Post by keaganjoelbrewer on Nov 26, 2008 4:38:11 GMT 3
This is an article by Denis Sinor which I think is a good starting point for the Celestial Turks/Gok Turks, though I'm sure our dear Ihsan will have something to say about it ;D ;D
If you want to cite it, the reference is:
Denis Sinor, “the Historical Role of the Turk Empire”, Journal of World History, IV, 3, Neuchatel, 1958, pp.427-434
I didn't bother copying his footnotes, and there are only a couple of them, but if you want them let me know.
Enjoy!
p.427
The Historical Role of the Turk Empire
As far as the evidence of written sources goes back, i.e. from the IIIrd Century B.C. onwards, the mountainous area that lies north of the Desert of Mongolia and south of the Lake Baikal, and which is watered by the rivers Selengga, Orkhon and Kerülen, was the centre of successive nomadic states. The earliest sources speak of the Hsiung-nu Empire, followed by the Hsien-pi, the Juan-juan the Türk, the Uigur, the Kirghiz and finally the Mongols whose prolonged reign meant both the acme and the end of this rhythmic succession of nomadic empires. Students of Central Asiatic history use, partly unconsciously, the term “empire” to designate these political communities in which a linguistically and ethnically often heterogenous population was held together by one of its components that happened to be politically and militarily the strongest. It has not sufficiently been emphasised that we have no evidence of successful invaders assuming power over the fairly permanent centre of these empires, nor is there any reason to suppose at each successive change the wholesale liquidation of entire peoples. We must reckon with a rather constant though mixed ethnical substratum that took the name (anyhow in the eye of the foreign
p.428
chronicler on whose testimony we are nearly always dependent) of the people to whom the military supremacy had temporarily shifted.
To the somewhat loose term “nomadic” generally applied to these empires of Mongolia, no no undue importance should be given. For the sedentary Chinese the nomadic cattle-breeding way of life and the extensive use of light cavalry in war were the most striking features to be observed in the “Western Barbarians”, but it is erroneous to consider these peoples as necessarily and exclusively cattle-breeder nomads. Some of them were no more cattle-breeders than the British were “shop-keepers” at the beginning of the last century. Türk history gives us factual evidence to bear out this statement.
In the succession of the nomadic empires that of the Türk (or t'u-chüeh in Chinese transcription) can claim particular attention. It is the first among them for which we can establish with certitude the language of the ruling class. The famous inscriptions found near the river Orkhon, engraved to commemorate the deeds of some of their great men, are the earliest extant documents of a Turkish language. The people itself is the first known to be called “türk”, a name still used to designate all those peoples who in our days speak a language derived from or closely connected with that of the inscriptions.
Some features of Türk history are just as important as the lingusitic aspect just mentioned; to outline them is the aim of the present paper.
The Türk first appear towards the middle of the VIth Century A.D., as subjects of the Juan-juan. The Chinese sources state clearly that they were the “blacksmith-slaves” of the ruling Juan-juan and circumstantial evidence tends to corroborate this assertion. Some of the ceremonies known to have been performed by Türk rulers show definite Byzantine connexions with mettalurgy, and small details – like the meeting of the Byzantine ambassador Zemarkhos with Türk offering iron for sale – complete the picture. Chinese references to “the caves of the Türk” constitute further proof that the bulk of the Türk people must have been devoted to mining and metallurgy.
In 546 the Türk chief Bumin asked for the hand of a Juan-juan princess, but his proposal was haughtily rejected by the king: “You are our blacksmith-slaves, how do you dare to use such language!?”. The refusal led to a revolt of the Türk which, in 552 ended with the com-
p.429
plete defeat of the Juan-juan and the suicide of their ruler. It is difficult to establish the factors that had contributed to the strengthening of the Türk under Juan-juan rule. The proposal of Bumin shows clearly that he sought recognition of a new balance of power within the framework of the existing state. The refusal of what he certainly thought to be a legitimate demand made him take steps that ultimately caused the fall of the ruling people and its replacement by the Türk.
The shifting of power from the Juan-juan to the Türk is a good example to demonstrate that the destructive forces set to work were within the framework of the state, which succumbed not under external pressure but owing to internal dissension . One cannot help thinking, having in mind the above-quoted refusal of the Juan-juan ruler, that the revolt of the Türk was to some extent a social upheaval. In fact it amounted to the seizing of the power by a hitherto despised class of society. Lack of evidence prevents us from deciding whether the social opposition between the ruling class and the miner-metallurgists was parallelled by an ethnic or linguistic distinction. To put it in more striking terms: we cannot decide whether the Juan-juan metallurgists came to form the Türk people, or whether the Türk people, linguistically or ethnically distinct from its rulers was, as a whole, used by them as a miner-metallurgist class. At any rate, it is fortunate that in the case of Türk history we have one of the rare instances where textual evidence permits us to enter a field that usually belongs to phantasy.
As Bumin died the same year in which he overthrew the Juan-juan, the task of consolidating the new-born empire remained with his son Mu-han (whose name is known to us only in Chinese transcription). Mu-han expanded his territories towards the east, but his military exploits cannot claim the same importance as the western expansion started by his uncle Ishtemi. In successful campaigns Ishtemi soon expanded his territories as far as the rivers Ili and Chu, south of Lake Balhash. This advance brought him to the frontiers of the Hephtalite Empire, the greatest opponent of the Sassanids in Persia. An alliance established between the Türk and the Sassanids resulted fairly quickly (between 563-567) in the encirclement and destruction of the Hephtalites and the partition of their country, The new common frontier between the Türk and the Sassanids roughly followed the Oxus. The seizure of the Hephtalite land meant for the Türks more than the extension of their territory and the increase of their power. It also meant the possibility of direct contacts with Byzantium and the control of the so-called Silk Road.
The age-old Silk Road, the great trade-route between the Far East and the Roman Empire, did not follow the shortest way between China and Europe, but proceeded along the edges of Central Eurasia, well within the borders of sedentary civilisations. The trade was carried out through the chain of oases in Chinese Turkestan to Kashgar, thence through the Pamirs to Bactria, Ecbatana, across the Euphrates at Heiropolis to Antiochia, whence the goods reached Rome or Constantinople through the ordinary trade channels.
p.430
Direct contact between the Western Türk and Byzantium could be established through the no-man's-land lying between Lake Aral and the Caspian Sea. The two main roads, one coming from the valley of the Sir-darya and passing north of Lake Aral, the other following the Amu-darya and passing round by the south of the lake, met somewhere near the mouth of the Ural river, whence the road proceeded to the Volga. From here on, either it followed the Don and along the northern shore of the Black Sea until it reached Constantinople, or crossed the Caucasus and ended at a port of the Black Sea. Although the passage through this northern route was possible, it must be remembered that it was by no means the main channel of communications between the East and the West. It was a second-best solution to which it would have been possible to resort had the usual Silk Road through Persia ever been blocked. With the partition of the Hephtalite Empire the Sassanids gained control of a further stretch of the route, and apparently decided to take the maximum advantage of the new situation.
It would be wrong to imagine the Silk Road as a sort of trunk road maintained for the transport of goods. The men living along the Silk Road and making their living out of it were not forwarding agents but merchants, buying the silk on one side and selling it on the other. The chain of intermediaries between consumer and producer was very long and the merchandise was re-sold again and again to the nearest buyer. his fact also explains why the trade was limited to articles of luxury. Only they had a chance to be saleable at the phantastically heightened prices that resulted. Having the Persian intermediaries did not mean only the disadvantage of a higher price, but also the threat of a complete interruption of the trade if the Persians, for one reason or another, found it advantageous to do so. It is not surprising that under these conditions attempts were made to elimiate the Persian “middleman” and to establish more direct links between producer and consumer. There was an alternative sea-route through the Indian Ocean which was partly at least in other hands, but it was not direct and part of it was also under Persian control. Ships bringing silk from India landed in Persian ports. Justin II got in touch with seamen of the Arabian coast and proposed to them to fetch silk from Indian ports; he also tried to introduce silk-worms to Byzantium.
Not only the Sassanids had benefited from the sudden collapse of the Hephtalite Empire, but the Türk also, who thus gained control of an important section of the Silk Road. From their subsequent attitude it must be concluded that they were fully aware of its significance.
The Sogdian merchants, who played under Hephtalite rule an important role in the silk-transit, sent with the consent of their new lord, the Türk kaghan, a commercial mission to the Persians, to obtain permission to engage in the silk-trade in Persia. The silk brought by the mission was duly purchased by the Persians and then burnt publicly. The most likely explanation of this insulting though correct action seems to be that the acceptance of the Sogdian offer would have meant direct sale
p.431
to the Persian customers or ever to foreign merchants coming from the West to Persia to buy silk. In spite of their dependence on Türk supplies, the Persians seem to have been determined to keep in their own hands the benefits resulting from the transit-trade. A second Türk mission sent to the Persians was even less successful than the previous one, for only a few of its members ever returned to their homes. According to the official Persian explanation the climate of Persia proved fatal to them; the Türk suspected, not without some reason, that poison was instrumental in their demise.
Having failed in Persia, the Türk looked for another market and decided to contact the ultimate and most important customer, Byzantium. To this end a Türk embassy, to which was attached Maniakh, who had led the unsuccessful delegation to the Sassanids, was sent to Constantinople. It arrived there at the end of 567 and presented to the Emperor Justin II a letter written in “Scythian characters”. The Emperor, anxious to secure for himself the most advantageous terms, showed to the surprised Türk the silk-worm breeding that was already going on in Byzantium, leading them to believe that he might possibly dispense with their merchandise. In August 568 the Türk returned to their country in the company of a Byzantine embassy led by Zemarkhos. It is difficult to know how far the Greeks penetrated into Central Asia, for the place-names given in the account of the embassy are difficult to identify. In any case Zemarkhos went as far as the residence of the ruler of the Western Türk, that is the successor of Ishtemi, who became more and more independent of the Eastern Türk kaghans, the successors of Mu-han. Zemarkhos even accompanied the kaghan in a military campaign against the Persians. Actually, it is very likely that he was instrumental in fostering this attack. A Persian envoy reaching the Türk ruler during Zemarkhos' stay was treated in a most unfriendly way, which boded ill for the future of Türko-Persian relations.
No doubt the emphasis in Türko-Byzantine relations was slowly shifting from the commercial to the political field. The reasons for that development may partly have been economic: it may have seemed easier to conquer Persia and this take possession of already existing facilities of transport, than to establish a new relay-system through the deserts east of the Caspian Sea. However, conquest for conquest's sake always attracted the Türk, and Byzantium had good reasons to work for the weakening of the Sassanids. Since 562 Byzantium had had to pay heavy annual tribute to Persia, and in order to resist effectively the permanent attacks of the barbarians on its northern frontiers, it was essential that its rear be relieved of any Persian menace. Byzantium had more to expect from a Türk alliance than the Byzantine historians seem to admit, and their allegations that the war with the Persians was
p.432
mainly due to the Türk machinations does not fit into the general political picture. The danger of having to fight on two separate and distant battle fronts had to be faced by many rulers of Constantinople and none of them could master it in the long run. This weakness is inherent to the geographical situation of the city. Clearly the Emperor must have realised the importance of the relief that a strong ally operating in the rear of the Sassanids might mean to his own forces. His eagerness to seize the opportunity of Türk alliance shows itself in the frequency of the embassies which were exchanged. We know of several of them, for the years between 567 and 576, and others may have been omitted from our sources. It appears that when an embassy was sent from one distant ally to the other, it was accompanied by the previous delegation returning home. The Byzantine embassy that left in 576 was accompanied by 106 Türk who had been left behind in Constantinople by previous Türk embassies.
By that time relations between Byzantium and the Türk became somewhat strained. The main reason for the discontentment was the refuge that Byzantium had offered to the so-called Pseudo-Avars who, so the Türk claimed, were their subjects. At that time the ruler of the Western Türk was Tardu, son of Ishtemi, and he received rather unkindly the Greek ambassador Valentine dispatched to him with the news of the accession of Tuberius.
It is unnecessary here to follow the vicissitudes of Türko-Byzantine relations, or to enlarge on the details of the campaign that Türk and Greeks waged against the Persians. Full advantage was apparently not taken of the possibility of encircling the common enemy. The Kazars who, nominally at least, recognised Türk supremacy, played a notable part in the Persian wars, more in Byzantium's pay than under effective Türk orders. It will be remembered that, as a consequence of Heraclius' campaign against the Persians, a revolution broke out, the king was put to death (628), and in a few more years the brilliant epoch of the Sassanids reached its end.
About 582 Tardu, chief of the Western Türk, refused to recognise any longer the suzerainty of the Eastern Türk kaghan, and henceforth the two parts of Bumin's old empire were more or less hostile to one another. For the Chinese who were able to follow a consistent foreign policy (as a result of the accession of the Sui dynasty in 589), the Eastern Türk constituted a greater danger than the Western Türk, owing to their geographical situation. By means of skilful political manoeuvres the Chinese succeeded in keeping the Eastern Türk in a fairly permanent state of internal troubles. In their endeavours to raise an enemy in the rear of the Eastern Türk, the Chinese fostered friendly relations with the Western Türk who thus became the allies simultaneously of China and Byzantium. The Eastern Türk state, weakened by internal troubles, could not keep pace with the Western Türk; Tardu's claim, voiced in his letter of 589 to Emperor Maurice, to be the head of all the Türk and “master of the seven climates”, was not wholly groundless. The
p.433
Eastern Türk, divided as they were, nevertheless presented a permanent menace to the Chinese borders, and the energetic Emperor T'ai-tsung of the T'and Dynasty made considerable efforts to destroy them. In this he succeeded in 630, and for over a half-century the Eastern Türk remained under Chinese rule. In that same year, at the height of its power, the Western Türk empire suddenly collapsed. Their chief T'ong Shih-hu, who had ruled over them since 618, was killed because, as the Chinese sources tell us, “trusting his power and prosperity he was not good to his people, and the tribes hated him”. The Eastern Türk, temporarily subdued by an external enemy re-established their state in 682; they were to go down ultimately in 744, as a result of internal dissensions.
Even if their political power was short-lived, the eighty years during which the Türk held the key-points of Central Eurasia exercised an incalculable effect on history, because it was a period of intense interchange between different civilisations. Indeed, the interpenetration had begun before the Türk conquest. The pre-Türk mural paintings discovered in Chinese Turkestan already show the importance of Greek, Indian and Iranian influences, but under the Türk shield communications became easier and contacts more frequent. The Türk Empire linked four civilisations: Byzsantium, Iran, India and China. It was more than a simple vehicle of spiritual and material exchange: it was also a mixing pot in which the elements of different origins were amalgamated and were tinted with the specific Türk civilisation. It does not appear that this last influence was of particular importance, but foreign civilisations were enabled to penetrate deeply into Central Eurasia through Türk channels. It is fascinating to think that a Türk envoy who had spent several years in Constantinople might have been sent to China on his next mission, and that Buddhist monks from India or from China might have discussed religion with Greek Christians or Persian disciples of Zoroaster at the court of the Türk ruler.
The Western Türk Empire's role as an intermediary was quite exceptional; in comparison the Eastern Türk kept aloof from the main current of exchange. The trade route through Chiense Turkestan was only partially under their control, and only the Chinese exercised a decisive influence upon their civilisation.
In spite of their constant divergences and the hostilities that marred more than once their relations, the two Türk empires were closely linked together by their name, language and tradition. The true carriers of the national spirit were the Eastern Türk; their fall was followed quickly by the disintegration of the Western Türk Empire.
The Türk achieved, for the first time in history, the political unification of a stretch of land that reached from the confines of China to the borders of Byzantium, narrow though it was. They left their imprint on the smaller steppe- or forest-dweller communities of Central
p.434
Eurasia. For the Western World, their name took the place of that of the Scythians and became for centuries the common denomination of barbarians, irrespective of their language. For the tribes living scattered in the endless spaces of Central Eurasia, the name Türk became a symbol of the unity of people linked together by a common language.
The Türk state had neither the consistency nor the power of the future Mongol Empire, but had the same liberal attitude towards mena and thought and it was less destructive. It was doomed to perish after a short period; the time had not yet come to unite all the peoples “that lived under the felt-tents”. The Türk Empire, as every kingdom divided against itself, was brought to desolation.
