Introduction

Several factors influence the development of a city. In the ancient world, factors such as religion, political administration, presence of food and water and excellent transport facilities. For Baghdad and Constantinople, their development is attributed to religion coupled with administrative purposes. Baghdad emerged as a result of the need of Caliph Al-Mansur to develop a city for his Abbasid Caliphate. Constantinople, on the other hand, started as the administrative capital of the Byzantine Empire. Apart from the administrative aspect of the towns, they also served as religious centers with Constantinople being a Christian city while Baghdad a Muslim city. This paper is an analysis of Baghdad and Constantinople based on their cultures, religious practices, and technologies in the 8th century.

Baghdad as a location that emerged due to Islam between 632 and 1000 CE.

Several towns and cities developed as a result of Islamic religion influence over the region. Baghdad is one such location that developed as a result of Islam. After the fall of the Ummayad dynasty, there emerged the Abbasid dynasty led by Caliph Al-Mansur. According to Porterfield (2015), the new caliph, Al-Mansur, wanted to start a city of his own, and he settled for the area north of the capital of the former Persian Empire. The construction of the town began after the royal astrologers tasked were satisfied with the location. The building of the city was done under the direct supervision of the caliph who had made the building plans for the city. The city was encircled with circular fences for protection. The city grew due to the abundance of water in the city. River Tigris and Euphrates provided a constant supply of water to the city for construction and also human use. The construction of the city took four years as the building commenced in 762AD and ended in 766AD.

Constantinople as a location that developed due to Christianity between 632 and 1000 CE

Constantinople developed as a result of Christianity. In the late 7th century, the city of Constantinople had suffered significant attacks from the Arabs, and this made the city vulnerable. The Theodosian walls kept the city safe during this period when the Arabs were attacking it. Emperor Leo III the Isaurian, ruled the empire from 718 CE to 741 CE  when he died. In the 740s CE, the emperor led the empire in many battles which they succeeded in undermining the Muslim influence in Syria and the subsequent weakening of Bulgaria. In 726 CE, emperor Leo III banned the veneration of idols in the empire (Guoqing, 2014). Religious imagery was a common tradition in the empire, and the ban led to revolts in the city. Nevertheless, the uprisings did not significantly affect the city as another ecumenical council decided towards the end of the 8th century to reintroduce icons but outlawed the worship of such.

Similarities between the cities of Baghdad and Constantinople

One similarity between the two towns is on places of worship. Places of worship in the two cities were constructed during the initial creation of the cities. Caliph Al-Mansur was a religious person as shown by the fact that he dedicated the building of the city to Allah before the actual construction began. A mosque was constructed at the center of the town for the people of the city since Baghdad was not only an administrative city, it was also a place of worship. Churches in Constantinople were built as early as the 4th century by Constantine to promote the growth of the new religion outside Jerusalem. Another similarity between the two cities is on fortification. Baghdad was fortified as evidenced by the three layers of walls that surrounded the city. These walls provided much-needed security for the city. For Constantinople, walls played a significant role in defending the city against attackers. When the Arabs laid siege to the city in the late 7th and early 8th century, the Theodosian walls kept the city safe. Later, Emperor Leo III repaired the walls after the extensive damage it received under the Arab siege.

Differences between Baghdad and Constantinople

Even though the cities have some elements common to both, there are, however, some aspects which differ. The first difference is on technology. The technology used for building bridges is different between the two cities. Whereas in Constantinople bridges were made from stones, in Baghdad, bridges were made of wood. Another difference is in education systems. Whereas Constantinople had well laid out education system, there is no evidence suggesting the presence of education during the reign of Caliph Al-Mansur. Education is recorded to have started in the city from 786 AD. Forms of worship is also another difference that exists between the two cities. The religions practiced by the two cities at the time were monotheistic. The difference arises in the use of icons as part of worship. In Constantinople, icons were permitted in places of worship. Willis (2015) says that the veneration of icons changed when Emperor Leo III banned the use of icons in places of worship, but the inhabitants of the city demonstrated. In Baghdad, icons were not used in areas of prayer since Muhammad had rejected the use of icons in mosques by destroying them while in Mecca.

Conclusion

Baghdad and Constantinople are cities that developed as a result of religious activities. Baghdad emerged after the collapse of the Umayyad caliphate and the founder of the town, Caliph Al-Mansur wanted to start a city for his Abbasid caliphate. Constantinople, on the other hand, developed due to the presence of Christianity in the region. Even though the city had been in existence, the growth of the city increased under the leadership of Emperor Leo III, who ruled between 718 and 741 CE. The comparison of the two cities has helped me in understanding and appreciating the role of religions in the development of the respective locations. I have appreciated the use of fortified walls as a form of protection against the enemies in the two cities. The comparison of the two cities, coupled with the lessons learned in class has enabled me to analyze historical aspects objectively and ethically appreciate historical artifacts.