The Mongols sophisticated military tactics, organized ethical and religious codes, their economic contributions, and road systems are tributes to the fact that they are not barbarians. The Mongols had displayed organized military strategies to aid their conquests that can only be achieved by intelligent and well thought out planning. Planning such as surrounding their enemy and attacking their fortresses from all sides; this cornered their enemies and allowed for easy attack. The Mongolians also had tactics like placing dummies on horses to give the impression that a great crowd of ready to fight men were assembled at the battle ground.( Doc 3) Along with the Mongols sophisticated strategies their armies were organized accordingly for the
…show more content…
Barbarians usually have disorder in their communities but the Mongols did not they were able to display kindness and respect. For instance, the Mongols were big on returning this back to their rightful owners; once two Iraqi horses went astray from some travelers and when the travelers returned twenty years later their horse were still with the Mongols in good health and returned back to them. (Doc 7) Theft and adultery was rooted out in the Mongol community by the infamous Genghis Khan and the Mongols followed an order and had a sense of morality. (Doc 7) Adultery was highly looked down upon so much so, that the person who commits adultery would be executed as a result of such actions. Drinking cause a widespread of dangerous acts and domestic issues and this fact was thoroughly recognized by the Mongols, Mongols could only have three time, and nothing more, times a month to get drunk. If they were to exceed this limited they were punished, and if a man were to go under this limit they were praised. The Mongols were friendly with one another, and they showed deep respect for one another; they ever went as far as to share food with those who had none even if there was little food to be given away.(Doc 10) To attribute to the Mongols strong moral attributes, the believed in a God that they live by and were willing to die for. (Doc 9) This completely goes against the idea that they were …show more content…
In Document 2 the account of the Mongols battle tactics is being told from someone who first, is not a Mongol. Second, this person is John of Plano Carpini, a Franciscan emissary under Pope of Innocent IV. Third, at the time the Europeans were seeking an alliance with the Mongols because of their fights against the Muslims, the Christian’s enemy. So, in this document to make the Mongols look good for the Pope or paint a well organized picture of the people who were the Mongols, the John of Plano may have distorted the truth to make the alliance seem like a good thing. In Document 4 the man writing about the events at Nishapur, was not a Mongol. The man Juvaini was in fact Persian, one of the many groups conquered by the Mongols, and Juvaini at the time when he wrote about this account he was under the employment of the Mongols. Juvaini was from Baghdad, but he was writing about a event in Nishapur that happened 40 years prior to its destruction, so his account may be sketchy. One of the accounts that is lacking from these documents that would solidify the fact that the Mongols were not barbarians is an account from the Mongols themselves. A real raw account written by a Mongolian soldier, housewife, or even a Khan would have provided insight into their society and how it was run, and their military encounters to truly determine if the Mongolians
Barbarians usually have disorder in their communities but the Mongols did not they were able to display kindness and respect. For instance, the Mongols were big on returning this back to their rightful owners; once two Iraqi horses went astray from some travelers and when the travelers returned twenty years later their horse were still with the Mongols in good health and returned back to them. (Doc 7) Theft and adultery was rooted out in the Mongol community by the infamous Genghis Khan and the Mongols followed an order and had a sense of morality. (Doc 7) Adultery was highly looked down upon so much so, that the person who commits adultery would be executed as a result of such actions. Drinking cause a widespread of dangerous acts and domestic issues and this fact was thoroughly recognized by the Mongols, Mongols could only have three time, and nothing more, times a month to get drunk. If they were to exceed this limited they were punished, and if a man were to go under this limit they were praised. The Mongols were friendly with one another, and they showed deep respect for one another; they ever went as far as to share food with those who had none even if there was little food to be given away.(Doc 10) To attribute to the Mongols strong moral attributes, the believed in a God that they live by and were willing to die for. (Doc 9) This completely goes against the idea that they were …show more content…
In Document 2 the account of the Mongols battle tactics is being told from someone who first, is not a Mongol. Second, this person is John of Plano Carpini, a Franciscan emissary under Pope of Innocent IV. Third, at the time the Europeans were seeking an alliance with the Mongols because of their fights against the Muslims, the Christian’s enemy. So, in this document to make the Mongols look good for the Pope or paint a well organized picture of the people who were the Mongols, the John of Plano may have distorted the truth to make the alliance seem like a good thing. In Document 4 the man writing about the events at Nishapur, was not a Mongol. The man Juvaini was in fact Persian, one of the many groups conquered by the Mongols, and Juvaini at the time when he wrote about this account he was under the employment of the Mongols. Juvaini was from Baghdad, but he was writing about a event in Nishapur that happened 40 years prior to its destruction, so his account may be sketchy. One of the accounts that is lacking from these documents that would solidify the fact that the Mongols were not barbarians is an account from the Mongols themselves. A real raw account written by a Mongolian soldier, housewife, or even a Khan would have provided insight into their society and how it was run, and their military encounters to truly determine if the Mongolians