Alan Mata
November 30th 2017
World History 160B2
Douglas R. Wiener, Ali Atabey John Plano Carpini and William of Rubruck, both being servants from Christendom, have similar encounters with the Mongols. William of Rubruck and John Plano Carpini both analyze how the mongols live; For most of John Carpini section we are given information on how the Mongols live, how they hunt, dress, terrain, chiefs, etc; And until the end do we get his true mission. William wrote his section differently, he also gave us some background on the mongols but he was telling his story at the same time rather than saving it for the end like Carpini. Both had similarities in their journey but they also had some differences.
Concerns John Plano of Carpini and William of Rubruk had were that they were afraid of being attacked or killed on there journey to see the Mongols (Pg XV, Dawson, 1966). They also feared the mongols could destroy the church and bring terror to the Christian people. Which is why they are sent to make peace like in William case, or to study them and find their weak spots if they do attack like in
…show more content…
He noticed tartars are not expectant of what's to come, meaning they aren't settled (Chap II, Pg 93, Dawson, 1966). They both noticed their homes, how the mongols lived, in tents of material and twigs (Chap II, Pg 94, Dawson, 1966), that can be interpreted that they were not settled. They are nomadic people. Carpini stated that that some of the dwellings were small and some big (Chap II, Pg 8, Dawson, 1966). This shows that not everyone was equal. One thing they both noticed is that they believe in only one God, “they believe in one God, and they believe that He is the maker of all things visible and invisible” (Chap III, Pg 9, Dawson, 1966). But they do not pray for him in any kind of ceremony. They expected God to reward them every time they mentioned His name (Chap XXV, Pg 139, Dawson,
He says, "there is work to do, you must help your brothers living in the Orient, who need your aid for which they have cried out many times"3 Fulcher, 52. He gives word that these "brothers" (Christians) are being threatened by the Turks who must be pushed back to Persia. Urban will grant remission of sins for their services. In closing, Fulcher tells how Urban II presses on to say, " Let no delay postpone the journey"4 Fulcher, 53. Fulcher of Chartres' account of what happened at the Council of Clermont is a great piece, full of detail.
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”.
In document 1 by Pope Urban II, he stated that the Christians in the west should defend their fellow brethren in the east. He went on to state that Romania had been conquered and had to be taken back from the Turks and Arabs. The subjects had to fight for the land that they stand on to continue being good Christians. If you died fighting for this, you would get instant remission of sins, meaning you would be forgiven for all of their sins. He was the Pope; therefore, he stood on a different level than his subjects, and did not know how they felt about this matter. He had absolute power over everyone as the leader of their religion. In document 2 by Ekkehard in his book Hierosolymita, he praises the speech that Pope Urban gave in 1095 and told of how it le...
Urban’s decision to begin the Crusade was based on more than just the idea that he was doing the Lord’s will. The Christian idealism was mind over m...
...by Europeans such as Chaucer in his work The Canterbury Tales, where Genghis Khan is remembered as a renowned and noble king and his story that Chaucer tells is short but one with meaning and proof that Genghis Khan was a great ruler.
Compare these Mongol laws to current times in America or Europe. People are worried at night because of safety and not only lock their houses but get extensive security systems and other protections against people doing them harm. If we, in the United States or in Europe, are not barbaric yet do not feel the same kind of safety as the Mongol people felt, how are the Mongols barbaric. Along with these strict laws, the Mongols also showed strict morals with respect for each other, not get drunk often; but the Mongols were still very socially open to and enjoyed drinking in consideration. These morals have been around since Jesus’ time and He used them in his teachings, so if Jesus preached these morals and he the most perfect man accept them, how can the Mongols be seen as barbaric? Another thing that the Mongols did that showed their intelligence and civilizedness is their extensive post stations. These stations held fresh horses used for messengers to help them reach their destination much quicker. These stations were placed strategically along the road usually 25 miles
All people feared the Mongols of the thirteenth century. There are many reasons as to why people cringed when they heard the word Mongol. King Louis IX was especially fearful of the Mongols. He was so anxious he sent William of Rubruck to infiltrate the Mongol society, unravel their plans, integrate Christianity into their society, and show the world the culture of the medieval Mongols.
The Mongols have influenced many of the concept and idea that we still see utilized today in politics and international relations. Jack Weatherford tremendously changed my insight into the true Mongol and not the barbaric, savage I once thought of just by hearing the word. I resent this research paper a great deal, and I know that I may not get the grade I want, but at least I did learn something new and destroyed the previous thought I had about these people just by completing it so I feel it served its purpose and that’s the only reason my mind was changed.
While preparing to write this paper, I thought it would be great just to focus on the heroes of these two great epics many differences. Although during the course of my research I found that they also had just as many similarities. In this paper I will focus on the two characters by expressing their differences, as well as their similarities, and I will also give a bit of history about our two heroes.
When Westerners such as ourselves and people native to Europe are asked what they know of the Mongols the answer is usually ruthless barbarians intent upon world domination. After all these years you would expect that the educational points presented to the different generations in school would have given a different view of the Mongol civilization. Leaving this vision instilled upon generation after generation is detrimental to learning the different positive aspects left behind by such a powerful empire. The nomadic lifestyle that the Mongols endured empowered them to become hardy warriors. The Mongols began their conquests in response to Ghengis Khans personal missions as well as a disruption in trade and the ecology of the land upon which they inhabited.
... 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.
In order for the crusades to begin, the Christians needed to gather an army to travel and fight the forces of Muslims. With all the power being held by monarchies at this time, the church needed to be cleaver in order to gain troops to put their lives on the line. To gain the support of these warriors and dedication of men, Pope Urban II (1088-1099) challenged those morals of men by telling them to grab their weapons and join the holy war to recover the land of Jerusalem. It was not the challenge that convinced men to take part in this war. The promise of “immediate remission of sins” attracted the men to stand up for their religion and beliefs while at the same time, promising them a trip to heaven when life comes to an end. With this statement, men instantly prepared for battle which in a very short period of time gave the church power which has been held by the monarchies. Men of rich and poor prepared for battle, some wearing ...
Contrary to many commonly held notions about the first crusade, in his book, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, Jonathan Riley-Smith sets out to explain how the idea of crusading thought evolved in the first crusade. In his book, Riley-Smith sets out five main arguments to show how these ideas of crusading evolved. Firstly, he argues that Pope Urban’s original message was conventional, secondly that a more positive reaction was drawn from the laity (due to the ideas surrounding Jerusalem), thirdly, that the original message of crusading had changed because of the horrible experiences of the first crusaders, fourth, that due to these experiences the crusaders developed their own concept of what a crusade was, and lastly, that these ideas were refined by (religious) writers and turned into an acceptable form of theology. Riley-Smith makes excellent points about the crusade; however, before one can delve directly into his argument, one must first understand the background surrounding the rise of the first crusade.
There were many European people that decided to come to America to gain new territory. These people included Spanish explorers such as Christopher Columbus and Hernan Cortes and English explorers such as John Cabot. All three of these explorers sailed to America in between 1490 and 1550. They helped create the country that we live in today and changed the culture of America drastically. Christopher Columbus first voyaged in 1492 thinking he was sailing to Asia. He wanted to trade with the natives for spices and gold but he also wanted to convert them to Christianity. John Cabot like Columbus was trying to find a water route to Asia but landed in Canada instead. Cabot was an English sailor looking for trade routes and trying to find new lands
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).