Dbq Mongols Research Paper

The boy had been trained in the art of war since they were born and they had nothing else to do. These kids were taken from their family and sent to the camps at age 14. From this it was concluded that the people that fought the Mongols did not really have a chance against them. The Mongols had farther superior strategies and that is why they managed to kill so many people from the opposing armies. Even with all these things that they did they managed to try to make those empires great again but under Mongol rule.

Ata-Malik Juvaini wrote an article titled Genghis Khan: The HIstory of the World Conqueror, in 1997. In this article Juvaini wrote of the level of brutality the Mongols took in order to get what they desired (Doc, E). The Mongols went to the level of beheading people and stacking their heads up in piles separated by age, and sex, almost as if they were trophies (Doc. E). Some of the Mongol rampages had little to no survivors, others had up to 2,000,000 fatalities (Doc.

They see all these deaths caused by them and find it horrible. These people don't see the other perspective. Stuff like this has happened in the world for years and years. People don't realize it. As you can see, the Mongols were not barbaric.They did what they needed to do to be successful and survive.

The Mongols were easily one of the most dangerous and powerful empires in the 13th and 14th century. The Mongols were known for conquering most of the eastern empires of that time. Some may argue that the Mongols spread their culture and blended it with cultures across the eastern empires. The mongols did not desire to blend their culture and ideals with other empires but desired power and wealth and only what would benefit their own empire. The Mongols would take citizens from empires they conquered and recruit them into their army, make them slaves or require the citizens to pay tribute.

The Mongols are not barbaric shown through their battle as they were very disciplined, organized, and tried to create fear in others. When in battle, if one or more of the ten men fled, then they were all put to death. If all ten men run away, then the whole group of 100 is put to death. If one or more go to fight or get captured by the enemy and the others do not try to go after them then they all are put to death. (Document 10) The Mongol soldiers were very disciplined, which enabled them to give it their all and work together to defeat their enemy.

Barbarians have an impressive history despite the bloodshed left in their wake. They somehow went from a lone, nomadic clan to an allegiance of clans who conquered Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in a very short amount of time. The Barbarians success was probably a result of their strategy and preparedness in war. First they had a specific chain of command for their army and a strategy for attacking that would make their numbers seem larger and surround their adversaries. Furthermore, they would not allow their adversary to rest while fighting and instead took turns to wear them out.

His responsibility for many deaths, his wanting of unfair wars, the unjust laws all clearly imply that Asoka is a Ruthless Conqueror. To start, Asoka’s responsibility for taking innocent lives of civilians and soldiers was merciless. The map of Document A, Asoka’s empire, shows the area Ashoka had ruled before the conquest and what Kalinga had owned. Asoka’s land is probably around 10 times bigger than Kalinga’s land area. He had more power and better soldiers which killed civilians and soldiers of Kalinga.

Today Attila the Hun is categorised as a great leader by modern historians due to his loyalty, his courage and his ability to take charge. In contrast to these views, the classical writers feared him, naming him the “Scourge of God” and calling him savage, as he conducted many massacres and killed many men. Most modern historians have an opinion of Attila the Hun, such as Wills Durant and Peter Heathers. Additionally the book “Leadership secrets of Attila the Hun” by Wess Roberts states we have a lot to learn from Attila’s reign. Although there are many modern sources dedicated to Attila, there are very few ancient sources written about him.

Genghis’s attack strategy was questioned by many of the soldiers, and most of his soldiers did not think it would work until they had won around 3% of his battles. Genghis’s leading style was not to cower behind his men, in every single battle that the Mongols won (Whenever Genghis was in the back they lost that battle miserably) Genghis was at the front of the army every chance he had and almost always had the first kill. If the Mongols were near defeat Genghis refused to retreat (some would call this bravery others would call this stupidity), the army had only ever lost 3 battles, and 2 out of the 3 Genghis came back and took those cities back. Genghis and his army were so feared that eventually they would start accepting a tribute in return for the towns lives, most of the villages he attacked refused this request and chose to fight

Just like the battle of Washita which was a very bloody battle that was more of a slaughter than a battle. They destroyed native food supplies, lodging and even killed the natives horses. Ranald Mackenzie's slaughter of over 1000 native american ponies was considered overkill and a waste of resources. The Sioux, Cheyenne, and even the Arapahos pushed the northerners out of the Dakotas, but the rumors of gold in North Dakota cause the whites expansion to explode to the Dakotas. This caused the natives to be forced out of their home or killed.