For this chapter, it was not by chance that the slogan from the famous book by J. Orwell "1984" was chosen. And before moving on to other chapters, where the period of the Tatar yoke will be considered, we need to deal with the method of "substitution of concepts", which is constantly used in Russian historiography.
Reception "substitution of concepts" is not new, it can still be called "the fight against windmills" or "ad absurdum". The meaning of this technique is that a certain false thesis is introduced, and then it is powerfully exposed.
One of these "theses" were the Tatars or the Mongols.
For example, they say and already write "Mongol invasion". And then they ask in surprise "where are the traces of the Mongols"? Well, being in a cornered position, they always strive to add: "Tatars are not Tatars" or "Tatars are Bulgars."
So let's still figure it out: who are the Tatars, where and when did they appear on the territory of the Russian Federation, are the Tatars Tatars or not, and of course what was the motive for the extremely interesting transformation: Tatars-> Tatar-Mongols-> Mongol-Tatars- > Mongols. This transformation is a typical technique, which can be conditionally called "simmer the frog", the fact is that if the frog is placed in water that is slowly heated, the frog will not even notice how it is cooked. The same happens with the already mentioned transformation: Tatars-> Tatar-Mongols-> Mongol-Tatars-> Mongols. Indeed, all Slavic chronicles speak exclusively of the Tatars! There is not a word about the Mongols in them! However, already in Soviet times, the term "Tatar-Mongols" appears, which in post-perestroika times is slowly replaced by "Mongol-Tatars", which in our time is simply replaced by "Mongols" - a complete analogy with boiling a frog on a slow fire. It would seem that, in accordance with this technique, the next step should be to replace the "Mongols" with "Russians" ... and this has actually already been done! Not yet officially, so far at the level of "alternative history" of scoundrels and liars like Fomenko, Nosovsky and Zadornov.
As we can see, if the term "Tatars" were immediately replaced by "Mongols", then this substitution would become too obvious, so the replacement lasted a long time with a gradual transformation:
Tatars -> Tatar-Mongols->Mongol-Tatars-> Mongols.
What do the chronicles say?
Here are a few quotes from the Laurentian Chronicle:
"In the year 6731 (1223). Vsevolod Yuryevich left Novgorod to his father in Vladimir, and the Novgorodians called Yaroslav Vsevolodovich from Pereyaslavl to reign.
In the same year, peoples came about whom no one knows exactly who they are, and where they came from, and what their language is, and what tribe they are, and what faith. And they are called Tatars ... "
"And we heard that the Tatars captured many peoples: yases, monkeys, kasogs, and beat many godless Polovtsy, and drove others away."
"Having learned about this, the Russian princes Mstislav of Kiev, and Mstislav Toropetsky, and Mstislav of Chernigov, and other princes decided to go against the Tatars, believing that the Tatars would attack them."
"And the Russian princes went on a campaign, and fought with the Tatars, and were defeated by them, and a few only escaped death; whoever had the lot to stay alive, they fled, and the rest were killed."
"In the same year, in the winter, godless Tatars came from the eastern countries to the Ryazan land in the forest, and began to conquer the Ryazan land, and captivated it to Pronsk, and took the entire Ryazan principality, and burned the city, and killed their prince. And they crucified some captives, others - they shot with arrows, and others had their hands tied behind. They set fire to many holy churches, and burned monasteries, and villages, and took considerable booty from everywhere; then the Tatars went to Kolomna. In the same winter, Vsevolod, the son of Yuri, the grandson of Vsevolod, set out, against the Tatars. And they met at Kolomna, and there was a great battle. And they killed the governor of Vsevolodov Yeremey Glebovich, and killed many other husbands of Vsevolod, and Vsevolod ran to Vladimir with a small squad. And the Tatars went to Moscow. In the same winter, the Tatars took Moscow , and the voivode was killed Philip Nyanka for the orthodox Christian faith, and Prince Vladimir, son of Yuri, was taken prisoner. And people were beaten from an old man to a baby, and the city and churches were set on fire by the saints, and all the monasteries and villages were burned .. "
So, we see that everywhere we are talking exclusively about the Tatars.
Here we must understand that foreigners (in this case, Russians) could learn the name of this people - Tatars - only from the Tatars themselves, i.e. Tatars is a self-name.
Sometimes, a number of falsifiers try to present the case as if the Tatars were those who walked in the forefront and when they went into battle, they shouted "Tatars", "Tatars", and they say that's why this name arose.
This version does not stand up to criticism, because. on the one hand, the Tatars were known to the Chinese since the 3rd century AD, and on the Yenisei monuments dating back to the 7th century AD. Tatars are fixed forever. On the other hand, the Tatars never used the name of their ethnic group as a battle cry, they usually shouted "hurrah", from where this word migrated to Russian, and besides, who and what shouts in the heat of battle is generally impossible to hear.
On the origin of the ancient Tatars
Getting acquainted with a brief history of the Turkic Khaganate, we will inevitably come across unions of ancient Tatar tribes called "Otuz-Tatars" and "Tokuz-Tatars", known from the Orkhon-Yenisei runic inscriptions on gravestones of the 7th - 8th centuries. If we talk a little more about them, then the main stages of the history of the ancient Tatars in their homeland in Central Asia are presented in this way. Otuz-Tatars, first mentioned at the funeral of the founder of the Turkic Khaganate Bumin-Kagan and one of his successors Istemi-Kagan, a hundred years later - in the second half of the 7th century - fought against the Tyugyu (Türgesh) under the leadership of Ilteris-Kagan. All this is written on the monument of the famous commander, Prince Kul-Tegin (died in 731). The son of Ilteris-kagan Bilge-kagan, brother of Kul-Tegin, in 722-723 waged wars against the Oguzes and Tokuz-Tatars - this is known from the inscriptions on the gravestone of Bilge-kagan himself, who died in 734.
Thus, in the letter of the Chinese Li-Deyu, written to the Uighur Urmudzu in 842, it is precisely such tribes that are reported, and in the report of the envoy of Emperor Wang-Yen-ting already at the end of the 10th century, under 981, eight Tatar tribes are mentioned.
Tatars lived south of the Mongols of Eastern Transbaikalia and the modern Mongolian steppes. They came into contact with the Mongols, constantly communicated with them and were soon involved in the process of creating the Mongolian state under the leadership of Khabul Khan, later his great-grandson Genghis Khan, who united all the scattered Mongolian and some neighboring tribes into one centralized state. It also included a significant part of the ancient Tatars.
Chinese, Mongolian, and Persian historical sources describe in some detail the history of the Mongols and their southern neighbors, the Tatars. At the same time, according to these materials, the Tatars, unlike the Mongols, appear to be tribes of a different ethnic group, namely the Turkic. Even despite some inconsistency in the information of individual authors, the history of the Turkic-Tatar tribes differs from the history of the Mongols and other related tribes (Oirots, Merkits and others). In one Chinese chronicle of the XIII century, for example, it is specifically indicated that the Tatars "come from a special kind of sha-to." The Sha-to tribes are a confederation of tribes of Western Turks who lived in the 7th century in the region of present-day Fergana in Central Asia. In the VIII - IX centuries, some of them moved to the territory of Northern China. Chinese sources note the white Tatars, calling so the Onguts (in Mongolian - Chagan-Tatars), who were Turkic-speaking.
After the war between the Mongols and Tatars in 1198, the sources note four large Tatar tribes: Chagan-Tatars, Alchi-Tatars, Dutaut-Tatars, Alukhay-Tatars.
And it was not in vain that the later outstanding historian of the Middle Ages Rashid ad-din (XIV century), who was also the secretary of state of the Iranian ruler Ghazan Khan, who had a huge library of valuable manuscripts, which our Persian author successfully used when creating his classic work "Collection of Chronicles", listed 14 Turkic tribes, one of the largest of them he called Tatar, which at one time consisted of 70 thousand yurts (houses, families). Here is what he wrote about the Tatars:
"Because of [their] extraordinary greatness and honorary position, other Turkic clans, with [all] the difference in their ranks and names, became under their name and were all called Tatars." This is an authentic and very serious message, and its author's definitions are truly encyclopedic. By the way, the largest Russian orientalist, academician VV Bartold wrote that "the work of Rashid al-Din was a huge historical encyclopedia, which in the Middle Ages was not available to any people either in Asia or in Europe."
We said that some of the Tatars were assimilated by the Mongols. We can say that assimilation was even mutual. In any case, a noticeable Turkic layer in the then Mongolian language is connected precisely with the Tatars. It is known that Genghis Khan himself knew the Tatar language; there is some information that his mother, the beautiful Hoelun, was born from a mixed Tatar-Mongolian marriage. By the way, one Genghis Khan, unlike all the Mongols, was "high and majestic in stature, with an extensive forehead and a long beard"; he had two wives from the Tatars and an adopted son. The Tatar Shiki-Khutuku was the supreme judge of the empire and one of the major military leaders. In general, both in the personal life of Genghis Khan and in his state affairs, the Tatars played an important role. In his code of fundamental laws called "Great Yasa" ("yasa" from the Turkic word "yasak" - to file, tribute) there were many Turkic-Tatar terms and titles. The sayings of Genghis Khan, expressed mainly in poetic form, were called the Turkic word "bilik" (belek - knowledge). The Khan's seal was of two kinds, for which the Turkic terms "al tamga" (scarlet tamga) and "kok tamga" (blue tamga) were used. By the way, the very word "khan" is of Turkic origin.
About the language of the Kazan Tatars
Speaking about the ancient Tatars, it should be clarified that their language belonged to the Kypchak subgroup of the Turkic languages. The language of the Bulgars (Huns) belonged to the Bulgar subgroup of the Turkic languages. The language of modern Kazan Tatars belongs to the intermediate - Bulgaro-Kipchak subgroup of the Turkic group of languages, indicating that the language of the Kazan Tatars was formed as a result of the ethnogenesis of two ethnic groups: the Bulgars (Huns) and the ancient Tatars.
