Talk:Radhanite

Comment by Wiglaf

An excellent article.--Wiglaf 19:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it, as per Mc Cormick harvard scholar author of 'economic history of the Middle ages' the main trade of the radhanites were slaves, boys, eunuchs and women, bought to the franks for 30 gramms of gold and sold for 300 in baghdad they cause the invention of the word 'slave' from 'slavs', which they were buying wholesale to the franks and vikings, then exporting them through venice and genoa, including the entire 'children crusade' which they bought wholesale and sold in baghdad. Europe could not export anything but slaves and swords carried by them in exchange for luxuries for aristocracies. The trade was massive and the real origin of Anti-semitism in the middle ages. None of this is explained, why? Plainly speaking this article is like an article about the Liverpool slave traders in which there is no mention about their merchandise slaves - just the quote here from the muslim scholar of the age - and it is all admiration about the bravery and innovation of slave traders that opened new routes of commerce with inland Africa. And on top that final sentence that someone has wisely removed, saying that those 'slave traders' were victims. This article and many similar ones are biased because they hide negative information about the culture that happens to 'own' the franchise.

Comment by Isomorphic

I have commented on the peer review page. Isomorphic 28 June 2005 05:38 (UTC)

First Problem

ok, I don't know a lot about the Radhanites, but, this I do know about the Roman Empire. Over 100 years BCE the Asians in the area of Modern Day China, the Han Dynasty folks, began -what I like to call- the "Silk Road" which led to them trading with the Romans who are considered Western by most people. Did the Chinese cease that trade? The answer is no, thus the statement "The Radhanites were the first Westerners to establish trade with China in centuries" s wrong. Also, "Many historians believe that it was these Jewish merchants, not Chinese prisoners-of-war, who introduced the art of paper-making to the Caliphate." is unsourced, speculative and odd. Chinese traders did come west, and the Radhanite folks were not the only ones going east, so the suggestion that the only possible way of paper-making getting to Baghdad was via the Radhanite or the POWs is dishonest and wrong. "Historically, medieval Jewish communities used letters of credit to transport large quantities of money without the risk of theft. This system may have been pioneered by the Radhanites; if so, they may be counted among the earliest modern bankers." - Incorrect, recommended reading = anything of the asian/Chinese banking systems and also the Pre-modern Banking set up in the Delhi Sultanate (There are books on that that are amazing to read). In short, source all claims made. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The Radhanites, of course, would have predated anything that came out of the Dehli Sultanate. As for China, you are welcome to enter your own <cited> retort to the now-cited references to Jewish credit systems. RadhaniteBriangotts [[User Talk:Briangotts|(talk)]] 03:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The system of banking used in the dehli Sultanate was far similar to what we would understand as banking than what the nice Radhanite folks had set up. The Chinese financial system is well documented, using leather then paper as representatives of held deposit wealth over 700 years before the Radhanites traded their first slave. Banking as a system is old, a lot older than the Radhanites and has existed probably, in one form or another, since man could count. This piece reeks of Ethno-centric POV meanderings, and could do with a cleanup. --Irishpunktom\^talk 20:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You asked that I cite sources, and I have. If you wish to challenge them do so. But you had better cite your sources and they had better be from reputable publications. The fact that the article doesn't comport with your understanding of the world does not make it an "ethnocentric POV meandering", and I'll thank you to take a more civil tone in future.Briangotts [[User Talk:Briangotts|(talk)]] 21:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought I was more that Civil, "ethnocentric POV meandering" is hardly personal abuse, it is my observation. Here is a source for the bank set-up in China - It includes the quote "It is however in China that the use of paper money was most fully developed in early times. More than a century before the Christian era, an emperor of China raised funds to prosecute his wars in a way which shows that the use of leather tokens was familiar to the people." Era. It includes the same speculation as I in so far as it speculates on the origins of banking, but the point is the idea that the Radhanites were the earliest bankers is simply wrong. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say they were the earliest bankers. I will assume in good faith that you are not setting up a straw man. The text of the article says they "may be counted among the earliest modern bankers"... --Briangotts [[User Talk:Briangotts|(talk)]] 20:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't stop it being False. They were not Modern in any concieveable fashion and were not early either. Its simply not true. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If that is your problem with the article, I expect you will be withdrawing your opposition to featured status based on the latest changes. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, how could the Radhanites kept trade open over the Roman Empire from 600-1000 CE? Are they referring to the Eastern Roman Empire? If so, by the period in question it is more conventional to refer to that region as Byzantine. -- LeperColony

Lev Gumilev

Someone, please enlarge on Gumilev's opinion that the Radhanites were shadowy architects of the early Russian foreign policy who stood behind Rus' early campaigns against their chief trade rival, Byzantium --Ghirlandajo 14:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What work is this in? Gumilev had many theories with somewhat dubious factual support, to put it mildly. His belief that Khazar Jews oppressed and exploited hard-working Slavs was the product of old-fashioned anti-Semitism. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

early Middle Ages?

