The article presents a retrospective analysis of geopolitical processes in the Mongolian space of the 17th century. Decentralization after the collapse of the world-system relations of the Mongolian world led to the formation of many political associations. The authors show that the marginal ethnic groups of the Mongolian world determined their political preferences in the context of complex cross-border interaction between Russia and the Qing Empire, which marked centralization within the framework of a new geopolitical process. The annexation of Buryatia expanded Russia's diplomatic, trade, economic, and cultural ties with China and Mongolia. At the same time, Buryatia played an important role in establishing and developing relations between Russia and Tibet, India, and the countries of Southeast Asia.

Keywords: Russia, Qing, Mongols, Buryats, geopolitics, mutual relations.

THE QING EMPIRE AND RUSSIA IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY: GEOPOLITICAL REPARTITION OF THE MONGOLIAN SPACE

Boris BAZAROV, Aleksandr GOMBOZHAPOV

By the early seventeenth century the collapse of world-system ties of the Mongolian world was accompanied by formation of a multitude of fragmented alliances. The shaping of Mongolian territories in Central and East Asia was a result of complex alternations of the main world-systems and centers. Domination of the millennium-and-a-half old nomadic communities in the core world centers ended up with the collapse of the Mongolian Empire. A huge area populated by the Mongolian-speaking peoples turned into an object of repartition by new polities and communities. A powerful successor, the Manchu state, managed to tighten up its grip on the Mongolian world using systemic contradictions and an ancient maxim "divide et impera". The Manchus distributed the contradictions of the competitors to their advantage. The evolution of Mongolian collapse turned inevitable. The incorporation of Buryatia into Russia was a life-changing event in the history of Buryatia and its indigenous peoples. It changed the entire course of history of the Buryat people and to a large extent predetermined their destiny. Thanks to Buryatia it became possible to establish full-scale contacts with the East through interactions with the Buddhist culture and religion.

Keywords: Russia, the Qing, the Mongols, the Buryats, geopolitics, relations.

Boris Vandanovich BAZAROV-Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Director of the Institute of Mongolian Studies, Buddhology and Tibetology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ulan-Ude; bazarov60@mail.ru.

GOMBOZHAPOV Alexander Dmitrievich-Candidate of Historical Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Institute of Mongolian Studies, Buddhology and Tibetology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ulan-Ude; Agombozh@gmail.com.

Boris BAZAROV - Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of H istorical Sciences, Professor, Director, Institute of Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies, Siberian branch, Russian Academy of Science, Ulan-Ude, bazarov60@mail.ru.

Aleksandr GOMBOZHAPOV - PhD (in History), Leading Research Fellow, Institute of Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies, Siberian branch, Russian Academy of Science, Ulan-Ude, Agombozh@gmail.com.

The research was carried out with the financial support of the Russian Science Foundation within the framework of the research project No. 14-18-00552 "Mongolian peoples: historical experience of transformation of nomadic communities in Asia".

page 98
Disintegration of the world-system relations of the Mongolian world by the beginning of the XVII century. It was accompanied by the formation of many disparate associations. Different territories were formed in different historical settings, so the cross-border interaction between Russia and the Qing Empire carried a unique originality and only emphasized the centrifugal characteristics for the Mongol world and the new centralization within the new geopolitical process.

The formation of Mongolian territories in Central and East Asia was the result of complex processes of changing the main world systems and centers [Hall, 2004, pp. 153-157]. The dominance of nomadic communities in the main world system-forming centers, which had almost a thousand-and-a-half-year history, ended with the collapse of the Mongol Empire. The vast territory of the area of the Mongolian peoples became the subject of redistribution of new states and communities, and the inertia of disintegration was so powerful that it did not allow the new creative leading political center of the Mongolian nomadic civilization to be determined. This characteristic of the decentralization and degradation of the Mongolian world system has become the leitmotif of the global geopolitical redistribution of Eurasia.

The period of the "small khanates" of the early 17th century is characterized by the existence of many state and semi-state associations, the khans of which were in a situation of choosing between consolidation into a single state and group pragmatic interests of their own regional positions. This complex amalgam of ideas and interests had nothing to do with the past history of the empire. Perhaps the idea of empire itself has become too complex a spiritual and political burden for the political elites and leaders themselves to bear. The unity of the country was impossible, especially since each ruler, even in the conditions of hostile relations between the territories, wanted to survive and develop independently.