Briefly about archeology
Archaeologists excavating the cities of the Golden Horde on the territory of Bulgaria indicate that they can observe a consistent change in culture through archaeological layers. This indicates that the Bulgars were not exterminated, because in this case, archaeologists would see not a smooth change in culture, but a sharp break in one and a sharp beginning of another culture. A smooth change in culture indicates the cohabitation of the Bulgars and Tatars and the fact that these two ethnic groups participated in the ethnogenesis of the modern Volga Tatars.
Speaking about the language of the Tatars and Mongols, it should be noted that the names of all the khans of the Golden Horde were Turkic: Janibek, Uzbek, Tokhtamysh, Mamai, Timur, Tinibek, Nogai, Berdibek, Kaganbek, etc. These names can still be found among Tatar, Kazakh or Uzbek names, and the prefix "bek" or "bay" are typical Turkic words denoting a master and a rich person. Let's compare the mentioned names with the names of Mongolian writers: Badam-Ochiryn Galaarid, Byambyn Rinchen, Vanchinbalyn Inzhinash, Galdan-taydzhi, Gun-Aazhavyn Ayurzana, Dashdorzhiin Natsagdorzh, Dondogiin Tsebegmid, Donrovyn Namdag, Dorzhiin Garma, Sodnombalzhirin Buyannemekh, S Ormunirshiin Dashdorov, Sengiin Erdene, Tserentulgyn Tumenbayar, Chadraabalyn Lodoydamba, Shagdarzhavyn Natsagdorzh
Are Mongolian names similar to the names of the khans of the Golden Horde?
Briefly about the Crimean Tatars
Mentioning the Kazan Tatars, one cannot ignore the Crimean Tatars, especially since in Russian propaganda the Crimean Tatars are presented as a completely separate ethnic group, supposedly having no connection with the Volga Tatars.
So, until the 30s of the 15th century, the places of nomadic Tatars stretched from the Crimea to the Volga region. So in the Russian chronicles there is a message for 1432, when one of the Beklyarbeks from the Shirin family, Tegenei Bey, went to the Crimea for the winter in winter, and in the summer he came to the headquarters of Ulu-Muhammed, who at that time lived in the Volga region. Ulu-Mohammed is the Khan of the Great Horde, representing the remnant of the Golden Horde. His headquarters was in the city of Saray, which still existed then. And thus, at that time, the Crimean Tatars formed just one of the offshoots of the entire Tatar people. There are actually a lot of such contacts. Another example: during the "Great Zamyatna" in the Golden Horde, Khan Tokhtamysh appeared, who tried to unite all the territories of the Golden Horde, and Khan Tokhtamysh appeared in the Crimea in 1380, when he finally defeated Mamai. Mamai was the owner of the Crimean peninsula. He belonged to the noble family of Kiyat, from where Genghis Khan himself came. And after Mamai was defeated, the Crimean peninsula went to one of the great princes-beks Tokhtamysh from the Shirin family. Tokhtamysh had a personal guard from personal tribes given under his control by Genghis Khan and these four tribes: Shirin, Baryn, Argyn, Kypchak. And now the Crimean peninsula went to the Shirins. These four tribes are the warriors who formed the backbone of the Khan's guard. These groups then remain in the Crimea, we later find these groups there in the 15th century, but these same groups existed in the Kazan Khanate and in the Kasimov Khanate!
The following example speaks of the movement of the Tatars through the khanates: Chura Narykov visited the Kazakh steppes, Astrakhan, and Kasimov, then comes to the Kazan Khanate. This happens shortly before the fall of the Kazan Khanate. And he was just from the Argyn tribe. Argyns were in the Kazan Khanate - we know this from sources. Therefore, one cannot say that the Crimean and Kazan Tatars are allegedly different. The differences were in the local substratum, for example, in the Volga region - these are the Bulgars, who were assimilated by the Tatars, in the Crimea there were remnants of the Khazars, remnants of the Allans, Kypchaks, and they were assimilated by the Tatars. Cultural differences between Kazan and Crimean Tatars appeared much later.
Population of the FSU
Continuing the conversation about whether it was a Tatar / Turkic conquest or a Mongol one, let's take a look at the map of the FSU and try to find at least one Mongol village or Mongol republic there. There is none of them. We do not consider Kalmyks, because they appeared on this territory only in the 17th century. But we see many Tatar villages and even Tatar republics, and this is not to mention the Turkic republics in general. But this is a clear trace, which once again proves that the invasion was Turkic, and not Mongol.
Thus, we have enough evidence both from historical documents, and from archaeological monuments and documents, and from linguistic analysis, to state that the modern Volga Tatars are descendants of both the Bulgars (Huns) and the ancient Tatars who came with Genghis Khan and further with Batu Khan.
Who among us does not know about the Tatars, who does not remember the text of the school pregraph about the Mongol-Tatar yoke? Who has not heard that the Tatars founded the Golden Horde, subjugated the entire Wild Steppe and took tribute from Rus'?
But only a few can answer the question - how do the Tatars differ from the Mongol-Tatars, and whether they differ at all! But the difference is fundamental! History, once again, has woven such an ingenious pattern that these ethnic entities can hardly be identified.
But who are they, these Tatars? And where did they come from if not from the Mongolian steppes?
Tatars are one of the most mysterious peoples, and the question of their origin is the subject of heated debate among historians and ethnographers. There are several equally likely versions. Among the most authoritative, two dominate. The first is Soviet: the ethnic community, the descendants of which are the modern Tatars, occurred as a result of the mixing of the Bulgars (who also became the forefathers of the modern Chuvash with the Balkars), and the Burtases. The version, I must say, is well substantiated, worked out and supported by archaeological data.
Another version, which is gaining popularity today, says that the same Bulgars are the ancestors of the Tatars. But here is the second ethnic element that made up the nationality - the Kipchaks. This version has also been studied and described by many, besides, it is popular in the circles of the current Kazan administration, because such an origin makes the Tatars related to the now independent Kazakhs, and the Turks, too, that they speak related languages.
Note that neither the first nor the second versions contain a word about the importance of the Mongolian component in the formation of Tatar ethnicity. And this is not surprising, because by the time the Mongols arrived, the Tatar people had already developed.
Only the ethnonym itself, which the Volga Turks adopted, was really Mongolian. The word "Tatars" was brought from the Baikal region, now it is established for sure.
However, the Mongols who came from the cold steppes fell with all their strength and unspent anger on Kazan and other cities inhabited by the descendants of the Bulgars and Burtases, and did no less trouble there than in Ryazan and Kiev.
But the question immediately arises: did it not happen that the nomads absorbed most of the local population and today's Tatars are their descendants?
No, the situation was not quite like that. Firstly, the nomadic warriors that came from the depths of Asia were all men and the second generation certainly became half-breeds; secondly, there were only about thirty thousand Mongols, against at least a quarter-million population of the Volga region, and finally, the Mongolian aliens were localized around their new capital, which was founded on the banks of the Akhtuba River, on the territory of the modern Astrakhan region.
Although, it should be noted that the newcomer Tatars and those Turks who would later adopt this ethnonym were related by a similar language, which was spoken by most of the army of Genghis Khan.
But in any case, the vicious and aggressive ethnic group of the Mongolian Tatars themselves suppressed the local Turkic population and at first met resistance and rejection.
Here it is impossible not to mention Lev Gumilyov, who did a lot to rehabilitate the historical role of the Tatars. However, his version of the origin of this ethnic group is too clearly tied to the Khazar statehood. Lev Nikolaevich believed that the indigenous part of the Tatar people was formed under the dominance of the Khazar component.
Since the Khazars are a closely related ethnic group to the Bulgars and were carriers of a very similar language, this version cannot be dismissed as unreliable, but unfortunately it has many weak points. Studies on demography at the turn of the first and second millennia AD they say that the Khazar population, whose state was defeated by Svyatoslav, having significantly decreased, itself underwent assimilation among neighboring peoples, which periodically appeared in the Lower Volga region.
Among modern researchers who tend to justify the independence of Tatarstan from Russia, the version of "pure Bulgars" is now growing, that is, the theory that the ancient Bulgarian Turks did not absorb a significant part of other bloodlines, but remained the same as they were in times the existence of the Volga Bulgaria. This theory is intended to become the foundation for the need to unite Chuvashia, Tatarstan and Bashkiria into a single conglomerate and separate it from Russia. However, such a scheme does not stand up to criticism, since it does not give a clear answer to the question of the origin of a significant part of the Siberian Tatars and other groups of the Tatar people living outside the Volga-Kama region.
Here one can see a "pure" ideology, which all theories of pure blood are guilty of. While the Tatars are still not the Bulgars, not the Khazars and not the Mongols, these are precisely the Tatars. The people that absorbed not only the Burtases and Kipchaks, but also entered into close incorporation with the Slavs, retaining, however, their ethnic core.
But what happened after the arrival of the Mongols?
Unfortunately, now more and more often, speaking about debunking the myth of the evil Tatars, many hotheads, without understanding the essence, twist the situation in such a way that it turns out that the Mongol yoke did not exist at all. In an effort to rehabilitate the Tatars (who really deserve it), unfortunate scientists deduce theories about the cordial friendship of khans and princes, that there were no raids on Rus' at all.
But there were raids, unfortunately, and they ended, at times, very sadly for the population of Russian cities. Another question is that after the change of the first generation of Horde politicians, new people came, more moderate and less bloodthirsty, and it turned out to be much easier to negotiate and deal with them than with the German feudal lords, whose troops were more ferocious and inhuman than the wild steppes. Therefore, Prince Alexander chose an alliance with the Horde, whose conditions turned out to be much more acceptable. After all, even the negotiations on the payment of tribute took fourteen years. During this time, you could save some money!
