Christian nomads

[Admiral Brown]

This is a broad generalization and is probably wrong, but, the way I see it, Christianity hasn't been very succesfull in converting horse-riding nomads.

Christiany had a head start in North Africa and the Middle East, but, although some Berbers and some Arabs had become Christians before the VII century, the truth is that the vast majority of the population of the Sahara and the non-sedentary population of the Arabian peninsula were Pagans, not Christians (a few Arabs clans were Jews, IIRC).

Christianity had also a head start in Central Asia, but, although some groups converted to Nestorianisms, there weren't massive conversions, and, eventually, most of them become Muslims,...or (later) Budhists.

Finaly, despite the might of Constantinople and the atraction it exerted, nomads in what's now Ukraine or the Russians stepps rarely converted to Christianity. Some did, but only after they had settled in the Balkans, like the Bulgars (their relatives in the Volga bassin converted to Islam) or in Hungary (the Magyars).

Is there a reason why Christianity succeded more with sedentary societies like pre-islamic Egypt than with nomads like the Berbers? If so, why did it happened, and how could that have been changed???

[Jord839]

I would personally guess it's because Christianity was pretty focused on a heirarchy already in place. You were expected to follow the guidance of the priests and such, who were mainly among settlements. Islam and Buddhism on the other hand, allow for such positions but those positions are not nearly as necessary for worship.

Of course, I could just be pulling answers out of my ass here.

[Admiral Brown]

Originally Posted by Jord839

I would personally guess it's because Christianity was pretty focused on a heirarchy already in place. You were expected to follow the guidance of the priests and such, who were mainly among settlements. Islam and Buddhism on the other hand, allow for such positions but those positions are not nearly as necessary for worship.

Of course, I could just be pulling answers out of my ass here.

This could be a reason. However, the lack of a settled central hierarchy didn't prevent Ireland from becoming Christian, nor it prevented the Goths from converting prior to their entrance in the Roman empire.

In Ireland, however, the Catholic Church adopted some uniques ways, such as the absences of fixed diocesis (IIRC) or something of the sort. In the case of the Goths, they adopted Arryanism, not Catholicism.

Those two can just be the expentions that confirm the rule. And, in any case, in both cases the distances involved weren't comparable to the ones Nomads in North Africa, Arabia or Central Asia traveled on a daily basis.

EDIT: I'm not sayinf the Irish were nomads, let alone horse riding nomads. I'm just saying they lacked a central authority.

[LordKalvan]

I would say that Islam is a more stark and simple religion under many aspects, and that it does not require the same amount of parafernalia which are required by Christianity (or by Hebraism, btw). Nor does it require a religious hierarchy.

Simplicity and lack of palafernalia and hierarchy are also Buddhist traits.

The Goths and the Irish are not good examples, IMO: neither of them had an alternative, and the German invaders of the Roman empire would obviously be swept away by a superior civilization (and in any case, they needed the church structure to administer and tax the conquered territories). Arianism is just a fluke: the Goths were converted when an Arian emperor was reigning in Constantinople.

[Jord839]

"Didn't have any alternatives"? Maybe in the case of the goths, but the irish could just as easily have stayed pagan. No one, not even the irish themselves, had full control of Ireland until the dark ages. The romans certainly had no power at the time to force the Irish to convert. So clearly, Irish conversion was a matter of choice rather than the typical conversion by sword.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

[LordKalvan]

There was a significant Roman influence on the eastern Irish coast (mostly cultural and merchantile - they found typical Roman wares in Ireland, IIRC -; and I think there were also punitive raids, probably to eradicate piracy).
However, when I was talking of the lack of alternatives, I was referring to the fact that Irish never had any contact with Islam (and btw, it would be interesting to postulate that irish conversion to Christianity does not happen for whatever reason; and later - say 8th or even 9th century - Ireland becomes coverted to Islam).

The Goths really did not have alternatives if they wanted to keep their status as foederati.

A century later, the Franks found it profitable to convert, in order to profit of the existing church structure (and also to keep a better control on the Gallo-roman population).

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by Admiral Brown

This is a broad generalization and is probably wrong, but, the way I see it, Christianity hasn't been very succesfull in converting horse-riding nomads.

Christiany had a head start in North Africa and the Middle East, but, although some Berbers and some Arabs had become Christians before the VII century, the truth is that the vast majority of the population of the Sahara and the non-sedentary population of the Arabian peninsula were Pagans, not Christians (a few Arabs clans were Jews, IIRC).

Christianity had also a head start in Central Asia, but, although some groups converted to Nestorianisms, there weren't massive conversions, and, eventually, most of them become Muslims,...or (later) Budhists.

