Download PDF | István Vásáry - Cumans and Tatars_ Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365-Cambridge University Press (2005).
247 Pages
CUMANS AND TATARS
The Cumans and the Tatars were nomadic warriors of the Eurasian steppe who exerted an enduring impact on the medieval Balkans. With this work, Istvan V ´ as´ ary presents the first extensive examination ´ of their history from 1186 to the1360s. The basic instrument of Cuman and Tatar political success was their military force, over which none of the Balkan warring factions could claim victory. As a consequence, groups of the Cumans and the Tatars settled and mingled with the local population in various regions of the Balkans. The Cumans were the founders of three successive Bulgarian dynasties (Asenids, Terterids and Shishmanids), and the Wallachian dynasty (Basarabids). They also played an active role in Byzantium, Hungary and Serbia, with Cuman immigrants being integrated into each country’s elite.
This book also demonstrates how the prevailing political anarchy in the Balkans in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries made it ripe for the Ottoman conquest. istvan v ´ as´ ary ´ is Professor of Turkish and Central Asian Studies at Lorand E ´ otv ¨ os University, Budapest. His previous publications (in ¨ Hungarian) include The Golden Horde (Kossuth, 1986), and History of Pre-Mongol Inner Asia (1993; 2nd edition, Balassi, 2003). He served as Hungarian Ambassador to Turkey (1991–5), and to Iran (1999–2003).
Preface
From the first moment of its existence until its final fall in 1453, Byzantium had to face the imminent danger of barbaric attacks and incursions. The most frequent and dangerous of these attacks reached the empire from north of the Danube, notwithstanding that the deadly blow to Constantinople was dealt by the Ottomans arriving from the the East through Anatolia. Beginning with the Huns in the second half of the fourth century ad and ending with the Tatars in the thirteenth century, the barbaric hordes had frequently crossed the Danube and ravaged and pillaged the towns of the Balkan Peninsula, leaving them in ruins. More than once they made their incursions close to the Golden Horn, thereby endangering the imperial capital itself. Byzantium had learnt clever ways of handling the nomadic question, the most effective being the hire of nomadic warriors as auxiliaries to fight against Byzantium’s enemies. But even the most cunning diplomacy could not prevent the temporary influxes of nomads, which, more often than not, proved devastating to the sedentary population of the Balkans. The nomads were generally compelled to cross the Danube by other nomads from the East, so it was a whole chain of warlike events that led to the appearance of barbaric nomads in Byzantine territory.
One major wave of nomadic tribes proved instrumental in the formation of a new state: Esperukh’s nomadic warriors founded the Bulgarian Empire ¨ between the Danube and the Haimos (Balkan) Mountains in 679–80. The conquering Bulgar-Turks became slavicised in the course of the two subsequent centuries, and the adoption of Christianity by Boris in 864 meant their final assimilation into the Byzantine oecumene. But Byzantium had never acquiesced in the loss of Moesia, a former territory of the empire, and after several attempts it was Emperor Basileios II Boulgaroktonos (‘Killer of the Bulgars’) who finally crushed the Bulgars’ resistance in 1018 and incorporated what was then Bulgaria into the Romaic Empire.
Though the process of rehellenisation of the southern Slavic population began and Bulgaria lost both its political and administrative-ecclesiastical independence, Byzantium could not eliminate the nomadic question from its northern frontiers. Moreover, the annihilation of Byzantium’s northern rival brought about a power gap in this region and Byzantium was again in direct confrontation with the renewed and vigorous attacks of the nomads. In the eleventh century the Pechenegs and the Uz were the protagonists of the historical scene on the right bank of the Danube. From the second half of the same century a new nomadic confederacy entered Byzantium’s sphere of interest – that of the Cumans. Following age-old techniques, Byzantium used Cuman warriors to crush Pecheneg hegemony in the Balkans. From 1091 the Cumans gained the upper hand in the Balkans, and their role in the re-establishment of the Bulgarian Empire in 1185–6 and in its eventual fate was fundamental. Furthermore, they played a pre-eminent historical role in the history of the Fourth Crusade, the Latin Kingdom of Constantinople and the Nikaian Empire.
