CH 5

Chapter-5
Nomadic Empires
Question 1.
Why was trade so significant to the Mongols?
Answer:
The region which was occupied by Mongols lacked natural resources. The steppe
region of Central Asia had extreme climate. Cultivation of food was not possible
there, only trade could help their survival. The Mongols were forced to trade as the
scanty resources of the steppes did not help cultivation. So the Mongols traded with
neighboring countries and it was beneficial for both the countries.
Question 2.
Why did Genghis Khan feel the need to fragment the Mongol tribes into new social
and military groupings?
Answer:
The following reasons forced Genghis Khan to fragment the Mongol tribes into new
social and military groupings:
● Mongols were the inhabitants of the steppe region. They had their own
separate identities. So in order to bring them in touch with other tribes,
Genghis Khan took this step.
● Mongols were courageous people. Because of this nature, Genghis Khan
organized them into military groups and established a formidable army.
A sound military organization could be very helpful in trade also .
● Childhood experiences of Genghis Khan were also responsible for the
fragmentation of Mongol tribes. Genghis Khan himself had to suffer a
lot during his childhood.
Question 3.
How do later Mongol reflections on the Yasa bring out the uneasy relationship they
had with the memory of Genghis Khan?
Answer:
Yasa were the rules and regulations. These were approved by Quritali during Genghis
Khan’s reign. These rules were mainly concerned with Mongol army, hunting, postage
system, social ladder, etc. They were compilation of traditions and customs that
prevailed in Mongol tribal society itself.
Question 4.
“If history relies upon written records produced by city-based literati, nomadic
societies will always receive a hostile representation.” Would you agree with this
statement ? Does it explain the reason why Persian chronicles produced such
inflated figures of casualties resulting from Mongol campaigns? (HOTS)
Answer:
Yes, I agree with the statement. I give the following reasons for my view.
● There were vast differences between The Secret Society of Mongols and
Marco Polo’s Travelogues in terms of events and their descriptions.
● Being the transcontinental span of the Mongol empire, the sources were
written in different languages.
● Persian chronicles produced inflated figures of casualties resulting from
Mongol campaigns to prove their cruelty or to prove them as cruel
assassins
Question 5.
Keeping the nomadic element of the Mongol and Bedouin societies in mind, how, in
your opinion, did their respective historical experiences differ? What explanations
would you suggest account for these differences?
Answer:
Mongols were tribes in the steppes of central Asia, a diverse body of people linked by
similarity in language to Tatars, Khitan and Manchus in east and Turkic tribes to the
west. Bedouins were Arab tribes moving from dry to green desert in search of food
and fodder for cattle. Some Mongols were pastoralists while others were
hunter-gatherers. On the other hand, Bedouins were pastoralists, agriculturists and
traders because of central Islamic lands surrounded by seas from four sides. The
steppes inhabitants usually produced no literature , so our knowledge of nomadic
societies under Mongols are quite different and the Italian and Latin versions of
Marco- Polo’s Travels to the Mongol Court do not match.
Question 6.
How does the following account enlarge upon the character of the Pax Mongolica
created by the Mongols by the middle of the thirteenth century?
The Franciscan monk, William of Rubruck, was sent by Louis IX of France on an

embassy to the great Khan Mongke’s court. He reached Karakorum, the capital of
Mongke, in 1254 and came upon a woman from Lorraine (in France) called
Paquette, who had been brought from Hungary and was in the service of one of the
prince’s wives who was a Nestorian Christian. At the court he came across a
Parisian goldsmith named Guillaume Boucher, ‘whose brother dwelt on the Grand
Pont in Paris’. This man was first employed by the Queen Sorghaqtani and then by
Mongke’s younger brother. Rubruck found that at the great court festivals the
Nestorian priests were admitted first, with their regalia, to bless the Grand Khan’s
cup, and were followed by the Muslim clergy and Buddhist and Taoist monks.
Answer:
The above account depicts the character of the Pax Mongolica by the middle of the
13th century:
● It became clear from the above incident that the French Monarch Louis
IX had sent his ambassador William of Rubruck to Karakorum, the
capital of Mongke in 1254. This depicts that Mongol rulers had
established a well-knit relation with their neighbours.
● Guillaume Boucher proved that Mongol rulers lived with great pomp and
show and they had brought servants to serve them from different parts
of the world. They were paid good salaries. That is why they reached to
serve Mongol court from far away.
● Mongol rulers were not fanatics and anxious to get the blessings of all
the people. They recruited administrators and armed forces from people
of all ethnic groups and religions. There was a multilingual,
multi-religious regime that did not feel threatened by its pluralistic
constitution. The above descriptions display the best aspect of
Pax-Mongolica. It is said that in a vast empire, the Mongols had
established such a rule that one could walk freely without the fear of
robbery.

CH 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CH 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CH 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter-5

Why was trade so signiﬁcant to the Mongols?

The Franciscan monk, William of Rubruck, was sent by Louis IX of France on an

You might also like