WW Chapter 11: Pastoral Peoples on the Global Stage

Genghis Khan and Three of His Four Sons by Rashid al-Din

From: Jamí al Tawarikh (History of the World)

(Source: https://arth27501sp2017.courses.bucknell.edu/mongols/Jamí al Tawarikh)

Chapter 11: Pastoral Peoples on the Global Stage
1200 C.E. -1500 C.E.

Peaceful Nomadic Shepherds?  Maybe not so much...

Admittedly, my original definition of pastoral peoples was limited to nomadic communities, tribes losely organized around kinships or ancestral groups that moved their herds from one spot to another as seasons and conditions allowed.  Just how did this group of Mongols end up defeating most of the known empires in the world at the time and expanding their empire from Persia through China without any history of administering permanent settlements?  Part of the answer seems to lie within the mobility of the nomads, but their leader, Chinggis Khan, was the catalyst that led to the creation of the empire in a very short time -- within the lifespan of Khan.  He unified the Mongol tribes in a "Game of Thrones" style move of convenient loyalties, betrayals and stunning victories.  Once unified under Khan's military leadership, they were a force to be reckoned with. 

Used to being on the move, they were skilled horsemen and archers.  They supplemented their economy through light trade, raiding and extortion.  The were feared by many small societies, who paid tribute to them in goods, services and sometimes slaves.  When it served their purposes, they often sacked a city, and absorbed their culture.  The growing successes of the Mongol's military might emboldened his troops, and within less than a century they had conquered Asia, Russia and much of Islamic empire.

Mongols 1 China 0

China was a prize of wealth and resources for the Mongols, although it took them about 70 years to conquer it.  They blended into Chinese culture well and began to extract as much wealth from the country as possible by utilizing China's administrative methods and practices.  Such a campaign is often short lived, and this was no exception, lasting only about 100 years.  After the country was fractured and the plague eliminated a large portion of the poulation, the Mongols left China and went back to the steppes.

Mongols 1 Persia 0 

Khan and the rest of the infidels invaded the Persian empire twice in the span of about 60 years.  Victory there was swift and brutal, with 200,000 Persians murdered.  The Mongol way of nomadic herding didn't die easily, so along with the mongols came the grazing herds.  This wiped out a good deal of arable land.  Again, the Mongols made use of the administrative practices of the host country and utilized their technology.  Ultimately the Mongol dynasty colapsed here as well for lack of an heir to the rule.  Rather than leaving though, they assimilated into Persian society.

Mongols 1 Russia 0

The Russian empire was fractured by the time the Mongols got there, with various territories fighting for dominance.  The Mongols handily took over city after city and depleted human resources as well as technology.  Since Russia wasn't walled off or protected, the Mongols never occupied it the way they did Persia and China, instead opting to rule remotely from the their homeland in the steppes.  Since they never ruled directly, the influence of the Russian civilization was minimal on the Mongols.  Finally infighting among the Mongols and the plague ended their rule, and Moscow - strengthened by Mongol rule because they were the primary collector of tribute payments - became a central force in expelling them from the empire.

Winners and Losers

If history is written by the victors, then why wouldn't Chinggis Khan and the Mongols be hailed as a great empire instead of a murderous horde?  I think this answer lies in the fact that the Mongols had little in the way of a written language so civilizations that were conquered were more inclined to write their own history - from the viewpoint of the losers, and cast Chinggis and his friends as a barbarian and bloodthirsty lot.  The answer might be somewhere in the middle - but the point I'm reflecting on here is the whether or not history is written by winners or loosers, it is written from the viewpoint of a historian and that individual's analysis or experience.  If history was written by the losers would it be more even handed?  I think not.  So it's important to keep an open mind and synthesize what information we can from the data available to apply to our analysis.