Civilization #39: Genghis Khan, World Shatterer

The Mongols have a terrible reputation for their brutality and atrocities. Today, I want to make the argument that what they did, given the circumstances and the constraints they were under, was actually logical and understandable.

The World of the Steppe

The Mongols are a steppe people. The steppe is divided into the Western Steppes and the Eastern Steppes, stretching from Hungary in Europe all the way to modern-day Mongolia. Steppe culture is very different from the agricultural cultures found in the Levant, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and China.

In the grasslands, the economy is what we call nomadic pastoral, meaning they raise cattle as their source of food and travel wherever there is grassland. Because of their economy, they developed a certain culture. They are extremely violent; their society and culture are based around violence, and there's a lot of competition within these groups. Rather than think of these people as a nation or race, it's better to think of them as a culture.

For the longest time, they have been divided among many different tribes. Throughout human history, the nomadic pastoral people of the steppes have always been in conflict with the agricultural empires. In response, the agricultural empires—China and the Persians—built walls and fortifications to counter their threat. The Mongols would eventually come south and invade most of China, and historically, the response had been the Great Wall of China. In Central Asia, the steppe people were also a threat, and fortified cities were built in response.

Even though the steppe people and agricultural empires have always been in conflict, the Mongols have had a unique reputation in Western history as the most brutal and violent. The question we're looking at today is: why were the Mongols unique in their brutality?

The Mongol Reputation

There are lots of things that were said about the Mongols that we now know are not true. For example, they had a reputation for cannibalism—that they ate their opponents and enemies—and we know that's not true today. They also had a reputation for being devious. For example, when they approached an enemy, they would hold up a cross, a symbol of Christianity. Their Christian enemies would see this and think that they were allies. Only when they discovered these were actually Mongols was it much too late.

They had a reputation for wanton brutality; they would destroy entire cities and kill all the people. Previously, historians believed they killed about 65 million people; today, that figure is disputed. But if that was the case, then the Mongols killed more people than any other regime in human history before the 20th century.

Genghis Khan is considered the greatest conqueror in human history. The statistic that surprised everyone is that one out of 200 males today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan. That's like 16 million males in the world. That is the reputation the Mongols had for most of history. What I want to show you today is that the Mongols are not unique among the steppe people, and there was a strategy and a logic to the way they behaved given the circumstances and constraints they found themselves under.

A Legacy of Steppe Conquerors

The steppe people were the greatest conquerors in human history. They started with the Yamnaya, who were based in the Ukraine area and are also referred to as the Proto-Indo-Europeans as well as the Aryans. They spread throughout most of the Western world. They went to Europe and, as you know, basically replaced the entire male population of Europe and intermarried with the local women to create European culture. They also went south and conquered Iran and India, and then they went over to the Eastern Steppes as well.

It's really important for us to remember—and I know this is hard—but the Mongol people are culturally more similar to the Yamnaya than they are to the Chinese, even though genetically, the Mongols may be more similar to the Chinese. We focus on cultural values rather than genetic affinity.

Over time, the Western Steppes slowly acclimatized to the surrounding agricultural empires and became integrated into their agricultural neighbors. The example here is Scythia. Scythia was a steppe empire, but slowly it integrated itself into what is modern-day Eurasia. From the Scythians, you'll have the rise of the Median Empire, which will then give way to the Persian Empire.

Over in the Eastern Steppes, the steppe people came into conflict with the Han Dynasty, which was really the last ethnically Chinese dynasty. They were intent on a policy of eradication against the steppe people. They came in conflict with the steppe people who are now called the Xiongnu, and this conflict drove these people west. This is interesting for us because when they went west, they splintered off into different groups. When they went all the way to Europe, they became known as the Huns. You may know Attila the Hun; well, Attila was the leader of these people. The Huns drove the Western Steppe people, meaning the Goths, into the Roman Empire, causing conflict with the Roman Empire. And the Goths would become the foundation of modern-day Europeans.

The Huns would also give rise to a group called the Göktürk Empire. They would sweep down and become the Seljuk Turks, which took over Mesopotamia, and then eventually, you will have the Ottoman Empire emerge from these people. In other words, the Mongols are just the most successful iteration of the steppe people and their conflicts with the agricultural empires.

The Mongol Empire: Pax Mongolica and Its Consequences

The Mongol Empire is the second-largest empire ever in human history; only the British Empire had more land. The Mongols were the largest contiguous empire, meaning it was all interconnected. At its height, the Mongol Empire extended from what is modern-day Russia all the way to China. The empire that would take over the Mongols centuries later is the Russian Empire, which took over a lot of Mongol territory.

Because it was so large, after the death of Genghis Khan and his son Ögedei, the Mongol Empire splintered into four major empires. These four major empires themselves would assimilate and integrate into the local culture. The Golden Horde would eventually give rise to the Russian Empire. The Yuan Dynasty would eventually fall and give rise to the Ming Empire. Even though they conquered a lot of territory, ultimately their empire was not sustainable. Later on, I will explain why.

But while it was still in place, it created something called the Pax Mongolica, Latin for the "Mongol Peace." You've heard of the Pax Romana; we are now living in the Pax Americana. The Mongols created the Pax Mongolica, which meant they believed in globalization. They wanted their conquered nations to trade with each other because they could collect taxes on the trade. They encouraged people, especially merchants, to travel across their empire and trade. During this time, a very famous Italian named Marco Polo had a chance to visit the world, and his travels, especially those to China, captured the imagination of Europeans. This is really the first time that China figured into the European imagination.The problem, though, is that when you integrate the world like this, you also give rise to disease. The Black Death traveled all across the world. We believe the Black Death originated in Central Asia, in a place we call Kazakhstan today, and it traveled all over the Mongol Empire. It made its way to Europe and devastated it, killing anywhere between a third to half of the entire population. It also traveled to the former Islamic empire and to China, but it was not as devastating.

It's very important for us to understand the Black Death was devastating for Europe, but it was not that devastating for China and the Islamic empire. The reason why is sanitation and hygiene. In China and in the former Islamic empire, their cities were pretty well-organized, wealthy, and civilized. But in Europe, their streets were literally filled with manure. They had horses, they didn't have sanitation, and people just threw waste onto the streets. When you walked the streets, they were literally covered, and in that sort of environment, disease spread very rapidly.

The Black Death is important for us also because it would give rise to the Renaissance. Historians believe the Renaissance could not have happened without the Black Death. It basically meant a reset of European society and allowed for massive innovation in Europe.

After the Mongols would come another great conqueror called Timur the Lame (Tamerlane), and he would be the last great conqueror from the steppes. After Timur, the agricultural empires would develop the technology to repel the steppe invaders, mainly gunpowder. Technology and mass armies would overwhelm the steppe people, and eventually, over time, the agricultural nations, mainly Russia, would start to colonize and conquer the steppes.

The Limits of Mongol Conquest

Genghis Khan first united the warring tribes of the Mongol people, turning them into a confederation. The confederation aimed to conquer China but then came into conflict with the Central Asian nations. So, Genghis Khan embarked on the Central Asian campaigns that were brutal. He wiped out entire cities, killed all the inhabitants, and laid the foundation for the Mongol conquests that would follow after him.

After the death of his son Ögedei, the Mongols split into four major factions and attempted to continue the legacy of conquest. But after they conquered the Song Empire in 1279, they reached their limits.

• Japan and Vietnam: They attempted to conquer Japan and Vietnam and were repelled. They tried to conquer Japan twice, and even though the legend is that Japan was saved by the kamikaze (the great divine wind), I will show you that's not actually true. There's another reason why the Mongols stopped invading Japan.
• India: They tried to conquer India as well but were repelled. Historians argue about the reason why. Some believe it was because of the climate of India, some believe it was because the Sultanate of Delhi had an organized and concerted response, and others believe it was just internal fighting.
• Europe: When they tried to reach Europe, they attempted to conquer Poland and Hungary. Even though they won every single battle against the Poles and Hungarians, they ultimately turned back. That would be the limit of their conquest in the west. The Mongolian fighting style is great when you fight on flat plains. These are horsemen with bows, so they're fast and can cover great distances. But when they tried to reach Europe, which is thick forest, they couldn't conquer that terrain.
• Egypt: One really stunning event is when they tried to conquer Egypt. Remember, Egypt for the longest time was the wealthiest part of the Western world. When they tried to conquer Egypt, they ran into a people called the Mamluks, who fought very similarly to the Mongols. In fact, the Mamluks were originally from the steppes as well. For the first time, the Mongols were defeated militarily on the battlefield. This destroyed the aura of inevitability and invincibility that the Mongols had for the longest time.

After these conquests, the Mongol Empire would try to rule their respective empires, but ultimately they would fail. The irony is the reasons that gave rise to the empire are also the reasons why their empire ultimately collapsed.

Genghis Khan: Myth and History

We don't know much about Genghis Khan. What we do know comes from a book called The Secret History of the Mongols. It is an oral history of the life and times of Genghis Khan and his son Ögedei. The story in the Secret History is suspicious because it fits very well into the structure of Proto-Indo-European myth.

The Myth of the Founder

In the Secret History, Genghis Khan's mother is about to be wed to her husband. She's in her carriage on the way to her husband's tribe, but along the way, she is ambushed and kidnapped. That's a very common thing in that culture; the way you obtain a wife is by stealing someone else's. She's forced to marry a stranger, but this stranger, Genghis Khan's eventual father, dies when Genghis is eight years old. When the father dies, the tribe abandons the mother and her young children, so they're forced to fend for themselves.

Eventually, the mother finds a way to find a supporting tribe, and Genghis Khan slowly finds mentors for protection. He eventually finds a mentor who becomes his best friend, and this best friend's name is Jamukha. The two together are great warriors and conquer a lot of territory. In fact, when Genghis Khan's wife is stolen by a tribe, the two race off and get her back. By this time, Genghis Khan's wife is pregnant with another man's son. Genghis raised the son as his own and made him heir to his empire, which would cause great difficulties when Genghis Khan died. But that just shows you the generosity of this man.

Eventually, Genghis Khan runs into conflict with Jamukha, and the two compete for control of the Mongol world. Genghis Khan kills him to achieve his dominance. Genghis Khan will overthrow the existing Mongolian social order; basically, all these top chieftains, all these top shamans, he will kill in order to unite the Mongol people and bring about a new social order.

That's the story we have from the Secret History, and it's very similar to other founding myths. Let's look at Rome, for example.

The Roman Founding Myths

Remember the Aeneid? It's about the founder of Rome, a man named Aeneas. Aeneas is a prince of Troy, and he has to watch the destruction of his city. He escapes the sacking of Troy, where everyone is killed, but he gets lost at sea. Eventually, he stumbles upon Carthage, where he falls in love with a queen named Dido. But the gods demand that he leave. He leaves Dido, the woman he loves and is married to, and he betrays her. She then kills herself. He goes to Italy, where he has to fight a war in order to establish his people, who will eventually give rise to the Roman people. It's a very similar structure to the story of Genghis Khan.

Let's go to another story from Rome. The founder of the city of Rome is named Romulus, who was a direct descendant of Aeneas. There's a king called Numitor, and his brother Amulius usurps the throne. Once Amulius usurps the throne, he puts Numitor's daughter into a temple and makes her a virgin. But Mars, the war god, visits her and impregnates her with twins. Amulius demands the twins be killed, and they are left alone by the Tiber River. Everyone thinks they will drown, but they are miraculously saved. A she-wolf nurses them, and a shepherd adopts them. Eventually, they discover their true heritage and help their grandfather Numitor kill his brother Amulius and restore the throne.

Then the two go off to found their own city, which is Rome. But there's going to be one king, so the two fight, and Romulus kills his twin brother, Remus. Romulus becomes Rome's first king, which will eventually give rise to the greatest empire in the European world. As you can see, the structures are very similar.

The Structure of Proto-Indo-European Myth

Let's go over the structure and meaning of Proto-Indo-European myth. What mythology ultimately is, is the collective subconscious of a culture. By understanding mythology, we can understand the fundamental values that underpin this culture. So what is the structure we're looking at?

• First, the gods favor a man with a divine mission, but the man himself does not understand this divine mission. The gods have picked this man for whatever reason.
• This man must fulfill his divine mission, and in the process, he will suffer hardship to become as hard as a sword. Hardship makes you committed; it makes you strong. In the process, he's asking himself, "Why am I being persecuted? Why am I suffering so much?"
• Eventually, he will have an epiphany. He will recognize, "Oh, it's because the gods have a mission for me that I must fulfill. That's why I'm suffering; it's to make me strong and committed."
• He will sacrifice his beloved to prove his commitment to his divine mission. This is really important in Proto-Indo-European myth: the hero must always sacrifice his beloved. Remember the story of Genghis Khan; he sacrifices and kills his best friend, Jamukha. You might think, "What's the big deal?" Well, in that culture, when two men are best friends, they're not just friends; they're basically lovers. They have sex with each other, and that's why they're such great warriors together. It's a very common thing. Remember the Iliad, where Hector kills Patroclus, and Achilles becomes so enraged that he goes and kills Hector. Why did Achilles become so enraged? Because Patroclus was his best friend, which at that time everyone understood to mean Patroclus and Achilles were lovers. Achilles loved Patroclus. So when Genghis Khan killed Jamukha, he was basically killing the man he loved the most in this world. That's a very important part of Proto-Indo-European myth. You have to show your commitment by making the ultimate sacrifice, which means killing the person you love the most.
• Once he does that, he will shatter the old world to build a new one. That is his divine mission. The gods do not like this world; they want a flood to destroy this world in order for it to be made anew. And this man, the messiah, he is the one who will shatter the old world. He's the world-shatterer. He is the flood sent by the gods.

That's the basic structure of Proto-Indo-European myth. When we understand this, we can understand the power of the Jesus story within Christianity. Why is Christianity the most influential and popular religion in the world? It has to do with the story of Jesus.

In the story of Jesus, according to the Gospel of Mark, the structure is very similar to Proto-Indo-European mythology. Jesus has a secret divine mission. He's sent by God, or he is God, who has come to redeem the world. He must suffer persecution and doubt. Everyone doubts who he is; no one knows who he is. He's laughed at, he's mocked. He then is sacrificed to wake the world. He kills himself, or he is sacrificed, so that everyone knows how much God loves them. And with God's sacrifice, the cycle of violence ends, and a new history begins.

In Proto-Indo-European myth, what's important is that you kill your beloved. But the founding myth of Christianity is, "No, I kill myself to show you that violence is terrible." Once God has killed himself, once God has sacrificed himself, it means that all violence now must cease. The cycle of violence, the cycle of using violence to redeem the world, to cleanse the world, must come to an end. That's the foundational idea of Christianity.

What Christianity is doing, it's very clever, is it's seeking the collective subconscious that's embedded in every individual and implanting a new idea within that subconscious that grows and grows. It's almost like a virus, until people recognize that violence is bad. Proto-Indo-European mythology celebrates violence; Christianity believes violence is the worst thing.

This is the ending of Mark:

Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”

He's been sacrificed; he's died. The curtain of the temple—the Second Temple in Jerusalem where Yahweh is—was torn in two. At the very top of this temple is a room called the Holy of Holies; that's where God lives, and the curtain is what hides God from the world. So when Jesus dies, the curtain is torn in half, meaning God is now released into the world. Everyone now has access to God; God is now on Earth.

The first person that Jesus revealed himself to was a Roman soldier. The first person that recognized the truth of Jesus and the power of his sacrifice was a Roman soldier, who's always been taught that violence is the answer to everything. And once he's converted, he recognizes that violence is wrong and evil. That's the power of this mythology.

The Pattern of the Great Conqueror

Now I want to look at real history, because this is mythology. What I want to show you now is that Genghis Khan fits into a pattern of a great conqueror. If you look at all the great conquerors of human history—and I'll list four right now: Sargon of Akkad, Philip of Macedon, Julius Caesar, and Genghis Khan—you will see they are very, very similar.

• Sargon of Akkad: Before him, Mesopotamia was divided into the Sumerian city-states that warred with each other. These were walled cities, so they couldn't really conquer each other. Sargon of Akkad figured out a way to conquer everyone and build the first empire in world history, the Akkadian Empire. We don't know much about him, but we know he was probably a mercenary. He was a cup-bearer to the king, Ur-Zababa of Kish, one of the city-states in Sumeria. A cup-bearer is a very important position. It means that when you're the king and you have a feast, the cup-bearer is the man who stands beside you and pours you wine. This is the man you trust the most. What does it mean for Sargon to be a cup-bearer? It probably means that they were lovers, the king and Sargon, who loved each other deeply. But that doesn't prevent Sargon from killing the king and taking the throne, which starts a massive war in the city-states in which Sargon will eventually triumph. Sargon is really good at winning the favor of mentors, and ultimately, he will betray them to achieve his ambition.
• Philip of Macedon: He was a prince of Macedon, and at this time in the Greek world, Thebes was the dominant military power. Thebes defeated Macedon in a battle and demanded hostages. Philip was sent as a hostage to Thebes, where he was mentored by the greatest military strategist of his time, Epaminondas. So Philip II is learning how to win battles, learning all the major military innovations from the greatest general of his time. Then, he will return to Macedon, reorganize the Macedonian army, and take them to conquer Thebes, as well as the entire Greek world, at the Battle of Chaeronea.
• Julius Caesar: At this time, around 50 BCE in Rome, Pompey the Great was the greatest general. He was the man everyone admired; he had the most political power. So what Julius Caesar does is he marries his daughter to Pompey the Great, forming a political alliance. Pompey grants him generalship of the province of Gaul, where Julius Caesar will win military glory. It basically establishes the power, prestige, and fame of Julius Caesar. This will start a civil war in which Julius Caesar will defeat his mentor, Pompey, at the Battle of Pharsalus.
• Genghis Khan: He is mentored by two chieftains, Jamukha and Toghrul, and he will defeat both in order to gain leadership of the Mongol world.

This shows you how ruthless and ambitious these great conquerors are. But at the same time, let's remember this: Philip II had a really talented subordinate in Parmenion, who was most responsible for Alexander the Great's conquest of Persia. Julius Caesar had a talented subordinate in Titus Labienus, who was responsible for his victories in Gaul. And Genghis Khan had a talented subordinate in Subutai, who was considered one of the greatest military strategists ever.

What this tells us is they are able to exercise tremendous judgment in people. They know who to trust, who not to trust, who is talented, and who is not. They know how to win the loyalty of their subordinates. That's a very impressive skill. The question then is, how is it possible that they are ruthlessly ambitious and at the same time able to delegate power in a very effective manner? The answer is they all believe they have a divine mission. Their goal is not just to conquer the world; their goal is to change the world for the better, as demanded by the gods. That's the only way we can understand this. Each in their own way believed they were the messiah sent by the gods to shatter the world so that it could be built anew. That's what drives them to kill their beloved and do what they do.

All four, ultimately, are able to conquer the world because they develop a professional, meritocratic, and innovative army.

• Professional: Look at Sargon of Akkad. At this time, there were no professional soldiers. Most people were farmers, and you only fought off-season. Sargon was the first to say, "Nope, we will have professional soldiers." Everyone else would pay taxes for him to pay his professional army. These were full-time soldiers.
• Meritocratic: The system before was that the nobility always had priority. Sargon made the system more open and fair. If you were talented and brave, you could rise within the ranks of the army, regardless of your heritage or background.
• Innovative: They were always adapting and learning. Sargon was able to conquer the Sumerian city-states, which were walled, by adopting siege warfare, which was unheard of before.

The same is true for Philip, Julius Caesar, and Genghis Khan. Again, Genghis Khan fits into a pattern here of what these great conquerors look like.

Game Theory and the Mongol Optimal Strategy

Now I want to discuss why the Mongols did what they did. Why did they commit so many atrocities? What was the logic or reasoning behind their brutality? To do so, I'm going to introduce you to an analytical model called Game Theory.

The idea of game theory is this: all human interaction can be perceived as a game in which at least two people are playing, and they're trying to defeat each other. According to game theory, each person has a distinctive optimal strategy. Optimal strategy is, given the constraints of your circumstance, what is the best way for you to win?

If you're a big guy fighting a small guy, you want the game to be fair. You want to arrange to fight at a certain time because you are most likely to win. But if you're the small guy, you don't want to do that because you're bound to lose. So what you do is you figure out a time when the big guy is most vulnerable—maybe when he's asleep or eating—and you attack him then. You basically have to cheat in order to win.

This sounds easy, but it's not, because often there are multiple players in the game. When you have multiple players, you have to think about alliances and coordination. It's possible that players A and D will form an alliance to attack B, which will force B and C to form an alliance. But once C and B kill off D, then A and C might form an alliance to kill off B. What this tells us is not only does each person have an optimal strategy given the constraints of the game, but this optimal strategy will change according to the circumstances. Also, there are always external constraints, like weather or weapons. Game theory sounds easy, but it's extremely complicated because you always have to switch perspectives to better understand why a person is doing what they are doing.

Applying Game Theory to the Mongols

The Mongols are a borderland people fighting empires. As a borderland people, they have three distinct advantages: energy, openness, and opportunism. As an empire, your advantages are mass, organization, and depth. Given these strengths, it is not easy to determine who will win.

But we're trying to figure out the mentality of the Mongols. We know they have these three strengths, and they're trying to defeat an empire which has its own three strengths. At the same time, we have to remember the Mongols themselves have three fundamental weaknesses that they must compensate for if they are to win.

1. Extremely Low Population: There were not that many of them. They were often outnumbered, often 100 to 1. At his height, Genghis Khan had anywhere between 100,000 to 200,000 troops.
2. Distance and Geography: The Mongols had to fight over huge territory because Central Asia is a huge landmass. This is problematic because of supply issues. This means the thing they could never fight is a war of attrition—a long war in which you're trying to deplete the other person's resources. The worst thing that could happen to a Mongol army is to be stuck in a war of attrition, if a siege is too long or the war lasts for too long, because eventually, they'll run out of soldiers.
3. Governance: The Mongols were nomadic people who did not know how to govern other people. They didn't want to be stuck in a situation where they were forced to govern. This means the idea of holding territory was a problem. When you conquer a new land, you usually put in place a new regime. They couldn't do that because they didn't have the personnel. They often didn't even have the personnel for siege warfare; they would recruit Chinese and Indian engineers to implement it. But bureaucrats are very hard to compensate for.

If we look at their strengths and their fundamental constraints, then we can figure out their optimal strategy.

The Mongol Optimal Strategy

1. Escalation Dominance: There's a concept in political science called the escalation ladder. It's a simple concept: violence always escalates. For example, I get into an argument with someone. First, we argue, but then it becomes more heated, and we start to push each other. Then I might throw a punch, he throws a punch back. I might bite him, he might bite me back. I might pull out a knife, he might pull out a gun. This is the escalation ladder. What you want to do is show other people that you are more dominant. If you insult me, I'll pull a gun on you and shoot you. That's the idea of escalation dominance: I always have the capacity to inflict more damage on you than you could ever possibly inflict on me. That's why the Mongols did what they did. Often, the Mongols would send a trade delegation to a nation to negotiate a trade deal. The nation, usually in Central Asia, would kill the entire delegation to insult Genghis Khan. In response, Genghis Khan would send his army to destroy the entire city, burn it down, and kill everyone. This is the idea of escalation dominance.
2. Terror and Psychological Warfare: If you are badly outnumbered, you have to make people afraid to fight you. If you cannot govern people, you have to make people afraid to rebel. The Mongols were notorious for psychological warfare. For example, they would conquer some territory, and to ensure the villagers would not rebel, they would send one Mongol soldier into the village. This is one soldier and there might be a thousand villagers. Then, this Mongol soldier would randomly kill some villagers. He'd say, "Hey, you guys come over here, line up," and he starts killing people randomly. If the villagers ever rebelled and killed him, then the Mongol army would come and kill everyone in the village. The Mongols did this to themselves as well. They had a system where units were divided into units of 10. If ever in a battle one soldier ran away, all nine others in his unit would be executed. If one unit of 10 ever ran away, then the next unit of 100 would all be executed. This gives everyone an incentive to make sure their fellow soldier does not run away. The Mongols had psychological warfare not just for other people but also for themselves. They had to fight like this, given the fact they were greatly outnumbered and had to win quickly.
3. An Aura of Inevitability and Invincibility: At this time, people were literally telling each other these Mongols are not human; they are demons. They have come from Tartarus (and that's where we get the name Tartars); they have come from hell in order to kill everyone. Guess what? The Mongols wanted this reputation. They did everything they could to promote this reputation because it gave them an aura of inevitability and invincibility. They could not be defeated; there's no point in trying to defeat them, so let's just give up. And most did. The Mongols were able to conquer so much territory so fast because they had this aura, and most people just gave up and paid tribute. If you didn't, they would use escalation dominance and terror to kill everyone. And they would send refugees all around the world so everyone would know about the ferocity and brutality of the Mongols.

In other words, according to game theory, everything the Mongols did made complete sense. In fact, it was their optimal strategy. Given the circumstances and constraints, what they did was completely logical and reasonable, even though it resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Why the Mongol Empire Collapsed

There's a fundamental weakness in the entire Mongol optimal strategy. It's a great strategy if you are trying to conquer people, but when you're trying to govern them, it's an issue.

The Mongols are great warriors, like all steppe people, because of their cultural values. This is a culture that emphasizes three things: freedom, egalitarianism, and self-reliance. Rather than think of the Mongol army as an empire or organization, it's more like a confederation. People choose to join this confederation because of the immense rewards that can be achieved through conquest.

The problem, though, is the cultures they conquered were extreme hierarchies, where you have an emperor at the top, a bureaucracy, and then peasantry at the very bottom. The reason why the Mongols were able to conquer these empires was an almost contempt for them. The Mongols had no respect for these empires; they thought they were weak, corrupt, and decadent.

Underlying the optimal strategy of the Mongols is a concept that never existed in human history before, and the concept is this: people are an infinite resource. Throughout most of human history, people were the most valuable resource. There weren't that many people around, so you had to treat them nicely if you wanted to maximize their productivity.

But where were the Mongols based? They were based in East Asia, near China. And in China, because of the empire, people were treated like an infinite resource. You could massacre them, you could send them off in human wave attacks; it didn't matter because they were an infinite resource. This idea never existed before in human history, and in the Western world, this concept was radically revolutionary. It was unimaginable. Remember Julius Caesar; when he conquered Gaul, he wasn't intent on massacring people. Why? Because people could be sold as slaves. That was the main way he made his fortune. But if you believe that people are an infinite resource, then you don't want them as slaves. You want to kill as many people as possible in order to inflict terror.

So that's the issue with the Mongols. First of all, their value system did not lend itself to governing a hierarchy. They didn't know how, and they didn't want to. Much more problematic was their contempt for the local culture. If you have contempt for the local culture, you're going to have problems managing the people. In China, during the Yuan Dynasty, there was a class system. The Mongols were at the top, and the Chinese were at the very bottom. Foreigners were sort of in between. That just shows you the Mongol contempt for Chinese people, and that's why ultimately the Chinese people rebelled against the Mongols.

Eventually, the Mongol leadership would recognize this problem and try to adopt a Chinese-style bureaucracy. But a bureaucracy comes into conflict with the nobility. The nobility is intent on maintaining the Mongolian culture; they do not want to assimilate. But the emperor recognized you have to assimilate if you are to have this empire. Because they couldn't agree, the nobility and the emperor, it ultimately led to the collapse of the Mongol Empire.

Q&A

Vikings vs. Mongols: Which would you rather be?

That's a great question. The Vikings and the Mongols all come from the Proto-Indo-European culture. What we know about culture is that it's very fluid; it will change over time and adapt itself to local cultures. The Vikings were in Europe, and the Mongols were near China.

I think if I wanted to be a Viking or a Mongol, I'd prefer to be a Viking. The reason why is the Vikings never really adopted a belief that people were an infinite resource. They couldn't, because Europe was very poor. And the Vikings, regardless of their brutality, still had respect for their opponents. They never developed a contempt for them. They were surrounded by the Byzantines, the Muslims, and the Europeans, and these were great warriors. So the Vikings felt they had a lot to learn from these cultures, and in fact, the Vikings would ultimately assimilate themselves into these cultures.

The Mongols are different. They were based in East Asia, and they did ultimately adopt a belief that people are an infinite resource, and they had tremendous contempt for Chinese culture. That changes you as a person. When you believe that people are an infinite resource and you are contemptuous of other cultures, it also, in a way, makes you contemptuous of yourself. That's why the Mongols, even though they had tremendous wealth, didn't really produce cultural monuments. The Vikings were fundamental to the development of Western civilization; the Mongols were not a fundamental development of any civilization. They caused a lot of havoc and were great conquerors, but they didn't leave a rich cultural legacy. I think it has to do with the belief that people are an infinite resource.

I would much prefer to be enslaved by a Viking than a Mongol. If I were a slave to a Viking, the Vikings would at least become my friend. They'd be like, "Hey, tell me about your culture. Are there any stories you can tell us?" And if you were a great storyteller, they would treat you very nicely because you're helping them learn more about your culture. The Mongols had absolutely no interest in other cultures. They were interested in conquering and exploiting other people. With the Vikings, there's a general curiosity about the world that comes from a general respect for other cultures, whereas the Mongols were not curious about the world. They were intent on conquest and enslaving and exploiting other people. They were predators.

Why would the low-population Mongols believe people were an infinite resource?

You're right, the Mongols had a low population, so why would they believe that people are an infinite resource? The answer is because they were always in contact with China. The Mongols were always in contact with China, and the interaction happened in three ways: the Mongols were working as mercenaries for dynasties in China, they were trading, or they were raiding and pillaging. For centuries, there's been contact between China and the Mongols.

So where did the Mongols learn the idea that people are an infinite resource? They learned it from China. Chinese warfare was also predicated on the belief that people were an infinite resource. The entire idea of warfare in China is, "I organize this peasant army, I throw it at my opponent. And if my entire army dies, guess what? I'll just go and raise another peasant army and throw it at my opponent again." It's human wave attacks. This was pioneered in China, and the Mongols just took it and used it everywhere else. If you're the Mongols and you're fighting this enemy, and they're just throwing these peasants at you and you're killing them all, but no one cares because a month later another peasant army comes at you, you quickly adopt the idea that people are an infinite resource.

The Mongols were also a very open society. If you had a benefit to their society—for example, if you're a Chinese teacher, scholar, engineer, or merchant—they would quickly assimilate you. And then they would kill everyone else.

Why are the mythologies of different cultures so similar?

If you actually study mythology, you recognize there's a structure that's very similar across many different cultures: Greek, Roman, Norse, Mongolian, I could go on and on. There is a very similar structure, even though the characters might be different. It's a mythology that celebrates violence and individualism as a way to remake the world.

Why is that the case? It's about cultural values. Cultural values are the most persistent part of who you are because they're part of your subconscious. There's a conscious you and a subconscious you, and ultimately, you are your subconscious. The subconscious is composed of your cultural values; this is the essence of who you are.

So even though the Proto-Indo-Europeans were going into different environments and assimilating themselves into different cultures, and they looked physically different, culturally and subconsciously they shared a similar value system. This value system would then go on to inform the way they perceived the world—their worldview. And this worldview would then manifest itself through mythology, which would eventually become literature. They might have changed clothes, they might have changed their hair color, but their soul was still Proto-Indo-European. The same is also true for language, and that's why so many words repeat themselves in different languages.