Were the Mongols beneficial or harmful to Eurasia? Defend your position. Use evidence from your documents we looked at in class, your reading notes, and the Crash Course. Finally, remember that you can earn up to a 95% for a thoughtful, legibile response. That reamining 5% comes from a thoughtful response to one of your fellow classmates.
128 Comments
Dian Hassan
2/8/2017 08:58:03 am
Based on Document 14 On marriage the Mongols were beneficial to Eurasia in the larger scale. This is due to the fact that they contained law codes called the Yusa also known as the Mongol Law, and they also had the Bilik which was a set of rules to live by. This is like the 12 columns the Ronan's had to maintain order in their conquered areas. This set a foundation to many modern societies and legal systems in the mordern day. Although they did slaughter, and marry countless amount of women, they're innovations in law and they're religious tolerance shows the start of modernization in governmental structures.
Reply
esteban alarcon
2/8/2017 10:02:39 am
Dian, I absolutely agree with you. Their hierarchal composure while maintaining a massive population was incomparable to any other empire, exhibiting their benefit to further social development. The mongols, as you mentioned, imposed a particular system of government, permanently leaving a mark on the regions they once ruled.
Reply
Daniel Hart
2/8/2017 05:58:58 pm
Dian i completely agree with you. I felt Mongols were very helpful in Eurasia as well by the many things they brought to Eurasia.
Reply
Steven Robinson
2/8/2017 06:45:00 pm
I believe the Mongols were harmful to Eurasia. This is because the identities of nations could be greatly affected or even wiped out due to Mongol conquest. Many religions with clashing beliefs were forced to coexist. This is shown in The Journey of William Rubrick when the spokespeople for Buddhist, Christian, and Islamic tribes met to decide which was right. They decided "just as God gave different fingers to the hand so has he given different ways to men" (William). This shows how disputes just couldn't be settled by the Mongols.
Reply
Jared Nolen
2/8/2017 06:51:49 pm
Dian, I do agree with the points that you have given but I still feel like you are not looking at the raw data. The Mongols did provide a system of government which was beneficial to regions. Sadly, this government could not be achieved with mass genocides. In document 2 we learn about the murders of millions that were performed by the Mongols. Therefore I can not say they are more beneficial than negative.
Reply
Kaniz Momin
2/8/2017 07:01:58 pm
I do agree with you on the benefits the Mongols brought with their laws and set rules for behavior, but they did cause a lot of harm to the status of women. The women had no freedom for who they wish to choose as a partner, however if men desired them they were allowed to go to the extent of murder in order to build relations with them. In no way is this fair, and with how many areas they conquered they spread these same sick ideas to all these new areas. This in no way helped reduce the gender inequality that was also occurring at the time, it only added to it.
Reply
esteban alarcon
2/8/2017 10:03:05 am
The Mongols, overall, positively impacted Eurasia through facilitation of trade, development and uniting regions to collaborate and help one another advance. In my document ( document 15), the 12.74 million square miles of the Mongolian empire are shown, exhibiting the vast regions the Mongolians brought together in order to facilitate trade. They revived the Silk Road trading system, imposing taxes in order to enhance other trade routes. Mongols also took part in the expansion of Islam, helping the religion spread through trade and militarism.
Reply
Abigail Spence
2/8/2017 11:40:39 am
Document 6 also talked about the Mongols' trade with China and how the Mongols recieved alot and benefited from the Chinese. However, this trade gave the Mongols a taste of what China had to offer and and resulted in their invasion and the Chin's downfall. Because of this new conquest, or what some consider terriorism, many people dies. The census showed a great decline from 50 million to 9 million. These numbers may not be accurate, but they give a idea of the destruction that came with relations with the Mongols.
Reply
Cindy Bishop
2/8/2017 12:28:27 pm
Esteban, I agree with you that the mongols impacted Eurasia in a positive way through everything they did for the lands they conquered. They impacted the areas they conquered positively in the ways you supported like trade and uniting regions through the lands they conquered in the empire they built through the years.
Reply
Brad Pilcher
2/8/2017 12:28:48 pm
Esteban, I completely agree with your claim. They did indeed facilitate trade so well along their routes that it was said that one could walk from one side to the other with a gold plate on his head and not get robbed, which goes to show such dominance in the area and strong protection among the routes.
Reply
Blake Williams
2/8/2017 01:17:46 pm
I agree with your statement Esteban. The Mongols really excelled at taking over society's and pushing their influences into those people's everyday life. Since they owned the Silk Road they could control what went in and out of their regions, this gave them a chance to influence culture on others.
Reply
Abigail Spence
2/8/2017 11:30:22 am
The Mongols were more harmful to Eurasia than beneficial based on negative historical events that they are associated with. In Document 6, the Mongols and China traded, which was beneficial to them, but the Mongols wanted all of China's treasures. This greed for treasure resulted in chaos and death throughout the Chin Empire.
Reply
Morgan Brown
2/8/2017 02:34:58 pm
I agree that the Mongols were very harmful. An important negative effect of the Mongols rule was also the black death. The black death is the plague that wiped out huge groups of people and damaged local economies and changed the lives of millions by killing family members and neighbors. Their greedy conquests not only destroyed peoples lives but the diseases they spread and their compulsive nature led to their own downfall.
Reply
Leanna McKenzie
2/8/2017 03:19:29 pm
Abigail, I would have to disagree with your arguments on the Mongols being harmful because they did beneficial things for Eurasia. Before the period of Mongolian conquest, Silk Road trades had almost dwindled to no existence but the Mongols revived it and made it not only safer but also more efficient. They respected their conquered people enough to allow them their religious rights and they also accepted Chinese government and philosophies as evident from the Yuan dynasty. The city of Karakorum had mosques, Buddhist temples and churches highlighting their diversity and acceptance of others.
Reply
Fatema Momin
2/8/2017 04:53:58 pm
I agree that the Mongols were more harmful. They not only spread the black plague which killed many people, and also the fact that they attacked and destroyed cities and the people in them. They also killed many people like the fall of Nishapur (doc 4), and not only people but anything that was living. They were very destructive and not helpful to cities at all.
Reply
Nathaniel Kem
2/8/2017 08:15:03 pm
I do understand and agree from the point of view of your document that the Mongols were more harmful than beneficial, but is this practice described not the same manner the Chinese regarded the Malay traders during the same time period?
Reply
Chayce Walker
2/8/2017 12:20:56 pm
I believe that in document 9, the author Marco Polo is advocating that the mongols were not harmful. My reasoning behind this is because in his excerpt, he discusses how the mongols had roughly 200,000 horses and thousands of boats for travel and trade. In no way did Marco Polo ever mention that these tools were there for the use of war. These tools were also almost constantly in use as well, so they couldn't be reserved items in the case the mongols wanted to pillage anybody.
Reply
john koroly
2/8/2017 04:22:51 pm
I agree that the Mongols weren't harmful. Marco Polo really only stated the struggles that merchants went through. His main argument was just talking about their posts for trade. In the article there isn't any information of how Mongols were harmful to anyone.
Reply
Cole Wilson
2/8/2017 06:51:07 pm
I agree with you, Chayce. The fact that nomadic conquerors could be so trade encouraging is often looked over, and I'd find Marco Polo to be a reliable source for this information as well.
Reply
Brad Pilcher
2/8/2017 12:24:00 pm
Based on Document I, which was on military duty, was seemingly helpful to the mongol controlled Eurasia AND harmful to Sovereign Eurasia, because it was based on how the military was supported by the Government. The soldiers were given many weapons, tools, foodstuffs and armours to aid them in battle, conquest, and transport. The armour was very tightly woven and durable for the time. They were given two composite bows and 60 arrows for hunting and slaughter. For travel, 5 horses.
Reply
Blake Williams
2/8/2017 01:14:34 pm
One could say that the Mongols were beneficial to Eurasia.
Reply
Andrew Riner
2/8/2017 03:54:26 pm
Hey Blake,
Reply
dora vang
2/8/2017 08:40:22 pm
The Mongolians were all about control, and they looked down upon those who had no control. An individual shows control when he/she drinks on occasion and doesn't let a nonliving commodity like alcohol dictate his/her life, but alcoholics have no control over themselves when it comes to the constant craving of this substance, so alcoholics were looked down upon by the Mongols due to their lack of control. I hope that kind of cleared things up.
Morgan Brown
2/8/2017 02:29:20 pm
Using document 12 it is shown how the mongols are not all that great or beneficial. The mongols drank way too much! To only have drank one alcoholic drink is a praiseworthy thing to the mongols since almost no men didn't heavily drink. This shows how compulsive and barbarian like the mongols where and how they were people unfit for ruling. The crash course discusses the effects like the black plague and other side effects of the mongols empire.
Reply
Cedric Pfeiler
2/8/2017 04:28:13 pm
While my article does not explain the apparent drinking problems that the Mongols had, my article (#4) describes the horrendous acts the Mongols committed when they attacked a city. Some of these acts, I assume, may have been because of too much drinking.
Reply
Rola Goke-Pariola
2/8/2017 04:39:02 pm
I'd have to disagree with you due to the fact that I don't think that document provided significant enough evidence to make a generalization about the success of the entire empire. Though drunkenness may have been a common trait among some Mongolian men, it does not represent the whole, otherwise the Mongols would not have made the societal and economic advancements they did. I do agree that they did have some questionable practices, and they did spread disease because of their size, however I do not believe that undermines their accomplishments.
Reply
Adeline Harris
2/8/2017 06:08:09 pm
Hey Morgan! Using your article, I think that is a very reasonablw generalization to make. Essentially, they could be construed as glorified drunks! Drinking alcohol can lead to terrible, impulsive decisions. This could have lead to their barbaric lifestyle or perhaps helped it live on!
Reply
Anthony Rodriguez
2/8/2017 02:43:08 pm
Based on document 7, Charles J. Halperin states that the mongols were beneficial to Eurasia rather than harmful. In the document, he claims that "The [Mongol] Yuan emperors built canals to improve transportation and communication" (Doc 7). John Green stated that they developed a "pony express like system" that had horses and riders in which they could rapidly pass on information to others. Also, in document 7 it states that the Persian Silk industry actually benefited from the Mongol conquest. It helped to open up contacts with China. In the crash course, John Green states that the mongols "reinvigorated cross-Eurasian trade," they valued trade in order to keep their empire safe and secure. So, in reality the Mongols were extremely helpful to Eurasia, despite the fact of them killing many people throughout Eurasia.
Reply
Priyanka Patel
2/8/2017 03:00:52 pm
I agree with you that the Mongols were beneficial rather than harmful. Trade was a reason for why the Mongols were beneficial. Also, the Persian Silk industry had benefited because of the Mongols which shows how they really benefited Eurasia even though they had killed many people.
Reply
Madison Oligny
2/8/2017 09:32:18 pm
I agree with Priyanka, that the vast trading network and religious diversity of the Mongolian Empire was beneficial to Eurasia. The Mongolian culture also spread along the trade routes. "Drunkenness is considered and honorable thing by them." Said John of Piano Carpini (document 12). What he is saying is that if you celebrate that it is a good thing. Part of their culture was to have large celebrations.
Rebecca Shaffer
2/8/2017 03:26:29 pm
I completely agree, the Mongals helped the trade industry. Like you stated, although they killed many people, the trade routes would never have succeeded as well as they did without the Mongals.
Reply
Hank Nolan
2/8/2017 07:40:59 pm
Document 8 also showed eidence of the mongols being more beneicial because their was no kind of theft or robbery inside of the boarders. I agree that by the evidence shown they were more beneficial than harmful.
Reply
Chayce walker
2/12/2017 07:02:32 pm
I agree with you that the mongols were beneficial in Asia. Like in my passage, written from Marco Polo, he discusses how the mongols had an elaborate messaging system, which contained many horseman and ships. This also help them trade with others, which brought more luxuries through Asia via the Silk Road.
Reply
Priyanka Patel
2/8/2017 02:56:49 pm
Overall, the Mongols were beneficial to Eurasia by promoting trade, uniting regions together, and spreading religion. In my document, it had mentioned that in the Mongol city of Karakorum, there were pagans (Buddhist) temples, mosques, and churches (Document 5). The Mongols took part in trading throughout the region which helped the economy of China. They also had conquered a vast amount of territory. This led to the unification of the territory through religion but also through a government system.
Reply
Leanna McKenzie
2/8/2017 03:11:03 pm
The Mongols were indeed beneficial to Eurasia because it united a vast majority of land with territories expanding as far east as east china and as west as the Caspian Sea. This unification of land led to re-establishing the use of the Silk Road for a much safer trade within the region. Not only did they unify the land but they also established trade with Europe which help spread religion to the west. With the territories, there was religious liberties that was not present until Mongol conquering because of their tolerance for all religions and cultures [Document 5]. Even when they invaded china, yes they did segregate the Chinese from the mongols but they accepted their government structure, culture, and philosophies. Even though they did adopt some Chinese culture, they refrained from a patriarchal society as they promoted gender equality. Islam and Judaism both freely spread through Mongol trade routes because of the lack of discrimination of religion. It also allowed the intermingle of cultures and teachings in this area. The mongols were indeed a warlike tribe but they successfully conquered the Eurasian sub-continent, established one of the safest trade routes of the time and tolerated different religions and cultures.
Reply
Rebecca Shaffer
2/8/2017 03:26:58 pm
According to The Journey of William of Rubrick, by William of Rubrick, the Mongols were more helpful than harmful. Friar William of Rubrick, was sent by the church to make trade agreements with the Mongols. During his visit he was sent Mongke Khans scribes that spoke for their master, " He...wishes you all [Christians, Muslims and pagans] to meet together and hold a conference," (document 10). After the meeting Khan professed "We Mongols believe that there is one God...But...He [has] given different ways to men" (document 10). This shows that the Mongols were religiously tolerant. That they did not discriminate on religion and would trade with all religions. This helped the trade due to the fact that many traders were of different religions.
Reply
Andrew Riner
2/8/2017 03:30:23 pm
Unfortunately, Document 1 does not provide direct insight into whether or not the Mongols benefitted Eurasia. However, I still do believe they did based off of some inferences I can make from my document. The Mongol Military was very well equipped. They were dressed in silk and a breast plate of leather covered iron scales and were given a good amount of weapons. From this, I see no reason as to why this wouldn't give Eurasia an upper-hand. Defense was strong. I admit I could be looking at this in an entirely wrong point of view so I am definitely open to critique but because of my limitations, I had to infer a lot about what I think could have benefitted them from this secondary source.
Reply
Andrew Ivins
2/8/2017 03:45:13 pm
The Mongols were a helpful group. Even though they had conquered many regions, once they had settled in, they were not harmful to the natives of that land. In document 7, Charles J. Halperin says, "In both China and Persia the Mongols had taken up residence among their new subjects, garrisoning cities and gradually blending to a degree with the [local] societies". This led to great economic improvements. Charles J. Halperin also says, "the Mongol Empire made significant contributions to the political institutions, economic development, and cultural diversity of many lands". This shows that the Mongols not only benefited themselves, by conquering land for their own use, but also benefited the world and helping create the society that we live in today. Halperin then goes on to say that the mongols had also created canals to improve transportation, communication, and what I assume, also trade. With all of their benefits to the world, it is easy to conclude that the Mongols were helpful and definitely not hurtful.
