Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Radio War Nerd EP #202 — Genghis Khan, Pt 2: The Mongol Empire (Patreon)

Published:
2019-10-16 17:43:31
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

Content

Guest: Carl Zha, podcaster 

Recorded: October 11, 2019

First, the War Nerd and Ames discuss the grim news out of Rojava as Turkish tanks and their throat-slitter jihadi proxies roll into northern Syria . . . 

At 25:11 — we're joined by Carl Zha for the second part of our series on Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire—a welcome relief from the grim news of the day. This episode, what you've all been waiting for: The Mongols take the world.

Maps:

*

Total time: 2:41:22

Direct link to this episode's mp3 here 

Files

Comments

THEKILLERWHALE

Good newsletter this month. I recently tried to read Foner's Reconstruction and had to stop because the entire period was just stupid, depraved and infuriating. It was one of the few historical moments where there was the power and justification to challenge an unjust social order and the opportunity was pissed away. And we are still living with the consequences of this decision and we will be for as long as the country exists. On the subject of the Mongols, a good companion piece is the Chapo boys taking on the absolutely ludicrous John Wayne film the Conqueror. Absolutely hysterical and educational as well!(https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-39-feat-6761710)

Richard Kim

A pedantic objection I’d like to make about the maps posted because it leads to a more interesting but often ignored or unrecognized point about the Yuan Empire is that Korea (then ruled by the Koryo dynasty) was never annexed by the Mongols, but rather vassalized and made into a somewhat autonomous “son-in-law” country. This is unique in the entire history of Sino/Mongol-Korean relations because the Korean king, rather than being metaphorically thought of as a younger brother, son, or servant to the Son of Heaven as done in other times, the Korean king was forced to marry a Mongolian royal princess. There are a lot of bizarre features about this practice that continued all the way until the end of the Yuan. One, unlike in Europe, inter-state royal marriages are quite rare in East Asian diplomatic history since China/Japan/Korea preferred to marry within their country’s native aristocracy and in the Sinocentric worldview of Chinese Empires, marrying off its royal princesses to other kingdoms was a rather humiliating measure that was adopted only when necessary for the safety of the empire, such as the Xiongnu marriages with Han princesses. Although the Yuan were in no ways a typical “Chinese Empire,” Koreans would still have been ranked third out of the four ethnic classes the Yuan recognized (Mongols, Central/West Asians, Northern Chinese, Southern Chinese). Two, perhaps for the above reason, the Mongols did not give their royal daughters to any of their other sedentary vassal/client states such as the Rus states or Armenia, preferring to send Mongol-appointed administrators known as darughachi that helped supervise the census and poll-tax for Mongol coffers. While Mongol royals and the aristocracy did often marry princesses of subjugated tribes/states, which is what happened with Xi Xia or Jin princesses, marrying someone of Chinggisid blood was a big deal as it carried political privileges such as the right to attend the khuriltai. Hence, it was generally an honour given to key allies that had willingly sided with the Mongols early on during their conquests, not an enemy that had bitterly fought for three decades. Aside from Korea, the Yuan only practiced royal marriages with important nomadic tribes in the Mongolian steppe such as the Oirat or Ongut tribes. This leads to my third point, which is that it was not the Mongols who initially imposed this policy but rather the Korean king who suggested to Khubilai that the two royal lines should intermarry. Khubilai initially deferred in 1270 but later agreed a year later. This was later followed up by the decision to withdraw darughachi from Korea, allowing them to not pay the poll tax (korea still paid other forms of tribute), and returning some Korean territory the Mongols had conquered. I won’t get into the reasons for these choices, but basically internal political strife within both Yuan and Korea likely led to the marriages being thought of as a mutually acceptable outcome. All of this has made for a historiographical debate on how to classify Korea’s status within(?) the Yuan, and a lot of the older Korean nationalist-driven theories of a unilateral “Mongol intervention period” is giving way to more bilateral ideas of Yuan-Korean relations. I’ll stop now since this post is already long enough, but one cool fact that resulted from the intimate Mongol-Korean relations is that the Korean king was even given land within the Yuan Empire and enfeoffed as the King of Shenyang (located in Liaoning). I believe this is the only instance of a king in East Asia legally holding the lands of another empire/kingdom, somewhat akin to how some European royals could own lands in multiple kingdoms/states through marriages and personal unions.

neekburm

Can I get a link to the Taibbi article about the train mentioned in the episode?

Brodi Craddock

I think there was a misunderstanding in this podcast of how power was exercised in the Mongol Empire. It's spoken of here as if it was a monolithic regime, when in reality it would be more appropriate to call them "Mongol Empires" Yes, it was the largest empire in history, but it functioned more like a confederacy, with a number of different power centres who would become increasingly quarrelsome with one another in the generations after the first great conquests. This fragmentation of power is in many ways a natural corollary to governing such a large territory, but it also in some ways disqualifies it from comparison with other empires - such as the Roman or British - who managed to centralize power quite effectively despite ruling over large, albeit smaller regions. The Mongol conquests were certainly a unique world-historical event, but the actual empire as a political institution was fairly unremarkable. The historian of the Mongols who is frequently cited's claim that the Mongols invented the modern state is ludicrous - freedom of worship was a typical feature of many empires including the Roman and the Abbasid caliphate, and even though I haven't read the book, I'm inclined towards skepticism regarding claims that the Mongols practiced a sort of proto-capitalism. They primarily exacted tribute, that was their whole shtick. The silk road and Indian Ocean trade they profited from long predated them.

xnfec

I think the town in crimea Carl referred to as Jaffa might have been Caffa which was held by Genoese and is rumored to be where the plague started. Also, Ogedai's son Güyük seems to have been quite an interesting character, at least according to Wikipedia. Alexander Nevsky even visited his court. Ogedai had reprimanded himseverely for falling out with Batu and dividing the Mongols but Güyük was on his way to settle matters with Batu when he died on route.

tong

https://monthlyreview.org/2018/05/01/revolution-or-decadence/ ★★ Doubtless the Roman-Western case is not the only example of an abortive tributary construction. We can identify at least three other cases of this type, each with its own specific conditions: the Byzantine-Arab-Ottoman case, the Indian case, the Mongol case. In each of these instances, attempts to install tributary systems of centralization were too far ahead of the requirements of the development of the productive forces to be firmly established. In each case, the forms of centralization were probably specific combinations of state, para-feudal, and commodity means. In the Islamic state, for instance, commodity centralization played the decisive role. Successive Indian failures must be related to the contents of Hindu ideology, which I have contrasted with Confucianism. As to the centralization of the empire of Genghis Khan, it was, as we know, extremely short-lived. ★★

Mark Ames

It was published in my pre-eXile rag that never went online & didn't last long. Probably for the better.