The article is devoted to the problem of the relationship between nomadic and sedentary peoples who were part of the Khorezmishkh-Anushteginid state, based on information from Arab-Persian sources of the Mongol invasion era. The study of the contradictions between nomadic and sedentary peoples allows not only to shed light on the reasons for the fall of this state under the onslaught of the Mongol conquerors, but also to analyze the attitude of historians of that era to the problem. The article also attempts to find out how much nomadic peoples were "different" for the settled population of Central Asia, and to show the evolution of the image of "alien" in the Arab-Persian sources of the Mongol invasion era.

The dynastic tradition of the Khwarezmian lords, who bore the title of Khwarezmshahs, dates back to the first centuries AD, and on the territory of Kyat it was preserved even after the Arab conquest of Central Asia in 712. In 1017, after the conquest of Ghaznevi by Mahmud, Khorezm lost its importance for more than a century-until the 40s of the XII century. Khorezm was part of the Ghaznavids ' domain (961-1187), and then became part of the Seljukid state (1038-1194). The ancestor of the Anushteginid Khorezmshah dynasty, Anush-tegin (Nushtegin), was a slave of the Seljukid Sultan of Central Asia Melik Shah I, who entrusted him with the administration of Khorezm. After Anushtegin's death, power over the city and region of Khorezm passed to his son Qutb al-Din Muhammad I in 1097. Since that time, we can talk about the rule of the Anushteginid dynasty in Khorezm (1097-1231).

During the formation of the state of the Khorezmshahs-Anushteginids and their struggle for independence from the Seljuks, nomadic Turkic tribes also migrated to the territory of Khorezm. As the state grows, the division of its population into sedentary residents of large cities and their districts and nomadic Turkic tribes becomes more and more obvious. Of course, the existence of a large number of nomads within the Khorezm state could not but lead to conflicts, as well as a kind of confrontation with the settled Iranian-speaking population. Contacts between the settled Iranian population and nomadic tribes, including the Turks, have a long history, in which the Khorezm period is only one of the stages, but it was under the Khorezmshahs-Anushteginids that the Turks began to occupy a special position in the structure of Iranian society.

Active migration of nomadic Turks to the territory of Central Asia became widespread in the XI-XII centuries, and they often entered the service of sovereigns in whole tribes. It is a curious episode when the war against the infidels and their conversion to Islam was proclaimed under Khorezmshah Tekish, while the Kara-Kitai and the state created by them were understood as infidels, and the authorities did not pay attention to the pagan Turks and continued to accept them for service. Some time later, Tekish married Terken-khatun, the daughter of Kipchak Khan Dzhankishi, and

page 11
some Turkic tribes (Uranians, Ugraks, Khaladzhi, etc.) moved to Khorezm in full force. The migration of nomadic Turks under the first Khorezmshahs reached enormous proportions, which largely determined the social and political "face" of Khorezm by the beginning of the XIII century.

The population of Khorezm in the late 12th and early 13th centuries was diverse and consisted of a large number of Iranian and Turkic ethnic groups, including sedentary and nomadic tribes that had not yet formed into separate nationalities. Enmity between them, especially between settled Iranians and nomadic Turks, sometimes took quite acute forms. This was explained by the unequal position of these peoples: the Iranian-speaking, indigenous population of most of the territory of the state of Khorezmshahs by the XIII century was largely a taxable population (rayats). The Turks formed a layer of military nobility in this state and had significant land holdings (ikta). Mostly the Khwarezmshahs ' armies were manned by Turks, especially during the reign of Tekish and Ala ad-Din Muhammad, and almost the entire officer corps consisted of them. In the territories they received for their service, the Turkic nobles "by tyranny and oppression placed a heavy burden on the shoulders of the rayats" (Petrushevsky, 1977, p.105).

