Genghis Khan
beliefs onto his subjects in the forcefully evangelical style of the Holy Roman empire described by Gibbon.
However, last and perhaps the most important, was the scale and uniformity with which the decrees were carried out. A common critique of Genghis Khan’s religious policy was the fact that it was not constitutionally written and thus may have been a result of indifference and opportunistic cooperation. Furthermore, Atwood presents crucial information to counter this claim: the decrees were later formalized and credited Genghis but also that these spread in similar and fair fashion across the empire. Atwood (p.240) discusses this by comparing a decree to the Orthodox Church in Russia (1357) and one to a Daoist temple (1314). Both sections start in uniform manner with the famous line ‘By the power of eternal heaven’ and they both also mention in section IV and V, that the exemptions originate from Genghis Khan and they are offered to other varying religions. For one, this weakens the argument criticizing the unwritten decree under Genghis, by showing that the message was later formalized and able to remain strong more than a century after his death. It was also consistent in two differing parts of the world, showing the effective and fair governance of the decrees. Perhaps most importantly, is the line to the Daoist temple which gives awareness to the Daoists that their exemptions are also granted to Christians and Buddhists (Atwood, 240). The effect of this is that it shows me that Genghis’ mission was beyond cooperation for territorial gain, as he was trying to teach the message of tolerance to his subjects rather than simply permit their religion to continue without a pedagogical tone. Through this style of decree, his subjects were also made aware of Khans approach, ultimately bringing a positive outlook on religious toleration across the empire. Having established Genghis Khans’ actions contributing towards the freedom of religion, both in his time and in the form of legacy, it is important to note how his progressive attitude was equally revolutionary in the economic sphere. This was done in two notable ways: meritocracy and the parallel decline of the feudal system as well as free trade and movement of people within his empire. His exercise of meritocracy was demonstrated most convincingly in the military setting. While British officers could purchase their officer positions and ranks under the ‘purchase of commissions’ until 1871, the Mongol army under Genghis had already begun its promotion of merit-based accolades by the start of the 13 th century. The story of Jebe (one of Genghis’ generals), best displays this, with Jebe having been an enemy of Khan during the Battle of Thirteen Sides. Jebe had killed Khans’ horse before being captured, after which he was praised by Khan and accepted into the Mongolian army where he later became and a general and played a critical role in the conquering of Eurasia. This story demonstrates potently how even an enemy had the opportunity to rise under Khan, and it was not the name of Jebe that allowed him to rise in ranks, but his precision with the arrow, opening opportunity for all subjects of his empire (including his enemies), a luxury offered not even in contemporary military environments. Beyond changing military practice, Khan also begun to attack the concept of feudalism in more direct fashion. This is well demonstrated within the Yassa law, where Khan changed the traditional law of wealth distribution. Samuel White elaborated on the traditional approach by explaining an extract from Khans’ nobles’ speeches when Khan was elected. This stated, ‘we will search through the spoils for beautiful women . . . great palace tents . . . finest geldings and mares . . . we will gather all these and bring them to you’. So, prior to Genghis Khan, the common practise was for wealth to be distributed to
292
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting