Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 24th, 2017, 06:41 AM   #11
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Northern part of European lowland
Posts: 2,202

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
Unfortunately languages spread through invasions many times in the past. And a small elite was able to change the native language of the conquered regions.
North Africa was fully arabized after the Arab expansion. The Roman conquest of Western Europe led to the spread of the Roman script and Latin languages to the extent that some Western European languages have almost 50% Latin words. A small group of Central Asian warlords were able to transform Anatolia from Christian Greek to Muslim Turkish. Today China is a homogenous country because a small group of Han people were able to conquer whole China and impose their language upon the native people
You seems to be right about most of what You write about spread
of languages known from written sources.
That does not mean ir is the only possible way.
And there are as far as I know very little to support any idea
there were large scale conquests in Europe by "greay kings"
in those prehistoric times.
There could have been hundreds of "microconquests", but what reasons
do we have to prefer such a hypothesis over other possibillities?
Fantasus is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 24th, 2017, 10:04 AM   #12
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 833

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
No this does not make much sense as Sri Lanka has a very different latitude than Western European countries yet both are mostly IE speaking regions. On the other hand North Africa has a similar latitude to Iran yet North Africa is not IE but Iran is IE
This seems to me to be thinking about the issue in completely the wrong way. The arrival of Indo-European languages in, for example, Greece, is not connected in any way with the arrival of Indo-European languages in Sri Lanka. The two events are separated by more than a millenium (possibly much more); and the people carrying these languages were not 'Indo-Europeans', if by this we mean speakers of a common language with a shared culture. Both spoke languages believed to be descended from a common ancestor, but long, long before. They were not involved in some common invasion or population movement.

The question makes no more sense than asking why Austronesian languages are commonly spoken in Los Angeles and Antananarivo, but not in Seoul. It's entirely the wrong level of analysis.
Kaficek is offline  
Old October 24th, 2017, 10:27 AM   #13

Theodoric's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,228

The Indo Europeans did make inroads and conquests of North Africa multiple times:
First: the bronze age Hyksos, Hittites, and Sea Peoples.
Second: The Greeks and the Romans, who successfully conquered the region, from Egypt to Morocco, and converted it to Indo European.

I don't know the situation with India. Others could tell you better.

Arabia is an easier situation, the place was very difficult to invade, and I would guess that the Arabs were quite powerful on their own lands.
Theodoric is online now  
Old October 31st, 2017, 11:27 AM   #14
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 546

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaficek View Post
This seems to me to be thinking about the issue in completely the wrong way. The arrival of Indo-European languages in, for example, Greece, is not connected in any way with the arrival of Indo-European languages in Sri Lanka. The two events are separated by more than a millenium (possibly much more); and the people carrying these languages were not 'Indo-Europeans', if by this we mean speakers of a common language with a shared culture. Both spoke languages believed to be descended from a common ancestor, but long, long before. They were not involved in some common invasion or population movement.

The question makes no more sense than asking why Austronesian languages are commonly spoken in Los Angeles and Antananarivo, but not in Seoul. It's entirely the wrong level of analysis.
Nobody claimed that the different IE people were related to each other but it is still strange that IE languages did not reach regions which were much closer but instead spread to far distant lands.
And your analogy to the spread of languages in the modern world does not make much sense as it is well known why Austronesian languages are spoken in Los Angeles
Theseus is offline  
Old October 31st, 2017, 02:59 PM   #15

larkin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,626
Blog Entries: 6

I don't know, but could no water and a barren landscape have anything to do with it?
The Nile delta and the Tigris and Euphrates valley were population population centers but Arabia and most of North Africa wasn't even mapped until the early 20th century.
larkin is offline  
Old December 24th, 2017, 05:58 PM   #16
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: America
Posts: 132

• Arabia wasn't a very inhabitable place. It was mostly desert and sparsely populated. It's climate wasn't suitable for living and thus it was full of locally governed tribal nomadic societies. That's the reason why the Achaemenids, Romans, and other large empires never sought out to conquer Arabia. Furthermore, the Levant and Iraq hadn't become Indo-Europeanized. These were the frontier regions of Southwest Asia and they would have needed to get colonized first for the IE people to get into the interior of Southwest Asia. Ancient Levantines and Iraqis most likely resisted becoming IEs because they had their own far more advanced civilizations and were a power in their own right for most of history. North Africa and West Asia were conquered by Indo-Europeans in the past but the living conditions in North Africa weren't suitable enough for a full-scale colonization.

• North Africa wasn't Indo-Europeanized because the IEs had to colonize/get past West Asia first to get into North Africa, something that never happened. If West Asia got Indo-Europeanized, then there's a good chance that the same would have happened in North Africa.

• South India (India as a whole to a lesser extent) is a place full of forests, swamps, and some mountains & rivers. The main geographical feature that separates South India from North India are two main mountain ranges: the Vindhyas and Satapuras. It's actually an interesting feat that Maharashtra (and Goa) managed to get IE-ized considering that it is south of the above mentioned mountain ranges and thus geographically in South India. But as we all know, there are multiple factors involved in ethnolinguistic colonization. Besides geography, empires play a large role in spreading language and colonizing. I suspect that the Satavahanas and Western Kshatrapas had a major role to play in Maharashtra becoming IE. Also, India is a vast place with a huge population density. Even today, there are significant pockets of Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian-speakers in Central India and Eastern India.

