Let's talk of political, institutional and legal culture of the Horde. Firstly, to understand how did the Horde impact others we need to check how it was organised
Furthermore, this case has broader significance when considering the imperiogenesis effect of the Steppe
(thread)
Let's start with a question. What are the four largest inland capital cities of Eurasia? Well, obviously, Beijing, Delhi, Tehran and Moscow. What is in common between these inland megacities that also serve as the political cities of huge empires/states?
They all four rose to prominence as the fiscal and administrative centers of nomadic conquerors, specialising on collecting taxes from the subjugated sedentary population
Moscow was a tiny and unimportant principality until princes of Moscow got the right to collect the taxes (выход) for the Horde from all the other Russian polities. We now ofc think of Muscovy as of political and military power. But at first it was just a fiscal intermediary
It is quite telling that the prince who made Moscow the most powerful Russian state was nicknamed Ivan Kalita (= the Wallet). Collecting taxes for the Horde, he got rich and purchased tons if fiefs. Yes, at first Moscow wasn't conquering much, it was mostly buying land for cash
Tehran was chosen as a capital of Iran by Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. This Turcoman leader chose Tehran, because he wanted to avoid former capital Isfahan associated with the previous also Turkic and originally nomadic dynasty - the Safavids
With Delhi it's even more interesting. It was the capital of Slave Dynasty. Around 1190 Eastern Iranian ruler Muhammad Ghor sent his Turkic slave armies on the conquest of Indostan. And these slave generals indeed conquered the Indo-Ganghetic valley
Where were these slave generals garrisoned? Yildiz sat in Ghazni, Bakhtiyar Khilji in Bengal, Qabacha in Punjab. And Aibak in Delhi. In the fight for power that followed Muhammad Ghor's death Aibak won. That's the beginning of the Slave Dynasty and of the imperial ascent of Delhi
The case of Slave Dynasty where one slave succeeded to another highlights an important sociopolitical pattern - slave-elites. Bernard Lewis called it 'a peculiar social structure of Muslim society', I prefer to talk of the Inner Asian Military Bondage. But I'll cover it later
Finally, Beijing was am unimportant city until it became a capital of Inner Asian conquerors. First of Khitans, then of Jurchens, then of Mongols and finally of Manchus. To put it in other words, Beijing rose to prominence as the HQ of mounted horse archers from beyond the wall
What do these cases show? They show the imperiogenesis effect of the steppe. Those who live near the steppe will be conquered by nomads and will spend much of their history under the nomadic overlords. And these nomadic overlords tend to create very large empires
This imperiogenesis argument raises a question of how did nomadic rule impact the conquered. Russian intelligentsia traditionally ascribed Russian imperial despotism to this nomadic legacy. Kinda 'Russians were liberals, but under the Asian rule they picked up the Asian ways'
Interestingly enough very similar arguments were raised in China circa 1900. Now we find it self-obvious that the Qing Empire would just transform to Republic and then PRC keeping the same terrirory. But many of early 20th c Han nationalists would disagree
Some of them argued that China would be better off dropping the Qing conquests such as Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet and possibly even Manchuria and returning to the old borders of Ming empire. Basically to its Han core, limited by the Great Wall
Zhang Binglin went even further. He argued that the entire imperial structure - centralisation, bureaucracy, provincial system are the legacy of the nomads to be dropped. Instead China should break into many independent states - to break with the alien past
In the past this was casually admitted by the rulers. In 1957 Zhou Enlai, the first Prime Minister of the People's Republic of China explicitly stated that 'The extensive territory of our country today is the legacy of the Qing dynasty'.= China is so big, because it was conquered
Let's summarise. Sedentary people living by the steppe will be conquered. It's not a 'risk', it's the certainty. And they will spend much of their history within huge empires created by the nomadic conquest elites. So one effect of nomadic conquest legacy = very, very big state
What are other, may be less obvious effects? To meditate on this question, next time I will cover the political, institutional and legal culture of one specific nomadic empire - which is now a-historically called the Golden Horde. See you on Monday
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One thing you need to understand about wars is that very few engage into the long, protracted warfare on purpose. Almost every war of attrition was planned and designed as a short victorious blitzkrieg
And then everything went wrong
Consider the Russian war in Ukraine. It was not planned as a war. It was not thought of as a war. It was planned as a (swift!) regime change allowing to score a few points in the Russian domestic politics. And then everything went wrong
It would not be an exaggeration to say that planning a short victorious war optimised for the purposes of domestic politics is how you *usually* end up in a deadlock. That is the most common scenario of how it happens, practically speaking
Global politics are usually framed in terms of kindergarten discourse (“good guys” vs “bad guys”) with an implication that you must provide “good guys” with boundless and unconditional support
BUT
Unconditional support is extremely corrupting, and turns the best of the best into the really nasty guys, and relatively fast
Part of the reason is that neither “bad” nor “good” guys are in fact homogenous, and present a spectrum of opinions and personalities. Which means that all of your designated “good guys” include a fair share of really, really nasty guys, almost by definition.
Purely good movements do not really exist
That is a major reason why limitless, unconditional, unquestioning support causes such a profound corrupting effect upon the very best movement. First, because that movement is not all
that purely good as you imagine (neither movement is),
Let's have a look at these four guys. Everything about them seems to be different. Religion. Ideology. Political regime. And yet, there is a common denominator uniting all:
Xi - 71 years old
Putin - 72 years old
Trump - 79 years old
Khamenei - 86 years old
Irrespectively of their political, ideological, religious and whatever differences, Russia, China, the United States, Iran are all governed by the old. Whatever regime, whatever government they have, it is the septuagenarians and octogenarians who have the final saying in it.
This fact is more consequential than it seems. To explain why, let me introduce the following idea:
Every society is a multiracial society, for every generation is a new race
Although we tend to imagine them as cohesive, all these countries are multigenerational -> multiracial
In 1927, when Trotsky was being expelled from the Boslhevik Party, the atmosphere was very and very heated. One cavalry commander met Stalin at the stairs and threatened to cut off his ears. He even pretended he is unsheathing he sabre to proceed
Stalin shut up and said nothing
Like obviously, everyone around could see Stalin is super angry. But he still said nothing and did nothing
Which brings us to an important point:
Nobody becomes powerful accidentally
If Joseph Stalin seized the absolute control over the Communist Party, and the Soviet Union, the most plausible explanation is that Joseph Stalin is exercising some extremely rare virtues, that almost nobody on the planet Earth is capable of
Highly virtuous man, almost to the impossible level
Growing up in Russia in the 1990s, I used to put America on a pedestal. It was not so much a conscious decision, as the admission of an objective fact of reality. It was the country of future, the country thinking about the future, and marching into the future.
And nothing reflected this better than the seething hatred it got from Russia, a country stuck in the past, whose imagination was fully preoccupied with the injuries of yesterday, and the phantasies of terrible revenge, usually in the form of nuclear strike.
Which, of course, projected weakness rather than strength
We will make a huuuuuuge bomb, and drop it onto your heads, and turn you into the radioactive dust, and you will die in agony, and we will be laughing and clapping our hands
Fake jobs are completely normal & totally natural. The reason is: nobody understands what is happening and most certainly does not understand why. Like people, including the upper management have some idea of what is happening in an organisation, and this idea is usually wrong.
As they do not know and cannot know causal relations between the input and output, they just try to increase some sort of input, in a hope for a better output, but they do not really know which input to increase.
Insiders with deep & specific knowledge, on the other hand, may have a more clear & definite idea of what is happening, and even certain, non zero degree of understanding of causal links between the input and output