Chingiz Khan Dbq

Anne F. Broadbridge’s Kingship and Ideology in the Islamic and Mongol Worlds is comprised of the contrasting positions held on different ideologies in the Medieval Islamic world. She distinguishes the between attitudes held toward political rule in the Middle East and Central Asia, specifically examining the years from 1260 to 1405. Where the influence of the Islamic religion had been playing a major role in how rulers defined their sovereignty, Mongol invasions led to unsettling comparisons to be established in order to clarify a ruler’s purpose as an administrative leader. The primary difference addressed is the conflict between Mamluk Sultans and Mongol Khans, which led to an even greater sense of dissimilar forms of political legitimacy

concerning the fragmentation of the Mongol empire, such as the Ilkhanids in Iran, the Golden Horde in Central Asia, and Temür. The issues of diplomacy and sovereignty in Broadbridge’s work are import to study because they help to highlight the significance of a ruler’s characterization of power and authority from the mid thirteenth century to the early fifteenth century. Broadbridge exemplifies the ideology adopted or formed by Medieval Middle Eastern rulers as being shaped by a sovereign’s justifications for their actions, which outlined their political legitimacy in terms of comparing themselves to other rulers rather than focusing on providing reasons for their authority within the framework of the internal government. Although she observes a variety of different administrative leaders, the purpose of this book review will be to primarily focus on Mongol authority as it relates to or contrasts with other rulers, while still briefly recognizing other forms of rulership in comparison.
As mentioned previously, the Mongol invasions in Central Asia and the Middle East encouraged a paradigm shift regarding how leaders compared themselves to other leaders by authoritative demonstrations. Introducing new symbols of authority had major historical implications that impacted how the Middle Eastern regions that were dominated by Muslim rule reacted to a non-Islamic sovereignty. Chingiz Khan’s rule was dominated by being a very charismatic leader, supporting resilient military forces, and claiming his divine right according to power gained by conquering. Mongols understood his nomadic aggression and swiftly successful plundering as a representation of God being divinely intertwined into his accomplishments. The way his authority is portrayed is important to recognize because without “God on his side,” his position really does not make since in a very religious world. The Middle East and Central Asian regions most always have had some claim to either divine intervention or godly support to legitimize their established government. Now the purpose of Chingiz Khan’s expansion into Iran was provoked by Khwarazmshah killing a Mongolian diplomat who was sent to the region, which motivated Chingiz Khan to pursue Khwarazmshah, who had reacted by fleeing to western Iran. The result of these events could have been very different if the envoy had not been killed because one could imagine Chingiz Khan may have not reacted as ferociously, but since he had the army and was justified by taking revenge, why would he disregard Khwarazmshah’s actions?
Both Chingiz Khan and Tughril Beg were similar in that they did not boast a genealogical right to rule but that God placed them in their positions and helped them in their conquests.

However, Tughril was different from Chingiz Khan because he initially established his rule upon the notion that he would be the protector of the caliphate. The Muslim dominance in Iran required Tughril’s ideological standpoint to accept historical understandings of rulership, thereby no overthrowing the caliphate, but by legitimizing themselves through establishing their own caliphate. Comparably, Broadbridge supports the perception of the Mamluk Sultanate being an Islamic ruler as opposed the view held by the Ilkhanids who saw them as a rebel dichotomy. These concepts differentiated the way a Khan verses a Sultan went about their rule in regions that were predominately Islamic. And although rulers focused on making decisions that made clear distinctions between each other, appealing to the Muslim community or “rightfully overthrowing them” was a necessity in and around Iran. No, there did not seem to be any inclination of a democratic sway threatening kings, khans, and sultans around the fourteenth century, but deviating too far from historical expectations could lead to issues of upholding a nation’s centralized

power.
While Chingiz Khan represented the entirety of the Mongol dynasty, his death brought about issues concerning how Mongols should follow up with establishing new leaders.

Even though Chingiz Khan was able to unite Mongol tribes in order to further the expansion of his empire, Broadbridge recognizes the ideology he upheld concerning universal dominance was no longer emphasized by the Ilkhanids in the early fourteenth century. This ideological change is evidence of problems that came about in the Mongol world when the loss of Chingiz Khan resulted in the fragmentation of the empire. Broadbridge specifically investigates the Ilkhanids in Iran, the Golden Horde in Central Asia, and Temür in order to define new synthesized versions of determining political legitimacy, which is important to diagnose because Mongol leaders could not only compare themselves to non-Mongols but to other Mongols as well. One way Mongol rulers would do this is by adopting ancient traditions going all the way back to Sasanian history by promoting their own version of the Shahnamah, otherwise known as the Great Mongol Shahnamah. The Great Mongol Shahnamah features epic heroes like Alexander the Great, Ardashir, Bahram Gur to support Mongol ideologies of rule by conquest. Themes of the Great Mongol Shahnama included enthronement (focus on ruler, vision of grandeur), fantastic and supernatural things (battles and hunts), and legitimacy (seeing rule as sheer luck or chance, put special emphasis on examples

in history where father son lineage wasn’t followed). This interest that the Mongols had in ruling Iran translated into their interest in Iranian history. Thus, the Mongols were able to achieve legitimacy by taking Iranian history and omitting and editing Iranian history to serve their purposes of seeking legitimacy in a country that was so driven by genealogy.
If the Great Mongol Shahnamah, though altered to justify Mongol purposes, was a major step in gaining prominence over people and territory in Iran, adopting Islamic methodologies increasingly led to their ability to gain control in the Middle East. Ghazan contributed greatly to the pro-Islamic agenda by being responsible for the conversion of the Ilkhanate state into an Islamic state. Mongols were then seen as the heirs to Islam and Iran. Not only was Ghazan significant for the religious conversion, but he also encouraged very Iranian characteristics of rulers. He is known for many of his famous reforms: Regulation of taxes, regulation of weights and measures, postal service, coins, and building projects. Of course, these are not reforms only Iranian leaders were passionate about, but the reforms symbolize a synthesized version of Mongol rule that accomplished submersing itself into the Islamic world both on a religious basis and a cultural basis. It is important to identify the changes made came from influential people like Rashid al-Din. Written in 1318, His compilation of histories is still the best record of what happened during the Ilkhanate period; moreover, his knowledge about history and his ability to compile all of those histories to the present need of the Mongolians may have assisted in keeping the Mongols in power. Simply put, it displayed the reliance that outsiders had on native Iranians to help them rule.
Another interesting aspect of Broadbridge’s works is differentiating ruler’s views of one another. For example, the Mamluks claimed to be the protectors of the Muslim community and saw the Mongols as pagans against Islam, but the Mongols believed their rule was ordained by God against the Mamluks, who were perceived as an authority established by rebellious slaves. However, Mamluks were not always able to hold true to their view of Mongols as pagans because following the capture of Baghdad in 1258, the Ilkhanate dynasty, which was started by Hülegü, eventually converted from Buddhism to Islam. Thus, Mamluks could no longer hold the religious aspect of sovereignty against the Mongols because they too upheld similar patterns of administration. Hülegü is significant because he was able to officially rid Iran of both the Turks and ‘Abbasids. The fact that here were different dynasties for each of the Mongols shows that there was division within the dynasty.
While some leaders sought to explore ulterior motives for displaying their sovereignty, Temür wanted to recreate the Mongol empire by personifying Chingiz Khan. “Temür himself developed an alternative Chingizid divine mandate by claiming to be a favored world-conqueror, the ‘Lord of the Auspicious Conjunction (sāhib qirān),’ with whom God communicated through an angel with fiery wings.” His values have slight deviations from Chingiz Khan’s rule in part due to being Turkish, not Mongol. Specifically, Temür implemented yasa (tradition of Mongolian Law by Chingiz Khan) throughout his empire. His political stance asserted that the government he upheld would subjugate the people under his jurisdiction in a manner exactly like Chingiz Khan, ideal promoting his ability to obtain similar to and beyond what Chingiz Khan had. However, Temür likely struggled with his legitimacy because he was not directly related to Chingiz Khan, whereas Chingiz Khan was able to prove his legitimacy by conquest. Moreover, he had to uphold Muslim values in order to maintain control, which meant his agenda included finding ways to distinguish between drinking and killing Muslims as something Iranians would be accepting toward. But when Iran’s population was still very much Islamic, his attempts to synthesize Mongol, Iranian, and Islamic values could not sustain any exponential growth of his empire to become the “world-conqueror” desired to be.
In closing, Anne F. Broadbridge’s Kingship and Ideology in the Islamic and Mongol Worlds takes the increasingly complicated situation of Medieval Iranian political legitimacy and offers a detailed study over the leaders of the Middle Eastern and Central Asian worlds during the mid-thirteenth century to the early fifteenth century: rulers claimed definitions of sovereignty according to how they compared themselves to their predecessors, and most always adopted common themes of Islamic values, Iranian history, and divine right to achieve and maintain power. The changes brought about by Mongol influences required rulers to focus more on challenging their opponent’s principles and administering better ways to prove their righteous authority by synthesizing traditional and influential ideology.