| Date | May 2019 | Marks available | 9 | Reference code | 19M.1.BP.TZ0.4 |
| Level | Both SL and HL | Paper | Paper 1 - first exams 2017 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | To what extent | Question number | 4 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
The sources and questions relate to case study 1: Genghis Khan c1200–1227 — Leadership: rise to power; uniting of rival tribes.
Source A
Jean-Paul Roux, an historian specializing in Asian history, writing in the introductory study Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire (2003).
The Turco-Mongols long believed that there could be only one emperor on earth just as there was only one god in heaven. In other words, Togrul the Kerait and Temujin [Genghis] the Mongol could not rule side by side. They confronted one another in 1203 [but Togrul fled and died soon after]. Temujin annexed Togrul’s lands and his people and became the true master of eastern and central Mongolia. The Naiman no longer had power against him. They searched for an ally who could push the Mongols back and thought they would find support among the Onggut, but the Onggut chose instead to warn Temujin. Although the Naiman hoped to surprise him, it was they who were taken unawares. They collapsed with the first attack. [The future] Genghis Khan would never forget the favour shown to him by the Onggut. Temujin now controlled all of Mongolia.
[Source: French text from Jean-Paul Roux, in Genghis Khan et L’Empire mongol, © Éditions Gallimard; Spanish and German
text translated by International Baccalaureate Organization from the original French with permission of Gallimard;
English translation from Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire by Jean-Paul Roux, translated from the French
Gengis Khan et l’Empire mongol by Toula Balla. Copyright © Gallimard 2002. English translation
© Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York, 2003. Reprinted by kind permission of Thames & Hudson, Ltd., London.]
Source B
George Lane, a professor of the history of the Middle East and central Asia, writing in the academic book Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule (2004).
Temujin felt insecure knowing that one great tribal grouping, the Naiman, remained beyond his control … If Temujin could defeat the Naiman, his enemies would have nowhere to shelter and he would be undisputed leader of the unified Turco-Mongol steppe tribes. With so much at stake Temujin could not risk failure, and so he devised a careful plan …
On the day of the Feast of the Moon in the Year of the Rat (1204) Temujin led his troops into battle. To raise the morale of his own limited forces and intimidate the numerically superior Naiman, he employed a strategy that he was to use to great effect in future conflicts. By lighting countless camp-fires, mounting dummies on spare horses, and trailing branches and bushes from their own horses, the Mongols were able to create the impression that their numbers were far greater than they actually were.
The Mongols’ victory was total. Following this victory, all the other tribes that had once thought of independence were quick to promise their full loyalty. Only the Merkits attempted to escape, but within the same year they too had been destroyed.
[Source: republished with permission of ABC-CLIO, from Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule, George Lane, 2004;
permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.]
Source C
An unknown author, likely a member of the Borjigids (the imperial clan of Genghis Khan), describes the lead up to the fight against the Naimans, in the record of the affairs of the Borjigids, often known as Secret History of the Mongols (c1228).
Alakush [Khan of the Ongguts] sent a messenger to Chingis [Genghis] saying “Tayang of the Naimans is going to come and snatch your bows and arrows, and he asked me to be his right hand. I refused and now wish to inform you of this.” When Chingis received this message, he held a council. Many of those present said, “Our horses are lean, it is a bad moment for us” … [but others] said “the Naimans think that because their country is large and their people many they have the right to brag. Here is our opportunity to seize their bows and arrows” …
On the sixteenth day of the fourth month of the Year of the Rat (1204) Chingis [Genghis] went off to fight against the Naimans … Chingis with his main army reached the Sa’ari Steppe and camped there. Dodai-cherbi [a military commander] said to Chingis “We are few in number and have travelled a long way. We had better turn out our horses to graze and establish decoy troops in large numbers all over the Sa’ari Steppe (that is people of all kinds, other than combatants [fighters], were to be disguised as soldiers). At night, everyone should light five fires. The Naimans are great in force, but their ruler is timid and weak. He has never been far from home and will certainly be bewildered [confused] and deceived. Then, when our horses have eaten enough, we will push back their scouts, make straight for their main camp and fall upon them before they have time to draw up in battle order. In this way we should be sure to win.” Chingis took his advice.
Source D
A map of the Mongol Empire and its neighbouring empires in 1207 and 1227.
[Source: © International Baccalaureate Organization 2019]
The sources and questions relate to case study 1: Genghis Khan c1200–1227 — Leadership: rise to power; uniting of rival tribes.
Using the sources and your own knowledge, to what extent do you agree that Genghis Khan rose to power because of his military strength?
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. While it is expected that there will be coverage of at least two of the sources, candidates are not required to refer to all four sources in their responses.
Indicative content
Source A
Military strength was significant, as evidenced by the defeat of the Keraits, which facilitated Genghis’s expansion. However, the Naiman were defeated not because of military strength but by strategic cunning and the Onggut’s betrayal of the Naiman.
Source B
Military factors may be argued to have been most significant. For example, tactics to defeat the Naiman/Merkit, as well as the surprise attack on the Keraits contributed to his rise. However, pre-existing Kerait weaknesses partially facilitated Genghis’s success against them.
Source C
In addition to the military strength of Genghis, his willingness to strategize and listen to the views of his commander Dodai-cherbi facilitated his victory over the Naiman.
Source D
It is evident that Genghis Khan expanded the empire substantially. Initially this was done by taking the lands of neighbouring tribes but after 1207, the expansion became more ambitious and led to the seizure of lands from dynasties, khanates and empires that were further afield. Candidates may infer from this that Genghis Khan’s military abilities increased as he became more experienced.
Own knowledge
When discussing the importance of military factors, the significance of the defeat of Togrul may be further developed. There may also be coverage of the significance of the defeat of the Tatars in 1202.
Other factors candidates consider may include the possible betrayal of Jamuka, the Mongol belief that a great leader would emerge at the end of the 11th/beginning of the 12th century and the willingness to support Genghis as he appeared to fulfil this role.
Also, the personality of Genghis and his reputation as a just and generous ruler may be considered. Events before 1200 may be referred to, as Genghis had already been made a khan. He was also able to win support from those who questioned the traditional tribal hierarchy or disliked the claims of clan.
Examiners report
As noted above, it was pleasing to find that many candidates offered a developed response for the final question. In addition, most responses were focused on the set question and had made some reference to, or use of, the sources to support the analysis. However, there were responses that lacked development which may suggest some continued issues with time management. Some candidates did not include any own knowledge to support their analysis, and conversely, a notable number responded relying only on their own knowledge and without reference to the sources at all. There were also responses that tended to list the content of each source without reference to the question. A few candidates wrote extensively on background material at the expense of a full discussion of the set question.