The article on the Middle Ages is not consistent here, either, but this article uses once Early Middle Ages, and later early Middle Ages. What is the correct capitalisation (I'm not a big history editor)? jnothman ^talk 06:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's "early Middle Ages".

"one knows the way"

This seems strange for a name. Should it be "one who knows the way"? jnothman ^talk 06:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Fixed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

Thoughts on including "external links" to the article? [1][2][3] Tomer^talk 11:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not clear on exactly who the Radhanites were

I read this article during the Featured Article review process, where I opposed it. My objections there were entirely unanswered, and I'm still not clear, so I'm pursuing part of what I was asking about here. My central concern is that the article does not make it clear who the Radhanites were. The lead presents three statements that taken together cause my confusion:

1. The Radhanites as "medieval Jewish merchants".
2. "Jewish merchants dominated trade between the Christian and Muslim worlds during the early Middle Ages (approx. 600-1000 CE)."
3. "Whether the term ... refers to a specific guild or is a generic term for Jewish merchants in the trans-Eurasian trade network is unclear"

On first reading, I took this to mean: "The Radhanites were Jewish merchants who dominated trade between the Christian and Muslim worlds during the early Middle Ages..." However, that's not what it specifically says. According to point 3., it's not clear who the Radhanites referred to exactly, so it may not be what the "Jewish merchants of the Early Middle Ages" were called, only perhaps what some of those merchants were called for some of that period. The rest of the article does not clarify the situation, and I am left not knowing exactly who the Radhanites were.

I'd really appreciate any clarification that's available... Thanks! --Tsavage 04:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't understand the issue that requires clarification. The Radhanites were Jewish merchants who operated during the early Middle Ages and were therefore medieval. Whether the term is used as a generic descriptive or as the name of a particular company is unclear. I think that's pretty clear from the intro. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, the intro doesn't answer my question (else I wouldn't be asking it :). Put another way, then, is this statement "true": The Radhanites were Jewish merchants who dominated trade between the Christian and Muslim worlds during the early Middle Ages (approx. 600-1000 CE)?

I realize (as I've noted above) that the article does not literally say that. My "issue" is that, even give the statement in the intro that the precise application of the term Radhanite is unclear, the article gives the impression that Radhanite is interchangeable with "Medieval Jewish merchant". For example, the opening paragraph of the "Historical significance" section begins:

During the Early Middle Ages the Islamic polities of the Middle East and North Africa and the Christian kingdoms of Europe often banned each others' merchants from entering their ports.[7] Corsairs of both sides raided the shipping of their adversaries at will. The Radhanites functioned as neutral go-betweens...

That reinforces the impression that the Radhanites were the "Jewish merchants" in question. Then, this entire passage further confuses the situation further (my boldface for emphasis):

While traditionally many historians believed that the art of Chinese paper-making had been transmitted to Europe via Arab merchants who got the secret from prisoners-of-war taken at Talas, some believe that Jewish merchants such as the Radhanites were instrumental in bringing paper-making west.[9] Joseph of Spain, possibly a Radhanite , is credited by some sources with introducing the so-called Hindu-Arabic numerals from India to Europe.[10] Historically, Jewish communities used letters of credit to transport large quantities of money without the risk of theft from at least classical times.[11] This system was developed and put into force on unprecedented scale by medieval Jewish merchants such as the Radhanites ; if so, they may be counted among the precursors to the banks that arose during the late Middle Ages and early modern era.[12]'

The bottom line is, if it is so hard to define what Radhanite refers to, then I find this article somewhat confusing at best. Is this the only term used in that period that could possibly refer to the medieval Jewish merchants? If Radhanite is not SYNONYMOUS with "Jewish merchants operating in the trans-Eurasian trade network between approx. 600-1000 CE", then I find the article does not adequately differentiate between the two. Should this article more properly be entitled Jewish merchants of the early Middle Ages (600-1000 CE), or should more focus be given here to the murkiness of the term (for example, there must be alternate scholarly opinions about who more precisely the Radhanites were), rather than trying to extrapolate from the general trade picture at the time to this term, when it is not even sure what it exactly refers to? Thanks again! --Tsavage 16:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

More research deepens concern over portrayal of Radhanite

I did some of the initial usual easy Google research, and already discovered in other accounts of Radhanites statements that seem to support my view that this article is at least unclear, if not misleading, as presented.

