Reprint from

Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets AkademiensKonferenser 12ISBN 91-7402-147-8

Istvan Zimonyi

The first Mongol Raid Againstthe Volga-Bulgars

The Volga-Bulgar Empire belonged geographically to Eastern Europe.At the beginning of the 13th century this area was threatened by the WesternCrusades. While the original purpose of the first Crusades was to liberate theHoly Land, the Fourth Crusade directed against the Byzantine Empire. At thesame time another force was represented by the formation of the Order of theSword Bearers and the Teutonic Order. Eastern Europe was attacked by theWest on its southern and northern borders as the Byzantine Empire andRussia were Greek Orthodox.

In the commercial life of Eastern Europe the Volga-Bulgars played animportant role. The Middle- Volga region was the centre of a fur trade betweenthe northern part of Europe and the East and South. The Russian merchantsalso wanted to trade in northern furs and they tried to control the northernroute which led to frequent hostilities between the Volga-Bulgars and Russia.'

At this juncture a new and more dangerous enemy from the East appearedon the scene. The Mongols sacked Khorezm and the famous generals Subedeibahadur and Jebe noyan were appointed to catch the fleeing Khorezm-Shah.During their campaign the Mongol army crossed the Caucasus and arrived atthe South Russian steppe. After the defeat of the Qipchaq Turks and theRussian-Qipchaq allied forces in the battle of Kalka? in 1223the only power inEastern Europe to oppose the Mongols was the Volga-Bulgar Empire. Theimportant events of this Mongol expedition are described in different writtensources but the clash between the Volga-Bulgars and the Mongols was hithertoknown only from a single record of Ibn al-Athir.:' He states that the Volga-Bulgars set up ambushes when they heard the approach of the Mongols whomthey defeated, only four thousand warriors escaping from the slaughter." Allhistorians dealing with this problem quote only Ibn al-Athir's statement. 5 Inmy paper I shall try to demonstrate that this important event was also men-tioned by other sources.

Among the European sources the Hungarian Dominican Julianus' reportsare significant as he first visited Magna Ungaria in the Volga region in 1234/35and he only reached Suzdal on his second journey in 1237 when he wasinformed about the news of the Mongol campaign led by Batu. 6 The report ofhis first journey was recorded by Riccardus for the Pope entitled De factoUngnrie Mngne ",D.'1-\e \r.e l:-'Ap'C;['1-enee'1> ~~ 1n'1-"i>"i>ee~'\).~ \~"U"i 'Ne"ie "i>W"i">.='a"~"L<;O<!.~'\).

198 lstvan Zimonyi

the Epistola de vita Tartarorum of Friar Julianus. There is a long debateconcerning the relationship of the records to each other and the authenticity ofthe Riccandus report. Professor Sinor has denied the possibility of Julianus'first journew and he supposes that the Riccardus report was compiled byRiccardus on. the basis of the Epistola.7 The general opinion of the othersaccepts the existence of the two tours."

The political connection between Ungaria Magna and the Volga-BulgarEmpire is of crucial importance in the judgement of these sources. Thedetermination of'ttreeterritory of Ungaria Magna is the basis of evaluating thequestion of supremacy in the Middle Volga basin. Perenyi locates the dwellingplace of the Hungarians on the right bank of the Volga, arguing that Riccardusdid not mention that Julius had crossed the Volga and identified the large cityhe visited as Osel on the right bank." But Fodor has shown that Osel wasdestroyed by the Russians before the arrival of Julianus in this region.'?According to Vekony the Hungarians lived on the right bank and were subjectsof the Russians. 11 It is a more probable assumption that they lived instead onthe left bank of the Volga. Czegledy supposed that some communities lived inthe Volga-Bulgar Empire others in Bashkiria.F Gyorffy and Perenyi came tothe conclusion that the Hungarians were under the Volga-Bulgars' dominationsince Julianus avoided this ticklish affair and Rubruk also confirms thisstatement. 13

Julianus remarks in his Epistola:"Therefore he IGurgutaml arrived at the territory of the Cumans, he defeated theCumans and subjugated their territory. From there they-the Tatars-turned back toMagna Ungaria where our Hungarians orginated from. They-the Tatars-struggledwith them for fourteen years and in the fifteenth Iyearl they-the Tatars=-subduedthem as our pagan Hungarians said lorally/.,,14

