Author Charles J. Halperin examines numerous primary, secondary, and contemporary sources to provide better context in understanding the Mongol rule in Russia. Halperin is an expert in Russian history and has previously written the book The Tatar Yoke. Most of the historical sources that were written at the time of the Mongol rule cannot be fully trusted because of the bias held against Muslim outsiders.
Halperin says that the historians during this time did not give proper credit to “nonbelievers” which is why much of the Mongol history is glossed over. There were definite feelings of Christian elitism at this time and Halperin sums it up by saying, “…a Christian could consider a Muslim a good man, but only compared to other Muslims.” The book is filled with specific examples of how the Mongols were illustrated as savage plunderers when this was not the true reality.
Because of the clear religious tension between Christians and Muslims at the time, the book begins with a thorough history of Christianity and Islam in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. This is important because it is vital to understand the tension and past warfare between Christians and Muslims to have a better understanding of the effect this will have when a predominantly Russian Orthodox state is ruled by Muslim outsiders.
When the Mongols first came to Russia in 1223, Russians assumed that they were just another nomadic people. Halperin notes that they greatly underestimated the power of the Mongol Empire and even when they were conquered, Russian historians never recognized that Russia was conquered for a number of reasons. One such reason was that they assumed that the Mongols were just another nomadic group not worthy of being given credit. This minimized the Mongol Empire’s true impact which actually changed the political status of Russia
No one could have seen Russia becoming subjugated to outside rule. This fact and the differing religions both impact how the history was written about because Christians and Muslims at the time justified defeat in war differently. Christians associated loss with an upset God or the idea that they had failed their God. Halperin sums up the predicament of Russian scribes at the time saying, “Either the Christian god was not omnipotent, which was unthinkable, or else the Mongol conquest was his will. Faced with these two possibilities, the Russian bookmen chose not to choose.”
Because of the ideological struggles at the time, the vocabulary used in historical writings mirrored that of the Kievan period. Because Russia had not been conquered during this period, the vocabulary used does not properly convey the fact that Russia had in fact been conquered by the Mongols. This is very important and makes Halperin’s analysis more valuable because without this knowledge, one could read different sources from the Mongol period and believe that Russia had never been conquered. Halperin clearly states their predicament saying, “Since the medieval Russian bookmen had denied conquest, they could not hail liberation.” This fact changed the way future history was recorded because it did not establish in the language that Russia had been conquered.
In chapter two, Halperin focuses the history on the different influences and impact that the nomadic Mongols had. Similar to the slights of Muslims by different scholars and historians, Halperin references historian D.A. Rasovskii who made the point that people never discussed the impact nomadic groups had on Russia culture because people just assumed that nomadic peoples lacked any culture. Because of this, there is an inherent bias in how different aspects of Russian culture have been written about because of a hesitancy to give credit towards nomadic peoples.
The nomadic lifestyle did not stop the Mongols from ruling Russia and Halperin makes a point to establish that the Mongol’s nomadic lifestyle did not “lessen their influence on medieval Russia’s political, economic, social, and cultural life.” What was different about Mongol rule in Russia as opposed to their rule in China and Persia was that their rule was indirect. The Mongols remained in steppes in Asia very near Russia so direct occupation was not necessary. There was hostility towards Mongols in Russia, but the indirect rule helped prevent uprisings and other forms of revolt that could stem from hostile encounters.
Mongols had serious impacts on future Russian culture and military practices. The nomadic Mongol people taught young boys how to shoot arrows while riding a horse and other military tactics. They were an expert military force and this commitment at a young age can explain how the Mongol Empire was such a dominant military force.
The Mongol Empire had developed a postal system called the yam and when Mongol rule ended, Russia continued using this effective system. Halperin uses a defensive tone when discussing the idea that Mongol rule was filled with atrocious behavior. While there were some terrible practices, Halperin points to French crusaders and their heinous behavior against the Albigensians, Jews, and Muslims to point out the inconsistencies in claiming that the Mongols were somehow worse. Halperin also points out that their behavior was well in line with the standards of the age.
Halperin either credits or defends a number of Mongol practices. One positive impact for Russian people during the Mongol rule was that the Orthodox Church grew wealthy because of the heavy taxes that allowed the Church to prosper. Halperin also refutes the idea that Mongol rule lead to Russian society built around serfdom noting the social influence of the Mongol Empire was more temporary. In chapter ten, the book notes that throughout history, after a conquest, literacy and historical texts are usually minimal. This was not the case with the Mongol conquest with high rates of historical sources still being churned out.
The Mongols kept Russian princes in power and asserted their rule by having Mongol officials communicate their desires to the princes. This system was called the baskak system and Halperin makes a point to question the sources from this period as he finds them filled with interpolation. During the time of the baskak, there is an ambiguous timeline of the recorded history. Halperin looks at a number of different sources and compares them to establish the most plausible conclusion.
By looking at different documents and charters, the best guess of what happened is that the baskak system was ended at different times so there is not one direct date when it ended. This is an important note when analyzing different sources because one must consider that the Mongols could have ruled regionally, meaning policy was not uniform at all times.
This period also displays another example of downplaying the Mongol impact on policy. Halperin refutes the “Russian” theory of the baskak system and credits the Mongol’s for utilizing a flexible bureaucracy. During the Mongol rule, the Mongols left for fifteen years leaving Eastern Russia vulnerable because they assumed the Mongols returned all the way home. Because of their lack of preparedness and failure to know that the Mongols intended to return and conquer, when they reappeared they advanced as far as Eastern Europe.
They turned back suddenly because of the death of the ruler Ugedei. Halperin brings up questions about this explanation and discusses potential answers. He eventually concludes that the most reasonable explanation is that a succession crisis afflicted the Mongol Empire after the death of Ugedei. The Mongols had, up to this point, been steamrolling across Europe and no one could stop them. The Mongol’s past history in China and Persia suggest that the Mongols, even if they didn’t have a strong enough political structure to rule, would not stop their conquest unless something internal tore them apart.
Halperin sums up his ideology about the historiography of Mongols in Russia saying, “…Russian sources are, as a result of a deliberate and sustained policy, particularly misleading and that subsequent historians, through either bias or indifference, often have been particularly willing to be misled.” This point is central throughout “Russia and the Golden Horde” as Halperin attempts to reconcile how we view this time in history as he wades through sources to inform the reader about the true history of the time.
