Simply Chinggis

Preface

Simply Chinggis . A rather odd title that could be a slogan for a vodka advertising campaign. And yes, Chinggis Khan does indeed have his own vodka brand. On the surface, it seems an unlikely title for a book about the Mongolian conqueror. Why not Simply Chinggis Khan? Or Simply Temüjin? After all, in the Mongolian language of the day, Chinggis Khan means firm or fierce lord, or perhaps oceanic lord, but the man who used that particular sobriquet was known throughout his childhood and early adulthood as Temüjin. For one thing, no one would buy a book called Simply Temüjin, except perhaps out of idle curiosity to find out who this person was—particularly if the book’s cover lives up to the standards of the others in this series. Indeed, the only people who know Temüjin in casual conversation would be those who have read a book on Chinggis Khan.

So why not Simply Genghis Khan, as the Mongolian conqueror is commonly known? For starters, it is not his name nor his title. It is a corruption of Chinggis Khan. Additionally, this author is adamantly against using the G-word and has taught legions of students to castigate those who use it. Furthermore, as my son was gently reprimanded when correcting his world history teacher after the latter referred to Chinggis as Genghis, I should hold up my end of the bargain and not blaspheme. There are other valid reasons as well, which should please the publisher of this book, who raised his own valid concerns about not using the dreaded G-word; I will divulge these reasons in a later chapter. Until then, I shall trust that the reader will make the adjustment while reading in anticipation of this revelation.

More importantly, this book is about one of the most influential figures in world history, at least in the last millennium, and as such, he deserves every respect and consideration. Indeed, he was fierce not only in the traditional sense—cruel and bloodthirsty—but also fierce as defined in The Urban Dictionary, bold in his actions. Thus, Simply Chinggis is more than an adequate title for the life of Chinggis Khan.

If one takes a casual perusal of Chinggis Khan’s early life, there is nothing to suggest that he would become one of the truly pivotal figures in world history. His life (c.1158–1227) was full of drama: they murdered his father when Temüjin was only 8 or 9 years old; his family was largely ostracized; young Temüjin killed his elder step-brother and was enslaved as a result but eventually escaped; they stole his wife from him and he did not regain her for several months. Although he rose to power, he lost it after one battle against his former best friend. At that point, he should have disappeared from history … and in fact, he did disappear for 10 years. We only have hints of where he was at the time, but we do not know what he did or with whom he associated. Yet, when Temüjin returned, he proved to be not only more mature, but also more determined as well. One might even say fiercer. No longer was he the pawn of others, but a man who made his own destiny.

The wars that followed in Mongolia unified the steppes under his rule. Although it is not apparent that Chinggis Khan planned to conquer the world, his armies conquered more territory than any other commander in world history. His children and grandchildren expanded the empire even more so that it spanned from Korea to Bulgaria, from the Persian Gulf and the South China Sea to the Siberian tundra, establishing an empire of approximately the size of Africa—almost 12 million square miles. Yet, Chinggis Khan was more than a mere conqueror, for he founded a state.

While the Mongol Empire lasted in some permutation for over 150 years, the notion of Mongolia endured. Before Chinggis Khan, the territory that is present-day Mongolia was simply the pastures of various nomadic groups. Empires rose and fell, and the identities of the groups dwelling there changed with time. Yet, after Chinggis Khan, only Mongols remained. Indeed, without him, there would be no Mongols. His legacy even survived 70 years of communist rule in the 20th century. To this day, he has remained very much present in the minds of Mongolians, who consider him as their founding father. While he did not do it alone, he was the genius of the State.

The rest of the world has mixed feelings about Chinggis Khan and the Mongol Empire in general. Prior to the late 20th century, the common view, especially among those living in the territory of the former Mongol Empire, was that Chinggis Khan was a destructive force; after all, he famously said, I am the punishment of God … If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.

