Although many Mongols conquered peoples of Eurasia viewed the invasion as negative during the 13th and 14th centuries, many viewed this intrusion as positive According to Carpini and William of Rubrick, they both have positive things to say about the Mongols. I say this because document 1 states that the Mongols pay their lords more respect than any other people, and would hardly dare lie to them (Doc #1). I think this document is mainly positive because of the fact that the writer states that the Mongols are people that show good respect to their gods and lord.
On the other hand they are extremely arrogant toward other people and feel that anybody that is not part of the Mongols is below them (Doc #1). Now document 4 is also positive because they mainly talk about Karakorum, the Great Kahn. Karakorum was a large orda close by the city walls (Doc #4). Karakorum was a great place with many palaces which are like churches. One of their palaces sits so high up that the Khan himself feels that he can be seen by everyone. So my point of view behind why I think documents 1 and 4 are positive is because both writers talk about how great their city and the people in it are.
Based on Guyuk Khan Writings I can tell that it is negative because the Guyuk Khan is talking about accepting peace and surrendering their fortresses. The bad thing is that if the people decide not to believe the letters and agreements, they will have automatically wished war upon them (Doc #3). Based on document 6, the Taters spared no one, slaying women and men and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing their unborn babies (Doc #6). An additional document from women of that time would be helpful to understand and see if the Mongols were as badb as they say they were.As soon as one Tater would enter a village or quarter, everybody became struck by fear because the Taters would continue to slay them one after another.
They were so scared of the Taters that they would let one man on a horse force 18 people to tie up each other arms with one another. Even though there were 18 of them and 1 Tater, they wouldn’t try to kill the one Tater and flee because they were to scared (Doc #6). So basically every village or quarter the Taters entered, everyone would become scared because they know that the Taters are all filled with evil.Ibn al-atir had a negative point of view because they both have to do with killing people that are one of their kinds. An alternative of Mongol expansion can be seen through travelers of that time who were Marco Polo and Ibn Battuta.
Document 2 reports on Marco Polo travels through Paris. Marco discovered that Paris is so favorably situated that it is a market for merchants from India and Baghdad (Doc #2). Throughout his travels, he learned that the Tater leadership would do great mischief to traveling merchants. So that is just another example for why people really dislike the Tater (Mongols).
Document 5 talked about the North African Muslim traveler named Ibn Battuta. During his travels he discovered that the Chinese are infidels and they worship idols and burn their dead as the Indians do (Doc #5). The Chinese king was a Tater so that explains it all. Taters were not good people back then. So it is clear that the Mongols had different affects on people during their expansion westward. As the Mongols expanded throughout the territories, many people viewed this as a negative impact.
On the other hand, the Mongols let the people they conquered keep their religion and the Mongols protected every empire they conquered
