Context
So, I’ve been reading up on the Ottoman and Roman empires lately. With all the political and religious tension happening, both in India and globally, it just strikes me as odd how easily we forget a key lesson from history: what happened before often happens again, just in a different way. This feels like a basic truth about people, and it’s why we should really study history and think about who’s telling the story (since the winners usually paint themselves in the best light, looking down on others).
Because I’m really interested in a mix of things – medieval history, warfare, how countries work, religious movements, and global trade – I felt like I needed to research and share a simple idea I had.
A Simple Thesis
A nation or movement gets a stronger hold over the people it conquers when it offers the smartest or most capable among them a way to achieve personal success and recognition.
The British Empire, for example, did this pretty effectively with English education spread through Jesuit and Convent schools across its territories. Eventually, this led to some of the most educated people in India becoming, in many ways, ‘more British’ than expected – adopting Catholicism, English names, European food and clothing, and looking down on their own traditions and relatives.
But the British weren’t the first, and they certainly weren’t the last. Think about American ‘soft power’ today – you could call it cultural influence, domination, whatever term you prefer. America draws in talented people from everywhere. But notice how often, for second-generation immigrants aiming for political or social success, there’s a shift – maybe taking an English name, changing religion, or becoming very vocal critics of their countries of origin, like India or China.
So, where am I going with this? To add a bit more context before I get to the “so what?” part, here’s a snippet from Grok (which I’ve edited slightly to make it easier to read):
Q: I want to write a blog post on how meritocracy and religious evangelization has gone hand in hand from the Teutonic order, Janissaries, Mandarins, Mughal courts to British India. Could you help me with bullet points on ideas to cover ?
Here are some bullet points with ideas to cover in your blog post on how meritocracy and religious evangelization have intertwined across various historical contexts, from the Teutonic Order to British India:
Teutonic Order (13th-15th Century)
- Highlight the Teutonic Knights as a religious-military order promoting Christianity through conquest and conversion in the Baltic region.
- Discuss how meritocracy emerged within the order: knights advanced based on martial skill and devotion to the Christian cause, blending religious zeal with hierarchical promotion.
- Explore how their mission to evangelize “pagan” populations (e.g., Prussians, Lithuanians) aligned with rewarding those who excelled in spreading the faith.
Janissaries (Ottoman Empire, 14th-19th Century)
- Explain the Janissary system: Christian youths taken via the devshirme (child levy), converted to Islam, and trained as elite soldiers or administrators.
- Note the meritocratic element: advancement depended on ability in military or bureaucratic roles, not birthright, within a framework of Islamic evangelization.
- Discuss how their loyalty to the Sultan and Islam reinforced the empire’s religious mission while creating a merit-based elite class.
Mandarins (Imperial China, 6th-20th Century)
- Describe the Confucian examination system, where scholarly merit determined bureaucratic positions in the imperial court.
- Link this to “evangelization” of Confucian values: officials were expected to spread moral and social order, akin to a secular religion, to unify the empire.
- Explore how this meritocracy supported the state’s ideological mission, with the emperor as a quasi-divine figure enforcing a “heavenly mandate.”
Mughal Courts (16th-19th Century, India)
- Cover the Mughal blend of meritocracy and religious propagation under rulers like Akbar, who promoted talent (e.g., through the mansabdari system) regardless of origin.
- Discuss Akbar’s policy of Sulh-e-Kul (universal tolerance) as a form of soft evangelization, integrating diverse religious communities while rewarding capable administrators.
- Contrast this with later rulers like Aurangzeb, whose stricter Islamic policies tied merit to religious conformity, especially in military and judicial roles.
British India (18th-20th Century)
- Examine the British East India Company and later colonial administration, where meritocratic civil service exams (e.g., ICS) selected capable rulers.
- Tie this to Christian evangelization: missionaries often worked alongside colonial officials, with the “civilizing mission” blending merit-based governance and religious outreach.
- Highlight tensions between secular meritocracy (e.g., Indian administrators rising through ranks) and evangelical goals, especially post-1857 when direct rule intensified cultural imposition.
Broader Themes to Connect
- Compare how each system used meritocracy to sustain power while advancing a religious or ideological “faith.”
- Analyze the role of education/training (e.g., Janissary schools, Mandarin exams, British ICS) as a tool for both merit and indoctrination.
- Reflect on the paradox: meritocracy often clashed with religious exclusivity, creating hybrid systems of inclusion and exclusion.
- Conclude with thoughts on how these historical examples echo in modern meritocratic and missionary movements.
These examples show how each group didn’t just push their religion, but used it to organize society and govern. They created systems where talent could lead to advancement, even for people from different backgrounds, while still promoting their core beliefs.
So What?
You can see this pattern playing out both with nations trying to regain past influence and with movements looking for deeply committed followers. It seems like one thing people try hardest to overcome is the situation they were born into. If you offer them a clear path to rise above that, a way to gain status or glory, you often create incredibly dedicated followers – sometimes even more fiercely loyal than the original group leaders.
For instance, people in minority groups might identify more strongly with the dominant culture if they see a real chance for their best and brightest to be accepted and achieve high status – think of the Janissaries in the Ottoman Empire or, in a different context, pathways to advancement historically available to some individuals within oppressed groups in places like America, even amidst wider systemic injustice.
You also see this in big organizations or movements. Think about companies that build loyalty by promoting talented people from within who might not have had the same opportunities elsewhere – like dedicated civil servants across countries or executives who started as trainees in their organizations.
So, what’s the takeaway here, in my view? For any group, nation, or even company to really thrive long-term, it needs to create genuine paths for talented individuals, especially those from less privileged backgrounds, to rise to the top. Think of the role Mandarins played in China or long-serving leaders in established companies.
The Lucid Monk 