[Discussion] Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World

[Sule Tarakcioglu]

Jack Weatherford. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. New Yo=
rk:
Crown Publishers, 2004. xxxv + 312 pp. Index. $25.00 (cloth), ISBN
0-6096-1062-7.
Reviewed by: Timothy May, Assistant Professor of History, North Georgia=20
College
and State University.

Published by: H-World (March, 2005)

The name of Genghis Khan is often associated with destruction, although t=
he
image of Genghis Khan has been rehabilitated somewhat in the west. The=20
western
world, saturated in media distortion and a reluctance to accept changes i=
n
perceptions of history, has been rather averse in accepting Genghis Khan'=
s
activities as pivotal in world history and the shaping of the modern worl=
d.
Thus, the publication of Jack Weatherford's book, Genghis Khan and the=20
Making of
the Modern World, is a welcome addition to the literature on the Mongols.

The author, Jack Weatherford, the Dewitt Wallace Professor of=20
Anthropology at
Macalester College, has written several books targeted for the non-academ=
ic
world and writes in a very engaging style. As a result, Genghis Khan and =
the
Making of the Modern World spent several weeks on the New York Times=20
Best Seller
list. The strength of Weatherford's writing is that he mixes narrative wi=
th
analysis and grabs the attention of any reader.

The book is organized into an introduction, and then three sections of=20
the text
itself, and concluding with an epilogue, notes, glossary, and bibliograph=
y.
Preceding all of these is a genealogical table showing Genghis Khan, his=20
sons,
and the successor khanates. In addition to showing the rulers of the=20
empire, the
terms of the regents are designated. The latter is something that is ofte=
n
remiss in these sorts of tables, but a welcome addition here. There is=20
an odd
segment of the table though. All of the Khanates or states resulting=20
from the
split of the Mongol Empire are shown except the Chaghatayid Khanate of=20
Central
Asia. In its place is the Moghul Empire of India. Indeed, the Moghul=20
Empire has
connections back to the Mongols (Moghul is Persian for Mongol), but the=20
founder
of the Moghul Empire, Babur, was himself a Timurid, the dynasty of the Em=
ir
Timur, who was not descended from Genghis Khan.[1] While Babur was descen=
ded
from Genghis Khan on his mother's side, he cannot be viewed as a direct l=
ine
from Genghis Khan's grandson, Chaghatai, as Weatherford's table indicates=
.

In his introduction, Weatherford reveals that he did not set out to=20
write a book
about Genghis Khan. Rather, he intended to write a book on the history=20
of world
commerce. During his research on the Silk Road he traveled to Mongolia=20
and read
about the accomplishments of the Mongols. Like many who have done so,
Weatherford was, one might say, "bitten by the Mongol bug" and could not=20
resist
the allure of Genghis Khan. Thus, Weatherford began working on the=20
impact of the
Mongols on the world. He did much of the research in tandem with a Mongol=
ian
team that included a scholar of shamanism, an archaeologist, a political
scientist, and an officer in the Mongolian army, providing a wide=20
viewpoint and
a variety of expertise.

Weatherford's main point in the introduction is that the world changed=20
or began
to change from the medieval to the modern because of the Mongols.=20
Weatherford
wrote, "The new technology, knowledge, and commercial wealth created the
Renaissance in which Europe rediscovered some of its prior culture, but m=
ore
importantly, absorbed the technology for printing, firearms, the=20
compass, and
the abacus from the East" (p. xxiv). This passage is, without question,
controversial. Many would scoff at the notion that a literal horde of=20
illiterate
nomads from Mongolia created the Renaissance. There is something to be sa=
id
about Weatherford's view; however the impact of the Mongols on the=20
Renaissance
will be discussed more fully in the discussion on section three of the bo=
ok.
Nevertheless, Weatherford's pronouncement does seize one's attention and=20
stir
the imagination.

Weatherford also entices the reader by remarking on the accomplishments=20
of the
Mongols such as that they conquered an empire that stretched from the=20
Pacific to
the Mediterranean, an area roughly the size of Africa. Furthermore he=20
notes that
the Mongols accomplished this feat when their population was perhaps a=20
million
people, of which only around 100,000 comprised the military. Weatherford=20
does
well to illustrate the magnitude of this deed by pointing out that many=20
modern
corporations have more employees than the Mongol army had soldiers. The=20
author
uses these analogies exceedingly well to clarify his points.

