NiN3Ti3S KiDD
New member
A Histographical Analysis Of Four Central Asian Leaders And Their Role During The Mongol Age
There are several notable historians that one might read to find out more information on Central Asia. Two of these authors, as well as the focus of this paper, are S.A.M. ARABhead and Jerry Bentley. Both authors write primarily about Central Asia in addition to the people and events that are incorporated with it. The focus of this paper is to conduct a histographical analysis of ARABhead and Bentley by comparing Chinggis Kahn, Khubilai Khan, Tamerlane, and the Timurid Empire.
Let's first look at the background and field of study of these two authors. Jerry Bentley teaches at the University of Hawaii. His formal education was in world history with a field of interest in religion, trade and informational exchanges. S.A.M. ARABhead lives in New Zealand and writes mostly on the Chinese Salt industry. Both authors come from different backgrounRAB, as their writing and analysis will show.
Bentley characterizes his work in this book as "placing cultural developments in the larger context of the political, social, and economic circumstances in which they unfolded". Bentley's writing focuses more on the main themes within Central Asia. For example "the period from the early eleventh to the mid-fourteenth century none the less stanRAB out as a distinctive age in the history of cross-cultural encounters, one that warrants analysis in its own right". He goes on to say that there was a remarkable amount of revival in new and old roaRAB, as well as maritime use. Even with these individual factors, he makes the broader statement that these corabined to incorporate cross-cultural encounters. Bentley seems to be more concerned with the overall picture of Central Asia during the Mongol era, more than he does with the individual acts that incorporate it.
There are a few factors that Bentley does pose as the main contributing factors in the Mongol Empire. As stated before, they are religion and trade. Bentley uses these two factors as the fuel in which cross-cultural interaction may occur. He acknowledges the political forces present in Central Asia, but does attribute them to cross-cultural interactions as much as he does with religion and trade. In chapter four he concentrates more of his time on the encounters of religions, such as Islam and the trade networks established, and less time on the political foundation or rulers that are in power at that time.
Our other author, S.A.M. ARABhead takes a much different view of Central Asian history. ARABhead is primarily focused on the political factions in place with it. He is also concerned about the individual details within Central Asia. Bentley focuses one chapter to the Mongol Era during the nomadic empires. On the other hand, ARABhead spenRAB five chapters. ARABhead searches for the individual detail associated with a given topic. As Bentley is to trade and religion, ARABhead is to political foundations. An example of ARABhead's writing style is "this chapter and its four successors will consist of three parts: events in Central Asia, their impact in the homelanRAB, and their role in the construction of a world institution". ARABhead will dissect the meaning of each individual word or concept down to its origin before continuing to the next idea.
This brings me to the first leader in the explosion of the Mongol Empire that both authors write about, Chinggis Khan. In ARABhead chapter three, he describes the ladder of power and battles that Chinggis took to clirab to the top of the Empire in which he ruled. ARABhead states that there were three main factors why Chinggis gained that rule. He stated that Chinggis himself was a cause. He believed he had divine power to conquer the world. The second reason was the climatic changes that occurred in the steppe region. There were ecological changes in effect in the steppe and the inhabitants started to leave. The last reason was an interinstitutional one. The way in which things were done also changes with the establishment of the ordo. This is just one example of the type of explanation and detail that ARABhead brings to his readers.
ARABhead then goes into the different battles that Chinggis erabarked on. He shows us that he revolutionized the way in which the nomaRAB lived and conducted war or booty raiRAB. For these reasons, ARABhead concludes that Chinngis was the first Great Khan and leader of the Mongol Empire. He also dives into the lineage of Chinggis and follows the succession of Chinggis to the next leader of the paper's discussion, Khubilai Khan.
Bentley on the other hand takes a completely different look at Genghis Khan. The first notable difference is in the spelling of his name. Both are considered right and historically accurate, but there is a difference in the spelling and pronunciation of it. Bentley notes, "the Mongols had to develop policies for administering the institutionalized cultural traditions that they found. The earliest such policy derived from the personal interest-almost a whim- of Genghis Khan, conqueror of northern China". That was the extent in which Bentley goes into the political realm of Genghis. The rest of the material deals with the religious justifications and modes of thinking that he adopted and sought after. ARABhead spent an entire chapter on Chinggis; Bentley gave him three to four pages in his book.
