Lauren Rabaino

HIST 310

July 29, 2009

Mongol Leadership as Shown Through a Distorted

Chinese Lens

The sourcebook reading “A Mongol Governor” from Chinese Civilization Patricia Ebrey

is an original document written as an short memoir of the life of Menggu, a general of Huayan

and military administrator of the thirteenth century. According to the epitaph, Menggu was a

leader whom all the prefects and magistrates had to obey (192). He was a wise man who was

later put in charge of Henei during which time he helped his people through famine and put

down a bandit revolt led by Zhu Ge. Among the many anecdotes of Menggu’s life, the biography

of the leader reveals the insight into the power the Mongols had over Chinese during the time

period. It also shows the dynamic of the class and superiority structure in the way the leader was

portrayed after his death by the writer.

The epitaph written for Menggu’s gravestone was meant to portray the Mongol governor

in a positive light. This can be assumed because nowhere in the epitaph is there a negative

reference to any mistakes or shortcomings of Menggu. The writer refers to the way that Menggu

prevents people from famine and supplied troops in a gracious, unruthless way (192). The reason

for this positive portrayal was probably because it was written to honor his life, rather than

objectively reflect upon his life. Because Menggus was a leader, it would have been disrespectful

for the person writing his epitaph to say anything negative. At the time, the Chinese believed in

the afterlife and in one’s ability to come back and haunt a person; therefore, death was not an

excuse for honesty. The author of the piece was also Chinese literati and not a Mongol himself,

so there is an extra added layer of obedience that must be assumed because China was being

ruled by the Mongols in the mid 1200s when this was written. Even though the Mongols took

over China, the Yuan period kept many of the distinctive components of Chinese society at the

time, and Confucianism was one of them, which is why the Chinese respected the superiority

complex held over them by the Mongols. The description of Menggu probably was not entirely

accurate because other historical documents of the time prove that the the Mongols were an

aggressive society. Although that may be stereotyping to assume that all Mongols acted this way,

historical evidence from the time shows that, in general, this is the case, making it less likely that

Menggus was truly a gracious, all-well-doing leader. It’s very likely that he was brutal and

reckless at times. It’s also probably inaccurate to assume that his subjects admired him to the

extent which is portrayed in the epithet. It says that, “The residents, with jugs of wine and

burning incense, saw Menggu off tearfully, unable to bear his leaving,” in reference to Menggus

leaving his people behind in Henei to go to war (193). It’s portrayed as though he was seen as

divinity with power of that like the Imperial family, when really, he was merely a governor.

The epithet is an interesting commentary on the role Mongols played in Chinese

government during the Yuan Dynasty. If parts of the epithet were indeed true – which can be

assumed that many parts were, albeit exaggerations and omissions – then it is evidence that

individual Mongols were able to attain great power amidst communities that were heavily

Chinese. According to the epitaph, Menggu was on all sides of the leadership spectrum, having

both put down a rebellion and led a rebellion (193). He was able to retain his post and power for

more than 40 years, despite being outnumbered greatly by the Chinese people. It’s not so much a

testament to him as an individual, but to the ruling power that the Mongols were able to impose

upon the Chinese during the time period. Because a Mongol governor could come into a

community and lead it for so long without opposition or rebellion against him, it can be assumed

that either the Chinese were afraid of the Mongols or their rule was adequate enough that there

was no reason for discontent among the Chinese. Based on this epitaph, it would be assumed that

the case is the latter—the Mongols were such great, unifying and well-bringing leaders that there

is no need to oppose them. However, based on what was happening during the thirteenth century

and stepping away from a highly biased piece of writing, it is more likely that the reason the

Mongols were able to attain power over the Chinese for so long is because of their great military

strength. They were conquering left and right and continually adding to their empire to make it

larger and stronger. For the Chinese to oppose this would be foolish and likely result in death or

domination by brutal rule. Also, the Mongols came from a societal structure by which multiple

clans and tribes that were dispersed across the Gobi desert. The ability of these tribes to unify

and conquer together is a testament to their ability to life mutually with the Chinese people.

This epitaph should not be taken to represent the entire rule of the Mongol people over

China. It was written about a man who led as a Mongol governor during the height of the

Mongol Empire during the thirteenth century. This took place after Ogodei Khan became the

emperor and started a period of great expansion, which was decades after the Mongol Empire

was created. This means that many of the original tensions and brutality among the people of the

China and Mongolia had already been overcome, but it doesn’t mean that the Mongol leader

abandoned a ruling style of military power as a whole. The way that many events are portrayed

can be interpreted as positive, community-building events, when really, it’s likely that they were

powered by abuse, assault and military force. For example, the literati writes that Menggu “was

able to gather together more than ten thousand household and settle them down as commoners”

in reference to settling areas that arose in revolt (193). Although this sentence is conveyed as a

strong leadership moment, details on how that revolt was settled are purposefully excluded.

Usually when ten thousand households are involved in “settling down” a revolting community,

that does not refer to a peaceful intervention. In another example, it is said that Menggu ordered

officials to “travel around announcing that those who returned to their property would be exempt

from taxes” as a means of getting the population back onto vacant properties (193). This is just

another seemingly powerful leadership decision that was very likely powered by force and threat.

From context of the time period, it is known that the Mongols ruled by a rule of “our way or no

way,” meaning that people were either expected to get along with the Mongols or pay the price.

Given this history, it is difficult to believe that Menggu convinced people to listen to him by

through mere economic negations.

It is hard to be sure whether it’s a truly accurate depiction. If it were the case that the

depictions of Menggu were accurate, then it shows that historical stereotypes are not applicable

to everyone of the time period. There will always be the select few that go against the stereotype,

and Menggu could be evidence of one of them. But rather than being a commentary on an

individual person, the sourcebook reading reveals important insight into the Mongol-Chinese

dynamic. The Chinese people were among many who were dominated by the Mongols during

their vast empire. The Mongols were still, somehow, able to keep power over the people and

gain their respect, even after filtering into their communities and taking over. Although this

specific piece was likely biased and hyperbolized, it shows that the two different cultures were

able to exist simultaneously, and perhaps even enjoy each other’s company – if the depictions are

true and accurate. And if they are inaccurate, the anecdotes and the way in which those anecdotes

were written to portray Menggu reveal the powerful rule the Mongols had over the Chinese and

the respect that Chinese people developed for their new leaders.