Marco Polo⏤The Apostle Paul?

[Janusstark]

PART THREE​

In this respect, Ortelius's map (same with Urbano Monte's map) is more than a geographical representation. It is also a graphic representation of the international relations of its age. It illustrates the extent of exchanges between the Catholic West — symbolised by Jerusalem — and the Mongol East, influenced by the traditions of the Church of the East and symbolised by Xanadu: two poles of a shared historical narrative.

The annotation by Ortelius does not speak of a "schism" between Rome and Byzantium — this schism is a later construction, largely artificial. It refers instead to a far older and deeper difference in allegiance: that between Western Christendom (founded by Mark, and linked to Rome/Byzantium) and Eastern Christendom (founded by Thomas in distant Asia).

The accepted narrative today presents the great Christian schism as that of 1054 between Rome (Catholic) and Constantinople (Orthodox). Yet Ortelius's annotation suggests a very different fault line. In Ortelius's acceptance, it is not a schism between West and Byzantium — these two entities, within the logic of the map, are in fact aligned. The annotation specifies that the African Prester John is "obedient to Rome" (understood as the Romano-Byzantine sphere). Therefore, Mark (Africa) and Andrew (Scythia/Byzantium) belong to the same grouping.

The true division lies elsewhere: it opposes this Western coalition (Rome + Byzantium + Markan Africa) to the Eastern Christianity founded by Thomas in Asia, whose kingdom of Argon would represent it.

This Thomian Christianity, probably Nestorian, does not obey Rome — hence the annotation describing it as a "rival of Rome".

Its localisation is not imaginary. The strongest tradition places the tomb of Saint Thomas at Mylapore, near Chennai (modern-day Madras), on the Coromandel Coast of southern India, which even shows the extent of this kingdom.

The "Christians of Saint Thomas" in this region trace their origins to his apostolic mission, and local oral tradition supports this claim. Some more expansive traditions extend his journey as far as China, but the core of his missionary activity lies well beyond the Indus, in what the ancients called "India" in a broad sense — a region which, for sixteenth-century cartographers, included Tartary and the far reaches of Asia.

Martin Waldseemüller, the cartographer who in 1507 gave its name to America, corroborates this localisation. On his map, the centre of Eastern Christianity is placed in India/Afghanistan, confirming that the Thomian tradition was firmly anchored in this region. Thomas did not go to found a Church in Rome or Byzantium — he went to the ends of the known world, in far Asia.

The tradition concerning Saint Mark is equally clear, but oriented towards Africa. Saint Mark is traditionally regarded as the founder of the Church of Alexandria in Egypt, around AD 60.

He is considered the first Pope of Alexandria, that is, the first patriarch of the Coptic tradition. His tomb is located in Alexandria, although his relics were later transferred to Venice (hence the Lion of Saint Mark, symbol of the Venetian Republic).

This link between African Christianity and Mark is essential: it is through this lineage that the African Prester John (identified with Ethiopia by the Portuguese) is integrated into the Romano-Byzantine sphere of allegiance. Ethiopia, although Miaphysite, was perceived in Europe as a potential ally — a "sister" Christianity — hence the phrase "obedient to Rome" in its regard in the annotation.

Saint Mark and the African Kingdom of Prester John: an Essay on Institutional Lineage

Ortelius's map annotation refers to an African Prester John "obedient to Rome". To understand this formulation, it is not sufficient to invoke Ethiopia alone. One must trace a chain of institutional continuity linking African Christianity to the Apostle Mark, then to Byzantium, and ultimately to the Muscovite "Third Rome". This link is not direct, as in the case of Thomas and India; rather, it is hierarchical and ecclesiastical — a relationship of canonical dependence rather than primary evangelisation.

Tradition is both unanimous and ancient. Saint Mark did not go directly to Ethiopia. He established his residence in Alexandria, the great metropolis of Egypt, where he founded the Church and suffered martyrdom around AD 68. His tomb was originally in Alexandria, before his relics were transferred to Venice, which adopted him as its patron saint.

But the essential point lies elsewhere: Mark is regarded as the first Patriarch of Alexandria, the founder of the apostolic see from which the entire Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt — and, by extension, the Ethiopian Church — derives its lineage.

