Examples Of Mongols Being Barbaric

In the dictionary the definition of the Mongols is “a native or inhabitant of Mongolia” (Webster). Mongols are much more than just inhabitants of Mongolia. They were great conquerors but brutally barbaric. The Mongol empire ruled from the 13th century to the mid 14th century (McDougal Littel). Genghis Khan and his descendants accomplished a lot, but the civilians faced many hardships. It seems as if they came and left in a matter of only a couple of years. The legacy of the Mongols should be evaluated based on positive and negative contributions to society. Positively, the conquerors were quite successful as they acquired land all throughout Eurasia. Negatively, they ferociously harmed people and valuables in the process.

Throughout the 13th century world, the Mongols constantly showed displays of continuous violence, drinking, brutality and unfair treatment. They were considered to be savages, and people who lived far beyond what we would know as a “civilized world.” They single handedly became one of, if not the most powerful empires to have existed, building their empire through violent and barbaric manors. The Mongols were very barbaric people, for they portrayed many inhumane and mannerless actions while their empire lasted, causing death destruction and the downfall of all of the land they took over.

The Middle ages was the time of revolutionizing, war, and the mongols peak. . Although the Mongols were considered barbarians, people who l the reach of civilization Referring to being evil. they were very civil. They had a skilled army, were adaptable, and had a set of laws.

The world has viewed the Mongols as destructive barbarians; however, the Mongols viewed themselves as soldiers. The perception of themselves is important because they did not believe it was destructive to unite a world empire. They believed that because they were soldiers, anyone in their path could be taken down by force. The nations that defined Mongols as destructive are the same people that resisted joining their empire. The Mongol’s obsession with power, dedication to their leader, and their need to possess land is why I believe they should not be remembered as destructive barbarians. Instead, I think they should be known as the empire that failed to unite the world.

The Mongols were very harsh and brutal like no one else in their era but I believe that they are not barbarians. The Mongols had a strong dominating military that was almost always successful, they contributed to many of the ideas that are still around today, and made a very stern set of laws that kept their community civilized which is why I believe that the Mongols were not barbarians.

How Barbaric were the “Barbarians”? Eight hundred years ago, during the 13th century, a small tribe named the mongols began to conquer. They were called barbarians by most of the world which is a negative term which meant evil and savage. The mongols had their “brutal” side but also was know for some good things but once side by side you can easily say that they were barbaric. The mongols were the most barbaric civilization due to what they did to their very own people, also how they dealt with their enemies and how crucial their laws were.

The Mongols: How Barbaric were the “Barbarians”? During the thirteenth and fourteenth century the word “barbarian” meaning foreigner in Geek received a negative connotation of people that lived beyond the pale of civilization, people who were savages and evil. Knowing that Mongols were nomadic people, which were illiterate and did not have a written language definitely people would call them barbaric because they had a different way of life than those who lived in a civilization; who grew their food and were educated. Due to the fact that historians still cannot really decipher the Mongols language, much less they few written materials left behind no one is to know what they had in mind during the invasions throughout Asia, the Middle East and Eastern

Throughout history, various peoples have been considered harsh, violent, and uncivilized. One empire well known for its either barbaric or kind nature, are the Mongols. Based on the documents, the attitudes of various people towards the Mongols in Eurasia from the 13th century to the 14th century were positive, neutral, and negative.

In the 13th century a nomadic group from central Asia, conquered many different areas. The Mongols rode horses and took over many other civilizations. Some would say they were barbaric due to their actions; others would say they were doing what they needed to do to survive. However, a group does not kill innocent people to survive. History should remember the Mongols as barbaric because they were nomadic and did not have many skills, they expected a great deal from neighboring communities, and they killed innocent people.

think.The way i look at the barbarians they weren’t barbaric at all. The important reason

“...showing the execution of a prisoner by a Mongol soldier. Others are being buried alive upside-down.” said in Document 5, a caption to go along with a Persian manuscript. In this so called manuscript, a prisoner appears to be tied up and getting shot at point blank range with a bow and arrow. Also in the manuscript is at least 5 men upside-down with their heads in the ground and rest of their bodies overturned. These are ways of murderer, ways of a barbarian. The Mongols were unrelenting, executing prisoners in cruel and sadistic

Based on documents and evidence from the Mongols DBQ packet and lessons learned in class the Mongols should not be considered “barbaric”. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, an online dictionary source, a barbarian is defined as: “a person who has no experience of the habits and culture of modern life, and whose behavior you therefore consider strange or offensive”. The Mongols were great conquerors of their time and under the rule of Genghis Khan captured 4,860,000 square miles ranging from Japan to Europe (Document 1). Since the Mongols travelled to many foreign countries the people in those places felt that the Mongols aggressive manor did not line up with their social codes and rules.

The barbarians, Vikings, and the Mongolians are portrayed throughout history as bloodthirsty savages that only care about killing people and pillaging villages and towns. The barbarians, Vikings, and the Mongols often don’t receive credit for the ways that they positively impacted ancient civilizations. Even though the barbarians, Vikings, and the Mongolians impacted ancient civilizations in positive ways they also did some things that impacted ancient civilizations in negative ways.

According to background essay on the Mongols “The Mongols were a small tribe during the 13th century. They were from the grasslands of Central Asia and conquered much of the known world.” They also said that “They operate from the backs of horses and sometimes use siege weapons. The essay also explained how the Mongols were one of the several nomadic peoples who competed with one another for pasture land and livestock. They also had no metal working, no written language, and no permanent homes. The Mongols also were first led by Genghis Khan and did not have a good reputation. The Mongols may have been successful but it was do to mostly negative examples and information. The Mongols were although positive in a way. For example their Yam System, to make them go faster and farther. However, this example and many other positive examples are ways for the Mongols to fight better and kill more people. The Mongols were barbaric because they were brutal and ruthless.

Firstly, it informs us that the region of Qandahār, Sīstān, Hirāt, Ghūr, and Gharjistān (which is currently the homeland of Baluch, Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara and other Turkic groups) was heavily penetrated by the Ismaili dāʿīs, who maintained a significant daʿwa network and were very successful in their missions. Secondly, it names certain daʿwa figures, namely Abū Bilāl and his key associates, Ḥamdān and Tūzkā, whose headquarter was named Dār al-ʿAdl. Thirdly, it reveals that non-Ismaili power holders and amīrs failed to give an intellectual response to the Ismaili daʿwa. Instead, they chose to respond by way of violence, military force, and slaying the converted laypeople. Fourthly, the killing of Ismaili dāʿīs and communities also appears to have been an easy and quick means to political and religious popularity. The governors would secure their positions in the eyes of the amīrs, who in turn would gain the religious blessings of the ʿAbbāsid caliphs and chief religious clerics. Finally, the execution of ten captured Ismaili notables in the cities of Balkh, Samarqand, Farghānah, Khwārazm, and Nīshāpūr suggests at least three points: gaining religious popularity, creating fear in the heart of people and stopping them from converting to the Ismaili faith, and that the Ismaili dāʿīs had already created a clandestine daʿwa network in these cities. However, despite the massacre and terror the Sāmānid Amīr and his governors created