Turkic tribes were actively used not only by the Khorezmshahs, but also by other rulers in various conflicts in Central Asia. The military support of such tribes was easy to enlist, using financial leverage, in other words, the rulers hired Turks for the duration of any military campaign. Juvaini writes about the Turkic military nobility: "... compassion and mercy were far from their hearts; wherever they happened to pass, that area was ravaged, and the rayats sought refuge in fortresses " [Juvaini, 1958, vol. 2, p. 198.]. Such a situation laid a kind of bomb under the state building Khorezmshahs-Anushteginids: the Turks were perceived by the local population as strangers and enemies. Accordingly, the forces that opposed them were seen as liberators, and they were supported by the tax-paying population. This is clearly reflected in the pages of sources written by Persian authors.

At the same time, the situation, in our opinion, was much more complicated, and we should not assume that the entire state apparatus of the Khorezmshah-Anushteginid state consisted entirely of Turks. For example, the post of vizier, the first adviser to the head of state, was assigned to natives of the Arab-Persian official environment: "in the list of vezirs of the Khorezmshahs, we do not find any Turkic names" [Buniyatov, 1986, p. 94]. Moreover, the taxable population was also robbed and oppressed by officials, primarily tax collectors who represented the state., most of the local sedentary population. "With the stroke of a pen, they encroach on the land holdings of Muslims and decide what is illegal, like that such and such a village should pay 100 dinars, such and such butchers-50 dinars, such and such grocers-100 dinars..." [Petrushevsky, 1977, p.106]. But the arbitrary actions of Persian officials against their compatriots did not reduce the social tension that existed in the Khorezmshah state by the 13th century between the Turkic and Iranian-speaking populations.

Relations between the Turkic and Iranian-speaking populations of Central Asia became even more tense during the reign of Khorezmshah Ala ad-Din Muhammad (1200-1220). It is quite natural to ask whether Khorezm was then a stable state or, on the contrary, a "patchwork" entity that was ready to instantly collapse under external pressure. Z. M. Buniyatov believed that this was the case: the state was extremely unstable, in fact, there was a kind of diarchy in it: "The absolute ruler was considered Khorezmshah and Sultan Ala ad-Din Muhammad, but in reality Ala ad-Din was completely subordinate to his mother Terkenhatun, who in the internal and foreign affairs of the state was, one might say, the second sovereign, and in some matters opposed her son"

page 12
[Buniyatov, 1986, p. 128].V. V. Barthold writes about the same thing, emphasizing "that in the regions under the administration of Terken-khatun, the authority of Muhammad was not actually recognized" [Barthold, 1963, p. 444]. Such statements of historians are based primarily on the remarks of al-Nasawi in Sirat al-Sultan Jalal al-Din Mankburna, where he writes that the sultan did not contradict his mother "neither in small matters, nor in large ones, nor in serious ones , nor in unimportant ones-for two reasons: first, because of the parental love that she paid to him, and, secondly, because most of the emirs of the state were from her family" [Al-Nasawi, 1973, p.73].

Terken-khatun was the head of one of the Turkic associations that enjoyed great influence in the Khorezmshah empire. It can be said that it was Terken-Khatun and the party she led that ruled Khorezm and that it was necessary to coordinate the most important decisions with them. It should be noted that Terken Khatun intervened in such an important political event as the appointment of the heir to the throne: at her insistence, Sultan Muhammad appointed Qutb ad-Din Uzlag Shah as the heir, bypassing the two eldest sons-Jalal ad - Din Mankburna and Rukn ad-Din Gursanjti. "Uzlag Shah's mother was from the same tribe and clan as Terken Khatun, and she hated Ai-Chichek, Jalal ad-Din's mother" (Buniyatov, 1986, p.129). Most domestic and foreign historians believe that Terken-Khatun's hatred of Ai-Chichek reflects the struggle between Turkic tribes within the state of the Khorezmshahs. However, there is an opinion that Jalal ad-Din's mother came from India and had nothing to do with the Kipchaks: "His mother (Jalal ad-Din) came from the women of the Indian people, and her name was Ai-Chichek" (Dabir, 1977, p. 4). 217]. However, this opinion is not confirmed by any sources and remains at the level of the author's assumption.

