Question
Paragraph 2
The Mongols ordered that, apart from four hundred artisans and some children whom they bore off into captivity … the whole population, including the women and [the rest of the] children, should be killed, and no one be spared. The people of Merv were then distributed among the soldiers and, in short, to each man was allotted the execution of three or four hundred persons … So many had been killed by nightfall that … the plain was soaked with the blood of the mighty …
[At Nishapur] they severed the heads of the slain from their bodies and heaped them in piles, keeping those of the men separate from those of the women and children …
Flies and wolves feasted on the breasts of sadrs [religious dignitaries]; eagles on mountain tops regaled [filled] themselves with the flesh of delicate women.
Question
Paragraph 3
[At its height] Merv was a cultural capital, attracting the brightest thinkers and artists from around the Islamic world … To be marwazi (from Merv) suggested a degree of cultivation and sophistication … Though secluded in an oasis in the Karakum desert, Merv was a worldly city, an exemplar of the commercial and intellectual culture that flourished along the Silk Road.
Merv was also no stranger to political upheaval and war … [but no] conquest was as traumatic as its pillage by the Mongols in 1221 … According to the [Muslim] historian Ibn al-Athir, who based his account on the reports of refugees from Merv: “Genghis Khan ordered the troops who had been seized should be brought before him … they were executed and the people looked on and wept. When it came to the common people, they separated men, women, children and possessions … They took the wealthy people and beat them and tortured them with all sorts of cruelties in the search for wealth … Then they set fire to the city and burned the tomb of Sultan Sanjar and dug up his grave looking for money. They said, ‘These people have resisted us’ so they killed them all.”
Question
(a) What, according to Paragraph 2, happened to the populations of Merv and Nishapur? [3]
(b) What does Paragraph 1 suggest about Genghis Khan’s relations with other leaders? [2]
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans
(a)
• By implication, most of the population of Merv was killed.
• 400 artisans of Merv were spared as were some children who were taken into captivity.
• At Nishapur the dead were decapitated and/or the bodies/heads of the men were kept separate from the bodies of the women.
• In both places the level of violence was substantial.
(b)
• Genghis Khan was feared and/or respected by other leaders.
• Genghis Khan was prepared to accept diplomatic relations with other leaders.
• There may have been ongoing distrust between the two parties as both sides are armed.
Question
With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Paragraph 3 for an historian studying the Mongol conquests under Genghis Khan. [4]
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans
Value:
• The source was written in 2016 and provides context of the long-term impact of the Mongol conquest of Merv, which is described as a “lost city”.
• The source indicates that there was a substantial human and cultural cost to the Mongol conquest of the city.
• Part of the source is based on contemporary accounts of the attack on Merv and/or there is a suggestion that only those areas that offered resistance were annihilated.
Limitations:
• The author is a writer and broadcaster rather than a professional historian and the intention is likely to pique the interest of a general readership.
• It is written for a newspaper as part of a series of articles on lost cities and may lack depth.
• The source uses dramatic language and the excerpt within the source is from a Muslim historian’s accounts of refugees from Merv and is, therefore, likely to exaggerate the brutality of the Mongols.
Question
With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Paragraph 3 for an historian studying the Mongol conquests under Genghis Khan. [4]
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans
Value:
• The source was written in 2016 and provides context of the long-term impact of the Mongol conquest of Merv, which is described as a “lost city”.
• The source indicates that there was a substantial human and cultural cost to the Mongol conquest of the city.
• Part of the source is based on contemporary accounts of the attack on Merv and/or there is a suggestion that only those areas that offered resistance were annihilated.
Limitations:
• The author is a writer and broadcaster rather than a professional historian and the intention is likely to pique the interest of a general readership.
• It is written for a newspaper as part of a series of articles on lost cities and may lack depth.
• The source uses dramatic language and the excerpt within the source is from a Muslim historian’s accounts of refugees from Merv and is, therefore, likely to exaggerate the brutality of the Mongols.