“Because the younger brothers plotted against the elder brothers, because the nobles were quarelling with the people: the Türk people brought about the loss of the empire which it had created, brought about the ruin of its kaghan who had reigned over it.”
If you want to cite it, the reference is:
Denis Sinor, “the Historical Role of the Turk Empire”, Journal of World History, IV, 3, Neuchatel, 1958, pp.427-434
I didn't bother copying his footnotes, and there are only a couple of them, but if you want them let me know.
Enjoy!
p.427
The Historical Role of the Turk Empire
As far as the evidence of written sources goes back, i.e. from the IIIrd Century B.C. onwards, the mountainous area that lies north of the Desert of Mongolia and south of the Lake Baikal, and which is watered by the rivers Selengga, Orkhon and Kerülen, was the centre of successive nomadic states. The earliest sources speak of the Hsiung-nu Empire, followed by the Hsien-pi, the Juan-juan the Türk, the Uigur, the Kirghiz and finally the Mongols whose prolonged reign meant both the acme and the end of this rhythmic succession of nomadic empires. Students of Central Asiatic history use, partly unconsciously, the term “empire” to designate these political communities in which a linguistically and ethnically often heterogenous population was held together by one of its components that happened to be politically and militarily the strongest. It has not sufficiently been emphasised that we have no evidence of successful invaders assuming power over the fairly permanent centre of these empires, nor is there any reason to suppose at each successive change the wholesale liquidation of entire peoples. We must reckon with a rather constant though mixed ethnical substratum that took the name (anyhow in the eye of the foreign
p.428
chronicler on whose testimony we are nearly always dependent) of the people to whom the military supremacy had temporarily shifted.
To the somewhat loose term “nomadic” generally applied to these empires of Mongolia, no no undue importance should be given. For the sedentary Chinese the nomadic cattle-breeding way of life and the extensive use of light cavalry in war were the most striking features to be observed in the “Western Barbarians”, but it is erroneous to consider these peoples as necessarily and exclusively cattle-breeder nomads. Some of them were no more cattle-breeders than the British were “shop-keepers” at the beginning of the last century. Türk history gives us factual evidence to bear out this statement.
In the succession of the nomadic empires that of the Türk (or t'u-chüeh in Chinese transcription) can claim particular attention. It is the first among them for which we can establish with certitude the language of the ruling class. The famous inscriptions found near the river Orkhon, engraved to commemorate the deeds of some of their great men, are the earliest extant documents of a Turkish language. The people itself is the first known to be called “türk”, a name still used to designate all those peoples who in our days speak a language derived from or closely connected with that of the inscriptions.
Some features of Türk history are just as important as the lingusitic aspect just mentioned; to outline them is the aim of the present paper.
The Türk first appear towards the middle of the VIth Century A.D., as subjects of the Juan-juan. The Chinese sources state clearly that they were the “blacksmith-slaves” of the ruling Juan-juan and circumstantial evidence tends to corroborate this assertion. Some of the ceremonies known to have been performed by Türk rulers show definite Byzantine connexions with mettalurgy, and small details – like the meeting of the Byzantine ambassador Zemarkhos with Türk offering iron for sale – complete the picture. Chinese references to “the caves of the Türk” constitute further proof that the bulk of the Türk people must have been devoted to mining and metallurgy.
In 546 the Türk chief Bumin asked for the hand of a Juan-juan princess, but his proposal was haughtily rejected by the king: “You are our blacksmith-slaves, how do you dare to use such language!?”. The refusal led to a revolt of the Türk which, in 552 ended with the com-
p.429
plete defeat of the Juan-juan and the suicide of their ruler. It is difficult to establish the factors that had contributed to the strengthening of the Türk under Juan-juan rule. The proposal of Bumin shows clearly that he sought recognition of a new balance of power within the framework of the existing state. The refusal of what he certainly thought to be a legitimate demand made him take steps that ultimately caused the fall of the ruling people and its replacement by the Türk.