A more balanced reading of the sources, however, reveals that Chinggis Khan, like all people, was a much more complex figure. While the destruction he wrought can never be ignored, he was so much more than merely a villain: he was also a statesman, a visionary, a hero, a husband, father, and leader who sought to create a stable Mongolia and protect it from the machinations of outside forces that had contributed so much to the turmoil that had shaped his early life. Thus, this book not only examines his life, but also considers how the events and people Chinggis Khan encountered molded and influenced the decisions he made, which, in turn, changed the course of history.

Chinggis Khan first entered my life in fifth grade, when I stumbled upon the old Harold Lamb children’s biography of the great Mongol leader titled Genghis Khan and the Mongol Horde (1954). While Lamb’s biography is now outdated (as it was in my childhood), he wrote with such enthusiasm that one could not help but be captivated. While Chinggis Khan lingered in my memory for years, it was not until my senior year at the College of William & Mary that I immersed myself in the study of Chinggis Khan and the Mongol Empire. And the rest, as they say, is history. I can only hope that this book might have a similar effect on others as well.

Timothy May

Dahlonega, GA

1Chinggis Khan as Child (1162-1182)

On August 18, 1227, Chinggis Khan lay sweating from a fever in his bed in the kingdom of Xi Xia, which he invaded and conquered 18 years earlier.

Now almost 65 years old and ill, the emperor may have wished to be closer to home, in the cooler climate of northern Mongolia. There, one of his grandchildren or wives could have cooled his brow with a cloth soaked in the water from the Onan-Kerulen River Basin, where Chinggis Khan was born and which served as the cradle of the Mongol Empire that existed only due to the efforts of the man wracked with fever, dying far from home.

Xi Xia is on the frontiers of Mongolia in what are now Ningxia and Gansu provinces in the People’s Republic of China. Fourteen years after Mongol armies vanquished Xi Xia, a kingdom ruled by the Tangut, a people of Tibetan origin, its rulers rebelled when Chinggis Khan’s viceroy died and while Chinggis Khan was far away in Central Asia.

Chinggis Khan attempted to resolve the matter diplomatically, but negotiations failed. He realized Xi Xia would never fully accept Mongol rule as long as its own royal family existed, although the Mongols had not occupied the region in 1209 but rather agreed to accept tribute. With no other recourse but war, the Mongols invaded in 1226. Neither army nor fortresses could halt the Mongol advance, but the Tangut escaped total destruction. Taking a break from the campaign, the now elderly Chinggis Khan went hunting. When some qulan—wild asses—suddenly emerged from the brush, his startled horse reared and flung the Mongol leader. The fall did not kill him, but he suffered internal injuries. Although his generals and sons attempted to persuade him to cease the campaign, he refused, telling them not to stop until Xi Xia had been maimed and tamed, even if he died. The question was, which would expire first, Chinggis Khan or Xi Xia?

In the meantime, his generals, family, and perhaps even he himself, reflected on how Chinggis Khan, a boy from an obscure tribe in a remote Mongol region conquered the largest territory in history, dwarfing the exploits of Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, and Napoleon Bonaparte. He created the largest connected empire in history, exceeded only in total landmass by the British Empire, which was not contiguous. Conquest and military force alone are not enough to build empires; this task also requires genius. Chinggis Khan had plenty of that, but his brilliance would have been wasted if he had not learned valuable lessons from his life’s experiences.

History reveals that Chinggis Khan’s childhood was difficult, and it undoubtedly shaped many of his beliefs and core values. Then again, who doesn’t experience hardships? How we respond to them often becomes a defining character trait. In many ways, Chinggis Khan’s life was one of rags-to-riches on an unimaginable scale. He had what some might consider a dysfunctional childhood—before the age of 15, he lived through the murder of his father, ostracism and abandonment, poverty, fratricide, captivity, enslavement, and robbery. If Chinggis Khan had not risen to these challenges, you would not be reading this book—any of these experiences could have erased Temüjin from history. Yet persevere he did.