• Jewish Merchants Moved Freely Throughout the Mediterranean Region: Medieval Jewish documents spanning almost a thousand years, preserved in the treasure trove known as the Cairo Genizah, show how natural it was for Jews to be on the move. and
  Early Monopolists: the Radhanites: From a ninth century account, Kitah al-Masalik wa’l Mamalik (The Book of the Roads and Kingdoms), we learn incidentally of the remarkable commercial activities of the Radhanites, a Jewish firm whose operations may have been based in Spain or southern France. ... Very little is known about them other than the Arabic description of their routes and merchandise, from which we learn that their trade stretched across several continents with branches in many ports and commercial outposts.[4]
  If Jewish merchants were well-documented as moving around Europe and Asia for 1,000 years, and the Radhanites were only identified in essential one orginal 9th century text, why is the period 600-1000 CE highlighted in the lead?

• S. D. Goitein calls the period from 600-800 a "black out." All that historians are able to do is establish an approximation of what happened based on the difference between what life was like before the period began and after it ended.[5] Again, the article frames itself (speculatively) in a particular "early Middle Ages" period, 600-1000 CE, but this would seem to say that at least half that period is unknowable as far as Radhanite activity. So, why those dates?

If you think I'm arguing here for anything but, as a WP editor, a continuation of my concerns and questions from FAC, you are mistaken. And, I have NO illusions of being able to become an instant scholar or expert on this topic, I am simply trying to deal with questions that are not being answered by adding some precision and specifics to the discussion. If my question really seems so completely incomprehensible to you, please let me know, and I will try to further clarify what my problem is... Thanks. --Tsavage 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As the article points out, they are mentioned in more documents than just ibn Khordadbeh's work, even if the references are scanty. To say that 600-800 is a "black out" is a total misrepresentation of facts. In fact many historical documents exist from the period and we are able (at least in some regions) to know with reasonable certainty many events that took place. There are many topics on which less is known that are discussed on Wikipedia. I continue to fail to see what your objection is.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt, I'm starting to lose faith in the sincerity of your replies. How much more plainly can I say this: I find this article to be imprecisely and even misleadingly worded, in that it creates an impression that more is known about the Radhanites than actually is. The core of what it seems to be reasonably known is that the Radhanites were traders for some period during the Middle Ages, and they probably covered a large trans-Eurasian territory. Only one or two primary mentions are made of them in documents of the time. Period. The rest of this article mixes up what "Jewish merchants" were doing, and therefore, apparently what Radhanites were doing. This to me is far from an encyclopedia-level of coverage, it is in large part speculation that attempts to justify itself by stating that "little is known". If little is known, then little NPOV+NOR+Verifiable material can be written.

Specifically, my problem is mainly with the lead paragraph, and the "Historical significance" and "The end of the Radhanite age" sections. Almost everything in these sections is ambiguous, as it is not made clear what refers specifically to Radhanites.

Again, if you really don't see what I'm saying, and I'm so off-base that I've lost touch with reality on this one, please let me know. I do not think that is the case. I'm trying to resolve this on the talk page, in deference to editors who may have more knowledge of the topic. But perhaps an easier approach would be to make my changes on the page, where they can be worked out within the direct editing process. Just let me know! Thanks. --Tsavage 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the main reason why WP is open for editing, isn't it? -Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but this is why there's also a Discussion page, isn't it? Presumably, editors work on topics they are directly interested in and committed to improving. My edits here will be more in the line of corrections than something I particularly want to spend time on. But that's also...WP. Since you don't find anything worth discussing, I'll get on with it as time permits. Thanks for the reply. --Tsavage 03:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence as POV and unsupported: Jan 3, 2006

I removed this sentence, which was the final sentence of the article:

For the Jews, it marked the end of the golden age of trade and the beginning of a long period of systematic persecution and victimization.

I don't see how it contributes to the story of the Radhanites, and I find it unsettling in its broad, sensational and unreferenced comment on a vaguely defined period outside the scope of the article. --Tsavage 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• "de Meynard' is mentioned without an introductory adjective or appositive phrase, as if one were expected to know who she is. I confess that I don't, for one. --Wetman 02:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Now de Meynard is identified, and a link to the article has been added. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Rome

It seems to me that when ibn Khordadbeh writes that "they take the route behind Rome", he actually talks about New Rome and not Rome which is linked in the article. Could anyone shed some light on this? Do referenced books touch the issue? Nikola 08:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Rom (Rum) = Bizans = greek speakers has been a common equation ever since. Look at Greek (name)#Romans_.28.CE.A1.CF.89.CE.BC.CE.B1.CE.AF.CE.BF.CE.B9.29_and_Romioi_.28.CE.A1.CF.89.CE.BC.CE.B9.CE.BF.CE.AF.29. It's also clear from the original text :