The shifting of power from the Juan-juan to the Türk is a good example to demonstrate that the destructive forces set to work were within the framework of the state, which succumbed not under external pressure but owing to internal dissension . One cannot help thinking, having in mind the above-quoted refusal of the Juan-juan ruler, that the revolt of the Türk was to some extent a social upheaval. In fact it amounted to the seizing of the power by a hitherto despised class of society. Lack of evidence prevents us from deciding whether the social opposition between the ruling class and the miner-metallurgists was parallelled by an ethnic or linguistic distinction. To put it in more striking terms: we cannot decide whether the Juan-juan metallurgists came to form the Türk people, or whether the Türk people, linguistically or ethnically distinct from its rulers was, as a whole, used by them as a miner-metallurgist class. At any rate, it is fortunate that in the case of Türk history we have one of the rare instances where textual evidence permits us to enter a field that usually belongs to phantasy.
As Bumin died the same year in which he overthrew the Juan-juan, the task of consolidating the new-born empire remained with his son Mu-han (whose name is known to us only in Chinese transcription). Mu-han expanded his territories towards the east, but his military exploits cannot claim the same importance as the western expansion started by his uncle Ishtemi. In successful campaigns Ishtemi soon expanded his territories as far as the rivers Ili and Chu, south of Lake Balhash. This advance brought him to the frontiers of the Hephtalite Empire, the greatest opponent of the Sassanids in Persia. An alliance established between the Türk and the Sassanids resulted fairly quickly (between 563-567) in the encirclement and destruction of the Hephtalites and the partition of their country, The new common frontier between the Türk and the Sassanids roughly followed the Oxus. The seizure of the Hephtalite land meant for the Türks more than the extension of their territory and the increase of their power. It also meant the possibility of direct contacts with Byzantium and the control of the so-called Silk Road.
The age-old Silk Road, the great trade-route between the Far East and the Roman Empire, did not follow the shortest way between China and Europe, but proceeded along the edges of Central Eurasia, well within the borders of sedentary civilisations. The trade was carried out through the chain of oases in Chinese Turkestan to Kashgar, thence through the Pamirs to Bactria, Ecbatana, across the Euphrates at Heiropolis to Antiochia, whence the goods reached Rome or Constantinople through the ordinary trade channels.
p.430
Direct contact between the Western Türk and Byzantium could be established through the no-man's-land lying between Lake Aral and the Caspian Sea. The two main roads, one coming from the valley of the Sir-darya and passing north of Lake Aral, the other following the Amu-darya and passing round by the south of the lake, met somewhere near the mouth of the Ural river, whence the road proceeded to the Volga. From here on, either it followed the Don and along the northern shore of the Black Sea until it reached Constantinople, or crossed the Caucasus and ended at a port of the Black Sea. Although the passage through this northern route was possible, it must be remembered that it was by no means the main channel of communications between the East and the West. It was a second-best solution to which it would have been possible to resort had the usual Silk Road through Persia ever been blocked. With the partition of the Hephtalite Empire the Sassanids gained control of a further stretch of the route, and apparently decided to take the maximum advantage of the new situation.
It would be wrong to imagine the Silk Road as a sort of trunk road maintained for the transport of goods. The men living along the Silk Road and making their living out of it were not forwarding agents but merchants, buying the silk on one side and selling it on the other. The chain of intermediaries between consumer and producer was very long and the merchandise was re-sold again and again to the nearest buyer. his fact also explains why the trade was limited to articles of luxury. Only they had a chance to be saleable at the phantastically heightened prices that resulted. Having the Persian intermediaries did not mean only the disadvantage of a higher price, but also the threat of a complete interruption of the trade if the Persians, for one reason or another, found it advantageous to do so. It is not surprising that under these conditions attempts were made to elimiate the Persian “middleman” and to establish more direct links between producer and consumer. There was an alternative sea-route through the Indian Ocean which was partly at least in other hands, but it was not direct and part of it was also under Persian control. Ships bringing silk from India landed in Persian ports. Justin II got in touch with seamen of the Arabian coast and proposed to them to fetch silk from Indian ports; he also tried to introduce silk-worms to Byzantium.
Not only the Sassanids had benefited from the sudden collapse of the Hephtalite Empire, but the Türk also, who thus gained control of an important section of the Silk Road. From their subsequent attitude it must be concluded that they were fully aware of its significance.
The Sogdian merchants, who played under Hephtalite rule an important role in the silk-transit, sent with the consent of their new lord, the Türk kaghan, a commercial mission to the Persians, to obtain permission to engage in the silk-trade in Persia. The silk brought by the mission was duly purchased by the Persians and then burnt publicly. The most likely explanation of this insulting though correct action seems to be that the acceptance of the Sogdian offer would have meant direct sale
p.431
to the Persian customers or ever to foreign merchants coming from the West to Persia to buy silk. In spite of their dependence on Türk supplies, the Persians seem to have been determined to keep in their own hands the benefits resulting from the transit-trade. A second Türk mission sent to the Persians was even less successful than the previous one, for only a few of its members ever returned to their homes. According to the official Persian explanation the climate of Persia proved fatal to them; the Türk suspected, not without some reason, that poison was instrumental in their demise.
Having failed in Persia, the Türk looked for another market and decided to contact the ultimate and most important customer, Byzantium. To this end a Türk embassy, to which was attached Maniakh, who had led the unsuccessful delegation to the Sassanids, was sent to Constantinople. It arrived there at the end of 567 and presented to the Emperor Justin II a letter written in “Scythian characters”. The Emperor, anxious to secure for himself the most advantageous terms, showed to the surprised Türk the silk-worm breeding that was already going on in Byzantium, leading them to believe that he might possibly dispense with their merchandise. In August 568 the Türk returned to their country in the company of a Byzantine embassy led by Zemarkhos. It is difficult to know how far the Greeks penetrated into Central Asia, for the place-names given in the account of the embassy are difficult to identify. In any case Zemarkhos went as far as the residence of the ruler of the Western Türk, that is the successor of Ishtemi, who became more and more independent of the Eastern Türk kaghans, the successors of Mu-han. Zemarkhos even accompanied the kaghan in a military campaign against the Persians. Actually, it is very likely that he was instrumental in fostering this attack. A Persian envoy reaching the Türk ruler during Zemarkhos' stay was treated in a most unfriendly way, which boded ill for the future of Türko-Persian relations.
No doubt the emphasis in Türko-Byzantine relations was slowly shifting from the commercial to the political field. The reasons for that development may partly have been economic: it may have seemed easier to conquer Persia and this take possession of already existing facilities of transport, than to establish a new relay-system through the deserts east of the Caspian Sea. However, conquest for conquest's sake always attracted the Türk, and Byzantium had good reasons to work for the weakening of the Sassanids. Since 562 Byzantium had had to pay heavy annual tribute to Persia, and in order to resist effectively the permanent attacks of the barbarians on its northern frontiers, it was essential that its rear be relieved of any Persian menace. Byzantium had more to expect from a Türk alliance than the Byzantine historians seem to admit, and their allegations that the war with the Persians was
p.432
mainly due to the Türk machinations does not fit into the general political picture. The danger of having to fight on two separate and distant battle fronts had to be faced by many rulers of Constantinople and none of them could master it in the long run. This weakness is inherent to the geographical situation of the city. Clearly the Emperor must have realised the importance of the relief that a strong ally operating in the rear of the Sassanids might mean to his own forces. His eagerness to seize the opportunity of Türk alliance shows itself in the frequency of the embassies which were exchanged. We know of several of them, for the years between 567 and 576, and others may have been omitted from our sources. It appears that when an embassy was sent from one distant ally to the other, it was accompanied by the previous delegation returning home. The Byzantine embassy that left in 576 was accompanied by 106 Türk who had been left behind in Constantinople by previous Türk embassies.
By that time relations between Byzantium and the Türk became somewhat strained. The main reason for the discontentment was the refuge that Byzantium had offered to the so-called Pseudo-Avars who, so the Türk claimed, were their subjects. At that time the ruler of the Western Türk was Tardu, son of Ishtemi, and he received rather unkindly the Greek ambassador Valentine dispatched to him with the news of the accession of Tuberius.
It is unnecessary here to follow the vicissitudes of Türko-Byzantine relations, or to enlarge on the details of the campaign that Türk and Greeks waged against the Persians. Full advantage was apparently not taken of the possibility of encircling the common enemy. The Kazars who, nominally at least, recognised Türk supremacy, played a notable part in the Persian wars, more in Byzantium's pay than under effective Türk orders. It will be remembered that, as a consequence of Heraclius' campaign against the Persians, a revolution broke out, the king was put to death (628), and in a few more years the brilliant epoch of the Sassanids reached its end.
