Give feedback on HAT 2020 response?

Can people please give feedback on the first half of my HAT response, I am so stressed and worried that I don't know what I'm doing!

This document centres Toregene's rise, reign and conclusion of power, and from this depiction, historians can learn of the transcension of feudal obligations, gender norms and social values shows the expectation Mongol's had of their rulers, which appeared to be the antithesis of Toregene.
"Reality" in this document appears to refer to what truly occurred in comparison what the Mongols "expected" or believed ought to have happened.
This document also reveals the reality of the intricate Mongol succession, which should have been simple, with the Mongol belief of power being passed from eldest son down to eldest son, but was complicated by the large number of Genghis Khan's relations and dilution of power throughout the Empire. Lastly, this text shows the mould of the "perfect" ruler was not consistently met, alongside showing the difficulties of rulership due to the scale of the Mongol Empire.
The convincing nature of this text derives from it's contemporary nature, with the author being an eye-witness writing within a decade or so of these events taking place, while the author's subjectivities and potential lack of full knowledge may limit the text.

Firstly, Toregene's ascension to power appears not to have been unexceptional: the gathering of people outside Moge's tent, and Fatima's influence shows a pattern of women having some authority in the Mongol empire, even if this authority was derived from their relationship with men, with Toregene and Moge's relationship with Genghis Khan allowing them power. Therefore, though it was expected for women to have some authority during this time, a regency such as Toregen's does not seem to be a norm, with her only ruling for 5 years from 1241 to 1246 - with Chagatai and princes reasserting this belief with the statement she should only rule until "an assembly was held" - Toregene's authority was temporary.

Additionally, Toregene's guilefuleness may show how women express power differently to men: Toregene's violence is only depicted through a secondary character, such as instructing messangers to "fetch" Yalavach, which we can assume is a euphenism or misleading translation for arrest. The same subversive, non-violent bids for power are shown through Fatima's actions, where it is reasonable to conclude that the strangement between Guyuk and Toregene was deliberate. In complete contrast, Temuge attempted to become Khan by force, though unsucessful. It appears these may be manifestations of different gender expectations of Mongol's at the time, since it may not be appropriate for women to outwardly show force, whilst this privelege was extended to men.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Articles for you

Why the MLaw is the most direct route to becoming a solicitor

Who are the Specialist Teams and roles on TSR?

Expert tips for revising A-level and Btec law

If you think your teacher doesn't like you, here's how to make things better