| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Heart of Asia
Author: Ross, Edward Denison, Skrine, Francis Henry
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Heart of Asia" ***
Transcriber’s notes, including explanations of how italic, boldface,
and accented text are represented, will be found after the Index.
[Illustration: GŪR AMĪR, THE MAUSOLEUM OF TAMERLANE]
THE HEART OF ASIA
A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN TURKESTAN
AND THE CENTRAL ASIAN KHANATES
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES
BY
FRANCIS HENRY SKRINE
FORMERLY A MEMBER OF H.M. INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE
AND
EDWARD DENISON ROSS, PH.D.
PROFESSOR OF PERSIAN AT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON
WITH 19 ILLUSTRATIONS FROM SKETCHES BY VERESTCHAGIN
NUMEROUS PHOTOGRAPHS AND 2 MAPS
METHUEN & CO.
36 ESSEX STREET, W.C.
LONDON
1899
CONTENTS
PART I
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION
CHAP. PAGE
I. EARLIEST TIMES TO THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER 3
II. BACTRIANS AND PARTHIANS 10
III. THE HUNS AND THE YUÉ-CHI 14
IV. THE SĀSĀNIDES, THE EPHTHALITES, AND THE TURKS 22
V. THE RISE OF ISLAM AND INVASIONS OF THE ARABS 34
VI. THE FIRST EASTERN CAMPAIGNS OF KUTAYBA IBN MUSLIM 45
VII. KUTAYBA’S LAST CAMPAIGNS 56
VIII. KUTAYBA’S FALL AND DEATH 63
IX. KUTAYBA’S SUCCESSORS 67
X. NASR IBN SAYYĀR AND ABŪ MUSLIM 77
XI. KHORĀSĀN UNDER THE FIRST ABBĀSIDS 84
XII. THE CALIPHATES OF EL-MANSŪR, EL-HĀDI, AND HĀRŪN ER-RASHĪD 90
XIII. DECLINE OF THE CALIPHS’ AUTHORITY IN KHORĀSĀN. THE
TĀHIRIDES 98
XIV. THE SAFFĀRIDES AND THE RISE OF THE SĀMĀNIDES 103
XV. THE SĀMĀNIDES 109
XVI. THE KARA-KHĀNIDES, OR UÏGHŪRS 114
XVII. THE GHAZNAVIDES AND THE RISE OF THE SELJŪKS 123
XVIII. THE SELJŪKS 129
XIX. SULTAN SANJAR AND THE KARA-KHITĀYS 136
XX. THE KHWĀRAZM-SHĀHS 144
XXI. CHINGIZ KHĀN 149
XXII. MONGOL INVASION OF CENTRAL ASIA 155
XXIII. THE LINE OF CHAGHATĀY 160
XXIV. TĪMŪR, THE GREAT AMĪR 165
XXV. THE SUCCESSORS OF TĪMŪR 173
XXVI. THE SHAYBĀNIDES 182
XXVII. THE HOUSE OF ASTRAKHAN 194
XXVIII. THE HOUSE OF MANGIT 204
XXIX. AMĪR NASRULLAH, A BOKHĀRAN NERO 211
PART II
RUSSIA IN CENTRAL ASIA
I. THE MAKING OF RUSSIA 225
II. CROSSING THE THRESHOLD OF ASIA 238
III. THE STRUGGLE WITH THE KHĀNATES 250
IV. TURKOMANIA AND THE TURKOMANS 262
V. THE LAST STEP IN ADVANCE 284
VI. THE CENTRAL ASIAN RAILWAYS 306
VII. TRANSCASPIA IN 1898 320
VIII. ASKABAD AND MERV 340
IX. BOKHĀRĀ, A PROTECTED NATIVE STATE 357
X. SAMARKAND 386
XI. FRIENDS OR FOES? 408
APPENDIX I 417
APPENDIX II 424
INDEX 429
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE
GŪR AMĪR, THE MAUSOLEUM OF TAMERLANE (_VERESTCHAGIN_) _Frontispiece_
SO-CALLED SARCOPHAGUS OF ALEXANDER IN CONSTANTINOPLE
(_photograph_) 9
THE RAHLA, OR READING DESK, OUTSIDE THE MOSQUE OF BĪBĪ KHĀNŪM,
SAMARKAND (_photograph_) 38
CENTRAL ASIAN TYPES (_VERESTCHAGIN_) 47
GENERAL VIEW OF BOKHĀRĀ (_photograph_) 66
RELIGIOUS MENDICANT, BOKHĀRĀ (_VERESTCHAGIN_) 92
A JEWISH CHILD OF BOKHĀRĀ (_photograph_) 106
CENTRAL ASIAN TYPES (_VERESTCHAGIN_) 124
CENTRAL ASIAN TYPES ” 126
MAUSOLEUM OF SULTAN SANJAR, OLD MERV (_photograph_) 138
NOMADS CHANGING CAMP (_VERESTCHAGIN_) 151
DERVISHES OF THE NAKSHABANDI ORDER ” 170
INTERIOR OF TAMERLANE’S MAUSOLEUM (_photograph_) 172
THE TOMB OF TAMERLANE ” 172
INTERIOR OF A KIRGHIZ TENT (_VERESTCHAGIN_) 183
DECORATIONS IN THE SHĀH ZINDA, SAMARKAND (_photograph_) 192
COURTYARD OF A HOUSE IN SAMARKAND ” 212
ENTRANCE TO THE SHĀH ZINDA, SAMARKAND ” 235
THE SEA OF SAND IN THE KARA-KUM DESERT (1) ” 263
THE SEA OF SAND IN THE KARA-KUM DESERT (2) ” 263
TURKOMAN MUSICIANS ” 283
VIEW FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE FORT OF GEOK TEPPE (_photograph_) 292
DIVANIS, OR DERVISHES (_VERESTCHAGIN_) 307
GENERAL KURAPATKINE (_photograph_) 323
A GROUP OF TURKOMANS AT ASKABAD STATION ” 345
RUINS OF OLD MERV ” 353
HINDUS OF BOKHĀRĀ ” 367
THE MINĀR KALĀN AT BOKHĀRĀ ” 374
PRISONERS OF THE AMĪR OF BOKHĀRĀ ” 376
A BOKHĀRĀ BEAUTY AND HER TWO CHILDREN ” 382
SHĪR DĀR MADRASA, SAMARKAND ” 390
THE BĪBĪ KHĀNŪM ” 392
THE MARKET NEAR BĪBĪ KHĀNŪM, SAMARKAND ” 398
BAZAAR POLITICS (_VERESTCHAGIN_) 414
MAPS
THE ADVANCE OF RUSSIA IN CENTRAL ASIA 257
CENTRAL ASIA 428
INTRODUCTION
A time when Russia’s movements in the East are being watched by all
with such keen interest seems a fitting one for the appearance of a
work dealing with her Central Asian possessions. “That eternal struggle
between East and West,” to quote Sir William Hunter’s apt phrase, has
made Russia supreme in Central Asia, as it has made England mistress of
India: and thus it has come to pass that two of the greatest European
Powers find themselves face to face on the Asiatic Continent. On the
results of that contact depends the future of Asia.
Ten years have elapsed since Lord Curzon of Kedleston published his
work entitled _Russia in Central Asia_, and in the interval no book
on this subject has appeared in English. The intervening period has
been one of change--almost of transformation--in the countries so
brilliantly described by the present Viceroy of India.
The authors of the present work have visited independently the land
of which they write, and each may claim to have had exceptional
facilities for studying those questions in which they were most
interested.
Professor Ross is responsible for the greater part of the research
in the historical chapters. He has laid under contribution many
Persian, Arabic, and Russian authorities hitherto inaccessible to
persons unacquainted with those languages; and has aimed at offering,
for the first time in any language, a consecutive history of Central
Asian events from the earliest days. His task has been lightened by
the generous help of Sir Henry Howorth, M.P.; Mr. Percy Gardner, of
Oxford; M. Drouin, of Paris; and especially of Mr. E. G. Browne, of
Cambridge. The historical portion does not claim to be exhaustive,
but rather introductory, and, such being the case, certain omissions
were perhaps inevitable. Thus, for example, the engrossing subjects of
Mediæval travel and Christianity in Central Asia--which have already
been exhaustively dealt with by Colonel Yule and others--have been but
lightly touched on. If, again, such famous men as Chingiz Khān and
Tamerlane have been somewhat briefly dismissed, less known figures,
such as Kutayba ibn Muslim, have been brought from comparative oblivion
into a prominence more worthy the important parts they played in
Central Asian history.
It has been Mr. Skrine’s province to describe the mechanism of
government, the development of railways and commerce, and the social
life in the great cities. He owes much to the help of Monsieur P.
Lessar, Chancellor of the Russian Embassy; Colonel C. G. Stewart,
C.S.I., our Consul-General of Odessa; Monsieur de Klemm, of the
Turkestān Staff; Colonel Brunelli, Commandant of Transcaspian Railway
Rifles; and Colonel Arandarenko, District Officer of Merv. He is also
indebted to the proprietors of the _Standard_ and _Pioneer_ for the
permission to use literary matter which has already appeared in their
journals. In the important matter of illustrations the authors desire
to acknowledge the generous kindness which prompted M. Verestchagin to
consent to the reproduction of his admirable drawings. They have to
thank, too, Sir Archibald Buchan Hepburn, Bart. of Smeaton Hepburn,
and Mr. A. Adam of Steeton Hall, for lending them a series of most
interesting photographs of Central Asian scenes.
PART I
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE RUSSIAN OCCUPATION
CHAPTER I
EARLIEST TIMES TO THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER
The history of Central Asia is that of the cradle of mankind. He who
seeks to evolve it from the mass of nebulous tradition is brought into
contact with the traces of widely diverse nationalities and religions,
and must consult in turn the annals of the Iranians, Greeks, Scythians,
Chinese, Turks, and Russians. We propose in the following chapters to
review the principal events enacted in that portion of Central Asia
which is vaguely styled Turkestān, and is bounded on the north and east
by the Sir Darya and the Hindu Kush, and on the west by the Caspian Sea.
The earliest references to Turkestān that have reached us are contained
in the Indian and Iranian epics, and give some colour to the theory
that the Pamirs were the birthplace of the Aryan race.[1]
The ancients gave the name of _Bactria_ to the tract lying between the
Oxus and the mountains of the Paropamisus.[2]
The earliest mention of Bactria[3] is preserved in the inscription
of Behistūn, dating back to the sixth century B.C., in which it
is included in the list of the satrapies belonging to the Persian
Empire of Darius II. Cyrus I. subdued this country, and, according to
Ctesias,[4] Bactria was the first of his conquests in Eastern Asia. The
founder of the Persian Empire carried his arms as far as the Jaxartes
(or Sīhūn), on the other side of which roamed the Massagetæ (B.C. 550),
and near it he built a city called Cyropolis.[5] The annexation of
Bactria involved that of Margiana, Khorazmia,[6] and Soghdiana. From
Greek sources we learn that under the rule of Darius Hystaspes (B.C.
521–492) these districts were reckoned among the Persian satrapies;
although the authority of the Achæmenians was probably but slight
there. It is not unlikely that all the eastern countries mentioned
in the oldest Darius inscriptions as “subdued,” or “rebellious,”
had already belonged to Cyrus, and that he ruled over Khorazmia and
Soghdiana.[7]
The Persian monarchy finally fell before the overwhelming might and
genius of Alexander of Macedon. In the space of four years (B.C.
334–331) he carried his victorious arms from the eastern shores of
the Mediterranean to Persepolis, overthrowing Darius II. at Issus in
B.C. 333, and again at Gaugamela[8] in B.C. 331. The latter defeat
was the deathblow of the Persian monarchy. Darius fled in an easterly
direction, accompanied by a still considerable army, determined if
possible to enter Bactria. Alexander took and plundered Persepolis
and Pasargadæ, the cradle of the Persian dynasty, and then set out in
pursuit of Darius, who had reached Ecbatana, the capital of Media. But
at this crisis Bessus, the governor of Bactria and commander of the
contingent of that province, in conjunction with other Persian nobles,
seized on the person of the king and laid him in chains. Their design
was to conciliate Alexander, should he overtake them, by giving up
Darius alive; while in the event of their escaping, they proposed to
murder the prisoner, usurp his crown, and begin a new war.
Bessus won over the whole army by intimidation and promises, placed
the fallen monarch in a covered chariot, and set out again from
Ecbatana, where Alexander arrived five days later. The conqueror
followed them with all possible despatch. On reaching the Caspian
Straits he halted to rest his troops; but when news was brought him of
the treachery of Bessus, he at once continued his march. The latter,
on hearing that Alexander was rapidly overtaking him, was filled with
terror, and entreated Darius to mount his horse and flee with him. The
fallen emperor refused to follow a band of traitors; whereupon the
conspirators, roused to fury, transfixed him with javelins, and left
him weltering in his blood.
Alexander came up only a few moments after he had expired. It is on
record that he lamented the “too severe a fate” of his illustrious foe,
and caused his body to be embalmed and buried with every demonstration
of respect. He then set out on a fresh career of conquest, overrunning
the whole country now occupied by Khorāsān, Sīstān, Belūchistān,
Kandahār, and Kābulistān.
Meanwhile Bessus hastened back to his satrapy of Bactria, and assumed
sovereignty under the name of Artaxerxes IV. That he was able for a
brief period to hold his own was due only to the fact that Alexander
wished to secure possession of other districts in Eastern Persia before
advancing against Bactria and Soghdiana.
In B.C. 329 the conqueror recrossed the Hindu Kush. The first town in
the Bactrian valley which he came upon was Drapsaca (corresponding with
modern Andarab), where he made a halt of a few days. Thence with an
army of 25,000 men he took Aornos (Gori or Khulum) and Bactria (Balkh).
Bessus, at the head of a small body of men who remained faithful,--for
on hearing of the approach of Alexander many thousands of his Bactrians
abandoned him,--crossed the Oxus, burning all the boats which he had
made use of, and withdrew to Nautaca.[9]
Alexander did not wait to replace the boats, but crossed the river with
his whole army on skins and sacks stuffed with straw.
The timidity of Bessus had probably disgusted his few remaining
followers, who now turned against him. His chief confidant Spitamenes
seized and led him bound before Alexander, who sent him to Ecbatana to
be judged and executed as a traitor by the Persians.
Alexander next turned towards Marcanda (Samarkand), the capital of
Soghdiana, which he took. Placing therein a considerable garrison, he
laid waste the surrounding country. Thence he advanced to the banks
of the river Jaxartes or Sīhūn, the Sir Darya of our days, which he
believed to be the Tanaïs, or Don.
The point at which he reached the Jaxartes is probably the site of the
modern Khojend: there he determined to build a town, but the execution
of his design was retarded by a rebellion of the Soghdians and the
Bactrians. The natives also overpowered the garrisons which he had
established in seven different towns on the banks of the Jaxartes, the
most important of which was Cyropolis. Alexander crushed the rebels and
re-established his authority on the Jaxartes in the course of a few
days.
At this juncture he received news of two serious events. The Sacæ, or
Scythians, had collected an army on the opposite bank of the river;
while Spitamenes, in whom, owing to his past conduct, he had placed
reliance, was besieging the Macedonian garrison left at Marcanda.
Alexander despatched a considerable force against Spitamenes, while
he himself turned towards the Jaxartes, on the left bank of which he
built a city in the space of seventeen days, calling it Alexandria
according to his custom. It was surrounded by a wall 60 stadia[10]
in circumference. Hemmed in as he now was by enemies on all sides,
and weakened by sickness, he stood in great need of that magnificent
self-confidence which is the birthright of conquerors. Moreover, his
army was becoming disheartened, and was disinclined to attempt the
passage of the river in the teeth of an enemy drawn up in battle array
on the opposite bank. But he was daunted by no difficulty or danger.
After completing his new capital he ordered the construction of a
multitude of rafts, on which he carried his whole army in safety,
fell on the Scythians, and put them to utter rout. They recognised the
uselessness of further resistance, and sent envoys to announce their
submission.
Meanwhile the division which had been sent to relieve the garrison
of Marcanda had been annihilated by Spitamenes in the valley of the
Polytimetus, or Zarafshan. On hearing of this disaster Alexander set
out in haste for Marcanda, which he reached in four days. Spitamenes on
the first news of his approach fled into Bactria. Alexander started in
pursuit, but, despairing of overtaking him, turned back and laid waste
the whole valley.
He took up his winter quarters in Zariaspa.[11] During this winter
(B.C. 329–328) he received reinforcements from Greece of 19,000 men,
which enabled him to overrun Margiana in the following spring. There
remained now but one stronghold unsubdued, namely, Petra Oxiana,[12]
which was provisioned for two years, and defended by a Soghdian named
Arimazes.[13] It finally capitulated, and its brave defender, together
with his relatives and the principal nobility, were crucified by the
exasperated conqueror.
[Illustration: SO-CALLED SARCOPHAGUS OF ALEXANDER
PRESERVED IN CONSTANTINOPLE]
Alexander established two fortresses south of the town of Margiana
or Merv, corresponding with the modern Sarakhs and Meruchak. He next
turned eastwards into Bactria, and on his way established four more
strongholds, on the sites of the modern Meimena, Andakūy, Shaburgān,
and Saripul. From Bactria he returned to Marcanda, whence he
probably made several expeditions into the surrounding country.[14]
His old enemy Spitamenes, after repeatedly attacking the Macedonian
garrisons in Soghdia and Bactria, was at length killed by a band of
nomads, and his head was sent to Alexander. Having now entirely subdued
Soghdiana, Alexander retired for the winter to Nautaca. It was at this
time that the tragic death of Cleitus occurred at the hands of the
master whom he had loved and served so well.
In B.C. 327 Alexander set out on the conquest of India, leaving
in Bactria a contingent of 10,000 foot and 3000 cavalry for the
maintenance of order.
His career has left an indelible impression on the Oriental mind,
which is slow to grasp new ideas, but extremely tenacious of them
when formed. He is associated throughout Islam with the “Two Horned”
(Zulkarnayn) of the Koran, and his exploits are the daily theme of
professional story-tellers in the market-places of Central Asia.
CHAPTER II
BACTRIANS AND PARTHIANS
At the epoch of Alexander’s death the satrapy of Bactria and Soghdiana
was held by his general, Amyntas. The death of the young conqueror was
the signal for a mutiny among the Macedonian soldiers who had remained
in that country, which was, however, immediately put down. Amyntas was
removed from his satrapy and superseded by Philippus of Elymeus, who,
within the space of a year, was appointed to Parthia and succeeded by
Stasanor.[15]
The latter held his post until B.C. 301, when these provinces passed
into the hands of another of Alexander’s generals, Seleucus I.
(Nicator), who since B.C. 312 had been in virtual possession of the
greater part of his late master’s conquered possessions.[16] Hitherto
the allegiance of Bactria had been of a doubtful character--but it was
now finally established.
In 305 he entered on a campaign against Chandra Gupta, a powerful
Indian king who was endeavouring to regain the realms conquered by
Alexander.
At his hands Seleucus suffered a crushing defeat, in consequence of
which he was obliged to abandon all the territory between the Indus
and the Paropamisus except Alexandria of the Caucasus.[17] This was
the first dismemberment of the gigantic empire. The terrible civil war
which began immediately after the death of Alexander lasted, almost
without interruption, for forty-two years, when the Macedonians were at
last compelled to renounce all hopes of ruling the world.
In B.C. 280 Seleucus was assassinated by one of his officers, and was
succeeded by Antiochus I. In B.C. 256, under the rule of Antiochus
II., Diodotus, known as “Governor of the thousand cities of Bactria,”
threw off his allegiance and assumed sovereignty, thus founding the
Græco-Bactrian kingdom.[18] Polybius[19] tells us that Diodotus was
superseded by Euthydemus, who was in the enjoyment of power at the time
of Antiochus the Great’s expedition to the East--about B.C. 208.
Euthydemus was defeated by Antiochus, but appealed to his victor’s
generosity, and pointed out the grave danger that would arise if he
were obliged to call in the aid of the Scythians, who were already
hovering on the Chinese frontier of his dominions.[20] Antiochus
finally agreed to acknowledge his independence.
In B.C. 250 a certain Arsaces, who seems by his coins to have been the
chief of a band of Dahæ Scythians dwelling near the Oxus, overthrew
Andragoras, nominally satrap of Parthia, and set himself up as king of
Parthia.[21] He was the founder of the famous dynasty of the Arsacidæ.
As Mr. Gardner[22] observes, the “so-called history of Parthia is
really the history of Central Asia under the Arsacidæ.”
After a reign of two years he was killed in battle, leaving his kingdom
to his brother Tiridates, who was the real founder of the Parthian
power. The fifth king of this dynasty was Mithridates (B.C. 190), who
extended his conquests to such a degree that, according to Justin, his
sway included the Himalayas and the Euphrates.[23] He also compelled
Eucratides, the powerful king of Bactria, who had come to the throne
about B.C. 170, to cede certain districts of his kingdom.
After a glorious reign he died about B.C. 140, and was succeeded by
his brother Phraates.[24] The Syrian Empire of the Seleucidæ was fast
falling to pieces, and Parthia was never again invaded by the Greeks.
But a more terrible foe was approaching from the East,[25] for it
now came into collision with a Scythian band, called “Su” or “Se” in
the Chinese annals, which in the second century B.C. had overrun the
provinces bordering the Jaxartes. They are identical with the Sacæ of
classical writers, and were afterwards known in Upper India as the
Sakas. Phraates[26] summoned a band of these savages to aid him against
the Syrian Antiochus. Arriving at the scene of action too late to be of
service in the campaign, they turned against him, defeated his army and
slew him.
He was succeeded by his nephew Artabanus II., who after a brief reign
fell in battle against the Thogari,[27] mentioned by Strabo as one
of the four great Saka tribes.[28] His son Mithridates II., justly
distinguished by the appellation “Great,” revived the fading glories of
the Parthian Empire. He commenced his reign by administering several
crushing defeats to the Sakas, from whom he wrested the greater portion
of Bactria. But he was destined to meet a foe more worthy of his steel,
and finally to submit after a lifelong struggle. The Romans had entered
on the career of foreign conquest which seems inevitable in the case
of a powerful republic. Greece was theirs, and they had planted their
eagles in Asia Minor.
Between B.C. 88 and 63 Mithridates waged three wars of extreme ferocity
against the future conquerors of the world, and inspired them with a
dread which they had not felt since the invasion of Hannibal.[29] Not
till the latter year did this great monarch acknowledge the supreme
might of Rome, and then his indomitable spirit forbade him to sink to
the condition of tributary. Defeated by Pompey on the Euphrates, he
fled to the Caucasian Bosphorus,[30] and was planning fuller resistance
when the rebellion of his son rendered his schemes nugatory. He slew
himself in despair, leaving a reputation which still echoes in the
Crimea and Northern Caucasus.
From the period down to A.D. 226 the history of Parthia is one of
continual struggle and crime, which finally exhausted the emperor’s
strength and rendered it an easy prey to a Roman invader.
CHAPTER III
THE HUNS AND THE YUÉ-CHI
It is to Chinese sources that we must turn for an account of the tribes
which overthrew Græco-Bactrian rule, and were a constant thorn in the
side of the Parthian Empire. These sources, with faint sidelights
thrown on an obscure period by allusions to be found in classic
authors, enable us to bridge a gap of several centuries replete with
events which exercised a lasting influence on the history of Central
Asia.
The Chow dynasty ruled from B.C. 1122 to B.C. 250.[31] After its fall
China split up into a vast number of nearly independent principalities,
and the reigning sovereign enjoyed but little power. The Tsin succeeded
in gaining the foremost rank as feudatories, and finally restored the
authority of the central power. Their aim was not achieved without a
desperate struggle with their rivals. In the course of the resulting
civil war Tsin Chi Hwang-ti began his reign. He was the Louis XI. of
the Chinese monarchy, and brought force and stratagem by turns to bear
on the task of restoring the imperial prestige.[32]
When he found himself master at home, he turned his attention to
the task of protecting his frontier from aggressors. Of these, the
Hiung-nu, a Tartar tribe whose habitat was Eastern Mongolia, were
the most troublesome. He carried the war into the enemy’s camp by
despatching an army across the great Gobi Desert, with orders to
establish a strong place at Hami.[33] In B.C. 250 he commenced a work
which had a more lasting effect in repressing their invasion. This
was the Great Wall of China, which starts from the Shan-hi Pass and
ends at the Chin-Yü barriers, a distance of not less than 1500 miles.
The Hiung-nu, like their kinsmen the Mongols of Chingiz and of Tīmūr,
fought on horseback, and their plan of campaign was simply a succession
of raids followed by speedy retreats. This stupendous barrier
intimidated them, and turned westwards the tide of their migration.
Thus the Great Wall, which it is the fashion to decry as a monument of
misplaced labour, was a most important factor in the history of Central
Asia. At this epoch the Sakas were settled in Hexapolis, to the east
of the Pamirs; while the Usuns dwelt on the southern side of Lake Lob,
separated from the Sakas by the Uīghūrs. About B.C. 300 the empire
of the _Yué-Chi_,[34] who were a branch of the Tung-nu, or Eastern
Tartars, extended most probably from the Muztagh Mountains on the north
to the Kuen-lun Mountains on the south, and from the Upper Hoang-ho in
Shan-si on the east to Koché and Khotan on the west.[35]
About B.C. 200 a war broke out between the Tung-nu and the Hiung-nu
(the Western Tartars or Huns), their neighbours. Mothé, the chief
of these latter, falling on the Eastern Tartars unawares, utterly
defeated them and drove the Yué-Chi from their kingdom. The latter fled
to the banks of the Ili River, while Mothé pushed his conquests as far
as the Volga on the west and the border provinces of China eastwards.
The Emperor Kao-tsu (B.C. 202–194), founder of the famous Han dynasty,
who had achieved the subjugation of the whole of China, was alarmed
at the progress of Mothé, and marched against him. His troops were,
however, surrounded by Mothé’s colossal hordes in the north of the
province of Shan-si, and only escaped destruction by the employment
of a ruse.[36] On the departure of the Chinese army Mothé set out for
Tartary. For upwards of fifty years the power of Hiung-nu sustained
no check. They continued to press down on the Yué-Chi, who, after
suffering a further crushing defeat, broke into separate hordes. The
lesser division, or “Little Yué-Chi,” passed into Tibet. The “Great
Yué-Chi’s” first movement was westwards to the banks of the Ili, but
finding the Usun too strong for them, they wandered in a southerly
direction, and finally descended upon Kāshghar, Yarkand, and Khotan,
whence they displaced the Sakas (B.C. 163). The latter, on their
expulsion from Soghdiana, invaded Bactria, and from this period until
the fall of the Græco-Bactrian kingdom the Greeks had to deal with both
Sakas and Parthians. It would seem that the latter were alternately
friends and foes. This intercourse possibly accounts for the Parthian
characteristics found on the early Saka coins of India.[37]
The Sakas were driven towards the Pamirs and the Tien-shan. One branch
of them fled to Zungaria, while the majority remained in Hexapolis and
intermixed with the Uīghūrs, who had been for a long period masters
of that country. A third branch turned their steps towards the upper
valleys of the Yarkand Darya. Some of these fugitives established
themselves in the little Iranian States of Serikūl and Shugnān, where
appreciable traces of their language still survive.[38] Others crossed
the Karakorum, and invaded the north-east of India.
At this epoch the Chinese obtained a glimpse of the position of Western
Asia through the medium of prisoners taken from the Hiung-nu. From them
they learned that the Yué-Chi had suffered defeat at the hands of the
Huns, and been compelled to migrate far from their ancient abode. They
had, however, become very powerful in Bactria and Transoxiana, and had
conquered Ta-hia (Khorāsān), establishing themselves finally there in
spite of the Parthian resistance. The Emperor Wu-ti eagerly desired an
alliance with the Yué-Chi against their common enemy the Hiung-nu. With
this view he sent his general Chang-Kien on an embassy to the prince,
accompanied by a suite of a hundred attendants. The envoy, however,
had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Huns while traversing
their territory, and escaped only after a ten years’ imprisonment.
On joining the Yué-Chi, he found them employed in driving the Sakas
out of Soghdiana. He accompanied them on a victorious expedition, and
then returned to China, with two followers, sole survivors of his
cortege. The emperor expressed his appreciation of the intelligence
brought by Chang-Kien regarding Central Asian events, by elevating him
to an important post. These events led to the establishment of direct
commercial intercourse between China and the West, which, however, the
Huns did their utmost to interrupt.
A collation of the Chinese annals, the classic authors, and the coins
which have come down to us, would render it tolerably certain that
the Greeks lost their hold on Soghdiana in B.C. 163; that a little
later they were deprived of Bactria by the Sakas, and of Margiana by
the Parthians. From this period their dominion was limited to the
southern slopes of the Indian Caucasus. That the Græco-Bactrian Empire
had attained a high degree of natural civilisation, and, indeed,
of artistic culture, is evidenced by the purity of design and the
excellence of workmanship displayed by the later coins.
The Bactrians displaced by the Sakas fled eastward, and settled in
the confines of Bokhārā, and the surrounding countries.[39] But the
dominion of their opponents in Bactria was not destined to be of long
duration, for in B.C. 120 the Yué-Chi, who had already overrun the
ancient territory of the Sakas, began to pour into Bactria.
After expelling the Sakas, and the remnant of the Græco-Bactrians,[40]
the Yué-Chi settled in that part of Central Asia which is named
Tokhāristān, after their tribal appellation, and which included Balkh,
Kunduz, Hisār, Bolor, Wakhān, and Badakhshān. Meanwhile the Sakas
retreated southwards, and occupied in turn Kiphin, Soghdiana, Arachosia
(Kandahār), and Drangiana (Sīstān).[41]
Their invasion of India was directly due to the usurpation of their
country by the Yué-Chi. The latter parcelled Bactria out among
their five clans.[42] Each had its own capital, but the only Yué-Chi
headquarters which has been identified is Bamian, at the foot of the
northern slope of the Hindu Kush.
The partition continued in force for nearly a century, during which
repeated collisions occurred between the Yué-Chi and the Parthians.
In B.C. 30 the chief of one of the clans, the Kwei-shuang, subdued
the rest, and assumed sovereignty over the whole race. They became
thenceforward known by the name of the conquering clan, which in
course of time was modified to Kushan, and appears so inscribed on
their coins. The recent overthrow of their most persistent enemies the
Hiung-nu rendered the more easy the task of consolidating their power,
for in the year B.C. 71 the reigning Chinese emperor had administered a
crushing defeat on the Huns, who were in B.C. 60 finally enrolled into
the Chinese Empire. They thus became masters of all those countries
which go to form Turkestan, Eastern Iran, and Afghanistan. The Yué-Chi,
or Kushans, relieved of this incubus, turned their arms towards the
south, crossed the Paropanisus, and overran Kabul, which belonged in
part to the Arsacidæ, and in part to the Sakas, driving the latter out
of their kingdom of Kiphin.[43]
At the dawn of the Christian era the Kushans were a foremost power in
Central Asia. The Romans deigned to treat with them as an established
empire. Mark Antony, for example, sent ambassadors to Bactria, whose
chiefs (all Kushans) were represented at Rome by an envoy under
Augustus; while later, in the reign of Trojan and Adrian, they sent
ambassadors to solicit an alliance against the Parthians.[44]
From Chinese sources we learn that in the year A.D. 98 their general
Panchao[45] was received during an expedition to the Caspian by the
Yué-Chi, and that they recognised the imperial sovereignty by annual
presents.
Their power was not destined to endure for long. By the end of the
third century A.D. they had lost most of their conquests in the south
of Paropamisus, including Kashmir. They were finally expelled from
Bactria itself by the Ephthalites, or White Huns, about the year A.D.
430.
The last Kushan king of whom we find a trace in history was named
Kitolo. He conquered Gāndhāra, or Kandahār; but was forced to return to
his own dominion by an irruption of White Huns. The son whom he left
in charge of the new province established his capital at Peshāwar.[46]
The name of the founder of the Little Yué-Chi, as they were afterwards
called, survives in the title of Shah Kator, chief of Chitral.
The Ephthalites, or White Huns, who, as we have seen, in the year A.D.
430 became possessed of Bactria, were in all probability of the same
stock as the Yué-Chi. They are known to history under a great variety
of names, such as Naphthalites, Hayāthila, and Yetha. This last is the
name by which they are known to the Chinese, who always most carefully
distinguish between the Yetha and the Yué-Chi.[47] The Yetha were of
Tartaric origin, and are described as having anciently lived to the
north of the Great Wall, and to have advanced southwards about the
first century of our era. They then came under the domination of the
Juen-Juen,[48] but emerging from this, they ultimately became masters
of an empire which extended to the borders of Persia, and comprised
Kiphin, Kharashar, Kāshghar, and Khotan. The arrival of the Yetha in
Transoxiana about the year 425 of our era was the result of those
migrations of Tartar peoples which took place in Central Asia at the
beginning of the fifth century. About 360 the Juen-Juen advancing
westwards became masters of all Tartary.[49] One of their kings, Tulun
by name, who reigned at the beginning of the fifth century, carried
his conquest from Corea to the confines of Europe. It was owing to
these conquests that the various Hunnish tribes, driven from their
ancient habitats by these new invaders, swept into Transoxiana in 425
(_i.e._ the Ephthalites), and into Europe, under Attila, in 430. On the
appearance of the White Huns in the Oxus districts that country had
been for five centuries in the possession of the Yué-Chi, or Kushans,
as we have seen above, and they occupied the land for upwards of 130
years (425 to 557), during which period they were in close contact with
the Sāsānides of Persia. The Kushans did not, however, immediately
disappear from Central Asia, for we find references after this date in
Chinese authors to small Kushan principalities in the Upper Oxus and
Farghāna.
CHAPTER IV
THE SĀSĀNIDES, THE EPHTHALITES, AND THE TURKS
The history of Central Asia during the earlier centuries of our era is
bound up in that of Persia, and its course was moulded by the fortunes
of the great dynasty called after the grandfather of its founder,
the Sāsānide, which governed the empire from A.D. 219 until the Arab
invasion more than four centuries later. In the third century (A.D.
200) of our era the condition of Persia resembled that of France before
the power of feudalism was broken by the crafts and iron will of
Louis XI. The authority of the reigning dynasty was little more than
nominal, and the land was parcelled out among a host of petty tribes
whose mountain fastnesses enabled them to bid defiance to the Parthian
dynasty. Among the followers of one of their rabble chieftains was a
certain Pāpak, a native of a village lying to the east of Shīrāz. With
the aid of a son named Ardashīr, he overthrew his master, and usurped
authority over the province of Fars. Ardashīr’s bold and restless
character appears to have inspired his father with some distrust,
for on his death he left his dominions to another son, named Shāpūr.
The succession was contested by Ardashīr, but when he was about to
enforce his claim with the sword, Shāpūr died, in all probability by
poison.[50] Ardashīr’s thirst for empire now led him to attack his
neighbouring potentates. One after another succumbed to his genius;
and he became master, in turn, of Kirmān, Susiana, and other eastern
States. Then finding himself in a position to strike a blow for the
sovereignty of Persia, he bade defiance to Ardavān,[51] the last of the
Parthian line. A decisive battle was fought between them, probably in
Babylonia, in the year 218. Ardavān was slain, and Ardashīr was crowned
“king of kings” on the field. His capital was Istakhr, but he chose
Ctesiphon (or Madā´in) as a residence. How far Ardashīr’s personal
conquests actually extended, it is hard to define. Oriental historians
have greatly exaggerated the extent of his empire, which they allege
to have stretched from the Euphrates on one side, to Khwārazm on the
other. Ardashīr was a wise and just ruler, and his career can be
compared only with Napoleon’s. Without the prestige of birth or fortune
he won an empire, and was able to maintain order in extended realms
which had for centuries been a prey to anarchy. He died in 241, and was
succeeded by his son Shāpūr I. For the first ten years of his reign he
was, like his father, engaged in chronic warfare with Rome, which did
not terminate till 260, when the Emperor Valerian fell into his hands,
dying afterwards in captivity. According to extant coins, Shāpūr I.
made himself master of the non-Iranian lands to the east of Khorāsān,
and to him is ascribed the conquest of Nīshāpūr,[52] and Shāpūr in
Northern Persia. In 272 he was succeeded by his son Hormuz, who
continued the struggle with the Romans, in which Syria, Asia Minor,
and Armenia were alternatively subjects of contention.
The succeeding reigns have little bearing on history until we come to
that of Bahrām Gūr,[53] which was signalised by a persecution of the
Christians,[54] and a recommencement of warfare with Rome. Bahrām Gūr
was worsted in the latter, and entered into a treaty with the Western
Empire, which bound the contracting parties to tolerate the Christian
and Zoroastrian cults respectively. The Romans further undertook to pay
an annual subsidy towards the maintenance of the fortifications on the
Dariel Pass[55] in the Caucasus, by which both kingdoms were protected
from the inroads of the wild hordes of the North. Bahrām took advantage
of his truce with the Romans to make an expedition into Bactria,[56]
where he encountered the Ephthalites, or White Huns, whom, according
to Persian accounts, he utterly defeated. We are told that the
Khākān[57] of the “tribes of Transoxiana,” being informed that Bahrām
and his court were immersed in luxury and had entirely lost their
martial spirit, ventured to cross the Oxus and laid waste the whole
of Khorāsān.[58] He was soon undeceived, for Bahrām, at the head of
seven thousand men, fell upon the Turks by night, and put them utterly
to rout, the Khākān perishing by the king’s own hand. Bahrām then
crossed the Oxus and concluded a peace with his eastern neighbours.[59]
Bahrām died in 438, and was succeeded by his son Yezdijerd II. During
his reign of nineteen years his attention was engrossed by Armenia
and by Khorāsān, where he suffered many reverses at the hands of
the Ephthalites. On his death in A.D. 457 his two sons, Hormuz III.
and Pīrūz, became rival claimants to the throne. Their father, who
preferred the former, but feared a quarrel between the brothers, had
given Pīrūz the governorship of a distant province, Sīstān. Pīrūz, on
learning that his brother had seized the throne and won the support of
the nobility, fled across the Oxus, and implored the chief Khākān[60]
of the Ephthalites to espouse his cause. The Huns consented, and sent
an army thirty thousand strong to his aid.[61] With this accession of
strength, Pīrūz invaded Persia, and defeated his brother in a pitched
battle. Hormuz III. thus lost his crown, and was put to death together
with three of his nearest relatives. The reign of his successful rival
was fraught with useful domestic measures. He had to contend against
a famine which lasted for seven years; but, so prompt and effectual
were the means adopted to combat it, that, if Tabari is to be believed,
there was not a single death from starvation.[62] Pīrūz’s foreign
policy was by no means so praiseworthy: though he owed his crown to
the ready help of the Khākān of the Ephthalites, we find him in 480
freely attacking his benefactor’s son and successor. This apparent
ingratitude is ascribed by Joseph Stylites to the intrigue of the
Romans, whose jealousy of the power of Persia induced them to incite
the Huns to attack her eastern frontier. Nöldeke suggests as the cause
of this rupture the exorbitant nature of the demands made by the Huns
as the price of their assistance in placing Pīrūz on the throne. Be
this as it may, the struggle was disastrous to the Persian army. After
obtaining some trivial successes, Pīrūz was obliged to conclude more
than one humiliating treaty with the Huns, the terms of which he did
not loyally fulfil. On one occasion his son Kobād was left for two
years in their hands as a hostage for the payment of a large indemnity.
A little later we find Pīrūz himself a prisoner.
A crisis in his affairs came in 484, when he led an immense force
against his inveterate foes, only to suffer a crushing defeat at their
hands, and to lose his life; while his daughter was taken prisoner and
forced to enter the Khākān’s harem. Persia now lay at the mercy of the
barbarians whose hordes overran the country, drowning its civilisation
in blood. From this anarchy the land was saved by the efforts of a
great noble named Sukhrā, or Zermihr. At the time of the Huns’ invasion
he was essaying to quell one of the periodical revolts in Armenia.
Hurrying back to the Persian capital with a considerable force, he
established a semblance of order, and placed Balāsh, a brother of
Pīrūz, on the throne. The new king bought off the White Huns, probably
by undertaking to pay a yearly tribute. But his treasury was empty.
He was able to attach no party in the State to his banner, and in 488
he incurred the resentment of the all-powerful priesthood. Falling
into their hands, he was deprived of his eyesight, a loss which under
the Persian law incapacitated him from ruling. Balāsh was succeeded by
his nephew, Kobād,[63] son of Pīrūz. Tabari tells us that before he
came to power, even probably on the accession of his brother, he had
fled to the Khākān for help to meet his claim. On his way he halted
at Nīshāpūr, and took to wife the daughter of a nobleman, who bore
him a son, the famous Anūshirawān. He was kept waiting four years for
the promised help, but finally, after much entreaty, the Khākān gave
him the control of an army, with which he set out for Madā´in.[64]
On reaching Nīshāpūr he learnt the news of his brother’s death.[65]
The first act of his reign was to resign the entire administration
to Sukhrā, on the score of his own youth and inexperience. Finding,
when he came to man’s estate, that the people regarded Sukhrā as their
sovereign and ignored his own ancestral claims, he determined to rid
himself of a too powerful minister, and had him put to death.
When Kobād had been for ten years on the throne a false prophet arose
in the person of a certain Mazdak, who taught that all men were equal,
and that it was unjust that one should have more possessions or
wives than another. The inference was that there should be an equal
division of all property. These tenets appear at first identical with
the latest plans of social ethics. But Mazdakism had a side which is
not shared by the Socialistic creed. Its founder preached a life of
piety and abstinence, and himself practised an extreme asceticism,
refraining from the use of animal food. Kobād saw in the new cult an
opportunity of eluding the grip of the nobles and clergy, who stifled
his aspirations to govern as well as reign. He espoused the reformer’s
side with ardour,[66] and thereby hastened the anarchy which such
doctrines were certain to promote. The followers of Mazdak adopted such
of his principles as appealed to their unbridled lust, and ignored
the religious teaching with which he sought to hold it in check. The
disorders were stemmed by a combination between the nobles and the
clergy, who seized and imprisoned Kobād, setting up his brother Jāmāsp
in his stead. But Kobād contrived to escape from confinement, and
sought shelter with old allies, the Ephthalites. With them he sojourned
until 502, when he returned to Persia at the head of a large force, and
overthrew his brother, thus regaining sovereignty. The remainder of
Kobād’s career was as stirring as the commencement had been. Hardly was
he reinstated on the throne ere hostilities broke out with Rome, and
then began a series of terrible conflicts which reduced the strength of
both parties to the lowest ebb, and rendered them a prey to barbaric
invasion.
Not until 506 was a truce concluded between the two powers; but it did
not bring rest to Kobād’s distracted empire. He was soon plunged into
hostilities with the Huns,--whether the Ephthalites, or another branch
of the race, is uncertain. The result is not recorded, but it must be
assumed to have been favourable to his army. In 528 he was confronted
with a more pressing danger than had attended his struggles with Roman
legions over barbaric hordes. Mazdak’s now rampant army held the land,
and a reign of terror set in which threatened the existence of its
institutions. Kobād at length became alive to the potency of the force
for evil which he had encouraged, and the measures which he adopted for
the suppression were drastic and effectual. The effort, however, proved
too severe for his declining strength, and three years later he closed
a chequered but not unsuccessful career.
His successor, Chosrau I., surnamed Anūshirawān “the Just,” stands
forth as the most illustrious figure in the annals of ancient Persia.
Chroniclers agree in depicting him as a wise and benevolent ruler, and
one who made his prowess reflected in distant regions. His first care
was to restore order in a realm which still groaned under the curse of
Mazdakism; his next to crush the Ephthalites, whose incursions into his
eastern provinces had been as disastrous as those of the Roman legions
into Armenia. In the meanwhile the Ephthalites were being threatened
from another quarter by the Turks.
The Turks proper, that is the Tu-kiué of the Chinese, first appear in
the history of the Sāsānides about A.D. 550. At that period the Turks
were divided into two distinct khanates--(1) the Eastern Turks,[67] who
possessed the vast territory between the Ural and Mongolia; and (2) the
Western Turks, or Tu-kiué, who ruled in Central Asia from the Altai to
the Jaxartes. About 550 the Khākān of the Turks, whose name was Tumen,
being elated with successes he had gained over the Tartars,[68] made
so bold as to demand in marriage the daughter of the Khākān of the
Juen-Juen, Tiu-ping. On receiving an insulting refusal, Tumen at once
declared war against the Juen-Juen; at the same time he married the
daughter of the Chinese emperor, with whose aid he defeated Tiu-ping.
Tumen then took the title of Il-khān (or khān of the people), and
established his court in the mountain of Tu-kin, near the sources of
the Irtish. He only enjoyed his newly acquired empire for a short time,
for in the following year (A.D. 553) he died. His son Ko-lo mounted
the throne, but died very shortly afterwards, and was succeeded by
his illustrious brother Mokan-khān, whom we find in 554 entering into
relations with Anūshirawān the Just. Though he had finally crushed the
Juen-Juen, and became master of their vast country, he was fearful
of the superiority of the Chinese, and therefore turned his arms in
a westerly direction.[69] The Turks now crossed the Jaxartes and
entered Badakhshān, where they encountered the Ephthalites, with whom,
according to Tabari, they at first dwelt in peace.
Great uncertainty prevails as to the dates and details of the campaigns
undertaken by the Anūshirawān in association with the Turks against
their inveterate foes. But their result is not open to question; for
about the year 560 we find the territories of the White Huns divided
between the allies. The Turks then became masters of Transoxiana, while
the Persians took possession of Balkh and Tokhāristān. The Oxus served
as the boundary between their respective spheres of influence.[70] Then
Bactria, which had been a perpetual thorn in Persia’s side, became one
of its provinces, and the fate of Pīrūz was fully avenged. Anūshirawān
set a seal to his friendship with the Turks by espousing their chief’s
daughter; but the alliance did not produce lasting results. The Romans
regarded with unconcealed apprehension the alliance between foes
which threatened the existence of their Western Empire, and they sent
frequent embassies to the Turkish Khākān with a view to detaching
him from Anūshirawān. The reconciliation was partially successful,
but the recurrence of disorders on his frontier led the Persian king
to build the great city of Darband, to serve as a rallying point in
repulsing Turkish attacks. After its completion we hear little of their
troublesome neighbours, and Anūshirawān’s concluding years were exempt
from the troubles which had overwhelmed so many of his predecessors.
On the death of Chosrau Anūshirawān in A.D. 579, Hormuz IV., his son
by the daughter of the Turkish Khākān, ascended the throne. The new
reign was soon clouded by war with Rome, and his own kinsmen on the
maternal side. At one period Hormuz endured simultaneous attacks from
four different quarters. A Turkish prince, called by Tabari, Shāba,
at the head of 300,000 warriors advanced as far as Bādghīs and Herāt.
The Roman emperor, with an army of 80,000 strong, attacked Hormuz in
the Syrian desert. The king of the Khazars led a large force against
Darband, and finally two Arab chieftains raided the Euphrates Valley.
Shāba sent Hormuz a haughty message “to see that his bridges and roads
were in good order, for that he intended to cross Persia on his way to
the Romans.” The Persian monarch’s reply was the despatch of a nobleman
of Ray, named Bahrām Chūbīn, in command of twelve thousand picked
veterans, to hinder the progress of the Turks. Bahrām advanced against
them by forced marches, and surprised Shāba in his camp. The Turks were
routed, and Shāba perished by an arrow from Bahrām’s bow. The dead
chieftain’s son was taken prisoner, and sent together with 250,000
camel-loads of booty to Hormuz. The victorious general was straightway
despatched to Transcaucasia to oppose the Romans; but there he met with
a crushing defeat. It is not within the scope of the present work to
record all the details of the extraordinary career of Bahrām Chūbīn,
who is one of the favourite heroes of Persian poetry.[71] Suffice it
to state that Hormuz, in an evil hour for himself, deprived the great
general of his command as a punishment for his failure in the campaign
against the Romans, and then drove him into a revolt which led to his
own dethronement (590). His successor, Chosrau II., surnamed Parvīz
“the Victorious,” proved a despot of the true Oriental type. He began
his reign by slaughtering an uncle Bendoe, to whose efforts he owed
the throne of Persia. Another uncle called Bistām, who had stood by
him at the crisis of his fate, escaped his clutches, and held out
against him for six years with the aid of the Turks and people of
Daylam, succumbing at length to treachery. But Parvīz was a brave and
capable soldier; and at one period of his career it seemed as though
Persia were destined to build up an eastern empire on the ruins of the
Roman sway. In 613 he conquered Damascus, and in the following year
Jerusalem bowed its stubborn neck to the Persian yoke.[72] But a new
movement was gathering force which was destined to sweep before it the
effete civilisation of Persia and Byzantium.
CHAPTER V
THE RISE OF ISLĀM AND INVASIONS OF THE ARABS
At the end of the sixth century the western shore of Arabia was
inhabited by tribes of Semitic descent, who possessed a complex
religion and some literary culture. The capital was Mekka, to the north
of Arabia Felix,[73] an ancient city which nestled round a temple
called the Ka`ba, or Cube. In this holy of holies was a black stone,
probably a meteorite, which served as a tribal fetish, and attracted
hosts of pilgrims from the southern provinces of the peninsula. The
family who had charge of the temple belonged to the priestly tribe of
Koraysh, and one of its members was the future prophet Mohammed. While
a youth he gained an insight into the habits of men of various creeds,
not only as an inhabitant of Mekka, whither merchants and pilgrims of
widely different creeds and nationalities flocked, but as a frequent
attendant on caravans during distant journeys to the north. The
impression left on his mind was that the religions of the Christian and
the Jew had far greater vitality than the lukewarm idolatry of his own
people.[74]
At the age of twenty-four he entered the service of a middle-aged
widow named Khadīja, who carried on a large caravan trade, and he
found such favour in her eyes that she offered to become his wife.
Mohammed, being by this marriage assured of a competence for life,
withdrew from the world and began to cast about him for the means of
raising the debased moral standard of his countrymen. The conception of
a Messiah, which enabled the Hebrews to bear their many afflictions,
and of the Comforter promised by Jesus, worked so strongly upon
his powerful imagination that he was at length convinced that he
himself was the chosen one for whom the world was waiting. Catalepsy,
which frequently threw him into long trances, led his superstitious
neighbours to believe that he held commune with higher powers. At
the age of forty[75] Mohammed came before the Eastern world with his
simple gospel: “There is but _one_ God, Allah, and Mohammed is his
Prophet.” At first none but a few of his closest associates believed
in his mission, and so much opposition did he encounter that he was
obliged to flee from Mekka to the town of Medīna, 270 miles northwards.
This was on the 6th of July A.D. 622, which has been taken as the
starting-point of the Mohammedan era.[76] And fitly so, for it was the
turning-point of Mohammed’s great career. The once flouted visionary
gained hosts of adherents in Medīna and the surrounding country, and
spared no effort to consolidate his influence by appeals to the latent
fanaticism of the Arab character. He continued to utter rhapsodies
which, two years after his death, were collected and divided into
chapters and verses under the name of the Koran, and became the
foundation of the religious and civil codes of his followers.
Mekka soon recognised his mission, and after a fierce struggle with
many vicissitudes the whole of Arabia accepted Islām.[77]
At the time of Mohammed’s death, which took place in the 16th year of
his Hijra, or A.D. 632, the creed which he had formulated was still a
religious rather than a worldly power. But it had profoundly stirred
the impetuous, highly strung Arab temperament, which was vaguely
conscious of possessing immense hidden force, and of a boundless sphere
for its exercise in the worn-out empires which bounded their peninsula.
A leader alone was wanted to focus and direct the aspirations
engendered by the dead Prophet’s teachings, and one was found in the
person of Abū Bekr, Mohammed’s father-in-law and earliest convert. He
was proclaimed as the Khalīfa,[78] or successor of the Prophet, and was
the first of that long line of sovereigns who, like the Tsars of our
own age, wielded unquestioned spiritual and temporal power, and, like
them, became prominent factors in the history of the Eastern world.
The new-born creed soon showed its strongly militant character. Led
by Khālid, a pillar of Islām who won by his prowess the title of the
Sword of God, the Arabs defeated a Roman army with heavy loss, and took
Damascus. In six years the whole of Syria and Palestine passed under
their sway. Persia was the next object of attack. The Zoroastrians
struggled long and desperately for their independence, but in 639 they
suffered a crushing defeat at Nahāvend, a battle which must rank high
amongst those which have influenced the current of the world’s history.
Yezdijerd, the last of the Sāsānian dynasty, fled through Sīstān and
Khorāsān to Merv. Here he found no safe asylum, for the governor sent
news of his arrival to the Turks, and the Khākān advanced in person
to seize so rich a prize. The fugitive became aware of the intended
treachery, and concealed himself in a mill near the city. The owner
received him with apparent kindness, but was tempted by the splendour
of the king’s accoutrements to kill him while he slept. He severed
Yezdijerd’s head from his body, which he cast into the mill stream.[79]
[Illustration: THE RAHLA, OR READING-DESK
OUTSIDE THE MOSQUE OF BĪBĪ KHĀNŪM, SAMARKAND]
The immediate results of the battle of Nahāvend were disastrous to
civilisation. Persia was traversed in all directions by bands of
marauding Arabs, and the miserable inhabitants suffered as severely
as they had suffered at the hands of the Mazdakites. “The Caliph
Othman,”[80] writes Gibbon,[81] “promised the government of Khorāsān to
the first general who should enter that large and populous country, the
kingdom of the ancient Bactrians. The condition was accepted, the prize
was deserved; the standard of Mahomet was planted on the walls of
Herāt, Merou, and Balkh; and the successful leader neither halted nor
reposed till his foaming cavalry had tasted the waters of the Oxus.”
The ill-cemented power of the Caliph was more adapted for conquest than
assimilation, and its area overrun by his undisciplined hordes was too
vast to be held in permanent subjection. Conscious of their weakness,
the Arabs spared no efforts to spread the tenets of Islām, which alone
was capable of welding together communities differing widely in race,
language, and customs. From this epoch dates the decline of the creed
of Zoroaster throughout Persia and the countries of Central Asia. The
assassination of the Caliph `Omar by a Persian slave was the signal for
a general insurrection throughout this loosely knitted empire. This
was not finally quelled till A.H. 31 (652), when Ibn `Āmir gained a
victory over the Persians at Khwārazm on the Oxus, and compelled the
country as far as Balkh to acknowledge the Caliph’s suzerainty.[82] In
A.H. 41 (661) `Abdullah ibn `Āmir organised a successful expedition
into Khorāsān and Sīstān;[83] and in the course of the following
year Kays ibn al-Haytham was sent thither as provincial governor. He
was superseded in A.H. 43 (663) by `Abdullah ibn Khāzim. In A.H. 45
(665) Ziyād, whom in the preceding year the Great Caliph Mo`awiya
had officially recognised as his brother, was made governor of Basra
and “the East.” Al-Hakam ibn `Āmir al-Ghifārī was sent in A.H. 47
(667) on an expedition into Khorāsān. He occupied Tokhāristān and
the country south and south-east of Balkh as far as the Hindu Kush,
and was, moreover, the first Arabian general to cross the Oxus.[84]
Al-Hakam died at Merv in A.H. 50 (670), on his return from an
expedition against the people of Mount Ashall.[85] In the following
year Rabī` ibn Ziyād[86] el-Hārithī was sent to Khorāsān to succeed
him.[87] About this date many Arabs migrated with their families to
Khorāsān and settled there.[88] Rabī`’s first care was the reduction
of Balkh, which had been the scene of a revolt, and this he effected
without resorting to force. He also engaged the Turks in Kūhistān,
and put them to rout. Among the fugitives was Nīzak Tarkhūn,[89] who
perished later at the hands of Kutayba ibn Muslim. Rabī` also crossed
the Oxus, but made no conquests on the farther side.[90] His death, and
that of his master Ziyād, took place in A.H. 53 (673). He named his
son `Abdullah as his successor, but the latter died two months later,
and was succeeded by Khulayd ibn `Abdullah el-Hanafī. On the death of
Ziyād the Caliph gave the governments of Kūfa, Basra, and Khorāsān to
his own son `Ubaydullah, while he appointed Ziyād’s son `Ubaydullah,
in supersession of Khulayd, as his lieutenant in Khorāsān. `Ubaydullah
ibn Ziyād collected an army in Irāk, entered Khorāsān and, crossing
the Oxus, penetrated into the mountains of Bokhārā,[91] and conquered
Rāmtīna and half of Baykand. The Turks of Bokhārā were at that time
governed by a princess named Khātūn, who acted as regent during the
minority of her son Tughshāda. On the approach of the Arabs with an
overwhelming force, Khātūn fled to Samarkand. According to Tabari,[92]
so great was her haste that one of her shoes was left behind. It
fell into the hands of the Arabs, and was valued by them at 200,000
direms.[93]
Diplomacy gained for Bokhārā what arms could never have accomplished.
Khātūn saved the evacuation of her capital by entering into a treaty
by which she bound herself to pay a yearly tribute.[94] `Ubaydullah
withdrew to Merv laden with booty, and on his return to Irāk was
appointed by the Caliph Mo`awiya, governor of Basra. In A.H. 56 (676)
Sa`īd ibn `Othman, who had superseded him in Khorāsān, determined to
complete the conquest of Bokhārā, in spite of the treaty concluded
by his predecessor. The Queen-Regent Khātūn was powerless to resist
the invasion, for she had reason to doubt the loyalty of her troops,
and her resources had been well-nigh exhausted in her struggle with
`Ubaydullah. She therefore came to terms with Sa`īd by the surrender
of the last shreds of her sovereignty in Bokhārā. But Samarkand, the
wealthiest of its strongholds, was still unmastered. Sa`īd ibn `Othman
embarked on a campaign for its reduction, carrying with him eighty
Bokhārān nobles as hostages for their queen’s good behaviour. After
several successful engagements with the Turks he stormed Samarkand[95]
and carried off 30,000 prisoners, with much booty.[96] When Sa`īd
passed through Bokhārā on his return to Khorāsān the queen demanded
back the eighty hostages, but he replied that he did not yet feel sure
of her good faith, and that he would not part with the Bokhārāns until
he had crossed the Amū Daryā. At this stage of his march the queen sent
messengers to repeat her demand, but she was informed by Sa`īd that
the hostages should be sent back from Merv. Thus he continued to elude
compliance, and finally dragged his wretched captives to Medīna. Here
they were stripped of the attire proper to their rank and reduced to
a condition of slavery. Preferring death to an ignominious existence,
the desperadoes broke into Sa`īd’s palace, and, closing fast the doors,
slew him and afterwards themselves. This tragedy occurred in A.H. 61
(680), under the Caliphate of Yezīd ibn Merwān, who had succeeded his
father Mo`awiya in the previous year.
One of the Caliph’s first acts had been to appoint Salm ibn Ziyād
as his lieutenant in Khorāsān.[97] The latter found the northern
part of his charge a prey to revolt, for the restless Khātūn had
taken advantage of dissension among the Caliph’s followers to throw
off his hated yoke. Salm took council with a trusted general named
Muhallab,[98] and, establishing a base at Merv, crossed the Oxus
with[99] a force 6000 strong and moved rapidly on to Bokhārā. The
queen, in her despair, turned to the Tarkhūn Malik of Soghd, to whom
she promised her hand in marriage as the price of his alliance against
the invaders. The Tarkhūn, seduced by the dazzling bait, advanced to
her assistance at the head of 120,000 men. He put a reconnoitring party
of the Arabs to flight, destroying more than half their number, but
was beset by the entire force, and after a fierce struggle was utterly
routed. So vast was the booty taken by Salm’s followers in the pursuit
that each man-at-arms received 2400 direms.[100]
This victory[101] brought the queen of Bokhārā to her senses. She
sued for peace, which was granted, and Salm returned in triumph. Salm
seems to have won for himself universal respect during his two years’
residence in Merv as governor of Khorāsān, and the fact that during
this period 2000 children had received his name[102] is quoted as a
proof of his popularity.
The Caliph Yezīd had died during the previous year (683). He was
succeeded by Mo`awiya II., who was less imbued with fanaticism than
his lieutenants, and found the Caliphate too heavy a burden. Resigning
it after a few months’ reign, he left Islām a prey to anarchy. Two
claimants appeared for the thorny crown--`Abdullah ibn Zobayr, and
Merwān I. of the race of Umayya. The first gained the allegiance of
Yemen, including the Holy Places, Egypt and part of Syria; the second
was proclaimed lord of Damascus, and speedily drove his rival from
Syria and Egypt. Merwān’s son and successor, `Abd el-Melik, concluded
a peace with the Byzantine emperor on the basis of the payment of
a tribute of 50,000 pieces of gold, and turned the whole of his
forces against the pretender, who still held to Mekka and Medīna. Him
he defeated twice, and slew Mohammad. All Islām was now under his
chieftainship, with the exception of Khorāsān, which was governed
by `Abdullah ibn Khāzim as representative of Ibn Zobayr. Finding it
impossible to secure the former’s allegiance, `Abd el-Melik incited
one of his generals named Bukayr to compass his master’s death, on a
promise to confer on him the governorship of the province. The bait
was swallowed by Bukayr, who formed a conspiracy against `Abdullah
ibn Khāzim, and deprived him of authority (692). He became head of
Khorāsān; but his triumph was shortlived. The Caliph naturally doubted
the loyalty of one who had shown himself unfaithful to his trust, and
superseded him by Umayya ibn `Abdullah ibn Khālid (696). Four years
later (700), Muhallab, who had left Merv and established himself in
Kesh (the modern Shahrisebz), sent his son Habīb with a huge army
against Bokhārā, whose king he utterly defeated. While Muhallab was
in Kesh, his followers entreated him to penetrate farther into the
country, but Muhallab replied that his only aim was to bring all
his Musulmans safe back to Merv. After two years’ stay at Kesh he
came to terms with the inhabitants of the surrounding country, and,
satisfied with the large tribute they rendered to him, returned to his
headquarters at Merv.
Muhallab died A.H. 82 (701), and was succeeded by his son Yezīd in
the government of Merv. In A.H. 84 (703)[103] the latter was deprived
of his post by the famous Hajjāj,[104] who had the disposal of all
such appointments. Yezīd thereupon quitted Khorāsān, and his brother
Mufaddhal, who had formerly been his lieutenant, was appointed
governor. He held the post for about nine months, undertaking during
that brief period successful expeditions against Khiva and Bādghīs.
The immense spoils of war he distributed among his soldiers, keeping,
we are told, nothing for himself. In A.H. 86 (705) `Abd el-Melik
died, and in the same year, on the arrival of Yezīd in `Irāk, Hajjāj
appointed Kutayba ibn Muslim el-Bāhili governor of Khorāsān in place of
Mufaddhal. The glorious career of Kutayba in Central Asia began at this
epoch with his entry into Merv.
CHAPTER VI
THE FIRST EASTERN CAMPAIGNS OF KUTAYBA IBN MUSLIM
The arrival of Kutayba on the scene marks a new epoch in the history
of Mohammedan conquests in Central Asia. Though the Arabs had been
for many years masters of Khorāsān, with an established capital at
Merv,[105] their hold on the country beyond the Oxus was very slight.
The expeditions which they had hitherto made into Bokhārā[106] and
other parts of Transoxiana were mere raids, and their authority in
those countries departed with the main body of their army. Kutayba was
the first Arab leader who compelled the inhabitants of the tract lying
between the Oxus and Jaxartes to acknowledge the Caliph’s supremacy,
and to plant the standard of Islām in lands where the creed of
Zoroaster had retained its greatest vitality.
[Illustration: CENTRAL ASIAN TYPES
1. PERSIAN
2. PERSIAN
3. AFGHAN
4. KALMUCK
]
In A.H. 86 (705), as we have seen, `Abd el-Melik died. He was succeeded
in the Caliphate by his son Welīd, and in the same year Kutayba ibn
Muslim made a triumphal entry into Merv as governor of Khorāsān. On
arriving at Merv, Kutayba called together the inhabitants, and urged
them to join a Holy War, emphasising his trumpet-call by quotations
from the Koran. The fierce Arabs swarmed to his standard, and Kutayba
soon found himself at the head of an army animated with the keenest
enthusiasm, to whom he distributed pay sufficient to maintain their
families during their career of conquest. The military and civil
administration of the oasis during his absence was delegated by him to
trusted lieutenants. Having thus organised victory, he set out in a
westerly direction across the desert. The first town which he reached
was Tālikān.[107] Here he was received by the _dihkans_[108] and chief
men of Balkh, who escorted him across the Oxus. He was met on the
right bank by the king of the Chaghāniān, who brought presents and a
golden key, and invited him to enter his capital. Kutayba accepted his
submission, and allowed him to remain in office under the Caliph’s
suzerainty. He then marched to Akhrun and Shūmān, and after levying
tribute on their chief, returned to Merv. Some authorities relate that
Kutayba, before crossing the Oxus, made an expedition into Balkh, and
there crushed a rising among the inhabitants, who were attempting to
rid themselves of the Arab yoke.[109] In the same year he concluded a
peace with Nīzek, Tarkhūn of Bādghīs. In the following year, A.H.
87 (705), Kutayba set out for Transoxiana. During his march thither
he passed through Merv er-Rūd, Āmul, and Zamīn; and, crossing the
Oxus, sat down before Baykand. This place was, according to Tabari,
the Bokhārān town nearest to the great river, and lay at the edge of
the desert. It was known far and wide as the “City of Merchants,”
and was equally renowned for the strength of its fortifications. The
inhabitants, on learning Kutayba’s approach, put their town into a
state of defence, and sent messengers into Soghdiana imploring aid.
The call was obeyed, and Kutayba’s little force was soon hemmed in on
all sides by numerous and determined foes. For a space of two months
so closely was he pressed that he was unable to send a messenger to
Hajjāj, whose consequent anxiety led him to order prayers for the army
in all the mosques. Tabari tells us that Kutayba had in his employ a
Persian spy, named Tandar, whom the Bokhārāns bribed to induce his
master to retire from their country. Tandar obtained a private audience
of Kutayba, which was attended only by a certain Dhirār ibn Hasan. He
told the Amīr that his patron Hajjāj had lost his office, and that a
new governor had arrived to replace the former. Kutayba called one of
his slaves named Siyāh, and ordered him to strike off Tandar’s head.
When this had been done, he turned to Dhirār and said: “No one knows of
this affair except you and myself. If it is bruited abroad I shall be
certain that you are to blame; so master your tongue. For should the
people hear the story, they will be discouraged.” He then summoned his
followers into his presence. When they saw the body of Tandar they were
filled with fear, and threw themselves on the ground before Kutayba. He
asked them why they were appalled by Tandar’s execution. They replied:
“Verily, we thought that he was a friend to the Musulman.” “No,”
replied Kutayba, “he was a traitor--may God punish him for his sins,
but he has met with his deserts. Now go and prepare to meet the enemy
to-morrow with more courage than you have hitherto shown.”
On the following day the Arabs took up their positions and began the
fight with fresh vigour, while Kutayba passed through the ranks giving
his commands and encouraging his men in every way.[110] The battle
lasted till sunset, when the enemy gave way and fled in disorder
towards the town, hotly pursued by the Arabs. A few only reached the
shelter of its walls, while the rest were slain or taken prisoners.
Kutayba immediately began a regular siege of Baykand, which, though
the place had lost most of its garrison, cost the assailants many
lives.[111] For fifty days, says Narshakhi, “the efforts of the
Musulmans were of no avail, and their sufferings were great. At last
they had recourse to stratagem. A party of soldiers dug a trench under
the town-wall, near the citadel, connected with a stable within the
fortress, where they made another breach in the wall. Hardly had the
Musulmans reached the fortress ere these men sallied from the breach.
Kutayba shouted: “To the first man who enters the fort by this breach I
will give blood-money, and if he should be killed, then his children
shall receive it.” This promise filled the besiegers with emulation.
All threw themselves into the breach, and captured the fort. The men
of Baykand begged for quarter, which Kutayba granted, and then retired
laden with booty, leaving a lieutenant in the town with a detachment
of troops. But when he reached Khunbūn,[112] which is only a farsakh’s
distance from Baykand, on the Bokhārā road, he learnt that the
people of Baykand had risen against his lieutenant and garrison, and
slaughtered them after cutting off their noses and ears.[113]
Kutayba immediately turned back and invaded the town a second time.
The siege lasted a month, when the Amīr had a tunnel excavated under
the wall and filled with wood, which was set on fire. The wall above
crumbled and fell, crushing forty men to death. The Baykandis offered
to capitulate on condition that their lives were spared, but Kutayba
stormed the town and put to death all the fighting men. The rest were
carried off into slavery, and the city became a heap of ruins. Kutayba
then returned to Merv with much spoil,[114] which, according to Tabari,
exceeded in value all the booty that had been taken by the Arabs in
Khorāsān.
The story of Baykand’s resurrection is a curious one. It was a town
of long-standing fame and a great centre of trade; and, during the
siege, most of the heads of families were absent in China and other
distant countries with their caravans. On their return they redeemed
their wives and surviving relatives from the Arabs, and soon repeopled
Baykand. Narshakhi justly remarks,[115] that it is the only town in
history which, after undergoing a destruction, root and branch, was
restored to its former prosperity by the same generation as saw its
ruin. Tabari adds that the inhabitants agreed to pay a yearly tribute
to the Arabs, and were guaranteed peace, under a written pact, by
Kutayba.
The conquest of Baykand was achieved by Kutayba in the autumn of the
year of the Hijra, 87 (705). He then returned for the winter season to
his headquarters at Merv. It was not till A.H. 88 (706) that Kutayba
entered on a career of conquest. During his first two years of command
he had achieved little towards the extension of the Caliph’s authority
in Central Asia. His predecessors had already carried their arms as far
as the city of Bokhārā, while his own had never extended far beyond
the frontier of that kingdom. The destruction of Baykand was, however,
a feat of no mean value, as, quite apart from the immense booty which
fell into the victor’s hands, the position of the town rendered it “the
south-western gate of Transoxiana,”[116] and hence its importance to
the Arabs as a basis for further encroachments.
The immediate objects of Kutayba’s attacks were, according to
Tabari,[117] Numushkat and Rāmtīna, which obtained peace on condition
of paying a yearly tribute.
Meanwhile the people of Bokhārā, Soghdiana, and the surrounding
countries had banded together to oppose the Arab invaders, who found
themselves surrounded in the country lying between Tārāb, Khunbūn,
and Rāmtīna. The combined forces numbered about 40,000 men, and
comprised the armies of the _Tarkhūn Melik_ of Soghd, Khunuk-Khudāt,
Vardān-Khudāt, and Prince Kur-Maghānūn,[118] who was a son of the
Chinese emperor’s sister, and who was, according to Narshakhi, a
mercenary soldier of fortune. Kutayba had set out on his return to
Merv when the Turks suddenly fell upon his rear-guard. The Musulmans
were beginning to waver, but Kutayba appeared on the scene of action
and filled them with fresh courage. The battle lasted till midday,
when “God put the Turks to flight.”[119] Kutayba then returned to
Merv, taking the road in the direction of Balkh, and crossing the Oxus
above Tirmiz. On reaching Fāryāb[120] he received a letter from Hajjāj
ordering him to march against the Vardān-Khudāt, king of Bokhārā. He
therefore retraced his steps and crossed the Oxus at Zamīn. On the
road through the desert he was met by some Soghdians and the people
of Kess (Kesh) and Nasaf (Nakhshab), whom he engaged and defeated. He
then plunged into Bokhārā, and pitched his camp at Lower Kharkāna, to
the right of Vardān, where he was attacked by superior forces. After
a battle which lasted for two days and two nights, victory declared
for the Arabs. Kutayba now advanced against the Vardān-Khudāt, king
of Bokhārā, but was repulsed and retreated to Merv. Here he informed
Hajjāj by letter how he had fared, and was ordered to send his master
a map of the country. Having examined this map, Hajjāj wrote to him in
the following terms: “Return to your former purpose, and acknowledge
in prayer to God your repentance for having abandoned it. Attack the
enemy at vulnerable points. _Crush Kesh, destroy Nasaf, and repulse
Vardān._[121] Take care that you are not surrounded; and leave the
difficulties of the road to me.” On receiving these instructions,
Kutayba left Merv, and in the beginning of the year A.H. 90 (708)
again invaded the kingdom of Bokhārā. When the Vardān-Khudāt heard
of Kutayba’s advance, he sent messengers to the Soghdians and their
neighbours asking for their help. Kutayba arrived before their allies,
and immediately laid siege to Vardān; but as soon as reinforcements
appeared the garrison sallied forth and attacked the Arabs.
The versions of the battle that ensued as given by Tabari and
Narshakhi[122] differ materially, while both enter into so much detail
that it is hard to reconcile them. That given by Tabari[123] is graphic
enough to deserve epitomising.
“When the Turks came out of the town, the men of the tribe of Azd asked
Kutayba to allow them to fight separately. They straightway charged
down on the Turks,--Kutayba remaining seated the while, wearing a green
mantle over his armour,--and their endurance was great. At length
they were driven back to Kutayba’s camp by the Turks, but here the
women struck their horses’ heads[124] and forced the Musulmans to turn
against the enemy. They succeeded in driving them back to his first
position, a piece of rising ground which appeared to them inassailable.
Then said Kutayba: ‘Who will dislodge them for us from this place?’
No one advanced, and all the tribes remained where they were. Then
Kutayba went up to the Beni Temīm[125] and appealed to their old
prestige, whereupon their chief Wakī` seized the banner and said: ‘Oh
ye sons of Temīm, will you abandon me to-day?’ They shouted ‘No,’ and
advanced until they came to the stream separating them from the enemy,
over which Husayni, the commander of the horse, leaped, followed by
his men. Meanwhile Wakī` gave the banner to Husayni and, dismounting,
superintended the construction of a small bridge. He then said to his
men: ‘He who is willing to risk his life, let him cross; and he who
is not willing, let him remain where he is!’ Eight hundred men dashed
across the bridge. Then Wakī` told Husayni to harass the enemy with his
cavalry, while he himself attacked them with his foot-men. So great
was the fury of their double onslaught that the Turks gave way, seeing
which the Musulmans sprang towards the bridge as one man, but ere
they could cross the Turks were in full flight. The latter were thus
completely routed; the Khākān and his son were both wounded. When the
inhabitants of the surrounding countries saw what had happened to the
men of Bokhārā they trembled before Kutayba.”
After this victory Kutayba again withdrew to Merv. The chroniclers
differ as to the part which the Tarkhūn Melik of Soghd played in this
battle. Tabari relates that the Tarkhūn, seeing that the day was going
with the Musulmans, rode, accompanied by two horsemen, close up to
Kutayba’s camp--there being only the river of Bokhārā between them, and
asked him to send a man across to confer with him. A certain Hayyān,
the Nabatæan, came over, and through his mediation a peace was settled
upon, the Tarkhūn agreeing to pay tribute to Kutayba. The Tarkhūn then
returned to his own country, while Kutayba, as stated above, retired
to Merv, accompanied by Nīzek. Narshakhi, on the other hand, says that
Hayyān, the Nabatæan, told the king of Soghd that it would be much
wiser for him to abandon the allies and return to his own country.
“We,” he said, “will remain here as long as the warm weather lasts,
but when the winter sets in we shall retire, and then you will find
the Turks all against you,--for nothing will induce them to leave your
beautiful Soghd.” The Tarkhūn, convinced of the value of this advice,
asked what course he should pursue. Hayyān replied: “First, you must
make peace with Kutayba, and pay him an indemnity. Next represent to
the Turks that Hajjāj is sending reinforcements by way of Kesh and
Nakhshab. Then you must turn back; and haply they will do likewise.”
That same night the Tarkhūn concluded a treaty with Kutayba, and gave
him 2000 direms;[126] Kutayba, for his part, promising not to molest
his kingdom. He then sounded his trumpets and marched off, and his
example was very soon after followed by the emperor of China’s nephew.
“Thus did God deliver the Musulmans from the great straits in which
they had been plunged for four months.” During this period Hajjāj
had received no news from Kutayba, and his anxiety was so great that
special prayers were offered in the mosques for his safety.
“This was Kutayba’s fourth expedition into Bokhārā.”[127]
CHAPTER VII
KUTAYBA’S LAST CAMPAIGNS
Among Kutayba’s followers was a certain noble named Nīzek, prince of
Bādghīs, and a minister of Jighāya, ruler of Tokhāristān, who was in
all probability attached temporarily to his court as a prisoner on
parole. Nīzek had watched Kutayba’s campaigns with keen interest,
in the fond hope that he might receive a serious check, and that
Transoxiana and Khorāsān might be emboldened to throw off the Arab
yoke. The great leader’s success in Bokhārā convinced the moody rebel
of the folly of such anticipations; and he saw only too clearly that
the moment had come for the oppressed nationalities of Central Asia to
strike a last despairing blow for freedom.[128] His first step was to
obtain from the unsuspecting Kutayba permission to visit Tokhāristān,
his next to raise the standard of revolt, which he did on reaching the
defiles of Khulm.
As a measure of precaution he sent his valuables for safe keeping
to the king of Kābul, whose support he entreated for his arduous
enterprise. He sent messengers to the _Ispahbad_[129] of Balkh and to
the princes of Merv er-Rūd, Tālikān, Fāryāb, and Jūzajān, inviting
them to join the coalition. All replied in the affirmative. After
these negotiations Nīzek placed his master Jighāya in chains,[130] and
dismissed Kutayba’s agent from Tokhāristān.
When Kutayba received intimation of this revolt winter was setting
in. His army was dispersed, and there only remained with him the
contingent supplied by the town of Merv. He sent his brother `Abd
er-Rahmān, at the head of 2000 men to Balkh, with instructions to
remain there inactive till the spring, when he was to proceed to
Tokhāristān, adding, “Be sure that I shall be near thee.” Towards the
end of the winter A.H. 91 (709), Kutayba summoned reinforcements from
Abarshahr, Bīvard, Sarakhs, and Herāt. On their arrival he set out
against Tālikān, leaving, as was his practice, a trusted follower in
charge of the garrison, and another in that of the civil affairs of
Merv.[131] The first operation was the storming of Merv er-Rūd. Its
chief had fled, but his two sons who had remained were hanged. At
Tālikān he met the enemy in the open field, and at the first onslaught
the Turks were put to rout by his rear-guard, which was commanded
by `Abd er-Rahmān. No quarter was given, and all who were not slain
outright were hanged,--the line of gibbets extending for a distance
of sixteen miles. After appointing an Arab as governor of the town,
Kutayba received the submission of Fāryāb and Jūzajān, and placed those
towns under one of his lieutenants. He now proceeded to Balkh, where he
was peaceably received by the inhabitants; and, after remaining there
for a day, advanced into the defiles of Khulm. Meanwhile Nīzek had
retired to Baghlān and established a camp there, leaving a small force
to guard the entrance of the pass. Kutayba halted opposite the castle
of Nīzek, but found it too strong for reduction. While disheartened at
this failure, he received an offer from the king of Rūb and Siminjān
to point out to him a road leading to the castle in return for an
amnesty. Kutayba consented, and, guided by the king, his troops turned
the defiles and poured down upon Nīzek’s garrison and advance-guard.
The Turks were taken at a disadvantage, and all were put to the sword
who did not make good their escape. The army of Kutayba now advanced
to Siminjān, which was separated by a desert from Baghlān, where
Nīzek had his fortified camp. Hearing of the approach of Kutayba, the
latter retreated to Kerz, a position which was assailable only on one
side, and was quite unapproachable for cavalry. Here for two months he
sustained a siege, and, as all the approaches were occupied by Kutayba,
provisions grew scarce in this retreat. On the other hand, Kutayba
dreaded the prospect of remaining in a country so remote and barbarous,
and determined to hasten his triumph by the aid of diplomacy. Calling
to him a trusted councillor named Sulaymān, he ordered him to make his
way to Nīzek’s camp and endeavour to secure his surrender. Quarter was
not to be promised unless it was insisted on, and the messenger was
informed that his own fate was at stake. Sulaymān, with the certainty
of the gallows before him as the result of failure to bring the rebel
to terms, obtaining a covering party to guard his retreat, and taking
with him several days’ provisions, started for the enemy’s camp.
He was admitted to a parley with Nīzek, whom he exhorted to submit to
overwhelming force. The prince stipulated for mercy, but was assured
that no formal guarantee was necessary. On the understanding that his
life would be spared, he surrendered and accompanied Sulaymān to
Kutayba’s camp. He was at once placed in a tent under strict guard,
while his own camp was occupied by the Arab forces. Kutayba then asked
instructions from his chief Hajjāj at Basra as to what should be done
with the prisoner, and in forty days a reply arrived that he must be
put to death. The order was not obeyed without considerable hesitation.
For three days Kutayba shut himself up in his tent and held converse
with no one. On the fourth he took council with his officers, and
all agreed that the breach of faith implied was a just and necessary
measure. And so Nīzek, with 700 of his followers, was put to death, and
their heads were sent to Hajjāj.
The prince of Tokhāristān was released from his golden chains and
despatched with a retinue to Damascus. The perfidy which Kutayba had
practised towards Nīzek was too outrageous even for the Arabs, but it
was followed by another action scarcely less scandalous. When Kutayba
returned to Merv, the king of Jūzajān, who had made common cause with
Nīzek, sent messengers offering his submission on condition that his
life should be spared. The terms were agreed to, but Kutayba insisted
that the king should present himself in person, and also give hostages.
Kutayba, on his side, sent him an Arab hostage named Habīb. The king
of Jūzajān intrusted several members of his own family to Kutayba’s
care, and betook himself to Merv, where he concluded a peace with
Kutayba. But on his return to his native country he died at Tālikān,
and the inhabitants, in the belief, real or pretended, that he had been
poisoned, slew Habīb. On hearing of this Kutayba put all the hostages
to death. In the year A.H. 91 (709) Kutayba marched against Shūmān,
Kesh, and Nakhshab, and after capturing the three towns he sent his
brother Rahmān to attack the Tarkhūn of Soghd. The latter, however,
offered to pay tribute, and gave hostages. After accepting this
proposal `Abd er-Rahmān joined Kutayba in Bokhārā, and the two brothers
returned to Merv.
Meanwhile the people of Soghd rose against their chief, and set up
another named Ghūzek in his stead. The deposed Tarkhūn put an end to
his own life.
In A.H. 93 (711) Chighān, king of Khwārazm, secretly invited Kutayba
to help him against his brother Khorzād, who, though younger than
himself, usurped much of his power and appropriated a large share of
his possessions. Kutayba, satisfied with the terms offered, arrived
unexpectedly at Hazārasp,[132] whereupon Khorzād gave himself up,
and was handed over as a prisoner to his brother Chighān. After
recompensing Kutayba handsomely, he begged him as a further favour to
assist him in crushing the king of Khāmjerd, who had repeatedly invaded
his territory. Kutayba intrusted the operation to his brother, who slew
the king, conquered his realm, and brought 4000 slaves to Merv.
Having thus brought his Khwārazmian campaign to a successful
termination, Kutayba turned his attention to Soghdiana, which, as
related above, had been the theatre of a revolution. He reached
Samarkand without adventure, and at once invaded the historic city.
The resistance of the Soghdians was most stubborn; they made frequent
sorties,[133] and defied the besiegers to do their worst. The new king,
however, alarmed at the persistence of the Arabs, sent a letter to
the king of Shāsh asking his aid. Two thousand men of Shāsh set out at
once for Samarkand; but Kutayba, hearing of their movements, surprised
them in ambuscade and put them to rout. Two days later the king sued
for peace. Kutayba agreed to retire on payment of a heavy tribute, but
stipulated that he should be allowed to enter the city and build a
mosque and inaugurate a religious service. His terms were accepted, but
instead of masons he sent 4000 armed Arabs to uproot idolatry. All the
graven images of Samarkand were burned, Kutayba himself commencing the
conflagration and inaugurating the _auto-da-fé_.
The hostility of Shāsh was not forgotten. At the beginning of A.H. 94
(712) Kutayba set out from Merv, crossed the Oxus, and marched against
Shāsh and Farghāna at the head of a large army.[134] The expedition
resulted in the reduction of the towns of Shāsh, Khojand, and Kāshān on
terms similar to those accorded to the people of Samarkand.[135]
In A.H. 96 (714) Kutayba set out on his last expedition. He carried
the Mohammedan arms farther east than any of his predecessors had
done; and, though his conquests on the borders of China were not of a
permanent nature, he established an eastern frontier to Islam which
has never since been encroached on. Before setting out on this last
campaign Kutayba received news of the death of the Caliph Welīd, and
the succession of Sulaymān his brother. As he knew that the Caliph
was his enemy he[136] took the precaution of carrying his family
with him to Samarkand, where they were placed in safe keeping. On
this expedition Kutayba reached, and apparently entered, Kāshghar,
but though it is stated that he conquered the province, we have no
particulars of an engagement of any kind.
CHAPTER VIII
KUTAYBA’S FALL AND DEATH
The realm of Arabic literature contains no more vivid picture of
contemporary life and manners than that given us by Tabari in his
account of Kutayba’s fall.[137] Many circumstances conspired to effect
his ruin. The unbounded arrogance arising from uniform success, and
the many acts of perfidy of which he was guilty, had weakened the
attachment of his followers, which was based rather on greed for booty
than devotion to a cause. His friend and constant patron Hajjāj had
died in A.H. 94. The new Caliph, Sulaymān, had never forgotten that
Kutayba had supported his predecessor Welīd in an attempt to exclude
him from the succession; and his principal adviser was Yezīd ibn
Muhallab, whom Kutayba had ousted from the government of Khorāsān. But
tribal hatred was the most telling factor in Kutayba’s fall. It raged
with intense fury among the Arabs during the Caliphate, and was at the
root of every revolution of that stirring period.
Kutayba’s first thoughts[138] on hearing of the accession of Sulaymān
were that the Caliph would certainly reinstate Yezīd as governor of
Khorāsān. In view of forestalling this action he sent a messenger to
Sulaymān bearing three letters. The first contained assurances of his
loyalty; the second, expressions of his contempt for Yezīd; the purport
of the third, which was written on a smaller sheet, was as follows: “I
have ceased to recognise Sulaymān as my sovereign, and have revolted
against him.” His envoy was intrusted to hand the first missive to the
Caliph and watch his movements narrowly. If he should read it and then
pass it to Yezīd, the second was to be submitted to him. Should it be
similarly treated, the gauntlet of defiance was to be thrown down in
the third letter.
The injunctions were strictly followed. The three messages were
delivered successively; but, beyond communicating each to Yezīd, the
Caliph betrayed no sign of resentment. The messenger was allowed to
depart in company with a courtier, who carried with him an Act of
reinvestiture in the governorship of Khorāsān in favour of Kutayba.
When the pair reached Holwān[139] they learnt that Kutayba had already
raised the standard of revolt, and Sulaymān’s messenger returned
straightway to Syria. When Kutayba’s messenger reached Khorāsān his
master asked him how matters had gone. On learning that his action
of throwing off his allegiance had been, to say the least of it,
premature, Kutayba was filled with repentance, and took counsel with
his brothers and captains as to what course he should pursue. They
were agreed that Sulaymān would never pardon Kutayba, but opined that
his life would be spared in remembrance of his past services to Islām.
“Alas,” cried Kutayba, “it is not death I fear, but that the Caliph
will certainly give the government of Khorāsān to Yezīd, and humiliate
me before all the world; I prefer death to that!”[140] Among the many
projects suggested to him the wisest seems to have been that of his
brother `Abd er-Rahmān, who advised him to proceed to Samarkand and
then give his followers the option of staying with him or returning to
their homes. Having by this means surrounded himself with men whom he
could trust, he might declare his independence of Sulaymān. But Kutayba
was too confident in his own influence to listen to counsel savouring
of timidity. The only plan which suited his temper was one formulated
by another brother named `Abdullah. It was that Kutayba should call his
officers together and urge them to join in a revolt against the Caliph.
This desperate scheme was promptly acted upon. Kutayba harangued his
followers in brief but stirring words, dwelling on the want of capacity
shown by his predecessors, especially by Yezīd; he reminded his troops
of the successes that had attended them under his leadership, of the
fairness with which he had always divided the spoil among them, and
of his prosperous administration of Khorāsān. He then awaited the
acclamations which his lightest utterances had hitherto received. A
deep and anxious silence reigned on the assembly. Kutayba, lashed to
fury by the ingratitude of those who owed everything to him, lost all
semblance of self-restraint and burst forth into a tirade, in which
his lieutenants were designated as “cowardly Bedouins, infidels, and
hypocrites.” Then, trembling with half-suppressed passion, he withdrew
to his palace, where he joined the members of his family. They
attempted to remonstrate, and pointed out the folly of exasperating men
on whose goodwill everything depended. The Arab troops, too, entered
into negotiations with `Abd-er-Rahmān, who was regarded as the most
reasonable of Kutayba’s brothers, and he proffered his services as a
peacemaker. But Kutayba had by this time entirely lost his head, and
turned a deaf ear to all advice. The Arabs, lashed to madness by his
obstinacy, beset his palace with shouts of vengeance. Some set fire to
his stables, and in the confusion that ensued another band broke into
the council-hall and attacked their fallen chief. He received a wound
from an arrow, and was straightway hacked to pieces with swords, A.H.
96 (714).
Thus fell, at the age of forty-six, a man whose personality stands out
in bold relief in the earlier annals of the most militant of creeds.
It would be unjust to omit mention of Kutayba’s zeal in the propaganda
of Islām. Narshakhi has much to tell us of his pious exertions in the
town of Bokhārā. On each of his four expeditions thither he compelled
the inhabitants to accept the faith of Mohammed, but as soon as his
back was turned they reverted to idol-worship. In A.H. 94 Kutayba
built, on the site of a fire-temple, a large mosque, where prayers were
read every Friday; a reward of two direms was given to every attendant
in order to assure the permanent conversion of the people. Kutayba
quartered an Arab in every house, who played the dual part of spy and
missionary. His character was an epitome of the qualities which made
Islām a terror to mankind, and ultimately conspired to reduce it to
impotence.
[Illustration: GENERAL VIEW OF BOKHĀRĀ]
CHAPTER IX
KUTAYBA’S SUCCESSORS
On the death of Kutayba, Wakī`, who had been a ringleader in the
revolt, took upon himself the direction of affairs in Khorāsān. After
a lapse of nine months, however, a new governor arrived, in the person
of Yezīd ibn Muhallab, and Wakī` was placed under arrest, while his
partisans were subjected to punishment. According to the Persian
translation of Tabari, Yezīd this year “began a series of expeditions
beyond the frontiers of Khorāsān, to countries where Kutayba had not
penetrated,”[141] but they are not mentioned in the Arabic original,
nor are such undertakings consistent with the rest of Yezīd’s career.
For his attention was turned to the subjection of the countries to
the west of Khorāsān,[142] rather than to the extension of Mohammedan
authority towards the Chinese frontier.
Thus we find him in A.H. 98 conducting his troops against Jurjān and
Tabaristān. The former country was regarded as the key of Western Asia.
It was strongly fortified; and its walls, extending as far as the Sea
of Azof, were an effectual barrier to the aggressions of the Turkish
hordes.[143] But these attacks appear to have told severely on the
inhabitants, who finally secured the withdrawal of their persistent
foes by the payment of tribute. They had adopted similar tactics on an
Arab invasion which took place under the Caliphate of `Othman: when the
enemy again withdrew, on receiving a bribe of 2,000,000 direms. Jurjān
thereafter enjoyed a long immunity from attack, although Kutayba had
more than once solicited permission from Hajjāj to establish a direct
route between `Irāk and Khorāsān by crushing its independence. Yezīd’s
anxiety to achieve a conquest which had been the unrealised ambition of
his great rival can be easily understood. On his departure from Jurjān
he left his son Mokhallad in charge of Khorāsān. The force at his
command included Kūfans, Basrans, Syrians, and the _élite_ of Khorāsān
and Ray, and numbered 100,000, exclusive of volunteers and slaves. The
first object of his attack was the town of Dihistān, which was peopled
by Turks.[144] Having reduced it by a close blockade, he proceeded
to Jurjān, where the inhabitants, as was their wont, bought peace at
the price of 300,000 direms. Yezīd then passed in a south-westerly
direction into Tabaristān. Its king took refuge in a mountain
inaccessible to the Mohammedan troops, and organised resistance to the
invader from this safe retreat. He obtained reinforcements from Gīlān
and Daylam, and called on the _Marzabān_ of Jurjān to break the treaty
entered into with Yezīd, and massacre the Arabs in Jurjān. Thus was
Yezīd surrounded by active foes, and his retreat cut off. The only
course open to him was to conclude peace with the king of Tabaristān,
and gather his forces for the punishment of the faithless people of
Jurjān. This he did, swearing that he would not stay his sword until
he had shed blood enough to turn a mill, and had eaten bread made
with flour therefrom. The Marzabān, on learning the approach of the
Musulmans, shut himself up in a stronghold which crowned a mountain
top, and was accessible by one road only. Here he held out for seven
months against Yezīd; but the latter enticed the garrison from their
retreat by a ruse, and made prisoners of them all. Their punishment
enabled the ruthless conqueror to fulfil his pledge.
Yezīd now returned to Merv, and sent a highly coloured report of his
successes to his master the Caliph. His career, however, was not
destined to be a long one, for in the following year, A.H. 99 (717),
Sulaymān died, and was succeeded by `Omar ibn `Abd ul-`Azīz. Yezīd
received at the hands of the new Caliph treatment very similar to that
meted out to Kutayba by Sulaymān. He was summoned to appear at Basra,
and after a brief interview with the sovereign he was thrown into
prison. The government of Khorāsān was at the same time transferred to
Jarrāh, son of `Abdullah. The ostensible reason alleged for Yezīd’s
disgrace was his retention of the immense booty of which, in his report
to the preceding Caliph, he had boasted as the fruit of the Jurjān
campaign. `Omar’s real motive was more creditable to him. Yezīd had
been accused by Mohammedan converts from Khorāsān of harshness and
caprice, and `Omar stood alone among the Eastern Caliphs in pursuing
a policy of moderation in propagating his creed.[145] This wise
monarch died in A.H. 101 (719), and was succeeded by Yezīd ibn `Abd
el-Melik. On his accession Yezīd ibn Muhallab effected his escape from
prison, raised the flag of revolt against the new Caliph, one of his
bitterest enemies, and made himself master of Basra. The movement
spread over most of the Eastern provinces, and was not crushed until
the end of the following year, A.H. 102 (720), when Maslama, who held
the viceroyalty of the two `Irāks,[146] defeated and slew Yezīd in a
fierce battle fought near Kūfa on the banks of the Euphrates. In the
same year Maslama appointed a new governor of Khorāsān in the person
of Sa`īd ibn `Abd ul-`Azīz. This step was followed by a general rising
of the inhabitants of Khojend and Farghāna. The tributary Soghdians,
being thus threatened on their eastern frontier, asked help from Merv,
but the new governor, who was of a weak and vacillating disposition,
delayed so long in sending reinforcements that the Soghdians made
overtures to the Turks. When at length the Arabs arrived they were
joined by the former; but disputes arose, which ended in the slaughter
of the Soghdians to the number of 3000. Throughout the reign of Yezīd
II. the Moslem Far East was plunged in continual warfare, with no
very marked results; for the army of `Irāk was fully occupied with
operations against the Khazar and Kipchāk tribes occupying Armenia,
which were, for the most part, attended by ill-success. In A.H. 102
(720) Yezīd II. dismissed Maslama from his post, on the ground that
his leniency had led to a serious falling off in the revenues from
`Irāk and Khorāsān. `Omar ibn Hobayra replaced him. In the following
year Sa`īd, “the Effeminate,”[147] while fighting beneath the walls of
Samarkand, received the news of his dismissal. He was superseded in the
governorship by a namesake, Sa`īd ibn `Amr el-Harashī.[148] El-Harashī
at once set out for Farghāna by way of Bokhārā and Samarkand,[149] and
on reaching Farghāna besieged the king in one of his fortresses. The
king at last came to terms and paid an indemnity of 100,000 direms,
besides surrendering many slaves. During the following night, while
most of the Musulmans were asleep, the treacherous chief, at the head
of 10,000 men, fell upon them and slew a great number. The main body,
however, on receiving the alarm, hastily mounted and charged the
infidels fiercely, putting them to rout and killing the king with 2000
of his followers. In the same year, A.H. 104 (722), El-Harashī was in
his turn deposed,[150] and Muslim ibn Sa`īd, the Kilābite, put into his
place as generalissimo of the Eastern army.
