The Mongol Khans of Medieval France(historytoday.com)
historytoday.com
The Mongol Khans of Medieval France
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/mongol-khans-medieval-france
84 comments
What's also interesting about the mongols and their inheritors (India's mughals especially) was how weird but effective their administration was. India knew around no global famines and very few local ones (none around the Bengal) in ~300 years of Mughal rule. In ~100 years of British rule, you had regular famines all around India, and some very harsh ones where millions of people died from hunger (which used to be more than extremely rare), including one in Bengal which never in its written history had ever suffered even a local one.
There were several great famines during the Mughal reign in India, for example, Peter Mundy, the English merchant and traveller, describes the great famine of Deccan and Gujrat. The Mughal rule was brutal. The European travellers have written about the plight of the farmers who rebelled due to excessive taxation despite the fear of punishment. The Mughals built towers of severed heads outside each village and even they were not able to quell the rebellion, such was the state of affairs. So I'd say the assumption you're making isn't true.
thisislife2(2)
[flagged]
Famines are, with very few exceptions, politico-economic actions, often with intentional malice, rather than a complete inability to obtain enough food.
You’re so close to the point but not quite there.
Famines are political. They happen because one population is happy to starve another. The Mughals ruled themselves. The British stole harvests for themselves and let the local population starve.
The potato famine in Ireland is treated as some kind of unavoidable, natural event. No, the British just stole the harvest. And this continued right up until Churchill in India.
So the Mughals might’ve been effective but the big difference is they weren’t being exploited as an imperial subject.
Famines are political. They happen because one population is happy to starve another. The Mughals ruled themselves. The British stole harvests for themselves and let the local population starve.
The potato famine in Ireland is treated as some kind of unavoidable, natural event. No, the British just stole the harvest. And this continued right up until Churchill in India.
So the Mughals might’ve been effective but the big difference is they weren’t being exploited as an imperial subject.
> The Mughals ruled themselves
> So the Mughals might’ve been effective but the big difference is they weren’t being exploited as an imperial subject.
The Mughals were the imperium, ruling over their subjects. They came in to the subcontinent as outsiders, just like the British.
> So the Mughals might’ve been effective but the big difference is they weren’t being exploited as an imperial subject.
The Mughals were the imperium, ruling over their subjects. They came in to the subcontinent as outsiders, just like the British.
vee-kay(1)
Western colonialism is a very high bar in terms of damage imo.
This subject really interesting to read, thank you for mentioning it!
Found this in case anyone is interested in reading about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
This subject really interesting to read, thank you for mentioning it!
Found this in case anyone is interested in reading about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
I worry Colonialism will come back again. Or at least in a different form.
Most International Relations practitioners are followers of (Systems) Realism. You might find some minor power with Idealists/Instituitonalists, but they only get that privilege by being under the umbrella of a great power.
Colonialism was not some greedy merchant/state thing, it was an Arms Race. It follows the inevitable forces produced by anarchy, there are no police to call so power is the greatest form of security. It causes a Tragedy of the Commons situation in the form of an Arms Race.
After Colonialism, we had essentially client states, which seems similarly brutal.
Most International Relations practitioners are followers of (Systems) Realism. You might find some minor power with Idealists/Instituitonalists, but they only get that privilege by being under the umbrella of a great power.
Colonialism was not some greedy merchant/state thing, it was an Arms Race. It follows the inevitable forces produced by anarchy, there are no police to call so power is the greatest form of security. It causes a Tragedy of the Commons situation in the form of an Arms Race.
After Colonialism, we had essentially client states, which seems similarly brutal.
You may be right - Russian invasion of Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza (most westerners don't even know that Israel is a settler-colony - https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-fares-abraham-021826 that has been deliberately oppressing, chasing and killing Palestinians for a long time) and Trump demanding Greenland - all indicate that certain oligarchs are working to bring back imperialism.
All westerners have heard this claim repeated many times, but it’s never called a “colony” after gaining independence - otherwise every country on earth would be a colony.
Not sure what you are saying - Israel has colonised Palestine. Palestine is still not free or independent. Nor have the Palestinian natives been absorbed and made Israeli citizens like the Americans, Canadians or Australians did with the natives on the land they colonised. Do you see why this is problematic - by not giving them their own state or making them citizens, and culling them over the decades, they are effectively seeking the genocide of Palestine. And then westerners act surprised when Palestinians fight for their freedom (is the second amendment only for white, Christian, Americans?).
Israel has fully absorbed and given equal citizenship to the 2 million Arab Palestinians that live within the borders of the state of Israel. Their numbers grew from 156,000 in 1948 to 2,000,000 today. So your claims of a “culling” are ridiculous.
The Arab populations of the West Bank and Gaza have also grown exponentially since the Israeli occupation.
None of these facts are even disputed.
The Arab populations of the West Bank and Gaza have also grown exponentially since the Israeli occupation.
None of these facts are even disputed.
Um, colonialism never left. It just morphed. The most common form is the economic colonialism/imperialism by the United States.
The World Bank and IMF are tools of colonialism. We extract resources and exploit cheap labor from the Global South. We kidnap heads of state and seize that country’s oil.
We may not send settlers like we did in the colonial era. We’ve just found a more efficient method.
The World Bank and IMF are tools of colonialism. We extract resources and exploit cheap labor from the Global South. We kidnap heads of state and seize that country’s oil.
We may not send settlers like we did in the colonial era. We’ve just found a more efficient method.
What's the saying, the Irish famine was caused by a parasite, known as the British.
Even if you can argue the British didn't deliberately cause famine over their subjects, they almost never took active steps to alleviate them.
Even if you can argue the British didn't deliberately cause famine over their subjects, they almost never took active steps to alleviate them.
> Even if you can argue the British didn't deliberately cause famine over their subjects, they almost never took active steps to alleviate them.
They sent Protestant missionaries with free food for kids (souperism). Private charities, but the government used them as an excuse to not provide more government aid.
And a lot of Catholic parents decided they’d rather their children be dead than risk them becoming Protestant.
They sent Protestant missionaries with free food for kids (souperism). Private charities, but the government used them as an excuse to not provide more government aid.
And a lot of Catholic parents decided they’d rather their children be dead than risk them becoming Protestant.
Interesting to not mention Rabban Bar Sauma ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabban_Bar_Sauma ) who was a Mongol ambassador to France. He was born a Christian in Beijing and walked all the way to Paris in a sort of reverse Marco Polo situation.
Yeah it is easy to imagine the past as a set of very disconnected cultures when they were not. I remember hearing about people like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_da_Pian_del_Carpine
He was a medieval Italian diplomat. And seems like when he was at the court of the Khan, we was trying to make a push of Catholicism and was getting into debates with other theologians, including one from a Islamic country and one from the Byzantine empire.
A bit later in the medieval times, you have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Rubruck who was an envoy from the court of France (Louis XIV) to the Khan. Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_de_Longjumeau (from France too)
Marco Polo is the most well know but far from the first one
He was a medieval Italian diplomat. And seems like when he was at the court of the Khan, we was trying to make a push of Catholicism and was getting into debates with other theologians, including one from a Islamic country and one from the Byzantine empire.
A bit later in the medieval times, you have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Rubruck who was an envoy from the court of France (Louis XIV) to the Khan. Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_de_Longjumeau (from France too)
Marco Polo is the most well know but far from the first one
For some reason, the website is down for me. I have always been fascinated by the Mongols after reading “Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World” by Jack Weatherford.
Recently, I stumbled upon the 6:40+ hour YouTube video, “The Mongols - Terror of the Steppe.” You might like it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdFwMDuAnS4
Recently, I stumbled upon the 6:40+ hour YouTube video, “The Mongols - Terror of the Steppe.” You might like it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdFwMDuAnS4
I guess you already found the hardcore history podcast episodes.
EDIT: Didn't pay attention to what channel you linked, didn't know they made videos for their podcasts.
EDIT: Didn't pay attention to what channel you linked, didn't know they made videos for their podcasts.
I still get weird looks when I rave about 8 hours of podcasts on the Mongols. Hard to appreciate without having heard it. Dan Carlin is exceptional.
Here’s the first episode on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/episode/5wuQ7JPneMRJTU9UJrJRNs?si=6...
And link to buy for those who prefer that over streaming https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-...
Here’s the first episode on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/episode/5wuQ7JPneMRJTU9UJrJRNs?si=6...
And link to buy for those who prefer that over streaming https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-...
I have turned at least one friend onto history podcasts using Mike Duncan's work. Now our wives look at us like we're a bunch of two headed goats whenever we meet and talk referncing revolutionary figures and events, raving about how much more "you feel the history" when visiting Rome and Paris and know some of the history. It's great!
I just finished carlins kings of kings episodes before visiting the british museum. Carlin mentioned the contrast between what was depicted in the Assyrian and Achaemenid empires palace/throne and being able to see it in the museum with the added context made me appreciate it so much more.
Visited Rome/Pompeii with my GF and she said it was like having a private tour guide. I just felt like I knew so little and could only add sparse bits of context.
Visited Rome/Pompeii with my GF and she said it was like having a private tour guide. I just felt like I knew so little and could only add sparse bits of context.
Dan Carlin has a great radio voice, and is an entertaining presenter. Hardcore history is really only okay on the history front though. Plus they are relatively shallow with how short they are.
I think Carlin himself would be the first to admit that, even does so in the intro to many episodes. I think he already suffers from the length of some of his series.
I think this is a fair take but it works great as a gateway drug!
I am curious what are your recommendations though. Always eager for expanding my horizon.
I am curious what are your recommendations though. Always eager for expanding my horizon.
Revolutions Podcast is good and well researched (Especially later seasons).
The History of the Germans Podcast is really great (100+ episodes from Ottonians just to Habsburgs, so its pretty well in depth).
History of France Podcast is good, its from a University professor, but not overly academic but well researched.
History of England Podcast is good as well, starting with Anglo Saxon and Post Roman England. He uses a lot of high quality and primary sources.
A History of Italy podcast starts with the end of Rome and is 200 episodes to get to 1500.
I like in depth, single topic podcasts as you can tell as opposed to the podcasts that jump around topics.
The History of the Germans Podcast is really great (100+ episodes from Ottonians just to Habsburgs, so its pretty well in depth).
History of France Podcast is good, its from a University professor, but not overly academic but well researched.
History of England Podcast is good as well, starting with Anglo Saxon and Post Roman England. He uses a lot of high quality and primary sources.
A History of Italy podcast starts with the end of Rome and is 200 episodes to get to 1500.
I like in depth, single topic podcasts as you can tell as opposed to the podcasts that jump around topics.
Revolutions is my go-to. I also listened to History of Rome from Duncan. And because of this History of Byzantium is on my to check out list as well. I will try the others you mentioned. I'm very eager to find others as in depth as revolutions. Thanks!
Goodreads reviews don't instill confidence in the book.
As a rule, "pop history" is full of shit and is probably better considered misinformation than anything else. I probably don't I know of a single general-audience history/anthropology book that doesn't horrify scholars of the field.
As unfortunate as it is, studying cause-and-effect is extremely complex. If it's even theoretically possible to distill it down to easily digestible ideas, that's well outside our current technical capabilities.
There's usually going to be some true and interesting information in these books, but it will be too deeply embedded in a narrative that is misleading.
As unfortunate as it is, studying cause-and-effect is extremely complex. If it's even theoretically possible to distill it down to easily digestible ideas, that's well outside our current technical capabilities.
There's usually going to be some true and interesting information in these books, but it will be too deeply embedded in a narrative that is misleading.
By general audience, do you mean any book that's not intended for academics?
Yes
I'm an avid reader of history books (antiquity, middle ages), and I'd say I'm very picky, trawling through reviews and recommendations from trusted sources before deciding on a book.
I have already come across books that were a slog to read because of the author's simplistic worldview or obvious contrarian agenda (so I can definitely relate), but I've also read some masterpieces (for example, Kaldellis I believe is solid).
Unfortunately I don't count any historians among my friends, so I'd welcome any recs from you for authors that are the least bad, or a teardown of main antiquity/middle ages historians.
I have already come across books that were a slog to read because of the author's simplistic worldview or obvious contrarian agenda (so I can definitely relate), but I've also read some masterpieces (for example, Kaldellis I believe is solid).
Unfortunately I don't count any historians among my friends, so I'd welcome any recs from you for authors that are the least bad, or a teardown of main antiquity/middle ages historians.
Baudolino from Umberto Eco (an excellent book) is partially about that, I recommend the read !
"The kings of medieval France were fascinated by the Mongols, who they saw as great empire builders."
Well, surprising, as they were supporting military actions against Mongols, plus medieval France was nothing like Mongols empire in terms of social live organization, way of fighting wars (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_Truce_of_God).
Later, in XV century, France started to turn into Mongols-like regime, but those weren't medieval times.
Well, surprising, as they were supporting military actions against Mongols, plus medieval France was nothing like Mongols empire in terms of social live organization, way of fighting wars (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_Truce_of_God).
Later, in XV century, France started to turn into Mongols-like regime, but those weren't medieval times.
Real recognizes Real.
Even better;
The Story Of The Mongols Whom We Call The Tartars by Friar Giovanni DiPlano Carpini (an Account of his embassy to the court of the Mongol Khan in 1245-1247) - https://archive.org/details/the-story-of-the-mongols-whom-we...
The cover; a picture of a Mongol Warrior in full Panopoly, is itself worth the price of the book!
The Story Of The Mongols Whom We Call The Tartars by Friar Giovanni DiPlano Carpini (an Account of his embassy to the court of the Mongol Khan in 1245-1247) - https://archive.org/details/the-story-of-the-mongols-whom-we...
