카이도의 가계(家系)와 초기 성장과정 연구

류병재 한국몽골학회 2017 몽골학 Vol.0 No.48

The purpose of this study is to analyze the family line(家系) and the early growth process in a figure named Qaidu(海都) who had seized hegemony in Central Asia in those days that Yeke Mongγol Ulus constructed the great Mongol empire with building a great empire that is unprecedented in the world history. First of all, Qaidu’s ancestry was examined once again. It is definite that Ögödei Qa’an is a grandfather. However, in the materials such as Jami’ at-tavārīkh, the records, which are different in saying that Türgene Qatun is a grandmother, were confirmed to be generally found in the historical data of the East and the West. In Mu’izz Al-Ansāb(貴顯系譜), a record on Qāshī’s mother and Qaidu’s grandmother appears. The name of Qāshī’s mother was “Bōğūī Khātūn.” In Jingyeong(陳桱)’s 通鑑續編, Qāshī was recorded to be ‘昂灰’s child.’ It could be identified that Qaidu’s father Qāshī(合失) was not the common Chinggisid prince(諸王) who had early died due to liking liquor in the early 1230s, but gained Ögödei Qa’an’s trust and affection and was proficient even in Chinese character. Qaidu’s mother was Sīpīgne who comes from Bekrīn or Mekrīn tribe. She had survived until Qaidu’s declining years instead of her early-lost husband, but did not come from Qonggirat tribe, thereby having been unreasonable anyhow in entirely supporting Qaidu. Even until before and after the year in 1264 that Qa’an’s throne was transferred to Tolui’s family from Ögödei’s family, it was under Mönke Qa’an and Ariγ Böke in Tolui’s family. It was identified to have received many distribution(賜與) even from Qubilai who had maintained a hostile relationship for a long time after this. What it cannot help growing apart from historical truth and interpretation is obvious given looking at Qaidu and Mongolian empire history in such a way with regarding this as a model of nomad in grassland that strived to bring Daekanuigwon, which was deprived of Qaidu, back to Ögödei’s family. 본 연구의 목적은 대몽골올로스(Yeke Mongγol Ulus)가 세계사상 유래 없는대제국을 건설하며 유라시아 전역에 몽골세계제국을 건설하였을 당시, 중앙아시아 지역에서 헤게모니를 장악하여 유라시아 동서간의 교류를 단절시킨 장본인라고 일컬어지는 카이도(海都, Qaidu)라는 인물의 가계(家系)와 초기 성장과정을분석하는 데 있다. 카이도의 조부모와 부모가 누구였는지 또한 태어나서 유년기 및 초기 성장과정을 어떻게 겪었는지 고찰해 보도록 한다. 카이도가 중앙아시아 지역에서 일정한 세력을 형성하고 아릭버케와 쿠빌라이와의 대칸위권 다툼에서 쿠빌라이가 승리한 1264년 전후를 기점으로 ‘탈라스 회맹’1) 이전까지 그의 중앙아시아 패권 장악 과정의 전반부를 살펴보도록 한다. 카이도가 대원(大元) 올로스의 쿠빌라이에게 실질적으로 ‘반역 혹은 반란’을일으키고 중앙아시아의 여러 유목세력을 규합하여 대몽골 올로스를 분열의 혼란으로 치닫게 한 ‘원흉(元兇)’이었는지 아니었는지를 정확하게 분석하기 위해 반드시 필요한 작업이라고 할 수 있다. 카이도의 중앙아시아 패권 장악은 어떤 원인에의해 발발되었으며 그 역사적 진실을 논의하기에 앞서 반드시 선행되어야 할 연구이다. 지금까지 일반적으로 알려진 기왕의 연구들은 카이도가 중앙아시아에서 세력을 규합해 쿠빌라이와 대립한 원인을 대칸위권이 어거데이 가문에서 톨로이 가문으로 이양되었기 때문에 이를 되찾기 위해 카이도는 초원의 전통 유목세력을 규합하여 원조(元朝)의 세조(世祖) 쿠빌라이에게 반항했다고 보아왔다. 본 연구는 카이도 생전의 대몽골 올로스의 상황과 가계(家系), 출신성분 등을분석하며 그의 유년시절 및 초기 성장과정을 면밀히 고찰해 봄으로써 카이도를인식하는 기존 연구의 주장에 대한 새로운 이론을 제기하는 데 있다. 1269년 카이도는 중앙아시아의 여러 세력들과 함께 ‘탈라스 회맹’을 성사하고 중앙아시아의 패권을 차지하기 시작했다. 기존의 연구에서는 이 당시 카이도가 ‘대칸’에 등극하고 쿠빌라이에 대항하는 세력으로 성장했다고 보아 왔으나2) 최근 본 연구자와 몇몇 학자들은 카이도에 대한 오해와 역사적 진실이 잘못되어있음을 지적하며 그에 대한 역사적 재평가작업을 계속하고 있다. 본 연구는 그러한 논의의 연장선상에 있는 연구이다. 기존 연구는 몽골제국의 분열성을 강조한 나머지 몽골제국이 지니는 세계성에 대해서 등한시 해 온 것이 사실이었다. 본 연구는 이러한 기존의 연구에 대해 元史 등의 한문사료와 集史(Jami’ at-tavārīkh)3) 등의 페르시아 자료를 통한 체계적인 분석과 기존의 연구에서 소홀히 했던 사료들을 제시하여 그의 출생과 가계에 대한 관계도를 확립해 보고 그의 출생과 유년시절에 대한 역사적 사실을 재구성해보도록 한다.

