[freedom44]

Ping. To other history buffs if you can as well.

[sageb1]

Thanks! bookmarking

[muawiyah]

The folks in the vicinity of Mecca and Medina weren't worth conquering. They had no wealth beyond what they could acquire through trade.

For all practical purposes they lived in a truck stop a little off the main routes of Persian conquest.

After the Dark Ages got rolling, and enough people had died of plagues and famine, this group became relatively powerful ~ on the other hand, it wasn't until they began hiring unemployed Byzantine legions that they got a real hang of conquering stuff.

They then threw the Persians out of everywhere West of the Euprhates much to the applause and relief of everybody else.

Now, about the Persians ~ the dominant language is part of the Indo-European family. On the other hand, those early Indo-Europeans were so few in number they left behind little, if any, genetic heritage. For all practical purposes almost all the peoples in today's Iran and Iraq are part of the same ethnic group. Part speaks modern Arabic. Part speaks modern Farsi. Otherwise, all same thing.

[mainepatsfan]

I can't think of a good reason why they would have wanted to.

[Young Werther]

Where did ancient people congregate? Along seashores, rivers and lakes. Near fertile plains and mountains with majesty and game. Deserts, Nope! Yes there were nomads who mounted their camels, (puhlese no jokes!) and traveled hither and yon but they didn't settle and build magnificent palaces on those fruitless plains.

If you look at the posted map and the breadth and depth of the Persian Empire, the aforementioned resources which, when controlled, were a power base, then you begin to understand the economic basis for most historical human activities. Or so says one of my History Profs whose lifetime goal was to write the Economic History of the United States in 10 year increments.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Persia would have had no interest in Arabia NO ONE did. The desert had no wealth or anything but misery to offer so it was left alone to produce tribes of wild barbarians. Mohammed harnessed their ferocity and cupidity to unify them and make them capable of raiding throughout the world. Their GREED and poverty propelled Islam's spread. Religion had little to do with it as Mo was making it up as he went along leading his bands of criminals and paying them off by stealing from their neighbors: Jews, Christians and animists.

When attacked by would be conquerers the Arabs of old merely withdrew further into the deserts from which they could not be attacked and to which they were acclimated. After the invader grew tired of chasing them he would withdraw until the next tribal raid and the same futile procedure would start anew.

[PzLdr]

Logistics, especially for a predominantly cavalry Army would have been a nightmare for the Persians. The Byzantines faced the same problem when the Moslems started attacking them. They couldn't pursue them. The key was the camel, and the scacity of water.

Then, if Persia was anything like Rome, they would have crunched the numbers, to see if projected revenues warranted the costs. Arabia was nothing, just some minor trade routes. Not worth it.

Now if Mongke hadn't died when he did in China...

[RightWhale]

The Arabs were Yemenis then and occupied the coastal region of the Arabian penninsula. They were mostly involved in trade by ship between Ethiopia/Rome and India. There was nothing in the Arabian desert to conquer and the Yemenis were too much trouble even then.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks freedom44.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[colorado tanker]

It wouldn't have mattered. Arabia was so poor and relatively unpopulated it wouldn't have added to the strength of the Persian Empire.

And the Empire fell centuries before the rise of Islam, so I can't see it would have mattered there as well. As it was, Arabia was heavily influenced by the religions of its neighbors, especially Christianity and Judaism.

[Antoninus]

First, the Persia you're describing is the Achaemenid Empire. In fact, Persia did have effective control over Arabia as late as the 6th Century AD under the Sassanid Kings. The Lakhmid Arabs under their kinglet Almoundaras at Hira in present-day Iraq were vassals of the Persians (and pagans), right up to the time of Mohammmed.

For their part, the Romans had Arab vassals as well, whom they used to counter the Persian Arabs. As the Romans and Persians battled for supremacy in Mesopotamia throughout the 6th and 7th centuries AD, the Arabs stood on the sidelines for the most part, building up their strength. When Mohammed died and his successors took up the Jihad, the Roman Empire and Persian Kingdom they attacked had bled themselves white and were in no condition to withstand the assault.

Check out this book for more about this period: