The Mongol Moment

29/10/2016

Evie Cockrell

30/10/2016 12:45:31

Hi! This is for MQ 2:
In what ways did pastoral societies interact with their agricultural neighbors?

Pastoral societies were almost completely dependent, as they couldn't live solely on animal products, on agricultural societies, seeking foodstuffs, manufactured goods, & luxury items.

Pastoral societies raided, traded, & extorted agricultural societies to extract wealth and sustain their nomadic states.

Nomadic elites would adopt agricultural religions, typically temporarily and for political purposes, and it would spread throughout the nomadic states.

Nomads of the Steppes were the first to master horseback riding, which many agricultural societies were able to benefit from.

Does this answer it well, or am I missing things? Should I have gone into details from the major pastoral societies that Strayer mentions?

Eliza Pillsbury

1/11/2016 19:35:57

I also mentioned how tribal confederations and nomadic states were formed to facilitate interaction with agricultural neighbors. Would you agree with that addition?

Thanks for the comment about the horseback riding, I hadn't thought of that!

Eliza Pillsbury

1/11/2016 19:37:00

Oh, Strayer also mentioned how the rare nomadic states would treat agricultural allies with "fictive kinship". This seemed like a strange detail, do you think it applies to this question?

Matilda

2/11/2016 22:20:44

I also mentioned that pastoralists contributed mastery of environments unsuitable for agriculture ? does this fit??

Taylor Scott

3/11/2016 08:32:29

That may work better under MQ1.

Amy Vaughan

30/10/2016 18:40:39

MQ1: Comparison: In what ways did pastoral societies differ from their agricultural counterparts?
-less productive economies
-less compact settlements (more pasture land needed per herd)
-less populous
-small family encampments organized in kinship groups/tribes
-experienced inequality (despite contrary values of equality)
-women had higher status/more freedom
-mobile

Eliza Pillsbury

1/11/2016 19:31:47

I also said that they lacked the resources to support a state structure, don't know if that is redundant!

Taylor Scott

3/11/2016 08:35:36

Do you mean surplus money for professional armies and bureaucracies when you say resources or are there other resources that I am missing?

Student K

31/10/2016 03:06:34

Summing it Up: What accounts for the political and military success of the Mongols?

The had lucky timing. China was divided in the North from other nomads, and Abbasid caliphate was significantly smaller than it had been.

They had an organized, well lead army. Reasons why military was effective:
-Chinggis Kahn changed social structure of Mongols and divided them into military units of 10, 100, 1000, and 10,000.
-Loyalty to leaders because of policy that if one person bailed in the group, the whole group would get killed, and the fact that leaders fought/struggled with them in battle.
-Because they had a small population, they would conscript conquered people into the army, while the "original" Mongols stayed back and farmed.
-Learned Chinese technology and military methods from invasions into China
-Rep of being brutal in war caused some other civilizations to just surrender before fighting.

All the conquering meant income of a lot of wealth. Allowed them to own slaves.

Made conquered people build public works for them well.

Mongol government allowed merchants to use relay stations for trade.

Mongols were religiously tolerant and it allowed Muslims to convert people, and gave Christians more freedom than they had under Muslim rule.

Eliza Pillsbury

1/11/2016 19:41:50

I'm so glad you answered this question, as I think there are a lot of important things to take away from your answer.

I organized my answer a bit differently...I like your first three points! I added that the Mongols had the ability to mobilize human and material resources, and put examples such as census taking, taxation, as well as the relay stations example that you provided. You might also look more big picture with the tolerance of the Mongols, and include their religious tolerance and acceptance of merchants as examples.

What are your thoughts?

Cassie Barham

1/11/2016 16:45:42

BPQ: In what different ways did Mongol rule affect the Islamic world, Russia, China, and Europe? In what respects did it foster Eurasian integration?

Islamic World:
--Conquest of Persia led to conversion of Mongols to the Islamic faith
--Mongols damaged Persia's agriculture
--Mongols decided to adopt Persia's style of bureaucracy, and so had little impact on Persia politically
--In Persia, a large number of Mongols married Persians, adopted a lifestyle of farming, and assimilated into Persian society

Russia:
--Mongol did not occupy Russia after conquest
--Mongols were not as influenced by Russia as in China or Persia due to their lack of presence in Russia
--Russian princes gave tribute in exchange for appointment with the khan
--Russia found the Mongols' weapons, rituals of diplomacy, court practices, military draft, and system of taxation extremely useful

China:
--Became united under Mongolian rule
--The Mongols adopted much of China's governing techniques and preexisting systems and ideas, and so China was not changed very much by the Mongols

Europe:
--Although never conquered by the Mongols, the networks of exchange that the Mongols had facilitated opened the door for Europe's connection with the wider Eurasian world--they were stimulated by this flow of ideas and technologies
--Europeans now had the opportunity to travel through the Mongol empire, and as such across Eurasia
--When the Mongolian empire collapsed, the Europeans were inspired to take advantage of their naval technology to reach the riches of Asia
--Europe was negatively impacted by the spread of the black death, which often traveled through the united trade routes under Mongolian rule

Cassie Barham

1/11/2016 16:57:32

The main way in which I attempted to address the Eurasian integration aspect of this question was in the Mongols' impact on Europe since that primarily served to connect Europe to the rest of the Mongolian Empire. There are definitely more ways in which the Mongols impacted interaction and exchange in Eurasia, but that also manifests itself in the margin question: "What kinds of cross-cultural interactions did the Mongol Empire generate?"

The main distinction I took into account for my answers to the big picture question and the margin question was the word-choice of "integration" versus "interactions"--integration as in consolidating different groups, peoples, and ideas across Eurasia, and interaction as in general exchange throughout Eurasia. I think there's overlap there, but still a notable distinction. Was I approaching this the right way? I'll also add my answer to the margin question for reference.

Cassie Barham

1/11/2016 17:07:07

MQ: What kinds of cross-cultural interactions did the Mongol Empire generate?

--The Mongols promoted trade and commerce across Eurasia with a wide-reaching trading network
--The wide reach of the Mongol empire stimulated diplomatic relationships, such as with Persia and China.
--The Mongol Empire saw an immense amount of exchange of ideas and technology, which was in part facilitated by the forceful relocation of skilled or educated people. In addition, Mongolian officials actively supported exchange--a great amount of Chinese technology and artistic techniques diffused westward (like painting, printing, weapons with gunpowder, compasses,and medical techniques)
--Religious tradition also spread due to the Mongol's religious tolerance
--Crops were exchanged

Cassie Barham

1/11/2016 17:09:11

Actually, looking back, I will say that I think the point of the trading circuit and wide-reaching commerce should probably be under the big picture question for integration.

Eliza Pillsbury and Amy Vaughan

3/11/2016 19:47:19

We placed your points for integration mostly under the Europe subtitle, and zoomed out a bit to finish answering this big picture question.

In what respects did it foster Eurasian integration?
Mongols promoted international commerce which strengthened the Silk Roads, uniting Eurasia from Europe to China
The Mongols stimulated attempts at diplomatic relations, such as the communication between the courts of Persia and China, and brought new information about the east to Europe
The movement of people within the Mongol Empire, whether forcibly or freely, facilitated the exchange of culture, ideas, techniques, and crops
The unification of Eurasia through the Mongol Empire exacerbated the spread of the Black Death, which consequently weakened the empire itself

What are your thoughts?

Bingham

2/11/2016 22:47:12

This is the central question for this chapter, right? I mean the scope is broad, and it lends itself to both answers that are categorical in nature, AND specific details in support of each of these categories.

So, the categories in this case flow right from the question: Mongol effects on Russia, China, Islam, and western Europe. Under each, there is much to say. If this were a test question, this would be a big point maker, lots of ways to answer each category.

Cassie's done a great job here. Do you have anything to add? Do you understand on a deep level this question and the totality of the possible answers?

This is the kind of question that can dominate a test and allow for many wide ranging answers. As such, it deserves your attention.

Bingham

3/11/2016 07:17:02

I was referring to the BPQ above, not sure my post ended up down here.

Amy Vaughan

3/11/2016 19:06:21

Hey Cassie! This is really great! However, I noticed as I read through the question that you occasionally include how these civilizations influenced the Mongols, and I interpreted the question to be asking about Mongol influences on the given civs. What do you think?

Eliza Pillsbury

1/11/2016 19:45:23

Can anyone clarify MQ4 for me? As far as steps, I only found two events that Strayer mentions.

1) Temujin recognized as Chinggis Khan, "supreme leader" of Great Mongol Nation
2) 1209: first major attack on settled agricultural societies south of Mongolia set in motion a Mongol World War

I know that I am for sure missing stuff here, but I was confused as to how to approach this question.

Cassie Barham

1/11/2016 21:39:23

This question confused me a bit as well. I approached it very similarly to you. Pretty much what I did was separate your last point and expand a bit. This is what I have:

1. Chinggis Khan succeeded in unifying the Mongols under the Great Mongol Nation
2. To maintain this unity, Chinggis Khan initiated a series of military conquests against the neighboring agricultural societies
3. Through this warfare, Chinggis Khan (and those who followed) established an empire that enveloped China, Central Asia, Korea, Russia, Persia and other parts of the Islamic middle east, and even parts of Eastern Europe

Amy Vaughan

1/11/2016 22:26:04

My way of organizing my answer is similar to yours, but I think I have at least one different point. Here is my answer:
1. Chinggis Khan united the extremely fractured Mongols in tribal alliances.
2. These alliances were able to then conquer other peoples, incorportating them into the Mongol military, and facilitating immense military growth.
3. needed a common, unifying goal, so began expansion into China
4. invasion of China marked the beginning of a 50 year Mongol "world war" of empire-building that eventually spanned most of Eurasia.

Eliza Pillsbury

1/11/2016 22:27:03

We came up with the mnemonic device: Unification, incorporation, expansion, creation! The sounds help my brain grab these points.

Bingham

2/11/2016 22:57:32

Yes, you are missing something, and is often the case, that something is obvious the hunter wants, but you are eager to please him.. Not to say your analysis is weak, but you and your peers still miss this obvious at times. That's because you are a bit "gun shy" at the moment. You don't know what that hunter wants.

1. Temujin brings the Mongols clans together as a new Mongol nation in 1206.
2. In order to hold his alliance together, Chinggis Khan launched a series of military campaigns against the settled agricultural societies of Eurasia over the half century after 1209.
3. and this is the obvious answer that alludes notice simply because it is obvious: Through this Mongol world war, Chinggis Khan and his successors constructed an empire that included China, Korea, Central Asia, Russia, much of the Islamic Middle East, and parts of Eastern Europe.

Bingham

3/11/2016 07:20:50

Oops. I should have read Cassie and Amy's posts more carefully.

Eliza Pillsbury

1/11/2016 19:53:43

MQ5 also confused me. I didn't find many answers for how China was changed by the Mongols, so here is the second half of the question. Please fill in where I am lacking!

In what ways were the Mongols changed by China?
- Mongols incorporated Chinese religious traditions, such as Confucian rituals, Daoist temples, and Tibetan Buddhism
- adopted Chinese administrative, taxation, and postal systems
- gave themselves Chinese dynastic title, Yuan
- Mongol leader Khubilai Kahn shared political values of benevolent Chinese emperor
- transferred capital to Karakorum

Eliza Pillsbury

1/11/2016 19:55:26

Also, I created a part three for this question.

How did the Mongols resist change?
- ignored examination system
- few Mongols learned Chinese
- honored merchants, which contradicted Confucian values
- forbade intermarriage between Mongols and Chinese
- women never adopted foot binding and were able to exert political influence

Cassie Barham

1/11/2016 21:41:34

I like your addition here. Really the only thing I came up with for how Chinese society was affected was that they became unified under Mongolian rule.

Amy Vaughan

1/11/2016 22:31:28

I have a few more ways China was influenced by the Mongols:
-(like Cassie said, unification)
-northern China suffered destruction from the initial invasion (not sure if this one qualifies)
-Chinese extended the Mandate of Heaven to include the Mongols
-landowners complied with the Mongols in order to keep their land

Eliza Pillsbury

1/11/2016 20:09:28

BPQ1: What accounts for the often negative attitudes of settled societies toward the pastoral peoples living on their borders?

Pastoral peoples were often seen as primitive and barbaric in comparison to agricultural civilizations. Their preference for mobile, clan-based settlements with smaller populations and their general lack of a written language differed greatly from the urbanized cities of agricultural society. The greater freedom of nomadic women could have been seen as backwards to the patriarchal hierarchy in agricultural civilizations. Also, the lack of a unified state structure with which to negotiate prevented communication between the two parties. Most interaction was limited to pastoral peoples extracting large volumes of resources from agricultural peoples, and invasion by nomadic tribes which was often accompanied by mass destruction. This relationship instilled fear and contempt for pastoral peoples among settled societies.

I used my answers for MQ1 to help me figure out why a negative connotation might have arisen from these differences. Do you think this answer is effective?

Eliza Pillsbury and Amy Vaughan

1/11/2016 22:13:40

MQ3: In what ways did the Xiongnu, Arabs, Turks, and Berbers make an impact on world history?

Xiongnu:
- unified many tribes under centralized state
- pastoral people newly recognized as equal to established agricultural society (Han China)
- created a model of a powerful nomadic empire that the Turks and Mongols later followed

Arabs:
- originated Islamic religious tradition
- strong military enabled control of trade routes and expansion of Islam (we broke this up into two points to remember it!)
- development of an Arab Empire from nomadic tribes

Turks:
- interacted intensely with China, Persia, Byzantium
- became third major carrier of Islam
- spread Turkic culture into new areas
- established position for themselves in heartland of Muslim world

Berbers:
- adopted Islam
- reformed religious movement became powerful Almoravid state
- came into conflict with and impacted neighboring civilizations in North Africa and Europe

Bingham

2/11/2016 22:59:46

Excellent work guys!

Amy Vaughan

2/11/2016 23:14:08

Here is a question I made up:
Europeans are sometimes referred to as "the Mongols of the seas." What evidence might go to support this statement, and what might go against it?

Europeans and the Mongols have a lot in common in that they both:
-were people on the periphery of larger civilizations
-were less economically developed in comparison to neighbors
-tended to extract wealth from wealthier civilizations
-built empires
-spread disease throughout empires

On the other hand, Europeans differed from the Mongols in that they:
-brought their culture and people to conquests (Christianity, languages, settled society, and Western learning)
-lasted longer
-spread more globally

Bingham

3/11/2016 07:23:47

That's good Amy, and it helps advance our investigation into "why the west".

Bingham

Welcome class of 2019. Some years students collaborate in this space effectively, some years not so much. One thing I know, collaboration significantly enhances learning. If you want access to my thoughts, this is the collaboration space to use. Most people propose an answer to margin questions, big picture question, or anything else related to managing Strayer. Other people can then comment leading to a stronger answer. I'll keep an eye on these pages, and pop in when I think you need me.

The Mongol Moment

Leave a Reply.

Bingham

Archives

Categories