Michael Phelps

Dec. 12, 2008

Period 7
Mongols - Cohen or Vonnegut’n?
On top a grassy knoll a city lays. Paved roads and fine buildings line the street,
mixing the Oriental and European with the Arabic. Men and women walk about town,
courteous and respectful, and people of all different nationalities, religions, and
professions live together in peace. This city is not in Europe, once home to the Holy
Roman Empire, nor is this city in the Islamic caliphate. This metropolis of harmony is
Khanbaliq, modern day Beijing, and capital of the Mongol empire. The largest
contiguous empire in history, the Mongols were a highly organized, advanced, and
progressive people. Despite this, the contemporary historical representation of the
Mongols remains one of barbarism; this is simply not true. The 2006 random house
dictionary states the definition of barbaric as, “1. without civilizing influences;
uncivilized; primitive, 2. of, like, or befitting barbarians, 3. crudely rich or splendid.” It
seems the common theme is that the Mongols were not civilized; again, this is far from
true. Civilization entails an organized state, capable of influencing its people through
laws, a state where common welfare of its people is supported through infrastructure and
public works, a state where artistic expression is advanced beyond Neolithic primitivism,
and where technological achievements span not only the essentials of agriculture and
defense, but of tangential desires as well. Because of the Mongols obvious characteristics
of a civilization, its progressive and relatively egalitarian social stratification, and its
comprehension of advanced warfare techniques, they stand not as an exception of the
empires of history, but as one of the highest echelons of civilized achievement.
Laws in and of themselves are a product of civilization; calling a law barbaric
seems to contradict the very definition of the word; however, if the extremeness of the
laws are called into question the supposed “barbarism” cannot. It was said that, “War,
strife, bodily harm, or murder do not exist, and thieves on a grand scale are not found
among [the Mongols],” (Document 7), this was of course because of the severity of
Mongol law. For example, if one were to commit adultery they would be executed,
(Document 10). Whether or not the ends justified the means, as most were far too afraid
to commit crimes, the very existence of the laws is a sign of civilization not barbarism.
The pyramids at Gaza, the Great Wall of China, and Hadrian’s Wall are all
monumental examples of public works that define their respective civilization as a whole;
the Mongols join them with their Yam system. Spanning the entire empire, the Yams
were a series of over 10,000 stables used to commute the land as fast as possible,
(Document 8). Each stable was lavishly furnished, and among them they held over
200,000 horses. Riders passing through with messages would mount up, ride for 25
miles, then remount with a fresh horse at another Yam, eliminating any need to slow
down. Being the largest land empire in history, (Document 1), fast communication was
vital because their armies were so far spread; this fact however means moot when
considered that the Mongols were never invaded by an outside force.
Under the control and influence of the Mongol empire various peoples greatly
advanced in their artistic achievement; while not necessarily directly creating these works
of art, the Mongols, especially the Ilkanids, were patrons of foreign crafts, (Document 6).
While China’s works were generally left to their own affairs, Persian art thrived.
Viniculture, the art of winemaking grew and advanced as, although Muslim, Mongols
were great drinkers. Also the silk industry, as well as other forms of trade, flourished
from the now unified central Asia; trade could flow freely unlike any other time in
history.
As mentioned earlier, the Yam system was a creation of monumental proportions,
but it was not just the size of the buildings but their quality. As remarked by Marco Polo,
“…And at each of these posts the messengers find three or four hundred horses…and
palatial lodgings…Moreover, the posts themselves number more than 10,000, all
furnished on the same lavish scale,” (Document 8). Architecturally, the Mongols
surpassed the kingdoms of Europe in grandness and scale; a theme to be later reversed, it
nonetheless was true for hundreds of years.
Other than core civilization characteristics, the Mongols further separate
themselves from their barbaric stereotype through their acceptance of others, especially in
religion. Mongke Khan, the fourth Great Khan and grandson of Genghis, said, “We
Mongols believe that there is but one God, by Whom we live and by Whom we die and
towards Him we have an upright heart. But just as God gave different fingers to the hand
so has He given different ways to men,” (Document 9). To reflect this openness, Mongol
leaders often converted to the territory’s dominant religion. Within their own capital
monasteries, churches, and mosques were all found. This belief of different, rather than
wrong religions was in stark contrast of the Catholic Church of the Vatican and Muslims
in the Islamic caliphate.
The Mongols were by no means an empire built upon diplomacy; these were a
people of conquest. Their accusations of barbarism principally stem from their utter
dominance in warfare, however for the wrong reasons. For these were not axe wielding,
novice, berserkers like the Nordic ulfsarks, but a highly trained and armed regimented
fighting force, (Document 2)(Document 3). In most military campaigns they attempted to
surround their enemy rather than overpower them from one side. To distract their forces
they sent in captives and men of other nationalities in relatively small numbers.
Excepting swift victory their enemies would charge, and while they blindly turned their
heads, the real force of the Mongols, or as they were affectionately called “Tartars”, or
“People from Hell”, attacked from their flanks. It was obviously very effective.
Central to the Mongols supposed barbarism are there questionable war tactics,
harsh laws, and treatment of women. However, all’s fair in love and war, laws are a
product of civilization not barbarism, and who didn’t treat their women badly at that
time? Overall it is a common misconception reinforced by popular culture that the
Mongols were a mindless killing people, of which of course they are not. They were
unified under a state which exercised the power of lawmaking and public works, they
developed new technologies and art techniques as well as warfare, and finally they were
accepted of near every ethnic and religious group in their vast empire. When compared to
the other world powers at that time, the Mongols if anything were the least barbaric.
 Works Citied
Document 1: “Genghis Khan (1162-1227) 4,860,000 square miles conquered.
Source: Various

Document 2: “Genghis Khan ordained that the army should be organized…”

Source: John of Plano Carpini, History of the Mongols

Document 3: “They send a detachment of captives and men…”

Source: John of Plano Carpini, History of the Mongols

Document 6: “thrived under the Mongols…benefited from the Mongol conquest…”

Source: Charles J. Halperin, Russia and the Golden Horde

Document 7: “War, strife, bodily harm or murder did not exist…”

Source: Paul Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy

Document 8: “(M)ore than 200,000 horses…more than 10,000, all furnished…”

Source: Marco Polo, The Travels of Marco Polo

Document 9: “We Mongols believe that there is but one God, by Whom we live and by
Whom we die and towards Him we have an upright heart. But just as God gave different
fingers to the hand so has He given different ways to men,”
Source: William Rubruck, The Journey of William of Rubruck

Document 10: “Whosoever commits adultery will be executed…”

Source: Yasa fragment, in Paul Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan