World History Study Questions (Midterm)

what is the ‘cage of civilization,’ and how did it arise in Egypt and Mesopotamia? What are the benefits and liabilities of this ‘cage?’

Once you have settled agriculture, you lose the ability to move around, you have to stay in the same spot. It brings more stability but restricts freedom of movement. In Egypt by 5000BCE and in Mesopotamia around 5300 BCE.

what kind of political transformation took place in Mesopotamia between c. 2900 and c. 1500 BCE, and why did a similar transformation not take place in Egypt?

Cities grew bigger, the growth of large professional armies under the King Sargon. This didn’t happen in Egypt because they were geographically isolated and as such not really vulnerable to outside attack.

what was common to the economic foundation and social structure of both Mesopotamia and Egypt?

Taxation of the peasantry and labor drafts, intensive agriculture centered on a river valley.

what were the key differences between the physical environments of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and how were these differences reflected in the political and cultural histories of the two regions?

Mesopotamia was more exposed to invasion than Egypt because Egypt was surrounded almost entirely by desert. This explains why Egypt was able to become much more centralized and have stronger control over the peasantry. Additionally, the Nile river was much more predictable than the Tigris and Euphrates which meant that Egyptians viewed the environment as orderly, stable and predictable in a way that Mesopotamians could not.

what phenomena does the ‘conquest model’ of the spread of Indo-European peoples in the bronze age (i.e. c. 3500 – 1500 BCE) seek to explain? why is the ‘conquest model’ only a partial explanation of the social and political changes of this period?

the conquest model sought to explain the Late bronze age collapse, but it is only a partial explanation for the social and political changes of the period because it is not correct to conflate the spread of language and culture with the displacement of other ethnic or racial groups. It is more accurate to think of it as a ~1000 year process of hybridization than as one of conquest.

in what sense were the cultural, political and economic interactions of pastoral seminomadic and settled agricultural peoples in bronze age Eurasia characterized by both antagonism and mutuality? to what extent can these interactions be described as a ‘clash of civilizations?’

Seminomadic pastoralism depends on coexistence with settled agriculture for trade and also to plunder. It is a mistake to think of this as a transitional stage between hunter/gatherers and farmers

precisely how did the advent of iron-working shift both the economic and political balance of power in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean?

Iron made for stronger tools which allowed for easier forest clearing and plowing of stiffer soil. this shifted the balance of power to peasants who farmed rain watered soil rather than river irrigated soil. It also shifted military power from chariot warfare to armored infantry

what is meant by the ‘logistical’ and ‘political’ limitations to the establishment of political power by military force during the Iron Age? How did the Assyrians attempt to manage these limitations?

Logistical: An ancient army can only carry provisions for 5 days and move 20 miles a day, meaning they have a limited radius of operation.

Political: an army but be concentrated to fight and conquer but dispersed to rule, how do you ensure loyalty to the king?

The Assyrians attempted to address these problems by ruling outlying areas through client kings and by ruling through fear with military expeditions of extreme savagery. In the end this is unsuccessful.

what were the key differences between the Indus Valley civilization and the civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia in the period c. 2300 – 1500 BCE?

Cities were very carefully planned, must have had considerable government authority, most agree that it was not a single empire. Between 1800 and 1700BCE all major cities seem to have been abandoned due to some sort of environmental catastrophe leading to a decline in civilization as a way of living. There must have also been a social component

the absence of which features in Aryan society during the early Vedic Age (c. 1800 – 1000 BCE) complicated their subsequent consolidation of political power? What was the political logic of the changes Aryan society underwent during the later Vedic Age (c. 1000 – 500 BCE)? In what sense was the emergence of the caste system a solution to the challenges of this period?

They are illiterate, their rulers had been temporary clan leaders rather than kings. The rise of kings in the later Vedic Age led to the enhanced status of the priestly class (brahmins). The blurring of the lines between ‘us’ and ‘them required a new way to divide society that newly conquered peoples could be easily incorporated into. These changes required a hierarchy of some kind that led to the creation of a caste system. It was a state building mechanism for a colonizing people with few institutions and rich in ritual practice.

in which respects did Hinduism emerge (from Vedic religion) by borrowing, and in which respects did it emerge by developing internally?

It emerged from Vedic religion but adopted many of the metaphysical aspects that came from Buddhism and Jainism. It also evolved in such a way as to strictly reinforce the caste system.

What does it mean to say that during the period c. 200 – 1200 CE, medieval Indian kingship was a ‘colonizing institution’ with respect to both land and peoples? How did this feature differentiate medieval kingdoms from the earlier Mauryan Empire (c. 325 – 185 BCE)? What were the advantages and disadvantages of the land grant as a tool in the colonizing process?

The Indian kings of this period rules on a much smaller scale than the Mauryan Empire but at a much greater social depth. They used land grants as a method of colonization because they are the perfect device for incorporating stateless peoples, but they did allow for the possibility if grantees becoming formidable local powers, which could be seen as a threat.

which social and political features did Mycenean Greece (c. 1600 – 1200 BCE) share with other Near Eastern polities of its day?

how did the social and political structures of Archaic Greece (c. 750 – 500 BCE) mark a radical change from the Mycenean period? How was this change related to the spread of iron in the Greek ‘Dark Age’ (c. 1200 – 750 BCE)?

No more palace structures, power was in the hands of landed aristocrats rather than kings, tribal states. Iron working hastened the spread of agriculture outside of river valleys.

why is the spread of iron an insufficient explanation for the rise of the city state? which military developments played a critical role in the development of the polis and how did they have this effect?

The emergence if the hoplite phalanx was key to this development, the constant drilling necessary to effectively execute this formation intensified the social relationships of the polis and made people feel more connected to each other.

how did Greek religion differ most significantly from its Near Eastern counterparts? What was the role of these differences in the development of Greek philosophy?

Greek gods were imagined as primarily selfish. They had no authoritative sacred texts, and priests never became wealthy property owners so there weren’t any powerful vested interests to stifle inquiry. This fostered philosophical speculation.

in which respects did the citizens of Athens and Sparta gain more freedom in the period c. 650 – 500 BCE? to what extent did their freedom come at the expense of others?

Spartans are able to have more freedom to be full time soldiers because they enslaved the people of Messenia called helots. Athens became a democracy in 509BCE and abolished debt bondage in 594BCE, but they also utilized more slave labor than any previous civilization. Athenian imperialism was a democratizing force, but it increased inequality globally. Both Athens and Sparta had more slaves than citizens.

which features account for the longterm success of the Persian Empire (c. 550 – 333 BCE)? why did Greeks regard the Persian Empire as a despotism, and to what extent is it fair to say that Greeks were freer than Persians in this period? Did the aftermath of the Persian Wars bring more or less freedom to the Greek world?

Persia was successful because of its cultural flexibility, they allowed conquered people to continue speaking their language and carrying out their cultural and religious practices. Persian government was externally despotic but its actual power was quite low. Greeks had different kinds of freedom, most had more direct involvement in their government but the subjects of Persia had more everyday freedom of religion and practice. The Persian war brings less freedom to the Greek world because it causes the acceleration of imperialism and attempts to create a more consolidated Greek state.

what prompted the Greek city states during the 5th century BCE to attempt to create durable political formations above the scale of the polis? How did Athenian imperialsim compare to its Spartan and Persian counterparts? Why did the Athenian imperial project ultimately fail?

The Persian war and attempts at defending against/defeating the Persians caused efforts to create political structures outside of the city state. Athenian imperialism was much more financial in nature than spartan imperialism, which was based on slave labor. The Athenian empire was ultimately defeated by a coalition of Greek states led by Sparta because of their terrible treatment of the other states in the Delian League.

Why was Macedonia ultimately the source of a successul empire-building formula? To what extent did this formula draw on Greek cultural and political traditions of the classical period (i.e. c. 600 – 480 BCE)?

They were economically supported by gold mines and made many advances in military formations and equipment and the use of cavalry. They built off the existing forms of Greek military and modified the equipment to allow for armies to move faster. Also advanced siege techniques to conquer cities.

what kinds of changes are apparent in Greek philosophy after c. 300 BCE? How were these changes related to the new socio-political conditions of the Hellenistic kingdoms?

A shift towards reasoning without using the supernatural, and an emphasis on being an active citizen. public duty comes before private pleasure. this starts to decline with the decline of the polis as a political unit.

how did the emphasis on the idea of a chosen people with an historical relationship to God make Judaism different from other Near Eastern religions? What influence did this unusual emphasis have on the editing of the Hebrew Bible?

