Tribe and state in arabia
Bookmark this page

• Complexity and fragmentation northern Arabia contrasts south. Dynasty with tribes split land between lineages who take whole agrarian crop and state controlled monopoly, levy taxes and require them to perform military service and corvee (work on roads or irrigation systems).
• Monarchy and nobility – nobility provided law enforcement, and troops to central monarchy. Class of administrators in nobility groups. Wee given responsibility of looking after agrarian sector in forms of irrigation maintenance – safeguarding agric. Productivity.
• Notion of the state in Southern Arabia – shown that even weak King could rely on sense of duty in extraordinary circumstances. Settled tribes administered by the state, economic and political life – applied laws and military resources normally sufficient to keep nomadic groups under control. Inscriptions show nomadic groups dependent on kingdoms and performing military service – Southern Arabian tribal groups firmly under control of the state.
• Subsistence level economy and undifferentiated society in nomadic and sedentary groups in region forestalled classes of: political, military and administrative specialists – enforcement, taxes – building blocks of state – none of which n and c had.
• Absence concept of law, justice or regulations – strength of social support and insurance of ability to retaliate what really mattered.
• Lex talionis thought of as law – restoration tribal honour and social power – no concept higher authority or judge, arbitrators used to end blood-feud –also optional
• Tribe as autonomous unit this politics essentially a question on intertribal relations.
• Tribal confederations like state – independent – and competing for political control. Fought states on periphery – yes muster large better-equipped forces, but didn’t have mobility and knowledge of desert that warrior nomad groups had. States on periphery found it impossible to direct state control over northern and Central Arabia – Sasanid, Byzantium and Southern Arabia.
• Relied primarily on policies on alliance 0 directly with tribal confederations or with dynasties of nobles, which dominate confederacies in same manner as religious aristocracy.
• Himyarites Southern Arabia – formed alliances as equals with warrior tribes – tribes not under rule of Himyarites.
• Byzantinium alliances with tribes on Syrian border – first Salih and then Banu Ghassan in 502 – provide mobile auxiliary force, even internal disturbances (Samaritan rebellion 529) also keep nomadic groups near Byzantine empire control. Preventing nomadic raids such a those on Palestine in AD 500. Served as tribal police
• Grand impression handed out beatings – but Ghjassids perceived as a threat to Romans – phylarchs, patrician title and one taken to C and pronounced King. Given subsidies as well.
• Used subsidies and weapons to create own allies and increase military power.
• Sasanians made direct alliances with sedentary dynasties of noble status. – nucleus of power which made these tribes more prominent that others.
• B Hanoifa and Julandas but little is known
• Gave a lot of subsidy and weapons to Lakhmid dynasty on fringes of Iraqi alluvium. Support for them one of main factors shaping political life of northern Arabia through 6^th century – not nomadic but supported nomadic groups force of arms and tribal diplomacy.
• Tribes near Sasanian capital sedentary and lacking mobility easy tax targets – yes shepherding tribes more difficult but had to come back every year for permanent watering places. Were utilised as warrior however.
• Camel herders not so easy: great mobility, lying outside al-Hira’s forces, great fighting ability. Many totally independent of Lakhmid control and tax – were a threat when they attacked Sasanian towns etc or plundered and imposed own tax on settlements within Sasanian domain.
• Important for Lakhmids to get other tribes on board: hostage taking, alliances, posts at court, land.
• Sasaninas, through Lakhmid vassal “Kings” network of alliances with tribes in northern and north-eastern Arabia – means of keeping tribes under control – stop them plundering or taxing settled districts in the Iraqi Alluvium – or attacking Caravan routes.
• Ad 611 confusion in wake o Sasanian invasion of of Syria and Palestine – raids that penetrated Jerusalem’s walls. Major powers tried to use confeds as way of extending domination. Raiding was usually one off as no point exerting tax as states would recuperate
• Dual political struggle: warrior nomad groups and sedentary nomad groups and between great powers and confederations of tribal groups. When states strong used to dominate nomads and prevent disruption by careful patterns of tribal alliance – when internal disturbance nomads often went into states and raided big-time. Stalemate as no power ever controlled Arbia and no nomadic group could never conquer and hold great states of the periphery – lack of organisational power.
• Rise of Islam – struggle between tribe and state would be resolved in favour of the state. State successfully brought all of Arabia, nomadic and sedentary people alike under its control – fact that state was sprung from sacred enclave within central Arabia itself was a development no contemporary observer could have foreseen.

Other Notes in this Category

1. A tribal society
2. Abu Bakr and Ridda wars
3. Causes of Islamic Conquest
4. Conclusions
5. Economics and Social Relations
6. Foundations of the islamic conquest
7. Introductory Points
8. muhammad’s consolidation
9. Muhammad’s Teachings
10. Political life in northern and central arabia
11. Religious Aristocracies
12. State and society in pre-islamic arabia
13. The early islamic world – patricia crone
14. The New Ruling Elite
15. The State and the Nomads
16. Tribe and state in arabia

Didn't find this useful?

• Visit Coursework.Info for over 14,000 GCSE, A-Level and University Essays