'If history relies upon written records produced by city-based literati, nomadic societies will always receive a hostile representation.' Would you agree with this statement? Does it explain the reason why Persian chronicles produced such inflated figures of casualties resulting from Mongol campaigns?
I would partially agree with the statement. While city-based litterateurs often produced ignorant and biased reports of nomadic life, the imperial success of the Mongols attracted many literati from diverse backgrounds – Buddhist, Confucian, Christian, Turkish and Muslim. Many of them produced sympathetic accounts and even eulogies that challenged the hostile, city-based tirade against the steppe marauders. Thus, nomadic societies did not always receive a hostile representation.
The statement only partially explains the inflated figures. Persian chronicles produced in Il-Khanid Iran during the late thirteenth century did detail gory killings and greatly exaggerated the numbers killed. However, the exaggeration was also linked to political dynamics – the Toluyid branch controlled China and Iran and recruited literati to present their version of family disagreements. The inflated figures served to contrast the merits of regnant rulers with past monarchs, including Genghis Khan himself.
Explanation
The textbook context provides a nuanced view. While city-based authors did produce hostile accounts characterising nomads as 'primitive barbarians', the Mongols' imperial success attracted literati who produced sympathetic accounts that complicated this narrative. Regarding Persian chronicles, the exaggeration of casualties was not merely due to hostile representation but also served political purposes under Toluyid patronage.