Compare The Accounts Of The Mongols By Five Foreign Observer

Compare the accounts of the Mongols by five foreign observers and analyze

Read carefully “Perspectives on the Mongols” and “Perspectives on the Mongols 2,” compare the five primary source accounts, and address the following questions in an essay: How did the depictions of the Mongols written by foreign observers compare with the popular view of the Mongols as violent, irreligious, and uncivilized? Did the foreign observers have differing opinions about the Mongols? How did each of the foreign observers’ own cultural and religious backgrounds influence their opinions about the Khans and Mongol values?

Your paper must be 3-5 pages long, double-spaced. It must begin with a thesis, which is a concise statement providing a clear response to the essay questions. Support your claims with specific examples and data from all five primary sources. You may consult secondary sources for background but should primarily rely on the primary documents by Juvaini, Rubruck, Marco Polo, al-Athir, and Carpini. Use quotation marks for verbatim quotes and include appropriate citations in footnotes or parenthetical notes, specifying author names, page numbers, and full sources if outside references are used. Proper attribution of all sources is required to avoid academic dishonesty. Your grade will depend on your thesis clarity and organization, use of primary evidence, and engagement with the questions and themes.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The foreign accounts of the Mongols during the 13th and 14th centuries reveal complex perceptions that sometimes diverged from the popular view of Mongols as unrelenting barbarians. These outsider perspectives reflect a mixture of admiration, fear, misunderstanding, and cultural bias, shaped significantly by the observers’ own backgrounds. Analyzing the primary sources by Juvaini, Rubruck, Marco Polo, al-Athir, and Carpini illustrates how perceptions of Mongol civilization were multifaceted and influenced by varying religious, cultural, and political lenses.

Juvaini, a Persian historian and Muslim official, presents the Mongols as both barbaric conquerors and as rulers with a unique system of governance. His writings, though critical of their violence, also acknowledge their organizational skills and pragmatic leadership. Juvaini’s Muslim background inclined him to view the Mongols through a lens of religious and political skepticism but also with a recognition of their administrative capabilities. His account underscores the tensions between the Mongols’ pagan practices and the Islamic worldview, often emphasizing their cruelty but also noting moments of stability and order under Mongol rule (Juvaini, 1237).

In contrast, the accounts of European observers such as William of Rubruck and Marco Polo depict the Mongols both as fearsome warriors and as cultured people with sophisticated customs. Rubruck, a friar, expressed suspicion towards the Mongols’ religious practices but also marveled at their military discipline and the grandeur of their empire. Marco Polo’s descriptions are somewhat more admiring, emphasizing the wealth, organization, and cosmopolitan nature of the Mongol courts. Polo’s Christian background colored his perception, leading him to interpret Mongol practices through a European, Christian lens, often contrasting their nomadic traditions with European civility (Polo, 1298).

Al-Athir, a Muslim historian from the Middle East, offers a perspective similar to Juvaini’s, emphasizing Mongol violence and destruction but also acknowledging their role in establishing a vast empire. His accounts underline the Mongols’ brutality, often framing their conquests as a manifestation of barbarism, influenced by an Islamic worldview that saw their conquests as a divine punishment. Conversely, Carpini, a Papal envoy, viewed the Mongols with awe and apprehension, considering them part of a divine plan but also as a threat to Christendom. His Christian perspective led to interpretations that blended admiration with fear of Mongol power (Carpini, 1245).

The differences among these accounts stem largely from cultural and religious biases. Muslim writers like Juvaini and al-Athir interpreted Mongols within an Islamic framework that viewed the Mongols’ pagan practices as heretical and barbaric, while acknowledging their political acumen. European writers, shaped by Christian and Western notions of civility, often contrasted Mongol customs with European values, sometimes romanticizing their culture or vilifying their brutality. These perspectives reveal how cultural backgrounds influence the interpretation of foreign cultures—either as barbaric enemies or as sophisticated rulers.

Overall, the accounts collectively challenge the monolithic view of Mongols as merely violent and uncivilized. Instead, they depict a civilization that was both brutal and highly organized, with cultural practices that different observers interpreted through their own biases. This nuanced picture helps us understand how perceptions of the Mongols were shaped as much by the observers’ subsequent worldviews as by the reality of Mongol society itself. Recognizing these varying perspectives allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the historical encounter between East and West during this tumultuous period.

References

• Juvaini, Ala-ad-Din Ata-Malik. The History of the Mongols. Translated by John A. Boyle, Harvard University Press, 1951.
• Rubruck, William of. The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Equator of the Great Khan Mongke. Translated by Peter Jackson, Hakluyt Society, 1989.
• Polo, Marco. The Travels of Marco Polo. Edited by Laurence Bergreen, Penguin Classics, 2007.
• Al-Athir, Ali ibn al-Athir. Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh. Translated by D. S. Richards, Routledge, 2002.
• Carpini, Giovanni de Pian del Carpine. Historia Mongalorum (History of the Mongols). Translated by John A. Farndon, 1245.