About 582 Tardu, chief of the Western Türk, refused to recognise any longer the suzerainty of the Eastern Türk kaghan, and henceforth the two parts of Bumin's old empire were more or less hostile to one another. For the Chinese who were able to follow a consistent foreign policy (as a result of the accession of the Sui dynasty in 589), the Eastern Türk constituted a greater danger than the Western Türk, owing to their geographical situation. By means of skilful political manoeuvres the Chinese succeeded in keeping the Eastern Türk in a fairly permanent state of internal troubles. In their endeavours to raise an enemy in the rear of the Eastern Türk, the Chinese fostered friendly relations with the Western Türk who thus became the allies simultaneously of China and Byzantium. The Eastern Türk state, weakened by internal troubles, could not keep pace with the Western Türk; Tardu's claim, voiced in his letter of 589 to Emperor Maurice, to be the head of all the Türk and “master of the seven climates”, was not wholly groundless. The
p.433
Eastern Türk, divided as they were, nevertheless presented a permanent menace to the Chinese borders, and the energetic Emperor T'ai-tsung of the T'and Dynasty made considerable efforts to destroy them. In this he succeeded in 630, and for over a half-century the Eastern Türk remained under Chinese rule. In that same year, at the height of its power, the Western Türk empire suddenly collapsed. Their chief T'ong Shih-hu, who had ruled over them since 618, was killed because, as the Chinese sources tell us, “trusting his power and prosperity he was not good to his people, and the tribes hated him”. The Eastern Türk, temporarily subdued by an external enemy re-established their state in 682; they were to go down ultimately in 744, as a result of internal dissensions.
Even if their political power was short-lived, the eighty years during which the Türk held the key-points of Central Eurasia exercised an incalculable effect on history, because it was a period of intense interchange between different civilisations. Indeed, the interpenetration had begun before the Türk conquest. The pre-Türk mural paintings discovered in Chinese Turkestan already show the importance of Greek, Indian and Iranian influences, but under the Türk shield communications became easier and contacts more frequent. The Türk Empire linked four civilisations: Byzsantium, Iran, India and China. It was more than a simple vehicle of spiritual and material exchange: it was also a mixing pot in which the elements of different origins were amalgamated and were tinted with the specific Türk civilisation. It does not appear that this last influence was of particular importance, but foreign civilisations were enabled to penetrate deeply into Central Eurasia through Türk channels. It is fascinating to think that a Türk envoy who had spent several years in Constantinople might have been sent to China on his next mission, and that Buddhist monks from India or from China might have discussed religion with Greek Christians or Persian disciples of Zoroaster at the court of the Türk ruler.
The Western Türk Empire's role as an intermediary was quite exceptional; in comparison the Eastern Türk kept aloof from the main current of exchange. The trade route through Chiense Turkestan was only partially under their control, and only the Chinese exercised a decisive influence upon their civilisation.
In spite of their constant divergences and the hostilities that marred more than once their relations, the two Türk empires were closely linked together by their name, language and tradition. The true carriers of the national spirit were the Eastern Türk; their fall was followed quickly by the disintegration of the Western Türk Empire.
The Türk achieved, for the first time in history, the political unification of a stretch of land that reached from the confines of China to the borders of Byzantium, narrow though it was. They left their imprint on the smaller steppe- or forest-dweller communities of Central
p.434
Eurasia. For the Western World, their name took the place of that of the Scythians and became for centuries the common denomination of barbarians, irrespective of their language. For the tribes living scattered in the endless spaces of Central Eurasia, the name Türk became a symbol of the unity of people linked together by a common language.
The Türk state had neither the consistency nor the power of the future Mongol Empire, but had the same liberal attitude towards mena and thought and it was less destructive. It was doomed to perish after a short period; the time had not yet come to unite all the peoples “that lived under the felt-tents”. The Türk Empire, as every kingdom divided against itself, was brought to desolation.
“Because the younger brothers plotted against the elder brothers, because the nobles were quarelling with the people: the Türk people brought about the loss of the empire which it had created, brought about the ruin of its kaghan who had reigned over it.”
Plus, it would be ever better if you can put the notes too 
