7 ms·

The Mongol Khans of Medieval France

107 points by Thevet 8mo ago

jmyeet 8mo ago
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-finance/ https://bigthink.com/the-past/knights-templar-crusades-finan...
- gostsamo 8mo ago
  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.
  - sleepyguy 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - gostsamo 8mo ago
      They also smelled and had a big rich empire. What I can say? Won't bother you with the guy who supposedly planted trees so that merchants can travel and rest in their shadows, nor should I tell you stories how those extractive people facilitated trade between Europe and China. PS: The russians got lots of things from the eastern roman empire, just not the humanistic renaissance, but let's not go there.
  - cm2012 8mo ago
    Mongolian empire was so large because it is cheap to run an extractive regime
    - gostsamo 8mo ago
      Disliking them doesn't make their empire smaller and success is a virtue of its own according to many. They were successful and people noticed, the rest is commentary.
  - jmyeet 8mo ago
    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.
    - gostsamo 8mo ago
      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.
- clarionbell 8mo ago
  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).
  - bossyTeacher 8mo ago
    > 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
    - baud147258 8mo ago
      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.
- paojans 8mo ago
  [dead]
- AnimalMuppet 8mo ago
  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.
  - forshaper 8mo ago
    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.
    - brabel 8mo ago
      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.
      - forshaper 8mo ago
        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?
Brajeshwar 8mo ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdFwMDuAnS4
- Hikikomori 8mo ago
  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.
  - vm 8mo ago
    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=6APhuia4T6C3vAsfno9BgA 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-the-khans-series/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-...
    - RealityVoid 8mo ago
      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!
      - Hikikomori 8mo ago
        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.
astrolx 8mo ago
Baudolino from Umberto Eco (an excellent book) is partially about that, I recommend the read !
orwin 8mo ago
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.
- ozgrakkurt 8mo ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
  - PlatoIsADisease 8mo ago
    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.
    - jmyeet 8mo ago
      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.
suddenlybananas 8mo ago
Interesting to not mention Rabban Bar Sauma ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
- AStrangeMorrow 8mo ago
  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 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 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 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
stefantalpalaru 8mo ago
[dead]
piokoch 8mo ago
"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 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.
- mikkupikku 8mo ago
  Real recognizes Real.
metalman 8mo ago
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
rramadass 8mo ago
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-call-the-tartars 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!

107 points by Thevet 8mo ago

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-finance/ https://bigthink.com/the-past/knights-templar-crusades-finan...

gostsamo 8mo ago
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.
- sleepyguy 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - gostsamo 8mo ago
    They also smelled and had a big rich empire. What I can say? Won't bother you with the guy who supposedly planted trees so that merchants can travel and rest in their shadows, nor should I tell you stories how those extractive people facilitated trade between Europe and China. PS: The russians got lots of things from the eastern roman empire, just not the humanistic renaissance, but let's not go there.
- cm2012 8mo ago
  Mongolian empire was so large because it is cheap to run an extractive regime
  - gostsamo 8mo ago
    Disliking them doesn't make their empire smaller and success is a virtue of its own according to many. They were successful and people noticed, the rest is commentary.
- jmyeet 8mo ago
  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.
  - gostsamo 8mo ago
    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.
clarionbell 8mo ago
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).
- bossyTeacher 8mo ago
  > 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
  - baud147258 8mo ago
    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.
paojans 8mo ago
[dead]
AnimalMuppet 8mo ago
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.
- forshaper 8mo ago
  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.
  - brabel 8mo ago
    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.
    - forshaper 8mo ago
      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?

Brajeshwar 8mo ago

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdFwMDuAnS4

Hikikomori 8mo ago
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.
- vm 8mo ago
  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=6APhuia4T6C3vAsfno9BgA 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-the-khans-series/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-wrath-of-...
  - RealityVoid 8mo ago
    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!
    - Hikikomori 8mo ago
      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.

astrolx 8mo ago

Baudolino from Umberto Eco (an excellent book) is partially about that, I recommend the read !

orwin 8mo ago

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.

ozgrakkurt 8mo ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
- PlatoIsADisease 8mo ago
  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.
  - jmyeet 8mo ago
    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.

suddenlybananas 8mo ago

Interesting to not mention Rabban Bar Sauma ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

AStrangeMorrow 8mo ago
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 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 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 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

stefantalpalaru 8mo ago

[dead]

piokoch 8mo ago

"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 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.

mikkupikku 8mo ago
Real recognizes Real.

metalman 8mo ago

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

rramadass 8mo ago

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-call-the-tartars 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!