Central Asian world cities?���
��������
(XI � XIII century)
A discussion paper
�George Modelski
In the three centuries (XI-XII), roughly speaking between
950 and� 1250,
this area boasted not only
of prosperous cities� but also hosted vigorous intellectual and
cultural life, and also was an active center of the Moslem world. �Central
Asia� wrote A. G. Frank in 1992, has been known as �paradise on Earth�, �a land
of a thousand cities�, and its capital Bactra as �the
mother of cities���� Bactria
was part of Central Asia that in classical and modern eras was the cross-roads
of Eurasia;� it
was in an area �where routes converge from all quarters of the compass and from
which routes radiate to quarters of the compass again�.� This was the keystone of the Silk Roads of
the classical world, right into the modern age.
The Baghdad-centered (Sunni) Abbasid Caliphate gave
definition to that space ever since about 750.��
When its influence faltered, some two centuries later, it lost political
power to its military commanders, the (Shia) Buyids - who occupied
In 1055, the Seljuks displaced
the Buyids in
The Great Seljuks were severely
weakened by the Karakitai, and were gradually
displaced by the (Sunni Turk) Khwarazam- Shahs, their
former tributaries.�� By 1200 a Khwarazmian empire took shape, with a capital in Urgench on the lower reaches of the
������������������ ��
The problem
������������������
The cities of
The following Table 1 summarizes our information about the
seven most important cities of
so that we might ask, which of them
had risen in the early modern age, to millionaire-city status.�� They are Merv, Nishapur,
Opinion
varies about the value, and the reliability of the figures that have come down
to us ,
and
while some take seriously such quantitative data, others are obviously
skeptical.�� They regard them as
�hyperbolic�, and a product of exaggeration, or a late result of Mongol
propaganda.�� Bernard Lewis, in his
history of The Middle East (1995)
argues that� �the
destructive effects of the Mongol conquests were neither as great, as lasting,
nor even as extensive, as was once thought�. A recent student of Genghis Khan,
Jack Weatherford (2004:118) calls them �not merely exaggerated or fanciful� but
�preposterous�, and he gives a number of reasons.�� He claims that his subject could be �more
accurately described as a destroyer of cities than a slayer of people�� - as though
destroying cities, albeit for �strategic� reasons,� were something to boast about.�� But we know that accounts of his deeds also
include accurate portrayals of the methods whereby the slaying of people
reached a high degree of perfection in the Mongol armies, and that is
additional evidence.
Table 1:�� Basic Data�
City |
No. inhabitants T. Chandler� (TC),
G. Modelski (GM)������� |
Juvaini�
(Boyle tr.), Boyle 1975 |
Encyclopedia Britannica (EB),�
Encyclopedia of Islam (EI Howorth (H)) |
MERV, Khorasan 1153� sacked by Ghuzz 1221 sacked by Mongols TURKM��� |
1150�� population 200,000 (double Nishapur), (largest city in the world) over15 miles sq.(TC) 1100:� 100,000 1200:��� 45,000 |
1221 �The Mongols (7000 men)
ordered that � the whole population, including the women and children, be
killed� The sayyid Izz-ad-Din,
with others, counted the people slain for 13 days and arrived �at a figure of
