Why do Genghis Khan and nomads, more generally, so deeply upset the supporters of nation-states? First, the history of the Mongol Empire is a shared legacy that does not fit into narratives centred on monolingual, monoethnic and monoreligious communities. Second, nationalists have yet to accept that civilization is not necessarily a product of urban and sedentary development. Third, our traditional world history narrative is the success story of the sedentary world from the perspective of the sedentary peoples. In fact, over two millennia, humanity witnessed the rise and fall of several nomadic empires that profoundly shaped our history on continental scale. But this world-shaping phenomenon remains poorly understood, and nomadic empires are seen as marginal or secondary historical phases.
I saw this and it thought it may be of interest to Steve and others.
I haven’t read, The Horde, but I did read the above and it stuck with me. Both books have some good reviews and revise the historical bias against the horse nations.
There seems to be some similarity to the Charles Mann books, 1491 and 1493, where new world natives are presented in a more positive light. I saw again, recently, where Native American political structures may have been the foundation and inspiration for democracy in the new world. Mann promoted this so it may have cycled from there.
Reid circulated a good piece about Central American political cultures, a while back. I don’t see it now but it had some similar themes.