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 22nd, 2017, 02:08 PM   #1
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 546
How were Arabia, South India and North Africa able to resist the Indo Europeans


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
Theseus is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 23rd, 2017, 07:37 AM   #2
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 546

The difficult terrain could be a reason why IE language did not spread to Arabia but North Africa and South India were literally neighbours of IE speaking regions so there must be other reasons like culture or military
Theseus is offline  
Old October 23rd, 2017, 08:03 AM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,039

I don't know. Possibly There are three different reasons for the three different areas.

And I would suggest that possibly those three regions might have resisted the invasions by Indo European speaking hordes that you imagine because those invasions didn't happen in those regions. People need reasons of some sort to decide to invade some place. On the other hand nobody needs a reason to not make the decision to invade some place. If the spread of Indo European languages was caused by invasions by Indo European speakers then that was a massive series of invasions. And maybe those who believe in those hypothetical prehistoric invasions should be more impressed by the scale of them than wonder why they weren't even more widespread.
MAGolding is offline  
Old October 23rd, 2017, 08:06 AM   #4

Visigoth Panzer's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: U.S.A.
Posts: 337

India was probably just too big, they concentrated their dominance in the north. The middle east at the time was dominated by the Mesopotamian states and Egypt, which prevented the Indo-Europeans from expanding (their are several tribes which may have been IE that invaded the middle east in the ancient period) into Arabia and North Africa. Persia was conquered because much of it was undeveloped, except Elam, which was mostly in the south.
Visigoth Panzer is offline  
Old October 23rd, 2017, 10:15 AM   #5
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 546

Quote:
Originally Posted by Visigoth Panzer View Post
India was probably just too big, they concentrated their dominance in the north. The middle east at the time was dominated by the Mesopotamian states and Egypt, which prevented the Indo-Europeans from expanding (their are several tribes which may have been IE that invaded the middle east in the ancient period) into Arabia and North Africa. Persia was conquered because much of it was undeveloped, except Elam, which was mostly in the south.
Egypt was probably too powerful for the IE people but India was certainly not too big considering the fact that the IE people reached Sri Lanka which lies further south than South India. And the region of modern Saudi Arabia was not more developed than Persia during ancient period.

Last edited by Theseus; October 23rd, 2017 at 11:32 AM.
Theseus is offline  
Old October 23rd, 2017, 10:56 AM   #6
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: Yorkshire
Posts: 969

If you examine such migrations (and that is a probably teh more appropriate word than invasion) they are nearly all across the same latitude.

The reason is simple. The animals, crops and technology of the immigrant is appropriate to that latitude and less so further north or south.
peccavi is offline  
Old October 23rd, 2017, 11:08 AM   #7
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 546

Quote:
Originally Posted by peccavi View Post
If you examine such migrations (and that is a probably teh more appropriate word than invasion) they are nearly all across the same latitude.

The reason is simple. The animals, crops and technology of the immigrant is appropriate to that latitude and less so further north or south.
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
Theseus is offline  
Old October 23rd, 2017, 11:23 AM   #8
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Northern part of European lowland
Posts: 2,216

What if the main way those IE languages spread was not by massive invasion, or at least not by great conquests?
What should convince us those "conquests" was the reason and not other events and processes?
Spread of skills and trade or barter and religious practises and technologies are othef possibillities.
That does not neccesarily imply absence of violence but only it may have been ( I guess so) had other elements.
Fantasus is online now  
Old October 23rd, 2017, 11:51 AM   #9
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 546

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasus View Post
What if the main way those IE languages spread was not by massive invasion, or at least not by great conquests?
What should convince us those "conquests" was the reason and not other events and processes?
Spread of skills and trade or barter and religious practises and technologies are othef possibillities.
That does not neccesarily imply absence of violence but only it may have been ( I guess so) had other elements.
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
Theseus is offline  
Old October 24th, 2017, 01:26 AM   #10

Naima's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: Venice
Posts: 2,017

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
Some did .
Hicksos conquered Egypt if not wrong .
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.