Question
Using the sources and your own knowledge, discuss the view that Mongol conquests under Genghis Khan were brutal and destructive. [9]
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans
Indicative content
Paragraph 1 The source suggests that Genghis Khan was prepared to engage in diplomatic negotiations. However, the delivery of gifts such as the Princess Qiguo and the promise by the Emperor Xuanzong to become a vassal suggest that there was sufficient fear of Genghis Khan to merit an attempt to prevent his forceful acquisition of the Jin Empire.
Paragraph 2 The source indicates that the conquests were brutal and destructive and that the populations of conquered territories were mercilessly slain and their bodies left in the open. However, the source also indicates that the destruction was not total as not all the population suffered the same fate; some artisans were spared and some children were taken into captivity. Additionally, the sparing of the lives of some 400 artisans suggests that the Mongol conquests did not extend to the entire destruction of cultures. Furthermore, this could suggest some preplanning by Mongols to assimilate skills that may be useful in the future.
Paragraph 3 This source indicates that the conquests were brutal. In addition to the human cost of the conquest, there was also a cultural cost as the source asserts that Merv, a “cultural capital”, was “razed – and never recovered”. The cultural vandalism suggested by the source is also linked to a search for riches: in addition to seizing money from the wealthiest inhabitants of the city, the Mongols partook of grave-robbing.
Own knowledge Candidates may suggest that the Mongols under Genghis Khan were not wantonly brutal and destructive. Further evidence of Genghis Khan’s willingness to accept surrender and vassalage may include the Western Xia dynasty (Tangut Empire). It was only when the dynasty tried to break with the Mongol Empire and failed to assist the Mongols in their attacks on the Khwarezmian Empire that it felt the full force of the Mongol attacks. This is in contrast to Baurchuk Art Tekin, an Uyghur chieftain, whose consistent loyalty to Genghis Khan led to his marriage to Khan’s daughter Alaltün.
The Mongols under Genghis Khan practised religious toleration and did not seek to eradicate other faiths or their institutions, in fact, several semi-autonomous regions of the ‘Abbasid Empire were willing to be absorbed into the Mongol Empire.
It may also be suggested that the Mongol conquests led to peace among warring tribes and this laid the basis for the Mongol Empire, the existence of which facilitated trade along the Silk Road between north and central Asia and Europe.
Paragraph 1
Sayf al-Din Wahidi, an illuminator, depicts a group of diplomats sent to Genghis Khan by Emperor Xuanzong of Jin. In order to retain his position, Xuanzong sends gifts, including the Princess Qiguo (on horseback), and promises to become a vassal. From The Compendium of Chronicles by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani (early 14th century) in an edition c1430–1434.
Paragraph 2
The Mongols ordered that, apart from four hundred artisans and some children whom they bore off into captivity … the whole population, including the women and [the rest of the] children, should be killed, and no one be spared. The people of Merv were then distributed among the soldiers and, in short, to each man was allotted the execution of three or four hundred persons … So many had been killed by nightfall that … the plain was soaked with the blood of the mighty …
[At Nishapur] they severed the heads of the slain from their bodies and heaped them in piles, keeping those of the men separate from those of the women and children …
Flies and wolves feasted on the breasts of sadrs [religious dignitaries]; eagles on mountain tops regaled [filled] themselves with the flesh of delicate women.
Paragraph 3
[At its height] Merv was a cultural capital, attracting the brightest thinkers and artists from around the Islamic world … To be marwazi (from Merv) suggested a degree of cultivation and sophistication … Though secluded in an oasis in the Karakum desert, Merv was a worldly city, an exemplar of the commercial and intellectual culture that flourished along the Silk Road.
Merv was also no stranger to political upheaval and war … [but no] conquest was as traumatic as its pillage by the Mongols in 1221 … According to the [Muslim] historian Ibn al-Athir, who based his account on the reports of refugees from Merv: “Genghis Khan ordered the troops who had been seized should be brought before him … they were executed and the people looked on and wept. When it came to the common people, they separated men, women, children and possessions … They took the wealthy people and beat them and tortured them with all sorts of cruelties in the search for wealth … Then they set fire to the city and burned the tomb of Sultan Sanjar and dug up his grave looking for money. They said, ‘These people have resisted us’ so they killed them all.”
