Me: This will be a great way for students check their margin question answers!!!
Student: Wait. What?
Oh, nobody wants to use this? Well, here's one for free.
How does this Indian artist convey to his audience the grandeur and power of Chinggis Khan? What elements of Chinggis Khan’s life and accomplishments are absent from this image?
* Chinggis Khan looks like a king. He is on a throne surrounded by court officials and servants.
* Chinggis Khan rose to be the ruler of the nomadic Mongols by conquest on the back of a horse.
These elements are missing from the image.
Well, I'm going to give this one more try for Chapter 4.
What accounts for the political and military success of the Mongols?
-By the end of Chinggis Khan’s reign, the Mongol Empire had developed an ideology centered on
a mission to unite the whole world in one empire.
-The Mongol army was better organized, better led, and better disciplined than the armies of its
-The Mongol army was organized to diminish the divisive tribalism of the pastoral clan structure,
partly by spreading members of tribes among different units of the army.
-The Mongols made up for their small numbers by incorporating huge numbers of conquered peoples into their military forces.
-The Mongols quickly acquired Chinese techniques and technology of siege warfare, which allowed them to overcome the elaborate fortifications of walled cities.
-Mongol forces were effective in part because of their growing reputation for a ruthless brutality and utter destructiveness. Their reputation served as a form of psychological warfare, a practical
inducement to surrender.
-The Mongols displayed an impressive ability to mobilize both the human and material resources
of their growing empire through census taking, an effective system of relay stations for rapid
communication, and the beginnings of a centralized bureaucracy in the capital of Karakorum.
-The Mongols fostered commerce.
-The Mongols drew on conquered peoples to fill advisory and lower-level administrative positions.
-The Mongols welcomed and supported many religious traditions as long as they did not become
the focus of political opposition.
What geographic features prevented mongol conquests from further expansion? I got rivers and oceans but idk
PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR NAME IN POSTS. We don't want weirdos!
Definitely mountains and seas, but you might include the lack of pastoral lands in Europe, and the humidity in India.
On 172, it asks: What role did trade play in the spread of the plague from its place of origin to West Europe?
- the plague spread along Mongol-fostered trade routes
- the trade routes spanned and connected large areas
- merchants who traveled along those roads were motivated to arrive in cities to sell their goods even if they became sick
- merchant caravans often carried new species and microorganisms from across Eurasia and probably didn't clean or bathe along the way
Do other people have different things?
Great points! Some other additional notes I had were:
- the plague spread through long distance interaction
- the connection of opposite sides of Eurasia
A more concise answer
Was anyone able to figure out the long-term consequences of the spread of the plague across Eurasia?? I know that it resulted in labor shortages, population decrease (of course) and increased jobs for women, but those all seem short-term.
You really should read earlier posts before you ask a question
Did someone ask the same quuestionn as me? I saw Callisto's question about the plague, but theirs was on p.172. The one I'm referencing was on p.174. Not trying to be rude, just wondering if i missed something.
This is responding to Zella. The reply button wouldn’t work.
I had labor shortages as well. Even though they were short term, they had some long term effects, such as weakening the serfdom and a greater interest in teach innovation. Here are some of my other points:
-Demise of Mongol Empire
-Central Asian trade route closed, trade by land declines
-West Europeans used their naval innovations and became “Mongols of the sea”
On page 166, how were the roles of mongol women diff from roles of women in most other settled societies? What accounts for the differences? I said that they were higher ranking and served as advisors and have influence on court. This is because it’s an old mongol tradition and they have fancy headdresses to show that. Idk tho.
I said that Mongol women:
-could serve as advisors to leaders, had influence
-had more freedom and could intermingle with men
-they are from a pastoral society rather than agricultural society
Yeah, but what is the difference in societies that matters to this question?
What did you put for the question: “Compare and contrast this image with the one at the opening of this chapter. How might you explain the differences in how the rulers are depicted?”
I put that:
-Chinngus’s portrait shows the whole family, Kublai only him (this might be because during Kublai’s time there were more divides among mongols?)
-Kublai’s portrait has a more Chinese style, resembles old Confucian portraits. This is probably because he is the main ruler of China.
there is a question on page 200: "The term "imperialist" has a negative connotation today, but was a source of pride for some in 1450-1750. how does the context of this period explain this pride?
- Many countries participated in imperialism
- imperalism expanding your countries land, patriotism
- It brought discoveries to your country
- imperalists were praised by country
anyone have anything else i was a bit confused by this question
Or simply, during this time (1450 - 1750), creating an empire meant building strength. Today, empire building implies
domination and exploitation.
In what ways did European empires in the Americas resemble their Russian, Chinese, Mughal, and Ottoman counterparts, and in what respects were they different? Do you find the similarities or the differences more significant?
For similarities, you could emphasize that Europe was not the only center of vitality and expansion during the early modern period,
and that the interaction of culturally different peoples occurred in the European, Russian, Chinese, Mughal, and Ottoman empires.
However, the European empires represented something completely new in human history through their creation of an interacting Atlantic world.
They had a far more significant impact on the people that they incorporated than did the other empires (forced labor, cultural imposition, economic exploitation), and they had a far wider impact on the world as a whole.
You could make the case for either the similarities or differences being most striking using the evidence.
The question on page 209 asks "How did European nations differ in their colonization of the western hemisphere?". Is the question asking how their tactics differed from each other or from colonization in the past?
From each other. It's a comparison question. A T chart would be a great tool.
On 202, it asks how a map of the Americas shows a rivalry between European states. I have that is has a lot of territories in close proximity, that the divisions indicate a scramble for the land around the same time period, the St. Lawrence river territory that splits the two British territories, and that the Dutch have the least amount of territory. Does anyone have anything else?
English and Spanish empires expanded. The French empire got smaller. Therefore, we can conclude that Spain and England were more powerful than France and would become wealthier because they
had a larger empire.
I guess most people are doing the wait until the weekend before strategy. A plan designed to fail.
How does the story of Doña Marina show the continuity of patriarchy?
Doña Maria’s story exemplifies patriarchy in two ways. First, she was sold into slavery by her mother once her half-brother was born in order to protect his inheritance. Second, though useful to and
clearly a lover of Cortés, she was nonetheless married off to one of his officers.
Will the questions "How did the plantation societies of Brazil and the Caribbean differ from those southern colonies in British North America?" and "What distinguished the British settler colonies of North America from their counterparts in Latin America?" have many of the same answers? I got a lot of the same bullet points for the two so I am worried I answered them incorrectly.
The first question is on page 213 and the second is on page 217.
The second question (217) is about the settlers themselves, and has completely different answers, although you should include their ideas about racial mixing - but that's it.
Well, I'll do the first one.
The social outcomes of these plantation colonies were quite different. In North America, there was *less racial mixing* and less willingness to recognize the offspring of such unions and accord them a place in society. Slavery in North America was different, being perhaps *less harsh* there than in the sugar colonies. By 1750, slaves in the United States had become *self-reproducing*, and a century later almost all North American slaves had been
born in the New World. That was never the case in Brazil and the Caribbean. Many *more slaves were voluntarily set free* by their owners in Brazil than was ever the case in North America, and *free blacks and mulattoes in Brazil had far greater opportunities* than did their counterparts in North America.
Ideas about race differed. In North America, any African ancestry, no matter how small or distant, *made a person “black”*; in Brazil, an individual of African and non-African ancestry was considered, not black, but *some other mixed-race category*. Moreover, *color was only one standard of class status* in Brazil, and the perception of color changed with the educational or economic standing of individuals.
On page 200, the question asks "What historical developments enabled Europeans to carve out huge empires an ocean away from their homelands?"
One of the answers I put was "People of many aspects of society had reason for wanting to expand." Is this too vague? Should I specify the types of people (merchants, elites, commoners, persecuted minorities, missionaries)?
Yes, be more specific. And, there is much more to this question, especially if you focus on the "huge empires" part. For example, you could mention that European states and trading companies enable the effective mobilization of human and material resources.
There a a few more.
Were there any other historical factors that made Europeans less susceptible to the disease in the picture on page 208? The only one I could think of was that they already had immunity because they were already exposed to the disease from their domestic animals.
I would just say that long isolation of indigenous people kept them from exposure to Afro-Asian animals and therefore the diseases that had jumped the animal-human barrier. Therefore Europeans tended to me immune, while indigenous Americans were susceptible.
For the question, "How did Russia's westward expansion change Russia? What continuities remained despite these changes?" I had they changed the administration, they had a larger/modern military, they had a new education system, and they had manufacture enterprises. Does anyone know any continuities?
As far as continuities, I got that the Russians kept Eastern Orthodoxy and the hierarchical systems.
Another continuity I got was the dilemma of being Asian or European and the continuity of St. Petersburg remaining a major city.
These are great answers. It shows you are carefully mining the text. For me, this question comes down to a couple of broad ideas with details (evidence) to support them.
The westward expansion brought with it changes in education, military forces, architectural style, and the dress of the nobility. French became the lingua franca among the upper class.
The tsar remained in power, the Russian language remained the same, and the unique “onion dome” architecture continued. Peasant lives were largely unaffected by the modernizing of the upper classes.
On page 225, the question " in what ways does this painting suggest that Qing strategies with nomads on China's frontier was a departure from that of previous dynasties?" I got that they were more forceful and aggressive with their actions towards the nomadic people. Is there more for this question?
Prior to the Qing, Chinese dynasties dealt with pastoral nomads reactively. Through diplomacy or defensive measures (e.g. the Great Wall), they attempted to forestall invasion. (context)
The Qing, a nomadic dynasty of Manchus itself, proactively and expanded to conquer those pastoral nomads. This is evident in this image of a Qing warrior, which shows him galloping aggressively into battle with Chinese dress, most notably the peacock feather in his headgear.
I won't be posting on this forum after today. I do not want to reward late studiers. But you guys can continue to work together.
On page 231, there is a picture with a question, "What in this painting suggests the significance of the siege of Vienna for European Christendom?" and I only got that it was the end of the serious threat to Christianity. Is that the only answer?
On page 220, what political and economic factor explain the pattern of Russian expansion? I said it expanded around Moscow, where it conquered neighboring states.
Does anybody have political points? Couldn’t really think of any.
Security & fur trade.
Don't ignore the broader margin questions guys.
For the question "To what extent did the British and Dutch trading companies change the societies they encountered in Asia" I got that the Dutch controlled the islands, and replaced the workers with their own, and that they were forced to only sell to the Dutch. For Britain I only got that they specialized the societies for market. Was there anything else for either of them?
because this is a continuity and change question, i put that the mughals continued ruling when the british established trade bases in india.
For Dutch changes, I added the following:
- shattered the local Spice Islands economy
- control of Indonesian spice shipping and production
Here is how I'd tackle this question - with two narratives:
The Dutch acted to control not only the shipping but also the production of cloves, cinnamon, nutmeg, and mace. With lots of bloodshed, the Dutch seized control of several small spice-producing islands, forcing their people to sell only to the Dutch. On the Banda Islands, the Dutch killed, enslaved, or left to starve virtually the entire population and then replaced them with Dutch planters, using a slave labor force to produce the nutmeg crop. Ultimately, the local economy of the Spice Islands was shattered by Dutch policies, and the people there were impoverished.
The British established three major trading settlements in India during the seventeenth century: Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras. They secured their trading bases with the permission of Mughal authorities or local rulers. British traders came to specialize in Indian
cotton textiles, and hundreds of villages in the interior of southern India became specialized producers for the British market.
Here is super broad question:
In what different ways did global commerce transform human societies and the lives of individuals during the early modern era?
It created completely new trade networks across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
The slave trade brought large numbers of Africans to the Americas.
It drew the remote peoples of Siberia and North America into global trade networks through the fur trade.
It slowed population growth, disrupted the economy, and sometimes shaped the political system in West Africa.
It was the driving force behind the large-scale slave economy that emerged in the Americas.
It further commercialized the economies of the world, especially that of China, through new sources of silver from South America and Japan.
In terms of its effect on individuals, many were enslaved.
Some prospered from the trade, others were hurt by it.
Folks gained access to new products and technologies.
For "Compare social and environmental effects of the spice trade in Asia with those of fur trade in North America", I had that social effects were
- women were replaced in their jobs/male dominance
- assimilation in Asian ports and mourning wars in America
- Manila was a city with a lot of cross cultural interactions
- many natives became slaves
- Americans had better relations with Europeans from fur trade
but for environmental effects I only had:
- depletion of species in America
Does anyone know the environmental effects in Asia?
Deforestation in both China and Japan.
For the question "What roles did Europeans and Africans play in the unfolding of the Atlantic slave trade?", I only got one answer, which was that Europeans bought slaves from Africans. Was there anything else?
Yes, but I wonder why other people are posting, and not offering help with your question. It's supposed to be a group effort.
Europeans had control of the whole enterprise.
Europeans tried to exploit existing African rivalries, and the firearms they imported may have increased warfare in Africa.
From the point of capture to sale on the coast, African elites and merchants made this happen.
And of course, the Africans who were transported played an tragic, critical role in the slave trade.
On page 259, "What was the significance of the silver trade in the early modern era of world history", I got that it started the first global network of exchange. I also found that it was the first direct/sustained link between the Americas and Asia, but I'm not sure if that just fits into the first answer.
- first genuine global network of exchange
- silver acts as cash payment (to buy Asian goods)
- Philippines: trade shipment center
- first direct + sustained link between the Americas and Asia
- China = huge economy, silver price skyrockets
- worldwide demand for silver
- bulk silver supply in China
- silver drain
- Asian centrality of world economy in early modern era
- development of mines (ex: Potosi)
thank you!! i also found one more:
-grew commercialization in economies
yeah, first sustained link.
Kate, I'd broaden your Philippines point to mention that it initiated a long lasting web of Pacific trading. That also replaces your "Asian centrality" point.
It transformed Spain and Japan
You can strike the "bulk silver" thing.
