21. Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe, Gumilev
XX. Yassa and the fight against it, 126. THE YEAR OF COMPLETION, YASSA is the new law of an old society.
After the raid on the Merkits, no noticeable events occurred for a year and a half, because the energy of the regularities swelled. I ask you to forgive the use of this by no means scientific term, but it most adequately reflects the direction of the process, which finally needs to be described.
[More great background on the development of the Mongol ethnic cohesion.]
In the spring of 1182, Andes Temujin and Jamukha for some reason quarreled and parted.[1] The meaning of this quarrel, which turned out to be fatal for the whole of Eurasia, was unclear even to the author of The Secret History of the Mongols. He reports about this episode in a confused and inarticulate way.[2] One thing is clear: a day after the brothers quarreled, Mongolian heroes began to flock to Temujin, as if they were waiting for this moment on purpose, and Jamukha remained a noyon of his tribe, staying in friendship with the noyons of neighboring tribes [3].
The eyewitness listed by name 29 baturov (Sokr. sk. I 120), of which five brought their sons and brothers. If there were 5-6 of these relatives, then there will be 50-60 people - the number is insufficient for the organization of the state. However, it was the core of the future state, i.e. the primary consortium from which superethnoses grow. At the beginning of his activity, Muhammad had only 43 followers [4], and Ignatius Loyola had 6. At the same time, it cannot be argued that 29 heroes were passionate. Sub-passionaries also find it difficult to get along in the rigid systems of tribal communities - kurenes, but since it is risky to escape from them, they suffer humiliation for the sake of peace. When the horde [5] was created, albeit a small one, they began to join it, deliberately betraying their relatives. An example of such a mental warehouse was the elder Khorchi, who separated from Jamukha contrary to all moral norms (Sokr. sk. I 121) and predicted the tsarist power to Temujin.[6] For this, he demanded a promise not only to make him a noyon-dungeon, but also to give him thirty beauties to marry and listen to his advice. This is no passionist, but a traitor, a sycophant and a skinner, and probably he was not alone. But when an avalanche-like process begins, it inevitably draws different people into its channel.
But what about the "darkness (tumen) from the Anda ulus", i.e. Temujin? Obviously, this is a tribe associated with the Borjigins, they could be invited to march on the Merkits as a militia: after the campaign, they went home. They could fight, but they were not an army. It was the absence of troops that made the Mongols defenseless against the regular Jurchen army. Here we find a small, but disciplined squad. This was understood by the heads of some kurens who wished to join Temujin's horde. There were 6 of them, including the descendants of the khans: Altan-otchigin, the son of Hutul Khan, Huchar-beki, the son of Nekun-taiji, Daritai-otchigin, the son of Bartan-bagatur and the head of the Jurki tribe, considered one of the strongest in Mongolia: Seche-biki and Taichu.
Let us recall that Seche-biki was named above as one of the contenders for the throne. The sixth was Khanum from the Geniges clan. "After consulting among themselves, Altan, Khuchar, Seche-biki and others" appointed Temujin khan, promising him to allocate half of the military and hunting loot for this and observe the military regulations, according to which the death penalty was imposed for disobedience in wartime, and in peacetime - exile to the north, to Siberia. The name Genghis was chosen as the title of the khan. The ethnosocial system became more complicated.
It is noteworthy that there were no people here yet-the troops gathered for the kurultai. Genghis was perceived as the first between equals. However, the Noyons had to reckon with the fact that the khan's person was surrounded not by them, but by heroes, (long will?). Temujin clearly preferred the latter and trusted them more. What pushed the Noyons from their former independence to voluntary submission - the source does not report. Apparently, Jamukha (brother) somehow aroused their distrust and hostility, but he still has many supporters, and the details of the relationship between the Mongolian noyons are unknown to us. One thing is clear: there were aristocrats and the masses on both sides.
127. FORMATION OF THE KHANATE
The state is not an ethnic institution, but a social one. Arising under the primitive communal system, it can encompass one ethnic group as a whole, or several neighboring ethnic groups, or only a part of its own ethnic group, since the two reference systems - social and ethnic - do not coincide.[7] The "aristocrats" and "democrats"-bagaturs, who were united only by the desire to change the old, rotten tribal system to a fairer one, offered Temujin to become their leader with the title "hagan" (khan), meaning by this only the performance of military and administrative duties.
