U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-14-2010, 08:55 PM
 
354 posts, read 823,413 times
Reputation: 307

Advertisements

Historically the world population increased very slowly mainly because so many children died before they reached adult hood. I have read that back in the Middle Ages if a woman had 5 kids on average only 2 of them would survive to adulthood. Even today the replacement rate in much of Africa is over 3 children per woman (TFR). I know that I would have died a couple of times as a child if it wasn't for modern medicine. Also it was much more common for women to die in child birth.

Most ancient invaders either wiped out the native populations (England) or replaced them with their own or they conquered and were slowly absorbed into the local population (France). Today France is more Celtic (native) then German (invaders). The exception is the Arabs, Turks and Vikings who did neither but still replaced the native populations.

All 3 of those cultures kept harems. My theory is that this is what allowed those 3 cultures to have such a huge generic impact even though they were greatly outnumbered by the native people they conquered. Basically they were able to marry, kidnap or buy native women but native men could not do the same to their women. This helped slow the native population growth while greatly accelerating their population growth. What do you think?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-14-2010, 09:09 PM
 
15,919 posts, read 19,436,265 times
Reputation: 7680
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddmhughes View Post
Historically the world population increased very slowly mainly because so many children died before they reached adult hood. I have read that back in the Middle Ages if a woman had 5 kids on average only 2 of them would survive to adulthood. Even today the replacement rate in much of Africa is over 3 children per woman (TFR). I know that I would have died a couple of times as a child if it wasn't for modern medicine. Also it was much more common for women to die in child birth.

Most ancient invaders either wiped out the native populations (England) or replaced them with their own or they conquered and were slowly absorbed into the local population (France). Today France is more Celtic (native) then German (invaders). The exception is the Arabs, Turks and Vikings who did neither but still replaced the native populations.

All 3 of those cultures kept harems. My theory is that this is what allowed those 3 cultures to have such a huge generic impact even though they were greatly outnumbered by the native people they conquered. Basically they were able to marry, kidnap or buy native women but native men could not do the same to their women. This helped slow the native population growth while greatly accelerating their population growth. What do you think?
This is interesting, the Vikings had harems? Can you post the references to these cultures and their harems please?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2010, 09:17 PM
 
354 posts, read 823,413 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
This is interesting, the Vikings had harems? Can you post the references to these cultures and their harems please?
Harems may be a poor choice of words for the Vikings female sex slaves. The population of Iceland is mostly descended from Viking men and Celtic women.

I have read information about this from many different sources I'm sure I couldn't find them all nor do I care too. So I will not be posting my sources since this not a term paper that I am writing.....Care too list your sources that these cultures didn't have harems?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2010, 12:41 AM
 
Location: Earth
17,443 posts, read 27,230,707 times
Reputation: 7452
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddmhughes View Post
Most ancient invaders either wiped out the native populations (England)
The Britons weren't wiped out, they were pushed to Wales and Cornwall. And I suspect the Anglo-Saxons didn't wipe out the Briton females.

Quote:
or replaced them with their own or they conquered and were slowly absorbed into the local population (France). Today France is more Celtic (native) then German (invaders). The exception is the Arabs, Turks and Vikings who did neither but still replaced the native populations.
I suspect many Turks are descended from Greeks who converted to Islam.

You forgot to mention another group who had female sex slaves - the Comanche. (Not technically "harems" because they were completely unaware of SE Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, but they had sex slaves all the same). Yet they weren't able to wipe out the Kiowas, Arapahos, and Apaches in the Comancheria, or totally displace those peoples.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2010, 03:27 AM
 
Location: Peterborough, England
472 posts, read 888,628 times
Reputation: 416
#Did the Arabs actually displace the native populations of the regions they conquered?

Many of those peoples certainly adopted the the Arabic language, as those conquered by the Romans adopted the Latin language (in the west anyway), but no one suggests that the latter were displaced in favour of Roman settlers. Most weren't
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2010, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
3,827 posts, read 3,230,542 times
Reputation: 3688
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddmhughes View Post
Historically the world population increased very slowly mainly because so many children died before they reached adult hood. I have read that back in the Middle Ages if a woman had 5 kids on average only 2 of them would survive to adulthood. Even today the replacement rate in much of Africa is over 3 children per woman (TFR). I know that I would have died a couple of times as a child if it wasn't for modern medicine. Also it was much more common for women to die in child birth.

Most ancient invaders either wiped out the native populations (England) or replaced them with their own or they conquered and were slowly absorbed into the local population (France). Today France is more Celtic (native) then German (invaders). The exception is the Arabs, Turks and Vikings who did neither but still replaced the native populations.

All 3 of those cultures kept harems. My theory is that this is what allowed those 3 cultures to have such a huge generic impact even though they were greatly outnumbered by the native people they conquered. Basically they were able to marry, kidnap or buy native women but native men could not do the same to their women. This helped slow the native population growth while greatly accelerating their population growth. What do you think?

Most familes had many children also because they died in combat as soldiers for their rulers.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2010, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Orange County, CA
3,726 posts, read 5,941,232 times
Reputation: 4248
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
You forgot to mention another group who had female sex slaves - the Comanche. (Not technically "harems" because they were completely unaware of SE Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, but they had sex slaves all the same). Yet they weren't able to wipe out the Kiowas, Arapahos, and Apaches in the Comancheria, or totally displace those peoples.
This practice was not unique to the Comanche, all of the Western tribes raped their female captives, and kept them in bondage. On occasion they would marry and be assimilated into the tribe. The Comanche and Kiowa became allies around 1790, and in 1840 made a truce with the Southern Cheyenne and Southern Arapaho, while remaining at war with the various Apache bands until the end of the frontier years.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2010, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
5,057 posts, read 5,119,483 times
Reputation: 5462
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddmhughes View Post
The exception is the Arabs, Turks and Vikings who did neither but still replaced the native populations.
Vikings didn't absorb the native populations in the East, but were absurbed by themselves. Russia was founded by the Vikings, but the small number of Vikings (relative to the population of the lands) assimilated into the general population within a few centuries.

I think this has more to do with the size of the invading army and their cultural values vs the size of native land population.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2010, 04:45 PM
 
354 posts, read 823,413 times
Reputation: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikestone8 View Post
#Did the Arabs actually displace the native populations of the regions they conquered?

Many of those peoples certainly adopted the the Arabic language, as those conquered by the Romans adopted the Latin language (in the west anyway), but no one suggests that the latter were displaced in favour of Roman settlers. Most weren't
I'm not sure how much of the middle East is descended from Arabs and how much of it is from people that adopted Arab culture. But the original people of North Africa are Berbers and they are now a small minority in most North African countrys. This is a huge area.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2010, 07:44 PM
 
15,919 posts, read 19,436,265 times
Reputation: 7680
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddmhughes View Post
Harems may be a poor choice of words for the Vikings female sex slaves. The population of Iceland is mostly descended from Viking men and Celtic women.

I have read information about this from many different sources I'm sure I couldn't find them all nor do I care too. So I will not be posting my sources since this not a term paper that I am writing.....Care too list your sources that these cultures didn't have harems?
Touchy touchy chill out, I was asking an honest question, not starting a flame war.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top