Mongol Plague: Ibn al-Athir and William of Rubruck Compared
This essay examines two contrasting primary-source accounts of the Mongols: Ibn al-Athir's graphic chronicle of the Tatar invasion of the Middle East (1220–1221 CE) and William of Rubruck's account of a peaceful diplomatic visit to Mangu Khan's court. By placing these narratives side by side, the paper argues that while the Mongol conquest was undeniably brutal and swift—even surpassing Alexander the Great in speed—it is historically inaccurate to characterize the Mongols as uniformly savage. The essay draws on specific passages from both primary sources to illustrate how context, perspective, and circumstance shape historical memory and cultural judgment.
- Introduction: Two Accounts of the Mongols: Contrasting primary sources frame the central argument
- Ibn al-Athir and the Horror of the Tatar Invasion: Al-Athir details brutal Tatar conquest of the Middle East
- The Speed and Scale of the Mongol Conquest: Mongol campaign compared unfavorably to Alexander the Great
- Fear and Contempt in the Middle Eastern Historiography: Pervasive terror shaped Muslim views of Mongols
- William of Rubruck's Civil Encounter at the Khan's Court: Van Ruysbroeck finds order and civility among Mongols
- Van Ruysbroeck's Audience with Mangu Khan: Respectful exchange challenges image of savage leader
- Conclusion: Conquest vs. Culture: Conquest warrants criticism but not blanket cultural condemnation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper structures its argument around two contrasting primary sources, allowing the documents to do much of the argumentative work rather than relying on unsupported claims.
- Quotations are integrated smoothly and followed by analysis, modeling the evidence-commentary pattern expected in academic writing.
- The conclusion widens the argument with historical comparisons (the Crusades, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, Vietnam), demonstrating awareness of broader context.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses source comparison as its central analytical method. Rather than summarizing each account in isolation, the author reads Ibn al-Athir and William of Rubruck against each other to expose how perspective and circumstance shape historical narrative. This comparative close reading technique is especially effective in history essays when primary sources offer divergent viewpoints on the same subject.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by introducing both sources and stating a nuanced thesis: the Mongols were capable of both brutality and civility. The middle sections alternate between al-Athir's dark account (conquest, fear, murder) and van Ruysbroeck's measured, respectful portrayal of the Khan's court. The conclusion returns to the thesis, using cross-cultural historical analogies to argue against wholesale condemnation of the Mongols as a people.
Introduction: Two Accounts of the Mongols
The Mongols, like any other culture with a lengthy history and a modern-day presence, have historically been the subject of significant criticism among Middle Eastern scholars. Ibn al-Athir's account of the Tatar invasion of the Middle East is a bloody and horrendous tale of ruthless murder and destruction, as he states: "these Tatars spared none, slaying women and men and children, ripping open pregnant women and killing unborn babes."1 This description certainly seems to justify the view that the Mongols were a savage, ruthless people.
However, William of Rubruck (also known as Willem van Ruysbroeck) gives an account of the Mongols that describes a very civil and almost unexpected visit to the Khan's palace. As a devout and pious monk, he is greeted harmlessly and invited to debate the principles of Christianity within the Khan's court. He describes an interaction with Mangu Khan's secretaries, in which they relay the Khan's words: "Our lord sends us to you to say that you are here Christians, Saracens and Tuins. And each of you says that his doctrine is the best, and his writings — that is, books — the truest. So he wishes that you shall all meet together, and make a comparison, each one writing down his precepts, so that he himself may be able to know the truth."2 This communication stands in stark contrast to al-Athir's violent story, and suggests that there is more to the Mongols than a bloody, take-no-prisoners conquest of the Middle East. All present-day nations have a gory and often brutal history, and these accounts merely shed light on a culture that is no different.
Ibn al-Athir and the Horror of the Tatar Invasion
Like many conquered peoples, Middle Easterners were left in utter horror following the Tatar invasion of their homeland — a Mongol-led campaign that ripped apart the land previously ruled by Muhammad Khwarazmshah. Ibn al-Athir describes the ghastly event and explains the ease with which the Tatars accomplished their campaign: "their achievements were only rendered possible by the absence of any effective obstacle; and the cause of this absence was that Muhammad Khwarazmshah had overrun the lands, slaying and destroying their kings, so that he remained alone ruling over all these countries; wherefore, when he was defeated by the Tatars, none was left in the lands to check those or protect these, that so God might accomplish a thing which was to be done."3
Because al-Athir's people and the surrounding populace shared one single ruler, Muhammad Khwarazmshah, it was no surprise that once Khwarazmshah and his establishment were destroyed, the Tatars were able to conquer the entire region without consequence. Once the leadership of his land collapsed, al-Athir was left to witness immense horrors and to find his friends and fellow Muslims slain or deeply scarred. He describes one incident: "I have heard that one of them took a man captive, but had not with him any weapon wherewith to kill him; and he said to his prisoner, 'Lay your head on the ground and do not move,' and he did so, and the Tatar went and fetched his sword and slew him therewith."4 The murderer proceeded without remorse, having no hesitation in feigning capture when he fully intended to commit murder.
The Speed and Scale of the Mongol Conquest
The Muslim historiography of the Tatar occupation of the Middle East is underscored by the viciousness and speed of their campaign. Ibn al-Athir draws a comparison to Alexander the Great's world conquest, stating: "Alexander, concerning whom historians agree that he conquered the world, did not do so with such swiftness, but only in the space of about ten years; neither did he slay, but was satisfied that men should be subject to him."5 He goes on to describe the Tatar advance further, exclaiming: "But these Tatars conquered most of the habitable globe, and the best, the most flourishing and most populous part thereof, and that whereof the inhabitants were the most advanced in character and conduct, in about a year; nor did any country escape their devastations which did not fearfully expect them and dread their arrival."6
While Alexander the Great, ruler of arguably one of the largest empires in history, is described as civilly overtaking states, this Tatar advancement is viewed as a blood-soaked scar on world history. So deep were the wounds that people throughout the region lived in complete and irrational fear of any Tatar they encountered. Ibn al-Athir describes such an incident:
"My companions began to do as he bade them, but I said to them, 'He is but one man; wherefore, then, should we not kill him and flee?' They replied, 'We are afraid.' I said, 'This man intends to kill you immediately; let us therefore rather kill him, that perhaps God may deliver us.' But I swear by God that not one of them dared to do this, so I took a knife and slew him, and we fled and escaped.' And such occurrences were many."7
Conclusion: Conquest vs. Culture
Ibn al-Athir's account of the Tatar invasion is ghastly, quite appropriately describing the timeless pain of a once-conquered people. He is, however, mistaken in stating, "For indeed history does not contain anything which approaches or comes near unto it."12 History is rife with such stories, including the Christian-led Crusades, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and the American occupation of Vietnam. Innumerable atrocities were committed within each of these episodes, on behalf of countries which are now, in most instances, attempting to uphold peace.
Therefore, criticism of this particular conquest is more than warranted, given its savagery and swiftness. However, broad criticism of the Mongols as a people and culture is not at all warranted. As the two primary sources examined here demonstrate, historical judgment requires attention to perspective, circumstance, and the full range of human behavior — not merely its worst expressions.
Works Cited
"Ibn al-Athir: On The Tatars, 1220–1221 CE." A Literary History of Persia. Ed. Jerome S. Arkenberg. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1902. Web.
"William of Rubruck's Account of the Mongols." UW Departments Web Server. Silk Road Seattle. Web. 23 Nov. 2010. <
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.