![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The world empire created by the Mongols in the thirteenth century was based upon a system of loyalties to different figures, families and institutions. This article explains some of the key “objects of loyalty” at the heart of the Mongol Empire and at a regional level. These loyalties, when acting in concert, served as the glue which bound the Mongol Empire together, but when they came into conflict, served to weaken and finally collapse the unity of the empire. Disagreements about the legacy and will of Chinggis Khan led to diverging loyalty decisions in succession struggles in the mid-thirteenth century and the breakdown of the empire into smaller khanates. This article will examine the system of loyalty as it functioned in the early thirteenth century and how it broke down in the late thirteenth century.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to my supervisor Gabrielle van den Berg and project colleagues Elena Paskaleva, Niko Kontovas, and Sara Mirahmadi, as well as Michael Hope, for their advice and support in the writing of this article.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Welsford, Four Types of Loyalty.
2 De Rachewiltz, The Secret History, Vol. 1 §22, 5.
3 De Rachewiltz, SHM, Vol. 1 §149, 72; Commentary, Vol. 1, 543–4. De Rachewiltz notes that the Ming translators used the term cheng-chu (Wade-Giles), 正主, meaning “rightful lord”, though these individuals were not often in fact qans in the true sense of the word.
4 Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan, 65; Rossabi, “The Legacy of the Mongols,” 31; Hope, “El and Bulqa”; Humphrey and Hürelbaatar, “Regret as a Political Intervention”. The hierarchical and aristocratic features of Mongol society have been analysed in depth in Sneath, The Headless State.
5 De Rachewiltz, SHM, §189, 110.
6 Ibid., §185, 106–7. Neither are these sorts of expectations of loyalty limited to the Secret History, compare the story of the faithful servant of the Khwarazmshah, Inalchuq, and the unfaithful Qaracha Khass Hajib during the siege of Otrar in Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 84–5.
7 De Rachewiltz, SHM, §200, 129, though the translation of bo’ol as slaves has been questioned, see following note.
8 Eg. 300 Merkit killed for capturing Belgutei’s mother, §112, 32; Chinggis wiping out men of Tayichi’ut, §148, 70; Tells Shirgü’etü he would have exterminated his line had he laid hands on his rightful lord §149, 72–3.
9 Skrynnikova, “Relations of Domination and Submission,” 93–6.
10 De Rachewiltz, SHM, §137, 59–60.
11 Pochekaev, “Törü: Ancient Turkic Law,” 183, 186.
12 Humphrey and Hürelbaatar, “Regret as a Political Intervention,” 25.
13 Humphrey and Hürelbaatar, “The Term törü,” 266.
14 De Rachewiltz, SHM, Philological Commentary Vol. 2, 791.
15 Hope, “El and Bulqa,” 2–7.
16 De Rachewiltz, SHM, Philological Commentary Vol. 2, 727, 791, 919.
17 Humphrey and Hürelbaatar, “Regret,” 31, 35.
18 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 1, 162.
19 Hope, “El and Bulqa,” 15–20.
20 Juvaini uses the word khat, which seems to be equivalent to the Mongol word möchalga used by Rashid al-Din, both written by subjects on the accession of new rulers or to reaffirm loyalty, see Subtelny, “The Binding Pledge,” 10–11.
21 These written pledges could be used as proofs of treachery as well. Rashid al-Din relates that the amir Buqa in 1288/9, who submitted his möchalga, and those of his fellow amirs to Prince Jüshkeb, seeking to overthrow the Ilkhan Arghun, was killed by the Ilkhan once Jüshkeb turned over the incriminating documents to Arghun, Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 3, 570.
22 In fact a combination of Chinese and Mongol terms, the Chinese 王, or wáng, or prince, and the Turco-Mongol term qan, khan. I have used the more accepted “khan” throughout, though qan is more faithful to the Mongolian.
23 Franke, “From Tribal Chieftain,” 25. Though Rashid al-Din does say that Yisügei was elected as ruler by several different Mongol groups, he also does not give him the title khan, but rather bahādur. Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 1, 132–4.
24 Professor de Rachewiltz has noted that Rashid al-Din, the Yuánshǐ and SHM contradict each other as to both Ambaqai and Qutula’s position, where YS emits both, while Rashid al-Din includes Ambaqai but not as a khan and makes no mention of Qutula, SHM, Philological Commentary, Vol. 1, 299, 315.
25 For a concise discussion of these terms and their changing meanings, see de Rachewiltz, “Qan, Qa’an,” 95–100.
26 Jackson, The Mongols and the Islamic World, 81; de Rachewiltz, “Qan, Qa’an,” 96.
27 For more information on this and its relationship to the Turkic qut and the Persian farr, see Allsen, “A Note on Mongol Imperial Ideology”; Brack, “Theologies of Auspicious Kingship”.
28 Skrinnikova, “Relations of Domination and Submission,” 102–3, in §120–2 of SHM, 133f in the De Rachewiltz translation.
29 De Rachewiltz, SHM, §57–8, 12–13; Commentary, Vol. 1, 292, Vol. 2, 550.
30 Ibid., §255, 188.
31 Ibid., §72–4, 18.
32 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 1, 121.
33 Golden, “‘I will Give the People’,” 23. For a comprehensive look at the institution of the keshig, see Melville, “The Keshig in Iran”.
34 Dawson, The Mongol Mission, 27. Even Carpini notes that there were dukes who were the representatives of this power.
35 Pe. ghadr
36 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 264; Juvaini/Qazvini, Vol. 1, 219.
37 See note 29.
38 For a detailed analysis of this, see Hope, “The Transmission of Authority,” 87–115.
39 Jackson, The Mongols and the Islamic World, 14; Vaṣṣāf, Tarikh-i Vaṣṣāf, 398; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, 241.
40 Manz, “Mongol History Rewritten”.
41 Franke, “From Tribal Chieftain,” 24.
42 Ibid., 30; Brack, “Theologies of Auspicious Kingship,” 1162. All in the efforts of making Öljeitü the “mujaddid”, or the renewer of Islam.
43 Rashid al-Din/Thackston,Vol. 2, 282, 387; Rashid al-Din/Rowshan, Vol. 2, 705, lashkar va mā nīz jumle az ān qā’ān-īm, author’s translation.
44 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 2, 598; Juvaini/Qazvini, Vol. 3, 76. The terminology “az ahd-i chingiz khan” might be a little misleading here. Juvaini says that in both interregna paizas and yarlighs were issued by many different princes, but he never says that this occurs under Ögedei or Chinggis himself. Möngke recalling all of these orders going back all the way to Chinggis seems to be more a desire to centre power in his own hands after the Toluid-Jochid coup.
45 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 256; Juvaini/Qazvini, Vol. 1, 211.
46 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. I, 189, 256
47 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 255; Juvaini/Qazvini, Vol. 1, 210.Qara Oghul was the son of Chaghatai’s favourite son Mö’etüken, who died during the siege of Bamiyan, devastating both Chaghatai and Chinggis, see Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol 2, 368.
48 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 273–4. Juvaini/Qazvini, Vol. 1, 230. Juvaini uses the phrase “bi-ḥukm-i vaṣīyyat-ī ki dar sābiqa rafta būd”, which Boyle translates as “by virtue of the earlier testament”. However, bi-ḥukm can also mean “by command or authority of”, which may imply that Juvaini was trying to render Güyük’s appointment of Yesu Möngke as illegal.
49 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 255.
50 Broadbridge, Women, 206; Rashid al-Din/Thackston, 361.
51 Vaṣṣāf, 66; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, 37. Vaṣṣāf’s language is somewhat ambiguous as to whether this was merely Qaidu’s belief or that Vaṣṣāf also thought it to be a part of the Chinggisid jasaq.