Mines are already implied by the question, so you don't need that other than to mention in my point above that Spain and Japan became the major suppliers of silver.
Asian centrality? I don't think so in this era as Europeans are controlling most of what happens.
You can strike the "silver drain" stuff, especially since it isn't explained.
"Worldwide demand" is also implied.
And on page 251 Strayer asks, to what extent did the Portuguese realize their goals in the Indian ocean? I am having a difficult time understanding what the question is asking. Can someone reword it in a more simple way? Thanks!
So what you need to figure out is, what were the Portuguese hoping to accomplish as they first entered the region. Then, compare that to what they actually accomplished. The it's a comparison question, similarities and differences of the https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ and end - what they hoped for versus what they got.
How I thought of the question was: "What did the Portuguese achieve and what did they fail at in their goal of controlling Indian Ocean commerce (spice trade)?"
Just compare what they wanted to what they got. Some things they did not achieve, some things they did. But mostly, things were only partially achieved. The last part is what "to what extent" means.
What is the difference between the question "Describe the impact of the fur trade on Northern American Native societies" on pg 261 and "How did European trade goods impact native societies?" on pg 264? The latter question is more specific to European goods, but would the former question contain all the same points as well, since European trade goods to Natives arrived with the fur trade?
You have analyzed these questions correctly. And yes, there would be some overlap in the answers.
The question to ask yourself here is, why did Strayer ask these different questions? You probably already figured out that he wants specifics for the fist, and more general (broader) answers for the second.
For example, for the first question, you might answer that the fur trade exposed involved natives to smallpox and influenza. This would hold true as a valid answer for the second question as well, you might say the acquisition of European trade goods exposed the Native Americans to Afro-Eurasian diseases.
On the other hand, for fur trade, you might mention that it protected Native Americans from extermination, enslavement, or displacement - at least for a while. This really doesn't rate as an answer to the second question as this wasn't broadly true beyond the fur trade.
For the question "Why did Europeans control less territory in the Indian Ocean basin than they did in the Americas?" I put because Asia already had societies, but I know that there were Native societies in the Americas, so its probably not right. Are there any other things?
The territories in the Indian Ocean had more developed technology and economy than the Europeans, and were typically united regions, giving the Europeans a disadvantage, whereas in the Americas they had less developed tech, (think saddles and horses, steel weaponry, etc.) had a lot of conflict and animosity that the Europeans used to get them to fight with them, and disease made them weaker and easier to conquer.
Also, Europeans had little immunity to malaria and other diseases. This limited them in exploiting the interior spaces in Asia. (No diseases do this in the Americas.
Also, most valuable Asian trade goods could be acquired along the coasts of Asia.
For the question of page 248, "why was Europe just beginning to participate in global commerce in the 16th century" I got
- geographic division slowed development
- Europe was handicapped by the Black Death
- no desirable products aside from bullion, which was limited
but I feel like I'm missing some obvious stuff from the text. Are there other answers?
Some other points I had alongside yours:
- population recovers + grows again
- monarchies learn to effectively tax + build military
- growth of cities (commerce centers, market economy, private ownership, capital investment)
"geographic division" is vague, and I'm not sure there is a valid answer there.
The main answer to this question is that there was already a demand tropical Asian spices such as cinnamon, nutmeg, etc. by 1500. There are three reasons for this: Black death as you mentioned, (I'm not going to tell you) and only in some cities were merchant houses prominent/rich enough to undertake long distance trade.
Bullion wasn't a factor yet. (Potosi was discovered in 1545 and in took decade for it's effect to become a worldwide phenomena)
Okay, you're on your own. Help each other out!
Check the forum page
On page 270, "What did the Atlantic slave trade share with other patterns of slave owning and slave trading", does anyone have specific points that aren't super broad?
For this specific question I mainly had pretty broad responses. I worry that they might be too broad (especially compared to the other question this is paired with), but I have that in all instances, the systems are that of forced and unpaid labor, that enslaved people were considered lower in status, and (this one I am a bit iffy on) that they all had roots in the Mediterranean. In the paragraph right next to the question, Strayer also says that "most slaves in the premodern world worked in their owners' households, farms, or shops, with smaller numbers laboring in large-scale agricultural or industrial enterprises," so I also had a point about that.
Check the "Forum" page
Ooops! Check the forum page.
On page 313, "Explain how the rise of universities contributed to the scientific revolution". For some reason I can't really come up with anything other than the fact that Western universities had a sense of autonomy, allowing for progress to be made outside the boundaries of the church. I feel like I'm missing a big point......
I'll help you out on the Forum page.
This page is too long. Go to the "Forum" page. I'll close this page down at the end of the week.
Use this space to check your margin questions with each other.