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

Michael Cook on Muhammad

Posted on December 22nd, 2007 in Middle East, Philosophy and Religion, Transgressions of non-State Actors by Will

This discussion with Michael Cook has some good arguments. Among the most interesting quotes:

“I would see Constantine as a necessary precondition for Muhammad.”

“There is a significant difference between the obligations involved in aggressive and defensive jihad. In offensive jihad, provided somebody is doing it, nobody else has to bother. By contrast, with defensive jihad, anybody in the area that’s being attacked by the unbelievers — any adult male has a duty, prima facie, of participating in that jihad.”

[I think the implications of this or the War on Terror are pretty obvious.]

“Now, it’s not just that moderate, wishy-washy liberal Christians in this country don’t believe they ought to hate their parents; even the Christian fundamentalists don’t think they should hate their parents, and yet Jesus said it. I’m sure they have ways of getting off the hook in the same way Muslims can find all sorts of ways of getting off their hooks. The fact it’s there in scripture doesn’t have much predictive value — maybe none at all. So much comes down to the context in which people are doing things with scripture.”

“[Fundamentalism is] not just being pious or zealous, or for that matter fanatical; it’s specifically that you want to go back to the roots of your tradition. There are plenty of people who don’t want to go back to the roots of their tradition; they want the tradition as it came down to them. Hindus are typically like that. Fundamentalism is when you want to go back.”

[Among the more minor issues this raises: does this mean the KJV-Only movement isn’t fundamentalist…just conservative?]

Share This