History of the Seljuq State: A translation with commentary of the Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya 2010015416, 9780415588447, 9780203841259, 0203841255

Citation preview

The History of the Seljuq State

The Akhbar al-dawla al-saljuqiyya is one of the key primary documents on the history of Western Persia and Iraq in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This book provides an accessible English translation and commentary on the text, making available to a new readership this significant work on the pre-modern history of the Middle East and the Turkish peoples. The text is a chronicle of the Seljuq dynasty as it emerged within the Iranian lands in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, dominating the Middle Eastern lands, from Turkey and Syria to Iran and eastern Afghanistan. During this formative period in the central and eastern Islamic lands, they inaugurated a pattern of Turkish political and military dominance of the Middle East and beyond, from Egypt to India, in some cases well into the twentieth century. Shedding light on many otherwise obscure aspects of the political history of the region, the book provides a more detailed context for the political history of the wider area. As such, it will be of great interest to scholars of Middle Eastern history and is an important addition to the existing literature on the Seljuq dynasty. Clifford Edmund Bosworth is a Visiting Professor at the Centre for Arabic and Islamic Studies at Exeter University. His research interests include the pre-modern history of the Central and Eastern Islamic lands, especially Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia, on which he has published several books.

Routledge Studies in the History of Iran and Turkey Edited by Carole Hillenbrand, University of Edinburgh

This series publishes important studies dealing with the history of Iran and Turkey in the period 1000–1700 AD. This period is significant because it heralds the advent of large numbers of nomadic Turks from Central Asia into the Islamic world. Their influence was felt particularly strongly in Iran and Turkey, territories which they permanently transformed. The series presents translations of medieval Arabic and Persian texts which chronicle the history of the medieval Turks and Persians, and also publishes scholarly monographs which handle themes of medieval Turkish and Iranian history such as historiography, nomadisation and folk Islam. Mediaeval Islamic Historiography and Political Legitimacy Bal’ami’s Tarikhnamah A.C.S. Peacock History of the Seljuq Turks The Seljuq-nama of Zahir al-Din Nishpuri Translated by Kenneth Allin Luther Edited by Edmund Bosworth The Annals of the Seljuq Turks Selections from al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh of Ibn al-Athir D. S. Richards Early Mongol Rule in Thirteenth Century Iran A Persian Renaissance George Lane The Ghaznavid and Seljuk Turks Poetry as a source for Iranian history G.E. Tetley Iranian Elites and Turkish Rulers A history of Isfahan in the Seljuq period David Durand-Guédy

Early Seljuq History A new interpretation A.C.S. Peacock The Great Seljuqs A history Aziz Basan The History of the Seljuq State A translation with commentary of the Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya Clifford Edmund Bosworth

The History of the Seljuq State A translation with commentary of the Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya

Clifford Edmund Bosworth

First published 2011 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. © 2011 Clifford Edmund Bosworth The right of Clifford Edmund Bosworth to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Husayni, Sadr al-Din ʿAli ibn Nasir, fl. 1180–1225. [Akhbār al-dawla al-Saljūqiyyah. English] The history of the Seljuq state: a translation with commentary of the Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya/Clifford Edmund Bosworth. p. cm. – (Routledge studies in the history of Iran and Turkey) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Seljuks. 2. Islamic Empire–History–750–1258. I. Bosworth, Clifford Edmund. II. Title. DS27.H8313 2011 956'.014—dc22 2010015416 ISBN 0-203-84125-5 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 978–0–415–58844–7 (hbk) ISBN 978–0–203–84125–9 (ebk)

Contents

Preface and acknowledgements Abbreviations of journals, books, etc., cited Map of Persia and Iraq in the Seljuq period

x xii xiii

Introduction

1

Translation of the text

9

Mention of the fact that the first of them to become a Muslim was the Amir Tuqāq 9 The fitting-out of Sübashï’s army for war against the Seljuq Amirs 12 Mention of what happened between Malik Chaghrï Beg and Sultan Mawdūd b. Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin 16 Mention of the killing of Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin 16 The conflict between the Commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh and Arslān al-Basāsīrī, and the march on Baghdad of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Abū Ṭālib Ṭoghrïl Beg b. Dāwūd (sic) b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq 19 Mention of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Abū Ṭālib Ṭoghrïl b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq’s character and way of life 22 The story of the vizier ʿAmīd al-Mulk Abū Naṣr al-Kundurī 22 The story of Malik Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq and the warfare between Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq and Sultan Mawdūd b. Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin, and Mawdūd’s defeat and the peace agreement between the two of them 24 Mention of Malik Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq’s death and the succession to sole authority of Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān 26 The historical events of the reign of Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq 26

viii

The History of the Seljuq State

The Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq’s battle with Malik Quṭlumush b. Isrāʾīl and his victory over him 26 The story of the ʿAmīd of Khurasan Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Nasawī 27 Mention of the Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān’s expedition against the Byzantine lands (al-Rūm) 29 The Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq’s march from Georgia to Byzantium 31 The Exalted Sultan Alp Arslān’s journey to Fars and Kirman for a second time 33 The story of Faḍlūn and the conquest of his stronghold 33 The Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān’s march to the Byzantine lands for a second time 34 The Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān’s march against the Byzantine king Romanus (Armānūs) for a second time and his taking him captive 36 The Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq’s march to Samarqand and his finding a martyr’s death there 40 The reign of the Exalted Sultan Jalāl al-Dawla Abu ’l-Fatḥ Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq 41 The death of the Commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh on 12 Shaʿbān 467 [/2 April 1075] 45 Mention of the revolt of Malik Shihāb al-Dawla Tekish b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq 46 The birth of the Exalted Sultan Muʿizz al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Abu ’l-Ḥārith Sanjar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, Yamīn Amīr al-Muʾminīn 47 The Exalted Sultan Jalāl al-Dawla Abu ’l-Fatḥ Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān’s march into Transoxania for a second time 47 The murder of the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk Qiwām al-Dīn Khwāja-yi Buzurg Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Isḥāq, Raḍ ī Amīr al-Muʾminīn 48 The death of the Exalted Sultan Jalāl al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Abu ’l-Fatḥ Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq 51 The sultanate of Maḥmūd, son of Sultan Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān 53 The reign of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Abu ’l-Muẓaffar Berk-yārūq b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān 54 The reign of Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Abū Shujāʿ Muḥammad Ṭapar, Qasīm Amīr al-Muʾminīn 56

Contents ix Mention of the coming to Iraq (i.e Jibāl and western Persia) from Khurasan of the Exalted Sultan Muʿizz al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Malik al-Islām wa ’l-Muslimīn, the Support of the House of Seljuq and Right Hand of the Commander of the Faithful, Abu ’l-Ḥārith Sanjar b. Malik Shāh and his victory [over his rivals] and his forgiving [them] 59 The reign as sultan in Iraq (i.e. Jibāl and western Persia) of Sultan Mughīth al-Dīn Abu ’l-Qāsim Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar, Yamīn Amīr al-Muʾminīn 66 The reign of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghril b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq 68 The reign of Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Abu ’l-Fatḥ Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, Qasīm Amīr al-Muʾminīn 72 Mention of his character and conduct 81 [The end of the reign of Sultan Sanjar b. Malik Shāh] 82 We now return to mention of the affairs of Iraq (i.e. Jibāl and western Persia) and the events taking place there 84 Mention of what happened at Baghdad after Sultan Masʿūd’s death 85 [The sultanate of ] Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, Qasīm Amīr al-Muʾminīn 96 [The sultanate of ] Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl b. Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, Qasīm Amīr al-Muʾminīn 113 Mention of the Seljuq maliks and sultans and the length of their reigns from the time when they achieved mastery over the lands until their authority was swept away 128 Mention of the roles of some of the mamlūks of the Seljuqs 129 Notes Bibliography Index of persons, peoples and tribes Index of places Index of technical terms

130 168 173 180 183

Preface and acknowledgements

The idea of producing an English translation of al-Ḥusaynī’s History has seemed to me a logical supplement to my recently published translation of the part of Gardīzī’s Zayn al-akhbār on the rulers in the eastern Islamic world up to and including the early Ghaznavid period (see the Bibliography, below, p. 168), the time when the sultans in Ghazna were having to face up to the conquering élan of the new power of the Seljuqs. Historians of the Crusades who are not skilled in the indigenous languages of the Near East have long been able to avail themselves of various translations of the oriental chronicles relevant to their field, including several Arabic ones. However, Western historians whose interests and purview extend to the Islamic lands further east, dominated for close on two centuries by the impressive empire of the Seljuqs and their epigoni, have been less well served with translations from the local languages; and some translations into modern Turkish made by Turkish scholars in recent decades have hardly eased the situation for the non-specialist and are in any case often difficult to find in Western European libraries. The present work is thus an attempt in the direction of remedying this situation; ideally, it should lead to English translations of such equally important histories of the Seljuq age as those of Rāwandī and al-Bundārī, to name only two of the obvious candidates for treatment, and of other works from the important genre of local histories. It is a pleasure to record the advice and assistance of various colleagues. The expertise in classical Arabic literature of Professor Geert Jan Van Gelder (Oxford University) has been especially valuable regarding the Arabic poetry in al-Ḥusaynī’s History. He has scrutinised and corrected where necessary my own translations, and has tracked down parallels and original sources of citations; and he has demonstrated to me the wonders of the search engine al-Waraq for classical Arabic prose literature. I am most grateful to him. Dr Deborah Tor (Bar-Ilan University) has kindly helped with numismatic questions. Professor Carole Hillenbrand had been encouraging over this work throughout, involving as it does a text she herself knows so well and has utilised extensively in her own research, and she has steered its publication towards her own Routledge Studies on the History of Iran and Turkey; for this I am likewise grateful. Dr David Durand-Guédy was kind enough to send me from Tokyo a copy of his recent book

Preface and acknowledgements xi on Isfahan during the Seljuq period so that I did not have to cite the Aix-enProvence doctoral thesis on which the book is based. The resources of various libraries, and especially those of Exeter University and of the Oriental Institute and Bodleian at Oxford, have been valuable, and thanks are due to them and their ever-helpful staffs. C. Edmund Bosworth Castle Cary, Somerset, 1 February 2010

Abbreviations of journals, books, etc. cited

AO BSO[A]S CHIr EI1 EĪ EIr EQ GAS GMS HdO IJMES Isl. JA JESHO JRAS WZKM ZDMG

Acta Orientalia (Copenhagen) Bulletin of the School of Oriental [and African] Studies (London) The Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge) Encyclopaedia of Islam, first edition (Leiden) Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition (Leiden) Encyclopaedia Iranica (London and New York) Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān (Leiden, Boston, Köln) Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums (Leiden) Gibb Memorial Series (Leiden and London, London) Handbuch der Orientalistik (Leiden, Boston) International Journal of Middle East Studies (Cambridge and New York) Der Islam (Strassburg-Berlin, Leipzig-Berlin) Journal Asiatique (Paris) Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (Leiden) Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (London) Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes (Vienna) Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Leipzig, Berlin, Wiesbaden)

Map of Persia and Iraq in the Seljuq period (Courtesy R. Hillenbrand)

I

Introduction

I The Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya is a chronicle of the Seljuq dynasty, and more particularly, of the Great Seljuq sultanate as it emerged within the Iranian lands in the mid-fifth/eleventh century. Under the leadership of two steppe chieftains, the brothers Ṭoghrïl Beg and Chaghrï Beg, the Seljuqs had humbled the mighty empire of the Ghaznavids built up by the Sultan Maḥmūd and had deprived it of its territories in Khurasan. The Seljuq empire was now in the later decades of the century to reach its apogee under Sultans Alp Arslān and his son Malik Shāh. The sultans directed a great empire stretching from Syria in the west to the Oxus river (and, at times, beyond it) and Afghanistan in the east: the heartland being under direct rule but with vassal states and principalities, some ruled by local petty dynasts and others ruled by members of the Seljuq family or their Turkish commanders. This zenith was, however, succeeded in 485/1092 by a ‘time of troubles’, at the outset involving a succession struggle between Malik Shāh’s sons Berk-yārūq and Muḥammad Ṭapar which was in the end resolved by the former’s death, leaving Muḥammad to be the last sultan exercising undisputed control over western Persia and Iraq. Since he left several sons who competed for authority in various parts of the realm, the years after 511/1118 saw the Great Seljuq sultanate reduced to being essentially a power within what are the borders of modern Iran and, more falteringly, of modern Iraq, with other branches of the Seljuq family, like those ruling over Kirman and over Anatolia or Rūm, existing as substantially independent of the Great Seljuq sultans in Hamadan and Merv. Moreover, in the middle years of the sixth/twelfth century, the capture of Sultan Sanjar by Oghuz bands roaming through Khurasan and his death soon afterwards in 552/1157, meant the loss of Khurasan to the Great Seljuqs, leaving them in the last four decades or so of their existence a power in northwestern Persia only, the Jibāl or ʿIrāq-i ʿAjam of the Muslim geographers. Kirman passed from Seljuq hands into those of further Oghuz bands; Fars and Khuzistan were controlled by local Turkish Atabeg lines; Azerbaijan and Arrān were likewise dominated by the Ildegizid Atabegs. Then, pour comble de malheur, the residual authority of the Seljuqs in Iraq proper, ʿIrāq-i ʿArab, was challenged by a renaissance in the secular and military power of the ʿAbbasid caliphs, a trend which was only

2

The History of the Seljuq State

short-lived, being slowed down by pressure from the Khwarazm Shahs and then halted by the onslaught of the Mongols at the beginning of the next century, but which was significant enough to contribute to the ending of Seljuq influence in Iraq. The last three-and-a-half decades of the Great Seljuq sultans were in any case years in which they had to share a diminishing power with the over-mighty Ildegizids, what Kenneth A. Luther called a dyarchy: the Seljuqs retained an aura of moral authority amongst their Turkish troops and followers but actual military power and initiatives were substantially in the hands of the Atabegs.1 The Akhbār becomes particularly detailed for this last period, nearer to the author’s own time and for which he may have had first-hand information from contemporaries (see below, p. 6). When there came about a rapprochement between the Ildegizids and the increasingly aggressive and expansionist Khwarazm Shahs of Anūshtegin Gharchaʾī’s line, allowing these last to invade Khurasan and penetrate as far westwards as Ray in northern Persia, the end came for the last Great Seljuq, Ṭoghrïl b. Arslān Shāh, who was killed in battle with the Shah Tekish in 590/1194.2 The pattern of the Arabic Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya thus follows roughly that of the Persian histories of the Seljuqs like Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī’s Saljūq-nāma (previously known to us only from adaptations or works drawing upon it from Il-Khanid times but now to a considerable extent known through the work of Mr A.H. Morton on a unique manuscript now in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, he having supplemented and elucidated this text by an examination of parallel and supplementary source information3) and Rāwandī’s Rāḥat al-ṣudūr. Events are treated chronologically, with sections on the reign of each sultan and special ones devoted to outstanding events like Alp Arslān’s campaigns into Byzantium and the death of Niẓām al-Mulk, and the character and achievements of the sultans and their servants, sc. viziers and secretaries, are noted.4 Especially valuable, with unique details, is the author’s account of Alp Arslān’s campaigns into Anatolia against the Byzantines, culminating in the battle of Mantzikert/Malāzgird in 463/1071, and information from various times on relations with the Transcaucasian Christian power of Georgia, which under its Bagratid monarchs in the later sixth/twelfth century enjoyed a resurgence of military strength which bore hard on the Muslim populations of Arrān and northern Azerbaijan. The story unfolds in a comparatively dispassionate way. Admiration is expressed for the Seljuq sultans and their achievements, their just rule and their defence of the Dār al-Islām against outside pressures like those of the Georgians and internal threats like those of the Bāṭiniyya or Ismāʿīlīs; but the ʿAbbasid caliphs are mentioned with expressions of esteem for their charisma and moral and spiritual authority, with terms like al-ʿAtaba al-sharīfa, al-Dār al-ʿazīza, al-Dīwān al-ʿazīz, etc., used in regard to them. There thus emerges from what has been said above that the Akhbār’s narrative is purely concerned with dynastic, political and military history. First, the efforts of the Great Seljuqs to maintain the integrity of their lands against centrifugal forces, the ambitions of provincial governor and Atabegs, a struggle which they

Introduction

3

eventually lost. Second, their efforts to maintain the Islamic frontiers in northwestern Iran and Armenia, which in the fifth/eleventh century had some success against the Christians, although the victory at Mantzikert/Malāzgird was not immediately followed up, at least by the Great Seljuqs themselves; and in northeastern Iran and the Oxus lands, where Seljuq efforts to extend a measure of control over the Qarakhanids of Transoxania were negated by Sanjar’s defeat at the hands of the infidel Qara Khitay and his consequent loss of prestige. Virtually absent from the Akhbār is anything which contributes to our wider knowledge of the economic and social history of the Iranian lands at this time, although momentous changes were afoot in such spheres as land utilisation and demography, brought about by incoming Turkmen followers of the first Seljuqs and further waves subsequently, certainly for the northern tier of the Iranian lands. Work was begun over sixty years ago by Claude Cahen and has been continued to our own time by e.g. Richard Bulliet, Jürgen Paul, David Durand-Guédy and Deborah Tor, on urban structures, the role of local notables and the phenomenon, mainly but not exclusively urban, of the ʿayyārs and fityān; neither of these last two groups is at all mentioned in the Akhbār. We know both from theological and philosophical texts and from other historical ones that there was at this time much religious strife between Sunnis and Shiʿites, with political Shiʿism fighting a losing battle in the central Islamic lands against a resurgent and confident Sunni orthodoxy, but with many disputes and tensions also within the bosom of this last. There is e.g. some reference in the Akhbār to religious strife in Nishapur between Ḥanafīs and Shāfiʿīs (see below, p. 83), and the radical Shiʿite Ismaʿilis are inevitably mentioned with obloquy, but not a great deal can be inferred from its pages about the religious movements and intellectual life of the Seljuq period in Iran and Iraq; fortunately, we have rich information here from several other sources. However, although negative information can at times have significance, it is in the end futile to lament what this source does not tell us; the value of the Akhbār in reconstructing the political and military events of these lively and significant two centuries, when combined with the material from parallel sources, is surely evident.

II The Arabic style of the Akhbār is varied. It is often simple and straightforward narrative, as one finds e.g. in Ibn al-Athīr, but on occasion it slips into a more ornate style, involving rhymed prose and balanced, assonantal phrases; it may well be that these expressions were lifted from elsewhere. They slow down rather than smooth the flow of the narrative, but are typical of the inshāʾ style of the time, beloved by contemporary writers such as ʿImād al-Dīn al-Kātib al-Iṣfahānī. There is included in the Akhbār the text of the prayer (duʿā) composed by the caliph al-Qāʾim’s celebrated secretary Ibn al-Mawṣilāyā for reading out from the pulpits as Alp Arslān set off for his campaign against the Emperor Romanus Diogenes, which is a particularly elaborate piece of chancery sajʿ (below, pp. 37–39). In general, within the present translation it is the sense of a flowery phrase or piece of

4

The History of the Seljuq State

rhymed prose which is given, but often with a literal rendering of the Arabic indicated after it in parentheses; the reader unfamiliar with the high styles of Arabic at this time will, it is hoped, be thereby able to taste something at second-hand of the flavour of these styles. Occasionally, proverbial sayings and ḥikam are quoted: thus an aged man, questioned by Niẓām al-Mulk in Arrān during a campaign of Alp Arslān against the Georgians, is described as ‘more veracious than a sand grouse and Abū Dharr’ (below, p. 36), and the rebel Malik Qāwurd repented of his actions ‘the repentance of al-Kusaʿī’ (below, p. 42).5 A fair amount of Arabic poetry is cited when the author apparently thought it apposite (such quotations being, of course, typical of exalted prose style), though on nothing like the scale of the Persian poetry in Rāwandī’s history.6 A good proportion of those verses that are identifiable is by Seljuq period authors, mostly of the second rank, including Ṭoghrïl Beg’s vizier al-Kundurī, the poet and anthologist al-Bākharzī, the caliph al-Qāʾim himself, Masʿūd al-Bayāḍī, ʿImād al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī, al-Ḥusayn b. al-Khāzin, Hibat Allāh al-Baghdādī, etc., but earlier authors of ʿAbbasid times like Abū Tammām and the Buyid period writer Qāḍī ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Tanūkhī (father of al-Muḥassin) are also quoted.

III The authorship of the Akhbār is problematic. Towards the end of the nineteenth century it was discussed by scholars like M.T. Houtsma and W. Barthold,7 and the German scholar working in Istanbul, Karl Süssheim, considered the topic in detail,8 but the translations promised by both himself and by Houtsma never materialised. The work is known only from a single manuscript, B.L. Suppl. 550, first catalogued by Rieu, and has on its title page the name Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya and an attribution to Ṣadr al-Dīn Abu ’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Nāṣir b. ʿAlī al-Ḥusaynī, so that the history has tended to be referred to as being Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī’s exclusive work. However, as Süssheim already realised, things are clearly more complicated than that. In the work’s proem, this supposed author is referred to dispassionately in the third person (where, if the author were genuinely addressing the reader thus, one might have expected the usual self-deprecating reference to al-ʿabd al-ḥaqīr or such-like) and as the author of a book called the Zubdat al-tawārīkh or ‘Cream of Histories’ (below, p. 9). Since Süssheim’s time, various scholars have pondered over this question of authorship, including Houtsma9; Muhammad Iqbal in the Preface to his edition of the Akhbār (1933, see below, p. 7); Viqar Ahmad Hamdani in his doctoral thesis on the sources for the history of the Seljuqs in Iraq and Syria10 (1938); Claude Cahen11; Angelika Hartmann in her exhaustive study of the caliph al-Nāṣir12 (1975); and Muḥammad Nūr al-Dīn in the Muqaddima to his edition of the Akhbār (1986, see below, p. 7). The information and conclusions of the above authors (with the exception of Hartmann, following a surmise of Hamdani; her view was that the author of the Akhbār was an official in the chancery of the ʿAbbasid caliph al-Nāṣir13) were clearly set forth and discussed at length by Qibla Ayaz in his 1985 Ph.D. thesis (see below),14 and his detailed arguments can be read there. In brief, he suggested

Introduction

5

as a likely scenario here that Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī was a native of Nishapur and the official in charge of the mustawf ī’s accounting department (i.e. the dīwān al-istīfāʾ) in the administration of the penultimate Anūshteginid Khwarazm Shah, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Tekish (r. 596–617/1200–20). Al-Ḥusaynī certainly had some connection with Khwarazm, as he mentions in the course of the Akhbār’s narrative that he visited it (see below, p. 39). In the Akhbār as we now possess it, there is mention of the fate of the last Ildegizid, Özbeg b. Jahān Pahlawān Muḥammad, deposed by the last Khwarazm Shah Jalal al-Din Mingburnu in 622/1225 (see below, p. 129), implying that al-Ḥusaynī composed his history at some point after this date, calling it the Zubdat al-tawārīkh. The literary biographer and collector of historical anecdotes Muḥammad ʿAwf ī (d. ca. 640/1242–43) apparently knew al-Ḥusaynī in Nishapur and states that he also wrote a Tārīkh-i Khwārazm-Shāhī in a style finer than that of al-ʿUtbī’s al-Kitāb al-yamīnī (hence presumably in a highly florid Arabic) which has not, however, survived, and also fine poetry in both Arabic and Persian.15 The final stage in the evolution of the Akhbār would be that a colleague or connection of al-Ḥusāynī’s then, in the middle decades of the seventh/thirteenth century, abridged his work, giving us the history as we now know it (a terminus ad quem for this work would appear to be 660/1262, since Ibn al-ʿAdīm, who died in this year, mentions in his biographical dictionary of the notables and scholars of his home city Aleppo, the Bughyat al-ṭalab f ī taʾrīkh Ḥalab, that he had himself seen an epitome, a muntakhab, of al-Ḥusaynī’s Zubdat al-tawārīkh).16 Ayaz’s arguments seem cogent, and it does not seem that it is possible at present to go much further with the problem.

IV One inevitably wonders about the Akhbār’s sources. For the origins of the Seljuqs in the western Asian steppes, and their entry into the Islamic lands, culminating in the victory of Dandānqān which ended Ghaznavid rule in Khurasan, it seems that al-Ḥusaynī utilised the account of Seljuq origins in a work called the Malik-nāma. A later source which uses it, the universal history by the Arab-Syriac scholar Ibn al-ʿIbrī/Barhebraeus (d. 1286), states that its anonymous author wrote in Persian and derived material on the genealogy of the Seljuqs from an aged amir, Yïnanch/ Ïnanch Yabghu; and the Syrian writer Ibn al-ʿAdīm (see above) specifies that it was composed for Alp Arslān, hence at a time when memories of Seljuq origins and rise to power were still comparatively fresh. But both al-Ḥusaynī, and also Ibn al-Athīr, another historian using the information of the Malik-nāma, must have utilised it through an intermediate source since both state – what no-one familiar with Turkish or in direct contact with Turkish speakers could have said – that the name of the founder of the Seljuq line, Duqāq/Tuqāq, means ‘iron bow’.17 For the sources of the Akhbār’s narrative of events after the Seljuq triumph of 431/1040, we have only one author who is clearly acknowledged, sc. ʿImād al-Dīn al-Kātib al-Iṣfahānī (d. 597/1201), who based his Nuṣrat al-fatra wa-ʿuṣrat al-fiṭra on the no longer extant administrative memoirs of the vizier for Seljuq sultans and for an ʿAbbasid caliph, Anūshirwān b. Khālid (d. 532 or 533/1137–39),18 entitled

6

The History of the Seljuq State

Futūr zamān al-ṣudūr wa-ṣudūr zamān al-futūr; al-Iṣfahānī’s work is likewise lost and now known to us only in the simplified abridgement by the rather obscure figure al-Fatḥ b. ʿAlī al-Bundārī, the Zubdat al-nuṣra wa-nukhbat al-ʿuṣra, written in 623/1226. Al-Ḥusaynī refers to ʿImād al-Dīn in three places (below, p. 50), this last place being a lengthy verbatim quotation from him). He seems particularly to have relied on him for events from the last year or so of Malik Shāh’s reign to the death of Masʿūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar, i.e. 484–547/1091–1152.19 It also seems possible that al-Ḥusaynī derived material, especially on the early relations of the Seljuqs with the Ghaznavids and then on the first Seljuq sultans themselves, from the chronicle which the local historian of his native Bayhaq, Zayd b. ʿAlī, called Ibn Funduq, wrote in Arabic, apparently (as the title Mashārib al-tajārib would seem to indicate) as a continuation of Miskawayh’s Tajārib al-umam; its loss is, as Cahen observed, much to be lamented. There is indirect evidence that al-Ḥusaynī had access to this work; thus his account of Ṭoghrïl Beg’s vizier, the ʿAmīd al-Mulk al-Kundurī (below, pp. 22–24) resembles that of Yāqūt on al-Kundurī and his relations with the poet and literary anthologist al-Bākharzī (see below, p. 22 and p. 137 n. 101) in his Irshād al-arīb, who explicitly acknowledges Ibn Funduq’s Mashārib as the source for this specific section.20 There are no obvious sources for al-Ḥusaynī’s account of the very confused decade or so 547–56/1152–61, the last years in which, under Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd, the Great Seljuq sultanate was an effective force in the western Persian lands before the sultans fell under the domination of the Ildegizid Atabegs. But at the accession of Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl in 556/1161, the Akhbār becomes palpably more detailed than previously, if still somewhat uncertain about the order of events. There is a considerable amount of original material here, such as on the wars with the Georgians, the entente between the Ildegizdids and the ʿAbbasid caliphs, and the influence of and then appearance in the affairs of Persia of the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān and his son Tekish, making the Akhbār an important source for these last decades of the Great Seljuqs. If al-Ḥusaynī was indeed an official of the Khwarazm Shahs (see above, p. 5), he must have been a contemporary of these events, and must have obtained his historical material from persons directly involved in them. He specifically mentions getting a first-hand account of Tekish’s westwards advance towards Ray in 590/1194, the discussions between Ṭoghrïl and his commanders and advisers over the wisdom or otherwise of giving immediate battle, and the battle itself in which the sultan was killed, from an official of Ray, Amīn al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Zanjānī (see below, pp. 126–27). Cahen thought that this probably meant that the Akhbār was substantially composed at the end of the sixth/ twelfth century, when the narrative proper ends, the two closing sections on the chronologies of the sultans and of their Atabegs being added subsequently by a later copyist or editor 21 (but see above on this question of composition and dating).

V Although, as noted above, several Western scholars had been for some time aware of the importance of the Akhbār and some had promised a critical edition, the

Introduction

7

difficulties of editing the text from a single manuscript seem to have deterred them from attempting this. The task was left to the Professor of Persian at the University of the Panjab, Lahore, Muhammad Iqbal, working from photographic reproductions of the British Museum manuscript, his labours being published in 1933 as a Panjab University Oriental Publication, pp. viii+228 (siglum: I). Scholars concerned with the history of the Seljuqs were already much in debt to Iqbal for his fine edition of the Persian text of Rāwandī’s Rāḥat al-ṣudūr (London 1921), likewise from a single manuscript. It was inevitable that, having only a unique manuscript, and despite the existence of some parallels in other sources, Iqbal should have been compelled to leave many cruces of the text, lacunae and ambiguous consonant ductus, unresolved, but his serviceable text served scholars for some fifty years before further versions appeared. In 1980 the Russian scholar Ziauddin Bunyatov published at Moscow a photographed facsimile text of the manuscript with a Russian translation and commentary (not seen by the present author), and soon afterwards, in 1406/1986, from Dār al-Iqraʾ, Beirut, Muḥammad Nūr al-Dīn published the second edited text under the title of Zubdat al-tawārīkh. Akhbār al-umarāʾ wa ’l-mulūk al-saljūqiyya li-Ṣadr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Nāṣir al-Ḥusaynī, pp. 364 (siglum: N). In the nature of things, not much could be done to improve the text; Nūr al-Dīn has a few improved readings, but at other times adopts ones inferior to those of Iqbal, and in general does little to elucidate the fairly numerous textual problems. Hence it cannot be said that he advances our knowledge of the text in any significant way. He does, however, include a substantial commentary on the historical events covered by the Akhbār, with parallels from other sources, Arabic and Persian, and with identifications of persons, places, etc. A modern Turkish translation of the Akhbār was made by Necati Lugal (Ankara 1943), again not seen by the present author; but an English translation had to wait till 1985, when the Pakistani scholar from Peshawar University, Qibla Ayaz, completed under the supervision of Dr Carole Hillenbrand his Edinburgh University Ph.D. thesis, pp. xxiii+559, An Unexploited Source for the History of the Saljūqs: a Translation of and Critical Commentary on the Akhbār al-dawlat al-Saljūqiyya. This is a most compendious, accurate and meritorious work, with the virtues of an excellent doctoral thesis but with some of the drawbacks which make most theses unpublishable without substantial reworking. The first aim of a thesis is to advance the frontiers of knowledge by producing an original piece of work, and this Ayaz has certainly done, as confirmed by the examiners, who included the present author. The second aim of a thesis – less laudable but strategically necessary – is to impress an external examiner by exhaustiveness and the relentless elucidation of everything that a captious examiner might pick upon, however obvious such points might otherwise appear (hence in the commentary to the translation given in the present book, it has hardly been thought necessary e.g. to identify places like Ray, Gurgān and Sistan, to explain what an iqṭāʿ was or to describe the role of an Atabeg). Clearly, the obvious person to remodel his thesis into publishable, book form would have been Dr Ayaz himself, and this is what Professor Hillenbrand has over a period of years been urging him to do. But almost a

8

The History of the Seljuq State

quarter-century has now elapsed without such a book appearing. Hence it has seemed reasonable to the present author – as part of a general project of making key texts for the history of the two Turkish dynasties of the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs available in translation, with commentaries to render them intelligible to scholars who are not necessarily experts in the history of the eastern Islamic lands22 – to provide Islamic historians with this present English translation. This has been made independently of Ayaz’s one, and only then compared with his version. In fact, not many significant differences have emerged in our respective English renderings of al-Ḥusaynī’s text. In a few places, I have been able to correct what seem to me to have been mistranslations, and I have endeavoured to use a smoother and more flowing English style (a Ph.D. candidate cannot afford to sacrifice literal sense to high literary style!). The lapse of time has enabled me to make use in the commentary of some works which either Ayaz was apparently unable to use (e.g. Angelika Hartmann’s study of the caliph al-Nāṣir) or which have subsequently appeared (e.g. the works of Morgan, Tetley and Lange, and the translations of Richards and Luther). At all events, with whatever warts it may have, this present rendering of an important and significant text is here offered to the scholarly world. A final word should be said about the nature of the commentary accompanying this translation as footnotes. It has seemed to me that the primary sources that are parallel to al-Ḥusaynī’s text have been already set forth in various works on Ghaznavid and Seljuq history, and on the history of adjoining regions to these empires, by such authors as Sanaullah, Minorsky, Cahen, Bosworth, Mason, Luther, Hartmann, Carole Hillenbrand and others, and also in Ayaz’s thesis, and do not require repetition (and, as noted above, Muḥammad Nūr al-Dīn accompanies his text with copious references to the parallel Arabic and Persian sources). Hence, in general, reference is made to these secondary works, supplemented by reference to relevant translations by Luther, Richards, etc., which have appeared in recent decades, rather than directly to the primary sources themselves; the exceptions here being that, regarding certain historical points requiring reference to the original sources, and especially for biographical and geographical information, and for proverbial sayings and poetic quotations, citation is made of appropriate primary sources.

Translation of the text

[I 1, N 21] O our Lord, lavish on us of your mercy and make ready for us the straight path in our affairs! The Amir, the Sayyid, the Most Exalted and Eminent Imām Ṣadr al-Dīn Abu ’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī, son of the Most Exalted Sayyid, the Martyred Imām Abu ’l-Fawāris Nāṣir b. ʿAlī al-Ḥusaynī, may God have mercy on him, has recorded in his book called Zubdat al-tawārīkh (‘The Cream of Histories’) historical accounts of the Seljuq amirs and monarchs.

[N 23] Mention of the fact that the first of them to become a Muslim was the Amir Tuqāq23 Tuqāq means in Turkish ‘iron bow’.24 He was a sharp and intelligent person, possessed of good judgement and the ability to handle affairs. The king of the Turks used to entrust the direction of affairs to him and used to derive illumination from the lamp of his judgement and ability to handle affairs. The king of the Turks’ name was Yabghu. It happened that, one day, the king prepared his military forces to march against the Islamic lands; Amir Tuqāq dissuaded him from doing that, but the king of the Turks Yabghu25 showed his opposition here. Tuqāq persisted in standing firm (lit. ‘held his head high with pride’), and he struck the king of the Turks, who had ordered Tuqāq’s arrest and being put in bonds, in the face. Amir Tuqāq showed his strength (lit. ‘raised his head in defiance’) and sought security in the rope [of God]. They left him alone and bore the king to his residence [and he remained holed up like] a hyena in its den. He became perturbed regarding [I 2] his course of action and what plan he should adopt, [N 24] and decided to go along to Amir Tuqāq’s house and endeavour to conciliate him. The king of the Turks Yabghu was nevertheless concealing in his mind resentment and treacherous intentions (i.e. against Tuqāq) up to the time that Amir Tuqāq died.26 When Amir Seljuq, son of Amir Tuqāq, reached the age of maturity, the king of the Turks appointed him commander of the army, with the title of Sübashï (amongst the Turks, this means ‘commander of the army’). The wife of the king of the Turks was instilling into her husband fear and suspicion of Amir Seljuq b. Tuqāq and was preventing him from freely exercising his authority (lit. ‘from letting his upper arm move freely and stretching forth his forearm’), and she did not hide her feelings from him. One day she said to her husband, ‘Kingly power

10

The History of the Seljuq State

recognizes no kinship bonds,27 and it cannot tolerate sharing the rule; the successful exercise of power (lit. ‘the drinking place of power’) can only be achieved through killing Seljuq. The bright morning of your royal authority will not shine forth unless you give him to drink from the cup of death. For very soon he will expel you from the seat of your power and will plot your destruction’. Amir Seljuq was witness to all this and heard these words, so he rode off and set out with his entourage of cavalry and his troops, heading for the Islamic lands, and rejoicing in the Ḥanīf ī (i.e. the Islamic) faith. He decided to make for the region of Jand,28 [N 25] expelled from there the governors and tax-collectors of the unbelievers and firmly established his power there. Amir Seljuq lived for a hundred years. One night in a dream he saw himself urinating fire, and its sparks blazed forth over the eastern and western lands of the earth. He consulted an oneiromancer (muʿabbir) about the significance of this, and the diviner said, ‘There will be born of your seed monarchs who will rule over the remotest regions of the world’.29 Amir Seljuq died at Jand, leaving behind him sons, sc. Amir Mīkāʾīl; Amir Mūsā; and Amir Yabghu Arslān, called Isrāʾīl. These commanders used to reside in Transoxania at a place called Nūr of Bukhara. Amir Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq was in the service of [N 26] the Ghāzī Sultan Yamīn al-Dawla Abu ’l-Qāsim Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin, may God envelop him with His forgiveness. [I 3] It happened that Sultan Yamīn al-Dawla Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin crossed the Oxus en route for Bukhara in order to aid Qadïr Khan.30 He came up against the clans of this tribe known as the Qïnïq and their tents. He noted the excessive numbers of their following and the large extent of [N 27] their flocks, and he became apprehensive about their violent behaviour and fearful of their depredations. He summoned their chief, Amir Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, and urged him to move with his family and tribesmen to the region of Khurasan. Amir Mīkāʾīl refused, however, to make this move. This enraged Sultan Yamīn al-Dawla Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin, and he gave orders for Mīkāʾīl and a number of the leading men of his people to be seized and put in bonds, further commanding the (Seljuq) clans to be forcibly deported. The Ḥājib Arslān (Jādhib)31 told him, ‘I perceive that these people are tough and violent. The best course is for the thumbs of all those who cross the river to be cut off so that you will be safe from their destructiveness and not fear their treacherous behaviour.’ The sultan replied, ‘How could I do this to Muslims who are guiltless of any proven crime? Indeed, you are a hard-hearted person!’ When they had all crossed the Oxus and had established themselves in Khurasan, Sultan Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin released for them Amir Mīkāʾīl and despatched him to them [N 28] in an honourable fashion. Amir Mīkāʾīl came to the governor of Khurasan, Abū Sahl (al-Ḥamdūnī),32 and gave him as presents three horses, ten Bactrian camels and 300 sheep, and asked Abū Sahl if he would allow them to occupy one of the pasture grounds of Khurasan. He accordingly allotted to them the pasture land of Dandānqān, and they established themselves there.33 The Ghāzī Sultan Yamīn al-Dawla Abu ’l-Qāsim Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin died in Rabīʿ II 422 [/March–April 1031], having by that time regretted his allowing the Turks, the Seljuqs and their followers to settle in his territories, fearful of their

Translation of the text 11 presence and unwilling that they should remain there. When Sultan Maḥmūd died, [I 4] his son Abū Saʿīd Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin succeeded him. He sent from Ghazna an army against the Seljuqs, which attacked them, and they were put to flight. A large number of them were either taken prisoner or killed. He captured one of their leading commanders called Amir Yabghu34 Arslān, known as Isrāʾīl, the son of Seljuq. He was sent to Ghazna and incarcerated in a certain fortress, where he died,35 leaving behind two sons, one of whom was Quṭlumush.36 They (sc. the Seljuqs) asked Masʿūd to grant them mercy, but he refused, and they begged his forgiveness, but he gave them no encouragement. When they failed to redeem their hostages, and the hostages’ imprisonment was tightened up further, they drank the cup of despair. [N 30] Dissensions and hatreds arose amongst them and even all those unable to defend themselves became avid to exploit them. Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin’s military commander at Ṭūs swept down on them by night to drive away their flocks. [N 31] Amir Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq then died, leaving behind his sons Amir Yabghu/Bïghu, Chaghrï (text, j.q.r) Beg Dāwūd and Ṭoghrïl Beg Muḥammad. The tribesmen and the Turks agreed upon the eldest of the sons, Ṭoghrïl Beg (sc. as their chief). When Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin heard about their great military strength and their overrunning of [N 32] the lands, he rode out swiftly (lit. ‘on the wings of the wind’) and came to Nishapur. The vizier said to him, ‘Win over the hearts of the Seljuqs by conciliating them and presenting them with robes of honour, and allot to them as their sustenance Nasā and its environs, the ribāṭ of Farāwa and other places.’ Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd suspected the vizier of a favourable inclination to the Seljuqs’ side and placed him in bonds.37 He prepared an army and entrusted its command to the general Begṭughdï Ḥājib, and he sent the troops against the Seljuqs. When the army drew near to the Seljuqs, the latter turned in flight, abandoning their tents, their weapons and the baggage in their encampments and hid themselves in caves and wadis. When Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd’s army plundered those [I 5] remains, the Seljuqs came out of their places of concealment and showered them with arrows and laid into them with spears; as a result, the sultan’s army fled towards Nishapur. Emissaries from the [Seljuq] amirs then came [and sought] the vizier’s intercession with the sultan on their behalf.38 The sultan despatched to them [N 33] the Qāḍī al-Ṣīnī (text, al-Ḍabbī).39 He honoured them with robes of honour and grants of governance, entrusting control of Dihistān40 to Amr Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd and that of Farāwa to Yabghu, and he gave each of them the honorific form of address of dihqān. But they treated the envoy and the robes of honour with contempt, and Ṭoghrïl Beg instructed his secretary, ‘Write to the sultan with reference to his letter, ‘The reply is “You give . . .” ’, and he wrote at the end of the letter, ‘Say, O God, Lord of all dominion, You give dominion to whom You will, and take it away from whom You will. You exalt whom You will and bring low whom You will. All good things are in Your hand. Indeed, You have power over all things’.41 People marvelled at his words. When the letter reached the sultan, he appointed as his deputy at Nishapur a commander with 3,000 cavalrymen as part of the entourage of Sūrī, and he ordered

12

The History of the Seljuq State 42

Sūrī to pay them out of the land-tax for Nishapur and its surrounding districts. Then he himself set out for Herat on Saturday, 19 Dhu ’l-Qaʿda 426 [/25 September 1035]. Then he travelled onwards to Balkh and gave the office of supreme commander of the army to Sübashï. Letters kept continually arriving from Sūrī to the sultan to the effect that [N 34] the Seljuq amirs had prevented the collectors of the land-tax from carrying on their work and that the sultan was turning a blind eye to the problem and paying no heed to it. So the sultan sent the supreme commander, Sübashï, to Khurasan with a force of 10,000 cavalrymen and ordered the ʿAmīd Sūrī to equip and provision Sübashï’s army. The sultan himself departed from [I 6] Balkh and headed for Ghazna on Saturday, 1 Rajab 427 [/30 April 1036] and celebrated the Festival of the Sacrifice (ʿId al-Aḍḥā) at Ghazna. He entrusted the governorship of India to his son Amir Majdūd and despatched his son Mawdūd with an army to Balkh, entrusting him with control of Balkh and Ṭukhāristān. The sultan left Ghazna and encamped at Tegīnābād on 4 Muḥarram 428 [/28 October 1036]. He then entrusted the government of Khwarazm to Shāh Malik of Jand. The latter led an attack on the Khwarazmian lands, and [N 35] Ismāʿīl, son of the Khwarazm Shah,43 came out to engage him, the two sides confronted each other and a battle took place. Prolonged fighting followed, extending over two months. Ismāʿīl was put to flight and sought refuge with the Seljuq amirs.44 The ʿAmīd Abū Sahl al-Ḥamdūnī proceeded, together with Tāsh Farrāsh, against Isfahan with forces that filled the earth and spread over all its length and breadth. The ruler ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla Abū Jaʿfar45 fled before them, and Abū Sahl and Tāsh sacked his treasuries and palace. The learned Shaykh Abū ʿAlī Ibn Sīnā, may God have mercy on him, was the ruler ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla’s vizier. Tāsh Farrāsh’s troops plundered his library and carried off the greater part of his compositions and books to the library at Ghazna. They were held there as a collection until the troops of the King of the Mountains al-Ḥusayn b. al-Ḥusayn burnt the library.46

[N 37] The fitting-out of Sübashï’s army for war against the Seljuq Amirs The viziers and military commanders reproached the sultan for his lack of attention to Khurasan and [I 7] his making light of the threat there from the Seljuq amirs, for this neglectfulness emboldened the Seljuqs and led them to covet possession of Ghazna. Hence the sultan prepared an army, appointing Sübashï as its commander. Sübashï was more cowardly [N 38] than a twittering (lit. ‘whistling’) bird.47 He remained at Nishapur for a while, the roads having been blocked and supplies brought by caravans having been cut off because of the disturbed state of the region and the Seljuq amirs’ occupation of the surrounding districts. When Amir Chaghrï Beg perceived how the Muslims were suffering from the high prices (i.e. of food), he withdrew into the desert around Bāward and substituted prosperity and ease of life for the straitened circumstances. Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin planned to go to Khurasan but was prevented from doing so by the dearth of fodder [there]. So he spent the winter at Bust and

Translation of the text 13 Tegīnābād, whilst Sübashï sought refuge in Herat. Amir Chaghrï Beg made a surprise attack on Merv and occupied it. Sübashï hastened to move against him over three days with a mighty army. [N 39] Amir Chaghrï Beg fled before him and made for Azkā and Shāwashkān.48 The amir of Gūzgānān49 attacked him, but Amir Chaghrï Beg put him to flight and scattered his forces. After this defeat, the amir of Guzgānān was found killed. When news of this reached Sübashï’s ears, he was unable to sleep and his position became difficult, and the Seljuq forces spread out through the fringes of Khurasan. Letters arrived continuously from Sūrī to the sultan asking for help. So the sultan wrote to Sübashï, ‘I have entrusted to you the governance of Khurasan so that you may drive off the birds from the palm trees there and the flies from the bees’ hive. So range round Khurasan as a governor should until (following N 39, ḥattā) the subjects show their submission to you as mangy beasts submit to the one who smears them [with healing balm]’. Sübashï passed by Nishapur but failed to find there provisions adequate for a single day and night. Hence he made a diversion to Dihistān, [I 8] leaving behind in Nishapur a certain person called the Ḥājib Pāk-rūb (‘He who makes a clean sweep’); it was he who swept Khurasan clean with the broom of his confiscations and exactions and who left no one with even a tenth of the crops.50 Sübashï wrote to the sultan, as follows. The Seljuq amirs are people whose sharp swords are their tongues and whose mouths are like mountain tops. Through the sharp blades of these swords they have successfully penetrated the hiding-places and thickets of the world. Wine drinking, stringed musical instruments and singing have distracted you from clipping their claws when their activities first began. This ruling power has now become aged and feeble, and there is no cure for anyone afflicted by the onset of senility. Your advisers have given you such misleading reports [N40] that, in your presence, deaf persons have become highly regarded (i.e. they have been glad to turn a deaf ear to the reports). Evil starts from small things, and the nature of a horse of noble breed is indicated by an examination of its teeth (i.e. its outward aspect). A person who has been wholly occupied with clear wine poured from jars and the resonant sounds of singing girls has not been successful in retaining kingly power. The Seljuqs are a people completely attached to warfare and its practice, even though previously they were inferior and disregarded people in our lands; Qārūn was one of Moses’ following, but rebelled against him. The Seljuqs wander about like desperadoes and outcasts (mutaṣaʿlikūn) despite the extensiveness of their territories, careless whether they suffer destruction and perish. The ways of access to them with spears and arrows are difficult. They have horsemen who boldly face death.51 They are hardly to be considered as human beings. When the sultan read Sübashï’s letter, he became distracted and upset. The religious lawyers of Merv sought from the Seljuq maliks a guarantee of security (amān). These last gave a favourable answer to the religious lawyers’

14

The History of the Seljuq State

pleas and extended over them the protective wings of justice and equity. Ṭoghrïl Beg chose Nishapur [as his seat of power] and Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd Merv and the land beyond the mountain barrier,52 and the khuṭba was made at Merv in Chaghrï Beg’s name on the first Friday of Rajab 428 [/22 April 1037]. When spring gleamed forth, [I 9] Sübashï headed towards Merv. Malik Chaghrï Beg came to Merv, summoned together its people and asked them, ‘What are your concerns and what are your views?’, and all of them responded with what pleased him, showing their obedience and affection. He sallied forth from Merv and the two armies met together at the gate of Sarakhs. The first rays of the rising sun had not beamed before [N 41] Sübashï fled the field, this on Monday, 6 Shaʿbān 428 [/25 May 1037]. He took refuge in Herat. Malik Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd pursued him until the Wednesday and then returned victorious to Ṭūs. The leading persons of Nishapur came out to greet him and escort him back, and he rested there for a while. Ṭoghrîl Beg was addressed by the honorific title al-Sulṭān al-Muʿaẓẓam Rukn al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Abū Ṭālib. Malik Chaghrï Beg then headed for Herat, and Sübashï was put to flight. When Sübashï reached Ghazna, the sultan poured upon him the scourge of punishment53 and humiliated him by barring him [N 42] from the royal presence, saying, ‘In the space of three years you have brought armies to destruction and have rendered turbid the watering place of the one seeking to slake his thirst, until the ways of access to power have been laid open to the enemies of the invincible empire (dawla)’. Sübashï replied, How can a physician make an old man young again, and how can a traveller turn a mirage into drinking water? Every empire enjoys prestige and awesomeness, but after every period of light comes darkness. Every time has its people and every age its monarch. I am the person whom you nominated supreme commander of the army between a lion lurking in its den and a swelling sea; if had moved against the lion I would have been torn to pieces, and if I had embarked on the sea I would have been drowned in it. Behind me was the burning brand of your anger; every time I drew back it burnt me. O Sultan, you have passed through times of distress and of ease, and when imperial power came to you, you aimed at securing some of the lands but gained them all! At this point, the sultan got ready his troop contingents; if he had launched these troops against the pillar of the age, it would have been dashed to pieces, and if, with their violence, he had rendered fearful [I 10] the vicissitudes of time, these last would have fled. He had with him a hundred elephants which were like lofty, over-topping mountains. He opened up his treasuries and lavished the contents on his troops. He came to the environs of Balkh, closed up the city’s gates and prepared supplies and equipment. Malik Chaghrï Beg came to the environs of Balkh and besieged the sultan in the city. He swept down on the Ghaznavid troops like an eagle after its prey. One day he managed to enter the environs of Balkh with a detachment of his ghulāms and cavalrymen when the city’s inhabitants were

Translation of the text 15 unaware, and drove off the great elephant that was stationed at the sultan’s gate together with the [smaller] ones at its side. The sultan became so worried that he was robbed of his rest. Whenever he left the city, Chaghrï Beg, Yabghu and their troops would move towards it, and whenever the sultan entered the actual city, Chaghrï Beg and his troops would invest it. The sultan remained in these circumstances for two whole years, and then left [N 43] Balkh on 1 Ramaḍān 429 [/7 June 1038] with 100,000 cavalrymen apart from the army train and the hangers-on. He passed through Jūzjānān and seized the governor appointed there by the Seljuqs and had him crucified, and he won over to his side the inhabitants. Malik Chaghrï Beg was meanwhile following in his tracks until the sultan reached the environs of Merv. Malik Chaghrï Beg encamped at Shink al-ʿAbbādī.54 The sultan accordingly marched out towards him, but Malik Chaghrî Beg turned aside to Sarakhs. Sultan Ṭoghrïl and Yabghu caught up with him [there]. The sultan despatched emissaries to them seeking to negotiate peace with them. So Amir Yabghu came to the sultan’s court, and the sultan bestowed on him robes of honour dazzling to the eyes. [However,] Sultan Ṭoghrïl said to Malik Chaghrï Beg, ‘At this present time, no peace agreement or apology for actions can be arranged with the sultan, after so much blood has been shed [I 11] and hatred has become so firmly implanted in people’s hearts. We have horsemen for whom the lands are too constricted, and the sultan has armies whose refuge lies only in flight.’ Then the Sultan returned to Herat, and Malik Chaghrï Beg came back to the road leading to Merv. The common people (awbāsh) of Merv combatted him and shut the city gates against him for seven months. Malik Chaghrï Beg [eventually] entered the city, with the faces of the people of Merv turning pale. They were left defenceless (lit. ‘they no longer had any fangs or claws’) and fell back, fleeing to right and to left and aware that they were witnessing the end of Masʿūd’s empire. When this news came to Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin’s ears, evil was kindled in his heart. He came back from Herat and headed for Nishapur. Sultan Ṭoghrïl accordingly fled [N 44] from there and Malik Chaghrï Beg devastated the area around Merv and its villages. When Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin arrived in Sarakhs from Nishapur, he dreamed one night that smoke was coming from his eyes and that blood was flowing from them. When he awoke during the night from this dream, he wept and despaired of his life and kingly power, realizing that empire had bidden him farewell and his hopes had deserted him. He set out for Merv and the two armies came together at the gate of Dandānqān, with the sultan thinking that Malik Chaghrï Beg would not be able to withstand him; but when Malik Chaghrï Beg stood his ground the sultan repented of having blindly rushed into that abyss. Dissensions broke out amongst the sultan’s troops so that some were fighting each other and others plundering the possessions of their fellows. When Malik Chaghrï Beg perceived this state of affairs, he led an attack on them whilst they were still disputing and engaged in internecine fighting. Thus the sword blades (i.e. of Chaghrï’s troops) fell on mailed coats already pierced and heads already split open. The sultan and his army were routed, and he took the road to Rūdhbār55 [N 45] accompanied by 100

16

The History of the Seljuq State

cavalrymen. A search party (i.e. of the Seljuqs) was pursuing him [I 12] until one of Malik Chaghrï Beg’s cavalrymen caught up with him. The sultan dealt him a blow that split him in half and threw the pieces by the roadside. As a result, those of Chaghrï Beg’s troops who saw them turned back and ceased following in the sultan’s tracks. Malik Chaghrï Beg and his troops waited for three days, all this time remaining in the saddle. When he felt assured that perils of the revolution in fortunes were past, he went into Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin’s ceremonial tent (surādiq) and seated himself on Masʿūd’s throne.56 He shared out the plunder amongst his troops and forgave the land-tax for one year within the lands controlled by him. He restored and rebuilt villages and released prisoners. The sultan travelled back to Ghazna. The battle at the gate of Dandānqān took place on Thursday, 8 Ramaḍān 431 [/23 May 1040]. When the sultan arrived in Ghazna, he appointed his son Mawdūd as his covenanted heir. The governor of Balkh [at this time] was the Ḥājib Altuntāq.

