Without ASB's what would the lower classes of steppe society accept from a firebrand and reformer like temujin? How much could the society change? what is the limit?
Without ASB's what would the lower classes of steppe society accept from a firebrand and reformer like temujin? How much could the society change? what is the limit?
They accepted quite a fair bit since it helped them out a lot. He would need to do more since he just focused on Conquest and his empire didn’t contribute as much as it could have
yeah like communalising loot and a bunch of other lawful stuff, im thinking howmuch dnd good tendancy can be sneaked in like for example no rape when pillaging? i know the settled folk werent much better and thats not the narrative im pushing here.
Temujin / Genghis Khan did actually do a lot more than just focus on conquest. His improvements to main infrastructure were remarkable, his legal code was astoundingly progressive for the time, his religious policies were centred on toleration (but, intelligently, ruthless persecution of any sect that tried to suppress others), and his meritocratic policies were more than just fancy talk. His administration was also very efficient, allowing him to actually lower taxes and other such burdens in most cases. His rule was typically an improvement for those who joined him willingly, which is why that was not uncommon.
Even a lot of stuff like "regulated pillaging" were, in fact, OTL. Genghis Khan's whole policy in that regard was based on the idea that anyone who submitted would be spared (and any soldiers misbehaving against such parties were harshly punished), while those who refused to submit were conquered under pre-determined terms that allowed for certain amounts of pillaging etc. -- It was when someone submitted or agreed to a treaty and then stabbed him in the back that he executed his infamous methods of wholesale annihilation. That, too, was deliberate: making the results of 'voluntarily' submitting as positive as possible, and the results of betrayal absolutely horrible, encouraged people to submit willingly and to refrain from betraying Genghis Khan as soon as his armies left the area.
Essentialy, Genghis Khan deliberately weaponised pillaging, mass rape etc. -- his goal was to contrast rewards for 'good behaviour' and punishment for 'bad behaviour'. This was of course absolutely ruthless, but it did work. The problem with making a Genghis Khan-like figure "nicer" is that if he only uses the carrot, and not the stick, the whole approach ceases to function. Because by setting such gruesome examples, he prevented a whole lot of battles he'd otherwise have had to fight. His potential enemies took one look at the utter destruction of his previous foes, and opted to submit to him instead of meeting the same fate...
Bottom line: making such a figure less willing to be ruthless also makes him less effective. Any ATL improvements a Temujin-like figure can effect will have to be in his 'domestic policies'. In this, I'd suggest further development of what he did in OTL. That is: investment in infrastructure, meritocratic policies, and a staunch adherence to religious toleration (but only for tolerant religions!)
All those policies could be refined further. The meritocratic part in particular could be developed into a system whereby a system of state schooling arises, which seeks out all talented persons regardless of the station of their birth, and educates them to maximise their productivity for the empire. Such a thing would likely face less opposition among the elites of a steppe empire than in, say, the Roman Empire or a European state.
well how nice could a ghengis khan figure be in his domestic policy?
Besides education (which is truly key), another main avenue for development would be more refinement of the legal system. Basically, "security in the law" is considered a key factor in the prosperity of Europe as of the early modern age. Well-defined laws and legal processes lead to considerable stability within a society, because situations of conflict have an organised, non-chaotic recourse. A sub-topic there would be property rights. This will be different in a steppe empire than in, say, Europe. Expect more 'regulated commons' than 'private property yay!' in this case. Still, regardless of such differences, defining who has which rights to what is an important step towards creating a stable socio-economic order (i.e. one that is no longer dependent on highly capable leaders, but can in fact survive highly incapable leaders).
He also probably should've tackled the issue over who would succeed him sooner since he didn't think of that until he was pretty old. Maybe it would've been through elections if he had thought of it sooner or someone asked how rulership would be handled.
am i right in thinking his officers were elected? or otherwise accountable to the soldiers? or am i misinformed here?
i saw that but im bad at retaining information, if i was to do a si story i might pick temujin just because i want to read a story like that and havent found oneHaving recently watched an Extra Credits series on Genghis Khan himself, the leaders of groups of 10 and of 100 men were elected by the soldiers, but the leaders of groups of 1,000 were directly appointed.