![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stoutfellowI posted a very brief review of this book earlier, but it really does deserve more attention than that.
In the introduction, Jack Weatherford states his thesis, that the irruption of the Mongols onto the stage of world history in the period 1211-1261 set the stage for the modern era. On the one hand, he says, they spread ideas and goods from different parts of their empire all across Eurasia, melding disparate technologies in original ways:
The book proper is in three parts. The first traces Temujin's life up to the point where, having unified the Mongols, he was ready to attempt the conquest of the rest of the world. The second covers what Weatherford calls the Mongol World War (1211-1261), as the Mongol empire expanded to its greatest extent. The third traces the aftermath, as the empire broke apart and the conquered peoples, one after another, regained their independence. Each of these is a fascinating story in its own right; Temujin's very survival in the early years, and the ruthless determination with which he rose to power over the entire Mongol nation, is remarkable. The second section showcases his military brilliance and flexibility, as he remade Mongol tactics and strategy and learned how to fight against city-dwellers; it also speaks of his broader ambitions, in such areas as law, religion, commerce, and technology. The third section is in some respects sadder, as his successors showed themselves incapable of following in his footsteps. Only his grandson Kubilai achieved much success, and that only by largely Sinifying himself and his followers.
Weatherford is clearly enamored of his subject. In his view, Genghis Khan was a great and admirable man, and, by and large, the Mongols were a positive force in world history. I do not think he succeeds completely in establishing these claims, though. That Genghis was no worse, and in some respects quite a bit better, than other great conquerors - Alexander and Charlemagne come to mind - seems clear, but that is not a very high bar. (He does make the interesting point that the image of the Mongols as bloodthirsty barbarians is a relatively late development; Chaucer and Roger Bacon, to name two, speak highly of them. It is not until the time of Montesquieu and Voltaire that they become a byword for savagery.) Weatherford speaks of the view, among some Mongols, that they were destined to bring unity and peace to the whole world, and seems to approve; but how does this differ from the White Man's Burden, or from Manifest Destiny? The Mongol rulers were tolerant of different religious faiths, true - much more so than their European contemporaries - but such tolerance was not exactly an innovation in India, China, or even classical Europe. Some of his other claims are at best hyperbolic: trade in goods and ideas had stretched across the continent for centuries prior to the Mongol era, and the most that can be said is that the Mongols intensified and accelerated it. Beyond that, it cannot be forgotten that the Mongols destroyed at least two brilliant civilizations, in the Middle East under the Abbasid Caliphate and in Russia under the leadership of Kiev. (Those civilizations may have been moribund, but how can we be sure of that? Renaissances happen; Byzantium, for instance, recovered strongly from near-disaster on at least two occasions.)
I will go this far with Weatherford: the commonplace picture of Genghis and the Mongols is quite wrong, and there were many genuinely admirable aspects of their empire. Beyond that, though, I cannot follow.
In the introduction, Jack Weatherford states his thesis, that the irruption of the Mongols onto the stage of world history in the period 1211-1261 set the stage for the modern era. On the one hand, he says, they spread ideas and goods from different parts of their empire all across Eurasia, melding disparate technologies in original ways:
When their highly skilled engineers from China, Persia, and Europe combined Chinese gunpowder with Muslim flamethrowers and applied European bell-casting technology, they produced the cannon, an entirely new order of technological innovation, from which sprang the vast modern arsenal of weapons from pistols to missiles.On the other, they strove "to institute a new global order based on free trade, a single international law, and a universal alphabet with which to write all languages." In sum, according to Weatherford, the Mongols unified Eurasia more thoroughly than ever before, opening the doors to the freer flow of commerce and technology and making the modern world possible.
The book proper is in three parts. The first traces Temujin's life up to the point where, having unified the Mongols, he was ready to attempt the conquest of the rest of the world. The second covers what Weatherford calls the Mongol World War (1211-1261), as the Mongol empire expanded to its greatest extent. The third traces the aftermath, as the empire broke apart and the conquered peoples, one after another, regained their independence. Each of these is a fascinating story in its own right; Temujin's very survival in the early years, and the ruthless determination with which he rose to power over the entire Mongol nation, is remarkable. The second section showcases his military brilliance and flexibility, as he remade Mongol tactics and strategy and learned how to fight against city-dwellers; it also speaks of his broader ambitions, in such areas as law, religion, commerce, and technology. The third section is in some respects sadder, as his successors showed themselves incapable of following in his footsteps. Only his grandson Kubilai achieved much success, and that only by largely Sinifying himself and his followers.
Weatherford is clearly enamored of his subject. In his view, Genghis Khan was a great and admirable man, and, by and large, the Mongols were a positive force in world history. I do not think he succeeds completely in establishing these claims, though. That Genghis was no worse, and in some respects quite a bit better, than other great conquerors - Alexander and Charlemagne come to mind - seems clear, but that is not a very high bar. (He does make the interesting point that the image of the Mongols as bloodthirsty barbarians is a relatively late development; Chaucer and Roger Bacon, to name two, speak highly of them. It is not until the time of Montesquieu and Voltaire that they become a byword for savagery.) Weatherford speaks of the view, among some Mongols, that they were destined to bring unity and peace to the whole world, and seems to approve; but how does this differ from the White Man's Burden, or from Manifest Destiny? The Mongol rulers were tolerant of different religious faiths, true - much more so than their European contemporaries - but such tolerance was not exactly an innovation in India, China, or even classical Europe. Some of his other claims are at best hyperbolic: trade in goods and ideas had stretched across the continent for centuries prior to the Mongol era, and the most that can be said is that the Mongols intensified and accelerated it. Beyond that, it cannot be forgotten that the Mongols destroyed at least two brilliant civilizations, in the Middle East under the Abbasid Caliphate and in Russia under the leadership of Kiev. (Those civilizations may have been moribund, but how can we be sure of that? Renaissances happen; Byzantium, for instance, recovered strongly from near-disaster on at least two occasions.)
I will go this far with Weatherford: the commonplace picture of Genghis and the Mongols is quite wrong, and there were many genuinely admirable aspects of their empire. Beyond that, though, I cannot follow.