동·서 올로스 반란에 대한 쿠빌라이의 대응 ― 나얀과 카이도의 난을 중심으로 ―

류병재 한국몽골학회 2013 몽골학 Vol.0 No.34

The ‘rebellion’ of Nayan and Qaidu against Qubilai Qa'an is a historic issue that is often referred to as a symbolic event of so-called ‘the disruption of the Great Mongol Empire(Yeke Mongγol Ulus).’ Moreover, it is historically known that these two masterminds of rebellion raised rebellions against Qubilai in each region and confederated together with each other to attempt to double upon Qubilai. The purpose of this study was to compare Nayan's rebellion against Qubilai with Qaidu's in the reign of Qubilai Qa'an, both of which were typical rebellions in Left and Right Wing Ulus, so that it could make further examinations into how Qubilai reacted to their rebellions. And based on analysis about his reactions, this study sought to examine the reasons why there could be differences, if any, in the extent and way of reactions to these two rebellions. Methodologically, this study adopted possible diversified views of Tului family - referred to as ‘the winner in history’ - about Qubilai, and turned away from the stigma of ‘rebellion’ and ‘insurrection’ marked artificially on figures who are ‘historic losers’ confronted with Qubilai, but sought to take more objective approach to examination of historical situations surrounding those rebellions. First, it was found that Nayan's rebellion was realized through blitzkrieg and bold military operations. Owing to lessons learned from long years of combats against Qaidu, Qubilai could promptly and boldly defeat the rebellion of Nayan, the monarch of east Ulus which was not so much far from the capitol of Qa'an Ulus. Apart from Western historic records that demonstrate movements of Nayan to confederate with Qaidu, this study examined medieval Chinese historic documents, but the latter documents showed no evidence enough to match Western records. Qubilai took a bold approach of ‘blitzkrieg’ to reaction to Nayan's rebellion, but took a mild approach of 3 basic policies, i.e. ‘reconciliation’, ‘tolerance’ and ‘frontier defense’ to reacting to Qaidu's rebellion: Rather, Qubilai respected the authority of a monarch from Chinggis Khan's royal family. It is commonly known that from a collective league called ‘Talas Khuriltai(1269)’, Qaidu was elected as a ‘Qa'an’ who could stand for the power of steppe region to set up against Qubilai and took ‘adaptive and obedient’ attitudes to Qubilai even till the first half of 1280's, not attempting to overturn the ancien regime of Qa'an Qubilai's court over about 4 decades, and Qaidu's forces were absolutely inferior to Qa'an's ones in military aspect as well. This study focused on these points of history. However, Qa'an's forces abided largely by defense-oriented policies on the basis of stronghold around Mountain Altai, even though they already took absolute dominance of military power over Qaidu. Qubilai considered these political and military positions to keep his own political covenant with Qaidu - that is, a covenant that shall grant sovereign power to Alghu over central Asian abode of the Mongol Empire “from the Altai on the far side to the River Amudar'ja (Oxus).” Qaidu used the covenant ingeniously: He intended to re-establish and secure ‘Ögödei Ulus’, an extinct Ulus, in central Asian region.