The title Gurgutam is a Mongol form: of giir-khan which means great khan.PAs it transpires from the context the only person who could have had the titlewas Chingiz khan.l? Since he died in 1227 the above mentioned campaign musthave been before his death. The date can be determined exactly as Julianus'second journey was in 1237; if we subtract fifteen from this we have 1222, adate which almost coincides with the information given by Ibn al-Atlur.l" Thiscampaign was not led by Chingiz khan but his famous generals Subedeibahadur and Jebe noyan. The direction ofthe expedition: Persia, the Cumans,Ungaria Magna also refers to the reliability of this assumption.l''

There is a parallel text in the Riccardus report:"The Tatar people are neighbours of them, but these Tatars engaging in

battle with them they could not defeat Itheml in war - even in the first battlethey were defeated. That is why they made friends and brothers-in-arms ofthem so that they together devastated fifteen countries completely. ,,19

There are contradictions here if we compare this with the former record.The alliance between the Tatars and the Hungarians is questionable because it

The first Mongol Raid Against the Volga-Bulgars 199

is stated in Epistola that they in fact fought against each other, but after theMongol raid against the Volga-Bulgars in 1232 when the Eastern part of theempire was conquered, as recorded in Russian chronicles", it is possible thatthe Mongols offered their alliance to the Hungarians to weaken the Volga-Bulgars, which was typical nomadic politics;" As to the fifteen countries theyconquered according to the Riccardus report and the fifteen years they foughtagainst each other mentioned in the Ep isto la, the latter is more probablebecause there is no mention in other sources of an important Mongol campaignin Eastern Europe from 1223 till 1236. The only positive information recordedin the Riccardus report which is absent in Epistola is the victory of theHungarians, or rather the Volga-Bulgars over the Mongols, which corres-ponds to Ibn al-Athir's record.

An important piece of information is to be found in Tabaqat-i Nasiri, writtenby Juzjani who was born in Afghan Turkestan in 1103 and fled to India fromthe Mongols. His observations concerning Eastern Europe cannot always berelied on because of the great distance involved.F

"Trustworthy persons stated that Balka khan, the son of Tushi khan, whowas the son of Chinghiz khan, was born in the territory of Chin or Qipchaq orTurkestan when his father Tushi khan occupied Khorezm and lanotherl armywas in the territory of Safin ISaqsinl and Bulgar and Saqla b. ,,23

The land of Saqsin is in the lower Volga region.?" and Saqlab means in thiscase the Russian land.25 The other army must refer to the troops led bySubedei although chronologically this is not correct because Jochi capturedKhorezm in 1221.26 In spite of the vagueness of Juzjani's record it is a newpiece of data which confirms the statement of lbn al-Athir.

The following sources are treated together because they are closely connec-ted to each other. The work of Rashid al-Din Jam'i al-tawarikhi' is taken asstarting point. He obtained information partly from Juvaini's Tarikh-i JahanGushay28 and from the Secret History of the Mongols.t? Since the SecretHistory was used in the compilation of Yuan shih30 the latter is also taken intoconsideration.

Dealing with preparations of the great western campaign in 1236 Rashidai-DIn remarks:

"It had been previously ordained by a yarligh of Chingiz-khan that Jochi shouldproceed with an army and seize and take possession of all northern countries, such asIbir-Sibir, Bular, the Qipchaq Steppe, and the lands of the Bashghird, Rus, andCherkes as far as Darband on the Caspian, which the Mongols call Ternur-Oahalqa.Jochi neglected this command, and when Ogetei khan acceded to the Khanate, hecharged Batu with that same undertaking, deputing his nephew Mongke Qa'an, thelatter's brother Bochek , and his own son Guyuk khan, along with such great emirs asSubetei Bahadur, the army commander of the Uriyangqat people who came to thiscountry with Jebe, at the head of an army, to gather all together with the other princesunder Batu and set about the conquest of the northern countries. ,,31