No other near eastern religions were monotheistic. The framing of the Jews relationship with god as a continuous historical process with a strong emphasis on repentance and redemption is also very unique in this time/place. This caused the people composing the Hebrew Bible to try and make it coherent and cohesive so that the narrative of the Jewish people was tidy and easy to map chronologically. There is also an element of teaching through parable and story.

what makes modern historians reluctant to accept literally the accounts of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt and their subsequent conquest of Canaan?

There is no archaeological or inscriptional evidence of a large Jewish/Israelite population in Egypt and no reference to any mass migration or Exodus level event. Israelite settlements seem to have emerged out of Canaanite ones, the site of Jericho (bog battle in Hebrew Bible) was uninhabited at the time it was supposed to have taken place. The material culture of the Israelites was extremely similar to that of the Canaanites, and the Israelites were most likely direct descendants of the Canaanites.

what do archaeology, linguistics and the study of comparative religion tell us about the likely origins of the Israelites? What are the implications of this information for our understanding of the development of Jewish monotheism? How does this compare to the account of the Hebrew Bible?

They likely emerged out of the Canaanites. The Canaanites and other peoples in the area were Henotheistic, meaning they worshipped many gods but had one or two principle gods, so this is likely where Jewish monotheism came from. Even the Hebrew Bible does acknowledge that some jews had been worshipping additional gods in Israel for generations. Monotheism emerged gradually over centuries.The

What is meant by the ‘unsympathetic’ and ‘sympathetic’ ways of viewing the ultimate triumph of Jewish monotheism?

the unsympathetic view is to think of it as a power grab and a way to centralize power. the sympathetic view is to view it as a response to mounting pressure from outside forces, by proclaiming a single god the Israelites were able to establish a powerful sense of identity that was able to persist during exile and other tribulations that the Jewish people faced.

if the Senate was not the ‘government’ of the Roman Republic, in what sense was it still the site of real power? Which fundamental feature of Roman political culture did this reflect, and how was this feature also expressed in the structure and practices of the consulate? To what extent were Roman popular assemblies able to circumvent the formal restrictions on their powers?

The senate was an aristocratic made up of former magistrates, it has an advisory roll and its members had massive influence as large scale landholders and as former officers, and consuls tended to defer to them for big decisions. Roman political culture was designed to prevent any one man from becoming all powerful, and this was put in practice by electing 2 consuls who would only serve for 1 year and who had to wait a few years before being eligible for reelection. Sovereignty rested with a number of popular assemblies (could only vote yes or no on proposals) who represented propertied classes rather than individuals. The plebian secessio led to the establishment of a plebian assembly whose decisions were binding to all citizens.

how did Roman citizenship differ from its Greek counterpart? In which ways did the administration of Roman citizenship contribute to the military strength of the republic and the cohesion of its imperial elite? how did the institutions of the republic seek to manage political competition among this elite?

The primary difference in citizenship between Greece and Rome is that Roman citizenship was frequently extended to conquered peoples, whereas Greek citizenship would only be given to people who were from the city-state itself. This greatly benefitted Rome because an increased number of citizens meant an increased number of potential soldiers to fight for their growing territorial empire. To manage competition among the elites, age minimums were established for each magistracy and waiting periods were required in between holding magistracies, this set up a career arch for a person to progress through that paced the ambitions of the aristocracy.

Did the Gracchi seek to mitigate or to exacerbate the inherent tension between popular sovereignty and magisterial power in the Roman republic? What were the consequences of their failure?

The Gracchi bypassing the senate, though technically legal, violated long followed customs which exacerbated tensions between popular sovereignty and magisterial power. The ultimate failure of the brothers caused an escalation in political violence and the ultimate crumbling of the republic that led to civil war and eventually the establishment of the Roman Empire.

What does it mean to say that imperialism “destroyed the Roman social fabric at both ends?” Which phenomena provide the best evidence of this social shift, and what were its political consequences?

Aristocratic competition was corrosive to the idea of the group which caused generals to distance themselves from their peers. The decline of the soldier farmer caused the number of landless poor to skyrocket. Growth of huge armies more loyal to their commanders than to the state itself.

what is meant by the ‘ecological limits’ to the Roman Empire? Why did the Romans find it easy to conquer the Greeks and Celts, but impossible to conquer the Germans and Parthians?