These people were an analogy of the Turkic Beks, the military leaders of the "black bone" (kara-seok) [8] of the medieval Kazakhs, who inherited the Genghis military system, which developed precisely at the end of the XII century and did not repeat either the Hunnic, Turkic, or Uighur, although some titles of the Turks were borrowed by the Naimans, Keraites and Mongols however, they acquired other semantic shades from them, because along with the inhabitants of the horde, steppe heroes lived in the horde - "people of long will", closest to the khan. It was thanks to them that Temujin became Genghis, and the term "khan" received a new meaning - the sovereign.
The term "Kayav" is recorded in the history of East Asia relatively late - in the III century A.D. The Huns and southern Xianbis called their ruler Shanyu, and the word "khan" was noted by Chinese geographers among the people of Toba, or Tabgach. The meaning of this title - military leader and high priest - coincides in meaning and sound with the Dakota word "waqan" and, apparently, is an echo of the American-Siberian ties that took place at the turn of the AD, before the Eskimos stopped the communication of Indians with Siberian peoples, and the penetration of Americanoids through the Bering Strait into Siberia was traced, and not the other way around.
In the 1st millennium, the title "kagan" (or khan) spread throughout the steppe zone of Eurasia. This was the name of the rulers of the Turkyuts, who were really priest-kings; the Uighurs - before they adopted Manichaeism, which limited the power of the khan; the Khazars, until the Jewish community seized the initiative and turned the khan into a puppet. The Khans were the rulers of the Avars, Bulgarians, Hungarians and even Rus: this title was borne by Vladimir the Holy, Yaroslav the Wise and, finally, his grandson - Oleg Svyatoslavich. But with such a wide distribution, semantic nuances inevitably varied. In its initial form, perhaps only the Mongols remembered the meaning of the term, although, as shown above, they did not attach much importance to the title "khan". Therefore, they elected a man of poor and insignificant status as khan, although from a noble family. It was their mistake, for which they paid with their lives.
Now we can return to the question of whose interests Genghis represented: aristocracy (according to V.V. Bartold) or democracy (according to S. A. Kozin),[9] but first we will put another preliminary question: were there any aristocrats or "democrats" in Mongolia in the XII century? By origin, all Mongols were equal, for their ancestors were a Mottled Doe and a Gray Wolf. Wealth is transitory: it is, - it is lost. Influence in the tribe depends on personal qualities, not on social affiliation.
It seems that the very formulation of the question is unlawful. It seems to mechanically transfer the collisions of Western Europe, where there really was an aristocracy from the victorious Franks and a democracy from the conquered Gallo-Romans in France and the Saxons in the kingdoms of Germany and England, transferred to the Great Steppe. (Euro-centric) Is it worth denying ethnic groups the right to original development? Is it necessary to adjust their history to the framework of those periods that are familiar to a German or a Frenchman? This is what German historians and their Russian followers tried to do on the history of Byzantium and Russia in the XIX century. The proud Greeks scornfully rejected the comparison of their high culture with the wild West, and our ancestors timidly but stubbornly declared: "We want to smell our own way."
It should be assumed that it is more expedient not to look for similarities between Mongolia and France, but to take into account their differences, especially obvious in the aspect of the geography of time, or the paleogeography of the Holocene, which includes ethno-social history as a necessary component.
Since in the Genghis Horde, which was not traditional, but arose contrary to tradition, the main role was played by volunteers, it was necessary for them to explain the purpose and meaning of the cause for which it was necessary to give "labor and strength". In other words, they needed a simple and desirable program. Temujin, who has experienced half of the hardships of his comrades... he still had to experience the second half - he perfectly understood that they wanted two things: fair remuneration for merit, without taking into account ancestral seniority, usually reduced to nepotism (patronage of relatives at the expense of heroes), and peace! Yes, the universal world [10], in which it would be possible to live not in cramped huts, but in villages, let cattle out to pasture at night and sleep peacefully in gers (yurts), without expecting a sudden attack by Jurchen or Merkit thugs, as well as their Tatar mercenaries.
The first wish was fulfilled, because it entirely depended on the khan's character, but the second gave rise to a dialectical contradiction: both sides must want peace, otherwise it is unattainable.
A lesser, but still significant obstacle to the establishment of peace on the borders was the form of diplomatic messages adopted at that time. Etiquette demanded that the khan act as the ruler of the world and dictate his will to the peoples. All the sovereigns of that time composed their notes in the same way: the German emperors, the Greek Basileuses, the Arab caliphs and the Chinese "sons of Heaven". When this manner of expression was taken literally, excesses arose, often bloody. Ambassadors were killed, and Mongols went on punitive campaigns for guest murder. And they could not help but go, because their ethnic psychology was based on the principle of mutual assistance and recognition of the legal responsibility of the collective for all the actions of its members. Khan could not act contrary to the established stereotype of behavior, even if he wanted to. But after all, he himself was a member of this collective, thought and felt the same way as his warriors, and therefore inevitably entered into wars in order to ensure an acceptable peace.
