The Mongols are a very interesting group. Although their dynasty was not a very long one, it did however stretch from the Pacific Ocean, to the Mediterranean Sea, and the Baltic Sea, all united under one family, connecting Eurasia.
Beginning in 1206, Chinggis Kahn became chief, and from him, he formed a dynasty. Although when one thinks of an empire, one usually thinks of one uniformed body governing their territories. The Mongols however, were a little bit different. Four Chinggisid dynasties emereged from the Mongols conquests: Golden Horde, Changati Khante, Il-Khans, and Yuan. With this it helped form connections which helped support new trade routes witch helped produce variety in food as well as weapons. The Mongols did not really impose their rule. They relied on the local government to oversee its peoples and they had religious tolerance. From a group that was violent and it's only time of peace was when they were at war, religious tolerance seems like a far fetched tale. But I believe their tolerance stems from the fact that they believed in "Tengri," which was the supreme deity. They also believed that the highest hills were sacred because they were closest to the sky/heaven and that the world was full of spirits. They also relied heavily on shamans. I believe their tolerance of other religions is because of the Tengri. In the Abrahamic religions, there is one God, who is supreme, which I can believe that drew a connection to. A similar deity by a different name.
The Mongols, as I had stated before, were a violent group. When one wanted to become successor, it was not the "oldest son," it was more the "one who doesn't die, wins." The competition was between brothers and uncles. In warfare, Chinggis Khan revised the decimal system, providing unity, making that each soldier was responsible for all the soldiers in their group, and when one failed they all had to suffer the consequences. They introduced shorter stirrups, which provided more mobilty for the rider while shooting an arrow as well as enhancing speed. They also set up bogus camps to surround and attack the enemy, false retreats and that victory was most important.
Although the dynasty started to fall apart one by one become of different interests, the Mongols had completely changed Eurasia, with their practices, policies and trade routes.
I think it is important to note that the empire fractured into four different sections, but this was not under the reign of Chenggis nor did the Mongolian empire did not start with the intent to create four "separate but equal" empires. This was meant to be one powerful ruling body. The issue here was the time frame. In the 1200s, it would have been nearly impossible for one group to rule this vast area of land. The only man who had the authority required for this position was Chenggis. I would argue that the empire splitting into four sections wasn't necessarily a result of growth, but a result of its impending collapse. Since the only person with the required authority was Chenggis, after his death following attempts to control the empire though a single man, whom I believe only Kublai Khan was truly successful at, the only option was to divide it and have separate people control the sections. Rome had the same idea when they split the empire into east and west. The reason that they did this was not because the empire had evolved into two, but that it was too big to remain as one and would have collapsed if they attempted to maintain it. Similarly, the Mongols recognized the impending collapse of such a massive empire without Chenggis. Therefore, they made the executive decision to divide the empire as an attempt to prevent collapse, which in the end was only a slowing of the process.
ReplyDeleteGood point about the parallel to the Roman situation, Kenny.
DeleteDoes division really ever save anything? The Great Schism divided the church into two entirely separate entities, did that really save anything? Alexander the Greats Kindgom was divided among his generals, and each part of land went on to become its own thing. What did that save? Separate but equal seems like a hard thing to judge, and a more impossible thing to achieve
ReplyDeleteI think it only fails if we assume that unity, power, and larger size are somehow goals in and of themselves. Rome's division produced 3 distinct heirs (Western Christendom/Franks, Byzantium, and the Islamic Caliphates). All have legitimate claims as an heir to Rome in some sense, and even if no single one of those entities held as much power or land as Rome at its greatest extent, each of them ultimately disseminated Roman ideas/forms into new contexts where Rome itself had not previously done so.
DeleteI feel like one thing that could have also played into their religious tolerance was their location. They didn't have one major spot because they moved around and were nomadic. Usually when one travels they encounter many people with different backgrounds. They probably realized that the different religions all had a belief in one soul power that they could find an equal ground. So maybe they came in contact with so many people that they just accepted their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Jenny, and related also to Maegan's question (http://empiresinworldhistory.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-mongol-way.html) as well. Contemplating the reasons why religious tolerance evolved in particular empires (and not in others) is key.
DeleteI feel like our reading concentrated on the Mongols' tolerance of religious traditions they encountered at the Western end of their empire and said less about policies further to the East. I point this out, because a Mongol and a Hindu, for example, might have a harder time identifying religious common ground.
ReplyDelete