카이도 휘하의 제왕(諸王)과 대신(大臣)
An Analysis of Amīr and Chinggisid princes under the Command of Qaidu
1
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The historic consciousness on Mongol world empire needs to be looked the direct view as saying of having overlooked ‘globality and totality’ that the Mongol empire has in the wake of having emphasized only ‘disruptiveness among individual khanate states’. The Mongolian Plateau, which was unified in 1206 by Chinggis Khan, and Mongol world empire, which was established by its descendants, are expanded the territory through the continuous conquest war. Thus, it has been believed as if being a historical fact as saying that even the relationship among ‘Chinggisid Altan uruγ’ just became estranged gradually. ‘The division theory of the Mongol empire’, saying that the Mongol empire was driven to the whirlpool of the division once again by the chaos in the process of transferring the throne of the Great Khan(Qa’an) from the Ögödei’s family to the Tului's family following the death of Chinggis Khan and by the emergence of ‘anti-Qubilai group’ of being represented as Qaidu even if a fight for the throne of the Great Khan between Arigh Böke and Qubilai in the Tului’s family seemed to come to a close as Qubilai’s victory in 1264, has become a big obstacle to the right historic recognition on the Mongol Empire. Accordingly, this study tried to examine by dividing the figures, who had formed direct and indirect relationship in the camp under the command of Qaidu, by Ulus in each. It looked at a situation, in which the figures under the command of Qaidu meet and part because of these people’s origins, political situation in those days, and interests, through the data of Persia and the record of historical materials in Chinese character. The figures of the Jochi ulus, especially, Qonichi and others of the Orda ulus played a great role in the early growth of Qaidu. The figures of the Chagatai ulus were either devoted under the command of Qaidu after the leadership of Central Asia following the death of Baraq handed over to Qaidu, or left for the camp of Qubilai as the Great Khan following this. The figures of the Ögödei ulus gathered together focusing on Qaidu in order to restore their Ulus that vanished into nothing, and then strived to re-build Ögödei ulus in Central Asia. It examined the figures of the Tului ulus that there are also people who obeyed by coming themselves to the camp of Qaidu in the wake of disharmony with Qubilai, but there were people as well who returned again to the camp of Qubilai following the passage of the certain period. It confirmed that even some of the Amīrs and the generals yielded submission by coming themselves to the camp of Qaidu due to being afraid of being reprimanded the failure in military operation, but had been included in the camp of Qaidu going after Chinggisid princes whom they follow. Through Persian and historical materials in Chinese character, the Chinggisid princes, Amīrs and generals who had served him under the command the camp of Qaidu can be considered not to have obeyed or done military operation by coming by themselves to the camp of Qaidu just for the purpose so-called ‘the overthrow of Shih Tsu(世祖) in Yuan(元), the hanisized Chinese Emperor who had been believed as of being the existing orthodoxy. A little much deeper research needs to be progressed. Yet, it confirmed that Qaidu and the figures under his command didn’t meet and part only as the Ögödei’s family, which did fight against Qubilai of the Tului’s family that had usurped the throne of the Great Khan, or as ‘a leader and a member of the traditionally nomadic group’ that stands up to the hanisized(漢化) Yuan dynasty(元朝) . Through analyzing these people’s origins, it confirmed that there were also people who shared political line and activity with him all through the period of Qaidu's activity and that there were quite a number of people, too, who surrendered to the side of Qubilai by calculating their political line, a political change in the Mongol Empire, and interests after having been in the camp of Qaidu, and tried to identify that there had been its opposite case as well.
