Jack Weatherford. Genghis and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Crown Publishers, 2004. xxxv + 312 pp. $25.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-609-61062-6.

Reviewed by Timothy May

Published on H-World (March, 2005)

The name of is often associated cluding with an epilogue, notes, glossary, and bib‐ with destruction, although the image of Genghis liography. Preceding all of these is a genealogical Khan has been rehabilitated somewhat in the table showing Genghis Khan, his sons, and the west. The western world, saturated in media dis‐ successor khanates. In addition to showing the tortion and a reluctance to accept changes in per‐ rulers of the , the terms of the regents are ceptions of history, has been rather averse in ac‐ designated. The latter is something that is often cepting Genghis Khan's activities as pivotal in remiss in these sorts of tables, but a welcome ad‐ world history and the shaping of the modern dition here. There is an odd segment of the table world. Thus, the publication of Jack Weatherford's though. All of the Khanates or states resulting book, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Mod‐ from the split of the are shown ern World, is a welcome addition to the literature except the Chaghatayid Khanate of . on the . In its place is the Moghul Empire of . Indeed, The author, Jack Weatherford, the Dewitt the Moghul Empire has connections back to the Wallace Professor of Anthropology at Macalester Mongols (Moghul is Persian for Mongol), but the College, has written several books targeted for the founder of the Moghul Empire, Babur, was him‐ non-academic world and writes in a very engag‐ self a Timurid, the dynasty of the Emir Timur, ing style. As a result, Genghis Khan and the Mak‐ who was not descended from Genghis Khan.[1] ing of the Modern World spent several weeks on While Babur was descended from Genghis Khan the New York Times Best Seller list. The strength on his mother's side, he cannot be viewed as a di‐ of Weatherford's writing is that he mixes narra‐ rect line from Genghis Khan's grandson, tive with analysis and grabs the attention of any Chaghatai, as Weatherford's table indicates. reader. In his introduction, Weatherford reveals that The book is organized into an introduction, he did not set out to write a book about Genghis and then three sections of the text itself, and con‐ Khan. Rather, he intended to write a book on the H-Net Reviews history of world commerce. During his research the Mongol army had soldiers. The author uses on the he traveled to and read these analogies exceedingly well to clarify his about the accomplishments of the Mongols. Like points. many who have done so, Weatherford was, one There are two general comments before dis‐ might say, "bitten by the Mongol bug" and could cussing the actual content of the book. There is a not resist the allure of Genghis Khan. Thus, curious lack of dates in many of the historical sec‐ Weatherford began working on the impact of the tions, for the non-specialist this can be problemat‐ Mongols on the world. He did much of the re‐ ic. In his writing style, Weatherford moves back search in tandem with a Mongolian team that in‐ and forth between events; while not hampering cluded a scholar of shamanism, an archaeologist, the fow of the narrative, this can be confusing to a political scientist, and an ofcer in the Mongo‐ the reader. Secondly, the method of citation is lian army, providing a wide viewpoint and a vari‐ frustrating. Granted, this is a work intended for ety of expertise. the general public thus the lack of footnotes is to Weatherford's main point in the introduction be expected. Yet, the manner in which sources are is that the world changed or began to change cited is awkward. Rather than a footnote or end‐ from the medieval to the modern because of the note with a number, the reader must turn to the Mongols. Weatherford wrote, "The new technolo‐ notes section, and look for a page number. If he is gy, knowledge, and commercial wealth created lucky, there will be a brief snippet of a passage the Renaissance in which Europe rediscovered with the source. However, there are a number of some of its prior culture, but more importantly, quotes which are not attributed. This is not to say absorbed the technology for printing, frearms, that it is plagiarism as it is clear that Weatherford the compass, and the abacus from the East" (p. does not claim to make the statements, but rather xxiv). This passage is, without question, contro‐ just plain sloppiness on the part of someone versial. Many would scof at the notion that a lit‐ whether it is the author or editor. eral horde of illiterate nomads from Mongolia cre‐ The frst section after the introduction con‐ ated the Renaissance. There is something to be cerns the rise of Genghis Khan and the unifcation said about Weatherford's view; however the im‐ of Mongolia. As with most of his writing, this sec‐ pact of the Mongols on the Renaissance will be tion comprising three chapters is very engaging. discussed more fully in the discussion on section The frst chapter begins with an account Genghis three of the book. Nevertheless, Weatherford's Khan's attack on the , which pronouncement does seize one's attention and stir covered much of , , , and the the imagination. former . Throughout this sec‐ Weatherford also entices the reader by re‐ tion, Weatherford provides the reader with a very marking on the accomplishments of the Mongols good sense of the rise of Genghis Khan to power such as that they conquered an empire that and how the Mongols viewed warfare, which is to stretched from the Pacifc to the Mediterranean, say, honor was not in the methods of war, but an area roughly the size of Africa. Furthermore rather in gaining victory. Furthermore, Weather‐ he notes that the Mongols accomplished this feat ford does a splendid job of illustrating that when their population was perhaps a million peo‐ Genghis Khan was not a born military genius, a ple, of which only around 100,000 comprised the label that is often and understandably applied to military. Weatherford does well to illustrate the the Mongol leader, but rather he learned from his magnitude of this deed by pointing out that many mistakes and then applied the lessons. modern corporations have more employees than

