What do you think?
Rate this book
The Horde: How the Mongols Changed the World
An epic history of the Mongols as we have never seen them―not just conquerors but also city builders, diplomats, and supple economic thinkers who constructed one of the most influential empires in history.
The Mongols are widely known for one thing: conquest. In the first comprehensive history of the Horde, the western portion of the Mongol empire that arose after the death of Chinggis Khan, Marie Favereau shows that the accomplishments of the Mongols extended far beyond war. For three hundred years, the Horde was no less a force in global development than Rome had been. It left behind a profound legacy in Europe, Russia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, palpable to this day.
Favereau takes us inside one of the most powerful sources of cross-border integration in world history. The Horde was the central node in the Eurasian commercial boom of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and was a conduit for exchanges across thousands of miles. Its unique political regime―a complex power-sharing arrangement among the khan and the nobility―rewarded skillful administrators and diplomats and fostered an economic order that was mobile, organized, and innovative. From its capital at Sarai on the lower Volga River, the Horde provided a governance model for Russia, influenced social practice and state structure across Islamic cultures, disseminated sophisticated theories about the natural world, and introduced novel ideas of religious tolerance.
The Horde is the eloquent, ambitious, and definitive portrait of an empire little understood and too readily dismissed. Challenging conceptions of nomads as peripheral to history, Favereau makes clear that we live in a world inherited from the Mongol moment.
The Mongols are widely known for one thing: conquest. In the first comprehensive history of the Horde, the western portion of the Mongol empire that arose after the death of Chinggis Khan, Marie Favereau shows that the accomplishments of the Mongols extended far beyond war. For three hundred years, the Horde was no less a force in global development than Rome had been. It left behind a profound legacy in Europe, Russia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, palpable to this day.
Favereau takes us inside one of the most powerful sources of cross-border integration in world history. The Horde was the central node in the Eurasian commercial boom of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and was a conduit for exchanges across thousands of miles. Its unique political regime―a complex power-sharing arrangement among the khan and the nobility―rewarded skillful administrators and diplomats and fostered an economic order that was mobile, organized, and innovative. From its capital at Sarai on the lower Volga River, the Horde provided a governance model for Russia, influenced social practice and state structure across Islamic cultures, disseminated sophisticated theories about the natural world, and introduced novel ideas of religious tolerance.
The Horde is the eloquent, ambitious, and definitive portrait of an empire little understood and too readily dismissed. Challenging conceptions of nomads as peripheral to history, Favereau makes clear that we live in a world inherited from the Mongol moment.
377 pages, Hardcover
First published April 20, 2021
About the author
Marie Favereau
5 books28 followersMarie Favereau is Associate Professor of History at Paris Nanterre University. She has been a member of the French Institute of Oriental Archaeology, a visiting scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study, and a research associate at the University of Oxford for the major project Nomadic Empires. Her books include La Horde d’Or et le sultanat mamelouk and the graphic novel Gengis Khan.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews
August 17, 2023
Incredibly thorough & beautifully written!
October 12, 2021
The word 'horde' comes to English from Polish, which in turn got it from the Turkic word 'orda', meaning assembly or group, and had none of the negative connotations it does in English.
A history first of the origins of the Mongolian Empire under Genghis Khan, and then of the khanate known as the Golden Horde. This political entity was first ruled by Batu Khan, a grandson of Genghis, and stretched from the western shores of the Black Sea to Kazakhstan. The speed and violence of the Mongol conquests is widely known, but less was known to me of how long their successor states ruled, and how long they had lasted - Russian principalities continued to pay tribute to the horde up until the 15th century. This book addresses these questions. Favereau, a history professor at Paris-Nanterre, draws from primary source and government edicts.
Given the vast territorial expanse and sparse population under the Golden Horde's control, revenue came from natural resources - gold, furs, timber, slave labor, and customs on overland trade routes. Wars which at first glance appear to have been dynastic have the additional causes of control over trade routes and other material benefits.
The book also discusses the policies of religious pluralism, and the potential impact of the Golden Horde's rule on other styles of government and national identity, particularly in Russia. There's a lot to discuss here, and Favereau does much to explain a very different form of government.
A history first of the origins of the Mongolian Empire under Genghis Khan, and then of the khanate known as the Golden Horde. This political entity was first ruled by Batu Khan, a grandson of Genghis, and stretched from the western shores of the Black Sea to Kazakhstan. The speed and violence of the Mongol conquests is widely known, but less was known to me of how long their successor states ruled, and how long they had lasted - Russian principalities continued to pay tribute to the horde up until the 15th century. This book addresses these questions. Favereau, a history professor at Paris-Nanterre, draws from primary source and government edicts.
Given the vast territorial expanse and sparse population under the Golden Horde's control, revenue came from natural resources - gold, furs, timber, slave labor, and customs on overland trade routes. Wars which at first glance appear to have been dynastic have the additional causes of control over trade routes and other material benefits.
The book also discusses the policies of religious pluralism, and the potential impact of the Golden Horde's rule on other styles of government and national identity, particularly in Russia. There's a lot to discuss here, and Favereau does much to explain a very different form of government.
May 20, 2021
Another entry in the growing body of work from Western scholars seeking to revive, reinterpret, and restore the place of the Mongol Empire in world history, this book focuses on the Ulus of Jochi, or the Golden Horde, which ruled large swaths of Russia and Central Asia from the 13th-16th centuries. As a counterbalance to the common notion that Russian authoritarianism is rooted in brutal Mongol antecedents - a narrative perpetuated even by such people as Barack Obama in his book about his presidency - Favereau makes a convincing case that nomadic governance strategies were flexible, adaptive, and non-hegemonic, fostering pluralistic societies while maintaining ruling institutions that were firmly and fundamentally Mongolian. This focus also helps to further nullify the idea that the Mongols were ravening barbarians who simply conquered for the sake of violence and then were civilized by the sedentary cultures they encountered - although this idea has been refuted by a number of other works in the past several decades.
At least in the initial chapters, one thing this book does very well is emphasize the truly nomadic nature of the Mongol Ulus. Startlingly, the book makes an implicit case that the Mongols actually were colonizers of sorts, moving large numbers of people across vast distances, and creating much more sophisticated and intensive nomadic pastoralist grazing populations in the western Eurasian steppe. This framing was not something that had ever occurred to me before, despite twenty years of working in Mongolia and paying close attention to Mongol history, although this may also be because out of all the Ulus, I've paid least attention previously to the Jochids. Favereau also makes a case, in detailing the challenges and failures of Subodei's and Jebe's campaigns in eastern Europe, that the limits on Mongol expansion to the west were strongly ecological, rather than strictly attributable to the death of Ogodei Khan and the recall of the Mongol forces to elect the next ruler. Substantial details on the trade routes that empowered and enriched the Jochid Ulus, as well as the balancing of land tenure traditions between the communal Mongols and the private-land-owning Russians, were also intriguing and new to a long-time student of Mongol history. And Favereau's insistence on referring to the trade in kidnapped people as "human trafficking" rather than "the slave trade" - another of the lynchpins of the Jochid economy - is just one example of the way this book avoids slipping into idealizing the Mongols, even while it makes strong arguments in favor of the sophistication of Mongol civilization.
Despite some muddy timelines in parts of the book, the overall narrative is compelling, and although Favereau is arguing that the Horde adapted in order to survive, rather than fully collapsing in the late 14th century as commonly supposed, the trajectory of the narrative does often evoke a sense of tragedy, as the Jochid rulers finally undermine themselves with internecine feuds against a backdrop of ecological change and global pandemic. Perhaps unintentionally, her point about increased authoritarianism failing to yield increased authority - let alone actual solutions to massive economic, social, political, and environmental challenges - seemed like a relevant lesson for the current global moment.
Worth the read for the student of Mongol history, world history, and/or nomadic pastoralist societies.
At least in the initial chapters, one thing this book does very well is emphasize the truly nomadic nature of the Mongol Ulus. Startlingly, the book makes an implicit case that the Mongols actually were colonizers of sorts, moving large numbers of people across vast distances, and creating much more sophisticated and intensive nomadic pastoralist grazing populations in the western Eurasian steppe. This framing was not something that had ever occurred to me before, despite twenty years of working in Mongolia and paying close attention to Mongol history, although this may also be because out of all the Ulus, I've paid least attention previously to the Jochids. Favereau also makes a case, in detailing the challenges and failures of Subodei's and Jebe's campaigns in eastern Europe, that the limits on Mongol expansion to the west were strongly ecological, rather than strictly attributable to the death of Ogodei Khan and the recall of the Mongol forces to elect the next ruler. Substantial details on the trade routes that empowered and enriched the Jochid Ulus, as well as the balancing of land tenure traditions between the communal Mongols and the private-land-owning Russians, were also intriguing and new to a long-time student of Mongol history. And Favereau's insistence on referring to the trade in kidnapped people as "human trafficking" rather than "the slave trade" - another of the lynchpins of the Jochid economy - is just one example of the way this book avoids slipping into idealizing the Mongols, even while it makes strong arguments in favor of the sophistication of Mongol civilization.