The cover; a picture of a Mongol Warrior in full Panopoly, is itself worth the price of the book!
I honestly had no idea about the French fascination with the Mongols. People tend to admire people who have traits they aspire to. I wonder if this stems from France, being a major imperial power at the time, admiring the Mongols as an imperial power.
This timeline coincides with the Crusades with, which the article talks about at length. I find the Crusades fascinating because they've shaped the modern world in so many ways.
Dan Carlin (of Hardcore History fame) once said that why he cares about military history is it shapes the world. If you look at the lightbulb, it doesn't really matter who invented it. Somebody would've. But take the Battle of Marathon, which shaped the entire history of Western Europe as the Greeks repelled the Persians. History would've been completely different. Or how Cyrus II (IIRC) essentially saved Judaism by rebuilding the Temple. Without that, Judaism may well have died out and, with it, all the Abrahamic religions may never have existed.
So the Crusades are fascinating because they've often portrayed as a religious war but they were anything but. Religion was simply the excuse. Instead medieval powers wanted to control the Levant to enrich themselves.
The Crusades essentially created international banking, making the Knights Templar incredibly wealthy [1]. One wonders if this was a necessary condition to the rise of the mercantile class that eventually displaced feudalism and brought on capitalism.
But back to the French. It's interesting that they were fascinated with the Mongols with everything else that was going on. During this same period, the Eastern Roman Empire still existed and the Moors occupied the Iberian peninsula. In many ways, the Mongols were more distant whereas the Arab "threat" was closer and more real. So why the Mongols?
[1]: https://bigthink.com/the-past/knights-templar-crusades-finan...
This timeline coincides with the Crusades with, which the article talks about at length. I find the Crusades fascinating because they've shaped the modern world in so many ways.
Dan Carlin (of Hardcore History fame) once said that why he cares about military history is it shapes the world. If you look at the lightbulb, it doesn't really matter who invented it. Somebody would've. But take the Battle of Marathon, which shaped the entire history of Western Europe as the Greeks repelled the Persians. History would've been completely different. Or how Cyrus II (IIRC) essentially saved Judaism by rebuilding the Temple. Without that, Judaism may well have died out and, with it, all the Abrahamic religions may never have existed.
So the Crusades are fascinating because they've often portrayed as a religious war but they were anything but. Religion was simply the excuse. Instead medieval powers wanted to control the Levant to enrich themselves.
The Crusades essentially created international banking, making the Knights Templar incredibly wealthy [1]. One wonders if this was a necessary condition to the rise of the mercantile class that eventually displaced feudalism and brought on capitalism.
But back to the French. It's interesting that they were fascinated with the Mongols with everything else that was going on. During this same period, the Eastern Roman Empire still existed and the Moors occupied the Iberian peninsula. In many ways, the Mongols were more distant whereas the Arab "threat" was closer and more real. So why the Mongols?
[1]: https://bigthink.com/the-past/knights-templar-crusades-finan...
Why the Mongols? Because they were distant. You can't afford to admire the people next door; you're either fighting them or preparing for when fighting breaks out again.
The idea that you can't admire people you're fighting is ridiculous. You're forced to admire them. If you don't admire where they win, you lose.
I disagree. It's very hard to admire a direct enemy, even if you can see their strengths, you'll rationalize them in your head as being the evil sort of strength, which comes not from virtue but from their total lack of morality or whatever you can conjure up. We see that everywhere in history and even in contemporary conflicts.
We do?
Where, like Totila and Belisarius?
Richard the Lionheart and Saladin?
The death of Taira no Atsumori?
Byrhtnoth and the Vikings?
The Black Prince and King John II?
The Song dynasty's opinion of the Mongols?
David Hackworth saying that the US Army had to out-G the G?
GWOT instructors telling you that when you're out partying, the Muj is sharpening his knife?
Where, like Totila and Belisarius?
Richard the Lionheart and Saladin?
The death of Taira no Atsumori?
Byrhtnoth and the Vikings?
The Black Prince and King John II?
The Song dynasty's opinion of the Mongols?
David Hackworth saying that the US Army had to out-G the G?
GWOT instructors telling you that when you're out partying, the Muj is sharpening his knife?
France was not a major imperial power at the time. It was much smaller than today, lacking Savoy and much of Burgundy for start, with Normandy and many other areas only nominally part of it and technically under control of English king (who was just a duke in France, but that changed only a very little on the battlefield).