It is therefore not Mark himself, but his Church, that evangelised Ethiopia. The key figure in this mission was Frumentius, known to the Ethiopians as Abba Salama, "the father of peace". Frumentius was a young Christian from Tyre in Syria, thus connected to the Alexandrian milieu.

After being taken captive and later freed in Ethiopia, he organised the first Christian communities there. Around AD 330, he travelled to Alexandria to report his work. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria consecrated him as the first bishop of Ethiopia and formally sent him back as a missionary. This act is foundational: Ethiopian Christianity originates from a mission dispatched from the See of Saint Mark.

Athanasius's decision established a rule that lasted until the twentieth century. For nearly fifteen hundred years, the head of the Ethiopian Church — the Abuna — was not Ethiopian but a Coptic monk appointed by the Patriarch of Alexandria. This means that the successor of Saint Mark in Alexandria held direct authority over the Ethiopian Church.

Canonically, Ethiopia was a diocese of the Coptic Church. Only in 1959 did the Ethiopian Church obtain autocephaly. In 1994, Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria recognised the Ethiopian Patriarch as a "Second Patriarch of the See of Saint Mark". There are thus today two sister Churches claiming Mark's legacy: the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the latter having achieved emancipation after centuries of tutelage.

 

[Janusstark]

PART FOUR​

Yet the African kingdom of Prester John, in Renaissance cartographic imagination, is not limited to Ethiopia. It extends across a vast Christian continuum from Egypt to Ethiopia, including Nubia and the Great Lakes region.

This expanded conception draws on multiple sources. Early Church Fathers such as Eusebius of Caesarea described north-eastern Africa as an ancient Christian land evangelised by Mark in Alexandria and radiating southwards. Nubia — comprising Makuria, Alodia, and Nobatia — was Christian from the sixth century, filled with cathedrals and monasteries. Ethiopia, the Kingdom of Aksum, officially adopted Christianity around AD 330 under King Ezana following Frumentius's mission.

To medieval chroniclers, the entire Nile Valley — from the Mediterranean to the Ethiopian highlands — formed a coherent Christian continuum, even if its Churches followed different rites: Coptic in Egypt, Nubian in Nubia, Ethiopian in the highlands.

From the fourteenth century onward, Ethiopian embassies to Europe reinforced the idea of a powerful African Christian kingdom. Portuguese exploration later sought this kingdom along the African coast, initially confusing it with Guinea and even the Congo before eventually identifying Ethiopia through the missions of Pêro da Covilhã and Francisco Álvares.

Yet for sixteenth-century cartographers such as Abraham Ortelius, the identification remained fluid. The empire of Prester John in Africa was often depicted as stretching from Upper Egypt to Ethiopia, including Nubia and sometimes even the regions of the Great Lakes.

This vast African realm is connected to Saint Mark through a dual mechanism.

First, a direct link exists for Egypt and Alexandria: Mark founded the Church of Alexandria, the patriarchal see, and Upper Egypt falls naturally within its sphere.

Second, an indirect link exists for Nubia and Ethiopia: these regions were evangelised by missions sent from Alexandria — Frumentius for Ethiopia, Coptic missionaries for Nubia — and therefore remain canonically dependent on the Alexandrian patriarchate.

This is what Ortelius's annotation summarises through the phrase "obedient to Rome". Here "Rome" must be understood in its eastern sense — that is, Byzantium, via Alexandria. The African kingdom of Prester John is therefore not an isolated entity, but the southern extension of a wider Christian system whose spiritual head is the Patriarch of Alexandria, successor of Mark, himself in communion with Byzantium.

This continuous Christian domain — from Egypt to Ethiopia — did in fact exist between the fourth and fourteenth centuries, before collapsing under Islamic expansion. Nubian Christianity endured longest through agreements such as the Baqt, but ultimately disappeared between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. Upper Egypt saw its Christian populations shrink significantly, though remnants survived. Ethiopia remained Christian but increasingly isolated, surrounded by Muslim territories — hence its identification with Prester John.

By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when Ortelius compiled his maps, this once-coherent Christian continuum no longer existed as a political reality. It survived instead as cartographic memory: a geographical myth still sought by Europeans hoping to find a Christian ally beyond the Islamic world.

