AN UNSTOPPABLE FORCE

A review of Stephen Turnbull’s Genghis Kahn & the Mongol Conquests 1190-1400 (2003)
Part of the Essential Histories Series #57

(Rating 3 of 5)

I have always wondered when discussing the Mongol Empire if one should pluralize the word ‘empire.’ The Mongol Empire was the largest land continuous empire the world had ever seen before or since. Genghis Kahn had two things Alexander the Great did not: a longer life, and successors to continue the conquest. I have long believed that had Alexander lived, however, his empire would have stabilized and lasted, instead of dissolving away leaving the world almost sooner then it came. The Mongol Empire fragments into many empires and kingdoms and despite their many organizational enhancements they were not every good at governing what they had conquered. In many ways, those who were the conquered had a stronger effect, culturally, on those who conquered them the Mongols had on those they had conquered.

Stephen Turnbull’s work is a good look brief look into the juggernaut that was the Mongol Empire. He discusses some of the inaccuracies and misconceptions that are associated with the Mongol army. As I have stated in other reviews of this series, these books are very interesting because they are in an almost textbook format with out really having a textbook feel to them. In this book, there are maps, classical paintings of events, and art from various cultures that had to deal with the Mongol armies. One chapter even deals with horror ordinary people who were their victims had to experience.

“Throughout all the accounts of the Mongol conquests we can discern in the background an echo of great human suffering. Ordinary people from Poland to Java, who under any other circumstance might have lived lives that may have been short but were certainly uneventful, suddenly found their world turned upside down by a horde of demons apparently let loose from the depths of Hell.” p.76

The Mongol Empire had fought peoples all the way from Europe into Japan, a great deal of their success was owed to organization and their ability to change and adapt. This book serves as a good little into the Empire and Army of the Golden Horde.

{Video was from he History Channel's Barbarians, which is better then this book}

HOW THE GREAT POWERS GO ‘HYPER’!

A review of Amy Chua’s Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance—And Why They Fall (2007)

(Rating 5 of 5)

In short, the secret ingredient to a power turning into a great ‘hyperpower’ is tolerance. Not that being tolerant makes a nation a great power but it was essential to these already established powers to become the predominant power of their day, or as Chua defines it a ‘hyperpower.’ More then a superpower, hyperpowers are completely dominant in their sphere of the world with no rivals. To become a hyperpower, a nation must become tolerant as a prerequisite, and pulling away from that tolerance is what causes the hyperpower to crack.

Now the word ‘tolerance’ is something that must be taken relatively. Relative to the world and civilizations around them during the hyperpowers’ time period, and how the each hyperpower allows for social mobility and meritocracy.

“Finally, the concept is relative tolerance. In the race for world dominance, what matters most is not whether a society is tolerant according to some absolute, timeless standard, but whether it is more tolerant than its competitors. Because tolerance is a relative matter, even the tolerated groups may be subject to harshly inequitable treatment. Russian Jews in the late nineteenth century found America a haven compared to the pogroms they were fleeing, but were still subjected to anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish quotas in the United States.

I am not arguing that tolerance is a sufficient condition for world dominance. No matter how tolerant, the Kingdom of Bhutan is unlikely ever to become a global hegemon. It is always a confluence of additional factors—geography, population, natural resources, and leadership, to name just a few—that leads to the rare emergence of a world-dominant power. Pure luck plays a part, too. Even in the most propitious circumstances, a society’s ability to achieve and maintain global dominance will also depend, for example, on the state of the competition.” p.xxiv

With each case she briefly exams the history of the particular hyperpower, comparing it with the other powers that existed during its time, and following each case from their inception to the moment they rise to become a hyperpower, and there eventual downfall. Chua examines what made these powers different from others and what was their great undoing. Moreover, the continuing theme is each of these powers is they are more tolerant than their rivals are. Some of the civilizations she discuses are as follows:

· The Achaemenid Persian Empire was, as Chua describes, was the world’s first real hyperpower. Crushing its opponents Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt, Persia was far more powerful than anyone they came across. The Persians allowed the subjects to worship their local gods; even the King of Persia would pay homage to local gods in their own lands. This increased the King’s image and legitimacy with his own subjects. Even Alexander who brought that empire down would emulate that strategy.

