A Side of Tartar's Sauce

The account of the Tartar people by Matthew Paris is a surprisingly objective account. The discussion that Paris writes into his account is almost wholly based on statements made by a former archbishop of Russia named Peter, who was forced to flee Russia after the Tartar (Mongol) invasion (page 28). Paris also relies for Tartar information from other refugees, including Albanians, who arrive at the St. Albans monastery.

Paris (through Peter) informs us that twelve chieftains led these people, the leader of which was called ‘Tartar Khan’ (known to us today as Genghis Khan). We are told that he has 3 sons, Thesir Khan, Chun Khan and Bathatar Khan (page 28), and were raised in conditions that were particularly barbaric (rude, lawless and inhuman). Historian Jack Weatherford in his work, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, notes that the actual names of Khan’s children were actually Jochi, Chaghatai, Ogodei and Tolui.

The account of the Tartars found in the Chronicle details much of their history concerning military conquests, political interactions and religious strife. Paris informs us that, “Thesir Khan proceeded against the Babylonians; Churi Khan against the Turks; and Bathatar Khan remained at Ernac, and sent his chiefs against Russia, Poland, Hungary, and several other kingdoms; and three, with their numerous armies, are now presumptuously invading the neighbouring provinces of Syria” (page 29). Though the names are different, these children would later found major political and geographic dynasties after the death of Genghis Khan. Unfortunately, the book does not list different forms of the sons’ names, but the following are listed as being their later dynastic founding’s:

· Jochi – “Golden Horde” à Russia

· Chaghatai – “Moghul Empire” à India

· Tolui, through his sons:

o Hulegu – “Ilkhanate” à Persia and Iraq

o Khubilai – “Yuan Dynasty” à China

The details and story that Matthew Paris provides to readers is remarkably objective, and though there is at times language that would denote condescension, Paris is no Gregory of Tours. While Gregory constantly denounced those who did not embrace the Christian faith or the Church (Arians, pagans, etc.), Paris is more standoffish when it comes to describing the habits and beliefs of the Tartars. As Paris (and Peter) are apt to note they are not Christian – “God and his Son in heaven, and Chiar Khan on earth” (page 29) – but do have a deep spirituality that reflects some of the tenets that many Christians embrace. For example they fear sentence of future condemnation may be passed against them (page 30).

For most of the time period from 1246 to 1252 A.D. Paris relates the political and empirical movements that the Tartars undergo in Europe and in the Middle East. What seems to be most important for Paris is the reluctance, if not outright defiance by European and Islamic princes/kingdoms towards the Tartar envoys and empire. The threat of the Tartars seems to be able to unite many of the European kings, and at times lessen hostilities with Arabs who also fought against them.

Paris also concerns himself with the news that Peter (the same man as before) had succeeded in converting the king of the Tartars (pg. 319). Again we see Paris being rather objective with his relating of this news, stating that the French King and various bishops were pleased with the conversion, but little opinion is given by Paris about these news events.

I will expand on some other things that Paris notes about the Tartars in my talk in class that were not included in the pages assigned to read as well.