There is no debate among historians that the Mongols had their brutal side. But when the day of historical judgement comes and Mongol's good and bads are placed side by side on the balance scale which way will the scale tip? Make your own judgement. Click on the link and follow the directions in the Student Guide Sheet. Be sure to complete the suggested steps for each document. Be sure to respond to the following question in the Blog. (one response of your opinion and a response to a classmate's). The Mongols: Barbaric or Nah? support your answer with evidence from the documents. How Barbaric Were the Mongols? Watch this video to help you formulate an opinion.
I think that the mongols were more barbaric than not because their whole mantra was 'The Greatest happiness was to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters'. That says alot about what they wanted to do and what their purpose was. It was stated thate historians belived that they killed millions of people is just 80 years of their resign/dynasty. Even though they may have had some good things they created, I think people tend to remember the bad things that happen more that the good that happens and that is why i think that the mongols are more barbaric than nah. Stella Johnson, 7th period
I agree because most of the people that were killed were either killed because they would not surrender their land or just because they lived on the land that the Mongols wanted to conquer. Also most of those people were innocent people or innocent women and children. The quote about seeing the loved ones of their enemies being killed cry and mourn shows their true feelings about how they really felt.
I agree because the mass amount of killings that didn't necessarily make sense. The mongols reasoning was to conquer land and they went about taking it by slaughtering whole cities. There were good contributions but they were barbaric because the bad outweighed the good. I understand they did it to make their conquering areas prosperous as Emily said but they were mostly focused on the military aspects rather than just making the land prosperous.
I think the Mongols are more barbaric. The Mongols were famous for butchering to the last person any city which refused to surrender to it. That is, the Mongol army would arrive at a city, and demand it's surrender. If it refused, and the Mongols later captured the city (which, happend the vast majority of the time), then Mongols would then kill everyone inside. Even if the city surrendered immediately, the typical Mongol response would be to depopulate the city (move everyone out) into the local countryside, raze the entire city to the ground, then sell large portions of the remaining population into slavery, while forcing the rest into agricultural work.
I completely agree with you because maybe we would have had a different outlook on the Mongols if the documents focused equally on the good and bad. but because they focused more on the bad most of us believe that the Mongols are barbaric.
I don't think the Mongols were barbarian because their attacks were well planned out and they strived to make their conquering areas prosperous. "He also comments that although there were many pack animals in the Kipchak area, these could be left unattended because of the severity of (Mongol) laws against theft." (Paul Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy) This quote shows that the Mongols had a system of laws that were strict and well abided making them not very barbaric. In regards to them having a well thought out attack system, the Mongols would alternate their armies throughout the fight allowing them to get rest while their counterpart was wearing out because they fought continuously with no change in men. The Mongols would help flourish their newly conquered areas by opening the areas to different trade. One example of an area in which they did this is the Persian silk industry. The Mongols weren't barbaric because of how they ended up benefitting many areas they took control of, because they didn't randomly attack places with out an idea on how to proceed to win the fight and take control of the land, and because they had laws that were followed.
Yes, having a law system does provide structure to an extent, as well as battle plans. However, their laws were concerning their army, which is basically the placement all of their peoples except for their subjects. Were these laws carried out all over the empire? Were they carried out with the subjects that were forcefully raped into this "Empire?" Well there weren't any systems of law enforcers spanning over thousands of kilometers were there? These people were barbarians in that they were not civilized and they were continuously conquering with their army, with no internal structure. Yes, laws provide civility, but if civility is basically impossible with not structure, especially with the level of control the Mongolian Empire was out of, laws in no way provide stability, also considering the laws only concern the acquiring of more uncontrollable land. As for battle strategy, they had multiple armies because of their man power, not a rank system or structure proven to provide military stability. They attacked civilizations' walls on horseback, burned them down, raped the women and killed the men and children who did not join. Is this really a legitimate battle strategy? And if so, it seems pretty barbaric, don't you think?
Success as an empire does not mean that they weren't barbaric. They did improve many places, but they required extreme, non-civil ways to achieve such. For example, to ensure that people obey their law, they had to make punishments as cruel as possible, and of course no one would want to commit those crimes, as the punishment is extremely terrifying, but that also means that even small/accidental crimes would cause inevitable torture and death.
His argument is strong, rational, and it backs up mine, so thus I agree with Sergey completely. As stated in my previous argument, laws don't nececarily mean that they promote a civilized system. The way that the Mongols enforced their "laws" was absolutely barbaric. In this empire, either you submitted fully into this rigid system of barbarians, or you were killed, raped, tortured, or left for dead. The Mongols treated humans as if they were animals in their "law enforcement system." This did not promote discipline. This promoted fear, death, and suffering. Now this is truly barbaric.
I am in between with whether or not the Mongols were barbarian or not. I think their morals were correct, but the way they handled some of their issues or situations were barbaric. I believe they were barbaric because they were killing innocent people for land. They would also kill their prisoners or the people they captured in peculiar way. For example, in Document 5, there is a picture of a man being shot, but in front of him are people that were buried alive upside down. In Document 10, I thought it was also different that the Mongols thought that being drunk was very honorable, but I do agree with that the men could only get drunk 3 times a month and were praised if they didn't reach that restriction. Most people in our time period think drinking should be shamed and Mongols believed in that if a man got drunk more than 3 times there would be consequences. It was also stated in Document 10 that if a man wanted a married woman, he had to kill the husband in order to be with her. In a way, I think it's unnecessary to kill an innocent man for his wife. On the other hand, with their morals and beliefs, it does make sense that the husband has to go away, but not in death. In conclusion, I believe the Mongols were barbaric, but their morals and their beliefs were correct.
I agree that the mongols handled their situations the wrong way most of the time. They killed innocent people for land or for other reasons that I think wasn't the right thing to do. Some of their morals and beliefs made sense. Overall I agree that mongols were barbaric but had some sense at the same time.
Right, I agree that some of the things they did were wrong, but overall they did have laws that were held to a high standard and they had little tolerance for wrong doing. I feel like that keeps people in line and over all lead to a safer environment for their people. I also feel like to be truly barbaric then they wouldn't have a level of cultural acceptance and cultural diversity as the Mongols did, considering one definition of barbaric is meaning uncultured. The Mongols were cultured and even religiously aware. In document 7 it says, ""We Mongols believe that there is but one God, by Whom we die and towards Him we have an upright heart. But just as God gave different fingers to the hand so has he given different ways to men."" Mongke Khan was very interested to learn about major religions and had people of those religions, Christians, Muslims and Buddhist, come to him and represent their religion so he could better understand each one and be well rounded in his knowledge. Later the Mongols converted to the religion of the area that they took control of showing that they did keep some of the identity and that there was a sort of compromise between the Mongols and other areas and the Mongols didn't strip the people of everything.
I do agree in a sense that the Mongols could have dealt with battle situations better. That is the main reason why historians and people believe they are a barbaric group of people. However, they do have their pros. After their fall, they have left many great institutions behind, and having them integrate within different societies allowed trade to once again prosper.
I do agree in a sense that the Mongols could have dealt with battle situations better. That is the main reason why historians and people believe they are a barbaric group of people. However, they do have their pros. After their fall, they have left many great institutions behind, and having them integrate within different societies allowed trade to once again prosper.
I agree with Alexis there other ways to handle a situation. There first way to make things better was to kill. One thing Alexis said that the Mongols did good about was the restriction to drinking 3 or less. I feel like it makes a safer environment cause if you are drunk you can end up killing someone without even knowing what you are doing. I really like how diverse there religions were like how you could believe in what they wanted to. Reading what Alexis put kind of made me choose somewhere in between now because of the pros and cons.
I agree with Myanh. The Mongols were an extremely barbaric group of people. They wanted to see their enemies suffer, but not everything they did was horrible. In document two, Carpini explain how Khan used a structured social class and how he wanted every soldier to stick together and fight or not fight at all. However, the negative impacts of the Mongols overshadow the positives proving they were very barbaric. -Erin Gravette
I agree with you Alexis there were other ways to handle these situations other than just simple cold blooded murder. Although some of their customs seemed to be humane the actions they did the majority of the time completely make them barbaric.
In technical terms, the Mongols weren't barbarians, they were tactical when it came to conquest and built a powerful empire,however their actions toward others were barbaric.Think back to the 1930's and 1940's, back when the Nazi's were in power in Germany. We didn't classify them as barbarians but their actions were.After the first world war, Germany had been blamed for everything, leaving the country in poverty. When the Nazi's came to power, they didn't blame the allied powers for their poverty, instead they blamed the Jews. The Nazi's slaughtered approximately 6 million Jews, and about 5 million others during their strive for global conquest. Now back to the Mongols, during their rise to power, they killed approximately 20-50 million people! That's a lot of people compared to the Nazi's, and we thought the Nazi's were bad! Now, during the Nazi takeover of Europe, the Germans set up prison camps known as,"Concentration Camps". The Germans told the world that these camps took good care of their prisoners and that they participated in sports and such. However, through the propaganda, the Jews along with other prisoners were tortured, worked to death, experimented on, and slaughtered. Some of the methods include mass executions in woods, where they would have the prisoners dig their own graves and then mow them down into the graves with machine gun fire or rifle fire. Another popular method of killing the prisoners include the gas chambers, were the prisoners were required to strip down and squeeze into these chambers where the Germans would lock the doors and release a type of gas known as hydrogen cyanide, a very toxic gas leaving no survivors. When the Mongols acquired prisoners they would separate the artisans and the ones the Mongols wanted as slaves from the weak or young and they executed them. Some were buried upside down so that they would suffocate or some were tied to trees where archers would take aim and swiftly execute them. Now i know i might have gotten carried away while talking about the Germans, but in conclusion, the Mongols weren't Barbaric, more senseless and carefree when it came to the lives of the people. In today's world, we are glad the Nazi's died out, but imagine if the Mongols had come to power in the 1900's, think about how our lives might be today. - Joshua Buckingham
Yes Mrs Singleton, these were my own thoughts and opinions on the Mongols. I knew a little bit more on the Nazis so i decided to provide a comparison between the two powers.
It is in no doubt that the Mongols are probably the quintessential brute force in of all History. They would sweep through Asia like nobody was trying to stop them. Their land was captured solely by the fact that they were quick and had no strategy whatsoever. In a very short period of time, Kahn and his army would expand rapidly through the continent, eventually having approximately 1 out of every 4 people under Mongolian rule. This non-strategic and weakly governed empire rationally disintegrated for the total and inarguable reason that they were barbarians. Having a multi-ethnic subject body, and over 10% of the earth's land, it would be impossible for a group like themselves to thrive for more than 200 years; given their political and structural weaknesses. And they didn't! The Mongolian "Empire" died off because they did not have a government or a system of internal affairs. Barbarians. The argument in that the Mongols had even more land than the Romans- arguably one of the greatest empires of all time- is feasible, yet proven wrong with some simple calculations: the Romans saw that their empire would grow unstable with a far-reaching and multi-ethnic state, as it would be difficult to govern, become loose, and thus weak. The power is not in land, but how you rule it. The Roman's systematic government, economics, and religion uniformed the Empire and made it great, and civilized. The Mongols were barbaric. They were. Having an unstructured and ill-governed "Empire" explains this quite well. Yes, their horseback military was quite unbeatable, but when it comes to a civilized and non-barbaric community, the debate is in no way arbitrary.
Mongols, are a great example of an extremely barbaric group. In fact, their Barbaric behavior was what possibly caused their success. First of all, such a destructive attitude was required and built in their structure; they had little to no understanding of agriculture or settled life. However, they were a sufficient nomads, and nomadic lifestyle encourages scavenging, as producing many resources, tools, and weapons was just too difficult for them. And they did, in fact, use this; slaughters in Persia, Russia, and other locations can prove such behavior(Doc. 4). Mongols also lacked morality, as grotesque, brutal tortures and genocides were encouraged (Doc 5 is an example of such executions). Mongols were also renown for their massive rape streaks. Mongol armies were notorious for raping local women. In fact, the significance of such rapes are witnessed to this day; in fact, certain studies pointed out that 1/200 of all humans living today have genetic links to Genghis Khan, as well as many Mongol-descendant cultures are present around Eastern Europe and Southern Asia. But not only were Mongols destructive and homicidal towards foreigners, the violent values were inside of their own nation. In fact, those values were even encouraged among their citizens and army ranks. Document 2 is a perfect example of that; Mongols attempted to prevent routes through fear and violence rather than leadership. That leads to more efficient army, but also causes far higher casualty ratios, as men will be even more likely to die due to low morale. If you look into any writing/speech/etc by great military leaders, (For example, Sun Tzu's Art Of War) almost all of them state that leading by fear will only cause lower morale, as soldiers fear both the enemy and their comrades. (OFF-TOPIC) On the positive note, however, Mongols were possibly the greatest cavalry tacticians in the world. While I don't particularly think Document 3 portrays that, as many of the shown tactics were commonly used across the world, you could find many outsiders talk about how Mongols would always use their cavalry-dominant army to advantage; in fact, Mongols were almost always the ones to create conditions favorable to them on the battlefield due to their maneuverability. In regards to legal aspect of Mongols, it might be one of the aspects that actually benefited from violent nature of Mongols. However, in order to prevent some other political affairs, there needs to be enforced power. And here is the part where Mongols failed; internal conflicts were extremely common, as there was lack of great authority other than Great Khans and their chiefs. Also, many of the laws encouraged hostile behavior between citizens (For example, Doc10: You'd have to kill the husband of a wife in order to be allowed to marry that married woman) (OFF-TOPIC) A bit off-topic, but Mongols were also not as powerful as some other powers, even though they were far smaller size than Genghis Khan's empire. Why? Well, much of the territory conquered by Genghis was extremely underdeveloped, and had far less value than, for example, European cities. (Would you prefer to have 10x10km piece of Steppes or all of Rome?) Overall, Mongols were barbaric from the start, as their values provide incentives to homicidal behavior outside and within their rule. While their aggressive ways terrified their enemies and made them prosper, those values hurt nearly everyone in their way. While they did commit many positive actions, those actions were necessary in order to retain order (For example, Doc.9: Mongols HAD TO be tolerant of other religions; otherwise, they would face constant revolts from opposite religions). -Sergey L., 5th Period
The mongols were very barbaric in my opinion. For them to conquer so much land you have to think about all the victims that were left behind. In document 3 it says the mongols would sometimes take the fat off people they murdered and used it to catapult on to peoples houses. Over their long time of conquest they killed millions of people. They would leave bodies in piles. The mongols wanted to leave towns in such a manner that they could be ploughed upon. Also they brutally executed people like burying people alive upside down. - Jordan Leary
I completely agree with your opinion. In addition to the Mongols' torture and cruel ways of punishment, they also had gruesome battle tactics. In document 3, they describe one tactic as using kind words and telling stories of being set free and making false promises to lure people out of their houses only to do one of two things: make you a slave or kill you with an axe. This proves the Mongols to be very barbaric.