Alas, ignorance of neighbors and inattention to their peculiarities sometimes cost frivolous rulers and their ignorant subjects dearly, who believed that their task was only subordination to sultans, kings, tsars and princes. But this will be discussed below, but for now we note that members of different ethnic groups react to the same arousal in a variety of ways. If the Mongols of the XIII century, they did not think that betrayal could go unpunished, and for the sake of justice they destroyed the population of the cities where their ambassadors were killed, then the Central Asian Muslims considered the murder of the ambassador a trifle, which was not worth worrying about, and the "Franks" - Europeans who went on crusades - did not consider it necessary to feed their soldiers, because of which the latter starved, being forced to buy food from the Venetians at increased prices, while their dukes gave luxurious feasts and balls.
And the southern Chinese - officials and landowners - pressed their subordinates so hard that they forced them to flee into the jungle and form gangs, of which they themselves became the victims. The reader will find proof of the latter in the popular novel "River Backwaters" (XII century). I will only say that to eliminate these gangs, a military operation was required, which was led by the best of the Chinese commanders, Yo Fei, who was later executed not for failures, but for victories that caused the envy of court intriguers. Such was the world before the beginning of Mongolia.
128. PROGRAMS
What was Temujin's position after he was elected Khan with the resounding title "Genghis", can only be judged by his dying statements given in the official history and omitted in the "Secret" tales. Genghis, according to Rashid al-Din, expressed himself as follows: "Among the steppe peoples, whom I subordinated to my power, theft, robbery and adultery were an ordinary phenomenon. The son did not obey his father, the husband did not trust his wife, the wife did not consider the will of her husband, the younger did not recognize the elder, the rich did not help the poor, the lower did not show respect to the higher, and the most unbridled arbitrariness and boundless self-will prevailed everywhere. I put an end to all this and introduced law and order."[11]
This is a very important characteristic of the turning point, which, according to our frame of reference, means the beginning of a new round of ethnogenesis. The inertia of the Hunnic push has dried up, the new one can be called Mongol-Manchurian or, as is customary among French orientalists, Tatar, although the Turkic ethnic groups were drawn into it due to the transfer of the gene pool. However, let us recall that the ethnonym "Tatars" referred to the Mongolian-speaking people who lived on the shores of Kerulen. He first became the nickname of all the nomads who were part of the Genghisid Empire, and only in the XV century. Tartar was assigned to a group of Volga, Crimean and Tyumen Turks who remained loyal to the descendants of Genghis. Therefore, the extended use of the term "Tatars" for the XIII-XIV centuries is legitimate.[12]
The very fact of the wide spread of ancient "Tatars" from Khingan to Altai shows that the most urgent political problem - protection from aggressive neighbors - was solved differently by different groups of nomads. The most cultured and powerful - the Keraites and Naimans - had Khans and religious systems: the Keraites had Nestorianism, the Naimans had Buddhism, to a lesser extent Nestorianism. So what? Neither of them managed to lead the nomadic world for defense against the Kin Empire, the Khorezm Sultanate and the Tangut Kingdom, because within these khanates there was a struggle of court cliques that paralyzed their forces.
Most of the Mongols: Taijiuts, Saljiuts, Khatagins, Durbens and Ikiras (a branch of the Khonkirats), as well as their allies - Otuz Tatars, Oirats and Merkits - sought to create a tribal confederation where the power of the khan would be nominal, and the actual power would belong to the heads of the tribes. To call this program "aristocratic" would be wrong, because without the support of the "black" people, the tribal leaders would be powerless, which in fact they were not. The disadvantage of this political program was the legalization of the right to arbitrariness, unpunished robberies of neighbors, cattle rustling and murder. Therefore, this program, which was carried out consistently, failed.
But some part of the Mongols sacrificed their freedom for the sake of a safe life and guaranteed rights. These elected Temujin Khan and voluntarily adopted the burdensome law - Yasu. (or Yassa) Curiously, most of them were "people of long will".
It is interesting and very important that Temujin, who was elected khan, felt himself as obligated to serve as all those who elected him. Although his address to Altan and Huchar, the elder relatives, dates back to 1203, it reflects the program adopted in 1182.:
"I only expressed my opinion that the lands of Onon should not remain without a head. I urged each of you to become this, the head, but you refused. I was unspeakably saddened by this... Did I seek power? I was elected khan unanimously in order to protect the lands occupied by our ancestors in the three rivers region from enemy attacks. Elected Khan, I thought I was obliged to enrich those who were loyal to me. And all that I acquired: cattle, yurts, women and children, I gave them all to you. I rounded up the animals of the steppe for you. He drove mountain animals from the mountains. And now you serve Wang Khan. But don't you know how fickle he is?!" [13]
So, what is recorded here is not unconditional submission to power based on force, but an urgent need to gain strength for self-defense, while sacrificing habitual independence and personal freedom. It is unlikely that all Mongols were so prudent that, in anticipation of future benefits, they were ready to say goodbye to the usual way of life. Therefore, we can think that both the "aristocrats" who elected Temujin Khan and the "democrats" who listened to their beks were equally unreliable. Only "people of long will" could be sincere.
But who were these last ones? Class? No! For they have not changed the mode of production and production relations. The estate? The estate was to become their descendants in the distant future. A party? Not either! After all, they had no internal structure, no organization.
These were people of a special behavioral mood, who differed from their ancestors and most of their fellow tribesmen by greater energy, enterprise, the ability to sacrifice themselves, in short, by passionate tension. All of them infected those with this spirit, who accidentally joined them. And they behaved in a similar way, seeing obedience to the khan as the highest goal of their lives. They did not obey the arbitrariness of the khan, but the law to which the khan himself obeyed. This law was called Yassa.
Of course, not all Mongolian passionaries united around Genghis. Many became his sworn enemies. They remained in their tribes, ready to defend freedom, but... next to them, in the same kureny, lived their subpassional and harmonious relatives, who connected the initiative of their defenders.
Such was the balance of power at the time of Temujin's election as Khan. It allowed a small consortium of his supporters to survive and grow into an independent subethnos in 20 years. But there was no peace in Mongolia during these crucial decades. The period of the phase of the passionate ascent began, which in ethnology is characterized as a split of the ethnic field.
129. FRIENDS AND FOES
When Togrul, the khan of the Keraites, found out that the Mongols had elected Temujin, the son of his anda and in this sense his tribesman, as khan, he showed complete pleasure. To the ambassadors who notified him of Temujin's election, he said: "The thing is that my son Temujin was put on the khanate! Should the Mongols be without a khan? Do not destroy this consent of yours... do not cut off your own gate" (Sokr. sk. I 126).
It seems that he was right. The Keraite Khanate was sandwiched between the Jurchen Empire of Kin and the Naiman Khanate, which was supported by the militant Merkits. Inside the power there was a strong opposition to the khan. Mongolian help was needed like air. And it was difficult and hopeless to negotiate with each ancestral elder: one would agree to help, and the other would refuse because of laziness, stupidity or hostility to the first. It's easier to deal with Khan, the son of a best friend and savior.
He took the news of Temujin Jamukh's election differently. He did not answer him, his anda, but Altan and Huchar: "Why did you, Altai and Khuchar, separate us from Anda by interfering in our affairs?.. And why didn't you raise my friend Temujin to the khans at the time when we were inseparable? And with what intent did you put him on the khanate now?.. Keep the word you have given stronger! Serve my anda better!" (Sokr. sk. I 127).
So that's the reason for the separation of the two leaders of the Mongolian people! Just intrigues that, on a personal level, gave consequences, at first glance trifling. But when the matter moved to the level of a subethnos, this quarrel grew into something grandiose, and when an ethnos was formed, it turned into a tragic one.[14]
Mephistopheles, persuading Faust to sign the contract in blood, said: "Blood is the juice of a very special property," This was confirmed in Mongolia in the XII century.
Jamukha's brother, Taichar, decided to drive away a herd of Genghis. Whether it was frivolity, a desire to show prowess, whether he wanted to annoy Genghis for something, but, one way or another, he set off on a ram, stole horses, was overtaken and shot, Did the herdsman want to kill him? Hardly! But the arrow pierced Taichar's spine, and he died. This was the reason for the war, although by no means the reason for it. Three tumen (30 thousand) Mongols mounted horses for the sake of revenge for the life of a horse thief. Jamukha led them to his andu (Sokr. sk. I 129).
Genghis Khan had thirteen chickens,[15] which he also brought out into the field. Jamukha overturned the Genghis formation, but they retreated to the Tseren Gorge at Onon. Jamukha did not storm the gorge, but ruthlessly dealt with the prisoners. Seventy young men from the genus Chonos [16] he turned to boil in cauldrons, and his former colleague - Chakhan-Uva - cut off his head and tied it to the tail of a horse. After these dubious exploits, he returned home.[17]
The deliberate inconsistency of Jamukha caused such discontent among his associates that two of the bravest and most warlike tribes - the Uruts and Manguts - left Jamukha and went over to Genghis. They considered Jamukha cunning and crafty, and I must say that the attitude to these qualities in Western Europe and Siberia is diametrically opposed. The Germans said, "The King thinks for us." The French seneschal gave the rogue a louis, saying: "My dear, take this and tell everyone that our duke is a good duke." And in Siberia and in the Great Steppe, deceiving a confidant was considered the worst possible act. The Mongols were ready to risk their lives for the sake of their chosen leader only on condition that he was sincere and frank with them. What was considered a politician's talent in Europe was disgusting in Siberia. Ethno-psychological structures are always different.
The appearance of Uruts and Manguts in the horde complicated the system, and thereby changed the balance of forces within it. If earlier passionate "people of long will" and sub-passionate descendants of Khabul Khan and Khutul Khan fought under the banner of Genghis, now people with harmonious psychology, close to homeostasis, have been added to them, but the induced passionarity has increased their energy level. Thanks to this, they became the true support of Temujin, and the sub-missionaries found themselves in opposition, which led to a chain of unforeseen events in which capricious women played the main role.
At the feast, arranged on the occasion of getting rid of Jamukha, the kravchik made a mistake in the line of pouring wine: he poured the young wife Sacha-biki earlier than the older ones. For this, the enraged old women beat him up. At the same time, Belgutei caught a thief who wanted to steal the obrot (bridle and rein) from the hitching post. The Jurkian Buri-Boko stood up for the thief and inflicted a wound on Belgutei, albeit a shallow one. Genghis was angry... and a fight began, where the Jurkins were beaten.
The matter ended in peace, but perhaps it would have been better to have a good quarrel than a bad peace, because "just at that time" (Sokr. sk. I 132) the news came that the Jurchen punitive detachment was pursuing the Tatars on the Ulze River [18], driving them straight into the hands of the Mongols. Temujin recalled the old enmity with the Tatars, invited the Keraite Khan Togrul to take part in the campaign and ordered the Jurkians to join him. The Keraites arrived on time, and the Jurkins waited in vain.
Temujin and Togrul defeated the Tatars before the arrival of the Jurchens, killed their leader, and sent a notification of victory to the commander of the Jurchen detachment. He was delighted and rewarded unexpected assistants with titles [19]. It cost him nothing, since they did not receive the authorities, but this award played an important role in the future.
And the Jurkians, taking advantage of the absence of Mongol warriors, attacked the elderly and children who stayed at home, robbed them naked and killed ten people. From their point of view, there was nothing shameful in this act - they just paid for the lost fight. But Temujin was a man of a new type, with a different stereotype of behavior. He led his disciplined army against the Jurkians and defeated their nomads. Seche-biki and Taichu tried to escape, but were caught and executed. At the same time, both did not understand that they deserved to be executed: after all, before Genghis, intertribal clashes were in the order of things, and they simply could not imagine a new order, Yassa.
The Jurki tribe has ceased to exist, but not as a mass of people, but as a system. The prisoners even received mercy! For example, a certain Guun-Uva provided Temujin with two of his sons for service. One of them later became a famous commander; the other prisoners were enlisted in the Mongol army, and many rose to officer ranks (Sokr. sk. I 137).
It is curious that the Mongols did not offend children from hostile tribes. But since they became orphans, they were given to women to raise. Thus, Temujin's mother Hoelun raised four foundlings: a bunch picked up in the nomadic Merkits; a Kokochu from the Besud family, who lived with the Taijiuts; a Tatar boy Shikikan-Hutukha, later a voivode and the first Tatar who learned to read and write, and a Jurkin Boroul. She became their mother (Sokr. sk. I 138). It must be assumed that other Mongolian women imitated the hansha. And when these children grew up 20 years later, they multiplied the number of Genghis supporters.
And during these years, the third crusade was being prepared in Europe, led by Friedrich Barbarossa, Richard the Lionheart and Philip Augustus. Its history is known, but here are some details of its ethno-psychological significance. Arriving in Palestine and taking possession of Akka, Richard left 2 thousand Muslim hostages, and then ordered them to be killed. Salah al-Din also had many Christian prisoners waiting to be exchanged, and now they were waiting for death. But Salah al-Din did not execute the prisoners, but led his soldiers to the place where the corpses of hostages were lying. After that, the Muslims began to fight like lions. The offensive of the English knights by 1192 choked.
The Germans also showed themselves. Barbarossa's son Henry VI captured the Kingdom of Sicily in 1194, plundering the city of Salerno on the way, where all the inhabitants were killed or taken into slavery. Palermo opened the gates to him, the regent-Queen Sibylla agreed to transfer power to him with the fact that her son would be left hereditary possessions. Henry agreed to everything, and then began the massacre of defenseless subjects. He blinded, impaled, hung, burned, buried alive in the ground. Sybil and her three daughters were taken to Alsace and kept in a dungeon there. The child king was blinded, castrated and died in the dungeon of Goenems Castle, and the bodies of his supporters were dug up and put to shame.
The French king Philip Augustus betrothed the Danish Princess Ingeborg, and when she arrived in Paris, he took her dowry, and drove her away "under the pretext of irresistible disgust." This angered the pope and Parisians, but the king, even excommunicated from the church, was adamant.
In Constantinople, Andronikos Komnenos carried out executions unthinkable in their cruelty. The condemned Isaac Angel managed to escape from the hands of the executioner and outraged the people. Caught Andronikos was hanged by the legs and slowly tortured. That's what the chivalric civilization was like in the XII century!
___________
But not all Jurkians were shown such mercy. The hero of the Storm-Boko, a strong man and a fighter, who wounded Belgutei during a drunken quarrel at a feast, was also among the prisoners, but enjoyed freedom along with others. Genghis at the festival told him to fight with Belgutei, as wrestling competitions were a constant entertainment of the Mongols. Buri-Boko decided to succumb to Belgutei in order not to anger the khan. He pretended to be defeated and lay down on the ground, and Belgutei saddled him and, at a sign from the khan, broke his spine.
An unseemly act was committed in front of everyone. The author of the "Secret History" does not report the reaction of public opinion, but... then there is a chronological skip of 15 years.
Only one Chinese source, Meng-da Bei-lu, reports where Genghis ended up. He spent 11 years in Jurchen captivity. And how did he get there? One can only guess.
Temujin could only be in captivity by being loyal. Apparently, Seche-biki and Taichu had loyal friends who avenged their execution. Of course, when Genghis enjoyed full respect and sympathy in the horde, it was difficult to capture him. But the treacherous murder of the ulus fighter dropped the khan's authority. Then the conspirators carried out their plan, believing that Temujin, like his ancestors, would be nailed to a wooden donkey. But Temujin had an important rank for helping against the Tatars, and maybe that's why he was detained, but not executed. This is speculation, but the version does not contradict the known facts. It remains unclear only in what year it happened and how close the events described here are.
130. CHRONOLOGY
When describing the course of these events, the greatest difficulty is the lack of chronology. The author of the "Secret History" notes only the sequence of events, and apparently he himself has an extremely approximate idea about the intervals between them. He writes vaguely: "Shortly after that" (Sokr. sk. I 128), "then" (Sokr. sk. I. 129), "just at this time" (Sokr. sk. I 132), and then there is a pass until 1201. Something is wrong here. But after all, the essay was written in 1240. The author could have forgotten a lot or simply not know.
Let's try to apply a "live chronology" according to the age of Temujin's children. The firstborn, Jochi, was born immediately after Borte's release from Merkit captivity, i.e. in 1182. The third son, Ogedei, died in 1241 at the age of 56. This means that he was born in 1185, his elder brother, Jagatai, was born between 1183-1184, and the last son, Tului, was born in 1193, as there is an exact indication of a Chinese source.[20]
But another indication by the Chinese author Zhao Hong says that Temujin stayed in Jurchen captivity for "more than ten years" until he escaped.[21] It is unknown when he was captured, but in 1198 Temujin again stands at the head of his horde and rescues the unfortunate Togrul, who was expelled from the Keraite lands by the Naimans in 1197[22]. So, he was captured in 1186, and Tului - the only brunette among the Borjigins - was born in the absence of his father, who, however, recognized him as a son. The proposed version is consistent and explains the lacuna in the presentation of events by sources. Writing about the ten-year slavery of the ruler of the world, apparently, was inconvenient.
During the absence of Genghis, his horde went through a difficult period. Khasar was a fine shooter, an athlete and a brave man, but he did not have the talents of a ruler. Moreover, he turned out to be an opponent of Temujin and a supporter of Togrul, to whom he subjugated the horde. Altan and Khuchar supported him in this. The people, seeing the incompetence of the ruler, apparently began to run away, because when Temujin returned from captivity, he had only 2,600 soldiers instead of 13 thousand. Everything had to start over.
However, ethnic growth was going on. This also affected the chronology. The seasonal account of time - according to the greening of the grass - was changed from 1201 to a 12-year animal cycle, i.e. every year it bore the name of the beast. This countdown was borrowed from the Chinese,[23] who improved it by introducing five names of the elements: fire (red), earth (yellow), water (black), metal (white) and grass (blue-green), and adding to them the male and female genders, received a 120-year cycle, quite sufficient for household needs and for records in the annals: after all, a mistake for 120 years is almost impossible.
The Mongols, since their history was short, had enough of a 12-year cycle, and later they improved it by doubling: yellow and yellowish, blue and bluish, etc.[24] But this frame of reference is not used in our sources.
The cyclic calendar is convenient for use in everyday life. After all, we have not abandoned the seven-day cycle on the planets borrowed from the Sumerians - weeks [25].
The theme of the calendar has another meaning for us - it belongs to that facet of cultural genesis, which is closely connected with ethnogenesis. The Turks and Uighurs, the former masters of the Great Steppe, are not the ancestors of the Mongols. There is a gap between these two turns of ethnogenesis, an abyss that is not filled with living ethnic memory. The religions of the Turks and Mongols were different. The similarity of management techniques is explained by the same adaptation to the same natural conditions. The direction of social development does not coincide precisely in those details that are important and noticeable to the masses. The energy of ethnic development among the descendants of the Huns and Tabgachs dried up by the tenth century, and the Mongolian one flared up in the twelfth century. In short, the Hunno-Turkyuts and Mongols are two different superethnoses, like the Romans and Germanic-Roman Europe or the Hellenic Romans of the beginning of the new era and the Byzantines, who called themselves the Romans.
It is known that natural phenomena are inevitably changeable, and the fruits of human hands and minds, i.e. culture, are devoid of self-development.[26] They can either be borrowed or destroyed. The material culture of unstable materials did not exist for long, although it left relics: fragments of dishes, inscriptions on stones, burials, and inventions such as the calendar were borrowed when the need arose. The Mongols had it when the khan and the people began to "create a state" together. This happened in 1201, and, apparently, work in this direction went on for two or three decades at the end of the XII century. At the same time, there was a revision of norms and morals, religion and the system of education.
131. LAW AGAINST CUSTOM
It would seem that the introduction of a new law, instead of an uncodified customary law, is a phenomenon that has nothing to do with ethnogenesis, but let's think about it: the establishment of new laws that cancel the usual norms of relationships occurs when the stereotype of behavior changes, i.e. during the rebirth of an ethnos, or, to a lesser extent, when the phases of ethnogenesis change. The second option may be associated with a change in the method of production, but the cattle grazed on the same pastures, hunting went on in the usual way, household items were made by local craftsmen from local materials. It means that the appearance of the law, later recorded, was the result of a change not of the environment, but of the people themselves, and not of everyone, but of that ethnic subsystem, the passionate tension of which has sharply increased. The mosaic horde of Genghis Khan became such a system.
The new legislation was formed for decades, on the one hand, for a long time, and on the other - instantly. For all Mongol tribes, the Genghis Ulus Yassa was published on the Great Kurultai in 1206, simultaneously with the proclamation of Temujin by Genghis Khan of the entire Great Steppe. But even after that, Yassa was supplemented and expanded. This happened in 1218, before the war with the Khorezm Sultanate, and in 1225, before the conquest of the Tangut Kingdom.[27] But elements of a new stereotype of behavior began to form, presumably, before 1206, which caused a sharp resistance of all the zealots of antiquity.
In fact, why create new laws instead of codifying the old, familiar ones? Only in order to ensure the existence of a new stereotype of behavior, unusual, but expedient. This means that every law prohibits what was previously considered permissible or excusable. Yassa was the new law.[28]
The laws of Genghis Khan punished with death for murder, fornication of a man and infidelity of his wife, theft, robbery, purchase of stolen goods, concealment of a runaway slave, sorcery directed to the harm of a neighbor, triple bankruptcy, i.e. non-repayment of debt, and non-return of weapons accidentally lost by the owner in a campaign or in battle [29]. The one who refused the traveler water or food was also punished.[30] Failure to help a combat comrade was equated to the most serious crimes.