However, let's not get carried away! What happened to us with the mixing of blood?
Of course, there were Mongol infusions into the Tatar blood, but they cannot be considered significant. In addition, those same steppe dwellers did not calm down after the conquest of the Volga region and the conquest of Rus', and went west to smash the Wallachians, Hungarians and Serbs. Having reached the Adriatic almost bled, and having lost most of the troops, they returned back to the vicinity of modern Astrakhan. Moreover, the losses were not only combat - part of the warriors, tired of exhausting campaigns, settled in Wallachia and other lands.
Then begins a short period of glorious deeds of the Volga Mongols: the construction by the hands of the Slavs, Arabs and Bulgars of the city of Sarai-Batu and other cities, and temporary prosperity, which very quickly decomposed the Mongol elite.
Two centuries later, a series of epidemics will begin, accompanied by political crises, the struggle for power provokes the collapse of the Mongol empire, and the last of the bastions of the Golden Horde will be destroyed by Tamerlane, which, without knowing it, will cut off the path for the Turks to dominate in the Caspian region. This bastion will no longer be the brilliant Saray-Batu, but Tatar Astrakhan, whose desperate resistance will anger Tamerlane so much that he will destroy almost all the inhabitants of this city.
And by the time the detachments sent by Ivan the Terrible arrive, this area will be completely deserted and there will be almost no one to conquer. Khan Yamgurchey, the last of the rulers of Astrakhan, would prefer to flee.
This is how the story of the Mongol-Tatars will end.
And what about the Tatars, those whom we now call this name?
They both lived for themselves, and will continue to exist. Having assimilated the few remnants of the Batu steppe people, they will absorb other ethnic groups that lived on the territory of the Golden Horde, and thus the formation of the ethnicity of the Tatar people will end, it will spread within the new Tatar states to the rather vast territories of the Volga region and Siberia.
So are the Tatars to blame for the Tarar-Mughal yoke? Are they not the victims of the conquerors who brought with them so much malice from cold Mongolia? You be the judge.
However, history did not stop after the degeneration of the Mongolian branch. The states that replaced the Horde were competitors of the growing Muscovy and the princes fought with them. In particular, the frequent raids of Kazan troops on Russian cities became the reason for the capture of Kazan. Around this event, a lot of passions are pumped up by modern mythology (which appears in the Tatar-language textbooks of local history), and the violence perpetrated by Ivan the Terrible is exaggerated and demonized. But all this is from the evil one, because in this period, equals fought with equals.
These are parts of ideological work, which aims to disunite the peoples of Russia. And the facts speak of close interaction between Russians and Tatars even before Kazan entered the Muscovite state and that after this event the Tatars became an equal part of the nascent Russian nation and participated in the defense of Moscow from the Poles in the Time of Troubles.
But why, then, for such a long time, the myth of the evil Tatars dominated Russian historiography, why was it so tenacious?
The explanation, it must be said, is simple.
The vector of Russia's development, which was established by Peter, assumed the primacy of Westernism. Everything Western was declared positive and positive, Asiaticism was obviously a dark force. And at the time of the formation of the first universities and academies, German scientists dominated in Russia. Actually Germans, and Russians trained in Germany. And German historical science treated the Asian nations with unequivocal contempt and did not want to discern the difference between the Tatars and the Tatar-Mongols.
That is, without realizing it, the descendants of those Germans who lost the dispute for dominance on the Peipsi coast painted their former competitors in black. Or maybe realizing, who knows!
The famous historian Karamzin was, unfortunately, a pupil of that same Western tradition and, in the opinion of many today's ethnographers, gave a biased assessment of the development of the Tatar line in Russian history.
Meanwhile, as I was born in one of the Tatar cities, I can only say good words about the Tatars. Since childhood, I lived side by side with these people and managed to get a good look at them and see the features of their national character. Of course there are flaws in it, but who does not have them? But there are plenty of benefits too. Most Tatars are very conscientious, solid people; as a rule, they are good professionals, because they are used to achieving their goals. In addition, they are very clean, in the Tatar environment there is literally a cult of cleanliness, and this feature impresses me the most.
But the main thing and the main thing is that in the Tatar cities the most beautiful girls, well, just very beautiful. There is nothing to write here, it must be seen!
Who were the Tatar-Mongols as an ethnic group. Where did the Tatars come from? Was there a Tatar invasion of Rus'. Where did the Tatars go?
M. A. Gaisin
Foreword
Adults, sometimes seriously, sometimes jokingly, ask children what they want to be when they grow up. As a child, no one asked me this question, however, somewhere at the age of seven, I myself approached my maternal grandfather (Batu) and said that I wanted to become the most important. He replied that one must become the Minister of Defense in order to be the most important, although he could say that I am already the most important, only because I am from the Batu family. Why did I remember this episode from my childhood? And I remembered because it turns out that I know the early history of Rus' better than all historians put together. Now I regret that I did not ask my grandfather, but even what I know is enough to say that real history is different from the history that we are taught in schools and in higher educational institutions.
Who were the Tatar-Mongols as an ethnic group in reality.
Everyone who has been in school knows more or less the generally accepted and, at the same time, incorrect answer to this question. That is, somewhere in the distant steppes of Mongolia at the beginning of the 13th century, a very strong military horde was formed, which captured China, and then moved west. The Mongols defeated Khorezm along the way and in 1223 reached the southern borders of Rus'. And the Russian army was defeated on the Kalka River. In the winter of 1237 they invaded Rus' and captured Russian cities. And in Rus', the Tatar-Mongol yoke began, which lasted about 250 years.
But modern researchers prove that the Mongols (nomads), because of their small numbers, in principle, could not form such a powerful combat-ready horde. Naturally, they came to the conclusion that since there was no Tatar-Mongol horde, there was no Tatar-Mongol invasion of Rus', and, accordingly, there was no Tatar-Mongol yoke. And what happened then? And it was, according to Academician A.T. Fomenko, the Russian horde, which controlled the Russian principalities.
That is, there is a clear contradiction. Chronicles say that the Mongol invasion of Rus' was, and modern researchers say that the Mongols did not have enough people or material resources to invade Rus'.
The author found the key to resolving this contradiction in the epic Barsbij, written in 1497.
Boryn duck zamanda
Bolgar Belen Sarayda,
Zhaek belen Idelde,
Altyn Urda, Ak Urda -
Danly Kypchak zhirende,
Tatardan tugan Nugai ilande
Tuktamysh digen khan buldy"
The author made a translation of this passage of the epic with comments. So, at the beginning, the time of the described events is determined. "Boryn utken zamanda" - that is, in bygone times. Then the territory where these events took place is determined. From north to south, "Bolgar Belen Sarayda", that is, from the Volga Bulgaria to the capital of the Golden Horde, Saray. From east to west "Zhaek belen Idelde", that is, between the Ural and Volga rivers. Then the khanates that were in this territory are listed. "Altyn Urda, Ak Urda - Danly Kypchak Zhirende" - the Golden Horde, the White Horde in the glorious land of the Kypchaks. Another khanate is added to the list. "Tatardan Tugan Nugai Ilende" - the Nogai country born from the Tatars. "Tuktamysh digen khan buldy" - there was a khan named Tokhtamysh. The key to understanding the history of Rus' here is one line of four words. "Tatardan Tugan Nugai Ilende" - the Nogai country born from the Tatars. To explain why the information in this line is so important, you need to know that the majority of modern Tatars are not descendants of those Tatars who invaded Rus'. And they are descendants of the Kipchaks and Bulgars and were identified as Tatars much later, and then because of their residence in the country of the Tatars - the Golden Horde. Modern researchers conclude from this that there was no Tatar-Mongol invasion of Rus', since the ancestors of modern Tatars did not invade Rus', and there seem to be no other Tatars, so, accordingly, there was no invasion. But in fact, there were real Tatars, and they themselves identified themselves as Nogai during the collapse of the Golden Horde with the formation of the Nogai Horde. The reader may ask why this information is so important? It is important because the author revealed that the history of the Tatar-Mongols is, in fact, the history of the Nogais. The name of the Nogai Horde comes from the name of the commander of the Golden Horde Nogai. The main population was made up of tribes that were part of the Nogai army. Most of the Nogai warriors were from the Mangyt tribe. Another name for the Nogai Horde is the Mangyt Horde (Mangyt Yurt). The Nogai language, together with the Kazakh and Karakalpak languages, form the Kypchak-Nogai subgroup in the Kypchak group of Turkic languages. Consider the word "mangy", which is translated from the Kypchak as "eternal". The rules of word formation from this word in the Western Kypchak language differ from the rules of word formation in the Nogai language. For example: to the question who is he? Nogay will answer "mangyt", and in the plural "mangyttar". To the question who is he (nogaets)? Kypchak will answer "mangyl", and in the plural "mangyllar". The use of the affix "tar" instead of "lar", the affix "ty" instead of "ly" is typical for Nogais, Kirghiz and Kazakhs. To invade Rus', the Tatar-Mongols had to pass through the Kipchak steppes. Accordingly, Rus' learned about the invasion of the "Tatars mangyllar" from the Kypchaks. And in the phonetics of the pronunciation of the Russian language, the phrase "Tatars mangyllar" was transformed into "Tatar-Mongols". The author came to a surprising conclusion that at that time the word "Mongol" did not denote the Mongolian people, but denoted the most combat-ready tribe of the Tatar tribes - "mangyt". That is, in fact, only the Tatars invaded Rus'.
Where did the Tatars come from?