Despite some muddy timelines in parts of the book, the overall narrative is compelling, and although Favereau is arguing that the Horde adapted in order to survive, rather than fully collapsing in the late 14th century as commonly supposed, the trajectory of the narrative does often evoke a sense of tragedy, as the Jochid rulers finally undermine themselves with internecine feuds against a backdrop of ecological change and global pandemic. Perhaps unintentionally, her point about increased authoritarianism failing to yield increased authority - let alone actual solutions to massive economic, social, political, and environmental challenges - seemed like a relevant lesson for the current global moment.
Worth the read for the student of Mongol history, world history, and/or nomadic pastoralist societies.
September 26, 2021
A sweeping, epic history of the Ulus Jochi, or Golden Horde: one of the successor khanates which emerged out of the Mongol Empire in the mid-thirteenth century and survived into the mid-sixteenth century. In The Horde: How the Mongols Changed the World, Marie Favereau marshals an impressive array of sources to make the case that the achievements of the Golden Horde have often been misunderstood or discounted by later historians, trained as they were to think of sedentary agriculture and urbanism as both economically and morally superior to nomadic empires. The various Mongol states were thus, to this world view, simply temporary waves of violent invasion breaking west across the steppes, the Mongols "mere pirates of the land." Favereau argues instead both for the Jochids as skilled and flexible administrators of empire, and for the Horde as exercising a profound legacy across a great swathe of Eurasia.
I found the earlier chapters of the book, where Favereau concentrates more on the big-picture socio-cultural history, to be more engaging than the latter part, where it transitions into a more conventional political/military account. Still, a fascinating read and one with much to offer to those interested in medieval history or the history of empire.
I found the earlier chapters of the book, where Favereau concentrates more on the big-picture socio-cultural history, to be more engaging than the latter part, where it transitions into a more conventional political/military account. Still, a fascinating read and one with much to offer to those interested in medieval history or the history of empire.
Read
May 12, 2021I reviewed this for the Asian Review of Books:
https://asianreviewofbooks.com/conten...
https://asianreviewofbooks.com/conten...
August 25, 2022
A basic chronology, with minimal sketches of the historical personages and ethnic differences. It is challenging for a layperson to read entire chapters filled with dates and events. To come alive, history needs meaningful interludes to consider culture and ideas; and it needs to zoom in and capture certain moments in fine detail before resuming the endless recitation of chronology. For example, Berke the Jochid was a muslim, and the author calls out that this is very significant. But then she moves right along, without diving deeper into why it was significant that a muslim led a mongol horde.
June 13, 2021
For much of my life I asked for a horde-focused (so not as much Golden's) narrative history of the Kipchak Khanate and lo, it was delivered to me. My full review is here.
https://geotrickster.com/2021/06/13/t...
https://geotrickster.com/2021/06/13/t...
December 8, 2021
"The Horde" just didn't quite work. This book didn't quite find that balance that you want in a history book like this: written so as to be reasonably digestible but also very informative with in-depth analysis. I'm never read much on the Mongols before, but it's not like I know 0% about this time period, and some of this book went over my head; it read a little too much like a dense dissertation.
That's not to say there isn't any interesting facts and some good historical analysis; both are present in abundance, and Favereau overall does a good job explaining/defending her central premise: that the Mongols and the Golden Horde weren't just mindless nomadic conquerors, they had sophisticated political and economic systems. I learned some good stuff. But this is a hard read to get through, and I personally find Favereau is a little too fond of using unfamiliar terms; it's a good thing there was a glossary or this book would have been even more confusing. Although in a similar vein, it should have had a list of rulers/khans/begs (with a chart on how all these members of this extended family are related) and a timeline, as all the names quickly got confusing without any sort of a guidepost.
That's not to say there isn't any interesting facts and some good historical analysis; both are present in abundance, and Favereau overall does a good job explaining/defending her central premise: that the Mongols and the Golden Horde weren't just mindless nomadic conquerors, they had sophisticated political and economic systems. I learned some good stuff. But this is a hard read to get through, and I personally find Favereau is a little too fond of using unfamiliar terms; it's a good thing there was a glossary or this book would have been even more confusing. Although in a similar vein, it should have had a list of rulers/khans/begs (with a chart on how all these members of this extended family are related) and a timeline, as all the names quickly got confusing without any sort of a guidepost.
August 19, 2021
To absorb this slice of Mongol history, you need to learn a new language, memorize a 1,000-year-old map of Eurasia and master some of the nuances of ancient genealogy ... it's complex, maybe a bit intimidating ... probably a little over my head, I came to enjoy the book and appreciate the depth of the Horde's instinct, intelligence and toughness ... the book is an unbelievable research accomplishment and it amounts to history that makes everyone a tad smarter
June 6, 2021
I am, of course, biased, but this book is so good I am planning to initiate its translation into the Kazakh and the Russian. Beautifully written ✊
May 14, 2024
A good history of the Golden Horde. I didn't know much about the period and so I found it fascinating.
It was a little difficult to follow given the similarity of many of the names and titles. It also often seemed to use multiple terms to refer to the same groups.
It was a little difficult to follow given the similarity of many of the names and titles. It also often seemed to use multiple terms to refer to the same groups.
November 29, 2023
Buy.
Absolutely excellent. A sterling example of how history should be written. The author is convincing and authoritive. My only wish is that Favereau continues to write more books!
Early history of the Russian "city states" or other nomadic empires would be ideal spin offs.
Absolutely excellent. A sterling example of how history should be written. The author is convincing and authoritive. My only wish is that Favereau continues to write more books!
Early history of the Russian "city states" or other nomadic empires would be ideal spin offs.
July 21, 2022
I’ve been looking to further my historical knowledge recently with books about civilizations that I have little to no knowledge about. So I was very excited to give this book a shot. Getting through this book however was quite a slog. I think that this book suffers from an uninteresting writing style. It’s very informative and gives you a detailed understanding of all the relationships between various important figures, but it feels as if it’s trying to fit too much into the 300 or so pages. Many sections of the book read like this, “X wanted to gain control of the west. X was an ally of Y. Z didn’t like X and was also an ally of Y. Together they stopped X from expanding control.” It’s so dry that I often found myself putting it down after a few pages just because it was so boring to actually read. However, from a wide brush stroke perspective this book did showcase the varied and detailed history of one of mankind’s most interesting civilizations. A nomadic civilization conquering a world that is primarily sedentary and thriving through adaptation. I enjoyed learning about the Mongols but I feel like there has to be a more consumable way to present the information.
October 4, 2021
I have had excellent luck with my last several reads, and this one just adds to the luster. Ms. Favereau has a thoughtful, deeply-researched, concise, review of the current status of research into the Mongols in general, but the Hordes of Eur-Asia and Eastern Europe in particular. She states (and makes) the case for a more nuanced, holistic view of the Horde(s), and their impact on history, culture and the economy of a major part of the earth. She shreds the idea of a 'Mongol Yoke,' showing that there was an empire to be made out of control, economics, taxation, and working indigenous peoples to accomplish their political goals. The book has a useful glossary, and the maps are exemplary and tied to the text. One word of caution--read the preface after the book. When I read it the first time, I felt like I was slogging through the unknown. When I read it after I finished, 'all became clear'.
March 21, 2022
The main surprise/standout for me was just how progressive and inclusive they were of all different cultures and religions and peoples. Really interesting and well ahead of their time.
Really well researched, and accessible for anyone from an ‘expert’ to a novice, like myself.
Really well researched, and accessible for anyone from an ‘expert’ to a novice, like myself.
October 19, 2022
Highly informative, and as a newbie to Mongol history, mostly approachable. Hard time with all the names and terms but that's due more to my unfamiliarity. Very interesting
October 12, 2022
A fresh and interesting read about the outsized impact of the Mongols on the history of Eurasia, especially in trade and their interactions with other kingdoms around them.
November 7, 2023
My biggest complaint is how a lot of the maps were printed across two pages in a way that makes the middle of the maps practically unreadable.
May 15, 2023
Soon after Chinggis Khan died, the Mongol Empire was divided between his four sons, following a long-standing Mongol practice. This division eventually turned permanent, with each becoming their own imperial formation. There was the empire of the Ogedei Khan, the de facto Great Khan, encompassing most of East Asia. Tolui Khan inherited the Mongol heartland. Chagtai Khan inherited Central Asia, which included Northern Iran. Jochi Khan, once Chinggis's favorite, died before his father. His children inherited the Eurasian Steppe. This included parts of what is modern day Russia, the area around lower Volga. Jochi's inheritance is the subject of this book. By virtue of being the most distant from the Great Khan, with an open border available for expansion, they became one of the most powerful and influential movers of the Mongol Empire, even while these successors would never go back to Mongolia. They called themselves Orda, The Horde.
Modeled after Pax Romania and Pax Britannia, the author's central thesis is that there was Pax Mongolica, a period of stability in dominions Mongols conquered between 1200 and 1300. This led to an explosion of trade networks that led to an significant increase in exchange of goods. The empires of the Mongols facilitated the flourishing of art, the development of skilled crafts, and the progress of research in various areas such as botany, medicine, astronomy, measurement systems, and historiography. The author characterizes this shift as being as monumental as the Columbian exchange, and calls it the Mongol exchange. The Mongols prioritized trade, and merchants were often rewarded with lofty distinctions, legal privileges, and tax exemptions. A lot of the book is the focus on the unique Mongol policies that meant there was no clash between empire building and globalization. They did not work their subjects to death like the later Atlantic overlords did as long as they could tax them to mutual benefit. They even converted religions if it means furthering their interest. In the 1260s the Jochid elite converted en masse to Islam in order to win powerful friends and trading partners in Muslim-ruled lands. This extraordinary focus on trade was tied to the Mongol belief system. "The Mongols saw commodities as receptacles or mediums of something immaterial, and circulation of this immaterial something was essential to the cosmic balance of the world. Specifically, the qubi, the redistribution system, supported not only the living but also the dead, whose spirits needed to be continuously appeased in order to protect the living from negative interference by the “ill dead.”"
Another thesis is that there wouldn't be a modern Russia if not for the Horde's deliberate economic policies that fostered Russian growth, directly contesting the idea of the "Tartar yoke". Russia in the 12th century was splintered between various groups that were in conflict with each other - Novogord, Tver, Muscovy and so on. The Jochids conquered them all and made them vassals, thus unifying them for the first time. Jochid policies eventually favored the duchy of Moscow, making it the most powerful of the Russian principalities and initiating a shift from the Kievan regime, the consequences of which are still apparent today. On the Steppe, all the various Turkic and Chinese tribes defeated by the Mongols became Mongol. Thus it was with Kereit and then the Merkit warriors whose families were assimilated, and their leading women were married into Temüjin’s family. This was also true of the Eurasian steppe, with the Qipchaqs elite becoming the Jorchid elite. But the Rus - the Mongols allowed them to form their own identity as long as they paid tribute to the Horde. While in China and Central Asia, the Mongols were much more interventionist, in Russia, they allowed the landowners to keep their domains intact.
One of the commodities of the Mongol exchange that with some consequence in the world is that of slaves from the Steppe. The Mamluks of Egypt now had a direct line to their principal source of military manpower, as their warrior slaves arrived mainly from the Qipchaq steppe. I found it interesting that the author doesn't comment on the morality of this trade, considering how much condemnation most discussions of Atlantic one entails. The Black Death in the fourteen century hastened the dismantling of the Mongol empires(s). The pandemic shattered trade and circulation, the lifeblood of the Chinggisid regimes, weakening them forever. The covid pandemic did not lead to the destruction of the current world systems. Yet. So is what we have a more robust than the global empire of the Mongols? It's certainly a thought that Pax Americana and the death of capitalism is not really nigh.
Modeled after Pax Romania and Pax Britannia, the author's central thesis is that there was Pax Mongolica, a period of stability in dominions Mongols conquered between 1200 and 1300. This led to an explosion of trade networks that led to an significant increase in exchange of goods. The empires of the Mongols facilitated the flourishing of art, the development of skilled crafts, and the progress of research in various areas such as botany, medicine, astronomy, measurement systems, and historiography. The author characterizes this shift as being as monumental as the Columbian exchange, and calls it the Mongol exchange. The Mongols prioritized trade, and merchants were often rewarded with lofty distinctions, legal privileges, and tax exemptions. A lot of the book is the focus on the unique Mongol policies that meant there was no clash between empire building and globalization. They did not work their subjects to death like the later Atlantic overlords did as long as they could tax them to mutual benefit. They even converted religions if it means furthering their interest. In the 1260s the Jochid elite converted en masse to Islam in order to win powerful friends and trading partners in Muslim-ruled lands. This extraordinary focus on trade was tied to the Mongol belief system. "The Mongols saw commodities as receptacles or mediums of something immaterial, and circulation of this immaterial something was essential to the cosmic balance of the world. Specifically, the qubi, the redistribution system, supported not only the living but also the dead, whose spirits needed to be continuously appeased in order to protect the living from negative interference by the “ill dead.”"
Another thesis is that there wouldn't be a modern Russia if not for the Horde's deliberate economic policies that fostered Russian growth, directly contesting the idea of the "Tartar yoke". Russia in the 12th century was splintered between various groups that were in conflict with each other - Novogord, Tver, Muscovy and so on. The Jochids conquered them all and made them vassals, thus unifying them for the first time. Jochid policies eventually favored the duchy of Moscow, making it the most powerful of the Russian principalities and initiating a shift from the Kievan regime, the consequences of which are still apparent today. On the Steppe, all the various Turkic and Chinese tribes defeated by the Mongols became Mongol. Thus it was with Kereit and then the Merkit warriors whose families were assimilated, and their leading women were married into Temüjin’s family. This was also true of the Eurasian steppe, with the Qipchaqs elite becoming the Jorchid elite. But the Rus - the Mongols allowed them to form their own identity as long as they paid tribute to the Horde. While in China and Central Asia, the Mongols were much more interventionist, in Russia, they allowed the landowners to keep their domains intact.
One of the commodities of the Mongol exchange that with some consequence in the world is that of slaves from the Steppe. The Mamluks of Egypt now had a direct line to their principal source of military manpower, as their warrior slaves arrived mainly from the Qipchaq steppe. I found it interesting that the author doesn't comment on the morality of this trade, considering how much condemnation most discussions of Atlantic one entails. The Black Death in the fourteen century hastened the dismantling of the Mongol empires(s). The pandemic shattered trade and circulation, the lifeblood of the Chinggisid regimes, weakening them forever. The covid pandemic did not lead to the destruction of the current world systems. Yet. So is what we have a more robust than the global empire of the Mongols? It's certainly a thought that Pax Americana and the death of capitalism is not really nigh.
February 17, 2023
“The Horde” is a well-written history of one branch of the Mongol Empire, which split into multiple lineages after the death of Genghis Khan and his sons. The focus here is on the descendants of the arm of the Empire inherited and ruled by Genghis’ oldest son, Jochi, who (as the Jochids) inhabited what is today western Russia and Ukraine during the 12th and 13th centuries.
The Mongols and their descendants are known for being ruthless warriors with a propensity for military conquest. However, as their expansion period ceased, they became tolerant of other cultures and religions, were politically and economically progressive, and quite capable administrators and city-builders. The book can occasionally get bogged down in tedious, eye-glazing detail, but overall makes for interesting history, particularly for a reader new to the subject. The epilogue contains a superb analysis of the Horde’s historical importance for the world. 4 stars.
The Mongols and their descendants are known for being ruthless warriors with a propensity for military conquest. However, as their expansion period ceased, they became tolerant of other cultures and religions, were politically and economically progressive, and quite capable administrators and city-builders. The book can occasionally get bogged down in tedious, eye-glazing detail, but overall makes for interesting history, particularly for a reader new to the subject. The epilogue contains a superb analysis of the Horde’s historical importance for the world. 4 stars.
March 30, 2022
Fascinating look at a time and place in history that I was not familiar with. The book focuses on the development of the mongol empire after Chinggis Kahn, especially the western horde that developed under and after his son Jochi. The empire was immense, surprisingly durable for a nomadic governance, sophisticated and complex. It was such a significant empire for the time, and exists today in successor states that still bear the names of some of its peoples. Much of the book describes the history, succession, military campaigns, but also includes details of daily life. The focus is on the influence the Horde had over the groups to its western border, including Russia, lituania, poland, trade relations with europe, through the genoese and others.
Very interesting book.
Very interesting book.
July 8, 2022
A lot drier than you might expect for a book about Mongols. Of course, I think that may have been the point as the author’s thesis is that the economic policy and political acumen of the western branch of the Mongol empire (the Golden Horde) was a major contributor to their longevity, power, and wealth. I definitely learned a ton of new things about Central Asian and Eastern European history plus Mongol society and governance, which I appreciated. That said, sometimes it read just like a bunch of names on a page with no personality. All the khans felt very interchangeable. Idk maybe that’s a limitation of the available records. It was definitely a good book to read right before bed!
