this probably originated just as a manufactured claim, a casus belli for the Roman lands, over time it seems to have still evolved into something a bit more. Owning Constantinople didn't make people Roman in terms of culture, but it did make them an empire. Sulatane of Rum existed next to Rome for many years and seems to have considered itself a "better Rome than existing Rome".
Makes me think of a parallel with the Holy Roman Empire, which similarly clung on to the title, but not the culture of Rome.
Well yes, that's how feudal systems work. If you take over a country, you get to have its titles. This is how e.g. an English king could conquer Scotland and crown himself king of Scotland. It doesn't mean he always identified as Scottish.
The language "reclaim the Roman empire" is really a stretch since it implies that the Ottomans had some sort of self-image as the natural heirs to Rome before they took Constantinople. Is there any evidence for this?
Why would they need to conquer Constantinople to do this, given that the Byzantines weren't trying to conquer, y'know, actual Rome?
I'm not saying you're wrong. People come up with lots of rationales for wars. And claiming historical right is a popular one, but that goes alongside other motivations as well.
My outside-view assumption would be that this is modern-day politically-motivated interpretation. These days, progressives rules the universities and the history departments. Therefore, they want to advance progressive goals. The see Muslims as a victim class, which means they don't want Islam to be seen in a negative light. Therefore, they would want to avoid historical interpretations wherein Muslims are conquering for self-understood religious reasons like ISIS did so recently. So I think they'd come up with something like, "Oh no, the Ottomans just wanted to reclaim their Rome."
Any time you read history you need to take into account the incentives faced by the people writing it.
In any case, when I refer to Islamic invasions I'm referring to the whole string of them going back to the Abbasid Caliphate - the conquest of Egypt, Arabia, Persia, all of north Africa, Spain, India, etc etc motivated by a self-declared doctrine of holy war (itself used for political ends by individual rulers, of course). I see Constantinople 1453 as just one small episode in this 1400-year story.
I am talking about the 12th century.
♦♦♦
The bibliography used to kickstart the Reinassance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_translations_of_the_12th...
♦♦♦
Paper, and by extension, scalable libraries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paper#Paper_in_Euro...
> The oldest known paper document in Europe is the Mozarab Missal of Silos from the 11th century, probably using paper made in the Islamic part of the Iberian Peninsula.
No paper = Books made out of parchements = Prohibitively expensive books = No libraries = No scholars
♦♦♦
"Our" modern higher education system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijazah
> George Makdisi, professor of oriental studies, theorized that the ijazah was the origin of the university academic degree as well as the doctorate.
No universities = No doctorates = No advisors = No science
♦♦♦
"Our" modern astronomy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonsine_tables
> The Alfonsine tables were the most popular astronomical tables in Europe and updated versions were regularly produced for three hundred years. Nicolaus Copernicus, known as the father of modern astronomy, bought a copy while at the University of Cracow.
No astronomic data = No modern astronomy = No laws of gravity and motion = No physics
♦♦♦
"Our" philosophy that is tolerant to science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism#Early_Scholastic...
> This period saw the beginning of the 'rediscovery' of many Greek works which had been lost to the Latin West. As early as the 10th century, scholars in Spain had begun to gather translated texts and, in the latter half of that century, began transmitting them to the rest of Europe.
No tolerance to science = Scientists harassed by the church = Science becomes impossible to conduct.
♦♦♦
"Our" understanding of optics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law
> The law eventually named after Snell was first accurately described by the Persian scientist Ibn Sahl at the Baghdad court in 984. In the manuscript On Burning Mirrors and Lenses, Sahl used the law to derive lens shapes that focus light with no geometric aberrations. The law was rediscovered by Thomas Harriot in 1602.
No optics = No astronomy = No age of exploration
No optics = No microscopes = No biology = No modern medicine
♦♦♦
... And the list goes on, and on, and on. The Reinassance is the legacy of the Islamic civilization. It is overwhelmingly clear. Your school teachers lied to you, and their teachers lied to them.
Don't believe me? Take a look here: https://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/extrema.php
The first doctoral advisors were Islamic. Every known scientist is somehow a student of them. Follow the chain of doctoral advisors and learn the unavoidable truth.
Enjoy your new, more historically accurate perspective on the world. Downvote all you want, eventually your descendants will learn the truth in school one day anyways, when we are done undoing the revisionism.
In general, if you want people believing you, try not to use throwaway accounts and pre-typed copy-pasted answers, but instead engage in dialogue.
Have you ever asked yourself "how was paper adopted in europe?", "where do universities come from?", "what was needed in order to be a scientist in the middle ages?", if you haven't, try to find an answer to those questions.
There's a eurocentric answer to those questions, and a non-eurocentric answer. The eurocentric answer either ignores or downplays the importance of all the influence coming from the Islamic civilization through the Iberian peninsula and Italic peninsula.