Where did the Mongols come from?

The story about the emergence of the Mongols should begin from the depths of centuries, not even from the Great Migration of Peoples. The origins of the raging stream called the Mongols are located in the 3rd millennium BC, for if Mongolia is now the outskirts of the world, then the territory of modern Mongolia was at least one of the centers of the world. In the III-II millennium BC. e. In the valley of the Yellow River, the process of formation of the ancient Chinese state, the semi-legendary Xia dynasty, took place. Around 1600 BC e. The dynasty was overthrown, those who fled mixed with the Hanyun and Hunyu tribes on the northern outskirts of the Gobi, thus the ancestors of the Xiongnu appeared. Traditions, everyday life, and the emergence of nomadic cattle breeding take place. TO XIII century BC e. the formation of the Xiongnu clan system takes place. In July 823 BC. e. The Xiongnu first invaded China and captured the cities of Qiao, Hu, Hao, Fen, but were repulsed, as many times later, due to weak weapons and organization, but continued massive raids. China at that time, as indeed before the Mongol invasion a thousand years later, was heterogeneous, consisting of many competing kingdoms and lands, including those inhabited by nomads. The unifier of China, Qin Shi Huang, drove the Xiongnu away from his borders and, in order to forever secure the power, during the Warring States period (475-221 BC) he ordered the construction of the Great Wall (says a lot about the scale of the raids), although it took more resources than the Xiongnu robbed. The wall was not as gigantic and large-scale as the sites now show, just earthen ramparts, built by hammering earth into formwork with sticks and folding it, traditional and simple Chinese view construction of walls.

In 201 BC. e. The Xiongnu leader Mode, uniting the tribes, attacked China, weakened by another civil war, in 192 BC. e. he even proposed marriage to Empress Dowager Lü-hou. In 177 BC. e. The Zhuki Prince (a title of the Xiongnu) attacked China, then the Xiongnu annexed the lands of what is now East Turkestan, Usun and entered into an alliance with some clans of the Tibetan-Kyans, and imposed tribute on many peoples. At the expense of fugitive Chinese officials, the Xiongnu created a complex state apparatus (like the future Mongolian one) and imposed tribute on everyone around them (like the Mongols), continuing raids on China, sometimes resulting in real wars. The Chinese undertook a number of expeditions, attacked the nomads, but suffered losses, while the Xiongnu, due to internal conflicts, weakened themselves, became subjects of a growing China, and lost wars. In 80 BC. e. weakened by civil strife, the Xiongnu attacked China, but the border guards were able to repel the attack. The Hunnic state was falling apart from the inside, the clans were at war with each other, everyone was tired of endless civil strife. The Chinese Empire hoped that the defeat of the Xiongnu would allow all the northern and many western peoples known to the Chinese to join the Empire. The opposite happened: the collapse of the Xiongnu led to a war of all tribes who wanted to achieve the same power as the former rulers of the steppes - the Xiongnu. Each tribe sought “domination over the peoples” and was hostile to China. Two Xiongnu appeared: northern and southern. The northerners were opponents of China and the southerners, advocating the restoration of an independent power. The southerners were supporters of peace with China and agreed to be its vassals.

Everyone fought among themselves until in 141 Tanshihuai was born from the Xianbi - former tributaries of the Xiongnu. His mother claimed that he was conceived from a hailstone she swallowed during thunder, meaning his father was not human. Tanshihuai did for the Xianbi what Mode once did for the Xiongnu: with firm power he gathered clans into one power and fought with its neighbors. Tanshihuai plundered the Chinese border in the south, drove out the Dinlings in the north, defeated the army of Buyo and Wusun in the west, and captured the former Xiongnu lands. All conquests took place within 10 years. The conquest of Southern Siberia took a little longer. But Tanshihuai did not adopt the Xiongnu model of state. Instead of the tribal principle, he introduced military democracy. Tanshihuai was simply a leader for his warriors, he did not have the title of Shanyu or anything else, his commanders were appointed by him personally, regardless of origin, he plundered China and defeated its armies, but after his death the Xianbei state finally collapsed in 235. After 155, no mention of the northern Xiongnu was recorded, but in 350 Europe learned about the Huns - nomads from the depths of Asia who terrified sedentary peoples. In addition to the consonance of names on the genetic connection between the Huns and Xiongnu Central Asia indicates a number of categories of material culture, especially in the field of military affairs, a characteristic feature of which was the use of a compound bow. The Great Migration begins here, but what do we see before that? Yes, an almost thousand-year-old tracing paper that created all the tools necessary for the future Mongols: a nomadic lifestyle, Chinese officials in administration, the scale of campaigns, lifestyle, weapons and tactics.

In European sources, the first mentions of the Huns date back to the 2nd century AD. e. and belong to the region in the eastern Caspian region. In the 70s of the 4th century, the Huns conquered the Alans in the North Caucasus, and then defeated the Ostrogothic state of Germanarich. The Huns, led by King Balamber, subjugated most of the Ostrogoths (who lived in the lower reaches of the Dnieper) and forced the Visigoths (who lived in the lower reaches of the Dniester) to retreat to Thrace (in the eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula, between the Aegean, Black and Marmara seas). Then, passing through the Caucasus in 395, they devastated the Eastern Roman provinces of Syria and Cappadocia (in Asia Minor). From that time on, the main branch of the Huns settled in Pannonia (a Western Roman province on the right bank of the Danube, now the territory of Hungary) and Austria, from there raiding the Eastern Roman Empire (in relation to the Western Roman Empire, until the middle of the 5th century, the Huns acted as allies in fight against the Germanic tribes). By this time, the Hunnic union already had an extremely diverse composition of Germanic and non-Germanic peoples: Bulgars, Ostrogoths, Heruls, Gepids, Sarmatians, etc. All conquered tribes were subject to tribute and forced to participate in military campaigns. In 422, the Huns again attacked Thrace. The Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II agreed to pay the Huns a tribute of 350 pounds of gold per year. In 445, the ruler Attila switched from the tactics of horse raids to the siege of cities and by 447 he took 60 cities and fortified points in the Balkans, the territory of modern Greece and in other provinces of the Roman Empire. In 451, at the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields in Gaul, the advance of the Huns to the west was stopped by the united army of the Romans under the command of the commander Aetius and the Toulouse kingdom of the Visigoths. In 452, the Huns invaded Italy, plundering Aquileia, Milan and a number of other cities, but then retreated back. After the death of Attila in 453, the conquered Gepids took advantage of the discord that arose within the empire, leading the uprising of the Germanic tribes against the Huns. In 454, at the Battle of the Nedao River in Pannonia, the Huns were defeated and driven out to the Black Sea region. Attempts by the Huns to break through Balkan Peninsula in 469 were in vain. The Huns quickly disappeared among other peoples, who continued to continuously arrive from the east. However, their name was used for a long time by medieval authors as a general name for all nomads of the Black Sea region, regardless of their real connections with the former Hunnic alliance. The next wave of the Great Migration was the emergence of the Oghur tribes in the 460s. and Savirs at the beginning of the 6th century.

But let’s return to China; in the meantime, new empires were being formed there in the north. The period of the 3rd-6th centuries was one of the most difficult in the history of China: after the fall of the Han dynasty (220 years) and the collapse of the empire, a sharp decline occurred in the state's economy. There was a threat of invasion of China by the hordes of the Turkic Kaganate. At the end of the 6th century, in the northern Chinese state of Northern Zhou (which inherited Wei), Chinese and sinicized Turkic aristocrats led by Yang Jian managed to come to power. Thanks to the negative attitude of the majority of Chinese towards feudal fragmentation, as well as the will of the aristocracy to consolidate against external enemies and internal economic problems, Yang and his supporters were able to achieve the unification of the country with relative ease. In 581, Yang Jian was proclaimed emperor of the new Sui dynasty under the name Wendi. He became the first ruler in more than 300 years whose power extended throughout China, after the overthrow the Tang era began, it lasted from June 18, 618 to June 4, 907, the empire stretched from Manchuria to Thailand and from the Caspian Sea to Pacific Ocean.

Meanwhile, the Ashina clan entered the scene; they lived in the Altai mountains, their number was estimated at several hundred families. It is believed that Ashina Asyanshe became a vassal of the Rouran Kagan (a powerful state, but for the sake of brevity we will not talk about them). In the middle of the 5th century, the Ashina settled on the southern side of Altai and began to mine iron for the Rourans; it was Ashina’s subjects who later became known as the Turks. The word “Turk” itself means “strong”, “strong”. In 545, the Teles tribes again rebelled against the Rourans and the ruler of the Ashina Turks, Bumyn, stood at the head of the new state. In 551, he entered into an alliance with the Chinese kingdom of Western Wei and, having defeated the Rourans, took the title “ilhan” (“ruler of nations”). The main forces of the Hephthalites were defeated by the Turks in 567 near Bukhara; after the conquest of Central Asia, the Khaganate began to control a significant part of the Great Silk Road. Kagan (khan) - the highest ruling person in the kaganate, military leader. As a result of negotiations with the Byzantine Emperor Justin II, a trade agreement and a military treaty were signed against Iran, which was located on the Silk Road. After the conclusion of the Byzantine-Turkic alliance, Iran pledged to pay tribute to the Kaganate in the amount of 40 thousand gold dinars annually and not interfere with trade. In 575, Iran and Byzantium united against the Turks. In response to this, in 576, Turkic troops defeated the vassal of Byzantium - the Cimmerian Bosporus, and launched victorious campaigns in the Crimea and the Western Caucasus. Thanks to these conquests, the Kaganate began to control all important sections of the Great Silk Road, which provided the Turkic nobility with huge profits from caravan trade. The borders of the Kaganate extended from the Black Sea to almost the Pacific Ocean, from Baikal to Tibet. After the death of Tobo Khan in 581, traditionally there was a weakening of the Turkic Khaganate, internecine wars, China's offensive on the borders of the Khaganate, and wars with neighboring countries.

In 603, the Turkic Khaganate split into the Western Turkic Khaganate and the Eastern Turkic Khaganate. The Eastern Turkic Khaganate shared long borders with China and fought frequent wars, located approximately on the territory of modern Mongolia. Several major battles in which the Kaganate won victories took place at the end of the 7th century and in the first half of the 8th century. In 630, the Tang Empire captured the Eastern Khaganate. After the defeat in 744 in the battle with the Uyghurs under the leadership of Khan Moyun-Chur, the Uyghur Kaganate arose on the lands of the Eastern Kaganate, which lasted from 744 to 840. The Western Kaganate included Kazakhstan, Central Asia, the North Caucasus, Crimea, the Urals and the Volga region. The Kaganate reached the peak of its power during the reign of Shegui Kagan (610-618) and his younger brother Ton-Yabgu Kagan (618-630). New campaigns in Tokharistan and Afghanistan expanded the borders of the state to northwestern India. The Kaganate represented a unified system of predominantly nomadic and semi-nomadic methods of conducting a nomadic economy and a settled agricultural type of economy. Completely collapsed in 704, but played an important role in the consolidation of the Turkic-speaking population of Eurasia and contributed to further development ethnic groups that later formed the basis of modern Turkic-speaking peoples.

The favorite weapons of the Turks are: bows and arrows, spears, sabers, broadswords; rider and horse armor are often used. Death in battle was considered the best death for a man. The main occupation of the Turkuts was nomadic cattle breeding, as well as hunting for herbivores, which was in the nature of a round-up due to the large herds of steppe animals. The main food of the Turkuts was meat, and their favorite drink was kumiss. Clothes and tents were made from animal skins. The Turks also made felt and wool fabrics. The main types of livestock were sheep and horses. The main economic unit was the paired (ail) family. The Türkuts mastered industrial iron mining. The method of obtaining iron was cheese-making. The development of metallurgy allowed the Turkut khans to rearm their army. That is, the Mongols, five hundred years before them, developed and tested in detail their way of life and weapons.

The history of the Khitans has been recorded reliably since the 4th century. In the VI century. The Khitans became part of the steppe empire of the Turks, then alternately acted as allies and aggressors in relation to the Chinese Tang Empire. The Khitans lived relatively peacefully in the first half of the 9th century. Relations with the Tang Empire began to cool as the Khitans and Uighurs grew closer, but the alliance did not work out: the Khitans declared themselves their tributaries, but in 842 they again went over to the Chinese side. Main features social structure pre-imperial period of Khitan history: the existence of ordo squads under each of the rulers, the absence of a capital or any permanent residence of the Khitan leaders. Like the Jurchens later, the Khitans preferred to change their residences depending on the onset of the fishing and hunting seasons (marked, respectively, by the rituals of catching the first fish and the first wild goose). In 947 the new state was called the Great Liao, in 983 - the Great State of the Khitan, in 1066 - again the Great Liao. Actively strengthening themselves on the northern borders of China, the Khitans seized part of its territories (“Sixteen Districts”). The foundations of government in the Liao state were created by the Chinese and Koreans; writing was created on the basis of Chinese characters and from Chinese elements of writing; cities, crafts, and trade developed. From the end of the 11th century, the Liao state declined, and in 1125 it was destroyed by the Jurchens and Chinese. Part of the Khitan nobility (Karakidans, or Karakitai) went to Central Asia, where a small state of the Karakitai - Western Liao (1124-1211) arose in the area of ​​the Talas and Shu rivers.

The unification of the Jurchen tribes caused alarm among the Khitans, who did their best to prevent the unification of the Jurchens. The intervention of the Khitan Liao in Jurchen affairs led to the fact that the tribes began to plot war against the Khitan state. The mobile Jurchen cavalry prevailed over the huge but poorly prepared Khitan army. The weakened Khitan empire was finally defeated in 1125, the last Khitan emperor was captured by the Jurchens. In 1125, two Jurchen armies launched an offensive against the Song Empire. The Chinese armies were huge, but consisted mainly of infantry, which could not fight on equal terms with the Jurchen cavalry. In 1127, the Jurchen captured Kaifeng, incorporating northern China into their state. In 1191, the ban on marriages between Chinese and Jurchen families was officially lifted, this significantly accelerated the process of sinicization of the latter.

The Tatar-Mongol invasion is a wall erected by historians in the past and fencing off the territory in which all Russian problems can be explained by the backwardness of the country, caused by three hundred years of foreign yoke. This wall is ideological in nature, since maintaining it in good condition is in the interests of politicians. For them, the history of Russia is the history of Muscovy, which gathered the lands into one whole.

Mongols. Karamzin wrote “Moguls”.

The Russians first encounter the Mongols if you look at the PVL, on the Kalka River. How did this happen?

“Because of our sin, the nations came into being unknown, but no one knows who they are, and when they came from, and their language, and what tribe they are, and what their faith is. And their names are Tatars, and others say: Taurmeni (Turkmen, Tauromen?) and others Pechenesi...God alone knows who they are, and how they came out” (Polevoy. vol. 2, p. 502 - New Years, l. 98 ). This news was reported to the Russians by the Polovtsians. Nobody knows their language?! But the Mongols are negotiating with the Russian princes. Through a translator?

In Yan’s novel “Batu” an interpreter appears, but in the chronicles there is not a word about translators. So the language of the Mongols is still known! Most likely, we are dealing not with the total knowledge about the Mongols who appeared in the lands of the Polovtsians, but with the knowledge about them (it would be better to say about the absence of such) of a specific Novgorod chronicler or his entourage. “The chronicler here conveys only rumors and rumors. He absolutely cannot say anything precise, modestly excluding himself from the circle of “wise men” who understand books, and assigning himself the role of a simple recorder of a disastrous (-? -A.G.) event" (Grekov , Yakubovsky, 1950. p.201)

In the Ipatiev Chronicle it is only said about the Tatars that they are atheists: “In the summer, an unheard-of army came, the atheists of Moab, recommended by Tatar, came to the land of Polovtsian. But the Polovtsian who became Yurgia Konchak, who was more powerful than all the Polovtsians, could not stand against him, and they were running against him, and many of the izeni yuysha, but to the Dnieper River the Tatars returned to their vezha, the Polovtsian who fled to the Rous land, who was destined for them by the Rous prince, even If you don’t tell us, we’ll be gone now, but in the morning you’ll be gone...” (Ipatiev Chronicle, 1998, pp. 740-741). That's all. But in Rus' at that time there were plenty of pagans.

Greater Tartaria according to Lyzlov

In the 17th century in Scythian history” A. Lyzlov represents the Tatars as part of the Scythian people.

“Scythia is named after Scythian, the son of Hercules, and there are two things: one (the first - A.G.) European, in which we live, that is, Moscow, Russians (Ukrainians and Belarusians - A.G.), Lithuania, Volokhs and Tatarov europmkia. The second is Asian, in which all the Scythian peoples live, sitting east from midnight. These Asian Scythians multiplied greatly and were nicknamed by various names” (Lyzlov, 1990. P.8). It is important to note that for the Lyzlovs, all Scythians, whose territory of residence is the expanses of the USSR, have the same genetic roots. They all have the same ancestor - Scythian, son of Hercules.

The Asian Scythians “believe secrets and unknowns to the Greeks and Latins. The Scythian borders from the west are separated from the Don [and Boter, the describer of the whole world, believes from the Volga that it would be more appropriate to be]. To the east of the sun to the borders of the Khiy, like India. From noon from the sea of ​​Meotskago, that is, Azovskago, and Caspian Sea, that is, Khvalisskago. At midnight even to the Scythian Ice Ocean.

It is divided into four parts. One is the Horde in itself. The second is the Zagatai and all the peoples who existed under Usson and the Lopskaya desert. The third will control China, and the hedgehog is found in the aforementioned desert, and the Khin state. The fourth contains countries little known to us, such as Belgian, Argon, Arsater, Ania.

But from five hundred years and more, when the Scythian people, having left the country called Mongal in their language, its inhabitants were called Mongails or Mongaili, having settled some states..., they changed their name, calling themselves Tartar, from the Tartar River or from many peoples they themselves accept or hear their own people more kindly” (Lyzlov, 1990, pp. 8-9).

“And the smaller half of Scythia, even above the Sea of ​​Assia, is called Tartary the Great. The great Tartary is separated from Scythia by Imaus by a great and famous mountain: the hedgehog from one country is Tartary, and the hedgehog from this country is Scythia” (Lyzlov, 1990. P.9). Thus, the Asian part of Scythia is called Great Tartary, and European Scythia is simply Scythia. According to Lyzlov, Asian Scythia is a “smaller part”.

Where was Great Tartaria!? Historians consider Mount Imaus to be the Ural Mountains. Then the Mongols come from what is now Mongolia. But Imaus is not the Ural Mountains. This is Elbrus! And the homeland of the Mongols is the Caucasus.

“About these Tatars Mongailekh, who lived in the smaller part of Scythia, which from them was called Tartaria, many famous cases were written in history, as if they were glorified throughout the world” (Lyzlov, 1990. P.9).

Lyzlov presents D. Bother's version of the Jewish origin of the Mongols. It is important that this version says that a certain people went from west to east to the country of Arsater and then turned into a thunderstorm in Europe, coming back to the west under the banners of Genghis Khan.

“Besides, the majority of the writers say: for Arsater, the country of the region is Belgiana, but by no means the Jews, under the name Tatar, came out in the year 1200, during the time of the great Kingis, who established the kingdom of China” (Lyzlov, 1990, p. 13).

Commentary by historian Yu.A. Mytsyk: “D. Boter’s opinion about the origin of the Tatars from Jews taken captive by the Assyrians is without foundation” (Lyzlov, 1990. P.449). Why?

This people was taxed with tribute by a certain Unkam, but then multiplied and “elected King Hingis from among them, and through blessed victories and courage gave him the name Great. For having come from the country of your summer from the incarnation of the Word of God 1162 with a cruel army, conquer new regions under you, with great strength, with great glory” (Lyzlov, 1990. P. 14).

N.A. Morozov derived the word “Mongol” from the Greek megalion = great. Genghis Khan bore the nickname Great; naturally, his warriors could be called great (Chapaev - Chapaevites), that is, Mongols.

Appearance Mongols

“According to the testimony of contemporaries, the Mongols, unlike the Tatars, were a tall, bearded, fair-haired and blue-eyed people” (Gumilyov, 1992, p. 74). By the way, these Tatars should look like “clumsy people, with short legs, far apart eyes, without upper eyelashes, with sparse hair on their beard and mustache” (Ilovaisky. Formation of Rus', 1996. P.499). Do you recognize the Tatar-Mongols who attacked Rus' from hundreds of films? In films we are shown modern Mongols.

Why are modern Mongols different from their ancestors? Gumilev explains: “Their descendants acquired their modern appearance through mixed marriages with the neighboring numerous short, black-haired and black-eyed tribes” (Gumilev, 1992, p. 74). But where did such strange “blond-haired” and “bearded” people come from in the east then? Gumilev is silent. But, nevertheless, the historical appearance of the short-legged and beardless Tatars, recreated, apparently through scientific torment, dominates him too. He writes: “However, even the most ancient Mongols had nothing in common with the blondes who inhabited Europe.

European travelers of the 13th century. they did not find any similarities between the Mongols and themselves” (Gumilyov, 1992, p. 74). Who does he mean? Marco Polo? Was he there? There are a lot of facts suggesting that he has never been to China, the trip to which made him so famous (see Nosovsky G.V., Fomenko A.T., 1996). Then these are probably the famous travelers Plateau Carpini and Rubrix. But Tatishchev notes: “The traveling preachers, Karpein, Rubrik, etc., although they tell of their journeys far and farther to the borders of the Chinese, but having clearly examined it, one can hardly believe that they were far from Kyiv or the Don, but wrote from tales, for crossing the Volga, Yaik, Aral Sea and cities through which they needed to travel, like Bolgor, Turekstan, Tashkent, etc., are not mentioned” (Tatishchev, vol. 1, pp. 233-234).

What did Genghis Khan look like? Answer: “He... was distinguished by his very tall stature, large forehead and long beard” (Ilovaisky. The Formation of Rus', 1996. P.499).

So, the ancestors of today's Mongols are tall, bearded, fair-haired and blue-eyed. I just want to say “white people”. Let's make a short digression and cite the legend of the white king, so popular among the descendants of Genghis Khan.

Legend of the White Tsar

(From Badmaev’s note to Alexander III on the tasks of Russian policy in the Asian East).

“Now I will try to present, as clearly as possible, the significance of the white tsar for the entire East, based on legendary and historical data, and, I hope, it will be clear to every Russian person why the white tsar is so popular in the East, and how easy it will be for him to use the results the centuries-old policy of their ancestors.

One Buryat ancestor, named Sheldu Zangi, fled from China with 20,000 families after the conclusion of the treaty, but was caught and executed by the Manchu authorities, on the basis of Article X, around 1730, on the border. Before his execution, he gave a speech in which he said that if his severed head flew towards Russia (which happened), then all of Mongolia would come into the possession of the white king.

The Mongols insist that under the eighth khutukt of Urga they will become subjects of the white king. The present khutukta is considered the eighth. The Urga Khutukta is considered a saint by the Mongols, like the Dalai Lama, and has enormous influence on all of Mongolia.

They also expect the appearance of a white banner from Russia in Mongolia in the seventh century after the death of Genghis Khan, who died in 1227.

Buddhists consider the white king to be the reincarnation of one of their goddesses, Dara-ehe, the patroness of the Buddhist faith. She is reborn as a white king in order to soften the morals of the inhabitants of the northern countries.

Legendary tales are much more important in these countries than actual phenomena.

Oppressed by the official world of the Manchu dynasty, the Mongols naturally cling tightly to the traditions that promise them a better future, and look forward to its arrival.”

What are the roots of this strange legend that connects the future of the Buryat-Mongols with the white king who will come from Russia? Didn't Genghis Khan's Mongols come to Mongolia from the west at one time?

Commentary by historian Yu.A. Mytsyk: “ The question of the origin of the Mongol-Tatars is very complex and has not been fully elucidated by modern science. In Chinese sources, Mongols and Tatars are called “da-da”. There are versions that the Mongols are one of the Tatar tribes and, conversely, the tribal name Tatars was given by the Mongols to the conquered Turkic peoples, etc." (Lyzlov, 1990. P.448). So, who the Mongols and Tatars are is a mystery to modern science, despite three hundred years of research! Maybe they were looking in the wrong place.

Sources about the Tatar-Mongols(Ilovaisky. Formation of Rus', 1996. P.712)

Chinese chroniclers
Persian chronicler Rashid Eddin (= Rashid ad-Din, lived in the 14th century)
Buddhist-Mongolian Altan Tobchi Chronicle (golden abbreviation)
Armenian sources (“History of the Mongols of the monk Magakia. XIII century”, 1871)
Western travelers of the 13th century: Plateau Carpini, Aspelin, Rubrukvis, Marco Polo.
Byzantine historians Nikephoros Gregor, Akropolita, Pachymer.
Western chroniclers, for example, Matvey of Paris.

Kalka

“The description of the first Mongol invasion of Rus' was compiled in more detail than other events and was included in some chronicles as a separate article” (Polevoy. vol. 2, pp. 501, 527).

The Russian princes "got involved" in the war with the Mongols at the request of the Polovtsians for help to repel the aggressor.

Let us note one interesting circumstance. After the Polovtsians turned to the Russian princes for help, “the Tatars, having learned that the Russian princes were preparing to help the Polovtsians, sent Russian ambassadors to the princes with a warning...” (Grekov, Yakubovsky, 1950, p. 202). How did the Mongols find out about the negotiations between the Cumans and the Russians? How did they learn about the military preparations of the princes? It turns out that they were doing well with intelligence. But this means that the Mongols had a good idea of ​​Rus', had a network of intelligence officers, an established connection with the “resentura”, consisting, apparently, of “recruited” Polovtsians and Russians! But in this case, the Mongols themselves could not be unknown to either the Polovtsians or the Russians. By the way, the southern Ipatiev Chronicle, unlike the Novgorod Chronicle, does not say about the Mongols that it is not known “from whence they came, and their language, and what tribe they are, and what their faith is.”