Last edited by Dzmeka; December 24th, 2017 at 06:00 PM.
Dzmeka is offline  
Old December 24th, 2017, 09:19 PM   #17

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,423

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
The Indo Europeans conquered the major part of Europe, Persia, Central Asia and Northern parts of South Asia and were able to change the native languages to an Indo European language during the ancient period. But why did the Indo European languages not spread to Arabia, South India and North Africa despite of the close proximity
If we go to Indian history, we don't know any such attempt made to change the language of Southern kingdoms.
Devdas is online now  
Old December 24th, 2017, 09:24 PM   #18

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 3,423

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flesh View Post
Arabia wasn't a very inhabitable place. It was mostly desert and sparsely populated. It's climate wasn't suitable for living and thus it was full of locally governed tribal nomadic societies. That's the reason why the Achaemenids, Romans, and other large empires never sought out to conquer Arabia. Furthermore, the Levant and Iraq hadn't become Indo-Europeanized. These were the frontier regions of Southwest Asia and they would have needed to get colonized first for the IE people to get into the interior of Southwest Asia. Ancient Levantines and Iraqis most likely resisted becoming IEs because they had their own far more advanced civilizations and were a power in their own right for most of history. North Africa and West Asia were conquered by Indo-Europeans in the past but the living conditions in North Africa weren't suitable enough for a full-scale colonization.

North Africa wasn't Indo-Europeanized because the IEs had to colonize/get past West Asia first to get into North Africa, something that never happened. If West Asia got Indo-Europeanized, then there's a good chance that the same would have happened in North Africa.

South India (India as a whole to a lesser extent) is a place full of forests, swamps, and some mountains & rivers. The main geographical feature that separates South India from North India are two main mountain ranges: the Vindhyas and Satapuras. It's actually an interesting feat that Maharashtra (and Goa) managed to get IE-ized considering that it is south of the above mentioned mountain ranges and thus geographically in South India. But as we all know, there are multiple factors involved in ethnolinguistic colonization. Besides geography, empires play a large role in spreading language and colonizing. I suspect that the Satavahanas and Western Kshatrapas had a major role to play in Maharashtra becoming IE. Also, India is a vast place with a huge population density. Even today, there are significant pockets of Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian-speakers in Central India and Eastern India.
Satavahana and Andhra are synonym of each other. Telugu people also refer themselves as Andhra that's why their state is referred as Andhra Pradesh aka Land of the Andhras/Telugus.

Vindya ranges is not a linguistic division but rather a division of Indo-Gangetic plains and Deccan plateau, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Maharashtra, Goa all are IE speaking.
Devdas is online now  
Old December 24th, 2017, 10:27 PM   #19
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: America
Posts: 132

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devdas View Post
Satavahana and Andhra are synonym of each other. Telugu people also refer themselves as Andhra that's why their state is referred as Andhra Pradesh aka Land of the Andhras/Telugus.
Okay. I thought it was an Indo-Aryan state. My bad. So what do you think was mostly responsible for the IE-ization of Maharashtra?

Quote:
Vindya ranges is not a linguistic division but rather a division of Indo-Gangetic plains and Deccan plateau, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Maharashtra, Goa all are IE speaking.
It's a physical barrier still. Physical barriers limit linguistic contact. I mentioned the Vindhyas as the region that differentiates North India from South India. It isn't an impenetrable barrier, but still a barrier. I think if it weren't there, then North Indians would have an easier time travelling down south. And more land could have become IE-ized, I don't know for sure though.
Dzmeka is offline  
Old December 25th, 2017, 12:29 AM   #20

Naima's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Venice
Posts: 2,016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
The Indo Europeans conquered the major part of Europe, Persia, Central Asia and Northern parts of South Asia and were able to change the native languages to an Indo European language during the ancient period. But why did the Indo European languages not spread to Arabia, South India and North Africa despite of the close proximity
The reason for not invading North Africa was Egypt , if not wrong Hittite had a constant clash with them and Hycksos conquered Egypt , enstablished a dinasty and founded a new capital in Avaris ... Then where expelled , but further west the tribes were more primitive and uninteresting for conquest, as for Arabia it was just a big desert. The crescent fertile was instead conquered by Mitanni , Hurartians etc.
Naima is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
africa, arabia, europeans, india, indo, north, resist, south



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did South India have martial traditions on par with North? Eifandil Asian History 102 January 6th, 2017 01:18 AM
Satyaputras:The earliest Indo Aryanizers of south India? Vajra Asian History 44 April 12th, 2016 06:36 AM
Why did the Muslim empires in North Africa not go deep south across the contient greatstreetwarrior Middle Eastern and African History 87 February 5th, 2015 03:41 PM
How far south along the Atlantic coastline in North Africa did the Romans occupy jrbartlett Ancient History 3 April 18th, 2013 12:45 AM
why didn't eastern europeans resist soviet occupation after WW2 irishcrusader95 European History 152 January 24th, 2013 04:22 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.