日本モンゴル学会紀要（Bulletin of JAMS）第49 号（2019）

研究ノート

Perceptions of Chinggis Khan and the Mongol Conquests
in Contemporary Russia

Rustam SABIROV（Moscow State University）

Keywords: Chinggis Khan, Genghis Khan, Mongols, Golden Horde, Russia

Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Chinggis Khan in the Historical Context
2. Chinggis Khan in Culture
3. Chinggis Khan as a Literary Character
4. Chinggis Khan as a Common Name and Some Other Cases

Conclusion

Introduction
In this article I show what place Chinggis Khan takes in modern Russian culture and public thought. I also
consider how the perception of this figure has changed through history to understand what the specific featuresof the contemporary period are. Since Chinggis Khan’s figure is inextricably linked with the Mongol conquests
and Mongol rule in Russia, I also touch on these aspects. In some places I cite examples that go beyond theborders of modern Russia but belong to a shared linguistic, social and cultural context. This short article cannot
hope to cover all contemporary works devoted to the Mongols and mentioning Chinggis Khan, but the task is
to identify main trends and analyze them.
The perception of Chinggis Khan in Russian culture has been contradictory from the very beginning.
Russian historians, writers and thinkers viewed and interpreted the role of Chinggis Khan in Russian history
depending on their attitudes towards the consequences of the Mongol conquest and its influence on thedevelopment of the Russian state and institutions. There have also been those who were interested in Chinggis
Khan’s personality as a great conqueror. Finally, as the analysis of available texts shows, the name “Chinggis
Khan” is often used as a common noun to denote something barbarous and destructive.

− 53 −

1. Chinggis Khan in the Historical Context
Chinggis Khan himself has never taken a very important place in Russian culture but he has always beenpresent since the times of the Mongolian conquest and the Golden Horde. In this case, Chinggis Khan is just apart of the discourse of the Mongolian influence on the Russian history.
In Russia, the question of the Mongolian influence is not simply a historical or a scientific issue; it hasserious political and ideological connotations. Since there is an opinion that the Golden Horde’s rule overRussia influenced and dramatically changed the subsequent history of Russia, the question of the Mongolian
influence became closely connected to the question of Russia’s place in the world. In particular, is Russia aEuropean country, or Asian, or Eurasian1?
While for many Russians and Russian thinkers and historians the Mongols were an external force that
imposed foreign traditions and culture on their country, Tatars, Buryats, Kalmyks, Tuvinians and others wholive in Russia on the contrary consider the Mongol Empire to be part of their own history and culture. Thus, theperception of the Mongolian heritage in Russia has initially a dual character. While ethnic diversity (that is, thepresence of Mongolian peoples) plays an important role, it is not, in my view, decisive.
Generally there are two extreme opinions about the Mongols’ influence on Russia. Supporters of the firstpoint of view deny any significant historical consequences of the Mongol conquest and domination. Russian
historian Sergei Platonov (1860-1933), wrote: “We can consider the life of Russian society in the 13th century
without paying attention to the fact of the Tatar yoke” (Pipes 2011). Followers of another point of view, inparticular the theoretician of Eurasianism Peter Savitsky (1895-1968), on the contrary argued that “without
Tatarism, there would be no Russia” (Pipes 2011). Between these extremes there are many intermediate
positions.
It seems that from the very beginning, the views of scholars on the Mongols’ influence depended not somuch on historical facts as on their own ideological positions. They just interpreted the facts in such a way as
to express their vision of Russia’s place in the world. For example, Nikolai Karamzin (1766-1826), who started
the dispute itself in the beginning of the 19th century by publishing the first systematic history of Russia, wrotethat the Russian princes under the Mongols gradually adopted an autocratic form of government and that thiswas very positive because it laid the very foundations of Russia and its autocracy (samoderzhavie) (Pipes2011). Another famous Russian historian, Sergei Solovyov (1820-1879), a professor at Moscow University,
was a committed Westerner, and in his first of twenty-nine volumes of Russian history refused to use theconcept of “Mongolian period” at all.
Ideologized Soviet historiography focused on the negative aspects of the Mongols’ rule over Russia andinterpreted them in terms of the national liberation struggle. The only exception was the circle of émigré
publicists who called themselves “Eurasianists,” led by Prince Nikolai Trubetskoy (1890-1938) and the abovementioned Peter Savitsky. According to the Eurasianists, the Mongol conquest not only strongly influenced the1

Eurasianism (evrazijstvo) is a Russian political movement according to which Russian civilization does not belong toeither “Europe” or “Asia” but is a constituting part of Eurasia.

