Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Introduction
Chapter 1. Ancient Turks and the first information about them in Chinese sources
Chapter 2. Arab-Muslim sources about the Turks
Chapter 3. Arab conquest of Central Asia
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
The history of the Ancient East and the Turks has a long history. We begin our study with the appearance of the first state formations in the Nile and Euphrates valleys in the second half of the 4th millennium BC. and we end in the 30s-20s for the Middle East. IV century BC, when Greco-Macedonian troops under the leadership of Alexander the Great captured the entire Middle East, the Iranian plateau, the southern part of Central Asia and the northwestern part of India. As for Central Asia, India and the Far East, the ancient history of these countries is studied up to the 3rd-5th centuries AD. This border is conditional and is determined by the fact that in Europe at the end of the 5th century. AD The Western Roman Empire fell and the peoples of the European continent entered the Middle Ages. Geographically, the territory called the Ancient East extends from west to east from modern Tunisia, where one of the most ancient states, Carthage, was located, to modern China, Japan and Indonesia, and from south to north - from modern Ethiopia to the Caucasus Mountains and the southern shores of the Aral Sea . In this vast geographical area, there were numerous states that left a bright mark on history: the great Ancient Egyptian kingdom, the Babylonian state, the Hittite state, the huge Assyrian empire, the state of Urartu, small state formations in the territory of Phenicia, Syria and Palestine, the Trojan Phrygian and Lydian kingdoms, states The Iranian Highlands, including the world Persian monarchy, which included the territories of almost the entire Near and part of the Middle East, state formations of Central Asia, states in the territory of Hindustan, China, Korea and Southeast Asia.
In this work, we tried to talk more deeply about Arab sources about the ancient Turks. Based on the general goal, we highlight the following tasks:
- talk about the first information about the Turks in Chinese and other sources;
- highlight the history of the Arab conquest of Central Asia;
- talk about Arab-Muslim authors and their writings about the ancient Turks.
This course work consists of three thematically stated chapters, an introduction, a conclusion and a list of references.
1. Ancient Turks and the first information about them in Chinese sources
During the I--II centuries. The Huns fought with China and at the same time with other neighbors: the Sakas, proto-Mongols and ancient Kyrgyz tribes of the Yenisei basin. Ultimately, weakened in this struggle, the Huns in the middle of the 2nd century. n. e. were defeated by the proto-Mongol Xianbi tribes and were pushed west, into the borders of modern Kazakhstan. In this movement, they carried with them the Saks they had defeated, most of whom were subject to Turkization, as well as the Ugrians, who were apparently allies of the Huns. In the II century. Western sources (Dionysius and Ptolemy) record the Huns in the Caspian region.
Mainly based on Chinese sources and archaeological data, the history of the Hunnic state in Central Asia, the relationship of the Huns with China and their western neighbors, which were the Eastern Scythian (Saka) tribes of the Yuezhi and Wusun, were studied. The wars between the Huns and the latter are, in fact, the prehistory of the Hun invasion of Europe. It was in the last centuries BC. e. and the first two centuries AD. e. events occurred that were poorly covered in the sources, but had serious significance for the history of Eurasia. We are talking about large-scale ethnic changes across a vast territory from Mongolia to the Volga. Previously, mainly Iranians lived here in the steppe zone, and Ugrians lived in the forest-steppe zone. At the same time, the situation began to change. Now it is being proven that the bulk of the tribes of the Hunnic Union itself consisted of proto-Turks. The only remnant of their language in our time is the Chuvash, but in the early Middle Ages the most famous proto-Turkic ethnic groups were the Bulgars and Khazars.
It seems that the very first Muslims among the Hungars appeared no earlier than the second half of the 3rd-9th centuries, during that historical period of time when the tribes that were part of the Hungarian federation still led a nomadic lifestyle and lived between the Don and the Lower Danube, being neighbors of a large the state of the Turkic Khazars (Turkish Khazarr), whose capital Atil or Idel was located just east of the Volga River. The population of the state consisted of various nationalities: pure Khazars, then Iranians - the Sarmatian tribe of Aorsi (Aorsi), who formed the guard of the Khazar Kagan, Khwarazmians (Khwarazmians) and, finally, numerous Muslim merchants of different nationalities who lived in the Khazar capital, which had mosques and schools where the Koran was studied. According to Ibn Fadlan's Risale, there was a Friday mosque in Iteli, and local Muslims were subjects of the Khazar Kagan. See: Al-Mas "udi. Kitab at-tanbikh. Leiden, 1894. P, 83. According to al-Istakhri, 10,000 Muslims lived in Iteli, there were 30 mosques.
The earliest mention is found in "Kitab al - Alak al nafisa", by Ibn Rosteh, an Iranian chronograph, written between 290-300 (Arabic chronology) or 903-913. based on the geographical notes of the Iranian scientist al Diayhani (900?), who in turn used anonymous historical evidence about Central Asia and Eastern Europe as sources for his historical work. In these sources, the Hungarians are called Madjghariyya or Magyars. During that historical period, the Magyars lived near the Black Sea between the Don and Danube. Their neighbors were the strong Badjanak-Pechenegs tribe. Namely, under their pressure, the Magyars around 889 -92. were forced to move to the Carpathians, where they founded their own state, which existed until the end of World War I. . It is very likely that the same "Anonymous account" (9th century) was the source for the "Kitab al Masalik wa manalik" of the Iranian scholar Al Bakri, which describes the country of Al-Madjghariyya (460/1068). This source says that the Magyars lead a nomadic lifestyle, and their lands are located along the Black Sea coast Madjghariyya and border with Byzantium (bilad al-Rum
The difficulty of studying the events of this time lies in the confusion and uncertainty of the ethnic terminology of Byzantine sources. For example, they traditionally call the nomads of Eastern Europe Huns, sometimes Turks. Theophylact Simokatta writes that the northern neighbors of the Persians are the Huns, who were accustomed to being called (in his time) Turks. The same with Feofan and other authors. Kartlis tskhovreba. Tbilisi, 1955. T. 1. P. 11, 12, 19, 27, 59 Yes, and Armenian writers even in the 7th century. willingly apply the name “Khons” to all northern nomads/not necessarily Turks. It has already been said about the distinction in the sources of the Bulgars and Utigurs, but Nikifor calls Kuvrat the sovereign of the Unogundurs, although this does not mean the identity of the Unogundurs with the Onogurs and Utigurs, as, for example, A believes .IN. Gadlo.
2. Arab-Muslim sources about the ancient Turks
A description of the al-Madjghariyya people is also found in Tabai al hawan (514/1120), written by the Iranian scholar Sharaf al Zaman Tahir al Marwazi. Analysis of the text shows that in the period before 889-92. The Hungars lived in the southern steppes of Russia, between the Don (Dune, in the text of the Iranian Ibn Rosteh) and Atil (Idel, author's note) Etul (Don?). The description of the country of Al-Madjghariyya in the work of al-Marwazi is also taken from the work of al-Diayhani.
An anonymous Persian source called "Hudud al alam", written in 982, mentions Hungar under the name Madjghari. According to "Hudud al alam", the country - Madjghari was located to the west and bordered the Carpathians, and from the north the border passed with the country of the Christian people called - Wanandar. This tribe can possibly be identified with the Bulgar tribe - Onugundurs (Onugurs), who in the 6-7 centuries settled the northwestern part of the Caucasus in the Kuban region. From Byzantine sources it is known that under the command of Khan Asparukh, part of this tribe left the Kuban region and moved to the lower Danube, which they crossed in 679, and where they settled. From the south, the Onugurs bordered the Bulgar state. The newly arrived Onogurs accepted Christian baptism in 864.
From another "Anonymus account" written in the 10th century we learn that the Hungars conquered the Carpathians in 889-92. Chichurov I.S. Decree. op. P. 37.
The name Madjghari or more precisely Madjghariyan, (plural of the Persian Madjghari) is also found in the work "Zayn al-akhbar" (414-4/1048-52), written by the Iranian scholar Gardizi or Gurdezi. Gardizi classified them as Turks. In "Zayn al-akhbar" in the paragraph dedicated to the Bulgars of the Danube, they are called Nandar.
Al-Marvazi, in his work "Tabai al-hayawan", also calls the Hungars (whom he knew from their ancient homeland north of the Black Sea between two rivers that can be identified with the Don and Danube) - Al Madjghariyya.
Al Marvazi considered the Magyar to be a Turkic people by origin, like Ibn Rosten (Ibn Rust), he used as a source - Anonymous account compiled by Al-Diayhani.
The name al-Madjghariyya is also mentioned by Abu Al-Fida (732-1331) in his geographical work - Takwim al-buldan. Perhaps Abu Al-Fida used the work of the historian Al-Bakri as a source under the name Kitab al Masalik wa L-mamalik. Perhaps that is why Abu Al-Fida called the capital of the Hungars Madjghari.
In another passage of his work, Abu Al-Fida mentions Magyar under the name Madjar. According to this passage, the Madjars lived in the neighborhood of the Serbs (al-Sarb), the Vlachs (Arab. Al-Awlak) and other “infidels” (infidel), that is, Christians in the mountains called Kashka-Tagh (Kashka-dar, Kashkadar), where the Danube (Danube) begins and flows, and on the other side is the Alps, and on the other is the Balkan Peninsula. Movses Kalankatvatsi. Patmutyun alvanits ashkharh. Yerevan, 1983. P. 1.18, 133, 171, 186, 187. 249, etc.; Levond. Patmutyun. St. Petersburg, 1887. S. 16, 17, etc.
Al Dimashki in his cosmographic work "Nukhbat al-dahr fiadjaib al-barr wa l-bahr", mentions the Madjar or Hungars among the tribes inhabiting the country - Nahral - Sakaliba wa L-Rus (where Al-Dimashki mistakenly considered the Danube and Tisza to be tributaries of the Dnieper) .
In addition to the Magyars, Al-Dimashki also mentions the Bashkirsd-Bashkord tribe.
The Persian and Arabic names al-Madjghariyya, Madjghari, Madjghariyan and Madjar - Magyars come from the Finno-Ugric ethnonym - Magyar, which was also known from medieval European sources. For example, the Byzantine author Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote (in 949-52) that among the Hungars who settled along the Middle Danube there is a clan meyepn (in Hungarian Meger). In the "Hungarian Chronicle" - Simon Geza (written in 1285-5) "Gesta Hungarorum" it is said that the ancestors of the Hungars bore the name - Mogor.
The Gesta Hungarorum of the author Belae regis Notarius (ca.1200) states that the territory occupied by the Hungars before their arrival in the Carpathians was called Dentumogor (in Hungarian - Donto magyar). The second part of this name, mogor, corresponds to the name of the ancestors of the Hungarians from the chronicle Simona of keza, while the first part, Dentu, apparently goes back to the name Dana, known from Kitab al-Buldan, written by Ibn al-Fakih 290/902 ), as a territory located in the lower reaches of the Don, is also known under the name TanaT, mentioned in the letter of the Khazar Kagan Joseph (10th century).
Italian geographical maps of the 13th and 14th centuries also call this region Thanatia.
Bashkirs are the second ethnonym by which Arab geographers of the 4th-8th/10th-14th centuries called the Hungars.
Another name, as Arab geographers of the 4th-8th/10th-14th centuries. called Hungars, there was a name for Bashkirs, who in fact were not Magyars and lived from the 9th century, if not earlier, in the territory corresponding to the provinces of old Russia, stretching from Penza to Orenburg, they (the Bashkirs) have nothing in common with the Hungars, who spoke and speak the language of the Finno-Ugric group. The use of the name - Bashkirs to designate the Hungars is a mystery that remains to be solved despite numerous previous attempts by historians and linguists, both Hungarian and others, who could not solve it. Mojmal at-tawarikh, Tehran, 1939. pp. 98--105.
The first Arab author to use the name Bashkirs to designate the Hungars was al-Masudi (345/956), who in his book "Murudi al-dhahab" described the war of the Hungars and their allies Pechenegs (Pechenegs) with Byzantium in 320-32/932 -944 Al-Masudi in his book called Hungar by two different but similar names - Badjghird and Bazkirda, which he used to designate two numerous tribes.
The historian AL Istakhri in his book "Kitab Masalik al Mamalik" also named the genuine Bashkirs and Hungarians by the name Basdjirt. The Basdjirt (authentic) Bashkirs lived, according to this geographer, between the Oguz-Turks (al-Ghuziyya) and the Bulgars of the Kama (Bulghar) and were subject to the latter, while the Basdjirt Hungarians lived in the neighborhood of the country of Al-Rum or the Byzantine Empire. They were neighbors of the Badjanak or Pechenegs, who lived between the Don and Danube. The historical work of al-Istakhri was the main source when the scholar Ibn Hawkal wrote his geographical study entitled "Kitab al-Masalik wa L-Mamalik" or "Kitab Suratal Ard" (first edition before 356/967, second edition 367/977, and final version 378/988). In this book, Ibn Hawkal, like everyone else, called Hungar by the name Basdjirt.
The name Bashkirs (written Bashghird) is found in the book of the Arab traveler and writer Abu Hamid al Andalusi al Gharnati (565/1169 -70), called "al Murib an bad adja-ib al Maghrib", in which the inhabitants of the country - Unkuriyya - are named after Badjghird. Abu Hamid al-Gharnati visited the country of Unkuriyya in 545-547/1150-1153, where he lived for three years, and after leaving it, he left his eldest son in this country, who married the daughter of a local Muslim. The same author in his other book, Tuhfat al-albab, also describes Hungar under the name Bashghurd.
Another author Yakut (626/1229) also describes and calls Hungar by the name Bashkirs, and their country Bashghirdiyya. Yakut himself met a group of Bashkirs in the city of Aleppo (Aleppo) in Syria studying Islamic law according to the canon created by the legal philosopher Abu Hanifa Denaveri, a Cord by nationality. Yakut al-Hamawi (Yakut) also mentions the European name Hungar as al-Hunkar (al-Hungar) of Ibn Ruste. Al-A"lak an-nafisa. Leiden, 1892. pp. 120--121. .
The huge geographical-descriptive work of Ibn Said Maghrebi, which contains this idea (about the two Hungar religions), was used as a source by the historian Abu L-Fida when he wrote his book “Takwim al buldan”.
The Arab cosmographer Abu Shams Abd Allah al-Dimashki (727/1327) in his book "Nukhbat al-dahr fi adjaib al-barr wa L-bahr" says that the Bashghird people live in the southeast of Europe along the Madjar or Hungarians ). He also did not understand that these names represented one people. Perhaps Al-Dimashki, calling the Hungarians by two names: Hungars-Magyars and Bashkords, separated Muslims - Hungarians from Hungarians - Christians, as did Ibn Said al-Maghribi.
Bissermini, Bezzermini, Bisirmani, Bezermeni, Buzurman - Bessermyane - Basurman. This is a tracing from the ancient Hungarian word - Bosormeny "Muslim" used in the Hungarian chronicles written in Latin. However, this word was used not only in central and eastern Europe, but is found (with the same meaning) in Polish, Old Czech and Russian languages, in which the words - bisurman (busurman), besermen and basurman (busurman) - basurman, beserman meant - Muslim. It is important that John Paul Carpini, the famous ambassador of Pope Innocent IV to the Mongol Khan (1245-7), in his travel notes mentions the people who called themselves - Bisermini, who were identified by the scientist I. Hrbek (1955) with the Khwazarmians - Khorezmians who lived near Amu Darya. Also, it is quite possible that the Bisermini - Bisermen of Hungaria may be part of these - Khazarmians - Khorezmians in Hungaria. In any case, the terms Ysmaelita (Ismailis) and beserman (Bissermians), ismaeliticus meant only Muslims in general. It must be added to this that the name Boszormeny is noted as a toponym in five administrative divisions of Hungary (Hungary) within its historical borders, as well as in a number of medieval documents. For example, a document dating back to 1248 mentions a city - villa Nogbezerman (in Hungarian Nagy Boszormeny "great Boszormeny" "Great Besermyany"), which was located east of the middle reaches of the river. Tissy in the Nyir (Nyr) region.
Caliz (1114) Kalez (1156), Qualis (1212) on modern Hungarian (Hungarian) Kalis and German chronicles - Kotzel, Koltzens, Khwarazmians. This name was first mentioned in Hungarian sources in Latin in 1111 as a people called "Hungars" - Calis, the Byzantine equivalent of this name Khalisioi. According to the Byzantine historian Sohn Kinnamos (writing between 1150-65), these Khalisioi were subordinates of the Hungar king and fought alongside the Dalmatoians (Dalmatia) against the army of the Byzantine emperor Manuel Comnenus. The historian's opinion regarding the religion of these Khalisioi varies greatly; in one place he writes that they adhere to the religion of the Persians (islam?), while in another passage of his work he says that they adhere to the religion of Moses (mosaic). The Hungarian name - Kaliz, as well as the Byzantine - Khalisi correspond to Khvalisi - Khvalis, as in the old Russian language they called Khwarazmians - Khorezmians and Khwarazm - Khorezm, which is found in the chronicle of Nestor written in the early 12th century. The Hungarian name of the Khorezmians - Kalis, corresponds to the ethnonym al-Khazar, al Khalis or - khazar-khalis, which was the name of an ethnic group of people close in origin to the Khorezmians and who lived, according to historians al-Istarhi and Ibn Hawkal, in the western part of the Khazar capital of the city Itil (Atil). The Khorezmians (Chwarazmians) appeared in the Khazar kingdom in the 8th century, since the name of the "bishop" of the Khorezmians, Khonales, is mentioned in a list of names recorded earlier than 787. This was a list of the names of the "bishops" of the entire Khazar empire, who were subordinate to their metropolis in the city of Doros (Doros) in the Crimea. The name - Khonales is on the list immediately after the name - Astel (Itil) of the capital of Khazaria. According to Kulakovsky and Vasiliev A. (The Goths in Grimea, Cambridje Mass. 1936) - Khonales was a city located in the Khazar kingdom, east of the river. Volga, not far from the Caspian Sea, which in the chronicle of Nestor (12th century) is called the Khvalynsk Sea. It is also possible that the name Khvalinsk was borne by the eastern part of the Khazar capital, while the western part was called Itil (Atel).
According to Al-Murib, there were two types of Muslims in Hungaria (the country of Bashkerd). So there were “awlad al Maghariba”, “descendants of the peoples of the West” and “awlad al-Khwarazmiyyin”, i.e. "descendants of the Khorezmians." In the first case, the name "awlad al Maghariba" (Maghreb - west in Kurdish) remains mysterious.
The Muslims of Hungaria at that time were still numerous, since a papal letter of 1221 speaks of the large number of Saracens of Hungaria "multitudo Saracenorum Hungariae". During the reign of Andrew II, a regulation appeared about the Muslims of Hungaria, known from the book of Yakut al Hamawi “Mudjam al-buldan”. He received this information from al-Bashghirdyya - the Bashkords, whom he met in the city of Haleb (Aleppo). Al-Mas "udi. Op. cit. P. 83. The date of this meeting is precisely unknown, but, nevertheless, it is known that Yakut spent some time here (Aleppo) in 613/1216, 614/1217, in 621/1224 and in 626/1229 shortly before his death. According to this author, the Bashkords "al Bashghirdyya" were people with very red hair (blond), face and body pink (here - white, Yakut uses the Arabic term here - in both meanings ), they professed Muslim legal-religious law, canons, following the school of Abu Hanifa. Yakut Al Hamawi asked one of these Bashkords about their country and way of life, and they explained to him that the country - Bashkerd-Bashghirdyya is located beyond Constantinople and belongs to the Franks or the country Franks (in other words - Western Christians) whom these Bashkords called al-Hunkar or Hungaria. These Bashkerds were subordinate (Arabic: raiyya) to the king of the Hungars and lived in thirty places distant from each other. The Bashkerds were involved in the Holy War - jihad (djihad) Considering the fact that Hungaria was surrounded by enemies of the Muslim religion, Yakut Al Hamawi also asked the Bashkerds he met how they got to Hungaria, they explained to him that they arrived in the country of al-Hunkar from the Bulgars (bilad Bulgar); in ancient times, seven Muslim scholars (preachers) who settled among them al-Bashghirdyya - the Bashkerds converted them to Islam. This tradition, heard by Yakut al Hamawi about the origin of the Bashkords of Hungaria from the Bulgars, corresponds to the Hungarian chronicle "Anonymi gesta Hungarorum", written in 1196-1203, according to which, during the reign of King Taksony, a group of Ishmaelites (Ismailis) from terra moved to Hungaria Bulgar.
3. Arab conquest of Central Asia
In the south of Eastern Europe in the 6th century. the supreme power of first the united Turkic, and then, from 588 (approximately), the Western Turkic Khaganates is established. The center of the latter was located in Semirechye, and the main arena of activity was in Central Asia, where the Turks were constantly in conflict with Iran. But the tribes of the Ciscaucasia, at least its eastern part, depended on the Khakan of the Turks and were involved in wars with Iran.
Early Arabic authors for the events of the 6th century. used the Sasanian “Khvadai-namak”, which was quite reliable for that time. It was from them that they gleaned news of the Turks’ defeat of the Hephthalite (Heytalite) state, when the Turk Khakan killed Varz, the king of the Hephthalites, and took possession of his country. They associated the heyday of the Turkic Khaganate with the Khakan (Malik, King) Sendjibu (Sendzhiu). To protect against the hordes of this ruler, Khosrow I Anushirvan re-fortified Derbent and stationed 5 thousand Persian soldiers there under the conditions of a military settlement to protect the borders of Armenia.
At the same time, speaking about the Khakan of the Western Turks, Arab sources depict him in the Caucasus as a kind of supreme overlord of many local tribes. Among the latter, for the 60-80s, the Burjans (i.e., Bulgars), Balanjars, Banjars, and Alans are mentioned, which looks like only the most prominent. The mention of Anushirvan’s war with the Bulgars in the Derbent region deserves special attention, unless this is, of course, a later interpolation. At-Tabari. Tarikh ar-rusul wa-l-muluk. Ser. 1. pp. 216--218.
Thus, in the second half of the 6th century. Several political associations functioned in the North Caucasus, one of which was the Khazar. But all of them, apparently, to one degree or another recognized the supreme power of the Turkic Kaganate.
After the palace coup in Constantinople in 602, when Emperor Mauritius was killed by Phocas, the Persians, under the pretext of revenge for the murdered man, launched an offensive against Byzantium. A long war began that lasted more than 25 years. The pretext for war was, of course, far-fetched, since Khosrow II did not stop hostilities even after Phocas was overthrown and executed by Heraclius. For almost 20 years, military success accompanied Iran, whose troops captured Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and twice reached Constantinople.
But then military happiness passed to Heraclius. The emperor's famous raid through Mesopotamia and Armenia became possible not only because of its surprise, but also because Heraclius managed to find allies behind enemy lines. PSRL. M., 1962. T. 1. P. 17, 24, 65; St. Petersburg, 1908. T. 2. P. 12, 17, 53. Al-Mas "udi mentions Alans, Khazars, Abkhazians, Sarirs, Georgians, Armenians and others (not named) as allies of Irakli. On the side of Khosrow in Transcaucasia Albanians remained and, apparently, part of the Armenian princes. There is reason to believe that the ruler (erismtavari) of Kartli remained loyal to Iran, for which he later paid severely. The Persians were forced to leave Transcaucasia, with the exception of some fortified points (Tbilisi, Derbent). However, In the next 625, Khosrow entered into an alliance with the Avars, Bulgars and Slavs, and they besieged Constantinople in 626. In response, Heraclius turned to the Khazars, and they began to devastate Transcaucasia
The history of the Western Turkic Kaganate is poorly known to us. From Armenian and partly Arab sources we know about the events of the late 6th - early 7th centuries. on the eastern border of Iran, Sebeos talks in detail about the Armenian prince Smbat Bagra Tuni, whom Khosrow II appointed Mirzpan of the border region of Hyrcania. Contrary to the opinion of some historians, this did not happen during the reign of Khakan Tun-shehu (618-630), but in the last years of the 6th century. and in the first years of the 7th century. Then information about the Turks in the east of Iran disappears from sources, and, as already said, in the 20s of the 7th century. Heraclius' allies are the Khazars. and Khosrov - Bulgars, Avars, Slavs, etc. From Chinese sources it is known that Tun-shehu “conquered Persia.” Clearly there is some confusion here. Either Tun-shehu ruled earlier, at the end of the 6th - beginning of the 7th century, or by the 20s of the 7th century. events of an earlier time were mistakenly attributed.
Researchers date it to the 30s of the 7th century. unrest in the Western Turkic Kaganate and precisely with it, or with the collapse of this state under the blows of the Chinese in the 50s of the 7th century. associated with the emergence of the Khazar state. I find this to be inaccurate. The above is data from sources about the practically independent Khazar policy in the 20s of the 7th century, and this allows us to date the formation of the Khazar state to approximately the first quarter of the 7th century. True, the Khazar ruler still recognized the supreme power of the Turkic Khakan, with whom he was related. But the dual title of the Khazar ruler, jebu-khakan, seems to indicate that he considered himself no lower than his official overlord. In practice, the Khazars acted completely independently.
Taking the first quarter of the 7th century as the date of foundation of the Khazar state, at the same time we emphasize that we are talking about the initial date, which was followed by a rather significant period of formation of the Khazar Kaganate as an independent state in all respects, which became the main political force in Eastern Europe. And in this period, two main moments emerge: the adoption by the Khazar ruler of the highest title in the nomadic world “Khakan” and the victorious struggle with another Caucasian political association - the Bulgar Union.
Sources associate the rise of Great Bulgaria with the reign of Khan Kuvrat. Obviously, he is referring to the Ethiopian source, which mentions the baptism of the Bulgar ruler in Constantinople in 619. It is believed that in the early 30s of the 7th century. (632) the Bulgars freed themselves from (nominal) dependence on the Western Turkic Khaganate. Kuvrat died during the time of Emperor Constans II (641-668), leaving five sons, whom he bequeathed to live together and not be at enmity with each other. But the children of Kuvrat broke their father’s covenant, and the Bulgar unification disintegrated. Of the “daughter” hordes that emerged, two are best known: the one that, together with Khan Asparukh, went to the Balkans, and the horde of Kuvrat’s eldest son Batbayan (Bayan), which remained in the Azov region. According to Byzantine sources, after the collapse of the Bulgar unification, the great Khazar people emerged from the depths of Berzilia (Verilia) and made the Batbayan-Bayan horde their tributary.
These events are presented differently in Khazar legends. Answering the question of Hasdai ibn Shafrut, King Joseph obviously told a legend from those that, in his words, “are known to all the old people of our country.” According to this legend, the Khazars were once small in number and fought with peoples who were more numerous and stronger than them. Here we need to pay attention to two points. Firstly, to indicate the small number of Khazars. Secondly, the fact that they fought with other peoples, without indicating the subordination of the Khazars to the latter. The name of these enemies of the Khazars is mentioned only in the lengthy edition of Joseph's letter, where it is designated as vnntr. Researchers have long come to the conclusion that the internal tribes should be understood as the tribes of the Bulgarian Union. These events took place somewhere in the 40s-70s of the 7th century. after the death of Kuvrat. Ibn Ruste. Al-A"lak an-nafisa. Leiden, 1892. P. 120--121. But unlike Byzantine sources, Khazar legends speak of the Khazars pursuing enemies to the Don River, i.e. the Danube, with an additional statement of the fact of the settlement of fugitives vnntr, i.e. Bulgars Asparukh, near Constantinople. And this must be believed, since the steppe (and partially forest-steppe) regions of Eastern Europe fell under the rule of the Khazars.
But how did the small Khazars manage to defeat the numerous Bulgars, “like sand by the sea”? Undoubtedly, the enmity between the sons of Kuvrat played a big role here. But Asparukh went to the west, pursued by the Khazars, and, therefore, before that the Bulgars - for better or worse - acted against the enemy together! Consequently, we must look for other reasons for the victory of the Khazars. It seems that the sources, upon careful consideration, provide an answer to this question.
The land of the Alans occupied the central part of Ciscaucasia and penetrated to the west, that is, into the territory controlled by the Bulgars. Consequently, it was important for the Alans to free themselves from the power of the Bulgars, and therefore they could enter into an alliance with the Khazars, who lived to the east of their territory.
It was the alliance with the Alans that helped the Khazars crush the Bulgars, expel some of them to the west and subjugate the rest. The Maskut tribes of the Caspian coast, subordinate to the Khazars and related to the Alans, probably also played a role in strengthening this alliance, even the Abkhazians and, finally, the Khazars. The Khazars are mentioned more often than other tribes, and this gives reason to think that it was their political unification that gradually, by the 90s of the 6th century. (events associated with the uprising of Bahram Gur in 590-591), comes to the fore in the Eastern Ciscaucasia. The ruler of the Khazars already in the early 90s of the 6th century. is titled "malik" ("king"). At the same time, the mention of other tribes next to the Khazars indicates the instability of the political situation in this area, the presence there of other political associations, including the Khazar
The Pechenegs, who arrived in Hungaria in several stages during the 10th, 11th, 12th centuries, were pagans who professed the primitive religion of the ancient Turks. However, they also included an impressive group of Muslims, as can be judged by the work of al-Masudi, who described the Badjana/Badjanak war in alliance with the Hungars against Byzantium in 320-32/932-943. Later, Islam disappeared without a trace among the Pechenegs who lived in the southern steppes of Rus' and, according to al-Bakri (460/1068), as reported by Muslim slaves who returned from captivity in Constantinople, the Pechenegs remained pagans until 400/1009 (din al-Madjusiyya ). Immediately after this date, a scientist, Muslim Fatih, arrived to them, who succeeded in converting the Pechenegs to Islam. According to al-Bakri, the beginning of this active campaign of "Muslimization" of the Pechenegs led immediately to war between the converts and the Pechenegs who remained pagans. According to al-Bakri informants, there were only 12,000 converts to Islam, but they managed to defeat the pagans, most of whom were slaughtered, while the survivors converted to Islam. According to al-Bakri, this event took place around 460/1068. Already at this time, according to al-Bakri, among the Pechenegs there were theologians-fakihs and schools for reading the Koran. If the information presented by al-Bakri is correct, then it must be admitted that the majority of the Pechenegs accepted Islam only externally, retaining many pagan customs and rituals. It is quite possible that the Pechenegs captured in the Hungar war with Byzantium in 1072, who were then settled on the border of the country to protect it, could profess Islam. Ibn Khaldun. Kitab al-ibar wa divan al-mubada, wa-l-khabar fi ayam al-arab wa-l-ajam wa-l-barbar wa man asarahum min zavi-s-sultan al-akbar. Bulak, 1867, T. 1. P. 63.
It is also likely that the last wave of Pechenegs who moved to Hungaria in 1122-3 were partially converted to Islam, jurists and reciters of the Koran. This fact that the Pechenegs only partially accepted Islam is confirmed by the description of the Maghariba Bajana "Pechenegs" by Al-Garnati in 1151-3. These people had only general ideas about the rites, rituals and requirements in Islam. For example, they drank wine, which Al-Gharnati forbade them to do. Before his arrival, they did not know the Friday prayer and the Khutbah, which they learned about only from Al-Gharnati. The Pechenegs also did not practice polygamy and concubinage, which are permitted by Islam.
Conclusion
The mention of the ancient Turks in Arabic and other sources is very wide, and it is difficult to fit it into the framework of the course work. However, we still made an attempt to do this. As we have already said, the main difficulty in studying this problem is that different sources tell about what happened in different ways, from their own point of view.
Maghariba/Badjana, the Badjanaks, like most of the Khorezmian warriors, as Al-Garnati says, took part in the wars of Hungaria with Byzantium. They were very numerous, “thousands of people,” according to Al-Gharnati, who meant both hidden Muslims and those who professed Islam openly. The number of towns in which these two groups of Muslims lived, according to Al-Gharnati, was “more than 10 thousand,” which seems greatly exaggerated.
In conclusion, we also decided in this work to briefly touch upon the issue of Kyrgyzstan in this vein. The northwestern part of Kyrgyzstan as an urbanized area of Semirechye in the early medieval period is repeatedly mentioned in Chinese, Arab and Persian written sources of the 6th - 16th centuries. The description of cities is of a cliched nature: this is a “large village” or “village”. Information about the names of cities is accompanied by data about the distances between them, which served to identify these sources as road workers. However, at present, localizing cities and identifying them with archaeological sites on the ground is associated with certain difficulties. Identification of the special stylistic features of road workers as a genre of written creativity of their era would make it possible to increase the informative value of them as a historical source.
The quantitative growth of cities in the Chui Valley in the VI - X centuries. presupposes the mobility of social structures in the formation of which various ethnic groups participated. Qualitatively, this process was manifested in the variety of topographic characteristics of settlements. The share of the latter was territorially and socially regulated and had no redundancy. A distinctive feature of contemporaries’ perception of this diversity of cities and ethnic groups was their comprehension by means of spatial characteristics. In references to the rulers of cities, their tribal affiliation is not emphasized, but is defined territorially, in connection with a specific city, i.e. sociologized.Marquart J. Ostcuropaische und ostasiatische Streifzuge. Leipzig, 1903. S. 490; Artamonov M.I. Decree. op. P. 130.
The structure of the organization of trade relations, determined by socio-economic goals, also subordinates geographical conditions, interacting with them. It receives its external design in a system of urbanized settlements with clearly defined communicative functions.
An example of this is the Aksu line - a branch of the latitudinal route of the Great Silk Road, the main route for northwestern Kyrgyzstan.
The Aksu direction, in contrast to the main one, is characterized by more diverse topographical conditions, which is reflected in the city-forming structures.
In the first, residential areas are arranged radially around a central citadel or temple building, suggesting a circular city layout. Unlike settlements with a rectangular layout, here the width of the street decreases and takes on the appearance of an alley; the buildings close together, forming a continuous massif. However, these and other differences do not have independent significance, but only complement the entire system and enable it to function as a whole. The Aksu line of the Great Silk Road acquired its completed design in the Middle Ages. The development of this path can be considered traditional: excavations at the site of the Belovodskaya fortress in the lower layers yielded isolated finds of the Stone Age, ceramics of the Bronze Age; in the foothill areas oriented towards the Tyuz-Ashuu pass, the largest burial grounds of both early nomads and ancient Turks are concentrated. Numerous Turkic sanctuaries consisting of fences and stone sculptures were found here. Identification of a local line with monuments belonging to different eras and cultural types makes it possible to identify and characterize cultural and geographical zones within the same area in the context of international trade relations .
List of used literature
1. See: Al-Mas "udi. Kitab at-tanbikh. Leiden, 1894. P. 83.
2. Chichurov I. S. Decree. op. P. 37.
3. Movses Kalankatvatsi. Patmutyun alvanits ashkharh. Yerevan, 1983. P. 1.18, 133, 171, 186, 187. 249, etc.; Levond. Patmutyun. St. Petersburg, 1887. S. 16, 17, etc.
4. PSRL. M., 1962. T. 1. P. 17, 24, 65; St. Petersburg, 1908. T. 2. P. 12, 17, 53.
5. Kartlis tskhovreba. Tbilisi, 1955. T. 1. P. 11, 12, 19, 27, 59, etc.
6. Kokovtsov P.K. Decree. op. P. 17.
7. At-Tabari. Tarikh ar-rusul wa-l-muluk. Ser. 1. pp. 216--218.
8. Ibid. P. 227.
9. Mojmal at-tawarikh, Tehran, 1939, pp. 98-105.
10. See translation of excerpts: Novoseltsev A.P. et al. Old Russian state and its international significance, M., 1965. P. 391, 401.
11. Mojmal at-tawarikh. pp. 99--100.
12. Ibn al-Faqih. Kitab al-buldan. Leiden, 1885. P. 7,
13. Ibn Ruste. Al-A"lak an-nafisa. Leiden, 1892. P. 120--121.
14. Al-Istakhri. Kitab al-masalik wa-l-mamalik. Leiden, 1870. P. 222.
15. Ibn Haukal. Kitab surat al-ard. Leiden, 1938. T. 1. P. 15.
16. Ibid. Leiden, 1939. T. 2. P. 396.
17. Al-Muqaddasi. Kitab ahsan al-taqasim. Leiden, 1877. P. 368.
18. Al-Mas "udi. Op. op. p. 83.
19. Ibid., p. 184.
20. Ibid. P. 83.
21. See, for example: Yakut ar-Rumi. Mujam al-buldan. Beirut, 1956. Part 2. pp. 367--369.
22. Ibn Khaldun. Kitab al-ibar wa divan al-mubada, wa-l-khabar fi ayam al-arab wa-l-ajam wa-l-barbar wa man asarahum min zavi-s-sultan al-akbar. Bulak, 1867, T. 1. P. 63.
23. Marquart J. Ostcuropaische und ostasiatische Streifzuge. Leipzig, 1903. S. 490; Artamonov M.I. Decree. op. P. 130. i
24. Patkanov K. Decree. op. P. 16; Sukri A. Decree. op. P. 26.
25. Artamonov M. Ya. Decree. op. pp. 130, 132; Fedorov A. Ya., Fedorov G. S. Early Turks in the North Caucasus. M., 1978. P. 70,
26. Al-Bvlazuri. Kitab futuh al-buldan. Leiden, 1866. P. 195.
27. Movses Kalankatvatsi. Patmutyun... P. 239, 255, 260.
28. Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 174--175.
29. Between the Dnieper and Prut.
30. Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 170--173.
31. Michel le Syrien. Op. cit. T.2.P; 363--364.
32. Suiri L. Decree. op. P. 26. Bushkhs (bshikhs) are obviously Bulgars. Compare: Ludwig D. Struktur und Gesellschaft des Chazaren-Reiches im Licht der Schriftlichen Quellien. Munster, 1982. S. 86.
33. Sukri A. Decree. op. P. 27.
Similar documents
The significance of the Turkic Khaganate for the development of the history of Kyrgyzstan. Politics of the Turkic Kaganate, its division into Eastern and Western. Features of the Western Turkic Kaganate. The struggle of the peoples of Central Asia with the Arab conquerors. Strengthening East Turkestan.
abstract, added 01/29/2010
The origin of a powerful state formation - the Turkic Kaganate. Training a heavily armed warrior. Study of Turkic defensive weapons. Making a large-plate helmet, armored robe, armor, bows and arrows.
presentation, added 11/26/2014
Formation of the First Turkic Khaganate in 552 in Central Asia. Establishment of equal political and trade relations with Byzantium, Iran and the North Chinese kingdoms. Legend about the origin of the ancient Turks. Turkic weapons, armor, dishes.
presentation, added 09/18/2013
Preparation for the Triumphal March of Soviet power: the creation of Workers' Councils and Local Revolutionary Committees. The peasant uprising in the Kuban and the North Caucasus as a protest against the policies of the Bolsheviks. The offensive of Denikin's army and its defeat by the Red troops.
abstract, added 11/23/2010
Birth of Genghis Khan and early years. Formation of the Mongolian state. The first campaigns of Genghis Khan. Reforms of the Great Khan. Genghis Khan's conquest of Northern China and Central Asia. Features of the conquest of Rus'. The main results of the reign and death of Genghis Khan.
abstract, added 04/18/2013
Creation of the First Turkic Khaganate - the largest state of the early Middle Ages. Settlement of the Gaogyu tribes in the regions of Eastern Turkestan and the formation of the Gaogyu state. Ethnic ancestors of Tuvans. Internecine wars and uprisings of the Tele tribes.
abstract, added 09/15/2010
History of the formation of the Turkic Khaganate. Population, life and culture of the Turks. Western Turkic Kaganate: political and social situation, culture and life. Oguz state: tribal composition and social system of the Oguz, economy, thoughts and crafts.
abstract, added 12/08/2008
The first Arab state formations in Central Arabia. Arab Caliphate (632-750). Colonial conquests. Versions about the origin of the Arabs as a community. Prerequisites for the emergence of Islam. Mecca is a place of pilgrimage. Interesting facts about Arabs.
abstract, added 01/04/2012
The significance of the Arab conquests of the 6th-7th centuries. for the modern Middle East. Hijra and the capture of the Arabian Peninsula. Death of Muhammad and the struggle for power. Wars with Byzantium and the Sassanids. Civil strife in the 8th century, the collapse of the Caliphate into Iraq and Southwestern Iran.
course work, added 10/14/2012
Reasons and goals of the eastern campaigns. Conquest of Asia Minor and the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean. Conquest of the indigenous Persian lands. Conquest of Central Asia and India. The idea of world domination and Alexander's last plans. Historical significance of the hikes.
The ethnopolitical history of Eastern Europe in the last quarter of the 1st millennium is still full of unresolved problems. First of all, this concerns the formation of the Old Russian state and the origin of the “Rus” ethnic group.
Numerous early medieval sources often contradict each other in localization Rusov and when describing the potestar structure, social relations, economic structure, rituals of this tribe [ Slavs and Rus'..., 1999, pp.430-435]. But among the sea of messages there is a circle of sources from the first half of the 9th - 12th centuries. about the Russians with hakan at the head, uniting Western European and Arab-Persian news. The use of the title “khakan” by both Western and Eastern authors (in Latin sources shacanus, chaganus) suggests the existence already in the beginning. 9th century political entity whose name contains the root rus/ros, while the emergence of Kievan Rus in the political arena dates back to the end of the 9th century. And if the localization of the “Russian Kaganate” causes lively discussions [ Slavs and Rus'..., 1999, pp. 456-461], then the emergence of the title of khakan as a claim to independence from Khazaria [Novoseltsev, 1982, pp. 150-159] is practically not disputed in modern historical science (for the historiography of the issue, see: [Konovalova, 2001, p. 108-111]). However, Arab-Persian sources give a different understanding of this title, which does not allow one to agree with such an interpretation.
Information from Western Europe is limited to only one source - the famous mention of the Bertin Annals under 839 about the embassy of the Khakan of the Rus to Byzantium [ Annales Bertiniani, 1964, p.30-31]. The most complete information about the Rus with the Khakan at their head is contained in medieval Arab-Persian geographical literature. This is explained by the peculiarities of trade relations in Eastern Europe in the last quarter of the 1st millennium: if finds of European goods in this region are extremely rare, then contacts with the East, judging by archaeological data, were very lively [ Ancient Rus'…, 1985, p.400].
In the literature of the Caliphate, according to the modern classification, two traditions are distinguished that have preserved the most detailed and ancient, but different descriptions of the peoples of Eastern Europe, including the Rus. One is represented by the so-called “al-Jaykhani school” (the story of the Khakan of the Rus and the “island of the Rus”), the other by the “school of al-Balkhi” (“three types of Rus”). The al-Jaykhani tradition includes reports about Eastern Europe in the works of scientists of the 10th - 16th centuries: Ibn Ruste, Gardizi, al-Marwazi, the unknown author of “Hudud al-'alam”, etc. Both traditions at different times drew information from acquaintance with Volga-Baltic and Black Sea trade routes.
However, the description of the Rus in these sources differs radically, and according to such an ethno-marking feature for pagan tribes as burial rites. In the works of geographers of the al-Jaykhani school, the Rus bury the deceased in “a grave like a spacious house.” According to al-Balkhi's followers, the Russ burn the dead.
The term “khakan” in relation to the ruler of the Rus is mentioned only by scholars of the al-Jaykhani school: “They have a malik (king - E.G.), who is called Khakan Rus.” Representatives of the al-Balkhi school head of each “species” ( jeans, synth) the Rus are simply called the Tsar ( Malik) . This difference is of fundamental importance.
Medieval authors of both the East and the West, as you know, were very attentive to political terminology. Titles were the subject of disputes. The Frankish Emperor Louis II in 871, in response to a letter from the Byzantine Emperor Vasily I, indicated who could and who could not, in his opinion, be called “Khagan”: “We call the Avar sovereign Khagan, not the Khazars or northern people (Nortmanni )” [ Chronicle Salernitanum, p.111]. Neither with the Khazars, nor with the “northern people” did the Franks of the 9th century. had no contact and knew nothing about the degree of their power (unlike the Avar Khaganate, defeated by Charlemagne). The Byzantine emperor, in his lost message, apparently called the rulers of the Khazars and the “northern people” “khagan.”
Arab medieval sources preserve more specific definitions of the title “khakan”. Al-Biruni in the 11th century. in the list “Classes of kings and nicknames of kings of these classes” defines a khakan as a king (malik) Turk, Khazars And toguz-guzov [Al-Biruni, 1957, pp. 111-112]. Al-Biruni’s Rus are not mentioned at all in this list, and the ruler of the Slavs is named “ knaz” (conjecture, in the source k.bar [Al-Biruni, 1957, p.437]. In the anonymous Persian work “Mujmal at-tawarikh” (1126) it is said that the title “Khakan” is borne by the padishahs of the Rus, Khazars, Tuguzuguz and Tibet. The same work contains an ethnogenetic legend in which Rus and Khazar are brothers [ Novoseltsev, 1965, pp. 399-400]. Analogs to the information given in “Mujmal at-tawarikh” are still unknown, therefore, unfortunately, it is not possible to draw any conclusions based on them.
Author of the first half of the 9th century. al-Khwarizmi, comparing the titles of khan and khakan, explains khan How ar-ra'is, A hakan How khan of khans, which was translated by al-Khwarizmi as ra'is ar-ru'asa'(head of chapters) . Naturally, in the first floor. IX century, when the Uyghur Khaganate, well known in Central Asia, still existed and Khazaria was a strong state, the title of Khakan was not nominal. Since the body of news about the Khakan of the Rus dates back no later than the 9th century. (according to T.M. Kalinina, to the “Anonymous note on the peoples of Eastern Europe” [Kalinina, 2000, p. 117], this title should correspond to the concepts of that time.
The title of Khakan, which was worn by the “king” of the Rus in Arab-Persian sources, among nomadic peoples and in potestar formations with a settled nomadic population, meant a ruler similar to the European emperor of the early Middle Ages. For example, the Turks of the 6th century, from whom this name came, called the Chinese emperor Khakan. The term itself, however, is not Turkic and probably originates from Avar (juan-juan) Central Asia, whose ethnicity is debatable. Among the Xianbei, who are considered the “heirs” of the Xiongnu empire, the title of Kagan was recorded in the 3rd century. . As a permanent title, it was reliably used by the Juan-Zhuan. The full title, known from Chinese sources, sounded like “the ruling kagan, who led to the expansion of the borders (of the country)” [Kychanov, 1997, p. 278].
