“‘I know quite well,’ replied the Emperor, ‘that your advice is extremely good. But unfortunately we Mongols are brought up from childhood to shoot arrows and ride.’” (92)
The Khan was advised not to hunt again by the Daoist Changchun after he fell from his horse. As Changchun said, the fall was caused by the intervention of Heaven. On the one hand, the response of the Khan showcases his open attitude to the religious teaching differing from their own Shamanism ideas. On the other hand, although the Mongol ruler had an exceptional open mind for other religious thoughts when compared with the contemporary leaders in Europe and Middle East, he still preserved the primacy of the nomadic traditions. For the great Khan, accepting eclectic religious ideas does not necessarily translate into complete compliance. Such attitude might explain why the Mongol Empire was lenient enough to allow coexistence of diverse religions within its massive territory.
…show more content…
“How dost thou know whom God forgives, to whom He shows mercy?
How dost thou know, who speakest such words?” (122)
After the pope wrote to him to force his conversion to Christianity, Khubilai Khan simply replied with doubt about the legitimacy of the pope’s statement. The conversation between the pope and the Khan somewhat indicates the religious tension among the Eurasian countries during that era. Moreover, The letter from Khubilai Khan gives us a clear sense of his religious perspective, which is there is no one who can claim only his God is authentic. Based on such reasoning, for Khubilai Khan, there is no single ultimately superior religion than any of the other religions.
“Chabi had given cloth to each member of the Imperial Household. Khubilai said: ‘This is needed by the military. Why are you giving it away?’ From that time on, Chabi organized the palace ladies to take old bow string, make it into thred, and turn it into clothing. Its pliability and denseness were greater than that of damask.”
(142) Yuanshi, which was composed by the historians of the successive dynasty of Yuan, renders the image of Yuan dynasty in a way that the historians intend its readers to see. Through the text, it is obvious that Khubilai Khan, unlike the most rulers of former dynasties, emphasizes the importance of the military even in his palace where at least the royal residents are supposed to live a lavish life. But, no, the cloth needs to be used for his army. After all, Yuan was established by the military prowess of the Mongols, and there is no reason to let that power go by wasting resources on things that do not win you a war, fair enough. Chabi’s following response to Khubilai’s criticism also conveys that women is not merely a decoration during Yuan Dynasty, especially given how Chabi was depicted in the text. “A Korean envoy named Cho offered Khubilai a beautiful vase... The Khan then asked: ‘Can the gold be used again?’ Cho replied: ‘Porcelain breaks so easily, so also naturally gold. How can it be used again?’ Khubilai Khan then said: ‘From now on do not use gold and do not present it to me.’” (143) As it can be seen from the text, there were countries that succumbed under the Mongol Empire and contributed treasures regularly to the ruler of the Empire. Moreover, the conversation between the Korean envoy and Khubilai reflects the stark contrast on the valuing mindset. For the Korean envoy, who resembles East Asian in the past dynasties, decorative crafts bear much more value than practical goods that can be consumed. While for Khubilai Khan, the exact contrast is true-- decorative porcelains that are transient and cannot be used or recycled for other use are nearly worthless for him. For each of them, the valuing system works for agricultural and nomadic society, respectively. Even though Mongol Empire settled down on its territory, the nomadic valuing system was still intact till the end of its ruling.
...trospectively. The menacing creature that is Genghis Kahn went overboard to gain as much power as he did. His strategies didn’t allow failure. Unfortunately, his success was from a sociopathic standpoint. Every win by Khan, was a loss for all others. (doc D and doc F) The law codes composed by Kahn were ridiculously unjust and ignited insolence in all men. (doc K and doc N) The yam system was the only completely harmless innovation/method created by Kahn. (doc L) Meanwhile, millions of people were still systematically murdered by Genghis and his stupendous army. (doc E and doc I) All but monotheistic religions were practically snubbed. (doc H, doc G, and doc M). The Mongols will always remain the “barbarians,” for if a society were to emerge that, by some supernatural force, exceeds the brazenness of the Mongol Empire, it would be the end of the world as we know it.
... were positive, one may argue that these individuals only saw the tolerant and fair-minded side of the Mongols, and not the relentless warrior part of the society who was known for its “dirty” tactics of war, which went as far as launching diseased-ridden corpses over the walls of castles during sieges. Alternatively, one may argue that the scholars who provided negative documentation of the Mongols only saw the destructive side, not the open-minded side of the society who were known for their cultural acceptance. Although these accounts allowed for an adequate idea of the nature of the Mongols, a record from a peasant who was not a member of the upper class in their society, as all reports presented were from historians, scholars, and political leaders. This would allow for a different perspective on the issue and would produce a better understanding of the topic.
Firstly, they were taught and trained from a very young age. All men over the age of fourteen were expected to undertake military duty (DOC B). By training their soldiers so young, by the time they were ready to fight, they were amazingly fast and strong which helped to conquer other lands. Second, the Mongols were very well organized which helped with communication. Organization flourished under Genghis Khan, the leader of the Mongols, control because he instituted new rules. For example, “Genghis Khan ordained that the army should be organized in such a way that over ten men should be organized in such a way that over ten men should beset one man and he is what we call a captain of ten” (DOC C). By instituting standardized methods and rules of battle to create organization, they were able to work together, as one, as a team. Everybody was on the same page, and nobody left people behind and fled. This organization united them and brought them to move like each other, learn from one another. Lastly, the Mongols were always prepared, another characteristic that added to why they were able to conquer so much land. When soldiers are prepared, they can be confident and brave. The Mongol army needed that advantage. So soldiers were equipped for travel. They were expected to carry cooking pots, dried meat, a water bottle, files for sharpening arrows, a needle ad thread and other
Rossabi, Morris. "Life in China Under Mongol Rule: Religion." The Mongols in World History | Asia
Finally, one more good thing that came out of Mongol rule was that Genghis Khan rule was that he accepted all religions. He knew that he could never unite a country under one religion or the people would rebel so he saw it best to let them do their own religions. Sometimes thanks to the trading routes religions intermingled. Also thanks to these trading routes different religions reached different places.
The most important constituent to the Mongols success was ‘a ruthless use of two psychological weapons, loyalty and fear’ (Gascoigne 2010). Ghengis Khan, the Mongol leader from 1206-1227, was merciless and made a guileful contrast in his treatment of nomadic kinsfolk and settled people of cities. For instance, a warrior of a rival tribe who bravely fights against Ghengis Khan and loses will be r...
When the word “Mongol” is said I automatically think negative thoughts about uncultured, barbaric people who are horribly cruel and violent. That is only because I have only heard the word used to describe such a person. I have never really registered any initial information I have been taught about the subject pass the point of needing and having to know it. I felt quite incompetent on the subject and once I was given an assignment on the book, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern Age, I was very perplexed for two reasons. One I have to read an outside book for a class that already requires a substantial amount of time reading the text, and secondly I have to write a research paper in History. I got over it and read the book, which surprisingly enough interested me a great deal and allow me to see the Moguls for more than just a barbaric group of Neanderthals, but rather a group of purpose driven warriors with a common goal of unity and progression. Jack Weatherford’s work has given me insight on and swayed my opinion of the Mongols.
The Mongols were a tough, strong, and a fierce Asian group of people. Their reign
The military exploits of the Mongols under Ghengis Khan as well as other leaders and the ruthless brutality that characterized the Mongol conquests have survived in legend. The impact of the invasions can be traced through history from the different policies set forth to the contributions the Mongols gave the world. The idea of the ruthless barbarian’s intent upon world domination will always be a way to signify the Mongols. Living steadfast upon the barren steppe they rode out of Mongolia to pursue a better life for their people.
Genghis Khan, as it is well-acknowledged, is renowned for governing the extensively immense Mongol Empire. Despite the common argument that he indiscriminately (done at random or without careful judgement―by definition) slaughtered millions of people, Genghis Khan aspired to conquer new territories and, in accordance to their religion, animism, “the sky god made it their goal to unite the land under one sword.” How else would he have done the preceding? Just as the Mongol Government Official stated, “war is inevitable,” especially when capitulation is refused. Moreover, Genghis Khan noted that peace usually follows surrender. Though Prince Kiev attempted to confute the aforementioned, he was mistaken when he said that “war sparked between the two peoples” as a result of an attempt at peace. In response, Genghis Khan’s negation included that war arose as a consequence of their mistrust of him and the denial of a viable peace
...ws can be interpreted in a couple different ways. First of all, the most common way one can interpret these views is to view them as a product of Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” theory. During this time period, it was well-known that one must fight to live. Especially before Genghis Khan introduced the act of mercy to the Mongols, society was particularly violent, uneasy, and backstabbing. This means that people would rarely allow others to dominate and would, instead, create an opposition. Finally, these views can also be interpreted by believing that Genghis Khan actually fought to impress his parents. A few recovered documents suggest that he built his army due to his love towards his family and out of familial pride. However, other evidence, such as his hatred towards particular family members, proves this interpretation to be somewhat false.
This story can be summarized by dividing the story into three major sections that represent a genealogy of the Genghis Khan ancestors, the lifestyle of Genghis Khan and the story of Genghis son and Ogodei his successor. This piece of early time’s literature was translated and edited by Jack Weatherford and it was not released until 16th February, 2010. The piece of work restores early history’s most prominent figures to the positions they rightfully deserves. It clears the picture of the nomadic lifestyle of the Mongols and it is rich with information regarding the society of the Mongols in the 12th and the 13th centuries” (Kahn, 2005).
Renard, John. Islam and Christianity: theological themes in comparative perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Print.
The two largest religions in the world, Christianity and Islam, were implemented by two of religions most powerful leaders, Jesus and Muhammad. Without question, both Jesus and Muhammad have affected humanity powerfully. As religious leaders both men laid down the principles upon which Christianity and Islam are founded yet today. However, while Jesus performed miracles and arose from the dead, thus proving to his followers he was God, Muhammad performed no such feats, and made no such claims. In fact, Muhammad’s only claim was that he was the last prophet sent from God.
Weatherford, J. McIver. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Crown, 2004. Print.