A Conversation with Mairead O'Hara

The Persian Chronicles of Chinggis Khan and the Mongols: Chinggis Khan the World Destroyer or Civilization Builder

At first glance, Mairead O’Hara’s schedule doesn’t leave much room for the 13th century. She is a  junior history major and member of the Catholic University tennis team, and she spends her afternoons at practice and her evenings balancing coursework. But behind the routine of a student-athlete is a historian captivated by the medieval world.

O’Hara did not arrive at college intending to specialize in the medieval world. She began as an American history major, drawn to more modern narratives. Then, after taking several medieval courses, her focus shifted. What started as curiosity turned into a sustained interest in how history is written and who gets to write it.

Her recent research project, Chinggis Khan: World Destroyer or Civilization Builder, which she wrote for Dr. Weitz’s junior seminar, examines medieval chroniclers of the Mongol conquests. The idea grew out of her long-standing interest in the relationship between historians and journalists. Both, she argues, hold significant power in helping to shape the public understanding. When those writers operate within systems that exercise dominion over large populations, the stakes become even higher. “I wanted to look at historians at the time and how their background and experiences would affect how they viewed Mongol conquest,” O’Hara said.

Her research centered on chroniclers writing about the same historical period but offering drastically different accounts. Rather than treating those differences as inconsistencies, O’Hara viewed them as evidence. Political allegiances, cultural contexts, and personal experiences, she found, directly influenced how these writers framed events. The same conquest could be portrayed as divine punishment, political necessity, or catastrophic destruction, depending on the author’s position and loyalties.

What stood out most to her was how much authority these historians wielded. Their narratives did not simply record history—they shaped it. Because their writings circulated within powerful political systems, their interpretations influenced how large populations understood the Mongol Empire and its expansion.

O’Hara’s favorite line from the paperis her conclusion: “Nonetheless, comparisons of their works offer valuable insight into the influences of personal experience, political allegiances, and cultural contexts on historical narratives of the Mongol period.” She sees it as the moment where her research comes together, bringing together weeks of analysis into a single observation.

Though she plans to pursue law school after graduation, O’Hara’s work reveals an excellent analysis of historical interpretation. On the court, precision and discipline matter. In the archives, perspective does. For O’Hara, both require the same skill: understanding how small details can shape a much larger story.