Ghengis Khan, History's Greatest Empire Builder

Paul Lococo. Genghis Khan: History's Greatest Empire Builder. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2008. ix + 91 pp. + 4 pp. of plates $13.95, paper, ISBN 978-1-57488-746-4. Reviewed by Timothy May Published on H-War (November, 2008) Commissioned by Brian G.H. Ditcham Genghis Khan, or more accurately Chinggis Khan's military conquests outside of Mongolia. Khan, is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating One chapter is devoted to north China, another to people in military history. Thus it is not surprising Central Asia, and yet another deals with his death that Potomac Books has included him in their Mil‐ during the campaign to suppress a revolt in the itary Profile series along with General Patton and state of Xixia. There is also a bibliographic note Alexander the Great. As with all of the books in rather than a general bibliography. The maps are the series, the volume is not an in-depth study useful, but have the oddity for Chinese locations presenting new revelations, but rather a concise of using both Wade-Gilles and Pinyin translitera‐ introduction to a key fgure in military history ac‐ tion systems; additionally, the kingdom of Koryo companied by some analysis of the topic's activi‐ is identified as Goryo. ties. A major issue is the author's misunderstand‐ Paul Lococo Jr. adeptly summarizes the life ing of tribal structure and identity in medieval and career of Chinggis Khan, an impressive feat Mongolia. Several instances of this appear. In the for the brevity of the book. The book is divided in first, although Lococo recognizes the Tatars as a to seven chapters. The frst is a standard chapter separate tribe, he states "it was common for the on the geographical, political, and social state of tribes, including the Mongols, to refer to them‐ Mongolia in the medieval period. This is followed selves and their language as 'Tatar' not Mongol" by a chapter on the early years of Chinggis Khan (p. 3). This is a misunderstanding of his reading of and a chapter on the wars that unified Mongolia Leo de Hartog's Genghis Khan: Conqueror of the under Chinggis Khan. Chapter 4 provides a lucid World (1989). Hartog, in speculating why the discussion of the military revolution of Chinggis Mongols are often referred to as Tatars during the Khan. Chapters 5 through 7 focus on Chinggis Mongol conquests, gives several possibilities; H-Net Reviews however, he states that often the Chinese sources ply using Igor de Rachewiltz's marvelous transla‐ refer to all of the nomadic tribes as Tatars. This is tion of The Secret History of the Mongols. While a far cry from the other steppe tribes calling Lococo mentions it in the bibliographical note, he themselves Tatars. Indeed, as the Mongols and eschews it for Paul Kahn's adaptation of The Se‐ Tatars often battled for dominance in twelfth-cen‐ cret History ( 1984), which one might describe as tury eastern Mongolia, it remains very unlikely a modern English translation of Frances Cleaves's that the Mongols called themselves Tatars. Fur‐ English 1980 translation of The Secret History. For thermore, from the Mongolian sources, as well as his own reasons, Cleaves decided that King James from Persian and Chinese sources that draw upon English provided a more authentic favor to it. Un‐ steppe nomad informants, it is apparent that the fortunately, while Kahn's rendition is easy to read, nomads were quite clear on who belonged to it is not annotated nor complete as the author what tribe. In the second instance, Lococo states omits many of "the begats" as some readers of the that after the frst Mongol Khan of note was killed Bible might say. in the twelfth century (Kabul Khan), he was suc‐ One might say that the lack of proper context ceeded by his brother Ambakhai (p. 6). Ambakhai is the true issue, particularly in the events in Mon‐ was in fact Kabul Khan's cousin. Although these golia. There is an inconsistency between the may seem to be minor issues, the dynamics of chronology supplied and the narration of events Ambakhai's succession do play a role in the rise of in the text. Lococo provides a chronology giving Temujin (the given name of Genghis or Chinggis 1162 as the date of Chinggis Khan's birth. This is Khan), as Ambakhai's clan is the Taichiut, while the date used by government of Mongolia. Many Temujin's clan is the Borjigin. Warfare between scholars reject it and cite 1165 or even 1167. In the two clans erupted during Temujin's lifetime truth, we may never know the correct one, so Lo‐ because of the Taichiut's determination to main‐ coco's choice of date