The decentralization of the Khorezm state went so far that Sultan Muhammad, on the eve of the Mongol invasion, divided his possessions between his sons into four parts. The relationship between Terken Khatun and Jalal ad-Din reflected the contradictions that took place within the "Turkic camp"; between the emirs, relatives of Terken Khatun, and the emirs of Jalal ad-Din. Since the Turks in the state of Khorezmshahs occupied mainly military positions, we can talk about a split among the military leaders of the state of Khorezmshahs, which could not but affect the combat capability of the army of this power. In this situation, Khwarezmshah Muhammad tried to maneuver between the Turkic emirs, relatives of his mother, and the Turkic Emirs of Jalal ad-Din.

The split existed not only within the Turkic population of the state of Khorezmshahs, but also, as already mentioned, between the Turks and the settled population. These were contradictions between landowners, mainly Turks, and farmers belonging to different ethnic groups. On the eve of Jalal al-Din's arrival in Ghazna in 1220/1221, the commander of the Guri garrison of the city refused to let the Turkic detachments of Jalal al-Din enter the city, addressing the Turks with the following words:: "We are Guris, and you are Turks, we cannot live together" [Juveini, 2004, p. 327]. In this case, we are not talking about the traditional nomad-sedentary confrontation, since the Guris themselves were still a semi-nomadic people, but about ethnic hostility, which divided the entire Khorezmian society into "Turks"and" non-Turks". This statement of the Guri military leader clearly demonstrates the hostility to the Turks of the other peoples of the Khorezmshakh state.

How important was the religious factor in the relations between nomadic and sedentary peoples of that time? It may seem that nomadic peoples who converted to Islam were excluded from the category of "strangers"by the settled population. Thus, Ibn al-Asir, describing the situation in the Caucasus by 1225, when the Kipchaks invaded there, quotes the following words of one of the Muslim Kipchak military leaders, who demanded troops from the ruler of Arran. "I served Khorezm Shah and I am a Muslim, my faith allows me to

page 13
to be a sincere friend to you. So, know that the Kipchaks are your enemies and that they want to kill you. Do not let them linger in your country, and give me an army to fight and to pursue the enemy" [Al-Asir ibn, 1849-1852, t. XIII, p. 464]. However, we should not forget that the majority of the Turkic population of the Khorezm state were Muslims, which did not prevent Persian historians from describing them as" strangers " to the settled population. Despite the acceptance or rejection of Islam, the nomad remained a nomad in the eyes of the local population, except in certain cases, as described by Ibn Al-Asir.

It should also be noted that on the eve of the war with the Mongols, Khorezmshah Ala ad-Din Muhammad had no support on the ground, and even more so in the newly conquered territories. Jalal al-Din Isfahani writes about this as follows: "Khwarezmshah Muhammad, conquering countries, killed and destroyed their rulers. So he was left all alone as the sultan of all countries. And when he ran away from them (the Mongols), there was no one in the state who could stand in their way" (Buniyatov, 1986, p.129).

By destroying the local rulers, Khorezmshah took care of the strength of his power in these areas, but by leaving the Turkic emirs in their place, he could only expect to submit in peacetime, since during the war the local population was reluctant to submit to foreign rulers and saw in any new conqueror their liberator. So it was at the time when Genghis Khan invaded the possessions of Kushlu Khan of Naiman, and so it was in many other cases. Ala ad-Din Muhammad himself did not take into account in his internal policy the factor of enmity that had existed for many years between nomadic and sedentary subjects of his state, and as further developments show, this miscalculation cost him both his life and his state.

So, the Khorezm Shah did not have a solid social base in his own domain. The settled population was dissatisfied with the" dominance " of the Turkic nobility. The Turks themselves, as mentioned above, were subject to either Terken-khatun or Jalal ad-Din. In addition, the clergy was split due to the hostile actions of Ala ad-Din Muhammad against the Caliph an-Nasir, and some of the Central Asian clergy did not support Khorezm Shah. In addition, the newly conquered lands sought to separate from the state of the Khorezmshahs, and the army, whose command consisted mainly of Turks, was the mainstay of the Khorezmshah only during the period of active territorial acquisitions, thanks to which it was enriched.

Let us focus on some episodes of the Mongol campaign in Central Asia in 1219-1221, which emphasize the nature of relations between the various peoples of the Khorezm state.

At the height of the Mongol invasion of Central Asia, after his death in 1220. Ala al-Din Muhammad and his sons - Jalal al-Din, Uzlag Shah and Ak Shah-arrived in the capital of the state and reported on the death of their father and that Muhammad before his death changed his will in favor of Jalal al-Din, making him the heir to the throne. Instead of rallying against the threat of general extermination, " despite the consent of the former heir (i.e., Uzlag Shah), the Turkic emirs could not accept such a change; Tuji Pahlavan, who bore the title of Qutlugh Khan, took the lead of the discontented... A plot was formed to capture or kill Jalal al-Din" (Barthold, 1963, p. 500).

The Turks, as already mentioned, occupied a high position in the Khorezmian society and, in general, they were recruited by the army and officers. In the sources, there is almost no mention of the fact that the Turkic commanders surrendered themselves and surrendered cities to the Mongols. Moreover, it was often the settled Iranian population that opened the city gates to the Mongols.

Here is what Juveini, a historian who can hardly be accused of sympathizing with the Turks and the Khorezmshahs, writes about the capture of Samarkand, since he wrote his historical work

page 14
commissioned by the Mongol rulers of Central Asia. "The people of Samarkand were frightened by the battle, and their passions and opinions were divided: some wanted to surrender and submit, while others were afraid for their lives; some, following the command of heaven, did not want to conclude peace, and others, under the influence of the power emanating from Genghis Khan, did not dare to continue the battle. Finally the next day... the latter gave up thinking about the war and stopped resisting. The Qadi and Sheikh-ul-Islam, together with several imams, hurried to Genghis Khan; his promises encouraged them and strengthened their strength, and with his permission they returned to the city. During prayer, they opened the gates of musallah and closed the doors of resistance" (Juwayni 2004: 80-81).

Thus, the rich and well-defended city of Samarkand was surrendered to the Mongols, although it could still withstand a siege for quite a long time, such as Gurganj, the capital of the Khorezm Empire, which the Mongols besieged for several months. In addition, Juveini gives a number of descriptions of how, after the capture of the cities, the Mongols divided the population into Iranian-speakers and Turks. If the fate of the former could be different, then the latter were mercilessly killed. Here is what Juwayni writes about the capture of Fanakata. "The soldiers were separated from the inhabitants of the city; after that, the former were exterminated every single one, some with a sword, and some with a hail of arrows, while the latter were divided into hundreds and dozens" [Juveini, 2004, p.60]. The facts of mass slaughter of Turks were recorded during the capture of almost every city in Central Asia. Thus, during the capture of Bukhara, " not a single male person taller than a whip was spared from the Kangly people, and thirty thousand people were counted among the dead..." [Juveini, 2004, p. 71].

The mass slaughter of Turks took place during the capture of most cities in Central Asia, and often all male Turks were killed, which indicates the deliberate extermination of an entire nation. Since the Turks were warriors of Khorezm Shah and it was they who provided the main resistance to the invaders, their extermination could be dictated by military goals. But we must not forget that the disagreements within the Khorezmian society led to the fact that the Iranian-speaking population looked at any force opposing the Turks as liberators. Of course, Genghis Khan's intelligence, which had proved itself admirably during the Central Asian campaign, informed its master about this. As a result, it was decided to play on the contradictions and, by destroying the Turks, attract the settled Iranian-speaking population of Central Asia to their side.

Finally, the attitude of the Mongols themselves towards the Turks was very peculiar: one can recall at least the plot preceding the battle of Kalka, when the Mongol ambassadors before the Russian princes call the Turks their slaves. Perhaps the mass killings of Turks not only in Central Asia, but also during the further campaigns of the Mongols were dictated by some processes that took place inside the steppe world, as a result of which the Turkic tribes became irreconcilable enemies of the Mongols.

It should also be mentioned that interethnic conflicts also influenced the course of the struggle against the Mongols of Jalal ad-Din Mankburna, who, trying to organize a repulse to the Mongols, at the decisive moment practically lost his troops and as a result lost the most important battle near the Indus River (which took place in the period from November 18 to December 18, 1221).Persian historians write that the commanders of Jalal al-Din quarreled over the loot, but it should be taken into account that the sultan's military detachments, staffed mainly by Iranian-speaking soldiers, left, and this indicates that the cause of the conflict was not only money [Juveini, 2004, p.288].

A vivid example of the perception of nomadic Turks by Arab-Persian historians is the description of the activities of the ruler of the city of Otrar, Inal Khan, a Turk by origin. This ruler was, in the eyes of the Muslim historian, the most direct ruler of the world.-

page 15
the main culprit of the war, since on his orders in 1218 the Mongol trade caravan was destroyed, which became a formal pretext for war. Here is how an-Nasavi describes the death of Inal Khan at the hands of Genghis Khan, after the Mongols stormed Otrar in 1219: "He (Genghis Khan) ordered Inal Khan to be brought to him, then ordered to melt silver and pour it into his ears and eyes. So he killed him, tormenting and punishing him, for his shameful act, for a vile deed and intrigues that were condemned by all " [ An-Nasawi, 1977, p. 81.]. Juwayni left a similar description of Inal Khan's death in his work. "Having fulfilled his intention, Gair khan (Inal khan. - d. t. Not only did he deprive these people of their lives and possessions, but he destroyed and devastated the whole world and left a whole nation without homes, goods, or leaders. For for every drop of their blood a whole river of Oxus was shed; and as a punishment for every hair that fell from their heads, probably hundreds of thousands of heads rolled into the dust at every crossroads; and for every dinar, a hundred kintars were taken away" [Juweini, 2004, p. 53]. Thus, the Khwarezmian commander, a Muslim, a magnificent warrior who was able to hold off the Mongol onslaught for five months, appears as "alien" to the entire Muslim world. The enmity between the nomads and the sedentary population has gone so far that hostility is shown even to your own allies, to those who protect you with weapons in their hands.

The tradition established by al-Nasavi and Juveini, according to which Turkic nomads were considered "strangers" to the Muslim settled population, was further developed, especially after the Mongol rulers of Central Asia converted to Islam in the early 14th century.

In other countries of Islam, the attitude towards the Turks was less critical. This is how the Egyptian historian Ibn Fadlallah al-Omari describes the Turks who seized power in Egypt. "The Turks of these countries, I say, are among the best of the Turkic families in their conscientiousness, courage, avoidance of deception, perfection of their camps, beauty of their figures and nobility of their characters. They make up the greater part of the Egyptian army, for from them are descended the sultans and emirs of Egypt. Since al-Malik Al-Salih Nejad al-Din Ayyub, son of al-Malik al-Kamil, began to earnestly buy Kipchak slaves. Then the domination passed to them. The kings among them felt inclined to their kinsmen and sought to increase their numbers, so that Egypt was inhabited by them and was guarded by them on all sides. Among them were the luminaries of the sovereign's retinue, the chairmen of the assemblies, the leaders of the troops, and the nobles of his land. Moslemism glorifies their exploits in defending the faith and that they fought for the cause of Allah with their relatives and fellow tribesmen, and love for their fellow tribesmen did not divert them from this cause and blasphemy of reproachers did not stop them in the cause of Allah " [Collection of materials, 1884, vol. 1, p. 232]. The same author describes the Kipchaks of the Northern regions of Khorezm as follows. "Among those who have come under the protection of this sultan is the Turkic people, in the extreme north near its borders; they are in poverty due to a poor existence, because they are not sedentary people who have crops and a strong cold destroys their cattle. They are a stupid and pathetic people, who have neither attachment to any faith, nor insight of mind" [Sobranie materialov, 1884, p. 231].

