Mongol Empire Dbq Analysis
Many different people have studied and observed the Mongols throughout history. Ruled by Genghis Khan, they were an empire that sought out and conquered whatever they could. Throughout their reign, many different opinions began to form about it. Through these different attitudes,it can be seen that some viewed the Mongols as a admirable and respectful empire while other saw them as deceiving and ruthless.
There are those regard the empire with admiration. A chronicler Muslim had the idea that under the reign of Genghis Khan, all the countries enjoyed such peace (Doc 7). Additionally the shaman of Genghis Khan has said that before his rule, one did not live as one wished, but rather in constant conflict (Doc 1). Furthermore, it is said by a missionary, that the court was systematically organized into a well formed military (Doc 3). It is evident that these strong supportive statements allows the Mongols to have this …show more content…
Through their expansion, Mongols were ruthless with conquering other empires. As a result, many who were conquered did not view them with fondness. A Hungarian bishop held two Mongols captive described them as barbaric and had no religious belief (Doc 4). Others agreed with this statement, an Italian monk called them extremely arrogant and have no moral disputes about killing people. Additionally, in terms of dealing with others, Mongols are described as crafty liars. (Doc 5). However, these intense negative feelings derive from viewing only one side of the Mongols. The bishop most likely only experienced the Mongols’ violence while the Monk was specifically pointing out their flaws.
Taking all of these different documents, there are various perspectives on the Mongols and their empire. It differs from being seen as respectable and admirable, to cruel and barbaric. Those attitudes depend on the experiences and the different type of
There are those regard the empire with admiration. A chronicler Muslim had the idea that under the reign of Genghis Khan, all the countries enjoyed such peace (Doc 7). Additionally the shaman of Genghis Khan has said that before his rule, one did not live as one wished, but rather in constant conflict (Doc 1). Furthermore, it is said by a missionary, that the court was systematically organized into a well formed military (Doc 3). It is evident that these strong supportive statements allows the Mongols to have this …show more content…
Through their expansion, Mongols were ruthless with conquering other empires. As a result, many who were conquered did not view them with fondness. A Hungarian bishop held two Mongols captive described them as barbaric and had no religious belief (Doc 4). Others agreed with this statement, an Italian monk called them extremely arrogant and have no moral disputes about killing people. Additionally, in terms of dealing with others, Mongols are described as crafty liars. (Doc 5). However, these intense negative feelings derive from viewing only one side of the Mongols. The bishop most likely only experienced the Mongols’ violence while the Monk was specifically pointing out their flaws.
Taking all of these different documents, there are various perspectives on the Mongols and their empire. It differs from being seen as respectable and admirable, to cruel and barbaric. Those attitudes depend on the experiences and the different type of