Tanukhid, Lakhmid, and Ghassanid unification

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I'm curious as to why these three tribes, all Arab, and at roughly the same time, were all similarly Christian, were never able to unite either as one force.

It seems to me that it was likely down to Roman and Persian interference on the part of the Lakhmids and Ghassanids, but the Tanukhids less so.

Could the Tanukhids have been able to play a role in creating a Christian Arab confederacy stretching across northern Arabia? If so, where would it be centered? Around Al-Hira - threatening the Persians, near the border with the Romans? Or would it be nomadic until such time at it could claim a city ruled historically by the Ghassanids or Lakhmids? (Say somewhere in the Hedjaz, or the Persian Gulf)

Is there anyone on the forums with a solid grasp on the Arab clients at this time?
 
Beside the fact Ghassanids being a Roman-influenced Kingdom and the Lakhmids a Persian-influenced Kingdom, the Ghassanids were Chalcedonian Catholic, both the Tanukhids and the Lakhmids were Nestorian. So unification along religions lines, while likely plausible for the latter two were possible (and even then wasn't since the Lakhmids broke with the Tanukhids for some reason), was not possible with the Ghassanids.

Long story short, it's a really complex set of issues that kept these three apart for as long as they did.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Ah, I didn't realise the Ghassanids with Chalcedonian. That does throw a spanner in the works. - Even if the Nestorians and Chalcedonians were both Dyophysite.

Would this entirely stop clan marriages? I was hoping for an interesting scenario where the Tanukhids marry the heirs of the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids in turn, so that one man is the heir to all three clans, and has the clout to win any dispute.

Would you see that as entirely impossible?
 
Were there any pan-Arab confederations of tribes pre-Muhammed? Also, both the Romans and the Persians would have a very vested interested in keeping the Peninsula and its inhabitants disunited, which is a pretty significant hurdle to overcome, given the power disparities involved there.
 
As much as the Romans and Persians might have an interest in the disunity of Arabia, at least the Romans would have trouble projecting power too deep into the interior. Hence why they made Arab federates.

Your best bet for a unified Arab force of Christians is if the Romans and Persians are exhausted and the Ghassanids and Lakhmids are out of the picture. Of course Christianity would catch on best (like wildfire, really) among the majority of Arabs if we made some tweaks - and perhaps retooled it to focus on the social issues impacting Arabia, not Roman Palestine. Gave it a strong unifying urge and stressed the equality of all believers.

Wait, does this sound familiar?

Otherwise you'll have a hard time overcoming the two devils of tribalism and competing powers that have way more resources and view your peninsula as their playground.
 
Beside the fact Ghassanids being a Roman-influenced Kingdom and the Lakhmids a Persian-influenced Kingdom, the Ghassanids were Chalcedonian Catholic, both the Tanukhids and the Lakhmids were Nestorian. So unification along religions lines, while likely plausible for the latter two were possible (and even then wasn't since the Lakhmids broke with the Tanukhids for some reason), was not possible with the Ghassanids.

I'm pretty sure that the Ghassanids were Monophysite anti-Chalcedonians. Happy to be proved wrong though.
 
I'm pretty sure that the Ghassanids were Monophysite anti-Chalcedonians. Happy to be proved wrong though.

That is my understanding as well.
Also, some secondary sources claim that the Lakhmids were Miaphysites too, although I am not equally sure of that. Being Nestorians would be a better fit being in the Persian sphere.
 
Top