I believe that the Mongols were not barbaric in the way they thought, but their actions and the way they handled issues say otherwise. At first, the Mongolian Empire was vast and seemingly thriving but the want and conquest of territory soon took over. They began killing people just so they could control more land and gain power. In document 2, John of Plano Carpini describes the Mongolian battle tactics. It is obvious that the Mongols were trying to reach an organized control structure. Leadership worked in a pyramid type of way with captains of tens, hundreds, thousands, and so on. Their motto during battle was all or none. If one person flees, they all die and in the same way, if one chooses to step forward and fight, but the rest flee, then they all die. The problem isn't them wanting to "work together" but rather how it is handled if one of them chooses to stray from the group. The Mongols also seemed to have a strategic mindset during battle. In document 3, John of Plano Carpini says they "sent captives to the enemy head-on" and placed stronger men out of sight "so they surround them". Even so, the Mongols tend to do everything they can to win. For example, "taking fat of people they kill...throw it on to the houses, and wherever the fire falls on this fat it is almost inextinguishable". These examples show that the Mongolian attempts for better unification were correct, but the negative outcomes and overall destruction outweighed all of the possible benefits. -Lauren Gravette
Megan shows that even though many classify the Mongols as barbaric, they showed potential to be other wise. She agrees that even though they used dirty and even disgusting tactics in their conquests, they were still a powerful empire that were smart and organized. I can agree with Megan without a doubt.
The Mongol Empire is widely known for its vast territory of 4,860,000 sq ft (Doc 1) and their ruthless encounters towards thousands of people. Many historians view the Mongols as a group of senseless barbarians that have devoured many societies across the Asian continent during their sieges. Yes, the Mongols did horribly kill and treat people, however, theoretically aren't all battles and wars barbaric? Of course if someone were to come into your village and suddenly claim everything under their rule, you would have a strong hatred towards them. Individuals that came into contact with the Mongols, most likely had a strong prejudice/bias against the group. Many people already did not enjoy their presence, being that they were always involved in violent warfare, and their people as a whole were seen as outcasts. Having this negative kind of trademark on the Mongols allowed many people to dwell on their merciless and destructive side. The Mongols were intelligent people that were able to integrate into the societies they occupied. "As a result, their economic interests coincided with those of the native peoples, and the Mongols . . . promoted diversified economic development," (Doc 6). They were able to revitalize the Silk Road-which at the time was not doing so well- and allowed trade to prosper. Many areas under Mongolian rule were, in fact, thriving; for example, Mongol conquests opened up contact with the Persians and China, allowing both to flourish. Cities located on the trade routes prospered from the Pax Mongolica's protection of tax-free customs zones (Doc 6). Their cultural diffusion acknowledged diversity and change in societies, and they also brought about impressive political institutions.
The mongols were very barbaric in my opinion.They raped,robbed and murdered people. I agree many people think that they were good because they were the cause of the trade routes and had a such high respect and tolerance for so many diverse religions but they also spread a bunch of diseases through those exact same trade routes.What I think is that some of their actions were just straight up wrong,unfair and unnecessary.Also, people didn't like them or were scared of them because of their downright destructive tactics.A good example comes from document 1 where it states if even one man leaves his squadron of ten every one else will be put to death that made people fight so that their loved ones would not face any consequences.
I agree that the mongols were amoral towards other people. I liked the note on the trade routes, and that people may have liked them for that, and I agree that they are accurately described as barbaric.
I think the Mongols were more barbaric because of how cruel they were in certain situations, for example in doc 5 they had a picture of prisoner hanged upside down in front of people. But as cruel as they were their strategy in conquering and capturing other people's land was brilliant. As stated in doc 1 they had conquered most of the land compared to the leaders. Also most of their morals were relatable and others were cruel such as if an unbeliever desires a married woman he will kill the husband and then have relation with the woman. And it can be related to the drinking because you can't stop anyone from drinking, but with limitation and consequences you will have a more responsible drinker. -Vivian narh 5th peroid
I agree with you Vivian because they wanted to watch their enemies suffer. In the video the Mongols robbed their enemies of their wealth and wanted their loved one's enemies to watch them die as they fought. Yes they were definitely mean at times, but they had pros to. The Mongols wanted to keep records of things like the Egyptians did, so they compromised with people who knew records and they let them do their records, (in the video). The Mongols were very terrifying and had to do with a lot of tragedies, but they had more pros to. People who knew about their religions adopted the Mongols religion and were not forced by them. They wanted to conquer land and they killed whoever got in their way. So all together i think they were barbaric. Cheyanne Elam
I disagree with you because I think it was their own lifestyles. They had strict government, religion which made their people less rebellious . This allowed their civilization to live longer.
The definition of barbaric is savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal. The Mongols morals showed anything but that. They had well thought out plans, laws, and they benefited their conquered areas. All in all, I think the Mongols were mainly civilized. The Mongols had many structured systems. In document 2 it shows how their warriors, leaders, and captains were organized in groups of tens. Document 3 shows how they structure their attack and surround the opposing warriors. Document 8 explains the way they transferred messages across Asia; this requires many components. I believe this shows they're civilized because they have advanced structures and organizations for multiple situations. The Mongols also had laws. These laws promoted respect and kindness towards other people. Document 10 shows laws that prevent drinking more than 3 times a month and induce polite and civilized behavior towards others. Lastly, the Mongols benefited other people. Persia and China had a more sufficient trade after they were conquered by the Mongols (doc 6) and they also were not taxed. Many people believe the Mongols are barbaric because of their actions during war, but all wars are really uncivilized. Therefore, I believe the Mongols are civilized. ~Lucy Somervill ❤️
Lucy, I honestly did not see it like that! I completely agree with you when you say that they had structured systems and organizations. Though, I do not agree that they were civilized because the Mongols were not just cruel and brutal during war, they were like that continuously. I see how people can have multiple opinions because that is what this is all about, in your opinion, do you think that the Mongols were barbaric or not. I love your intake on this assignment. I can see that you thought about this on your own and you did not just agree with everyone else. I appreciate the affect your answer had on my opinion, you made me think! Thank you <3
Lucy, I do infact believe your opinion is correct! I too said they were not barbaric. We went diferent ways but your examples proved to me your opinion. Infact they followed laws better then we do today! for example was no stealing at all! I think that is amazing and very contrasting to their bad reputation . So I agree with you!
I agree with Lucy. The Mongol's actions during war are what make them seem barbaric but you have to look at more than that. You did a great job of showing the other side of them that is more than just the way they handle their wars.
I would have to agree with you because of how you said, ". These laws promoted respect and kindness towards other people.". The reason why I say this is because if you watch the video that Mrs. Singleton provides, it literally says, "It was said that a man could walk from one end of the Mongol Empire to the other with a gold plate on his head without ever fearing being robbed," which showed, to me, a sense of respect between the people within the Mongol Empire.
I think that in order to determine whether the Mongols should be called barbaric you need to look at the civil and combative practices of the other civilizations at that time. Like Lucy said, the Mongols' written law code showed a fundamental respect for both native and conquered peoples, which is more than can be said for many governments. In war, undoubtedly many groups were savage and brutal, but the Mongols' restraint and preservation of rights show that they do not deserve the title.
"All wars are really uncivilized." This is simply not true. Many nations were moral with their approaches to warfare. Great example of such are Crusades; Spain and many Middle eastern cities, like Jerusalem, were often exchanged, and people were allowed to leave or visit the holy sites, as well as stay on certain civil terms. After that period, legislation such as Geneva Convention to achieve exactly that. The part that you completely ignored is that Mongols slaughtered entire cities full of citizens and POWs, which is simply horrifying even for Middle Ages. In regards to Miranda's comment, the reason why people wouldn't do anything to "golden plate" is because the laws were terrifyingly strict (I honestly don't think that stealing a golden plate would be worth getting burned on a fire) Another common argument I see is that they accepted conquered people far easier than others. Well, if they wouldn't, the Mongols would never even go past Mongolia, as revolts would be so often and so distant that the empire would collapse in days.
Overall, I believe that the Mongol's actions were barbaric but their beliefs were not. Throughout the time of their empire, they expanded territory and killed many people. This did not come easy, but came with strict laws of warfare which were enforced in the people residing within the empire. These laws proved that the Mongols did have a sense of civilization in their empire, but in analyzing all war techniques, they had a barbaric side as well. These people would burn others at the stake in order to achieve dominance and to keep expanding their empire. In the eyes of other civilizations, the Mongols were a huge threat. The reason their threat was so evident was because of their barbaric techniques. But, their civilized law and enforcement within the empire lead to a longer- lasting, extremely powerful civilization.
I agree. The Mongols were partly barbaric and partly not. Even though their strict law codes and good sense of a civilization resulted in power, they were very unwise in how they used that power.
I agree with your statement Caroline. Although the Mongols morals were not as bad as a few of their actions. They had laws that provided peace, they enforced respect and kindness towards others. And even though they did have many barbaric acts during times of war, they had organized and structured attacks. They didn't attack uncontrollably, they had plans and carried them out.
Caroline, I agree with you a lot!! There actions were very barbaric, savage and evil. Such as hurting innocent people sometimes. Like in document 5 when they were burning people alive upside down. That is a very barbaric action. Also when they would kill a women's husband if they wanted to have relations with her.
In my opinion, the Mongols actions were very barbaric yet, they had a state of mind. As stated in the introduction, "barbarian" was a negative term, people who were savage and evil. Their war consequences were said to be very savage and evil, but the organizations of the battles were oddly civilized. So, these people were a mix of both barbaric and civilized. Not only is this opinion proven in war techniques, but the Mongol civilization burned people that were alive & did it upside down as shown in document 5. One more example of my opinion of the Mongol civilization being barbarically their way of handling the situation of a women being married & a man desiring to be with her. In document 10 it says that the Mongol will kill the husband and then have relations with her. All of these examples show how there actions were very barbaric and evil. But one way the Mongols showed that they did have a state of mind was in document 10, it states that when a husband is hunting or at war the wife must maintain the household, which is showing that they were somewhat civilized yet overall barbaric. - Alexis Putney ❤️❤️
I completely agree with you, Alexis. Your examples help support both of our opinions of the Mongols barbaric and civilized ways. In document ten, the men's killing of husbands to get with their wives shows extremely uncivilized manner within the empire. But, I think that the Mongols were more civilized than barbaric. This is shown through their laws and creation of a type of hierarchy. But, I overal agree with everything you said.
I definitely agree Alexis, the mongols acted in barbaric ways while invading places for expansion to improve there empire, but they also had civilized ways of living.
I think that the Mongols could be viewed both barbarian and non barbarian. One example of their barbarianism would be the fact that they enforced laws with ruthless punishments (As evidenced by document 3) so that the soldiers would be scared to do anything wrong. Also, if you are to look at document 4, they didn't really care about how many people they were killing. However, if you were to watch the video that Mrs. Singleton offered for us to watch, then you would be able to see that the Mongols actually weren't as bad. The reason why I say this is because of how they allowed other religions to prosper within the Mongol Empire. Another reference that would support my statement would be document 9, for which it says, "'Our master sends us to you and he says:"Here you are, Christians, Saracens (Muslims), and tuins (Rubruck would translate tuins as pagans; in fact, they were Buddhists), and each of you declares that his law is the best and his literature, that is his books, are the truest.'". -Miranda Willis Block 5
I think the Mongols were barbaric because of "The Greatest Happiness". Not just that but they killed millions of people during there dynasty. Killing people for land... are you serious that's is not necessary agreeing to what Makayla said. I feel that if they tried hard enough to they could have worked something out instead. On the other hand there is some good thing that they did. It still does not compare to what they did wrong. Not to mention they dragged people behind horses plus killing innocent people in towns. This is why I think the Mongols are barbaric. -Gabby Dierkens 3rd period
I agree with gabby. The Mongols did have some very good ideals but a lot of the times they were more barbaric than anything. Their rules, like the rule of adultery, were very strict on punishment. They were also very relentless with warfare, and their barbaric ways made them to be feared by other people.
Not only were the Mongol's actions brutal, but their thought pattern was cruel which was a productive way preventing destruction towards any of their empire because people were afraid of what the Mongols could do. The punishments that were enforced due to the breaking of the laws were uncivilized as shown in document 5; The prisoners were buried alive upside down or executed. The Mongols also robbed their enemies of everything they had and once they got what they wanted they would kill them and make the families watch while the killing took place, as stated in the video. In document 10 it describes certain codes that they followed. These codes were a sign of civility and even though the Mongols' actions were cruel and brutal, they believed in a certain way of life which is a factor in what makes a civilization. I will always remember the Mongols for their take on how things are supposed to be because they are unlike a lot of empires to me. The Mongols were very powerful and could prevent people from doing multiple things , yet one thing that they chose to let people continue to have is their own religion which is stated in document 9. So yes, the Mongols were very much barbaric.
I agree with you because like you said the Mongols were very barbaric, but they are also unlike a lot of empires so far. Sure many empires would conquest and take over other empires, but not in the quickness and brutality of the Mongols.
This is Caleb Murphy. To formulate my opinion about the Mongol's barbarism, I first had to understand what exactly barbarism is. As it turns out, there are two definitions to the term. In the first definition, which is the absence of culture and civilization, the Mongols were absolutely not barbaric. They had a strict law system (Document 10), a powerful and central government (Document 8), culture (Document 6), and religion (Document 9). All of these attributes are indicators of a strong, cultured civilization. In the case of the second definition of barbarism, being extreme cruelty or brutality, the Mongols fit perfectly, especially during battles in expansionist wars. Documents 2,3,4, and 5 all support this cruelty. The bright side of this is that most of this cruelty was only portrayed in wartime. So overall, I cannot give a definitive statement that the Mongols were "Barbarians or Nah." They definitely had their dark side, but they also could be civilized and cultured.
I think your interpretation of the first definition is too straight forward, as the possession of beleifs and culture can't all of a sudden make you civilized, or make you have a light side. The many groups that have been brought up as barbarians, such as those who tore down the walls of the Roman Empire indefinitely had beleifs, but they were still barbarians, right? I Mongols just happened to be very successful ones.
I agree with your opinion Caleb. The definition of being a barbaric doesn't fully cooperate with the Mongols' characteristics. I personally agree that they "fit perfectly, especially during battles in expansionist wars," because of the fact that the cruelty and harm that they caused helped them form a stronger empire overall.
