Nomadic Nationalism

by | Aug 9, 2023 | Articles

carolus press nomadic

Share this article

Author: Adam Koopmans

 

 

Why some nations can leave behind an architecture-less legacy

 

 

Preface: The term ‘’National Spirit’’ as is used in this text is purely used to indicate the cultural, intellectual and moral values that these nations had. This essay encourages traditionalism as a practical way of carrying on national culture by building on tried and tested methods. But I divorce the term from ideas like ’Volksgeist’’, Hegelian Dialectics, the Völkisch movement and Esoteric/Gnostic thought because I either consider it to be unchristian or because I’m not qualified enough to talk about teleological and mystic ideas without accidentally writing something heretical. Defining the concept of ethnos is something I wil attempt to do in the future in a different essay, which is why the exact definition for ‘’National Spirit’’ will not be elucidated here.

 

 

 

The point of this writing is to address and explore an interesting point raised by Letters from the Ruins on the nature of legacy and the way it can be cemented in history. His point, in short, states that America’s legacy, alongside the legacy of most modern Western countries, had essentially reached a precipice: Nothing that is built now is built to last, and all of it will fade away within a few decades; ‘’a static nation like America should be building for an extremely long timeframe’’. While I concur with the idea that the vast majority of the glass and concrete monstrosities that are built in our time will (hopefully) not be here in the centuries to come, I don’t think that proves that the national legacy of the country that builds them has died.

 

The more interesting point to this however is that while pondering this idea, I realized I could think of several nations whose architecture does not survive, or has left no impact on my perception of them, or has an architecture that wasn’t meant to last at all. The notion that both this is a fact, in the same way that Thomas’ point is a fact, does seem problematic at first. So this is where Oswald Spengler comes in.

 

In a position paper I wrote for a university course I concluded that while Spengler was a nationalist, and a proud one at that, he was not at all a Eurocentrist. Untergang des Abendlandes makes clear that every civilization on earth is entitled to a place on the world stage not subordinate to any other civilization. And each civilization is also capable of developing itself to be on an equal footing with others, both on the world stage and in the historical research that is allotted to these civilizations. [1]

 

I believe Spengler to be correct in his analysis. So why then are these different types of legacies possible? My opinion is that, in the same way, as there are many different types of nations, there are many different types of nationalism. And this nationalism should be judged on its own terms. This goes beyond the trifecta of cultural, political, and ethnic nationalism. In this case, I believe a distinction can be made between two types of people, that as Spengler states, should be judged by their own merits. These two nation types are those that are largely nomadic, and those that are largely ‘’rooted’’. Many examples of both can be given. And in both cases, it can be shown that these nations have had impactful legacies, as well as there being different reasons for why it happened.

 

The first example of an architecture-less nation that will be discussed here are, those that are probably most famous in Western culture, The Mongols.

 

The Mongols

 

Besides being arguably one of the most deadly military cultures that ever existed, conquering a significant portion of Eurasia on horseback, the Mongols have also left behind a large impact on our historical awareness, as well as on many other aspects of the world which have been course-determining for history:

 

‘’Today, if one superimposed a map of the Mongol Empire over a map of regions with religious majorities, it would match this division of the Mongol religious world.’’ [2]

 

The Shīʿite Nizari Isma’ilist order was all but annihilated by the Mongols, opening the path for different Shīʿite denominations, whose religious adherence has been dominant in the Islamic world ever since. It was also thanks to the Mongols that Tibetan Buddhism was able to establish theocratic rulership through the Dalai Lama, making Mongolia culturally Buddhist until the secularisation of Mongolia under the Communists in the 1930s. [3]

 

An argument can also be made that the Mongols were the first globalists, in the strict sense of the word. The Pax Mongolica allowed a massive exchange of information, technology, art, culture, and people [4]. This becomes visible in the journeys of figures like Marco Polo, or in the fact that today 1 in 200 are direct descendants of Genghis Khan himself [5]. Where here Mongols strengthened international contact, they diminished it in other areas. When the Muslims invaded Anatolia (Modern day Turkey) it caused a shift in Anatolian architecture from Seljuk to Ottoman due to severing the ties between Anatolia and Iran. This strengthened the links with the Byzantines, which is why modern Islamic architecture is still heavily inspired by the Eastern Romans [6]. So while the Mongols have left behind little architecture, or philosophy for that matter, their heritage is truly mythical in Shīʿite its remembrance. During its golden age, the Mongol Empire was equally as complex and influential as other empires.

 

The Zulu

 

For those who haven’t played Sid Meier’s: Civilizations, this tribe may be less well known. While not as grand in scale or influence as the previous nation, the Zulu have still proven to be a remarkably militaristic people, who perfectly fit the criteria of nationalists.

 

The Zulu nation solidified out of the nomadic Bantu tribes in the 1500s-1800s, slowly migrating into South Africa. Under the rule of Dingiswayo (1808-16) their tribal culture was essentially modernized: rival tribes were assimilated, commerce with Portugal was established, and the lives of its members became subservient to the military effort [7]. This mobilization paired with a large manpower and tactics and training reminiscent of the Spartans, made them the most competent fighters South Africa had produced thus far, in a very short time frame [8].

 

While not truly nomadic, given that they did have semi-permanent housing, the housing isn’t necessarily what cemented their legacy. The Kraals, which functioned as their homesteads, were little more than low huts made from wood placed around the Zulu’s cattle pen [9]. These buildings were far from luxurious, some might even say uncomfortable, and not built to last. But this was never what the Zulu were famous for. This fame, or infamy depending on whose  side you were on, came from their prowess in warfare.

 

One instance of this is the battle of Isandhlwana (January 22-23, 1879) during the Anglo-Zulu war. During this battle the Zulu impis (regiments) all but wiped out the British 24th regiment. This defeat was in large part due to the British underestimating the Zulu’s fighting capacity, particularly their ability to move large armies undetected [10]. Isandhlwana was a bloodbath for both sides, but this pyrrhic victory cemented the Zulu’s reputation as highly skilled killers in the British public eye. This reputation is one of many factors from which Zulu and South African nationalists take inspiration, alongside strong ties to the African Christian churches and the legacy of Shaka Zulu himself who is seen by these people as one of the first African nationalists [11]. Their national spirit exists, in large parts, independently from its architecture. Whether it is enough to establish actual nation-states remains to be seen. Its existence however can not be denied.

 

The British

 

In the same few days however, another battle from the Anglo-Zulu wars took place. The battle of Rorke’s Drift, as we shall see, shows how the British national spirit clashed with that of the Zulu. It can also be clearly seen how it differs, and why it eventually led to a British victory in this case.

 

The description shall be brief, as Britain’s architecture takes precedence in this article. What the British had at Rorke’s Drift that they lacked at Isandhlwana were three things. More discipline, good preparation and defenses, and respect for the Zulu’s fighting capacity. This was made manifest in actually spending time preparing intelligently designed fortifications around the mission station. On top of this, the rigorously drilled British infantrymen held their ground and formation for hours, mowing down wave after wave of Impi with almost mechanical repetition [12].

 

Victor Hansen attributes these factors that gave the victory to Britain, to elements that are essential to Britain’s culture, and by extension to its nationhood. An example of this is how Western discipline ‘’sought to distinguish moments of individual courage and obedience to leaders from a broader more institutionalized bravery that derives from the harmony of discipline, training, and egalitarian values among men and officers’’ [13]; the men of the Zulu were brave. The British army however was brave as well. And the bravery of one man can rarely take down a force that is both internally cohesive, as well as larger than the individual.

 

For both Britain and the Zulu, warfare was a cultural expression from which their national values can be distilled. But the British have a cultural expression whose importance, Letters from the Ruins, rightfully loves to elaborate on. Architecture. So why does it matter so much? Is warfare not enough to prove Britain’s excellence? Have the Mongols not created the largest empire from their relatively simple Ger’s? Perhaps if history took a different path with the Anglo horde crossing the Channel, and washing over Central Asian city-states using nothing but Longbows and English Thoroughbreds, then perhaps that is all that we would need to remember them by. But this is not the path we’ve been led down. In Britain, and most of Europe, architecture is still one of, if not the, oldest and most established sources of culture, history, and expression of values that there is.

 

Architecture can tell us many things about Britain: Greater National security can be indicated by a more ornamental, outward-facing design in the Tudor period. The increase in wealth of all social classes by the proliferation of stone rather than wooden residential houses [14]. Castles dominating the skyline as a powerful statement of man’s presence in the world, not to mention its cathedrals. Spires and steeples draw our gaze upwards towards the heavens. Weather vanes remind us of God’s presence in all directions. The domes and ceilings represent the vault of Heaven coming down to Earth The holy glow of translucent, alabaster windows casts light on the tales of the Bible [15].

 

Architecture tells us a lot about Britain’s virility, piety, wealth, and history, or at least how it strove to embody all this. Gazing upon this can lift man above himself for a moment and allow him to become part of, as it were, the legacy of his nation but also the legacy of mankind itself.

The USA

 

This brings us to the final nation that is to be discussed. The US is an interesting case if the distinction between architecture and the absence of architecture is made. Because America in a sense belongs in both categories. The Art-Deco skyscrapers of the Eastern Seaboard and Great Lakes, and the Federal style that is still visible in State Buildings throughout the US, immediately come to mind when picturing the states. What equally permeates this image is that of the evanescent log cabin on the American Frontier and the wagon trains on the Oregon Trail. The latter is almost nomadic in its own right.

 

Returning to this quaint rustic state, before the expansion into the American West was complete, may be naive. But it still signifies the rugged, wild, and free spirit that so many Americans identify with. Manifest Destiny and the romanticization of the Wild West which ultimately disappeared because of this expansion, create an unfortunate incongruity in the legacy of the US. Perhaps this is also why it cannot rely solely on architecture or the lack thereof to exemplify what the US is. What the balance between these two must be, I don’t know. I just know that the balance must be found to help resolve the multifaceted crisis of identity that the country currently finds itself in.

What was the point of this then?

 

Individual nations can leave different legacies. Because of this it is important to be aware of exactly what it is that carries a nation’s legacy and what doesn’t. While architecture is a valid way of carrying on this legacy, it is not the only way, and not even necessary in some cases as the Mongols and Zulu show. But it is precisely for this reason that in the case of European culture, and to some extent American culture, the architectural history needs to preserved and continue. The Historische Sensatie as historicus Johan Huizinga calls it [16], can bring the past to the present and hereby give the people that experience this sensation a stronger connection to this past and hopefully its future. In Britain, architecture has visibly fulfilled this role for hundreds of years, and this is precisely why the architectural tradition must be kept alive. The Nomadic tribes in large part rely on their oral history. The spoken word can also bring legacy, and the past to the present, and this is why it is a topic of study at the National University of Mongolia [17]. And this method of preserving their legacy suits them well. In the US, both aspects are important to understanding their heritage.

 

Looking beyond our own nations. history, to the legacy of these countries, can help us understand our own nation better. Knowing why a nation is how it is, or what it wants to be can be understood from what can be seen or heard in the nation itself and what cannot be seen in the nations in different parts of the world. For the architects of Britain and Europe however, it is clear that the buildings they create must be created intentionally. Because the continuation of their history is in large part carried by them. I believe that the quote I end this writing with exemplifies this notion best:

 

’For the serious architect the past exists not as a legacy to be possessed through a self-conscious act of the ‘modern’ will, but as an enduring fact, an ineliminable part of an extended present.’ – Roger Scruton [18].

 

 

 

Bibliography

[1] Adam Koopmans, Spengler: Voorbij Het Avondland: Nationalist maar geen Eurocentrist (2022).

[2] Timothy May, The Mongols (Leeds, 2019), 96.

[3] Ibidem.

[4] Idem, 97.

[5] Razib Khan, 1 in 200 Men are Direct Descendants of Genghis Khan (November 30, 2022). https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan (Accessed 21-5-2023).

[6] Ulku U. Bates. “The Impact of the Mongol Invasion on Turkish Architecture.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 9, no. 1 (1978): 23–32.

[7] Victor Davis Hansen, Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power (New York, 2001) 312.

[8] Ibid, 313-7.

[9] Donald R. Morris, The Washing of the Spears: A History of the Rise of the Zulu Nation under Shaka and Its Fall in the Zulu War of 1879 (London, 1966), 30-1.

[10] Hansen, 280-3

[11] Daphna Golan, Inventing Shaka: Using History in the Construction of Zulu Nationalism (Boulder, 1994), 5.

[12] Hansen, 282-99.

[13] Ibid, 325.

[14] Adrian Tinniswood, A History of British Architecture (29 March 2011). https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/architecture_01.shtml (Accessed 21-5-2023)

[15] Richard Stemp, The Secret Language of Churches & Cathedrals: Decoding the Sacred Symbolism of Christianity’s Holy Buildings (London, 2016), 25-6 and 34-5.

[16] Anton van der Lem, Huizinga en de historische sensatie (February 8, 2010). https://huizinga-online.nl/blog/huizinga-and-the-historical-sensation (Accessed 21-5-2023)

[17] University of Cambridge, Oral History of Twentieth Century Mongolia (July 2007). https://www.miasu.socanth.cam.ac.uk/projects/oral-history-twentieth-century-mongolia (Accessed 21-5-2023)

[18] Roger Scruton, The Aesthetics of Architecture (London, 1979), 16.

 

  • Bates, Ulku U., “The Impact of the Mongol Invasion on Turkish Architecture.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 9, no. 1 (1978): 23–32.
  • Golan, Daphna, Inventing Shaka: Using History in the Construction of Zulu Nationalism (Boulder, 1994).Scruton, Roger, The Aesthetics of Architecture (London, 1979).