Question
(a) What, according to Paragraph 2, happened to the populations of Merv and Nishapur? [3]
(b) What does Paragraph 1 suggest about Genghis Khan’s relations with other leaders? [2]
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans
(a)
• By implication, most of the population of Merv was killed.
• 400 artisans of Merv were spared as were some children who were taken into captivity.
• At Nishapur the dead were decapitated and/or the bodies/heads of the men were kept separate from the bodies of the women.
• In both places the level of violence was substantial.
(b)
• Genghis Khan was feared and/or respected by other leaders.
• Genghis Khan was prepared to accept diplomatic relations with other leaders.
• There may have been ongoing distrust between the two parties as both sides are armed.
Question
With reference to its origin, purpose and content, analyse the value and limitations of Paragraph 3 for an historian studying the Mongol conquests under Genghis Khan. [4]
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans
Value:
• The source was written in 2016 and provides context of the long-term impact of the Mongol conquest of Merv, which is described as a “lost city”.
• The source indicates that there was a substantial human and cultural cost to the Mongol conquest of the city.
• Part of the source is based on contemporary accounts of the attack on Merv and/or there is a suggestion that only those areas that offered resistance were annihilated.
Limitations:
• The author is a writer and broadcaster rather than a professional historian and the intention is likely to pique the interest of a general readership.
• It is written for a newspaper as part of a series of articles on lost cities and may lack depth.
• The source uses dramatic language and the excerpt within the source is from a Muslim historian’s accounts of refugees from Merv and is, therefore, likely to exaggerate the brutality of the Mongols.
Question
Using the sources and your own knowledge, discuss the view that Mongol conquests under Genghis Khan were brutal and destructive. [9]
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans
Indicative content
Paragraph 1 The source suggests that Genghis Khan was prepared to engage in diplomatic negotiations. However, the delivery of gifts such as the Princess Qiguo and the promise by the Emperor Xuanzong to become a vassal suggest that there was sufficient fear of Genghis Khan to merit an attempt to prevent his forceful acquisition of the Jin Empire.
Paragraph 2 The source indicates that the conquests were brutal and destructive and that the populations of conquered territories were mercilessly slain and their bodies left in the open. However, the source also indicates that the destruction was not total as not all the population suffered the same fate; some artisans were spared and some children were taken into captivity. Additionally, the sparing of the lives of some 400 artisans suggests that the Mongol conquests did not extend to the entire destruction of cultures. Furthermore, this could suggest some preplanning by Mongols to assimilate skills that may be useful in the future.
Paragraph 3 This source indicates that the conquests were brutal. In addition to the human cost of the conquest, there was also a cultural cost as the source asserts that Merv, a “cultural capital”, was “razed – and never recovered”. The cultural vandalism suggested by the source is also linked to a search for riches: in addition to seizing money from the wealthiest inhabitants of the city, the Mongols partook of grave-robbing.
Own knowledge Candidates may suggest that the Mongols under Genghis Khan were not wantonly brutal and destructive. Further evidence of Genghis Khan’s willingness to accept surrender and vassalage may include the Western Xia dynasty (Tangut Empire). It was only when the dynasty tried to break with the Mongol Empire and failed to assist the Mongols in their attacks on the Khwarezmian Empire that it felt the full force of the Mongol attacks. This is in contrast to Baurchuk Art Tekin, an Uyghur chieftain, whose consistent loyalty to Genghis Khan led to his marriage to Khan’s daughter Alaltün.
The Mongols under Genghis Khan practised religious toleration and did not seek to eradicate other faiths or their institutions, in fact, several semi-autonomous regions of the ‘Abbasid Empire were willing to be absorbed into the Mongol Empire.
It may also be suggested that the Mongol conquests led to peace among warring tribes and this laid the basis for the Mongol Empire, the existence of which facilitated trade along the Silk Road between north and central Asia and Europe.