Moreover, Yassa forbade anyone to eat in the presence of another without sharing food with him. In the common meal, no one had to eat more than the other.[31]
The punishment for serious crimes was the death penalty; for minor crimes, corporal punishment or exile to remote places (Siberia) were prescribed. Sometimes a penalty was imposed on a Mongol for horse theft and murder: more for a Muslim than for a Chinese.
One might think that the new legislation does not contain anything new: they say, how else? However, let us recall that Temujin himself was not executed for the murder of Bekter, that he also had to recognize Jochi as his son in order to protect his beloved Borte from accusations of infidelity, that the horse thief Taychar was shot according to the new law, which caused a campaign by the zealots of the old and a very bloody battle.
But the most significant innovation should be considered the law on mutual assistance, more precisely - it is mutual assistance. A layman, urban, rural or steppe, willingly recognizes the prohibitions that restrict his freedom, but cannot even imagine that he owes anyone anything, especially if he does not see any benefit in it. This is the principle of convixia.
But the members of the consortia - groups of astronauts, the crew of the ship, expeditions to deserted places, gangs of robbers, a battalion of soldiers, etc. - have a diametrically opposite stereotype of behavior. Without mutual assistance, they are doomed to death and must be sure that their comrade-in-arms will not abandon them. Genghis made of his subordinates the organization of the phase of ethnic ascent with the social imperative: "Be what you should be." To call this phase of ethnogenesis "serfdom" [32] is inaccurate, because everyone was "enslaved", including the khan. The initial phase of any ethnogenesis is clearly represented here, expressed equally clearly in the Viking campaigns, the jihad of the early Muslims, the sacrifice of the first Christians, the obedience of the Zulus to the leader - Chaka. The meaning of Yassa as a source is that its appearance marks not an incubation, but an obvious passionate rise of a new ethnic group - the Mongols.
132. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
No matter how significant the change in the norms of behavior within the newborn ethnic group was, but it was not this that was decisive, but the relationship with neighbors, i.e. the ethnic environment. Most of the Mongols categorically preferred the old, familiar forms of life. The military-democratic system did not attract them; on the contrary, it disgusted them. The Merkits, an arrow-throwing tribe, were enemies of Genghis, and the warlike Tatars, too. The Jurchens resisted any ordering of the steppe people. The Naimans themselves claimed primacy in the Steppe, and they were supported by the Oirats, a forest ethnic group in Western Mongolia.
The only ally of the Mongol horde was the Keraite Togrul, who received the title "wang" from the Emperor of the Golden Empire (Qin). The Mongols called him Wang Khan. However, Togrul was not popular in his kingdom. Many subjects hated their khan so much that they preferred to succumb to naimans. Togrul held on only thanks to the help of the Mongols - first Yesugei, then Temujin. Naturally, Togrul's opponents became Temujin's enemies. Therefore, Keraite support was unreliable.
But there was unrest inside the horde, too. Subpassionaries don't like to submit to discipline. Therefore, during Temujin's absence, the number of warriors of his horde, which was ruled by his brother Khasar, significantly decreased. Only the Nuhurs of Genghis and the Urut and Mangut tribes remained faithful. The best solution would be a peace treaty, but at that time it was difficult to negotiate, because the concept of diplomatic immunity did not exist all over the world. If the ambassador passed an unacceptable offer, he was killed. Sometimes this was followed by war, but not always, and it was considered not as a retribution for a crime, but simply as a solution to a problem that could not be agreed upon. The new social imperative of the Mongols - mutual assistance - included a guarantee given to a combat comrade who became a victim of betrayal. If he could not be saved, then the violators of the law of hospitality should be avenged for him. The opponents of the Mongols objected to this that they kill in war, and that deception, now called disinformation, is allowed, and that those who did not kill the ambassador are not to blame, and therefore do not bear responsibility for someone else's act.
To this, the Mongolian legal consciousness objected that death in war is really natural, because "one does not judge for prowess in battle." Moreover, the most valiant opponents who were captured were offered not only mercy, but also admission to the ranks of the Mongolian army with the right to service. The Mongols, like the Mithraists, divided disinformation into deception of the enemy, who should perceive the situation critically, and betrayal or deception of the one who trusted the oath, i.e., the contract or the custom of hospitality. Traitors and guest murderers were mercilessly destroyed together with relatives, because, they believed, the tendency to betrayal is a hereditary trait.
And finally, the extermination of the population of the cities where the ambassadors were killed, from the point of view of the Mongols, was also logical. The people who support their ruler should share responsibility for his actions with him. For class societies where the people are oppressed, such an opinion is open to doubt.
[I lost the notes on this chapter?]