User interface language: English | Español

Date November 2017 Marks available 6 Reference code 17N.1.BP.TZ0.03
Level Both SL and HL Paper Paper 1 - first exams 2017 Time zone TZ0
Command term Compare and contrast Question number 03 Adapted from N/A

Question

Source B

Peter Jackson, a professor of medieval history, writing in an academic book, The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410 (2005).


The cohesiveness of the Mongol military stood in sharp contrast with the disunity of their enemies, which Genghis Khan and his successors took care to exploit. The political fragmentation of early 13th-century Rus’ under the prolific Riurikid dynasty is well known. But division also characterized the two most formidable powers confronting the Mongols. Jurchen rule was deeply resented by the Khitan still living in the borderlands of China, large numbers of whom joined the Mongols or coordinated their own operations against the Chin [Jin] with those of Mongol commanders. Subsequently, even native Chinese and Jurchen officers and troops defected to the invaders. In western Asia, the Khwarazm shah’s bitter quarrel with the ‘Abbasid Caliph impaired [weakened] his capacity to pose as a champion of orthodoxy and the Jihad, while the unreliability of significant elements in his recently gained dominions undermined his preparations for resistance. By contrast, the religious tolerance that characterized Genghis Khan’s empire also served the Mongols well, so that the Gur-khan’s Muslim subjects in eastern Turkestan, who had been persecuted by Kuchlug, welcomed them as liberators.


[Source: From: The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410, Peter Jackson, 2014,
Routledge, reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Books UK.]

Source C

Jack Weatherford, a professor of anthropology and a specialist in tribal peoples, writing in an academic book, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (2004).


[Mongol] tactics seemed to be, at least in part, a combination of older fighting techniques and hunting strategies; yet the consistent inability of the perplexed [confused] enemy to respond effectively to this form of warfare indicated that Temujin [Genghis Khan] had introduced enough innovation to make these strategies uniquely his own. Temujin had produced a new type of steppe army based on a greater variety of tactics and, most important, close cooperation among the men and complete obedience to their commanders. They were no longer an attacking horde of individuals; they were now a united formation. Temujin used a set of manoeuvres that each man had to know and to which each responded precisely and without hesitation. The Mongols had a saying: “If he sends me into fire or water I go. I go for him.” The saying reflected not just an ideal, but the reality of the new Mongol warfare, and it made short order of [rapidly defeated] the Naiman.


[Source: Excerpt(s) from GENGHIS KHAN AND THE MAKING OF THE MODERN WORLD by Jack Weatherford,
copyright © 2004 by Jack Weatherford. Used by permission of Crown Books, an imprint of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. All rights reserved. Any third party use of this material, outside of this publication, is prohibited. Interested parties must apply directly to Penguin Random House LLC for permission.]

Compare and contrast what Sources B and C reveal about the factors that led to the success of Genghis Khan’s military campaigns.

Markscheme

Apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and award credit wherever it is possible to do so. The following material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their  responses. It is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive and no set answer is required.


Comparisons:
• Both sources point out the weaknesses of the enemy.
• Both sources highlight the role of Genghis Khan as an effective leader.
• Both sources emphasize the military advantage that the Mongols had; in terms of the cohesiveness of their military in Source B and their innovative military strategies and unity in Source C.


Contrasts:
• Source C states that the Mongols’ enemy was perplexed [confused] and, therefore, weak whereas Source B identifies weakness as a consequence of political disunity.
• Source B points out that religious tolerance made the Mongols welcome in some regions whereas Source C emphasizes the Mongols’ military advantages and the role of Genghis Khan.
• Source B emphasizes the importance of the cohesion of Mongol military forces whereas Source C focuses on the importance of Genghis Khan’s development of military tactics and strategies.

Examiners report

[N/A]

Syllabus sections

Prescribed subjects: first exams 2017 » 1. Military leaders » Case study 1: Genghis Khan c1200–1227 » Campaigns » Mongol military technology, organization, strategy and tactics
Prescribed subjects: first exams 2017 » 1. Military leaders » Case study 1: Genghis Khan c1200–1227 » Campaigns
Prescribed subjects: first exams 2017 » 1. Military leaders » Case study 1: Genghis Khan c1200–1227
Prescribed subjects: first exams 2017 » 1. Military leaders
Prescribed subjects: first exams 2017

View options