I completely agree with you, Caleb. There are both positive and negative aspects on how the Mongols went about doing things, and we can't definitively say that the Mongols were in fact barbaric.
It's complicated to place the Mongols between Barbaric and non-barbaric due to their ups and downs in their political and social aspects.If I I were to decide, I would consider them a more of a barbaric empire because of their mass murders as shown in document 4 but this is contradicted by the way they welcomed pesants into their empire as long as they complied by their rules. Furthermore their freedom of religion makes the Mongols not so bad in document 9.Their way of conquering was based on a strong yet varied form of structure as shown in document 2 where there was a ten to one ratio.But even though they were highly organized with their empire, their punishments were too harsh as shown in document 10
IBarbaric is defined at something that is savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal. I believe that the Mongols were barbaric. As stated in document 4 the mongols surrounded the city of Nishapur, claimed over the walls and began killing the people. Then they commanded that the city be destroyed so much that not even the cats and dogs were alive. Also in document 5 is depicts men being buried alive upside down and a brutal execution of a prisoner. Lastly in document 10 it states that if a Mongol desires a woman he will kill her husband and then have relations with her and that drunkenness is considered to be an honorable thing. All of these are examples why i believe the Mongols were barbaric bc they all show that they were cruel, brutal, and unruly. -Erin Hicks
I believe the Mongols were primarily barbaric. According to Document 2 they even brutalized their own people. They seemed to use brutality as their only way to make a statement or point. When they went to war, the Mongols sent captives and men of other nationalities to the front lines instead of going themselves. They put children and women at risk during battles by placing them on horses to make their armies look bigger. Ravishing entire towns, the Mongols even killed all of the dogs and cats, severing peoples' heads and putting them in piles according to whether they were men, women, or children. Another type of brutality was indicated in document 5 in a drawing of people being buried alive upside down, or head first. All of the people lived in fear of their brutality, and even though they were able to make changes in morality as stated in document 7, they probably got those results out of fear of what the consequences would be if someone did something wrong.
I believe the Mongols were not barbaric. In document 2 we saw that in battle if the groups did not act as a whole then they were punished to die. This may seem harsh but in reality it was admirable and selfless. for example if even one person in your group got captured you had to go back to rescue them or you would face death. That shows the Mongols were keen on looking out for their own. In document 3 we saw they had highly intelligent and well planned tactics when fighting in battles. One technique was surrounding their enemys which prevented them from retreating or resting. Also they used the fat of the dead because they knew how flammable it could become . In document 3 it said how they made political, economic, and cultural contributions . This proves there was more to them then just killing and fighting. Like any other civilization, they expanded their territory and made advances. “War, strife, bodily harm or murder do not exist, robbers and thieves on a grand scale are not to be found among them,” remarks Plano Carpini . This quote played a big part in my opinon because this shows they were more refined and followed the laws better then we do today! This was very shocking and it means they were not evil or barbaric at all. Infact they demonstrated warm hospitality within the mongol home!I could go on and on about the evidence I found which proved their good qualities but the last topic I will bring up is religion. It was very diverse because the mongols allowed the people to have their own religion and according to the youtube video, didn't even expect the conquered people to adapt to the mongol religion. Religious freedom is something a lot of people value and the fact that the so called barbaric people allowed it? wow. After all of this information I have no doubt the good outways the bad and that Mongols were NOT barbaric. -kayla pollard
I completely understand and agree with what you say. Many people are taking in account that though the Mongols were cruel, they still had a system of some sort. During battle, they did have strategies to intimidate their opponents, very smart. We also cannot forget about their post-horse system, where their riders would travel up to 250 miles per day. They worked like a unit, always unified. They would tear down those who opposed them and raised those who were with them.
"By the 1200s, 'barbarian' was a much more negative term referring to people who lived beyond the reach of civilization, people who were savage, evil." Based on this definition given in the introduction the Mongols cannot be easily defined as barbaric or not. They did not live beyond the reach of civilization as evidenced in documents 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. It seems that they were very much controlled and thoughtful indicated by their laws, their stand on religion, and their precise attack plans. Going back to the definition of barbarian given in the text savage to me is synonymous with primitive which the Mongols surely were not. On the other hand the Mongols were cruel to their enemies and fit the definition of evil when it comes to their war tactics. The Mongols were vicious with their ways of conquest but you must consider more than just their ways of war when trying to answer the question "Barbaric or nah?" -Summer Evans
The Mongols were barbaric. The Mongols acted very violent and brutal to get what they wanted. They would kill entire villages, kill married men so they could have relations with the woman, and there happiness was to kill the enemy. Yet this cruelty is what made them successful. The mongols had the largest empire to ever exist which was due to them invading places and killing those who didn't join them. The mongols didn't care if you had a different religion, they accepted you as long as you joined them. The mongols growth led to even more expansion and improvement. For example, mongols built canals for transportation for more expansion. The mongols also had control along the caravan routes for trade. Even thought the mongols were barbaric and brutal people they were still a very successful empire.
I agree with Kelly. The Mongols had a very violent culture, they killed many people whose territory they invaded, but they also controlled a vast, very successful empire. It makes me wonder whether you can control such a large and successful empire without being violent.
Whether, the Mongols were barbaric is a controversial topic that historians can not find an answer to. The Mongols were definitely barbaric, according to John of Plano Carpini,"When they are in battle, if one or two or three or even more out of a group of ten run away, all are put to death." This punishment being described is only one of the many reasons they put soldiers to death. The only problem with calling them barbaric is the Mongols controlled one of the largest empires, part of which was the silk road. They were had some of the best battle tactics, using horses and archers (Document 3). They built canals in China to transport goods and help communication, led to the introduction and supply of silk to the Persian Empire and many cities along the silk road prospered due to the tax free customs zone controlled by the Mongols (Document 6). The Mongols helped the acculturation process throughout Eurasia and boosted the trade networks. They are responsible for Europe and Asia being the way they are today, but it came at the cost of many lives. They were responsible for the death of over 14 million people from 1220 to 1258 (Document 4) The question is was the trade, skilled tactics, and construction of one of the largest empires worth 14 million people and I don't think it was. So I would have to say that the Mongols had many barbaric traits.
Its hard to say that the Mongols were barbaric because most of the things they did were their way of living. On documents 2, 3, and 5 they showed signs of cruelty by harming their own people, showing no mercy to the people who don't follow the leader's orders and failing the objective that is given to them. Other documents explain their lifestyles like their government in doc 10 and their religion in doc 9. From the evidence that I have gathered, I think that the Mongols are not barbaric but its just their way of living. -Hemant Rawal
I disagree because even though it might be their way of living they were still very cruel even to their own people. I especially think the women and children were treated more unfairly than the men. When I picture a mound of children's severed heads I can't imagine ever saying the Mongols were not barbaric. Sure they did some good things with religion (document 9), and trade with the development of an extensive messenger system (document 8), this certainly does not make up for all the cruel things they did.
I agree with you dark shadriv. The ideology behind the Mongols' cruelty is what sets them apart from other civilizations, but they are what they are, and they were civilized. As Todd said, the harshness and the showing of no mercy within the Mongols are very shocking, but the bottom line is that they were civilized, which makes them non-barbaric.
I understand your reasoning , but I still think that the mongols were barbaric because they did more bad traits than good. A good trait is that they had strict laws, but a bad trait is when they sacrifice their own people to win wars.
I think that the mongols were barbaric because they put children and women on horses to get killed and didn't fight the enemy head on. Their happiness was to rob their enemy and watch them die. They might have been so powerful because they were barbaric. The barbarians had good traits, but most of them were bad.
In my opinion The Mongols were barbaric. After reading document 7 and 8, it was evident that after many years of finally instilling fear, looking through the eyes of a Mongol, inflating their control through the newly conquered western regions was another way barbarism. After Genghis Khan was declared king he used these choice of words that further proves my point. He said ," The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemy, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and their daughters." As for creating a more stable place for trade, since that’s all the nomadic Mongolians did, I believe it was a way for the kings to keep an environment of peace, making the assumption that rebelling was what they were good at and knew what would set the people up in arms. Over all, the Mongolian civilizations did engage in a form of civil productivity on some terms, however, in my book killing people after they've surrendered is just harsh.
Barbarians are known to be savages without a civilization, which is what the Mongols are not, even though the part of being savages is theoretically correct according to the documents 2 and 5, where they were thought to have harmed or even killed their own people, but technically speaking, the Mongols were not barbaric. Just compare them to other "non-barbaric" civilizations. They were just a harsher, more cruel civilization. They exemplify all of the characteristics of a civilized community. As shown on document 9, they had a fixed religion. On document 10, it shows a law system, and on document 8, it informs us about the government that they had. Even though the techniques used to enforce these characteristics could have been less strict, they formed a great group of people with this "barbaric" technique. They could conquer more lands faster, without many troubles within their own people.
I completely agree; while the Mongols do have traits that scream "brute”, they did build a successful empire that benefit those they conquered (Document 6). The way they added territories to their reign was effective and planned out thoroughly, like how they would surround the enemy, and dress people who weren’t going to fight like they were to pretend like they had more people (Document 3).
I agree with you. They did kill their own people, but that doesn't make them barbaric. Even today in many states the death penalty is legal, which is killing our own people. The methods and reasons for doing so were just very different.
The “barbaric” nature of the Mongols can be discounted by the strategy and general organization of their exploits. When you think of a barbarian, you see a disgruntled, uncultured, and animalistic creature whose sole desire is to mutilate and murder. The Mongols don’t fit this mold, as they valued culture and economic development. The Mongols were civilized in the fact that they had strong central government by achieving Pax Mongolica (Document 6) throughout all 4,860,000 square miles (Document 1) of their conquered territory. Under this government, religious and cultural diversity prospered and was celebrated. In fact, craft traditions like viniculture and silk industry flourished under Mongol rule due to the economic influence of the Pax Mongolica (Document 6). Even when Mongols displayed “barbaric traits”, they were systematic in execution. For example, prisoners being buried alive upside down (Document 5) while another is executed. Battle tactics of the Mongols included layered command, like the captain of ten, or a hundred (Document 2). -Cheyenne Conaway, P3
The Mongols were not barbaric. Document 10 shows the Yasa and the Bilik which were codes of conduct for the Mongols to live by. Yes, their methods of getting rid of their enemy were unconventional for today's standards(as shown in document 5),they weren't extremely brutal or savage.In their heads there was a reason for killing people, and that was to expand their empire. Speaking of their empire, document 1 shows just how vast it was. The Mongols wouldn't be able to get that much land if they were completely out of touch with civilization.
To add to this, document 2 describes how their army was organized. Entire groups of ten would be executed if they disobeyed, but it enabled them to obtain their vast empire.
The Mongols had a few good civilized ideals and attributes during their rule, but were far more barbaric. I think this, partly, because of their unnecessary killings of innocent people in order to acquire women, land, and practically whatever they wanted. They never really had practical, reasonable reason to kill and had no mercy. Another reason I think they were so barbaric is that they were also poorly structured in their government. They might have not have thought it mattered because they could just take what they want but it ended up being their downfall.
It is an extremely difficult and often foolish thing to decide whether a culture harmed the world, and even more to choose to classify them as barbaric. There are seldom groups of people that act without organization, and the Mongols are no exception. The law codes in document 10 show that the Mongols were both systematic and cruel, but whether this makes them barbarians is a different matter, as is whether being a barbarian makes your impact necessarily negative. The Mongols were spreaders of the plague. They waged war and raped and brutally murdered their enemies. And yet, they brought on an era of peace and cultural exchange that probably bettered many people's lives. The same can be said for many conquerors. Did their rule better the world? Did the effects of their evils produce enough good to excuse them? I think it is beyond our means to know, and ill-advised to guess. Such a classification can only oversimplify a situation worth understanding. What is more important is to comprehend the morality of their individual actions, rather than to condone or condemn the entirety of a diverse group.
In my opinion the Mongols were barbaric because of their pursuit to vanquish their enemies. They also had no regard for innocent people, they would do whatever it takes to obtain land and anything else they wanted. According to Document 5 they punished people for breaking laws, but their punishments were cruel and inhumane so that also makes them barbaric.
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary 13th edition which states, Barbarian- (in ancient times) a member of a community or tribe not belonging to one of the great civilizations (Greek, Roman, Christian), the Mongols have to be barbarians. They are barbarians by current definition.
I have to disagree with you, mostly because of your reasoning. I believe their actions, as in the cruel punishment of all for the cowardly choices of a few, is what made their barbaric stereotype appear.They put women and children in danger for the sake of conquests. They were cruel people and believed that only conquered land was what brought happiness. "The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemy, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and their daughters." ~ Cole Leman
In my opinion, the Mongol's actions were very barbaric. They used their power for destruction instead of for beneficial purposes. In document five, the picture shows men getting buried alive upside down. There are more reasonable punishments that that. In document ten, John of Plano Carpini explains the pinishment for adultery-execution. Execution is a bit harsh even when someone commits adultery. The Mongols conquered about 4,000,000 square miles of land. They demolished homes and killed more than need be. They were a brilliant, yet destructive force. However, in document two, it shows how the Mongols used a structured social class pyramid. Overall, the Mongols were very barbaric, especially in their actions toward their enemies. -Erin Gravette
In this article, Barbaric is defined as "a much more negative term referring to people who lived beyond the reach of civilization, people who were savage, evil." I do think the Mongols were Barbaric. In Document 4, they surrounded the city of Nishapur and began killing the people. In Document 2, it states that if 2 people flee in battle, the rest will be put to death. It's like an all or nothing situation which is unfair if only a few people flee. If you don't think they are barbaric, look at document 5 which shows the execution of a prisoner by a Mongol soldier and others being buried alive upside-down which seems pretty barbaric to me. Their mantra is stated as "The Greatest happiness was to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters" which shows what makes them happy- the pain and suffering of others. Tyra Moore
The Mongols are recognized as barbaric, and yes they are mostly that. But there are also pieces of information showing that they were more than smash, kill, etc... Like documents 1,3, and 10. These are examples that the Mongols thought things out, had plans and set certain rules. Of course they also show lots of barbarianism, as how they would drag a person tied to a horse, or slaughtering villages in whole. I am in between wether the Mongols are barbaric people or good, smart people for how they have been seen throughout history. - David Anleu
I do believe the Mongols were barbaric.(Document 10) states men would murder the husband of their desired women and take them as their own. In (Document 5), an example of their cruel torture is shown on a prisoner. However, they did have enough strategy to conquer more land than the Roman Empire. This shows that their vicious ways worked very well. ~ Cole Leman
I feel the Mongols were barbaric, however they influenced trade, communication, and tolerance. The Mongols brutally murdered countless towns and cities to expand their empire. They did continue many things like trade throughout their vast empire and kept up with it for many years, but that can't make up for the millions of deaths they're responsible for.
I believe the Mongols were barbaric. They handled things in a way that was deterred away from what we've come to consider morally right both now and in the past, when they were deemed unreasonable savages. They were a cruel, ruthless people, killing and slaughtering over trivial things such as land, wealth, and so on. "The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemy....rob them of their wealth...".
I do agree that the Mongols acted in a way that was against our society's moral code, however I do not believe they were truly cruel or ruthless people due to statements i found in documents six
While Mongolian law was indeed harsh, based on modern definitions of the word, they were not barbaric (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbaric). Obviously, how barbaric something is, is quite subjective. For their time, the Mongols actually had some pretty non-barbaric qualities, especially compared to their Western-European counter-parts. The Mongols allowed much more religious freedom within their conquered peoples. Let's compare this situation with a similar event in Western Europe that occurred shortly after the time of Mongol prosperity. The Spanish Inquisition was a judicial body created to combat heresy in Spain. While it could be said that the Spanish Inquisition is a more extreme part of an institution that is not extreme overall, let's keep something in mind. This act of extreme, brutal, religious intolerance utilizing capital punishment is described using a word also used to describe a group that was very religiously tolerant. I think, in terms of religious tolerance, the Mongols were very un-barbaric, and even progressive by allowing any and every religion to be treated the same under their rule. Also, as a military power, the Mongols were very well organized. They used successful military tactics and something that sets them apart from other military powers of the time is how they chose their militia officers. Officers were promoted based on military expertise, not familial ties or "bloodlines" like their European counterparts. Politically and administratively, the Mongols were not as strong, but that didn't matter, because all they had to do was conquer and relocate people who were good at administrating. Back to the "barbarity" of the Mongols. just because laws and punishments are strict doesn't make them barbaric, and the claim that discipline was not promoted isn't entirely true. For example, the Mongols felt that the less often a man was intoxicated, the more praise he was worthy of (Document 10). This encouraged Mongolian subjects and soldiers to not drink as much. Another example is the Mongolian policy on adultery. The punishment for committing adultery was death, and if a married woman was captured, she was to be left alone (romantically, that is.). For a Mongol man to be allowed to have relations with a married woman he had to follow a morbid, albeit slightly humorous, clause. This clause stated that before a man could have any relations with a married woman he had to kill her husband. While this is unconventional, logically, it makes sense. If you kill a woman's husband, she is no longer married and so relations with her are not considered adultery. (This idea of killing to have someone would later form the basic plot of every steamy romantic mystery novel for years to come.) Also, militarily, the Mongols weren't barbaric; they were necessarily violent. The Mongol army was composed primarily of horseback archers, making them quite mobile, but at the same time, they were less heavily armored compared to other (non-nomadic) armies of the time. As a result of this, the Mongols sometimes employed tactics of deception, often placing children, women, and what were essentially crash test dummies on their horses to create the illusion of a fast army. This combined with other strokes of military genius, really showcase the Mongols military prowess and intelligence (which i would consider un-barbaric). Like I stated before, the matter of whether or not the Mongols were barbaric is entirely subjective, but they display many advanced qualities, such as involvement in trade, and taking part in non-food producing activities. they were civilized, and they employed violence backed by forethought. They were harsh, but not hastily or unnecessarily. Frankly, the Mongols were just impressive overall,especially as a military power. For these reasons I don't think they were barbaric, and they deserve to be recognized as an important topic in the history of humanity.
TL;DR. Mongols allowed more freedom and were calculated in their violence. Pretty cool. I'd rather be a Mongol than a Spanish citizen in the 15th century.
TL;DR. Mongols allowed more freedom and were calculated in their violence. Pretty cool. I'd rather be a Mongol than a Spanish citizen in the 15th century.
The Mongols were extremely barbaric. It is as though they did not care about how their actions affected the civilians of the places they conquered. Their motto was basically kill, kill, kill. even though their attacks were thoughtfully planned out and they had a set of rules this does not mean they were civilized. Although they did make some trading advancements involving the silk road that was almost extinct these advances were made based on bad motives. Mongols killed anyone in their as stated in document 10 "If a woman who is captured by a Mongol has a husband no one will enter into a relationship with her. If an Unbeliever (i.e. a Mongol) desires a married woman he will kill the husband and then have relations with the woman" this is a major key in my opinion of the Mongols being barbarians. In all honesty the Mongols wouldn't know the word peaceful if it slapped them in the face. However, I do take into account that the first leader of the Mongols, Khan, was brought up with brutality. With the fact that his father was poisoned by his enemy as stated in the background information, and his mother was kidnapped khan was left to survive on his own fighting for himself. What I do not understand is if the Mongols were religious people, why were they ok with killing everyone in sight? Lots of conflicts could have been handled if the Mongols had learned how to compromise and learned how to be civilized.
I agree with you; the fact that the Mongols had a set of rules and plans during their attacks does not take away from the fact that they killed so many people.
I agree with you; the fact that the Mongols had a set of rules and plans during their attacks does not take away from the fact that they killed so many people.
Mongols have long been classified as barbaric, but this misconception is hardly true. The term barbaric is described as being primitive or uncivilized. Several of these documents prove the opposite. In both documents 2 and 10 a clear law code is expressed. The punishments may have been harsh, but they strengthened their empire. Document 8 claims that a system was established to deliver messages at the rate of up to 250 miles a day. This was a great advantage in times of crisis when the king required information quickly. Overall, the Mongols weren't barbaric at all.
I completely agree! The Mongols were smart and they strategized, they reacted quickly, they were agressive but barbaric is an incorrect term to describe the Mongols.
I think that the Mongols were not barbaric at all because they were not as reckless as they seemed. The Mongols were well organized people despite the fact of them being so forceful with their attacks they knew what their goals were ahead of time and how to approach their tasks conscientiously. The Mongols helped exceed the economies and political structures of Persia and China and advanced transportation and communication. Mongols were not savages they were domesticated people who went into the world to conquer land and stayed together as one, no one man was just responsible for himself. The Mongols were very skilled people who had definite tactics and rules they used for their enemies and their own people. Them being overly assertive does not make them barbaric, maybe a little aggressive, but definitely not barbaric. Nakya Searles
I think that the Mongols were not barbaric at all because they were not as reckless as they seemed. The Mongols were well organized people despite the fact of them being so forceful with their attacks they knew what their goals were ahead of time and how to approach their tasks conscientiously. The Mongols helped exceed the economies and political structures of Persia and China and advanced transportation and communication. Mongols were not savages they were domesticated people who went into the world to conquer land and stayed together as one, no one man was just responsible for himself. The Mongols were very skilled people who had definite tactics and rules they used for their enemies and their own people. Them being overly assertive does not make them barbaric, maybe a little aggressive, but definitely not barbaric. Nakya Searles
I completely agree! The Mongols were very organized as evident in Document 8 and 10. There post system was extremely reliable and fast to work, and if they were such barbarians why did they have a system of moral (document 10)?
I believe the Mongols were not barbaric, but how they handled certain situations was barbaric. As evident by document two, they had a government or rule of some sort. Also, they had quiet cunning battle strategies. They would use their own leader's family and dummy figures on horses to give the illusion to their enemy that they were out numbered. The Mongols would dispatch a small group of men to the front lines while their stronger men went to the far left's and right's. This made it that they could attack from all sides. You could say the Mongols were masters at strategy. The Mongols did have rules and regulations within their clan; they did not have any murder, theft, or war with one another (Document 7). I do not believe the Mongols were barbarians, but misunderstood.
Although the Mongols were perceived to be barbarians, they were not as barbaric as they seemed. The Mongols were smart they strategized in war. The Mongols had rules and regulations within there clan they were not as unruly as they were perceived to be. Agressive is a better term to use to describe the Mongols not barbaric.
The Mongols were not necessarily the most barbaric of groups but they did, in fact, contain some barbaric traits, although we must consider the fact that there are multiple definitions of barbaric. They were extremely reckless, sometimes leaving entire cities in ruins. They had many bad traits to gather this terrible reputation of barbaric but we must take into consideration the well-organized ways they lived by. Their army was organized to ensure that everyone fought as one and retreated as one. These people were smart and had culture. They are not as barbaric as perceived but i do believe that they were somewhat barbaric.
The Mongols in my opinion were very barbaric. They're slaughter of millions of people can be nothing short of barbaric. Which is hard to justify since a lot of the good things mongols had were heavily outweighed by a lot of problems that the mongols had. Sure they had a great political structure and such. But they still were very uncivilized even if they're civilization was civilized.
The Mongols weren't barbaric, according to my definition. Although they did slaughter and destroy, they were very organized and cunning. They had specific battle strategies, such as sending stronger men to either side and a small attack group in center. They also had rules within their clans and a government of some sort. They also left room for religious freedom, unlike the Spanish conquistadors.
I totally agree with you that Mongols were not barbaric. Their way of battling and army were organized and intricate. They had certain aspects in their civilization more advanced than others, such as the postal system for the messengers, which was a really effective idea.
After thoroughly reading through both the background essay and the documents, I feel that the Mongols were very barbaric. Starting as a small tribe and escalating to an army of over 200,000 men, the Mongols increased not only in numbers, but in viciousness as well. They were very inhumane in how they conquered the world. For example, in North China and Ancient Persia it was said that, "Slaughter was so great that the streets of the Chinese capital were greasy with human fat and flesh." (Background essay, page 2). This gives a vivid image of just how cruel and barbaric the Mongols were. I can only imagine human flesh spewed over the streets. Also, document 2 gives insight into how cruel the army was too. It states, "if a whole group of ten flees, the rest of the group of a hundred was put to death." It is very inhumane and barbaric to make a whole group of a hundred suffer for the actions of very few. The Mongols were not interested in sparring lives or hearing people out; they blamed people as a whole and made poor choices. The Mongols were a very destructive group of people who started off innocent and flourished into something awful.
I agree that the mongols were indeed barbaric savages but they were actually quite intelligent and very strategized. Others seen them as cruel but they were just another civilization with harsh rules that may have seemed inhumane. When it came to war and conquering, it was more destruction and less common sense.
After reading this essay and watching the YouTube video by CrashCourse, I feel that the mongols were very barbaric. Dictionary.com defines barbaric as, "Things that are barbaric, are uncivilized and brutal."(dictionary.com). This definition perfectly defines the mongols. Although they were somewhat civilized they were quite brutal. "Slaughter was so great that the streets of the Chinese capital were greasy with human fat and flesh."( Essay, pg. 2). Even though these aren't very strong reasons compared to the pros I still hold my ground on how barbaric they were.
I think that the Mongols were barbaric and the reason why lies behind the definition of barbaric which is: savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal. The Mongols behavior towards others perfectly matches this definition. The Mongols not only conquered over 10 million square miles of land, but did so while killing as many as 40 million people, which in my opinion is barbaric in and of itself.
The barbaric natures of the Mongols can be seen in their morals and values, and Genghis Khan the leader of the Mongols shows this when he said, “The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemy, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and their daughters." In this quote Genghis Khan says that he considers the greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies. The fact that Genghis takes joy in vanquishing his enemies I be considered cruel, and he takes that idea and makes it savagely cruel by adding on that he wants to rob his enemies of their wealth and see those dear to them bathe in their tears.
The Mongols barbaric nature is not only shown through their values, but also shown through their brutal and cruel actions during war. One of the actions that exemplify the Mongols cruelty is the fact that they put other people at risk during war instead of themselves by,“having beside them their children on horseback and their womenfolk and horses; and sometimes they make figures of men and set them on horses. They do this to give the impression that a great crowd of fighting men is assembled there.”After capturing cities using these barbaric tactics they would execute prisoners in sometimes exceedingly brutal ways by burying them alive upside.
Some may argue that the Mongols had a strict law system and culture, but this does not negate the fact that Mongols were inherently barbaric as shown through their morals and behavior during war. -Juan Cruz Olea, 3rd Period
Mongolians were not barbarians because they had laws, technologies, and an army, which are aspects of civilization. In document 7 and 10, Juvaini said that theft, robbery, and adultery were against the law, and in document 6, it is mentioned that they built canals to improve transportation. In the background essay, it says that the Mongols kept engineers in the army to built bridges and roads during wars. Even though those were not their inventions, the fact that the Mongols had them in their empire and used them makes them civilized. Also, the infrastructure of their army was complex: There were chiefs over captains over captains over captains over an unit of ten soldiers. These demonstrates that they were not totally barbarians; they had regulations to follow. Every empire is brutal in conquests. Otherwise, they won't survive. They wanted to make an example of how strong they were so that other civilizations would not dare to go against them, such as it happened with Riazan in Russia. This behavior is correspondent to how Rome burned the city of Carthage so that Carthage would not fight back. I doubt Rome was ever considered barbaric.
I believe the Mongols were barbaric because of the fact that you have to be a savage to skin people and use them as a means of biological warfare and to kill your own men for the reasons to me were un reasonable I understand why but its not necessary its wasting men and there's truly no need Also to just completely slaughter villages you can leave the woman and children but they decided ton just kill everyone and destroy everything and I consider that barbaric.
I agree with Jorge the Mongols to me were uncivilized and it showed in there way of life how they fought and there understanding of certain things that are required to be considered civilized or a civilization like architecture.
After reading the Mongols seemed like savages and were a barbaric civilization but honestly they showed no signs of being barbaric. They were just another civlization like any other that just had harsher laws compared to others that may have seemed inhumane. They developed population wise and character wise. Document 2 gives insight on how cruel their armies were. When dealing with war and conquering, it was more destruction and less common sense and bad choices. They did have harsh laws and documents 10 and 8 explains their law system and their government.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the mongols were more barbaric than not because their whole mantra was 'The Greatest happiness was to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters'. That says alot about what they wanted to do and what their purpose was. It was stated thate historians belived that they killed millions of people is just 80 years of their resign/dynasty. Even though they may have had some good things they created, I think people tend to remember the bad things that happen more that the good that happens and that is why i think that the mongols are more barbaric than nah.
ReplyDeleteStella Johnson, 7th period
I agree because most of the people that were killed were either killed because they would not surrender their land or just because they lived on the land that the Mongols wanted to conquer. Also most of those people were innocent people or innocent women and children. The quote about seeing the loved ones of their enemies being killed cry and mourn shows their true feelings about how they really felt.
DeleteI agree because the mass amount of killings that didn't necessarily make sense. The mongols reasoning was to conquer land and they went about taking it by slaughtering whole cities. There were good contributions but they were barbaric because the bad outweighed the good. I understand they did it to make their conquering areas prosperous as Emily said but they were mostly focused on the military aspects rather than just making the land prosperous.
DeleteI think the Mongols are more barbaric. The Mongols were famous for butchering to the last person any city which refused to surrender to it. That is, the Mongol army would arrive at a city, and demand it's surrender. If it refused, and the Mongols later captured the city (which, happend the vast majority of the time), then Mongols would then kill everyone inside. Even if the city surrendered immediately, the typical Mongol response would be to depopulate the city (move everyone out) into the local countryside, raze the entire city to the ground, then sell large portions of the remaining population into slavery, while forcing the rest into agricultural work.
DeleteI completely agree with you because maybe we would have had a different outlook on the Mongols if the documents focused equally on the good and bad. but because they focused more on the bad most of us believe that the Mongols are barbaric.
DeleteI don't think the Mongols were barbarian because their attacks were well planned out and they strived to make their conquering areas prosperous. "He also comments that although there were many pack animals in the Kipchak area, these could be left unattended because of the severity of (Mongol) laws against theft." (Paul Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy) This quote shows that the Mongols had a system of laws that were strict and well abided making them not very barbaric. In regards to them having a well thought out attack system, the Mongols would alternate their armies throughout the fight allowing them to get rest while their counterpart was wearing out because they fought continuously with no change in men. The Mongols would help flourish their newly conquered areas by opening the areas to different trade. One example of an area in which they did this is the Persian silk industry. The Mongols weren't barbaric because of how they ended up benefitting many areas they took control of, because they didn't randomly attack places with out an idea on how to proceed to win the fight and take control of the land, and because they had laws that were followed.
ReplyDeleteYes, having a law system does provide structure to an extent, as well as battle plans. However, their laws were concerning their army, which is basically the placement all of their peoples except for their subjects. Were these laws carried out all over the empire? Were they carried out with the subjects that were forcefully raped into this "Empire?" Well there weren't any systems of law enforcers spanning over thousands of kilometers were there? These people were barbarians in that they were not civilized and they were continuously conquering with their army, with no internal structure. Yes, laws provide civility, but if civility is basically impossible with not structure, especially with the level of control the Mongolian Empire was out of, laws in no way provide stability, also considering the laws only concern the acquiring of more uncontrollable land. As for battle strategy, they had multiple armies because of their man power, not a rank system or structure proven to provide military stability. They attacked civilizations' walls on horseback, burned them down, raped the women and killed the men and children who did not join. Is this really a legitimate battle strategy? And if so, it seems pretty barbaric, don't you think?
Delete-John Gnik
Success as an empire does not mean that they weren't barbaric. They did improve many places, but they required extreme, non-civil ways to achieve such. For example, to ensure that people obey their law, they had to make punishments as cruel as possible, and of course no one would want to commit those crimes, as the punishment is extremely terrifying, but that also means that even small/accidental crimes would cause inevitable torture and death.
DeleteHis argument is strong, rational, and it backs up mine, so thus I agree with Sergey completely. As stated in my previous argument, laws don't nececarily mean that they promote a civilized system. The way that the Mongols enforced their "laws" was absolutely barbaric. In this empire, either you submitted fully into this rigid system of barbarians, or you were killed, raped, tortured, or left for dead. The Mongols treated humans as if they were animals in their "law enforcement system." This did not promote discipline. This promoted fear, death, and suffering. Now this is truly barbaric.
DeleteI am in between with whether or not the Mongols were barbarian or not. I think their morals were correct, but the way they handled some of their issues or situations were barbaric. I believe they were barbaric because they were killing innocent people for land. They would also kill their prisoners or the people they captured in peculiar way. For example, in Document 5, there is a picture of a man being shot, but in front of him are people that were buried alive upside down. In Document 10, I thought it was also different that the Mongols thought that being drunk was very honorable, but I do agree with that the men could only get drunk 3 times a month and were praised if they didn't reach that restriction. Most people in our time period think drinking should be shamed and Mongols believed in that if a man got drunk more than 3 times there would be consequences. It was also stated in Document 10 that if a man wanted a married woman, he had to kill the husband in order to be with her. In a way, I think it's unnecessary to kill an innocent man for his wife. On the other hand, with their morals and beliefs, it does make sense that the husband has to go away, but not in death. In conclusion, I believe the Mongols were barbaric, but their morals and their beliefs were correct.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the mongols handled their situations the wrong way most of the time. They killed innocent people for land or for other reasons that I think wasn't the right thing to do. Some of their morals and beliefs made sense. Overall I agree that mongols were barbaric but had some sense at the same time.
DeleteRight, I agree that some of the things they did were wrong, but overall they did have laws that were held to a high standard and they had little tolerance for wrong doing. I feel like that keeps people in line and over all lead to a safer environment for their people. I also feel like to be truly barbaric then they wouldn't have a level of cultural acceptance and cultural diversity as the Mongols did, considering one definition of barbaric is meaning uncultured. The Mongols were cultured and even religiously aware. In document 7 it says, ""We Mongols believe that there is but one God, by Whom we die and towards Him we have an upright heart. But just as God gave different fingers to the hand so has he given different ways to men."" Mongke Khan was very interested to learn about major religions and had people of those religions, Christians, Muslims and Buddhist, come to him and represent their religion so he could better understand each one and be well rounded in his knowledge. Later the Mongols converted to the religion of the area that they took control of showing that they did keep some of the identity and that there was a sort of compromise between the Mongols and other areas and the Mongols didn't strip the people of everything.
DeleteI do agree in a sense that the Mongols could have dealt with battle situations better. That is the main reason why historians and people believe they are a barbaric group of people.
DeleteHowever, they do have their pros. After their fall, they have left many great institutions behind, and having them integrate within different societies allowed trade to once again prosper.
I do agree in a sense that the Mongols could have dealt with battle situations better. That is the main reason why historians and people believe they are a barbaric group of people.
DeleteHowever, they do have their pros. After their fall, they have left many great institutions behind, and having them integrate within different societies allowed trade to once again prosper.
I agree with Alexis there other ways to handle a situation. There first way to make things better was to kill. One thing Alexis said that the Mongols did good about was the restriction to drinking 3 or less. I feel like it makes a safer environment cause if you are drunk you can end up killing someone without even knowing what you are doing. I really like how diverse there religions were like how you could believe in what they wanted to. Reading what Alexis put kind of made me choose somewhere in between now because of the pros and cons.
DeleteI agree with Myanh. The Mongols were an extremely barbaric group of people. They wanted to see their enemies suffer, but not everything they did was horrible. In document two, Carpini explain how Khan used a structured social class and how he wanted every soldier to stick together and fight or not fight at all. However, the negative impacts of the Mongols overshadow the positives proving they were very barbaric. -Erin Gravette
DeleteI agree with you Alexis there were other ways to handle these situations other than just simple cold blooded murder. Although some of their customs seemed to be humane the actions they did the majority of the time completely make them barbaric.
DeleteIn technical terms, the Mongols weren't barbarians, they were tactical when it came to conquest and built a powerful empire,however their actions toward others were barbaric.Think back to the 1930's and 1940's, back when the Nazi's were in power in Germany. We didn't classify them as barbarians but their actions were.After the first world war, Germany had been blamed for everything, leaving the country in poverty. When the Nazi's came to power, they didn't blame the allied powers for their poverty, instead they blamed the Jews. The Nazi's slaughtered approximately 6 million Jews, and about 5 million others during their strive for global conquest. Now back to the Mongols, during their rise to power, they killed approximately 20-50 million people! That's a lot of people compared to the Nazi's, and we thought the Nazi's were bad! Now, during the Nazi takeover of Europe, the Germans set up prison camps known as,"Concentration Camps". The Germans told the world that these camps took good care of their prisoners and that they participated in sports and such. However, through the propaganda, the Jews along with other prisoners were tortured, worked to death, experimented on, and slaughtered. Some of the methods include mass executions in woods, where they would have the prisoners dig their own graves and then mow them down into the graves with machine gun fire or rifle fire. Another popular method of killing the prisoners include the gas chambers, were the prisoners were required to strip down and squeeze into these chambers where the Germans would lock the doors and release a type of gas known as hydrogen cyanide, a very toxic gas leaving no survivors. When the Mongols acquired prisoners they would separate the artisans and the ones the Mongols wanted as slaves from the weak or young and they executed them. Some were buried upside down so that they would suffocate or some were tied to trees where archers would take aim and swiftly execute them. Now i know i might have gotten carried away while talking about the Germans, but in conclusion, the Mongols weren't Barbaric, more senseless and carefree when it came to the lives of the people. In today's world, we are glad the Nazi's died out, but imagine if the Mongols had come to power in the 1900's, think about how our lives might be today. - Joshua Buckingham
ReplyDeleteWere these your own thoughts Josh? I need your opinion.
DeleteSingleton
Were these your own thoughts Josh? I need your opinion.
DeleteSingleton
Yes Mrs Singleton, these were my own thoughts and opinions on the Mongols. I knew a little bit more on the Nazis so i decided to provide a comparison between the two powers.
DeleteIt is in no doubt that the Mongols are probably the quintessential brute force in of all History. They would sweep through Asia like nobody was trying to stop them. Their land was captured solely by the fact that they were quick and had no strategy whatsoever. In a very short period of time, Kahn and his army would expand rapidly through the continent, eventually having approximately 1 out of every 4 people under Mongolian rule. This non-strategic and weakly governed empire rationally disintegrated for the total and inarguable reason that they were barbarians. Having a multi-ethnic subject body, and over 10% of the earth's land, it would be impossible for a group like themselves to thrive for more than 200 years; given their political and structural weaknesses. And they didn't! The Mongolian "Empire" died off because they did not have a government or a system of internal affairs. Barbarians.
ReplyDeleteThe argument in that the Mongols had even more land than the Romans- arguably one of the greatest empires of all time- is feasible, yet proven wrong with some simple calculations: the Romans saw that their empire would grow unstable with a far-reaching and multi-ethnic state, as it would be difficult to govern, become loose, and thus weak. The power is not in land, but how you rule it. The Roman's systematic government, economics, and religion uniformed the Empire and made it great, and civilized.
The Mongols were barbaric. They were. Having an unstructured and ill-governed "Empire" explains this quite well. Yes, their horseback military was quite unbeatable, but when it comes to a civilized and non-barbaric community, the debate is in no way arbitrary.
-John Gnik, 3rd Period
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMongols, are a great example of an extremely barbaric group. In fact, their Barbaric behavior was what possibly caused their success. First of all, such a destructive attitude was required and built in their structure; they had little to no understanding of agriculture or settled life. However, they were a sufficient nomads, and nomadic lifestyle encourages scavenging, as producing many resources, tools, and weapons was just too difficult for them. And they did, in fact, use this; slaughters in Persia, Russia, and other locations can prove such behavior(Doc. 4). Mongols also lacked morality, as grotesque, brutal tortures and genocides were encouraged (Doc 5 is an example of such executions). Mongols were also renown for their massive rape streaks. Mongol armies were notorious for raping local women. In fact, the significance of such rapes are witnessed to this day; in fact, certain studies pointed out that 1/200 of all humans living today have genetic links to Genghis Khan, as well as many Mongol-descendant cultures are present around Eastern Europe and Southern Asia.
ReplyDeleteBut not only were Mongols destructive and homicidal towards foreigners, the violent values were inside of their own nation. In fact, those values were even encouraged among their citizens and army ranks. Document 2 is a perfect example of that; Mongols attempted to prevent routes through fear and violence rather than leadership. That leads to more efficient army, but also causes far higher casualty ratios, as men will be even more likely to die due to low morale. If you look into any writing/speech/etc by great military leaders, (For example, Sun Tzu's Art Of War) almost all of them state that leading by fear will only cause lower morale, as soldiers fear both the enemy and their comrades. (OFF-TOPIC) On the positive note, however, Mongols were possibly the greatest cavalry tacticians in the world. While I don't particularly think Document 3 portrays that, as many of the shown tactics were commonly used across the world, you could find many outsiders talk about how Mongols would always use their cavalry-dominant army to advantage; in fact, Mongols were almost always the ones to create conditions favorable to them on the battlefield due to their maneuverability.
In regards to legal aspect of Mongols, it might be one of the aspects that actually benefited from violent nature of Mongols. However, in order to prevent some other political affairs, there needs to be enforced power. And here is the part where Mongols failed; internal conflicts were extremely common, as there was lack of great authority other than Great Khans and their chiefs. Also, many of the laws encouraged hostile behavior between citizens (For example, Doc10: You'd have to kill the husband of a wife in order to be allowed to marry that married woman)
(OFF-TOPIC) A bit off-topic, but Mongols were also not as powerful as some other powers, even though they were far smaller size than Genghis Khan's empire. Why? Well, much of the territory conquered by Genghis was extremely underdeveloped, and had far less value than, for example, European cities. (Would you prefer to have 10x10km piece of Steppes or all of Rome?)
Overall, Mongols were barbaric from the start, as their values provide incentives to homicidal behavior outside and within their rule. While their aggressive ways terrified their enemies and made them prosper, those values hurt nearly everyone in their way. While they did commit many positive actions, those actions were necessary in order to retain order (For example, Doc.9: Mongols HAD TO be tolerant of other religions; otherwise, they would face constant revolts from opposite religions).
-Sergey L., 5th Period
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI totally agree with that statement
DeleteThank you I agree with yours as well.
DeleteThe mongols were very barbaric in my opinion. For them to conquer so much land you have to think about all the victims that were left behind. In document 3 it says the mongols would sometimes take the fat off people they murdered and used it to catapult on to peoples houses. Over their long time of conquest they killed millions of people. They would leave bodies in piles. The mongols wanted to leave towns in such a manner that they could be ploughed upon. Also they brutally executed people like burying people alive upside down. - Jordan Leary
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your opinion. In addition to the Mongols' torture and cruel ways of punishment, they also had gruesome battle tactics. In document 3, they describe one tactic as using kind words and telling stories of being set free and making false promises to lure people out of their houses only to do one of two things: make you a slave or kill you with an axe. This proves the Mongols to be very barbaric.
DeleteI believe that the Mongols were not barbaric in the way they thought, but their actions and the way they handled issues say otherwise. At first, the Mongolian Empire was vast and seemingly thriving but the want and conquest of territory soon took over. They began killing people just so they could control more land and gain power. In document 2, John of Plano Carpini describes the Mongolian battle tactics. It is obvious that the Mongols were trying to reach an organized control structure. Leadership worked in a pyramid type of way with captains of tens, hundreds, thousands, and so on. Their motto during battle was all or none. If one person flees, they all die and in the same way, if one chooses to step forward and fight, but the rest flee, then they all die. The problem isn't them wanting to "work together" but rather how it is handled if one of them chooses to stray from the group. The Mongols also seemed to have a strategic mindset during battle. In document 3, John of Plano Carpini says they "sent captives to the enemy head-on" and placed stronger men out of sight "so they surround them". Even so, the Mongols tend to do everything they can to win. For example, "taking fat of people they kill...throw it on to the houses, and wherever the fire falls on this fat it is almost inextinguishable". These examples show that the Mongolian attempts for better unification were correct, but the negative outcomes and overall destruction outweighed all of the possible benefits. -Lauren Gravette
ReplyDeleteMegan shows that even though many classify the Mongols as barbaric, they showed potential to be other wise. She agrees that even though they used dirty and even disgusting tactics in their conquests, they were still a powerful empire that were smart and organized. I can agree with Megan without a doubt.
DeleteThe Mongol Empire is widely known for its vast territory of 4,860,000 sq ft (Doc 1) and their ruthless encounters towards thousands of people. Many historians view the Mongols as a group of senseless barbarians that have devoured many societies across the Asian continent during their sieges. Yes, the Mongols did horribly kill and treat people, however, theoretically aren't all battles and wars barbaric?
ReplyDeleteOf course if someone were to come into your village and suddenly claim everything under their rule, you would have a strong hatred towards them. Individuals that came into contact with the Mongols, most likely had a strong prejudice/bias against the group. Many people already did not enjoy their presence, being that they were always involved in violent warfare, and their people as a whole were seen as outcasts. Having this negative kind of trademark on the Mongols allowed many people to dwell on their merciless and destructive side.
The Mongols were intelligent people that were able to integrate into the societies they occupied. "As a result, their economic interests coincided with those of the native peoples, and the Mongols . . . promoted diversified economic development," (Doc 6). They were able to revitalize the Silk Road-which at the time was not doing so well- and allowed trade to prosper.
Many areas under Mongolian rule were, in fact, thriving; for example, Mongol conquests opened up contact with the Persians and China, allowing both to flourish. Cities located on the trade routes prospered from the Pax Mongolica's protection of tax-free customs zones (Doc 6). Their cultural diffusion acknowledged diversity and change in societies, and they also brought about impressive political institutions.
Myanh Le, Per. 3
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe mongols were very barbaric in my opinion.They raped,robbed and murdered people. I agree many people think that they were good because they were the cause of the trade routes and had a such high respect and tolerance for so many diverse religions but they also spread a bunch of diseases through those exact same trade routes.What I think is that some of their actions were just straight up wrong,unfair and unnecessary.Also, people didn't like them or were scared of them because of their downright destructive tactics.A good example comes from document 1 where it states if even one man leaves his squadron of ten every one else will be put to death that made people fight so that their loved ones would not face any consequences.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the mongols were amoral towards other people. I liked the note on the trade routes, and that people may have liked them for that, and I agree that they are accurately described as barbaric.
DeleteI think the Mongols were more barbaric because of how cruel they were in certain situations, for example in doc 5 they had a picture of prisoner hanged upside down in front of people. But as cruel as they were their strategy in conquering and capturing other people's land was brilliant. As stated in doc 1 they had conquered most of the land compared to the leaders. Also most of their morals were relatable and others were cruel such as if an unbeliever desires a married woman he will kill the husband and then have relation with the woman. And it can be related to the drinking because you can't stop anyone from drinking, but with limitation and consequences you will have a more responsible drinker.
ReplyDelete-Vivian narh 5th peroid
I agree with you Vivian because they wanted to watch their enemies suffer. In the video the Mongols robbed their enemies of their wealth and wanted their loved one's enemies to watch them die as they fought. Yes they were definitely mean at times, but they had pros to. The Mongols wanted to keep records of things like the Egyptians did, so they compromised with people who knew records and they let them do their records, (in the video). The Mongols were very terrifying and had to do with a lot of tragedies, but they had more pros to. People who knew about their religions adopted the Mongols religion and were not forced by them. They wanted to conquer land and they killed whoever got in their way. So all together i think they were barbaric. Cheyanne Elam
DeleteI disagree with you because I think it was their own lifestyles. They had strict government, religion which made their people less rebellious . This allowed their civilization to live longer.
DeleteHemant, strict law does not change their values. Enforcing law with barbaric values, which just so happen to be successful, is still barbaric.
DeleteThe definition of barbaric is savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal. The Mongols morals showed anything but that. They had well thought out plans, laws, and they benefited their conquered areas. All in all, I think the Mongols were mainly civilized.
ReplyDeleteThe Mongols had many structured systems. In document 2 it shows how their warriors, leaders, and captains were organized in groups of tens. Document 3 shows how they structure their attack and surround the opposing warriors. Document 8 explains the way they transferred messages across Asia; this requires many components. I believe this shows they're civilized because they have advanced structures and organizations for multiple situations.
The Mongols also had laws. These laws promoted respect and kindness towards other people. Document 10 shows laws that prevent drinking more than 3 times a month and induce polite and civilized behavior towards others. Lastly, the Mongols benefited other people. Persia and China had a more sufficient trade after they were conquered by the Mongols (doc 6) and they also were not taxed.
Many people believe the Mongols are barbaric because of their actions during war, but all wars are really uncivilized. Therefore, I believe the Mongols are civilized.
~Lucy Somervill ❤️
Lucy,
DeleteI honestly did not see it like that! I completely agree with you when you say that they had structured systems and organizations. Though, I do not agree that they were civilized because the Mongols were not just cruel and brutal during war, they were like that continuously. I see how people can have multiple opinions because that is what this is all about, in your opinion, do you think that the Mongols were barbaric or not. I love your intake on this assignment. I can see that you thought about this on your own and you did not just agree with everyone else. I appreciate the affect your answer had on my opinion, you made me think! Thank you <3
Lucy, I do infact believe your opinion is correct! I too said they were not barbaric. We went diferent ways but your examples proved to me your opinion. Infact they followed laws better then we do today! for example was no stealing at all! I think that is amazing and very contrasting to their bad reputation . So I agree with you!
DeleteI agree with Lucy. The Mongol's actions during war are what make them seem barbaric but you have to look at more than that. You did a great job of showing the other side of them that is more than just the way they handle their wars.
DeleteI would have to agree with you because of how you said, ". These laws promoted respect and kindness towards other people.". The reason why I say this is because if you watch the video that Mrs. Singleton provides, it literally says, "It was said that a man could walk from one end of the Mongol Empire to the other with a gold plate on his head without ever fearing being robbed," which showed, to me, a sense of respect between the people within the Mongol Empire.
DeleteI think that in order to determine whether the Mongols should be called barbaric you need to look at the civil and combative practices of the other civilizations at that time. Like Lucy said, the Mongols' written law code showed a fundamental respect for both native and conquered peoples, which is more than can be said for many governments. In war, undoubtedly many groups were savage and brutal, but the Mongols' restraint and preservation of rights show that they do not deserve the title.
Delete"All wars are really uncivilized." This is simply not true. Many nations were moral with their approaches to warfare. Great example of such are Crusades; Spain and many Middle eastern cities, like Jerusalem, were often exchanged, and people were allowed to leave or visit the holy sites, as well as stay on certain civil terms. After that period, legislation such as Geneva Convention to achieve exactly that. The part that you completely ignored is that Mongols slaughtered entire cities full of citizens and POWs, which is simply horrifying even for Middle Ages. In regards to Miranda's comment, the reason why people wouldn't do anything to "golden plate" is because the laws were terrifyingly strict (I honestly don't think that stealing a golden plate would be worth getting burned on a fire)
DeleteAnother common argument I see is that they accepted conquered people far easier than others. Well, if they wouldn't, the Mongols would never even go past Mongolia, as revolts would be so often and so distant that the empire would collapse in days.
Overall, I believe that the Mongol's actions were barbaric but their beliefs were not. Throughout the time of their empire, they expanded territory and killed many people. This did not come easy, but came with strict laws of warfare which were enforced in the people residing within the empire. These laws proved that the Mongols did have a sense of civilization in their empire, but in analyzing all war techniques, they had a barbaric side as well. These people would burn others at the stake in order to achieve dominance and to keep expanding their empire. In the eyes of other civilizations, the Mongols were a huge threat. The reason their threat was so evident was because of their barbaric techniques. But, their civilized law and enforcement within the empire lead to a longer- lasting, extremely powerful civilization.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree. The Mongols were partly barbaric and partly not. Even though their strict law codes and good sense of a civilization resulted in power, they were very unwise in how they used that power.
DeleteI agree with your statement Caroline. Although the Mongols morals were not as bad as a few of their actions. They had laws that provided peace, they enforced respect and kindness towards others. And even though they did have many barbaric acts during times of war, they had organized and structured attacks. They didn't attack uncontrollably, they had plans and carried them out.
DeleteCaroline, I agree with you a lot!! There actions were very barbaric, savage and evil. Such as hurting innocent people sometimes. Like in document 5 when they were burning people alive upside down. That is a very barbaric action. Also when they would kill a women's husband if they wanted to have relations with her.
DeleteIn my opinion, the Mongols actions were very barbaric yet, they had a state of mind. As stated in the introduction, "barbarian" was a negative term, people who were savage and evil. Their war consequences were said to be very savage and evil, but the organizations of the battles were oddly civilized. So, these people were a mix of both barbaric and civilized. Not only is this opinion proven in war techniques, but the Mongol civilization burned people that were alive & did it upside down as shown in document 5. One more example of my opinion of the Mongol civilization being barbarically their way of handling the situation of a women being married & a man desiring to be with her. In document 10 it says that the Mongol will kill the husband and then have relations with her. All of these examples show how there actions were very barbaric and evil. But one way the Mongols showed that they did have a state of mind was in document 10, it states that when a husband is hunting or at war the wife must maintain the household, which is showing that they were somewhat civilized yet overall barbaric.
ReplyDelete- Alexis Putney ❤️❤️
I completely agree with you, Alexis. Your examples help support both of our opinions of the Mongols barbaric and civilized ways. In document ten, the men's killing of husbands to get with their wives shows extremely uncivilized manner within the empire. But, I think that the Mongols were more civilized than barbaric. This is shown through their laws and creation of a type of hierarchy. But, I overal agree with everything you said.
DeleteI definitely agree Alexis, the mongols acted in barbaric ways while invading places for expansion to improve there empire, but they also had civilized ways of living.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Mongols could be viewed both barbarian and non barbarian. One example of their barbarianism would be the fact that they enforced laws with ruthless punishments (As evidenced by document 3) so that the soldiers would be scared to do anything wrong. Also, if you are to look at document 4, they didn't really care about how many people they were killing. However, if you were to watch the video that Mrs. Singleton offered for us to watch, then you would be able to see that the Mongols actually weren't as bad. The reason why I say this is because of how they allowed other religions to prosper within the Mongol Empire. Another reference that would support my statement would be document 9, for which it says, "'Our master sends us to you and he says:"Here you are, Christians, Saracens (Muslims), and tuins (Rubruck would translate tuins as pagans; in fact, they were Buddhists), and each of you declares that his law is the best and his literature, that is his books, are the truest.'".
ReplyDelete-Miranda Willis Block 5
I think the Mongols were barbaric because of "The Greatest Happiness". Not just that but they killed millions of people during there dynasty. Killing people for land... are you serious that's is not necessary agreeing to what Makayla said. I feel that if they tried hard enough to they could have worked something out instead. On the other hand there is some good thing that they did. It still does not compare to what they did wrong. Not to mention they dragged people behind horses plus killing innocent people in towns. This is why I think the Mongols are barbaric.
ReplyDelete-Gabby Dierkens 3rd period
I agree with gabby. The Mongols did have some very good ideals but a lot of the times they were more barbaric than anything. Their rules, like the rule of adultery, were very strict on punishment. They were also very relentless with warfare, and their barbaric ways made them to be feared by other people.
DeleteI agree that the Mongols where barbaric and that the few good, civilized things that the Mongols did, did not over rule all their bad -MadalynMotley
DeleteI agree that the mongols were very barbaric and the The Greatest Happiness thing was just wrong
DeleteBarbaric: Savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal.
ReplyDeleteNot only were the Mongol's actions brutal, but their thought pattern was cruel which was a productive way preventing destruction towards any of their empire because people were afraid of what the Mongols could do. The punishments that were enforced due to the breaking of the laws were uncivilized as shown in document 5; The prisoners were buried alive upside down or executed. The Mongols also robbed their enemies of everything they had and once they got what they wanted they would kill them and make the families watch while the killing took place, as stated in the video. In document 10 it describes certain codes that they followed. These codes were a sign of civility and even though the Mongols' actions were cruel and brutal, they believed in a certain way of life which is a factor in what makes a civilization. I will always remember the Mongols for their take on how things are supposed to be because they are unlike a lot of empires to me. The Mongols were very powerful and could prevent people from doing multiple things , yet one thing that they chose to let people continue to have is their own religion which is stated in document 9. So yes, the Mongols were very much barbaric.
I agree with you because like you said the Mongols were very barbaric, but they are also unlike a lot of empires so far. Sure many empires would conquest and take over other empires, but not in the quickness and brutality of the Mongols.
DeleteThis is Caleb Murphy. To formulate my opinion about the Mongol's barbarism, I first had to understand what exactly barbarism is. As it turns out, there are two definitions to the term. In the first definition, which is the absence of culture and civilization, the Mongols were absolutely not barbaric. They had a strict law system (Document 10), a powerful and central government (Document 8), culture (Document 6), and religion (Document 9). All of these attributes are indicators of a strong, cultured civilization. In the case of the second definition of barbarism, being extreme cruelty or brutality, the Mongols fit perfectly, especially during battles in expansionist wars. Documents 2,3,4, and 5 all support this cruelty. The bright side of this is that most of this cruelty was only portrayed in wartime. So overall, I cannot give a definitive statement that the Mongols were "Barbarians or Nah." They definitely had their dark side, but they also could be civilized and cultured.
ReplyDeleteI think your interpretation of the first definition is too straight forward, as the possession of beleifs and culture can't all of a sudden make you civilized, or make you have a light side. The many groups that have been brought up as barbarians, such as those who tore down the walls of the Roman Empire indefinitely had beleifs, but they were still barbarians, right? I Mongols just happened to be very successful ones.
DeleteI agree with your opinion Caleb. The definition of being a barbaric doesn't fully cooperate with the Mongols' characteristics. I personally agree that they "fit perfectly, especially during battles in expansionist wars," because of the fact that the cruelty and harm that they caused helped them form a stronger empire overall.
DeleteI completely agree with you, Caleb. There are both positive and negative aspects on how the Mongols went about doing things, and we can't definitively say that the Mongols were in fact barbaric.