This story is directly related to the life story of Genghis Khan. The clan of Genghis Khan's father is Borjigin-kyyat. Where kyyat (kiyat) is one of the Kypchak (Mangyt) tribes, and Borjigin is a noble family of this tribe. To begin with, the author will reveal the territory of residence of the Kypchaks (Mangyts) before the great campaigns. The author found the easiest way to solve this issue. The eldest son of Genghis Khan Jochi (Joshi) was buried in his homeland while his father was still alive. The Mausoleum of Jochi Khan is located on the left bank of the Kara-Kengir River, which flows into the Sarysu River near the Ulytau Mountains. I don't think that Genghis Khan, who was also buried in his homeland, was buried far from his son's grave. On the right bank of the Kara-Kengir River, at a direct line of sight from the Jochi mausoleum, there is the mausoleum of Alasha Khan. I think that Alasha Khan (unifier Khan) is Genghis Khan himself, who all his life was engaged in the unification of the Tatar tribes. Therefore, during life or after death, he could receive the middle name Alasha. It should also be taken into account that the greatest rulers of the mangyta Edigey, Tokhtamysh are also buried here, although they lived their lives thousands of kilometers from these places. Here, the eldest son of Genghis Khan, Jochi, formed his headquarters, from here Batu began his campaign to the west. The Sarysu River flows from the Ulytau Mountains towards the Syr Darya. The Aral Sea region, the lower reaches of the Syr Darya and the valley of the Sarysu River were the place of residence of the Kypchaks (Mangyts) at that time. Now Sarysu does not reach the Syr Darya for 200 kilometers and overflows with a lake. In those days, it flowed into the Syr Darya. The Sarysu river valley is the northern border of the Betpakdala Plateau, an elevated plain 300-350 m above sea level. In the south, the plateau is bounded by the Chu River, in the west by the Turan lowland, in the east by Lake Balkhash. The whole plateau is crossed by dry desert. This desert was a natural border between the khanate of the Kipchaks (Mangits) and the khanate of the Kara Khitans. Then on the territory of the Khanate of Kara Khitan lived numerous and powerful tribes of Kara Tatars - Dzhuin (zhyen), Airibuir, Jalair, Ungirat (variant names: Khungirat, Ongirat, Khonkirat, Kungirat, Kungrat), Naiman, Kerait, Merkit, Oirat, Kangly, etc. .d. The phrase "kara Tatars" literally translates as "black Tatars", but this is a mistranslation. Since there were also white Tatars, and accordingly the reader might think that there should be a fundamental difference between black and white Tatars. But in fact this is not so, since the words "black" and "white" in this context do not mean the color of something, but the direction of light. That is, the correct translation of the phrase "Kara Tatars" will be "Northern Tatars", and accordingly, "Ak Tatars" will be "Southern Tatars". Let me give you an example, the river "Ufa" in the Bashkir language is called "Karaidel", while this does not mean that the river is black, but only means that it flows from the north. And the Belaya River got its name from a literal translation from the Bashkir name of the Agidel River, although the correct translation would be “southern”, since it flows from the south. Why is the Black Sea called black, although in fact it is blue. Because this name is borrowed from the Turks, and for the Turks this sea is northern and, accordingly, is called the word "kara", and the Turks call the Mediterranean Sea white, because for them it is southern.
Temujin (Genghis Khan) was born in 1161. The Borjigin-Kyyat clan had a tradition of taking brides from the Ungirats (Kungrats). Genghis Khan's mother and wives and sons' wives were Ungirats. There were close family relations between the Kyat and Kungrat tribes. Therefore, the heads of the Kyyat, Mangyt, Kungrat, Baily, Tangut and Yidzhan tribes in 1206 chose Temuzhin as Khan and titled Genghis Khan. Central and Central Asia (according to Gumilyov) for 1193 (Fig. 1). The territory of residence of the Kypchaks (Mangyts) on the map in the upper left corner. Throughout his life, Genghis Khan has been uniting the neighboring tribes of the Kara-Khitans (Kara-Kitans) and the Naimans. And at this time, Khorezm, located in the south-west of the Mangyts, turns into a huge empire. Khorezmshah Ala ad-Din Tekesh (1172-1200) in 1194 captures eastern Persia. Conducts a successful campaign against the Kara-Khitans (Kara-Kitais) and takes Bukhara from them. And his son Ala ad Din Mohammed the second, robs Samarkand and Otrar from the Kara-Khitans (Kara-Kitais). He extends his power to the region of Ghazna in the south of Afghanistan, subjugates western Persia and Azerbaijan. By 1218, the Khorezmian empire and the khanate of Genghis Khan became neighbors. Genghis Khan sends 450 trade representatives to Khorezm. In the Khorezmian border town of Otrar, the imported goods were confiscated, and the merchants were killed.
Genghis Khan sends an ambassador to Khorezm with a demand to explain the reason for the murder of his trade people. Sultan of Khorezm Mohammed kills this ambassador as well. Genghis Khan holds a kurultai, where he announces preparations for a military campaign against Khorezm. In 1219, the troops of Genghis Khan, having made a difficult transition through the Betpakdala Plateau desert, besieged the city of Otrar (Fig. 2). From there, Genghis Khan sends his generals to different parts of the Khorezmian Empire. He himself captures Bukhara and Samarkand. Already by April 1221, Urgench was taken (Fig. 2). Further, Genghis Khan and his commanders were busy conquering Maverannahr, Khorasan, Central Persia and Afghanistan. And the Khorezmshah Mohammed ibn Tekesh, driven out by the chase, fell ill in 1221 and died on the island of Abeskun in the Caspian Sea. And the tumens of Zev and Subegedei, who pursued the Khorezmshah, were given a new task, to conquer the western part of the Khorezmian empire. After completing this task, they went to the Transcaucasus and further to the steppes of the North Caucasus and the Black Sea region. There they defeated the Alans and defeated the united Russian-Polovtsian army on the Kalka River. And we went further to the Volga steppes. But on the Volga they fell into traps set by the Kypchaks and Bulgars. The mists of Zev and Subagadei were forced to turn back. They crossed the Volga and in 1224 returned through the steppes to Central Asia (Fig. 2). In 1235, at the kurultai, a decision was made to advance to the west. In 1235 and at the beginning of 1236, the assembled Chingizid army was preparing for an offensive. The campaign began with the conquest of the Bashkir tribes. In the autumn of 1236, the Chingizid army, under the general leadership of Jochi's son Batu, concentrated in the Caspian steppes. Batu's army brought down the first blow on the Volga Bulgaria. Volga Bulgaria was defeated and by the spring of 1237 was completely conquered. Then the Polovtsians and Alans were defeated. Then the lands of the Burtus, Moksha and Mordovians were captured. Preparations for the winter campaign against Rus' were carried out in the autumn of 1237. And in the winter of 1237, the Tatars attacked Rus'.
Where did the Tatars go?
Based on the legends of the Bashkir people and handwritten documents on the history of the Ufa province of the 15th and early 16th centuries, Russian historian Pyotr Rychkov wrote that on the territory of the city of Ufa there was a large city that stretched along the high bank of the Belaya River from the mouth of the Ufa River at a distance of ten miles, in which there was Tura Khan's headquarters. On the Belaya River, where the Dema River flows into, there was a Kungurat fortress on the mountain, and the mountain itself was called Tura-tau. At the end of the 15th and the beginning of the 16th centuries, a significant number of the population left the territory of Bashkortostan. This phenomenon was associated with two waves of the Shibanid conquest of Central Asia in 1500-1510. It is believed that the Uzbek tribes, the so-called nomadic Uzbeks, left the territory of Bashkortostan. It must be said right away that in those days the ethnic definition "Uzbek" did not refer to the numerous Turkic and Turkicized tribes of Central Asia. This happened only later, when the nomadic Uzbeks joined this population, at the same time passing on their ethnonym "Uzbek" to them. This understanding is very important, as many historians begin to get confused here. Since these tribes, no matter how Bashkir, the question arose of who they were then. And they were Tatars. In the work “Mongols and Russia”, the scientist G.V. Vernadsky wrote: “according to Paul Pelio, the name Uzbek (uzbeg) means “owner of himself”, that is, “free man.” Neither in European, nor in Russian, nor in Arabic sources is the ethnonym the Uzbek in the 13-14th centuries is not mentioned in relation to the people of the Golden Horde, and the population of the Golden Horde was considered Tatar.Only in the Central Asian chronicles, the population of the Golden Horde is designated as Uzbek.Example: Khan Hadji-Mohammed is considered a Tatar Khan in all sources, except for the Central Asian chronicles, there he is is the Uzbek sovereign Conclusion The ethnonyms Tatars and Uzbeks are the external names of the peoples of the Golden Horde.
The reader may have questions. Firstly, why did such a large number of Tatars end up on the territory of Bashkortostan. Secondly, for what reason they left for Central Asia.
So, while cities were being built in the Golden Horde in the 14th century, the great conqueror Tamerlane (Timur) was born in Central Asia in 1336, who in 1370 founded the Timurid Empire with its capital in Samarkand (Fig. 3). Genghis Khan divided his power between the heirs into uluses. Over time, the uluses became more and more isolated from each other. Timur set the task of reuniting the lands conquered by Genghis Khan. To achieve this goal, he created an army of practically the same tribes as Genghis Khan - Naimans, Kipchaks, Kiyats, Jalairs, and so on. Under him, the descendant of Genghis Khan Suyurgatmysh (1370 - 1388) and his son Mahmud (1388 - 1402) were considered khans, and he himself was content with the title of great emir (leader). Tamerlane believed that it was very honorable to have family relations with the house of Genghisides. Therefore, having intermarried with the Chingizid house, having married the daughter of Chingizid Kazan Khan, Tamerlane added the title Gurgan (son-in-law) to his name. At that time, the nomads of the steppe were convinced that power was from God, and, accordingly, according to their concepts, it was impossible to become a khan, they could only be born. Therefore, the commanders Nogai, Edigey and Tamerlane, having full power, did not declare themselves khans.
Khan of the Golden Horde Tokhtamysh pursued a hostile policy towards Emir Timur. And Emir Timur made three campaigns against the Khan of the Golden Horde, finally defeating him in 1395. In the last campaign, the cities of the Golden Horde were subjected to total destruction. The population was partially destroyed, partially forced out to the periphery of the Golden Horde, including the territory of modern Bashkortostan. This time is recorded as the time of a powerful influx of Kypchaks to the west of Bashkortostan. Throughout the 15th century, internecine wars between Genghisides were going on in the territories of the great steppe. At the end of the 15th century, among the nomadic nobility of the steppe, dissatisfaction began to grow that the power on the lands of Genghis Khan in Central Asia illegally belonged to the Timurids. This dissatisfaction was expressed by Sheibani Khan in his letter to the Kazakh Sultan Kasym. In this letter, Sheibani Khan asks for an army to help, so that the descendants of Genghis Khan can return the lands of Turkestan, which now belong to the descendants of Emir Timur, and thereby return the former glory to the Genghisides. The army of Sheibani Khan consisted of almost the same tribes that Genghis Khan had - Mangyts, Kiyats, Kungrats, Naimans, Uighurs, Tanguts and so on. As a result, the Shibanid conquests of Central Asia took place in 1500-1510. Most of the Timurids were physically destroyed, and power again passed to the Genghisides.
The next exodus of the Nogays (Tatars) from the lands of Bashkortostan is recorded in the shezher (history) of the Yurmata tribe. For three years (1543-1545) there were very severe winters. There were no horses and sheep, bread did not rise at all. Many people were hungry and naked. The Nogai gathered and held a council: - Our ancestors came here from the Kuban because of the land and water, but it turned out that the winter cold is worse than the midday heat. And the council decided to return to the Kuban. And an innumerable horde of Nogais migrated to the Kuban. After some time, the last remaining three hundred Nogays with their families also migrated to the Kuban. The remaining people called themselves Ishtyaks and enjoyed life in the empty lands left by the Nogais.
Conclusion. Firstly, the Tatar-Mongol invasion of Rus' was actually a Tatar-Mangyt invasion. Secondly, the Mangyts (Mangyls) were not Mongols, but were Kipchaks. Thirdly, the events that resulted in the invasion of Rus' unfolded not in Mongolia, but in the central part of Kazakhstan and Central Asia.
Literature
Wikipedia. Free encyclopedia. Internet.
Several centuries have passed since the events of the "Mongol-Tatar yoke", but the passion for studying this issue does not subside. And until the whole truth comes out, until the last masks are removed from the "Mongol-Tatars", researchers will continue to delve into this most interesting topic.
Unfortunately, the scribes of history did a lot to ensure that the true events that took place during the time of the "Mongol-Tatars", and in other times, were forgotten and erased from our memory. The destruction of authentic evidence, their falsification, the suppression of the remaining traces - these are the few tools that are used by the enemies of humanity in order to control society and enslave the consciousness of an individual. But it's not always possible to hide and destroy all artifacts. So it is with the topic of “Mongol-Tatars”: so much data has accumulated that contradicts the official version of history that few people have any doubts that the “Mongol-Tatars”, like the “yoke”, never existed. And also the fact that the “Mongol-Tatars” are not Mongoloids at all, as they imposed on the whole world, but Europeans!
Where did the term "Mongol-Tatars" come from?
In 1817, Christian Kruse published an Atlas on European History ("Atlas and tables for reviewing the history of all European lands and states from their first population to our times"), where he first introduced the term "Mongol-Tatar yoke" into scientific circulation (in Russian the language of this work was translated in 1845).
In Russia, the term "Mongol-Tatars" was introduced by the famous historian P.N. Naumov in 1823. And only from that time, from the 19th century, it appeared in textbooks and scientific articles. In all surviving sources, be it maps, annals, dictionaries, of course, there are no “Mongol-Tatars”. Studying the etymology of the word "Mongol-Tatars", we see that this term was artificially invented and introduced into use much later than the events of the "Mongol-Tatar yoke". And now in more detail.
Looking at the maps and illustrations of atlases that have come down to us, we will meet the words MOGOL, MOGUL! Please note, without the letter "N".
The word "mogul" is of Greek origin and means "Great" in translation. This is exactly what the Great Ones called us, the Slavs, Russ, some Europeans, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese on their maps, engravings and other surviving artifacts. And those whom historians call Mongols call themselves Khalkhas or Khalkhas, Oirats, and so on. But not the Mongols. Yes, and historians began to call them Mongols only in the XX century.
And now about the word "Tatars".
That is, not Tatars, but Tartars. Yes, yes, it is TARTARS. And this people lived on the territory of the Great Tartary (Great Tartary), that's why they called it that!
Here is what Nikolai Levashov writes:
“... The name of Tartaria has nothing to do with the name of the Turkic tribes. When foreigners asked the inhabitants of this country about who they were, their answer was: “We are the children of Tarkh and Tara” - brother and sister, who, according to the ideas of the ancient Slavs, were the guardians of the Russian land (Goddess Tara is the patroness of Nature and her elder brother Tarkh - May God be the keeper of the ancient Great Wisdom). The word Tartaria came from the merger of the words Tarkh and Tara. And the fact that later the letter “P” from the words Tartary and Tartary was thrown out of the spelling and pronunciation of the word suggests that someone needed it. To erase from the consciousness of the people themselves the memory of the country, which was truly called the Great Tartary, and of the people themselves - the Tartars. And for several centuries, the scribes of history almost succeeded. Almost.
So it turns out that in one case the Slavs were called Mughals, in the other Tartars. But never - "Mongol-Tatars"! And the words "Mongols" and "Tatars" are already a modern translation of unfortunate historians from science. And if you take the original of the surviving artifact and the translation, you can see for yourself how the "Tartars" turn into "Tatars", and the "Moguls" into "Mongols".
What did the “Mongol-Tatars” known to all of us look like?
According to the official version of history, the "Mongol-Tatars" are representatives of the Mongoloid race, who have a different eye structure than other races, and above all, these are slanted eyes with a highly developed fold of the upper eyelid, black hair, dark eyes, with yellowish skin color, with strongly protruding cheekbones, a flattened face and poorly developed hairline.
And, of course, in all the films, the "Mongol-Tatars" appear exactly as described above. At history lessons, teachers repeat the same thing, teachers at universities drive into the heads of students the information that the "Mongol-Tatars" are Mongoloids, and nothing else. With the rare exception of teachers who are not afraid to go across the educational system.
In general, there are no such affirmative sources that would unequivocally say that the "Mongol-Tatars" were Mongoloids. Rather, on the contrary, there are a very large number of artifacts that testify to the opposite. Or rather, they say that all the famous personalities of the times of the "Mongol-Tatars" were Europeans! And not just Europeans, but representatives of the white race - it would be more correct that way. But this information is carefully hushed up, because we will have to rewrite all the history that was imposed on us in the 18th century.
Let's look at some of them in more detail.
Genghis Khan.
To begin with, history knows many Genghis Khans. But we will consider the one that has become famous throughout the world. The one who is called the founder and first khan of the Mo(n)gol empire.
In fact, Genghis Khan, as many people think, is not a name, it is a title. And khans were called military princes in Rus'. What is the real name of the well-known Genghis Khan? Real name is Timur. Or, as was customary in those ancient times, Timur Chin (or Temujin, or Temujin in a distorted pronunciation, as Genghis Khan was often called). With the name of Genghis Khan sorted out. And now let's see what kind of "Mongol-Tatar" he was.
Of all the surviving portraits of Genghis Khan, historians have declared only one authentic. And this portrait of Emperor Taizu (Genghis Khan) is kept in the Taipei Palace National Museum, Taiwan:
The Mongolian doctor of sciences D. Bayar reports the following about the only portrait of Genghis Khan: “The image of Genghis Khan was preserved in the walls of the palaces of the rulers of the Yuan period. When the rule of the Manchus was overthrown in 1912, the historical and cultural heritage was transferred to the inventory of the Middle State. The set of these historical assets included more than 500 paintings depicting rulers and their wives, sages and thinkers. There were also portraits of eight Mongol khans, seven khanshas. These portraits were published in Beijing in 1924, 1925 and 1926. In this series of Mongol rulers, Genghis Khan is depicted wearing a light-colored Mongol fur hat, with a slanting border, a wide forehead, a face that radiates light, a fixed gaze, a bearded, braided braid behind the ears, and a very advanced age. At the expense of the reliability of this image of Genghis Khan, a detailed study was carried out and it turned out that this portrait on a fabric woven 59 cm long and 47 cm wide was starched and bordered in 1748. Those. This portrait dates back to the 18th century!!! But it was in this century that a global process of falsifying history took place around the world, including in Russia and China. So this portrait is another invention and falsification of historians.
Among the reproductions of Genghis Khan, there is another “medieval” Chinese drawing, which was made even later than the “official” portrait:
The drawing is made in ink on silk and depicts Genghis Khan in full growth in a Mongolian hat with a Mongolian bow in his right hand, a quiver with arrows behind his back, his left hand clasps the hilt of a saber in a scabbard.
Rashid ad Din, a well-known Persian figure, in his "Collection of Chronicles" also cites several miniatures, where Genghis Khan appears in his imagination as a Mongoloid.
So what did the real Genghis Khan look like? And are there other sources indicating that he was not a Mongoloid?!
The historian Gumilyov in his book “Ancient Rus' and the Great Steppe” describes it as follows: “The ancient Mongols were, according to the testimonies of the chroniclers and the finds of frescoes in Manchuria, a tall, bearded, fair-haired and blue-eyed people ... Temujin is tall and majestic in stature, with a broad forehead and long beard. The personality is militant and strong. That's what makes him different from others."