200 Istvan Zimonyi

The first question to be dealt with is the date of these events. Rashid al-Dmstates that when Ogotei acceded to the throne /1229/ they dispatched theexpedition to conquer these countries. In Juvaini's work there are two recordsabout the date ofthe expedition which contradict each other. First, like Rashidai-Din he dates Batu's raid as 1229 since he remarks that when qa'an succededto the throne Batu subj ugated the lands of the Qipchak, Alan, As Rus, Bulgar,Magas.F But in the description of the western campaign in another place hemakes the correction: "When Qa'an held the great quriltay for the second time... 33", that is to say in 1236. The source of the chronological misunderstandingcan be found in the Secret History as it was used by both authors.i" It is said inthe Secret History that after Ogotei's accession he sent Chormaghan to Persiaand Batu and other princes to conquer the western countries because Siibedeiwas opposed by these tribes.P Rashid ai-Din followed the information of theSecret History while Juvaini at first did the same making the right correction inthe second case.

The second problem is the meaning of Bular in Rashld al-Din's text. AsPelliot remarked Rashid al-Dm writes Bular and Bashghird in stead of Kalarand Bashghird in Juvaini's work.i" But Juvaini does not mention Subedei'scampaign against the Bulgars in 1223.37 As was mentioned before, Rashidai-Din took his information from a Mongol source. The form Bolar is found inthree places in the Secret History = paragr. 262; Subedei was sent north againstthe Qanglin, Kibca'ut, Bajigit, Orusut, Majarat, Asut, Sasut, Sarkasiit, Kas-mir, Bo/ar, and Karal by Chingiz khan.38 This record was translated in theYuan shih.39 This campaign could have been only in 1223 in spite of someanachronistic names in the list of people.r" The question is whether the nameBolar is also an interpolation or not. Paragr. 270 gives no more informationconcerning the list of peoples." Paragr. 274 is a careless copy of paragr. 270.42

According to PeJliot in all these cases Bolar means the Volga-Bulgars.P AsRashid ai-Din used the Secret History which was rather confused as to the listof the conquered peoples and he had much more precise geographical know-ledge about these northern countries he put the countries in order from theEast to the West as far as Darband in the Caucasus. The name Bolar in RashidaI-Din's record can refer only to the Volga-Bulgars, which confirms thereliability of the Bolar Volga-Bulgar identity in the Secret History, where the1223campaign is recorded. As Pelliot states, Juvaini's Kalar Bashghird meansHungary while Rashid aI-Din amends this pair of names to Bolar Bashghirdand puts this country in the Volga region. 44 This also strengthens the probabili-ty of the 1223 campaign against the Volga-BuIgars in spite of the reverseddirection of conquered countries in Rashid al-Din's work.

Rashid aI-DIn gives datailed description about Siibedei's Eastern Europeanraid in 1223 but he does not offer an account about the clash between theMongols and Volga-Bulgars. After the Mongols had passed Darband theywere faced with the alliance of the Alans and Qipchaqs. The Mongol policy

The first Mongol Raid Against the Volga-Bulgars 201

was successful in cancelling the alliance. First they defeated the Alans and thenthe Qipchaqs. The Qipchaqs made an alliance with the Russians but theMongols were again victorious. After plundering the towns and lands theywent away to join Chingiz khan on the road returning from the country ofTazik ."

Rashid al-Din uses as the soruce of information Juvaini as far as the crossingof Darband. Juvaini himself does not not mention the expedition against theQipchaq and Russians. 46 Rashid al-din gives a full account of these wars from asource unknown to us. According to J uvaini, Subedei met J ochi in the QipchaqSteppe and together they returned to Chingiz khan. However, Bartholdproved that Jochi did not return to Chingiz khan but he remained in hisextensive territories which also included the Qipchaq Steppe."?

There is another record concerning the campaign of Subedei Bahadur andKoketei against the Volga-Bulgars after the accession of Ogetei khan parallelto Chormagan's expedition against Persia in Rashid al-Diri's work which isborrowed from Juvaini.Y

"He dispatched Koketei and Subedei Bahadur with a like army Ithirtythousand horsemenl against the Qipchaq, Saqsin, and Bulghar. ,,49

D'Ohsson does not give its exact date but he settles the year as coincidingwith Chormaghan's raid.i" Howorth'" quotes the opinion of Hammer-Purg-stall who dates this expedition as 122852 compared to Wolff's 1230.53 RecentlySpuler has tried to clear up this chronological uncertainity and using theinformation from the Russian chronicles he dates this campaign to 1229.54

Since no exact date is given in the sources we must settle the year accordingto Chormaghan's campaign. He must have started in the spring of 1230because they arrived at Azerbaijan during the winter of 1230/31.55 This meansthat the other army also ought to have begun the campaign in 1230 and not in1229 as Spuler supposes. The Russian chronicles record another raid againstthe Volga-Bulgars in 123256 but at that time Subedei was fighting in northChina as is described in the Yuan shih57 so there is no correlation between theRussian data and this record.

In manuscripts of Juvaini's work sUnetei is written in place of Subedei.Howorth reads Suntai who was according to him the ninth son of Jochi. 58 Boyleremarks that this name can be read as Sunitei but it is more likely that the greatgeneral Subedei Bahadur is meant here.P" This can be confirmed since the titleBahadur is permanently added to his personal name not only in Persian but inMongol and Russian sources to060 and Rashid al-Din writes Subedei in hiswork.

Another problem is why did Subedei lead this campaign when this territorywas in the neighbourhood of the appanage of the eldest Chingizid branch.After the death of Jochi in 1227 his son Batu inherited the western part of hisappanage.?' If a campaign had been directed against these neighbours Batushould have been the commander-in-chief as he was during the great western

202 Istvan Zimonvi

campaign beginning with the capture of Bulgar in spite of the fact that the realleader was Subedei.V

The direction of the expedition described here is from the East to the West.That is to say, the Qipchaqs at the South Russian Steppe, Saqsin on the lowerVolga and the Bulgars in the middle Volga region. This route recalls theMongol raid in 1223.

This assumption has one difficulty: why was Jebe not the other leader alongwith Subedei? Juvaini must have known that in the Secret History the campa-igns against Persia, the West and North China were treated together and whileSubedei took part in the western campaign Jebe was sent as an advanced guardto North China63 or, as recorded in Yuan shih, Jebe died shortly after retur-ning from his expedition against Eastern Europe.?' Juvaini probably replacedthe name of Jebe with Koketei, which has not been identified till now.

Juvaini, using the Secret History, showed some vagueness concerning thewestern campaign. It is stated in the Secret History that earlier Subedei wassent to the Northern Countries, but since he could not defeat them Batu andother princes were dispatched to help him. Juvaini knew that this campaignwas after the second quriltay /1236/ so he created a non-existent Campaign ledby Subedei after the first quriltay but in reality this expedition was in 1223 aswill be clear if we put together this record and the one given by Juvainiconcerning the raid in 1223. They supplement each other: after crossingDarband they fight against the Qipchaqs, Saqsin and Bulgar, which is descri-bed in details in the work of Ibn al-Athir.

Rashid al-Din gets his information from the Secret History and Juvaini:describes the clash between the Mongols and Volga-Bulgars in two cases butboth of them cannot be evalutated as independent records.

Russian sources record only frontier incidents in 1229 and 1232 which areindependent of Subedei's raid in 1223 and the western campaign beginning in1236.

As we have seen, the hitherto isolated statement of Ibn al-Athir can becorroborated by other sources. The clash between the Mongols and Volga-Bulgars is described by Friar Julianus, Juzjani, and in the Secret History. Thelatter was used by the Yuan shih and Rashid al-Din who changed the originallist of peoples according to his better geographical knowledge. Juvaini as agood historian tried to resolve the contradiction of the written sources he knewand his other information. He interrupted the campaign of Subedei and Jebe atthe Caucasus and its continuation was ascribed to a later date. This informa-tion was then copied by Rashid al-Din word by word.

According to Ibn al-Athir the Volga-Bulgars defeated the Mongols, which isconfirmed by the record of the Riccardus report. The Secret History also statesthat the northern countries opposed Subedei but no direct reference is made tothe Volga-Bulgars. The other sources give no information about the result ofthis clash. We must conclude that only the Volga-Bulgar Empire could defend

The first Mongol Raid Against the Volga-Bulgars 203

itself against the Mongol expedition to Eastern Europe in 1223 and was thefirst to be crushed by Batu in 1236.

Notes

1 J. Martin, Trade on the Volga: The Commercial Relations of Bulgar with Central Asia and Iranin the 11th-12th Centuries: International Journal of Turkish Studies, Vo!. 1. No. 2, (1980) pp.92-97.

2 R. Grousset , The Empire of the Steppes. trans. N. Walford, New Jersey 1970, pp. 245-247.3 B. Spuler, Die Goldene Horde. Die Mongolen in Russland 1223-1502. Leipzig 1943, pp.

12-14.4 J. Marquart, Uber das Volkstum der Komanen. Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie.

Neue Folge XII/I. Berlin 1914, pp. 144-146.5 C. D'Ohsson, Historie des Mongols. Vo!. I, Amsterdam 1834, pp. 345-347. H. Howorth,

History of the Mongols. Vol. I, London 1876, p. 96. Grousset op. cit. p. 247. G. Vernadsky,Kievan Russia. A History of Russia. Vol. II, New Haven 19512, p. 238. B. D. Grekov-A. Ju.Jakubovskij, Zolotaja orda i ee padenie. Moskva 1950, p. 51.

6 H. Dorrie , Drei Texte zur Geschichte der Ungarn und Mongolen: die Missionsreisen des fr.Julianus O. P. ins Uralgebiet (1234/5) und nach Russland (1237) und der Bericht des Erzbi-schofs Peter uber die Tartaren. Gottingen 1956. (Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten in Gottingen. I. Philologisch-Historische Klasse), pp. 131-139.

7 D. Sinor, Un voyageur du treizieme siecle: le Dominicain Julien de Hongrie: BSOAS. XIV(1952), pp. 589-602.

R Vekony G., Adatok Julianus utazasanak topografiajahoz: Szazadok 111. (1977), pp.1175-1176.

9 Perenyi J., Magna Hungaria kerdesehez: Magyar Nyelv 55 (1959), pp. 496-498.10 I. Fodor, Ou le Dominicain Julien de Hongrie retrouva-t-il les Hongrois de l'Est? Les Anciens

Hongrois et les ethnies voisines a l'Est. ed. I. Erdelyi. Studia Archeologica VI. Budapest 1977,pp. 9-20.

11 Vekony op. cit. pp. 1181-1187.12 Czeglcdy K., Magna Hungaria: Szazadok 77 (1943), pp. 287-289.13 Gyorffy Gy., Napkelet felfedezese: Julianus, PIano Carpini es Rubruk utijelentesei. Budapest

1965, p. 224, Note 25. Perenyi op. cit. pp. 389-390.14 Dorrie op. cit. p. 172.15 The History of the World-Conquer er by cAla-ad-Din CAta-Malik Juvaini. trans. J. A. Boyle. 2

vols. Manchester 1958, p. 62, Note 4.16 Dorrie op. cit. pp. 167-168. Gyorffy op. cit. p. 226 Note 47.17 Dorrie op. cit. p. 172 Gyorffy op. cit. p. 227, Note 57.18 Dorrie op. cit. pp. 167-172.19 Dorrie op. cit. pp. 157-158.20 Lavrent'evskaja letopis'. Polnoe Sobranie Russkih Letopisej 1. Moskva 1962, p. 459.21 cf. Qipchaq Alan alliance: Grousset op. cit. p. 246.22 W. Barthold , Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion. GMS. New Series V. London 1928, p.

39.23 The Tabaqat-i Nasiri of Aboo 'Omar Minhaj aI-Din 'Othman, ibn Siraj aI-Din al-Jawzjani. ed.

Captain W. Nassau Lees. Calcutta 1864, p. 446.24 P. Pelliot, Notes sur l'Histoire de la Horde d'Or. Paris 1950, pp. 165-174.25 K. Czegledy, Zur Meshheder Handschrift Ibn Fadlans: AOH 1 (1950/51) pp. 227-231.26 Barthold op. cit. pp. 427-437.27 Persian text: Rasid ad-Din: Dzam'i at-tavarih. Vol. 11, Part 1. ed. A. A. Ali-Zade. Moskva

1980. Russian translation: Rasid ad-Din: Sbornik letopisej. Vol!, Part 2. trans. O. I. Smirnova.Moskva-Leningrad 1952; vol. Il. trans. J. P. Verhovsky. Moskva-Leningrad 1960. Englishtranslation: Rashid aI-Din: The Successors of Genghis Khan. trans. J. A. Boyle. London 1971.