The empire was bounded by the Rhine and Danube rivers, the Sahara to the south. They conquer the limit of intensive agriculture, roman warfare is most effective against people who have fixed agriculture because they could just destroy their source of strength (crops). The Germans and Parthians don’t have cities to sack, unlike the Greeks and Cit waelts who lived in cities.

what were the four advantages of the early Roman client state system? Why was this system more developed in the Eastern Mediterranean than on the Rhine-Danube frontier?

it was useful against low intensity security threats, allows Rome to minimize damage to its own territories, allow Rome to avoid the expenses of permanent border defense, which allows them to reduce the size and cost of the army. Client states allow romans to maintain strategic flexibility and use their legions as a mobile strike force.

how did the ‘territorial’ empire (late 1st – 3rd centuries CE) solve the major weakness of the client state system? In what sense was the territorial empire an unprecedented political development in the Ancient World? How did the new relationship between the imperial center and the provinces change them both? How did the liturgical system enable the Romans to have ‘an empire without bureaucracy?’

It allowed Rome to tax larger populations and gave them more land to give as land grants to their veterans. Other empires didn’t have as much infrastructural control as the roman empire, especially outside of the inner core. The integration of foreign officials into the roman elite was also unique. The officials responsible for public works were local not imperial. the liturgical system made it so that wealthy citizens organized public projects in exchange for honor and prestige which meant that the government didn’t have to pay for it or have any of the officials that would be required to handle that work.

what were the external and internal components to the ebbing strength of the Roman Empire from the late 3rd – early 4th centuries? Which development(s) in the empire’s social structure mirrored (on a grander scale) the social crisis of the late Roman republic? In what sense can it be said that late empire saw the end of the social foundations of the Graeco-Roman classical world?

Romans began encountering new kinds of enemies like the Goths and Sassanids, the economy wasn’t growing at all and defense on the frontiers was becoming more and more expensive. Romans never developed a smooth system of imperial succession which meant there was always disfunction of some kind at the top of the government. there was a social reversion to more archaic forms and the reappearance of debt bondage that had been eradicated in the classical period.

which aspects of Second Temple (i.e. post-Exilic) Judaism reflect an adaptation to cultural contact with, and political domination by, non-Jewish peoples?

The book of Jerimiah tells jews to support their conquerors and the Temple becomes an instrument of imperial rule.

in what sense can we speak of a ‘redefinition’ of Judaism in this period? to what extent did this redefinition represent a successful adaptation to socio-political realities? What kinds of other tensions did ‘successful adaptation’ entail?

The idea of the immortality of the soul to explain why bad things keep happening to the Jews if they are gods chosen people. Jewishness coming to be defined more as a religion than bound to a political community as a result of the growing Jewish diaspora.

what was distinctive about the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth? how did these teachings draw on the Jewish context of his day? which subsequent developments prompted the ultimate breach between Christians and other Jews?

Jesus had a vision of a loving and compassionate God and the possibility of a personal relationship with god, he had a vision of the coming end times and a relentless social criticism of the wealthy and powerful. Drew on Jewish religious texts but differed because Jews didn’t believe Jesus was God or son of god. Christians also often tried to covert Gentiles and said that they didn’t have to follow all Jewish rituals, they just had to believe in God.

did Roman repression of Jews and Christians stem from similar, or from different causes? what was the impact of persecution on the two communities? what is meant by the ‘consolidation’ of Judaism and Christianity after c. 200 CE?

Roman repression of Jews came primarily as a result of revolts in Judaea. Their repression of Christians was primarily because they resented their attitude of moral superiority and their rejection of pagan gods, they also saw it as a dangerous alternative social community subversive to the traditional order. Consolidation was a formalizing of the beliefs and religious texts of the religions to create more cohesive religious identities with set beliefs.

what enabled Christianity to grow under Roman persecution? what were the limitations to the accomodation between church and empire after Christianity became the official Roman religion? what were the implications of the Christianization of the Roman Empire for Jews?

It didn’t challenge traditional social hierarchies but preached spiritual equality which gave it broad appeal. The Church was not fully willing to accommodate the empire, ordering the emperor to do public penance. They were hostile towards Jews but they were recognized as a distinct religious organization and given a distinct status not afforded to pagans in the empire.

how was the Roman Empire transformed by the altered political circumstances of the period after c. 250 CE? Who were the winners and losers of this transformation, and how did this weaken the Empire? Why was the damage less severe in the eastern half of the Empire?

higher taxes and a destroyed liturgical system. Massive influx of Germanic tribes into Rome and a result of the Huns. Great senatorial landlords were largely immune to taxation. Regional elites were willing to let regional powers go to pretenders or invaders as long as they retained their privileges. The eastern half wasn’t as effected because they were geographically more secure and they also had less great landed estates so they remained fiscally stable while the west crumbled.

how were the Germanic tribes changed by their contact with Rome, and how did this affect their ambitions towards the Empire? In what sense did Romans and Germans need each other? How did the arrival of the Huns alter relations between Romans and Germans, and what consequences did this have for the Empire?