Thus, when Ortelius's annotation refers to the African Prester John as "obedient to Rome", it is not because Ethiopia was directly founded by Mark, but because its mother Church — Alexandria — was. The obedience in question is institutional and apostolic: the African Church, understood as the Ethiopian realm and the broader Nile Valley continuum, is linked to Rome (Byzantium) through the apostolic chain originating in Mark, then extending through Andrew and the Eastern ecclesiastical order.

The African kingdom of Prester John is therefore not Ethiopia alone. In Renaissance cartographic imagination, it is a continuous Christian realm extending from Upper Egypt to Ethiopia, passing through Nubia, and rooted in the apostolic lineage of Mark via the patriarchate of Alexandria.

This expanded conception explains why the Portuguese, upon reaching Ethiopia, believed they had rediscovered not a remote kingdom, but the surviving fragment of a once-extensive Christian empire stretching to the Mediterranean.

Ortelius's map preserves the memory of this lost continuity. And it demonstrates that the figure of Mark, Apostle of Alexandria, functioned as the key link in a chain of authority connecting African Christianity to Byzantium — and, through the later dream of the Third Rome, to Meshec/Moscow itself along with Tubal/Tobolsk, which in turn would extend eastward into Siberia in search of the other lost kingdom, that of Thomas.

[Meshech and Tubal are biblical figures mentioned in the Old Testament, traditionally identified as sons of Japheth (one of the sons of Noah). They are now widely identified with the Mushki (Meshech) and Tabal (Tubal), groups mentioned in Assyrian records and classical texts like those of Herodotus, inhabiting areas of central and eastern Anatolia. This sounds with the Scythian affiliation, but not with the geographical location of the same Scythians, further east and north, thousands of km from Anatolia]. In the prophecy of the Book of Ezekiel 38, these peoples appear "under the rule of Gog, Prince of Magog (but we already identified Iadjudj and Madjudj = Gog and Magog = Mongol and Huns, from the Charta Rogeriana and other maps, in arctic Scythia). How facniting is the perspective of an historic contiunity between inner Africa and far eastern Asia ! Notice that French Learned Terrien de la Couperie, Joseph de Guignes or Charles de Paravey worked thoroughly on these matters.

 

[Janusstark]

Albert Étienne Jean-Baptiste Terrien de Lacouperie (1844–1894) was a French orientalist and comparative philologist, born in Normandy and later deceased in London. He is chiefly remembered for developing the theory of Sino-Babylonianism, which argued that the essential elements of ancient Chinese civilisation originated in Mesopotamia.

After spending time in Hong Kong, where he acquired a strong command of Chinese, Terrien de Lacouperie settled in London in 1879. He became a member of the Royal Asiatic Society and, in 1884, was appointed Professor of Comparative Philology at University College London.

Terrien de Lacouperie argued for an early affinity between Chinese and Akkadian. He compared Chinese characters with Akkadian hieroglyphic and cuneiform forms, and maintained that the foundations of the I Ching (Yijing, or Book of Changes) resembled the syllabaries of ancient Chaldea. According to his theory, key cultural, linguistic, and technological elements of early Chinese civilisation had been transmitted from Western Asia to China through ancient migrations.

Although his ideas were heavily criticised by prominent sinologists such as James Legge, his theory of a Mesopotamian origin for the Chinese people found a receptive audience among certain anti-Manchu Chinese nationalists, including Liang Qichao and Zhang Binglin. His ideas also gained considerable attention in Japan, where aspects of Sino-Babylonianism were discussed and, for a time, widely accepted in some intellectual circles.

Among his most significant publications are:

• The Oldest Book of the Chinese, the Yh-King (1892), in which he explored the origins and structure of the Yijing.
• Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilisation (1894), published posthumously and serving as a synthesis of his thesis that many fundamental aspects of early Chinese civilisation derived from the ancient cultures of Western Asia.

Although Sino-Babylonianism has been rejected by modern scholarship, Terrien de Lacouperie's work remains historically significant as an early attempt to trace large-scale cultural connections between China and the ancient Near East, and for its influence on intellectual and political debates in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century East Asia.

Joseph de Guignes (1721–1800) was a prominent French orientalist and sinologist, renowned for incorporating Chinese historical sources into the study of world history.
De Guignes succeeded Étienne Fourmont as Secretary-Interpreter of Oriental Languages at the Royal Library in 1745. He was appointed Professor of Syriac at the Collège de France in 1757 and later became Keeper of Antiquities at the Louvre in 1769.
He was the first scholar to identify the European Huns with the Xiongnu described in Chinese chronicles, a theory that was later popularised by Edward Gibbon. This pioneering work helped establish connections between Chinese historical records and the history of Central Eurasia.

De Guignes is also known for his monumental work, Histoire générale des Huns, des Turcs, des Mongols, et des autres Tartares occidentaux (1756–1758), which sought to reconstruct the history of the great nomadic peoples of Eurasia through both Eastern and Western sources.

De Guignes advanced the theory that the Chinese were originally an Egyptian colony and that Chinese characters were related to Egyptian hieroglyphs. Although this hypothesis has long since been rejected by modern scholarship, it generated considerable debate among eighteenth-century scholars and reflected the era's growing interest in tracing the origins of civilisations through comparative linguistics and historical traditions.

His scholarly achievements earned him election to the Royal Society in 1752 and to the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres in 1754. Today, Joseph de Guignes is remembered primarily for his pioneering use of Chinese sources in the study of Eurasian history and for laying important foundations for the development of modern Sinology and Central Asian historical research.





Charles-Hippolyte de Paravey (1787–1871) was a French civil engineer, orientalist, and scholar of comparative civilisation. A graduate of the École Polytechnique and the École des Ponts ParisTech, he served as a Chief Engineer in the Corps of Bridges and Roads (Ponts et Chaussées). He is also known as one of the founders of the Société Asiatique in 1822.

Although trained as an engineer, Paravey made his greatest mark through his ethnological, historical, and comparative studies. He argued for the existence of a single cradle of civilisation and a common origin for humanity, which he believed lay in the ancient Near East. According to his theories, the major civilisations of the ancient world shared common cultural, linguistic, and astronomical traditions that could be traced back to this original centre.

Paravey's work frequently brought him into conflict with the more empirically minded and materialist scholars of his era, including figures such as Jean-Baptiste Biot and François Arago.

His research focused on identifying parallels among the constellations, writing systems, religious symbols, and mythological traditions of ancient Egypt, Chaldea, India, China, and Japan. He believed that these similarities provided evidence of a common historical and cultural origin.

His best-known publication is Illustrations de l'astronomie hiéroglyphique, in which he sought to demonstrate connections between ancient astronomical knowledge, symbolic writing systems, and religious traditions across Eurasia. Through comparative analysis of celestial symbolism and ancient iconography, he attempted to reconstruct what he considered a primordial scientific and religious heritage shared by multiple civilisations. He especially formalized the chinese early discovery of America in his essay : L'AMÉRIQUE SOUS LE NOM DE PAYS DE FOU-SANG.

Many of Paravey's hypotheses are no longer accepted by modern scholarship, particularly his diffusionist theories concerning the origin of civilisation and humanity. Nevertheless, his work remains significant as an example of nineteenth-century comparative thought, reflecting a period when scholars sought large-scale historical connections between the cultures of Europe, the Near East, and Asia. His efforts also contributed to the early development of Asian studies in France through his role in establishing the Société Asiatique.

 

[Janusstark]

PART FIVE​

To complete the picture, one must turn to the third apostle: Andrew, brother of Peter.

Tradition holds that Andrew evangelised Southern Scythia — the regions north of the Black Sea, corresponding to present-day Ukraine and southern Russia. Through this tradition, the Church of Byzantium (Constantinople) claims a direct apostolic foundation. Andrew is regarded as the founder of the Church of Constantinople, the "Second Rome".

On early maps, Scythia is generally placed north of the Black Sea, extending eastwards towards the Urals and beyond, into Tartary and hyperborean regions. This is the region that would later become the heart of Muscovite Russia/Rusia orda (not our modern Russia, as Muscovy extended from Rus' to the rings of Yenissei and Ob, from the White Sea to the Caspian, including Sibir/Tobolsk (the capital), Kazan and Astracan).

After the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453, Andrew's legacy was claimed by Muscovy. The monk Philotheus of Pskov formulated the doctrine: "Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will be no fourth."

The first Rome (pagan and later papal) fell into heresy. The second Rome (Constantinople) fell to the infidels. The third Rome is Moscow, guardian of the true Orthodox faith — and heir to Andrew's apostolic mission in Scythia.

On early maps, this region is often labelled with evocative toponyms: Muscovy, Inner Scythia, or even Muscovite Tartary. The Volga (known in antiquity as the Rha) appears as a major axis linking Andrew's lands to the far reaches of Asia.

The picture is now complete. The three apostles divide the world, but their allegiances are in tension:

Thomas — Far Asia (India, Tartary, possibly China) — Argon kingdom / Nestorian Church — Independent, rival to Rome — India/Afghanistan (Waldseemüller), edges of Tartary.

Mark — Africa (Alexandria, then Ethiopia) — Church of Alexandria / Coptic Church — "Obedient to Rome" (Byzantine sphere) — Alexandria, Ethiopia.

Andrew — Scythia (north of the Black Sea, later Russia) — Byzantine Orthodox tradition — "Eastern Rome", later Third Rome (Moscow) — Scythia, Muscovy, Black Sea region.

The Western coalition (Mark + Andrew) is thus aligned with the Romano-Byzantine sphere. Markan Africa and Andrew's Scythia belong to the same bloc. Opposed to it stands Thomian Christianity in Asia — Nestorian, independent — which forms the other pole.

It is within this framework that Marco Polo's mission must be understood. His very name — Marco Polo — evokes the two apostolic figures of the Western coalition: Mark (evangeliser of Africa, obedient to Rome) and Paul (apostle of the Gentiles, founder of Western Churches). Marco Polo is literally the "messenger of Mark and Paul" — that is, the spokesperson of Western Christendom.

His diplomatic mission is therefore clear: to carry the goodwill of the Western bloc (Catholics and Orthodox aligned, with African Christianity included) towards the Eastern Christianity founded by Thomas — but belonging to a different allegiance (Nestorian). The aim is to restore contact, reopen dialogue, and if possible establish alliance.

The political context is that of the rising power of Islamic kingdoms across the medieval world:

In Africa, Islamic expansion threatens Christian Ethiopia.
In Iberia, the Reconquista is nearing its end (Granada falls in 1492).
In Asia, Turkish and Mongol sultanates — many of them Muslim — press upon Nestorian Christian kingdoms.

The kingdom of Argon (Prester John of Asia) is seen as a potential ally in this struggle. Marco Polo is the messenger attempting to rebuild the bridge between the two branches of Christianity: that of Thomas (Nestorian) and that of Mark/Andrew (Romano-Byzantine).

Meshec/Moscow's claim to be the "Third Rome" fits into the same logic. Russia, heir to Andrew, presents itself as the defender of the true Orthodox faith against Islamic expansion (the Ottomans) and Catholic deviation (the first Rome).

On early maps, this Third Rome is located precisely in the Scythia evangelised by Andrew. Russian chronicles — such as the Primary Chronicle — claim that Andrew travelled up the Dnieper to the site of future Kiev, then to Novgorod, blessing the land of Rus'.

Thus Andrew founds Byzantium (Second Rome), and his legacy is later claimed by Moscow (Third Rome). And in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this Third Rome expands eastwards into Siberia — into the very regions where early maps placed the Thomian kingdom of Argon, the lost tribes of Arsareth, and the peoples of Gog and Magog.

 

[Janusstark]

PART SIX​

Conclusion

Ortelius's annotation does not describe the supposed schism between Rome and Byzantium — a schism largely retroactively constructed by later historiography. It instead refers to a much older and deeper distinction: that between Western Christianity (Mark and Andrew, aligned with Rome/Byzantium) and Eastern Christianity (Thomas, Nestorian, located at the far edges of Asia).

Marco Polo — Mark-Paul — is the messenger of this Western coalition, carrying its diplomatic and religious outreach towards the lost Thomian kingdom in Asia. His name itself is programmatic: it symbolises the attempt to restore contact between the two poles of Christianity in the face of Islamic expansion.

The Third Rome (Meshec/Moscow), heir to Andrew, continues this trajectory eastwards into Siberia — the very lands where early cartography placed Argon, Asrareth, and Gog and Magog (BTW, until today, this is the region among all on the territory of Russia where the autonomous Jewish Republic of Russia is located). Ortelius's map is therefore not merely a geographical document: it is a theological and diplomatic diagram, tracing the fractures and possible alliances of Christendom at the dawn of the modern age.

