******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/ Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <h-rev...@lists.h-net.org> > Date: March 6, 2020 at 8:28:48 AM EST > To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > Cc: H-Net Staff <revh...@mail.h-net.org> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Empire]: Cho on Hope, 'Power, Politics, and > Tradition in the Mongol Empire and the Īlkhānate of Iran' > Reply-To: h-rev...@lists.h-net.org > > Michael Hope. Power, Politics, and Tradition in the Mongol Empire > and the Īlkhānate of Iran. Oxford Oxford University Press, 2016. > Illustrations. 272 pp. $94.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-19-876859-3. > > Reviewed by Wonhee Cho (The Academy of Korean Studies) > Published on H-Empire (March, 2020) > Commissioned by Gemma Masson > > Writing political history in the twenty-first century is challenging. > A monograph consisting of unfamiliar names, tied to convoluted > political events spanning over a century would be a hard sell to a > publisher, let alone appeal to a broad audience. Thus, it is no > wonder that political history has become an unpopular subfield in > history, and it has been--according to the publisher's home page for > the book under review--almost fifty years since the last publication > of a "complete history of the Īlkhānate in English."[1] Michael > Hope's Power, Politics, and Tradition in the Mongol Empire and the > Īlkhānate of Iran fills in this gap with a unique perspective that > inspires a new approach to writing political history. > > Hope's monograph provides a consistent, overarching, and > though-provoking theme to explain the critical political events > during this era. As the title reads, it covers the political > authority of Chinggis Khan; examines the reigns of Ögödei Qa'an, > Güyüg Khan, and Möngke Qa'an (the "early Mongol Empire, > 1227-1259"); and then narrows the focus to the khans of the > Īlkhānate (1258-1335). The final chapter examines how the legacies > of Chinggis Khan and the Īlkhānate continued to the era of Temür > Gürken (1336-1405, better known as Tamerlane in English-language > scholarship). > > To guide the reader through this long and complicated period, Hope > offers an interpretation centered on two competing systems of > political authority that he has respectively labeled as "the > collegial" and "the patrimonial." Building on the Weberian concept of > "the routinization of charisma," Hope adopts a sociological approach > to examine how a temporary political entity based on a single > individual transitioned toward a more permanent state. According to > Hope, the collegial school, mostly consisting of the extended family > of Chinggis Khan and senior commanders, emphasized how the Mongol > Empire and the following Īlkhānate should be ruled more > collectively with authority shared among the high-ranking officials, > especially the military commanders. In contrast, the followers of the > patrimonial school considered that the authority of the empire > belonged to the direct descendants of the founder and emphasized a > more centralized imperial rule around a single qa'an/khan. > > This contrast, which may be rather particular, oddly specific, and > seemingly unfamiliar to historians of the Mongol Empire, works > surprisingly well in explaining the political history of the early > Mongol Empire and their rule over Iran. For example, the famous > Persian vizier Rashid al-Din praised Chinggis Khan's immediate > successor, Ögödei Qa'an, for actively demonstrating his generosity > to his Mongol companions. Rashid's praise, among many other examples, > highlights the collegial rule that defined the era of Ögödei Qa'an. > Conversely, Möngke Qa'an's succession occurred through a "coup" > where the collective will of the Mongol princes and military > officials failed to play an essential rule through the _quriltai_ or > the council of notables. The centralization policies of Möngke, what > Thomas Allsen famously compared to the "modern concept of total war," > exemplifies the weakened role of the collegial rule, as well as the > rise of a new claim of patrimonial authority by Möngke Qa'an > (chapter 2). In spite of being the younger brother of Möngke Qa'an, > Hülegü failed to follow his brother's model as the circumstances > around the newly formed Īlkhānate prevented the formation of a more > centralized rule. Instead, the various princes and military leaders > who constituted the joint Iran expedition forces reinstated a > collegial rule, emphasizing their shared governance where the > military commanders effectively decided the policies of the > Īlkhānate. In the case of Aḥmad Tegüder Khan, they even murdered > the khan himself (chapter 3). During the ages of Arghun Khan, and > eventually, Ghazan Khan, the patrimonial interpretation of Chinggis > Khan's authority, combined with Shīìte Islamic ideology of > messianic sovereignty brought the revival of the patrimonial and more > centralized rule (chapter 4). After Ghazan, the tides shifted back > toward the collegial rule and continued to the end of the Īlkhānate > and beyond (chapter 5). > > The strength of Hope's analysis is threefold. First, his analysis > enables a comprehensive perspective on understanding the complex > history of this period while successfully incorporating the works of > previous scholarship. As seen in recent individual research > articles--all which have been examined and noted by Hope--scholars > have identified various elements that explain the continuously > changing political landscape of the Mongol Empire. Hope notes that > these elements--reexamining the role of Islam in internal and > external conflicts, the clash between centralization and regional > autonomy, the conflicting interpretations of Chinggis Khan's _jasaq_ > (laws) that seemingly justified any political acts, etc.