2 H-Net Reviews

Also in the frst chapter, Weatherford pro‐ sis on the Mongols' role in facilitating trade. With vides an excellent description of the topography their empire secure, caravans and merchants tra‐ and ecology of Mongolia. It is clear he under‐ versed the Mongol realm with much greater secu‐ stands how vital these two factors are to the rise rity than in previous eras. In addition to trade, of Mongol dominance. Weatherford's anthropo‐ others took advantage of the secure roads leading logical insight is clear when discussing various as‐ to the migration of people (in some cases against pects of nomadic culture. their will), ideas, and technology. One particular Weatherford, however does engage in some item that made its way to Europe from the Mon‐ historical speculation; some of it very interesting gol Empire was quite unintentional: the Black and convincing, particularly that based on an‐ Plague. The efects of the plague on Europe are thropological premises. For instance, Temüjin well known and need no further comment. killed his older step-brother. Many scholars have Weatherford also makes his connections be‐ concluded that this was partially based of of a ri‐ tween the Mongols and the Renaissance and valry for power, even at a young age between the emergence of modern Europe. Weatherford states two branches of the family (Yesügei, Temüjin's fa‐ that it was the importation of the printing press, ther, had two wives). Weatherford raises the in‐ blast furnace, compass, gunpowder, as well as triguing possibility that the half brother was mur‐ Persian and Chinese painting styles from the dered because of the possibility that Temüjin's Mongol Empire that spawned the Renaissance. In‐ mother would become the half-brother's wife due deed, Weatherford writes during the Renaissance to Levirate law (p. 23-24). period, "The common principles of the Mongol The second section concerns the expansion of Empire-such as paper money, primacy of the state the Mongol Empire outside of Mongolia. This of over the church, freedom of religion, diplomatic course leads the Mongol armies into , Cen‐ immunity, and international law-were ideas ... tral Asia, the , and Europe. These gained new importance" (p. 236). Weatherford chapters provide a discourse on the efectiveness states his case very eloquently and with an abun‐ of the Mongol military as well as a comparison dance of evidence demonstrating not only the in‐ with its enemies, including such ubiquitous yet in‐ direct infuence of the Mongols in Europe but also teresting elements such as diet. Weatherford also the transformation of the Mongols from agents of attempts to put the massacres and destruction innovation in the Renaissance into agents of de‐ conducted by the Mongols into perspective and struction in the European mind during Enlighten‐ makes a good contrast between the Mongols and ment. their "civilized" opponents who were often much It is quite clear that Weatherford is a brilliant more prone to torturing prisoners, often for en‐ writer, blending anthropological insight and in‐ tertainment purposes. Finally, Weatherford at‐ credible enthusiasm with a captivating narrative. tempts to explain the rationale between each in‐ It is easy to see why many reviewers and readers vasion as well as provide the political background have been enthusiastic about it. Despite all of behind each event from the Mongol perspective. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern The third section is truly the focus of the World's acclaim, it is very clear that Weatherford book: the impact of the Mongols on the world. is not a historian. In the general narrative Weath‐ This section begins with the breakup of the em‐ erford is sufciently accurate. However, in the de‐ pire and various changes that occurred in the tails, Weatherford is wrestling with material that khanates that would lead to the transformation of he clearly does not fully appreciate. It is impor‐ the world. Weatherford rightly places his empha‐ tant to remember that the book is intended for the

3 H-Net Reviews general public and thus certain allowances are of‐ sieges. To be sure, the Mongols did use grenades ten made, usually in the form of generalizations. thrown from catapults occasionally, but gunpow‐ While this can be a useful method in writing, of‐ der weapons of any form were not a major com‐ ten it is misleading or just simply wrong. Unfortu‐ ponent of their arsenal. nately this is the case with much of Weatherford's In relation to Baghdad, Weatherford also book. takes another historical misstep noting that Bagh‐ Again, the general narrative is correct, but dad would not fall again to "infdel troops" as it fner points are simply wrong. For instance, he did to the Mongols in 1258 until 2003 to the Amer‐ foreshadows the Mongol defeat at 'Ayn Jalut in icans. This ignores the capture of Baghdad by 1260 by mentioning the , slave soldiers British troops in 1917 during World War I. who were primarily Kipchak Turks, many of Furthermore, many of the errors are simply whom the Mongols sold or sent feeing into slav‐ careless. In discussing Timur (Tamerlane, ery. Curiously, Weatherford mentions that the 1336-1405) as a successor to Genghis Khan, Mamluks were comprised of and Slavs. Weatherford states that Timur captured the sul‐ While it is quite possible that Slavs were sold in tan of the Seljuk kingdom in modern Turkey. This the Middle East as slaves, if any did serve as Mam‐ is incorrect as the Seljuks no longer existed. luks, their numbers were negligible and more of a Rather, Timur captured Sultan Bayazid, the Ot‐ rare exception than the rule. toman Sultan. Then Weatherford links Din-i-Illah, Also in discussing the Battle of the Kalka Riv‐ the universalist religion of Mughal ruler, Akbar er, the frst encounter between the princes of the the Great (1543-1605), with the religious policies Rus' and the Mongols, several problems surface. of Genghis Khan. While Akbar and the other This discussion is a perfect example of the frustra‐ Moghul rulers certainly did use many of the prac‐ tion caused by Weatherford's lack of footnotes. In tices of the Mongol Empire, one should not con‐ one section (p. 141) Weatherford states that the fuse the religious policies of the Mongols with a Mongol arrows could not be used by the Rus' but higher goal of religious unity and toleration on the Mongols could use the arrows shot by the Rus'. philosophic ideals. Mongol religious toleration Yet there is no indication of the source in the was based on preventing strife in the empire, not notes, nor any explanation in the text of why this ensuring spiritual harmony. was so. In his discussion of the army of the Rus' While Weatherford's book is flled with inac‐ he includes peasants. While his arguments on curacies it is also rife with unsubstantiated histor‐ their capabilities are intriguing, there is no evi‐ ical speculation. While some of his speculations dence that a levy of peasants took part in this bat‐ do have merit and deserve further consideration, tle. Weatherford also confuses the horses of the many aspects are passed of as truths which the Rus' with the large warhorses used by knights in casual reader or non-specialist may accept un‐ Western Europe (pp. 141-142). knowingly. An example of this concerns the last One of the most troublesome aspects is that ruler of the unifed Mongol Empire, Mongke. Weatherford places an incredible amount of em‐ Weatherford makes a curious statement that phasis on the Mongols' use of gunpowder in war‐ Mongke had a fondness for European contrap‐ fare, going so far as to insinuate that they used tions and designs (p. 177). This perhaps stems cannons at the siege of Baghdad in 1258 (p. 182). from an account of a fountain that provided four There is no indication of this in the , Syriac, diferent beverages at feasts through intricate or Persian sources of this practice, nor of the means. It was designed by a European prisoner, Mongols using devices like a cannon at other Guillaume Boucher, but hardly accounts for a

