map sourceMavi Boncuk |
NOMADIC EMPIRES OF THE EASTERN STEPPES by Ian Mladjov[1]
See The lists of Eastern rulers
From the 5th to the 9th centuries, Central and East Central Asia were dominated by a succession of nomadic confederations. These attempted to subdue their real or potential rivals and to extract revenues from the trade routes and settled societies nearby, ranging from the prosperous merchant cities along the Silk Road to the rich and powerful Chinese and Persian Empires. With the (often temporary) subjugation of multiple additional tribes by each new power, there emerged a relatively uniform imperial system. In it subjugated tribes retained significant measures of autonomy under native chiefs, but recognized the overarching authority of the hegemonic people, who were governed by a supreme ruler called first chanyu (traditionally written “shan-yü”) under the Xiongnu (Huns?), then qaġan or qa’an (“khan”) under the Rouran (Avars?) and their successors.
In keeping with Chinese tradition, rulers were styled with both name and title, e.g., Muqankehan (Buqan Qaġan) or Moheshe (Baġa Šad). The most significant hierarchical grades of the Turks and, for the most part, of their Uyġur successors are, in approximate descending order of importance:
1. qaġan or qa’an (kehan, “khaghan” or “khan”), the supreme authority, title sometimes shared with subordinates
2. yabġu (yehu), essentially a viceroy, but not in the direct line of succession
3. tegin (tejin or tele), crown prince, regardless of additional duties
4. šad (she), prince of royal blood, placed in charge of a particular territory or horde
5. ilteber (yilifa) and tudun (tutun), usually native tribal chiefs
NOMADIC EMPIRES OF THE WESTERN STEPPES by Ian Mladjov[1]
See The lists of Western rulers
The history of the “barbarian” tribes that inhabited the western Eurasian steppes is, to say the least, imperfectly known, depending as it does almost exclusively on chance notices in the histories of neighboring societies, including the Roman Empire and the Islamic Caliphate and its successors. This is true for the various Scythian and Sarmatian tribes inhabiting the region in Classical Antiquity and for the Huns, Bulgars, Avars, Khazars, Pečenegs, and Cumans, who settled the area in the Middle Ages. We possess glimpses, at best, of the history of these peoples, which leaves even the general chronological outline. Moreover, there are indications that at least some of these peoples did not develop what we might call proper monarchies, i.e., states that, centralized or not, were ultimately ruled by a single supreme ruler. This is clearly the case with the Pečenegs and the Cumans, and perhaps with the early Huns (although with them the multiplicity of chieftains may reflect a common Central Asian model of hegemonic imperial practice).
[1]Ian Mladjov, Instructor (Ph.D., University of Michigan, expected 2013), Research Associate at the Center for Russian and East European Studies at the University of Michigan, teaches undergraduate surveys in pre-modern world history and classes on Greek, Roman, and Medieval Mediterranean (Crusader) history. Additional areas of specialization include the Ancient Near East, Byzantium, and the Medieval Balkans, including Mythology and the history of religion. In addition to several articles in the areas of history and prosopography, he has contributed maps, genealogies, and other reference materials to various publications in related subjects. Further information and materials can be found on his personal webpage: http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/home