Post by elbandito on Jul 30, 2008 5:41:58 GMT 3
We all know the story. Temujin's young wife Borte was kidnapped by the Merkids for some time (actual time length is debatable) and soon after Temujin took her back, she gave birth to his first son Jochi. Because of that, many people at the time thought of Jochi as a Merkid bastard. Even his name Jochi derived from Mongol word Zochin (means guest) shows what Temujin thought of his son. After many years passed the story was largely forgotten, especially when Jochi showed unrivalled bravery in combat during the early conquests of Chingis.
The story reared its ugly head when Chingis decided to appoint his heir before his invasion of Khwarismian Empire. According to the Secret History of Mongols, when Chingis allowed his first son Jochi to speak his mind first (maybe with the intention on letting Jochi continue his work), Chingis's second son Tsagadai interferred and called Jochi a Merkid bastard and the two came to blows. So shocked by the event and the magnitude of the rift between his sons, Chingis then chose Ogodei as his successor and decreed that all the following appointment of future khans will be done with such military democracy.
Now, I know from history, such democratic method of choosing the rulers never worked for a long time and eventually will cause fragmentations. (just read the Yao, Shun story of ancient China) Indeed it wasn't long before the Golden family squabbled with themselves and used murder, backstabbing and political maneuvres to get their family member elected. Mongol unity was heavily shaken loose. The curse continued for centuries after the Mongols' powers waned.
My question is this. Would the Mongols have stayed united for longer period of time if they had adopted the "Oldest son inherits the throne" rule? Such methods were in use in settled lands and in my view much more efficient way of continuing the lineage. The Ottomans even went as far as allowing the heir to kill his other brothers to ensure he will rule unchallenged when he comes to the throne. If so, then the vanquished Merkids probably had done the Mongols the longest lasting harm.
The story reared its ugly head when Chingis decided to appoint his heir before his invasion of Khwarismian Empire. According to the Secret History of Mongols, when Chingis allowed his first son Jochi to speak his mind first (maybe with the intention on letting Jochi continue his work), Chingis's second son Tsagadai interferred and called Jochi a Merkid bastard and the two came to blows. So shocked by the event and the magnitude of the rift between his sons, Chingis then chose Ogodei as his successor and decreed that all the following appointment of future khans will be done with such military democracy.
Now, I know from history, such democratic method of choosing the rulers never worked for a long time and eventually will cause fragmentations. (just read the Yao, Shun story of ancient China) Indeed it wasn't long before the Golden family squabbled with themselves and used murder, backstabbing and political maneuvres to get their family member elected. Mongol unity was heavily shaken loose. The curse continued for centuries after the Mongols' powers waned.
My question is this. Would the Mongols have stayed united for longer period of time if they had adopted the "Oldest son inherits the throne" rule? Such methods were in use in settled lands and in my view much more efficient way of continuing the lineage. The Ottomans even went as far as allowing the heir to kill his other brothers to ensure he will rule unchallenged when he comes to the throne. If so, then the vanquished Merkids probably had done the Mongols the longest lasting harm.