The Mongolian Conquests

[Vargha Poralli]

I am very much intrested to see a materail basis for the Mongolian Conquests. The Mongolian tribes are united for the first time under Ghengis Khan's rule and almost immediatly afterwards they set out and conquerored almost entire Civilised worl;d at that time.

The thing confuses me is how could the Mongols up until that time a society based on numerous tribes could who were in each other's throat numerous times could set out and conquer the most technologically advanced Chinese empire and the military might of Persia and Arabian sultanates ? Their conquests reached up to Poland ?

I would like any analysis and account of the Mongolian conquests from a materialist perspective . I am intrested in Chinese(PRC) historians view of that period.

[Dimentio]

Map of the Mongol Empire (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mongol_Empire_map.gif)

Unlike the other nations, the Mongols was a nation wholly comprised of nomadic warriors. The Mongols did not have infantry. Genghis had carefully unified the Mongols (and the other unified tribes) by instituting a decimal organisation system, and employ the entire nation in work.

The Mongol Empire was not an aristocracy, but a meritocracy.

Their enemies were not nation-states, but empires run by earlier remnants of Nomadic conquerors, like the Manchu Jürchen in northern China and the Turkish Chorezm Khanate in Central Asia and Iran.

Therefore, both Jin China and Chorezm were always pressured by threats of internal revolts, since the elite comprised ethnic minorities. Thus, these empires were decapitated when the Mongols slaughtered their nobles.

[Vargha Poralli]

The Mongol Empire was not an aristocracy, but a meritocracy.

The difference being ? :mellow:


Their enemies were not nation-states, but empires run by earlier remnants of Nomadic conquerors, like the Manchu Jürchen in northern China and the Turkish Chorezm Khanate in Central Asia and Iran.

Therefore, both Jin China and Chorezm were always pressured by threats of internal revolts, since the elite comprised ethnic minorities. Thus, these empires were decapitated when the Mongols slaughtered their nobles.


Well They conquered whole of China isn't it. And established the short lived Yuan Dynasty ?

Nation-states didn't exist anywhere at their time of Conquest. All the world was divided between Empires and Kingdoms.

My point is with their comparatively small army they and backwards technology they conquered mighty civilisations of their time - technically advanced China and numerically superior armies of Persia and Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad. They were almost unstoppable until their defeat by the Egyptian Mamelukes.

I am more interested in the impact of their conquests especially in China.

[Led Zeppelin]

Erm, maybe it had to do with the fact that they were expert warriors who had perfected the art of cavalry warfare?

Seriously, you don't need to look for some "deep reason" in issues like this. Sometimes it just has to do with the ability of the people, the leader, etc.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 12, 2007 09:50 pm
Erm, maybe it had to do with the fact that they were expert warriors who had perfected the art of cavalry warfare?


Well aren't Persians too experts in Cavalry warfare ? Especially famous for the term Parthian Shot ?


Seriously, you don't need to look for some "deep reason" in issues like this. Sometimes it just has to do with the ability of the people, the leader, etc.

Maybe but I am just curious to see multiple views in it. ;)

[Led Zeppelin]

That's true about the Persians, but obviously they weren't as skilled or else they would've been able to resist the invasion....

I believe leaders also play an important part, especially in ancient and medieval times when leadership positions held more authority and ability than they do now. Ghengis Khan was a military genius and was able to defeat most if not all of his enemies in battle.

Counterpose that with the leaders of the Persian military at the time...hell, does anyone even know who they were? I think that if a figure such as Cyrus the Great or Darius the Great was there to lead that army, it would've certainly made a difference...

But yeah, basically what I'm saying is that ability of an army, a people, a leader does certainly play an important part in history. It's not just lead up by material conditions, if that was the case two societies of the same material conditions would theoretically develop in the same manner, culturally, economically, socially etc. but that's a pretty ridiculous view to hold, given the tremendous amount of variation in cultures, societies, peoples in general.

[Vargha Poralli]

That's true about the Persians, but obviously they weren't as skilled or else they would've been able to resist the invasion....

I believe leaders also play an important part, especially in ancient and medieval times when leadership positions held more authority and ability than they do now. Ghengis Khan was a military genius and was able to defeat most if not all of his enemies in battle.

Well for the skill part I have heard a proverb that there can only be a good soldier but there can be bad captains. Especially in warfare it is the leadership that determines winner.

As for the leadership of Ghengis Khan I accept your views very much.


But yeah, basically what I'm saying is that ability of an army, a people, a leader does certainly play an important part in history. It's not just lead up by material conditions, if that was the case two societies of the same material conditions would theoretically develop in the same manner, culturally, economically, socially etc. but that's a pretty ridiculous view to hold, given the tremendous amount of variation in cultures, societies, peoples in general.

The law of combined and uneven developement I think ;) :P .

I have more or less the same opinion about this.

Though I am much interested in views which downplays the role of Individuals though. Strictly historical nothing else(definitely not in historical materialist viewpoint).

[Karl Marx's Camel]

If I recall correctly, Clive Pointing sites their archers mounted on horses as the reason of their military supremacy. Every time the enemy infantry got closer, the archers simply rode away a bit and continued to shoot.


I believe leaders also play an important part, especially in ancient and medieval times when leadership positions held more authority and ability than they do now. Ghengis Khan was a military genius and was able to defeat most if not all of his enemies in battle.

Perhaps in terms of strategy, but during the "stone age" of command, that means since before approximately the 18th century, there was not much a military leader could do once the battle was set in motion. He could often give very simple orders but due to the difficulty of rapid communication, a leader's significance was usually reduced to a raise of morale.

[Led Zeppelin]

But before the battle was set in motion they devised tactics, strategies, and these were very crucial in battle. I can cite many examples, Ceasar, Hannibal, Alexander, etc.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

True.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 12, 2007 04:12 pm

The Mongol Empire was not an aristocracy, but a meritocracy.

The difference being ? :mellow:


Their enemies were not nation-states, but empires run by earlier remnants of Nomadic conquerors, like the Manchu Jürchen in northern China and the Turkish Chorezm Khanate in Central Asia and Iran.

Therefore, both Jin China and Chorezm were always pressured by threats of internal revolts, since the elite comprised ethnic minorities. Thus, these empires were decapitated when the Mongols slaughtered their nobles.


Well They conquered whole of China isn't it. And established the short lived Yuan Dynasty ?

Nation-states didn't exist anywhere at their time of Conquest. All the world was divided between Empires and Kingdoms.

My point is with their comparatively small army they and backwards technology they conquered mighty civilisations of their time - technically advanced China and numerically superior armies of Persia and Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad. They were almost unstoppable until their defeat by the Egyptian Mamelukes.

I am more interested in the impact of their conquests especially in China.
They conquered China in two sweeps. Genghis conquered the Manchu-run Jin territory, while Kublai conquered Great Song.

A meritocracy is based on qualifications and experience, while an aristocracy is based upon bloodline.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 12, 2007 04:26 pm
Well aren't Persians too experts in Cavalry warfare ? Especially famous for the term Parthian Shot ?
Well, yes, but no. Persians were very good fighters with a long history of success. They gave the Roman Empire a run for their money on multiple occassions and later came to form some of the best parts of the armies of the Caliphate. However, the Mongolian fighters were on a completely different level. In terms of effeciency, tactics, cohesion, determination, ruthlessness and morale, the Persians, like just about everyone else who went up against the Mongols, were basically outmatched. Secondly, the reputation of the Mongols proceeded them, and so you hear stories of hundreds of Persian fighters fleeing at the sight of 2 or 3 Mongolian warriors. They had heard the stories, and so their fear was understandable.

At any rate, the Mongols were unable to hold Persia (or China) for long, and so their conquests were lost quite quickly (Mongolian Russia lasted longer I think).

As far as materialist analyses, the Mongolian invasions give a few insights. First, the Mongols were nomads without the systems of class that agricultural societies had. They were able to incorporate many different peoples into their forces (including Persians) and administrated through local customs (they did not alter the political systems of China or Russia, and probably Persia as well). Secondly, once the Mongol rulers tried to take the place of local ruling classes (Il-Khan in Persia, Yuan Dynasty in China), they rapidly began to resemble the latter and lost the nomadic conqueror mentality that the Mongols were known for.

[Dimentio]

I think that 200 years is a pretty long time. The Mongols lost control over Persia when the Timurid empire started to disintegrate in the 15th century. China was lost in year 1368.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:13 pm
I think that 200 years is a pretty long time. The Mongols lost control over Persia when the Timurid empire started to disintegrate in the 15th century. China was lost in year 1368.
I think the Il-Khanate ended in 1335, I'll have to look it up.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by manic expression+September 12, 2007 08:16 pm--> (manic expression @ September 12, 2007 08:16 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 08:13 pm
I think that 200 years is a pretty long time. The Mongols lost control over Persia when the Timurid empire started to disintegrate in the 15th century. China was lost in year 1368.
I think the Il-Khanate ended in 1335, I'll have to look it up. [/b]
The Il-Khanate maybe ended, but Timur was the last Mongolian conqueror, and he died in 1405.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Serpent+September 12, 2007 09:08 pm--> (Serpent @ September 12, 2007 09:08 pm)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 12, 2007 08:16 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 08:13 pm
I think that 200 years is a pretty long time. The Mongols lost control over Persia when the Timurid empire started to disintegrate in the 15th century. China was lost in year 1368.
I think the Il-Khanate ended in 1335, I'll have to look it up.
The Il-Khanate maybe ended, but Timur was the last Mongolian conqueror, and he died in 1405. [/b]
I also thought Timur kind of came out of nowhere, and was half-Mongolian. You may be right, as I'm not sure what the status of Persia was prior to Timur's little adventure through a good chunk of Asia. Again, I'll have to look it up.

By the way, what, if any, wider effects did the Mongolian conquests have on the course of history? I'd like to hear what people think: did the Mongols shape or affect China? Russia? The Islamic world? Greek or Latin Europe? How do these effects relate to one another?

[Janus]

Well aren't Persians too experts in Cavalry warfare ?
Probably, but I don't think they would've been comparable to the Mongol cavalry who practically grew up in the saddle.

Mobility is an extremely key element in military strategy and the Mongols' fast paced operations usually more than compensated for their lower numbers


By the way, what, if any, wider effects did the Mongolian conquests have on the course of history? I'd like to hear what people think: did the Mongols shape or affect China?
The Mongol conquests did irreparable damage in certain areas of the former Persian Empire which have never recovered. They were also responsible to a degree for creating unity in China and Russia.

[Dimentio]

The Mongols had an enormous cultural effect on Europe in the 14th century. People in Europe started wearing jackets and trousers like the Mongols, and the European humanists were influenced by the secularism and meritocracy of the Mongol Empire.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 11, 2007 11:42 am
I am very much intrested to see a materail basis for the Mongolian Conquests. The Mongolian tribes are united for the first time under Ghengis Khan's rule and almost immediatly afterwards they set out and conquerored almost entire Civilised worl;d at that time.

The thing confuses me is how could the Mongols up until that time a society based on numerous tribes could who were in each other's throat numerous times could set out and conquer the most technologically advanced Chinese empire and the military might of Persia and Arabian sultanates ? Their conquests reached up to Poland ?

I would like any analysis and account of the Mongolian conquests from a materialist perspective . I am intrested in Chinese(PRC) historians view of that period.
I think in the Mongol Conquest against the Arabs, the Mongols completely took the Arabs by surprise----They expected Gengis Khan's invading army to reach their gates in 2 years, but the Mongols arrived after two months.

The wars against the two Chinese kingdoms (Jin and Song) were more complicated. It took the Mongols something like 67 years to conquer all of China---Especially the Southern half of it, as they faced stiff resistance. They even had one of their Emperor killed by a Song cannonball, which halted the Mongol invasion against Europe and with their Emperor dead, the Mongols had to split the Empire into 4 smaller empires.

The Jin Empire and the Song Dynasty of China were both weak militarily: The Jins who were Nomadic horsemen in origin have grown accostom to the luxorious lifestlye in China, and many even forgot how to ride horses.

Whereas in the kingdom of Song, the soldiers were just as corrupt and they had a military struture that minimized their soldier's battle performance by systematically switching generals once in a short while, to prevent rebellion.


So, with the assistance of the kingdom of Song, the Mongols easily destroyed the Jins. (The Song Emperor had no idea as to the consequence of his support for the Mongols.) Many years later, the Mongols finally prevailed and utterly vanguished the Kingdom of Song after recruiting a massive number of Chinese troops and using them against the Songs alongside Mongol horsemen.

[Ismail]

As a note, wasn't Genghis Khân fairly progressive at the time?

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/historical/genghis-khan/
(Don't worry, it is Rotten.com but the link is 100% work-safe)


In recent years, however, it has become fashionable to depict G.K. as a wise leader and philosopher, and not without reason. Although the process of being overcome by a Mongol horde was not especially pleasant, the actual Mongol regime wasn't bad once it was in place.

Khan consolidated his rule by employing cooperative local officials from the previous regime and maintaining the local infrastructure largely intact. Khan also enforced a legal code that was surprisingly liberal for its day.

In many respects, the Great Yasa closely mirrored the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule, with an abiding precept being simply "Love one another". Khan also offered a "New Deal" that took care of the poor and infirm. Khan outlawed taxes on clerics of any religion. More controversial and progressive, for the day, Khan decreed that all children were legitimate, and thus entitled to inherit, even the children of prostitutes and concubines.

Although Khan himself was not religious, his laws forbade overt religious or racial persecution, an extremely smart move for someone whose dynasty covered a vast melting pot of beliefs. The key word, however, was "overt." Despite his reputation for religious tolerance, many of Khan's supposedly non-denominational laws nevertheless amounted to persecution for different religions, particularly Islam.

The legal code -- known as the "Great Yasa" -- forbade the ritual slaughter of animals, which meant that Muslims couldn't prepare halal meals in accordance with religious law. The Yasa also banned the designation of anything as taboo or unclean, which presented further problems. Khan also allowed women to be educated, banned efforts to make women cover their heads and encouraged freedom of expression and worship.

As a result, numerous fatwas were issued against the hated Mongols, and the destruction of the Muslim caliphate by the Mongols (after the death of Khan) continues to shape the world's political landscape.

As a note, if you want info on the Kings/Sultans/Bêys/Emirs/Chiefs/Lords/Dukes/Counts/Governors etc of anything ever, I'd advise you to click this. (http://starnarcosis.net/obsidian/regindex.html) It even has notes and such accompanying the lists.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by RSOC
So, with the assistance of the kingdom of Song, the Mongols easily destroyed the Jins. (The Song Emperor had no idea as to the consequence of his support for the Mongols.) Many years later, the Mongols finally prevailed and utterly vanguished the Kingdom of Song after recruiting a massive number of Chinese troops and using them against the Songs alongside Mongol horsemen.


So they used Imperialistic tactic of Divide and Rule(Conquer in his case) :P

Anyway is it correct to say that the Mongolian Invasion and rule reunited China and a long period of internal Strife ? I mean the after after fall of Tang dynasty, five kingdom period etc.,

Thanks for those links Mr.Die.

[RedStarOverChina]

Anyway is it correct to say that the Mongolian Invasion and rule reunited China and a long period of internal Strife ? I mean the after after fall of Tang dynasty, five kingdom period etc.,

Well, only in the sense that they were both under the same Empire.

But one must note that the majority of the Chinese southerners (former subjects of Song) were killed before they get the chance to reunite with their northern brethrens; as a retribution for the stiff resistance they put up. :(

Also, the Mongols established a caste system based on ethnicity and region of origin.

There were 4 castes:
Mongols obviously sit at the top.
Next to Mongols, Arabs and other westerners such as Persians (all refered to as "Semu").
Next to them, Chinese northerners.
Southerners, obviously, are the most despised.

So it actually divided northerners and southerners.


Also, internal strife wasn't really a primary Chinese concern---Foreign invasions were. the rulers of Jin were not really Chinese---but invaders and "northern barbarians" just like the Mongols.

They took huge chunks of land from Song and ruled over them for quite sometime.


Having learned the lessons of Tang Dynasty, the Song Dynasty effectively limited internal strife, and no significant rebellion/coup broke out.

They did that by systematically preventing the Song generals from winning the loyalty of their soldiers, like I mentioned before. (Which proved over and over again, to be a recipe for military catastrophe.)

In addition, Song generals and intellectuals were in fact, known for their patriotism/loyalty to the emperor. Most of them, anyway.


Also it is both fascinating and sad to note that capitalism was emerging, for the first time in world history, in the flourishing Song Dynasty before the invasion. Then everything was washed away in a bloodbath.

[Janus]

They even had one of their Emperor killed by a Song cannonball, which halted the Mongol invasion against Europe and with their Emperor dead, the Mongols had to split the Empire into 4 smaller empires.
The European campaign was halted by the death of a previous Khan, Ogodei, while the Chinese and Arabic campaigns were halted by the death of Mongke.


wasn't Genghis Khân fairly progressive at the time?
The Mongols weren't really involved in the legal and administrative issues of their empire, rather they left much of it to more learned people i.e. the people whom they had conquered.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 02:22 am
The Mongols weren't really involved in the legal and administrative issues of their empire, rather they left much of it to more learned people i.e. the people whom they had conquered.
Hmmm....


One of the most notable events was the death of Mongol leader Mongke Khan by cannon shot, which forced the immediate withdrawal of Mongol troops from Europe and Asia and prevented the Mongolian Empire from expanding towards Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishing_Town

You seem to be right. My apologies.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 12, 2007 11:12 pm
I also thought Timur kind of came out of nowhere, and was half-Mongolian. You may be right, as I'm not sure what the status of Persia was prior to Timur's little adventure through a good chunk of Asia. Again, I'll have to look it up.
Timur was not at all mongolian, he was an Uzkbek ( i think, he lived in what is now Uzkbeistan, He was Gengis' great-grandson by marrige)

The Persian Caphilate had just gained independace from the Blue Horde, (afte Gengis death the Mongolian empire was split up between his sons, each one taking a 'horde', e.g. the Golden Horde was the one in russia.

Timur gained control of most of central asia, Egypt, Northern India and turkey, just prior to his death he was on his way to invade china.

He saved Europe from beeing crushed by the Ottoman Empire (kinda by accident)

[MarxSchmarx]

I would like any analysis and account of the Mongolian conquests from a materialist perspective .

As the mobile nature of the Mongol military and the superiority of Mongol tacticians and strategists have already been pointed out, no need to belabor them.

There are three other "material" factors that conspired to put the Mongol conquerers at an advantage:

(1) information was spread quickly. This was facilitated by the fact that everyone was an expert horseman, and the postal/road system the Mongols established to communicate among themselves in a matter of days over vast expanses of territory. This permitted effective management of resources by commanders.

(2) states as we know them didn't exist, so concerted resistance was hard to achieve. Urban areas were effectively self-governing in medieval Eurasia. The Mongols took advantage of this fact, and focused on getting individual cities, rather than whole "nations" or "empires" to surrender and avoiding pitched battles. They did this by razing a city that resisted and terrorizing neighboring towns in to surrender.

(3) often the Mongols extracted tribute and confiscated loot from the areas they conquered, allowing them to fund further wars. In essence, they parasitized off the surplus of agricultural regions to maintain a massive military machine and bureaucracy.


One of the most notable events was the death of Mongol leader Mongke Khan by cannon shot, which forced the immediate withdrawal of Mongol troops from Europe and Asia and prevented the Mongolian Empire from expanding towards Africa.

The conquest of Europe was actually stopped by the death of Ogodei, who most likely succumbed to alcohol poisoning.


I am intrested in Chinese(PRC) historians view of that period.

I can't find the source, but I read that for a time it was vogue in the PRC and the USSR to argue that the Mongols (or any other "northern barbarians") invaded the Yellow River valley when pasture lands got over-used.

[Janus]

Timur was not at all mongolian, he was an Uzkbek
He was born in modern day Uzbekistan but during his time, the Mongols had intermingled with the populations in his area so he did have some Mongol ancestry according to most accounts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:15 am
Also it is both fascinating and sad to note that capitalism was emerging, for the first time in world history, in the flourishing Song Dynasty before the invasion. Then everything was washed away in a bloodbath.
This particular remark really merits more discussion, especially in the context of the "Asiatic mode of production."

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Hammer+September 30, 2007 05:00 am--> (Hammer @ September 30, 2007 05:00 am)
[email protected] 13, 2007 11:15 am
Also it is both fascinating and sad to note that capitalism was emerging, for the first time in world history, in the flourishing Song Dynasty before the invasion. Then everything was washed away in a bloodbath.
This particular remark really merits more discussion, especially in the context of the "Asiatic mode of production." [/b]
It is just stupid to assume that Asia never developed it's mode of production.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:58 pm

Timur was not at all mongolian, he was an Uzkbek
He was born in modern day Uzbekistan but during his time, the Mongols had intermingled with the populations in his area so he did have some Mongol ancestry according to most accounts.
Timur was the son of a minor local cheiftan who had sworn fealtly to the mongolian leaders, there was alot of conflict between the musilm population and the pagan mongolian leadership, he part of the local population but married into the mongolian dynasty.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:58 pm

Timur was not at all mongolian, he was an Uzkbek
He was born in modern day Uzbekistan but during his time, the Mongols had intermingled with the populations in his area so he did have some Mongol ancestry according to most accounts.
The ethnicity of Central Asia is almost impossible to discern. There was so much intermixing that terms like Tatar, Mongol and Uzbek were almost interchangeable.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Serpent+September 30, 2007 04:37 am--> (Serpent @ September 30, 2007 04:37 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:00 am

[email protected] 13, 2007 11:15 am
Also it is both fascinating and sad to note that capitalism was emerging, for the first time in world history, in the flourishing Song Dynasty before the invasion. Then everything was washed away in a bloodbath.
This particular remark really merits more discussion, especially in the context of the "Asiatic mode of production."
It is just stupid to assume that Asia never developed it's mode of production. [/b]
I don't know if an "asiantic mode of production" exists or not, but I have always thought the phrase "anglo-saxon caitalism" to be quite idiotic.

Capitalism tend to have almost identical characteristics and it always requires certain specific "pre-requisites" to happen.

One of which is the invention of paper money----Which was first invented in Song Dynasty sometime before the Mongol invasion (or even earlier, as some suggest). Paper money played a large part (along with other technologies enjoyed only in the Song Kingdom at the time) in the activities of the proto-capitalists.

Similarily, the emergence of European capitalism would have been an impossible task if it weren't for inventions such as paper money.

Though I have to look into this, I can't perseive of any "asiantic mode of production" that is unique and different from the modes of production employed elsewhere.


Edit: (Sorry for diverting the topic. I'm really fascinated by this subject.)