(Persian Empire at its height, green is Greece that is not a part of that empire.)

· Ancient Rome, during the period known as the High Empire, is also sighted for its tolerance of its subjects, not only allowing local populations to worship their own gods but even extending their citizenship and their very definition of what a ‘Roman’ was. Rome was able to create a since of unity throughout their empire which allowed them to maintain their hold on such a large area.

(The Roman Empire)

· The Tang Empire of Ancient China, how the Emperor Gaozu allowed for the Han Chinese and ‘barbarians’ such as the Turks to intermix and marry and have it be socially acceptable. This allowed for a more inclusive empire and one that is far easier to govern.

(Tang Empire)

· The Mongol Empire broke down traditional clans into military units that would show loyalty to the army unit that they use to show with male blood ties. Genghis Kahn himself would recruit people into his army who had skills they lacked, regardless of that individuals background.

(Mongol Empire)

· The Dutch World Empire, Holland in becoming a refuge for victims of religious persecution, allowed the very tiny place to assume a huge brain trust. With almost all smart and talented people from various groups, they were able to build a massive colonial empire. Although they were nowhere near as nice to their colonial subjects as they were the people at home.

(Dutch World Empire)

· The British Empire mimicked much of what the Dutch did to achieve success. This was accomplished in part because of the overthrow of King James II and replacing him with King William III* who was also the Prince of Orange and Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic. Great Britain, much larger than tiny Holland would assume Dutch policies and create for itself an empire to which the sun would not set.

(The British Empire)

· And of course, the United States of America is the modern hyperpower. The United States attracted immigrants from all over Europe, American society allowed for a great deal of social mobility, allowing people such Alexander Hamilton to go from bastard immigrant to Secretary of the Treasury.

(The United States of America)

Now any student of history knows many of these ‘tolerant’ nations were not really that ‘tolerant’ as we would now define it. However as previously stated what matters is relative tolerance. In addition, through most of those examples tolerance was something that involved. The United States today is attractive place for people all over the world; that might not have been the case when we practiced legalized segregation.



The book also deals with what went wrong with the hyperpowers, often how turning away from their more tolerant traditions either caused or hastened their downfall. Chua also deals with some potential future hyperpowers, discussing some of their strengths and drawbacks. Whether any of these ‘potential powers’ will one day be able to challenge the United States remains to be seen.

Throughout the work, Chua also discusses her own life, family history, and relates her experiences to the material creating are very flowing narrative that intellectual but nevertheless is easy to understand. The book is very enjoyable and informative.

*Technically, Queen Mary II as well but it was really more William.

{Video is from Amy Chua at a conference explaining this book}

WELCOME TO THE 1860s…

A review of Michael Knox Beran’s Forge of Empires—1861-1871—Three Revolutionary Statesmen and the World They Made (2007)

(Rating 5 of 5)

Once on a Star Trek documentary I heard Leonard Nimoy discuss an old Chinese curse, ‘may you live in interesting times.’ In that documentary, Nimoy is referring to the 1960s. However, this book talks about times that may have been far more interesting, the 1860s. Often, we in the United States are so obsessed and fascinated with ourselves that we forget the rest of the world exists. Which is why are sports champions are always titled the ‘World Champions’ despite the fact that they are just playing in the United States*. I, myself, am certainly guilty of this. I often mark book reviews on historical events outside the United States with the labels ‘World History’ and ‘Western Civilization’ and inside the United States is labeled just ‘U.S. History.’ The U.S. Civil War has been a source of fascination for us ever since it ended, but often we ignore the wider world that our conflict played out. Moreover, we should not ignore it, for foreign affairs is a big part of why that conflict played out the way it did.

David Donald’s Lincoln played out the life of one man, Doris Goodwin’s book showed an administration, but Michael Beran’s book gives us the world that was. The focus is on the three legendary statesmen: Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States; Otto Von Bismarck, Prime Minster of Prussia and then Chancellor of Germany; and Tsar Alexander II, Emperor of Russia. Lincoln would hold his nation together that was being torn apart by the Civil War and would succeed in eradicating slavery from the Union. Bismarck would unify his county into a single nation, and Tsar Alexander sought to modernize his nation by liberating his nation’s serfs and providing for a constitutional monarchy.


(President Abraham Lincoln)


(Otto Von Bismarck)


(Tsar Alexander II)

Of the three leaders, only Lincoln would succeed in every way possible. Bismarck would unify Germany but he was always dependent on the patronage of his sovereign for unlike Lincoln, who served in a Republic, Bismarck served a King who he transformed into an Emperor. Bismarck would live to see a new Emperor come to the throne had he built and begin a process to ruin it all. Tsar Alexander was an emperor already, and in theory absolute. Unfortunately, after the centuries of serfdom, transforming the entire nation’s population from serfs to citizens would take some doing and when undermined by both conservative and radical elements it would become impossible.



Tsar Alexander was just following example that other monarchs, and Bismarck, were making with ‘Tory Democracy.’ For the monarchs and aristocrats of the mid-nineteenth century were a far more cleaver breed then their late eighteenth century counterparts. They would embrace popular reform as way of maintaining their hold on power.

“The free-state men were every day becoming more impatient with his rule. He imposed a censorship on the press; but this, he knew, was a shopworn tactic, and only strengthened the opposition. He must try something else. He had been intrigued by the way in which Europe’s craftiest politicians used (or proposed to use) the power of the lower orders against the liberal middle—against the bourgeois and professional classes. In France, Napoleon III organized mass plebiscites to ratify his power. In England, Benjamin Disraeli envisioned a union between the common people and the aristocracy, and alliance which Winston Churchill’s father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was later to christen ‘Tory Democracy.’ Others called it ‘neofeudal paternalism’ or ‘English Tory Socialism.’

It was and ingenious strategy. Use democratic paternalism to subvert the institutions of freedom. Today, when democracy and liberty are practically synonymous, such a policy seems paradoxical. But it did not seem so in the nineteenth century. In England and the United States, the rule of law, bills of rights, independent judiciaries, and legislative control of the purse and the army developed before the advent of universal suffrage. When, during the nineteenth century, democracy grew up in England and America, the institutions of the free state were relatively stable; the broader franchise did not destroy free constitutions, it made them stronger. But in countries without such stable constitutions, it made them stronger. But in countries without such stable constitutions, unscrupulous leaders used democratic instruments—plebiscites and manhood suffrage—to subvert fledgling institutions of freedom.” p.175

This book also connects the dots on how these events all tied into each other. Generally, I and most other historians both professionals, and us amateurs, are aware of the British and French support for the Confederacy during the U.S Civil War. However, I do not believe that most are equally aware of the Prussian and Russian support for the Union. Bismarck could not support the South since he was trying to unify his own nation, and Alexander equally supported the Union in his outright refusal even to consider recognizing the Confederacy. This book also gives detail on how the United States, angry at the French for their support of the Confederacy, was able to play a role in the Franco-Prussian War.

“The advice of Philip Sheridan, General Grant’s cavalry master, made a deep impression upon him. Sheridan had come to the Prussian camp as an observer. He urged the Germans to embrace the policy of total war to which Lincoln and Grant had been driven to during the Civil War. ‘The proper strategy,’ Sheridan told Bismarck over dinner at Rheims, ‘consists in the first place of inflicting as telling blows as possible on the enemy’s army, and then in causing the inhabitants so much suffering that they must long for peace, and force their Government to demand it. The people must be left with nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war…’ ‘You know how to hit an enemy as no other army does, but you have not learned how to annihilate him. One must see more smoke of burning villages, otherwise you will not finish the French.’” (p.353)

(General Philip Sheridan)

This book opens a window into another time, one that sees all these dramatic events and actors great and small take part. The History Channel should a documentary based on it. For, I found this book more entertaining than a movie. This book has a brilliant narrative and I highly recommend to anyone.

*Now granted the amount of foreign player in our pro leagues might give those titles more legitimacy but we have always had those titles.

{Video was produced by the History Channel special Russia Land of the Tsars}