On the Kalka River (a separate question, where it is located) the Polovtsians and Russians were defeated. On the side of the Mongols is a squad of Russian wanderers (?) led by governor Ploskina. “Brodnitsy, it is clear that there were Russian languages, as this and the name of their prince Ploskin assures, who, apparently, lived on the Don with the Polovtsians, as Karpein and Rubrukis show; besides, they kissed the cross, they claim to be Christians” (Tatishchev, vol. 3, p. 266). Historians are clear that these are traitors and defectors. To be convincing, they add: “There were probably especially many defectors among the Polovtsians” (Ilovaisky. The Formation of Rus', 1996. P.506). So, ours are not so offended - the Polovtsians have more traitors. The word “probably” is worth noting. They don’t know, but they assure!

The battle on Kalka is coming to an end. Who will finish off the Russians? Who will give hope to those who voluntarily lay down their arms? It turns out that these are traitorous wanderers (a rare case in history - traitors have influence on the owners): “The Great Prince fought from the town for three days and, seeing his exhaustion, sent to the Tatar princes for a treaty and especially the wanderers who were from the Tatars, whose governor is Ploskinya. This accursed man gave the Grand Duke a company with strong hope that no one would be killed, but that everyone would be freed up. Believing him, the Grand Duke surrendered. He, the accursed one, brought them before the Tatar princes, advised them to beat everyone and not let anyone in alive” (Tatishchev, vol. 3, p. 218).

The role of Russians in the Mongol troops is a special question. Not only Ploskinya is at the center of events, others are also not a miss:

The war between the Tatar khans Nogai (Naga) and Tokhta: “... Nogai’s army was defeated, and he himself was killed. The warrior who killed him, Russian by origin, was executed by order of Khan Tokhta for daring to raise his hand against a hundred noble Tatar” (Borisov, 1997. P.57); They kill the Grand Duke of Tver Mikhail in the Horde, assassins are sent, “finally one of them, named Romanets, pulled out a large knife, hit Mikhail in the rib with it and cut out his heart” (Borisov, 1997. P.99). Prince Mikhail is not an ordinary prince. The Church ranked him among the holy martyrs "for Orthodox faith, for the Russian land" (Borisov, 1997, pp. 97, 99).

Fedorchyukov's army. In the winter of 1327/28, the Tatars, led by a certain Fedorchuk, and with the participation of Ivan Kalita, devastated, defeated, and burned the Tver land. This is not about Ivan, but about Fedorchuk. Who is this? “The names of the Temniks who were with Kalita: Theodore Chik (after Resurrection - Is Fedorchuk a renegade?) Turalyk, Syuga, etc.” (Polevoy, vol. 2. P. 578).

Where was the Russian Land (Rus)?

Yes, but who does the chronicler have in mind when he writes about the Russian land that the Mongols approached? Land from the Don to the Barents Sea? Alas, the Russian land at that time was just the lands around Kyiv, Chernigov and Volyn.

“...the name of Rus' remained only in the Kyiv region. “So I don’t have communion in the Russian land,” said Georgy Dolgoruky, living in the Suzdal region, and hearing about the expulsion of his son from the Kyiv town” (Polevoy. vol. 1, p. 528).

The words of Grand Duke Andrei Yuryevich Bogolyubsky, preserved in the chronicle: “... we have nothing to do in the Russian land...”. “It’s interesting that the “Russian Land” is precisely the south... Andrei decided to create his own “Russian Land”, not southern, but northeastern, not Kiev-Chernigov, but Vladimir-Suzdal. He makes Vladimir his capital city...” (Grimberg, p. 107).

It turns out that those Russians who lived to the north were not Russian people at all for the ancient chroniclers.

Invasion of Batu

The story of Batu's invasion in Russian chronicles

In his “History of the Russian People” N. Polevoy gives a story about Batu’s invasion. We all know this story from textbooks. In a note, Polevoy writes: “The narrative of the Mongol invasion constitutes a separate article in our chronicles, and, it seems, was compiled by a contemporary. It is included in almost all known lists, only in some in abbreviated form (Arkhangelogorodsky, Typographical); the real story should be in Novgorod (and in Volyn and Pushkin, as Karamzin says). This story is more embellished in Sofia Stroevsky; but the additions here are curious, as a monument to the conscience of that time....

In Nikonovsky, many absurdities are inserted into it; in the Degree Book he is disfigured by later idle talk. In the Kostroma list there is a lot of unnecessary stuff in it, such as: an insert about Batu’s arrival to Smolensk, and miracles..." (Polevoy, vol. 2. pp. 527-528). Thus, all lists are based on one story with possible variations. Here it would be appropriate to recall that “G.M. Prokhorov proved that in the Laurentian Chronicle (Pushkin list) three pages dedicated to Batu’s campaign were cut out and replaced with others - literary cliches of battle scenes of the 11th-12th centuries (Gumilyov." , 1992b. p. 351; Prokhorov, 1972, 1974). Laurentian Chronicle is one of the most important and most used sources on ancient history Russia. Polevoy also mentions the Laurentian Chronicle (and even with reference to Karamzin!). But if in this chronicle “Batu’s invasion” is a substitution, then in the rest too!

The story of Batu's invasion in the Persian chronicles

Since in Russian chronicles the story of Batu’s invasion “calls out” for caution, let us turn to one of the main foreign sources - the chronicles of Rashid ad-Din. Although the Soviet edition of these chronicles states that “for the first time, the French scientist E. Quatremere began publishing the text and its translation...” and published it partially in 1836 (Rashid ad-Din, 1946, vol. 3. p. 7 ), however, N. Polevoy quotes Rashid ad-Din according to Osson’s “Hist. des Mongols”, Paris, 1824. How is Batu’s invasion described in this book? “Rashid... begins with the extermination of Polo (Poland), and mixes with this the ruin of Hungary. Then he describes the conquest of the Bulgars, the death of Bachman, the conquest of the Mokshans (or Bokshans) and the Burtases.

Here follows a campaign against Rus'. The Mongols besiege and take the city of Ban (Ryazan?) in three days...” - reader follow Polevoy’s questions in parentheses: Polevoy is trying to figure out the geography and translation from Persian - “...then the city of Iga (Ingvar?), they strike Russian Prince Urman (Roman, near Kolomna?); in five days they take the city of Mokos and kill Emir Ulay-Timur (Moscow and Prince Vladimir?); eight days after that they besieged the city of the great George (Vladimir?), took it, and in five days captured the city of St. Nicholas (probably Kiev, taken on the day of St. Nicholas; comment - at least the saints help out, otherwise it’s completely “khan " - A.G.), the capital of the land of Wenceslaus (Vsevolod?), and they kill the Great George himself, who was hiding in the forest.

After this they scatter everywhere and take many cities (Kilakaska is mentioned here, see note 89). Battles with the peoples follow: Merish, Chenichak, and Kipchak. The Mongols take the city of Mangass and the Iron Gates (Derbent). Then Mangu and Kuyuk go to Ogotai, and Batu conquers all the cities of Uladimur, especially the city of Uch-Ogul-Uladimir (translated: the city of the three sons of Vladimir), crosses the mountains, enters the land of the Bulgars and Bashkirs, defeats the army of Bezerenbam, robs the Sassans, enters into the land of Kara-Ulag, beats the Ulags, and entering the land of Michelava, defeats his army. Then, pursuing Kelar, the Mongols cross the Tissu and Tonga rivers and drive Kelar all the way to the sea. The final conquest of the Kipchaks follows. “A mixture of stories, barely understandable!” (Polevoy, vol. 2, pp. 534-535).

What a luck! If it weren’t for the story about the invasion in Russian chronicles, we would never have known that Ban is Ryazan... But, alas, there is a problem with Russian chronicles too...

What should we do with Rashid al-Din? How to use its text? “To establish the critical text of Rashid ad-Din’s work, in particular to establish the correct reading of proper names and terms, to study his vocabulary, language and style, it was necessary, in addition to knowledge of Persian and, naturally, Arabic, familiarity with the Mongolian and Finally, for a researcher of the history of the Mongolian states, it was necessary, in addition to Persian, Arab, Armenian, Mongolian and Chinese sources, to also involve Russian, Arabic, Georgian, Syrian, Byzantine and Western European sources. In short, the researcher, if he was not a polyglot, was invariably. felt the limitations of his strength" (Rashid ad-Din, vol. 1. p. 10).

More than 150 years have passed since Polevoy. And that historical science is able to prove that “Emir Ulay-Timur = Prince Vladimir”! See reader notes in Soviet translations"Collection of Chronicles" of Rashid ad-Din (Rashid ad-Din, vol. 1-3) and see for yourself that the work for the researcher is no less than in the time of Polevoy.

Asking questions and looking for answers

Batu invaded Russian lands from the south, going north along the Don. I walked in winter through an unknown country, the cities and villages of which were lost among dense forests. Historians often write that ice-covered rivers served as the road to cities. But, apparently, no matter what they wrote, they had excellent guides, and if they were excellent, then they were their own locals - Russians or various Mordvins, Meshchera and others.

The description of Batu's invasion in textbooks raises many questions. Here are some of them:

Are the Mongols really good at waging war in winter?
Is it possible for a mass of cavalry to cross the ice of rivers,
what is the number of Batu’s troops,
what did they feed on,
what are the losses in manpower?
Let's try to find answers to these questions.

The time of year chosen by the Mongols for raids

Battle of Kalka - summer. But three major first historical invasions took place in winter:

Winter invasion of 1281/82. The Tatars are commanded by Andrei Gorodetsky in alliance with other princes: Rostov, Yaroslavl, Starodub. Pogrom of the regions of Murom, Vladimir, Suzdal, capture and plunder of Pereyaslavl (Polevoy, vol. 2, p. 293).

Dudenev's army -?? 1292/93. Complete defeat of North-Eastern Rus'. Grand Duke Andrei Gorodetsky was an active participant in events on the side of the Mongols.

Fedorchuk's army - winter 1327/28. Complete destruction of the Tver land. Vel. Prince Ivan Kalita - participant in the pogrom.
It turns out that the Tatars love big trips to winter time. Why? Historians explain this by the fact that masses of cavalry easily advance to cities along frozen rivers (Borisov, 1997, p. 157; Ilovaisky, Formation of Rus', p. 517). It's hard to believe. Especially those under whom the ice on Russian rivers fell through. And here are tens of thousands of horsemen. What does cavalry military science say about this? Batu's campaign is especially interesting in this regard. There were no noble prince guides. But the ice was apparently strong. In any case, this is what historians think based on the chronicler’s phrase that the prisoners were “from Mriz Izomrosha” (Grekov, Shakhmagonov, 1986, p. 67).

Russian snow is deep. How to feed steppe horses accustomed to shallow snow. How did Batu find passages to Russian cities in dense forests? Apparently they were good guides. Who, besides the Russians, knew the roads well? Therefore, traitors again. Complete traitors and not a single Ivan Susanin.

In winter in Russia, sleds are used to transport goods. Did Batu's Tatars have them?

By the way, a detachment of Poles quickly froze in the Russian forests when Susanin brought the matter to an end. Didn't the Mongols freeze? Yes, they spent their whole lives in the frozen steppes, but in yurts. So they brought yurts with them. This is a huge convoy, a lot of transporters, auxiliary horses. How was the problem of feeding the entire army solved? Did you eat what you stole? What about crossings? Did you still have to get to Rus'?

If the army is 300,000 people, and each has two or three horses, then 300,000 people need to be fed. and no less than 600,000 horses! Gumilyov is one of the few who thought about this. As a result, he reduced Batu's army 10 times. But to explain the fact that an army of 30,000 people was able to take 14 cities, he had to rely on his theory of passionaries, that is, special people capable of inspiring thousands of soldiers to fight until complete victory, and victory achieved without great losses.

The number of Batu's troops

The question of the size of Batu’s army also worried other historians. Let us present the interesting arguments of B.D. Grekov and F.F. Shakhmagonov:

“Unfortunately, military historians have not dealt with this issue. We will not find reliable indications in the sources. Russian chronicles are silent, European eyewitnesses and Hungarian chronicles estimate Batu’s army, which took Kyiv and invaded Europe, at more than half a million. In pre-revolutionary historiography, it was completely arbitrarily established the figure is 300 thousand.

Discussions about the number of troops that came to Rus' in 1237 were usually based on the mobilization capabilities of the empire of Genghis Khan (that is, half of Asia - A.G.). Neither the time of year, nor the geography of the area, nor the possibility of moving large military masses along winter routes were taken into account. Finally, the real need for forces to defeat North-Eastern Rus' was not taken into account, and the mobilization capabilities of North-Eastern Rus' were not weighed. They usually referred to the fact that the Mongolian horse could get food from under the snow, but at the same time they lost sight of the difference in the snow cover of the steppes in the far south and in the region of Ryazan-Vladimir-Tver and Novgorod. No one paid attention to the problem of managing an army of half a million or several hundred thousand soldiers in the Middle Ages.

It is very easy to show by calculations that during a campaign along winter roads, an army of 300 thousand soldiers should have stretched over hundreds of kilometers. The Mongol-Tatars never went on a campaign without wind-up horses. They didn’t even go “about two horses” like the Russian squads; each warrior had at least three wind-up horses. A million horses in winter conditions It was impossible to feed half a million on the lands of North-Eastern Rus'; there was nothing to feed even three hundred thousand horses.

No matter how undemanding we pictured the Mongol warrior on the campaign, it lasted not ten days or even a month, but from December to April, five months. Rural people, accustomed to Polovtsian raids, knew how to hide food. Cities fell to the invaders in flames, not cities, but ashes. Six months on a piece jerky and you can’t live on mare’s milk, especially since mares don’t milk in winter” (Grekov, Shakhmagonov, 1986, pp. 61-62).

The number of Russian troops and the losses of the Mongols in manpower

B.D. Grekov and F.F. Shakhmagonov painted such an unsightly picture that if I were Batu, I would not have ventured into Rus' in winter with 30 thousand horsemen. If you forget about Gumilyov’s theory about the passionarity of the Mongols, then you have to think that Rus' could not resist the force of 30 thousand people!! Is not it? Historical science can only prove this, otherwise goodbye to the conquest of Rus'. What does the necessary evidence look like (assuming that Batya’s army came from afar)?

We continue quoting: “The question of the possible number of Russian troops that could resist the invasion remained just as unclear. Until M.N. Tikhomirov’s research on Russian cities of the 13th century, the same legendary numbers migrated from one historical monograph to another as in determining the number of troops of Batu M.N. Tikhomirov came to the conclusion that cities such as Novgorod, Kyiv, Vladimir-Suzdal, numbered from 3 to 5 thousand soldiers. Cities of North-Eastern Rus', such as Rostov, Pereyaslavl, Suzdal, Ryazan, in terms of the number of inhabitants they could not be compared with Novgorod and Kiev, and according to the calculations of M.N. Tikhomirov, the number of their inhabitants rarely exceeded 1000 people.

There is reason to believe that Batu and his temniks had fairly accurate information about the state of Russian fortresses, the size of the urban population, and the mobilization capabilities of North-Eastern Rus'.

300 thousand soldiers were not required. For the Middle Ages, an army of several tens of thousands of horsemen was a huge force, capable of spreading throughout all the cities of North-Eastern Rus', having an undeniable advantage at every point of application of forces" (Grekov, Shakhmagonov, 1986, p. 62).

From such a brilliant analysis of the balance of forces and proof of the doom of Rus', all that remains is to wipe away tears of tenderness. The amount of work done by the intelligence of the Mongolian “general staff” is impressive. Not otherwise than all the princely administrations of all North-Eastern Rus' “worked” for Batu, or Batu himself and his people come from local residents. But the latter is already “the fantasy of A.T. Fomenko.” It is now clear why military historians, that is, historians with a good military education, do not seek to study Batu’s invasion: they are scared away from this topic by “specialists in the Middle Ages.”

But let's agree with the calculations of M.N. Tikhomirov. Although it is strange that for Novgorod they talk about warriors, but for “small” cities only about residents. After all, it turns out that the “small” city has only 200 warriors.

So, Batu storms the city. How many killed will he lose? A warrior on the city wall will kill at least one (let’s assume 1:1 losses during the defense, although these are some wretched defencists), and seriously wound another one so that he drops out of further combat operations. Consequently, one small city knocks out 400 warriors; 400 x 14 = 5600. Let’s assume that the peasants beat at least 400 Mongols searching for food; princely squads The princes of Ryazan and Vladimir will be killed in a battle in an open field with 1000 Tatars. Finally, let’s believe that the “evil” Kozel residents really killed 4,000 invaders (Grekov, Shakhmagonov, 1986, p. 68).

Thus, Batu's losses amount to 11,000 people. A third of the army! But these are the most conservative estimates. And the shell-shocked, stunned (concussion), crippled, missing eyes, hands doused with boiling water - these are the ones who will ride to the Don steppes.

Until the fall, Batu rests in the steppes, and then drives, or rather, leads a “broad offensive” (Grekov, Shakhmagonov, 1986. p. 70) against the Polovtsians, Alans, Yasses, and Mordovians. This is with the army that, pretty battered, crawled out of the Russian forests.

How did the Mongols make up for combat losses in manpower?

There is a small town in Russia called Breitov. Researchers were interested in the origin of such an unusual name. We went through several versions, but here’s what’s interesting. “There is another version among the people that supposedly after the battle of the City, where the Russians were defeated, the Tatars, selecting soldiers from the local residents, walked along the lined up Russians and indicated who should be taken into their army. The warriors' heads were shaved, and the Tatar princes said: "Shave this one! Shave that one!" This is how the name of the village of Breytovo appeared. But there are strong facts here that refute this assumption. Firstly, the Tatar-Mongols did not replenish their army with Russians. Secondly, the word “shave,” which is of ancient Egyptian origin, appeared in Rus' at the end of the 17th century” (see Breitov).

Regarding the first fact, let us quote from Tatishchev’s “History”: “The Tatars, having defeated the princes, although they suffered great damage, they were beaten many times more than the Russians, but there were a great many of them, and moreover, their troops were always replenished with captives, that their great death was not visible” (Tatishchev, vol. 3, p. 236). Why, simple warriors, princes joined the ranks of the Tatars: “The Laurentian Chronicle tells that Prince Vasilko Konstantinovich, captured at the City River, “was subject to the curse of the godlessness of the Tatars, the custom of being in their will and fighting with them” (Nasonov, 1940. p.54).

The second fact is also not convincing, since there is a connection between the ancient Slavic and ancient Egyptian languages.

Let us continue with the quotation from (Breitov): “The third assumption is most reliable. Until the 17th century, to facilitate the collection of tribute and sending it to the Horde, our area was divided into the destinies of small princes, who increased the already heavy burden that lay on the people during Tatar-Mongol yoke. In the center of the estate there was a village where the prince lived. This is where the names of most villages in our area come from. The center of the inheritance of the Prozorovsky princes is the village of Prozorovo, the Sutskys - Sutka. Also, Breytovo was the central village of the inheritance of the princes Shaved. The word "Breytovo" comes from the word "Shaven", which has changed over time.

Until the 17th century, the village was called "Brentovo", and even earlier - "Bretovo". First of all, it is worth noting the logic of the authors of the text: “shave” as an ancient Egyptian word is not suitable (see above), and the name of the Shaved princes does not evoke a feeling of protest in them. Secondly, what is interesting here is not that the author is trying to find a different version than the Tatars taking Russian recruits, but that the role of the princes is the function of an official in collecting taxes in favor of the Tatar treasury. Moreover, it is argued that it is the emergence of the Horde that leads to territorial and administrative reorganization in the Russian region, although, as a rule, conquerors use the administration that existed before their appearance to collect tribute.

By the way, how did the Russian princes in the south perceive the Tatar threat to them from the north, where the cities of the northeastern (Russian) lands were already burning? Quite casual. Year 1240. Kyiv land was devastated. But the Rurikovichs have their own concerns: “It is also remarkable that these... southern Russian princes continue their feuds and scores for the volosts at the very time when the barbarians are already advancing on their ancestral lands” (Ilovaisky. Formation of Rus', 1996. P. 528). Why should the princes worry? After all, they knew that even under the Tatars their main occupation would be “feuds and scores for the volosts” for at least another three hundred years. And historians complain about feudal fragmentation.

About cruelties

Textbooks constantly write about the savage cruelty of the Tatar-Mongols. Let us look through the eyes of a German at the horrors of war committed by Russian combatants at the same time when the Mongols were rampaging. “Kelkh, 1218: “The Russian allies of Estonia, having come to Livland with great troops, destroyed, against which the master of war Vinand fought a bloody battle, in which the Germans were defeated, and several brave men were forced to leave. The Russians continued the victory, as much as possible, by burning and ruining the land they caused great harm...” (Tatishchev, vol. 3, p. 263). It seems to be written about the Tatars in Ryazan!

“Dmitry’s army burned Novgorod villages (around the 1280s - A.G.), and robbed people, as if in the land of Korelskaya” (Polevoy, vol. 2. p. 295).

Armament of Russians and Tatars

“Talking about Daniel’s meeting with the Ugric king and the imperial ambassadors in Pozhog or Presburg, the Ipatiev Chronicle says: “The Germans marveled at the Tatar weapons: for there were horses in guises and in leather mounts, and people in yarats and without regiments, his lordship was great, from weapons brilliant. He himself rode next to the king according to the custom of Rusku, for the horse under him was like a wonder,” etc.

Tatar influence, and therefore Tatar weapons, could not yet penetrate into Galician Rus', distant from the Golden Horde; for this you need long time; and Daniel only three years before recognized himself as a tributary of the khan. Although this is a date in Ipat.let. placed under 1252, but also incorrect. Taking into account the participation of Emperor Frederick II (who died in 1250) in these events, it took place earlier than 1249. Therefore, it would be a mistake to take literally the mentioned expression in the chronicle about the Tatar armament of the Galician army. These weapons and harnesses were purely Russian, although they had an oriental character: relations with the east and eastern influence had existed since time immemorial. There was hardly any auxiliary Tatar detachment in Daniel’s army” (Ilovaisky. Formation of Rus', 1996. P. 721).

Or maybe Ilovaisky is mistaken, and the weapons were Tatar, and the detachment was Tatar, in the sense that the Tatars were in in this case- this is simply the name of a new type of troops that showed itself so brilliantly in the grandiose war on Russian territory, known as Batya’s invasion. This branch of the army will soon appear under a different name - Cossacks. By the way, Civil War 1918-20, where the massive use of cavalry was effective, then flooded Soviet army cavalry, and almost the entire senior military leadership before Patriotic War will consist of cavalrymen (Voroshilov, Budyonny, Timoshenko, Rokosovsky, Zhukov, Kulik, Gorodovikov, etc.).

Chroniclers write about excellent archers in the Mongol army, about the clouds of arrows they shoot. Therefore, the army must have large reserves of steles. The arrows have iron tips. This means that to make them, they need traveling forges and iron supplies, otherwise the Mongols had to carry supplies of arrows with them. Both the first and second are burdensome. How could nomads cope with this problem?

“In the Battle of Liegnitz, the Mongols amazed the Germans with some kind of fire engines; The Mohammedans also say this, describing the defeat of the brave Jalaleddin” (Polevoy, vol. 2, p. 521). The savages have guns?

Dayankhan. After the victory of the Oirots over Yolja-Timur, Kublai's house was almost destroyed by bloody civil strife. Mandagol, Genghis Khan's 27th successor, died in battle against his nephew and heir. When the latter was killed three years later, the only surviving member of the once large family was his seven-year-old son, Batu-Myongke of the Chahar tribe. Abandoned even by his mother, he was taken under the protection of Mandagol's young widow, Mandugai, who achieved his proclamation as Khan of Eastern Mongolia. She acted as regent throughout his young years and married him at the age of 18.

During the long reign of Dayankhan (1470-1543), under this name he went down in history, the Oirots were pushed to the west, and the Eastern Mongols united into a single state. Following the traditions of Genghis Khan, Dayan divided the tribes into a “left wing”, i.e. the eastern, directly subordinate to the khan, and the “right wing”, i.e. Western, subordinate to one of the khan’s relatives. Most of these tribes have survived to this day. Of the eastern wing tribes, the Khalkhas make up the majority of the population of Mongolia, and the Chahars live in China, in the eastern part of Inner Mongolia. From the western wing, the Ordos occupy the area of ​​the Great Bend of the Yellow River in China, which bears their name, the Tumuts inhabit the area north of the bend in Inner Mongolia, and the Kharchins live north of Beijing.

Conversion to Lamaism. This new Mongol empire did not long outlive its founder. Its collapse was possibly associated with the gradual conversion of the Eastern Mongols to the pacifist Lamaist Buddhism of the Tibetan Yellow Hat sect.

The first converts were the Ordos, a right-wing tribe. One of their leaders converted his powerful cousin Altankhan, the ruler of the Tumets, to Lamaism. The Great Lama of the Yellow Hat was invited in 1576 to a meeting of Mongolian rulers, established the Mongolian church and received the title of Dalai Lama from Altankhan (Dalai Mongolian translation of Tibetan words meaning “wide as the ocean,” which should be understood as “all-encompassing”). Since then, the successors of the Grand Lama have held this title. Next, the Great Khan of the Chakhars himself was converted, and the Khalkhas also began to accept new faith. In 1602, the Living Buddha was declared in Mongolia, presumably considered the reincarnation of the Buddha himself. The last Living Buddha died in 1924.

The Mongols' conversion to Buddhism is explained by their rapid submission to a new wave of conquerors, the Manchus. Before the attack on China, the Manchus already dominated the area later called Inner Mongolia. Chahar Khan Lingdan (reigned 1604-1634), who bore the title of Great Khan, the last independent successor of Genghis Khan, tried to consolidate his power over the Tumets and hordes. These tribes became vassals of the Manchus, Lingdan fled to Tibet, and the Chahars submitted to the Manchus. The Khalkhas held out longer, but in 1691 the Manchu Emperor Kang-Tsi, an opponent of the Dzungar conqueror Galdan, convened the Khalkha clans for a meeting where they recognized themselves as his vassals.

Chinese rule and independence. Until the late 1800s, the Manchus resisted Chinese colonization of Mongolia. Fear of Russian expansion forced them to change their policy, which displeased the Mongols. When the Manchu Empire collapsed in 1911, Outer Mongolia broke away from China and declared its independence.

Find "MONGOLS" on

The Mongol tribes, which from time immemorial bordered China in the south, necessarily had to have a close connection with this state; and therefore, with the question of their nationality, one should primarily turn to Chinese sources.

The Chinese sources mentioned above are in dynastic histories, state statistics and state chronicles.

The primitive Mongols were Tungus who came to southern Mongolia from the Amur, which we will see below from those places in which the chronicle briefly mentions them.

Back in the days of the ancient Zheu dynasty, in the country containing the names of the Manchu provinces of Girin and He-long-gyang, the House of Sushen reigned.

A little over two centuries before Christ, his place was taken by the House of Ilou, which in the fourth century after Christ was renamed Ugi and divided into seven large aimans. In the sixth century, of the seven Ugisk aimans, the Cherporechny Aiman, Hei-shui-bu, became stronger, and at the beginning of the seventh century it separated from Uga and accepted popular name Black Mohe, Hei-shui-mohe, and in a short time was divided into sixteen new aimans. At this time, Mohe was adjacent to the kingdom of Bohai in the south, and the Shi-wei people in the west.

In the eighth century, the Bohai sovereign subdued them under his rule, and at the beginning of the ninth century, one of the sixteen Mohesknkh aimans, called Tatan, went to southern Mongolia and settled on the northern side of the Yin-shan ridge. Tatan is a Manchu word, meaning. hut. Mohe is the name of the ruling House and its people. The Mohes lived on both sides of the Amur, from Arguni to Vost. ocean. The lands of the Solons and Dakhurs along the Nop-Muren River belonged to the Mohes.

This House of Tatan in 966, i.e., a century and a half after its arrival in Southern Mongolia, presented tribute to Emperor Thai-tsau, the founder of the Song dynasty. In the second summer of the reign of Jing-te, nine Gatan generations presented tribute to the House of Khitan. The second summer of the reign of Jing-te corresponds to 1005 A.D. The House of Khitan ruled all of Mongolia from 915; consequently, the Tatan generations were under his dependence. From his place it is revealed: 1st, that the Tatan aiman, which initially consisted of only clans, two centuries after the resettlement, was able to divide into nine aiman, but was still so strong as not to recognize the supreme power of the Khitan over itself; 2nd, that all this time the Tatan people wandered along the northern side of the Yin-Shan ridge; because Khalka in the first half of the ninth century was still under the Oichors, with the exception of the eastern part under the Shiveans; after the fall of the Oikhors, the generations of Yugyu-lyu and Shnwei remained in Khalq, both under the dependence of the Khitans.

In the fifth year of Shao-hin's reign, the House of Gin declared war on the Mongols. The Mongols lived from Nyuzhen to the north. During the Thong dynasty, they formed the Myung-gu generation; were also called Myn-gu-sy. These were strong, courageous people, skilled in battles; could see in the darkness of the night; the armor was made of walrus skin, impervious to arrows. The Sovereign of the House of Gin ordered Temnik Khishakh to go with an army against them. The fifth year of the reign of Shao-hin corresponds to 1135 A.D. The House of Gin founded the empire in 1113, after the overthrow of the House of Khitan; and after 20 years he was forced to declare war on the Mongols. From the words: the Mongols lived from the Nyuzhens to the north, etc., it is revealed: 1) that the Tatanians at the beginning of the 12th century moved from the Yin-Shan ridge to Khalka, which, in relation to Southern Mongolia, already conquered by the Nyuzhens, lay in the north; 2) that among the clans that originally made up the Tatan Aiman, the House of Mongol had long been located, and that this House, due to its power, was subsequently elected as the head of the Tatan generations; because in this place the popular name Tatan was replaced by the name of the House of Mongol, and the Nyuzheni dealt with him as a representative of the entire Tatan people. Hi-tsung, the third sovereign from the House of Gin, upon ascending the throne in 1135, immediately sent an army against the Mongols, probably with the aim of, on the one hand, driving them out of Khalki, and on the other, stopping the pressure of sabotage from the north, giving more strength to its military operations in the south. At this time, the House of Gin had already conquered China from the north to the Yellow River, and its two armies operated on the southern side of this river, one in He-nan, the other in Shan-si. “In the ninth year of the reign of Shao-hin, the Mongols unexpectedly attacked the army The houses of Gin near the Hai-lin mountains were completely destroyed. Khushahu, the commander of the House of Gin, while fighting with the Mongols, ran out of food supplies and went back. The Mongols, pursuing him, unexpectedly attacked and completely defeated his army near the Hai-lin Mountains.” The ninth year of Shao-hin's reign corresponds to 1139 A.D. Khushakh stood against the Mongols for four years. Last year, 1138, peace negotiations were opened between the House of Gint and South China, and this year the war was resumed with greater force. Didn't the Mongols fight the Nyuzhens as mercenary allies of South China? Given the timing and circumstances of the war, this seems very likely. “In the seventeenth year of the reign of Shao-hin, the House, Gin and the Mongols made peace. In the past, when Dalan was executed, his son and his father’s subjects broke away from the Niuzhens and entered into an alliance with the Mongols. This circumstance especially strengthened the Mongols. The Nyuzhen commander Uzhu, sent to pacify them, could not conquer them for several years, which is why he made peace with them, according to which 27 fortified villages on the northern side of the Si-pyhin-he river were ceded to the Mongols, and it was supposed to be delivered to them (the Mongols) annually. large quantities of cattle, rice and beans; In addition to this, the Mongol elder was offered the title of Mynfus king, but he did not accept this title, but gave his kingdom the name Great Myn-gu, i.e. Mongol. Now they have made peace and annually delivered a great variety of things. After this, the Mongol elder himself accepted the title Zu-yuan-huang-di; the board renamed Than-khin.”

The seventeenth year of Shao-hin's reign corresponds to 1147 AD. Dalan had the main command over the eastern Nyuzhen army in He-nan. When peace negotiations opened in 1138, he and the princes Fuluhu and Elugap believed in returning the country of He-yin to the House of Song. Wuzhu, who controlled the western Niuzhen army in Shan-xi, suspected Dalan and Fuluhu of secret relations with the House of Song and reported to the sovereign. Peace negotiations were interrupted, and Wuzhu in 1139 received the main command over the army in Henan with instructions to continue the war. Fuluhu and Dalan plotted to cause a riot, but their malice was open. Fuluhu and Elugan were executed, and Dalan, as the sovereign prince, was released from trial and transferred to another position. Upset by the disrespect of his services rendered during the founding of the kingdom of Gin, he again plotted to carry out a rebellion, but his plan was also discovered and Dalan was killed while escaping to the south. Wuzhu happily ended the war in Southern China and in 1141 concluded a peace in which the House of Sun ceded to the Nüzhens of Henan and recognized itself as their vassal. The following year, 1142, Wuzhu took over the main command of the troops against the Mongols, and, having lost five years in an unsuccessful war, ended it with an unfavorable peace. However, one should not take the painful conditions of this world in the literal sense. The head of the Mongols, being titled in the Tatan generations as the supreme khan or emperor, signed his vassal in written relations with the House of Gin; and the House of Guin for such compliance annually paid him a large payment in cattle, rice and beans. This has been the most common thing in Chinese politics since time immemorial. So, the origin of the Mongol people and the House of Mongol, from which this people received their popular name, are two completely different things. The beginning of the Mongol people goes back too far to 23 centuries BC; The House of Mongol, on the contrary, arose at the beginning of IX, strengthened at the beginning of XII, founded Mongol Empire at the beginning of the 13th century after the birth of Christ.

What was the confusion between the term and history of Tatar Mongol?

Scholars of Western Orientalism have been studying this issue for a long time; but none of them could discover a point from which it could be resolved satisfactorily. The Mongol people from time immemorial received their popular name from the ruling house, and Western Orientalists, on the contrary, mistakenly taking each sovereign Mongolian house for their own people, deviated from the straight path, and thus, from single-tribal ruling houses, several different-tribal peoples were formed, for which they could not determine either the beginning or the end. Finally, Klaproth, in his Mêmoires sur l "Asie, solved their bewilderment with his one opinion that everything written by the Chinese about the ancient Central Asian peoples is a delusion, and learned celebrities throughout Europe bowed before him. Klaproth in his notes on Asia is what he says about the peoples of the Mongol generation: “Looking at the ethnographic table of the peoples of Inner and Central Asia before the year 1000, one can be amazed that it does not mention the Mongols. The reason for this is that most of the generations that make up this people lived in the very north and therefore. could not be included in this table; for Oka represents only the peoples who lived in that part of Asia, which lies between the chain of the Himalayas, extending to the northeast, and the chain of the Altai, Tannu, Khangai and Khingan mountains, which separate the Gobi from the rivers flowing into “Upper Amur.” So, the Mongols, according to Klaproth, from time immemorial occupied the southern borders of Eastern Siberia - from Argun in the west to the Yenisei; and the interior of Mongolia all belonged to different generations of the Turkic tribe, and the head of the Mongols himself was a Tatar, and his subjects were Turks. . From this nonsense it is clear that Klaproth did not read with due attention the positive information about the origin of the House of Mongol reported Chinese History, and as a basis he took the assumption of his own invention, and from the interweaving of conclusions derived from this he formed a chain that unites different generations into one people. Nowadays we often call such absurdities the serious name of controversial issues, but we consider the explanation of these issues, set forth in florid critical investigations, to be deep scholarship; and if we thoroughly analyze the arguments of both sides, then often what emerges from them is a collection of one idle talk with others, of which, however, both rely on ancient Greek and Muslim writers, often incidentally and inappropriately cited by scientists of our time.

interesting information:

Aiman ​​is Manchu. word, according to Mong. Ayman, according to China bu., zn. Specific ownership.

Cupid has long been known to China as whale. called Hei Shui; and translation: black river. Nowadays he is Manchu. called Sokhalyan ula, black river; to whale Hei-long-xiang, black dragon river.

The Shiwei people lived from the Amur to the northwest, that is, they occupied the lands of the Nerchinsk region. Dear Shiiei, who lived from Hulun-nor in the southwest, also improved.

Since 1115, the Tunguz House of Nyuzhen took the name Gin.

The name Mongol refers to one Taten generation.

The ethnonym Tungus is understood as a general designation for all tribes of Tungus origin from the Ob River to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, from Kolya to Manchuria and Xinjiang. it was associated with the Tatar word tongus (pig), that is, people who feed pigs.

p.s all sources are taken from historical documents.

The reader obviously noticed that I avoid using the term “Mongol” in relation to the people led by Genghis Khan at the beginningXIIIcentury. In my opinion, it is more correct to use the ethnonym “Mogul”. Firstly, the MughalsXIIIcenturies are not at all the ancestor people of the modern Khalkha Mongols. Just like today’s Italians are not the heirs of the ancient Romans, neither in any physical sense nor culturally. The fact that modern Rome proudly displays the remains of the ancient Colosseum does not indicate the continuity of the Roman Empire and modern Western civilization. Moscow became the heir of Rome, and this civilization itself did not cease to exist after 476. At that time, only its western part perished, and it perished precisely under the blows of the savages, whose descendants today decided that it would be profitable and honorable to appropriate such an ancient history for themselves.

Surprisingly, Moscow has combined seemingly incompatible things - Rome and Karakorum. However, why are they incompatible? The same principles applied here and there. Anyone could become a citizen of Rome and a mogul, a follower of the Great Yasa of Genghis Khan. That is why the Jalairs and Oirats and many tribes of Turkic, and not only Turkic, roots began to be called Mughals. Secondly. Let us, nevertheless, see how the name of the people subordinate to Genghis Khan sounded inXIIIcentury.

Rashid ad-din calls our “Mongols”Mughulamiand writes«... about those Turkic tribes that in ancient times were called Mongol [Mugul].” He names the country of the Mughuls accordinglyMugulistan,for example: “His deputy was Takuchar-noyon... His region and yurt were located in the northeast in a remote part of Mongolia [Mugulistan]”

Byzantine authors called our Mongols tsouo "bKhgots, i.e., again, precisely Mughals. William de Rubruk writes aboutmoalah.“At that time, among the Moal people there was a certain artisan Genghis...”

Thus, the use of the term “Mogul” is completely justified, especially if we want to separate today’s Khalkha Mongols and the multi-tribal and multi-lingual community that acted inXIIIcentury under the name "Mongu". And believe me, in their midst there was a place for everyone - both Caucasians and Mongoloids. And Indo-Europeans and Turkic-speaking and Mongol-speaking people.

Rashid ad-din divides the Mughals into two categories: 1st. “True”, so to speak, Mughals (“about those Turkic tribes that in ancient times were called Mongol [Mugul]”), 2nd. The Mughals are self-proclaimed out of boasting (“about the Turkic tribes, which at this time are called Mongols [mugul], but in ancient times each [of them] had a special name and nickname”).

The first category includes the Niruns and Darlekins, as was written above, but Rashid ad-din includes the following peoples in the second category (“self-proclaimed” Mughals):

1. Jalairs. “They say that their yurt was [the area of] Kima [kima] in Karakorum; They have [such] blind devotion that they gave oil [for food] to the male camels of the Gurkhan, who was the sovereign of the Uyghurs. For this reason they were called by the name Belage.”

2. Sunitas.

3. Tatars. “The places of their nomads, camps and yurts were [precisely] determined separately by clan and branch near the borders of the regions of Khitai. Their main habitat [yurts] is an area called Buir-naur (Buir-nor, or Boir-nor - a lake in the northeastern part of Mongolia - approx. transl.).” Genghis Khan treated the above-mentioned Tatars extremely cruelly: “since they were murderers and enemies of Genghis Khan and his fathers, he ordered a general massacre of the Tatars and not leave a single one in

alive to the limit determined by law [yasak]; so that women and small children

also kill, and cut open the wombs of pregnant women in order to completely destroy them.”

4. Merkits. “Genghis Khan decreed that none of the [Merkit] should be left alive, but [all] should be killed, since the Merkit tribe was rebellious and warlike and fought with him many times. The few survivors were either [then] in their mother’s wombs, or were hidden among their relatives.”

5. Kurlauts. “This tribe with the Kungirat, Eldzhigin and Bargut tribes are close and united with each other; their tamga is all the same; they fulfill the requirements of kinship and maintain among themselves [the adoption of] sons-in-law and daughters-in-law.”

6. Targuts.

7. Oirats. “The yurt and residence of these Oirat tribes was Eight Rivers [Sekiz-muren]. Rivers flow from this place, [then] they all join together and become a river, which is called Cam; the latter flows into the Ankara-muren river (the upper reaches of the Yenisei (Kem) river, which, according to the author, flows into the Angara - approx.

transl.)".

8. Barguts, Corys and Tulas. “They are called Barguts due to the fact that their camps and dwellings [are located] on the other side of the Selenga River, on the very edge of the areas and lands that were inhabited by the Mongols and which are called Bargudzhin-Tokum.”

9. Tumats. “The location of this tribe was near the above-mentioned [area] Bargudzhin-Tokum. It also branched off [from] relatives and a branch of the Barguts. [The Tumats] lived within the country of the Kirghiz and were an extremely warlike tribe and army.”

10. Bulagachins and Keremuchins. “[Both] they lived within [the same area] Bargudzhin-Tokum and at the very edge of the Kyrgyz country. They are close to each other."

11. Urasuts, Telenguts and Kushtemi. “They are also called the forest tribe, because they live in the forests within the country of the Kirghiz and Kem-Kemdzhiuts.”

12. Forest Uryankats. “During migrations, they loaded their luggage onto mountain bulls and never left the forests. In the places where they stopped, they made a few shelters and huts from the bark of birch and other trees and were satisfied with this. When they cut a birch tree, [sap] flows out of it, similar to sweet milk; they always drink it instead of water.”

13. Kurkany.

14. Sakaites.

We will need all the above information later, but for now we should note this. Firstly, all of the above peoples are Mughals, albeit “self-proclaimed” ones. Secondly, all of them, according to Rashid ad-din, also belong to the Turkic tribes. Thirdly, we have before us a list of peoples who are sharply different from each other, both in their method of farming, in their religious affiliation, and, very possibly, in their anthropological characteristics. Thus, we are presented with a motley mixture of some “Turkic-Mongols”. Meanwhile, it’s worth thinking about whether it’s worth lumping them all together? Whatever you say, there are big differences between the Turks and the same Khalkha Mongols. The main difference is linguistic. There is nothing like the “Turkic-Mongolian” language and never has existed. In the Khalkha-Mongolian language there is a large number of Turkic borrowings, which indicates an unconditional Turkic cultural influence, but in the Russian language there are enough similar borrowings, while there are practically no Mongolian ones, and even those that exist have come into more late time from the Kalmyk language.

Moreover. The study of Khalkha-Mongol funeral rituals shows that the Turks were the ruling stratum in this society, since only noble people were buried in the graves, for example Setsen Khans, Dzasaktu Khans and other princes of Northern Mongolia, which corresponds to Turkic funeral customs, while the Khalkha common people buried their dead using the method of exposing corpses, that is, they simply left the dead in the steppe, where they were quickly disposed of by a certain kind of bird.

Another thing is who, in fact, does the same Rashid ad-din mean by Turks? Just like most of his contemporaries, Rashid ad-din calls all the nomadic pastoral peoples of Asia Turks, both Turkic-speaking and Mongol-speaking, in addition to the Tungus and, as one should assume, tribes of Aryan origin, take at least the same Yenisei Kyrgyz . Among the Turks are, for example, the Tanguts, i.e., the northeastern Tibetans. In other words, as I. Petrushevsky writes in the preface to the “Collection of Chronicles”: “for our author, “Turks” is not so much an ethnic term as a social one.” However, this is observed not only among “our author.”

L.N. Gumilyov writes about this: “The Arabs called all the nomads of Central and Central Asia Turks without taking into account the language.” Yu.S. Khudyakov about the same thing: “Already in the early Middle Ages, this term (Turkic - K.P.) acquired the meaning of a polytonym. It was used to refer not only to the ancient Turks, but also to Turkic-speaking nomads, subjects of the Turkic kagans, and sometimes to all nomads who lived in the steppes of Eurasia, in the territories adjacent to Muslim countries.”

The above words of the most famous Turkologists can be confirmed, for example, with excerpts from the work of the Arab author Abulfeda “Geography”, who at one time reported, for example, about the Alans: “The Alans are Turks who adopted Christianity. In the neighborhood (with the Alans - K.P.) there is a people of the Turkic race called the Asses; this people is of the same origin and the same religion as the Alans,” which words are sometimes used to claim that the Alans are of Turkic origin. However, as a rule, they try to pass over in silence the following words of Abulfeda: “The Russians are the people of the Turkic race, who in the east come into contact with the Ghuzz, a people also of the Turkic race.” Here one should marvel at the work of the translators, who, as one might assume, invented a certain “Turkic race” in the course of translation. Actually, there is no Turkic race. Just as there is no Indo-European or Japanese race. But. Anthropologists distinguish as part of the small North Asian race (part of the large Mongoloid race) smallTuraniana race, or rather a racial section, which is the result of a mixture of Mongoloid and Caucasian components. However, mixing is still mixing, even if it is significant. However, we got a little distracted. Alans are not Turks. The descendants of the Caucasian Alans, as has already been established in historical science, are considered to be the Ossetians, who have the self-name “iron”, i.e. simply "arias". The Ossetian language belongs to the Indo-European language family, more precisely to Iranian languages. However, the Alans already in the time of Ammianus Marcellinus were a conglomerate of peoples, but nevertheless.

And of course, the crown of the total Turkification of everything and everyone is the recognition of Russians as Turks. However, no matter how funny Abulfeda’s words may seem to the modern reader, one should nevertheless think - maybe the Arab geographer, after all, had some basis for such statements? Definitely had. The answer here is simple. In Rus' they knew quite well the Turkic language, widespread in the spaces of the Great Silk Road, and in Russia in the 14th century, i.e. during the time of Abulfeda, the lands of today’s Ukraine were called (here I ask the reader to carefully read the text of “Zadonshchina”).

However, that's not all. Those. It is not that simple. Al-Masudi reported in the 10th century: “The first of the Slavic kings is the king of Dir, he has extensive cities and many inhabited countries; Muslim merchants arrive in the capital of his state with all sorts of goods. Next to this king of the Slavic kings lives King Avanja, who has cities and a vast region, a lot of troops and military supplies; he is at war with Rum, Ifranj, Nukabard and with other peoples, but these wars are not decisive. Then the king of Turka borders on this Slavic king.This tribe is the most beautiful of the Slavs in appearance,the greatest of them in number and the bravest of them in strength (emphasis added. -K.P.)". Here, of course, it is not entirely clear whether we are talking about the king of Turka or, after all, about the “Turk” tribe, however, Al-Masudi’s message gives food for thought. Arab authors called the Slavs "sakaliba", which term is borrowed from the Greek skHyaRo^ "Slav". However, from the middleXIXV. and later, a number of the most authoritative Orientalists substantiated the point of view according to which underSakalibaEastern authors meant, in some cases, alllight-skinnedpeople from northern regions in relation to Islamic countries, including non-Slavs. However, before you write toSakalibaAlso, the Turks should clearly understand that this term refers to people of a certain appearance, as reported by the same Muslim authors. Abu-Mansur (d. 980?) reported: “The Slavs (i.e. Sakaliba - K.P.) are a red tribe with light brown hair,” and the same Al-Masudi wrote: “We have already explained the reason formation of the color of the Slavs (sakaliba - K.P.), their blush and their red (or blond) hair.” You can read more about sakaliba in the book by D.E. Mishina “Sakaliba (Slavs) in the Islamic world in early Middle Ages» M., 2002 It contains comprehensive information on this topic.

Thus, it should be concluded that throughout the Middle Ages, at least until the 14th century inclusive, tribes of the Caucasian race, moreover, the northern section of the Caucasian race, speaking Indo-European languages, but using Turkic in as a means of international communication.

Where does the ethnonym “Mogul” (Mugul), also known as “Mongol”, come from?

There are two main versions. The first version belongs to Rashid ad-din, i.e. refers to the official historiography approved by the Mughal rulers themselves. The vizier of Ghazan Khan states: “The word Mongol first sounded [lit. was] Mungol, that is, “powerless” and “simple-hearted.”

Speaking in today's Russian, the term "Mongol" (Mogol) can be interpreted as "simp", "fool", "schmuck", "burdock". In general, the Russian language is rich in this sense, as well as in any other.

In this regard, the words attributed to Genghis Khan by the Mongolian historian Sanan-Sechen, allegedly said at the kurultai of 1206, are somewhat incomprehensible: “I want this, like a noble rock crystal, bidet people, who in any danger showed me the deepest loyalty, even before achieving the goal of my aspirations, he bore the name “Keke-Mongol” and was the very first of all living on earth!” In connection with the interpretation of Rashid ad-din, the term “keke-Mongol” looks extremely curious.

The second version comes from the testimony of Chinese authors who stated: “The state of the Black Tatars (i.e., northern Shanyu) is called Great Mongolia. In the desert there is Mount Mengushan, and in the Tatar language silver is called mengu. The Jurchens called their state the “Great Golden Dynasty,” and therefore the Tatars call their state the “Great Silver Dynasty.”

The explanation of Peng Da-ya, one of the authors, of the quoted notes is quite logical. In addition to the fact that the Jurchens called their dynasty Jin (Golden), the Khitans (Chines) are also known as the Liao (Steel) dynasty. Thus, the dynastic names of the states of Northern China contain the entire spectrum useful metals. The text commentator puts the matter somewhat differently, since in Mongolian “silver” is« mungyu» or« mungyun» and "Menggu", which is mentioned by Peng Da-ya as the name of a mountain meaning "silver", is a well-known Chinese transcription of the word« Mongyol». Terms« mungyu» or« mungyun» And« Mongyol», according to the commentator, they were unlikely to be mixed in the Mongolian language, but Peng Da-ya has a Chinese transcription of the word« Mongyol» — "Mengu" was most likely associated with Mongolian« mungyu» or« mungyun» by external phonetic similarity. The picture here, by the translator of the text, is somewhat confused, although one opinion does not reject the other, since Peng Da-ya obviously had to ask the local Mughals about the meaning of the word “Mengu”. Is it just the Mughals?

The fact is that both Peng Da-ya and Xu Ting went to the Tatars, or rather toYes Yes, which both the official Rashid ad-din and the unofficial “Secret Legend” unanimously report as victims of a total massacre committed by the Mughals (see above for the list of “self-proclaimed” Mughals).

It is known about the trips of Peng Da-ya and Hsu Ting that they were part of missions led by Tsou Shen-chih. Peng Da-ya was part of the first mission of Tsou Shen-chih, which, as reported in the Song Shi, left Southern China between January 12 and February 10, 1233, and made its journey through Northern China in 1233. This The mission was sent to the Mongol court by the commander of the border troops of the Jianghuai region (the Yangtze-Huaihe interfluve) to “express gratitude” in response to the arrival of the Mongol ambassador to South China with a proposal for joint military action against the Jurchens. The second mission of Zou Shenzhi, which included Xu Ting, was sent by the imperial court on January 17, 1235. On August 8, 1236, the mission was already in Northern China on the way back to Southern China. Thus, Peng Da-ya made his journey in 1233, Xu Ting - in 1235-1236. By that time, according to Rashid ad-din and the “Secret Legend”, Genghis Khan had long ago massacred all the Tatars in the most decisive manner.

Another source does not explain the matter at all - “Meng-da bei-lu” (“Complete description of the Mongol-Tatars”), written by the Chinese ambassador Zhao Hong based on the results of a trip made around 1220/1221, during the life of Genghis Khan. He called those he visited “men-da”, and the commentator believes that “men-da” is an abbreviation of two ethnonyms: men-gu( mongo[ l] and yes, yes( tata[ r]). This is how the strange hybrid “Mongol-Tatars” turned out, and one should believe that one half of the ethnonym cut off the other. And what’s most interesting is that all this disgrace happened twenty years before Zhao Hong’s trip, in 1202 in the year of Nokai, which began in the [month] of Jumad I 598 AH. . The Tatars were completely exterminated, there is no doubt about that.

