Final answer:
The question of whether being a knight or a monk is better is an 2) opinion, not a fact, and varies based on personal values and perspectives. The documents provided outline the sociopolitical context of the Middle Ages rather than making a direct comparison between knights and monks.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether it is better to be a knight than a monk in the Middle Ages is one of personal 2) opinion rather than fact. The lives of knights and monks were very different, with knights often being involved in warfare and feudal obligations, while monks dedicated themselves to contemplation, scholarship, and the church.
What may be considered 'better' would depend on individuals' values and perspectives during that time. For instance, someone valuing earthly power and military prowess might prefer the life of a knight, while another seeking spiritual fulfillment and scholarly work would find the life of a monk more appealing.
The documents provided do not offer a definitive answer to whether the world would be better or worse off without the Mongols or whether a knight or monk serves a more viable role in medieval society.
Instead, these documents discuss the structures of manorialism and feudalism, the importance of religious journeys, and the historical context of the Middle Ages.
Furthermore, when analyzing historical documents, it is important to identify whether they are primary or secondary sources as this affects their reliability and perspective.
Primary sources are original, first-hand accounts from the time period, while secondary sources are interpretations or analyses based on primary sources. Understanding a source's nature is crucial in evaluating the credibility and context of the information.