[N 47] Mention of what happened between Malik Chaghrï Beg and Sultan Mawdūd b. Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin Malik Chaghrï Beg then set out for Balkh and wrote to Altuntāq, saying, ‘You have nothing left to expect from Ghazna, and your master has no power to fire any more arrows. So go along with time however it takes you, and go with God’s help, wherever it goes’. But Altuntāq paid no heed to the envoy and the letter, and ordered the messengers to be consigned to jail. Malik Chaghrï Beg encamped around the perimeter of Balkh and a fierce battle took place between the two sides. Sultan Mawdūd came from Ghazna towards Balkh with a numerous army, and Chaghrï Beg’s advance guard fell upon Sultan Mawdūd’s advance guard and the entire Ghaznavid army was routed. [I 13] The Ḥājib Altuntāq was compelled to surrender, and he became part of Chaghrï Beg’s following. Malik Chaghrï Beg entered Balkh and its environs.57

[N 49] Mention of the killing of Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin When Sultan Mawdud set out for Balkh in accordance with his father’s orders, accompanied by the vizer Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad, this being on Tuesday, 12 Muḥarram 432 [/22 September 1040], Sultan Masʿūd brought forth from the fortress of Naghar his brother Muḥammad, whom he had blinded,58 together with the latter’s sons, wives and slave girls, this being on Sunday, 1 Ṣafar 432 [/11 October 1040]. Muḥammad had a deranged son called Aḥmad and other sons, including ʿAbd al-Raḥīm, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, ʿUmar and ʿUthmān. Sultan Masʿūd then bestowed robes of honour on his brother’s sons and sought pardon [N 50] of his brother. Muḥammad told him, ‘You are the great man and leader, and have the designation of the outstanding face (?)59 of the people.’ He made Masʿūd’s heart rejoice

Translation of the text 17 with these false assurances, hoping that Masʿūd’s mind would became somewhat calmer and that he would be inclined to fulfil some of what he had said. Sultan Masʿūd had Muḥammad borne along in a litter accompanied by free-born ladies. Masʿūd gathered together the wealth from his treasuries and fortresses and he set out towards the Indian lands, taking with him 3,000 loads of Nishapuri, Herati, Maghribi and Maḥmūdī gold coins,60 various kinds of silver coins, jewels, outfits of mulḥam clothing,61 vessels and suchlike, until he reached [I 14] Mārīkala. The ghulāms cast their eyes greedily on the contents of those treasuries, and they agreed on the night of 13 Rabīʿ II 432 [/21 December 1040] to raise Muḥammad [to power]. Muḥammad mounted the throne (lit. ‘rode the withers of the royal throne’) and made his deranged son Aḥmad his deputy. The two sides came together in battle on Tuesday, 15 Rabīʿ II [/23 December 1040]. Sultan Masʿūd was captured and placed in bonds. His deranged nephew came to him and snatched off his cap from his head, but his brother ʿAbd al-Raḥīm reproached him, took the cap from him, kissed it and put it back on his uncle’s head; this action [subsequently] saved him from death. Sultan Masʿūd and his wife Sāra Khātūn, the daughter of Qadïr Khan, were conveyed to a nearby fortress called Gīrī. Muḥammad made up his mind to kill his brother, urged on by his deranged son. [N 51] They threw Masʿūd into a well and filled it in with millstones.62 Sultan Mawdūd b. Masʿūd was meanwhile making for Ghazna. Sultan Muḥammad left the region where he had established himself and set out with his troops, the greater part of these being young girls (?),63 slave boys and elderly men. When the two armies confronted each other, Sultan Mawdūd was victorious (lit. ‘the flags of victory fluttered over him’). He executed Muḥammad and his sons, with the exception of ʿAbd al-Raḥīm, this being on Thursday, 3 Shaʿbān 432 [/8 April 1041]. He built a village and a ribāṭ and called it Fatḥābād and then he returned to Ghazna.64 Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin reigned, counting the time up to his death, for ten years, two months and two days, and the reign of his son Sultan Mawdūd was seven years and ten months. When Sultan Mawdūd passed away, there succeeded to his place Sultan ʿAbd al-Rashīd, who was a headstrong youth.65 The Ghaznavid sultans had a Turkish ghulām called Ṭoghrïl Bozan (?), who fled from their service [I 15] and sought refuge with the Seljuq maliks. They sent him back with [N52] a force of Turkish troops whom Sultan ʿAbd al-Rashīd was unable to withstand, and he had to flee and seek refuge in one of his fortresses. Ṭoghrïl Bozan seized control of the various basic supports of the sultanate and power, and he usurped the royal throne. He married a noble free wife, one of the ladies of Sultan Masʿūd, forcibly and against her will. He brought down from the fortress Sultan ʿAbd al-Rashīd and killed him with his own hands, together with ʿAbd al-Rashīd’s nephews (text, ‘brothers’, ikhwatuhu) Sulaymān and Shujāʿ, sons of Masʿūd,66 again with his own hands, and he killed nine [other] persons from amongst Sultan Masʿūd’s sons, again with his own hands, in a single night. Sultan Masʿūd had a ghulām called Nūshtegin. He fulfilled the rights and obligations due to his masters, [N 53] and one day came into the presence of that

18

The History of the Seljuq State

accursed rebel Ṭoghrïl Bozan and stood by him. He then personally slew Ṭoghrïl together with ten of his retainers. He brought out of the fortress Sultan Masʿūd’s son Farrukh-zād and set him up on the royal throne, this being in Dhu ’l-Qaʿda 443 [/March 1052].67 From the appearance of Ṭoghrïl Bozan in 432 [/1040–41]68 until he was killed in 443 [/1051–52], he had control of Ghazna and its dependencies as a vassal of the Seljuq maliks. He collected for them the land-tax of his territories and forwarded to them what was left over from paying out the salaries of his troops. Farrukh-zād was adorned with the qualities of intelligence and justice and embellished with that of generosity. During Farrukh-zād’s reign, a Seljuq army appeared in the region of Bust. He despatched against it Nūshtegin, the killer of Ṭoghrïl, who defeated the Seljuq army. Farrukh-zād reigned until Saturday, 16 Ṣafar 451 [/3 April 1059].69 He was succeeded by his brother [I 16] Ibrāhīm, son of Sultan Masʿūd. He was an intelligent and sensible person, endowed with perspicacity. [N 54] He made numerous conquests in India, and his heroic feats are well known in the Indian lands.70 One example of his perspicacity was when the Exalted Sultan Jalāl alDawla Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān marched out against Ghazna and encamped at Isfizār. Sultan Ibrāhīm wrote to Sultan Jalāl al-Dawla Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān’s amirs, thanking them for their efforts and telling them, ‘You have done well! You have given the Sultan the idea of mounting an expedition against us and have made the decision to hand him over to us. We shall not neglect the rights and obligations due to you and shall not forget your lofty ranks and positions’. He gave the envoy instructions, and he appeared in the sultan’s view at his huntingground and passed by him. The Sultan ordered his arrest and interrogated him about the letters. He denied knowledge of them, but the sultan ordered him to be flogged and he handed over to him the letters. The sultan imagined that his amirs and retainers had betrayed him. He set the envoy free, showing the letters to no one, and returned to Isfahan.71 Sultan Ibrāhīm’s son Masʿūd had married the daughter of Sultan Alp Arslān. Then one of the daughters of the Exalted Sultan Jalāl al-Dawla Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl the Seljuq, who was called Jawhar Khātūn, was married to Ibrāhīm’s other son. The bride-price (mahr) was brought from Ghazna to Isfahan. This lady was known at Ghazna by the honorific designation of Mahd al-ʿIrāq (‘The Bride from Western Persia’).72 Sultan Ẓahīr al-Dawla Abu ’l-Muẓaffar Ibrāhīm, son of [N 55] Sultan Nāṣir Dīn Allāh Abī Saʿīd Masʿūd, son of the Ghāzī Sultan Yamīn al-Dawla Abi ’l-Qāsim Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin, reigned for thirty years. When he died, his son Sultan Ghāzī ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla Abu ’l-Muẓaffar [I 17] Masʿūd succeeded to the throne. He followed the example of his father in his policy and travelled along his path. He reigned from 481 to 511 [/1088–1117], as will subsequently be related73 after this [in] the account of the Exalted Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Sanjar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān [at] Ghazna.74 When Khurasan was free from the troops of the House of Sebüktegin and the Seljuq princes (maliks)75 were established there, Malik Chaghrï Beg made his

Translation of the text 19 capital at Merv and now had control of the whole of Khurasan. Sultan Ṭoghrïl travelled from Khurasan to Iraq when the Imām al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh invited him [thither]. He extended his control over the greater part of the lands, and they then made a division of the territories amongst themselves (reading with N 55 n.***, baynahum). [N 56] Ṭoghrïl allotted to Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq the territories from Nishapur to the Oxus and what he could conquer of Transoxania, so he conquered Khwarazm, Bukhara and Balkh. He allotted Quhistān and Gurgān to Ibrāhīm [b.] Yināl, Ṭoghrïl’s [half-]brother through his mother, and Herat, Pūshang, Sistan and the land of Ghūr to Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan b. Mūsā b. Seljuq. All these arrangements were made in 430 [/1038–39].76 In this same year, Sultan Ṭoghrïl took possession of Iraq. He sent Sultan Shihāb al-Dawla Qutlumush b. Arslān b. Seljuq [N 57] to the mountainous regions of Armenia and Azerbaijan and took possession of them.77 He (sc. Ṭoghrïl) seized Mosul and the territories adjacent to it of Diyār Muḍar from the control of the Amir al-ʿArab, the ʿUqaylid Quraysh b. Badrān b. al-Muqallad b. al-Musayyab.78 [N 58] In 448 [/1056–57] the commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh married Malik Dāwūd [I 18] b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq’s daughter, with a bride-price (ṣadāq) of 100,000 dinars. The caliph bestowed on Sultan Ṭoghrïl seven robes of honour and awarded to him a collar and armbands, and he wrote out for him a diploma investing him with all the lands beyond his own immediate authority, and gave him the honorific form of address ‘Sultan of the East and West’. In this way, Ṭoghrïl’s awesomeness and dignity increased, and his empire extended far and wide.79

[N 59] The conflict between the Commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh and Arslān al-Basāsīrī, and the march on Baghdad of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Abū Ṭālib Ṭoghrïl Beg b. Dāwūd (sic) b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq Abu ’l-Ḥārith Arslān al-Basāsīrī was commander of the Turkish troops in the time of the caliph al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh (Basāsīr is one of the towns of Fars80). Al-Basāsīrī used to address the Amir al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh in an imperious manner, used not to show due respect for his lofty office and used to subject him to all sorts of indignities (lit. ‘made him swallow all kinds of griefs’). Hence the Commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh appealed to Sultan Ṭoghrïl Beg for help. So the latter set out from Khurasan on Wednesday, 14 Dhu ’l-Ḥijja 449 [/11 February 1056] with a powerful army and panoply of arms. When he reached the confines of Baghdad, al-Basāsīrī fled precipitately across the desert wastes (lit. ‘split open the bellies of the deserts’) [N 60] and halted at al-Raḥba in Syria. The ruler of Egypt al-Mustanṣir sent him robes of honours and presents. Al-Malik al-Raḥīm Abū Naṣr, ʿAḍud al-Dawla’s grandson, of the Buyid house, was with al-Basāsīrī, but al-Basāsīrī betrayed him [I 19] and severed contact with him. Sultan Ṭoghrïl Beg now reached Baghdad on 25 Ṣafar 450 [/23 April 1058] and seized al-Malik al-Raḥīm, sent him to Ray and incarcerated him in the fortress of Ṭabarak until he died.81 The rule of the Buyid house disintegrated after they had had a period of power of 127 years.

20

The History of the Seljuq State

Sultan Ṭoghrïl Beg went after al-Basāsīrī, following in his tracks and departing from Baghdad on 25 Rajab 450 [/12 September 1058]. When he reached Niṣībīn, his maternal half-brother Ibrāhīm [b.] Yināl separated from him and returned to Iraq (i.e. to western Persia) with a body of troops like lions lurking in their den. The sultan left Niṣībīn in pursuit of him. When Sultan Ṭoghrïl reached Hamadān, Ibrāhīm’s power and fighting strength had reached a high level. Sultan Ṭoghrïl remained besieged in Hamadān, and the army raised Ibrāhīm to power as their lord. Sultan Alp Arslān82 was at this time in Sistan when a letter from his uncle Sultan Ṭoghrïl reached him, with the message, [N 61] ‘My brother has tried to snatch away my lawful authority and has endeavoured to topple my royal power. I am in urgent need of your assistance and support.’ So Sultan Alp Arslān set out from Sistan for the confines of (Persian) Iraq, taking ten days to travel along the road through the Great Desert, and reached Sultan Ṭoghrïl’s court. The next day, on 19 Jumādā II 451 [/2 August 1059], they fitted out and mobilized their forces, and at noon Sultan Alp Arslān seized Ibrāhīm [b.] Yināl and led him captive to the throne of his uncle Sultan Ṭoghrïl. Sultan Alp Arslān set out for Khurasan sound in body and laden with plunder. Ibrāhīm [b.] Yināl was put to death on Wednesday, 19 Jumādā II 451 (i.e. on the same day that he was captured).83 [I 20] When al-Basāsīrī heard about the conflict between Sultan Ṭoghrïl and his halfbrother Ibrāhīm [b.] Yināl, he returned to Baghdad, accompanied by the ʿUqaylid Quraysh b. Badrān b. al-Muqallad b. al-Musayyab, whose honorific titles were ʿAlam al-Dīn Sulṭān al-ʿArab.84 The two of them entered Baghdad on Saturday, 15 Shawwāl 450 [/5 December 1058]. Baghdad was empty of troops, but the common people of the city fought against them. The Commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh was riding a grey mule in the courtyard of his palace accompanied by his vizier, [N 62] the Raʾīs al-Ruʾasāʾ.85 Quraysh b. Badrān hammered on the palace gate with his staff, telling the Commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh, ‘Come forth, O noble one, don’t bring about your own death, you have a guarantee of security!’, not addressing him as Commander of the Faithful. Al-Qāʾim accordingly rode out, and the ʿUqaylid amir Muhārish bore him away to the citadel of al-Ḥadītha. The vizier was carried off on a donkey with a Jew mounted behind him. The Jew hit him in the face, plucked out his beard and said [to him], ‘Master, append your signature to this order!’, and then the vizier was gibbeted.86 They made the khuṭba at Baghdad on Friday, 21 Shawwāl [/11 December] in the name of the Fatimid (text, al-ʿUbaydī 87) al-Mustanṣir bi’llāh, the ruler of Egypt. White clothing was substituted for black clothing (i.e. that of the ʿAbbasids) and dinars minted with his honorific titles on them. This upheaval in Baghdad lasted till Shawwāl 451 [/November–December 1059]. When Ibrāhīm [b.] Yināl was killed, Sultan Ṭoghrïl set out and headed for Baghdad, and wrote to ʿAlam al-Dīn Quraysh b. Badrān and put pressure on him to bring back the Commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh to the seat of the caliphate. Al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh accordingly arrived back in the City of Peace on Monday, 11 [I 21] Dhu ’l-Qaʿda 451 [/19 December 1059]. Sultan Ṭoghrïl came out with his troops to meet him and escort him back. When Ṭoghrïl’s eyes fell upon the ceremonial tent (i.e. of the caliph), he hurled himself down from

Translation of the text 21 his horse, went into it and kissed the ground seven times. The caliph took a cushion and handed it to the sultan, who accepted it, kissed it and then sat down on it. The caliph brought forth from his gown the string88 of red rubies which had belonged to the Buyids and a setting of twelve precious pearls [N 63] and placed them before the sultan, telling him that they were a present from his wife Khadīja Khātūn, and he asked him to accept them. The sultan sought the caliph’s pardon for his delay in coming to him. The caliph then rode into Baghdad with an escort of troops all around him. The sultan dismounted, and went on foot carrying the ceremonial saddle cloth (ghāshiya)89 to just outside the caliphal palace. All the leading commanders likewise dismounted and went on foot. Ṭoghrïl took the reins of the caliph’s mule and walked before him whilst still holding the reins until he entered the gate to the caliph’s private quarters. This was on 25 Dhu ’l-Qaʿda [451/2 January 1060]. The caliph’s departure from his palace had been on that very day (i.e. of the previous year), and he had been away from Baghdad for a whole year. The vulnerable points of the caliphate now became firmly assured. The sultan rode forth and hotly pursued al-Basāsīrī, capturing him, killing him and bringing his head back to Baghdad, where it was fixed to the beam on which the caliph’s vizier had been crucified.90 All the amirs of the Arabs came to the caliphal court declaring their submission. The sultan married the Commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh’s daughter on the basis of a bride price of 100,000 dinars. The wedding ceremony was held in Khurasan on the night of Monday, 15 Ṣafar 455 [/17 February 1063], the sultan having returned from Baghdad on 5 Rabīʿ II 452 [/9 May 1060].91 The Exalted Sultan Rukn al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Abū Ṭālib [I 22] Ṭoghrïl b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq died on Friday, 8 Ramaḍān 455 [/4 September 1063] at the age of seventy. It was related on the authority of the vizier [N 64] ʿAmīd al-Mulk Abū Naṣr al-Kundurī that he said, ‘I asked [him] about the year he was born and he replied, ‘The year in which so-and-so Khān attacked Transoxania.’92 So when he died I counted the duration of his life and it came to a full seventy years.’ It was related on the authority of the Qāḍī Abū Bakr al-Naysābūrī that he said, The ʿAmīd al-Mulk al-Kundurī informed me that the sultan had told him, ‘At the beginning of my rule in Khurasan, I had a dream in which I was, as it were, lifted up to the heavens, enveloped in mist and unable to see anything, but smelling a fragrant odour and with a voice, as it were, calling to me, “Wish for whatever you will and it shall be granted.” I replied, “The thing I would most like is a long life,” so I was told, “Your allotted span will be seventy years.”’93 He died on the day mentioned above, the sultanate having come into his possession in 430 [/1038–39], so that he reigned for twenty-four years and some months. He was buried at Merv beside the grave of his brother Malik Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq.94

22

The History of the Seljuq State

[N 65] Mention of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Abū Ṭālib Ṭoghrïl b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq’s character and way of life He was courageous, forbearing and noble-minded, steadfast in obedience [to God], observing the Friday worship, fasting on Mondays and Thursdays, and endeavouring to direct his life in a lofty moral fashion. He used to dress in white clothes of Wādhārī cloth,95 and the course of his life resembled the meritorious aspects of the Gardens of Paradise. He used not to contemplate killing or shedding blood (i.e. unjustifiably), [I 23] nor did he violate women’s honour.96 He was long-suffering and forgiving, and straightforward in what he said. He gave away much money for charitable purposes and was eager to build mosques. He used to say, ‘I would be ashamed before God Most High if I built a palace and didn’t build a mosque at the side of it.’97 The vizier ʿAmīd al-Mulk al-Kundurī related that when Ṭoghrïl fell ill, he said to him, My state in this illness of mine is like that of a sheep whose legs are fastened together so that it can be shorn of its wool, but it thinks it is going to be slaughtered and struggles in its distress until it is released and becomes happy again. Then its legs are fastened together for slaughter, yet it thinks it is merely going to be shorn so it remains calm and is then killed. This sickness has fastened my legs together for slaughter.98 Sultan Ṭoghrïl had no offspring. His covenanted successor was his nephew Sultan Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq.99

[N 67] The story of the vizier ʿAmīd al-Mulk Abū Naṣr al-Kundurī He was from the progeny of the dihqāns of Kundur.100 He received his education at Nishapur, and ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan al-Bākharzī101 was his companion in the circle of the Imām al-Muwaffaq al-Naysābūrī.102 The vizier Abū Naṣr al-Kundurī rose highly in his career, his first official post having been as court chamberlain (ḥājib al-bāb). [N 68] In the time of Ṭoghrïl Beg’s sultanate he became firmly established as vizier.103 [On one occasion] the Shaykh ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan al-Bākharzī visited him when al-Kundurī was in Baghdad in the exalted post of vizier in the sultan’s Dīwān. When the vizier saw al-Bākharzī, he asked him. ‘Are you the author of the poem beginning Aqbala . . .?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ The vizier responded, ‘Greetings and welcome! I have drawn a good omen from your poem Aqbala . . .’.104 [I 24] He then bestowed on al-Bākharzī a robe of honour before the latter had recited some verses to him and said, ‘Come back tomorrow morning and recite some [more] poetry.’ So he returned the next day and recited the following ode [beginning]: 1. The dwelling-places on the banks of the valley have become desolate, so I remained there like one dead, with the valley far away.

Translation of the text 23 2. The brightness of his face deceived his enemies, and brought to their hearts (lit. ‘livers’) refreshing coolness. 3. But how far from the mark! The radiance of his face should not have misled them, for anger lies beneath the smile of lions.105 When he had finished reciting the verses, the vizier said to the Arab amirs, ‘We have others like him amongst the Persians; do you have his like amongst the Arabs?’, and he ordered him to be given a thousand dinars. The Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Seljuq despatched al-Kundurī and entrusted him with the task of arranging a marriage of the sultan with a daughter of the Khwarazm Shah. Disquieting stories circulated, and it was brought to the sultan’s ears that the vizier ʿAmīd al-Mulk had in fact married her himself and had acted deceitfully. So the sultan’s attitude towards him changed. ʿAmīd al-Mulk accordingly shaved off his beard and castrated himself, and thereby escaped punishment from the sultan. The Shaykh ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan al-Bākharzī eulogized him regarding this loss when he wrote, [N 69] 1. People said, ‘In your absence the sultan removed from him the signs of masculinity, when previously he had been a furious stallion.’ 2. But I told them, ‘Be silent, for his virility has now inceased since he has been deprived of his two testicles (unthayayhi). 3. A stallion disdains having a part of him described as feminine (unthā), and because of that he cut them off, root and all.’106 [I 25] When the vizierate was entrusted to Niẓām al-Mulk Qiwām al-Dīn al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Isḥāq al-Ṭūsī, the vizier ʿAmīd al-Mulk was dismissed and jailed. During his captivity he recited: 1. Death is bitter, but when my soul thirsts for honour, it is sweet to drink it. 2. Confused thoughts about the vizierate are turning in my head (lit. ‘have laid eggs in my head’), while I fear that my head will turn with them.107 He also recited: 1. If people find it hard to vie with me, well, death has widened the world for them. 2. I am on the brink of death, and the one who gloats upon my misery will follow me, laid in his tomb; everyone has to sip and drink of the cup of death. The vizier ʿAmīd al-Mulk was held captive at Nishapur in the residence of the ʿAmīd of Khurasan, but was then transferred to Marw al-Rūd and imprisoned in a house there, with his family placed in another room of that house; he had only one

24

The History of the Seljuq State

daughter. When he realized that he was going to be put to death, he went into the room, got out his shroud, bade farewell to his family and shut the door behind him. He made the major ablution, performed two rakʿas and gave 100 dinars to the man about to kill him, telling him, ‘I charge you with the duty of enshrouding me in this cloth which I have washed [N 70] in water from Zamzam.’ He asked the executioner to tell the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk, ‘You have perpetrated a wicked act; you have taught the Turks to kill their viziers and Dīwān officials. He who digs a pit (sc. for others) will fall into it himself, and he who follows a wrong course of action will have to bear the burden of it, and the burden of those who undertake the same policies, till the Day of Resurrection.’ Then he resigned himself contentedly to God’s inevitable decree. This happened on Sunday, 16 Dhu ’l-Ḥijja 456 [/29 November 1064]. Shaykh ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan al-Bākharzī elegized him in words addressed to Sultan [I 26] Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq: 1. Your uncle (sc. Ṭoghrïl) made him his close retainer, elevated his status and provided him with a spacious shelter in his kingdom. 2. Both of your masters (sc. Ṭoghrïl and Alp Arslān) fulfilled the obligations due to their servant: he granted him this present world, and you have granted him the world to come.108

[N 71] The story of Malik Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq and the warfare between Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq and Sultan Mawdūd b. Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin, and Mawdūd’s defeat and the peace agreement between the two of them Malik Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl was given the information that the amirs of Qarābāj109 were handing over taxation to Ghazna. So he set out for the district of Qarābāj, and a battle took place between him and one of the amirs. That amir shut himself up in the fortress until his supplies and resources ran out and his military strength grew weak. Hence he sought a guarantee of safe conduct and came down from the fortress. He gave Malik Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd 1,000 horses, all fully bridled and caparisoned, as a present, and also a dagger with its hilt set with rubies and weighing about sixty mithqāls; that dagger remained in the Seljuq treasuries till 548 [/1153] when the Oghuz secured their victory.110 After this, Malik Dāwūd suffered an attack of jaundice [I 27] and the illness left him in a weakened state. Sultan Mawdūd got to hear about his malady and his enfeebled condition, so he mobilized his forces for an attack on Khurasan. Malik Dāwūd appointed as his covenanted heir his son Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Alp Arslān. [N 72] Alp Arslān remained at Balkh for a while until he had recovered from the hardships of the journey (lit. ‘until the dust clouds and matted herbage of the journey had been removed from him’). When the commander of the Ghaznavid army got news of Sultan Alp Arslān’s approach, he got together his troops, and

Translation of the text 25 they stood their ground. Sultan Alp Arslān launched an attack on them, and through the agency of the Seljuq forces, Fate inflicted on the Ghaznavid troops a fearful slaughter and speedy defeat. Sultan Alp Arslān took prisoner a thousand senior officers and an unlimited quantity of horses and weapons. When he went into his father Malik Dāwūd’s presence, joy at the victory dispelled the latter’s sickness and his body regained its health. When the sun entered the sign of Aries, Malik Dāwūd and his son Alp Arslān set out for the fortress of Tirmidh. The castellan of the fortress was the secretary, the Shaykh al-Bayhaqī. Malik Dāwūd wrote to him, ‘Renounce all your hopes and expectations of the Ghaznavid sultans. The record of their doings in Khurasan has become effaced and the markers of their auspicious stars have become obliterated. Know, O Amīrak Bayhaqī, that you can expect no aid from the Ghaznavids and will not experience any assistance from them’. So he came forth, donated his lands and his house at Bayhaq to the vizier Abū ʿAlī b. Shādān111 and left for Ghazna. Malik Dāwūd entrusted to Sultan Alp Arslān the governorship of Balkh, Ṭukhāristān, Tirmidh, Qubādiyān, Wakhsh and Walwālij, and gave him the added strength and backing of Abū ʿAlī Ibn Shādān as his vizier. [N 73] Ibn Shādān made those lands prosperous and flourishing through his abilities and all the people enjoyed his beneficence. When he felt the approach of death, he requested Sultan Alp Arslān to entrust the vizierate after his death to the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk. The ruler of Khwarazm rebelled, so Malik Dāwūd set out for Khwarazm and captured Hazārasp [I 28] within a week. He then conquered the region of Gurgānj, which facilitated for him the conquest of the rest of the province. The chief of the Qïpchaq came to him and became a Muslim at Malik Dāwūd’s hands, and a marriage alliance between them was arranged.112 Sultan Mawdūd wrote to the rulers of outlying regions seeking their help and military assistance, preparing a war chest for them and promising to allocate to them the tax revenues of Khurasan and its districts. They responded favourably, and Sultan Mawdūd set out from Ghazna. However, the Angel of Death came forth to meet him and his ascending star set before it could rise, and his forces returned to Ghazna empty-handed. The rulers of the outlying regions had meanwhile already set out from their respective lands before news of Sultan Mawdūd’s death reached their ears. These rulers included Amir [Abū] Kālījār, the ruler of Isfahan. All his forces perished in the Great Desert, and he himself fell ill and returned to Isfahan. The Khāqān of the Turks (i.e. the Qarakhanid Khān) came to Tirmidh [N 74] and devastated it, with much looting and confiscation of wealth. Amir Qashqā 113 launched an attack on Khwarazm, but Malik Dāwūd held him off. Sultan Alp Arslān repulsed the Khāqān. The latter encamped on the banks of the Oxus in the district of Bukhara and sought to enter into peace negotiations. Malik Dāwūd crossed the Oxus with two cavalrymen from his retinue, and he and the Khāqān sat down together on the one throne. They ate and drank together, made peace and then went their respective ways.114 Succession to the Ghaznavid sultanate came round to Sultan Farrukh-zād b. Masʿūd. He prepared a large and well-equipped army for launching against

26

The History of the Seljuq State

Khurasan. The Atabeg Amir Quṭb al-Dīn Kül-sarïgh115 marched out to engage the Ghaznavid forces, but was captured, loaded with fetters and sent to Ghazna, and a considerable number of the leading personages of the Seljuq state were also taken prisoner. Alp Arslān sought his father Malik Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl’s permission and marched out against the Ghaznavid forces with his army. The Ghaznavid army was defeated, and he took prisoner a large number of [I 29] leading personages and highranking dignitaries of the Ghaznavid state. Sultan Farrukh-zād set free his own captives and awarded a robe of honour to the Atabeg Amir Quṭb al-Dīn Kül-sarïgh. The Ghaznavids and Seljuqs then agreed together that each power should be sovereign and independent in its own territories and that they should cease attacking each other. Shaykh Abu ʾl-Faḍl Bayhaqī wrote out that peace agreement.116

[N 75] Mention of Malik Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq’s death and the succession to sole authority of Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān Then illness afflicted Malik Dāwūd and he became increasingly enfeebled. He was seventy years old. He died in Ṣafar 452 [/March 1060] at Sarakhs, and his funeral bier was brought to Merv. His son Alp Arslān succeeded him. Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl lived for three years after his brother.117

[N 77] The historical events of the reign of Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq When Sultan Alp Arslān achieved unfettered power and settled down on the royal throne, he spread the wings of justice over his subjects and sheltered them beneath the shades of beneficence and generosity for them. He was satisfied that the subjects [I 30] should pay the basic land-tax assessment in two instalments each year. Each year, in the month of Ramaḍān, he used to give 4,000 dinars in alms, 1,000 each at Balkh, Merv, Herat and Nishapur. He also gave away as alms [another] 10,000 dinars at the seat of his court. [On one occasion,] slanderers wrote a letter to him making accusations against the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk and telling him about the latter’s financial gains, placing it at the side of his prayer mat. So the Sultan summoned the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk and instructed him, ‘Take this letter. If what is written in it is true, improve your morals and set right your affairs. If it contains falsehood, then forgive the offender ( jārim, text jāzim) and keep the slanderer busy with important affairs of the Dīwān in order to distract him from lying and calumnies.’

[N 79] The Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq’s battle with Malik Quṭlumush b. Isrāʾīl and his victory over him News arrived that Malik Quṭlumush b. Isrāʾīl b. Seljuq, the cousin of Sultan Ṭoghrïl on his father’s side and the forefather of the kings of Rūm, had rebelled, seeking

Translation of the text 27 the sultanate for himself. He had gathered together a rabble of troops like scattered locusts,118 had encamped outside Sāwa and was planning to march on the district of Ray. The sultan appointed over the vanguard of his army a commander called Amir Sawtegin. This commander was originally born and brought up in the village of Khākistar119 and K.ʿ.r.b.n (?); it was he who built the ribāṭ of Khākistar. [I 31] He had voluntarily castrated himself, without any compulsion.120 This commander set out towards Ray, and the Sultan himself departed from Nishapur on 10 Muḥarram 456 [/3 January 1064]. Malik Quṭlumush laid waste all the villages of the district of Ray and gave his troops a free hand to do this. He flooded [N 80] the vicinity of ʿAbdallāhābād and the Wādī al-Milḥ, which was a salt marsh very difficult for travellers to cross. When the two armies gingerly approached each other, the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk girded on his arms and deployed his troop detachments. On the sultan’s right wing was Amir Quṭb al-Dīn Kül-sarïgh and Amir Pahlawān Sh.n.k.l.wā, and on the left wing Amir Altuntāq, father of Amir J.sh, and the commander Amir Sawtegin. With the sultan in the centre were the Amir B.l.dājī, Amir Sonqorcha, Amir Āghājī and other prominent amirs. The next morning, Malik Quṭlumush b. Isrāʾīl rode forth, with his army filling the whole land. His brother was on his right wing and the Amir Ay (thus correctly in N) Būqā commanded the left wing. The sultan rode off in search of a way along the foot of the mountain but failed to find one. So he urged on his horse through the Wādī and its waters and signalled with his whip for his troops [to follow him]. So they did this, plunging through the fearful deep waters whilst Malik Quṭlumush and his troops were expecting them to be drowned in the sticky mud of this salt marsh. Sonqorcha attacked Malik Quṭlumush, carried off his ceremonial parasol (chatr) and threw down his banners.121 Malik Quṭlumush fled, having suffered several wounds, and made for Girdkūh, one of his fortresses. Out of Quṭlumush’s army, there remained (sc. on the field) not a single cavalryman or footsoldier, since all had fled precipitately. When the sultan had the intention of killing those captives who had combatted [I 32] the fighting fury of lions with the arrogance [N 81] of wolves, the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk besought him to show pardon and forgiveness. So he forgave them and requited them with kindness and beneficence. When the battle was over (lit. ‘when war laid down its burdens’) and the dust of victory and triumph had settled, they found Malik Quṭlumush dead in a sheepfold. His funeral bier was carried to the grave of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl at Ray.122 The ʿAmīd of Khurasan Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Nasawī was during this year governor and tax-collector (ʿāmil ) at Basra. He came back to the Sultan’s court with long-awaited tax revenues. Shaykh ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan al-Bākharzī was in the service of the ʿAmīd of Khurasan and had many adventures in Basra.123

[N 83] The story of the ʿAmīd of Khurasan Muḥammad b. Manṣūr al-Nasawī The ʿAmīd of Khurasan was in the early part of his life a butcher in the army market, and was one of the boon-companions of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl’s

28

The History of the Seljuq State

Master of the Stables (ākhur sālār).124 When the latter died, the ʿAmīd Muḥammad took over his office. He ordered the stables to be swept and cleaned out, he had water sprinkled around, he had the beasts’ coverings repaired and put in order and he had their nosebags renewed. The sultan used each day to observe the remarkable work he wrought. His activity (reading ṣunʿuhu) caught his attention,125 and he made him head of the [palace] lamp-bearers. [Once] Sultan Alp Arslān set out on a pitch-black night. His lighting apparatus ceased to function and its oil had given out, so he (sc. al-Nasawī) purchased a mann of almond oil from the cook for fifty dinars and lit the lamps with it. When the sultan became conscious of the smell of the smoke from the lamps, he asked al-Nasawī, what was the reason for the smoke’s smell? So al-Nasawī told him what his intention had been (lit. ‘he testified to the young camel’s age’126). The sultan thereby realized [I 33] his sound judgement and he made him one of his intimates at court and opened up his heart towards him. He entrusted to him collection of the land-tax of Nishapur and its surrounding districts, and al-Nasawī collected taxation from these places. When Nishapur was racked by famine, he spread his beneficence over the people and distributed provisions to them. The province of Khwarazm was [also] entrusted to him.127 [On one occasion,] the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk sent to him [N 84] a document requiring a certain sum to be handed over (Wuṣūl)128 to the Dīwān with a commander accompanied by servants and retainers, enjoining him to make the ʿAmīd of Khurasan taste humiliation. The ʿAmīd ordered these ghulāms to be killed and thrown into the Oxus. He purchased a hundred ghulāms and around each one’s waist he tied a hundred dinars. He sent them as a present to the sultan, saying, The sultan’s revenue won’t be collected by means of acts of contempt and humiliation, and order in the state will only be achieved through showing proper respect. These ghulāms showed disrespect towards the due rights of your Dīwān, so I made them taste the drink of punishment through the sword with which you girded me and I built upon the foundations which you laid down. I have followed the appropriate practices of service with little recompense, firmly believing that the efforts of a person of humble status are not negligible. The sultan accordingly accepted his excuse and he was singled out (reading with N khuṣṣa) for a very large grant from his Dīwān. The ʿAmīd of Khurasan had served the august presences of Malik Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, the Exalted Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl b. Mīkā’īl b. Seljuq, the Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān, his son Sultan Jalāl al-Dawla Malik Shāh, Malik Böri Bars, Malik Arghūn, Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Berk-yārūq and the Exalted Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Abu ’l-Ḥārith Sanjar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān. He died on Saturday, 21 Shawwāl 494 [/19 August 1101]. Malik Arghūn was on the point of [I 34] arresting him and bearing him off to Merv, but [instead], Malik Arghūn was assassinated and the ʿAmīd of Khurasan had him enshrouded and buried.129

Translation of the text 29 A remarkable thing was that Malik Arghūn, son of Sultan Alp Arslān,130 once drew his sword [N 85] when the ʿAmīd of Khurasan stood before him and he said to the ʿAmīd, ‘Should I put you to the sword or not?’, and he enumerated the misdeeds of the ʿAmīd, reprimanding him more sharply than the piercing fire of arrows and the raining down (reading with N waqʿ) of swords. He threatened him and told him repeatedly, ‘I’m going to kill you,’ whilst the ʿAmīd remained silent and utterly helpless. The court jester slapped him on the face and said to him, ‘O cuckold (kashikhān)! Tell him that he shouldn’t kill you!’ Malik Arghūn thereupon laughed, and the ʿAmīd of Khurasan was saved from being executed. The ʿAmīd sent 1,000 dinars to the jester. People were astonished at that, saying, ‘The one on the brink of being killed was preserved from destruction by a single slap, and the one who did the slapping gained 1,000 dinars!’

[N 87] Mention of the Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān’s expedition against the Byzantine lands (al-Rūm) Sultan Alp Arslān set out from Ray for the Byzantine lands in the opening days of Rabīʿ I 456 [/late February 1064]. The sultan was informed that a band of Kurdish bandits were engaged in highway robbery in the vicinity of Ḥulwān and were wreaking destruction in the land. So the sultan prepared an army to launch against them which made those bandits taste the cup of perdition and totally cleared those regions of their presence. Then there came into the royal presence a group of these Kurds [I 35] who had survived the swords (sc. of the Seljuq troops), promising to guard the road from robbers. The sultan gave charge of those regions to the Amir Beg Arslān and then sent out by night a military force to the town of Marand131 and halted there. On the way to the Byzantine lands there was a celebrated132 commander called Amir Ṭughtegin.133 A group of Turkmens had gathered round him. The Byzantines had suffered harm from them and had been afflicted by his raiding and his jihads. Ṭughtegin came into the sultan’s presence to render service, and assured him that he would guide the sultan’s troops through the defiles and difficult places of that land. The sultan received information [N 88] that the Georgian territories (bilād al-Kurj ) of the land of Rūm were a place of deceitful error and a domain of unbelief and rebelliousness. Hence the sultan organized an expedition against the Georgian territories and appointed as his deputy in the army camp his son Sultan Jalāl al-Dawla Malik Shāh. The latter marched off to a fortress which was held by heretical Christians (murrāq al-naṣārā) of the Byzantines. They killed a substantial number of the Muslim army. Niẓām al-Mulk and the ʿAmīd of Khurasan dismounted and went on foot, and Sultan Malik Shāh loosed an arrow which pierced the lord of the fortress’s throat. They bombarded it with stones, and they occupied a lofty eminence and climbed up and secured the mountain tops. The Muslim army thus secured victory over the defenders and made the sword arbiter over them, sparing none of them and leaving no trace of them.

30

The History of the Seljuq State

Sultan Malik Shāh then proceeded against a fortress called that of Surmārī,134 which possessed streams of running water and gardens, and he conquered it. Close by it was another fortress which he also conquered, and was about to demolish it when the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk deterred him from doing that, saying, ‘It’s an impregnable fortification, and will serve as a frontier outpost (thaghr) for the Muslims.’ The vizier Niẓām al-Mulk filled [N 89] this frontier post with courageous and heroic warriors. Sultan Malik Shāh then went on to a town [I 36] called Maryam-nishīn (‘Seat of Mary’).135 This town was the seat of monks and priests, and Christian monarchs and their subjects used to resort to it. The impregnable defences of this town were beyond any possibility of description. Its walls were constructed from regularly-set, dressed stones strengthened with nails and iron sheeting, and the lands surrounding it were filled with running water as far as the eye could see. The vizier Niẓām al-Mulk got ready ships and river boats (al-sufun wa ’l-zawārīq),136 and prepared for a prolonged, continuous engagement (lit. ‘for the course of the battle, he joined his going in the morning to his return at night, and his evening to his morning’). He laboured by night and day unceasingly and without rest until Sultan Malik Shāh managed to secure a rope to the parapet of the walls, climbed up the wall and hurled it down into the water. Thus God Most High relieved him from calamity. He stood up and pronounced the formula ‘God is great!’ The ghulāms scaled the wall but were unable to achieve their aim since the edges of their pickaxes had become blunted from hacking at the wall, this last being made of stone strengthened with nails and iron plates. Hence they spent that night on the backs of their horses. During the night there was an earthquake which destroyed the eastern side of the fortress, and the Christians’ means of defence were destroyed. When the sun’s rays gleamed, Sultan Malik Shāh and the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk entered the town. The churches were burnt down and the Christians put to the sword. Those who remained of the people adopted the Islamic faith. An envoy riding on a swift camel137 reached the Exalted Sultan Alp Arslān and he summoned his son Malik Shāh and the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk to his army camp, being unaware of the victories God had facilitated for them. Sultan Malik Shāh set out to join his father the Exalted Sultan Alp Arslān. He did not pass by any fortress without God Most High’s conquering it through his agency until he successfully reached his father’s presence. [N 90] The Exalted Sultan Alp Arslān then prepared forces to march against Sapīdh Shahr (‘The White City’),138 [I 37] and fierce fighting took place between its people and the sultan until God Most High achieved victory at this place. He then attacked another town called Aghāk Lāl.139 The wall of this place measured a hundred cubits in height140 and its width was greater than that. A mountain ridge enclosed the town on its eastern, western and northern sides, and there were heavily-fortified strongholds on the peaks of the mountain ridges. The above-mentioned wall was on the southern side, and in front of this wall was a river as wide as the Oxus, with a bridge spanning it there. The defenders removed the bridge, and the hopes of the army of Islam of conquering the place were dashed. Sultan Alp Arslān encamped on the road going to the town. He sent up supplications to God, beseeched for aid and performed the worship. The sultan’s troops

Translation of the text 31 threw a mighty bridge (sc. across the river) and fierce fighting took place. Then two men came forth from the town seeking for help and asking for a guarantee of safe conduct. They sought from the sultan a just amir who would nobly abstain from committing criminal acts and would refrain from indulging in forbidden acts. The sultan accordingly despatched [with them] the amir Ibn Mujāhid and Abū Samura. But when they had crossed the town’s outer defences, the Georgians surrounded them, stabbed them in the kidneys and battered them on the skull and neck. In front of them was the sword and ahead of them water. The eunuch Ṣawāb came into the sultan’s presence at a a time when he was performing the worship, and informed him what had happened, that the Georgians had fallen on the Muslims and that the Muslims had taken to flight. The sultan did not, however, curtail his worship and offered it up [to God] with humility and submissiveness. Then he went forth, [N 91] rode off on his steed and endured the heat of battle and the bloodshed until he entered the town and cleansed the land of its impure filth. In one of that town’s towers some courageous men held out and fought against the sultan with true daring. The sultan ordered that firewood should be gathered together [I 38] round the tower. It was set on fire until the defenders were burnt alive and were reduced to ashes. The sultan retired to the royal tent in the best of spirits and with the happiest of minds. The army of Islam gained unlimited and immeasurable plunder. When night fell, a violent wind sprang up. There still remained some of the aforementioned fire that had been kindled. The wind swept it along and carried it on to the town, so that this last was totally burnt down. In the neighbourhood of that town there was another strongly-constructed fortress which the sultan also conquered. After this, the King of the Georgians sent envoys and presents, asked for a peace agreement to be made and prepared the way for his conduct to be excused (i.e. by the sultan). The amir Temür Ḥājib and Enük al-Khāṣṣ141 set out from the sultan’s court with the envoys of the Georgians, and the sultan wrote a letter to the Georgian king instructing him that he had no alternative but to accept the Islamic faith or be liable to the poll-tax ( jizya); the king agreed to pay the latter.142

[N 93] The Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq’s march from Georgia to Byzantium The sultan then headed for the Byzantine lands. He proceeded against the districts of Qārṣ (Kars) and [I 39] Ānī. In the vicinity of those two towns were two other places called T.s.l W.rda and Nūra.143 The people of these places came forth and accepted the doctrines of the faith (i.e. Islam). The sultan rejoiced immensely and was filled with joy at that. He ordered that they should all be circumcised, pulled down the churches and built mosques. The sultan did not linger anywhere until he came to the place Ānī. He found that its encircling walls were made up of lofty mountains, and on the summit of each mountain was an impregnable fortress. This place was the stronghold of the land of the Byzantines,144 and they kept their treasuries in those fortresses. The people of

32

The History of the Seljuq State

the city thought that the sultan and his troops were merchants, because they had never been face-to-face with any enemy army. [N 94] The sultan pitched his camp on the agricultural lands around that city. Some of the city’s cavalrymen who had the job of guarding the agricultural domains and the irrigation canals came forth with the aim of driving away the [Muslim] troops from the agricultural lands, but a detachment of the royal ghulāms rushed towards them, and the Byzantines retreated, filled with wonder. The sultan followed in their tracks until they went back inside the city. When the sultan had spied out and got the full measure of their territories, and the troops had done their utmost (i.e in pursuing their aim), [N 95] the Byzantines grew weaker and weaker and more and more faint-hearted. There were various views and opinions current amongst them. When they became fully aware of the sultan’s strength, they mounted to the summits of the mountains that formed the city’s defensive wall, and they hurled down wooden beams and bales of cloth145 on to the hillsides and mountain paths, and by means of this stratagem blocked access to the tops of the paths up the mountains. The sultan ordered naphtha-throwers (naff āṭūn) to set fire to those wooden baulks and bales of cloth. The Byzantines came down and agreed to hand over the poll-tax. The sultan appointed over them the ʿAmīd of Khurasan and the eunuch Shams until these two last had collected the poll-tax from them in an ignominious fashion.146 But then the Byzantines repented of having made this [I 40] peace agreement, and sallied forth to fight. A fierce battle took place. The sultan ordered sacks to be filled with straw and earth and to be piled up until they looked like hillocks. Troops operating ballistas, naphtha-throwers, archers using short-range arrows (al-ḥusbānāt wa ’l-marāsīl ) and men hurling spears scrambled up to their tops. The Byzantines selected every beautiful girl and every handsome youth from their city, sent them forward and made them stand in the sultan’s army camp, so that the need to take them captive would block the [Muslim] army from fighting. [N 96] However, the sultan ordered that all these should be rounded up and put into captivity. The sultan and his troops endured the fierceness of the battle, not paying any attention to eating, drinking and sleeping. The sultan then had a houselike structure constructed out of wood, with an awning covering it of felts soaked in vinegar, and they fought from on top of that. They prevented the Byzantines from climbing the walls and towers, destroying the supports of the walls. They entered the city, leaving its inhabitants to be trodden down by the hooves [of their mounts]. The sultan built a mosque there and in that city stationed a commander with troops.147 He set out for Isfahan and from there to Kirman. His brother Malik Qāwurd, son of Malik Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, came out to meet him and escort him into the city. Then he left Kirman for Khurasan, and then proceeded to Manqishlāq, where he besieged the amir Q.f.sh.t (Qïpchaq?) until he made him come down from the fortress by force majeure.148 But then he showed his favour to him and restored him to his fortress. He had a yearning to view the tomb of his forefather Amir Seljuq. He went towards Jand and Ṣabrān/Ṣawrān, where the Khan of Jand came out to meet him with many presents.149 [N 97] Then he returned to Gurgānj in Khwarazm, and appointed his son Arslān Arghūn as governor of Khwarazm.

Translation of the text 33 He set off for Merv and then [I 41] departed from it for Rāyikān.150 There he made his son Jalāl al-Dawla Malik Shāh his covenanted heir and bestowed robes of honour on all the amirs present on that occasion.151

[N 99] The Exalted Sultan Alp Arslān’s journey to Fars and Kirman for a second time Sultan Alp Arslān went towards Isfahan in 459 [/1067]. The Malik of Kirman, [Qāwurd] Qara Arslān, had a foolish vizier who encouraged the Malik of Kirman to rebel against the Sultan, so the Malik responded to his suggestion. The Sultan set out towards Kirman; the vanguards of the two armies clashed and the army of Kirman was put to flight. The Sultan gained his victory by inspiring fear, and his awesomeness had the same effect on their minds as his swords did on their bodies, hence they fled in terror (lit. ‘flew on the wings of fear’) and in utter confusion (lit. ‘their first did not stick to their last’). Malik Qara Arslān fled with two cavalrymen152 to Jīruft. Then he begged for the Sultan’s benevolence (lit. ‘sought for the rising, rain-bringing star of begging for a show of mercy’) and hoped for a vouchsafing of generosity and close relations (lit. ‘looked for a sign of generosity and propinquity’). He succeeded in getting this after showing repentance and seeking forgiveness for his sinful actions. He entered the Sultan’s presence, and the Sultan stood up and embraced him; he wept, and all those around him wept, and he entrusted to Qara Arslān the government of Kirman. Malik Qara Arslān said to him, ‘I have little daughters like the downy feathers of the sand grouse. You have the duty of making provision for them (i.e. of a dowry, etc.).’ The Sultan agreed to this and allotted to each of them from his treasury 100,000 dinars in addition to clothing, embroidered garments, grants of land (iqṭāʿāt) and money for joyful wedding celebrations (afrāḥ, text aqrāḥ). [N 100] The Sultan then set off along the road to Fars. When he reached Iṣṭakhr he captured its citadel, which Solomon, son of David, God’s blessings be upon him, had constructed.153 [I 42] He brought forth its lord just as white-footed gazelles are brought down from lofty mountains. The lord of the citadel presented the Sultan with a cup made of turquoise that had the name of Jamshīd written on it in the characters of ancient scripts. He extracted from the treasuries of that citadel what eye had not seen and ear had never heard and he despatched the lord of the citadel to another stronghold.154

[N 101] The story of Faḍlūn and the conquest of his stronghold Faḍlūn was the lord of Ganja and its dependencies.155 The vizier Niẓām al-Mulk set out for Faḍlūn’s lands. Faḍlūn came out to meet him and escort him back, kissed his stirrup and came back with him into the sultan’s presence. The sultan made over to Faḍlūn the governorship of Fars (?). There was there a fortress constructed out of stone, erected by God, such as no builder had ever built nor had any created being ever controlled it. So Faḍlūn shut himself up inside it, and Satan seduced and

34

The History of the Seljuq State

led him astray (lit. ‘Satan breathed into his nostrils and erected barriers at the beginning and end of his affairs’). Hence the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk marched to the foot of the fortress and kindled the fires of war. The defenders in the fortress loosed against Niẓām al-Mulk’s troops arrows that could pentrate iron, whilst Niẓām al-Mulk’s troops hurled at them stones and fired arrows at them. When it was midday, the occupants of the fortress asked for a guarantee of safe conduct (lit. ‘seized the handle of seeking for a guarantee of safe conduct’). People were astonished at this, and tried to find out the true state of affairs. The reason for this was that the water in the fortress’s wells had gone down within a single night, so that the exigencies of thirst drove them to seek a guarantee of safe conduct. [I 43] Faḍlūn took refuge in the heart of the fortress in a stoutly-built palace. The vizier [N 102] Niẓām al-Mulk instructed the amir Hazārasp, saying, ‘You are to go off with your cavalrymen and footsoldiers to Faḍlūn’s birthplace.’ So he proceeded there, sought out his close relatives and womenfolk and drove them along as domestic beasts are driven along and skinned them as hides are skinned. Faḍlūn was informed of that course of action, so he came down from the fortress together with his troops in order to interpose between Hazārasp and his kinsfolk. The scouts of the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk’s forces advanced to intercept him, so he dismounted and hid in the vegetation and bushes. A soldier from the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk’s forces seized him and dragged him along by his forelocks as a captive to Niẓām al-Mulk’s presence, and the latter ordered him to be imprisoned. The Exalted Sultan Alp Arslān was in Kirman, and saw in a dream that night that the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk had captured the fortress, compelled its defenders to surrender and seized Faḍlūn. When he awoke, he described his dream to those qualified to interpret dreams. They told him, ‘It’s a genuine dream, and its interpretation is what has actually happened.’ After a few days, there arrived a messenger from Niẓām al-Mulk bringing good news, and the vizier himself arrived at the sultan’s court with the captive Faḍlūn. The sultan forgave Faḍlūn, and Shaykh ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan al-Bākharzī wrote out the victory proclamation.156

[N 103] The Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān’s march to the Byzantine lands for a second time In the year 460 [/1068], the king of the Abkhāz, who was called Bagrat (Baqrāṭ),157 attacked Bardhaʿa, a town in the lands of the Muslims,158 so the sultan came to a firm decision to invade the lands of the Abkhāz.159 The commander, [I 44] the amir Sawtegin, was over the vanguard of the army. The king of Abkhāz’s army comprised the most courageous warriors of the land of Rūm (who are called the Faranj160) and the men of Shakkī. Shakkī is a region with a king called Akhsitān.161 The region of Shakkī is one of thickets and dense vegetation, in which are Rūmī and Abkhāzī brigands. The sultan ordered the naphtha-throwers to set fire to those thickets, and this was accordingly done. The sultan saw two fortresses constructed from iron plates and copper nails in the middle of those thickets; all efforts to reach them had failed, and the sultan was reduced to despair when he saw them directly. There existed an old-established hatred162 between the lord of those two

Translation of the text 35 fortresses and the king of Shakkī. [N 104] Hence the lord of the fortresses came forth, became a convert to Islam and handed over the fortresses. The sultan penetrated further into that region and spied out those lands, conquering strongholds and plundering the region until he gained from it booty which it would be wearisome to describe. The king of the Faranj, that is, the king of Shakkī, Akhsitān, came to the sultan’s court with a certain number of his cavalrymen and halted at the door. The sultan instructed [his men], ‘Help him dismount and escort him, in person, for he is a mighty monarch.’ When he dismounted and went into the sultan’s presence, he said, ‘I have been much afflicted by my erroneous conduct (lit. ‘error has scraped me as the skin is scraped’), and it is only the image in my mind of the Islamic faith and the severing of my bonds with Christianity and devotion to it which have impelled me to come to your royal presence.’ The sultan came down from his throne, went to meet him, embraced him and kissed his head, whilst the king kissed the sultan’s foot. They wept continuously and the fires of passionate emotion raged in their breasts. King Akhsitān proclaimed his acknowledgement of the declaration of faith that ‘There is no god but the One God, and Muḥammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, is His servant and His messenger.’ The sultan bestowed on Akhsitān jewels from his treasuries and made him ride on a mount by his side after lavishing on him beneficence and honour. [I 45] The amirs and ḥājibs went on foot before him until he was installed in a tent furnished with the luxury and comforts due to a monarch. The sultan sent to him a scholar learned in the religious law ( faqīh) who taught him the customs and practices of Islam, the worship and some sūras of the Qurʾān, and ordered that he should be circumcised. He designated him ruler over those lands. The sultan then marched against Bagrat (Baqrāṭīs), king of the Abkhāz, and gave his army free rein in killing and plundering within those lands until he reached the vicinity of Tiflis.163 He came across a bath-house there constructed by Solomon, son of David, over a muddy spring which was warm because of its hot water and needing no fire installed by it. It was the first bath-house ever constructed on earth. The wall surrounding Tiflis was forty cubits high164 with a corresponding width. There was a church in the city which was venerated by the Christians as is the Kaʿba by the Muslims. The sultan conquered the city and built a congregational mosque there. In the vicinity of Abkhāz there was a fortress known as ‘The Fortress of the Cross’, manned by courageous warriors who were fearless [N 105] in using spears and sword blades and were unconcerned at fighting against hero-like stalwarts. There were within the fortress many churches containing images of Jesus and Mary, peace be upon them, made of gold, and images of the Apostles made of silver, and a representation, made with gold, of the table sent down to Jesus. God Most High achieved the conquest of this stronghold through the efforts of Niẓām al-Mulk. All those riches fell to the Muslims as plunder, and the people [of the stronghold] became like chaff scattered by the winds. Bagrat sent an envoy to the sultan’s court seeking the benefit of his compassionate feelings, and the sultan responded to his request. But Bagrat then repented

36

The History of the Seljuq State

of his request for a safe conduct and was deluded by the seductions of Satan. A severe winter set in and snow fell continuously. The sultan waited till the weather became calmer and the snow melted. [I 46] Bagrat sought for a safe conduct a second time, but the sultan categorically rejected his machinations (lit. ‘threw his machinations back in his throat’) and made him taste the consequences. Bagrat fitted out an army, but it perished from the winter cold, and they were enveloped with calamity and hardship. The sultan then laid waste the town where Nimrod, son of Canaan, had once lived and from which he ascended to Heaven.165 In its vicinity, the sultan built a [new] town and a mosque.166 The sultan remained in Georgia (Gurjistān) for five months. [N 106] He was informed that the Khāqān of the Turks had died and that the affairs of that land and its territories had fallen into confusion.167 So he returned to Ganja, continuing on to Bardhaʿa. He crossed the Araxes, which is like the Oxus [in width], without the aid of any ships or seamen. He reached a village called W.r.yān.s where an aged and experienced old man (lit. ‘Time had eaten and drunk over him’) came forth to meet the sultan and greeted him. He said that he was a Muslim who had accepted the faith at the hands of the Commander of the Faithful al-Muʿtaṣim when the latter had passed through that place. The vizier Niẓām al-Mulk questioned him about the usages and precepts of Islam and found him knowledgeable about them. Trustworthy persons of that land, both Muslim and Christian, bore witness that this old man had had a varied and eventful life and that he was more veracious than a sand grouse and Abū Dharr. The sultan showed him honour and made much of him, directed his mount towards him and gave him 1,000 dinars. He then returned to Fars and celebrated the ʿĪd there.

[N 107] The Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān’s march against the Byzantine king Romanus (Armānūs) for a second time and his taking him captive168 In 463 [/1070–71] Sultan Alp Arslān passed through Syria, [I 47] appointing his son as his deputy, with a body of his troops, in the district of Aleppo. He crossed the Euphrates river on horseback (lit. ‘with the hooves of finely-bred horses’) without using ships and river boats and reached the vicinity of Khoy and Salmās.169 It reached his ears that the Byzantine ruler had entrusted his kingdom to a man from [N 108] the progeny of the Christian kings and had fitted out for himself an army of over 300,000 cavalrymen and foot soldiers. The Byzantines offered up to the sultan the best of their sons (lit. ‘threw at the sultan pieces of their livers’), and the earth yielded up its burdens of persons and of arms and equipment. Elements from the rabbles (awbāsh) of the Byzantines, the Armenians, the Persians, the Pechenegs (al-Bajanāk), the Oghuz (al-Ghuzz) and the (?) Franks (al-Faranj) came together under this monarch.170 Through them, strife (reading, with I, al-fitan for the manuscript’s al-ʿayn) became widespread (lit. ‘stretched out its forearms’) and the Christian faith was elevated through their coming together. They swore an oath that they would expel the caliph (sc. from Baghdad) and set up the Catholicos171 in his place, destroy the mosques and build churches in their stead.

Translation of the text 37 The sultan accordingly sent a message to his wife and to his vizier Niẓām al-Mulk, informing them that ‘I am going towards the enemy with all these forces here with me. If I am preserved safe and sound, that will be an act of God Most High’s favour; but if [N 109] I become a martyr in battle, that will be an act of mercy from Him. My successor will be my son Malik Shāh’. The sultan had with him 15,000 courageous cavalrymen, each one with a horse to ride.172 The caliph, the Commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh, had ordered that a [special] prayer should be read out from the pulpits. He made a copy of the prayer and gave it to the khaṭībs. It had been composed by Abū Saʿd (text, Saʿīd) Ibn [al-]Mawṣilāyā 173 and its text was: O God, raise the banner of Islam and its helper, and refute polytheism by severing its withers and cutting its ropes. Give aid to those warriors (mujāhidīn) striving in Your path who have yielded up their lives in obedience to You, have successfully covenanted their life blood with You and have benefitted from the help by which their contract of allegiance [to You] is extended, and fill their abodes with victory and security. Grant to Sultan [I 48] Alp Arslān, the Proof of the Commander of the Faithful, the help by which his banners will be illuminated and the attainment of his desires will be facilitated. Confer on him joyful and long-lasting support (lit. ‘support the one whose front teeth/mouth are/is smiling and whose markets and fairs are permanently flourishing’) that will strengthen his hand for the glorifying of Your religion and ensure for him a doubling of his efforts today against the unbelievers on the morrow. Give aid to his troops through Your angels and make his decisions to be linked with good fortune and a successful outcome, for he has given up rest for the noble way of pleasing You. He has expended his wealth and his own life in following the paths of Your commands which he has imitated and pursued. For You speak and Your word is truth: ‘O you who have believed, shall I indicate to you a transaction that will save you from a painful punishment? You are to have faith in God and His Messenger and to strive in the way of God with your worldly goods and your life’.174 [N 110] O God, just as he (sc. the sultan) has responded to Your call and hastened to fulfil it, has avoided sluggishness in endeavouring to defend the Sharīʿa and has accomplished that endeavour, has encountered Your enemies personally and face-to-face, has worked day and night (lit. ‘has joined his today with his yesterday’) for the upholding of Your religion, single him out therefore for victory and help him achieve his aims through Your judgement and decree by endowing him with a protection which will ward off from him all the enemy’s wiles, one which will surround him with the strongest possible backing from Your beautiful attributes and which will facilitate for him every aim he attempts and every quest that he tries to attain and in which he perseveres. so that his auspicious rising may gleam brightly with victory and the eye of the polytheists may not see the ways of righteousness through their persistence in error.

38

The History of the Seljuq State O assemblies of Muslims, make your supplications to the God Most High with pure intention, sincere resolution, submissive hearts and true convictions delighting in the gardens of purity. For God, He is praised and exalted, says: ‘Say [to them], my Lord would not concern Himself with you were it not for your prayer.’175 Contrive [I 49] to implore God Almighty to exalt his (sc. the sultan’s) side, blunt the sword blades of his opponents, raise high his banner, grant him victory to the utmost and extreme limit, make difficulties easy for him and abase polytheism before him.176

The sultan drew near to the king of Byzantium at a place called al-Rahwa177 between Akhlāṭ and Malāzgird on Wednesday, 15 Dhu ’l-Qaʿda 463 [14 August 1071].178 The sultan sent a message to him regarding a peace agreement,179 but he replied that a peace agreement would only be reached at Ray.180 [N 111] The sultan was perturbed at that, but his imām and faqīh Abū Naṣr Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Malik al-Bukhārī al-Ḥanafī told him, ‘You are fighting for God’s religion, and I am hopeful that God Most High will have written this victory in your name. So encounter them in battle on Friday at the time when the khaṭībs will be in their pulpits praying that the warriors for the faith will gain the victory over the unbelievers, for [such] prayer is bound to be answered.’ The sultan accordingly waited till the Friday at the time when the khuṭba would be delivered by the preacher, and he pronounced the words of Almighty God, ‘Victory comes only from God.’181 The sultan said, ‘It may be that, if amongst the preachers someone then says at the end of his khuṭba, “O God, help the armies and contingents of the Muslims,” God will fulfil the intention and desires of the warriors for the faith ( ghuzāt) by virtue of his prayers.’ The vizier Niẓām al-Mulk returned to Hamadan in order to defend Iraq (i.e. western Persia), Khurasan and Mazandaran from malcontents and evildoers. The sultan threw himself into places where danger lurked and said (i.e. to his troops), ‘Those who want to go back can do so, for there is no holder of power here who orders or forbids except God.’ He threw down his bow and arrow,182 took up his sword and fastened up the tail of his horse [I 50] with his own hand, and made all his troops do the same. When the two armies met, the Byzantines dug a trench around their army, and the sultan commented, ‘By God, they’re as good as defeated, for digging a trench round themselves, in spite of their great number, is a sign of their cowardice and weakness.’ The Byzantine emperor set up a stately marquee ( fusṭāṭ) of red satin, a tent (khayma) like it and tents (akhbiyāʾ) of silk brocade.183 He sat down on a throne of gold, above which was a golden cross set with priceless jewels, and before him was a host of monks and priests reciting the Gospel. The two opposing sides clashed on Friday at a time when the khaṭīb of the Muslims had mounted the pulpit and when there arose the sounds of the Qurʾān being recited and the drums of the sultan’s army, [N 112] and the sounds of bells184 from the Byzantine army. Strong, dusty winds blew up that blinded the eyes of the Muslims and the sultan’s army was on the point of being put to flight. The sultan dismounted from his horse, prostrated himself before God Most High and cried,

Translation of the text 39 O God, I have put my trust in You and through this holy war ( jihād ) have drawn near to You, rubbed my face in the dust before You and smeared it with my life’s blood. My eyes are flowing copiously with tears from weeping, and the sides of my neck are exuding blood. If You know that what is in my innermost mind is different from what I am saying with my tongue, then consign me and the helpers and ghulāms who are with me to destruction. [But] if my innermost thoughts accord with my outward utterances, then help me in holy war against the enemy, grant to me from Your divine presence a sustaining power and make what is difficult easy for me. He kept on repeating this supplication and weeping until the direction of the winds became reversed and they blinded the eyes of the infidels. The Divine Decree uprooted the tree of iniquity, cut off the nose of error185 and effaced the traces of the Christians: ‘You will see the people as drunk, yet they will not be drunk in reality.’186 [I 51] The dust of the battle was dispelled when the sun grew yellow (i.e. towards sunset),187 and the Byzantine king was taken prisoner (lit. ‘the hand of captivity and destruction encircled the king’). How exactly that happened is as follows. A horse belonging to one of the royal ghulāms wandered off and its owner went after it. He came across a horse with a bridle set with jewels and a golden saddle, and a man sitting by the horse with a golden helmet and a coat of mail interwoven with gold before him. The ghulām was about to kill him when the man said to him, ‘I am the Emperor of Byzantium; don’t kill me, for killing kings brings ill luck.’ So the ghulām tied his hands and dragged him along to the sultan’s army camp. When the captive Byzantines saw him, they all rubbed their foreheads in the dust (i.e. as a mark of humiliation). A messenger brought the good news to the sultan’s presence when the latter was performing the sunset worship. The emperor was brought before the sultan, and the ḥājibs seized him by the plaited locks of his hair and the opening of his tunic and were pulling him down to the ground for him to kiss it. But he refused to kiss the ground before the sultan because of his being seduced by his exalted idea [N 113] of kingship and royal pride. The sultan said, ‘Leave him, it’s enough for him to have seen this day.’ Saʿd al-Dawla Gawhar-āyīn188 owned a slave soldier (mamlūk) whom he had given as a present to the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk, but the latter sent him back, would not look at him and considered him to be insignificant. Saʿd al-Dawla tried hard to make Niẓām al-Mulk regard the mamlūk favourably, but the vizer said, ‘What good is he likely to be? Perhaps he’ll bring us the Byzantine king, the Emperor, as a prisoner!’ Yet it happened just as the Vizier had said, and the ghulām came into the sultan’s presence on the day of the battle and brought in the Byzantine monarch as a prisoner. The sultan ordered that he should be put in fetters, and asked the ghulām what he would like. The ghulām asked for the felicitous grant of Ghazna, so he bestowed it on him.189 I heard the merchant, the Khwāja Imām Musharraf al-Shīrāzī say, when on the bank of the Oxus opposite Darghān190 and when we were on our way to Khwarazm: I heard from my elders that, when Sultan Alp Arslān’s army [I 52] and the

40

The History of the Seljuq State

Byzantine army fought each other, the Byzantine king sent an envoy to the sultan, telling him, ‘I have come [to fight] you with an army which you cannot withstand. If you submit to me, I will grant you from my territories that which will be sufficient for you and you will be safe from any attack or harm from me. But if you don’t do that, I have with me an army of 300,000 cavalrymen and footsoldiers and 14,000 carts loaded with chests of money and weapons. Not a single one of the Muslim troops can stand up to me, and none of their cities and strongholds will remain closed to me.’ [N 114] When the sultan heard this message, the glory of Islam rose within him and the pride of kingship stirred in his breast. He said to the envoy, ‘Tell your master, it’s not you who have sought me out but it is God, to Whom be praise, Who has brought you to me and has made you and your troops a meal for the Muslims. You are my prisoner and slave. Some of your troops are going to be killed by me and others made my prisoners. All of your treasury is going to become my possession and property. So stand firm for the encounter and prepare for the fight, for you will see that your troops are necks which will be driven towards the one who will strike them off and your treasury will be brought to the one who will plunder it.’ The next morning, the battle took place between the two sides and everything that the sultan had said came to pass, with God’s help and favour. When the king was brought to the sultan’s threshhold, the king of Byzantium said to the interpreter, ‘Ask the sultan to restore me to the seat of my royal authority before the Byzantines can rally round another king who will proclaim open hostility and war against us, who will teach the book of enmity and show forth the page of rebelliousness, whereas I will be more submissive to you than your slaves. I will undertake to hand over to you each year a million dinars as poll-tax.’ The sultan acceded to his request after the slave merchants had displayed him for sale in the markets. [I 53] The sultan set him free, and awarded robes of honour to him and to all those captives who had remained with him. The king returned to his seat of government and stayed faithful to what he had undertaken.191 [N 115] A letter of congratulation on this victory and conquest reached Sultan Alp Arslān from the Commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh, addressing him formally as ‘The son, the most exalted, divinely-supported, heavenly assisted, victorious lord, the most mighty sultan, the one possessing power over the Arabs and non-Arabs, lord of the monarchs of the nations, the light of religion, the one giving aid to the Muslims, the support of the Imām, the refuge of mankind, the strong arm of the victorious state, the crown of the respendent religious community, the sultan of the Muslim lands, the proof of the Commander of the Faithful, may God protect and make smooth his way and increase him in divine blessings.’

[N 117] The Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Abū Shujāʿ Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq’s march to Samarqand and his finding a martyr’s death there The occasion of the death of this mighty sultan, in spite of his great military power, was that he set out at the beginning of 465 [/mid-September 1072] and

Translation of the text 41 crossed the Oxus river on a bridge (i.e. of boats) which he had constructed. He was accompanied by 100,000 mounted warriors as well as the body of auxiliary troops (or, perhaps, “impressed labourers, corvée, ḥashar), the ghulāms and the general mass of troops, and he intended to attack Shams al-Mulūk, the lord of Ṭamghāj.192 The sultan’s retainers brought to him [N 118] a member of the stronghold’s garrison called Yūsuf al-Khwārazmī.193 The sultan intended to kill him on account of the crimes he had committed, so he ordered [I 54] that four stakes should be pegged out for the victim and the extremities of his limbs fastened to them. Yūsuf said to him, ‘Is this the way you kill people, O effeminate one (mukhannath)?’ The sultan was enraged. He took up his bow and arrows and instructed the two guards holding Yūsuf to free him. The sultan shot at him but missed, even though this was the only time he ever missed his mark. Yūsuf rushed at the sultan whilst the latter was seated. He arose and came down (i.e. from his seat) but stumbled and fell on his face. Yūsuf had [by this time] come up to him. He fell upon the sultan and stabbed him in the loins with a dagger. Saʿd al-Dawla Gawhar-āyīn was standing there. Yūsuf inflicted several wounds on the sultan and did not let up. One of the sultan’s personal attendants ( farrāsh), an Armenian, grabbed him, struck him on the head with an iron bar (or: mallet) and killed him, and the Turks came up successively and hacked him to pieces with their swords. The sultan said [to his retainers], ‘I have never purposed anything or gone to attack an enemy without seeking God’s help in it. But when I climbed up a hill yesterday, the earth trembled beneath me because of the great size of my army, and I said to myself, “I’m the monarch of the world, and no one can achieve anything against me!” [N 119] As a result, His Divine Decree has abandoned me, but [now] I seek His help and ask forgiveness for those presumptuous thoughts.’ The sultan lived for three more days after that incident, and died on Saturday, the last day of Rabīʿ I 465 [/30 December 1072], having had a reign of ten years. His sons were Malik Shāh, Tekish, Ayāz, Tutush, Böri Bars and Arslān Arghūn. He was a man of good conduct, incisive, pious, just, equitable, triumphant in his wars and involved in numerous campaigns against the infidels and in holy warfare. He used to slaughter fifty sheep daily, and he used to have food cooked and the poor fed each day, that in addition to the customary amount allotted for the tables feeding the amirs and the troops. [I 55] He bequeathed the sultanate to his son Malik Shāh. His life span was forty years and two months. He was buried at Merv at the side of his father and his uncle. He adjured his vizier Niẓām al-Mulk to give his obedience to his son Malik Shāh, making him take an oath of fealty to him and making his troops do likewise.194

[N 121] The reign of the Exalted Sultan Jalāl al-Dawla Abu ’l-Fatḥ Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq He was, may God have mercy on him, the linchpin (lit. ‘the connecting link of the necklace’) of the Seljuq monarchs. He was famed for his felicitousness in making decisions of state and his administrative skill in exercising firm control over the

42

The History of the Seljuq State

regions of the world. [God bestowed on him] what he never gave to any monarch before or after him. It was an especially great piece of good fortune that his father’s last journey, in which he was killed, was the only one on which he ever accompanied him. His father lingered on until he was able to commend him to the army and make them take the oath of allegiance to him. The Exalted Sultan Malik Shāh then returned to Merv and took up the reins of government in his own hands (lit. ‘the face of the realm began to look to him for his orders and prohibitions’). The kings of outlying regions gave him their obedience and received from him the assistance and kindness that they welcomed. He wrote a letter to his paternal uncle Qāwurd, son of Malik Dāwūd, calculated to delight the heart and dispel sorrow. [I 56] Sharaf al-Mulk Abū Saʿd al-Khwārazmī, the head of the accounting department (mustawf ī ),195 said to Niẓām al-Mulk, ‘It would be more appropriate and wiser to stay at Nishapur, since it is the key point (lit. ‘the chief link in the necklace’) of Khurasan and was the military base for past rulers and the House of Sāmān.’ So the sultan came to Nishapur on Friday, [N 122] 16 Rabīʿ II [4]65 [/30 December 1072]. The Exalted Sultan Malik Shāh took out immense sums of money from the citadel of Nishapur and used it to win over the hearts of the amirs of the army and of the army at large (or: of the auxiliary troops, ḥasham). Now when the news of his brother Sultan Alp Arslān’s death reached Malik Qāwurd’s ear, he moved from Oman to Kirman, crossing the sea (i.e. the Gulf of Oman). Many ships were shattered to pieces and the greater part of his troops perished [in the crossing]. He wrote to Sultan Malik Shāh, ‘I am the elder brother (i.e. of Alp Arslān) and you are his youthful son, hence I have more right than you to be Sultan Alp Arslān’s heir.’ Sultan Malik Shāh wrote back in reply, ‘A brother doesn’t inherit when there’s a son.’ The amir Temürak,196 son of the amir Farrukh-shāh, also wrote to Malik Qāwurd, the ruler of Kirman, saying, ‘Your kingly power, your status, your grip on your realm and your ruling authority should not mislead you: God Most High has bound our hearts together in obedience to your nephew. Don’t listen to idle talk from your troops, and be aware that a chick cannot stand up to a cock.’ The vizier Niẓām al-Mulk [also] wrote a letter to Malik Qāwurd full of admonition and good counsels which would guide him on the rightful path and make clear for him the correct way. But the sultan sprang into action and got busy; he saddled his horse, rode out breathing fire and slaughter (lit. ‘nursing hatred’) and bridled his steed. Malik Qāwurd went towards Isfahan whilst Sultan Malik Shāh went towards Ray. The commander, Amir Sawtegin, attacked Malik Qāwurd’s vanguard, routed and scattered them to the wind. The two armies clashed together [N 123] outside Hamadan on [I 57] Wednesday, 26 Jumādā I 466 [/27 January 1074].197 Amir Sawtegin commanded the Sultan’s right wing and Temürak his left wing. Malik Qāwurd had seven of his sons with him, some stationed on his right wing and some on his left, whilst some remained with their father in the centre. Malik Qāwurd assumed that, when his brother Sultan Alp Arslān’s troops came face-to-face with him, they would go over to his side. But things turned out the opposite of that and he repented in the same way as al-Kusaʿī [proverbially] did.198 The Amir al-ʿArab Muslim b. Quraysh, with his force of auxiliary troops (ḥasham),

Translation of the text 43 led an attack on Malik Qāwurd’s left flank, and the army of Kirman took to flight. The amir Temürak captured Malik Qāwurd in the mountains around Hamadan. Malik Qāwurd promised Temürak grants of land (iqṭāʿāt) and riches (i.e to procure his release), but the amir Temürak replied, ‘You are the lord and we are the slaves, and it’s not within our power to make any decision regarding you according to our personal wishes. Come along with me to the sultan’s presence, for he is the one with the power to make decisions.’ So Malik Qāwurd was taken along to Sultan Malik Shāh, who came forth. [N 124] When the royal cavalcade and ceremonial parasol (chatr) came in sight, Malik Qāwurd dismounted, touched the ground with his forehead and rolled in the dust before the sultan. The bond of kinship kindled the fires of mercy in the sultan’s breast (lit ‘entrails and ribs’) and his eyes grew suffused and red with tears. He told the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk,‘I’m not going to sever the ties of kinship and disregard family ties; a man’s paternal uncle is in the same position as his own father.’ But the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk replied, ‘Royal power recognizes no family ties.199 Qāwurd regards you with an eye which considers your existence a mote in it, and he only professes friendship with a heart which intends harm against you because of your royal power. If he got power over you, mercy and the claims of kinship would not affect him in any dealings with you.’ However, the sultan said to him, ‘Is there any worse transaction on the face of the earth [I 58] than a person cutting off his right hand with his left, and who kills his uncle who is as close to him as his own father?’ So Malik Qāwurd was held captive in the amir Sawtegin’s tent. Then ʿAmīd Abū Riḍā went into Qāwurd’s presence and demanded from him the keys of his treasuries and indications on the whereabouts of his hidden treasures. Malik Qāwurd told him, The land of Kirman is limited in its geographical extent; its tax revenues are small and its population sickly. All the riches and treasure that I have there are intended as a present from me to one of the sultan’s ghulāms. Set me free so that I may go to the land of Oman and be an obedient uncle and devoted father to the sultan. I know that my honour is lost and I can never recover it (lit. ‘the water of my face has sunk into the earth and I can never find it again’). But his message was never communicated to the sultan lest he set him free, and they strangled Qāwurd to death.200 The Sultan fasted during Ramaḍān of this year at Isfahan, and expended a great deal of money in alms for the poor and for persons known for their piety, and he released prisoners from captivity. He entrusted the province of Fars to the amir Rukn al-Dawla Qutlughtegin, and the lands of Oman and Kirman to the sons of Malik Qāwurd, [N 125] presenting them with robes of honour which filled them with delight and won over their hearts. The sultan then returned to Ray, where news of the death of his brother Ayāz arrived from Balkh. So he bestowed a robe of honour on [another] brother of his, Shihāb al-Dawla Malik Tekish, and appointed him governor of Balkh and Ṭukhāristān.

44

The History of the Seljuq State

During this time, there arrived envoys from Sultan Ibrāhīm, the ruler of Ghazna, bringing presents and gifts and seeking the hand in marriage of Sultan Malik Shāh’s daughter. Sultan Malik Shāh assented to this, and his daughter Gawhar-Mulk, who [subsequently] had the honorific title of Mahd al-ʿIrāq ‘Bride from Western Persia’, was married to Sultan Masʿūd b. Ibrāhīm. She acquired that honorific title because the sultan sent her to Ghazna from Ray.201 [I 59] The sultan set out from Ray for Gurgān, but then an envoy arrived at his court from his paternal uncle, who was known by the title of Amīr al-Umarāʾ ‘Supreme Commander’, conveying the uncle’s yearning and strong desire to see the sultan and his passionate wish to talk with him, and saying, ‘If only he could ride to us on the wings of the wind, then he’d appreciate the night journey the next morning.’ The sultan accordingly set out for Sarakhs [N 126] and Bādghīs. The Amīr al-Umarāʾ, whose personal name was ʿUthmān, son of Malik Dāwūd, reached the sultan’s court. He was about to kiss the ground (i.e. in front of the sultan), but the ḥājibs prevented him from doing that. The sultan came down from his dais (sarīr), embraced him and made him sit beside him on the dais. He went to great lengths in treating him with honour and respect, and entrusted to him the governorship of Walwālij. He was given the honorary form of address as al-Malik al-Muʾayyad Rukn al-Dīn, and the sultan granted him the privilege of having a personal band for fanfares and ceremonial occasions (marāsim al-nawba) and of bearing a black ceremonial parasol (chatr). The sultan also bestowed the governorship of the province of Herat and the regions of Ghūr and Gharchistān on his brother Böri Bars.202 The Khāqān203 wrote a letter to Sultan Malik Shāh which had two flavours, one sweet and the other bitter. The essence of the letter was that The town of Tirmidh and its fortress form part of Transoxania, so the ruling power there ought to be that of governors appointed by the Qarakhanids (al-Khāqāniyya). This will make firm the cordial relations and strengthen the bonds of friendship, thereby making many much-desired things a reality, and making possible the achievement of many laudable aims. But the contents of the letter also included ominous words about the comingdown of swords and the piercing effect of arrows. [N 127] The Exalted Sultan Malik Shāh rode out with an army which made the earth almost quake until he reached Balkh. The city notables and most eminent of the leading sayyids came out to meet him and escort him back. They complained of the Qarakhanids’ oppression, telling him that they continually faced devastating raids and mindless, random acts of violence from the troops of Transoxania, and that the Qarakhanids were a gang who frequently caused harm by breaking agreements and infringing treaties. [I 60] Meanwhile, a messenger arrived bringing the good news of the birth of a son to the sultan, about whom astrological prognostications said that he would rule the whole earth from one end of it to the other. The sultan had the idea of honouring his forebear (sc. Ṭoghrïl Beg Muḥammad) by calling his son Muḥammad Alp Arslān; this was [the future] Sultan Muḥammad.204

Translation of the text 45 An envoy arrived from the Khāqān bearing an iron-bound hooked staff (miqmaʿa) weighing fifty manns and a sword weighing ten manns, and he announced, ‘O sultan, the Khāqān tells you that we fight, or rather play, with this sword which penetrates and goes deeply when it strikes an armoured breastplate, and an iron-bound staff which does not distinguish [in its effect] between a coat of iron mail and a crop to be harvested.’ The sultan remained silent for a while and then ordered the leading commanders of the army to be summoned. He rode out into the desert, took up the staff, whirled it round his head seven times and threw it eighty paces. He took the sword, struck the neck of a she-camel with it, dislocating its vertebrae. Then he took up a bow and shot the camel with it. He said to the envoy, ‘Tell the Khāqān, you have your iron-bound staff, and we have our cudgel (miqraʿa); and you have your sword whilst we have our bow!’ He sent him the bow by hand of his envoy, the latter accompanied by Nūshtegin al-Maʿmarī. When al-Maʿmarī reached the outskirts of Samarqand, there was presented to him a wild, uncontrollable horse from the Khāqān’s riding animals, one that no one had tried to ride without getting killed by it; al-Maʿmarī [successfully] rode it and kept it to the ground (i.e. prevented it from rearing up and unseating him). He rode up to the Khāqān’s palace safe and sound [N 128] and delivered the message. He placed the bow before the Khāqān, but the latter was unable to string it, let alone shoot an arrow with it. He felt ashamed, just as an impotent man is ashamed in the presence of a beautiful girl. He despatched his brother to the citadel of Tirmidh, where he fortified himself within it. In Muḥarram 467 [/August–September 1074], the sultan, accompanied by the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk, proceeded to Tirmidh. [I 61] The poorer-quality troops (awbāsh) of the army filled up the surrounding moat and set up ballistas against the citadel. The defenders sought for a guarantee of safe conduct and the sultan granted them this. However, two ghulāms quarrelled over the collecting of arrows when the embers of war had been extinguished, so warfare broke out again and displayed to them its momentous signs. The defenders of the citadel were made captive and yoked together in fetters. But the sultan bestowed on them his forgiveness and released them, and the fortress returned to the control of the Exalted Sultan Malik Shāh. He gave a robe of honour to the Khāqān’s brother, and instructed the commander, the amir Sawtegin, to repair the citadel and put it into good order. The amir Mīkāʾīl set out heading the vanguard of the sultan’s army and encamped at the gate of Samarqand. The Khāqān sought refuge in his government headquarters, his plans all awry and like a fire-stick unable to produce a spark. The sultan returned to Balkh, and entrusted the government of Khurasan to his brother Malik Shihāb al-Dawla Tekish, and himself left for Ray.205

[N 129] The death of the Commander of the Faithful al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh on 12 Shaʿbān 467 [/2 April 1075] His caliphate lasted for forty-four years, eight months and twenty days, and his lifespan was seventy-five years, eight months and eight days. [I 62] His viziers were: the Raʾīs al-Ruʾasāʾ Abu ’l-Qāsim Ibn al-Muslima, whom Arslān al-Basāsīrī

46

The History of the Seljuq State

killed, as recorded previously;206 then he appointed Fakhr al-Dawla Abū Naṣr Muḥammad Ibn Jahīr.207 Al-Qāʾim’s conduct and way of life, may God be pleased with him, was as follows. He was a knowledgeable person, concerned with literature and polite learning, forbearing, kindly, of sound [N 130] faith, full of good intentions, learned, just, pious and imbued with a great fear of God Most High.208 His verses handed down include the following: 1. May rain which pours down continuously water our nights on the tops of the hills! 2. We passed sleepless nights, just like passionate lovers, and we told that which God does not like, ‘Go to sleep!’ 3. I am not afraid of people finding out [about my love] when the Lord of Mankind knows [everything about me].209 He appointed as his successor al-Muqtadī, sc. Abu ’l-Qāsim ʿUbayd Allāh b. al-Dhakhīra Muḥammad b. al-Qāʾim b. al-Qādir b. Isḥāq b. al-Muqtadir b. al-Muʿtaḍid, and his mother was an Armenian slave concubine. Allegiance was given to him as caliph on the same day that his grandfather al-Qāʾim bi-amr Allāh passed away, with the amirs, leading figures and sharīfs hailing his accession. He then came forth and led the people in the afternoon worship. The funeral bier of his grandfather was brought in and he offered up prayers over him, and he was buried in the room that he used to keep for his private use. The caliphate became stable and firmly based under al-Muqtadī bi-amr Allāh, and his personal position became strong. Baghdad grew flourishing and populous in his time and regained its former eminence. The khuṭba was pronounced in his name in Yemen, Syria and Jerusalem, and it was during his reign that the Muslims regained Edessa and Antioch from possession by the Byzantines. Al-Muqtadī was a person of lofty aspirations, inspiring awe and personally courageous; the dignity and splendour of the caliphate was firmly established because of the awe he inspired.

[I 63, N 131] Mention of the revolt of Malik Shihāb al-Dawla Tekish b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq The sultan returned in 467 [/1074–75] to Murghāb in the vicinity of Herat. The Amīr al-Umarāʾ and his close kindred came to the sultan’s court. The vizier and the great men of the state came out to meet them and escort them back, and the sultan bestowed on them robes of honour. Malik Shihāb al-Dawla Tekish also came to the sultan’s court. Because of his kinship, Tekish received appropriate respect through robes of honour and a lavish welcome, and then he returned to Balkh. The sultan instructed the commander Amir Sawtegin to set off at the head of the army’s vanguard towards Balkh on account of a second attempt by the Khāqān Shams al-Mulk to fan the flames of estrangement and embark on hostilities (lit.

Translation of the text 47 ‘awaken the eyelids of enmity’). He advanced at a violent pace, and the two armies met on the banks of the Oxus. The Khāqān Shams al-Mulk seized control of the citadel of Tirmidh and killed there the Ispahbadh of Kabūd-Jāma.210 [But later] the citadel was recovered by the sultan’s forces and the Qarakhanid troops were defeated, but could not find any way of flight. The sultan [himself ] set out to confront Shams al-Mulk, and the camp fires of the two armies were visible opposite to each other in the vicinity of Nakhshab. Malik Shihāb al-Dawla Tekish came to the sultan’s presence [N 132] and made firm once more the compacts and agreements (i.e. that he had made on his previous visit).211 The sultan returned to Ray and set off, with Syria as his destination. The Turks entered Antioch.212 The sultan came to the land of Arrān and Abkhāz. An envoy from the Byzantine king arrived with such an amount of wealth [I 64] that the treasurers had been weighed down with the burden, and the sultan’s treasury (dīwān) became hard put to count it. The sultan then returned to [N 133] the region of Aleppo. [Meanwhile,] Malik Shihab al-Dawla Tekish had revealed himself as treacherous and Satan’s wiles had become attractive to him, leading him into rebellion and hostilities (lit. ‘until he rode the mount of rebellion and climbed the uplands of enmity’). The sultan hurriedly traversed the distance between Aleppo and Nishapur in ten days, with only a hundred of his cavalrymen left with him. Malik Shihāb al-Dawla Tekish had fortified himself within Tirmidh. The sultan forced him to come forth from it, and God gave him his just desserts and hastened his fated death.213 Thus the citadel was conquered three times by Sultan Malikshāh.

[N 135] The birth of the Exalted Sultan Muʿizz al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Abu ’l-Ḥarith Sanjar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, Yamīn Amīr al-Muʾminīn He was born on Friday, 25 Rajab 477 [/27 November 1084] in the town of Sinjār in the lands of al-Jazīra. It has been found in a certain book recorded on the authority of Ḥudhayfa b. al-Yamān,214 from the Messenger of God, that the latter said, ‘A man will come forth at the end of time and will head towards the Oxus bank. [I 65] He will march out of the East at the head of an immense army and will put to flight the ruler of Khurasan and the Kitan Turks.215 He will be a swarthy-faced man, with a big belly and head and a stentorian voice, with smallpox marks, and one or two moles on his right hand. He will dominate Khurasan, [N 136] and his name will be that of a town in al-Jazīra.216 He will make his base at Merv, and his cavalrymen and footsoldiers will seize him. Nevertheless, he will subdue kings, but then mighty armies from the East and from China will march against him, and after that his royal authority will be enfeebled, and after him confusion and chaos will reign in Khurasan.’

[N 137] The Exalted Sultan Jalāl al-Dawla Abu ’l-Fatḥ Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān’s march into Transoxania for a second time The Khāqān Shams al-Mulk made things difficult for himself. His hopes were dashed and he followed the ways of delusion.217 Hence the sultan marched into

48

The History of the Seljuq State

Transoxania in 481 [/1088–89] and encamped outside Kashghar.218 The Byzantine envoy arrived with money in payment of the jizya when the sultan was [still] in Isfahan. Niẓām al-Mulk gave him suitable hospitality but did not grant his requests and did not let him return to his own land until the sultan encamped at the gate of Kashghar. The vizier Niẓām al-Mulk then allowed the Byzantine envoy to depart, saying, ‘It should be set down in the historical chronicles that the Byzantine envoy returned home from the sultan’s court at the gate of Kashghar after having handed over the jizya.’ [I 66] The Khāqān of Kashghar sent an envoy to the sultan bearing many gifts and presents [N 138] and seeking the sultan’s pardon and forgiveness. He had told the envoy to say to the sultan, The passing days have bowed down their necks before you and the lands of the world have opened their ways to you. Hence it will not harm you if one of the ancient ruling families remains in power in the lands of the world, and if you view favourably, may one of the daughters of your slaves (i.e. of himself) marry one of your sons? We are one of your slaves and servants. The vizier Niẓām al-Mulk said to the sultan, ‘The Khāqān has dealt fairly with you, and proof of his speaking honestly has become clear.’ The Khāqān himself came to the sultan’s court, kissed the ground before his throne and [in return] received beneficence and kindness whose record will remain for all time. He returned to his own kingdom highly honoured and distinguished in status.219

[N 139] The murder of the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk Qiwām al-Dīn Khwāja-yi Buzurg Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Isḥāq, Raḍī Amīr al-Muʾminīn When al-Ḥasan b. al-Sabbāḥ took refuge in the fortress of Alamūt, Niẓām al-Mulk blocked the ways to the fortress with troops after Ibn al-Sabbāḥ’s outbreak had become more serious, its evil effects had spread and its harmfulness had become extensive.220 Two men slipped out of the fortress with their horses’ shoes [N 140] reversed, so that the army besieging the fortress assumed that they had in fact gone into the fortress. Niẓām al-Mulk came out of the bath-house and was sitting in a roofed litter. [I 67] One of these two men came up to him as if he was a petitioner complaining of evildoing, from the place where the cloth for the vizier’s meal was spread, stabbed him with a dagger and ran off. However, he stumbled over the tent’s guy ropes, and was killed (i.e. by the guards). He (sc. Niẓām al-Mulk) had held the vizierate for twenty-seven years. His murder took place on the night preceding Saturday, 10 Ramaḍān 485 [/13–14 October 1092], by the hands of the Bāṭinīs (i.e. the Ismāʿīlīs). The reason behind his murder was that Tāj al-Mulk Abu ’l-Ghanāʾim, the man who was in charge of Sultan Malik Shāh’s treasury and overseer of his palaces and who acted as vizier to the sultan’s sons, had poisoned the sultan’s mind [N 141] against Niẓām al-Mulk.221 The sultan became openly dissatisfied with

Translation of the text 49 Niẓām al-Mulk and wanted to dismiss him, but did not dare to do this because of Niẓām al-Mulk’s backing amongst both the professional and auxiliary troops (al-ʿasākir wa ’l-ajnād ); Niẓām al-Mulk had over 20,000 mamlūks. So when they (i.e. Niẓām al-Mulk’s enemies) were impotent to move against him, they got a Daylamī to fall on him in the guise of a suppliant, who stabbed him with a dagger, as has been mentioned. The sultan and Tāj al-Mulk complacently thought that everything was now fine for them, but between the sultan’s death and Niẓām al-Mulk’s death was a period of only thirty-six days, and between Tāj al-Mulk’s death and that of Niẓām al-Mulk only two months. During this time, Tāj al-Mulk had been in a state of fearfulness, and it was not long before the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk’s ghulāms seized and killed him.222 Included amongst the slanderous tales told by Tāj al-Mulk about Niẓām al-Mulk was that he told the sultan that Niẓām al-Mulk expended 300,000 dinars annually on religious scholars, Sufis and Qurʾān readers, and that if this money had been spent on armies, the gates of Constantinople could have been assailed. The sultan summoned the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk and asked him for an explanation. He replied, O sultan of the world and monarch of the face of the earth, I am an old man. If I were to be sold as a slave, I would not fetch more than three dinars. You are a young man, and you would not fetch more than a hundred dinars. [I 68] God Most High has bestowed on you, and has bestowed on me through you, that which He has not given to any of your subjects. So will you then exchange all that which furthers His religion and protects His Precious Book, for the expenditure of a mere 300,000 dinars? You [already] expend double that sum each year on your fighting troops, [N 142] even though the strongest of the troops and the best marksman can only shoot an arrow one mile and his sword can only strike a person near to him, whilst with this amount of money I can raise and fit out an army for you, by means of whose prayers arrows will reach the Heavenly Throne, with nothing preventing them from reaching God! [On hearing this,] the sultan wept and told him, ‘Multiply the numbers of this army, the funds are at your disposal, and this present world lies before you’ (or: ‘the affairs of this present world are at your disposal’). Niẓām al-Mulk was always well prepared for whatever he undertook. He used to assign to every soldier an iqṭāʿ worth 1,000 dinars, half of the money for this assigned from the tax revenues collected from Samarqand and half from the tribute obtained from the Byzantine lands. Not a single dirham of this money would be held back. He was the first person to allot iqṭāʿs to the Turks. He founded the Niẓāmiyya colleges (madrasas) in all the lands of the two Iraqs (i.e. Mesopotamia and north-western Persia) and Khurasan. The building of the Baghdad Niẓāmiyya college was completed through the agency of Abū Saʿd al-Ṣūfī in 468 [/1075–76]. The Imām Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī taught there until he died on 7 Jumādā II [/22 October 1083]. [N 143] Then Niẓām al-Mulk placed Abū Naṣr b. al-Ṣabbāgh in charge of it until he died [also].223

50

The History of the Seljuq State

Niẓām al-Mulk had a group of close friends who assisted him in administrative affairs. One of them was Kamāl al-Dīn Abu ’l-Riḍā Faḍl Allāh b. Muḥammad, who was head of the chancery (dīwān al-inshāʾ ). He was held in great respect by the sultan, who would hardly be separated from him and whom he could hardly do without for an instant. One day he stayed away from him, and the sultan wrote to him in Turkish, the meaning of this message being ‘You’re unaffected by being away from me, but I myself am [certainly] affected by your absence; for you’re able to find friendship and companionship with other people, but I [I 69] can’t find this with anyone except you!’224 [Another of Niẓām al-Mulk’s intimate friends was] Khwāja Sharaf al-Mulk, head of the dīwān ishrāf al-mamālik.225 ʿImād al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī has mentioned that this man Sharaf al-Mulk had 360 sets of clothing, [N 144] finely made and luxurious, each different from the rest, one for each day of the year, and comprising outfits of oustanding, superb quality. Each day he used to wear a suit of clothing appropriate for the days of the four seasons. When he disposed of one and gave it away, his treasurer would bring out of the treasury a replacement for it. He built a shrine (mash’had ) at the tomb of Abū Ḥanīfa Nuʿmān b. Thābit, may God be pleased with him, at the Bāb al-Ṭāq and a college for his followers.226 The Sharīf al-Bayāḍī inscribed the following [verses] on the dome that he had built: 1. Have you not seen that this knowledge and learning (i.e. that we all know) was scattered far and wide, so this person now concealed in the grave brought it together again? 2. Similarly, this earth [of ours] was dead and unproductive, so the endeavours of the ʿAmīd Abū Saʿd brought it back to life.227 ʿImād al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī has recorded in the book Nuṣrat al-fatra228 that sultan Malik Shāh once sent the previously mentioned Tāj al-Mulk to the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk with a letter, whose contents were: ‘You have arrogated power over my kingdom and you have shared out [N 145] my territories amongst your sons and sons-in-law and your mamlūks, as if you were a partner in the royal power. Do you want me to command that you should be deprived of the inkstand of the vizierate and set the people free from your arrogance and overbearingness?’ [In reply,] Niẓām al-Mulk told Tāj al-Mulk, ‘Tell our lord, the sultan, “May God make you live for ever! It seems that it is only now that you have realized that I am your partner and equal sharer with you in the affairs of state. You should know that my inkstand is bound up with your crown. If you take it away from me, your crown will be taken away, and if you deprive me of it, your crown will be abolished.” ’ [I 70] ʿImād al-Dīn commented, ‘It was as if he was speaking about what was already laid down by the Divine Decree, for there was only a single month between the murder of Niẓām al-Mulk and the sultan’s death.’ When Sultan Malik Shāh crossed the Oxus river, Niẓām al-Mulk assigned to the boatmen money from the taxation levied on Antioch. The sultan queried that with him. Niẓām al-Mulk answered, ‘I wanted the extent of your royal dominions

Translation of the text 51 and the all-penetrating nature of your authority to be set down in the history books. Your representative (nāʾib) at Antioch is in your entourage and has come to bid you farewell. You can give him the financial authorizations (wuṣūlāt)229 and take from him the money for the boatmen.’ The sultan approved of this arrangement of Niẓām al-Mulk. The virtues and good qualities of the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk are almost beyond enumeration. I have seen a work compiled by a certain great man who flourished during his time which comprises all the excellencies of his conduct and character. The author has set forth in it descriptions of his sound faith, his noble natural disposition, his justice, his forgiving nature and his ongoing concern for the hardships of needy people. It has been related of him that a destitute man once came to him and sat down at his gate, having with him a large waterskin. When the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk came back from attendance at Sultan Malik Shāh’s court, the destitute man stood up before him and said, ‘I have heard that you are a lover of the poor, and claim to have an affinity for and empathy with them – but I won’t believe it of you unless you fill this waterskin of mine with gold!’ The vizier Niẓām al-Mulk considered the waterskin excessively large, and began talking to the destitute man in a friendly manner, asking his forgiveness (i.e. for not filling the waterskin), whilst the beggar kept on insisting that [N 146] he would not accept a [mere] purse but would only go away once and for all with a [full] waterskin. So the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk instructed his treasurer to transfer all the gold in the treasury to the waterskin. The treasurer did that, but the waterskin was not even half-full. The vizier Niẓām al-Mulk instructed his wife and family to transfer as much of their jewellery and ornaments as they could to the waterskin. They kept on bringing these out until the waterskin was full and the beggar was unable to carry it away. The vizier Niẓām al-Mulk ordered his men to transport it along with him. The beggar cried out at the top of his voice, [I 71] ‘O Niẓām al-Mulk, I only intended to test you, for what’s a beggar to do with gold?’, and he wandered off on his way. Niẓām al-Mulk ordered a search to be made for him, but could not find him or trace his tracks. Hence he expended the money in question on various charitable causes and almsgiving. May God have mercy on him! Shibl al-Dawla Abu ’l-Hayjāʾ al-Bakrī elegized him thus: 1. The Vizier Niẓām al-Mulk was a hidden pearl which the Merciful One fashioned out of nobility. 2. It was exalted, but the times did not recognize its worth, so out of jealousy [for its value] He restored it to its shell.230

[N 147] The death of the Exalted Sultan Jalāl al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Abu ’l-Fatḥ Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq When the sultan left Isfahan and set out for the City of Peace,231 he fell ill, and very soon died, on 16 Shawwāl 485 [/19 November 1092].232 His life spanned

52

The History of the Seljuq State

thirty years, three months and twenty-seven days, and his reign as sultan lasted seventeen years and some months. He was buried by his father’s grave at Merv. Sultan Malik Shāh ruled over lands of an extent such as no previous ruler, [N 148] nor any who came after, possessed. He had granted his mamlūks dominion over this present world, so he sent his ghulām Bursuq to the Byzantine lands. Bursuq pressed hard on their populace to the extent that he levied [I 72] on them 300,000 dinars for the sultan and 30,000 dinars for himself which the Byzantine king was to pay as tribute due from infidels ( jāliya). Malik Shāh himself set out for Syria and then for Constantinople. He besieged it and levied a million gold dinars on its people. He also conquered Konya, Aksaray, Kayseri and all the territory there and appointed over them Malik Rukn al-Dīn Sulaymān b. Quṭlumush b. Isrāʾīl b. Seljuq. He conquered Antioch and entrusted it to him.233 He sent his brother Malik Tāj al-Dawla Tutush b. Alp Arslān to Damascus [N 149] and assigned to him the task of conquering Egypt and the Maghrib. He seized Damascus from al-Aqsīs234 and killed him. He behaved very properly at Damascus. He took over the greater part of Syria but died before he could achieve his aim regarding Egypt. Sultan Malik Shāh had ordered his two mamlūks Qasīm al-Dawla Aq Sonqor, the lord of Aleppo, and Bozan, the lord of Edessa, to demonstrate their obedience to him. He instructed Saʿd al-Dawla Gawhar-āyīn to conquer Yemen. He despatched against it an army on his behalf with Tirshek as its commander. Tirshek overran the greater part of Yemen and died there at the age of seventy. Yarïn Qush, the associate of the leader of the Pilgrimage Qutlugh, took his place in charge there.235 Sultan Malik Shāh penetrated deep into the lands of the nomad tent-dwellers (al-kharkāwāt)236 until Surkhāb,237 [N 150] the lord of Ṭarāz, gave him his allegiance. He mobilized his army and set out from Ray towards Transoxania. He came to Samarqand and besieged it, defeated its ruler, captured him and seized the city. He had the ruler of the city, together with his own ceremonial saddle cloth (ghāshiya), brought before his throne. During the course of this campaign, the king of the infidel Turks, who was called Yaʿqūb b. Yïghā(n)tegin (? text B.qā.y.līn), submitted to him [I 73] and accompanied him to Isfahan. The sultan then sent him back to his homeland, having entertained him as an honoured guest.238 It then happened that he traversed the land of Arrān. He sent a message to the Shirwān Shāh, the ruler of the land of Shirwān, and the latter gave the sultan his allegiance and undertook to pay an annual tribute of 70,000 dinars which he would bring to the sultan.239 [N 151] Sultan Malik Shāh was supremely capable amongst people as an archer whose arrow never missed. He was also supremely capable with a spear (or: lance, rumḥ). He was a great lover of hunting. One day he ordered a count to be made of all the game beasts that he and his mamlūks had killed, and they amounted to 10,000 heads. So he ordered 10,000 dinars to be given away in alms, saying, ‘I am fearful of God Most High on account of shedding the blood of living beings without any necessity.’ It was he who erected a tower of horns and hooves from the game he had killed along the route to Mecca from Baghdad.240 A remarkable tale about him, concerning his justice, is that one of his greatest mamlūks once passed by a poor man who had a watermelon and who wished to

Translation of the text 53 trade with it, it not being the season for watermelons. The mamlūk took it from him forcibly and without giving any payment. Hence the poor man went along and came before Sultan Malik Shāh. The sultan asked him, ‘Do you know the man who has wronged you?’, but he did not know him. So the sultan summoned before him all his mamlūks, and when they were assembled, he told them, ‘I have a great craving for a watermelon, but it’s not the season; is there any amongst you who can procure one for me?’ The mamlūk who had wronged the poor man said, ‘O lord, I have a watermelon which cannot [otherwise] be obtained.’ The sultan ordered his arrest. He summoned the poor man, and the latter recognized him. The sultan said to the poor man, ‘He’s my mamlūk, and I’ve now given him to you, so take him!’ The poor man accordingly took him and went away. The mamlūk bought himself back [N 152] from the poor man for 300 dinars. The poor man returned to the sultan and told him, ‘O our lord, I have sold the mamlūk you gave me for 300 dinars.’ The sultan said, ‘Are you satisfied with that?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ The sultan said, ‘Take the money and go on your way, with God Most High’s protection!’ So he took the money [I 74] and went on his way. Once when he was in Ṭūs he entered the shrine of ʿAlī b. Mūsā al-Riḍā,241 may God be pleased with them both, for a pilgrimage, being accompanied by his vizier Niẓām al-Mulk. The sultan said to him, ‘O Ḥasan, what did you pray for?’ He replied, ‘I prayed that God Most High might give you a victory over your brother Tekish.’ (This was during the time that Tekish had rebelled against him and was engaged in warfare with the sultan.) The sultan said, however, ‘I didn’t pray for this, but implored “O God, if my brother should prove better for the Muslims’ welfare then grant him victory over me; but if I am more suitable, then let me triumph over him!” ’ He had pure motives in doing good deeds. [During his time,] the roads were safe and agriculture flourished. People were much afraid of him and regarded him with great awe. He fended off evildoing and meted out justice for the oppressed. He was always willing to give time for a woman, the weak and the oppressed, and would not turn away until he had satisfied their needs. [N 153] He left behind the sons Abu ’l-Muẓaffar Rukn al-Dīn Berk-yārūq, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad, Abu ’l-Ḥārith Sanjar and Maḥmūd, the youngest of them.242

[N 155] The sultanate of Maḥmūd, son of Sultan Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān When Malik Shāh died at Baghdad, Maḥmūd, a small child, was the only one of his sons with him. The army [nevertheless] gave its allegiance to him for various reasons. One of them was that his mother Terken Khātūn had secured a great ascendancy over state affairs during the time of Sultan Malik Shāh. She used to treat the army in a generous fashion so that they set up her son as their ruler. The second reason was that she was descended from the kings of the Turks; she was said to be of the stock of Afrāsiyāb.243 The third reason was that she had control of the finances, so she distributed them amongst the troops. They pledged allegiance to Maḥmūd, took him along with them and returned to Isfahan. [N 156]

54

The History of the Seljuq State

When the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk’s ghulāms [I 75] and those of the troops left behind at Hamadan heard that Terken Khātūn had joined together with the army (sc. that at Isfahan), they set out with Malik Rukn al-Dīn [N 157] Abu ’l-Muẓaffar Berk-yārūq [b. Malik Shāh] b. Alp Arslān for Ray, and they gathered together troops round him. [Meanwhile,] Terken Khātūn entered Isfahan with her son. In the midst of these wars and conflicts, the Imām al-Muqtadī was suddenly carried off [to God’s presence] on Saturday, 15 Muḥarram 487 [/4 February 1094].244 The Imām al-Mustaẓhir bi’llāh was hailed as caliph three days after al-Muqtadī’s death. Formal investiture of Berk-yārūq (i.e. as sultan) was obtained from him. So Berk-yārūq besieged Isfahan, but before the year was out, Maḥmūd and his mother Terken Khātūn both died, and the situation became stabilized.245

[N 159] The reign of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Abu ’l-Muẓaffar Berk-yārūq b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān At the time when the sultanate came firmly into the hands of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Abu ’l-Muẓaffar Berk-yārūq b. Malik Shāh, his Atabeg was the the amir, the commander-in-chief (amīr isfahsālār) Gümüshtegin the jāndār,246 who was addicted to wine. When Sultan Berk-yārūq assumed power, his paternal uncle Tāj al-Dawla Tutush b. Alp Arslān set out from Syria. Hence Bozan, the governor of Edessa, and Qasīm al-Dawla Aq Sonqor, the governor of Aleppo – the two of them being mamlūks of his father – wrote to Berk-yārūq [N 160] seeking help from him against his uncle Tāj al-Dawla Tutush. But because he was sunk in wine-drinking, he paid no heed to them, whilst Berk-yārūq’s Atabeg was also distracted from the sultan by reason of his involvement with the sultan’s mother Zubayda Khātūn, for which he had [I 76] come under suspicion. Thus neither of them provided help. Tāj al-Dawla Tutush marched against Bozan and Aq Sunqur. They imagined that they could combat him (i.e. on their own), so gave him battle, but he fought with them and captured them.247 This was in Jumādā II 487 [/June– July 1094]. Tutush defeated Qasīm al-Dawla Aq Sonqor, governor of Aleppo, and Amir Bozan, governor of Edessa, and took possession of their two lands, Aleppo and Edessa. The Ṣadr ʿImād al-Dīn has two verses on the killing of Amir Qasīm al-Dawla and Bozan: 1. We were submerged in wine-drinking and intoxication, so that we did not think about Sonqor and Bozan. 2. We did not gain a single pawn in the chess game, but the two rooks were indeed lost.248 Tutush got his troops moving quickly and laid plans for seizing the sultanate. This was during the time when Muʾayyid al-Mulk ʿUbayd Allāh b. Niẓām al-Mulk was acting as vizier for Sultan Berk-yārūq b. Malik Shāh.249 Muʾayyid al-Mulk went along with his troops to fight with Tāj al-Dawla Tutush b. Alp Arslān. The latter encountered him in battle, and Sultan Berk-yārūq came up behind Muʾayyid

Translation of the text 55 al-Mulk’s army to engage in battle with his uncle. The armies met in the vicinity of Ray and a fierce battle ensued. [N 161] Tāj al-Dawla Tutush b. Alp Arslān was killed in Ṣafar 488 [/February–March 1095] and his troops fled the field. Sultan Rukn al-Dawla Berk-yārūq was now firmly in power. This battle took place at a village called Dāshīlū twelve farsakhs from Ray.250 The dismissal of Muʾayyid al-Mulk came about, so he fled to Sultan Muḥammad Ṭapar, Sultan Berk-yārūq’s brother. Muʾayyid al-Mulk incited Muḥammad (i.e. to rebel against Berk-yārūq) and told him, ‘The sultanate [I 77] beckons to you!’ So Muḥammad set out from Arrān with a small body of troops. [N 162] [Meanwhile,] when Sultan Berk-yārūq got news of Muḥammad’s revolt, he left Ray and abandoned it. Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar entered it and sat down on the throne. He seized Berk-yārūq’s mother Zubayda Khātūn and killed her. A battle took place at Hamadan between the two brothers in which Muʾayyid al-Mulk was killed.251 Sultan Muḥammad had rebelled at the prompting of the Amir Isfahsālār Öner because the latter ardently desired to secure the directing power in the state. Sultan Muḥammad was routed in this battle. [N 163] When news of his defeat reached Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Sanjar, Muḥammad’s brother, who was governor over Khurasan for his brother Berk-yārūq, he advanced to there and engaged in battles, as will be set forth, if God wills, in the account of Sultan Sanjar. Sultan Sanjar was opposed to his brother Berk-yārūq’s rule, so he marched out to join his [other] brother Sultan Muḥammad Ṭapar, impelled by his affection for him to leave Khurasan. He joined up with him and the two of them made for Baghdad. They entered into the presence of the Commander of the Faithful al-Mustaẓhir bi’llāh, who received them in state, bestowed on them collars and armlets and unfurled for them with his own hands two flags. Then the two of them went on their way. Sultan Sanjar returned to Khurasan, and Sultan Muḥammad prepared to fight with his brother Berk-yārūq. [N 164] The two armies lined up against each other at the town of Rudhrāwar252 but then disengaged without a battle and made a mutual peace agreement. But then the agreement came apart, and a battle took place at Ray between them. Sultan Muḥammad withdrew into Isfahan and Berk-yārūq besieged him there, with Muḥammad enduring great hardship. Malik Mawdūd b. Ismāʿīl, a member of the Seljuq family and ruler in Arrān,253 got into negotitations with Muḥammad, promising him that, if he came to him, he would help him. Muḥammad broke out of the siege and went to Arrān, but [I 78] Malik Mawdūd died before he reached there. Muḥammad [nevertheless] entered Arrān and received an access of strength from the army there. Rukn al-Dīn Berk-yārūq set out to engage Sultan Muḥammad in battle, and the latter set out against Berk-yārūq. They clashed at the gate of Dwīn in Jumādā II 496 [/March–April 1103] and Sultan Muḥammad fled in defeat to the town of Ānī.254 [N 165] They then came together and made peace on a basis that all the territory beyond the White River, which is called [in Persian] the Safīd Rūdh, together with Mosul and Syria, should go to Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad; Khurasan and Transoxania should go to Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Sanjar; and the sultanate with the two Iraqs should go to Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Abu ’l-Muẓaffar

56

The History of the Seljuq State

Berk-yārūq, whilst Muḥammad should be his successor in the sultanate. The peace agreement lasted for [only] a short time. Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Abu ’l-Muẓaffar Berk-yārūq b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān died at Burūjird in Rabīʿ II 498 [/December 1104–January 1105], having been born in [4]74 [/1081–82]. His reign as sultan lasted twelve years and four months and his lifespan was twentyfive years. His way of life included a fondness for wine drinking, to which he was much addicted.255 He led an expedition into Transoxania and penetrated to Samarqand. He entrusted it to the Khān Tegin b. Sulaymān, but then [N 166] deprived him of it and appointed in his stead Maḥmūd Tegin and the Hārūn Tegin.256 Ibrāhīm, the ruler in Ghazna, gave him his allegiance.257 He had a son, Malik Shāh.258 A number of viziers served him, the last one being Khaṭīr al-Mulk Abū Manṣūr b. al-Ḥusayn al-Maybudhī, who was exceedingly ignorant and corpulent, as if [I 79] he were the person intended in the poet’s verses: 1. A vizier who has dived into fat and meat (i.e. who has delved into all sorts of things indiscriminately259), to whom neither intelligence nor understanding can be imputed. 2. When he wears white clothes, [he looks like] a bale of cotton, and if he wears black, [he looks like] a heap of charcoal.260

[N 167] The reign of Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Abū Shujāʿ Muḥammad Ṭapar, Qasīm Amīr al-Muʾminīn He succeeded to the sultanate when his brother Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Berk-yārūq b. Malik Shāh died in 498 [/1104–5]. Ayāz, the Atabeg of Malik Shāh, son of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Berk-yārūq, had taken him after his father’s death and had fled with him from one place to another until he (sc. Ayāz) gave allegiance to Sultan Muḥammad. Then after that he was killed, and Malik Shāh surrendered to his uncle Sultan Muḥammad. [N 168] Sultan Muḥammad took by the sword the fortress of Shāh Diz in the vicinity of Isfahan in 500 [/1106–7]. This had been a wound in the throats of the people of Isfahan and a mote in their eyes. Every Bāṭinī in the fortress was killed, and the Bāṭinī Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Malik, called ʿAṭṭāsh, was killed in cold blood as a captive. He had acted with great violence, and used never to hear about any amir who possessed authority, or any scholar of repute, without despatching someone to assassinate him. Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar hated the Bāṭinīs intensely and showed great enmity to them. He also captured the fortress of Khān Lanjān, also near Isfahan, and appointed the Amir Isfahsālār Shīrgīr to besiege Alamūt, which Shīrgīr was on the point of conquering.261 [I 80, N 169] In 501 [/1107–8], Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad killed Amir Sayf al-Dawla Ṣadaqa b. Manṣūr b. Dubays b. ʿAlī b. Mazyad, called Malik al-ʿArab, at al-Nuʿmāniyya in a battle which took place between them. The reason for this was that the sultan entered Baghdad at the end of Rabīʿ II [/November 1107]. He was informed that Amir Sayf al-Dawla Ṣadaqa had rebelled. News of this (i.e. the

Translation of the text 57 fact that the sultan was aware of his rebelliousness) reached Sayf al-Dawla. He was put on his guard, and gathered together 20,000 cavalrymen from the scattered bands of Kurds, Turks, Daylamīs and Arabs. The sultan’s army, meanwhile, had returned to Hamadan, and he was left with 1,000 mamlūks from his closest retainers. Amir Sayf al-Dawla Ṣadaqa was at Ḥilla. Winter had set in and there was an expanse of mud separating the two sides. When the sultan saw how small his own force was, he decided to send someone to Ṣadaqa to persuade him to give his allegiance to the sultan. But the commander-in-chief (isfahsālār) of the sultan’s army, his mamlūk Amir Mawdūd, and the rest of the mamlūks rejected this course of action and said, ‘We’re not prepared to do that, and the only course is for us to encounter him in battle.’ When the sultan heard this, he set off for Ḥilla, whilst Sayf al-Dawla marched towards him, aiming to seize the opportunity [of engaging in battle] the sultan, which would give him an access of prestige. The flames of war between them were kindled in an extremely muddy spot at al-Nuʿmāniyya.262 The cavalry were unable to manoeuvre in it, and the Turks went on foot in company with the sultan and advanced towards Sayf al-Dawla Ṣadaqa’s army, showering arrows. They wiped out Ṣadaqa’s cavalry and footsoldiers, inflicting on them a great deal of killing and wounding. Sayf al-Dawla saw this and resolved to flee. The Turks perceived this and fought most furiously. Sayf al-Dawla Ṣadaqa took to flight but was killed by an arrow, together with the greater part of the soldiers with him, and Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad returned triumphant. The Mazyadids were now left [I 81, N 170] with no monarch of the calibre of Sayf al-Dawla Ṣadaqa as regards his great élan in battle and his high nobility. The only thing was that he was an extremist in his Shiʿite beliefs.263 Ibn al-Khāzin wrote an ode elegizing him [and containing these lines]: 1. Life in this world is like the slumber of a dreamer, and it is as if man were a phantom of the imagination. 2. How many people full of hope have been swept along on the horses of desires, but those horses have stumbled with the ropes of decreed death! 3. He was an ocean of generosity and a full moon in the gloomy darkness, a lion in battle and a lofty mountain in glory! 4. How often did he draw them (sc. his swords, alluding to Ṣadaqa’s laqab?) like a bright sun, but then the evening twilight, which had become clogged with the congealed blood of heroic warriors, sheathed their brilliance. 5. The faces of worldly wealth laughed at him when he was entombed, but the eyes of hopes wept over him. 6. How many assemblies were graced by his presence, one who was crowned and a man of shining deeds. 7. Hence I wept for the scabbard which was stricken with the loss of his sword; the thickets have become desolate since the father of lion cubs [has passed away].264

58

The History of the Seljuq State

In 501 [/1107–8], Ḍiyāʾ al-Mulk Aḥmad, son of the vizier Niẓām al-Mulk and the sultan’s vizier, marched against Alamūt together with the amir Chāwlī [Saqqāʾū].265 They inflicted a defeat on the Bāṭinīs and made great slaughter amongst them.266 In 503 [/1109–10] the Georgians overran the region of Ganja. The sultan despatched against them an army which warded off their harm. [N 171] In 504 [/1110–11], the Commander of the Faithful al-Mustaẓhir bi’llāh married Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar’s sister, Sayyida Khātūn, daughter of the Exalted Sultan Jalāl al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān, and she arrived in Baghdad in Shaʿbān of this year [/February–March 1111] with a dowry of 100,000 dinars. Clothes, riches and jewels, whose like had never been seen before, were presented to her, together with mamlūks, attendants, [I 82] slave girls, servants (or: eunuchs, khadam) and riding-beasts on an unheard-of scale. He consummated the marriage with her this same month. Amir Shīrgīr was on the point of capturing Alamūt when the sultan’s death happened to supervene and his son Maḥmūd came to power. The latter recalled Amir Shīrgīr, so he left Alamūt. Then (i.e. after he had got back) the sultan arrested him and put him to death. His son ʿUmar b. Shīrgīr was also killed. Shīrzīr, may God Most High have mercy on him, was one of the most ascetic amongst the amirs and the most God-fearing. Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar, son of the Exalted Sultan Jalāl al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān, died on 11 Dhu ’l-Ḥijja 511 [/5 April 1118]. He had become sultan on the death of his brother Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Abu ’l-Muẓaffar Berk-yārūq b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān in Rabīʿ II 498 [/December 1104–January 1105]. Hence his period of power as sultan lasted for thirteen years and a few months. His sons were: Maḥmūd, Ṭoghrïl, Masʿūd, Sulaymān Shāh and Saljūq Shāh, all of whom [eventually] came to power as sultans except the last one. [N 172] He behaved in a praiseworthy manner, one suitable for running the affairs of state; assiduous in behaving justly, advancing the well-being of his lands, keeping control of the treasury and giving out alms. He made religion and the intellect the guides of his conduct, was of sound faith and fiercely opposed to the Bāṭinīs and extremist Shiʿites. He abolished uncanonical taxes (mukūs). He died in 5[1]I [/1118].267 His viziers. We have mentioned during the account of his brother Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Berk-yārūq’s life that Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar appointed as his vizier Muʾayyid al-Mulk b. Niẓām al-Mulk during the lifetime of his brother Sultan Berk-yārūq [and he functioned thus] until Sultan Berk-yārūq killed Muʾayyid al-Mulk with his own hands in the battle during which Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar was defeated on the outskirts of Hamadan. When the sultan lost his vizier, he mourned his loss because of the vizier’s laudable conduct,268 and appointed in his stead his son Amir Naṣr b. Muʾayyid al-Mulk. This last had [I 83] a sound knowledge of the basic principles of the sciences (or: ‘the sciences of the first thinkers’, ʿulūm al-awāʾil ), but his tenure of office was not a praiseworthy one, until Sultan Berk-yārūq died and Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar achieved power through the backing of his troops and appointed as his vizier Saʿd al-Mulk Abu ’l-Maḥāsin Saʿd b. Muḥammad al-Ābī. This latter

Translation of the text 59 person was pious, charitable and a good administrator. He remained the sultan’s vizier until the qāḍī of Isfahan, ʿUbaydallāh al-Khaṭībī, denounced him to the sultan and told him that Saʿd al-Mulk was a Bāṭinī, so that his true nature was revealed. Hence the sultan had him killed and crucified.269 After him, he appointed [N 173] Ḍiyāʾ al-Mulk Aḥmad b. Niẓām al-Mulk as his vizier. Ḍiyāʾ al-Mulk and Khaṭīr al-Mulk Abū Manṣūr Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Maybudhī, who had served as Sultan Berk-yārūq’s vizier, reached [the sultan’s court] on the very day that Saʿd al-Mulk was caught up in disaster. So the sultan gave the office of vizier to the son of Niẓām al-Mulk and the office of chief accounting official to Khaṭīr [al-Mulk]. Ḍiyāʾ al-Mulk had been born in Balkh but had grown up in Isfahan. After a certain amount of time had elapsed, the sultan dismissed him and handed him over to the Amir al-Ḥājib ʿUmar b. Qarategin.270 Various other persons served as vizier after him,271 and after them, the sultan summoned from Baghdad a person whom he could nominate as vizier. So the vizier Rabīb al-Dawla Abū Manṣūr, son of the vizier Abū Shujāʿ, was brought to him and the sultan appointed him vizier two months before he died.272 The caliph’s chief secretary (kātib al-inshāʾ ) Sadīd al-Dawla Ibn al-Anbārī satirized Rabīb al-Dawla as follows: 1. In an age when you have been adorned with two vizierates, [N 174] 2. God has within it caused every eye to flow with hot tears, but [certainly] not more than my eye.273 When Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar died, the sultanate passed from the ruler in Iraq (i.e. Jibāl and western Persia) to the ruler in Khurasan. The reason for this was that, after Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar, there was no one in the Seljuq house more senior or who possessed more extensive territories than his brother Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Abu ’l-Ḥārith Sanjar [I 84] b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān. The latter secured firm control over the sultanate after various wars with Sultan Maḥmūd, son of Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar, had taken place. Maḥmūd came to power in Iraq after his father and agreed to acknowledge as his suzerain his uncle (lit. ‘trod the carpet of his uncle’) Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Sanjar, and the situation remained thus over the succeeding period.

[N 175, I 85] Mention of the coming to Iraq (i.e. Jibāl and western Persia) from Khurasan of the Exalted Sultan Muʿizz al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Malik al-Islām wa ’l-Muslimīn, the Support of the House of Seljuq and Right Hand of the Commander of the Faithful, Abu ’l-Ḥārith Sanjar b. Malik Shāh and his victory [over his rivals] and his forgiving [them] When Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar died, the Exalted Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Sanjar was firmly established in Khurasan, with his control over his territories having become secure and his royal authority made firm. The reason [for this] was that in his domain of Khurasan, the roads were safe during the time of

60

The History of the Seljuq State

his father Sultan Malik Shāh. But when Malik Shāh died and disputes arose over the order of precedence of his eldest son Sultan Berk-yārūq and Maḥmūd, and there was a battle between them in Iraq, as we have previously recorded, Malik Arslān Arghūn b. Alp Arslān – who has already been mentioned in the account of his sons and who was a holder of iqṭāʿs in the regions of Hamadan and Sāwa, valued at 7,000 dinars, on behalf of his brother Sultan Malik Shāh – seized the opportunity, gathered together forces and took advantage of the fact that his two nephews (sc. Berk-yārūq and Muḥammad) were pre-occupied and that the army had loyalties divided between the two of them. He went to Nishapur and demanded its surrender to him, but its people held out against him, so he proceded to Merv and engaged in a battle there. The military commander in charge of Merv (shiḥna), the amir Qodun,274 came to an agreement with him and handed over the city to him. His dominions now extended to the point that he took over Balkh and Tirmidh. Khurasan now lay open to him at the moment when Berk-yārūq established his control over the sultanate. Sultan Arslān Arghūn then wrote to Sultan Berk-yārūq, saying, ‘I am now in possession of the dominions of my grandfather Malik Dāwūd, and I am quite content with this. I shall not go beyond its confines and shall not attack any other lands. I shall only enter [other lands] when you command me to to do so’. Sultan [N 176] Berk-yārūq [at first] accepted his assurances but then showed his hostility. He despatched his other uncle, Malik Böri Bars, as malik of Khurasan, attaching to him Amir Masʿūd b. Mājar and the amir of Khurasan, Altuntāsh. Böri Bars arrived on the fringes of Khurasan and the army there rallied to him. It happened that Altuntāsh became fearful of Masʿūd, so he killed Masʿūd in a treacherous attack, and also his sons. He thus gained an ascendancy over Böri Bars’s conduct of affairs. Böri Bars appointed ʿImād al-Mulk Abu ’l-Qāsim b. Niẓām al-Mulk as his vizier. Malik Böri Bars then engaged his brother Arslān Arghūn in battle and defeated him. Arslān Arghūn fled in disarray to Balkh, and Böri Bars took control of the city of Merv and the greater part of Khurasan. Arslān Arghūn mobilized bands of Turkmens, and various groups of auxiliary troops (ajnād) gathered around him. He encamped outside Merv, besieged it and captured it by force, destroying its walls and killing most of its population. Böri Bars set out from Herat [I 86] intending to meet Arslān Arghūn in battle. The two sides clashed outside Merv. Böri Bars was defeated, taken captive and brought before his brother Malik Arslān Arghūn, who imprisoned him at Tirmidh and then had him strangled. He also captured Böri Bars’s vizier ʿImād al-Mulk b. Niẓām al-Mulk, mulcted him forcibly of 300,000 dinars and then killed him. He treated the inhabitants of the region oppressively, demolished the walls of Merv, the fortress of Sarakhs and the citadel of Nishapur, destroying all the fortresses of Khurasan.275 The occasion of his death was that he got up on Tuesday, 17 Ṣafar 490 [/3 February 1097] to perform the lesser ablution. He had with him a eunuch slave boy who was nevertheless strong and refractory. Arslān Arghūn stroked his chin; the boy drew out his dagger and slit open Arslān Arghūn’s abdomen. Then he came down from the castle, which was known as the Sādkān276 castle of Merv, but his uneasy demeanour indicated what he had done, and the guards then on duty

Translation of the text 61 (aṣḥāb al-nawba) arrested him. [N 177] They went up into the castle and found Malik Arslān Arghūn dead. No one can repel God’s Decree and Foreordained Decision. When the ghulām was seized, he was asked, ‘Why did you kill him?’ He replied, ‘I wished to relieve people of his tyranny.’ His murder took place in 490 [/1097], his age being twenty-six. When Sultan Berk-yārūq got to know about his uncle’s seizure of Khurasan, he allotted it to his brother Sultan Sanjar and arranged for him to have a military force. Sultan Sanjar left for Khurasan. The news of his uncle’s murder reached Sultan Berk-yārūq, so he set off for Khurasan. When Sultan Sanjar reached Dāmghān, the information came to him that his uncle’s troops had raised to power in his stead one of his young sons and that, on becoming aware of the advance of Sultan Sanjar, with Sultan Berk-yārūq following on after him, they had gone off [I 87] with the child, a seven-years-old boy, their force amounting to 5,000 cavalrymen. They had already plundered his father’s (sc. Arslān Arghūn’s) treasury for his paternal cousin Sultan Berk-yārūq, and they asked Berk-yārūq to allot the boy some iqṭāʿs, so he granted him some iqṭāʿs in the neighbourhood of Hamadan, and he allotted Khurasan to his brother (sc. to Sanjar). During the course of this campaign, Sultan Berk-yārūq occupied Samarqand, and the various events that we have related in his life happened to him. When he heard about [events in] Iraq (i.e. Jibāl and western Persia) and that Muʾayyid al-Mulk b. Niẓām al-Mulk had gone off to incite against him his brother Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar, he became embroiled in various battles, in the course of which Sultan Berk-yārūq was defeated, and he fell back on Isfarāʾīn with [only] fifty cavalrymen and then on to Nishapur. Sultan Sanjar was at this time in Balkh with his army. A Turkish soldier named Ḥabashī 277 had seized control of the greater part of Khurasan with his base at Dāmghān. He held under his authority the major part of Khurasan and also Ṭabaristān [N 178] and the fortress of Girdkūh. Sultan Sanjar set out from Balkh with his army, accompanied by the two amirs Kündigüz278 and Erghūsh,279 with the intention of attacking Ḥabashī. The latter had with him 20,000 cavalrymen together with 5,000 footsoldiers of the Bāṭiniyya, the followers of Ismāʿīl al-Gīlakī,280 lord of Ṭabas. The morale of Sanjar’s troops went up with the arrival of Sultan Berk-yārūq at Nishapur.281 They encountered Ḥabashī in battle. At first they suffered a strong onslaught, but then Ḥabashī was defeated and fled to one of the villages but was overtaken and made prisoner. He was brought before Sultan Sanjar, who killed him after he had [supposedly] ransomed himself for 100,000 dinars.282 Sultan Sanjar’s position [I 88] in Khurasan was now firmly established up to the time when his brother Sultan Berk-yārūq died and the sultanate was undisputedly in the hands of Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭapar. Sanjar’s authority over his lands grew strong until the point when Sultan Muḥammad also died and the sultanate of Iraq passed to his son Mughīth al-Dīn Maḥmūd. He followed the arrangements laid down by his forefathers that the supreme sultanate should be in the hands of the ruler in Iraq (i.e. Jibāl and western Persia).283 The person in charge of executive affairs (mudabbir) for Sultan Maḥmūd was the Ḥājib ʿAlī Bār b. ʿAmr and his [chief] secretary was Abu ’l-Qāsim

62

The History of the Seljuq State

al-Darguzīnī.284 They incited Sultan Maḥmūd against his uncle Sultan Sanjar and they put pressure on him until he ordered Ismāʿīl al-Ṭoghrīlī (? al-Ṭughrāʾī) to write to the Khān of Samarqand and to tell his men that Maḥmūd had determined on waging war against his uncle and invading his lands and that ‘If he (sc. Sanjar) marches against us, you (sc. the Khān) should launch an attack on his rear and seize whatever you wish of his lands.’ [N 179] The plan was hatched in Iraq, but came to naught and the arrangements came unstuck. The Ḥājib mentioned above was rendered ineffective and the amirs split up and went away. Sultan Sanjar got news of what had happened in Iraq, the differing views [amongst the amirs], the mischief-making and what they had suggested to his nephew (sc. to Maḥmūd) that he should do, so Sanjar set out from Khurasan and headed for the region of Ray. Sultan Maḥmūd mobilized his forces, his commanders being the Ḥājib ʿAlī Bār and the Atabeg Mengü-bars. The armies clashed in 512 [/1118–19]; Sultan Maḥmūd’s army was defeated and a considerable number of troops were killed. When the army took to flight, Sultan Sanjar sent an envoy to his nephew Sultan Maḥmūd, put his mind at rest and informed him that he had only come to restore order in Maḥmūd’s affairs, rid him of amirs exercising a bad influence on him and strengthen his promised allegiance, and then he would go back. The vizier Niẓām al-Dīn [I 89] Kamāl al-Mulk al-Sumayramī had come to Sultan Maḥmūd, gone into his presence and told him, ‘This person (sc. Sanjar) is your uncle and is like a father for you, and is the most senior member of the dynasty. It is advisable to be in harmony and agreement with him. I will go to him on your behalf and repair the breach between you.’285 So Maḥmūd sent him [to Sanjar], and he left Isfahan and headed for Ray and Sultan Sanjar’s court. The latter heard that his nephew’s vizier had arrived as an envoy seeking peace, and he accordingly gave him hospitality on a scale he had not expected and got together with him to work out the peace and reconciliation. The vizier stayed in Sanjar’s encampment. Sultan Sanjar sent a personal envoy to Sultan Maḥmūd. The latter came out from Isfahan, and his vizier joined him before his meeting with Sultan Sanjar was to take place. The vizier enjoined him that, when he came into his uncle’s presence, he should forgo the normal sultanal privilege of having a red military band fanfare (nawba),286 that he should dismount when the black and the white fanfares were sounded, that he should renounce the privilege of having five fanfares and that he should kiss the ground in front of Sanjar [N 180] when he went in to see him. [Furthermore,] he should remain standing and should walk with his entourage from the public audience hall (bārgāh) to the ceremonial great tent (surādiq) and should not keep himself isolated from his uncle in a separate chamber (ṭāq) but stay in the vicinity of Sanjar’s [personal] tent (khayma). So Maḥmūd did all that, and his uncle Sultan Sanjar awarded him robes of honour, treated him in a hospitable fashion and allocated the land (i.e. western Persia and Iraq) to him (i.e as subordinate ruler to him). He put to death Qarategin al-Qaṣṣāb and the Atabeg Mengü Bars, but awarded a robe of honour to ʿAlī Bār on the intercession of Sultan Maḥmūd, and also to Maḥmūd’s vizier al-Kamāl al-Sumayramī and ʿAlī Bār’s secretary Abu ’l-Qāsim al-Darguzīnī. He then returned to Khurasan after having brought within his own rule the lands of

Translation of the text 63 Māzandarān, Ṭabaristān, Qūmis, Dāmghān, Ray and Demavend, and joined them to Khurasan. He lavished favours on [I 90] Malik Ṭoghrïl, Sultan Maḥmūd’s brother, and granted him Sāwa, Āwa, Sāruq, Sāmān, Qazwīn, Abhar, Zanjān, Gīlān, Daylam and Ṭālaqān. He assigned to his brother Malik Saljūq Shāh the whole of the land of Fars, and handed it over to him and his Atabeg Qarācha al-Sāqī, adding to it part of the region of Isfahan also.287 Sultan Sanjar was successful in all his undertakings and victorious in his military expeditions, except that two great misfortunes befell him during his lifetime, as I shall describe in due course. He reigned over extensive territories such as none of his predecessors had ruled nor any of his successors were to rule, apart from what his father Sultan Malik Shāh had possessed. It happened that, when Sanjar established firm control over Khurasan, at the time when his brother Sultan Muḥammad Ṭapar had secured dominion over Iraq at the beginning of his period of rule and his brother Sultan Berk-yārūq was still alive, the ruler of Transoxania Qadïr Khān got it into his head that, if he crossed over into Khurasan, he would be able to conquer it because of Sultan Sanjar’s youthfulness. His secretary, the amir Kündigüz, had been urging him to do this. So he crossed the Oxus river with 100,000 cavalrymen intending to meet in battle Sultan Sanjar and his forces. When the two armies drew near to each other, Qadïr Khān rode out from the main body of his army with a detachment of his personal retainers to go hunting. A certain dihqān came along and informed Sultan Sanjar [about this]. So he seized the opportunity and despatched the commander-in-chief of his army, Barghush (? Erghūsh), with a military force to go in the direction where Qadïr Khān was. He swooped down on him, took captive the Khān and his companions, brought him into Sultan Sanjar’s presence and made him stand there. Sanjar began to reproach him. [N 181] The Khān accordingly extenuated himself, but Sanjar refused to accept this and had him beheaded. His army scattered to the four winds. Sanjar then set about conquering Transoxania, his brother Sultan Muḥammad Ṭapar being preoccupied by affairs in Iraq (i.e. western Persia) from paying any attention to him.288 [I 91] Malik Bahrām Shāh, who was the descendant of Sultan Ghāzī Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin, ruler in Ghazna, arrived at Sultan Sanjar’s court and asked for his help against his brother Ibrāhīm, the Malik of Ghazna. Sanjar agreed to give him aid, and equipped and mobilized his army. This reached the ears of Sultan Muḥammad Ṭapar; he disagreed with the proposed action and sent an envoy to Sanjar in these terms, ‘O my brother, desist, for [N 182] this (i.e. the Ghaznavids) is a mighty house, so don’t attack it.’ But Sanjar refused, and in company with Bahrām Shāh, he finally reached Ghazna. Ibrāhīm came forth from the city with his army, which included fifty elephants with infantrymen and archers mounted on them. When the two armies met, the cavalrymen of Sultan Sanjar’s army fell back in fright at the elephants and there was almost a disaster, when Amir Abu ’l-Faḍl, the ruler of Sistan – who was the most courageous of God’s creation289 – dismounted and led an attack up to the largest of the elephants, went beneath one of its flanks and struck its belly with a long dagger that he had got ready for this purpose. The elephant trumpeted and turned its back, with the rest of the elephants

64

The History of the Seljuq State

hearing its trumpeting and fleeing. At that point, Sanjar’s army attacked and the Ghaznavid army was routed. Sultan Sanjar came and entered Ghazna, capturing it and seizing its wealth and treasuries. Ghazna had never been captured by anyone since Sultan Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin had taken it earlier. He then installed Bahrām Shāh on the throne there, gave him wise counsels and imposed on him the requirement of handing over 250,000 dinars annually to Sultan Sanjar’s treasury. The conquest of Ghazna was in 510 [/1116–17].290 He sent a letter announcing the good news (i.e. of the conquest of Ghazna) to Sultan Muḥammad Ṭapar at a point when the latter was suffering from a mortal illness, from which he died a year later. [N 183] Sultan Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar, Sanjar’s nephew, succeeded to power in Iraq (i.e. western Persia) after he had acknowleged Sanjar’s supreme authority. After that, Sanjar headed for [I 92] Samarqand. Its lord, Aḥmad Khān, was one of the mightiest of the sultans of the Turks, possessing 12,000 mamlūks considered to be amongst the most courageous warriors. He had subdued the Turks and penetrated deep into the lands of the Kharkāwāt291 to a distance of two months’ [journeying]. Sultan Sanjar besieged Samarqand for six months, and compelled its lord in the end to come out to him, with the latter stricken by a paralytic stroke and borne along in a litter carried by the mamlūks. He was set down in Sanjar’s presence for a while, but was unable to speak; he was dribbling and the sides of his mouth were drooping because of old age and the paralysis. He was then carried back to the private quarters in his palace (dār al-ḥaram) because of the kinship between him and Terken Khātūn, Sultan Sanjar’s wife.292 Sultan Sanjar appointed Aḥmad Khān’s son Naṣr Khān as governor (sc. of Transoxania), installed him on the throne of his domain, and then went back (i.e. to Khurasan).293 The lord of Ghazna, Bahrām Shāh, played false with his agreement with Sultan Sanjar because of the distance between the two of them. So Sanjar sprang into action against him and mobilized his army. When he reached Bust, he found his route difficult, with muddy terrain an obstacle, worsening wintry conditions [N 184] and lack of fodder. Nevertheless, Sultan Sanjar was unconcerned about all that and, on the contrary, became more determined. He marched onwards in the direction of Ghazna, with straw dearer amongst his troops than gold. When he drew near to Ghazna, Bahrām Shāh abandoned it and fled, and went to Lahore. The people of Ghazna defended their city, but Sultan Sanjar conquered it, plundering and razing it. Then he proclaimed a guarantee of security and safe conduct, and stayed there until he had rebuilt and rendered it prosperous, had put its affairs in good order and appointed a governor responsible to him. He then returned to Khurasan.294 He had become the mightiest monarch whom God raised to power, with prayers for him sent up from Lahore, Ghazna and Samarqand to Khurasan, Ṭabaristān, Kirman, Sistan, Isfahan, Hamadan, Ray, Azerbaijan, Arrān, Baghdad, the two Iraqs, [I 93] Mosul, Diyār Bakr, Diyār Rabīʿa, Syria and the Ḥaramayn (i.e. Mecca and Medina). Coins were minted in his name in all these regions and their lands,295 and their princes acknowledged his suzerainty (lit. ‘trod his carpet’). His position and authority remained thus until 536 [/1141–42], but then the [Qara] Khitay inflicted a disastrous defeat on him and Muslim power over Transoxania was lost.

Translation of the text 65 The reason for this was that Qarluq horsemen spread out through the vicinity of Samarqand, their numbers and those of their herds increased, and fear of the damage they could inflict, and the upheavals they could cause, grew. The leading commanders advised the sultan to expel and drive them away, taking captive their offspring. The Qarluq sent an envoy to him offering their service and promising to hand over 5,000 camels, 5,000 horses and 50,000 head of sheep, but he refused to accept this. Circumstances compelled them to migrate and enter the land [N 185] of the Turks. They made for the court of the Gūr Khān (text, Ūz Khān), lord of Khiṭā, Khotan and n.ʿ.ma (? the Yaghma), who was the mightiest and most powerful of the pagan Turks, with his authority extending to the frontiers of China.296 When the Qarluq reached him, they told him that the Exalted Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Sanjar had become weakened and divisions had appeared amongst his troops. They made him eager to take over those lands. So the chief of the Khiṭā set out, intending to confront Sanjar in war, and having with him 700,000 cavalrymen from the most formidable of his troops. The sultan advanced towards him with 70,000 cavalrymen, but his commanders were divided in their intentions. The two armies came together and clashed in battle, and Sultan Sanjar’s army was put to flight, with only he himself and a small body of troops remaining around his ceremonial parasol (chatr). Malik Abu ’l-Faḍl, the ruler of Sistan, told him, ‘The army has taken to flight and the army of the infidels has encircled you; the wisest course would be to save yourself personally [I 94] and let your servant (i.e. Abu ’l-Faḍl himself) remain standing around the chatr in your stead.’ So he did this, and Abu ’l-Faḍl stood fast there until he was captured. The queen Terken Khātūn, daughter of Arslān Khān and Sultan Sanjar’s wife, [N 186] the amir Qumāch and his son, and the amir Sonqor al-ʿAzīzī were also taken prisoner, whilst the amirs Ayāq,297 Quraysh b. Zangī, ʿUmar b. Öner, Yarïn Qush298 al-Qārī and Maḥmūd al-Kāshānī were killed. The situation remained thus until the sultan’s wife Terken Khātūn was ransomed for 500,000 dinars, whilst 100,000 dinars were handed over as ransom for the amir Qumāch and his son.299 Before the battle had actually taken place, the Amir, the Sayyid, Isfahsālār al-Samarqandī, called the Sayyid al-Jalīl, had gone over to the Gūr Khān. Hence a certain learned scholar recited these verses on him, 1. Is it not reprehensible that a man should assume a guise of which no pious believer would approve? 2. It is a grave matter for the Ḥanīf ī faith (i.e. Islam) that one of the Messenger of God’s progeny should be seen in clothing of the Qarluq.300 As for Malik Abu ’l-Faḍl, the ruler of Sistan, the infidel Gūr Khān learnt that his sons had assumed control of his lands, so he set him free, commenting that a heroic warrior like him should not be killed. The infidel Gūr Khān of the Khiṭā overran Transoxania, whilst at the same time the land of Khiṭā remained in his possession. The battle was fought in a place called Qaṭwān, and in the course of it the Gūr Khān encircled the Muslim army

66

The History of the Seljuq State

and forced them into the valley of Dargham.301 It took place on Tuesday, 5 Ṣafar 536 [/9 September 1141]. Sultan Sanjar withdrew to [N 187] Balkh, having to pass very close to the Gūr Khān because all the other roads were blocked. The Gūr Khān had recognized him but had let him pass freely, [I 95] saying, ‘A defeated person’s escape route being blocked forces him to stand fast and fight, in which he will inevitably be killed. A man who has despaired of getting out alive does not think about the consequences; and he may possibly achieve victory in defending himself.’ After the battle, the Sayyid Imām Sharaf al-Zamān al-Īlāqī, the physician (ḥakīm) al-Samarqandī and the Ṣadr, the martyred Imām Ḥusām al-Dīn ʿUmar b. Burhān al-Dīn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, were executed in the Gūr Khān’s presence.302 The Shaykh Fakhr al-Dīn al-Mālikī recited concerning that incident, 1. In the valley of Dargham, noble ones suffered an ignominious end, and their blood was shed by the hands of ignoble ones. 2. I wept over them, and it was appropriate that I should weep for them with eyelids sleepless and bleeding (i.e. from excessive tear shedding). 3. You would think them, being filled with tears, as like trailing white tent sheets on a rainy morning.303 Whilst Sultan Sanjar was on his way to encounter the [Qara] Khitay, the Khwarazm Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Din Atsïz b. Muḥammad b. Anūshtegin seized the opportunity of Sanjar’s being preoccupied, and fought his way into Merv, killing the city notables, seating himself on Sultan Sanjar’s throne, affixing his own ṭughrā to official documents and carrying off chests of jewels from Sultan Sanjar’s treasury. [However,] when the sultan returned [N 188] in his defeated state, the Khwarazm Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Atsïz realized that fortune would not be on his side, so he returned to Khwarazm. Sultan Sanjar reached Merv. He had expended three million dinars on his expedition (i.e. to Transoxania) in addition to what he had bestowed as robes of honour and other awards for people. So he assembled his troops and marched against the Khwarazm Shah. He reached the fortress of Hazārasp, besieged it and bombarded it with ballistas. The siege dragged on until he stormed the fortress. The Khwarazm Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Atsïz gave back to Sanjar the treasure chests [I 96, N 189] he had carried off with the sultanal seals [intact], and he rode along, halted on the eastern bank of the river opposite Sultan Sanjar, dismounted in full view of the sultan, kissed the ground and made the obligatory acts of obeisance. Sanjar then returned to Khurasan, and his authority remained at its height until 548 [/1153–54].304

[N 191] The reign as sultan in Iraq (i.e. Jibāl and western Persia) of Sultan Mughīth al-Dīn Abu ’l-Qāsim Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar, Yamīn Amīr al-Muʾminīn He ascended the throne on his father’s death. This coincided with the death of the Commander of the Faithful al-Mustaẓhir bi’llāh Abu ’l-ʿAbbās and the caliphate

Translation of the text 67 of al-Mustarshid bi’llāh Abu Manṣūr al-Faḍl, so Maḥmūd sent an embassy to the latter giving his allegiance. The Amir, the Ḥājib, ʿAlī Bār directed administrative affairs for him. Various episodes took place between Sultan Maḥmūd and Sultan Sanjar, as have been previously related. Maḥmūd acknowledged Sanjar’s suzerainty and rendered him service, and the latter appointed him to rule as his subordinate. In 513 [/1119–20], a battle took place in the vicinity of Hamadan between the two brothers Sultan Mughīth al-Dīn Maḥmūd and Malik Ghiyāth al-Dīn Masʿūd, in which Maḥmūd was victorious. The circumstances of this were as follows. Masʿūd was entrusted to the care of the Amir Chāwūsh Beg,305 his Atabeg, at Mosul. The armies of Syria and Diyār Bakr were under his command, [N 192] and he was entitled ‘King of the Western Lands’ (malik al-maghrib) because of the far-flung extent of his territories. The Atabeg Chāwūsh Beg assembled a large body of regular troops ( juyūsh) [I 97] and a numerous host ( jamm). He made the chief secretary (ṭughrāʾī ) Muʾayyid al-Dīn vizier to Malik Masʿūd.306 Sultan Maḥmūd learnt that he had mobilized and gathered together his troops. Chāwūsh Beg brought along Malik Masʿūd under his chatr like the moon within its halo. When the two armies lined up against each other, Malik Masʿūd saw his brother Sultan Maḥmūd and yearned towards him, but Chāwūsh Beg held on to him tightly and he could not turn towards Maḥmūd. He cried out ījī, ījī, which is the Turkish expression for ‘elder brother’.307 Malik Masʿūd rode on and halted at his brother Sultan Maḥmūd’s side and handed over to him all the troops and retainers (or ‘slaves, freedmen’, mawālī ) he had with him for plunder and spoliation. The first person to be seized was Masʿūd’s vizier Muʾayyid al-Dīn Abū Ismāʿīl al-Ṭughrāʾī. [The vizier] Kamāl [al-Mulk al-Sumayramī] was informed about it, so he then told al-Shihāb Asʿad,308 ‘This man (i.e. Muʾayyid al-Dīn) is a deviationist (mulḥid, i.e. an Ismāʿīlī).’ The vizier replied, ‘Anyone who is a deviationist deserves to be killed,’ so he was killed without further enquiry or justification (ẓulman), [N 193] may God Most High show great mercy to him.309 His period of office (i.e. Kamāl al-Mulk’s) was filled with disturbance and forcible confiscations (muṣādarāt).310 In the year 520 [/1126–27], strife occurred at Baghdad between the sultan and the Imām al-Mustarshid bi’llāh, and this led to the deterioration of affairs between them. Things reached the point of the sultan’s riding out against the palace of the Prophet’s descendant al-Mustarshid. He attacked it with his army, whilst the caliph fought back at him from the upper part of the palace until the vizier Jalāl al-Dīn Abu ʿAlī al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Ṣadaqa, the Imām al-Mustarshid’s vizier, intervened in the affair as a mediator between them. In this way, he dispelled the cloud of darkness of the conflict. This strife took place in the last ten days of Dhu ’l-Ḥijja [5]20 [/mid-January 1127].311 The year 521 [/1127] began. Sultan Maḥmūd was still in Baghdad when he fell ill and was on the point of death. [I 98] He decided to go back to Hamadan.312 The thought occurred to him that the cause of the illness that had struck him was his making war on the Commander of the Faithful al-Mustarshid. He gave orders for him to be carried in a litter, so he was borne along, escorted by his troops. When he passed by the caliphal palace, he ordered a halt and sent someone to the Commander of the Faithful al-Mustarshid bi’llāh asking him for his pardon, for

