Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
24 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What did the pope do in response to the attacks |
In 1245, Pope Innocent IV convened the Council of Lyons to devise a unified European response. After discovering from Europeans in the Middle East that the invaders from the East would not harm official envoys, the assembled leaders dispatched several embassies to the Mongols. The pope sent two letters, via the Franciscan John of Plano Carpini, leader of one of the embassies, to implore the Mongols to refrain from attacking Christian lands and to convert to Christianity. John first reached the Golden Horde’s capital in Sarai and then set forth on a long journey to the newly enthroned Great Khan Güyüg’s court in Mongolia. |
|
|
Guyuk's response to the pope |
Güyüg, who was offended by the pope’s missive, responded with a letter of his own, rejecting conversion to Christianity and demanding that the pope and the European monarchs submit. He wrote that “thou in person at the head of the kings, you must all together at once come to do homage to Us. … And if you do not accept God’s command and act contrary to Our command We shall regard you as enemies.” John’s mission did not produce the desired results; the Mongols did not convert to Christianity nor did they pledge to make peace with the Europeans. However, the report he submitted to the Vatican more than compensated for the failure of his mission by providing information about the Mongols’ military and culture. |
|
|
What did Carpini report on and what did his report contain |
He brought back the message and reported on the state of Mongolian military affairs. His condescending report revealed that the Mongols did not use tablecloths or napkins and did not wash their dishes, which he found uncouth and barbaric. He wrote that his Mongol hosts were quick to execute their own people or foreigners who poured out or wasted milk or food, or who killed young birds. |
|
|
Rubruck had what interchange |
European monarchs and leaders, some of whom, like the earlier Crusaders, were eager to recapture the Holy Lands, continued to exchange embassies with the Mongols in Russia and Iran in the late 1240s and early 1250s, and the Franciscan William of Rubruck was the most prominent European to reach the Mongol court. With support from King Louis IX of France, William arrived in the Mongol capital, but he scarcely secured a pledge from the Mongols not to persist in their military campaigns. Indeed his conversations with Möngke were not entirely amiable. He even debated clerics representing other religions in Möngke’s court and was the first European to write extensively and derisively about the Nestorians among the Mongols. |
|
|
All about the wild beliefs |
Knowledge of the east tended to come from the wondrous tales found in Alexander the Great’sfictional exploits. Augmented by the further fantasies of Prester John, widely known anduniversally believed since the mid twelfth century. |
|
|
The Crusaders in 1221 had what misinterpretaion |
Aside this the only other news to pass to Europe was that in 1221 the crusaders wereencamped at Damietta in Egypt. News reached them there of a mysterious King David,Christian king of India. David reportedly was attacking Muslims, clearly aid was on the way tothe Crusaders. This played a part in persuading the Crusaders to refuse the offer of peace fromEgypt and induce them towards marching on Cairo. We imagine that King David had beenbased wishfully on Genghis Khan and the attacks on muslims would have been a reflection onGenghis’s campaign against the Khwarazm-shah. |
|
|
Morgan on interchange |
Batu’s campaign in Russia necessiatated ‘some cognisance... of this alarming interuption fromthe unknown east.’ |
|
|
First ever emissary to relay accurate information was |
Friar Julian of Hungary, sent as an emissary of King Bela IV of Hungary in 1234 was the first torelay accurate information about the east. He went against in 1237, but his mission wasinterrupted the second time by Batu’s Russian campaign. |
|
|
What did the invasion of Eastern Europe cause among the nobles in Europe |
The invasion of eastern Europecaused a flurry of communication and letters discussing the issue. These were collected byMatthew Paris and were from concerned clergy as well as princes. They include a circular letterfrom Frederick II to his fellow monarchs, urging them to assemble forces, unite against newperil. Paris similarly gives an account of some of the explanations that were growing fromnowhere and attempted to illuminate the Mongol question. |
|
|
Theories about who the invaders were: |
They were the lost ten tribes ofIsrael, without speaking Hewbrew, some claimed. That or it was a plot hatched by Frederick toobtain the homage of the king of Hungary. |
|
|
Louis IX in Cyprus |
In the 1240s, Louis IX, in Cyprus to prepare for his crusade to Egypt received two Nestorianambassadors from Elijigidei, at that point Mongolian commander in the Middle East. Theseenvoys perhaps believed the crusade could be exploited to further Mongol designs against theMuslims.They provided Louis a misleading picture of Mongol treatment of Christianity. Theyclaimed with Eljigidei and Guyuk had converted to Christianity. King Louis despatched Andrewof Longjumea, already experienced, to meet the Khan - along with an ornate portable chapel asa present for the royal convert. When Andrew reached Eljigidei’s camp, however, he discoveredthat Guyuk had died and the interregnum made for some a political climate. Eljigidei sent himand his escort on to the court of Guyuk’s widow, Oghul-Qaimish. When they arrived at hercamp, the regent’s interpretation of their arrival was as Frankish submission. She sent themhome with the traditional message: pay tribute or face the consequences. De Raschewitzsuggests that her actions may have been an attempt to bolster her weak political position, whichwas undoubtedly floundering. She was, in fact, executed upon the Ogedids’ loss of the throne. |
|
|
Morgan on the awakening of Christendom |
The invasion of eastern Europe woke Christendom up very sharply.’ |
|
|
The status of the Mongols, how did they see themselves in relation to others |
‘There was no possibility of negotiations on equal terms with the Mongols: in their opinion anyruler who had not submitted to them... had the status of a rebel against the divinely ordainedgovernment of the world.’ |
|
|
Interchange between the ilkhanate and Christendom |
Change in Mongol attitudes to the Franks did occur, but not till 1260. An alliance was to beforged between the crusaders and the ilkhanate against the Mamluk regime and their cousinsthe Golden Horde. The idea would be a dual conquering of Syria, if taken Jerusalem would beprovided to the Christians and of course they held the hope that the Mongols would acceptconversion to Christianity. |
|
|
First Ilkhanate-West contact |
Negotiations were initiated by Hulegu in 1262, when he sent his letter to Louis IX From 1263until into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance, and theseappear to have been entered into in perfectly good faith by both sides. |
|
|
ARgun's letter |
A letter by the Ilkhan Argun demonstrates the changing attitudes to Christendom by Mongolscompared to communications prior to 1260. He writes ‘We agree to yourproposition...we..shall set out from here and go to war and to attack...in a commonoperation’. |
|
|
Belief of the franks in Ghazan |
By 1291 the crusaders had lost any foothold in the east, with their city of Acre falling to theMamluks. This did not put an end to negotiations, and at one point rumours swept acrossEurope that the Mongols had retaken Jerusalem and had returned it to Christian rule. Thisrumour reflected the successes of Ghazan in 1299-1300 when he drove the Mamluk forces fromSyria, only to withdraw once more to Persia in due course. |
|
|
Ghazan writing to the Pope Edward II writing to Oljetu |
In 1302, Ghazan wrote to Pope Boniface VIII, yet again proposing joint action. The envoy wasBuscarello Ghisolfi, who had for many years played the part of Khanate-European envoy. In 1307 when Edward II of England wrote a letter to Oljetu, he found it wise to attach avenomously barbed attack on ‘the abominable sect of Mohammed,’ which he requires Oljetu toexterminate. Oljetu also wrote to Philip the Fair of France. But with Oljetu’s death allcommunication regarding alliance ceased. Commercial relations continued and missionaryefforts were maintained. That the Ilkhans had become Islamic in 1295 seems not to have registered in Europe -‘admittedly the Ilkhans did not go out of their way to force this information undiplomatically downChristian throats.’ |
|
|
What caused the end of any relations? |
Eventually the Ilkhanid-Mamluk peace treatym of 1322 caused the Ilkhans to drop any ideas ofrelations with the Franks. |
|
|
Rabbam Sauma |
The period of communication between the Popes and the Ilkhans gave rise to two interestingliterary memorials. The travels of Rabbam Sauma and the History of the Franks by Rashid al-Din. Rabban Sauma sent to Europe by Arghun in 1287. Sauma’s route took him toConstantinople, by ship to Naples and from there to Rome, Genoa, Paris, Gascony and back toRome. Audiences with Byzantine Emperor Androniuc II, cardinals in Rome (Pope Honorious IVdied before arrival) Philip the Fair of France, edward I of England and on his second trip toRome the newly elected Pope Nicholas IV who was to give his name to Arghun’s sonOljetu. Thepicture he paints of europe is a favourable one. He was a Christian priest, coming to the land ofthe Christians. Chief passion was relics, those in Rome piqued his interest. He persuaded thePope to provide him with a few before his final departure and the Pope grudgingly obliged. ‘If wehad been in the habit of giving away these relics to the people who come in myriads, eventhough the relics were as large as mountains, they would have come to an end long ago. Butsince thou hast come from a far country, we will give thee a few.’ |
|
|
Sauma observing Western battles |
In Naples, en route to Rome, Sauma and company were sat on a roof and had the joy ofspectating a naval battle. ‘Rabban Sauma and his companions sat upon the roof of the mansionin which they lived, and they admired the way in which the Franks waged war, for they attackednone of thepeople except those who were actually combatants.’ His experineces living inMongol controlled territory had tuaght him a different custom. |
|
|
Rashid al-Din's history of the franks contained what material? based mainly on what source? |
In Polo’s account, Kublai unwillingly permitted Marco, with father and uncle, to return to Venicebecause he needed envoys to accompany a Mongol princess whow as being sent from Chinaas a bride for Arghun. Rashid al-din gives account of the party’s arrival in Persia. It confirmsPolo’s version in every way, the princess is married to Ghazan because Arghun is dead, etc, butneither here nor anywhere else are the Polo named, nor is the very existence of such people somuch as mentioned. Perhaps Polo was once again exaggerating his own importance, but it ismore likely to prove that al-Din shared the traditional Mongol prejudice against the Franks.Muslims had regarded Europe as a remote and barbarous area, hardly worthy of attention.It has been suggested that perhaps al-din suppressed this information in order to protect hissovereigns from discredit - the Khans being followers of Islam and yet still in contact with theChristian Europeans to engage an alliance. This seems overly conspiracy minded. This kind ofprejudice did not prevent him giving full and excellent account of the non-Muslims of India andChina, from acknowledging the excellent relations that existed between the Ilkhans and theGreat Khan of Beijing, who was no Muslim. The fact that The History of the Franks was sounique speaks for itself. There was no eastern/Muslim interest in the realms of Christendom.Chief source thirteenth century chronicle of Martin of Troppau. Dominican whodied in 1279. Not exceedingly good, but exceedingly popular. It is clear that this work is based on an official at the papal court. He lists the principle rulers ofEurope ‘First is the Pope, which means father of fathers; and he is considered the caliph (i.e.representative of the Messiah); and then the Emperor... and then the King of France.’ Hedefines the emperor as sultan-i- salatin, sultan of sultans; the king of France, raydafrans isinterpreted as meaning king of kings. The empire is elective while the kingdom of France ishereditary - a fair distinction even if the Capetians never precisely defined their throne ashereditary. It emerges that the Pope uses the bent head and neck of the Emperor as a step to ahorse; only after this has been performed can proclaim Emperor. Oddly, Rabban Sauma relatesan apposite story which seems cognate with al-Din’s. He claims that at an imperial coronationthe Pope ‘takes up the crown with his feet, and clothes the Emperor with it ... [to show], as theysay, that priesthood reigneth over sovereignty.’ Rashid al-Din clearly exhibits a papal bias -Frederick II and papal struggle depicted as an imperial revolt. He ascribes 100,000 students tothe city of Paris; he’s aware there are ‘poisonous reptiles’ in Ireland; he understands theactivites of the Teutonic knights in Prussia. |
|
|
Polo/Rashid discrepancies Why might they have existed? |
In Polo’s account, Kublai unwillingly permitted Marco, with father and uncle, to return to Venicebecause he needed envoys to accompany a Mongol princess whow as being sent from Chinaas a bride for Arghun. Rashid al-din gives account of the party’s arrival in Persia. It confirmsPolo’s version in every way, the princess is married to Ghazan because Arghun is dead, etc, butneither here nor anywhere else are the Polo named, nor is the very existence of such people somuch as mentioned. Perhaps Polo was once again exaggerating his own importance, but it ismore likely to prove that al-Din shared the traditional Mongol prejudice against the Franks.Muslims had regarded Europe as a remote and barbarous area, hardly worthy of attention.It has been suggested that perhaps al-din suppressed this information in order to protect hissovereigns from discredit - the Khans being followers of Islam and yet still in contact with theChristian Europeans to engage an alliance. This seems overly conspiracy minded. This kind ofprejudice did not prevent him giving full and excellent account of the non-Muslims of India andChina, from acknowledging the excellent relations that existed between the Ilkhans and theGreat Khan of Beijing, who was no Muslim. The fact that The History of the Franks was sounique speaks for itself. There was no eastern/Muslim interest in the realms of Christendom. |
|
|
Bartlett on lies and subterfuge |
‘All this was a lie – subterfuge was as much a part of the Mongol armoury as their cavalry charges were – but these sweet words proved to be of great comfort to Louis, a devout though sometimes naïve monarch.’ |