52 Biran, Qaidu and the Rise, 35–6.
53 Referred to in Persian sources and much secondary literature as yāsā.
54 See Peter Jackson’s entry in the Encyclopaedia Iranica for a summary of the points of the debate; Jackson, “yāsā”.
55 Naomi Standen has analysed how the dao functioned in a similar manner in Liao and Song China in the tenth and eleventh centuries, see Standen, Unbounded Loyalty.
56 Al Altan was suspected of having poisoned Ögedei according to Rashid al-Din, Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 361. For more on this, see Broadbridge, Women, 169, 206, 220.
57 Rashid al-Din’s phrase is “Ogedei qā’ān gufte būd ki pādshāh Shīremūn bāshad”: “Ögedei Qa’an said that Shiremün should be the padshah”, author’s translation. He does not use the terms yārlīgh or yāsā, Rashid al-Din/Rowshan, Vol. 1, 65.
58 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 1, 39.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid., and 393; Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 252.
61 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 2, 562.
62 Favereau, “The Golden Horde,” 311.
63 Hope, “El and Bulqa,” 9; Vaṣṣāf, 317; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, 193.
64 تعرض رسانیدن
65 Vaṣṣāf, 317; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, 193.
66 Qāshānī, Tarikh-i Ūljāytū, 98.
67 Biran, “The Chaghataids and Islam,” 748.
68 Ibid., 748–50. She shows that there had in fact been several other Muslim khans of the ulus, though their reigns were not long.
69 Ibn ‘Arabshāh, Tamerlane.
70 Juvaini/Boyle, 573.
71 Barfield, The Perilous Frontier, 8, 39, 86, 188 gives examples in the Hsiung-nu, Hsien-Pi and Khitan Liao states. Ibn Fadlan, Mission to the Volga, 10,16 regarding the Oghuz; Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 1, 71 states that the Onggut also held such councils.
72 Hodous, “The Quriltai,” 87–102.
73 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 263–4; Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 402–3. The later historian states that when Möngke was enthroned in February 1251, they had been waiting for two years to do so.
74 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 263–4.
75 Ibid., 265–6. The terms aqa and ini technically mean older and younger brother, however see Hope, Power, Politics and Tradition for its meaning as representing all the key Mongol figures, from Chinggisids to lesser nobles.
76 Juvaini in his description of Ala Qamaq uses kangāch, majma’, majlis and jam’iyyat, but never quriltai. Juvaini/Qazvini, Vol. 3, 17, 18, 20, though admittedly this is based on Qazvini’s edition and not the manuscripts.
77 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 2, 562.
78 Ibid., 573.
79 Yuánshǐ Ch. 2, 33; Ch. 124, 3055, as referenced in Hodous, “The Quriltai,” 91.
80 Vaṣṣāf, 126, 139; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, 74, 81.
81 Jackson, Mongols and the Islamic World, 270; Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 3, 517.
82 Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb, Vol. II, 560–1.
83 Biran, Qaidu and the Rise, 25–6.
84 Ibid., 27, quoting YS 16/333.
85 Manz, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, 50; De Clavijo, Narrative of the Embassy.
86 Take for example, the Arab historian of the thirteenth century Ibn al-Athir, who quoted a hadith from Bukhari’s Sahih collection which states “No people will prosper who appoint a woman to rule over them”, Ibn al-Athir, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir, 216.
87 YS, 115, 2885, found in Allsen, “The Rise of the Mongolian Empire,” 367, note 56.
88 Jackson, “The Dissolution,” 320.
89 De Rachewiltz, “Yeh-lu Ch’u-ts’ai,” 199.
90 De Nicola, Women in Mongol Iran, 70–5.
91 Holmgren, “Observations on Marriage,” 161.
92 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 240; De Nicola, Women in Mongol Iran, 68–9. Juvaini does state however, that Möge was already performing this role before Töregene took it over. Her death shortly after made Töregene’s path to regency considerably smoother.
