ᠣᠷᠤᠰ᠂ ᠲᠦᠪ ᠠᠽᠢᠶ᠎ᠠ ᠪᠣᠯᠤᠨ ᠮᠣᠩᠭᠤᠯ ᠤᠨ ᠲᠡᠦᠬᠡ .pdf

AHISTORYOF RUSSIA, CENTRALASIA ANDMONGOLIATHE BLACKWELL HISTORY OF THE WORLD GeneralEditor:R.I.Moore A History of Latin America Available in third edition as “A History of Latin America to 1825” PeterBakewell The Birth of the Modern World C.A.Bayly The Origins of Human Society PeterBogucki A History of Russia,Central Asia and Mongolia:Volume I DavidChristian A History of Australia,New Zealand and the Pacic DonaldDenoon,PhilippaMein-Smith andMarivicWyndham A History of South-East Asia AnthonyReid A History of China MorrisRossabi The Western Mediterranean and the World TeoloF.Ruiz A History of India Second Edition BurtonStein A History of Japan Second Edition ConradTotmanAHISTORYOF RUSSIA, CENTRALASIA ANDMONGOLIA VOLUMEII:INNEREURASIAFROMTHE MONGOLEMPIRETOTODAY,1260–2000 DAVIDCHRISTIANThis edition rst published 2018 ' 2018 David Christian All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted,in any form or by any means,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording or otherwise,except as permitted by law.Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. The right of David Christian to be identied as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with law. RegisteredOfce John Wiley that gave me the time, travel, and resources needed to nish this huge project. I owe too many debts to too many colleagues to list all individually, but I do want to thank some whose conversations over the years have provided unexpected and valuable insights. They include (in alphabetical order) Tom Allsen, Richard Bosworth, Terry Burke, Nick Doumanis, Ross Dunn, Sheila Fitzpatrick,StevenFortescue,GraemeGill,GeoffreyHosking,SashaPavkovic, Daniel Waugh,Stephen Wheatcroft,and many,many others. Bob Moore commissioned this entire project, and has kept a kindly eye on it over a much longer period than I care to remember.He has been immensely patient,supportive,andencouraging.IgrewupinNigeria,wheremyrst,and perhaps best, teacher was my mother, Carol. Chardi, Joshua, and Emily have put up with this project, and the absences and research trips it involved, over many years, with love and generosity. I owe my family an immense debt for their love and support. I also want to thank my extremely able and consci- entious research assistants, Mandy Kretzschmar and Lana Nadj, who helped with bibliographical research and ensured some consistency in the spelling of words and names in many different languages.My editors at Wiley Blackwell, xixACKNOWLEDGMENTS Haze Humbert, Fiona Screen, and Brigitte Lee Messenger, did a superb job of ensuring stylistic consistency in a complex manuscript. I alone am responsible for remaining errors of fact, emphasis, and logic, and for not managing to cover all of the rich scholarship on the vast territory traversed by this book. xxPREFACE:T HEIDEA OFINNER EURASIA THEARGUMENT:C ENTRALTHEMES This volume covers a vast area – the central, or “Inner” half of Eurasia – and more than 750 years of that region’s history. Writing at this scale, it is easy to overlook the contingent events,the pathways not taken.So,though my central argumentisaboutsustainedecologicalandgeographicalpressuresthatshaped the region’s history in enduring ways, I have tried not to ignore the alterna- tivehistoriesandmight-have-beens–Leninfalling underatraminSeptember 1917, or a Lithuanian conquest of Muscovy, or a revived Mongolian Empire in the sixteenth century. Contingencies have shaped the writing as well as the argument of this book. In April 2016, I was in London, working in the British Library on footnotes, formatting, transliterations, and the many other obsessive details involved in nishing a manuscript,when I picked up a Russian-language newspaper, Pul’s UK, “Pulse UK.” Its front page advertised an article on “Yurta v Khaigaite,” “A Yurt in Highgate.” For an English-trained historian who lives in Australia, the phrase reeked of globalization. But it also captured something of the project I have been working on for more than two decades: a history of Inner Eurasia, a huge region whose two historical poles in the last millennium have been Mongolia and Russia. Finding a free Russian-language newspaper in London also reminded me how much more globalized today’s world is than the world I grew up in,or even the world in which I began this project.(I was reminded recently that I signed a contract for this project in 1991, the year the Soviet Union broke up; that wasbefore any of the events described in this book’s last two chapters.) Later that day, I had a beer in a nearby pub, “The Rocket.” That was a serendipitous reminder of a second major theme of this volume:the fossil fuels revolution (of which steam engines were a major early component) and the way it has transformed our world, including, in rather distinctive ways,the world of Inner Eurasia. The rst volume of this history appeared in 1998. 1 Taken together,the two volumes tell the story of a distinctive world region that includes all of the for- mer Soviet Union, as well as Mongolia and Chinese Xinjiang. It includes all of the inner, more northerly, more arid half of the Eurasian land mass. Inner Eurasia’s complement is “Outer Eurasia.” Outer Eurasia includes China, xxiPREFACE:T HE IDEA OF INNER EURASIA INNER EURASIA OUTER EURASIA Map0.1 Inner and Outer Eurasia.Adapted from Encarta. South-East Asia, the Indian sub-continent, Persia, and Europe (Map 0.1). Outer Eurasia has been the subject of much more historical scholarship because it had much larger populations, more cities, and more complex soci- eties that generated abundant historical records.To study the history of Inner Eurasia, therefore, is to study regions that have been relatively neglected by traditional synoptic historiography. The rst volume of this history began when human (or human-like crea- tures) rst entered Inner Eurasia,over 100,000 years ago.It ended in the thir- teenthcenturywiththeriseoftheMongolEmpire,therstempiretodominate most of Inner Eurasia. The second volume describes Inner Eurasia in a more inter-connectedera,inwhichitsmanydifferentcommunitiesandpolitieswere shaped by inuences from all of Eurasia and eventually from the entire world. This volume begins with the breakup of the Mongol Empire after 1260, and the creation of regional khanates. Then it tracks the decline of pastoral nomadic polities, and the rise of a second Inner Eurasian empire, based on agricultureratherthanonpastoralnomadism.ThatempirebeganasMuscovy and became Russia. It arose in the forested lands north-west of the Urals. By the late nineteenth century, it ruled most of Inner Eurasia. But the world was changing around it, in an era of global competition and fossil fuels. Strug- gling to cope with these changes, the Russian Empire collapsed in 1917. It was speedily rebuilt in a new form, that of the Soviet command economy. By 1950,the Soviet Union not only dominated Inner Eurasia,as the Mongol and Russianempireshaddonebeforeit,ithadalsobecomeaglobalsuperpower.In xxiiPREFACE:T HE IDEA OF INNER EURASIA 1991,like the Mongol Empire in 1260,the Soviet Union also collapsed while still a superpower. In its place, there emerged new, independent polities, all struggling to nd a place in a globalized,capitalist world. Thesevolumescoversomuchhistorythattheirapproachhastobesynoptic. Theyrestmainlyontheworkofotherhistoriansratherthanonexhaustivepri- mary research. One advantage of synoptic histories is that they will generally be more accessible to non-specialists. But, like gambits in chess, they begin with a sacrice: they give up the expert’s accumulated knowledge of partic- ular, sharply focused topics, because this type of expertise is unattainable at very large scales. So synoptic histories may miss details or nuances that spe- cialists will regard as important.But the point of a sacrice is to see the game in new ways that offer new strategic perspectives and insights.(Of course,the acionado of gambits will also argue that conventional strategies are gambits, too,becausetheysacricethepossibilityofunexpectedinsightsandlimityour view of the game.) The main new insight we gain by reframing the history of this region is an appreciation of some important and distinctive features shared by all Inner Eurasiansocieties.Inherwonderfulhistoryofthemedievalworldsystem,Janet Abu-Lughod argues that new insights often arise not just from new research and new facts, but also from “changing the distance from which ‘facts’ are observed and thereby changing the scale of what falls within the purview.” 2 If a shift in the light can change what a photographer sees, so, too, a shift in the concepts we use to illuminate the past can change what we see as historians, sometimes in subtle ways,sometimes in more profound ways. Asinglelargequestionshapestheargumentofbothvolumes:howhasInner Eurasia’s distinctive ecology and geography shaped its history? In particular, howhavegeographyandecologyshapedpatternsofstatebuildingandresource gathering,or patterns of “mobilization.”In exploring these patterns,the argu- ment builds on two central ideas: the geographical concept of Inner Eurasia, and the historical concept of mobilization.Both require explanation. INNER EURASIA The idea of Inner Eurasia was introduced and dened in Volume 1, where I argued that there is an ecological and geographical coherence to this entire region that has shaped its political and cultural history over many millennia, and continues to do so today.This section will summarize those arguments. 