ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠤᠯ ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨᠲᠤ ᠤᠯᠤᠰ ᠪᠠ ᠢᠯ ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨᠲᠤ ᠤᠯᠤᠰ ᠤᠨ ᠴᠡᠷᠢᠭ ᠳᠠᠶᠢᠨ᠂ ᠤᠯᠤᠰ ᠲᠦᠷᠦ ᠪᠣᠯᠤᠨ ᠵᠠᠩ ᠳᠠᠳᠬᠠᠯ .pdf

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPi Power, Politics, and tradition in the Mongol eMP ire and the Īlkhānate of iranOUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPiOUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPi Power, Politics, and t radition in the Mongol e mpire and the Īlkhānate of iran Michael hoP e 1OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPi 3 g reat clarendon s treet, oxford, ox 2 6d P, United kingdom oxford University Press is a department of the University of oxford. it furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. oxford is a registered trade mark of oxford University Press in the Uk and in certain other countries © Michael h ope 2016 The moral rights of the author have been asserted f irst e dition published in 2016 impression: 1 all rights reserved. n o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. e nquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the rights d epartment, oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United s tates of america by oxford University Press 198 Madison a venue, n ew York, nY 10016, United s tates of america British library cataloguing in Publication d ata d ata available library of congress control n umber: 2016932271 isBn 978–0–19–876859–3 Printed in g reat Britain by clays ltd, s t ives plc links to third party websites are provided by oxford in good faith and for information only. oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPi List of Figures, Genealogical T ables, and Maps vii Conventions of T ransliteration ix Acknowledgements xi 1. Introduction 1 The sources 8 The charismatic a uthority of chinggis khan 22 2. The Problem of Succession (1227–59) 44 The t oluid coup and the Patrimonial s tate 71 3. Hülegü and the Īlkhānate 91 collegial r ule in the early Īlkhānate (1265–84) 111 4. The Patrimonialist Revival and the Fight for Political Primacy (1284–1304) 135 g hazan—The Messiah king 159 5. Amīrate or Sultanate? The Chinggisid Legacy 182 6. Conclusion 201 Select Glossary of Foreign T erms and Expressions 205 Bibliography 209 Index 227 T able of ContentsOUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPiOUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPi List of Figures, Genealogical T ables, and Maps f igure 1. h orses on the s teppe in Mongolia 23 f igure 2. Panels from the g unbad-i Öljeitü 186 t able 1. The Qiyat-Borǰigin 26 t able 2. The chinggisid dynasty 65 t able 3. The Īlkhān dynasty 112 Map 1. e urasia at the s tart of the Thirteenth century 42 Map 2. The Īlkhānate 102OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPiOUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPi Conventions of T ransliteration Mongolian and t urkish names and terms have been transcribed from the glossary of Mongolian words provided in igor de rachewiltz’s The Secret History of the Mongols v 2. Persian and arabic characters have been transliterated according to the table given below, with the exception of some place names which have been presented in their current anglicized forms to avoid confusion (e.g. Persian iraq, as opposed to ‘i rāq-i ‘ajam; Mosul, rather than Mūs ̣ul; a zerbaijan, rather than a dharbāyjān). ( ُ ِ َ ) ا a, i, u آ ā ب B پ P ت t ث Th ج J چ ch ح h ̣ خ kh د d ذ dh ر r ز Z ژ Zh س s ش sh ص s ̣ ض ḍ ط t ̣ ظ z ̣ ع ʻ غ gh ف f ق Q ک k گ g ل l م MOUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPi x Conventions of T ransliteration ن n و w for arabic/v for Persian ه / ھ h ی y / ī ﺋ ’OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPi Acknowledgements The present study has been made possible through the help and advice of my teachers, colleagues, and family. i would like to express special thanks to Professor n arangoa li and Professor r obert c ribb for imparting some of their great wisdom and experience to me. Their belief and humour have been a constant source of motivation throughout my research. i am grateful to d octor igor de rachewiltz for patiently listening to many of my ideas and assisting me with source material and translations for Mongolian terminology. The present book has also benefited greatly from the thoughtful advice and assistance of the editorial team at oxford University Press. i am particularly grateful for the support provided by assistant commissioning e ditor cathryn s teele and commissioning e ditor t erka a cton. My sincere thanks also go to Professor a drian Jones for igniting my interest in Mongolian studies during my undergraduate degree, and for his advice and friend- ship to the present date. lastly, i would like to express my eternal gratitude and love to my family, both in a ustralia and iran. i thank my wife Matin for her forbearance and support throughout the course of my studies. i dedicate the present work to my daughter d iana Mary h ope. h er presence has been a source of comfort and relief throughout the writing of this book. Michael h ope, Yonsei UniversityOUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPiOUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPi 1 Introduction Political authority within the Mongol Empire can be traced back to its founder, Chinggis Khan, who by 1206 had united the previously warring peoples to the north of the Great Wall under his rule, thereby creating the Yeke Mongγ ol Ulus (the Great Mongol Realm).1 From the year 1206 until his death in 1227 Chinggis Khan led the Mongols on a series of military campaigns from China to Iran which resulted in the creation of the largest contiguous land empire the world has ever seen. The great scope of Chinggis Khan’s military, social, and political achievements gave him an unrivalled influence and authority over the Mongols. His rule came to repre- sent the ideal Mongol polity, in which its people could attain the highest standard of satisfaction and well-being. All subsequent leaders of the Mongol Empire sought to legitimate their authority by appealing to the symbols and traditions of Chinggis Khan’s charisma. The present study will provide a new interpretation of how political authority was conceived and exercised in the early Mongol Empire (1227–59) and its successor state in Iran, the Īlkhānate (1258–1335). In what follows, it will be shown that two streams of political authority emerged after the death of Chinggis Khan: the collegial and the patrimonialist. Each of these streams represented the economic and political interests of different groups within the Mongol Empire, respectively, the propertied aristocracy—made up by commanders, queens, and junior princes—and the central government—consisting of the khan, his bureaucracy, and household staff. The supporters of both streams claimed to adhere to the ideal of Chinggisid rule, but their different statuses within the Mongol community led them to hold divergent views of what constituted legitimate political authority. This book will detail the origin of, and the differences between, these two streams; analyse the role that these streams played in the political development of the early Mongol Empire; and assess the role that ideological tension between the two streams played in the events leading up to the division of the empire. This study has used Max Weber’s discussion of ‘the routinization of charisma’ to interpret the evolution of political authority in the early Mongol Empire and the Īlkhānate. Weber used the term ‘routinization’ to describe the process of transition from a temporary political association built around the charismatic leadership of an individual (e.g. Chinggis Khan) to a permanent government supported by laws 1 For an explanation of the term, see Igor de Rachewiltz, ‘Qan, Qa’an and the Seal of Güyüg’, Documenta Barbarorum: Festschrift für Walther Heissig zum 70 Geburtstag, ed. Klaus Sagaster and Michael Weiers, Veroffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, Band 18.37, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983, p. 274.OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPi 2 Power, Politics, and Tradition in the Mongol Empire and traditions.2 Weber argued that this transition was a necessary measure to sustain a charismatic community beyond the death of its leader, who acts as the source of all political authority and unity. The death of the charismatic leader deprives the community of political cohesion and threatens to cause its collapse. Routinization was the means through which this shortfall was addressed, that is by ‘institutional- izing’ charismatic authority in the form of permanent offices, laws, and traditions. The community attains stability and security by shifting loyalty away from an individual to an institution. Weber argued that the routinization process is both driven and defined by the material interests of the ‘charismatic disciples’ whose titles, incomes, and powers are all dependent upon their proximity and service to the leader. The death of the leader compromises the livelihood of these charismatic disciples, who have a vested interest in preserving the existing social order. Routinized authority is, therefore, derived from the ability of a ‘chief’ (ruler, government) to protect the material welfare of their subjects. This principle implies a balance in a routinized polity between the material demands of the disciples and the power of the chief that protects them. Weber argues that solidarity of interest between the chief and the disciples is at its height when the economic needs and social status of the disciples depend upon the chief remaining in power. The chief’s authority is undermined if the needs of the disciples are not met. The routinized social order is then dissolved. This study has also been strongly influenced by Hamid Dabashi’s use of Weberian social theory to explain the evolution of political authority within the early Islamic Empire.3 Dabashi’s study discusses the emergence of the Sunni and Shī‘ite madhāhib (religious creeds) in terms of two streams of ‘routinized’ authority derived from the Prophet Muḥammad’s charisma: one advocating that the supreme leadership of the Islamic community should be chosen through council elections, the other arguing for the incumbent’s designation of an heir from amongst the Prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt).4 In accordance with Weber’s theory, Dabashi highlighted the economic and social differences between adherents of the two factions as the reason behind their ideological divergence. The present study has sought to follow Dabashi’s lead by using the theory of routinization to interpret the evolution of political authority within the Īlkhānate. There is, however, an important distinction that insofar as Dabashi was using Weber’s theory to explain a historically recognized schism, the present study will identify an ideological divergence within the Īlkhānate which has yet to be recognized or understood. This study will argue that two streams of routinized authority emerged to serve the interests of the two leading social groups within the Īlkhānate. The patrimoni- alists and collegialists both claimed to be the political successors of Chinggis Khan based upon a routinized form of his original charismatic authority. Yet the two 2 See Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, New York: Bedminster Press, 1968, pp. 246–54. 3 Hamid Dabashi, Authority in Islam: From the Rise of Muhammad to the Establishment of the Umayyads, New Brunswick: T ransaction Publishers, 1989. 4 Hamid Dabashi, Authority in Islam, pp. 3–7.OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 08/08/16, SPi Introduction 3 streams developed completely different interpretations of the Chinggisid tradition based upon their unique position within the Mongol community. This difference led to their forming divergent opinions on questions such as what constituted the Mongol community, what purpose the Mongol Empire served, and how it was to be administered. The patrimonial faction viewed authority over the Īlkhānate as a hereditary right which belonged to the descendants of Chinggis Khan (the altan uruq, golden kin), specifically the descendants of his fourth son Tolui. They conceived of Chinggis Khan’s charisma passing through his bloodline/bone5 to his children and their offspring. According to this view, only the family of Chinggis Khan could legiti- mately claim to rule his empire. Land, resources, cities, people, and animals were all thought of in terms of property that had been captured by Chinggis Khan and would pass to his children on a hereditary basis. This concept of patrimonial kingship was later combined with ideas of absolute monarchy which were intro- duced to the Mongols by scholar-bureaucrats who were recruited to serve the Empire in Iran. These bureaucrats identified their interests with the creation of a strong centralized state under the rule of an autocratic king. They hoped that the centralization of authority in the hands of the khan would be accompanied by the growth of the imperial administration, thereby providing them with increased influence over the running of the Empire.6 The ‘collegial’ faction, on the other hand, qualified imperial authority in terms of custom and precedent. In the mind of the collegialists, Chinggis Khan had not only conquered an empire, he had also instituted a programme of social reform in which a new series of laws and policies had been introduced to regulate political behaviours and relationships. The most prominent members of the collegial faction were drawn from Chinggis Khan’s senior commanders (the noyat; singular noyan),7 who had been appointed from amongst his most trusted companions (the nököt; singular nökör). The collegialists believed that their expertise in these laws ( jasaq) and principles/customs (yosun), combined with their former proximity and service to Chinggis Khan, qualified them to have a share in the wealth and government of the Empire. They sought to use the quriltai (council of notables), amongst other institutions, to protect their economic and political status within the Īlkhānate. Membership of the collegial or patrimonial faction was by no means static. Political affiliation within the Īlkhānate was determined by a variety of contingencies and relationships that were in a constant state of flux. Senior figures within the Īlkhānate were not obliged to adhere dogmatically to the principles of one stream of Chinggisid authority. Rather, their views would change to accommodate shifts in the balance of power at the centre of the realm. Loyal household retainers of a 5 The Mongols of the thirteenth century spoke of the ‘bone’ (Mong. yasun) rather than blood