April 16, 2024
This is an interesting but extremely biased and poorly argued book. Favereau has written a book-length thesis in the guise of a history, and her unconvincing arguments mar what could have been an otherwise excellent account of the subject and period.
Her argument is that the Mongols, and especially the Horde, were not some savage barbarians ravaging the world, but instead a cohesive society and legitimate empire in their own right, who effected many positive benefits on the parts of the world they governed through social, cultural, and economic means of their own making. The argument’s weakness, and the book’s biggest flaw, is that Favereau completely ignores the scale of destruction of the initial Mongol conquests and the subsequent wars. This is a baffling and almost propagandistic omission. To ignore the obvious evidence countering her argument, even if that evidence is gone over ad nauseam in other books, is too shockingly disingenuous to forgive. How can an honest analysis of the economic effects of Mongol rule be conducted without factoring in the millions of people they killed and the cities they destroyed? One can imagine that burning cities to the ground and killing all the inhabitants has a powerful effect on the local economy.
Yet when destruction is mentioned, it barely garners a sentence or two (i.e., “They sacked Kiev”) and a comprehensive picture of the sheer scale of it is never painted, compared to the pages and pages extolling the benefits to global commerce and development of having the main thoroughfare of the Silk Road located in the Horde’s territory. This is not to say her argument is necessarily wrong; the two things could have existed together, the Mongols and the Horde could have created a sophisticated economic system while also having laid waste to much of Eurasia, but the failure to address such a massive hole in her argument irreparably ruins it. It would have been a far more interesting and convincing thesis had the scale of destruction and its social, cultural, and economic effects been discussed.
Time and time again, the reader is told that this one city was constructed and had a population boom because of the Horde, this other city grew and churches and schools were built because of the Horde, this part of Europe experienced a rapid rise in development and wealth because of the Horde, etc. There is no end to the benefits that the Horde’s subjects experienced, Favereau writes over and over again. What about the drawbacks? None are mentioned or examined to the same depth as the never ending litany of benefits, and while this does not negate the possibility that all the benefits Favereau lists actually occurred, this is another spot where omitting the other side of the story weakens her argument and takes the book out of the realm of history and into borderline propaganda. There is also a very obvious anti-Russian slant to Favereau’s retellings of the early Russian principalities’ interactions with the Horde over the centuries. There is a level of vitriol present in these descriptions that is absent when describing other civilizations and cultures; the bias is unexplained and distracting, making those parts read more like pro-Mongol revisionism than trustworthy history.
Near the end of the book, Favereau makes another strange and completely unsupported argument: the Horde did not truly “collapse.” They reorganized, she explains, they strategically retreated and then recombined, they absorbed other nomadic peoples and morphed, they changed, they evolved, etc. etc. This secondary argument is even weaker and more fallacious than the main thesis. Rule from the Jochid line ended, their sphere of power ended, their currency issuance changed, their territory fractured, their population dispersed, their cities crumbled—the Horde collapsed. Favereau says that these things are normal for nomad societies and are a part of evolution and therefore not collapse, but she can’t have it both ways. Either the Horde was an empire—and empires collapse—or it was a loose confederation of nomads for whom the lack of centralization makes collapse impossible. Moreover, it is an odd argument to make. It is not controversial to say that they collapsed, and her insistence to the contrary just further steers this book towards revisionism and propaganda.
Nevertheless, Favereau does a decent job of recounting the chronology and history of the Horde. When she is writing plain history, Favereau is an excellent historian. She takes a tricky and convoluted history and condenses it into an enjoyable and simple-to-follow story that includes the key players, the major events, their causes and their consequences, all while following the “main thrust” of the subject and the period. While the book could’ve done with more maps and especially with a few dynastic trees, the sections of straight history are well worth reading and the highlight of this book. It makes the rest of the work that much more painful to read, knowing that she could have written a truly excellent, comprehensive history if she wasn’t condensing the events to fit the arguments that she is forcing onto it.
This was a strange and disappointing book. The group responsible for one of the highest death tolls in any period of human history is certainly interesting to study, but they are a strange subject to attempt to “rehabilitate,” as Favereau has tried and failed to do here. While the plain history is absolutely worth reading, the book as a whole cannot be called a history as much as a thesis.
Her argument is that the Mongols, and especially the Horde, were not some savage barbarians ravaging the world, but instead a cohesive society and legitimate empire in their own right, who effected many positive benefits on the parts of the world they governed through social, cultural, and economic means of their own making. The argument’s weakness, and the book’s biggest flaw, is that Favereau completely ignores the scale of destruction of the initial Mongol conquests and the subsequent wars. This is a baffling and almost propagandistic omission. To ignore the obvious evidence countering her argument, even if that evidence is gone over ad nauseam in other books, is too shockingly disingenuous to forgive. How can an honest analysis of the economic effects of Mongol rule be conducted without factoring in the millions of people they killed and the cities they destroyed? One can imagine that burning cities to the ground and killing all the inhabitants has a powerful effect on the local economy.
Yet when destruction is mentioned, it barely garners a sentence or two (i.e., “They sacked Kiev”) and a comprehensive picture of the sheer scale of it is never painted, compared to the pages and pages extolling the benefits to global commerce and development of having the main thoroughfare of the Silk Road located in the Horde’s territory. This is not to say her argument is necessarily wrong; the two things could have existed together, the Mongols and the Horde could have created a sophisticated economic system while also having laid waste to much of Eurasia, but the failure to address such a massive hole in her argument irreparably ruins it. It would have been a far more interesting and convincing thesis had the scale of destruction and its social, cultural, and economic effects been discussed.
Time and time again, the reader is told that this one city was constructed and had a population boom because of the Horde, this other city grew and churches and schools were built because of the Horde, this part of Europe experienced a rapid rise in development and wealth because of the Horde, etc. There is no end to the benefits that the Horde’s subjects experienced, Favereau writes over and over again. What about the drawbacks? None are mentioned or examined to the same depth as the never ending litany of benefits, and while this does not negate the possibility that all the benefits Favereau lists actually occurred, this is another spot where omitting the other side of the story weakens her argument and takes the book out of the realm of history and into borderline propaganda. There is also a very obvious anti-Russian slant to Favereau’s retellings of the early Russian principalities’ interactions with the Horde over the centuries. There is a level of vitriol present in these descriptions that is absent when describing other civilizations and cultures; the bias is unexplained and distracting, making those parts read more like pro-Mongol revisionism than trustworthy history.
Near the end of the book, Favereau makes another strange and completely unsupported argument: the Horde did not truly “collapse.” They reorganized, she explains, they strategically retreated and then recombined, they absorbed other nomadic peoples and morphed, they changed, they evolved, etc. etc. This secondary argument is even weaker and more fallacious than the main thesis. Rule from the Jochid line ended, their sphere of power ended, their currency issuance changed, their territory fractured, their population dispersed, their cities crumbled—the Horde collapsed. Favereau says that these things are normal for nomad societies and are a part of evolution and therefore not collapse, but she can’t have it both ways. Either the Horde was an empire—and empires collapse—or it was a loose confederation of nomads for whom the lack of centralization makes collapse impossible. Moreover, it is an odd argument to make. It is not controversial to say that they collapsed, and her insistence to the contrary just further steers this book towards revisionism and propaganda.
Nevertheless, Favereau does a decent job of recounting the chronology and history of the Horde. When she is writing plain history, Favereau is an excellent historian. She takes a tricky and convoluted history and condenses it into an enjoyable and simple-to-follow story that includes the key players, the major events, their causes and their consequences, all while following the “main thrust” of the subject and the period. While the book could’ve done with more maps and especially with a few dynastic trees, the sections of straight history are well worth reading and the highlight of this book. It makes the rest of the work that much more painful to read, knowing that she could have written a truly excellent, comprehensive history if she wasn’t condensing the events to fit the arguments that she is forcing onto it.
This was a strange and disappointing book. The group responsible for one of the highest death tolls in any period of human history is certainly interesting to study, but they are a strange subject to attempt to “rehabilitate,” as Favereau has tried and failed to do here. While the plain history is absolutely worth reading, the book as a whole cannot be called a history as much as a thesis.
Read
June 7, 2021Only read first 100 pages, so i can't really review it. Didn't get me where i wanted to go.... certainly an appreciation of the virtues of the Mongol way and a counteractive to long held negative perceptions, but i got bogged down in the specific moves- both geographically and family lineage. Not a criticism, just now what i was looking for.
January 9, 2023
Do not get the audio version. Snoozer. This is a very academic book. With no background in Mongol history it was a real struggle. I admit I didn’t read it all. However it was a book club book and the discussion was enlightening. If you’re interested in history and a fairly successful political model although at times very violent, give it a try.
April 23, 2021
Very interesting history of the Horde but gets bogged down in the details. The best part of the book is the introduction which summarizes the book and the rest of the book adds detailed history but does not add very much.
March 9, 2024
Is This An Overview?
Mongols were able to conquer a large section of the world, but Mongols were more than just conquerors. Mongols were expert administrators, who were able to rule the vast empire. Many regions were developed through their efforts. Pillage was not the goal of the conquests, but to control production which would generate taxes for the Mongols.
As more developed regions would produce more tax revenue, Mongols enabled regions productive capacity by connecting and protecting trade routes and other policies to enhance commerce. Technology was invested in. Science and art flourished. Mongols utilized local laws and traditions. Mongols were tolerant of different faiths. The empire’s revenue was not for the benefit of the khans, but for the people and empire. Mongols had a culture of sharing, circulation, and redistribution. A culture that had egalitarian features, while also reinforcing social rank. Khans did not accumulate wealth, but dispensed it to prove their worth to the people.
Succession was hereditary to the heirs of Chinggis Khan, and meant to be tolerant of competitors. But succession created tension. Rather than settle disputes through violence, the groups would separate. Mongols would relinquish claims on the throne to ensure peace. Showing the resilience and flexibility of Mongol politics. Four Mongol groups were formed after Chinggis Khan, with this book focusing on the group following Chinggis Khan’s eldest son, Jochi.
What Was The Mongol Empire’s Political Structure?
This is a book about the Mongol Empire, focusing on the legacy of Jochi. The empire after Chinggis Khan was led by Jochids, Chagatayids, Ögödeids, and Tuluids. Each named after a Chinggis Khan son. Jochi was the eldest son of Chinggis Khan.
The title of Chinggis was indigenous, rather than given by another power. A title that was used as a statement, that Mongol would not be subordinate. The regime had to two goals, to make the ruling status inheritable to the descendants of Chinggis Khan, and to intergrade new members to expand their work force and army. Descendants had the opportunity to become sovereign, but not all could rule. Chinggis Khan’s lineage became known as the golden lineage.
Jochi made an error in battle, and afterwards. Jochi destroyed the city of Urgench, while it was supposed to be taken for its trade and intelligentsia. When sharing the plunder, the shares were divided among the brothers, and none was given to Chinggis. Chinggis was slighted, but forgave the sons. Then, diluted Jochi’s claim to power, made sure that tax receipts were shared with other brothers. Making Jochi an equal rather than chief heir. Without a clear succession, and the alienation of Jochi, laid the foundations for autonomy. Jochi still had claims to power, even without being heir. Had exclusive rights to territories, and shares of revenues from sibling territories much like they had a claim on the revenues of Jochi territory.
Jochi and those that followed Jochi moved to a region between Volga-Ural and Black Sea. There they established a Mongol administration that was more independent than other Mongol regions. The Jochid would maintain Mongol practices, develop a sophisticated social organization, and sustain their own imperial formation. Known as ulus Jochi, or Orda, the Horde.
Mongol groups were not identical, but shared economic strategies, social institutions, and political culture. An ulus was the sovereign political community that included all people. Based on a network of oboqs. Groups whose members shared single, often legendary, ancestry. Groups followed their own leaders, but unity was possible.
After the 1206 quriltai, political power was concentrated in the golden lineage, involving extended negotiations with elites. Khan made decisions in assemblies. Major decisions were not made without the Khan. Quriltai was also an event when the khan would distribute positions, rewards, punishments, and missions. This was a meeting in which foreigners were not allowed, to not share internal politics with them.
The Horde was socially diverse and multiethnic, but the leadership came from dominant steppe clans, mostly Mongol subgroups. They were called begs. As the Horde became oligarchical, the begs gained power. Begs ruled with the khans in a governing council. Khan’s primacy was acknowledged by being descendent of Chinggis Khan, but that did not make a khan all-powerful. They needed to associate with powerful begs.
Administration had a hierarchy that was important to the Mongols, between seniors and juniors, but the hierarchy was subject to revision. Commoners could be associated with prestigious lineages, but birth rank remained conspicuous. Social hierarchy that also differentiated between long status and newcomers. Mongol loyal servants were the keshigten. The keshig collaborated with and served Jochids, but they were separate. Intermarriage was rare, and did not lead to familial political alliance.
Succession after Chinggis created political tension. To avoid civil war and bloodshed, the groups divided. Mongols were able to relinquish claims on the throne, to enable peace. As the steppe was large, rivals could part amicably, and seek relative autonomy. Even cooperate with the broader ulus. Generally, when an empire breaks apart, the empire ceases to be. That is not the case for the Mongol empire. Mongol’s breaking apart was a show of resilience. Showing mobility and flexibility of Mongol politics.
Alliances could be made, but were fluid. What was durable was vengeance, as blood feuds spanned generations. Temüjin, who would become Chinggis Khan, gained influence when taking vengeance for the fall of Temüjin’s family.
The political process was meant to be tolerant of successorship competitions. But with each succession, the process became strained. Defeated candidates no longer publicly renounced their claim to the throne. Begs gained power when the khans Nogay and Toqto were in conflict. Begs wanted to maintain the Mongol system that the khans threatened in different ways. Özbek gained power through murder and political purges. Purges that created a cycle of vengeance.
How Did Economics Influence Social Status?
The Mongol exchange changed the lives of a large part of the world. In which people were conquered, and accepted Mongol domination. An era in which various fields flourished such as economic, industry, art, medicine, and various sciences. Mongols invested in technology and innovated the technologies they found. Manufacturing production increased. Imported products and attracted traders.
Social status was dependent on manufacturing, for what was worn determined status. Luxuries that were needed for the political economy, for social order. Trade that was not necessarily for subsistence. They relied on circulation and redistribution of goods to reinforce social rank, and create bonds of dependence. Which also gave people a reason to invest into the success of the regime. Circulation was also a spiritual necessity.
Mongol society had generous leaders, because it would through their generosity that they proved their worth to the people. Not just the leaders, but redistribution was for all social classes. Khans did not accumulate wealth, but dispense it. To keep the wealth in circulation, which brought in more resources than when retained. Wealth that was meant for the health of the empire and welfare of the people, not for khan personally.
Mongols shared everything. Redistributed resources, with more going to higher-status individuals. Sharing also reinforced hierarchy, as inheritance ensured concentration of wealth. Sharing system had egalitarian features, such as commoners got enough distribution to obtain material comfort. Lending and borrowing of animals was common. Although food production was distributed upward, poor herders could more easily sustain themselves.
Pillage was not the goal of the conquests. The goal was to encourage the conquered people to continue doing what they excelled at, and for Mongols to benefit through taxation. Mongols used conquered people’s skills and capacities, and expanded their commercial networks. Mongols were building long-distance trade, even during tumultuous times. Mongols wanted production and distribution to occur within their territories. Many different communities traded with the Horde. They were sometimes allies, sometimes enemies.
As trade depended on merchants, merchants were valued, and given legal privileges and tax exemptions. Mongols knew that merchants could not be coerced or controlled, therefor they were seduced. Placing light taxes on commercial transactions, and keeping merchants safe. Mongols controlled trade routes, grasslands, and marketplaces.
The focus of Mongol taxation was whatever a society produce in surplus. When societies like Russia could not produce much food in surplus, their furs and crafted objects were used as payment. Mongols were projecting power, but did not interfere with economic organizations. Mongols did not extract value to the detriment of their subjects, but empowered them to produce which would have enriched the Mongols. Mongols took into account economic, political, and cultural sensitivities. As economic growth and political stability was important for the Mongols, the Mongols took their time changing the people’s habits. Mongols were willing to invest time and effort.
Coin use tended to be seasonal, and followed trade fairs and tax collection. Coins were issued when needed, and only a khan could determine legal tender. When coins were needed, anyone could just bring in silver to the mint. There was a fee that the khan would take.
Mongols preferred tents which were warm and intimate, over sedentary residences. As Mongols camps could be extended, they could accommodate additional people and different occupations. The camps security impressed visitors, along with how respectful the people were toward each other. The camps lacked fights, along with no large scale thieves.
Mongols did develop cities to answer increasing sedentary populations, and for a center of trade, religion, and manufacturing. To advance political and economic goals. Mongols did not use cities are administrative centers, as they ruled on horseback. They were expert administrators, with an administration system that lasted longer than the empire.
Women owned the household, as the husbands needed to visit their different wife’s and their homes. Women held decision making power, within all social classes.
How Did Mongols Change Other Peoples, And How Did Other Peoples Change The Mongols?
Mongols had an integration policy, to welcome new subjects into their society, no matter their background. Alliances were based on common interest rather than other basis. Mongols were flexible in their policies and respected local laws. Settling disputes with respect to local laws. Jochids did not impose their values of land on sedentary people.
Absorption of defeated people was needed for growth. The Jochids cajoled and threatened vassals. Accommodating and exploiting sedentary workers. Enslaved some while let others live their lives. Took part in their craft. Some conquered people noticed little change, but had to pay taxes. Others were incorporated.
Rejecting Mongol control was perilous, while cooperation was profitable. There were rebellions, such as when the Merkit and Naiman decided to go against the Mongols. These were not outsiders to be defeated and assimilated, but had pledged to assimilate and then reneged. No mercy would be given to the rebels.
Mongols had the concept of Tengri. Tengri was the sky, God, and everything that stood out. The life force of warriors. Veneration bound the groups together, with exclusion form collective rituals meant banishment from social life.
Horde identity was fluid, and continuously evolving. Using nomadic traditions, but adapting and departing when needed when faced with challenges that needed different solutions. Jochid converted to Islam for political and commercial partners in Muslim regions. Even as they became Muslims, they also practiced law and spiritual values of the steppe. Islam became a source of collective identity. Islam gave Jochids legitimacy to their independence. Generally, Tengri and Allah were the same.
Islam brought legitimacy to the khan, along with allies for an intra-Mongol conflict. Although there was no religion strife, the Muslim support for the Jochids was to contest Toluids Christian support.
Tammachi were garrison troops that established preliminary administration and coercive structure. Reading the region for long-term occupation.
Mongols appointed people to represent their interests, to obtain their tax revenue. Taking census, verifying accounts, and controlling payment delivery. Mongols trained hostages to lead and obey, to return as vassals.
How Did Mongol Empire Effect The Environment?
Mongols were nomadic and herders, who therefore knew how to use the environment. Mongols feared and respected the ecosystem. Horde needed to be mobile, to ensure sufficient grazing while preventing damaging the steppe ecology. But also had to converge for political meetings. Political meetings were scheduled when subsistence was more easily met. Herding was used more for political control, than herding efficiently.
Jochids took hold of the fertile regions. Rejecting Jochid was to reject was to reject food supply. Increased population required grazing at scale, which required more labor. Labor that came from captives.
What Were Mongol Empire’s Military Capabilities?
Used army controlled messenger system called yam. Yam stations were an army controlled communication networks, that enabled quick communication. With the yam network, they could rule a vast empire.
Military units were composed of different clans, to limit opportunities of solidarity and rebellion. Defeated warriors were absorbed and distributed with the Mongol society.
Mongol custom for warfare was to provide a ritualized exchange with adversaries before battle. A form of psychological warfare, with diplomatic means that terrify. Meant to offend while giving them a last chance to surrender. After the adversaries were provoked and reciprocated the anger, therefore justifying the Mongol riotousness in the endeavor as the offended party.
When the Mongols were outnumbered, they used captives to make their numbers appear bigger, which would encourage the opposition to surrender without a fight. Mongols would display captives outside besieged cities and abuse them, to demoralize the city’s population. Mongols would use the captives as shields.
Mongols excelled at sieges and open battles. Their opponents, such as the Bulgars and other later, knew this. They developed strategies to prevent engaging the Mongols on these terms.
Mongols decapitated prince’s heads, to show as proof that the death was true, and to accelerated submission of the people.
When met by unfavorable conditions, such as local resistance and muddy terrain, they changed their plans.
The Mongols had exceptional scouts, knowing location of enemies and their strengths and weaknesses. Opponents such as the Russians, had trouble identifying the location and number of Mongols.
Mongols attacked villages and small fortifications before focusing their siege unto a capital. Without surrounding support, capitals lacked supplies therefore could not hold out for long. The Mongols took the supplies for themselves, that was also used when moving to the next target.
Mongols fought during cold-weather, used cold-weather warfare. Mongols attacked when their opponents were unprepared, and were ready to retreat when needed. Adapted to climactic differences, moved to hospitable terrain. Mongol warfare season was opposite of Russian. Russians used peasants, who were able to fight in spring and early summer as they worked on the field afterward. Russians were not expected to fight during the coldest months, as they stayed indoors. The Mongols fought during the cold season, while retreating in the late spring and summer for milking season.
Why Did Mongol Influence Decline?
During the 1350s, there was a period of bulqaq, anarchy. Facing plague, rebellions, and succession struggles. With many threats, the Mongols used their strategy of retreating. Not as a reflection of panic, but of strategic withdrawal. Less of an ejection from the region, but to focus their efforts on facing dangerous adversaries.
During the 1340s-1350s, Mongols were abandoning cities due to plague, the Black Death. The plague traveled further than before, because of Mongol activities. Mongol movements, ecological changes, and trade connections brought more interactions between humans and other animals with more people. Mongols already knew how to respond to contagious diseases, which included quarantining people. Regions were facing not just epidemics, but also natural disasters. The public held the Mongols responsible. For mismanaging resources.
Even with ecological struggles, bulqaq was a succession struggle. The khans were purging their competitors. Khan’s purges prevented a strong ruling class, which opened them to rebellion and other forms of strife. Birdibek did more damage in a short time than the plague had. Birdibek eliminated every competitor for the throne, which horrified his own people. Political assassinations provoked retaliation, which created cycles of revenge due to Mongol culture of seeking vengeance. As the Mongol Empire became more authoritarian, less people were willing to support the Mongol Empire.
Caveats?
As a cultural history with diverse details, there can be difficulty in keeping track of who did what, and the names and function of social institutions. As political alliances shifted frequently, it can be difficult to follow the political spheres of influence.
There are parts of the book that provide many details on a few events, while other parts provide a quick succession of sequences of events. Tracking the sequence of events can be difficult, but the implications of the events are provided.
Mongols were able to conquer a large section of the world, but Mongols were more than just conquerors. Mongols were expert administrators, who were able to rule the vast empire. Many regions were developed through their efforts. Pillage was not the goal of the conquests, but to control production which would generate taxes for the Mongols.
As more developed regions would produce more tax revenue, Mongols enabled regions productive capacity by connecting and protecting trade routes and other policies to enhance commerce. Technology was invested in. Science and art flourished. Mongols utilized local laws and traditions. Mongols were tolerant of different faiths. The empire’s revenue was not for the benefit of the khans, but for the people and empire. Mongols had a culture of sharing, circulation, and redistribution. A culture that had egalitarian features, while also reinforcing social rank. Khans did not accumulate wealth, but dispensed it to prove their worth to the people.
Succession was hereditary to the heirs of Chinggis Khan, and meant to be tolerant of competitors. But succession created tension. Rather than settle disputes through violence, the groups would separate. Mongols would relinquish claims on the throne to ensure peace. Showing the resilience and flexibility of Mongol politics. Four Mongol groups were formed after Chinggis Khan, with this book focusing on the group following Chinggis Khan’s eldest son, Jochi.
What Was The Mongol Empire’s Political Structure?
This is a book about the Mongol Empire, focusing on the legacy of Jochi. The empire after Chinggis Khan was led by Jochids, Chagatayids, Ögödeids, and Tuluids. Each named after a Chinggis Khan son. Jochi was the eldest son of Chinggis Khan.
The title of Chinggis was indigenous, rather than given by another power. A title that was used as a statement, that Mongol would not be subordinate. The regime had to two goals, to make the ruling status inheritable to the descendants of Chinggis Khan, and to intergrade new members to expand their work force and army. Descendants had the opportunity to become sovereign, but not all could rule. Chinggis Khan’s lineage became known as the golden lineage.
Jochi made an error in battle, and afterwards. Jochi destroyed the city of Urgench, while it was supposed to be taken for its trade and intelligentsia. When sharing the plunder, the shares were divided among the brothers, and none was given to Chinggis. Chinggis was slighted, but forgave the sons. Then, diluted Jochi’s claim to power, made sure that tax receipts were shared with other brothers. Making Jochi an equal rather than chief heir. Without a clear succession, and the alienation of Jochi, laid the foundations for autonomy. Jochi still had claims to power, even without being heir. Had exclusive rights to territories, and shares of revenues from sibling territories much like they had a claim on the revenues of Jochi territory.
Jochi and those that followed Jochi moved to a region between Volga-Ural and Black Sea. There they established a Mongol administration that was more independent than other Mongol regions. The Jochid would maintain Mongol practices, develop a sophisticated social organization, and sustain their own imperial formation. Known as ulus Jochi, or Orda, the Horde.
Mongol groups were not identical, but shared economic strategies, social institutions, and political culture. An ulus was the sovereign political community that included all people. Based on a network of oboqs. Groups whose members shared single, often legendary, ancestry. Groups followed their own leaders, but unity was possible.
After the 1206 quriltai, political power was concentrated in the golden lineage, involving extended negotiations with elites. Khan made decisions in assemblies. Major decisions were not made without the Khan. Quriltai was also an event when the khan would distribute positions, rewards, punishments, and missions. This was a meeting in which foreigners were not allowed, to not share internal politics with them.
The Horde was socially diverse and multiethnic, but the leadership came from dominant steppe clans, mostly Mongol subgroups. They were called begs. As the Horde became oligarchical, the begs gained power. Begs ruled with the khans in a governing council. Khan’s primacy was acknowledged by being descendent of Chinggis Khan, but that did not make a khan all-powerful. They needed to associate with powerful begs.
Administration had a hierarchy that was important to the Mongols, between seniors and juniors, but the hierarchy was subject to revision. Commoners could be associated with prestigious lineages, but birth rank remained conspicuous. Social hierarchy that also differentiated between long status and newcomers. Mongol loyal servants were the keshigten. The keshig collaborated with and served Jochids, but they were separate. Intermarriage was rare, and did not lead to familial political alliance.
Succession after Chinggis created political tension. To avoid civil war and bloodshed, the groups divided. Mongols were able to relinquish claims on the throne, to enable peace. As the steppe was large, rivals could part amicably, and seek relative autonomy. Even cooperate with the broader ulus. Generally, when an empire breaks apart, the empire ceases to be. That is not the case for the Mongol empire. Mongol’s breaking apart was a show of resilience. Showing mobility and flexibility of Mongol politics.
Alliances could be made, but were fluid. What was durable was vengeance, as blood feuds spanned generations. Temüjin, who would become Chinggis Khan, gained influence when taking vengeance for the fall of Temüjin’s family.
The political process was meant to be tolerant of successorship competitions. But with each succession, the process became strained. Defeated candidates no longer publicly renounced their claim to the throne. Begs gained power when the khans Nogay and Toqto were in conflict. Begs wanted to maintain the Mongol system that the khans threatened in different ways. Özbek gained power through murder and political purges. Purges that created a cycle of vengeance.
How Did Economics Influence Social Status?
The Mongol exchange changed the lives of a large part of the world. In which people were conquered, and accepted Mongol domination. An era in which various fields flourished such as economic, industry, art, medicine, and various sciences. Mongols invested in technology and innovated the technologies they found. Manufacturing production increased. Imported products and attracted traders.
Social status was dependent on manufacturing, for what was worn determined status. Luxuries that were needed for the political economy, for social order. Trade that was not necessarily for subsistence. They relied on circulation and redistribution of goods to reinforce social rank, and create bonds of dependence. Which also gave people a reason to invest into the success of the regime. Circulation was also a spiritual necessity.
Mongol society had generous leaders, because it would through their generosity that they proved their worth to the people. Not just the leaders, but redistribution was for all social classes. Khans did not accumulate wealth, but dispense it. To keep the wealth in circulation, which brought in more resources than when retained. Wealth that was meant for the health of the empire and welfare of the people, not for khan personally.
Mongols shared everything. Redistributed resources, with more going to higher-status individuals. Sharing also reinforced hierarchy, as inheritance ensured concentration of wealth. Sharing system had egalitarian features, such as commoners got enough distribution to obtain material comfort. Lending and borrowing of animals was common. Although food production was distributed upward, poor herders could more easily sustain themselves.
Pillage was not the goal of the conquests. The goal was to encourage the conquered people to continue doing what they excelled at, and for Mongols to benefit through taxation. Mongols used conquered people’s skills and capacities, and expanded their commercial networks. Mongols were building long-distance trade, even during tumultuous times. Mongols wanted production and distribution to occur within their territories. Many different communities traded with the Horde. They were sometimes allies, sometimes enemies.
As trade depended on merchants, merchants were valued, and given legal privileges and tax exemptions. Mongols knew that merchants could not be coerced or controlled, therefor they were seduced. Placing light taxes on commercial transactions, and keeping merchants safe. Mongols controlled trade routes, grasslands, and marketplaces.
The focus of Mongol taxation was whatever a society produce in surplus. When societies like Russia could not produce much food in surplus, their furs and crafted objects were used as payment. Mongols were projecting power, but did not interfere with economic organizations. Mongols did not extract value to the detriment of their subjects, but empowered them to produce which would have enriched the Mongols. Mongols took into account economic, political, and cultural sensitivities. As economic growth and political stability was important for the Mongols, the Mongols took their time changing the people’s habits. Mongols were willing to invest time and effort.
Coin use tended to be seasonal, and followed trade fairs and tax collection. Coins were issued when needed, and only a khan could determine legal tender. When coins were needed, anyone could just bring in silver to the mint. There was a fee that the khan would take.
Mongols preferred tents which were warm and intimate, over sedentary residences. As Mongols camps could be extended, they could accommodate additional people and different occupations. The camps security impressed visitors, along with how respectful the people were toward each other. The camps lacked fights, along with no large scale thieves.
Mongols did develop cities to answer increasing sedentary populations, and for a center of trade, religion, and manufacturing. To advance political and economic goals. Mongols did not use cities are administrative centers, as they ruled on horseback. They were expert administrators, with an administration system that lasted longer than the empire.
Women owned the household, as the husbands needed to visit their different wife’s and their homes. Women held decision making power, within all social classes.
How Did Mongols Change Other Peoples, And How Did Other Peoples Change The Mongols?
Mongols had an integration policy, to welcome new subjects into their society, no matter their background. Alliances were based on common interest rather than other basis. Mongols were flexible in their policies and respected local laws. Settling disputes with respect to local laws. Jochids did not impose their values of land on sedentary people.
Absorption of defeated people was needed for growth. The Jochids cajoled and threatened vassals. Accommodating and exploiting sedentary workers. Enslaved some while let others live their lives. Took part in their craft. Some conquered people noticed little change, but had to pay taxes. Others were incorporated.
Rejecting Mongol control was perilous, while cooperation was profitable. There were rebellions, such as when the Merkit and Naiman decided to go against the Mongols. These were not outsiders to be defeated and assimilated, but had pledged to assimilate and then reneged. No mercy would be given to the rebels.
Mongols had the concept of Tengri. Tengri was the sky, God, and everything that stood out. The life force of warriors. Veneration bound the groups together, with exclusion form collective rituals meant banishment from social life.
Horde identity was fluid, and continuously evolving. Using nomadic traditions, but adapting and departing when needed when faced with challenges that needed different solutions. Jochid converted to Islam for political and commercial partners in Muslim regions. Even as they became Muslims, they also practiced law and spiritual values of the steppe. Islam became a source of collective identity. Islam gave Jochids legitimacy to their independence. Generally, Tengri and Allah were the same.
Islam brought legitimacy to the khan, along with allies for an intra-Mongol conflict. Although there was no religion strife, the Muslim support for the Jochids was to contest Toluids Christian support.
Tammachi were garrison troops that established preliminary administration and coercive structure. Reading the region for long-term occupation.
Mongols appointed people to represent their interests, to obtain their tax revenue. Taking census, verifying accounts, and controlling payment delivery. Mongols trained hostages to lead and obey, to return as vassals.
How Did Mongol Empire Effect The Environment?
Mongols were nomadic and herders, who therefore knew how to use the environment. Mongols feared and respected the ecosystem. Horde needed to be mobile, to ensure sufficient grazing while preventing damaging the steppe ecology. But also had to converge for political meetings. Political meetings were scheduled when subsistence was more easily met. Herding was used more for political control, than herding efficiently.
Jochids took hold of the fertile regions. Rejecting Jochid was to reject was to reject food supply. Increased population required grazing at scale, which required more labor. Labor that came from captives.
What Were Mongol Empire’s Military Capabilities?
Used army controlled messenger system called yam. Yam stations were an army controlled communication networks, that enabled quick communication. With the yam network, they could rule a vast empire.
Military units were composed of different clans, to limit opportunities of solidarity and rebellion. Defeated warriors were absorbed and distributed with the Mongol society.
Mongol custom for warfare was to provide a ritualized exchange with adversaries before battle. A form of psychological warfare, with diplomatic means that terrify. Meant to offend while giving them a last chance to surrender. After the adversaries were provoked and reciprocated the anger, therefore justifying the Mongol riotousness in the endeavor as the offended party.
When the Mongols were outnumbered, they used captives to make their numbers appear bigger, which would encourage the opposition to surrender without a fight. Mongols would display captives outside besieged cities and abuse them, to demoralize the city’s population. Mongols would use the captives as shields.
Mongols excelled at sieges and open battles. Their opponents, such as the Bulgars and other later, knew this. They developed strategies to prevent engaging the Mongols on these terms.
Mongols decapitated prince’s heads, to show as proof that the death was true, and to accelerated submission of the people.
When met by unfavorable conditions, such as local resistance and muddy terrain, they changed their plans.
The Mongols had exceptional scouts, knowing location of enemies and their strengths and weaknesses. Opponents such as the Russians, had trouble identifying the location and number of Mongols.
Mongols attacked villages and small fortifications before focusing their siege unto a capital. Without surrounding support, capitals lacked supplies therefore could not hold out for long. The Mongols took the supplies for themselves, that was also used when moving to the next target.
Mongols fought during cold-weather, used cold-weather warfare. Mongols attacked when their opponents were unprepared, and were ready to retreat when needed. Adapted to climactic differences, moved to hospitable terrain. Mongol warfare season was opposite of Russian. Russians used peasants, who were able to fight in spring and early summer as they worked on the field afterward. Russians were not expected to fight during the coldest months, as they stayed indoors. The Mongols fought during the cold season, while retreating in the late spring and summer for milking season.
Why Did Mongol Influence Decline?
During the 1350s, there was a period of bulqaq, anarchy. Facing plague, rebellions, and succession struggles. With many threats, the Mongols used their strategy of retreating. Not as a reflection of panic, but of strategic withdrawal. Less of an ejection from the region, but to focus their efforts on facing dangerous adversaries.
During the 1340s-1350s, Mongols were abandoning cities due to plague, the Black Death. The plague traveled further than before, because of Mongol activities. Mongol movements, ecological changes, and trade connections brought more interactions between humans and other animals with more people. Mongols already knew how to respond to contagious diseases, which included quarantining people. Regions were facing not just epidemics, but also natural disasters. The public held the Mongols responsible. For mismanaging resources.
Even with ecological struggles, bulqaq was a succession struggle. The khans were purging their competitors. Khan’s purges prevented a strong ruling class, which opened them to rebellion and other forms of strife. Birdibek did more damage in a short time than the plague had. Birdibek eliminated every competitor for the throne, which horrified his own people. Political assassinations provoked retaliation, which created cycles of revenge due to Mongol culture of seeking vengeance. As the Mongol Empire became more authoritarian, less people were willing to support the Mongol Empire.
Caveats?
As a cultural history with diverse details, there can be difficulty in keeping track of who did what, and the names and function of social institutions. As political alliances shifted frequently, it can be difficult to follow the political spheres of influence.
There are parts of the book that provide many details on a few events, while other parts provide a quick succession of sequences of events. Tracking the sequence of events can be difficult, but the implications of the events are provided.
August 10, 2023
I read the book Comanche Empire by Pekka Hämäläinen a few months ago. It showed how a pastoral & hunter society can create a state. Comanche Empire was a mobile and very distributed federation of local groups who however made common decisions on foreign policy.
The Mongol state or Mongol states - like the Western most of them the Golden Horde or Horde - was a more centralized state clearly led by one person - the khan - chosen among a so-called Golden lineage through a collective decision by a wider group of people. In the same way as the Comanche Empire the Horde was a highly mobile state. There was no sedentary Capital in the sense that the administration would have been located in one place. Compared to the Comanche the Horde was more capable to integrate sedentary people and more persistent.
Chingiss Khan was an innovator of institutions not only a leader and a warrior. He was able to create a state out of a group of extended families and lineages and ethnicities. One important innovation was to create "new military units which were composed of warriors who did not originally belong to the same clan, a deliberate choice to undermine possible solidarity and rebellion against the regime".
The Horde - together with other Mongol States - was successful in creating an infrastructure for long-distance trade (Silk Roads) using e.g. the Genovians or Novgorodians to do the trading work. Handling of the sedentary people (e.g. Russians) living in Horde was quite successful. The Horde was taxing e.g. the trade and the agriculture but leaving the details to others. The cohesion of the Mongols themselves - and the integrated people - was maintained by the distribution of tax revenue and spoils of war through the hierarchy. Diplomacy was efficient - especially the relationship with Egypt, Byzant, Poland, Lithuania, and the North Italian city-states was important.
Institutional dynamism was an important feature. "Jochi’s ulus [i.e. the Horde and the Mongol people] had to transform so as to solve its crisis and enable a return to security and prosperity. Dissolution was an organic mutation, analogous in some ways to what the economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction".... Pekka Hämäläinen describes a similar process in his analysis of the Lakota people of North America, whom he calls “shapeshifters with a palpable capacity to adapt to changing conditions around them and yet remain Lakotas.” The ulus of Jochi followed a related historical course".
The Horde and the other main Mongol states did not live for much more than a hundred years, but the heritage was long and the impact was geographically wide. The culture and institutions in some form lived until the 19th century e.g. in Central Asia. Russia is a "nation associated with the house of Moscow, whose rise was enabled by Mongols".
There has been much discussion in the West about whether the many huge negative features of Russia are partly created by the Mongol heritage - that question remains open to me. The good relationship between the Horde and the Poland-Lithuania has the effect even today that when the Tatar population in Crimea is again under oppression by Russia, Tatars naturally find a safe space in Poland.
The Mongol state or Mongol states - like the Western most of them the Golden Horde or Horde - was a more centralized state clearly led by one person - the khan - chosen among a so-called Golden lineage through a collective decision by a wider group of people. In the same way as the Comanche Empire the Horde was a highly mobile state. There was no sedentary Capital in the sense that the administration would have been located in one place. Compared to the Comanche the Horde was more capable to integrate sedentary people and more persistent.
Chingiss Khan was an innovator of institutions not only a leader and a warrior. He was able to create a state out of a group of extended families and lineages and ethnicities. One important innovation was to create "new military units which were composed of warriors who did not originally belong to the same clan, a deliberate choice to undermine possible solidarity and rebellion against the regime".
The Horde - together with other Mongol States - was successful in creating an infrastructure for long-distance trade (Silk Roads) using e.g. the Genovians or Novgorodians to do the trading work. Handling of the sedentary people (e.g. Russians) living in Horde was quite successful. The Horde was taxing e.g. the trade and the agriculture but leaving the details to others. The cohesion of the Mongols themselves - and the integrated people - was maintained by the distribution of tax revenue and spoils of war through the hierarchy. Diplomacy was efficient - especially the relationship with Egypt, Byzant, Poland, Lithuania, and the North Italian city-states was important.
Institutional dynamism was an important feature. "Jochi’s ulus [i.e. the Horde and the Mongol people] had to transform so as to solve its crisis and enable a return to security and prosperity. Dissolution was an organic mutation, analogous in some ways to what the economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction".... Pekka Hämäläinen describes a similar process in his analysis of the Lakota people of North America, whom he calls “shapeshifters with a palpable capacity to adapt to changing conditions around them and yet remain Lakotas.” The ulus of Jochi followed a related historical course".
The Horde and the other main Mongol states did not live for much more than a hundred years, but the heritage was long and the impact was geographically wide. The culture and institutions in some form lived until the 19th century e.g. in Central Asia. Russia is a "nation associated with the house of Moscow, whose rise was enabled by Mongols".
There has been much discussion in the West about whether the many huge negative features of Russia are partly created by the Mongol heritage - that question remains open to me. The good relationship between the Horde and the Poland-Lithuania has the effect even today that when the Tatar population in Crimea is again under oppression by Russia, Tatars naturally find a safe space in Poland.
February 5, 2024
A really well-written and engaging history of the Mongol Empire.
My only gripe with this book is that, while dispelling some common misconceptions about the Horde, the author often skirts dangerously close to contradicting herself, with statements that amount to "contrary to popular belief, the Mongols didn't do [x], they simply did [ something that more or less fits the definition of x, especially from the point of view of the victim]", like in this passage:
The Mongols took property from their victims, albeit under strict military discipline. These were not looting throngs but rather warriors under orders and on a mission. They took only what they could carry and burned what they could not
Nevertheless, a thoroughly enjoyable book.
My only gripe with this book is that, while dispelling some common misconceptions about the Horde, the author often skirts dangerously close to contradicting herself, with statements that amount to "contrary to popular belief, the Mongols didn't do [x], they simply did [ something that more or less fits the definition of x, especially from the point of view of the victim]", like in this passage:
The Mongols took property from their victims, albeit under strict military discipline. These were not looting throngs but rather warriors under orders and on a mission. They took only what they could carry and burned what they could not
Nevertheless, a thoroughly enjoyable book.
March 19, 2024
It's a little too-much-information for my taste (the microscopic font size is a clue about this), but as a focus on the Mongol Horde that ruled Russian lands before the Russians, it makes some excellent observations and offers some thoughts that will make you reconsider any pre-conceptions you might have from this medieval era.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 132 reviews