SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları (HÜTAD) / 2026 / Sayı: 30

HEQIN İLE GONG ARASINDA: HUN VE HAN İMPARATORLUKLARININ İKİLİ İLİŞKİLERİ

Gökay Yavrucuk
Pages
99–125
Publication Date
2019-07-06
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result of their rivalry a bipolar order emerged and third parties was forced to accept this order in order to survive.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Xiongnu and the Han empires which founded almost at the same time, existed for 4 centuries as rival and complement for each other.
📊
Key Findings & Data:These two empires aimed to exulcerate its rival and impose own interest.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of their rivalry a bipolar order emerged and third parties was forced to accept this order in order to survive.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Hun · Xiongnu · Han Hanedanı

Abstract

The Xiongnu and the Han empires which founded almost at the same time, existed for 4 centuries as rival and complement for each other. Both empires’ ideological framework was settled on the idea of heavenly mandate/World dominance. Their long frontier lines, ideological foundations and foreign ambitions forced them to rivalry. They tried to create systems that shape bilateral relations according to their own interests and to impose these systems on the other side. On the other hand none of these systems were able to solve problems permanently so competition stay alive in all conditions. These two empires aimed to exulcerate its rival and impose own interest. But success of this strategy depend on other sides ability of absorb exulceration. As a result of their rivalry a bipolar order emerged and third parties was forced to accept this order in order to survive.

Özet

Hemen hemen aynı anda kurulan ve yıkılan Hun ve Han imparatorlukları 4 asır boyunca birbirinin rakibi ve pek çok açıdan tamamlayıcısı olarak var oldu. Her iki imparatorluğun ideolojisi de tanrısal cihan hâkimiyeti fikri üzerine kurgulanmıştı. Geniş ortak sınırları, ideolojik kurguları ve dış politika hedefleri iki imparatorluğu rekabet etmeye zorluyordu. İkili ilişkileri kendi çıkarlarına göre şekillendiren sistemler yaratmaya ve bu sistemleri karşı tarafa dayatmaya çalıştılar. Hunlar, Han’ın haraç ödediği Heqin’i; Han ise Hunların vassal olarak haraç ödediği gong sistemini hayata geçirmeye gayret etti. Fakat geliştirdikleri hiçbir sistem sorunları kalıcı olarak çözmeye yetmedi ve rekabet her koşulda canlı kaldı. Bu iki imparatorluk rakibini yıpratarak ona çıkarlarını dayatmayı hedefliyordu. Ancak bu stratejinin başarısı karşı tarafın yıpranmayı kaldırabilmesine bağlıydı. Onların rekabetinin etkisiyle iki kutuplu bir siyasal atmosfer oluştu ve üçüncü taraflar varlıklarını korumak için iş birliğini kabullenmek zorunda kaldılar.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yavrucuk, G. (2019). HEQIN İLE GONG ARASINDA: HUN VE HAN İMPARATORLUKLARININ İKİLİ İLİŞKİLERİ. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları (HÜTAD), Sayı: 30, 99–125. https://doi.org/10.20427/turkiyat.438121

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Ban, Gu(班固), Han Shu(漢書), Zhonghua Shuju, 1988
  2. Barfield, Thomas James, The Hsiung-nu Imperial Confederacy: Organization and Foreign Policy, Journal of Asian Studies, vol XLI no 1, 1981, s. 45-61
  3. Barfield, Thomas James,The Shadow Empires: Imperial State Formation Along the Chinese-Nomad Frontier, Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History, (Susan E. Alcock, Terrence N. D’altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison, Carla M. Sinopoli Ed.) Cambridge University Press, 2001, s. 10-42
  4. Barfield, Thomas James, Steppe Empires, China and the Silk Route: Nomads as a Force in International Trade and Politics, Nomads in the Sedentary World (Anatoly M. Khazanov, Andre Wink Ed.), Curzon, 2001, s. 234-250
  5. Bielenstein, Hans, Bureaucracy of Han Times, Cambridge University Press, 2008
  6. Chang, Chun-shu, The Rise of the Chinese Empire Volume One: Nation, State&Imperialism in Early China ca. 1600- b.c.-a.d. 8, The University of Michigan Press, 2010
  7. Di Cosmo, Nicola, Ancient Inner Asian Nomads-Their Economic Basis and Its Significance in Chinese History, History of Mongolia vol I The Pre-Chinggisid Era Chinggis Khan and the Mongol Empire, (David Sneath-Christopher Kaplonski Ed.), Global Oriental, 2010, s. 10-43
  8. Di Cosmo, Nicola, Aristocratic Elites in the Xiongnu Empire as Seen From Historical and Archaeological Evidence”, Nomad Aristocrats in a World of Empires (Von Jurgen Paul Ed.), Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2013, s. 23-55
  9. Fairbank, John King, A Preliminary Framework, The Chinese World Order-Traditional Foreign Relations(Fairbank), Harvard University Press, 1968
  10. Fairbank, John King – Goldman, Merle, China A New History, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006
  11. Khazanov, Anatoly, Nomads and the Outside World, (tr. Julia Crookenden), The University of Wisconsin Press, 1994
  12. Lewis, Mark Edward, The Early Chinese Empires Qin and Han, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007
  13. Lien-sheng, Yang, Historical Notes on the Chinese World Order, The Chinese World Order-Traditional China’s Foreign Relations(John King Fairbank Ed.), Harvard University Press, 1968, s. 20-34
  14. Liu Mau-tsai, Çin Kaynaklarına Göre Doğu Türkleri, Selenge Yayınları, 2011
  15. Loewe, Michael, The Former Han Dynasty, The Cambridge History of China Volume I-The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. to A.D. 220, (Denis Twitchett-Michael Loewe Ed.) Cambridge University Press, 2008, s. 103-223
  16. Ma, Yong – Sun, Yutang, The Western Regions under the Hsiung-nu and the Han, Nomads in the Sedentary World (Anatoly M. Khazanov, Andre Wink Ed.), Curzon, 2001, s. 227-247
  17. Onat, Ayşe, Orsoy, Sema, Ercilasun, Konuralp, Çin Kaynaklarında Türkler/Han Hanedanlığı Tarihi Hsiung-nu(Hun) Monografisi, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2004
  18. Otkan, Pulat, Tarihçinin Kayıtları’na (Shi ji) Göre Hunlar, Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2018
  19. Rossabi, Morris, A History of China, Wiley Blackwell, 2014
  20. Schuessler, Axel, ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese, University of Hawai’i Press, 2007
  21. Selbitschka, Armin, Early Chinese Diplomacy: Realpolitik versus the So-called Tributary System, Asia Major, Third Series, 28, 1-2, s. 61-114
  22. Suzuki, Chusei, China’s Relations With Inner Asia: The Hsiung-nu, Tibet, The Chinese World Order-Traditional China’s Foreign Relations(John King Fairbank Ed.), Harvard University Press, 1968, s. 180-198
  23. Yü, Ying-shih, The Hsiung-nu, The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, (Denis Sinor Ed.) Cambridge University Press, 2008, s. 118-151
  24. Yü, Ying-shih, Han Foreign Relations, The Cambridge History of China Volume I-The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C. to A.D. 220, (Denis Twitchett-Michael Loewe Ed.) Cambridge University Press, 2008, s. 377-463
  25. Zadneprovskiy, Y. A. The Nomads of Northern Central Asia, History of Civilizations of Central Asia volume II: The Development of Sedentary and Nomadis Civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D. 250, (Janos Harmatta Ed.), UNESCO Publishing, 1996, s. 457-473