Here is my thesis statement for an AP World DBQ about “how the Mongols have been depicted in the historical record”. I had 13 documents and organized them into 4 groups.</p>
The Mongols were one of the most effective and well-structured fighting forces throughout Asia and Europe between the 11th and 14th centuries CE. Because of this, they were accused of being barbaric and ruthless killers, trained to kill from birth. However, many would argue that they were simply committed to uniting their areas of conquest and they were a civilized peoples, fighting against injustice and enmity.</p>
<p>effective and well-structured fighting forces throughout Asia and Europe
accused of being barbaric and ruthless killers
trained to kill from birth
civilized peoples, fighting against injustice and enmity.</p>
<p>Your 2nd and third one is pretty much the same. Fighting against injustice and enmity is more of an opinion, what do you define as injustice? Remember this is the document’s point of view, not yours.</p>
<p>I agree with pointystar. You should just go with 3 categories, 3 body paragraphs, simple.</p>
<p>And I would scratch “Europe.” Europe wasn’t heavy invaded by the Mongols; in fact they’re quite known for being saved by the Egyptian Mamluks who finally defeated the Mongols after the capture of Baghdad (1258). Afterwards, the Mongols never could advance further than Syria.</p>
<p>I think it’s pretty alright. It’s a little clunky, but it works. Your groups could be Reverence (#1), Insult/Negative depictions (#2 & 3 should be merged), and Sympathetic (#4) or something along those lines.</p>
<p>Since you need your own knowledge,
1 - short bow, innovative army units (in 10s, 100s…)
2 - Baghdad, their notorious invasion of China and the end of the Song dynasty (it’s a crazy story although I’m sure you may have heard of it)
3 - Yuan? Kievan Rus (early Russian kingdom) was left pretty much alone as long as it paid tribute, so that could show that they weren’t horribly cruel in every case.</p>
<p>But meh, I don’t know your documents, I’m just giving you ideas. You’d have to look em up for more info though. good luck</p>
<p>Some of the grammar/stylistic problems I wanted to point out:</p>
<p>i) Because of this >> not clear what it is.
ii) You could combine sentence 1 and 2 and produce a better tying statement.
iii) The last sentence is completely off – see my revision.</p>
<ol>
<li>they> who are they? the many? the Mongols? </li>
<li>you don’t say, for example, they were kind and they were nice. Instead, say they were kind and nice.</li>
<li>More details could be added.</li>
<li>Word Choice: Enmity , between</li>
</ol>
<p>However, many would argue that they were simply committed to uniting their areas of conquest and they were a civilized peoples, fighting against injustice and enmity.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What about add a few more details?
That they are naturally hunters
That they have complex social structures</p>
<p>Let’s try.</p>
<p>The Mongols, one of the most effective and well-structured fighting forces throughout Asia and Europe from the 11th to 14th centuries CE , have often been falsely accused of being barbaric and ruthless killers, trained to kill from birth. However, many would argue that the Mongols were more concerned about uniting their conquered lands than killing people, and that they fought against injustice as a civilized people aspiring for peace and control. Moreover, the Mongols had complex social and military structures, and their exceptional abilities for organizing armies and applying their skills as hunters for war situations gave them dominance over most of other nationalities. </p>
<p>Would it be better? This was the same number of sentences as your original one, but each sentence serves a better purpose.
1st = Intro: what’s the misconception about the mongols?
2nd = refutation: Why is that misconception wrong?
3nd = conclusion&thesis: sum up& strengthen your argument</p>
<p>Remember that all I did was to fix some grammar problems, made things more natural, and added a few details. If you start having clear ideas of what each sentence serves, that’s a good start. Then you can work on grammar and sentence structures which are correctable. The key thing is ideas, and how to convey them (structure). </p>
<p>If you want improvement, study SATI Writing more attentively, and English grammar in general. Read more non-fiction and focus on stylistic elements. If neither of these sound good, just keep reading and writing until you get better. You will get better.</p>
good luck</p>