DeleteIt's complicated to place the Mongols between Barbaric and non-barbaric due to their ups and downs in their political and social aspects.If I I were to decide, I would consider them a more of a barbaric empire because of their mass murders as shown in document 4 but this is contradicted by the way they welcomed pesants into their empire as long as they complied by their rules. Furthermore their freedom of religion makes the Mongols not so bad in document 9.Their way of conquering was based on a strong yet varied form of structure as shown in document 2 where there was a ten to one ratio.But even though they were highly organized with their empire, their punishments were too harsh as shown in document 10
ReplyDeleteLeonardo Rodriguez
IBarbaric is defined at something that is savagely cruel and exceedingly brutal. I believe that the Mongols were barbaric. As stated in document 4 the mongols surrounded the city of Nishapur, claimed over the walls and began killing the people. Then they commanded that the city be destroyed so much that not even the cats and dogs were alive. Also in document 5 is depicts men being buried alive upside down and a brutal execution of a prisoner. Lastly in document 10 it states that if a Mongol desires a woman he will kill her husband and then have relations with her and that drunkenness is considered to be an honorable thing. All of these are examples why i believe the Mongols were barbaric bc they all show that they were cruel, brutal, and unruly.
ReplyDelete-Erin Hicks
I believe the Mongols were primarily barbaric. According to Document 2 they even brutalized their own people. They seemed to use brutality as their only way to make a statement or point. When they went to war, the Mongols sent captives and men of other nationalities to the front lines instead of going themselves. They put children and women at risk during battles by placing them on horses to make their armies look bigger. Ravishing entire towns, the Mongols even killed all of the dogs and cats, severing peoples' heads and putting them in piles according to whether they were men, women, or children. Another type of brutality was indicated in document 5 in a drawing of people being buried alive upside down, or head first. All of the people lived in fear of their brutality, and even though they were able to make changes in morality as stated in document 7, they probably got those results out of fear of what the consequences would be if someone did something wrong.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Mongols were not barbaric. In document 2 we saw that in battle if the groups did not act as a whole then they were punished to die. This may seem harsh but in reality it was admirable and selfless. for example if even one person in your group got captured you had to go back to rescue them or you would face death. That shows the Mongols were keen on looking out for their own. In document 3 we saw they had highly intelligent and well planned tactics when fighting in battles. One technique was surrounding their enemys which prevented them from retreating or resting. Also they used the fat of the dead because they knew how flammable it could become . In document 3 it said how they made political, economic, and cultural contributions . This proves there was more to them then just killing and fighting. Like any other civilization, they expanded their territory and made advances. “War, strife, bodily harm or murder do not exist, robbers and thieves
ReplyDeleteon a grand scale are not to be found among them,” remarks Plano Carpini . This quote played a big part in my opinon because this shows they were more refined and followed the laws better then we do today! This was very shocking and it means they were not evil or barbaric at all. Infact they demonstrated warm hospitality within the mongol home!I could go on and on about the evidence I found which proved their good qualities but the last topic I will bring up is religion. It was very diverse because the mongols allowed the people to have their own religion and according to the youtube video, didn't even expect the conquered people to adapt to the mongol religion. Religious freedom is something a lot of people value and the fact that the so called barbaric people allowed it? wow. After all of this information I have no doubt the good outways the bad and that Mongols were NOT barbaric. -kayla pollard
I completely understand and agree with what you say. Many people are taking in account that though the Mongols were cruel, they still had a system of some sort. During battle, they did have strategies to intimidate their opponents, very smart. We also cannot forget about their post-horse system, where their riders would travel up to 250 miles per day. They worked like a unit, always unified. They would tear down those who opposed them and raised those who were with them.
Delete"By the 1200s, 'barbarian' was a much more negative term referring to people who lived beyond the reach of civilization, people who were savage, evil." Based on this definition given in the introduction the Mongols cannot be easily defined as barbaric or not. They did not live beyond the reach of civilization as evidenced in documents 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. It seems that they were very much controlled and thoughtful indicated by their laws, their stand on religion, and their precise attack plans. Going back to the definition of barbarian given in the text savage to me is synonymous with primitive which the Mongols surely were not. On the other hand the Mongols were cruel to their enemies and fit the definition of evil when it comes to their war tactics. The Mongols were vicious with their ways of conquest but you must consider more than just their ways of war when trying to answer the question "Barbaric or nah?"
ReplyDelete-Summer Evans
The Mongols were barbaric. The Mongols acted very violent and brutal to get what they wanted. They would kill entire villages, kill married men so they could have relations with the woman, and there happiness was to kill the enemy. Yet this cruelty is what made them successful. The mongols had the largest empire to ever exist which was due to them invading places and killing those who didn't join them. The mongols didn't care if you had a different religion, they accepted you as long as you joined them. The mongols growth led to even more expansion and improvement. For example, mongols built canals for transportation for more expansion. The mongols also had control along the caravan routes for trade. Even thought the mongols were barbaric and brutal people they were still a very successful empire.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kelly. The Mongols had a very violent culture, they killed many people whose territory they invaded, but they also controlled a vast, very successful empire. It makes me wonder whether you can control such a large and successful empire without being violent.
DeleteWhether, the Mongols were barbaric is a controversial topic that historians can not find an answer to. The Mongols were definitely barbaric, according to John of Plano Carpini,"When they are in battle, if one or two or three or even more out of a group of ten run away, all are put to death." This punishment being described is only one of the many reasons they put soldiers to death. The only problem with calling them barbaric is the Mongols controlled one of the largest empires, part of which was the silk road. They were had some of the best battle tactics, using horses and archers (Document 3). They built canals in China to transport goods and help communication, led to the introduction and supply of silk to the Persian Empire and many cities along the silk road prospered due to the tax free customs zone controlled by the Mongols (Document 6). The Mongols helped the acculturation process throughout Eurasia and boosted the trade networks. They are responsible for Europe and Asia being the way they are today, but it came at the cost of many lives. They were responsible for the death of over 14 million people from 1220 to 1258 (Document 4) The question is was the trade, skilled tactics, and construction of one of the largest empires worth 14 million people and I don't think it was. So I would have to say that the Mongols had many barbaric traits.
ReplyDeleteIts hard to say that the Mongols were barbaric because most of the things they did were their way of living. On documents 2, 3, and 5 they showed signs of cruelty by harming their own people, showing no mercy to the people who don't follow the leader's orders and failing the objective that is given to them. Other documents explain their lifestyles like their government in doc 10 and their religion in doc 9. From the evidence that I have gathered, I think that the Mongols are not barbaric but its just their way of living.
ReplyDelete-Hemant Rawal
I disagree because even though it might be their way of living they were still very cruel even to their own people. I especially think the women and children were treated more unfairly than the men. When I picture a mound of children's severed heads I can't imagine ever saying the Mongols were not barbaric. Sure they did some good things with religion (document 9), and trade with the development of an extensive messenger system (document 8), this certainly does not make up for all the cruel things they did.
DeleteI agree with you dark shadriv. The ideology behind the Mongols' cruelty is what sets them apart from other civilizations, but they are what they are, and they were civilized. As Todd said, the harshness and the showing of no mercy within the Mongols are very shocking, but the bottom line is that they were civilized, which makes them non-barbaric.
DeleteI understand your reasoning , but I still think that the mongols were barbaric because they did more bad traits than good. A good trait is that they had strict laws, but a bad trait is when they sacrifice their own people to win wars.
DeleteI think that the mongols were barbaric because they put children and women on horses to get killed and didn't fight the enemy head on. Their happiness was to rob their enemy and watch them die. They might have been so powerful because they were barbaric. The barbarians had good traits, but most of them were bad.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion The Mongols were barbaric. After reading document 7 and 8, it was evident that after many years of finally instilling fear, looking through the eyes of a Mongol, inflating their control through the newly conquered western regions was another way barbarism. After Genghis Khan was declared king he used these choice of words that further proves my point. He said ," The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemy, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and their daughters." As for creating a more stable place for trade, since that’s all the nomadic Mongolians did, I believe it was a way for the kings to keep an environment of peace, making the assumption that rebelling was what they were good at and knew what would set the people up in arms. Over all, the Mongolian civilizations did engage in a form of civil productivity on some terms, however, in my book killing people after they've surrendered is just harsh.
ReplyDeleteI agree, their actions were very barbaric and their mantra proves what kind of group they were and what they stood for.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBarbarians are known to be savages without a civilization, which is what the Mongols are not, even though the part of being savages is theoretically correct according to the documents 2 and 5, where they were thought to have harmed or even killed their own people, but technically speaking, the Mongols were not barbaric. Just compare them to other "non-barbaric" civilizations. They were just a harsher, more cruel civilization. They exemplify all of the characteristics of a civilized community. As shown on document 9, they had a fixed religion. On document 10, it shows a law system, and on document 8, it informs us about the government that they had. Even though the techniques used to enforce these characteristics could have been less strict, they formed a great group of people with this "barbaric" technique. They could conquer more lands faster, without many troubles within their own people.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree; while the Mongols do have traits that scream "brute”, they did build a successful empire that benefit those they conquered (Document 6). The way they added territories to their reign was effective and planned out thoroughly, like how they would surround the enemy, and dress people who weren’t going to fight like they were to pretend like they had more people (Document 3).
DeleteI agree with you. They did kill their own people, but that doesn't make them barbaric. Even today in many states the death penalty is legal, which is killing our own people. The methods and reasons for doing so were just very different.
DeleteThe “barbaric” nature of the Mongols can be discounted by the strategy and general organization of their exploits. When you think of a barbarian, you see a disgruntled, uncultured, and animalistic creature whose sole desire is to mutilate and murder. The Mongols don’t fit this mold, as they valued culture and economic development. The Mongols were civilized in the fact that they had strong central government by achieving Pax Mongolica (Document 6) throughout all 4,860,000 square miles (Document 1) of their conquered territory. Under this government, religious and cultural diversity prospered and was celebrated. In fact, craft traditions like viniculture and silk industry flourished under Mongol rule due to the economic influence of the Pax Mongolica (Document 6). Even when Mongols displayed “barbaric traits”, they were systematic in execution. For example, prisoners being buried alive upside down (Document 5) while another is executed. Battle tactics of the Mongols included layered command, like the captain of ten, or a hundred (Document 2).
ReplyDelete-Cheyenne Conaway, P3
The Mongols were not barbaric. Document 10 shows the Yasa and the Bilik which were codes of conduct for the Mongols to live by. Yes, their methods of getting rid of their enemy were unconventional for today's standards(as shown in document 5),they weren't extremely brutal or savage.In their heads there was a reason for killing people, and that was to expand their empire. Speaking of their empire, document 1 shows just how vast it was. The Mongols wouldn't be able to get that much land if they were completely out of touch with civilization.
ReplyDeleteTo add to this, document 2 describes how their army was organized. Entire groups of ten would be executed if they disobeyed, but it enabled them to obtain their vast empire.
DeleteThe Mongols had a few good civilized ideals and attributes during their rule, but were far more barbaric. I think this, partly, because of their unnecessary killings of innocent people in order to acquire women, land, and practically whatever they wanted. They never really had practical, reasonable reason to kill and had no mercy. Another reason I think they were so barbaric is that they were also poorly structured in their government. They might have not have thought it mattered because they could just take what they want but it ended up being their downfall.
ReplyDeleteIt is an extremely difficult and often foolish thing to decide whether a culture harmed the world, and even more to choose to classify them as barbaric. There are seldom groups of people that act without organization, and the Mongols are no exception. The law codes in document 10 show that the Mongols were both systematic and cruel, but whether this makes them barbarians is a different matter, as is whether being a barbarian makes your impact necessarily negative. The Mongols were spreaders of the plague. They waged war and raped and brutally murdered their enemies. And yet, they brought on an era of peace and cultural exchange that probably bettered many people's lives. The same can be said for many conquerors. Did their rule better the world? Did the effects of their evils produce enough good to excuse them? I think it is beyond our means to know, and ill-advised to guess. Such a classification can only oversimplify a situation worth understanding. What is more important is to comprehend the morality of their individual actions, rather than to condone or condemn the entirety of a diverse group.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the Mongols were barbaric because of their pursuit to vanquish their enemies. They also had no regard for innocent people, they would do whatever it takes to obtain land and anything else they wanted. According to Document 5 they punished people for breaking laws, but their punishments were cruel and inhumane so that also makes them barbaric.
ReplyDelete^^ Devon Moore
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement because it showed how cruel and barbaric the Mongols were
DeleteI agree with this statement because it showed how cruel and barbaric the Mongols were
Deletei agree with this because it is barbaric to bury prisoners alive and to make people do what you want forcefully.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Merriam Webster Dictionary 13th edition which states, Barbarian- (in ancient times) a member of a community or tribe not belonging to one of the great civilizations (Greek, Roman, Christian), the Mongols have to be barbarians. They are barbarians by current definition.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you, mostly because of your reasoning. I believe their actions, as in the cruel punishment of all for the cowardly choices of a few, is what made their barbaric stereotype appear.They put women and children in danger for the sake of conquests. They were cruel people and believed that only conquered land was what brought happiness. "The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemy, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and their daughters." ~ Cole Leman
DeleteIn my opinion, the Mongol's actions were very barbaric. They used their power for destruction instead of for beneficial purposes. In document five, the picture shows men getting buried alive upside down. There are more reasonable punishments that that. In document ten, John of Plano Carpini explains the pinishment for adultery-execution. Execution is a bit harsh even when someone commits adultery. The Mongols conquered about 4,000,000 square miles of land. They demolished homes and killed more than need be. They were a brilliant, yet destructive force. However, in document two, it shows how the Mongols used a structured social class pyramid. Overall, the Mongols were very barbaric, especially in their actions toward their enemies. -Erin Gravette
ReplyDeleteIn this article, Barbaric is defined as "a
ReplyDeletemuch more negative term referring to people
who lived beyond the reach of civilization, people
who were savage, evil." I do think the Mongols were Barbaric. In Document 4, they surrounded the city of Nishapur and began killing the people. In Document 2, it states that if 2 people flee in battle, the rest will be put to death. It's like an all or nothing situation which is unfair if only a few people flee. If you don't think they are barbaric, look at document 5 which shows the execution of a prisoner by a Mongol soldier and others being buried alive upside-down which seems pretty barbaric to me. Their mantra is stated as "The Greatest happiness was to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters" which shows what makes them happy- the pain and suffering of others.
Tyra Moore
The Mongols are recognized as barbaric, and yes they are mostly that. But there are also pieces of information showing that they were more than smash, kill, etc... Like documents 1,3, and 10. These are examples that the Mongols thought things out, had plans and set certain rules. Of course they also show lots of barbarianism, as how they would drag a person tied to a horse, or slaughtering villages in whole. I am in between wether the Mongols are barbaric people or good, smart people for how they have been seen throughout history.
ReplyDelete- David Anleu
I do believe the Mongols were barbaric.(Document 10) states men would murder the husband of their desired women and take them as their own. In (Document 5), an example of their cruel torture is shown on a prisoner. However, they did have enough strategy to conquer more land than the Roman Empire. This shows that their vicious ways worked very well. ~ Cole Leman
ReplyDeleteI feel the Mongols were barbaric, however they influenced trade, communication, and tolerance. The Mongols brutally murdered countless towns and cities to expand their empire. They did continue many things like trade throughout their vast empire and kept up with it for many years, but that can't make up for the millions of deaths they're responsible for.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Mongols were barbaric. They handled things in a way that was deterred away from what we've come to consider morally right both now and in the past, when they were deemed unreasonable savages. They were a cruel, ruthless people, killing and slaughtering over trivial things such as land, wealth, and so on.
ReplyDelete"The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemy....rob them of their wealth...".
I do agree that the Mongols acted in a way that was against our society's moral code, however I do not believe they were truly cruel or ruthless people due to statements i found in documents six
DeleteWhile Mongolian law was indeed harsh, based on modern definitions of the word, they were not barbaric (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbaric). Obviously, how barbaric something is, is quite subjective. For their time, the Mongols actually had some pretty non-barbaric qualities, especially compared to their Western-European counter-parts.
ReplyDeleteThe Mongols allowed much more religious freedom within their conquered peoples. Let's compare this situation with a similar event in Western Europe that occurred shortly after the time of Mongol prosperity. The Spanish Inquisition was a judicial body created to combat heresy in Spain. While it could be said that the Spanish Inquisition is a more extreme part of an institution that is not extreme overall, let's keep something in mind. This act of extreme, brutal, religious intolerance utilizing capital punishment is described using a word also used to describe a group that was very religiously tolerant. I think, in terms of religious tolerance, the Mongols were very un-barbaric, and even progressive by allowing any and every religion to be treated the same under their rule.
Also, as a military power, the Mongols were very well organized. They used successful military tactics and something that sets them apart from other military powers of the time is how they chose their militia officers. Officers were promoted based on military expertise, not familial ties or "bloodlines" like their European counterparts. Politically and administratively, the Mongols were not as strong, but that didn't matter, because all they had to do was conquer and relocate people who were good at administrating.
Back to the "barbarity" of the Mongols. just because laws and punishments are strict doesn't make them barbaric, and the claim that discipline was not promoted isn't entirely true. For example, the Mongols felt that the less often a man was intoxicated, the more praise he was worthy of (Document 10). This encouraged Mongolian subjects and soldiers to not drink as much. Another example is the Mongolian policy on adultery. The punishment for committing adultery was death, and if a married woman was captured, she was to be left alone (romantically, that is.). For a Mongol man to be allowed to have relations with a married woman he had to follow a morbid, albeit slightly humorous, clause. This clause stated that before a man could have any relations with a married woman he had to kill her husband. While this is unconventional, logically, it makes sense. If you kill a woman's husband, she is no longer married and so relations with her are not considered adultery. (This idea of killing to have someone would later form the basic plot of every steamy romantic mystery novel for years to come.)
Also, militarily, the Mongols weren't barbaric; they were necessarily violent. The Mongol army was composed primarily of horseback archers, making them quite mobile, but at the same time, they were less heavily armored compared to other (non-nomadic) armies of the time. As a result of this, the Mongols sometimes employed tactics of deception, often placing children, women, and what were essentially crash test dummies on their horses to create the illusion of a fast army. This combined with other strokes of military genius, really showcase the Mongols military prowess and intelligence (which i would consider un-barbaric).
Like I stated before, the matter of whether or not the Mongols were barbaric is entirely subjective, but they display many advanced qualities, such as involvement in trade, and taking part in non-food producing activities. they were civilized, and they employed violence backed by forethought. They were harsh, but not hastily or unnecessarily. Frankly, the Mongols were just impressive overall,especially as a military power. For these reasons I don't think they were barbaric, and they deserve to be recognized as an important topic in the history of humanity.
TL;DR. Mongols allowed more freedom and were calculated in their violence. Pretty cool. I'd rather be a Mongol than a Spanish citizen in the 15th century.
DeleteTL;DR. Mongols allowed more freedom and were calculated in their violence. Pretty cool. I'd rather be a Mongol than a Spanish citizen in the 15th century.
DeleteI agree! They did show military genius by deception. What a great plan...
DeleteThe Mongols were extremely barbaric. It is as though they did not care about how their actions affected the civilians of the places they conquered. Their motto was basically kill, kill, kill. even though their attacks were thoughtfully planned out and they had a set of rules this does not mean they were civilized. Although they did make some trading advancements involving the silk road that was almost extinct these advances were made based on bad motives. Mongols killed anyone in their as stated in document 10 "If a woman who is captured by a Mongol has a husband no one will enter into a relationship with her. If an Unbeliever (i.e. a Mongol) desires a married woman he will kill the husband and then have relations with the woman" this is a major key in my opinion of the Mongols being barbarians. In all honesty the Mongols wouldn't know the word peaceful if it slapped them in the face. However, I do take into account that the first leader of the Mongols, Khan, was brought up with brutality. With the fact that his father was poisoned by his enemy as stated in the background information, and his mother was kidnapped khan was left to survive on his own fighting for himself. What I do not understand is if the Mongols were religious people, why were they ok with killing everyone in sight? Lots of conflicts could have been handled if the Mongols had learned how to compromise and learned how to be civilized.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you; the fact that the Mongols had a set of rules and plans during their attacks does not take away from the fact that they killed so many people.
DeleteI agree with you; the fact that the Mongols had a set of rules and plans during their attacks does not take away from the fact that they killed so many people.
DeleteMongols have long been classified as barbaric, but this misconception is hardly true. The term barbaric is described as being primitive or uncivilized. Several of these documents prove the opposite. In both documents 2 and 10 a clear law code is expressed. The punishments may have been harsh, but they strengthened their empire. Document 8 claims that a system was established to deliver messages at the rate of up to 250 miles a day. This was a great advantage in times of crisis when the king required information quickly. Overall, the Mongols weren't barbaric at all.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree! The Mongols were smart and they strategized, they reacted quickly, they were agressive but barbaric is an incorrect term to describe the Mongols.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Mongols were not barbaric at all because they were not as reckless as they seemed. The Mongols were well organized people despite the fact of them being so forceful with their attacks they knew what their goals were ahead of time and how to approach their tasks conscientiously. The Mongols helped exceed the economies and political structures of Persia and China and advanced transportation and communication. Mongols were not savages they were domesticated people who went into the world to conquer land and stayed together as one, no one man was just responsible for himself. The Mongols were very skilled people who had definite tactics and rules they used for their enemies and their own people. Them being overly assertive does not make them barbaric, maybe a little aggressive, but definitely not barbaric.
ReplyDeleteNakya Searles
I think that the Mongols were not barbaric at all because they were not as reckless as they seemed. The Mongols were well organized people despite the fact of them being so forceful with their attacks they knew what their goals were ahead of time and how to approach their tasks conscientiously. The Mongols helped exceed the economies and political structures of Persia and China and advanced transportation and communication. Mongols were not savages they were domesticated people who went into the world to conquer land and stayed together as one, no one man was just responsible for himself. The Mongols were very skilled people who had definite tactics and rules they used for their enemies and their own people. Them being overly assertive does not make them barbaric, maybe a little aggressive, but definitely not barbaric.
ReplyDeleteNakya Searles
I completely agree! The Mongols were very organized as evident in Document 8 and 10. There post system was extremely reliable and fast to work, and if they were such barbarians why did they have a system of moral (document 10)?
DeleteI believe the Mongols were not barbaric, but how they handled certain situations was barbaric. As evident by document two, they had a government or rule of some sort. Also, they had quiet cunning battle strategies. They would use their own leader's family and dummy figures on horses to give the illusion to their enemy that they were out numbered. The Mongols would dispatch a small group of men to the front lines while their stronger men went to the far left's and right's. This made it that they could attack from all sides. You could say the Mongols were masters at strategy. The Mongols did have rules and regulations within their clan; they did not have any murder, theft, or war with one another (Document 7). I do not believe the Mongols were barbarians, but misunderstood.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Mongols were perceived to be barbarians, they were not as barbaric as they seemed. The Mongols were smart they strategized in war. The Mongols had rules and regulations within there clan they were not as unruly as they were perceived to be. Agressive is a better term to use to describe the Mongols not barbaric.
ReplyDeleteThe Mongols were not necessarily the most barbaric of groups but they did, in fact, contain some barbaric traits, although we must consider the fact that there are multiple definitions of barbaric. They were extremely reckless, sometimes leaving entire cities in ruins. They had many bad traits to gather this terrible reputation of barbaric but we must take into consideration the well-organized ways they lived by. Their army was organized to ensure that everyone fought as one and retreated as one. These people were smart and had culture. They are not as barbaric as perceived but i do believe that they were somewhat barbaric.
ReplyDeleteDaniel Hyde Period 5
The Mongols in my opinion were very barbaric. They're slaughter of millions of people can be nothing short of barbaric. Which is hard to justify since a lot of the good things mongols had were heavily outweighed by a lot of problems that the mongols had. Sure they had a great political structure and such. But they still were very uncivilized even if they're civilization was civilized.
ReplyDeleteThe Mongols weren't barbaric, according to my definition. Although they did slaughter and destroy, they were very organized and cunning. They had specific battle strategies, such as sending stronger men to either side and a small attack group in center. They also had rules within their clans and a government of some sort. They also left room for religious freedom, unlike the Spanish conquistadors.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that Mongols were not barbaric. Their way of battling and army were organized and intricate. They had certain aspects in their civilization more advanced than others, such as the postal system for the messengers, which was a really effective idea.
DeleteAfter thoroughly reading through both the background essay and the documents, I feel that the Mongols were very barbaric. Starting as a small tribe and escalating to an army of over 200,000 men, the Mongols increased not only in numbers, but in viciousness as well. They were very inhumane in how they conquered the world. For example, in North China and Ancient Persia it was said that, "Slaughter was so great that the streets of the Chinese capital were greasy with human fat and flesh." (Background essay, page 2). This gives a vivid image of just how cruel and barbaric the Mongols were. I can only imagine human flesh spewed over the streets. Also, document 2 gives insight into how cruel the army was too. It states, "if a whole group of ten flees, the rest of the group of a hundred was put to death." It is very inhumane and barbaric to make a whole group of a hundred suffer for the actions of very few. The Mongols were not interested in sparring lives or hearing people out; they blamed people as a whole and made poor choices. The Mongols were a very destructive group of people who started off innocent and flourished into something awful.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the mongols were indeed barbaric savages but they were actually quite intelligent and very strategized. Others seen them as cruel but they were just another civilization with harsh rules that may have seemed inhumane. When it came to war and conquering, it was more destruction and less common sense.
DeleteAfter reading this essay and watching the YouTube video by CrashCourse, I feel that the mongols were very barbaric. Dictionary.com defines barbaric as, "Things that are barbaric, are uncivilized and brutal."(dictionary.com). This definition perfectly defines the mongols. Although they were somewhat civilized they were quite brutal. "Slaughter was so great that the streets of the Chinese capital were greasy with human fat and flesh."( Essay, pg. 2). Even though these aren't very strong reasons compared to the pros I still hold my ground on how barbaric they were.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Mongols were barbaric and the reason why lies behind the definition of barbaric which is: savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal. The Mongols behavior towards others perfectly matches this definition. The Mongols not only conquered over 10 million square miles of land, but did so while killing as many as 40 million people, which in my opinion is barbaric in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteThe barbaric natures of the Mongols can be seen in their morals and values, and Genghis Khan the leader of the Mongols shows this when he said, “The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemy, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and their daughters." In this quote Genghis Khan says that he considers the greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies. The fact that Genghis takes joy in vanquishing his enemies I be considered cruel, and he takes that idea and makes it savagely cruel by adding on that he wants to rob his enemies of their wealth and see those dear to them bathe in their tears.
The Mongols barbaric nature is not only shown through their values, but also shown through their brutal and cruel actions during war. One of the actions that exemplify the Mongols cruelty is the fact that they put other people at risk during war instead of themselves by,“having beside them their children on horseback and their womenfolk and horses; and sometimes they make figures of men and set them on horses. They do this to give the impression that a great crowd of fighting men is assembled there.”After capturing cities using these barbaric tactics they would execute prisoners in sometimes exceedingly brutal ways by burying them alive upside.
Some may argue that the Mongols had a strict law system and culture, but this does not negate the fact that Mongols were inherently barbaric as shown through their morals and behavior during war. -Juan Cruz Olea, 3rd Period
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMongolians were not barbarians because they had laws, technologies, and an army, which are aspects of civilization. In document 7 and 10, Juvaini said that theft, robbery, and adultery were against the law, and in document 6, it is mentioned that they built canals to improve transportation. In the background essay, it says that the Mongols kept engineers in the army to built bridges and roads during wars. Even though those were not their inventions, the fact that the Mongols had them in their empire and used them makes them civilized. Also, the infrastructure of their army was complex: There were chiefs over captains over captains over captains over an unit of ten soldiers. These demonstrates that they were not totally barbarians; they had regulations to follow. Every empire is brutal in conquests. Otherwise, they won't survive. They wanted to make an example of how strong they were so that other civilizations would not dare to go against them, such as it happened with Riazan in Russia. This behavior is correspondent to how Rome burned the city of Carthage so that Carthage would not fight back. I doubt Rome was ever considered barbaric.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Mongols were barbaric because of the fact that you have to be a savage to skin people and use them as a means of biological warfare and to kill your own men for the reasons to me were un reasonable I understand why but its not necessary its wasting men and there's truly no need Also to just completely slaughter villages you can leave the woman and children but they decided ton just kill everyone and destroy everything and I consider that barbaric.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jorge the Mongols to me were uncivilized and it showed in there way of life how they fought and there understanding of certain things that are required to be considered civilized or a civilization like architecture.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Mongols seemed like savages and were a barbaric civilization but honestly they showed no signs of being barbaric. They were just another civlization like any other that just had harsher laws compared to others that may have seemed inhumane. They developed population wise and character wise. Document 2 gives insight on how cruel their armies were. When dealing with war and conquering, it was more destruction and less common sense and bad choices. They did have harsh laws and documents 10 and 8 explains their law system and their government.
ReplyDelete