한국의 몽골사 연구 30년, 회고와 전망

류병재 한국몽골학회 2021 몽골학 Vol.- No.65

본 연구는 1990년 한·몽 수교 이후 한국의 몽골사 연구 30년간의 연구성과를 검토하고 향후 몽골사 연구 방향을 모색해 보고자 집필되었다. 한국의 몽골사 연구는 순수 몽골사 연구와 고려-몽골 관계사 측면으로 크게 양분된다고 할 수 있다. 이 가운데 칭기스칸과 그의 후예들의 역사인 몽골제국사부터 근현대 몽골인들의 역사를 아우르는 한국의 몽골사 연구성과는 짧은 시기에도 몽골제국사 사료 번역, 연구서 번역 및 전문 연구 등을 통해 양적·질적으로 괄목할만한 성장을 이룬 것을 확인하였다. 향후 한국의 몽골사 연구는 사료 이외에 다양한 자료들을 활용하여 그 연구범위를 확대하고, 고려-몽골 관계사에서 고려사 연구자들과 협업이 필요할 것이다. 또한 현재까지도 한국어 표기에서의 오류 등도 반드시 수정할 필요가 있다. This study was written in order to examine the 30-year research result in South Korea on Mongolian history after the diplomatic relations between South Korea and Mongolia in 1990, and to seek the research direction of Mongolian history henceforth. A research in South Korea on Mongolian history can be considered to be divided largely into the research of focusing on Mongol empire history and the aspect on the history of the Goryeo-Mongol relationship. In the middle of this, the research outcome in South Korea of Mongolian history covering the history of the modern & contemporary Mongolians starting from the Mongol empire history, which is the history of Genghis Khan and his descendants, was confirmed to have achieved remarkable growth quantitatively and qualitatively through translating the historical records of Mongol empire, translating the research documents, and making the professional research even in a short period of time. A future research in South Korea on Mongolian history will expand its research scope through using diverse materials other than historical records and will require the collaboration with Goryeo history researchers in the history of the Goryeo-Mongol relationship. Also, there is a need to certainly correct errors that appear now in Korean notation as for the terms related to Mongolian history.

카이도 휘하의 제왕(諸王)과 대신(大臣)

류병재 한국몽골학회 2014 몽골학 Vol.0 No.39

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...

[Solid information] 중국 내몽골 뉴스

류병재 단국대학교 몽골연구소 2013 Mongolian Survey Vol.3 No.1

[솔리드 인포메이션] 중국 내몽골

류병재 단국대학교 몽골연구소 2011 Mongolian Survey Vol.1 No.1

[학술답사] 북방유목문화의 고도(古都)를 찾아서

류병재 단국대학교 몽골연구소 2012 Mongolian Survey Vol.2 No.1

[탐방] (주)카스교역 - 엑스필

류병재 단국대학교 몽골연구소 2011 Mongolian Survey Vol.1 No.1

[특집 I] 단국대학교 몽골학과 20년 발자취

류병재 단국대학교 몽골연구소 2014 Mongolian Survey Vol.4 No.1

몽골과 중국의 경제·외교적 변화양상에 관한 시론적 연구 - 양국 간 조약 및 의정서를 중심으로-

류병재,송병구 한국몽골학회 2019 몽골학 Vol.0 No.59

The purpose of this study is to analyze domestic and foreign background that Mongolia and China confronted at that time and to attempt an exploratory analysis on which influence these treaties and protocols had upon the development in the two nations through examining about diverse treaties(條約) and protocols(議定書) that were established between Mongolia and China. Both Mongolia and China formed diplomatic ties on October 16, 1949, and then signed “Border Treaty between the People's Republic of China and the Mongolian People's Republic” in Beijing on December 26 of the same year. Protocols for rail connection and operation were signed such as Protocol for the Construction of Railways, which was created among three parties of China, Mongolia and the Soviet Union(Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) in 1952, and “Protocol for a Border Railway between China and Mongolia” in 1955. Both Mongolia and China comes to begin a substantial bilateral exchange starting with the operation of railroad, which passes over it, along with the border that came to be definite through the border treaty and the railway protocol after forming amity in 1949. The bilateral relationship was made official ties on the basis of "good neighbourly" relations in 1949, was temporarily cut off diplomatic relations between the two countries due to the escalation of a dispute between China and the Soviet Union in the 1960s and to following the Soviet Union by the Mongolian People's Republic, and then was ever restored according to the improvement in the relationship between China and the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. Both Mongolia and China formed "Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between the People's Republic of China and the Mongolian People's Republic" in 1994, and developed into “good-neighbor and mutual trust partnership” in 2003. The two countries developed into “strategic partnership[战略伙伴关系, стратегийн түншлэлийн харилцаа]” in 2011. Especially, Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Mongolia in August of 2014 leads to the elevation to “Complete strategic partnership[全面战略伙伴关系, Иж бүрэн стратегийн түншлэлийн харилцаа]” in the two nations, thereby celebrating the 70th anniversary of diplomatic ties in 2019. However, in the economic aspect, the bilateral relationship is in a situation that Mongolian economy relies excessively upon China. China is No. 1 trading partner of Mongolia. Its trade scale tends to grow year after year. This study is an exploratory research for a general analysis on Mongolia-China relationship. Diplomatic relations for 70 years between Mongolia and China are examined focusing on treaties and protocols out of research materials between the two nations. In particular, it looks into which role it played in the current relationship between Mongolia and China while confirming what the bilateral exchange was begun through the border treaty from the establishment of diplomatic ties, and verifying which ones were included in the treaties and agreements at that time.