Why are there no nomads in Europe?

Posted on February 23rd, 2008 in Development, Federalism, History, Immigration, Politics, Transgressions of non-State Actors by Will

Agricultural states which, in the Medieval or Early Modern eras, fended off or emerged from nomadic invasions, had to develop large land holdings, centralized bureaucracies, efficient large-scale taxation, and huge armies– eg, the Russians, the Ottomans, the Mamelukes, and (this part I’m not as sure about) the Qings and Mogus. Even when they’re not fending off invasions, states generally hate nomads within their borders, and try to settle them so they can be taxed. In return, the nomads raid commerce and push peasants off the land, inhibiting industrialization and forcing the militarization of overland commerce.And nomads are ubiquitous. In the early modern period, Anatolia has Kurds and Turkomen, the Ukraine has Cossacks and Tatars, North Africa has various Arab and Berber groups, Arabia has Bedouin, Iran has Qashqai, Central Asia seems to have nothing BUT nomads, and presumably China and maybe India have their own groups.

But there’s one big exception: Europe, which didn’t have nomads, aside from arguably the Gypsies/Romani, who anyway don’t seem to have played much of a role in Western Europe. This seems pretty important for the development of European feudalism (apologies to Dr. Moye), states, empires, commerce, and industrialization. So why didn’t Europe have nomads? Is it geographic?

Share This

I’ve never liked Eliot Spitzer…

Posted on November 14th, 2007 in Federalism, Immigration, Politics by Will

…but this is just ridiculous. He dropped his drivers-licences-for-illegal-immigrants plan today, saying:

“I’ve concluded that New York state cannot conduct this program on its own…It does not take a stethoscope to hear the pulse of New Yorkers on this topic.”

Most governors, realizing their constituents were against them, would back down. But not Eliot Spitzer. No, he went to Capitol Hill, hoping to get Congress to impose something like this on the whole country–not much hope for federalism in the US when a governor, in order to defy his own constituents, asks Congress to overstep its authority. This is a clever way for Spitzer to avoid paying the political price for his position, while still posturing for the Hispanic vote and the unions. But I’d expect nothing less from Eliot “180 on the LSAT” Spitzer, who, as Attorney General, brilliantly usurped legislative power to cast himself as a defender of consumers. Now he’s abusing his position as governor, asking the feds to usurp state power in order to cast himself as a defender of immigrants. I’m sure he hopes he can ride this issue into the Senate, just like he rode his sketchy lawsuits into the State Executive Mansion.

Share This