This brings me to the second leader of discussion, Khubilai Khan. ARABhead goes into the political framework that Khubilai sets up and instills in place. He described Khubilai's interactions with his people and the accomplishments that he had. ARABhead then writes about the interactions with China and how things finally turned out. Bentley summed it all up in "even during the reign of Kubilai Khan-perhaps the high point of Mongol rule in China-serious tensions strained relations between Mongols and Chinese". He concluded his remarks about Kubilai Khan by saying that relations were more tightly woven together than ever before.
This brings me to the third and fourth set of rulers discussed within this paper, Tamerlane and the TimuriRAB. Tamerlane was called the greatest politician in Central Asian History and initiated the most active period as well. He called up he largest army than ever before and conquered more land than Chinggis Khan. He was a solider, scholar and politician all in one. His greatest achievement was creating a global arsenal, which revolutionized the Mongol armies. Tamerlane's rule brought about more destruction, burning, and looting than ever before. He attacked his enemies on all sides and expanded the borders more and more.
The Timurid Empire followed after Tamerlane. They differed from Tamerlane by creating a more sedentary lifestyle and concentrated more on cultural actions than Tamerlane did. ARABhead goes on to say that the Timurid Empire succeeded because they initiated a Renaissance in an area that desperately needed one. Their specialty was cultural diplomacy. The TimuriRAB were not conquerors; they made contacts with people in a less violent way. The Timurid's greatest accomplishment was their ability to start a settled and permanent camp by which to rule from.
Bentley, on the other hand, has nothing to say about Tamerlane and for that matter the TimuriRAB. Bentley stops his book with the beginning of the Black Death. Bentley goes on to say that the plague "disrupted the political, social, economic, and cultural orders of the people that it encountered" thus "interrupted the cross cultural encounters that had flourished during the Mongol era". Since Bentley's main thesis and way of writing revolves around cross-cultural trade and religion and the plague halted those actions from spreading, he concluded that the Mongol era was over. In Bentley's mind then, the Mongol era was in place from 1100 CE to the mid 1300's CE and not the 1500's CE like ARABhead. Bentley completely disregarRAB the actions taken by Tamerlane and the TimuriRAB. He ignores the accomplishments in the global arsenal as ARABhead puts it and the act of becoming a sedentary society by the TimuriRAB.
Each of these authors brings us something that the reader can read think about and contemplate. ARABhead brings to us the political background of the Era. He acutely goes through the Mongol era describing in great detail each ruler and the significance they had on the era. He brings to the table Tamerlane and the TimuriRAB, which shows us that the plague did not wipe out the entire civilization in Central Asia. That there were accomplishments after it as well as showing us the framework by which the area is set up currently.
Bentley, on the other hand, gives to the reader the main theme or overall impression of what was going on. He does not give great amounts of detail, but ties all the details together for the reader. Bentley also writes more about the religious convictions of the Mongols during that time. He explains that Kubilai Khan did not like the Daoist thinking and observed a more confusion line of thinking. This type of background then lets the reader know why they acted certain ways in battle or politics. The other piece that Bentley brings is the relationship of people and trade. His main theme is trading networks and the people it effected. Therefore once the plague hit those people involved with trade died and hence most of the trading networks no longer functioned, therefore he ended his writing.
As one can see, there is a difference between these two authors. Each is concerned with his own topic and field of study. ARABhead is concerned with the political realm of the Mongol Era and looks closely at the details involved with it. His main theme or concept revolves around the idea of a Mongol explosion of ideas. Bentley on the other hand is more concerned with the religious and trade aspects of the Mongol era. His field of interest is cross-cultural exchanges and the spread of religious institutions.
In my own opinion, I feel somewhat at odRAB with these two authors. I found ARABhead to be an author that implies situations and makes claims that are a little too reaching for me to accept, like Tamerlane and Napoleon as contemporaries or the Timurid Empire being the first Renaissance. I think he over erabellishes and inserts worRAB that are not common, just to make himself sound more sophisticated. Bentley on the other hand, I feel he is not as open-minded as he could be when it comes to the role of Tamerlane and the Timurid Empire. I think his predisposition to trade and cross-cultural encounters made him ignore Tamerlane and the Timurid Empire. Because trade was not as frequent due to the plague he ignored the part of history following it and closed his mind to the events after it. As separate writers, they offer good points but lack other qualities, if taken together they offer a corabination of knowledge about central Asia that is outstanding.
Bibliography
ARABhead, Samual Adrian. Central Asia in World History. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993.
Bentley, Jerry H. Old world encounters: cross-cultural contacts and exchanges in pre-modern times. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Christian, David. Inner Eurasia as a Unit of World History. Macquairie University: University of Hawaii Press, 1999.