Crusades in middle east started as an attempt of Eastern Roman empire (although they just called it Roman empire / Basileia Romaion) to recover from recent advances of Muslim invaders in Anatolia (modern Turkey). But turned into an overwhelmingly religious effort in the west. The first crusade especially was largely ill organized and chaotic affair. Where on one end of the spectrum you had nobles arriving with somewhat well equipped forces and idea of what to do, and on the other you had pilgrims, with whatever they just picked up in their hands and not answering commands of anyone, but their priest.
The economic side of things came into play after the process started and gradually became dominant. But it didn't start like it.
Finally. Interest of France in Mongols can be easily explained precisely by the influence crusades had on French and other Christian elites in Europe. The initial victory of 1st Crusade was followed by a series of setbacks. Muslims gradually begun to push crusaders out, the fact that crusaders started to fight amongst themselves helped a lot.
And then mongols arrived, almost from nowhere, crushed one of most powerful Muslim states at the time, and didn't stop there. It did seem like an immense opportunity, and in a way it was. If French, or someone else in Christendom, could convince khans that some form of cooperation is possible, or even better, if Mongols converted to Christianity, there would be a decent chance to not only save Jerusalem, but to move on to Egypt (still majority Christian).
Crusades in middle east started as an attempt of Eastern Roman empire (although they just called it Roman empire / Basileia Romaion) to recover from recent advances of Muslim invaders in Anatolia (modern Turkey). But turned into an overwhelmingly religious effort in the west. The first crusade especially was largely ill organized and chaotic affair. Where on one end of the spectrum you had nobles arriving with somewhat well equipped forces and idea of what to do, and on the other you had pilgrims, with whatever they just picked up in their hands and not answering commands of anyone, but their priest.
The economic side of things came into play after the process started and gradually became dominant. But it didn't start like it.
Finally. Interest of France in Mongols can be easily explained precisely by the influence crusades had on French and other Christian elites in Europe. The initial victory of 1st Crusade was followed by a series of setbacks. Muslims gradually begun to push crusaders out, the fact that crusaders started to fight amongst themselves helped a lot.
And then mongols arrived, almost from nowhere, crushed one of most powerful Muslim states at the time, and didn't stop there. It did seem like an immense opportunity, and in a way it was. If French, or someone else in Christendom, could convince khans that some form of cooperation is possible, or even better, if Mongols converted to Christianity, there would be a decent chance to not only save Jerusalem, but to move on to Egypt (still majority Christian).
> under control of English king (who was just a duke in France,
I thought the folks in Normandy were just Nordic people who moved there and later to England
I thought the folks in Normandy were just Nordic people who moved there and later to England
By the time of William the Conqueror, which I think is the sixth generation of Rollo's line in Normandy, they were just French (with a cultural memory of North Sea origins). The tapestry of Bayeux, which was made in England, calls them that.
Its a mess. Vikings (mostly danes) did "move" there by conquering and being given lands as bribes. William conquered England but was still a vassal to the king of France due to still being the Duke of Normandy. So for example when France got a new king the king of England would need to go and swear loyalty and such, which would become a problem later.
Through marriages and such the Duke of Normandy took over large parts of France and it became the Angevin Empire, but still just a puny vassal to the King of France.
The 100 year war was fought over this essentially and England would end up losing all French land and thus the problem was solved forever.
Through marriages and such the Duke of Normandy took over large parts of France and it became the Angevin Empire, but still just a puny vassal to the King of France.
The 100 year war was fought over this essentially and England would end up losing all French land and thus the problem was solved forever.
yes, but when they moved to England, the Normand duke made himself king of England, so he (and his heirs) had the crown of England and the ducky of Normandy.
So he was a Robber Ducky?
The arabs were broken into smaller kingdoms for a long time when it came to the XIII century. The Eastern Roman Empire had been in decline since the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and even before that it was only a regional power. Compared to those, the mongols managed to build an empire spreading on millions of square kilometers. There is no base for comparison. It is like comparing the UK and the US 20 years after WWII.
So this is a fallacy of seeing historical events through a modern lens.
We know how far the Mongols spread and we have accurate maps but in no way am I convinced that France could possibly conceive of the size and scope of Central Asia in the 11th century.
We know how far the Mongols spread and we have accurate maps but in no way am I convinced that France could possibly conceive of the size and scope of Central Asia in the 11th century.
They could conceive that you can go across France in a couple of weeks and that you might need a few months to reach China. What's more, they could see how rich the khan is and that it is much more than their king. And that he has much bigger army. Surprisingly, they were not idiots.
sleepyguy(1)
contemporary mongol throut singing with heavy metal done on electrified tradition instruments.
the HU
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ7XW0_teB4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ7XW0_teB4