Q.'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?

Yes, the statement holds significant truth. History, when primarily documented by city-based literati, often presents a biased view of nomadic societies. These chroniclers typically belonged to settled agricultural civilizations, which frequently experienced raids and invasions from nomadic groups. This inherent conflict of interest, coupled with cultural differences and a lack of direct understanding of nomadic lifestyles, often led to their portrayal as barbaric, destructive, and uncivilized. …

The statement posits that if historical records are primarily created by city-based literati, nomadic societies will inherently receive a hostile representation. This perspective holds significant truth, particularly when examining medieval chronicles. The fundamental differences in lifestyle, economic systems, and societal values between settled urban populations and nomadic groups often created a chasm of understanding, frequently leading to fear, suspicion, and ultimately, negative portrayals.

City-based literati, who were typically educated elites, scribes, and scholars, lived in societies built on agriculture, permanent settlements, and established hierarchies. Their worldview was shaped by the stability of urban life, the accumulation of wealth through trade and land, and the maintenance of order through centralized governance. Nomadic societies, by contrast, were characterized by mobility, pastoralism, and often more decentralized political structures. When these two worlds intersected, particularly through conflict or raids, the settled populations often perceived the nomads as disruptive, destructive, and uncivilized 'barbarians' who threatened their way of life.

Several factors contributed to this hostile representation:

• Cultural Alienation: The nomadic lifestyle, with its constant movement, different customs, and distinct social norms, was often incomprehensible or threatening to the settled literati. This lack of understanding fostered prejudice.
• Economic Threat: Nomadic incursions often involved raiding settled agricultural lands for resources, which was seen as wanton destruction by the urban populations whose livelihoods depended on these lands.
• Political Instability: Nomadic groups frequently challenged the authority of established urban rulers, leading to wars and political upheaval. Chroniclers, often serving these very rulers, would naturally depict the challengers as enemies of order.
• Propaganda and Justification: Negative portrayals served to demonize the enemy, rally support for defense, or justify punitive actions against nomadic groups.

Therefore, one can largely agree with the statement that history relying on city-based literati will tend to present nomadic societies in a hostile light.

This perspective indeed helps explain why Persian chronicles, in particular, produced such inflated figures of casualties resulting from Mongol campaigns. The Mongol invasions of the 13th century were an unprecedented catastrophe for the settled Islamic world, including Persia. Cities were razed, populations massacred, and ancient irrigation systems destroyed. The scale of destruction and loss of life was immense, leaving a profound psychological scar.

The Persian chroniclers, writing in the aftermath of this devastation, were not merely recording events; they were also expressing the collective trauma, grief, and outrage of their society. Inflated casualty figures served several purposes: …