The articles by Halperin and Sakharov both pose opposite arguments regarding the Mongol\u2019s effect on the development of Rus. Halperin claims that the view of the Mongols as \u201cblood-sucking infidels\u201d (106) was a result of the Orthodox Church\u2019s so called \u201cIdeology of Silence\u201d. He argues that The Mongol\u2019s actually did a lot to help advance Rus culture through integration of their own methods rather than only doing harm as the writings of the Church would have us believe. For example, many of the Princes were able to gain position with the hoard through marriage and then learn about and use the knowledge that they gain of the Mongol\u2019s military and political techniques. The Church, Halperin states, could not accept the Mongols as having been in any way beneficial to Rus as they may have felt that acknowledging anything positive about a culture that followed a different religion undermined their own, and thus they simply refused to acknowledge the positive effects that the Mongols had.<\/p>\n
Sakharov takes the opposing view, stating that any and all putting down of possible historical information was done by the Mongols themselves. He claims that all types of craftsmanship, from architecture and construction to art and literature, suffered under the rule of the Mongols (137) and that the growth of the nation was practically stunted because of it.\u00a0 He says that the Mongols destroyed a great number of books, and therefore knowledge, which we now have no way of knowing what might have contained. Overall, he views the effect of the Mongol rule in Rus as one of profound negativity that in no way aided the nation in any way.<\/p>\n
Sakharov talks about the Mongols using very general terms, applying them widely and without exception, saying that they \u201c\u2026 enriched [Rus] with nothing whatever\u201d and claiming that the negative effects of the invasion were an \u201cindisputable historical fact\u201d (138). Claims on such a dramatic scale are very difficult to back up, and I felt only went to make his argument read as more of a biased rant than a logical argument. Had he allowed for some movement and acknowledged even the possibility that any good might have come from the Mongols I may have found his argument to be more convincing. I certainly did find some of his points, such as the destruction of books, to be interesting, though even that idea is based on the absence of something rather than hard evidence. Although I was not convinced by Sakharov that the Mongols were an unarguable evil, neither was I convinced by Halperin that the Mongols aided Rus to the extent that he claimed they did. Although I agreed that they must have benefited Rus in several ways, I wonder how much that is weighed down by harm that they might have done. Is it possible that, had the Mongols not invaded,\u00a0 and had Rus therefore not had to cover certain expenses and meet certain expectations because of that, Rus may have developed in an equally efficient yet distinctly different way? As many \u201cwhat-if\u201d questions, it\u2019s impossible to know for certain. I do, however, believe that while Halperin\u2019s claims were accurate, he does not consider enough how the harm they brought as well may have effected Rus\u2019s growth.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The articles by Halperin and Sakharov both pose opposite arguments regarding the Mongol\u2019s effect on the development of Rus. Halperin claims that the view of the Mongols as \u201cblood-sucking infidels\u201d (106) was a result of the Orthodox Church\u2019s so called … Continue reading