− 54 −

日本モンゴル学会紀要（Bulletin of JAMS）第49 号（2019）evolution of the Moscow kingdom and Russian empire but also laid the foundations of Russian statehood(Pipes 2011).
In the context of discussions about the Mongolian influence on Russian history, the figure of Chinggis
Khan himself usually did not stand out separately. Moreover, in the Soviet times, authorities considered any
attempts to exalt and venerate Chinggis Khan to be manifestations of nationalism, and stopped them. The only
area where it was possible to talk relatively freely about Chinggis Khan was in art, especially in literature.
After the collapse of the USSR, the debate about the role of the Mongols in Russian history revived again
and with renewed vigor. The disappearance of the Soviet state left many of its citizens at a loss: they could not
figure out to what part of the world their new state belonged, to Europe, to Asia, to both, or to neither one nor
the other. Many people shared the popular view that because of the Mongols Russia became a uniquecivilization: Russia is not Europe, nor Asia; it has its own special path. It is not surprising that under these
conditions the ideology of Eurasianism got a new birth. The most prominent theoreticians of the revived neoEurasianism were Lev Gumilev (1912-1992), professor of philosophy at Moscow State University, Alexander
Panarin (1940-2003), and philosopher Alexander Dugin (b. 1963). This ideology was very well suited to theanti-Western sentiments of some of the Russian population and the political elite.
Lev Gumilev wrote his books in the Soviet times, but they gained immense popularity in the 1990s after
the collapse of the USSR. Written simply and entertaining, they gave an alternative view of history that wasdifferent from the Marxist approach which turned out to be false in the eyes of many post-Soviet intellectuals.
Post-Soviet people looked for a new identity and searched for national roots. This process included revisioning
their history. What was prohibited, neglected or criticized by Soviet scholars now became important andpositive. The eyes of the Turkic (first of all, Tatars) and Mongolian peoples (Buriats, Kalmyks) turned to theglorious times of the Golden Horde and the Mongolian Empire. As a Buryatian poet Esugei Synduyev put it:
After all, my line is straight,
It goes from where great-grandfathers left their traces,
It comes out of cavalry of Mamai
And from the Baty’s horde (Prilepin 2015).2
It was historians from Tatarstan who took the initiative to remove the term “Tatar-Mongolian yoke” from
history textbooks. It is interesting to trace the genealogy of this term which means the oppressive power of theGolden Horde over Russia. It came to the Russian chronicles from Polish historical literature of the 15-16th
centuries. Chronicler Jan Dlugos used “iugum barbarum” and “iugum servitutis” in his writings in 1479. Thena professor of the University of Cracow, Matvey Mehovsky, used it in 1517. In 1575, the term “jugo Tartarico”
appeared in Daniel Prince’s record of his diplomatic mission to Moscow. In Russian sources, the phrase “Tataryoke” first appears in the 1660s. Christian Kruse used the phrase “Mongolian-Tatar yoke” in 1817 in his book,2

Ved’ liniya moya pryamaya,
Gde pradedov legli sledy,
Idyot iz konnicy Mamaya
I iz Batyevoj ordy.

− 55 −

“Atlas and tables for viewing the history of all European lands and states from their first population to ourtimes,” which was translated into Russian and published in St. Petersburg a few decades later (Malov, Malyshev,
Rakushin 1998). For more than a century this term expressed the view of many of the Russian (Soviet) historians
on the period of the Mongol rule over Russia. It was removed from the textbooks only in 2013 after thehistorians of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan openly expressed their dissatisfaction with
it. Instead of “Tatar-Mongolian yoke” they proposed “the system of dependence of Russian lands on the Hordekhans.” According to Rafael Khakimov, vice president of the Republican Academy of Sciences, “In Tatarstan,the Golden Horde is considered an empire, and Chinggis Khan is not a conqueror but a reformer” (Istoriki
poprobovali svesti balans… 2013). Moreover, Khakimov says that Chinggis Khan himself was a Tatar (Rafaehl’
Hakimov… 2017). It is a wide-spread trend that historians from different nationalities try to ‘assimilate’Chinngis Khan, to make him Tatar, Kazakh, Chinese, etc. R. Khakimov also emphasizes the religious tolerance
and discipline imposed by Chinggis Khan and believes that the Mongol empire should serve as an example formodern Russia, “chosen by the Heaven itself to continue the “Eurasian” and not the “Roman-Byzantine” path(Rafaehl’ Hakimov… 2013).

