Final answer:
Matthew Parris and Marco Polo's descriptions of the Mongols differ significantly due to their distinct periods and experiences, with Polo's firsthand account offering a detailed view into the Mongol Empire, while later historical narratives reflect the authors' cultural perspectives and times.
Step-by-step explanation:
The differing descriptions of the Mongols by Matthew Parris and Marco Polo arise from their distinct vantage points and the times they lived in. Whereas Polo's accounts draw from his personal experiences as a traveler and bureaucrat within the Mongol lands during the 13th century, the historical narratives by later figures like Parris may have been influenced by subsequent interpretations and the context of their own times.
Marco Polo's Travels are a rich resource, noted for their detailed observations of culture, economics, and society more broadly. However, the absence of certain Chinese cultural details in his accounts raised doubts about whether Polo had in fact visited China. Despite these concerns, Polo's work contains a wealth of accurate details corroborated by other sources and contributed significantly to European knowledge of Yuan China. He reported on the use of paper money, coal, and pasta, none of which were common in Europe at the time.
Contrasting Polo's vivid first-hand narratives, later European portrayals of figures like Chinggis Khan, such as those by Chaucer and Montesquieu, were shaped by their authors' cultural perspectives and the purposes of their writings as entertainment or social commentary, respectively. These accounts often diverged from Polo's experiential descriptions and reflected the perspectives of their own eras more than they accurately depicted Mongol reality.