The southern territory of the Mongolian ecumene, under the apparent dominance of the Chakhar Khanate, was divided into several semi-independent khanates. In Northern Mongolia there were Tushetu-Khanate, Setsen-Khanate, Dzasaktu-Khanate, at the end of the XVII century. Sayn Noyon-khanate. In Western Mongolia, the state of the Altan Khans was established. At the very beginning of the 17th century, a large Oirat-Dzungarian Khanate emerged here. Peace and friendly agreements left the disintegrated territories of the Mongol core of the great nomadic empire. The reality was the lively struggle of various intra-state associations for a leading position in the Great Steppe, which finally exhausted the remnants of the former power of the empire.

The newly formed powerful Manchurian state, using these systemic contradictions, managed to assert its position in the Mongol world. The disintegration of the Mongolian community became irreversible, centrifugal tendencies began to deepen, and a significant part of the territories, even without declaring autonomy, began to independently manage the resources of the former state.

A significant part of the land that is now part of the Eastern Siberian border of the Russian Federation was considered at that time to be the periphery of the political world of East Asia, an appendage so natural that hardly anyone considered it necessary to listen to the development of the political and social process in these "wild" forest-steppe zones, being sure of their dependent position. Therefore, the feedback did not work at the moment when the territories of the northern outskirts of the Mongolian world, following the strengthening of Oirat political associations in Mongolia, acquired a steady tendency to self-determination within the new geopolitical coordinates. The emergence of Khalkha and Buryat independent young ethnic formations [Pavlinskaya, 2011], which gravitate to different poles of the new centers of world power, completed the overall picture of the new configuration of the internal political demarcation of the Mongolian peoples and states.

page 99
Despite the fact that many aspects of the formation of Qing China are established by historical science, it seems necessary to identify some accents that, in our opinion, are not always adequate to the real historical process. The fact is that the dynamic events of the XX century. (The Xinhai Revolution, the state of Manchukuo, the defeat of the Kwantung Army) caused a renaissance of the Chinese and Mongolian national idea. Therefore, the ideas of the founding leaders of the countries of the new formation of the Asian space are included in the historical thought and methodological basis of research. In view of this, the centuries-old history of Qing rule began to be considered as a continuous band of the anti-Manchu national liberation movement. Without entering into a polemic on the problems of the liberation movement, we note that the dominance of this view as the basis of scientific methodology led to a distortion of the history of China, formed the idea of it as an integral civilization, and created the myth of its backwardness. This could not but affect the description of its regional history, as well as the Mongolian historiography.

In historiography, it is customary to distinguish several stages of the Manchu conquest of the Mongol space - Southern Mongolia, Khalkha Mongolia, and Western Mongolia. From this, a conclusion was drawn about the corresponding stages of the liberation anti-Manchurian struggle of the Mongols [Ermachenko, 1974; History of the Mongol..., 1983; Chimitdorzhiev, 1974]. While generally agreeing with this approach, we note that any movement in this complex historical process cannot be interpreted unambiguously, especially when it comes to nomadic history. Each stage of the Manchu conquest was progressive, knew no defeats from the point of view of state strategy, and was based on a deep knowledge of the problems of Mongolian tribalism and the disunity of steppe peoples. With each new stage, the Manchus recruited allies from the conquered peoples, pitting former friends and associates against each other. At the same time, they carried out the conquest of China, moving along the historical path laid by Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan. Thus, they created a new Manchu paradigm of a Mongol-Chinese state in East Asia. The fall of the Manchus was predetermined by the demographic discrepancy within the territory under their control, and only managerial skills combined with the peculiarity of the Chinese mentality and the suppression of national elites delayed this process de jure.

It is necessary to correctly assess the fact that each of the stages of the Manchurian advance was characterized by the strengthening of its rear, and for almost a century and a half this handwriting changed little, revealing strategic consistency, always acceptable tactical mobility, and most importantly, a high level of efficiency in achieving results. It is necessary not only to note the policy of the Manchus, but also to correctly synchronize the activities of various territories of the Mongol world during the period of conquest. You can pay attention to how the situation with the Chakhar territories of Southern Mongolia developed. In 1616-1636, a protracted battle between the southern Mongols led by Chakhar Ligden Khan and the Manchus took place. In fact, not only due to skillful military actions, but also due to the use of the subtleties of nomadic inheritance and the peculiarities of the intra-tribal alignment, the long struggle ended in favor of the Manchus [Gorokhova, 1980, pp. 7-9; Lattimore, 1957, p. 431]. Then, in alliance with the southern Mongols, the Manchus seized the adjacent Chinese territories. Southern Mongolia effectively recognized the Manchurian state and subsequently acted as an integral part of the new state. Then, from 1637 to 1691, Outer Mongolia was conquered in a dramatic struggle. And on the return trip of the "shuttle", in the time of Kublai, the territory of China was conquered (Chimitdorzhiev, 2007).

From the end of the 17th century to the middle of the 18th century, the protracted war in Western Mongolia also ended in success. Wars in Dzungaria and Khalkha are not enough to qualify as

page 100
national liberation movements. This is the conquest of independent states as part of the implementation of the Manchurian doctrine of the new Chinese state.

Increasing Manchu pressure on the territory of the Mongol states, the annexation of a significant area, and the previously unprecedented advance into Central Asia caused a desire for a liberation movement, a series of dramatic clashes, battles, and battles that are still poorly described in Russian historiography. The fragmentation of the Mongol world, the skilful diplomatic maneuvering of the Manchu leadership, and its well-thought-out strategy and tactics allowed them to define themselves as the new rulers of East Asia. The protracted Oirato-Khalkha conflict of the late 16th and early 17th centuries, which developed with varying success, led to an irreconcilable confrontation throughout the Mongol world and to a rapid weakening of the concept of the state among the Mongols, and a kaleidoscopic change of political leaders led to the final decline of the authority of the authorities. This circumstance led to the strengthening of the position of the growing Manchurian state, which skillfully used the intolerable confrontation of the warring parties.

Under these conditions, the marginal ethnic groups were forced to find new ways out of the existing historical dead ends. In a complex political conflict, new paths suddenly appeared, which were destined to become the main perspective that determined the fate of the peoples of the Mongolian world. The fate of Northern Mongolia, better known in the modern world as Buryatia, is indicative.

The advance of the Cossacks to Siberia, which was spontaneous in the initial period, for a short time took on the character of a well-thought-out policy of developing a huge territory by the Russian state. Without dwelling on the assessment and details of this complex state-forming process, we note that the annexation of the territories of Eastern Siberia, which included vast lands of "fraternal peoples", as the Russian pioneers called the Buryats, was complex and ambiguous, but progressive and upward.

Udinsky, Selenginsky, Barguzin, Nerchinsky, Irkutsk and other forts created on the territory of Transbaikalia formed a network of military fortifications that ensured control over the territory of the region. Soon these prisons became both administrative and political, as well as commercial and economic centers. The construction of jails, the appearance of prisoners of service people and ploughed peasants around them contributed to the revival of peaceful trade, exchange and household relations between the Buryats. The development of a peaceful dialogue with the Buryat population, the strengthening of positive complementarity, and the mutual penetration of cultures actually determined the will of the peoples and completed the process of joining Buryatia to the Russian state. In the developing geopolitical confrontation in East Asia, reliance on the developing positive relations with local ethnic groups played a crucial role.

The annexation of the territory of ethnic Buryatia to Russia took a whole century. Despite the variety of methods used to expand the borders of the Russian state, which were rich in both military and colonization measures, researchers conclude that the Buryats were not a conquered people (see, for example, [History of Buryatia, 2011]). In the difficult conditions of geopolitical redistribution in the second half of the 2nd century, the Buryat people made an independent historical choice, determining their development within the Russian state. Different ethnopolitical groups and alliances could determine at different stages the choice in favor of the Dzungarian state, submit to the growing power of Manchurian pressure, insist on the Khalkhas union, or gain a foothold in the position of "independence". In the course of acquiring a new view of the reality of the existing world, based on the special responsibility of tribal communities to future generations, the ancient autochthons of Siberia decided on the choice of the Russian state.

page 101
This statement does not contradict the main thesis of Russian historiography about the conquest, conquest and colonization of Siberia, but only emphasizes the diversity and complexity of this process on a giant historical site. It should be noted that it was not state structures, diplomats and officials, or armies that moved to develop the Siberian space, but mobile merchant-Cossack groups that formed the spontaneous tactics of land annexation. The vast majority of them did not know their homeland or flag. The mood of these groups was akin to the later famous "Klondike spirit". They did not go after the "promised land", did not seek "land and freedom", did not want to create new states. It is necessary to understand the state of mind of many of these people, who did not need much work, but it was a matter of honor, heroism and heroism to go on a robber raid for "zipuns" somewhere in Persia, to profit on the "high road" at the expense of careless merchants, to fight for their poor belongings. The example of Yermak Timofeyevich, one of the authoritative foremen, who laid down a violent head in such campaigns, as if broke the Ural dam: dozens, hundreds of detachments rushed to seek their fortune in the vast Siberian expanses in search of money, loot, gold and silver. This spontaneous flow gradually began to be regulated by the entrepreneurial and merchant class, a business people who well marked the paths of dashing people. Only then did the regulatory role of the state dramatically increase.

The arrival of the Russians in the Angara region and the Upper Lena, the unbearable levies of Yasak, the pogroms of the Cossack detachments of the ulus, the arbitrariness and harassment by the prison administrations gave a powerful additional impetus to the unity of the entire Baikal population. The feeling of unity was especially acute in the mid-1640s and 1650s, when the Buryats together began to raise large armed uprisings. The simultaneous participation of Bulagats, Ekhirits, Batulins, Ashebagats, Khongodors and other tribes and clans in the Verkholensk uprising, as well as their deployment of combined detachments of up to 2 thousand people, undoubtedly indicate the existence of a coalition of tribes west of Lake Baikal. This is also indicated by the Angarsk events. The promise, and then the execution of the threat to beat the Russians on Belaya and Goloustnaya shows that the Baikal people in the concept of "homeland" included the entire Baikal region, and not just the territories of individual clans and tribes. Here it is appropriate to say that the existing opinion about the underdevelopment of the Buryat tribes and associations before joining Russia [Zalkind, 1958, p.17-18; Yegunov, p. 69] did not stand up to scrutiny. This was due to an underestimation of the process of disintegration and degradation of the Mongolian world system in all system parameters. The socially and politically oppressed state of the Mongolian (including Buryat) ethnic communities, their constant and ever-weakening competitive struggle led to disintegration, when only scattered and isolated groups of former nomads could be responsible for the survival of the community. With the increasing centrifugal tendencies in the empire, remote groups of the population were doomed to the most difficult development option. Therefore, the armament of the Buryats of that period corresponded to a high level of feudalization of society with a high level of dissemination of military ideology, respect for military procedures. All the energy was spent on overcoming external threats, most of which were distributed within the Mongol ecumene, including intertribal strife.

However, the fact that the Buryat people at that historical period were not consolidated in a single space, did not represent integrity, and was in a situation of developed ethnic tribalism, forced us to look for other options. The Nerchinsk Treaty found the Buryats, as studies have shown, already in a completely defined situation [Istoriya Buryatiya, 2011]. It is precisely this established behavior of the Buryats that allowed Russia to "jump" in the Amur region.

The actual annexation of the" Bratsk peoples " in a significant area of Eastern Siberia allowed the Russian state to become more active on the borders of the Russian Federation.

page 102
Far East and East Asia. Prior to the annexation of Transbaikalia and the Amur region, the Russian state tried to establish diplomatic relations with China and sent several embassies there, but they were unsuccessful. In 1685, the troops of the Qing Emperor Kangxi surrounded and then captured Albazin. In 1689, a Russian embassy headed by okolnichy Fyodor Golovin left for Nerchinsk. Difficult and lengthy negotiations ended in August 1689 with the conclusion of the Russian-Chinese Treaty of Nerchinsk. Modern historiography is not inclined to exaggerate the significance of this treaty not only in view of the circumstances under which it was concluded, but also in assessing the meaning put by the parties when signing it [Borders of China..., 2001]. China of the Kangxi Emperor actually dictated its own will to the Russian state, considering it its tributary. And if the free will of the population of the territories had not been determined in favor of Russia, the redrawing of the current political map in East Asia would have been inevitable.

The situation changed in 1727, when the Russian envoy S. L. Vladislavich-Raguzinsky concluded the Burin Agreement with representatives of China in August, and the Kyakhta Treaty in October 1728. By these diplomatic acts, the Russo-Chinese border was clearly defined from the Argun River to the source of the Yenisei River. Large migrations of Buryats and Mongols have ceased since that time (Zalkind, 1958), and the ethnic picture in Transbaikalia has become noticeably more stable. It is worth emphasizing that the Buryat population not only did not resist these measures of the Russian government, but also showed complete loyalty, about which S. L. Vladislavich-Raguzinsky gave an enthusiastic review without exaggeration [Bantysh-Kamensky, 1882, p.145]. Thus ended the century-long process of annexation of Baikal Siberia to the Russian state.

The annexation of Buryatia was of great importance for the Russian state. Russia became part of a large territory with a significant population at that time, and huge natural resources. The shortest and most convenient route to the Amur Region and Primorye opened up for Russia through Buryatia. The formation of a stable transit caravan trade, the route of which is known as the "Tea Road", has received its impetus. The initial stage of Russian-Chinese trade relations was dictated by both objective conditions of mutually beneficial trade and political and prestigious interests on the part of the Qing Empire. "Well aware of how effective a measure in their hands is the restriction of trade, the Qing authorities throughout the XVIII century actively used this lever, especially in relations with the Mongol khanates and Russia" [History of North-Eastern China..., 1987, p.220].

