The Mongols in Sources

The emergence of the Great Khaganate under Genghis Khan represents one of the fastest rises to power of any polity recorded in History. Genghis Khan would, in the span of a single lifetime, unite the disparate Turkic tribes which were defined as Mongols, and then proceed to conquer vast swathes of territory controlled by some of the premier world powers of the Medieval Era. To many modern readers, Genghis’ story of rags to riches would perhaps seem like a novelist’s fantasy if it hadn’t been so well recorded in the histories of so many cultures. This was a man who, along with his family, had been reduced to penury and cast out into the wilderness following the death of his father. And yet, he managed to rise to power, reclaiming authority not just within the political structures of the Tribal Culture of the nomadic Mongols, but redefined the system itself, forging a new nation where previously there had been none, and creating a military powerhouse that would reshape the political boundaries of Asia, and leave an indelible mark on the people it encountered. But the nature Mongol State was extremely different from the dominant political structures of Asia. The nomadic society of the Mongols, their military structure and approach to warfare, their general tolerance of a vast multitude of religious belief systems – all of these were in in rather stark contrast to the systems and institutions that existed in the major political powers of China, Central Asia and Europe. Be it the Jurchen, Song or Xi-Xia in China, the Khwarazm Shah or Abbasid Caliph in Central Asia, or the Papacy, Hungarian or Holy Roman Empire in Europe, they all seemed united in the shock that the Mongols as a people evoked in them. There is perhaps no better way to gauge the extent of the reactions the Mongols engendered in their encountered with the established empires of their era than through the literature of historians, geographers, biographers and travellers from the era. This essay will therefore essentially look at European and Islamic (i.e. Arabic and Persian) reactions to the rise of the Mongol Empire. It is important to note, before we begin with an analysis of the sources, the importance of the differences between the Mongols and the other sedentary cultures as described above. These differences were rather stark and therefore the cause of much abhorrence to most of the literate and educated classes of the sedentary empires of the time. As such, many of the sources which are contemporary to the Mongols tend to describe the Mongols in negative voices. Even sources written by those putatively seeking to convert them or exploit their power against the enemies of their domestic masters tend to describe the Mongols and the Mongolian society in highly critical, and often extremely condescending, language. This negative and critical tone is therefore something every historian must keep in mind when attempting to create a work on the Mongols, because the bias against the Mongols is demonstrable, and therefore there needs to be a critical reading of the source material to try and separate the motivated criticism from the legitimate conveyance of fact. This must be contrasted with the bias in favour of the Mongols that comes across from their singular historical source, which is the Secret History, as well as the records of Historians working under the patronage of the Mongol Empire or its subordinate and successor states such as the Ilkhanate. It therefore becomes difficult to locate a historically neutral opinion when we consult our source material. A modern historian must therefore do more than simply read the sources and contrast them. An understanding of their context and positioning becomes crucial Islamic Views The Mongols would appear too many authors, both Islamic and Christian, to be so ferocious and devastating that many would come to see them as evidence of a coming Apocalypse or as the representatives of the greatest evils in their society. It has been noted that the idea of the Mongols being a divine punishment of sorts is something Genghis himself favoured when he admonished the people of Bukhara by saying “O people, know that you have committed great sins, and that the great ones among you have committed these sins. If you ask me what proof I have for these words, I say it is because I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.” (Juvayni) Thus, authors such as Atâ-Malek Juvayni, who worked under the Mongols as administrators, would write of the Mongols with a level of despondency, while being forced to lace their accounts with the necessary flattery of their masters. Though historians have tended to see the works of Juvayni (Tārīkh-i Jahāngushāy) or Rashid-al-Din Hamadani (Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh) as servile, today historians such as E.G Browne and David Morgan have sought to rehabilitate these authors. As Browne notes, while discussing Juwayni - "compelled him to speak with civility of the barbarians whom it was his misfortune to served What we get from this historian is not criticism of the Mongols, but a sober and detailed account of what he quite evidently regards as a series of disasters, horrors that he clearly views with revulsion. He says of some areas that "every town and village has been several times subjected to massacre and has suffered this confusion for years, so that even though there be generation and increase until the Resurrection the population will not attain to a tenth part of what it was before.'' (Browne 1928, 473). As David Morgan would point out – whatever this is, it isn’t flattery. But not all authors needed to guard their words. Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani, author of the Tabaqat-i Nasiri, writing outside the political and administrative control of the Mongols would utilize the harshest language he could conceive off when describing the Mongols. Even while criticizing Muslim rulers such as the Shah of Khwarazm or attempting to convey an appreciation of the Khagan Ogodei Khan for his positive policies on Muslims, he nonetheless condemned the Mongols and their rulers endlessly, convinced that they were all doomed to eternal damnation. To him, Genghis was always mal'un; the accursed. His account of the Mongol invasion includes every atrocity he can lay his hands on - though it is interesting, and encouraging, to observe that the general impression he gives is not so very different from Juwayni's. He tells us, for example, that when the Khwarazm-shah's ambassadors to Chinggis Khan reached Peking, they saw a large pile of bones outside the city walls. They were told that these were the remains of 60,000 young girls who had thrown themselves to their deaths rather than risk falling alive into Mongol hands. (Morgan, Persian perceptions of Mongols and Europeans 1994) Yet, modern historians are able to note that despite such language, there are aspects of Mongol culture that even the most ardent critic of the Mongols has positives to note. The Mongol fighting ability, their austere sexual morality, their penchant for honesty and fair dealing – all of these are but a few instances from the literature where the Mongols are recipients of respect and praise (albeit rather grudgingly) from the likes of Minhaj. The issue of bias in sources does raise some interesting issues for modern historians however. One of the raging controversies regarding the Mongols has revolved around the numbers of Mongol troops involved in the invasion of the Khwarazm Empire. While most contemporary sources such as Juzjani and Juwayni seem to be unanimous in arguing that Genghis’ soldiers outnumbered those of the Shah by some 200,000-300,000 troops, today some historians are not so certain. Thus historians such as David Morgan, John France and Denis Sinor have instead argued that contrary to the sources of the time, the Mongols infact were outnumbered by the Shah. Both tend to put Mongol Numbers in the realm of some 100,000-150,000 (Morgan 1986, 88) soldiers against the 400,000 of the Shah, while France puts it even lower at 75,000 only (Sverdrup 2010, 110). Both of them essentially rely on the much later (though official) historian Rashid-al-Din Hamadani to overrule the earlier historians (though they back this up with arguments and calculations on demographics and logistics), who stated that the Mongol strength was 105,000 soldiers total in 1206 and 129,000 in 1227. This issue becomes important in understanding the characterization of the individuals involved in the conflict between the Shah of Khwarazm and Genghis. Contemporary authors such as Juzjani for instance charge the Shah of Khwarazm with cowardice while praising his son for seeking to engage with the Mongols head on. This argument seems inconsistent if we consider that the Shah was genuinely outnumbered by hundreds of thousands of soldiers. If on the other hand, the Mongols were vastly outnumbered by the Shah, the accusations of weakness, vacillation and cowardice and of the ineffectiveness of the piecemeal, city defence strategy make much more sense. The point here is to demonstrate that even issues of a factual nature can be open to dispute when we consider the historical sources available to us from the era. European Views The earliest mentions of the Mongols by the Europeans of the era significantly predate any actual contact between the Europeans and the Mongols. We therefore find that the early knowledge of the Mongols by the Europeans seems to be composed of little more than fantasy, superstition and hope, as they envisaged a country led by the legendary Prester John, and a vast Christian Crusader army coming to conquer the holy lands. As Peter Frankopan writes, “This proved to be an early experience for the European experience of Asia. Unfamiliar with what to believe, the Crusaders set great store by rumours that struck a chord with reports that had circulated for decades” and later “It soon became clear how wrong these reports were. The rumbling that could be heard from the east was not Prester John, his son ‘King David’ or a Christian Army marching to the aid of their brethren. It was the noise preceding the arrival of something altogether different. What was heading towards the Crusaders – and towards Europe – was not the road to heaven, but a path that seemed to lead straight to hell. Galloping along it were the Mongols” (Frankopan 2015, 157) European contact with the Mongols would initially however prove as jarring and shocking as it had been for the Muslims. As Robert Marhsall points out, “Europe's first military encounter with the Mongols had been no more one-sided than that of the armies of China and Persia during the first half of the thirteenth century. However, the psychological impact was in every sense far more traumatic and long-lasting. Civilizations in both China and Persia had a long history of encounters with nomadic armies, whereas Europe had lived in blissful ignorance of the rest of Asia and nothing had prepared them for the Mongols. Europe in the thirteenth century was completely ignorant of the lands to the east of the Urals. Although there had been trade with the East dating back to the preChristian era, this had always been conducted through merchants who plied between the Latin world and China without ever enlightening the one about the other.” (Marshall 1993, 118) The first European contact is also framed in the context of the divide between the largely Catholic Western Europe and broadly Orthodox Eastern Europe. It would be under Ogodei, that the first Mongol Invasions would hit the Europeans. The rulers of the Russian Principalities (known as the Kievan Rus) would be the first Europeans to face the onslaught of the Mongol Armies, a phenomenon which would over-time become so deeply entrenched in the European mind-set that the Mongol “Ordu” would become the Horde in European languages, with its imagery of a vast overwhelming force of people. Informed of the invasions by the migrating Cumans, who would be pushed further and further into Central Europe by the depredations of the Mongols, the Europeans could do little but watch in horror as their armies were torn asunder, and powerful kingdoms such as Hungary, backed by seemingly invincible organizations such as the Knights Templar and Teutonic Knights were shattered. The death of Ogodei saved much of Eastern Europe from what had been a near unstoppable conquest led by Batu Khan and Subutai (as well as other famous Mongol names such as Jebe and Berke). The sudden arrival and equally sudden departure of the Mongols from Europe would cause a fair bit of consternation and confusion among the European rulers. The imagery that the Mongols evoked in European minds speaks of volumes of fear and terror, with even their name for them - Tartar evoking the imagery of the tortures and evils of Tartarus, the land of punishment in Greek Mythology, according to atleast a few historians (Frankopan 2015, 163). Much of our knowledge of the Politics and structure of life at the Mongol court comes from the European accounts, the first of which was Giovanni da Pian del Carpine, an Italian emissary from Pope Innocent IV to the court of Ogodei’s successor – Guyuk Khan. The European-Mongol contact seems to have gotten off to a rocky start. Guyuk would send Jean de Pian Carpine back to the Pope demanding his submission, claiming to be the scourge of God. Jean in turn would record an image of squalor, loathsome and filthy people, reporting of an abhorrence, and even punishment for bathing and washing clothes. Historians have today looked at such records, and compared them to other references to Mongol customs and superstitions of protecting running water to gain a clearer picture. Mongol-European relations however seemingly improved after the short reign of Guyuk and the succession of Mongke Khan. European rulers sought to understand the mysterious Mongols, and some even sought to study the viability of an alliance against the Muslims. Three more missions would be sent by Pope Innocent IV, and even Louis, the King of France would send one, which would give us one of the most illuminating sources on Mongol geography and culture. William of Rubrick’s account of the Great Khan’s court at Karakorum today ranks among historians as being as important as Marco Polo’s or Ibn Batuta’s travelogues. While the authors described a Mongol political system which seemed uninterested in the religion of different peoples, and unwilling to interfere with them, missionaries nonetheless sought to expand their faith and influence among the Mongols – and their accounts reflect much of this. Frustration would result in negative accounts of the Mongols, while nonetheless still managing to convey a sense of raw power. Most European attempts at reaching any sort of alliance with the Khagans of the Mongol Empire would however prove meaningless. In turn the Europeans would display a fair bit of apathy to the actual progress of the conflicts between the Abbasid Caliphate and later the Mamluks and the Mongols. The initial resilience at the Mongol court to adopt Christianity wholesale would result in grand formulations in Europe of letting the Mongols and Muslims exhaust themselves in battles, allowing the Christians to retake their Holy Lands. No doubt, the actions of Hulegu Khan’s Christian general, Kitbuqa reinforced the validity of these notions, as the Muslims of Central Asia felt a new crusade, this one led by the Mongols, was upon them. Ultimately however, most of it would come to naught. The Mongol war machine would be halted at Ain Jalut by the Mamluks, and the Khaganate’s power would dissolve as the lesser Khanates squabbled for power and the Khaganate’s power dissolved following a civil war between Kublai and Ariq-Boke after the death of Mongke. While the major European powers do not initially seem to have been affected by the Mongols, some historians such as Browne credit the Mongols with the eventual Renaissance (Browne 1928, 442), for their actions thrust the Ottomans out of Khorasan and into the vicinity of Constantinople. And while the Mongols evoked an important emphasis in European literature, which in turn provoked a vast literary interest in their culture and which has proved invaluable our study of the Mongols, they remain perhaps more important in the sources themselves than they did in the actual practice of policy for the rulers of Western and Central Europe of the time. The views of Medieval Europeans about the Mongols have therefore been as central to the study of the Khagante and Khanates of the Mongol Empire as Chinese and Islamic sources. Bibliography 1. Browne, E.G. A Literary History of Persia. Vol. II. Cambridge, 1928. 2. Frankopan, Peter. The Silk Roads; A New History of the World. Bloomsbury, 2015. 3. Haqqi, Syed A. H. Chingiz Khan; The Life and Legacy of an Empire Builder. Primus Books, 2010. 4. Juvayni, Atâ-Malek. Tārīkh-i Jahāngushāy. 1206. 5. Juzjani, Minhaj-i-Siraj. Tabakat-I-Nasiri. Translated by H. G. Raverty. 1260. 6. Marshall, Robert. Storm from the East: From Genghis Khan to Khubilai Khan. University of California Press, 1993. 7. Mohammad, Habib, and Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, . A Comprehensive History of India Vol V; The Delhi Sultanate AD. 1206-1526. Delhi: People's Publishing House, 1970. 8. Morgan, David. “Persian perceptions of Mongols and Europeans.” In Implicit Understandings: Observing, Reporting, and Reflecting on the Encounters Between Europeans and Other Peoples in the Early Modern Era, by Stuart B. Schwartz, 201-217. Cambridge University Press, 1994. 9. Morgan, David. The Mongols. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. 10. Sun, Wei Kwei, trans. The Secret History of the Mongol Dynasty. Aligarh Muslim University, 1957. 11. Sverdrup, Carl. “Numbers in Mongol Warfare.” In Journal of Medieval Military History Vol VIII, by John France. Boydell & Brewer, 2010.