Historic context: tribes and khans

Chinggis Khan was born during a turbulent period in Mongolia in late autumn of 1162 and given the name Temüjin. While Mongolia had been the home of several empires, such as the Xiongnu (circa 200 BCE-200 CE) and the Uighurs (744-840), and then became part of the Liao Empire (906-1125), during Temüjin’s youth, it was a land divided among several tribal confederations, each vying for control of pastures as well as access to the trade routes of the historical silk roads. In 1162, the Mongols were but one confederation on the steppe. A few decades earlier, they had become a rising force. Indeed, their rapid emergence so concerned the Jin Empire in northern China and Manchuria that they aided the Tatars, a rival tribe, against the Mongols. The Tatars lured the Mongol khan Ambaghai into a trap and sent him as a prisoner to the Jin Emperor. There, Ambaghai was tortured and executed in an imaginative and humiliating way—nailed to a wooden donkey.

Why a donkey? Because the Mongols were steppe nomads who rode horses. Only sedentary cultures domesticated donkeys or rode them. Ambaghai’s death therefore symbolically broke his nomadic spirit and transformed him into a sedentary farmer—the kind of lowly person who he himself might raid.

Ambaghai’s death led to a number of consequences. Prior to his reign, the Mongols were led by Qabul Khan of the Borjigid Mongols. Although Qabul had seven sons, the khanship passed to Ambaghai of the Tayichi’ud Mongols, a different branch. While this was a major shift, it was not surprising, because while the position of khan could be hereditary, it was not necessarily so. In this book, I use the term tribe, which often makes scholars uncomfortable, as a lot of baggage can accompany it from its earlier use, which usually meant a group of people bonded by a common lineage to a real or fictional ancestor. The latter definition often falls apart on scrutiny. Now it is fashionable to use the term lineage to discuss the dominant elements of a steppe society or even use the indigenous term such as oboq and yasu. I, on the other hand, believe that the term tribe has some validity, as the average reader is at least familiar with it in a general sense. Furthermore, my use of tribe is guided by the definition of the term by Rudi Lindner in his classic article, What was a Nomadic Tribe?

To sum up, the medieval Eurasian nomadic tribe was a political organism open to all who were willing to subordinate themselves to its chief and who shared interests with its tribesmen. It was a dynamic organism that could expand or contract its fellowship in short order; its growth or decay was intimately related to the wisdom and success of its chief’s actions. It derived its identity from its chief, a fact which implied that its continued and powerful existence over several generations was doubtful (Lindner, 701).

I would add the caveat that chief can be replaced by lineage, and most members of the larger tribe are not related to it through a real or fictive ancestor. We must accept the idea that the name of any tribe or clan comes from the dominant element in any group related to the primary lineage. Secondly, there was some common identity defined by region, language, lineage, ethnicity, culture or a combination of these.

Tribal identity was fluid. Groups could move in and out of the tribe—sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not. Tribes often grew by forcibly dominating weaker groups. Others sought the protection of a more powerful tribe against external threats. Nor were all members of a tribe equal to one another; instead, a hierarchy existed. Additionally, these tribes could be acephalous, meaning that there was not a single dominant leader, but several leading figures who conferred on decisions. At times, one figure might gain ascendancy over others, particularly in times of crisis when strong leadership was needed. Otherwise, the various groups tended to be largely autonomous. Among the tribes of Mongolia, the title for such a ruler was khan. However, once a man became khan, he was not guaranteed to remain as such. He was supported by a number of retainers (nökörs) or men bonded to him by loyalty. If the khan assisted them in maintaining their status through gifts, rewards, and privileges, these nökörs helped him. If he failed to do so, eventually they might seek employment elsewhere, or help someone else seize the throne. While one can view this kind of betrayal as self-serving, the nökör had valid concerns, just as stockholders or employees might with a CEO; if he or she is doing a fine job, then all is good. But if they are failing, then others will be affected as well. Of course, unlike lay-offs or declining dividends, failure on the steppes could mean death. A weak khan invited disaster. Conversely, although a strong khan was desirable, too much autocracy also risked disaster. The benefit of being a nomad was that you could vote with your feet (or hooves) and leave. There was always a risk of retaliation, but tribal confederations only worked well when a good khan listened to the needs of the subordinate leaders and upheld a just rule over the long term.