Umayyad vs Abbasid

Even though the Abbasid Caliphs were the direct succors of the Umayyad they ruled entirely differently. Both empires ruled very differently in how they handled the economy, politics and social fields. In an Example of the economy the Caliphs during the Abbasid Empire hit a Golden Age while both were similar in how they handled slaves.

The Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphs both had very different political systems. Even thought influences of the Umayyad did carry over into the Abbasid rule very little of them had an affect. First, the upper levels of the Umayyad political system were dominated by a prominent Mecca merchant clan while the Abbasid Empire was led by a group of Non-Arab Muslims. The Rule in the Abbasid Empire had a more centralized rule from Baghdad compared to the loose rule and problems with succession in the Umayyad capital of Damascus. The Caliphs in the Abbasid were not as effective rules in that after the Seljuk Turks can and took Baghdad under their control. Lastly, the Umayyad Caliphs managed to temporarily solve the problems with disagreement about who should be the successor of the empire. This was a major leap for uniting the empire, but ultimately was short lived.

The Umayyad and the Abbasid Caliphs were both related and different socially, in many ways. The first way the Umayyad were different from the Abbasids was that the Umayyad had Muslim Arabs at the top levels of society while Persians dominated the social system in the Abbasid Empire. Secondly in the Abbasid Empire mass conversions were highly encouraged while in the Umayyad Empire the so called “people of the book” only had to pay a tax and were not even encouraged to covert. During the Abbasid rule Patriarchal ideas were enforced through society. Lastly, both were the same in that the upper levels were very well off in that they gathered tax money from the lower levels to pay for their expenses. This helped the high levels thrive but ultimately made them greedy and led to slave