The Germanic tribes became more militarized and greater prestige of warlords. Rome could provide them with military titles and offices in exchange for military manpower. The Germanic tribes became full fledged kingdoms. After the arrival of the Huns the Germanic kingdoms began conquering parts of the western roman empire, which weakened it even further.

what kinds of continuities marked the transition from Roman to Frankish rule in Gaul? what was the most striking discontinuity with the subsequent rise to power of the Pippinids? How did Charles Martel and his son Pippin III ‘rebuild’ the Frankish church?

The Frankish king converted to the same kind of Christianity as the romans and adopted the existing roman systems of administration. Pippinids trying to undermine the power of the bishops, rebuilding the church on the new foundation of the monastery which resulted in the ruralization of Christianity.

what needs prompted the alliance between the Frankish kings and the papacy? How did the establishment of the Carolingian dynasty in 751 mark a break from both Frankish and Roman customs?

A need for legitimation above other possible warrior kings. They have no deep institutional resources to support the monarchy and were beholden to the personal character of the ruler.

Why is it misleading to see the ‘second barbarian invasion’ as the origins of the ‘feudal system?’ Why were Carolingian kings ultimately unable to maintain the preeminence of the monarchy over local aristocracies? What happened to Carolingian institutions of public order during the ‘feudal revolution?’

The feudal system emerges much later. Atrophy of monarchy and a shift in law courts from justice to arbitration resulted in the privatization and personalization of power

In what sense did the ‘feudal revolution’ contribute to the economic recovery of Europe in the period c. 1000 – 1300? What were the other components of this recovery?

The spread of banal lordship encouraged some institutional organization. Warmer weather and technical innovations in farming contributed to economic recovery

Which two institutional features of (revitalized) kingship in the period c. 1100 – 1400 had their origins in the basic weakness of European kings? What did the rise of medieval corporations owe to the same political context? In what sense was the papacy a model for the re-establishment of medieval kingship?

Representative assemblies and the spread of royal jurisdiction. the growth of representative assemblies encourages the growth of corporations. The Papacy attempted to restrain the castellans and granted legitimacy to rulers by blessing or crowning them/anointing them.

What does it mean to say that jurisdiction was a ‘poor substitute’ as tool for the reestablishment of medieval monarchy? What were the long-term implications of this path of state-building?

It wasn’t as good as taxation would have been but it set up a path of dependency that caused political authority to intervene more deeply in the lives of everyday people which ultimately made European kings powerful in a way that didn’t exist anywhere else.

what were the consequences of the ‘feudal revolution’ for the medieval Catholic church? How did developments at the local level compare to the transformation of the offices of bishop and pope? Which institution was most resistant to these trends?

Local churches had been essentially conquered by castellans during the feudal revolution, and the office of bishop, though technically elected, was pretty much hereditary. Bishops were really important for secular administration especially in Germany, so kings wanted to appoint people who were good administrators, not necessarily pious men. The monasteries and by extension the Popes were most resistant to this, because many popes started out as monks.

which practices did the Cluniac reformers oppose, and how did they seek to transform the role of the clergy? How did ecclesiastical radicals come into conflict with secular rulers in the late 11th century, and why was lay investiture in particular such a contentious issue? How was the Investitute Contest ultimately resolved, and what were its two most important long-term consequences?

They opposed simony and clerical marriage, they thought that the clergy had to set an example by living a pure and moral life in the world. they came into conflict with secular rulers over lay control of the church, specifically the lay investiture of church offices. Bishops were important to secular administration so secular rulers wanted control over who was appointed, but the popes thought that spiritual authority must come before secular authority and that they should be in control of appointments. It was resolved by the concordat of Worms in 1122, the pope gives the spiritual office but the kings give the land attached to the office. This contributes to the idea of the corporation and entrenches the church as an alternative source of institutionalized authority.

what were the two main forms of the growth of papal government from the late 12th – early 13th centuries? What were the ultimate cultural implications of this pattern?

The revival of canon law and the papal curia made it the most efficient government in Europe. The emergence of universities (leads to philosophical investigation and the corpus of Aristotle)

how did the Gregorian Reforms ultimately spark ideological dissent in the Catholic world? What does it mean to say that that the official church responded both repressively and constructively to the rise of heresy? Which institutions best exemplify the two sides of the official response?

They raised unrealistic expectations and increased the papacy’s own pretensions of power which sowed dissent. The church tried to talk it out with the heretics and accommodate their fervor through the creation of new religious orders like the Dominicans and Franciscans but it grew to resent the constant criticism and moved towards repression with the 1st papal condemnation in 1184 and the birth of the papal inquisition in 1231.

in which two senses was Arabia before Muhammad a ‘marginal society?’ how did the politics of the neighboring Byzantine and Sassanian empires both put pressure on, and present an opportunity to, the Arab tribes?

It was thinly populated with nomadic pastoralists and it was a border zones between the rival Byzantine and Sassanian empires. They both maintained Arab client states but their relative weakness at the time allowed the Arab tribes to unite and defeat them.

how did Muhammad’s message mark a break in Arab religious traditions? what kinds of evidence nevertheless suggest that a ‘distinctively Islamic tradition’ did not exist before the mid-8th century? how does the evidence change after this point?

It was monotheistic and made Allah a clearly Abrahamic God. The 2nd Caliph saw himself first as a political leader not a religious leader, Christians and Jews are very confused by them and don’t know what to call them, and the religion had really strong Jewish influences, as well as Christian ones. the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock provide clear evidence of an Islamic identity, and by the mid 8th century you start to see formal confessions of faith.

why do most historians regard the traditional story of Muhammad’s separation from the Medinan Jews as an oversimplification? what was the eventual status of Jews (and Christians) in the Islamic Caliphate?

The process of separation was much slower and more complicated, and Jewish influences were really strong in early Islam. Jews and Christians has second class status but they were allowed to continue practicing their religion without pressure to convert.

what differentiates the political organization of a tribe from a state, and why does this usually make for the weakness of tribes? how did Islam enable the Arabs to transform tribal political structures into a massive advantage over neighboring states? how did the tribal background affect early conceptions of Islamic membership? how does it explain the comparative chronologies of Islamic conquest and Islamic identity formation?

Tribes are stateless societies where conflict was usually resolved by feuding, this usually makes them weak because they spend most of their time just fighting amongst themselves. Islam gave the tribes a strong sense of common purpose that allowed them to unite as incredibly efficient organizers of political activity. You had to join a tribe before converting to Islam. This explains how Islam was able to acquire political power before having a fully consolidated belief system. Tribes have to conquer to survive, and this goal necessitates the spread of Islam.

why was it a problem for the early Caliphate to be both Islamic and an empire? How did the Umayyads attempt to resolve this dilemma, and what were the consequences of their failure? What distinguished Islamic sectarianism from its Christian counterpart?

Empires are entirely hierarchical but the tribal basis of Islam is based on the consensus of the whole community and egalitarianism, which is completely incompatible with hierarchy. The Umayyads established openly hereditary succession and excluded tribesmen from real political power. They were overthrown in the name of restoring proper Islamic order. Islamic sectarianism was not over doctrine like Christian sectarianism was, it was about who the legitimate leader of the umma was.That

on what basis did a more uniform Islamic identity emerge by the early 9th century? what implications did this have for the respective roles of the ulema and the caliphs? How did al-Ma’Mun attempt to resist these implications, and why did he fail?

That which is Islamic is defined by Sunna, the normative practice of the prophet Muhammed. Knowledge of the Sunna came from the hadith, the orally transmitted teachings of the Prophet and the first 4 caliphs. The Islamic Scholars, the ulema, began sorting through the documents, many of which have been shown by modern historians to be from years or decades after the death of the Prophet. The ulama become the interpreters of what is Sunna, who redefine the role of the Caliph by saying that sunna is independent of secular authority so the Caliphs can’t claim to represent the umma and they themselves are bound to all the rules of sunna. The caliph Al Ma’Mun attempted to resist this by ordering all of the ulema to publicly avow that the Koran was a created text rather than a divinely created one and was as such subject to human interpretation; and he punished those who didn’t comply. Ultimately he fails because the scholars resist and are spread out enough that they are too difficult to repress all at once.

why did the Abbasid caliphs turn to the ‘mamluk solution?’ In what sense were mamluks both a boon to, and the bane of, medieval Islamic rulers?