--were > different interpretations regarding the two main political thoughts > of the collegialists and the patrimonialists. And more importantly, > Hope demonstrates that these two competing thoughts were still > fundamentally based on the legacy of a single authority: the founder > Chinggis Khan. In this sense, Hope's work identifies the balance > between the consistency (adhering to the legacy of the founder) and > the adaptability of the Mongols (developing competing political > theories of authority in combination with other elements). > > Second, identifying the broader trends of the patrimonial or > collegial rule during the Īlkhānate enables us to have a more > holistic understanding of this period. For example, different sources > have presented competing explanations on the collision between > Hülegü and the Jočids in the 1250s. When Qubilai Khan granted > Hülegü exclusive rights to the land of Iran, many Persian and > Armenian accounts tell that a personal clash between Hülegü and > Berke resulted in the ongoing conflict between the Mongols in Iran > and Russia. In contrast, Grigor of Akanc's records provide a more > detailed account on the _noyat_ (senior commanders) who not only > offered their support to Hülegü but also actively participated in > apprehending and executing the Jočids within the court of Hülegü. > Even though Grigor mistakenly recorded (duly noted by Hope) that > Möngke, not Qubilai, was the qa'an of that time, Hope argues that > the overall collegial rule during the early Īlkhānate period makes > Grigor's account more plausible, as it would have granted the > opportunity for the _noyat_ to play a more active role. As another > example, once we understand the dominant role of these _noyat_s and > the continuously collegial rule of early Īlkhānate, the seemingly > random and puzzling deposition of Aḥmad Tegüder Khan makes much > more sense, as it was the result of the increasing authority of the > _noyat_ over the Chinggisid descendants. > > Finally, Hope's application of sociological theory to the history of > the Mongols--in this case specifically, the Weberian approach on the > institutionalization of an individual charisma--enables us to see the > history of the Mongol Empire in a more theoretical and comparative > perspective, and in turn, invites us to follow his lead. Chinggis > Khan and the Mongol Empire is indeed one of the greatest land-based > empires, but overemphasizing the unique success of the Mongols leads > to viewing the Mongols as an anomaly or exception that does not leave > much room for inspiration beyond the small field of specialists. But > as this work shows, reinterpreting and routinizing the legacy of a > charismatic individual is not necessarily a new sociological or > historical phenomenon limited to the Īlkhānate. Hope has already > suggested the possibility of applying a similar approach to the > Mongol rule of China, and his model could be employed for other > potential subjects including but not limited to political authority, > ethnicity, empire studies, and religion, among others. > > One might not necessarily agree with Hope's approach, as the binary > of "collegial" and "patrimonial" factionalism can sometimes seem a > bit too forced and overly simplistic. On a more philological > perspective, scholars might ask whether any additional details could > have been found if Hope had referred to more reliable editions of the > _Jāmiʻ al-tavārīkh_ (such as the newer edition by Rawshan in lieu > of the older Karīmī edition) or the complete version of _Tārīkh-i > Vaṣṣāf _(as an alternative to Hope's use of the _Tahrīr-i > Tārīkh-i Vaṣṣāf_)_. _Still, Hope provides one synthesis based > on the previous half-century research that can stimulate different > interpretations and comparisons. Essentially, _Power, Politics, and > Tradition in the Mongol Empire and the Īlkhānate of Iran_ is an > up-to-date book on understanding and reviewing the political history > of this period and region and a starting point to build on it. > > Note > > [1]. The book the home page refers to is probably J. A. Boyle, _The > Cambridge History of Iran_, vol. 5, _The Saljuq and Mongol Periods_ > (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968). See > https://global.oup.com/academic/product/power-politics-and-tradition-in-the-mongol-empire-and-the-lkhnate-of-iran-9780198768593 > > (accessed March 4, 2020). > > Citation: Wonhee Cho. Review of Hope, Michael, _Power, Politics, and > Tradition in the Mongol Empire and the Īlkhānate of Iran_. > H-Empire, H-Net Reviews. March, 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=53008 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