4 H-Net Reviews fondness as there are no other accounts of these this book in a class. Considering the numerous "contraptions" in the sources. factual errors and misguided etymological specu‐ Weatherford undermines his own eforts by lations this reviewer cannot recommend using dabbling in linguistic matters. While this reviewer this as a standard text for a world history class cannot be positive, it seems clear that Weather‐ with the exception of using it as a point of discus‐ ford enters a feld where he has no business. In‐ sion on historiography. While the overall thrust of deed, the words he mistranslates in Persian the book is on target and may promote new dis‐ demonstrate that, one should hope, he has no course on the infuence of the Mongols in history, background in the language. Weatherford may it is undermined by numerous mistakes. Weather‐ have learned some Mongolian, but it is also clear ford overstates his case in his enthusiasm for the that he is not a student of the language, and thus Mongols, making connections that are often tenu‐ does not understand the transformation of the ous. Did the Mongols contribute to the modern Mongolian language from the Middle Mongolian world? Defnitely yes, the evidence (even consid‐ of the thirteenth century to the modern Khalkha ering the errors) assembled makes this very clear. dialect used in Mongolia today. It is too much to say that Renaissance would not have happened without the Mongols. Indeed, This is demonstrated on several occasions. In eventually artists would have had contact with relation to Mongolian, Weatherford states that the new styles and Chinese technology would have title "Genghis Khan", means strong, frm, fearless. crept into Europe at any rate via the Middle East, In this instance, he is correct as Genghis (or more albeit perhaps at a slower rate. One could make properly, Chinggis) comes from the middle Mon‐ the argument that the Renaissance would not golian "ching"; Weatherford uses the modern have happened without the or the rise Mongolian equivalent, "chin." Weatherford then of the in Northern China. After all the associates it with the Mongolian word for wolf, Jin unwittingly allowed the Mongols to rise to chino, which was also the male ancestor of the power, whereas their predecessors, the Liao dy‐ Mongols (the female ancestor was a deer). Weath‐ nasty did a great deal more to control the steppe erford's lack of familiarity with Mongolian is ap‐ tribes. More importantly the great period of trans‐ parent as, while the words are somewhat similar, lation of Greek material conducted by the Arabs is they bare no relation other than that a chino of equal importance. could be described as "ching." That being said, there is still something to be While other examples exist, one fnal exam‐ said for Genghis Khan and the Making of the Mod‐ ple of these linguistic errors must be brought ern World. The errors are almost forgivable con‐ forth, particularly as it pertains to a subject that sidering how well it is written. This reviewer has been in the news in the recent years: the Haz‐ doubts that most historians found their love of ara people of Afghanistan. Weatherford is correct history in a dusty monograph but rather a well- in that the Hazara trace their existence back to a written popular book that they read in their Mongol regiment that was stationed in youth. Thus in this respect, while this reviewer Afghanistan; however Hazara does not mean "ten would be reluctant to use Weatherford's book in a thousand" in Persian as Weatherford states, but class, I would suggest it to someone might other‐ rather "a thousand", which was the essential unit wise not have an interest in history. for military and civil operations. Note Thus with Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, the reader is left [1]. Timur, himself conquered the remnants in a quandary. Many may have thought of using of the Chaghatayids. Timur, however sufered

5 H-Net Reviews from the fact that he was not descended from Genghis Khan, and thus was not always viewed as a legitimate ruler in the steppes. To overcome this handicap, he married Genghisid princesses, and even placed Genghisid princes on the throne of his empire, while he ruled "behind the scenes" (needless to say, nobody was fooled).

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-world

Citation: Timothy May. Review of Weatherford, Jack. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. H-World, H-Net Reviews. March, 2005.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=10378

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

6