Carpini’s History of the Tartars is a well organized and meticulous report on the Mongol Empire that is told from the perspective of Giovanni Carpini. As an overweight sixty year old friar, Carpini was an unlikely candidate to make the trek to the unexplored Mongol Empire, however because of his ability to mingle with the peasantry with ease, he was chosen to carry out this task. Through his determination to not only evangelize but also to spy on the Mongols, Carpini was able to write History of the Tartars with great detail and accuracy. Only because of Giovanni Carpini work, do we know as much about the Mongols as we do today.
Reading through Carpini’s observations of the Mongols, there is an overwhelming amount of information regarding the Mongol’s military might. Out of the nine chapters in his book, two are specifically about their armies prowess. These chapters go over how the Mongol’s waged war and on how to actually defeat them. In chapter six, Carpini is able to describe in great detail of the weapons that the Mongols use and the clever tactics that they deploy in battle. Carpini first discusses about the army’s ranking structure. He states that each rank is employed over ten men. The rankings are as follows in lowest to highest; decanus, centenarius, millenarius, darkness, general, and then supreme general of the entire army. Through his descriptions, Carpini is able to show us the complexity and effectiveness in the way the army is organized.
Carpini is also able to tell us the weaponry and armory of the Mongol army. Every soldier is given at least one good bow, multiple quivers full of arrows, and a single battle axe. The armor that the soldiers carry are made of iron and are layered on top of each other to create ...
... middle of paper ...
...assadors, because that the ambassadors would spy on them, like how the friar was spying on the Mongols. There is a lack of information on their culture along with everything else in comparison with the overwhelming amount of information on the Mongol army,though the nature of his mission influenced this. Despite the slight bias in his observations, I do not feel that it discredits Carpini one bit. The overwhelming All in all, I believe that Carpini’s report on the Mongol Empire is a trustworthy primary source.
Through Carpinis descriptions of the Mongols in his report, I can say that the Mongol Empire was indeed a post classical society. The mongol empire was interconnected with many other empires such as the Byzantine and the Turkish empires. They were all linked together because they were so close in proximity and were constantly influencing each other.
To start, the mongols were able to used brutal and strategic military tactics that helped them conquer more than 4,800,000 miles of land. The Mongols leader “Genghis Khan” was a very smart and strategic leader. He organized his army into groups of ten, hundred, and one thousand. If such groups runs away or flees, the entire group was put to death. Genghis Khans army was able to succeed in conquering land due to horses. His army
... 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
...s misused their common material interest to overcome the political fault diving them, while giving up political unity they had conserved a combined cultural and commercial empire. The connection that the Mongol Empire relied on was the quick and constant motion of people, goods, and information around the empire.
The Mongols, or as the Western Europeans called them, the Tartars, were a nomadic, militant people that dominated the battlefield during the pre-industrial time period (“Tartars” 7). Over the span of the 13th century, from the Central Asian steppes in the east to the Arabian lands to the west, the Tartars subdued the unfortunate inhabitants and expanded their empire vastly. To the fear and dismay of the Western Europeans, the Tartars desired to triumph over all of Eurasia; therefore, the Western Europeans were to be conquered next. News of the imminent Tartarian attack rapidly spread through West Europe like a wildfire, and the powerful Holy Roman Church contended to prepare a strategy against the onslaught. In the year 1245, Pope Innocent IV, the head of the Church at the time, sent a group of Friars led by Giovanni da Pian del Carpini to gather some knowledge about the Tartars. It was a dreaded mission, one that would probably end in a terrible death, since the Tartars were a cruel people towards outsiders. Nevertheless, Carpini valiantly ventured into the unknown darkness, and returned to his homeland with valuable information about the Tartars. Through the insight he gained during his travels, he wrote his account of the Tartars in a report called the “Historia Mongalorum” (“Tartars” 19), which is known today as “The Story of the Mongols Whom We Call the Tartars”.
strong communication system. In document 3, it says “ Other columns of stronger men they dispatched so far to the right and the left so that they are not seen by the enemy and in this way the surround them and close in and so the fighting begins from all sides” (Document 3). This piece of evidence is saying, that they had a game plan to defeat their opponents. They also had strong communication system because in document 8, it states “ (M)ore than 200,000 horses are stabled at these posts for the special use of the messengers” (Document 8). This also shows that they have post offices along roads with 200,000 horses combined. This shows the Mongols knew how to fight and how to communicate
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
In the 13th century BC, the Mongols rose to power and conquered an empire whose size still has yet to matched. The Mongols conquered lands such as China, leaving such a lasting influence on them that their legacy still lives on. However, despite the Mongols success, their actions have left a constantly ongoing debate on whether they were barbarians, seen and portrayed by different societies of their time as people with no morale or modern civilities, or civilized people who were just feared by other societies. Although the Mongols are generally now seen as Barbarians because of their violent and barbaric war tactics they used to instill fear in people, they are actually civilized because they had a strategically organized army, and because they were accepting of the customs of other peoples. These two elements would eventually lead them to their success.
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.
According to one of the prosecuting attorneys, Genghis Khan killed an approximate “40 million people, about 10% of the world 's population at the time” during his reign over the Mongol Empire. As staggering as those numbers appear, there is substantial justification that is submitted by Genghis Khan himself, as well as the many other witnesses that defend and corroborate his account. Additionally, the amount of evidence presented by the defense is unparalleled to that of the prosecuting attorneys. The most convincing, compelling, and informative testimonies were delivered by Genghis Khan, the Mongol Government Official, the Merchant, and the Prince of Moscow. In contrast, there were a few notable testimonies from the witnesses that opposed Genghis Khan; those of Pope Innocent IV and Caliph of Baghdad. The others merely introduced minor arguments, repeated information, or unsubstantiated, inaccurate information that
The Mongol empire and Alexander The Great’s empire were two of the most interesting and powerful empires of all time. Yet, even with many similarities there are many differences as well between these two great empires. The Mongol empire began during the 13th and 14th centuries in which it was the largest land empire in all of world history. It was located beginning in the Central Asia and eventually spread all the way to Central Europe. Alexander The Great’s empire, Macedonia, was a Greek empire located in Central Greece. Both of these giant civilizations became the biggest empires the world has ever seen.
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).
Weatherford, J. McIver. Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Crown, 2004. Print.