Kingdoms and Dynasties

[Levin]

This is either really complicated or really simple but I'm currently reading quite a short history of arabic speaking people since the beginning of Islam.

Dynasties replace each other every now and again but it got me wondering why are these bodies just known by the ruling dynasty? The only European example that came to mind was the Hapsburgs and even they managed to parley that into being Austro-Hungary by the end of their rule.

Am I wrong in knee-jerk thinking that this is Orientalism? From the brief descriptions in the book, changes of dynasty in the Maghrib, Andalus and Mashriq seem pretty similar to changes in ruling family in England and France. There may be more claims of continuity in europe than between dynasties in the middle east but essentially one ruling family replaces another.

I'm sure this has been written and thought about before so can anyone point me in the right direction?

[Ginger Yellow]

Dynasties replace each other every now and again but it got me wondering why are these bodies just known by the ruling dynasty? The only European example that came to mind was the Hapsburgs and even they managed to parley that into being Austro-Hungary by the end of their rule.

Tudor England? Victorians/Edwardians?

[Antepli Ejderha]

Which book are you reading? I'm sorry but I can't enlighten you but I'm now curious.

[Central Rain]

It's fairly common for the early medieval period in Europe, when the lands ruled over by various dynasties don't generally correspond to modern nation-states and the exact lands held could differ from one ruler to the next, e.g. the Merovingians, Carolingians, Ottonians etc.

[Levin]

Tudor England? Victorians/Edwardians?

Oh yeah, the Tudors come close don't they? But they are still kings (and queens) of England and the people are still English. The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates ruled over essentially the same lands in essentially the same way with essentially the same administrators but are written about as separate things.

I am willing to concede that it might be a matter of scale, or rather perspective, that a history of England would focus on dynasties in the same way. It might also be to do with the lack of country names (that seems silly to write down), or just differences in kingship. But then France changed massively over a few hundred years and lots of the people ruled by the king of france weren't french.

Oh. But France wasn't always called France was it? It started off as West Francia.

I'm just making myself less sure of anything.

AE. It's "A History of the Arab Peoples" by Albert Hourani. I'm only halfway through so my opinion might change but at the moment it's doing pretty well considering that it's covering 1500 years of history from the Atlantic to the borders of Iran in 500 pages or so. It's mostly cultural rather than who did what (which is what I wanted), but by it's nature everything is a summary.

And for all that it's a history of arabic speaking people since the beginning of Islam he's had to contort himself a little to talk about the ottomans. I think it's to its credit that I've wanted to find lots of books on more specific areas mentioned in this one.

[Levin]

It's fairly common for the early medieval period in Europe, when the lands ruled over by various dynasties don't generally correspond to modern nation-states and the exact lands held could differ from one ruler to the next, e.g. the Merovingians, Carolingians, Ottonians etc.

Yeah, I think I might have not thought it through as thoroughly as I could have.

[Satchmo Distel]

The English, and later British, state tended to prefer House, starting with Wessex and going through to Windsor. I don't think there was a difference in meaning. See House of York v Lancaster. It's more that England/UK is the exception than the use being Orientalist.

[Central Rain]

I suspect this is less a case of orientalism and more to do with a long-standing tendency to write the history of Europe as a history of nation-states. This has led, amongst other things, to numerous attempts to locate the origins of France and Germany in periods when those terms had no political meaning. West Francia is not 'France' and East Francia is not 'Germany' - there are few places at that point in history where names of countries are any more than geographical expressions. Most political realities were determined by whoever happened to hold power at any particular time.

[Central Rain]

Incidentally, Chris Wickham's 'The Inheritance of Rome' is a brilliant book on the period 400-1000. Mostly on Europe but does cover the Caliphates and Byzantium as well.

[Etienne]

I'd recommend Frankopan's The Silk Road (basically to anyone interested in history but especially up until the 19th Century)

[Diable Rouge]

Mediaeval Ireland is full of such territories - Desmond, in what is now West Munster, was a de facto independent earldom, and though the family name was Fitzgerald, they were generally referred to as the Earls of Desmond, similarly with Ormond in South Leinster. Even more strictly adhering to your criteria, the O'Neill territory in Ulster encompassed Tyrone, Derry and Fermanagh.

[Levin]

I suspect this is less a case of orientalism and more to do with a long-standing tendency to write the history of Europe as a history of nation-states. This has led, amongst other things, to numerous attempts to locate the origins of France and Germany in periods when those terms had no political meaning. West Francia is not 'France' and East Francia is not 'Germany' - there are few places at that point in history where names of countries are any more than geographical expressions. Most political realities were determined by whoever happened to hold power at any particular time.

Yes! That's it. That's what was chafing.

Edit: Well I think it's the kernel of it. There is more in my head about national identity and individuals identifying as particular nationalities as well, but I don't know how to articulate it.

And thank you for those recommendations, they've both gone on to my to buy list.

[ChrisJ]

I'd recommend Frankopan's The Silk Road (basically to anyone interested in history but especially up until the 19th Century)

Seconded. And similarly, Dalrymple on the late-period Mughals.

[Lang Spoon]

Neal Ascherson's Black Sea isn't about dynasties (or even a history per se), but its long diversions into Scythia, the Kingdom of the Bosphorus, the Russian and Ottoman Empires, Polish/Lithuanian Commonwealth, Karaites and Sarmatians: they are absolutely wonderful. Learned insight about the region's last 2,500 years in an easy, beautiful style.

Even above the Indian stuff, Dalrymple's From the Holy Mountain, about Christianity in the Middle East, is amazing. Like Black Sea, it's a "travelogue"/history I can read over and over.

[Lang Spoon]

Incidentally, Chris Wickham's 'The Inheritance of Rome' is a brilliant book on the period 400-1000. Mostly on Europe but does cover the Caliphates and Byzantium as well.

Seconded.

[San Bernardhinault]

Second (or third) on Ascherson, Dalrymple and Frankopan (in that order, if I needed to order them)

[Antepli Ejderha]

Second (or third) on Ascherson, Dalrymple and Frankopan (in that order, if I needed to order them)

Fourthed then on the first two, The Silk Road is on my summer reading list as is the Hourani which Levin is reading.

Did anyone watch the BBC Four documentary on The Silk Road? I thought it was really well made and has made more curious about Iran in particular.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Mediaeval Ireland is full of such territories - Desmond, in what is now West Munster, was a de facto independent earldom, and though the family name was Fitzgerald, they were generally referred to as the Earls of Desmond, similarly with Ormond in South Leinster. Even more strictly adhering to your criteria, the O'Neill territory in Ulster encompassed Tyrone, Derry and Fermanagh.

Ormond means north Munster, Desmond means south munster. Desmond Lynam means South Munster, the Leinsterman.

[ChrisJ]

Fourthed then on the first two, The Silk Road is on my summer reading list as is the Hourani which Levin is reading.

Did anyone watch the BBC Four documentary on The Silk Road? I thought it was really well made and has made more curious about Iran in particular.

Yes. I enjoyed it a lot, but I sometimes felt slightly frustrated by the fact that he had such a huge topic to cover in a relatively short time, so I was often left wanting more. Probably a good thing if it encourages further reading.

The Hourani is on my wish list. Interested to know what the final verdict is.

Back on dynasties, I read a great history of the Ottomans a while back - so good, I can't remember who by or what it was about. I don't think it was Lords of the Horizons which just popped up when I did a quick search - but is that any good?

[Lang Spoon]

Think I read that long long ago. I finished it at least, a good sign, even if I can't remember much about it (jannisaries were mostly Balkan youth tribute, who carried little spades for sapping. And invented cigarettes). So at least it's good for useless memorable trivia.

[San Bernardhinault]

I feel like Lords of the Horizons was a bit rompy and shallow. Perfectly good fun, but not necessarily the most learned history.

[Gangster Octopus]

Did anyone watch the BBC Four documentary on The Silk Road?

The music wasn't anything like as good as the Japanese one from about a quarter-of-a-century ago...

[ursus arctos]

Which is on You Tube

[ChrisJ]

Which is on You Tube

I got some interesting results googling the silk road. On my work laptop. One doesn't think so clearly on a Friday night, I find.

[Lang Spoon]

Psst! know a geezer in Crawley can shift as much Brown as you can get your hands on, it's a sweet deal, nothing can go wrong.