상세검색
최근 검색어 전체 삭제
다국어입력
즐겨찾기0
159539.jpg
KCI등재 학술저널

동·서 올로스 반란에 대한 쿠빌라이의 대응

나얀과 카이도의 난을 중심으로

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.

1. 서론

2. 나얀의 반란과 쿠빌라이의 대응

3. 카이도의 반란과 쿠빌라이의 대응

4. 양 반란에 대한 쿠빌라이의 대응책 차이의 원인분석

5. 결론

로딩중