Mandarin
Mongols and Barbarians
1. Which sources have historians relied upon to make judgments about the steppe civilizations? Why does the author think this is a problem?
Most of the sources that historians relied upon to make judgments about the steppe civilizations are not objective; they are one-sided, biased accounts written by members of civilized societies who were at war with these Mongols. This is a problem because these authors tended to condemn and denigrate the way their barbarian opponents looked, associated them with the devil, and only emphasize their negative aspects, since they were writing out of anger. This is also a problem, according to the author of this article, Gregory Guzman, because it makes the barbarians have bad press.
2. What questions do traditional historians not answer about the success of the
“barbarian” civilizations in the typical history of this period?
The questions traditional historians did not answer about the success of the
“barbarian” civilizations in the typical history of this period were simply the following: Who were these barbarians? Why and how did they manage to repeatedly defeat and overwhelm so easily the wealthiest and most advanced civilizations of the day? Why were they so vehemently condemned and hated in recorded history, if these barbarian Davids were able to consistently defeat such mighty Goliath civilized centers. Since the rich and populous civilized states enjoyed tremendous advantages in the confrontations, why have the barbarians so often been denied the popular role of the underdog?
3. Where do the steppe civilizations come from and why is this important for our understanding of their culture and organization?
In terms of identity, the barbarians were the steppe nomads of Inner Asia or Central Eurasia. This are represents one of the toughest places in the world in which to survive. It is an area of ice, forest, desert, and mountains—with bitter winds, dust, and poor soil. Due to the necessity,
1. Which sources have historians relied upon to make judgments about the steppe civilizations? Why does the author think this is a problem?
Most of the sources that historians relied upon to make judgments about the steppe civilizations are not objective; they are one-sided, biased accounts written by members of civilized societies who were at war with these Mongols. This is a problem because these authors tended to condemn and denigrate the way their barbarian opponents looked, associated them with the devil, and only emphasize their negative aspects, since they were writing out of anger. This is also a problem, according to the author of this article, Gregory Guzman, because it makes the barbarians have bad press.
2. What questions do traditional historians not answer about the success of the
“barbarian” civilizations in the typical history of this period?
The questions traditional historians did not answer about the success of the
“barbarian” civilizations in the typical history of this period were simply the following: Who were these barbarians? Why and how did they manage to repeatedly defeat and overwhelm so easily the wealthiest and most advanced civilizations of the day? Why were they so vehemently condemned and hated in recorded history, if these barbarian Davids were able to consistently defeat such mighty Goliath civilized centers. Since the rich and populous civilized states enjoyed tremendous advantages in the confrontations, why have the barbarians so often been denied the popular role of the underdog?
3. Where do the steppe civilizations come from and why is this important for our understanding of their culture and organization?
In terms of identity, the barbarians were the steppe nomads of Inner Asia or Central Eurasia. This are represents one of the toughest places in the world in which to survive. It is an area of ice, forest, desert, and mountains—with bitter winds, dust, and poor soil. Due to the necessity,