Ancient Turks / (Part 2)
L. N. Gumilev - "MTF", - (part of the Steppe Trilogy)
Again we have the dizzying account of war after war and great movements, alliances and broken alliances. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Not really a friend but partners for survival against a stronger foe. It is really more that you can internalize without prior study. It would be great to see all of these scores and scores of tribes, ethnicities, societies and civilizations laid out on a map. Or just to locate all of these place names?
In this section there is a pretty good explanation of all the necessities of the silk trade, and how it diminished when Byzantium was able to procure its own silk worm larvae, about 570.
None of these empires could exist without continuous war. The armies always had to be ready to fend off another attack, and the booty of conquest kept their treasuries in the black. Still at the level of peasants there must have been prosperity to support the logistics needed for all of these maneuvers. One factor might be the colossal numbers of soldiers might have been a total exaggeration. Maybe wars were fought with 1,000’s instead of tens or hundreds of 1,000’s. I lot to reflect upon. As I said before, life was no picnic.
Türküt power at the end of the 6th century.
War in the East
Having defeated the Jujuns, the Turkuts moved on to decisive action against their nomadic neighbors. 554 was the year when an empire was created from the principality. The state of Qigu in the north was conquered. It is not clear what the Chinese meant by the name Tsigu, Kyrgyz or Chiku [44, p.222, 311], anyway from that time Mugan-han secured his northern border, though the Türkuts failed to force the Sayan Mountains [see: 189, p.146].21
21 The name in the Tibetan text Zama-kagan, or Zama-mogan, according to Pelliot's witty conjecture, is Mugan-khan [see: 189, p. 151]. The name Zama cannot be Ozmysh as Ozmysh-khan, the last ruler of the Blue Turks (see below), did not attack the north for two years of his reign (742-744) [cf.: 204, p. 13]. One should think that the word "Zama" should be read "Azma" - "not going astray" (negative form of the verb "az"). Such epithets are often found in the titulature of Turkic khans.
In the east at that time lived three peoples: Tatabs, whom Chinese called Hi, Kidans, and thirty Tatar tribes, who had the name Shiwei among the Chinese geographers [34]. All three peoples spoke dialects of the Mongolian language, were close in everyday life and culture, but always feuded with each other. The Tatabs lived on the western slopes of Khingan and maintained an alliance with the Bei-Qi [30, vol. II, p. 73]. The Kidan occupied the steppe part of Manchuria, north from the r. Liaohe. They constantly were at war with Tatabs, and consequently were in conflicts with the Bei-Qi.
In 553 the Bei-Qi emperor, Wen-di, defeated and subjugated a large part of the Kidan people. The rest either fled to Koguryo (Korea) [ibid., p. 75] or submitted to the Turkyuts who reached the Yellow Sea basin.
As a result of the victory over the Kidans, the Beichi state did not strengthen, but, on the contrary, worsened its foreign policy position, as Turkic possessions now engulfed it from the north. The brutal massacre of the remnants of the Xianbi and the open patronage of Buddhism, which absorbed vast resources, weakened its resistance to external enemies. And at the same time Bei Zhou grew and strengthened - both because of the alliance with the Turkuts and because its rulers relied on the service class and did not spend money on Buddhist and Taoist monks.
The emperor Wu-di issued a decree forbidding Buddhism and Taoism in 579; this Chinese Henry VIII took the name "Heavenly Beginning", ordered the statues of Buddha and Lao Tzu to be placed on the sides of his throne and, sitting down between them, took public worship [240, S. 36; 207, p. 380], thereby trying to discredit the religion.
The Zhou empire began to gain fame even in Western Asia, where various rulers sought to establish ties with it. So, in 553 there came an embassy from Ephtalites [30, vol. II, p. 269], in 555 from Iran [Ibid, p. 263]. After a new defeat of Togonians, this time by Chjous forces only, ambassadors came: in 559 by Gaochan (Turfan) [30, vol. II, p. 252-253], in 561 by Kucha [Ibid, p. 257] and in 564 by Karashar [Ibid, p. 256].
The main task of the Bei-Chou empire was to destroy the eastern Bei-Qi empire, but the latter had internal resources, if skillfully used, sufficient to preserve its independence. Everything was decided by the question of which side the Turkic khan would take.
In 561 both emperors sent ambassadors to Mugan-khan with a request to marry the princess. The gifts presented from rich Bei-chi almost settled matters, however the diplomatic dexterity of Chjou ambassadors forced Mugan-khan to remain loyal to the treaty [30, vol. I, p. 232; 234, p. 337; 240, S.20]. He decided to make up for the loss of gifts by acquiring military booty.
In 563, the allies besieged Tszinyan, but had no success, and the Turkuts, having plundered the country, returned to their native steppes. The next year the campaign was repeated, but the complete defeat of one of the Zhou armies, inflicted by the Qisians near Luoyang [77], forced Mugan-khan to withdraw. And still, in spite of this failure, he rejected the alliance with Qi offered to him again. This is explained by the fact that, according to the alliance treaty, the Zhou Empire paid the Turks 100,000 pieces of silk cloth every year.
In 572 Mugan-khan died. His brother and successor Tobo-khan made peace with the Qi Empire, without breaking with the Zhou Empire. When the latter dared to refuse to pay tribute, one military demonstration of the Turkuts was enough to restore the original situation. The Qi empire, fearing Turkic raids, depleted its treasury by paying tribute for peace. Tobo-han said: "Only if in the south the two boys [Zhou and Qi] were submissive to us, then we need not fear poverty". [30, vol. I, p. 233].
The alliance with the Qi empire led to the cultural communication of Turkuts with China. Buddhist monks appeared at the Khan's headquarters and converted Tobo-khan to their faith. The Buddhist missionary very naively proved to the Khan the superiority of Buddhism over other faiths by the wealth and power of the Qi Empire, which observed the Buddha's law.
The subsequent defeat of the Qi
In 581, after the Sui Dynasty came to power, the Buddhists had to return to China [240, S. 36-37]. In 576 the Zhou managed to defeat the Qisians and capture Pingyan. The Tsis tried to retake the city but were not successful, and the Tsis emperor, besieged in Yechen, abdicated in favor of the prince Gao Yuan-tszun, who also was captured in 577, before surrendering the city. Despite the defeat, the overthrown dynasty found a vigorous defender in the person of Gao Baoning from Taiyuan [240, S. 31-32]. Before the defeat, in 576, he was appointed commandant of the border fortress Yingzhou in modern Chahar. In a short time, Gao Baoning gained the respect not only of the Chinese, but also of the nomads. After the fall of the dynasty, this circumstance ensured his independent position. Gao Baoning was not an unprincipled political amateur; he possessed the moral qualities that promoted the rebirth of northern China: loyalty to duty, patriotism and unyielding perseverance. He rejected the victor's proposal of honorary surrender and subscribed to the authority of the last Qi, Prince Gao Shaoyi, who had fled to the Turks. For this deed, Gao Baoning was granted the title of Chancellor (of course, without the opportunity to hold office).
