Leadership and Ghenggis Khan

Ghenggis Khan the World Conqueror
Barbarian or enlightened leader?
University of Leiden – the Netherlands

Name: Maurits van der Vegt
Student nr: s0506058
Course: Management
Date: 24 August 2008
e-mail: maups_adres@hotmail.com
Maurits van der Vegt Chenggis Khan as a Leader
Contents
Introduction 2
Chapter 1: Introduction into leadership research 4
Chapter 2: Charismatic and Transformational Leadership as framework 8
Chapter 3: The Mongol Empire 12
Chapter 4: Ghenggis Khan’s leadership skills 23
Conclusion 27
Bibliography 28
1
Introduction - Leadership & the Mongol Empire
“This destructive tyrant who proudly treads on the necks of kings, but is yet no more than a wild
Scythian soldier bred to arms and practiced in the trade of blood”
(Voltaire, Act I, scene I, The Orphan of China).
As it is clear from the picture drawn by Voltaire (In a play “about” Ghenggis Khan), the Mongol
empire is known for its veracious methods of defeating the enemy. Several tales exist about the
killing of all citizens of defiant rulers and complete ruining of cities at the orders of Ghenggis
Khan himself. One of the most telling of these stories is the destroying of Otrar, a border-city of
the Kwarezmid empire, in the winter of 1219 ad. All the inhabitants were either killed during the
battle or led away in slavery afterwards. The city never recovered from this total defeat.1
With the Mongol’s strive for conquest they brought death and destruction. The population
of the Chinese heartland (in relation to current China this is excluding Tibet, Turkic provinces of
inner Asia (Xinjiang), outer-Mongolia and Manchuria) dropped from around 140 million to 70
million people. The death and destruction it spreaded was not by brutal force alone. The
Mongolian westward push also brought the black death from Asia westwards into Europe.2
But instead of looking at the Mongols as simple murdering barbarians does not explain the
huge accomplishments they achieved. These so-called nomadic hordes or tribes did exist for
centuries, 3 but never were they as successful as the Mongols of Ghenggis Khan. So what made
them different? First of all the person of Temujin, the first Ghenggis Khan (This name or title
means universal ruler in Mongol language4) and his successors. Their leadership seemed to be
crucial in conquering a diverse world with all kind of climates, religions and histories. But they
also united all these areas into one empire. And the Mongols did more than conquer,5 they also
created a script for their own language and declared religious freedom for all citizens in their entire
empire. They created a vast free-trade zone and stimulated the sciences and arts and experimented
with fixed exchange rates and paper money throughout the empire.
The Mongols did do something right in achieving all this in a very short period. As we
learn more about the Mongolian history, especially during the past 40 years, it becomes clear that
1
K. Stubbs, Facing the wrath of Kahn, Military History (2006) 33
2
J. Weatherford, Gengis Khan and the Making of the Mordern World, (New York 2004) 242-243
3
N. Di Cosmo, Ancient Inner Asian Nomads: Their Economic Basis and Its Significance in Chinese History, The
Journal of Asian Studies, 53(4) (1994) 1092-1096
4
G. Lane, Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule (Westport 2004) 29
5
J. Weatherford, Gengis Khan and the Making of the Mordern World (New York 2004) Introduction, page XVIII
2
the Mongol leaders or Khans played a crucial role. It might be interesting to see how they led their
empire and maybe we can learn a thing or two from the mighty Ghenggis Khan.
This essay’s main question will be which leadership qualifications made Ghenggis Khan
and his Mongols as great as they are remembered? Why should his case matter to us today?
Globalization, change, adaptation and flexibility are the main phenomenon’s in today’s limelight.
In this globalizing world companies have to deal with multicultural diversity and experience
challenges to their accepted knowledge every day. Ghenggis Khan controlled a multicultural
empire, without modern communication, and the concept of “learning” was one of his main
instruments.
The first two chapters of the essay will present the reader with a basic understanding of
the research into leadership and the basic history of the Mongolian Empire of Ghenggis Khan.
Therefore the essay will start with a general overview of research into the nature of leadership as
performed in the last 100 years. Based on this modern research I will create a referencing
framework in chapter 2, to which I will compare the findings from the Mongol leadership. In the
following chapter 3 the Mongol history will be presented, with a focus on the original Ghenggis
Khan, Temujin (although I will present a perspective on a few of his successors, but just where it
enlightens the leadership research). In chapter 4 the leadership literature and the Mongolian history
will be brought together in order to extend our research into the Mongolian leadership skills. The
Mongolian skills will be drawn together with the modern leadership framework from chapter 2.
Chapter 4 is followed by a conclusion, which will end with a short theoretical consideration about
the validity of learning from ancient history and if it is possible to translate social constructions
from a completely different world into our modern times?
3
Chapter 2 - Introduction into leadership research
“What is leadership?” is a question asked for ages. Already in classical writings we can find
references to leadership.6 But identifying people with leadership skills in the real world is easier
than creating a specific and general definition of the term leadership. Even today, after a century of
modern scientific research into the field no widely accepted definition has been drafted.7 Beside
this definition problem progress has been made into describing essential elements. This chapter
will offer a short introduction into the different schools of thought of research into leadership.
Herewith I hope that the reader will have a somewhat clearer picture as where we are today in
answering the ultimate question: “What is leadership?”.
What leadership convenes depends firstly on the individual or the researcher’s worldview.
How does he view the concept of reality, or what makes our current knowledge usable? No simple
unambiguous answer can be given to these philosophic questions. But with an already ambiguous
subject as leadership, offering some insight into the thinking about science is a good starting point.
First some views about two prevalent ideologies about research in the scientific field will be
presented. I only discuss the extreme viewpoints on either side to create a clear picture, so please
take notice that there is a vast area between these two positions with researchers who use some
elements of both ideologies.
The first to discuss is the scientific realist viewpoint. This school of thought assumes that
leadership can be relative objectively measured, which will lead to generalizable and, like in the
natural sciences, law-like relationships. On the other extreme we have the Interepretivists or social
constructionists. Their standpoint is a reaction to the realist one and they argue that the
assumptions of the researcher are subjective and will this objectivity will have a strong influence
on the results and conclusions.8 The effect of both extremes are primarily in the way the answers
are being interpreted. The scientific realist sees the world as a machine. If done right, the research
will give objective clear results with no discussion about the results, only about the way the
research was done. The social constructionist will mostly try to understand how the leadership is
being viewed by the leader and the followers in order to understand their experience with
leadership.
6
J. Antonakis, A.T. Cianciolo, R.J. Sternberg, ‘Leadership’, edited by: J. Antonakis et.al., The Nature of Leadership
(London 2004) 5
7
Idem
8
J.G. Hunt, ‘What Is Leadership?’, edited by: J. Antonakis et.al., The Nature of Leadership (London 2004) 25
4
Both arguments have their strongpoints, but I will elaborate a little more, so the problem
with these extremes can be made clear.9 The social constructionists criticise the idea that
everybody is the same, as for example the leadership theory of traits and behaviours suggest. If
you have the right traits and behave correctly you can predict the outcome. Is it possible to
contract traits and behaviours from the influences from the environment? Furthermore the world is
complex and people not only react differently, but they also see reality different from each other.
Social constructionists argue that leadership is nothing more than a social construct and is
understood different by each person and created differently in every culture. So instead of
focussing towards the leaders themselves, it is better to try to figure out how it is created. So the
interaction between the leaders and his/her followers should be the focal point of research. This
social constructionist’s argument seems very compelling, as it seems to reflect reality (as far as
that is even possible according to this theory). It is like: I’m unique or during meetings everybody
always sees the “same” problem differently. But now reverse the argument. As everybody is
seeing things different anyway and leadership is nothing more than a social construct and the
context is more important than the leader, training and learning is almost impossible. Take for
example a manager moving towards another country with another culture, would it be impossible
to function for him and to make use of his abilities (traits and behaviours) as an expatriate manager
in China? Of course, he will experience a culture shock and will have to adjust, but it will be
possible for him to function and make use of his capacities. Someone who is sensitive to the
opinion of his followers might have to adjust the way he operates, but he will not completely alters
everything he does. It should be clear now that both ideologies can be convincing, but also that the
reality is far more complex and perhaps shows a bit of both theories.
Our historical search for the leadership of Ghenggis Khan is of course somewhere in
between the two extreme ideologies, but somewhat more in the direction of the realists. This paper
is based on the idea that leadership can at least partly be measured by someone’s actions. Also that
leadership characteristics are perceived as being somewhat identical through the ages. Although it
might be added that different times and different cultures put emphasis on different parts of these
leadership characteristics.10 Using a framework based on current leadership literature the history of
the Mongols will be scanned for notions about leadership or indications of outcomes of leadership.
As the written history will give interpretations and views about Ghenggis Khan, it will also
9
Kezar, A.J., Carducci, R., Contreras-McGavin, M., ‘Rethinking the "L" word in higher education : the revolution in
research on leadership, Washington 2006); Chapter 2: A World Apart: New Paradigms of Leadership; 19-21
10
G. Casimir, D.A. Waldman, ‘A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Importance of Leadership Traits for Effective
Low-level and High-level Leaders’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7(1) 48
5
describe events that might be influenced by Ghenggis Khan’s leadership skills. The resulting finds
will be presented and interpreted into a generalized view about leadership.
From the modern leadership literature some basic notions will first be introduced. When
talking about leadership, we are talking about the relationship between the leader and his
followers. These followers and their ideas about leadership are an essential part of leadership.
Follower beliefs are the link between leadership and leadership effectiveness. 11 Taking a more
social constructionist view it might even be argued that followers postive attributes create the
leadership (for example: Steve Jobs is a great leader as Apple is doing great, can be restated that as
Apple is doing great Steve Jobs must be a good leader and as he has the ultimate authority, we
search for his exceptional skills).12 Furthermore there is a difference to be made between
leadership in and leadership of organisations. Leadership of organisations is about the top
leadership and includes subjects like strategy and organizational design.13 Leadership in
organisations is more about lower-levels, but differs mostly in orientation, with an interest in face-
to-face leadership of direct subordinates.14 The final remark to mention is the (academic)
difference between management and leadership. Leadership is seen as producing change, while
management is more about the operational side of the organisation.15 It should be noted that these
distinctions are mostly made to define a specific field for academic research and has less appliance
in the more complex real world.
To give an idea about the academic research into leadership and the different paradigma’s,
a short overview through time since 1900 will be given hereafter. Eight major schools will be
discussed and starting in time as from 1900, with the beginning of the scientific study of leadership
with the “great man” perspective, which saw “great man” or heroes as responsible for the major
historical events.16 The research ended in the late 1950’s, due to pessimistic views deriving from
the interpretations by many scholars. The research did identify some traits that could be linked to
leadership, namely intelligence and dominance.17
The behavioural school became the major orientation during the 1960s.18 It researched the
behaviours of leaders in general and their behaviour towards their followers. Well known research
11
K.S. Groves, ‘Linking Leader Skills, Follower Attitudes, and Contextual Variables via an Integrated Model of
Charismatic Leadership’, Journal of Management 2005 31(255), 261
12
J. M. Beyer, ‘Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations, Leadership Quarterly, 10(2) (1999) 312
13
J.G. Hunt, ‘What is Leadership?’, edited by: J. Antonakis et.al., The Nature of Leadership (London 2004) 29
14
Idem
15
Ibidem 26
16
J. Antonakis, A.T. Cianciolo, R.J. Sternberg, ‘Leadership: Past, Present and Future’, edited by: J. Antonakis et.al.,
The Nature of Leadership (London 2004) 6
17
Idem
18
Ibidem 7
6
was done by Lewin and Lippitt with their democratic, autocratic and laissez-faire leaders in
1938.19
Max Weber identified several elements needed for charismatic leadership: "(1) an
extraordinarily gifted person, (2) a social crisis or situation of desperation, (3) a set of ideas
providing a radical solution to the crisis, (4) a set of followers who are attracted to the exceptional
person and come to believe that he or she is directly linked to transcendent powers, and (5) the
validation of that person's extraordinary gifts and transcendence by repeated successes.".20 His
model of charismatic leadership provides an insightful view on the interaction of context,
followers and leadership. As well as that it points to the negative aspects of leadership. For
example, if a crisis situation is crucial, a leader might be tempted to “create” a crisis.
During the 1950s and 1960s studies by the University of Michigan and Ohio State
identified two leadership orientations, namely employee-oriented and production-oriented (or
structure-oriented) leadership styles. 21 Other research came up with contradictory findings that led
to the notion that the success of leader behaviour was contingent on the specific situations. 22
After the 1960s, the field moved away from the idea that there was an idealtype of
leadership to a more diverse and fragmented view on leadership. The environment was introduced
as an active element in the success of leadership styles. It became the central focus in the research
field as from 1971, when Fiedler introduced the contingency model, that stated that the
effectiveness of the type leadership is influenced by leader-member relations, the task structure
and the power related to the position of the leader.23 The 1970s also saw the development of the
Relational School of Leadership, which is today more known by the leader member exchange
theory, or LMX. It focuses on the quality of the relationship between the followers and its leader
(with a focus of in-group and out-group followers).24
With the rise of postmodernism, the research of leadership was severely attacked. The so-
called sceptics were arguing that the preferences of the researcher were being reflected in the
questionnaire ratings.25 Another suggestion made was that leader evaluations by followers was
influenced by organizational outcomes.26 Although research into leadership experienced a setback,
19
Idem
20
J.M. Beyer, ‘Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations’, Leadership Quarterly, 10(2) (1999) 314
21
J. Antonakis, A.T. Cianciolo, R.J. Sternberg, ‘Leadership: Past, Present and Future’, edited by: J. Antonakis et.al.,
The Nature of Leadership (London 2004) 7
22
Idem
23
Idem
24
Ibidem 8
25
Ibidem 9
26
Idem
7
the sceptics actually helped the research to evolve for the better on the longer term. Current
researchers are using more rigorous methodologies, make a difference between top-level
management and lower management levels (or strategic versus operational) and there is more
interest into the perception of the followers into leadership issues.
Out of the Contingency school developed other separate research schools. The Information
Processing School of Leadership tries to dig deeper into the contingency theory basics (asking
questions like: why does a match between the environment and the leader in the contingency
model give legitimization to the leader?) or research relations with other fields of leadership.
The second and currently most popular school of research is the New Leadership School.
This school also can be identified as Neocharismatic, Transformational, or Visionary. 27 The theory
suggests that leaders can motivate followers to perform better than was considered possible by
transforming followers’ attitudes, beliefs and values (i.e. transcend their self interest for that of the
greater good) as opposed to simply gaining compliance.28 A number of sub-dimensions have been
identified, which shows its relation to the older trait school, which include charisma or idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. 29
27
J. Antonakis, A.T. Cianciolo, R.J. Sternberg, ‘Leadership’, edited by: J. Antonakis et.al., The Nature of Leadership
(London 2004) 9
28
A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin, ‘Dimensions of Transformational Leadership, Conceptual and empirical extensions’,
The Quarterly Leadership 15 (2004) 330
29
Idem
8
Chapter 3 - Transformational Leadership as a framework
In order to review the leadership of Ghenggis Khan I will use the Transformational school of
thought as a framework to help analyse the Mongol history. This school is the current most
influential school in leadership research30 and combines several items from earlier research. The
most influential in Transformational Leadership research was James M. Burns (1978), who made a
clear distinction between managers (with authority based mainly on economic sources of
authority) and leaders (with authority based mainly on non-economic sources of authority).31
The relationship between managers and employees is a contractual relationship, where the
employee agrees to perform certain tasks for rewards, like remuneration and job security by the
organization through the manager (Burns calls these managers Transactional Leaders). Burns
argues that Transformational Leadership is more complex. According to Burns, the
Transformational leader “looks for potential motives in followers” with a “relationship of mutual
stimulation” as a result.32
Interesting about the New Leadership School in respect to the older schools of thought is
that it uses three (instead of focussing on just one) of the typical research categories, namely traits,
behaviours and situational contingencies. 33 Traits (or personal characteristics) are imbedded in a
persons behaviour, thought and emotion and are thought to be a relatively fixed aspect of a
person’s personality. Behaviours can, in contrast to traits, be modified, so a person can improve
certain behaviours, which are deemed important to be a good leader. Situational contingencies are
all about context. Transactional leaders are thought to choose the style which fits the current
context, or culture. A transformational leader is able to create the culture, which is seen by some,
for example E.H. Schein, as the most important aspect of leadership.
3.1 Current state of research into Transformational Leadership

Marshall Sashkin has taken several research studies of transformational leadership
approaches together and we will use his synthesis drawn from this review. But first we will shortly
discuss the research Sashkin used.
30
K.B. Lowe, W.L. Gardner, ‘Ten Years of the Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and Challenges for the future’,
Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 503
31
M. Sashkin, ‘Transformational Leadership Approaches’, edited by: J. Antonakis et.al., The Nature of Leadership
(London 2004) 172
32
Ibidem 173
33
Idem
9
Sashkin started with the reseach done by James McGregor Burns. Burns major attribution
is the distinction between transactional and transformational leadership.34 Sashkin then turns to
Bernard Bass,35 as he was the first to start grand-scale research based on Burns’ statements. Bass’
research resulted in research questionnaire that measured both transactional and transformational
leadership, with the last sub-scaled in five (previously four) dimensions:
o Idealized influence (attributed by followers): the way that followers value the power and
confidence shown by the leader;
o Idealized influence (behaviour of the leader): focuses on the behaviours of leaders like
values, beliefs and moral purpose;
o Idealized consideration: a leader showing his concern for his followers;
o Intellectual stimulation: The leader stimulates followers to take on problems from various
perspectives and have them develop alternative solutions;
o Inspirational motivation: spreading a vision, while being confident that the goals will be
reached.
Bass’ dimensions and subscales received some criticism, as the theoretical differences are blurred
and the empirical evidence raised more doubts about the destinctions between the subscales.36
Instead of devising a theory about leadership (Burns) and then testing it through
questionnaires (Bass), Warren Bennis and Bert Nanus37 turned this around and started their
leadership research with interviews taken from CEO’s. Their research touches all three categories
(behavioural, traits and context). From the interviews they identified three central behaviours,
which are communication, creating a basis of trust and creating empowering opportunities. The
traits a leader must posses according to Bennis and Nanus are self-confidence, orientation towards
empowerment (of followers), and vision. The contextual variable is that leaders construct social
organizations (i.e. culture).
James Kouzes and Barry Posner38 took a similar path in their research, but included an
extra step. Instead basing their questionaires/interviews on existing theoretical frameworks, they
used “personal best” leadership moments written down in memoirs by managers to develop a
questionnaire. This questionnaire was sent out to hundreds of managers to be answered. From
34
Ibidem 174
35
Ibidem 175-176
36
A.E. Rafferty, M.A. Griffin, Dimensions of Transformational Leadership, Conceptual and empirical extensions, The
Quarterly Leadership 15 (2004) 330-331; The questionaire developed by Bass, the Multifactor Leadership
Questionaire, has been giving contradictionary results and has been revised many times. Although quantitative
evidence is broader and easier to compile, most researchers point out that qualitative research is probably a better tool
to investigate this complex topic.
37
M. Sashkin, ‘Transformational Leadership Approaches’, edited by: J. Antonakis et.al., The Nature of Leadership
(London 2004) 176-177
38
Ibidem 177-178
10
these answers, using factor analysis, they came up with five scales to measure transformational
leadership:
o Challenging the process, looking for opportunities and risk taking;
o Inspiring a shared vision, looks at how leaders develop a vision and gather support for this
vision;
o Enabling others to act, measures how leaders help followers to develop themselves, take
action, and collaborate with each other;
o Modelling the way, is about setting an example as a leader;
o Encouraging the hart, is about positively supporting followers’ actions.
In their published work Kouzes and Posner reviewed many behaviours, but several stand out,
namely searching for opportunities, risk taking, communicating the vision, empowering and
developing followers, modelling desirable behaviour, and recognizing followers’
accomplishments. They also identified vision, as a characteristic or trait that clearly stands out.
The research done by Elliott Jaques39 was not specifically based on transformational
leadership, but on cognitive power (thinking about how to achieve one’s goals through cause and
effect relationships). He identified different levels of cognitive power in individuals. For example,
some people are only able to think a few days ahead, others can think weeks, months, years or
even generations ahead. The highest levels of cognitive power are needed for CEO’s as they are
required to have this farsighted vision to control and develop complex social systems.
Other influential research was done by David McClelland and Robert J. House40. Their
research is based on power, or more specific, the need for power, which they attributed to
leadership. Their research came up with two behaviours, communication (of a vision) and creating
empowering opportunities for followers to accomplish their leader’s goals. The identified traits are
the need for power and also self-efficacy (that the leader controls his own world and future).
John Kotter and James Heskett41 performed several qualitative studies in organizations and
concluded that a leaders’ effectiveness stems from his ability to change an organization’s culture.
Beside several action strategies they also identified several behaviours and traits. The identified
behaviours are: energizing followers with a need for change, a collaborative development of a
vision, empowering followers to act. The identified traits or leader characteristics are vision, an
outsider’s perspective (out-of-the box thinking), but this previous trait needs to be complemented
by an insider’s knowledge.
39
Ibidem 179
40
Ibidem 180-181
41
Ibidem 181-182
11
Jay Conger and Rabindra Kanungo42 developed a questionnaire based on five leadership
behaviours: communicating a vision, going against status quo, risk taking, unconventional
behaviour, caring for followers. They also identified several traits, which are sensitivity to factors
in the environment, willingness to take risk and making personal sacrifices.
Marshall and Molly Sashkin43 themselves are also renowned for their Leadership research.
Sashkin developed a questionnaire based on Bennis’s behavioural categories, which was split into
four dimensions: communicating a vision, showing credibility (or building trust), caring for
followers and being a creative leader (includes risk taking, but also empowering followers to take
risks). Sashkin also thought characteristics were important in dividing leaders from managers and
included three from other research: self-confidence, the need for power (and the way it is being
manifested), and vision. They included culture as a contextual variable.
3.2 The Framework

Although there is no singular definition for Transformational leadership, a short one will be given
here. Transformational leadership can be defined as a set of observable and partly learnable traits
and behaviours employed to influence followers attitudes and assumptions and to build followers’
commitment to the leader’s vision. Instead of being limited by situational circumstances (i.e.
culture), the transformational leader is capable of changing the existing culture.44
As discussed Transformational leadership can best be analyzed by three aspects, behaviour,
traits or characteristics, and context. Below these three aspects have been defined by specific
elements. These will form the analytical framework, while reviewing the leadership skills of
Ghenggis Khan.
o Behavioural (learnable):
- Communicating a Vision: the focus is on the communication. This needs to be done
in such a way to provoke action with followers.
- Creating Empowering Opportunities: this is about empowering followers to take
action, but also to have them take risks. So risk taking (by the leader and “delegated”
to the followers) is part of it.
- Showing Care and Respect for Followers: its about directly showing respect for the
actions of followers, but also indirectly by celebrating follower’s achievements or
recognizing contributions.
42
Ibidem 182-183
43
Ibidem 183-188
44
K. Jaskyte, ‘Transformational Leadership, Organizational Culture, and Innovativeness in Nonprofit Organizations’,
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 2004, 15(2) 155
12
o Traits & Characteristics (fixed):

- Vision: The most mentioned aspect in all reviewed research was vision. Vision must
be seen as the ability to a farsightedness and creating long term action plans in order
to create a future for the organization. Some research see it as a trait, but others argue
that it can be developed somewhat and see it more as a characteristic.
- Power: This is not only about the need for power by the leaders themselves, as power
and influence gets things done, but also the way power is being articulated towards
followers in order to accept their power and align them to their vision.
- Self-Confidence: The belief that one controls its own world and future is important to
engage in leadership in the first place, but also to develop followers into leaders
themselves.
o Context:
- Organizational culture: Transformational leaders do not conform to cultures but
create them. Transformational leaders build cultures that support effective change
management (in a way that followers believe they can affect their environment). The
culture is also set up to achieve its goals effectively by putting the needed values to
the forefront. The culture will also be driven by sharing the value of cooperation to
get all followers to work effectively together. And finally the culture will also be self-
sustaining as a consequence of the broad sharing of these values.
This framework will be used as a mirror for Ghenggis Khan’s actions, which will also be presented
with behavioural, characteristics and contextual dimensions.
13
Chapter 4 - The Mongol Empire
In 1162 (or a few years earlier, sources are not clear on this) Temujin, the first Ghenggis Khan,
was born in the northern region of current day Mongolia as the second oldest son of a small tribe-
leader on the Onon River (they were actually not herders of large pastures, but hunters on the edge
of the forest).45 He was born into a nomadic tribe on the Eurasian steppes. The steppe tribes in the
region were in some way all related to each other and were probably all descendants from the
Siberian tribes. But some kind of unity was not the case. One of the indications of this, is that the
steppe people were named the “people with the nine tongues”, as they spoke nine different
languages.46
The basic unit of the steppe was the tribe, which was headed by a hereditary khan (Mongol
for leader) who directly dealt with the tribe’s aristocracy. Each noble had its own followers, who
were linked to the individual noble, not the tribe. The khan was selected out of the leading family,
but the chosen one was elected in a general meeting, or khuriltai, and was based on the idea to get
the best person for the job. The khan keeps his nobles attached to his group by giving them more
wealth. Wealth could be gathered by good pasturing (know your routes, large following, enough
pasture), or quick gain with raiding other tribes, which was also riskier (the fight could kill
someone, but it also opened a window for revenge by the raided party). Raiding was the normal
way of life on the steppe. The tribes living on the borders with the sedentary world, raided the
towns and villages, they themselves were raided (or traded with) by the tribes to the north, etc.
During the youth of Temujin the Mongols were divided, but there were three other tribe
confederations on the steppe: the Kereyid, the Tatars (who were the guards of the Chin empire in
northern China), and the Naiman. 47
The father of Temujin was killed by Tatars when he was only 9 years old. It happened
while Temujin himself was stationed at another tribe to “work” for, and to get to know, his future
wife (marriages were arranged).48 He was too young to lead the tribe, so all the other nobles and
followers left him, his mother, brothers, stepmother and half-brother behind. If it wasn’t for his
mother they would probably have died (although some sources indicate some relief by the brothers
of Temujin’s father).49 She did manage to find enough food to feed her five children and the 2
children of her husbands second wife, including this women. They survived on eating anything
45
J. Weatherford, Gengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (New York 2005) 10-11
46
J. Fletcher, ‘The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 1986, 46(1) 13
47
J. Weatherford, Gengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (New York2005) 39
48
Ibidem 19
49
G. Lane, Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule, (Westport 2004) 16
14
that was edible (rats, small fish, berries, etc). In the eyes of the other tribes, they were outcasts, and
lived as outcasts far away from any civilized world.
In his youth a few remarkable episodes are to be told. The first is the killing of his older
half-brother, when he was around 13 or 14 years old. With the death of his father, the oldest son,
Begter, became “the head” of the small group. Although until maturity (around 14 to16 years) the
women, and especially Temujin’s mother, were the ones to decide. But Begter was able to
command his younger brother into anything that he thought was necessary. Temujin disliked him.
According to historic sources it looks like he disliked him just because Begter was the oldest,
while he himself being oldest of the second wife was according to steppe tradition less important.50
When Temujin was around 14 years old, it became clear that Begter would marry his mother,
because he was the oldest male and this was the easiest way to get a first wife (it was tradition that
a son would inherit the wives of his father except his own mother). Temujin was apparently so
upset about Begter marrying his mother, that he decided to kill Begter, which he did together with
his younger brother (who he directed in front of Begter, as his brother had a better shot with a
bow). The death of Begter made him a real outcast, as Temujin was not only an insignificant
person but was now labelled as a criminal as well (although such killings happened more often
with infighting over the succession of a khan51).
This leads us to the second story about Temujin. Labelled a criminal, he was captured by
the Tayichiud tribe (one of the Mongol tribes) and was put into a cangue (made of wood, which
locked in your head and your arms). During nights he was entrusted to a family of one of the
followers, who remarkably agreed to let him sleep without the cangue. Temujin waited for a
chance to escape, which came during the night of a feast, while he was lightly guarded. He
escaped to the river, where found cover. He probably knew he didn’t have a chance to run
immediately. The next day a large search was set up, but he was not found. At least his finding
was not reported to the tribe leaders. He was actually found by the follower who had taken care of
him during his imprisonment. Somehow this man not only agreed to keep him hidden, but even
helped him to escape the night after.52 This indicates that Temujin was capable of winning the trust
of people. By getting the trust of his guard, he was able to flee and escape from the Tayichiud.
The third episode is about friendship, or actually a blood brother (also called an adas), with
another young boy from his youth, named Jamuka. This boy was the son of a tribe-leader and was
even related to Temujin (Steppe people related everything to lineages, not related meant that you
were an enemy). Temujin’s great-grandmother was also the great-grandmother of Jamuka, but
50
J. Weatherford, Gengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (New York 2005) 23
51
D. Ayalon, ‘The Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A Reexamination (Part B)’, Studia Islamica, No. 34. (1971), 161-162
52
15
Jamuka’s family was from her first husband. Their great grandmother was stolen (which was an
almost normal event in steppe relations) by a poor hunter tribe, where she gave birth to Temujin’s
lineage. 53 But in these first years, as being children, this linage issue was not a problem. After they
were 12 years old, they got separated as Jamuka stayed on the steppes and did not return to the
Onon River.
In 1178 Temujin turned 16 years old and set out to find the woman, that originally was
supposed to become his wife. She was still not married and went with Temujin to his small clan.
Temujin used the wedding gift of her father (a sable coat) to give it to the confederation leader
Ong Khan of the Kereyid. 54 Not only were the Kereyid one of the larger confederations and so
able to give security to Temujin’s small group, but Ong Khan was also the blood brother of
Temujin’s father. Ong Khan accepted the gift and Temujin was invited to be a leader of young
warriors. Temujin declined and returned to his wife and family. Probably he was trying to settle
down, as he would try in the future several times. But Temujin was time and again confronted with
the harsh life of the steppes. Raiding was a part of life, and the Merkids (a Mongolian tribe) raided
his camp and stole his wife.55 Temujin now lost his wife and had two options. Get her back from
the much stronger Merkids, or steal another wife. He opted for the first, with asking Ong Khan for
help. Ong Khan agreed and reunited Temujin with his old friend Jamuka. Together they raided the
Merkids and recaptured his wife.56
Temujin joined the much larger tribe of Jamuka (who was now tribe leader) and was
accepted as the right hand of Jamuka. Being a hunter he had to learn the routines of the pastoralists
with its large herds. In time Temujin became very popular in the larger group, and so he became a
threat to Jamuka’s leadership of the tribe. The old lineage “problem” was used to put down any
pretensions that Temujin might have and Jamuka ordered him to look after the less prestigious
small cattle (goats and sheep). Influenced by his wife Borte, Temujin decided to secretly break
away from the group at night fall. Due to his popularity a lot of other followers decided to join
them.57 And this break-up between Temujin and Jamuka was where the feud between the two
blood brothers began. Both were leaders of Mongol tribes, both wanted to unite them under one
banner, as long as it was their banner.
During this time, the innovative and convincing leader, that Temujin became renowned for,
started to shine. Temujin resented the aristocracy and preferred personal loyalty over lineage. This
was probably due to his own encounters with the downside of aristocratic values. Resenting the
53
Ibidem 38
54
Ibidem 29
55
Idem
56
Ibidem 34-35
57
16
aristocracy and the ability to win people over to his side, Temujin created a constant flow of new
followers (it is remarkable that he was able to gather around him a very diverse group of men,
most came from tribes who were his fiercest enemies).58 The struggle to unite Mongolian
followers and tribes under one banner, was a battle between the old traditions and a new society.
Both Jamuka and Temujin had a growing confederation of Mongol tribes. Jamuka won ground on
the fact that he was a representative of the older traditions and was supported by the aristocracy.
Temujin was seen as an upstart and a threat to their supremacy over their followers. Temujin on
the other hand was a just leader to any of his followers and gave all men their fair share (normally
the nobles took most, while the khan was not expected to interfere in the transition to the rest of
the noble’s followers).59
Both however were not able to gain the upper hand, but in 1189 Temujin decided to try his
luck and summoned a khuriltai (although only his own supporters showed up) where he was
declared khan of the Mongols. He decided to stay a vassal to Ong Khan (the Kereyid were united
and formed a much larger group). After securing Ong Khan’s permission, Temujin started to
reinvent the Mongols. He assigned responsibilities to its followers based on loyalty and ability
instead of the traditional kinship and lineages.60 This way Temujid was able to set up an efficient
tribe.
But the relaxing time was short lived again. In a surprise attack Jamuka raided Temujin’s
camp and captured several of his new followers. But at this moment the great distinction between
the old and new guard became clear. Jamuka horribly disgraced these men (he boiled some in hot
water, which was said to destroy their souls). This harsh treatment was not that unusual, but it did
alienate Jamuka from his enemies and probably severely dampened his chances into reuniting all
Mongols.61
Just a few years later an opportunity arose, as the rulers of the Chinese Chin empire
believed their “border-police”, the Tatars, were growing too strong and became a threat to the Chin
themselves. The Chin gave Temujin the assignment to weaken the Tatars. Temujin and Ong Khan
decided to be brothers in arms against the Tatars and plunder the richest tribe on the steppe. The
gained riches not only boosted the moral of the existing followers, but also made Temujin
attractive to future followers.62
A side story gives another interesting side of Temujin’s power. His relatives, the Jurkins,
did not show up after they promised to fight the Tatars. Instead they raided Temujin’s camp, when
58
G. Lane, Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule, 22
59
Ibidem 24-25
60
61
Ibidem 41
62
G. Lane, Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule, 23-24
17
he was away fighting the Tatars. When he returned he ordered a counterattack against the Jurkins.
After capturing the leaders he did something unusual. He summoned a khuriltai of his followers to
conduct a public trial of the Jurkin’s aristocratic leaders for being disloyal and raiding his camp
instead.63 They were of course found guilty and executed, but it was a clear warning against other
aristocrats that anyone, despite their background, was liable for their actions. Furthermore, the
normal procedure was to incorporate the Jurkin followers as slaves into his own tribe. But he
accepted them as normal members of the tribe. 64 He also used the older kinship model, by
adopting an orphan boy into his own family. It seems that these clear and fair actions made
Temujin popular under his (and his enemies’) followers.
In 1202, Ong Khan of the Kereyid ordered another raiding of the Tatars. But before his
attack, Temujin made a radical change to the raiding practices. 65 Traditionally the men in a camp
that was being raided would immediately fled away as they were the only ones risking to be killed.
The raiders never pursued these fleeing men, but as soon as they were in the camp they would start
plundering. This gave the raided party the opportunity to regroup, rebuild and revenge the attack.
Temujin did not want the Tatars to regroup, he wanted them out of his way for good. He ordered
that no-one was allowed to start looting until total victory was accomplished, as the loot would be
there afterwards anyway. And even more radical, he decided that the booty would be gathered
centrally and would be equally and orderly distributed by himself to all the followers, which cut
off the aristocrats from one of their major responsibilities. This way Temujin secured the
distribution towards the lower ranks and increased the loyalty to him, instead of loyalty towards
the lower nobles. Another linked and revolutionary change was the distribution of the looting to
the orphans and wives of killed warriors. This cleared a worry of the soldier/herder that his family
would suffer after he died in battle. As expected the Tatars were crushed and defeated, but
Temujin also ended up with a very large group of Tatar followers.
The Tatars were one of the larger confederations, so integrating this large group that
originally formed his enemy was a challenge. Through intermarriage and adoption he tried to
integrate the Tatars.66 But his real innovation came with the decimal structure.67 It was not a real
innovation, as the Huns (their forefathers) did the same, but Timujin’s innovation was to introduce
it into daily life. The Huns used it only for warfare, Timujin changed his society with it. The oldest
of the group of 10 was the leader, unless otherwise decided. They and their family lived together
and were as a group responsible for everything. For warfare and logisitics the groups of 10 were
63
64
Idem
65
Ibidem 50
66
Ibidem 52
67
Ibidem 53
18
united in groups of 100, 1000, and 10.000. Although during his reign the decimal structure worked
mostly as intended, Temujin did not succeed in completely destroying the tribal idea, as it regained
some influence after the fall of the empire. He did destroy the old “lineage loyalty” into a “group
loyalty” and by that loyalty to him. It is also from this time, that Temujin started talking about
“People of the Felt Walls” (referencing the use of felt tents by the steppe nomads, interestingly all
of them and not only the Mongols). This is the first indication of greater ambitions by Temujin that
were not present in his fellow khan’s (or predecessor’s for that matter).
Temujin’s old protector, Ong Khan and the Kereyid confederation, grew unwary about
Temujin’s progress. Instead of being a small Mongol tribe, he had become a threat to the power of
the Kereyid themselves. An offer of intermarriage between the two leaders’ families by Temujin
was rudely denied by the Kereyids. Some time later Ong Khan suddenly made up his mind and
agreed to the proposal. As Temujin and his son (who was to be married) drove towards Ong Khans
camp, they were just in time warned to survive a surprise attack by Ong Khan and Jamuka. 68 But a
lot of his followers were not that lucky and were killed in the attack. Temujin himself rode several
days to get out of the Kereyid area (although they were nomads, all tribes and confederations had a
certain territory they occupied). Interestingly his group of men around him belonged all (except
one, his brother Khasar) originally to other tribes than the Mongol tribe. The make-up showed that
the basis of the new tribal system was personal loyalty instead of lineage based, as the group
consisted of Merkids, Khitans and Kereyids, some were enemy tribes at this time of Temujin. The
group around Temujin survived as they found water and food and returned to the steppe. Here the
system of 10 already proved itself, as all groups were automatically reassembling themselves.69
Temujin ordered a direct counter-attack against the Kereyids. Followers had already gone ahead
and placed fresh mounts (a soldier, normally had 5 mounts of his own) on the route. With the use
of simple key descriptions (also used in battle), he called this “Lightening Advance”. It was
necessary not to be discovered in advance, so he took his army through a detour he knew that was
not guarded. So, while Ong Khan was still feasting with Jamuka in his golden tent, suddenly the
camp of Ong Khan was overrun by Temujin. 70 Hard fighting took on for three days, when the
major part of Temujins army arrived. Ong Khan and Jamuka escaped. Ong Khan did not survive
the escape, as he was left alone by his followers. History tells that Ong Khan did arrive at a camp
of the Naiman, which were friendly to Ong Khan, but propaganda spread by Temujin was ahead of
68
69
70
It should be noted that tribes in confederations lived most of the time separate from each other. Ong Khan’s tribe
was probably the largest and strongest, but still only part of the total confederation and therefore easier to attack.
19
him. Due to the several days of riding Ong Khan looked like a strange old man, instead of the
noble khan of the mighty Kereyid. While demanding entrance he is supposed to have been killed
by a Naiman guard, who thought that Ong Khan was dead, as Temujin’s propaganda had been
spreading around.71
In 1204 the final battle between the steppe nomads, the Mongols versus the Naiman, was
there. The Naiman were still a much larger confederation than the united front of Temujin. In
order to win he came up with several tactics. 72 This battle shows how well he controlled his army,
and how well they all knew what was expected of them. Although the tactics were based on
hunting tactics and other well known manoeuvres of the nomadic live, the Naiman were perplexed
by it. At arriving near the Naiman base camp Temujin ordered that all horses should look to be
mounted, so his army looked bigger. Next, every group (of ten) had to make and maintain 5 fires
each, so his army still looked bigger.
Temujin started his attack early. Before dawn he had groups attacking in the “Moving
Bush” formation: dispersed squads of ten advanced seperately and silently from different
directions while keeping their profiles low in the predawn darkness. The enemy could not see how
many were attacking or prepare for an attack from one single direction. After the skirmish the
squads fled in different directions, leaving the enemy wounded but unable to retaliate before their
attackers disappeared. When the two armies were approaching in daylight Temujin ordered his
men to attack in the “Lake formation”: a long line of troops advanced, fired its arrows, and then
was replaced by the next line. Like waves, they struck and then disappeared as quickly as they had
appeared, each wave, in turn, returning to the rear and forming another wave. The use of the lake
formation caused the Naiman to spread out in a long, thin line to meet the long line of attacking
Mongols. And that was exactly what was being anticipated upon with the “Chisel formation”: right
after the Naiman spread out, he regrouped his squads one behind the other. It was narrow across
the front, but extremely deep, allowing the attackers to channel maximum force to one point on the
now thinned Naiman lines and chisel through them. This way Temujin was also able to spread
panic and thereby defeat the Naiman. 73
Especially at this last battle it had become clear that Temujin had produced a new type of
steppe army. Instead of the undisciplined confederations, he now had an army based on a greater
variety of tactics and, most important, there was close cooperation among the men and complete
obedience to their commanders. They were no longer an attacking swarm of individuals; they were
71
72
Ibidem 61
73
20
now a united formation. Temujin used a set of manoeuvres that each man had to know and to
which each responded precisely and without hesitation.
After the battle with the Naiman, Temujin united all the steppe tribes, he abolished all titles
and related offices based on lineages. All these titles and offices were to be distributed by the
Khan, and he himself gave his most loyal followers the biggest influence. 74 As he was not very
trustworthy of kinship he also introduced officials to oversee (and control) his own family. 75
Another innovation was his introduction of the Great Yasa, or Mongol law. It was based on
traditional Mongol law, but adjusted according to Temujin’s belief of errors in the law.
Subordinate tribes were allowed to follow their traditional law in their own area, as long as it was
not in conflict with the Great Yasa.76 Other adjustments were the introduction of religious
freedom,77 with a tax exemption for all religious personnel, later he extended this rule to all
professionals like teachers, scholars, lawyers, etc. The basic unit in the law was the group and not
the individual. The group was made responsible for all the actions of its individuals. This was
enlarged to the higher echelons. So the army was responsible for wrongdoings in the
administration, and was not allowed to ignore it as being not responsible. According to Temujin,
the enforcement of the law and the responsibility to abide by it began at the highest level. So even
he himself had to abide the law, Temujin, the highest leader was not even above the law! This was
in sharp contrast with the leaders in the world around him (or in Europe for example). It was
probably too innovative for its time, as this rule only survived another 50 years after his death. 78
74
75
Ibidem 67
76 G. Lane, Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule, 36; D. O. Morgan, The 'Great "yasa" of Chingiz Khan' and Mongol Law
in the Ilkhanate, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 49(1), In Honour of Ann
K. S. Lambton. (1986) 163-176: There is much discussion about the content of the Yasa, or even its existence. As an
original document hasn’t been available for centuries, only references by secondary literature (mostly from Arabian
and Persian sources) can give an impression of the Yasa. The different sources suggest at least the existence of rules
layed down by Chenggis Khan (or ordered to be put to paper by him at least) and mention several rules (mostly in the
case of differences of interpretation by different competing parties.
77
J. Weatherford, Gengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (New York 2005) 172-173: One of the most
interesting stories of the attitude towards religion stems from the catholic priest Rubruck, who visited the Mongolian
capital, Korakorum, in 1254, while Mongke, Chenggis Khan, was presiding over the empire as Great Khan (the title of
Chenggis Khan was last used by Guyuk, son of Ogodai, grandson of Temujin). At his arrival Rubruck soon enters into
debate with other Christians at the court, mostly Nestorian Christians (heretics according to the pope). Mongke
decides to have a debate competition between all religions and invites Rubruck to join. Although it ends as everybody
is to drunk to talk, before that Rubruck even teams up with Nestorians, Muslims and Jews, to counterargument the
Tibettan Budhists’ ideas of God. This debating is even more interesting as Rubruck came as an envoy of King Louis
IX of France, who at the same time persecuted Jews for their beliefs and tried to burn every Jewish manuscript his
government could capture. This presecution made him Saint Louis as he was canonized by the Pope.
78
21
Ghenggis Khan (Temujin took this title at the Khuriltai of 1206, when he had united all
tribes into one) had the ability to judge a person’s value and capabilities. 79 Temujin attended a
meeting with the Uyghurs in the south, who were also nomads and had just pledged allegiance to
him. He noticed a person writing during this meeting with the leaders and the court. He asked this
person what he was doing (Almost no Mongol was literate, if there was any at all at this moment
in time) and this man explained that he wrote everything down for archiving, or correspondence,
among other reasons. Temujin apparently understood the essence of it for his newly created reign
and ordered this person, who he adopted as his brother, to create a script for the Mongolian
language. This was a successful effort, as the script still exists today. 80 What is exemplary, is that
Temujin was capable to notice the probably insignificant writer at a splendid court, where every
attention is directed towards the leaders. This capability of understanding the use of ordinary
people would be a talent he would be exploiting in the future as well.81
Writing is just one part of running an administration. Communication over vast areas is
difficult but necessary in order to hold the empire together. Ghenggis Khan set up a system of fast
riders to send letters and decrees around. This military run communication system eventually
developed (as the empire grew bigger) into the famous Mongol postal system, heralded by several
international visitors like Marco Polo.82 In its hay days it consisted of several routes crisscrossing
the entire empire. Every route had at each six and a half kilometre a post-house (to rest, feed, etc)
and each stop-place, or yam, had at least 15 horses ready to go. This system allowed information
to travel within weeks throughout the whole empire. For example, when Ogodai Khan (son of
Temujin) died, the news reached Europe within six weeks. A message that probably saved Europe
from destruction as all Mongols headed back to Mongolia for a khuriltai to pick the new Khan.
Uniting all steppe nomads also meant that there were no more targets for looting, one of the
major reasons to pledge allegiance by a Mongol to his leader. And Temujin was not yet strong
enough to withstand pressure. At the same time the Jurchen Kingdom of North China had send an
envoy to Temujin to demand submission as a vassal state. Their power towards the Mongols rested
in the tight control of goods flowing north from the southern Chinese workshops.83 In order to stay
Khan, Temujin needed these goods for his followers. He decided not to pledge submission and
therefore had to attack the Jurchen, as it was the only way to secure the needed goods.
79
M.C. Brose, ‘Uyghur Technologists of Writing and Literacy in Mongol China’, T’oung Pao XCI, 396-429
80
Idem
81
E. Endicott-West, ‘Imperial Governance in Yuan Times’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 46(2) (1986) 541-542;
Chenggis and his successor used non-Mongolians to oversee and governance the civil bureaucracy in their empire. The
historian Morris Rossabi has, for example, demonstrated the use of Muslim and Tibetan financiers at the Mongol
Court.
82
83
22
But the Jurchen were a new kind of enemy. Originally semi-nomadic from the north-east
(they are related to the later Manchu’s, the last Chinese emperors), they conquered the North of
China and controlled it with forts and fortified cities. It had a vast army, mostly infantry, which it
had stationed in the south of its kingdom. Temujin decided they should first attack the smaller
Tangut kingdom. Although they were far less heavily fortified then the Jurchen, Ghenggis Khan
was not able to conquer the main city, although just the sight of his military might did make the
Tanguts pledge submission. This conquest resulted in some information about fortifications and
siege engineers, needed to conquer the Jurchen.
In 2011, Ghenggis Khan decided to start a campaign against the Jurchen. Avoiding
confrontation with the cities, he moved deep into Jurchen territory, even reaching the (early)
Chinese Wall of the Chinese Sung empire. In the south he also found the Jurchen main army of
70,000 professional soldiers. Probably at least outnumbered 1 to 2, Ghenggis decided to test this
new enemy. The trained Mongol army with its newly adopted manoeuvres proved devastating for
the Jurchen. Within hours the complete army was destroyed and Ghenggis famous myth of
destruction began to spread. But he was not able to attack the cities, his Mongol army returned to
their mainland without much material gains. This lack booty should not lead to the conclusion that
it was a unsuccessful campaign, as Genggis gained some resourceful contacts during this first tour
through Jurchen territory.84 Ghenggis had ordered to look for the Khitan’s, the former rulers of
northern China. Gaining their allegiance by promising to restore them to their throne, the Mongols
gained information about the geographics of the Jurchen area and its strengths and weaknesses. On
their return to northern China, Ghenggis officially restored the Khitan monarchy as a vassal state
of the Mongol empire. This helped to gather more support from local Khitan’s, who were also
recognized as good administrators for the Mongols’ own empire and were being deployed in its
starting bureaucracy. 85
Ghenggis had a well planned strategy to conquer the Jurchen. 86 First of all, he transformed
the Jurchen’s main advantage, its vast population, into its main weakness. Ghenggis Khan ordered
to capture the locals and put them to work, each soldier had to look after 10 locals, in order to
build the camps, siege weapons and the like. The siege knowledge was gathered by offering great
rewards for every engineer that defected to their side. This proved to be the beginning of the end
84
85
D. Ostrowski, ‘The "tamma" and the Dual-Administrative Structure of the Mongol Empire’, Bulletin of the School
of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 61(2) (1998), 272
86
23
for the Jurchen. But it is interesting to note that the Mongols used several tactics. Even
confiscating a Jurchen envoy moving towards a besieged city, who was replaced by a Mongol
supporter. He convinced the city’s ruler that the Mongols were giving up and going away, so the
city broke up its defence, but with the high speed of the Mongol army, they were back before any
defence was restored and the city was captured accordingly. In another case, they used the local
population to break up an enemy army. The Mongols were used to use cattle to break up an
enemy’s attack by driving the cattle into its frontlines. The Mongols did the same with the local
population to break up the approaching Jurchen army and attacked and defeated it from the flanks.
In 1215 the Jurchen were defeated and their capital at Zongdu looted and destroyed, this also set
an example to new enemies. Pledge submission and you shall be spared, but if you oppose you will
be annihilated. With this strategy Ghenggis actually tried to reduce the amount of warfare, as many
enemies would surrender without risking his soldiers’ lives in battle.87 The immense riches
Ghenggis Khan brought back to Mongolia from conquering the Jurchen were bigger than any had
ever seen before. They had captured so many precious materials, they even set up warehouses for
later distribution. At the site of the warehouses the captured craftsmen and administrators were
stationed as well.
Ghenggis Khan now controlled a large part of the silk route and nomadic and agricultural
areas. But he also had to organize and control supply lines, maintain production88 and coordinate
the movements of goods and people. Something he had never done before. Using vassal states and
captured administrators he was able to set up an imperial administration in Mongolia. Instead of
having to rely on looting for their income, they also designed a new taxing system, which favoured
trade.89 As already mentioned, supporting professions, like lawyers, healers, and religious leaders,
were exempted from taxation.
To support the trade on the silk route, Ghenggis Khan, sent an envoy to the Kwarizmed
Sultan in the west, who controlled inner Asia and parts of Persia, to formalize their commercial
relationship with a treaty. After the treaty, Ghenggis turned to the Muslim and Hindu merchants in
his empire to assemble a caravan of 450 merchants and retainers loaded with luxury commodities
87
88
The Mongol principle to use the most talented people for the job (mostly foreigners) was even present in the mines
of Mongolia. German miners, captured in Europe were transporterd to Mongolia to improve mining techniques.
89
A. K. S. Lambton, ‘Mongol Fiscal Administration in Persia’, Studia Islamica Vol. 64 (1986) 79-99; The nomadic
tribes, including the Mongols, didn’t know a regular taxation. After the conquest, the irregular taxation (could be
levied regularly, but for specific reasons, mostly war) existed besides a local tax system (normally the existing tax
system of the conquered government), this second tax would provide to pay for the tribute that local governers paid to
the Khan. Later an third tax was introduced to tax the commercial goods. This latest would replace the irregular tax as
the major tax revenu for the Mongol rulers.
24
and ordered it to be brought to the Sultan, with another message of friendship.90 In Otrar, a city in
a border Kwarizm province, a governor seized the goods and killed the merchants. Not pleased by
the news, Ghenggis Khan sent an envoy to the Sultan requesting punishment of the governor for
his misconduct. But the Sultan, pressured by internal politics, did not obey and killed two of the
envoys and sent the others wounded back to Mongolia. For Ghenggis this meant that he had to
revenge these actions by force and set up a campaign in 1216. Although he conquered the Jurchen,
the Kwarizm was a much stronger enemy, but also with lots of internal rivalry. Ghenggis Khan’s
army totalled around 150,000 to 200,000 soldiers at that time, while the Sultan’s Turkic army
totalled some 400,000 soldiers, who also had the advantage to fight at their own soil. 91
Instead of riding with the main army to the easily accessible border cities, Ghenggis
himself went with a small army through the desert, with help from locals, to end up behind enemy
lines at the ancient city of Bukhara. It was not an important city in the case of trade, strategic
position (although it was relatively close to the major city of Samarqand) or size. But it was a very
ancient Muslim city of at least 500 years old, renowned for its Muslim culture and learning
(matching Baghdad).92 The psychological impact would be felt throughout the Muslim area, while
it was easier to attack than the larger border cities. Ghenggis had taken Chinese engineers with
him, to build the siege engines on the spot. In the surrounding villages he made his reputation
known. Annihilated those who opposed him and did nothing to those who obliged. Within days the
city was captured, the craftsmen deported to Mongolia and the soldiers, aristocrats and other
civilians killed. Leaving some alive to tell the story in surrounding cities, spreading a propaganda
of fear.93
Meanwhile his main army completely destroyed Otrar, the destruction was so severe that it
never recovered and remains a ruin until this day. The combination of propaganda and a well
trained army against an apparently less strong Sultan was easier than at the start might have been
expected. Ghenggis and his army swiftly conquered the complete empire. Due to the high
humidity he had to cancel his plan to return to Mongolia by conquering all lands south of the
Himalaya and the Chinese Sung empire in South China. 94 Instead they returned via inner Asia in
1222, just 3 years after starting the war.
90
91
K. Stubbs, ‘Facing the wrath of Khan’, Military History, May 2006, 32; Much lower figures are also suggested for
the Mongol Army. Even as less as a total of 90,000 soldiers.
92
Ibidem 33
93
Ibidem 34
94
Ibidem 33
25
On his return, the Tangut kingdom revolted against him, and he planned another campaign,
probably only starting with the Tangut, but then planning to fight the Sung. But a fall during a
haunting trip severely injured him. Although he pressed forwards, he died in 1226 (or 1227) at the
age of 64 and was buried somewhere at his home grounds in Mongolia.
Ghenggis Khan himself feared his sons were not capable of being great leaders themselves.
Ogodai Khan, who replaced his father, was a notorious drunk. On the other hand, he (although it
were probably his administrators, installed by Ghenggis Khan) did introduce several novelties. 95
He set up an imperial capital in Mongolia, which was new for the nomadic Mongols, as a
permanent residence (Korakorum). He also strongly promoted trade, which heightened the trade
between China and the western regions even further. His other brothers were making advances in
China and conquered Russia and other parts of eastern Europe. Using the same tactics as
introduced by Ghenggis Khan.
After the death of Ogodai in 1241, a period of internal fighting erupted within the family.
Finally in 1251 Mongke, the grandson of Ghenggis Khan became the new ruler. He sent his
brother Hulegu to conquer the Abbasid empire (Mesopotamia) in the east and he himself
conquered the Sung together with his younger brother Khubilai, who knew a lot about China, but
was not much of a conqueror.96
Mongke not only redirected the army to conquer new rich empires (instead of the
apparently poor Europe), but he also cut back spending. Ogodai and his son Guyuk had spent all
wealth and built even large amounts of debt, by issuing paper drafts, that could be converted into
gold or silver on request (an innovation introduced by Ghenggis Khan during his final years).
Mongke repaid all paper drafts, although it was a real drain on the empires wealth, but he wanted
to keep the trust in the Mongol rule and keep the trade alive. He recognized the benefits of the
paper draft system, but also saw a need for regulation, so he introduced an institution that had to
control the issuing of the paper drafts in relation to the available amount of gold and silver.97 To
further advance the efficiency in transactions he tied all local currencies to the Mongolian Sukhe at
a fixed exchange rate. In combination with a census to record the number of people and animals as
well as the orchards and farms and other assets of the empire, he was able to have an effective and
efficient tax system, 98 which was needed to bring in the vast amounts of wealth to pay for the two
campaigns.
95
96
T.T. Allsen, ´ Guard and Government in the Reign of The Grand Qan Möngke, 1251-59´, Harvard Journal of
Asiatic Studies (1986) 46(2), 499
97
98
Idem
26
Suddenly, in 1259 Mongke died, probably from dysentery while staging war at the final
stage against the Sung. His dead came too soon, as the empire lost its centralizing effort.99 Hulegu
had conquered Mesopotamia and surrounding areas (but was defeated by the Mamluks, while
trying to conquer Egypt), Khubilia only needed to get rid of the last resistance of the Sung, while
the decadents of Jochi (first son of Ghenggis), ruled the Golden Horde in Russia and the sons of
Chaghatai ruled inner-Asia (which would later develop into the Moghul Empire that conquered
India). But the Pax Mongolica and the Postal System remained in place as none of the parts fought
each other.
Around 1330 a virus would change the world. Although it is still debated to what extent the
black death was influential outside of Europe (Europeans somehow seem to think that they were
the only victims),100 but reports about vast amounts of deaths in 1331 in Hopei Province (90
percent of the population died) indicate that the Plague was also devastating in China. Estimates of
the total amounts of deaths, done by some scholars, range from one-half to one-third of the total
population . Another reference to the upheaval is seen in the Chinese imperial annals of 1332 with
a lot of sudden unexplained deaths occurred at the Yuan court (the Yuan empire, was the Chinese
empire headed by Khubilia Khan).101 The Plague was spreaded swiftly by the fantastic postal
system and trade routes throughout the empire, until it reached the Portuguese trading port Caffa in
the Crimea in 1347 (which was a special trade port in Mongolian controlled territory).102 This was
the beginning of Europe’s encounter with the Black Death.
99
Ibidem 188
100
D. Morgan, The Mongols (London 2007)117-118; For China, the period is known for much civil unrest and
rebellions. This results in few administrative sources surviving from this period as the government was collapsing.
Nonetheless, several historians accept that some kind of disease, and probably the pest, was also taking meany lives in
the 14th century.
101
102
Idem
27
Chapter 5 – Ghenggis Khan’s leadership skills
From Temujin’s history, as stated above I will identify several important episodes in which he
shows his leadership skills. These episodes will be reviewed and leadership traits, behaviours and
contextual dimensions will be specifically identified when they occur.
The first signs of Temujin’s way of dealing with others and the world can be seen in his youth, the
killing of his half-brother and the escape from the Tayichiud tribe:
- The killing of his half-brother brings two points two the forefront. First, it is his
unwillingness to oblige unconditionally to anyone, believing apparently that he should be
the leader himself (as he is not against the concept of leadership), self-confidence is strong
within Temujin. Second, he makes well use of his younger brother’s ability with the bow
and does not kill in a rush, but seizes the opportunity calmly and well prepared. This could
be indicated as an empowering opportunity by Temujin in relation to his younger brother,
but also an expression of his power and the acceptance of his power by his younger
brother.
- The escape from the Tayichiud shows his ability to win the minds of other people,
including those he does not know beforehand, to not only like him, but also that they were
willing to act for his good fortune, even if it carried substantial risks (if their tribe would
have found out, they would most probably have been executed). Again this is the creation
of an empowering opportunity (freeing and hiding a prisoner) with substantial risk.
The following important moments are the request for protection by Ong Khan of the Kereyid and
the joining with Jamuka’s tribe:
- Seeking the protection by Ong Khan is a sign that Temujin was realistic enough about his
environment. He did not want to be part of it, with its raiding and tribal wars, just wanted a
peaceful life. But he was wise enough to recognise the reality and seek alliances that
honoured his valued independence, but also gave him the needed protection. The joining
with Jamuka’s tribe does not show particular leadership characteristics, beside the fact that
he recognised that he needed this situation to survive.
- The joining of the Jamuka tribe made him learn a lot, but also again shows his ability to
become popular with potential followers, who even dare to brake rules to join him.
Somehow, through his actions and speeches he inspired people. The decision to leave
Jamuka is one of the major early expressions of Temujin’s leadership skills. He had the
28
self-confidence and vision to see a different future, but was also able to communicate this
to other followers, who gladly accepted his power as a leader of their new tribe. The
willingness of Jamuka’s followers to join Temujin also seems to be based on the way
Temujin treated his followers, namely with care and respect.
The first big changes into his own tribe started after becoming khan of the Mongols with Ong
Khan’s blessing:
- He immediately started abolishing the former lineage rules and build his tribe based on
loyalty. Not only did he have a vision how another structure should look like in contrast to
the traditional structures, but apparently he was also able to communicate this to his
followers, who all accepted this radical change. He clearly did not accepted the general
culture, but was determined and able to change this towards his vision.
The war against the Tatars in alliance with the Kereyid tribe: His new way of dealing with
unwanted behaviour by allied partners as demonstrated by the trial of the Jurkin aristocracy, his
order for total victory and his restructuring of the distribution of booty:
- To make his statement clear that aristocracy and lineage was something of the past he
ordered a khuriltai to trial the Jurkin’s. This made clear that he appreciated the opinion of
his loyal followers and that he liked to make his decisions transparent. This way he earned
trust with his followers and created the image of a just leader. All behavioural aspects are
present. He had a vision how to deal with this kind of disobedience, created an empowering
opportunity for his followers to decide and respected their decisions.
- The fact that he was able to call for a change of normal warfare, which was central in the
nomadic life, while he himself was not long ago attacked by Jamuka, which could have
lowered his image, was remarkable. His communication skills seemed very important to
improve his position towards his followers. It also shows that from early on he changed
any aspect of Mongol culture if he deemed it necessary and had the accepted power to
implement these changes.
- The restructuring of the distribution of booty was also very interesting. It was a huge
cultural change. It can be seen as complementary to his abolishment of the aristocracy as
only the loyalty to him as a person remained. This loyalty was now made more important
as it implied direct gains. To side-step the aristocracy in a very traditional society is a huge
achievement, although his own tribe did not exist of many of the most powerful aristocrats
(who joined Jamuka).
29
The inclusion of old enemies was a result of his decision to gain total victory and thereby gaining
the tribe of his enemy as prisoners or new followers:
- As with the Jurkins he acknowledged the great importance not to humiliate his enemies by
making them slaves, which might be logical following their past relationship. But it would
have been unwise if he wanted a strong and cohesive tribe, so he had to integrate them. The
successful integration of former enemies shows that Temujin knew how to control group
dynamics. His innovative tactics show a lot of self-confidence in his ability to successful
integrate these new groups into an ever larger tribe.
- His biggest organizational innovation came with the use of the decimal structure. It was a
known structure in warfare, but he adjusted it to daily life as well. This was the first time
that Temujin showed the ability to transform known tactics into new use in a different
setting. The combination of his ability to learn and a strong vision and will for power made
able to use existing knowledge in new and innovative ways.
- Introducing the importance of the group, he build on teamwork, while integrating it into the
whole by loyalty to him. He was the integrating part, while the groups gave flexibility to
his new society.
The destruction of the Kereyid:

- Here Temujin showed his true innovative capabilities, as he destroyed the Kereyid’s not
only by force, but also by introducing propaganda. Especially the propaganda tool would
become one his most important weapons.
The defeat of the Naiman as an example of Temujin’s success of turning the Mongols into a
cohesive and united group of feared warriors:
- They had shown responsibility with regrouping after the attack by Ohn Khan, but now
showed their well oiled organization, based on teamwork, good communication, good
training, and a well thought out plan by its leaders. Temujin recreated the Mongols. The
aspects of leadership can be retraced. The vision of a cohesive group, uniting all the people
of the steppe in a controllable group was made possible by Temujin’s appreciative attitude
towards his followers. He not only used his power, but most considered him as the rightful
30
person to claim the ultimate power. Temujin’s followers were well trained and aware of
what was expected of them, but they also had their own responsibility to take action,
especially within the 10 man groups.
The introduction of the Yasa:

- It was an astonishing accomplishment that someone who grew up as a hunter, completely
illiterate, without any contact with sedentary civilizations, to introduce a common law,
adjusted to the new structure in his society. But also to acknowledge the wish from vassals
to use their own law, as long as it was not in conflict with the Yasa. And to see the
importance that a law works best if everyone, including the leader abide by the law. Even
though he acknowledged his less than ideal control of the administrative processes,
Temujin apparently understood that a great army does not equal a strong empire. Without
consistent and permanent income (which excludes looting), reliable data and good
governance, each conquest would have probable have been lost as control of vast area’s
would have been impossible. The visionary capabilities of Temujin produced some
remarkable innovations for its time.
Dealing with a new enemy, the Jurchen:

- Instead of accepting defeat, as he was not able to capture the fortified cities, he was able to
learn swiftly the importance of siege engines, and was able to incorporate it in his own
structure, which was based on speed by cavalry and little support. Instead of stealing the
siege engines, he gained the knowledge, by persuading siege engineers to join his side. By
incorporating siege engineers instead of already built siege weapons into his army he was
able to keep the advantages of speed, but he was also able to constantly renew his weapons
by adding new knowledge to his existing knowledge base. He improved the siege engines
along his campaigns and introduced gunpowder (and improving its use while on campaign)
to the western parts of Asia.
- He was also able to see the importance of gaining “soft” knowledge. Local people were
highly rewarded for helping to learn the geography and social dimensions of new areas. By
doing this he was able to adjust his tactics and make plans for defeating an enemy. His
thorough preparation and use of other people’s advice (he was humble about his own
knowledge and capabilities) made the actual campaigns successful and quick operations.
The learning capacity of Temujin can be seen as an expression of his self-confidence, as it made
him capable to accept that he was not all-knowing and others had more knowledge on different
31
aspects of warfare, administration or anything Temujin considered important enough. It is also an

expression of his power, that his followers did not doubt him (at least not in a significant manner
to impact his influence) when he showed by learning that he might have his weak spots.
The introduction of administration, control, taxation and other institutions:

- Temujin had a good eye for talent. He spotted a writer who was able to create the Mongol
script, but also set up a judicial system. The Khitan’s were good administrators and
together with other captured professionals Genghis Khan was able to form a working
government, with revenues from a tax system, that advanced intraregional and international
trade. And all that in a period of less then a few years. The Mongol acceptance of different
ethnicities at powerful positions showed their open minded attitude towards other cultures
and religions. This absolutely helped Temujin introducing new people into his own society.
His legacy:
- Although the plague destroyed much of the society build by Temujin, as can be seen by the
reign of Mongke and his brothers, the power of innovation, and other adjustments were still
imbedded in its system. The armies were still very strong and based on the structure
introduced by Temujin. The institution of the postal system lived through with the
Mamluks and the Ottomans, while the Ottoman Turks also used a lot of the war tactics
while conquering their empire (the plague drove Turks and Mongols into cooperation). But
the most influential innovation was his new social organization based on loyalty to the
Khan instead of lineage, this lasted into the Mongolian society until modern times. The
remembrance of his great leadership was hampered by one of his main weapons,
propaganda. The propaganda, actively stimulated by Gengghis himself, which portrayed
him as a barbarian killing and destroying anything in its path, was apparently so strong that
it lasted into modern times.
One of the crucial parts of understanding Temujin was his need for power, as he always
tried to alter any situation in which he was not in a controlling position. Interestingly this seems to
be a trait instead of a behaviour as he showed this kind of behaviour from a very young age.
Another, almost conflicting, behaviour was his acceptance that he was not able to do it all by
32
himself, but that he needed to get people to align themselves with his goals. In order to do this he
had to accept his own shortcomings, valuing the opinions of others and supporting his followers.
The acceptance of this fact in combination with the capability to convince his followers to act on
this and take risks was also present from the same moment as he had placed his younger brother
into an important role in killing Berger. Although it seems that this characteristic improved
overtime.
His many innovations (warfare techniques, law, script, civil organisation, etc) shows
Temujin’s visionary capabilities. As a lot of these innovations meant radical changes to past
practices, it was also of great importance that he was capable to communicate these clearly, in
order to have them accepted and acted upon immediately by his followers. His greatest and best
lasting innovations were the changing of the culture of the Mongolian tribes and his propaganda
machine, which still haunts his legacy.
Finally, it is remarkable how he was (and still is) admired by his followers. He was able to
use them for his own vision, but he also gave them a lot of opportunities to improve their own
lives. He relied for a large part on their capabilities and loyalty, but he entrusted them with great
campaigns as well. His loyal generals were capable to act independently, while still ready to oblige
any direct order immediatly. One crucial part of his relationship with his followers, but also within
other relations, was his down to earth and humble self-image. He never acted haughtily towards
anybody, was well aware of his shortcomings, but also his strengths (as is shown by
correspondence with a Tibetan monk, where he acknowledges to be better at picking talented
generals than talented administrators).103 This last characteristic can be seen as crucial in his
leadership. It made him look like one of his own, made sure that criticism and bad news reached
him directly, so he could act on it accordingly.
His numerous radical changes show that Temujin did not lack any confidence in his
capabilities to control and alter his world. One of the most mentioned shortcomings of
transformational leaders is narcism. 104 A lot of great leaders suffered from being to self-centred,
which could cause conflicts with followers and rivals. But Temujin’s humility kept him safe from
being to narcistic. Is this humility a trait or a characteristic? The killing of Berger does not suggest
that it was present in his youth. Since the destruction of the Jurchen the Mongols were showered
with high valued materials like silk, golden and proceleyn craftworks, and other valuables. From
this moment it was mentioned that Temujin frowned upon these luxeries, while he pledged to stay
close to his roots. Another example was the fact that he, even as one of the richest and most
103
104
H.S. Khoo, G.St.J. Burch, ‘The ‘dark side’ of leadership personality and transformational leadership: An
exploratory study’, Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 87-88
33
powerful rulers on earth at a certain moment, never got things like the golden tent that Ong Khan
had during his rule of the Kereyid. One of the clearest examples of humility is the
acknowledgement of his problems with picking the best administrators in the letter to a Tibetan
monk. Although it is hard to examine, it seems that showing humility developed over time. Why
did this develop? Perhaps due to his difficult youth and struggles in climbing to the top? From this
history it is difficult to asses the importance and specific influence of this characteristic or how its
has developed, but as in modern leadership research it might be interesting to study it as a part of
leadership skills.
34
Chapter 6 - Conclusion
Outstanding leaders’ achievements always seem to amaze, even centuries later. Leaders like
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Sun Tzu, Charlemagne, Louis XIV, Churchill, Ghandi and
others are still being studied today. Most remarkable about these leaders was not their prowess, but
more their ability to organise. They created their own success, not by being great, but by
organising and inspiring others. That’s the value of studying these leaders, even if it happened
centuries ago. Organising and creating well functioning groups and have them perform above their
perceived abilities towards goals set by their leaders is an usefull subject to learn from for todays
leaders.
This essay has given a short introduction into past and current leadership literature, which
has evolved from the somewhat simplistic early 20th century research of “great men” in our
society. Leadership research currently focuses on three aspects, behaviour, traits and context.
Behaviour is learnable and is mostly oriented towards the leader’s action towards his followers
with “communicating a vision”, “creating empowering opportunities”, and “showing care and
respect for followers”, as the main areas of interest. The traits on the other hand are considered to
be fixed, although some replace it with the term characteristics, which are thought to be more
adaptable. The main elements are also more leaders focused, although the traits are given
legitimacy by the followers. The traits of vision (long-term view), power and self-confidence are
deemed important traits that a leader needs to inhibit. Finally, all leaders, managers act in a certain
context, with organizational culture given the central focus.
The history of Temujin, better known by his title Gengghis Khan, also shows that all
dimensions interact. The visionary capabilities were useless without his communicating
capabilities. His need for power placed him in the position to use this power, while the self-
confidence made him believe that his actions would be able to change his society. All which would
not have been possible with his great attention towards his followers, constantly relying on their
special capabilities and loyalty to perform risky actions to accomplish his vision. One thing that
was not really mentioned in the leadership literature was humility, while from Temujin’s history it
seems an important part of him gaining loyalty and especially improved his and his society’s
learning capabilities. Acting haughtily would probably have him ended like a Jamuka or an Ong
Khan, instead of the famous Ghenggis Khan. Therefore I think humility is an aspect that should
get more attention in future leadership research. This behaviour (I think it is learnable) might be
very helpful in combination with the other leadership skills as the leader will accept criticism
35
easier as well as swifter acceptance and perhaps also earlier acceptance of new techniques,
processes and structures.
Answering the main question, which leadership skills made Ghenggis Khan as great as he
is remembered, can be done in two ways. First is that Temujin had all essential leadership skills
that are seen as critical by modern leadership research. Second, Ghenggis Khan had a strong, but
adaptable vision. He wanted to integrate all steppe people and create a better society for all. To
achieve this he was able to use all kinds of techniques, from language to siege engineers, and
adjust them towards his vision (for example using siege engineers instead of already built siege
engines to keep the benefit of travelling fast). As Burns and Schein argued one of the most
distinctive aspects of a transformational leaders is his ability to change the culture, which makes
Temujin certainly a transformational leader. One other skill which is also important is the already
mentioned humility, as Temujin never pictured himself, towards his followers, as better then
themselves (he, live everyone else, had to oblige the law). The humility enabled him to use his
power, make him aware of criticism and capable of learning new techniques.
36
Bibliography
Books
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A.T., Sternberg, R.J., The Nature of Leadership (London 2004)
Kezar, A.J., Carducci, R., Contreras-McGavin, M., Rethinking the "L" word in higher education :
the revolution in research on leadership, ASHE Higher Education Report
(Washington 2006); Chapter 2: A World Apart: New Paradigms of Leadership
Lane, G., Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule (Westport 2004)
Morgan, D., The Mongols (London 2007)
Weatherford, J., Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (New York 2004)
Articles
Allsen, T.T., ´Guard and Government in the Reign of The Grand Qan Möngke, 1251-59´, Harvard
Journal of Asiatic Studies, 46(2) (1986) 495-521
Ayalon, D., ‘The Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A Re-examination (Part B)’, Studia Islamica, 34
(1971) 151-180
Beyer, J.M., Taming and promoting charisma to change organizations, Leadership Quarterly,
10(2) (1999) 307-330
Brose, M.C., ‘Uyghur Technologists of Writing and Literacy in Mongol China’, T’oung Pao XCI,
(2005) 396-435
Casimir, G., Waldman, D.A., ‘A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Importance of Leadership
Traits for Effective Low-level and High-level Leaders’, International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 7(1) (2007) 47–60
Di Cosmo, N., ‘Ancient Inner Asian Nomads: Their Economic Basis and Its Significance in
Chinese History’, The Journal of Asian Studies, 53(4) (1994) 1092-1126
Endicott-West, E., ‘Imperial Governance in Yuan Times’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies,
46(2) (1986) 523-549
Fletcher, J. ‘The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic
Studies, 46(1) (1986) 11-50
Groves, K.S., ‘Linking Leader Skills, Follower Attitudes, and Contextual Variables via an
Integrated Model of Charismatic Leadership’, Journal of Management, 31(255) (2005) 255-277
Jaskyte, K., ‘Transformational Leadership, Organizational Culture, and Innovativeness in

Nonprofit Organizations’, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(2) (2004) 153-168
Khoo, H.S., Burch, G.St.J., ‘The ‘dark side’ of leadership personality and transformational
leadership: An exploratory study’, Personality and Individual Differences, 44 (2008) 86–97
37
Lambton, A.K.S., ‘Mongol Fiscal Administration in Persia’, Studia Islamica, 64 (1986) 79-99
Lowe, K.B., Gardner, W.L. ‘Ten Years of the Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and Challenges
for the future’, Leadership Quarterly, 11(4) (2001) 459-514
Ostrowski, D., ‘The "tamma" and the Dual-Administrative Structure of the Mongol Empire’,
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 61(2) (1998) 262-277
Rafferty, A.E., Griffin, M.A., ‘Dimensions of Transformational Leadership, Conceptual and

Empirical Extensions’, The Quarterly Leadership 15 (2004) 454-474
Stubbs, K., ‘Facing the wrath of Khan’, Military History (2006) 30-37
38

Leadership and Ghenggis Khan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership and Ghenggis Khan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ghenggis Khan the World Conqueror

Barbarian or enlightened leader?

University of Leiden – the Netherlands

Chapter 1: Introduction into leadership research 4

Chapter 2: Charismatic and Transformational Leadership as framework 8

Chapter 3: The Mongol Empire 12

Chapter 4: Ghenggis Khan’s leadership skills 23

Introduction - Leadership & the Mongol Empire

Chapter 2 - Introduction into leadership research

Chapter 3 - Transformational Leadership as a framework

3.1 Current state of research into Transformational Leadership

3.2 The Framework

o Traits & Characteristics (fixed):

Chapter 4 - The Mongol Empire

Chapter 5 – Ghenggis Khan’s leadership skills

The destruction of the Kereyid:

The introduction of the Yasa:

Dealing with a new enemy, the Jurchen:

aspects of warfare, administration or anything Temujin considered important enough. It is also an

The introduction of administration, control, taxation and other institutions:

Lane, G., Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule (Westport 2004)

Morgan, D., The Mongols (London 2007)

Jaskyte, K., ‘Transformational Leadership, Organizational Culture, and Innovativeness in

Rafferty, A.E., Griffin, M.A., ‘Dimensions of Transformational Leadership, Conceptual and

You might also like