History questions not worth their own thread V

[Flying Pig]

That seems a huge call? I also don't see how a lot of geographic barriers can be called "localized?" The Himalayas for example.

Localised on the scale of a transcontinental empire, as opposed to climatic zones, which (in the layman's loose model) span the entire width of the globe.

 

[Cutlass]

When you're walking, it takes somewhat less of a barrier to be an effective barrier.

But even that really doesn't track. There was probably a coastal seagoing trade north to south in the Americas and across the Caribbean, for example. There was not a coastal seagoing trade down the west coast of Africa. And that may have slowed down the diffusion of information to west central Africa. But pretty much everywhere else, back to prehistory, there has been sailing.

 

[Masada]

Localised on the scale of a transcontinental empire, as opposed to climatic zones, which (in the layman's loose model) span the entire width of the globe.

Except, they don't. South China is on the same latitude as the Arabic Peninsula and the Sahara Desert. Just have a look at a world map with Koppen-Gieger transposed over the top. You should also note that the Himalayas have an integral role in the South Asian monsoon, the extent of the Gobi, i.e. in determining climate among other roles.

 

[Flying Pig]

Alright, that was an excessive simplification, but even on a map like this:

It's clear that they're bigger than your average river or mountain range. Of course, that doesn't mean that they actually do function as barriers in any meaningful sense.

 

[Masada]

Huh? You seem to have missed the point that I'm trying to make. What I'm suggesting is that the Himalayas are rather more influential than climate in this case. Perhaps not in a global sense but there's other geographic features i.e. oceans that start making the rule look less like a rule and more like wish fulfillment.

Actually, I'd be interested for you to explain how there's a meaningful difference between Southern Indian climate and Northern Indian climate?

 

[Flying Pig]

I quite agree on all of those points: I wasn't arguing the climate hypothesis, I was clarifying the use of 'localised' in reference to physical barriers (mountains, rivers, jungles and some deserts) when compared with climate zones

 

[TheLastOne36]

Maybe more of a sociology question than a historical one, but can someone explain to me how distinct are various Arabic groups?

It is my impression that there are different ethnicities within the Arabs, referred to as tribes or clans. Do these constitute different ethnicities within the greater Arabic population, or are these more related to family name such as the Clans of Scotland? An example of one of these clans are the ruling Hashemites in Jordan. Speaking of Jordan, are all Arabic Jordanians Hashemite or is it a family type thing? I've often heard that the Palestinians and Jordanians are the same people living on different sides of the Jordan river. Further, I find it hard to believe that Arabs in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Yemen, Qatar, Egypt and Algeria all share monotonous culture and Arabic identity.

Also to add more confusion into an already confusing topic, there are ethnoreligious groups in existence with their own nationalism and self-identity, such as the Alawites, Assyrians and Druze. Should they be treated as more distinct Arabic Tribes, or as actual ethnic groups?


I raise these questions as recently while following the Syrian conflict, I realized I had little idea of the distinction between different Arabs.

 

[Lord Baal]

Maybe more of a sociology question than a historical one, but can someone explain to me how distinct are various Arabic groups?

It is my impression that there are different ethnicities within the Arabs, referred to as tribes or clans. Do these constitute different ethnicities within the greater Arabic population, or are these more related to family name such as the Clans of Scotland? An example of one of these clans are the ruling Hashemites in Jordan. Speaking of Jordan, are all Arabic Jordanians Hashemite or is it a family type thing? I've often heard that the Palestinians and Jordanians are the same people living on different sides of the Jordan river. Further, I find it hard to believe that Arabs in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Yemen, Qatar, Egypt and Algeria all share monotonous culture and Arabic identity.

Also to add more confusion into an already confusing topic, there are ethnoreligious groups in existence with their own nationalism and self-identity, such as the Alawites, Assyrians and Druze. Should they be treated as more distinct Arabic Tribes, or as actual ethnic groups?


I raise these questions as recently while following the Syrian conflict, I realized I had little idea of the distinction between different Arabs.

Pretty distinct. I'm partially Palestinian, but look more like an Egyptian - hence my amusement at all the "Egyptians are black!" threads - and don't speak a lick of Arabic. To be fair, I'm also Jewish and probably know even less words in Hebrew, despite my several half-hearted attempts to learn it.

The Hashemites are a family that is directly descended from Mohammed's great-grandfather. This made them numerous enough to be more of a clan than a family, but the main Hashemite line - which was descended from Mohammed himself, through his daughter Fatima - is just a large, extended family. They're best known in the West for their relationship to Lawrence of Arabia, who was the British advisor to the court of Prince Feisal.

After WWI, when Lawrence and Feisal's attempt to create an Arab confederation under the Hashemites failed, the Hashemite family were chased out of their ancestral homeland in the Arabian Peninular by the Saud family (hence Saudi Arabia) and looked like they would fade into obsurity for a while. Then the British, seeking legitimacy in their new Middle Eastern territories, looked around for someone who the local populace would respect as a leader but who wouldn't have a local power-base to use against the British. The Hashemites fit the bill perfectly, and as such were placed on several Middle Eastern thrones.

Eventually, however, the British left and local strongmen ousted the Hashemites everywhere except Jordan, which they've held onto very precariously ever since. Bear in mind, the Hashemites come from the Arabian Peninsular. The Jordanians, who, as you stated, are practically indistinct from Palestinians - though after a few decades of Palestinian relations with Israel that is changing - are not naturally inclined to support the Hashemites, so the Hashemites need to rely on the military for support. It's a very dangerous game, where the Hashemites are forced to alternately fight against and ally with Israel depending on the domestic situation in Jordan itself. The most dangerous situation for the Hashemites was Black September, but they emerged victorious and have been slowly enhancing their control of the country ever since.

Also, many of those "Arabs" are actually groups that pre-date the Islamic expansion. They're simply referred to as "Arabs" due to their language, which is almost always Arabic in this day and age. There are linguistic hold-outs, of course, especially in Iraq, which was the most populous area under Islamic rule. You're completely correct about there not being a monolithic Arab identity stretching across the entire Middle East. Even Islam is far from universal, despite popular portrayals of the region. My ancestry is Palestinian Christians, with my great-grandmother converting to Judaism, much to the disgust of her family, after the establishment of Israel.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Alright, I think I am getting a better understanding. So what was historically (and in contemporary) the relationship between clans such as the Sauds or Hashemites and the general populace? Was it analogous to the nobility of Europe with the distinction of having been descendant from Mohammed?

How did these tribes or clans originate or form, and how did they retain power over the centuries anyway? It seems to me that unlike the nobility of Europe where only the main line is relevant, all members of the family and all their descendants form part of the clan. (Also did they only marry within their own clan? With clans of similar prestige?) What role did these families have in the expansion of Islam and Arabinization of the Middle East/North Africa?

I know I am asking a lot of questions but I feel you are the right person to ask so I might as well get them all out.

 

[Lord Baal]

Alright, I think I am getting a better understanding. So what was historically (and in contemporary) the relationship between clans such as the Sauds or Hashemites and the general populace? Was it analogous to the nobility of Europe with the distinction of having been descendant from Mohammed?

How did these tribes or clans originate or form, and how did they retain power over the centuries anyway? It seems to me that unlike the nobility of Europe where only the main line is relevant, all members of the family and all their descendants form part of the clan. (Also did they only marry within their own clan? With clans of similar prestige?) What role did these families have in the expansion of Islam and Arabinization of the Middle East/North Africa?

I know I am asking a lot of questions but I feel you are the right person to ask so I might as well get them all out.

Meh, I'm not exactly an expert on the Middle East at all. Modern Israel, maybe, but not the rest of it by a long-shot. I'll try though.

Most of the famous Arab families trace their descent from the family of the Prophet, if not from him directly. Only the Hashemites actually have any degree of verification for this claim. The Saudis are something of an exception to this; they've only been around since the fifteenth century and only became prominent in the eighteenth, and to my knowledge have never once claimed descent from the family of Mohammed. They were basically a prominent family in a local tribe on the Arabian Peninsular who had a knack for the tribal warfare that was a constant there. Their primary enemies were the Sharif of Mecca, who were the main branch of the Hashemite family and the traditional rulers of Mecca (under Ottoman suzerainty). I've already mentioned how the Sauds defeated the Hashemites in the post-WWI war on the Arabian Peninsular.

Most of these large Arab families are more akin to clans than actual families, and yes, there is a lot of marriage within the family. Richard Burton - the explorer, not Elizabeth Taylor's husband - famously said that an Arab considered his father's brother's daughter (ie, his first cousin) as his betrothed, and there's some truth to that. Cousin-marriage does seem to have been fairly common, though not as much as Burton implied. I believe it's official Saudi policy to marry within the family to keep the wealth there, but with a family of 12,000 or more, that doesn't exactly limit a person's options.

Traditionally, most of the peoples on the Arabian Peninsular were nomadic and tribal, so marrying within the tribe was virtually required. The conflicts between nomads and sedentary populations is a staple of Arabic folklore for a reason; it existed for the entirety of their history, and still does to an extent. Mohammed was somewhat unusual in that he was a city-dweller who led one city to triumph over another, rather than a nomad doing so.

Most of the prominent Arab families are either fairly new, like the Saudis, or have been in power for a long time, like the various sheikhdoms in the UAE. They didn't really have much to do with the great Islamic expansion; even the Hashemites tended to stay behind as the rulers of Mecca itself, and while every caliph before the Ottomans claimed descent from Fatima, pretty much none of them after Ali's death actually did. Not even the Fatimids themselves, apparently.

These prominent families tend to marry within their own family or within a similar social class, but there's no set-rule. Remember, Islam condones polygamy, and most Arabic leaders are Muslims, at least in name, so they tend to take multiple wives. It's far from uncommon for a sheikh to take one wife from his own extended family, a second wife from an allied royal line, then simply take a couple of young hotties he found while out hunting as his third and fourth wife. He was also traditionally allowed one female slave for his own personal use, so buying another young hottie from her parents as more of a fifth wife than a slave was also pretty common.

Among the lower classes, one wife was the norm, with an occasional second. I am unsure of the legality of marrying sisters, but it was pretty common regardless. The Muslim half of my great-grandmother's village used to marry two or even three sisters to the same man pretty regularly, usually because the sisters refused point-blank to be separated.

 

[TheLastOne36]

How much of the Arabian peninsula was nomadic? I understand the Arabs were traditionally a small group of nomadic people at the outset but I imagined that there would've been many settled communities and cities such as Mecca, Jeddah and Medina and long-established agriculture in Yemen and other places. You alluded to traditional conflict between nomads and sedentary populations.

So, I'd imagine if historically Arabs were for the most part nomadic, that would lead to the natural result of tribes existing as described. Given that 77 million people are inhabiting the Arabian Peninsula today(though I realize the number was probably much much smaller before the 20th century) and I doubt all the clans and tribes together make up even a chunk of that, where did all these other Arabs come from then? And most importantly, if they are not part of the clans, what ethnicity, besides Arabic, do they identify as? For example, I'd image Egyptian Arabs would identify themselves as Misr Arabs (for lack of better term) and Lebanese Arabs would identify themselves as Lebanese and so forth. This is because as you said before, these are Arabanized peoples who adopted Arabic language and culture. However, what about specifically within lands where Arabs were indigenous to? As mentioned earlier with the example of Palestine/Jordan, it was explained to me by an Israeli that the Arabs from both sides of the Jordan river were indistinct but they were very distinct from say Egyptians. So what are Palestinian-Jordanian Arabs identified in this case, if anything but Arabic? Likewise with Arabs from Hejaz, Najd, Persian Gulf and Yemen/Southern Arabia?

I suspect I am overblowing this and applying Western/European ideals of ethnicity to a region/population where they just don't really apply to. For all intents and purposes, are indigenous Arabs (Jordan-Palestine, Hejaz, Najd, Persian Gulf, Southern Arabia, general diaspora of the Tribes of Arabia) just simply Arabs?

edit: Also where do the Bedouin fit in all this?

 

[Lord Baal]

How much of the Arabian peninsula was nomadic? I understand the Arabs were traditionally a small group of nomadic people at the outset but I imagined that there would've been many settled communities and cities such as Mecca, Jeddah and Medina and long-established agriculture in Yemen and other places. You alluded to traditional conflict between nomads and sedentary populations.

