Download PDF | Prajakti Kalra - The Silk Road and the Political Economy of the Mongol Empire-Routledge (2018).
163 Pages
The Silk Road and the Political Economy of the Mongol Empire The growing importance of Central and Inner Asia and the Silk Road is much discussed at present. This book compares the nature of present day networks in these regions with the patterns of similar connections which existed at the time of the Mongol Empire in the thirteenth century and its successor states. It considers settlement patterns, technology and technology transfer, trade, political arrangements, the role of religion and the impact of the powerful states which border the region. Overall, the book demonstrates that the Mongol Empire anticipated many of the networks and connections which exist in the region at present. Prajakti Kalra is a Research Fellow at the Central Asia Forum, Jesus College, University of Cambridge.
Preface
The Eurasian region and the Silk Road today occupy much of the discourse on globalisation, international and regional cooperation and world trade. The usage and descriptions of both terms are manifold and reflect the pluralistic make-up of the region. The modern day understanding of Eurasia is informed by the particularities of the actors involved, which invokes a romantic notion of the past on the one hand but, also raises the spectre of suspicion and threat on the other. The politics of today which engages with the past continues to be coloured by misunderstandings and misrepresentations driven by modern frameworks and principles that do not necessarily reflect either the region or the individual actors. This book attempts to mitigate these distortions and takes a historical approach to inform present-day discourses on Eurasia as a consequence of Mongol governance. In order to fully capture the essence of the region, then and now, one must consider the first moment in history which allowed for it to be connected under one polity. This is the story of that particular moment and covers the time period of Mongol control over the Silk Road in the thirteenth century and its legacy in order to shed light on how the mechanisms of trade and production along with innovations in technology helped make Eurasia the epicentre of the world.
This book narrates the story through the prism of the political economy of the Silk Road as created and executed by Chinggisid Mongols. It traces the historical underpinnings of a Mongol worldview steeped in nomadic precedents which drove governance and policy in this period. The common thread which made for a Mongol Eurasia with its inherent flexibility and adaptability made political unification possible and in doing so created the conditions necessary for unprecedented economic and technological progress. This book challenges the commonly held notions of the Mongols merely as destroyers and war mongers and instead presents evidence of an interconnected Eurasia.
The sea of changes brought about by the Mongols is testimony to its impact in all the regions of Eurasia (China, Russia, Iran, Central Asia and beyond). The growth of cities (Muscovy, Beijing and port cities), the creation of new kinds of arts and crafts (miniature paintings), unprecedented trade flows, the availability of travel permits (gerege) which allowed travellers and caravans to travel across the territory, access to caravansarais with fresh horses, safe places to spend the night and a far reaching postal and communication system (jam) were the cornerstone of the Mongol political system. These same facilities are still necessary for travel today, whether by sea or land; the necessity for physical security for people, goods and now pipelines is as essential today as it was in the thirteenth century. The different aspects of trade and the processes through which the Eurasian space represented the Silk Road has to be juxtaposed with the modern understanding of state, economy and economic union in the same geographical space in the twenty-first century. It is well known that the historic Silk Road under the Mongols connected Eurasia in ways that allowed goods and technologies to be transferred and traded all the way back and forth from China, Central Asia, Russia, Iran, India and Europe.
The exchange of commodities can be compared with the varieties of people and ideas that traversed this space and led to interactions among societies which hitherto had not been closely connected. The Mongol attitude to religion also helped create conditions for these kinds of exchanges. The Mongol period is famous for bringing together cultural contact between different religions (Buddhism, Islam and Christianity) and protection of smaller sects within more established religions (Nestorian Christians, Manichaeans). Mongol courts served as meeting points for religious leaders who were often asked to have discussions and debates in the court (especially Qubilai Khan’s court in China). This open attitude toward religion helped and guided trade as much as it created conditions for coexistence. These aspects of Eurasia have continued to be expressed in varying degrees since the Mongols and form the bulk of historical experiences of the region. The historical evidence for the interconnectedness in Eurasia, geographically, economically, socially and culturally, echoes what was most definitively and coherently organised by the Mongol polity in the thirteenth century.
The economic prosperity witnessed under the Mongols was a combination of the Mongol political system, the military and cultural habits which represented inclusiveness at their core. This book provides a snapshot of the historical place of the Mongol Empire in the building and sustaining of commercial activities across this swathe of territory which is being revived by different actors on the global scene today. A look at Eurasian history from this perspective informs a regional understanding different from one accorded by European colonialism and creates space for Eurasian ideas with Eurasian precedents. This book showcases the importance of nomadic polities and the significance of the steppe environment (physical and conceptual) in the making of Eurasia. In the era of the Eurasian Economic Union and the One Belt One Road project, this approach provides the historical underpinnings for renewed regional cooperation. A reinterpretation of history based on the Silk Road in the Mongol period is timely and essential to the future imagination of the Eurasian region.