more than 1.3 million� (163-4); Each soldier allotted 3-400
persons to kill� |
Ibn al Athir:
700,000 slain; (�allow for customary hyperbole�) (EI,VI) |
NISHAPUR, Khorasan 828- overtakes Merv 1037-1140 Seljuk capital 1153 sacked by Ghuzz IRN |
1000:�� 125,000 1034��� 120,000 1100:��� 100,000 c.1150� � of Merv 1220��� 70,000 (TC) |
Tole with �very large army� �drove all
the survivors on the plain� not even cats and dogs left alive�(177) �the whole population put to
death� (Boyle 1975) |
April 1221� Genghiz Khan�s son-in-law Tokuchar killed, widow decrees death for all (Weatherford
117) 1,747,000 men lost their lives, acc. to Mirkhond
(Erdman� 420) (H I,88) |
Khorasan Timurid capital 1409-47 AFG |
900:�� 250,000 1217:�� 44,000 1221:�� 60,000 (TC) |
1221-2 captured by Elgigidei with 80,000 men;� �the entire population put to the sword� �seven
days of slaughter�; Saifi: 1.6m slain; Juzjani (contemp),
(�History of Herat�)� finds, in single
quarter, 600,000 dead, hence total of 2.4m� (Boyle 1975) |
Six months� siege, by Noyan, with 80,000 men, �for a whole week, it is said,
1.6 m were killed� (H I,91) |
( Khorazm AFG |
�968: c.790 ha. 1150:� 30,000�
(TC) |
�surrender availed them not�
�whole population driven out� �put to the sword� (130-1) |
IX,X cent.geographers: some 200,000,(7.7 km.sq.) 1200 great. mosques, 200 public baths (H I,80). |
|
|
|
|
City |
Nos. |
Juvaini |
EB, W,
EI, H |
URGENCH, on Amu-Darya, ( capital of Khwarazm TURKM |
1200:�� 25,000 (TC) |
Army of Chagatai
and Ogodei, after7 mo. siege; �drove
people out into the open�, �artisans consisting of more than 100,000
separated�.� Girls and boys in slavery,
all the rest slain, �to each fighting man fell the execution of 24 persons�
(127) |
�artisans consisting of 100,000
families were set apart� the rest were divided among the soldiers, 24 to
each, and all were then slaughtered� (H II,33-4) |
RAYY, nr.Tehran; 1035 laid waste by Seljuk IRN |
1000:� 100,000 1200:��� 80,000 1220:��� larger than Isfahan� (TC) c.8000 ha (GM) |
Sobotai: every male killed� (Boyle 1975) |
Rivaled c. 8000 ha (EI) 100,000 Mongols destroy it |
SAMARCAND Sogdiana, 1141 Kara-kitai
capital; 1212 to Khwarazm; May-June 1221 Mon-gol siege UZB |
1220:� 106,000 1221:��� 26,000 (TC) |
Defended by 110,000 men,� 60,000 Turks & 50,000 Tajiks.� Nos of
townspeople �beyond�
computation�;� 50,000
driven out of town;� 30,000 chosen for
their craftsmanship, and 30,000 youth for the levy. 30,000 Turks from the citadel
brought into the open, �divided into groups of ten and hundred�, and
slaughtered |
Chinese traveler: 100,000
families before the Mongols, but only � left afterward. (EI) |
UZB |
1000:� 75,000 (TC) earlier 25 km.sq. Over 100,000� (Frye) 300,000� (Man) |
March 1220�� first city to be attacked.� Fell after a few days� siege (Boyle) �Most of the city was burned,
and the slaughter �was enormous, although not as complete as elsewhere� (Frye
184)). |
�Noble Caravan city, consisting of
citadel, shahristan, and rabid (3 walls). |
�ZHONGDU (Chung-tu) ( Jin Capital 1153-1214) DADU
(1272- (on new site) |
1200:� 130,000 (TC) 1300: 1m (GM) |
|
1215�� Mongols burn it to the ground, population
is massacred (Grousset 224); 1265:�� 160,389 1280:�� 401,000 50 km.sq. within walls (EB) |
seat
of caliphate IRQ |
932:�� 1.1m�
(TC) 1000: 1.2 m 1100: 1.2m 1200: 1m (GM) |
|
X cent. pop.
