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 ½ 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 ¼ 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 ½ 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.”