Review: Khan: Empire of Silver by Conn Iggulden

It's been two years since Genghis Khan died and his heir, Ogedei, has been consumed with the construction of his new capital city, Qaraqorum (also spelled Karakorum).  His older brother Chaghadai, who considers the Khanate his birthright despite his father's decree, has not been idle either. He meets in secret with the officers of his tumens (Mongol military units of 10,000 men)  and plots to seize the throne before the people of the nations gather to swear their allegiance to the new Khan.

Genghis' brothers, Kachiun and Khassar, have sworn to protect their brother's choice of successor. Their tumens along with those of Subutai are loyal but will they be enough to avert the slaughter of Ogedei and his family?

We also learn that  civil war is not the only catastrophe looming over the hard won Mongol Empire. We discover the young Khan suffers from episodes of severe chest pains and fears his body will betray him before his brother. Then who would lead the nation since Ogedei's son Guyuk is still but a boy?

Conn Iggulden brings the descendants of Genghis Khan vibrantly to life in his latest novel "Khan: Empire of Silver" and I was immediately invested in the outcome of the dynastic struggles between Ogedei and his rivals for the Mongol throne even though most of the thrilling action in the first few chapters of the novel are a tribute to Iggulden's imagination and not specifically documented in historical sources.

The enthronement of Ogedei from a manuscript of  Rashid al-Din.

"Although Genghis had already decided upon Ogedei as his successor, it was two years before he actually assumed the title of Great Khan.  Some suggest it was because Ogedei himself was reluctant, feeling that Tolui might perhaps have been better suited, while other sources suggest it was Tolui who was unhappy about being passed over.  At any rate, a quriltai [kurultai]  was called in 1229 at which the issue was finally settled." -  Storm from the East: from Ghengis Khan to Khubilai Khan by Robert Marshall, University of California Press.
Other sources hint that, although Chaghadai may not have initially challenged Ogedei for head of the empire, his descendants in their subordinate khanate in central Asia wrangled with their royal relations in China in later years.

Mongol leaders within the Chaghadai khanate vied with each other for territory and power. They also fought and engaged in political maneuvers against their Mongol relatives in China. Although the Chaghadai khanate was subordinate to the Great Khan in China, several Chaghadai khans rebelled against this inferior position and sought to assert their independence. - The Chaghadai Khanate - The Metropolitan Museum of Art

So, although the opening struggle did not appear to have occurred, it was certainly within the realm of possibility.

I also could not find references to Ogedei's struggle with a heart condition.  Most sources refer only to a drinking habit that earned the scorn of his older brother, Chaghadai.  But, introducing the threat of imminent death as a major influence in Ogedei's life and the choices he makes as he molds the vast territories conquered by his father into a well-administered empire does add more humanity to the tale.

After the question of Great Khan is settled, Ogedei, along with his younger brother Tolui, march east to complete the conquest of the Chin while Subutai leads the young Mongol princes, including Batu, son of Genghis' dead eldest son Jochi, Guyuk, son of Ogedei, Baider, son of Chaghadai, and Mongke, Tolui's eldest son, on a qwest to conquer the lands west of the empire all the way to the sea.  This is a small rearrangement of history on Iggulden's part as Subutai commanded part of the troops for Ogedei during the action against the Chin before turning his attention to the west but it helped to separate the two fields of operation for the reader.

Ogedei Khan.  Image via Wikipedia

[Spoiler alert] In the east, Ogedei comes up against some of the first devastating uses of gunpowder and his
 troops are mangled badly.  In the book, it is here that Ogedei suffers what appears to be a devastating stroke that leaves him comatose.  His shaman sacrifices 12 white mares in an effort to appease Tengri, the Mongol Sky Father.  But the khan does not stir until the shaman  suggests the sacrifice of a family member in his pleadings to the supreme deity.  Taking the Khan's stirrings as an omen, the shaman requests a meeting with Khassar and Tolui and explains what he believes to be a clear sign of the type of sacrifice the gods have indicated.  At the council, another event happens that points to Tolui as the designated choice.
                                                                                                                                  
The next passages were absolutely heart wrenching to me.  After an emotional day of preparation, Tolui sacrifices himself, but not by drinking a sacrificial brew as described in the The Secret History of the Mongols.  Tolui   performs an act of butchery on his own body as if he was a sacrificial animal.  As I listened, tears actually streamed down my face.

The sacrifice of Tolui has actually been the focus of an interesting analysis by University of Leeds scholar, Geoff Humble in his paper "A Princely Sacrifice? The Death of Tolui in Imperial Mongol Historiography".  He expresses his opinion that various versions of the story were used by the descendants of Tolui, most notably Kublai Khan, to reinforce their political legitamacy.

Meanwhile, Subutai and the princes conquer Russia, Bulgaria and Hungary.  The dynastic complications include friction between Ogedei's designated warlord Subutai and young Prince Batu.  In "Genghis: Bones of the Hills" Iggulden had imagined that Genghis Khan ordered Subutai to track down his son Jochi and dispatch him for disobeying his father and taking his tumens back to Mongolia while his father was mopping up his conquest of the Khwarezmian Empire.  (Some scholars speculate that Genghis actually ordered the poisoning of Jochi but there is no conclusive evidence).  Before Subdutai found Jochi, Genghis' son had fathered a child without a formal marriage ceremony and the boy, Batu, as a bastard, had endured much abuse outside of the Mongol's tribal social structure.

When Ogedei becomes Khan, he orders Batu to join the tumens and undergo military training then take his rightful place in command of a tumen as a prince of the nation.  But Batu has not forgotten who slaughtered his father in the snow and he can barely control his hatred for his superior commander  Subutai.

Much of this part of the story is embroidery as there is no evidence of such a connection between Subutai and Batu but again it added tension to the narrative.

In eastern Europe, the Mongols meet  heavily armored knights including the fearsome Templars and Hospitallers of Crusade fame.  But, as scholar Robert Marshall points out, knights of the  13th century were used primarily as "head-bashers" supported by infantry composed of  untrained and badly equipped peasants forced to fight for their liege lords.  In the battle for Moscow, Iggulden describes how the peasant infantry are actually whipped into battle by troop handlers commissioned by the ruling noblemen.   Furthermore, the knights, although expensively equipped, were also not trained as line officers and offered little in the way of a formal chain of command once the battle was joined.

Examples of 13th century Hospitaller armor.  Image courtesy of Medieval: Total War.

"By contrast the Mongols were a tightly disciplined fighting machine, in which each soldier knew his place and his responsibilities.  He did not fight as an indiivdual, but as part of a massive formation that was led in and out of well-drilled manoeuvres.  When the Mongol army advanced they approached as a series of long single ranks, made up of a number of units.  The first two consisted of heavy cavalry, followed by three ranks of light cavalry.  Out on either flank and up front were further, smaller detachments of light cavalry."

"An encounter with the enemy was rarely a surprise because there were scouts out in the field who were able to communicate with the main body through a system of flags and messengers.  When the enemy had been engaged, either on the flank or in front, the outer detachments quickly became the vanguard and were soon reinforced from the rear.  Once the enemy's position and disposition had been discovered, the three rear ranks of light cavalry would move up through the ranks of heavy cavalry and gallop up to the line.  Rarely would any of these detachments engage the enemy in close combat.  Instead they would detach small squadrons of some ten or twenty riders to gallop across the enemy's line, pouring in a deadly shower of arrows."

"The Mongols also preferred to manoeuvre the enemy's ranks to exactly where they wanted them.  They did this by deploying the manudai, a corp of 'suicide troops' that charged straight at the enemy line.  As they approached within range of the engemy, they would suddenly break ranks, turn and flee.  The sight of the Mongols in flight was a tempatation that most enemy commanders could not resist.  With the enemy cavalry in hot pursuit, the mangudai galloped to a prearranged spot - where the rest of the army lay in wait."  - Storm from the East: from Ghengis Khan to Khubilai Kahn by Robert Marshall, University of California Press, 1993.

The Mongols also employed sophisticated siege weapons in their European campaigns illustrated below in a manuscript by Rashid al-Din:

The graphic description of the hard-fought battles  Iggulden splashed across the closing pages of the novel kept me listening raptly and more than once I went well past the time needed for my morning exercise routine.

There seems little doubt that Subutai and the Mongol Princes could have swept the rest of Europe and only  Ogedei's sudden death (in the book from an apparent heart attack while history attributes it to a protracted drinking bout) saved the rest of Europe from total defeat.  I can't help but  wonder what political differences there would be today if that defeat had, in fact, happened.  Would the current East-West schism have been totally avoided if the ill-timed death of one man had not occurred at that moment in history?



            

Goldsworthy interview: How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower

New Books in History interviewed author Adrian Goldsworthy about his new book, "How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower. Goldsworthy essentially said that analysts have been so busy sifting through the minutia of Late Antiquity to formulate yet another theory (according to Goldsworthy there are already 210) that they have overlooked the obvious.

"The late Roman Empire was ill, but it was hardly on its death bed in the third and fourth centuries. Moreover, even at its weakest moments, the Empire was hugely more powerful than any of its competitors. In order to understand how the Romans managed to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory (or at least survival) Goldsworthy says we need to look at Roman politics, or what I would call Roman “political culture.” In Goldsworthy’s telling, the Roman political elite forgot what the empire was for, that is, to serve the interests of the Romans (the “Res publica”). Instead, up-and-coming Roman leaders were primarily interested in making it to the top and staying there. That meant staying alive, and since many failed do so for very long, long-term political instability ensued." - More: New Books In History

Goldsworthy expresses his opinion that a tendency for emperors to ignore the Senate and turn to the far more numerous equestrian order for bureaucratic and military leadership positions, especially after the assassination of the Emperor Caracalla, meant an increase in potential competitors for the job of emperor. This highly competitive environment, a sharp contrast from the dynastic successions of the earlier Empire, bred civil wars that eventually fatally weakened the empire from within.

He made an interesting point that if you examine the social structure and behaviors of the German "barbarians" in the 4th century CE, that you really don't see that much difference with the behaviors of their ancestors in the 1st century BCE. He said that the Germans, like their Persian counterparts in the East, were not successful against the Romans until Roman troops were drawn away into civil wars.

Goldsworthy also doesn't see much parallel between the decline of the Roman Empire and the modern trajectory of the United States. He points out that the context of the two civilizations is totally different.

The hour long podcast is well worth a listen!

Goldsworthy says his next book will be a followup to his biography of Julius Caesar - an examination of the lives and motivations of Antony and Cleopatra. He said it should be available by the end of the year. It will be interesting to compare his analysis with the personifications in Colleen McCullough's Antony and Cleopatra: A Novel (Masters of Rome)
that I liked very much!

Worlds at War by Anthony Pagden

Excerpt of review by Dominic Sandbrook

"Almost a decade after the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II's armies had stormed the walls of Constantinople, the last relic of the Roman Empire, "the Conqueror" made a trip to the site of ancient Troy. There, on the shore where Agamemnon, Achilles and the rest had supposedly disembarked thousands of years before, he announced that Troy had at last been avenged.

	A conflict deeper than rape and pillage

The heirs of the Greeks, he said, had been forced to pay "the right penalty, after a long period of years, for their injustice to us Asiatics at that time and so often in subsequent times".

The notion of the Turks as the heirs to Hector, Priam and the Trojans sounds a bit odd today, but it was not uncommon in the 15th century. One rather far-fetched Latin account of the fall of Constantinople even had Mehmed triumphantly raping a virgin in the centre of Hagia Sophia, yelling as he did so that he was avenging the Greeks' violation of Cassandra, Priam's gloomy daughter.

This theme runs through Anthony Pagden's learned, fluent and thoroughly entertaining account of what he sees as a long struggle between East and West, which takes in everything from the Persian wars to Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, T E Lawrence's rather murky adventures in Syria, and the dramatic collapse of the Shah's regime in Iran..."

"...An eminent historian at UCLA, he is clearly no friend to religion, but he is a good enough scholar to write sensitively and intelligently about the nuances of European and Asian belief from the classical period to the present.

Like other historians before him, notably the great Ernest Renan, he argues that the crucial difference between the Christian and Islamic worlds is that in the former, religion has never been allowed to govern all civil and religious life (rendering unto Caesar and all that).

But in the Islamic world, he suggests, law, politics and culture have been grounded on religious faith, and so innovation and enterprise are unavoidably stifled - as is the vigorous secular debate necessary for democracy to take root.

This is, then, a strikingly Whiggish book, a narrative of the triumph of western reason and science over oriental superstition and idolatry, with Pagden reserving special praise for the Enlightenment. Paradoxically, though, perhaps the most impressive thing about this book is that Pagden is a good enough historian to see the limits of his own thesis.

Both in Islamic Spain and during the golden age of the Abbasid caliphate, as he acknowledges, there was a genuine tolerance of humanist ideas; indeed, it was here that the classical intellectual legacy was kept alive.

And he admits, too, that Islam and modernism are not complete strangers: during the 19th century, for instance, liberal theologians such as Muhammad Abduh, the chief mufti of Egypt, tried to argue that revelation and reason were compatible after all, and that there was even room for a secular law governing marriage and divorce - although his efforts are largely forgotten today.

One obvious way in which the story could be complicated further, meanwhile, is to consider the Byzantine Empire, which, for all the sweep of Pagden's book, is largely absent. Byzantium, after all, was a pretty theocratic, militantly Christian state, and given its longevity and extraordinary artistic influence, it was much more than a footnote in European history.

At the same time, however, it was both a bulwark against Islam and an interface with it. The layout of the typical mosque, for example, is modelled on the Byzantine basilica of the Near East, while Byzantine iconoclasm - a preview of what was to happen in, say, English parish churches during the Civil War - seems to have been inspired by Islamic attitudes to images.

One of the pleasures of Pagden's splendid book, in other words, is that it is perfectly possible to enjoy and learn from it while disagreeing with its thesis."

Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations by Martin Goodman

"As the People's Front of Judea concluded after asking "What have the Romans ever done for us?", the city of Jerusalem blossomed under the Roman Empire, benefiting from strong trade links and centuries of peace and religious tolerance.

Such a happy coexistence was not to last however, with the fabled Temple of Jerusalem completely destroyed in 70AD by the future Emperor Titus and the Jewish people subjected to increased taxation and discrimination, culminating in the renaming of Judea to Palestina in a final push for political and religious hegemony.

Rome and Jerusalem therefore asks the question whether such a deterioration of relations between the two great cities was inevitable, or even deliberate, or whether it was an unintended consequence of political intrigues.

As such, the book not only addresses the issues of Roman imperialism and the place of religion within the state but also touches upon the origins of 2,000 years of Western anti-Semitism..."

"...Goodman's great skill lies in his vivid portrayal of the vanities and ambitions of the leaders of both sides and, as such, his overriding argument that the calamitous deterioration of relations between the two cities was almost a tragic accident caused by a series of decisions taken by Emperors interested solely domestic politics and glory, becomes highly plausible.

However, Rome and Jerusalem is not simply another 'Great Man' account of historical shifts, but rather the author cites contemporary accounts from observers such as Josephus and Pliny the Elder to give an equally vivid account of day-to-day life among the ordinary citizens of the two cities. Thus, readers benefit from a fuller context to the clash of the two cities, from daily religious observations to the differing trade and cultural priorities of the pair. "