2. Chinggis Khan in Cinema
The Mongolian theme has gained popularity in modern Russian cinema. Two main trends can be identified
here. The first is related to the desire to shoot blockbusters on the Hollywood model, but with the use of local
historical realities, characters, and images. In this case, Mongols (or Tatars) turn into cultural “Other,” mostoften “Evil Other,” in opposition to which the main hero, the people, or the country develops.
The second trend is represented mainly by local, ethno-national cinema, which tries to comprehend thepast of its people (Tatars, Buryats, and others). There is also a third strand connected more with auteur cinema.
In this case, the director is interested in the personality of Chinggis Khan as an outstanding historical figure.
One of the first movies about Chinggis Khan shot after 1990 is “The Shadow of the Conqueror” (another
title is “The Death of Otrar”), 1991. This film made by Kazakhfilm Studio shows the destruction of the city of
Otrar by Mongol troops. Kyrgyz actor Bolot Beyshenaliev played the role of Chinggis Khan, who does not lookso much a talented military commander or a bloody conqueror but rather an awe-inspiring “steppe shaman,” akind of earthly incarnation of Tengri, a wise ruler, striving for the well-being of his people.
In 2007, Sergey Bodrov’s film “Mongol” was released and attracted a lot of attention and interest. S.
Bodrov, a neo-Eurasianist, portrayed Chinggis Khan with certain sympathy. The main artist of the picture wasa famous Buryat sculptor, Dashi Namdakov. “Chinggis Khan is one of the most unpopular names in Russia,”
said Sergei Bodrov in an interview. “I read only bad things about him and the Mongols in my schoolbooks:
barbarians; primitive, cruel people; almost monsters” (Dawson 2008). According to the director, the Russians
have asked a lot of questions about why he made this movie. For him, Chinggis Khan was not born as amonster, rather, he suffered a lot in his childhood and his history was written by his enemies - Russians andEuropeans (Interview 2008). Bodrov acknowledged that the scenario of the film was based on the work of Leo− 56 −

日本モンゴル学会紀要（Bulletin of JAMS）第49 号（2019）

Gumilev, a popular Soviet scholar and Eurasianist (Horoshilova 2006).
“The Mystery of Chingis Haan” (2009) was a joint production of Russia, Mongolia, and the United States.
The film was based on Nikolai Luginov’s novel “At the Command of Chinggis Khan,” and was the first largescale project of Yakut cinema.
These movies represent second and third trends from the above mentioned classification. The first trend
has been particularly noticeable in recent years as Russian filmmakers have turned their attention to the historyof the Golden Horde. However, they shoot not historical movies but rather produce free fantasies on the subject,
reproducing common myths.
The film “The Horde” directed by Andrei Proshkin was released in 2012. It was shot with the financial
support of the film company “Orthodox Encyclopedia” - in other words, by the Russian Orthodox Church.
Historian Vadim Rudakov, who was to advise the film crew, finally refused to cooperate with them, saying,“‘The Horde’ is designed in the worst traditions of the old Soviet films about the Tatar-Mongols and thenomads” (Vadim Rudakov… 2012). Despite the undeniable artistic merits of the film, it shows not a real great
Empire, but a mythical “dark Kingdom” full of brutal, bloodthirsty, evil-minded, and greedy “Mongols” (ibid).
Interest in the Golden Horde is understandable: Russian princes interacted with the Golden Horde khans,and the “yoke” period is associated first of all with the Horde. According to film critic Anton Dolin, the film
creators tried to answer two questions: “Why are we the Horde?” and “Why aren’t we a Horde?” (Dolin 2012).
In the beginning of 2018, the main Russian TV channel “Pervyj Kanal” started showing a 16-episodeadventure melodrama “The Golden Horde” that was also criticized by professional historians for historicalunreliability. However, the creators of the series themselves consider it a “fantasy” genre (“Zolotaya Orda”
Pervogo kanala…).
A little earlier the Russian audience saw the historical movie “with elements of fantasy” called “TheLegend of Kolovrat.” The plot based on “The Tale of the Capture of Ryazan by Batu” tells the story of thelegendary hero Kolovrat who defended the city of Ryazan against the Mongols in the 13th century. The imageof Batu Khan is quite interesting in this film. He appears as a feminine man, intelligent and refined. No doubt
the creators of the film were inspired by the image of Persian king Xerxes from Zach Snyder’ “300.” But inspite of this, all the above mentioned films depict the Golden Horde as some kind of infernal evil, which existed
outside of Russia and attempted to suppress it.
Interestingly, while Russian authors oppose themselves to the Horde, some Ukrainian artists transfer theimage of the Horde to Russia itself. This most telling example is the comic book “The Horde” by the famous
Ukrainian artist Igor Baranko (Orda). In the center of the plot there is a radical Russian dictator who intends tofollow the path of Chinggis Khan to world domination. Under the influence of drugs, he learns that he isanother reincarnation of the great Mongolian commander, and all he needs to do is to taste the body of theprevious incarnation of Chinggis Khan.