After the Tatar invasion of Eastern Europe in 1241, they were forced to flee to the West, and several groups settled in the Balkan Peninsula. Utilising their former intimate links with the Bulgarian elite, they twice appeared as founders of new dynasties (the Terterids and ˇ Siˇsmanids of Bulgaria). The Tatars subjugated the Second Bulgarian Empire, which was obliged to pay tribute to the new Tatar state of the Golden Horde. Towards the end of the thirteenth century and in the first decades of the fourteenth, Bulgaria was in direct dependence on the Golden Horde. It is the Cumans and Tatars, nomadic warriors of the steppe, who are the focus of this book. I shall trace their historical fate in the Balkans, the westernmost stage of their wanderings, from 1185 until the middle of the fourteenth century.
Both the chronological and the geographical frameworks of my book need some explanation. As far as the starting point is concerned, other events could equally well have been considered, such as the Cumans’ first appearance in the Balkans in the second half of the eleventh century (as in the works of Michael Attaleiates, Anna Komnene and other Byzantine authors), or the first Tatar invasion, in 1241. But for the most part the early Cuman incursions did not exceed, at least in character and size, other nomadic influxes to which the Byzantines had become accustomed in the foregoing centuries. The Cuman participation in the foundation of the Second Bulgarian Empire in 1185 and the subsequent years, however, brought about basic changes in the political and ethnic map of the Balkans. Since 1185 seems to be a real turning point in the history of the Balkans, therefore, I deemed it reasonable to commence my narrative at that point. The terminus of my discussion is the middle of the fourteenth century.
Although a sharp dividing line cannot be drawn, a few dates may indicate that a new era began in the history of the Balkanic lands at that time. The Tatar period of the Balkans came to a complete end with Berdibek Khan’s death in 1359 and the subsequent anarchy in the Golden Horde. By contrast, the Ottoman powers’ advance in Europe can be marked by the following major events: the seizure of Gallipoli in 1354, the occupation of Edirne in 1361, and finally, the loss of Serbian independence at Kosovo Polje in 1389. These events of the second half of the fourteenth century, since they herald the new Ottoman period, fall outside the scope of my work. As far as the geographical framework of this book is concerned, it is broader than the term ‘Balkans’ would normally permit. The ‘Balkans’ as a geographical and cultural term designates the territories lying south of a line between the Sava and the Lower Danube. The western frontiers of the Balkans were rather loose: medieval Bosnia, with its mixed Catholic and Orthodox population in the pre-Ottoman period, can be regarded as a transitory territory, while Croatia and Dalmatia surely belonged to Western European civilisation.
To the north, I have included medieval Wallachia and Moldavia and their historical antecedents. In the strict geographical sense, the territories between the Lower Danube, the Eastern Carpathian Mountains and the Dniester do not belong to what we call the Balkans. These territories represented the final stages of nomadic migration, and their fate was directly connected to that of the Balkans. The history and cultural traditions of these two Romanian principalities belong to that of the Balkans; they constantly stood and grew under the cultural influence of Byzantium. That is why I have included the history of these territories (within the indicated time-frame) in my book. Finally, I must explain why I have restricted my investigations to the Cumans (a generally ethnic term) and the Tatars (generally a political one). These two peoples undoubtedly played a major role in the history of the Balkans.
Their history belongs to that of the Turco-Mongolian world. A separate chapter could have been devoted to the Iranian people of the Alans or Yas, who also had a special role in the military and ethnic history of the Balkans, their role, together with that of the Catalan Company, being especially significant in the first decade of the fourteenth century. Similarly, the first Turkish mercenaries in Byzantium, often Christianised and called Tourkopouloi, played a significant role in the events between 1259 and 1319. Later, the first Turkish incursions into the Balkans up to the time when Orhan’s son Suleyman had irrevocably set foot in Tzympe, near Gallipoli, ¨ in 1352, are also very important. The Yas, the Tourkopouloi and the early Balkanic activities of the Turks could equally have been included in this book. Despite having researched their history in the Balkans extensively, however, I finally decided to exclude them here. I am convinced that the Tourkopouloi and the Turks need separate treatment: their history belongs rather to the historical antecedents of Ottoman presence in the Balkans.
Sufficient grounds could be given for the inclusion of the Alans or Yas in this book, though, since they really played an active role in the battles of the age as oriental military in the Balkans. But, after the publication of A. Alemany’s excellent compilation of the sources on the history of the Alans (Alemany, Alans), I felt relieved of any need to include them in my treatment. Much has been written on the history of the Balkans in this period (Ostrogorsky, Gesch., pp. 285–366 (331–440); Vasiliev,Hist. Byz., ii, pp. 440– 621; Jirecek, ˇ Serb., pp. 269–412; Jirecek, ˇ Bulg., pp. 209–90; Zlatarski, Ist., ii, pp. 410–83, iii, pp. 1–575; Mutafciev, ˇ Ist., ii, pp. 30–198; Spinei, Moldavia), and similarly much has been done to elucidate the history of the Cumans and the Tatars (Golubovskij, PTP; Marquart,Komanen;Rasovskij, ‘Polovcy’ 1–4; Rasonyi, ‘Turcs non-isl.’; Hammer-Purgstall, ´ GH; Howorth, History, ii/1; Spuler, GH; Grekov-Jakubovskij, ZO; Safargaliev, Raspad; Kafalı, AO; Vas´ ary, ´ AH), but their history in the Balkans has been rather neglected.
Apart from scattered notices and hints, there are no monographs devoted to the history of the Cumans and Tatars in the Balkans, and even those works that touch on the subject have dealt with the Cumans and the Tatars from the viewpoint of different ‘national’ (Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian) histories. Bulgarian researchers, especially, have shown a keen interest in the Cuman and Tatar presence in Bulgarian history (Zlatarski, Mutafciev ˇ and Nikov). During the past twenty years the Bulgarian P. Pavlov and the Romanian E. Oberlander-T ¨ arnoveanu have made particularly important ˆ and valuable contributions to the theme (for their works, see the Bibliography). My primary aim was not to produce a history of the Balkanic lands (Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Wallachia and Moldavia), but to discover how the Cumans and Tatars bear on this history. It was difficult to determine how best to organise the heterogeneous data, since the history dealt with in this book is not that of a state, but covers the process of dispersion of nomadic tribes whose original home lay outside the Balkan peninsula. The most reasonable solution seemed to be to group the material around certain minor historical periods of Balkanic history, compromising chronological and geopolitical principles to a degree that I believe will be acceptable. The material is arranged according to what seemed to work best in practice, and, although I have tried to avoid it, there will inevitably be minor overlaps of both chronology and geography. I hope, however, that these will not detract from the book’s comprehensibility. Equally, because the aim is to identify Cuman and Tatar activity and influence rather than simply to chart the history of the Balkans, and because of the fragmentary character of much of our evidence, there are evident chronological gaps. That is why Chapter 6 (‘Cumans and Tatars on the Serbian scene’) and Chapter 7 (‘Cumans in Byzantine service after the Tatar conquest, 1242–1333’) may seem to present a collection of vignettes of events in which the Cumans and Tatars participated, but which are not sufficiently linked in a meaningful way.
Though I am fully aware of this unevenness of treatment, which gives rise at times to discontinuity, more often than not it is the character of the extant sources that prevents a more consistent treatment and in-depth analysis of the events. A more coherent presentation was practically impossible. Let me say a few words about some technical details. The Abbreviations and Bibliography form two sections at the end of the book. In the Abbreviations, shorter titles refer to works whose full titles can be found in the Bibliography. Each work referred to in the text of the book has an abbreviation. The Bibliography is larger than the Abbreviations, since it includes works that have no abbreviations and that consequently are not referred to in the text. The aim of the compilation of this larger, though not exhaustive, bibliography is to offer fuller information to enable further reading and research into the various topics of the book. The transcription of Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Persian and Turkic words follows accepted systems of transcription and/or transliteration. Their interpretation will cause no problem to the expert.
However, when longer Greek passages are cited, the original script has been used. Proper usage of geographical names presents a special problem in medieval Balkanic history since a place may well have different names in different languages. Current state borders, more often than not, differ considerably from the medieval ones, and even within the 180 years (1185– 1365) covered in this book, the overlordship of territories and cities often changed. My basic principle in each case was to use the geographical name in the dominant language of the polity to which the place belonged in the age in question. Thus I have used Greek place-names in discussing Eastern Thrace, although these terriories later fell under Ottoman rule and now belong to Turkey. Geographical names of the Hungarian Kingdom are given in Hungarian, irrespective of whether these places currently belong to Romania or to Serbia. Of course, this practice could not be totally consistent. For example, the southern part of Bulgaria was a territory frequently disputed by Byzantium and Bulgaria, so the Bulgarian and Greek forms are used alternately (‘Plovdiv’ and ‘Philippoupolis’ are both correct forms).