There is therefore far more to be said about the children's game Marco Polo than might at first appear.

Once upon a time, there was a kingdom said to have been founded by the Apostle Thomas, ruled by a figure named John, and visited by Mark and Paul. This concentration of apostolic names could hardly be more intriguing in the context I have just outlined.

Whether coincidental, symbolic, or reflective of older narrative traditions, the convergence of Thomas, John, Mark, Andrew and Paul within the same geographical and historical framework invites closer examination. It is a striking pattern, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the religious and cartographic traditions discussed above.

 

[Janusstark]

I now dare this analysis :

ONE​

From the Griffin to the Helmet: How the West Betrayed the Mongols and Russia Inherited the Empire

The Founding Insult: Genghis Khan and Prester John

To understand the affront that would reshape the geopolitical balance of Eurasia and give rise to the European myth of Prester John, one must first identify the historical figure behind the legend. Medieval chroniclers, notably William of Rubruck and Marco Polo, identified the famous Asian "Prester John" with Toghrul, a powerful ruler of the Keraites, a Turco-Mongol tribe of central Mongolia. The Keraites were predominantly Nestorian Christians, which helped fuel the legend of a lost Christian kingdom in the heart of Asia. Toghrul bore the Chinese honorific title Wang ("king"), which Western accounts transformed into Ong Khan ("King John").

At the beginning of his rise to power, Genghis Khan—then known as Temüjin—regarded Toghrul as an adoptive father and powerful ally. Together they fought to unite the Mongol tribes. This quasi-filial relationship, forged through blood debts and alliances tested by hardship, made the subsequent rupture all the more devastating.

In steppe culture, a marriage proposal between ruling families was far more than a diplomatic formality. It sealed alliances, defined hierarchies, and established relations of vassalage. A refusal, especially one delivered with contempt, was interpreted as an open challenge and a declaration of hostility. Scholars of the Mongol Empire have noted that when a suzerain refused to give his daughter in marriage to a vassal, it was considered a grave insult. Such customs structured diplomatic relations across the steppe, where personal honour and loyalty outweighed written treaties.

This was the heart of the affront. In 1203, as Temüjin's power grew and he began to rival his former protector, he proposed a dynastic alliance. He asked for the hand of one of Ong Khan's daughters in marriage. Toghrul, increasingly influenced by his son Senggüm, rejected the proposal with disdain. Not only did he refuse, but he did so in a manner perceived as a profound personal insult, revealing the low esteem in which he held his former ally—who would soon become his overlord through force of arms.

What transformed this diplomatic rejection into an existential betrayal was what followed. Convinced by his son, Toghrul laid a trap for Temüjin. Pretending to accept the alliance, he invited him to a celebratory banquet. Trusting the word of the man he still regarded as a father, Temüjin set out with only a small escort. He escaped the ambush only because two shepherds overheard the Keraite plans and warned him in time. The ensuing battle ended in defeat for Temüjin, but Toghrul, perhaps underestimating his former protégé's resilience, chose not to pursue him. It proved a fatal mistake.

This sudden reversal—inviting and then betraying him—was viewed by Temüjin as the ultimate treachery. The bond of adoptive father and son was sacred, governed by oaths that, in steppe logic, were never to be broken. The insult of 1203 shattered that bond. Temüjin regrouped, swore the famous oath of Baljuna with his most loyal companions, and returned to crush the Keraites. By autumn 1203 he had defeated them. Toghrul was killed while fleeing towards the lands of the Naimans.

The destruction of the Christian Keraite kingdom marked a decisive turning point: Prester John was dead, and in his place emerged the Mongol power, now without rival on the steppe. Within a matter of months, the kingdom of Prester John disappeared beneath Mongol arms. Temüjin continued his conquests, destroyed the Naimans in 1204, and was proclaimed Genghis Khan in 1206. From this humiliation was born his determination to conquer and never again depend upon a suzerain. It was the birth of the Mongol Empire and the end of organised Christian power in Central Asia.

