Rob,

The low point for Europe was the 10th century.  The 15th saw the flowering of the Renaissance in Italy, although your remarks hold for substantial portions of Europe.  That century also saw a burst of new dynamism in the Muslim world, or parts of it anyway, following the Turkish conquest of Constantinople.  That would last for over a century, but the victory of the Spanish and Venetians over the Turks at the great showdown of Lepanto in the late 16th signaled what was to come, with Europe to surge far ahead of the Muslim world, Braudel probably providing the best account of all that.

Barkley Rosser (I do not go by my first name)

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rob Tye
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 2:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] risk and Far East philosophy/economics

John,  

I agree that there were big changes in Islam around 1000.  It is the bigger narrative that you place this matter into that I have doubts about.

I will take what seems to me to a good opportunity to prefer the unbiased evidence from coinage over any (inevitably biased) evidence from text in my sketch of the big picture here.  

At the time of the birth of Islam, both Byzantine and Sasanid states were somewhat in decline, hierachical and exploitative.  The rapid success of Islam derived from this matter.  At best the bulk of the population in Byzantine and Sasanid territories were not willing for fight for the existing regimes.  At worst they converted and fought with the Islamic armies.  No big surprise here - as I recall the Guanzi puts it;  "Your majesty cannot expect men with broken hearts to fight for you"

The new Islamic regime, by intention meritocratic and equalitarian, went on to produce a copious coinage in copper, silver and gold, reminiscent of that of Augustus in the late 1st century BC, or Britain in the early 19th century.

As Khadun will have it, all empires destroy themselves.  Copper coinage disappeared in the 9th century, silver during the 10th century, so that by
1000 there was little coinage at all aside from the gold issued at such as Nishapur.  Turkish mercenaries took power, and pushed the greater part of the population into quasi-serfdom.  This is much misunderstood in connection with Viking matters.  So often we see the Vikings eulogised as great merchants, sucking in all that Islamic silver bullion.  Almost no-one pauses to note that Islam has moved towards serfdom.  Wages are no longer paid in Baghdad, coin is no longer needed, so really what we see is the Islamic silver being dumped on the world market, surplus to requirements.

After a coupler of centuries however, this phase of Islamic society has run its course.  Around 1200 (Saladin and co),  the tide turns and the silver that was exported to Europe around 900 is now re-imported back to Islam, as a new dynamism kicks off.  (The silver was in fact driven back and forth between Islam and Christendom much as two piston drive each other in an engine).

I do not see anything stultified in the bits of Islamic post 1200 text I have read in detail, Juvaini, or Saadi for instance.  Sher Shah put the case for the invisible hand much better than A Smith ever did.  If we seek a culture in steep decline in say the 15th century, surely (following Barbara Tuchman or Peter Spufford), the European would be the one to pick?