A real breakthrough in Russian-Chinese trade and economic relations was the signing of the Kyakhta Treaty, whose articles on trade and border authorized the establishment of two border trading settlements (Kyakhta and Tsurukhtai). State-owned and private forms of caravan trade were almost replaced by dynamically developing cross-border trade. It was the dynamics of trade turnover of Kyakhta commerce that determined the picture of Russian-Chinese trade relations until the second half of the XIX century. After the Nerchinsk, Burinsky, and Kyakhta Treaties, Russia and China signed the Aigun (1858), Tientsin (1858), and Peking (1860) treaties. The conclusion of these agreements was determined by the internal logic of further regulation of the legal basis for the formation of the Russian-Chinese border in the context of Russia's economic development of the Far Eastern region, as well as the strengthening of the influence of European powers on the Qing government. According to the articles of the signed treaties and agreements, subjects of Russia and China were granted the right of duty-free trade along the Russian-Chinese border at a distance of 100 li (50 versts). This made mutually beneficial cross-border trade the main form of economic relations between the two powers. Selected one

page 103
the Qing government's policy of isolation and the desire to transfer Russian-Chinese trade to border areas for military purposes, on the one hand, geographical remoteness and slow development of communication routes in the Asian part of Russia, on the other, led to the evolution of trade and economic relations from state-owned forms of caravan trade in luxury goods and "soft junk" to border land trade with a predominance of consumer goods in the structure.

The annexation of Buryatia to Russia was a turning point in the history of Buryatia and its indigenous peoples. It changed the whole course of the history of the Buryat people and in many ways predetermined its fate. All cultural, economic, and political ties in Buryatia were largely reoriented from the south, Mongolia, and China, to the north and west.

list of literature

Bantysh-Kamensky N. N. Diplomatic collection of affairs between the Russian and Chinese states from 1619 to 1792: Comp. on documents stored in the moek. arch. State Board of Foreign Affairs. Kazan, 1882. 565 p.

Foreign policy of the Qing State in the XVII century / Ed. by L. I. Duman. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. 385 p.

Gorokhova G. S. Essays on the history of Mongolia in the era of Manchurian domination (late XVII-early XX centuries). Moscow: Nauka, 1980. 132 p.

Borders of China: the history of formation / edited by V. S. Myasnikov, E. D. Stepanov, A. A. Bokshchanin. Moscow: Pamyatniki istoricheskoi mysli, 2001, 470 p.

Egunov N. P. Buryatia before joining Russia. Ulan-Ude: Buryat Book Publishing House, 1990, 176 p.

Yermachenko, I. S. Policy of the Manchu Qing dynasty in southern and Northern Mongolia in the XVII century Moscow: Nauka, 1974. 161 p.

Zalkind E. M. Annexation of Buryatia to Russia. Ulan-Ude: Buryat Book Publishing House, 1958. 320 p.

History of Buryatia: in 3 vols. Vol. II. XVII-beginning of XX century Ulan-Ude: Publishing House of the Belarusian Scientific Center SB RAS, 2011. 624 p.

History of the Mongolian People's Republic. 3rd ed., reprint. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1983, 661 p. (in Russian)

Istoriya Severo-Vostochnogo Kitaya XVII-XX vv. Kn. 1. Manchuria v epokhu feodalizma (XVII - nachalo XX vv.) [History of North-Eastern China in the 17th-20th centuries]. Vladivostok: Dalnevostochnoe knizhnoe izdatelstvo, 1987, 424 p.

Pavlinskaya L. R. On the role and significance of young ethnic groups in the formation of the border policy of the Russian state in the Baikal region at the end of the XVII-beginning of the XVIII century // Istoricheskiy opyt vzaimodeystviya narodov i tsivilizatsii: sb. nauch. st. Ulan-Ude, Irkutsk: Ottisk, 2011, pp. 25-29.

Mongol Empire and nomadic world / Edited by B. V. Bazarov, N. N. Kradin, T. D. Skrynnikova. Ulan-Ude: BSC SB RAS Publishing House, 2004, pp. 136-166.

Chimitdorzhiev Sh. B. Anti-Manchurian liberation struggle of the Mongolian people (XVII-I half of the XVIII century): Manchurian Expansion and Mongol struggle for freedom and independence of the Motherland. Ulan-Ude: Buryat Book Publishing House, 1974, 91 p.

Chimitdorzhiev Sh. B. Mongolia in the Middle Ages and Modern Times: Essays. Ulan-Ude: Buryat Book Publishing House, 2007, 212 p.

page 104

Permanent link to this publication: