Historical inaccuracies in the article "The European Union: An ancient Concept" by Mr. Aakar Patel

 

The Greek Goddess Europa was born in Asia rather than Europe

Historical inaccuracies in the article "The European Union: An ancient Concept" by Mr. Aakar Patel

Tazeen Hasan

I would humbly like to  point out  some historical inaccuracies and analysis flaws in the article The European Union: an ancient Concept written by the learned  Mr. Aakaar Patel published on June 25, 2016, in the Express Tribune. Mr. Patel flippantly claims that "the project to make a European Union is the oldest in the world." Yet the evidence presented by him from the European history does not support the thesis and his historical summary as well as subjective analysis suffers from major inaccuracies. For example, he accuses the Muslim Conquest of Egypt in the Seventh Century for the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages are a period that began in the aftermath of the fall of the Roman Empire in the Fifth Century A.D. How come, he overlooks 200 years of time lapse in between. It is not possible to encompass all the mistakes here but I will try to point out some major historical errors at relevant places in the evaluation of his arguments. Besides historical blunders which are later mentioned at relevant places, Patel's arguments have serious analytical oversights fallacies. Considering the immense economic nature of the European Union, neither the Greco-Roman empires nor the brief periods of territorial occupation resulting from the military ambitions of Napoleon and Hitler may be considered anywhere near to European integration. Patel in comparing these aggressive military occupations to the present day  highly democratic entity of the EU seems to be largely unaware of the carefully orchestrated democratic process based on the principles of unanimity and consensus that gave birth to and shaped the European Union over almost seven decades and which is still on-going. I will humbly request him to revise his thesis.

Even before moving eastward, Greco-Roman empires' focus was Mediterranean basin not Europe.

Romans not only invaded and controlled but showcased the Middle Eastern cities as their cultural and religious icons. The largest Roman religious complex was located in the Lebanese city of Baalbek, not in Europe and the most intact of Roman amphitheaters is located at the border of Syria and Jordan in the city of Basora. Few of us know that Surah Rum in the Quran refers to the fierce battle between the two superpowers of the time ie the Roman, and the Persian empires.  The Rome, that the Quran refers to in the Seventh Century, did not lie in Europe but in the present-day Middle East. Did Greco-Roman Empires ever attempt to unify Europe? The answer is a clear NO.

Here an anachronism needs attention, Syria and Jerusalem were not conquered after the rule of Augustus Caeser as Mr Patel's  timeline declares, but they were annexed to the Roman Empire by Caesar's contemporary Pompey Magnus. The writer's mind seems to be colored by Shakespearean text when he considers Julius Caesar to be "the first individual to make significant progress in bringing Europe under one authority." As a matter of fact, most of the Western European regions were annexed to Rome as a result of the military alliance of Caesar and his contemporary military commanders Pompey Magnus (also translated as Pompey the Great) and Marcus Cassius. Later Cassius died and Caesar and Pompey became rivals. It was Pompey who marched towards the east and annexed Syria, Jerusalem, and many other eastern regions --barring Egypt that came under Roman dominion only after the death of Julius Caesar. History tells us that Pompey was a far more competent commander  than Julius Caesar and his military  achievements were definitely more outstanding than Caesar's. Had Pompey not died earlier, Shakespeare most probably would have written Pompey the Great or Pompey Caesar instead of Julius Caesar.

And though it is true that Julius Caesar was one of the Roman commanders who attacked the British Isles, he neither led the Romans to the British Isles nor they were conquered under his rule. Britain's annexation in the Roman Empire was a result of a series of Roman military assaults which began much before Caesar and it was annexed to Rome in 43 AD, almost 100 years after the murder of Caesar in the Roman Forum.

Here it should be noted that Istanbul was not made the capital after the Roman conquest of Syria and Jerusalem in the First Century B.C as Patel infers but was founded 400 years later under the rule of Constantine the Great, in 330 A.D.

To set the historical record straight, Papyrus was not a popular paper product at the time of  the Muslim conquest of Egypt --as Patel pronounces-- otherwise, early Islamic manuscripts would have used it also.  Moreover, there was a time lapse of 200 years between the Dark Ages  and the Muslim Conquest of Egypt. As far as the Dark Ages are concerned, Edward Gibbon, the celebrated author of the Fall of the Roman Empire,  considered this historical epoch a direct consequence of the rise of Christianity and the domination of the Church. Patel might be unaware of the fact that almost 300 years before the Muslim conquest of Egypt, Greco-Roman scholars (mostly Pagans) were severely persecuted by Christian zealots. For instance, in Alexandria, in the beginning of the Fifth Century, a Christian mob infamously killed the female mathematician Hypatia, daughter of the famous mathematician Theon of Alexandria. Hypatia at the time was heading the Neo-Platonic School where she also taught philosophy and astronomy. She was not the only scholar who became the target of Christian mobs. When they  assumed power in the Roman Empire, the earlier persecuted Christians tried to destroy all the marks and evidence of Greek scholarship throughout the Empire. This frenzied attitude ultimately resulted in the commencement of the Dark Ages. Greek manuscripts were later recovered and translated by Muslim philosophers and scientists in their heydays.

No doubt, the Muslims conquest of the Spain stimulated cooperation between the European Powers but this comprised merely  defense and security arrangements rather than any economic and political integration. Patel himself admits that after the Muslim's conquest strong Empires emerged in Europe. The Crusades did unite European rulers but again the goal was the domination of the Holy Land, not the well-being of the oppressed European masses living a miserable life under the worst feudalism of history.

Here another factual and analytic oversight needs attention regarding Patel's claim that Crusaders were a failed war. By the way, Crusaders not only succeeded in invading Jerusalem in the heart of the Muslim world and ruled it for the next Century (88 years exactly) but they constantly extended their territories and influence in the Levant (roughly Mediterranean coast of the Middle-East). Their territories were surrounded by some of the most powerful Muslim Empires in history ie  those of the Abbasids, Fatimids, Seljuqs, and later Zengis. If after successfully controlling Jerusalem for 88 years, the Crusades were a failed venture (as Patel declares uncharitably), many later colonization efforts  by European Powers may be pronounced overly failed including the British control over India from 1857 to 1947.

Patel has very lightly held the Muslims responsible for the commencement of the Dark Ages but he forgets to mention the role of countless Muslim philosophers, scientists, and thinkers in the birth of the Renaissance whose Arabic translations of the Greek works and tremendous works of original scientific research were available to the European scholars even well before the Renaissance.

Military ambitions of Napoleon and Hitler divided Europe rather than unifying it.

Patel overlooks the intriguing facts that the military ambitions of Napoleon and Hitler weakened Europe rather than strengthening it. Even if we ignore the fact that Napolean's mind too was obsessed with the conquest of the east  (he wanted to invade Egypt and Syria to march towards India), European integration was the last thing that could be thought of in Napoleonic times. It was a time when all European colonial powers were fiercely vying for their own dominance in the New World, Indian Ocean and elsewhere. Their endeavors were largely directed outside Europe. They were fierce adversaries and rivals rather than partners in their efforts of colonization. Indeed, Napoleon's Egyptian campaign failed because of the intervention of another European power, Great Britain. The fate of Hitler was no different than his ambitious French predecessor. Almost all the European powers united against his so-called intentions of "uniting" Europe save Italy governed by the fascist regime of Mussolini.

Patel's mind seems to be obsessed with the rule of a single power when he talks of European integration. The recent European integration simply referred to as the European Union, is not merely an organ of political unification nor an  outcome of an armed invasion. It has deep roots in the economic survival of a war-affected Europe. The Writer absolutely overlooked the significant economic aspects which largely govern European integration such as the single market, agricultural subsidies, and anti-dumping duties which have aggravated poverty and hunger in the Third World but all at the cost of strengthening the European economy.

It is never mentioned but as far as the single market, borderless Europe, visa-free travel, common currency, and common law, are concerned, ideologically  the European Union owes a major debt to the Ottoman Empire. This now collapsed United States of Islam ruled vast borderless territories in three continents for about 500 years. With its successful governance of  the multi-ethnic population that spanned over three continents, it is more deserving to be quoted as a model for the United States of Europe than the Greco-Roman Empires of classical antiquity.

I will appreciate Mr. Patel's for introducing this thesis but before formulating such a claim, one needs to have a good grasp of history. History is not everyone's cup of tea as it is usually considered in this Wikipedia obsessed world. Furthermore as a basic critical writing skill, the evidence presented should support the thesis not  glaringly oppose it.

And in the end, Patel mentions the etymology of the word France and England but forgets the name of Europe itself, which is derived from Greek Mythology and by the goddess Europa was born in Asia, (Tyre, Lebanon) not in Europe.