There are two general comments before discussing the actual content of=20
the book.
There is a curious lack of dates in many of the historical sections, for =
the
non-specialist this can be problematic. In his writing style,=20
Weatherford moves
back and forth between events; while not hampering the flow of the=20
narrative,
this can be confusing to the reader. Secondly, the method of citation is
frustrating. Granted, this is a work intended for the general public=20
thus the
lack of footnotes is to be expected. Yet, the manner in which sources=20
are cited
is awkward. Rather than a footnote or endnote with a number, the reader m=
ust
turn to the notes section, and look for a page number. If he is lucky, th=
ere
will be a brief snippet of a passage with the source. However, there are =
a
number of quotes which are not attributed. This is not to say that it is
plagiarism as it is clear that Weatherford does not claim to make the
statements, but rather just plain sloppiness on the part of someone=20
whether it
is the author or editor.

The first section after the introduction concerns the rise of Genghis=20
Khan and
the unification of Mongolia. As with most of his writing, this section
comprising three chapters is very engaging. The first chapter begins with=
 an
account Genghis Khan's attack on the Khwarazmian Empire, which covered=20
much of
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the former Soviet Central Asia. Throughout t=
his
section, Weatherford provides the reader with a very good sense of the=20
rise of
Genghis Khan to power and how the Mongols viewed warfare, which is to=20
say, honor
was not in the methods of war, but rather in gaining victory. Furthermore=
,
Weatherford does a splendid job of illustrating that Genghis Khan was=20
not a born
military genius, a label that is often and understandably applied to the=20
Mongol
leader, but rather he learned from his mistakes and then applied the=20
lessons.

Also in the first chapter, Weatherford provides an excellent description=20
of the
topography and ecology of Mongolia. It is clear he understands how vital=20
these
two factors are to the rise of Mongol dominance. Weatherford's=20
anthropological
insight is clear when discussing various aspects of nomadic culture.

Weatherford, however does engage in some historical speculation; some of=20
it very
interesting and convincing, particularly that based on anthropological=20
premises.
For instance, Tem=FCjin killed his older step-brother. Many scholars have
concluded that this was partially based off of a rivalry for power, even=20
at a
young age between the two branches of the family (Yes=FCgei, Tem=FCjin's=20
father, had
two wives). Weatherford raises the intriguing possibility that the half=20
brother
was murdered because of the possibility that Tem=FCjin's mother would=20
become the
half-brother's wife due to Levirate law (p. 23-24).

The second section concerns the expansion of the Mongol Empire outside of
Mongolia. This of course leads the Mongol armies into China, Central=20
Asia, the
Middle East, and Europe. These chapters provide a discourse on the=20
effectiveness
of the Mongol military as well as a comparison with its enemies,=20
including such
ubiquitous yet interesting elements such as diet. Weatherford also=20
attempts to
put the massacres and destruction conducted by the Mongols into=20
perspective and
makes a good contrast between the Mongols and their "civilized"=20
opponents who
were often much more prone to torturing prisoners, often for entertainmen=
t
purposes. Finally, Weatherford attempts to explain the rationale between=20
each
invasion as well as provide the political background behind each event=20
from the
Mongol perspective.

The third section is truly the focus of the book: the impact of the=20
Mongols on
the world. This section begins with the breakup of the empire and various
changes that occurred in the khanates that would lead to the=20
transformation of
the world. Weatherford rightly places his emphasis on the Mongols' role i=
n
facilitating trade. With their empire secure, caravans and merchants=20
traversed
the Mongol realm with much greater security than in previous eras. In=20
addition
to trade, others took advantage of the secure roads leading to the=20
migration of
people (in some cases against their will), ideas, and technology. One=20
particular
item that made its way to Europe from the Mongol Empire was quite=20
unintentional:
the Black Plague. The effects of the plague on Europe are well known and=20
need no
further comment.

Weatherford also makes his connections between the Mongols and the=20
Renaissance
and emergence of modern Europe. Weatherford states that it was the=20
importation
of the printing press, blast furnace, compass, gunpowder, as well as=20
Persian and
Chinese painting styles from the Mongol Empire that spawned the Renaissan=
ce.
Indeed, Weatherford writes during the Renaissance period, "The common=20
principles
of the Mongol Empire-such as paper money, primacy of the state over the=20
church,
freedom of religion, diplomatic immunity, and international law-were=20
ideas ...
gained new importance" (p. 236). Weatherford states his case very=20
eloquently and
with an abundance of evidence demonstrating not only the indirect=20
influence of
the Mongols in Europe but also the transformation of the Mongols from=20
agents of
innovation in the Renaissance into agents of destruction in the European=20
mind
during Enlightenment.

It is quite clear that Weatherford is a brilliant writer, blending
anthropological insight and incredible enthusiasm with a captivating=20
narrative.
It is easy to see why many reviewers and readers have been enthusiastic=20
about
it. Despite all of Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World's=20
acclaim, it
is very clear that Weatherford is not a historian. In the general narrati=
ve
Weatherford is sufficiently accurate. However, in the details,=20
Weatherford is
wrestling with material that he clearly does not fully appreciate. It is
important to remember that the book is intended for the general public=20
and thus
certain allowances are often made, usually in the form of=20
generalizations. While
this can be a useful method in writing, often it is misleading or just=20
simply
wrong. Unfortunately this is the case with much of Weatherford's book.

Again, the general narrative is correct, but finer points are simply=20
wrong. For
instance, he foreshadows the Mongol defeat at 'Ayn Jalut in 1260 by=20
mentioning
the Mamluks, slave soldiers who were primarily Kipchak Turks, many of=20
whom the
Mongols sold or sent fleeing into slavery. Curiously, Weatherford=20
mentions that
the Mamluks were comprised of Kipchaks and Slavs. While it is quite possi=
ble
that Slavs were sold in the Middle East as slaves, if any did serve as=20
Mamluks,
their numbers were negligible and more of a rare exception than the rule.

Also in discussing the Battle of the Kalka River, the first encounter=20
between
the princes of the Rus' and the Mongols, several problems surface. This
discussion is a perfect example of the frustration caused by=20
Weatherford's lack
of footnotes. In one section (p. 141) Weatherford states that the Mongol=20
arrows
could not be used by the Rus' but the Mongols could use the arrows shot=20
by the
Rus'. Yet there is no indication of the source in the notes, nor any=20
explanation
in the text of why this was so. In his discussion of the army of the Rus'=
 he
includes peasants. While his arguments on their capabilities are intrigui=
ng,
there is no evidence that a levy of peasants took part in this battle.
Weatherford also confuses the horses of the Rus' with the large=20
warhorses used
by knights in Western Europe (pp. 141-142).

One of the most troublesome aspects is that Weatherford places an incredi=
ble
amount of emphasis on the Mongols' use of gunpowder in warfare, going so=20
far as
to insinuate that they used cannons at the siege of Baghdad in 1258 (p.=20
182).
There is no indication of this in the Arabic, Syriac, or Persian sources=20
of this
practice, nor of the Mongols using devices like a cannon at other=20
sieges. To be
sure, the Mongols did use grenades thrown from catapults occasionally, bu=
t
gunpowder weapons of any form were not a major component of their arsenal=
.

In relation to Baghdad, Weatherford also takes another historical=20
misstep noting
that Baghdad would not fall again to "infidel troops" as it did to the=20
Mongols
in 1258 until 2003 to the Americans. This ignores the capture of Baghdad =
by
British troops in 1917 during World War I.

Furthermore, many of the errors are simply careless. In discussing Timur
(Tamerlane, 1336-1405) as a successor to Genghis Khan, Weatherford=20
states that
Timur captured the sultan of the Seljuk kingdom in modern Turkey. This is
incorrect as the Seljuks no longer existed. Rather, Timur captured Sultan
Bayazid, the Ottoman Sultan. Then Weatherford links Din-i-Illah, the
universalist religion of Mughal ruler, Akbar the Great (1543-1605), with =
the
religious policies of Genghis Khan. While Akbar and the other Moghul rule=
rs
certainly did use many of the practices of the Mongol Empire, one should =
not
confuse the religious policies of the Mongols with a higher goal of=20
religious
unity and toleration on philosophic ideals. Mongol religious toleration w=
as
based on preventing strife in the empire, not ensuring spiritual harmony.