The Borjigins have eyes “blue-green ...” or “dark blue, where the pupil is surrounded by a brown rim” “Histoire de Mogols el des Tatares par Aboul Ghazi Bahadour Khan, publiee, traduite el annotee par Baron Demaison. SPb., 1874. T. 11. P. 72, Cahun L. Introduction a l "histoire de l" Asie. Paris, 1896. P. 201 "".
The Borjigins are a Mongol clan to which Timur-Genghis Khan belonged. Borjigin is translated as "blue-eyed".
By the way, Rashid ad Din in his "Collection of Chronicles" also writes that Genghis Khan belonged to the Borjigin family, and had bright eyes. And here you can trace the inconsistency between the text, where Genghis Khan appears tall and light-eyed, and the illustrations, in which the Great Commander is clearly a Mongoloid, small in stature, with dark eyes and hair color. But this is a topic for another conversation.
Also preserved is a Chinese drawing of the 13th-14th centuries, which depicts Genghis Khan during falconry:
As you can see, in this picture, Genghis Khan is not a Mongoloid at all! And a typical Slav, with a thick beard and signs of a clearly white race.
Yes, and Marco Polo sees Genghis Khan as a European, and in his miniatures he draws him as a 100% Slav. In the miniature "The Crowning of Genghis Khan to the Kingdom":
Marco Polo dresses both Genghis Khan and his retinue in European clothes, crowning the Great Commander with a crown with trefoils, which has always been an attribute of European rulers. And the sword that Genghis Khan holds in his hands has a shape that was characteristic of Russian swords!
So, it turns out that Genghis Khan was a fair-haired guy with blue eyes!!! Here are the Mongols!
So, in addition to the “official” evidence recognized by science, there are others according to which Timur-Genghis Khan looks more like a Slav than a Mongoloid, who are not tall, have clearly black hair and dark eyes. However, it is not customary to talk about it.
But before drawing any conclusions, let's see what other great commanders and figures of the Mongol era looked like, whose names have come down to us through the centuries.
Khan Baty.
Batu Khan, or rather Batu Khan, was the grandson of Timur-Genghis Khan. This fact is recognized by modern historians, and this is written in chronicles and other documents.
Well, and as usual, historians see him as a Mongoloid. Waters his portrait, which they recognize as genuine:
This is a Chinese manuscript "History of the first four khans from the clan of Genghis."
But let's think logically. Batu also belongs to the Borjigin family and should at least look like his grandfather, i.e. Genghis Khan, and have either blond hair, or blue eyes, or be at least 170 cm tall, or have other characteristics of the white race.
The bust of Batu Khan, located in Turkey, has survived to this day:
Of course, looking at the bust, it is difficult to draw conclusions about what color his eyes and hair were. But something else is visible. Before our eyes appears a typical European with a thick beard, in whose features there is absolutely not the slightest sign of a Mongoloid!
And here is another source - “The capture of Suzdal by Batu in 1238. Miniature from the "Life of Euphrosyne of Suzdal" of the 16th century. List of the XVIII century ":
This miniature depicts Batu Khan in a crown, on a white horse, who, accompanied by his squad, enters the city. His face is purely European, in no way Turkic. Yes, and some kind of Slavic army, don’t you think ?!
In another chronicle illustration, Khan Batu appears as a Russian tsar with his Russian warriors:
So the grandson of Genghis Khan, Batu Khan, did not go far from his grandfather in appearance.
Khubilai.
Khubilai or Kubla Khan, as well as Batu Khan, was the grandson of Genghis Khan, and, like his grandfather, became famous in earnest. Consider this mo (n) goal.
According to the official version of history, Khubilai conquered almost the whole world by capturing China and practically conquered Japan (and if not for the tornado, he would have succeeded). Of course, the men of official history see him as a Mongoloid:
Those me less, Marco Polo portrays Khubilai European. In the Book of the Diversity of the World there is an illustration depicting the arrival of Marco Polo at Kublai's headquarters:
Here Khubilai is again not a mo (n) goal, but a European !!! Facial features, beard - everything indicates that we have a man of European appearance.
Yes, and 4 wives of Khubilai:
As you can see, they are not at all representatives of the Mongoloid race, and look like typical ladies of medieval Europe. And in crowns with trefoils, and the trefoil is a combat symbol of precisely the Slavic-Aryans !!!
And here is another illustration of the Book of the Diversity of the World:
On it, Khubilai gives the Polo brothers a "golden dishchit" and sends them as ambassadors to the Pope. Again, appearance, attire, attributes - everything is European!
Separately, I want to draw your attention to the "golden board". This is the so-called golden paiza. Paiza is a credential tag, issued as a symbol of the delegation of power, the empowerment of special powers. No matter how surprising, but all the paizi belonging to the Mo (n) Gol khans were found on the territory of Russia. Not a single paiza was found in the spaces of modern Mongolia! This is another confirmation of the fairy tale about the "Mongol-Tatar" yoke.
But back to Kublai.
A 13th-century Japanese scroll depicts Kublai's campaign against Japan:
To the right of the scroll is a wounded Japanese warrior, to the left are medieval mo(n)gols. In the picture, the Mo (n) Gol army of Khubilai is traditionally in Russian clothes and boots. Attention is drawn to the foot formation, characteristic of the tactics of the ancient Russians, as well as traditional Russian weapons: straight swords and complex bows. And pay attention also to the fiery-colored tufted sedentary, sticking out of the crown of each of the three warriors-mo (n) heads - a detail of the external appearance, inherent exclusively to the Slavs. But the most convincing are the faces that leave no doubt about their ethnicity.
On the miniature from the Scroll of the Mongol Invasion, one of Kublai's ships can be seen:
The ship of the Mo (n) Gol flotilla, mainly with Russian warriors! The same as in the previous picture.
Those whom the Japanese call medieval mo(n)gols are 100% Slavs!
The same story can be traced here as with Genghis Khan. Tamerlane is not a name, but rather a nickname. And his name is Timur.
According to the description of Ibn Arabshah, Timur was tall, broad-shouldered, had a large head and thick eyebrows, had long legs and long dry hands, wore a large beard. Timur had chrome on his right leg. His eyes were like candles, but without brilliance. He had a loud voice, was distinguished by powerful strength and great courage, was not afraid of death, retained a clear memory until the end of his life, did not like jokes and lies, on the contrary, he liked the truth, even putting him in a difficult position.
T.N. Granovsky in the Complete Works writes that Timur was born with white hair like an old man’s and that he belonged to the offspring of Genghis Khan through the female line (who, as sources tell us, were fair-haired and blue-eyed). Although other historians argue that Timur did not belong to the Genghisides. But we have another task, the main thing for us is whether he was a goal and how he looked.
In the city of Sogyut, along with the bust of Batu Khan, there is also a bust of Timur:
As you can see, Timur-Tamerlane here is a European, a typical Cossack. And in the view of the Italians, the Dutch, the French, Timur-Tamerlane is also a representative of the white race, and not Mongoloid at all:
In an Iranian miniature of the 15th-16th centuries, Timur is depicted with a thick white beard and outward signs of the white race:
Another Iranian miniature of the 15th century by an unknown author:
Here Timur looks European.
But, surprisingly, some modern artists of Timur-Tamerlane in their works reproduce his appearance not as a Mongol, but as a European! Despite the fact that in the films he appears as one hundred percent Asian. So, on the vintage block, Tamerlane is a completely Russian person, only with a black beard (apparently, so that the censors let it go to print):
As for the appearance and appearance of Timur-Tamerlane, there are no problems with this at all. Everything fell into place after, in May-June 1941, excavations were carried out in the Gur-Emir mausoleum, the tomb of the Timurid dynasty. The expedition opened five graves: Timur-Tamerlane, his sons Shahrukh and Miranshah, his grandsons Ulugbek and Muhammad-Sultan.
MM. Gerasimov, a well-known anthropologist and sculptor, the author of a method for restoring the appearance of a person based on skeletal remains, was entrusted with such an important task as the appearance of the real Tamerlane to the whole world. He restores his sculptural portrait and is surprised to see that he has turned out to be a European-type person. This is a natural European! Convex, not flat face:
Also, Gerasimov in his book “Fundamentals of Facial Restoration from the Skull” reports the following: “The discovered skeleton belongs to a strong man, relatively tall for a Mongol (about 170 cm).”
And the section of Tamerlane's eyes turns out to be not Mongoloid at all: "However, a significant protrusion of the root of the nose and the relief of the upper part of the eyebrow indicate that the Mongolian fold of the eyelid itself is relatively weakly expressed." Further: "Contrary to the accepted custom of shaving his head, by the time of his death Timur had relatively long hair." If Timur is a Mongol, then his hair must be black. But what do we really see? And here Gerasimov cannot hide the truth: Timur had European hair. Indeed: “Timur's hair is thick, straight, gray-red, with a predominance of dark chestnut or red. The hair of the eyebrows is less well preserved, but nevertheless it is not difficult to imagine and reproduce the general shape of the eyebrow from these remnants. Separate hairs are well preserved... Their color is dark chestnut... It turns out that Timur wore a long mustache, and not trimmed over his lip, as was customary for the faithful followers of Sharia... Timur's small thick beard had a wedge-shaped shape. Her hair is hard, almost straight, thick, bright brown (red) in color, with significant graying ... Even a preliminary study of the hair of the beard under the binocular convinces that this reddish-reddish color is her natural, and not dyed with henna, as historians described ” .
This fact alone completely destroys all previous traditionally historical attempts to escape from the obvious. Here are the conclusions for you: Tamerlan, like his predecessors - the "Mongol-Tatars" discussed above - turned out to be a fair-haired man of the Caucasoid type !!!