is not in itself a problem. He tain the ascendancy gained from Ambakhai's line then, however, states that Chinggis Khan's moth‐ and not from Kabul Khan's. Another instance of er, Hoelun, was married to a Merkit prince in confusion occurs with Temujin's enslavement by 1164, and it was Chinggis Khan's father, Yesugei, the Taichiut while in his teens. The author states that kidnapped her. How could she have given that, after he escaped from them, Temujin mar‐ birth to Temujin in 1162 when she had not been ried Borte, to whom he was betrothed around age kidnapped by Yesugei until 1164? Lococo solves eight or nine. Lococo believes that Temujin's es‐ this problem by then placing Temujin's birth in cape from the Taichiut enhanced his prestige, as 1165. The date itself is not truly significant, but Borte's father would not have allowed her to mar‐ the inconsistency in the facts undermines confi‐ ry an otherwise destitute man. Lococo may be dence in the narration. Lack of context also oc‐ correct in that Temujin's escape enhanced his rep‐ curs when Lococo mentions that Temujin assisted utation, but he misses the nuances of the events in his overlord, the Toghril Wang Khan, to regain his the primary source of Chinggis Khan's life, The Se‐ throne (p. 20). Yet how or when Wang Khan lost cret History of the Mongols (2004). his throne is never mentioned. One senses that This indeed is the crux of the problem. On the perhaps something was cut from the book in the surface, the book is a decent narrative of events-- editorial process. well written and interesting. Unfortunately be‐ Another egregious error deals with Temujin's cause of Lococo's reliance on outdated or second- decision to change the distribution of plunder af‐ tier sources, however, many nuances are missed. ter a battle. In 1202, he decreed that no one All of the above errors could have avoided by sim‐ should plunder during a battle. Lococo states that 2 H-Net Reviews there was no resistance to this revolutionary de‐ steps occur. Lococo assumes that Chinggis Khan cree because he had centralized his army and his intended to conquer the world and that, after fierce reputation quelled those who thought oth‐ northern China, he would turn on the erwise (p. 22). Unfortunately this is not accurate, Khwarazmian empire that dominated much of as some of Temujin's uncles disobeyed the order. Central Asia. Although, Lococo does point out that They were stripped of their possessions and ulti‐ the Khwarazmian ruler is ultimately the one who mately fed. This new distribution policy actually triggered a war in 1218-19, by massacring a Mon‐ served as a major bone of contention between the gol-sponsored caravan at Otrar, he gives the im‐ old elites and Temujins new visions of Mongolia. pression that Chinggis Khan was hankering for a war even while engaged in China. The Islamic After unifying Mongolia, Lococo then discuss‐ sources, even those hostile to the Mongols, are es Mongol activity outside of Mongolia. He rightly quite explicit in stating that Chinggis Khan took notes that the unification of Mongolia may not great measures to try and avoid a war with the have lasted if the Mongols had not raided outside Khwarazmian Empire. of the region, as old tribal feuds may have been resurrected. Unfortunately, then he falls into the The book also suffers from a lack of editorial tired trap of viewing the conquest of northern oversight on spellings. For instance, Lococo lists China as the ambition of every nomad. This may the mountain ranges of Mongolia (p. 2). One range be his own failing or indicate that Lococo is fol‐ is spelled as "Khingan" and another is spelled as lowing David Morgan's lead in the latter's classic "Hangay." The latter is a more modern spelling The Mongols (1986). While The Mongols remains while the use of the "kh" is an older and tradition‐ the standard introduction to the subject of the al form for the same letter in the Mongolian al‐ Mongol Empire, Morgan's views have changed phabet. Other instances of this occur in names of over the years on many topics, and he is not a people, places, and tribal groups, indicating that scholar who is afraid to say when he was wrong. the author is perhaps too reliant on the spellings In the second edition of The Mongols (2007) he of many of the outdated sources he uses rather states that it is doubtful if Chinggis Khan wanted than what has become standard in the field. to conquer China. Lococo's work is a mixed bag. On one hand it Another example of the lack of context is in fulfills the scope and goal of the book series of the discussion of the conquest of Xixia in 1209.

Load more