Thus, according to the author, there are "own" and "foreign" Turks: the former are at the head of Muslim states and Muslims themselves, and the latter are pagans. In the 14th and 15th centuries, the attitude towards nomads who were at the helm of the state and converted to Islam became more positive. Although they remain nomads in the eyes of the settled population, they are already "their own" nomads who become part of the Muslim society. Such were the Mamluks in Egypt, the Mongols in Iran, and the Turks in the Delhi Sultanate.

page 16
A number of conclusions can be drawn. First, interethnic conflicts in the Khorezm empire on the eve of the Mongol invasion did not just take place, but were so acute that they served as one of the main reasons for the defeat of this state by the Mongols. The conflict was based on the coexistence of two different types of cultures within the same state: nomadic and sedentary. The supreme power in the Khwarezmian Empire not only did not attempt to resolve this conflict, but also further aggravated it by taking on more and more nomadic Turkic tribes. Secondly, the mentioned conflict not only did not subside in the face of the common enemy, the Mongols, but also flared up with a new force, as a result of which all attempts at resistance were nullified precisely because of the discord between the nomadic and settled populations. As a result of this conflict, it was not uncommon for the local sedentary population to surrender the cities of Central Asia to the Mongols, while the nomadic Turks, who only recently became part of Central Asian society, desperately defended these cities and themselves. In many localities, the Mongols were welcomed as liberators by the Iranian-speaking population and remained in this status until the beginning of atrocities against this population. Third, Arab-Iranian historians of that era, such as Al-Nasavi and Juveini, form in their historical writings the image of the Turks, which can be equated with the image of the "other". This trend is continued in later historical works written by Arab-Persian authors and dedicated to the Mongol era. Thus, a not entirely correct idea is formed about the ethnic group that stood up for the defense of the Khorezm state and fought fiercely against the Mongol invaders. At the same time, in other state entities, such as the Mamluk state in Egypt, a different perception of Turkic nomads is cultivated, due to the fact that it was the Turks who ruled this state. However, Turks outside the Mamluk state and who were not Muslims continue to be perceived as "strangers" and potential opponents of the settled population.

list of literature

Al-Nasawi. Biography of Sultan Jalal ad-Din Mankburna / Translated by Z. M. Buniyatov. Baku: Elm Publ., 1973.

Barthold V. V. Turkestan in the era of the Mongol invasion / / Barthold V. V. Sochineniya, vol. 1. Moscow: Izd-vo vostochnoi literatury, 1963.

Buniyatov Z. M. State of Khorezmshahs-Anushteginids 1097-1231 Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1986.

Juwayni. Genghis Khan. Istoriya perederatelya mira [The History of the Conqueror of the World]. Moscow: Magister-Press, 2004.

Petrushevsky I. P. The campaign of the Mongol troops in Central Asia in 1219-1224 and its consequences // Tatar-Mongols in Asia and Europe, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1977.

Collection of materials related to the history of the Golden Horde. V. G. Tizengauzen, St. Petersburg: Stroganov Publ., 1884.

Al-Asiribn. Al-Kamil fi-t-tarih // Journal Asiatique. 1849 - 1850. Т. XIII, 1849; t. XIV-XV, 1850.

Dabir S. Sultan Djalal ad-Din Horezmshah Tehran: Sherkat-e sehamiye ketabhaye djibi, 1977.

Juvaini. The History of the World-conqueror. Vol. 2 / Trad. J.A. Boyle. Manchester: Universities Press, 1959.

Permanent link to this publication: