Чингисхан. Человек, завоевавший мир. Фрэнк Маклинн
Читать онлайн книгу.
Hildinger, Story of the Mongols (1966) p. 17.
115
Boyle, ‘Kirakos of Ganjak,’ p. 21; Hildinger, Story p. 17; d’Ohsson, Histoire ii pp. 59, 86,107, 204.
116
Jackson & Morgan, Rubruck p. 108.
117
Joseph F. Fletcher, ‘The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives,’ p. 14.
118
Walter Goldschmidt, ‘A General Model for Pastoral Social Systems,’ in Equipe Ecologie, Pastoral Production and Society pp. 15–27.
119
Joseph F. Fletcher, ‘The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives,’ pp. 39–42.
120
Christian, History of Russia i pp. 81–85.
121
For Carpini’s allegations see Dawson, Mongol Mission pp. 17–18.
122
For Carpini’s allegations see Dawson, Mongol Mission p. 103; Jackson & Morgan, Rubruck p. 91.
123
Vladimirtsov, Le regime social p. 35.
124
Cribb, Nomads (1991) p. 18.
125
RT i pp. 113–120; SHC pp. 1–10.
126
Gumilev, Imaginary Kingdom p. 89.
127
SHC p. 11; Louis Hambis, ‘L’Histoire des Mongols avant Genghis-khan’ Central Asiatic Journal 14 (1970) pp. 125–133; Franke & Twitchett, Cambridge History p. 330; Vladimirtsov, Life of Genghis p. n.
128
Lattimore, ‘The Geographical Factor,’ The Geographical Journal 91 (1938) pp. 14–15; Lattimore, Studies in Frontier History (1962) pp. 241–258. For the Uighurs see Mackerras, Uighur Empire.
129
RT i pp. 120–123; SHC p. 11; Rachewiltz, Commentary pp. 296, 316; Buell, Dictionary pp. 105, 218, 229.
130
Gumilev, Imaginary Kingdom pp. 94–95. For a lucid overall survey see Fletcher, Studies pp. 12–13.
131
For the Naiman see RT i pp. 67–70; Hambis, Gengis Khan pp. 7–22; Wittfogel & Feng, Liao p. 50; S. Murayama, ‘Sind die Naiman Turken oder Mongolen?’ Central Asiatic Journal 4 (1959) pp. 188–198; Pelliot & Hambis, Campagnes pp. 215–221, 299–311; Roemer et al, History of the Turkic Peoples; W Barthold, ‘12 Vorlesungen iiber die Geschichte der Turken Mittelasiens,’ in Die Welt des Islams 17 (1935) p. 151.
132
The Kereit have attracted a lot of attention. RT i pp. 61–67; Togan, Flexibility and Limitation, esp. pp. 60–67; D. M. Dunlop, ‘The Kerait of Eastern Asia,’ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and Ajrican Studies 11 (1944) pp. 276–289; Pelliot & Hambis, Campagnes pp. 207–209; Erica D. Hunter, ‘The conversion of the Keraits to Chrstianity in ad 1007,’ Zentralasiatische Studien 22 (1991) pp. 142–163.
133
RT i pp. 43–55; Wittfogel & Feng, Liao pp. 101–102, 528, 573–598; Togan, Flexibility pp. 66–68; Louis Hambis, ‘Survivances de toponymes de l’epoque mongole en Haute Asie,’ in Melanges de sinologie ojferts a Monsieur Paul Demieville, Bibliotheque de I’lnstitut des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 20 (1974) pp. 19–41 (at pp. 26–29); S. G. Kljastornys, ‘Das Reich der Tartaren in der Zeit von Cinggis Khan,’ Central Asiatic Journal 36 (1992) pp. 72–83; Pelliot & Hambis, Campagnes pp. 2–9.
134
RT i pp. 52–54; JB i p. 63; Pelliot & Hambis Campagnes pp. 227–228, 271–278.
135
RT i pp. 125–129; SHC p. n; Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan pp. 9–10. But some sceptics say the insults allegedly offered by Qabul on these occasions should not be taken literally but read allegorically as indicating the generally poor state of Mongol-Jin relations (see Grousset, Empire of the Steppes p. 197).
136
Barfield, Perilous Frontier p. 183.
137
Asimov & Bosworth, History of Civilizations iv part 1 p. 246. But see the contrary case argued in N. Iszamc, ‘L’etat feodal mongol et les conditions de sa formation,’ Etudes Mongoles 5 (1974) pp. 127–130.
138
Louis Hambis, ‘Un episode mal connu de l’histoire de Gengis khan,’ Journal des Savants (January-March 1975) pp. 3–46.
139
Tamura Jitsuzo, ‘The Legend of the Origin of the Mongols and Problems Concerning their Migration,’ Acta Asiatica 24 (1973) pp. 9–13; Barthold, Turkestan (1928) p. 381; Paul Pelliot, ‘Notes sur le “Turkestan” de W Barthold,’ T’oung Pao 27 (1930) pp. 12–56 (at p. 24).
140
RT i p. 130; Pelliot & Hambis, Campagnes pp. 132–133; Grousset, Empire p. 198. Ambaghai was taking his daughter to marry into the Ayiru’ut Buiru’ut sept, one of the subtribes of the Tartars. It is interesting that the practice of exogamy was so deeply ingrained with the Mongols that the Tayichiud would consider a match with the Tartars, their greatest enemies (Vladimirtsov, Le regime social pp. 58–59). Another version of the ambush is that it was not the intended bridegroom and family who betrayed him, but Tartar mercenaries (juyin) employed as gendarmes by the Jin who set the ambuscade (Rachewiltz, Commentary pp. 300–301).
141
Grousset, Empire pp. 194, 200.
142
Erdmann, Temudschin (1862) pp. 194–230.
143
Vladimirtsov, Le regime social pp. 89–92.
144
d’Ohsson, Histoire i p. 33.
145
RT i pp. 130–131.
146
Ratchnevsky, Genghis Khan p. 12; Barfield, Perilous Frontier p. 184.
147
RT i p. 132; SHC pp. 11–13.
148
Rachewiltz, Commentary p. 320.