I was searching for a good, synthetic but serious book about the muslim conquest for a long time. For me as a french, it was a more difficult task to find it in my native language since many books about the subject in french are too old or too summarized.
The great arab conquest is a solid, well documented book and the author gave us an almost complete view, altough not exhaustive, about the conquest.
It was important for me to find an author who could work with arabic sources, even if the account from muslims historians must be studied carefully. Hugh Kennedy has aknowledged, with humillity, that he cannot give a full light about all the events and due to a lack of sources many of them will remained uncertain.
The book give us also a good background about the situation in arabia, the neighbouring empires and the doctrinal divisions especially in the byzantines provinces. It is necessary introduction for understanding the conquests.
The chapters are divided by geographical areas of conquest which is not very imaginative but it has the advantage to be simple and Hugh Kennedy is hopefully a good narrator so the book is not difficult to assimilate.
We can also notice that the author refers to the "arab conquests" and not "muslim conquests" as usual (in my case in france)and i found his view on the subject very interesting. Arabs were the bulk of the army with a strong arab spirit, the tribal ties "'açabiyya" - including internal divisions between the tribes, the idea of being a superior cast, remained vivid even with their fellow muslims from other ethnies.
Although Hugh Kennedy doesn't differentiate himself with other scholars about the reasons of the conquest's success, persians and byzantines weakened by their previous conflict, hostility of some christians populations towards the byzantine church, this book is a must have for everyone who want to learn about this period of history and a good beginning for those who want to read further with other scholars such as at-Tabari.
ps: Sorry if my english is a little "boring"

Hugh Kennedys' Great Arab Conquests, covers the expansion of Islam from Muhammad's death in 632 until 750. This is a timeperiod unfamilar to most readers. Hence, many place names and historical personages, are unfamilar (Can you place Transoxania on a map?). Ocassionally, but not often enough, the author clarifies by saying, "in what is modern day . . ." He included several maps, but neglected to include modern-day boundaries.

The minute details of the where and the what are clearly important to the author. Such details are necessary not just the sake accuarcy, but to establish the author as unbiased in his conclusions. While he doesn't say explicitly, he seems to be aware that as a "British professor" his conclusions will come under particuarly close scrunity by Muslims in general and Islamic scholars in particular.

Still whatever one's faith, the swift expansion of Muslim rule, is impressive and therefore important to understand. The historial signficance alone makes "Great Arab Conquests" an important read. Additionaly, given author's passion for accuaracy and objectivity, the reader has confidence that this is THE book to read on the subject.

Kennedy traces the Arab conquests from the death of the Prophet Mohammed in 632 to their conclusion at the door steps of China in the East and Europe in the west just over hundred years later.

Kennedy ascribes the amazing success of these conquests to several attributes:

--Muslim solidarity behind their self-confident religion and its promises of success in victory and eternal glory in honorable defeat.

--Arabic physical endurance as they marched from the desert reaches of the Saudi Arabian peninsula north, east, and west to far borders broader than the Roman empire they helped to splinter.

--Invaded societies weakened by religious infighting (Orthodox vs. "heretical" Christians), other enemies (the ongoing battles between the Byzantine and Persian empires weakened both societies in advance of the Muslim incursion), and possibly declining populations decimated by the vermin-borne plagues which would later ravish Europe.

--Defeated peoples who were often willing to accept, without revolt or insurrection, the light hand of Islamic rule which at times was no worse than the local polity, and at times even preferable.

The surviving contemporary sources Kennedy has available to draw on are frustratingly sparse, mostly unverifiable, and often written for specific audiences and purposes at cross-purposes with those of a modern historian. In particular, the Muslim accounts were usually written for the purposes of documenting the participants in conquests, marches, and battles to justify claims of religious, tribal, and financial honor. Most of the Muslim writers were working decades and centuries after the events, writing moralistic tales to gloss and glorify the heroes of the faith and the field of battle.

Still, Kennedy does a good job with the necessarily broad narrative, drawing interesting lessons even from the most abstract and obviously allegorical writing, while stressing the irresolvable uncertainty about chronology, characters, and geographic locations.

One striking observation Kennedy makes from the few narratives written by contemporary or near-contemporary Christian writers was their almost universal lack of religious rancor against the Muslim invaders. These writers were more likely to see the Muslim invaders as God's chosen vessels of punishment of Christian heresies than as anti-Christian heretics themselves.

Ultimately, Kennedy concludes, the Arabic advance was stopped more by the geographical limits of the Atlantic Ocean at the western edge of North Africa and the impassable mountains of the Sino-Pakistan border in the East. In fact, Kennedy says the borders of the Arabic empire can be traced with surprising accuracy by following the 1,000-meter contour lines on a relief map; the warriors who haled from and fought so well in hot, dry lowlands, were apparently not physically acclimated or politically predisposed to fight, live, and rule in higher and cooler climates. The few rebuffs that the Arab armies suffered occurred in the highlands of Spain in the West and Pakistan in the East.

Another interesting question that Kennedy raises is the essential nature of the conquests. Were the participants acting primarily as Arabs, or as Muslims? Were they seen by their protagonists primarily as Arabs, or as Muslims? While the conquests began as an explicitly religious jihad, much of the morale and motivation of soldiers was driven by tribal loyalty which preceded religious affiliation with the Prophet and his potent ideals. Did the answer to those questions matter to the success of the conquests? In some of the eastern reaches of the conquests it did, says Kennedy, where the attackers faced the most foreign environments, cultures, and religions (Buddhism and Zoroastrianism).

This sweeping, engrossing narrative of Muslim conquests begins after the death of Muhammad in 632. The prophet's death and the subsequent Islam-inspired military conquests had reverberations that echo today. Author and professor Hugh Kennedy has taught this topic for 30 years. His thoughtful presentation molds diverse renditions of these complicated events from various historical Arab and non-Arab sources (some fragmentary) into a driving story about the people and events that shaped Islam. With a critical eye and an engaging style, he includes details about the cultures, politics, battles, beliefs, personal lives, heroics and motives that drove the men whose armies ranged over some of the world's most remote areas about 1,400 years ago. Reconstructing and deciphering these events is no easy task for any historian, yet Kennedy's book has aspects of a great novel. getAbstract highly recommends it to anyone interested in Islamic history and beliefs, which continue to shape the Middle East.

Hugh Kennedy has done a great service in explaining what otherwise seems to be the mysterious explosion of Islam in the wake of Muhammad. In a hundred years or so, Islam came out of the deserts of Arabia to, at least, dominate the world from Sind to the Pyrenees challenged only by the Byzantines, the wild Turks beyond the Central Asian borders and occasionally discontent Berbers in North Africa. So often our historical understanding of events comes down to clichés. Arab conquests I used to think of as a result of some vague Jihadi spirit that overcame some ill defined mess at the end of the Roman empire, not knowing that North Africa and the Near East were in fact vibrant societies. Byzantium, Romanized North Africa, and Persia were still very much together and Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian which, besides the bigotry of Christendom, tolerated each other. The Arabs burst into this, having the advantage of the exhaustion of both the Byzantine and Sassanian empire after terrible warfare, an economic decline following outbreaks of the plague and some mysterious military advantage which the historical record is inadequate to illuminate. Despite occasional setbacks, the Arabs and people they recruited on their advance were able to win most major battles. We don't really know why armies which fifty years earlier would have decimated the Arabs lost time and time again.

What is really useful in Kennedy's history is the picture of Muslim tolerance and the lightness of its rule in the early years. The Copts in Egypt seemed to prefer the rule of Islam which let their religion alone to that of Constantinople that demanded doctrinal conformity. Though there were depredations in the course of conquest, as long as conquered people paid their taxes (which they sometimes found oppressive), the conquerors let them pray as they wished and did not interfere with their economic activities. We know that within a few hundred years these previous Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian societies became overwhelmingly Muslim. People chose to convert to avoid taxes, further their careers in a progressively more Arab bureaucracy, and maybe, because they found Islam more attractive. If this was indeed the case than our contemporary understanding of Islam needs much revising or maybe the history of how Islam changed in the intervening years needs to be more accessible.

I am glad I read Kennedy's book. The only complaint I have is the detail, much of which doesn't mount up to a coherent narrative: too many battles, generals, and post facto panegyrics to characters. But as the author says, that is what we have for historical record. It is not very satisfying from a modern perspective of what history should look. So trying to wade through it all to get a narrative picture which never quite emerges is a bit of a drag. You can't blame the author for it. If he had archive like those of Germany and the Allies during WWII, the causes would be more evident. What is clear is that the Arabs did conquer and maybe some non Arab religious adherents were better for it.
Charlie Fisher author of Dismantling Discontent: Buddha's Way Through Darwin's World

"The Great Arab Conquests" is not only informative and enlightening, it's also a fascinating, fast-paced, and wholly understandable read.

I'll highlight just a few aspects of the book which I considered its high points:

Writing style. The author, Hugh Kennedy, writes with a style that is easy to follow and quite often fun to read. Many history books that I have read begin with a "Preface" or an "Introduction" where the author directly addresses you, the reader. But typically, once Chapter 1 begins, the author steps far, far away from you, the reader, to dictate events from some high "historical writing" platform. Kennedy stays with you throughout the entire book, offering insightful and sometimes even humorous commentary. It reminded me less of "historical writing", and more of some of those great, engaging history class professors I had in college. More authors of history should write like this.

Organization. Kennedy's smooth and straightforward structure makes it a breeze to comprehend the vast and diverse Arab conquests. The conquests are divided up into separate chapters for each geographical region conquered (e.g. "Conquest of Iran", "Conquest of Egypt", etc.). Each chapter is roughly 30 pages in length which always felt like the ideal amount of material that I could digest in one sitting. Some history books have colossal 60-page chapters, which have always felt exhausting to me. Other books have new topic headings every few pages, which I have always found distracting. Kennedy seems to have found an ideal middle ground, and it works beautifully.

Historical sources. The original contemporary Arab sources from the time of the Arab conquests are sketchy, and often nearly fictitious. Kennedy acknowledges this and deals with it in a superbly scholarly fashion. In addition to setting aside several pages at the beginning of the book to deal with this important matter, he continually wrestles with sparse and/or untrustworthy sources throughout the course of the book.

Maps. For every separate conquest region, there is a corresponding, well-detailed map. Iran, Iraq, Egypt, North Africa, Transoxania, etc. all have fantastic maps located at the front of the book. I was constantly referring back to them.

Finally, as a small but delightful bonus, the dustjacket illustrations of the hardcover edition of this book are absolutely gorgeous. The lavish Arabic design aesthetic constantly invited me to crack open the book every time that I glanced at it on my desk.

All in all, "The Great Arab Conquests" has quickly become one of my favorite books on Arab history. I was impressed by Hugh Kennedy's treatment of the Abbasid caliphate in his previous book, "When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World", and this latest work of his has only increased my appreciation for his engaging, intelligible writing on complex topics in Arab history.

The great Arab conquests are a potentially fascinating topic. But unfortunately in Kennedy's account the broad overall picture becomes lost in an overly detailed narrative of individual campaigns and battles.

As Kennedy explains, one of the problems facing scholars is the narrowness of the sources. These were typically written or collected long after the events they portray and were often intended to score political points or to justify hereditary claims to special benefits. Thus the sources tend to provide long lists of heroic Arab combatants and to use stock anecdotes to emphasize what later generations saw as their ancestors' sturdy virtues, while being distressingly vague on the broader context of the battles. Unfortunately, despite noting these weaknesses, Kennedy often seems to repeat them, by giving many detailed accounts of long series of battles on various frontiers.

What I found lacking in most of the book was a wider perspective on what was happening within an expanding Islam. What was happening in Mecca and Medina? How was the Caliphate evolving? How was the expansion helped or hindered as the center stabilized? What were the long term political reactions in Byzantium or Persia to the emerging threat? Alas, Kennedy is largely silent on these topics. The events on the frontiers are covered in great detail, but there are only fleeting side references to events such as a change in Caliphate dynasties.

There are two main exceptions to this frontier focus. In the introductory chapters and in a short conclusion chapter, Kennedy reflects both on the context for the conquests and on how they were perceived by later Islamic generations. For example he highlights the greatly weakened state of the Byzantine empire in Syria and Egypt after the dehabilitating Persian wars and observes how religious schisms within Byzantium caused many Eastern Christians to welcome invading Muslims. These sections are valuable and I wish Prof. Kennedy had spent more time on such topics and less on individual battles.

It may be that for readers who are already familiar with early Islamic history, this focus on the frontier battles will fill a gap. However, as a more general reader, I found it distinctly slow going. I felt I was seeing too many frontier details without enough broader context.

The great Arab conquests are a potentially fascinating topic. But unfortunately in Kennedy's account the broad overall picture becomes lost in an overly detailed narrative of individual campaigns and battles.

As Kennedy explains, one of the problems facing scholars is the narrowness of the sources. These were typically written or collected long after the events they portray and were often intended to score political points or to justify hereditary claims to special benefits. Thus the sources tend to provide long lists of heroic Arab combatants and to use stock anecdotes to emphasize what later generations saw as their ancestors' sturdy virtues, while being distressingly vague on the broader context of the battles. Unfortunately, despite noting these weaknesses, Kennedy often seems to repeat them, by giving many detailed accounts of long series of battles on various frontiers.

What I found lacking in most of the book was a wider perspective on what was happening within an expanding Islam. What was happening in Mecca and Medina? How was the Caliphate evolving? What factors drove the continuing expansionist drive? What were the long term political reactions in Byzantium or Persia to the emerging threat? Alas, Kennedy is largely silent on these topics. The events on the frontiers are covered in great detail, but there are only occasional side references to events such as a change in Caliphate dynasties.

There are two main exceptions to this frontier focus. In the introductory chapters and in a short conclusion chapter, Kennedy reflects both on the context for the conquests and on how they were perceived by later Islamic generations. For example he highlights the greatly weakened state of the Byzantine empire in Syria and Egypt after the dehabilitating Persian wars and observes how religious schisms within Byzantium caused many Eastern Christians to welcome invading Muslims. These sections are valuable and I wish Prof. Kennedy had spent more time on such topics and less on individual battles.

It may be that for readers who are already familiar with early Islamic history, this focus on the frontier battles will fill a gap. However, as a more general reader, I found it distinctly slow going. I felt I was seeing too many frontier details without enough broader context.

Fascinating, informative, and interesting, but poorly written in a heavy, pedantic, academic style. What could be said in a few words is said in many. As a result this is a slow and hard read. The author may have intended this book for a different audience (early Islamic historian) rather than the general public. If you can get through the pedantry and sometimes awkward and difficult syntax, and long lists of meaningless geneologies and constant use of arabic terms without definition,then this may be something that should be read, especially in today's political climate. But be prepared for disappointment. The story goes no further than the first millenium and omits a vast area of Arab-Islamic history, in relation to western civilization.

Fascinating, informative, and interesting, but written in a heavy, pedantic, academic style. As a result this is a slow and hard read. Either the author intended this book for a different audience (early Islamic historian) rather than the general public, or the publisher marketed this book to the wrong target audience. If you can get through the pedantry and sometimes awkward and difficult syntax, then this is something everyone should read, especially in today's political climate.

Sadly enough the book does not describe the "How" aspect of the Arab/Islamic ideology as the title may suggest. The entire legacy that was developed by the Arab artists, scientists and thinkers during that time is not even accredited and discussed as it should be. But that is expected if the purpose of the book was to clobber the Arabic influence over other civilizations and their expansive missions.

The book emphasizes on the negative aspects of the Arabic conquests and every chapter that discusses each expansion describes the Arab historians as less knowledgeable than others. He would rather refute the history written during the seventh and eighth centuries and use resources that portray the events by historians that wrote about the conquests from the other point of view. It's completely biased against the Arabs, and that is something that is not emphasized in the title, reviews, or even the book cover. It's a misleading book to a civilization that still persists till today, and I am concluding that Hugh's attitude towards the Arabs is aggressive and may imply disgust if not even hatred. The author did not include items that depict the nature of the people and the heritage that was left behind.

What's even worse, the author is a professor of Arabic in the faculty of languages and culture in a reputable institution giving him the authority to lecture in a negative aspect. I had to force myself to read the book as each chapter depicted the preceding one, which could have been easily written with less content.

After the death of the Mohammed in 632 and up to the Battle of Poitiers in 732, Arab Muslim armies conquered a swath of land that extended from Spain and Portugal in the West to what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan in the East. Our traditional understanding of these events is that a group Muslim fanatics were hell-bent (pardon the expression) on proselytizing others to their faith. Hugh Kennedy, professor of history at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, tells us in this excellent and well-written book that there were more mundane reasons for this sudden expansion of the realm: namely, the quest for the spoils of war. Religious conversion was not yet a factor; that would come two to three hundred years later.

This story is told in chronological as well as geographical order, moving outward from Mecca and Medina. Kennedy reminds us that many of his sources are unreliable and unclear since they were written by the victors. But he has done a masterful job putting it together, making use also of the records of the conquered. His knowledge of Arabic is evident throughout this book.

How did a group of disorganized Bedouins with no military weapons or martial tradition create such a large empire? In the beginning, Kennedy tells us, it was due mainly to the weakness and decline of the immediate surrounding empires. Byzantium, which controlled Syria and Palestine, and Sassanid Persia, which controlled what is now Iraq and Iran, had exhausted themselves fighting each other. When the Arab armies arrived they were met with little resistance.

Their mode of conquest was simple and time-honored. First they defeated the army, then they beseiged the population centers giving them a choice of paying tribute and allegiance or facing death. Conquered peoples invariably chose the former. Arab administrators wisely left existing structures and traditions in place. They established a very tolerant and multicultural empire. ( For more on empires and tolerance read Amy Chua's Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They Fall.) They were tolerant of Christianity in the West as well as Hinduism in the East. During the 100 year period covered in this book, Egypt remained Coptic-speaking and Christian, and Persia remained Pahlavi-speaking and Zoroastrian. It was not until much later that the Arabic language and Muslim faith took hold.

The conquests were driven by the quest for booty to satisfy the growing Arab-controlled armies. Since Muslims were forbidden to fight each other, according to Kennedy, the constantly sought out new lands and peoples to conquer.

This may throw some light on the present condition of the Middle East. Now we know that Muslims do fight each other and that Islam in its current form in Iran and Saudi Arabia has very little tolerance of other faiths. During the time period covered in this book, Kennedy does not say much about inter-Muslim and inter-Arab conflicts, apparently there weren't many. There may have been greater harmony within during a time of tolerance of outside cultures. For those Arabs today who mourn the loss of empire and feel humiliation and inferiority at the hands of the West, they would do well to study the lessons of this book. Tolerance of other cultures and religions - not rigidity and exclusion - is the key to greatness and power.

Arabic history expert Hugh Kennedy presents The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In, the true story of Islam's expansion in the immediate centuries after the Prophet Mohammed's death, and the cultural and linguistic reverberations of Islam's spread which remain to the modern day. By the mid-eighth century, Arab armies had subjugated the Persian Empire, drastically reduced the size of the Byzantine Empire, and eliminated the Visigoth kingdom of Spain. The Great Arab Conquests illustrates how the Arab armies were able to obtain the upper hand, and offers insights into the distinctive governance Islam wielded over subjugated peoples, as well as how vast populations became converted to Islam. Told with a vividness that will appeal to lay readers and scholars alike, The Great Arab Conquests is a welcome addition to Islamic studies and history shelves.

Interesting review of the early days of Arab conquests. Shows the role of booty and religion in driving a people to take over a decaying empire. As they say management and belief are everything, especially when running a centralized organization based on conquest. Definitely helpful in understanding some of the history and today's issues.

This is an extremely well-written book about the conquests of the Arabs up till 750 AD. The narrative is surprisingly coherent for such a big job where the sources are not always consistent. Prof. Kennedy has done a great service, particularly to the general readership, to render the history of those times into one volume. The narrative again was never burdened with scholarly jargons. With perfect juxtaposition of poems and non-Arab/muslim accounts of similar events, the author tried to provide the social context of those conquests, giving accounts of both sides. This book comes with appropriate maps and a fine collection of pictures, mostly taken by the author himself, that shows the geography, architecture, people and gives a feeling of reality of the magnitude of the terrain and diversity of the cultures being conquested. The author takes pains to describe the social context and social reality in which some key players of the conquest lived and made decisions and left an impact. This is a perfect companion for educational, teaching and information purposes. I earnestly hope, this book will also help to clarify many historical events that caused many tensions and prejudices among diverse cultures.

I read a pre-release copy of this book prior to a trip through some of the Gulf states. My knowledge of the spread of Islam had been limited to a short section of my secondary school history course, where it was mixed up with the fall of the Byzantine empire. It is easy to imagine that countries like Syria were always Islamic, and to forget about the swift process which converted them (from Christianity, in the case of Syria).

I found this book to be extremely readable. The fluency of the writing matched the content, the amazing swiftness of the Muslim conquests.

The author cites his sources often. I liked the fact that it felt like reading the original sources. I never felt it was just one author's opinion. The book is a nice mix of high-level accounts of battles and strategy, plus an insight into the mindset of the original Muslim soldiers, who were agile and lightly armoured, and not afraid to withdraw to fight another day. One thing which it doesn't do is go into great detail on Mohammed himself, but plenty of other books do that already.

Highly recommended.