1 � m; 1258�� estimates of the dead range from 800,000
to 2 million (EI) |
Weatherford
writes (ib.): ��conservative scholars place the
number of dead from Genghis Khan�s invasion
�of central
..�
In Urgench, after separating the artisans, and the young women
and men that were to be reduced to slavery,
�each Mongol warrior �
in an army group that might have consisted of two tumens (units of 10,000) (one for each son of Genghis Khan) but also
included allied contingents � was required to execute 24 people (Juvaini 127, Howorth
II,33-4)).��� That one deed, if confirmed,� alone would account
for some 480,000!�� In Merv (1221), by contrast � we are told � �people were
driven out of town for four days and each soldier was allotted 3-400 persons to
kill� (Boyle 1975, Juvaini 163-4).�� Maybe the higher quota was due to the small
size of the Mongol force � 7,000 men � but the total computes, at the lower
level, to an astounding 2.1m.�� Clearly,
Genghis was not just a destroyer of cities, he was
also a slayer of people.� For one major
city, he ordered his commander: �You must execute the
whole population of
The
Mongol method of dealing with conquered cities had four interrelated
components:
1.�� The Mongol army was numerate, and was
organized on a decimal system, with the basic unit of 10 men, becoming part of
one of 100 men, which in turn formed a regiment of 1,000, and ten of which formed
a �tumen� -
�division�-� of
10,000.� The core army consisted of
100,000 men, to which allied forces and conscripted levies were added.�� The conscription of local labor was an
extension of the decimal organization, as each Mongol fighter was required to
round up ten local men to work under his command (Weatherford 92).�� Victims of massacres were similarly
allocated �proportionately among the soldiers in accordance with their usual
custom� (Juivani 139).
2.� Every city or town that refused surrender and
resisted the Mongols was subject to destruction.�� That was widely known, and broadcast, and
was an essential element of the terror inspired by this army.�� The Table shows that process for the most
important cities.�� But the city would
also be destroyed, e.g. when Genghis Khan�s son in law was killed by an arrow
at Nishapur, and his widow demanded revenge: �death
for all� (Weatherford 117).�� Weatherford
cites �strategic reasons� for destroying cities: to facilitate control of
trade, but cites no source for that statement, or cites specific cases.
3.��� Genghis Khan did not as a rule enter the
cities he conquered;� �when victory was
assured, he withdrew with his court to a distant and more pleasant camp while
his warriors completed their tasks� These tasks consisted of emptying the city,
and driving the population into the open spaces outside it.� (Weatherford 3).��� This rendered the people defenseless, made
possible a count of the population, and what is more, facilitated looting.�� Mongol leaders treated looting as a serious
matter of state, and from the early campaigns onward the emptying of cities was
developed as a means of facilitating systematic looting,�� But it soon also
became a way of disposing of large numbers of people.�� The accounts we have describe masses of
people, effectively managed, conducted into the countryside, allotted to the
army units, and efficiently massacred.� As already mentioned. in Tirmiz,
on the Oxus: �all the people, both men and women,
were driven out onto the plain, and
divided in accordance with their usual custom, then they were all slain� (Juvaini 139)� The
bodies apparently remained unburied, hence subject to rapid decay even in drier
climes.
4.�� Depending upon the size of the army unit, and
the numbers of victims rounded up � they were apparently herded, decimally,� in tens, and
hundreds etc. � each soldier was required to execute a number of persons that
varied according to circumstances.�� We
have reports of 24 per warrior for Urgench, and 3-400
in Merv, as noted.
All this
does not mean that we must accept without qualification the figures that we are
offered.�� The city figures of victims
were likely inflated by significant numbers of refugees driven by fear, and by
Mongols.�� The figures also need to be
cross-checked against archeological findings on the extent of the ruins,
stripped of the element of exaggeration, and put in context of political and
economic developments.�� We must also
remember that the population we are estimating is that of 1200, and not of the
year the Mongols attacked.�� But we
cannot altogether ignore them.
The sources
The first
element in regard to these sources must be caution.�� Comparison with
We might
also remark on the reliability of our main source �The History of the World
Conqueror� whose author, Juvaini, a Persian, was a high official in the service of
the Mongol empire and, after 1258, the administrator of
Overall Jovaini�s is probably the best source on the human cost of
the Khwarazm campaign, even though he gives an
overall figure only for Merv (while another might
perhaps be inferred for Urgench).�� But he does note several cases where all
were �put to the sword�.�� In fact, while
he describes the sad fate of the three other main cities of Khorasan,
he fails to report the disaster that struck
What then
do the extant sources tell us about the population of the system of major
cities found in
�in the XI-XII
centuries?
���� .����� ������
Analysis
First, we
note the thoroughness of the destruction.��
Of the eight Cental Asian cities surveyed, all
but two were totally destroyed.� Only
ruins have remained of Merv, Urgench,
Rayy (on the outskirts of
.
Let us
review the record for individual cities.
Merv��
Of the seven cities reviewed, this is the only one for which Juvaini provides actual numbers, albeit those of a witness,
for 1.3 million, to which he adds another one hundred thousand or more later
on.�� Cited in the Encyclopedia of Islam is another writer, for 700,00.� Either of these are very big numbers .�� Are we to
credit these as justifying the claim that Merv, known
as �very rich and populous�, might have had a population in the one-million class?
The
website of the International Merv Project (at
University College London) accounts for an urban (Abbasid-Seljuk) site
approaching 1000 ha (in an oasis of some 1900 miles sq.), one that would
justify a population in the quarter-million range.� Explaining the eye-witnesses larger numbers
might be (1) exaggeration, and (2) refugees, driven into the city by the
Mongols.� On balance, these figures seem
too hih.
Urgench��
This capital of the Khwarazm Sultan is little
known archeologically or textually, and is little studied, but is now claimed
to have had its �golden age� in1150-1220. The figures reported by Juvaini and Howorth reach into
the one-million range if the group of artisans who were spared were thought to
consist of their entire families.�� But
that might not be the right way to do it.
Nishapur� �Described as the most important city of
Rayy��
Said at an earlier point to have rivaled
In closing
This
review raises a number of interesting questions.�� The broadest� might be this:� why did this network of cities, at the
core
of the Moslem world, fail to assume a leading role in the building of the
modern world system?�� Maybe its
commitment to the ways of the traditional (overland) Silk Roads made it
incapable of reshaping its priorities.��
Just as importantly, its land-locked position
equipped but poorly for a role in the new, oceanic world system.� Yet what was perhaps the land of the world�s
wealthiest cities in 1200 is among the poorest portions of the globe to-day.�
More
narrowly, this has been a discussion paper raising questions about the
population of an important group of early
�modern, and
potentially world, cities.�� Our
discussion suggests that the city populations might have been larger than is
now estimated.� On evidence so far, we
might consider Rayy as a potential candidate for that
category but would need additional evidence for Urgench,
Rayy, and Herat before reaching any firm
conclusions.�� Comments on any of these
points, or suggestions for additional data are welcome.
Sources:
Boyle,
J.A.�� (1977)�� The
Mongol World Empire�� Variorum
Reprint, London
�
Frank, A.
G.,�� (1992)�� The Centrality of
Frye,
Richard N.�� (1996)
Grousset,
R.�� (1953)�� The
Rise and Splendor of the Chinese Empire,� Berkeley:� UC Press,
Howorth,
H.H. (1880)�� History of the Mongols,��
Juvaini�� (1997)��
The History of the World Conqueror,� J.A. Boyle tr,
Lewis,
Bernard��� (1995)�� The
Modelski,
G.�� (2003)�� World
Cities: -3000 to 2000,��
Man,
J.�� (1999)�� Atlas
of the Year 1000;��
Weatherford,
J.� (2004)�� Genghis
Khan and the Making of the Modern World,�
Notes
Dr Ute Franke, of the German Archeological Institute, Eurasian
Division,
��I think
that
1.6
million is out of the question.