Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legitimate question, in the early days was this a large distinction? Specifically, my understanding was that the earliest raids where this distinction is most accurate, they didn't actually change the local societies much. Mostly were raids for resources and did not stay. That is, until the Islamic raids started, the indigenous groups took losses, but were not nearly as transformed. Is that not accurate?
Well, the distinction mattered. But because the distinction mattered, the modern labels aren't really accurate. Arabs were the highest-prestige ethnicity within their empire. But they were numerically insignificant. You have "Arabs" and "Copts" in Egypt today, but most of the "Arabs" are Copts whose ancestors decided they wanted more respect. Same thing is true farther west, where the "Arabs" are Berbers.
Re: Lost city discovered beneath Egypt's desert with ancient church
#211That isn't really addressing my question, I don't think? The assertion is that most of the Arab mixing into region came at the same time as the later invasions. Yes, they would have remained fewer in absolute numbers. But they weren't even there after the earlier raids.