For the past few weeks we have explored the rise and expansion of the Mongols, who dominated not only the Silk Road, but much of Eurasia from Eastern Europe to Pacific coast apart from South Asia and Eurasia’s farther northern reaches, and to a lesser extent the Vikings.  As many of you have likely noticed, opinions on the Mongols and the Vikings and their impact differ quite strongly.  In a short paper argue for or against the following thesis, using only information Worlds of History or World History:

While the Mongols and the Vikings have often been portrayed as uncivilized barbarians, in reality they were cultural polyglots who developed sophisticated empires/states and societies that provided many benefits to the peoples who lived under their rule.

The paper should consist of the following sections:

    Section 1: A thesis statement in which you indicate your conclusion in section 4, which effectively acts as a thesis in the paper.

    Section 2: Presentation of your evaluation of the evidence from primary sources.

    Section 3: Presentation of your evaluation of the evidence from secondary sources.

    Section 4: Your conclusion, in support of or in opposition to the thesis.

General Standards: First, you must type your paper using standard margins (1 inch all around), Times New Roman font and a 12-point type size. Next, you must properly document your use of other people's work in this essay. In plan terms, whenever you comment on or quote from the web-source linked below, I expect a proper footnote indicating what material in that book you are referencing (a 25% reduction on your paper will occur if you fail to document your work properly). For examples of how to footnote, click on the General Guidelines hypertext in the Formal Writings section of the web syllabus. You will also find hints on how to write well and on general guidelines as to what I look for in written work.  Finally, your essay must be two full pages in length, double-spaced.

Additional Hints:

The first footnote entry from Worlds of History should look like this:

Author of the source (first name, then last name), "Title of the source," in Worlds of History: A Comparative Reader, Volume I : to 1550, edited by Kevin Reilly (New York & Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007), page #.

All subsequent footnotes, which should come only from Worlds of History or World History, should look like this:

Ibid., "page #" (if the page number cited is different from page number cited in the immediately preceeding footnote entry)

or

Ibid. (if you are citing the same page number that was cited in the immediately preceeding footnote entry).

or, for a non-consecutively cited source after the first main entry footnote,
Author of the source (first name, then last name), "Title of the source," in Worlds of History, page #.

Finally, use only Worlds of History or World History for this paper (I have decided that it will not be necessary and therefore require you not to use The Human Web).