Why did Arabic succeed in Egypt and Andalus but fail to take over Iran?Why did Latin take over France but not Britain?Why did Germanic take over Britain and southern Germany but not Northern France?Why die Hungarian succeed despite the demographic imbalance but Bulgar failed?
>>18343325There's several factors for a language to succeed over others, among which are:1. Having an stable settled population 2. Religious or social incentives for locals to learn a language3. Proximity to trade and culture from the homeland4. Population density in relation to the ruling class
>>18343370But all of my examples involve fairly similar situations with quite different results, what's missing?
>>18343325Can’t speak for Iran but in Britain there was a large scale migration of Saxons into the east which then settled it and brought Anglo-Saxon. The Franks were more a warband, and FYI, their language did become Dutch. Parts of which were in or near Roman “Gaul”. British Latin was only spoke in the urban centres, as it was the poorest and furthest away province so not many settlers came. When the empire collapsed, these cities slowly became abandoned as the dwellers went to the Celtic speaking countryside.
>>18343478Why were Slavs able to flood the Balkans but the Germans were not able to flood Northern France or North Italy?
>>18343446Egyptians had no martial culture and so never achieved anything resembling "respect me!"Berbers were doing pretty good for a while. Honestly, the Banu Hilal (which were abetted by the Zirids, i.e. other Berbers) and the French fucked them over harder than Arabs did.Iran would have flipped Arabic as well, and modern Farsi is a pidgin language anyway. But they had a weird ethno-nationalist phase in the 11th century (yes, 11th century) wherein flipping Arabic became rendered impossible, as every Turk ruler thereafter was obliged to speak Khorasani/Persian.
>>18343544The Balkans were almost completely depopulated during the Hunnic invasions and the Justinian Plague
>>18343557>Egyptians had no martial culture and so never achieved anything resembling "respect me!"They survived Hellenization though>Iran would have flipped Arabic as well, and modern Farsi is a pidgin language anyway. But they had a weird ethno-nationalist phase in the 11th century (yes, 11th century) wherein flipping Arabic became rendered impossible, as every Turk ruler thereafter was obliged to speak Khorasani/Persian.But Berbers had the Berber revolt too though>>18343611Western Europe was depopulated too
>>18343370It's density, it's always density. Iran has density. It can do things.His is nonsenstient, it doesn't realize density.
>>18343370Its all about favoring one and heavily punishing the others.
>>18343478I still find it funny there was a wikipedia war recently because some troon in the UK didnt accept Dutch to be related to Frankish at all and declared that actually Frankish wasnt a real language and that the Franks spoke German
>>18344644Gaul wasnt nearly as depopulated that the Balkans became. Justinian's plague eliminated the Romance speaking urban centers and the small amount of rural Greeks couldnt repopulate much of the peninsula
>>18344644>But Berbers had the Berber revolt too thoughThat was centuries BEFORE the Zirid "betrayal" and the Banu Hilal, which Arabized the rural areas of Tunisia, Libya, and Eastern Algeria (previously, only the coastal cities were "Arabized").The Berbers COULD have maintained a lot more linguistic independence, but this is when that became more difficult. Also in the 11th century.>Egyptians survived HellenizationTrue and applause-worthy, I suppose. Doesn't change what I said; Coptic became useless outside of liturgy at a certain point, which = death.
Arabic never succeeded in Andalus. The reason Arabic and Latin shifts occurred is because of how close they were to the local languages. Arabic is already close to Aramaic and Coptic. Latin is close to the other Celtic languages since they're both part of the Italo-Celtic family
>>18344709Arabic did succeed that's why modern Spanish has so little Arabic influence. It made the eviction of Arabized Iberians incredibly easy and thus little influence
>>18344827>Voy a comer ALMEJAS fritas en ACEITE en mi ALCOBA mientras que cuento las ALHAJAS que compré en el ZOCOArabic words seem to be pretty common in Spanish. They're definitely more common than words of Visigothic, Celtic, or Nahuatl/Quechua origin.
>>18343325Iran broke off pretty early from Arab rule starting with the intermezzo period, and after the decline of the Abassids, it was no longer apart of any Arabic speaking state. Meanwhile everything from Morocco to Iraq had an Arab dynasty or significant portions of Arabs living in it.
