A misunderstood Genghis Khan, book cover --ar 2:3 --sref 69569433
If you and I played a quick word-association game of Genghis Khan & his Mongolian Empire, I don’t know what few things you might say first, but I am almost certain they would be negative. The man and his actions are usually referred to as the quintessential example of barbarity and incivility - the official name for his entourage is a “horde”; the lack of literacy from emperor to commoner (or recorded texts for that matter) inspires the pejorative of “mongoloid”; we can’t point to any great works of Mongolian art or architecture. I largely assumed the same until I read “Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World” by Jack Weatherford. Weatherford argues that this negativity might be somewhat misguided and that the Khan’s impact can still be felt not only in modern Asia but also the broader world.
Mongolians as Uncivilized; Khan as Barbaric
famous emperors throughout world history in a police lineup --ar 16:9 --sref 1697632533
At first blush, it’s hard to find any strong argument to include the Mongolian civilization in the running list of great human societies; they lack the structures of the Egyptians, the philosophical and linguistic artifacts of the Greeks, the infrastructure of the Romans, etc. Weatherby points out that this is not entirely fair; the society of the Steppe was incredibly rich with culture, social hierarchy, and ceremony. In some sense, Steppe culture was perhaps similarly overlooked as providing cultural significance to humanity as other largely oral and nomadic cultures, similar to indigenous groups in the Americas or Australia. However, this doesn’t fully address the visceral of savagery that we feel in popular cultural when we think of the Mongols. Native Americans or Pacific Islanders invoke some idea of idyllic simplicity, but the Mongols don’t get the same treatment. Why is that?
Some part of the answer may lie in their drive to continously raid and conquer each other (and broader parts of the world). I understand the intuition that a society that places emphasis on violence should not be thought of as civilized, though I do find it odd when we compare the relative brutality of their society to others. Sparta was also a famously militant society, but we think of them as somehow more just/civil/honorable. One could argue that the Spartan weren’t constantly invading neighboring territories for the lols and I might even agree with that logic, but we can quickly turn to the Roman empire (which, until Augustus, had no real conception of peacetime and wartime and was always out for conquest) for an example of an equally belligerent neighbor. Yet again, we think of the Romans as ‘civilized’.
A somewhat credible argument made by a friend was that other conquerors might have also been violent, but at least provided some lasting contribution that serves as a countervailing force. Julius Caesar may have committed genocide against the Gauls during his campaigns in modern-day Germany, the argument goes, but hey atleast he built some bridges and aqueducts along the way. I had a classics professor in college who was a bit of an unrepentant Alexander-the-Great-apologist and would say things like “Socrates taught Plato; Plato taught Aristotle; Aristotle taught Alexander, and Alexander taught the world.” This argument feels directionally valid, though I think it also fails to understand the value of Mongolian contribution to society.
Mongolian Innovations
Merchants navigating the Silk Road across many nations --ar 16:9 --sref 1697632533
The distillation of the above argument is that other conquerors have somehow expanded the GDP of their empire; they have either built physical infrastructure (Roman roads), grown the pool of human knowledge (Greek philosophy), or positively restructured society (Napoleonic Codes). Mongolian contributions to their empire may not be of the 1st or 2nd types, but they have certianly pushed us all further in the 3rd. Arguably their greatest contribution was a standardization and protection of the Silk Road; prior to the Mongols travel from China to Europe was not only arduous, but incredibly risky. The Khan’s used fear of their retribution to their advantage in this respect; travelers and businesses along the Silk Road could be guaranteed safety from bandits who did not want to incur the wrath of a singular state. They also introduced the paiza, which was effectively a mix of a passport and credit card for foreigners traveling through Mongol territories. A vast land empire gave the Mongols the ability to introduce effective diplomatic immunity. The Mongols were also famous for establishing religious freedom across their empire, as well as early forms of bankruptcy laws and paper currency.
The impact of social innovations like these are hard to literally see somewhere, but they clearly have important consequences. Genghis Khan may not have directly contributed to the GDP of the world via construction or ideation, but the above inventions clearly had indirect impact. It’s actually very analogous to many modern financial institutions. It’s hard to point to the exact value that a bank like JP Morgan, a payment network like Visa, or even a high frequency trading firm like Tower enable; however the crux of the argument is that while these organizations do not create or allocate any form of capital themselves, but for their existence the friction for other parties to do so would be higher, and therefore stifle efficienct capital movement. The Mongolian empire is arguably the greatest example in human history of this value-creation-by-proxy argument. I certainly can’t think of any other force that has eliminited as high quantity of friction to global commerce (maybe SSL/TLS enabling encrypted internet traffic and therefore online transactions.)
Intentionally Underrated?
So why the delta in reputations? My head immediately goes to Edward Said’s “Orientalism”. By brushing over the Mongolian empire, world historians are employing an orientalist view - clearly anything accomplished or made outside of the borders of Europe is either uninteresting or intractable to analysis, so therefore we shouldn’t even bother trying. Acheivements of Asian origin are literally exocitized and therefore diminished. One doesn’t associate the historical archetype of a conquering or civilizing force to be of Asian origin, despite the irony that in 25 years Genghis Khan conqeuered more land and people than the Romans did in 400 years, and many multiples over Alexander, Napoleon, or Charlemagne.
I don’t want to imply that Genghis is a good guy; for that matter neither was Alexander of Macedonia. However, at least in contemporary culture we acknowledge the latter and his actions as being “Great” - this is not a claim about the direction of his morality but the magnitude of his impact. Surely someone like Genghis Khan deserves the same? There is nothing that Genghis Khan could be found guilty of that doesn’t also apply to the other notable great men of history.