Finaly, despite the might of Constantinople and the atraction it exerted, nomads in what's now Ukraine or the Russians stepps rarely converted to Christianity. Some did, but only after they had settled in the Balkans, like the Bulgars (their relatives in the Volga bassin converted to Islam) or in Hungary (the Magyars).

Is there a reason why Christianity succeded more with sedentary societies like pre-islamic Egypt than with nomads like the Berbers? If so, why did it happened, and how could that have been changed???

There are many reasons.

- It's the poverty thing. Islam does not glorify poverty - at all. In fact, getting rich is considered morally commendable, because it allows you to contribute more to the community (Being miserly is seriously wretched and frowned upon though. If you're rich, you're expected to be generous).

- Also, Christianity was successful with nomads. For instance, the Assyrians (the modern ones) were largely nomadic (you could characterize them as "Christian Kurds"). The issue is largely geographic - it's not that Christianity failed with nomads where Islam succeeded, it just happens that Islam emerged and dominated the areas where there were nomads, and had a lot longer to penetrate those regions, i.e. the Berbers. North Africa was only Christian for a few centuries - Islam had over 1,000 years.

Because of powerful and romantic media imagery like Lawrence of Arabia, Islam seems to many people like a nomad religion. It's not. It's actually profoundly urban. Muhammad was a merchant prince, not a beduin.

- The predominant cultural/religous influence over Central Asia was Iran to the West and China to the East. Passing through the Iranian cultural sphere, nomads became Islamic. If Iran had been Christian, they would have become Christian. If Iran were for some reason not a magnificent civilization, then they would probably have run straight into the Byzantines and become Christian. In fact, the nomads that did pass far to the north of Iran often did become Christian - like the Bulgars and Avars.

I'm oversimplifying a little for the sake of brevity, but as a general rule it holds true.

[CanadianGoose]

Originally Posted by Abdul Hadi Pasha

- The predominant cultural/religous influence over Central Asia was Iran to the West and China to the East. Passing through the Iranian cultural sphere, nomads became Islamic. If Iran had been Christian, they would have become Christian. If Iran were for some reason not a magnificent civilization, then they would probably have run straight into the Byzantines and become Christian. In fact, the nomads that did pass far to the north of Iran often did become Christian - like the Bulgars and Avars.

Disagree. History of SE Europe is chock-full of nomads who kept nomadic lifestyle and didn't adopt Christianity (Pechenegs, Kumans, Torks, Karakalpaks, main body of Khazars), keeping paganism. However, once nomads showed inclination toward farming lifestyle, baptism followed shortly (Bulgars, Hungarians).

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by CanadianGoose

Disagree. History of SE Europe is chock-full of nomads who kept nomadic lifestyle and didn't adopt Christianity (Pechenegs, Kumans, Torks, Karakalpaks, main body of Khazars), keeping paganism. However, once nomads showed inclination toward farming lifestyle, baptism followed shortly (Bulgars, Hungarians).

The Pechenegs were quickly destroyed, the Cumans adopted Christianity or Islam depending on their geographical location, I don't know what a Tork is, the Karakalpaks were extremely Islamic - I assume you listed this by mistake - they are actually very important to the development of the Hanefite Madhab - and the Khazars emerged as a polity before the expansion of Islam and were with the Byzantines the original adversary of the Caliphate.

"Chock full" is an exaggeration. Almost all nomads became Christian or Muslim, and the ones that didn't were mostly the early arrivals, who emerged in areas that had not yet been Christianized or Islamized - and even all these eventually did or were absorbed into groups that did.

Even in the case of the Khazars, all the elements of the federation (like the Alans and Bulgars) became either Christian or Islamic.

In fact, the only nomads that I can think of that are an exception are the Kalmyks, who arrived really late in history, after thoroughly um... Buddhifying? I don't know if that's a word, but it should be.

Sedentarizing has nothing to do with it, although settling did tend to orthodoxify them. That's probably not a word either, but I like it.

[RGB]

He probably means "Cherniye Klubuki" by Qarakalpaks. They were settled on the south-eastern fringe of the Kievan state along with the Oghuz Torks. They were largely pagan even though they existed in an interdependent relationship with Rus, until the Qipchaks did them in.

[CanadianGoose]

Originally Posted by Abdul Hadi Pasha

The Pechenegs were quickly destroyed

They had their two centuries of fame but failed to adopt Christianity. Same about Cumans who for at least 3 centuries remained pagan between Christian Bulgaria and Rus.

Originally Posted by Abdul Hadi Pasha

In fact, the only nomads that I can think of that are an exception are the Kalmyks, who arrived really late in history, after thoroughly um... Buddhifying? I don't know if that's a word, but it should be.

There're several other nomadic ethnic groups in Siberia like these. Khakas, Buryats etc.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by CanadianGoose

There're several other nomadic ethnic groups in Siberia like these. Khakas, Buryats etc.

