Part One: Question 1 Founded by Genghis Khan in 1206, the Mongol Empire in less than eighty years, originally

comprised of a variety of warriors by several men, grew to an empire that covered the bulk of territories from Southeast Asia to central Europe. During this time, the Mongols conquered and ruled a dynamic, centralizing state through strict discipline and tight organization. The Mongol Empire was structured by patrimonial lines. As Webers ideal type of despotism, patrimonialism was based on an authoritarian connection of father and children. All loyalty was focused only on Genghis Khan at the apex of the political system, and everyone from the highest to lowest classes was expected to remain obedient, with noncompliance reason for death. Allegiances and personal identities were both personal. The idea of this governing structure was to produce circumstances and obligations existing in family groups, with the father being the head of the household. Being that it required extensive loyalty between the Khan and all those below him, the ruler was always suspicious of any attempts of his officials to become autonomous, and these patron-client ties were susceptible to personality conflicts or death. Many have come to believe that Genghis Khans greatest achievement was his success in uniting the Mongols, for the organization he practiced made for unity. He separated his militaries into groups of one thousand men, which were then combined into a tumen (a group of ten thousand) (The Mongols, 17). These tumen functioned to undermine the command of the old leaders, who Genghis would replace with commanders loyal to and selected by him, typically on the foundation of their merit and reliability. He sometimes would also choose commoners who owed their positions to

him, thus making them even more trustworthy. His power was further bolstered by his organization of a new elite force of bodyguards, keshig, which at times would purposely be the recruitment of sons of the commanders (The Mongols, 18). Genghis Khans policy afforded him with the most capable and experienced men in addition to hostages to prevent their commander fathers from contemplating rebellion By 1206, through political management and military might, Genghis Khan, coalesced the mobile, aforetime rivaling Mongolian-Turkic tribes under his rule. The Mongol Empire was the most immense contiguous Empire in human record. When the Empire came to potency in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, are often known as the "Age of the Mongols." The Mongol armies during that time were prodigiously well systematized. Fundamentally, the Mongol Empire managed political order over a significantly and vast range of area which authorized for relative political and financial steadiness to accompany. However, in the cessation the Mongol Empire was unsuccessful in recasting the armed, aristocracies of the countryside into quasi-officials in the major structural shift needful for genuinely centralized mundane. With patrimonial rule, the most substantial threat is the loss of dependency and the assertion of autonomy by officials. The Mongols, who eventually lost unity, exemplified this very notion and they no longer acted as a unified government. Although this divergence had been brewing for some time, once Kublai Khan died in 1294, the possibilities for separation became apparent.

Part Two: Question 2 Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835-1901) can be pointed to as the single figure who more than any other provided the intellectual stimulus for change in Japan during the second half of the nineteenth century. A pioneer of Western culture, Fukuzawa possessed a notable aptitude to assess the new Japan from the perspective of both the West and that of the old Japan during the Tokugawa Period (1600-1868). Situated at a time when European powers posed a profound threat to Japan, he policies on unfamiliar Western ideas soon were adopted by Japans leaders, ultimately pulling Japan from the fate of colonization and situating them into a world of international recognition. Just like many other leaders across Asia that played various roles in establishing new regimes around this time, Fukuzawa Yukichi received a Western education. In analyzing Fukuzawa and his influence on Japan in directly imitating dissertations and practices of European imperialism, the utility of acquired Western knowledge these students an opportunity to escape colonialism by essentially becoming European. With the signing of the Harris Treaty in 1858 and other similar treaties that soon followed, Japan for the first time in its history faced extensive constraints on its national sovereignty, and although these European powers did not require possession of any territory, these contracts placed Japan in a semicolonial status. The response to the foreign crisis was a prompt revolutionary action to create a new order as the old systems incompetence was exposed. The ensuing Meiji Restoration in 1868 established a new government, and these new political leaders were disposed to accept whatever changes necessary to combat the chance of being colonized by the west. With European nations advancing toward Asian coasts more often during this time and the presence of superior

Western technologyin the form of steam-powered naval vessels and progressive weaponsthe Japanese came to grips with the fact they were falling behind in the changing world. In order to avoid surrendering to Western power, leaders of the Meiji government were quick to recognize that they would have to develop both military and economically power, which required technological sophistication as a precondition to do so (Reprogramming Japan 88). From the demonstration of Western military authority, the pursuit of catching-up with the west moved Japanese leaders away from resisting Western forces to taking cues from the institutions of those great European powers. As the most influential academic who spurred the outlook of comprehensive borrowing from Western society, Fukuzawa understood that the new Meiji government was responsive to change recommendations, the entire tenor of his compositions changed. In place of just recording data about Western social order, he started vivaciously urging the selection of Western qualities and establishments and the essential conversion of Japanese society. Despite not having an active role in establishing the new government, Fukuzawas background as a educator, author of many books, and advisor to politicians, allowed him to apply vast influence over the wave of young Meiji activists who would go on to open the country and reconstruct its institutions. Advocating the necessity for Japan to become more like its Western counterparts, Fukuzawa wrote, If we compared the knowledge of the Japanese and Westerners in letters, in techniques, in commerce, or in industry, form the smallest to the largest matterthere is not one thing which we excel.In Japans present condition there is nothing in which we may take pride vis--vis the West. All that Japan as to be proud ofis its scenery (Making of Modern Japan, 92). Aside from his negative outlook on Japanese civilization, Fukuzawa

was very optimistic about Japans future and believed the Western cultural model would best facilitate its Japan to modernize. He saw progress as being unilinear, determined not by trends associated with particular countrys history but by the universal laws of nature that dictate human behavior (The Making of Modern Japan, 92). Since civilization in the West developed further along this universal path, he held them as a model for Japan to embrace, trusting that his country could advance in the same way Western nations had. Starting in the nineteenth century, a significant number of elite from all around the globe, all who fought from the side of oppressed countries, had come to be wholly acquainted with Western scholarly discourse, and were fit to acknowledge, reject, or manipulate its rhetoric. For those who had become subjugated by European crusaders, increased education of Western ethics gave rise to social awakening, and became key to material advancement while providing the basis for attaining independence. As patriots working against imperialistic forces, their marked acknowledgement of Western scholastic foundations was less a matter of subjection, as a procedure to undermine the existing ideal model. Equipped with the intellectual tools of those who they fought, these nationalists were able to interpret European concepts such as democracy, race, and religion, and use these ideological weapons against the West. In regards to the influence derived from Fukuzawa Yukichis full grasp of Western concepts and practices, Japan was able to engage and shape the ideas that supplemented European imperialism for its own benefit. From this point on, it would become Japans customary practice of fighting foreign power with foreign power (Reprogramming of Japan, 68)

Works Cited Anchordoguy, Marie. Reprogramming Japan: The High Tech Crisis under Communitarian Capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2005. Print. Curtis, Michael. Orientalism and Islam: European Thinkers on Oriental Despotism in the Middle East and India. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. Print. Fukuzawa, Yukichi, and Eiichi Kiyooka. The Autobiography of Yukichi Fukuzawa. New York: Columbia UP, 1966. Print. Pyle, Kenneth B. Japan Rising: The Resurgence of Japanese Power and Purpose. New York: Public Affairs, 2007. Print. Pyle, Kenneth B. The Making of Modern Japan. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1978. Print. Rossabi, Morris. The Mongols: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print. Skaff, Jonathan Karam. Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors: Culture, Power and Connections, 580-800. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.