To help readers get their bearings, I have included a comparative ‘List of geographical names’ as Appendix 1. In Appendix 2, the ‘Chronological table of dynasties’ provides a quick-reference overview of the rulers of the Golden Horde, Bulgaria, Byzantium, Serbia and Hungary. In Appendix 3, four maps help to locate the places. The maps are merely technical aids, and I do not claim to call them pieces of historical cartography. Finally, let me express my sincere gratitude and thanks to all those friends and colleagues who, by their critical remarks and bibliographical suggestions, have helped me to improve the text of this book. Among their number are Professors Gyula Kaldy-Nagy, Andr ´ as R ´ ona-Tas, Peter Golden, L ´ aszl ´ o´ Solymosi, and above all Professor Pal Engel. Professor Engel was a fine and ´ erudite historian of the Central European Middle Ages, whose untimely death was an irreparable loss for his colleagues and friends. I humbly dedicate this book to his memory.
Introduction
remarks on the sources
The greatest difficulty in investigating the Cumans and Tatars, like that encountering anyone who investigates the Eurasian nomadic peoples, lies in the almost total lack of indigenous sources. (The Secret History of the Mongols is a rare and happy exception.) Chinese, Islamic, Byzantine and medieval western historiographies are severely biased against the nomadic foes, and reflect only certain aspects of nomadic life. So, willy-nilly, we must be content with a Cuman and Tatar history written mainly through the prism of the ‘civilised’ enemy. The most we can do is to apply an equally ‘severe’ criticism of the sources, thereby making an attempt to find an equilibrium between the tendentiousness of the sources and the historical reality they reflect.
The basic written sources of the time-span treated in this book are undoubtedly the Byzantine narrative works. Their testimony can be corroborated and supplemented by some Latin and Slavic sources, especially in the age of the Third and Fourth Crusades (Ansbert, Robert de Clari and Geoffroi Villehardouin) and the Tatar invasion of the Balkans (Albericus Trium Fontium, Thomas of Spalato, etc.). These sources will always be referred to in the appropriate place, but the basic Byzantine sources, to which reference is made on practically every page, need a separate short treatment here, so that readers may become familiar with them. There follows a short sketch of the five basic Byzantine narrative sources relating to the period 1185–1365.
1 Niketas Choniates (c. 1150–1213)
Born in Chonai (former Kolossai), Niketas Choniates was originally called Akominatos. He arrived in Constantinople in his childhood. He later became secretary to Emperor Isaakios Angelos, and from 1189 was governor of the thema of Philippoupolis. After the capture of Constantinople by the Latins in 1204, he fled to Nikaia, and occupied important posts in the court of Emperor Theodoros Laskaris I. His works are theological and rhetorical treatises, speeches and poems, and one historical work entitled Chronike diegesis . The latter treats events between 1118 and 1206, and consists of twenty-one books, referred to under the name of the ruling emperor; for instance, Isaakios Angelos in Books i–iii, Alexios III in Books i–iii, Isaakios Angelos in Book i, Alexios Doukas Mourtzouphlos in Book i, capture of the City in Book i, Statues of Constantinople in Book i. For the Second Bulgarian Kingdom and the Fourth Crusade he is the primary and sometimes an eyewitness source. Critical edition: Nik. Chon. Hist./van Dieten, i–ii. Translation: Grabler, Abenteuer; Grabler, Kreuzfahrer. Literature: Karayan.-Weiss, ii, pp. 460–1; Byz.-turc., i, pp. 270–5.
Georgios Akropolites (1217–1282)
Born in Constantinople, Akropolites was sent to Nikaia in 1233 and became the tutor of the eventual Emperor Theodoros Laskaris II, who, after his enthronement in 1254, entrusted Akropolites with important tasks. In 1261 Akropolites returned to the reconquered capital of Constantinople with Emperor Michael Palaiologos VIII. He was sent as a diplomat to Lyon and Trapezunt. His works include poems, rhetorical and theological treatises, and one historical work entitled Chronike syngraphe ( ). This is a continuation of Nik. Chon. Hist., and treats events between 1203 and 1261. An objective and reliable source. Critical edition: Georg. Akr. Chron./Heisenberg, i, pp. 1–189. Edition: Georg. Akr. Chron./Bekker. No modern translation. Literature: Karayan.-Weiss, ii, pp. 461–2; Byz.-turc., i, pp. 137–9.
Georgios Pachymeres (1242–1310)
Pachymeres was born in Nikaia and moved to Constantinople in 1261,where he held high ecclesiastical and state offices. His works include rhetorical and philosophical treatises, poems, letters, and one historical work entitled Syngraphikai historiai ( ). It treats events between 1261 and 1308, and consists of fifteen books (six books for Michael VIII’s reign, seven for Andronikos II’s reign), each of which bears the name of the ruling emperor as its title. By way of an introduction, the period between 1255 and 1261 is also discussed in brief. This work is a continuation of Georg. Akr. Chron. Pachymeres was the greatest polyhistor of his age, with a very solid knowledge of classical antiquity. A strong tendency to archaise and a prevalence of Greek Orthodox theological views are characteristic of his works. For the second half of the thirteenth century he is the primary Byzantine source. Critical edition: Pachym. Hist./Failler-Laurent, i–ii (the first six books only). Edition: Pachym. Hist./Bekker, i–ii. Translation: Pachym. Hist./Failler-Laurent, i–ii. (French). Literature: Karayan.-Weiss, ii, pp. 492–3; Byz.-turc., i, pp. 148–50.
Nikephoros Gregoras (c. 1290/1–1360)
Gregoras was the greatest polyhistor of the fourteenth century. Because he was an active opponent of Gregorios Palamas, Emperor Ioannes Kantakouzenos banished him to the Chora monastery in Constantinople for a certain time. Among his works are rhetorical, grammatical and philosophical treatises, poems, speeches and letters, and one historical work entitled Historia Rhomaike ( ). It covers events between 1204 and 1359, and so partly complements and partly continues Georg. Pach. Hist. It consists of thirty-seven books, the sources of the first seven being Georg. Akr. Chron. and Pachym. Hist., together with other, unknown, sources. He is the primary authority for the first half of the fourteenth century. A strong tendency to archaise, in regard to both ethnonyms and ethnographical descriptions, can be observed. No critical edition. Edition: Nik. Greg. Hist./Schopen-Bekker, i–iii. Translation: Nik. Greg. Hist./van Dieten. Literature: Karayan.-Weiss, ii, pp. 493–4; Byz.-turc., i, pp. 275–7.
Ioannes Kantakouzenos (1295/6–1383)
The offspring of a distinguished family, during the reign of Andronikos II Kantakouzenos held high offices. After Andronikos III’s death in 1341 he had himself crowned, but succeeded in reaching the capital only in 1347. There he reigned as emperor under the name John VI until 1354. He was an excellent soldier and commander; in 1353 he called in the Ottomans, who set foot for the first time in Europe in Gallipoli in 1354. In the same year Ioannes V Palaiologos coerced him to abdicate from the throne, and in 1355 he became a monk at Mount Athos under the name Ioasaph. He wrote several philosophical and theological treatises, and one historical work entitled Historia (). It consists of four books, and deals with the events between 1320 and 1356, though he glances at events as late as 1362. In general it is a reliable source, and sometimes complements Nik. Greg. Hist. well. No critical edition. Edition: Kant. Hist./Schopen, i–iii. Translation: Kant. Hist./Fatouros-Krischer, i–ii. Literature: Karayan.-Weiss, ii, pp. 494–5; Byz.-turc., i, pp. 177–9.
cumans and tatars
Before proceeding to our work proper, a few words need to be said about the historical past of the nomadic tribes that are most frequently referred to in this book. In brief: who are the Cumans and the Tatars, and where did they come from before entering the history of the Balkans? By the 1030s the nomadic confederacy of the Kipchaks dominated the vast territories of the present-day Kazak steppe, the Uz (or Oguz) tribes (called Torki in the Russian sources) occupied the area between the Yayik (Ural) and the Volga rivers, while the Pecheneg tribal confederacy stretched from the Volga to the Lower Danube, including the vast steppe region of what is now the Ukraine, Moldavia and Wallachia.
Considering the nomadic way of life of these peoples, these frontiers can be regarded only as approximate. The original homeland of the Kipchaks, the westernmost branch of the Turkic-speaking tribes, was the middle reaches of the Tobol and Ishim rivers in south-western Siberia in the ninth and tenth centuries, but, as mentioned above, by the 1030s they had spread further south. In the middle of the eleventh century a large-scale migration of nomadic peoples took place in the Eurasian steppe zone, a result of which was that parts of the Kipchak confederacy appeared also in the Pontic steppe region, south of the Russian principalities.
This historical event was described by the Persian Marvaz¯ı (c. 1120) 2 and the Armenian Matthew of Edessa (d.1142).3 It is noteworthy that, while Marvaz¯ı speaks of a people called qun¯ , Matthew of Edessa mentions, instead, the people xarteˇsk‘ (the aspirated k‘ being an Armenian plural suffix) in connection with the same event. At the same time (towards the middle of the eleventh century), the new conquering nomads of the Pontic steppe appear in the Byzantine sources as or , 4 in the Latin sources as Comani, Cumani 5 or Cuni, 6 in the German sources as Valwen, 7 and in the Russian sources as Polovci (plural of Polovec).8 The Armenian, German and Russian ethnonyms are simply translations of the self-appellation Qoman/Quman, meaning in Turkic (and in related languages) ‘pale, fallow’.9 This identification was quite evident to their contemporaries, since the Russian chronicles (for instance) use the phrase Kumani, rekshe Polovci several times,10 and in a Latin source from 1241 the phrase Comani, quos Theutonice Valwen appellamus occurs.11
Though the new nomadic confederacy that appeared in the Pontic region in the eleventh century bore the name Quman in different sources, the Muslim sources consistently refer to it by the ethnonym Qipˇcaq, the only exception being Idr¯ıs¯ı, who must have taken the name Quman from a non-Muslim source.12 What is the ethnic reality underlying this double usage of names? On the basis of Marvaz¯ı’s text we may claim that the Kipchaks and Cumans were originally two separate peoples. The Cumans must have lived to the east of the large bend of the Huanghe, in the vicinity of other Nestorian peoples such as, for example, the originally Turkic Ong ¨ uts. The Kitans spread their dominions to include this territory at the ¨ end of the tenth century, and the Kitan expansion must have expelled a large number of tribes from their former habitats. The Cumans, or Cuns, must have reached the territory of the Kipchak tribal confederacy in southeastern Siberia and the Kazak steppe round the middle of the eleventh century. The historical process is obscure, and essential data are lacking, but the final result is indisputable: two Turkic confederacies, the Kipchaks and the Cumans, had merged by the twelfth century. A cultural and political intermingling took place, and from the middle or end of the twelfth century it is impossible to detect any difference between the numerous appellations applied to the same tribal confederacy. Though they were originally the names of different components of the confederacy, by that time these appellations (Qipˇcaq, Quman and its various translations: Polovec, Valwe, Xarteˇs, etc.) became interchangeable: they denoted the whole confederacy irrespective of the origin of the name. As Marquart, the greatest authority on the ethnogenesis of the Cumans and Kipchaks, has put it: ‘Seit dem Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts sind die Namen Qypcaq, Polowci und Komanen ˇ nicht mehr auseinander zu halten.’13
The best example to demonstrate this fusion of different names can be found in Guillelmus Rubruc, the famous Franciscan traveller of the thirteenth century, who expressly identifies the terms Qipˇcaq and Quman. After he left the Crimea for the East, he wrote as follows: ‘In this territory the Cumans called Kipchak used to graze their flocks, but the Germans call them Valans and their province Valania, and Isidorus calls (the region stretching) from the river Don as far as the Azov Sea and the Danube, Alania. And this land stretches from the Danube as far as the Don, the borderline of Asia and Europe; one can reach there in two months with quick riding as the Tatars ride. The whole land is inhabited by the Cumans and the Kipchaks, and even further from the Don to the Volga, which rivers are at a distance of ten days’ journey.’14 At another place: ‘And in the territory between these two rivers [i.e. the Don and the Volga] where we continued our way, the Cuman Kipchaks lived before the Tatars conquered them.’15 In the twelfth century and at the beginning of the thirteenth, the Kipchak-Cuman confederacy occupied an immense land stretching from the middle reaches of the Irtysh as far as the Lower Danube. This vast territory had never been politically united by a strong central power before the advent of the Mongol conquerors in 1241.
There existed no Kipchak or Cuman empire, but different Cuman groups under independent rulers, or khans, who acted on their own initiative, meddling in the political life of the surrounding areas such as the Russian principalities, Byzantium in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Khwarezm.16 The territory of this Kipchak-Cuman realm, consisting of loosely connected tribal units, was called Daˇst-i Qipˇcaq (Kipchak steppes) by the Muslim historiographers and geographers,17 Zemlja Poloveckaja (Polovcian Land) or Pole Poloveckoe (Polovcian Plain) by the Russians,18 and Cumania in the Latin sources.19 Naturally enough, Daˇst-i Qipˇcaq or Cumania was not known to the various sources in precise terms, but as a pars pro toto; the Muslim sources meant the eastern parts of Daˇst-i Qipˇcaq, while the Russian and Western sources had the western parts of Cumania in mind. Depending on their region and their time, different sources each used their own word to denote different sections of the vast Cuman territory.
At the beginning of the thirteenth century, for instance, when the Cuman missions of the Dominicans began to work their way to the east of the Carpathian Basin, Cumania was predominantly the territory of today’s Wallachia and Moldavia, while its eastern frontiers were rather loose.20 For the Russians, the Pole Poloveckoe was primarily the steppe region between the Dnieper and the Volga .
Cumania became known in its whole width and breadth only after the tempest of the Mongol invasion in 1241,especially in the wake of the famous Dominican and Franciscan travellers. They had fixed the territory of Cumania to the boundaries that existed on the eve of the great Mongolian thunderbolt. In 1246, Plano Carpini personally traversed the whole land of the Cumans (totam terram Comanorum), which is totally flat (tota est plana) and has four major rivers, the Dnieper, Don, Volga and Yayik (i.e. the Ural).21 Later, he described the borders of Cumania exactly, ending with the words: ‘And the above-mentioned land is vast and long.’22 It is important to note that, while Plano Carpini did not define the eastern border of Cumania, Benedictus Polonus, who was his companion during the journey, clearly states in his own travel account that the eastern border of Cumania is the river Yayik (i.e. the Ural), where the land of the Kangits begins.23 Who are these Kangits? It is the other Franciscan traveller, Guillelmus Rubruc, who helps us to understand the situation clearly. In his Itinerarium he claims that this people is related to the Cumans (Cangle, quedam parentela Comanorum), and in another place he asserts that north of the Caspian Sea there is a desert in which the Tatars now live, ‘but formerly certain Cumans lived there who were called Qangl¨ı ’.24 Consequently, the Qangl¨ı, whose name was known well before the Mongol period,25 must have been a Turkic tribe or tribal confederacy closely related to the Kipchak-Cumans. Their name often occurs in the Secret History of the Mongols, where it is always linked with that of the Kipchaks (K. anglin Kibˇca’ut).26 In the enumeration of peoples defeated by the Tatars, Plano Carpini also placed the names of these two peoples side by side: Kangit, Comani. 27 All in all, it may safely be assumed that the Qangl¨ı were the eastern tribal group of the Kipchak-Cuman confederacy, their territory lying east of the Ural river.
After the blow at Kalka in 1223, when the Cumans first tasted defeat at Tatar hands, and then their mortal defeat in 1241, when the KipchakCuman confederacy ceased to exist as a political entity, the Kipchak tribes were partly dispersed, and partly became subject to the new Tatar-Mongol conquerors. Who were these newcomers in the nomadic world? Before the thirteenth century the ethnonym Tatar was used to denote different ethnic realities. Its first occurrences can be found in the Orkhon inscriptions (otuz tatar, toquz tatar), where it was the name of tribes who, in all likelihood, spoke a Mongolian language.28 But certain western groups of Tatar tribes became associated with Turkic tribes, as were the Kimeks at the river Irtysh, who are said by Gard¯ız¯ı to have been a branch of the Tatars.29 But the majority of Tatars remained in the vicinity of the Kerulen river, near the ¨ Buyir-nur Lake, which, according to Raˇs¯ıd ad-D¯ın, was their basic habitat.30 The Tatar tribes were Chingis Khan’s ancestral enemies, and the reason why the victorious Mongol conquerors of Chingis Khan were later called Tatars by most of the sources is a historical puzzle unsatisfactorily explained to this day.31 The initial words of Plano Carpini’s famous work clearly state that by the middle of the thirteenth century the ethnonyms Mongol and Tatar had become totally synonymous (‘Incipit Ystoria Mongalorum quos nos Tartaros appellamus’),32 like the ethnonyms Qipˇcaq and Quman. Consequently, throughout this book we may take the liberty of using these terms interchangeably, though with a certain preference for the terms Quman and Tatar, since they were favoured by our sources relating to the Balkanic area. Having surveyed the use of the ethnonyms Qipˇcaq, Quman and Tatar, we may fairly ask to what extent these and other ethnonyms can be utilised in ethnic history.
The brief answer is: only in a very limited way. These appellations, like those of any large nomadic confederacy or state, are primarily political names referring to the leading, integrating tribe or clan of the confederacy or state. The Cumans and Tatars, when they appear in written sources, are members of a confederacy irrespective of their tribal origin. Former tribal names disappear before our eyes when the tribe in question becomes part of a political unit, and hitherto unknown tribal names may crop up in sources suddenly, though obviously they existed before the point at which they are mentioned. For instance, when we hear of an incursion of Cumans in the Balkanic territories of Byzantium, it means that certain tribes of the Cuman confederacy took part in a military enterprise. But, to our great regret, the foreign sources are silent about the ethnic composition of the nomadic marauders. It is a rare and fortunate event indeed when our source reveals any greater detail about the nomadic assailant.
One such happy case occurs when Raˇs¯ıd ad-D¯ın describes the Tatar campaign of 1236/7. Mengu-qa’an succeeded in capturing two leaders of the ¨ rebelling Kipchaks, Bacman and Qa ˇ cir- ˇ uk¨ ule. Ba ¨ cman was of the ˇ Qipˇcaq people, from the Olbirlik tribe, while Qacir- ˇ uk¨ ule was from the ¨ As tribe.33 It is evident from this description that both leaders were of the Kipchak confederacy, but their first loyalty bound them to the Olbirlik and the As tribe respectively. The As was a tribal unit within the Kipchak confederacy, but formerly also a separate political unit, the confederacy of the Iranian Alans. Whether the Olbirlik and As leaders in question were Turks or Iranians cannot be decided with any certainty, though their names may indicate that the former was a Turkic, the latter an Iranian. This small detail preserved in Raˇs¯ıd ad-D¯ın may demonstrate the difficulty of making an ethnic history of the steppe region. Since the written sources have mostly preserved the ethnonyms of the leading tribe of a confederacy, the most we can do is investigate the political role of the Cumans and Tatars in the political history of the Balkans.
The ethnonym ‘Cuman’ embraces mainly Turkic ethnic components, though other elements (such as Iranian, as in the case of Qacir- ˇ uk¨ ule) may be hidden under the general designation. ¨ But in the case of the term ‘Tatar’, the situation is much more complicated. The Tatars, having conquered Eastern Europe in 1241, mingled with the basically Turkic population of Daˇst-i Qipcaq. Consequently, the label ˇ Tatar will be used in this book only as a political term, without any ethnic connotation. Finally, brief mention must be made of the phenomenon whereby ethnic names often became personal names for many reasons. A direct connection between the ethnonym and its bearer cannot be established in most cases. For instance, we know of a few Mongol princes of the thirteenth century who bore the name Maˇjar. 34 Though these persons had nothing to do with the Magyars, (Hungarians), they owed their names to a common Mongol practice of naming newborn babies after the ethnonyms of conquered tribes and peoples. Among the Cuman names of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries we can find Baˇskord, Imek, Kitan and Urus. 35 As for the name Qipˇcaq, it is unattested among the Cumans,36 but Quman, Qun37 and Tatar38 are known. By contrast, the personal names Qipˇcaq39 and Tatar 40
were in vogue among the Mongols in the thirteenth century, but the ethnonyms Quman and Qun were not used as personal names by them. So the territorial distribution characteristic of the ethnonyms Quman and Qipˇcaq (the former was used in the west, the latter in the east) can also be observed in the distribution of the corresponding personal names.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق