Ibn al-Asir, a contemporary of the Mongol conquests, in his account of the first clash between the Mongols and the Kipchaks (1222) reports that Subedei-Bagatur and Dzhebe-noyon sent a letter to the Kipchaks, who opposed the Mongols. ), reports that Subedei-Bagatur and Dzebe-noion sent the following message to the Kipchaks, who opposed the Mongols together with the Allans: «We and you are of the same kind, and these Allans are not of your kind, so you have nothing to help them; your faith is not similar to their faith, and we promise you that we will not attack you, but will bring you money and clothes as much as you want; leave us with them». And the Kipchaks, indeed, left the Alans, who were defeated [SMIZO 1884, p. 25].
It would seem that the Mongols simply used the policy of divide et impera, smashing the enemies one by one, especially since Ibn al-Asir further narrates about the defeat of the Kipchaks themselves by the Mongols. However, turning to the subsequent history of the Ulus Juchi, one can see that the Kipchaks played a very special role in it. The message of al-Omari is very characteristic: «In ancient times this state was a country of Kipchaks, but when the Tatars took possession of it, the Kipchaks became their subjects. Then they (Tatars) mixed and became related to them (Kipchaks), and the land overcame their (Tatars’) natural and racial qualities and they all became exactly Kipchaks, as if they were of the same kind, because Mongols and Tatars settled in the land of Kipchaks, intermarried with them and stayed to live in their (Kipchaks’) land. Thus, a long stay in some land makes the human nature to resemble it and changes the natural traits according to its nature…» [SMIZO 1884, p. 235]. Ulus Dzhuchi in oriental chronicles and historical works was often named «Bulgar and Kipchak», «Khorezm and Kipchak», and its rulers — «kings of Desht-i Kipchak», thus, the element «Kipchak» was constantly present in the name of the Dzhuchid power [SMIZO 1884, p. 229, 446, 456]. 229, 446, 456; Grigoriev, Frolova 1999, p. 65; Arslanova 2002, pp. 202-205; Antonov 2005, p. 43; Evteev 2005, p. 371]. Moreover, after a rather short period of time, the Turkic language spoken by the Kipchaks became the main language of communication in the Ulus Dzhuchi.
Why did the Mongols at first tried their best to deal with the Kipchaks, who later became one of the most significant peoples of the Ulus Dzhuchi? It should be taken into account that the Kipchaks were not a single people, but a set of numerous tribes, not related to each other by anything except, perhaps, language, and in addition often feuded with each other. And while some of these tribes became mortal enemies of the Mongols, others, on the contrary, could become (and did become) their allies and later became Batu’s subjects.
The most persistent opponent of the Mongols was one of the Kipchak leaders — Kotyan, son of Sutoy, who fought with Subedei-Bagatur and Dzhebe in 1223 at Kalka. Kotyan not only feuded with the Mongols for a long time, but also had to leave his native Don steppes and go to a foreign land. About 1239 he entered the service of the king of Hungary Béla IV and even became related to him by marrying his granddaughter to his son Istvan (Stefan). But the great khan Ugedei sent the Hungarian king a threatening message in which he demanded to expel all Kipchaks from Hungary. However, Béla did not have to make any decision in connection with this letter: in 1240 or 1241 Kotyan was killed as a result of a conspiracy of Hungarian feudal lords who feared that with the help of the Kipchaks («kumans», as they were called in the West) the king would be able to strengthen his power and deprive the Hungarian nobility of its former privileges. Ironically, the pretext for Kotjan’s murder was the suspicion that the dominus Cumanorum — the title Kotjan had received after the Hungarian prince married his daughter — was negotiating with the approaching Mongol armies. Kotyan’s death caused a revolt of Kipchaks, who ruined and burned a number of Hungarian villages, and then left Hungary [Pletneva 1990, p. 180].
The further fate of Kotyan’s horde can be traced by Arab sources. According to the Arabian chronicler Ibn Tagriberdi, «when the Tatars decided to attack the lands of the Kipchaks in 639 and this (news) reached them (the Kipchaks), they entered into correspondence with Unuskhan, the sovereign of Wallachia, about the fact that they would cross the Sudac Sea to him so that he would hide them from the Tatars. He gave them (his) consent to it and gave them a valley between two mountains. They crossed to him in 640th year. But when they quietly settled down in this place, he broke his obligation in relation to them, made a raid on them and beat them and took (many) of them captive.» [SMIZO 1884, p. 542]. It is quite possible that the Wallachian ruler (apparently, the Vlacho-Bulgarian tsar Ivan Asen II or his son Koloman) massacred the Kipchaks out of fear of the Mongols or at their behest: 640 Hijra year corresponds to 1242/1243, when the Mongols had already invaded Bulgaria and Wallachia and forced their rulers to recognize the suzerainty of the great khan. Even in the 1270s the Kipchaks (probably descendants of Kotyan’s subjects) were still hiding in Hungary, and only about 1282, when the Hungarian authorities tried to force them to accept Christianity and move to a sedentary way of life, they were forced to surrender to the Mongols [Pletneva 1990, p. 180-181]. Byzantine historian of the middle of the XIII century George Acropolitus reports about «a tribe of Scythians», who under the onslaught of the Tatars moved to Macedonia, and later some of them entered the service of the Nicene emperor John III Vatats [Acropolitus 2005, p. 72, 78].
But why exactly Kotian and his subjects became the object of such a cruel enmity of the Mongols? On the basis of indirect indications of sources A.G. Yurchenko suggests that Kotyan could be a relative of Terken-Khatun, the mother of Khorezmshah Muhammad, the worst enemy of Genghis Khan, and because of this — the same unconditional enemy of the Mongols as Khorezmshah himself. This assumption helps to explain the persistence with which the Mongol troops pursued Kotyan and his subjects everywhere [Yurchenko 2003a, pp. 390-392, 396-397]. Another explanation can be offered based on the information of the Chinese diplomat Peng Da-ya, who visited Mongolia in 1233 and left «Notes on the Black Tatars»: «kebishao… at first [they] submitted, but then they revolted, fleeing into the hollows and beyond the rivers to resist there.» [Wang Guo-wei 1940, l. 26a]. To some extent, this assumption is confirmed by the message of the Novgorod First Chronicle, according to which the Mongols before the battle of Kalka demanded from the Russians to give them the Kipchaks, who were characterized as «villeins and … konjuse their own» [PSRL 2000a, p. 265], that is, as their vassals. In a letter to the Hungarian king Béla IV, the text of which is preserved in the report of the Hungarian Dominican Julian, the great khan Ugedei also calls «Kumans» his slaves [Julian 1996, p. 30]. As a rule, the Mongols dealt with those who first recognized their power and then cheated them with particular cruelty. But if Kotyan and his kin were to be destroyed, other tribes of Kipchaks were perceived by Batu and his companions as future subjects, who should have been subdued, not exterminated.
The first large-scale military actions against the Kipchaks were undertaken by the troops of Ulus Juchi simultaneously with the raids into Volga Bulgaria: Ibn-Wasyl, an Arab chronicler of the late XIII century, reports that «in 627 (1229-1230) the flames of war broke out between the Tatars and the Kipchaks» [SMIZO 1884, p. 73]. [SMIZO 1884, p. 73]. During a campaign to the West armies of Genghisids acted simultaneously against Bulgarian and Kipchaks. Just at the time when Batu. was preparing an invasion of Volga Bulgaria, his cousins Guyuk and Munke, taking with themselves up to half of all collected troops, went against Kipchaks, Moksha and Burtas «…and in a short time took possession of them» [Rashid ad-Din 1960]. [Rashid ad-Din 1960, p. 38]. The forces of Buyuk and Munke were undoubtedly inferior in numbers to the Kipchak tribes, and it is strange that they risked to come out with such a contingent against a numerous enemy. However, the conquerors managed to exploit the contradictions of the Desht-i Kipchak tribes and support some (tribes) in their struggle with others, so that they could eventually conquer all of them. The Arab author of the XIV century an-Nuwayri informs: «It happened (once) that a man from the tribe Durut, named Mangush, son of Kotyan, went out hunting; a man from the tribe Toksoba, named Akkubul (?) met him — and there was an ancient rivalry between both (tribes) — and took him captive and killed him. The news about Mangush did not reach his father and his men, and they sent a man named Jamgar (or Jalangar) to scout him. This man returned and told them the news of his death. Then his father (Mangusha) gathered his men and his tribe and went to Akkubul. When the news of their march against him reached the latter, he gathered the men of his tribe and prepared to fight with them (the Duruts). They met and fought; the Durut tribe won. Akkubul (himself) was wounded, and his army was scattered. Then he sent his brother Ansar (or Unsur) to Dushikhan, son of Genghis Khan, whom Ukediya, who was sitting on Genghis Khan’s throne at that time, had sent to the Northern countries. He (Akkubul’s brother) complained to him (Dushi) about what had befallen his people from the side of the Kipchak tribe Durut, and informed him that if he (Dushi) went to them, he would not meet (there), except for them (Durut), any opponent. Then he (Dushi) marched on them with his troops, attacked them and most of them were beaten and captured.» [SMIZO 1884, p. 541; see also: Pletneva 1990, pp. 169-170]. Since an-Nuweiri created his work much later than the events described by him, he made a number of chronological and factual errors. According to his information, Juchi died in 641 (1244), which contradicts all other sources known to us. Since Ugedei appears in the above message as a great khan, there is no doubt that the Kipchaks of the Toksoba tribe appealed (if such an appeal really took place) not to Juchi, but already to Batu. I also think that there is no reason to identify «Kotyan» from the message of an-Nuweiri with the above-mentioned khan Kotyan. First, his enmity with the Mongols began long before Ugedei’s accession to the throne and, accordingly, the alleged calling of Batu by the Kipchaks. Secondly, another Arab historian Ibn Khaldun (late XIV — early XV centuries.), describing the same episode as an-Nuwairi, calls «Mangush, son of Kotyan» «Mankush, son of Kitmir» [SMIZO 1884, p. 541].
Probably, the onslaught of troops of Munke and Buyuk and their allies was so powerful that the main forces of the enemy were soon defeated: already in the winter of 1237 both tsarevitch were ready to invade Russia together with Batu, therefore, they had no reason to fear serious resistance of the Kipchaks. Juvaini on this occasion wrote: «When Kazn directed Mengu-kaan, Batu and other tsareviches to conquer the lands of Bulgar, Asa and Rus, Kipchaks, Alans and other tribes, all these lands were freed from troublemakers, and those who managed to avoid the sword, bowed their heads in obedience » [Juvaini 1997, p. 557]. However, as soon as the troops of Buyuk and Munke left the Kipchak steppes, the local tribes revolted, and in the spring of 1238 Batu had to send his commanders against the Kipchaks again. Rashid ad-Din reports that «in nokai-il, the year of the dog, corresponding to 635. …Berke headed towards the Kipchaks, and captured Arjumak, Kuranbas, Kaparan, and before that — Bekruti» [quoted from: Arslanova 2002, p. 174-175]. Since the year 635 falls on August 1237 — August 1238, most likely, this message refers to the events of the summer of 1238, when Batu’s troops returned from the campaign to North-Eastern Russia. The largest was the rebellion of Bachman — the leader of the Burjogli tribe (in Rashid ad-Din — «olburlik»), probably a descendant of Khan Bonyak (right 1090-1167), known from Russian chronicles [Pletneva 1990, pp. 176-179]. Bachman’s resistance reached such sizes, that against him were sent Munke and his brother Bujek with an army of more than 20000 people. Here is how Rashid ad-Din described the campaign against Bachman: «…Munke-kaan was raiding along the seashore from the left wing (lit.: arm) and Bachman, who was one of the most shameless emirs from the people (lit.: crowd) of the Kipchaks, tribe Olburlik, g and Kachir-ukule from the tribe of Ases, seized both of them. And it was so that this Bachman with a group of other robbers escaped the sword. A group of other fugitives joined him, and (he) rushed in all directions and snatched something. Day by day his rebellion increased more and more. He had no (permanent) residence, so the Mongol army could not capture him. (He) hid in the thickets on the bank of the Volga (Itil). Munke-kaan ordered 200 ships to be built and 100 fully armed Mongols to be put in each. (A) he and his brother Buchek went on a roundup on both sides of the river. In one of the Volga forests by fresh dung and other things (they) found traces of a hastily migrated camp. In the midst of it they found a sick old woman. From her they learned that Bachman had crossed over to one island, and all that he had seized (by) mutiny and rebellion was on that island. Owing to the lack of a vessel it was impossible to cross the Volga. Suddenly a strong wind arose, the water became agitated and went to another place from the passage to the island. As a consequence of the good fortune of Munke-kaan, land showed itself. (He) ordered that troops should march over it and seize him (Bachman). Some of his adherents were killed with the sword, some were drowned. A lot of goods were taken out of there. Bachman begged that Mungke-kaan, with his own blessed hand, should bring his cause to an end. (Munke-kaan) instructed that his brother Buchek should cut Bachman in two. They also killed Kachir-Ukule of the emirs of Asc» [quoted from: Arslanova 2002, p. 174]. It is interesting that in «Yuan shi» information about execution Bachman is absent; moreover, on the basis of this chronicle E. I. Kychanov makes a conclusion about his participation in the Mongol conquest of Russia [Kychanov 2002, p. 79-80].
Rashid ad-Din, who used Juwayni’s information about the actions of Mongol troops against Bachman, attributed these events to 1236-1237. Researchers believe that the described events could take place not earlier than in the spring of 1238, and possibly around 1240. [see, for example: Myskov 2003, p. 28]. It is also important to note that Bachman in the official historiography is presented not as a mortal enemy who should have been destroyed with all his people (like Kotyan and his subjects), but only as a «rebel» who had previously «escaped the sword» of the Mongols. Probably, he at first, together with other Kipchak leaders, recognized the power of the Mongol Empire and only later, taking advantage of the departure of Mongol troops to Russia, tried to regain independence.
Rebellions of Kipchaks did not stop and during Batu’s campaign to Southern Russia and Hungary: Rashid ad-Din writes that «in the year of the leopard, corresponding to 639 h. x. [July 12, 1241 — June 30, 1242 AD], the Kipchaks in large numbers went to war on Kutan and on Sonkur, son of Juchi, [who], having given battle, defeated the Kipchaks» [Rashid ad-Din 1960, p. 45]. Thus, Batu managed to finally suppress the rebellions of Desht-i Kipchak tribes only by 1243. Perhaps, it was due to the fact that he, having finally completed the many years of campaigns, decided to personally engage in the establishment of order in his new possessions.
However, these events took place some time after the Mongols had invaded another state intended for the possession of Dzhuchi’s descendants — the «Rus region».