Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:
However, in the long run, empires always cause harm. The only empire I can think of that was still beneficial to its citizens after a long time was the Roman Empire (perhaps one of the Chinese empires as well but I'm not at home in Asian history). Others didn't exist long enough and decayed, with dramatic consequences (the Hellenistic empire), or destroyed more than they built up (the Mongol empire, for example).
Not surprisingly, I have some comments on Asian history and the Mongol Empire.
Firtstly, the Chinese. It is hard, due to dynastic differences in philosophy, to give an overall opinion when it comes to this topic. As an example, I would like to give the first unification of China under Qin shi huangdi ( 221BCE).
Before that we had the Warring states period, evidently a very tumultuous stage in Chinese history. So unification is a blessing on that account. But with a dynastic change comes a change in ideology. Needs to, because otherwise the former ruling house would have stayed in the saddle, had it had a good ideology, nonne? Confucianism, the way of the ancients, was no longer considered adapteable to the current situation. Qhin shi huangdi followed Legalism. With it, he brought unification in measurements, weight and money. And the people were held in check with strict laws. And whether this is good or bad is the question. Overall, it had its strong points. The penal code had a one-on-one penalty for each crime, whereas in the past, social status was taken into account. So here, everybody knew what they were doing, and knew what to expect when they commited a crime. Everybody was equal. Possible downside, ofcourse, is that some people see this as a very harsh system, with hands being chopped off for theft, bannishing people (a penalty worse than death!), etc...
Now the Mogols. I have read a great deal about them lately in view of my thesis. And Draco's point has to be commented upon.
We have to consider that the Mongols are a pastoral nomadic culture to begin with. Thus stating to me that the mongols are just a bunch of bloodthirsty savages, is not good enough. Fact is, that due to their steppe environment and ditto conditions, they were always in danger of being raided by another tribe, of losing their pastures. So it is no small wonder that they were well organised, both in military and society.
The Mongol expansion, then. I firmly believe that it came to be out of need, and not out of bloodthirst. A nomadic people always depends on a sendentary one for certain products. Sources suggest that most of the Ghengisid expansion came to be after a refusal of friendly trading relations. And if you cannot buy what you so desperately need, you take it or risk starvation. Simple as that.
Now then, to return to Draco's point, was it as horribble as most people think? A difficult nut to crack, but I will try, nonetheless.
The mongols in China / Yuan dynasty (1279-1366)
Conquering this graet neighbour, it had always been the wet dream of any leader of a steppe confederation. When the Mongols did it, there were a lot of advantages for the people. Freedom of religion is one thing. The mongols, as a non-chinese dynasty, promoted buddhism, nestorianism and Islam. They understood that to rule such a great empire, with so many different races, they had to be tolerant.
Overall, they promoted trade in China.
The Chinese ruling class previously had gone to great lenght not to give rise to the merchants as a social class. Why? Because the rulers did not depen on them on them, but on the farmers. And if you give them permission to trade a great deal, they will become wealthy, and wealth always generates political power, and thus a threat to the confucian ruling class. This is also the main reason why state monopolies were insituted.
My view of contemporary China, that I will not disscuss here...
And so, they promoted trade to counter confucianism and for the good of their subjects.
Then, I would like to consider Russia, or Muscovy at that stage.
I am the first to admit that loss of life is great in any invasion. But one must also take into account that figures of victims always come to us by means of chronicles, written by the loosing party, and that therefore, figures are likely to be exaggerated.
Mongol interst in Russia (began 1237-1240) concerned the trade routes, mainly. The routes to the Black and Caspian Sea, and further to the West. It has been pointed out that the Pax Mogolia was an important factor in the development of Muscovy.
Mongol influence on military, civil administration ( dual civil-military admin) from China and the Dar- al Islam through the Qipchaq Khanate.
Beyond doubt, the initial loss of life must have been substantial, but the long-term economic devastation is exaggerated surely. There was a recovery in trade due to the Mongols, and a booming economy early in the 14th century. Mongol conquest opened up Russia for influences from China and Islam, influences that it would not have known otherwise...
So, was the Mongolian conquest really such a bad thing? Personally, I think not.
Some reading material on the Muscovy part, maybe:
Ostrowsky D.,
Muscovy and the Mongols. Cross-cultural influences on the steppe frontier, 1304-1589, 1998, Cambridge University Press
Sorry to have been bothering you all with such a lenghty post