>>18343325>Why did Arabic succeed in Egypt and Andalus but fail to take over Iran?Babu Hilal mass migration killed the rural areas where copts and berbers were stil dominan. The new masters imposed arabic in the villages>Why did Latin take over France but not Britain?It did take both. But unlike Gaul Britain was scarsely populates and thus the Saxoniggers either killed the Roman britons, or forced them to escape in the continent>Why did Germanic take over Britain and southern Germany but not Northern FranceSee the Britain point. Gaul was simply too big and crowned, so the new germanic rulers gradually adopted the local tounge>Why die Hungarian succeed despite the demographic imbalance but Bulgar failed?Bulgars ruled as an elite over a mass of slavoid peasants. Hungarians killed or forced everyone else to flee Pannonia. By the time the started mixing with surrounded people they were already became settled farmers
>>18343325Hungarian is most fascination, because it is an Uralic language but Hungarians went through pretty much a total demographic shift compared to other Uralic speakers. A lot of Estonians and Finns are still genetically related to their far-eastern ancestors, but in Hungary almost nobody is.
>>18343325>Why did Germanic take over Britain1. Britain was never as Romanised as other provinces2. Germanics were recruited as mercenaries by Britons to defends against Irish pirates, which is how they came to take over Britain in the first place3. Britons had a convenient neighbour to flee to in Gaul, hence the creation of Brittany as a distinct entity
>>18344709Arabic was succeeding in Andalus, certainly by the time of Granada EVERYONE spoke Arab in there.>>18344836In actual common speech the words are not that frequent actually, it's like 1-2% of any word you will find.>>18344699>>18344926But the Banu Hilal don't see to have had a big genetic impact in the region and even prior to them everything we see happening in Andalus and Sicily seem to be toward Arabization, not survival of local tongues.>>18344930>It did take both. But unlike Gaul Britain was scarsely populates and thus the Saxoniggers either killed the Roman britons, or forced them to escape in the continentExcept the people that escaped formed the Breton people, there doesn't really seem to be that many Romance speakers. Latin influence on Old English is fairly weak which seems strange if there were many Latin speakers in the East.>Hungarians killed or forced everyone else to flee Pannonia.Genetics strongly disproves this.>>18345042>1. Britain was never as Romanised as other provincesGermanics take over even the limes which had strong Roman presence, but by 600 CE the modern Romance-Germanic border was alreadly roughly established outside a few places.
>>18343478>The Franks were more a warbandWe still see a large scale population replacement in north eastern gaul. The rhineland is like 70-80% germanic ancestry, during antiquity it would've been almost entirely celtic, and even in northeern france, germanic ancestry can easily reach 30%.
>>18345501>genetic impactIrrelevant, no offense.>everything we see happening in Andalus and Sicily These two cases were both very different, so I don't understand your meaning. In al-Andalus, Andalusi-Romance was still largely spoken prior to the Almohads, wherein it was overtaken by Andalusi-Arabic (because the Almohads expelled many).In Sicily, meanwhile, the Arabic-speaking ghazis were speaking a language that could unite them, as they came from all over the Mediterranean (volunteer holy warriors from Spain, NA, Egypt...) and Greek and Latin were still spoken in other parts of the island. Latin itself was still spoken in some parts the Maghreb in the 11th and 12th centuries.Anyway, Arabization prior to the Banu Hilal (in NA) was mostly elite-driven and within the intellectual circles, and by no means inevitable.
>>18345501>Except the people that escaped formed the Breton people, there doesn't really seem to be that many Romance speakers. Bretons escaped in an area quite still Celtic. Roman britons likely did something similar and escaped in the romanized Gaul, where they quickly assimilatedRegarding hungarians, they are now genetically the same of their neighboroods after over 1000 years of mixed unions. In the IX Century Pannonia only the eurasiatic magyars remained
>>18343325The real answer is all of these languages were invented in the 19th century.
>>18345516>Irrelevant, no offense.How is it irrelevant? Why would the Banu Hilal be otherwise impactful if they were a low population band of marauders?>In al-Andalus, Andalusi-Romance was still largely spoken prior to the Almohads, wherein it was overtaken by Andalusi-Arabic (because the Almohads expelled many).But Romance was going to die, if the only people speaking Romance are Christians and Christians are only going to decline(as seen in every Muslim controlled region ever) then Arab dominance is clear.That didn't happen in Iran.>Anyway, Arabization prior to the Banu Hilal (in NA) was mostly elite-driven and within the intellectual circles, and by no means inevitable.Ok but then why did it happen? Why wasn't Khorasan Arabized with all its Arabs that were settled there and intermingled with local>>18345602>Bretons escaped in an area quite still Celtic.I've never seen evidence of that being the case, in fact we see Romance remnants in West Britain in the 8th century even. No shot that region spoke mostly Celtic.>they are now genetically the same of their neighboroods after over 1000 years of mixed unions.That's not how genetics work, Hungarians couldn't have possibly gone from being anything more to 5% Uralic to 1% or less like today, it would imply 80% replacement by non Hungarians since the 10th century which is absurd.
>>18345838>Ok but then why did it happen? Why wasn't Khorasan Arabized?Because the culture changed to one conscious of protecting "its" identity/language. I already mentioned so here.>>18343557I could explain further, but the Abbasids tanked Arabic's local popularity is the simple explanation.Genetics are irrelevant in linguistics post universal religions like Christianity and Islam. Before = yes, after = no.People (in medieval Islam, especially) adopt claims of lineage that are not at all based in fact. Like the Zirids I've been mentioning who, despite being Berbers, invented an Arabic genealogy.The Banu Hilal are impactful because they exerted dominance over rural areas, i.e. they made Arabic an irreversible process - both urban and rural were now leaning Arabic over Berber.I suppose you're correct that there's always a "push" for Arabic in Islam. I'm simply stating that this was not an inevitable conclusion and was brought about by specific instances. Islam does not necessarily always lead to Arabic, although authorities in medieval Islam certainly seemed receptive to this. The conclusion is that Arabic became "fashionable" in NA post 11th century (though Abd al-Mu'min flirted with Berber liturgy).
>>18343478>>18344663Frankish was in a stage of development sometimes called "Proto-West Germanic" and evolved into both Old Dutch in the north and the western dialects of Old High German in the east, since it was capable of undergoing the High German consonant shift.
>>18346286South Asia is full of 100% South Asian Syeeds with not a drop of Arab blood proudly claiming descend from Mohammad.
>>18345838>That's not how genetics work, Hungarians couldn't have possibly gone from being anything more to 5% Uralic to 1% or less like today, it would imply 80% replacement by non Hungarians since the 10th century which is absurd.No. It simply means the surrounding Central Europeans were much more numerous, meaning their genetics gradually took over among Magyars centuries after centuries
>>18345838>Ok but then why did it happen? Why wasn't Khorasan Arabized with all its Arabs that were settled there and intermingled with localBecause they were mostly urban and the cities got nuked by turks later in the timeline. After that the area was slowly repopulated by both Turks and neighborood iranics.The iranic area also successfully managed to ressurect Persian as a Prestige/bureucratic language, starting with the Saffarid.Berbers instead failed to promote any of their languages on a equal ground with arabic. So they remained considered barbaric tounges for rural retards
>>18343325>Why did Germanic take over Britain and southern Germany but not Northern France?It did though
>>18345838>Ok but then why did it happen? Why wasn't Khorasan Arabized with all its Arabs that were settled there and intermingled with localBecause Berbers, Egyptians, Levantines... spoke Afro-Asiatic languages which made it much easier for them to learn Arabic. Whereas Persians spoke a completely different language family (Indo-European) so Arabic never stuck there despite being a holy language.That's also why Turks, Indians, Indonesians, etc. never became arabized despite being Muslims. Only Afro-Asiatic peoples were able to adopt Arabic as their mother tongue.
>>18347177Outside the Fertile Crescent, by 600 CE those languages have been split for about 6000 years, no shot their speakers would have had a easier time learning Arabic
>>18347177>>18347701Aside the linguistic.similarities, people from Morocco to Syria simply lacked a strong established administrative languages. They used Roman or Greek, with their written local languages only used for religious reasons.So the language of power soon became arabic, and anyone wishing to climb the social rank had to learn it, and no reasons to still use aramaic and such which use was limited in Christian ChurchesPersians were spared from this fate because it had a long established history as the prestige language of Iran, and it was quickly recovered as a official language by the first islamic persian powers, stopping the use of arabic outside strictly religious matters
>>18347784>people from Morocco to Syria simply lacked a strong established administrative languages. They used Roman or Greek, with their written local languages only used for religious reasons.This explanation fails because the middle east was not Hellenize or Iranized despite almost a millennium of Iranic and Greeco-Roman rule.
>>18347821Romans and Greeks promoted and used the local languages for administrative reasons: muslims instead imposed arabic on pretty much all fields, before Persian alone arose as a co-language because even the early iranic muslims dynasties still wanted to LARP as the Sasanids.There were no pratical uses for written languages that werent Arabic outside church litturgy
>>18347834>Romans and Greeks promoted and used the local languages for administrative reasons: muslims instead imposed arabic on pretty much all fieldsIs this really true?Arabs segregated at the start and didn't seem to want mass conversion to happen.Which is not unlike what Greeks did with their polis building.Dunno it seems something is missing
Both Franks and Arabs adopted the language of their subjects - Latin and Persian for their (local) administration - as they kept it staffed with Romans and Persians while they set themselves up as military overlords.Ummayads stopped this after a while as they were major Arabizers, but by then their grip on the eastern Persephonic provinces had lessened and the language remained in use there long enough for a widespread Persian renaissance under the Turks. Western Franks, as we know, became wholly Romance-speaking themselves.
>>18347929So it would have been "trivial" to impose Germanic in Northern France is the Franks wanted it?
>>18345514I think the Franks had a different, more positive view of their Gallo-Roman subjects than the Anglo-Saxons did their of their Romano-British ones. Widukind of Corvey described in the 10th century how continental Saxons thought themselves to be superior to other people - even their Frankish overlords - and that they guarded their identity fiercely. If we allow ourselves to draw this mentality back to their 5th century forebears settling Britain, it might offer a cultural explanation as to why Franks became Romance (and Roman Catholic) while Anglosaxons not only germanized swathes of Britain but even reintroduced paganism.
>>18347934No, and I think this partly informed the Franks' decision to keep the Gallo-Roman administration and legal system intact. I can't recall reading about any (internal) Gallo-Roman resistance to Frankish rule while Bede mentioned that the Britons did protest against their Anglo-Saxon rulers from time to time.
>>18348013I don't think that makes any sense though, what resistance was there to Arabs in the Levant and Iraq?Plus Germanic laws openly discriminate against the outgroup and Romans
>>18343325>Arabic succeed in Egypt and Andalus but fail to take over Iranever heared of semitic people?
>>18348037\thread
>>18345610deep
>>18348040This is propaganda>>18348037There was no Semitic presence in 700 CE Iberia
>>18344644>They survived Hellenization thoughGreek rule over Egypt was explicitly a caste system where only the most elite of native Egyptian society was allowed in to the same circles as Greeks. Also they maintained their own elite under the Ptolemies who continued to use their own language without interruption. The same under the Romans, although their elite was thoroughly Romanised under them and became part of their system. Arabic rule crushed local elites, imported Arabic tribes to carve out the country as the new ruling local elite, the local language was completely expelled from the administration both local and for the state being replaced by Arabic. This is a process that came with conversion to Islam as well which greatly encouraged becoming Arab and speaking Arab. It took over 700 years until Egypt was majority Muslim and Arabic speaking.
>>18348037this
>>18348093>This is a process that came with conversion to Islam as well which greatly encouraged becoming Arab and speaking Arab. It took over 700 years until Egypt was majority Muslim and Arabic speaking.Wrong, Coptic was extinct by 1200 CE(either fully or very close to fully) and was likely majority muslim by around 1000-1100 CE>Greek rule over Egypt was explicitly a caste system where only the most elite of native Egyptian society was allowed in to the same circles as Greeks.But Arabs were segregated too and that seen as a reason why arabization worked.>Arabic rule crushed local elites, imported Arabic tribes to carve out the country as the new ruling local elite, the local language was completely expelled from the administration both local and for the state being replaced by Arabic.Is that really true?
>>18343325Iranians have always been elitists who think they're too good for the ME. They got surprise attacked by the region they least suspected of turning into a powerhouse, so they had the religion forced on them, but they refused everything else. I'd say they still cling to their irrelevant culture, but it looks like they desperately want to turn into Middle Eastern America.I remember going in an Iranian family's house for some work and finding The Bell Curve on their bookshelf. Wild people.