So, I'd imagine if historically Arabs were for the most part nomadic, that would lead to the natural result of tribes existing as described. Given that 77 million people are inhabiting the Arabian Peninsula today(though I realize the number was probably much much smaller before the 20th century) and I doubt all the clans and tribes together make up even a chunk of that, where did all these other Arabs come from then? And most importantly, if they are not part of the clans, what ethnicity, besides Arabic, do they identify as? For example, I'd image Egyptian Arabs would identify themselves as Misr Arabs (for lack of better term) and Lebanese Arabs would identify themselves as Lebanese and so forth. This is because as you said before, these are Arabanized peoples who adopted Arabic language and culture. However, what about specifically within lands where Arabs were indigenous to? As mentioned earlier with the example of Palestine/Jordan, it was explained to me by an Israeli that the Arabs from both sides of the Jordan river were indistinct but they were very distinct from say Egyptians. So what are Palestinian-Jordanian Arabs identified in this case, if anything but Arabic? Likewise with Arabs from Hejaz, Najd, Persian Gulf and Yemen/Southern Arabia?

I suspect I am overblowing this and applying Western/European ideals of ethnicity to a region/population where they just don't really apply to. For all intents and purposes, are indigenous Arabs (Jordan-Palestine, Hejaz, Najd, Persian Gulf, Southern Arabia, general diaspora of the Tribes of Arabia) just simply Arabs?

edit: Also where do the Bedouin fit in all this?

You are applying a Western ideal of ethnicity to the region a bit, but you're hardly the first or only person to do it. There really isn't that much of an Arab diaspora. Most of the "Arabs" in the coastal regions of the Arabian Peninsular are descended as much from traders as the Arabs themselves. In some cases they're quite obviously Persian, or even Indian. The culture of the sea-borne Arabic traders is pretty widespread and very different from the culture of the Arabian Peninsular itself. Masada and I once had an interesting discussion about the frequency of Arabs intermarrying with the locals in Southeast Asia, for instance. Arabs certainly spread further through these coastal trade routes than through the Islamic expansion over land, even if it less glamorous and exciting than wholesale conquest.

The Bedouin are Arabs. Once upon a time they might have been seen as separate peoples, but that time was long ago. Both the Hashemites and Sauds are technically Bedouin, for instance. I believe the term was originally simply used to describe a nomadic Arab, whereas the term "Arab" was exclusive to city-dwellers, but I may well be mistaken about that.

The Arabian Peninsular is pretty arid and desolate outside of the coastal regions, so except for some oases there really wasn't a large sedentary population in the interior. Semi-pastoralist trading societies, like the Berbers in the Sahara, were by necessity the norm. I believe that even today one-third of all Saudi citizens are semi-nomadic, despite government attempts to settle them. One of the major border issues Saudi Arabia had with Yemen and Oman, in fact, was over where the border was in that ungodly arid region, and who was responsible for the nomads who wandered back and forth across it.

Most Egyptians don't consider themselves Arabs, at least not in my experience. They simply think of themselves as Egyptians. Palestinians, Jordanians, etc., all seem to feel the same. Arabic is a lingua franca and has essentially ousted most of the other languages in the region, but it is not the unifying it was perceived as for the middle of the twentieth century. Nationalism is on the rise, secularism is on the downswing and there's a fair amount of separatism and exclusivism thrown in. It seems that, outside of Saudi Arabia, the tribal nature of Arab culture before colonialism is re-asserting itself somewhat. Except for a few nutters like Al Qaeda, most "Arabs" these days no longer contemplate the idea of a unified Arab state. That dream died with Nasser, who seemed to vacillate in his devotion to the idea anyway. The Arabs are no more a unified people than Europeans are, which seems odd considering they share a language and Europeans don't, but that's the way it is.

Lebanon is a special case, a backwards hellhole where the inhabitants simultaneously claim descent from every major historical figure they can think of, while denying that the opposition descends from any of them, all in spite of the membership in these groups not being even slightly genetic. I'm not touching that nightmare.

 

[Tee Kay]

Also to add more confusion into an already confusing topic, there are ethnoreligious groups in existence with their own nationalism and self-identity, such as the Alawites, Assyrians and Druze. Should they be treated as more distinct Arabic Tribes, or as actual ethnic groups?

If they've got an ethnic or national identity then they're not tribes anymore.

All three of these groups are distinguished from the "general population" (as much as that can be said to exist) not by lineage but by religion. Alawites are followers of a branch of Shi'ism, Assyrians are Syriac Christians (who also speak their own non-Arabic language), while Druzes defy simple description but generally speaking they're an off-shoot of Shi'ism but treated as their own religious community, separate from Islam (they are also concentrated in the Mashriq, that is, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, with Syria in particular hosting large communities of all three, along with many other ethnoreligious group).