They needed a way to legitimate and enforce their rule after the failure to control the umala. They were incredibly skilled soldiers (boon), but they often decided to rise up and depose/overthrow their rulers and establish themselves in their place.

what were the particular strengths of the Syro-Egyptian Mamluk Dynasty? What were the key differences between the Mamluk iqta and the European fief, and how did these differences affect monarchical power? What were the long-term consequences of the Mamluk fiscal-military system for the relationship between monarchy and society? What feature of medieval Islamic religious life reinforced this pattern?

It was a unitary state with an elaborate financial system deliberately designed to prevent the creation of a landed aristocracy who could act as rival or alternatives for the rulers. Iqtas were assignments of revenue rather than land and titles like a European fief, and they were temporary and not heritable, which prevented the creation of overmighty citizens. The Mamluk ruling order was extremely isolated from those it ruled and there were no established institutional checks on the power of the sultans. Mamluk rule also lacked infrastructural power to impact peoples lives and no judicial role. Legal matters were handled by qadi (Islamic judges)

which Ottoman military skills were ‘native’ and which were learned in the Balkans? Which political policy was a critical complement to these military skills? How were these two kinds of strength reflected in the institution of the timar?

which four [NB] kinds of record keeping reflected the relationship between information and state power in the Ottoman Empire? What were the similarities and differences between Ottoman and Mamluk fiscal, military and judicial systems?

which developments in the art of war strained the Ottoman system after the 17th century? how did the empire respond, and what were the political and social costs of this repsonse? to what extent did socio-economic structures impede Ottoman efforts to compete with European states?

what were the structural parallels between the Ottoman and Mughal fiscal-military systems? why was the Mughal relationship with the Marathas so much less successful than with the Rajputs? what kindS [NB] of evidence best illustrates the differential infrastructural reach of the Mughal and Ottoman empires?

which particular challenges did the African continent pose to human survival and food production? which parts of early historic (i.e. pre-2500 BCE) Africa developed the most effective and adaptive food systems, and what were they? what implications did this development have for the ultimate distribution of language and culture in Africa?

what kinds of changes in technology and material culture accompanied the Bantu migration? what kinds of evidence about the causes and course of the migration indicate the inappropriateness of conquest as a description of the migration?

how did household and community structures in southern and central Africa differ from the standard Eurasian pattern? what basic socio-economic difference did this reflect, and what were the political implications of this difference in at least much of Africa?

what distinguished the medieval political history of the Interlacustrine and Zambezi regions from the rest of southern and central Africa? which environmental and socioeconomic factors help to explain this difference? to which commercial connections and trade goods was the rise and decline of the Zambezi kingdoms most closely tied?

which two ‘firsts’ did Egypt contributed to early Christianity? In what sense was 5th century CE Egypt both fully ‘a part’ and also ‘apart’ from Mediterranean Christianity? Why was Egyptian Christianity relatively undisturbed by the Arab conquest? Which phenomena led to the decline of Egyptian Christianity from the 9th century CE?

how did Berber traditions of personal honor and loyalty fuel the Donatist controversy in the Maghrib? What, in wider historical perspective, were Augustine of Hippo’s two most important philosophical contributions to Western Christianity?

which socio-economic and cultural characteristics were common to both Roman Egypt and later Aksumite Ethiopia? In what senseS [NB] was Solomonid (i.e. post-1270) Ethiopia unique in sub-Saharan Africa?

what were the socio-economic differences between the Berber and ‘colonial’ zones of the Roman Maghrib? What pattern was common to the Berber embrace of both Christianity and Islam, and how did Berber Islam make the Maghrib unusually receptive to Sufism? What were the main characteristics of Maghribi empire building efforts in the period 1000-1500 CE? What was the wider social context of the failure of these efforts?

how was West Africa’s human ecology fundamentally different from Eurasia? what were the political and cultural consequences of this dfference, and how did Eurasian dynastic cycles differ from their West African counterparts?

what does the location of the earliest West African states tell us about their economic foundations? What were the main trade articles West Africa sent to, and received from, the Sahara? How did West African kings derive power from the gold trade?

What made Islam attractive to medieval West African kings? What liabilities could the adoption of Islam entail for kings? In what sense could these same liabilities be an advantage to the Wangara / Dyula traders?

How did the adoption of heavy cavalry both expand and constrain the power of West African kings? What was the dual relationship between the horse and slave trades? How did traditional West African slavery resemble, but also differ from, classical Mediterranean and European New World slavery?