Hacker News Reader

Comment by oceanplexian | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure why BBC finds it so fascinating that the Moors were able to dig ditches and channel water through them 500 years after the Romans had built highly advanced aqueducts in Spain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_of_Segovia, https://fascinatingspain.com/place-to-visit/the-best-of/the-...). All I can guess is that some civilizations are more in vogue than others. In fact when the Moors invaded Spain, they destroyed much of the Roman infrastructure in a fit of religious fanaticism so a great deal of it has been lost.

View on HN

> I'm not sure why BBC finds it so fascinating that the Moors were able to dig ditches and channel water through them 500 years after the Romans had built highly advanced aqueducts in Spain

I'm not sure why many think it is so fascinating the Romans built aqueducts. The Etruscans built hydraulic works as irrigation channels, drainage systems, dams, etc., while the Greeks had also built similar hydraulic structures long before Roman influence. And the Romans neither invented aqueducts nor built the first aqueducts. The first sophisticated long-distance raised conduit canal systems were constructed in the Assyrian empire in the 9th century BCE, half a millennium before the earliest Roman aqueducts.

> Romans had built highly advanced aqueducts /in Spain/

There were highly advanced aqueducts /in Spain/ long before the Moors came along.

> There were highly advanced aqueducts /in Spain/ long before the Moors came along.

It is the fallacy of simple location to try to pinpoint concrete details in explicit segments of space and time. It does not matter to Leibniz where Newton discovered calculus, only whether Newton did so first by up to a decade. It would be fallacy of simple location for Leibniz to claim, "but that was at Cambridge, not Paris." The Romans can no more claim validly they were first in Spain with the aqueduct than Leibniz can claim validly he was first in Paris with the calculus.

Invading Muslim armies of that era typically left the major infrastructure and economies, and even the lower levels of political bureaucracies relatively intact. I'm interested in the claim that "when the Moors invaded Spain, they destroyed much of the Roman infrastructure in a fit of religious fanaticism so a great deal of it has been lost," do you have any sources for that?

Much to your dismay, Arabs never destroyed things with religious fanaticism. They were mostly hands free and laid back with the fewest rules for non-ruling communities, especially in the early years of the expansion.

Instead what they did was build on top of existing stuff. The Arabs didn't invent aqua ducts. They got it from other civilizations. What Arabs did do was connect ideas from the Greeks, Romans, Indians, North Africa, and sub sahara Africa. And because they were laid back with the fewest rules, lot more innovation and mashing of ideas occurred during this period.

this was in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church which was more domineering and controlling to a fault.

Search youtube for "how Islam saved western civilization" for a rundown. The library in Spain was a collection of all the great European works until Europe awokened in the Renaissance which was built off of the works Arabs had continued.

They solve different problems. And every culture usually builds over the ones before them. And the Romans were gone several hundreds of years before the Moors conquered Spain and their infrastructures were already decaying or had disappeared, no religious fanaticism there.

> in a fit of religious fanaticism

Umayyids (the "Syrians" who conquered Spain) and religious fanaticism don't go hand in hand: Most Umayyid rulers were political nihilists at best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate#Legacy

Furthermore my understanding is they ushered in an amazing era of translation and learning where great state resources were directed to supporting linguistic, cultural and pedagogical achievement and were explicitly pluralistic in terms of state policy on the religions of their subjects. (Source: BBC video series on the Moorish period)

Compare Spain today; you can barely get around without being fed jamon. My understanding is that historically there was actually a purposeful, vindictive re-introduction of pork in to (nearly all) Spanish food to "flush out" any Muslims in hiding after the Moorish period and this culture of ham-in-everything has basically continued to the present. (Source: Traveling with a Muslim in Spain)

> you can barely get around without being fed jamon,

> my understanding is that this is to [...] annoy muslims.

Not. We have a culture also, and pork is a big part of the European culture since the glaciation. Culture that we share with most European and Asian people, from China to Portugal. Europeans ate pork much before Islam. Other cultures have food taboos around pork. We, don't. We toke many useful things of the Muslim culture, but keep the things that worked in European cultures also.

But nobody will force you to eat Jamon in Spain if you explain your diet restrictions in advance.

(And not all things that look like jamon are necessarily made of pork).

Please don't misquote people.

> Furthermore my understanding is they ushered in an amazing era of translation and learning where great state resources were directed to supporting linguistic, cultural and pedagogical achievement and were explicitly pluralistic in terms of state policy on the religions of their subjects. (Source: BBC video series on the Moorish period)

> Compare Spain today; you can barely get around without being fed jamon. My understanding is that historically there was actually a purposeful, vindictive re-introduction of pork in to (nearly all) Spanish food to "flush out" any Muslims in hiding after the Moorish period and this culture of ham-in-everything has basically continued to the present. (Source: Traveling with a Muslim in Spain)

Jews were also victims of such dietary inquisition (sometimes literally).

Wow, I'd love to read more about this if you have any sources.

I visited Spain as a vegetarian a few years ago and I found the pork thing so weird. I'd go into a random bar and ask for a beer then they'd give it to me with a plate of sausages on the side without mentioning it or asking first!

Are you required to pay for the plate of sausages if you don't eat any?

Not. Giving a small amount of free food (called "a tapa") when you buy a drink in a bar is part of the tradition. If is served without asking for it is a free appetizer.

Some Spanish king was concerned about the accidents of drunk people while riding or traveling at chariot between villages, and required that the vine served to travelers include some food to mitigate the alcoholic effect. To obey the new law, innkeepers started to put a slice of bread over the vine jars, like a lid covering it. The Spanish word for lid is "Tapa"; so you have your drink, and "the lid". This only applies to a bar/restaurant context.

You can order one or several tapas of "X" with your drink but in that case is an extra. You'll be served a bigger amount (or a more elaborated mouthful) of the product that you asked for, and is expected that you pay for it. (Same if you order a ration or a half ration of X).

Is not obligatory to eat it. If you are a vegan or have food allergies, just explain it politely and they will remove the offending dish, and probably bring you a more appropriate replacement if they have one.

In my experience, no. This is the tapas culture typical in some areas of Spain. If they are brought to you without discussion, they are complimentary — you only pay for the drink whether you eat any or not. The only way to know if you’ll receive something typically is to ask and there is no harm or insult in specifying dietary restrictions, though they may just bring bread or olives if you’re on a strict diet. Other regions offer them for a cost and that will be clearly marked on a menu. And even in regions that do provide them gratis, there can even be nuance based on what kind of beverage is ordered.

This is specifically about channeling and storing water _in_ the ground, not piping it above the ground.

This also requires far less resources than building an aqueduct.

I'm not sure why you doing a whatabout to the Romans contributes to the conversation.

are theses acequias roman in origin as well? https://www.uv.es/cuadernosgeo/CG15_001_024.pdf

The romans used these systems extensively as well...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com