The Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy: Organization and Foreign Policy

Abstract

Nomadic states in Inner Asia were generated by external relations with state societies. Because the Hsiung-nu state could not have supported itself by exploiting the relatively undifferentiated and extensive pastoral economy, the state hierarchy was financed by exploiting the resources available from outside of the steppe. The nomads on the steppe were organized into a powerful military force that was used to systematically exploit the Chinese economy. The Hsiung-nu raided the frontier directly and then used the disruptions they caused as a tool to extort trade and subsidies from the Han court, thus maintaining a monopoly on this flow of Han goods to the steppe, which gave it great economic power and stability. The imperial level of Hsiung-nu government was therefore primarily concerned with conducting foreign affairs, organizing military campaigns, and maintaining unity on the steppe, while it ceded power in domestic affairs to indigenous tribal leaders. This created an imperial confederacy that acted as an autocratically ruled state in its dealings with China but that remained federally structured internally. This form of organization proved remarkably stable and provided the model for later empires established by nomads on the steppe.

Inner Asian States and Empires: Theories and Synthesis

“…Like other empires to follow, the Xiongnu polity was multiethnic and multilingual given the large geographical scale. The Xiongnu were the first to leverage the forms of multiresource pastoralism, developed in previous centuries, in combination with effective military strategies and technologies to not only conquer their steppe rivals but pose a threat to China (Barfield 1981). Not only were they a threat, but they soon became a serious rival for the newly emerging Han dynasty (202 B.C.-A.D. 9).…”

“…The greater mobility of the Xiongnu cavalry proved to be very effective against Chinese infantry and chariots, and for a long period of time a treaty (198 B.C.) was in effect, bringing vast quantities of Chinese tribute into the Xiongnu court (Barfield 1981;Yü 1967). Before 50 B.C., the Xiongnu split into a northern and southern polity.…”

Landscapes of Inequality?: A Critique of Monumental Hierarchy in the Mongolian Bronze Age

“…The historically known late first millennium b.c.e. politically stable Xiongnu confederation (Barfield 1981;Di Cosmo 2002;Lewis 1990) and their immediate Iron Age antecedent groups provide some evidence for long-and short-range networks demonstrated by shared ceramic styles and the movement of raw materials (Hall et al 1999;Hall and Minyaev 2002;Honeychurch and Amartuvshin 2006), as well as using winter penning of livestock in a way similar to modern Inner Asian pastoralists (Makarewicz 2011(Makarewicz , 2014. These practices could be indicative of the sort of economic safety nets that we see used in recent times in response to political, seasonal, and environmental crises.…”

The Xiongnu and the Comparative Study of Empire

“… E.g., Yü 1986, 387; Barfield 1992, 32; Barfield 2001, 34; Di Cosmo 2002, 162;Kradin 2002b; Lewis 2007, 134. By the same token we hear about a 'Hun empire' under Attila(Kelly 2009, 267: 269), perhaps with less justification.Kradin 2005, 165-166 argues that the Rouran khaganate was a mixture of chiefdom and state but nevertheless calls it an empire.13 Barfield 1992;Golden 1992;Barfield 2001;Kradin 2002. …”