Friday, November 14, 2008

The Mongol Empire Takes Shape

Ok, so yesterday we looked at the rise of Chingis Khan through the eyes of the Mongols. Now, I would like you to turn to Persian, Korean, Russian, and Western European sources in order to see how "outsiders" viewed the conquering nomads.

The documents that I would like you to read focus on the decades from the 1220s though the 1250s, a decisive time for the Mongols. At the beginning of this period Chingis Khan had already conquered part of northern China and was in the process of leading an invasion of the Central Asian region centering on present-day Uzbekistan. The Uzbek steppe, which included the flourishing caravan cities of Samarkand, Bukhara, and Balkh, was the midpoint of the overland Silk Road and the heartland of a vibrant Islamic culture. In conquering northern China and the Uzbek territory, Chingis Khan created one of the most extensive empires in world history.

But there were many more Mongol conquests to come. A nearly continuous string of military victories under the leadership of Chingis' son and successor, Ogedei (Greatat Khan, 1229-1241), and grandson, Mongke (Great Khan, 1251-1259), created an empire of truly unprecedented size. At the time of Mongke's death the Mongol boundaries included all of Central Asia, Persia, and most of Russia. When another of Chingis Khan's grandsons, Khubilai, succeeded as Great Khan in 1260, the Mongols were prepared to realize their greatest dream, the completion of their conquest of China.

Please click on the following link (Asian and European Sources on the Mongols) in order to read the aforementioned documents from outside perspectives. How do the documents help us to understand why the Mongol empire grew so extensively in the 13th century? Did the Mongol conquests inadvertently strengthen a sense of religious, ethnic, or national identity among their victims? Also, once you have read the documents I would like you to consider and discuss the following: What evidence does Juvaini provide regarding the importance of trade and Islam in 13th century Bukhara? According to Juvaini, what was the Mongols' attitude toward Islam? Does Juvaini appear to have been a Muslim? How might Juvaini's religious beliefs have shaped his account of the Mongols in Bukhara? Could the fire that destroyed the city's wooden buildings have been an inadvertent result of the fighting? What became of the people of Bukhara? Were religious considerations a factor in the Korean resistance to the Mongols? How does the Korean document shed light on the methods of warfare used in the 13th century? How did the Mongols, as pastoral nomads, learn the siege techniques they employed against cities in Central Asia and Korea? What feature of Russian political life worked to the advantage of the Mongols? How do you explain the chronicler's description of the Mongols as both "godless" and Mohammedan"? What was the likely religion of the chronicler? How might the Persian, Korean, and Russian accounts of the Mongols have reinforced a sense of national or religious identity in these countries? Which seems stronger in these reports, a sense of national or religious identity? How does the description of the Mongols in Hungary reveal their cleverness? Why did the Mongols evacuate Hungary shortly after their arrival? What features of Karakorum impress William of Rubruck? What did not impress him? How do you think the Mongols obtained the resources to build Karakorum? Why did they not move their center of operations to one of the cities they conquered? What did William of Rubruck observe about gender relations among the Mongols? Does his report imply anything about gender in Western Europe? How do the views of the "outsiders" compare with the "insider" point of view expressed in the Secret History of the Mongols? What differences do you see? Are there any similarities? In your opinion, which is a more valuable aid to understanding the past, an "insider" or an "outsider" account? Finally, how do the Mongols compare to the Xiongnu? In what ways had the lifeways of the nomads changed from the time of the Xiongnu? What were the continuities? REMEMBER, THIS IS A LOT TO CONSIDER, BUT IT SHOULD ALL BE CONSIDERED IN PREPARATION FOR YOUR COURT CASE ON MONDAY. Now, your thoughts...

6 comments:

michelledemaris said...

i was actually wondering if u were going to post the requirements of the briefing paper for the argument. Because i left mine at school.

hochanlee said...

Ah this reminds of me of the class lectures. If they surrendered the people considered mongols kind, but if they got defeated, they considered the mongols to be evil

Anonymous said...

it is obvious from these documents as well as from what we've talked about in class that the mongols were able to expand because of the mind games they played on the people they wished to conquer. also, as the document on the conquering of bukhara shows, when the mongols wanted to conquer, they conquered with great force and swiftness. although, one thing from this document surprised me a little. i thought genghis khan was tolerant to religions... but when the documents talk about bukhara, it mentions that after the city was taken over, genghis khan and other mongols (and their horses) were stomping on the remains of korans, and used the boxes they were in as mangers to store the grains stolen from the uzbeks to feed their horses. doesnt sound like tolerance or respect for a religion to me...

TmcC said...

The mongols used technology greatly to their advantage as shown by their use of catapults, rams, and siege towers. Much of this was probably gained from the Muslims and the Chinese, whom the Kahn surrounded himself with. Also thier brutality in war seems unparalled as described by their attacks on Russia were they literally murdered everyone who resisted or was of noble blood. You don't see religion in the Mongol world, but rather a collection of superstitions and traditions such as not washing clothes or dishes. They seemed tolerant of other religions, but never wanted to adopt them.

Anonymous said...

I think this shows how genius the Mongols were in using their psychological warfare. They were very tolerant to surrendered people but showed no mercy when anybody even slightly resisited. I think this was a tactic created by the Mongols so that as the Mongls were pushing people out of their homelands, they would tell the next society of how evil the Mongols were so they would be more likely to surrender.

The Odyssey said...

the mongols to me are BA... they had the world in the palm of there hand... they were very smart and knew how to conquer places... if they destroyed u then people considered them cruel and evil but if they let u live but just took over they considered the mongols kind