Reply
Susana Negrete
2/8/2017 05:35:11 pm
I see your point on how the Mongols helped create cultural diversity along with the development of economics and politics; however, I believe the Mongols did cause harm to the people whom they conquered. Document two draws the point that the Mongols battled until the opponent surrendered. When they do surrender, John of Plano Carpini observes that "they seek out those artificers [artisans] among them and keep these, but the others, with the exception of those they wish to have as slaves, they will kill with the axe..."
Reply
Cindy bishop
2/8/2017 03:58:07 pm
The mongols were a helpful group of people, They helped Eurasia more than they harmed them. The mongols helped spread the trade with in people as well as create unity between regions and spread their own culture throughout the regions they conquered. The mongols as a group were very united as a whole and had strict rules as to what they should do. In document 1, it talks about their military duty and what they were supposed to do in certain situations. For example becoming a soldier at the age of 14 if you are a man. As well as what they were expected to wear during their survices. As the mongols spread all throughout the regions they conquered they spread their religious ceremonies as well as customs and forbad most of the areas they conquered to practice any of what they spread throughout. Over all the mongols spread the trade between Eurasia.
Reply
Taylor Gerald
2/8/2017 04:13:58 pm
I completely agree. I think the Mongols' religious tolerance helped bring unity to Eurasia. No one was forced to convert to anything, so different religions could coexist in the Mongol empire without any problems.
Reply
Taylor Gerald
2/8/2017 04:06:55 pm
Based on article 10, the Mongols were beneficial to Eurasia. In article 10, it talks about Mongke Khan's religious tolerance. In the article he stated "God gave different fingers to the hand so has he given different ways to men". As the Mongols conquered more territory, they became exposed to different religions. Many of the Mongol leaders even converted to the various religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism (Article 10). This religious tolerance made it possible for different religions to grow and prosper under Mongol rule. With this mindset, the Mongols created the first ever "crazy medieval, Eurasian NAFTA", as stated in the crash course video.
Reply
John Koroly
2/8/2017 04:11:02 pm
According to article 9, written by Marco Polo, the Mongols showed no threat to Eurasia. Marco didnt cite anything bad he had noticed in the article. What he noticed were their trading posts and routes called Yams. All of these posts would hold more than 200,000 horses. The ports also all held 10,000 boats for over sea trade. These Yams were never used for war but only for trade so this truly benefited Eurasia.
Reply
MC Toth
2/8/2017 04:47:00 pm
I agree the Mongols weren't harmful to Eurasia. Marco Polo stated the connections and tactis they used to spread information/goods accross the region. His main argument was discussing the Mongol posts for trade and interconnections. I like how you mentioned there was no outbreak of war around these posts, only trade and communication, which was beneficial to the mongols and Eurasia, instead of harmful.
Reply
Cedric Pfeiler
2/8/2017 04:24:16 pm
According to my Document, which was document 4, the Mongols were horrible for Eurasia. It was written by Jobayni, who experienced first hand what the Mongols did. The Document describes the Mongols as they "descended from the walls and began to slay." It describes how absolutely vicious they were, as they did not even cats and dogs remained alive, in other words, everything was killed.
Reply
Rola Goke-Pariola
2/8/2017 04:32:10 pm
In the grand scheme of things, the Mongols were quite beneficial to Eurasia. Their rule, specifically under the leadership of Genghis Khan, brought about a period of long lasting peace within territories he had conquered. The Mongolian Empire's policy for religion was a very tolerant one— all religions were welcome to be practiced. The empire encouraged and facilitated the growth of scholarship and artistic creativity. Through trade, the cities of the Mongolian Empire became wealthy because the trade routes were so safe. The whole of Eurasia went through a Golden Age of sorts under Mongolian rule. Some may argue that the Mongols were barbaric due to their tendency to conquer territories through brutally fought wars. This may be partially true, however the conquered territories ended up better off under the control of leaders like Genghis Khan, who is often falsely depicted as savage. This is not the case seeing as Eurasia flourished with the help of this great empire that set the foundation for generations of Europeans and Asians to come.
Reply
Patrick Wright
2/8/2017 05:24:42 pm
I completely agree with you Rola, the Mongolian way of religious tolerance was rare to see in this era and helped foster a more tolerant world with less conflict due to religion.
Reply
MC Toth
2/8/2017 04:40:38 pm
According to “The Yams” (article 9), written by Marco Polo, the Mongols showed no threat to Eurasia. In the article, it stated, “the Great Khan’s messengers travel throughout his dominion...”. Horses and people are sent to relay important information to all the province, keeping them updated and connected. Every 25 miles there was a posting station so the horses din’t get tired and the spread of news wouldn’t slow down. Marco polo also wrote about the trading posts and trade routes called Yams. These posts held more than 200,000 horses. If there was a conflict with a river or lake blocking a province, the ports also kept 3-4 ferry boats for over sea trade and couriers/messengers that needed to pass. These Yams were used for trade and communication; two very important things in expanding and advancing territories. After watching the crash course, I also believe the Mongols positively impacted Eurasia. They increased the Silk Road trading system by imposing taxes in order to enhance other trading routes. The Mongols also took part in the expansion of Islam, and made it more of a Universalizing religion. Relating back to our previous blog post, I believe merging of cultures and religions effects the regions in more positive ways than negative; as the Mongols effected Eurasia in more good ways than bad.
Reply
Abir Ghallab
2/8/2017 05:09:21 pm
MC,
Reply
Fatema Momin
2/8/2017 04:47:11 pm
Based on document 4, the Mongols were more harmful than beneficial in Eurasia. The Mongols were very compulsive and destructive in nature. They were harmful to cities and people that didn't do anything, like the city of Nishapur, north of Iran."Not even cat and dogs should be left alive...They severed the heads of the slain from their bodies and heaped them in piles, keeping those of men separate from those of the women and children" (Doc 4). Based on the document, the Mongols acted in this behavior because the husband of one of the Genghis Khan's daughter died there in battle. Because she was so mad with grief of her husband she had all the city's inhabitants killed for revenge. Because of the compulsive behavior, the Mongols did more harm and good.
Reply
Rachel Kudina
2/8/2017 04:54:45 pm
The Mongols were very harmful to Eurasia. They conquered over vast amounts of land and tore empires apart just because they could. Yes, they might have have improved trading and set laws and were able to unite people under religion, but just to only later wipe all of it out with a deadly plague. The Mongols' approach was mainly built on violence, yet they were always trying to adapt peaceful religions all at the same time, which caused more turmoil and war, which is another reason why their reign came to a halt after just just eighty years. The Mongols may have improved the world in some ways, but all in all the impact they left was negative.
Reply
Zayed Makboul
2/8/2017 07:15:54 pm
I completely agree with your statement about how the mongols opened up trade but then caused the plague. They may have had the intent to do good but sadly they also caused major problems
Reply
Abir Ghallab
2/8/2017 05:05:41 pm
According to the evidence given in Document 7, the Mongols were beneficial to Eurasia. This document was written by Charles J. Halperin in 1985 and according to him and the evidence he provides throughout the document the Mongols were without a doubt beneficial. As he does realize everything the Mongols did was not all positive he does mention "...but the Mongol Empire made significant contributions to the political institutions, economic development, and cultural diversity of many lands." (Doc 7). This shows how the Mongols were influential in several aspects of Eurasia. To support this claim Halperin states "The [Mongol] Yuan emperors built canals to improve transportation and communication. In China agriculture and [craft] production continued unabated." (Doc 7). The creation of these canals allowed for many gains including improved trading and the spread of cultural diffusion made possible by the increased communications. It is seen again that trading improved as "The Persian silk industry also benefited from the Mongol conquest because of the contacts that opened up with China" (Doc 7). Many cities began to prosper "as part of the tax-free customs zones by the Pax Mongolica" (Doc 7). Even though in the eyes of many the Mongols are only seen as a destructive group, the truth is there were many gains behind the scenes.
Reply
The Mongols were overall more beneficial than harmful to Eurasia. They increased trade, spread goods and ideas, and they unified the regions they conquered. Document 12 talks about how the Mongols felt about drinking. Although there is not much information, it provides a general idea of their way of thinking. The Mongols did not really like people drinking to the point of getting drunk. They even preferred people to not drink at all. However, they knew they could not stop people from drinking, so it was tolerated. They would let people to make their own decisions, even if it was getting drunk, so that they could later reflect on their actions.
Reply
Tessah McAllister
2/8/2017 06:41:37 pm
I disagree. Although the mongols did increase trade, and spread ideas, I believe that they were more harmful because of how destructive they were. However, I agree with you saying they were beneficial because they unified the regions they conquered.
Reply
maryury deloya
2/8/2017 07:01:14 pm
I defentity agree with you about how it provides us with how the Mongols would think. Although they were heavy on enforcing the crime laws, the Mongols were overall peaceful and open minded.
Reply
Patrick Wright
2/8/2017 05:21:42 pm
I believe that the Mongol Empire was beneficial and helpful to its citizens and all of Eurasia based on the evidence presented in document 5. William of Rubrick reports that the city of Karakorum had well established districts for commerce and with each district possessing multiple places of worship for various religions. This firsthand account of the Mongol's religious tolerance and city organization proves that their citizens had a good and stable life with religious freedom and a free market to peddle goods. The document also discusses the humble appearance of Khan's palace in comparison to some monasteries, this illustrates that government funds were not squandered on extravagance and luxury, rather used for infrastructure, markets, and places of worship.
Reply
Lucas Magalhaes
2/8/2017 05:25:54 pm
Based on the information given in document 6, I believe that the Mongols were more harmful to Eurasia than they were beneficial. The Mongols saw China as a "vast treasure house to be plundered," meaning that they really wanted all of the valuable goods that China held. And when the census were taken by both the China empire in 1195 and the Mongols in 1235-6, the numbers given show how much of impact the Mongols had to the empire's population after those years went by. When China took their census, they had a population of about 50 million people. When the Mongols took theirs, the population was at about 9 million people. In the document, it states that a possible reason for this was because of "the general state of chaos in northern China," but it could also be because of the Mongol's greed of wanting the treasure and doing whatever it takes to get it. This would be a more reasonable reason for why the numbers were so low. The Mongols had a history of killing many people, numbering up to the millions, and the 50 million to 9 million change in population is no exception from that.
Reply
Grace Babcock
2/8/2017 05:39:29 pm
I completely agree with you Lucas. The murderous ways of the Mongols was a harmful practice, and the number of lives sacrificed did not make up for the number of lives accosted. When striving to get something that you want, you sometimes lose sight of it along the way and become greedy. This is what the Mongols did.
Reply
Grace Babcock
2/8/2017 05:31:23 pm
The Mongols were not beneficial to Eurasia, and they did more harm than good. While the Mongols did conquer a vast number of territories, the ways they went about it were brutal and murderous (ruthless). According to the Crash Course, the Mongols created tension between them and outsiders, making a segregated society. The Mongols imposed a strict social class system, and overtook many cultures, creating an empire where the Mongol way was the true way.
Reply
Kes McGuire
2/8/2017 05:43:19 pm
( I personally think that the Mongols were extremely beneficial to Eurasia, but I have to pose a negative stance in the argument because of my document. So, without further ado, cue the Mongol yelling in the distance.)
Reply
Susana Negrete
2/8/2017 05:50:10 pm
Based on the information provided by document two, I believe that the Mongols were more harmful to Asia than they were helpful. John of Plano Carpini states in this document that the Mongols "make a strong attack with engines [catapults or trebuchets ] and arrows and they do not leave fighting by day or night, so that those inside the fortress give no sleep". Towards the end of the document, Carpini mentions that when the Mongols' enemies finally surrendered, they would kill all except artisans and "those who they wish to have as slaves". John Green describes the Mongols as "seriously brutal conquerors".
Reply
Maggie Huff
2/8/2017 06:50:57 pm
I disagree based on my article, however I think your information is extremely fascinating! I was not aware that the Mongols basically killed off the entire population of the land they conquered, and with this in mind it is easy to understand how they were considered "seriously brutal," as John Green would say.
Reply
Joanna Shephard
2/8/2017 06:56:14 pm
I do agree that the Mongolian tactics were brutal, but that can not overshadow all that they have done. For example, multiple primary sources in document 8 speak the improvements the Mongols made. Moroccan scholar Ibn Banttuta wrote on how pack animals could be left unattended because people would not steal in the 14th century. Part of the reason for the lack of theft was the severity of the Mongolian law against criminals but over all I believe they did help Eurasia.
Reply
Daniel Hart
2/8/2017 05:57:33 pm
I believe the Mongols were more beneficial for Eurasia during the post classical period because allowed more cultures, gave the people freedom of religion, and expanded trade. Mongols traded various things that became popular in the areas they traded with such as rice. Yes they were negatives in bringing diseases and more death but they did more that was beneficial than harmful in Eurasia.
Reply
Chloe Vernex-Loset
2/8/2017 06:16:34 pm
I agree with you. The Mongols definitely had some negative aspects, but they allowed many places to be their own little thing with basically extra "policemen" because the Mongols knew how to keep order and how to enforce the rules. They were a very positive force of nature, that just happened to kill millions of people and thought that happiness was the suffering of their enemies.
Reply
Aubrey Stewart
2/8/2017 06:06:49 pm
Based on what I read from document six, I think the Mongols caused more harmful than beneficial. Throughout the battle they used violent techniques of killing, for example,"sometimes they would even take the fat of the people they kill and, melt it, throw it onto the houses, and where he fire falls on this fat it is almost inextinguishable" (document 2) Methods like that could scare people in different regions, there violent ways might have got them the land they wanted, but it was in a very harmful way.
Reply
Chloe Vernex-Loset
2/8/2017 06:09:22 pm
According to document 11, the Mongols were very respectful and patient when it came to each other and they didn't view women crazily inferior. There wasn't much of anything about how they were to others, but based on the information given the Mongols weren't harmful to Eurasia, they were helpful.
Reply
Adeline Harris
2/8/2017 06:16:08 pm
After reading Document 8, I would say that the Mongols were not harmful to Eurasia. The article's main idea is of the strict theft laws throughout the empires. It was even said that these laws were so enforced that one could walk across the territory with a gold plate on their head and not get robbed. These strict laws could pose an argument that the Mongols had morals, meaning they were not as barbaric as some may believe. Even those whose land had been invaded by the Mongols supported their laws. "Although there were many pack animals in the Kipchak area, these could be left unattended because of the severity of [Mongol] laws against theft" (Doc 8). It is difficult to fathom that peoples who would place such importance of personal property would be this barbaric. There may be many different negative contributions the Mongols have, but I do not believe they are as gruesome as some believe or say.
Reply
Tessah McAllister
2/8/2017 06:26:33 pm
Based on the evidence provided in document 6, I believe that the mongol's were more harmful to Eurasia. The mongols saw China as a very valuable area, and they wanted to have the treasures in China. The mongols were a violent group, and killed many people to obtain riches. In document 6 it talks about the differing numbers in the census's taken. China accounted 50 million people, and the mongols counted 9 million. According to the article, these numbers show the mongols terrorist tactics to be similar to a genocide. I think the mongols were not beneficial because they were so destructive.
Reply
Jada Dixon
2/8/2017 06:57:21 pm
I agree with your point if view because the Mongols brutally attacked during invasion. Recorded in Document 3, in Kozelsk(Russia) the Mongols left no suvivors and in Royazen(Russia) they left few survivors. This definitely similar to a genocide considering the fact that they left the opposing cities "desolate". I am sure their violence did not stop there.
Reply
Jade Gooden
2/8/2017 08:57:58 pm
I agree with your argument of how the Mongols were more harmful than helpful. They show through countless acts of how brutal they were towards their interactions with civilians. Pulling from my document (4) and other evidence they would burn down cities and slaughter masses, which was something they were quite notable for that causes fear and terror to groups. With these tactics they would also push out established societies from their homelands to foreign areas which is quite unsettling and loss of culture.
Reply
James Gerdes
2/8/2017 06:27:07 pm
The Mongols were beneficial to Eurasia. While they did slaughter many people, the Mongols were still civilized which can be seen by the yasa and the bilik (Document 13). The yasa and bilik were codes written by the Mongols to lay out a code of laws and way of life. The Mongols being civilized was beneficial, rather, not detrimental because the Mongols left these places with a new culture and perhaps less patriarchal views. The Mongols also helped to unite Eurasia and promote trade. They helped to unite Eurasia by conquering areas between the Chinese coast to the Caspian Sea. One way that they had helped to promote trade was by making routes safer. 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.” The Mongols had also spread culture across Eurasia by relocating people to different areas as needed for jobs, such as record keeping. As for religions, religious diversity was not harmed by the Mongols. The conquered territories were left to practice whatever religion they wanted by the Mongols. The Mongols were beneficial to Eurasia by increasing trade and making trade routes safer, by uniting Eurasia, and by not being detrimental to religion or culture.
Reply
Maggie Huff
2/8/2017 06:41:46 pm
Depending solely on my document (document 10), the Mongols were far more helpful than they were harmful. This document is a first hand account of a Christian leader who enters the empire with the intentions of trade. The Mongols were tolerant of different religions in their time as we know from previous knowledge, which is demonstrated in Friar William's account. He is called in by Mongke Khan along with two other religious representatives. After presenting their beliefs to Khan, he states, "We the Mongols believe that there is but one god, by whom we live and by whom we die ....But just as God gave different fingers to the hand, so has he given different ways to men." This viewpoint on religion allowed trade throughout the empire to occur easily without conflict, therefore proving that the Mongols were more helpful than harmful.
Reply
Rachel Panettiere
2/8/2017 07:22:28 pm
I completely agree with your point of view on this document. The Mongols' tolerance of other religions is one of their most reputable qualities, and it greatly benefited Eurasia by increasing trade throughout the region. It also created less conflict which helped maintain and expand the territory.
Reply
Cole Wilson
2/8/2017 06:48:01 pm
When looked at from a modern, hindsighted view, the Mongols were very beneficial to the world we live in today. From reinvigorating the fallen Silk Road that declined with the Gupta and Roman empires, to bringing in beneficial governments such as the Mughals. A backside to mongol invasion was a massive and bloody conquest that led to their rule, but without the mongol rule technology that originated in different parts of the new mongol empire was diffused, such as accurate calendars from Greece and tug sails from South Asia.
Reply
Leda Catak
2/8/2017 07:07:57 pm
Cole, I can see how you are convinced to believe that the Mongols were beneficial, but I think your statement is utterly false.
Reply
Madigan Hargrove
2/8/2017 07:39:49 pm
Cole, I agree with Leda's argument. Is advanced technology worth more than a human life? I am not attempting to attack your sense of morality, simply just refuting your point. The Mongols killed many people during the expansion of their empire. When all of the figures in document three are added together, the death toll comes out to approximately 5,507,000 casualties. While advanced technologies are great, it is best if they are not achieved by massacre.
Reply
Jared Nolen
2/8/2017 06:48:04 pm
I believe that the Mongols were negative to the Eurasian region. The Mongols were known for their extreme tactics when it came to their military. Often they were known to tear an entire city down and slaughter everyone in it. In document 6 we learn of the mass genocides that are often committed by the Mongolian people."A census taken by the Chin Empire in 1195 showed a population of fewer than 50 million people, yet when the Mongols took their first survey of the newly won domain the populations number was around 9 million." This shows how detrimental the Mongols can be to a region. The ruthless murder of millions of people is in-humane and nothing good will ever come from it. Therefore the Mongols were extremely negative to the Eurasian regions.
Reply
Aaronweber Jodesty
2/8/2017 06:48:49 pm
With multiple point of views relating to which area you are from considering the Chinese or the Europeans. All in all i feel like the mongols were actually harmful to eurasia in the fact that due to so many problems that the mongols have caused during the time of their reign and expansion. In the crash course video John green explains how the Mongols were extremely brutal conquers and that they destroyed entire cities. Which can be assumed you that the empire was reigned through natural fear. Also the mongols were responsible for the black death opening up trade was a wise factor but in the long run it spread a harmful diseases which lead to mass amount of death throughout the kingdom. In this case John green describes the mongols as a group of people that promoted " slaughter and senseless destruction".
Reply
Joanna Shephard
2/8/2017 06:50:21 pm
Based on document 8, a secondary document that compiled primary sources from the rule of Genghis Khan and the Mongols they were beneficial to Eurasia. First, they were very good at maintaining safety within their borders. In the document the account of an official within the Mongol Empire name Jovayni conveys how dangerous things such as theft and immoral things such as adultery were eradicated at the time of Genghis Khan and his rule. Another primary source states ,"...no one except the owner would dare pick up even a whip lying on the ground," implying the decrease on theft under the power of the Mongols. Because of this momentum shift in safety, I would say that the Mongols were indeed beneficial to Eurasia.
Reply
Jada Dixon
2/8/2017 06:50:48 pm
George Marshall recorded the agreed estimates of casualties during the Mongol invasion from 1220 CE to 1258 CE. According Document 3, I would overall agree that the Mongol invasion was more harmful to Eurasia than beneficial. The number of casualties were overwhelming. For instance, during 1258 in Baghdad approximately 800,000-2,000,000 deaths were recorded. This truly is based on your perspective on what is morally right. The Mongols had brutal invasions. Genghis Khan even stated himself that the "greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy and ...to see his cities reduced to ashes...and to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters". This screams tons of bloodshed when invading opposing forces, as well as the injustice toward women during this time. The result is the spread of bloody war and patriarchy in the region.
Reply
Courtney M
2/9/2017 09:03:54 am
I agree with your statement in regards to document 3. Document 3 specifically highlights the statistical facts associated with the Mongol invasions. Your response was very well thought out as well.
Reply
Kaniz Momin
2/8/2017 06:56:04 pm
think the Mongols were harmful to Eurasia. The Mongols brought two codes of conduct, the Yusa and the Bilik. These did maintain strict law ideologies, however while maintaining certain behaviors, they further pushed gender inequality. According to document 13, if you were a married woman and were desired by an unbeliever, he was able to kill your husband and obtain relations with you. After the development of agriculture, the female population in all developing civilizations received a more inferior status in comparison to men. To further deteriorate their status, according to document 14, men were able to buy women at high prices from their parents. If this doesn’t completely wane the importance or rank of women how much further would they have gone?
Reply
maryury deloya
2/8/2017 06:58:04 pm
Based on my readings in document 8, the Mongols were not harmful to Eurasia. The Mongols were able to form a strict law again theft. This means they had order in during their ruling period. Instead of allowing chaos throughout their area, they knew how to maintain control between their people. As stated in document 8, "Minhaj al-Dun Juzjani writes that no one except the owner would dare to pick up even a whip lying on the ground". Not only theft is prohibited but also war, strife, bodily harm, nor murder were not allowed. It demonstrates how the Mongols had a somewhat peaceful society among themselves.
Reply
Leda Catak
2/8/2017 07:02:15 pm
Document 8, quite intriguingly, made the Mongols sound beyond vicious. The articles introduction sentence elaborates on how the evidence of the chroniclers and travelers enabled to have a perspective regarding Mongol morality by Genghis Khan's legislation. There is implied personal experience which simply means that the author emphasizes the importance of what the travelers were going through at that time. For example, Ibn Battuta described travels in Iraq and how two horses went astray one night which simply means that they traveled in the wrong direction.
Reply
Jacob Tutterow
2/8/2017 09:01:42 pm
I find it very fascinating that the depiction of the Mongols in other parts of the world paint such a brutish picture, as your document states. I think it's always the best course of action to get all the perspectives possible to but together a mental vision of how something happened, or what people acted like, and this account gives a great illustration of how some people perceived their military strategy. They also continue to dislike them, even after being taken over, which also opens up questions like "Did they rule with the same toughness that their military brought? Do people eventually rise up, against the perceived tyranny of the Mongol rule?". All of it is very interesting.
Reply
Zayed Makboul
2/8/2017 07:12:45 pm
Document 1 does not specifically state in anyway whether the mongols did or did not benefit Eurasia. Based on the document the mongols had a very well equipped and well trained army. This was beneficial because it provided the empire with safety and security. According to the crash course video the mongols opened up trade with many different empires and helped spread many new ideas and religions but in doing so may have also caused the plague Black Death which spear across Europe killing more than half the population. In my opinion the mongols did many benificial thing in Eurasia but they also caused my problems, the problems they caused far outweighed what they did to benefit Eurasia so in my opinion the mogols didn't benefit Eurasia.
Reply
Rachel Panettiere
2/8/2017 07:14:57 pm
Document 9 is a primary source created by Marco Polo, an Italian merchant who served Kublai Khan for seventeen years. Marco Polo describes the complex and efficient messaging system, also known as the yams, which was used by Khan to send his dispatches. The document describes over 10,000 posts with at least 200,000 horses stabled at each. There is no mention of the use of this system as a way of harming or causing conflict in Eurasia. Therefore, it can be gathered from this information that the Mongols improved ways of contact and transportation. This is supported by John Green’s claim that “the Mongols increased communication throughout Eurasia by developing this pony express-like system of way stations with horses and riders that could quickly relay information”. From this provided information, it can be concluded that the Mongols were beneficial to Eurasia because of their expansion of communication and travel.
Reply
Tara Anastasoff
2/8/2017 07:46:40 pm
Rachel, I agree with the points you made and believe that the Mongols were beneficial due to their widespread views of communication and trade. I find it surprising how even hundreds of years ago, a steady and reliable form of communication existed across such a large land mass. With horses being used throughout history for travel and communication, the Mongol's region-wide use of the mammal definitely contributes to why people relied on horses for so long. Not only did they use horses for communication, but for battles as well.
Reply
Madigan Hargrove
2/8/2017 07:30:08 pm
The Mongols negatively impacted Eurasian society, as their violence left a lasting effect. In document 3, it is stated that Ata-Malek Jovayni, a noted Persian historian and official in the Mongol empire, recorded that the Mongolian military killed between eight-hundred thousand and two million Baghdad citizens. An important fact to keep in mind is that Jovayni was an eye witness to the massacre. The slaughter of so many people is unjustifiable, and cannot be twisted as a benefit. The sheer volume of human casualty shows that the Mongolian government was brutal and harsh, and such a government cannot aid its people or benefit the empire's culture.
Reply
Hank Nolan
2/8/2017 07:36:08 pm
The mongols were harmful to Euraisa, according to document 8 Genghis Khan rid the lands of theft and adultery. John Plano one of the first europeans to enter the court of the great Khan said "war, strife, bodily harm, or murder do not exist, robbers and thies on a grand scale are not to be found among them" Doc 8. I believe that the only reason all of this is true is "because of the severity of mongol laws against robbery" Doc 8. These laws mostly led to being killed, therefore scaring your people to follow the laws is harmful to inhabitants of the Mongol empire.
Reply
Giancarlo Davila
2/8/2017 08:26:26 pm
I agree with you Hank. Many people believe that just because there was a little bit of improvements to Eurasia on how safe trade was; that the Mongols were beneficial. What about the millions of people slaughtered for no just reason other than "no use" and causing disruption in Eurasia.
Reply
Tara Anastasoff
2/8/2017 07:38:16 pm
Throughout history, the Mongols conquered and destroyed much of the land of Eurasia, except for India, who remained independent throughout all of the anarchy. While the Mongols are often correlated with barbarians and destruction, fragments of their codes of conduct, the "yasa" and the "bilik," show the worrld that there was some form of civilization and structure in their society. Overall, the Mongols were beneficial to the Eurasian land mass due to the fact that they helped promote trade, which in turn not only spread goods throughout the region, but ideas and religion as well. Furthermore, they created unity and safety within the region, and it was said to be so safe that a man could walk from one end of the empire to the other with a gold plate on his head, and have no fear of being robbed. Looking back at their legal structure and punishments, in the Yasa scripture, it states "whosoever commits adultery will be executed, whether or not they have previous convictions" (document 13). It appears that the safety in the region was largely due to the fear people had about disobeying the law. This strict law provides a definite and final punishment, which gives us indications on how they ruled and why they were successful. With harsh consequences and clear codes of conduct, the Mongols helped set the tone of powerful empires and rulers for years to come.
Reply
Madeline Toombs
2/8/2017 08:34:19 pm
I do agree that the Mongols were beneficial to Eurasia. Making a connection between the strict law code that they had and the way they conducted themselves because of it, was a good way to show that the Mongols were not just savage barbarians as many history books make them out to be. I think because Christianity became prevalent in Europe, when writing about the Islamic Mongols it tended to be a bit one sided.
Reply
TUCKER K
2/8/2017 07:58:43 pm
I think the mongols were beneficial for Eurasia because they conquered almost all of the area and created very safe trading routes. Also they welcomed all religions. As well adopting the some aspects of the Chinese culture into their own they stayed true to the mongol way of life. But on the other hand one harmful thing the mongols did was put many Chinese people at the bottoms making it very hard for them to live a healthy happy life. Also when ghangis khan died the empire fell because they no longer had a powerful leader and the Chinese empires came \back and took over.
Reply
Andrew Prather
2/8/2017 08:07:31 pm
Based of the document I received, I believe that the Mongols were beneficial to Asia. In document five, William Rubruck describes the Mongol empire and it's tolerance towards other religions. He uses evidence of religious structures and their preference throughout the empire. Religious structures from several different religions such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and others prove that the Mongols tolerance of religions directly contributed to the spread of such religions.
Reply
Nathaniel kem
2/8/2017 08:09:46 pm
Between the time period of 1271 and 1295 C.E. the Mongol empire was beneficial to the continent of Eurasia Economicly. In Document 9, Marco Polo writes of the efficiency of the Mongol communication system. Their use of postals and stop stations were higly praised for they were quick in news delivery. This came at no expense to the Mongols so went to all costs to maintain their high end postal system from any form of disaster. This benefited trade communications along the silk road among the conquered lands. With this message system in the end serving as a centripetal force overall.
Reply
Andrew Prather
2/8/2017 08:17:34 pm
I agree with your response and reasoning. In document 5, it describes how the Mongols were tolerant of other religions. In order for these regions to spread the way they did, trade routes like the silk road were necessary. So I believe these two reasons can be connected to prove that the Mongols were beneficial to Asia.
Reply
dora vang
2/8/2017 08:11:21 pm
Although the Mongolian Empire used their ruthless military power to conquer and slaughter massive populations of innocent lives, the Mongolian invasion between ca. 1206 and 1337 was beneficial to Eurasia because the Mongols greatly improved economics, cultural diversity and the social community of Eurasia. According to John Green's "Crash Course World History #17", the Mongolian Empire managed to promote trade along the Silk Road because of their stable military. John Green states, "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." The feeling of security led the people of Eurasia to accept trade and use it to their advantage. With the bettering of the economy, more face-to-face contact was undergone between multiple groups; therefore, cultural ideas like Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity were able to diffuse. Document 5 shows that cultural diversity of the Mongol Empire was present through the source, Friar William of Rubrick, who records that the city, Karakorum, is made up of "twelve pagan [Buddhist] temples", "two mosques in which the law of Mihamet is proclaimed" and "one church" (Doc 5). The cultural diversity that the Mongol Empire brought Eurasia also included the synchronization of foods and spices, like the use of rice from southeast Asia in Persian foods. The mongols bettered Eurasia socially by killing weak leaders and turning peasants and slaves of the slaughtered leaders into savages. This helped improve the lives of women who lived in these patriarchal societies by making females symbols of strength and military rather than objects of fertility. The trade, cultural diversity and social structure that the Mongols brought Eurasia all impacted the growing population by shifting the mindsets of the masses to open-minded and logical thinking, so the Mongols, for sure, had a positive impact on Eurasia.
Reply
Giancarlo Davila
2/8/2017 08:23:53 pm
Based on document 2, my opinion on the Mongolian empire is that it was non-beneficial or harmful to Eurasia. According to document 2, the Mongols were outrageously vicious. They would "seek out the artificers (artisans) among [the people] and keep these, but the others, with the exception of those they wish to have as slaves, they kill with the axe." In fact, they caused disruption and slaughter of millions of people. That in no way is beneficial to Eurasia at all.
Reply
Harrison H
2/8/2017 08:49:20 pm
Hey Giancarlo,
Reply
Adam Blair
2/8/2017 08:28:27 pm
From article 11 it shows that the mongols were beneficial to Eurasia because the helped any guest and were respectful to everyone in the civilization. The mongols showed "considerable respect to each other and are friendly together, and they willing share their food with each other, although there was little of it." They showed hospitality to everyone even when at war because "when a husband goes hunting or to war, his wife must maintain the household, so that the messenger or guest who dismounts there finds all in order and the wife is able to provide him with good food and anything they require." This shows that they were open to new people coming and wanted to help them in anyway possible
Reply
Madeline Toombs
2/8/2017 08:28:37 pm
Based on the Crash Course video on the Mongols, I believe that they were beneficial to the continent of Eurasia. In the video John Green mentions that the Mongols had religious tolerance. Because the Mongols had captured so much land, religious tolerance led to less persecution and therefore less resentment among different religious groups. It is also mentioned in the video that ,"The Mongols captured more land in 25 years than the Romans did in 400,". Because all of this land was now under the same ruler, trade would have been easier in Eurasia. Because of religious tolerance and easier trade, the Mongols actually benefitted Eurasia, rather than damage it.
Reply
Harrison H
2/8/2017 08:45:25 pm
While document 2 maintained a relatively neutral tone in referencing the assault tactics of the Mongols on settlements, however, the author seemed to hold a negative connotation with the results of a successful raid. The Mongols, with successfully taking over a settlement, would kill off any people that they did not find useful. This resulted in millions of deaths spread across the Eurasian continent. According to the evidence in this document, it can be considered that the Mongols were harmful to Eurasia, as there were far too many unnecessary deaths. However, they introduced military strategy to a new era of war, which allowed advancements and innovation. At the same time, other documents argue that the mongols contributed greatly to the spread of disease, famine, death and the like. This only further leads to the point that the Mongols were indeed harmful to the region.
Reply
Reed Walker
2/8/2017 08:56:41 pm
I definitely agree with you Harrison. The mention of famine really made me understood another point of view of how it is harmful . This ideal could have lead to numerous amounts of I'll effects
Reply
Jade Gooden
2/8/2017 08:47:59 pm
Based on Document 4, The Mongols were strictly harmful to Eurasia. The author (chronicler) wrote the source around the same time the Mongols had just brutally destructed a city called, Nishapur. This destruction was led by Genghis Khan's daughter after her husband died in battle at the city. So in retaliation and out of anger she ordered that all the city's inhabitants be killed. The people of Nishapur took into recongnition of the slaughter that was to be planned and took arms with the weaponory stored among them to defend. But, the Mongols strictly came for blood and torture to all; men,women, children and even cats and dogs. If not pushed out of land they were brutally killed and decapitated, piled on one another and even separated of men and women. Therefore, this shows how harmful, heartless, barbaric the Mongols were giving them no beneficiary to people as they constantly ended lives. Which is not just an opinion for Joyayni but fact proven included in history books and explained in the Crash Course (as John Green illustrates them herding to foreign lands, burning them down, and putting heads on spears).
Reply
Chance McGarey
2/8/2017 08:52:52 pm
I believe the Mongols benefited Eurasia because of the mass trade network they established throughout Eurasia. The trade network not only allowed the prosperity of the empire, but the safety of the people in the empire. It was said in the John Green video that "A person could walk from one end of the empire to another with a golden plate on their head without fear...". Another benefit of the trade is that the Mongols allowed religion to stay the way as it was which let different cultures and religion to spread throughout Eurasia, benefiting it as a whole.
Reply
Cat Arnett
2/9/2017 02:01:07 pm
I agree. The transformation of trade routes really helped boost Eurasia into better ages of economic stability.
Reply
Jacob Tutterow
2/8/2017 08:53:57 pm
The mongols were helpful to Eurasia in several ways. They opened up trade to a huge land area, that spanned 12.74 million square miles (Doc 15). This type of unity helped to develop and facilitate many cultural pieces, as they were very tolerant of people's cultures and religions. That led to social development as well, and the Mongols removed the threat of other invaders for the most part, as you could "walk from one side of the Mongolian Kingdom to the other with a gold plate on your head, and not have fear of being robbed." The overall depiction of the Mongols was a rather biased way of looking at them, as they did have brutal techniques of gaining territory, but were similar to the Persians in that they ruled with a relatively light touch (besides all the segregation stuff).
Reply
Reed Walker
2/8/2017 08:54:11 pm
Based on document 4 in the textbook the Mongols were very harmful to Eurasia. This source is very recent to the time period and it is credible . They destroyed the entire village based on the fact a leaders daughters husband died in battle their. Additionally stated in the crashcourse they only took artisans and skill workers. This was inefficient because unskilled labor keeps empires going. Without this it is very difulcult to function. This is the same as well in document 2 where a more modern point of view is taken. People were ruthlessly killed for less than a valid reason.
Reply
Reed Walker
2/8/2017 08:58:07 pm
Also disease was a a major factor as well
Reply
Chike Asuzu
2/8/2017 10:48:26 pm
Reed, I completely agree that the violence of the Mongols often proved pointless when it came to improving their own empire's structure and healthily expanding. It seemed like skeptical, murderous fun was weighed over opportunities for their empire to an insane extent.
Reply
Chike Asuzu
2/8/2017 10:41:54 pm
After reading document 3, I believe the Mongols did more to hurt Eurasia than help. Within the document, author George Marshall goes into details of the death counts of certain cities after Mongol invasions during 1220 CE - 1258 CE. This ranges from 30,000 deaths at Bukhara in Uzbekistan to 1,747,000 deaths at Nishapur in Iran. These massive death counts spanning across several areas in Eurasia vividly display the Mongol's irrefutable, senseless violence to even the point of massacres. Also, as the Crash Course said, it was not unnatural at all of the Mongols to go into an area and slaughter every single person there for cruel enjoyment. That lack or moralistic values for others lives cannot completely justify the interconnecting of the Eurasian land mass that the Mongols did and other Empires have, and could eventually have done as well.
Reply
Chesley Lucas
2/9/2017 04:54:50 am
I agree, the Mongols senseless slaughter of thousands of people hurt the economies of the areas. They also would have created a sense of hatred in those regions, which could have led to revolts.
Reply
Chesley Lucas
2/9/2017 04:53:01 am
According to my document, Storm from the East: from Genghis Khan to Kubilai Khan, the Mongols were represented as a having a negative impact on Asia, especially China. China was seen as "...a vast treasure house to be plundered...". Even though the Mongols have been "...receiving, indirectly gifts and money..." from China for years, they still plundered and slaughtered the country. According to a census taken by the Chin Dynasty, in 1195, there were 50 million people in China. However the first Mongol census, taken in 1235-6, there were 9 million people living in China. The Mongol's acts of terrorism, or what seemed to be genocide, left Northern China in chaos for years.
Reply
Gillian Ashley
2/9/2017 05:12:37 am
Based on Document 12 (On Drinking) and the more general sources of information such as the crash course by John Green, the mongols were more benifical than harmful to the supercontinent of Eurasia. They looked down on drunkenness and benefited the peoples they conquered with their cultural tolerance and their de-throneing of the often corrupt leaders of the region. While they may have gone to some extremes to achieve the desired result, the same can be said of most of today's nations, so it would be hypocritical to admonish them for that.
Reply
Angel Serrano
2/9/2017 05:17:56 am
I believe the Mongols were more beneficial for Eurasia during the post classical period because they allowed for the practice of all religions, extended trade, and allowed for the mixture of different cultures. Although disease was spread because of trade, without trade Eurasia wouldn’t be successful. Rice became a staple food in Persia and the Mongols were able to establish communication throughout the empire because of trade being rebuilt along the silk road. Also because of Mongolian conquest Asian, Persian, and Mongolian people were able to intermarry and exchange cultural ideas and practices. The Mongolian people blended in so much with the Persian people that they became unrecognizable. Warfare was also a consequence of conquest but in document 7 Halperin says “after the destruction of the initial conquest, the Mongols promoted diversified economic development.” He also says the Mongols built canals to improve communication and transportation in different areas. Persia was benefited by the Mongol conquest because the silk industry began to thrive. Lastly, the Mongols were very tolerant of other religions and didn’t force others to practice specific religions.
Reply
Gina Trotta
2/9/2017 06:50:38 am
Based on document 14, I don't believe that the Mongols were helpful, but were rather harmful to Eurasia. Being that it did bring forth some of gender inequality, it says that men can "buy [women] at a very high price from their parents." This shows that women were not only in a lower status, but were treated as property of the men. The codes of conduct may have been successful in guiding the Mongol life, but it doesn't encourage women and degrades them.
Reply
Mycah Brooks
2/9/2017 06:53:36 am
The mongols were beneficial to the development of Eurasia because they secured the Silk Road and made it safe to trade. They also built rest stops and weigh stations along the Silk Road.
Reply
Courtney M
2/9/2017 08:59:31 am
According to document 3, the Mongols were actually more harmful than helpful. When the Mongols overthrew Baghdad there were 800,000 to 2 million deaths.(DOC 3) This document may only contain the deaths, but it still shows how violent the Mongols were. They even included the deaths recorded in Russian folklore saying there were no survivors. This shows how intimidating the Mongols were to other countries.
Reply
Lyle Singletary
2/9/2017 04:10:50 pm
I agree with your opinion of how the Mongols were ruthless in their attacks of nearby cities. I also read document 3 which says they killed over 5 million people in just that 30 year period.
Reply
Cat Arnett
2/9/2017 01:57:03 pm
It's my personal belief that in the grand scheme of things the mongols were helpful to Eurasia. It's state and referenced multiple times that the Mongols greatly increased trade and boosted the economies of the countries they ruled over. Like in China, they acknowledged the cultures of the countries they ruled and, unlike most conquerors, allowed freedom of religion. Ye3s they committed atrocities and weren't the best people but in the grand scheme of things, the Mongols were helpful to Eurasia.
Reply
Lyle Singletary
2/9/2017 04:04:28 pm
The Mongols presence in Eurasia was actually very harmful. According to document 3, the mongols killed millions of people all throughout the region from 1220-1258. A Russian folklore tells the story of how the Mongols destroyed the entire city of Kozelsk in 1237 leaving no survivors at all. Another Russian city had a similar fate, Ryazan was also attacked in 1237 but they had a few survivors of the slaughtering. Even though these attacks are terrible they are not even the worst, in 1258 Baghdad was attacked and the death estimates reach up to 2,000,000. All these accounts point to the mongols having negative effects on their surrounding area.
Reply
Hope Kutsche
2/12/2017 12:50:52 pm
Lyle,
Reply
Zion Fitch
2/9/2017 04:08:04 pm
The Mongols were more harmful to Eurasia than beneficial based on negative historical events that they are associated with. In Document 6, the Mongols and China traded, which was beneficial to them, but the Mongols wanted all of China's treasures. This greed for treasure resulted in chaos and death throughout the Chin Empire. The Mongols were responsible for so many bad things. The crash course discusses the effects like the black plague and other side effects of the mongols empire. You can see in document 12 how the mongols are not all that great or beneficial. The mongols were barbaric and ruthless by nature. Another negative impact of the Mongols was when "a census taken by the Chin Empire in 1195 showed a population of fewer than 50 million people, yet when the Mongols took their first census...they counted fewer than 9 million" (Doc 6). People could say that chaos caused by the invasion could be the result in a miscount, but based on the large amount missing it was most likely their terrorist actions. While invading and conquering there was mass destruction of towns and their populations. The Mongols hardly ever left populations of other places they had conquered alive. They would slaughter nearly every man,woman, and child in the area they conquered. Also, how they acquired these census was by relocating people who could keep records in different areas. These people are taken from their homes as well as artisans who the Mongols found beneficial to them. Overall the Mongols terrorist tactics were rather harmful to the land and and to the people. There empire's death rate was always on the rise as they slaughtered millions. Fun fact Genghis Khan may have been responsible for around 40 millions deaths. But let's just overlook that!
Reply
Hope Kutsche
2/12/2017 12:29:04 pm
The Mongols were harmful to Eurasia. At the height of their power, the Mongol empire essentially had control over the entire Eastern hemisphere. While they perpetuated trade and interaction between cultures, the drawbacks of the Mongol rule were far greater than the benefits. The Mongols killed many of the towns and groups whose regions they wanted to overtake. They also spread many ways of thinking promoting patriarchy and social stratification. In China, for example, they established a government that insisted on segregation of Chinese and Mongols. The Mongol codes of laws also gave more power to the men in the community. Finally, the Mongols were mostly responsible for the spread of the plague. Their encouragement of trade caused the disease to be spread along trade routes into all different parts of Eurasia. Overall, the Mongols were very harmful to Eurasia.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorCategoriesArchives
April 2017
|