204 Istvan Zimonyi

2R Persian text: The Tarikh-i-Jahan-Gusha of cAUi'u 'd-Din cA!a-Malik-i-Juwayni. ed. MirzaMuhammad Qazvini. 3 vols (GMS, Old Series, XVIi 1,2,3), London 1912, 1916, 1937. Englishtranslation: see note 15.

29 Mongol text: E. Haenisch, Manghol un niuca tobca'an (Yuan-chao pi-shi) Die GeheimeGeschichte der Mongolen. Wiesbaden 1962. P. Pelliot, Historie Secrete des Mongols, restula-tion du texte mongol et traduction francaise des chapitres I. a VI. Paris 1949. L. Ligeti , HistorieSecrete des Mongols. Monumenta Linguae Mongolicae collecta I. Budapest 1971.

30 English translation: E. Bretschneider , Mediaeval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources.Fragment towards the knowledge of the geography and history of Central and Western Asiafrom the 13th to the 17th century. 2 vols. London 1888.

31 Verhovsky op. cit. pp. 71-72. Boyle, Rashid op. cit. pp. 107-108.32 Oazvini op. cit. I vol. p. 222. Boyle, Juvaini op. cit. p. 267.33 Qazvini op. cit. I vol. p. 224. Boyle, Juvaini op. cit. p. 268.34 J. A. Boyle, Juwayni and Rashid aI-Din as Sources on the History of the Mongols: Historians of

the Middle East. Ed. B. Lewis and P. M. Holt. London 1962, pp. 133-137.35 Haenisch op. cit. p. 95. Pclliot, Historie Secrete, p. 111. Ligeti op. cit. p. 243.36 Pelliot, Notes, pp. 123-127.37 Boyle, Juvaini op. cit. pp. 148-149. Qazvini op. cit. I vol. p. 115.38 Haenisch op. cit. p. 92. Pelliot, Secrete Historie, p. 108. Ligeti op. cit. pp. 235-236.39 Bretschneider op. cit. I vol. p. 300.40 Pelliot, Notes, p. 128, 5 note.41 Ligeti L., A magyar nep mongol kori nevei (magyar, baskir, kiraly) Magyar Nyelv 60 (1964), p.

393.42 Ligeti see note 41 p. 397. All these paragraphs were translated by Pelliot into French, cf. Notes,

pp. 128-130.43 Pelliot, Notes, pp. 135-136.44 Pelliot, Notes, pp. 137-139.45 Smirnova op. cit. pp. 228-229.46 See note 37.47 Barthold op. cit. pp. 457-458.48 Qazvini op. cit. I vol. p. 150. Boyle, Juvaini, p. 190.49 Ali-Zade op. cit. pp. 56-57. Verhovsky op. cit. p, 21. Boyle, Rashld p. 33.50 C. D'Ohsson, Historie des Mongols. n. vol. Amsterdam 1852, pp. 14-16.51 Howorth op. cit. p. 137.52 J. F. Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte der Goldenen Horde im Kiptschak. Pest 1840, p. 100.53 O. Wolff, Geschichte der Mongolen oder Tataren. Breslau 1872, p. 124.54 Spuler op. cit. p. 15.55 Grousset o. cit. p. 261.56 See note 20.57 W. Abramowski, Die chinesischen Annalen von Ogodei und Guyuk - Uberzetzung des 2.

Kapitels des Yuan-shish -: ZAS. 10 (1976), p. 127.58 Howorth op. cit. p. 137.59 Boyle, Juvaini, p. 190, 33 note.60 See notes 35, 38 and Voskresenskaja letopis'. Polnoe Sobranie Russkih letopisej. 7, 8. vols.

Sanktpetersburg 1856, 1859, p. 145.61 Howorth op. cit. p. 137, Grousset op. cit. pp. 253-254.62 Grousset op. cit. p. 264.63 Haenisch op. cit. p. 96. Pelliot, Histoire Secrete, p. 112. Ligeti, Historie Secrete, p. 245.64 Bretschneider op. cit. I. p. 299.