Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In

In 680, an Iraqi monk asked (I am paraphrasing) "How is it the Arabs created such an enormous empire (by 744 it would stretch from the Pyrenees to the Hindu-Kush) so quickly?" Hugh Kennedy answers this in _The Great Arab Conquests_. His conclusions may surprise you.Kennedy begins with an introduction to Arabia before Mohammed, giving context to the social and political climate of the people who would embark on this wide-spread conquest. Following the death of Mohammed in 632, Kennedy explains the motives behind Islam's expansion outside Arabia. At the risk of oversimplifying a well-researched and well-written account, it was primarily due to opportunities for individual glory and wealth, not religious zeal, as one might expect.What is most interesting, perhaps, is not the "why" behind the expansion, but the "how". Afterall, the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires were wealthy, powerful and well-organized; that their vast holdings in present-day Iraq, Iran, the Levant and Egypt would collapse so quickly was far from a given. Kennedy does an outstanding job of illlustrating this, as well. To briefly touch on a few points: both the Byzantines and Sassanids had exhausted themselves from warfare between them, and their constituent populations saw the Arab invaders as "liberators". Additionally, the Muslims did not force Islam on the conquored - rather, they were primarily interested in collecting tribute (which, in some cases, was less than had been paid in taxes to either Byzantine or Sassanid overlords). Finally, there was a strong social component as well: Islam is egalitarian, giving the poor and dispossesed an opportunity to become one of the "conquoring" class.As Kennedy points out, there has been little scholarship around this question (historians are either Islamists, ancient historians or historians of the Middle Ages - this period of time straddles all three) and the available sources are not primary. Nonetheless, he has done a remarkable job in answering the question posed by this 7th century monk.The book was a little heavy on the military history for my taste, and I wanted to give it four stars. To be fair, however, conquoring is a function of the military, and the title clearly states its objective is the nature of Muslim conquest - therefore I can't fault the book on this point. I would also add that the maps are excellent, providing a useful tool to reference as you read Kennedy's narrative. Highly recommended for historians and armchair historians, and for those who seek a better understanding of the Near East.

Four stars if you're REALLY into history; not recommended if you aren't. Rarely if ever is historiography as interesting as the history itself, but the book opens with a long discourse on why we know as little as we do about the early days of Islam and why it expanded so rapidly. These conquests erupted at just the right time, as the Persian and Byzantine empires slid into senescence. The personalities of the conquerers could be quite colorful, and their attitude toward the vanquished ranged from murderous to amazingly tolerant and light-handed. The book ends with the defeat at Poitiers, though Islam continued to (and still does) expand. In the long run, for some the book might puddle into a welter of names and places, but its comprehensive scope allows the reader to scan a few pages at a time without losing the thread. Some talent, that.

Hugh Kennedy is one of my favorite historians. His prose is extremely readable, to the point it really doesn't feel like a History book. His voice offers continuous insight, which turns the reader into an analyst of its own, considering the value of different sources for what they are worth (remarkable concept, his study of "collective memory" of muslims). The internal structure of the book is very clean, with robust yet not too overwhelming chapters for each of the geographical areas of conquest.If you are looking for a entry point into the Arab early conquests, I strongly suggest this book. In other books he's also covered the Khalifat al-Rashidun, the four first caliphs of Islam, the life of the Prophet himself and the splendour of the Abbasid court in Baghdad. Truly remarkable historian.

I am not going to give a long, in-depth review of this book, mostly because the subject of early Islamic conquests is still relatively new to me. However, I do want to comment on one concept of other reviewers and then move on to my own struggle with this book's content.1. The use of the plural "conquests" instead of one long "conquest". Though I do agree that this initial outpouring of Muslims from Arabia who systematically brought the surrounding nations under its control, whether militarily or peacefully, was part of one long conquest, I also believe the author was dividing the conquest into its various geographical regions, describing the conquest of what we call Iraq, Iran, Egypt, etc. Furthermore, this is kind of a weak point because it doesn't really discredit the book's content.2.The major issue I ran into is one of geography. When it comes to the Middle East, Europe, and North Africa, I am fairly knowledgeable compared to most Americans -- but when it comes to the Persian/Sassanid empire (modern-day Iran) and the Central Asian steppe I have relatively little knowledge outside of the nations which exist there today. Though he does draw some geographical links to modern times (e.g., this river is in modern day Uzbekistan/Kazakhstan, etc.) it probably would have helped if he had done this more often. Before reaching the "Crossing the Oxus" chapter, be sure to stare at a map of the Iranian plateau and Central Asia for a while, as well as getting a general idea of where "Khurasan" was in the early 7th century.I am giving it five stars because it was a well-researched book, all the proper historiographical disclaimers were mentioned in the Introduction, and the author made the most of the limited knowledge available to modern scholars.