Alawites, Druzes and some Assyrians can be considered Arab and see themselves as Arabs on account of speaking Arabic as their primary language; in fact as Lord Baal said pretty much the only thing linking all Arabs together is their language, and even then there are distinct regional varieties. Indeed a Moroccan speaking his native tongue will not understand someone speaking Palestinian Arabic, and vice versa. When one talks of the "Arabic language", such as the official languages of Arab countries or the Arab league, it is most commonly "Standard Literary Arabic".

 

[Lord Baal]

Yeah, written Arabic and spoken Arabic are fairly dissimilar. I'd forgotten that.

 

[Tee Kay]

Lebanon is a special case, a backwards hellhole where the inhabitants simultaneously claim descent from every major historical figure they can think of, while denying that the opposition descends from any of them, all in spite of the membership in these groups not being even slightly genetic. I'm not touching that nightmare.

Lebanon was created by France back in the mid-19th century when they pressured the Ottomans to grant Maronite Christians around Mount Lebanon their own autonomous region. The French made this into a Mandate after 1918 and enlarged it, drawing the border so that Christians would make up a slight majority of the population. Unlike other Arab countries there was no even-half-hearted attempt to create a unified "Lebanese nation" either before or after independence. Politics was very sectarian; in fact it was institutional, the President must be Christian, the Speaker must be Shi'a, and so forth. The divisions were predominantly religious, although other divisions exist, for instance between indigenous Lebanese and Palestinian refugees.

A Lebanese national identity, sometimes based on descent from the Phoenicians, does exist, although not very strong, and probably embraced more by the very significant Lebanese diaspora rather than the people back home.

 

[Lord Baal]

Lebanon was created by France back in the mid-19th century when they pressured the Ottomans to grant Maronite Christians around Mount Lebanon their own autonomous region. The French made this into a Mandate after 1918 and enlarged it, drawing the border so that Christians would make up a slight majority of the population. Unlike other Arab countries there was no even-half-hearted attempt to create a unified "Lebanese nation" either before or after independence. Politics was very sectarian; in fact it was institutional, the President must be Christian, the Speaker must be Shi'a, and so forth. The divisions were predominantly religious, although other divisions exist, for instance between indigenous Lebanese and Palestinian refugees.

A Lebanese national identity, sometimes based on descent from the Phoenicians, does exist, although not very strong, and probably embraced more by the very significant Lebanese diaspora rather than the people back home.

It was my understanding that all sides in the Lebanese Civil War claimed descent from teh Phoenicians, but that there is no evidence to suggest that any of them are either descended from or not descended from the Phoenicians. In other words, being descended from teh Phoenicians isn't a matter of national identity, but was another tool of divisiveness.

That's similar to what the French did in Hatay, is it not?

 

[Tee Kay]

It was my understanding that all sides in the Lebanese Civil War claimed descent from teh Phoenicians, but that there is no evidence to suggest that any of them are either descended from or not descended from the Phoenicians. In other words, being descended from teh Phoenicians isn't a matter of national identity, but was another tool of divisiveness.

A way to say that the Other Sides aren't Really Lebanese (and thus fair game for clensing) since to be Real Lebanese is to be descended from the Phoenicians. It's what happens when sectarian identity trumps national identity.

That's similar to what the French did in Hatay, is it not?

Not to the extent in Mandatory Lebanon IIRC, which actually had a Parliament. Also, the ethnic make-up was different; in Hatay the Turks made up a plurality, not a majority (eventually enough Turks were trucked in to make a referendum return a majority yes vote for joining Turkey; the population is still very mixed though)

 

[Masada]

Alawites are followers of a branch of Shi'ism

I don't know if I'd call Alawites Shiites. While they claim to be Twelvers, and the dudes in Qom etc, accept them as such that link only dates back to the 1930s and 1940s. Prior to that most authorities who mentioned them had trouble considering them Muslims. (Really the only reason they decided to become Twelvers was because none of the religious authorities in Syria could be persuaded that the Awalites were Muslim.)

 

[JohannaK]

The Middle East is more stable than it should be, apparently.

 

[Traitorfish]

Fascinating discussion, guys!