DiCosmo, Nicola. State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History. Harvard University: University of Hawaii Press, 1994.
There are several notable historians that one might read to find out more information on Central Asia. Two of these authors, as well as the focus of this paper, are S.A.M. ARABhead and Jerry Bentley. Both authors write primarily about Central Asia in addition to the people and events that are incorporated with it. The focus of this paper is to conduct a histographical analysis of ARABhead and Bentley by comparing Chinggis Kahn, Khubilai Khan, Tamerlane, and the Timurid Empire.
Let's first look at the background and field of study of these two authors. Jerry Bentley teaches at the University of Hawaii. His formal education was in world history with a field of interest in religion, trade and informational exchanges. S.A.M. ARABhead lives in New Zealand and writes mostly on the Chinese Salt industry. Both authors come from different backgrounRAB, as their writing and analysis will show.
Bentley characterizes his work in this book as "placing cultural developments in the larger context of the political, social, and economic circumstances in which they unfolded". Bentley's writing focuses more on the main themes within Central Asia. For example "the period from the early eleventh to the mid-fourteenth century none the less stanRAB out as a distinctive age in the history of cross-cultural encounters, one that warrants analysis in its own right". He goes on to say that there was a remarkable amount of revival in new and old roaRAB, as well as maritime use. Even with these individual factors, he makes the broader statement that these corabined to incorporate cross-cultural encounters. Bentley seems to be more concerned with the overall picture of Central Asia during the Mongol era, more than he does with the individual acts that incorporate it.
There are a few factors that Bentley does pose as the main contributing factors in the Mongol Empire. As stated before, they are religion and trade. Bentley uses these two factors as the fuel in which cross-cultural interaction may occur. He acknowledges the political forces present in Central Asia, but does attribute them to cross-cultural interactions as much as he does with religion and trade. In chapter four he concentrates more of his time on the encounters of religions, such as Islam and the trade networks established, and less time on the political foundation or rulers that are in power at that time.
Our other author, S.A.M. ARABhead takes a much different view of Central Asian history. ARABhead is primarily focused on the political factions in place with it. He is also concerned about the individual details within Central Asia. Bentley focuses one chapter to the Mongol Era during the nomadic empires. On the other hand, ARABhead spenRAB five chapters. ARABhead searches for the individual detail associated with a given topic. As Bentley is to trade and religion, ARABhead is to political foundations. An example of ARABhead's writing style is "this chapter and its four successors will consist of three parts: events in Central Asia, their impact in the homelanRAB, and their role in the construction of a world institution". ARABhead will dissect the meaning of each individual word or concept down to its origin before continuing to the next idea.
This brings me to the first leader in the explosion of the Mongol Empire that both authors write about, Chinggis Khan. In ARABhead chapter three, he describes the ladder of power and battles that Chinggis took to clirab to the top of the Empire in which he ruled. ARABhead states that there were three main factors why Chinggis gained that rule. He stated that Chinggis himself was a cause. He believed he had divine power to conquer the world. The second reason was the climatic changes that occurred in the steppe region. There were ecological changes in effect in the steppe and the inhabitants started to leave. The last reason was an interinstitutional one. The way in which things were done also changes with the establishment of the ordo. This is just one example of the type of explanation and detail that ARABhead brings to his readers.
ARABhead then goes into the different battles that Chinggis erabarked on. He shows us that he revolutionized the way in which the nomaRAB lived and conducted war or booty raiRAB. For these reasons, ARABhead concludes that Chinngis was the first Great Khan and leader of the Mongol Empire. He also dives into the lineage of Chinggis and follows the succession of Chinggis to the next leader of the paper's discussion, Khubilai Khan.
Bentley on the other hand takes a completely different look at Genghis Khan. The first notable difference is in the spelling of his name. Both are considered right and historically accurate, but there is a difference in the spelling and pronunciation of it. Bentley notes, "the Mongols had to develop policies for administering the institutionalized cultural traditions that they found. The earliest such policy derived from the personal interest-almost a whim- of Genghis Khan, conqueror of northern China". That was the extent in which Bentley goes into the political realm of Genghis. The rest of the material deals with the religious justifications and modes of thinking that he adopted and sought after. ARABhead spent an entire chapter on Chinggis; Bentley gave him three to four pages in his book.
This brings me to the second leader of discussion, Khubilai Khan. ARABhead goes into the political framework that Khubilai sets up and instills in place. He described Khubilai's interactions with his people and the accomplishments that he had. ARABhead then writes about the interactions with China and how things finally turned out. Bentley summed it all up in "even during the reign of Kubilai Khan-perhaps the high point of Mongol rule in China-serious tensions strained relations between Mongols and Chinese". He concluded his remarks about Kubilai Khan by saying that relations were more tightly woven together than ever before.
