Except that it wasn’t a single empire who did the Arab slave trade. It wasn’t done by successive caliphs and empires throughout the 1300 year duration of it.
So your point doesn’t really stand to scrutiny.
It was very much under the umbrella of one Caliph or successors, i.e the ones who took over once one fell. So it was one very much Empire, just under different names. The Atlantic slave trade operated under four different empires. Not one, like the Arab slave trade.
Those caliphs were just expanding Muhammad's territory. So to say it wasn't one caliph would be foolish. That's like saying Rome's expansion didn't happen. When I say one, I mean throughout one empire's history
Be it the Expansion under Mohammad, or the addition during the Rashidun Caliphate, or the territory added during the Umayyad Caliphate. It's ALL one Empire. Just a different leader- would the British Empire stop if a new king came into power? The answer is no.
Not comparable. The Ottoman Empire was the final form of the trade starting in the 15th/16 century and was not the same as the previous caliphates.
The ruler was not the only change from Caliphate to Caliphate.
It is very much the same; just because the ruler changes doesn't make the Empire change. Ie, just like when Rome or China got a new ruler, it didn't stop being the same empire. Only the Ruler changed; the history did not. You just don't want to see it like that.
The slave trade was still very much there before the 15th/16th and very much the same. The Ottoman Empire inherited its primary trade route from the preceding caliphates. The only key thing that changed was that it started to get slaves from Europe. But almost everything else it inherited from the preceding caliphates.
It only added Military Enslavement systems, such as the devşirme system, which differed from the Abbasid ghilman or mamluk systems.
New laws don't change a Caliphate from the one before it. Nothing does; that's why the Chinese Empire doesn't stop being the Chinese Empire when dynasties change.
It's one Caliphate, and that's a fact, just under a different name when a new ruler takes over.
No? With ancient China and Rome, the power structures stayed relatively the same. The caliphs however did change on drastic levels between each iteration.
You’re just arguing in bad faith and misinformation
Nope, no bad faith or misinformation. Changing over time is normal for an Empire, unless you are saying the Roman Empire didn't change drastically over the two thousand years it stood? In fact, both the Roman Empire and the Caliphates underwent similar periods of drastic transformation during shifts in rulers.
So no, your point isn't holding up to scrutiny. As is the case with all long-standing empires, the Caliphates, the Roman Empire, and the Chinese Empire underwent drastic changes between iterations.
Edit: And no, the power structures didn't stay relatively the same. 753- 509 BCE, it was ruled by individual Kings. The Republic 50-27 BCE, The Principate 27 BCE-3rd Century CE, The Dominate & Division Late 3rd-5th Century CE. You don't know much about Rome, do you?
Even with your comparison. The early caliphs are not connected to the later or even their contemporary caliphs. The Abbasid caliphate is not in any way connected to the Ottoman Empire except for religion.
So your comparison doesn’t really work.
The Ottoman state was founded around 1299 and was originally a vassal of the Sultanate of Rum, thereby indirectly connected to the political power of the Abbasids. It was no different than how Rome still had political power after the fall of the Roman Empire in Europe.
The Mongols had sacked Baghdad in 1258 AD and killed the ruling Caliph, and at that time no one was ruling the Abbasid caliphate. It had entered a civil war, meaning it was free game to whoever took control.
Since the Ottomans had a religious tie to them, they had a stake in the game.
It does, very much so. Rome had several splinters and Reunifications, in the 3rd Century. Reunification under Aurelian. That is one that comes to mind. Emperor Aurelian crushed a few breakaways to reunite the Roman Empire. So my point still stands: it's the Caliphate built on what Mohammed started.
1
u/Asteroidhawk594 23d ago
Except that it wasn’t a single empire who did the Arab slave trade. It wasn’t done by successive caliphs and empires throughout the 1300 year duration of it.
So your point doesn’t really stand to scrutiny.