A fascinating detail concerns the transmission of the story. Nestorian monks amplified and transformed the legend. By emphasising its Christian and wondrous aspects, they obscured the reality of a bloody conflict between a Nestorian Christian ruler and a pagan shamanist rival, preferring to tell the story of a chosen people brought low by divine will rather than by the strength of a competitor. Thus, the affront was not merely the rejection of a marriage alliance. It symbolised the end of a Christian kingdom in Asia and the birth of the Mongol power that would go on to subjugate Eurasia.

 

[Janusstark]

TWO​

Marco Polo: The Mission After the Affront

But Marco Polo came later, did he not ? His mission must therefore be understood as part of the aftermath of this unhappy development between the eastern kingdom of Prester John, now dominated by the Khan, and the orphaned western kingdom of Prester John, desperately in need of support amid the remnants of a rival Christendom facing Muslim expansion.

The chronology is crucial. The conflict between Genghis Khan and Toghrul occurred in 1203. Marco Polo was born around 1254 and departed for Asia in 1271, nearly seventy years after the fall of Prester John's kingdom. The "Prester John" he encountered in stories was therefore no longer a reigning sovereign but already a legendary figure whose history survived through oral tradition.

The diplomatic mission of the Polos fits directly into the aftermath of these events. During the first journey of Niccolò and Maffeo Polo, Kublai Khan asked them to bring holy oil from the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and learned Christians to his court. Kublai Khan, grandson of Genghis, was renowned for his religious tolerance. Marco Polo reports that he welcomed Christians and requested their prayers. Kublai may have sought closer ties with Western Christendom, especially since Nestorian Christianity was already present within his empire.

By the time Marco Polo travelled, the geopolitical landscape had changed dramatically. Some Mongol rulers had converted to Islam, particularly the Ilkhans of Persia and the Golden Horde. The Muslim world was no longer merely an external adversary; it now existed within the successor khanates of the Mongol Empire itself.

Venice and Its Griffin: The Symbolic Legacy of the Affront

It is in this context that Venice enters the story. The Serenissima Republic, through its merchants, explorers, and diplomats, served as one of the principal gateways between the West and Asia. Its Black Sea trading posts, treaties with the Mongols, and role in transmitting Marco Polo's accounts made it a power intimately familiar with the mysteries of Tartary.

On early maps, Tartary is frequently populated with mythical creatures, among them the griffin. In travellers' accounts, medieval bestiaries, and the cartographic decorations of figures such as Gerardus Mercator and Abraham Ortelius, the griffin symbolises territories beyond the mountains, at the threshold of the unknown. It marks the limits of the known world and the entry into lands associated with Gog and Magog, the Lost Tribes of Israel, and the Thomist kingdom of Argon.

Venice itself never displayed a griffin directly in its official heraldry. Its emblem was the winged lion of Saint Mark, often accompanied by an intertwined serpent. Yet the combination of the lion's body and eagle's wings with the serpent's tail can be read symbolically as a complete griffin. In this interpretation, the coded griffin becomes the hidden signature of Venetian influence over the routes leading to Tartary which unified symbole was the actual griffin.

The purpose of this symbolic griffin, according to this interpretation, was to encourage Mongol intervention on behalf of the Christian West against Muslim powers. Venice presented itself as the hub of a grand anti-Islamic alliance, in which Western Christians and Mongols would unite against a common foe.

Yet the arrangement proved one-sided. Mongol rulers repeatedly sought alliances with the West, and some even promised to restore Jerusalem to Christian control in exchange for military cooperation. However, the West never fully reciprocated. Mongol diplomatic correspondence often demanded submission rather than mere partnership. The famous letter of Güyük Khan to Pope Innocent IV explicitly required obedience.

According to this interpretation, Western powers promised alliance, conversion, cooperation, and support, but delivered little. Kublai Khan requested a hundred learned Christians; only two were sent, and they soon turned back. The opportunity for a lasting alliance was lost.

When the Mongols realised that the West sought their military assistance without genuine reciprocity, they increasingly turned elsewhere. Some Mongol rulers converted to Islam, most notably Ghazan Khan in 1295. The irony is striking: in attempting to use the Mongols against Islam, the West may have helped push sections of the Mongol world towards Islam itself.