93 Broadbridge, Women, 207, 210.
94 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 242.
95 Ibid., 255, 598.
96 Rubruck states that Möngke told him that Oghul Gaimish was a “wicked woman, more vile than a dog[…]that by her sorcery had destroyed her whole family”, Dawson, Mongol Mission, 203.
97 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 245–6; Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 391.
98 Broadbridge, Women, 218.
99 Batu’s seniority, Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 2, 557; Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 387. Orda being the elder, Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 249; Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 348.
100 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 348.
101 Ibid., 360.
102 Ibid., 376; Local chronicler Jamal al-Qarshi confirms that Chaghatai died some time after Ögedei, though there is a discrepancy with Juvaini’s 1242 date of about 2 years; see Jackson, “Chaghatayid Dynasty”.
103 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 391.
104 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 2, 557.
105 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 401.
106 Ibid., 402.
107 Rashid al-Din at first calls this meeting at Ala Qamaq a quriltai, but then reverts back to following Juvaini, and in Moge Oghul’s speech it is referred to as a majma’, or gathering, while the princes agree to have a “great quriltai”, quriltai-yi buzurg, in the Onon and Kerulen valley the following year.
108 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 265–6, Vol. 2, 562.
109 Ibid., 573.
110 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 409.
111 Ibid., 375.
112 Ibid., 312. Temüge’s position is interesting here, lending support from the lateral side of the family, who still controlled huge swathes of territory within the Mongol Empire. This loyalty to Chinggis’ wish for power to remain amongst his sons and their descendants did not last very long, as Temüge made a play for the throne before Güyük’s accession. It was likely this and his impending trial and execution that forestalled his participation in the enthronement ceremony.
113 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 251.
114 De Rachewiltz, SHM, §270 and 279, 202, 215.
115 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 380.
116 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 272.
117 There is some evidence that Berke assumed this position after Batu’s death. It was Berke who had sat Möngke on the throne, on Batu’s behalf, and Rashid al-Din goes out of his way to justify Hülegü’s conflict with Berke despite him being senior to Hülegü, see Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 511.
118 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 387.
119 Kamola, “Rashid al-Din,” 34–9.
120 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 2, 507, 514, 519, 521.
121 According to Rashid al-Din, the Chaghadaid khan Alghu admits to Qubilai and Hulegu that he did not consult them when he sat in Chaghatai’s place, and the aqa and ini would have to decide whether he had done wrong, Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 435.
122 Ibid., Vol. 1, 255.
123 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 361.
124 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 273–4.
125 Ibid., 268.
126 Kamola, “Rashid al-Din,” 52; Broadbridge, Women, 231.
127 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 361, 511.
128 The Ögedeid ulus disappeared after Möngke’s purge, though individual Ögedeids did retain some small amount of land. Qaidu created an Ögedeid state within the Chaghataid ulus in the late thirteenth century.
129 The Ilkhans did technically seek confirmation of their rule by Qubilai for some time, but even for Abaqa, Hülegü’s successor, he was enthroned by a regional quriltai in 1265 (Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. III, 517) before receiving his official confirmation by Qubilai in 1270, when he mounted the throne for a second time, Vol. III, 535. The Qa’an’s approval was not required for rulership even in the Ilkhanate.