Even more interesting is the following message contained in “Meng-da bei-lu”: “In Gu-jin ji-yao i-pian Huang Tung-fa it is said: “There was also some kind of Mongol state. [It] was located northeast of the Jurchens. During the time of Jin Liang, [it] together with the Tatars caused evil on the borders. Only in the fourth year of our [reign period] Chia-ding the Tatars appropriated their name and began to be called the Great Mongol State(emphasis mine. -K.P.)».

Thus, the matter becomes completely and completely confused. Historians have untied this Gordian knot decisively, but with a certain amount of compromise. That is, they called the Mughals “Tatar-Mongols,” they say, they are all the same Busurmans and what difference could there be between them.

So. It is likely that between the Tatars mentioned by Rashid ad-din and in the “Secret Legend” and between the Tatars- dadansChinese sources have little in common. Firstly, if translators of Chinese documents provide Russian and Chinese transcriptions of the ethnonym “Tatars”(Yes Yesor simplyYes) and its hieroglyphic spelling, then the translators of the first volume of the text of the “Collected Chronicles” do not give any transcription and do not provide the original writing in Farsi (in which the “Collected Chronicles” was written). Meanwhile, in other volumes, in particular in the second, the original names (without any transcription, however), for example, of certain names or settlements, are present all the time. Secondly, in the case of the Tatars, Rashid ad-din has the same story as with the Mughals, i.e., this name could have been appropriated by other tribes that did not belong to the Tatars. Rashid ad-din quite definitely reports: “Because of [their] (Tatars - K.P.) extreme greatness and honorable position, other Turkic clans, with [all] the differences in their ranks and names, became known under their name and all were called Tatars. And those various clans believed their greatness and dignity in the fact that they included themselves among them and became known under their name, similar to the way at present, due to the prosperity of Genghis Khan and his clan, since they are Mongols, - [various] Turkic tribes, like the Jalairs, Tatars, Oirats, Onguts, Keraits, Naimans, Tanguts and others, each of which had a specific name and a special nickname - all of them, out of self-praise, call themselves [also] Mongols, despite the fact that in ancient times they did not recognize this name.”

In fact, the “theft” (or rather plagiarism) of tribal names in the East in the Middle Ages was a very common phenomenon. For example, the following fact is widely known. Theophylact Simocatta reports the following about such “plagiarists”: “When Emperor Justinian occupied royal throne, some of the Uar and Huni tribes fled and settled in Europe. Calling themselves Avars, they gave their leader the honorary name of Kagan. We will tell you why they decided to change their name, without deviating at all from the truth. Barselt, Unnugurs, Sabirs and, besides them, other Hunnic tribes, seeing only part of the Uar and Hunni people fleeing to their places, were imbued with fear and decided that the Avars had moved to them. Therefore, they honored these fugitives with brilliant gifts, hoping thereby to ensure their safety. When the Uar and Huni saw how favorable the circumstances were for them, they took advantage of the mistake of those who sent embassies to them and began to call themselves Avars; They say,<5|6еди скифских народов племя аваров является наиболее деятельным и способным».

And here's another example. About the appropriation of the name “Kyrgyz” by Mongolian (late Mongolian) tribes, Abul-Gazi, at one time, wrote: “There are very few real Kyrgyz left now; but this name is now appropriated to themselves by the Mongols and others who moved to their former lands.”

Any tribal name could be extended to other peoples not only in cases of “self-capture”, but also, for example, of conquest. So Ammianus Marcellinus

IVcentury writes the following about the Alans: “Their name comes from the name of the mountains. Little by little they (Alans - K.P.) subjugated the neighboring peoples in numerous victories andspread your name to themlike the Persians did."

As for the assignment of the name “Mogul”, Rashid ad-din reports on this matter:«... as a result of their (Mughals - K.P.) power, other [tribes] in these areas also became known under their name, so that most of the Turks [now] are called Mongols.”

Thus, we may have some confusion in terms due to the assignment of other people's tribal names. In addition, there is one more nuance. The population of the Golden Horde was also called Tatars (or rather Tartars), and it was the Western Europeans who called themselves this, although the Golden Horde themselves called themselves “Mongu” or “Mongals” and V.N. wrote about this, in particular. Tatishchev. Moreover, he also wrote the following: “Until now, as I said above,except Europeans, they themselves are not called Tatars.When the Crimean, Astrakhan, etc. people are called Tatars, they, hearing this from Europeans and not knowing the meaning of the name, do not accept it as obnoxious.” The same Plano Carpini wrote a book whose one title explains a lot: “The history of the Mongols, calledusTatars."

And here, among other things, there is confusion due to the fact that historical science, trying to justify the term “Tatars” as Asian, and not at all issued by Europeans, found “Tatars” where, it seems, they did not exist at all. Please excuse me, but I undertake to assert that the terms “Dada” or even “Tata”, with all their certain consonance with “Tatars,” are unlikely to have anything to do with the Golden Horde warriors. Otherwise, using similar methods, this tribe, the “Urasuts,” which was mentioned above, can be quite safely recorded as “Uruses,” i.e., Russians. At the same time, how it ended up in Southern Siberia is none of our business. Modern science is not shy about proving that the ancestors of the Khalkhin Mongols conquered all of Eurasia. And migrating to the vicinity of the Minusinsk Basin was a much simpler matter than getting through battles from the Khalkha steppes to Hungary and Poland.

By the way. About these very “Uruses”. It seems that this name was a fairly popular name in the upper echelons of Mughal society, along with such names as Timur and others. All lovers of Mughal history know the name of Urus Khan (Russian Khan), who ruled the Blue Horde for some time. She is also sometimes called White, but most likely this is a mistake. The Blue Horde controlled the current Kazakh steppes, i.e. Desht-i Kipchak. Urus Khan captured in the mid-70sXIVcentury power in the Golden Horde and was famous for his evil and grumpy disposition.

Less known to the reader is the ruler of the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khan Urus (or Urus-Inal), who lived at the same time as Genghis Khan and quite peacefully came under his citizenship. Here I would like to convey to the reader what these same “Kyrgyz” looked like, whose name the modern Kyrgyz now use. Chinese sources, in particular, “History of the Tang Dynasty” reports: “The inhabitants were generally tall, with red hair, a ruddy face and blue eyes.”

However, other Mughal khans and military leaders with the name Urus are even less known. Thus, the famous commander Jebe Noyon had a nephew Urus, about whom Rashid ad-din reports: “He came here to serve Hulagu Khan as a bodyguard [in the Khan’s] kezik. His brothers were [also] there. When Abaga Khan was appointed to the region of Khorasan, he deigned to make Urus the emir of the four Keziks and gave him a high appointment. When Abaga Khan became sovereign and returned from Khorasan, he brought Urus back and sent [him] to guard the borders of Herat and Badghis, ordering him to command the troops of those borders, and he remained there.”

Kaidu Khan, who was at enmity with Kublai, had a son, Urus. “Urus was born from Kaidu’s eldest wife named Derenchin. After [the death of] his father, he disputes the kingdom. Tokma, the son of Tokma, the son of Ogedei-kaan, entered into an alliance and agreement with him regarding this. His sister Khutulun is inclined to side with him, but since Duva is inclined to side with Chapar, she tried and put him on the khan’s throne. Kaidu entrusted the region bordering Kaan to Urus and gave him a significant army.”

Mingkadar, son of Buval, son of Juchi Khan, son of Genghis Khan, also had a son, Urus, who did not become famous for any special deeds and died childless.

G.V. Vernadsky assumed that Urus, who was the khan of the Blue and Golden Horde, was named so because of the nationality of his mother, who could be Russian. But this is just an assumption, nothing more. If such hypotheses look quite justified in relation to the khans of the Golden Horde, then how they can be justified in relation to the Kyrgyz Urus Khan is not at all clear. At least within the framework of the historical picture that is painted in school textbooks, the answer cannot be found. In addition, the mother of Urus, the son of Kaidu Khan, was called Derenchin and I will not argue that her name has a clearly Slavic sound. Maybe everything is possible, but nothing more.

But this is all one side of the issue. The other side is that among the Mughal khan names there were a lot of names that sounded the same as tribal names. Examples:

“In the last war of Tayan Khan, the ruler of the Naiman tribe, with Genghis Khan, Toktay-beki was with him; he fought hard. When Tayan Khan was killed, Toktay-beki and one of his sons fled to Buyuruk Khan “Naiman”. Genghis Khan again sent an army to Toktay-beki, and he was killed in the battle. His brother Kudu and his sons: Jilaun,Majarand Tuskan wanted to take his body away and bury it."

Madjar is a Hungarian or, rather, a Ugrian (Magyar).

Sheiban, the son of Jochi Khan, had a son, Majar. Shingkur, the son of Jochi Khan, had a son Majar, etc. In addition, such names as Kipchak or, for example, Hindu also appear in the genealogical thickets of the Borjigin family.

Here we can assume that the Mughal khans named their sons in honor of the conquered peoples. But Kaidu Khan did not conquer any Rus, which is also true of the father of the Kyrgyz Urus-Inal. In addition, Russia, generally inXIIIcentury, the land of Kiev was called, and Uruses, accordingly, were the inhabitants of this land and their total number (about 200 thousand) inXIIIcentury, even by those standards, was not at all outstanding.

However, that's not all.

In a document of the first half of the 18th century - “Report of the administration of Verkholensk about the nationalities living in the district”, the following is reported: “The Brattsky (Buryat - K.P.) foreigners and Tungus have this title, they call themselves by this title. They call the person by the same name mentioned above from outsiders. They call the Russian peoples Russian people, after their brotherly namemangut,and in Tunguskabeam.And they do not know what date the year begins. There is never any legend between them about their antiquity. They have lived in this place since their generation, how they were conceived and where their grandfathers came from, they do not know, since their settlement was before the Verkholenskoye prison. And before this, before the settlement of the Russian people, they had power over themselves, but since the Russian people bent the tsar’s arm into tribute, then they have no power. There were no wars or battles in their memory.”

So here it is. The Manguts are one of the Mughal Nirun tribes and above in the text they were mentioned in the list of tribes belonging to these same Niruns, that is, to those whose origins are traced back to the legendary Alan-goa. Rashid ad-din writes the following about the origin of the Manguts: “The name of the eldest of the nine sons of Tumbine Khan was Jaxu. From his sons come three branches: one is called the Nuyakin tribe, the other the Urut tribe, and the third the Mangut tribe.”

Tumbine Khan was the son of Baysonkur, the fifth ancestor of Genghis Khan and Budu (fourth ancestor) of Genghis Khan. From Tumbine Khan descended Kabul Khan elinchik (third ancestor) of Genghis Khan.

However, if we return to our Buryats and take the word of the report of the Verkholensk administration about the absence of any historical memory among the Buryats, then we can only guess what the connection between the Manguts might beXIIIcentury and RussianXVIIIcentury. The only version that comes to mind is that the Buryats called the Russians “Manguts” based on their appearance. Thus, based on this version, it is worth assuming that the mangutsXIIIcenturies had a Caucasian appearance. There is nothing surprising here if we accept as true the Caucasian identity of the Mughals, and especially the Niruns.

It is impossible not to ignore another interesting problem in Mughal history. The general public knows that Chinggis allegedly had the titlekhan,which term certainly refers to Turkic social vocabulary, but in reality he was not a khan. In the same “Secret Legend” Chinggis is mentioned askagan(khagan). His heir, Ogedei, was called by the title "Kaan".KaanThiskaganand it is usually believed that this term has the meaning of “khan of all khans” on the principle of “shahinshah - Shah of all shahs.” Wordkagan, as well askhan, belongs to the Turkic vocabulary by modern science, and here there are certain objections.

Four kaganates are widely known in history - the Turkic, Khazar, Avar and the so-called Russian kaganate. The following can be said about the most famous, Turkic. The ruling clan in this state, which controlled the transit of goods along the Great Silk Road, was the Ashina clan, whose Turkic origin can be questioned. First. The word “Ashina” itself should most likely be derived not from some Turkic dialect, but from Indo-European languages. According to S.G. Klyashtorny, one should look for the original form of the name Ashin not in the Turkic languages, but in the Iranian and Tocharian dialects of East Turkestan. “As one of the hypothetical prototypes of the name, we can highlight the Sakiasana- “worthy, noble.” In this meaning, the name “Ashina” was used later along with the personal names of the rulers of the First Kaganate, for example, “Western Zhuki-Prince Ashina Nishu was the son of the Sunishis.” Second. The Ashina clan burned their dead and burned them at least until the year 634, about which there is a corresponding entry in the sources: “In the eighth year of 634, 634, Khyeli died. Upon death he was granted the princely dignity and nameJuan.The nobles were ordered to bury him. The corpse of the Hyelies, according to nomadic custom, was burned. His grave is located on the eastern side of the Ba River.” In connection with this circumstance, it is usually assumed that at some stage the Turks were inherent in the ritual of cremation. However, the justification for such an assumption is very shaky and far-fetched. In addition, the Turkic Khagans, although they were related to the Han emperors, had a considerable number of Caucasoid racial characteristics in their appearance. Example:“Shehu Khan Chuloheu.Chuloheu had a long chin, a stooped back, sparse eyebrows, and light eyes; was brave and gifted with understanding.” The long chin and light eyes of the khan do not indicate that he belongs to the Mongoloid race. Above I provided information about the connection between hair pigmentation and a certain eye color. The term tukyu (tugyu, tukue, tutjue) itself was “deciphered” by P. Pello quite arbitrarily. There are quite a lot of “decodings” of this kind that can be given. It is simply absurd to make any generalizations on them. Here, as a conclusion, I would like to definitely say that the Ashina clan cannot be unconditionally classified as Turks and this circumstance should be taken into account. In my opinion, we should accept the version of its Indo-European origin.

Another Khaganate, the Khazar Khaganate, has a very negative assessment in the Russian public consciousness. Firstly, the Khazars, again also unconditionally, are considered Turks, and secondly, a particularly negative attitude towards this medieval state is due to the widespread presence of Jews in its political life. Accordingly, historians, when covering the events of Khazar history, often take two extreme positions. Some of them consider the Kaganate to be almost heaven on earth precisely because of the presence of Jews in it, others label it a “chimera” and vilify it in every possible way. However, we are not interested in the Jews, but in the Khazars. Another famous researcher of the Khazar Kaganate A.P. Novoseltsev, in his book “The Khazar State,” which can easily be found on the Internet, noted that the attribution of the Khazars to the Turks did not occur immediately in medieval sources, and A.P. Novoseltsev notes this temporary evolution of the opinions of Eastern authors. So here it is. The earliest known author who covered Khazar history, al-Istakhri, writes that the Khazar language differs from the languages ​​of the Turks and Persians and is generally not similar to any of the known languages. These words are repeated much later (in the 11th century) by al-Bekri, who reports: “The language of the Khazardifferent from the languages ​​of the Turks and Persians(emphasis mine. -K.P.). This is a language that does not agree with any language in the world." But later Arab authors,usually,The Khazars are considered Turks, and Ibn Khaldun, for example, even identifies them with the Turkmens. Al-Muqaddasi noted the similarity of the Khazars with the Slavs (or with the Sakaliba, as you like), and the anonymous author of the “Collection of Stories” (Mujmal at-Tawarikh, 1126): noted that “Rus and the Khazars were from the same mother and father” . The army of the Khazar Kagan consisted of Slavs and Rus, and Al-Masudi reports on this matter: “The Rus and Slavs, about whom we said that they are pagans, make up the king’s army and his servants.”

Here the question arises, what kind of Rus were they in the army of the Khazar Kagan, whose presence in the Kaganate was very significant? The Normanists, with a zeal worthy of better use, prove that these were Swedes who, probably out of old habit, worked as rowers on the Volga crossing. At the same time, it is completely unclear who, in this case, at least withIXcenturies, called "Svei" and "Sveon"? However, all this “Normanism” is a political-ideological construct and has nothing to do with science. Meanwhile, the presence of the Rus in the Khazar Kaganate should be especially noted, since it was located in the vicinity of the Russian Kaganate, the existence of which is to a certain extent hypothetical and is associated with reports from various medieval authors about the presence of a ruler with the title “Kagan” among the Rus.

The fact is that in the “Annals of Bertin”, in a message from 839 about the Russian embassy to Louis the Pious, it is said: “He (Byzantine Emperor Theophilus - K.P.) also sent with themthose who called themselves, that is, their people, Ros, of whom their king was nicknamed Kagan(emphasis mine. -K.P.), sent earlier in order for them to declare friendship for him, asking through the mentioned letter, since they could [it] receive the favor of the emperor, the opportunity to return, as well as help through all his power. He did not want them to return along those [routes] and fall into great danger, because the paths along which they went to him in Constantinople, they took among the barbarians of very cruel and terrible peoples.”

Eastern authors also write about the kagan (khakan) of the Rus, for example, Ibn Rust: “As for ar-Rusiya, it is located on an island surrounded by a lake. The island on which they (Russians) live, a three-day journey, is covered with forests and swamps, unhealthy and so damp that as soon as a person steps foot on the ground, the latter shakes due to the abundance of moisture in it. They have a king calledKhakan Rusov(emphasis mine. -K.P.)".The Slavic (sakaliba) authorities were called by eastern authors “knaz” (prince), there is information about this from ibn-Khordadbeh: “...the ruler of al-Sakaliba is a prince.” Thus, if there was a Russian Kagan, therefore there was a Russian Kaganate. This logical conclusion led historians to the need to search for this state. There is some information that could shed light on its localization.

Thus, Al-Istarkhi reports: “. and these Rus trade with the Khazars, Rum (Byzantium) and the Bulgar the Great, and they border on the northern borders of Rum, there are so many of them and they are so strong that they imposed tribute on the regions of Rum bordering them...”

The Nikon Chronicle reports on the events of 860: “give birth, called Rus,

even the Cumans [Polovtsians], living near the Exinopont [Black Sea] and beginning to capture the Roman country [Byzantium] and wanting to go to Constantingrad...”

A note in the “Life” of George of Amastrid (8th century) reads: “Everything lying on the shores of the Black Sea. the Russian fleet was ravaged and devastated in raids (the people grew -Scythian(emphasis mine. -K.P),living near the Northern Taurus (Tavrida - Crimean Peninsula -K.P),rough and wild."

In short, some famous modern historians, for example, V.V. Sedov and E.S. Galkin confidently localize the Russian Kaganate in the lower reaches of the Don (this should be remembered and especially noted) and identify it with the Saltovo-Mayatsk culture. E. S. Galkina connects the Saltov Rus (at least the ruling layer of the Kaganate) with the Alans and claims their migration after the collapse or extinction of this state. The most interesting thing is that the Alans (sometimes calledasami, asiya)are identified by many historians (for example, G.V. Vernadsky) also withwusunsChinese chronicles, but the last mention of the Wusuns in them seems to date back to the 5th century, according to TSB. And here it should be noted, regarding the Wusun language, that “Puliblank provided some evidence in favor of the assumption that the real (eastern) Tocharians (Arsi and Kuchan - K.P.) moved to Central Asia along with the Yuezhi (Yatiya) at the beginning of this period from the northern periphery of China and have already adopted Iranian speech here,and before the resettlement, both peoples, together with the Usuns (Asians), spoke the same language of Indo-European speech as the Arsi and Kuchan" 8It’s not difficult to guess what kind of speech this is. This is an Indo-European language similar in vocabulary to the Slavic-Balto-Germanic languages, with phonetics characteristic of the Slavs (not characteristic of the Germans), i.e. with an opposition of hard and soft (palatalized consonants), similar to the Russian language. As the famous linguist R. Jacobson notes: “. of the Slavic languages, palatalizing languages ​​include Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian, most of the Polish dialects and Eastern Bulgarian dialects;Of the Germanic and Romance languages, none takes part in this opposition,with the exception of the Romanian dialects, on the one hand, and the Yiddish language in Belarus, on the other.” And, speaking about the connection between the Tochars and the Wusuns

(Asians), it should be noted that Pompey Trog spoke about the Ases (Asians) kings of the Tocharians.

In fact, the Alans, linguistically, usually belong to the Iranians, however, there is reason to consider the Alans as a Tocharian-speaking community. This is the first. The second is that there is reason to suspect the termAlansnot an ethnonym, but a sociononym or polytonym. However, more on all this later.

And finally, among all the Khaganates, the Avar Khaganate, led at one time by the legendary Khagan Bayan, should also be mentioned. On this occasion, it is appropriate to recall the letter (871) of Louis II, written by him in response to a message from the Roman Emperor BasilI. LouisII, arguing about the titles of foreign rulers, he states that the Franks (unlike the Byzantines) call only the Avar sovereign khagan, and not the Khazars or Normans. By Normans here we again mean the Russians, about whom Liutprand of Cremona wrote: “The city of Constantinople, which was previously called Byzantium, and is now called New Rome, is located among the most savage peoples. After all, in the north its neighbors are the Hungarians, Pechenegs, Khazars, Russians, whom we call by a different name, i.e. Normans. In the northern regions there is a certain people whom the Greeks call Rusios based on their appearance, but we call them “Normans” based on their place of residence. After all, in the Teutonic language “nord” means “north”, and “man” means “man”; hence - “Normans”, that is, “northern people”. The king of this people was [then] Igor; Having collected more than a thousand ships, he came to Constantinople.” We are not talking about the Scandinavians here, since in Northern Italy “Normans” were called everyone living north of the Danube (which is actually confirmed by the example of Liutprand of Cremona), and in Southern Italy the Lombards themselves were identified with the Northern Veneti.

By the way, Russian princes continued to be called “Kagans” for quite a long time. Thus, Metropolitan Hilarion in his treatises “The Word on Law and Grace” and “Confession of Faith” calls Vladimir (“the great hagan of our land”) and his son Yaroslav the Wise (“the blessed kagan Yaroslav”) kagan. A short inscription on the wall of the Cathedral of St. Sophia of Kyiv reads: “Save, Lord, our kagan.” It is believed here that we are talking about the son of Yaroslav the Wise - Svyatoslav Yaroslavich, who reigned in Kyiv in 1073-1076. And, finally, the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” (endXIIc.) calls Tmutorokan prince Oleg Svyatoslavich kagan.

However, we digress.

In the Avar Kaganate, the Turkic language was, as it should be assumed, widely used. As evidenced by the administrative and social vocabulary of the Avars. The head of state wasKagan.His first wife's name waskatun(khatun). Viceroyskaganweretudun,Andyugur.Tribute in the country was collected by the so-calledtarkhanyIn anthropological terms, the bulk of the Avars were Caucasians, and among the Avars there was a large proportion of Caucasians of the Nordic type, i.e., light-headed dolichocephalians. Istvan Erdely considers the Avar a racially and ethnically mixed community. And he calls Iranians from the Volga region one of the components of this community. The Hungarian anthropologist Tibor Toth, examining the burials of Avars from various places in Hungary, came to the following conclusion: “Without denying the presence of a Mongoloid element in the population of the Avar Kaganate, it should be noted that these local groups are very small in number and are lost in the general mass of the Caucasoid population of the Avar Kaganate.” And further:«... There is no doubt that in most cases we are talking about the spread of things and traditions from the region of the Altai-Sayan Highlands or Central Asia, not accompanied by a massive resettlement of Mongoloid ethnic groups to the Carpathians.”

There are quite heated debates among the scientific community regarding who was the leading layer of the Avars, some speak for the Mongoloid group, others for certaineastern Iranians,but in general, it should be recognized that most issues of Avar history are highly controversial.

The Avars in Russian history are known under the name “Obrov” and also due to the fact that they “tortured” the Duleb tribe and especially abused the Duleb women, harnessing them to carts. It is difficult to say now whether the harnessing of Duleb women to carts was a form of a system or was just one of a number of outrageous cases of Avar tyranny. Meanwhile, the fact remains that the participation of the Slavs (Sakaliba, Sklavens) in the life of the Kaganate was so great that they were either often confused with the Avars or mistaken for Avars, or Avars and Sklavens are one and the same people. The latter is clear from the testimony of the Roman emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who wrote: “... and the Slavs (in the originalSklavens- K.P.) on the other side of the river, also called Avars...", "... Slavic unarmed tribes, which are also called Avars" or "therefore the Slavs, they are also Avars." The identification of the Slavs with the Avars is also found in John of Ephesus, in the Monemvasian Chronicle and other early medieval sources.

What will be the conclusion? Without denying, in general, the probability of the origin of the wordkaganfrom the Turkic language, I would only like to say that one cannot deny the possibility of its origin from some Indo-European dialect. Western historians still see in the history of Asia only the Turks, only the Turks and no one other than the Turks, writing down everyone possible into this environment. In this they are completely similar to the Arab authors of the Middle Ages, for whom everyone, even the Slavs, were Turks. Kipchak steppe, name in Arabic and Persian sourcesXI- XVcenturies steppes and deserts stretching from the lower reaches of the Syr Darya and Lake Balkhash to the mouth of the Danube. This term was first encountered by the Persian author Nasir Khosrow in the 11th century, when the Kipchaks, coming from the banks of the Irtysh, became neighbors of Khorezm in 1030. Desht-i Kipchak was usually divided into Western and Eastern Kipchak. The territory of the Western Kipchak is known in Russian chronicles under the name Polovtsian land. In the 16th-18th centuries, only the eastern part (the territory of modern Kazakhstan) was called “Dasht-i Kipchak”. (TSB) see Materials for the history of the Verkholsky region in the 18th century // Proceedings of the Buryat Complex Scientific Research Institute. Research and materials on the history of Buryatia. Vol. 2. 1963; vostlit. info

Turkestan,name in the 19th - early 20th centuries. territories in Central and Central Asia inhabited by Turkic-speaking peoples. East Turkestan is the province of Western China, West Turkestan is the Central Asian territory of Russia, the northern part of Afghanistan. see Toth T., Firshtein B.V. Anthropological data on the issue of the great migration of peoples. Avars and Sarmatians. L., 1970