Foreign merchant (with Sogdian appearance) in China 618-907 CE
By the time the Hephthalites (White Huns) were destroyed the Sogdians had such a widespread influence that they were able to continue to enjoy their prosperity for another century. However, the crippling of the Hun's power by the Turks and Persians also eliminated Sogdiana's safety net and made them vulnerable. The chaos created to the east by the Turkic An Lushan rebellion in China and the chaos created to the west by the Sassanid's blundered aggression closed the doors on the Sogdian era of prosperity that had begun under Hunnic rule. Even after the An Lushan rebellion ended, China [one of the Sogdian's most important trading partners] was in ruins and vulnerable to other threats. Trade routes were choked off by hostile armies. Instability meant more danger for travelers. Sassanid rule had become so dysfunctional that the primitive Arab Muslims were able to conquer Persia, afterward pushing on into Sogdiana. The Hephthalites were no longer there to stabilize the Persian government as they had done in the time of Peroz and Khuvad. The Sassanids had gained their financial freedom from the Hephthalites and then, less than a century later, used that freedom to destroy themselves.
"In July of 751, a Tang army was defeated at the battle of Talas at the hands of a Turgesh-Arab alliance. The defeat effectively ended the Tang’s ability to intervene in Asia beyond the Tarim Basin. This defeat and the Tang’s subsequent inability to project force beyond the Tarim Basin played as important role in the downfall of the Sogdians as the Arab invasions themselves. With the Tang military held behind the Pamirs, the Tibetans moved to occupy the passes leading into China and into Kashmir, creating a chokehold on valuable trade networks the Sogdian merchants depended on for their livelihoods. Campaigns in 747 CE and 753 CE served to ease these Tibetan holds on the passes, but relief was only temporary. The Tang loss at Talas freed the invading Arabic forces to take control of Central Asia as well as weakening the Tang’s ability to cope with longstanding enemies closer to home. The situation for both the Sogdians and the Tang was only going to worsen. Taking advantage of the inner turmoil caused by An Lushan’s rebellion, Tibetan troops marched on and captured Chang’an in 763 CE. Rather than attempting to hold the city the Tibetans gradually withdrew along the Gansu corridor. Movement up this major trade artery by a hostile army could only have disrupted the Sogdian’s trade network, which was already likely in poor condition due to rebellions and the depredations of preceding armies. As the Tibetans withdrew they occupied the cities they encountered along the way, taking first Liangzhou (764) in the east and eventually Hami (781–782) in the west. At least two key Sogdian colonies at Hami and Chang’an, would have been seriously damaged by the rampaging Tibetans.
It is also quite likely that throughout their operations in China, Sogdian wealth would have proved a tempting target for looting by invading armies such as the Tibetans or rebelling generals. The Tibetan occupation of the passes restricted any influx of Sogdian immigrants into China to bolster the reeling Sogdian communities. With China wracked by invasions and rebellions, their Chinese colonies in ruins, the mistrust of the Sogdian people by the Tang due to the rebellion of An Lushan, and their homeland occupied by invading armies, the Sogdian trade network and nation could not but have suffered grievously. Previously the Sogdians had shown a remarkable ability to escape destruction, but the combination of forces besieging them eventually proved too great.
The Sogdians embodied the spirit of the Silk Road perhaps better than any other people. The Silk Road functioned as a conduit for exchange of both ideas and goods. The Sogdians for hundreds of years served as an invaluable vehicle for that exchange."
-The "Silk Roads" in Time and Space: Migrations, Motifs, and Materials. Edited by Victor H. Mair. Sino-Platonic Paper 228.
 |
| Foreign merchant (with Sogdian appearance) in China 618-907 CE. |
Source:
Quote:
Comments
Post a Comment