130 There is some debate about whether the Mongol term darughachi can be simply equated to the Turkic term basqaq or the Arabo-Persian shiḥna. For Thomas Allsen and Christopher Atwood the semantic similarities between the Turkic bas and Mongol daru, meaning “to press” render the two terms interchangeable, while the term shiḥna, more familiar to their Middle Eastern subjects, was similarly applied, Allsen, “The Rise of the Mongolian Empire,” 374; Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia, 134. However, this has been questioned by Donald Ostrowski who argues that the roles were in fact separate, with the darughachi meaning a civilian governor (equivalent to shiḥna) and the basqaq being a military governor (equivalent to the tammachi), Ostrowski, “The ‘tamma’”. The confusion is apparent in our sources: Take Rashid al-Din: He says that Chormaghun was the head of tamma troops in the west in the 1230s, Vol. I, 42, but he later states that Ögedei sent the basqaqs of provinces to support Chormaghun’s campaigns, which included the shiḥna of Khwarazm, Chin Temür, who is later given the governorship of Khorasan and Mazanderan, while Chormaghun is kept in his position and told not to interfere, Vol. II, 322–3. While Ostrowski’s divisions are logically tempting, they are not so easy to define. Juvaini states that in Güyük’s reign Möngke Bolad was made the basqaq of the artisans of Tabriz, Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. II, 511. This would seem to indicate that the basqaq was not equivalent to the tammachi, what I term garrison commander. Neither Juvaini nor Rashid al-Din use the term darugha/darughachi, which is used in the SHM and Chinese sources. See also Buell, “Sino-Khitan Administration”.
131 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 1, 41; Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia, 527.
132 In this there seems to be a difference with the basqaq/shiḥna. Chormaghun, the tammachi was on the far western frontier of the Mongol Empire, while Chin Temür, the basqaq, was appointed over Khorasan and Mazanderan, though this did not mean that the basqaq did not have military duties, see Juvaini/Boyle, 482–7.
133 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 1, 41, Vol. 2, 313.
134 Ibid., Vol. 1, 11, Vol. 2, 397, 457, 486.
135 Grigor of Akanc’, History of the Nation, 303; Vardan, Compilation of History, 88; Kirakos, History of the Armenians, 219, 237, 239.
136 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 322–3.
137 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 2, 507.
138 Allsen, “Technologies of Governance,” 125.
139 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 2, 483–7.
140 Ibid., 501. The extensive military actions of those termed shiḥnas seems to confound Ostrowski’s theory that these were civil administrators, Ostrowski, “The ‘tamma’,” 275.
141 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 410.
142 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 2, 509; Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 2, 411.
143 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 1, 111, Vol. 2, 478.
144 Ibid., Vol. 2, 371.
145 Ibid., Vol. 1, 49.
146 Jackson, “The Mongols of Central Asia,” 93.
147 Ibid., note 18; Thackston groups the Negüder under Jochid service alongside the Negüder who was a son of Mochi Yaba, Chaghatai’s eldest son in his index to JT. The Chaghataid Negüder according to Jackson was in fact called Tegüder, and indeed Thackston acknowledges the confusion in JT manuscripts with the Arabic letters ت and ن. Confusingly, this prince also accompanied Hülegü’s forces and rebelled against the Ilkhanate, encouraged by the Chaghataid Khan Baraq, and was captured and rendered submissive in Georgia.
148 Dawson, The Mongol Mission, 33; Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 32.
149 Marco Polo, The Travels, 115.
150 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 3, 597–9.
151 I use here the Mongol term, as is common in recent historiography, though the Persian sources do not use this, but rather shiḥna and basqaq quite interchangeably.
152 Biran, “Between China and Islam,” 63–83.
153 Dashdondog, “Darughachi in Armenia,” 221.
154 Ostrowski, “The ‘tamma’”.
155 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 45.
156 Ibid., Vol. 2, 484.
157 De Hartog, Russia and the Mongol Yoke, 58.
158 Ibn al-Athir, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir, 218.
159 Allsen, Mongol Imperialism, 113.
160 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 3, 520.
161 Esther Ravalde shows this system at work in a case study of the sahib-divan of the Ilkhanate, Shams al-Din Juvaini; Ravalde, “Shams al-Din Juwayni,” 55–78.
162 Rashid al-Din/Thackston, Vol. 3, 543.
163 See Broadbridge, Women; De Nicola, Women in Mongol Iran.
164 Grodzins, The Loyal and the Disloyal, 30–3.
165 Juvaini/Boyle, Vol. 1, 44–7.