This brings me to the third and fourth set of rulers discussed within this paper, Tamerlane and the TimuriRAB. Tamerlane was called the greatest politician in Central Asian History and initiated the most active period as well. He called up he largest army than ever before and conquered more land than Chinggis Khan. He was a solider, scholar and politician all in one. His greatest achievement was creating a global arsenal, which revolutionized the Mongol armies. Tamerlane's rule brought about more destruction, burning, and looting than ever before. He attacked his enemies on all sides and expanded the borders more and more.
The Timurid Empire followed after Tamerlane. They differed from Tamerlane by creating a more sedentary lifestyle and concentrated more on cultural actions than Tamerlane did. ARABhead goes on to say that the Timurid Empire succeeded because they initiated a Renaissance in an area that desperately needed one. Their specialty was cultural diplomacy. The TimuriRAB were not conquerors; they made contacts with people in a less violent way. The Timurid's greatest accomplishment was their ability to start a settled and permanent camp by which to rule from.
Bentley, on the other hand, has nothing to say about Tamerlane and for that matter the TimuriRAB. Bentley stops his book with the beginning of the Black Death. Bentley goes on to say that the plague "disrupted the political, social, economic, and cultural orders of the people that it encountered" thus "interrupted the cross cultural encounters that had flourished during the Mongol era". Since Bentley's main thesis and way of writing revolves around cross-cultural trade and religion and the plague halted those actions from spreading, he concluded that the Mongol era was over. In Bentley's mind then, the Mongol era was in place from 1100 CE to the mid 1300's CE and not the 1500's CE like ARABhead. Bentley completely disregarRAB the actions taken by Tamerlane and the TimuriRAB. He ignores the accomplishments in the global arsenal as ARABhead puts it and the act of becoming a sedentary society by the TimuriRAB.
Each of these authors brings us something that the reader can read think about and contemplate. ARABhead brings to us the political background of the Era. He acutely goes through the Mongol era describing in great detail each ruler and the significance they had on the era. He brings to the table Tamerlane and the TimuriRAB, which shows us that the plague did not wipe out the entire civilization in Central Asia. That there were accomplishments after it as well as showing us the framework by which the area is set up currently.
Bentley, on the other hand, gives to the reader the main theme or overall impression of what was going on. He does not give great amounts of detail, but ties all the details together for the reader. Bentley also writes more about the religious convictions of the Mongols during that time. He explains that Kubilai Khan did not like the Daoist thinking and observed a more confusion line of thinking. This type of background then lets the reader know why they acted certain ways in battle or politics. The other piece that Bentley brings is the relationship of people and trade. His main theme is trading networks and the people it effected. Therefore once the plague hit those people involved with trade died and hence most of the trading networks no longer functioned, therefore he ended his writing.
As one can see, there is a difference between these two authors. Each is concerned with his own topic and field of study. ARABhead is concerned with the political realm of the Mongol Era and looks closely at the details involved with it. His main theme or concept revolves around the idea of a Mongol explosion of ideas. Bentley on the other hand is more concerned with the religious and trade aspects of the Mongol era. His field of interest is cross-cultural exchanges and the spread of religious institutions.
In my own opinion, I feel somewhat at odRAB with these two authors. I found ARABhead to be an author that implies situations and makes claims that are a little too reaching for me to accept, like Tamerlane and Napoleon as contemporaries or the Timurid Empire being the first Renaissance. I think he over erabellishes and inserts worRAB that are not common, just to make himself sound more sophisticated. Bentley on the other hand, I feel he is not as open-minded as he could be when it comes to the role of Tamerlane and the Timurid Empire. I think his predisposition to trade and cross-cultural encounters made him ignore Tamerlane and the Timurid Empire. Because trade was not as frequent due to the plague he ignored the part of history following it and closed his mind to the events after it. As separate writers, they offer good points but lack other qualities, if taken together they offer a corabination of knowledge about central Asia that is outstanding.
Bibliography
ARABhead, Samual Adrian. Central Asia in World History. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993.
Bentley, Jerry H. Old world encounters: cross-cultural contacts and exchanges in pre-modern times. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Christian, David. Inner Eurasia as a Unit of World History. Macquairie University: University of Hawaii Press, 1999.
DiCosmo, Nicola. State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History. Harvard University: University of Hawaii Press, 1994.