Interesting mostly because I knew almost nothing about Mongol culture or history (and reading history focused on women is a good way to get balanced history about everybody, vs. “neutral” history that’s 95% about men). I did get tired of the author though, who basically just regurgitates the chronicles with no analysis of his own beyond the most basic “winning battles good, decadence bad” type of stuff.
Note that the subtitle is misleading: only the first third of the book is about Genghis Khan and his daughters, whom he essentially made his viceroys in all the countries bordering Mongolia to keep the borders secure. (They were a lot more competent than his sons.) The middle third is about the couple of centuries after Genghis Khan’s death, and covers a lot of people very briefly. (Heads up: there’s some pretty nasty rape and torture depictions in this bit.) The final third focuses on a 15th century figure, Queen Manduhai the Wise, and her reunification of Mongolia.
Despite their power during their lifetimes, Weatherford seems to have had to dig pretty deep into the archives of the Mongols and their neighbors to find much on the queens, who were often (sometimes deliberately) erased from history. Nonetheless, given the time period, there’s still a limited amount known about any of them, and he has a tendency to spill a lot of ink on military and political details (this is especially true in Queen Manduhai’s section, which is often more about strategy than about her). I was most interested in the social history, and how the actual Mongols compare to depictions of steppe nomads in media. Some things I learned:
- The Mongols resisted a long-term strategy by the Chinese to corrupt and civilize them through goods and sedentary Chinese culture. Mongols weren’t very interested in foreign spices (they liked the taste of meat) or perfumes (they also liked the smell of people), but they were interested in fine textiles and jewels, which is one reason they decided to conquer the Silk Road.
- From them, the Chinese mostly wanted horses (livestock being the only thing the Mongolian Plateau produced in abundance) and only for their army. Cutting off trade tended to result in soldiers stationed at the border trading with the Mongols under the table, and one reason for the Great Wall was to keep the Chinese out of the black market.
- The Mongols had a complex kinship system that isn’t fully explored here (younger siblings or niblings could be referred to as one’s sons and daughters), but the hierarchy of marriages is fascinating. Senior women (meaning those married to senior men, as the society was patrilineal) could have familiar and even sexual relations with the junior men of their husbands’ families, and this was not considered a problem. After all, any children were legally the husband’s, and when he died, the expectation was that his most important wife would remarry whoever was taking his place—or that whoever she remarried, being of course a man of his family, would thereby become his successor—leading to lots of stepmother/stepson marriages. However, senior men were not to have anything to do with junior women, even see their faces (how this worked in nomadic encampments is unclear).
- While marriage was political, though, sex was personal, and there was no requirement of wedding night sex as seen as in European cultures. The couple could get to that on their own time, and there seems to have been some notion of men as sexually reticent (especially if focused on other physical pursuits) and needing encouragement from women. Meanwhile, it was common for husbands-to-be (often while still boys) to provide “bride service” by living and working in the households of their brides-to-be.
- Genghis Khan used his daughters’ marriages in a particularly interesting way: marrying them off to allied leaders but with the daughters ruling the lands in question, while he conscripted the sons-in-law into his army. They tended to be given especially dangerous missions and dropped like flies, at which point the daughters simply remarried younger men of their husbands’ families. Despite this disregard for the son-in-laws’ safety, the Mongols still massacred at least one city for killing one.
- Upon massacring cities, the Mongols tended to spare and conscript artisans, who had skills they valued, but not the rich, who had none. Genghis Khan, like many modern media consumers, apparently thought mass murder was fine but rape, torture and bride kidnapping should be outlawed (his descendants had a different view on the latter part).
- Mongol religion focused on the duality of Father Sky and Mother Earth, and the approval of the Eternal Blue Sky seems to have been akin to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven. However, they were extremely chill about other people’s religions, and Mongol queens were known to promote Buddhism, Islam and Christianity, sometimes all at once.
- Caring for young children on the steppe was intense, due to low temperatures. Blankets and their own body heat were not enough for them to survive the nights, so they needed to snuggle up to an adult or a handful of other children. Exposed skin also had to be rubbed throughout the day, and sitting around with a wet diaper could lead to death.
- Warrior women pop up not infrequently in Mongol accounts, and Weatherford theorizes that this is because of the primacy of archery rather than hand-to-hand combat. While firing a bow from horseback does take upper body strength, it’s a level of strength women are perfectly capable of developing with discipline—particularly when trained in archery from a young age, as Mongol girls were, to protect their herds.
- Also, the legend of the princess who pledged to marry any man who could defeat her in a wrestling match (but none could) is true. They had to pledge horses to wrestle her and she accumulated a herd of 10,000 this way. She is most commonly known as Khutulun and fought in many battles as well.
So definitely some fascinating stuff here, but also some that’s horrific and plenty more that was just rather dull to read. Also Weatherford’s own analysis tends to be more evocative than well-reasoned, see for instance:
“The Mongol nation and the once glorious Golden Family sank so low and suffered so much abuse that it would possibly have been a blessing for the whole family to have died and the name of the nation to have disappeared into the wind like the cold ashes of an abandoned camp. So many nomadic nations had risen, fallen, and disappeared in the thousands of years since humans first learn to herd animals and turn the sea of grass into sustenance. The torn and neglected banner of the nation was tattered and scattered like clumps of wool stuck in brown grass. Even the horses seemed too exhausted to raise a cloud of dust. In the pages of history, the passing of yet one more such nation, even one once as powerful and important as the Mongols, hardly seemed surprising.”
Overall, I learned enough from this book to be worth my time. But, due to the writing, it’s not the easiest to recommend.