True, but there's not much impetus to convert to Islam in Siberia. The Kalmyks ended up in Europe, so being Buddhist is a little weird.

[rcduggan]

Originally Posted by CanadianGoose

They had their two centuries of fame but failed to adopt Christianity. Same about Cumans who for at least 3 centuries remained pagan between Christian Bulgaria and Rus.

However, after the Pechenegs were dispersed (they never formed a centralized state on par with the Khazars), there are reports of some remnants in the Caucasus converting to Christianity.

[yourworstnightmare]

The Alans were Christianized.

[freivolk]

Nomads are mostly very traditionell societys. The rules and traditions of the clan are more important then the individual person.
But Christianity always include, that your personal relation to God is more important then your loyaltie to your clan or tribe.
If you arranged a marriage to end a blood-feud you just can´t have the girl walk out of the deal to become a bride of Christ.
Islam on the other side is traditional society codefied and justified through God. Suits the Nomad much better.

[Hendryk]

Originally Posted by freivolk

But Christianity always include, that your personal relation to God is more important then your loyaltie to your clan or tribe.

That must be why the clan-based societies of Ireland and Scotland are proudly pagan to this day

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but if you're implying that Christianity and a clanic or tribal social structure are incompatible, think again.

BTW I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned how Nestorian Christianity survived for centuries among various nomadic cultures of central Asia, and made inroads even among the Mongols.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by freivolk

Nomads are mostly very traditionell societys. The rules and traditions of the clan are more important then the individual person.
But Christianity always include, that your personal relation to God is more important then your loyaltie to your clan or tribe.
If you arranged a marriage to end a blood-feud you just can´t have the girl walk out of the deal to become a bride of Christ.
Islam on the other side is traditional society codefied and justified through God. Suits the Nomad much better.

That is the opposite of true. Islam also includes a personal loyalty to God which is more important than any personal earthly loyalties, and it most certainly is NOT traditional society codified and justified through God. Islam was every bit as revolutionary in spirit as Christianity. That's why it quickly spread and created a gigantic universalist and egalitarian (for the times) empire.

You're also confusing "in spirit" with "in practice". Christians in medieval Europe for example didn't wander around pondering their personal relationship with God, they worried about pleasing their "traditional" feudal lords and wondering how they were going to pay their taxes to him.

Also, everyone needs to get over this Lawrence of Arabia notion of Islam as some beduin religion. The beduin have always been considered only nominally-Islamic hordes of ruffians. Islam is an urban religion, not a tribal one.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by Hendryk

That must be why the clan-based societies of Ireland and Scotland are proudly pagan to this day

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but if you're implying that Christianity and a clanic or tribal social structure are incompatible, think again.

BTW I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned how Nestorian Christianity survived for centuries among various nomadic cultures of central Asia, and made inroads even among the Mongols.

I did mention that the Assyrians were basically Christian Kurds - they were more or less interchangeable with them in shifting tribal alliances, etc.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the predominance of Islam among nomadic societies is purely a function of geographic circumstance. It's because Persia is Islamic and its cultural sphere, which generally included Turkestan, is smack dab on the migration path to Europe. Anyone who made it to Europe pagan would just be absorbed into sedentary states, since the terrain of Europe is overwhelmingly more favorable to cultivation than nomadism.

[Admiral Brown]

-------BUMP-------

[mrmandias]

The various forms of medieval and antique Christianity were adapted to settlement with their ritual, liturgy, focus on churches, and hierarchy, concept of priesthood.

Something like modern stripped down evangelical protestantism would work much better in the nomad context, but nothing like that was around.

Originally Posted by Admiral Brown

This is a broad generalization and is probably wrong, but, the way I see it, Christianity hasn't been very succesfull in converting horse-riding nomads.

Christiany had a head start in North Africa and the Middle East, but, although some Berbers and some Arabs had become Christians before the VII century, the truth is that the vast majority of the population of the Sahara and the non-sedentary population of the Arabian peninsula were Pagans, not Christians (a few Arabs clans were Jews, IIRC).

Christianity had also a head start in Central Asia, but, although some groups converted to Nestorianisms, there weren't massive conversions, and, eventually, most of them become Muslims,...or (later) Budhists.

Finaly, despite the might of Constantinople and the atraction it exerted, nomads in what's now Ukraine or the Russians stepps rarely converted to Christianity. Some did, but only after they had settled in the Balkans, like the Bulgars (their relatives in the Volga bassin converted to Islam) or in Hungary (the Magyars).

Is there a reason why Christianity succeded more with sedentary societies like pre-islamic Egypt than with nomads like the Berbers? If so, why did it happened, and how could that have been changed???