It is known that the Rourans became the ethnic basis of the Avars. After the defeat of the Avar Kaganate in the middle of the 6th century. own vassals - Ashina Turks- part of the Avar tribes took part in the ethnogenesis of the Turks. The other part fled to the west and, incorporating along the way many Late Hunnish tribes of Eastern Europe, formed the European Avar Khaganate on the Danube. The first Turkic Kaganate was the direct heir to the Asian Avar state (the Turkic leader Bumyn took the title of Kagan immediately after the suicide of the last Avar ruler). The main feature of both potestary formations was multi-ethnicity population (the actual tribal association of the Turks was called Turk el). The same characterizes the later Khazar and Uyghur Khaganates. In the XIII - XIV centuries. title kaana(khakana) were worn by the rulers of the Mongol Empire centered in Karakorum.
In the famous Orkhon inscriptions, written in Turkic runic writing, the title of kagan is applied to the rulers of China, Tibet, as well as to the leaders of the allied Turgesh And Kyrgyz[Kychanov, 1997, p.280].
The role of the Turkic and Uyghur Khaganates in the early Middle Ages was enormous. Arab authors who worked in the first half of the 9th century: al-Khwarizmi and al-Fargani - perceived the entire territory from the Urals to Mongolia as divided into “the land of the Turks” and “the land (country) of the Tuguzguz”. The latter were understood in this case as the Uighurs, who at the end of the 8th century. conquered the Turkic-speaking bearers of the ethnonym “Tokuz-Oguz”, after which Arab authors transferred this name to the Uyghurs [see: Bartold, 2002, pp. 568-569; Klyashtorny, 2003, p.455].
It is characteristic that after the collapse of the Uyghur Khaganate, the leaders of the Tuguzguz of Eastern Turkestan, being descendants of the Uyghur Khagans and dominating the diverse population of a vast territory, did not retain the title of Khagan for long [Klyashtorny, 2003, pp. 457-459].
In “Zayn al-akhbar” Gardizi (11th century), one of the most detailed descriptions of the Turks of the early Middle Ages, the rulers of both the Tughuzguz of Eastern Turkestan and the Kyrgyz are called kagans, who led an alliance of tribes dissatisfied with the ruling elite of the Uyghur Kaganate, ousted the Uyghurs and formed Central Asia has its own polity. Gardizi describes in detail the system of government of the Tuguzguz, in which the khakan was not only the supreme ruler, but also the supreme judge and the supreme military commander. The fact that the Kyrgyz rulers inherited the title of khakan is confirmed by the news of “Hudud al-‘alam” [ Hudud al-‘ Alam, 1970, p.97]. It is significant that Gardizi calls the ancient rulers of the Western Turkic Khaganate, as well as the Khazars and Rus, Khakans. News from “Hudud al-‘alam” about the Kirghiz V.V. Barthold dated it to the 840s, when they briefly conquered vast territories. Soon the bulk of the Kyrgyz, satisfied with the defeat of the Uyghur Kaganate, turned back to the Yenisei [Bartold, 1927, p. 20].
Thus, Hakan in the steppes of Eurasia 1st millennium (not only among the Turks) was considered an absolute ruler, to whom many lands, usually of different tribes, were subordinated, governed by governors subordinate to him. The adoption of this title testified not only to the independence of the state, but also to the multi-ethnic composition of the population, the vastness of the territory occupied, and justified claims to dominance in the region. Adopting the title "Khakan" made political sense only for a ruler whose main contacts took place in the steppe zone. For Western Europe and the European North, this title, judging by the sources, did not carry any special meaning (this is shown by the correspondence of the Frankish emperor and the Byzantine basileus). In the Caliphate, the meaning of the title was better known, thanks to long-term contacts with the Turkic tribes, but still required explanation. It is important that the plot of the Rus with a Khakan at their head is present in the works of those geographers who generally left the most detailed descriptions of the peoples of Northern Eurasia and were familiar with the political structure of the Khaganates of Asia.
The terminology of explanations used by Arab-Persian authors in relation to the ruler of the Rus in their explanations is also indicative. If, for example, the head of the Slavs is often called ra’is ar-ru’asa’ (“head of chapters”) or sahib(“ruler”, “owner”), sometimes - malik, then the Rus - without any reservations - are ruled by a malik (king, sovereign owner, owner of the land), who is called hakan. In Persian versions, instead of “malik” we use “ fallen", which is synonymous with the title shahanshah.
Slavs and Rus in the tradition of al-Jaykhani are sharply divided . Ethnographic descriptions of these peoples do not give grounds to talk even about ethnic kinship (agriculture, burning of the deceased among the Slavs - and the Rus, who have “neither estates, nor villages, nor arable land”, burying them according to the rite of death). It is impossible to imagine the Rus as the social elite of Slavic society, the “squad”. Archaeological excavations show that in the Middle Dnieper in the 9th century. Among the Slavs, corpse burning absolutely dominated, and the first corpses that can be confidently dated date back to the second quarter of the 10th century. [Motsya, 1990, p.85]. The terms ra'is ar-ru'asa' and sahib, used by Arab geographers in relation to the head of the Slavs, fully correspond to the structure of Slavic tribal unions of that era, known from archaeological and written sources [Froyanov, 1980, pp. 20-24]. They reflect the control of the power of the Grand Duke by society (congresses of princes, “city elders”, veche), which survived until the Mongol-Tatar invasion. The potestary structure of the Rus, judging by the terminology of the sources, was different.
In the understanding of Soviet historical science, a state in the full sense of the word is only that which arose as a result of the split of society into antagonistic classes. In the 1960s the concept of “pre-feudal period” was introduced (transitional between pre-class and early class social formations), the initial stage of which is military democracy. In the political sphere it corresponded to a “proto-state” (or “barbarian”, “early” state, “chiefdom”) - a political structure in which, in a very undeveloped form, there are elements of the future statehood. The peoples of Eastern Europe, including the Rus, in the early Middle Ages experienced precisely the pre-feudal period of development. Researchers of politogenesis distinguish between a simple proto-state (within a part of a tribe or when mixing subclans of different tribes) and a composite one (at the level of a tribe or several tribes, the division of the population begins on a territorial basis, legal proceedings are carried out by the ruler, his assistants and governors) [Vasiliev, 1981].
The Kaganate, as it was understood by the inhabitants of the medieval steppes, should, according to modern scientific terminology, correspond to a composite proto-state that extended power over vast multi-ethnic territories. Even rulers who had the hereditary right to the title of khakan lost it if their association ceased to correspond to the status of the kaganate.
This conclusion does not agree with the so-called story about “the island of the Rus in the sea, three days’ journey” [ Ancient Rus'…, 1999, p.209], where the Khakan lives. Indeed, there is only one source - an anonymous work from the end of the 10th century. “Hudud al-'alam” does not mention the wooded and swampy terrain on a three-day journey, but gives precise geographical landmarks of the “huge country”, to the east of which are the Pecheneg mountains, to the south - the Ruta River, to the west - the Slavs and to the north - uninhabited lands [ Hudud al-‘ Alam, 1970, p.159]. This essay requires separate research. The reports about the “island of the Rus” among representatives of the al-Jaykhani school differ from each other quite significantly. Traditional translation of a very ambiguous term jazira as an “island” is not in doubt only for later authors of the 13th-14th centuries, such as Dimashki and Aufi. In the oldest surviving edition of messages about the “island” [Zakhoder, 1967, vol. 2, p. 78] - in Ibn Ruste - it is not the sea that is indicated ( bakhr), and the lake ( Buhaira), which is located near the “island” ( hawalaiha), rather than surrounds it. Ibn Rust's work clearly speaks not of an island, but of a peninsula or some kind of watershed.
For later authors, the island is already in the sea ( fi-l-bahr). The transitional version was preserved in the work of al-Marwazi, which included both the sea and the lake. This passage is usually translated as follows: “As for the Rus, they live on an island in the sea... there are trees and forests, and a lake around them” [Zakhoder, 1967, vol. 2, p. 79]. In this form, the message looks clearly illogical. Therefore V.F. Minorsky noted the possibility of another translation: “... near them (the same in the text hawalaiha, as in Ibn Ruste - E.G.) lake”, although the continuous pronoun rather refers to jazira. It is obvious that al-Marwazi used several editions at the same time, as a result of which in his text the Rus “live on an island in the sea, and the length of the island is three days’ journey in either direction, and there are forests and swamps on it, and a lake near it.”
However, what unites the Rus with the Khakan at their head is common among all authors, starting with Ibn Ruste or even with the “Anonymous Note” of the 70s. 9th century, is a territory three days' journey away, impossible for the status Khaganate, as well as the lack of precise localization of the Rus in relation to their neighbors (it exists in relation to other peoples of Eastern Europe). Already in the 11th century. There were several options for describing the place of residence of the Rus.
All this leads us to assume that the Russian Kaganate, which should be localized no further than the forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe, ceased to exist no later than the second half of the 9th century. The story about the “island of the Rus” appeared after the Russian Kaganate ceased to exist and the ruler of the Rus ceased to play a noticeable role in the history of Eastern Europe. There was no new information about the Rus with the Khakan at their head, and this plot became another legend-curiosity, passing from work to work.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartold V.V. Kyrgyz. Historical sketch. Frunze, 1927 |
Bartold V.V. New Muslim news about the Rus // Essays. T. II. Part I. M., 1963 |
Bartold V.V. Tuguzguzy // Works on the history and philology of the Tbrk and Mongolian peoples. M.: Vost. lit., 2002 (Reprint from the editor: Bartold V.V. Essays. T. V. M., 1968) |
Al-Biruni. Monuments of past generations // Selected works. Tashkent, 1957. T.1 |
Vasiliev L.S. Proto-state-chiefdom as a political structure // Peoples of Asia and Africa. 1981. №6 |
Vysotsky S.A. Old Russian graffiti of Sophia of Kyiv, XI-XIV centuries. Kyiv, 1966. Issue 1 |
Ancient Rus' in the light of foreign sources. M.: Logos, 1999 |
Ancient Rus': city, castle, village. M.: Nauka, 1985 |
Zakhoder B.N. Caspian Code of Information about Eastern Europe. T.2. M., 1967 |
The ideological and philosophical heritage of Hilarion of Kyiv/ Publ. T.A. Sumnikova. M., 1986. Part 1. |
Kalinina T.M. Notes on trade in Eastern Europe according to Arab scientists of the 9th - 10th centuries. // The most ancient states of Eastern Europe. 1998. M.: Vost. lit., 2000 |
Kalinina T.M. Information from early scholars of the Arab Caliphate. M.: Nauka, 1988 |
Konovalova I.G. On possible sources of borrowing the title “Kagan” in Ancient Rus' // Slavs and their neighbors. Slavs and the nomadic world. Issue 10. M.: Nauka, 2001 |
Klyashtorny S.G. History of Central Asia and monuments of runic writing. St. Petersburg: Faculty of Philology of St. Petersburg State University, 2003 |
Kychanov E.I. Nomadic states from the Huns to the Manchus. M., 1997 |
Motsya A.P. Funeral monuments of the southern Russian lands of the 9th - 13th centuries. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1990 |
Novoseltsev A.P. Eastern sources about the Eastern Slavs and Rus' VI-IX centuries. // The Old Russian state and its international significance. M.: Nauka, 1965 |
Novoseltsev A.P. On the question of one of the most ancient titles of the Russian prince // History of the USSR. 1982. №4 |
Novoseltsev A.P. The Khazar state and its role in the history of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. M.: Nauka, 1990 |
Slavs and Rus': Problems and ideas. Concepts born of three centuries of polemics, in a textbook presentation. M.: Nauka - Flinta, 1999 |
A word about the pluku of Igor, Igor, son of Svyatoslavl, grandson of Olgov // Encyclopedia “Tales of Igor’s Campaign.” T.1. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 1995. |
Froyanov I.Ya. Kievan Rus: Essays on socio-political history. L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1980 |
Annales Bertiniani: Annales de Saint-Bertin. Paris, 1964 |
Boyle J.A. Khagan // The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New edition. Vol. IV. Leiden: Brill - London: Luzac, 1977. |
Chronica saleritanum/ U. Westerbergh. Stockholm, 1956 ( Studio Latina. T. III) |
Hudud al-‘Alam. The Regions of the World. A Persian Geography 372 a.h. - 982 a.d. Transl. by V. Minorsky. E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series. New Series, XI. London, 1970. |
Das Kitab Surat al-Ard des Abu Ga'far Muhammed Ibn Musa al-Huwarizmi. Hrsg. Von H.v. Mžik. Leipzig, 1926 |
Kitab al-A‘ lak an-nafisa VII auctore Abu‘ Ali Ahmed ibn‘ Omar Ibn Rosteh/ M.J. de Goeje. Leiden: Brill, 1892 ( Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum, VII) |
Opus geographicum auctor Ibn Haukal al-Nasibi/J.H. Kramers. Leiden, 1938. Vol. I. Leiden, 1939. Vol.2. |
Viae Regnorum. Descriptio ditionis moslemicae austore Abu Ishak al-Farisi al-Istakhri/ M.J. de Goeje. Lugduni Batavorum, 1870 ( Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum, I) |
Martinez P. Gardizi’s two chapters on the Turks // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi. T.2. Wiesbaden, 1982 |
Sharaf al-Zaman Tahir Marvazi on China, the Turks and India/ Arabic text (c. a.d. 1120) with an English Translation and Commentaries by V. Minorsky. London: Luzac, 1942 |
Pulleyblank E.G. The Consonantal System of Old Chinese // Asia Major. 1962. T.IX. |
The term “Kagan” was in circulation in Ancient Rus' in the 11th-12th centuries. in relation to some of its rulers and was used in a number of written sources in relation to Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Yaroslav the Wise, Svyatoslav Yaroslavich [ Ideological and philosophical heritage...
Once the Turkic Empire received its death blow, China faced the Arabs.
At the beginning of the 7th century. Islam emerges on the Arabian Peninsula. Soon it became the banner under which significant conquests were made in the medieval East and West. Its founder, Muhammad, calling the Arab tribes to monotheism, thereby laid down the idea of uniting disparate warring Arab tribes under a single ideological principle. From the very beginning of its inception, Islam gained strength and strengthened as a result of conquests. First, the Muslim community in Medina, led by Muhammad, conquered the main Arab and Jewish tribes one after another, and after the death of Muhammad, his successors continued their aggressive activities. The united Arab tribes formed the army of the Muslim community, and under the pretext of spreading Islam, it began to conquer far beyond the borders of Arabia.
Before appearing on the borders of Central Asia in Khorasan, the Arabs defeated two powerful empires of that time: the Byzantine and Sasanian. In the decisive battle of Qadisiyah in 636, they defeated the Sassanian army, and a few weeks later captured the Sassanid capital, Madain. Jerusalem fell in 638, and in 640–642. Egypt was conquered. In the west, Arab troops captured Barka in 642, and a year later Tripoli. In the northeast they also achieved great successes: in 640 they captured Dvin, in 641 Mosul and won the second, decisive battle with the Sassanians at Nihavend. After this, the Arabs, without encountering any serious resistance, entered the borders of Khorasan.
Thus, the Arabs and Turks, overwhelmed by the same desires for expansion, although directed in opposite directions, came face to face. The initial stage of the Arab conquest in Khorasan and Transoxiana lasted 60 years. However, several circumstances prevented the complete subjugation of the captured Central Asian possessions at the initial stage of the conquest. Firstly, the stubborn resistance of the peoples of Central Asia to Arab penetration into this region; secondly, the insufficient development of the Arab state apparatus; thirdly, the instability of the situation in the Arab world (struggle for power between contenders, inter-tribal struggle, separation of some military leaders with large contingents of troops, performance of various social groups dissatisfied with local or central authorities).
By the beginning of the 8th century. Muslim Arabs captured vast territories from the southern regions of France to the banks of the Indus and Oxus and, heavy with such booty, were unable to advance further. Starting from 705, their campaigns under the Umayyad Caliphate no longer resembled the previous lightning wars: we are talking about the invasion of Tokharistan, ancient Bactria, which was at that time under the rule of Kunduz, i.e., Turkic kings converted to Buddhism, Khorezm and Sogdiana, where they encountered local princes, Turks and Iranians, with varying success they entered into battle several times with the Turks of Orkhon and, finally, with the Turgesh, who turned out to be the most dangerous enemies. As for China, it was completely indecisive and avoided intervention.
In 750, the Chinese were spurred to action by one minor incident: the death of the Turkic king of Tashkent at the hands of the Chinese provincial governor. The son of the deceased turned for help to the Karluks who lived in the upper reaches of the Irtysh, the easternmost point of Lake Balkhash, and to the Arab garrisons in Sogdiana. Unfortunately for China, both agreed.
The clash between east and west took place in the summer of 751 in the Talas Valley. This was the second clash (remember that the first occurred in the Talas Valley in 36 BC, which resulted in the Chinese not reaching Europe at the turn of our era).
So, the Chinese army came there at the request of the inhabitants of Sogdiana, who were cruelly terrorized by the Arabs.
The battle on the plain lasted three days and was finally decided by the Karluk Turks, who stood nearby and maintained neutrality, as follows: the Chinese, in their opinion, were still worse than the Arabs, therefore they struck their flank - the Chinese fled.
Ironically, the Chinese commander Gao Xianzhi was not punished for the lost battle and the loss of Sogdiana. He remained at court and served the Tang Empire in subsequent wars, and the Arab conqueror and hero Ziyad ibn Salih was soon executed as politically unreliable.
As a result of the victory of the Arabs, Central Asia became a Muslim province, that is, it turned its face to Islam: Islam and Muslim culture were implanted (apparently, the Islamization of part of the local population on the left bank of the Amu Darya took place even before the beginning of the 8th century). Central Asia, occupied by China during the Tang dynasty, which exterminated the Turks, threw off Chinese oppression - the Uyghur Khaganate arose there.
China, despite the possibilities for a counteroffensive, plunged into the abyss of an eight-year civil war (755–763).
So, at the moment when China had the strength and power to conquer Asia, it was always the Turks who stopped China's aggression to the west. And this is the merit of the Turks to humanity.
The Arab military expansion, which began in 635, reached its climax and fizzled out. The vast empire of the caliphs stretched from the southern tip of the Pyrenees to the Indus and Oxus, giving rise to internal problems that soon led to its dismemberment and furious ideological battles. Its fabulously rich rulers lost their taste for war and preferred to enjoy their wealth, which seemed inexhaustible, and did not dream of new ones. Together with them, Islam ceased to be aggressive, and thanks to this it became more attractive. He gave birth to a magnificent civilization, the highest of that era, using the rich Greek and Iranian traditions; he offered her to his neighbors, in particular the northern barbarians, who immediately fell in love with her. To protect themselves from their claims, the Arabs pursued a mainly defensive policy, erecting a wall on the borders with the steppe, a kind of dam against which the sea would powerlessly beat its waves. The extent of their ambitions and the power of their means is evidenced by the fact that Islam almost did not take advantage of the fruits of its victory in the struggle against China, being content with the area at the foot of the Tien Shan.
So, the following situation arose: at the borders of the empire, from the Black Sea to the Pamirs, there was a Turkic world, or at least a world in the stage of Turkization. The Indo-Europeans are retreating on all fronts. The steppes of Southern Ukraine are no longer subject to just irregular raids by the Turks, but to a real mass invasion. The Scythians left, as did their successors, the Sarmatians and other tribes, as well as the Germans, while the Slavs had not yet found their niche. The oases of Sogdiana still belong to the Sogdians, but are already beginning to enter the orbit of the Mongol tribes, who are preparing their future complete annexation. Everything happens as if, as Sogdiana more and more actively resists the onslaught of the Turks, they penetrate it more and more persistently and squeeze it more and more tightly in their embrace, from which mestizos are born. Of course, for some time the Turks continued to look towards China, but not so greedily, since their gaze was directed beyond other horizons. Of course, they will have a powerful citadel in the sacred land of Otuken for another century, but only for a hundred years! Circumstances push them west. Everything there has attracted them since the Turkuts gave them a fantastically strong push in this direction. Now there is their destiny.
After the fall of the Eastern and Western Turkic Khaganates, the Turks, occupying the entire Great Steppe of Eurasia from Mongolia to the Black Sea region, did not have any noticeable state unification for some time. On the Volga and to the east of it, the leaders of the Dulo clan and the Ashina clan were at enmity. The leaders of the Dulo clan led the Bulgars, and the leaders of the Ashina clan led the Khazars. Great Bulgaria was located in the Black Sea and Azov steppes; its capital was Phanagoria. Khazaria is located in the Caspian steppes. After the Bulgar Khan Kubrat died in 642, the leaders of the Ashina clan led the Khazars to war against Great Bulgaria. The Bulgarian khans, the sons of Kubrat Asparukh, Batbay and Kotrag, did not resist the Khazars, but behaved differently. Asparukh took his Bulgars to the Balkans, creating Balkan Bulgaria there in 679. Kotrag took his Bulgars to the Volga, creating Volga Bulgaria there. Batbai submitted to the Khazars. After the unification of the Azov Bulgars with the Khazars, in a sense, the heir to the Western Turkic Kaganate, the Khazar Kaganate, was formed. The core of the Khazar Kaganate became the North Caucasus; the territory of the Kaganate occupied the entire Great Steppe of Europe from the Carpathians to the Urals and to the Aral Sea, from the forests of the Russian Plain to the foothills of the Caucasus. The rulers of the Khazar Kaganate were the leaders of the Ashina clan. Perhaps the first Khagan of the Khazar Kaganate was Ibuzir Glyavan, he is known for the fact that in 698 he accepted the exiled Byzantine Emperor Justinian II and gave him his sister Theodora as his wife. This political combination, however, did not subsequently lead to peace between Byzantium and the Khazar Khaganate. The right-wing Khagans of the Khazars fought with the Arabs and Byzantines in the 8th century. In Khazaria, after the death of his father in 730, Kagan Bulan came to power and introduced Judaism to Khazaria. The adoption of Judaism led to turmoil in the Kaganate; several Kagans changed in a short period of time: Obadiah, the grandson of Bulan, then Hezekiah and Manasiah, but then Bulan’s brother suppressed the rebellion and Hanukkah, Bulan’s brother, established himself in power. Next ruled Isaac the son of Chanukah, Zebulun, Manasseh, Nissi, Menachem, Benjamin, Aaron and Joseph. The Khazar Kaganate existed until 985 until it was destroyed by the troops of the Russian prince Svyatoslav, part of its population living on the Don and in the Azov region became part of Rus'.
In 745, the Uyghur Khaganate arose in the east of the Great Steppe of Eurasia. The Uighurs came to power in the person of the clan leader Bilge from the Yaglakar clan. Kagan Bilge recognized himself as a vassal of the Chinese and did not seek conquest. But his son Mayanchur, who came to power in 747, in the spring of 750, defeated the Chiks in the upper reaches of the Yenisei; in autumn - to the Tatars in North-Western Manchuria; next year - in the north-west to the Kyrgyz. At the same time, some representatives of the defeated tribes joined the Uighurs. Mayanchur also suppressed two uprisings in China.
The western borders of the Uighurs did not allow the Pechenegs to expand, whose nomads at that time spread to Khazaria.
The Uighurs adopted Manichaeism from fugitives from Islamic Iran and the Sogdians. The Sogdian language became the second official language of the empire along with Turkic.
By the middle of the 9th century, the power of Uyghuria was already a thing of the past. Tribes fell away from Uyghuria. In 841, the rebel Kyrgyz inflicted a decisive defeat in Karakorum. And in 842, China mobilized an army against the Uighurs, and they were defeated and driven back from Ordos to Manchuria, where the Kyrgyz finished them off.
The destruction of the Uyghur state was not only a military-political action: after its defeat, the Chinese set fire to all the “books of the Monies” and took their property into the treasury. The defeat of Manichaeism subsequently opened the way for Buddhism.
Islam was poorly represented in the Uyghur kingdom, although Muslim traders, envoys and Sufis had long roamed the country.
On the former territory of Uyghuria, the peoples that were part of it formed new state entities. In the 7th-8th centuries, the Kyrgyz, Turkified Indo-Europeans subjugated by the Uyghurs, lived in the upper reaches of the Yenisei. They were an association of several tribes, headed by a khan.
In the east, the border of Kyrgyz settlement reached the Eastern Sayan Mountains and the Oka and Angara watershed.
Manichaeism of the Uighurs did not affect the Kyrgyz at all.
The relations between the Kyrgyz and the Uighurs were initially clear: it was the language of revolts, uprisings and wars: 758, 795, 818, 840, 861-870. The Great Steppe became a theater of war between the Uyghurs and the Yenisei Kyrgyz, who emerged victorious and briefly formed the Kyrgyz Kaganate.
In 924, the Kyrgyz were defeated and expelled to their homeland by the Khitans in the upper reaches of the Yenisei.
The Khitans are not related to the Turks, they are proto-Mongols, but they were part of the Uighur state, and then subordinated to the Kyrgyz. The weakening of the Kyrgyz gave the Khitans an impetus. Between 907 and 926. their leader Apao-Ki united the Khitans and, after the invasion of Mongolia, opened the way for his successors to Northern China. The Chinese emperor retreated from the lands located north of the Yellow River, and the Khitan formed a dynasty under the name Liao. Once they were students of the Uyghurs, then they were sinicized. Over the course of several generations, they lost their strength. They were attacked by the Jurchens from Manchuria, who entered China and completed the collapse of the Great Liao in 1125. Only their name remains in the history of China: “karakitai” (karakidani). In 1125 they were expelled from China and, having passed through the whole of Central Asia, they founded a Buddhist state in the northeastern part of Turkestan in 1130-1135, known as Karakitai.
In the 9th century, the most significant Turkic tribe of Semirechye were the Karluks, whose nomads stretched over a huge distance - from the Talas valley to Tarim in East Turkestan. These nomads in many places walked along the caravan route and bypassed Issyk-Kul from the south. It took 30 days to travel the caravan route from the western borders of the Karluk possessions to the eastern ones. The Karluks settled in Semirechye back in 766, after the defeat of the Turgesh and the seizure of power in the country. It was a prosperous region. The Karluks lived not only in villages, but also in cities (the large Karluk cities were Kulan (Lugovaya) and Merke) and had a fairly high level of culture. By type of economic activity, they were engaged in fur farming, nomadic cattle breeding, and agriculture.
The second major Turkic tribe of Semirechye were the Chigils. They lived mainly in the northeast of Lake Issyk-Kul, although they also settled in the Taraz region. Like the Karluks, they lived in cities and villages and owned large herds.
The third large Turkic tribe that partially captured Semirechye was the Yagma. They lived in the south of Lake Issyk-Kul, towards the city of Kashgar, and most of their nomads were in Eastern Turkestan.
In the southwestern part of Semirechye in the 10th century, remnants of the Turgesh still lived.
The Karluks created their own state with Kara-Ordu as its capital. After the fall of the Uyghur Khaganate, the leader of the Karluks began to consider himself a follower of the Uyghurs, his name was Bilke Kul Kadyr Khan. Bilge Kül Kadyr Khan began to unite the Karluks, Chigils, Yagmas and Turgeshs into a single state, which was later called the Karakhanid Khaganate, named after the founder of the khan dynasty, Abdul-Kerim Karakhan (died 956). The Karluks and Chigils occupied important positions in the state apparatus and army; their tribes played a huge role in the formation of the Karakhanid state. The highest positions of commanders were occupied by people from the Yagma, the most militant Turkic people.
The Karakhanid state was divided into separate parts - fiefs, headed by members of the Karakhanid house, who bore the title of ilekhans.
The connection between the Ilek Khans and the Khan of Khans was not strong. The appanage princes, the Ilek Khans, lived in constant hostility among themselves, striving for independence, and therefore most often had strained relations with the head of the Karakhanid house.
The Semirechensk Turks were very tolerant of any religious denominations - Buddhism, Christianity, Manichaeism - but Tengrianism remained fundamental. Nevertheless, in 910 Islam became the official state religion. The Karluks pursued an active policy of conquest in the early 90s. occupied the entire Central Tien Shan and Semirechye. By the mid-90s, the border of the Karakhanid Kaganate in the northeast began to run along the line of lakes Balkhash, Sasyk-Kul and Ala-Kul; later the Karakhanids extended their power to the Irtysh valley.
Islamization of the Turks.
At the beginning of the 7th century, Islam emerged on the Arabian Peninsula. With the advent of Islam, a new era begins, which is called the era of the Hijra (622 - the flight of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina, from which Islam traces its chronology). Muslims conquered Arab tribes. The Arabs then defeated the two powerful empires of the time: the Byzantine and Sassanian. True, only all non-European territories were taken from Vmzantia, and the Sasanian territories were completely captured. Arabs and Turks, seeking expansion in Central Asia, clashed.
By the beginning of the 8th century, the Muslims had captured vast territories from the southern regions of France to the banks of the Indus and Oxus and were unable to advance further. Beginning in 705, their campaigns under the Umayyad Caliphate no longer resembled the previous lightning wars: we are talking about the invasion of Tokharistan, ancient Bactria, which was at that time under the rule of Kunduz, that is, the Turkic kings converted to Buddhism, in Khorezm and Sogdiana, where they clashed with local princes, Turks and Iranians, with varying success they entered into battle several times with the Turks of Orkhon and, finally, with the Turgesh. China avoided interference.
In 750, the Chinese were spurred into action by one minor incident: the death of the Turkic king of Tashkent at the hands of the Chinese provincial governor. The son of the deceased turned for help to the Karluks who lived in the upper reaches of the Irtysh, the easternmost point of Lake Balkhash, and to the Arab garrisons in Sogdiana. Both of them agreed.
The clash between the east, represented by China, and the west, represented by the Arab Caliphate, took place in the summer of 751 in the Talas Valley. This was the second clash between east and west (the first occurred in the Talas Valley in 36 BC, resulting in the Chinese never reaching Europe at the turn of the common era).
The battle on the plain lasted three days and was finally decided by the Karluk Turks, who stood nearby and maintained neutrality, as follows: the Chinese, in their opinion, were still worse than the Arabs, therefore they struck their flank - the Chinese fled. At this time, China plunged into an eight-year civil war (755-763).
As a result of the Arab victory, Central Asia became a Muslim province. The inculcation of Islam and Muslim culture among the Turks and other peoples began here.
The following situation arose: at the borders of the caliphate, from the Black Sea to the Pamirs, there was a Turkic world, or at least a world in the stage of Turkization. The steppes of Southern Ukraine are no longer subject to just irregular raids by the Turks, but to a real mass invasion. The Scythians, their successors the Sarmatians, established themselves in the Caucasus Mountains, creating the state of Alania. The oases of Sogdiana still belong to the Sogdians, but the Turks are increasingly penetrating into it and squeezing it more and more tightly in their arms. Of course, for some time the Turks continued to look towards China, but circumstances push them to the west and this is how they resist the movement of the Arabs to the east.
Islam in Central Asia was preached to the Turks by people who were convinced of the superiority of this religion and had no doubt that it would be warmly accepted. Starting from the reign of the Umayyad caliph Hisham (722-743), according to the historian Yakut, missionaries reached the Turkic rulers and invited them to convert to Islam. Such missions were sent repeatedly and later; Traders and dervishes who wandered the steppes also joined this mass movement.
Arab merchants, very active in the first centuries of the Hijra, were mainly engaged in the propaganda of Islam, proposing to follow their example “in all paths and in all kingdoms.” Mystics and Sufis constituted a rather heterogeneous group, consisting of poor people and enlightened vagabonds, in which there were also real minds inspired by faith and love for Allah.
But there was a Turkic elite, consisting of the Uighur elite, who were not alien to missionary impulses. Gardizi mentions a Muslim cemetery in Buddhist Khotan, and one of Islam's most eminent philosophers, al-Farabi, who lived in Damascus and Aleppo and died at an old age in 950, came from a Turkic family living in Central Asia. The Samanids reintroduced the old policy of Iran, which consisted of preemptive attacks on clusters of steppe nomads, but the goal was not only to occupy their lands or to conquer the inhabitants, during these expeditions there was a factor of religious coercion. The Karakhanid Kaganate, a Turkic state that embraced Islam and was located in the Central Tien Shan and Semirechye, actively spread Islam in Central Asia. In 960, Islam was adopted by numerous Turks who inhabited it - “200 thousand tents”.
The preachers of Islam also achieved success in the Islamization of the Turks among the Volga and Kama Bulgars, who apparently adopted this religion as opposed to the Judaism of Khazaria.
The Turks first appeared in the Caliphate as slaves: they were bought, they had owners who could free them. Then Turkic traders and military mercenaries came, most of whom converted to Islam.
The scale of Turkic migration, which had remained within certain limits for a long time, increased sharply in the 8th century and especially in the 9th century. Already from the second half of the 8th century, the Turks managed to seize important positions in the state administration apparatus, for example, Zubair bin al-Turki - the governor of Hamadan and Mosul; Hamad al-Turki played a significant role in the construction of Baghdad under al-Mansur (754-775). In the 9th century, there were more Turkic officials in the empire who overcame the unenviable fate of mercenaries. And since the reign of al-Mansur, the number of mercenaries has increased significantly; There were especially many of them under al-Mutasim (833-843). It can be considered that he flooded the Arab Empire with them.
In this sense, the stories of two outstanding Turks are of interest: Alptegin, the Samanid emir, who rose to this rank from among mercenaries, and Sebuktegin, the father of the future Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznavi, also from mercenaries.
Alptegin became the first ruler of Ghazna, which was captured during the unrest. After him, the emirs were Bilgetegin and Piritegin. Sebuktegin was one of the commanders until he became emir in 977.
In 994, after brilliant victories in Afghanistan and India, Sebuktegin defeated the army of Khorezmshah Abu Ali Mamun at Abiward, for which he received the title Nasir ad-daula wa-d-din (“Defender of the Power and Faith”), and his son Mahmud - the title Sayf ad -daula (“Sword of Power”).
In 818, Turkic Ghulam mercenaries killed the vizier al-Fadl ibn Sahil!
According to sources, the Turks in the personal guard of Caliph al-Mu'tasim numbered from 4 to 7 thousand people, i.e. the guard was so numerous and so rebellious that al-Mu'tasim moved away from Baghdad and, according to the same sources, founded Samarra, which a year later it became the residence of the caliph.
It was a city where the Turks soon became masters.
Arab historians admit that Caliph al-Mu'tasim I had three victories, won with the help of Turkic mercenaries, and without these victories Islam would have been destroyed: the first victory over the emperor of the Rum, the second victory over Babek and the third victory over Mazkar Ghabr from Tabaristan, who was executed along with Babek.
The will of Caliph al-Mutawakkil (846-861), a ruler without a vizier, could not withstand the onslaught of large Turkic officials: secretaries, favorites, advisers, chamberlains, who settled everywhere. Some famous names can be cited here: Afshin - suppressed the uprising of the Persian heretic Babek (816-837) in Azerbaijan; Bugha al-Kabir (d. 862) - made Armenia a vassal province; Bugha al-Sharabi (died 868) - for some time was the real ruler of the Abbasid Empire; Rashid al-Turki - led the campaign of Muslim troops in Upper Egypt (880); Ashina - sat on the throne in 840; So (825-849) - governor of Yemen and Khorasan; Wassaf (died in 867) - general, then chamberlain and, of course, ibn Tulun - founder of the Tulunid dynasty in Cairo...
With such people the Turks felt omnipotent. Al-Mutawakkil, changing the order of succession (he wanted to leave the throne to his youngest son), provoked a palace coup, was killed, and in 861 the Turkic mercenaries-ghulams placed his eldest son on the throne.
In 861, the caliphs practically lost real power, and the Turkic ghulams ceased to be slaves, even nominally. They became the true masters. Being dependent on them, chosen by them, the descendants of Muhammad were forced to indulge their whims on pain of death. They bowed their heads before them, which, however, did not prevent the Turks from often killing them. Now the Arabs did not know how to do without such dangerous “servants.”
It turned out more than strange: the caliph could not retain power for even an hour without the Turkic ghulams, and they could not dominate a foreign country without the permission of the caliph. The conditions that the caliphs created for them were luxurious: they received maintenance, did their usual work - they fought, suppressed uprisings, serving the caliphs, and the authorities protected them from the people, because for the people they remained strangers. Cut off from their homeland and traditions, the Turkic ghulams killed caliphs, robbed merchants, and brutally treated peasants. But they were a force, for only the Turks had sabers.
The only common thing between the Ghulams and the Arabs was the confession of Islam, but this was enough for the Caliphate system to survive.
The Turkic ghulams, having taken power into their own hands, overthrew and killed four caliphs in 10 years. However, ghulams were necessary, since only they were able, in particular, to suppress the uprising of the Zinjs - black slaves from Africa (869-883).
Now it was useless for the Turkic shadow rulers to remain in Samarra. In 892, the city was surrendered to the mercy of the sands, and the court returned to Baghdad.
The influence of the customs of the Turks on the population of the Caliphate and on the ideology of Islam.
Historians often claim that Turkic ghulams who converted to Islam were sincere Muslims and accepted Arab civilization. A completely different view on this matter is possible. It is known that the Turks were not known for their quick acceptance of new world religions, although, of course, as they entered the service of the Muslims, they began to fall under the influence of the new faith. Accepting her was a matter of discipline for them, and therefore honor. Having sworn allegiance to the Caliph, the Muslim Imam, these born warriors considered themselves obliged to profess his faith. Having accepted Islam, they did not deviate from it; discipline conquered their doubts. They professed Islam, which they finally accepted, in good faith, without changing anything in it and without challenging anything, as befitted people who call civilization “obedience” and state law - an order. The Turks entered the Sunni mosque not as humble neophytes, but as recruits - in a military manner, - without bowing their heads, in full armor - which outraged the Arabs, since this was contrary to their rules. But the Arabs had to come to terms with Turkic morals.
To assert the fact of the de-Turkification of mercenaries in the 9th century, it would be necessary to assume that they completely mixed with the local population or were brought here as children and brought up in the spirit of the Muslim religion, as later happened with the Janissaries. But there was nothing like this in history. The Arabs tried to keep mercenaries away from Muslim strife. In Samarra they had their own quarters where they lived as their own ethnic group, they were not allowed to mix with the local population and take wives outside the circle of Turkic girls that the caliph himself bought for them. Young women were brought from Central Asia. Age was of particular importance. In women, first of all, loyalty to the traditions of their ancestors was valued: she had to only half belong to the community, that is, have the most meager upbringing in the spirit of the Koran and not participate in social and religious life. Its influence on Turkic children born in the land of Islam, in the Ummah, could be beneficial, given that children usually forget the past of their ancestors. Therefore, Muslim authors, primarily Jikhaz, in addition to courage and the habit of a harsh life, highly valued loyalty to the homeland among the Turks. As von Grünbaum wrote: “Their passion for violence was pronounced, but even stronger was their resistance to assimilation ... Their devotion to the country from which they came was not mere nostalgia, on the contrary, it carried dangerous consequences. The Turks, above all, are committed to group cohesion; even living in the very center of Islam, they do not seek to enter the Islamic community.”
The customs and traditions of the Turks who found themselves in foreign countries remained the main criterion determining their lives. The most prominent national feature of the Turks, besides their commitment to hierarchy and discipline, was the absence of lies, denunciation, and deception of those who trusted them. Traitors and informers were killed. The Turks in foreign lands retained the qualities of “noble savages.”
Arabs and Persians valued their pride, freedom from vices, and the desire to achieve command posts, which pushed them to be diligent in battles, campaigns and public service.
Having left their homeland, the Turks found themselves in the interaction of the Byzantine, Arab-Muslim and Christian worlds and, being representatives of the steppe world, naturally entered into interaction with them.
Let us remember how L. Gumilev interpreted the problem of contacts between different ethnic groups: “Either ethnic groups coexist side by side, helping each other in running a subsistence or commercial economy - symbiosis; or a group of a foreign ethnic group is introduced into the environment of the aborigines and lives in relative isolation - xenia; or the alien ethnic group usurps the leading positions in the local ethnic group - a chimera; or the ethnic group dissolves into a neighbor through mixed marriages - assimilation. However, coexistence often becomes difficult, and then controversies arise that are resolved through war.”
The nomads found peace neither in China nor in the caliphate. They were not loved, but used. Treachery and cruelty became the sign of the era. A wave of chauvinism swept through China: hatred of everything foreign and, most of all, of the Turks.
In Byzantium at that time the Turks were not needed and were neglected. The Turks were hated in the caliphate.
By 900, the Arabs had shown a complete inability to defend their country, their homes and families, and even more so their faith, from external and internal enemies. The power of the Arabs in the Caliphate seemed to have come to an end. The Persian historian Ravendi wrote in 1192: “Glory to Allah... in the lands of the Arabs, Persians, Byzantines and Russians, the word belongs to the Turks, the fear of whose swords lives firmly in the hearts.”
The influence of the Turks on transformations in Islamic society in the 9th century manifested itself in all areas of life. It was the power of the Turks that indirectly determined the flourishing of philosophy, history, exact sciences, medicine, and the development of funeral art, which in principle was prohibited by Sharia.
The awakening of Iranianism, which broke away from Arabism, occurs in the same 9th century, that is, precisely when the rule of the Turks, from the very beginning imbued with Sogdian, that is, Iranian, culture, was established. Perhaps this is not an accident, especially since subsequently the Turks often, voluntarily or unknowingly, sided with Iran. The Ghaznavids and Seljuks spoke Persian and gave Iranian art the means to fully express itself; under them, Persian literature reached shining heights; still later, the ascension of the Turkmen to the throne in Isfahan marked the beginning of the first national dynasty in that country since the Muslim conquest - the Safavid dynasty.
According to R. Rakhmanaliev.
Post Views: 1,058
"free".
On the territory of Kazakhstan in the XIV-XV centuries. oral folk art and literature developed on
Kipchak language
On the territory of Kazakhstan, oral folk art and literature developed in the Kypchak language in
XIV-XV centuries
The monument of the Kipchak language is
Codex Cumanicus.
Codex Cumanicus" is a monument of folklore
Kipchak language.
The dictionary of the Kipchak language intended for Europeans was
Codex Cumanicus.
On the territory of Kazakhstan in the XIV-XV centuries. The majority of the population, along with Islam, also revered the supreme deity
Tengri.
The most striking architectural structure of the XIV-XV centuries. on the territory of Kazakhstan there is a mausoleum
Ahmed Yasawi
The Mausoleum of Ahmed Yasawi is an architectural masterpiece
XIV-XV centuries
The mausoleum of Ahmed Yasawi was built by order
Emir Timur.
To attract those professing Islam to his side, Emir Timur ordered the construction of a mausoleum
Ahmed Yasawi.
An architectural monument of the 10th-11th centuries. The mausoleum of Alash Khan is located in
Central Kazakhstan.
The revival of agriculture and urban culture after the Mongol invasion began in
Late 13th century
The Kurultai of the Mongol nobility in 1269 decided to prohibit the collection of taxes above the established norm from
Warrior families.
K a z a x k h a n s t o
The formation of the Kazakh Khanate is connected with the internal political state of the two states
Khanates of Abulkhair and Mogulistan.
In the middle of the 15th century. the states that existed on the territory of Kazakhstan fell into decay
Khanate of Abulkhair and Moghulistan.
In the middle of the 15th century. Khanate of Abulkhair and Moghulistan
They fell into disrepair.
The Khanate of Abulkhair and Moghulistan fell into decline in
Part of the Kazakh population, led by Janibek and Kerem, migrated to Mogulistan from
Khanates of Abulkhair.
The reason for the migration of part of the Kazakh population, led by Janibek and Kerem, to Mogulistan was dissatisfaction with the policies of the khan
Abulkhair.
The foundation of the Kazakh Khanate is associated with the names of the sultans
Janibek and Kerey.
Associated with the names of the khans Janibek and Kerey
Foundation of the Kazakh Khanate.
The Kazakh Khanate during its formation occupied the territory
Valleys of Chu and Talas.
The ruler of Mogulistan Yesen-Bug entered into an alliance with Janibek and Kerey, hoping with their help
smash the Dzungars.!!!
The ruler of Mogulistan, Yesen-Bug, entered into an alliance with Janibek and Kerey, hoping to use them in
The fight against the Oirats.
Against Khan Abulkhair.
The ruler of Mogulistan, Yesen-Bug, entered into an alliance with Janibek and Kerey, hoping to use them
In the struggle for power.
The migration of part of the Kazakh population, led by Janibek and Kerey, to western Semirechye occurred during the reign of Mogulistan
Yesen-Boogie.
The process of formation of the Kazakh nation was completed in
XIV-XVI centuries
The formation of ethnic territory, the unification of Kazakh tribes and clans was facilitated by
Formation of the Kazakh Khanate.
The migration of part of the Kazakh population, led by Janibek and Kerey, from Eastern Desht-i Kipchak to Mogulistan occurred in the middle
In the middle of the 15th century. began the migration of part of the Kazakh population, led by Janibek and Kerem, from Eastern Dasht-i Kipchak to
Mogulistan.
The medieval historian Muhammad Haydar in his book “Tarikh-i-Rashidi” dates the formation of the Kazakh Khanate to
1465-1466
The formation of the Kazakh Khanate dates back to 1465-1466. historian Muhammad Haydar in the book
"Tarikh-i-Rashidi"
890. The formation of the Kazakh Khanate dates back to 1465-1466. in the book "Tarikh-i-Rashidi" historian
Muhammad Haydar.
He writes about the process of formation of the Kazakh Khanate
Muhammad Haydar.
Main events in the history of the Kazakh Khanate at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries. occurred in the region
Syrdarya.
Of primary strategic and economic importance for the young Kazakh Khanate at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries. had a region
Syrdarya.
One of the tasks of the Kazakh Khanate at the end of the 15th and beginning of the 16th centuries. was to subjugate those located along the caravan routes
Syrdarya cities.
