In the Shadow of the Sword - The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World (Tom Holland, 2012)

(473 pages)

Author's writing style is unusual - often it feels like rambling, but in the end it feels conversational.  And informative.

This book - focused on what we can call late antiquity - has a couple main threads.  The common theme is the rise of Islam just as Rome (eastern half ) and Persia dramatically declined.

One of the threads:  how did these previously "backward" Arab folk become perhaps the most successful imperialists of all time?  And so incredibly quickly?  Why did the existing power structures collapse so rapidly?  As also discussed in this very useful work - some key reasons included (1) Rome (meaning Constantinople) and Persia were duking it out for a protracted period just prior to the time of the Prophet, to the detriment (and exhaustion) of both; (2) Rome (still meaning Constantinople) was burning resources trying to salvage something in Italy and elsewhere in the West; and (3) severe plague struck both Constantinople and Persia.  Suddenly - centuries of global power were beaten down.

And those factors do not belittle what the Arabs accomplished - the success is astonishing.  Author suggests that the idea that warriors dying in battle will achieve paradise was pretty much new with Islam - is that so?  I'm not aware of it on a wide scale previously, though certainly the idea appears later with the Crusaders.  (Not the key to Islam military success in those days anyway.)

Another thread - author explores the history of the Koran and its related religious texts - and goes into quite a bit of detail (some admittedly conjectural) that suggests, pretty strongly, that there is less direct connection between these documents and what may have been the Prophet's words than one might think.  For example - it appears that quite a lot of this material was written a couple centuries after the Prophet - with decided social/political considerations no doubt informing the writers.

He compares to the Old Testament - for a long time ascribed to Moses - but rigorous OT analysis reveals multiple authors, much of OT written much later, much of it speaking to specific contemporary political-social circumstances.  Sources that might permit similar analysis of Koran etc. generally have not been made available (or may not exist).  Intense self-criticism applied to the Bible; pretty much no culture of self-criticism as applied to Koran.

Oldest materials apparently don't emphasize the Prophet and raise questions about relative significance of Mecca/Medina; geographic sources seem to lie elsewhere (many farther north); it seems there was more borrowing of religious ideas than might be acknowledged if one wants to hold the position that everything was dictated to the Prophet by an angel (Gabriel as it turns out).  Discusses how Arabs were retained as mercenaries for both Roman and Persian, picking up lots of ideas (and serving in the north of the peninsula).  Jerusalem as an unlikely place of significance for Islam.

It's interesting to think about how religions get started - charismatic founder not writing things down; then the process of defining the religion plays out over a long period of time.  Christians fractious about theological details - Jesus certainly defined very little - but then with a Constantine - he can start ordering folks around - all of a sudden you have a Nicene Creed (325) - not that this ended the debates, but a structure was emerging after centuries.  Islam, Jews not really the same with this; author describes groups of scholars that develop materials (also centuries later!) and eventually gain control of the story (i.e. ultimately define the religion) - this is interesting if challenging to pin down.  Role of caliph in those days - combining temporal and spiritual leadership - confuses me.

Islam born in an atmosphere immediately permeated with local struggle/war and immediately expanding outward in an environment of conquest/war; and then needing to deal with handling subject peoples.  Christianity born with society's losers and core doctrines didn't get established from a war/conquest viewpoint; the warrior/imperial aspect really didn't launch until Constantine (312) (unfortunately it then seeped into the doctrinal).

And that is not to belittle the contents of the Koran or the Bible - these are pretty wonderful works no matter the provenance - it does suggest that it might be prudent to be a little less dogmatic on their contents!

Sometimes these "late antiquity" centuries feel rather lost . . . but there is lots of action . . . high points such as Constantine 312, Fall of Rome (in the west) 476, Hejira 622 . . . leading right to Tours 732 and Charlemagne 800 - and on it goes.