Some make sail for Constantinople to sell their goods to the Romans;

All links regarding Rome or roman should therofe be changed to Bizancium or greece/greek, IMHO

BTW: Unless the original reference says otherwise, the town Sus al-Aksa mentioned in

that start from Spain or France go to Sus al-Aksa (in Morocco) and then to Tangier

should be more probably on the spanish side of the Strait of Gibraltar. It makes no sense to go overland from Ceuta -the only other alternative harbour there- to Tangiers, a difficult route besides, when direct sailing from Spain to the latter is just a couple of hours longer--Wllacer 10:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sus al Aksa appears in other writings as being in Morocco. [6] Whether it makes sense or not is another matter. Maybe ibn Khordadbeh was misinformed. But the fact of the matter is that he was referring to a place in Morocco.

In case this hasn't been clarified yet -- although it appears that there's been some pertinent discussion on related matters in the article -- where Ibn Khordadbeh speaks of the "Roman" language, the link should be to Greek, not to Latin. The Arabs referred to the (Greek-speaking) Byzantines as "Romans" and their empire as "Rome" -- which is what Byzantium considered itself to be.

I nearly forgot: The same kind of issue may apply to the "Frankish" language, but with less certainty. The Arabs tended to call all Western Christians "Franks", and did that into the nineteenth century. Where Ibn Khordadbeh says that Radhanites spoke Frankish, he certainly was thinking of varieties of medieval French, but very likely meant his readers to understand that they spoke Western European languages. (Spanish was a distinct category for this writer because the Muslims ruled Spain in the 9th century; its languages were known to many Muslims.) The big picture: He's saying that they could communicate in the languages of the Western and Eastern Christians, and so forth. Readers of the article as it stands will normally misunderstand what the writer is getting at here. [User: Cy] 1 Feb 2006

Primary Sources

What are the "limited number of primary sources" that use the term Radhanite? --Iustinus 18:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article.

"Besides ibn Khordadbeh, the Radhanites are mentioned by name only by a handful of sources. Ibn al-Faqih's early tenth century Kitab al-Buldan ("Book of the Countries") mentions them, but much of ibn al-Faqih's information was derived from ibn Khordadbeh's work. Sefer ha-Dinim, a Hebrew account of the travels of Yehuda ben Meir of Mainz, named Przemysl and Kiev as trading sites along the Radhanite route. In the early twelfth century, a French-Jewish trader named Yitzhak Dorbelo wrote that he travelled with Radhanite merchants to Poland.[14]"

Behind Rome to the capital of the Khazars

I don't claim to be an expert. But I would also question the assertion that Rome really means Constantinople. Besides the fact that Constantinople is already mentioned by its real name, I don't see how a route from Constantinople through the land of the Slavs and the Khazars makes sense as a way to get to Central Asia. The article refers to Yehuda ben Meir of Mainz and his identification of Przemysl and Kiev as trading sites along the Radhanite route. In fact, the connection between these two sites is the most likely one for a route between the land of the Slavs and the Khazars. A plausible route starting in Italy would be Venice, Regensburg, Prague, Krakow, Przemysl, Kiev, and on to the Khazar capital on the Caspian Sea. The route includes major sites for trading with Slavs that are known to be important in the history of European Jews and provides a geographically reasonable overland path for making the trip. DnJake (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

timeline?

"During the Early Middle Ages the Islamic polities of the Middle East and North Africa and the Christian kingdoms of Europe often banned each others' merchants from entering their ports."

the article defines the "Early MIddle Ages" as "approx. 500-1000", so what exactly are these "Islamic polities of the MIddle East and North Africa" doing, centuries before the existence of Islam, or the birth of Mohammed, and before even the start of the first Crusade?

for a history article, such loose terminology, no matter how politically correct, or pretentious, is incorrect.

76.10.162.230 (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The corrupting sea: a study of Mediterranean history

Just found out there's a book called The corrupting sea: a study of Mediterranean history. I found an interesting passage in that book (pg. 162):

Were the Radhanites unique? Or were they, on one suggested (Persian) etymology of their name, not from Radhan in Mesopotamia, but simply 'those who know the trade routes' - know the best (177a, 268)?

I find this interesting. Komitsuki (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rome in Ibn Khordadbeh's account

Rum in Persian writings actually means Greece and to be more exact Anatolia, at least revise the reference to the city of Rome because this is a common misconception of Europeans in translating persian sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.57.214.16 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Figurine of a Foreign Merchant (Tang dynasty, 7th century)

That figurine is usually described as a Sogdian merchant. I wonder why it was put here... Anyway I got rid of it. 2602:306:C4CE:9AF9:CCAA:709:3521:C041 (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)