Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World

Jack Weatherford writes with great passion, seemingly driven by the innate desire to place Genghis Khan and his family amongst the pantheons of rulers that made the modern world. He also writes to dispel the notion that Mongols were barbaric hordes that descended on the world as a deathly plague, exterminating millions in their conquests across Asia and Europe. Let me begin by listing out specific positives attributed to the Mongol rule.

The Mongols ruled their Kingdoms without imposing diktats integral to the Mongolian way of life. As he ruled over China, Kublai Khan became more identifiable as a Chinese than a Mongol. Their armies were all cavalry, and mobility and almost non-existent logistical trains were their trump cards. An average Mongol soldier had five horses, and they hunted as they travelled, moving with a self-sustenance kit of bare essentials.

Genghis Khan advocated freedom of religion and forbade the use of torture in trials and as punishment. He allowed religious freedom within his realm but required unwavering loyalty from all his subjects, no matter their faith. His own immediate family was religiously diverse: besides those who were Shamanists or Buddhists, a significant number were Monophysite Christians and later also Muslim converts. The Mongols, notably Kublai Khan, created unprecedented commerce routes, nurturing

July 24 free trade, lowering taxes, promoting agriculture and improving merchants' stock. Incidentally, Kublai Khan founded Beijing, and the Forbidden City was a Mongolian retreat within the city's heart.

The Mongols nurtured science and art but never developed related to these domains. Paper currency, gunpowder, and the compass made their way to the West primarily due to the trade routes they nurtured. Scientific pursuits were not held ransom by religious dogma. They created egalitarian societies founded on meritocracy and ability rather than privilege by birth. Genghis Khan was supposedly more progressive in his treatment of women. Allowing women inheritance, outlawing kidnapping as a means to marriage, outlawing adultery ( at least its narrow interpretation outside family and friends) and allowing daughters to rule.

A question that interests every reader of Mongolian history and merits answering is, why were the Mongols unmatched warriors, and did they devastate the world as most historical accounts indicate?

The Mongols were ideally suited to travel due to their nomadic and spartan existence. The Mongol Army consisted entirely of cavalry. The Mongol army had no logistic supply train but supported itself organically as it went along. They had a heavy protein-rich diet more suited to long-term sustenance. They developed innovative ways to lay siege and annihilate cities, fuelling notions of their invincibility and barbarity. They willingly spread stories to foment anxiety and fear among the enemy. They ran clever media campaigns to win the battle in the mind before facing their adversary. Every Mongol soldier was expected to live as if invincible, believing he was undefeatable, invulnerable, and immortal. They found honour in winning and not in fighting. Winning by clever deception and trickery carried no stain on their bravery. Drawing the adversary out and laying him out thin and then attacking in strength was a well-laid-out dogfight tactic they employed. The Mongols annihilated cities that resisted, such as Baghdad, the Abbasid Caliphate's capital, but usually forgave those that surrendered. Did they kill millions as they conquered? The short answer is "yes"; as a consolation, the author offers the rationale that so did everyone else at the time!

The book is well-written and reads like a historical tale with live characters. However, it suffers from many faults common to revisionist history - starting with a good point but exaggerating to the point of wilful ignorance of available evidence.

July 24 What's particularly frustrating in this is that it's not entirely necessary. Genghis Khan was not a blood-thirsty barbarian; few scholars would dispute that the academic glossing over the Mongolian empire's ills was unwarranted. Nevertheless, a book worth the time prods the reader to search for more in-depth answers to the Mongolian questions of historical significance.

My Rating 3.5/5

July 24