The most striking parallel between what each historian claims about the Mongols' influence on surrounding societies is that they almost wiped them out during an initial conquest or as reprisal for revolt.
<h3>What exactly are the Mongols?</h3>
The Mongols are a Central Asian ethnographic community of tribal peoples that live mostly on the Mongolian Plateau, speak a similar language, and have nomadic lives.
<h3>What is the most significant distinction between what each historian claims about the Mongols' influence on surrounding civilizations?</h3>
The key difference in how they describe the impact of the Mongols on the surrounding civilization is that the first writer focuses on the benefits of the Mongols after they conquered neighboring civilizations, whereas the second author concludes their description with a picture of a barbaric and brutal Mongolian dynasty.
<h3>What is one historical circumstance that might explain for the two historians' opposing viewpoints?</h3>
It is possible to conclude that the one element that accounts for the disparities in their perspectives is the individual who was at the helm of government during the times described.
The first author tells the story only from the historian's perspective of Genghis Khan, but the latter also covers Tamerlane's rule.
Learn more about the Mongols at:
brainly.com/question/17835217
#SPJ1
It was primarily to keep the United States neutral in foreign affairs<span> as much as possible he didn't believe it was smart for the new nation to involve itself in the </span>affairs<span> of other nations.</span>
this shows that you should probably be doing your work and not cheating