3 Inner Eurasia includes the inner and northern half of the Eurasian land- mass.At about 27 million sq.kilometers,Inner Eurasia is similar in size to its complement,OuterEurasia.Butitisdistinctiveenoughtodeserveitsownhis- tory. Of course, such claims must not be overstated. Not everything changes at the imaginary border between Inner and Outer Eurasia. Nevertheless, par- ticularly at large scales, the differences are important and durable enough to have generated distinctive histories. Focusing on how geography and ecology shapedInnerEurasia’shistorycanhelpusmovebeyondnationalisticaccounts xxiiiPREFACE:T HE IDEA OF INNER EURASIA ofthepastthatsmuggleinessentiallymetaphysicalassumptionsaboutthedis- tinctiveness of particular peoples,nations,or ethnicities.By making this move, nationalist historiographies often assume what needs to be explained. They also run the risk of anachronism. Was there really a distinct “Russian” peo- ple in the thirteenth century? Modern Ukrainian nationalists would certainly deny such a claim.Were the Mongols of the thirteenth century really the same “people”astoday’sMongols?DidtheUzbekandKazakh“nations”rstappear in the fteenth century? Focusing on geography rather than ethnicity can, of course, generate new formsof“essentialism.”Thedangerisapparentinmodern“Eurasianist”writ- ings, which also nd an underlying coherence in the histories of all the lands oncewithintheRussianandSovietempires. 4 Theargumentofthisbookover- lapsatsomepointswithEurasianistapproachestothehistoryofInnerEurasia, butitalsodiffersfromtheminimportantways.Aboveall,itsapproachisschol- arly,tentative,and exploratory.It tries to identify some ways in which durable aspects of Inner Eurasia’s geography and ecology may have shaped the histo- ries of Inner Eurasian societies and polities, without overstating the region’s coherence or understating the role of contingency and the unexpected. At very large scales, three large features of Inner Eurasian geography have inuenced its history. Inner Eurasia differs from Outer Eurasia ecologically, demographically,and topographically. Ecologically, Inner Eurasia is generally less productive than Outer Eurasia. Interiority means that most of it receives less rainfall because it is far from the oceans, and its long, northern Arctic shores are ice-bound for much of the year (Map 0.2). Remoteness from ice-free oceans also ensures that Inner Eurasian climates are generally more extreme,more “continental,”than those of Outer Eurasia because they are not moderated to the same extent by large bodies of open water.Inner Eurasia is also more northerly than most of Outer Eurasia, so that its climates are generally colder, and it receives less sunlight for photosynthesis (Map 0.3). InnerEurasia’sdistinctiveecologyhelpsexplainaseconddistinctivefeature: its demography.Aridity,lack of sunlight,and continental climates explain why it took so long for agriculture to get going in most of Inner Eurasia, while it ourished in much of Outer Eurasia. In Inner Eurasia, there were a few regions of early agriculture along China’s northern and northwestern borders, in small irrigated oases in Central Asia, and in regions of rainfall agriculture north of the Black Sea. But then it stalled, so agriculture was a late arrival in mostofInnerEurasia.Thatmeantthat,formuchoftheagrarianeraofhuman history,when agriculture provided the people and resources for wealthy states and empires, Inner Eurasia remained a region of low productivity and thin populations.Onlyfromabout1,500yearsago,whenlargenumbersofpeasants beganmigratingfromeasternEuropeintotheforestedlandswestoftheUrals, did rainfall agriculture start to spread more rapidly through Inner Eurasia.As agriculture spread, populations increased, and so did the number of villages, towns,and cities.Nevertheless,the large differences persisted.The late arrival ofagriculturemeantthatInnerEurasiansocietieshadaccesstolessenergyand xxivPREFACE:T HE IDEA OF INNER EURASIA INNER EURASIA OUTER EURASIA Map0.2 Interiority and low rainfall.Interiority means generally lower rainfall than in Outer Eura- sia.Darker shading = higher rainfall.Adapted from Encarta. INNER EURASIA OUTER EURASIA Map0.3 Northerlinessandlowagriculturalproductivity.Northerlinessmeanslowertemperatures, less sunlight, and generally less photosynthesis than in Outer Eurasia. Darker regions inside the dotted line have average January temperatures below 0 ◦ .Adapted from Encarta. xxvPREFACE:T HE IDEA OF INNER EURASIA INNER EURASIA OUTER EURASIA Map0.4 Generally lower agricultural productivity than Outer Eurasia means low population den- sity,even today.Darker regions have denser populations.Adapted from Encarta. less food than most societies of Outer Eurasia,so they were (and they remain) more thinly settled than most Outer Eurasian societies (Map 0.4). For several millennia,the dominant productive technology of Inner Eurasia was pastoral nomadism, a lifeway that depended primarily on domesticated animals rather than domesticated plants. Herding horses, sheep, and cattle worked well in the arid steppelands that cross the southern half of Inner Eurasialikeabelt.Butifyourelyonanimalsratherthanplants,youlivehigher onthefoodchainthanfarmers,andthatmeanslessenergyisavailablebecause so much energy is lost as it moves from photosynthesizing plants to herbivores and up through the f