After they conquered most of the known world and built their own empire, Mongols were known to be two things when it comes to history: great conquerors and barbarians. In terms of the former, no literature can contest that they deserved to be called and regarded as such. Inversely, the case of the latter remains an open debate to historians and even the rest of the world. This paper aims to arrive to a verdict whether the term barbarian is fitting to the Mongols or not. During the time when they were tearing down cities after cities and kingdoms after kingdoms, the Mongols were stereotyped and feared as ruthless vanquishers with barbaric nature. To its neighbors, the thought of seeing their army of warriors on horseback signifies doom.
…show more content…
In addition, their upfront display of lack of civility in dealing with other people and lack of respect for life became attached to their already wicked image.
However, there are also some who contend that Mongols are not ‘barbarians’ as the world thought. Although there was no debate on the brutalities done by the Mongols, it was also arguable that such acts was done out of wartime necessity. Their vile actions earned them an image that can make even strong enemies lose heart and crumble like what happened in a Persian city called Nishapur as documented by a chronicler named Ata-Malik Juvaini 40 years after (Document 4). This stereotypical image of them held by their enemies was an advantage for the Mongols in their interest to rule the …show more content…
But just as God gave different fingers to the hand so has He given different ways to men.” (Document 9) There is also a claim that Genghis Khan’s legislation was able to eliminate adultery, theft, murder and many other crimes during the empire’s era as cited by Ratchnevsky in his book Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy (Document 7). In the same book, Plano Carpini stated that people need no locks nor bolts in storing their wealth and Juzjani remarked that no person will attempt to pick up things left unattended on the ground. With all these, the claim that the Mongol’s way of life lacks morality, civility, and respect for life is countered. In fact, it only points the discussion into the bigger picture. Who defines what is moral? Who set the standards of civility? These are the larger questions that need to be answered in order to determine whether the Mongols are indeed barbarians or not. In this case, however, there seem to be a conflict between the cultures of the Mongols and of the foreign lands they conquered. Cultural differences can account the difference in values the people uphold, which makes way for their fundamental standard on what is wrong or what right, what is good and what is bad, or even what is civil and what is
In addition, their upfront display of lack of civility in dealing with other people and lack of respect for life became attached to their already wicked image.
However, there are also some who contend that Mongols are not ‘barbarians’ as the world thought. Although there was no debate on the brutalities done by the Mongols, it was also arguable that such acts was done out of wartime necessity. Their vile actions earned them an image that can make even strong enemies lose heart and crumble like what happened in a Persian city called Nishapur as documented by a chronicler named Ata-Malik Juvaini 40 years after (Document 4). This stereotypical image of them held by their enemies was an advantage for the Mongols in their interest to rule the …show more content…
But just as God gave different fingers to the hand so has He given different ways to men.” (Document 9) There is also a claim that Genghis Khan’s legislation was able to eliminate adultery, theft, murder and many other crimes during the empire’s era as cited by Ratchnevsky in his book Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy (Document 7). In the same book, Plano Carpini stated that people need no locks nor bolts in storing their wealth and Juzjani remarked that no person will attempt to pick up things left unattended on the ground. With all these, the claim that the Mongol’s way of life lacks morality, civility, and respect for life is countered. In fact, it only points the discussion into the bigger picture. Who defines what is moral? Who set the standards of civility? These are the larger questions that need to be answered in order to determine whether the Mongols are indeed barbarians or not. In this case, however, there seem to be a conflict between the cultures of the Mongols and of the foreign lands they conquered. Cultural differences can account the difference in values the people uphold, which makes way for their fundamental standard on what is wrong or what right, what is good and what is bad, or even what is civil and what is