68

The History of the Seljuq State

his prayers on his behalf, and for him to show him his favour and forgive his transgressions. A letter came back to him from the caliph intimating his agreement to Maḥmūd’s request for favour and forgiveness. Maḥmūd’s mind was filled with joy; he went on to Hamadān and was cured of his illness. Also in this same year of [5]21, Sultan Sanjar marched [N 194] on Ray, dismissed from his post Shīrgīr,313 Sultan Ṭoghrïl’s Atabeg, and appointed in his place the Amir Qara Sonqor, granting him the land of Arrān, and he designated Ṭoghrïl and Masʿūd to go with him. Before Sultan Maḥmūd, the [supreme] sultanate was held by the rulers of Iraq, but from his time onwards it passed to the ruler of Khurasan, Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Sanjar, as we have related in our account of his reign. During Maḥmūd’s reign, the state (dawla) grew weak and its revenues decreased. The Shaykh ʿImād al-Dīn Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Iṣfahānī said: I found a detailed account written by my paternal uncle ʿAzīz al-Islām Abū Ḥāmid stating that the treasury of Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad contained at his death eighteen million dinars in gold, as well as finely-wrought items of adornment, jewels and various kind of garments. But circumstances deteriorated during the time of his son Sultan Maḥmūd to the point that, when they asked for the regular wages of the supplier of fuqqāʿ,314 they could not find the money for it and had to hand over to him some boxes from the treasury which he then sold. One day, the sultan asked the treasurer, the eunuch (khādim) Sābūr, [I 99] for some precious unguent of musk, but he adduced to him the excuse that it had run short and asked the sultan to allow him some time (i.e. to procure it). After an interval, [N 195] he presented the sultan with thirty mithqāls. Since Sābūr had been Maḥmūd’s father’s treasurer, Maḥmūd asked him, ‘How much of this precious unguent was there in the sultan my father’s treasury?’ Sābūr replied, ‘There was in the citadel of Isfahan approximately 180 riṭls of it in gold and silver vessels.’ The sultan became filled with amazement, and he remarked to those present, ‘Aren’t you astounded at the difference between those days and the present time?’315 Sultan Maḥmūd had a profound acquaintance with Arabic, knew by heart much poetry and many proverbs, and was knowledgeable about historical chronicles and biographical literature.316 He died in Shawwāl 525 [/August–September 1131] after a reign of thirteen years, eight months and some days. His sons were: Muḥammad, Malik Shāh and Dāwūd, none of whom reigned as sultans but remained [mere] maliks.317

[N 197] The reign of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq When his (i.e. Ṭoghrïl’s) brother Sultan Maḥmūd died, the vizier al-Darguzīnī and the army commanders agreed to proceed to Ray, encamp outside it and send a

Translation of the text 69 message to Sultan Sanjar, asking him to come to them and appoint [as ruler] the person of his choice. So they proceeded to Ray and wintered there, staying there for five months. [I 100] Sultan Sanjar reached them in Rabīʿ [N 198] II 526 [/February–March 1132], and the army of Iraq (i.e. western Persia) and the vizier went out to meet him and escort him back. Sultan Ṭoghrïl also joined them early in the morning of the second day after Sanjar’s arrival, and the troops met him and the vizier came into his presence on foot. However, Ṭoghrïl took no notice of him and accorded him no respect because the vizier was the one who had killed his Atabeg Shīrgīr and the latter’s son Amir Sharaf al-Dawla ʿUmar. Sultan Sanjar sat down on the throne and then travelled on to Hamadan, where he stayed for three days. News arrived that Malik Masʿūd, Ṭoghrïl’s brother, had taken up arms with the aim of securing the sultanate for himself and had sought help from the amir Qarācha al-Sāqī, Atabeg of Malik Saljūq Shāh, ruler of Fars. When Sultan Ṭoghrïl, then at Ray, heard about this, he was fear-stricken because he knew that Qarācha was an invincible cavalry rider. Sultan Sanjar also got word of this, so he despatched an army to Sultan Ṭoghrïl. The troops reached him and informed him that his uncle Sultan Sanjar had entrusted to him the sultanate over Iraq and had made him his covenanted heir over Khurasan and all his territories. Ṭoghrïl was delighted at that and his heart rejoiced. Sultan Ṭoghrïl was out riding [at this time,] and went back to his tent together with the amirs from Khurasan, but during that night a violent fever gripped him which became prolonged, and he became permanently pallid in complexion after having been the handsomest of persons. Sultan Sanjar set out from Hamadan towards Nihāwand, with Sultan Ṭoghrïl following after him with his own troops. They received news that Malik Masʿūd had left Dīnawar for Azerbaijan. Sultan Sanjar and the amir Qumāch went along on Sultan Ṭoghrïl’s right wing, with the Khwarazm Shah (i.e. Atsïz) and a number of other amirs on his left wing. Malik Masʿūd’s left wing attacked [I 101] Sultan Sanjar’s right wing, where was also Sultan Ṭoghrïl. Malik Masʿūd’s left wing defeated them, and Sultan Ṭoghrïl fled in disorder for a distance of two farsakhs. But then he came back to his uncle Sultan Sanjar’s side and stood firm there. [N 199] Sultan Sanjar’s left wing attacked Malik Masʿūd’s right wing, and Sanjar stood his ground with the outstanding warriors of his mamlūks. Qarācha al-Sāqī and Malik Masʿūd were in the centre of their army. Sultan Sanjar rushed at Qarācha and assailed him fiercely until Qarācha was made prisoner. Together with him, his associate Yūsuf al-Chāwūsh and Malik Masʿūd’s vizier Tāj al-Dīn [Ibn] Dārust were taken captive also, and Malik Masʿūd himself fled. After three days had elapsed, Sultan Sanjar rode forth and gave orders for Qarācha and Yūsuf to be brought before him, and they were brought in, showing no signs of fear, and he had them beheaded. Sanjar left on the morning of the same day. He had bestowed a robe of honour on Sultan Ṭoghrïl, and he had a tête-à-tête conversation with him,318 gave him wise counsels and commended him to the vizier al-Darguzīnī. He bade Ṭoghrïl farewell and returned to Khurasan. Sultan Ṭoghrïl acceded to the throne at Hamadan in Jumādā II 526 [/April– May 1132]. Envoys came from the Commander of the Faithful al-Mustarshid bi

70

The History of the Seljuq State

’llāh requiring Sultan Ṭoghrïl to come to Baghdad, but he refused to go and affairs between him and the caliph were never settled. After the execution of Qarācha, Sultan Ṭoghrïl appointed the amir Mengü-bars to the province of Fars and entrusted to him his son Alp Arslān, with Mengü-bars designated as his Atabeg. Malik Dāwūd b. Maḥmūd was the covenanted heir of his father, with Ayāz as his Atabeg. A group of his father’s close retainers came to him and massed at Tabriz. Malik Dāwūd marched at their head to Hamadan, at which Sultan [N 200] Ṭoghrïl came forth [I 102] from the city against him with his army. When the two armies came face-to-face with each other, a group of amirs deserted from Malik Dāwūd’s army. The two armies clashed in battle, and Malik Dāwūd’s army and its commander Aq Sonqor319 was put to flight. The amir Yarïn Qush was captured, but he ransomed himself for 70,000 dinars and had to hand over Qazwin, and was then set free. The chief accounting official Ṣafī al-Dīn was also captured, and was mulcted of 200,000 dinars. This battle took place in Ramaḍān 526 [/July–August 1132]. In 527 [/1132–33] Malik Masʿūd engaged in military action. He, Malik Dāwūd and Aq Sonqor came together in Azerbaijan, and Sultan Ṭoghrïl moved to join [battle] with them at Marāgha. [Meanwhile,] Malik Masʿūd entered Baghdad and discovered that the caliph al-Mustarshid regarded Sultan Ṭoghrïl with hostility. The caliph accordingly conferred on Masʿūd the sultanate, and professional witnesses made a solemn attestation to this. The caliph installed him in the [official] sultan’s palace and placed his name in the khuṭba on the last Friday of Muḥarram of that year [/9 December 1132]. On Sunday, 5 Rabīʿ I 527 [/14 January 1133] he bestowed a robe of honour on him. [N 201] The caliph gave him an audience, and Masʿūd came before him and rendered him most humble service. The Imām alMustarshid bi ‘llāh said to him, after he had donned the robe of honour, ‘Take this bestowal of favour with gratitude, and fear God in both your private and your public conduct.’ The outfit making up the robe of honour comprised seven robes with a slit down from the neck which could be buttoned up and loose sleeves (durrāʿa), of different kinds and colours, the seventh one being black; and a crown set with jewels and rubies, arm bands and a collar of gold.320 The caliph personally invested him with two swords and, furthermore, raised for him two banners, again with his own hands. He entrusted to Masʿūd his nephew Malik Dāwūd (i.e. Maḥmūd’s son), and commended Malik Dāwūd to him with his express words, telling him, ‘Arise, and take what I have given you with firm hands and be grateful.’ Malik Masʿūd appointed as his vizier [I 103] Anūshirwān b. Khalid.321 Sultan Ṭoghrïl was at Hamadan and his Atabeg Qara Sonqor was in Azerbaijan, together with a group of commanders. When Malik Masʿūd moved into Azerbaijan, Amir Aq Sonqor went to Zanjān, ʿAyn al-Dawla to Khwarazm322 and Amir Bulāq323 to Ardabīl. Malik Masʿūd, Dāwūd [N 202] and Aq Sonqor assumed power over that land and encamped at Ardabīl, laying siege to it; its defenders had great resources of strength. Al-Darguzīnī wrote a letter to the Amir, the Atabeg Qara Sonqor inciting him to take advantage of the opportunity of their being unprepared. In his correspondence, the vizier urged him vehemently to the extent that he described Qara

Translation of the text 71 Sonqor’s behaviour (i.e. his quiescence) as an act of disobedience. When this reached Amir Qara Sonqor he remarked, ‘God has put us to the test through this peasant!’ He marched out of Ardabīl by night, taking with him his amirs, and they covered over twenty farsakhs during that night. Hence they came upon Malik Masʿūd’s army when they were in an exhausted state. A battle took place at the gate of Ardabīl, and the two sides fought with each other until they almost destroyed each other (ḥattā tafānū). Amir Qara Sonqor fled, and Malik Masʿūd pursued the fugitives to the gate of Hamadan. Sultan Ṭoghrïl had only a small number of men, so he withdrew from the city and Malik Masʿūd occupied it. Sultan Ṭoghrïl fortified himself within Arwand,324 and Malik Masʿūd pursued him, seeking to give battle to him. Sultan Ṭoghrïl had been struck by a serious illness which kept him immobile. Malik Masʿūd encountered him in battle, and Ṭoghrïl’s army fled. [N 203] Sultan Ṭoghrïl made for Isfahan, intending to go on to Ray. He endured various vicissitudes. He said to his vizier (sc. to al-Darguzīnī), ‘I have realized that this humiliation has befallen me solely through your tyrannical behaviour against the people.’ The vizier replied, ‘Don’t worry. I have sent a message to the men in Alamut (i.e. the Ismāʿīlīs) and have instructed them to kill [I 104] Aq Sonqor [al-Aḥmadīlī] and the rest of your enemies, and they’re going to do it.’ [On hearing this,] Sultan Ṭoghrïl exclaimed, ‘God be praised, Who has clearly shown up your evil nature and belief and thus made me guiltless of putting you to death.’ Then he gave orders, and al-Darguzīnī was beaten and then hanged and gibbeted. In the process of his being hanged, the rope snapped under his weight, but amongst those watching the spectacle was one of Amir Shīrgīr’s mamlūks, who fell upon al-Darguzīnī when he dropped down and speedily ensured his death with a dagger he had with him. [The corpse] was torn limb from limb on the spot, and his head and other members were paraded round, with a body member in each town. His execution took place at Isfahan. After that, news arrived that the Bāṭiniyya had set upon Aq Sonqor in his tent at Marj Qarategin325 and had killed him. His troops fled and abandoned Malik Masʿūd, leaving no one with him who could act as his administrator, even though he had a host of persons round him. Sultan Ṭoghrïl headed for Ray, with Malik Masʿūd in pursuit of him with 6,000 cavalrymen, whilst Sultan Ṭoghrïl had 3,000. They clashed in battle and Sultan Ṭoghrïl was put to flight and sought a guarantee of security with Amir Bulāq and Amir Sonqor, the lord of Zanjān. This battle took place on 8 Rajab 527 [/15 May 1133]. Sultan Ṭoghril fled onwards to [N 204] Ṭabaristan and sought hospitality from the Ispahbad.326 The latter showed him honour and gave him hospitality. Dubays b. Ṣadaqa was in Sultan Ṭoghrïl’s entourage, hence the Ispahbad lavished precious gifts on them both. When the winter was over, Sultan Ṭoghrïl’s troops came to him, together with amirs and their followers, including the Khwarazm Shah ʿAyn al-Dawla and others. There joined him, together with 2,000 cavalrymen, the Amir Mengü Bars, the Atabeg of Ṭoghrïl’s son Alp Arslān and governor of the province of Fars which Sultan Ṭoghrïl had bestowed on him on [I 105] the killing of Qarācha al-Sāqī. Sultan Ṭoghrïl then marched off with them, heading for Hamadan. Malik Masʿūd had already moved towards Azerbaijan. Sultan Ṭoghrïl despatched his

72

The History of the Seljuq State

Atabeg Qara Sonqor to attack Malik Dāwūd in Marāgha. The armies met, and Malik Dāwūd was put to flight. Sultan Ṭoghrïl was now in a secure position and everything was bright for him, but death overtook him suddenly. This happened because he drank a purgative medicine and then he was gripped by an intestinal disorder (qūlanj) which sapped his strength so that he died at Hamadan on the throne of his royal power and was buried there. His death occurred at the beginning of Muḥarram 528 [/1 November 1133] after a reign of two years and a month or two.327 His sons were Arslān Shāh and the covenanted heir to the sultanate Alp Arslān, who never had the opportunity to succeed to power.328 His viziers were al-Qiwām al-Darguzīnī, whom he killed, as we have mentioned. He also killed ʿAzīz al-Islām Abū Ḥāmid [N 205] al-Iṣfahānī, may God have mercy on him, who has been previously mentioned;329 between his killing and the vizier’s killing was an interval of forty days. He (sc. al-Darguzīnī) forcibly mulcted a good number of people, the detailing of whose names would prolong this concise work (mukhtaṣar). None of the viziers of the Seljuqs after Niẓām al-Mulk reached the level of al-Darguzīnī. It was said that he stemmed from Ansābād, a village of [the district of] Darguzīn, and that his father was a peasant cultivator during the period of his vizierate. After he was killed, the sultan appointed as his vizier Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Rajāʾ [who functioned] till Ṭoghrïl died.330

[I 106, N 207] The reign of Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Abu ’l-Fatḥ Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, Qasīm Amīr al-Muʾminīn His mother was a favourite slave girl of Sultan Muḥammad Ṭapar, may God Most High have mercy on him, called Nīst andar Jahān, which means ‘None Like Her on Earth’. When Sultan Muḥammad died, Sultan Maḥmūd married her to Amir Mengü Bars, whom Sultan Sanjar killed in the course of his march against Iraq (i.e. western Persia) at the beginning of Sultan Maḥmūd’s reign, as we have mentioned (above, p. 62). As for Sultan Masʿūd, in 505 [/1111–12] his father commended him to Amir Isfahsālār Mawdud, the lord of Mosul, and Masʿūd remained with him till Mawdūd was killed at Damascus. When news of his death reached Sultan Muḥammad Ṭapar, he entrusted him to Amir Aq Sonqor al-Bursuqī and granted him the iqṭāʿs of Mosul and al-Jazīra.331 When Sultan Masʿūd acceeded to the throne after his brother Ṭoghrïl, Yarïn Qush al-Bāzdārī achieved a complete ascendancy over all of Masʿūd’s affairs (lit. ‘strove persistently to control his commands and prohibitions’). When Ṭoghrïl died, his Atabeg, Qara Sonqor, was in Azerbaijan. He headed for Hamadan and offered his service [N 208] to Zubayda Khātūn, daughter of Sultan Berk-yārūq and Sultan Masʿūd’s wife, [I 107] who had a dominating influence over the Sultan’s affairs. She built up Qara Sonqor in his estimation, which chagrined Yarïn Qush al-Bāzdārī. Hence he came out in rebellion with the support of a group of senior amirs, and they came together and agreed to place various demands before Sultan Masʿūd, and they set off to Burūjird. Sultan Masʿūd

Translation of the text 73 remained there (sc. in Hamdadan) with the amir Qara Sonqor and was joined by the Khwarazm Shah with his troops and by the amir Sābiq al-Dīn Rashīd from Khurasan. Sultan Masʿūd marched off with them and clashed in battle with Yarïn Qush and his allies, and Yarïn Qush was put to flight. The Sultan took captive many of the amirs, but Qara Sonqor interceded for them and the sultan released for them their iqṭāʿs. Yarïn Qush hurriedly despatched332 one of them to Baghdad, and he told the caliph about Sultan Masʿūd’s present intention, that he had resolved to depose the caliph. Yarïn Qush did not stop until he had sowed hatred between them, and that led to the killing of al-Mustarshid on Sunday, 4 Dhu ’l-Ḥijja 529 [/16 August 1135].333 One of the learned men passed [N 209] by the caliph’s palace and quoted the following verses: 1. O desolate dwelling place, God’s peace be upon you, you have aroused in me an ancient longing, though you do not know it. 2. Only a month ago I was used to seeing you in a state of newness, and I never imagined that the vicissitudes of human loss would obliterate your dwelling places within a single month!334 The physician (ḥakīm) Abu ’l-Barakāt b. Malkā was with al-Mustarshid. When death approached him, he declared his belief in God Most High and testified to the veracity [of the prophethood] of Muḥammad, hence the sultan heaped favour on him.335 Yarïn Qush al-Qārī returned [I 108] to Khurasan, and the news came of the killing of al-Mustarshid bi ‘llāh. His covenanted heir was the Commander of the Faithful Abu ’l-Faḍl al-Rāshid bi’llāh, to whom the people then gave allegiance in acordance with God’s covenant. The Atabeg ʿImād al-Dīn Zangī b. Aq Sonqor came down from Mosul to render him service and stayed in Baghdad for six months.336 Sultan Masʿūd remained at Hamadan until [N 210] the land of Iraq (i.e Jibāl) and Azerbaijan became peaceful. He then killed the Amīr al-ʿArab Dubays b. Ṣadaqa.337 When Sultan Masʿūd was firmly established in Iraq, he headed for Azerbaijan. Aq Sonqor al-Aḥmadīlī was at Marāgha. So the sultan laid siege to him there for two complete months until Aq Sonqor came down [from the fortress] to him seeking a guarantee of safe conduct. He assigned to Aq Sonqor Marāgha and Tabriz but took from him the fortress known as Rūwin Diz, that is ‘The Fortress of Brass’.338 He installed him as governor there, handing over to his charge its treasury, and returned to Hamadan, with the intention of going to Baghdad. When al-Rāshid became aware of Sultan Masʿūd’s arrival at Ḥulwān, he refused to let him [enter Baghdad]. There was with him in Baghdad the amir ʿImād al-Dīn the Atabeg. He plundered the private quarters (ḥarīm) [of the caliph’s palace] and went to Mosul, taking with him al-Rāshid. At the time when the two of them reached Mosul, Sultan Masʿūd entered [N 211] Baghdad, and he sent an envoy to the Atabeg ʿImād al-Dīn Zangī at Mosul. The caliph al-Rāshid bi ’llāh feared that the Atabeg Zangī would come to an agreement with Sultan Masʿūd to hand him over. So he left Mosul, intending to go to Khurasan and

74

The History of the Seljuq State

Sultan Sanjar. The amir Ṭoghā(n) Yürek339 and Malik Dāwūd [b. Maḥmūd] were inciting al-Rāshid to rise up and assume full freedom of action, but his vizier ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Abu ’l-Qāsim b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Qummī [I 109] was counselling him and restraining him from doing that. When Sultan Masʿūd was in Baghdad, he asembled those persons who were influential and possessed authority (ahl al-ʿaqd wa ʾl-ḥall ) and they pledged allegiance to al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh as [the new] Commander of the Faithful, he being Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. al-Mustaẓhir bi’llāh. News that the people had pledged allegiance to al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh reached the caliph al-Rāshid bi’llāh at Dāmghān. He accordingly wrote from there a letter to Sultan Sanjar complaining volubly about Sultan Masʿūd, and sought from him help, that Sanjar should aid him with his army and with his personal presence, this in the first ten days of Ramaḍān 531 [/late May 1137]. [N 212] Sultan Sanjar wrote back a reply on 20 Ramaḍān 531 [/11 June 1137] that the army of the Muslims had got back to the banks of the Oxus and that, moreover, the party of God would be victorious. When Sultan Sanjar’s response reached the caliph al-Rāshid and he realized that Sanjar had not answered his call, he went back from Dāmghān to Azerbaijan and resolved to subdue the lands and to exact vengeance, and headed for Iraq (i.e. western Persia). When he reached Isfahan and took control of it, he was out riding one day with a group of soldiers round him, when a number of them came up to him and sprang on him whilst he was still on horseback. Hence he achieved martyrdom, may God have mercy on him, at Isfahan in Ramaḍān 532 [/May 1139].340 When Sultan Masʿūd had installed the Commander of the Faithful al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh and had carried out the ceremony of allegiance to him at Baghdad in 531 [/1136–37],341 he went back to Jibāl (text, al-jabal ). It was reported to him that the Atabeg, the Amir Mengü Bars, lord of the province of Fars, had resolved to come out in rebellion against him, so he despatched the Atabeg Aq Sonqor to [I 110] Isfahan and reinforced him with Yarïn Qush al-Bāzdārī, although Sultan Masʿūd had [previously] thought it expedient to have Yarïn Qush killed. He further reinforced the two of them with the jāndār Chāwlī and Sonqur, the lord of Zanjān. They all proceeded until they came to Isfahan, staying [N 213] there till the spring. Then the news reached them that Mengü Bars had set off from Fars with various tribal groups (umam) of the Turks. Qara Sonqor realized that his own army could not withstand Mengü Bars, so he fell back from Isfahan to Hamadan. Mengü Bars came along, occupied Isfahan and then set out for Hamadan. Sultan Masʿūd came forth to engage him in battle along with the previouslymentioned amirs. The two sides clashed at Kūrshanba,342 and the army of Fars was put to flight. Mengü Bars, one of the most courageous of men, was taken prisoner. The amir Boz Aba343 was one of his closest associates, and he said after the army had been routed, ‘Since we’ve [at least] come back with our lives, it’s as if we’ve come back with booty,’ thinking that Mengü Bars had escaped. When he was informed of Mengü Bars’s capture, he swore that he would not go back (i.e. to Fars) until he had either exacted vengeance for him or had died in the attempt. So he returned (i.e to the battlefield) with a group of the troops who had previously

Translation of the text 75 taken flight, at a time when Sultan Masʿūd had gone back to his tent after the battle had ended, and he launched an attack on the encampment. Sultan Masʿūd fled after having fought fiercely to defend himself. Boz Aba took prisoner from their tents the greater part of the amirs, seizing a total of twelve of them, including the Amīr al-ʿArab Ṣadaqa b. Dubays; Amir ‘Antar al-Jāwānī; the Amir Ḥājib Erghān; Sonqor, the lord of Zanjān; and Muḥammad b. Aq Sonqor, all of whom he executed. This battle took place in the last days of 531 [/early to midSeptember 1137]. Boz Aba then returned to Fars [N 214] and assumed control of it in place of [I 111] Mengü Bars. At this point, Sultan Masʿūd made peace with his brother Saljūq [Shāh], who had Qarācha al-Sāqī with him. He granted to him as iqṭāʿs the territory held by Sukmān b. Artuq, sc. Khilāṭ and its adjuncts, Manāzgird and Arzan,344 and attached to his service the Atabeg known as al-Silāḥī,345 who held the iqṭāʿ of Tabriz. In the year 533 [/1138–39], Sultan Masʿūd’s vizier Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Khāzin al-Rāzī stirred up trouble between the sultan and Qara Sonqor, telling Sultan Masʿūd, ‘Qara Sonqor won’t put in an appearance before you since he’s arrogated to himself the sultan’s authority, and you can’t have two swords together in one scabbard.’ So he arranged with Sultan Masʿūd to summon Boz Aba from Fars. This was delated to Qara Sonqor, [N 215] who was in Azerbaijan, and he became enraged and set out for Hamadan with 10,000 cavalrymen. He summoned Malik Saljūq [Shāh] from Khilāṭ and promised him that he would restore him to Fars and expel Boz Aba from there on his behalf. He also summoned to arms with him Malik Dāwūd, the son of Sultan Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar and his Atabeg Ayāz, who was a protégé (ṣanī ʿa) of Qara Sonqor. When the latter drew near to Hamadan, he sent to Sultan Masʿūd his chancery clerk with a letter from himself, Malik Saljūq [Shāh], Malik Dāwūd and the body of amirs, in which he set forth to him that the sole reason for their expedition was their fear of the vizier, and if Sultan Masʿūd would put the vizier to death, they would renew their allegiance to him. The sultan, however, saw no reason for executing the vizier, but then handed him over to the Great Ḥājib Tatār, who had taken over this post [I 112] after Erghān, killed by Boz Aba in the battle which has been previously mentioned (above, pp. 74–75). This coming together of the two parties took place in Shawwāl 533 [/June 1139]. Qara Sonqor came with the two maliks, Saljūq [Shāh] and Dāwūd b. Maḥmūd, to offer service to Sultan Masʿūd, and [ʿIzz al-Mulk] Abū ʿIzz al-Burūjirdī, Qara Sonqor’s secretary, took over the vizierate.346 Qara Sonqor now set out [N 216] with the two maliks heading for the province of Fars and reached al-Nawbandajān347 with a mighty army. When Boz Aba heard about Qara Sonqor’s approach, he fled and sought refuge in a fortress situated between Khuzistan and Fars. Malik Saljūq [Shāh] entered the town of Shiraz and assumed authority there. Qara Sonqor wished to provide Saljūq Shāh with [further] troops, but the commander of his (sc. Malik Saljūq Shāh’s) army, Ghuzoghlu al-Silāḥī, who has been mentioned previously, refused (reading abā for the text’s atā) to do that, hoping to exercise real power there. He told Qara Sonqor that he could cope perfectly well on Qara Sonqor’s behalf. Qara Sonqor found this assurance from him acceptable. He left him and went to Hamadan by

76

The History of the Seljuq State

way of Khuzistan, and he sent a group of amirs with Malik Dāwūd by another route, in accordance with a plan he had formulated. As for Malik Saljūq [Shāh] and Ghuzoghlu, they both became preoccupied with other things and did not imagine that an enemy would come upon them. Hence Boz Aba made a surprise attack on them, killing the greater part of their army and capturing Saljūq [Shāh]. He was taken up into the fortress of Isfīd Diz348 and that was the last ever seen of him. Boz Aba made firm his power in his province, awe of his exalted status increased [I 113] and people feared his evil policies. When this news reached Qara Sonqor, he fled precipitately, having resolved that, after these events, he would no longer be responsible for the administration of his province. When he reached Burūjird, the report came to him that the town of Ganja and its surrounding region had been razed to the ground through a series of earthquakes. [N 217] In [5]43 [/1148–49], the jāndār Chāwlī came with his troops from the lands of Arrān and from Azerbaijān intending to present his obedience to Sultan Masʿūd, having already introduced Amir ʿAbbās, [N 218] the governor of Ray, into the sultan’s service. This ʿAbbās was one of the ghulāms of the eunuch and intimate Jawhar, the one mentioned as being amongst the close retainers of the Exalted Sultan Sanjar. When the latter appropriated Ray for himself, as we have mentioned (above, pp. 68–69), he entrusted it to Jawhar, and he [in turn] entrusted it to his mamlūk ʿAbbās. When Jawhar was killed by the Bāṭiniyya, ʿAbbās assumed control of the city and built up his strength with his master’s army and his mamlūks, who numbered 4,000, with a following also of numerous troops. He became occupied in killing the Bāṭiniyya and avenged his master to the extent that he built a minaret out of their heads from which the muezzin could give the call to prayer; only God Most High could count the number who were killed. [N 219] When Chāwlī the jāndār reached the sultan’s presence, he made his obeisance and thus rose to a high position of esteem in the sultan’s eyes. The sultan had dismissed the Ḥājib Tatār from his post and given it to the amir Fakhr al-Dīn [I 114] ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ṭoghā[n[ Yürek. The amir Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri349 was one of the sultan’s intimates. All of these now agreed with the jāndār Chāwlī and ʿAbbās in giving their obedience to the sultan. In 538 [/1143–44], Malik Dāwūd, son of Sultan Maḥmūd, was treacherously killed at Tabriz by the Bāṭiniyya. Sultan Masʿūd was his paternal uncle, and had given Dāwūd his daughter in marriage, had given him rule over Tabriz and had installed him in power there. In this same year, the bond of friendship between ʿAbbās, lord of Ray, and Boz Aba, lord of Fars, was made firm, and they agreed to seek the sultanate [for themselves]. Boz Aba wrote to Sultan Masʿūd that he was coming to the royal presence, and moved from Shiraz with the two maliks, Muḥammad and Malik Shāh, sons of Sultan Maḥmūd, Sultan Masʿūd’s brother. ʿAbbās set out from Ray accompanied by the sultan’s brother Sulaymān Shāh, showing their obedience outwardly but actually concealing its opposite (i.e. rebelliousness). The sultan wrote to the jāndār Chāwlī summoning him to his presence, but found him in an accusatory mood because of the sultan’s seizure of his vizier [ʿIzz al-Mulk] Abu ’l-ʿIzz al-Burūjirdī without his (sc. Chāwlī’s) permission. When the sultan learnt about this, he despatched his cavalry to Baghdad and

Translation of the text 77 hastened forward with all speed. Amongst the amirs with him were the Chief Ḥājib ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ṭoghā[n] Yürek – by this time Chāwlī had become his son-in-law – and Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri. Boz Aba and ʿAbbās also arrived in Hamadan [N 220] to attack them, but were unable to find Sultan Masʿūd’s whereabouts, and their plans came to nought.350 [By that time,] Amir Nāṣir al-Dīn Kh.ṭ.l.bā351 al-Bāzdārī had also joined them. They all wrote to Amir Chāwlī the jāndār, telling [I 115] him, ‘You’re our amir and the most outstanding amongst us. If you come to us, you’ll be the commander of the armies of the one who mounts the throne of the realm, and all of us will give you our obedience.’ He wrote a reply to them thanking them and sent back their envoy in a handsome fashion. He gathered troops together, being joined by Ayāz, who had been Malik Dāwūd’s Atabeg in his lifetime, and Amir Shīrīn (?)352 b. Aq Sonqor. Chāwlī advanced with them on Hamadan, intending to give battle to those who had rebelled against Sultan Masʿūd, but they found that winter had gripped the land everywhere and that snow had blocked the roads. So he waited with his army in compact formation, and sent to Sultan Masʿūd in Baghdad to summon him. So the latter set out, moving swiftly, and travelled to Marāgha by way of the Qarābulī pass till he joined up with the jāndār Chāwlī. When the group of amirs mentioned above, who had accompanied Sultan Masʿūd on his journey from Baghdad, saw how highly esteemed the jāndār Chāwlī was (sc. in the sultan’s eyes), they were filled with envy and resolved to kill him. Amongst this group was the Great Ḥājib ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ṭoghā(n) Yürek, Chāwlī’s father-in-law, and Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri, the latter because Chāwlī had displaced him from Tabriz and allotted it to Arslān. Hence they plotted to kill him treacherously, but Chāwlī was aware of their plans and used to pitch his tent in the vicinity of the sultan’s tent, saying to Sultan Masʿūd, ‘I am on intimate terms with you, but you and I will only get together in one place after this when you are riding your own horse and I am like this on my own.’ So [subsequently] they only came together in that fashion. He further said to Sultan Masʿūd, ‘If you wish me to remain permanently in your service, give me command of your forces and I’ll go off and combat your enemies until God fulfils your desires regarding them.’ So Sultan Masʿūd conceded this to him (istaqālahu) [N 221] and ordered that an official decree (sijill ) should be written out guaranteeing that the sultan had entrusted the jāndār Chāwlī with full responsibility for managing affairs, [I 116] and he ordered the amirs to fall in with Chāwlī’s wishes. Chāwlī embarked on winning over Sulaymān Shāh to his brother’s side and sent him a document containing a guarantee of security on Sultan Masʿūd’s behalf. So Sulaymān Shāh went to join his brother, abandoning ʿAbbās, and the Khwarazm Shah and his brother also joined him, followed by the leading amirs. When Boz Aba and ʿAbbās learnt that the plan they had worked out had miscarried, they parted from each other after agreeing on a future meeting. When the sultan got to know that they had separated from each other, he told Chāwlī to pursue them. They travelled onwards to the town of Sujās,353 and the sultan said to Chāwlī, ‘You follow the trail of Boz Aba, for he has the army and the military power, whilst I’ll proceed to Ray in pursuit of ʿAbbās.’ So Chāwlī

78

The History of the Seljuq State

went to Hamadan and Sultan Masʿūd in the direction of Ray, and he seized his brother Sulaymān Shāh and imprisoned him in the fortress of Sarjahān.354 When Boz Aba, then at Hamadan, got news of Chāwlī’s intentions, he fled from there and abandoned his treasuries there. When Chāwlī got to know about Sulaymān Shāh’s imprisonment, he said to himself, ‘If this sultan has done this to his brother [even] after Sulaymān Shāh had come over to his side (baʿd khalʿihi lahu),355 what’s he likely to do with me, a non-relative?’, and he sent a message to Boz Aba telling him, ‘I haven’t advanced against you with the intention of attacking you, but on the contrary, to seek your friendship and to make an alliance with you on whatever basis you wish.’ Boz Aba sent back a reply, saying, ‘The proof of what you say about seeking friendship with me is [the return to me of] the treasury I left behind, which comprises thirty loads of valuables that I deposited in al-Athīr Abū ʿĪsā’s house.’ Chāwlī sent this wealth back to him, and on that basis, Chāwlī, Boz Aba and ʿAbbās made an agreement together [N 222] that provided for Boz Aba to bring Malik Muḥammad, son of Sultan Muḥammad Ṭapar. The estrangement between them and Sultan Masʿūd became more deep-rooted, [I 117] and they decided on a date of Jumādā I in the coming year, 541 [/1146–47]; but the Divine Decree was laughing at what they had agreed upon and worked out. Affairs progressed until the time appointed for their meeting. Chāwlī sent the amir Tatār to seek fulfilment from Boz Aba of his promise. Chaw̄ lī was in the town of Miyānij.356 When the Amir, the Ḥājib ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ṭoghā(n) Yürek learnt that Tatār had gone to Fars, on Sultan Masʿūd’s orders he pressed forward in order to head off Tatār from Fars. Chāwlī’s enforced period of inertia became prolonged for him. His troops gathered round him, but news of Boz Aba and ʿAbbās was slow in reaching him, and he had no alternative but to march out (i.e. alone and unsupported) and head for Hamadan, having with him 12,000 armoured infantry and cavalry. He encamped outside Zanjān. He had been bled, although he was not ill in any way, and began to use his hand when a hare popped up before him. He drew his bow and shot it, but his blood vessels began to feel painful, his arm swelled up, the blood rose up to his throat and chest and then passed from his back to the depths of his abdomen. Thus he died at Zanjān in Jumādā I 541 [/October–November 1146]. Al-Muẓaffar b. Sayyidī al-Zanjānī recited concerning him as part of an ode, 1. Twenty thousand Indian swords were unsheathed, but a lancet’s incision blunted their blows.357 Saʿd al-Dawla Yarïn Qush, the amīr ākhur Amir Qïzïl and others had already died before Chāwlī’s death, [N 223] so the armies disbanded and each soldier returned to his own place. When the Ḥājib [I 118] ʿAbd al-Raḥmān hurried forward to deflect the amir Tatār from going to Boz Aba. He wrote a letter to Tatār urging him to bring about a reconciliation between Sultan Masʿūd and Boz Aba, telling him, ‘Say to Boz Aba that this is a [suitable] time for you to take over the administration of the kingdom.’ Tatār advised Boz Aba to act appropriately. Correspondence regarding it was

Translation of the text 79 exchanged with ʿAbbās. ʿAbbās and Boz Aba came forth with their respective armies seeking a meeting with Sultan Masʿūd. On meeting up with him, they laid before him several demands, to which he assented. They imposed on him as vizier Tāj al-Dīn Ibn Dārust al-Fārisī, Boz Abaʾs secretary. They also laid down as a requirement for the sultan that the lands of Arrān, Armenia and Azerbaijan that he held, and all those lands that the jāndār Chāwlī had controlled, should be given to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ṭoghā(n) Yürek and that Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri should be in the latter’s service. It was further stipulated that attendance on the sultan should be shared by the three, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Boz Aba and ʿAbbās, in turn. Boz Aba left for Fars and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān left for his own territories. Sultan Masʿūd, with ʿAbbās in attendance on him, departed to Baghdad, having given orders for Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri to kill ʿAbd al-Raḥmān if an opportunity for this should present itself. Amir ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ṭoghā(n) Yürek rode forth one day, despatching his amirs to combat the Georgians. He was sending them out one by one, leaving not a single one with him. Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri, with the jāndār Zangī, was standing there, and they both planned to kill him. The jāndār stepped forward and struck Amir ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s skull, [N 224] splitting it open, and more blows were hailed down until he was killed. Khāṣṣ Beg took control of Arrān, divided out the lands amongst subordinate officials and marched against Ardabīl, which was held by the Amir Aq Arslān,358 in order to besiege it. He got Aq Arslān to come out under a guarantee of safe conduct. When [I 119] the news [of this] reached Baghdad, where the sultan then was, together with ʿAbbās, the sultan summoned ʿAbbās to his palace under the pretext that he wanted to consult him about his future course of action. When ʿAbbās entered, the sultan gave orders for him to be killed. He was beheaded and his trunk thrown away. This happened in the early morning of a Thursday in Dhu ’l-Qaʿda 541 [/April 1147]. ʿAbbās’s troops rode forth, commanded by the amir Aq Sonqor al-Fīrūzkūhī and attacked Sultan Masʿūd. But he showed no alarm, and his own troops mounted and defended his palace. Then he summoned him (i.e. Aq Sonqor) and made him governor of Ray in his master’s place, and he returned there filled with gratitude. Sultan Masʿūd spent that winter in Baghdad. When the weather improved, he received news of Boz Aba’s movement from Fars seeking vengeance for his two allies. Sultan Masʿūd quickened his march towards Hamadan in order to forestall Boz Aba’s arriving there, and he despatched urgent messages to Khāṣṣ Beg summoning him to join him. [N 225] Boz Aba, accompanied by the two maliks Muḥammad and Malik Shāh, the sons of Sultan Maḥmūd, travelled onwards till he reached Isfahan and took possession of it, with Ṣadr al-Dīn b. al-Khujandī359 surrendering it to him. He installed the two maliks in power there and had a fivefold military band fanfare performed for them. He then set out for Hamadan till he reached Marj Qarategin, just one stage from Hamadan, and was joined by the son of ʿAbbās, the [former] governor of Ray. When Sultan Masʿūd learnt of their imminent approach, he marched out with his army against Boz Aba and the son of ʿAbbās. He sent a message to Khāṣṣ Beg urging him to hasten [to his aid], and he arrived. The appointed encounter between

80

The History of the Seljuq State

huge armies had arrived. Battle was joined at the pasture ground [of Qarategin], with Boz Aba personally leading an attack on Sultan Masʿūd’s centre. The army was on the point of defeat, but when Boz Aba reached the very centre (i.e. of the opposing line of troops), his horse stumbled, and he was captured and brought before Sultan Masʿūd. The sultan reproached him in harsh terms [I 120] but Boz Aba said not a word, nor did he complain of pain. The sultan wanted to spare his life, but Khāṣṣ Beg opposed this, so Sultan Masʿūd had him killed. The son of ʿAbbās was found dead on the battlefield (lit. ‘the dust was cleared away, revealing the son of ʿAbbās’s corpse’) and the two maliks fled. [Subsequently,] Sultan Masʿūd engaged in correspondence with his nephew Malik Muḥammad, gave him his own daughter in marriage and made him governor of the province of Khuzistan. When there was no one left who could dispute leadership in the state (riʾāsa) with Khāṣṣ Beg, he arrested the Ḥājib Tatār and killed him in Rabīʿ I 543 [/July–August 1148]. [N 226] After this, a group of amirs came to Baghdad, having with them Malik Shāh b. Maḥmūd. They were mutually bent on deposing Sultan Masʿūd. The citizens of Baghdad came out to repel them from the city, and the amirs fled before them till they reached open ground (i.e. the plains outside the city). But there they overwhelmed the citizens and killed 500 of them. They then demanded 30,000 dinars from the caliph al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh as the price of their withdrawal. The caliph’s secretaries advised him to accede to this, with the exception of Yaḥyā b. Hubayra, the head of the Dīwān, who told him, If expending this sum of money is unavoidable, it would be more sensible to spend it on an army which could protect the people from the Turks being let loose on Baghdad and from other kinds of troublemakers, and it would also do something to help Sultan Masʿūd. Moreover, if this sum of money is handed over to them, they will make Baghdad a lair (makhbaʾa) for themselves. The caliph accepted his reasoning and went forth with that army against them and put them to flight. This [view of Ibn Hubayra] was a piece of sound judgement and incisive reasoning, so the caliph decided to appoint Ibn Hubayra as his vizier.360 He conferred on him the robe of honour appropriate for the post on Wednesday, 14 Rabīʿ I 543 [/2 August 1148]. Abu ’l-Qāsim Hibat Allāh b. al-Faḍl al-Baghdādī was a learned physician [N 227] and a contemporary of al-Ḥayṣ Bayṣ.361 They both went forth with the mass [I 121] of the caliph’s troops. Hibat Allāh b. al-Faḍl composed an ode, some lines of which are as follows: 1. We are a wretched band within the victorious army. What an ignoble group of people we are! 2. Infer our intelligence from our actions in the baseness, silliness and impetuousness that you see! 3. We are unable [even] to take Takrīt, yet in our foolishness are marching off to take Tirmidh from Sanjar!

Translation of the text 81 4. Ḥayṣ Bayṣ is a champion warrior with his spear, and I, with my medicinal potions, am the army’s physician. 5. He for his part is not afraid of killing a fly, and I do not shy away from treating an illness already on the way to recovery. 6. I cause blood to flow with my lancet, whilst his sword remains in its scabbard, never having been brought out to trim the nail of a little finger. In Shaʿbān of this year [December 1148–January 1149], the Exalted Sultan Muʿizz al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Abu ’l-Ḥārith Sanjar came to Ray. The stimulus for this was that, when he heard about what had happened in western Persia (al-ʿIrāq), the delaying tactics of the amirs (i.e in coming to Sultan Masʿūd’s court and supplying aid) and Khāṣṣs Beg b. Palang-eri’s ascendancy over Sultan Masʿūd’s affairs, he arose and, despite his advanced age, came to Ray. When Sultan Masʿūd heard about this move, he rushed headlong from Hamadan, making for Baghdad. But the eunuch Sharaf al-Dīn restrained him, saying, ‘You [N 228] can’t stand up to your uncle. The best course is for you to go to him and offer him your obeisance just as your brother (i.e. Sultan Maḥmūd) did.’ So he set off for Ray, though Khāṣṣ Beg and the vizier 362 refused to follow him. When he came to his uncle Muʿizz al-Dīn Sanjar, the latter received him most enthusiastically, bestowed on him a robe of honour and dismissed from his mind all offences when he saw Masʿūd. The latter interceded with Sanjar for Khāṣṣ Beg and Sanjar accepted this intercession. Then he bade Masʿūd farewell and returned to Khurasan. Sultan Masʿūd came back [from Ray] and spent the summer in Baghdad. He then returned to Hamadan, where he died.363

[I 122, N 229] Mention of his character and conduct He was a man of sound morals who would not listen to slander and back-biting nor raise to office any person guilty of these vices. He did, however, elevate base persons and relied heavily on what the Divine Decree brought upon him (i.e. he was fatalistic). He died in 547 [/1152] and was buried at Hamadan in the madrasa constructed by the jāndār, the eunuch Jamāl al-Dīn Iqbāl. His sultanate spanned about sixteen years. His viziers: [N 230] Qarācha al-Sāqī appointed for him Tāj al-Dīn [Ibn] Dārust at the time of his first rebellion against his brother Sultan Ṭoghrïl. Then when Masʿūd entered Baghdad during the reign of his brother, in 527 [/1133], he appointed as his vizier Anūshirwān b. Khālid. Then he appointed as his vizier ʿImād al-Dīn Abu ’l-Barakāt al-Darguzīnī, a member of the family of al-Qiwām,364 but he did not have the administrative abilities requisite for a vizier, so he dismissed him and appointed in his stead Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. al-Khāzin al-Rāzī, dismissing Abu ’l-Barakāt in a polite fashion.365 Kamāl al-Dīn was the most capable of the viziers in administrative affairs, and he remained with the sultan until Qara Sonqor, Malik Dāwūd and Malik Shāh, the son of Sultan Maḥmūd, came together and sought his killing in Shawwāl 533 [/June 1139].

82

The History of the Seljuq State

Then he appointed as his vizier Majd al-Dīn ʿIzz al-Mulk Abu ’l-ʿIzz al-Burūjirdī, who possessed great wealth; it is said that, during the time when he was functioning as vizier, he possessed 400 villages. Then the sultan dismissed him in [5]39 [/1144–45] and mulcted him of his wealth. He then appointed Muʾayyid al-Dīn al-Marzubān b. ʿAbdallāh al-Isfahānī, whose death ʿIzz al-Mulk procured by strangulation. Muʾayyid al-Dīn was a great devotee of wine, which he could not do without for an hour. The sultan then reinstated the [former] vizier Tāj al-Dīn [I 123] Ibn Dārust in the vizierate; he had been the secretary of Boz Aba, lord of Fars. [Finally,] he appointed Shams al-Dīn Abu ’l-Najīb al-Aṣamm al-Darguzīnī, and died whilst al-Darguzīnī was still his vizier.366

[The end of the reign of Sultan Sanjar b. Malik Shāh] When Sultan Masʿūd died, as we have mentioned, his immediate entourage (ḥasham) placed their hopes on the Exalted Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Sanjar, but were rent by mutual hatreds; each member of the entourage sought to get another person’s status in the eyes of the sultan and they were envious of each other. When Sanjar’s encounter with the Ghuzz came about, the latter were unable to fight a single one of his amirs. But envy of Amir Muʾayyid b. Yarïn Qush led them to desert him when he was in the midst of fighting, and they abandoned him, and he suffered many blows. [N 231] He was carried off the battlefield whilst he was breathing his last and died in that very hour. When the sultan saw how they had behaved treacherously with him and had betrayed the greater part of his amirs, he realized that, if he was to make war on the Ghuzz, [N 232] they would betray him. So he abstained from fighting the Ghuzz and left that tribal group alone, returning to Balkh and going on from there to Merv. The Ghuzz followed him to Merv in pursuit. He entered the town and stayed there for some days and then went forth to them, as we have recorded at the beginning of our book.367 He remained amongst them from Rabīʿ I 548 [/May–June 1153] onwards368 and stayed in their midst until Ramaḍān 551 [/October–November 1156]. He escaped from amongst them in this latter year, from Balkh, at a moment when they were negligent, crossed the Oxus and came into the fortress of Tirmidh, where was Amir ʿImād al-Dīn Aḥmad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Abī Bakr b. Qumāch. Amir Ay Aba al-Muʾayyid369 set out from Nishapur in order to offer his service to the sultan. When he came to Tirmidh, the sultan despatched him to Chaghāniyān, in the company of the Amir Qayï Aba [I 124] al-Qumāchī. One day, Amir al-Muʾayyid [Ay Aba] held a wine-drinking session to which he invited the amir Qayï Aba, having previously charged some of his commanders to kill Qayï Aba. He was accordingly killed whilst seated before Amir al-Muʾayyid playing backgammon with him. When news of this reached Amir ʿImād al-Dīn Aḥmad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn, he exploded with rage at what had happened. He burst into the sultan’s palace and killed several of the sultan’s close retainers in his presence. He [also] killed a bunch of the sultan’s amirs and al-Muʾayyid [Ay Aba]’s entourage and locked the gate of the fortress fast. [N 233] Amir al-Muʾayyid came back to Tirmidh, but the troops became riotous and there was a breach between them and

Translation of the text 83 the sultan. However, a reconciliation came about on the basis of Amir ʿImād al-Dīn Aḥmad’s giving a guarantee of safe conduct to allow the sultan to come out from the fortress. So the sultan came forth and went to Merv in Ramaḍān 551 [October– November 556]. The troops rallied to him and the amirs came to him from distant regions. The period of his stay amongst the Ghuzz extended from Jumādā I [5]48 to Ramaḍān 551 [/July–August 1153 to October–November 1156].370 Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Abu ’l-Ḥārith Sanjar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq was born five days from the end of Rajab 479 [/6 November 1086] and died after his escape from the Ghuzz on Monday, 14 Rabīʿ I 552 [/26 April 1157]. He was interred in a domed tomb (qubba) which he had built for himself and which he called ‘The Abode of the Next Life’ (dār al-ākhira).371 His sultanate extended over about forty years, and the entire period of his rule (i.e. as malik and then as sultan) was sixty-two years. His span of life was seventy-two years, eight months and ten days. Sanjar possessed jewels weighing in total 1,030 riṭls, [I 125] which was great wealth, but it cannot be considered enormous for someone who carried off all that Sultan Ghāzī Abu ’l-Qāsim Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin and the Buyid house had amassed. When the Ghuzz made Sultan [N 234] Sanjar captive, they treated him harshly, allowing him a daily ration which would not have been adequate even for his groom. He would ride out with them under custody and with guards, whilst they would address him as sultan, kiss the ground before him, aver that they were his subjects and ostensibly show him honour, but [in reality] he had no power whatever. Sanjar was one of the most distinguished members of the House of Seljuq in respect of his intelligence, knowledge, love for the ulema and noble-mindedness. With regard to his lofty aspirations, he was one of the greatest of monarchs. The treasurer Ẓahīr al-Dīn recorded that, over five consecutive days, Sultan Sanjar distributed in gold 700,000 dinars, and in sets of red satin clothes a thousand sets of garments, in addition to horses and robes of honour. One of the stories told about him and the ulema was that the sultan was encamped outside Nishapur when civil strife ( fitna) broke out in the town between the Shāfiʿīs and the Ḥanafīs, in the course of which seventy of the Ḥanafīs were killed. He summoned the Great Ḥājib Maḥmūd al-Qāshānī and instructed him to go to Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā and say to him: ‘The sultan tells you, “Does this town belong to you or to me? If it belongs to me, then get out of it! If it belongs to you, then get ready for my coming! In either case, leave the town and get out of it!” ’ Maḥmūd went along to the circle of the Shaykh Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā 372 in the congregational mosque of Nishapur, where he was sitting and studying. He paid no heed to Maḥmūd and did not stop his studying. So the Ḥājib sat down and greeted him with the words ‘Peace be upon you!’ The Shaykh raised his head and replied, ‘And upon God’s righteous servants.’ [N 235] The Ḥājib knelt before him and said, ‘The sultan sends his greeting and says that he is aware of what has taken place in this matter. You are the judge in it, so take whatever action you wish; no one [I 126] will dispute with you over it or reject your decision. As for ourselves, whatever

84

The History of the Seljuq State

blessing we have obtained is through your charisma and the treasures of your prayers.’ The Ḥājib then went back to the sultan, who had meanwhile most sincerely repented of his decision to send the Ḥājib and was waiting for the latter’s return. The sultan said, ‘What did you tell Shaykh Muhammad?’ and the Ḥājib recounted exactly what had taken place. The sultan said, ‘Swear upon my head (i.e. by my life) that you said thus!’ He swore it to him, and the sultan was delighted with him, telling him what a splendid person he was. He raised him in his official rank and added to it the governorship of Nishapur, may God have mercy on him! After Sanjar’s death, the direct rule of the Seljuqs over the land of Transoxania and over Baghdad ceased, and the Khwarazm Shah took over his lands.373

[N 237] We now return to mention of the affairs of Iraq (i.e. Jibāl and western Persia) and the events taking place there When Sultan Masʿūd died, he left behind no male child. During the whole of his reign, the dominating force (al-ḥākim) over him, his lands and his troops, was the amir Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri, whose ascendancy was exercised in a friendly and well-meaning way, not one of insubordination and opposition. When Sultan Masʿūd died, the amirs came round him and consulted together about whom they should set up in the office of sultan, but their views over this differed. The two sons of Sultan Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh, Sultan Muḥammad and his brother Malik Shāh, were in Khuzistan, which Sultan Masʿūd had given them as an appanage ( ṭuʿma).374 When they got to know about the sultan’s death, they set out from Khuzistan, with Malik Muḥammad heading for Hamadan and Malik Shāh for Isfahan. Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri and the jāndār Amir Zangī inclined towards Malik Shāh, whilst the rest of the amirs inclined towards Sultan Muḥammad. Sultan Muḥammad hastened [N 238] in his journey to Hamadan, where all the troops had concentrated. When he reached the gate of Hamadan, all the rest of the amirs [I 127] went out to greet him and express their service to him, except Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri and the jāndār Amir Zangī, the lord of Azerbaijan, who did not go forth to greet him. But when Sultan Muḥammad became firmly established in the New Palace (al-kushk al-jadīd ) at the gate of Hamadan, and all the troops and amirs presented their service to him, Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri and Amir Zangī were obliged to make pledges and solemn covenants [of loyalty] to Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar. They sought guarantees of safe conduct from him and went to the palace in order to present him with their service, and he met them with an enthusiastic welcome, singled them out with respect for their status and with honourable treatment, and he assured them of their secure status. He appointed Amir Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri as Atabeg of the army and of the auxiliary troop contingents (al-ʿasākir wa ’l-ajnād ), the post he had held in Sultan Masʿūd’s time. Khāṣṣ Beg used to go each day and render service to the sultan and would bestow on him gifts, marks of respect and liberality. This state of affairs continued for some time, with Sultan Muḥammad endeavouring his utmost to win over Khāṣṣ Beg’s allegiance with all sorts of favours, whilst Khāṣṣ Beg was nursing all sorts

Translation of the text 85 of rancorous and rebellious feelings. The point was reached when it became known to Sultan Muḥammad that Khāṣṣ Beg was in correspondence with Malik Malik Shāh, urging him to march on Hamadan so that he might hand over power there to him, One day, the sultan invited Khāṣṣ Beg to a festive gathering he had laid on. Khāṣṣ Beg and the jāndār Amir Zangī came into his presence, the sultan having already arranged for there to be in wait for them a group of the sultan’s retainers with orders to strike them down with their swords when the two entered. So when they appeared before him, the assassins leapt on them and killed them whilst the sultan looked on. They cut off the head of each victim and threw them away outside the palace. News of their killing spread amongst the army, [I 128, N 239] and Khāṣṣ Beg’s and Zangī’s partisans took to flight. Much slaughter and plundering of their horses, weapons and belongings ensued. Sultan Muḥammad entered Hamadan (i.e. after the scattering and plundering of the partisans of Khāṣṣ Beg and Zangī) and had now achieved the royal authority he had long sought. The roads through the territories under his control were now freely open for him and the garments of royal power flowed over him. When his brother Malik Shāh became aware of the situation, he fled from Isfahan and went back to Khuzistan.375 The amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz376 was in Arrān, where he had kept himself apart with all his wealth and possessions. His efforts were focused on protecting his possessions until the hidden aspects of affairs came into the light of day and until both the outward meaning of those affairs and their concealed ones became clear to him. He remained at Nakhchiwān and entered into correspondence with Sultan [N 240] Muḥammad, telling him that he was his servant and his mamlūk, obedient to his commands and heedful of his prohibitions and rebukes. If the sultan should choose to summon him to his presence, he would come, but if the sultan adjudged it preferable that he should remain there facing the enemy of Islam (i.e. the Georgians), he would remain. A large force and huge mass of Turkmens had assembled round him. Sultan Muḥammad wrote back to him, saying that there was no need for him at present to come and render service at court; he should stay where he was as a supporting force for the Muslims and a stronghold for them in warding off the treacherous actions of the polytheists. The sultan remained in Hamadan. He continued to send out letters to [the amirs of] the outlying regions, and all of them were giving him their obedience. There was none of them who did not submit and become subservient to him (lit. ‘who did not proffer to him the halter of obedience and enter into submissiveness and humility’). His authority became firmly established throughout the land, and he entrusted the goverorship of Ray to Ïnanch, who had been ruling it since the time of Sultan Masʿūd.377 The khuṭba was [also] read in Sultan Muḥammad’s name in Mosul, Diyār Bakr, Khilāṭ and the rest of the lands.