 

[Janusstark]

THREE​

Russia as Heir, back then as nowadays

The final stage of this narrative concerns Russia's inheritance of Mongol imperial traditions. Russian regalia preserve striking examples of the coexistence of Christian and Islamic symbols.

The famous Cap of Monomakh, long regarded as a symbol of Russian sovereignty, is now widely understood to have Eastern origins, likely connected to the Golden Horde. Similarly, ceremonial helmets associated with rulers such as Ivan IV of Russia and Alexander Nevsky bear Arabic inscriptions and Qur'anic verses alongside Orthodox imagery.

In this interpretation, such objects were not seen as contradictory. Rather, they reflected an inherited language of imperial legitimacy derived from the steppe empires. The tsars adopted and repurposed these symbols as heirs to the political traditions of the khans.

The helmet of Ivan the Terrible is incrusted with Qur'anic verses glorifying Allah. The helmet attributed to Alexander Nevsky, in the Kremlin Armoury, bears the inscription "Make the believers rejoice" from Surah 61. The helmet of Tsar Michael I, crafted by Nikita Davydov in 1621, juxtaposes an Orthodox cross and the Archangel Michael with the Muslim profession of faith: "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet."

Why would Orthodox rulers preserve such inscriptions on their ceremonial regalia? The answer is that these symbols were not perceived as alien. They were the marks of legitimate imperial power, inherited from the masters of the steppes. As one analyst expressed it, the khanates were the masters, and what came from the Horde was synonymous with quality, power, and supreme authority. It was a sign of the adoption of Ilam by the Mongols we just talked before.

For the tsars, there was no contradiction in praying to a Christian God while surrounding themselves with the symbols of Muslim authority. Contrary to the Western notion of a "clash of civilisations", Russia constructed an empire in which Islam became an essential pillar of Orthodox Russia. The Russian state did not hesitate to demand the loyalty of its Muslim subjects in the name of Allah and His Prophet. By presenting themselves as protectors of Islam and arbiters of disputes among Muslims, the tsars secured the support of local religious elites.

Thus, these artefacts represent not trophies of war taken from enemies, but rather insignia of Mongol imperial power that the tsars naturally integrated into their own regalia as heirs to the khans. Wearing these helmets was not an act of apostasy but an affirmation of sovereignty: they displayed the same source of power as their predecessors, the great khans of the Golden Horde, who had ruled those territories long before they became "Russian".

 

[Janusstark]

FOUR​

Conclusion

These artefacts suggest a world far more interconnected than later narratives often imply. While Western Europe developed myths about Tartary, Prester John, and distant Christian allies, Russia inherited elements of the Mongol imperial legacy directly. The griffin of Tartary, the legends of Prester John, the diplomatic missions of the Polos, and the regalia of the tsars all become part of a broader story linking medieval Christendom, the Mongol Empire, and the evolving political order of Eurasia.

They reveal a language of power in which symbols, religions, and empires intertwined—one that neither fit neatly into later notions of a clash of civilisations nor into the simplified narratives that would emerge in subsequent centuries.

What Venice had attempted through its coded griffin—to draw the Mongols into an anti-Islamic alliance—failed because of Western bad faith. The Mongols converted to Islam, and it was their Russian heirs who preserved the symbols of that empire. The Cap of Monomakh, the helmet of Ivan the Terrible, the helmet of Alexander Nevsky, the helmet of Michael I—all are silent witnesses to this historical synthesis.

They tell us that while the West was constructing a myth of the Griffin in an attempt to conquer the East, the Mongol East and its Russian heirs were forging a real empire, where Qur'anic verses and Orthodox crosses coexisted on the head of the same sovereign. They thus spoke a language of power that the West took centuries to understand: that of a sovereignty which does not need to erase the signs of the other to affirm its own, but rather interlaces them like the verses of a single imperial book.

There is therefore far more to be said about the children's game Marco Polo than might at first appear. Once upon a time, there was a kingdom said to have been founded by the Apostle Thomas, ruled by a figure named John, and visited by Mark and Paul. This concentration of apostolic names could hardly be more intriguing in the context just outlined. Whether coincidental, symbolic, or reflective of older narrative traditions, the convergence of Thomas, John, Mark, Andrew, and Paul within the same geographical and historical framework invites closer examination. It is a striking pattern, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the religious and cartographic traditions discussed above.