In the history of Inner Asia, by which I mean the history of steppe empires from the Xiongnu (established in 209 bce) to the Manchu conquest of China (1644 ce),

the notion of ‘violence' is taken for granted as the normal modus operandi, in politics and warfare, by steppe nomads and their hordes of warriors. The period between 500 and 1500 witnessed the expansion of Inner Asian nomads across Eurasia due to the establishment of two empires that emerged from the depths of Mongolia, the Turk (551-744) and the Mongol (c.

War being what their sedentary neighbours regarded as their main occu­pation, the steppe peoples are often taken as a paragon of unbridled savagery. War, naturally, cannot be regarded as a prerogative of nomads, but what makes them somewhat distinct in world history is a perceived excess of violence not just in their conduct of war, but also in their internal politics. Such excessive violence can run the gamut from wanton slaughter to calcu­lated massacre, as reported in the sources of the victims of such events. The Carmen Miserabile, a chronicle of the Mongol invasion of Hungary by a cleric, Rogerius, who lived through it, is a good example of the type of violence ^[21] inflicted upon the civilian population.^[22] His witness account records the heinous behaviour of the Mongol troops, characterised by all kinds of merci­less acts of violence, which today would be regarded as ‘war crimes'. Similar reports dot the progress of the Mongol conquest from China to Russia, Central Asia, Armenia and the Middle East.

In recent decades, a new historiography has emerged attempting to alter such views, in particular by questioning the actual impact of the Mongol conquest and its long-term effects. It is well known that cities that resisted the Mongols met with merciless punishment, and a large proportion of the population was slain. However, many survived, in particular those people who could be useful to the Mongols as craftsmen and artisans, as well as women and children. They were also deported, and indeed deportations and ‘relocation programmes' played an important role in the cultural and genetic make-over of several Eurasian regions conquered by nomads.^[24]

Moreover, recent historiography has focused on the positive aspects of the conquest, in particular with the opening of trade routes, communication and exchanges among Eurasian civilisations which the Mongols not only allowed, but actively promoted.^[25] At the same time the negative aspects of the con­quest, and especially the violence associated with it, have been, if not side­lined, surely minimised. There are good reasons for moving away from the immediate impact of the conquests, which were certainly bloody, and for focusing on the long-term changes that the nomadic empires produced both within and outside the states they ruled. At the same time, we cannot ignore altogether the fact that many of these empires were built on war and violence, and that violence was an integral and pervasive aspect of their political and social life.

Violence of course is implicit every time we speak of war, rebellion, armed conflict, conquests and other phenomena that include an aspect of force, whether this is organised or spontaneous, systemic or sporadic. In a premodern nomadic context, we ought to distinguish several areas of violence.

First of all, there is a degree of endemic violence in everyday life, usually involving feuds between clans and families that can carry on for generations. At a higher level of social organisation, conflicts between ‘tribes' or ‘nations' - understood as distinct ethno-political units with a common name, territorial claims, leadership and assumed shared ancestry - could escalate into large multi-tribal conflicts. Such conflicts usually occurred in the periods that imme­diately preceded either the rise or the disintegration of a nomadic empire, understood as a larger, centralised, multi-ethnic and politically complex entity. While the empire remained solid and prosperous, it may have expanded, by military means, at the expense of other regions, or may have engaged in long- range raids beyond its frontiers. Grievous cases of violence involved the sacking of conquered cities, especially if they opposed resistance. It must be said that even cities that did not oppose resistance at times bore the brunt of massive violence.

Violence visited against sedentary and urban populations appears espe­cially punishing and cruel because of the number of records that document it, which is disproportionately higher than any record of violence within a nomadic context because of the records left behind by literate civilisations. However, war was no less violent, brutal and ruthless when nomads fought each other. The conflict between the descendants of Chinggis Khan, which ended with the victory of the House of Tolui and the virtual annihilation of competing lineages and factions, is an example of merciless politics at the highest level of nomadic politics.

Every Inner Asian empire rose within a social and political context of intra- nomadic (or inter-tribal) warfare, whereby widespread violence led to a remaking of the social and political order and eventually to a political consolidation often followed by a phase of expansion and conquest. Once established, the nomadic polity remained vulnerable to internal crises, due to succession conflicts and internal challenges, as well as to the rise of rival polities. If we take this as a bare-bones simplification of the dynamics of nomadic politics, three areas can be singled out, each of which presents different characteristics: ethnic violence within a nomadic society, political violence within the nomadic ruling elite, and violence against conquered populations.