[I 129, N 241] Mention of what happened at Baghdad after Sultan Masʿūd’s death When Sultan Masʿūd came to the Imām al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh, he made the latter give assurances and solemn undertakings that he would not embark upon a

86

The History of the Seljuq State

policy of purchasing Turkish ghulāms, and al-Muqtafī gave him his assurances regarding this. Sultan Masʿūd’s followers used to perpetrate many misdeeds in Baghdad, the greater part of them unpalatable to al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh. He would frequently issue prohibitions against these acts of violence, but they would not desist, and he would reprove them, but they would take no notice. The sultan’s deputy in Baghdad (i.e. his shiḥna or military governor) was Masʿūd al-Bilālī, a eunuch of weak intelligence and judgement, who cared little for religion, behaved uncharitably and was prone to committing evil acts. He used to place his reliance on courses of action the greater part of them contrary to the Sharī‘a and far from the accepted and approved usages of political behaviour. His aim was to strike fear into al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh. There was a continuous stream of letters going from the Exalted Dīwān (al-dīwān al-ʿazīz) to Sultan Masʿūd complaining about Masʿūd al-Bilālī’s conduct; at times the sultan would rein him back from acting like that, but at others he would leave him alone. Because of that, feelings of resentment arose in the Imām al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh’s mind and he harboured rancour. Hence when Sultan Masʿūd died, the caliph got busy on the task of expelling foreign elements (al-aʿājim, i.e. the Turks, Daylamīs, etc.) from Baghdad. He himself (sc. the caliph) possessed Greek and Armenian mamlūks, and he made them amirs and assigned to each one of them [N 242] various regions of Iraq (i.e. as iqṭāʿs, in Lower Mesopotamia). Masʿūd al-Bilālī fled from Baghdad, gathered together a body of troops and marched [back] on Baghdad. The vizier ʿAwn al-Dīn Yaḥyā b. Hubayra came forth against him and put Masʿūd to flight. Masʿūd gathered together a further body of troops and made for al-Ḥilla. The vizier ʿAwn al-Dīn attacked him a second time and once more defeated him. Masʿūd’s flight ended up at al-Liḥf,378 [I 130] where he stayed for some time. Sultan Muḥammad had sent the Amir Sallārjūr379 al-Zuhayrī al-Kurdī, one of the greatest of the sultanal amirs, as a reinforcement for him. The two armies joined forces and planned to go to al-Ḥilla. A large military force gathered round then, and the vizier ʿAwn al-Dīn prepared to march out against them and give battle. It happened that Masʿūd al-Bilālī prepared a feast at the time when he was encamped at al-Ḥilla on the western side (sc. of the Euphrates), whilst Sallār was encamped on the eastern one. Masʿūd al-Bilālī crossed over to issue him an invitation to the feast. Sallār went with him and got into a river boat (sumāriyya)380 in order that they might both cross back to the western side and attend the feast. However, the feast (maʾdaba) turned into an occasion for lamentation (mandaba) for Amir Sallār. When he was in the boat, Masʿūd al-Bilālī seized him, had him bound, had a weight tied to his legs and had him thrown into the Euphrates, where he drowned immediately, whilst his retainers were on the other side watching him but unable to save him, and they all scattered. Masʿūd al-Bilālī fled and made his way to Hamadan and presented himself before Sultan Muḥammad. He informed him that Sallār had been in correspondence with al-Muqtaf ī li-amr Allāh and had concerted with him [N 243] a plan to seize Masʿūd al-Bilālī and hand him over to the caliph, hence Masʿūd acted thus.

Translation of the text 87 Masʿūd al-Bilālī assiduously presented himself at Sultan Muḥammad’s court, making light to him the task of recovering Baghdad and telling him that, when he should attack it, not one of the people there would stand up to him and he would be able to occupy the city in the shortest possible time. [He also said] that the people there were a bunch who had no experience of warfare and knew nothing whatever about fighting with lances or swords. Nor was there anyone on his side who would inform them (i.e. the people of Baghdad) about the small number of troops Masʿūd had with him; indeed, if there had been merely 1,000 of the sultan’s cavalrymen they would have achieved their aim. Sultan Muḥammad used to listen to all this talk of Masʿūd’s, but would pay no attention to what he was saying and would leave it to Masʿūd to put this into action. [I 131] Sultan Muḥammad kept corresponding with the Imām al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh, assuring him with strong oaths that I am not like the sultans before me. I am an obedient servant fully convinced of [the sanctity of] the office of Imām and will not go beyond what I am commanded to do nor perpetuate what has been forbidden for me. When you display satisfaction and favour, I shall know that, in God’s eyes, I am acceptable, and when the Imām shows displeasure with me, I shall think that I am amongst those rejected by God. However, the Imām al-Muqtafī did not favour him with an encouraging reply. When Masʿūd al-Bilālī realized that matters were becoming drawn out and that the sultan’s movement against Baghdad was going to be slow and laboured, he returned without the sultan’s permission to Takrīt, where was Malik Arslān Shāh, son of Sultan Ṭoghrïl, then only a small child. He took Arslān Shāh with him and made for al-Liḥf, where was Alp Qush, one of Sultan Masʿūd’s amirs, with a large and unruly army. Masʿūd al-Bilālī, with Arslān Shāh, son of Sultan Ṭoghrïl, took up his position with Alp Qush. All the Turkmens gathered round them, [N 244] and they moved off with troops like a raging flood, with the dust raised by them covering the face of the heavens. Information about their advance reached al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh. A mighty army, comprising his retainers and the whole of the Jāwānī Kurds381 led by Muhalhil, had been assembled. The caliph had granted to Muhalhil the iqṭāʿ of al-Ḥilla and its adjoining lands. The amir Quwaydān, who was one of the leading figures of the sultanal army, [also joined the caliphal forces], and troops moved up from Wāsiṭ, Basra and Iraq (i.e. Lower Mesopotamia) under the command of the amir Mengü Bars al-Mustarshidī, who had been given the iqṭāʿs of Basra and its dependencies. [Also joining the caliphal army was] Qutlugh Bars, the lord of Wāsiṭ and its dependencies, and the Amir Badr b. Muẓaffar b. Ḥammād, lord of al-Gharrāf district382 and the Baṭāʾiḥ. Hence an army gathered at Baghdad whose like had never at any time previously come together. The Imām al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh sallied forth from Baghdad in person and [I 132] encamped at Rād al-Rūdh (?).383 Alp Qush and Masʿūd al-Bilālī moved forward, having with them Malik Arslān Shāh, son of Sultan Ṭoghrïl, and all the Turkmens, numbering about

88

The History of the Seljuq State

30,000 warriors. They agreed on a time for engaging in battle and went forth to the fight in the early morning. The Commander of the Faithful al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh had also deployed his troops. He placed Quwaydān, Ibn Salama al-Qummī and Badr [N 245] b. Ḥammād, the lord of al-Gharrāf and another body of troops on his right wing, and placed Amir Qutlugh Bars, lord of Wāsiṭ, one of the mamlūks of the [Seljuq] state, on his left wing. He himself took up a firm position in the centre, accompanied by his mamlūks and retainers, and also with Mengü Bars al-Mustarshidī, lord of Basra, in the centre. Mengü Bars had achieved a position of great renown in Syria after the murder of al-Mustarshid; when he led an army or a detachment of troops, none of the Franks was able to stand up to him because of his courage and fierceness in battle. He married the daughter of the lord of Damascus, the Amir Muʿīn al-Dīn Öner. When the Imām al-Muqtaf ī li-amr Allāh had gained control of Iraq (i.e. of Lower Mesopotamia), he summoned him from Damascus and entrusted to him the governorship of Basra. He was knowledgeable about the mobilization and equipping of an army and the armaments and munitions of war. So he stayed with the Imām al-Muqtaf ī li-amr Allāh in the army’s centre, together with the vizier ʿAwn al-Dīn Ibn Hubayra also. The two sides clashed in battle. The amir Mengü Bars stayed between the two opposing lines of troops, straightening the rows and instructing them to stand firm until the moment when they got the signal to go ahead and attack. Alp Qush’s left wing, which had in it Masʿūd al-Bilālī, attacked al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh’s right wing and routed it. Amongst this last was Muhalhil, who fled as far as Baghdad. Then al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh’s right wing attacked Alp Qush’s left wing, which had with it the amirs of the Turkmens. The Turkmens fled before their opponent, who took many captives and wrought much slaughter amongst them. Mengü Bars clung to the martingale [I 133] of al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh’s mule. Alp Qush’s centre attacked the Commander of the Faithful al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh’s centre. But a group of Alp Qush’s troops defected and joined up with the Imām al-Muqtaf ī. When they saw the swift dash of those who had run away in front of them, the troops in Alp Qush’s centre scattered until they came upon the richly-stocked treasury (i.e. of the caliph) and fell to plundering it. Alp Qush’s centre was left devoid of troops. Hence the amir Mengü Bars and the vizier ʿAwn al-Dīn Yaḥyā b. Hubayra launched an attack on them (i.e. on Alp Qush’s plundering troops). Alp Qush was unable to withstand them [N 246] and took to flight, pursued by the [caliphal] army, which killed many of his troops and took many captives until the greater part of them were either killed or made prisoner. Whenever anyone of Alp Qush’s followers who had been involved with looting the treasury learnt [what had happened], he abandoned any plunder he had taken and fled to save his skin. Some of them did manage to escape, and others were killed. The Commander of the Faithful’s army acquired limitless and uncountable booty of all kinds, and al-Muqtafī returned to Baghdad having been divinely supported and victorious, conquering and rejoicing. Iraq was now saved from the evil-doing and devastations of Masʿūd al-Bilālī and the Turkmens. This battle was in 550 [/1155].384 When Alp Qush fled, Malik Arslān Shāh, son of Sultan Ṭoghrïl b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, was taken to

Translation of the text 89 Azerbaijan to Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz. Malik Arslān Shāh’s mother was Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz’s wife, by whom he had two sons, one the Atabeg Amir Nuṣrat al-Dīn Muḥammad Pahlawān, and the other, Muẓaffar al-Dīn ʿUthmān Qïzïl Arslān. [N 247] His daughter was married to the lord of Marāgha (i.e. from the Aḥmadīlīs). Malik Arslān Shāh now came into the custody of the Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz.385 [I 134] In 552 [/1157] Sultan Muḥammad embarked upon an attack on Baghdad. He had with him the army of Iraq (i.e. Jibāl) and Azerbaijan, with the exception of Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz, who remained in Azerbaijan combatting the Georgians, and the amir Ïnanch, who stayed at Ray, fearful of the Ghuzz who had now reached Gurgān. The Imām al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh prepared for a siege. He brought into Baghdad provisions, fodder, sheep and cattle to sustain the inhabitants of the city and the troops there. He expended money lavishly, troops gathered round him from every direction until they made up an army whose like had never been formed in Baghdad before. Sultan Muḥammad reached Baghdad and encamped by the side of the Shammāsiyya Gate.386 He held fire for some time, not giving the command to fight, at the same time sending letters to the Imām al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh that he was an obedient servant, that his sole intention in coming to Baghdad was [then] to leave it, that the rulers of the outlying regions knew that the Commander of the Faithful was satisfied with him and that he should be treated as holding the title of ‘The Well-Pleasing (i.e. to the caliph) Amir’, involving the mention of his name from the mosque pulpit after that of the Commander of the Faithful. He would then depart from Baghdad and there would then be no governor or representative [of his] to advise the caliph. Sultan Muḥammad made great efforts to resolve the conflict with the caliph without resort to fighting, but no response was given to his communications in any manner satifactory to him nor was any state of affairs brought about that he could rely on except that he was told, ‘You should go back to Hamadan and stay there until we can deal with the situation regarding you.’ Every day some amirs would come out of Baghdad [N 248] and take up positions facing the sultan’s army. They would chase each other and some would attack the others. On some days, a number of them would be killed and some would be wounded. This sort of thing went on for two months. The sultan kept discussing with his amirs various options for engaging in battle, but they could not come to any decision about fighting. The sultan then sent a message to the amir Zayn al-Dīn ʿAlī Küchük, commander of the army of Mosul, [I 135] and summoned him to his presence.387 He responded to this summons and came down to him with a numerous army and a body of troops eager to fight, comprising the leading figures of the Turks and Kurds, large amounts of fodder and ample materiel for war, and he encamped on the western side facing Baghdad. [During all this time,] the vizier ʿAwn al-Dīn Yaḥyā b. Hubayra was secretly corresponding with the sultan’s amirs. He was sending them presents, gifts and money in the shape of dinars, making out to them that these things were stipends (ʿulūfāt) which ought to be sent to them, but because of the impossibility of sending them, these presents, etc., were a compensation for that. He instructed

90

The History of the Seljuq State

them that giving aid and counsel to the Commander of the Faithful was a duty in the Islamic faith incumbent on all Muslims, and complete obedience to him was an obligation for them in the Qur’anic text. Disobedience to him would bring down the wrath of God Most High and His punishment. [He continued that] the divine truth is clear and known to all, and following it was an obligation, whilst falsehood was fleeting and perishing and had been dispelled, and to refrain from it was a duty. [He told them,] You are the helpers of the sultan and of his amirs, and are the most worthy of those for proffering him sincere advice. You have seen how he has dared to show open rebellion against the Commander of the Faithful and how he has insisted on making war against him, and on showing enmity and hatred towards him, in Baghdad, the residence of the caliphate, the seat of the pure imāms from the Messenger of God’s House, even though the sultan has extensive lands, possesses large numbers of mamlūks and has ample riches. If you speak to him with words which result in his departure from Baghdad during this campaign until the Commander of the Faithful becomes convinced of the sultan’s good faith in manifesting his obedience, the sultan will then attain his wishes and the Commander of the Faithful will fulfil his desires. [If you can bring this about,] the Commander of the Faithful will be most favourably impressed with you, and you will attain the highest place in the sight of God, may He be glorified. Thereafter, the Commander of the Faithful will continually bestow his favour on you and will assist you with his kindness and munificence, whether you be near him or far away. If he (sc. the sultan) manages to succeed [I 136] in his desires to conquer [N 249] Baghdad and Iraq (i.e. Lower Mesopotamia), he will no longer need any helpers or assistants from amongst you and it will be the final thing making him independent of you. Hence you will remain with him as persons regarded as superfluous and no longer required by him, and will be left bitterly regretful/ deeply repenting (lit. ‘in garments of regret/repentance which are rent’). You will be deprived of the Commander of the Faithful’s unceasing gifts and beneficence, and God’s afflictions and His abandonment of you will beset you round.388 These words, combined with the stream of gifts and favour continually passed on to them in secret, had a powerful effect on the amirs. Hence whenever the sultan planned a course of action which they knew would achieve his aim, the amirs would prevent him from carrying it out by some means or other which they explained to him, these being ostensibly based on sound advice but inwardly based on malice. When Amir Zayn al-Dīn ʿAlī Küchük reached Baghdad and encamped on its western side, the sultan crossed over to him with a group of close retainers, and they launched an attack on Baghdad, from both sides, that continued each day until sunset. During all that, God directed the affairs of the Commander of the Faithful’s troops with His protection and took care of them with His guarding power.

Translation of the text 91 The amirs of al-Ḥilla from the Banū Asad (i.e the Mazyadids) had gathered together a great throng of footsoldiers from the region and from the local rabble (duʿʿār), and they headed for Baghdad in order to offer their service to the sultan, having with them extensive materiel and supplies and over 500 boats. Their commander was the amir ʿAlī b. Dubays, who was accompanied by a man from his paternal uncle’s kin group, one of his relatives called Ḥasan al-Muṭrib. They had with them an astrologer. One day they were having a discussion about the fighting and were consulting together about tactics389 for the fighting and battle. The astrologer told the amir Ḥasan al-Muṭrib, ‘I see in your star that, when you engage in fighting tomorrow, you’ll enter Baghdad. So if you have in mind to get involved with fighting and have a desire for battle and combat, you should do it tomorrow.’ So he arose and during the night got ready [I 137] his troops and deployed his stout warriors. He went forth first thing next morning, and a group of leading figures and outstanding members of the sultan’s army, with copious arms and equipment and in great numbers, boarded the boats. Information became known in Baghdad during the course of the night that the enemy had got ready in this manner for fighting, had put on all speed and had made every effort to launch upon open warfare and hostilities. [N 250] Through the whole of the night until sunrise, the vizier ʿAwn al-Dīn Yaḥyā b. Hubayra was on the Tigris bank getting the boats ready and placing in them their supplies and weapons, fighting men, naphtha-throwers, archers equipped with crossbows ( jarūkh/charūkh) and ballistas. When the people of Baghdad saw that the enemy boats had pushed off, seeking to cross the river, they pushed their own boats out, and the two sides came together on the Tigris. The boats became locked together (i.e. through using grapples?) and the battle between them raged and became fierce from sunrise till sunset. The engagement on the Tigris ended up on the decks of the boats with a large number of the men from al-Ḥilla and the sultan’s troops being killed. Ḥasan al-Muṭrib was taken prisoner and a number of his prominent companions made captive. They had fought fiercely at his side. The attackers fled after most of their boats had been seized, plunging into the Tigris in an endeavour to escape, some of them successfully managing this, others drowning. The amir Ḥasan al-Muṭrib was brought before the vizier ʿAwn al-Dīn, and he informed the Commander of the Faithful al-Muqtadī li-amr Allāh of his capture. The caliph ordered that he should be gibbeted on the mast of a boat facing towards the sultan’s army, and this was done after he had been mutilated. Fighting now ceased for many days. The amīr Badr al-Dīn Muẓaffar b. Ḥammād b. Abi ’l-Jabr, lord of al-Gharrāf and the lands of the Baṭīḥa, was obligated to forward every year a number of soldiers and a certain amount of taxation. He was now asking [I 138] the Imām al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh to relieve him of the obligation of that requirement which he had paid each year. He adduced as the reason for this that the stipends which he customarily paid to his troops were inadequate for them and that, if that levy were generously lifted, it would contribute to removing their causes for complaint and would be a strengthening factor in the fight against their enemies. But the vizier ʿAwn al-Dīn Yaḥyā b. Hubayra discouraged him from granting this, telling the caliph, ‘This is not the time for excessive yielding to demands.’ So Badr b.

92

The History of the Seljuq State

Muẓaffar waited until the sultan reached Baghdad, went to him and sought from him what he had sought from the [caliphal] Dīwān, telling the sultan that he was going to offer him his service. The sultan showed generosity regarding the levy and added to his territories some other places adjacent to his territory. He wrote to him an official rescript (tawqīʿ) concerning these concessions, sending it to him with strong contractual agreements and assurances. The amir Badr b. Muẓaffar then got ready and gathered together a large number of men from the tribes of al-Gharrāf and the lands of the Baṭīḥa. He assembled a fleet of boats from other parts of Iraq and levied fully-equipped boats and a specified number of men from each settlement of al-Gharrāf and from Wāsiṭ and its dependencies. [N 251] He gave them a delay of some days which he specified, and then they were all to assemble at Wāsiṭ. All the military leaders of the territories were to gather at Wāsiṭ, together with boats and ample supplies and equipment. The amir Badr al-Dīn b. Ḥammād joined up with them and all of them assembled at Wāsiṭ. When news [of these preparations] reached the Commander of the Faithful al-Muqtafī, it disquieted him, caused him anxiety, filled him with foreboding and made him feel weak. He wrote to the amir Badr b. Muẓaffar, saying, ‘I’ll reduce for you the land-tax (kharāj) demanded of you and I’ll add to what has been granted you, but you should stay in your domains, neither coming to us nor joining the enemy.’ But Badr’s reply was that of someone whose senses have left him and who has lost his mind: ‘I won’t accept this unless you hand over to me the vizier ʿAwn al-Dīn Yaḥyā b. Hubayra so that I may deal with him, [I 139] put an end to his evil ways and get rid of his treacherous and harmful policies.’ The caliph secretly sent messages to the sultan’s amirs, together with purses filled with money, and told them, ‘It’s easy for you to ward off this threatened affair. You should tell the sultan that this man (i.e. Badr b. Muẓaffar) has grown up in the Commander of the Faithful’s service and been nourished through his beneficence. He is, moreover, an Arab and we suspect that there is between him and the Commander of the Faithful a secret understanding, namely, that he should ostensibly come to us but when he does come and is face-to-face with Baghdad, he will enter it (i.e. defect to the caliph’s side). The wisest course is that he should be commanded to join us by way of the Ṣarṣar canal390 and come to us. When he arrives in our encampment, we shall be safe from the treachery of his entering Baghdad. The vital aim is for him to enter by way of the Ṣarṣar canal.’ The amirs accordingly came to the sultan and advised him to act thus, and they explained clearly to him the various aspects of the hidden consequences. They sent to Badr a messenger with the sultan’s express words, [N 252] who caught up with him at Darzījān391 and he commanded him, again in the sultan’s express words, to join the sultan by means of the Ṣarṣar canal. [On hearing the message,] Badr got up from his place and sent back the reply, ‘If I have to come by way of the Ṣarṣar canal, you’ll derive no benefit from me and my coming to offer the sultan my service will have no visible effect. I shall not be able to attain my desire of attacking Baghdad and the boats which I have fitted out will be useless.’ The message was sent to him again and he was told that there was no alternative to his

Translation of the text 93 coming via the Ṣarṣar canal. They became suspicious of him because of what he had said, and the amirs kept on at the sultan until he made Badr come to him by the Ṣarṣar canal. When Badr’s men came via that place, people in Baghdad now felt safe from attack by them, and the Baghdadis got ready to engage them in fighting. Then they sent letters from Baghdad to Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz in Azerbaijan and tried to suborn him by saying that they would proclaim [I 140] Malik Arslān Shāh, son of Sultan Ṭoghrïl, sultan as soon as he could move from Azerbaijan to Iraq (i.e. Jibāl). Malik Arslān Shāh was the son of the Atabeg Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz’s wife; his own sons by her were Amir Nuṣrat al-Dīn Muḥammad Pahlawān and Amir Muẓaffar al-Dīn ʿUthmān Qïlïj Arslān. They sent letters to Amir Ïnanch in Iraq (i.e. in Jibāl) and tried to suborn him by grants of estates (qaṭāʾiʿ ) which they would allocate to him from the lands of Iraq.392 [At the same time,] the sultan’s amirs abandoned the fight when they realized how much time had elapsed and that they had no prospect of capturing Baghdad. Every one of them wanted to go back to their families and homes. When the Atabeg Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz moved from Azerbaijan in the direction of Iraq and Amir Ïnanch advanced with the intention of seizing Hamadan, [N 253] the news came to the sultan, then at Baghdad. He took counsel with his amirs concerning that news which had reached him. They all advised withdrawing from Baghdad back to Hamadan and remaining there until the Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz and Amir Ïnanch had been dealt with; then they could return to Baghdad. They withdrew from both sides of Baghdad, the army of Mosul from the western side and the army of Iraq (i.e. of Jibāl) from the eastern side. They were unable to bring heavy baggage and equipment with them, and they (i.e. the people of Baghdad) brought it back into Baghdad, and the greater part of their baggage was taken as booty. After that, the Seljuq sultans’ hopes of acquiring Baghdad were ended.393 Sultan Muḥammad reached Hamadan and prepared to march on Azerbaijan.394 Malik Sulaymān Shāh, son of Sultan Muḥammad Ṭapar and brother of Sultan Masʿūd, was in Azerbaijan. He set out from there and made for Baghdad, where he was awarded the honorific title of al-Malik al-Mustajīr and provided with the entire army of Baghdad.395 So [I 141] Sultan al-Malik al-Mustajīr Sulaymān Shāh b. Muḥammad b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān left Baghdad, heading for Azerbaijan. The Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz and the armies of Azerbaijan and Arrān joined forces with him. [Against them,] Sultan Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān came from Hamadan after establishing cordial relations with Amir Ïnanch, whose governorship of Ray he confirmed, summoning him to join him in his service. Ïnanch accompanied him to Azerbaijan, and the two armies confronted each other in the Araxes valley near Nakhchiwān. They advanced towards each other and engaged in an extremely fierce battle until their sword blades were shattered and the horizon was red through the dashing together of the waves of dark blood [N 254] that had been shed. Swords found their marks in bodies and spearheads in the breasts of heroic warriors, as expressed in the lines of al-Tanūkhī:

94

The History of the Seljuq State 1. In a place where death stood firm, not swerving (lam yazigh) from its two places (i.e. the battle places of each side), whilst the eyes swerved away (zāghat), 2. Spear upon spear were flowing with streams of blood; with the long spears lives were shortened. 3. The heads of heroic warriors flew up from the sword blades as if they were a cloud of dust rising up at the same time as the real cloud of dust (i.e. of battle).396

The flames of war raged because of the blows of sharp swords and the open field was ablaze from the striking of the iron shoes of the horses. There were swords that hailed down on the soldiers and that hands could not repel, and there were spears thirsty for livers that hands could not deflect. It was as if [the battle] guaranteed food for the vultures and eagles or as if it undertook to provide nourishment for the hyenas and wolves. They kept up the fight until the battlefield was filled with corpses and chains for the captives ran short.397 Sultan Muḥammad and his followers made up their minds to stand fast and show patient endurance. The signs of victory could be deduced from their resolute intentions. It rarely happens that a man who endures the bitterness of hardships does not achieve the sweetness of a favourable outcome. [I 142] In this way, God granted Sultan Muḥammad His divine assistance (lit. ‘God made him to drink the sweet waters of His aid’) because of the great steadfastness and patient endurance He discerned in him. The Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz and all the troops with him fled in defeat; they scattered, wandering confusedly through the deserts at the hand of the winds. Sultan Muḥammad acquired from them ample booty, great loads (i.e. of equipment and belongings) and considerable riches, and stayed in Nakhchiwān for some time.398 The Georgians sent messages to him seeking a peace agreement, so he made peace with them [N 255] on the basis they desired. Sultan Muḥammad remained in Arrān until the Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz got in touch with him, saying, I am your servant and mamlūk of this house (i.e. the Seljuqs). Your uncle Malik Sulaymān Shāh came to me before the arrival of your victorious banners, and I gave him my protection to keep him from humiliation and from fear of shame being imputed, with people asserting that I had let down Sulaymān Shāh, who is the brother of my master Sultan Masʿūd, may God cover him with His forgiveness. But now, when it has become clear that there is only one sultan and that he has gained authority over all the lands (lit. ‘the lands have placed their reins in his hands’), I am the first to show obedience, to join the community (sc. of those showing the sultan their loyalty) and agreeing with the consensus. The sultan accepted his exculpations and entrusted him with the governorship of Arrān after taking from him pledges and solemn assurances that he would not

Translation of the text 95 come out in opposition to the sultan, that he would follow him in his policies and that he would not desert him. He gave his assurances to all those conditions. The sultan entrusted Azerbaijan to Amir Arslān b. Aq Sonqor al-Aḥmadīlī, the lord of Marāgha, and then returned to Hamadan victorious and triumphant, staying there with the intention of going back again to Baghdad. As for Sultan Sulaymān Shāh, he fled from the battlefield and wanted to go to Baghdad and present his service to the Commander of the Faithful al-Muqtaf ī li-amr Allāh. But Amir Zayn al-Dīn ʿAlī Küchük, commander of the army of Mosul, intercepted him in the pass of Qarābulī, seized him, brought him to Mosul and consigned him to its fortress. He then wrote to Sultan Muḥammad about that, who ordered Zayn al-Dīn ʿAlī to treat Sulaymān Shāh kindly and allow him some freedom of movement whilst in his custody [I 143] until he received further instructions regarding Sulaymān Shāh. [N 256] Sultan Muḥammad remained there (i.e. in Hamadan) waiting for the onset of spring before moving against Baghdad. But he fell ill; his malady got worse and became prolonged. He died at Hamadan in 553 [/1158] after a sultanate lasting nine years.399 Sultan Muḥammad was a just ruler, of sound character and conduct and most kind and charitable. It is not known whether he had any progeny. News of his death reached the Commander of the Faithful al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh, who commented, ‘May God have mercy on Muḥammad! He was certainly a sagacious opponent!’ [After Muḥammad’s death,] the amirs of Iraq (i.e. of Jibāl) were obliged to send messages to Mosul, and they asked Amir Zayn al-Dīn ʿAlī Küchük to despatch Malik Sulaymān Shāh to them. Hence Zayn al-Dīn brought him forth from Mosul, bore the ceremonial saddle cloth ( ghāshiya)400 before him and provided him with money, equipment and provisions, horses marked (i.e. as of special breed), stout, well-fed mules, tents and ghulāms, in large numbers and quantities, the detailing of which would be a lengthy business. He fitted out a group of the Mosul amirs, with Ṣārim al-Dīn, the castellan of the Mosul fortress, as their commander, and despatched them in Ṣārim al-Dīn’s care to Hamadan. When he (i.e. Sulaymān Shāh) reached Hamadan, the amirs came forth according to their ranks, received him and walked before him. They entrusted him with their affairs (lit. ‘threw the reins of their affairs into his hands’), set him on the royal throne, lined up before him in rows and all of them pledged their allegiance to him.401 So he remained at Hamadan. But then the amirs fell out with one another, and some tried to kill others of them. Each one wanted to be ruler himself [N 257] and to have the direction of affairs entrusted to him. The most noted amongst the amirs for his forcefulness, the one enjoying the loftiest prestige and the most far-sighted about the consequences of events and the political management of the mass of the people, was the eunuch Amir Sharaf al-Dīn Gird-bāzū; there was a bond of friendship and mutual intimacy between him and the Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz. Khwāja Tāshiyya knew that both of them were mamlūks of Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Masʿūd, so he sent a message to Ildegiz in Azerbaijan and got him to undertake an advance after dangling before him the prospect that he would depose

96

The History of the Seljuq State

Sultan Sulaymān Shāh b. [I 144] Muḥammad Ṭapar and place on the royal throne Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b Alp Arslān, swearing oaths to him and making an agreement with him about that. The Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz marched out from Azerbaijan, having brought with him Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl and having provided him with more horses, weapons, equipment and money than he in fact needed. He became Arslān Shāh’s Atabeg, whilst his son Nuṣrat al-Dīn Pahlawān became the Chief Ḥājib (amīr al-ḥujjāb) and his other son Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qara Arslān the Chief Armourer and Weapon-Bearer (amīr al-silāḥ). He allotted to each of his amirs one of the offices associated with the sultan’s position, and then he advanced on Hamadan. When the amirs (i.e. those in Hamadan with Sulaymān Shāh) got to know that Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz was marching on Hamadan, they felt certain that he had not engaged in this quest without the encouragement of some amongst their own amirs. Amir Sharaf al-Dīn Gird-bāzū the eunuch openly abandoned Sultan Sulaymān Shāh’s service, followed by the greater part of the amirs who joined Sharaf al-Dīn. The remainder of the prominent amirs scattered: thus Ibn al-Bāzdār went off to his lands, Amir Ïnanch to Ray, Amir Satmāz [N 258] b. Qāymāz al-Ḥarāmī to Qum and Aq Qush [al-Aḥmadīlī] to Ardabīl. Sultan Sulaymān Shāh remained at Hamadan with his close retainers and ghulāms. Amir Sharaf al-Dīn Gird-bāzū the eunuch mounted his horse, ostensibly to render service to Sultan Sulaymān Shāh. He went into his presence and tied him up till night-time, leaving a bow string round his neck with which he had strangled him; next morning, Sulaymān Shāh was found dead. [By that time,] Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz had drawn near to Hamadan. Amir Sharaf al-Dīn Gird-bāzū the eunuch came out and met him with all the amirs and troops that had stayed with him (i.e. in Hamadan), and it was a memorable day. [I 145] When they reached the portal of the New Palace, Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz, Amir Sharaf al-Dīn Gird-bāzū the eunuch and all the amirs of Iraq (i.e. western Persia) and Arrān dismounted and walked in front of Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl. They entered Hamadan and installed him on the royal throne.402

[N 259] [The sultanate of ] Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, Qasīm Amīr al-Muʾminīn All the amirs stood before Sultan Arslān Shāh, and on that day the Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz bestowed fine-quality robes of honour on all the amirs of Iraq and Arrān, and he presented horses and mules to each one of them according to his status. Sultan Arslān Shāh and Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz became fully established in their respective offices of sultan and atabeg, and the sultan stayed in Hamadan. As for Ïnanch, Ibn al-Bāzdār, Satmaz b. Qaymaz al-Ḥarāmī and Aq Qush, they swore oaths together and made a solemn agreement that they would not offer their support to the Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz and Sultan Arslān Shāh and would not give their allegiance to them (lit. ‘would not tread on the carpet before them’).

Translation of the text 97 Malik Muḥammad b. Ṭoghrïl, brother of Arslān Shāh, was in Shiraz under the tutelage of the Atabeg Sonqor. So they (sc. the dissident amirs) sent a message to Sonqor asking him to send Malik Muḥammad b. Ṭoghrïl to them. The Atabeg Sonqor escorted [I 146] him out from the city, fitted him out in a most handsome fashion and despatched to accompany him [N 260] 1,000 cavalrymen from his own retainers. They headed for Isfahan on the basis of a promise made to him by the prominent amirs to Sonqor. The amirs made their own preparations, expending considerable sums of money, and gathered together a force of over 20,000 cavalrymen. They all assembled and set out to join Malik Muḥammad b. Ṭoghrïl in Isfahan [and to wait there] until all the army of Shiraz (i.e. that of Sonqor) joined up with them, and then they set off for Hamadan. The Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz and the eunuch Sharaf al-Dīn Gird-bāzū marched out with Sultan Arslān b. Ṭoghrïl. The armies confronted each other at the grazing grounds (marghzār) of Qarategin403 in 555 [/1160]. The two opposing sides drew near to each other, and it was as if the earth were moving, the mountains in commotion, the stars scattered and the heavens split open. The ranks of each army lined up for battle, and both sides suffered heavy losses (lit. ‘the millstones of death went round for each side’). Ïnanch’s left wing attacked the Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz’s right wing, scattered their formation and knocked them from their positions. Ïnanch’s right wing attacked Ildegiz’s left wing and repeated their performance with Ildegiz’s right wing. Ïnanch personally attacked Ildegiz’s centre, but the latter rolled back Inanch’s onslaught against him, and Ïnanch retreated headlong. During the battle, Pahlawān b. Ildegiz and Ïnanch encountered each other. Ïnanch’s daughter was Pahlawān’s wife. With his sword Pahlawān laid a blow on the hindquarters of Ïnanch’s horse, saying to him, ‘Look to your own safety! If I’d wanted to kill you, I could have done so!’ When the soldiers of Ildegiz’s right and left wings saw their leader’s steadfastness and Ïnanch’s flight from him, they came back to their positions, whilst Ïnanch’s followers abandoned the field when they saw that Ïnanch himself had fled. The Atabeg Ildegiz’s troops encircled them completely and then plunged into their midst. Ïnanch’s troops fled ignominiously after large numbers of them were killed on the spot. The Atabeg Ildegiz’s troops pursued the fugitives, and only [I 147, N 261] the swiftest-moving of them and those not burdened with heavy weapons and mailed coats managed to escape. The troops of Ildegiz’s army gained as plunder copious amounts of money and wealth, weapons and war equipment, and splendid possessions and furnishings beyond counting; their hands were filled with items of spoil beyond all description. Ïnanch’s troops were scattered to the four winds, and each amir returned to his own lands. Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz returned to Hamadan safe and sound and loaded with booty, and the city was lavishly decorated for his reception. He remained at Hamadan for some time and then led an expedition against Ïnanch, who was at Ray. When the latter learnt of Ildegiz’s plans, he abandoned Ray and took to flight until he reached Bisṭām and took up his position there. From Bisṭām he wrote to the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān, saying that he had come to seek refuge with him and become one of his slave retainers (ghilmān). If he could be

98

The History of the Seljuq State

given the help of some of the Shah’s troops, he would be able to seize Iraq and make it part of the Shah’s dominions, over which he would exercise authority and his rule prevail there. Il Arslān gave a very favourable answer and [in it] addressed him most courteously. He sent a message to the governor of Dihistān404 instructing him to convey to Ïnanch, on his arrival, 30,000 dinars from the revenues of Dihistān, so that Ïnanch might therewith mend his disordered affairs and supply his wants. He instructed Ïnanch to make for Dihistān and remain there until he had set his affairs in order. So Ïnanch made his way to Dihistan and remained there. As for the Atabeg Ildegiz, when he imposed his control on Ray he placed it under his personal authority, outside that of Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl, and made it an iqṭāʿ for his son Amir Nuṣrat al-Dīn Pahlawān. The amirs of Iraq405 [N 262] who had been with Ïnanch sent letters to Ildegiz asking him to grant them safe conducts, forgive their crimes, overlook their mistakes and secure on their behalf safe conducts from the sultan which they could trust, so that they might return to the sultan’s service and implore once again forgiveness. [They continued] that it had only been their fear of the Amir Sharaf al-Dīn Gird-bāzū that had driven them to that course of action and had estranged them from service to the sultan. It was Sharaf al-Dīn Gird-bāzū who had forced them to abandon the sultan’s service [I 148] because of the many rumours that had reached them that he had slandered them and exaggerated their every misdeed. Now, however, a sultan had been designated for them, and they would offer the sultan their service and he would prevent any one of them encroaching on the rights of another of them regarding his iqṭāʿs and his status. They were the sultan’s mamlūks and the mamlūks of his forebears.406 The sultan and the Atabeg Ildegiz accepted their exculpations. He wrote out for them solemn promises in which they trusted, and they came to the sultan’s court at Hamadan, entering his service and not leaving Hamadan. The land-tax from their territories used to come along and the lands’ revenue would be brought whilst they remained in his service. The Atabeg Ildegiz remained in Iraq for some time. Then he thought it wise to go back to Azerbaijan and Arrān. So he did this, whilst the sultan remained in Iraq, having with him the army of Iraq. The troops were stationed at Sāwa, whilst the Atabeg Ildegiz was in the land of Arrān. There was correspondence between them and the Georgians; sometimes these exchanges led to agreement and sometimes to disagreement.407 As for what was happening with Ïnanch, the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān sent the greater part of his army to Ïnanch, ordering the troops to spend the spring in Gurgān till [N 263] their horses were fattened up and then they could move against Iraq. He appointed as commander of the army Shams al-Mulk b. Ḥusayn Ayāz Beg,408 one of the amirs of the Qarluq in the tribal army (ḥasham) of Transoxania. His father had been ruler of Samarqand, but troops of the Khitan409 had attacked him, engaged him in battle and killed him.410 This son of his had fled and made his way to Khwarazm. There the Khwarazm Shah gave orders for his reception with honour and generosity, and he singled him out for awards of kindness and largesse. He gave him his sister in marriage and made him commander of his army. S.k.r (?) Khān was also commander of a division of the army. When they

Translation of the text 99 had pastured their horses during the spring and the horses had become fattened, the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān gave commands for the expedition against Iraq, and they set off. [I 149] The Atabeg Ildegiz was sent a letter from (Persian) Iraq with the news that they (i.e. Ïnanch and his Khwarazmian allies) had got ready their forces and had set out [from Gurgan]. So he likewise set out [from Azerbaijan] to encounter them in battle. Ïnanch’s army reached Ray before the Atabeg Ildegiz could arrive, and pressed on from there to Sāwa, where the army of Iraq had already taken up its position. As has been mentioned previously, the amirs of Iraq were unanimously in agreement with Ïnanch. They [now] endeavoured to come to a friendly agreement411 with the Atabeg Ildegiz, alleging that what had impelled them to march out to war were the Khwarazmians and Ïnanch, based on an agreement with the amirs of Iraq; but in fact, the situation was not that at all.412 When the Atabeg Ildegiz delayed413 in joining up with the sultan and Pahlawān b. Ildegiz, the latter two withdrew and did not engage in battle. The amirs of Iraq stood firm in the face of Ïnanch and the Khwarazm Shah Il [N 264] Arslān’s army, and engaged in a furious battle with them, but when they saw that the sultan had withdrawn from the fray and that they had no sultan to fight at their side, they also abandoned the field of battle to join up with the sultan. They left behind all the tents and baggage that they were unable to take with them, and these were captured as plunder by the Khwarazmians and Ïnanch. Five days later, the Atabeg Ildegiz reached them and very soon went in pursuit of the Khwarazmians and Ïnanch, who fled before him to Ray. He continued in their pursuit, and the Khwarazmians abandoned Ray and retreated in disarray. They asked Ïnanch to follow them, but he refused and stayed holed up in the citadel [of Ray], which he had fortified.414 The Atabeg Ildegiz encamped round the city, [laid siege to it] and captured it. Ïnanch remained besieged in the citadel for four consecutive months, with fighting continuing every day between the two sides. Then Ïnanch sent a message to the Atabeg Ildegiz seeking peace. Ïnanch’s vizier was Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ashall. The Atabeg Ildegiz sent back a reply that he would only conclude [I 150] a peace with Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ashall as negotiator. So because of Ïnanch’s desperate need for peace, he came to his vizier and told him, ‘Go and listen to what this fellow (i.e. Ildegiz) has to say and report back to me.’ When Saʿd al-Dīn came into the Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz’s encampment, the latter had Saʿd al-Dīn brought into his presence in complete privacy, with no one else present. He set before Saʿd al-Dīn the complete text of the Qurʾān, kept in its chest in thirty parts.415 He swore on it, from the opening Fātiḥa to its end, that, so long as he lived, [N 265] he and Ïnanch could never come together and make peace. In addition to swearing on the full text of the Qurʾān, he also swore on divorcing [his wives], freeing [his mamlūks], distributing alms and performing the Pilgrimage barefoot, that he and Ïnanch could never agree on peace together. [He told the vizier Saʿd al-Dīn,] If you hope that the affairs of Ïnanch will have a peaceful outcome and that you will stay with him in Ray, this will never happen. You have two courses of

100

The History of the Seljuq State action to choose from: either you remain with your master in an alien land – if he and you manage to stay alive – as you have been with him, in hardship, destitution and wretchedness; or else you make arrangements with me for his killing and then be with my son Pahlawān as the directing authority (ḥākim) over him and his lands of Ray, Isfahan and Azerbaijan. I give you my solemn undertaking regarding this. You have to look after your own interests today, tomorrow and the days after that.