− 57 −

3. Chinggis Khan as a Literary Character
If we look at Russian literature we will see that it represents both extreme points of view on Chinngis
Khan: He is both a cruel barbarian and a national hero.
Denis Davydov, a famous 19th century poet, calls Chinggis Khan “my ancestor of blessed memory.”3 On
the contrary, for popular Russian poetess Marina Tsvetaeva, Chinggis Khan is a synonym for a terrible disaster.4
In the 1920s, the ideas of the Eurasianists Nikolay Trubetskoy, Petr Savitsky, Georgy Vernadsky, andErenzhen Hara-Davan dominated in social and political journalism and the philosophy of history. Soviet
historiography and historical literature represented Mongols and Chinggis Khan as conquerors and enslavers.
However, it is noteworthy that despite the negative image of the Mongolian past and Chinggis Khan, it was inSoviet times that major literary works on Chinggis Khan and the Mongol invasion were published.
The most famous product of this kind was the trilogy of Vasily Jan “Invasion of the Mongols” which
consisted of “Chinggis Khan” (1939), “Batu” (1942), and “To ‘the last sea’” (1955). In the first novel, Chinggis
Khan appears as a powerful military leader, a subtle diplomat, a skilled and a far-sighted politician. The main
theme of the trilogy was the struggle of the ancestors of the USSR’s peoples with the Mongol conquerors in the
13th century. That is why publication was possible. Later, Leo Gumilev published his books developing theEurasianist theme.
Another popular publication was “The Cruel Age” (1978), a historical novel by Isai Kalashnikov. It
recreates the life of the Mongols in the late 12th - early 13th centuries. Chinggis Khan here is both a monster andan ingenious commander. This novel is based on “The Secret History of the Mongols.” The first translation of
the SHM into Russian was made in the 19th century, but the full classical translation by Sergei Kozin was
published in 1941. This made it possible for all writers and screenwriters who addressed the topic of Mongolian
history to base their creations on the historical source.
Russian and Soviet literature in many ways repeated and embodied the ideas of Russian historians andthinkers. Books published in the early 1990s continued the Soviet literary tradition. For example, “White Cloudof Chinggis Khan” is a novel (1992) by the famous Soviet Kazakh writer Chingiz Aitmatov. The main plot
3

Blazhennoj pamyati moj predok Chingiskhan,
Grabitel’, ozornik s arshinnymi usami,
Na uharskom kone, kak vihr’ pered gromami,
V blestyashchem pancire vletal vo vrazhij stanI moshchno rassekal tatarskoyu rukoyu
Vsyo, chto protivilos’ mogushchemu geroyu.

4

Esli dusha rodilas’ krylatoj —Chto ej horomy i chto ej haty!
Chto Chingiskhan ej — i chto — Orda!
Dva na miru u menya vraga,
Dva blizneca, nerazryvno-slityh:
Golod golodnyh — i sytost’ sytyh!

− 58 −

日本モンゴル学会紀要（Bulletin of JAMS）第49 号（2019）

develops in the middle of the 20th century in Kazakhstan. Among the papers of the protagonist there is a text ofa legend telling a story of Chinggis Khan’s campaign in Europe. One woman gives birth to a child from asoldier of Chinggis Khan despite the prohibition of any love relationships during the military campaign.
Chinggis Khan orders them executed and soon after that loses the favor of the Great Blue Sky.
In 1997 the historical novel of the famous Yakut writer Nikolay Luginov “At the Command of Chinggis
Khan” was published both in the Yakut and a year later in the Russian language. The second part of the novelin the native language appeared in print in 2000, and in 2001 two parts of the novel were published in Russian.
Luginov carefully studied the scientific, art and documentary literature about Chinggis Khan. Chinggis in thenovel first of all is a philosopher and a teacher of his people who has to be a warrior, but he is not a cruelpunisher and despot. According to Luginov, Chinggis sent children, women, and old men of his tribe to thenorth and they reached Yakutia and became relatives with Yakuts and Evenks. The main idea of the novel is thatto create an empire is not enough, it is necessary to develop it. This is a kind of attempt to magnify the historyof the Yakut people, linking it with the history of the Mongolian Empire.
Soon Neo-Eurasianism replaced the Soviet tradition and became a popular ideology, which offered its way
out of the situation of social, economic and ideological crisis of the 1990s.
The famous Russian ideologist of Eurasianism Alexander Dugin wrote: “the Moscow Kingdom itself, theRomanov Empire and even the Soviet Union demonstrate to us a variety of versions of Mongolian, Chinggis
Khan’s Russia, the development, expansion and strengthening of the single Mongol sphere...» (Dugin).
Following these ideas, contemporary Siberian poet Vladimir Beryazev in his poem “The Banner of Chinggis
Khan” refers to Chinggis Khan as “a Creator of the Russian space” (Maroshi 2017: 186).
The famous Russian writer Zahar Prilepin believes that Russia must inevitably see itself as the heir ofChinggis Khan. “Chinggis Khan’s inheritance is our pride,” he writes (Prilepin 2015).
As in cinema where the Horde is viewed through the lenses of the fantasy genre, contemporary Russian
literature puts Chinggis Khan and his heritage into the realm of science fiction or makes them a part ofalternative history.
In the cycle of novels titled “Eurasian Symphony” (2000-2005) by sinologists Vyacheslav Rybakov andIgor Alimov Russia, Mongolia and China in the 13th century form a single state called Ordus’ (or Hordus’,
which is Horde plus Russ) (Maroshi 2017: 186).
The works of the ideologists of alternative history Gleb Nosovsky and Anatolij Fomenko and books of the
popular writer Alexander Bushkov (“Chinggis Khan. Unknown Asia”, 2006, and others) represent radical
development and modification of the Eurasianist idea. They deny the existence of the Mongols or the Mongolian
Empire at all saying that it was just a part of the Moscow Kingdom. In other words, Russia did not experience
the influence of the Mongols, Russia was the great “Mongol” Empire itself. The Horde, according to Gleb
Nosovsky and Anatolij Fomenko, “is not a foreign entity that seized Russia from the outside, but it is just a
Russian regular army, which was an integral part of the old Russian state” (Maroshi 2017: 193).
It can be assumed that such an interpretation of the place and role of Chinggis Khan and the Mongols in
the history of Russia is a consequence of the ambivalent perception of the Mongols in Russia. On the one hand,− 59 −

they were brutal conquerors who inflicted serious damage and enslaved Russia. On the other hand, it is the
Mongols who were at the origin of the Russian statehood, who had, in the opinion of a number of historians andpublicists, a major impact on Russian history and formed a single Eurasian space. Postulation of pseudohistorical theories and concepts of alternative history is a possible way out of this contradiction.
Chinggis Khan also appears in a number of works but just as one of the characters, not playing any key
roles. It is interesting that Chinggis Khan appears not only in historical or pseudo-historical works, but also in
fantastic stories and novels. For example, there is a grotesquely fantastic story of Oleg Khafizov, “District
Court” (2016) (Hafizov 2016). In the future, scientists have found a way to clone historical figures like Oliver
Cromwell, Napoleon, Lenin and others in order to trial them for their brutal deeds, killing people, etc. Chinggis
Khan is on trial in the Russian district court. He is accused of looting and destroying Samarkand, Bukhara andother cities, imposing the death penalty for misconduct and cowardice among his soldiers, and other crimes.
During a break, a correspondent working in the court goes to the buffet, where he talks with a friend. The story
ends with the announcement that Chinggis strangled the guard, broke the judge’s head off with a hammer,
hacked with a sword half the journalists, and escaped.
Another example is Sergey Volkov’s trilogy “Chingis Khan” which is a part of the fantastic series“Ethnogenesis.” It tells the story of a student Artem Novikov who in 1979 received a silver figure of a horse,
which is a talisman that connects Artem’s life with the fate of Chinggis Khan.
The book “Chinggis Khan. Temujin. The birth of a leader” (2017) by Alexej Gatapov tells the story ofyoung Temujin who lost his father and learned the injustice of the world. Unlike many other authors who wrote
about military campaigns of the fearsome conqueror and ruling by the great empire, Gatapov is interested in
how a child turns into a man and becomes the future Great Khan. The author tried to recreate in detail the lifeof the ancient Mongols. Earlier, Gatapov had published a collection of short stories about Chinggis Khan andhis times entitled “The First Nuker of Chinggis Khan” (2005). Gatapov is a Buryatian author and his novels
represent another dimension of how the Mongol heritage is perceived in Russia. For Buryats as well as for
Kalmyks and Tuvans, the Mongol Empire is a part of their national and cultural heritage. For them, this kind ofliterature is a way of recreating national identity and finding ethnic roots. It is significant that the novel“Temujin” was republished several times and translated into Mongolian and even Old Mongolian languages.
Another example is the famous Buryatian artist Dashi Namdakov whose sculptures are devoted to mythicaland historical figures of the Mongolian world. The most famous in this respect is the monumental sculpture“Chinggis Khan” in London. In this case, Chinggis Khan is a embodiment of national pride, a symbol of thenomads’ universe.

4. Chinggis Khan as a Common Name and Some Other Cases
Chinggis Khan’s name also became synonymous with something barbaric, destructive and wild.
Belorussian writer and Noble prize winner Svetlana Alexievich in “Secondhand Time: The Last of theSoviets” wrote: “Chinggis Khan ruined our gene pool … and serfdom played its part as well…We’re used to− 60 −

日本モンゴル学会紀要（Bulletin of JAMS）第49 号（2019）

the idea that everyone needs a good whipping, that you won’t get anything done without flogging people”(Aleksievich 2013).
In Leonid Yuzefovich’s novel “The house of datings” (2001), one “educated man” stabbed a poodle withhis rapier and cut off its ears. Later he explained it first by aberration of consciousness, but then blamed
Chinggis Khan: “he …has the blood of Chinggis Khan in his veins” (Yuzefovich 2001).
Another author, a publicist, thought that “[George] Bush is modern Chinggis Khan, not endowed,
unfortunately for the first, with the strategic mind and charisma of the latter” (Avanesov 2003).
There are also curious cases of using the name Chinggis Khan. In 2009 The Ministry of Culture and Mass
Communication of the Perm Region decided to promote the image of the region and “to define the key figure,the symbol of Perm, a historically important personality, thanks to which the capital of the region began todevelop and got the prospects of its future” (Patris Lumumba… 2009). Patrice Lumumba, Zarathustra, andChinggis Khan got to the top of the chart.
In 2012 before the presidential and deputies of municipal assemblies elections, the Moscow City Council
organized a rehearsal for the elections at 12 polling stations. But the list included not real candidates’ names but
historical characters: Alexander the Great, Peter I, Winston Churchill, Chinggis Khan, and Napoleon Bonaparte.
“Muscovites will be able to tick off Chinggis Khan, who is nominated from the Tatar-Mongol Horde,” Secretaryof the Moscow City Council, Fayas Khalilulin, explained (Predvybornaya repeticiya… 2012).

Conclusion
Some features of the perception of Chinggis Khan in Russia are not exceptional or new. Images ofChinggis Khan as a great conqueror, cruel ruler, barbarian and enslaver, Asian sage, shaman, etc., are presented
in cinema, literature, and culture in general. If we look for some special features of Chinggis Khan’s perceptionin Russia, they are primarily associated with the fact that Russian history is inseparable from Mongolian
history, from the history of the Golden Horde. As shown above, various authors evaluated the importance of theMongolian period of Russian history differently. Some considered it key to the subsequent history of Russia,
while for others it is only a minor episode. But the fact that modern authors include the Mongolian or the Hordeperiod in their works, try to comprehend it, and use the figure of Chinggis Khan, indicates that the Mongolian
influence seems to them important. It may be important regardless of the historical sources and proven facts.
What is more important is mythology and interpretations of the past that use the Mongol conquest and thepersonality of Chinggis Khan to create alternative visions of the past and future. They help Russian thinkers
and artists reflect on their history and look for Russia’s place in the world. Chinggis Khan as the personificationof the Mongol invasion and the Mongol Empire serves as a kind of mirror, at which Russian culture looks,
trying to find its European or Asian features.