Abstract
The historic consciousness on Mongol world empire needs to be looked the direct view as saying of having overlooked ‘globality and totality’ that the Mongol empire has in the wake of having emphasized only ‘disruptiveness among individual khanate states’. The Mongolian Plateau, which was unified in 1206 by Chinggis Khan, and Mongol world empire, which was established by its descendants, are expanded the territory through the continuous conquest war. Thus, it has been believed as if being a historical fact as saying that even the relationship among ‘Chinggisid Altan uruγ’ just became estranged gradually. ‘The division theory of the Mongol empire’, saying that the Mongol empire was driven to the whirlpool of the division once again by the chaos in the process of transferring the throne of the Great Khan(Qa’an) from the Ögödei’s family to the Tului's family following the death of Chinggis Khan and by the emergence of ‘anti-Qubilai group’ of being represented as Qaidu even if a fight for the throne of the Great Khan between Arigh Böke and Qubilai in the Tului’s family seemed to come to a close as Qubilai’s victory in 1264, has become a big obstacle to the right historic recognition on the Mongol Empire. Accordingly, this study tried to examine by dividing the figures, who had formed direct and indirect relationship in the camp under the command of Qaidu, by Ulus in each. It looked at a situation, in which the figures under the command of Qaidu meet and part because of these people’s origins, political situation in those days, and interests, through the data of Persia and the record of historical materials in Chinese character. The figures of the Jochi ulus, especially, Qonichi and others of the Orda ulus played a great role in the early growth of Qaidu. The figures of the Chagatai ulus were either devoted under the command of Qaidu after the leadership of Central Asia following the death of Baraq handed over to Qaidu, or left for the camp of Qubilai as the Great Khan following this. The figures of the Ögödei ulus gathered together focusing on Qaidu in order to restore their Ulus that vanished into nothing, and then strived to re-build Ögödei ulus in Central Asia. It examined the figures of the Tului ulus that there are also people who obeyed by coming themselves to the camp of Qaidu in the wake of disharmony with Qubilai, but there were people as well who returned again to the camp of Qubilai following the passage of the certain period. It confirmed that even some of the Amīrs and the generals yielded submission by coming themselves to the camp of Qaidu due to being afraid of being reprimanded the failure in military operation, but had been included in the camp of Qaidu going after Chinggisid princes whom they follow. Through Persian and historical materials in Chinese character, the Chinggisid princes, Amīrs and generals who had served him under the command the camp of Qaidu can be considered not to have obeyed or done military operation by coming by themselves to the camp of Qaidu just for the purpose so-called ‘the overthrow of Shih Tsu(世祖) in Yuan(元), the hanisized Chinese Emperor who had been believed as of being the existing orthodoxy. A little much deeper research needs to be progressed. Yet, it confirmed that Qaidu and the figures under his command didn’t meet and part only as the Ögödei’s family, which did fight against Qubilai of the Tului’s family that had usurped the throne of the Great Khan, or as ‘a leader and a member of the traditionally nomadic group’ that stands up to the hanisized(漢化) Yuan dynasty(元朝) . Through analyzing these people’s origins, it confirmed that there were also people who shared political line and activity with him all through the period of Qaidu's activity and that there were quite a number of people, too, who surrendered to the side of Qubilai by calculating their political line, a political change in the Mongol Empire, and interests after having been in the camp of Qaidu, and tried to identify that there had been its opposite case as well.