Introduction Eurasia is a particular place with a unique ecology encompassing varied polities: nomadic, sedentary and semi-sedentary. Of these, the nomads and particularly the Mongols were the most successful and the first to bring the natural connectedness of this region to the fore. The Silk Road once established in the second century has continued to evolve and shape the nature of interaction and exchange ever since. The near mythic stories of the opulence and prosperity of cities along the Silk Road, like Bukhara and Samarqand, along with Beijing, Tabriz and even Venice continue to evoke excitement and awe among readers. In connecting the vast expanse of the Silk Road from China to Europe the Mongols created a hybrid state which connected a large swathe of the world population and brought the most advanced societies of the time in closer contact with each other.
They encouraged the free flow of ideas, peoples and goods while other parts of the world divided along religious lines restricted, limited and even forbade these kinds of interactions. The political unification under the Mongols surpassed every other earlier attempt and led to an explosion of interactions under Mongol aegis in Eurasia. The unification of Eurasia was a project initiated by Chinggis Khan and carried on by his sons and grandsons successfully along the historic trade routes going east and west. The expansion of the Chinggissid imperial project brought with it diverse groups of people, political and economic ideologies, religions and cultures. Over the period of the Mongol century, called the ‘first global event,’ 1 and a ‘turning point’, 2 the Mongol Khanates experienced transformations and adapted to local conditions but managed to contrive a Mongol ideology which was expressed in the form of the dignity of the figure of Chinggis Khan and the distribution of appanages. Both of these formed the backbone of the Inner Asian steppe tradition which exercised power and influence across Eurasia on the Chinggissids and continued to resonate even among successive empires. 3
Through this system of governance what the Mongols revealed was in essence the facilitation of quick travel and in greater numbers of goods, people and ideas than ever before. 4 In other words, the Mongols converted micro-economies on the Silk Road into a coherent macro-economy which enabled a much larger population to access Eurasia from end to end. This was to produce a golden moment in the history of Eurasian trade based on unprecedented connectedness and should signify a tremendous feat of Mongol agency. Achieved through a particularly Mongol worldview and understanding of the world which was based out of a federal, cooperative structure of nomadic beliefs and institutions, Eurasia blossomed as never before. The Mongols evoke as many dichotomies as the very landscape of Eurasia. For every atrocity committed there exists a counter example of Mongol clemency. For example, the exemption of taxes and levies which was given to all religious institutions; or the protection of Nestorian Christians across Eurasia who had been expelled from Christian lands in the Middle East and beyond; and even the protection of Muslim groups across Eurasia.
The Mongols are accused of destroying everything in their path but these reports are juxtaposed with accounts of flourishing cities and groups of people like merchants and artisans (see Chapters 4 and 5, respectively) who did exceedingly well in the Mongol state machinery. The picture that has persisted pertaining to Asia and especially the Mongols, is one focused on destruction, killing and violence which can be found in contemporary sources of note as well as subsequent historical works all the way through till today.
The Mongols depicted as the ‘Storm from the East’ 5 has overwhelmingly described the Mongol century. While there has been a lot of work done, especially by David Morgan, Thomas Allsen, Thomas Barfield, Renee Grousset and others, the Mongols have been relegated to being considered a negative force in Eurasia. The Mongol war machine is the only Mongol institution to have gotten grudging respect. However, this only goes towards hardening the idea of the barbaric Mongol on horseback with very little value for life. All this is pitted against the evidence from the cities and regions of the Silk Road which not only prospered but experienced unprecedented levels of growth and exchange in the form of ideas, peoples, technologies and goods which cannot be ignored even by the most ardent cynic. This view is not surprising since most of history has been written through a predominantly sedentary lens of empire and state. The history of the Mongols and wider Eurasian region with Central Asia at its heart is one which is oral in nature, passed on to us through material written by neighbours, competitors and/or colonisers.
The scarcity of sources left from the Mongols themselves, other than the Secret History of the Mongols, continues to leave the history of the Mongol period in the hands of their subject peoples: Chinese, Persian, Russian, Korean and Armenian along with other sources who represented their enemies (Delhi Sultanate, Mamluks of Egypt and Syria). This has been further exacerbated by the problem of understanding a particularly nomadic state, different from sedentary states, with unique characteristics and motivations. For the purposes of this book, the nomadic state is of vital importance especially its attitude to and encouragement of trade as a major source of economic prosperity. The success of Mongol Eurasia lay in controlling the Silk Road and ensuring seamless and safe trade across this vast expanse. Contrary to popular belief then, the Mongols were as famous for supporting trade as they were for war and pillage in world history.
The fact that the Mongol state and its ruler, the Qaghan, understood the intricacies of commercial networks on the Silk Road and built infrastructure to ensure long distance trade is indeed remarkable. The Mongols established the first postal system to connect the far ends of Eurasia and provided amenities necessary to make mercantile activity comfortable and convenient. They were responsible not only for providing fresh horses, fodder, water and a place for merchants to rest but also created the necessary financial infrastructure for such activity. A collated census, taxation system and ready capital all formed the basis for commercial activity along the Silk Road. The Mongols were the facilitators and the centre of east-west exchange 6 in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. These multifarious policies and practices in Eurasia can be summarised as a Mongol worldview which builds on the idea of Eurasia as a unit of world history 7 which presupposes geography and ecology to express the singularity of Mongol Eurasia.
It serves as an example of governance which evolved from steppe traditions which had its own unique style of leadership and preferences for economic activity. The unique history of the nomads of Inner Asia unfolds through the centuries to create a composite worldview with its own set of historical precedence. Particularly for the Mongols, the pattern of nomads raiding and looting and periodically coming into contact with sedentary populations was broken with the arrival of Chinggis Khan. The Chinggissid nomad was very different from his predecessors and consequently the Mongol state and the legacy of the Mongols were of a very different quality. The Chinggissid ideology while informed by the steppe organisation was also informed by the demands of a system adapted to local conditions in newly acquired sedentary lands. The fixed dichotomies between centralisation, decentralisation, power sharing or monopoly over power did not exist for the Mongols, and thus did not percolate further down.
The division of the Chinggissid Mongols into four Khanates (Yuan China, Ilkhanate Persia, Central Asia and the Golden Horde) by 1260 created four distinct Khanates with their respective Khans, yet each continued to acknowledge the existence of a composite Mongol system. This meant that the Khans or princes within the Mongol imperial family could be at odds with each other and still accept and associate with the Chinggssid ideology and express a Mongol worldview. A belief in the mandate of heaven and the destiny of Mongol domination persisted long after Chinggis Khan’s demise in 1227 and eventually expanded to accommodate all of Eurasia. Princes could challenge the authority of the Qaghan without challenging the system of nomadic enterprise which retained its place as ‘… one of the universalist phases in Asian and Inner Asian history’. 8 One of the most important consequences of Mongol presence on the Silk Road was the economic consolidation of the Eurasian region.
The ancient Silk Road was transformed into a busy network of commercial activity, the revenues of which accounted for a large portion of the state treasuries and the goods and products which came into circulation under the Mongols represented their tastes and demands. Mongol institutions and bureaucratic practices were all directed toward increasing revenues and encouraging trade and commercial activity which could serve as the backbone of a nomadic economy with access to all of Eurasia. Specifically, institutions like the keshig (the imperial bodyguard), the office of darugachi and the biceci, represented by the who’s who of steppe intelligentsia, worked together with the local administrative system to create a Mongol megastructure that was able to bridge gaps between disparate political and social groups in Eurasia.
The openness of the Mongol system, most evident in their religious policies, reveals a deep understanding of Eurasia and the world. Mongol institutions, policies and practices were all geared toward improving connectedness and interactions across the Mongol Khanates which encompassed all of Eurasia. The impact on the sheer quantity and quality of goods moving on the Silk Road along with the numbers of people travelling long distances is what distinguishes the Mongols from their predecessors and marks this era as a turning point for Eurasia. An understanding of the natural eco-system of the steppe, in combination with steppe traditions which the nomads had adapted to in order to deal with the harsh environmental conditions can help explain the success that the Mongols experienced in their dealings in Eurasia. The Mongol presence on the Silk Road offers us so much more than what is commonly proffered. It laid the foundation for economic relations through attending to connectivity on the Silk Road which addressed the main aspects of communication and free movement across Eurasia.
The Mongols were able to consolidate societies, cultures and a wide variety of economic systems and this unique perspective on Eurasia allows us to use a non-binary lens in viewing interactions across systems: political, social, economic and cultural. It challenges the accepted Western notion of a zero-sum game in the context of political systems (communism and/or capitalism; majority rule versus guided forms of governance), religious affiliations and even cosmopolitanism. The historical basis for multilateral cooperation which existed among the Mongol Khans who jointly ruled Eurasia signifies a successful example of Eurasian cooperation informed by nomadic traditions, eastern philosophies and (Eur)Asian particularities.
The shared idea of ownership carried with it the implicit reality of limited power which was guaranteed by requiring consensus among the Mongol Khans and princes. Viewed from an entirely nomadic perspective, Chinggis Khan managed to institute a system which required his descendants to work together and by delineating wealth and power he managed to create political unification based on shared goals and Chinggissid symbolism rather than centralisation which requires one superior authority. Mongol Khans could still lay allegiance to Chinggissid principles and yet question the election of the Qaghan, as in the case of Qubilai Khan in 1260. Akin to the sovereign nations of today, the Khans bickered, shared, cooperated, fought and competed for resources (material and otherwise) available in Eurasia. The yasaq 9 along with the very person of Chinggis Khan over time came to represent the source of the legitimacy to be able to rule Eurasia. 10 Subsequent rulers like Amir Timur (Tamerlane), and the Kazakh and Uzbek Khanates, continued to derive legitimacy from the yasaq and their Chinggissid lineage to rule over Central Asia and parts of Eurasia.
The syncretic nature of Mongol ideologies which were visible in their institutions, practices, scientific and cultural endeavours and economic preferences contributed toward a functional, pluralistic system which was able to create an integrated system. It is important to note that an important aspect of Mongol Eurasia was that while the Mongols provided unification, the system of administration was symmetrical, not uniform. 11 A closer look at the Silk Road, Eurasia and the Mongols in the thirteenth century challenges accepted ideas of Asia which continue to be understood and explained in binaries: control rather than cohesion, centralisation as opposed to coordination and styles of governance which necessarily highlight the incompatibility of democracy with other styles of governance. The Mongol Khanates were united by tradition and steppe practices but in adapting to the local conditions of the disparate regions they inhabited, they exhibited different governing styles. The by-word of the Mongol state machinery was flexibility in their relationships within the Khanates and with their subject populations. 12 In other words, while the administration of Mongol Eurasia could not be uniform because of its inherent adaptability, it nonetheless responded to the centre, i.e. to Mongol traditions which were shared by all the Khanates. The nomadic principles of ruling by consensus continued to influence the actions of the imperial family.
The symbolism and sentiment so closely associated with Chinggis Khan’s person and the system he initiated proved far more stable and alluring than anything else that the Mongols came in contact with, and that … historic continuity of the dynasty, which had remained Mongol in sentiment, tradition, language and customs, even beneath exotic appearances, in Persia and in China, and was therefore universally bound to its founders’ policy in the fraternal government of the empire and plans for world conquest. 13 This was further demonstrated by the fact that the efficacy of the Mongol system relied on access to resources in Eurasia even when they were not directly under the control of a particular prince. For example, Hulegu’s army on its way to Iran and Iraq was amassed by peoples from China and Central Asia following censuses taken in these regions under Mongke and Qubilai. This signified a shared system which allowed the Khans and the princes to use the resources available to them throughout Eurasia whether they were their direct patrimony or not. 14 Even when the rivalries between the Khanates created alliances, i.e. between the Yuan and the Ilkhans on one side and the Golden Horde and Central Asian Mongols on the other, they all continued to pay allegiance to the Chinggissid ideology.
The causes for rivalries between the Central Asian Mongols and Yuan China and the Golden Horde and the Ilkhans are discussed in Chapter 5, but suffice it to say a challenge to the authority of the Qaghan did not imply challenging the Mongol system. Far from it, the accusations against Mongol Khans were often expressed in terms of flouting Chinggis Khan’s yasaq and abandoning the nomadic lifestyle. The Mongol success in Eurasia described above requires one last point to be made. The Khanates ruling over more sedentary populations, namely China and Persia, have attracted the most attention and have consequently been accorded the most success. The sinicisation of Qubilai Khan in Yuan China and the Islamisation of the Ilkhans in Persia continue to dictate the achievements of these great civilisations. This of course has been pitted against the Golden Horde and the Central Asian Mongols who remained more nomadic and thus are deemed less successful and/or civilised as a result. For some time now the unquestioned cultural superiority of the sedentary populations has left no room for any possibility of arguing against the success of China and Persia as far surpassing the other regions of Eurasia, even under the Mongols. However, inconveniently the Mongol Khanates of the Golden Horde and Central Asia remained in power far longer than their cousins in China and Persia. Furthermore, the Golden Horde enjoyed economic prosperity and political control, at least parallel to the other Khanates, if not more than that enjoyed by the Yuan and the Ilkhanate.
We have lesser evidence for Central Asia but its successes under the Timurids, immediately following the Mongol Khans, raises questions about the state of its economy in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Embedded in this is the idea that in order to be civilised, the nomad has to be taken out or subdued. This is yet another binary which is challenged by the success of the Mongols. As we shall see in the following pages, none of the Mongol Khanates were overwhelmed by their sedentary populations, they continued to express and practise nomadic traditions, often in conjunction with newly acquired local practices but not to the point of abandoning the former. Even in Yuan China and Ilkhanate Persia the Mongols continued to live a life influenced by Mongol traditions and steppe practices. The Mongols overwhelmingly practiced their shamanistic faith well into the thirteenth and even into the fourteenth centuries even while supporting, protecting and even practising other faiths. The success of the Mongol Khanates was at its peak when Mongol Eurasia acted under the umbrella of shared proclivities.
This is best showcased through the attention paid to trade and related activities which originated from the demands of a steppe economy and the open policies towards groups, peoples and religions which overcame divisions and adapted policies and practices accordingly. Finally, Eurasia offered resources ready to be marshalled and this was achieved primarily under Mongol unification of the region in the thirteenth century. The institutional framework of the Mongols set within its unique historical context then offers an example for nations today who often struggle with the idea of being overtaken and overwhelmed even to the extent of losing their sovereignty when operating in a regional context. The fear of China and Russia has paralysed efforts toward regional integration and is in large part driven by notions of power alien to the region itself. It is within the Asian and nomadic history that Eurasia needs to locate itself, not in the European history of colonialism and subsequent globalisation. This is essentially a move toward highlighting one of the most successful attempts at globalisation and a ‘…culminating point in pre-modern world systems’. 15 The focus of the following pages is to provide a snapshot of a world of steppe traditions which with its specific institutions, leadership styles and traditions was able to give coherence to the diversity in Eurasia and created prosperity across the board as a result of a very Mongol worldview.
I begin with Chapter 1 on the rise of Chinggis Khan which lays the foundation for both the steppe polity he came out of and the establishment of a Mongol state which would go on to engulf all of Eurasia. Chapter 2 covers the main institutions which the Mongols established across Eurasia and which had roots in the steppe polity and form the basis of a coherent Mongol policy across Eurasia. Chapter 3 adds another foundational step towards the Mongol worldview which was driven largely by the relationship the Mongols had with religion and religious institutions which furthered their ability to foster unfettered trade. Chapter 4 in offering a revisionists’ view on the destruction of cities under the Mongols, proffers examples of how the Mongols achieved prosperity through the reconstruction and revival of cities on the Silk Road. Chapter 5 gives a description of trade relations, commodities and the trade routes which included old established routes and new routes which came up because of the Mongols. Chapter 6 summarises the way in which the historical narrative of the Mongols can be mapped onto the multilateral approaches that are visible in the region today. It focuses on the resurgence of the idea of a connected Eurasia through comprehensive development programmes both necessary and beneficial for countries across Eurasia.
In doing so it strikes at the very heart of the possibility of building links and connections in modern times which echo the Mongol era. Organisations like the Eurasian Economic Union and the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative have been focusing on building infrastructure like roads, bridges, ports, storage facilities, financial institutions and creating a legal framework which reflects today’s global interconnectedness in Eurasia. The 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent economic difficulties which spread like wildfire across the globe, and the more recent Anglo-American shifts away from globalisation have left a turbulent feeling in the world order. Countries like Russia, China and Central Asian republics realise the importance of regional interaction and are approaching economic unions with trepidation and hope. Earlier attempts at regional cooperation have often been half-hearted and continue to attract scepticism, especially by outside voices which feel threatened by the emergence of a strong regional entity. While both the Eurasian Economic Union and the OBOR have steered away from a political discourse, the former has maintained a steady approach toward integrating economies and the latter is focused on the building of much needed infrastructure and development projects in the Eurasian region. Much like the demonisation of the Mongols has persisted even when faced with an alternative narrative of prosperity and development, Eurasia continues to be viewed as a mystical continent which evokes both awe and fear.
In these pages, I have attempted to unravel some of the mysteries by underpinning the success of the Mongols to their institutions, a uniform worldview and a continent which was just waiting to be brought together in meaningful and real ways. In this way, I have attempted to consolidate and contribute to the field of Mongol Eurasia and connect it to the historical legacy of Eurasia. The attempts to provide an amalgamated structure of economic and social development on the territory of this historic landmass are a continuation of centuries old interactions.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق