Great Yasa of Genghis Khan

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

Although Ghengis Khan died in 1227, Shiqi-Qutuqtu continued to record his laws and completed his work in 1228. In 1229 the Yasa was officially promulgated at the coronation of Ghengis Khan's third son, Ögödei. While the laws had been recorded in the previous year, promulgating them at the coronation reaffirmed their validity and indicated that all rulers coming after Ghengis Khan had to abide by his Yasa. It is unclear whether Ghengis Khan intended for the Yasa to be used for non-nomadic populations. In any case, his successors did use it, and the nomadic elite referred to it frequently. However, it was never published and disseminated broadly, and no single copy has been found. Thus, outsiders (non-Mongols) who lived in the empire or neighboring regions were left to deduce what the Yasa was and what it said. Indeed, the document reproduced here is not that of Ghengis Khan but represents instead the observations of non-Mongols, interpretations of the Yasa from the perspective of outsiders in terms not only of geography and culture but also of time.

That no copy of the Yasa exists makes an explanation of the laws difficult. Nonetheless, we can learn much from what others wrote of the Yasa, for these writings provide context for our understanding of how outsiders viewed the Mongols and their society. Indeed, many of the entries are not intended to provide a holistic view of the Mongols but rather what would be of interest to the authors' respective audiences. In all of the excerpts, “he” always refers to Ghengis Khan.

In addition to the royal decrees, Shiqi-Qutuqtu and others wrote down many of the sayings and advice of Ghengis Khan. These biligs (or “maxims”) were not laws but rather pieces of what he considered commonsensical advice or rules for proper behavior. It remains unclear how many maxims Ghengis Khan actually uttered. Still, after he died, his shadow grew larger until he was venerated not only as an ancestor but also as a demigod who could intercede on behalf of his heirs, at least indirectly. Thus, like any hero, what he said and did and what others claimed he said and did began to blend. Whether or not Ghengis Khan actually spoke these words matters little, for they give insight into what the Mongols as a collective society, particularly the upper levels of society, viewed as important. Indeed, for many outside observers, the line between the Yasa and the maxims was blurred, particularly because much of their information about both came to them indirectly.

“From Makrizi”

Al-Makrizi's fragments tend to focus on issues that would be of interest to his patrons, the Mamluk sultans and the educated Islamic public—primarily the ulema, or scholars, clergy, and jurists. It must be remembered that several Mongols dwelled in the Mamluk Sultanate and served in their military in high positions, so the Mamluks were not unfamiliar with Mongols. The first three entries correspond largely with Islamic law, while the next two are matters that speak to the Mongols' sense of pragmatism. As evidence in items 4 and 14, the purity of water was always crucial for the nomads because their livelihood depended on it; tainted water could cause massive loss among their herds and flocks.

Several sections take up social decorum. The sixth point refers specifically to hospitality. If an outsider was shown hospitality—given food, drink, or gifts no matter how innocuous—it meant they were protected. This was a trend that stretched across all of Eurasia among nomadic and seminomadic societies. The Mamluks, being of nomadic origin themselves, recognized it, as did Arabs. Other sections covering these issues include 7 and 12 through 16.

Many of the fragments also concern religion. Item 8 deals with the slaughtering of animals. Muslims, like Jews, slaughtered animals by cutting the jugular vein across the neck and allowing the blood to run out, whereas the Mongols stilled the heart with a hand or ripped the aorta by inserting a hand inside the animal's body. For Muslims, animals killed in the Mongol fashion were not considered safe to eat. The Mongols prepared meat on this way in order to save the blood for use in sausages and other foods. The threat of execution for slaughtering animals in the Muslim manner is found in other Muslim sources, intended to show that the Mongols were oppressive in their rule. It is possible that execution of Muslims for not slaughtering animals in the Mongol fashion did occur on occasion. For the Mongols, Muslims and Christians were generally viewed as nationalities based on their customs and were not considered in light of their individual religious practices. Thus, slaughtering animals signaled that one was abandoning the Mongol heritage. Still, sections 10, 11, and 17 reflect the Mongols' religious tolerance, for example, in saying that Ghengis Khan “ordered that all religions were to be respected and that no preference was to be shown to any of them.” (Although section 10 emphasizes Muslim religious leaders in exempting them from taxation, it applied to clerics and devout members of all religions.) In this light, one would expect the death penalty to have applied only to nomads who slaughtered animals in the Muslim fashion.

The rest of al-Makrizi's Yasa fragments are concerned with military matters, which would be of the greatest interest to the Mamluks, although nothing described was a military secret. Indeed, the Mamluks had adopted many similar measures, most likely for pragmatic reasons rather than through Mongol influence. It is notable that al-Makrizi included sections about women and how they were expected to fight and perform the duties of men when the men were away. Sections 18 through 26 show the extent of Mongol discipline and the control that the Mongol khans had over their army, perhaps as a polite rebuttal of the situation in the Mamluk Sultanate, where the sultan was often chosen in a coup by disgruntled military officers.

“From Mirhond”

The two entries of Mirkhwand, deal only with criminal justice. The first one concerns discipline for the army. Ghengis Khan imposed strict discipline on his army. The reference concerning the “community hunt” in section 27, in fact, applied to the military, as it was also a military exercise known as the nerge. Such punishments as are described here (beating with sticks and execution) are recorded elsewhere and are plausible; when compared with their mention in other sources, they appear here to be guidelines or advice given on how to maintain discipline rather than an actual law.

Item 28 deals with murder. The Mongols did allow the paying of a fine, most of which went to compensate the family of the victim. Although Mirkhwand indicates otherwise, payments were made either in cash or in kind, usually livestock. It is not surprising that Mirkhwand, a Muslim, placed a higher value on a Muslim than on a Chinese. The price for the life of a Chinese—a donkey—may have been less than one gold coin. That being said, the Mongols generally held the Chinese in low regard—in part, because there were so many of them and they feared being assimilated by the Chinese.

“From ibn Batuta”

The compensation cited in section 29, written by Ibn Battutah, also appears in a few other sources. It is probable that a person found in possession of a stolen horse had to repay the owner with additional horses, but the rest appears to be simply confirmation of the barbarity and draconian spirit of the Mongols. What is interesting about this passage is that it further demonstrates that the Yasa was intended for use among the nomads. Only nomads and rich sedentary people could possibly have nine horses. An average nomad would have at least five horses, while a noble could have hundreds if not thousands. Determining ownership of a horse was simple enough, for horses often were marked with the owner's brand or symbol. That nine horses would be given in addition to the stolen horse is significant, for Mongols considered the number nine auspicious.

“From Vartang” and “From Mahakia”

The fragments included from Vardan and Mahakia are infused with Christian religious overtones. Vardan and Mahakia were both monks. Although the Mongols did kill many in their invasion of Armenia, their later rule was fairly tolerant. Many of the Armenian nobles found favor in the Mongol court, and Mongol religious toleration allowed the Armenians to practice their faith without oppression from Muslims, whose kingdoms surrounded them, or the Orthodox Byzantines, who viewed the Armenian Church as heretical. The reign of Hülegü was seen as a particularly beneficial period by Armenian Christians because Hülegü's wife was also a Christian. She helped finance the building of some churches, and Hülegü's rule was thus often considered a golden period. (Hülegü's wife also funded the building of mosques and Buddhist temples.) It is not surprising that parts of Vardan's and Mahakia's Yasa fragments resemble the Ten Commandments.

Most of the laws cited here are universal. Murder, theft, and adultery tend to be disruptive to society. The Mongols, like every other government, preferred a peaceful society, if only because it was more conducive to collection of taxes. From the perspective of Vardan and Mahakia, the fact that Mongol law seemed similar to the Ten Commandments help legitimate their rule and demonstrated that they were just and not infidels.

“The Maxims of Jenghiz Khan”

The additional maxims of Ghengis Khan were used to advise subsequent rulers and princes descended from Ghengis Khan on proper behavior and conduct. The division in this document between what is considered the Yasa and what are maxims appears to be based on the nature of the entry. If it was linked to a punishment or phrased as a decree, the recorders deemed it to be part of the Yasa, whereas other pieces were considered simply advice or sayings from Ghengis Khan.

The maxims deal with a variety of topics. Several have to do with the leadership skills of a “Bek,” or master, and his ability to command a tümen, or an army unit consisting of ten thousand men. The maxims prescribe behavior in times of war, enjoining proper deference to seniors and calling on soldiers to be “as a hungry falcon.” The maxims also require the wives of soldiers to maintain a well-ordered household. Standards of heroism are also held up, with reference made to Yesun-Bey, a ruler of the Mongol Empire in the early fourteenth century. Nevertheless, Ghengis Khan was critical of Yesun-Bey, for he did not experience the hardships and fatigue of his men, so he was not fit to rule.

Many maxims are nostalgic in character, as Ghengis Khan reflects on past events as signposts pointing to proper and heroic behavior. Thus, in item 27, for example, he reflects on a previous battle and how he responded when he and his men were ambushed. He narrates a similar story in item 28. At times he seems to miss the sting of battle and the thrill of conquest. He sees his graying hair as a sign of seniority, but he can still look back to times when he and his multitudes could “conquer and extirpate his enemies, to take all they possess,” and to “make the bellies and navels of their wives his bed and bedding.” The Mongols were a harsh people, living in harsh conditions. Ghengis Khan was able to forge an empire and hold it together by adhering to the truth of the first maxim: “From the goodness of severity the stability of the government.”