I wonder whether we would have a fairer assessment of the Mongol legacy within the Islamic(ate) ecumene if we put into them in the context of the prior multiple assaults upon the caliphs by the Buyid and Seljuk emirs.
Unlike the Buyids and Seljuks, the Mongols at the time of the sack of Baghdad had no commitment of service to the caliphate, so could go that extra mile. But it’s not as if the kidnappers of al-Mustarshid and al-Rāshid had any greater sense of sanctity for the caliphs. At least the Mongols possessed a sense of honour on how to dispose of a caliph unlike some of the later Seljuks.
I also believe that much of our sense about the post-Baghdad Mongol order has been affected by Islamist privileging of Ibn Taymīyaḧ’s responses to them at the exclusion of other scholarly interactions.
Well done to Kasurian and Yana for a refreshingly insightful essay on the Mongols in the history of the caliphate.
Very concise and well argued. I had subconsciously bought into the “collapse of Islamic culture by the mongols” narrative , even while having reasonable knowledge of the glories of Timurid , Mughal and other subsequent Islamic cultures. Somehow never connected the now rather obvious dots. I suspect this narrative emerged from the Arab fundamentalist and elitist perspective and was taken up subsequently and uncritically by western historians.
I loved the article, Allah yubarikk. I would love to read more about the Gunpowder empires, especially from the state formation pov and integration of technologies. Is there anything you suggest to begin with it?
This was a great read, but I have some critiques, particularly regarding how it handled Transoxiana and Central Asia, which were vital to the Islamic world at the time.
The article highlights how the Mongol invasion eventually led to the flourishing of Islamic civilisation through integration and the rise of the gunpowder empires. However, it overlooks the irreversible devastation inflicted on Transoxiana, which was once a vibrant hub of Islamic culture, scholarship, and economic prosperity. The Mongols did not just sack cities. they depopulated and DEURBANISED Transoxiana, reducing centres like Bukhara, Samarkand, Merv, Balkh, and Nishapur to ruins. This was a systematic obliteration of Persianate urban life, replaced by nomadic dominance, and no comparable resurgence followed.
Transoxiana was home to intellectual giants such as Al-Maturidi, the founder of the Maturidi school of theology, Al-Khwarizmi, the father of algebra, and iconic Persian poets like Ferdowsi and Rudaki. After the Mongol destruction, this intellectual vibrancy was never restored.
I agree that the Islamic world was already in decline, and while some Iranian cities recovered quickly, this did not happen in Transoxiana. Furthermore, the gunpowder empires, despite being culturally rich, lagged behind European powers in scientific and mathematical advancements, fields where Abbasid-era Transoxiana was atleast in match.
The article suggests that Islamic civilisation “moved on” by shifting its centre to Ottoman Istanbul and Mughal Delhi, but this was not a voluntary transformation. It was a consequence of the irreversible loss of Transoxiana as a hub of Islamic thought and culture.
The article correctly highlights the role of Sufi missionaries in converting Mongol pastoralists, but in terms of urban centres and intellectual hubs, there was no real compensation for the devastation.
That said, I appreciate the article’s insights on how the gunpowder empires adopted constitutional theories, centralised bureaucracies, and gunpowder armies to govern vast territories, while evolving Islamic theories of legitimacy on an imperial scale.
While the article presents a strong narrative of resilience and transformation, it understates the irreversible loss that the Mongol invasions inflicted on Transoxiana. Recognising this loss adds necessary nuance to understanding Islamic civilisation’s response to the Mongol challenge.
I know most of what I’m saying comes from popular history, but I didn’t see any mention of the deurbanisation of Transoxiana as one of the major issues caused by the Mongols in the article.
Very nice. revivals are not a onetime linear matter, apropos the islamicate civilizations they are a manifold of manifestations, Yana did an amazing job here.
Very interesting. I like that this is continuing the theme from the first article on 19th-20th century Muslim society of challenging common historical conceptions. I admit I didn't know a lot of the positive contributions the Mongols made. So apparently the very negative characterisation of them came from both contemporary Muslim historians who had apocalyptic paranoia, which made them tell exaggerated horror stories, and from Orientalists who as usual had biasd and innaccurate understandings of Muslim history. I wonder if modern Arab nationalists also had a hand in spreading this, cause they commonly say that only the Arab empires had any good and the foreign ones are to blame for ruining things.
While the Mongols committed a lot of destruction and atrocities in their time, it's important to realise 2 things:
1. Historiography has largely been biased and inflated the Mongol destruction to apocalyptic levels
2. Much of this historiography is not just from contemporary sources, but 19th-20th century nationalist accounts that sought to repurpose history to create new national stories for new nation-states
Arab and Persian historiographers played a key role in re-casting Mongol and Turkic influences on Arab and Persian culture and civilisation as a nearly entirely negative force.
Beautifully written! A truly unfortunate state that Muslims find themselves in today is one which has almost intentionally decapitated itself from its historical lineage. Perhaps as a result of the colonization of both our cities and minds, we’ve relegated our entire positive history to the Umayyad and Abbasaid empires and ascribed everything following it up to the 19th century as a regressive stain, serving as the principle cause of our intellectual and military stagnation which therefore needs be forgotten of. In a form of collective apathy, we’ve become foreign to our own selves.
I think you miss the point, which is that it is generally believed that the Islamic world was destroyed by the Mongols and never recovered, clearly it did and developed further, it was not a fatal blow as generally presented. The suffering you make so much of has nothing to do with this and is not a counter to the argument presented.
I wonder whether we would have a fairer assessment of the Mongol legacy within the Islamic(ate) ecumene if we put into them in the context of the prior multiple assaults upon the caliphs by the Buyid and Seljuk emirs.
Unlike the Buyids and Seljuks, the Mongols at the time of the sack of Baghdad had no commitment of service to the caliphate, so could go that extra mile. But it’s not as if the kidnappers of al-Mustarshid and al-Rāshid had any greater sense of sanctity for the caliphs. At least the Mongols possessed a sense of honour on how to dispose of a caliph unlike some of the later Seljuks.
I also believe that much of our sense about the post-Baghdad Mongol order has been affected by Islamist privileging of Ibn Taymīyaḧ’s responses to them at the exclusion of other scholarly interactions.
Well done to Kasurian and Yana for a refreshingly insightful essay on the Mongols in the history of the caliphate.
Very concise and well argued. I had subconsciously bought into the “collapse of Islamic culture by the mongols” narrative , even while having reasonable knowledge of the glories of Timurid , Mughal and other subsequent Islamic cultures. Somehow never connected the now rather obvious dots. I suspect this narrative emerged from the Arab fundamentalist and elitist perspective and was taken up subsequently and uncritically by western historians.
Thank you for that
I loved the article, Allah yubarikk. I would love to read more about the Gunpowder empires, especially from the state formation pov and integration of technologies. Is there anything you suggest to begin with it?
This was a great read, but I have some critiques, particularly regarding how it handled Transoxiana and Central Asia, which were vital to the Islamic world at the time.
The article highlights how the Mongol invasion eventually led to the flourishing of Islamic civilisation through integration and the rise of the gunpowder empires. However, it overlooks the irreversible devastation inflicted on Transoxiana, which was once a vibrant hub of Islamic culture, scholarship, and economic prosperity. The Mongols did not just sack cities. they depopulated and DEURBANISED Transoxiana, reducing centres like Bukhara, Samarkand, Merv, Balkh, and Nishapur to ruins. This was a systematic obliteration of Persianate urban life, replaced by nomadic dominance, and no comparable resurgence followed.
Transoxiana was home to intellectual giants such as Al-Maturidi, the founder of the Maturidi school of theology, Al-Khwarizmi, the father of algebra, and iconic Persian poets like Ferdowsi and Rudaki. After the Mongol destruction, this intellectual vibrancy was never restored.
I agree that the Islamic world was already in decline, and while some Iranian cities recovered quickly, this did not happen in Transoxiana. Furthermore, the gunpowder empires, despite being culturally rich, lagged behind European powers in scientific and mathematical advancements, fields where Abbasid-era Transoxiana was atleast in match.
The article suggests that Islamic civilisation “moved on” by shifting its centre to Ottoman Istanbul and Mughal Delhi, but this was not a voluntary transformation. It was a consequence of the irreversible loss of Transoxiana as a hub of Islamic thought and culture.
The article correctly highlights the role of Sufi missionaries in converting Mongol pastoralists, but in terms of urban centres and intellectual hubs, there was no real compensation for the devastation.
That said, I appreciate the article’s insights on how the gunpowder empires adopted constitutional theories, centralised bureaucracies, and gunpowder armies to govern vast territories, while evolving Islamic theories of legitimacy on an imperial scale.
While the article presents a strong narrative of resilience and transformation, it understates the irreversible loss that the Mongol invasions inflicted on Transoxiana. Recognising this loss adds necessary nuance to understanding Islamic civilisation’s response to the Mongol challenge.
I know most of what I’m saying comes from popular history, but I didn’t see any mention of the deurbanisation of Transoxiana as one of the major issues caused by the Mongols in the article.
This was excellent! Thank you for putting this together.
Very nice. revivals are not a onetime linear matter, apropos the islamicate civilizations they are a manifold of manifestations, Yana did an amazing job here.
Thank you!
Very interesting. I like that this is continuing the theme from the first article on 19th-20th century Muslim society of challenging common historical conceptions. I admit I didn't know a lot of the positive contributions the Mongols made. So apparently the very negative characterisation of them came from both contemporary Muslim historians who had apocalyptic paranoia, which made them tell exaggerated horror stories, and from Orientalists who as usual had biasd and innaccurate understandings of Muslim history. I wonder if modern Arab nationalists also had a hand in spreading this, cause they commonly say that only the Arab empires had any good and the foreign ones are to blame for ruining things.
While the Mongols committed a lot of destruction and atrocities in their time, it's important to realise 2 things:
1. Historiography has largely been biased and inflated the Mongol destruction to apocalyptic levels
2. Much of this historiography is not just from contemporary sources, but 19th-20th century nationalist accounts that sought to repurpose history to create new national stories for new nation-states
Arab and Persian historiographers played a key role in re-casting Mongol and Turkic influences on Arab and Persian culture and civilisation as a nearly entirely negative force.
amazing!!
Beautifully written! A truly unfortunate state that Muslims find themselves in today is one which has almost intentionally decapitated itself from its historical lineage. Perhaps as a result of the colonization of both our cities and minds, we’ve relegated our entire positive history to the Umayyad and Abbasaid empires and ascribed everything following it up to the 19th century as a regressive stain, serving as the principle cause of our intellectual and military stagnation which therefore needs be forgotten of. In a form of collective apathy, we’ve become foreign to our own selves.
I think you miss the point, which is that it is generally believed that the Islamic world was destroyed by the Mongols and never recovered, clearly it did and developed further, it was not a fatal blow as generally presented. The suffering you make so much of has nothing to do with this and is not a counter to the argument presented.