− 61 −

REFERENCES“Zolotaya Orda” Pervogo kanala kak klin v edinstvo rossijskoj nacii [“Golden Horde” of the First channel as a wedge inthe unity of the Russian nation]. Accessed 22 February 2018 at: https://www.idelreal.rg/a/serial-zolotaya-orda-1kanal/29094578.html
Aleksievich, Svetlana. 2013. Vremya second-hand [Second-hand time]. «Druzhba narodov».
Avanesov, Aleksej. 2003. Pochemu Amerika ne pobedit? [Why won’t America win?]. «Specnaz Rossii», May15.
Dawson, Jeff. 2008. Sergei Bodrov talks about Mongol, the first of his Genghis Khan trilogy. The Times, May 25.
Accessed 12 February 2018 at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sergei-bodrov-talks-about-mongol-the-first-of-hisgenghis-khan-trilogy-wx2mxq5xh9q
Dolin Anton. Yarlyk na svyatost’ [Patent for holiness]. Accessed 22 March 2018 at: http://www.openspace.ru/article/407
Dugin, Aleksandr. Chinggis Khan i mongolosfera (po motivam knigi kalmyckogo evrazijca Hara-Davana) [Chinggis
Khan and Mongolian world (based on the book the Kalmyk Eurasianist Hara Davan)]. Arktogeya. Filosofskij portal.
Accessed 02 March 2018 at: http://arcto.ru/article/1182
Hafizov, Oleg. 2016. Rajsud [District Court]. Zhurnal «Znamya» 12. Accessed 14 April 2018 at: http://znamlit.ru/
publication.php?id=6470
Horoshilova Tat’yana. 2006. V chem sila, brat? [What is the force, brother?]. Rossijskaya gazeta. December 15.
Accessed 22 February 2018 at: https://rg.ru/2006/12/15/bodrov.html
Interview: Mongol Director Sergei Bodrov by Katey Rich. 2008. Accessed 12 February 2018 at:https://www.

cinemablend.com/new/Interview-Mongol-Director-Sergei-Bodrov-9073.html
Istoriki poprobovali svesti balans v prepodavanii svoego predmeta v shkole [Historians have tried to balance the teachingof their subject in school]. 2013. Kommersant, September 26. Accessed 17 March 2018 at: https://www.kommersant.
ru/doc/2305195
Malov N.M., Malyshev A.B., Rakushin A.I. 1998. Religiya v Zolotoj Orde. Uchebnoe posobie dlya studentov [Religion in
the Golden Horde. Study guide for students]. — Pod red. N. M. Malova. — Saratov: Izdatel’stvo Saratovskogo
gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. N. G. Chernyshevskogo.
Maroshi V.V. 2017. Mongol’skaya imperiya v sovremennyh rossijskih imperskih proektah: fantastika, publicistika, folkhistori [Mongolian Empire in modern Russian Imperial projects: science fiction, journalism, folk-history].
Imagologiya i komparativistika. №1 (7). Accessed 04 April 2018 at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/mongolskayaimperiya-v-sovremennyh-rossiyskih-imperskih-proektah-fantastika-publitsistika-folk-histori.
Orda. Accessed 04 April 2018 at: https://cosmic.com.ua/orda/
Patris Lumumba mozhet stat’ «imenem Permi Velikoj» [Patrice Lumumba could be “the name of Perm Great»]. 2009.
Russkij mirб 10.02.2009. Accessed 24 March 2018 at: https://russkiymir.ru/news/1003/
Pipes, Richard. 2011. Vliyanie mongolov na Rus’: «za» i «protiv». Istoriograficheskoe issledovanie [Influence ofMongols on Russia: “for” and “against”. Historiographical research]. Neprikosnovennyj zapas, №5, 2011. Accessed 7
March 2018 at: http://www.intelros.ru/readroom/nz/neprikosnovennyy-zapas-79-52011/12104-vliyanie-mongolov-narus-za-i-protiv-istoriograficheskoe-issledovanie.html
Predvybornaya repeticiya v Moskve: Petr I, Cherchill’ ili Napoleon? 2012. [Election rehearsal in Moscow: Peter,− 62 −

日本モンゴル学会紀要（Bulletin of JAMS）第49 号（2019）
Churchill, or Napoleon?]. Komsomol’skaya pravda. 25 February. Accessed 14 April 2018 at: https://www.kp.ru/
daily/25841/2812996/
Prilepin, Zahar. 2015. Nasledstvo Chingiskhana — nasha gordost’, russkaya literatura — potomok ordynca [Zakhar
Prilepin: Ghinggis Khan’s Legacy is our pride, Russian literature is a descendant of the Golden Horde]. 25.09.2015
Accessed 22 March 2018 at: http://asiarussia.ru/blogs/9239/
Rafaehl’ Hakimov: «Chingiz-han – pervyj globalist» [Rafael Khakimov: “Chinggis Khan is the first globalist»]. 2013.
«BIZNES Online», March 30. Accessed 10 February 2018 at: https://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/77711
Rafaehl’ Hakimov: «Putin skazal: «Tatary protiv – prazdnika Kulikovskoj bitvy ne budet» [Rafael Khakimov: “Putin
said, “Tatars are against – there will be no celebration of the Kulikovo battle.”]. 2017. «BIZNES Online», February
19. Accessed 10 February 2018 at: https://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/337720
Vadim Rudakov: “Orda” vyderzhana v hudshih tradiciyah staryh sovetskih fil’mov o tataro-mongolah i kochevnikah”[Vadim Rudakov: “Horde” is sustained in the worst traditions of old Soviet films about Tatar-Mongols and nomads”].
2012. Islamskij portal, September 19. Accessed 22 February 2018 at: http://www.islam-portal.ru/novosti/104/3677/
Yuzefovich, Leonid. 2001. Dom svidanij [The House of Datings]. Moscow

要旨チンギス・ハーンとモンゴルによるロシアの征服は、廃れた歴史の一部などではない。ロシアにおいては、歴史学の黎明期より、モンゴルによる支配とロシアのその後の歴史への影響に関して、様々な論争があった。多くのロシア人やロシアの思想家たちにとって、モンゴルは、ロシアに対して異国の文化や伝統を押し付けた外部勢力であった。これに対して、ロシア国内に住むタタール人やトゥヴァ人、ブリヤート人やカルムィク人にとって、モンゴル帝国は自身の歴史や文化の一部とみなされてきた。したがってロシアにおいてモンゴル帝国の遺産をどう認識するかという問題は、二重の性格を持つものであった。しかしながら民族の多様性は、決定的ではないものの、重要な役割を果たしてきたと考えられる。ロシアに対するモンゴルの影響に関して、一般的に両極端の立場があった。第一の立場を支持する者たちは、モンゴルによる征服と支配に関して、歴史的意義を全く見出さない。例えば歴史学者のプラトーノフのように、13 世紀のロシアの社会生活に関して「タタールの軛」を考慮に入れずに描きだせるとする立場である。もう一方の立場は、ユーラシア主義者の理論家ピョートル・ザビツキーのように「タタール主義なしでは、ロシアというものは存在しえない」とする立場である。もちろん、この中間に位置する論者も多くいた。
現代ロシアの文化において、例えば映画表象に関しては二つの傾向がある。一つは、ハリウッド
映画のような大ヒット作を狙ったものであり、主人公であるヒーローに対してその敵役であるモン
ゴル人やタタール人を「邪悪な他者」として描き出す類の映画である。もう一つの傾向は、タタール人やブリヤート人などが自らの過去を理解するためにつくった地方のエスノ・ナショナリズム的映画である。ロシアでは文学においても、チンギス・ハーンは残忍な野蛮人とナショナルなヒーローという両極端なイメージで表象されてきた。以上のことから、モンゴル人と黄金のオルドは、現代
ロシア文化や社会思想において、ロシア人が世界の中でアジア的あるいはヨーロッパ的な自分を見つけ出す上での鏡であったといえる。
− 63 −