ULUGBEK.
Ulugbek - Great Uzbek astronomer and patron of sciences, grandson of Tamerlane, ruler of Maverannahr, and after the death of his father Shahrukh was the ruler of the entire empire of Tamerlane.
Unlike his great ancestors-commanders, Ulugbek chose a different way of life, which glorified him no less than his grandfather, the Great Tamerlane. He was a Great Astronomer!
Near Samarkand, Ulugbek built an astronomical observatory, unique for those times. The result of her activity was the "New Guragan Tables". In them, with an accuracy unprecedented for that time, the annual movements of the planets (with an accuracy of several seconds of an arc), and the Sun (the inclination of the ecliptic to the equator, constant precession) were determined. There was also a catalog of 1018 stars, geographic coordinates of 683 cities in Europe and Asia. Ulugbek built higher schools - madrasahs and himself taught a course in astronomy in them. His works were used in the East and in the West until the 18th - 20th centuries.
Ulugbek's scientific activity ran counter to the ideas and plans of Islamic clerics. He was declared a heretic, and later they staged his murder by cutting off his head.
Ulugbek, like his grandfather, Tamerlane, was of European appearance.
Here is what Gerasimov writes about the restoration of Ulugbek’s skull: “Ulugbek’s skull is well preserved and, except for the loss of almost all teeth (during his lifetime) and cut-off corners of the lower jaw (at the time of the murder), it should be considered as complete ... In its form (in horizontal projection) the skull is close to an ovoid shape. Its cross section is rounded, vaulted, the occiput does not protrude. The weakly developed glabella is somewhat enhanced by small swellings of short superciliaries, the face is ovoid, the orbits are round and high; with a slightly overhanging upper edge, which is not thick, but roundly blunt. The long nasal bones are very narrow above and in the middle part, forming a wide bell below, the edges of the pear-shaped opening are thin, sharp, and its shape is shortened, heart-shaped. The strongly developed nasal spine is slightly inclined downwards. The lower edge of the orbits protrudes strongly forward, which, along with a significant flattening of the zygomatic bones, gives the skull a significant Mongoloid appearance, although at the core the skull undoubtedly has more elements of the Caucasoid Pamir-Fergana round-headed type inherited from its father, Shakhrukh. There are, however, small features in the details of the structure of the skull, undoubtedly, reminiscent of his great grandfather Timur ":
In other words, Ulugbek's appearance, although it has some significant signs of Mongoloidity, nevertheless, belongs to the Caucasoid type.
Thus, we figured out that there were no “Mongol-Tatars” in principle, and those who were called “Moguls” and “Tartars” were people of the white race, Europeans. And well-known "Mongol-Tatar" personalities, such as Genghis Khan, Batu, Khubilai, Tamerlane, Ulugbek, were Europeans. It is a fact! A fact that will have to be recognized not only by Russian historians, but by the whole world.
Director of the Institute of History. Marjani of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan, Director of Scientific Programs of the Kazan Center for Federalism and Public Policy Rafael Khakimov, offered his short digression into the history of the emergence of two peoples on the Russian portal "BUSINESS Online" .
Tatars vs Mongols
Always a slave, but with the homeland of kings on a swarthy chest
And with the state seal instead of an earring.
That girl with a sword, who did not know conception,
That midwife is a rebellious old woman.
You turn the pages of that book
Where the handwriting was the pressure of the hand of the seas.
People sparkled with ink at night,
The execution of kings was an angry sign of exclamation,
The victory of the troops served as a comma,
And in the field - dots, whose fury is not timid,
People's anger
And the cracks of centuries are a parenthesis.
Velimir Khlebnikov. Asia. 1921
There is no influence on either the Tatars or the Russians. If we are talking about the Tatar influence on Russians, then it is easy to list Russian names of Tatar origin, it is easy to build hundreds of borrowings in the language, moreover, in such key areas as finance, economy, and trade. It is impossible to deny the invasions, it is impossible to deny such an important period in Russian history as the reign of the khans of the Golden Horde.
You can call this period a “yoke” or a protectorate over the Russian principalities, but the existence of such a period is difficult to deny, and besides, not everything was so bad there, as historians sometimes describe. In any case, it is difficult to imagine the emergence of the Russian Empire without such an important stage as the acquisition of skills within the framework of the great statehood called the Golden Horde. There was no other way to learn how to manage the future huge state. The Horde did its bit by teaching Russian imperial skills, at the same time many Tatars went to Russian service in Muscovy.
The confusion among historians begins with the spread of the modern ethnonym to past events, and in the search for ancient roots they sometimes reach Neanderthals, trying to give ethnic characteristics even to primitive people. Until now, we are arguing about whether we are Tatars or Bulgars, although at first we must ask: who are the Bulgars?
It turns out that the Bulgars are not an ethnonym, but a polytonym referring to the union of various tribes with different self-names: Suvars, Burtases, Barsils, Baranjars, Oguzes, etc. The question arises: are we Barsils or Burtases? It seems to be not oguzes. The Chuvash claim the Suvar. They took the tamga of the "white leopard" from the barsils as their coat of arms. Perhaps the Bulgars also left their mark, because they were the dominant tribe that gave their name to the state, just as the Varangian tribe of the Rus gave the name to the Russians, and the Danube Bulgarians left their name to the glorified Bulgaria.
Let us ask ourselves the question of the origin of the Bulgars themselves, which will clarify many things in the ethnic history of the Tatars. In fact, the roots of the Bulgars go back to the Xiongnu/Huns, just like the Tatars. One roots, one language, one history. In the tradition of the Turks, starting with the Xiongnu, who lived in the north of present-day China, there was a division of the hierarchy of tribal leaders into "right" (western) and "left" (eastern).
As a result of the war of 155 with the Xianbei, one part of the Gansu Turks went to the Altai mountains and the Irtysh, the other in 158 went to the territory between the Volga and the Urals. They became known as the Huns. They provoked the Great Migration of Nations.
“In the second half of the 5th century,” writes Lev Gumilyov, “the Xiongnu ethnos disappeared in four regions that did not resemble each other either in terms of natural conditions, or population, or culture. More precisely, four peoples perished, in which the Huns were present as a necessary component... The Akatsirs mixed with the Saragurs and gave birth to the ancient Bulgarians, the Gansu Huns became part of the Ashin horde of Turks; The Chui tribes supported the greatness of the Western Turkic Khaganate and singled out from their midst the heroic tribe of the Shato Turks, who again took possession of China in the 10th century. Finally, the Huns, who remained in Ordos, Shaanxi and Shanxi, mixed with the Tabgachs and shared the fate of the Toba-Wei empire.
It is essential for us to note two wings: the western one, the Bulgarians, and the eastern one, the Gansu Turko-Tatars. Gansu (today a province of China) borders Xinjiang, Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet.
Regarding the earliest period of recorded history, it is not always possible to definitely speak about the ethnicity of the tribes, but it is quite obvious that there were two political dominants: Tatars and Mongols.
Asian legends say that in the seventh generation from the Turk, two twins were born: Tatars and Mongol, to whom their father Ili Khan divided "Turkistan": the first gave the eastern half, and the second the western. This can be considered fiction, a fairy tale, but chroniclers persistently repeat such a division.
The outstanding historian N.Ya. Bichurin, a professor at the Kazan Imperial University, notes: “The Persian historian Khondemir, revering the Türk as the head of two Houses - Tatars and Mongol, who dominated Mongolia, calls Mongolia Türkistan ... The Türkic historian Abyul-Kazi Khan, although he produces the Mongols from the Türk, but the current Türkic tribes, i.e. speaking the Tatar language, honors more than one tribe with the Mongols. This division into Tatars and Mongols is also repeated in Chinese chronicles.
The sources do not talk so much about ethnic groups, but about the history of a particular House or tribe, or even the reign of a particular leader, kagan, khan, etc.
Bichurin, relying on numerous Chinese sources, writes: “Already at the beginning of the third century, when the Huns strongly shook the Middle Kingdom, the Chinese learned that the Mongols, shortly before that time, were under the supreme authority of two single-tribe Houses, the Xiongnu and Dun-hu. The Xiongnu, according to Asian historians, the House of Mogul Khan, reigned in the western half of Mongolia: his horde stood near Khangai (near Orkhon); his possessions stretched from Kalgan to the north beyond Baikal, to the west to the Tarbagatai mountains. Dun-hu, according to Asian historians, the House of Tatar Khan, dominated eastern Mongolia... The descendants of both of these Houses mutually rose and fell, and thus alternately dominated Mongolia in two lines for thirteen centuries.”
So, in the sources we are talking about the House of Mogul Khan and the House of Tatar Khan, i.e. about dynasties, not ethnic groups, and there is no direct indication of what language they spoke. The fact that Turkic was spoken in the Xiongnu state is indisputable, since a number of tribes have retained their self-name and the Turkic language to this day. And the best confirmation is the example of the Bulgars, whose Turkic origin is beyond doubt.
In any case, it can be argued that Tatar-Mongolian bilingualism was widespread among the Xiongnu tribes.
It is essential for us to note the presence of two independent histories of the Mongols. “With the fall of the House of Khitan, the first Mongol dynasty of the Xiongnu ended, which continued in tribal generations from 1894 BC. until 1115 A.D., Bichurin writes. “His place, after a short interval (31 years), was replaced by the House of Mongol, which continues to this day in the generations of Mongol princes.”
If the first history of the Mongols is difficult to separate from the Tatar history, moreover, it is often called simply Tatar, then the second half is connected with the history of the Khalkha-Mongolians and is of no particular interest to us. It is also important to note that the Gansu Tatars had a serious impact on historical events in the Uighur Khaganate, East Turkestan and Mongolia, but over time the center of historical events will move to the territory of Altai, where they merged with other Tatars.
Various Tatar tribes actively participated in the formation of the Turkic Khaganate, in particular, they maintained diplomatic relations with China due to the proximity of Gansu to the Chinese border. Chronicles repeatedly mention "Otuz-Tatars", "Tokuz-Tatars". In the Terkhinsky inscription it is reported that “when these letters were written - oh my khan! - then the eminent of my Heavenly Khan, eight-tribe Tatars, seventeen Az’ Buyuruks, Senguns and a thousandth detachment from the (people) Tongra, the Uighur people along with my tegins were present. Istemi-kagan in 557/558 extended the borders of the Turkic El to the banks of the Volga, so that the current territory of Tatarstan became part of the kaganate.
Around the same time, the western wing of the Huns, represented by the Bulgarians, created states on the Azov, Volga and Danube. After the defeat of Attila, part of the Bulgarians returned to the Volga, to their own kindred Turkic tribes, and together with them formed the Volga-Kama Bulgaria. When the empire of Genghis Khan appears on the site of the Turkic Khaganate, it turns out to be assembled again from the same Turkic-Mongolian-Tatar components, but under the dominance of the Genghisid dynasty.
Sometimes they ask in bewilderment: “If the Tatars and the Bulgars are one people, then why did Batu destroy the city of Bolgar?” Did the brothers never fight? Remember Cain and Abel. Did blood relationship stop anyone from fratricidal war? And the civil strife of the Russian princes was so fierce that the Tatars could learn from them.
The Tatars also fought with their Kipchak brothers, in particular with Prince Bachman. At the same time, ethnic differences did not stop the union of the Polovtsy (Kipchaks) with the Russians. By the way, the stubborn resistance of the Bulgars and Kipchaks to the troops of Batu is explained by the fact that they all equally mastered the Tatar tactics of battle on horseback, they had the same weapons and the same skills, since they were essentially one people, but from different tribes. So that the Bulgars and Tatars, as the western and eastern wings of the Huns/Huns, reunited again in the Volga-Kama Bulgaria, and then the Golden Horde as carriers of a single Tatar-Bulgarian civilization, and not some special Bulgar culture. Expressed in modern terms, the Bulgars have always been only a sub-ethnos of the Tatar people.
Modern historians constantly feature the Mongols, who conquered the Volga-Kama Bulgaria and Russian lands. It is curious that the sources persistently speak about the Tatars, and our scientists and publicists just as persistently call them Mongols. Such a rewriting of "Tatars" into "Mongol", apparently, is necessary in order to separate the history of the Tatar-Mongol conquests from modern Tatars, to "spare" the pride of the Tatars, shifting all the blame on the Mongols. Modern Tatars, of course, are not medieval Tatar tribes, but this does not mean at all that they have nothing to do with them. There is no need to cover one lie with another lie.
If in reality it was not the Tatar, but the Mongol invasion, then the question is, where did these same Mongols go, because their hordes not only passed with fire and sword, but also remained on our land for many centuries? Where are the traces of their stay? Why DNA analysis of the Y chromosome does not reveal the Mongolian haplogroup among the Tatar population. How is it that not a single Mongol warrior married a Tatar, Russian, or Finno-Ugric girl? Who will believe it? Did they take a vow of celibacy? Only the khans had dozens of wives (at least four) and hundreds of concubines.
What were all the Turks and Mongols called?
“Thank God there are no duties on lies! After all, where would the ruin be for everyone. Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin
Let's see how it really happened and why there is a confusion of terminology. In the Middle Ages (more precisely, the VIII - X centuries), during the period of the rise of the Tatars, Chinese and Arab chroniclers mention three large groups of Tatars on the basis of farming: white (farmers), black (cattle breeders) and wild (hunters) Tatars.
The Tatars who lived closer to the Great Wall were called "educated" or "ripe" by the Chinese because they were cultivators. The composition of the so-called "black Tatars", who lived in the steppes of Mongolia, included two large tribes of Keraits and the Mongols. And therefore, if the self-name Kerait or Mongol is found in the sources, this does not mean at all that they are not Tatars. The Mongols who were part of the "black" Tatars and the modern Khalkha Mongols are different peoples.
"Wild" Tatars lived in the forests closer to Lake Baikal and were engaged in hunting. They did not have a khan, and therefore for the Chinese they were not “ripe”, “raw”, we would say in Tatar: “chip-chi”.
By the way, Genghis Khan on the maternal side comes from the Khori-Tumats, one of the Buryat branches, and the Buryats in the Middle Ages were considered part of the "wild Tatars", although it is not entirely clear what language they spoke. It is no coincidence that Rashid ad-Din, one of the most knowledgeable chroniclers, writes: "In ancient times, the Mongols were (only) one of the tribes of the totality of the Turkic steppe tribes."
The Tatar tribes multiplied and divided, acquiring new self-names, with which they remained in memory. Sometimes they were called generically "Tatars", but at times only tribal names were mentioned.
So, for example, Rashid al-Din highlights six Tatar states: “Tatar tribes, which are known and glorious, and each individually has an army and its sovereign, six, going in this order: Tatars-tutukulyut, Tatars-alchi, Tatars- Chagan, Kuin Tatars, Terat Tatars, Barkuy Tatars. The Tutukulyut tribe is the most respected of the Tatar tribes.”
We note one detail in the text of the famous chronicler, which is essential for understanding the medieval mentality. “There is such a custom,” continues Rashid ad-din, “that every person who comes from this tribe, if he is a man, he is called tutukulitai, but if he is female, then he is called tutukulichin. Those coming from the Alchi-Tatar tribe are called Alchitay and Alchin; from the Quin-Tatar tribe, Kuitai and Kuinchin, from the Terat tribe, Terati and Terauchin.
Consequently, only the self-name of the tribe itself can be found in the annals, or the tribal union from which it came out can also be indicated. If the annals say nothing about the Tatars, this does not mean that they did not exist, at the same time, if we are talking about Tatars in general, then not only related Turkic, but also dependent (for example, Mongolian) tribes can be included there. Ignoring this circumstance leads to confusion in the interpretation of historical events.
It is also important to distinguish the self-names of peoples and tribes from the name of the ruling dynasty, which can confuse the ethnonyms used. It was due to such confusion that the self-name of the tribe of Genghis Khan was transferred to the entire empire, and then began to be used as an ethnonym that went beyond the Khalkha Mongols proper.
The Chinese diplomat and intelligence officer Meng-hong, a representative of the imperial headquarters among the Tatars, who knew Genghis Khan and his associates well, writes in “Notes on the Mongol-Tatars” (1219): “(This) generation comes from the Shato's and constitutes a special family. They are divided into three types: black, white and recalcitrant (wild). By Chateau, the Chinese meant the territory between the Uighurs and the Gansu. “Prince Subutai,” Meng-hu continues, “is descended from White Tatars... The current Emperor Chingiz, his generals, ministers and chief officials all belong to Black Tatars... The commander-in-chief of all troops, the chancellor of all provinces, Grand Duke Mukhuri— black tartar. For greater persuasiveness, Meng-hu notes about Mukhuri: “When I met him, I myself heard how he called himself a Tatar man every time.”
From the chronicles, the number of which is easy to multiply, it becomes clear that before the advent of Genghis Khan, the Tatars dominated the territory of the Greater Altai and Mongolia. Rashid ad-din testifies: “Because of their extraordinary greatness and honorable position, other Turkic clans, with all the difference in their ranks and names, became known under their name and all were called Tatars.” For Rashid-ad-din, the Mongols become famous in the 9th - 10th centuries. Before the rise of the Mongols in the era of Genghis Khan, the polytonym “Tatars” dominated, which was extended to all Turkic and, possibly, also Mongolian tribes.
"States are acquired either by one's own or by someone else's weapons, or by the grace of fate, or by valor." Nicollo Machiavelli
The rise of Genghis Khan led to the growth of the authority of his particular tribe "Mongol", which became the name of the dynasty, and not an ethnic attribute. Plano Carpini, who visited Mongolia in 1246, writes in his report: “The history of the Mongols, called by us Tatars, begins.” There is no mistake here, he knew the rulers of the empire well. For him, there was the Mongol dynasty, which ruled over numerous Tatar tribes.
The emergence of the Mongol Empire is associated with the rise of a particular tribe of Genghis Khan. It is no coincidence that the term “House of Batu” often appeared in the Golden Horde, which meant numerous Jochids with their wives. Now it becomes clear why all the chronicles - Chinese, Arabic, European - stubbornly call the Mongol Empire Tataria, and the people Tatars, and why the Tatar, and not the Mongolian language in the Middle Ages served as the lingua franca.
I swam across the Sudak Bay.
I sat on a wild horse.
I exclaimed:
There is no Russia, there is no more,
Its partition cut like Poland.
And the people were horrified.
I said the heart of the modern
Russian hangs like a bat.
And the people repented.
I said:
Oh, laugh, laughers!
Oh, laugh, laughers!
I said:
Down with the Habsburgs! bridle
Hohenzollerns!
I wrote with an eagle pen. silk,
golden, it curled around
large rod
I walked along the shore of a beautiful lake,
in sandals and blue
shirt. I was beautiful myself.
I had an old brass flail
with round knobs.
I had a flute of two reeds and a horn
sawn off.
I was filmed with a skull in my hand.
I saw sea snakes in Petrovsk.
I transferred water from the Caspian in the Urals
in the Kara seas.
I said:
The snow of high Kazbek is eternal, but I
mile fresh
brocade of the autumn Urals.
On the Grebensky mountains I found stingray teeth
and silver
shells as high as pharaoh's wheel
chariots.
Velimir Khlebnikov. Late 1909 - early 1910
To be continued.