The Mohammedans meanwhile had their hands full in reducing disorders in
Transcaspia, and their ill-success accounts for the perpetual changes
made in the leaders of their troops. The Turks, indeed, were yearly
growing in power and insolence. Muslim ibn Sa`īd suffered a series
of defeats at their hands which culminated in an utter rout of the
Mohammedan army, the survivors escaping with difficulty across the
river of Balkh. In A.H. 105 (723) Yezīd II. died, and was succeeded by
his brother Hishām, who at once appointed Khalid ibn `Abdullah al-Kasrī
governor of the two `Irāks, while he despatched Khālid’s brother Asad
with a powerful army to bring the Turks into subjection. He failed
as miserably as his predecessor; for thrice in successive years he
crossed the Balkh River and marched into Soghdiana, as often to retreat
with severe losses. Enraged by his continued misfortunes, he called
together his generals and roundly accused them of being the cause.
He then had them stripped, bastinadoed, and shaved, and sent them in
chains to his brother Khālid.[151] This outrageous behaviour disgusted
the Caliph, who dismissed Asad and gave the command of the Eastern
army to Ashras ibn `Abdullah.[152] The new general was held in high
esteem by his followers, and received the title of “the Perfect.” He
made great efforts to induce the Christians of Central Asia to embrace
Islām, by promising them exemption from the capitation tax. He appears,
however, not to have abided by his word, but to have reimposed the tax,
with the result that many of the recent converts rose in rebellion and
attached themselves to the Khākān. But Ashras, too, met with a crushing
defeat at the hands of the Turks, and was consequently recalled. In the
person of his successor, Junayd ibn `Abd er-Rahmān,[153] we find a man
more fit for supreme command than those who had preceded him. In his
first engagement with the Turks he defeated the Khākān with a force of
170,000 men, of whom the Musulmans killed about 3000.[154] Junayd then
retired across the Balkh River to Merv, where he wintered.
In the following spring he crossed the Oxus with his whole force,
and on gaining the right bank divided it into three corps. The first,
consisting of 10,000 men, he sent under Saura ibn el-Hurr to occupy
Samarkand. The second division was ordered to Tokhāristān under Omāra
ibn Horaym, who quickly reduced the whole province; while Junayd
himself took command of the remainder.
The accounts of the fighting that ensued, as given by the two versions
of Tabari, offer great discrepancies. The Arabic original, which in
this case seems the most trustworthy source, points to an almost
total defeat of the Mohammedan forces in the first instance, while
the Persian translation, in abridging this account, omits many of the
details of disaster. According to the Arabic, Junayd was marching
on Tokhāristān when news reached him that Saura was hard pressed
in Samarkand by the Khākān of the Turks, whereupon Junayd resolved
to march to his relief. But his forces were so scattered that he
was obliged to set out with the small contingent under his personal
command. When about half-way he was surrounded by the Turkish hordes,
and a fearful struggle ensued in which hundreds of his brave Arabs were
slain. At last he withdrew to a defile,[155] threw up entrenchments,
and called a council of war. His officers pointed out to him that
either he or Saura must perish. He therefore sent word to Saura[156]
to march out of Samarkand, which with much reluctance he did at the
head of 12,000 men. Saura set out in the direction of Junayd’s camp,
and had nearly reached it when he was suddenly attacked by the Turks.
So great was the slaughter that of the 12,000 we are told only three
finally escaped,[157] Saura himself perishing with his army. Having
created this diversion, Junayd thought fit to sally from his retreat,
but only to find himself again outnumbered by the Khākān’s forces. He
now promised freedom to the slaves of his camp if they would fight
for him,[158] and by the valour of these impromptu auxiliaries he was
able to push his way through to Samarkand. When the Caliph Hishām
received Junayd’s report[159] of what had passed he sent him larger
reinforcements of men from Basra and Kūfa, numbering in all some
25,000. When Junayd had been four months in Soghdiana, tidings were
brought to him that the Khākān was threatening Bokhārā; he thereupon
set out from Samarkand, leaving there a garrison in charge of Nasr ibn
Sayyār. In the course of two years Junayd appears to have restored
order in Transoxiana, and with the help of his new reinforcements to
have driven out the Turks. The `Abbāsid faction, which a little later
brought about the downfall of the Umayyad dynasty, in the year 113
began to send emissaries into Khorāsān; Tabari tells us that Junayd
seized one of these men and put him to death. But, apart from this
fact, Tabari has scarcely anything to relate of Junayd between the
years 113 and 116.
In A.H. 116 (734) Junayd, in spite of his great services, was dismissed
from his post by the Caliph for having married the daughter of Yezīd
ibn Muhallab, and `Āsim ibn `Abdullah was appointed in his stead. He
died of dropsy before his successor reached Merv. By his cruelty and
injustice to all who had held office under Junayd, `Āsim incurred the
bitter hatred of his people.
A certain Hārith ibn Surayj rose against him, took possession of many
towns in Khorāsān, such as Merv er-Rūd, Balkh, and Bab-el-Abwāb, and
gathered a crowd of soldiers of fortune to his banner by distributing
amongst them the tribute levied from his acquisitions. `Āsim, failing
to crush this revolt, was dismissed by the Caliph, and Asad el-Kasrī
was reinstated in the governorship of Khorāsān.[160] Asad at once
advanced against Hārith at the head of a large army, drove him to
Turkestān, where he entered into league with the Khākān, who assigned
him and his followers the town of Fārāb as a residence.
In A.H. 118 (736) Balkh became temporarily the Mohammedan capital of
Central Asia. In the same year Asad planned a campaign into Khottal,
but the Khākān took measures to forestall him. Asad’s advance column
was taken completely by surprise, and his camp and harem were captured.
A parley ensued without result, after which he returned to Balkh, while
the Khākān again withdrew to Tokhāristān. But in the following spring
Asad attacked and completely routed the Khākān and rescued all the
Moslem provinces.[161] The Turk fled back to Tokhāristān, and shortly
afterwards, while on his way to attack Samarkand, he was waylaid and
killed by a rebellious follower.
CHAPTER X
NASR IBN SAYYĀR AND ABŪ MUSLIM
In A.H. 120 (737)[162] Asad died, and was succeeded by Nasr ibn
Sayyār, one of the ablest rulers and generals ever sent to the East in
Mohammedan times. He was as generous as he was strong, and seems to
have won the affection of those under him. During the nine years of his
governorship his position was by no means an easy one, for he had to
contend with the growing influence of the `Abbāsid faction,[163] and to
support, with a loyalty worthy of a better cause, the last degenerate
representatives of the house of Umayya. His first care on assuming
the supreme command was to subjugate the Khākān of the Turks, whose
name was Kūrsūl, against whom he led three successive expeditions. The
first two seem to have been without result, but in the last, which was
directed against Shāsh, the Khākān fell into his hands and was put to
death.[164]
In the same year Nasr renewed his attempt to subject Shāsh to the
Moslem yoke. The campaign was a bloodless one. He received the
submission of Ushrūsana, and concluded an advantageous peace with the
king of Shāsh.[165] He thereupon appointed a Mohammedan governor of
Farghāna.
In the year A.H. 123 (740) this judicious ruler established order
throughout Transoxiana, Khorāsān, and Farghāna.[166] But he had other
difficulties to meet which were not of his own making. The star of
the Umayyads was in the descendent, and the `Abbāsid party were daily
adding to the number of their adherents. And, apart from dynastic
struggles, the whole of Islām was rent with the dissensions of the
rival sects of the Khārijites and the Shi`ites. The sectarian zeal of
the latter, which to this day remains the cause of bitter discord in
the realm of Islām, began now to make itself felt in Persia and in
Central Asia.
In A.H. 125 (742) Hishām, the last Umayyad Caliph of any distinction,
died. The dynasty lasted seven years longer, and in that short period
no less than four Caliphs[167] attempted to restore the fading glory
of their house. While such disorders reigned at headquarters there
was small hope of quelling sedition in the outlying provinces. The
`Abbāsid pretender, Ibrāhīm, thanks to the efforts of his father’s[168]
emissaries, had now a powerful and rapidly increasing faction in Merv.
But Nasr still held command in Khorāsān, and his personal influence
was still great enough to avert open rebellion. It failed; and the
fierce tribal jealousy which always smouldered in Arab breasts burst
into civil war. The two rival factions were the Yemenites and the
Modharites. Nasr ibn Sayyār belonged to the tribe of Modhar, and
bestowed the highest offices on his clansmen. In fact, all the towns
of Khorāsān were governed by members of one or the other of the
three principal branches of the tribe, Asad, Temīm, or Kināna. Now,
there was a man of the tribe of Azd called, after his birthplace,
Juday` El-Kirmānī, who, before the promotion of Nasr, had held a
higher position, and retained some authority among his own people.
To him came the Beni Rabī`a with complaints of the partiality of
Nasr. He promised his intercession with the governor. On attempting
remonstrance he raised Nasr’s ire, and was cast into prison, whence
escaping[169] he rejoined his own people. All efforts at reconciliation
proving fruitless, the rival parties had recourse to armed strength.
In A.H. 127 (744) Hārith ibn Surayj, who was permitted to return to
Khorāsān from his captivity in Fārāb, set up his standard at Merv,
and, gathering many followers around it, openly revolted against Nasr.
In the following year Nasr called upon him to swear allegiance to the
Caliph Merwān, but Hārith refused, and boasted that he was “the man
with the black flag”[170] who was to overthrow the Umayyad dynasty.
Hostilities thereupon commenced between Nasr and Hārith, in which the
latter was worsted. He fled to the camp of El-Kirmānī, whom Nasr had
meanwhile been vainly endeavouring to conciliate.
Their combined forces now marched against Nasr, whom they defeated in a
pitched battle. Nasr fled to Nīshāpūr, while the allies occupied Merv,
where, however, dissensions arose between them which cost Hārith his
life, A.H. 128 (745).[171]
It was in the midst of these disorders that Abū Muslim, the virtual
founder of the `Abbasid dynasty, raised the black banner in Khorāsān.
The advent of the `Abbāsids to the Caliphate was an event of such
moment for the future of Central Asia that it is necessary in this
place to give a brief account of the rise of the new dynasty. The
fall of the Umayyads was the death-knell of unity in Islām. In spite
of numberless rebellions in all parts of their conquered provinces
the Umayyads had never recognised independent rulers, but with
the establishment of the house of `Abbās there set in a general
dismemberment of the empire of the Caliphs. The origin of the dispute
between the Hāshimites (or `Abbāsids) and the Umayyads dates back
to a period anterior to the birth of Mohammed. It was a rivalry
between the two chief stocks of the house of Koraysh.[172] We have
seen above that, although Mohammed, on first declaring his mission,
met with opposition from his own tribe, after the conquest of Mekka
they temporarily reconciled the conflicting interests. So after the
Prophet’s death discussions again arose between `Alī and the Caliph
Mo`āwiya. The Khārijites, who demanded a purely theocratic rule, were
also continually in a ferment. After the tragic death of Husayn, the
son of `Alī, at Kerbelā, a party arose devoted to the house of `Alī,
and claiming the succession of his family to the Caliphate, who called
themselves the Shī`a (or faction), and who are known to Europeans as
the Shi`ites.
In the reign of Hishām (A.H. 105), Mohammed, the great-grandson of the
Prophet’s uncle, `Abbās, who was living in retreat in the south of
Palestine, began to advance his claims to the Caliphate. Emissaries
and secret deputations were sent to all the principal towns of Persia,
`Irāk, and Khorāsān, and, in spite of the severe measures taken to
check the movement, the cause of the Hāshimites began rapidly to
spread. The Shi`ites and the Khārijites were induced to make common
cause with the Hāshimites, on the plea that the only object of the
movement was to secure the Caliphate for a member of the Prophet’s own
family.
In the year A.H. 125 (742) Mohammed visited Mekka, and in the same
year Abū Muslim was taken there on a pilgrimage by a party of the
Hāshimite faction. This Abū Muslim, whose real name was `Abd er-Rahmān
ibn Muslim, was a native of Khorāsān, and had been a saddler in the
service of a distinguished Arabian family.[173] While residing at
Mekka he attracted the attention of the `Abbāsid claimant, who at once
singled him out as a youth of great promise,[174] and prophesied that
Abū Muslim would be greatly instrumental in bringing the `Abbāsids to
power. He spent the two following years in journeys between Khorāsān
and Homayma, in order to promote the cause and report its progress. By
means of an active propaganda the Hāshimites had been most successful
in winning over large numbers of adherents, and Abū Muslim was only
watching for a suitable moment to raise the flag of revolt. In A.H. 129
(746), on the death of Hārith ibn Surayj, Nasr ibn Sayyār sent a small
force from Nīshāpūr against El-Kirmānī, which was repelled, and Nasr
now moved on to Merv with all the troops he could command. Abū Muslim,
deeming the moment favourable for his designs, unfurled the black
standard[175] of the `Abbāsids. Ere a month had elapsed contingents
began to pour in from all quarters. Nasr, finding himself unable to
check the movement, implored reinforcements from Merwān, the governor
of `Irāk, and pointed out that the loss of Khorāsān would be fatal to
the house of Umayya.
But no help arrived, and Abū Muslim, conscious of his foe’s weakness,
invited El-Kirmānī to join with him against Nasr; the latter,
foreseeing this contingency, caused El-Kirmānī to be killed by one of
his soldiers, and sent his head to the Caliph. The Yemenites and the
two sons of El-Kirmānī attached themselves to Abū Muslim. In despair
Nasr sent to Merwān a despatch in verse,[176] in which he pointed out
the perils surrounding his situation, and asked whether the house of
Umayya was asleep or awake.
In the year A.H. 130 (747) Abū Muslim made his entry into Merv, and
ordered public prayers to be offered for the `Abbāsid claimant as
Caliph. Nasr, who had abandoned the struggle for power and was living
in retirement at Merv, withdrew on his approach to Nīshāpūr by way of
Sarakhs.[177] In his flight he was joined by such of his troops as
remained faithful, but near Nīshāpūr he was overtaken and defeated by
Kahtaba ibn Shebīb, who had been despatched by Abū Muslim in pursuit.
Nasr now fled farther westward, and on reaching Jurjān was joined by
the Syrian troops from `Irāk; but they came too late. Kahtaba again
overtook the fugitive and inflicted a final defeat. Nasr fled towards
Hamadān, but he died worn out by years and toil at Sāva at the age of
eighty-five. With this faithful viceroy perished the last hopes of the
Umayyads, A.H. 131 (748).
CHAPTER XI
KHORĀSĀN UNDER THE FIRST `ABBĀSIDS
The Umayyad Caliph at last recognised the gravity of the situation,
and sent all the forces he could muster to oppose Kahtaba. But the
Hāshimite troops carried all before them. They defeated a large
Syrian army near Isfahān, and captured the important stronghold of
Nahāvend, A.H. 132 (749). Then Kahtaba started for Kūfa, making a
slight detour to avoid Ibn Hobayra, who was encamped at Jalūlā. On
reaching the Euphrates, Ibn Hobayra came up with him, and a battle
ensued at nightfall near Kerbelā. Kahtaba perished,[178] but his son
Hasan continuing the fray defeated Ibn Hobayra, and drove him back on
Wāsit. Meanwhile the Yemenites revolted in Kūfa, and on the arrival of
the victorious Hāshimite forces[179] delivered up the town to them.
On the entry of Hasan ibn Kahtaba into Kūfa the head of the `Abbāsid
house, Abū-l-`Abbās, emerged from his hiding-place, and the town for
the time became the seat of the `Abbāsids. Abū Sālama was provisionally
recognised as the Vezīr of the house of Mohammed. Meanwhile the fate of
the Umayyads had been decided by the battle of the Zāb in Mesopotamia,
A.H. 132 (750), where Merwān himself, surrounded by his greatest
generals, encountered the Hāshimites under `Abdullah, Abū-l-`Abbās’s
uncle. Merwān suffered a crushing defeat, and fled, hotly pursued, to
Egypt, where he was finally captured and slain.
At the beginning of this year Abū-l-`Abbās, called Es-Saffāh, or the
“Shedder of Blood,” was proclaimed Caliph in the great mosque of Kūfa.
The new Caliph’s first measure was to sweep the entire Umayyad race
from the face of the earth. The traditions which have come down to us
of his butcheries pass all belief.[180] Syria was soon reduced, and Ibn
Hobayra surrendered his last retreat, Wāsit. But troubles continued
throughout his reign. Abū Muslim’s attempts to put all the Umayyad
faction to the sword led to a serious rising in Khorāsān. The partisans
of the fallen dynasty, in Bokhārā, Soghdiana, and Farghāna, aided by
the emperor of China, took the field in force, but were soon dispersed
with great slaughter by Ziyād, governor of Samarkand. “It is plain,”
says Vambéry,[181] “from the historical sources before us that the
original Iranian population of the land, namely, the Tājiks, fought
under the banner of Nasr, and long remained true to the cause of the
Ommayades.”
“The resistance which Nasr ibn Sayyār offered not only to the superior
force, but also to the allurements of Ebu Muslim, deserves our respect.”
“On the other hand, the adroitness of Ebu Muslim deserves our
admiration, who in an astonishingly short space of time gained over to
his side all the Turks of Transoxiana, and attached them to himself
to such a degree that the myths which even now live in the mouths of
the Ozbegs and Turcomans compare him to the Caliph Alī for valour and
wondrous works. At all events the influential individuality of Ebu
Muslim first made the warlike supremacy of the Turks, although only
mediately, felt in Western Asia.”
About the year A.H. 134 (751) the new Caliph’s brother paid an
official visit to Merv, in order to report on the state of the Eastern
provinces. So much alarmed was he at the influence and independence of
Abū Muslim that on his return to Kufa he recommended his brother to rid
himself of the man to whom he owed his throne. In the following year
Ziyād, the governor of Samarkand, probably at the instigation of the
Caliph, rose against Abū Muslim; but the movement was quickly crushed,
and Ziyād was deposed and put to death.
In the following year, A.H. 136 (753), while Abū Muslim and Abū Ja`far
were returning from a pilgrimage to Mekka, the Caliph es-Saffāh died
in Anbār. Abū Ja`far, who is well known in history as El-Mansūr, had
been designated by his brother to succeed him,[182] but he had a
rival in the person of his uncle `Abdullah, who was at the head of a
considerable army, including a contingent of 17,000 men of Khorāsān.
Abū Muslim, compelled to choose between the pretenders, declared for
Abū Ja`far, whereupon `Abdullah caused a massacre of the whole of
his Khorāsān contingent,[183] in the knowledge that they would refuse
to draw the sword against the governor of their province. But the
precaution was of no avail, for shortly afterwards his Syrian army was
utterly defeated near Nisibis by a Persian force under Abū Muslim, and
`Abdullah was compelled to abandon his claim. Hardly was this danger
averted when the Caliph el-Mansūr again allowed his jealousy of Abū
Muslim to get the better of him. Abū Muslim was warned of his ill-will,
so resolved an immediate return to Khorāsān. In order to prevent this
the Caliph appointed him to the governorship of Syria and Egypt, and
invited him to an audience in Madā´in. The correspondence[184] which
followed between the Caliph and his too powerful lieutenant gives us
a graphic picture of the times, and also possesses some historical
importance. Abū Muslim was too wary to accept the Caliph’s invitation.
“A certain king of the Sāsānides,” he replied, “once said: ‘There is
no more dangerous time for a Vezīr than when complete tranquillity
reigns in the kingdom.’ ... I therefore deem it expedient to avoid the
proximity of the Commander of the Faithful, without, however, ceasing
on this account to be his faithful subject. Should the Commander of the
Faithful allow me to do so I will be the most humble of his servants,
but if he gives vent to his passions I shall be compelled for my own
safety to recall my allegiance.”
To this the Caliph replied: “I have grasped the meaning of thy letter;
but thy position is different from that of the bad Vezīrs of the
Sāsānide kings, ... a humble and faithful servant like thyself has
nothing to fear during a state of peace. Although the conditions
hinted at towards the close of thy letter do not bespeak an entire
submission, thou wilt doubtless return with the bearer of this letter.
I pray God that He may give thee strength to withstand the enticements
of Satan, who hopes to frustrate thy good intentions, and opens for
thee the gate which leads to destruction.”
Abū Muslim rejoined in the following remarkable letter: “I had a guide
closely connected with the house of the Prophet whose business it was
to instruct me in the teachings and duties prescribed by God. From
him I had hoped to learn the sciences, but he led me into ignorance
and error by means of the Koran itself, which, from love of worldly
things, he misinterpreted. He ordered me, in God’s name, to draw the
sword, to banish feelings of pity from my heart, to accept no excuses
from my enemies, and to pardon no offence. I did everything to pave
his way to dominion. Nothing now remains for me but to entreat God
to pardon me for the sins I have committed.” Having despatched this
letter, Abū Muslim set out for Khorāsān, but in the meanwhile El-Mansūr
wrote privately to Abū Dā´ūd Khālid, whom Abū Muslim had left as his
lieutenant in Khorāsān, appointing him to the governorship. He further
pointed out that the army of Khorāsān had obeyed Abū Muslim because he
had been fighting for the `Abbāsids; that he was now in open revolt,
and ought to be put to death at the first opportunity. Abū Dā´ūd
communicated this letter to the army and chiefs of Khorāsān, who at
once recognised him as governor. He then sent news of this momentous
occurrence to Abū Muslim, who, seeing that he could no longer count on
the attachment of the Khorāsānīs, and deceived by the false assurances
of his former friends, consented to wait upon the Caliph at Madā´in. On
arriving there he was basely murdered at his master’s instigation by
five hired assassins, A.H. 137 (754).
Abū Muslim was barely thirty-five years of age when he met his fall.
It was certainly deserved, for, according to computations of Arabian
historians, he was responsible for the slaughter of no less than
600,000 human beings. But though the monster richly merited punishment,
his master, on whom he had bestowed the Empire of the East, should have
been the last to inflict it; and the treachery with which Abū Muslim’s
fate was compassed is an additional stain on El-Mansūr’s memory.
CHAPTER XII
THE CALIPHATES OF EL-MANSŪR, EL-HĀDI, AND HĀRŪN ER-RASHĪD
El-Mansur’s troubles did not end with the defeat of `Abdullah and
the murder of Abū Muslim. The rebellious Mesopotamians, under their
leader Mulabbab esh-Shaybāni, more than once repulsed the troops sent
against them by the Caliph, and not till A.H. 138 (755) was order
restored by Khāzim ibn Khuzayma.[185] In the meantime a “Magian,” or
Zoroastrian of Nīshāpūr, named Sinbad,[186] disgusted at the murder
of his patron Abū Muslim, rose in rebellion to avenge the blood of
the fallen general.[187] He soon found himself at the head of a large
following,[188] and gained possession of Nīshāpūr, Kūmis, and Ray.
In the town last mentioned the treasure which had been left there
by Abū Muslim fell into his hands. Against him El-Mansūr despatched
Jahwar[189] ibn Marrār el-`Ijlī, at the head of 10,000 men, who
encountered and put to flight the rebels between Hamadān and Ray.
Sinbad escaped from the field of battle, but was overtaken and killed
between Tabaristān and Ray, his revolt having lasted just seventy
days.[190]
In A.H. 138 (755) Jahwar was deprived of his command for having failed
to deliver over to the Caliph the treasure of Abū Muslim which had
fallen into his hands. He now in turn took up arms against the Caliph,
who sent a force against him under Mohammad ibn el-Ash`ath. Jahwar
suffered a crushing defeat and fled to Āzerbāyjān, whither he was
pursued and slain.
Although El-Mansūr had now, A.H. 139 (756), secured comparative
tranquillity and recognition of his sovereign rights in most of
his dominions, the distant province of Khorāsān, yearly rising in
importance, was still under the heel of the rival faction of the
Hāshimites and the Shi`ites, quite apart from minor sectarian movements
which rendered the attempt to maintain order there almost hopeless.
In the year A.H. 140 (757) the Shi`ites broke out into open revolt, in
the midst of which the then governor, Abū Dā´ūd Khalid ibn Ibrāhim,
died.[191] His successor, `Abd el-Jabbār, was powerless to assert his
authority, and, on learning that he was about to be dismissed from his
office, turned against El-Mansūr. Khāzim ibn Khuzayma, who had already
distinguished himself in Mesopotamia, accompanied by the Caliph’s son
and successor El-Mahdi, at once marched against `Abd el-Jabbār and his
following, A.H. 141 (758). `Abd el-Jabbār was, however, captured by
his own people and sent, mounted backwards on an ass, to the Caliph,
who, after extorting from him by torture all his treasure, put him to
death. The governorship of Khorāsān was now given to El-Mahdi,[192] the
Caliph’s own son and successor--an appointment which seems to indicate
the growing importance of the far Eastern provinces.
In the year A.H. 141 (758) a strange sect of Persian origin styled
Rāvandīs caused no little trouble to the Caliph, and even placed him
in imminent personal danger.[193] The old chronicles have little to
tell us of Khorāsān between the years A.H. 141 and 150, although during
this period they have many grave events to record in other parts of
the Caliph’s dominion,--such as the rising of Mohammad and Ibrāhīm,
descendants of the martyred Hasan (A.H. 145), and the foundation of
Baghdād, A.H. 145 (762). We also hear of frequent engagements in
Armenia between the Caliph’s troops on the one hand and the Khazars and
Turks on the other. These matters, however, do not directly concern our
narrative.[194] We propose, therefore, to chronicle the years A.H. 150
to 180 briefly, recording only such facts as are connected with the
history of Central Asia proper, and mentioning the names of those who
held the governorship of Khorāsān during this period.[195]
[Illustration: RELIGIOUS MENDICANT--BOKHĀRĀ]
In A.H. 150 (767) a serious rising took place in Khorāsān, under the
leadership of a Persian named Ustādsīs,[196] who, placing himself at
the head of 300,000 men of Herāt, Bādghīs, Sistān, and other provinces,
put to flight a large force of Khorāsānīs and men of Merv er-Rūd. On
hearing of this, El-Mansūr immediately sent Khāzim ibn Khuzayma, who
had been so successful in quelling the revolt in Mesopotamia, to help
El-Mahdi, the governor of Khorāsān,[197] to meet this new danger.
El-Mahdi gave over the supreme command of his troops to Khāzim, who
led a force of 20,000 men to meet the rebel Ustādsīs. On approaching
the enemy, Khāzim threw up a zariba and prepared for battle, whereupon
Ustādsīs advanced to the attack. But while a portion of his army was
forcing the entrenchments Khazim created a diversion by causing a body
of his men to sally forth from an opening on the opposite side. This
party fell on the rear of the rebel army and put them completely to
rout, killing 70,000 and taking 14,000 prisoners. Khazim fled to the
hills, but was at length obliged to surrender.
A.H. 151 (768). El-Mahdi returned to Baghdād, and took up his residence
in the new town of Rusāfa, which had been built for the Khorāsānīs, who
were unable to dwell in peace with the haughty Arabs of the capital.
A.H. 152 (769). Humayd ibn Kahtaba was appointed governor of Khorāsān,
and proclaimed a Holy War against Kābul.
A.H. 158 (774). El-Mansūr died, and was succeeded by his son El-Mahdi.
A.H. 159 (775). Humayd was succeeded in the governorship of Khorāsān
by Abu `Aun. A rising took place in Khorāsān in connection with the
appointment of the heir-presumptive (_vali-`ahd_).
A.H. 160 (776). Another rising occurred in Khorāsān under the
leadership of Yūsuf ibn Ibrāhīm, called El-Barm, which was quelled
by Yezīd ibn Mazyad. Yūsuf was sent captive to El-Mahdi, who, after
subjecting him to the cruellest torture, crucified him.
Abu `Aun having provoked the Caliph’s wrath was dismissed from his
office, and succeeded by Mu`āz ibn Muslim.
A.H. 161 (777). The revolt of Mokanna`, “the Veiled Prophet of
Khorāsān,” originated in a village near Merv. He taught the
transmigration of souls, and gave out that the Deity had lately been
incarnate in the person of Abū Muslim, and had now passed into his own.
He secured a great following from among the people of Khorāsān and
Transoxiana, who, from the colour of their clothes, took the name of
_Sefīd-Jāmegān_, or the “White-robed.”
A.H. 163 (779). Mokanna` was besieged by Sayyid el-Harashī in his
fortress in Kesh, and on finding his position hopeless poisoned
himself. His head was sent to El-Mahdi in Aleppo.[198]
Mu`āz was supplanted by Musayyah ibn Zobayr in the governorship.
A.H. 166 (782). A general rising took place against Musayyah, who
was superseded by El-Fadhl ibn Sulaymān Tūsī in the governorships of
Khorāsān and Sīstān.
A.H. 167 (783). Death of El-Mahdi. Succession of El-Hādi.
A.H. 170 (786). Death of El-Hādi. Succession of Hārūn er-Rashīd.
A.H. 171 (787). Ja`far el-Ash`ath, governor of Khorāsān.
A.H. 172 (788). El-`Abbās el-Ash`ath followed his father as governor,
and was, A.H. 175 (791), succeeded by his uncle El-Ghatrīf ibn `Atā.
A.H. 176 (792). Shi`ite revolt in Daylam. Hamza el-Khuzā`ī, governor of
Khorāsān.
A.H. 178 (794). El-Fadhl ibn Yahya was appointed governor of Khorāsān.
A.H. 178 (794). He built mosques and post-stations in Khorāsān,
conducted a “Holy War” in Transoxiana, and was unsuccessfully attacked
by the king of Oshrūsana Khārakhara.[199]
A.H. 179 (795). Mansūr el-Himyari was governor of Khorasan.
A.H. 180 (796). Ja`far ibn Yahya was governor of Khorāsān and Sīstān.
A.H. 182 (798). The famous Caliph Hārūn er-Rashīd appointed his infant
son Ma´mūn ruler over all the countries from Hamadān to the farthest
East, under the guardianship of Ja`far ibn Yahya.
The year A.H. 187 (802) was memorable in Mohammedan annals for the
sudden disgrace and fall of the all-powerful favourites of the Caliph,
the Barmecides,[200] at that time represented by the brothers Fadhl
and Ja`far and their aged father Yahya. Their story has been told too
often to bear repetition in this place, although, as we have seen, the
Barmecides had from their origin been closely connected with Khorāsān.
On the fall of the Barmecides, A.H. 187 (802), `Alī ibn `Isā[201] was
appointed to the governorship of Khorāsān, but the complaints against
his misgovernment and extortion grew so loud that in A.H. 189 (804)
Hārūn resolved to undertake a journey of inspection into the province.
He accordingly set out at the head of 50,000 men,[202] leaving the
government in the hands of his heir-apparent Amīn. On reaching Ray,
however, he found `Alī ibn `Isā awaiting his arrival with rich presents
for himself and his generals, and, soothed by these gifts and by the
flattery of the cruel governor, Hārūn took him into favour and sent him
back to Khorāsān, while he himself returned to his capital, A.H. 190
(806).
In the following year a certain Rāfi` ibn Layth, a grandson of the
Umayyad governor, Nasr ibn Sayyār, for reasons of private vengeance,
killed the governor of Samarkand and became master of that town.
With the aid of the discontented citizens and some Turkish tribes
he repulsed the army sent against him by `Alī ibn `Isā, A.H. 191
(807). Hārūn, on hearing of this revolt, at once despatched his
trusted general Harthama to re-establish order; but the seditionary
movement under Rāfi` continued to grow with such rapidity that the
Caliph thought fit to take the field against him in person.[203] So,
again leaving Baghdad in the hands of his son Amīn, he set out for
Khorāsān with a large army. On reaching Kirmānshāh, he sent forward
Ma´mūn, accompanied by Fadhl ibn Sahl as his vezīr, with orders to
establish himself in Merv and to send Harthama to attack Rāfi`, who
had established his camp in Bokhārā and was now practically master of
Transoxiana. Meanwhile the Caliph, who was suffering from a severe
malady,[204] was advancing by slower stages towards Khorāsān with the
main body of his army. On reaching Tūs the symptoms became more acute,
and on the 3rd of Jumāda II. 193 (24th March 809), the great Caliph
succumbed at the early age of forty-five, and was buried in that town.
CHAPTER XIII
DECLINE OF THE CALIPHS’ AUTHORITY IN KHORĀSĀN. THE TĀHIRIDES
On the death of Hārūn er-Rashīd, A.H. 193 (809), a serious dispute
arose between his two sons, Amīn and Ma´mūn. The former, probably
on the advice of his vezīr, Fadhl ibn Rabī`a,[205] ordered the
army, which was at Tūs, to return to Baghdād. This act was not only
unfriendly towards his brother, but was also in direct contravention
of his father’s will. Ma´mūn, in retaliation, put a stop to all postal
communication between Baghdād and the East, and assumed the title of
Caliph over a kingdom which extended from Hamadān to Tibet, and from
the Caspian to the Persian Gulf. With the help of his able vezīr,
Fadhl ibn Sahl,[206] he succeeded in establishing order throughout his
realms. Meanwhile Harthama took Samarkand after a protracted siege;
whereupon Rāfi` threw himself on Ma´mūn’s mercy and was pardoned, and
thus peace was restored throughout Khorāsān. But the elements of civil
disorder still held sway. While Amīn, on the one hand, struck Ma´mūn
from the succession, the latter ordered the omission of his brother’s
name from the public prayers. Amīn, angered at his rival’s attitude,
resolved on reducing him by force of arms. To this end he despatched
`Alī ibn `Isā against him at the head of 50,000 men. On reaching Ray,
A.H. 195 (810), he encountered Tāhir, who had been posted there by
Ma´mūn to watch the frontier. In the battle that ensued `Alī was slain
in single combat by Tāhir, and his army was put to flight. Tāhir,
in obedience to Ma´mūn’s orders, now marched on Baghdād, and with
reinforcements brought by Harthama defeated all the armies sent to stop
his progress. Having secured the submission of Arabia and Mesopotamia,
he laid siege to Baghdād, and took the city by storm in A.H. 198 (813),
after twelve months’ investment. Amīn made a vain attempt to escape,
and was finally slain by a party of Persian soldiers.
Ma´mūn, who was now the undisputed master of the Caliphate, made Merv
his capital instead of removing to Baghdād. He took this fatal step,
which gave offence to the people of the West generally, on the advice
of Fadhl ibn Sahl; for Ma´mūn, like his brother, was overruled by
a selfish and masterful vezīr. After the capture of Baghdād, Tāhir
placed himself at the head of affairs in that town; but the people soon
rose against him to avenge the death of Amīn. The revolt was quelled
by the distribution of largesses, and all `Irāk acknowledged Tāhir’s
sway.[207] It is impossible to enumerate the disorders which distracted
Baghdād and the West, and the countless difficulties which Ma´mūn had
to face during the next few years. Suffice it to say that, in spite
of repeated risings and conspiracies against the Caliph’s authority,
Ma´mūn continued to be guided by the short-sighted counsels of his
vezīr, who, as a Persian[208] and a Shī`ite, was hated in the orthodox
West. Not till A.H. 202 (817) did the monarch awaken to the dangers of
the situation and set out from Merv to Baghdād. On reaching Sarakhs,
Fadhl, the real cause of all Ma´mūn’s misfortunes, was murdered in his
bath--it appears, at the instigation of his master. In A.H. 204 (817)
Ma´mūn entered Baghdād, and Tāhir, who had during the recent troubles
fallen into disfavour with the Caliph, was now appointed governor of
Baghdād. He did not remain long in this office, for at his own request
he was appointed to the viceroyalty of the East, A.H. 205 (818).[209]
With him the Caliph sent a confidential eunuch, who had orders to
poison Tāhir should he show any signs of insubordination. After a
successful rule of two years Tāhir suddenly omitted the Caliph’s name
in the weekly prayers, and on the following day he was found dead in
his bed, A.H. 207 (822). But so great were the esteem and influence
which the viceroy had gained in Khorāsān, that the Caliph did not
dare to take the governorship of that province out of the hands of
Tāhir’s family. His two sons, Talha and `Abdullah, did not inherit
his turbulent character; and whilst `Abdullah was fighting Ma´mūn’s
battles in Mesopotamia and Egypt, his brother Talha governed the
Eastern provinces (from A.H. 207–213 (822–828)) in the Caliph’s name.
His residence was Nīshāpūr, whence he exercised complete authority over
Khorāsān, Tabaristān, and Transoxiana.
It is fitting in this place to revert to the rise of a family destined
to play an important part in the East under the Tāhirides, and, after
succeeding their former masters in the governorship of Khorāsān, to
found the first independent Mohammedan dynasty in Central Asia.
While Asad ibn `Abdullah el-Kasrī[210] held the governorship of
Khorāsān a certain nobleman of Balkh named Sāmān,[211] who had been
driven out of his native town, came to Asad in Merv and begged the
governor to help him against his enemies. Asad warmly espoused his
cause and succeeded in reinstating him in Balkh. Out of gratitude for
this action, Sāmān, who had hitherto been a Zoroastrian,[212] embraced
Islām and named his son Asad after his protector. This Asad had four
sons, who rendered excellent services to Hārūn er-Rashīd in quelling
the revolt of Rāfi` ibn Layth.[213] Ma´mūn, mindful of the obligations
under which the sons of Asad had placed his father, ordered the then
governor of Khorāsān, Ghassān ibn `Abād,[214] to give to each of them
the government of a town. Thus in the year A.H. 202 (817)[215] Nūh, the
eldest son, became Amīr of Samarkand; Ahmed, Amīr of Farghāna; Yahya,
Amīr of Shāsh (Tashkent) and Oshrūsana; and Ilyās, lord of Herāt.[216]
When, in A.H. 205, Ghassān was superseded by Tāhir, these grants to the
family of Sāmān were confirmed, and continued in the same hands until
the downfall of the Tāhirides and the rise of the Sāmānides to the
supreme power in the East.
In A.H. 213 (828) Talha died and was succeeded by his son `Alī, who,
however, perished shortly afterwards in a conflict with the Khārijites
near Nīshāpūr. Ma´mūn thereupon sent Talha’s brother `Abdullah to
Khorāsān to assume the reins of government, which he held until his
death in A.H. 230 (844), at the age of forty-eight, after seventeen
years of most successful administration. But although the Caliph’s name
was scrupulously mentioned in Friday prayers, Khorāsān was now to all
intents and purposes independent of Baghdād. The falling away of this
essentially Persian province was but the first step towards the final
separation of the Arabs and the Persians which was shortly to follow,
after two hundred years of involuntary and unnatural association. The
Tāhirides continued to rule Khorāsān and the East during a period of
fifty-six years, when their last representative, Mohammad,[217] in A.H.
259 (872), was overthrown by the Saffāride Ya`kūb ibn Layth, of whom we
must now speak.
CHAPTER XIV
THE SAFFĀRIDES AND THE RISE OF THE SĀMĀNIDES
During the Caliphate of Mutawakkil[218] the government of the province
of Sīstān was usurped by a man named Sālih ibn Nasr, who, under the
pretext of putting down a rising of the Khārijites, had gathered round
himself a large body of adherents. The then governor of Khorāsān, Tāhir
II., hearing of the disorders in Sīstān, took the field in person in
order to put an end to the hostilities between the Khārijites and
Sālih’s adherents. This he succeeded in doing, but scarcely had he
returned to his residence when news reached him that Sālih had again
taken the field. Among the lieutenants of the latter was a certain
Ya`kūb ibn Layth, who was destined to play an important part in the
history of his time, and to establish a powerful though short-lived
dynasty. He is one of the most popular heroes of Persian history, and
so many anecdotes have clustered round his name that it is difficult to
separate truth from romance. His origin was certainly obscure, and he
appears to have been the son of a coppersmith,[219] though authorities
are divided as to whether he ever plied that trade himself.[220] Many
tales are told of his reckless generosity as a boy, and his consequent
popularity among his schoolfellows. His Persian biographers tell us,
without apology or comment, that on reaching the age of adolescence he
became a highway robber; and he was doubtless followed by those whom
his masterful bearing had attached to his person during childhood.
“The number and character of his followers, and the success of his
enterprises, soon gave him fame and wealth, and his generous and humane
usage of those whom he plundered added to his renown and popularity.
In such a state of society the transition from the condition of a
successful robber to that of a chief of reputation was easy and
natural. A man who possessed activity and courage, and who was able
to command a number of adherents, could not fail of early attaining
rank and consequence.”[221] Sālih was only too glad to obtain the
services of the bold highwayman, who rose so rapidly to power that
the governor’s successor, Dirham ibn Nasr, in A.H. 247 (861), gave
him command of his army, which henceforth became the terror of the
surrounding countries. Meanwhile the Tāhirides remained inactive in
Nīshāpūr, and followed a policy of _laissez-faire_ which wrought their
downfall.
Ya`kūb soon set upon a career of extended conquest, and made himself
master of Herāt (A.H. 253 (867)), Kirmān, and Shīrāz. In A.H. 257 (871)
he sent a message to Muwaffak, the Caliph Mu`tamid’s brother, declaring
himself one of the Caliph’s most humble slaves, and proposing to pay
him a visit. The Caliph, wishing at any cost to keep this redoubtable
warrior at a safe distance, sent him an investiture of the government
of Balkh, Tokhāristān, and all the country as far as the Indian
frontier. These districts were inhabited by widely different races, and
included the Turks of Kābul and their neighbours the Afghans. Ya`kūb
now crossed the passes of the Hindu Kush and entered the Kābul valley.
For the past hundred years or so it had never entered the mind of any
Eastern governor to disturb the independence of the Turkish king of
Kābul.[222] But Ya`kūb succeeded where the early Moslem conquerors had
failed, for he carried off the king and all his idols, and was the
first to establish Islām in a district hitherto under the influence of
Buddhism. In A.H. 259 (872) he administered a crushing defeat to the
last of the Tāhirides, and thus became master of Khorāsān and the East.
He died in A.H. 265 (878), leaving nearly the whole of Persia to his
brother `Amr, who for some years enjoyed a prosperous rule and remained
obedient to the Caliph at Baghdād. But in A.H. 271 (884), owing to the
complaints of the inhabitants of Khorāsān, the Caliph Mu`tamid deprived
`Amr of the governorship of that province, which was apparently given
to Rāfi` ibn Harthama, and sent an army to attack him. In the first
encounter `Amr was defeated, and fled to his native state of Sīstān by
way of Shīrāz and Kirmān. At this point we must for a time leave `Amr,
and revert to the story of the Sāmānides.
[Illustration: A JEWISH CHILD OF BOKHĀRĀ]
It has been stated above that the province of Māvarā-un-Nahr, or
Transoxiana, had been held during the supremacy of the Tāhirides by
various members of the house of Sāmān. At the time of the overthrow
of the Tāhirides by Ya`kūb ibn Layth, Nasr ibn Ahmed was governor of
Samarkand. We are told[223] that, after the fall of the Tāhirides,
Muwaffak sent a regal mandate to Nasr ibn Ahmed appointing him to the
government of all Transoxiana, from the banks of the Oxus to the
farthest East.[224] It is not apparent how he became independent of the
new masters of Khorāsān;[225] but in the year 261 we find Nasr, with
the help of his brother Isma`īl, engaged in the direction of affairs in
Transoxiana. Narshakhi tells us that the names of both were mentioned
in the public prayers, while that of Ya`kūb ibn Layth was omitted. Nasr
appears to have had a natural predilection for the town of Samarkand,
and on this account, perhaps, on receiving his appointment from the
Caliph, he did not proceed to the then capital, Bokhārā, but sent
thither a deputy in the person of his brother Isma`īl, who was then
but twenty-seven years of age. Bokhārā was at this period in a state
of great disorder owing to the dissensions of political and religious
factions, and partly to the rapine caused by organised robber-bands
which infested the country. Isma`īl, who shone as a general and an
administrator, and possessed the rarer faculty of winning men’s hearts
by his justice and clemency, soon established order throughout the
country, and succeeded in extirpating the banditti, whose numbers,
we are told, even between Rāmtīna and Barkad, amounted to 4000.[226]
All would have gone well in Nasr’s dominions had not his jealousy,
or proneness to listen to the voice of slander, led him to quarrel
with his brother. It is not necessary to recount the various phases
of these one-sided disputes. Suffice it to say that while, on the one
hand, Isma`īl always remained loyal to his brother, Nasr himself was
too prudent to withdraw him abruptly from Bokhārā, where he had
won the esteem and affection of the people. But in A.H. 272 (885) he
succumbed to the wiles of self-interested advisers and marched against
his brother, who fled from Bokhārā and called upon his friend Rāfi`
ibn Harthama,[227] the viceroy of Khorāsān, for aid.[228] Nasr soon
brought most of the towns of Bokhārā to submission, and forbade their
citizens to furnish supplies to Isma`īl and his army, who soon felt
the stress of famine. So pitiable, indeed, was their plight by the
time that Rāfi` arrived, that the governor of Khorāsān, rather than
embark upon so losing a venture, suddenly declared to Nasr that he was
not come to make war, but peace, between the brothers. Terms were soon
arrived at by which the government of Bokhārā was given to Ishak, while
Isma`īl was appointed tax-collector (`_āmil-i-kharāj_), A.H. 273 (886).
These matters being settled, Nasr returned to Samarkand, and Rāfi`
to Khorāsān. But in the following year Nasr, dissatisfied with the
accounts rendered by Isma`īl, and perhaps suspecting treachery on the
part of Isma`īl and Ishak, again prepared to attack Bokhārā. To this
end he drew large reinforcements from Farghāna. Isma`īl, determined on
this occasion to be better prepared to encounter his brother, raised a
powerful contingent in Khwārazm. After suffering a few slight reverses,
Isma`īl, at the end of the year A.H. 275 (888), administered a crushing
defeat on his brother and took him prisoner. At this crisis, as on
many other occasions,[229] if we are to believe the historians, Isma`īl
displayed an almost incredible degree of generosity, for he treated
his fallen brother with the utmost deference and kindness, and sent
him back to Samarkand without suggesting any change in their relative
positions. Nasr seems from this date to have ruled peacefully until his
death in A.H. 279 (893).
CHAPTER XV
THE SĀMĀNIDES
On the death of Nasr ibn Ahmed, A.H. 279 (892), Isma`īl became the
acknowledged lord of Transoxiana and Khwārazm, with Bokhārā as his
capital. His succession was furthermore confirmed by a royal patent
from the Caliph Mu`tadhid. The first recorded act of Isma`īl’s reign
was the _ghazā_, or Holy War, which he conducted against the Christian
settlement of Tarāz.[230] The undertaking, according to Narshakhi,[231]
cost him no little trouble; but finally “the Amīr and many of the
_Dihkāns_ embraced Islam,” and opened the gates of Tarāz to Isma`īl,
who immediately converted the principal church into a mosque and had
prayers in the Caliph’s name. His troops returned to Bokhārā laden
with booty.[232] In the meantime `Amr ibn Layth had reorganised his
shattered forces,[233] and set out on a fresh career of conquest.
In 279 Mu`tadhid, on the death of his brother, succeeded to the
Caliphate. `Amr ibn Layth, who had been the late Caliph’s bitterest
enemy, now offered his services to his successor, who appointed him
to the governorship of Khorāsān. The Caliph doubtless thought that
`Amr would act as a useful counterpoise to the Sāmānides, whose power
was daily increasing in Transoxiana, and Rāfi` ibn Harthama, who was
in possession of part of Khorāsān and Persian `Irāk.[234] In A.H. 283
(896) `Amr defeated Rāfi` and took possession of Nīshāpūr. Rāfi` was
cruelly murdered, and his head sent as a trophy of `Amr’s successes
to Baghdād. `Amr’s ambition now knew no bounds. He insisted that the
Sāmānides should be removed from Transoxiana, and that the province
should be added to his governorship. The Caliph, in reply to these
demands, urged him to attack Isma`īl, and practically offered him the
province should his expedition prove successful, while at the same
time he confirmed Isma`īl in his governorship, and encouraged him to
withstand `Amr.[235] He doubtless hoped, by provoking a conflict, to
weaken the power of both men. These hostilities finally culminated in
the siege and capture of Balkh, A.H. 288 (900), when `Amr fell into
Isma`īl’s hands.[236] In this connection, again, wonderful stories are
told of Isma`īl’s generosity towards his fallen enemies. It is said,
indeed, that he would have kept `Amr by him, and treated him with
kindness and distinction, had not the Caliph demanded that his enemy
should be delivered over to him for punishment. `Amr was therefore sent
to Baghdād, where he remained a close prisoner until his death by the
executioner’s hand in A.H. 290 (903).[237] He was nominally succeeded
by a son, Tāhir, who, however, only held his post for one year.
As soon as `Amr arrived a prisoner in Baghdād the Caliph sent a royal
patent confirming the appointment of Isma`īl to the governorship of
“Khorāsān, Turkestān, Māvarā-un-Nahr, Sind, Hind, and Jurjān.”[238]
Isma`īl’s government is spoken of in the highest terms, and we are
expressly told by Narshakhi that throughout his rule he owed implicit
obedience to the Caliph. He chose Bokhārā as his capital,[239] and
appointed separate governors for all the towns in his realms.
The last campaign in which he engaged was against the Turks in the
modern Hazrat-i-Turkestān, whom in A.H. 291 (903) he drove back within
their own frontiers, while Isma`īl returned to Bokhārā laden with
plunder.
The last four years of Isma`īl’s reign were characterised by internal
peace and progress, which enabled him to devote much of his attention
to the welfare of his beloved city of Bokhārā, which now became a
great centre of Mohammedan learning and culture.[240] Many of the
principal buildings in Bokhārā date back to the days of Amīr Isma`īl,
and among her children are to be reckoned some of the greatest
theologians, jurisconsults, historians, and poets of the day. Bokhārā
was, moreover, the capital of an empire which included such famous
and widely separated towns as Merv, Nīshāpūr, Ray, Āmul, Herat, and
Balkh.[241] At this date Bokhārā fully deserved the title of _Sherīf_
or “the Noble,” which she has retained to the present time, when the
memory alone of her ancient greatness survives.
Such was the inheritance which Isma`īl, on his death[242] in A.H. 295
(907), left to his son Ahmed.
While, on the other hand, the Būyide or Daylamite dynasty was becoming
daily more powerful, and was gradually absorbing the whole of Persia
and trespassing on the Western possessions of the Sāmānides, the
representatives of this house had become mere puppets in the hands of
their ministers, many of whom were Turks, who, like their kinsmen the
Mamlūks of Egypt, had risen from the position of slaves to the highest
offices in the state.
Thus in the year A.H. 350 (961), on the death of `Abd el-Melik I.,
Mansūr I., his brother and successor, met with serious opposition from
a certain Turk named Alptagin, governor of Nīshāpūr, who refused to
recognise his claims. Resort was had to arms, and, after a battle at
Balkh, the results of which are variously stated, Alptagin withdrew to
Ghazna, where he established himself so strongly that he was able to
repulse the army sent by Mansūr to attack him. On the death of Alptagin
in A.H. 366 (976) the leadership of those men who had accompanied
him to Ghazna passed to another Turk named Sabuktagin. The choice was
fortunate, for Sabuktagin proved himself to be a general of great
talent; and by means of little frontier engagements he succeeded
in rapidly extending his territories, and ultimately in founding a
powerful dynasty which, under his successor, was to bring Northern
India, Persia, and the East under its sway. Although Sabuktagin was the
nominal vassal of the Sāmānides,[243] he was in reality an independent
ruler. This was, moreover, the case in a lesser or greater degree with
many of the governors in Khorāsān and the neighbouring dependencies.
CHAPTER XVI
THE KARA-KHĀNIDES, OR UÏGHŪRS
While the Sāmānides were thus harassed by the powerful Daylamites in
the west, by the growing power of Sabuktagin in the south, and the fear
of insubordination in their own states, a force still more formidable
had arisen on their northern frontier, where a Turkish state had been
founded which extended from Kāshghar to the Sea of Aral. The relations
of this state with its southern neighbours were at first of a peaceful
and even friendly character; but when the nomads perceived that Iranian
authority was on the wane they began to cast longing eyes across the
Jaxartes. They probably belonged to the tribe of _Uïghūr_, which had
been the first to separate from the main body of the Turkish race and
settle down in a home on the slopes of the Tien-shan.[244]
According to the Mohammedan historian Juvaynī,[245] the Uïghūrs
originally came from the valley of the Orkon River. The first king
whose name has come down to us was Būkū Khān, whom tradition has
identified with the great Afrāsiyāb.[246]
Būkū Khān, having learnt in a dream that he would possess the entire
world, assembled his troops and sent his brothers to wage war against
the Mongols, Kirghiz, Tanguts, and Khitāys.[247] They returned to
their dwelling-place with great booty, and founded the city of Urdu
Bālik. Būkū Khan again dreamt that a piece of jade was given him with
the assurance that as long as he preserved it he would rule the
world. The prospect induced him to turn his arms to the west and enter
Turkestān, where he built the city of Balāsāghūn.[248] We know from
Chinese sources that these Uïghūrs[249] had their abode in the seventh
century in the north-west of Mongolia; that in the eighth century
they dwelt near the place where, in the five hundred years later, the
Mongols built Karakorum. In the ninth century their empire in Mongolia
was destroyed by the Kirghiz, when they were dispersed, and apparently
split into two parties. The eastern branch came into contact with
Chingiz Khān. After and thenceforward they appear in the Mongol-Chinese
annals as under the name of Wei-wu-rh.[250] Of the Western Uïghūrs
little is known, but they may be identified with the Eastern Turks of
Mohammedan authors of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.[251]
The first of the Uïghūr Khāns of Turkestān who plays any great part
in Mohammedan history is Boghrā Khān, whose capital was Balāsāghūn,
and who ruled over Kāshghar (called Urdu Kend), Khotan, Karakorum,
Tarās, and Fārāb (Otrār).[252] He was contemporaneous with Nūh III.,
seventh of the Sāmānide line, whose reign was characterised by the
utmost confusion and anarchy. Two of Nūh’s most powerful nobles--Abū
`Alī Sīmjūr, governor of Khorāsān, and Fā´ik, governor of Herāt, whose
insubordination had received severe but well-merited punishment at the
hands of their master--made treacherous overtures to Boghrā Khān, and
invited him to attack Nūh. The invitation was accepted with alacrity
by the Uïghūr prince, who at once set out for Samarkand, which was
delivered over to him by the faithless Fā´ik, whom Nūh had intrusted
with its defence. The feeble representative of the Sāmānides, thus
betrayed, fled from his capital, which Boghrā Khān shortly after
entered in triumph, and became practically master of Transoxiana. But
the climate of Bokhārā did not suit him. He set out for his home,
when death overtook him ere he had gone many stages, A.H. 383 (993).
Meanwhile Nūh re-entered Bokhārā and regained possession of his
dominion. But though he was heartily welcomed by the people he did not
feel secure from the treachery of his nobles, and on this account he
invited the great Sabuktagin, in the year A.H. 384 (994), to come to
his aid. Sabuktagin immediately hastened over the mountain passes at
the head of 20,000 men, and, crossing the Oxus, joined Nūh at Kesh.
Seconded by his son Mahmūd, he gained three victories over the rebel
lieutenants at Herāt, Nīshāpūr, and finally at Tūs. Fā´ik had in the
meanwhile fled to Ilik Khān, the son and successor of Boghrā Khān, and
Bokhārā was threatened with a second Uïghūr invasion. In reply to the
menace, Sabuktagin, who had quarrelled with Nūh, concluded a peace with
Ilik, and appointed the rebellious Fā´ik governor of Samarkand.
In A.H. 387 (997) both Sabuktagin and Nūh died, and were respectively
succeeded by the valorous and talented Mahmūd, and by Mansūr II. who
exhibited qualities precisely the reverse.
Transoxiana fell into the power of Ilik Khān, while Mahmūd of Ghazna
gained possession of Khorāsān. Turks had long held high office in the
states of Islām in Central Asia, as well as in Baghdād and in Egypt,
where they had founded a powerful dynasty. It was, therefore, no
great change for them to find themselves, as a nation, masters of the
extensive kingdom of which Bokhārā was the capital.
Mansūr II., after a reign of less than two years, was deprived of
sight by one of his discontented courtiers named Bektuzun; and `Abd
el-Melik II., a mere child, was set up in his stead. All power was
now concentrated in the hands of Fā´ik and Bektuzun. When news of
these events reached Ilik Khān in Kāshghar he sent a message to `Abd
el-Melik to the effect that he would speedily take measures to protect
him. Bektuzun immediately set out to oppose Ilik Khān, but he was
unsuccessful, and in A.H. 389 (999) Ilik Khān entered Bokhārā. Instead,
however, of helping the young prince, he cast him into prison, where he
soon afterwards died.[253]
When, in A.H. 389 (999), Ilik Khān[254] wrested Transoxiana from the
Sāmānides, their capital was removed to Bokhārā. In A.H. 398 (1007)
they attempted to establish themselves south of the Oxus, but were
driven back by Mahmūd of Ghazna, and henceforward their territory was
restricted to Transoxiana, Kāshghar, and Eastern Tartary.[255]
About the beginning of the tenth century a prince of the hereditary
house of the Khāns of Kāshghar, named Satuk Boghrā Khān,[256] became
the first convert in that country to Islām, which he proceeded to
force upon his subjects at the point of the sword, in the face of a
determined and protracted opposition which prevented its spread beyond
the limits of his own territory. It was only on the downfall of the
Sāmānides that the creed of Mohammed, through proselytising zeal--of
Mahmūd in the direction of Hindustān, and of Ilik Khān in that of
Turkestān--received a fresh impetus, and spread north, south, and
east with a rapidity only equalled by the violence employed by its
propagators.[257]
According to Narshakhi,[258] Ilik Khān died in A.H. 403 (1012), and
was succeeded by his brother Toghān Khān, who, a few days after his
accession, was attacked by what appeared to be an incurable malady.
The Sultans of Khitāy and Khotan, thinking to take advantage of
his helpless state, advanced with an enormous host to attack his
dominions.[259] But, on hearing of the approaching invasion, the Khān
miraculously recovered his health and forthwith set out to oppose his
enemies. We are told that they retreated without striking a blow as
soon as they learnt that their quarry had regained his strength, but
were hotly pursued and harassed by the Khān for three months.
Toghān Khān died in A.H. 408 (1018). He is spoken of in terms of the
highest praise, both on account of his piety and his learning. His
successor was Arslān Khān, who, however, was unable to preserve the
integrity of his kingdom. Coming into conflict with Sultan Mahmūd, he
was defeated and killed in the year A.H. 410 (1020).
Kādir[260] Khān, who now ascended the throne at Samarkand, is said to
have brought the whole of Kāshghar and Khotan under his subjection.
He died in A.H. 423 (1031), and was succeeded by his son Arslān Khān.
During his reign he received a deputation from some Turks of Tibet,
who, hearing of his justice and clemency, asked permission to settle
in the neighbourhood of Balāsāghūn. He granted their request, and when
they arrived he tried to compel their acceptance of Islām. This they
refused, but as they were otherwise loyal and obedient he gave way and
allowed them to remain in a state of heathenism.[261] Arslān Khān was
overthrown in A.H. 425 (1033) by his brother Boghrā Khān, during whose
reign the immigrant Turks embraced Islām (A.H. 432).[262] He died by
poison in A.H. 439 (1047), and was succeeded by his son Ibrāhīm--the
last chief of the house of Boghrā Khān.[263]
The kingdom of Kāshghar seems shortly afterwards to have fallen into
the hands of another branch of the Eastern Uïghūrs, called by Narshakhi
the Tufghāj,[264] the first of whose representatives, Ibrāhim, was
killed in battle against Alp Arslān, the Seljūk, in A.H. 472 (1079),
and was succeeded by his brother Khidhr Khān.[265] He apparently died
in the same year, when his son Ahmed Khān came to the throne. The
latter, in A.H. 482 (1089), was attacked and defeated by Melik Shāh,
and sent prisoner to Isfahān; but soon afterwards he was reinstated as
governor of Transoxiana. In 488 he was condemned to death by the mullās
or doctors of Samarkand, on the ground that he professed heretical
tenets acquired during his residence in Persian `Irāk. After him Mas`ūd
Khān[266] reigned for a short period, and was succeeded by Kādir Khān,
who in A.H. 495 (1101) perished in an insurrection fomented by him
against Sanjar, the then governor of Khorāsān.
The next ruler of Samarkand was Mohammad Khān[267] ibn Sulaymān, who in
A.H. 503 (1109) successfully defended his capital against the attack
of a large Turkish force under a certain Sāghir Beg. He held this post
until his death, and apparently continued in his loyalty to Sanjar,
who, as we have seen, ascended the throne of the Seljūks in 511. We are
not told when he died, but Narshakhi says that his son Nasr Khān was
killed during a revolt in Samarkand in A.H. 523 (1128). On the death
of his father, Nasr’s son Mohammad Khān wrote to inform Sanjar of what
had passed. Sanjar thereupon set out with a force to establish order
in Samarkand, but when he approached the town Mohammad Khān sent him
an insolent message that the Sultan would do well to retreat, inasmuch
as he (Mohammad) had subdued his opponents. Sanjar was much incensed,
and promptly invested the city. After a protracted siege he captured
Samarkand and took Mohammad prisoner, A.H. 524 (1129). A new governor
was now appointed, but he died two years later, when the reins of power
were given to Mahmūd Khān, the son of Mohammad.[268]
In the meanwhile another mighty host was advancing on Transoxiana; but
before describing their progress we must retrace our steps and recount
the downfall of the Ghaznavides and the rise of the great Seljūk
dynasty of Persia.
CHAPTER XVII
THE GHAZNAVIDES AND THE RISE OF THE SELJŪKS
The struggles between Mahmūd of Ghazna and Ilik Khān of Kāshghar
continued till the year A.H. 401 (1010), when the latter, owing to a
quarrel with his brother Toghān, was obliged to withdraw his troops,
and a long period of peace ensued, with but slight interruptions,
during which the Oxus continued to be regarded as the frontier of their
respective realms.
Before the actual downfall of the Sāmānides the province of
Khwārazm,[269] which lay between the states of the Turkish Khāns and
the Ghaznavides, had become practically independent. On the final
overthrow of the Sāmānides, the Khwārazm Shāh,[270] as their ruler was
called, had thrown in his fortunes with the Ghaznavides. In A.H. 407
(1017) the then ruler was murdered by rebels, whereupon Mahmūd marched
into the country at the head of a large force and conquered it, setting
up a governor of his own creation named Altuntāsh.
Great difficulties attend an attempt to define the ethnographic
affinities of the Turks. A similarity of language forces one to
associate the Tartars of Southern Russia, the Turkomans of the Oxus
countries, and the Uzbegs of Transoxiana. This race, in the broadest
sense of the word, may be divided into three groups:--
(1) The Northern Turks, comprising the Siberian nomads, such as the
Yakuts, etc.
(2) The Eastern Turks, including those of Chinese Turkestān and the
Uzbegs of Russian Turkestān, to whom are related the Tartars of the
Crimea and the Volga.
(3) The Western Turks, comprising the Osmānlīs, or Ottoman branch, the
Āzerbāyjānīs of Persia, and the Turkomans,--in fact, what we commonly
in Europe understand by the word Turk.
The habitat of the original Turks was in the Altaï, whence they
migrated in large numbers at an early period towards China and
Turkestān. It was in this latter direction that they met with least
resistance, and thither, therefore, they wandered in the greatest
numbers.
But, apart from these lesser migrations, two great Turkish waves
poured, at an interval of two hundred years, over Western Asia and
Southern Europe--the Seljūks and the hordes of Chingiz Khān.
The former, composed of what we now call Western Turks, of whom the
Ghuz and the Turkomans were the predominant element, swept over the
Oxus-lands into Armenia and Asia Minor. From them sprang, at a later
date, the Osmānlīs, who finally overthrew the Byzantine Empire. A
portion, however, of the Seljūks either remained in the Oxus country,
or were pressed across that river by the advances of the Eastern Turks
into modern Turkomania.
[Illustration: CENTRAL ASIAN TYPES
1. UZBEG WOMAN
2. UZBEG
3. UZBEG
4. UZBEG
]
The second great migration spread simultaneously in two directions. The
larger body penetrated north of the Sea of Aral into Southern Europe,
where they carried all before them until their progress was stayed
by Western skill at the memorable battle of Leignitz (A.D. 1241).
The smaller horde was composed of Eastern Turks, who, under Mongolian
leadership, drove their Western cousins out of Transoxiana in the
thirteenth century.
According to the _Tārīkh-i-Guzīda_[271], the Turks of the tribe of
Kabak, to which Seljūk belonged, passed in the year A.H. 395 (985)
from Turkestān into Transoxiana, and settled in the neighbourhood of
Samarkand and Bokhārā. They were a race of shepherds, and were prompted
to cross the Jaxartes by the scarcity of pasturage on their own side.
They are said to have lived on peaceful terms with Sultan Mahmūd of
Ghazna, who, not long afterwards, gave them permission to cross the
Oxus and settle in the environs of Nisā and Abīverd. Their chief at
this period was named Mikā´īl, and he had two sons named Toghrul and
Chakir, who were the founders of the Seljūk dynasty.[272]
It is not within the scope of the present sketch to describe the
wonderful campaigns of Sultan Mahmūd[273] in India and elsewhere,
and the brilliant circle of poets and writers which he had gathered
round him at Ghazna. In the year before his death, A.H. 420 (1029), he
conducted a successful expedition against the Seljūks, who had invaded
his Persian territories. The last of his successes was the conquest
of nearly the whole of `Irāk, which, together with Ray and some other
territories, he formed into a government for his son Mas`ūd, declaring
at the same time his other son Mohammad heir to his throne and the rest
of his possessions.[274]
On the death of Sultan Mahmūd, in A.H. 421 (1030), Mas`ūd’s whole
energies were absorbed in withstanding the Ghuz hordes which invaded
his province of Khorāsān in ever-increasing numbers. He tried in
vain to conciliate them by granting fresh pasture-lands. In A.H. 425
(1034), while he was engaged in quelling a rebellion in India, a
formidable rising against the Ghaznavides took place in Khorāsān, whose
inhabitants felt that they were deserted by their chief and left at
the mercy of the Ghuz. At the same time the prince of Tabaristān and
Jurjān, deeming the occasion favourable, reasserted their independence.
In the following year Mas`ūd marched northwards, and succeeded not only
in driving back the Ghuz beyond Tūs and Nīshāpūr, but in bringing to
submission the rebellious prince of Tabaristān.
[Illustration: CENTRAL ASIAN TYPES
1. TURKOMAN
2. KIRGHIZ
3. TAJIK
4. SARI
]
Meanwhile events were taking place in the north which were to render
these minor successes valueless,[275] for in A.H. 425 (1034) Hārūn,
the Ghaznavide governor of Khwārazm,[276] profiting by the embarrassed
position of Mas`ūd, threw off his allegiance. Although the immediate
result of this step was an interval of disorder, during which Hārūn
was murdered, his successor persisted in a policy of rebellion, and
ceased to pay any regard to the court at Ghazna. This event in itself
seemed of small importance, but it brought grave results in its
train. We are told that the Seljūks, in A.H. 426 (1035), helped Mas`ūd
to drive the rest of the Ghuz out of Khorāsān, but the alliance did
not survive this campaign; and thus, while Mas`ūd was absent in Ghazna
in the following year, we find his lieutenant in Khorāsān engaged in
hostilities with the Seljūks. During the same year, A.H. 427 (1036),
the Ghaznavide general suffered a severe defeat at the hands of Chakir
Beg in the vicinity of Merv. From this event dates the rise of the
Seljūks. In A.H. 428 (1037) Merv surrendered to Chakir, and in the
following year Toghrul was declared master of Nīshāpūr. Khorāsān was
now practically in the hands of the Seljūk brothers. Mas`ūd had been
too busily employed with troubles in India to give due attention to
the protection of his richest province. At length, in A.H. 431 (1040),
he determined to make a final effort to retrieve his losses, and led
an army in person against Merv, where he suffered a final and crushing
defeat at the hands of Chakir and Toghrul.[277] He still clung to
Khorāsān with all the energy of despair. Leaving his son in Balkh, he
hastened to India to raise a fresh army. But his influence with his
troops had gone, and no sooner had he crossed the Indian frontier than
his lawless soldiers began to plunder the treasures which had been
accumulated by his illustrious father. When they recovered their senses
they “were seized with a dread of punishment, and came to the sudden
resolution of reinstating Mohammad,[278] who was a prisoner in the
camp.”[279] Mas`ūd was captured, and in the following year, A.H. 433
(1042), murdered by his own nephew. The princes of Ghazna continued
to reign until A.H. 555 (1160),--in fact, they outlasted the Seljūks
of Central Asia,--but no chief of the dynasty ever attained to the
greatness of its earlier representatives. Their hostilities with the
Seljūks were finally brought to a close by a treaty concluded in A.H.
451 (1059) between Chakir and Ibrāhīm, the then ruler of Ghazna, who
thereby for ever lost the province of Khorāsān.[280]
CHAPTER XVIII
THE SELJŪKS
Toghrul Beg’s career of conquest is admirably epitomised by Gibbon in
the 57th chapter of his immortal work. After driving the Ghaznavides
back to India, he overthrew the powerful dynasty of the Būyides,[281]
and with their fall the whole of Persia passed into the hands of the
Turks. “By the conquest of Āzerbāyjān, or Atropatene, he approached the
Roman confines, and the shepherd presumed to despatch an ambassador
or herald to demand the tribute and obedience of the Emperor of
Constantinople.”[282]
The expeditions of these fortunate brothers, Toghrul and Chakir, in
their results at all events, more closely resembled the migration of
entire peoples than military campaigns. By the year A.H. 440 (1048)
Āzerbāyjān, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor were entirely overrun by
Turkish bands. Four hundred years before this a huge wave of conquering
Arabs and Persians had swept in an easterly direction over all Persia
as far as the Oxus and beyond it. We now find a still vaster influx
of Turks over the same country, but starting where the other had
ended. The first flood-tide took the form of a religious war into
the infidel countries, and brought with it the influence of culture
and solid learning. The reflex wave was an irresistible migration of
savage tribes, who, though well-nigh destitute of any tincture of
letters,[283] were still, it must be remembered, the children of Islām.
The marks left on the East by the Western wave were ethnographically
slight, but psychically of great importance; while precisely the
opposite is true of the second immigration. Bokhārā and Balkh became,
and for centuries remained, the centres of Mohammedan lore, while Asia
Minor and Āzerbāyjān were the permanent abodes of the descendants of
the Seljūks. The forces of the two brothers were probably augmented
by the westward flow of new bands of Turks, and victory attended them
wherever they turned.
In A.H. 449 (1055) Toghrul Beg entered Baghdād, and helped to establish
the Caliph Kā´im on his throne.[284]
Toghrul Beg had no male issue. On the approach of death he selected
as his successor his nephew Alp Arslān, the son of his deceased
brother Chakir. Thus, in the year A.H. 455 (1063), Alp Arslān became
lord of a kingdom which extended from the Oxus to the Euphrates, and
from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf. One of his first measures was
to rid himself of his uncle’s vezīr, and appoint in his stead a man
who afterwards bore one of the most exalted names in the history and
literature of the East. Hasan ibn `Alī, better known as Nizām ul-Mulk,
or Regulator of the State, was born in Tūs in A.H. 408 (1018), and
early displayed signs of administrative power. He held office first
under the Ghaznavides, and later, at Balkh, under the Seljūks. The post
of chief vezīr, which now fell to his lot, he continued to hold for a
period of thirty years. He was celebrated alike for justice, tolerance,
and literary attainments.[285]
It was under Alp Arslān that the Turks first invaded the Roman
Empire.[286] Having temporarily satisfied his ambition in the
West,[287] he returned to his capital, and formed the project of
crossing the Oxus and invading the countries whence his ancestors
had come. His career was, however, cut short in A.H. 465 (1063) by a
mortal wound received at the hands of a man whom he had condemned to
death.[288] He was succeeded by his son Melik Shāh, whose claims were
disputed by several rivals,[289] but these were disposed of with little
difficulty. In A.H. 446 (1073) he engaged in warfare with Altagin, the
Turkish Khān of Samarkand, who, on hearing of the death of Alptagin,
had presumed to lay siege to Tirmiz, a town included in the Seljūks’
realms, though it lay on the right bank of the Oxus.[290] He soon drove
the Khān back, and forced him to sue for peace. Melik Shāh apparently
remained on peaceful terms with the Turks until A.H. 482 (1089), when,
in response to a call from the oppressed inhabitants of Transoxiana,
he crossed the great river and made himself master of Bokhārā and
Samarkand. Pushing beyond the last-named city, he threatened to invade
the territory of the Khān of Kāshghar,[291] who, overcome by fear,
consented to recognise the suzerainty of the Seljūks,[292] both in his
coins and in the public prayers. At the zenith of his fortunes the
great Sultan held sway from the frontiers of China up to the gates of
Constantinople. August Müller[293] aptly compares Alp Arslān and Melik
Shāh with Trajan and Hadrian. Brilliant as were the military successes
of Melik Shāh, they are cast into the shade by his cultivation of
the peaceful arts and his sedulous care for the development of his
territories. Though five years passed by ere he was firmly established
on his throne, the remaining fifteen years of his reign were attended
by a degree of internal prosperity, an advance in literature and
learning, which will ever associate his name with one of the most
brilliant epochs in the history of Islām. There is, however, one
great blot on his escutcheon: his treatment of his able and faithful
minister, Nizām ul-Mulk. Influenced by lying reports brought to his
ears by the enemies of the vezīr, he degraded his devoted servant and
indirectly brought about his death. For, shortly after Nizām ul-Mulk’s
removal from office, he was murdered by an assassin,[294] employed
perhaps by his successor in office, who feared a change in the Sultan’s
sentiments, A.H. 485 (1092). Melik Shāh did not long survive the fallen
minister. Within a month he was seized with a violent illness, which
terminated his life in the thirty-eighth year of his age.
He left four sons, who each in turn succeeded to his throne.[295] The
youngest, Mahmūd, was only four years of age when his father died;
but the ambition of his mother, the Sultana Khātūn Turkān, placed the
crown upon his infant head, and the Caliph Muktadi was prevailed on
to have his name mentioned in the public prayers. The Sultana marched
to Isfahān, preceded by the corpse of Melik Shāh. Berkiyāruk, the
eldest prince,[296] was residing there; but, powerless to resist, he
retired to Ray, attended by Mu`ayyad ud-Dawla, the son of the late
vezīr Nizām ul-Mulk, who warmly espoused his cause, with all the
adherents of his family. This support enabled him to return, and Khātūn
Turkān was compelled to resign a great part of her treasures as the
price of permission to retain control of Isfahān. All her schemes of
aggrandisement were soon afterwards terminated by her own death and
that of her son, A.H. 487 (1104).
The death of the Caliph Muktadi, which occurred about the same period,
induced Berkiyāruk to go to Baghdād, where he confirmed Mostadhhir
as the new Caliph, and was in return hailed by him as Sultan of the
empire. He enjoyed that dignity for eleven years,[297] but his reign
was a perpetual war in which his nearest relatives and all the great
nobles of the state were engaged. His usual residence was Baghdād. His
brother Mohammad ruled over Āzerbāyjān, while Sanjar established a
kingdom in Khorāsān and Transoxiana, whence he extended his conquests
over the fallen princes of Ghazna, compelling them to pay him tribute.
Berkiyāruk, who appears to have had an excellent disposition, and
to have been wanting neither in courage nor conduct, died on a
journey from Isfahān to Baghdād,[298] A.H. 498 (1104). He felt his
end approaching, and before he expired made his army take the oath
of fidelity to his son Melik Shāh II. The young prince was, however,
unable to resist his uncle Mohammad, who seized Baghdād treacherously
and took him prisoner, A.H. 498 (1104). The reign of Mohammad, which
lasted thirteen years, was remarkable only for continual civil
disturbances, and for the wars which his generals carried on in Syria
against the European armies engaged in their crusade to recover the
sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Mohammedans. He
died at Isfahān in A.H. 511 (1117), and was nominally succeeded by his
son Mahmūd, who was almost immediately reduced by his uncle Sanjar to
the condition of a dependant.[299] Sanjar, who had been governor of
Khorāsān and its dependencies for the past twenty years, now became
Sultan, and as such enjoyed a reign of no less than forty years, A.H.
511–552 (1117–1157).
We must now turn our attention to Transoxiana and the East, where
important events were passing.
CHAPTER XIX
SULTAN SANJAR AND THE KARA-KHITĀYS
The country of Khwārazm[300] was one of the first conquests of the
Seljūks. On becoming masters of Khorāsān, the `Irāks, Persia, and
Syria, they chose men from among their Turkish slaves whom they placed
in charge of the various provinces. The governor thus set over Khwārazm
was named Balkategin, who was _Tasht-dār_, or Grand Ewer-bearer,[301]
to Sultan Melik Shāh, who exercised paramount authority in that
country. He had under him a Turkish slave whom he had purchased, named
Nūshtegin, who by his conduct at his master’s court was in such esteem
that on the death of Balkategin[302] he succeeded to the government of
Khwārazm. He became even more powerful than his lord, but, though he
is regarded as the first of the dynasty of Khwārazm-Shāhs, he remained
loyal to the Seljūks. He bestowed great care in the education of his
son Kutb ed-Dīn Mohammad, who succeeded him in A.H. 490 (1097) with the
additional title of _Khwārazm-Shāh_, or emperor of Khwārazm. He was
a great patron of letters, and made himself generally beloved in his
province.
It was during his tenure of office that the Kara-Khitāys began to make
their inroads westwards.
The empire of the Kara-Khitāys had been founded by the last prince of
the Kitan or Liao dynasty,[303] whose name was Ye-liu Ta-shi.[304] On
the destruction of that line by the Kin dynasty[305] in A.D. 1123,
Ye-liu Ta-shi, with a following of some two hundred men, passed into
the country lying to the north-west of Shen-si,[306] where he was
joined by numbers of Turks. He now set out in a westerly direction
and carried all before him. He conquered Kāshghar, Yarkand, Khotan,
and Turkestān, and at the beginning of A.D. 1124 or 1125 he reached
Ki-rh-man.[307] Here all his officers assembled and proclaimed him
emperor, whereupon he assumed the title of _Gūr-Khān_, or “Universal
Lord.”
Mahmūd, the Uïghūr Khān mentioned above,[308] was driven into
Transoxiana, which shortly after became tributary to the Kara-Khitāys.
Ye-liu Ta-shi, whose dominions reached from the Gobi to the Oxus, and
from the mountains of Tibet to Siberia, now fixed his residence at
Balāsāghūn.
Towards the end of Kutb ed-Dīn’s rule they advanced so far into
Transoxiana that the Grand Ewer-bearer sent an army of 100,000 men to
oppose them.[309] He, however, suffered a crushing defeat, and the
prince of the Kara-Khitāys, after imposing tribute on his vanquished
enemies, returned to Kāshghar, which now became his capital.[310]
Soon after his deliverance from these barbarians Kutb ed-Dīn died,[311]
and was succeeded by his son Atsiz. For many years the latter remained
at the court of Merv, fulfilling the office of Grand Ewer-bearer to
Sultan Sanjar; and so great was his influence with the Seljūk prince
that he made himself many enemies at court, and on this account he
asked permission to proceed to Khwārazm, which was then suffering from
anarchy. In spite of the warnings of his ministers, Sanjar allowed
Atsiz to depart. As soon as the governor reached his province he
rose in open revolt against his master, who was compelled to march
against his too powerful vassal.[312] But the rebels were no match for
the troops of Sanjar, who utterly defeated them.[313] The province
was restored to obedience, and Sulaymān Shāh, Sanjar’s nephew, was
appointed as its governor.[314] No sooner had Sanjar reached his
capital than Atsiz, collecting the scattered remnants of his army,
proceeded to attack Sulaymān Shāh. This latter, with whom Sultan Sanjar
had left but a few troops, deeming resistance useless, fled to his
uncle, and thus the whole of Khwārazm again fell into the hands of
Atsiz.
[Illustration: MAUSOLEUM OF SULTAN SANJAR, OLD MERV]
In the year A.H. 536 (1141) Ye-liu Ta-shi died without male
issue, and the empire of the Kara-Khitāys fell to two princesses in
succession,[315] the daughter and the sister of the late ruler. It was
in this year that Atsiz invited, or rather encouraged, the Kara-Khitāys
to push their conquests farther west into Transoxiana. Sanjar, hearing
of their advance, crossed the Oxus at the head of 100,000 men to meet
them.[316] In the battle which ensued, in the valley of Dirgham, Sanjar
met with the most crushing defeat which the Moslems had yet endured in
their struggles against the infidels in the East.[317] Sanjar himself,
who had hitherto been invincible, fled to Khorāsān by way of Tirmiz,
accompanied by the remnants of his huge army. Transoxiana was now in
the entire possession of the Kara-Khitāys, and for the first time a
Mohammedan community became subject to the enemies of their faith.[318]
The Kara-Khitāys, in the same year,[319] pushed on as far as Sarakhs,
Merv, and Nīshāpūr, but they appear to have retired satisfied with
the Oxus as their western boundary. Meanwhile Atsiz took advantage of
Sanjar’s fallen fortunes, and began to ravage Khorāsān. The Sultan,
however, had mustered forces sufficient to reassert his authority.
He marched on the town of Khwārazm and invested it, whereon Atsiz
bought him off with rich presents and assurances of good conduct in the
future, A.H. 538 (1143).[320] This truce was of short duration.
In the year A.H. 541 (1147) Sanjar again attacked Atsiz, but a
permanent reconciliation was soon attained.[321]
In A.H. 551 (1156)[322] Atsiz died at the age of sixty-one, and was
succeeded by his son Il-Arslān, with whom the independent dynasty of
Khwārazm-Shāhs properly begins. Meanwhile the affairs of Sultan Sanjar
were going from bad to worse, and the end of the last great Seljūk
was as ignoble as his career had been glorious. Strange to say, his
ultimate ruin was caused by a Turkish tribe who came of the same stock
as the Seljūks themselves.
The domination of the Kara-Khitāys in Transoxiana does not appear to
have affected the condition of the dwellers in towns, the peaceful
Tājiks, who were even allowed to appoint their own tax-collectors and
other officials.[323] The only classes who suffered at the hands of the
invaders were the Ghuz Turks, who were nomads like the Kara-Khitāys
themselves, and occupied all the best pasture-grounds. They now found
themselves forced to seek fresh fields. Crossing the Oxus, they
obtained permission from Sanjar to settle in Khatlān, Chaghāniyān,
and the environs of Balkh.[324] They numbered, we are told, 40,000
families, and the tribute imposed upon them was an annual contribution
to the royal kitchen of 24,000 sheep. These supplies were carried
off as occasion required by an officer of the Household.[325] On one
occasion the man sent to fetch the sheep was so scrupulous in his
choice that the Ghuz took offence and put him to death. The chief
butler was thus obliged to supply the royal kitchen from his own
flocks. The official complained of this outrage to Kamāj, the governor
of Balkh, who immediately reported it to Sultan Sanjar, offering to
bring the Ghuz to obedience, and further to extract from them 30,000
sheep for the royal kitchen. With the Sultan’s permission he returned
to Balkh and demanded of the Ghuz the sheep that had been withheld;
but the herdsmen refused to comply, adding that the Sultan of Merv
was their master, not the governor of Balkh. Kamāj, much incensed
at the slight put upon his authority, attacked the nomads, but in
the first engagement he was utterly put to rout.[326] On hearing of
this disaster, Sultan Sanjar marched on Balkh at the head of 100,000
men.[327] In spite of his vast numerical superiority he suffered
a crushing defeat, A.H. 548 (1153), and was taken prisoner.[328]
Intoxicated by this unlooked-for success, the Ghuz attacked the
capital itself. They found the Merv oasis in a state of brilliant
prosperity;[329] for since the days of Chakir Beg it had never been
molested, and, as the author of the _Rawzat-us-Safā_ says,[330] “it
had slumbered in peace and tranquillity.” The greedy nomads, spurred
to madness by the sight of so much wealth, seized all that met their
eyes, and then tortured the inhabitants till they revealed their
hidden treasures.[331] The fallen Sultan, meanwhile, was kept in close
confinement,[332] but was treated with the respect due to his rank.
Having ransacked Merv, the Ghuz laid waste the whole of Khorāsān, so
that, says Mīrkhwānd, “not a single spot in that province escaped their
destructive hands.” Sanjar remained for about four years in captivity;
and while his consort, Turkān Khātūn, who acted as queen-regent, lived,
he made no attempt to escape, lest harm should befall her. On her
death, in A.H. 551 (1156), he took advantage of a hunting expedition to
evade his captors. Gathering a few devoted followers on the other side
of the Oxus, he set out for his capital, but on reaching Merv he was so
heartbroken at the desolation that met his eyes that he sickened and
died.[333] The ruins of his splendid mausoleum are the chief glory of
ancient Merv. It was built by him during his lifetime; and so great
was its solidity that he gave it the name of _Dār ul-Ākhirat_, “the
Abode of Eternity.” Sixty years after his death it was destroyed by
Chingiz Khān.
CHAPTER XX
THE KHWĀRAZM-SHĀHS
On the death of Melik Shāh in A.H. 485 (1092) a civil war broke out
between the brothers Berkiyāruk and Mohammad, which resulted in the
formation of separate semi-independent states, under various branches
of the Seljūks, in different quarters of the dominions of that family.
Chief among their representatives were--the Seljūks of Kirmān, A.H.
433–583 (1041–1187); the Seljūks of Syria, A.H. 487–511 (1094–1117);
the Seljūks of `Irāk and Kurdistān, A.H. 511–590 (1117–1194); the
Seljūks of Rūm (or Asia Minor), A.H. 470–700 (1077–1300). Until the
death of Sanjar the main branch preserved a nominal suzerainty over the
rest, although their empire had been so greatly reduced that Sanjar’s
rule was practically confined to Khorāsān. On his death in A.H. 552
(1157) the authority of the great Seljūks came to an end, and Khorāsān
fell into the hands of the Khwārazm-Shāh, Il-Arslān, who had succeeded
his father in the previous year. In 567 (A.D. 1171) the Kara-Khitāys
advanced into Khwārazm, and Il-Arslān marched out to oppose them; but
on reaching Amūya[334] he fell dangerously ill, and was obliged to
resign command of his army to one of his generals. After gaining a
decisive victory over the Khwārazmians the Kara-Khitāys again withdrew,
A.H. 568 (1172).[335] In the following year Il-Arslān died, leaving
his realms to his youngest son, Sultan Shāh Mahmūd. His elder brother
Tekish, however, disputed the succession, and, with the aid of the
Kara-Khitāys, overthrew the young prince and set himself upon the
throne, A.H. 568 (1172).[336]
Sultan Shāh Mahmūd, with his mother, Queen Turkān, fled to Nīshāpūr,
and sought the aid of its governor, Mu`ayyad. Reinforced by a
contingent under his command, Sultan Shāh made a fresh bid for
sovereignty. Tekish advanced to meet him in the desert of Khwārazm, and
inflicted a crushing defeat on his brother. The queen-mother was slain,
and Mu`ayyad was captured and cut in two. Sultan Shāh escaped a similar
fate by flight, and found safety among the Ghūrides of Ghazna.
Tekish[337] was, in A.H. 588 (1192), firmly settled on the throne of
Khwārazm. Confident in the devotion of an army which he had led to
victory, he grew ambitious and forgot the obligations under which the
Kara-Khitāy had placed him. He incurred the wrath of that powerful
tribe by putting to death one of their envoys who had come to claim
the annual tribute, and brought them into the field against him. On
learning that his brother was sorely beset, Sultan Shāh left the
protection of the Ghūrides and joined the Kara-Khitāys, whose queen
he persuaded that the Khwārazmians were anxious for his return to
the throne. As the Queen-Gūr-Khān was incensed against Tekish, she
allowed herself to be gained over by Sultan Shāh, and sent her husband
Karmā[338] with a large force into Khwārazm to defend the rights of
Sultan Khān. Tekish, hearing of their advance, commanded the waters of
the Jīhūn (Oxus) to be diverted across their line of march, so that the
progress of the Kara-Khitāys was rendered almost impossible. Meanwhile
he busied himself with military preparations. Karmā, seeing clearly
that Sultan Shāh’s pretensions to the esteem of the Khwārazmians were
unfounded, led his army home. Sultan Shāh, with his own followers and
a small body of Kara-Khitāys, marched to Sarakhs, and, evicting its
governor, established himself there.
In A.H. 576 (1180) we find him at the head of 10,000 horsemen, and
lord of Nīshāpūr. In A.H. 582 (1186) Tekish set out for Khorāsān with
a large army; while Sultan Khān hastened to Khwārazm by another road.
These hostilities between the two brothers continued with only short
intermissions until the death of Sultan Shāh in A.H. 589 (1192), when
Tekish became master of all Khorāsān and Khwārazm.[339]
In A.H. 590 (1194) he entered Persian `Irāk and overthrew Toghrul
III., the last of the great Seljūks of Persia.[340] After adding Ray,
Isfahān, and other important towns to his dominions, he obtained an
investiture from Caliph Nāsir li Dīn-illāh of all the countries which
he had conquered.
From this epoch-time till his death Tekish appears to have paid tribute
regularly to the Gūr-Khān, and retained his friendship. He recommended
his son and successor to follow the same policy, for the Kara-Khitāy
were a bulwark against the dreaded hordes of the East.[341]
In A.H. 596 (1200) Tekish died, and was succeeded by his famous son,
`Alā ud-Dīn Mohammad, who soon made himself master of Khorāsān,
Balkh, Herāt, Māzenderan, and Kirmān.[342] He now considered himself
sufficiently powerful to assert his independence of the Gūr-Khān, to
whom, like his three predecessors, he had paid an annual tribute. He
was encouraged to resist his liege lord by `Othmān, prince of Samarkand
and Transoxiana, who was also a vassal of the Gūr-Khān, who promised to
pay him the same allegiance as he had rendered to the Kara-Khitāys in
return for his assistance against the common enemy.[343] An occasion
for the rupture of friendly relations between the Khwārazm-Shāh and the
Gūr-Khān was soon found. It was identical with the method employed by
Tekish,--the slaughter of one of the receivers of tribute.[344]
After perpetrating this outrage, Mohammad entered the Kara-Khitāy
territory, A.H. 605 (1208), where he suffered a crushing defeat and
barely escaped capture.[345]
In the following year Mohammad made a second incursion into the land of
the Kara-Khitāy. Crossing the Jaxartes at Fināket, he gained a signal
success over their general, Tanigū, beyond Tarāz, pushed his conquests
as far as Otrār[346] (Fārāb), and returned in triumph to Khwārazm.
But the tangled knot of Central Asian politics was soon to be cut by
a conqueror whose annals are as devoid of complexity as his career.
In the place of paltry struggles for supremacy in isolated states,
attended by obscure and ever-changing fortunes, we have the triumphant
advance of one who, like Alexander of Macedon, was destined to give a
new impulse to the world’s history.
CHAPTER XXI
CHINGIZ KHĀN
It is not within the scope of the present work to trace in any detail
the meteor-like path of Chingiz; for we are concerned with it only in
so far as it affected the internal affairs of Central Asia. His career
has exercised a peculiar fascination for students of Oriental history,
though by no means all the available evidence has yet been marshalled
in elucidation of the controversies which still rage round that mighty
name.[347]
“All that can safely be said about the early history of the
Mongols,”[348] writes Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole, “is that they were a
clan among clans, a member of a great confederacy that ranged the
country north of the desert of Gobi in search of water and pasture;
who spent their lives in hunting and the breeding of cattle, lived on
flesh and sour milk (kumis), and made their profit by bartering hides
and beasts with their kinsmen the Khitans,[349] or with the Turks and
Chinese, to whom they owed allegiance. The name Mughal was not known
until the tenth century, and probably came to be applied to the whole
group of clans only when the chief of a particular clan bearing that
name acquired an ascendency over the rest of the confederacy, and gave
to the greater the name of the less.[350] Yissugāy, the father of
Chingiz Khān, if not the founder of his clan, was a notable maintainer
of it, and it was probably he who first asserted the independence of
the Mongols from Chinese rule. In spite, however, of conquest and
annexation, the people who owned the sovereignty of Yissugāy numbered
only 40,000 tents. Yet it was upon this foundation that his son,
Chingiz Khān, built up in twenty years the widest empire the world has
ever seen.”[351]
[Illustration: NOMADS CHANGING CAMP]
Temuchin,[352] known to history as Chingiz Khān, was born most probably
in 1162,[353] and was therefore thirteen years of age at the time of
his father’s death, in 1175.
The Mongolian, or, as they called themselves at that period, the
Tatar people, were divided into a number of tribes, among which the
Chinese distinguished three groups, according to the degree of their
civilisation,--the white, the black, and the savage Tatars. The first,
who dwelt in Southern Mongolia, near the Chinese Wall, were under the
influence of Chinese civilisation. The black Tatars, who occupied the
greater part of what we now call Mongolia, remained unaffected by their
uninterrupted contact with more advanced races whose representatives
entered their country only in the quality of merchants. The trade
of barter and exchange with the nomads was in the hands of men of
Turkestān, Uïghūrs, and Musulmans, who in such matters were far more
enterprising than the Chinese. These Uïghūrs and Musulmans, moreover,
kept in their own hands the commerce between Mongolia and China; that
is to say, they bought goods in China and sold them to the nomads.
By means of the knowledge thus gained, these merchants were able to
influence the Khāns, and through them the people. Moreover, Buddhist,
Nestorian, and Musulman merchants were always closely followed by the
missionaries of their respective religions. Islām at that period had
not yet obtained predominance in Central Asia, and in Mongolia its
propaganda was practically non-existent. Over the Uïghūrs, the nearest
neighbours of the Mongols, Buddhists and Nestorian Christians still
had the upper hand. These latter even succeeded in converting some of
the most powerful tribes of the black Mongols, such as the Keraits
and the Naimans, to Christianity. The savage Tatars, whom the Mongols
called “forest peoples,” led a roving life in the forests of the modern
province of Trans-Baikal and the north-west of Mongolia. They practised
Shamanism in its purest form.[354]
Authorities are in disagreement as to which of these Mongol clans
claimed Temuchin as its own. The Chinese aver that he belonged to the
black Tatars; while Mongolian tradition[355] would enrol him among the
savage tribes. Rashīd ud-Dīn tells us that Yissugāy married a woman
belonging to the white Tatars, who became the mother of Temuchin and
his brothers; and that the lads were adepts as hunters and fishermen.
Whatever may have been Yissugāy’s position among his tribe,[356] it
seems clear that on his death in battle his eldest son, Temuchin, then
thirteen years of age, was not recognised as a chief, and supported a
miserable existence with his mother on roots, game, and fish. Such a
life probably served to develop his genius, signs of which, not less
than the memory of his father’s military prowess, attracted round him a
band of young nobles who afterwards formed his bodyguard. The growing
power of the Mongols in the twelfth century alarmed the Manchurian
dynasty of the Tsin, then reigning in Northern China, who incited
the Buyr-Nūr Tatars to attack them. It was in this war that Yissugāy
perished. As soon as they had crushed the common enemy, the Buyr-Nūrs
turned against their former allies and invaded China.
The Tsin emperor now sent other nomad chiefs to oppose the Buyr-Nūrs,
of whom the mightiest was Toghrul, the Khān of the Christian
Keraits,[357] whose habitat was on the shores of the Tola. Temuchin
allied himself with this tribe, and in the final campaign against the
Buyr-Nūrs, when the Tsin emperor himself led his forces into Mongolia,
Temuchin so distinguished himself as to gain an honorific title.[358]
This occurred in 1194. The next ten years Temuchin spent in struggles
with confederacies of hostile tribes whose jealousy he had incurred
by his uninterrupted successes. Having reduced all who dwelt north of
the desert of Gobi, from the Irtish to the Khinggan Mountains,[359] he
found himself in the year 1202 engaged in a war against his former ally
Toghrul, Khān of the Keraits. He was at first defeated, and compelled
to retire; but in the following year (1203) he collected another army
and inflicted a crushing defeat upon the Keraits, reducing them to
abject submission. In 1206[360] he summoned a Kurultāy,[361] or Diet of
the Nobles, and, in the presence of all the tribal chieftains, formally
adopted the title of Chingiz Khān, or “The Very Mighty King.”
His ambitions were now aroused, though they were as yet bounded by the
narrow horizon in which they had found scope; and he could not have
foreseen the goal to which they would carry him.
CHAPTER XXII
MONGOL INVASION OF CENTRAL ASIA
Tāi Yāng Khān, king of the Christian tribe of Naimans, alarmed at
the growing power of the young ruler, sent Alakush-Tekin, chief of
the Onguts, or white Tatars, an invitation to join him against the
ambitious Mongol. Alakush-Tekin immediately informed Chingiz of the
Naimans’ intentions, assuring him at the same time of his own friendly
feeling. Chingiz promptly marched against Tāi Yāng, who descended from
the Altai to the foot of the Khanggai Mountains, attended by many
allies, among whom was Tukta, king of the Merkits.[362] In the battle
which took place the Naimans were utterly routed. Among the prisoners
who fell into the hands of the Mongols was Tatatungo, the chancellor of
Tāi Yāng, who belonged to the Uïghūr tribe, and tradition attributes
to his influence the veneer of civilisation of the Mongols; and it is
certain that Chingiz caused him to instruct his sons in the language,
laws, and customs of the Uïghūrs.[363]
Tāi Yāng Khān perished in this battle, while his son Guchluk fled by
way of Bish Bālik to the country of the Gūr-Khān of Kara-Khitāy.[364]
After wandering for some time and enduring great privations, he at
length arrived at the court of the Gūr-Khān (1208). He was hospitably
received, and the Khān gave him his daughter in marriage; but the
favours showered on him did not prevent his plotting to dethrone his
benefactor. He obtained permission to enlist the remnants of the
Naiman tribe, and thus collected a considerable force; then he entered
into a league with Mohammad Shāh of Khwārazm, and `Othmān, prince
of Samarkand, who, as we have seen above, were both vassals of the
Gūr-Khān. They arranged that they should attack their Gūr-Khān suzerain
simultaneously, the one from the east and the other from the west.
The conditions determined on were that if Sultan Mohammad should be
the first to gain a victory, Almāligh, Khotan, and Kāshghar, which
were in Guchluk’s hands, should be ceded to him; but if, on the other
hand, Guchluk should win the initial success, Kara-Khitāy, as far as
Fināket, should be delivered over to him.[365] Guchluk arrived before
the Sultan, and was at first successful, but was afterwards defeated on
his way to attack Balāsāghūn, and obliged to retreat. In the meantime
the troops of Mohammad and `Othmān had entered Kara-Khitāy, and gained
a victory over the Gūr-Khān’s general, Tanigū, near the city of Tarāz.
Guchluk, taking advantage of this reverse, hurried back, surprised
the Gūr-Khān, and took him prisoner, A.H. 608 (1212). Two years
later the Gūr-Khān died, at a very advanced age. Guchluk, now firmly
established on the throne of Kara-Khitāy, reduced his new subjects to
complete obedience. He was a cruel persecutor of Islām, being himself
a Nestorian Christian until his marriage with the Gūr-Khān’s daughter,
when he became a Buddhist.[366]
Chingiz had been occupied since the overthrow of the Naimans with the
conquest of China, and “though it was reserved for his grandson to
complete the subjugation of the Celestial Empire,[367] a great part of
the northern provinces ... was added to the Mongol dominions during the
great Khān’s own lifetime.”[368]
In 1218 he despatched an army 20,000 strong, under Noyan Chebe, to
attack Guchluk Khān in Kāshghar. Hearing of their approach, Guchluk
fled, but was shortly afterwards overtaken in the mountains of
Badakhshān and put to death. He was, as we have seen, a bigot, and
especially intolerant in his dealings with Mohammedans. The Mongols
proclaimed religious liberty, and thereby ensured for themselves the
favour of the people.[369]
After the downfall of the Kara-Khitāys the possessions of Mohammad of
Khwārazm extended into the heart of Turkestān, with Samarkand as a
capital. Those of Guchluk Khān were restricted to Kāshghar, Khotan, and
Yarkand.[370]
Chingiz’s relations with his powerful neighbour in Khwārazm were long
of a peaceful and even friendly nature, but causes were at work which
altered them radically.[371] Abū-l-Ghāzi states[372] that the Caliph
Nāsir’s intense jealousy of the northern empire led him to adopt every
means in his power to weaken it, and that he invited Chingiz to attack
Sultan Mohammad. It is probable that this perfidious policy caused a
coldness between the two potentates; but the immediate cause of rupture
was an act for which the Khwāarazm Sultan was alone responsible. He
cruelly slew, at Otrār, some Mohammedan traders who had incurred
his animosity, in spite of the fact that they were travelling under
Chingiz’s protection. The avalanches which descended on the habitable
world in the twelfth century were thus set in motion by princes whose
interest required that the vast forces controlled by Chingiz should
remain pent up in their native steppes.
In A.H. 615 (1218) he set out for Otrār, determined to avenge the
insult offered by Sultan Mohammad, and on his way was joined by large
reinforcements of Karliks, Uïghūr and other Mongol tribes, eager to
share in the plunder of the West.[373] On reaching that goal he divided
his forces among his sons, and laid down for each the object of attack.
Ogdāy and Chaghatāy were to reduce Otrār; Jūjī Khān was despatched
in the direction of Jand; while two of his generals, with 5000 men,
were sent to attack Fināket and Khojend. With the remainder of his
forces Chingiz himself, accompanied by his son Tūlī, set out for
Bokhārā,[374] and arrived at that capital in A.H. 616 (1219), having
carried all before him on his march. No sooner had he appeared than the
garrison, 20,000 strong, fled towards Khwārazm, but were overtaken on
the banks of the Oxus and cut to pieces by the Mongols sent in their
pursuit. Meanwhile the shaykhs and mullās of Bokhārā sallied forth
and presented the keys of the town to Chingiz Khān, who made a formal
entry, penetrated the courtyard of the principal mosque on horseback,
and asked whether this fine building was Sultan Mohammad’s palace. On
being told that it was God’s house he dismounted, and, ascending the
pulpit, hurled the Koran beneath his horse’s feet. He next insisted
that the inhabitants should deliver up their hidden treasures. Here
his destroying hand would have been stayed had he not learnt that
some remnants of Sultan Mohammad’s garrison were still in hiding. In
order to compass their death he ordered the city, which was mainly
built of wood, to be given to the flames. His behests were obeyed, and
Bokhārā for a time ceased to exist. Chingiz, however, caused it to be
rebuilt.[375]
Meanwhile success had attended all his other army corps; and Otrār,
Jand, and Khojend, together with many other towns, submitted to the
Mongols. The sons and generals of Chingiz now joined the main body, and
their united forces together marched on Samarkand. Before the end of
the year A.H. 616 (1219) this great city, after a three days’ siege,
fell. The garrison was put to the sword, and Samarkand was given over
to reckless pillage.
It is not necessary here to record the story of the Mongol’s progress
of conquest. Khwārazm soon succumbed, and Khorāsān was overrun by his
hordes. The Sultan himself took no active part in the hopeless effort
to stay the advance of Chingiz, but fled across Khorāsān[376] to an
island in the Caspian named Ābasgūn, not far from the modern Astarābād,
where in A.H. 617 (1220) he died in utter destitution.[377] A manful
struggle to revive the glory of his house was made by Sultan Mohammad’s
heroic son Jalāl ud-Dīn, whose career forms one of the most exciting
narratives in history.[378] This last representative of the Khwārazm
Shāhs, after having boldly faced death on a hundred battlefields, was
brutally murdered in A.H. 628 (1231) by a low-born Kurd.
CHAPTER XXIII
THE LINE OF CHAGHATĀY
“The Mongol armies,” writes Mr. S. Lane-Poole, “divided into several
immense brigades, swept over Khwārazm, Khorāsān, and Afghanistān, on
the one hand; and on the other, over Āzerbāyjān, Georgia, and Southern
Russia; whilst a third division continued the reduction of China. In
the midst of these diverging streams of conquest Chingiz Khān died
in A.H. 624 (1227), at the age of sixty-four. The territory he and
his sons had conquered stretched from the Yellow Sea to the Euxine,
and included lands or tribes wrung from the rule of Chinese, Tanguts,
Afghans, Persians, and Turks.
“It was the habit of a Mongol chief to distribute the clans over which
he had ruled as appanages among his sons, and this tribal rather than
territorial distribution obtained in the division of the empire among
the sons of Chingiz. The founder appointed a special appanage of tribes
in certain loosely defined camping-grounds to each son, and also
nominated a successor to himself in the Khānate.”[379]
In this division of the newly founded Mongol Empire,--_i.e._
Transoxiana, with part of Kāshghar,--Badakhshān, Balkh, and Ghazna fell
to the lot of Chingiz Khān’s second son, Chaghatāy, the founder of the
Khānate of that name, which existed for 146 years, till its overthrow
by Tīmūr in A.H. 771 (1370).
The annals of his branch of his dynasty have hitherto been obscurer
than those of the other descendants of Chingiz.[380] He appears to have
profited by the lessons of the Naiman chancellor,[381] and to have
developed into a just and energetic ruler, capable of preserving order
among the heterogeneous population under his charge.
He scrupulously observed the _Yasāk_, or Civil Code, established by
his father, and, like him, was tolerant towards all religions and
creeds. He fixed his capital at Almāligh,[382] in the extreme east of
his dominions. His Mongol ministers, loving the life of the steppes,
probably induced him to choose this locality rather than Samarkand or
Bokhārā.[383] They would serve no Khān who did not lead a life worthy
of free-born men; and Chaghatāy and his immediate successors saw, as
did his later descendants, that the one way of retaining the allegiance
of his people was to humour their desires in this respect and live with
them a nomad’s life.[384]
In the year A.H. 639 (1241) both Ogdāy and Chaghatāy,[385] the great
Khāns of the Mongolian Empire, died, and the successors of Chingiz fell
to disputing the succession.
We do not propose to enlarge on the struggles and disorders which
existed almost without cessation in Turkestān during the whole
period of the Chaghatāy Khān’s rule, and will confine ourselves to
a consideration of the social conditions of that country under his
successors.[386] The Mongols in contact with communities possessed of a
comparatively high standard of civilisation lost none of their passion
for their boundless steppe. In their eyes the town, the settled abode,
were abominations, indicating deep-seated effeminacy and corruption:
the only life worth living was that of the herdsman, roving free as
air, with his tent of white felt.
Their subjects who preferred a sedentary existence, so long as they
were obedient and orderly, were left in tranquil occupation of their
homes, and were even encouraged by their nomad lords to repair the
damage suffered by their cities in war. Ruin doubtless fell on many
great centres of population, such as Herāt;[387] but in Persia
and Transoxiana there was no systematic obliteration of organised
society,[388] no reversion to the nomadic level. The case in Mongolia
and Kāshgharia was different. Less than a century prior to the rise of
the Mongols these countries had been occupied by the Uīghūrs, who were
a race which had attained a certain degree of development, and evinced
it by preferring a settled existence in towns. Their successors, the
Kara-Khitāy, though less civilised, seem also to have affected urban
life. In these countries, however, during the Chaghatāy period, no new
towns sprang up, while those already in being fell into a state of ruin.
“Amidst the terrible ravages committed by the Mongolians,” writes
Vambéry,[389] “the science of theology and its votaries alone continued
to flourish. In the days of the earlier Chaghatāy Khāns the mullās of
Turkestān had enjoyed a certain amount of protection, thanks partly to
the principle of religious toleration, and partly to the superstitious
awe in which every class of the priesthood was held; and in almost
every town there was some one or other holy man to whom the Moslems
had recourse in the day of peril. The spiritual teachers thus became
at the same time secular protectors, and from this time forward we
find the _Sadr-i-sharī`at_ (heads of the religious bodies) and chief
magistrates, and in general all men of remarkable piety, attaining an
influence in the towns of Transoxiana unknown in the rest of Islām;
an influence which maintains itself to this day, though the land has
been for centuries governed by Musulman princes. The seats of spiritual
authority were filled by regular dynasties of learned men of certain
families, as though they had been thrones.”
It appears that about the year A.H. 721 (1321) a final division of
the Chaghatāy Khānate took place. The two branches established were
the Khāns of Transoxiana and those of Jatah, or Moghūlistan;[390] but
each had other provinces in its possession. As for the history of the
western branch, it is only necessary to mention that during the fifty
years of their rule, which continued until Tīmūr made himself master
of the country, we find no less than fifteen Khāns recorded--some of
them strangers in blood to the Chaghatāy line--and long periods of
anarchy.[391]
Leaving, then, this confused chapter of Central Asian history, we will
pass to the rise of the mightiest of her conquerors.
CHAPTER XXIV
TĪMŪR, THE GREAT AMĪR
In the year A.H. 733 Kazān Khān[392] mounted the throne of the western
Chaghatāy family. He is described by his contemporaries as a cruel and
tyrannical villain, who inspired so general a terror that when his
nobles were summoned to a _Kurultāy_, or general assembly, they made
their wills before leaving their homes.[393] To such a pitch did the
dissatisfaction of his nobles rise, that in the year A.H. 746 (1345)
they banded together under the leadership of a certain Amīr Kazghan,
and broke into open revolt. The Khān at once set out with his troops
to crush them. In the first encounter[394] he gained the upper hand,
and Amīr Kazghan lost an eye from an arrow shot by the Khān himself.
The conqueror thereupon retired to Karshī; but, owing to the severity
of the winter, most of his horses and transport cattle perished. Amīr
Kazghan, hearing of the Khān’s misfortunes, took courage and, in the
following year, A.H. 747 (1346), attacked Karshī. The fortune of war
on this occasion veered towards his side. He defeated and slew the
tyrant, becoming thus master of Transoxiana and Turkestān. He next
assumed the rôle of king-maker, and placed on the throne one of the
descendants of Ogdāy,[395] named Dānishmandja,[396] whom, however, he
put to death two years later, setting up in his place Bayān Kulī, a
Chaghatāy by descent, A.H. 749 (1348). For ten years this prince sat
upon the throne of the Chaghatāy Khāns, but he governed in name only,
for all the affairs of the state were directed by the skilful hand of
Amīr Kazghan, who made himself loved and respected by his prudence and
equity.
In A.H. 759 (1357) this worthy chief was murdered while hunting in the
vicinity of Kunduz, to the deep regret of the people.
His son `Abdullah was universally recognised as the successor to Amīr
Kazghan’s peculiar office of Prime Minister. The residence of the
Khāns--in fact the capital of the western branch of Chaghatāys--had
lately been Sālī Sarāy, but was transferred to Samarkand, owing, we
are told, to `Abdullah’s great love for that town. Thither he carried
his puppet, Bayān Kulī; but, falling in love with the Khān’s wife, he
put the ill-starred husband to death, and set up in his stead Tīmūr
Shāh Oghlān, A.H. 759 (1357). The nobles were deeply incensed at this
arbitrary and cruel deed, and, with the intent of avenging their
prince’s death, one of their number, named Bayān Seldūz, raised an
army and marched on Samarkand. On his way thither he was joined by
Hāji Birlās[397] in Kesh,[398] and the united forces administered a
crushing defeat to `Abdullah, who fled across the Oxus to Andarāb,
where he remained in obscurity till his death. The family and partisans
of Amīr Kazghan were now scattered far and wide, and the government of
Transoxiana passed into the hands of Bayān Seldūz[399] and Hāji Birlās.
The former, however, was a hopeless drunkard, and utterly unfit to
rule in times so charged with storm. The western Chaghatāy states were
parcelled out among a host of prominent nobles, whose rivalries plunged
the country into the throes of civil war; and the town of Kesh, with
its immediate dependencies, was all that Hāji Birlās could call his own.
At this period the chief of Jatah, or Moghūlistan, was Tūghluk Tīmūr
Khān.[400] Perceiving the state of disruption into which the kingdom
of Transoxiana had lapsed, he resolved to take up the fallen sceptre.
Gathering round him a large army, he set out from Kāshghar for the
Khojend River, A.H. 761 (1360). After crossing it he was joined by
Amīr Bāyazīd Jalā´ir, and they proceeded together in the direction of
Shahr-i-Sabz. Hāji Birlās, hearing of the Khān’s approach, attempted to
organise resistance; but, at the last moment, he deemed discretion the
better part of valour, and fled towards Khorāsān ere the two armies had
come into conflict.
The darkest period of a country’s annals is often illumined by the
light of a better time to come. Transoxiana, torn by civil war, and
a prey to the worst form of tyranny, that of a horde of greedy and
imperious nobles, sighed not in vain for a deliverer. Rarely in history
do we find a state of society readier to deliver itself into the hands
of a man of destiny than was the shattered empire of the Chaghatāy
Khāns in the middle of the fifteenth century.[401]
The early biographers[402] of him whom his contemporaries styled Tīmūr
Leng, the “Lame Tīmūr,”[403] delighted to give him a common ancestry
with Chingiz Khān, and traced his descent from a vezīr in the service
of Chaghatāy named Karāchār Nuyān, whose genealogy merges with that
of the earlier conqueror. This, however, is a long-exploded myth; for
Tīmūr was certainly a Turk by descent, and belonged to one of the
numerous tribes which participated in the Mongol occupation of Central
Asia, and, after the downfall of Amīr Kazghan, gained the mastery over
all Transoxiana and Turkestān.[404] Tīmūr was the son of Amīr Turghāy,
who had preceded Hāji Birlās in the government of the province of
Kesh and its dependencies.[405] He was born in the town of Kesh, now
called Shahr-i-Sabz, the Green City, in the year A.H. 736 (1333).
According to his autobiography, he became conscious of his own powers
at an early age, and distinguished himself alike in council and in the
hunting-field.
When Hāji Birlās reached the Oxus in his flight from the army of
Tūghluk Tīmūr Khān, the young Tīmūr,[406] who had accompanied him,
requested leave to return to his native city and seek an audience of
the Khān, in order to intercede for his suffering fellow-townsmen.
Having obtained the required permission, he hastened to the camp of the
allied Amīrs, whom he so favourably impressed by his earnestness and
eloquence that they not only desisted from their hostile intentions,
but conferred upon him the government of his native city. Tīmūr took
leave of the Amīrs of Jatah, and entered upon the administration of his
state and the levy of troops in the country between Kesh and the Oxus.
Meanwhile the Amīrs quarrelled, withdrew their troops from Transoxiana,
and returned to headquarters in Kāshghar.
In the following year, A.H. 762 (1361), the Khān of Jatah again
entered Transoxiana, and, after a successful campaign against various
rebellious nobles, took possession of Samarkand. He intrusted the
government of the conquered districts to his son Iliyās Khwāja Oghlān,
while Tīmūr, whose sagacity had attracted the Khān’s attention, was
appointed chief councillor to the young prince. Tīmūr, however, was
disgusted with the conduct of certain of his colleagues, and fled the
country in search of his brother-in-law Amīr Husayn, the grandson of
Kazghan.[407] After a career of marvellous adventure in company with
Amīr Husayn, he had by the year A.H. 765 (1363) collected sufficient
troops round him to make a stand against Iliyās Khwāja, whom in an
encounter near Kunduz he entirely routed, and compelled to withdraw
across the Oxus.
At the close of A.H. 771 (1370) he had made himself absolute master
of the dominions of the western Chaghatāys, and had restored order in
the state. He did not, however, place himself on the throne of the
Chaghatāys, but made another rightful descendant of that line nominal
head of the empire.
This apparent self-abnegation was probably due to the universal
respect enjoyed by the house of Chaghatāy as descendants of Chingiz,
and to the associations which clustered round their name. Be this as
it may, it is certain that Tīmūr was content with the absolute power
won by his genius, and scorned the sounding style of emperor. That
his rule made for the happiness of the peoples who owned his sway is
evidenced by the hold which his personality had, and still retains,
on the fickle population of Central Asia. “The love and attachment of
the army to Tīmūr,” writes Wolff,[408] “was so great and so unlimited
that they would forego plunder in time of need if ordered by him; and
the subjection to him was so blind and unconditional that it would
only have cost him an order to cause himself to be proclaimed not
only as emperor, but even as Prophet of the Tartars. He endeavoured
to soften the inclination to cruelty of his soldiers, composed of so
many nations, by poets and learned men, by musicians and _sufis_, who
came in swarms to the army and wandered with him through Asia.”[409]
Under his enlightened rule Samarkand became the centre of a great
and brilliant court, and was embellished with palaces, mosques, and
colleges which extort the admiration of those who view them in their
decay.
[Illustration: DERVISHES OF THE NAKSHABANDI ORDER]
It is the hard fate of a conqueror that he can never pause in his
onward progress. The fierce passions let loose by war can be assuaged
only by their repeated exercise; and Tīmūr’s hordes were ever
clamouring to be led to fresh victories. Thus, when he had restored
peace and prosperity to Central Asia, he set out on a triumphant march
which threatened to include the whole inhabited world. In A.H. 793
(1390) Persia and the Caucasus, that halting-place in the migration
of human masses westwards, were overrun by his armies. Then, in
A.H. 798 (1395), he attacked the Kipchāks, a Mongolian tribe firmly
settled in South-Eastern Russia and the lower Volga, which for the
first time in history were united under their great chief, Tokhtamish
Khān. Long and desperate was the struggle between the rivals, but it
ended in Tīmūr’s triumph. His eyes now turned to India, whose fabulous
wealth had attracted other adventurers such as he. The Panjāb and the
whole Gangetic Delta fell an easy prey to his legions; and in A.H.
801 (1398) he returned to Samarkand laden with spoils. The Egyptian
dynasty established in Syria and the Turkish lords of Asia Minor alone
retained their independence. Tīmūr stormed Damascus and broke the
Mamlūk power. Then, on the field of Angora, A.H. 805 (1402), he utterly
defeated the Sultan Bāyazīd I., a conqueror of a renown only second to
his own. Constantinople and the empire of the East lay at his mercy.
Happily for European civilisation, his darling Samarkand attracted the
war-spent conqueror. He returned thither in triumph, and three years
later died at Otrār, while on his way to subdue China, A.H. 807
(1404)[410]--
_Mors sola fatetur
Quantula sunt hominum corpuscula!_
[Illustration: INTERIOR OF TAMERLANE’S MAUSOLEUM, BOKHĀRĀ]
[Illustration: THE TOMB OF TAMERLANE]
CHAPTER XXV
THE SUCCESSORS OF TĪMŪR
The method taken by Chingiz Khān of assuring the continuance of
sovereignty in his house was inspired by statesmanlike prescience. It
is well-nigh impossible for a single individual to maintain intact an
empire inherited from a father who has won it by the sword. Its founder
may, indeed, say with far greater truth than the scion of a long line
of kings, “the State is Myself”; but his hour of triumph is embittered
by the reflection that possessions amassed by ruthless greed are apt
to melt away when the strong arm that secured them has mouldered into
dust. Chingiz, by dividing his unwieldy dominions among his four sons,
removed all cause of jealousy, such as would inevitably have arisen had
one child been exalted above the rest, and established a community of
interest among his descendants which for several generations sufficed
to keep the greater portion of the known world in his family.
Tīmūr’s disregard of the sound principles of statecraft in the disposal
of his conquests brought upon his dynasty the curse of perennial
rivalries, of mutual hatreds which led to the disruption of his empire
and paved the way for the advent of alien rulers.
When the news of Tīmūr’s death reached Samarkand, his grandson, Pīr
Mohammad, to whom he had bequeathed his crown, was absent in Kandahār.
Khalīl Sultan, another grandson, assured of the support of the
army and the more powerful nobles, took possession of Samarkand and
proclaimed himself king, A.H. 807 (1405).
Meanwhile the dead conqueror’s son, Shāh Rukh,[411] who ruled Herāt,
with the concurrence of the feudal chiefs of his province, laid claim
to the succession, and was acknowledged as the rightful heir throughout
Khorāsān, Sīstān, and Māzanderān. Leaving followers devoted to his
interests in charge of these three important districts, he set out
for Transoxiana, and on his way thither learnt that Khalīl had been
proclaimed king of Samarkand. On hearing this news he sent back one of
his generals with orders to place Herāt in a state of defence, while he
himself continued his march towards the Oxus.
In the meantime his rivals came to terms; Sultan Khalīl being left in
possession of Transoxiana, while Pīr Mohammad was acknowledged as his
heir.[412] Shāh Rukh was conscious of his inability to contend against
these combined forces, and he wisely resolved to secure a realm which
they were not likely to dispute with him.
He hastened back to Herāt and seized Khorāsān, Māzanderān, and Sīstān.
In A.H. 817 (1414) he added Isfahān and Shīrāz to these acquisitions,
and ruled over the fairest province of Irān until his death, in A.H.
850 (1447).
Sultan Khalīl possessed many admirable qualities, with no small share
of the vices which are associated with every virtue. He was too lavish
in gifts and in affection. Had it not been for the slavery in which he
was held by his beloved mistress, _Shād Mulk_, the “Joy of the State,”
he might have revived the lustre of his grandsire’s rule. But his
submission to every whim of an extravagant woman soon depleted Tīmūr’s
brimming treasury, and estranged from his person even those who had
been his most ardent supporters.
The general discontent came to a head in A.H. 809 (1406), when two
nobles, named Khodāydād and Shaykh Nūr-ed-Dīn, suddenly took up arms
against their master, and advanced to attack Samarkand. They were
repulsed by Khalīl, and in the following year Shaykh Nūr-ed-Dīn made
peace with the Sultan. Meanwhile Khodāydād, allying himself with
other malcontent nobles, returned to the attack. On arriving before
Samarkand, the rebels decoyed Sultan Khalīl from his defences under a
pretence of parleying, seized his person and obtained possession of the
city,[413] A.H. 812 (1409).
On learning this piece of treachery, Shāh Rukh at once despatched an
army under his general, Shāh Mulk, to punish Khodāydād. The latter
abandoned Samarkand, which remained without a ruler until the arrival
of Shād Mulk, to whom the gates were opened. Shāh Rukh himself arrived
shortly afterwards, and, after establishing order in the town, heaped
the most galling indignities on Shād Mulk, who had been the cause of
Khalīl’s misfortunes.[414] He then made his young son, Ulugh Beg,
governor of Transoxiana, and returned to Herāt.
The thirty-eight years during which the cultured prince ruled as his
father’s lieutenant in Samarkand were the golden age of Central Asia.
Himself an astronomer and mathematician of no mean renown,[415] he
gathered round him a galaxy of stars of science, which made Tīmūr’s
capital a beacon-light for the Eastern world. His liberality and deep
artistic sense were not less conspicuous. They stood revealed in
palaces, mosques, and colleges, which during their brief existence
made Samarkand the most beautiful of Asiatic cities. The long peace
that had brooded over Transoxiana under the reign of this enlightened
prince was rudely dispelled by the death of his father, Shāh Rukh,
which took place in A.H. 850 (1448).[416] Ulugh Beg, as heir-apparent,
was proclaimed emperor, and set out for Herāt to take possession of
his father’s treasure. But his nephew, `Alā ud-Dawlé, had seized the
citadel and the person of Ulugh Beg’s son, `Abd ul-Latīf. Paternal love
induced the emperor to come to terms with the pretender on certain
conditions, first and foremost amongst these being his son’s release.
This was achieved, but the other stipulations were not carried out
by `Alā ud-Dawlé. The war was therefore renewed, and it ended in his
discomfiture and flight towards Meshed. While pursuing his enemy
through Khorāsān, Ulugh Beg received disquieting news from home. Herāt
had been plundered by a Turkoman chief, and Samarkand by the uncouth
Uzbegs, who destroyed in a few hours the marvels of art with which
he had decorated it. But worse was still in store for the unhappy
monarch. His darling, `Abd ul-Latīf, for whom he had sacrificed so
much, set up the standard of revolt at Balkh and invaded Transoxiana.
Ulugh Beg was forced to oppose his claims, but was defeated and taken
prisoner. To `Abd ul-Latīf’s eternal disgrace, he caused his father to
be put to death in prison by a Persian slave.[417]
The parricide did not prosper long. Abū Sa`īd, a descendant of Tīmūr’s
third son, Mīrān Shāh, seized the throne of Samarkand; and, though `Abd
ul-Latīf proved himself the stronger in the field, his triumph was cut
short by his assassination by one of Ulugh Beg’s trusted servants, A.H.
854 (1450). Abū Sa`īd claimed the succession, but was repulsed by one
of Shāh Rukh’s grandsons named `Abdullah Mīrzā, who took possession
of the oft-contested throne of Samarkand. Gathering a strong force
of Uzbegs, he returned to the charge and deprived `Abdullah, his
cousin, of his crown and life, A.H. 856 (1452).[418] The history of
the following thirty years is a dreary record of struggles for supreme
authority between Tīmūr’s descendants. At length, in A.H. 870 (1465),
Abū Sa`īd had defeated every rival and found himself unquestioned
master of Transoxiana, Northern Persia, and Afghanistān. Central Asia
enjoyed, too, a brief respite from the stress of civil war under a
prince of real military and administrative genius. Two years later,
A.H. 872 (1467), his evil star tempted him to intervene in the affairs
of Āzerbāyjān. He marched against a pretender named Hasan Beg with a
powerful army, but was utterly defeated and handed over by his captor
to the tender mercies of Prince Yādgār Mirza, son of Shāh Rukh’s
consort, Gawhar Shād, whom Abū Sa`īd had put to death. The Mohammedan
law is based on the Mosaic code, which prescribes blood for blood: and
the once-powerful emperor was beheaded by the inexorable Yādgār.
His son, Sultan Ahmed, was permitted to mount the throne of Samarkand.
He was known to be of moderate abilities and a yielding nature; and
revolts against his authority were frequent. The southern provinces
threw off their allegiance, and were never reconquered during Sultan
Ahmed’s lifetime. His brother `Omar Shaykh successfully withstood him
on the extreme east, and he had the greatest difficulty in bringing
back Turkestān to obedience. His reign was, however, more peaceful
than might have been anticipated in times so stormy. If Sultan Ahmed
was given to alternate fits of drunkenness and devotion, he was at
least devoid of the lust of conquest which proved so fatal to his
predecessors. Transoxiana enjoyed comparative repose during his
twenty-seven years’ reign, and its capital was adorned with public
edifices which rivalled those of Ulugh Beg in beauty and grandeur.
He slept with his fathers in A.H. 899 (1493); whereon his brother,
Sultan Mohammad, seized the throne, and basely slaughtered his five
youthful nephews. This infamous cruelty and his own debauched life
roused the ire of his nobles, whom good Sultan Ahmed had raised to a
comparatively high standard of civilisation. He died after a reign of
six months (1494), probably by violent means. The succession was, as
usual, disputed by his children, Mas`ūd, Sultan `Ali, and Baysunkur,
the latter of whom, a youth of eighteen, was elevated to supreme
authority by a powerful faction; for by this time a new factor had
been introduced into Central Asian politics. The Uzbeg chieftains and
the ecclesiastics, who had been restrained by the strong arm of Tīmūr
and his descendants, gained the mastery under the feeble Sultan Ahmed.
Baysunkur’s youth and inexperience rendered him unable to hold the
balance true between the contending parties. His lukewarmness made
him disliked by all; and his brother, Sultan `Ali, was invited from
Karshī to supplant him. Baysunkur sought refuge in flight, but was
soon afterwards restored, while his rival, Sultan `Ali, escaped to
Bokhārā. Here he organised resistance so effectually that Baysunkur
was foiled in an attempt to capture Bokhārā, and driven back to his
capital. Sultan `Ali now turned the tables effectually on his brother.
He advanced on Samarkand at the head of overwhelming forces, while
Mas`ūd pressed forward from the south to assist him; and the famous
Bāber Mīrzā, grandson of Abū Sa`īd, raised the standard of revolt in
Kokand.[419]
Baysunkur felt resistance to this powerful combination hopeless, and he
fled[420] to his brother Mas`ūd for protection, dying in obscurity in
A.H. 905 (1499). His dominions were, in name, divided between Sultan
`Ali and Bāber Mīrzā, but their extreme youth forbade them to assert
authority over the powerful nobles who had usurped every species of
power. They abandoned the contest; and a chieftain named Mohammad Khān
Shaybāni, a descendant of Jūjī, the son of Chingiz Khān, seized the
throne of Samarkand. Thus fell the dynasty of Tīmūr, after a duration
of 140 years.[421] Their age has cast undying lustre on the Turkish
name, for their own culture attracted an array of scholars and men of
science whose works recall the brightest days of Moorish dominion in
Spain. Shāh Rukh was a song-writer of no mean order; while Ulugh Beg
won fame in the severer studies of the mathematician and astronomer.
Bāber Mīrzā, who afterwards sat on the throne of Delhi, was famous
alike as statesman, philosopher, and writer; and, indeed, there was
hardly one of Tīmūr’s descendants but manifested a taste for letters.
The annals of this house are rendered illustrious by the names of
poets, philosophers, and theologians which are still household words
throughout the East. During this period of Central Asian history,
Bokhārā, Samarkand, and Merv all gave birth to distinguished Mohammedan
writers, as did many other less important towns of Transoxiana and
Turkestān; but rarely did these authors employ in their compositions
the principal vernacular of these countries, namely, Eastern Turkish.
All theological and didactic works were written--as they still are--in
Arabic: and thus it is that many of the masterpieces of Arabic
literature owe their origin to Mohammedans of Central Asia. The
alternative literary language was Persian, which probably came in vogue
for poetical compositions about the time of the Tāhirides.
In the days of the Tīmūrides, however, the dialect of Turkish, known
as Chaghatāy, became honoured by a definite position in literature,
chiefly in the department of poetry. The Chaghatāy dialect is the
oldest form of Turkish which has come down to us in the Arabic
character, and it is still spoken throughout Transoxiana, Turkestān,
and Kāshghar. As with the Aryan family of languages so with the
Turkish, the farther east we go the nearer we approach its source. In
Yarkand and Kāshghar this language is called Turkī, while in Samarkand
and Bokhārā it is known by the name of Uzbegī. Although Uzbegī is the
language most commonly heard in the bazaars of Samarkand and Bokhārā,
it does not hold the field alone, its rival being a corrupt form of
Persian spoken by the Tājiks, and hence known as Tājikī. This dialect,
while on the one hand preserving many old Persian words which in Persia
itself have dropped out of the spoken tongue, has, on the other hand,
with regard to its grammatical forms and its syntax, been greatly
influenced by its Turkish neighbour.[422] Under the Tīmūides there
flourished a poet named Mīr `Alī Shīr, or Navāy, who certainly did more
than any other to enrich the Chaghatāy literature, and who may justly
be regarded the national poet _par excellence_ of the Eastern Turks.
CHAPTER XXVI
THE SHAYBĀNIDES
The Mongol dynasty, established in China and known as the Yuen, founded
by Kubilāy Khān[423] _cir._ 1260, began to decline very soon after
his death (1294); and in 1353 a native of humble birth, named Chu
Yūan Chang, succeeded in overthrowing the alien line, and, in 1368,
originated the famous dynasty of Ming. The nomads’ rule was again
confined to the steppes of Mongolia.
Eastern and Western Turkestān continued, in the Ming period, to
constitute the dominions of the Chaghatāys.[424] This so-called
Middle-Empire originally included Transoxiana, but in the first half of
the fourteenth century Transoxiana came under the sway of a separate
line of Chaghatāy Khāns.
[Illustration: INTERIOR OF A KIRGHIZ TENT]
North of the Middle-Empire was that of the Dasht-i-Kipchāk, which
included the vast steppes extending east and north of the Sea of Aral,
a part of modern Siberia, the land north of the Caspian, and both sides
of the Lower Volga.[425] These broad realms had been given to Chingiz
Khān’s first son, Jūjī, on whose death, in 1225, it was divided into
two sections. The Eastern division, the habitat White Horde, fell
to Jūjī’s eldest son, Orda; while the Western, that of the Golden
Horde, was ruled over by Bātū, the conqueror of Russia, who had his
residence in Sarai, on the Lower Volga.[426]
Another branch of the house of Jūjī was the heritage of his fifth
son, Shaybān, whose dominions were contiguous with those of the White
Horde.[427] They became famous in the fifteenth century under the name
of Uzbegs, and the origin of their name has given rise to many strange
conjectures.
The real founder of the Uzbeg power was Abū-l-Khayr, a descendant of
Shaybān in the sixth degree, who was born in A.H. 816 (1413). His rule
extended over the western portion of the present Kirghiz steppes. About
the year A.H. 870 (1465) a number of these Uzbegs, discontented with
their Khān, Abū-l-Khayr, migrated into Moghūlistan, with the Sultans
Girāy and Jānībeg, of the line of Jūjī.[428] Isan Bughā, the then Khān
of Moghūlistan, or Jatah, received them hospitably, and allotted them
some territories on the river Chū, to the west of his own domains.
These emigrants were subsequently known as the Uzbeg-Kazāks, or simply
Kazāks.[429] After the death of Abū-l-Khayr, in A.H. 874 (1469), a
large number of his Uzbegs passed into Moghūlistan and joined their
kinsmen.[430]
Abū-l-Khayr overran Khwārazm and part of Turkestān; and at the
beginning of the sixteenth century his son Mohammad Shaybānī, also
known as Shāhī Beg, made himself master of Samarkand and Transoxiana,
and was the first of the so-called dynasty of the Shaybānides. It is
more than a mere coincidence that the appearance of the Uzbegs and
Kazāks in Southern Central Asia was contemporaneous with Russia’s
liberation from the Tartar yoke.
Shaybānī Khān achieved the conquest of Transoxiana in A.H. 906
(1500),[431] but soon after this event Zahīr ud-Dīn Bāber, then
aged nineteen, entered that country and captured Samarkand, Soghd,
Miyānkul, Karshī, and other strong places; Bokhārā alone remaining in
the possession of the Uzbegs. However, in the following year, A.H. 907
(1501), Shaybānī Khān defeated Bāber and regained the lost territory.
By A.H. 911 (1505), from which date historians reckon the commencement
of his reign,[432] he had made himself master of Transoxiana, Farghāna,
Khwārazm, and Hisār.
His attention was now turned towards Khorāsān, which was in the hands
of Husayn Mīrzā, also called Sultan Husayn Baykara, a descendant of
Tīmūr’s second son, `Omar Shaykh. In A.H. 912 (1506) Bāber, hearing
of the Uzbeg designs, marched northwards from Kābul to assist his
relatives.[433] But in the interval Mīrzā Husayn died, and Bāber, on
his arrival in Khorāsān, A.H. 913 (1507), found that the two sons of
the late prince had instituted a dual government. So disgusted was he
with their lack of definite policy and their mutual recriminations,
that he returned to Kābul and left them to fight their own battles. In
this year Shaybānī Khān, entering Khorāsān, defeated these ill-assorted
colleagues and made himself master of the country. The next three years
were passed in successful expeditions in the direction of Khorāsān and
India, and against the Kazāks. But in A.H. 916 (1510) his career of
conquest was brought to a sudden close. Shāh Isma`īl, the Safavī,--who
eight years previously had overthrown the Turkoman dynasty of the
“White Sheep” in Āzerbāyjān, and had set upon the conquest of all
Persia,--now marched into Khorāsān. Here he defeated and slew Shaybānī
Khān in the vicinity of Merv, thereby making himself master of the
whole country.[434]
For two years, from A.H. 916 to 918 (1510 to 1512) Transoxiana
practically passed out of the hands of the Uzbeg Sultans. At all
events, we find no coin of theirs during that period, though Persian
historians aver that Shaybānī Khān was succeeded in the chief Khānate
by Kuchunji. The nobles were probably too much occupied in providing
for their own safety, after the disaster of Merv, to give consideration
to the choice of a new chief.[435]
Bāber, on hearing of the death of Shaybānī Khān, and having been led
to suppose that his presence would be attended by most important
advantages, again set out from Kābul, and, entering Transoxiana,
entirely defeated the Uzbeg army sent out to meet him under Hamza
Sultan, A.H. 917 (1511). The Uzbegs were pursued as far as the Iron
Gates. Meanwhile Bāber’s victorious army assembled in Hisār, where it
was now reinforced by a larger body of Persians, sent by Shāh Isma`īl,
who made common cause with Bāber against the Uzbegs. The united forces,
numbering 60,000 men, next marched against Karshī, where Sultan
`Ubaydullah had fortified himself, while the most of the Uzbeg Sultans
had fled to Samarkand. On the march, Bāber learnt that `Ubaydullah
had abandoned Karshī and fled to Bokhārā. Bāber at once followed him,
marching day and night until he reached the city, whence he drove
`Ubaydullah into the deserts of Turkestān.[436] When the rest of the
Uzbeg Sultans in Samarkand learnt this disaster, they were filled with
terror and fled in disorder into different parts of Turkestān, leaving
Bāber absolute master of Transoxiana. He now entered Samarkand amid the
rejoicings of the people, who welcomed him as the rightful successor to
the realms of Tīmūr. But the enthusiasm of the orthodox Sunnis began to
cool when they found that Bāber still maintained cordial relations with
the Shi`ite Shāh Isma`īl and carried out the stipulation on which the
alliance was based by recognising his suzerainty.
Becoming aware of the popular discontent, the Uzbeg Sultans collected
their forces and marched out of Turkestān.[437] Their main body took
the direction of Tashkent, while `Ubaydullah, with the remainder,
proceeded to Bokhārā by way of Yati Kudūk.[438] Bāber also advanced
on Bokhārā at the head of 40,000 well-equipped men, and overtook
`Ubaydullah at Kūl-Melik.[439]
The Uzbeg had only 3000 men under his command; but, nothing daunted by
the fearful odds, he rallied his troops and attacked Bāber’s force with
such fury that, after a bloody encounter, he put them utterly to rout,
A.H. 918 (1512). After this disaster Bāber returned to Samarkand, but,
finding no supporters there, fled to Hisār, after a reign of just eight
months.[440]
Though the Uzbegs were again masters of Transoxiana, their position
was by no means secure. On the west, Bāber, with the aid of 60,000
Persians, sent at his request by Shāh Isma`īl, under Amīr Yār Ahmed
Isfahānī, known as Najm-i-Sāni, or the Second Star, passed the Iron
Gates and, entering Karshī, massacred the inhabitants and sacked the
town. On the east, the Khān of Moghūlistan, on learning Bāber’s success
at Karshī, marched out by way of Andijān to attack Suyunjik Khān, one
of the chief Uzbeg Sultans. An encounter took place at Bishkand,[441]
in which the Khān was utterly defeated.
Meanwhile Bāber and his Persian auxiliaries were marching in the
direction of Samarkand, causing great alarm among the Uzbegs. On
reaching Ghujduvān[442] they encountered Jānībeg Sultan,[443] who
had thrown himself into the fort. A fierce battle ensued, which is
vividly described by Mīrzā Haydar in the following words: “The Uzbeg
Sultans entered the fort on the same night on which the Turkomans
and Bāber, who were encamped before the place, were busy preparing
their siege implements. At dawn they arranged their forces in the
midst of the suburbs, and stood facing the enemy. On the other side,
too, preparations were made for a fight. Since the Uzbegs were in the
suburbs, the field of battle was a narrow one. The Uzbeg infantry began
to pour forth a shower of arrows from every quarter, so that soon
the grip of Islām wrenched aside the hands of heresy and unbelief,
and victory declared for the true faith.[444] The victorious breezes
of Islām overturned the banners of the schismatics. The Turkomans
were so completely routed that most of them perished on the field;
all the wounds that had been effected by the swords at Karshī were
now sewn up by the arrow-stitches of vengeance. They sent Mīr Najm
and all the Turkoman Amīrs to hell; and the emperor retired, broken
and crestfallen, to Hisār.” Bāber now determined on relinquishing
his designs on Transoxiana, and, returning to Kābul, he prepared
for an easier conquest--that of Hindustān. On gaining possession of
Transoxiana, the Shaybānides divided it into a number of appanages, the
eldest Sultan usually assuming the leadership of the rest. His name
alone was read in the public prayers throughout the whole empire, and
appeared on the coins of all the states which composed it.
For nearly ninety-nine years did the Shaybānīs, that is, the
descendants of Abū-l-Khayr Khān,[445] rule in Transoxiana. M.
Veliaminof-Zernof was the first to elucidate the complications in
their system of government during the sixteenth century.[446] In his
article on the coins of Bokhārā and Khiva, above quoted, he published a
list of the chief Khāns, whom he calls the _Khākāns_, of the Shaybānīs,
and also a genealogical table showing their descent from Abū-l-Khayr
Khān.[447]
The separate appanages passed from father to son, and thus the
residence of the Khākān, or chief Khān, was continually changing from
one city to another. Thus Bokhārā lost its proud position as capital
of Transoxiana, and took rank with other towns as the headquarters of
successive chiefs.[448]
After the battle of Ghujduvān, in A.H. 918 (1512), in accordance with
their established custom, _tūra_ and _yasāk_, the Shaybānī Sultans
proceeded to elect their Khākān. Kuchunji Khān, as the eldest, was
appointed to the high office; while Suyunjik was nominated _Kālgha_,
or heir-apparent. The latter, however, died before Kuchunji, whereupon
Jānībeg became the _Kālgha_; but he too predeceased Kuchunji, and the
title of _Kālgha_ passed to Abū Sa`īd Khān, who eventually became
Khākān, A.H. 936 (1529). On his death he was succeeded by `Ubaydullah
Khān, A.H. 939 (1533).
The various appanages of Transoxiana were thus apportioned in 918
by Jānībeg:--Kuchunji received Samarkand; Suyunjik, Tashkent; and
`Ubaydullah, Karakul and Karshī, besides Bokhārā, which was his by
inheritance. Jānībeg reserved for himself and his children all the
country of Miyānkul, Soghd of Samarkand, and the town of Kerminé,
which was his residence. Omitting the unimportant reigns of the seven
following _Khākās_,[449] we will pass at once to a short account of the
greatest of the Abū-l-Khayrides, `Abdullah II., the last but one of his
dynasty; and for this purpose we cannot do better than summarise the
account given by Professor Vambéry in his _History of Bokhara_[450].
In A.H. 964 (1556) he had put an end to the sub-dynasty of Bokhārā, and
in A.H. 968 (1560) proclaimed his father in that town as “Khākān of the
world”; in A.H. 986 (1578) he similarly abolished the sub-dynasty of
Samarkand, which had sprung up during Iskandar’s reign at Bokhārā; and
in A.H. 991 (1583), on his father’s death, he became Khākān.
“In imitation of Shaybānī Khān and `Ubaydullah, who, although
practically sovereigns of the country, had left the actual seat of the
Khānate to others, the more freely to pursue their military career,
`Abdullah placed his father Iskandar on the throne, and put himself at
the head of his army to re-conquer the original frontiers of Shaybānī’s
empire. The greater part of his life was spent in this enterprise, but
he was more fortunate in his conquests than any of his predecessors,
and also contributed more to the restoration of prosperity to the
countries of the Oxus and the Jaxartes.... Under him the frontiers of
the Khānate of Bokhārā were pushed forward in the north far beyond the
inhabited province of Turkestān. In the east, not only all Farghāna,
but also Kāshghar and Khotan, were subdued by the Shaybānides. In the
south, an aggressive policy had been pursued--on the one hand by the
family of Bāber, and on the other by the Safavīs, who both coveted the
possession of Balkh; but the power of the Uzbegs was even greater than
in the time of the first Shaybānides. Balkh was fortified, Tokhāristān
and Badakhshān were incorporated with Transoxiana, and once more the
bright green waters of the Murghāb became the frontiers of Turania. In
the west, the armies of `Abdullah were again victorious, in spite of
the united opposition of the Iranians and Khwārazmians. Astarābād was
surprised and taken; the Prince of Gilān, an ally of Sultan Murād III.,
had to take refuge at Constantinople, and the frontiers of the empire
of the Shaybānides were extended in this direction farther than they
had ever been before. For the moment `Abdullah ... got possession of a
great part of Khorāsān, including the towns of Herāt, Meshed, Sarakhs,
Merv, etc., all of which he retained very nearly to his death.”
Soon after `Abdullah’s death anarchy broke out in Transoxiana, and the
way was prepared for a change of dynasty. The line of Shaybānī, after
holding the government for nearly a century, gave place to the dynasty
of Astrakhan.[451] During its tenure of power the Khāns of Bokhārā and
Khwārazm were continually at variance. On the conquest of Transoxiana
by Abū-l-Khayr and Shaybānī, both Khānates were simultaneously occupied
by the invaders. Subsequently, when Shāh Isma`īl drove Shaybānī out
of Khwārazm, he placed a Persian governor in charge of the province,
but the Sunni people detested the Shi`ite Shāh, and expelled him in
921.[452] During the Khākānship of Kuchunji the Uzbegs founded an
independent principality in Khwārazm;[453] Ilbars, son of a chief named
Bereghe, being the first Khān of the new line.
THE UZBEG APPANGES.
A full account of the Uzbeg Khākāns, based on all available
authorities, will be found in Part II. of Howorth’s _Mongols_. Space
will not permit us to enter into details with regard to all these
petty chiefs. The following is a list of Khākāns and the genealogy
of Abū-l-Khayr’s descendants, with the locality of their respective
appanages, where information on the point is available. The _Khākāns_
are printed in capitals, and the numbers after their names represent
the order in which they ruled.
Abū-l-Khayr
|
+------------------+-------+----+--------------+
| | | |
Shāh Būdāk Khwāja Mohammad KUCHUNJI (2), Suyunj Khwāja
| | Samarkand, |
+---------+--------+ | A.H. 918–936 |
| | | (1512–1529) |
Mahmūd MOHAMMAD | | |
| SHAYBĀNĪ (1), | | |
`UBAYDULLA (4), A.H. 911–916 | | |
Bokhārā, (1505–1510) | | |
A.H. 939–946 | | NAWRŪZ AHMED (7),
(1532–1539) | | Tashkent,
| Jānībeg | A.H. 959–963
Abd ul-Azīz | | (1551–1556)
| |
+-----------------+ |
| | |
ISKANDAR (9), PĪR MOHAMMAD(8), |
Bokhārā, Balkh |
A.H. 968–991 A.H. 963–968 |
(1561–1583) (1556–1561) |
| |
`ABDULLAH II. (10), |
Bokhārā |
| |
`ABDUL-MŪ´MIN (11), |
Bokhārā, |
A.H. 1006–1007 |
(1598–1599) |
|
|
+------------------+-------------+-------+
| | |
ABŪ SA`ĪD (3), `ABDULLAH I. (5), `ABD UL-LATĪF (6),
Samarkand, Samarkand, Samarkand,
A.H. 936–939 A.H. 947 (1540) A.H. 947–959
(1529–1532) (1540–1551)
[Illustration: DECORATIONS IN THE SHĀH ZINDA, SAMARKAND]
CHAPTER XXVII
THE HOUSE OF ASTRAKHAN
Among the Mongol chiefs who struggled for mastery in Eastern Russia at
the epoch of Tīmūr’s intervention[454] was a descendant of Chingiz,
named Kutluk, who rose to fame by defeating Tīmūr’s great rival,
Tokhtamish Khān, near Kiev in 1399.[455] His offspring vegetated in
obscurity for nearly two centuries in the Khānate of Astrakhan, on
the lower reaches of the Volga, and were then driven eastwards by the
growing power of the Russian princes. Thus, towards the close of the
sixteenth century, the head of this ancient line, Yār Mahammad Khān,
sought refuge in Transoxiana, and was received with honour by the
Shaybānides, whose pride in their descent from Tīmūr was flattered by
the exile’s recognition of their claims to kinship. Iskandar Khān gave
his daughter, the sister of `Abdullah, greatest of the Shaybānide line,
in marriage to the Astrakhan chief’s son, Jāni Khān.
The new-comer soon showed that he possessed the warrior’s instincts,
and took a prominent part in his brother-in-law `Abdullah’s campaigns.
And so it came to pass that when the last of the Shaybānides, `Abd
ul-Mū´min, was slain, the nobles of Transoxiana offered the crown to
Jāni Khān. He, being well stricken in years, declined it in favour
of his son Dīn Mahammad, who united the blood of Chingiz and of
the fallen dynasty. He did not long survive to enjoy his fortune;
perishing in battle with the Persians, who attempted to drive the
Uzbegs from Khorāsān. His successor, A.H. 1007 (1598) was his brother
Bāki Mohammad, while Vāli Mohammad, another of old Jāni’s sons, took
possession of Balkh and the country west of the Oxus. A third brother
was murdered in A.H. 1011 (1602) by the Kara Turkomans who dwelt at
Kunduz, and from them Bāki Mahammad exacted a terrible vengeance.
Kunduz was taken by storm, and the entire garrison was put to the
sword. This punishment brought Shāh `Abbās of Persia into the field,
determined to guard his north-eastern frontier from foes who threatened
the existence of his authority. He met with a crushing defeat near
Balkh, and escaped with the greatest difficulty from capture. The
remainder of Bāki Mohammad’s reign was disturbed only by those
insurrections, fomented by kinsmen, from which few Eastern princes were
free. He died in A.H. 1014 (1605), and was succeeded by his brother
Vāli Mohammad, the erstwhile lord of Balkh. Vāli Mohammad’s rule was
brief and inglorious. He wallowed in debauchery, and surrendered all
power to an unscrupulous vezīr, whose fiendish cruelties aroused fierce
resentment, and led to his master’s defeat and death at the hands of a
kinsman, Imām Kulī Khān (1611). The new ruler was of sterner and purer
mould. He courted the society of the learned and pious, and laboured
to secure his country’s prosperity. And so, under his wise and just
régime, Bokhārā regained a share of her ancient glory. She grew rapidly
in wealth, and again became a beacon-light in the darkness of Central
Asia. At length, after a reign of thirty-eight years, the good Imām
Kulī Khān felt himself unequal to the task of governing, and sought
the repose which is the ideal of all true Musulmans. He summoned
his brother Nāzir Mohammad from Balkh and surrendered his realm to
him.[456] Then, taking a pilgrim’s staff, he set out for Medīna, where
he died in the odour of sanctity, leaving traces of his munificence
which have endured to the present day.
His successor (1642) found it impossible to secure a place in his
people’s affections. He was immensely rich, and endeavoured to win
public regard by his largesses; but Bokhārā sighed for the good times
of old Imām Kulī Khān, and the popular feeling found vent in a revolt
which raged in the northern provinces. Nāzir Mohammad sent his son
`Abd el-`Azīz to quell it, but the faithless prince placed himself
at the head of the rebels and marched on Bokhārā. The unhappy father
fled to Balkh, leaving his capital at his unnatural foe’s mercy, and
`Abd el-`Azīz took up the fallen sceptre (1647). Nāzir Mohammad, in
despair, divided the rest of his realms among his sons who had remained
faithful to him--the fourth, Subhān Kulī Khān, receiving in fief the
country round the ford of Khwāja Sālū on the Upper Oxus. But his old
age was still embittered by his children’s contests for supremacy.
Worn out at last by the unequal struggle, he resolved to spend the
brief remainder of his days in the sacred soil of Medīna, and died,
broken-hearted, on his pilgrimage thither.[457] His death served only
to increase the hostility between his sons. Subhān Kulī Khān, who had
established himself at Balkh, became a thorn in the side of his brother
`Abd el-`Azīz of Bokhārā. A third brother, Kāsim Mohammad,[458]
was despatched with an army to reduce him to submission; but he was
defeated, and driven to take refuge at Hisār, and peace was restored on
the masterful Subhān Kulī Khān being recognised as heir to the throne.
Hardly had the clouds of civil war been dissipated ere Bokhārā became
the prey of foreign invasion (1663). Khiva had long been a province of
the southern Khānate, but its prince, Abū-l-Ghāzi, a man whose life had
been one long romance, determined to throw off the hated yoke. He drove
the Bokhārans from the Lower Oxus, and carried the war into the enemy’s
camp. Defeated with great slaughter by `Abd el-`Azīz near Kerminé,
he escaped with a grievous wound by swimming across the great river.
Nothing daunted, he soon took the field again, and carried his ravages
to the very gates of Bokhārā.
His son and successor, Anūsha Khān, was still more venturesome. He
invaded `Abd el-`Azīz’s territory at the head of a great force, A.H.
1076 (1665), and actually gained possession of the capital during
the sovereign’s temporary absence at Kerminé. The latter hastened to
his people’s aid. With only forty devoted followers he hewed his way
to the citadel, and summoned his subjects to oust the invader. The
call was but too eagerly obeyed: all classes rose as a man against
the abhorred Khivans. The Sicilian Vespers were repeated, and but few
escaped to tell the tale of disaster. This splendid heroism exhausted
`Abd el-`Azīz’s stock of mental vigour.[459] He determined to abdicate
in favour of his brother Subhān Kulī Khān, and seek the secure refuge
which Medīna offered to those oppressed with the carking cares of life.
His temperament, indeed, predisposed him in favour of a course which
had become traditional in his family. It was a rare mixture of the
adventurous and the contemplative. Daring in battle, prompt in action,
`Abd el-`Azīz inherited a tendency to asceticism, and was wont to
withdraw himself from worldly affairs and remain plunged in prolonged
meditation on the ineffable goodness of his Maker. Without regret he
laid down his crown and betook himself as a humble pilgrim to the Holy
City, which is the goal of every true follower of the Prophet.
Subhān Kulī Khān assumed the insignia of royalty on his brother’s
departure; but gratified ambition brought with it no accession of
happiness. The Astrakhanides, with many virtues, were deficient in
filial love, and Subhān Kulī’s heart was wrung by the jealousy and
disrespect of his children. His neighbour of Khiva, too, did not take
to heart the terrible lesson taught him in the preceding reign. In
A.H. 1095 (1683) he invaded Bokhārā, and, though defeated by a loyal
chief named Mohammad Bi, he repeated his incursions in the following
year. In A.H. 1100 (1688) his successor advanced to the very gates of
Bokhārā; but he, too, was soundly beaten by Mohammad Bi, and Khiva
fell for a time under Subhān Kulī Khān’s dominion. This age witnessed
the apogee of Bokhārā’s greatness in the estimation of the Mohammedan
world. Aurangzīb, the narrow-minded zealot who sat on the throne
of Akbar, sent thither ambassadors with elephants and other costly
gifts; and Ahmad II. of Turkey, whose lust for conquest far exceeded
his military genius, did not disdain to address his Bokhāran brother
a grandiloquent epistle describing mythical successes against the
Frankish unbelievers.[460]
In spite of endless trouble with rebellious nobles, Subhān Kulī Khān
found a leisure to cultivate the Muses; and he was also the author of a
book on medicine which epitomises the lore of Galen, Hippocrates, and
Avicenna, but suggests nostrums in the shape of prayers and talismans
of which none of those worthies would have approved. He was now eighty
years of age, and felt that a time had come when he must bid adieu to
ambition. He called around him his nobles, and publicly designated
his son Mukīm Khān, who ruled at Balkh, as his successor. Then he
peacefully resigned his breath after a reign of twenty-four years, A.H.
1114 (1702).
Mukīm Khān found an obstacle in his path in the person of his elder
brother `Ubaydullah, and a civil war broke out in which the great Uzbeg
nobles of Bokhārā found their account. The faithful Mohammad Bi took up
the gauntlet for Mukīm, while the elder pretender’s cause was espoused
by Rahīm Bi, the chief of the powerful Mangit tribe. It lasted for
five years, when, thanks to his nominal vassal’s support, `Ubaydullah
triumphed. He chafed under the dictation of the Mangit king-maker, and
was promptly suppressed by poison; another brother named Abū-l-Fayz
being elevated to the throne in his stead, A.H. 1130 (1717).
The new sovereign’s character was wholly deficient in the strength
of purpose so needful in one who aspires to rule his fellow-men, and
he owed to his utter insignificance his recognition by the turbulent
nobles who surrounded him. It is the fate of all long-lived dynasties
to end miserably with a succession of _rois fainéants_; and the
Astrakhanides were no exception to the rule. Not only did Abū-l-Fayz
meekly submit to the dictation of Rahīm Bi; he bowed the neck to a
foreign potentate, and disgraced his country in the eyes of Islām.
In 1736 Nādir Shāh of Persia, whom Vambéry styles the last of the
Asiatic conquerors of the world,[461] after crushing the Ottoman power
in Georgia, turned his eagle glance on the states on his north-eastern
frontier. A host under his son Rizā Kulī Khān was hurled against
Andakhūy and Balkh, and soon the Sun and Lion of Persia waved over
both citadels. Flushed with victory, Rizā Kulī Khān crossed the Oxus
and fell upon Abū-l-Fayz Khān’s dispirited legions. But Ilbars, the
lion-hearted ruler of Khiva, came to the rescue, and the forces of
the two Khānates gained the day in an encounter with the invaders at
Karshī. Nādir Shāh, who had far deeper designs at stake, recalled
his impetuous son, and informed the Khāns of Central Asia that the
expedition had been undertaken without his consent, and that he wished
to live in amity with the descendants of Chingiz. Meantime Persian
gold was brought into play. Rahīm Bi and other Uzbeg chiefs were won
to his side, and a breach was produced by the jealousy between Bokhārā
and Khiva. Then, secure from attack from his dreaded foes of Khiva,
Nādir Shāh invaded India, A.H. 1152 (1739), took Delhi with fearful
slaughter, and bent his steps homewards with booty valued at eighty
millions sterling.
When the news of this successful raid reached Abū-l-Fayz he sent an
embassy to the conqueror, who was resting on his easily won laurels at
Peshawar. “I am the last off-shoot,” he wrote, “of an ancient line. I
am not powerful enough to withstand a monarch so redoubtable as thou,
and so I keep myself apart, offering prayers for thy welfare. If,
however, thou shouldst deign to honour me by a visit, I will show thee
the regard due to a guest.”[462] The fatuous prince at the same time
sought to associate his neighbour of Khiva in his abasement, but his
overtures were received with outspoken contempt.
Nādir Shāh saw in the submission tamely offered by Bokhārā (1740) a
means of crushing his inveterate enemy, Ilbars Khān, and he accepted
Abū-l-Fayz’s invitation.
He marched from Peshawar to Herāt with three hundred elephants, a tent
embroidered with pearls, and the famous Peacock Throne, ravished from
the Hall of Private Audience at Delhi.[463] Thence he travelled to
Karki on the Oxus frontier of Bokhārā, where he was met by Rahīm Bi
with presents and supplies for his locust-horde of followers. Thence
he fared to Charjūy, and traversed the mighty river by a bridge which
he threw across it in three days. Leaving half his army to protect
the priceless baggage, he moved on to Karakūl, a fortress one day’s
march from the capital. Here he was met by Abū-l-Fayz, attended by
his nobles, courtiers, and clergy, bringing a present of beautiful
Arab horses. The titular sovereign of Bokhārā presented himself as a
suppliant, but was given a seat by Nādir Shāh. Clad in a robe of state
and crowned, the imperious guest carried his complaisance so far as to
address his host as “Shāh.” But further honours were in store for the
obsequious Abū-l-Fayz. Nādir deigned to accept his lovely daughter as a
wife, bestowing her sister, at the same time, on his nephew. He created
Mohammad Rahīm Bi, to whose influence he owed his reception, Khān, and
gave him command of 6000 chosen troops levied in Turkestān. Having thus
brought Bokhārā to heel, Nādir Shāh turned his attention to Khiva. He
sent an envoy to Ilbars Khān, demanding his instant submission. The
Khivan was a man of ungovernable temper, and his reply was to put to
death those who held out to him the olive branch. This breach of the
usages of Islām sealed his fate. He was attacked by Nādir Shāh with an
overwhelming force, and closely invested in his fortress of Khanka.
After undergoing a cannonade for three days, the proud Ilbars was
forced to throw himself upon the mercy of a man whose fearful butchery
of the population of Delhi showed that he was insensible of the softer
feelings; and against him pleaded the children of the slaughtered
envoys, whose blood cried aloud for vengeance. He was put to death,
and twenty-one of his principal officers shared his fate.[464] Having
thus rid himself of a perpetual thorn in his side, Nādir Shāh returned
to Charjūy, whence he sent back to her father the young princess whom
he had lately wedded. He then returned to Khorāsān by way of Merv,
and fell a victim to a conspiracy among his followers, provoked to
extremities by his insane cruelty, A.H. 1160 (1747).
The news of his death led the all-powerful Mohammad Rahīm Bi to throw
off the semblance of loyalty to his effete master.[465] He entered
Bokhārā with a strong force, seized the person of the wretched
Abū-l-Fayz, confiscated his treasure, and finally put him to death.
With him virtually ended the dynasty of the Astrakhanides, which
had exhibited many virtues, neutralised, however, by an absence of
will-power and a bias towards the mystic side of their religion. Their
age was one of profound decadence. Its architectural remains, which
reflect the spirit of an era much more closely than is generally
supposed, are insignificant. They are, indeed, limited to the great
college known as Shīr Dar, which was built at Samarkand in 1610, and
a few other public edifices which do not shine by contrast with those
dating from Tīmūr’s happier days. But Bokhārā was destined to wallow
in a yet deeper abasement under the uncouth Uzbegs, who supplanted the
cultured sovereigns of the Astrakhan line.
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE HOUSE OF MANGIT
The family thus raised to royal rank by the ambition of Rahīm Bi[466]
belonged to the great Uzbeg tribe of Mangit, which had been brought
from the north-east of Mongolia by Chingiz, and had settled on the
lower reaches of the Oxus and around Karshī, a Bokhāran citadel 140
miles south-east of the capital. Their warlike spirit had placed them
at the head of the Uzbeg clans; and while the Astrakhanide sovereigns
retained any real power, the loyalty of the Mangits was as conspicuous
as their courage. We have seen how the imbecility of the degenerate
Abū-l-Fayz tempted his headstrong minister, Rahīm Bi, to throw off the
mask of allegiance. The latter sealed his disloyalty by assassinating
the murdered Khān’s young heir, `Abd ul-Mū´min, who had married his
daughter.[467] By an irony of fate Rahīm Bi was destined, in his
old age, to sink to the condition of a _roi fainéant_. His vezīr, a
Persian slave named Dawlat Bi, usurped all the functions of royalty,
and misgoverned Bokhārā in his name. On his deathbed, having no male
heirs, he designated his uncle Dāniyāl Bi as his successor--the choice
having been probably dictated by his vezīr, who was acquainted with
Dāniyāl’s weak and overscrupulous character, and fondly hoped to
retain the mastery which he had won over the degenerate Rahīm Bi.
Dāniyāl was, at his nephew’s death, governor of the town of Kerminé.
His modest disposition forbade him to assume the purple. He contented
himself with the title of Atālik,[468] and placed Abū-l-Ghāzi Khān, the
last scion of the Astrakhanides, on the throne.[469] But his son, the
famous Ma´sūm, who afterwards assumed the name of Shāh Murād, was not
of a nature to brook an inferior position. Under a mask of asceticism
and insensibility to the promptings of ambition, which imposed on the
priesthood and the mob, he cherished deep-seated schemes of conquest.
He gained unbounded influence over his doting father, and persuaded
him to connive at his assassination of the vezīr, Dawlat Bi, under
circumstances of peculiar atrocity. Then he gathered all the threads of
authority in Bokhārā into his own hands, and, when the dotard Dāniyāl
Bi died, in 1770,[470] none of his brethren ventured to dispute his
claims to the successorship.[471] He was at first content to govern
without reigning; and Abū-l-Ghāzi, the grandson of Abū-l-Fayz, was
permitted to retain the trappings of royalty. In 1784, however, Ma´sūm
had rendered intrigue and overt opposition to his rule hopeless, and
felt strong enough to deprive the forlorn descendant of Chingiz of his
shadowy crown. From that year dates the commencement of the reigning
house, although the founder eschewed the title of king and adopted
that of “Dispenser of Favours.” Ma´sūm, secure at home, turned his
eyes to foreign conquest. Khorāsān, the richest province of Persia,
was powerless to resist his encroachments; but the road thither was
blocked by Bahrām `Alī Khān, a Persian of the Kajar tribe to which the
present Shāhs belong. This remarkable man had established himself in
the chief strategical position of Central Asia in 1781.[472] He had
built for himself a citadel out of the ruins of Old Merv, which, even
in its decay, conveys the impression of overwhelming strength; and his
stern rule had reduced his kinsmen, the Turkoman tribes, to abject
submission.[473] In vain did he attempt to propitiate the ruthless
Amīr by an embassy, and offering prayers for the repose of the soul
of Dāniyāl Bi. In 1785 Ma´sūm set out for Merv at the head of 6000
Uzbeg horsemen. After lulling Bahrām `Alī into security by one of
those ruses in which he was so great an adept, he suddenly appeared
before Merv, and drew its defenders into an ambuscade, in which Bahrām
`Alī was slain. But the royal city defied his forces, secure in the
wealth poured into her lap by a system of irrigation, the work of
the Sultan Sanjar of the Seljūk line. Its headworks were a mighty
barrage on the Murghāb, thirty miles above Merv, which was guarded by
a strong castle.[474] The governor of these defensive works quarrelled
desperately with Mahammad Khān,[475] the son and successor of Bahrām
Khān; the _causa teterrima belli_ being, as is generally the case, a
woman. In the torments of disappointed love he had recourse to the
Amīr Ma´sūm, to whom he delivered his charge. Thus Merv’s relentless
foe was enabled to strike at the root of its prosperity. He destroyed
the Sultan Band, as the barrage was called, and turned the most
fertile spot on the world’s surface into a desert. Famine stared the
inhabitants in the face, and they had no other resource but to submit
to the ruthless Amīr. He obtained possession of the coveted prize
without striking a blow, and transported the bulk of its population to
Bokhārā, where they have left indelible traces in the population.[476]
Ma´sūm’s thirst for conquest was not stayed by this splendid capture.
He carried his raids far into Persia, laid Khorāsān waste, and swept
off so many of its wretched inhabitants that the price of Persian
slaves fell in the Bokhārā bazaar to a few pence.[477] His conduct
towards other princes who had the misfortune to be his neighbours was
equally devoid of mercy and good faith; and at his death, in 1799,[478]
the people of Khiva, Kokand, and Balkh felt that Central Asia had been
delivered from a scourge almost as terrible as that wielded by Chingiz
Khān. Amongst his own subjects Ma´sūm left behind him a reputation of
piety and virtue. “Under his reign,” writes `Abd ul-Kerīm,[479] “the
prosperity of Bokhārā excited the envy of Paradise. Religion had then
taken a new lease of life. The prince was occupied only in good works,
in prayers and practising devotion. He had renounced the pleasures
and pomps of this world; he touched neither gold nor silver, and he
spent on his own needs only the proceeds of the capitation tax levied
from Jews and infidels.” Historians who are not blinded by religious
prejudice give us a very different estimate of his character and the
influence of his reign.
Under this cruel and hypocritical bigot Bokhārā lost the last semblance
of national spirit, and succumbed to a terrorism such as that which
sapped the power of Spain. Ma´sūm it was who revived the office of
Rā´is-i-Sharī`at, or religious censor, which had fallen into desuetude
in the rest of Islām. These officials drove the people to prayer with
whips, visited neglect of outward observances with severe floggings,
and, on its repetition, with death. The use of wine and tobacco was
forbidden under the like penalties, and thieves and prostitutes were
delivered over without trial to the executioner. Spoliation and the
levy of blackmail were carried by these pests to the height of a fine
art, and the sanctity of the harem itself was not respected.[480]
No system can be conceived which was better calculated to repress
all independence of thought and action, and encourage the growth of
hypocrisy and even darker vices.
Ma´sūm had designated his son Sayyid Haydar Tūra as his successor;
but the new sovereign had to reckon with three paternal uncles, `Omar
Bi, Fāzil Bi, and Mahmūd Bi, who raised the standard of revolt in
the northern provinces. Amīr Haydar[481] marched against them at
the head of an army so powerful as to render resistance impossible.
The rebels threw themselves into strong places, but were driven from
these retreats by concentrated artillery fire. Two of them, `Omar Bi
and Fāzil Bi, were tracked to a village by the Amīr’s troops, were
captured and put to death; while Mahmūd Bi, the third, sought safety
in Kokand.[482] Amīr Haydar’s store of energy was apparently exhausted
by this early test. He permitted Iltuzar Khān of Khiva to ravage the
suburbs of his capital, and not until the cry of his suffering subjects
could no longer be disregarded did he give orders for an expedition to
avenge their woes. It consisted of 30,000 Uzbegs under the command of
a general of distinction named Mahammad Niyāz Bi. The avenging host
followed the course of the Amū Daryā until the confines of Khiva had
been reached.[483] In the meantime, Iltuzar, overjoyed at the prospect
of victory, crossed the Amū Daryā in the enemy’s rear and established
himself in an entrenched camp with 4000 chosen men. The invaders were
on the horns of a dilemma. To leave the river was to enter a waterless
desert, wherein none would emerge alive; while retreat to Bokhārā was
barred by the Khivans’ entrenchments. In desperation they attacked
the foe with suddenness and vigour, driving them into the Amū Daryā
and securing a decisive victory. Khiva lay open to their attack, but
the pusillanimous Haydar was content to rest on his vicariously won
laurels, and to pass the rest of his reign in the practice of a
pharisaical piety and association with priests, who ruled the people
in his name with a rod of iron. As is too frequently the fate of
Oriental princes, he was unable to resist the enervating influence of
the harem, and lost his power of initiative by wallowing in licensed
debauchery.[484] He died in 1826, after an inglorious reign of
twenty-seven years.
CHAPTER XXIX
AMĪR NASRULLAH, A BOKHĀRAN NERO
In writing of the monkish Haydar’s successor, Vambéry appositely quotes
an old Uïghūr proverb, “The princes of an age are its mirrors.”[485]
Nasrullah Khān epitomised the vices which flourished unchecked
in Bokhārā. The passion for low intrigue, the lust and cruelty,
the self-righteousness and hypocrisy so often associated with the
Mohammedan character, were found in him in their highest development.
As the third son of Haydar, he had small chance of succeeding to the
throne; but he kept that goal constantly in view during his father’s
lifetime, and paved the way thither by pandering to the greed of the
military caste. No opportunity was lost of gaining adherents among
the Amīr’s courtiers. Hākim Bi, the Kushbegi, or vezīr, and his
father-in-law Ayāz Topchi-bāshi,[486] who held an important military
command, were devoted to his interests.[487]
On Haydar’s death, his eldest son, Husayn Khān, took possession of
the citadel of Bokhārā and was proclaimed Amīr. He received fervent
assurances of loyalty from Nasrullah, who was the while actively
plotting to subvert his authority, and who held a council of war at
Karshī, at which Mū´min Beg Dādkhāh, one of Husayn’s chief lieutenants,
assisted.
At this crisis he learnt that his brother had died suddenly after
a reign of barely three months, and took immediate steps to assert
his claims.[488] He obtained a legal decision in his favour from the
chief-justice of Karshī, who also invited the clergy of Samarkand to
espouse his cause. In the meantime another brother named `Omar Khān
seized the reins of power at Bokhārā, and sent orders to the governor
of Samarkand on no account to surrender his charge. But on Nasrullah’s
arrival the gates were flung open to him by the influence of the
mullās, and he was enthroned on the famous Blue Stone, or Kok-tāsh,
whereon nearly every Amīr since Tīmūr’s reign had received investiture.
Then began a triumphant progress throughout the realm. Katti-Kurgān,
Kerminé, and other cities surrendered to the pretender, who replaced
their governors by creatures of his own, and bade the former swell
his train. Thus attended, he arrived before Bokhārā and closely
invested the city. Starvation soon decimated its swarming population.
A pound of meat sold for seven _tangas_,[489] flour was introduced
through Nasrullah’s trenches in coffins, and the stench of stagnant
water in the irrigation canals grew intolerable. The Kushbegi and his
father-in-law Ayāz took advantage of the people’s agony to proffer
their submission, and undertook to give the signal of capitulation by
blowing up an ancient cannon, said to have weighed nearly thirteen
tons.[490] On hearing the muffled roar of the explosion, Nasrullah
immediately attacked the city from two quarters, and entered it in
triumph on the 22nd March 1826. `Omar saved his life by instant flight,
but three of his brothers, with many of their adherents, were butchered
in cold blood.[491]
[Illustration: COURT-YARD OF A HOUSE IN SAMARKAND]
The policy with which Nasrullah inaugurated his reign partook of the
ingrained cunning which was his chief characteristic. He seemed to
prefer amusements to affairs of state, and thus induced the Kushbegi to
believe that his own lease of power would be indefinitely prolonged.
Meantime no occasion was lost of strengthening his hold on the lower
classes by acts of apparent generosity and justice. The motto on his
seal was that adopted by the noble-hearted Tīmūr, whom he affected to
regard as his prototype. It was “Truth and Equity”![492] When he felt
himself strong enough to throw off the mask, he banished his benefactor
to Karshī, and afterwards to Samarkand. Ayāz Topchi-bāshi’s suspicions
were lulled by ardent asseverations of friendship, lest he should make
away with the vast possessions which Nasrullah had long marked as his
own. He summoned the old man to his presence, gave him a beautiful
horse, and aided him to vault into the saddle with his own royal
hands.[493] The victim set out for Samarkand, of which he had been
appointed governor, in the assurance that he had not participated in
his son-in-law’s disgrace; but he was soon ordered back to Bokhārā, and
thrown into prison with the Kushbegi. To Nasrullah’s eternal disgrace,
he put both of these early friends to death in the spring of 1840.
Then he turned his attention to the military class, which had attained
preponderance in an empire won and kept together by the sword. They
were butchered in large numbers without any form of trial, or banished
to a distance from the capital. The clergy had been permitted by
his bigoted predecessor to meddle in the affairs of state, and even
the warrior-prince Ma´sūm had not ventured to thwart them. Nasrullah
overturned their authority, and substituted his royal commands for the
hitherto sacred injunctions of law and custom.[494]
His evil passions gained a complete mastery as he grew older. He gave
full rein to the foulest lust, and neither rank nor sex were sacred in
his eyes. His temper became utterly ungovernable. “When angry,” writes
one who knew him well,[495] “the blood comes into his face and creates
a convulsive action of his muscles; and in such fits he gives the most
outrageous orders, reckless of consequences.” These spells of madness
alternated with periods when he became a prey to the wildest suspicion.
To gratify it, an army of spies was maintained, who were paid to report
the most trivial words of those whom he believed to be disaffected.[496]
Our readers may well wonder why a tyrant of his mould was allowed to
reign for more than a generation and to die in his bed. The key to the
mystery is to be found in his attitude towards the populace, by whom he
was idolised as their protector against the violence of the military
class.[497] Juvenal, in lamenting the atrocities of a monster of the
like nature, remarks that he did not perish until he came to be feared
by the dregs of the people.[498]
His foreign policy was as perfidious as his domestic. He attacked
Shahrisabz, a little state enclosed in his dominions, which had, like
Holland, preserved its independence by the bravery of its people and
their ability to lay the environs of their capital under water at an
invader’s approach.[499] He was baffled, and Shahrisabz continued
to be a thorn in his side during his long reign,--albeit that he
endeavoured to gain a footing there by espousing the ruler’s sister.
With Kokand he was more successful. That state was governed by Khān
Mohammad `Alī, a prince descended in the female line from the great
Baber, emperor of Hindustān, who had won glory by successes against
the Chinese on his western frontier.[500] Thus he incurred Nasrullah’s
jealousy, and his ruin was determined on. It was compassed by the aid
of a Persian soldier of fortune named `Abd us-Samad Khān, who had
fled his country after attempting to assassinate his master.[501] He
knew how to cast and work cannon--engines of war which exercise an
overwhelming influence on the Oriental mind; and commended himself to
Nasrullah by military knowledge and an eagerness to pander to his worst
vices. He became his _âme damnée_, even as the infamous “Azimulla”
prompted every atrocity committed by Nana Sahib during the Indian
Mutiny. The excuse for aggression was afforded by the frontier fortress
of Pishagar, which Nasrullah declared had been erected by the Kokandis
on his territory. Its destruction was peremptorily demanded; and, on
Mohammad `Alī’s refusal to comply, it was attacked by a strong force,
accompanied by a breaching battery under `Abd us-Samad’s command.[502]
The mud walls of Pishagar were unable to resist the iron shower, and
its surrender was followed in the succeeding year by that of Ura Teppe
and of Khojend. The Khān of Kokand, seeing that the capital was in
peril, sued for peace, and, by the treaty of Kohna Bādām, ceded Khojend
and recognised the Bokhāran Amīr as his suzerain.
With the cunning which in the East passes for the highest manifestation
of diplomacy, Nasrullah placed the newly conquered territory under the
governorship of Sultan Mahmūd, a brother of the Khān of Kokand and a
pretender to his throne. But hardly were these arrangements completed
ere Mahmūd and his brother came to terms, and both Khojend and Ura
Teppe were temporarily lost to Bokhārā. The wrath of the Amīr was
unbounded. In April 1842 he took the field against Kokand with a host
of 30,000 horsemen and regulars,[503] and 10,000 Turkoman mercenaries.
He reached Khojend by forced marches, and captured that city without
firing a shot, though it was defended by a garrison 15,000 strong.[504]
Thence he moved rapidly on the capital and drove Mohammad `Alī to
seek refuge in Marghilān. Here he was taken prisoner, dragged back to
Kokand, and slaughtered with the greater part of his relatives.[505]
Nasrullah’s relations with Khiva were bitterly hostile throughout his
reign; and he played into the hands of the common enemy, Russia, by
harrying the Khān’s territory at a time when all his force was needed
to oppose an expedition under General Perovski.
The petty states of Balkh, Andakhūy, and Maymana on the southern
frontier were the objects of his constant aggression, and the mutual
jealousy of Persia and Afghanistān allowed him to assume suzerainty
over them. Thus the weakness of his neighbours turned to his advantage.
He was hailed by his obsequious courtiers as king of kings, and firmly
believed himself destined to repeat the conquests of his model, Tīmūr.
This was the man at whose gates knocked the two greatest of European
Powers. England had watched the constant advance of Russia towards her
Indian frontier with ill-concealed alarm, and in 1832 Alexander Burnes
was despatched on an unofficial mission to Bokhārā. He accomplished
nothing, and was fortunate indeed to escape from the bloodthirsty
tyrant’s clutches.[506]
The next attempt made by England to establish friendly relations with
the leading Central Asian Powers was less fortunate. Her agent was
Colonel Stoddart of the Indian Army, a man utterly unfitted by training
and temperament for a diplomatic mission.[507] His rude and overbearing
manners gave the deepest offence to a despot accustomed to see all
around him tremble at his slightest movement.[508] He was thrown into
a loathsome dungeon, and languished there, with brief intervals of
comparative liberty, till death put an end to his sufferings. In 1840
he received a companion in affliction in the person of Captain Arthur
Conolly, whose gentle disposition and high culture rendered him equally
unfit to cope with a truculent monster such as Nasrullah. He had been
charged with the duty of uniting the Central Asian Khānates in an
informal alliance against Russia--a task which their common jealousies
rendered absolutely impossible. Thus his overtures were politely
rejected by Khiva and Kokand in succession. Enticed by Nasrullah into
his camp, he was seized, robbed of all his possessions, and sent to
join poor Stoddart in captivity. In the meantime the Russians had
begun to compete for Nasrullah’s favour.[509] Major Batanieff was
despatched to Bokhārā in 1840 by the Tsar Nicholas, with orders to
conclude a treaty of commerce and amity with the Amīr. He was received
with ostentatious courtesy, and his presents found especial favour in
Nasrullah’s eyes. But every attempt to arrive at a _modus vivendi_
was baffled by those excuses and procrastinations in which Oriental
monarchs are past masters. He left in 1841, after vainly interceding
for his rivals, who languished in daily expectation of death. Their
fate was sealed by his departure and by the news of our disasters in
Kābul.[510]
On the 17th June 1842 the unfortunate men were brought out to die.
Stoddart, who had been forced to embrace Mohammedanism, was the first
to suffer. When his head had been severed from his body the executioner
paused, and Conolly had an offer made of life as the price of his
apostasy. He scorned the bargain, and stretched out his neck to receive
the fatal blow. This atrocious crime was never avenged by the country
which had sent her sons forth to perish,[511] but for many years
Bokhārā was a word full of evil associations in the English mind. It
was undoubtedly prompted by the fiendish `Abd us-Samad, who lost no
opportunity of gratifying his hatred of Europeans. Nor were Stoddart
and Conolly Nasrullah’s only victims. A lust for blood seized him, and
all who professed Christianity were proscribed. The missionary Wolff,
who visited Bokhārā in 1844 in order to learn the two young officers’
fate, and if possible to procure their release, gives a list of seven
Englishmen who were slaughtered at `Abd us-Samad’s instigation.[512]
Nasrullah’s closing years were embittered by conspiracies amongst his
nobles; and his successor Mozaffar ud-Dīn was strongly suspected of
having incited one of those movements, which was put down with much
bloodshed.[513] He was maddened, too, by the repeated failure of his
attempts to reduce Shahrisabz. On his deathbed, in 1860, he learnt
that that last stronghold of independence had fallen to his conquering
arm. His last act was to order the execution of its chief, who was his
brother-in-law, and all his children, and his own wife, whose only
crime was her relationship to the rebel, beheaded in his presence.[514]
Sayyid Mozaffar ud-Dīn Khān, who succeeded this monster of iniquity,
had attained the mature age of thirty-eight on his death. He was the
son of a Persian slave-girl, and at the age of fourteen was appointed
governor of Karshī, the Dauphinée of modern Bokhārā.[515] That he lived
to reign in his turn was due to his extreme circumspection, for he
was swayed by the same vices as his father had been. His first care
was to regain the confidence of the priestly caste, which had been
alienated by the insane excesses of Nasrullah. Then, inspired by those
dreams of universal conquest which had been the curse of his dynasty,
he turned his attention to Shahrisabz, which continued in a state of
revolt. Undeterred by his failure to reduce the stubborn mountaineers
to subjection, he next attacked Kokand. That Khānate had fallen into
the hands of Khudā Yār, a grandson of the murdered Mohammad `Alī, who
had been brought up under Nasrullah’s eye in that gilded sty, the
Bokhāran Court. He attained power at a period pregnant with danger
to his country. The lower reaches of the Sir Darya were enclosed in
the coil of the Russian advance. In 1853 the fortress of Ak-Mechet
had fallen, and eleven years later the Eagle waved over Turkestān and
Chimkent.[516] The onward movement was checked in 1864 by the failure
of an assault on Tashkent; but Khudā Yār was foiled in his turn in a
like attempt on Turkestān, and retreated to his capital only to find
that the warlike Kipchāks,[517] a tribe who, then as now, were the
backbone of the population, had set up a younger brother named Mollā
Khān in his stead. Khudā Yār fled to Bokhārā and implored the Amīr to
aid him to regain the throne. Mozaffar ud-Dīn saw in these events an
excuse for extending his own authority up to the frontier of China. As
a preliminary measure, he had Mollā Khān assassinated, and, marching
on Kokand, reinstated Khudā Yār. The Kipchāks, however, were far from
approving his choice. They rose in rebellion, and, after a protracted
struggle with the Bokhāran forces, they succeeded in wresting the
eastern half of the Khānate from Mozaffar ud-Dīn’s protégé.[518] But
their strength was sapped by the war raging on the northern frontier,
and their trusted leader was slain by the Russians at Tashkent. Thus
when in 1865 the Bokhāran Amīr invaded Kokand, in order to repress
their insolence, he found the task an easy one. Khudā Yār was replaced
on his tottering throne, and, had Mozaffar ud-Dīn possessed a trace of
political foresight, he might have united the forces of Central Asia
against the common danger. But his lust for conquest was increased by
his cheaply won successes in Kokand, and, spurred to his ruin by a
fanatical priesthood, he flung the gauntlet of defiance in the teeth of
Russia. Though General Chernaieff had made himself master of Tashkent,
and had Kokand at his mercy, he received a haughty summons to evacuate
his conquests, accompanied by a threat of a Holy War.[519] His reply
was couched in language equally peremptory, and a struggle began which
closed in the deep humiliation of the proud Amīr.
It remains for us to trace the origin of a Power which was destined to
play a part of the first importance in the history of Central Asia, and
to repeat the conquests of Chingiz and Tīmūr.
PART II
RUSSIA IN CENTRAL ASIA
CHAPTER I
THE MAKING OF RUSSIA
During the long dark centuries whose annals we have endeavoured to
reconstruct, the tide of conquest ran westwards. It was checked at
times by the might of civilisation or fanaticism, but its flow was
tolerably steady and quite beyond control. Had it not been for the
evolution of a still greater force on her eastern borders, the whole of
Europe would have been enveloped in the coils of a Mongolian invasion.
The world was saved from this calamity by the unconscious agency of
Russia. It remains to trace succinctly the history of her rise, and
to show how she combated the Yellow Terror, and, by a reflex action,
carried the banner of European civilisation eastwards.
Long ages before the Christian era the vast plains of Eastern Europe
were invaded by an Aryan race called the Veneti by Ptolemy.[520] In the
fourth century we find them struggling for existence with the Goths
on the plains watered by the Vistula.[521] They afterwards split into
three branches--the Veneti proper, afterwards known as the Wends, the
Antes, and Slavi. The first-named pitched their tents in north-eastern
Europe, and have left indelible traces in the Baltic provinces of
Prussia.[522] The second spread over the plain between the Dnieper and
Dniester; while the Slavs[523] occupied the land between the latter
river and the Vistula. Their progress was impeded for a while by
contests with the Huns, but the overthrow of their fierce foes which
followed the death of Attila gave full scope to their expansion. They
crossed the Danube and occupied the rich country between the Adriatic
and the Black Sea; then, spreading northwards, they took possession of
the lake region of Pskov and Novogorod. These movements ceased in the
seventh century, the close of which saw the Slavs firmly established
in European Russia, Illyria, and Bulgaria. They were employed in
agriculture and stock-raising, and their characteristics appear to have
been much the same as those observed at the present day in the rural
populations of Eastern Europe. Ancient writers agree in depicting them
as being hospitable and cheerful, firmly attached to ancient customs,
courageous, and fighting only in self-defence. In point of culture the
Slavs of a thousand years ago failed to reach the low standard attained
by their contemporaries of the West; for they were sparsely scattered
over vast areas and plunged in continual warfare with aggressive
neighbours. Society was organised on a patriarchal basis. The soil was
held in common by the tribe or “land,” whose affairs were discussed and
whose chiefs were elected at a general gathering of the members. The
religion of the Slavs betrayed its Eastern origin. The supreme deity
was called Bog, his wife Siwa; but there were good spirits (_belbog_)
to be worshipped and evil ones (_chernebog_) to be propitiated, and
every village had its patron divinity.[524]
It is possible to carry too far the theory on which Mr. Buckle insisted
so strongly--that the destinies of a race are moulded by their physical
environment; but its general truth is demonstrated by the history of
Russia. The European dominions of the Tsar are an unbroken plain.
They contain no mountain fastnesses serving as a refuge for inferior
races, and were thus fit arenas for a struggle for existence in which
the most vigorous stem of the human family was sure to survive and to
expand. And then, Russia lay on the highway of commerce between the
East and West. The silks, spices, and sugar of China traversed her
plains on their passage to mediæval cities, and the growth of local
trade was fostered by the 35,000 miles of navigable river which the
empire possesses. To this cause is due the accretion of great urban
centres, which played as great a part in Muscovite history as they
did in that of Western Europe. These cities were fortified to serve
as rendezvous for the surrounding population in time of stress. Their
government was strictly democratic; affairs being directed by a general
assembly of the citizens, which elected a mayor, a commander of their
trained bands, and, later, a bishop. Traders and merchants, who were
the backbone of the urban population, were divided into self-governing
guilds; and the city, not the individual, sent out its fleets and
caravans and colonised distant regions. Each town became a nucleus of
a territory whose peasant-inhabitants rendered the City Fathers the
allegiance formerly paid to the tribe.
With the decay of the tribal conception came radical modifications in
the tenure of land. Individualism slowly triumphed over socialism; a
class of agriculturists sprang up, who long remained free yeomen. But
prisoners of war were reduced to slavery, and freemen who continued
in service for more than a year encountered a similar fate. Hence
the origin of a great body of serfs, tied down to the soil and
acknowledging the mastership of their wealthier brethren. Such was the
Russian township in its earlier stages of growth. It was the nidus
of a self-governing republic, impelled to expand and conquer by the
growth of population which follows increased material prosperity,
but powerless to defend itself against foreign aggression. The
consciousness of this defect led the citizens to invite soldiers of
fortune to lead their militia and give organised means of repelling
attack. These adventurers were styled princes (_kniaz_). They were
called on to engage to rule according to custom and law. They were
bound to keep a body of armed retainers, who were paid by a stipulated
tribute.
The prince was not only the head of the executive, but the right arm of
the general assembly (_vetche_), which still arrogated to itself the
right of deciding on peace and war. He exercised judicial functions,
pronouncing sentence on the findings arrived at by the jurors[525] who
decided civil and criminal suits, and levying the fine adjudged, which
he appropriated to the maintenance of his dignity. The Russian princes
of the tenth century held a position analogous to that occupied by the
podestà of the Italian republic; and, indeed, the political evolution
of the two countries for many years proceeded on parallel lines. It
was reserved for Christianity, which had played so vast a part in the
disintegration of the Roman Empire, to modify profoundly the relations
between prince and city. The form in which this highly militant creed
reached the cities of Russia was that which had ruled supreme in
Byzantium. It was first preached in northern countries in the ninth
century by two monks named Cyrillus and Methodus, who are still
venerated as the “Apostles of the Slavs.” They are also regarded as the
founders of the national literature, for they reduced the melodious
accents of the Slavonic tongue to writing, and translated into it the
Holy Writings and the Byzantine ritual. The seed thus sown fell upon
fruitful soil; for the impulsive, dreamy character of the Slavs, a
heritage from their remote Indian ancestors, was powerfully attracted
by the gorgeous and rather sensual rites whose glory is still faintly
shadowed in the desecrated splendours of St. Sophia. Russia soon
swarmed with missionaries preaching a creed which appeals with greater
force than any other to the idiosyncrasies of Aryans. The princes
themselves were carried away by the movement, and paused in their
career of tyranny and bloodshed to bow before the emblems of peace and
goodwill to men.
In 987 Vladimir of Novogorod was baptized at Kieff[526] with his
warrior band. He married a Greek princess named Anna, who was a
powerful ally of the priests in maintaining her half-savage husband in
the path which he had adopted. The influence of these churchmen was by
no means an unmixed blessing for Russia; for they brought with them
conceptions of government which were wholly alien to Slav traditions.
In the great Eastern Empire, which had inherited no small share of the
power and glory of Rome, the chief of the state was much more than a
first magistrate. He was the head of the Church, Pontifex Maximus as
well as Autocrat, and exacted implicit allegiance and submission. His
sovereignty was transmissible to his heirs; and a wide gulf separated
the imperial family from the noblest subject. The law in Byzantium was
mainly that of Rome, which regarded offences as injuries to the state
and as calling for sanguinary punishments rather than compensation to
the private individual aggrieved. Women there occupied a position of
inferiority. They were jealously guarded, and were forbidden to show
their faces in public or in the church. The Russian priests sought in
a monarch of the European type a secular arm for the defence of their
privileges. Their teachings were eagerly assimilated by Vladimir,
who, at his death in 1015, parcelled out his domains amongst twelve
sons. The new theory of kingship received a wider extension at the
hands of Yaroslav the Wise, a politic sovereign whose chief care
it was to elevate the status of his caste. Henceforward Kieff was
regarded as the mother city, and the seat of the eldest of his kin.
The other centres--Novogorod, Pskov, Smolensk, and Polotsk--were free
to select their own princes, with the proviso that the chosen one must
be descended from Yaroslav. But the narrow tyranny of the Church and
the growth of a royal caste were not the only cankers eating into the
heart of the Russian commonwealths. The eleventh and twelfth centuries
saw the rise of the Bolars, or Boyars, a class of great proprietors
descended from successful warriors, or citizens enriched by commerce,
who engrossed huge tracts of soil and reduced the free cultivators to
a status of bondage. Their power as councillors of the prince soon
ousted that of the popular assemblies, and its expansion was furthered
by the importation from Germany of the worst features of feudalism,
unillumined by the tender light of chivalry. The revolution received a
vast impetus by the transfer of the seat of power from Kieff to Suzdal
and Rostov, peopled by the colonisation of the territories watered by
the Oka and Upper Volga. The inhabitants of the Great Russia which thus
took its origin were without traditions of independence, and offered
their necks willingly to the feudal yoke. In the twelfth century the
prince of Suzdal built the town of Vladimir and subdued Kieff, making
his own metropolis the centre of Russian politics. Then, pushing their
boundaries ever in advance, his people founded Nijni Novogorod at the
confluence of the Oka and Volga, which soon eclipsed the glories of
its namesake. Thus, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, Russia
was studded with republics governed by oligarchies, and resembling in
most essentials those which were in process of formation in Italy.
The popular liberties were already undermined by the encroachments
of prince and noble, fostered, for selfish ends, by the Church; but
material civilisation was on the increase, and, had it been permitted
to grow on Slavonic lines, the arts which adorn and sweeten life would
have found a home in Russia. This nascent culture was destroyed by an
eruption of foes more ruthless than those who had completed the ruin of
imperial Rome, and the clock of moral and industrial advance was put
back by several centuries.
Human progress is stimulated by the tendency exhibited by population to
outstrip the means of subsistence. No sooner has a community attained a
certain degree of physical well-being than this great natural law comes
into play. The numbers begin to press too heavily on the land, and the
younger and more vigorous are driven to seek new spheres for their
energies. They colonise distant lands, subdue their weaker neighbours,
and the mother state becomes a centre of dominion, of luxury and its
attendant arts. It is the process which gave the world the priceless
boon of Greek civilisation, and made Rome a storehouse whence we
moderns have drawn our principles of law and government. In the earlier
centuries of our era the regions lying between the Gobi Desert and Lake
Baikal were the habitat of a congeries of Mongolian tribes belonging to
the Ural-Altaic family.[527] They were a pastoral race, living in tents
of felt and skins which they moved when the surrounding pastures had
been exhausted by their flocks and herds.
The nomad instinct thus became with them a second nature, and as they
were tireless horsemen and inured to hardships, it led them to carry
bloodshed and rapine over neighbouring territories. In their case the
tendency to spread over the face of the earth was keener far than in
that of communities engaged in settled avocations. But much of their
strength was expended in inter-tribal war, until a man of genius arose
who knew how to reconcile discordant interests and to forge a weapon
of aggression which no living force could withstand. This Napoleon of
Asia was known to his contemporaries as Temuchin, and to posterity
as Chingiz Khān. He was born in 1162, the son of a chieftain whose
authority was supreme in the tract between the Amur and the Great
Wall of China. His youth was spent in struggles for supremacy with
rival chieftains, but he at length welded together the whole Mongolian
race by sheer personal ascendency, and dangling before his followers
the bait of plunder. Then began a career of conquest which finds no
parallel save in that of his greater successor Tamerlane. He entered
Khwārazm[528] in 1218 at the head of three hordes,[529] overran
Khojend, Samarkand, Bokhārā, and devastated Northern Persia. Merv,
Nīshāpūr, Herāt, and other great and wealthy cities were overwhelmed
in the avalanche. After penetrating far into India he returned to his
darling steppes in 1225, gorged with booty. The impetus thus given to
the teeming forces of disorder continued. Two lieutenants of Chingiz
Khān skirted the southern shore of the Caspian and carried ruin through
Georgia and the Crimea, returning by way of Bulgaria, while a third
subdued nearly the whole of China. The death of Chingiz in 1227 brought
no cessation to the movement. The greed of his followers was inflamed
by rumours of the wealth and luxury of the Russian republics; and in
1238 his grandson, Bātū Khān, headed an invading host which ravaged
the central and eastern plains, and ruined Riazan, Rostov, Yaroslav,
and Tver. In the following year the cities of South-Western Russia
shared their fate; and then the Khān retired to his camp at Serai on
the Lower Volga, where he rested awhile from rapine and slaughter. His
headquarters became a centre for intrigue among the Russian princes,
who were permitted to retain a certain degree of authority by their
conquerors.
The Mongols, indeed, interfered but little with the internal affairs
of the country. The Church was not molested, taxes were farmed out to
merchants, and after a while commerce began to rear its drooping head.
With it came a recrudescence of the civil struggles which had made
Russia an easy prey to the invaders. The princes sought the countenance
of Tartar Khāns, and employed their warrior bands against neighbouring
states. But the influence of the Mongols was not restricted to the
arena of public affairs. It penetrated the social life of the Slav,
and produced a strain which is still conspicuous in the physiognomy of
every class of the population.[530] It leavened the national character,
implanting in Russian breasts that nomad instinct which is destined
to sweep away the effete political organisations of the Asiatic
continent. Intercourse with the West was not without its effects on the
conquerors. Dissensions arose among them. The Golden Horde gathered
round Bātū Khān, and the White Horde separated from the main body.
Unity of interests gave place to mutual jealousy and distrust. Bātū’s
brother Barak embraced Mohammedanism, and with it obtained the thin
veneer of Arab civilisation. The Mongolian tent was exchanged for the
walled town, and commerce grew apace. But the nomads’ strength lay in
their barbarism, and the growth of luxury among them encouraged the
Russians to shake off lethargy and dream of political redemption.
[Illustration: ENTRANCE TO THE SHĀH ZINDA, SAMARKAND]
At the commencement of the fourteenth century Russia was parcelled out
into the principalities of Suzdal, Nijni Novogorod, Riazan, and Tver.
This age witnessed the rise of a fifth which was destined to subdue
them all, and to become the nucleus of a world-shadowing empire. The
village of Moscow had been fortified by a Dolgoroucki in the middle of
the twelfth century; and its situation, at the point of intersection of
many caravan routes, led to the rapid development of its wealth and
population. The Church, ever alive to the advantage of recognising the
imperial principle, set up its standard in a centre which promised
to give full scope to its own influence. The Metropolitan migrated
hither from Vladimir in 1325, taking with him a holy image of widely
acknowledged efficacy, and the princes were encouraged by the wily
priests to persist in a policy of weakening the adjacent states. In
1380 Prince Dmitri, finding his Mongol oppressors distracted with
internecine feuds, was emboldened to refuse tribute; and, gathering a
huge army, he met the enemy at Kulikovo on the Don. The conflict was
indecisive; but the Russians asserted that victory had been bestowed
on their arms at the intercession of the _eikon_ which had accompanied
their hosts. The claim was acquiesced in by the Russian people, and
from this epoch dates the rise of Moscow. But the Mongolian incubus
still weighed upon them. A great chieftain named Tokhtamish Khān
arose who united the rival hordes, and in 1381 their forces obtained
possession of Moscow and massacred 24,000 of its citizens. But the
citadel already known as the Kremlin defied his attacks, and became the
rallying-point for a state more powerful than that which had undergone
a baptism of blood. And now a greater warrior appeared on the scene and
became an unconscious ally of the cause of Russian independence.
Tīmūr Leng, or Lame Tīmūr, possessed a genius for civil administration
as well as for conquest. He seized the throne of Samarkand and became
undisputed master of Central Asia. Then he overran Persia and Georgia
in 1369, and came to blows with the redoubtable Tokhtamish Khān. Fierce
and prolonged was the struggle for supremacy, but in 1395 it ended
disastrously for the western chief. After effectually breaking his
rival’s power, Tīmūr destroyed that of the Turkish Sultan Bāyazīd in
Angora, and was on his way to subdue China when death overtook him at
Otrār on the Sir Daryā, or Jaxartes. With the defeat of Tokhtamish and
the disappearance of Tīmūr the Mongolian power steadily declined. In
1408 the Khān Edighei attempted to chastise rebellious Moscow, but was
baffled by the ramparts of the Kremlin. The development of the vigorous
capital continued under Vassili I., who purchased from the Mongolian
Khān the right to reign supreme at Kieff, and afterwards subdued
Rostov. He assumed the style of Great Prince, and levied tribute in
return for his protection from all the cities of Muscovy. But the real
founder of the Russian autocracy was Vassili III., rightly styled the
Great. His ambition was fired by the promptings of the priesthood and
of his Greek wife Sophia, who was a daughter of the Byzantine emperor,
Constantine Paleologus. He persistently undermined the autonomy of
other states; and, after adding all but Novogorod to his empire, he
finally, with Mongolian aid, crushed that last stronghold of Russian
independence. To Vassili the Great, Russia owes its claim to succeed
the mighty emperors of the East and the grandiloquent style and title
assumed by its Tsars, for he adopted the arms of Byzantium and was
proclaimed Ruler of All the Russias. In 1480 he found himself strong
enough to throw off the Mongolian yoke, and, when the Khān marched
against Moscow with 150,000 men, he was confronted by a Russian army
and was fain to abandon his enterprise. Vassili’s grandson Ivan IV.,
surnamed the Terrible, was crowned Tsar at Moscow in 1547. After a
prolonged struggle with the haughty Boyars he shook off their influence
and became, in deed as well as in name, an autocrat. Then his restless
energies found vent in aggression.
He conquered Kazan and Astrakhan in 1554; but, falling a prey to
insanity, he was guilty of excesses which weakened his authority and
emboldened the Mongols to make a fresh bid for supremacy. The Khān
Dawlat Girāy appeared before Moscow in 1571 with 120,000 followers and
burnt the suburbs.[531] But the Kremlin again held out, and the nomads
retreated to the Volga, never to return. Thus was Russia delivered from
an influence which had paralysed her energies, and was free to work out
her destinies. We shall see how profoundly they were affected by the
action of the Mongolian restlessness on the dreamy, sluggish nature of
the Slav.
CHAPTER II
CROSSING THE THRESHOLD OF ASIA
The Ural range had hitherto been the eastern boundary of Russia. Beyond
lay a region of steppes and rivers, peopled towards the polar seas by
tribes of Tartar and Esquimaux origin, employed in hunting; and on the
southern frontier, by Kirghiz and Kalmak nomads. Under Vassili III.
(1505–1533) the Western Urals were annexed to the nascent empire, and
peopled by Yaik Cossacks, a race addicted to raiding and pillage.[532]
These freebooters recognised no natural barriers. Crossing the
mountain-chain, they attacked the Ostiaks, Samoyeds, and Kirghiz who
had hitherto roamed unchallenged over the wind-swept plains. The
collision was disastrous for the invaders, and the frontier became a
prey to anarchy. Meantime the Tsar, Ivan the Terrible, had bestowed
a huge tract of land in the Urals on his favourite, Strogonoff, who
at once began to exploit its rich deposits of gold. His schemes were
rendered abortive by the incursions of tribesmen from the west, and
Strogonoff, in despair, summoned a Cossack named Iermak to his aid.
The new ally was promised a free pardon for his numerous outrages,
and his followers were supplied with firearms from Russian arsenals.
Thus equipped Iermak made short work of the invaders, and in 1587
captured Sibir, the capital of Kushan Khān, chief of the Kirghiz. In
1604 Tobolsk was built and fortified on a site twelve miles from the
town which gave its name to the entire country. The victorious Cossacks
plunged deeper into the hitherto unknown regions, and came to blows
with the Kirghiz, who ranged the steppes between Lake Balkash and the
Urals on the northern shore of the Aral Sea. Hearing vague rumours
of the wealth of Khiva or Khwārazm, a Khānate embracing the fertile
embouchure of the Amū Daryā, a band of Cossacks swooped down on Urgenj,
its capital, at a time when the Khān and his warriors were absent on a
distant expedition.
The city fell an easy prey, and they bent their steps homewards,
dragging with them a vast amount of booty, and a thousand of the
most beautiful inmates of Khivan harems. Their cupidity was their
ruin, for they were overtaken by the incensed husbands, and cut to
pieces. A still worse fate was encountered during a later raid; for
the Cossacks who undertook it lost their way, and were overtaken by
winter on the wind-swept shores of the Aral. To such straits were they
reduced that they had recourse to cannibalism.[533] But the stream of
Russian immigration continued steadily eastwards. Irkutsk was founded
in 1661, and before the end of the century the northern limits were
pushed forward to the polar ice. The southern boundary, however, was
conterminous with steppes occupied with Mongolian nomads, and was open
to their incursions. No part of his immense empire escaped the notice
of Peter the Great. In the brief leisure left him by his self-imposed
task of reform he did not neglect his Siberian possessions.[534] He
perceived the necessity of giving them a defensible frontier, and of
securing commercial relations with the Khānates of Khiva and Bokhārā,
in order to pave the way for an intercourse with China and the Indies.
With this aim in view he took counsel of an adventurer named Khwāja
Nefes, who had studied in Samarkand and Bokhāran colleges, and was well
acquainted with the politics of the Khānates. Under his promptings,
Peter sent congratulations to the Khān of Khiva on his accession. His
overtures were welcomed by that sovereign, who was hard pressed by
the legions of Bokhārā. He sent an embassy to Peter,[535] offering to
accept his suzerainty in return for protection against his powerful
neighbours. The great reformer had too many cares nearer home to permit
of his taking immediate action on this tempting offer, and it was not
till 1714 that he was reminded of his distant vassal’s existence by
another embassy, the object of which was to induce the Tsar to build
a chain of forts on the east of the Caspian as a protection against
Turkoman raids. Peter was now convinced that the time had come for
effective interference in Central Asian affairs. He cast about him
for an instrument, and found one in a young Circassian chieftain who
had changed his name from Dawlat Girāy to Bekovitch Cherkaski on his
conversion and baptism, and had been given a commission in the famous
Preobajinski regiment, with the title of prince. The Tsar appointed him
to the command of an exploring expedition, the objects of which were
enumerated in a decree of the 29th May 1714. Bekovitch was enjoined to
congratulate the Khān of Khiva on his accession, and to confirm him
in his acknowledgment of Russian suzerainty. He was to explore the
lower reaches of the Sir Daryā for gold, and ascertain whether it was
practicable to reopen the old course of that river into the Caspian on
the south of the Balkan range. Bekovitch’s voyage of discovery began
in 1715. He sailed along the east coast of the Caspian, landing at the
extremity of the Mangishlāk peninsula, and erected a fort to serve as a
base for his advance into the desert. The former bed of the Amū Daryā
was examined, and a report was submitted to the Tsar. Peter instructed
his lieutenant to build a strong place on the banks of the old channel,
and to induce the Khān of Khiva to join in thoroughly investigating
its course, in view of a possible diversion of the great water-way.
Mercantile expeditions were also to be sent to Bokhārā and India. While
preparations were in progress for a second expedition, the friendly
Khān died, and his successor was reported to be ill-disposed towards
Russia.
Nothing daunted, the intrepid adventurer set out in 1717 for Garieff,
on the river Ural, at the head of a force of 4000 men, with engineers
and marine officers. After struggling across the wind-swept desert
of Ust Urt, he reached a lake known as Bara Kilmas, about 200 miles
north-west of Khiva. Here he rested his travel-worn troops, and built
a fort with a solidity which has resisted the elements for 180 years.
The suspicions of the Khān that Russia contemplated the annexation of
his country were confirmed by the strength of Bekovitch’s expedition,
and the measures adopted by him. But, feeling that his ill-disciplined
forces were no match for those of comparative civilisation, he had
recourse to treachery. Bekovitch was lulled into security by promises
of aid and alliance, and was persuaded to divide his little army into
weak detachments, on the plea that it would be easier to furnish them
with provisions. Then the Khān fell upon the isolated Russian posts
and crushed them in detail. Not a man escaped to give news of the
failure of this first plunge into Central Asian politics. To this day
the expression “Lost as Bekovitch” is synonymous in Russia for hopeless
ruin. So disgusted was the great Tsar with this unexpected failure that
when, in 1720, the Khān of Khiva sent an envoy to solicit pardon and a
renewal of friendship, he was thrown into prison at St. Petersburg, and
died there.[536]
Russia’s next step in advance was the outcome of the mischievous
activity of the Kirghiz, a race of Mongolian origin which roams over
the steppes between the Volga and the Irtish, and north of the Turkoman
desert and the Ala Tau Mountains.[537] Peaceful colonisation was
impossible while these restless neighbours retained their independence.
Omsk and the middle course of the Irtish became Russian in 1716–1719;
and for 1500 miles the Siberian frontier marched with that of tracts
claimed as their own by these untamed nomads. In the reign of the
Empress Anne disputes arose between the Kirghiz of the Middle and
Little Hordes, who ranged over the western steppes, and their brethren
of the Far East; and in 1732 the former offered submission to the
empress in return for protection against their foes. Thus the Russians
obtained a footing in immense tracts which were claimed by the Khānates
of Khiva and Bokhārā, and a collision with their forces was rendered
inevitable. The foundation of Orenburg marks a second stage in the
Russian advance. It became a rendezvous for caravans between Russia
and Central Asian cities, and a basis for the expeditions which
followed. In 1803 the Tsar had received the allegiance of the tribes
of the Mangishlāk peninsula, on the eastern shore of the Caspian.
Ten years later Turkoman envoys asked help against Persia. It was
refused, for Russia had her hands full with the Napoleonic wars, and
a profound irritation was aroused among the savages.[538] In 1822 an
ordinance was issued bringing the Little Horde within the government of
Orenburg, while the western Kirghiz were made subject to that of West
Siberia. These attempts to annex territories with southern boundaries
so ill-defined aroused intense suspicion throughout the Khānates,
and it found a vent in raids on Russian caravans. One despatched to
Bokhārā was robbed in 1829 of property to the value of 500,000 roubles
by Kirghiz and Khivans. The Turkoman bands, still more to be dreaded,
pillaged the Bokhāran traders.
Friction followed between the Kirghiz of the west and Cossack settlers,
who, in common with old-established policy, had been pushed forward
to occupy strips of fertile soil on the southern frontier, and the
unrest was increased by the levy of a tax on the nomads, which was
fiercely resented by those who rendered a nominal allegiance to Khiva.
Count Perofski, who governed Orenburg, endeavoured to cope with the
disturbance by constructing a chain of forts on his southern boundary,
beginning with one named Alexandrovsk, on the Mangishlāk peninsula.
But the Kirghiz carried their incursions far into Russian Orenburg,
and plundered caravans close to Alexandrovsk. In 1839 it became clear
that neither forts nor flying expeditions of Cossacks could effect
the pacification of so chaotic a frontier. In Khiva the nomads found
support in their attacks on Russian caravans, and a market for the
sale of their prisoners and booty. There, too, hundreds of Russian
subjects were held in a state of abject slavery.[539] The prestige as
well as the peace of the empire was at stake. The Tsar Nicholas was
not a man to brook any infringement of either, and he decided that
prompt and heavy punishment should be meted out for Khivan treachery.
Perofski, the governor of Orenburg, was an agent fitted by nature and
training for the accomplishment of the Tsar’s designs. He equipped
an army of 3½ battalions of picked infantry, 2 regiments of Ural and
5 squadrons of Orenburg Cossacks, and 22 guns with a rocket train.
Transport was effected by nearly 2000 horses and 10,000 camels, tended
by 2000 Kirghiz, and the utmost care was lavished on every detail of
the equipment.[540] Perofski calculated on reaching his objective, a
distance of 900 miles, in 50 marches, and never doubted of a triumph
over the ill-trained forces of Khiva.
He had reckoned without a force which had again and again won the
battle for Russia,[541] and committed the fatal mistake of starting
from his base at Orenburg in November, a month which brought his army
to the centre of the Ust Urt at the most inclement season of the year.
The sufferings of men and beasts in the ice-storms which swept over
the desert in the winter of 1839 are paralleled only by those endured
by Napoleon’s legions during the retreat from Moscow. The expedition
struggled on as far as Ak Bulak, about half-way to the Khivan frontier,
and was there fain to retreat, leaving the bones of 1000 men and 8000
camels whitening the pitiless sands. Nothing daunted by his failure,
Perofski set about the organisation of a second attempt on a far more
elaborate scale, but it was rendered unnecessary by the submission of
the Khivans. The ruler, `Alā Kulī Khān, was cowed by the persistence
and the might of Russia, and in 1840 he despatched an embassy to
Orenburg, accompanied by more than 400 released Slavs. Perofski
accepted the olive-branch, and in 1842 a treaty of peace and alliance
was concluded with the new ruler. The failure of the expedition of 1840
had shown the incurable defects of Orenburg as a base for operations
in Central Asia. If the trackless steppes, the oases teeming with
robber-tribes, were to be dominated by Russian influence, some route
must be chosen which possessed the advantage of water transport. The
vast lake known as the Sea of Aral is connected with the heart of
Asia by the Sir and the Amū Daryā, and is easier far to traverse than
the steppes on either side. Batakoff explored it thoroughly in 1844,
employing vessels brought in sections from Orenburg. Four years later
a fort named Kazalinsk was erected at the mouth of the Sir Daryā, and,
ere many months had elapsed, Russia was in possession of a chain of
strongholds completely commanding the lower reaches of the great river.
These precautionary measures raised an intense irritation in the breast
of the Khān of Kokand, who claimed the whole course of the Sir Daryā
as his own. His subjects were encouraged to invade Russian territory,
compelling costly reprisals. In order to put a period to these
aggressions, Perofski attacked the fortress of Ak Mechet, 280 miles
from the embouchure of the Sir Daryā, and after an abortive attempt
took it by storm in 1853. Thus the second great highway of Central Asia
fell under Russian control, and it was soon afterwards navigated by a
steamer constructed in Sweden, and brought in sections with incredible
labour by way of Nijni Novogorod. The amazement excited in the nomads
by the spectacle soon died away, and Perofski was besieged by the
Kokandis in vain. The grip of Russia tightened. In 1854 an expedition
penetrated the valley of the Ili, and a fort was built at Verni,
between the lakes of Balkash and Issik Kul. But between this stronghold
and Perofski there was a gap of more than 500 miles, which included the
desert of Ak Kum, and through it the Kirghiz and Turkoman bands carried
devastation far into Siberia. The Kokandis, too, were determined to
break the net in the meshes of which they were struggling. Frequent
attacks were made on Russian outposts, and the whole Siberian border
was kept in a ferment.[542] Russia resolved to strike a decisive
blow at the recalcitrant Khānate, and to obtain possession of the
northern portion, which gave a more defensible boundary, and was
desirable by reason of its fertility. With this object in view, Staff
Colonel Chernaieff marched southwards from the basin of the Ili on the
fortress of `Alī Ata, commanding the Kara Tau range, while Colonel
Verefkin, starting from a base on the Sir Daryā, moved eastwards
and captured Hazrat, another strong place which, under the name of
Turkestān, stands sponsor to the whole province. The two columns then
joined hands and stormed the citadel of Chimkent, nearly 300 miles
south-east of the old frontier post at Perofski. This steady advance
aroused the susceptibilities of the British public, which saw in the
Russian invasion of the Mohammedan states on the Siberian frontier a
foreshadowing of similar designs on India. In order to allay suspicion
and enlighten the communities of the West as to the motives of the
recent encroachments, Prince Gortschakoff issued a circular addressed
to the Great Powers.[543] It is a remarkable state paper, which
enunciates the principles governing the Russian advance in a manner as
convincing as it is accurate and logical. The prince pointed out the
dilemma in which civilised states in contact with wandering tribes are
placed. They find it impossible to live in unity with such neighbours,
and must establish a system of control or see their frontier a prey
to chronic disorder. But the tribes brought under the strong arm of
law and order become, in their turn, victims of similar aggression on
the part of more distant ones. Thus the process of subjugation must be
repeated until the paramount Power comes into direct contact with one
which affords reasonable guarantees that it can maintain order within
its own territory. Prince Gortschakoff fondly hoped that this boundary,
safeguarded by a long chain of strong places stretching over a fertile
and well-watered country between the Sir Daryā and Lake Balkash, would
secure two desiderata--supplies for Russian garrisons, and the vicinity
of a state strong enough to be mistress at home and willing to unite
in fostering that true civiliser, commerce. He had omitted, however,
the consideration of factors which are at the root of all conquests,
the fierce passions evoked by warfare, and the lust for fame and
booty. Such are the motives that inspire successful generals to fresh
exploits, and they burned in the breast of Staff Colonel Chernaieff,
a man who, under happier auspices, might have been the Clive of
Central Asia. Learning that a host of Kokandis was massed at Tashkent,
the second city of the Khānate, eighty miles south of Chimkent, he
determined to anticipate attack by adopting the only safe policy in
dealing with Orientals. He advanced with every available man, and, on
the 2nd October 1864, attacked Tashkent. The want of a breaching-train
and scaling-ladders was an insuperable obstacle to success, and
the Russians were fain to retire, baffled by the lofty ramparts
of Tashkent. The effect of this disaster on the excitable Asiatic
character was marked and instantaneous. A Kokandi force of 10,000 men,
under the Khān in person, burned Chimkent, and attacked Turkestān far
in its rear. They surprised a squadron of Cossacks during a halt near
the fortress, but met with a reception which should have convinced them
of the superiority of the Russian arms.[544] The Khān was compelled to
raise the siege of Turkestān and retreat on Tashkent. But this incident
rendered it clear that no peace could be expected on the frontier while
a town of 72,000 inhabitants, inspired by the fiercest fanaticism,
remained unsubdued in the proximity of the outposts. General Chernaieff
resolved to plant his country’s flag on the fortifications of Tashkent;
but his master, Tsar Alexander II., was a monarch who loved peace from
a personal knowledge of war’s horrors, and on learning of the failure
of Chernaieff’s first attempt he positively forbade a repetition. The
general, however, postponed taking cognisance of His Majesty’s orders
till he had made a second onslaught on Tashkent. It was delivered by
a column of 951 men with 10 pieces of artillery, and in spite of the
vast disproportion in numbers the city was stormed with a loss of
125 men only. Then only did the daring commander peruse his master’s
despatches, and his reply was a characteristic one. “Sire,” he wrote,
“your Majesty’s order forbidding me to take Tashkent has reached me
only in the city itself, which I have taken and place at your Majesty’s
feet.”[545] The Tsar was furious at the breach of discipline, but he
did not refuse the fruits of his lieutenant’s too daring enterprise. In
1865 Turkestān was constituted a frontier district, with Tashkent as
its capital.
CHAPTER III
THE STRUGGLE WITH THE KHĀNATES
Thus was a third stage reached in Russia’s advance. Her Siberian
frontier extended from the north-eastern shore of the Caspian to the
borders of China. It had been pushed forward to the edge of the plateau
of Samarkand, then a province of Bokhārā, and lay within striking
distance of the three Central Asian states which still maintained
their independence. A sense of common danger united the forces which
had hitherto been hostile: Kokandis, Bokhārans, and Khivans felt
instinctively that the hour had come for a combined attempt to shake
off the Russian incubus. A leader alone was required, and one was found
in Sayyid Muzaffar ed-Dīn, Amīr of Bokhārā. He claimed a descent from
Tīmūr, and doubtless dreamed of repeating the conquests of his great
predecessor on the throne of Samarkand. His ambition was fanned by
the fierce breath of fanaticism, for the Amīr was notoriously subject
to priestly influence, and the mullās of Central Asia were among the
bitterest foes of Russian designs. At his prompting the bazaars of the
three Khānates swarmed with emissaries, who preached a Holy War, and
exhorted true believers to drive back the invaders into the Siberian
steppes. The Amīr soon found himself at the head of a huge force drawn
from his own subjects, while he obtained control over those of Kokand
by assuming the guardianship of the minor Khān.[546] Thus reinforced
he occupied Khojend, a city on the north-east corner of Samarkand only
a hundred miles from the new Russian capital, and summoned Chernaieff
to release his conquests. At the same time he imprisoned four Russian
envoys[547] sent him by the general. This act of war met with a prompt
response.
Chernaieff advanced from Tashkent with 14 companies of infantry, 6
squadrons of Cossacks, and 16 guns as far as Jizāk, a fortress barely
60 miles from Samarkand. But the population was hostile, supplies
failed, and he was obliged to retreat on his capital. Retrograde
movements in the face of Asiatic forces are always pregnant with
disaster. General Chernaieff’s was interpreted by the Bokhārans as a
confession of weakness. Crowds flocked to the Amīr’s standard, and he
moved on Tashkent with 40,000 men. In the meantime Chernaieff, who had
not been forgiven for his breach of instructions in the occupation of
Tashkent,[548] was superseded by General Romanovski, who had received
peremptory orders from the Tsar that hostilities with the Khānate must
cease. Like his predecessor, he found himself compelled by force of
circumstances to disobey orders.
The Bokhāran host was within three marches of Tashkent. The city with
its 70,000 inhabitants was seething with rebellion, and to maintain a
defensive attitude was to court defeat. Romanovski adopted the only
tactics which afforded a chance of success. He marched from Tashkent
with a force of 14 infantry companies, 5 Cossack squadrons, 20 guns,
and a rocket apparatus, and, following the left bank of the Sir Daryā,
encountered the enemy at Irjai, between Jizāk and Khojend. The battle
that followed on the 20th May 1866 recalls Plassey: 3600 Russians
utterly routed a force of 5000 well-armed Bokhāran regulars and 35,000
horsemen with 2 guns which had taken up an entrenched position on the
road to Samarkand, on which the beaten host retreated in the utmost
disorder. That hotbed of fanaticism lay open to the invader, but he
deemed it safer to seize the fortress of Khojend, thus driving a
wedge between Bokhārā and the Kokand territories. On the 6th of June
1866 Khojend fell after a siege of eight days and a bombardment by 2
mortars and 18 field-pieces.[549] The news of the rout of Irjai, and
the capture of Khojend, created a profound dismay throughout Central
Asia; but the proud Uzbegs were loth to acknowledge themselves beaten;
and the mullās were still less inclined to forfeit the great position
which they held under so pious a ruler as Muzaffar ed-Dīn. He was
persuaded to disregard the ultimatum sent by Romanovski, and actively
pursued preparations for a new campaign. The Russians therefore took
the offensive with unabated vigour. During October they seized the
Bokhāran border strongholds of Ura-teppe and Jizāk, thus obtaining a
complete command of the valley of the Zarafshān. In the spring of 1867
Yani Kurgān was added to the list of Russian conquests, and was twice
heroically defended by General Abramoff against a Bokhāran force of
45,000 men bent on wresting it from the invader. Thus, in the middle
of 1867, the Russians found themselves masters of the great sources of
Bokhāran prosperity--the basins of the Zarafshān and the Sir Daryā. The
vast extent of this newly conquered territory, and its distance from
Orenburg, still the administrative capital of Russian Central Asia, led
to a revision of the boundaries.
By a ukase[550] dated 11th (23rd) July 1867 Turkestān was placed under
a governor-general, with headquarters at Tashkent. His authority
extended over the provinces of Sir Daryā and Semirechensk, the latter
including the vast territory lately acquired between the lakes of
Balkash and Issik Kul. General Kauffman, a general who has written his
name indelibly on Central Asian annals, was appointed to the important
post. On taking the helm he found Kokand quiescent, but Bokhārā still
in a state of suppressed excitement, which found occasional vent in
attacks on Russian outposts.
He began by making the Amīr overtures of peace, on the basis of the
_statu quo_ as regards boundaries, the grant of equal rights to
Russians and natives in the matter of trade, and the payment of a war
indemnity of 125,000 tilās.[551]
No reply was returned by the Amīr, but he obtained reinforcements
from Khiva, and massed troops to attack the Russian outpost at Jizāk.
The general, in consonance with the policy pursued by all Asiatic
conquerors, anticipated the onslaught by a forward movement. Samarkand
was the objective, the holiest of Central Asian cities, with a fierce
and crafty population and many remains of past splendour to remind
its inhabitants that it had been once the seat of an empire which
regarded Russia as an outlying province. On the 12th May 1868 Kauffman,
at the head of 3600 troops, attacked the united Bokhāran and Khivan
host, 40,000 strong, massed on the heights on the left bank of the
Zarafshān, fifteen miles from the capital. The Russians forded the
shallow river and fell upon the foe with such impetuosity that an utter
rout followed. Samarkand surrendered on the following day.[552] The
cowardly Sarts[553] offered sumptuous banquets to the victors. But a
note of warning was sounded by the Jews, whom ages of cruel oppression
had rendered friendly to the Russian cause. They were disregarded by
Kauffman, who had hurried on to capture the towns of Urgut and Katti
Kurgān, on the direct road to Bokhārā. Learning that the warlike
population of Shahrisabz had joined the movement, and were encamped
to the east of Samarkand, while the Bokhāran forces menaced Katti
Kurgān, he moved out to attack the foe. His wounded were left in the
citadel, a fortress nearly surrounded by scarped ravines in the centre
of Samarkand, under a guard of 762 men, commanded by Major Von Stempel,
under whom Colonel Nazaroff, with a chivalry equal to Outram’s,
consented to serve.
Hardly were the main body out of sight than a force of 20,000 men
from Shahrisabz were surreptitiously introduced into the city by the
treacherous inhabitants,[554] and the citadel was closely beset. It
was defended as heroically as the Residency of Lucknow had been by
a handful of Britons. Every wounded Russian capable of pointing a
rifle took his place on the ramparts; and though the enemy repeatedly
penetrated the enceinte, never did they effect a lodgment thereon. And
now provisions and ammunition ran short; 189 of the defenders were
killed or wounded, and surrender seemed inevitable. But the terrible
Kauffman heard of his brave followers’ distress from a messenger
who had contrived to slip through the beleaguering lines. He had
defeated the last remnant of Bokhārā’s forces, and was free to retrace
his steps. Like Gillespie’s vengeance on the Vellore mutineers was
that taken by Kauffman on the foe. They were smitten hip and thigh,
thousands of prisoners were massacred in cold blood, and the villainy
of the Sart inhabitants was punished by the surrender of the town for
three days to pillage by the infuriated army. The avenger was able
to report to his master that tranquillity reigned in Samarkand. The
Amīr Muzaffar was at length convinced that the Great White Tsar’s arm
was too long to be withstood or evaded. His proud spirit was crushed
by repeated misfortunes, and he implored permission to abdicate and
end his days at Mekka. But policy demanded that the ruler of Bokhārā
should be one who had learnt submission by bitter experience. Muzaffar
ed-Dīn was confirmed as Amīr, while his whilom province, Samarkand,
was incorporated with Turkestān, and placed under Lieutenant-General
Abramoff, who had given innumerable proofs of dauntless energy. The
general soon had his hands full, for the mullās were by no means
inclined to share their sovereign’s despondency. They worked upon the
ambitions of Katti Tūra, the heir-presumptive, a youth of seventeen,
whose reckless cruelties would have made him a meet successor of his
grandfather, the murderer of Stoddart and Conolly. This prince raised
the standard of revolt, and declared his father to have forfeited the
throne. He routed a detachment of Bokhāran regulars sent against him,
and took the stronghold of Karki,[555] a fortress commanding the upper
reaches of the Amū Daryā. Abramoff had little difficulty in quelling
the insurrection. He took Karshī, the cradle of the reigning dynasty,
stormed Karki, and drove the prince into the mountains which occupy the
centre of Bokhārā. Here he found no hiding-place. He was driven to the
western border of Samarkand, and finally captured through the treachery
of a peasant. The young rebel was dragged into the presence of his
outraged father, who ordered his head to be struck off and exposed at
the palace gate.
General Abramoff completed the pacification of Bokhārā by subduing
Shahrisabz, the last refuge of highland independence. He then politely
invited the Amīr to assume the sovereignty of the pacified territory.
[Illustration: CENTRAL ASIA]
So effectually was Muzaffar ed-Dīn’s proud spirit crushed by adverse
fortunes that he humbly received his province as a boon from his
Russian suzerain. He saw the once hated and despised infidels in
possession of Samarkand, the richest inheritance of his fathers,
and masters of the Zarafshān, the source of Bokhāran prosperity. He
knew that it was in their power to divert its life-giving waters and
render his capital a prey to the ever-advancing desert sands. Thus
the remainder of his days was spent in vain repentance, in indulging
“sorrow’s crown of sorrow”; and the Tsar had no more obedient vassal
than the man who had aspired to sit on the throne of Tīmūr. His later
policy has been adopted by his son, the present Amīr `Abd ul-Ahad. With
the conquest of Bokhārā and the annexation of Samarkand the fourth
great stride in the Russian advance was completed. She was mistress
of Central Asia, from the confines of China to the Amū Daryā, that
historic river which rises in the Pamirs to empty its waters into the
Sea of Aral.
These immense accessions to an empire which already rivalled that of
ancient Rome served but to open up a vista of future possibilities.
“Since the reign of Peter the Great,” wrote a contemporary Russian
author,[556] “we have advanced with diligence and at the price of
immense sacrifices across the steppes which barred our passage. They
are now left behind. Our dominion has reached the basin of two great
rivers whose waters lave thickly peopled and fertile regions. We have a
right to seek compensation for sacrifices and labours endured for more
than a century. We have a right to attain a secure frontier by pushing
our colonies up to the summit of the Himalayan range, the natural
barrier between the Russian and English possessions. When this point
has been reached, then only can we look calmly on the development of
Great Britain’s empire.” The reduction of Khiva was a corollary of that
of Bokhārā. The Khānate stretched northwards as a wedge into the newly
acquired territory and dominated the lower reaches of the Amū Daryā.
Its ruler and its entire population were bitterly hostile to Russian
designs. A Khivan contingent had fought side by side with the hosts
of Samarkand during the recent campaigns, the result of which did not
intimidate them.
In the year which followed the conquest of Samarkand, Khivan bands
penetrated the steppes of the Orenburg government and urged the
Russian Kirghiz to revolt. Caravan trade between Western Siberia was
paralysed; and in 1870 the Khān had the presumption to forbid the
export of grain.[557] General Kauffman, now in supreme command in
Turkestān, was compelled by his imperial master’s explicit instructions
to show a degree of forbearance which ill-suited his temper. He was
content to demand the release of the Russians whom the Khān still held
in slavery, and an explanation of the offensive tone adopted by his
ministers in their despatches. As is invariably the case in dealing
with Asiatics, the Russians found that moderation was mistaken for
weakness. The Khān claimed the river Emba, on the north-eastern shore
of the Caspian, as the boundary of his dominions, and endeavoured to
collect taxes from the tribes of the Ust Urt Desert, which had long
been regarded as within the Russian sphere of influence. The Kirghiz
steppes became unsafe for caravans, and postal communication between
Tashkent and Orenburg was subject to continual interruptions. It was
well known that the mullās had incited the Khān to proclaim a religious
war, and that his forces were swollen by refugees from Bokhārā. The
limits of forbearance had been reached, and the most timid adviser of
the Tsar admitted that Khiva must be reduced to impotence. The story
of the fall of the rebellious Khānate has been told often, and so
graphically that it is needless to relate it in any detail.[558] The
Russians had by this time amassed great experience in the physical
conditions to be encountered, and had profited by the lessons taught
by former disasters. Depôts for provisions were formed at each
halting-place, and columns started severally from the eastern corner
of the Caspian, Orenburg, Perovski on the Sir Daryā, and Tashkent. So
carefully had the minutest detail been worked out by the Russian staff
that the several divisions, after marching for nearly 900 miles through
waterless deserts, reached Khiva almost simultaneously. The Khān was
unable to cope with a disciplined army 14,000 strong. His capital was
taken by storm, and on the 24th of March 1873 he signed a treaty of
peace, acknowledging himself to be the humble vassal of Russia, and
agreeing to pay an indemnity of 2,500,000 roubles, and to surrender
all Russian and Persian slaves. This pact has been loyally observed on
both sides. The Khān still retains a nominal sovereignty with even less
independence than had been accorded to Bokhārā, and Khiva is _de facto_
as much a part and parcel of Russia as the government of Moscow.
Kokand, the third Khānate of Central Asia, was doomed to lose all
semblance of freedom. Its ruler had accepted the inevitable on the
defeat of his powerful neighbours, had abolished slavery, and had
striven to maintain friendly relations with Russia. But his territories
were so placed that the annexation was essential to the safety of the
eastern borders. They intervened between Turkestān and China, and were
inhabited by a fanatical population with a strong leaven of untamed
Kirghiz and Kipchāk nomads. Had Kokand possessed a firm and politic
ruler, its absorption might have been indefinitely postponed. The
reverse was the case; for the Khān, Khudā Yār, was detested by his
subjects, and rebellions frequently recurred which kept the whole of
Central Asia in a ferment.[559] A climax was reached in 1875, when,
after three years of almost incessant civil war, the Russians found
themselves compelled to intervene. Kokand was invaded by a strong
expeditionary force under General Kauffman, among whose lieutenants was
Skobeleff, destined to win imperishable glory in subsequent campaigns.
Short work was made of the Kokandis, who had dethroned their Khān
and marched under his son’s banner. They were routed with prodigious
slaughter at Makhram, and the holy city of Marghilān was occupied
without resistance. Defeats were afterwards administered to the native
levies at Andijān and Nāmangān, and on 20th February the capital was
seized by a force under Skobeleff. On the 20th March 1876 the Tsar,
Alexander II., formally authorised the annexation of Kokand as a
province of Turkestān under its ancient name, Farghāna. Skobeleff, the
ardent soldier who had so greatly contributed to the reduction of the
Khānate, became its first governor. Farghāna has a temperate climate,
and has bred a hardy and warlike population. Owing to its remoteness
from the centres served by the Transcaspian Railway, the Russian
officials were not till lately subjected to the vigorous surveillance
which is exercised over their colleagues in other provinces, and the
reins of administration were slackly held. In the spring of 1898 the
discontent inspired by alien rule, which had been sedulously fanned by
the priesthood, burst into a flame. The ringleader of the movement was
a Mohammedan monk named Ishān Mohammad `Alī Khalīfa, who claimed the
hereditary dignity of Imām, or descendant of the Prophet. He announced
that on himself had devolved the task of fulfilling a prophecy widely
received, that during the last decade of our century an Imām would
proclaim a Holy War against the infidel. As had been the case on the
eve of the Indian Mutiny, a general rising had been planned, and a
simultaneous massacre of the Russian troops throughout the province.
History repeated itself in the result of their deeply laid conspiracy.
India was saved by the premature outbreak at Mirat; and Farghāna by
the impatience of the Ishān, who on 29th May attacked a Russian camp
near Andijān before his sympathisers were ready for concerted action.
The rising was quelled with much bloodshed on either side; 18 of the
leaders were executed, and 350 were deported to North-Eastern Siberia.
The recent opening of railway lines connecting the cities of Farghāna
with Tashkent and Samarkand will render a recrudescence of the spirit
of revolt well-nigh impossible.
CHAPTER IV
TURKOMANIA AND THE TURKOMANS
The reduction of Khiva marks a new era in the history of the Russian
advance. The last semblance of organised opposition to the movement
had disappeared, and the Tsar saw himself the unquestioned suzerain of
the great Khānates. Westwards, his base was planted securely on the
Caspian, where the port of Krasnovodsk, founded in 1869 by General
Stolietoff,[560] was connected with the Russian colonies in the
Mangishlāk peninsula by a chain of strong places. The Amū Daryā, that
ancient boundary of nations, marked the limits of the new empire in the
west. But the vast tract between sea and river was still unsubdued, and
Russia’s boundary marched with that of no organised state. Here lay
the habitat of the Turkomans, a race with whom no peace or truce was
possible, and the story of their subjection forms the final chapter in
the history of the heart of Asia. The haunt of these untamed tribes
may be described as a triangle, with Khiva as its apex; its sides the
Caspian and the Amū Daryā; and its base formed by a line drawn from
the city of Balkh in Afghanistān to the south-eastern corner of the
Caspian Sea. The area thus enclosed is not far short of 240,000 square
miles, more than twice as great as that of the United Kingdom. The
north portion is a trackless waste; but it is by no means a desert
of the Sahara type, made familiar to us by so many records of
African travel. Variety is its most salient characteristic. In some
parts so firm is the surface that a horse’s hoof rings on it as on
a macadamised road. In others, again, the loose sand forms ridges
like petrified waves.[561] After the spring rains the expanse of dull
white is carpeted, as if by miracle, with gorgeous lilies, tulips, and
other bulbous plants, long grass and tufts of reed. Water is, indeed,
required to clothe the arid sand with perennial verdure, and render
it a breeding-ground for countless flocks and herds. It is found at
depths rarely exceeding thirty feet below the surface, and wells are
of frequent recurrence.[562] The only rivers of importance are the
Murghāb and the Tajand, which rise in the mountains of Afghanistān and
lose themselves in the sand; but streams innumerable descend their
flanks. In times beyond the range of history the western portion of the
Turkoman Desert was watered by the Amū Daryā, which discharged itself
into the Caspian at the head of the Bay of Michaelovsk. Owing to some
convulsion of nature, or to interference with its course by an attempt
to employ it for irrigation, the bed of the mighty stream shifted and
now discharges into the Sea of Aral. Vegetation is scanty, except
during the brief spring-time. The soil is covered, in some parts,
with the camel’s thorn, a forbidding plant which can be masticated
only by the “ship of the desert.” The perennial flora are completed
by the stunted tamarisk, a root like the stem of a rose called takh,
and a shrub termed saxaul (_haloxylon ammodendron_). The latter is
full of knots, and has a grain most difficult to cut or split, but
it is precious as fuel, and still more valuable as a means of binding
the billowy sands. These steppes contain few traces of animal life.
Herds of beautiful wild asses are sometimes seen in the distance, and
a species of antelope is oftener met with.[563] Wells are beset with a
variety of birds, which fly down to their depths in search of water.
But the stillness of the waste is intense, and the boundless horizon is
seen through the clear pure air shimmering with the heat or broken only
by a mirage. The climate of the Turkoman Desert is one of extremes.
In December and January the cold is intense. Moser, who traversed the
Kārakūm in the depth of winter, encountered a temperature of 15 degrees
below freezing-point, with squalls, snow, and glacial cold.[564] In
the summer months the heat is equally trying, and it is sometimes
accompanied by sand-storms which render respiration almost impossible.
But the Turkomans are not confined to regions so inhospitable. They
have long been established in the south-east of the Caspian, a tract
watered by the rivers Gargan and Atrak, which is swampy towards the
embouchure, but farther inland is broken by valleys as rich and full of
charm as any on the flanks of the Pyrenees.[565] The streams descending
from the Kopet Dāgh, a mountain range which separates Persia from the
Turkoman Desert, has produced a fertile belt of fifteen to twenty-five
miles wide, extending from Kizil Arvat to Giaour, a distance of 187
miles. This is the Akkal oasis. Where the Murghāb enters the desert
it forms the great Merv oasis, a land which, even in its decadence,
is one of the most fertile in the world. This ancient seat of empire,
which fell into Turkoman hands after its invasion in 1784 by the
forces of the Amīr Murād of Bokhārā, has other advantages precious to
a predatory race. It is within striking distance of Northern Persia,
and is separated from Herāt by a low range of rolling hills which offer
no obstacle to an invading horde.[566] Such is the land which, from
time immemorial, has been the haunt of one of the most interesting
races in the world. Like the Red Indians, with whom they have many
characteristics in common, they have succumbed to the ruthless force
of Western civilisation; and a study of their traditions and usages
possesses the greater interest because both will soon disappear under
the process of Russification to which Central Asia is being subjected.
In the opinion of a well-known living authority,[567] the Turkomans
belong to a branch of the Turkish race inhabiting the Altaī Mountains
and the upper regions of the Yenesei and Irtish in Mid-Siberia. Long
before the Christian era the pressure of population led them to
migrate southwards and eastwards, and, following in all probability
the old course of the Oxus, their hordes spread over the great steppes
extending from the Caspian to the Hindu Kush. The appellation by which
the race has for centuries been known is considered by Vambéry to be
derived from “Turk,” a proper name which the nomads always employ when
speaking of themselves, and “men,” a suffix equivalent to the English
“ship” or “dom.” That the Turkomans were identical with the Parthians,
who were so long a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire, admits of
little doubt, and the supposition derived from identity of racial
character finds corroboration in the fact that the Dahæ,[568] a famous
Parthian tribe, dwelt in ancient days in the region between the Balkans
and the river Atrak, which is still called Dehistān. But the strangers
from the icy north were not long contented to roam over steppes which
were well-nigh as hospitable as those of Siberia. They smelt booty in
the richly watered slopes of the Kopet Dāgh and the populous cities of
Northern Persia. The era of the Sāmānides (A.D. 218–639) was one of
constant struggles between these unwelcome immigrants and the settled
Iranians of Northern Persia, and history repeated itself in the ruin
and desolation which befell the latter. Towards the end of the Middle
Ages the northern portion of the old empire of Darius was given up
to Turkoman tribes bent on war and pillage. At this date we find
them divided into many tribes. The most famous were the Salors, who
possessed some at least of the traits of the noble savage of fiction.
They dwelt at the edge of the hills on the oasis formed by the Murghāb
and Tajand. In the twelfth century the Sultan Sanjar, the greatest
of the Seljūkides, was defeated by the Kara and Alieli Turkomans at
Andakhūy and Maymena, where both are still to be found. The Balkan
Mountains in the sixteenth century looked down on Ersari encampments,
and at an earlier date the peninsula of Mangishlāk was roamed over by
various tribes. For centuries unnumbered the Turkomans were free from
foreign influence, and maintained the primitive ferocity and power for
aggression unleavened by intercourse with civilisation. They found
their master in rare exceptions to the long succession of debauchees
who filled the throne of Persia. In the seventeenth century Shāh `Abbās
the Great (1585–1626) drove them from the rich valleys of the Kopet
Dāgh and planted colonies of 15,000 Kurds along the crest, in the not
altogether vain hope that these scourges of Asia Minor would hold their
neighbours in check. Nādir Shāh, infamous for the bloodshed attending
his capture of Delhi, was himself a Turkoman, and proved more than a
match for his kinsmen. In 1796 Āghā Mohammad, the first sovereign of
the reigning dynasty, who was also of Turkoman origin, took effectual
measures to protect his frontier, and, had his brief career not been
brought to a close by the assassin’s dagger, he would doubtless
have tamed these fierce children of the desert. His successor, Fath
`Alī Shāh, attempted the process, and in 1813 the Turkoman tribes
appealed to the Tsar of Russia for assistance against him. Alexander
I., however, was then engaged in rolling back the tide of Napoleon’s
invasion, and was powerless to help them, thus exciting an intense
irritation. We obtain a glimpse of the position occupied by the
Turkoman tribes in 1831 in the pages of Burnes.[569] At that date the
Tekkes were second to no tribe in numbers, though they had not reached
the commanding position which they attained at the eve of the Russian
conquest. This section of the Turkoman race is found at the dawn of
their history occupying the Isthmus of Mangishlāk, on the north-eastern
coast of the Caspian. Driven thence in 1718 by the Kalmaks, they
dislodged the Yamuds from Kizil Arvat, and the Kurds and Alielis from
the strip of fertile land at the basis of the Kopet Dāgh, known as the
Akkal oasis. Their name, which in our tongue signifies “Mountain Goat,”
is said to be derived from the agility with which they urged their
horses over the ravines on the mountain side. The Tekkes proclaimed
their allegiance to the Khān of Khiva, and each village paid a tribute
of a camel, but they were forced to recognise the supremacy of Nādir
Shāh. Until the commencement of the present century they were confined
to the limits of the oasis; but population began to press too heavily
on the means of subsistence, which, in Central Asia, is synonymous
with water. The cultivation spread to such an extent that the _arīks_,
or small irrigation canals, proved unequal to its necessities. Hence,
about 1830, 10,000 families migrated eastwards and established
themselves on the banks of the Tajand. Here they built a fort, called
after their chief, Oraz Khān Kal`a. The total number of Tekke tents or
kibitkas[570] is put by Burnes at 40,000.
[Illustration: THE SEA OF SAND IN THE KARA-KUM DESERT]
[Illustration: THE SEA OF SAND IN THE KARA-KUM DESERT]
At that epoch the Ersaris roamed over the Upper Oxus, and were equally
numerous with the Tekkes. The Merv oasis was inhabited by the Sāriks,
numbering 20,000 tents, who were engaged in a struggle with the
Khivans, then temporary masters of Merv. The Yamuds, about as numerous
as the Sāriks, wandered between Khiva and Astrabad in Khorāsān, while
the territory watered by the Atrak and Gurgān was inhabited by the
Gokhlans, who acknowledged the sway of Persia. Finally the Salors,
who made up by courage for the paucity of their numbers, held the
upper reaches of the Tajand near Sarakhs. In 1832 their constant
ravages led to reprisals on the Persian side. They were attacked by
an overwhelming force under `Abbās Mīrzā, son of Shāh Fath `Alī, and
after a desperate resistance their stronghold, Sarakhs, was captured.
The survivors fled northwards and occupied the Yoletan oasis, south
of Merv. Meantime the Tekkes, who had settled in the upper reaches of
the Tajand, had been desolating the northern possessions of Persia,
and the cry of the harassed inhabitants reached the capital. Vigorous
measures were ordered by the Shāh, and in 1845 Āsaf ud-Dawlé, the
governor of Khorāsān, fell on their settlements and utterly destroyed
them. The Tekkes, ousted from their coign of vantage, sought refuge in
the Akkal oasis, but it was already over-peopled, and their brethren
there were constrained to refuse them ingress. They finally obtained
Āsaf ud-Dawlé’s leave to settle in Sarakhs, which had been depopulated
thirteen years earlier by the expulsion of the Salors. At first they
respected the Persian territory, for the energetic governor of Khorāsān
had shown that he knew how to deal with them. Their relations with
Khiva were very different, for that Khānate was surrounded by nomad
tribes, and had no outlet for the prowess of their cavalry save in
conflict with them. Mohammad Amīn Khān, then sovereign of Khiva,
stormed Sarakhs and left a viceroy with a garrison there. Hardly was
his back turned when the Tekkes rose at the intruders and put them to
the sword. This outrage brought the Khān again into the field. He laid
siege to Sarakhs, but, while directing the operations upon a mound on
the right bank of the Harī Rūd, was surprised by a body of Turkomans
and decapitated. His head was sent to the Shāh and his body to Khiva
for burial. The Tekkes were encouraged by this brilliant success to
resume their raids into Persia, and again the governor of Khorāsān was
provoked to retaliate. He burnt Sarakhs and drove the Tekkes northwards
as far as Merv, which had, with one brief interval, been held by the
Sāriks since its devastation by the Amīr of Bokhārā in 1784. The
inhabitants resisted the Tekkes’ invasion with the fierce jealousy
which reigned between all Turkoman tribes. They implored help of the
Persians, and the governor of Khorāsān forthwith marched on Merv with
18 battalions and 7000 cavalry. The Tekkes, finding themselves between
two fires, offered submission to Persia, and rendered it acceptable by
costly gifts. Then they turned on the churlish Sāriks, and drove them
from Merv to the oases of Yoletan and Panjdih in the upper reaches
of the Murghāb, dispossessing in their turn the Salors, who, with
the permission of the Persian authorities, settled at Zarābād on the
left bank of the Harī Rūd.[571] Thus the pressure of population in
the Akkal oasis led to a dispersal of the Tekkes who inhabited it. In
little more than a quarter of a century we find them masters of the
wondrously fertile lands irrigated by the Murghāb, after dislodging
the former occupants and destroying a force sent against them by the
greatest of Khivan rulers. On taking possession of their conquest the
Tekkes began to develop its resources according to their lights. They
made a rude dam twenty-five miles above Merv, and excavated twenty-four
small canals which irrigated lands sufficient to support 48,000
families.[572] But they were as far from being peaceful cultivators as
ever. They overran the whole of Khorāsān, and carried their raids 450
miles south of its capital, Meshed. Stung to madness by the desolation
thus wrought, the Persians planned a systematic vengeance.
In 1860 they built a fort as a basis of their operations, which they
called New Sarakhs, opposite the old citadel of that name. Then, in
the following year, the commander-in-chief advanced against Merv with
a force of 12,000 infantry, 10,000 horsemen, and 33 guns. The Tekkes,
in great alarm, offered submission and a substantial tribute. But
the Persian general, confident in his numbers and armament, would
hear of no compromise. The tribesmen, compelled to fight for life and
freedom, acquitted themselves with a gallantry which inspired terror
in the invaders. The Persian artillerymen and infantry were slain or
captured to a man, and the guns served twenty years after to arm a
citadel which the Tekkes built as a defence against an anticipated
Russian attack.[573] The cavalry alone, including the cowardly
commander-in-chief, found safety in flight, and so great was the glut
of prisoners that the price of a Persian slave in Khivan and Bokhāran
markets fell to a sum equal to a pound sterling.[574] This was the last
organised attempt from the Persian side to subvert Tekke independence,
and the tribe, settled firmly in the great oases of Akkal and Merv,
were free to pursue their lawless impulses at the expense of their
neighbours. For Persia was not alone in serving as a quarry. The fierce
children of the steppes carried rapine and murder within a few miles of
the citadel of Herāt,[575] and spread far and wide a terror as abject
as that inspired by the Danish pirates in the coast towns of Saxon
England. Such is the history of the rise of the Tekke division of the
Turkoman race to a position which rendered it the chief obstacle to
the Russian advance. It is a modern reproduction, in miniature, of the
great Mongol movement which, starting seven centuries ago, has not yet
spent its force. Like the other Turkoman tribes, the Tekkes were ranged
in divisions and clans--the Tokhtamish inhabiting the eastern portion
of the Merv oasis, while the Otamish occupied the western. In the
extreme east lived the Beks.[576] These great divisions were split up
into minor ones, and the latter again ramified into clans.
The organisation applied to Tekkes of the Akkal and Merv oases alike,
for members of the various sections were scattered over the entire
territory in their occupation.[577] Government among the Tekkes of
every tribe was a pure democracy.[578] Affairs of state were discussed
by an assembly consisting of the entire population. These gatherings
elected a Khān to represent the executive by acclamation, and withdrew
the dignity when the chosen one ceased to please. The office was
not an object of ambition, for the Khān’s authority was little more
than a matter of form. He had forty jigits, or attendants, to enforce
order; but he had not the power of the purse. For special purposes
a tribal representative, termed Ikhtiyār, was chosen by the popular
assembly. Thus, in 1881, O’Donovan found one at Merv who had been
sent to treat with the Shāh of Persia at Teheran.[579] In latter days
the tribe exhibited a tendency to follow the ordinary evolution of a
state, which is from a democracy to a hereditary monarchy acquired by
the sword. The new departure began with a famous chieftain named Nūr
Verdi Khān, who had led the Tekkes in the victories over the Khivans,
the Persians, and the Sāriks. He was intrepid, just, and hospitable,
moulded in the stamp of those who carve for themselves empire, and his
influence was so great that he was permitted to hand over the chiefship
of the Akkal Tekkes to his son Makhdūm Kulī Khān,[580] when he assumed
that of the Merv oasis. The growth of the hereditary principle was
doubtless fostered by the sense of impending danger from the Russian
avalanche. In earlier times an attempt to introduce it would have been
fiercely resisted by the untamed nomads. Old age and experience alone
commanded weight, and the yoke of Mohammedanism, elsewhere so heavy
in the East, pressed but lightly on these popular assemblies. Though
nominally Sunnis or orthodox followers of the Prophet, the Turkomans
practised few of the interminable observances prescribed by the Koran;
and the mullās, mostly steeped in ignorance, possessed no influence
over them.[581] But the Tekkes felt instinctively the impossibility of
maintaining democratic methods in times of stress. Military operations
were confided to the tribesmen of known valour and intelligence,
termed Sardārs,[582] who had a minute knowledge of the country to be
traversed, and were intrusted with the direction of the raids, which
were the main object of the Turkoman’s existence. Thus did these
banditti acquire prisoners who could be held to ransom, and slaves who
found a ready market in the neighbouring Khānates. The things needed
were a good horse, arms,[583] and a contempt for death. “He who puts
his hand to his sword-hilt,” runs a Turkoman proverb, “hath no need to
ask for a good reason.” “On horseback,” says another, “a Tekke knows
neither father nor mother.” When one of these natural leaders of men
determined on a foray, he planted his lance, surmounted by a flag, in
the ground in front of his kibitka, and invited all good Musulmans, in
the name of the Prophet, to range themselves under his banner.
The call to arms was rarely disregarded; and the Sardār soon found
his tent besieged by several hundreds, or even thousands, of warriors
prepared to yield him a blind obedience. He fixed the date and place
of gathering, but the object was not disclosed. On the day prescribed
his followers assembled, each on a well-trained stallion, and leading
spare horses with provisions. If the object of attack lay in the plains
of Khorāsān, the Kopet Dāgh Mountains were scaled by one of the three
passes practicable to Tekke horsemen. On reaching the southern slopes,
the provisions were left in some sure retreat, known only to the
Sardār, under the charge of a few horsemen, while the day was spent in
preparing for the raid.[584] Far in the valley below lay the village
destined to destruction. The smoke curled upwards from its white
cottages embowered in forest trees. The old men gossiped in the evening
sun; the maidens were bringing home the cattle from the pastures.
This was the moment chosen for the onslaught. In a few moments the
village street was thronged with fierce Turkomans bending low over the
saddle-bow and hacking and stabbing right and left. Then the survivors,
with the cattle and valuables, were gathered together and hurried off
to the robbers’ lair. When pursuit was feared, 100 or even 130 miles
were traversed ere rein was drawn. The girls and child captives, being
more valuable than adults, were carried at some warrior’s saddle-bow,
but all able to run were dragged in chains behind the captors. When
they sank from fatigue their sufferings were ended by a thrust from
the long Turkoman dagger. If the quarry were a Kurd village, greater
precautions were needed, for every settlement had its tower into which
the population fled on an alarm being given. These fortresses were
sometimes stormed while the defenders slept, and the garrison stabbed
with fiendish ferocity. In dealing with caravans, the Turkomans lay in
wait for their prey in the vicinity of wells,[585] and swooped down
on the travellers during their halt. At other times they hung on the
outskirts of the procession of camels and cut off stragglers. Success
depended on the suddenness of attack; and if it failed it was seldom
repeated, for bravery was not a characteristic of the Turkoman, except
when the safety and honour of his family were at stake. Then, as the
Russians found to their cost, they fought like lions.
For the slaves a ready market was found in the Khānates of Khiva
and Bokhārā, whence dealers visited Tekke settlements at frequent
intervals. The traffic was of ancient date, and, until the advent
of the Russians, was recognised by law and custom. Florio Beneveni,
an Italian who passed some time at Bokhārā in the early part of the
eighteenth century, informed Peter the Great that 3000 Russians were
held captive there, and, at the commencement of our own, Mouravieff
reported that a similar number languished in bondage in Khiva.[586]
Wolff, writing in 1843, estimated the number of Persian slaves in
Bokhārā at 200,000, and those detained at Khiva about the same period
were stated by Major Abbott to exceed 700,000. The price paid varied
with the age of the prisoner, children and young girls being twice as
valuable as adults.
But the Tekke considered his steed as even more indispensable than a
trusted leader to success in pursuing his inherited instinct. The fame
of the Turkoman horse is as old as Alexander’s days. Tīmūr improved
the breed by distributing 5000 Arab stallions among the tribesmen,
and in our own day Shāh Nāsir ud-Dīn, of Persia, unwisely sent 600
to his ancient foes.[587] But the Turkoman’s innocent ally in his
marauding expeditions showed hardly any traces of Arab ancestry. He
was big, leggy, and narrow-chested, with a high crupper, large head,
and sloping quarters.[588] The neck and tail showed none of the proud
curves which characterise the courser of Yemen. At short distances he
was no match for the English thoroughbred; but with careful training
and special diet he was able to amble for 60 or 70 miles a day for
an almost unlimited period.[589] When hard pressed, a Tekke has been
known to travel with two steeds at the rate of 160 miles a day, and
even more. The endurance of the horseman was even more remarkable,
for he could keep his saddle for twenty hours out of the twenty-four
during eight consecutive days.[590] The Tekke stallions--mares were
rarely ridden--were not indulged in stabling, but picketed outside
their owner’s tent, and preserved against cold by layers of felt,[591]
the number of which increased with his age. They were never removed
without the greatest precaution, and served to maintain the coat in
a lustrous sheen, though a knife and a piece of felt were the only
substitutes for the currycomb, brush, and clippers of Western stables.
On these coverings was placed the wooden saddle with a high peak, which
was covered with a piece of coloured silk tied across the chest. The
Turkoman’s warmest affections were lavished on his steed, with whom he
would share the last drop of water, the last handful of barley meal.
The whip was carried merely for show, and spurs were unknown. His
attachment was repaid by his dumb friend, whose fiercest encounter with
another stallion could be stayed by his master’s well-known accents.
The daily life of the Turkoman varied with the category to which
he belonged. Those who adopted a nomad existence were styled
_Chomry_,[592] and dwellers in fixed habitations _Charva_; but they
passed from one stage to the other at their own inclination, wealth
being the prevailing factor.[593] The nomads wandered on the banks of
the rivers and the limits of the desert where the mountain streams
had not been absorbed by the thirsty sands. Their herds were their
only wealth, and they rarely pitched their felt abodes for more than
three days at any spot. The Chomry, or sedentary Turkomans, dwelt
for a portion of the year in fastnesses termed _kal`a_, open spaces
crowded with their tents, and fortified with clay walls flanked by
towers. Around them spread the fields and gardens of the _aul_, in
which barley, juwārī (_holcus sorghum_), rice, and finely flavoured
melons were produced in abundance, thanks to the water distributed by
the _arīks_, or irrigation canals. In times of stress the fortresses,
which had but a single gate, formed places of refuge. At the eve of
the Russian conquest[594] the whole Akkal oasis was covered with these
strongholds. They stretched in a single line, afterwards in two or
more lines, from Kizil Arvat to Askabad. The great stronghold of Geok
Teppe, destined to give the Russians so much trouble, was situated
in the broadest part of the oasis; Askabad, now the headquarters of
Transcaspia, was a congeries of eight of these fortified villages.
The physiognomy of the Turkoman betrays the indelible Mongolian
type. He is above the middle height, of a dark olive complexion, with
prominent cheek-bones, and small almond eyes, shifty, and glittering
with intelligence.[595] His nose is generally broad and uplifted
at the extremity, his lips thick, and moustaches scanty. The ears
are very large, and stand up from the head. The senses of smell and
hearing are as strongly developed as those of the Red Indian.[596]
In the female the Mongolian strain is even more visible. Their hair
is short, but very thick and coarse. In youth they are tall and well
formed, with every movement full of grace.[597] Their rosy cheeks give
a charm to features destined in early middle-life to become a network
of wrinkles. No characteristic of savage life is so marked as the
rapid decay of beauty. The Turkoman dress has changed but little since
he met the Roman legionaries in battle grip. It consists of a long
crimson tunic of coarse Bokhāran silk, with slender black and yellow
combined stripes.[598] Over this is worn a loose dressing-gown, termed
_jabba_, descending below the knee, of black or dark brown material,
which in summer is of cotton and in winter of camel’s hair or wool. The
wealthier adopt the Uzbeg costume of several jabbas of coarse Bokhārā
silk, confined by waistbands of silk over a shirt and pantaloons of
the same material. The legs are covered with thick socks of a checked
pattern, and the feet with high metal-heeled slippers just large
enough to admit the insertion of the toe. They are slow and ungraceful
walkers, and show to more advantage when on horseback. Then the jabba
is tucked into wide leather boots of a Hessian pattern, giving a
most ungainly appearance to the equestrian. But the distinguishing
mark of the Turkoman is his large cylindrical head-covering of black
sheep-skin, termed kalpak. It is worn over a skull-cap fitting tightly
to the half-shaved head, and is far less heavy than its appearance
would imply. The women’s dress consists in long floating skirts of
red or blue silk.[599] The bosom is covered with a sort of cuirass
of silver plaques, coins and amulets, the trophies of her husband’s
prowess in war or raids. The wealthier add bracelets of thick silver,
and collars with plates suspended therefrom, like that worn by Jewish
high priests. Married women confine their stubborn locks in a small,
round, embroidered bonnet, while those of young girls cover their
shoulders. On occasions of ceremony a casque of open silver-work is
worn over a red cloth cap, giving a Minerva-like appearance.[600] The
face is partly covered by the end of a silk mantila or _burunjak_.
The character of the Turkomans before the process of Russification
began was a compound of the virtues and the vices to be found in
half-tamed races of the higher type. He has been branded as an
irreclaimable savage because he wrought untold misery on the helpless
populations within striking distance of his own den.
But no greater mistake can be made by the student of ethics than to
judge men of other nationalities by the standard of right and wrong
maintaining in our own.[601] It would be as unjust to blame the
Turkomans for the bluntness of their moral sense in the matter of
raids as to condemn George Washington because he did not think fit to
emancipate his slaves. By dint of inherited instinct the inhabitant of
Merv and Akkal had come to regard depredations as a necessary incident
of his daily life. His barbarous insensibility while engaged in an
_alaman_ was not inconsistent with the exercise of solid virtues. He
was hospitable to a fault, and is so at the present day, though the
advent of Russians has sorely curtailed his means. A stranger was made
welcome to the Tekke’s smoky kibitka, and was safe beneath its shelter.
He was invited to share the family meal, were it thick cakes of
unleavened bread pilaw,[602] compressed curds, or rice boiled with sour
milk. For his delectation the tea-pot, the Persian watet-pipe,[603]
the chess-board, and the clarionet[604] were produced, and he was
forced to listen till dawn to tales of ancient prowess, to legends of
Iskandar and Tīmūr, those twin heroes of Central Asian romance. And
there was a strain of inbred nobility in the nomad characters. They
were robbers on occasion; but they scorned to pilfer. Espionage was
unknown amongst them. Rarely, indeed, was the foul abuse so common in
Mohammedan countries heard from Tekke lips. His most scathing epithet
was “coward.” His faults were those of other races which have not come
into contact with civilisation. He was greedy, self-indulgent,[605]
and prone to take every advantage possible of a wealthy stranger. His
childish curiosity and utter disregard of that which is conventionally
termed good manners were equally conspicuous. In one essential, indeed,
which is rightly considered to indicate an advanced culture, he shone
by contrast with the people of every other country governed by the
Koran. His women-folk were free from those restraints which dwarf
the intelligence and degrade the moral sense. They went unveiled,
and associated freely with the tribesmen and even with sojourners in
their tents. And yet the standard of chastity was comparatively high;
while in times of stress the Tekke girls fought desperately by their
husbands’ side. It must be admitted that misdeeds were punished with
a dagger-thrust, and that, in a Tekke’s affections, a wife ranks far
below a horse. She rose early to bake her husband’s bread, cooked and
fetched water for him, and presumed not to eat till he had finished
his meal. Her industry was extraordinary.[606] Her embroidery was
once a marvel of good taste, and she still weaves carpets which are
unrivalled in Asia for beauty and durability. The superintendent of the
state domains at Bahrām `Alī, near Merv, has specimens which are more
than three centuries old and are yet as brilliant as if they had just
left the loom.[607] The method of manufacture can be watched in every
Turkoman village.
[Illustration: TURKOMAN MUSICIANS]
The warp is merely a piece of canvas pegged out on the ground, with
the transverse threads removed. The weaver, who crouches over her
handiwork, takes a pinch of coloured wool and, with a deft twist of
her fingers, attaches it to one of the horizontal threads, pressing
it afterwards into position with a heavy wooden comb. It is a curious
fact that the intricate patterns are never committed to paper, and have
been handed down from mother to daughter from generations unnumbered.
The marriage customs of the Turkomans are unique. Polygamy is permitted
by the Mohammedan law, but rarely can a Tekke afford the separate
kibitka and establishment which any wife is entitled to demand. Wedded
life begins early--at fourteen or fifteen for males, and in the case
of girls before the age of puberty. As married women wear no veils,
a youth has little difficulty in selecting his future bride. When a
damsel has found favour in his eyes he waits on her father and offers
a given price for her--slaves, horses, or cattle to the value of £40
to £80. This essential once agreed upon, the father-in-law presents
the young couple with a new kibitka, _āk ev_, untarnished by smoke, in
which the relatives assemble. Then a mullā recites a few verses from
the Koran--and the wedded pair are left to themselves.[608] Should the
price agreed on be not paid, at once the bride returns to her parents
after a brief honeymoon. In old times her absence stimulated the
youthful husband to prowess in distant raids, which afforded the only
opportunity of gaining the needful wealth.
CHAPTER V
THE LAST STEP IN ADVANCE
The ignominious campaign of 1861 was the last organised effort
put forward by Persia to protect her northern provinces. Secure
in a splendid strategic position,[609] the Tekkes extended their
devastations far and wide. When, in 1871, a fearful famine[610] more
than decimated the population of Khorāsān, bands of Tekke horsemen
took advantage of their neighbours’ weakness to sweep the entire
province with their marauding parties. It would have been an easy
task to check the aggression which depopulated the richest province
of Persia and caused incredible misery to the people. But so utterly
corrupt was the administration of the Shāh that the governing class
found its account in encouraging the perpetrators. Troops were
paid for by Government which existed only on paper, and the local
authorities shared in the Tekkes’ booty. The first effectual blow
struck at this gigantic machinery for plunder and oppression was the
direct result of the Khivan campaign of 1873. General Kauffman had
encountered some opposition from the Yomud Turkomans who ranged the
desert of Khiva, and he was not a man to tolerate half-measures. He
waged a war of extermination against this once powerful tribe, and
the ruthless cruelty that attended it struck terror throughout the
southern steppes. The Gokhlan Turkomans, inhabiting the estuary of the
Atrak and the rich valleys behind it, had been brought to heel by an
energetic governor of the Persian province of Bajnard in 1869,[611]
and their piracies on the Caspian had been put down with a strong
hand by the Russian naval authorities.[612] With the pacification of
Khiva, too, came the formation, in 1874, of a Transcaspian military
district, subordinate to the Caucasus,[613] which was placed under
the governorship of Major-General Lomakin. On the north-west the
Tekkes saw an iron wall arise which checked their aggressions and was
a standing menace to their independence. Nor were the prospects in
the west of their habitat more encouraging. The Russian treaties with
Khiva and Bokhārā forbade slavery, and closed the principal markets
for the captives of their bow and spear. In 1877 the Tekkes turned to
Persia, and made her an offer of their allegiance in return for support
against the white man’s encroachments. This contingency was not to be
regarded with equanimity by the Russians, for they rightly considered
the Turkomans as within the sphere of influence of the Transcaspian
district.[614] Nor were commercial considerations wanting. Russia was
by this time the virtual mistress of the Khānates, and was directly
interested in the development of their trade; but caravans were unable
to cross the Turkoman Desert while the nomads remained untamed, and
were driven to take circuitous routes in order to reach the commercial
centre of Orenburg.[615] And the authorities in St. Petersburg were
still dominated by the schemes first promulgated by Peter the Great
for diverting the course of the Oxus into the Caspian, and regarded
the Turkoman Desert as a potential breeding-ground for cattle which
would supply the home markets with hides. The Tsar Alexander II. was
thus led, much against his wish, to permit his lieutenants to adopt
a forward policy against the one obstacle to the Russification of
Central Asia. In the spring of 1877 General Lomakin received orders
to occupy the Tekke fortress of Kizil Arvat,[616] 200 miles east of
Krasnovodsk. He set out on the 12th of April with 9 companies of
infantry, 2 squadrons of Cossacks, and 8 guns, and soon came to blows
with the Tekkes. His artillery and arms of precision struck terror
into their hearts. They dispersed and afterwards sent delegates from
every village of the Akkal oasis to offer submission; but Lomakin did
not wait to receive it. Seized with a sudden panic, he retreated on
the 9th of June. Then came the Russo-Turkish War, and the Tsar had
more than enough to occupy his attention nearer home. The Turkomans
were left unmolested for a while,[617] but hardly had peace been
restored ere measures were concerted against the tribesmen. In April
of that year General Lazareff advanced with an expeditionary force
from Chikisliar, near the mouth of the Atrak, and on his death, which
took place at Chat, higher up that river, command was assumed by
General Lomakin. The Kopet Dāgh Mountains were crossed by the Bendesen
Pass; and on 9th September an attack was delivered on the Turkomans’
entrenched camp at Dangil Teppe,[618] which contained 15,000 Tekke
warriors, with 5000 women and children. The kibitkas, crowded within
its clay ramparts, were raked by artillery fire, and the fugitives
were driven back into this hell on earth by Russian cavalry. On 9th
September an attempt was made to storm the stronghold, but, maddened
by their losses, and inspired by their women to resist, the Tekkes
fought like demons. Lomakin was defeated with a loss of 450 killed and
wounded, and retreated on Chikisliar with the remains of his shattered
force. The news of his reverse was carried at lightning speed through
the length and breadth of Central Asia. Turkoman bands made their
appearance on the Amū Daryā, proclaiming the victory with all the
hyperbole which is a special gift of Asiatics. They even presented
the Khān of Khiva with Russian rifles and revolvers abandoned during
the abortive siege of Dangil Teppe, alleging that the spoils of war
were so abundant that they had no use for them.[619] Their raids were
carried on with greater activity than ever. At the commencement of
1880 a horde 3000 strong swept the banks of the Amū Daryā in Bokhāran
territory and plundered some villages close to the fortress of Charjūy.
The shock to Russian prestige can be compared only to that suffered
by ourselves when the news of the Mirat rising in 1857 was flashed by
telegraph over India. Even the dauntless Skobeleff began to despair
of the destinies of his country. “If we consider our position during
the last six years,” he wrote to St. Petersburg, “we cannot avoid
regarding the abyss which opens before us with terror, for it may
well disorganise the economic and political condition of the empire.
The English[620] have succeeded in convincing Asiatics that they
have forced us to stop before Constantinople and abandon the Balkan
peninsula. Thanks to their agents’ zeal, a version of the Treaty of
Berlin, very disadvantageous to ourselves, has been spread throughout
Asia. Great God, what sacrifices of blood and honour will this peace,
so painful to Russian hearts, entail!” To this illustrious soldier the
Tsar turned in his perplexity. A better choice could not have been
made. Michael Dmitriavitch Skobeleff was, at this epoch, in the prime
of life,[621] and at the zenith of his preternatural activity. His
military career had begun at the age of twenty, and, two years later,
he won his spurs during the Polish Rebellion. Between 1871–1875 he
was in the thick of Central Asian affairs, one of the leaders against
Khiva, and the conqueror of Kokand. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878
found employment for him nearer home. He commanded the left wing at
the storming of Plevna, and afterwards took Adrianople; but experience
and military genius are of small avail without that magnetic personal
attraction which is inborn only in the greatest leaders. Skobeleff
possessed this heaven-sent gift. “He was the God of War personified,”
said his trusted lieutenant, General Kurapatkine; and his troops loved
him with a passionate ardour which no general has inspired since the
days of Napoleon. A conference took place in January 1880 between the
Tsar Alexander II. and his brilliant subject, followed by others at
the Ministry of War presided over by General Miliutine. The ways and
means were fully discussed. It became clear that the failure of 1879
was due to defective transport. The camels on which General Lomakin
relied perished by thousands in the desert, and he found himself, at
a critical moment, without the means of continuing the siege of Geok
Teppe.[622] By one of those happy inspirations which flash on the brain
of men of genius, Skobeleff was led to invoke the aid of steam. He knew
that the desert was a dead level, without rivers to bridge, and that a
scarcity of water was the only difficulty before his engineers. Nay,
his eagle eye ranged far beyond the needs of the moment, and clearly
foresaw the advantages which would flow from a railway connecting
the Caspian and the Amū Daryā.[623] A special railway battalion was
formed, and materials for a portable line on the Decauville system were
brought to Uzun Ada, the base on the Gulf of Michaelovsk. Before the
close of 1880 the section between that post and Mullā Kārī, a distance
of thirteen miles, was completed. The control of the expedition was
vested in the commander-in-chief of the Caucasus, but a free hand was
practically given to Skobeleff, who was named “Temporary Commander of
Troops operating in Transcaspia.” He obtained full powers to prepare
and execute military operations, to negotiate with the neighbouring
native states, and to organise the administration of conquered
territories. Skobeleff knew that Orientals attach an exaggerated
importance to artillery. “To conquer,” he said, “is to astonish.”
Nothing has so marked an effect in Asia as the thunder of great guns
and the havoc wrought by shell-fire. He stipulated for ten pieces of
artillery for every 10,000 of numerical strength. Lomakin’s abortive
attack on Dangil Teppe had demonstrated the power possessed by dense
masses of felt-covered kibitkas to resist artillery fire. Skobeleff
asked for and obtained a large supply of shells charged with petroleum,
which masters the least inflammable materials. Lastly, a plentiful
supply of water is essential in a tract where the heavens are clear
for many consecutive months. A complete distillery was established
at Krasnovodsk, and it supplied no less than 750,000 gallons daily
to the troops. But the personal equation overrides the most complete
material equipment. “In war,” said Napoleon, “men are nothing; a man
is everything.” The general bethought him of one who had been the
chief of his staff in the recent struggle with Turkey, and had shown
in the darkest days of Plevna the noblest form of courage--that which
stands undismayed in the presence of disaster. This was Colonel Alexis
Kurapatkine, who is now Minister of War at St. Petersburg. He was
resting at Samarkand from the fatigues of a recent campaign in Kulja,
on the Chinese frontier, but he hastened to obey his loved master’s
call. Starting from Samarkand in November 1880, with a detachment 500
strong, he hurried through Bokhārā to Charjūy, barely three days’
ride from the Tekke lair at Merv; then, fetching a long détour by way
of Khiva to avoid the Tekke bands with which the desert swarmed, he
joined headquarters on 24th December. Well might Skobeleff say of
him, “Kurapatkine is the only man capable of performing so dangerous
a mission.” The general’s staff was strengthened by other great
authorities in Central Asian warfare--Petrusevitch, unrivalled for his
knowledge of the Turkomans; Grodekoff, and Leokovitch, professor at
the War Academy. Meantime Skobeleff had reached Chikisliar in May, and
after a general survey of the situation had pushed forward to Bami, a
Turkoman post at the entrance of the Akkal oasis, which commands the
route by way of Chikisliar and Krasnovodsk, and is only seventy miles
from the capital, Geok Teppe. He occupied this stronghold on the 10th
of June, and on the 13th of the following month advanced at the head of
1000 men to reconnoitre the enemy’s central settlement. Arriving on the
fourth day at Egman Batir, a Tekke village six miles from Geok Teppe,
he formed an entrenched camp there and sallied forth to inspect the
Tekkes’ position. He found them crowded into three camps, surrounded
by clay ramparts. The fort at the base of the hills was known as Yangi
Kal`a; the second, or central position, Dangil Teppe, from a mound at
the north-western corner; the third was an insignificant collection of
huts, called Geok Teppe, which, by a process akin to that which has
produced the nomenclature of Arbela and Waterloo, has given its name to
the scene of the last great battle of Central Asia. Having ascertained
that the hornets’ nest could be taken only after a regular siege,
Skobeleff’s little band returned to Bami, which had been christened
Fort Samursk. He was harassed during retirement by clouds of Turkomans,
whose activity in checking the arrival of supplies extended far into
the rear of the Russian advanced base at Kizil Arvat. The ensuing
months were occupied in active preparation for the siege. A force
of 12,000 men and 100 guns had been summoned from the Caucasus, and
the Russians were engaged in completing the railway and providing the
vast mass of stores needed for a march through 300 miles of desert. In
the beginning of December 1880 all preparations were completed, and
Skobeleff advanced in force, occupying all the Tekke settlements in
succession between Bami and Egman Batir, or Samursk. He arrived at this
point of vantage on the 16th December. A reconnaissance made on the
following day showed the majority of the foe massed in Dangil Teppe,
the central encampment, an irregular parallelogram with an area of a
square mile. It was surrounded by a mud wall with a profile 18 feet
thick, and 10 feet high on the interior side, the exterior varying
with the soil, but averaging, perhaps, 15 feet; a ditch which could
not have been more than 4 feet deep. At the north-west corner was the
mound from which the fortress derived its name, on which was planted
the only piece of artillery possessed by the Turkomans--an antiquated
smooth-bore captured from the Persians. The 30,000 Tekkes massed within
these rude entrenchments obtained water from a stream which flowed
through the place. This the Russians intentionally refrained from
diverting, lest the quarry should desert its lair under cover of the
night. No forward movement was made for more than a week. The interval
was probably spent in forming depôts for supplies; but it is, perhaps,
more than a coincidence that the next movement took place on the 24th
December--the day of Kurapatkine’s arrival from Samarkand. It was a
reconnaissance in force, which encountered a huge mob of Turkomans, and
was hard pressed until the arrival of reinforcements. A further delay
of eight days followed, and then, on 1st January 1881, a fierce attack
was delivered on Yangi Kal`a, the encampment at the foot of the
cliffs, by 8000 troops in three columns, with 52 pieces of cannon and
11 Hotchkiss machine guns. The southern column, commanded by General
Kurapatkine, forced the entrenchment in the rear, and compelled the
Tekkes to evacuate Yangi Kal`a under a terrific artillery fire and join
the main body at Dangil Teppe. Twice did the garrison sally forth to
their countrymen’s help, and when night fell they made a determined
attempt to recapture Yangi Kal`a, but on each occasion they were
driven back by the Russian artillery. On the 3rd January the Russians
removed their camp from Samursk to that abandoned by the foe at Yangi
Kal`a, and the following day saw the first parallel laid against
Dangil Teppe, at a distance of 800 yards south of the fortress. This
movement provoked a sortie of the garrison, who had been reinforced by
5000 warriors from Merv. They fell with fury on the besiegers, and,
seizing their rifles with one hand, hacked them with their razor-like
blades, covering the soil in places with heads and limbs. Nothing can
be conceived more terrible than their death-struggle at close quarters,
from which arose the clash of steel, shrieks, oaths, and shouts of
“Allah,” or “Hurrah.”[624]
[Illustration: VIEW FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE FORT OF GEOK TEPPE]
On the Russian left flank more than 300 dead bodies remained as
witnesses of the Tekkes’ heroic but useless courage. This encounter
cost the besiegers one of their best and most valiant officers, Colonel
Petrusevitch, to whom we are indebted for most of our knowledge of
Turkomania at the eve of its conquest. The second parallel was laid
on the 4th January, and five days later another determined sortie was
made by the beleaguered Tekkes. At dusk they poured into the second
parallel, which was held by 2600 men, and took possession of the
outworks and trenches, destroying the artillerymen and capturing four
mountain guns and three regimental standards. But the reserves were
hurried up from the camp at Yangi Kal`a, and after a fearful struggle
the trenches were reoccupied, and all but one of the lost guns were
regained. On the 10th of January the Tekke outposts were seized after
severe fighting; but at half-past eight the besieged made a third
sortie. They stormed a redoubt on the left flank, cut to pieces the
artillerymen and a company of Transcaspian rifles who defended it, and
dragged the two cannon which it contained towards the trenches. The
Russian reserves again deprived them of the fruit of victory; for one
mountain gun only, rendered useless by the removal of the breech-piece,
was carried off by the Tekkes.[625] The time chosen by the besieged
for these very effective operations was always the dark hour between
sunset and the rise of the young moon. They inspired such terror that
it was difficult to induce the young soldiers to await the Tekkes’
onslaught. The night of the 16th January was marked by the last of
these mighty encounters, but experience had taught the Russians many a
bitter lesson, and their tactics rendered the heroic bravery of their
opponents useless.[626] On the 16th the sap had been pushed within
twenty-four yards of the east side of the entrenchments. Breaching
began on the 20th; and while a heavy fire was concentrated on a spot
near the south-eastern angle, a perfect hail of petroleum shells was
thrown on the dense mass of kibitkas packed into the Tekke enclosure.
Fearful must have been the sufferings of the 7000 women and children
who had sought refuge there. Every part of the works was searched by
the fragments of shell and streams of unextinguishable flame. The
traveller who visits the scene of this battle of the giants is filled
with wonder that an undisciplined mob should have held out for three
weeks with defences so paltry. Their stubbornness inspired respect
in Skobeleff himself, who was as ready as all really brave men are
to render justice to a gallant foe. In a proclamation addressed to
his troops on the eve of the final assault, he told them that they
were face to face with a people “full of courage and honour.”[627]
But the end was drawing near. Not only was the breach reported to be
practicable on the 23rd, but a mine had been driven under the eastern
face about one hundred yards from the angle, which was charged with
dynamite by a party of volunteers after nightfall. At seven on the
morning of the 24th of January 1881 four columns formed for the
assault, commanded respectively by General Skobeleff in person, and by
Colonels Kozelkoff, Kurapatkine, and Gaidaroff. The signal was given
by a vast column of smoke attended by a dull roar which rose from
the eastern front. It proclaimed the explosion of the mine, which
levelled 300 feet of the rampart, and overwhelmed several hundreds of
the defenders. Instantly the force under Gaidaroff sprang forward and
escaladed the parapet on the south-western angle. This was intended
to be a feigned attack, but it soon developed into a serious one.
Pushing northwards, Gaidaroff captured the mound which commanded the
camp, and thus convinced the defenders of the impossibility of further
resistance. In the meantime the other columns had swarmed through
the breaches caused by the mine and the artillery fire, and climbed
the parapet on the southern side between the two. The hand-to-hand
encounter was brief, for the position was clearly untenable. O’Donovan,
who watched the attack from a spur of the Kopet Dāgh twelve miles
off, saw a cloud of horsemen issuing in disorder from the northern
side, followed by a confused mass of fugitives.[628] The Russian flag
waved on the mound which gave Dangil Teppe its name. It was planted
at a cost to the assailants of 1200 men[629] killed and wounded,
out of a total engaged of 8000. That undergone by the garrison will
never be accurately known. Four thousand bodies were found in the
enclosure, and Skobeleff admitted that a flying column pursued and
hacked the fugitives for ten miles.[630] General Kurapatkine estimates
that the enemy lost 9000 out of a total of 30,000. He strenuously
denies the oft-repeated allegation that Tekke women and children
were intentionally slaughtered. The Russians, he states, did not
wilfully kill a single non-combatant, though, of course, many must
have perished from the hail of petroleum shells which were poured
for three weeks into the doomed enclosure. So anxious, he affirms,
were his countrymen to avoid shedding innocent blood, that on the
eve of the assault the garrison were formally summoned to send their
families to a distance. The Turkomans’ reply was characteristic: “If
you want our wives and children,” they said, “you must step over
our corpses to seize them.” Fireside theorists are apt to reprobate
the bloodshed of Geok Teppe and the slaughter of the wounded foe at
Omdurman as unworthy of civilisation. A superficial acquaintance with
the Asiatic character would convince them that an extreme application
of the Virgilian _debellare superbos_ is the least cruel policy which
can be adopted in dealing with the forces of savagery and fanaticism.
Geok Teppe was the last stronghold of Central Asian independence, and
its capture must rank among the decisive battles of the world. While
civilisation gained by the Russian victory, it is impossible to refuse
sympathy to those who were crushed by its giant forces. With the
conquest of Turkomania a national entity disappeared for ever which
had been preserved intact during ages of change and retained many
noble qualities. The world is the poorer by the disappearance of such
types, and by the gradual reduction of all mankind to a dead level
devoid of colour and charm. The news was received with dismay by the
population of the Khānates, who still cherished hopes of regaining
independence. Geok Teppe inspired the most bigoted of Russia’s foes
with a conviction of the hopelessness of battling against the decree of
fate; and to the lesson thus learnt is due the unbroken tranquillity
which reigned for eighteen years in Central Asia. The Shāh of Persia
hailed the extirpation of the hornets’ nest with joy. He saw his
northern provinces delivered from a terrible scourge, and peace
restored to a rich territory which the corruption and incapacity of
his own government was unable to protect. Thus he at once acceded to
a suggestion made by the Russian ambassador, M. Zinovieff, that the
left bank of the Atrak, which had been virtually annexed, should be
ceded to Persia in return for the abandonment of her rather shadowy
rights as suzerain over the Merv oasis, and for authority to push
the Transcaspian Railway through territory which was still nominally
subject to her sway.[631] The absorption by Russia of the whole area
inhabited by the conquered race was but a matter of time. The Akkal
oasis was hers by right of conquest, and it remained to add that of
Merv to the long list of her conquests. The way was paved for this
measure by diplomacy, the agent being an astute Mohammedan named
Alikhanoff.[632] He was a native of Dāghistan in the Caucasus, and had
won the rank of colonel by gallantry in the field. Alikhanoff found a
potent ally in the person of the once beautiful Gul Jamāl, widow of the
last great chieftain, Nūr Verdi Khān, who enjoyed universal respect,
due alike to her own force of character and the memory of her husband’s
exploits. Her persuasion was seconded by a military demonstration which
took place on December 1883, under Colonel Masloff; and, on the 31st
January 1884, 124 delegates from the various settlements of the Merv
oasis, headed by the four tribal chiefs, met at Askabad, which had
been recently created the headquarters of the Transcaspian military
district. Here they solemnly swore fidelity to the Tsar in the presence
of the governor-general, Komaroff. A recrudescence of the old lawless
spirit followed, which was prompted by an Afghan adventurer, but it
was stifled on the 3rd of March by military force. In the following
May, Prince Dondukoff-Korsakoff, governor-general of the Caucasus,
paid a formal visit to the latest and not the least valuable trophy of
Russian diplomacy, and was able to report to his imperial master that
the inhabitants of the oasis had willingly acknowledged his sway. Soon
afterwards the Sārik tribe, numbering 65,000, who inhabited the Yolatan
oasis thirty-six miles south of Merv, tendered their submission, and
that of the tribes between Giaour and Sarakhs followed.
The tract over which Russia had gained mastery was a parallelogram
lying between the Oxus and the Harī Rūd, which washes the walls of
Herāt, and in Turkomania is known as the Tajand. The western boundary
marched with that of Persia, and at its northern extremity was defined
by Old Sarakhs, a Turkoman village perched on an elevation which
commanded a once thickly peopled country extending northwards to Merv.
Old Sarakhs was easily accessible by wheeled traffic from Puli Khatan,
a village on the left bank of the Harī Rūd, thirty-three miles from
the Zū-l-Fikār Pass, through which the Tekke hordes had often poured
into Khorāsān. To the east of this defile lay the Paropamisus range, a
double spur of the Kūh-i-Bābā Mountains, which consists of low rolling
hills covered with asafœtida and thistles.[633] The northern flank
of the Paropamisus gives rise to the Murghāb, which fertilises Merv,
and its confluent the river Kushk. The country between these streams
and the Harī Rūd was known as the Bādghīs,[634] and is described by
Lessar as presenting the appearance of a stormy sea suddenly reduced
to solidity. In 1884 it had been ruined by Tekke incursions. A few
thousand Jamshīdīs still clung to the rich valley of the Kushk, where
they had been planted by Nādir Shāh in the eighteenth century as a
bulwark against Turkoman aggression, and are described as a peaceable
nomad race famed for their breed of horses.[635] On the north-west of
this forlorn tract stood Bālā Murghāb, an Afghan fortress commanding
the road to Maymena; and thirty-five miles farther north the village
of Panjdih towered above an oasis with an area of 170 square miles,
peopled by the Sārik Turkomans. Afghanistan lay to the south of the
debatable land. Its natural boundary was defined by the Paropamisus,
and only eighty miles beyond them lay Herāt. This city had played a
great part in history. It was regarded as the key to Afghanistān;
the only serious obstacle to a successful invasion of India from the
north-west; and its citadel had been fortified in 1838 under the
supervision of British officers. Nor was the importance of Herāt
confined to its strategic position. It was the emporium of Central
Asian trade, and the centre of a well-watered and fertile country.
Thus the value to Russia of her latest acquisition was immense. In
Merv she possessed a region which had been once the most fertile on
the world’s surface, and needed but settled government to resume its
ancient importance. The ill-defined area which she claimed to the
south of the Merv oasis commanded the richest province of Persia
and the north of Afghanistān. It was inevitable that the news of
its impending appropriation should excite a storm of indignation in
England, where every step of the Russian advance was watched with the
keenest suspicion. An attempt to propitiate public feeling had been
made as far back as 1882, when Russia proposed a joint commission to
demarcate the northern boundary of Afghanistān, and at that time she
would doubtless have accepted a line drawn from Khwāja Sālih on the
Oxus to Sarakhs. But the Government then in power was not inclined to
raise so delicate a question, and it was not until June 1884, when the
situation had been radically modified by the conquest of Turkomania,
that the proposal found acceptance. A joint commission was appointed in
July, charged with the duty of laying down the disputed boundary. It
was headed on the British side by General Sir Peter Lumsden, who had
won distinction in India; while General Zelenoi was directed to watch
over the interests of Russia. Sir Peter traversed Afghanistān, with
the Amīr `Abd er-Rahmān’s permission, escorted by a little army of 500
strong with twice as many camp followers. This demonstration, for such
it was, excited the suspicion of Lieutenant-General Komaroff,[636] the
military governor of Transcaspia, and General Zelenoi was directed to
return to Tiflis. In the meantime the explorations of Lessar in the
valleys of the Murghāb and Kushk had led Russia to modify her claims.
It was contended at the conference which followed that she should be
allotted an ethnological frontier, based on the submission rendered by
the Sāriks inhabiting the Panjdih oasis. The British representative, on
the other hand, declined to recognise any other boundary than one based
on natural conditions which excluded from Russian sway all territory
south of an imaginary line drawn from Old Sarakhs to Khwāja Sālih on
the Oxus. The Gordian knot was cut by the Afghans, who, encouraged
by the presence on the Murghāb of the small British force attending
Sir Peter Lumsden, moved northwards and occupied Bālā Murghāb and the
disputed oasis of Panjdih. This aggression elicited warm protests
from Russia; and, according to her wont, she brought material force
to the aid of diplomacy. General Komaroff occupied Pul-i-Khatun,
the Zū-l-Fikār Pass, and Ak Rabāt; and, on February 1885, he took
possession of Pul-i-Kishti, at the edge of the Panjdih oasis. The alarm
excited in England was intense. Engineers were despatched to place the
fortifications of Herāt in a state of defence; arms and ammunition
were poured into Afghan arsenals, and troops were massed under General
(afterwards Lord) Roberts on the north-western boundary of India. The
match was laid to the train by Lieutenant-General Komaroff. On the 30th
of March 1885 his little force of 1200 men all told[637] attacked and
routed an Afghan mob 46,000 strong with six guns, which latter fell
into Komaroff’s hands.[638] The discomfited Afghans at once retired to
Merūchak, at the eastern extremity of the oasis. The skirmish, for such
it was, aroused a storm in England, and war was considered inevitable.
Parliament voted unanimously a credit of £11,000,000 sterling for
military preparations; while Russia called into existence a Volunteer
Fleet, with the object of preying upon our commerce. Happily for the
tranquillity of Asia, the two greatest Powers were led to pause ere
they appealed to the awful arbitration of arms. General Lumsden and
his ablest coadjutor, Captain Yates, used their influence with the
Afghans to prevent a recurrence of the untoward accident of the 30th of
May; while the tact of the latter prompted him to open overtures which
were completely successful. Diplomacy, thus assisted, won a peaceful
triumph, and a basis for the demarcation of the frontier was agreed
upon. The process was completed at the close of 1886, and in the April
of the following year the British and Russian representatives met at
St. Petersburg. The outcome of their deliberation was, on the whole,
favourable to Russia. She obtained the right bank of the Harī Rūd as
far as the Zū-l-Fikār Pass, and the valleys of the Bādghīs south of and
including the Panjdih oasis.
The southern boundary of her Asiatic possessions has advanced to
a point within fifty-three miles of Herāt as the crow flies, and
separated by no natural obstacle of importance from that great
commercial and strategic centre. On the other hand, the Amīr of Bokhārā
surrendered to the Afghans the rich pastures on the left bank of the
Amū Daryā south of Khwāja Sālih. Russia has loyally accepted the work
performed by the Boundary Commission, and has concentrated her energies
during the eleven years which have intervened in developing the
commerce and improving the administration of the rich possessions thus
added to her empire.
The successful issue of this enterprise led, in 1895, to the
appointment of a mixed commission to demarcate the spheres of English
and Russian influence on the Pamirs. The boundaries of the three
Asiatic empires meet in those stupendous hills, but their difficulty
of access had hitherto precluded any attempt to lay them down
authoritatively. The English representatives, under the direction
of Sir M. G. Gerard, K.C.S.I., left India on the 30th June; and, a
month later, they met their Russian colleagues on the shore of Lake
Victoria, a wild mountain tarn which gives birth to the Oxus. No time
was lost in tracing the boundary prescribed in an agreement entered
into between the two Powers. Starting from the eastern side of the
lake, it follows the crest of the Sarikol range until the Chinese
frontier is reached. “From the sixth mile,” wrote Sir T. Holdich,
K.C.I.E., the chief survey officer, “a rugged and inaccessible spur of
the Sarikol range carried the boundary into regions of perpetual ice
and snow to its junction with the main range. Here, amidst a solitary
wilderness, 20,000 feet above sea-level, absolutely inaccessible to
man, and within the ken of no living creature except the Pamir eagles,
the three great empires actually meet. No more fitting tri-junction
could possibly have been found.”
The cordiality which marked the relations between the subjects of Queen
and Tsar was even more marked than on the earlier occasion. On their
arrival at the scene of action the travel-worn Britons were hospitably
received in the Russian camp, and a feeling of good-fellowship was
then and there engendered which never afterwards grew cold. The scanty
leisure left the commissioners by their duty of traversing ninety miles
of the most difficult country in the world was devoted to races and
shooting-matches.
The Kirghiz of the Russian escort astonished our countrymen by their
prowess at ulak, a struggle on horseback for a goat, similar to the
Bokhāran game of baigha. The Cossacks, too, displayed their wondrous
equestrian skill. August 3rd, the name-day of the Dowager-Empress of
Russia, was the occasion of an outdoor service, and the sweet plaintive
melody of the anthems of the Greek Church never sounded so impressively
as it did on those remote mountain heights.[639] Every lover of his
country will re-echo the hope expressed by the Russian commissioner at
a farewell banquet given to his colleagues on 11th September 1895, that
“the agreement just concluded would be the beginning of more cordial
relations between the two countries, and of a better understanding of
their national aims and desires.”
CHAPTER VI
THE CENTRAL ASIAN RAILWAYS
The conception of a railway between the Caspian and the heart of Asia
took shape, as we have seen, during the campaign of Geok Teppe, when
a little portable line between the base and a point thirteen miles
inland was of good service to the transport. The new railway battalion
redoubled its efforts after the fall of the Tekke stronghold, and
before the close of 1885 the line had been carried as far inland as
the large Turkoman village of Kizil Arvat, 135 miles from the Caspian.
A mighty impulse was given to schemes for railway extension by the
cession of the Merv oasis in 1884. The entire area between the Caspian
and the Amū Daryā was now in Russian hands, and there were no political
and few natural obstacles to delay the construction of a railway which
should connect the great arteries of traffic. But the advisers of the
Tsar were by no means unanimous in approving of the enterprise. A
strong party favoured the canalisation of the Amū Daryā, and an attempt
to divert its stream to its ancient channel, which entered the Caspian
at Krasnovodsk. Another faction pointed to the vast results achieved
in India by the network of railways, which enables a European military
force barely 60,000 strong to dominate 250,000,000 Asiatics; and urged
the necessity of providing the means of rapid transport of troops and
material between the Caucasus and the new strategic bases. Foremost
among the latter was General Annenkoff, who enjoyed great influence at
St. Petersburg, due less to family connections than to his experience
in the construction of railway lines.[640] His opinion was reinforced
by events in the Merv oasis, for the collision with Afghanistān in 1884
convinced the stubbornest advocates for water-carriage that a post of
vital importance could not be held without the assistance of a railway.
In April 1885 an imperial ukase directed the construction of a line on
the standard gauge between the Caspian and the new territories, and
charged its designer with the duty of carrying it into execution and
studying the question of extensions. General Annenkoff’s first care
was to devise a system calculated to economise time and transport,
and peculiarly adapted to countries which present few obstacles to
the engineer. A temporary line was to be laid with the utmost speed,
over which the materials and labour for completing the task might be
conveyed at leisure. The accommodation of the personnel was of equal
importance. The supervising staff consisted of three engineers-in-chief
and an army of subordinates, military and civil, selected for their
exceptional ability and vigour. Under their orders were two battalions
of railway operatives on a strictly military basis. The second of these
was recruited at Moscow by the general himself; and both corps showed
a devotion to their arduous duties which it would be difficult to
parallel. The scarcity of water in the desert precluded the possibility
of forming camps at intervals or working in sections. By a brilliant
intuition Annenkoff conceived the idea of a camp on wheels, which would
move onwards as the work progressed, and be furnished with provisions
and material by construction trains. It contained everything needful
for comfort and efficiency. There were carriages for the office staff;
dormitories and restaurants in two-storeyed cars, a telegraph carriage,
and a saloon for the director, resembling the cabin on a man-of-war
in the compactness and modest luxury of its fittings. Each vehicle
communicated with the others by means of covered passages; and due
attention was paid to ventilation and warming. Work began on the 30th
of June 1885. The rails[641] were spiked down to the sleepers without
the aid of chairs, and the rolling camp moved forwards at a speed
which was ultimately four miles a day. When Kizil Arvat had thus been
reached the soil ahead was levelled by 22,000 Tekke labourers, whom
stern necessity had compelled to exchange their long knives for spades
and sacks.[642] The rails and sleepers, brought from the base daily
by a portable railway on the Decauville system, were rapidly laid on
the soil thus prepared. Water in this dry and thirsty land is of prime
importance. It was provided at Uzun Ada, the Caspian terminus, by a
huge distilling apparatus. At other points the streams issuing from the
distant hills were diverted into reservoirs, whence the precious liquid
was carried to the line in pipes. At Merv the source of supply was a
canal connected with the Murghāb. The waterless tracts were supplied
from the nearest spring in immense wooden tubs placed on trucks. To
avoid the interruption in the flow of materials due to the closure
of the Volga by thick-ribbed ice, great depôts were formed at Merv,
Charjūy, and, later, at Bokhārā, while the minutest care was given to
perfecting every portion of the complicated mechanism.
[Illustration: DIVANIS OR DERVISHES]
The comfort and efficiency of the directing and the subordinate staff
were the subject of equal anxiety. The labourers, whether Russian
soldiers or natives of the soil, worked in shifts of six hours, and
were free for eighteen hours out of the twenty-four to enjoy repose in
their moving barracks and kibitkas. The sleepless activity of the chief
was contagious, and his behests were obeyed with a devotion which few
generals on the field have commanded. But when the arduous day’s work
in the burning sun or the icy blast was done, the sturdy Russians were
wont to break into song. Beautiful, indeed, was the effect of their
melody wafted on the still desert air; and finer still the spectacle
afforded by groups of the toilers, their faces glowing with the ruddy
bivouac fire, while from their midst came the rhythmic strain of some
chant, now breathing profound melancholy, and anon rising high in notes
of fierce martial passion. General Annenkoff justly said that “one of
the sources of Russian strength is that we are a singing people.”[643]
And thus the work of piercing these hitherto unknown steppes was pushed
onwards with a rapidity which was the wonder and envy of Europe. Merv,
352 miles from Kizil Arvat, was reached in fourteen months. The arrival
of the latest product of civilisation at the old robbers’ lair was made
the occasion of brilliant fêtes, and six weeks of rest were given to
the toil-spent men.
The works on the section between Merv and Charjūy began on August 1886.
Here the engineers had to encounter an obstacle even more formidable
than Chat Moss presented to George Stephenson. This was the famous
sandy tract--a stretch of nearly sixty miles extending to a strip of
land fertilised by the great river. It resembles nothing so closely as
the mountains of the moon as seen through a powerful telescope. The
eye ranges over a boundless expanse of sandhills covered in the near
foreground with camels’ grass. Here, when the wind blows fresh, the air
becomes charged with sand, which blinds the drivers and accumulates
in deep drifts on the line of rail. At such times night-running
is suspended, and detentions of several days are frequent. The
construction of stone galleries was at first considered inevitable,
but the expense involved was prohibitive. The desired object has, to
some extent, been achieved by planting the saxaul, a gnarled shrub
which thrives on the desert soil and throws out spreading roots for
many feet. On the Merv and Charjūy section, too, the earthwork was
far heavier than had hitherto been encountered,[644] and it is highly
creditable to the engineering staff that 141 miles should have been
completed in little more than four months.
Hitherto the bridging operations had been of no great importance. The
river Tajand, at the 434th mile, had been spanned by a wooden viaduct
of 348 feet water-way; and the Murghāb, at Merv, by a similar structure
with an opening of 197 feet. Charjūy is 664 miles from the Caspian, and
stands on the left bank of the Oxus, or Amū Daryā, incomparably the
mightiest river in Central Asia, and worthy to rank with the Ganges
and the Nile. At Charjūy it is a mile and a quarter wide, and in all
characteristics it resembles the Mississippi and the rivers of the
Gangetic Delta. All have the same wide fringe of sand on either side,
covered in portions with fertilising silt, the same islands clad with
long reeds and juniper, the same tendency to shift their banks. At
present the Amū Daryā’s main channel has swung to the eastern bank,
and its dull red stream surges with a perilous velocity. The cost of
a steel viaduct at so vast a distance from the manufacturing centres
was not to be faced, and nothing remained but to attempt a wooden
structure. Happily for the Russian engineers, a stratum of tenacious
clay underlies the sandy bed at no great depth, and afforded a secure
resting-place for the timber piles. These numbered 3330, and were
all brought from Russia by rail. The first was driven into the river
bed in June 1887, and so intense was the energy of the working staff
that on the 18th January 1888, little more than six months after its
commencement, the Amū Daryā was opened for traffic.[645] In spite of
its fragile construction, this work must rank with the greatest feats
of modern engineering. The vast distances from which every portion of
the material was brought, the rapidity and treacherous nature of the
stream, and the unforeseen difficulties grappled with at every step,
conspire to render the Amū Daryā bridge a conspicuous triumph of skill
and energy over the blind forces of nature. The Englishman cannot view
this grand work, dwindling to a mere point as its interminable length
spans the broad river, without a feeling of respect for the men who
carried it into execution. We have shown the world that nothing is
impossible to modern science, and we can best appreciate the noble
qualities evinced by General Annenkoff and the devoted band which
toiled to execute his grandiose conceptions.
The Amū Daryā bridge is 4600 yards in length, including the approaches.
The water-way is 2270 yards, and a permanent way is laid 35 feet
above the mean river-level. The small cost of the structure is not
its least recommendation. Official statistics place it at £44,000,
without, however, reckoning the cost of transport and the pay of the
railway battalion engaged in erecting it. The whole is of wood; and
it is impossible to look down on the rapid current swirling round the
piles without a feeling of wonder that so frail a structure should have
borne the strain of eleven years. But fire is a far more dangerous foe
than water. The rainfall at Charjūy is insignificant, and the mass of
bristling piles as dry as touchwood. It is crossed daily by trains
drawn by locomotives burning petroleum fuel, and boats loaded with
inflammables constantly pass beneath. There are six fire-stations, and
the bridge is patrolled night and day; but all protective measures
would be useless if the flames once took hold. It is this consideration
which has induced the authorities to face the immense expense involved
in a steel girder bridge.
A pause of three months followed the conquest of this great barrier;
and, in September 1887, the engineers attacked the last portion of
their task--the 216 miles between the Amū Daryā and Samarkand. They
were aided by a third railway battalion 1000 strong, incorporated in
1886, and posted at Charjūy in the beginning of the following year.
The final section, however, was mere child’s play as compared with
those already traversed. After passing through 28 miles of desert,
the line enters at Kara Kūl on a cultivated zone, watered by the
river Zarafshān and its affluents, which extends as far as the
terminus at Samarkand. The capital of Tamerlane was reached in May
1888, and on the 1st of the succeeding month trains began running
with regularity between the Caspian and Samarkand, a distance of 879
miles.[646] General Annenkoff’s achievement was rewarded with the
generous appreciation meted out to every Russian servant of the state
who distinguishes himself by devotion to duty. “During three years,”
wrote his imperial master in a rescript dated 5th July 1888, “you have
worked with the energy which distinguishes you in accomplishing the
task, sparing neither health nor strength in a constant struggle with
natural obstacles which seemed almost insuperable. In just recompense
for the service you have rendered to the state, we have granted you
the insignia in diamonds of the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky, which
we command you to wear according to regulations.”[647] In thus hailing
the completion of a line linking the Caspian with Samarkand the Tsar
could hardly have foreseen the vast economic results of General
Annenkoff’s enterprise. Its inception was due to considerations of
politics and strategy,--if the Central Asian Railway would rob the
desert of its terrors, strengthen Russia’s hold on the newly conquered
territory, and give the means of overawing Persia and Afghanistān; and
so it was treated as a military work and placed under the governor
of Transcaspia, who was himself subordinate to the Minister of War.
But trains had hardly begun to run ere merchants and passengers
flocked to the station; goods accumulated in masses which defied the
slender means of transport. In 1893, 185,000 tons of merchandise and
material were carried; and in 1897 the volume dealt with aggregated
249,000.[648] Trade left its old channels and poured into that which
gave merchants steamer communication with the great consuming centres
and the seaboard. Tea, which cheers the nomad as well as his civilised
brother, no longer enters Central Asia through Afghanistān. It is
transhipped at Bombay into steamers which convey it to Batum. Thence
it crosses the Caucasus by rail and the Caspian by steamer, and finds
the terminus of the Central Asian Railway at Krasnovodsk. This trade
is of very recent growth. In 1893 none travelled by rail; in 1897 no
less than 6,192,000 pounds. The commerce with Russia has been equally
affected. The wool and cotton worked up in Moscow factories no longer
reaches them by camel caravan; while the manufactured beet-sugar and
drugs so largely in demand in the Khānates travel by the new route.
That the railway should have profoundly modified the whole course of
Central Asian commerce is a natural outcome of the line selected by
the Tsar’s advisers. It follows the principal channel whence the silks,
sugars, and stuffs of India and China poured into Europe during the
ages illumined by Greek culture, and moulded by the governing instincts
of Rome. Balkh in Northern Afghanistān was a rendezvous for caravans
from the south and east. Thence the goods find water-way to the Oxus,
and so, by its ancient course, to the Balkan Bay on the Caspian. The
precious wares were carried in small vessels across that sea to the
embouchure of the Cyrus, now the Kura, 90 miles south of the modern
town of Baku. Here they were transhipped into canoes and dragged up
stream to the foot of the Suran Pass. At this point the light vessels
were carried, with their contents, 40 miles over the mountain to the
river Kvirilla, a confluent of the Phasis,[649] now called the Riom,
which discharges into the Black Sea near the fever-haunted port of
Poti. A glance at the map will reveal the identity of this ancient
highway of trade with that followed by the railway systems of the
Caucasus and the regions beyond the Caspian.[650] The revolution has
been recognised by the Russian authorities, and the Central Asian
railways have now lost their exclusively military character, and have
passed under the direction of the Minister of Ways and Communications.
They will eventually have a central administration at Tashkent, and
be managed by the governor-general at Turkestān.[651] The unlooked-for
success which has attended the opening of the trunk line has given a
great impetus to extensions. In 1895, works were commenced for branches
connecting Samarkand with Tashkent, the Calcutta of Central Asia, and
Andijān in Farghāna, a point near the Chinese frontier, and little more
than 300 miles due north of Chitral. The length of these sections is
401 miles; their cost has been £2,743,000, or £6840 for each running
mile, exclusive of rolling stock.
The line to Andijān follows pretty closely the old trade-route
eastwards, crossing the Zarafshān by a viaduct 392 feet long, near
the remains of the famous bridge attributed to Tīmūr, and passing the
towns of Jizāk, Khojend, and Kokand. At Khavast, 110 miles west of
Samarkand, a branch runs to Tashkent which traverses the Sir Daryā at
Chināz by a wooden bridge, on the Oxus model, 1120 feet in length.
Another bifurcation connects the main line at Khwāja Maghiz with New
Marghilān. The engineers have encountered enormous difficulties in the
construction of these branches, arising from the fact that they run at
right angles to the watershed of the country. The innumerable torrents
which pour down the mountain flanks on either side cause extensive
inundations during the rainy season. The water-way on this section
is greater than on any other portion of the line of equal length,
and heavy protective works have been deemed necessary to divert the
floods into the channels provided for them. The activity with which the
construction was pushed forward may be gauged by the fact that 63,000
tons of railway material were carried over the trunk line between
July 1897 and May of the following year. The extensions will serve a
rich and thickly peopled country, and open up the vast mineral wealth
of the mountain system whence the Zarafshān takes its rise. An annual
movement of goods to the extent of 240,000 tons is predicted, which
will increase by leaps and bounds when the great irrigation works now
under construction in Farghāna are completed. Another branch line has
been constructed between Merv and Kushk, on the Afghan frontier, a
distance of 192 miles. It follows the left bank of the Murghāb as far
as Pul-i-Kishti at the embouchure of the river Kushk, and the latter
up to the Russian cantonment bearing that name.[652] The economic
advantages of this line, which was thrown open for through traffic in
January 1899, are enormous. It passes through a tract which was once
among the richest in the world, and will soon regain a share of its
ancient fertility when the irrigation projects, which have received
favour, become accomplished facts. Its strategic value is equally
indisputable, for it will enable troops and supplies to be massed in a
few days within striking distance of Herāt. For Englishmen, however,
the importance of the Merv-Kushk branch lies in the fact that it is
designed to serve as a link in a project which germinated in General
Annenkoff’s fertile brain--that of uniting England with India by
railway. A glance at the map of the eastern hemisphere will show
that the shortest practicable line of communication between London
and the Indus passes through Russia and Central Asia. The direction
would be _viâ_ Calais, Berlin, Warsaw, Rostov-on-Don, Petrovsk, Baku,
Krasnovodsk, Merv, Kushk, Girishk, and Kandahār. The whole of this
distance has now been covered by railway, with the exception of the
195 miles of Caspian between Baku and Krasnovodsk, and the gap of
450 miles which still separates Kushk from Chaman. If the last-named
hiatus were bridged the journey from London to the Indus would
easily be performed in seven days, assuming that the present rate of
speed--thirty-two miles an hour on the European and twenty-five on the
Asiatic lines--were maintained. The net saving in time, if the railway
were completed, would be ten days, while the horrors of the Red Sea
and the monsoon would be bad dreams to the Anglo-Indian traveller. The
country between Kushk and Chaman presents no obstacle to the engineer.
The Paropamisus range would be crossed by the Khombau, or the Chashmi
Sabz Pass, neither of which is more than 3400 feet above sea-level, or
1000 higher than that on the tableland on either side.[653] From this
point, Herāt, the garden and key of Afghanistan, is only 30 miles; and
thence the line would be carried by way of Sabzawār, Farrah, Girishk,
and Kandahār to Chaman. India is now awaking from her long sleep, and
is permeated by new and unsuspected forces. If the tie which binds her
to ourselves is to be a lasting one, it must be drawn more tightly.
That the line which is being carried across Siberia will eventually
be linked with the Central Asian system admits of no doubt whatever.
Expert opinion, however, is by no means in accord as to the route
by which the junction should be effected. General Kurapatkine,
while governor of Transcaspia, had detailed surveys made for a line
between Merv and Orenburg. A strong faction advocates one which would
commence at Tashkent and run by way of Chimkent, Turkestān, Turgai,
Nicholaievsk, and Troitzk to Chelyabinsk, the starting-point of the
Trans-Siberian Railway. Another party urges the superior advantages
of a route _viâ_ Turkestān, Albasar, Kokchetav, and Petropavlovsk
to Ishim. Prince Khilkoff, the Director of Ways and Communications,
favours a railway starting from Tashkent, and traversing Verni,
Semipalatinsk, and Barnaul, to end at Tomsk. The country which would
thus be opened up presents no serious obstacles to the engineer. It has
great fertility, and abounds in coal and other forms of mineral wealth.
CHAPTER VII
TRANSCASPIA IN 1898
The intense activity displayed in railway construction did not imply
neglect of the primary duty of a civilised state towards subject
peoples--that of giving them peace and order. The problem before the
Russian administration bristled with difficulties, for lawless habits
were ingrained in the population of Turkomania. The lesson taught
by Geok Teppe was the first step in the civilising process, for it
inspired the Tekkes, who outnumber all other tribes combined, with a
wholesome dread of the white man.[654] Their marauding instincts were
controlled by overwhelming military forces cantoned near the Persian
and Afghan frontiers in posts connected by the line of rail which
traverses the heart of the conquered territory. Thus the Turkoman
tribes had to choose between starvation and honest labour. They
unwillingly adopted the latter alternative, and their good resolutions
were strengthened by the immense demand for unskilled labour entailed
by the construction of the Transcaspian Railway. The erstwhile robbers
may now be seen toiling at cotton-presses, and tilling their fields
as assiduously as Indian peasants. But the demeanour of the elder
men show that they have not been effectually tamed; and until the
generation which harried Persia and defied the “Great White Tsar”
has passed away, the old leaven will still prevail in Turkoman
breasts. The influence of the hereditary chieftains was the great
obstacle in the path of reform. The Russians resolved to suppress the
tribal organisation with its general councils, and make the village
the administrative unit. In other respects the Whig watchword, the
“Government of the People by the People,” is that of the Russian
Government.
Transcaspia, for so the land of the Turkomans is officially styled, is
bounded on the north by the Khivan and the Kirghiz steppes. Southwards
it is separated by mountain ranges from Persia and Afghanistān; while
the Amū Daryā and the Caspian define its limits on the east and west.
In length it averages 600 miles, in breadth 350; the area being 230,000
square miles, or rather more than that of France. It is a land of
startling contrasts. The northern portion, amounting to four-fifths
of the whole, is a trackless desert; the remainder is made up of the
oases of Akkal and Merv, and the highlands watered by the Atrak and
Gurgan. The only minerals hitherto discovered are rock-salt, sulphur,
and naphtha, and the latter alone has any commercial importance. The
south-east corner of the Caspian is a region of geysers, petroleum
springs, and hills of asphalt, which may in time rival the wonderful
tract surrounding Baku on the western shore. At present, attempts
at exploration are confined to Cheleken Island, in the Bay of
Krasnovodsk, and have met with indifferent success.[655] In the absence
of mineral wealth, local industries are restricted to agriculture
and stock-raising. Heavy crops of barley, juwārī (_sorghum_), and
cotton are produced by irrigated land everywhere, and the exports of
the latter to Russia are enormous.[656] The bulk of the live stock
belongs to the nomad tribes, and it is rising in value. The Turkomans
owned £5, 7s. worth per head of the population in 1890; £7 worth in
1896. This growth has taken place in spite of epidemics due to the
terrible winters of the northern steppes. The Mangishlāk peninsula,
embracing the Ust Urt Desert, so fatal to Bekovitch’s expedition,
lost 40 per cent. of its cattle and sheep from cold and starvation
in 1890. Horses, on the other hand, are decreasing in number and
quality, for the repression of raids by the strong arm of the law
has destroyed the demand for them. The deterioration has engaged the
serious attention of the Russian. A committee appointed to inquire into
the cause recommended that the Turkoman breed should be encouraged by
prize competitions and the introduction of English and Arab blood.
But the law governing supply and demand cannot be long evaded, and we
are within measurable distance of the extinction of this incomparable
strain. Domestic industries, as in old times, are confined to the
women, for their lords and masters disdain sedentary labour. The
manufacture of carpets heads the list. Three-fourths of these are still
made at Merv, where the variety of designs, handed down from long-past
generations, and never committed to paper, is bewildering. Here, too,
the Russian conquest has brought with it a blight, for the hideous
aniline dyes exported from German chemical works are supplanting
the beautiful and durable colours extracted from indigo and other
vegetable substances. Exports have fallen considerably during the last
seven years,[657] and the case is the same with the embroidery,
shawls, and dress fabrics once produced in thousands by the deft
fingers of Turkoman maidens. The nomads, who constitute the vast bulk
of the population, have not yet taken kindly to commerce. The people
of Merv, indeed, accompany the caravans which still ply between the
oasis, Persia, and Khiva, but 3 per cent. only of the merchants and
shopkeepers of Transcaspia are Turkomans.[658]
[Illustration: GENERAL KURAPATKINE]
Until 1890 Transcaspia was a province of the Caucasus, but in that year
it was constituted a government, and intrusted to the care of General
Alexis Kurapatkine.
No living soldier has had a more brilliant career. It began at
the storming of Samarkand in 1868, when, as a sub-lieutenant of
the Turkestān Rifles, he won the Orders of St. Stanislaus and St.
Anne for special gallantry. Three years later he was promoted
lieutenant-captain, and entered the Military Staff College for a course
of special training, which lasted till 1874. Then, having attained the
rank of captain, he was posted to the Turkestān Staff. In the following
year he was despatched on a special mission to Germany and France, in
the course of which he took part in an expedition from Algiers into
the Sahara, and became a Knight of the Legion of Honour. Returning to
his old love, Turkestān, he was employed in 1876 in the reduction of
Tashkent, and gained the crosses of St. George and St. Vladimir. In the
same year he was sent as envoy to Ya`kūb Beg, a Mohammedan chieftain
who had wrested Kāshghar from the Chinese, and obtained the cession of
the town and district of Karashara. In 1877 came the Russo-Turkish
War, and the Tsar needed the help of his best and bravest soldiers
to hold his own against the stubborn Nizams. Kurapatkine became
lieutenant-colonel and chief of the Staff under General Skobeleff,
commanding the 16th Division. He covered himself with glory at Lovsha,
in the expedition to the Green Mountain, and at Plevna; and gained the
rank of colonel, with more of those baubles so dear to the military
heart. In 1879 he exchanged the sword for the pen, and became professor
of Military Statistics at the Staff College. But he pined, as all true
soldiers must, for active service, and his wish was speedily gratified.
He was appointed commandant of his old corps, the Turkestān Rifles,
and in 1880 commanded as brigadier-general in the reduction of Kulja.
Towards the close of that year he was sent in charge of reinforcements
to General Skobeleff, then engaged in a death-struggle with the
Tekkes of the Akkal oasis. His prowess in that memorable campaign
has been already noticed. In the next eight years he was attached to
the St. Petersburg Staff, and was employed in framing schemes for
mobilisation and the defence of the western frontier of the empire. He
also gained the Tsar’s special thanks for his services on a commission
for settling the system of government in Turkestān. As governor and
commander-in-chief of Transcaspia he showed that he possessed a rare
combination of the qualities which adorn civil life as well as win
battles.
His methods were based on an intimate knowledge of native character,
and a keen appreciation of its noble qualities; and on his translation,
in the beginning of 1898, to the great office of Minister of War, he
left behind him the reputation of a firm but sympathetic ruler.[659]
The charge for which he had laboured so strenuously then became
a province of Turkestān, and was placed under the control of the
governor-general residing at Tashkent.
Transcaspia is divided for administrative purposes into five
districts--Mangishlāk and Krasnovodsk, on the Caspian littoral;
Askabad, which includes the Akkal oasis; Tajand, watered by the
river of that name; and Merv. At the head of each is a military
officer, termed the district chief, who is responsible for the
executive and fiscal administration. The districts are parcelled
out into _pristatvos_, or subdivisions,[660] created in order to
facilitate police work, and again into groups of twenty-five villages
for judicial purposes. The village, which, as we have remarked, is
the administrative unit, is called, if permanent, _volost_; and if
inhabited by nomads, _aül_. It is governed by a mayor, on the old
Russian model, termed _volostnoi_, or _aülnoi_, as the case might be,
but more commonly _starshina_.[661] The village chiefs who replaced
the Khāns of old time are elected by the inhabitants, subject to the
governor’s veto. General Kurapatkine’s attention was, at an early
stage, directed to the defects of the judicial mechanism, which
was wholly independent of the executive power, and directed by a
professional lawyer sent out from St. Petersburg. The Supreme Court sat
at Baku, and appellants had then to face a journey of 200 miles across
the stormy Caspian.
In 1892 General Kurapatkine formed a Supreme Court, which sits at
Askabad and disposes of appeals from the decisions of the lower
tribunals. It consists of five judges, and observes the rules of
procedure and evidence current in Revision Courts. In causes involving
native law and custom, popular judges from the Courts below are
summoned to attend as assessors; while Kāzīs, natives versed in
Mohammedan law, are called in as experts when questions of marriage and
inheritance are concerned. The sentences in cases of gravity, such as
murder, are subject to the governor’s approval. Next in order to the
Judicial Commission, as that body is called, are the District Courts,
consisting of the chief aided by five “popular judges” selected from
the personnel of the lower Courts. These latter hold session weekly
at the headquarters of each group of twenty-five villages. They are
comprised of five “candidates,” judges elected by the inhabitants of
every village, who sit in rotation. These Courts of first instance bear
a strong resemblance to the panchayat system of ancient India, which
has been so cruelly shorn of its powers for good by a mistaken policy
of centralisation. Their capacity in criminal cases extends to the
infliction of fines of 100 roubles and three weeks’ “imprisonment.”
On the civil side they try, without appeal, cases in which the value
of the subject-matter is less than 200 roubles. Further reforms
are in contemplation. The jurisdiction of the lower Courts will be
extended--Kāzīs will be excluded, and local experts summoned in cases
of marriage and inheritance. But, such as it is, the Russian system has
worked with remarkable smoothness. It recognises the innate capacity
for self-government which every Eastern race possesses, while the
village organisation remains intact; and has thus gained the entire
confidence of the people. The duty of preserving order and execution
of the Courts’ decrees vests in the district chief, the pristatvos and
the starshinas in their several degrees. In the quinquennial period
ending with 1895 they brought 3436 offenders to justice, a proportion
of nearly 25 per cent. of the population. It is undeniable that in
the eastern districts crime is far more rife than on the Caspian.
Merv had 1450 offenders during the five years, as compared with 419
convicted at Krasnovodsk. The classification of crimes affords curious
results. The offences against person and property nearly balanced
each other in the Caspian districts, while the contrary is the case
at Merv. Charges of theft constituted the great bulk of Transcaspian
crime; cattle-lifting came next in order of importance, followed by
wounding and murder.[662] Capital punishment has been abolished
throughout the empire, except in cases of treason. Murderers are
transported by rail and steamer to the Russian penal settlements on
the North-West Pacific.[663] As is the case in India, the volume of
crime varies directly with that of population. The tract in the Caspian
is sparsely inhabited, while in Merv the population is comparatively
thick. Broadly speaking, the numbers rise with the distance from the
barren seashore. The total population of the province was 235,600 in
1890, and 300,769 in 1895, showing an increase of 65,169, or nearly 26
per cent. The growth of the Kirghiz community during the same period
was no less than 60 per cent. The Tekke Turkomans are still the most
numerous class of the population;[664] then, at a long interval, the
Sariks and the Yomuds, a large proportion of whom roam over Persian
as well as Russian territory. Persistent attempts have been made of
late years to encourage Russian immigration, but with indifferent
success. Each family of new-comers is allowed a subsidy of 100 roubles,
besides seed-corn and land rent free. But the climatic conditions
are unfavourable, and the water-supply is unsuited to the European
constitution. In 1892 one-fifth of the immigrants succumbed to cholera,
and they suffer terribly from malarial fever.[665] As traders the
Russians cannot compete successfully with the astute Armenian and
Persian exploiters of Transcaspia. The Russian immigrants, who are
mostly railway servants, are 3452 in number, not reckoning labourers
who arrive at the beginning of winter and return home before the
fearful tropical heats set in. The rest are scattered in the mountains
south of Askabad on the Afghan frontier and the Caspian shore. There
are ten colonies of agriculturists, and three of fishermen, with a
total strength of 2174 souls. The besetting curse of these little
settlements is drunkenness. General Kurapatkine, who strove during
his whole term of office to foster Russian colonisation, endeavoured
to check this vice by prohibiting the sale of spirits; but it is to
be feared that enforced abstinence has only made the exiles’ lot more
forlorn, and their periodical outbursts more bestial. A semi-tropical
climate and a soil either barren or saturated with malarial poison is
not, and can never be, adapted to the children of the icy north.
The increase in population, large as it has been under Russian rule,
would have been still greater but for the prevalence of intermittent
fever. That this scourge is connected with irrigation is beyond doubt,
for the western districts, where water is scarce, are comparatively
free from it; while in Tajand 30, and in Merv 85, per cent. of the
applications for medical relief were due to intermittent fevers.[666]
The conditions prevailing in the irrigated tracts are precisely the
same as those in Central Bengal, which is in process of being slowly
depopulated by malarial fevers. In both countries we have a waterlogged
subsoil, due in the one case to excessive rainfall and inundations from
the rivers; in the other, to the presence of a network of irrigating
channels. The lesson to be learnt by administrators of both provinces
is the necessity of providing drainage. Smallpox was as fatal in
Transcaspia as malarial fever. Epidemics recurred almost annually, and
50 per cent. of the children were slain or disfigured by the pest. One
of the first steps taken by the Russians was to introduce vaccination.
They encountered a vast amount of prejudice, especially among the
priesthood, but the value of the boon conferred on suffering humanity
by Jenner has long been recognised. Vaccination is decidedly popular,
and as a consequence smallpox is almost unknown.[667] Enteric fever,
which is increasing in an alarming ratio in Indian garrisons, is rare
in Transcaspian cantonments, and unknown elsewhere in that province.
Epidemics of cholera are also uncommon. The last took place in 1892,
when the infection was introduced from India by way of Herāt. It
ravaged Meshed, the capital of Khorāsān, in May, and reached Askabad
on the 1st June, having travelled 100 miles in eighteen days; thence
it followed the line of rail, causing a mortality of 1859 out of 3471
attacks. The health of the Russian troops in Central Asia is, as might
be expected, less satisfactory than that of the civil population. The
annual admissions to hospital during the six years ending with 1895
were no less than 705 per mille; the deaths, 12.5; while 20.2 were
discharged as unfit for further service. Thus the loss by death and
incurable disease to the Russian army serving in Transcaspia exceeds 3
per cent. annually.
Readers who have followed our description of the physical conditions
encountered in Transcaspia will have grasped the fact that its tillage
depends wholly on the timely supply of water by artificial means. The
Turkoman farmer is not, like his European comrade, at the mercy of the
seasons, for he taps the rivers and streams descending from the Persian
and Afghan highlands, which enjoy a fairly constant rainfall.[668] Dams
erected in channels give a “head” of water which is drawn off into
distributories or _arīks_, and these, again, are subdivided into tiny
rills which afford to every plot of cultivated land its portion of
the precious fluid. The parent stream thus gradually loses its speed
and volume, and finally disappears in the arid desert sands. Where
visible water is not met with, the springs on the mountain flanks are
reached by a system of tunnelling. A well is sunk at a higher level
than the area to be irrigated, and, when water is found, a lateral
tunnel is excavated which carries the subterranean water several
hundred feet nearer its object. At its extremity another well is dug,
and the piercing process is repeated till the thirsty tract is reached.
A well-known natural law compels the water in the last of the chain
of wells to rise to the level of that first sunk; and thus a head is
formed which supplies a system of distributors. The method is known as
the Persian, and is of extreme antiquity. So great is the skill of the
older labourers practising it that the mole-like excavations in which
they work are barely two feet in diameter by four in height.
On assuming the government of Transcaspia, the Russians made a
special study of this all-important question, and came to the
conclusion that it was impossible to improve on the methods evolved
by ages of practical experience. Their policy, therefore, as regards
irrigation, has been one of non-interference. Steps were taken to
prevent cultivators in the Persian and Afghan territory from tampering
with the sources of the water-supply. A chief engineer is posted
at the provincial capital, Askabad, and subordinate ones at the
district headquarters; but their functions are limited to suggesting
improvements and supervising the repairs to canals and distributories.
The task of allotting the water-supply was left in the hands of the
Mīrāb,[669] a native official elected by the inhabitants of every
village dependent on irrigation. His operations are guided by the
average quantity of water required by individual peasants. The unit
is termed _Sū_,[670] and is by no means a constant quantity. In some
parts it implies the volume of water sufficient to irrigate a given
area, varying between one and five acres. In Merv the Sū implies the
quantity which flows in two hours through a distributory discharging
water at the rate of 1¼ quarts per second. In Tajand it is equivalent
to the needs of an average garden, or to a discharge of half a gallon
per second. In many parts of the Merv and Akkal oasis the process
is simplified by the existence of associations of peasants, termed
_Artel_, each of whom receives a _Sarkār_,[671] or head of water,
consisting of 8 to 36 Sū. The ordinary irrigation channels are held in
common by the villages which they supply, but wells and underground
aqueducts vest in the person who excavates them and in his heirs. The
Russians have shown great practical wisdom in avoiding unnecessary
interference with a system so complex; for an attempt at stringent
control would bring them in contact with fierce prejudices and lead to
loss of prestige.
Turning from the system to its operation, we find the most important
works connected with the Murghāb, that ancient source of Merv’s
prosperity. It rises in Afghanistān, as do its confluents, the Kāshān
and Kushk, a fact which places the Merv oasis at the mercy of the
Amīr. It is more than probable that the next rectification of frontier
demanded by Russia will comprise the whole watershed of these streams.
The course of the Murghāb in Russian territory is 530 miles long; its
breadth at Merv is 84 feet, and its depth 7. The Panjdih oasis, with
a cultivated area of 75,000 acres, owes its fertility to this river,
whose waters are confined by a dam called the Kawshut Khān Band.
Farther north we have the Yolatan oasis, inhabited by Sārik Turkomans,
with another huge dam, known as the Kāzī Keui Band, affording water
to 125,000 acres, at a velocity of 1500 feet per second. Near its
site are the ruins of the Sultān Band, a work far vaster than any of
the present day. It gave a head of 28 feet, and made the fields and
gardens of Old Merv the most fertile region on the globe’s surface. The
Sultān Band was destroyed in 1784 by the Amīr Murād of Bokhārā,[672]
a piece of vandalism which ruined Merv’s prosperity and made it a
robbers’ lair. Just a century later the Tsar, to whose private estates
the site of Old Merv belongs, ordered the construction of an anicut
13 miles up stream. The work was carried out by Colonel Kashtalinski,
superintendent of the state domains at Bahrām `Ali, the first railway
station east of modern Merv. It includes a dam which gives a 14 feet
head of water, and is connected with a series of storage basins feeding
a central canal 20 miles long. This, in its turn, supplies 35 miles of
secondary canals and 105 of distributories. The area thus irrigated
amounts to 15,000 acres, 5000 of which are under cotton, and 3675 grow
wheat and barley. The whole is let out to Turkomans and Bokhārans, and
the mountains of cotton waiting for transport by rail in the season
are a standing proof of the excellence of the crops; the return is
indeed said to be not far short of a hundredfold. So great is the
demand for farms that the natives compete for the privilege of holding
one at a rent in kind amounting to a quarter of the gross produce.
In spite of prohibitions, subletting is very rife, and the same plot
supports several families. The cost of these splendid operations was
about £105,000, an expenditure which was declared by an eminent English
authority on irrigation to be one-fifth of what a similar work would
entail in India. It is in contemplation to restore the Sultān Band, at
a cost estimated at £210,000. There can be few better investments for
capital than one which will restore to the brightest jewel of Russia’s
Asiatic diadem a portion of her ancient splendour.
The policy of _laissez-faire_ has been extended by Russian
administration to popular education. Every village of importance has
its Maktab,[673] or primary school, where a modicum of corrupt Persian
and Arabic is combined with an inordinate amount of parrot-like
repetition of passages from the Koran. In 1893 these numbered 179,
with an attendance of 2629 boys and 331 girls. The teachers generally
belong to the priestly class, which in old days enjoyed less authority
than in any Mohammedan country. Since the Russian invasion their
occult influence has increased, and it is not exerted in the invaders’
favour. Throughout Islām, indeed, the mullās are irreconcilable enemies
to Western progress, and a recent rebellion in Farghāna has led many
experts to doubt whether tenderness to indigenous institutions has
not been carried too far; for the Maktabs are forcing-grounds for
the Madrasas, or colleges, which are to be found at every district
headquarters, and are centres of obscure intrigue. Russian education
has indeed advanced with giant strides. The first school in which
the difficult tongue of the conqueror was taught dates from 1882,
when this was opened at Kizil Arvat for the railway staff. Mdlle.
Komaroff, daughter of the first military governor, founded one in
that headquarter in 1884. It has now become the “Town School,”
with 184 pupils, including 62 natives. In 1890 there were but 5
schools throughout the provinces, with an attendance of 395. General
Kurapatkine has spared no effort during his long term of office to
promote Russian education; but, until 1894, he encountered sullen
opposition. In that year the tide began to turn, and in 1896 there
were no fewer than 69 Russian schools, with an attendance of 1196. It
is to be hoped, in the best interest of Transcaspia, that the mistake
which has had such sinister results in India will not be repeated
there. Vernacular education under close Russian supervision is far
preferable to a system which encourages a mechanical study of an alien
tongue by classes which can never be rendered better or happier by its
acquisition.
The method of collecting revenue in Transcaspia displays the simplicity
and reliance on native agency which are seen in other branches of the
administration. The principal tax is one levied on each “kibitka,” a
term which conventionally includes fixed as well as movable dwellings.
The rate in force at the present day is six roubles, or nearly thirteen
shillings; and the incidence per head of the population, assuming the
kibitka to shelter five persons, is only two shillings and sevenpence.
The starshina is held responsible for the realisation of an amount
equivalent to the number of kibitkas in the village multiplied by six,
and he pays the sum directly into the district treasury. In practice
the tax is treated as one on income, and a wide latitude is left to
the starshina. He reduces the demand from widows and daily labourers
to a few pence, and exempts paupers altogether; while wealthy families
are made to pay as much as £22. As the kibitka tax amounts to no
more than a twenty-fifth of the average family’s earnings, there is
rarely any difficulty in collecting the entire demand. Malversation is
extremely rare, and, in one case at least, the villagers voluntarily
subscribed a sum sufficient to cover its mayor’s defalcations. In the
Sarakhs district a different system is in force. There a tax is levied
proportionately to the _Sū_, or unit of water, used in irrigation.
Small excise duties are levied on tobacco, matches, and kerosene oil,
and the owners of cattle driven from Persian territory to Transcaspian
grazing-grounds pay a trifle on each head. The only other tax is one
on trade, which has long been current in the Central Asian Khānates.
Merchants who are not Russian subjects pay Government one-fortieth of
the value of wares received or despatched by caravans. No budgets as
we understand the term are published by the provincial governor; for
the immense cost of the garrisons maintained in Central Asia should
fairly be set off against the receipts from taxation. It is tolerably
certain, however, that Russia finds her Asiatic possessions a source of
heavy expenditure from the imperial treasury, which she is content to
endure in view of indirect advantages which she reaps from them. Their
strategical value is incalculable, for they place Persia, Afghanistān,
and Western China at her mercy; while the benefit to Russian commerce,
by the daily increasing movement of goods on the Transcaspian railway
system, is equally conspicuous.
The proceeds of taxation are allotted to local as well as imperial
purposes. Among the former, roads are of the greatest importance.
The province possesses 458 miles of metalled roads, exclusive of
one constructed in 1888 between Askabad and Meshed, the capital of
Khorāsān. On this a waggon service plies daily, and every high-road
has its line of telegraph wires. The latter are connected with 17
offices, which dealt in 1896 with 113,434 messages. There are 25 postal
stations, connected by a series of hand vehicles, which in the same
year cost nearly £50,000 sterling.[674]
The entire system of transport, however, is in a transition state, for
the railway has already revolutionised the mechanism of commerce. Its
length in Transcaspian territory is 663 miles, and an extension from
Merv to Kushk, on the Afghan frontier, a distance of 192 miles, will
be completed before the 1st June 1899. The old caravan roads southward
lay through Persia and Afghanistān; but the insecurity which reigns
there, and the transit duties levied, have driven merchants to adopt
the longer but safer route by steamer and railway. Thus goods for China
and India travel by way of Bombay, Batum, and Baku. The Caspian is
traversed by steamer,[675] and at Krasnovodsk the railway is met with.
The whole line was placed under the charge of General Kurapatkine in
1892; but on his transfer in the beginning of 1898 to the Ministry
of War it passed under the control of the Minister of Ways and
Communications.
This necessarily brief sketch of Transcaspian administration reveals
an honest attempt on the part of the Russians to promote the material
welfare of her former foes. It is too often repeated by writers who
are blinded by political passion, or have no personal knowledge of
Central Asia, that the subject peoples there are groaning under the
heel of a ruthless military oppression. Englishmen who have visited
the heart of the great continent, and mixed freely with every class of
the population, agree in denying the truth of these charges. General
Kurapatkine, when on the eve of laying down his high office, declared
that Russian policy might be defined as the maintenance of peace,
order, and prosperity in every class of the population. Those, he went
on to say, who fill responsible positions are expressly informed by
Government that the assumption of sovereignty over other nationalities
must not be attempted without very serious deliberation, inasmuch as
such become, on annexation, Russian subjects, children of the Tsar, and
invested with every privilege enjoyed by citizens of the empire.[676]
These noble words reflect the attitude of General Kurapatkine and his
lieutenants. Many of the latter had a lifelong experience of native
manners and mode of thought; and one at least, Colonel Arandarenko,
district officer of Merv, is adored by the inhabitants of the oasis.
That the forces of disorder have been rendered impotent is certainly
not the case. The contrast between the prosaic present and the wild
romance of that past which is fast fading into legend must be bitter
indeed to the half-tamed Turkomans. Nature, we know, _nihil facit per
saltum_; and governments, however despotic, are incapable of suddenly
changing the trend of a nation’s instincts, the legacy of unnumbered
generations. It may, however, be said with perfect truth that the
Russians in Central Asia strive earnestly, and with a great measure of
success, to promote the greatest good of the greatest number.
CHAPTER VIII
ASKABAD AND MERV
Krasnovodsk, the western terminus of the Transcaspian Railway, stands
on the northern side of the Balkan Bay, through which the Oxus once
discharged into the Caspian. It is protected from the groundswell by a
natural breakwater of jagged rock which stretches nearly twenty-five
miles southwards; and from icy Siberian blasts by a range of barren
limestone hills.
The little town which nestles in this bleak amphitheatre is of recent
origin, for it was only in 1897 that it superseded Uzun Ada, a shallow
and insecure port on the south of the bay. The Government offices,
substantially built of a warm brown freestone, surround a central
square, where a patch of grass and a few scraggy trees strive in vain
to relieve the desolation which recalls the surroundings of Aden to
the Eastern traveller. Nor is the parallel confined to externals,
for Krasnovodsk is dependent on distillation for its water-supply.
The building where the precious fluid is manufactured from the briny
Caspian is well worth a visit, inasmuch as its designer, M. Yagen, has
solved the problem how to extract a maximum of fresh water at a minimum
expenditure of fuel. The steam, generated in tubular boilers heated
by a roaring fire of petroleum refuse,[677] passes through a series
of iron vats sheathed with felt, losing some of its heat and aqueous
particles in each. But the chief ornament of Krasnovodsk is, strange to
say, the railway terminus. Unlike those which disgrace so many English
towns, it is a highly successful effort to blend the ornamental with
the useful. The trains which leave Krasnovodsk for the heart of Central
Asia twice a week are made up of second and third-class carriages on
the corridor system. They are warmed in the abominable fashion peculiar
to Russia, by air heated in a roaring stove, and their lavatories are
on the most primitive model. The stuffy compartments contain narrow
wooden benches; and upper berths, which let down at night, form very
indifferent beds. In one of these little purgatories the traveller
bound for Samarkand ensconces himself at 4.30 p.m., after a substantial
meal at the railway buffet, which differs in no wise from those met
with on the Caucasian railways. But the jolting and discomfort are soon
forgotten in the novelty of the surroundings. For seventy miles the
line skirts the deep blue Caspian, which is covered in winter with wild
fowl, a living contradiction to the travellers’ tales which represent
the great lake as nearly destitute of animal life. The northern
horizon is hemmed in by the rugged outlines of the Great Balkans, a
range as desolate and forbidding as the mountains of the moon. Then
the train plunges into a boundless plain covered with sparse tufts of
wiry grass. This is the great Turkoman Desert, the habitat of that
splendid race which inspired terror in the Roman legionaries and defied
the greatest military power of modern Europe. But soon the rugged
outlines of the Kopet Dāgh Mountains open southward, and at 6.22 on
the following morning the train halts at Kizil Arvat, the workshops
of the Transcaspian Railway, which break the wild poetry of hill and
desert by their prose of Western industry. They were founded ten years
ago by General Annenkoff, whose modest bungalow is still pointed out
with the respect instinctively rendered to genius everywhere. The works
on the south side of the railway are as complete in their degree as
those at Crewe. The forges and fitting shops come first in order. They
occupy two masonry sheds, exhibiting lines of blacksmiths’ forges, in
each of which an astatki fire burns without the smallest attention from
the operatives. The installation in the turning-shop, with its lathes
and steam hammers, would interest an Englishman more if it was not too
evident that the appliances were of German origin. It is a relief to
pass into the engine-room and find one of the five machines, with a
horse-power of 52 nominal, bearing the honoured name of Tangye. The
foundry will be next visited. It can furnish castings up to a maximum
of two tons. In point of fact, locomotives of the latest pattern may be
turned out at Kizil Arvat; though in practice it is found expedient to
import them from Moscow. The carpenters’ shops are lofty structures,
with a floor area of 36,000 feet, where cars and waggons are turned
out with great rapidity. The inspecting carriages are marvels of
compactness, containing a saloon upholstered with luxurious settees,
a bedroom, bath, and kitchen. The storehouses are specially worth
visiting. Their sides are lined with masonry compartments, containing
tools, with “plus and minus” slips enabling stock to be taken in in
a few hours. With the exception of a few files which bear Sheffield
trade-marks, the tools are all the products of Russian and German
workshops. Nor has our declining metallurgic industry any share in
the supply of raw material, for the tariff practically excludes its
products from the empire in the absence of a special authorisation of
the Ministry of Commerce. Some attention is paid to the comfort of
the workmen employed at Kizil Arvat. There is an institute, styled
a Casino, containing a restaurant, where meals can be had at an
absurdly low tariff, and a ballroom large enough to accommodate the
700 workmen and their wives. Some distraction is a sheer necessity,
for the surroundings of Kizil Arvat are calculated to drive a European
to despair. The town stands in a dreary plain two miles from the
mountains, which supply an abundance of water. Nothing would be easier
than to produce vegetation of surpassing beauty, for the desert soil
needs but irrigation to furnish everything that could delight the eye.
The People’s Park only serves to make the aspect of the town more
forbidding; and the ugly square boxes serving as married quarters
are entirely destitute of a garden. The place is said to be healthy,
in spite of a summer heat rising to 110 degrees; but another tale is
told by the crowd which are attracted by the band of the 2nd Railway
Battalion, stationed here. The adults are generally ill-favoured and
stunted, and the repulsive sores on their faces are evidence of bad
water and insufficient nutrition. The working population is Russian,
with the exception of a few Turkomans, who are admitted as apprentices,
and exhibit a mechanical bias which ought to be more encouraged. Wages
and working hours would hardly be approved of by the pampered British
artisan. Foremen draw a salary of £110 to £130 annually, but the rank
and file are paid on the piece-work system. A carpenter of average
industry can earn 5s. 6d.; a fitter, 4s. 4d. per diem. The hours of
work are from 6 p.m. till noon, with a break at 7.30 for breakfast; and
again from 1.30 till 7 p.m.--an eleven hours’ day.
Geok Teppe, the scene of the crowning mercy of 1881, is the next
halting-place. In this dry atmosphere the vestiges of the Tekkes’
last refuge enables the traveller to conjure up the fearful scenes
enacted there eighteen years ago. A hundred yards north of the railway
stretches a long earthen rampart 12 or 15 feet high, broken near
its south-east angle and on the eastern face by huge gaps, through
which the infuriated Russian soldiers pressed on the memorable 24th
of January 1881. The interior of the rude fortress is still scored
with funnel-shaped holes, and strewn with fragments of iron left by
the exploding shells. The whole scene comes vividly before him who
ascends Dangil Teppe, a mound at the north-west corner whence the
Turkomans plied their only gun during the siege.[678] He seems to see
beneath, the dense mass of dark felt kibitkas lit up by the explosion
of missiles charged with petroleum. His ears are stunned by the
shrieks of the agonised women and children who seek shelter in vain
from these messengers of death, the hoarse cries of the combatants
locked in a death-struggle, the roar of musketry and the clash of
steel. While he is fain to admit that civilisation has gained by the
issue of the tremendous struggle, the Englishman bares his head in
honour of the brave men who bled for freedom here. The Russian lines
can still be distinguished to the east of the crumbling ramparts; and,
as if to point Gray’s sad moral, “the paths of glory lead but to the
grave,” three graveyards alone remain where the pulse of war once
beat highest, tenanted by the bones of those who died at their Tsar’s
behest. The Cossack and the Stavropol Regiments have their own God’s
acre, and in a third, which stands near the site of Skobeleff’s camp,
is a white-washed mound with an iron plate recording the number of the
slain. A little museum of relics of the siege has lately been opened
between the rugged earthen wall and the railway line. The contrast
between past and present is placed in a startling light by a large
cotton-pressing factory which has been established by a Jew near the
western face of Geok Teppe. Here gangs of Turkomans, some of whom were
doubtless once eager in war and foray, may be seen toiling at the
screw-presses under the sharp spur of necessity.
[Illustration: A GROUP OF TURKOMANS AT ASKABAD STATION]
Askabad, the capital of Transcaspia, is 322¼ miles from Krasnovodsk,
and is reached in twenty hours. The town dates only from 1883, and
now has a population of about 16,000, including a garrison of 10,000.
It stands on the broadest part of the Akkal oasis, at the foot of the
Kopet Dāgh range, which affords a refuge to the European in the fierce
summer heats. There are two sanataria,--Fīrūza, in a pleasant valley
2800 feet above sea-level, and Khayrābād, 3000 higher, a Transcaspian
Simla sacred to the Di Majores of the official Pantheon. The broad
streets are lined with vigorous young trees, and cut each other at
right angles. The Anglo-Indian traveller is forcibly reminded of the
cantonments, which are believed to have furnished the founder, General
Komaroff, with a model for his headquarters. In the matter of roads,
the Russian stations of Central Asia would give points to any town in
the European dominions of the Tsar. They show no break-neck holes, no
boulders which only a droshky can negotiate; and their excellence at
Askabad is vouched for by the existence of a flourishing bicycle club,
which is the centre of social life for the non-military population.
On leaving the station the tourist passes, on the left, the offices
of the railway staff, with Oriental arcades surrounding a pretty
garden, a technical school, which has recently been enlarged, and
a pro-gymnasium, and thus reaches the barracks, which stand at the
north-east corner of the town, and accommodate four active and one
reserve battalion of Transcaspian Rifles, a regiment of Cossacks from
Terek in the Caucasus, three batteries of field and one of mountain
guns, and a squadron of 200 Turkoman militia. Their quarters have been
arranged on purely Indian lines. Every company or squadron has a lofty
one-storeyed building allotted to it, containing a dormitory with a
double row of beds, a chapel, and a hall for recreation and military
instruction. The latter contains two rifles on stands with targets for
aiming-drill, which is illustrated by books containing photogravures of
the different positions. Here, too, are always seen oleograph portraits
of the reigning Tsar and his consort. So vast is his empire, that
unless the personality of the sovereign were not brought home to the
people by these perpetual reminders there would be some risk of its
becoming a mere abstraction.
Every care is taken to keep alive the traditions of the army by
coloured prints portraying acts of bravery and self-devotion in
past campaigns. Thus the story of the soldier Ossipoff is told in
nearly every barrack-room. He belonged to a garrison which defended a
redoubt in the Caucasus during Schamyl’s insurrection. Besieged by an
overwhelming force, the little band held out to the last extremity; and
when the position was taken by storm, Ossipoff exploded the magazine,
blowing himself and hundreds of the enemy into the air. To this day
his name is borne on the muster-roll of his battalion, and when it is
called the man next on the list replies: “He has died for the honour
of the Russian army!” In the company kitchens the soldiers’ cabbage
soup may be tasted. It is made with stock provided by the half-pound
of fresh meat which, with three pounds of rye bread, constitutes the
daily ration. On gala days the men have a mess of rice boiled with
butter and raisins. The fare would probably excite loathing in the
British private, but the physique of the troops is a sufficient proof
that it is abundant and nutritious. The means of developing muscle are
not wanting; for every barrack-ground has a gymnasium as well as a
miniature fort, which is formed by competing companies at the word of
command. The parade-ground adjoins the barracks. It is overshadowed by
the cathedral, a splendid structure built three years ago in an ornate
Byzantine style, which contains, on the left of the altar, a beautiful
_eikon_ in enamel of the soldier’s saint, Alexander Nevsky, in full
panoply, placed there in memory of the late Tsar. In the centre of the
Champ de Mars is a pillar commemorating Geok Teppe, flanked at each
corner by an Afghan cannon captured at Dāsh Keupri in 1885. Manœuvres
take place weekly on the broken ground between the town and the lower
spur of the Kopet Dāgh Mountains. British officers who have witnessed
one of these field-days are unanimous in praising the workmanlike
appearance of the troops. The riflemen in their tunics, knickerbockers,
and long Russian boots are sturdy, if rather undersized; and the
Cossacks are picturesquely clad in long caftans and closely fitting
astrakhan shakoes. The artillery come into action at 3500 yards,
and show a fair amount of dash; but the Cossacks’ performance is
disappointing. A water-course encountered during a charge will reduce a
regiment to a disorderly mob, and the ponies are blown long before the
objective is reached. It is the belief of good judges that a cavalry
regiment of Upper India would be quite a match for a similar Cossack
force. The infantry show that they have been drilled assiduously,
and their movements are executed with mechanical precision. It is,
however, unaccompanied by the spirit and keen enjoyment which the
British soldier imports into mimic warfare. In point of fact, the
rank and file in Russia are taught to look too exclusively to their
officers for example and support, and self-reliance is not encouraged.
In stubborn endurance they are as unsurpassed to-day as they were at
Borodino, where the victorious legions of Napoleon found their match.
But it is impossible to conceive the myriads of the Tsar winning a
“soldier’s battle”--wrestling from the foe a victory imperilled by the
incapacity of their chiefs. Reviews are more frequent in Russian than
in English armies. On specially solemn occasions, such as the birthday
of the sovereign, they are preceded by a Te Deum at the garrison
church, which is attended by the chief military and civil officials.
The connection between Church and State are far closer than with us. We
have seen that the imperial power owes its evolution quite as much to
priestly influence as to the ambition of the princes. The obligation
has never been forgotten by the Tsars, who are, literally as well as
figuratively, heads of the Church, and regard its hierarchy as the
mainstay of the whole fabric of their Government. Brilliant is the
display of uniforms at these official devotions. Combative officers are
distinguished by gold lace, those of the scientific branches by silver;
but all are gorgeously attired, while galaxies are frequent of fifteen
or twenty medals and crosses on the same manly breast. The review which
follows is a mere march-past; and as each company files before the
general he exclaims, “Good day, my children,” a greeting which elicits
the reply in chorus, “We are pleased to render you service.”[679]
The Askabad Government House is a straggling one-storeyed edifice
resembling an overgrown Indian bungalow, but it is well adapted for
ceremonial. The other public buildings are a library with 12,000
volumes, a military printing-office, and that of the _Turkestan
Gazette_--a daily paper edited by a member of the governor’s staff,
which, unlike its Indian contemporary, is no dry catalogue of
promotions, transfers, and official acts.
The railway between Askabad and Merv follows the now familiar Kopet
Dāgh range for 105 miles, and then, at a roadside station named
Dushak, trends sharply to the north-east. Here the great mountain
barrier between Transcaspia and the dominions of the Shāh attains the
height of 9000 feet; and its spurs, clad with rich verdure, offer an
ever-changing succession of graceful outlines. The intervening plain
is covered with thorny camel-grass, varied by patches of cultivation,
where mountain torrents afford the means of irrigation. A wider expanse
of green betrays the vicinity of the river Tajand, better known to
fame as the Harī Rūd, which laves the walls of Herāt. It is crossed by
a girder bridge 347 feet in length. Merv is reached in thirteen hours
from Askabad. Nowhere in Central Asia is the contrast more marked
between the present and a comparatively recent past. It is difficult
to believe that this pale copy of an Indian junction can have been
the robbers’ den so elaborately described by Marvin from hearsay,
and by O’Donovan from bitter personal experience. A broad metalled
road, parallel with the line of railway, leads to the Murghāb, a
canal-like stream crossed by a bridge with ninety-six feet water-way.
On the right bank of this ancient source of Merv’s prosperity are
the remains of a stupendous line of ramparts, which, O’Donovan tells
us,[680] were commenced in hot haste by the Tekkes in the vain hope
that they might serve as a bulwark against the Russian advance. From
their crest, thirty feet above the plain, the barracks of the garrison
are seen embowered in stately trees. Merv has immense strategic value,
and is therefore the headquarters of a force far larger than would be
necessary to overawe the scanty population of the oasis. There are four
battalions of Transcaspian Rifles, one of sappers, a railway battalion,
and two batteries of field artillery. On the east of the Murghāb, too,
is the Russian town, laid out with the same depressing regularity as
Askabad. But the bungalows which line the dusty streets are redeemed
by no wealth of tropical foliage. The humanising effects of gardening
are not appreciated by Russians, and the jealously watered compounds
of the officials enclose only scraggy trees and stuccoed buildings.
The interiors are less forbidding. The rooms have polished floors, but
little in the way of furniture save low divans spread with Turkoman
carpets and tiger skins.[681]
The climate of Merv is detestable. In summer the temperature rises
to 100 degrees, and the houses must be sealed hermetically between 8
a.m. and sunset. No punkahs mitigate the sweltering heat, and ice is
tabooed on the ground that it increases the liability to fever. This
latter is the bane of Merv, as it is of all irrigated tracts without
subsoil drainage. In 1896 nearly 5000 of the population perished; and
so high was the death-rate in the Russian garrison that it was in
contemplation to remove the troops temporarily to healthier quarters.
In no place are health-giving diversions more necessary, but such
are unknown even to the younger officers. A respectable bag of the
brilliant Central Asian pheasant may be made in the brushwood cover
three miles from Merv. In India the environs of a military station are
swept as bare of game as the Plaine de St. Denis by Parisian gunners.
Polo is unknown, though the ground in all directions is suited to the
noble pastime, and ponies can be picked up for £10 or £12. The scanty
leisure left the young fellows by the absorbing round of duty is given
up to billiards and dancing. Balls take place on Sundays at the Casino,
an institution which takes the place of our messroom and club. It
belongs to Government, and is maintained by subscriptions levied from
all civil and military officers. At the entrance is a buffet covered
with bottles and the usual components of the zakouska. Adjoining it is
a restaurant, which offers an extensive menu at prices much below those
of the railway refreshment-rooms and the miserable hotels. This opens
on to a fine ballroom adorned with portraits of Tsars and Tsarinas past
and present. Guests are received on their arrival by two members of
the Casino committee, and make their way through a hall crowded with
officers in undress uniform to the ballroom, at the upper end of which
the great ladies of the place sit in state round a table covered with
dishes of apples and bonbons. After making his obeisance, the visitor
is free to enjoy himself--if haply he can secure a partner, for the
dearth of the fair sex at Central Asian balls is more marked than in
India. Mazurkas and cotillons are practised with a zeal which would
perhaps be considered “bad form” at Simla; while the majority unable
to participate in their ardent pleasures block the doorways and find
solace in frequent adjournments to the buffet, which is always thronged
with hosts only too willing to pledge their friends in rassades of
vodka and fiery liqueurs. The close resemblance between Central Asian
and Indian cantonments extends to the bazaars. The lines of small open
shops, the dusty trees, the open drains, even the indescribable but
never-to-be-forgotten odour, all are common to British and Russian
possessions in the East. The trade of Merv is not confined to the
permanent bazaar. A weekly market is held on a plain to the east of
the town. The roads converging thither are thronged on Mondays with
Turkomans riding double on their ill-fed ponies and two-wheeled Persian
carts piled high with goods. The latter are exposed for sale in long
lines of covered booths, where Hebrew, Persian, and Armenian vendors
squat, surrounded by dried fruits, rice from Meshed, coarse beet-sugar
from Russia, and rocky almond paste. The fruit would win a first prize
at any English show. Nowhere are melons cheaper or more fragrant,
apricots and grapes nowhere more choice. The cheap cutlery, trinkets,
leather goods, and samovars are much the same as one sees in Russian
markets west of the Caspian, but the prices are at least 100 per cent.
dearer. The embroidery, shawls, and carpets for which Merv was famed
have lost in value and quality since the Russian conquest. Vast
is the concourse of Turkomans from all parts of the oasis at these
weekly gatherings; but there is far less of the babel of sounds and
the eager bargaining than is seen at Indian bazaars. It is in vast
crowds that national spirit is unconsciously displayed. If that of Merv
be reflected in the thousands of big-boned, slouching Turkomans in
sheep-skin hats and flowing garments who flock hither to lay in their
weekly supplies, then it is evident that their spirit has been crushed
by conquest.
[Illustration: RUINS OF OLD MERV]
The ruins of the ancient cities which successively bore the name of
Merv stand in a dismal plain covered with tamarisk and camels’ thorn
ten miles from the modern cantonments. The railway station whence they
may be visited is called Bahrām `Alī, after an eighteenth century
chieftain who held the neighbouring robber tribes under stern control,
until his overthrow by Amīr Murād, the founder of the Bokhāran dynasty.
Trim orchards and broad roads surround the halting-place, and on
all sides may be seen huge piles of cotton awaiting transport. For
Bahrām `Alī is the centre of the Tsar’s private domains, which have
of late years received a plentiful supply of water from one of the
old irrigation works now restored by imperial enterprise. Leaving
this smiling oasis, one enters on a scene of desolation which can be
matched only by the environs of Delhi. Like that vast tomb of empires,
Old Merv is a series of ruined cities, each built of its predecessors’
materials.[682] The most recent is the citadel so stoutly defended
by Bahrām `Alī in 1784. It is an irregular quadrangle of about 250
yards square, surrounded by a wall with circular towers of brick.
Within, amid a mass of ruins, is a mosque with a cupola still standing,
and in the courtyard of the citadel, at the north-east corner, are
the remains of the founder’s palace, a quadrangle of three-storeyed
buildings in fair preservation. Passing out of Bahrām `Alī by the
eastern portal, one sees, a mile off, two arched recesses standing side
by side, conspicuous by their ornamentation of blue enamelled bricks.
In front of each is a tombstone of grey marble, showing extracts from
the Koran in raised Arabic lettering. According to tradition, they
cover the remains of two standard-bearers of the Prophet. Hard by is a
fine vaulted well; and the group are the sole exceptions to the tale
of ruin told by the heaps of crumbling bricks which stretch as far as
the eye can see. The oldest of the ruined cities of the plain, called
Giaur Kal`a, stood eastwards of these monuments. It was destroyed in
the seventh century, when the Caliph `Omar’s lieutenants carried their
creed through Central Asia by fire and sword. Giaur Kal`a is identified
by its vast earthen ramparts, which have proved more durable than the
bricks and mortar of a much later age. As in the case with Bahrām
`Alī, there are the remains of a citadel at its north-eastern angle,
from which an extended view can be had of the poor relics of vanished
splendour. North-west of Giaur Kal`a are the only buildings of ancient
Merv which continue to serve the purposes of man. They are a serai and
mosque, which have clustered round the ugly tomb of a saint named Yūsuf
Hamadāni. It contains the usual vaulted chambers for the accommodation
of travellers, ranged in a square in which their goods and camels find
standing room. Beyond it is the tomb of Sultan Sanjar, exactly in the
centre of the site of the second of the towns which successively bore
the name of Merv. It is said to have been modelled on that of Firdawsi
near Meshed, but it closely resembles the great mausolea of Upper
India. All are alike, quadrangular buildings topped with an echoing
dome, which gives a sense of vastness and solemnity beyond anything
that the “long-drawn aisle and fretted vault” can compass. Even in
its ruin the splendid edifice shows feats of workmanship in brick and
mortar which it would be difficult to imitate with all the appliances
of modern science. The Sultan who sleeps below was the best of the
Seljūk Turks; and, to judge from the abundance of offerings piled on
the rude clay mound which covers his remains, he still lives in the
hearts of the people. The noble work was seen in all its majesty by
only two generations; for in 1221 the city of the good Sultan Sanjar
was razed to the ground, with a fearful slaughter of the inhabitants,
by Tulūy Khān, a worthy son of the ferocious Chingiz. Here the ground
is strewn with fragments of pottery exhibiting strangely beautiful
designs, iridescent glass and enamelled tiles; and no one can doubt
that systematic researches would yield more substantial tokens of a
buried civilisation. The source of the fabulous wealth of Old Merv
stands revealed in the numerous irrigating channels with which the site
is scored. This is the land where--
“----fairest of all streams, the Murga roves,
Amongst Merou’s bright palaces and groves.”[683]
The source of supply was an immense dam erected across the stream
thirty-five miles southwards, called Sultān Band, the destruction
of which 114 years ago by the Amīr Murād brought utter ruin on the
oasis. The mischief wrought by that fanatic has already been, in
part, repaired by the Russians; and the charming house of Colonel
Kashtalinski, superintendent of the state domains, is embowered in
gardens and orchards which will soon restore to this much harassed spot
some share of its ancient prosperity.
CHAPTER IX
BOKHĀRĀ, A PROTECTED NATIVE STATE
The 141 miles which separate Merv from the Bokhāran frontier were
the costliest and the most depressing section of the Transcaspian
Railway. It includes that terror of Russian engineers known as the
Sandy Tract,[684] and no trace of cultivation is met with until the
weary eye finds solace in the restful green which marks the course of
the mighty Oxus. The border stronghold, Charjūy, crowns a hill to the
south of the railway line, and bears in its rugged outlines a faint
resemblance to Edinburgh Castle. The little town which nestles at its
foot is garrisoned by a Russian force consisting of a battalion of
Turkestān Rifles and a squadron of Cossacks. At Kerki, 110 miles up
stream, three more rifle battalions and a regiment of Cossacks serve
as a reminder of the power of Russia. The source of the Amū Daryā is
Lake Victoria, a beautiful sheet of water embosomed in the Pamirs
15,600 feet above sea-level, which was visited by Marco Polo, and
rediscovered in 1838 by Captain Wood of the Indian Marine.[685] The
bed of the great river is 350 yards wide at the point where it leaves
the hills at Khwāja Sālih, 90 miles north-west of Balkh; and 200 miles
down stream it swells to 650 yards. The mean velocity is 3½ miles
an hour, the average depth 9 feet, increasing to a maximum of 29 in
August after the annual rains. The course of the Oxus in our day is
north-westerly, and it discharges into the Sea of Aral above Khiva.
The stream once before bifurcated at Kohna Urganj, 70 miles south of
the great inland lake; and one branch flowed south-westwards, entering
the Caspian by the Balkhan Bay. At some period in the fifteenth or
sixteenth century the Khivans attempted to restrain the course by
a dam, and so caused a diversion of the western channel, which can
still be traced through the Turkoman Desert.[686] To restore it has
been the dream of the Russians since the days of Peter the Great.
Elaborate surveys have demonstrated that the operation is perfectly
practicable; and those who advocated it urged with truth that the
canalisation of the river would turn many thousands of square miles
of desert into a garden. The railway has, however, won the day; and
the only use made of the Amū Daryā by the Russian authorities is to
support a steam flotilla. This service was inaugurated in 1887,[687]
and is now carried on by steel-built steamers drawing 2 feet of water,
and carrying 200 tons of cargo. Its chief value lies in the means it
gives for the transport of troops and munitions of war, for the river
is navigable up to the Afghan frontier, 700 miles from its mouth. The
Amū Daryā, however, cannot be made to serve the needs of commerce,
for the channel is constantly shifting, sand-banks are thrown up and
disappear in a few hours, and the navigating officers are in the hands
of native pilots, who divine obstructions by observing the colour of
the water. We have already described the great viaduct which spans the
Amū Daryā near Charjūy. It is admittedly but a make-shift, and will
soon be replaced by a girder bridge. The traveller glances uneasily
at the current swirling round the slender piers, and feels inwardly
relieved when his train has crept safely to the opposite bank. On
either side of the line there now stretches a dead level of parched-up
loam, broken here and there by hillocks covered with the outlines of
some ancient citadel. There are many of these Central Asian Pompeiis,
deserted owing to the failure of the water-supply, or overwhelmed by
the ever-encroaching sand. Mosques, market-places, and palaces stand
as they did centuries back, but the narrow streets show no signs of
human life. But the desert yields again to cultivation, and the train
speeds through fields of cotton and millet, overshadowed by splendid
trees. The fair domains irrigated from the river Zarafshān have been
reached, and its centre, Bokhārā the Noble, comes into view. A canon
of Russian policy ordains that the European quarters shall be placed
at a considerable distance from the great cities. Thus the effect of
sudden waves of fanaticism, which are always to be feared in Mohammedan
countries, is lessened, and time is given to organise defence. The
railway station is eight miles by road from the capital, and is the
centre of a Russian town called New Bokhārā. Its broad thoroughfares
are destitute of trees and flowers, for nothing will grow in this
ill-chosen site. Among many mean buildings of the bungalow type are
some with architectural pretensions--a handsome residency, built
by M. P. Lessar during his term of office as representative at the
Bokhāran Court, a palace in a hybrid Byzantine style lately erected
for the Amīr, the new buildings of the Imperial Bank, and the offices
of the 3rd Railway Battalion. The Russian quarter already numbers 6000
inhabitants, and is daily growing in importance at the expense of its
older rival. The highway leading to the latter passes through a country
which is evidently much subdivided, and cultivated with extreme care.
The fertile belt is watered by distributories from the Zarafshān,[688]
which passes Samarkand and pours a flood of wealth into Bokhārā’s
lap. These canals are popularly attributed to Alexander the Great and
Tīmūr, heroic figures which serve as a spur to the imagination of
poets and professional story-tellers throughout Central Asia. They
are, in point of fact, the inevitable result of the natural conditions
encountered. The soil in Bokhārā is either a rich yellow loam or sandy
waste, and the latter is ever encroaching. The rainfall is scanty;
and, but for the help of irrigation, mankind would long since have
given up the incessant struggle for existence. Nowhere in the world are
the contrasts between desolation and plenty more startling. A caravan
approaching the capital finds itself, after weary months spent in
the sands, suddenly surrounded by waving crops, and trees laden with
luscious fruit, while its ears are greeted by the ripple of water.
The mechanism by which this wondrous change is effected would excite
the derision of a European engineer. The surveyor lies prone upon his
back in the direction from which he wishes to bring water, looks over
his forehead, and notes the point when ground is last seen. This rude
substitute for the theodolite involves a great deal of misplaced
labour, but its results are as marvellous as those of the Egyptian
irrigation department. The precious fluid is brought from the mountains
in canals, carried round spurs, and crossing ravines in pipes, which,
like those of our old London water companies, are often mere hollow
trees. When the plain is reached the gradient is very slight; and so
tenacious is the soil that streams 30 feet in breadth are restrained
by banks 3½ feet high and 3 feet broad at the base. The whole adult
village population are the labourers, their only implements being a
clumsy hoe, the lap of their long flowing robe, and a hurdle of plaited
branches. The administration of the canals is on a popular basis. The
superintendents, called “aksakāls,” are elected by the cultivators;
and every village has its own “mīrāb,” who watches over the repairs
and distributories, and is remunerated by a fixed proportion of the
harvests. In years of plenty the task is an easy one; but it is far
otherwise at the critical weeks which precede the spring melting of
the snows. Every drop of water is then worth its weight in gold, and
it must be so divided that each plot may get its just proportion.
Complications, too, occur owing to the privileges which certain
villages enjoy by royal grant or immemorial prescription, and by the
absence of any satisfactory method of measuring discharges.[689] The
Russians have shown wisdom in leaving the canals in native hands in
the territory administered by them. In Bokhārā, of course, there has
never been any question of introducing reform. The Bokhāran cultivator
manures his fields heavily after harvest, and until they receive the
life-giving water. In the city streets, old men and boys may be seen
gathering every particle of refuse; and, in spite of the constant
supply, the hungry soil is still unequal to the incessant demands
upon it. Then the task of preparation begins. The fields are turned
up lengthways and again transversely by a plough clumsily built of
wood, its share only being tipped with iron. A pair of oxen can plough
rather more than one acre during the cool hours between midnight and
9 a.m.[690] The soil is then manured and drenched with water. Spots
which show effervescence, that curse of irrigated soil,[691] are dug
up by hand and dressed with lime picked out of the ruins which abound
in these ancient seats of population. The harrow, a plank two feet
wide studded with iron nails, is next passed over the sodden soil in
two directions. The enumeration of the crops thus raised would be as
tedious as Homer’s catalogue of men of war. The stand-by of the poor
is juwārī (_holcus sorghum vel saccharatum_), a species of millet
which yields two hundredfold of coarse grain. Cotton is amongst the
most lucrative; and a vast impetus has been given to its growth by
the railway, which carries the raw material to Russian mills. Wheat,
barley, and pulse are also staples, and the vine is made to produce
a heady fluid, like immature sherry, by Armenians and Jews, who have
the monopoly of a manufacture forbidden to true believers. The entire
cultivated area of Bokhārā is not much in excess of 8000 square miles,
and the population which it maintains is at least 2½ millions. Thus the
price of land is high, and it is much subdivided.[692]
When viewed from a height the country resembles a huge shawl of a
specially intricate pattern. The eight miles of dusty road which
separate the capital from the Russian quarter run through fields
which are exact replicas of those of Upper India, and the parallel
extends to the villages of flat-roofed houses with wooden verandahs,
and the shops displaying piles of sticky sweetmeats. The traveller’s
progress is impeded by rows of ponies tethered in the narrow streets.
In Bokhārā everyone rides. The poorest can afford the hire of a moiety
of a donkey, and beggars on horseback excite no remark. The approach
to the city is lined with the gardens in which Bokhāran citizens
delight. They are walled in or sheltered from the wintry blast by
rows of silver poplars. A quadrangular pond marks the centre of four
paths at right angles connected by smaller ones, and overshadowed
by fruit trees which are a mass of tender hues when spring showers
bring out the blossom. Flowers are few: the rose, the blue iris,
sunflower, and poppy well-nigh exhaust the list. The cultivation of
fruit is well understood. The melons have a more delicate aroma than
those of any Eastern country. Dried apricots are known in India as the
“Ālū-i-Bokhārā”; and every variety of fruit familiar to the European
palate is to be had in a perfection and at prices which would excite
wonder in Covent Garden.
This setting of brilliant vegetation adds dignity to the crumbling
ramparts of Bokhārā. The town-wall, 28 feet high and 7½ miles in
circuit, encloses an area of 1760 acres, which seems disproportionate
to the dwindling population, now amounting to no more than 65,000
souls.[693] Entering one of the eleven gates,[694] unchallenged by the
slouching sentry, the traveller finds himself in a dædalus of narrow
lanes, swarming with human beings more suggestive of the unadulterated
East than any other city in Asia can show. Sart is the Russian term for
the sedentary population throughout Central Asia; but the variety of
types which it includes is immense. The Tājiks are a tall well-favoured
race, with clear olive complexions and black eyes and hair.[695]
Their origin is the subject of much controversy; but, according to
a tradition among them, they migrated to Bokhārā from the west, and
reclaimed a reedy swamp which became the city’s site.[696] They were
subdued by the fierce Arabs in the eighth century, and adopted the
Mohammedan religion. As each tide of conquest swept the country the
Tājiks bent their necks, and acquired all the vices of a race inured
to foreign dominion. They are polished, laborious, and intelligent,
with a genius for commerce, but their greed and faithlessness are as
notorious as their cowardice.[697] Thus the Tājik is regarded with
supreme contempt by the Uzbegs, who for three centuries have been the
dominant race.[698] They are a stem of the great Turkish family which,
starting from the steppes north of the Gobi Desert, brought half the
world under their sway. They are middle-sized but sturdy, with high
cheek-bones, ruddy complexions, and dark auburn hair. In character
they resemble the Osmānlīs--not the scum of the Levant now encountered
at Constantinople, but the rude warriors who supplanted the Cross
by the Crescent there in the fifteenth century. They are brave and
independent, with the grossness of manners and something of the inborn
dignity of the unadulterated Turk. Like the Kirghiz, who are also met
with in Bokhārā,[699] and the Turkomans, Uzbegs are either sedentary
or nomads. The first class resemble the Tājiks in their greed for
gain, but they are not so civilised; the second tend their flocks and
herds, dwelling in tents of dark grey felt hung with bright carpets.
The reigning dynasty is of this race, and belongs to a division of the
Mangit, the chief of the 97 clans[700] into which Uzbegs are divided.
At the opposite pole stand the Jewish community, which is traditionally
believed to have migrated hither from Baghdād. Half a century ago they
numbered 10,000,[701] but they have dwindled to perhaps half as many
under the grinding persecution to which they have been subjected.
Bokhārā is not a whit in advance of mediæval Europe in its treatment of
this forlorn colony. The time, indeed, has gone by when Jews might be
savagely assaulted by a true believer, and even killed with impunity.
But they are still relegated to a filthy and crowded Ghetto. They are
forbidden to ride in the streets, and must wear a distinctive costume,
a small black cap edged with two fingers’ breadth of sheep-skin, a dark
dressing-gown of camels’ hair, and a rope girdle, a survival of a time
when it might at any moment be required for its wearer’s execution.
This tyranny, tenfold worse than that endured by the Tājiks, has ranged
the Jew on the side of the white man.
[Illustration: HINDUS OF BOKHĀRĀ]
In the earlier days of their empire in Central Asia the Russians
received a good deal of valuable information as to popular feeling from
these despised auxiliaries. The blind hatred which superiority excites
in minds of the lower type is universal in Bokhārā, and the Jews of
the Khānate still groan under disabilities which are more degrading to
their oppressors than to themselves. The Persian element is a strong
one, and the slim figures, dark eyes, and regular features of the
children of poor worn-out Irān are conspicuous in the motley crowd that
fills the streets. They are descended from slaves sold by Turkoman
raiders, or from 40,000 Persian families transplanted from Merv by
Amīr Murād in 1784. Being Shī`as, they cordially detest the Uzbegs and
Tājiks, who belong to the rival Sunni sect.[702] Under former Amīrs,
notably the treacherous Nasrullah, who murdered our countrymen
Stoddart and Conolly, the Persians gained commanding influence.[703]
They are now peaceable traders, whose patriotism stops at day-dreams
of reviving the glories of the greatest and most ruthless of their
royal line, Nādir Shāh. Broad-shouldered Afghans, lithe bright-eyed
Arabs, who have the secret of dressing the real Astrakhan lamb-skin,
and Indian subjects of Her Majesty, are common in Bokhārā. The latter
are styled by the natives Multānis, though most of them hail from
Haydarābād in Sindh. They are betrayed by their dark complexion and
the flame-shaped caste-marks on their swarthy brows. The Hindu shares
with the Jew the immense profits derived from money-lending, which is
forbidden to true believers, and they are eager and rapacious traders.
The large commerce in tea is in the hands of some wealthy Peshawar
Mohammedans. The Indian colony devote a few years to money-grabbing,
living the while in serais of their own, consisting of a courtyard
surrounded with unfurnished cells, in which the traveller spreads his
bedding, while his goods and camels occupy the centre of the square.
They profess to be well satisfied with the existing order of things at
Bokhārā, but have some reason to complain of the absence of any British
consular agency.[704]
The variety of features shown by a Bokhāran crowd hardly extends to the
costumes. The wealthier wear gorgeous khal`ats, or long dressing-gowns
of cashmere or cloth of gold. In the middle class the universal
garment is of coloured silk, with a curious pattern of concentric
lines; while the populace is content with blue or striped cotton. All
have huge turbans of white muslin, the size of which is an evidence
of their wearers’ rank. Sometimes as many as twenty yards are used.
It is a curious fact that, in spite of crushing protective duties,
the produce of Manchester looms is preferred by all who can afford
the luxury.[705] The feminine element, which gives the greatest charm
to the crowds of Western cities, is entirely absent in Bokhārā. Such
women as venture into the streets are muffled in a hideous smock[706]
and a thick horse-hair veil. It must be admitted that the beauties
thus concealed lie chiefly in splendid dark eyes, the lustre of which
owes much to the aid of henna, and arched eyebrows which are deemed
indicators of passion, and therefore heightened by artificial means.
The emancipation of women has not begun in Bokhārā. Marriage is a
sale conducted with as little delicacy as the cattle-dealer imports
into his transactions. The child-wife never gains her husband’s love
or confidence, and is deserted while her charms are at their zenith.
Custom, in fact, moulds the Bokhāran’s inmost being, and the degraded
position assigned to women by its teaching places him beyond the pale
of civilisation. Home-life in the Central Asian Khānates exists no more
than it did in ancient Rome. The citizens’ houses are ranges of dark
and cheerless cells surrounding a central courtyard, and presenting
blind walls to the street. The intense cold of the winter months is
mocked rather than mitigated by charcoal braziers.[707] Music is
unknown in the cheerless interior, and tobacco was till lately tabooed
by the arrogant priests. When an envoy of the Sultan of Turkey made his
state entry into the city his use of a long amber-tipped pipe caused
universal consternation. Nor do the pleasures of a refined table solace
the tedium of life. After attending morning prayers at his mosque the
citizen swallows a mess of tea boiled into the consistency of thick
soup, with salt and milk, and at his second meal, taken at 5 p.m.,
the standing dish is the pillau of mutton, rice, and vegetables. The
craving for amusement so deeply implanted in human nature finds an
outlet in the performances of _bachas_[708]--lads of between eight and
fifteen with long flowing locks, who dance, posture, and sing with a
_brio_ which excites frenzy in Bokhāran spectators. They supply the
place of our opera-singers, ballet-girls, and actresses. The names of
_bachas_ pre-eminent for beauty and languishing graces are as often
pronounced as those of the extinct race of Divas were by Englishmen
of the last generation. They sometimes rise to high positions in the
state, and oftener amass great wealth after a few years’ practice of
their degrading trade. The Amīr maintains a troupe of bachas; and
without their aid an entertainment of any description would be as a
performance of Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. The European who
attends one of these ceremonies feels instinctively how wide is the
gulf between East and West, when he remarks the enthusiasm excited by
the phases of passion depicted by these children.
To Englishmen an exhibition of the national game of baigha is more
interesting. It is a scramble by mounted players for the carcass of a
goat. When all are ready for the fray, the umpire beheads the creature
and throws its bleeding body into the arena. Then follows a scrimmage
which reminds one of Rugby football. The goat’s remains become the
centre of a dense mass of men and horses locked in a desperate
struggle, in which, wonderful to relate, players are rarely unseated,
and still more seldom do the animals injure each other. The object of
each is to monopolise the Bokhāran substitute for a ball, and carry it
far from the scene of action, outstripping all competitors.
The great bazaar of Bokhārā makes some amends for the dulness long
drawn out of domestic life. It is, indeed, a relief to pass from the
garish sunshine into the cool gloom of these lofty arcades, which
extend for at least seven miles in all their ramifications. The roof
is generally of beaten clay, laid upon undressed timber; and on
either side is an endless vista of booths, displaying every article
of luxury and use in demand among Asiatic people. Carpets and rugs of
harmonious tone, piles of gaudy shawls and dress pieces, snuff-boxes
of polished gourd to hold the pungent green powder affected by the
Bokhārans, and cutlery and trinklets of every description. Europe here
struggles with Asia for mastery, and seems about to gain the battle;
for though all the European goods bear Russian labels, the great bulk
is the produce of German workshops. The stimulus given to the trade of
the Fatherland by the payment of the French indemnity in 1871 has led
to a constant movement of Teutons across the Russian frontier. They
retain their German citizenship, while they turn out cheap and nasty
wares under the ægis of a protective fiscal system. One section of
the vast bazaar, roofed by a dome of ancient brickwork, is sacred to
literature, and the counters of its shops are piled high with standard
works in lithograph editions, and here and there a manuscript.
Great bargains may sometimes be obtained by connoisseurs, though
there are still enough native bibliophils in Bokhārā to render good
finds by Europeans exceptional. Money-changers’ stalls are frequent,
with tempting heaps of silver and copper discs for exchange against
Russian money. The state has been allowed to retain its own coinage,
a prerogative more valued than any other by Eastern sovereigns. The
unit is the tanga, a silver piece which fluctuates as violently as did
the Indian rupee before Sir David Barbour closed the mints. It is at
present worth 15 kopeks, but sudden oscillations of a kopek and even
more are common.[709] The gold coin in circulation is styled tilā,
and is of unusual purity. It is worth 21 tangas. For the needs of the
proletariat there are tiny brass dumps, 44 of which go to the tanga.
Another quarter of the bazaar displays the silks and velvets for which
Bokhārā was once so famous. The trade is a dwindling one, owing to the
prevalence of disease among the worms; and the chief beauty of the
fabrics lies in their faintly stamped, flowered patterns.[710] The
vast crowd of loungers in these arcades shows none of the loathing
for the Giaur which the appearance of one in this hotbed of fanaticism
once excited. They civilly make way for the European’s droshky,
and his eyes rarely encounter an unfriendly glance in those of the
shopkeepers squatting impassively in a setting of rich carpets and
dazzling weapons, or the throng of customers who watch every phase
of the bargaining. But the old spirit has been scotched, not killed,
by Russification. The European who allows his shadow to flit on a
mullā lolling on his pile of cushions will be roundly cursed for his
impudence. The crowd intent on buying and selling find the wherewithal
to assuage their hunger in the eating-houses, which exhibit huge
caldrons of bubbling pillau, flat cakes of unleavened bread, and heaps
of coarse sweetmeats made from Russian beet-sugar. The samovar, which
hisses in every eating-house, reveals the Bokhāran’s predilection for
tea. The green variety is alone consumed, and it retails at 2s. 10d.
per pound, in spite of a Russian import duty of 1s. 10d. In pre-railway
days it was imported through Afghanistān, but the line connecting
Bokhārā with the Caspian has superseded the old camel caravans, with
their leisurely movements and liability to pillage and exactions. Tea
now comes into Bokhārā by way of Bombay and Batum. China still supplies
the great bulk of the demand; but Indian and Ceylon teas are slowly
making their way even in remote Bokhārā. Their progress would be far
more rapid but for the crushing import duty levied by the Russian
Government. The Transcaspian Railway has, in point of fact, robbed
Peter to pay Paul. Russians and Russo-Germans find a ready sale in
Central Asia for their wares, but Bokhārā is no longer a great centre
for the distribution of English and Indian goods, as it was a quarter
of a century back. They will live in the memory of the denizen of the
prosaic West, those Bokhārā bazaars, with their long lines of shops
rich in dazzling colours, the blue sky peeping through rents in the
time-worn vaulting, and the sunshine flecking the kaleidoscopic crowd
in the galleries below. Though the chief interest of Bokhārā centres
in its bazaars, it has many public buildings which repay examination.
In the north-west quarter is the Rīgistān, a market-place surrounded
by shops which are cleared of their contents at nightfall. On its west
side is a tank overshadowed by trees, which are as rare in Bokhārā as
in the city of London, and surrounded by tea and barbers’ shops, the
resort of a host of idlers during the daylight hours. One side of the
Rīgistān is occupied by the Ark, or citadel, which stands on a vast
artificial mound, and is walled by crenellated ramparts forming a
square of 450 yards. It dates from the era of the Sāmānides. The great
gate, built by Rahīm Khān in 1742, is flanked by towers 100 feet high
showing traces of faience; and opens on a vaulted corridor leading to
the Amīr’s palace, treasury, and state prison. In old days this was a
loathsome dungeon full of ticks and other vermin; but the story so oft
repeated, that the insects received rations of raw meat in the absence
of human victims, is probably untrue.[711] Here dwells the Kushbegi,
or prime minister, of whom more anon; but the buildings of the citadel
are by no means imposing in size or architectural merit. In a shed on
the right of the gateway is the Artillery Park, containing about fifty
pieces, all of antiquated make. A smaller market-place, which serves
for dealings in raw cotton, is surrounded by the most imposing of
Bokhārā’s public edifices.
On one side is the great mosque, called the Masjid-i-Jāmi`, as are
those of Delhi and Agra, because it was built to hold the immense crowd
attending a Jum`a, or Friday service. The front is a vast recessed
portal covered with arabesques in faience; its gates give access
to a courtyard spacious enough to contain 10,000 worshippers,[712]
surrounded by a vaulted cloister. Near it is the Minār Kalān, or Great
Minār, a round tower 36 feet at the base, and tapering upwards to a
height of 210. The whole surface is covered with beautiful designs in
carved brick, which show that it dates from Bokhārā’s golden age. From
the summit criminals were precipitated into the market-place beneath;
but access to it is now forbidden, lest curious visitors should pry
into the scores of courtyards which it commands. Opposite to the city
mosque is the Madrasa Mīr-i-`Arab, a stately college with a tall
recessed gateway, which ranks first among the 103 of which Bokhārā
boasts. The entrance is through a door on the left, which opens on a
vaulted corridor leading to a quadrangle surrounded by a double tier
of cells, called _hujrats_, in which the pupils reside. Each has its
bed-place on a dais spread with carpets and pillows, and niches in
the wall for his books and clothes. Here the more promising lads from
the elementary schools spend fifteen or twenty years in mastering
the legal and religious system of Islām. This education is so alien
to all that is associated with the process in Western countries, and
its results are so far-reaching, that a description of its mysteries
will interest those who aim at reading aright the signs of the times
in Central Asia. Primary schools are to be found in every Bokhāran
village, and they abound in the capital. They may be known from afar by
the hum of childish voices, which resounds from morn till dewy eve in
the narrow sunless streets. The course of teaching embraces the Koran,
the _Farz-i-`Ayn_, and other books of a religious tendency, written in
Tājikī, a dialect of Persian, and Turkī, the language of the Uzbegs.
Those who wish to pursue their studies further pass into the Madrasas,
which are maintained from the rents of great landed estates assigned
to them by rulers of past ages. The curriculum here embraces theology,
Arabic, law, and “worldly wisdom.”[713]
[Illustration: THE MINAR KATAN AT BOKHĀRĀ]
Students who are conscious of a vocation for the priesthood are
subjected to a probation severer than that which is prescribed to
candidates for admission to La Trappe or Chartreuse. They must obey
all the precepts of Mohammed’s code, and learn by long and painful
practice to pronounce the shibboleth, _Lā Allāh ill Allāh_, thousands
of times without drawing breath. Thus they attain to the coveted
degree of Ishān, are qualified to instruct others, and receive the
blindest devotion from the lower orders. No training can be conceived
which is more calculated to inspire self-conceit and fanaticism. Now
the priesthood of Bokhārā and the other cities of Central Asia have
all been subjected to these sinister influences at a period of their
lives when the plastic mind receives impressions which can never be
effaced; and the schools and colleges are officered exclusively from
the sacerdotal caste. Before the advent of the Russians to power, the
mullās directed the whole mechanism of government. The most cruel and
treacherous of the old Amīrs respected their lives and liberties and
shaped his conduct on their counsels. The mullās’ political influence
has been destroyed by the Russians’ advent to power, for the theory
on which Mohammedan states are ruled is utterly at variance with
Western conceptions; and the insidious energies of the priesthood
are restricted to education and religious observances. There can be
little doubt that the wave of sedition which is sweeping over Central
Asia[714] is due to the teachings of men who desire the restoration
of Islām as a predominant factor in government. The Russian masters
of Central Asia, like we ourselves in India, are stepping _per ignes
suppositos cineri doloso_, and a mistaken educational policy is, in
both cases, at the bottom of the mischief that is brewing. The other
Madrasas of Bokhārā are more remarkable for size than architectural
merit. One of them was erected at the end of last century, at the cost
of the Empress Catherine of Russia, who came under Voltaire’s influence
and displayed a catholicism which outran that of the philosopher of
Ferney.[715] Adjoining the Great Minār is the only public building in
Bokhārā which has not seen the march of centuries--the Baths of the
Chief Justice, thrown open to the public in 1897 by the generosity
of the official who held that rank. The innermost chamber is a huge
oven surrounded by marble divans, on which the bather reclines while
an attendant cracks every joint in his body, scours him with a piece
of hair-cloth, and sluices him with cold water. Thence he passes to a
room heated to a temperature of about 80 degrees, where he dresses and
proceeds to a spacious hall opening on the street. Here, reclining on a
dais spread with carpets and pillows, he sips his tea in the blissful
lassitude which follows the Turkish bath. The Zindān, or state jail,
is a dilapidated structure of brick, perched on a mound to the east of
the citadel. The entrance is through a dirty guardroom which gives on a
courtyard. A door to the left leads to the abode of petty offenders--a
smoke-stained shed, tapestried with bundles containing the property
of the inmates. The latter squat on the floor apparently in good
health and spirits, albeit that their rations would not be approved of
at Wormwood Scrubbs. They receive from Government 1½ pounds of bread
every other day, but visitors are allowed to distribute as much food
as they please. On the right of the courtyard is a vaulted room lit by
a barred opening in the ceiling, which serves as a ward for heinous
offenders. Here will generally be found twenty or thirty wretches
fastened together by a heavy chain attached to an iron ring on the neck
of each. They are all murderers or banditti under trial or awaiting the
Amīr’s confirmation of the death sentence; and their sullen despair is
but too evident. Punishments were terribly severe in pre-Russian days.
Prisoners were riveted to the wall by iron collars for years together,
and shrunk under the torture to living skeletons. Twice a week they
were dragged to the Rīgistān, where the Amīr in person pronounced
sentence; and the spectacle of the poor half-naked wretches shivering
in the snow was piteous indeed.[716] Happy were those condemned to
decapitation, which was always performed with the knife, to the
gratification of the market crowd. Empalement and flinging from the
summit of the Great Minār were usual forms of destruction, and women
taken in adultery were stoned. The prison, bad as it is when judged
by European standards, is an abode of bliss when compared with those
of the native régime. Beneath the Zindān is a deep vault, now filled
up, which hardly a decade back served as an _oubliette_ for human
beings condemned to a lingering death, attended by horrors which no pen
can describe. Truly, these dark places of the earth owe much to the
softening influence of a higher civilisation.
[Illustration: PRISONERS OF THE AMIR OF BOKHĀRĀ]
Slavery is another practice which has lost its terrors since the
advent of the Russians. Bokhārā was once the greatest market in Asia
for the produce of Turkoman and Kirghiz raids. Eighty years ago 40,000
Persians and more than 500 subjects of the Tsar were detained there in
bondage. There was a regular tariff for these human cattle. A labourer
fetched £29, a skilled artisan £64, and a pretty girl nearly £100. The
treatment meted out to them by Bokhāran taskmasters was more atrocious
than anything recorded by Mrs. Beecher Stowe. Meyendorff met a Russian
who had endured unheard-of tortures, inflicted in order to make him
reveal the route by which a comrade in affliction had escaped.[717]
Half a century later the effect of European precept and example
was already evident. Mr. Schuyler found the traffic in human flesh
conducted with some approach to secrecy, but, after much bargaining
and intrigue, he was able to purchase the freedom of a Persian lad for
a sum equivalent to £25. It would be saying too much to aver that the
“peculiar institution” is extinct in Bokhārā. The needs of the harem
and the profound mystery with which wealthy families enshroud their
domestic life render it impossible that slavery should be stamped
out in any Mohammedan country. India itself is not free from the
canker-spot, though every possible means have been taken to eradicate
it. But the great source of supply was cut off when the Turkomans were
forbidden to raid into Persia, and the lot of those who have been
held in slavery is rendered endurable by the vigilance of the Russian
Resident. His influence has been limited to the correction of flagrant
abuses, and Bokhārā is the only Mohammedan state in Russian Asia which
has been permitted to retain intact its own system of administration.
The sovereign, whose official style and title is Khān of Bokhārā and
Commander of the Faithful,[718] is nominally absolute master of his
realm and of the lives and fortunes of his subjects. In practice his
power is subject to considerable limitations. As a Mohammedan prince
he is bound to obey the injunctions of the Koran and the canonical law
of Islām.[719] The clergy were all-powerful under the last independent
Amīr, and their influence is still widely felt, the more so in that
it is occult. The ruler is surrounded by greedy and venal followers,
and his Court is a centre of intrigues. His prime minister, answering
to the vezīr of the Turkish monarchy, is here styled Kushbegi, and
stands next in rank to the sovereign. He is official guardian of the
state jewels, which, to judge by the display made by the Amīr on state
occasions, must rival the figments of the Arabian Nights.[720] He is
responsible for the collection of taxes and customs duties, and is
master of the palace, where he always resides, and keeps the keys of
the city gates. Beneath him is a vast hierarchy of executive and Court
officials, whose rank is bestowed by patents under the Amīr’s seal,
or symbols such as horse-tails, hatchets, flags, and maces.[721] The
struggle for these baubles amongst the crowd of courtiers versed in all
the arts of fawning and flattery would arouse our pity and contempt,
were we not conscious that such sordid aims are still the levers of
human action nearer home.
[Illustration: A BOKHĀRĀN BEAUTY AND HER TWO CHILDREN]
For administrative purposes the Khānate is divided into thirty-six
provinces, each under its governor, called Beg, who is intrusted with
the collection of revenue and the execution of judicial decrees.
He reports as to the state of his charge weekly, and submits death
sentences for the Amīr’s confirmation. Below the Beg are the Amlākdārs;
who exercise similar functions in the amlāks, or districts. The state
is, in theory, the owner of the soil, and the bulk of its revenue is
derived from the land tax, an impost which has many features common
with feudalism. Estates belong to four categories. _Milk_ lands are
free of rent, because they were originally bestowed by the sovereign in
fee simple on successful generals. _Milk-i-Khārāj_ are tenures which,
at the period of conquest, were owned by non-Mohammedans, and remained
in their possession subject to the payment of a land tax. This, in
the case of irrigated soil, amounts to one-fifth, and in that of dry
fields to one-tenth of the gross produce. The third description is
_Dash Yak_, so styled because one-tenth of the produce is set apart for
the support of a mosque; and the fourth _Vakf_, which is an endowment
wholly devoted to religious uses. The Amīr’s proportion of the fruits
of the soil is assessed by the Amlākdārs and their underlings, after
actual inspection of each field just before the harvest is gathered in.
If the cultivator objects to the Government estimate he may demand a
re-measurement. The other sources of revenue are one-fortieth of the
value of goods exposed for sale; and the jazya, or infidel tax, from
which Russian subjects are exempt, ranging, according to the assessee’s
wealth, between one and four tangas. The administration of justice
is in the hands of Kāzīs--native judges appointed by the Amīr after
an examination in the laws of Islām, who are assisted by Muftis, or
registrars in charge of the Court’s seal. The Kāzī posted at Bokhārā
has two of these subordinates, and is styled _Kalān_, or chief, though
he has no power to revise his colleagues’ decisions. Legal procedure
is cumbrous and ineffectual, and litigants in Bokhārā learn by sad
experience what “hell it is in suing long to bide.” Public morals and
the due observance of religious rites are supposed to be safeguarded
by an official styled _Rā´īs_. This censor’s insignia of office are a
scimetar-shaped strip of leather, with which he is legally empowered to
administer “forty stripes save one” to evil-doers, without, however,
raising his arm above the shoulder. He drives the faithful to public
prayers like a flock of sheep, meddles in family affairs, levies
blackmail, and has elevated delation to the rank of a science. With the
Kāzī he serves as a spy on the executive officers, and is an object of
universal dread. These social pests have been abolished by the Russians
in the districts under their administration, and they have won more
gratitude by this obvious measure than by any of their reforms. It has
been often said that an Eastern prince’s rule is tempered by the fear
of assassination. In Bokhārā the permanent army was once the skeleton
at the Amīr’s banquet. In order to maintain his authority and overawe
turbulent neighbours he was compelled to pay a large standing force, of
which he stood in as much dread as the Cæsars did of their Pretorian
Guard. In the days of independence the regulars mustered 10,000 men,
armed with matchlocks, and there were about 40,000 men on an irregular
footing, of whom perhaps a third carried serviceable weapons.[722] At
the present time the army is little more than a plaything, for the
“Great White Tsar” has garrisons at the principal strategic points, and
Bokhārā under his ægis is secure from foreign aggression. The troops
now number only 10,000 men, of whom 1000 are armed with Berdan rifles,
presented to the Amīr some years ago by the Russians, and the rest
with percussion muskets. They are drilled and clad on European models,
but here the parallel ceases. Inefficient as is the Bokhāran army,
the paramount power is anxious to effect a deduction in its strength,
which will ultimately not exceed 3000 men. It is a significant fact
that while the civil officers, from the Kushbegi down to the Amīn
who measures the crops, receive no remuneration beyond what they can
squeeze from the people, the Amīr’s forces are well and regularly paid.
The company officers draw about £5 per mensem; the private soldiers,
6s. 6d. in our money. In the official intercourse between the Amīr and
his suzerain we detect the influence of Anglo-Indian example. For many
years the Khānates were represented at Tashkent, the administrative
capital of Turkestān, by envoys selected from their own subjects;
but the growth of commerce with Russia, and the necessity of drawing
closer the bonds uniting the protected state with its master, led to
the appointment of a Russian officer of rank as Resident with the
Amīr. His political relations with the latter are nominally confined
to tendering advice in administrative matters. When, some years
back, frauds were prevalent in the packing of cotton for export to
Russia,[723] the Resident approached the Amīr through an unofficial
channel as to the means of checking practices ruinous to trade. The
outcome of these negotiations was the appointment of three cotton
inspectors, whose function it is to visit the markets and report to the
Kāzī all cases in which they suspect that rubbish is inserted in bales
exposed for sale. Again, the Russians have deemed it to be their duty
to foster the production of wine. The grapes of Bokhārā are as fine
as her peaches and apricots--which is saying a good deal--and a potent
fluid resembling Amontillado, with a pleasant sub-acid after-taste,
is retailed at fourpence a bottle. But intoxicants are denounced in
the Koran as things accursed, and the prohibition has much worldly
wisdom, because Asiatics drink, not in order to cheer the heart of
man, but to drown the senses in brutish oblivion. A compromise between
religious duty and worldly interest has been arrived at. Bokhārans
may not make wine themselves, but they are at liberty to sell the
grapes to Armenians and Jews, who have a monopoly of the manufacture.
A dealer vending wine or spirits to a Mohammedan is punished with a
fine of 1000 roubles. The Resident has a court of his own for the
decision of civil and criminal cases in which the injured party is a
foreigner. His jurisdiction is unlimited, and his sentences without
appeal. Documentary evidence is insisted on as a basis of money
claims. The Russian law is administered, as modified by local custom,
and no advocate is allowed to intervene between the tribunal and the
parties. Where the defendant belongs to that category, the case comes
before a judge of the peace, who is independent of the Resident and a
subordinate of the Ministry of Justice at St. Petersburg. His sentences
run through a gamut of appeals, precisely as those tried by the courts
of the mother country. This alien jurisdiction is highly popular, and
subterfuges are adopted in order to bring cases triable by the native
judges within its purview. The post and telegraph services are in
Russian hands; and a hospital is maintained, under European management,
which costs the Amīr £2000 annually. Those who are cognisant of the
perennial friction between Chief and Resident at many Indian courts
will be surprised to learn that the relations between suzerain and
vassal in Bokhārā have invariably been cordial. The Amīr, Sayyid
`Abd ul-Ahad, is now in his thirty-seventh year.[724] He is tall and
muscular, and would be handsome but for growing corpulence, that
curse of Eastern princes. He is still devoted to hawking and other
forms of sport, affable and dignified. Every year he visits one of
the hot springs in the Caucasus, and often winters in the Crimea. The
heir-apparent, Sayyid Mīr `Alīm, has been educated in St. Petersburg,
and holds the rank of lieutenant in a Cossack regiment. In early youth
the Amīr had convincing proof of the resistless power of Russia. He saw
his haughty father die broken-hearted of the humiliation entailed by
his abortive effort to roll back the tide of European aggression. He
knows, too, that the capital is at the Russians’ mercy, for they own
the rich province of Samarkand, through which the Zarafshān flows to
fertilise his thirsty fields, and that it would be an easy matter to
divert its course; and so he is always ready to anticipate his master’s
wishes. There was a spice of truth in the late governor-general’s
remark, “the Amīr of Bokhārā is the most zealous of my lieutenants.”
While a ruler so pliant continues to sit on the throne of Bokhārā he
need not fear annexation. The Russians are well aware that the people
of the Khānate prize the measure of national life allowed them, and
prefer the rough-and-ready methods of an Amīr of their own race to
the highly developed mechanism imported from the West. They dread the
responsibility of granting citizenship to two and a half millions of
Asiatics, spread over an area of 80,000 square miles, which costs them
nothing to administer, while its products swell the growing volume of
the empire’s commerce.
CHAPTER X
SAMARKAND
Samarkand is 150 miles by rail from Bokhārā. The line follows the
course of the Zarafshān, and passes through a carefully tilled country,
a large proportion of which is under cotton.[725] Rather less than
two-thirds is grown from acclimatised American seed (_gorsypium
hirsutum_) introduced by the Russians, whose persistent aim it has been
to render their mills independent of the United States. The seed is
sown in April, on soil which has been well ploughed and harrowed, the
proportion allowed being 21 pounds per acre. The fields are irrigated
thrice and kept scrupulously free from weeds. Towards the end of
September the ripe pods are picked and exposed in heaps for sale. In
average years an acre yields 1400 pounds, and gives a net return of
£5, 10s., considerably more than other crops. But the cultivator has
to face extraordinary fluctuations in market prices. In 1895, though
the harvest was exceptional in bulk and quality, the price advanced
to 4d. per pound, and the acre yielded £8. This flood of wealth thus
poured into the cultivator’s lap was the better appreciated because
the lowering of railway rates has rendered the production of bread
stuffs unremunerative. In point of fact, the Central Asian farmer is
suffering, like his comrade of the West, from the effect of free-trade
dogmas. The Russian Empire is a world within itself, blessed with
every variety of soil and climate, and gives ample scope for Cobden’s
theories. But cotton is essentially an object for _petite culture_.
Plantations have been tried without success, and few who raise this
lucrative crop devote to it more than one-eighth of their farm; in
other words, a plot of three-fourths of an acre. The intense pressure
of population on the soil causes a keen demand for cotton lands, and
speculators take advantage of the limited supply to engross large
areas, and sublet them in plots to tenants who agree to bring them the
whole produce. The profits are supposed to be divided equally, but
the landlord of course retains the lion’s share. The raw cotton is
sold in open market, and is either exported in the pod or purchased by
capitalists owning cotton-cleaning mills.[726] Speaking generally, the
prospects of the cultivator in the rich valley of the Zarafshān are not
very promising. The soil is a yellow loam of great natural richness,
but the incessant demands of a teeming population, continued for
hundreds, nay thousands, of years, have brought it within measurable
distance of exhaustion. Manuring is an imperative necessity, but cattle
are few owing to the absence of grazing grounds and fodder; and the
process can be repeated only once in three, or even six years. Thus
corn shows an ominous decrease in weight; a pound now contains only
16,800 grains, compared with nearly 20,000 a couple of decades back.
The Russians have to face a problem as difficult in its degree as that
which will one day cause a cataclysm in British India, the ever-growing
tendency of population to outstrip the means of subsistence.
Soon after passing the spick-and-span Russian town of Katta Kurgān,
the growing freshness of the air proclaims a higher level; and, in
point of fact, Samarkand is more than 2000 feet above the sea. At
last the eye, which so eagerly scanned the eastern horizon, lights
upon a sea of verdure, from which a fluted dome rises just as St.
Paul’s seems to float like a vast balloon over London fogs. There are
a few cities which touch a chord in him who sees them for the first
time. The glamour of their fallen majesty is heightened rather than
destroyed by the railway; for it brings before us, as if by magic, a
panorama often seen in spirit, and its prosaic surroundings serve as
a foil to the halo of romance which still lingers over the seat of
a vanquished empire. Who will ever forget the flood of associations
that overpowered him when he first heard “Roma” shouted by a railway
porter, or when he exchanged the roar of the train for the peace
which broods over the vista of palaces on the Grand Canal? The famous
city is, as in other cases, at a distance of several miles from the
railway station, the environs of which are crowded with the mean shops
and drinking-dens usually found in such places. The road thither,
as all the chief thoroughfares, is of great width, and overshadowed
by splendid trees. It is this feature of Samarkand landscapes, not
less than the innumerable gardens and vineyards in which one treads
knee-deep in luscious grapes, that stirred the imagination of Eastern
poets. In melodious strains the eternal city is styled the “Mirror of
the World,” “the Garden of Souls,” “the Fourth Paradise.” But Samarkand
was great and glorious ages before the good Hārūn er-Rashīd reigned in
Baghdād, or Sa´adi planted flowers of poesy in his Garden of Roses.
At Maracanda, in Transoxiana, Alexander of Macedon paused in his mad
career, and there he slew his faithful Clitus. Centuries glided by,
and it became Sa-mo-kien, the most western province of the Celestial
Empire. Then the tide of Mohammedan conquest rolled over Samarkand;
followed by the rule of the Seljūk Turks, destined five centuries later
to extend their sway from Mongolia to Constantinople. The old city now
became what Moorish Spain was--a chosen abode of all the arts that
adorn and sweeten life. The whole fabric of civilisation was drowned in
blood by the ruthless Chingiz Khān, and the ruin of Samarkand seemed
irretrievable. It was lifted from the dust by a greater genius than
Chingiz. Tīmūr made Samarkand the “eye and star” of an empire which
extended over a third of the known world; and to his loving care belong
the works of art which, in hopeless ruin, still excite the admiration
of mankind. Their glories were soon obliterated by the uncouth Uzbegs;
and 150 years ago the city site was a waste scored with mounds and
caverns from which the ruined churches and colleges of a happier age
soared heavenwards in desecrated majesty. It became a province of
Bokhārā and the residence of the Amīrs during the summer heats, and
commerce slowly revived. The story of the last wave of invasion which
swept over Samarkand has already been told in these pages.
Chief among the monuments of this war-worn city is the tomb of Tīmūr,
spoken of throughout Central Asia as _Gūr Amīr_--the Amīr’s sepulchre,
just as our fathers styled Wellington “the Duke.” It is approached
through a double avenue of poplars, which terminates at a gateway
ornamented with faience and flanked by ruined minarets. Behind these
stands an octagonal structure with a deeply fluted dome. The entrance
on the left of the tomb leads to a vaulted corridor, and then to a
chamber 35 feet square, with a cupola 115 feet from the floor. On
each side there is an arched recess with Alhambresque mouldings, and
the walls are covered with six-sided plates of transparent gypsum.
The interior is severely simple, as becomes the last resting-place of
so great a man. “Only a stone,” whispered the dying emperor; “and my
name upon it!” And so he rests beneath a block of dark-green jade--the
largest in the world.[727] On the right of the conqueror’s memorial
stone is one of grey marble commemorating his grandson Ulugh Beg, a
distinguished astronomer, who compiled tables showing the position of
the fixed stars, admitted to be the best which have come down to us
from Mohammedan times. In the recess facing Mekka there hangs a large
standard with a pendant of horse-hair, emblem of a militant faith; and
between it and Tīmūr’s tomb is a grey marble slab dedicated to his
friend and tutor, Mir Sayyid Barākā, for whom he built this mausoleum
in 1386.[728] The recess in the east contains a slab of granite
erected to a descendant of the Prophet, named Hājjī Imām `Umr. The
central group of cenotaphs, numbering eight in all, is surrounded by
a balustrade in fretwork of transparent gypsum. The actual tombs are
in a crypt of exquisite proportions, which is reached by a flight
of steps. Here lies all that is mortal of one whose empire extended
from the Vistula to the China Seas, who in the brief intervals between
his conquering expeditions found time to embellish his capital with
structures which, even in their decay, rank among the wonders of the
world.
[Illustration: THE SHĪR DĀR MADRASA, SAMARKAND]
The centre of Samarkand life is the great open market-square called
the Rīgistān. Its southern side is open to the street, and the other
three are occupied by as many great colleges, or madrasas. That which
stands on the east side was built in the time of Imām Kulī Khān (1648),
and is known as the Shīr Dār (or the Lion-bearing), from uncouth
representations of the Lion and Sun of Persia on the four corners above
its gigantic recessed portal. At either extremity of the façade rise
melon-shaped domes and tall minarets leaning outwards. That nearest
the street exhibits a frieze of dog’s-tooth mouldings, resembling
those which occur in our oldest Norman churches. A cloister-like
passage gives access to an immense courtyard surrounded by cubicles and
classrooms in two storeys, each pair under an enamelled arch. A flight
of brickwork stairs leads to the summit of the lofty gateway, whence
one has a view which is second to none in Asia. The eye ranges over a
leafy sea, from which vast raised arches and domes emerge, and rests on
snow-clad mountains which close the horizon on the north and east. The
madrasa of Tilā Kārī, on the north side, is so styled from a plating
of gold-foil under translucent enamel which covers the holy place of
a mosque on the left of its courtyard.[729] That founded by Tīmūr’s
astronomer grandson, Ulugh Beg, is opposite Shīr Dār, and is the
smallest but most beautiful of the group. Unhappily, it has suffered
even more than the others from earthquakes. Of the five minarets
which once adorned its angles, that on the south-east has fallen, and
the rest are much out of the perpendicular. This universal tendency
of Samarkand minarets is a standing enigma to visitors. That these
minarets are out of the perpendicular may be easily proved by ascending
one of them and lowering a plumb-line; but it will probably continue
to excite controversy till these forlorn towers have crumbled into
ruins. Such has already been the fate of the grandest of Samarkand’s
monuments, the Bībī Khānūm, which stands on rising ground north-east
of the Rīgistān. Like the Tāj Mahāl of Agra, it records a widowed
husband’s passionate sorrow; for she who sleeps below was Tīmūr’s most
loved wife, the daughter of the emperor of China. The actual tomb is
a mass of shapeless ruins, for centuries of gross neglect have done
their work, and a climax was given to the work of Time’s destroying
hand by an earthquake which shook Samarkand on the 5th November 1897.
The approach lies through a gateway which scarcely retains a trace of
the original design. This opens on a garden with a mosque on either
side, while the front is occupied by a building which still inspires
awe by its grandeur and perfect proportions. The front exhibits a
recessed portal, sixty feet wide and higher than that of Peterborough
Cathedral, and an octagonal minaret at either extremity. Between
them rises a stupendous dome, with a double frieze of blue, green,
and yellow enamel, on which texts from the Koran gleam brightly in
gold lettering. The interior is a square of fifty feet, adorned with
arabesques. In the centre once stood a colossal _rahla_, or lectern
of white marble, which once held a Koran, spreading over fifty-four
square feet when open. A tradition has it that Bībī Khānūm, who founded
this noble mosque, was wont to read it from a window set high in
the wall.[730] The _rahla_ is supported by nine pillars just high
enough to admit of a man crawling under it--a painful process often
undergone as a cure for lumbago and sciatica. It has now been removed
to the courtyard, to avert the destruction which would result from a
collapse of the entire structure. For the blue sky is seen through a
rent extending over a third of the surface of the mighty dome; and a
side view reveals an outer and an inner skin, like those of St. Paul’s,
with the staircase leading to the summit. The portal is in worse
plight; but so solid was the old builders’ handiwork that the arch is
still intact though the brickwork is a mere shell. The Russians must
be held responsible for the forlorn state of the Bībī Khānūm. When
they entered on their glorious inheritance the power of disintegration
might have been arrested. But they were content to see the stately
mosque degraded to the base uses of a cotton-market and a stable,[731]
and the vast revenues bequeathed by the piety of another age diverted
from their proper uses by a horde of greedy and callous priests. They
may, however, plead in mitigation of the world’s censure, that lack of
funds has impeded their efforts to preserve these relics of a mighty
past.[732] If Generals Kauffman or Abramoff had been asked to vouchsafe
a grant for archæological purposes they would doubtless have replied,
as William Pitt did to Benjamin Haydon’s suggestion that a national
gallery of paintings should be established: “We want all the money we
can scrape together to buy powder and shot with.”
[Illustration: THE BĪBĪ KHĀNŪM, SAMARKAND]
In a suburb half a mile north-east of the Bībī Khānūm stands a
sepulchre of a different type. It is that of Kāsim ibn `Abbās, a saint
who endured martyrdom in an attempt to convert the fire-worshippers
of Samarkand. Tradition adds that he picked up his severed head,
like St. Denis, and retired with it to a well, whence he is destined
to emerge in the hour of Islām’s triumph. The Shāh Zindah, “Living
Saint,” has a tomb erected by Tīmūr,[733] which is entered by a brick
gateway rich in blue and white faience, opening on a street of tombs
with some resemblance to the Appian Way. On either side of a flight
of steps, which once were of marble, ascending the side of a ravine,
are a series of mausolea erected in honour of members of Tīmūr’s
family, his generals, and trusted servants. The gates and façades are
encrusted with glorious faience. A photograph might convey a faint
impression of the exquisite form of pillars shaped like palm-trees,
the artistic design of the scrollwork and tracery. A consummate
master of colouring alone could reproduce the harmony in dark blue,
turquoise, yellow, and green of this unrivalled panelling. The common
belief is that the porcelain which is seen in such perfection at the
Shāh Zindah was evolved in ancient Persia. It was undoubtedly brought
by the Mongols from China.[734] The decoration of the Constantinople
mosques, especially those dating from the golden age of Sulaymān the
Magnificent, is similar to the specimens so much admired at Samarkand.
The vista closes with the holy man’s tomb, which is approached by a
suite of halls adorned with arabesques and beautifully carved wooden
pillars. It is a mosque hung with offerings from the faithful. Visitors
are allowed by the attendant priests to peer through a carved screen
into a sombre vault, in which the faint outline of a funeral stone
is seen, covered with costly shawls. Shāh Zindah has suffered less
than its unfortunate neighbours owing to its smaller dimensions; but
systematic repairs carried out by experts are urgently needed. All that
has been done by the present masters of Samarkand is to prevent the
wholesale pilfering of coloured tiles.
The ancient citadel of Samarkand is still called by the people Urda.
This “encampment” occupies a commanding position, and is secured on
three sides by scarped ravines. Its walls are upwards of two miles in
circumference,[735] and have been adapted to suit the exigencies of
modern warfare. In Russian eyes it is as sacred as the theatre of a
defence as glorious as that of our Lucknow Residency in 1857.[736] In
those of the antiquarian it is precious as the repository of the Kok
Tāsh, a coronation stone of the Bokhāran sovereigns, and of an old
Arabic inscription. The former is in the courtyard of a mean building
which once served as the Amīr’s residence. It is an oblong block of
grey marble, with arabesques at the sides, measuring 10′ 4″ by 4′ 9″ by
2′ in height. According to tradition, it fell on this spot from heaven,
and for ages past it was venerated as the ægis of Bokhāran royalty. No
Amīr was considered worthy of his subjects’ homage till he had sat on
this rude throne. Behind it is an oval metal plaque bearing a funeral
inscription dating as far back as A.H. 550, or 1155 of our era.
The Russians’ quarter of Samarkand lies to the south of the native
city. Their occupation has lasted for thirty years, and their
dwellings have lost the garish newness which strikes a jarring note
at Askabad and Merv. Broad avenues, at right angles to each other,
a leafy park, and a splendid Boulevard, which Samarkand owes to its
good genius, General Abramoff, who was governor in 1874,[737] such
are the pleasant, if somewhat prosaic, features of Russian Samarkand.
Government House has the vast reception-rooms met with in such places
throughout the empire, and it has a large garden, which has trees,
water, statues--everything except flowers. The officials’ bungalows
mostly face the Abramovsky Boulevard, and are planned on the familiar
Anglo-Indian lines. Then there is the obligatory military casino, which
eclipses the finest of our mess-houses and has a splendid ballroom.
Hard by is the garrison church, a clumsy erection, which seems the
more insignificant by reason of its juxtaposition with the glorious
remains of Mohammedan days. The museum is still more unworthy of a
provincial capital. It contains the dreary array of stuffed beasts
and wide-mouthed bottles familiar nearer home. No region in the world
is richer in memorials of past ages than the valley of the Zarafshān.
Heaps of small clay figures, supposed to represent the horse, show
that Hinduism prevailed there at some remote period, for they are
identical in shape with those deposited as _ex votos_ at many Indian
shrines. Crosses figuring on rude bas-reliefs serve as a reminder
of another vanished faith. The Nestorians, hounded as heretics from
Europe in the fifth century, spread over the Asiatic Continent, and
established bishoprics in Samarkand, Merv, and Herāt.[738] With a
degree of moderation which belied their uncompromising tenets, the
Caliphs protected the professors of this rival faith. Its golden
age was the twelfth century; but Tīmūr was not a man to tolerate
any dissidence in his empire. His ruthless persecution stamped out
Christianity in Central Asia. The museum also exhibits vessels of
beautiful iridescent glass and pottery, the spoils of Afrāsiyāb, a
city of immemorial antiquity, which covered the hills and ravines
between Samarkand and the Zarafshān. The semi-mythical king whose name
it bears[739] lived, according to tradition, in the eleventh century
before Christ. That a high degree of civilisation was attained by the
people of his long buried realm is proved by the exquisite designs
of the lamps, urns, and pottery exhumed there. A rich harvest awaits
systematic exploration.[740] The collection of mineral specimens
is equally unworthy of Samarkand, for the mountains to the east of
the city contain the potentialities of wealth beyond the dreams of
avarice. There is a mountain of fine coal not twenty-five miles from
the walls; and metals of all kinds abound.[741] The other modern
institutions at Samarkand are more creditable to Russian enterprise.
The jail, a large castellated structure resembling our own prison at
Holloway, is scrupulously clean, and has most modern appliances for
enforcing labour. The convicts are employed in weaving cotton, and all
are healthy and well nourished. But the jail population in Central
Asia is a fluctuating one; for criminals sentenced to long terms of
imprisonment are deported by rail and steamer to Saghaleen, in the
North-West Pacific.[742] Two orphanages for Russian children flourish;
and the little inmates are happy, clean, and not depressed by that
badge of servitude, a uniform.
Samarkand is still a great emporium of trade, though it no longer
serves as a depôt for the produce of British India and Afghanistān.
The roads are thronged with shaggy camels, and carts perched on two
gigantic wheels, which preserve their contents from the thorough
wetting which an ordinary vehicle would give them while traversing
the innumerable streams. The bazaars are not under cover as are
those of Bokhārā, but the contents are quite as varied. Hides are a
speciality of those parts--Astrakhans, prepared from the covering of
the unborn lamb by Arabs, beautiful silky goats’ skin, and nearly
every kind of furs are to be purchased at very moderate prices. An
English merchant, who has been engaged for three years in this trade,
avers that the profits exceed 40 per cent. The manufactures of silk
and cotton are still important, in spite of the competition of Russian
looms.
[Illustration: THE MARKET NEAR BĪBĪ KHĀNŪM, SAMARKAND]
According to local tradition, the art of weaving dates back to the
expulsion of our first parents from Paradise. The Archangel Michael,
in pity for their forlorn state, brought Adam a supply of cotton, and
taught Eve how to fashion the fibre into cloth. Russian yarn has now
entirely banished this native product. Before use it is boiled with
soda, dyed, generally with aniline, and sized with wheaten starch.
The looms are worked by hand, and the largest can turn out muslin
nearly 4 yards wide. The wholesale price is 13s. 6d. for ten pieces
with an aggregate length of 90 yards. Silk velvets and mixed fabrics
are also produced in small factories with very inadequate light and
ventilation. Each loom produces 16,000 yards annually, worth about £60,
and giving a net profit of £32. Capital fares better than labour; for
the journeyman weaver works ten hours a day for a weekly pittance of
4s. 6d. Viticulture is a far more lucrative industry; for Samarkand
vineyards are three times as productive as those of any other part of
the empire. The out-turn per acre is 134 cwt., as compared with 40
cwt. yielded in the Caucasus and the Crimea. The cost of cultivation
is proportionately less, and hardly exceeds £22, as compared with £60
in the western provinces. Thus the area under vines has trebled since
the Russians gave Samarkand a just and settled government. In 1895 it
had reached 15,000 acres, and is now probably 20 per cent. greater.
Attempts have been made of late years to introduce foreign stock; but
the native varieties, of which 24 are grown, are more prolific and
give produce of greater body.[743] The soil selected for vineyards is
composed of equal parts of sand and loam. Three hundred and seventy
vines are planted to the acre. They begin to yield in their fourth
year, and are at their best between the 8th and 25th. The tops are laid
in trenches, and covered with earth at the beginning of winter; and
when spring comes round they are uncovered and allowed to trail on the
ground without the support of poles or trellis-work. The vine requires
higher cultivation than any other plant which ministers to our needs or
luxury. In Samarkand manure is applied in the proportion of 4 cwt. an
acre, and the vineyards are thrice drenched with water. At the end of
October the grapes are fit to gather. The return is enormous, and in
one district it reaches 26 tons an acre. The bulk of the fruit is dried
and exported as _kishmish_, or raisins. Though the cost of transport by
rail makes this delicacy dearer than the Persian product, it commands
a higher price; no less than 7300 tons were sent to Russia by rail in
1896.
The manufacture of brandy is a new industry at Samarkand. About 155,000
gallons are made annually for local consumption. The out-turn of wine
is on nearly the same scale. In the opinion of French experts, the
produce of a Central Asian grape is at least as good as that of the
Medoc and Burgundy districts. The wine is of high alcoholic strength,
and mellows rapidly. In this costly process, however, large capital
is required, and the manufacture languishes in its absence. Casks,
bottles, and corks are imported at great expense from Russia; and a
reduction of railway rates is urgently called for. We have not yet
exhausted the uses of Central Asian grapes. Those which are fit for
nothing else are boiled into a syrup which serves to sweeten green tea,
ices, and confectionery.[744]
Samarkand resembles Bokhārā in the character of its population, which
does not exceed 50,000. The Rīgistān is a happy hunting-ground for
the ethnologist. Here one may listen unmolested to the professional
story-teller, who holds his audience enthralled by oft-repeated tales
of ancient chivalry.
There are two classes of public reciters: the _maddāh_, who stands
while he relates edifying or amusing anecdotes; and the _risālachi_,
who, seated on the ground, recites tales and legends in verse to a
monotonous accompaniment on the two-stringed lute. Among these public
entertainers there exists a system of organised applause. Two or three
men or boys (very often themselves entertainers taking an interval)
sit down at a distance of some ten yards facing the story-teller, and,
throughout the entertainment, ejaculate at fixed intervals (as it were
punctuating the commas and full stops in the story) such words as
_hakkan_, “of a truth,” and _khūsh_, “bravo,” etc.
At the close of every recitation they are warned that “Amin” must be
said, and in pronouncing it they place their hands with fingers clasped
beneath the chin. Then follows a collection, and as the tiny brass coin
rain into the performer’s cap he acknowledges the generosity of each
giver by a nicely graduated meed of thanks.
The legends of Samarkand which these performers have at their
finger-ends are very curious. The popular hero is a Bokhāran Amīr
named `Abdullah, who is credited with most of the ancient buildings of
the provinces. Once, so the story goes, he marched against this city
with a great army, to crush a rebellious governor, but was foiled by
its triple ramparts. He sat down before it and waited in vain for the
surrender. At last his troops began to suffer the pangs of hunger;
and the Amīr himself found provisions running short. One evening,
while wandering _incognito_ in the suburbs, he came upon an old woman
preparing her evening porridge, which smelt so good that the Amīr cast
his dignity to the winds and begged permission to share the repast.
It was granted, but his impatience did not permit him to wait till
the smoking mess was properly served. He thrust a spoon into the pot
and conveyed the contents to his mouth, burning that sensitive organ
severely. His hostess roared with laughter at his grimaces, and said:
“Now thou resemblest `Abdullah! Hadst thou taken the porridge from the
edge of the dish, thou wouldst not have suffered thus. So, if our Amīr
had begun by closely investing Samarkand, and allowed the citizens’
passions to be cooled by hunger, he would not have burnt his fingers as
he has done.” The sovereign took the jest to heart, and starved out the
rebels. In gratitude to his monitress, he bestowed on her a strip of
land on either bank of the Ak Daryā in fee simple.
A lofty hill called Chūpān Ātā, which commands Samarkand on the east,
is the subject of another legend. According to tradition, a cruel king
invaded Samarkand and pitched his tents on a plain where Chūpān Ātā
now rears its head. Here he waited for three days in order to give
the people time to concentrate with their treasures within the city
walls. The Samarkandis were then heathen, but the imminence of peril
made them turn to the true God. From the ruler downwards all ascended
the flat house-roofs and wrestled in earnest prayer for deliverance.
Their sight fell on the camp of the enemy, glittering with lights
and resounding with martial music. The besieged trembled, for they
knew that the morrow was the day fixed for the assault. When the sun
rose all was still, and instead of a plain covered, as far as the eye
could range, with tents, a mountain raised its head heavenwards. They
timidly ventured beyond the walls, but the only trace of life was a
husbandman in strange attire sleeping with a spade for his pillow. On
being waked he rubbed his eyes, stared around him with astonishment,
and asked where he was. Learning that he was in the heart of Asia, he
told his interlocutors that he was a Syrian. On the previous evening
he had betaken himself to the mountain-side with his spade, for on the
morrow his turn for irrigation would come round. Spent with fatigue
he had fallen asleep and been wafted 1500 miles, with his farm and
the mountain on which it stood! Then the Samarkandis saw that God
had hearkened to their prayer, and that their foes lay buried in the
bowels of the mountain. Confirmation is found in the fact[745] that
the conformation of Chūpān Ātā is the same as that of Syrian hills,
and that lethal weapons are often turned up there by the plough. A
variation of the legend has it that the Syrian waif belonged to that
calling, and was discovered sleeping peacefully among his flock. The
hill once bore a three-storeyed observatory, built by the astronomer
Ulugh Beg, which has been replaced by a shrine with faience decorations
of the patron saint of shepherds. It stands at the edge of the valley
of the Zarafshān, which is here crossed by a timber viaduct on the
line connecting Samarkand with Andijān and Tashkent. At this point
stands a much more curious piece of engineering, which dates back to
the time of Tīmūr. At right angles to the new railway line a gigantic
brick arch juts into the shallow spreading stream. It is 100 feet in
height, and at least as broad; and traces of two similar arches are to
be seen in the river-bed beyond. The intention of the designer is not
by any means clear. It could hardly have been to throw a roadway over
the Zarafshān, which is not navigable, and would not require a bridge
more than twenty feet in height. In the opinion of _savants_, this
huge work was built to serve as a regulation of the current, forcing
a certain proportion of the water into a channel reserved for the
exclusive use of Bokhārā, which is entirely at the mercy of Samarkand
in the matter of irrigation.
The administration of Samarkand offers much interesting material for
study. We see in Transcaspia a system of local government imposed on
the unsophisticated Turkomans. At Bokhārā we observe the rules on which
the paramount Power conducts its relations to the ruler and people of
a protected state. It remains to sketch the means taken by our rivals
in Asia to improve a mechanism evolved in a comparatively civilised
community.
Samarkand is a province of Turkestān, and under the control of the
governor-general at Tashkent. It embraces the four districts of
Samarkand proper, Katta Kurgān, Jizāk, and Khojend. The first-named
has an area of 12,300 square miles, with a population of rather more
than 300,000. It is administered by a chief who is a military officer
of field rank, aided by a personal assistant.[746] Under him are
officers styled pristas, in charge of subdivisions, which are again
split up into volosts, or groups of 2000 to 2500 houses, governed
by officers termed volostnois. Every village in the volost has its
mayor (starshina). The duties of this class of officials are purely
executive, and confined to the repression of crime, the execution of
judicial decrees, and the collection of revenue. They form, too, the
police force. On the occurrence of an offence it is reported to the
starshina, who sends information to the volostnoi. An investigation
follows, and, should the charge be considered _primâ facie_ true,
it is reported to one of the two judges of instruction stationed
at Samarkand. These officers are subordinate to the Ministry of
Justice at St. Petersburg, and have charge of all steps in criminal
inquiries up to the actual trial. When their work is complete the case
comes before the judge of the peace, who is also an officer of the
Ministry of Justice, and is disposed of under the Russian criminal
code. Civil causes in which either party is a foreigner are tried by
this functionary, whose tribunal is also that for suits referred to
him by both litigants, though both may be natives of Turkestān. The
ordinary tribunals for this latter are those of the Kāzīs--native
judges stationed at the volost headquarters, who are guided in their
decisions by the Mohammedan law. The executive officials are also
responsible for the collection of revenue. Its chief source is the
land tax, for Samarkand was, before its conquest, a province of
Bokhārā, and the state in all Mohammedan countries is theoretically the
owner of the soil. In this department things are not yet on a sound
footing. When the Russians assumed the administration of the country
they were compelled to trust to the information as to the demand from
each villager furnished by the officers of the late Government. The
statistics thus obtained were, of course, vitiated by the corruption
of public servants universal throughout the East;[747] but they still
form the basis of the annual demand which is assessed collectively
on each village by the district chief, and paid into the treasury
by the starshinas. The rate ranges, with the nature of the soil and
the facilities for irrigation, between 2s. and 3s. 4d. per acre. The
Russians are therefore in much the same predicament as were the English
masters of Bengal in 1793, when the annual demand was crystallised for
ever by that gigantic fiscal blunder, the Permanent Settlement. They
possess the advantage of having a free hand; and for several years past
a commission has been incubating a scheme adjusting the burdens on land
with some regard to its actual produce.[748] The imposts on merchandise
and the poll-tax levied on non-Musulmans under the old régime have
been abolished, and traders are classified in guilds according to
the scale of their operations, and pay a licence tax on a graduated
scale. Irrigation has been left in native hands, and every village has
its _ak-sakāl_ (white-beard), or superintendent, who has the power
to demand the service of the entire male population for work on the
canals.[749] Vernacular education has not made much progress since
the conquest; and the system is subject to the same defects as those
which render Bokhārā a hotbed of fanaticism. Many years ago an attempt
was made by Government to introduce the study of Russian; but priestly
influence ran counter to the reform, and the classes were poorly
attended. An administrative order was, however, issued in 1897 which
made a knowledge of the conqueror’s tongue obligatory on candidates
for the posts of volostnoi and kāzī; and self-interest has already
modified the popular attitude towards the innovation. Those who wish
well to Russian rule must see to it that the pendulum is not allowed to
swing in the opposite direction. No greater mistake could be made than
to force a superficial study of Russian on classes rendered unfit to
profit by it by social status or inherited defect.
CHAPTER XI
FRIENDS OR FOES?
It has been acutely observed that we bring back from foreign countries
no more than we take thither. In other words, we view them through
the medium of our own personality, which is the growth of heredity,
education, and environment. It is almost impossible for an Englishman
to judge the subjects of the Tsar dispassionately. Forty-five years
ago a friendship which had lasted for centuries was shattered by
that greatest blunder of the century, our Crimean campaign; and the
fierce passions which it engendered have not yet spent their force.
The Russian advance in Asia, which we have described as a movement
automatic and uncontrollable, has been interpreted by an influential
school of writers as a menace to our position in India. Twice of late
years have we been landed on the very brink of war by a public opinion
goaded to frenzy by such baseless fears. For it may be affirmed with
perfect truth that the absorption of India is a dream too wild for the
most aggressive adviser of the Tsar. Such is the geographical position
of the peninsula, that it can be held by no European Power which is not
Mistress of the Seas. How, it may well be asked, would it profit Russia
to assume the responsibility of governing three hundred million of
Asiatics whose ignorance of Malthusian doctrines renders them a prey
to perennial pestilence and famine? Our prestige, indeed, is vitally
concerned in upholding an empire which is the wonder and the envy of
the world, and we reap solid advantage from owning so considerable an
outlet for our manufactures and the redundant energies of our middle
class. In Russia social and economic conditions differ widely from our
own; and her conquests in Eastern Asia will absorb her surplus activity
for many years to come. It is true that the path opened by nature for
her expansion leads southwards. Peter the Great’s famous will is a
forgery,[750] but no one can doubt that its promptings have sunk deeply
into the hearts of the Russian people. In their eyes the Tsar is the
heir of the Byzantine Empire which gave them laws and religion, and
they are firmly convinced that a day will come when the Greek Cross
will replace the Crescent which desecrates the summit of St. Sophia.
Twice has the road to Constantinople been blocked by England. In 1854
she drew the sword in order to keep the Key of the World in Turkish
hands; and a quarter of a century later she turned back the Tsar’s
victorious legions when the splendid quarry was within their grasp.
Baffled in an ambition which educated Russians deem legitimate,
their eyes are turned to the Far East; and here, again, England has
set limits to their expansion. It is this latent antagonism, ever
ready to burst into uncontrollable fury, which constitutes the chief
danger to the stability of our rule in India. The latter is our one
vulnerable point, and, when national interests are become divergent,
it is in Russia’s power to create a diversion by fomenting trouble
in Afghanistān, in the highlands which separate the two empires,
and within the limits of India itself. Every friend of humanity
must deplore the existence of a gulf between two forces which, if
united, would give civilisation to Asia and assure the peace of the
world. When we pass from the tendency of Russian policy in the heart
of Asia to the results achieved there, we are on firmer ground--in
politics nothing happens but the unexpected, while ocular evidence
can hardly be impeached. We left home full of prejudices, the result
of a course of Central Asian literature. The Cassandra notes of
Vambéry were ringing in our ears, and the latent chauvinism of Lord
Curzon of Kedleston[751] had prejudiced the Russians in our eyes. But
unfavourable prepossessions vanished when we had seen the results of
their rule in Central Asia, and had gathered estimates of its character
in every class of the population. We are convinced that the Tsar’s
explicit instructions to his lieutenants to exercise a fatherly care
over his Asiatic subjects are scrupulously obeyed.[752] The peoples of
Asia, from the Caspian to China, from Siberia to the borders of Persia
and Afghanistān, enjoy as large a measure of happiness and freedom
as those of any part of our Indian dominions. The fiscal policy of
the conquering race is one of extreme moderation. Imperial and local
taxation are indeed too light; and, in Samarkand at least, a turn
might be given to the screw with great advantage to an exchequer which
finds these Asiatic possessions a serious drain on its resources.
The problem of local self-government has been solved, and indigenous
institutions have not been ruthlessly trampled upon. Respect for the
dominant race has been inculcated by prompt and severe punishment
meted out for revolt or outrage on a European’s person or property.
Every picture has its shadows, and it is not difficult to point to
defects in the administrative machine. Russia has carried an attitude
of _laissez-faire_ to an extreme limit in dealing with education, and
it has been left in the hands of a class which must always be bitterly
hostile to infidel rule. The process of Russification has been pushed
with excessive zeal. Local colour and racial characteristics have
been swept away, which were precious indeed in times when mankind
was oppressed by a deluge of commonplace throughout the Eastern
world. Structures which made the cities of Central Asia the theme of
Eastern poets have been suffered to lapse into hopeless ruin. And what
shall be said of a commercial policy framed on principles exploded
a century ago by Adam Smith, and proved by the history of our own
East India Company to be positively injurious to the Government which
cherishes them? That policy aims at nothing less than the maintenance
of a Chinese Wall round the Russian Empire, albeit that railways and
steam navigation have made the whole world kin and brought about a
solidarity between nations which renders each unit sensitive to the
injuries inflicted on the commerce and manufactures of the rest. The
heavy protective tariff, the unwillingness to admit consular agents
for the protection of English trade, and the jealous restrictions on
the movements of Europeans are strangely out of date at the dawn of
the twentieth century. An Anglo-Indian official travelling in Central
Asia would find it difficult to avoid instituting comparisons between
our own methods of dealing with Orientals and those employed by the
Russians. The dissimilarity of the conditions encountered deprives the
process of half its value. We have in India a swarming population,
which overtaxes the productive power of the soil and yet shows no sign
of having reached its utmost limits. In the bitter struggle for life
an enormous criminal class has been evolved, which is a perpetual
thorn in the side of authority. And then, we are face to face with
a civilisation more ancient than our own, and on its own lines, as
complex, presenting features which baffle the closest study. Nor must
the religious problem be left out of account. Hinduism is stirred
to its inmost being by a revival, and displays an elasticity and a
militant spirit which appear incompatible with its principles. The
forces of Islām are also equipped for a coming struggle. A Puritan
movement, inaugurated by Wahabi missionaries eighty years ago, has
spread far and wide, and the Mohammedans of India have formed secret
societies which are exploited by wirepullers for their own ends. Thus
we find arrayed against us millions who firmly believe that a good
Government must necessarily be a theocracy. Our own institutions,
founded as they are on a sincere regard for the good of subject races,
have conspired to bring about a state of things which is full of
political danger. The dissemination of the English language and of the
half-truths with which our political literature teems has produced
aspirations which can be gratified only by the abdication of our
supremacy. Thus the prestige of the conquerors, which must be upheld
if 200,000 white men are to govern three hundred millions of their
fellow-creatures, has been declining for many years past. And we labour
under the immense disadvantage of being aliens in blood, language,
and traditions from the Asiatics whom we are called upon to rule.
For communities which have arrived at a high pitch of civilisation,
conquest is an anachronism, and assimilation with a subject race an
impossibility. We can have no sympathy with the workings of these
enigmatic Oriental minds, for we view every problem that presents
itself from an entirely different standpoint. Thus we must always
be sojourners in India, and our dominion can never strike its roots
deeply into the soil. But for the bayonets on which our throne is
supported it would fall, even as those of our predecessors in the
purple have fallen. Central Asia, on the other hand, is thinly peopled,
and the standard of comfort is comparatively high. The conquerors and
conquered are connected by the ties of blood, and there is a latent and
unconscious sympathy between them which renders the task of government
easy and assures its stability. In one point the difference between
British and Russian methods of administration is very marked--the
relations between the judicial and executive functions. Our readers
are doubtless aware that in India, under the native rule, there was
an entire separation between the judge and the ruler. This divorce
continued till, under the régime of Lord William Bentinck, functions
apparently dissonant were united. It was considered essential in a
country so peculiarly constituted as India that the Central Government
should have, in every district, a single representative in whose hands
all the threads of administration are gathered. In Russian Asia, on
the other hand, offences against the state and individuals alike come
within the purview of courts entirely independent of the executive,
which is on a military basis and concerns itself only with obedience
to these tribunals’ behests. Some friction occurred between the rival
branches when the country was first invaded by Judges of Instruction
and of the Peace, free from the control of local authorities and
subordinate to the Ministry of Justice at St. Petersburg. This
agitation was calmed by a hint from a high quarter that it was
puerile and displeasing. Nowhere is discipline, both in the army and
civil service, maintained so sternly as in the Russian Empire. The
relations between the executive and the judicial branches are now as
cordial as can be expected, and the system in force gives the utmost
satisfaction to the people. It would carry us too far from our subject
to discuss the merits and defects of the respective methods. One thing
is certain, that a compliance with the demand of the Indian Congress,
that our district officers should be relegated to the station of mere
rakers-in of revenue, would involve a fatal weakening of the principle
of authority. But imitation is the sincerest flattery, and that so
much of the Russian edifice is built on Anglo-Indian models is the
strongest proof of their intrinsic excellence. We were pioneers, and
had difficulties to encounter with which our neighbours were never
perplexed; and they have profited by our experience and mistakes. The
last word of the memorable seventeenth-century controversy, Ancients
against Moderns, was said when someone remarked that a dwarf could see
farther than a giant if perched upon his shoulders. We believe that
the cause of civilisation would be furthered by a frank understanding
between the two great Asiatic Powers. The Russians have their faults,
which are often a little exasperating to the perfervid Briton. The
Oriental strain renders them, to say the least of it, leisurely in
business transactions. Their standard of comfort is not exalted; social
etiquette is not without a tinge of barbarism. But they are a young
and vigorous race, imbued with a passionate love of their country,
a steadfast belief in its high destinies, both rare and precious in
these days of flabby cosmopolitanism. And there is a great deal in
their work in Central Asia which should inspire our admiration
and sympathy. Their railways are the fruit of a dogged perseverance,
and appeal forcibly to the fellow-countrymen of George Stephenson
and Brunel. The broad realm which they govern consists of little but
deserts and swamps, and the isolation of those who administer it, their
banishment from the sweets of home, give them a special claim on our
regard. When we come to the individuals we find still more in common.
That Englishmen and Russians are made to understand and appreciate each
other was proved during the operations of Boundary Commissions of 1885
and 1895, for the personnel on both sides parted on terms of cordial
friendship. Once given a union of hearts between the two greatest
Powers, how much anxiety would not our statesmen be saved!
[Illustration: BAZAAR POLITICS]
But the Russians must set their own house in order ere a consummation
be reached which will give tranquillity to this distracted world
of ours. Autocracy has some advantages over any system of popular
government; but it has a drawback equally obvious. It gives a
preponderance to the personal equation which sometimes menaces the
peace of the world. The dynasty of the Romanoffs during the last
century has produced more men of talent and public spirit than any
other royal house in Europe; but Russians should remember that a
Catherine the Great was followed by a Paul. What if a Tsar should arise
inspired by dreams of military glory and longing to use the immense
forces at his disposal in a career of universal conquest? England, the
august mother of self-governing nations, the chosen home of freedom,
may well pause ere she throws in her lot with a state whose political
future is in the hands of a single human being. The radical difference
between our commercial policies is another obstacle to a close
Anglo-Russian alliance. We English are essentially a manufacturing
people, dependent on our foreign commerce for the wherewithal to feed
a redundant population and support the burden of world-wide empire.
Having found by centuries of experience that perfect freedom of trade
and travel are as essential to a people’s healthy development as the
air we breathe, we so govern that empire that the human race profits
by its existence. Nations are subject to the same laws as those which
govern the growth and well-being of individuals; and true progress is
impossible unless their policy be swayed by a scrupulous regard for the
interests of others.
APPENDIX I
Translation of Prince Gortschakoff’s Circular to the Great Powers,
dated St. Petersburg, 21st November 1864.
“The Russian newspapers have described the military operations which
have been carried out by a detachment of our troops in the regions
of Central Asia, with remarkable success and vast results. It was
inevitable that these events should excite attention in foreign
countries, and the more so because their theatre lies in regions which
are hardly known.
“Our august Master has directed me to explain succinctly, but with
clearness and precision, our position in Central Asia, the interests
which prompt our action in that part of the world, and the aims which
we pursue. The position of Russia in Central Asia is that of all
civilised states which come into contact with half-savage, wandering
tribes possessing no fixed social organisation.
“It invariably happens in such cases that the interests of security on
the frontier, and of commercial relations, compel the more civilised
state to exercise a certain ascendency over neighbours whose turbulence
and nomad instincts render them difficult to live with. First, we
have incursions and pillage to repress. In order to stop these we
are compelled to reduce the tribes on our frontier to a more or less
complete submission. Once this result is attained they become less
troublesome, but in their turn they are exposed to the aggression of
more distant tribes. The state is obliged to defend them against
these depredations, and chastise those who commit them. Hence the
necessity of distant and costly expeditions, repeated at frequent
intervals, against an enemy whose social organisation enables him to
elude pursuit. If we content ourselves with chastising the freebooters
and then retire, the lesson is soon forgotten. Retreat is ascribed to
weakness, for Asiatics respect only visible and palpable force; that
arising from the exercise of reason and a regard for the interests of
civilisation has as yet no hold on them. The task has therefore to be
performed over again.
“In order to cut short these perpetual disorders we established strong
places in the midst of a hostile population, and thus we obtained an
ascendency which shortly but surely reduced them to a more or less
willing submission. But beyond this line there are other tribes which
soon provoke the same dangers, the same repression. The state then
finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. It must abandon the incessant
struggle and deliver its frontier over to disorder, which renders
property, security, and civilisation impossible; or it must plunge into
the depths of savage countries, where the difficulties and sacrifices
to which it is exposed increase with each step in advance. Such has
been the lot of all countries placed in the same conditions. The
United States in America, France in Algiers, Holland in her colonies,
England in India,--all have been inevitably drawn into a course wherein
ambition plays a smaller part than imperious necessity, and where the
greatest difficulty is in knowing where to stop.
“Such are the reasons which have induced the Imperial Government to
establish itself, on the one side, on the Sir Daryā, and, on the
other, on the Lake of Issik-Kul, and to consolidate the two lines by
advanced forts which, little by little, have penetrated the heart of
these distant regions, but have not sufficed to secure tranquillity
on the frontier. The cause of this instability lies, firstly, in the
existence between the extremities of this double line of forts, of a
vast unoccupied tract where the incursions of robber tribes continue to
neutralise our attempts at colonisation and our caravan traffic. It is,
in the second place, due to perpetual changes in the political aspect
of the countries to the south of our border. Turkestān and Kokand are
sometimes united, sometimes separated, but are always at war, either
with each other or with Bokhārā, and offer no probability of settled
relations or regular transactions with them.
“Thus, in its own despite, the Imperial Government finds itself reduced
to the dilemma already stated: it must allow an anarchy to become
chronic which paralyses all security and all progress, and involve
distant and expensive expeditions at frequent intervals; or, on the
other hand, it must enter on a career of conquest and annexation such
as gave England her Indian Empire, in view of dominating in succession
the petty independent states whose turbulent habits and perpetual
revolts leave their neighbour neither truce nor repose. Neither of
these alternatives is in consonance with the object of my august
Master’s policy, which aims at restricting the extent of the countries
subject to his sceptre within reasonable limits, while it places his
rule thereon on firm foundations, guarantees their security, and
develops their social organisation, their commerce, well-being, and
civilisation.
“Our task, therefore, has been to seek a system fitted to attain
the triple object. In this view the following principles have been
formulated:--
“(1.) It has been considered indispensable that the two fortified
frontier lines, the one stretching from China to Lake Issik-Kul, the
other from the Sea of Aral along the lower course of the Sir Daryā,
should be linked together by a chain of strongholds, so that each fort
should be in a position to afford mutual support and leave no space
open to the incursions of nomad tribes.
“(2.) It was essential that the line of forts thus completed should be
placed in a fertile country, not only in order to assure supplies, but
to facilitate regular colonisation, which alone can give an occupied
country a future of stability and prosperity, or attract neighbouring
tribes to civilised life.
“(3.) It was a matter of urgency to fix this line in a definite manner,
in order to escape the danger of being drawn on from repression to
reprisals, which might end in a limitless extension of our empire.
“With this object it was necessary to lay the foundations of a system
founded not merely on considerations of expediency, but on geographical
and political data which are fixed and permanent.
“This system was disclosed to us by a very simple fact, the result of
long experience, namely, that nomad tribes which cannot be overtaken,
punished, or kept in hand are the worst neighbours possible; while
agricultural and commercial populations, wedded to the soil, and given
a more highly developed social organisation, afford for us a basis for
friendly relations which may become all that can be wished.
“Our frontier-line then should include the first, and stop at the
boundaries of the second.
“These three principles afford a clear, natural, and logical
explanation of the recent military operations accomplished in Central
Asia.
“Moreover, our old frontier, stretching along the Sir Daryā to Fort
Perovski on one side, and, on the other, as far as Lake Issik-Kul, had
the disadvantage of being almost at the edge of the desert. It was
interrupted by an immense gap between the farthest points on the east
and west. It offered very insufficient supplies to our troops, and left
beyond it unsettled tribes with which we could not maintain stable
relations.
“In spite of our repugnance to give a wider scope to our dominion,
these conditions were powerful enough to induce the Imperial Government
to establish a frontier between Lake Issik-Kul and the Sir Daryā
by fortifying the town of Chimkent, recently occupied by us. In
adopting this line we obtain a twofold result. First, the country
which it includes is fertile, well-wooded, and watered by numerous
streams; it is inhabited in part by Kirghiz tribes which have already
acknowledged our supremacy, and therefore offers conditions favourable
to colonisation and the supply of our garrisons. Then, it gives us the
agricultural and commercial population of Kokand as our neighbours.
“Thus we find ourselves confronted by a more solid and compact
social organisation,--one less shifting and better arranged. This
consideration marks with geographical precision the limit where
interest and reason command us to stop. On the one hand, attempts to
extend our rule will no longer encounter such unstable entities as
nomad tribes, but more regularly organised states, and will therefore
be carried out at the cost of great effort, leading us from annexation
to annexation into difficulties the end of which can not be foreseen.
On the other hand, as we have as our neighbours states of that
description, in spite of their low civilisation and nebulous political
development, we hope that regular relations may one day, in our common
interest, replace the chronic disorders which have hitherto hampered
their progress.
“Such are the principles which are the mainspring of our august
Master’s policy in Central Asia; such the final goal which His
Imperial Majesty has prescribed as that of his Cabinet’s action.
* * * * *
“There is no necessity to insist on the palpable interest of Russia in
restricting the growth of her territory and preventing the advent of
complications in distant provinces which may retard and paralyse our
domestic development.
“The programme which I have just traced is in strict accord with this
policy.
“People of late years have been pleased to credit us with a mission to
civilise neighbouring countries on the continent of Asia. The progress
of civilisation has no more efficacious ally than commercial relations.
These require, in all countries, order and stability as conditions
essential to their growth; but in Asia their existence implies a
revolution in the manners of the people. Asiatics must, before all
things, be made to understand that it is more advantageous to favour
and assure trade by caravans than to pillage them. These elementary
principles can penetrate the public conscience only when there is a
public; that is to say, a social organisation and a government which
directs and represents it. We are accomplishing the first portion of
this task in extending our frontier to points where these indispensable
conditions are to be met with. We accomplish the second when we
undertake the duty of proving to neighbouring states, by a policy of
firmness as regards the repression of their misdeeds, but of moderation
and justice in the employment of armed strength and of respect for
their independence, that Russia is not their foe, that she cherishes no
designs of conquest, and that peaceful and commercial relations with
her are more profitable than disorder, pillage, reprisals, and chronic
warfare. In devoting itself to this task the Russian Cabinet has the
interests of the empire in view; but we believe that its accomplishment
will also serve those of civilisation and humanity at large. We have a
right to count upon an equitable and loyal appreciation of the policy
which we follow, and the principles on which it is framed.
“GORTSCHAKOFF.”
APPENDIX II
The present Minister of War, General Kurapatkine, delivered an address
at Askabad, on the 25th November 1897, to some members of a party of
English tourists, which is really a remarkably frank enunciation of
the policy of his Government in Central Asia. The full text runs as
follows:--
“The policy of our Government in Central Asia, since the accession
of the late Tsar, has been eminently one of peace; and recourse has
never been had to arms until every other means of gaining a given
object had failed. Before the extension of the railway and telegraph
to these remote regions, a considerable measure of initiative was
necessarily left in the hands of local officers. Generals Chernaieff,
Skobeleff, and Kauffman were repeatedly compelled by circumstances to
undertake expeditions without sanction; and their action was sometimes
in opposition to the views of the Central Government. There has been
a radical change in our administrative system since the Transcaspian
provinces were united to Europe by these powerful civilising
influences. Every case of friction on the frontier is reported to St.
Petersburg, and instructions are obtained before active measures are
adopted. It is now impossible that there could be a repetition of
the events of 1865, when General Chernaieff took Tashkent, and then
reported having done so to his Imperial Master. No operations likely
to produce serious consequences can now be undertaken without the
previous sanction of His Majesty. I wish to be particularly explicit
on this point, because my nomination as governor of Transcaspia was
regarded by many journals, both in England and India, as a presage
of what is called a “forward policy.” It is the custom of the
present Tsar, as it was of his lamented father, to furnish detailed
instructions on questions of internal organisations as well as those
which concern foreign affairs. The principles which govern the policy
of Russia are very simple. They are the maintenance of peace, of order,
and of prosperity in all classes of the population. The means employed
to compass these ends are equally free from complexity. Those who fill
responsible positions are expressly informed by our Government that
the assumption of sovereignty over alien nationalities must not be
attempted without very serious deliberation, inasmuch as such become,
on annexation, Russian subjects, children of the Tsar, and invested
with every privilege enjoyed by citizens of the empire. His Majesty
has enjoined on his representatives, as their first duty, the fatherly
care of his Asiatic subjects. In order to prevent the possibility of
internal discord, we have disarmed the natives, and no pains have
been spared to induce them to adopt peaceful pursuits. The fruits of
this action are already visible. A solitary traveller can now cross
Central Asia, from the Caspian to the Siberian frontier, without
incurring the smallest risk of attack. A few years ago I furnished
weapons for purposes of defence to the Russian colonists in seventeen
villages established by me, and I warned them that it might be unsafe
to undertake journeys without arms. They have, however, disregarded
this advice, and never carry arms when at a distance from their homes.
Last winter a Russian peasant fell on the roadside in a state of
helpless intoxication near the Afghan frontier south of Merv; but the
Turkomans, so far from molesting him, covered him with carpets and
brought him on a camel before the district chief. Similar occurrences
are reported from Askabad.
“We may boast with perfect truth that the thirty-five years during
which Central Asia has enjoyed the blessings of a firm and civilised
rule have been years of sustained progress, of daily-increasing
strength in the bonds of attachment and goodwill which unite these
subject peoples to the inhabitants of other Russian provinces. As
compared with India, our territories in that part of the world are
still poor and sparsely populated; but there has been a considerable
increase in the country’s wealth since the conquest of Turkestān
in 1863. The trading classes are now the staunchest supporters of
our authority; next, the cultivators; lastly, the women. Should any
mischief arise, it will be due to the intrigues of the mullās, whose
powers for evil are great, owing to the ignorance rather than the
fanaticism of the population.
“The large measure of progress attained could not have been hoped
for did we not possess settled frontiers with which we are perfectly
content. Every country in Central Asia has had its period of war; but
it is the fixed policy of our Tsar to prevent a recurrence of its
horrors arising from our initiative. In the case of the territory most
recently acquired, the disturbances lasted for seven years--from 1878
to 1885. Between the latter year and 1888 we established a stable and
logical frontier with the aid of Great Britain; and in the twelve years
which have since elapsed there have been no expeditions throughout
its length of 600 miles bordering on Persia, and 400 on Afghanistān.
The latter country contains much inflammable material, but we have
taken every means in our power to ensure that the internal disorders
of that state shall not react on our frontier. So scrupulous is our
regard for the _status quo_, that whole tribes have cast themselves
on our protection in vain. The Piruzkuhis, Khezaris, and Jamshidis
have crossed our borders in troops of as many as 1000 families, but
we have always repatriated such refugees. There have been similar
cases in our dealings with Persian subjects. The whole population of
Khelat, in Khorāsān, came to us with entreaties to protect them against
the oppression of the Shāh’s officers. Our reply was the despatch of
troops who conducted them across the frontier, but we took diplomatic
steps to assure a pardon for those to whom we had been obliged to
refuse our protection. Turkestān proper has been free from war since
the occupation of Farghāna--twenty-one years ago. The Bokhārā frontier
has remained intact since the capture of Samarkand in 1868. It is true
that within the last few years the Pamirs Question has been reopened,
and slight modifications have been made in our boundaries towards
Afghanistān; but, as far as we are concerned, the operations have been
carried out against our wishes--I may almost say, under compulsion.
For the Amīr `Abd er-Rahmān infringed the terms of the arrangement
entered into between England and ourselves in 1873, when it was agreed
that the Afghans should not cross the Oxus, by pushing his boundary
beyond that river and occupying Shugnān and Roshān on its right bank.
The last complication on the Persian frontier dates from 1829--nearly
seventy years ago. Throughout our frontier conterminous with China we
have had no disturbance for more than a century. I am led to mention
these significant facts in order to show that our policy in Asia is
essentially a peaceful one, and that we are perfectly satisfied with
our present boundaries. And I may claim to speak with authority, apart
from my official position, for I have been personally concerned in all
our important military and political movements in Central Asia for many
years past. In 1868, when only twenty, I took part in the storming of
Samarkand. In 1875 I was employed in the reduction of the Khānate of
Kokand. In 1880 I led the advance guard in the conquest of Farghāna;
and in 1881 I commanded the reinforcements sent to General Skobeleff
from Turkestān, in his struggle with the Tekke tribes, and led one of
the assaulting columns at the capture of Geok Teppe.”
[Illustration:
MAP SHOWING THE
ADVANCE OF RUSSIA
IN
CENTRAL ASIA.
Methuen & Co. London. _G. Philip & Son, 32 Fleet S^t. London_
]
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Iranian branch of the Aryans is represented in our times
by the Tājiks of Turkestān. Cf. _Les Aryens au nord et au sud de
l’Hindou-Kouch_, par Ch. de Ujfalvy, _passim_.
[2] More correctly Paropanisus. See an article on “Bactria,” by E.
Drouin, in the _Grande Encyclopédie_.
[3] The mention of Bākhdi (= Balkh) in Fargard 1 of the Avesta, is
perhaps still older.
[4] The Greek historians, following a tradition which made the
conquests of Sesostris (Rameses II.) even more extensive than they
really were, maintain that this conqueror penetrated into Bactria and
Scythia. Rameses II. flourished in the thirteenth century before our
era. Cf. Maspero, _Hist. Anc. des Peuples de l’Orient_, p. 225. Equally
fabulous is the account given by Diodorus Siculus of the conquest of
Bactria by Ninus and Semiramis in B.C. 2180. Cf. E. Drouin, _loc. cit._
[5] This was the most easterly town of the Persian Empire. Authorities
differ as to the site, some identifying it with Ura Tepe.
[6] The oases at the embouchure of the Oxus were anciently styled
Khwārazm, from a Persian word signifying eastwards. They constitute
the modern Khiva. Soghdiana comprises Bokhārā and Samarkand, and the
nomenclature is derived from Soghd, the old name for the source of its
wealth, the river known to the Greeks as the Polytimetus and to moderns
as the Zarafshan.
[7] Cf. Nöldeke, _Aufsätze zur Persischen Geschichte_, p. 23.
[8] Called the battle of Arbela, from a neighbouring city, just as the
“crowning mercy” of Waterloo was in reality bestowed at a considerable
distance from the town indelibly associated with it.
[9] According to Grigorieff, this means the district lying between the
Oxus and Shahrisabz.
[10] The stadium was 600 feet in length; but, as the foot varied
greatly in ancient time, this measure of length was never certain. The
“great stadium,” otherwise known as the Alexandrian or Egyptian, was
.12 of a geographical mile.
[11] Grigorieff suggests the identification of this place with the old
town of Baykand, or with Hezārasp, in the Khorasmian oasis.
[12] It may perhaps be identified with Kalāt-i-Nādiri to the north-east
of Meshed, called also the “Soghdian Rock.” The famous Roxana, whom
Alexander soon afterwards married, was the daughter of a certain
Oxyartes, who was among the captives taken with this fort.
[13] Rollin, _Ancient History_, v. 210. See also Quintus Curtius.
[14] He may, for example, have visited Iskander Kul, a lake which to
this day bears his name.
[15] Cf. Gutschmid, _Geschichte Irans_, p. 22.
[16] In B.C. 327 Seleucus I. had been placed in charge of Syria and the
East, and of Babylon--to which, with the aid of Antigonus, he added
Susiana. In 316, owing to a quarrel with Antigonus, he fled to Egypt,
but in 312 he re-entered Babylon. The era of the Seleucidæ dates from
this event. Seleucus extended his dominions as far as the Oxus and
the Indus. Not till 306 did he officially adopt the title of king.
Gutschmid, _op. cit._ p. 24.
[17] Cf. E. Drouin, _loc. cit._
[18] Diodotus seems to have prepared his subjects for this change of
masters by issuing coins of the type struck by Antiochus II., but
bearing his own portrait. Cf. Gardner, _Greek and Scythian Coins_, p.
20.
[19] _Hist._ x. _ad fin._ xi. 34.
[20] Gardner, _Greek and Scythian Coins_, p. 21.
[21] Cf. Justin, xii. 4: “Parthis deinde domitis prefectus his
statuitur ex nobilis Persarum Andragoras: inde postea originem
Parthorum reges habuere.”
[22] Parthian Coinage, _Numismata Orientalia_, vol. i. p. 2. Strabo,
xi. 9. 2.
[23] Justin, xii. 6: “Imperiumque parthorum a monte Caucaso multis
populis indicionem redactis usque flumen Euphratem protulit.”
[24] _Ibid._ xlii. 1.
[25] Gardner, _ibid._ p. 6.
[26] Gardner, _ibid._ p. 6.
[27] See Note 1 at p. 6 of Chap. iii.
[28] Strabo, xi. 8. 2.
[29] This sentiment finds many echoes in Latin literature. Cf. _Odes_
and _Epistles_ of Horace, _passim_. It is curious to note the identity
between the tactics of the Parthians and those of the hordes of Chingiz
and Tīmūr. The usual charge of bad faith is brought by the Romans
against their terrible enemies.
[30] The Straits of Yenekale.
[31] The three great reformers Lao-tse, Kung-fu-tse (Confucius), and
Meng-tse (Mencius) flourished under the princes of this dynasty.
[32] The greatest calamity which this ruthless despot inflicted on his
country was the wholesale destruction of literature which he ordered,
in view of keeping his people in ignorance. This atrocious measure was
attended by the slaughter of many learned men. Cf. Legge, _Analects of
Confucius_, p. 6.
[33] Also called Khamil, a town about 700 miles east of Kulja.
[34] According to Richthofen, the Yué-Chi were of Tibetan stock, but
Vambéry and Gerard de Realle assert that they were Turks. Their nidus
was to the north-east of Tangut.
[35] Cunningham, _Survey of India_, vol. ii. p. 62.
[36] Ct. d’Herbelot, _Bib. Orient._ vol. vi. p. 10; and Boulger, _Hist.
of China_, p. 11.
[37] Cf. Rapson, Indian Coins, in _Grundriss der Indo-Arischen
Philologie_, p. 7.
[38] Cf. Ujfalvy, _Les Aryens au nord et au sud de l’Hindou-Kouch_, p.
64.
[39] A distinctly Greek type survives to the present time in the
mercantile and settled agricultural population of Bokhārā, and the
neighbouring khanates, who are known as Tājiks.
[40] Strabo (xi. 8) tells us that the Greek power in Bactria was
overthrown by the Asii, Pasiani, Tokhari, and Sakarauli. The first two
names are probably identical, and represent the royal family of the
Tokhari. They may be identified with the Asiani of Trogus Pompeius. The
Sakarauli are the Sarancæ of Trogus, and correspond with the Chinese
_Sé_ or _Su_, _i.e._ the Sakas. Cf. Cunningham, _Survey of India_, vol.
ii. p. 65.
[41] Cf. _Journal Asiatique, Série Nouvelle_, vii. p. 162, 1896.
[42] Cf. Colonel Yule, Introduction to Wood’s _Oxus_, p. xxv.
[43] Identified with Kandahār.
[44] Cf. Drouin’s excellent article on “Bactria” in the _Grande
Encyclopédie_.
[45] General Cunningham states, without quoting any authority, that the
Yué-Chi waged war with the Chinese in Khotan during this year (_Survey
of India_, ii. 63).
[46] General Cunningham, _Survey_, vol. ii. p. 64.
[47] This point is worthy of note in that eminent scholars used to
maintain that the names were practically identical. Cf. Vivien de St.
Martin, _Les Huns Blancs_, 1849, p. 64.
[48] These notes on the Ephthalites are taken principally from M.
Drouin’s excellent _Mémoire sur les Huns Ephthalites dans leur rapports
avec les rois Perses Sassanides_, privately printed in Louvain, 1895.
[49] Their chiefs originally bore the title of Shen-Yü, which in the
reign of Tulun (A.D. 402) was changed to _Khākān_, an ancient title
which we now encounter for the first time in history.
[50] The best accounts of the Sāsānide dynasty are to be found in
Nöldeke’s admirable translation of the portion of Tabari’s annals
dealing with that period--_Geschichte der Araber und Perser zur
Zeit der Sāsāniden_, Leyden 1879, and his _Aufsätze zur Persischen
Geschichte_, Leipzig, 1887. From these sources we have derived most of
our details, and will therefore give no further references.
[51] Or Artabanus.
[52] Some authorities maintain that this city was founded by Shāpūr II.
about 340.
[53] _Gūr_ means “wild ass.” The king, who is one of the favourites of
Persian tradition, received this _sobriquet_ on account of his passion
for hunting wild asses. He usurped the crown.
[54] The Sāsānides were fire-worshippers, disciples of Zoroaster.
[55] This pass is traversed by the famous Georgian Military Road
connecting Vladikavkaz with Tiflis.
[56] Transoxiana was never included in the kingdom of the Sāsānides;
the possessions of Achemenides stretched far farther east than those of
the Sāsānians.
[57] Cf. p. 21, note 2, _supra_.
[58] Here we follow Malcolm (_History of Persia_), who bases his
account on those of various well-known Persian historians, such as
Mīrkhwānd and Khwāndamīr.
[59] We are told that when Bahrām Gūr returned from this expedition to
his capital, Ctesiphon, he appointed his brother Governor of Khorāsān,
designating Balkh as his residence.
[60] According to the Persian historians, the Khākān was named
Khush-Nawāz. Nöldeke, however, disapproved of this reading, the
invention he thinks of Firdawsi, and employs that of Akh-Shunwar.
[61] Tabari tells us that Pīrūz had previously ceded to the Khākān the
important frontier town of Tālikān.
[62] Some of the means would hardly commend themselves to modern
economists. Pīrūz remitted taxes and large sums from the treasury; but
he also compelled the rich to feed their poorer neighbours from these
taxes.
[63] The more ancient form is _Kavadh_.
[64] _I.e._ Ctesiphon.
[65] We are told that this made him look upon Anūshirawān as a
talisman, and the interesting detail is added that the mother and the
boy were conducted back to Madā´in _in a cart_ as became a princess.
Wheeled traffic is unknown on these roads, but Professor Nöldeke refers
us to Plutarch’s _Artax._ 27, where we are told that the king’s wife
used that means of locomotion. In recent times Europeans have taken
their carriages from Meshed to Teheran on Kobād’s route.
[66] Persian historians assert that he was converted by a sham miracle,
and that he continued to believe in Mazdak during the rest of his
life. But his motives were probably purely political, and not based on
conversion.
[67] The famous Orkhon inscriptions which have been deciphered by MM.
Radloff of St. Petersburg, and V. Thomsen of Copenhagen, belong to this
branch of the Turks.
[68] De Guignes, ii. p. 374.
[69] Cf. De Guignes, vol. ii. p. 378.
[70] Persian and Roman writers assert that Anūshirawān conquered
Transoxiana, but this seems most improbable. For, as Nöldeke points
out (footnote to page 159 of his Sāsānides), Huen-Tsang, who visited
the country soon after these events, speaks only of Turkish and other
barbarian States. Moreover, the State of Transoxiana at the time of the
Mohammedan invasion augurs strongly against the extension of Persian
rule.
[71] For a full account of his life--historical and fictitious--we
refer the reader to the Appendix of Nöldeke’s _Sāsāniden_, p. 474.
[72] It was reconquered in 629 by Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor,
who set up the Cross in the city which had first beheld the emblem of
salvation; and the Feast of the Elevation of the Cross is kept on the
14th September in memory of that event.
[73] The origin of this well-known expression is curious. The
designation Yemen, or the “right hand,” was given by its northern
neighbours to a strip on the south-eastern coast of the Red Sea. But
in Arabic, as in the Latin and many other languages, the right hand is
associated with good fortune. Hence by mistranslation the territory
became known to the West as “The Blessed,” or “Felix.” It is well
watered, and is better peopled than any other part of the Arabian
peninsula.
[74] The _Ka`ba_ is said to have contained 160 idols, each tribe having
its separate God; and so great was the toleration in ante-Mohammedan
times that on the pillars of the temples there were also to be found
images of Abraham and of the Virgin and Child. In the sixth century the
primitive religion had lost its old signification and had developed
into fetishism.
[75] Swedenborg was fifty-eight ere he had his first vision.
[76] There are two popular fallacies to be noted with regard to the
so-called “_Hegira_.” In the first place, it should be transcribed
as _Hijra_; and secondly, the word does not mean _flight_, but
_separation_, for the incident to be recalled was not Mohammed’s flight
to Medīna--but his _separation from his family_.
[77] “Islām” is synonymous for Mohammedanism in all Arabic-speaking
countries. Its literal meaning is “resignation”--a heart-whole
submission to the divine will.
[78] _Khalīfa Rasūl Illāh_ was the full title of the “Successor of the
Prophet of God.” The correct designation of the holder of the office
is _Khalīfa_, while the office itself is Khilāfaa. The former word has
till quite lately been transcribed “Khalif,” or Caliph. The self-styled
successor of the Mahdi in the Soudan is, however, known to Europe under
the correct designation, Khalifah.
[79] The outraged hospitality was avenged, for the murderer was torn to
pieces by the mob, while the body of Yezdijerd was embalmed and buried
in his ancestral tomb at Istakhr.
[80] He was the Prophet’s son-in-law, and had been elected in A.H. 44
by a council of six as successor to the stern `Omar, the second Caliph.
[81] _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, chap. li.
[82] Cf. Muir, _Decline and Fall of the Caliphate_, p. 208.
[83] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 15. From this date until
the appearance in Central Asia of Kutayba in A.H. 86, our history
is little more than an enumeration of Arab governors in Khorāsān,
whose rule was usually as uneventful as it was shortlived. We have,
however, considered it fitting to enter here into detail somewhat
disproportionate to the rest of our narrative, seeing that the facts
have hitherto been only accessible in works of Oriental writers.
[84] Müller, _Der Islam_, i. p. 354.
[85] Tabari, _Annales_, II. p. 109.
[86] He was not the son of the famous governor of Basra.
[87] In the interim the post seems to have been filled for a short time
by Khulayd ibn `Abdullah el-Hanafī (Tabari, II. p. 155).
[88] Tabari, II. p. 156.
[89] Vambéry considers _Tarkhān_ (or _Tarkhūn_) to be an old Turkish
title, which Mohammedan authors have regarded erroneously as a proper
name.
[90] Tabari, II. p. 156.
[91] Tabari, II. p. 169. Tabari says he was the first to cross the
mountains of Bokhārā on a camel, _loc. cit._
[92] Tabari, II. p. 169. The Persian Tabari does not mention this
queen, but relates the same incident of the _king_ of the Turks;
Ba`lami, the Persian translator, also adds that the shoe was sold by
Ubaydullah to the merchants of Basra. Cf. Zotenberg’s _Chroniques de
Tabari_, tome iv. p. 19.
[93] The direm, derived from the Greek drachma, contained 25 grains of
silver, and was worth about 5d. of our money. On this basis the value
of the shoe would be £4166 sterling!
[94] Vambéry, _History of Bokhārā_, p. 20. The author says he has this
fact from “Arabic authors,” but we have been unable to find any mention
of it in either the Arabic or Persian versions of Tabari.
[95] According to Tabari (II. p. 179), Sa`īd was met by a great
Soghdian force on reaching Samarkand. The rival hosts stood facing each
other till nightfall, but on the following day Sa`īd made a furious
onslaught and put the defenders to flight, taking fifteen young nobles
as hostages.
[96] Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, p. 39.
[97] Bellew and Vambéry both call him “Muslim,” a reading which has
been adopted in the Russian translation of Narshakhi, published in
Tashkent in 1897. The latter, indeed, contains a note to the effect
that the name is written “Salm” in Arabic sources. It is also the
spelling in the Persian Tabari. Salm was twenty-four years of age on
his appointment. His father was `Ubaydullah, the famous governor of
Basra.
[98] This warrior held command of the Arab troops in Central Asia under
several viceroys in succession, and thus gained the confidence of his
troops and an intimate knowledge of Khorāsān and the adjoining tracts.
The stability in the office of generalissimo went far to neutralise any
disadvantages occurring from the frequent changes in that of viceroy.
[99] Tabari (II. p. 394) tells us that Salm took his wife Umm Mohammed
with him, and that she was the first Arab woman to cross the Oxus. She
bore him a son, who was surnamed the “Soghdian.”
[100] £55 reckoned in our currency.
[101] Narshakhi’s account of these events brings the lack of discipline
among the Arabs into a strong light, and serves to account for the
vicissitudes of their rule in Central Asia.
[102] This curious custom still survives in Merv. “One day,” writes
O’Donovan, “the town-crier, accompanied by half a dozen other
Turcomans, entered my hut, each to present me a new-born child. I could
not catch the exact words; all I could understand was that one of the
infants was O’Donovan Beg, another O’Donovan Khan, a third O’Donovan
Bahadur. I forget what the others were. It turned out that the Tekkes’
newly born children are, as a rule, called after any distinguished
strangers who may be on the oasis at the time of their births, or have
resided there a short time previously, or after some event intimately
connected with the tribe” (_The Story of Merv_, p. 329).
[103] Cf. Aug. Müller, _Der Islam_, p. 411, who gives the date as A.H.
85.
[104] An entertaining account of this cruel and witty governor will be
found in d’Herbelot, under the article _Heggiage-ben-Josef-al-Thakefi_.
[105] Merv has been styled by almost all European writers on the
subject, “The Queen of the World.” Now the origin of this high-sounding
title is the expression _Merv-i-Shāhijān_, a title used to distinguish
this town from Merv er-Rūd. This word Shāhijān has been taken as
a corruption of Shah-i-jahān, or “Queen of the World.” Yakūt says
that Shāhijān means “Soul of the King.” The form as it now stands
is probably “Arabicised” from an old Persian form _Shahgūn_, “what
appertains to a king.” Cf. Rückert, _Gram. Poet. und Rhet. der Perser_
(Gotha, 1874), p. xix. The mistranslation, if such it be, has shared
the fate of most mistranslations of the kind, and become universal
among Europeans.
[106] It must be remembered that Bokhārā is the name of a kingdom as
well as of a town.
[107] Between Balkh and Merv er-Rūd, three days’ journey from the
latter. Istakhri, the geographer, speaks of it as the most important
place in Tokhāristān.
[108] _Dihakān_ = the man (_i.e._ the head man) of the _dih_, or
village.
[109] Vambéry seems to confuse the two accounts, for he says: “He
had not yet arrived within the limits of ancient Bactria when the
inhabitants of Balkh came out to meet him, and conducted him with
honour into their city.” But Tabari speaks distinctly of an engagement,
in connection with which he remembers an interesting detail. Among the
captives taken at that time was the wife of a certain Barmek. She was
taken into the harem of Kutayba’s brother `Abdullah, by whom she had a
son, who was commonly regarded as the ancestor of the famous Barmecīdes
of the court of Baghdād. The story was probably invented to give the
family a less obscure lineage than that of humble immigrants from
Balkh. Cf. Muir, _History of the Caliphate_, p. 358.
[110] Cf. Tabari’s _Annales_, Series II. p. 1187, and Zotenberg’s
_Chroniques de Tabari_, vol. iv. p. 157.
[111] Neither version of Tabari gives any details of this siege, but
Narshakhi’s account, of which we extract a portion, is most vivid.
[112] Tabari says that he had gone five farsakhs, but mentions no
place-name.
[113] Narshakhi records that the lieutenant, who was named Varkā, was
answerable for this catastrophe. A citizen of Baykand, it seems, had
two beautiful daughters. These the lieutenant abducted, whereupon the
father remonstrated with him, saying: “Baykand is a large town, why,
when you have the whole population to select from, should you carry off
my daughters?” As Varkā gave no answer, the enraged father drew out his
knife and stabbed him, but not mortally.
[114] Narshakhi tells that in Baykand, Kutayba found a heathen temple
in which was a silver idol weighing 4000 direms; also a quantity of
golden vessels which, when weighed together, amounted to 150,000
_mithkals_. But the most remarkable of his discoveries were two pearls,
each the size of a pigeon’s egg. Kutayba on beholding them asked the
people whence such large pearls had been brought. They replied, “that
they had been brought to the temple by birds in their beaks.” When
Kutayba sent intelligence of his conquest of Baykand to Hajjāj, he also
despatched these two pearls, with the account of the tradition relating
to them. The reply of Hajjāj ran thus: “We have read your story, and
it has filled us with wonder; but more wonderful than the two large
pearls, and the birds that brought them, is your generosity in having
sent to me these precious prizes you had taken. May the blessing of God
be upon you.”
[115] Ed. Schefer, p. 43. Khartūm may possibly come to offer a parallel.
[116] Vambéry, _Bokhara_, p. 25.
[117] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 1195.
[118] Scholars have hitherto failed to read this satisfactorily. The
forms that occur are Kur-Bughanūn, Kurighanūn, etc. Professor Houtsma
has suggested that the termination should be read _nūīn_, _i.e._ prince.
[119] Narshakhi.
[120] Not, of course, to be confounded with Fārāb opposite Chārjūy; but
the reading of the name is doubtful.
[121] The italics indicate three excellent puns in the original Arabic.
Hajjāj had a universal reputation as a master of this difficult tongue.
The words may be transcribed as follows: _Kiss bi Kissa wansif Nasafan
waridd Wardan_.
[122] Narshakhi’s version of the campaign is full of discrepancies,
and the events of the years 88–91 are perforce presented to the reader
without much regard for chronology or natural sequence. The results are
to be found in Bellew’s epitome (_Yarkand Expedition_, p. 117).
[123] _Annales_, Series II. p. 1201.
[124] Vambéry says, evidently following his Turkish Tabari: “Their
women ... _tore their faces_!”
[125] One of the most famous tribes of Yemen.
[126] Vambéry says a yearly tribute of 2,000,000 direms!
[127] Narshakhi, ed. Paris, p. 40.
[128] Vambéry follows Narshakhi in ignoring this revolt, which was
certainly a very serious one as far as Kutayba was concerned, but both
versions of Tabari give detailed accounts of its various phases.
[129] Old Persian word signifying commander-in-chief.
[130] He was opposed to Nīzek’s design. We are also told that, in order
that a certain appearance of respect might be kept up, his chains were
of gold. Cf. Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 1206.
[131] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 1218.
[132] On the river Jīhūn, one of the three principal towns of Khwārazm,
of which Medīnat-el-Fīl, or the Town of the Elephant, was the largest.
[133] Tabari relates that one day several Soghdians mounted the rampart
and called out: “Oh ye Arabs, why do ye exert yourselves thus vainly?
Know that we have found written in a book that our town shall not be
taken except by one whose name is “Camel-Saddle,” whereupon Kutayba
called out--“God is great! for verily that is my name.” (In Arabic,
Kutayba means literally “camel-saddle.”)
[134] He is said to have obtained no less than 20,000 native levies,
men from Kesh, Nakhshab, and Khwārazm. Cf. Tabari, _Annales_, Series
II. p. 1256.
[135] In the year 95 Hajjāj died at the age of fifty-four.
[136] Welīd had been most anxious to make his own son heir-apparent
in the place of his brother, and in his designs had been supported
by Hajjāj and Kutayba. Hence the bad blood that existed between the
conqueror and the new Caliph.
Vambéry adds the following details without reference (not to be found
either in Tabari or Narshakhi): “Having conquered Farghāna, he went
through the Terek Pass into Eastern Turkestān. Here he encountered the
princes of the Uïgurs, who in default of union among themselves were
easily conquered. We are told that the Arabs extended their incursions
into the province of Kansu.... Turfan, on the very first appearance of
the Arabs, embraced Islam.” (_Bokhara_, pp. 31, 32).
[137] Gibbon recognised the greatness of Kutayba as a conqueror, while
lamenting the scanty notices to be found of him in European works;
cf. _Decline and Fall_, chap. li. d’Herbelot, in his _Bibliothèque
Orientale_, dismisses our hero, under the heading _Catbah_, in a very
summary manner. “Ce fut un des plus villains Arabes de son siècle,
Valid, sixième Khalife de la race des Ommiades, le fit général de ses
armées en Perse, l’an de l’Hégire 88. Il conquît tout le grand pays de
Khorazan, et obligea en ces quartiers-là à brûler leurs idoles et à
bâtir de Mosquées. Après cette conquête, il passa dans la Transoxiana
et prit de force les fameuses villes de Samarcande et de Bokhara, et
défit Mazurk roi de Turkestan, qui s’était approché pour les sécourir.
Ce grand capitaine finit ses conquêtes l’an 93 (_sic_) de l’Hégire.”
[138] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. pp. 1283–96.
[139] An important town on the Perso-Turkish frontier, north-east of
Baghdād.
[140] This saying is not to be found in the Arabic Tabari, but in the
Persian version. See Zotenberg, vol. iv. p. 204.
[141] See Zotenberg’s translation of the Persian Tabari, vol. iv. p.
221.
[142] After remaining, as Tabari tells us, four months in Khorāsān to
settle the administration of the province.
[143] Zotenberg, vol. iv. p. 225 _et seq._
[144] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 1318.
[145] He directed that converts were to be exempt from all taxes, and
placed on the same footing as the Arabs; while unbelievers were to be
taxed to the utmost. No churches, synagogues, or fire-temples were to
be destroyed, but the erection of new ones was forbidden. Cf. Muir,
_Caliphate_, p. 380.
[146] His post was the same as Hajjāj’s, and was equivalent to a
viceroyalty of the Eastern conquests of the Caliphate.
[147] Known by the sobriquet of _Khuzayna_, “the Village Girl,” because
of his effeminate ways.
[148] See Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. pp. 1431 and 1433. Vambéry
(who reads the name as _Tarshi_) states that this man succeeded Yezīd
ibn Muhallab on the appointment of Maslama. Cf. _Bokhara_, p. 37. The
Persian Tabari also says that the nomination was made by Maslama. Cf.
Zotenberg, vol. iv. p. 268.
[149] The _Annales_ devote many pages to his progress, but as the
details are of small importance we refrain from summarising them, and
merely follow the abridged account of the Persian Tabari.
[150] He seems already to have been dismissed, and to have been
reinstated.
[151] It is very remarkable that from this point in the history the
account in the Arabic is as prolix as that in the Persian translation
is compressed and condensed.
[152] Vambéry calls him (wrongly) Esresh.
[153] Called by Vambéry, Jandab. He succeeded to the command in A.H.
111. He had previously been in Sind, and on his way to join the army
at Bokhārā he narrowly escaped falling into the Khākān’s hands. Tabari
relates that he obtained his promotion by offering to Hishām’s wife a
necklace of precious stones, which the Caliph admired so greatly that
Junayd procured another like it for him. See Tabari, _Annales_, Series
II. p. 1527.
[154] In this battle a nephew of the Khākān was taken prisoner, and
afterwards sent to the Caliph. Tabari notices that there is a doubt as
to the year in which these engagements took place, some saying A.H. 112
and others 113 (730, 731).
[155] This defeat was known as the battle of the Defile (ash-Shīb),
A.H. 112 (730).
[156] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 1539.
[157] About ten or eleven thousand perished in the battle, the
remainder were betrayed to the Khākān (Tabari, _loc. cit._ p. 1542).
[158] Tabari, _loc. cit._ p. 1543.
[159] Junayd in his report seems to have laid the blame of his defeat
on Saura for advancing too far out of Samarkand. According to Tabari,
his words were: “Saura disobeyed me; I ordered him to keep near the
river, but he did not do so” (_loc. cit._ p. 1544). Beladhori also, in
his very brief account of this campaign, makes no mention of defeat or
even disaster. He merely says that Junayd fought the Turks till he had
utterly repulsed them, and then asked the Caliph for reinforcements.
The account in the Persian Tabari is roughly as follows:--Junayd’s
first brush with the Turks was successful; but their Khākān was not
discouraged by his reverse. He mustered a host so formidable that
Junayd found it necessary to order Saura, who had taken possession
of Samarkand, to join forces with him. He then marched against the
Khākān with 20,000 men. The Turkish leader adopted tactics which have
again and again enabled a prescient leader to triumph against immense
odds. On learning that Saura had left Samarkand, he turned and fell
upon him with such ferocity that not one of his 20,000 troops escaped
to tell the tale. Thereupon Junayd summoned every town of Khorāsān
and Tokhāristān to send him its quota of reinforcements; and having
thus gathered an army of 43,000 strong, despatched it under a trusted
follower to relieve Samarkand, which was closely besieged by the
victorious Khākān. The Mohammedans reached the city when their garrison
was on the point of surrendering, and attacked the beleaguering host.
For the first time during many disastrous years the banner of Islām
prevailed. The Khākān was smitten hip and thigh, and forced to raise
the siege of Samarkand. Junayd placed a garrison there of 5000 men
under Nasr ibn Sayyār, and returned to Merv, where death soon closed
his brilliant career.
[160] He appears to have received the appointment from his brother
Khālid, the governor of `Irāk.
[161] It is worthy of remark that in the Persian Tabari the record of
Asad’s second tenure of office is not only very brief, but even differs
essentially from that of the Arabic original.
[162] In Schefer’s edition of Narshakhi (p. 59) the date is absurdly
given as 166.
[163] Descendants of `Abbās, uncle of the Prophet. See note below, p.
80.
[164] Cf. Tabari, _loc. cit._ p. 1988 _et seq._
[165] Hārith ibn Surayj mentioned above was still with the Turks, and
when Nasr ibn Sayyār reported his victory to the governor of `Irāk the
latter ordered him to capture Hārith, subdue Farghāna, and destroy the
town of Shāsh.
[166] By the promulgation of a general amnesty the Soghdians were
brought back to their allegiance.
[167] Their names were Welīd II., Yezīd II., Ibrāhīm, and Merwān II.
[168] His father, Mohammed, had died in A.H. 124.
[169] An amusing incident is given in this connection by Tabari.
Kirmānī was very stout, and the passage by which he had to escape was
so narrow that his servant was obliged to drag him through by main
force, and the operation very nearly killed him.
[170] See note 1, p. 82.
[171] For a full account of the story of El-Kirmānī and Hārith ibn
Surayj, see Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. pp. 1855–69, 1887–90, and
1917–35.
[172] The following table will explain the descent of the two
branches:--
Kossay
|
`Abd Menāf
|
+------+--------------+
| |
`Abd Shems Hāshim
| |
Umayya `Abd al-Muttalib
|
+--------------+----+------------+
| | |
Abū Tālib `Abdullah `Abbās
| |
`Alī _Mohammed_
[173] Zotenberg, _op. cit._ vol. iv. p. 323 _et seq._
[174] He was then not twenty years of age.
[175] We are told that Abū Muslim wished to have a distinctive colour
for his party, the Umayyads having adopted white. After making one of
his slaves clothe himself in suits of various colours, he ordered him
to dress in black, and finding the sombre hue the most awe-inspiring
adopted it for his party. Cf. Zotenberg, _lot cit._ p. 327. Later the
Khārijites adopted red, and the Shi`ites green.
[176] Nasr ibn Sayyār was a poet of no mean order, and Arabic histories
contain many quotations from his compositions, specimens of which will
be found on p. 87 and 88 of Nöldeke’s _Delectus Vet. Carm. Arab_.
[177] Two very different versions of the end of Nasr are to be found
in Oriental histories. That given in the text is the usually accepted
one; but in the Persian translation of Tabari (cf. Zotenberg, _loc
cit._ p. 329), in the _Tārīkh-i-Guzīda_, etc., we are told that he
fled unaccompanied as far as Ray, where he died. No mention is made
here of the engagements with Kahtaba, who, according to the author of
the _Guzīda_, gained possession of Jurjān, Ray, Sāva, and Kum without
striking a blow.
[178] His horse ran away with him and, slipping on the banks of the
river, threw its rider into the water, where he was drowned. His
disappearance was not remarked until daybreak. The _Guzīda_ says that
Ibn Hobayra also perished in the battle.
[179] Numbering, according to the Persian Tabari, more than 30,000 men.
[180] The Caliph’s two uncles, Dā´ūd and `Abdullah,--the former in
Mekka and Medīna, the latter in Palestine,--were responsible for
the wholesale extermination of the Umayyads in those countries. The
historians tell us that `Abdullah on one occasion invited seventy
members of the house of Umayya to a feast, under promises of a full
amnesty, and that, at a given signal, the servants fell upon the
unsuspecting guests and put them all to death. This tragedy recalls the
famous “Blood bath” in Stockholm, but the Umayyads had no Gustav Wasa
to avenge their death. We are told that the spirit of revenge carried
them so far that they caused all the tombs of the Umayyad Caliph to
be opened, and what remained of their corpses to be scattered to the
winds. Cf. _Chroniques de Tabari_, vol. iv. p. 343.
[181] _History of Bokhara_, p. 40.
[182] Es-Saffāh was ten years younger than Abū Ja`far, but, as Weil
suggests, was preferred to the latter, because his mother was a free
woman, while his brother’s was a slave.
[183] See Weil, _Geschichte der Khalifen_, vol. ii. pp. 24, 25.
[184] The correspondence is fully reported by Tabari; and Weil,
recognising its historical interest, has translated in full three of
the letters. Cf. Weil, _op. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 27, 28.
[185] Tabari, _Annales_, Series III. p. 122.
[186] An account of this man may be found in the _Siasset Namèh_, pp.
122–23 of Schefer’s text.
[187] In the Arabic, _Wadhālika innahu kāna min sanāyi`ihi_.
[188] Numbering 6000 men.
[189] Wrongly read by Weil as _Jumhur_.
[190] Tabari, _loc cit._ p. 120.
[191] According to both versions of Tabari, he fell from a window and
broke his back.
[192] El-Mahdi, who was at this time about twenty years of age, had, we
are told, a lieutenant to assist him in his duties as governor.
[193] The _Rāvandīs_ believed in the transmigration of souls, and
held that the soul of the Deity was temporarily resident in the body
of the Caliph, while the souls of Adam and Gabriel were residing in
the bodies of two of his generals. For accounts of this sect, see
Weil, _Geschichte der Khalifen_, vol. ii. p. 36 _et seq._; Muir, _The
Caliphate_, p. 448; Tabari, _Annales_, Series III. p. 129 _et seq._;
and Zotenberg, _Chroniques de Tabari_, vol. iv. p. 137 _et seq._
[194] In the preceding pages undue space may appear to have been given
to the history of the Caliphs, but the growing importance of Central
Asia will in future render our history almost independent of events at
Baghdād.
[195] The famous _Annales_ of Tabari (which have been our
_Haupt-Quelle_ for the history of the Arabs in Central Asia), like
those of Ibn el-Athīr, are arranged under the heading of each
succeeding year. We make a point of giving throughout the name of each
governor of Khorāsān appointed by the Caliphs, for, though such details
are in themselves trivial, no list of them has, to our knowledge,
appeared in any European work.
[196] Weil, _op. cit._ vol. ii. p. 65, says that he gave himself out as
a _prophet_, but Tabari says nothing of this. Cf. Tabari, _Annales_,
Series III. p. 149.
[197] El-Mahdi had held this post since A.H. 141 (758).
[198] We have not thought fit to dwell at any length on the adventures
of this famous impostor. Professor Vambéry, in his _History of
Bokhara_, devotes no less than ten pages to the rising. The story, in
its main outlines, is familiar to Englishmen from Moore’s _Lalla Rookh_.
[199] Cf. Tabari, _loc. cit._ p. 631.
[200] This powerful family took its descent from one Barmek, a
physician of Balkh. One of its members, Khālid ibn Barmek, became vezīr
of the first `Abbāsid Caliph, and under El-Mahdi was intrusted with the
education of the heir-apparent Hārūn. Khālid’s son Yahya succeeded him
as vezīr in A.H. 170 (786), and showed himself one of the most capable
rulers of his age. For an account of their fall consult Sec. iii. of
the Terminal Essay in vol. x. of Burton’s _Thousand and One Nights_.
[201] August Müller, generally so accurate, calls him erroneously Isā
ibn Alī, and equally erroneously states that he was killed in battle in
the year 191, whereas he did not die till 195 (see below).
[202] Zotenberg, _op. cit._ iv. p. 469.
[203] Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ i. p. 497; Vambéry, _Bokhara_, pp. 53, 54;
Zotenberg, _op. cit._ iv, 71 _et seq._
[204] Its exact nature is not known, but it was probably the fruits of
a life of reckless dissipation.
[205] Cf. Zotenberg, _op. cit._ tome iv. p. 481.
[206] He was minister of both the civil and military departments, and
was hence known as _Dhu-l-Rīyāsatayn_, or “Lord of the two Ministries.”
[207] Cf. Weil, _Geschichte der Khalifen_, vol. ii. p. 197.
[208] He was called “the Magian, the son of a Magian.”
[209] Ma´mūn had conceived an aversion for Tāhir (some authors say
because Tāhir reminded him of his brother Amīn’s death), and, being
conscious of this, Tāhir naturally feared the proximity of the Caliph.
He superseded a certain Ghassān, whom Ma´mūn had left in charge of
Khorāsān.
[210] Who died A.H. 166 (782).
[211] His full title was Sāmān-Khudāt, being lord of a village which he
himself had built and given the name of Sāmān. He claimed descent from
the Sāsānide Bahrām Chūbīn. Cf. Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, pp. 57, 58.
[212] Vambéry (_Bokhara_, p. 55) notes that “the fact that Sāmān,
whilst still a heretic, had held a command long after the Arab
conquest, proves the small progress Islāmism had at first made among
the followers of Zoroaster.”
[213] See above, p. 96.
[214] See note 1 above, p. 100.
[215] Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, reads absurdly 292!
[216] Cf. Mīrkhwānd, _Historia Samanidarum_, ed. Wilken, p. 3.
Narshakhi says that Ahmed was made governor of Merv, but from what
follows this seems erroneous.
[217] d’Herbelot quotes a Persian quatrain in which the Tāhirides are
enumerated--
_Dar Khorāsān zi āl-i-Massābshāh,
Tāhir u Talha būd u Abdullāh,
Bāz Tāhir, digar Mohammad dān
Kū be Ya`kūb dād takht u kulāh._
_Translation._--In Khorāsān, of the house of Massāb (Tāhir’s name was
Tāhir ibn Husayn ibn Massāb) there were the following princes--Tāhir,
Talha, `Abdullah, another Tāhir and then Mohammad, who gave up throne
and crown to Ya`kūb.
[218] He ruled from A.H. 232–247 (846–861).
[219] In Arabic _Saffār_, whence the dynasty took its name.
[220] Cf. Khwāndamīr’s account of the Saffārides in his
_Habīb-us-Siyar_. We refer the reader also to Nöldeke’s brilliant
sketch of this man’s career, entitled “Ya`qūb the Coppersmith”
(_Sketches from Persian History_, pp. 176–206).
[221] Malcolm, _History of Persia_, vol. i. p. 148.
[222] Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ vol. ii. p. 29.
[223] Narshakhi (ed. Schefer, p. 78) gives the date as A.H. 260 (872),
Mīrkhwānd (ed. Wilken, p. 4) as A.H. 261 (873).
[224] Narshakhi, _loc. cit._ Muwaffak is here spoken of as Caliph,
but he was merely chief minister of state to his brother the Caliph
Mu`tamid.
[225] This point is not made clear by Persian historians. The
Saffārides had by their victories become masters of all the provinces
ruled by the Tāhirides, of which Transoxiana was certainly one. It is
hard to conceive either that they should have renounced their claim on
Transoxiana, or that the feeble Caliph should have taken upon himself
to pronounce the Samānīdes independent of Khorāsān.
[226] Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, p. 79.
[227] Vambéry is in this place (see _Bokhārā_, p. 58) guilty of a
curious error, for he says that this Rāfi` was the _Rāfi` ibn Layth_
who had rebelled against Hārūn er-Rashīd in A.H. 190 and was pardoned
in 196 by Ma´mūn. He would by the year 272 have been rather old to
receive a governorship of a province.
[228] Mīrkhwānd (ed. Wilken, p. 6) says that it was in connection with
this friendship that certain mean persons poisoned the mind of Nasr
against his brother. This author tells us that Isma`īl had requested
and received of Rāfi` the province of Khwārazm, and this, so Nasr’s
advisers said, was merely a plot to deprive Nasr of Transoxiana.
[229] See below, p. 110.
[230] Five farsakhs to the south of Aulié-ātā. For a full account of
what is known of Christianity in Central Asia in early times we refer
the reader to an excellent monograph on this subject by M. Barthold,
of St. Petersburg, which was published in vol. viii. of the _Zapiski_,
or Journal of the St. Petersburg University Oriental Faculty. Much
valuable information on this subject is also to be found in Col. Yule’s
_Cathay and the Way Thither_.
[231] Ed. Schefer, p. 84.
[232] Bellew (_Forsyth Mission_, p. 119) says that Isma`īl received his
patent of succession from the Caliph while engaged in this campaign;
but this is not in agreement with Narshakhi, whom he gives as his
authority.
[233] See above, p. 105.
[234] Cf. Weil, _op. cit._ ii. p. 483.
[235] Weil, _op. cit._ ii. p. 485, hints at this duplicity, basing his
statement on the fact that the Caliph praised and rewarded Isma`īl when
he heard of his victory over `Amr. Khwāndamīr, in his _Habīb-us-Siyar_,
leaves the question open, and expressly says that Isma`īl acted “either
on the Khalif’s orders or on his own initiative.”
[236] Nizām ul-Mulk, in his _Siyāset Namé_, tells an amusing anecdote
in this connection. After `Amr had been taken prisoner, towards
nightfall one of his fellows, having procured some meat and borrowed a
saucepan, was preparing a meal for his master: while he for a moment
left his cooking to fetch some salt, a dog came and poked his head into
the saucepan. In trying to pull out a bone the handle of the pot fell
round his neck, and he scampered off, carrying the scalding pot with
him. On seeing this, `Amr remarked: “This morning 300 camels bore my
kitchen, and to-night a dog has carried it off.”
[237] Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, p. 90. The editor was here (as in only
too many places in this uncritical edition) guilty of allowing an
absurd date to be printed in his text; for the date of `Amr’s death is
given as 280!
[238] Narshakhi, _loc. cit._ Vambéry points out (_op. cit._ note to p.
66) that Sind and Hind are “a random boast” of the author.
[239] The governor before him had made Bokhārā his residence.
[240] A very striking description of the literary talent gathered there
is given by _ath-Tha`labi_, in the _Yatīmatu ´d-Dahr_, vol. iv. p. 30
(Damascus ed.).
[241] Vambéry (_Bokhara_, p. 67) adds to this list Kazwīn, Shīrāz, and
Isfahān, which were towns in the dominion of the Būyides. The Būyides
and the Sāmānides practically shared the whole of Persia and Central
Asia as follows:--
_Sāmānides_--Khorāsān, Sīstān, Balkh, Bokhārā, and Samarkand.
_Būyides_--The two `Irāks, Fars, Kirmān, Khuzistān, and Luristān.
Tabaristān and Jurjān were continually changing hands.
[242] He died of some malady at a place called Zarmān, whither the
doctors had sent him for change of air.
[243] Dawlat Shāh, in his _Lives of the Poets_ (see Browne’s edition,
p. 44), quotes from `Unsuri the following quatrain in which the rulers
of the house of Sāmān are enumerated--
_Nūh kas būdand zi āl-i-Sāmān mazkūr
Dā´īm bi imārat-i-Khorāsān mashhūr
Ismā`īl ast u Ahmadī u Nasrī
Dū Nūh u dū `Abd-ul-Malik u dū Mansūr._
_Translation._--Nine members of the house of Sāmān were famous in the
government of Khorāsān, namely, Ismā`īl, one Ahmad, one Nasr, two
Nūh’s, two `Abd el-Melik’s, and two Mansūr’s.
[244] Cf. Vambéry, _Bokhara_, p. 81, and Bretschneider, _Mediæval
Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources_ (London, 1888), vol. i. p. 236
_seqq_. An interesting article was published in 1874 by Grigorieff in
the _Memoirs of the Eastern Branch of the St. Petersburg Archæological
Society_, vol. xviii. p. 191 _seqq._ This article contains the
Turkish text of an extract from the _Tārīkh-i-Munajjim-Bāshī_, with
an introduction, a translation, and copious notes. The name of
Kara-Khānides was first suggested by Grigorieff for this dynasty, after
Satuk Kara Khān, who was the first of its kings to embrace Islām. The
title is more convenient than the others by which this dynasty has
been known, such as Uïghūrs, Ilek-khāns, and Ilkhāns, as will appear
from note below, p. 116. Bretschneider, whom on such subjects it is
hard to contradict, was by no means convinced by Grigorieff’s positive
assertion that the Kara-Khānides were not Uïghūrs.
[245] The passage from his famous history, the _Tārīkh-i-Jahān-Kushāy_,
dealing at great length with the Uïghūrs, has been translated by
d’Ohsson. Cf. _Histoire des Mongols_, vol. i. p. 430 _et seq._
[246] Narshakhi (ed. Schefer, p. 233) calls this dynasty of “Turkish
Khāns” the “house of Afrāsiyāb.” Afrāsiyāb is one of the most prominent
figures in Firdawsi’s great epic of kings, the _Shāh Namé_. B.C. 700 is
given as a conjectural date of the first migration of the Turks across
the Oxus--as far as India and Asia Minor. According to the coins, it
appears that the Turks (under what name it is not known) entered the
Greek kingdom of Bactria. Cf. Reinaud, _Rélations de l’Empire, Rom.
avec l’Asie Centrale_ (Paris, 1863), p. 227. Tradition has it that
Afrāsiyāb flourished about B.C. 580. He was the emperor of Tūrān, of
which Turkestān was a province, and was the great foe of Īrān. During
his reign Siyāwush, son of the emperor of Īrān, Kay-Kā´ūs, having
incurred his father’s displeasure, fled across the Oxus, which formed
the boundary between the two kingdoms, to Afrāsiyāb, who held court at
Rāmtīn. Siyāwush received Afrāsiyāb’s daughter Ferengis in marriage,
with the provinces of Khotan and Chīn as her dowry. Afrāsiyāb’s brother
Gersīwaz, jealous of the strangers growing power, set his brother’s
mind against Siyāwush, and induced him to take the field against his
son-in-law, who was captured and conveyed to Rāmtīn and there put to
death. Siyāwush left a posthumous son by Ferengis, named Kay-Khosrū,
who became emperor of Īrān. Kay-Khosrū, bent on avenging his father’s
death, besieged Rāmtīn, drove Afrāsiyāb out of his country, and
occupied it for seven years; Afrāsiyāb afterwards returned and
recovered his capital, but was finally defeated and slain. Kay-Khosrū
now became master of Samarkand and Bokhārā; but, wishing to devote his
days to religious contemplation, resigned his government to Lohrāsp,
the son-in-law of Kay-Kā´ūs, who soon exacted homage from the rulers of
Tartary. Thus the Persian dynasty existed till the overthrow of Darius
II.
[247] The accurate transcription of this name is _Khitā´ī_; however,
for convenience the more familiar spelling of _Khitāy_ has been
retained throughout.
[248] The exact position of this town, which during the tenth and
eleventh centuries was the capital of the Khāns of Turkestān (see Ibn
el-Athīr), is not known. Abulfeda says it was not far from Kāshghar.
Juvaynī says that in the days of the Mongols it was called Gu-Balik.
[249] Grigorieff, in his well-known but harsh, and indeed unjust,
review of Vambéry’s _Bokhara_, published as an Appendix to vol. i. of
Schuyler’s _Turkestan_, says (1) that the Ilik Khāns were not Uïghūrs,
but Karlukhs, and (2) that the Kara-Khitāys were their descendants.
Though he takes M. Vambéry to task for not knowing such “facts,”
neither of these statements will bear the light of modern research.
Vambéry was, however, wrong in calling the Kara-Khitāys Uïghūrs.
[250] Klaproth (_Sprache und Schrift der Uiguren_) proves convincingly
that the Hui-ho of the Chinese authors anterior to the Mongol period
are identical with the Uïghūrs, and that the Uïghūrs are to be classed
among the Eastern Turks. The term Hui-ho was, however, used by Chinese
writers of the Mongol period to designate Mohammedans generally (cf.
Bretschneider’s article on the Uïghūrs in his _Mediæval Researches from
Eastern Asiatic Sources_, to which excellent monograph most of these
notes are due). Translations of the principal Chinese records of the
Uïghūrs are to be found in Videlou’s supplement to d’Herbelot’s _Bib.
Orient._
[251] The name _Uïghūr_ is first found in Mohammedan histories at the
beginning of the thirteenth century. Previously to this they seem
to have been known by the name of Taghazghaz, which is doubtless a
corruption. Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, or, _History of the Moghuls of
Central Asia_, by Ney Elias and E. Denison Ross, p. 94 of Introduction.
[252] For notices of these places, consult Grigorieff’s article on the
_Kara-Khānides_, and Bretschneider’s _Mediæval Researches_.
[253] He was not actually the last of the Sāmānides, for one member of
the family named Isma`īl el-Muntazir had escaped from Ilik’s hands.
His subsequent adventures would go to make an exciting story. For six
years he maintained himself at the head of a faithful following. With
the help of the Ghuz he twice defeated Ilik’s troops, and (in 391–1001)
actually wrested Nīshāpūr from the hands of the governor, Mahmūd of
Ghazna’s brother. He finally perished at the hands of a Bedouin in A.H.
395 (1005).
[254] His name was Abū-l-Husayn Nasr I.
[255] A tentative list of the Khāns of Turkestān is given in S.
Lane-Poole’s _Mohammedan Dynasties_, p. 134. They ruled, according to
this author’s computation, from about A.H. 320–560 (932–1165).
[256] He was born in A.H. 333 (944). Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 287.
[257] Cf. Forsyth’s _Mission to Yarkand_,--Dr. Bellew’s chapter on the
History of Kāshghar, p. 121. The account of the first introduction of
Islām into Kāshghar is given in a Turki work entitled the _Tazkira
Bughra Khān_ (which was translated from the Persian of Shaykh `Attār).
Extracts from this somewhat fantastic work have been published in the
original in Shaw’s _Turki Grammar_.
[258] Ed. Schefer, p. 233.
[259] They advanced within three stages of Balāsāghūn. They are spoken
of as coming from _Sīn_ (China), but they were probably not Chinese but
Eastern Uïghūrs (cf. Bretschneider, i. 253).
[260] His name is often given in Oriental histories as _Kadr_. See
Raverty, _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_.
[261] Cf. Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, p. 234.
[262] We are told by this same author that they had caused much
depredation among the Mohammedans, which seems inconsistent with what
has been said of them before.
[263] S. Lane-Poole gives the date of Boghrā Khān’s death as 435, and
makes no mention of his son Ibrāhīm.
[264] Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, reads this name _Tumghāch_.
[265] S. Lane-Poole (_loc. cit._) says Ibrāhīm died in 460, and was
succeeded by his son Nasr, who died in 472. It will be seen that great
confusion exists with regard to these Khāns. Major Raverty, in his
translation of the _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_, furnishes a long list of Ilik
Khāns; but it is hard to reconcile any two accounts, so much do the
names and dates differ.
[266] S. Lane-Poole (_Mohammedan Dynasties_, p. 135) says Mahmūd Khān
II.
[267] S. Lane-Poole (_loc. cit._) reads Mahmūd Khān III., and from this
point the list he gives no longer corresponds with Narshakhi’s account.
[268] Mīrkhwānd (Vüllers, _Historia Seldschukidarum_, p. 176), and
Vambéry following him, say that Mohammad was reinstated.
[269] The modern Khiva.
[270] See chap. XX.
[271] This history, by Hamdullah Mustawfi, is one of the most important
Persian chronicles. The whole text has never yet been published, but
the portion relating to the Seljūks was edited and translated by M.
Defrémery.
[272] There is some confusion as to the precise origin of this branch
of the Turks. Aug. Müller says that during the disorders which attended
the downfall of the Sāmānides and the struggles between the Ghaznavides
and the Khāns of Kāshghar, the Ghuz, through internal dissensions,
became split up into subdivisions. The foremost of these was a branch
who in A.H. 345 (956) settled down in Jend (east of Khwārazm). They
received the name of Seljūk from their chief, who had been compelled
to quit the court of his master Pighu Khān of the Kipchāk Turks. He is
said to have embraced Islām (Müller, _Islām_, ii. 74).
[273] He was the first prince to bear the title of _Sultān_. Cf.
Gibbon, chap. 47.
[274] Malcolm, _op. cit._ i. p. 195.
[275] Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ ii. p. 76.
[276] The son of Altuntāsh mentioned above, p. 123.
[277] Gibbon (chap, lvii.) speaks of this victory as the “memorable
day of Qandacan” which “founded in Persia the dynasty of the shepherd
kings.” He gives the date as A.D. 1038.
[278] Mohammad, who, as stated above, had been nominated by his father
Mahmūd to succeed him in Ghazna, had been almost immediately deposed by
his brother Mas`ūd.
[279] Malcolm, _op. cit._ i. p. 199.
[280] Müller, _op. cit._ i. 77.
[281] _Vide supra_, p. 112, note 1.
[282] Cf. Gibbon, chap. lvii. De Guignes gives a somewhat different
version of the relations between the Emperor and the Turk (vol.
iii. p. 191). He says: “Constantin-Monomaque qui regnoit alors à
Constantinople, ne crut pas devoir négliger l’alliance d’un prince qui
faisoit trembler toute l’Asie: il lui envoya des ambassadeurs pour lui
proposer de faire la paix, et Thogrulbegh y consentit.” This difference
is due to the fact that Gibbon’s authorities were Byzantine, while De
Guignes’ were Mohammedan.
[283] It would, however, be wrong to regard these Turks as uncultured
people; for though few traces of their early literature have come down
to us, testimony is not wanting to the fact that they had, long before
they began their westward migrations, a written language and perhaps a
literature.
[284] He was not received in audience by the Caliph till A.H. 451
(1059). In 455 (1063), in spite of his outward show of respect, Toghrul
Beg practically forced the Caliph to give him his daughter in marriage.
But, in the same year, as Toghrul was about to claim his bride, fortune
suddenly deserted him, and he died at the age of seventy in Ray, where,
according to Mīrkhwānd (see ed. Vüllers, p. 65), he wished to celebrate
his nuptials.
[285] His name is familiar to the English public through the medium of
`Omar Khayyām. All who have read Fitzgerald’s admirable translation of
the _Rubaiyāt_ know the story of the three famous schoolfellows--`Omar
Khayyām, the poet; Nizām ul-Mulk, the statesman; and Hasan ibn Sabbāh,
“the Old Man of the Mountain.” These three, as schoolboys at Nīshāpūr,
had sworn that whichever of them should rise highest in the world
should help the others. Of two of them we shall have to speak below.
[286] His was not actually their first expedition, for, in 1050, parts
of Armenia had been laid waste and countless Christians massacred by
the Turks. Cf. Gibbon, chap. xlvii.
[287] We refer the reader to Gibbon’s 57th chapter for a vivid account
of Alp Arslān’s dealings with the Romans (see also Malcolm, _op. cit._
i. 209–213).
[288] This was a chief named Yūsuf, who had long held out against the
Sultan in his fortress of Berzem in Khwārazm. Cf. Malcolm, _op. cit._
i. 213; and De Guignes, iii. 213.
[289] Notably his uncle Kāwurd (see Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 94),--whom
Vambéry calls _Kurd_; and Vüllers (in Mīrkhwānd’s Seljūks), _Kādurd_;
and Malcolm (_op. cit._ i. 216), _Cawder_.
[290] Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 94.
[291] See below, chap. xix.
[292] Vambéry (_op. cit._ p. 100) qualifies these statements as the
“mere fabrications of partial Arab and Persian writers.”
[293] _Op. cit._ ii. 95.
[294] This assassin was one of the emissaries (or _fadāwi_) of Hasan
ibn Sabbāh, Nizām ul-Mulk’s old school friend. For an account of the
Assassins we refer the reader to the article under that heading in the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_. For more than a century the devotees of the
Old Man of the Mountain played a part in politics not dissimilar to
that of the Jesuits at certain periods in Europe. See J. von Hammer’s
_Hist. de l’Ordre des Assassins_ (Paris, 1833); S. Guyard’s “Un Grand
Maître des Assassins,” _Journal Asiatique_, 1877; and an article by Mr.
E. G. Browne in _St. Bartholomew’s Hosp. Journ._, March 1897.
[295] The history of the remaining Seljūk kings (of the original
branch) is so admirably epitomised by Malcolm that it was considered
unnecessary in this place to do more than quote from his well-known
_History of Persia_ (vol. ii. p. 222 _et seq._). These sons were
Berkiyāruk, Mohammad, Sanjar, and Mahmūd.
[296] He was himself but fourteen years of age at the time of his
father’s death.
[297] A.H. 487–498 (1094–1104). Malcolm throughout his otherwise
excellent history scarcely ever condescends to supply the reader with a
date of any kind.
[298] He died of consumption at the early age of twenty-seven (perhaps
even younger). Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 120.
[299] He allowed his nephew the two `Irāks on condition that his
(Sanjar’s) name should be mentioned first in the public prayers (cf.
_Habīb-us-Siyar_).
[300] The modern Khānate of Khiva.
[301] The Khāns of Khiva still bear the title of Ewer-bearers to the
Sultan of Constantinople.
[302] About A.H. 470 (1077).
[303] He was a descendant in the eighth generation of _T’ai-tsu_, or
Apaoki, the first Liao emperor. Cf. Bretschneider, _op. cit._ i. 211;
Visdelou, p. 28. For the various forms his name has taken, cf. Howorth
on the “Kara-Khitāy,” _J.R.A.S._, New Series VIII. 273, 274.
[304] De Guignes called him _Taigir_.
[305] Called by the Mohammedans _Churché_, which corresponds to the
_Niuchi_ of Chinese historians. Cf. Bretschneider, _op. cit._ i. 224,
note.
[306] Cf. d’Ohsson, _Histoire des Mongols_, i. 163.
[307] Some scholars have wished to identify this name with Kirmān in
Persia, but this seems most improbable. Bretschneider (_op. cit._ i.
216, note) suggests Kerminé, which is the site of the summer quarters
of the present Amīr of Bokhārā. Cf. also Howorth, _loc. cit._
[308] P. 134.
[309] Cf. De Guignes, iii. pt. ii. p. 253.
[310] Some confusion exists as to whether Kāshghar or Balāsāghūn was
his residence. It seems improbable that he should have changed in so
short a space.
[311] A.H. 521 (1127).
[312] A.H. 533 (1138).
[313] Il-Kilij, the son of Atsiz, perished in the battle.
[314] Cf. d’Herbelot, article “Atsiz”; and De Guignes, vol. ii. pt. ii.
p. 254.
[315] Thus, according to Narshakhi (p. 243). The statements of
historians are somewhat conflicting in this place. De Guignes,
following Abulfidā, says that Ye-liu Ta-shi (whom he calls Taigir)
died in 1136, when about to abandon Kāshghar and return to his ancient
settlements in Tartary. The Khitāys then set upon the throne his infant
son, Y-li, with his mother Liao-chi as queen-regent. Bretschneider
has translated a Chinese work which gives a list of all the line of
Kara-Khitāy rulers, whose dynasty became extinct about 1203. We have
not thought it necessary to reproduce a list of their names in this
place. It may be mentioned, however, that Bretschneider’s account does
not agree with De Guignes.
[316] Cf. De Guignes, vol. iii. pt. i. p. 254; Müller, _op. cit._ vol.
ii. p. 173. Rashīd ud-Dīn tells us he had drawn auxiliaries from all
parts of his dominions.
[317] The Kara-Khitāys were Buddhists.
[318] Cf. Müller, _loc. cit._
[319] A.H. 537 (1142).
[320] Cf. De Guignes, _loc. cit._; and Müller, ii. p. 174.
[321] Cf. De Guignes, iii. pt. i. pp. 256, 257.
[322] De Guignes (following Abulfidā) says A.H. 550 (1155).
[323] Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 173.
[324] Mīrkhwānd (ed. Vüllers, p. 183). Khwāndamīr (_Habīb-us-Siyar_)
adds “Kunduz and Baklān” to the list.
[325] The word used is _Khānsālār_, which means the “Taster,” or
“Table-Decker of the Household.”
[326] Mīrkhwānd (ed. Vüllers, p. 185) says that Kamāj and his
son perished in this battle, but Hamdullah Mustawfi, in the
_Tārīkh-i-Guzīda_, says they were spared.
[327] De Guignes, vol. iii. pt. i. p. 256.
[328] Mīrkhwānd relates (ed. Vüllers, p. 188) that when Sanjar fled
with his army, and was hotly pursued by the Ghuz, a man who bore a
striking resemblance to the Sultan was captured. Say what he might, the
Ghuz would not be convinced that this was not Sanjar, and paid him all
the respect due to royalty, until finally some one recognised him as
the son of Sanjar’s cook, whereupon he was beheaded.
[329] Professor Shukovski, of St. Petersburg, published in 1894 an
excellent and exhaustive monograph on the ruins and past history of
Merv, under the title _Razvilini starago Merva_, “The Ruins of Old
Merv.”
[330] Ed. Vüllers, p. 189.
[331] Mīrkhwānd has in this place evidently followed Hafiz Abru (the
author of the _Zubdat-ut-Tawārīkh_), who says that the first day of
plunder was devoted to articles of gold, brass, and silver; the second
to bronzes, carpets, and vases; and the third to whatever of value was
left, such as cotton-stuffs, glass, wooden doors, and the like. Cf.
Professor Shukovski’s _Ruins of Old Merv_, pp. 29, 30.
[332] He is said to have been kept in a cage at night. Cf. De Guignes,
iii. pt. i. 257. Mīrkhwānd has been followed in this relation, and we
have seen what he considered to be the cause of the hostilities between
the Ghuz and Sanjar. From Ibn el-Athīr (_Tārīkh-i-Kāmil_, xi. 118, as
quoted by Professor Shukovski, _Merv_, p. 29) it would appear that
the cause of the conflict was Sanjar’s refusal to give up Merv to the
Ghuz, on the plea that he could not be expected to abandon his royal
residence. De Guignes (iii. pt. i. p. 257) introduces this anecdote
after the capture of Sanjar.
[333] Many say he died of an internal malady, A.H. 552 (1157). He was
in his seventy-third year.
[334] The modern Chārjūy.
[335] Cf. De Guignes, iii. pt. ii. p. 258.
[336] Cf. De Guignes, _loc. cit._
[337] He entered into a union with the Khān of the Kipchāk, named
Ikrān, and married his daughter, who became the mother of the famous
Sultan Mohammad Khwārazm Shāh; cf. _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_, Raverty’s
translation, i. 240. This Khān of the Kipchāks is called, on p. 254 of
the same work, _Kadr Khān_, a discrepancy which escaped the notice of
Major Raverty, who, however, calls attention to three different Kadr
Khāns in one chapter (see _op. cit._ p. 267, note).
[338] Cf. _Habīb-us-Siyar_.
[339] In this account of the reign of Tekish we have followed the
_Habīb-us-Siyar_. There is, however, a great discrepancy in this part
of the history, for in one place Khwāndamīr says that the hostilities
lasted only ten years (A.H. 568–578), when they were brought to a close
by a treaty between the two brothers, in which Tekish granted the rule
of certain towns in Khorāsān to his brother. An account of Sultan Shāh
Mahmūd may be found in the _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_, trans., i. 245–249.
[340] There is a misprint in d’Ohsson, _op. cit._ i. 180, the date
being given as 1149. He also waged war on the Assassins in `Irāk and
Kūhistan, and took from them their strongest fort, Arslān Kushāy.
[341] _Tārīkh-i-Jahān-Kushāy_, as quoted by Bretschneider, _op. cit._
i. 229, from d’Ohsson.
[342] Cf. d’Ohsson, _op. cit._ i. 180; and _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_, trans.,
i. 253–260.
[343] He had solicited the hand of a daughter of the Gūr-Khān, and,
having been refused, had become his secret enemy. Howorth, _J.R.A.S._,
New Series VIII. p. 282.
[344] Cf. d’Ohsson (_op. cit._ i. 181), who does not quote his
authority.
[345] Thus according to d’Ohsson. But De Guignes gives a very different
account of Mohammad’s first Eastern campaign, which he dates A.H. 604
(1209). He says that Bokhārā and Samarkand were delivered over to him
by the friendly Turkish princes, that on entering the Kara-Khitāy
territory he gained a splendid victory. Thus the first disastrous
campaign is wholly ignored. De Guignes, _op. cit._ i. pt. ii. pp. 266,
267.
[346] Cf. De Guignes, i. pt. ii. p. 267. d’Ohsson says as far as
Uzkend, _op. cit._ p. 182.
[347] The name of this famous conqueror has been spelled in many
different ways,--_e.g._, _Genghiz_ (De Guignes), _Gengis_ (Voltaire, in
his tragedy of that name), _Zingis_ (Gibbon), _Tchinguiz_ (d’Ohsson),
etc. We have adopted the one which most nearly approaches the Turkish
and Persian pronunciation of the name. For authorities we would refer
the reader to Sir H. Howorth’s _History of the Mongols_, part i.
(1876); R. K. Douglas, _Life of Jinghiz Khān_ (1877); an article by
same author in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_; Erdmann’s _Temudschin
der Unerschütterliche_ (1862); and d’Ohsson and De Guignes (vol. iv.).
The principal _original_ sources for the history of Chingiz Khān are:
(1) the Chinese account of a contemporary named _Men-Hun_, which has
been translated into Russian by Professor Vassilief, and published in
his _History and Antiquities of the Eastern Part of Central Asia_ (see
Transactions of Oriental Section of the Russian Archæological Society,
vol. iv.); and (2) the _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_ of Juzjānī, translated by
Major Raverty. This important work comprises a collection of the
accounts of Chingiz Khān written by his Mohammedan contemporaries.
Other Chinese and Persian sources might be mentioned, but the above are
the most important.
One very important authority for the Mongol period is the compilation,
from Chinese sources, by Father Hyacinth, entitled _History of the
first four Khāns of the House of Chingiz_, St. Petersburg, 1829. This
Russian work is comparatively little known outside Russia. Both Erdmann
and d’Ohsson often lay it under contribution. It may be added that Sir
Henry Howorth, in his first volume on the Mongols (published in 1876),
gives a complete bibliography of all the available sources for the
history of Chingiz and his successors.
[348] M. Barthold, of the St. Petersburg University, has devoted
much time to the study of the Mongol period in Central Asia, the
fruits of which he has not yet published on an extended scale, though
some shorter articles of great value have appeared in Baron Rosen’s
_Zapiski_. The expeditions of Chingiz Khān and Tamerlane were admirably
treated by M. M. I. Ivanin in a work published after his death,
entitled _On the Military Art and Conquests of the Mongol-Tatars under
Chingiz Khān and Tamerlane_, St. Petersburg.
[349] Since the discovery and decipherment of the Orkon inscriptions
it may be regarded as certain that the form _Khitan_, or _Kidan_,
is but the Chinese transcription of the word _Kitai_, which is the
name of a people, most probably of Manchurian origin, who, as is well
known, ruled over Northern China during the tenth, eleventh, and
twelfth centuries. It was borrowed by some of the tribes inhabiting
those parts. Cf. note on p. 106 of vol. x. of Baron Rosen’s _Zapiski_,
article by M. Barthold.
[350] Precisely the same thing occurred in the case of the Yué-Chi and
the Kushans.
[351] This admirable summary is taken from S. Lane-Poole’s _Catalogue
of Oriental Coins in the British Museum_, vol. vi. (also reprinted in
his _Mohammedan Dynasties_, pp. 201, 202). It is a condensation of what
may be read in great detail in Howorth’s _Mongols_, vol. i. pp. 27–50.
Cf. also De Guignes, vol. iv. p. 1 _et seq._; and d’Ohsson, vol. i.
chaps. i. and ii.
[352] For information with regard to this name, cf. d’Ohsson, _op.
cit._ vol. i. pp 36, 37, note.
[353] Thus according to the Chinese authorities. The Mohammedan
historians give the date of his birth as A.H. 550 (1155).
[354] The above remarks on the Mongols have been translated from an
article in Russian by M. Barthold in Baron Rosen’s _Zapiski_, vol. x.
(St. Petersburg, 1897) pp. 107–8.
[355] Rashīd ud-Dīn, _Jāmi`-ut-Tawārikh_, Berezine’s ed. i. 89.
[356] The Chinese and Persian authorities are here again at variance.
[357] They had been converted to Christianity by the Nestorians at
the beginning of the eleventh century. See very interesting note in
d’Ohsson, _op. cit._ i. p. 48. This Toghrul received the title of Oang,
or King, and called himself Oang-Khān. The similarity of this in sound
to the name _Johan_, or Johannes (John), led to the fabulous personage
so familiar in Marco Polo and other travellers, as Prester John. Cf.
Yule’s _Cathay_ and _Marco Polo_, _passim_.
[358] Cf. d’Ohsson, i. p. 47.
[359] Cf. S. Lane-Poole, _loc. cit._
[360] The exact date is uncertain.
[361] This word may be read either _Kuriltāy_ or _Kurultāy_. Cf. Pavet
de Courteille, _Dictionnaire Turk-Oriental_, p. 429.
[362] Cf. d’Ohsson, i. 86.
[363] _Ibid._ p. 89.
[364] Cf. Howorth, _J.R.A.S._, New Series VIII. p. 283.
[365] The above facts are from the _Jahān-Kushāy_. Cf. Bretschneider,
_op. cit._ i. 230, 231; the _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 289; and d’Ohsson,
_op. cit._ i. 166 _et seq._
[366] Cf. d’Ohsson, i. 170 _et seq._; Bretschneider, _op. cit._ i. 231.
[367] This occupied him between the years 1210 and 1214.
[368] S. Lane-Poole, _loc. cit._ See also Gibbon’s 64th chapter.
[369] Cf. Bretschneider, _loc. cit._; and on the subject of the
religious tolerance of Chingiz, Gibbon, chap. lxiv.
[370] Cf. d’Ohsson, i. 204.
[371] He had put his former ally `Othman to death in A.H. 607 (1210).
See d’Ohsson, i. 183.
[372] Abū-l-Ghāzi, ed. Desmaisons, p. 99.
[373] Abū-l-Ghāzi, ed. Desmaisons, p. 100.
[374] Abū-l-Ghāzi, _loc. cit._
[375] Abū-l-Ghāzi, pp. 101–103 of Desmaison’s text.
[376] The route he took was Kazwīn, Gilān, and Māzenderān
(_Tarikh-i-Mukīm Khānī_).
[377] He is said to have died a lunatic. The island in question has
long since been swallowed up by the sea. Cf. _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_, Major
Raverty’s trans., vol. i. p. 278, note.
[378] We refer the reader especially to Müller’s _Geschichte des
Islams_, pp. 213–225.
[379] _Mohammedan Dynasties_, p. 204.
[380] The best account of this offshoot is to be found in an excellent
paper entitled “The Chaghatai Mughals,” by W. E. E. Oliver, in the
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xx. New Series, p. 72,
sec. 9. It will be found in a condensed form in Ney Elias and Ross’s
Introduction to the _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, or “History of the Mughals of
Central Asia.”
[381] _Vide ante_ on p. 155.
[382] In the valley of the Upper Ili, near the site of the present
Kulja.
[383] During the reign of Chaghatāy Khān a curious rising occurred in
the province of Bokhārā. A half-witted sieve-maker, from a village near
Bokhārā, managed by various impostures to gather round him a number of
disciples from among the common people, and so numerous and powerful
did they become that in 630 (1232) they drove the Chaghatāy government
out of the country, and, assuming the government of Bokhārā, proceeded
to put to death many of its most distinguished citizens. They at first
successfully repulsed the Mongol forces sent against them, but were
finally vanquished, and order was again restored in Bokhārā. For this
episode consult Vambéry, _op. cit._ p. 143 _et seq._; Major Price’s
_Mohammedan History_, iii. 2.
[384] _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, Introduction, p. 32.
[385] Chaghatāy is said to have died from grief at his brother’s death
(_Habīb-us-Siyar_).
[386] For historical data we have already referred the reader to
Mr. Oliver’s paper and Vambéry’s _Bokhara_. S. Lane-Poole, in his
_Mohammedan Dynasties_, gives a list of twenty-six Khāns of this house
who ruled in Central Asia from A.H. 624 to 771 (A.D. 1227 to 1358),
_i.e._ 140 years. The _Zafar-Nāmé_ of Nizām Shāmī (see note below, p.
168) gives a list of thirty-one Khāns of this line.
[387] Cf. Müller’s _Geschichte des Islams_, ii. p. 217.
[388] In A.H. 671 (1273) Bokhārā was sacked by the Mongols of Persia
(Müller, _op. cit._ ii. p. 260).
[389] _Bokhara_, pp. 159–60.
[390] This Khānate embraced the present Zungaria and the greater
part of Eastern and Western Turkestān; but the exact meaning of this
geographical term is still undetermined. The subject has been fully
discussed in the _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_ (_passim_). Cf. also Bretschneider,
_op. cit._ ii. 225 _et seq._
[391] See _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, Introduction, p. 37.
[392] The Calcutta text of the _Zafar-Nāmé_ of Sheref ud-Dīn `Alī
Yazdī, the famous biographer of Tīmūr, reads throughout _Karān_. S.
Lane-Poole, _op. cit._, gives the date of his accession as 744 (A.D.
1343),--upon what authority it is not clear. Price (following the
_Khulāsat ul-Akhbār_) is in agreement with the _Zafar-Nāmé_. We are,
moreover, expressly told that he ruled fourteen years, and died in 747.
[393] _Zafar-Nāmé_ (ed. Calcutta), i. p. 27.
[394] This took place in the plains round the village of _Dara-Zangi_
(_Zafar-Nāmé_, ii. p. 28).
[395] The third son of Chingiz, who had inherited the kingdom of
Mongolia proper.
[396] _Zafar-Nāmé_ (ed. Calcutta) reads Dānishmand Oghlān.
[397] Perhaps a corruption of the older form _Berūlās_.
[398] The modern Shahr-i-Sabz.
[399] Sheref ud-Dīn affirms that his love of wine was so inveterate
that he was not sober for a week in the whole year (_Zafar-Nāmé_
(Calcutta edition), i. p. 41).
[400] He was born in A.H. 730. In 748 he became Khān of Jatah; in 754
he was converted to Islām; in 764 he died. His history, and the story
of his conversion, is told at some length in the _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_,
pp. 5–23.
[401] Our readers will have traced for themselves the parallel afforded
by France, exhausted by the horrors of the Revolution at the outset of
Napoleon’s career.
[402] The sources for the biography of Tīmūr are plentiful. The
best known, both in the East and in Europe, is the _Zafar-Nāmé_, by
Sheref ud-Dīn `Alī, of Yezd. This was completed in 1424 by the order
of Ibrāhīm, the son of Shāh Rukh, the son of Tīmūr. It was first
translated into French in 1722 by M. Petis de la Croix, whose work
was in turn englished shortly afterwards. It is this history that has
served as a basis for all European historians, Gibbon included. There
is, however, an older biography of Tīmūr, which, owing to its scarcity,
is very little known. The only MS. in Europe is in the British Museum.
It, too, bears the title of _Zafar-Nāmé_, or _Book of Victory_. It was
compiled at Tīmūr’s own order by a certain Nizām Shāmī, and is brought
down to A.H. 806, _i.e._ one year before Tīmūr’s death. The MS. itself
bears the date of A.H. 838 (1434). Owing to the vast interest attaching
to such a contemporary account, Professor Denison Ross has undertaken
to prepare an edition of the text for the St. Petersburg Academy of
Sciences.
[403] He had gained the sobriquet “Leng” from a wound which caused him
to halt through life, inflicted during the siege of Sīstān (Wolff,
_Bokhara_, p. 243).
[404] For example, the names Jalā´ir, Berūlās, and Seldūz are those of
well-known Turkish tribes.
[405] According to the _Zafar-Nāmé_ of Sheref ud-Dīn `Alī Yazdi, and
other historians who follow him, Hāji Birlās was the uncle of Tīmūr.
The _Zafar-Nāmé_ of Nizām Shāmī, however, states that he was Tīmūr’s
brother.
[406] He was at this period about twenty-seven years of age, and had
served with some distinction under Amīr Kazghan (Wolff, _Bokhara_, p.
245).
[407] We refer the reader to Gibbon’s 65th chapter for a striking
account of Tīmūr’s wanderings in the desert, and to Petis de la Croix’s
translation of the _Zafar-Nāmé_ for Tīmūr’s thrilling adventures with
his friend Amīr Husayn.
[408] _Bokhara_, p. 244.
[409] The famous order of dervishes called _Nakshabandi_ was founded
in Tīmūr’s reign by a certain Khwāja Bahā ud-Dīn, who died in A.H. 791
(1388). The three saints held in reverence by the dervishes next after
him are Khwāja Ahrār (whose mausoleum is to be seen a few miles outside
Samarkand), Ishān Mahzūm Kāshāni, and Sūfi Allah Yār. It is a group of
members of this mendicant brotherhood which forms the subject of the
frontispiece to this work by M. Verestchagin. There are two other sects
of dervishes in Samarkand--(1) the _Kādiriyya_, whose founder was `Abd
el-Kādiri Gīlāni, and (2) the _Alf Tsāni_, an order whereof the founder
seems to be unknown, and which is sparsely represented.
[410] “He was of great stature, of an extraordinary large head, open
forehead, of a beautiful red and white complexion, and with long
hair--white from his birth, like Zal, the renowned hero of Persian
history. In his ears he wore two diamonds of great value. He was of
a serious and gloomy expression of countenance; an enemy to every
kind of joke or jest, but especially to falsehood, which he hated to
such a degree that he preferred a disagreeable truth to an agreeable
lie,--in this respect far different from the character of Alexander,
who put to death Clitus, his friend and companion in arms, as well as
the philosopher Callisthenes, for uttering disagreeable truths to him.
Tīmūr never relinquished his purpose or countermanded his order; never
regretted the past, nor rejoiced in the anticipation of the future;
he neither loved poets nor buffoons, but physicians, astronomers,
and lawyers, whom he frequently desired to carry on discussions in
his presence; but most particularly he loved those dervishes whose
fame of sanctity paved his way to victory by their blessing. His most
darling books were histories of wars and biographies of warriors and
other celebrated men. His learning was confined to the knowledge of
reading and writing, but he had such a retentive memory that whatever
he read or heard once he never forgot. He was only acquainted with
three languages--the Turkish, Persian, and Mongolian. The Arabic was
foreign to him. He preferred the Tora of Chingiz Khān to the Koran,
so that the Ulemas found it necessary to issue a Fetwa by which they
declared those to be infidels who preferred human laws to the divine.
He completed Chingiz Khān’s Tora by his own code, called Tuzukat,
which comprised the degrees and ranks of his officers. Without the
philosophy of Antonius or the pedantry of Constantine, his laws
exhibit a deep knowledge of military art and political science. Such
principles were imitated successfully by his successors, Shāh Baber and
the great Shāh Akbar, in Hindustān. The power of his civil as well as
military government consisted in a deep knowledge of other countries,
which he acquired by his interviews with travellers and dervishes,
so that he was fully acquainted with all the plans, manœuvres, and
political movements of foreign courts and armies. He himself despatched
travellers to various parts, who were ordered to lay before him the
maps and descriptions of other foreign countries” (Wolff’s _Bokhara_,
p. 243).
[411] Shāh Rukh was Tīmūr’s favourite son. He derived his name, which
means “King and Castle,” from a well-known move in chess, which royal
game was one of Tīmūr’s few amusements (Wolff’s _Bokhara_, p. 244).
[412] Cf. Price’s _Mohammedan History_, iii. 492, quoting the
_Khulāsat-ul-Akhbār_. As a fact, Pīr Mohammad only obtained the
government of Balkh, and was murdered in Kandahār in A.H. 809 (1406).
Cf. De Guignes, v. 79.
[413] Cf. De Guignes, v. 81.
[414] De Guignes, v. 81. Khalīl spent some years in Moghūlistan, but,
unable to bear a longer separation from Shād Mulk, joined her in Herāt.
Shāh Rukh gave him the government of Khorāsān, and he died the same
year (A.H. 812).
[415] His astronomical tables are amongst the most accurate and
complete that come down to us from Eastern sources. They treat of the
measurement of time, the course of the planets, and of the position of
fixed stars. The best editions are those printed in Latin in 1642–48 by
an Oxford professor named Greaves, and reprinted in 1767. The remains
of his celebrated observatory still crown the hill known as Chupān Ata
in an eastern suburb of Samarkand.
[416] Shāh Rukh’s authority, to judge by the coins which have come down
to us, extended nearly as far as his more celebrated father’s. We have
his superscription on the issues of mints as widely distant as Shīrāz,
Kaswīn, Sabzawār, Herāt, Kum, Shuster, and Astarābād.
[417] Vambéry’s _Bokhara_, p. 223.
[418] _Ibid._ p. 244.
[419] The young prince was born in 1483, the son of `Omar Shaykh
Mīrzā, whom he succeeded in the sovereignty of the eastern portion of
Tīmūr’s dominions. His conquest of India, and foundation of the Moghul
dynasty of Delhi, do not come within the scope of this work. He was
equally great in war, administration, and literature: perhaps the most
remarkable figure of his age.
[420] A.H. 903 (1497).
[421] An excellent table, showing the ramifications of the Tīmūrides,
will be found in vol. vii. of the _Mohammedan Coins of the British
Museum_.
[422] In the case of possessive pronouns and verbal inflexions, for
example, we find direct and obvious imitations of the Turkish grammar.
[423] The “Great Caan” of Marco Polo.
[424] Cf. Bretschneider, _op. cit._ ii. pp. 139, 140.
[425] Cf. Bretschneider, _loc. cit._
[426] _Idem._ Tūkā Tīmūr, from whom sprang the Khāns of the Crimea,
was the youngest son of Jūjī. Cf. Lane-Poole’s _Mohammedan Dynasties_,
p. 233. Tokhtamish, the inveterate foe of Tamerlane, belonged to the
Crimean branch of the Khāns of Dasht-i-Kipchāk. The Khānate of Kazan
was founded in 1439, on the remains of the Bulgarian Empire, by Ulugh
Mohammed of the same line.
[427] Bretschneider, _loc. cit._
[428] There seems some confusion on this point; I have followed
Veliaminof-Zernof, but Bretschneider does not call this movement
a migration of Uzbegs but a flight of the White Horde, whom he
says were expelled from their original seats by Abū-l-Khayr. Cf.
_Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 82.
[429] The results of M. Veliaminof-Zernof’s careful researches into the
history of the Kazāks were published in three volumes of the _Memoirs
of the Eastern Branch of St. Petersburg Archæological Society_, under
the title of _The Emperors and Princes of the Line of Kasim_. He called
this dynasty the _Kasimovski_, after Kāsim Khān, the son of Jānībeg.
Cf. also Levshin’s _Description of the Hordes and Steppes of the
Kirghiz-Kazaks_, St. Petersburg, 1864. Mīrzā Haydar says: “The Kazāk
Sultans began to reign in A.H. 870 (1465), and continued to enjoy
absolute power in the greater part of Uzbegistān till the year A.H.
940” (1533). See _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 82.
[430] _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, pp. 82 and 92.
[431] Thus according to both the _Tārikh-i-Tīmūrī_ and the
_Tārīkh-i-Abū-l-Khayr_, quoted by Howorth, _op. cit._ ii. 695.
[432] There is in the British Museum a silver coin of Shaybānī Khān,
dated A.H. 910: Merv.
[433] An account of this campaign will be found in the
_Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 243 _et seq._ The account of the Emperor Bāber’s
doings at this period are all the more interesting and valuable from
the fact that in the famous _Memoirs of Baber_ a break occurs from the
year 1508 to the beginning of the year 1519; though an account is also
given in the _Tārīkh-i-Ālam-Ārāy_ of Mirza Sikandar, which was used by
Erskine in his _History of India_.
[434] _Lubb ut-Tawārīkh_, book III. pt. iii. chap. vi.
[435] Cf. Veliaminof-Zernof, _op. cit._ p. 247.
[436] _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 245.
[437] Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 259. Cf. also Veliaminof-Zernof (p.
353), who bases his statements on the _`Abdullah Nāmé_ of Hāfiz ibn
Tānish. Copies of this valuable work are very scarce. Its scope and
contents have been described (from a copy in the Imperial Academy in
St. Petersburg) by M. Veliaminof-Zernof. See _Mélanges Asiatiques de
St. Petersburg_, vol. iii. p. 258 _et seq._
[438] “The Seven Wells.” V.-Zernof reads Yati Kurūk, which might mean
“the Seven Walls.” The former reading seems more probable.
[439] On the locality of this place, cf. Vambéry’s _Bokhara_, p. 257.
[440] Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 260.
[441] Probably to be identified with Panjakand, in the Zarafshān
valley, forty miles east of Samarkand.
[442] Some distance north of Bokhārā.
[443] Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 261. Howorth (ii. 713) says
`Ubaydullah was in this fort.
[444] Mirza Haydar does hesitate to speak thus of the fortunes of his
own cousin Bāber, who had in his opinion sold himself to the heretic
Persians.
[445] As Grigorieff suggested, the name Abū-l-Khayride would fit this
dynasty far better than that of Shaybānide.
[446] “Bokharan and Khivan Coins,” a monograph published in the
_Memoirs of the Eastern Branch of the Russian Archæological Society_,
vol. iv., St. Petersburg, 1859. This excellent and original monograph
is extensively laid under contribution in the present chapter, as it
was also by Sir H. Howorth in his chapter on the Shaybānides, pt. ii.
div. ii. chap. ix.
[447] See note, p. 190.
[448] The _Tazkira Mukīm Khānī_, being a history of the appanage of
Bokhārā, makes no mention of Kuchunji, or Abū Sa`īd, who ruled in
Samarkand, though they both attained the position of Khākān. Cf.
_Histoire de la Grande Bokharie, par Mouhamed Joussouf el-Munshi_,
etc., par Senkovsky, St. Petersburg, 1824.
[449] Their names were--Abū Sa`īd, `Ubaydullah, `Abdullah I., `Abd
ul-Latīf, Nawrūz Ahmed, Pīr Mohammad, and Iskandar. All are described
at some length by Vambéry and Howorth, the latter basing his account on
a great variety of authorities.
[450] P. 284 _et seq._
[451] _Cat. Coins Brit. Mus._ vii.
[452] Cf. Howorth, ii. 876.
[453] Khwārazm had never properly belonged to Chaghatāy’s territories
in Transoxiana, and accordingly it is a common mint name on coinage of
the Golden Horde (_Cat. Orient. Coins Brit. Mus._ vii. p. 26).
[454] _Vide ante_, p. 169.
[455] His genealogy is very doubtful; but, according to the best
authorities, his ancestor was Jūjī Khān, one of the mighty conqueror’s
sons, who had predeceased him (note at p. 304 of Vambéry’s _History of
Bokhara_). Cf. Howorth’s _Mongols_, part ii. p. 744.
[456] Vambéry relates that when, in the great mosque of Bokhārā, the
public prayers were read for the first time for the new ruler, the
whole congregation burst into sobs and bitter tears (_History of
Bokhara_, p. 319).
[457] Vambéry, p. 323.
[458] This prince was famed throughout the East for his love of
letters. He was a poet of no mean skill, and an adept at prose
composition. His end was untimely. Enticed to give a private interview
to some of his brother Subhān Kulī Khān’s party, he was foully murdered
by them (Vambéry, P. 323).
[459] Vambéry tells us that he was a man of amazing corpulence; and
one of his historians avers that a child four years old could find
accommodation in one of his boots! (_History of Bokhara_, p. 325).
[460] Vambéry, _History of Bokhara_, p. 333.
[461] _History of Bokhara_, p. 339.
[462] Page 95, _History of Central Asia_, by `Abd ul-Kerīm Bokhārī;
translated into French by Charles Schefer, Paris, 1876.
[463] This throne was “so called from its having the figures of two
peacocks standing behind it, their tails being expanded, and the whole
so inlaid with sapphires, rubies, emeralds, pearls, and other precious
stones of appropriate colours as to represent life. The throne itself
was six feet long by four broad; it stood on six massive feet, which,
with the body, were of solid gold, inlaid with rubies, emeralds, and
diamonds. It was surmounted by a canopy of gold supported by twelve
pillars, all richly emblazoned with costly gems, and a fringe of
pearls ornamented the borders of the canopy. Between the two peacocks
stood the figure of a parrot of the ordinary size, said to have been
carved out of a single emerald. On either side of the throne stood an
umbrella, one of the Oriental emblems of royalty. They were formed
of crimson velvet, richly embroidered and fringed with pearls. The
handles were eight feet high, of solid gold and studded with diamonds.
The cost of this superb work of art has been variously stated at sums
varying from one to six millions sterling. It was planned and executed
under the supervision of Austin de Bordeaux, already mentioned as
the artist who executed the Mosaic work in the Ám Khás” (Beresford’s
_Delhi_, quoted by Mr. H. G. Keene at p. 20 of the third edition of his
_Handbook for Visitors to Delhi_, Calcutta, 1876). Tavernier, who was
himself a jeweller, and visited India in 1665, valued this piece of
extravagance at two hundred million of livres, £8,000,000; Jonas Hanway
estimated it as worth, with nine other thrones, £11,250,000 (_Travels_,
ii. 383). It stood on a white marble plinth, on which are still to be
deciphered the world-renowned motto in flowing Persian characters: “If
there be a paradise on earth, it is even this, even this, even this.”
_Agar Fardawsi ba ruyi zamīn ast:
Hamīn ast, hamīn ast, hamīn ast._
[464] `Abd ul-Kerīm Bokhārī, p. 106.
[465] Vambéry gives the date of this _coup d’état_ as 1737 (p. 343);
but `Abd ul-Kerīm Bokhārī makes it follow the assassination of Nādir
Shāh, the epoch of which is not open to question (p. 110). The dates of
events of the eighteenth century in Bokhārā are strangely uncertain,
contemporary chroniclers rarely deigning to aid posterity by recording
them.
[466] “Bi” is an Uzbeg word meaning “judge.” It is not spelt “bai,” nor
does it mean “superior grey-beard,” as M. Vambéry supposes (_History of
Bokhara_, p. 347).
[467] There are many versions of the death of `Abd ul-Mū`min. The most
probable is that related by `Abd ul-Kerīm of Bokhārā, at p. 115, which
is to the effect that Rahīm Bi had the young prince taken by his own
followers on a pleasure-party, and then pushed into a well while he was
dreamily peering into its depths.
[468] This is the highest degree in the Bokhārān official hierarchy
(see Khanikoff’s _Bokhara: its Amir and People_, p. 239; Meyendorff’s
_Voyage à Bokhara_, p. 259).
[469] Note at p. 120 of Schefer’s edition of `Abd ul-Kerīm Chronicles.
[470] See note at p. 135, _ibid._ The editor corrects an obvious
_lapsus calami_,--A.H. 1148 for 1184.
[471] With characteristic Pharisaism, `Abd ul-Kerīm tells us that “fear
and terror fell upon Ma´sūm’s brethren, even as they had possessed the
brethren of Joseph. He set himself to repress their iniquities, and had
their accomplices in crime put to death. He suppressed prostitution,
and tolerated no disorders condemned by law. Bokhārā became the image
of Paradise!” (p. 125).
[472] `Abd ul-Kerīm, p. 132.
[473] His mother belonged to the noble Salor tribe, _ibid._
[474] `Abd ul-Kerīm, p. 137. For descriptions of ancient Merv the
reader is referred to vol. v. _Dictionnaire géographique de la Perse_,
by C. Barbier de Meynard, p. 526; Burnes’ _Travels into Bokhara_,
London, 1834; Khanikoff’s _Mémoire sur la partie Méridionale de l’Asie
Centrale_, pp. 53, 57, 113, and 128; and Prof. Shukovski’s exhaustive
work referred to on p. 144--note 3, _supra_.
[475] `Abd ul-Kerīm assures us that this prince was the Plato of the
century, a man full of wisdom and knowledge (p. 135).
[476] `Abd ul-Kerīm tells us that the number of families then deported
was 17,000, which would give a total of about 85,000 individuals (p.
142).
[477] Vambéry, _History of Bokhara_, p. 354.
[478] `Abd ul-Kerīm (p. 151) gives the date as Friday, 14th Rajab A.H.
1214. Vambéry is apparently in error in placing it as 1802 (p. 360).
[479] P. 151.
[480] See Meyendorff’s _Voyage d’Orenbourg à Boukhara en 1820_, p. 281;
_Bokhara: its Amir and People_, by Khanikoff, p. 248; Vambéry, _History
of Bokhara_, p. 360.
[481] Amīr Haydar was the first of the present dynasty to assume the
title of Pādishāh.
[482] `Abd ul-Kerīm, pp. 154–156. Vambéry gives a different version
(_History of Bokhara_, p. 462), but we prefer to follow the native
chronicler, who held high diplomatic posts in Bokhārā at the
commencement of the century, and may be presumed to have had personal
knowledge of the events which he records (see M. Charles Schefer’s
Introduction to his Chronicle, p. iii).
[483] `Abd ul-Kerīm, pp. 163, 164.
[484] “He always has four legitimate wives: when he wishes to espouse
a new wife he divorces one of her predecessors, giving her a house and
pension corresponding with her condition. Every month he receives a
young virgin, either as wife or slave. He marries the slaves who have
not given him children, either to priests or soldiers” (`Abd ul-Kerīm,
p. 163).
[485] _History of Bokhara_, p. 365. A long chapter is devoted to Amīr
Nasrullah by Sir H. Howorth. See his _History of the Mongols_, part ii.
pp. 790–809.
[486] “General of artillery.”
[487] Khanikoff, _Bokhara_, p. 296.
[488] The Kushbegi was vehemently suspected of removing him by poison
(Khanikoff, p. 298).
[489] About four shillings.
[490] Khanikoff, p. 301.
[491] _1 Vambéry, p. 366._
[492] Wolff, _Bokhara_, p. 232.
[493] Khanikoff, _Bokhara_, p. 304.
[494] Wolff, _Bokhara_, p. 233.
[495] _Ibid._ p. 233.
[496] Wolff, p. 181.
[497] _Ibid._ p. 232.
[498] “Sed periit postquam cerdonibus esse timenduæs Cœperat” (Sat. IV.
153).
[499] Wolff, p. 248.
[500] Vambéry, p. 372.
[501] Khanikoff, p. 306; Wolff, p. 152, _et passim_.
[502] Vambéry, p. 373.
[503] Under `Abd us-Samad’s advice he had organised a corps of soldiers
who were drilled and accoutred in the European fashion.
[504] Khanikoff, p. 313.
[505] _Ibid._ p. 314. Wolff adds that the unfortunate Khān’s pregnant
wife was also butchered (_Bokhara_, p. 232).
[506] He published an interesting account of his wanderings in his
_Travels into Bokhara, being an account of a Journey from India to
Cabool, Tartary, and Persia in 1831–33_. London, 1834–39.
[507] Wolff, p. 176. It appears that he drew his sword on the court
official charged with the duty of presenting him to His Majesty.
[508] “He delights to hear that people tremble at his name, and laughs
with violence when he hears of their apprehensions” (Wolff, p. 233).
[509] The first regular Russian embassy to Bokhārā was that of M. Regni
in 1820, which was described by Colonel Baron Meyendorff in his _Voyage
d’Orenbourg à Boukhara_, Paris, 1826. The Russian reply to Burnes’
mission were those of Desmaison in 1834, and of Vitkovich in the
following year (Vambéry, p. 380).
[510] The issue of our first attempt to meddle in the affairs of
Afghanistān is too well known for recapitulation. The British forces
left Kābul on January 1842 on their homeward march, and, out of 16,500
troops and camp followers, only one man lived to carry the news of
disaster to Jalālābād. See Kaye’s _History of the War in Afghanistan_,
1851.
[511] Nasrullah was tormented by remorse to his dying day. He told
the Shaykh ul-Islām of Bokhārā that “he had given himself a terrible
wound by having killed Stoddart and Conolly.” And the chief-justice
assured Wolff that the Amīr had more than once exclaimed, “The wounds
of my heart, for having slain these English people, will never heal!”
(Wolff’s _Bokhara_, pp. 176, 233). Even this black heart had one white
spot. But we must not judge a bad man by the good he may do on impulse,
nor a good one by the evil which alloys the finest nature.
[512] Wolff, _Bokhara_, p. 231. It is not exhaustive, for Vambéry (p.
389) mentions a poor Italian watchmaker named Giovanni Orlando as one
of Nasrullah’s victims. Wolff’s work is disfigured by its author’s
eccentricities, and is deficient in information of value as to the
manners and economy of the country. But his courage and self-devotion
are beyond all praise.
[513] Vambéry, p. 391. The date which he gives tentatively, 1840, is
certainly wrong: had it occurred then, details would have appeared in
the works of Wolff and Khanikoff. H. Moser, who twice visited Bokhārā
during his reign, says that he lived in idleness till his father’s
death, the date of which he inexplicably states to have been 1842 (_A
Travers l’Asie Centrale_, p. 156).
[514] Vambéry, p. 391.
[515] H. Moser, p. 156.
[516] It was regarded in Central Asia as a bird of ill omen, and
nicknamed _Kara-Kush_, “black bird” (Vambéry, p. 394).
[517] The Kipchāks are a race of Turkish origin, who, according
to Howorth (_History of the Mongols_, part ii.), settled on the
south-eastern Russian steppes, in the tenth and eleventh centuries.
They afterwards split up into hordes, the “Golden” and the “Eastern,”
but were united under Tīmūr’s great antagonist, Tokhtamish Khān. When
his power was shattered the Kipchāks dispersed over Central Asia, and
large numbers found their way to Kokand, then styled by its present
name, Farghāna.
[518] Vambéry, p. 395.
[519] H. Moser, _A Travers l’Asie Centrale_, p. 156.
[520] Born at Pelusum in Egypt, A.D. 70, and flourished under M.
Antoninus and Hadrian.
[521] Our authority here is Jornandes, more properly styled Jordanes,
who lived at Byzantium under Justinian II. His work, _De Gothorum
Origine et Rebus Gestis_, is to be found in Muratori’s _Rerum
Italicarum Scriptores ab Anno 500 ad 1500_, 27 vols. folio.
[522] The Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg claim a Wendish origin, and are
officially styled “Princes of the Wends.”
[523] Slav, originally Slovene or Slovane, was, according to
Miklositch, _Vergleichende Grammatik den Slavischen Sprachen_ (Vienna,
1879), the tribal name of one of several Aryan clans, whose settlements
stretched from the Arctic Ocean to the Ægæan Sea, from Kamskatka to the
Elbe.
[524] “God” in Sanskrit is Bhagvan. Siva was the devoted wife of the
demigod Rama, who is worshipped by Hindus with a fervour like that
inspired by the Virgin Mary in Catholic lands.
[525] They were judges rather than jurymen of the British type. Their
number was twelve, half of whom were chosen by the plaintiff and half
by the defendant. See Stubbs’ _Constitutional History_, chap. xiii.
[526] Other writers give Cherson as the scene of this historic rite.
Vladimir wears a halo in monkish legend, and is commonly styled the
Saint, or the Great.
[527] According to Ujfalvy, the Mongols were leading a peaceful and
patriarchal life round Lake Baikal in the second century before our
era. Richthofen thinks that the primitive land of the Turks was not in
the Altaï Mountains, as their legends would have it, but rather in the
country below the Anan, the Lena, and the Seleuga (_Les Aryens_ (Paris,
1896), p. 25).
[528] Khwārazm, an old Persian word said to mean “eastwards,” comprises
the embouchure of the Sir Daryā, and is now known as Khiva.
[529] “Horde” is derived from the Old Turkish _Urdu_, meaning
encampment. Hence Urdu, the _lingua franca_ evolved in the progresses
which the Mongolian emperors of India used to make yearly throughout
the peninsula. The people of Samarkand still call the citadel _Urda_,
“the encampment.”
[530] _A Historical Sketch of Russian Policy in Central Asia_, by
Professor V. Grigorieff; Schuyler’s _Turkestan_, App. IV. vol. ii. p.
391.
[531] For further details consult Howorth’s _Mongols_, pt. ii. div. i.
p. 507.
[532] _Russia in Central Asia_, by Hugo Stumm, pp. 2, 3; _En Asie
Centrale_, by N. Ney, p. 203.
[533] The Cossacks have never been able to shake off the stigma
imprinted by this dire necessity. They are still called “Man-eaters” in
many parts of Central Asia.
[534] _En Asie Centrale_, by N. Ney, pp. 203–5.
[535] Stumm, p. 5.
[536] Tradition has it that the Khān retaliated by tearing in pieces a
letter, subsequently received from Peter, and giving it to his children
to play with (_Peter the Great_, by Oscar Browning, p. 323).
[537] The Kirghiz affirm that they were divided into three Hordes by an
ancient chieftain named Alash. The Great Horde wander over Chinese and
Russian Turkestān, near Lake Balkash; the Middle occupy the northern
and eastern shores of the Sea of Aral; the Little Horde, now more
numerous than the others combined, feed their flocks between the Tobol
and the Aral Sea. An interesting account is given by Stumm of their
manners and character. See _Russia in Central Asia_, pp. 227–34.
[538] Stumm, pp. 20, 21.
[539] Meyendorf, _Voyage d’Orenburg à Boukhara_, p. 285.
[540] For a detailed account of the Khivan expedition, see Hugo Stumm’s
_Russia in Central Asia_, chap. ii. p. 26.
[541] It is well known that the Tsar Nicholas, on learning the
disasters suffered by the allied forces during the terrible Crimean
winter of 1854–55, complacently remarked that there were two generals
who fought for Russia--Generals January and February.
[542] Stumm, p. 50.
[543] See Appendix.
[544] The Cossacks numbered only 104, under Sub-Lieutenant Saroff. They
made a zariba of their horses’ bodies, and, after repelling incessant
attacks for two days, they cut a path through the dense masses of their
foes, and joined a relief column from Turkestān. Only nine escaped
unwounded, and the killed numbered fifty-seven. Such actions abound in
modern Central Asian annals, and they are as glorious as any performed
by our own brave troops in India (Ney, p. 213).
[545] Ney, p. 214.
[546] Ney, _En Asie Centrale_, p. 214. Stumm asserts that the Bokhāran
Amīr made the exiled Khān named Khudā Yār his Bey, or governor of
Kokand (_The Russians in Central Asia_, p. 57).
[547] The chief was Colonel Von Struve, who afterwards attended
Kauffman in a diplomatic capacity during his campaign against Khiva in
1873, and, at a later period of his career, was envoy of Japan. Among
the other members was Colonel Glukhovsky, who was an ardent pioneer for
Russia in these little-known tracts (see Schuyler’s _Turkestan_, ii.
354, 386), and published an interesting account of his mission in the
Paris Geographical Society’s _Bulletin_ for September 1868.
[548] This illustrious soldier never regained imperial favour, and died
almost unnoticed in August 1898.
[549] See Schuyler’s _Turkestan_, i. 312.
[550] It is to be found _in extenso_ in the _Journal de St. Petersburg_
of 16th July 1867.
[551] 500,000 roubles; equivalent to about £53,000. This ultimatum is
omitted in Vambéry’s admirable description of the Samarkand campaign
in the _Monatsschrift für deutsche Litteratur_, 1896. He alleges
that Kauffman ignored the Amīr’s embassies, and fell unexpectedly on
Samarkand when the preparation for the campaign was complete.
[552] Schuyler denies that this affair was really a battle. Judged by
his standard, Plassey was a mere skirmish. The two battles closely
resemble one another. See his _Turkestan_, i. 242.
[553] Sarts, as we shall presently see, is the Russian term for the
sedentary inhabitants of Central Asia.
[554] Schuyler denies that the attack on a small isolated garrison was
an act of treachery. It may not have been so on the part of the people
of Shahrisabz; but the inhabitants of Samarkand were undoubtedly guilty
of the basest dissimulation in welcoming the Russians and then secretly
conspiring their destruction (_Turkestan_, i. 246).
[555] This is now a Russian cantonment.
[556] Quoted by Ney, _En Asie Centrale_, p. 221.
[557] Hugo Stumm, _Russia in Central Asia_, p. 104.
[558] The best account is one compiled by the Russian staff,--_The
Khivan Campaign_, St. Petersburg, 1873.
[559] Schuyler, who visited the capital just before the annexation,
mentions that 500 prisoners taken in one of these emeutes had their
throats cut in the bazaar, which literally streamed with blood
(_Turkestan_, ii. 16).
[560] Moser, _A Travers l’Asie Centrale_, p. 314.
[561] Moser, _A Travers l’Asie Centrale_, p. 298.
[562] The desert wells are termed _urpa_ when shallow, and _kuduk_ or
_kuyu_ when they are deep and afford a constant supply. The only sign
of their existence is the tracks converging on them from every quarter.
They are mere holes, without kerb or fencing, and the sides are roughly
shored up by the branches of desert shrubs (_ibid._ p. 299).
[563] “In the Turkoman Desert is a species of antelope almost as
numerous as the wild ass. It is smaller than a sheep, which it
resembles in body, neck, and head, and has the delicate limbs, horns,
and hair of the antelope; the horn, however, is not opaque but white,
and like a cow’s horn. The nostrils are directly in front, and are
closed by a muscle acting vertically. The nose is greatly arched, and
provided with an integument which can be inflated at pleasure. The head
is extremely ugly. The animal ... is called by the natives _kaigh_”
(Abbott, _Narrative of a Journey to Khiva_, 1856).
[564] Moser, p. 309. The Kārakūm is the portion of the Turkoman Desert
lying between Khiva and the Akkal and Merv oases.
[565] “Our path lay through fields and natural meadows of the richest
verdure, among groves of oak clothed in young leaves of the most
delicate hues, broken into glades and lawns of velvet” (_Narrative of
a Journey through Khorasan in the Years 1821–1822_, by James Baillie
Fraser; London, 1825).
[566] M. P. Lessar, whose knowledge of Central Asian geography is
profound, affirms that the Paropamisus, as the range was anciently
called, offers no difficulty to the engineer. The summit is reached by
an almost imperceptible incline. In fact, the traveller crosses the
range almost without perceiving that he has done so.
[567] Vambéry, in a lecture delivered in London on 10th April 1880.
[568] See Rawlinson’s _History of Parthia_, 1873.
[569] _Travels in Bokhārā_, 1834.
[570] Kibitka is the Russian term for the nomads’ tent. It is composed
of portable felt carpets secured by strips of raw hide to a circular
collapsible wooden frame. An old tent, black with age and smoke, is
called by the Turkomans “kara ev”; a new one, still whitish-grey, “ak
ev.” The kibitka is the Russian administrative unit, and is supposed
to connote five inhabitants. A group of kibitkas ranging between
twenty-five and fifty is called _aul_, “portable village.”
[571] The subsequent history of this once powerful tribe is a curious
example of the process of agglomeration which raised the Tekkes to
supremacy. In 1871 the remnant of the Salors were forcibly deported
by the former tribe to Merv, and incorporated with themselves.
Petrusevitch, quoted by Marvin (_Merv_, p. 80).
[572] O’Donovan, who visited these works in 1880, describes them as
follows: “For twenty yards on either side the river-bank was revetted
with stout fascines of giant reeds, solidly lashed to stakes planted on
the bank to prevent the friction of the current, as it neared the dam,
from washing away the earth surface. Huge masses of earthwork closed
the narrow gorge by which the stream found exit in the lower level by
a passage scarce ten feet wide. The waters rushed thunderously through
this narrow gap to a level eight feet below their upper surface. The
passage was some fifty yards in length, and, like its approaches, was
lined with reed fascines” (_The Story of Merv_, p. 210). Petrusevitch
states that the repairs of distributories were provided for by the
labour of a contingent of one man in every twenty-four families
(Marvin’s _Merv_, p. 80).
[573] O’Donovan saw them in 1881. One was an eighteen, the others
six-pounders; all were bronze smooth-bores (_The Story of Merv_, p.
198).
[574] Petrusevitch, quoted by Marvin, _Merv_, p. 81.
[575] Grodekoff found the burial-places full of murdered victims, the
villages in ruins, and the fields out of cultivation (Marvin’s _Merv_,
p. 207).
[576] O’Donovan, p. 182; Moser, p. 319.
[577] Petrusevitch, quoted by Marvin, pp. 82, 83. For an enumeration of
the Turkoman clans the reader is referred to Marvin’s _Merv_, which is
a mosaic of quotations from writers of different value. Petrusevitch is
by far the most trustworthy.
[578] “Residence among these lawless tribes convinces me more than ever
that there cannot be a worse despotism than the despotism of a mob.
There is nothing, in my eyes, more pregnant with fatal consequences
than the sway and power of an ignorant and uncivilised multitude
governed by no other motives than its own maddening impulses” (Wolff’s
_Bokhara_, p. 262).
[579] O’Donovan, _Story of Merv_, p. 220.
[580] Nūr Verdi Khān was one of those exceptional men, to be found in
widely divergent societies, who acquire the commanding influence which
all strong personalities must attain. His death, at the comparatively
early age of fifty, just before the Russian invasion, was the
death-knell of Tekke independence (Moser, p. 319).
[581] Wolff found a “Calipha,” or high priest, named `Abd er-Rahmān
enjoying great influence at Merv in 1843. This was another case of
force of character leading to the attainment of greatness (_Bokhara_,
pp. 114, 115).
[582] _Sardār_ is a Persian word signifying “head-man.” Tokma Sardār,
who had commanded the garrison of Geok Teppe during the memorable siege
by the Russians, visited O’Donovan at Merv soon after that event. “He
was slightly under middle height, very quiet, almost subdued in manner,
his small grey eyes lighting up with a humorous twinkle” (_The Story of
Merv_, p. 178).
[583] The weapons were a long flintlock, laboriously loaded with the
contents of a powder-horn and leather bullet bag, but the Tekke trusted
chiefly to his sabre and a long murderous dagger, called _pshak_
(Moser, p. 296).
[584] Moser, p. 324.
[585] _Ibid._ p. 300.
[586] Moser, p. 247.
[587] _Ibid._ p. 320.
[588] _Ibid._; also O’Donovan, p. 298.
[589] O’Donovan, p. 297. The training consisted in a gradual reduction
of the rations of food and water. Dry lucern gave place to chopped
straw; barley and juwārī (_sorghum_), to a mixture of flour and
matter-fat.
[590] Moser, p. 322. It is remarkable that the Tekke seat is precisely
the same as that in use among the nomads of the Mongolian plateau
north of the Great Wall, who, according to Mr. E. H. Parker in a
letter addressed to the _Pall Mall Gazette_, “always ride with very
short stirrups, the knee bent forward almost to the withers, the reins
grasped short, and (when there is any speed) the body well over the
horse’s neck. Possibly this is the reason why the Mongol saddle always
has a high peak, for it prevents the rider being chucked over the
horse’s neck.” This method is also identical with that adopted by the
jockey Tod Sloan.
[591] The felt blankets were worked by the cavaliers’ women-folk. “The
finer the courser’s felt,” ran a Turkoman proverb, “the greater the
love of the maker for the horseman” (Moser, p. 331).
[592] Moser, p. 274.
[593] _Ibid._ p. 319.
[594] See chapter iv. of Marvin’s _Merv_, which is a translation of
Petrusevitch’s account of the Turkomans.
[595] “The eyes of a cat, with the extremity raised towards the temple”
(Ney, _En Asie Centrale_, p. 193).
[596] A Turkoman, while travelling in the desert with Wolff, said, “I
smell a caravan of Uzbegs”; and in a few hours one was met with. They
can hear conversation at a great distance by flinging themselves on the
ground and listening intently (Wolff, _Bokhara_, p. 242). They can name
the tribe and even the individual cavalier by his traces on the sand
(Moser, p. 300).
[597] “The Tekke is the only woman in Central Asia who knows how to
walk. Nothing is more graceful than a girl of this race going to fetch
water from a well and carrying the tall amphora on her shoulder.”
(Moser, p. 330).
[598] O’Donovan, p. 193.
[599] Moser, p. 330.
[600] O’Donovan, p. 254.
[601] It is generally admitted that these rules are slowly evolved by
the community to which the individual who adopts them belongs. There
are some still amongst us who looked with complacency at the cruelties
once perpetrated in this Christian country in the name of justice. We
see our own manners at earlier stages of our growth reflected in those
of contemporary savages.
[602] Pilaw, a dish which has now spread over the Eastern world, had
its origin in Central Asia. It is a stew composed of hot mutton-fat
into which meat has been shredded, carrots and rice, and, cooked as
only a Turkoman knows how to prepare it, is a dish fit for a royal
table.
[603] Moser, p. 332.
[604] The efforts of Tekke musicians can only be described as
grotesque. They perform on long bamboo trumpets, called _twidak_, with
an accompaniment of bowings and contortions which is in ridiculous
contrast to the bird-like notes emitted.
[605] No Turkoman troubled his head about the ordinary business of
life after fifty. His work was then done by the women and younger men;
and his attitude was one of ease with dignity. In raids, however, and
warfare, he was always ready to take an active part up to an advanced
age (O’Donovan, p. 306).
[606] O’Donovan, pp. 307, 308; Moser, pp. 330, 331.
[607] A small mat costs £40, and a work of larger size sometimes as
much as £400 (Moser, p. 331). The ordinary kinds were made of sheep’s
wool and camel’s hair, with a little cotton; the better, wholly of
silk. O’Donovan saw one, eight feet square, priced at £50 (p. 308).
Carpets of the highest quality are now not procurable. They are
cherished as heirlooms, and all are essential parts of a Turkoman
maiden’s dowry. Those of the second grade, but coloured with honest
native dyes, fetch 13s. a square yard.
[608] Marvin, quoting Vambéry and Conolly, mentions more ancient
forms of marriage customs--the simulated abduction of the bride and
the pursuit of her on horseback. These, however, are obsolete. For
a considerable time after the fall of Geok Teppe the price of Tekke
spouses sank to a low ebb, owing to the fearful slaughter of eligible
males.
[609] The Merv oasis is a wedge driven between Persia and Afghanistān.
Meshed is only 150 miles from the centre, Herāt about 240; and the
Paropamisus range which intervenes was no deterrent in the eyes of
Tekke horsemen.
[610] According to the agents employed by a London relief committee,
a fifth of the population perished (Petrusevitch, quoted by Marvin,
_Merv_, p. 326).
[611] Petrusevitch, quoted by Marvin, _Merv_, p. 321.
[612] Astrabad Consular Report for 1879.
[613] Provisory Ordinance of the 21st March 1874, quoted by Ney, p. 225.
[614] Ney, p. 225.
[615] In 1875 a caravan, fitted out by the energetic Colonel
Glukhovsky, was destroyed between Krasnovodsk and Khiva. In 1877 the
Turkomans looted one proceeding northwards from the Atrak; and a
little later they cut up, near Krasnovodsk, some of their brethren
who had accepted Russian rule, and intercepted many postal couriers
(Petrusevitch, quoted by Marvin, _Merv_, p. 331).
[616] Ney, p. 226. It is now the site of a great railway workshop.
[617] In 1878, when Russia was within an ace of going to war with
England on the Eastern question, it was arranged that columns from
Turkestān and the Caspian should meet at Merv and subdue that almost
unknown region; but the Congress of Berlin rendered the measure
unnecessary (Ney, p. 227).
[618] Geok Teppe, which will for ever be associated with the final
struggle for independence, is the name of a district; Dangil Teppe,
that of the famous entrenched camp. It was originally that of a mound
at the north-western angle.
[619] Ney, p. 240.
[620] Skobeleff was in politics an Anglophobe, though his relations
with our countrymen individually were cordial. There is not an iota of
truth in his belief that Lomakin’s failure was due to British intrigue.
It is fully accounted for by his incapacity. The result was only what
might have been expected. Russian authority in Central Asia was ill
cemented, and it needed but the news of a crushing reverse to produce
the wildest hopes in the Khānates.
[621] He was born in 1841.
[622] General Lomakin started from his base with 12,000 camels, and had
lost the whole of them by the twentieth day of his march (Ney, p. 315).
[623] He wrote from Krasnovodsk in June: “If we wish to recoup our
immense expenditure in Asia we must popularise the desert journey
between the Caspian and the basin of the Amū Daryā; and, after
rendering the steppes safe for transit, we must make a railway to
Askabad and on to the Amū Daryā” (Ney, p. 286).
[624] Moser, p. 315.
[625] According to the official accounts, the artillery taken by the
Turkomans included six mountain guns and three mortars, two of which
were actually dragged within the entrenchment. General Kurapatkine,
however, has stated the number of cannon captured by the Tekkes as
fourteen. All of them, save one, were recaptured by the reserves. The
fourteenth remained in the enemy’s hands until the final assault, when
it was retaken, decked with green boughs, and paraded through the
lines, accompanied by music and the frantic cheers of the troops.
[626] Skobeleff relates that, during one of his nightly rounds, he
heard a private soldier remark to another that the Russians were at
a great disadvantage, for they were huddled in the trenches, while
the enemy hacked and stabbed them from above. He suggested that the
trenches should be left empty, and the troops be posted ten paces
to the rear. The hint was acted on with brilliant results, for the
Turkomans on the following night sallied out in force and leapt into
the trenches, where they were shot and bayoneted with ease (Moser, p.
315).
[627] He was much impressed by the punctilio with which the Tekkes
had observed an armistice agreed on for the purpose of burying the
dead on the 19th January. Skobeleff’s appreciation of the really
noble qualities elicited by severe trial is shared by General
Kurapatkine, who humorously alludes to Tokma Sardār, the commander of
the entrenchment, as _mon vainqueur_, and styles him _un magnifique
soldat_. An account of a visit paid by this leader to O’Donovan shortly
after the siege will be found at p. 274.
[628] _The Story of Merv_, p. 155.
[629] The official list admits only 937 casualties during the siege,
including 268 killed (Marvin, _Merv_, p. 401). An iron tablet on a
white-washed mound in the little cemetery behind the site of the
Russian camp substantiates these figures, but the extent of the three
burial-places which lie to the east of the entrenchment, including
separate ones for the Cossacks and the Stavropol Regiment, would imply
a much greater sacrifice of life. General Kurapatkine states the total
casualties to have been 1200, including 400 killed. The Russians in
Central Asia have adopted Napoleon’s system of minimising losses.
[630] Telegram quoted by Marvin, p. 399.
[631] Ney, p. 249.
[632] Moser, p. 343.
[633] See Moser, p. 344. M. Paul Lessar, who was charged by the Russian
authorities with the duty of surveying the debatable land in 1884,
was the first to dissipate the “Paropamisus myth,” which made these
insignificant hills an impenetrable barrier to the passage of troops.
[634] The meaning of Bādghīs is “windy.” It was suggested by the storms
which sweep over the plateau in winter.
[635] Moser, p. 345.
[636] This very distinguished officer had been educated at the
Petersburg Military Academy. He had seen much service in the Caucasus,
when he had been governor of Southern Dāghistan, and afterwards of
Darbend. He had gained eminence in the fields of archaeology and
ethnology. As an administrator he was equally successful; and Askabad,
the present capital of Transcaspia, owes much to his genius.
[637] It was composed of four companies of Transcaspian Chasseurs,
three squadrons of Cossacks from the Kuban, one of Turkoman militia,
and four guns (Ney, p. 252, note).
[638] Four of them now adorn a monument on the Askabad parade-ground
commemorating Geok Teppe.
[639] The Englishmen were particularly struck by the eagerness shown by
their rivals to support the national sports of the nomads, the liberal
prizes awarded and the careful observance of ceremony in their official
intercourse with Asiatics,--a policy which inspired the latter with a
sense of their liberality and power. This is an attitude which would
do much to consolidate our own power in India (_Report of the Pamirs
Boundary Commission_).
[640] The late Major-General L. M. Annenkoff was then in the prime
of life. He had won his spurs as a railway engineer by the rapid
construction of a strategic line in Lithuania, and was afterwards
appointed chief of the mobilisation department in the Ministry of
War. At the outbreak of the Tekke campaign he volunteered for service
under General Skobeleff, and was wounded at Geok Teppe. On returning
to Russia he was appointed superintendent of transport throughout the
empire (Ney, _En Asie Centrale_, p. 283).
[641] The rails were steel, flat-footed, weighing 68 pounds to the
yard, and cost £16 a ton. The sleepers came from the Baltic and
Caucasus. The rolling stock consisted of 80 locomotives on the Siegl
system, and 1400 cars and waggons. Everything was produced in Russian
workshops.
[642] They earned rather less than £2 per mensem. They were allowed
to work in their own fashion, just as if they were repairing their
_arīks_, or irrigation canals. It is said that in India, when the
contractors insisted on the use of wheelbarrows, the native labourers
carried the vehicles and their contents on their heads.
[643] Ney, p. 321.
[644] It cost 6½ d. per cubic yard.
[645] The moral effect produced by the spanning of the Amū Daryā was
immense and far reaching. General Annenkoff told the members of the St.
Petersburg Technical Society that when the first locomotive, draped
with the imperial flag, crossed the river, loud cheers echoed from the
hosts that lined the banks (Ney, p. 304).
[646] It is interesting to compare the cost of the Russian Asiatic
railways with that of Indian lines constructed under similar
conditions. It averaged £6144 per mile. The report of the Director
of Indian Railways for 1872–1873 gives that of the earlier lines as
£18,000 to £20,000. It is probable that the cost of the three railway
battalions has not been taken into account. But, allowing for that
item, we must admit that the Russian railways were far cheaper than our
Indian trunk lines.
[647] Ney, p. 305.
[648] The following statistics for 1897 have been furnished by Colonel
Brunelli, the much respected commandant of the railway battalion
stationed at Merv:--
Revenue, gross £751,000
” nett 615,000
Train mileage 2,402,625
_Exports._
Raw cotton 81,000 tons
Wool 8,000 ”
Dried fruit 5,000 ”
Barley 2,000 ”
Skins and hides 5,000 ”
Salt 3,000 ”
Miscellaneous 5,000 ”
------------
Grand total 109,000 tons
============
_Imports._
Manufactures 15,000 tons
Sugar 12,000 ”
Tea 6,192,000 lbs.
Metals 5,000 tons
Kerosene oil 5,000 ”
Wool 8,000 ”
Miscellaneous,
including tan,
naphtha, rice,
spices, wine,
brandy, beer,
and thread 22,000 ”
-----------
Grand total 70,000 tons
===========
Intermediate traffic 70,000 tons
Total movement of goods 249,000 ”
[649] Phasis, Φᾶσις, a river of Colchis emptying itself into the
Euxine. Its banks are clothed with forests whence pheasants were
brought to delight Roman epicures (Mart. Ep. xiii. 45, 72).
[650] See an interesting paper read before the London Chamber of
Commerce in 1866, by Colonel C. Stewart, C. B., H. B. M. Consul-General
at Odessa. Sir W. W. Hunter, K.C.S.I., the brilliant historian of
India, has also pointed out the striking correspondence between the
former paths of trade and those mapped out by Russian engineers. It
is, he explains, a question of correspondence rather than identity of
work, but the section between the Black Sea and the Caspian follows the
ancient ways very closely (_History of British India_, p. 32).
[651] Extensive additions to the station accommodation and rolling
stock are contemplated. Estimates have received sanction which place
the cost at two millions sterling. The question will shortly be studied
by a committee of experts.
[652] An officer in command of the post at Kushk told one of the
writers that the friendliest relations prevailed between the Russians
and Afghans. On one occasion the staff of the Amīr’s Regiment, invited
to a banquet by their brethren in arms, arrived in a _grande tenue_ of
second-hand railway uniforms. Thus the colonel’s collar exhibited the
magic words “Ticket collector,” and a major strutted proudly with a
label of “Guard.” The Russians were under the impression that a portion
of our ally’s subsidy was taken out in cast-off accoutrements, but the
fact is that His Highness, being a prince of frugal mind, is a bidder
by proxy at the periodical sales of unserviceable railway stores held
in Upper India.
[653] M. P. Lessar, who surveyed these hills in 1884–1885, states their
height above sea-level as 3140 feet.
[654] Colonel Arandarenko, district chief of Merv, states that only two
assassinations of Russian officials had occurred during the last thirty
years. General Kurapatkine, too, gives numerous instances of kindness
and respect shown to disabled Russians by Turkomans (see Appendix II.).
[655] Messrs. Nobel have works there which produce a thick ropy
petroleum. The out-turn in 1890 was nearly 3000 tons, but had fallen in
1895 to 1300.
[656] The movement by rail in 1896 was upwards of 60,000 tons.
Transcaspian cotton is rapidly ousting the American product, thanks to
protective tariff. It is a remarkable fact that the market price of
cotton is higher in Transcaspia than at Manchester.
[657] The value of exported carpets and rugs in 1891 was 160,000
roubles. In 1894 it had fallen to 60,000, and is now probably 25,000
only.
[658] The official statistics for 1896 give the following
percentages:--Persians, 39.2; Armenians, 32.2; Tartars, 11.7; Russians,
6.8; Jews, 5.0; Turkomans, 3; and “others,” 2.1.
[659] Mr. E. C. Ringler Thomson, late assistant agent to the
Governor-General of India in Khorāsān, who knows General Kurapatkine
well, wrote thus of him in the _National Review_ for February 1898:
“He is still in the prime of life, not yet fifty years of age, has
served from the commencement of his career in Central Asia, has
taken a leading part in its conquest, and has made some important
contributions towards its literature. He thoroughly knows the various
countries, and thoroughly understands the people inhabiting them, and
their modes of diplomacy and warfare. He was chief of the Staff to the
great Skobeleff during the Russo-Turkish War, and greatly distinguished
himself in it. Indeed there is little doubt that some of Skobeleff’s
laurels were won by him. Skobeleff was the dashing, impetuous, reckless
leader; Kurapatkine the cool, patient, calculating corrective who
restrained him. He is a man of indomitable will, of untiring industry,
master of his profession as a soldier, a great civil administrator,
deliberate of speech, exceedingly gentle and modest in manner, and with
a temper always under control. He wears the first class of the Order
of Saint George (equivalent to our Victoria Cross), and his courage
is of the type which does not comprehend fear. He is the strictest of
disciplinarians, but beloved and respected by all, and his own good
qualities are perforce in a great measure reflected in those serving
under him. He is, indeed, the equal in every respect of any commander
we could place in the field to oppose him. General Kurapatkine has
brought Transcaspia in all matters, both civil and military, to a high
state of perfection. He works from sunrise till late into the night,
inquires personally into the minutest details, and finds time to be
constantly making long and fatiguing journeys of inspection throughout
his extensive command. This man, if he took the field against us, would
be hard to beat. He has told me more than once that he has seen too
much of war not to hate it, that neither he nor his Government have
the least desire to fight us, and to suggest that they wish to invade
India is absurd. I believe him. But all the same, he is a Russian
of Russians, and, if he thought there was just cause for it, would
delight in trying conclusions with us. In diplomacy, of course, General
Kurapatkine is a thoroughbred Russian.”
[660] Krasnovodsk has two. They are administered by subordinate
executive officers called _pristavs_.
[661] The Russian equivalent for mayor.
[662] The statistics for 1890–1895 are given below:--
+---------------+-------------------------+---------------+
| | Crimes against | Percentage of |
| District. +------------+------------+ Crime to |
| | the Person.| Property. | Population. |
+---------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Mangishlāk | 273 | 239 | 23 |
| Krasnovodsk | 147 | 315 | 14 |
| Askabad | 213 | 206 | 27 |
| Tajand | 104 | 416 | 41 |
| Merv | 537 | 913 | 22 |
+---------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Total | 1271 | 2089 | 25 |
+---------------+------------+------------+---------------+
[663] Murderers are sometimes sent to serve their term of imprisonment
at Chikisliar, a dismal place on the south-eastern Caspian shore, made
to enhance the penalty and also to lessen the opportunity for vendetta,
to which the Turkomans are greatly given.
[664] They numbered, in 1895, 161,618 souls. It is curious to compare
these figures with former calculations. Burnes, in 1832, estimated
the number of Tekkes as 200,000; Vambéry, in 1863, as 180,000; and
Petrusevitch, writing in 1878 on the eve of the Russian conquest, at
240,000. But these figures are mere guesswork. They are based on an
average of five persons to each kibitka, or tent, while experience
shows that four is nearer the mark (chap. iii. Marvin’s _Merv_).
[665] The families of the operatives of the Kizil Arvat Railway
workshops, especially the children, are pallid, anæmic, and a prey to
skin diseases.
[666] The percentages in 1895 were--in Mangishlāk, 11 per cent.;
Krasnovodsk, 11 per cent.; Askabad, 11 per cent.; Tajand, 30 per cent.;
and Merv, 85 per cent. It is a remarkable fact that the hospitals and
dispensaries maintained so generously by Russia at the administrative
centres have conquered the prejudice entertained at first for European
treatment. The applicants for medical and surgical relief in 1890 were
only 6000. In 1895 the number had risen to 34,950.
[667] This would be an object-lesson for the “Conscientious objector,”
were it not that fanaticism is impervious to teaching or argument.
[668] For the system of irrigation before the Russian conquest, the
reader is referred to chap. xviii. of O’Donovan’s _Story of Merv_, and
p. 81 of Marvin’s _Merv_.
[669] Mīrāb, lord of water, an old Persian title.
[670] _Sū_ is a Turkish word for water. It is met with in the
nomenclature of many streams near Constantinople.
[671] A Persian word meaning, primarily, government; secondarily, an
estate or property.
[672] Marvin’s _Merv_, p. 263. The date is there given as 1787; as a
matter of fact, the invasion of Murād, alias Ma´sūm, commonly styled
“Begi Jān,” took place three years earlier.
[673] Maktab, an Arabic word meaning school.
[674] The income from posts and telegraphs is increasing, though the
statistics are still insignificant. It was 82,832 roubles in 1890, and
133,005 roubles in 1895.
[675] Three steamer companies ply on the Caspian; the oldest is the
“Caucasus Mercury,” and the others are termed the “Caspian” and
“Eastern.” The steamers are better suited for goods than passengers.
[676] A verbatim reproduction of this remarkable utterance is to be
found in the Appendix. General Kurapatkine’s great master, Skobeleff,
was equally explicit in a proclamation issued to his troops on the day
after his victory at Geok Teppe. “A new era,” he said, “has opened
for the Tekkes--an era of equality and of a guaranteed possession
of property for all, without distinction. Our Central Asian policy
recognises no pariahs. Herein lies our superiority over the English”
(Ney, _En Asie Centrale_, p. 248).
[677] This is a by-product of petroleum distillation, and termed, in
Russian, astatki. After the more volatile illuminants have passed over,
a residue remains in the shape of a ropy greenish-brown fluid, which
in former days was considered valueless. It is now rapidly superseding
coal as a steam raiser, and the recent rise in the market price of
crude petroleum is in great measure due to the constantly extending use
of astatki on steamers and railways.
[678] This ancient piece, a prize taken from the cowardly Persians,
very nearly cost Skobeleff his life. Moser relates that the general,
while reconnoitring the defences, became a mark for a brisk fusilade
which wounded several of his staff. He was implored not to expose
himself unnecessarily; but his only reply was to call for a chair and
a glass of tea. There he sat indulging calmly in a cigarette while the
bullets whistled round him. When, however, the cannon spoke, and its
projectile plunged deeply into the soil close to his chair, Skobeleff
adopted the “best part of valour.” He rose, saluted the Tekke gunners,
and walked slowly back to his quarters (_A Travers l’Asie Centrale_, p.
315).
[679] This little ceremony is of ancient date in the Russian army.
There is no hard-and-fast rule as to the wording of the general’s
greeting. In some favoured corps, such as the Nijni Dragoons, etiquette
ordains that it shall be followed by the name of the regiment.
[680] _The Story of Merv_, p. 194.
[681] The Central Asian tiger has a shaggier coat than his Bengal
relative, and his disposition is less truculent. He never molests human
beings or shows fight unless attacked. About a year ago one strayed
during the noonday heat into a kibitka near the Sir Daryā, pushed
aside the occupant, a woman who was spinning at the door, and coiled
himself up in a dark corner for a nap. Alas for outraged hospitality!
Information was given at the nearest post, and a party of riflemen soon
arrived and did the poor beast to death.
[682] Three have been identified--Giaur Kal`a, Sultan Sanjar, and
Bahrām `Alī. Some entrenchments are fabled to represent a fourth, older
than the rest, built by Alexander the Great. But, as is well known,
Iskandar Zū-l-Karnayn, “Alexander the Two-horned,” shares with Tīmūr
and the Amīr `Abdullah the credit of having built nearly everything
worth seeing in Central Asia.
[683] Moore’s _Veiled Prophet of Khorasan_.
[684] A description of the difficulties encountered has already been
given.
[685] Khanikoff’s _Bokhara_, p. 18; _Journal of the Royal Geographical
Society_, 8th June 1840.
[686] “Mémoire sur l’ancien cours de l’Oxus,” par M. Jaubert, _Nouveau
Journal Asiatique_, Dec. 1833.
[687] Ney, _En Asie Centrale_, p. 300.
[688] The Zarafshān, called by the ancients Polytimætus, takes its
rise in a tremendous glacier of the Kharlatau Mountains, 270 miles due
east of Samarkand. Its upper reaches are little but a succession of
cataracts, and it is too rapid and shallow for navigation. The average
width is 210 feet. More than 100 canals are supplied by this source of
Bokhārā’s prosperity, some of which are 140 feet broad. The capital is
watered by one of them, called the Shari Rūd, which is 35 feet wide,
and supplies innumerable smaller distributories (Khanikoff’s _Bokhara_,
p. 39; Meyendorff’s _Bokhara_ (Paris, 1820), p. 148).
[689] Moser, _A Travers l’Asie Centrale_, p. 120.
[690] Khanikoff, p. 188.
[691] Throughout Central Asia the unit of surface measure is the tanap,
which is equivalent to 44,100 square feet. This pest is termed reh in
India, and is fought in a very half-hearted way by the ryots.
[692] Khanikoff, _Bokhara_, p. 9. This author, who wrote in 1845,
gives as the average price of good land a sum equivalent to £20 of our
currency (p. 154). Forty years later the Russians paid £16 per acre for
land required for their railway (Ney, _En Asie Centrale_, p. 311).
[693] According to Wolff, it numbered 180,000 in 1843 (_Bokhara_, p.
163).
[694] They are named Imām, Samarkand, Mazār, Kārshi, Salahkhānā,
Namāziyya, Shaykh Jalāl, Kārākul, Shīr-Gīrān, Talipash, and Oghlān.
[695] For the ethnology of Bokhārā the reader should consult
Meyendorff, p. 189; Khanikoff, chaps. vii., viii., and ix.; and Moser,
_A Travers l’Asie Centrale_, p. 68.
[696] The etymology of Bokhārā is also a moot point. There can be
little doubt, however, that the word is derived from the Sanskrit
_vihára_, or hermit-cell, which was adopted by the Buddhists and became
_búhára_ in Mongolian. The city clustered round the retreat of an early
ascetic.
[697] Ujfalvy states that the Tājiks of the plains, as distinguished
from their brethren of the hills, and the branch called Galchas
inhabiting the Pamirs, have a triple origin. They are (_a_) descendants
from the Iranian aborigines of Bactriana and Soghdiana, who remained in
the level country throughout the successive invasions of Turko-Tartars,
Mongols, and Arabs; they accepted the domination of each new-comer, and
were compelled to give their daughters in marriage to the conquerors;
(_b_) immigrants who from time to time arrived in Bokhārā from
Khorāsān; (_c_) mixed alliances between the wealthier inhabitants of
the Khānate and Persian slaves brought thither during many centuries by
Turkoman freebooters. This author adds that many Tājiks show signs of
Arab blood in their aquiline noses and brilliant eyes (_Les Aryens_,
Paris, 1896).
[698] An Uzbeg proverb has it: “When a Tājik tells the truth he has a
fit of colic!”
[699] The Kirghiz style themselves _Kazāk_, “warriors.” They roam
over the Khānates, and love to shelter themselves from the icy blasts
in the long reeds lining the banks of the Sir Daryā. They are cruel,
treacherous, and given to rapine. Government is exercised by hereditary
Khāns, but the personal equation is everything, and the Khān who
derogates is lost. Fighting men are called _Bahādurs_; the relatives of
the tribal Khān, _Sultāns_.
[700] A native chronicle called “Nassed Nameti Uzbekia,” giving a
catalogue of these clans, is quoted by Khanikoff, _Bokhara_, p. 74.
[701] Wolff’s _Bokhara_, p. 163. The doctor states that their synagogue
possesses an ancient version of the Prophet Daniel, giving the variant
“2400” in the place of “2300” in chap. viii. ver. 14.
[702] As is well known, the Mohammedans everywhere are ranged into
two sections. The Sunnis are the orthodox, and owe their name to
their adhesion to the traditionary teaching, _Sunna_, of the Prophet.
The Shī`as reject it; and are also champions of the claim to succeed
Mohammed of `Alī, his cousin and son-in-law, and of his sons in their
turn, Hasan and Husayn. With the exception of the Persians, who are
Shī`as, almost the whole of the Mohammedan world is Sunni. The two
sects hate each other with the true _odium theologium_.
[703] These unhappy victims were British officers sent to Bokhārā
on diplomatic service. After a long imprisonment they were cruelly
beheaded by order of the Amīr Nasrullah in 1843. See Wolff’s _Bokhara_,
_passim_.
[704] This neglect of one of the chief duties of government--the
protection of its subjects abroad--is universal in Central Asia. We
have no consul farther east than Baku. The Russians excuse their
persistent refusal to grant an exequatur to a consul at Tiflis by the
allegation that we would not permit them to establish such agencies on
our Indian frontiers.
[705] The local phrase for turban is “salla.” A Russian-made one costs
1½ roubles; the cheapest Manchester turban being 3½, and the dearest 15
roubles.
[706] Called “paranji.” It has balloon sleeves meeting at the shoulders.
[707] Bokhārā stands in lat. 39° 46′ N., in the same parallel as
Northern Spain, Naples, and Philadelphia. It is 1200 feet above
sea-level, and exposed to Siberian blasts which make the winter climate
very severe. The average winter temperature of London is nearly twice
that of Bokhārā. In February heavy rains usher in a springtime as
glorious as that which clothes our English woods, but suffocating
summer heats follow which are broken by a fortnight’s rain in October.
The climate is one of extremes (Khanikoff, _Bokhara_, chap. v).
[708] Bacha, a Persian word signifying the young of any animal.
[709] It is a curious fact that M. P. Lessar, while Resident at
Bokhārā, anticipated Sir D. Barbour’s financial policy in India by
inducing the Amīr to close his mint. The stiffening effect which might
have been expected was not attained. Before the great recoinage of 1834
Indian silver underwent similar oscillations. The difference in weight
and intrinsic value between rupees of different descriptions gave
native brokers an opportunity of feathering their nests. They met in
secret conclave periodically, and decided how many copper coins should
be exchanged against each species of rupee. A recoinage, or adoption of
the Russian monetary system, is the only possible remedy.
[710] In 1872 M. Petrofsky, agent of the Minister of Finance, visited
Bokhārā in order to study the commercial system. He stated, in the
_European Messenger_ for March 1873, that the city was then an entrepôt
for English and Afghan wares. Green tea in those days arrived by way of
Afghanistān, and was distributed throughout the Khānates from Bokhārā.
“Who can guarantee,” he asks plaintively, “that with our carelessness
with regard to the Bokhāran market, all the trade with Central Asia
will not pass into the hands of the English and Afghans?” This
fearful contingency has been obviated by protective tariffs and the
Transcaspian Railway.
[711] Schuyler, _Turkestan_, vol ii. p. 90.
[712] Schuyler, p. 92.
[713] For a detailed account of the curriculum the reader is referred
to Khanikoff, chap. xxix.
[714] The leader in the serious rising in Farghāna last spring was
named Ishān Mohammed `Alī Khalīfa. In July 1898 a Russian was murdered
at New Bokhārā, and the life of another was attempted by one of these
fanatics.
[715] Schuyler retails an old scandal to the effect that the 40,000
roubles which the Madrasas cost were bestowed by the empress on a
Bokhāran envoy at her Court after a _liaison_ with him (_Turkestan_,
ii. p. 93).
[716] Moser, p. 151; Khanikoff, pp. 101–2.
[717] Meyendorff writes: “The lot of slaves in Bokhārā is terrible.
Nearly all the Russians complain of being badly fed and severely
beaten. I met one whose master had cut off his ears, driven nails
through his palms, flayed his back, and poured boiling oil on his arms”
(p. 286).
[718] “Amīr ul Mu´minīn,” the title adopted by the Caliphs.
[719] Fath `Alī, Shāh of Persia, asked a European, who told him that
his sovereign’s acts were subject to public approbation: “Wherein lies
the pleasure of ruling if one can’t do exactly as one pleases?”
[720] Moser, p. 160.
[721] A very elaborate description of the old Court régime is given in
chaps. xxiv. and xxv. of Khanikoff’s _Bokhara_.
[722] Khanikoff, p. 233.
[723] Since the opening of the Transcaspian Railway this has become a
staple export, and it has ousted the produce of the United States. The
term for unripe cotton is _gūza_; that for pods ready for export is
_pakhta_.
[724] The genealogy of the reigning house is not quite so clear as
such matters usually are in Eastern countries. The founder was an
Uzbeg general of the tribe of Mangit, named Mahammad Rahīm Bi. He
was succeeded by his nephew, Dāniyāl Bi, whose son, Shāh Murād,
alias Ma´sūm, commonly styled “Begi Jān,” was a soldier of the type
of Chingiz Khān. He conquered Merv in 1784, and raised Bokhārā to a
pinnacle of glory to which it had never attained since the spacious
days of the Amīr `Abdullah, a contemporary of our own Elizabeth. Murād
attained sovereignty in 1796, and died about 1801. His successor,
Mīr Haydar, was a capable soldier, and the military caste had things
entirely their own way during his reign, which ended in 1826. His
successor was Nasrullah, a moody and treacherous tyrant, who gained an
infamous reputation in England by the cruel slaughter of our envoys
Stoddart and Conolly. His son Muzaffar resembled his father in cruelty
and fanaticism. The story of his overthrow by the Russians has already
been told.
[725] The official figures for each district in 1896 were--
Dessiatines of 2½ acres
District under cotton.
Samarkand 5,252
Katta Kurgan 8,920
Jizāk 1,188
Khojend 2,784
------
Total 18,144
In round figures, 45,000 acres. This is about 5 per cent. of the entire
cultivated area of the province of Samarkand, which is officially
stated as 364,200 dessiatines.
[726] There were, in 1896, twenty, nine of which were worked by steam
or oil engines, ten by water, and one by horse-power. Three hydraulic
and seventeen hand-screw presses were at work.
[727] The exact measurements of this stone are 6′ 4¼″ × 1′ 3¾″ × 1′ 5½″
deep. Round the edge is an Arabic inscription giving Tīmūr’s style and
title, his genealogy, and the date of his death,--807 A.H., or 1405 of
our era.
[728] M. Schuyler states this man’s name as Mir Seid Belki Shaikh, and
the date of his death as two years after Tīmūr’s, _i.e._ 1407 (ii. p.
253).
[729] Schuyler, ii. p. 252. Tilā = gold.
[730] Khanikoff, p. 134. In a note he adds that a Russian named
Efremoff, who visited Samarkand in 1770, saw this gigantic book.
[731] Schuyler’s _Turkestan_, i. p. 250.
[732] This Philistinism has its parallel in India. We believe it to
be a fact that a Viceroy proposed the sale of the Tāj Mahāl at Agra
to serve as a quarry for marble. The same Vandal had a vast number of
seventeenth-century cannon at Allahabad broken up and disposed of as
old metal.
[733] Not, however, in 1323, as Schuyler asserts (i. p. 247), for he
was not born till fourteen years afterwards.
[734] M. Simakoff, a distinguished Russian archæologist, and the author
of _Central Asian Art_, has arrived at the conclusion that the Persian
ornamentation, which has hitherto been considered original, is but an
imitation of that introduced by the Mongols into Central Asia. Moser,
_A Travers l’Asie Centrale_, p. 118.
[735] Three versts and 100 sajenes in circuit (Khanikoff, _Bokhara_, p.
131).
[736] For a detailed account of this splendid feat of arms the reader
is referred to Schuyler’s _Turkestan_, i. p. 224.
[737] Schuyler gives a very brief biography of this excellent man at
p. 267 of his _Turkestan_. Like Kurapatkine, he was equally great in
war and in civil life, and of that very high type of officials produced
only in the Panjāb and Turkestān. The earnestness and keen sympathy
with the people which characterised Henry Lawrence, Montgomery, and
Herbert Edwardes shine conspicuous in the “Chernaieff school,” so
called from an illustrious soldier and statesman who inspired his
lieutenants with his own devotion. His unmerited disgrace, which
followed a display of splendid moral courage, and his old age spent
in the cold shade of imperial neglect, are not the most creditable
episodes in Central Asian annals.
[738] Nestorius, a Syrian priest, became Patriarch of Constantinople
in the fifth century; but his views as to Christ’s personality were
declared heretical by a General Council held at Ephesus in 431. He was
deposed from his high office, and his followers were driven from Europe.
[739] Afrāsiyāb is synonymous in Persian legend for anything of extreme
antiquity.
[740] Moser was present when the Russian researches began. Every stroke
of the spade, he says, revealed new treasures. Enamelled bricks of
the finest designs, coins, a lamp like those exhumed at Pompeii, but
covered with brilliant enamel, an urn splendidly adorned, and many
other discoveries worthy to occupy a _savant_, were made in twenty-four
hours (p. 116).
[741] No attempt has yet been made to exploit these regions; but the
Russian Government is ready and willing to encourage prospectors. An
Englishman is now engaged in searching for the precious metals, and has
met with every possible assistance from the authorities.
[742] During Mr. Skrine’s stay at Samarkand a large gang started
for this remote destination. Most of them were native bandits, who
regarded their expatriation with true Oriental phlegm. But among the
group who squatted on the station platform in their sheep-skin cloaks,
from which their heavy manacles protruded, were several who inspired
more sympathy: a young European girl, who clung piteously to her only
treasure--a China teapot; a middle-aged man, evidently belonging to a
higher social stratum than the rest, was deeply moved by the prospect
of exile. The cause was but too apparent, for a little son clung to
him, a sharer in his grief; while among the silent crowd, which was
kept at a distance by a ring of soldiers with fixed bayonets, was his
unhappy wife, come with her three young daughters to bid him a long
farewell.
[743] Khanikoff enumerates 13 as grown in his time (_Bokhara_, p. 156).
[744] The local term is Chāy Kâbūd, or blue tea, a more faithful
rendering of the colour. Like that drunk in Bokhārā, it is imported
from China by steamer and rail; and absorbed from porcelain bowls,
whence the spent leaves are deftly thrown on the floor by a practised
jerk.
[745] See the description of ancient Samarkand by the Emperor Bāber in
Schuyler’s _Turkestan_, p. 239.
[746] Colonel Kulchanoff now holds these functions. He is a Tartar
from Orenburg, and is a perfect mine of information on the history
and usages of the province. Though a Mohammedan, he lives in European
style, and associates freely with his colleagues. Madame Kulchanoff
presides at table, and converses with a charming grace with strangers
who know Russian.
[747] Lord Cornwallis encountered similar difficulties in fixing the
demand on which the Permanent Settlement in Bengal was based. An
eminent Hindu reformer, who at that period (1793) was head native
officer in the district of Rangpur, is said to have received a bribe of
a lakh of rupees (£10,000) for omitting a cipher in the reported gross
revenue of a single estate.
[748] By far the best work done by the Civil Service of India is that
which is known as Settlement, _i.e._ the land valuation on a vast
scale. The Russians would gain enormously could they obtain the service
of a few of the younger men who have taken up this branch of executive
duty.
[749] The dimensions of some of the ancient works in Samarkand are
stupendous. In one case the wells attain a maximum depth of 420 feet,
and are connected by a tunnel in which a man can walk upright.
[750] See a very interesting note at pp. 258–9, vol. ii. of Schuyler’s
_Turkestan_.
[751] Lord Curzon’s great work on Central Asia is considered by the
Russians themselves as a text-book, though they vigorously combat his
views on their policy.
[752] See Appendix, p. 425.
INDEX
Abbās the Great, Shāh, 267.
`Abbāsids, the, genealogy of `Abbās, 80 _note_;
rise of dynasty and increase in power, 78, 80–85;
emissaries sent to Khorāsān, 75;
black standard raised in Khorāsān by Abū Muslim, 80;
Abū-l-`Abbās (Es-Saffāh) proclaimed Caliph, 85.
`Abd el `Azīz, 196–98.
`Abd el-Jabbār, revolt against El-Mansūr, 91.
`Abd el-Melik, 43–44.
`Abd el-Melik II., 118.
`Abd er-Rahmān (brother of Kutayba), 57, 59, 65.
`Abd er-Rahmān ibn Muslim (_see Abū Muslim_).
`Abd ul-Ahad, 257.
`Abd ul-Kerīm, _cited_ 204 _note_, _passim_.
`Abd ul-Latīf, 176, 177.
`Abd ul-Latīf the Uzbeg, 191 _note_.
`Abd ul-Mū´min, assassinated, 204.
`Abd us-Samad Khān, 215, 218, 219.
`Abdullah (brother of Kutayba), 65.
`Abdullah ibn `Āmir, 38.
`Abdullah ibn Kazghan, 166.
`Abdullah ibn Khāzim, 38, 43.
`Abdullah ibn Rabī`, 39.
`Abdullah ibn Tāhir, 100, 101.
`Abdullah ibn Zobayr, 43.
`Abdullah Mīrzā, 177.
_`Abdullah Nāmé_ of Hāfiz ibn Tānish, _cited_ 186 _note_.
`Abdullah (uncle of Abū-l-`Abbās), 85, 86, 87.
`Abdullah I., 191 _note_.
`Abdullah II., genealogy of, 190;
reign, 191–92.
Abramoff, General, defence of Yani Kurgān, 252;
appointed governor of Samarkand, 255;
Katti Tūra defeated and completion of Bokhāran conquest, 256.
Abū `Alī Sīmjūr, 117.
Abū Bekr, 36.
Abū Dā´ūd Khālid ibn Ibrāhīm, 88, 91.
Abū Ja`far (_see El-Mansūr_).
Abū-l-`Abbās (_see Es-Saffāh_).
Abū-l-Fayz, 199.
Abū-l-Ghāzi Khān (grandson of Abū-l-Fayz), 205.
Abū-l-Ghāzi, Khān of Khiva, revolt against Bokhārā, 197.
Abū-l-Husayn Nasr I. (_see Ilik Khān_).
Abū-l-Khayr, 183, 190.
Abū Muslim, early life, 81;
black banner raised in Khorāsān by, 80;
entry into Merv, 82;
enmity of Caliph towards, 86;
murder, 88.
Abū Sa`īd Khān, 189, 190.
Abū Sālama, 84.
Afrāsiyāb identified with Būkū Khān, 115, 397.
Āgha Mohammad, 267.
Ahmed ibn Asad, 101.
Ahmed Khān, 121.
Ahmed, Sultan, 178.
Akkal Oasis, 265, 268.
`Alā ud-Dawlé, war with Ulugh Beg, 176.
`Alā ud-Dīn Mohammad, revolt against the Gūr-Khān, 147, 148, 156;
extent of possessions on downfall of Kara-Khitāys, 157;
rupture with Chingiz Khān, 157;
flight and death, 159.
Alakush-Tekin, 155.
Alexander the Great, conquest of Persian Empire, 4–9.
Alexander II., Tashkent captured contrary to orders of, 248;
annexation of Kokand authorised by, 260;
conference with Skobeleff, 289.
Alexandria, 7, 11.
Al-Hakam ibn `Āmir al-Ghifārī, 38.
`Alī ibn `Isā, 96, 99.
`Ali ibn Talha, 101.
`Ali, Sultan, 178.
Alikhanoff, 298.
Almāligh, made his capital by Chaghatāy, 161.
Alp Arslān, 130.
Alptagin, 112.
Altagin, 132.
Altuntāsh, 123.
Amīn, 96, 99.
Amīr `Abd ul-Ahad, 257.
Amīr Bāyazīd Jalā´ir, 167.
Amīr Haydar (Sayyid Haydar Tura), 208–10, 384 _note_.
Amīr Husayn, 169.
Amīr Kazghan, 165.
Amīr Tīmūr (_see Tīmūr Leng_).
`Amr ibn Layth, Ya`kūb succeeded by, 105;
career and death, 105, 109–11.
Amū Daryā, crossed by Alexander, 6;
boundary between Turkish and Persian dominions, 30;
Al-Hakam first Arabian general to cross, 39;
course, 358;
shifting of bed, 263;
navigation, 358;
viaduct over, 310–312, 359.
Amūya, ancient name for Charjūy, 144.
Amyntas, 10.
Andakhūy, 8.
Andarāl (Drapsaca), 6.
Andijān, Kokandis defeated at, 260.
Annenkoff, General, Transcaspian railway constructed by, 307–10.
Antes, 225.
Antiochus I. and II., 11.
Anūsha Khān, Bokhārā invaded by, 197.
Anūshirawān (_see Chosrau I._).
Aornos (Gori, Khulum), taken by Alexander the Great, 6.
Apaoki (T’ai-tsu), 137 _note_.
Arabia Felix, origin of name, 34 _note_.
Arabs, rise of Islām and spread of conquests, 34–44;
Arabic literature, 180.
Arachosia (_see Kandahār_).
Arbela (Gaugamela), battle of, 5.
Ardashīr, 22.
Ardavān (Artaban), battle with Ardashīr, 23.
Arimazes, 8.
Arsaces, Andragoras overthrown by, 11;
Arsacidæ dynasty founded by, 12;
Kābul partly possessed by Arsacidæ, 19.
Arslān Khān, 120.
Artabanus II., 12.
Artaxerxes IV. (Bessus), 5.
Aryan race, Pamirs birthplace of, 3.
Asad ibn `Abdullah el-Kasrī, 71, 75–77.
Ashras ibn `Abdullah (the Perfect), 72.
`Āsim ibn `Abdullah, 75.
Askabad, 345–9.
Astatke, 340 _note_.
Astrakhan conquered by Russia, 236.
Astrakhan dynasty, 194–203.
Atsiz, revolt against Sanjar, 138, 139;
death, 140.
Ayāz Topchi-bāshi, 211, 213.
Bāber (_see Zahīr ud-Din Bāber_).
_Bachas_, definition, 369.
=Bactria= (district), ancient extent, 3;
conquered by Cyrus I., sovereignty assumed by Bessus, 6;
conquered by Alexander the Great, 4–10;
=Græco-Bactrian= kingdom, founder of, 11;
districts ceded to Parthia, 12;
invasion by Sakas, 16, 18;
downfall, 18;
=Yué-Chi= invasion, 19;
partition among clans, 19;
Kushans expelled, 20;
=Ephthalite= settlement, 20;
expedition of Bahrām Gūr, 24;
annexed by Persia, 30.
Bactria (town) (_see Balkh_).
Badakshān incorporated with Transoxiana, 192.
Bādghīs, definition, 299 _note_.
Baghdād captured by Tāhir, 99.
Bahrām `Ali Khān, slain in battle with Ma´sūm, 206;
Merv railway station named after, 353.
Bahrām Chūbīn, 32.
Bahrām Gūr, 24.
Baigha, Bokhāran national game, 370.
Bākhdi (_see Balkh_).
Bākī Mohammad, 195.
Balāsāghūn, built by Būkū Khān, 116;
capital chosen by Ye-liu Ta-shi, 137.
Balāsh, 26.
Balkategin, 136.
=Balkh= (Bactria, Bākhdi), 3 _note_;
taken by Alexander the Great, 6;
included in Tokhāristān, 18;
annexed by Persians, 30;
Islām introduced into, 38;
reduced by Rabī` ibn Ziyād, 39;
Kutayba’s expeditions to, 46, 57;
coalition with Nīzek, 56;
temporary Mohammedan capital of Central Asia, 76;
Sāmānanatire of, 101;
siege and capture by Isma`īl, 110;
centre of Mohammedan learning, 131;
defeat of Sanjar, 141;
`Alā ud-Dīn master of, 147;
Chaghatāy in possession of, 160.
Bamian, 19.
Barmecides, fall of, 95.
Barmek, 95 _note_.
Barthold, M., 150 _note_.
Batanieff, Major, mission to Bokhārā, 217.
Bātū Khān, 183, 233.
Bayān Kulī, 166.
Bayān Seldūz, 166.
Bāyazīd Jalā´ir Amīr, 167.
Bāyazīd I., Sultan of Turkey, 171.
Baykand (City of Merchants), identification with Zariaspa, 8 _note_;
importance of, 50;
partial conquest by `Ubaydullah ibn Ziyād, 39;
battle and siege of, 47–49;
restoration, 49.
Baysunkur, 178.
Begi Jān (_see Shāh Murād_).
Bektuzun, 118
Bellew, Dr., _cited_ 41 _note_, _passim_.
Bendoe, 32.
Beni Rabī`a, 79.
Berkiyāruk, 133 _note_, 134, 144.
Bessus (Artaxerxes IV.), 5..
Bi, definition, 204 _note_.
Bishkand, identified with Panjakand, 187 _note_.
Bistām, 32.
Boghrā Khān, brother and successor of Arslān Khān, 120.
Boghrā Khān, first Uīghūr Khān of Turkestān, 117.
=Bokhārā= (Sherīf or “the Noble”), settlement of Bactrians in
confines of, 18;
conquered by Arabs, 40, 41;
king defeated by Habīb, 44;
Kutayba’s expeditions, 46–55;
Ism`l sent to and superseded by Ishak, 106, 107;
capital of Transoxiana and Khwārazm, 109, 111;
centre of Mohammedan culture and learning, 111;
destroyed by Chingiz, 158;
rising in, during reign of Chaghatāy, 161 _note_;
loss of position as capital, 189;
sub-dynasty abolished, 191;
Astrakhan dynasty in, 194–203;
prosperity regained in, 195;
Khivan revolt against, 197, 198;
Mangit dynasty in, 204–21;
effect of Ma´sūm’s rule on, 208;
besieged by Nasrullah, 212;
English and Russian missions to, 217–18;
Russian conquest, 250–56;
climate, soil, and productions, 360–63;
varied character of population, 364–367;
women of, 368;
customs and amusements, 368–70;
bazaar, 370;
public buildings, 373–77;
coinage, 371;
Islāmic education, 374;
government, 379–85;
decline of slave-market, 378;
dialect, 180.
Bolars (Boyars), rise of, 230;
influence of, shaken off by Ivan IV., 236.
Bosphorus, Caucasian (Straits of Yenekale), 13.
Bretschneider, _cited_ 139 _note_.
Browne, E. G., _cited_ 133 _note_.
Browning, Oscar, _cited_ 242 _note_.
Bukayr, 43.
Būkū Khān, 115.
Burnes, Alexander, mission to Bokhārā, 217;
_cited_ 207 _note_;
_passim_.
Buyide (Daylamite) dynasty, increase in power, 112;
overthrow by Toghrul Beg, 129.
Buyr-Nūr, China invaded by, 153.
Caliphs, the--Abū Bekr first to assume title, 36;
rise and fall of, 36–102;
various caliphs (_see their names_).
Cawder (Kāwurd, Kurd, Kādurd), 131 _note_.
Chaghatāy dialect, 180.
Chaghatāy Khānate, 160–64;
overthrown by Tīmūr, 170.
Chakir, 125, 127, 128.
Chandra Gupta, Seleucus defeated by, 10.
Chang-Kien, 17.
Charjūy, 310, 357.
Chernaieff, Colonel, Chimkent stormed by, 246;
siege of Tashkent, 247, 248;
advance on and retreat from Jizāk, 251;
superseded by General Romanovski, 251.
Chi Hwang-ti, Tsin, 14.
Chighān, 60.
Children, custom concerning naming of, in Merv, 42.
Chimkent, stormed by Russians, 246;
burnt by Kokandis, 248.
=China=--Han dynasty, founder of, 16;
Chow dynasty, fall of and subsequent events, 14;
Great Wall, 15;
march against Mothé, 16;
alliance with Yué-Chi, 17;
direct commercial intercourse with West, 17;
Hans defeated by, and enrolled in empire, 19;
Umayyads aided, 85;
Buyr-Nūr invasion, 153;
partial conquest by Chingiz, 156;
Yuen dynasty, founder of, 182;
Ming dynasty, founder of, 182.
Chingiz Khān, birth and early life, 151, 152–54, 232;
war with Tāi Yāng, 155;
with Guchluk, 157;
with Khwārazm Shāh, 157–59;
_Dār ul-Ākhirat_ destroyed by, 143;
conquests of, 159, 160, 232;
death, 160.
Chosrau I. (Anūshirawān “the Just”), 27 and _note_, 29–31.
Chosrau II. (Parvīz “the Victorious”), 32.
=Christianity=--Persecution prohibited during reign of Bahrām Gūr by
truce with Rome, 24;
Christians induced to embrace Islām, 72;
Holy War against Christians of Tarāz, 109;
crusades contemporaneous with Mohammed, son of Melik, 134;
Black Mongols converted to, 152;
persecution by Nasrullah, 219;
introduction into Russia, and subsequent influence of priests upon
government, 229;
authorities on Christianity in Central Asia in ancient times,
109 _note_.
Chupān Ātā, 176, 402, 403.
Chu Yuān Chang, founder of Ming dynasty, 182.
Cleitus, death of, 9.
Confucius (Kung-fu-tse), 14 _note_.
Conolly, Captain Arthur, imprisoned and killed by Nasrullah, 217–18.
Cossacks, Siberians attacked by, 238;
raiding expedition into Siberia and Khwārazm, 239;
Kokandis repulsed, 248.
Cotton, cultivation of, in valley of Zarafshān, 386.
Crusades contemporaneous with Sultan Sanjar, 134.
Ctesias, _cited_ 4.
Cube (Ka`ba), the
Cunningham, General, _cited_ 15, 20 _notes_.
Cyropolis, 4, 7.
Cyrus I., conquest of Bactria, 4.
Damascus, conquered by Parvīz, 32;
taken by Arabs, 37;
stormed by Tīmūr, 171.
Dāniyāl Bi, 205, 384 _note_.
Dangil Teppe, 287.
Dāneshmandja, 166.
_Dār ul-Ākhirat_, 143.
Darbend, building of, 31.
Dariel Pass, Roman subsidy for fortification of, 24.
Darius Hystaspes, 4.
Darius II. overthrown by Alexander the Great, 4, 5.
Dasht-i-Kipchāk, extent of empire, 182.
Dā ūd, uncle of Abū-l-`Abbās, instrumental in exterminating
Umayyads, 85.
Dawlat Bi, 204, 205.
Dawlat Girāy (Bekovitch Cherkaski), expedition to Khiva, 240–42.
Dawlat Girāy, Khān, 237.
Dawlat Shāh, _quo._ 113 _note_.
Daylamite (Būyide) dynasty, increase in power, 112;
overthrow by Toghrul Beg, 129.
De Bode, _cited_ 393 _note_.
De Guignes, _cited_ 30, 137 _notes_, _passim_.
De Maynard, C. Barbier, _cited_ 207 _note_.
Defile, battle of the (Ash-Shi`b), 73.
Dervishes, various orders in Samarkand, 171 _note_.
d’Herbelot, _cited_ 16, 102 _notes_;
_passim_.
Dhirār ibn Haspan, 47.
Dihakān, definition, 46 _note_.
Dīn Mahammad, 195.
Diodotus, 11.
Direm, value of, 40 _note_.
Dirgham, battle in valley of, 139.
Dirham ibn Nasr, 104.
Dmitri, Prince, attempt to throw off Mongol yoke, 235.
d’Ohsson, _cited_ 137, 146 _notes_; _passim_.
Don (Tanaïs), Jaxartes mistaken by Alexander for, 7.
Douglas, R. K., _cited_ 149 _note_.
Drangiana (_see Sīstān_).
Drapsaca (Andarāb), 6.
Drouin, E., _cited_ 11 _note_; _passim_.
Eagle, regarded as bird of ill-omen, 220 _note_.
Edighei, Khān, 236.
El-`Abbās el-Ash`ath, 95.
El Barm (Yūsuf ibn Ibrāhīm), 94.
El-Fadhl ibn Sulaymān Tūsī, 94.
El-Fadhl ibn Yahya, 95.
El-Ghatrīf ibn `Atā, 95.
El-Hādi, 94.
El-Mahdi, 91, 93, 94.
El-Mansūr (Abū Ja`far), Es-Saffāh succeeded by, 86;
enmity towards and murder of Abū Muslim, 86–88;
revolts against, 90–93;
death, 93.
=England=--missions to Nasrullah, 216–17;
=Russia= and, Siberian advance viewed with disfavour, 246;
appropriation of territory south of Merv, English indignation, 300;
appointment of joint commission to decide boundary, 301–303;
commission to demarcate spheres of influence on Pamirs, 303–305;
route of Indian overland railway, 317–19;
methods of dealing with Orientals contrasted, 410–15;
desirability of union, 414–16.
Ephthalites, origin, 20;
Kushans expelled from Bactria, 20, 21;
defeated by Bahrām Gūr, 24;
Yezdijerd II. defeated, 25;
Fīrūz aided, 25;
rupture with Fīrūz, 26;
Persia overrun, 26;
Kobād received, 28;
territory divided between Turks and Persians, 30.
Erdmann, _cited_ 149 _note_.
Es-Saffāh (Abū-l-`Abbās), 85–86.
Ersaris, the, 268.
Euthydemus, 11.
Fadhl ibn Sahl, 97, 98, 99, 100.
Fā´ik, 117.
Farghāna, besieged by El-Harashī, 71;
Mohammedan governor appointed to, 77;
railway to Andijān, 316 (_see also Kokand_).
Fath `Ali Shāh, 267.
Fāzil Bi, 208.
Ferengis, 115 _note_.
Feudalism, introduced into Russia from Germany, 231.
Forsyth, Mr., _cited_ 119 _note_.
Fraser, James Baillie, _quo._ 264 _note_.
Gāndhāra (_see Kandahār_).
Gardner, _quo._ 11, 12 _notes_, _passim_.
Gaugamela (Arbela), battle of, 5.
Gengis, Genghiz (_see Chingiz_).
Geok Teppe, battle of, 291–97.
Gerard, Major-General M. G., 303.
Gersīwaz, 115 _note_.
Ghassān, 100 _note_, 101.
Ghazā, definition, 109.
Ghaznavides, Alptagin ruler in Ghazna, 112;
Sabuktagin, 113, 117–18;
Mahmūd of Ghazna (_see that title_);
Mas`ūd, 126–28;
truce with Seljūks, 128.
Ghujduvān, battle of, 187.
Ghuz, the, migrations of, 124;
incursions into Khorāsān, 126;
Sanjar defeated, and Merv and Khorāsān laid waste, 141–42.
Ghuzek, 60.
Gibbon, _cited_ 37, 127 _notes_, _passim_.
Girāy, Sultan, 183.
Glukhovsky, Colonel, 251 _note_, 286 _note_.
Golden Horde, the, 182.
Gori (Aornos, Khulum) taken by Alexander the Great, 6.
Gortschakoff, Prince, circular to Great Powers, 247 and Appendix I.
Græco-Bactrian Empire (_see under Bactria_).
Grigorieff, _cited_ 6, 8 _notes_, _passim_.
Grodekoff, _cited_ 272 _note_.
Guchluk, 155.
_Gūr_, definition, 24 _note_.
_Gūr Amīr_, Tamerlane’s tomb, 389.
_Gūr-Khān_, title assumed by Ye-liu Ta-shi, 137.
Gutschmid, _cited_ 10 _note_.
Guyard, S., _cited_ 133 _note_.
Hāji Biklās, 166.
Hajjāj, Khorāsān, appointments by, 44;
instructions to Kutayba, 51, 52;
death, 61 _note_, 63.
Hakīm Bi, 211.
_Haloxylon Ammodendron_ (Saxaul), 263.
Hamdullah Mustawfi, _quo._ 125 _note_.
Hami (Khamil), 15.
Hamza el-Khuzā`ī, 95.
Hamza Sultan, 186.
Hārith ibn Surayj, revolt against `Āsim, 75;
against Nasr, 79;
death, 79.
Harthama, despatched to Samarkand, 96;
Samarkand taken, 98.
Hasan Beg, 177.
Hasan ibn `Alī (Nizām ul-Mulk), 131.
Hasan ibn Kahtaba, 84.
Hasan ibn Sabbāh, the Assassin, 131 _note_.
Hāshimites (_see `Abbāsids_), 80.
Hārūn (governor of Khwārazm) revolt, 126.
Hārūn er-Raschīd, 95–97.
Hayāthila (_see Ephthalites_).
Hayyān, the Nabatæan, 54.
Hegira, the, 35 and _note_.
Herāt, importance of, 300;
conquered by Ya`kūb, 104;
acquired by `Abdullah II., 117;
`Alā ud-Dīn, master of, 147;
plundered by Turkomans, 176.
Hexapolis, settlement of Sakas in, 15, 17.
Hezārasp, identity with Zariaspa suggested, 8 _note_.
Hishām, Yezid II. succeeded by, 71;
Asad dismissed, 72;
reinforcements sent to Junayd, 74;
Junayd dismissed, 75;
`Asim dismissed, 75;
death, 78.
Hiung-nu (_see Huns_).
Holwan, 64.
Horde, derivation, 233.
Hormuz II., 23.
Hormuz III., 25.
Hormuz IV., 31.
Howorth, Sir Henry, _cited_ 149, 155 _notes_, _passim_.
Huen-Tsang, 31.
Humayd ibn Kahtaba, 93.
Huns (_see also Ephthalites or White Huns_), war with Tung-nu, 15;
Kaotsu’s troops surrounded, 16;
defeated and enrolled in Chinese Empire, 19;
Slav progress impeded by, 226.
Hunter, Sir W. W., _cited_ 315 _note_.
Husayn, Amīr, 169.
Husayn Khān, 211.
Husayn Mīrzā (Sultan Husayn Baykara), 184.
Hyacinth, Father, _cited_ 149 _note_.
Ibn Hobayra, 84.
Ibrāhīm, 121.
Ikrān, 145 _note_.
Il-Arslān, 140, 144.
Ilbars, 193.
Il-Kilij, 138 _note_.
Ilik Khān, 117–19, 123.
Iliyās Khwāja Oghlān, 169, 170.
Iltūza Khān of Khiva, 209.
Ilyiās, 101.
Imām Kulī Khān, 195.
=India=--Alexander’s conquest of, date of setting out, 9;
Seleucus defeated by Chandra Gupta, 10;
Saka invasion, 17, 18;
Parthian characteristics on Saka coins, 16;
Shāh Kator, title of chief of Chitral, 20;
Kashmir lost by Kushans, 20;
Gangetic delta and Panjāb overrun by Tīmūr, 171;
invasion by Nādir Shāh, 200;
Peacock Throne, the, 201;
=England= in--“Permanent Settlement,” the, 406;
methods compared with Russian in Central Asia, 410–15;
fears of Russian absorption baseless, 408;
route of overland railway from England, 317–19.
Irjai, battle of, 252.
Irkutsk founded, 239.
Ishāk, 107.
Ishān Mohammad `Alī Khalīfa, 260.
Iskandar the Uzbeg, 191 _note_.
Iskander Kul, 9 _note_.
=Islām=--definition, 36 _note_;
origin and rise, 34–44;
spread of, on downfall of Sāmānides, 119;
established in Kābul, 105;
sectarian dissensions, 78;
Kutayba’s zeal for, 45, 66;
Guchluk’s intolerance of, 156;
embraced by immigrant Tibetan Turks to Balāsāghūn, 120;
Moslems subject to enemies of faith, 139;
education, 374;
influence of mullās on government, 375;
impression left by Alexander the Great, 9;
persecution of Christians (_see Christianity_).
Isma`īl el-Muntazir, 118 _note_.
Isma`īl ibn Ahmed, sent to Bokhārā, 106;
defeat of Nasr, 107;
Nasr succeeded by, 109;
hostilities with `Amr, 110;
campaign against Turks, 111;
death, 112.
Isma`īl, Shāh, the Safavī, 185, 186.
Ispāhbād, definition, 56.
Issus, overthrow of Darius II., 4.
Istakhr, capital of Persia under Ardashīr, 23.
Istakhri, _quo._ 46 _note_.
Ivan IV. (the Terrible), 236.
Ja`far el-Ash`ath, 95.
Ja`far ibn Yahya, 95.
Jahwar ibn Marrār el-`Ijlī, 90, 91.
Jalāl-ud-Dīn, 159.
Jāmāsp, 28.
Jāni Khān, 194.
Jānībeg, Sultan, descent traced, 190;
battle with Bāber, 187;
made Kālgha, 189;
territory of, 191.
Jarrāh, 69.
Jaxartes (_see Sir Daryā_).
Jerusalem, conquered by Parvīz, 33.
Jews, condition in Bokhārā, 365.
Jighāya, 56, 57, 59.
Jizāk, 404.
Jornandes, _cited_ 225 _note_.
Juday` el Kirmānī, 79, 82.
Juen-Juen, conquests, 21;
subdued by Tumen and Mokan-khān, 30.
Jūjī Khān, 158, 182.
Junayd (Jandab) ibn `Abd er-Rahmān, 72–75.
Jurjān, importance of, 67.
Justin, _cited_ 11, 12 _notes_.
Juvayni, _cited_ 115.
Jūzajān, king of, 56, 59.
Ka`ba (Cube), the, 34.
Kābul, overrun by Kushans, 19;
Islam established in, 105.
Kādir (Kadr) Khān, 120, 121.
Kahtaba ibn Shebīb, 83, 84.
Kā´im, Caliph, 130.
_Kālgha_, title of heir-apparent among the Uzbegs, 189.
Kamāj, 141.
Kandahār (Arachosia, Gāndhāra, Kiphin), 18, 19, 20.
Kao-tsu, Emperor, 16.
Karāchār Nuyān, ancestor of Tīmūr Leng, 168.
=Kara-Khitāys=--origin of empire, 137;
Transoxiana tributary to, 137;
Sanjar defeated, 139;
Khwārazm invaded, 144;
Tekish aided, 145;
rupture with Tekish and reconciliation, 145–47;
independence of, asserted by Mohammad Shāh, 147, 148;
Gūr-Khān dethroned by Guchluk, 155–56;
downfall of kingdom, 157;
urban life, 163.
Kara-Khānides (_see Uīghūrs_).
Karmā, 146.
=Kāshghar=--Juen-Juen masters of, 21;
occupied by Great Yué-Chi, 16;
conquered by Kutayba, 62;
by Kādir Khān, 120;
by the Tufghāj, 120;
by Ye-liu Ta-shi and made capital, 137, 138;
Seljūk suzerainty recognised, 132;
in possession of Guchluk, 156, 157;
part of Mongol Empire, 160;
dialect, 180.
Kāsim Mohammad, 197.
Kasimovski, 183 _note_.
Katti Tūra, 256.
Kauffman, General, appointed governor-general of Turkestān, 253;
Samarkand taken, 254;
Kokand invaded, 260;
war with Yomud Turkomans, 284.
Kavādh (_see Kobād_).
Kāwurd (Kurd, Kādurd, Cawder), 131 _note_.
Kay-Khosrū, 115.
Kays ibn al-Haytham, 38.
Kazāks, the, 183.
Kazān (Karān) Khān, 165.
Kazghan, Amīr, 165.
Kerbelā, battle near, 84.
Kerz, siege of, 58.
Kesh (_see Shahrisabz_).
Khadīja, 35.
Khālid, 37.
Khālid ibn `Abdullah al-Kasrī, 71.
Khālid ibn Barmek, 95 _note_.
_Khalīfa_ (_see Caliphs_).
Khalīl Sultan, 173–76.
Khamil (Hami), 15.
Khanikoff, _cited_ 207 _note_, _passim_.
Khānsālār, definition, 141 _note_.
Kharashar, 21.
Khārijites, 78, 80, 81.
Khātūn, Princess, 40–42.
Khātūn Turkān, 133.
Khazars, force sent against Darbend, 31.
Khāzim ibn Khuzayma, 90, 91, 93.
Khidhr Khān, 121.
Khitā´ī, 115 _note_.
Khitan, definition, 150 _note_.
Khitāys (Khitā´ī) harassed by Kara-Khānides, 115, 120.
=Khiva= (Khwārazm)--definition of Khwārazm, 233 _note_;
Persians defeated by Ibn Āmir, 38;
Mufaddhal’s expeditions against, 44;
Chighān aided by Kutayba, 60;
conquered by Mahmūd, 123;
by Seljūks, 136;
anarchy in, 138;
Khwārazm Shāhs, 136, 144–48;
tribute paid to Kara-Khitāys, 147;
conquered by Chingiz, 159;
overrun by Abū-l-Khayr, 184;
conquered by Shaybānī Khān, 184;
made an independent principality, 193;
revolt against Bokhārā, 197;
invasion of Bokhārā and subservience to, 198;
conflict with Haydar, 209;
conquered by Nādir Shāh, 202;
Nasrullah’s hostile relations with, 216;
war with Turkomans, 269;
=Russian conquest=, Cossack invasion, 239;
expedition against, 244;
treaty concluded, 245;
negotiations in reign of Peter the Great, 240–42;
treacherous conduct of Khivans, 241;
Bokhāran campaign joined by Khiva, 250;
final conquest, 258.
Khodāydād, revolt against Khalīl Sultan, 175.
Khojend, surrender to Nasrullah, 215, 216;
siege of, 252.
=Khorāsān= (Ta-hia)--conquered by Yué-Chi, 17;
Caliph suzerain over, 38–127;
rising in, 85;
massacre of inhabitants by `Abdullah, 87;
disorder in, 91;
rising under Ustādsīs, 92;
various revolts, 93, 94;
rule of Tāhirides, 102–5;
Ya`kūb master of, 105;
Ghaznavide rule, 118;
Seljūk rule, 127;
ravaged by Atsiz, 139;
laid waste by Ghuz, 142;
acquired by Khwārazm-Shāhs, 144;
overrun by Chingiz, 159, 233;
acquired by Shāh Rukh, 174;
in possession of Husayn Mīrzā, 184;
conquered by Shaybānī Khān, 185;
by Shāh Isma`īl, 185;
by `Abdullah II., 192;
incursions by Ma´sūm, 207;
overrun by Tekkes, 271, 284;
famine, 284.
Khorazmia, 4 (_see also Khwārazm and Khiva_).
Khorzād, 60.
Khotan, Juen-Juen masters of, 21;
occupied by Great Yué-Chi, 16;
Sultan harassed by Toghān Khān, 120;
conquest by Ye-liu Ta-shi, 137.
Khudā Yār, 220.
Khulayd ibn `Abdullah el-Hanafī, 39.
Khulum (Gori, Aornos), 6.
Khunuk-Khudāt, 51.
Khwāja Ahrār, Nakshabandi, 171 _note_.
Khwāja Bahā ud-Dīn, founder of the Nakshabandis, 170 _note_.
Khwāja Nefes, 240.
Khwārazm (_see Khiva_).
Kibitka, definition, 268 _note_.
Kipchāks, struggle with Tīmūr, 171;
revolt against Khudā Yār, 220, 221.
Kiphin (_see Kandahār_).
Kirghiz, origin and haunts of, 242;
characteristics, 365;
conflict with Cossacks, 239;
submission of Middle Horde to Russia, 242;
raids on caravans, 243.
Kitolo, 20.
Kizil Arvat, workshops, 342.
Klaproth, _cited_ 116 _note_.
Kobād, 26–29.
=Kokand=--invaded by Mozaffar ud-Dīn, 221;
Kipchāk rebellion against Khudā Yār, 220–21;
Bokhārā suzerain over, 215, 216;
=Russian conquest=, Ak Mechet taken, 245;
Chimkent stormed, 246;
Tashkent attacked and taken, 247–49;
invasion of, and annexation, 259–61.
Ko-lo, 30.
Komaroff, General, Afghans attacked and routed, 302;
Askabad founded by, 345.
Kiphin, 21.
Koran, the, 36.
Krasnovodsk, 340.
Kubilāy Khān, founder of Yuen dynasty, 182.
Kuchunji Khān, 189;
descent, 190.
Kūhistān, Turks defeated by Arabs at, 39.
Kulchanoff, Colonel, 404 _note_.
Kung-fu-tse (Confucius), 14 _note_.
Kurapatkine, Colonel Alexis, sent with reinforcements to General
Skobeleff, 290;
sketch of career, 323;
policy of Russia in Central Asia, 338 and Appendix II.
Kurd (Kāwurd, Kādurd, Cawder), 131 _note_.
Kur-Maghānūn, Prince, 51.
Kūrsūl, 77.
Kushans (_see Yué-Chi_).
Kutayba ibn Muslim el-Bāhili, appointed governor of Khorāsān, 44, 46;
expeditions to Bokhārā, 46–55;
Nīzek’s rebellion, 56–59;
hostages of king of Jūzajān put to death, 59;
Chighān aided, 60;
Soghdiana invaded, 60;
Shāsh, Khojend, and Kāshān reduced, 61;
first Arab leader to establish Islām in place of Zoroastrian
religion, 45;
zeal for Islām, 66;
Kāshghar conquered, 62;
fall and death, 63–66.
Kutb ed-Dīn Mohammad, 136, 137.
Kutluk, 194.
Kwei-shuang (_see Yué-Chi_).
Languages spoken in Samarkand and Bokhārā, 180.
Lao-tse, 14 _note_.
Leignitz, battle of, 124.
Lessar, M. P., _cited_ 265 _note_.
Liao-chi, 139 _note_.
Lohrāsp, 115.
Lomakin, General, governor of Transcaspian military district, 285;
expedition against Turkomans, 286.
Lumsden, Sir Peter, 301.
Maddāh, public entertainers, 401.
Mahmūd Bi, 208.
Mahmūd ibn Mohammad, 134, 137.
Mahmūd ibn Melik, 133.
Mahmūd Khān, 122.
Mahmūd of Ghazna, 117, 118, 125–26.
Malcolm, _cited_ 24, 104 _notes_, _passim_.
Ma´mūn, 95, 96, 98–102.
Mangit dynasty (_see under Uzbegs_).
Mansūr el-Himyari, 95.
Mansūr I., 112.
Marcanda (_see Samarkand_).
Margiana, annexed by Cyrus I., 4;
overrun by Alexander the Great, 8;
Greeks deprived of, 18 (_see also Merv_).
Marvin, _cited_ 270 _note_.
Maslama, 70.
Massagetæ, 4.
Mas`ūd ibn Mahmūd, 126–28.
Mas`ūd ibn Mohammad, 178.
Mas`ūd Khān, 121.
Ma´sūm (Shāh Murād), 205–8, 384 _note_.
Mausoleum of Sanjar, 142.
Mavarā-un-Nahr (_see Transoxiana_).
Maymena, 8.
Mazdak, 27, 28, 29.
Mecklenburg, Grand Dukes of, descent claimed from Wends, 226 _note_.
Medīna, Mohammed’s flight to, 35.
Mekka, capital of Arabia, 34;
Mohammed’s flight from, 35.
Melik Shāh, 121, 131–33.
Melik Shāh II., 134.
Mencius (Meng-tse), 14 _note_.
Merūchak, 8.
Merv, “Queen of the World,” origin of title, 44 _note_;
custom regarding naming of children, 42;
capital of Khorāsān under Arab rule, 42, 45;
Muhallab, governor of, 43, 44;
Yezīd, governor of, 44;
entry of Abū Muslim into, 82;
standard of Hārith set up in, 79;
made capital of Caliphate, 99;
laid waste by Ghuz, 142;
conquered by Ma´sūm, 206;
Russia made suzerain over, 298;
railway to Samarkand, 310–313;
branch of railway to Kushk, 317;
irrigation of, 206, 333;
general description, 265, 349–56.
Merv er-Rūd, storming of, 57.
Merwān I., 43.
Merwān, governor of Irāk, 82, 85.
Meyendorf, _cited_ 244 _note_.
Mikā´īl, 125.
Miklositch, _cited_ 226 _note_.
Mīr `Alī Shīr, 181.
Mīrāb, definition, 332 _note_.
Mīrkhwānd, _cited_ 101 _note_, _passim_.
Mīrzā Haydar, _cited_ 188.
Mīrzā Husayn (Husayn Mīrzā), 184.
Mirza Sikandar, _cited_ 185 _note_.
Mithridates I., 12.
Mithridates II. (the Great), 13.
Mo`awiya II., 42, 80.
Modharites, war with Yemenites, 78;
divisions of, 79.
Mohammad (great-grandson of `Abbās), 81.
Mohammad `Ali, Khān of Khiva, 215.
Mohammad Amīn Khān, 269.
Mohammad Rahīm Bi, 198, 199, 200, 202, 204.
Mohammad ibn Abū Sa`īd, 178.
Mohammad ibn el-Ash`ath, 91.
Mohammad ibn Mahmūd, 126, 127.
Mohammad ibn Melik, 133 _note_, 134, 144.
Mohammad Khān ibn Nasr, 122.
Mohammad Khān ibn Sulaymān, 121.
Mohammad Khwārazm Shāh, 145 _note_.
Mohammad Shaybānī (Shāhī Beg), 179, 184.
Mohammed (Prophet), 34.
Mohammedanism (_see Islām_).
Mokan-khān, 30.
Mokanna` (veiled prophet of Khorāsān), 94.
Mokhallad, 68.
Mollā Khān, 220.
=Mongols=--early history, 150;
divisions of, 151;
religions, 152;
civilisation of, attributed to Tatatungo, 155;
nomadic habits, 161, 162, 232;
invasion of Central Asia, 155–60;
Russia invaded, 233;
influence on Russian character and characteristics, 234;
dissensions among, 234;
Russian attempts to throw off Mongol yoke, 235;
decline of power, 236.
Moscow, rise of, 234;
Mongol attacks on, 235, 236, 237.
Moser, _cited_ 262 _note_, _passim_.
Mostadhhir, 134.
Mothé, 15.
Mu`ayyad, governor of Nīshāpūr, 145.
Mu`ayyad ud-Dawlé, 133.
Mu`āz ibn Muslim, 94.
Mufaddhal, 44.
Mughal, first use of word, 150.
Muhallab, 42, 43.
Muir, _cited_ 38 _note_, _passim_.
Mukīm Khān, 199.
Muktadi, Caliph, death of, 134.
Mulabbab esh-Shaybāni, 90.
Müller, _cited_ 39 _note_, _passim_.
Murghāb, the, 333–35.
Musayyah ibn Zobayr, 94.
Muslim ibn Sa`īd, the Kilābite, 71.
Mu`tadhid, 109–10.
Mu`tamid, Caliph, 104–05.
Mutawakkil, Caliph, 103.
Muwaffak, 104, 105.
Muzaffar ud-Dīn (Sayyid Muzaffar ud-Dīn), 219–21.
Nādir Shāh, 200–3, 267.
Nahāvend, Zoroastrians defeated by Arabs at, 37;
captured by Hāshimite troops, 84.
_Nakshabandi_, order of dervishes, 170 _note_.
Naphthalites (_see Ephthalites_).
Narshakhi, _cited_ 41, 42, 43 _notes_, _passim_.
Nāsir, Caliph, 157.
Nasr ibn Ahmed, 105–8.
Nasr ibn Sayyār, 75, 77–83.
Nasrullah Khān, 211–19.
Nautaca, district covered by, 6.
Nawrūz Ahmed, 191 _note_.
Nāzir Mohammad, 196.
Nestorius, followers persecuted by Tamerlane, 397.
Ney, _cited_ 249, 257 _notes_, _passim_.
Nicator (Seleucus I.), 10.
Nijni Novogorod, building of, 231;
a principality, 234.
Nīshāpūr, conquest ascribed to Shāpūr, 23; _passim_.
Nīzak Tarkhūn, 39.
Nizām ul-Mulk (Hasan ibn `Alī), 131, 132.
Nīzek, peace concluded with Kutayba, 47;
rebellion and death, 56–59.
Nöldeke, _cited_ 22 _note_, _passim_.
Novogorod, a republic, 230;
added to Russia by Vassili III., 236;
Vladimir of, 229.
Nūh III., 117.
Nūh, Amīr of Samarkand, 101.
Nūr Verdi Khān, 273.
Nūshtegin, 136.
O’Donovan, _cited_ 42 _note_.
Ogdāy, 158, 162, 166 _note_.
Oliver, W. E. E., _cited_ 161 _note_.
`Omar Bi, 208.
`Omar, Caliph, assassination of, 38.
`Omar ibn `Abd ul-`Azīz, 69.
`Omar ibn Hobayra, 70.
`Omar Khān, 212, 213.
`Omar Khayyām, 131 _note_.
`Omar Shaykh, 178.
`Omāra ibn Horaym, 73.
Omsk acquired by Russia, 242.
Orenburg, founding of, and importance for caravans, 242;
defective as basis for expeditions, 245.
Orkhon inscriptions, 29 _note_.
Oshrūsana, 95.
`Othmān, prince of Samarkand, 147, 156.
Osmānlīs, origin of, 124.
Ossipoff, story of, 346.
`Othmān, Caliph, 37.
Oxus (_see Amū Daryā_).
Oxyartes, father of Roxana, 8.
Palestine, conquest by Arabs, 37;
Damascus and Jerusalem conquered by Parvīz, 32, 33;
Damascus stormed by Tīmūr, 171.
Pamirs, birthplace of Aryan race, 3;
commission to demarcate English and Russian influence on, 303–5.
Panchao, 20.
Panjakand, identified with Bishkand, 187 _note_.
Pāpak, 22.
Paropamisus mountains, boundary of Bactria, 3.
Parthia, 11–13;
Greeks deprived of Margiana by, 18;
encounters with the Yué-Chi, 19;
overthrow of dynasty by Ardashīr, 23;
Parthians identical with Turkomans, 266;
characteristics on early Indian Saka coins, 16.
Parvīz, “the Victorious” (Chosrau II.), 32.
Pasargadæ, 5.
Perofski, Count, expedition against Khiva, 243, 244.
Persepolis, plundered by Alexander, 5.
=Persia=--Bactria annexed to, 4;
conquered by Alexander the Great, 4;
condition in third century, 22;
Ardashīr, king of, 23;
famine in, 25;
loss of eyesight a bar to ruling, 27;
Arab conquest, 37;
acquired by Turks, 129;
overrun by troops of Tīmūr, 171;
war with Bākī Mohammad, 195;
Nādir Shāh, 200–3;
war with Turkomans, 267, 269–72;
Persian literary language in time of Tāhirides, 180;
Parthia (_see that title_).
Peter the Great, 240–42.
Petra Oxiana, 8.
Petrofsky, M., _cited_ 371 _note_.
Petrusevitch, _cited_ 270, 271, 272 _notes_.
Philippus of Elymeus, 10.
Phraates, 12.
Pīr Mohammad, 173.
Pīr Mohammad, grandson of Tīmūr, the Uzbeg, 191 _note_.
Pīrūz, 25.
Pishagar, destroyed by Nasrullah, 215.
Polotsk, 230.
Poole, Mr. S. Lane, _cited_ 60 _note_, _passim_.
Powers, the Great, Russian circular to, 249, Appendix I.
Price, Major, _cited_ 161 _note_, _passim_.
Pskov, 230.
Rabī` ibn Ziyād el-Hārithī, 39.
Rāfi` ibn Harthama, appointed governor of Khorāsān, 105;
peace between Nasr and Isma`īl, obtained by, 107;
murder of, 110.
Rāfi` ibn Layth, 96.
Rahīm Bi, 199, 202, 384 _note_.
Railways (_see under Russia_).
Rāmtīna, conquered by Ubaydullah ibn Ziyād, 39.
Rapson, _cited_ 16 _note_.
Rāvandis, the, 92.
Raverty, _cited_ 120 _note_.
Riazan, Russian principality, 234.
_Risālachi_, public entertainers, 401.
Romanovski, General, General Chernaieff superseded by, 251;
battle of Irjai, 252.
=Romans=, struggle with Mithridates, 13;
Kushan Empire recognised by, 19;
Shāpūr I. at war with, 23;
war with Bahrām Gūr, and truce, 24;
rupture between Pīrūz and Ephthalites attributed to, 26;
hostilities with Kobād, 28;
war with Hormuz IV., 31, 32;
alliance between Turks and Persians regarded with apprehension
by, 31;
defeated by Arabs, 37;
first Turkish invasion of Rome, 131.
Roxana, 8.
=Russia=--ethnological origin of Russians, 225;
influence of physical surroundings, 227;
growth of cities, 227;
origin of serfs, 228;
origin, customs, and territory of Slavs, 225, 226;
growth of princely rule, 228–31;
introduction of Christianity and influence of priests upon
government, 229;
feudalism introduced from Germany, 231;
Mongol invasion and results, 233–34;
Mongolian yoke thrown off by Vassili the Great, 235;
growth of Moscow, 234;
Cossack invasion of Siberia, 238–39;
=Khiva=, Bekovitch expedition, 240–42;
Perofski expedition, 244;
treaty, 245;
conquest, 257–59;
=Kokand=, invasion of, 245;
Tashkent taken, 247–49;
action with Khān of Bokhārā, 250;
annexation, 259–61;
=Bokhārā=, mission to, 217;
conquest, 250–57;
general description, 357–85;
=Samarkand=, annexation, 255;
general description, 386–407;
=Turkomania=, conquest of, 285–97;
battle of Geok Teppe, 292–97;
Merv acquired, 298;
administration in Transcaspia, 325–39;
=Afghanistān=, joint commission with England to demarcate northern
boundary, 301;
skirmish with Afghans, 302;
result of deliberations, 303;
commission to demarcate English and Russian influence on
Pamirs, 303–5;
condition of roads in Central Asia, 345;
methods of dealing with Orientals compared with English, 410–15;
desirability of union with England, 414–16;
=Railways=, used by military transport between Caspian and Amū
Daryā, 289;
overland route to India, 317–19;
Transcaspian Railway, construction, 307–13;
branch lines, 261, 316–17;
importance of and effect on Central Asian commerce, 313–15;
journey described, 341, 349, 357, 386.
Sabuktagin, 113, 117, 118.
Sacæ (_see Scythians, Sakas_).
_Sadr-i-sharī`at_, influence of, in towns of Transoxiana, 163.
Sāghir Beg, 122.
Sa`īd ibn `Abd ul-`Azīz, 70.
Sa`īd ibn `Amr el-Harashī, 71.
Sa`īd ibn `Othmān, 40.
Sālih ibn Nasr, 103.
Salm ibn Ziyād, 41.
Salors, the, territory of, 266, 268;
settlement at Zarābād, 270.
Sāmān, 101.
Sāmānides, the, 109–18;
Transoxiana wrested from, and territory subsequently owned by, 119.
=Samarkand= (Marcanda)--besieged by Spitamenes and relieved, 7–8;
stormed by Sa`īd ibn `Othmān, 40, 41;
taken by Harthama, 98;
besieged and taken by Chingiz, 159;
taken by Khān of Jatah, 169;
improvement under Tīmūr, 171;
capital transferred to, 166;
throne seized by Khalīl Sultan, 174;
plundered by Uzbegs, 176;
beautifying of, 176, 178;
fall of Tīmūr’s dynasty and accession of Mohammad Khān
Shaybāni, 179;
captured by Zahīr ud-Dīn Bāber, 184;
sub-dynasty abolished, 191;
surrender to Russians, 254;
citadel defended against Sarts, 255;
incorporated with Turkestān, 255;
railways from Merv, 310–13;
to Tashkent, 316;
height above sea, 388;
the Rīgistān, 391;
mosques and tombs, 391–95;
Urda, 395;
Russian quarter, 396;
mineral wealth, 398;
trade and industries, 398–401;
professional story-tellers and legends, 401–3;
administration, 404–7;
summary of history, 389;
dialect, 180.
Sanjar, Sultan, parentage, 133 _note_;
governor of Khorāsān, 134;
Mahmūd succeeded by, 135;
revolt of Atsiz, 138–40;
defeat of Kara-Khitāys, 139;
by Turkomans, 266;
irrigation of Merv, work of, 206;
fall and death, 140–42;
tomb, 354.
Sarakhs, 269.
Sardār, definition, 274 _note_.
Sārikhs, the, 268.
Saripul, established by Alexander, 8.
Sarkār, definition, 333 _note_.
Sarts, definition, 245 _note_, 364.
Sāsānides, the, 22–33;
death of Yezdijerd, 37.
Satuk Boghrā Khān, 119.
Saura ibn el-Hurr, 73.
Saxaul (_haloxylon ammodendron_), 263.
Sayyid `Abdul Ahad, 384.
Sayyid el-Harashī, 94.
Sayyid Haydar Tūra, 208–10, 384 _note_.
Sayyid Mīr `Alīm, 384.
Sayyid Muzaffar ud-Dīn, 219;
expedition against and submission to Russia, 250–56.
Schefer, Ed., _cited_ 50 _note_, _passim_.
Schuyler, _cited_ 254 _note_.
=Scythians=--Arsaces (_see that title_), defeated by Alexander, 8;
Thogari, the, 13;
=Sakas=, Phraates slain by, 12;
portion of Bactria wrested from, 13;
settlement in Hexapolis, 15;
expulsion from Soghdiana and subsequent fate, 16, 17;
settlement in Bactria and subsequent expulsion, 18;
driven from Kiphin by Kushans, 19.
Sé (_see Scythians, Sakas_).
_Sefīd-Jāmegān_, followers of Mokanna`, 94.
Seljūks, the, districts invaded by, 124;
origin of, and founders, 125;
Mahmūd’s expedition against, 126;
rise of, 127;
treaty with Ibrāhīm;
Khwārazm conquered, 136;
division into various branches, and downfall of authority, 144, 146;
various rules (_see their names_).
Seleucus I. (Nicator), 10.
Semirechensk, extent of, 253.
Serikūl, settlement of Sakas in, 17.
Shāba, 31.
Shaburgān, 8.
Shād Mulkh, 174.
Shāh Isma`īl, the Safavī, 185, 186.
Shāh Kator, 20.
Shāh Mahmūd Sultan, 145.
Shāh Murād (Ma´sūm), 205–8, 384 _note_.
Shāh Rukh, 174–76, 180.
Shāhī Beg (Mohammad Shaybānī), 184.
Shahrisabz, `Abdullah (son of Amīr Kazghan) defeated at, 166;
attacked by Nasrullah, 214;
conquered, 219;
revolt, 220;
subdued by General Abramoff, 256.
Shāpūr (brother of Ardashīr), 22.
Shāpūr I., 23.
Shāpūr, conquest of, ascribed to Shāpūr I., 23.
Shāsh, king of, 61.
Shaybānī Khān (Shāhī Beg), 184;
Shaybānides (_see Uzbegs_).
Shaykh Nūr-ed-Dīn, revolt against Khalīl Sultan, 175.
Shen-Yü, title borne by Juen-Juen chiefs, 21 _note_.
Shi`ites, origin of, 81;
revolt in Khorāsān, 91;
in Daylam, 95;
Ma´mūn, Shāh Isma`īl, etc. (_see those titles_).
Shugnān, Sakas established in, 17.
Shukovski, Prof., _cited_ 141 _note_.
Sibir captured, 239.
Sīhūn (_see Sir Daryā_).
Sinbad, 90.
Sir Daryā, northern boundary of Turkestān, 3;
chain of Russian forts on, 245.
Sīstān (Drangiana), occupied by Sakas, 18;
Pīrūz made governor, 25;
Arab expedition, 38;
conquered by Shāh Rukh, 174.
Siyāwush, 115 _note_.
Skobeleff, Michael Dmitriavitch, governor of Kokand, 260;
Russian policy in Central Asia, 339 _note_;
anecdote, 344, _note_;
exploits, 288.
Smolensk, 230.
Soghd, assistance rendered to Bokhārā, 42;
war with Kutayba, and treaty, 51, 54;
revolt against chief, 60;
captured by Zahīr ud-Dīn Bāber, 184.
=Soghdiana=--annexation by Cyrus I., 4;
revolt against Alexander, 7;
subdued by Alexander, 9;
loss of Grecian power in, 18;
expulsion of Sakas by Yué-Chi, and re-occupation, 16, 17, 18;
revolt in, and invasion by Kutayba, 60;
retreats of Asad, 72.
Spitamenes, Bessus betrayed by, 6;
rebellion against Alexander the Great, 7–8;
death, 9.
Stadium, definition, 7 _note_.
Stasanor, 10.
Stewart, Colonel C., _cited_ 315 _note_.
Stoddart, Colonel, mission to Bokhārā, and death, 217–18.
Stolietoff, General, Krasnovodsk founded by, 262.
Strabo, _cited_ 13 _note_.
Strogonoff, 238.
Stumm, Hugo, _cited_ 238, 244 _notes_, _passim_.
Stylites, Joseph, _cited_ 26.
Su (_see Scythians, Sakas_).
_Sū_, definition, 332.
Subhān Kulī Khān, 196, 197, 198.
Sukhrā (Zermihr), 26.
Sulaymān Shāh (governor of Khwārazm), 138.
Sulaymān (son of `Abd ul-Melik), accession to Caliphate, 61;
Kutayba’s letters to, 61;
death, 64.
Sultan `Ali, 178.
Sultan Girāy, 183.
Sultan Hamza, 186.
Sultan Husayn Baykara (Husayn Mīrzā), 184.
Sultan Jānībeg (_see Jānībeg_).
Sultan Khalīl, 173–76.
Sultan Mohammad Khwārazm Shāh, 145 _note_.
Sultan Shāh Mahmūd, 145.
Suyunjik, 189.
Suzdal, 234.
Syria, conquered by Arabs, 37.
Tabari, _cited_ 25 _note_, _passim_.
Tabaristān, 67, 68.
Tāhir ibn `Amr, 111.
Tāhirides, the, Tāhir, 99, 100;
Talha and `Abdullah, 100;
Tāhir II., 103;
defeated by Ya`kūb, 105;
length of rule, 102;
Persian literary language in time of, 180.
Taigir, Ye-liu Ta-shi, also known as, 137.
T’ai-tsu (Apaoki), 137 _note_.
Tāi Yāng, Khān, 155.
Tājiki dialect, 181.
Tājiks, the, origin and characteristics, 364;
Iranian branch of Aryans represented by, 3.
Talha, 100, 101.
Tālikān, battle at, 57.
Tanaïs (Don), Sir Daryā, mistaken for, by Alexander the Great, 7.
Tanap, definition, 362 _note_.
Tandar, 47.
Tanga, value of, 212 _note_.
_Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, _cited_ 116, 119, _passim_.
Tashkent, siege and storming of, by Colonel Chernaieff, 247, 248;
made capital of Turkestān, 249;
railway to, 316.
Tatatungo, 155.
Tchinghiz (_see Chingiz_).
Tea, importation of, to Bokhārā, 372;
Chāy Kabūd, 401.
Tekish, 145–47.
Tekkes (_see Turkomans_).
Temūchin (_see Chingiz_).
Thogari, the, 13.
Thomson, E. C. Ringler, _cited_ 324 _note_.
Tīmūr Leng (Tamerlane), 168–72;
conquests, 235;
brilliancy of age, 179–82;
fall of dynasty, 179.
Tīmūr Shāh Oghlān, 166.
Tiridates, 12.
Tiu-ping, 30.
Tobolsk, building of, 239.
Toghān Khān, 119.
Toghrul Beg, parentage, 125;
Mas`ūd defeated by, 127;
conquests and death, 129–30.
Toghrul, Khān of the Keraits, 153.
Toghrul III., overthrown by Tekish, 146.
Tokhāristān, Yué-Chi settlement in, 18;
Persians masters of, 30;
occupied by Al-Hakam, 39;
incorporated with Transoxiana, 192.
Tokhtamish Khān, 171, 183 _note_, 235.
=Transcaspia=--boundaries and physical features, 321;
productions and industries, 322;
administration, 325;
taxation, 336;
transport, 337;
irrigation methods, 331–34;
education, 335;
drunkenness, 329;
statistics of crime, 327–28;
epidemics, 330;
Turkomans (_see that title_).
=Transoxiana=--Yué-Chi powerful in, 17;
Ephthalites in, 21;
tribes defeated by Bahrām Gūr, 24;
Turks masters of, 30;
suggested conquest by Anūshirawān, 30 _note_;
Kutayba’s expeditions to, 47–55;
Turks driven out, 75;
revolt of Nīzek, 56;
reduced by `Omāra ibn Horaym, 73;
Rāfi` master of, 97;
governorship held by Sāmānides, 105–13;
fall of Sāmānides, 119;
Melik Shāh master of, 132;
Kara-Khitāys in possession of, 137, 139;
inherited by Chaghatāy, 160;
Amīr Kazghan master of, 166;
Bayān Seldūz and Hāji Birlās rulers of, 167;
invaded by Khān of Jatah, 167, 169;
Sultan Khalīl in possession of, 174;
Ulugh Beg governor of, 175;
invasion by `Abd ul-Latīf, 177;
Abū Sa`īd master of, 177;
condition under Sultan Ahmad, 178;
Uzbeg rule in, 184–92;
Bāber master of, 186;
Tokhāristān and Badakshān incorporated with, 192;
Astrakhan dynasty in, 192–203;
dialect in, 180 (_see also Bokhārā, Samarkand, etc._).
Tsin Chi Hwang-ti, 14.
Tufghāj, the, 121.
Tūghluk Tīmūr Khān, 167.
Tūkā Tīmūr, 183 _note_.
Tu-kiué, 29.
Tukta, 155.
Tūlī, 158.
Tulun, 21.
Tumen, 29.
Tung-nu (Eastern Tartars), war with Hiung-nu, 15;
Yué-Chi (_see that title_).
Turkān, Queen, 142–45.
=Turkestān=--boundaries and earliest references, 3;
Turkish migration to, 124;
conquered by Ye-liu Ta-shi, 137;
social conditions under successors of Chaghatāy, 162;
partly overrun by Abū-l-Khayr, 184;
attacked by Kokandis, 248;
made frontier district, 249;
governor-general appointed to, 253;
Samarkand incorporated with, 255;
Kokand incorporated, 260;
dialect, 180.
Turkī dialect, 180.
=Turkomans=--derivation, 266;
branch of Western Turks, 124, 265;
migration, 265;
various tribes, 266–68;
government of, 272;
growth of hereditary principle, 273;
raids, 274–76;
slavery, 276;
horses of, 276;
appearance and dress, 279;
characteristics, 280;
weaving, 282;
extent and physical features of territory, 262–65;
defeat by Uzbegs, 188;
conflicts with Persia, 267–68, 269–70, 272;
conflict with Khiva, 269;
Merv occupied by, 269–72;
=Russian conquest=, war of extermination by General Kauffman, 284;
expedition of Lomakin, 286–87;
of Skobeleff, 289–99;
battle of Geok Teppe, 291–97;
Transcaspia (_see that title_).
=Turks=--divisions of, 29, 123;
migrations, 124, 129;
relations with Persians, 30–32;
defeated by Rabī` ibn Ziyād, 39;
Islām embraced by Turks in Balāsāghūn, 120;
Kirghiz, Turkomans, Uzbegs, etc. (_see those titles_).
Tver, 234.
`Ubaydullah ibn Ziyād, 39.
`Ubaydullah (son of Subhān Kulī Khān), 199.
`Ubaydullah, Sultan, 186, 189, 190, 191 _note_.
Uīghūrs (Kara-Khānides), 114–22;
first mention of name, 116;
Sakas intermixed with, 17;
urban life, 163.
Ujfalvy, _cited_ 17 _note_, _passim_.
Ulugh Beg, governor of Transoxiana, 175;
proclaimed emperor, 176;
murdered by son, 177;
arithmetician and astronomer, 180.
Umayya ibn `Abdullah ibn Khālid, 43.
Umayyads, the, various Caliphs (_see their titles_);
descent of Umayya traced, 80;
origin of dispute with `Abbāsids, 80;
downfall, 85.
Urdu Bālik, 115.
Ustādsīs, 93.
Usuns, territory of, 15.
Uzbegī dialect, 180.
Uzbegs, the, 183–93;
Kazaks, 183;
characteristics, 365;
Samarkand plundered by, 176;
mastery gained over Sultan Ahmad, 178;
Mangit dynasty, 204–21, 365.
Valerian, Emperor, captured by Shāpūr I., 23.
Vāli Mahammad, 195.
Vambéry, _cited_ 39 _note_, _passim_.
Vardān, battle of, 52–54.
Vardān-Khudāt, the, king of Bokhārā, 51, 52.
Varkā, 49 _note_.
Vassili I., 236.
Vassili III., 236.
Vassilief, Prof., _cited_ 149 _note_.
“Veiled Prophet of Khorāsān” (Mokanna`), 94.
Veliaminof-Zernof, M., _cited_ 183, 185 _seq._
Veneti, plains of Eastern Europe invaded by, 225.
Vine cultivation in Samarkand, 399–401.
Vladimir, building of, 231.
Vladimir of Novogorod, 229.
Von Hammer, J., _cited_ 133 _note_.
Von Struve, Colonel, 251 _note_.
Wakī`, 67.
Weaving, tradition concerning, 399.
Weil, _quo._ 87 _note_, _passim_.
Wei-wu-rh, Kara-Khānides known to Chinese as, 116.
Welīd, Caliph, 46, 61.
Wends, the, 225.
Wheeled traffic on Persian roads, 27 _note_.
White Horde, the, 182.
White Huns (_see Ephthalites_).
Wolff, _cited_ 170 _note_, _passim_.
Wu-ti, Emperor, alliance with Yué-Chi, 17.
Yādgār Mīrzā, 177.
Yahya, Amīr of Shāsh, 101.
Ya`kūb ibn Layth, 103–5.
Yamuds, the, 268.
Yani Kurgān, conquered by Russians, 252.
Yār Mohammad Khān, 194.
Yarkand, occupied by Great Yué-Chi, 16;
conquered by Ye-liu Ta-shi, 137;
dialect of, 180.
Yarkand Daryā, Sakas driven to upper valleys of, 17.
Yaroslav the Wise, 230.
_Yatīmatu ’d-Dahr_, _cited_ 111 _note_.
Ye-liu Ta-shi, 137, 138.
Yemenites, war with Modharites, 78.
Yenekale, Straits of (Caucasian Bosphorus), 13.
Yetha (_see Ephthalites_).
Yezdijerd II., 25.
Yezdijerd III., 37.
Yezīd ibn Mazyad, 94.
Yezīd ibn Merwān, 41, 42.
Yezīd ibn Muhallab, 44, 63, 64–70.
Yezīd II., 69–71.
Yissugāy, 150, 152.
Y-li, 139 _note_.
=Yué-Chi=--extent of empire, 15;
divisions of, 16;
alliance with China, 17;
Bactria in possession of, 18, 19;
encounters with Parthians, 19;
Kushan clan, sovereignty of, recognised, 19, 20;
founder of Little Yué-Chi, 20;
fall of, 20.
Yule, Colonel, _cited_ 19 _note_.
Yūsuf, Alp Arslān killed by, 131 _note_.
Yūsuf ibn Ibrāhīm (El-Barm), 94.
Zāb, battle of the, 84.
_Zafar-Nāmé_, Life of Tamerlane, two works of that name, 168 _note_.
Zahīr ud-Dīn Bāber, 179, 180;
war with Uzbegs, 184, 186, 187.
Zarafshān, Bokhārā watered by, 360;
cultivation of cotton on banks of, 386.
Zariaspa, identification of, 8.
Zelenoi, General, 301.
Zermihr (Sukhrā), 26, 27.
Zernof, Veliaminof, M., _cited_ 183, 185 _notes_.
Zingis (_see Chingiz_).
Ziyād (brother of Caliph Mo`awiya), 38, 39.
Ziyād, governor of Samarkand, 85, 86.
Zoroastrianism, toleration of, provided in truce between Rome and
Bahrām Gūr, 24;
supplanted by Islām, 45;
revolt of Sinbad, 90.
Zotenberg’s translation of Tabari, _cited_ 67 _notes_, _passim_.
Zulkarnayn, or Two Horned, title of Alexander, 9.
Zungaria, Sakas driven to, 16.
Transcriber’s Notes
Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant
preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed. Due
to the large number of transliterated/accented words, no attempt was
made to check spelling in this eBook.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced
quotation marks retained.
Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained; occurrences of
inconsistent hyphenation have not been changed.
Italic text is enclosed in _underscores_, boldface in =equals signs=.
Transcriber has attempted to show macrons, `ayns, and hamzas as
they were printed in the source book, using the accent grave (`) to
represent `ayn, and the accent acute (´) to represent hamza. However:
as with English words, when there was a predominant transliterated
spelling, with or without such marks, variants were changed to match
them. All-caps words, such as the ones in headings and illustration
captions, generally were unmarked in the source book, but are shown
here with the marks.
Frequent occurrences of variants of some words were retained here,
including:
`Othmān, `Othman;
`Irāk, Irāk;
Islām, Islam;
Bokhara, Bokhāra, Bokhārā.
Illustrations have been moved to fall between paragraphs, so the
page numbers in the List of Illustration do not always correspond to
the positions in this eBook. In versions of this eBook that support
hyperlinks, the links lead directly to the correct illustrations.
Footnotes originally began on the same pages as the text that referred
to them. In this eBook, the footnotes have been collected together,
renumbered sequentially, and moved to just precede the Index.
Index not systematically checked for proper alphabetization, correct
page references, or spelling that matched the referenced text.
When spelling differences were found between Index entries and the
referenced text, the Index was changed to match the text.
Index referenced footnotes by the page numbers on which they appeared.
The footnotes have been moved to the end of this eBook, but those
references still are to their original pages.
Page 48: Unmatched opening quotation mark before “the efforts”.
Page 102 (footnote): “Abdullāh” was printed that way; all other
occurrences in the book were printed as “`Abdullah”.
Page 124: “Leignitz” was printed that way in the text and the Index.
Page 131: Date errors. The Christian year “1063” was converted
incorrectly: it should be 1073. Later in the same paragraph, the A.H.
date “446” is a typographical error for “466”.
Page 193: The Geneaolgy chart originally appeared on page 190, but was
moved to the end of the chapter so that it would not interrupt the flow
of the narrative. Consequently, all Index references to page 190 will be
found at the bottom of page 193.
Page 215: “western frontier” may be a misprint for “eastern frontier”.
Page 371: “bibliophils” was printed that way.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Heart of Asia" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.