참고문헌 (70)
- "元朝名臣史略" (1996), 中華書局
- 李修生, "全元文" (2004), 鳳凰出版社(原江蘇古籍出版社)
- "Rashīd ad-Dīn, 이스탄불 톱카프 도서관 소장본 : Revan Köşkü", ~
- 라시드 앗 딘, "『부족지』2002, 『칭기스칸기』2003, 『칸의 후예들』2005", 사계절, ~
- Wheeler. M. Thackston, "Jami'u't-Tawarikh Compendium of Chronicles A History of The Mongols, 3 vols" (1998), Harvard University. Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
- 余大鈞, "『史集』三冊" (1997), 商務印書館
- J. A. Boyle, "The Successors of Genghis Khan" (1971), Columbia Univ. Press
- 周良霄, "成吉思汗的繼承者" (1992), 天健古籍出版社
- Hammer-Purgstall, "Geschichte Wassaf's, persisch herausgegeben und deutsch übersetzt, Band.I" (1856)
- Khvāndamir, "Habibu's-siyar, Mass. : Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations" (1994), Harvard University
- 虞集, "道園學古錄卷23, ｢句容君王世績碑｣, (影印)文淵閣四庫全書. v.1207", 商務印書館, ~ (1990)
- 虞集, "道園學古錄, ｢高昌王世勋之碑｣, 四部叢刊初編", 据商务印书馆, ~ (1926)
- Wheeler M. Thackston, "Habibu's-siyar", Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, pp.1994
- 마르코 폴로, "동방견문록" (2000), 사계절
- 冯承钧, "马可波罗行记" (2006), 上海世纪出版集团
- Jamāl Qarshī, "賈瑪爾․喀爾施和他的 蘇拉赫詞典補編, 下", 元史及北方民族史研究集刊, (11) (1987)
- Ш. Х. Вохидов, "История Казахстана в Персидских Источниках: Джамал ал-Карши ал-Тулхакат би-с-сурах, I Tom, Алматы “Дайк-Пресс”" (2005)
- 김호동, "몽골제국과 고려– 쿠빌라이 정권의 탄생과 고려의 정치적 위상-" (2007), 서울대학교 출판부
- 杉山正明, "몽골 세계제국" (1999), 신서원
- 安部健夫, "西ウイグル國史の硏究" (1955), 中村印刷株式出版部
- 李治安, "忽必烈傳" (2004), 人民出版社
- 劉迎勝, "察合台汗國史硏究" (2006), 上海古籍出版社
- 本田實信, "モンゴル時代史硏究" (1991), 東京大學出版會
- 杉山正明, "モンゴル帝國と大元ウルス" (2004), 京都大學學術出版會
- C. d'Ohsson, "Histoire des Mongols, depuis Tchinguiz-Khan jusqu'à Timour Bey ou Tamerlan, Tome Second" (1852), Frederik Muller
- Gerge Lane, "Early Mongol rule in the thirteenth century Iran: a Persian renaissance" (2003), Routledge Curzon
- Henry H. Howorth, "History of the Mongols from 9th to the 19th century, vol.I" (1876)
- Michal Biran, "Qaidu and the Rise of the Independent Mongol State in Central Asia" (1997), Curzon Press
- Pelliot, P., "Notes on Marco Polo. Vol I" (1959), Imprimerie nationale
- Rachewiltz I. de, "In the Service of the Khan" (1993), Otto Harrassowitz
- Thomas T. Allsen, "Commodity and Exchange in the Mongol Empire: A cultural history of Islamic textiles" (1997), Cambridge University Press
- Thomas T. Allsen, "Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- V.V. Barthold, "Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, vol. I" (1956), Leiden, E. J
- W. Barthold, "Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, Philadelphia, The Trustees of the “E.J.W.Gibb Memorial” ＆ Messrs, Third Edition" (1968), Luzac and Company LTD
- 김석환, "14세기 초 두아의 중앙아시아 패권 장악과 그 의의", 석사, 동양사학, pp.2010
- 김호동, "元代의 漢文實錄과 蒙文實錄 ― 『元史』 ｢本紀｣의 中國中心的 一面性의 解明을 위하여 ―", 동양사학연구, (109), pp.141~189 (2009), 동양사학회
- 김호동, "쿠빌라이 카안의 大臣들 ― 『五支派(Shu‛ab-i panjgāna)』에 수록된 쿠빌라이 카안의 大臣(amīr) 名單 분석 ―", 동양사학연구, (125), pp.219~249 (2013), 동양사학회
- 류병재, "카이두 올로스 성립에 있어 탈라스 코릴타의 역할", 몽골학, (18), pp.169~199 (2005), 한국몽골학회
- 류병재, "동·서 올로스 반란에 대한 쿠빌라이의 대응 ― 나얀과 카이도의 난을 중심으로 ―", 몽골학, (34), pp.133~179 (2013), 한국몽골학회
- 류병재, "“탈라스 코릴타이” 성립배경 연구", 백산학보, (97), pp.237~267 (2013), 백산학회
- 賈叢江, "海都與窩闊台汗國的創建", 西域硏究, (4) (1999)
- 賈叢江, "海都與窩闊台汗國的創建", 西域硏究, (4) (1999)
- 耿世民, "回鹘文亦都护高昌王世勋碑研究", 考古学报, (4) (1980)
- 吉野正史, "元朝にとってのナヤン․カダアンの亂", 史観, 161 (2009)
- 黨寶海, "元代火州之戰年代辯正", 歐亞學刊, 3 (2002)
- 劉迎勝, "論塔剌思會議", 元史論叢, 4 (1992)
- 劉迎勝, "從北平王到北安王—那木罕二三題—", 元史及民族與邊疆研究集刊, 21 (2009)
- 杉山正明, "クビライ政権の東方三王家-鄂州の役前後再論", 東方学報, 54 (1982)
- 杉山正明, "ふたつのチャガタイ家", 明淸時代の政治と社會 (1983), 京都大學 人文科學硏究所
- 徐黎麗, "金帳汗國與伊利汗國的關系(1251年-1335年)", 西北民族硏究, (2) (1998)
- 徐黎麗, "海都與窩闊台汗國的興衰", 西北師大學報, (4)
- 石刚, "新疆近十年出土窝阔台汗国钱币研究", 新疆钱币, (4) (2006)
- 松田孝一, "ユブグル等の元朝投降", 立命館史學, 4 (1984)
- 松田孝一, "メリク․テムルとその勢力", 內陸アジア史硏究, (4) (1998)
- 愛宕松男, "紀元二千六百年記念史學論文集" (1941), 內外出版印刷
- 任崇嶽, "從兩通元代碑文看“ 海都之亂”的性質", 中州學刊, (5) (1996)
- 卡哈尔, "亦都护高昌王世勋碑回鹘文碑文之校勘与研究", 元史及北方民族史研究集刊, (8) (1984)
- 箭內 亘, "海都の叛いた年次", 蒙古史硏究 (1930)
- 田村實造, "中國征服王朝の硏究, 中" (1968), 東洋史硏究會
- 陳得芝, "元嶺北行省建置考(中)", 元史及部分民族史研究集刊, (11) (1987)
- 村岡 倫, "オゴデ=ウルスの分立", 東洋史苑, 39 (1992)
- 村岡 倫, "オルダウルスと大元ウルス - <カイドゥの亂>․<シリギの亂>をめぐって -", 東洋史苑, 52 (1999)
- 村岡 倫, "カイドゥと中央アジア-タラスのクリルタイをめぐって-", 東洋史苑, 30 (1988)
- 村岡 倫, "シリギの亂-元初モンゴリアの爭亂-", 東洋史苑, 24 (1985)
- 村岡 倫, "海都與突兒斯坦 ; 再論塔剌思忽里台大會", papers Contributed to the Symphosium for the History of the Yuan Dynasty - Abstrict, pp.189~192 (1986)
- 叢海平, "‘黑城出土文書’所見海都之亂時期亦集乃路的軍糧供給", 雲南師範大學學報(哲學社會科學版), (4) (2009)
- 惠谷後之, "田村博士頌壽『東洋史論叢』" (1968), 同朋舍
- J.W. Dardess, "From Mongol Empire to Yüan Dynasty", Monumenta Serica, 30 (1972)
- Hodong Kim, "The Unity of the Mongol Empire and Continental Exchanges over Eurasia", Journal of Central Eurasian Studies, 1 (2009)
- Michal Biran, "Warfare in Inner Asian History" (2002), Brill