Final answer:
Primary sources like narrative accounts from Marco Polo and The Secret History of the Mongols offer firsthand insights into Mongol society and impact, whereas secondary sources like George Vernadsky's book provide analytical perspectives. Different sources may view the Mongols' influence on economies and cultures differently, emphasizing either positive aspects, such as commerce, or negative ones, like cultural destruction.
Step-by-step explanation:
When assessing sources about the Mongols' influence on the Ming and Russian empires, it's important to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. A primary source is an original document or firsthand account from the time under study, such as The Secret History of the Mongols, which is a Mongolian epic chronicle of the thirteenth century. On the other hand, a secondary source is one that was created later by someone who did not experience firsthand or participate in the events or conditions, like George Vernadsky's The Mongols and Russia: A History of Russia, which is an analysis written much later.
Regarding the Mongols' impact, different sources have varying perspectives. Some narrative accounts praise the Mongols for promoting commerce and the flow of ideas, while others emphasize destruction and cultural loss. For instance, travelers like Marco Polo and Ibn Battuta left behind travelogue primary sources that discuss the Mongol Empire from their personal experiences, offering insights into how the Mongols ruled and interacted with conquered peoples.
Supporting evidence from primary sources, like eyewitness accounts or original documents, and comparing it against the research and conclusions of secondary sources, helps historians better understand the reliability and perspective of the information.