Symbiosis is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “a close, prolonged association … of mutual benefit or dependence.”   In this case, there is no question that nomads forged symbiotic bonds with settled communities, primarily through trade.  Since their lands in the central Asian steppes were arid and mostly impossible to cultivate, they depended upon established communities for agricultural goods and other necessary products.  Furthermore, “because of their mobility and familiarity with large regions of central Asia” nomadic peoples were the logical choice to guide the traveling trade caravans across the areas that “linked settled societies from China to the Mediterranean basin.”

Whether through trade or migrations, the nomadic communities traveled a great deal, picking up disparate ideas and viewpoints and taking them to new places.  They functioned as the human equivalent of  bees, fostering the “cross-pollination of cultures and ideas”  among incongruent societies.  The Abbasid Turkish peoples’ conversion to Islam circa tenth century C.E. is illustrative of this phenomenon.  Their continual migrations into agricultural societies allowed the spread of Islam to many new places, including Anatolia and northern India.  Thus, “the boundaries of the Islamic world expanded along with the political and military influence of the Turkish peoples.”

Later, the unified states ruled by nomadic tribes established a “political foundation for sharply increased trade and communication between peoples of different societies and cultural regions.”   Chinggis Khan’s thirteenth century Mongol Empire, an “enormous, well-administered and reasonably stable” realm, was indicative of the “Mongol tradition to protect the long-distance trade routes and encourage merchants of all faiths and nations to use them.”   With well-established and safe trade routes, ideas and people could flow more easily from one area to another, which “forged closer links than ever before between Eurasian lands.”

Of course, simply sharing ideas was not always the way that nomadic peoples chose to encourage the proliferation of their viewpoints.  Though some settled people were no doubt converted due to actual religious teachings, many others responded to considerable pressure from their conquerors.  After 11th century Turkish leader Mahmud of Ghazni, “a zealous foe of Buddhism and Hinduism,” conquered northern India, converts to Islam were welcomed with a myriad of economic, political, and social advantages.   In case they remained unconvinced, Ghaznavids raided temples, shrines, and monasteries of the undesirable religions, killing those inside and demolishing the structures themselves.  Given this sort of “persuasion,” it is hardly surprising that by the fifteenth century Anatolia was primarily Islamic.

This side of nomadic-agricultural relations certainly does not seem to fit the dictionary’s definition of symbiosis—clearly the nomadic treatment of agro-urban societies was not always beneficial for the latter.  In fact, using verbs like “demolished,” “slaughtered” and “ravaged” to describe nomadic treatment of settled communities, historians like Bentley and Ziegler leave little doubt that their relations were primarily confrontational.   Especially after the first millennium,  various nomadic tribes embarked on huge campaigns of expansionary conquest, “over[running] settled societies and establish[ing] vast transregional empires from China to eastern Europe.”   While trade was still an important aspect of their relationship with the settled societies, “they made their influence felt”  most dramatically through their military conquests.

Nomads “toppled several post-classical states” including the Song Empire in China and the Abbasid realm in southwest Asia.  However, the most notable nomadic presence were the Mongols.  By the fourteenth century, they had conquered a myriad of governments across Eurasia, and succeeded in building “the largest empire the world has ever seen, stretching form Korea and China in the east to Russia and Hungary in the west.”

The extraordinary abilities of the nomadic military forces allowed them to do so with ease.  Primarily due to their incomparable equestrian skills, nomadic tribes had cavalries that could outmaneuver and outrun any number of their slower enemies.  Organized into “vast confederations of peoples” subject to the leadership of a khan (“ruler”), they were a force to be reckoned with—and quickly realized as much.  They wrecked havoc on the lands they occupied, “throwing societies and economics into turmoil,”  killing resistant peoples, demolishing whole cities and destroying agricultural fields.  There is no doubt that their military campaigns were “exceedingly destructive.”   Of course, life under their rule could be worse.  The conquered peoples were basically treated as slaves, forcibly conscripted for any special skills they may have had, sent away, and made to work for the purpose of the Empire.  In Persia “overexploitation of the peasantry” led to a near collapse of Khubilai Khan, one of the Mongol rulers.

Perhaps the final blow in the nomadic-agricultural relationship was the advent of 14th century bubonic plague.  It was nomadic empires that “made it possible for diseases to spread rapidly over long distances,” killing large portions of the population, causing huge labor shortfalls, and generally leading to societal chaos.

Both through peaceful symbiotic trade relationships as well as destructive confrontation, the interactions between nomadic and agro-urban peoples powerfully shaped the development of each, as well as the course of history.  With their considerable military prowess, the nomadic peoples were able to exert their willpower on settled communities, altering beliefs, customs, and societal structures.  At the same time, the symbiotic trade relationship between the two was more equitable, engaging disparate peoples in communication and trade for their mutual benefit.  In the end, , the implications of the nomadic-agricultural interactions were momentous both economically and culturally, charting a course for the evolution of new social, political and religious identities throughout the world.