Golden: In Golden's view, how was the nomadic world different from the settled world?

 Golden makes it apparent that perhaps the greatest difference between nomadic and sedentary societies was the role of their perspective economies. In nomadic societies clans or groups were only large enough to support themselves, and their continual movement was a direct result of obtaining resources to nourish those in their group. In sedentary societies stockpiles of food and other vital needs were always present, along with those items that gave people other satisfaction. Poor climatic conditions or raids often had devastating effects on nomads, often forcing them to disband their groups or join the more stable sedentary societies.

 A direct result of these economic conditions and needs was the formation of polity. Nomadic governments were often quite loose or non existent. Their form depended heavily on the economic climate and needs of the group. Often war action would call for a central authority to be formed, but it would disband as the members of the tribes needed it less. In contrast, sedentary societies relied on stable or permanent institutions in the form of monarchs and sultans.

 In the nomadic world life was centered around adaptation to the groups needs. In some instances good s would be traded for, or as in the case of China they would be raided. Hierarchies would form within a tribe or between tribes when the interaction of economies required them to do so.

 Nomadic groups were quite ambiguous of their sedentary neighbors. They were taught to fear the luxuries and lavish goods of these societies, which explains why for the most part nomadic groups looked to extort from, not conquer sedentary states.

 It can be concluded that in the view of Golden, nomadic societies were constantly changing their customs, polity and forms to ahere to economic and miltitary needs. These changes were not always permanent, but instead were kept in place only as long as they were needed. This was very different from the sedentary states and their tradtional institutions and emphasis on stabilty.

Marshall: Question 1, Robert Marshall, Selections,
from his Storm from the East: From Genghis Khan to Khubilai Khan, Univ of California Press, 1993.

The catalyst for the Mongol attacks on the Middle East was the recognition of Mongke Khan as its leader.  Mongke Khan was determined to expand the Mongol Empire, ideally to encompass the entire known world.  He was enticed by the influence and profit Muslim merchants experienced in Asia.  Mongke also revered the Persian advancements in science and the arts.  As Marshall writes, "The Islamic Middle East was by any standards a vastly sophisticated, wealthy and advanced civilization, and the Mongols could hardly allow it to flourish outside of their sphere".  He chose to expand the Mongol Empire to include Persia and the Sung Empire in southern China.  Interestingly, Europe was not a priority for Mongke Khan, he prefered to set his sights on destinations that would be lucrative and empowering for the Mongol Empire.

Mongke Khan appointed Hulegu to oversee the westward expansion.  At first his army consisted primarily of skilled Mongol soldiers, but increased in size and strength as Easter Christians, Georgians, Turks and Alans joined Hulegu's "tumens".  Mongke's military push to the west could be easily misinterpereted as a Christian Crusade, launched to exterminate the Islamic presence in the Christian Holy Land.  The Mongol forces benefited from this misconception, which provided many extra soldiers and Christian support during the expansion.  Also, the use of weaponry that used explosive gunpowder developed by Chinese engineers gave the Mongols another advantage in addition to the massive size of the army.

The Assassins were the first group to encounter the Mongol forces.  The first Assassin stronghold was surrendered to Hulegu peacefully, as were most of the other Assassin castles the army met.  The groups that did not surrender were easily taken by the Mongol's violent force.  The city most desired by Mongke Khan was Baghdad, although commercially weak, the city was home to avanced scientific and artistic developments.  A request for the surrender of the Baghdad was sent by Mongol riders, however, they were generally disregarded by the Caliph and his officials.  When the Mongol army was within a day's march to the city, 20,000 of the city's garrison was deployed to meet and destroy the invading forces.  They were unsuccessful in their mission, as the MOngol's broke dams and levey's unleashing a massive amount of water that killed the majority of the garrison.  Those who did not drown, were hacke to bits by Mongol swordsmen.  The city of Baghdad was bombarded by enemy forces and within days sacked by the Mongols.  Mosques and palaces were burned, and Persians esitmated between 800,000 and 1 million died within the city walls.

After the success in Baghdad Hulegu continued in the direction of Syria.  The news of the defeat in Baghdad spread and Hulegu was surrendered to by many princes who offered him thier land, as well as many luxurious gifts in return for the chance to be a vassal lord and provide soldiers for the Mongol army.  If alligiance was not sworn Hulegu's men would take swift and severe action against the renegade groups. 

The Mongol's seemed unstoppable at the time of Mongke Khan's death.  Hulegu's forces met with Mamluk armies, and for the first time in the persuit west faced exessive loss of life, equal military skill and ultimately defeat.  The Mongol Empire was unable to expand into Syria due to the ferocity of the Mamluks.


Saunders: 2. What does Saunders believe to be the importance of the Turks' arrival in the Middle East?

The importance of the arrival of the Turks in the Middle East, according to Saunders, is based largely on religion.  Upon their
arrival, the Turks effectivley flushed Christiandom out of the region, leading to the crusades decades later, became a third
Islamic power in the region (Besides the Persians and the Arabs), and contributed to the spread of Persian culture eastward.

The most significant of these contributions still has implications today.  With the arrival of the Turks into Byzantine territory, the
subsequent pleas to the Pope for aid against the 'heretics' and the call for the first crusade years later, the Turks created a
religious rift which still exists today.  The Turks inadvertently moved into Byzantine territory, but over time, the move inward
became militaristic and the Greek rulers fled - leaving their slaves and other impressionables behind.  Eventually, those left
behind became followers of Islam (as their Turkish rulers were).  This Turkish encroachment also, Saunders points, contributed to
the abilitiy of the Ottomans to take control of the region in later years.  The conversion of the what once was a Christian region
to an Islamic one, flushed Christiandom from the Middle East and the Middle East remains so today.

Secondly, the Turks arrival into the region was the introduction of a third Islamic power.  This, according to Saunders, is
important because the Turks had a no nonsense approach to Islam.  They were devout followers and championed the
removal/conversion of non-belivers or those whose faith had been perverted over time.  Consequently, the Turks took action
against extremists such as The Assasins and established religious institutions to teach studens of 'fikh' (The most
prominent existing in Baghdad).  The Turks saught to teach those under their power true Islam.

Finally, Saunders writes that even though the Turks were in control of the region, they lent many of the governing
responsibilities to the Persians.  Consequently, with the Turkish leadership taking over lands in the East, the Persian leadership
(under Turkish leadership) was able to spread their culture through government institutions and laws.  This is still present
in the rift between India in Pakistan.  Pakistan being predominatley Muslim as a result of the spread of Persian
culture Eastward. 

The Turks arrival to the Middle East marked a significant time for the region.  The Turks brought with them a religious zeal
that is still having effects today.  Whether by causing the crusades or the Indian-Pakistan conflict, the spread of Islam due
to the arrival of the Turks in the Middle East has had monumental effects.  J.J. Saunders' underlying theme of this
essay is the spread and unification of the Islamic faith in the Middle East as a result of the Turks.