The Turkic khan, evidently fearing the excessive, from his point of view, strengthening of the Bei-Chou, also sided with the defeated dynasty. The alliance was joined also by the general Liu Zhangzi, who rebelled against his emperor and fortified himself in Fangyan [31, p. 17] (near Peking).
Gao Baoning immediately mobilized all the forces at his disposal and sided with Gao Shaoyi. However, he was too late. His troops had only just reached the coast of Liaohe when they received the news that Fanyang had been destroyed and that the rebellion had been crushed. Gao Shaoyi returned to the Turks, and Gao Baoning strengthened in his region.
A much more formidable enemy for the Bei-Chou turned out to be the Turku. In 578, Tobo-khan invaded China and defeated the Zhou army by a head. Negotiations begun in 579 were broken off and hostilities continued with complete success for the Turkuts. However, the Chinese ambassador was able to entice Tobo-khan with gifts and in 580 a peace was made whereupon Gao Shaoi was extradited and escorted to Chang'an, the capital of the Zhou state. He died in exile in Sichuan [30, vol. I, p. 234; 240, S. 33].
The year 580 was the apogee of Turkut power. In 581, Tobo-khan died, and in China the Zhou dynasty was overthrown by the worst enemy of Turkuts - fighting general Yang Jian, founder of the Sui dynasty, which completely changed the political situation. Gao Baoning outlived his opponents and remained in Chahar an independent prince, an ally of the Turkic khans [240, S. 44].
War in the west
While showing activity on the eastern border, Turkuts simultaneously made a campaign to the west. Unfortunately, sources do not give sufficient detail about this extremely important event, but the general course of events can still be outlined.
The western campaign was led by Istemi-Kagan, a younger brother of Bumyn. Istemi-Kagan had earlier accompanied Bumyn and commanded ten chiefs, apparently tribal [198, p. 38]; most likely, they were the leaders of the Northern Altai tribes of Ugrian origin. Their descendants, now de-jure, are Shorians, Kumandians, Lebedians, and others. It is no coincidence that the name of Istemi Khan is not Turkic, but Ugrian and is the name of an ancestor spirit [225, p. 950 sq.]. The Chinese estimated the number of his troops to be 100 thousand, but this figure reflects not the real number of soldiers, but the rank of the commander, in this case the highest, which corresponds to his title, "bagadur-jabgu"22.
His campaign Istemi began later than in 552, because the Abars were still an independent tribe that year, who sent gifts for Bumyn's funeral23, and, apparently, after the decisive defeat of Juan-Juan, which occurred in the fall of 553. The most probable date of the campaign was the spring of 554, when the Juan-Juan was finished, and the steppes were covered with grass, which was decisive for the cavalry.
Judging by the speed of movement the Turks did not meet strong resistance. In 555 their army reached the "Western Sea". By which is meant not the Caspian, but the Aral Sea, as Ferdowsi indicates the following borders of the Istemi domains: "from Chin [China] to the bank of Jeyhun [Amu Darya] and to Gulzariun [Syr Darya] across the Chach [Tashkent]" [210, VI, p. 310]. [210, VI, p. 310].
On the basis of this quotation, we can quite accurately draw the border of 555: it went north from Tashkent, then crossed the Syr Darya at the turn to the north and in the latitudinal direction went to the lower reaches of the Amu Darya and the southern shore of the Aral Sea. Sogdiana and Bukhara at that time were subordinated to the Ephtalites, whom the conquerors confronted24. Thus, in a year and a half the Turks subjugated all of central Kazakhstan, Semirech25 and Khorezm26.
But further on it was more difficult. On the northern shores of the Aral Sea Turkuts encountered resistance from the Huni (Hionites)27, Var28 and Ogors29 tribes. Only by 558 these tribes had been defeated and the Turkits marched to the Volga, chasing away those who refused to submit. These were fragments of the Var and Huni tribes, about 20,000 men [66, p.374; 5, p.24], who then merged into a single nation, the Avars30.
The Turkuts did not cross the Volga and limited themselves to subjugating the Ural steppes. That was the end of the western campaign of Istemi. What was achieved in four years set a number of new political tasks for the Kaganate.
The emergence of a single power that embraced the entire Asian steppe was a factor of great importance for the diplomacy of China, Byzantium and Iran.
22 Bagadur is a Mongolian word, entered in Turkic already in VI century. Yabgu - deputy of Hagan [see: 50, p.24].
23 Chavannes mistakenly suggested that Istemi accompanied his elder brother on his march to the west [198, p. 219], but in Chavanne’s time the ethnonym apar was not yet discovered and was read together with the second ethnonym apurim as arag-apurim or parpurums [111, p. 65; 267, S.429], and Radlov compared this ethnic group with the Tele tribe fufolo. The Turkish scholar Bahaeddin Öqel's article "Köturc yasitlarinen "Apurim lari ve "Fulin" problem" solved the question. Bellten IX. No. 33 (Journal of the Turkish Historical Society), where he proved that Apurim was none other than Rum, i.e., Byzantium. Thanks to these and other studies it became possible to specify the time of the western campaign, which in turn removes Chavannes' hypothesis about parallel existence of two branches of the Turkic people, western and eastern. Istemi went to conquer the west as djabgu (yabgu) of his nephew Mugan-khan, and the mentioning in the "Great inscription of Kül-Tegin" both brothers as ancestors of eastern Turks excludes the existence in antiquity of two branches of this people. The division occurred only in the 7th century under the circumstances which will be discussed below.
24 This fact is noted only in the "Ganmu". [See: 77].
25 The tribes of the Chu group, Dulu and Nushibi, who lived there, had the same customs as Türkuts, and differed little in their language [198, p. 47].
26 Among the subordinated to Türkürkiyut khan were mentioned Kholiats [112, p. 381], who are identified with Khvali of the Russian annals and thus with Khorezmian [161, p. 95].
27 Chionites - descendants of Sarmato-Alanian tribes, inhabitants of the "swampy settlements" discovered by S.P.Tolstov in the lower reaches of Syr Darya [see: 51, p. 134].
28 Var, or yap, are neighbors of Chionites, a tribe of Ugrian group [see: 169, p. 160].
29 The Ogors, or Ugars, were ancestors of the Hungarians; they lived in the 6th century in Bashkiria and on the steppes between the Volga and the Urals [see: 115, pp. 96-97]. Rubruk reports that the population of Bashkiria preserved its language, which was understandable for the Hungarians even in the 13th century [138, p. 122 and 211].
30 Theophylact Simokatta specifically warns the reader that these "pseudo-Avars" should by no means be confused with the "true Avars", i.e., the Abars living in Central Asia. This problem caused a long polemics [see: 7, pp. 64-65].
The political situation in the Black Sea region in the late 50s of the 6th Century was very complicated and tense, mainly due to the subtle and far-sighted policy of Byzantium. The area of the lower reaches of the Dnieper and Don was occupied by the Bulgarian people Kuturgurs. Their kin, the Uturgurs, lived in the Kuban. Byzantium, suffering from the raids of the Kuturgurs in Thrace, encouraged the Kuturgurs to take military action against them with gifts and embassies. The dexterous policy of Justinian brought both these kindred tribes almost to mutual extermination [5, p.22]. To the east of the Kuturgurs, in the Kumy region of Dagestan, there lived a tribe of Sabirs. Sabirs actively participated in the Byzantine-Persian war, first on the side of Iran, then against it. In 552 they conquered Agania, but as early as in 554 were defeated by Persians [239, t. 9, p. 328].
On the bank of Kuban River lived Alans, faithful allies of Byzantium. Through them Greeks for the first time received the news about the appearance of a new barbarian nation, the Avars.
The Avars in the Black Sea coast
The position of the Avars, fleeing from the Turku invasion, at first sight seemed hopeless: behind them stood a much stronger enemy, before them were strong, numerous and rich nations, used to war and able to win. The Avars were poor fugitives, bereft of both their herds and their homeland. How and why they not only survived but were victorious can only be answered by scrutinizing the political situation of the time.
The first task of the Avars was to break away from the enemy. They succeeded to do it only because at that time in Central Asia the Aftalits became active and distracted Istemi, who said: "Avars are not birds, that, flying in the air, to escape Turkic swords, they are not fish, to dive into the water and disappear in the depths of the sea abyss, they wander on the surface of the earth. When I will finish with the Hephthalites, I will attack the Avars, and they will not escape my forces". [112, с. 328].
Istemi started active actions against Ephthalites only in 561, when Khosrai Anushirvan made peace with Justinian and was able to turn his attention to the east. The final peace in Central Asia was made in 571, and only then were the Turkites able to turn west again, but the Avars took advantage of the respite so successfully that they became unreachable for Istemi-khan.
Having broken away from the Turkuts, the Avars began to look for allies. They asked the Alanian leader Sarosius31 to facilitate their rapprochement with Byzantium. Sarosius took on the Avars and helped their ambassador sneak into Lazika, from where he was transported to Constantinople, where he was received with distrust and disfavor. However, Justinian sent a reciprocal embassy with Valentine the swordsman at the head. Valentine brought gifts to the Avars and offered to start actions against the enemies of the empire, the main one at that time was Iran. The alliance was concluded (558). But instead of attacking the enemies of the Byzantine Empire, the Avars attacked its allies.
Their first victim was the Sabirs, who mistook the new nation "Var" for the true Asiatic Avars (Abar), who defeated them heavily in the middle of the 5th century. This misunderstanding caused panic among the Sabeans and decided the Avars' victory. Thus, proved fatal a small linguistic mistake. The Sabirs were followed by the Uturgurs, also loyal allies of the empire, as well as the Zals who lived on the left bank of the lower Don. Then the Avars, having crossed the Don, attacked the Ants and subjected this people to total depredation.
Just as the Avars were supported by Alans in the Caucasus for some time, in the Black Sea coast this role fell to the share of Kuturgurs. Although the sources do not contain a direct indication to the conclusion of the alliance between Avars and Kuturgurs, but all course of events and indirect data allow us to assume, that such alliance took place.
31 Г. В. Vernadsky suggests that it is not a name, but a title "Sar-i-os", i.e. "the head of Os" (Pers.) [284, p. 194].
From 551 to 558 Kuturgurs do not dare to approach borders of the Byzantium empire. The reason for this is well known: the eastern frontier of the Kuturgurs was threatened by the Uturgurs thanks to subtle Byzantine diplomacy, while the western frontier was threatened by the numerous Ante tribes which inhabited the entire forest-steppe strip north of the Black Sea steppes. Menander wrote that the Avars "made war with the Uturgurs," and followed that by raids they devastated the lands of the Antes. "The rulers of Antes were brought into distress and lost their hopes". [112, с. 324].
Unfortunately, Menander does not report what hopes the Antes lost, and in general his story has so much reticence that it requires a critical revision of his report about the results of the Avar-Byzantine negotiations. After Valentin's embassy the Avars smashed the Byzantine supporters - Sabirs, Uturgurs and Antes. Since these actions were contrary to the interests of Byzantium, it is natural that Iran benefited.
Indeed, it is quite impossible to suppose that the Avars turned only to Constantinople and, even if negotiations were successful, ignored Ctesiphon. If you accept the assumption that there was an alliance between the Avars and the Persians, it becomes clear why the Avars were forced to leave the Caucasus. Byzantine's staunch ally, the Alanian prince Sarosius, could not support the Avars under such circumstances, and the Avars, despite their victories, could not stay in the vicinity of the Caucasus, especially since a formidable force of Turkuts stood in their rear.
But Zaberghan of Kuturgur, the enemy of the Greeks, naturally, was glad to get in the person of Avars new allies that he needed for the fight against Byzantium and its friends, the Uturgurs and Antes. Indeed, as soon as the Avars, having defeated the Uturgurs, secured the Kuturgurs from the rear, Zaberghan undertook a new campaign to the Balkans and reached the walls of Constantinople. One time, immediately after the Avar embassy, the Turkic (July, 558) came to Constantinople and met with a good reception. Probably, it played a role in cooling of the Greek-Avarian relations.
Thus, in 558 the Persian diplomacy was victorious, creating a strong new enemy for Byzantium and moving its dangerous neighbors from its borders to the Balkans. As will be seen later, the Persian-Avarian alliance lasted until 628 and almost undid the Byzantine Empire.
The Ants tried to reach an agreement with the Avars by sending to them an ambassador, Mezamir, whose immediate goal was to ransom prisoners. Mezamir, when he presented himself to the Avars, behaved so arrogantly and impudently that he was killed by the Avars, despite his position as an ambassador. Having dispossessed the ambassador, the Avars proceeded to rob and enslave the Ants.
Having secured the support of such a vigorous ally, the Kuturgurian prince Zabergan decided that no one else was threatening him from the east, and, having made an alliance with the Sklavins, he invaded Byzantium. In March 559 he crossed the Danube on ice and divided his army into three detachments: one moved through Macedonia to Hellas and penetrated to Thermopylae, the second threatened the fortifications that protected Chersonesos of Thrace, and the third, at the head of which he himself stood, broke through the breach in the Long Wall, damaged by the earthquake and by criminal negligence not restored.
Panic broke out in Constantinople: from the gloom of oblivion was extracted the aged war chief Velizarius, who drove the barbarians away from the capital. Other detachments were also repulsed. Nevertheless, Zabergan camped in Thrace and continued his plundering until he was paid a handsome sum and promised the same "gifts" as the Uturgurs. Only then did the Kuturgurs leave Thrace.
Justinian immediately took up with the chief of the Uturgurs, Sandilkh, whereupon the Uturgurs attacked one of the detachments of Zabergan, returning from Thrace, destroyed it, and Sandilkh returned the spoils he had repelled to the Greeks. The war that followed weakened both peoples as much as it benefited the Avars.
In 565 Justin II stopped paying tribute to the Avars, claiming the empire was powerful enough. But the power of the Avars was growing. In 565 they were already smashing Thuringia and were successfully fighting the Frankish king Sigzebert. In 567 the Avars, in alliance with the Lombards, destroyed the Gepids, who were assisted by Byzantium, and seized the valley of the Tissa.
A year later, after the departure of the Lombards for Italy, the Avars became the masters of all Pannonia and the menace of Central Europe. Their force consisted of auxiliary armies of Antes, Western Slavs and Kuturgurs, who were completely subordinated to the Avar Khan. The first Avar Khan Bayan, threatening Byzantium in 568 cynically stated: "I will send such people to the Roman land, whose loss would not be sensible for me, even if they perished completely", and sent 10 thousand Kuturgurs to raid [112, p. 391].
The described events reveal springs of international politics of the 60th years of the VI century. The Avars, as opponents of Byzantium, needed an alliance with Iran, while the Turkuts, enemies of the Avars, could be on friendly terms with Byzantium.
However, the balance of power was complicated by the presence of the Hephthalite state, hostile to both the Turkic Turks and Iran. Therefore Istemi-khan's alliance with Khosroi Anushirvan was more attractive than negotiations with Justin [210, VI, p. 310]. Around 560 the Persians and Turkmens made an offensive alliance: the former to "avenge the death of Shah Peroz" [277, p. 161]. [277, p. 161- 162], the second - to seize the blossoming cities of Sogdiana.
The Ephtalites were forced to fight on two fronts and even on three, as the Ephtalite king Mihirakula, possessing Kashmir and Punjab, fought persistently with Indians [154, p. 94-95].
Defeat of the Ephtalites
The eastern policy of Sassanid Iran is insufficiently studied, but even fragmentary information preserved in the sources convinces the researcher that it was flexible and prescient. For example, the strengthening of North-Western China was immediately noticed in Iran, and as early as 555 a Persian embassy arrived in Chang'an. At the same time, an embassy was sent to the Turkuts (it arrived earlier, of course), which established an alliance, sealed by the marriage of the Shah and Istemi Khan's daughter32.
The Ephtalites, having lost their allies – the Jujans, became worried and also tried to establish relations with China in 553, but Yuvin Tai, the ruler of Western Wei empire, was in alliance with Turkits, and the Ephtalite intentions, evidently, didn't meet sympathy. There was no unanimity among the Hephthalites themselves. The grandee Catulf kept King Gatfar from war, but, insulted by the king, betrayed his fellow tribesmen and fled to the Shah of Persia [112, p.328, 372].
Active hostilities began in 560, after they were provoked by Gatfar. Being worried about the relations between the kagan and the shah, he decided to do everything to prevent this marriage that was contracted after the defeat of Ephtalites, i.e. after 569, but the Turks' son Hormizd IV inherited the throne in 579, and was deposed on February, 6, 590 having already a young son [153, p. 34; 123, p. 88].32
Ferdowsi believes that already Chavannes rejected such a late date [198, p. 229], but according to Tabari's version, the marriage and the alliance were made a year before the war against Ephtalites, which began, according to Chinese information, in 555. This date coincides with the beginning of Istemi western campaign, and Hormizd's age ceases to be doubtful: at the time of his death, he was 36, and his son was 16-18 years old [see: 251, S.187; 278, p. 161-162]. The embassy is also mentioned by Belazuri and Ibn Khordadbeg, but their description is extremely distorted and implausible [see: 203, p. 380].
The Turkic people were not able to make such a rapprochement possible. The Türkiyut embassy, moving through Sogd, was cut off, except for one rider, who managed to escape and bring sad news to Istemi-khan [210, VI, p. 310]. War became inevitable. Istemi mobilized all available troops, and among them were Khotans [ibid., p. 312], who before that were subjects of the Ephtalites. Khosroi Anushirvan outstripped his ally and defeated Hephthalites for the first time in 562. The war did not end with this defeat [112, p. 377]33.
The first victim of Turkic vanguard was Chach (Tashkent), where Turkuts massacred [210, VI, p. 312]. Then the main Turkic forces, having crossed the r. Chirchik [237, p. 302], joined their vanguard in Maymurg 34. The Ephtalites concentrated near Bukhara [210, p. 312], but Gatfar, not daring to take a fight on the plain, where superior Turkic contingent had advantages, retreated to mountains and took a fight near Nesef (Karshi) [239, t. X, p. 63].
According to Ferdowsi, the Sogdians cried a lot when the Turks attacked, but did not want to fight for the Ephtalites. The battle near Nesefa lasted eight days and ended with complete defeat of the Ephtalites (565). The survivors, realizing that the time of independence for Hephthalite power had passed, deposed Gathfar and chose the Chaganian prince Fagonish as king, obliging him to submit to Khosroi Anushirvan, who, in their opinion, could oppose the Turks.
Khosroi, having received at the same time a letter from Hagan and an offer of submission from Fagonish, responded to neither. Contrary to the opinion of the nobles, who were afraid to open the western border, he moved to Khorasan at the head of all his troops [210, VI, p. 316 sq.].
When the common enemy was broken, the allies turned out to be enemies. The differences between the Kaghanate and Iran, which had hitherto been muted by the need to deal with the common enemy, were now revealed and proved to be very deep and even irreconcilable. We shall deal with them in the next chapter, but for now let us return to the Ephtalites.
For the time being, let us return to the hegemony in Central Asia by force of arms and cruelty, the Hephthalites were not popular in the countries they conquered.
The 6th century was the time of economic and cultural boom. The cities grew rich and the agriculture, crafts and trade flourished. At that time, the Sogdians were experienced and skillful merchants-intermediaries. They established regular communication between China and the Mediterranean, using the ancient caravan routes. But the trade was hindered by the brigandage of the Jurajans and the constant wars that the Ephtalites waged with their neighbors. The Türkiyuts, who united the steppe and Sogdiana, opened up excellent opportunities for trade, and the Sogdian merchants became loyal subjects of the Türkiyut khans. It was advantageous for the Turkuts to have such loyal subjects. Thus, Central Asia became an integral part of the Kaganate. The situation cut off the Ephtalites from revenge and forced them to close themselves off in their mountains, where their remnants have survived to this day [51, p. 129-140].
33 Vivien de Saint Martin (Les Huns blancs p. 77) gives a close date - 563.
34 Maymurg - princedom in Samarkand region, S. of Zarevshan [14, p. 95].
Chapter Four, Silk and the Caravan Route Caravan trade
Having defeated Ephtalites and North-Chinese kingdoms, Turkic Turks achieved not only political, but also economic power, because in their hands appeared a great caravan road, connecting the West and the East.
This route began in Chang'ani and ran along the slopes of Nanshan through numerous valleys irrigated by streams flowing down from the ridge. This part of the route was easy, but was followed by an extremely difficult passage through the desert to the oasis of Hami and from there into the Liukchun Depression to Turfan. Both these oases and some neighboring ones comprised the independent principality of Gaochan, populated by descendants of Chinese settlers, who had completely settled in their new homeland.
From Gaochan, the caravan route bifurcated. One branch ran along the southern slopes of the Tien Shan through Karashar, Kuchu and Aksu, then past Issyk-Kul to the Chu valley and from there through the Talas valley to Isfara. The other branch, the northern one, began also in Gaochan and went through southern Dzungaria through Urumchi, Manas, Kurkarausu and the Irene-Shabirgan mountains to the Ili River Valley, and from there to the south, to Central Asia. In addition, there was another difficult road through the passes in the Tien Shan from Karashar through the Yulduz valley to the Ili valley, but it was rarely used [198, p. 5] 35.
The caravans rested in Central Asia. One of the largest staging posts was Paikend. From there the road went through Khorasan to Ray and Hamadan and through Byzantine fortress Nesvia (Nizib) to Syria and Constantinople. From the Chinese Sea to the borders of Persia it was 150 days, and from there to Nisib on the Roman border another 80 days [68, p. 542].
Trade was very lively and profitable, but it served not the masses who lived in a subsistence economy, but the social elite, who needed luxury goods. The Chinese received the famous eyebrow dye from Iran for their empresses, which was very expensive. Babylonian carpets were also a rare commodity. Finally, authentic and artificial Syrian gems, corals and pearls from the Red Sea, fabrics from Syria and Egypt, drugs from Asia Minor were imported into China [203, p. 129]. But the most important subject of trade was silk, which began to arrive in Europe from the time of Augustus. The Byzantium demand for silk was enormous, because in addition to the needs of the court and the aristocracy silk was used as currency in relations with the barbarians, in particular for the hiring of auxiliary troops.
Justinian's pretensions to world power forced the Byzantine government to maintain diplomatic relations with all the states of Europe up to and including the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The Byzantine government needed vast quantities of silk for gifts, bribes, and hiring soldiers. For silk Byzantium received allies, mercenaries, goods and slaves from Europe. Thanks to the trade Justinian could conduct the world policy which placed almost the whole Mediterranean region under his authority. Silk in Byzantium was valued on a par with gold and precious stones [37, p. 99].
The artery that supplied Byzantium with this most precious commodity ran through northern Iran, and the Sasanian government did not at all let go of its control over the caravan trade. Keeping a very large portion of the raw silk for processing, the Iranians, the Persians were always able to sell their products to Western countries at prices they set themselves [203, p. 128; 124, p. 187]. 35
The first European to travel the third road from Kyrgyzstan to Karashar was V. I. Roborovsky in 1893. [see: 149].
The Persians, seeking to weaken the Byzantine Empire, naturally sought not to increase its turnover, but to increase the price of silk in order to siphon more money from Byzantium and weaken it politically and militarily. Increased trade was not in Iran's interest: whatever the price, Byzantium had to compensate for the resale of silk in Europe, which helped it develop its military capacity. Therefore, the Persians carefully regulated the silk trade, not only setting high prices, but also limiting the amount of silk exported to the West [68, p. 543].
Naturally, Byzantium could not put up with this situation, because by overpaying for silk it contributed to the strengthening of Iran, which was hostile to it. In the intervals between the wars, the Constantinople court was saddened to see how much gold was leaving the country for the enemies of the state [Ibid., p. 544]. But attempts to free itself from economic dependence were unsuccessful. Around 531 Justinian tried to negotiate with Ethiopia for African merchants to take on the role of intermediaries and establish the transportation of silk across the Indian Ocean [124, p. 198], but the Persians were so influential in Indian ports that the Ethiopians failed to take away their monopoly on silk purchases, and a peace concluded in 532 restored the usual order of trade [68, p. 546].
A new war with Iran, which broke out in 540, forced Justinian to lower silk prices by a special edict, but it was impossible to force Persian merchants to sell silk at these prices. As a result, the silk weaving mills in Syria went bankrupt because of the lack of raw material [68, p. 548; 125, pp. 90-94]. In 570 Khosroi Anushirvan, having captured Yemen, definitively closed for the Byzantines the access to the east through the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. At the same time a new partner, the Turkic Kaganate, entered the historical game. It was noted above that the Turkuts were pumping out huge amounts of silk from China in the form of tribute. Despite the fact that the Khans hung silk around their yurts, they could not use all the silk they received.
After the defeat of the Ephtalites, the Sogdians became subjects of the Turkic khan. They have long been famous in the East and West as dexterous intermediaries and merchants. Replacing the Ephtalite masters with Turkut masters only benefited them because they gained unhindered and non-threatening access to the inner regions of Asia. It was in the interests of the Sogdians to expand the silk trade as much as possible, just as it was in the interests of the Turkuts to find a market for their silk surplus.
The Sogdian Maniach
Thus, the Sogdian merchants rightly saw the defeat of the Ephtalites as the beginning of their prosperity. Indeed, the road to China was open and safe, the Turkmens did not know where to put their looted or tribute silk, and the intermediary could make a fortune as never before. The task was only to deliver the silk to Byzantium, but that had to be arranged with the Shah of Persia. Istemi-khan, for his part, went along with the wishes of his new subjects, especially as it coincided with the interests of his entourage. Therefore, the khan willingly agreed to the Sogdian-Manikh's proposal to send him to Khosroi Anushirvan as a plenipotentiary ambassador with the charge of obtaining permission for the transportation through Iran of the silk stocks accumulated by the enterprising Sogdians. The ambassador even suggested that the Persian king take part in the trade, i.e. buy silk himself and resell it to the West [112, pp. 371-372]. The Sogdians would lose a little on the price of goods, but would gain much more by increasing the turnover.
Of course, the Persian government could not accept the deal, because if it sent all the silk to Byzantium, in a few years there would be on the Euphrates an army so numerous that all the forces of Iran would not be enough to defeat it. The low purchasing power of Iran's population made it impossible to use silk domestically. By buying silk, the Shah of Persia was only losing gold, just as he needed it for his eastern policy, just as the Byzantine emperor needed silk for his western policy.
Khosroi found a way out of the predicament into which he had been put by the allied khan. On the advice of the ephthalite Catulfus, the silk brought in was paid for and burned in the presence of the ambassadors. This showed the Sogdians that the Persians would not tolerate a change in the existing situation [124, p. 209]. The Sogdians immediately complained to the khan, who decided to settle the conflict. He sent a new embassy to Iran consisting of Turkuts. But this embassy, too, achieved nothing. To make matters worse, most of the Turkut ambassadors died of some disease; only three or four returned.
Meanwhile, Maniach managed to persuade Khan to break his alliance with Iran and enter into relations with Byzantium. However, transporting silk around the Caspian Sea through the Caucasus was expensive and unsafe: Ugrians, who fled before Turkut spearmen, could easily loot and cut out the merchant caravan. The road through Iran was shorter and easier. Therefore, Istemi-khan went to settle the dispute with weapons. He claimed that the ambassadors had been poisoned, and acted as an avenger36.
Fully aware of the seriousness of the war he was engaged in, the khan hastened to acquire an ally. He sent an embassy to Constantinople headed by the same Maniach, who was tasked to conclude with emperor Justinian not only a trade treaty, but also a military alliance against Iran. Maniach made his way to Constantinople via the Caucasus. He arrived just in time. In 568 the Lombards invaded Italy and Emperor Justinian II prudently gave up his active western policy which had so drained the finances of the empire under Justinian. Moreover, renewal of the war against Persia was inevitable and a powerful alliance was not to be neglected. That is why the emperor received the Turkestan embassy extremely favourably, and in August 568 sent the eastern city commander Zemarchus Cilician along with returning Maniachus to confirm the alliance [112, p. 375]. Istemi-khan lasciviously received the Byzantine ambassador and, as a confirmation of his sincerity, invited him to accompany the army moving towards Iran.
Khosroi did not want war. In the valley of the river Talas the Turkic army met the Persian embassy, but the khan demonstratively put Zemarkh on a more honorable place than the Persian ambassadors, and in his presence addressed to the latter with reproaches.
The Persian ambassadors
36 Н. V. Pigulevskaya [125, p. 202-204] interprets these events differently, but, in my opinion, unconvincingly. She believes that "Türks, who were not yet out of a semi-nomadic (? - L.G.) state, were not inclined to wide trade exchange, and only under pressure of their subjects, Sogdians, they agreed that the latter, led by Maniach, sent an embassy to Iran". However, it was the nomadic Turkuts who were able to extract silk from China and supply the Sogdians with it, because without war the Chinese did not give silk in the right quantity. Even if they agreed to sell the silk, neither Sogdians nor Persians could pay for it at those prices and still get a profit. Precisely because the Turkuts received silk in the form of tribute and booty, they sold it to the Sogdians for nothing, and then the trade became profitable. Then, it is more than difficult to admit the presence of pressure of the subdued on their conquerors; finally, Maniach was a close associate of Khan, and it is natural to think that he received diplomatic credentials from him, instead of going to explain with the Shahin shah of Iran at his own risk. Menandr's phrase that Istemi Khan allowed Sogdians "to send an embassy by themselves," says only that they took upon themselves to conduct negotiations, hoping to better handle the matter than Turkic begs, not skilled in diplomacy. Н. Pigulevskaya believes that Sogdians asked permission to "freely trade silk in the Iranian state", but Menander directly indicates that their request was for silk passage to the west, to Byzantium, even if with the help of Persian treasury. Below N.V. Pigulevskaya suggests that the refusal of the shah to let silk through can be explained by the fear of competition, but there was no free silk trade in the 6th century, so there could not be any competition either. One cannot agree with the conclusion: "For Iran the Turks did not represent desirable allies". How can a country waging a tense war on one border not want there to be peace on the other. But the logic of events pushed Turks and Persians to a war equally undesirable for both.
The embassy returned to Iran with the news of war. After that the khan let Zemarkh go and he returned to Constantinople accompanied by Maniakh's son and an authorized ambassador, Turk Turkut Tagma-Tar-khan37. Mannakh died at that time, but the alliance of Byzantium and the Kaganate outlived its creator and was inherited by the Khazar Khagans, as well as the enmity with Iran, which continued even when the Persian kings were replaced by Arab khalifs.
The division of the Ephtalite inheritance
The official pretext for the war was the demand of Istemi-khan that the Persians pay him the tribute which used to go to the Ephtalites [251, S. 158]. The refusal was inevitable, and khan hit for sure. The Türkiyut cavalry quickly crossed the Amu Darya and in Dzhurdjan seized "trade cities and ports of the Syrians38, previously possessed by the Persians" [168 S. 49]. [168, с. 493]39. However, the lines of the frontier fortifications erected by the Persians against the Ephtalites as early as the fifth century proved impassable for the Turkuts. The attack stopped, and already in 569 Turkuits returned to Sogdiana [203, p.373].
This was the end of military operations, as Istemi-khan did not want to smash his forehead against the regular and well-trained army of the Shahinshakh. Knowing that Byzantium was about to start a war in Mesopotamia and divert Persian troops there, he decided to negotiate the division of the Ephtalite inheritance for the time being. By the treaty of 571 Khosroi Anushirvan received Sind, Bost, al-Rohaj (Arakhozia), Zabulistan, Tocharistan, Dardistan and Kabulistan. In addition, the hereditary province of eftalite prince Faganish - Chaganian was subordinated to Persians [251, p.156-169]. Türküts got Sogdiana.
The signing of peace was a great success for Khosroi Anushirvan. Secondly, he freed his forces for war in the west where the Armenians rebelled, the Georgians handed over to the Byzantians, the Ethiopians became active in Arabia, and finally, in 572, Byzantine troops marched out and laid siege to Nisib. Having transferred to the west his trained troops, Khosroi quickly achieved a turning point in military actions and already in 573 took Dara [168, pp. 493-495]. As a matter of fact, these successes were due to the forced inaction of Turkic khan: Avars, irreconcilable enemies of Turkuits, conquered steppes from Sava to Don, and Istemi-khan had to transfer his offensive from south to west. Between 567 and 571 the Turkic Turks took over the whole North Caucasus40 and joined the possessions of the Byzantine Empire near the Bosporus. It is possible that they sought to continue a new caravan route for their friends and advisors, the Sogdian merchants.
Byzantium, clutched by the Persians and Avars, grasped the alliance with the Khan. In the next years, embassies of Eutyches, Herodion, Paul of Cilicia and Anangastes were sent to Turkites [239, t. X, p. 169]. It seemed that the alliance would be consolidated and a bridge between the East and the West would be built, but events took a different course.
The war with Byzantium
In 553 Byzantium started its own silk industry [168, p. 493; recent literature in: 124, p. 204; 110, pp. 47-51]. The larvae of silkworms were delivered
37 Tarkhan - a title given to a person exempted from paying taxes.
38 Merchants-intermediaries in the silk trade with China were called Sirs [49, p. 23].
39 М. Е. Massa believes that these ports were in Djurdjan, which was lost to the Persians in 484, seized by the Turkic Turks about 568. [110, с. 50].
40 The Türküts subdued the B-n-j-r (Bulgars), Belenjer and Khazars, reached Derbent and, having examined the fortifications, returned to the steppes [Tabari 1, 2, pp. 895-896; Ibn-al-Asir, pp. 9-10 - quoted from: 7, pp. 137-138].
Reached to Constantinople, according to Procopius of Caesarea, by two Christian monks, and according to Theophanes of Byzantium, by a certain Persian, in a hollowed-out staff. N.V. Pigulevskaya believes that the larvae were brought from Sogdian cities [124, p. 205-206], and according to M.E.Masson, who refers to Theophanes' story, they were delivered from Djurdjan [110, p. 50]. Silk production developed in Constantinople, Beirut, Tyre and Antioch. By the end of the 6th century the question of silk importation was no longer of the same importance for Byzantium [Ibid., p. 49] and the hopes of the Turkites to obtain the silk monopoly were in vain. The existence of competition could not but force them to lower the prices of silk products, which significantly reduced the benefits of trade.
In addition to the competition in the silk trade, the Avar issue contributed to the cooling of Byzantine-Turkic relations. According to the treaty of 568 Byzantium undertook not to conclude a peace and alliance with the Avars, so when the Avar embassy came to Yustin with a request for peace and permission to occupy Pannonia, it was refused [168, p. 493]. In spite of this, the Avars established themselves in Pannonia and defeated the Byzantines, which forced them to make peace in 570 [112, p. 400].
These two circumstances were enough for a political regrouping to take place. The Turkyuts on the Volga were among the newly subdued tribes, subdued only because the Turkic heavy cavalry had no equal opponent so far. The out-of-the-way strengthening of Avars created a center of attraction for all enemies of Türkiyut Kaganate, first of all for Kuturgurs, and was a threat for Türkiyuts themselves. But while Avars were engaged in a war with Gepids and Greeks, and the result of war was unclear, Turkits could disregard a weak opponent. But when Avars created a powerful state, which secured itself a peace with Byzantium, Turkuts couldn't help worrying. Indeed, Valentin's embassy in 576 met with a completely different reception than the previous one.
The ambassador was received by Turksanf, one of the eight appanage princes (at that time the Turkic state consisted of eight appanage princes, subordinated to the great khan). When Valentine greeted him, he replied, "Aren't you the same Romans who use ten languages and one deceit?" After uttering these words, he gagged his mouth with ten fingers, then continued: "As I now have ten fingers in my mouth, so you Romans have many tongues. With one you deceive me; with another you deceive my slaves the varchonites... Your king will be punished in due time for making friendly speeches with me, and for making a treaty with the Barhonites (he meant the Avars. - L.G.), my slaves who have fled from their masters. But the Varchonites, as subjects of the Turks (Turkuts. - L.G.) will come to me when I want... Why do you, Romans, leading my envoys to Byzantium through Caucasus, assuring me that there is no other way for them to go? You do this in order that I, because of the difficulty of this road, refuse to attack the Roman regions. But I know exactly where the river Danaprus is, where the Istre flows, where the Evros flows, and by what routes did my Varhonite slaves enter the Roman Empire. Your power is not unknown to me. The whole earth worships me, beginning from the first rays of the sun and ending with the limits of the west. Look, miserable people, on the Alanian peoples and the Utigur tribes, who were inspired with immense courage, who relied on their strength and dared to stand against undefeated Turkic people, but they were deceived in their hopes. Now they are in subjection to us, became our slaves". [112, с. 418-420].
This text explains us the turn of Turkic foreign policy, but the motivation of Turksanf in Menandr's account is obviously incomplete. The Turksanff in his awareness could not have been unaware that the peace which Byzantium made with the Avars was forced by the heavy defeats suffered by the Greeks on the Danube. It would have been very easy for Valentine to find an excuse, but instead he just refers to his position as ambassador which guarantees him safety, to his old friendship with Turksanffe's father, etc. In short, he behaves as if he were guilty. The Arab historians Tabari and Saalibi explain this. In their descriptions of Khosroi Anu.
The chronicles of Khosroi Anu- Shirvan's wars, they inform that having returned from the campaign against Byzantines, Khosroi turned against Khazars (i.e. Western Türkuts. -L.G.) and settled accounts with them [279, p. 614; 278, II, p. 161]41. This Saalibi account is not dated, but put after the capture of Antioch; Tabari presents the events out of chronological sequence. Before 575 Byzantine embassies received a very warm welcome from the Turks, but in 575 an armistice was concluded between Iran and Byzantium, and Khosroi could settle accounts with the allies of his enemies with the troops he had freed. In the period from 570 to 576 the Turks were busy with the subjugation of the Northern Caucasus. With their help the Byzantine protégé Guaram Bagratid obtained the throne in Kartli (575) [196, p. 216]42. Hoping for Byzantium, they did not expect a stab in the back.
In such a situation Turksanff's irritation becomes understandable. The consequences of the breach had an immediate effect. In 576 Turkuns, supported by Uturgurs, took Bosporus, "and by this it appeared that Turks [Turkuns] are struggling against Romans" [112. [112, с. 423]. The Turkic assault did not stop there. They invaded Crimea but, apparently, were pushed out of there. Then Turkuts tried to reach Byzantium through the western Caucasus [169, p. 160-161; 56, p. 72] but encountered resistance from the kingdom of Egrisi, the northern border of which ran along the Caucasian Mountain range. They failed to penetrate into Transcaucasia, and in the early 80s the Turkuts had to retreat, having killed many prisoners. They were able to gain a strong foothold only on the plains of the North Caucasus and in the foothills of Dagestan up to Derbent. Turkic threat to Byzantium passed away.
China and the Caravan Route
Now let's see what the source of silk, China, extracted from the trade, so profitable for the Turkic Turks, Sogdians, Persians and Greeks. Hard-working Chinese peasants produced this valuable commodity, but hardly used it themselves, for taxes were high and collected steadily. The luxury goods received for silk went mainly to satisfy the whims of the court and did not play a significant role in the domestic market. Moreover, they were worth considerably less than the silk exported, and the trade was unprofitable for China as a whole. But the Bei-Chou government could not, or rather did not dare to change the situation, because its political successes depended entirely on the behavior of Turkic khans; Bei-Qi and Togon were defeated only thanks to the Turkic help, and, moreover, South China was to be conquered, which was impossible without a secure rear. At the same time, it should be remembered that the Bei Zhou dynasty was not of Chinese, but of Xianbi origin and relied on the octatized Xianbi nobility that turned into large landowners of Northern China. Needless to say, the descendants of the Tobas "kosoplets" had forgotten their language and manners, for the native Chinese they remained hateful barbarians, descendants of enslavers. The foreign policy of the Bei Zhou government was no less odious to the Chinese population. The alliance with the Turkuts, which was so highly paid, showed that the dynasty had not broken with its steppe traditions. In addition, the persecution of Taoism and Buddhism pushed these influential organizations into the ranks of the opposition. Finally, the accession of the multitudinous Bei Qi kingdom strengthened the Chinese element in the empire. But the so-called Guanlong faction played a decisive role in the events that were brewing.
At the cruel time of the fall of the Wei dynasty, many wealthy Chinese families from Shandong migrated to Yuwun Tai in Shaanxi and settled in the Guanzhong and Lunxi regions. Here they allied with local Chinese officials and landlords and on the basis of neighborhood, of ethnic unity and kinship formed a grouping named after the Guan (zhong) and Lun (si) - Guanlong. At the last Bei-Chou monarchs the leader of the Guanluns was the commander Yang Jian, grandfather of the young emperor (on his mother's side) [175, p. 178].
41 It is likely that Khosroi took towns and ports in Jurjan from the Turks, as this area later belongs to Iran.
42 М. Brosset questions this date because the situation described is similar to that of 589. It seems to me that the error here is not in the chronology, but in the description of the event. The larger and later overshadowed the smaller, earlier one. In other words,
I believe the chronicler that Guaram became king in 575.
The Yang Jian was "angry, untrustworthy and, not liking books, acted cunningly; he could make himself afraid, and his orders were executed quickly and accurately, he was engaged in state affairs from morning till evening without any signs of fatigue" [207, p. 25]. [207, р. 25]. His political sympathies and antipathies were determined by the environment on which he relied. He took measures to alleviate social contradictions within the country, while in relation to his neighbors he preferred to aggravate relations.
In 563, Yang Jian attempted to change the policy by bringing the Turks into conflict. He justified it in the following way: "The Turkic warriors disregard both rewards and punishments, have little respect for their leaders, and, for the most part, are disorderly. It is not difficult to manage them.” Thus, it is evident that it is in vain to speak much of their power. They only want to induce the government to reward their envoys generously in the hope of getting a harsh retribution when they themselves go there. The court receives false reports, and the military leaders at the first hearing of them are betrayed by fear. Enemies on the surface appear to be courageous, but in fact it is easy to manage with them. At present, in my opinion, all the former and the latter envoys should be beheaded. [30, vol. I, p. 232].
However, these words do not reflect the real reality, but the program of the "Guanlong group". The Türkiyut heavy cavalry was not only more maneuverable than the Chinese infantry, but, unlike the early nomads, acquired the ability to act in a frontal attack. The clashes of 578-579 prove the military advantage of the Turkuts with all its obviousness. In his polemic with the supporters of the steppe orientation, Yang Jian tries to present them as bribe takers, which hardly corresponds to the truth. But his most important point is his suggestion that no gifts, i.e. silk fabrics, should be given to the Turkuts. This measure would indeed undermine the economic power of the Turkic khans, and at the same time would reduce the taxation in China itself.
Thus, the "Guanlong group" proposed the economic and political isolation of the country. The proposed program was rejected by the emperor, but Yang Jian knew how to wait, and time was working for him. The demands of the Turkites and the strength of the Chinese increased in proportion to the weakening of the Syanbi element loyal to the Bei-Chou dynasty. In the spring of 581, the Chinese nobles raised the banner of rebellion against the government and the masses joined them. Yang Jian used the moment to force the last emperor, a boy of nine, to abdicate the throne in his favor. The unfortunate child was soon assassinated and all members of the Yuwian clan were executed, after which the rebellion subsided. The new dynasty was named Sui.
Despite the fact that the "Chinese" party easily won a complete victory, Yang Jian did not dare to drive the numerous Syanbi nobles to despair. By a special edict he confirmed that "all ranks and titles of the previous dynasty still remained in force" [175, p. 180]. The okytan syanbi nobility survived, and this determined the further history of both China itself and the Middle Asia. Yang Jian could not go to civil war, which undoubtedly would have arisen without this edict, as he was faced with two important political tasks: the conquest of southern China, which was easily completed in 589, and the defeat of the Turkuts. The latter turned out to be much more difficult than the leaders of the Guanlong faction had anticipated.
Chapter Five, Inside the Kaganate Power and People
According to the Chinese information, the proclamation of the khan was furnished with a complicated ceremony: the dignitaries sat him on a felt and carried him around nine times, along the sun, to the shouts of greeting from those present. Then they put him on a horse, tied his throat with a silk cloth and, quickly loosening the noose, asked him how many years he wished to be Khan. In the history of the Turkuts there is no indication that the answers to these questions played any part in determining the term of reign; most probably the custom had survived as a rudiment from the time when the Khan was an elected tribal chief. The succession to the throne followed a complex system, which will be described separately.
The first person in the state after the khan was the yabgu. As a matter of fact, the yabgu was a vice-king, and members of the reigning clan were most often appointed to this position. For example, under Ilkhan Bumyn his brother Istemi had the rank of yabgu. At the same time, the yabgu was not an heir to the throne; the heir was called "tegin" regardless of his position. The title "shad" belonged to princes of blood who had fiefs in their administration, for example, Simo, later khan, could not become a glad because of suspicion that he was illegitimate [30, vol. I, p. 260].
The ranks of lesser importance received persons who did not belong to the Ashin clan, but all ranks were hereditary [Ibid, p. 299; 234, vol. III, p. 333; 240, S. 9, 498]. We may assume that Turkic society was aristocratic. However, let us refrain from premature conclusions. Along with free people and the nobility, Turkut society also knew slaves from among the prisoners of war. They were mainly women. Istemi-khan in 569 gave a captive from Kyrgyz people to Zemarch [112, p.379]; female prisoners from China were taken out by thousands during successful raids; so, in 619 Chulo-khan after taking Binchjou "took away all women and girls in the city", and the trapping in Atrpatakan (628) was remembered in the Middle East [30, vol. I, p.246; 77a, p.128]. Finally, because of the quarrel during the prisoner exchange Uigu-shad lost his throne [30, vol. I, p. 287-288]. Thus, it should be recognized that Turkuts knew about slavery.
But here a question arises: how could slaves be used in nomadic economy? A slave, if he is not crippled, could always run away on his master's horse, and the expenses on him would not be repaid. Obviously, the condition of the slave was not difficult, and indeed there is a text that testifies to this. In 486 Shabolio-khan was asked to recognize himself as a vassal of the House of Sui. Shabolio asked: "What does the word vassal mean? He was answered, "In the kingdom of Sui, vassal means the same as in our country the word slave. Khan replied, "I have the good fortune to be a slave of the son of Heaven," and expressed his joy with a gift for the ambassador. The above quote begs the question: what is the joy of being someone's slave? Obviously, Shabolio Khan had something else in mind when he learned that he was henceforth the "qui" of the Chinese emperor. Do we adequately translate the word "qui" as slave, even though it undoubtedly reflects a certain dependence? It is no coincidence that the Chinese considered the equivalent of the word "qui" not "nu" but "tch'in", which N. Y. Bichurin translates as "vassal" and St. Julien as "sujet". [234, vol. III, p. 497]-subject. Fortunately, some texts of Orchon inscriptions give us the opportunity to clarify the meaning of "qui" and bring clarity to the problem. The "Great inscription" to Kül-teginu says: "...tabgach bunka baglik uri oglyn kul bolty, silik kyz oglyn kyung bolty...". [104, p. 29], i.e. "...the people of tab
They [Türks] became 'kulas'43 with their sturdy male progeny and 'kulins' with their pure female progeny". But at that time the Türks lived in the steppes south of Gobi by their life, enjoyed many privileges comparable to the Chinese population of the Tang empire; participating in the campaigns, they made brilliant service careers and brought to their yurts full of spoils. There was only a fact of subordination to a foreign-tribal sovereign without any social oppression.
Take another text:
"[Elteres-Kagan]... put in order and taught a people that lost its el [see below] and its kagan, a people that became slaves, abolished the Turkic establishments; he put in order and instructed by the establishments of my ancestors" [104, pp. 37-38]. Again, it emphasizes only submission to a foreigner, but not deprivation of personal freedom.
In the third case, when the death of Barsbeg is described and it is stated that "his people became slaves and slaves" [ibid. [Ibid., p. 39], there was a simple conquest, not the sale of captives in a slave market44.
Thus, the main content of the concept of "qui" is subordination to someone else. This connotation remained till the 19th century, but as the later Turks incorporated into the system of Muslim culture with its typical slave-trade, the term "qui" began to be applied also to the sold slaves, which did not exist in earlier times. The use of the kul in the 6th-8th centuries was quite different: the Turkuts brought them to their lands, settled them in certain places and taxed them45.
43 From S. E. Malov: "slaves" and "slaves". [104, с. 37].
44 С. P. Tolstov, interpreting "qui" as "slave", draws a conclusion, that "slave-owner ideology comes up to the full swing here" [Mackensen 2002. [160, с. 45]. On the basis of the texts analyzed, one cannot agree with this. The other texts, on which he relies, are read differently by S.E. Malov [106, p.16 (text), p.20 (translation)].
45 This system is described by S. P. Tolstov contrary to the statement he made [160, pp. 46-47].
End of the introductory fragment.
.