While Weatherford's book is filled with inaccuracies it is also rife with
unsubstantiated historical speculation. While some of his speculations=20
do have
merit and deserve further consideration, many aspects are passed off as=20
truths
which the casual reader or non-specialist may accept unknowingly. An=20
example of
this concerns the last ruler of the unified Mongol Empire, Mongke.=20
Weatherford
makes a curious statement that Mongke had a fondness for European=20
contraptions
and designs (p. 177). This perhaps stems from an account of a fountain th=
at
provided four different beverages at feasts through intricate means. It w=
as
designed by a European prisoner, Guillaume Boucher, but hardly accounts=20
for a
fondness as there are no other accounts of these "contraptions" in the=20
sources.

Weatherford undermines his own efforts by dabbling in linguistic=20
matters. While
this reviewer cannot be positive, it seems clear that Weatherford enters=20
a field
where he has no business. Indeed, the words he mistranslates in Persian
demonstrate that, one should hope, he has no background in the language.
Weatherford may have learned some Mongolian, but it is also clear that=20
he is not
a student of the language, and thus does not understand the=20
transformation of
the Mongolian language from the Middle Mongolian of the thirteenth=20
century to
the modern Khalkha dialect used in Mongolia today.

This is demonstrated on several occasions. In relation to Mongolian,=20
Weatherford
states that the title "Genghis Khan", means strong, firm, fearless. In th=
is
instance, he is correct as Genghis (or more properly, Chinggis) comes=20
from the
middle Mongolian "ching"; Weatherford uses the modern Mongolian equivalen=
t,
"chin." Weatherford then associates it with the Mongolian word for wolf,=20
chino,
which was also the male ancestor of the Mongols (the female ancestor was =
a
deer). Weatherford's lack of familiarity with Mongolian is apparent as,=20
while
the words are somewhat similar, they bare no relation other than that a=20
chino
could be described as "ching."

While other examples exist, one final example of these linguistic errors=20
must be
brought forth, particularly as it pertains to a subject that has been in =
the
news in the recent years: the Hazara people of Afghanistan. Weatherford i=
s
correct in that the Hazara trace their existence back to a Mongol=20
regiment that
was stationed in Afghanistan; however Hazara does not mean "ten thousand"=
 in
Persian as Weatherford states, but rather "a thousand", which was the=20
essential
unit for military and civil operations.

Thus with Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, =
the
reader is left in a quandary. Many may have thought of using this book in=
 a
class. Considering the numerous factual errors and misguided etymological
speculations this reviewer cannot recommend using this as a standard=20
text for a
world history class with the exception of using it as a point of=20
discussion on
historiography. While the overall thrust of the book is on target and may
promote new discourse on the influence of the Mongols in history, it is
undermined by numerous mistakes. Weatherford overstates his case in his
enthusiasm for the Mongols, making connections that are often tenuous.=20
Did the
Mongols contribute to the modern world? Definitely yes, the evidence (eve=
n
considering the errors) assembled makes this very clear. It is too much=20
to say
that Renaissance would not have happened without the Mongols. Indeed,=20
eventually
artists would have had contact with new styles and Chinese technology=20
would have
crept into Europe at any rate via the Middle East, albeit perhaps at a=20
slower
rate. One could make the argument that the Renaissance would not have=20
happened
without the Crusades or the rise of the Jin Dynasty in Northern China.=20
After all
the Jin unwittingly allowed the Mongols to rise to power, whereas their
predecessors, the Liao dynasty did a great deal more to control the stepp=
e
tribes. More importantly the great period of translation of Greek materia=
l
conducted by the Arabs is of equal importance.

That being said, there is still something to be said for Genghis Khan=20
and the
Making of the Modern World. The errors are almost forgivable considering =
how
well it is written. This reviewer doubts that most historians found=20
their love
of history in a dusty monograph but rather a well-written popular book=20
that they
read in their youth. Thus in this respect, while this reviewer would be
reluctant to use Weatherford's book in a class, I would suggest it to=20
someone
might otherwise not have an interest in history.

Note

[1]. Timur, himself conquered the remnants of the Chaghatayids. Timur,=20
however
suffered from the fact that he was not descended from Genghis Khan, and=20
thus was
not always viewed as a legitimate ruler in the steppes. To overcome this
handicap, he married Genghisid princesses, and even placed Genghisid=20
princes on
the throne of his empire, while he ruled "behind the scenes" (needless=20
to say,
nobody was fooled).