Saʿd al-Dīn responded, ‘I’ll ponder over what’s best for me and get back to you.’ He arose and took his leave, and he searched his heart and reflected over what he had heard from the Atabeg Ildegiz. He came to the conclusion that his master was besieged in a citadel and lacked the strength to break out with his troops. If he (i.e. Ïnanch) remained there, his inevitable fate would be violence and death, and if he managed to get out from the citadel, he could only get out out by himself, with none of his retainers able to accompany him. It was unlikely that a man who had been driven out and defeated would ever be able to engineer his return once again [I 151] to his own land and become amir as he had been before. Given the enemy’s strength and the shakiness of his position, this could never happen. Hence the wisest course was that he (i.e. Saʿd al-Dīn) should get from the Atabeg Ildegiz a solemn promise on the basis of what the latter had offered to him, and should go to Ïnanch in the citadel and bring about his killing. So he went back into Ildegiz’s presence and asked him, ‘Give me a solemn undertaking about what you offered me,’ and Ildegiz gave him this. Saʿd al-Dīn further said, ‘Give me a solemn undertaking that you will provide me with what is requisite for me to fit out any one of Ïnanch’s retainers to whom I offer something and with whom I conspire to carry out the plan of his murder, and also that you will provide him, when he comes forth to you, with what I myself have offered him.’ Ildegiz gave him his undertaking for that. Saʿd al-Dīn went in to Ïnanch in the citadel and told him, ‘Matters between you and the Atabeg Ildegiz [N 266] have gone too far concerning what you seek from him in the way of peace, for he requires you to come down [from the citadel] to him and render service to the sultan at his court. He won’t come to terms with you on anything less than that: so choose either to go down to him or stay here in the citadel.’ Saʿd al-Dīn then left him. Ïnanch possessed Turkish ghulāms on a scale which none of the maliks had. All of them used to attend upon Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ashall because he was the one who used to pay out their stipends ( jāmakiyyāt) and was responsble for the living allowances (nafaqāt), etc., that were due to them. [One day,] a group of them came to him and they all ate together. They got up to leave, but he held back three of them whom he could trust and who regarded him with trust likewise. He retailed to them the story of what had taken place between him and the Atabeg Ildegiz and the solemn undetakings that Ildegiz had sworn regarding these plans. He stressed to them that ‘Ïnanch’s cause is hopeless, and when his position becomes desperate he’ll drag us all down with him. The wisest course is that we should adopt a course of action favourable to our own interests, since our master’s cause is near

Translation of the text 101 to ruin [I 152] and destruction.’ Saʿd al-Dīn accordingly conspired with these three persons that these last should go into Ïnanch’s presence, assassinate him and go off to join up with the Atabeg Ildegiz, having for themselves the undertaking that Ildegiz had solemnly promised via Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ashall. They now left Saʿd al-Dīn and awaited a suitable moment for bringing about the murder of Ïnanch. Ïnanch used to pass the night in one of the towers of the citadel. One night, he went up into the tower as usual and spent the night there, having drunk a certain amount of wine. He slept on his bed; these three assassins came [into the citadel] and one of them went into the tower, having provided himself with a dagger, and killed Ïnanch lying asleep on his bed. He wrapped him up in the bed coverings and went back to his two companions, and they escaped from the citadel by climbing down the wall. They reached the Atabeg Ildegiz’s encampment and asked the doorkeepers to take them to the Atabeg Ildegiz. The doorkeepers informed Ildegiz, and he gave orders for them to be allowed in. When they came into his presence, they reminded him of his solemn undetaking to them. He replied, ‘I acknowledge this, so what’s your concern?’ They told him, ‘We’ve killed our master and have come to join up with you.’ He said to them, ‘Wait here until [N 267] the truth of what you say has been ascertained,, and they replied, ‘Blessings [be upon you]!’ After only a short while, a clamour arose from the citadel, and Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ashall came forth to the Atabeg Ildegiz announcing Ïnanch’s death during that night. Saʿd al-Dīn gave Ildegiz details of the situation, and the latter bestowed on Saʿd al-Dīn splendid robes of honour and singled him out with the award of a high rank (i.e. at court). The citadel surrendered, with all its treasuries, weapons, horses, ghulāms and slave girls. Ildegiz allocated the city as an iqṭāʿ for his son Pahlawān, and Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ashall became administrator (ḥākim) of the lands and manager of all the affairs, small and great, of the Atabeg Ildegiz’s son Pahlawān. He allotted these ghulāms to Saʿd al-Dīn’s service.416 Saʿd al-Dīn’s affairs continued exactly as he desired [I 153] and on the right path until he died. During the time when he was in Ïnanch’s service, this same Saʿd al-Dīn was the most tyrannical, oppressive and intransigent of people; but when he entered the service of Pahlawān, son of the Atabeg Ildegiz, he became the most just and equitable of people, and the most kindly and compassionate to the weak. For the whole of his life, he followed the path of beneficence and remained on the straight way, enjoying high prestige in the eyes of the sultan and a conspicuous status. The Atabeg Ildegiz was now in full control of (Persian) Iraq, Azerbaijan and Arrān. He sent a number of pleasing messages to the caliphal court [at Baghdad], announcing, ‘I am the ʿAbbasid state’s mamlūk, I regard obedience to it as an obligation and I shun any acts of disobedience to it. All the victories and triumphs over enemies that I have gained have been through the blessings of my attachment to the ʿAbbasid state, may God Most High keep it firmly established!’ He then proceeded to Isfahan and remained there. [By this time,] the Atabeg Sonqor had died (lit. ‘had mounted up to God Most High’s mercy’) and his brother Amir Zangī had succeeded him.417 He (i.e. the Atabeg Ildegiz) summoned Zangī to the sultanal court. As we have mentioned, his

102

The History of the Seljuq State

brother Sonqor had had a bond of support and cooperation with Ïnanch and the amirs of Iraq and had sent to them Sultan Muḥammad b. Ṭoghrïl accompanied by an army. The Atabeg Ildegiz had remembered that; the thought of it remained in his mind and he kept nursing secret feelings of taking revenge on the Atabeg Sonqor. But as it happened, Sonqor died. When the announcement of his death came to him, [N 268] the Atabeg Ildegiz recited the lines of the poet,418 1. O lion of death, you have saved him from the jaws of a lurking lioness! 2. This present world had healed my feelings of anguish regarding him, but he took refuge in the next world. The Commander of the Faithful al-Muqtafī li-amr Allāh died at the beginning of Rabīʿ I 555 [/11 March 1160]. [I 154] His caliphate lasted for twenty-four years, three months and sixteen days, and his span of life was sixty-six years minus twenty-eight days.419 His son al-Mustanjid bi’llāh succeeded to power after him. [N 269] The command of Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl and the Amir Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz went forth to the Amir Zangī summoning him to wait upon them. But he was filled with apprehension, and he sent back the reply, I am the sultan’s mamlūk and slave and I am not one of those who oppose his rule and repudiate obedience to him. Indeed, my brother was guilty of error previously and commited a mistake [and as a result,] God took vengeance on him on the sultan’s behalf, his life came to an end and he tasted the untoward result of his conduct. I fear that, as a result, there may have been left some ill-feeling [regarding me] in the breasts of the sultan and the Atabeg Ildegiz, and I would like to be given a guarantee of safe conduct and for it to be generously accorded me, so that I may come and offer the sultan my service. Zangī sent with his envoy to the sultan and the Atabeg Ildegiz gifts, presents, charitable donations, rare items, various items of clothing of all kinds, castrated Ḥabashī slaves (i.e. from East Africa), ghulāms, and Arab horses which he had purchased from al-Qaṭīf 420 and the Arab lands. He asked for a solemn engagement to be made with him regarding the concessions which he sought through his envoy. When the envoy came into the presence of the sultan and the Atabeg Ildegiz, he handed over to them the presents and the message he had brought; he was granted his request and gained his desired aim. He was sent back to his master with complete satisfaction (lit. ‘with cooled and refreshed eyes’), his mission having been successfully accomplished and his journey a productive one. When the envoy reached [I 155] the Atabeg Zangī, the latter made extensive preparations, rode forth with his entire army and went to offer his service to the sultan, who was in Isfahan. When he reached there, and the Atabeg Ildegiz was aware of his arrival, he gave orders for all the troops [N 270] to ride out with their equipment and battle gear and girded with weapons. They did this and took up

Translation of the text 103 positions in Zangī’s path in two rows. The whole body of amirs met Zangī, with the exception of the Atabeg Ildegiz, who stood with the sultan in his position. When Amir Zangī drew near and saw the troops lined up in their ranks, each detachment having its commander’s banners, and that commander’s ghulāms and circle of retainers garbed in the finest clothes and most impressive outfits, he was thinking that the sultan must be standing there. So he made as to dismount in order to kiss the ground [before him], but the amirs and ḥājibs restrained him from doing that. He did this several times, and each time they stopped him from dismounting. When he drew near to the place where the sultan was, he saw a mighty array of courtiers and retainers and a very numerous crowd of those striving to see the spectacle, and he was awe-stricken and conscious of his own insignificance. When he approached the sultan, the amirs and ḥājibs dismounted and signalled Zangī to do the same. He accordingly dismounted, with his senses in a confused state, overcome by fear and with the awesomeness of the occasion gripping his mind. When the Atabeg Ildegiz saw him, he drove on his horse a little closer to Zangī. The ḥājibs informed Zangī that this was the Atabeg [Ildegiz]. So he fell on the hoof of Ildegiz’s horses as if to kiss it, but Ildegiz held him back from doing so. The ḥājibs brought him up close to Ildegiz, who then embraced Zangī from the back of his horse. So Zangī at this point kissed Ildegiz’s hand and said to him, ‘O my master, I have come to render service to you in accordance with the solemn engagement,’ meaning that Ildegiz should fulfil his side of the agreement as promised to Zangī. Ildegiz then told him, ‘Be totally at ease, you have come to your own house,’ and he ordered the amirs and ḥājibs to conduct Zangī to the presence of Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl. The troops [I 156] and the amirs accordingly made a great, wide and extensive circle round the sultan, whilst the latter remained there an isolated figure, backed by the arms-bearing ghulāms. The amirs came into the circle on foot, having dismounted, accompanied by the Atabeg Zangī. When his eye fell on the sultan’s ceremonial parasol (chatr), he kissed the ground and continued kissing it every few steps until he had kissed it several times. When he was actually brought before the sultan, he kissed his foot. The sultan left his place [in the circle] and withdrew to his ceremonial tent (surādiq). He gave orders [N 271] for food to be set before Zangī, and he was thus provided with everything requisite in the way of food, drink, candles, and carpets and coverings. The sultan held a convivial gathering of his courtiers and invited Zangī to it. He drank with the sultan, and the latter bestowed on Zangī and the amirs splendid robes of honour. He had horses led in for Zangī that were embellished with gold collars and headdresses (? sarfasārāt), and he gave him a bejewelled sword. The sultan left the gathering he had convoked and commanded each of the leading amirs of (Persian) Iraq to prepare a feast in Zangī’s honour. It has been mentioned that the Amir ʿIzz al-Dīn Satmaz b. al-Ḥarāmī organized a feast on which he spent 150,000 dinars’ worth in the coinage of Isfahan, 75,000 dinars’ worth of which was in actual gold coins. Zangī remained in attendance on the sultan until the time of the Sultan’s departure from Isfahan to Hamadan. He bestowed on Zangī robes of honour for a second time and entrusted to him the governorship of Fars and its dependencies,

104

The History of the Seljuq State

enjoining him to act with justice and equity and not to treat the subjects with tyranny and violence.421 The sultan, accompanied by the Atabeg Ildegiz, returned to Hamadan and stayed there for some time. The Atabeg Ildegiz decided to go back to Azerbaijan and Arrān when he heard that the Georgians had got inflated ideas into their heads of attacking the Islamic lands and that they had attacked [I 157] Dwīn and made captive all of its inhabitants. Hence he returned to Azerbaijan. [By this time,] the Amir Nāṣir al-Dīn Aq Qush had died. He (i.e. Ildegiz) assigned the goverorship of Hamadan and Burūjird to his son Muḥammad b. Aq Qush. The governorship of Hamadan was not actually held [N 272] by Aq Qush, but Ildegiz had given it to him in compensation for Ardabīl, which he had taken from him and allotted to his own son Pahlawān. When the Atabeg reached Azerbaijan, the Georgians sent messages to him, saying, ‘We used to receive the land-tax of Ganja and Baylaqān,422 and it came to the treasury of our kingdom each year. But for two years we have not received it and it has not reached the treasury; we demand that you hand it over to us.’ He answered them, ‘I have left Iraq and come to this region (i.e. Azerbaijan) especially to gather together troops, lead an attack on Tiflis and lay siege to it. I shall not abandon this policy until I have captured it. So bring forward all the might you possess, for I am coming to attack your land. I have come with troops, and nothing can save you from them but sword blows and spear thrusts.’ Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl was at this time in Hamadan. The battlereadiness of the army of Iraq had improved to a condition even better than it was in the time of Sultan Masʿūd. Hence the Atabeg Ildegiz sent messages to the sultan and informed him about the Georgians’ communication and his own reply to them in such-and-such terms. He explained to him in detail the communication and his own response, and requested the sultan to come and join him (i.e. in Azerbaijan). So Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl marched from Iraq with an army that was a sight for sore eyes (lit. ‘excited wonder in the eyes’) and an aweinspiring panoply of arms that struck fear into hearts, and with men a single one of whom was equivalent to a thousand others and an individual from them equal to several others; they were battle-hardened and highly experienced (lit. ‘wars had reared them in their bosoms and experience had suckled them from its teats’). No army like that had ever been heard of before [I 158] in Iraq, one in which there were gathered together mighty leaders and various bands of auxiliary troops. The sultan marched out until he joined up with the Atabeg Ildegiz at Nakhchiwān. Ildegiz then went to Ganja and stayed there for several days. When the King of the Georgians heard about Ildegiz’s approach and that the latter was exerting himself strenuously with the aim of encountering him and giving battle, he despatched an envoy and humbly implored Ildegiz, explaining, ‘I have renounced what I demanded of you, and I am not going [N 273] to return to a policy that will harm you. I am backing down in the face of what you desire and am conceding to you what you are seeking.’ The Shāh-i Arman, Suqmān b. Ibrāhīm, had also joined up with the sultan’s army in order to acquire the honour of serving him and to have the favour of

Translation of the text 105 kissing his carpet, together with a numerous body of troops and an extensive panoply of war. When he arrived and presented his service to the sultan, he received an honouring, a generous welcome, marks of distinction and a high status, and the sultan addressed him with the mark of respect of ‘[step-] brother’(ījī ).423 When the Georgian envoy came to the Atabeg Ildegiz with that message, he presented him to Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl. The sultan then gathered together the whole body of amirs and the Shāh Arman, and the Atabeg Ildegiz was also present with them at the meeting. They took counsel together regarding what answer should be given to the Georgian king’s envoy. All of them advised the Atabeg Ildegiz that ‘The wisest course of action is what you yourself come up with, since you are the most knowledgeable person about your own land; what, then, do you think best?’ They perceived that Ildegiz was inclining towards making a peace agrement, so the amirs of Iraq rose up, presented their service to the sultan and told him, We have expended our wealth on our troops and men and have assembled an army of such a size that the wide, open lands are too constricted for it and the Divine Decree turns away from it in face of its impressive appearance and ardour. We have come here and now we are returning without encountering the enemy of Islam. We should show him a fierceness that will make him see just how we exact [I 159] revenge, a steadfastness that will lead him into humiliation and abjectness, a strength that will repel him from the way of covetousness, and a forcefulness that will strike sorrow and affliction into his heart. The Shāh-i Arman agreed with this view of theirs and commented, The enemy of Islam (i.e. the Georgian king) is completely stony-hearted, and his violence is a heavy blow for the Muslims. Only yesterday he launched an attack on Dwīn, plundered it and took captive a large number of its people. He has seen that we have come together to engage him in battle and are ready to repel the harm he can wreak and the calamity he can inflict; he will now see that we have dispersed and scattered without attacking and launching an assault on him, and have withdrawn without assailing him or hurtling down on him. [Moreover, he will see that] we have expended a great deal of wealth and have sent away and regrouped troops in the manner we have done. His eagerness for victory will at this point increase, and we are afraid that when the sultan – may God render his authority perpetual – returns to Iraq, the Georgian king will invade the Islamic lands with his forces and trample them with his troops, whilst they (i.e. the Muslims) will be devoid of anyone able to withstand him and have no one to face him in battle [N 274] and lead an assault on him. His baleful power will gain the upper hand over the people of Islam, and his ability to inflict harm will spread widely over the people, both high and low amongst them.

106

The History of the Seljuq State

When the Atabeg Ildegiz heard these arguments and [when he learnt] that the people were determined to fight, he arose and went to each one of the amirs, embraced him, kissed his face and said, ‘Now I have realized that you are eager for holy war ( jihād ) and insistent on combatting God’s enemies. Get ready to encounter the battle and to expend your lives in holy war for the One God, the All-Conqueror.’ So they gave the Georgian king’s envoy a mildly-worded reply and then left their place. Uncounted numbers of Turkmens had flocked to the sultan’s side; no one could set limits to them because of their numerousness. They headed for the land of the Georgians. When the Georgian king got news that they had set out for his lands, he got ready to meet them in battle, made preparations, assembled his scattered and dispersed troops and [I 160] sallied forth with an immense army and weight of arms and equipment. No army of unbelievers had ever had what his army possessed by way of arms, equipment, engines of war, lances, horses marked with signs of their noble stock and plump mules. The two armies drew near each other. The Atabeg Ildegiz had divided his army into three groups. One group was ready to fight the [Georgian] king and his troops. A second group comprised the troops of Iraq, and their instructions were to wait until the horses mingled with each other and the infantrymen with each other and they all became interlocked in wielding swords and spears. At that point, they were to join in with them in order to put heart into the Muslims through their impetus and weaken the spirits of the polytheists when they saw them. Ildegiz himself took up his position in the third group. Together with his ghulāms and close retainers there were men highly experienced in warfare, who had engaged in it on numerous occasions, had been in the thick of it and had a knowledge of all its aspects, covert and overt. The king [of the Georgians] arrived and arranged his army into a right and left flank, a centre and two wings, with the Muslim army facing him. The Georgians launched attacks on the Muslims, but the latter stood firm with immense steadfastness in face of the king. The battle raged fiercely, chopping off with gleaming sword blades what lay between necks and shoulders, and battering the sutures of skulls just as a trenchant blade (or ‘a redoutable warrior’, hudhām) slaughters a beast for an eminent chief (quddām).424 When [N 275] the violence of war grew intense for its participants and its cup (i.e. of death) passed to those drinking it, and the hosts of the Georgians clashed with the Muslims, it was only the second group of the Muslims, composed of the amirs of Iraq, that was able to drive them back. They had swept down upon them with cavalry like the coming down of night and the dashing together of a torrential flood; shouting takbīrs and universally displaying resolution and readiness for battle. They joined their Muslim brethren and marched against the enemies of God, smashing their ranks, putting their warriors to flight and dislodging them from their positions. In addition to that, they [I 161] stood firm in face of the Georgian king until it was midday. The Atabeg Ildegiz came to join them in person with his Turkish infantrymen and with his completion of the fighting425 through the acquisition of great riches and the onset of intense darkness. When the king saw the great numbers of the [Muslim] troops and their reinforcements, and that contingent upon contingent was coming against them,

Translation of the text 107 the Georgian army abandoned their positions and swords rained down on them in front and behind. The friends of God, the Muslims, outnumbered the hosts of the infidel polytheists, shouting at them and creating a clamour, hastening towards them in leaps like dancers and keeping up a great pace. The Muslims received their due reward from the abandoned and humiliated enemies of God before it was midday. They made their swords arbiters of around 10,000 of the Georgians’ warriors and champions, laid them out on the open terrain and made them food for the wild beasts of the earth and the birds of the air. A group of the leading figures of the infidels and their throngs was taken prisoner. They were then driven by the nose-rings of coercion, subjugation and captivity to where the sultan and the Atabeg Ildegiz were positioned, just like wrongdoers driven to the fires [of hell], with their faces smeared with the dust of infidelity, and overtaken by the filth of abandonment by God. Some had their backs forcibly pinioned and were dragged along on their cheeks, [N 276] and others were beaten violently on their jugular veins. The king of the Georgians just managed to escape death and had to be content with the booty of returning [unhurt] and the victory of getting back home. The Muslims gained plunder whose like no single Muslim nor any Muslim army had ever acquired. Their hands were filled with spoils, pasturing horses, abundant wealth, fine tents of high quality and ghulāms who were like hidden pearls. Amongst the possessions the Georgian king had with him were drinking troughs (aṣṭāl ) used for watering his horses, all made of silver, and vessels in which food was brought, trays. serving dishes, platters and bowls, all made of gold. There were found in his treasury jewels, pieces of unwrought gold, pearls, [I 162] and coral, just as God, to Whom be praise, has mentioned in the Qurʾān and has promised to the people of Paradise. This battle took place in 556 [/1161].426 After having rested for some days, the [Muslim] army invaded the Georgian lands, launched raids into them and wrought there plundering, slaughter, capture of prisoners and destruction until they left the lands in a ruinous state as if they had been uninhabited before that day. They set off back having acquired such an amount of booty as mended (lit. ‘feathered’) their affairs and gave substance to their hopes. The sultan and the Atabeg Ildegiz returned to [N 277] Ganja, and the Shāh-i Arman went back to the seat of his power. The Atabeg Ildegiz installed at Ganja a person who could guard it and protect it against any enemy who might possibly attack its environs and lands. Then he proceeded to Nakhchiwān and stayed there for some time in attendance on the sultan. They headed for Hamadan, reaching it safe and sound and loaded with plunder, having suffered no harm and with none of their hopes unfulfilled. When the year 562 [/1166–7] came round, al-Muʾayyid Ay Aba sent a message from Nishapur to the Atabeg Ildegiz, informing him that the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān had determined upon attacking Nishapur and seizing it from al-Muʾayyid Ay Aba. [Moreover,] when he had achieved his desire regarding Nishapur, he would not be content with that and would conceive the idea of marching on (Persian) Iraq. [He continued,] ‘Unless you make a move to frustrate what he has in mind, a flood of distress will gush out over you which you will be unable to

108

The History of the Seljuq State

plug, and a sea of hardship will rage whose tide will never ebb.’ The Atabeg Ildegiz was at Hamadan but now set off for Ray, and he despatched an envoy to the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān with the message, This al-Muʾayyid Ay Aba is the sultan’s mamlūk [I 163] and Khurasan is one of the sultan’s dominions and has been in the possession of his fathers and forefathers. The same applies to Khwarazm where you are. When you make a move against Nishapur, the result will be my moving against you, and there will be warfare and clashes between us. You should look to your own [true] interests. [N 278] It was as if these words enraged the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān, and he was seized by a fury which drove him on and he prepared to attack Nishapur. He marched on it in the year 562 [/1166–7] and encamped outside it. The Atabeg Ildegiz set off and encamped at Bisṭām. The Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān remained encamped up against Nishapur for two months, fighting with its inhabitants, but was totally unable to capture any part of it. When he learnt that the Atabeg Ildegiz and the army of Iraq had arrived, he left Nishapur for Gurgān.427 [At this point,] al-Muʾayyid Ay Aba despatched the Qāḍī Imām Fakhr al-Dīn al-Kūf ī 428 as an envoy to Il Arslān and told the Shah, You have expended a great deal of money and have given out lavish presents, so it would not be right for you to go back to Khwarazm with nothing of your aims achieved. Now, since you have returned, I will be your mamlūk and will make obedience to you incumbent on myself. I will make the khuṭba in your name and will mint dinars and dirhams in your name. I will conduct affairs in my land in accordance with your own commands and prohibitions. When the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān heard the terms of this message, he rejoiced at it and became excited. The two of them (i.e. al-Muʾayyid Ay Aba and the Shah) came to a peace agreement on the basis of these terms. The Qāḍī Fakhr al-Dīn’s mission created a good impression on the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān; he bestowed on him fine robes of honour and gave him very acceptable presents, and sent him back to Nishapur. He also sent with him an envoy of his own to al-Muʾayyid Ay Aba with splendid tokens of honour, numerous gifts, horses adorned with gold [I 164] and silver, swift horses of noble breed spread with head coverings and saddle cloths, and all sorts of rare and exotic objects held in his treasuries.429 The Qāḍī Fakhr al-Dīn went back to Nishapur having achieved his aim and having been successful in his efforts, and with a happy mind and his thirst (i.e. for successes) quenched. When the Atabeg Ildegiz heard about the reconciliation between al-Muʾayyid Ay Aba and the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān, he went back from Bisṭām to Ray [N 279] and Azerbaijan. He sent an envoy to Mosul requiring them to make the khuṭba and to mint coins (i.e. in the sultan’s name) and to forward what they used regularly to send to the Seljuq sultans. They responded willingly and obediently

Translation of the text 109 and made the khuṭba for Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl at Mosul and in all the other lands of Diyār Bakr and al-Jazīra. They sent him gifts and presents, rare specialities, Arabian horses, Greek mules and all kinds of clothes made in Egypt and Damascus. The bonds of friendship between the Atabeg Quṭb al-Dīn Mawdūd b. Zangī and the Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz were made firm and they became of one mind in their service to Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl. As for the lord of Fars (i.e. Zangī b. Mawdūd), he continued to forward taxes just as he had done in the time of Sultans Masʿūd and Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar. In the year 563 [/1167–68] the malik of Kirman died, and his sons disputed (i.e. over the succession) and hurled insults at each other.430 Each one sought to become malik after him. [N 280] The middle son – there were three of them – fled and came to Hamadan, and offered his service to Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl and the Atabeg Ildegiz. They responded to his call and gave concrete shape to his desires. The Atabeg Ildegiz, [I 165] in addition to what was the customary response, addressed to him a reply which gladdened his heart and put backbone into him by promising speedy success. Ildegiz gave him an exalted position, magnified his worth, gave a liberal offer of protection to him and fitted him out with the necessary means for him to return to his own land. He gave commands, and allotted to him troops that would be sufficient for his purpose. He remedied their deficiencies (i.e. in weapons and equipment) and appointed Amir Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Nāṣir al-Dīn Aq Qush, the governor of Hamadan, as their commander; he was one of the courageous warriors and cavalrymen who have been already mentioned. Ildegiz sent leading figures from his retainers and entourage under Amir Jamāl al-Dīn’s banner after fulfilling their needs concerning money and weapons. Amir Jamāl al-Dīn marched out of Hamadan in 564 [/1168–9]. When he came to Guwāsh̄ ir,431 the administrative capital [of Kirman], Malik . . .432 abandoned it and went to Nishapur. Amir Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aq Qush entered the city on a day which was like a festival day. He conquered the citadel there and entrusted it to the malik of Kirman, just as Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl and the Atabeg Ildegiz had instructed him to do, and remained there until he had rested. When the malik entered the citadel, he found there treasure stores that his brother (sc. Bahrām Shāh) had not been able to carry away [with him], such as weapons, carpets and coverings, and some silver vessels. So he bore away all those objects to Amir Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aq Qush and made his excuses to him, saying, By God, if I had found loads of jewels in these treasure stores, I would not have been the kind of man to hoard them up and keep them from the sultan! I would have sent them to him and to [N 281] the Amir Ildegiz, for those two persons have not fallen short in giving me my due, have shown favour to me, treated me with generosity and have been responsible for my receiving what was my right. You have to offer your apology to God, to Whom be praise, and it is incumbent on you, O Amir Jamāl al-Dīn, to assume responsibility for offering my apology [I 166] to the sultan and the Atabeg Ildegiz!

110

The History of the Seljuq State

During the time when Amir Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aq Qush was there, the malik of Kirman gathered together a certain sum of money from his land; he distributed part of it to the troops whom he commanded and forwarded the remainder to the sultan, saying, ‘In this country I am the sultan’s deputy. I shall send to the sultan all that is surplus to the needs of the army [here] and will not store up anything of it for myself.’ He set this down in his own writing for the sultan and for the Atabeg Ildegiz.433 Amir Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Aq Qush returned to Iraq for the rest of that year. When he drew near to Hamadan, the city was decorated for his reception in a most lavish fashion. Cupolas were constructed in the markets covered with various kinds of cloths. The sultan ordered the body of amirs to go out to meet him, so they went forth and met up with him. When he came into the sultan’s presence, the sultan welcomed him, greeted him enthusiastically, showed him kindness, bestowed on him splendid robes of honour and frisky riding beasts, and made him Chief Ḥājib (amīr al-ḥujjāb). He took leave of the sultan and went to offer his service to the Atabeg Ildegiz. The latter rose to receive him, embraced him, kissed him between the eyes and said to him, Praise be to God Who has abundantly vouchsafed the conquest of Kirman at your hands, the handing over of it to its lord and the achieving of the sultan’s aims, and has granted His assistance for securing his desire! For indeed, he (sc. the sultan) was concerned about the returning of that malik to his own land and his accession to his rightful seat in the land that his brother had snatched from him, after his father had designated him as heir to the land and his two brothers had conceded his special claim. On 9 Rajab 567 [/7 March 1172], the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān b. Atsïz died, [N 282] and the lands of Iraq and Azerbaijan became free of threats and troubles for the sultan and the Amir Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz, lands in which [I 167] their authority was now etablished and their commands were effective. However, Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl held the semblance of power (ṣūrat an ) but the Atabeg Ildegiz exercised real authority (maʿna n ). The latter implemented the decrees, granted out lands as iqṭāʿs and was in charge of the treasuries, transporting them with him wherever he wanted in the lands. The sultan had no power to share in any of these activities. Quite often, the sultan would be vexed by the Atabeg Ildegiz’s high-handedness in administrative affairs and his assuming responsibility for allocating iqṭāʿs to whomsoever he willed, and he would give vent in spoken words to his feelings. But his mother, who was [now] the Atabeg Ildegiz’s wife and mother of his two sons Nuṣrat al-Dīn Muḥammad Pahlawān and Muẓaffar al-Dīn ʿUthmān Qïzïl Arslān, would say to him, Don’t fret over this, for this man (sc. Ildegiz) has put himself at risk and time after time has rushed into mortally dangerous situations in wars. He has expended the choicest parts of his riches and possessions and has brought his ghulāms and his men to destruction in the effort to to set you up as sultan.

Translation of the text 111 How many of the Seljuq family, older than you, are in prison and enduring miserable ways of life? The height of their desire would be to escape from their places [of confinement] if possible, but they can’t whilst ever you are occupying the sultanate throne and Ildegiz and his two sons are in attendance on you, stand up in your presence, combat your enemies and subdue those who rebel against you. Your mind is free of responsibility for all that. Whenever the Atabeg decides to make an award to some person, or to withhold authority from someone, it is invariably for the prosperous state of your ruling authority and the stability of your royal power. So his actions ought not to vex you and his efforts ought not to disquiet you; and [after all] he is your mamlūk. When the sultan heard these words from his mother, he would keep silent.434 The Commander of the Faithful al-Mustanjid bi’llāh died on Saturday, 8 Rabīʿ I 566 [/19 November 1170],435 and allegiance was given to his son al-Mustaḍīʾ bi-nūr Allāh on Sunday, [I 168] 10 Rabīʿ II 566 [/21 December 1170]. Until 569 [/1173–4], the Atabeg would on occasion move to Iraq and at other times be in Azerbaijan, sometimes taking the sultan with him and at others going alone. During the course of this year, [N 283] he went to Azerbaijan and remained there till the year 570 [/1174–75] opened, when he died at Nakhchiwān.436 The sultan was [at this time] at Hamadan with Muḥammad Pahlawān. The news of the Atabeg Ildegiz’s death reached Muḥammad Pahlawān at a time when he was in attendance of the sultan in his capacity of Chief Ḥājib and directing his affairs, and he now felt afraid of the sultan. Hence he rode off and went to Azerbaijan and took over his father’s position there. He took control of the treasury and wealth, gathered together troops and men, and remained where he was, awaiting events that would clarify what were the sultan’s intentions towards him. As for the sultan, when the Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz died and Muḥammad Pahlawān departed from him, the troops and the amirs rallied round him and brought to him extensive riches since he had no money whatsoever. He made preparations for marching on Azerbaijan and freeing it from Muḥammad Pahlawān, and he set out from Hamadan with the army of Iraq. The amirs had acted with great zeal and had exerted themselves, and had assembled an army whose like had never been [previously] known in Iraq. They headed towards Azerbaijan and painted a rosy picture for the sultan, telling him, When you liberate Azerbaijan and install there one of your trustworthy retainers, you should go back to Hamadan, march on Baghdad and seize control of it. The lord of Mosul, Quṭb al-Dīn Mawdūd b. Zangī, who is your mamlūk and who owes obedience to you, will come and offer you his service. When you have seized control of Baghdad and [I 169] your name is read out in the khuṭba from the pulpit of the caliphate, the wide expanse of the territories will become for you free of any rival or enemy who could overcome you and struggle against you.

112

The History of the Seljuq State

The sultan accordingly concurred with them in this view of events, and set out and arrived at the town of Zanjān. There he was struck down by a severe illness that upset him and a critical attack that disquieted and weakened him. Hence he remained there awaiting recovery from his malady, but instead it grew worse. When he realized that the illness had worsened and that his allotted span had come to an end and was swallowing him up, he gave orders that he should be carried to Hamadan. [N 284] Thus he and the troops returned, and he died in the year 570 [/1174–75]437 two months after the Atabeg Shams al-Dīn Ildegiz’s death and before he could reach Hamadan. His corpse was brought into the city and buried in the cupola over the grave of his father Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl at the latter’s side.438 The news of his death spread throughout the lands, His son Malik Ṭoghrïl was with the amir Nuṣrat al-Dīn Muḥammad Pahlawān b. Ildegiz in Nakhchiwān. The latter set up Ṭoghrïl on the sultanal throne and himself left Nakhchiwān, heading for (Persian) Iraq. He had been designated as Atabeg (i.e. for Ṭoghrïl) just as his father had been Atabeg to Sultan Arslān Shāh. Malik Muḥammad, who was older than his brother Arslān Shāh, was in Khuzistan. When he heard the news of his brother Sultan Arslān Shāh’s death, he asked Sharaf al-Dīn Amīrān b. Shumla, who was his Atabeg and ruler over Khuzistan and its army, to march out with him to Iraq. But Sharaf al-Dīn told him, I can’t possibly fight on my own against the Atabeg Pahlawān on your behalf. Not very long ago my father fought with him at Qirmīsīn,439 and he defeated and killed my father. He now has at his disposal the troops of Iraq, Azerbaijan and Arrān, totalling more than 50,000 cavalrymen. However, you should proceed to Isfahan by yourself. It may be that, when the sultan’s troops and their amirs get to know about your arrival in Isfahan, some of them will defect to your side. If you manage to procure this, I will then come and join you with the troops under my command. [I 170] Malik Muḥammad took note of his words, and he set out for Isfahan and entered it. The ruling authorities (wulāt) there came to an agreement with him. Q.f.sh.d440 b. Qaymaz al-Ḥarāmī set out from Hamadan to join him and entered Isfahan [N 285] with a force of around 1,000 cavalrymen. When the Atabeg Pahlawān reached Hamadan, he rode forth from it with his close retainers and ghulāms, and hastened at top speed to Isfahan, reaching it in five days. He fell upon Malik Muḥammad like an arrow shot from a bow or a shooting star watching where to strike, acting like a person who has taken energetic action as his friend and companion and who has set aside any contemplation of the consequences, persisting in determination and purposefulness. Malik Muḥammad and his troops fled in the direction of Khuzistan, but the amir Sharaf al-Dīn Amīrān b. Shumla would not allow him to enter his lands from fear of the Atabeg Pahlawān.441 So they travelled on to Wāsiṭ. Malik Muḥammad (text, ‘Pahlawān’) remained facing Wāsiṭ on its eastern side for three days. The lord of Wāsiṭ then sent him a message: ‘The duty of giving hospitality is for three days,

Translation of the text 113 and we have fulfilled our obligation here. Your best course is to go back in the direction from where you came.’ Malik Muḥammad said, ‘I’ve come to present my service to the Commander of the Faithful so that I might kiss the Noble Threshold (al-ʿataba al-sharīfa) and hasten to join the ranks of the mamlūks of the victorious regime, may God establish it perpetually!’ The lord of Wāsiṭ told him, ‘Go to wherever your spirit tells you to go,’ and he drove him away from Wāsiṭ. Malik Muḥammad accordingly left it and headed for Baghdad. He encamped at al-Nīl442 awaiting an appropriate moment (sc. for entering Baghdad). He sent an envoy to Baghdad but was unable to get the response he wanted. The [caliphal] troops came forth, having been given permission (reading adhinū for the text’s iddanū) to make him their prey if they came upon him. Hence he fled from them and made for Khuzistan, but the lord of Khuzistan did not permit him to stay there, so he went on to the city of Shiraz and the Atabeg Zangī and stayed with him. But the Atabeg Pahlawān sent a message to Zangī, ‘Unless you despatch [I 171] Malik Muḥammad to the sultan’s court under guard, I’ll come and attack you. If you engage me in battle, this will entail your perdition, and if you take flight before me, this also will mean your destruction and that of your land.’ The Atabeg Zangī accordingly arrested Malik Muḥammad and despatched him to Sultan Ṭoghrïl. The Atabeg Pahlawān then seized him and immured him in the fortress of Sarjahān, and this was the last ever seen or heard of him.443 [N 286] The lands became at peace for the Atabeg Pahlawān and he installed Sultan Ṭoghrïl on the throne of the kingdom.444 The caliph al-Mustaḍīʾ bi-nūr Allāh died after two nights had elapsed of Dhu ’l-Qaʿda 575 [/30 March 1180] after a caliphate lasting eleven years and six days.445 He was succeeded by his son, the Imām, the Commander of the Faithful Abu ’l-ʿAbbās al-Nāṣir li-dīn Allah.

[N 287] [The sultanate of] Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl b. Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslan b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, Qasīm Amīr al-Muʾminīn Sultan Ṭoghrïl remained a young boy who was unable to deal with anything. A great sense of awe of the Atabeg Pahlawān became instilled into the minds of the troops and the lords of the outlying regions, [N 288] and all the princes were in fear of him. Pahlawān assembled troops, proceeded to Azerbaijan and Arrān and entered the Georgian lands. [I 172] No one was able to withstand him, and the Georgians sent envoys to him and arrived at a peace agreement with him on his own terms. He then retired to (Persian) Iraq.446 He appointed his brother Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān as his deputy over Azerbaijan and Arrān, and wrote letters to the lords of the outlying territories requiring them to pronounce the khuṭba for Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl, which they did, and the khuṭba was made for him in the entirety of the lands of Mosul and its dependent territories, Armenia, Khilāṭ, Fars and its districts, and in the whole of Khuzistan.447 His (sc. Pahlawān’s) authority was effective in all the lands. He sent messages to the Khwarazm

114

The History of the Seljuq State 448

Shah, showing his friendship and sincere affection. There were close relations and exchanges of presents between him and the Khwarazm Shah all through his lifetime.449 For the whole of his life he was continually sending envoys to the Exalted Residence (al-dār al-ʿazīza, i.e. of the caliph in Baghdad) professing his subordination, submission and unfailing obedience, and he used to assert that he had only attained this authority and power over these lands through the blessing that enfolded him as a result of his obedience to the Exalted Residence and that had come to him on account of his submission to the noble prescripts (i.e. the caliph’s orders). Robes of honour and presents came to him continuously and uninterruptedly from the Exalted Residence, and during the entire period of his life, he carried out the elevated prescripts of the Prophet’s house and performed the elevated injunctions of the Imām’s office until his allotted span was fulfilled and his life reached its end [N 289] in 582 [/1186–87].450 When he passed away, he left behind four sons. Two of these were by the same mother, Ïnanch Khātūn, daughter of the amir Ïnanch. One of these two was called Ïnanch Maḥmūd and the other Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar. Concerning the other two sons, one was Abū Bakr, born of a Turkish slave mother, and he was the eldest of the [four] sons. The Turks (i.e. the Turkish troops) were with his paternal uncle Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān in Azerbaijan. Qïzïl Arslān had no sons and used to consider Abū Bakr as his own son. [I 173] The remaining son, Özbeg, was [also] from a slave mother and resided permanently in Hamadan. The Atabeg Pahlawān had specified that Azerbaijan and Arrān should go to his son Abū Bakr and had placed him in the care of his uncle Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān. He had designated Ray, Isfahan and the rest of (Persian) Iraq for his two sons Ïnanch Maḥmūd and Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar, and had assigned Hamadan to his son Özbeg, and had enjoined them that, if he died, they should be under the supreme authority of their uncle Qïzïl Arslān. [N 290] When he died, things went along the lines he had earlier laid down. He instructed all his sons that they should continue to offer their service to Sultan Ṭoghrïl and not harbour animosity against him or deviate from the way of obedience. [Rather,] they should give him support and not betray him. They should remain close to him and not desert him, should give him obedience and not be rebellious, and should be ready to protect him in all eventualities. He further enjoined them that, in whatever circumstances they mght find themselves, they must on all accounts take care not to disobey the noble prescripts of the Prophet’s house, [saying,] ‘You will find the Commander of the Faithful a pillar upon which you can lean in times of hardship and a fortress and stronghold where you can find refuge if a tenacious opponent puts you to the test.’ When the Atabeg Pahlawān passed on, Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān sallied forth, having gathered together the troops of Azerbaijan and Arrān and the greater part of the troops of Iraq. When he went off (reading sāra for waṣala) to Hamadan, Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl was there with Ïnanch Maḥmūd and Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar. Their mother (i.e. Ïnanch Khātūn) was at Ray. When the Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān drew near to Hamadan, Sultan Ṭoghrïl ordered all the amirs

Translation of the text 115 and troops to go and meet him at the distance of a day’s journey [from the city] and in the manner in which they customarily met him and his brother. When Muẓaffar al-Dīn [I 174] Qïzïl Arslān was about to enter Hamadan, the sultan came forth to him [N 291] outside the old summer palace (kushk),451 where he himself was residing, and met him. The Atabeg Qïzïl Arslān dismounted and kissed the ground (i.e. before the sultan). The sultan brought him close to his own person since Qïzïl Arslān was his uncle, being the [half-] brother of Sultan Arslān Shāh through his mother, and embraced him whilst still on horseback. Qïzïl Arslān and his troops all mounted to render service to the sultan until he reached the summer palace. He then dismounted and carried the sultan’s ceremonial saddle cloth (ghāshiya) whilst the amirs walked along with drawn swords in their hands. The sultan then went into his residence in the summer palace and the Atabeg Qïzïl Arslān went to his own encampment. Next morning, the Atabeg Qïzïl Arslān brought to the sultan’s court gifts, presents and all kinds of pleasing and rare objects, whose like no one had ever previously brought, and on the next day likewise. Each day he continued to bring to the sultan things like those he had brought the previous day, and this went on for a whole month, the value of all the offerings being over 150,000 dinars in gold coinage. [Additionally,] he brought 100,000 dinars in other types of coinage.452 He bestowed robes of honour on all the amirs and attached them to his service. They all rallied to his side as they had rallied to his father and brother (sc. Ildegiz and Pahlawān). When the mother of the sons of Qïzïl Arslān’s brother (i.e. Pahawān), Ïnanch Khātūn, daughter of [Amir] Ïnanch, realized that the Atabeg Qïzïl Arslān had acquired control over all affairs and that the Atabeg Pahlawān’s eldest son, Abū Bakr, who was under his paternal uncle’s guardianship, had achieved a higher rank and position than her own two sons, she was unhappy with this situation. She secretly despatched messages to Ay Aba453 and Urus (text, r.w.s),454 mamlūks of Atabeg Pahlawān, the most prominent [N 292] of his ghulāms, at that time the two commanders of [the late] Atabeg Pahlawāns’s army. [I 175] She told them, How can you be happy in mind that the son of a slave girl should be loftier in rank and greater in status than my own two sons? I possess wealth, treasuries, dinars and dirhams in such amounts that I can look after your needs for a number of years to come. I want you to provide my sons with mounts and bring them to me. I’ll look after you and all those who come with you and I’ll expend wealth so that (or: ‘until’) all the troops of your master the Atabeg Pahlawān rally round you. When the course of action suggested for them by Ïnanch Khātūn reached the two commanders, they mounted their steeds in the first part of the night and travelled onwards (i.e. to Ray), and after a mere two full days’ journey, they reached Ray and Ïnanch Khātūn’s presence on the third day. Both her sons were with the two commanders. She came out to meet them. Those of the ghulāms and troops of the Atabeg Pahlawān who had stayed behind at Hamadan came up after them, and the strength of their army thereby increased.

116

The History of the Seljuq State

[On hearing news of these events,] the Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān was compelled to follow after them to Ray. When he arrived there, Ay Aba and Urus took to flight and went to Dāmghān, taking up a position outside the town. The Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān remained in Ray for some days. [Ïnanch] Khātūn and her two sons Qutlugh Ïnanch Maḥmūd and Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar came forth to him and he took over from them the citadel, where he stayed for several days. Sultan Ṭoghrïl withdrew before him from Ray, travelling onwards till he caught up with Ay Aba and Urus at Dāmghān. The Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān remained at Ray for a few days and then left it. Whe he left, Ïnanch Maḥmūd and [Ïnanch] Khātūn accompanied him to Sāwa, where the latter sought his permission to go on to Sarjahān, which he granted, himself proceeding to Hamadan where he stayed for some time. When Qïzïl Arslān set out from Ray, and the news of his departure reached Hamadan, Sultan Ṭoghrïl came back (i.e. to Ray) [I 176] after having led a campaign into the territories of the deviationists aroud Dāmghān [N 293] and Girdkūh.455 He devastated and plundered their lands, killing everyone he found there, and then returned to Ray, where he was joined by the lord of Abhar Bahāʾ al-Dīn Sharaf al-Dawla and the sons of Qufshūd, lords of Zanjān, and also by the lord of Marāgha. When the Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān heard about this, he went off in a distraught state and fled from Hamadan. Ay Aba and Urus had extracted a promise from Sultan Ṭoghrïl that Ïnanch Maḥmūd would be with him on the same basis as his father Nuṣrat al-Dīn Pahlawān used to be, and Ṭoghrïl had fulfilled for them that promise. Ïnanch Maḥmūd and his brother Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar fled from their uncle (sc. Qïzil Arslān), came back to the sultan’s court and joined up with him in Hamadan. When the Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān reached Azerbaijan, he wrote a letter to the Exalted Residence (i.e. of the caliph) in which he expatiated, I am a mamlūk and the son of a mamlūk of this exalted state, and I have been continually trying to ensure the Commander of the Faithful’s favourable opinion for occasions like the present one. At the present moment, we are in a tough situation (lit. ‘there is no perfume after ʿArūs’456). The present state of affairs has led us into a position of which the Commander of the Faithful is aware. Some of the troops who have thrown off their loyalty and have inclined towards treachery and harsh behaviour have betrayed us, having joined up with Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl. Unless the hard core of this mischief is excised, it will lead to a situation out of control (lit. ‘the young lad will not be called out to’457) and [N 294] the supporters and servants of the [ʿAbbasid] state will all in face of it be reduced to impotence. So if the Commander of the Faithful thinks fit to equip and send out troops from the region of Baghdad, with which the mamlūk (i.e. himself ) will join up from the region of Azerbaijan, that will weaken the enemy’s strength. The entire kingdom of Iraq will revert to the partisans and supporters (awliyāʾ) of the [ʿAbbasid] state, in which [I 177] the exalted commands will prevail just as they prevail in Baghdad itself and all its surrounding territories.

Translation of the text 117 They (sc. the caliph and his commanders) agreed to this, and the Commander of the Faithful fitted out an army on which he reportedly expended 600,000 dinars from the well-stocked treasury (al-khizāna al-maʿmūra), and he appointed the vizier Jalāl al-Dīn Ibn Yūnus as its commander.458 The vizier set out from Baghdad in 583 [/1187] and headed for Hamadan according to the arrangement made with the Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān that he would meet up with them [there]. But the Atabeg’s arrival was delayed, and the vizier Jalāl al-Dīn Ibn Yūnus underestimated Sultan Ṭoghrïl’s strength, saying, ‘Why should we wait for the Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān? We will go on our own and occupy Hamadan.’ He accordingly left Kirmānshāh and made for Hamadan, encamping at Dāy Margh.459 Sultan Ṭoghrïl marched out [N 295] of Hamadan with all the amirs of (Persian) Iraq and Ïnanch Maḥmūd, who had with him the troops of [his father] the Atabeg Pahlawān. The two sides came together and a battle ensued on a scale which caused forelocks to turn white, destroyed the lines of troops intended to seek out the enemy and cavalry detachments, and filled the battlefield with dead from both sides. The vizier Jalāl al-Dīn’s left wing was commanded by the amir Maḥmūd b. T.r.j.m (?) al-Īwāʾī,460 who had bands of Turkmens and Kurds with him, but he then abandoned his position in the army of Baghdad in accordance with a secret agreement made with Sultan Ṭoghrïl. Hence when the Amir Maḥmūd b. T.r.j.m fled the field, the remainder of the troops withdrew to Qirmīsīn. The vizier Jalāl al-Dīn held firm in the army’s centre, and those of the élite ghulāms who were with him in the centre fought fiercely at his side till late afternoon. Then Sultan Ṭoghrïl met personally with Jalāl al-Dīn and told him, ‘Your army has fled and there’s no one left [I 178] with you except for these personal ghulāms of yours, so don’t bring about the deaths of yourself and those with you,’ and he ordered a group of amirs to come to him and bear the vizier to a tent which had been pitched for him. Then the [caliphal] army returned to Baghdad and Sultan Ṭoghrïl went back to Hamadan.461 When the army got back [N 296] to Baghdad, the Imām, the Commander of the Faithful al-Nāṣir li-dīn Allāh, set about fitting out and equipping it a second time and on remedying its deficiencies. He took out ample amounts of materiel, a vast quantity of arms and enormous wealth such as no one had ever before been known to possess apart from the Exalted Dīwān. He appointed as its commander the caliph’s close retainer (al-khāṣṣ) the amir Mujāhid al-Dīn Khāliṣ. Mujāhid al-Dīn set out from Baghdad in the remaining part of the year. When he drew near to Hamadan, where was Sultan Ṭoghrïl, and when the latter realized the numerousness of the army [of Baghdad], that its commander was a man of renewed vigour and fierce élan, and that they had marched on him with hearts filled with rancour and firm intentions to fight to the finish, he withdrew from Hamadan to the direction of Isfahan. The army of Baghdad now occupied Hamadan and remained there for several days. The Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān joined up with them there. They received him with honour and communicated to him the injunctions of our master, the Commander of the Faithful al-Nāṣir li-dīn Allāh about showing him regard and handing over to him authority as

118

The History of the Seljuq State

deputy of our master, the Commander of the Faithful al-Nāṣir li-dīn Allāh. He was given the honorific form of address of ‘al-Malik, Helper of the Commander of the Faithful’.462 [He was further told] that they had been charged with reinforcing him and that the army would follow the course of action he advised, would carry out his injunctions and would give him their obedience. Whenever the ḥājibs would convey to him something of these instructions, he would kiss the ground repeatedly. He was lodged in Mujāhid al-Dīn Khāliṣ’s own tent and splendid robes of honour were bestowed on him. As for Sultan Ṭoghrïl, he left Isfahan for Azerbaijan and joined up with ʿIzz al-Dīn Ḥasan b. Qifjāq, and their combined forces were thereby strengthened, [I 179] having a total of 50,000 Turkmens. They went to Ushnuh, Urmiya, Khūy and Salmās463 and devastated these lands and wrought havoc there. [N 297] The Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān came back from Hamadan, having made peace with his nephew Ïnanch Maḥmūd, and the latter had joined him whilst Qïzïl Arslān was still in Hamadan. Ïnanch Maḥmūd’s mother Ïnanch Khātūn had also come. The Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān married her and consummated the marriage with her at Hamadan. Ïnanch Khātūn remained there. The Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān set out, and encountered Sultan Ṭoghrïl and the Turkmens. These last had devastated those lands. So the Atabeg made preparations to deal with them. He appointed his nephew Amir Abū Bakr, son of the Atabeg Pahlawān, as commander of the army’s vanguard, he being accompanied by the amirs of Iraq, sc. the Amīr-i Bār,464 Nūr al-Dīn Qara and Sirāj al-Dīn Qaymaz, the governor of Ray. The vanguard met the Turkmens in battle and prevented them from arranging their battle lines. They hammered them with blows and drove them off. They killed a large number of the Turkmens, and plundered their tents and their livestock. The Atabeg’s army acquired from them much booty and enormous wealth.465 ʿIzz al-Dīn Ḥasan and Sultan Ṭoghrïl took to flight until they reached al-Karkhānī,466 Amir Ḥasan b. Qifjāq’s stronghold near the Zāb river. [From there,] they sent a message to the Commander of the Faithful al-Nāṣir li-dīn Allāh and sought his forgiveness for Sultan Ṭoghrïl’s error in fighting against the vizier Jalāl al-Dīn Ibn Yūnus, adducing in extenuation that he was compelled to act as he did, ‘but now he is a mamlūk of the [ʿAbbasid] state and an obedient subject. If the Commander of the Faithful should ordain that he should come and render service, and if he is granted a safe conduct and adequate means of sustenance, he will do so. If he is worthy of acting as a representative or deputy in some place or other, he will be obedient to the Exalted Ordinances.’ Ṭoghrïl sent his son to Baghdad as a pledge [I 180] of his loyalty. When the son arrived in Baghdad, the caliph commanded that the Exalted Ceremonial Escort (al-mawkab al-sharīf ) should go out to meet him, and he was brought into Baghdad. He had a sword in his hand and was wearing a ragged shroud. He kissed the noble threshold, and a place for him to lodge was appointed for him. Ample living allowances were accorded him [N 298] and costly gifts were given to him. A letter was written back to Sultan Ṭoghrïl telling him to stay where he was until affairs regarding him were properly arranged. Sultan Ṭoghrïl waited till spring came along and then entered Azerbaijan with ʿIzz al-Dīn Ḥasan b. Qifjāq, the governor of Azerbaijan, after he had maried ʿIzz

Translation of the text 119 al-Dīn’s sister, had consummated the marriage with her at al-Karkhānī and had produced a child by her. When they were in Azerbaijan, the Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān marched against them. Sultan Ṭoghrïl withdrew to Hamadan. There was at Hamadan a powerful army of the Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān’s partisans, but they were unable to prevent him from entering the city. [Later, however,] the Atabeg came up and Sultan Ṭoghrïl was compelled to surrender to him. He believed that, because of the blood relationship between them,467 the Atabeg would overlook his mistakes and forgive his errors, and that he could be on a level of intimate relations with the Atabeg as he had been with his brother the Atabeg Pahlawān, with himself having only a symbolic authority in state affairs as sultan, whilst Qïzïl Arslān would have complete authority over the lands and would rule with despotic powers. But Qïzïl Arslān did not do this, and he seized Ṭoghrïl and imprisoned him in a fortress of Azerbaijan near the city of Tabriz.468 That fortress’s governor was one of the Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān’s followers. The latter remained at Hamadan and exercised authority over [I 181] the whole of Sultan Ṭoghrïl’s territories, remaining there for a period of time. Ïnanch Khātūn was with him [during these activities of his], but he paid no heed to her. Qïzïl Arslān was excessively captivated by associating with ghulāms and by wine-drinking, and only occasionally recovered his senses. [N 299] His activities provoked her wrath, so she incited some of her ghulāms, and they burst in on him when he was drunk and killed him in his bed. The next day, he was asked to ride forth but gave no response; they went in to him and found him slain.469 When the amir Abū Bakr, son of the Atabeg Pahlawān, got news of his uncle’s murder, he rode out by night and made for Azerbaijan. He entered Nakhchiwān, where was Zāhida Khātūn, [N 300] the Atabeg Pahlawān’s wife. The fortress of Alanjār was near Nakhchiwān,470 where the Atabeg Pahlawān and his father the Atabeg Ildegiz had gathered up and stored the tax revenues collected from (Persian) Iraq and Azerbaijan during his (? their) reign. Zāhida Khātūn was in control of the fortress and everything stored up there. The Amir Abū Bakr had been reared in her bosom and she regarded him as her own son. When Amir Abū Bakr came to Nakhchiwān, she let him enter the town. She summoned the town’s governor and instructed him that Abū Bakr was the master of those territories and that he (sc. the governor) was accordingly his representative. She also summoned the governor of the fortress of Alanjār and told him that Abū Bakr was the stronghold’s lord, and made him swear a solemn oath (i.e. of allegiance) to Abū Bakr. Having gained this support, Abū Bakr rode off to Ganja, whose lord came out to him and handed over to him the town; Abū Bakr sent him back to the town and made him his representative over it. Abū Bakr kept marching continuously from one town to another, capturing them, until he had subdued the whole of Azerbaijan and Arrān. The troops flocked round him, and he attained the place and prestige of his father and grandfather. As for what was happening to Sultan Ṭoghrïl, he remained a prisoner in the fortress for two years. There was in [I 182] the vicinity of that fortress a certain Amir Mahmūd b. Anas-oghlu (text, ‘Sanā-oghlu’), a Turkmen,471 who had been

120

The History of the Seljuq State

formerly in the Atabeg Pahlawān’s service. When he learnt that the nephews of the Atabeg Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān and their mother had conspired together to kill him, it distressed him, made him burn with anger, sickened him and made him feel ill. So he used subterfuges and every sort of stratagem until he and the governor of the fortress got together and released Sultan Ṭoghrïl from it after they had extracted a promise from him that Amir Maḥmūd would be his Amīr-i Bār and the castellan his Chief Ḥājib. When the sultan emerged from the fortress, he made for Tabriz, aiming to capture it, but the inhabitants there refused to hand it over to him. He remained in the vicinity of Tabriz for some days until he had recovered his strength and had assembled round him a force of about 500 cavalrymen. [Meanwhile,] Amir Abū Bakr had received news of Ṭoghrïl’s escape and that he was staying in the neighbourhood of Tabriz. So he rode out in pursuit of Ṭoghrïl, but the latter fled before him and headed for [N 301] (Persian) Iraq. When he reached Zanjān, which the sons of Qufshūd, the Turkmens, had captured and had established themselves there, these Turkmens came out and joined him. Qutlugh Ïnanch Maḥmūd and his brother Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar and their mother (sc. Ïnanch Khātūn) were at Ray with the army of Iraq. Sultan Ṭoghrïl went on to Hamadan. These three persons (i.e. Ïnanch Khātūn and her two sons) came together and marched out of Ray in pursuit of the sultan. The sultan moved to Qazwīn, where was Nūr al-Dīn Qara. The latter came out with a battle-hardened force and joined him. The sultan stayed outside the town of Qazwīn itself. Ïnanch Maḥmūd and all his troops agreed upon setting out against the sultan. He had a force of 15,000 cavalrymen, made up of noble-minded and choice warriors, and they were sure that Sultan Ṭoghrïl would not be able to stand up to him. [I 183] When the two armies met and both sides faced each other, Sultan Ṭoghrïl took up a firm position with the amount of troops he had with him, around 3,000 cavalrymen. He arranged them in correct lines, with each group of them stationed in the place assigned to them. Ïnanch Maḥmūd had already arranged his troops in their lines, these being adorned like peacocks; when the sun rose on them, the pupils of people’s eyes were dazzled by them and the horizons gleamed with light. When the two sides stepped out towards each other, Sultan Ṭoghrïl launched an attack in person on the body of personal troops (ḥalqa) around Ïnanch Maḥmūd. The latter was in the army’s centre with his own ghulāms and those of his father. Ṭoghrïl scattered their formation and dislodged their feet from their positions. When the troops of Ïnanch Maḥmūd who were in the army’s right and left saw that Ïnanch Maḥmūd had fled, they all took to flight also. They were scattered from their positions like a necklace whose thread has been broken. It was made a defeat for them in which banners were broken into pieces. The hollows and the hillocks were choked with their masses (i.e. of corpses) and their shoulders were crushed before Sultan Ṭoghrïl through blows which split skulls in two and which gave souls deadly poison to drink. Only those troops who had swift horses on which to fly or who managed to reach a stronghold or a mountain (i.e. for refuge) succeeded in escaping. Sultan Ṭoghrïl acquired from them as plunder [N 302]

Translation of the text 121 riches that were uncountable and inestimable. After the defeat, all those who were able to get back came back to Ïnanch Maḥmūd. He fled to Azerbaijan, whilst Sultan Ṭoghrïl made for Hamadan.472 Ïnanch Khātūn had concealed herself at Sarjahān, where the greater part of the Atabeg Pahlawān’s treasuries were. She took control of these and sent a message to Sultan Ṭoghrïl, saying, I have always been favourably disposed towards you and have felt hatred for all those who have shown enmity to you, whether they are near or far. At the present moment, when God has made you ruler over the lands your father ruled, I am one of your servants [I 184] and slave girls. I have in my possession numerous treasuries and vast amounts of wealth, so if you accept me in your service as one of your slave girls through a marriage contract and swear a solemn oath to fulfil your side of the contract, I will come to Hamadan and offer my service and hand over to you all the treasuries and wealth that I possess gradually, item by item. Ṭoghrïl agreed to her request and complied with what she sought. He wrote out for her a solemn contract for all this, and sent [to her] as his emissary the eunuch ʿIzz al-Dīn Faraj. The latter stayed with her for several days until she fitted herself out in a most sumptuous manner and set out for the sultan’s court. When she drew near to Hamadan, Ṭoghrïl commanded all the amirs and royal ladies to go and meet her. So they went forth to escort her, and she entered Hamadan with great pomp and in a most impressive manner. The day after her arrival, the qāḍī, the leading figures, all the amirs and the prominent officers of the army were summoned and, in the presence of all these persons, the contract of her marriage with the sultan was drawn up in a formally-attested document. She remained with him in Hamadan for some time, but then her appointed term of life came to its end and she passed away at Hamadan. [N 303] When she died, Ïnanch Maḥmūd believed that Sultan Ṭoghrïl had killed her.473 His mind was stricken with terror, and he feared that Sultan Ṭoghrïl might deal with him as he had dealt with his mother. He held back from going to Sultan Ṭoghrïl’s court after having got ready to do this, and then joined up with the Khwarazm Shah Tekish’s army. The amirs of Iraq had already set off to join the Shah before Ïnanch Maḥmūd actually reached them. So the amirs went back and separated from Ïnanch Maḥmūd. Nūr al-Dīn the Qurʾān–reader (Qurʾān-khwān) went off to Khwarazm to offer his service to the Khwarazm Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish b. Il Arslān; the amir Sirāj al-Dīn Qaymaz went to Khuzistan and thence to Baghdad, whilst the son of the Amīr Bār ended up in fetters. Ïnanch Maḥmūd went to Azerbaijan and encamped at a short distance from Tabriz, having with him [I 185] a body of his father’s ghulāms and his brother Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar. They stayed there and sought to enter Tabriz; no one stopped them. When they were within it, their army received an access of strength, and they marched out against [their half-brother] Amir Abū Bakr, who was at Nakhchiwān. He came forth, and they engaged in a battle in which swords were

122

The History of the Seljuq State

cut into pieces and lances shattered. Some of the troops stood firm against their opponents until midday, by which time Amir Abū Bakr had given them their just deserts. They fled before him in total disarray. He pursued them and captured a group of them, but failed to catch his two brothers. Ïnanch Maḥmūd went to Iraq, where he wandered round and kept being repulsed, whilst Amīr Amīran ʿUmar went to Shirwān, where the Shirwān Shāh came out to greet him, treated him with consideration and favoured him, married his daughter to him [N 304] and lavished wealth on him.474 He presented him with about a hundred horses, weapons and everything else he needed, and fitted him out. Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar went to the Queen of the Georgians – the ruler at that time being a woman475 – and she ordered her commanders and troops to give him a hospitable reception and fulfil his wishes. They received him most enthusiastically and showed due regard for his forefathers and their high reputation. They honoured him, gave him lodging and brought him everything he needed by way of provisions, fodder, dinars and fine clothing, and they asked him why he had come to them. He replied, When we encamped in the territory of my brother Abū Bakr, being then fugitives, and sought refuge under his wing, seeking protection, he did not look after us in accordance with his obligations to us. A feeling of family honour, and the claims of kinship, ought to have impelled him to respect our honoured status and to go back with us to confront our enemy and combat him until we had regained the territories of ours of which the enemy had deprived us; then we would have established ourselves in (Persian) Iraq and he would have been in complete control of Azerbaijan, as he is at present. On the contrary, he attacked us with his troops, scattered us throughout the lands in a broken, defeated state, and expelled us from our own lands in that distressed condition. I have [now] come to you [hoping that] you will reinforce me with men and will despatch troops with me so that I might encounter him face-toface, combat him, [I 186] descend on him and assail him. When I get the upper hand over him and drive him out from the lands, those lands will be at your disposal and you can take whatever you want from them, with no one to dispute them with you. The Georgians accepted what he had said in a positive way and got busy assembling troops and equipping them to go with him. They wrote to the Shirwān [N 305] Shāh, who had become their vassal and had forwarded tribute to the Georgians, instructing him to make preparations to accompany him. A group from the army of Arrān, comprising those who hoped, if Fate was on Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar’s side, to be with him and to secure a specially close position with him, joined up with him. A body of Turkmens also came together and went to join him. They united in a coalition and went to attack the Amir Atabeg Abū Bakr, son of the Atabeg Pahlawān Muḥammad, with troops numerous enough to cram the earth and make the heavens full of brightness. At this juncture, the earth shook with the footfalls of the troops and the sky split open because of the whirling of

Translation of the text 123 dust and the rising of dirt. When they drew near Baylaqān, the Amir Abū Bakr came forth, assembled his auxiliary troops ( junūd ), summoned his regular soldiers, encamped facing them and prepared for battle. When the two armies clashed together, and the shouting of the warriors arose and the troops and men fell upon each other, Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar’s troops led an attack on Amir Abū Bakr, dislodging him from his position in the field and causing a body of his hero-like warriors and stalwart men to be hurled to the ground and lose their lives. Amir Abū Bakr sought to escape from the fighting, but this was impossible for him because his troops were hemmed in on all sides by the Georgian and Muslim troops. So he stood fast, together with a group of his ghulāms who had formed a defensive circle round him and were fighting to protect him. They were, however, unable to achieve this, and some were killed, with a small number of them able to flee. Amir Abū Bakr found himself amongst the pile of those slain, and one of his brother’s ghulāms (i.e. of Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar) made to kill him, not recognizing him, but Abū Bakr made himself known to the ghulām and said, ‘I’m so-and-so.’ The ghulām dismounted from his steed and set him on it. He himself rode a second horse he had brought with him and bore him away, [I 187] pretending to those with him that he was taking a captive to his master. When the ghulāms emerged from the battlefield, he carried Abū Bakr away until he brought him to Baylaqān. Abū Bakr waited there until he was joined [N 306] by stragglers from amongst those who had fled and then went, in a state of defeat, to Nakhchiwān. As for his brother Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar, he returned, in company with the troops of the Georgians and Muslims, until he reached Ganja, in whose vicinity he encamped. He asked the people of Ganja to hand over the town to him, but they told him, If you had come to us entirely on your own, we would have surrendered the town to you; but now you are part of these bands which include troops of the infidels, there’s no possibility of our handing over this town to you because of fear that the infidels will act treacherously with you and [the possibility of] their seizing control of the town and its inhabitants, entailing the capture and enslavement of ourselves and our children and the slaughter of our menfolk and kindred. If they gain firm control of this frontier outpost (thaghr), not a single one of the towns of Islam will remain uncontrolled by them. The foundations of Islam will be destroyed, and darkness will envelop it after there has been light over it. Accordingly, they would not hand over the town to him. A group of amirs who had been put to flight at the time of the battle had taken refuge in Ganja. They realized that they had insufficient strength to take it by force and inadequate power to conquer it by means of fighting. Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar wrote to the people of Ganja, telling them, ‘Hand over the town to me and I’ll go into it with just my own force and rid you of this enemy.’ They answered, ‘We’re agreeable to this and will come over to your side.’ Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar

124

The History of the Seljuq State

informed the Georgians about the negotiations that had gone on between him and the inhabitants of Ganja, and he told them, ‘When I have gained control in Ganja, your authority will prevail there, [N 307] its land-tax will be brought to you (i.e. as tribute) and you will get its revenue. If we don’t succeed in capturing it by the sword and withdraw from it, the people will invite [I 188] my brother and hand the town over to him (reading here yastadʿūna and yusallimūna for the texts’ tastadʿūna and tusallimūna). If I am installed in the town, it will be more to your advantage than having my brother in it.’ They replied, ‘[We accept this] on condition that some of our amirs are allowed to enter the town with you in order to install you on the sultanal throne there.’ Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar accordingly entered into negotiations with the people of the town concerning what the Georgians had stipulated, and they told him, ‘It will be all right if some of the Georgians, from the danger of whose deceptions we shall be safe and from whose treacherous behaviour and evil we shall be protected, enter [the town]’ (i.e. with you). When it was the day on which they had promised to surrender the town to him, Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar rode forth, accompanied by his ghulāms and the amirs of his army. [At the same time,] there entered with him three amirs of the Georgians with a detachment of their men until they brought Amīr Amīran ʿUmar to the sultan’s palace and set him on the royal throne. They made him swear solemn oaths, whilst he was sitting on the throne, that he would not conceal any treacherous act aimed at them, that he would act in harmony with them secretly and openly, and that he would join together with them in any course of action they might decide upon and not oppose them in whatever they might propose. He duly gave his oath to them for all this, and they then left the town. On the second day after his entry into it, he mounted his steed and went out to them. The Georgian army departed from the environs of Ganja. Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar lived for only twenty-two days after their departure and then passed away.476 [After his death,] the people of Ganja took control of the town. They sent a message to Amir Abū Bakr to come quickly so that they could hand over the town to him, since his brother had died. He set out from [N 308] Nakhchiwān for Ganja at the speediest possible pace and took over the town. He put its affairs in order and entrusted it to his son Amīr . . .477 and then returned to Nakhchiwān. The Georgians marshalled their forces and set off when they heard of Amīr Amīrān ʿUmar b. Muḥammad Pahlawān’s death and that his brother Amir Abū Bakr had taken over Ganja, until they reached the town and encamped around it. Amir . . . (i.e. Abū Bakr’s son) set out and attacked [I 189] them whilst they were setting up their encampment and their guard, killing 300 of them before going back into the town. When the Georgians realized that they could make no headway at Ganja, they left and headed for Nakhchiwān, which Abū Bakr abandoned and left for Tabriz. The Georgians descended upon Nakhchiwān, but Zāhida Khātūn made peace with them on the basis of handing over to them a certain sum, and they returned to their own land after devastating the rural areas, filling their hands with plunder and taking captives whose numbers God, may He be praised, alone can count. They drove off the entire lot of beasts from the land and marched round attacking all the

Translation of the text 125 province, capturing fortress after fortress and plundering town after town until they had captured most of the strongholds. They collected tribute (kharāj) from Nakhchiwān and Baylaqān and seized control of Dwīn and its strongholds. They rode onwards, attacked Marand and took it [N 309] by force, killing the menfolk and enslaving the children.478 They continued in this wise, whilst the Amir Abū Bakr was permanently occupied with evildoing, was absorbed in wine drinking and associating with boys/his ghulāms; he had instructed his ḥājibs and amirs not to worry him in any way with information about the Georgians’ activities. When the Georgians discerned that there was no one facing them, combatting and defending their territories, and no one preventing them from overrunning the land, they became emboldened and marched rapidly and methodically over the land, conquering fortresses until they had gained control of the entire province of Arrān; the only part of it left to the Muslims was Ganja. The Georgians took over all the rest of the lands of Arrān and their fortresses, and laid waste Shamkūr and Baylaqān within Arrān, and Marand, as previously mentioned. They took Ardabīl by force and behaved there as they had behaved at Marand.479 As for Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl b. Arslān Shāh, when Qutlugh Ïnanch Maḥmūd fled [I 190] before him and he married [Ïnanch] Khātūn, Ïnanch Maḥmūd’s mother, he extended his authority over the whole of (Persian) Iraq. He marched towards Ray, which was occupied by the followers of the Khwarazm Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish b. Il Arslān, who had seized control of the citadel (i.e. of Ṭabarak) and the city itself. Sultan Ṭoghrïl captured the city on the day when he arrived before it, and laid siege to the citadel. He secured the surrender of the Khwarazmian garrison by granting them the guarantee of safe conduct that they sought from him. When they came down from the citadel, he allowed them to depart from the city, but then he broke his word and sent troops after them who seized everything they had with them. A number of them were killed and the remainder fled. [N 310] Ṭoghrïl seized Isfahan and made it into an iqṭāʿ for the eunuch Amir ʿIzz al-Dīn Faraj. He remained in Iraq, with no one to challenge his power there and no obstacle to the exercise of his authority and his role as sultan. As for Ïnanch Maḥmūd, when he fled from his brother Amīr Abū Bakr, he went to Zanjān, increasing the pace of his flight until he came to Simnān. The amirs of (Persian) Iraq had sought refuge with the Khwarazm Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish b. Il Arslān and had merged their forces with his. When Ïnanch Maḥmūd reached the Khwarazm Shah’s army at Simnān,480 these troops being the Khwarazm Shah’s vanguard, he remained with them until the Shah came to Dāmghān. Ïnanch Maḥmūd left there by himself, and the amirs of Iraq who were with him also departed on their own. Ïnanch Maḥmūd headed for the presence of the Khwarazm Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish at Dāmghān in order to offer his service. He appeared before the Shah’s throne, kissed the ground in front of him and informed him of his present state and what had happened to him. The Shah gave him promises, offered him hopes of favour, gave him a hospitable lodging and lavished on him gifts until he had satisfied his needs. He gave orders for him to be given sumptuous robes of honour [N 311] and likewise for all the followers who were with him. Ïnanch Maḥmūd returned to Simnān in the Shah’s service.

126

The History of the Seljuq State

When Sultan [I 191] Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl learnt of the Khwarazm Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish’s advance on Ray, he gathered tgether his troops and his followers and set off towards Ray. ʿIzz al-Dīn Faraj remained behind at Isfahan and the sons of Qufshūd were at Zanjān. The Khwarazm Shah overtook Ṭoghrïl before the troops from Isfahan and Zanjān could arrive, and reached Khuwār.481 A man called Amīn al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Zanjānī, who was the deputy of the man in charge (muwālī; ? wālī) of Ray, told me at Ray:482 When the Khwarazm Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish reached Khuwār, he stayed there for two days. His Great Ḥājib Shihāb al-Dīn Masʿūd b. al-Ḥusayn was with him. Masʿūd b. al-Husayn was secretly corresponding with Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl and told him, Although I am Sultan ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish’s mamlūk, and have been nurtured though his beneficence and have been one of his protégés, this will not debar me from giving you a piece of advice, given the fact that every Turkish soldier wearing a cap on his head owes a debt of allegiance to your family (i.e. to the Seljuqs) since they are sultans and the sons of sultans. Their authority prevails over all the lands and they have gained control of all the cities; the whole mass of people give their service to them. My advice is that you should withdraw from Ray to Sāwa and stay there, and then engage in correpondence with Sultan ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish about making a peace agreement. We (i.e. Masʿūd b. al-Ḥusayn and his fellow-Turkish amirs) will act as mediators between the two of you. The most he might ask [N 312] of you is that you should yield up Ray to him so that it will become evident to people that he (i.e. Tekish) has asserted his honour as a ruler and his manly prestige in the minds of the kings of the infidels of those regions, since they know that Ray formerly belonged to him but that his forces then abandoned it for others to gain control over it. He has no other aim but this. So if you withdraw from Ray in his favour, he will be content with that and will return to Khwarazm, leaving his son at Ray. If his son is at Ray, [I 192] he will be under your command, will carry out your orders and refrain from what you forbid. [Furthermore,] if the sultan (i.e. Tekish) goes back freely and deliberately, bloodshed will be avoided and everyone’s honour reaffirmed (lit. ‘faces will retain their water’). When Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl studied the Great Ḥājib Shihāb al-Dīn Masʿūd’s letter, he summoned the leading amirs of his following and showed them that letter. Amir Nūr al-Dīn Qara, who was the lord of Qazwīn, gave them his advice, and told the sultan, This is the correct view of things. We must act accordingly and depart for Sāwa, and stay there until our troops from Isfahan and from Zanjān join up with us. If the Khwarazm Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish comes after us in pursuit, we can make a stand before him in the defiles and narrow places between Sāwa and Mushkūya483 and resist him vigorously and resolutely. If we are

Translation of the text 127 victorious, [we can move on to Ray,] but if not, we can fall back to Isfahan. If we make for Isfahan and return to Hamadan, the Shah will not be able to leave his own land and follow in our tracks from one place to another. At that point, peace can be made between us and him on conditions which will conduce to the welfare of the Muslims. The sultan replied, This would be an excellent suggestion if I personally could agree to it, but I would not like to see people talking about me and saying that I had fled before this fellow (sc. the Shah). Moreover, [if I follow your advice,] the Khwarazmians will enter Ray and exercise their power over its people. These people have displayed their affection for me and have been assiduous in adhering to my cause and in following me. The Khwarazmians will lord it over them, ill-treat them and oppress them, whereas I will not do that. The sultan then rose up, left Ray and encamped at the Khurasan Gate [of the city],484 [N 313] accompanied by some of his troops. Sultan ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish reached F./Q.hā (?). Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl mounted his steed and moved [I 193] to a farsakh’s distance from the city. He and the army of (Persian) Iraq, the latter commanded by Qutlugh Ïnanch Maḥmūd, met up with each other. When the sultan saw them, he launched an attack on them, but none of his troops accompanied him in the attack apart from sixty men, all of them his personal ghulāms. They formed a protective circle round him. He attacked [his opponents], aiming at their centre, but one of their soldiers loosed an arrow at him which hit him in the eye and he fell to the ground. Qutlugh Ïnanch Maḥmūd stood over him, and the sultan said to him, ‘O Maḥmūd, pick me up and bear me away [with you], for this will be the best course for both of us,’ but Qutlugh Ïnanch Maḥmūd did not comply with his request and [instead] dismounted and cut off Ṭoghrïl’s head. It was brought to Sultan ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish, who was displeased with what they had done to Ṭoghrïl, telling them, ‘If you’d brought him in alive, I would have preferred that and would have been made happier, but his decreed fate came down upon him.’ When Sultan Ṭoghrïl b. Arslān Shāh prepared for the battle, the amirs asked him, ‘If things go against us, where shall the point be for a rendezvous with you?’ He replied, ‘My meeting point will be death beneath the hooves of the [enemy] horses,’ and events happened just as he described. It is reported that, on the day of battle, Ṭoghrïl brought a considerable number of the enemy cavalry to their deaths on the ground and fought with a ferocity unheard of before; but a person who is abandoned by God can achieve nothing, this being inscribed in the [Divine] Book. Sultan ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish despatched Ṭoghrïl’s head to Baghdad, whilst his body was borne away and buried in the tomb of his namesake, the first [Seljuq] sultan Abū Ṭālib Ṭoghrïl b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq in his congregational mosque at Ray. This took place on 9 Rabīʿ I 590 [/4 March 1194]. [N 314] When Sultan Ṭoghrïl b. Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl b. Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, the last of the Seljuq maliks, [I 194] was

128

The History of the Seljuq State

killed, the burning brand of the Seljuq house was reduced to ashes which the wind blew away. God is the All-Powerful One!485

[N 315] Mention of the Seljuq maliks and sultans and the length of their reigns from the time when they achieved mastery over the lands until their authority was swept away The Seljuq amirs crossed [the Oxus] from Nūr of Bukhara to the region of Khurasan in 426 [/1035]. They comprised Yabghu,486 Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd and Ṭoghrïl Beg Muḥammad, the sons of Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq, and Quṭlumush b. Isrāʾīl b. Seljuq. They settled in the vicinity of Nasā. The Turkmens [already] in Khurasan entered their service and joined up with them. On the first Friday of Rabīʿ I 428 [/24 December 1036]. Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin fitted out an army for his Commander-in Chief, but they defeated him. The battle at Dandānqān was the encounter which brought about the transfer of royal power and the sultanate to the Seljuqs. In this battle, Chaghrï Beg, who had the name Dāwūd . . .487 This battle was at Dandānqān on Thursday, 8 Ramaḍān 431 [23 May 1040]. The Exalted Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Abū Ṭālib Ṭoghrïl b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq died on 8 Ramaḍān 455 [/4 September 1063] without offspring, and on his death his designated successor was his nephew [I 195] the Exalted Sultan ʿAḍud al-Dawla Alp Arslān. Alp Arslān was killed outside Samarqand on Saturday, [N 316] 30 Rabīʿ I 465 [/14 December 1072], and his son the Exalted Sultan Jalāl al-Dawla Malik Shāh succeeded to power after him. He died on the night of Tuesday, 29 Jumādā I 487 [/16 June 1094].488 Sultan Malik Shāh was succeeded by Berk-yārūq, Muḥammad and Sanjar, with the authority over the two Iraqs, Khurasan, Azerbaijan, Fars, Kirman, Māzandarān, Diyār Bakr and Syria divided between them. After Sultan Muḥammad’s death, his sons succeeded to power successively, exercising their power under the supreme authority of the Exalted Sultan Muʿizz al-Dīn Abu ’l-Ḥārith Sanjar. Sultan Sanjar remained in power over Khurasan and Khwarazm, and Ghazna and Transoxania at recurrent intervals until he died at Merv on Tuesday, 25 Rabīʿ I 552 [/7 May 1157]. On Sanjar’s death, Seljuq authority over the region of Khurasan ended, and it remained in (Persian) Iraq only nominally (ṣūrat an ) without real substance (maʿna n) because the Atabegs dominated them until Sultan Ṭoghrïl met a violent death at Ray on Thursday, 9 Rabīʿ I 590 [/4 March 1194]. The period from the crossing of the Seljuqs [into Khurasan] until the killing of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl b. Arslān Shāh was 164 years, and from their conquest of the region of Khurasan after Sultan Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin’s defeat at Dandānqān, [I 196] 161 years, four months and twenty-three days. The prosperity and populousness of the land was abundant489 because of them, and the subjects were blanketed by their beneficence and generosity. Justice reigned [N 317] in the lands and the populace dwelt in security. But Khurasan fell into ruin with Sultan Sanjar b. Malik Shāh’s death, and (Persian) Iraq with the killing of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Ṭoghrïl b. Arslān Shāh; may God Most High be merciful with them and forgive their transgressions! During their time, the heartlands and

Translation of the text 129 the borderlands [of the realm] were filled with justice, the outlying and peripheral regions were guarded, the winds of oppression were stilled and the wings of evildoers clipped. Praise to the One Whose authority is eternal!

[N 319] Mention of the roles of some of the mamlūks of the Seljuqs None of the mamlūks of the caliphs or other rulers ever attained the position of the Seljuqs’ mamlūks and the sons of their mamlūks. They include Qasīm al-Dawla Aq Sonqor, the governor in Aleppo, followed by his sons, [including] the Atabeg ʿImād al-Dīn Zangī, who ruled over Syria, Diyār Rabīʿa Diyār Muḍar and Mosul.490 Another one was Aq Sonqor al-Aḥmadīlī and his sons at Marāgha.491 A further one was al-Muʾayyid [Ay Aba] and his sons in Khurasan. Qasīm al-Dawla Aq Sonqor seized control of Aleppo and its districts on the orders of the Exalted Sultan Jalāl al-Dawla Malik Shāh, whose mamlūk he was. Then his sons held power over Syria until al-Malik al-Nāṣir Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Yūsuf b. Ayyūb subsequently became sultan in Egypt and Syria.492 Another one was Anushtegin and his sons, who made firm their power over Khwarazm and then over most of the regions (i.e. the Central Asian and Persian ones).493 Another one was the Atabeg Ẓahīr al-Dīn Ṭughtegin and his sons, who held power in Damascus and its districts.494 Another one was Suqmān/Sökmen and his sons in Armenia.495 There were other mamlūks, apart from those mentioned, who were significant but have not been specifically named, these being very numerous. Amongst the mamlūks of the Seljuqs was the Atabeg [I 197] Ildegiz and his sons, who ruled over (Persian) Iraq and Azerbaijan. This Ildegiz was the mamlūk of Sultan Ghiyāth al-Dīn Masʿūd b. Muḥammad Ṭapar [N 320] b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān b. Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq.496 He installed in the sultanate the son of his wife, Sultan Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl, son of Sultan Muḥammad Ṭapar b. Malik Shāh b. Alp Arslān, with himself becoming his Atabeg. On that account, his prestige rose greatly, and all the lands, with the exception of Baghdad and its districts, acknowledged his sway. When he died, his son Nuṣrat al-Dīn Muḥammad Pahlawān took his place in the role of Atabeg; he was Sultan Arslān Shāh’s [half-] brother through his mother. When Muḥammad Pahlawān died, his [half-] brother on his mother’s side, Muẓaffar al-Dīn Qïzïl Arslān became Atabeg. He seized Ṭoghrïl b. Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl, bound him in fetters and imprisoned him in one of the fortrtesses of Azerbaijan. But then Sultan Ṭoghrïl escaped from his captivity and assumed dominion over (Persian) Iraq. When Ṭoghrïl was killed in the battle with the Khwarazm Shah ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Tekish b. Il Arslān in 590 [/1194], the lands were variously divided amongst the offspring of Pahlawān and remained thus until the time of Sultan Jalāl al-Dīn Mingburnu, son of Sultan ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad who had the name of Sanjar b. Tekish, until Özbeg was deposed by the Khwarazmians and consigned to the fortress of Alanjah, where he died.497 The power of the Ildegizids [thereby] came to a complete, permanent end. Praise be to the One Who is Eternal and Everlasting! The book has reached its end with praise to God and His help. May God bless our lord Muḥammad and his house!

Notes

1 The Political Transformation of the Seljuq sultanate of Iraq and Western Iran: 1152–1187, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton 1964, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor 1977, 2, 137ff. 2 The various sultanates of the Seljuqs are an under-researched topic. The nearest approach to a history of the Great Seljuq sultanate is in the extended chapter of C.E. Bosworth ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000–1217)’, in CHIr, V, The Seljuq and Mongol Periods, ed. J.A. Boyle, Cambridge 1968, 1–202, but this, as its name implies, deliberately concentrated in political and military affairs, it being assumed that e.g. administrative and socio-economic topics would be dealt with elsewhere in the volume; and it was in an case written well over forty years ago. More rounded estimates of the Seljuq period and its achievements are to be found in the EI2 art. ‘Saldjūḳids’ (C.E. Bosworth, R. Hillenbrand, J.M. Rogers, F.C. de Blois and R.E. Darley-Doran), which amounts to almost 50,000 words, and, on a more concise scale but with a stimulating approach, D.O. Morgan, Medieval Persia 1040–1797, London and New York 1988, chs. 3–4, pp. 25–50. But new histories of the Seljuqs and their age are very much a desideratum, and these are now (2010) promised from Andrew C.S. Peacock and Deborah Tor. 3 The Saljūqnāma of Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī, GMS, Chippenham 2004, Introduction, 1ff., with detailed discussion of the considerations involved. 4 Whether the section headings are those of the author or those of a later redactor (see pp. 4–5), or even of a copyist, is unclear. They get sparser in the latter part of the book, especially for the last forty years or so of Great Seljuq history when events are all subsumed within sections devoted specifically to the reigns of the last two sultans, Arslān Shāh and his son Ṭoghrïl (III). 5 al-Ḥusaynī is thus very restrained here; according to its editor Muḥammad Iqbál, Rāwandī in his Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, cites 264 Arabic proverbs, mainly borrowed from al-Thaʿālibī’s Kitāb al-Farāʾid wa ’l-qalā’id (Preface, p. XXII). 6 Again listed by Iqbál, loc. cit., as a total of 2,799 verses, mainly in Persian. 7 In Houtsma’s introductions to his editions of texts for Seljuq history, Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seldjoukides, 4 vols. Leiden 1886–1902, I, p. x, II, p. xxxvi, and Barthold’s Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, English tr. London 1928, 28–29. 8 In his Prolegomena zu einer Ausgabe der im Britischen Museum zu London verwahrten Chronik des Seldschuqischen Reiches, Leipzig 1911. 9 ‘Some Remarks on the History of the Saljuks’, AO, III (1924), 136–52. 10 A Critical Study of the Sources for the History of the Seljuqs of Iraq and Syria, Oxford 1938, unpublished. 11 ‘The Historiography of the Seljuqid Period’, in Historians of the Middle East, ed. Bernard Lewis and P.M. Holt, London 1962, 69–72. 12 an-Nāṣir li-Dīn Allāh (1180-1225). Politik, Religion, Kultur in der späten ʿAbbāsidenzeit, Berlin-New York 1975, 17–18.

Notes

131

13 Loc. cit.; al-Ḥusaynī’s name would, accordingly, have been attached to the Akhbār through a copyist’s mistake. 14 At pp. 1–15. 15 Lubāb al-albāb, ed. Saʿīd Nafīsī, Tehran 1335/1956, -27 (the existence of this once-existent history of the Khwarazm Shahs is confirmed by mentions of it in later sources like Aḥmad Amīn Rāzī’s Haft iqlīm and Ḥājjī Khalīfa’s Kashf al-ẓunūn). 16 Partial ed. Ali Sevim, Ankara 1976, 34–35. 17 See in general on this work, Cl. Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nâmeh et l’histoire des origines seljukides’, Oriens, II (1949), 31–65; idem, ‘The Historiography of the Seljuqid Period’, 71. 18 See on him, p. 155, n. 321. 19 Cahen, op. cit., 68–69. 20 Ed. D.S. Margoliouth as Yáqút’s Dictionary of Learned Men, GMS VI, Leiden and London 1907–26, V, 124–26, See on this work of Ibn Funduq, Cahen, op. cit., 64–66, 72, who notes that Ibn al-Athīr also utilised it, either directly or indirectly. 21 Ibid., 69. 22 This has already been done by Donald S. Richards for the passages of Ibn al-Athīr’s chronicle relating to the Great Seljuqs of the fifth-sixth/eleventh-twelfth centuries (see Bibliography, pp. 168–69). The present author’s complete translation of Abu ’l-Faḍl Bayhaqī’s Tārīkh-i Masʿūdī, and his one of Gardīzī’s information in his Zayn al-akhbār on the rulers of the Eastern Islamic world 650–1041, will appear in 2011 from the Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., and as I.B. Tauris/British Institute of Persian Studies, Persian Studies, no. 2, London 2010, respectively. 23 Text y.qāq. Most of the sources for Seljuq history have Duqāq for this name, although the form with an initial unvoiced dental plosive seems original in Turkic: toqaq ‘he who goes straight [for something]’, see L. Rásonyi and. I. Baski, Onomasticon turcicum. Turkic Personal Names, Bloomington, Ind. 2007, II, 767. 24 The author is thinking of Tuqāq’s sobriquet temür yalïgh. See on these names, and also on the possible forms of the name of his son, conventionally rendered here as Seljuq (but Maḥmūd Kāshgharī, himself contemporary with the Great Seljuqs, and the materials from the Oghuz epic in the Kitāb-i Dede Qorqud, have, however, Seljük/ Selchük with front vowels), W. Barthold, Zwölf Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Türken Mittelasiens, Berlin 1935, 101; P.B. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, Wiesbaden 1992, 217–18; Rásonyi and Baski, op. cit., II, 651–52, with the etymology selchük ‘little stream, flood’, conveying the idea of swift movement. Most sources have Tuqāq/Duqāq as the progenitor of the Seljuq family; only Ẓahīr al-Din Nīshāpūrī, author of the Saljūq-nāma (see Introduction, p. 2), seems to have Seljuq as admittedly from the Qïnïq tribe of the Oghuz but as the son of a (?) Toqshurmush, son of Kerekji (‘tent frame maker’). See The History of the Seljuq Turks from The Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh. An Ilkhanid Adaptation of the Saljūq-nāma of Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī, English tr. Kenneth A. Luther, Richmond 2001, 29. 25 This was an ancient title, known from Orkhon Turkish times and porbably going back to the ancient steppe people known from Chinese sources as Yüeh-chih. In the first Islamic centuries, it is known as a title amongst the Qarluq and the Oghuz, including amongst the Oghuz encountered by the Arab traveller Aḥmad b. Faḍlān in the early fourth/tenth century, and this must have been the milieu of Tuqāq/Duqāq and the earliest known Seljuqs in the steppes between Khwarazm and the middle Volga kingdom of Bulghār. See C.E. Bosworth and Sir Gerard Clauson, ‘Al-Xwārazmī and the Peoples of Central Asia’, JRAS (1965), 4, 6, 9–10, and below, n. 34. 26 The whole of this initial section of the Akhbār going up to the Ghaznavid defeat at Dandānqān in 431/1040 is apparently based on the Persian-language Malik-nāma possibly written for Sultan Alp Arslān, discussed above in the Introduction, p. 5. 27 al-mulk ʿaqīm; see for this expression, E.W. Lane, An Arabic–English Lexicon, London 1863–93, Part 5, 2117c.

132

The History of the Seljuq State

28 This was a town on the lower Syr Darya, one of the urban settlements of the Oghuz situated on that river and mentioned by the fourth/tenth century Arabic geographers; it was of an importance to give its name in some sources to the Aral Sea as ‘The Sea of Jand’. See EI2 Suppl. art. ‘Djand’ (C.E. Bosworth); Yuri Bregel, An Historical Atlas of Central Asia, Leiden–Boston 2003, 22 and Map 11. 29 For what might be called the prehistory of the Seljuq family, see R. Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes. A History of Central Asia, New Brunswick, N.J. 1970, 148–49; Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nâmeh et l’histoire des origines seldjukides’, 42–46; C.E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids. Their Empire in Iran and Eastern Afghanistan 994:1040, Edinburgh 1963, 210ff.; idem, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000–1217)’, 16–18; Golden, ‘The Karakhanids and Early Islam’, in The Cambridge History of Inner Asia, ed. D. Sinor, Cambridge 1990, 361–62; Bosworth, ‘The Origins of the Seljuqs’, in C. Lange and Songül Mecit (eds.), The Seljuqs: Islam Revitalised?, Edinburgh 2010, 1–17. 30 I.e. the Qarakhanid ruler, Qadïr Khān Yūsuf b. Hārūn or Ḥasan Bughra Khān (d. 423/1032) in rivalry at this time with his brother ʿAlī(tegin). This meeting of the two potentates is described in detail by Gardīzī, Zayn al-akhbār, English tr. The Ornament of Histories. A History of the Eastern Islamic Lands AD 650–1041. The Persian Text of Abū Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Gardīzī Translated with a Commentary by C. Edmund Bosworth, London 2009, 91–92, and see W. Barthold, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, 3rd edition by C.E. Bosworth, London 1968, 282–84. 31 The sources uniformly have Arslān Jādhib for this commander, but the otherwise meaningless second component must in fact be Ḥājib, anciently deformed by copyists and thereafter perpetuated. 32 In the next reign, that of Sultan Masʿūd, civil governor (ʿAmīd) of Ray. 33 For Maḥmūd’s relations with the Seljuqs and their appearance on the fringes of Khurasan, see M. Nāẓim, The Life and Times of Sulṭān Maḥmūd of Ghazna, Cambridge 1931, 62–66; Cahen, op. cit., 46–53; Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, 223–25; idem, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 18–19. Gardīzī’s account of Seljuq origins and the Seljuqs’ relations with Sultan Maḥmūd can be conveniently read in the tr. of Bosworth (above, n. 8), 92ff.; that of Nīshāpūrī in the tr. of Luther, The History of the Seljuq Turks from the Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh, 29–34; and that of Ibn al-Athīr in the English tr. of D.S. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, Selections from al-Kāmil fī’l-Taʿrīkh of ʿIzz al-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr, London 2002, 13–14, 30–34. 34 See on this title, above, n. 25. Some other other sources for Seljuq history vocalize this name as something like Bïghu, which O. Pritsak surmised to be derived from a Turkic term for a kind of falcon, see his ‘Karachanidische Studien’, Isl., XXXI (1953–54), 23, 54, i.e. we have here a proper noun, not (in origin, at least) a title; however, there does not seem to be any lexical support for such a name. On the historical level, the question at issue is whether this son of Seljuq assumed the title, in rivalry with the original Yabghus of the branch of the Oghuz established at Jand, by now bitter rivals of the Seljuq family. See Cl. Cahen, ‘À propos de quelques articles dans le Köprülü armağani’, JA, CCXLII (1954), 271–4; Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, 219 and n. 46. 35 Most sources, including a near-contemporary one like Gardīzī, place the capture and imprisonment of Arslān Isrāʾīl in the latter years of Maḥmūd’s reign. See an embroidered account of this in The History of the Seljuq Turks, tr. Luther, 30–33. See also Nāẓim, op. cit., 63–64; Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, 224. 36 I.e. the nephew of Alp Arslān active in the warfare in Anatolia against the Byzantines after Alp Arslān’s victory over the Emperor Romanus Diogenes at Malāzgird and progenitor of the Rūm Seljuqs in Anatolia; his sons Manṣūr and Sulaymān were in turn subsequently active in Anatolia and northern Syria See Cl. Cahen, ‘La première pénétration turque en Asie-Mineure (seconde moitié du onzième siècle) ‘, Byzantion, XVIII (1946–48), 35–36, 42ff, 48–51; idem, ‘Qutlumush et ses fils avant l’Asie-Mineure’, Isl., XXXIX (1964), 20, 25–27.

Notes

133

37 This person was the very capable Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad Shīrāzī, who served Masʿūd and then his successor Mawdūd; see Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, 58, 60–61, 72, and EIr art. ‘Aḥmad Šīrāzī’ (Bosworth). His forthrightness at times irritated the obstinate and wrong-headed Masʿūd, but there is no record in such contemporary sources as Bayhaqī and Gardīzī that the sultan ever imprisoned him. 38 For the detailed course of Masʿūd’s ultimately unsuccessful warfare against the Seljuqs and other Turkmen bands in Khurasan, see Cahen, op. cit., 55–65; Bosworth, ‘The Early Ghaznavids’, in CHIr, IV, From the Arab Invasion to the Seljuqs, ed. R.N. Frye, Cambridge 1975, 188–95; idem, The Ghaznavids, 241–68. 39 The correct form of this name, Abū Naṣr Ṣīnī, can be established from Bayhaqī’s detailed account of this futile embassy to the Seljuqs, see Abu ’l-Faḍl Bayhaqī, Eng. tr. C.E. Bosworth, The History of Beyhaqi (The History of Sultan Masʿud of Ghazna, 1030–1041), Cambridge, Mass. 2011, II, 154–58. 40 For this place, see below, n. 382. 41 Qurʾān, III, 25/26. 42 I.e. Masʿūd’s civil governor in Khurasan, Abu ’l-Faḍl Sūrī b. Muʿtazz, whose rapacity and tyranny made Ghaznavid rule unpopular there and indirectly contributed to the eventual success of the Seljuqs in the province; see Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, 87–89. 43 I.e. the son of Maḥmūd’s ghulām general Altuntāsh, entrusted with the governorship of Khwarazm after the Ghaznavid conquest of 408/1017. See Barthold, Turkestan, 275–79; Nāẓim, Sulṭān Maḥmūd of Ghazna, 57–60. 44 For the history of Khwarazm in the decade of the 1030s, at first under Altuntāsh’s two sons Hārūn and Ismāʿīl Khandān, and then with the ephemeral triumph there of the Seljuqs’ enemy Shāh Malik, from the original Yabghu of the Oghuz’s family, see Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, 238–39; idem, EI2 art. ‘Khwārazm-Shāhs’. 45 I.e. ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla Muḥammad b. Rustam Dushmanziyār, ruler from the Daylamī Kākūyids in Isfahan and Hamadan, d. 433/1041–42; see Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, a Chronological and Genealogical Manual, Edinburgh 1996, 169; EI2 art. ‘Kākūyids’ (Bosworth). 46 See for this sacking of Ghazna by the Ghurids in ca. 545/1150, Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids: Splendour and Decay. The Dynasty in Afghanistan and Northern India 1040–1186, Edinburgh 1977, 117–18. 47 This stigmatization, repeated in Ibn al-Athīr, seems nevertheless to have been unjust. As Sübashï tells the sultan below, he was given an impossible task, with his conventional, slow-moving forces facing a highly mobile, elusive enemy; the contemporary Abu ’l-Faḍl Bayhaqī praises him as a clever tactician whom the Seljuqs called jādū ‘the magician’ for his skilfulness. See Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, 249. 48 The first of these was in the vicinity of Abīward (G. Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Cambridge 1905, 394) and the second, according to Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, Beirut 1374–76/1955–57, III, 316, near Merv. 49 Presumably a Ghaznavid commander placed there by the sultan; Maḥmūd had ended the rule of the indigenous line of Farīghūnids in Gūzgān; see EIr art. ‘Āl-e Farīḡūn’ (Bosworth). 50 The local history of Bayhaq, Ibn Funduq’s Tārīkh-i Bayhaq, describes this commander’s ravages in the Bayhaq region; see Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, 260. 51 Reading with N 40, tajīʾū al-ḥimām. 52 Presumably the mountainous, northeastern rim of the Iranian plateau, the modern Köpet Dagh and Kuh-i Hazar Masjid, marking the border between the Khurasan province of modern Iran and the Turkmenistan Republic. 53 Qurʾān, LXXXIX, 12/13. 54 For this place, described as lying to the west of Merv, see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 400; anon., Ḥudūd al-ʿālam, Eng. tr. V. Minorsky, Ḥudūd al-ʿālam, The Regions of the World. A Persian Geography 372 A.H. – 982 A.D., London 1937, 105.

134

The History of the Seljuq State

55 Unidentified, among the several places in the Iranian world bearing this name (‘river’). We know from Bayhaqī that Masʿūd and the remnants of his army fled southwards, probably along the valley of the Murghāb, to Gharchistān or Gūzgān, and then to Ghūr and Ghazna; it may be that we have here the Persian common noun, used in reference to the Murghāb. 56 If this incident took place, Chaghrï Beg was imitating his brother Ṭoghrïl, who during his first occupation of Nishapur had sat down on Sultan Masʿūd’s throne there, as Bayhaqī relates, (see Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, 256; Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 26), as a symbol of his assumption of rule over Khurasan and the eastern parts of what became the Seljuq empire. 57 See Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, op. cit., 40–41. 58 For a discussion of whether Muḥammad was in fact blinded, and if so, when, see Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, 18–19. 59 ṣaḥīfa. One wonders whether the text is corrupt here, but there is no obvious alternative reading of the consonant ductus. 60 These were all high-quality dinars, Herat being exclusively a gold mint at this time and Nishapur a mint for both gold and silver, whilst the ‘Maghribi’ ones were issued by the Fatimids of Egypt, who could tap the sources for gold in Africa beyond the Sahara. 61 On this luxury material, with a silken warp and a woof of another stuff, that produced at Nishapur being especially prized, see R.B. Serjeant, Islamic Textiles. Material for a History up to the Mongol Conquest, Beirut 1972, 92 and Indices at p. 255. 62 For these events of Masʿūd’s retreat to India and his deposition and killing, see the accounts in Gardīzī, tr. Bosworth, 108–9; Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 41–43; and also Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, 14–20, 139–40. 63 jawārī. Unless the text is corrupt here, this designation is presumably contemptuous: Muḥammad’s army was composed of effeminate, untrained, unseasoned and enfeebled persons. 64 For Mawdūd’s victory and vengeance, see Bosworth, op. cit., 20–25, 140, and for the events of the rest of his reign, ibid., 25–37, 140–41, and Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, op.cit., 74–75. Although Mawdūd was much involved during his reign in warfare with the Seljuqs in Khurasan and Sistan, the Akhbār mentions nothing of this. 65 Since ʿAbd al-Rashid’s father Maḥmūd had by this time been dead well over twenty years, ʿAbd al-Rashīd could hardly be described as a youth. Our author does not mention his two ephemeral predecessors, Masʿūd (II) b. Mawdūd and ʿAlī b. Masʿūd (I), virtually unnoticed in the sources except for that of the adīb and boon-companion Ibn Bābā al-Qāshānī; see Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, 37–38, 141. 66 This seems the most likely attribution of these two princes, unmentioned in any other sources as sons of Maḥmūd, hence brothers of ʿAbd al-Rashīd; other sources confirm that as many as eleven of Masʿūd’s sons were slaughtered, see ibid., 45. 67 For the episode of Ṭoghrïl Bozan’s usurpation of power and sibsequent downfall, see ibid., 41–46, 141–42, with a discussion of this sobriquet Bozan, ambiguously written in the sources, at p. 42 (bozan ‘he who destroys’, see now Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, I, 165). See also Ibn al–Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 83–85. 68 One should clearly read here 442 for this date. The subsequent mention of Ṭoghrïl’s tributary status and dependence on the Seljuqs is of doubtful authenticity; the few coins of his that are extant do not mention the Seljuqs at all, as one would expect if this vassal status were true. See Bosworth, op. cit., 42–43. 69 For Farrukh-zād’s reign, see Bosworth, op. cit., 47–49, 142–43. 70 See for these Bosworth, op. cit., 61–68. 71 This story of Ibrāhīm’s clever use of disinformation to implant doubts in Malik Shāh’s mind about the loyalty of his army commanders appears also in Ibn al-Athīr, and a more elaborate anecdote in Fakhr-i Mudabbir Mubārak Shāh’s Ādāb al-ḥarb/Ādāb

Notes

72

73 74

75 76

77 78 79 80 81 82

83 84 85

86

135

al-mulūk describes how Ibrāhīm’s courtier and advisor Mihtar Rashīd hoodwinks the Seljuq Sultan by instilling in him an exaggerated view of Ghaznavid might and magnificence. See Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, 53–55. For these marriage alliances, see ibid., 54–55, 83, and for the events of Ibrāhīm’s long sultanate, 50–81, 143. Here, and very frequently in the Akhbār, ‘ʿIrāq’ means what the geographers called ʿIrāq al-ʿAjam ‘Persian Iraq’, i.e. the ancient region of Media and much of what is now Kurdistan, called by the incoming Arabs al-Jibāl ‘the mountainous lands’; see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 5. The dating here is seriously wrong: Ibrāhīm reigned for forty years, and Masʿūd (III) died in 508/1115. See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 296–97 no. 158. For Masʿūd’s reign, see idem, The Later Ghaznavids, 82–89, 143. This does not seem in fact to be given and its omission, with other similar mentions of accounts or items of information not figuring in the text of the Akhbār as we possess it (see e.g. above, p. 82, regarding Sanjar’s captivity amongst the Ghuzz), strengthens the conclusion that what we have is an epitome of a larger work, with some episodes left out by the epitomiser. See Introduction, p. 5. Elsewhere, our author tends to use the title malik for those Seljuq rulers, such as those of the provincial lines in Kirman, Syria, etc., who did not enjoy the lofty title of sultan. These allocations of territories can only have been made after the Seljuqs’ victory at Dandānqān in 431/1040; see on the arrangements Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 49–50. In fact, Chaghrï Beg seems, at least at the outset, to have been equal in status with his brother Ṭoghrïl; see R.W. Bulliett, ‘Numismatic Evidence for the Relationship between Ṭughril Beg and Chaghrī Beg’, in Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History. Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, ed. D.K. Kouymjian, Beirut 1974, 289–96. See Cahen, ‘Qutlumush et ses fils avant Asie-Mineure’, 20. See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 91 no. 38; EI2 art. ‘‘Uḳaylids’ (Bosworth). For these activities of Ṭoghrïl in the West, see Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 44–48. Basā or Fasā being the place of origin of his first master; see EI2 art. ‘al-Basāsīrī’ (M. Canard). See H. Bowen, ‘The Last Buwayhids,’ JRAS (1929), 237–38; Bosworth, op. cit., 46; H. Busse, Chalif und Grosskönig. Die Buyiden im Iraq (945–1055), Beirut–Wiesbaden 1969, 123–24, and for Ṭabarak, below, p. 161 n. 414. Alp Arslān was not of course sultan at this time, since his father Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd was at this time still alive, not dying till Ṣafar or Rajab 451/March–April or August– September 1059, and Alp Arslān did not actually become sultan over the Great Seljuq domains till Ṭoghrïl’s death in 455/1063 (p. 22). For this revolt, one of several indications that members of the Seljuq family at this time regarded the headship of the dynasty as to be determined by the idea of seniorate rather than by automatic father–son succession, see Bosworth, op. cit., 44. He has been previously styled by al-Ḥusaynī (above, p. 19) Amīr al-ʿArab; see on him EI1 art. ‘Ḳuraish b. Badrān’ (K.V. Zetterstéen). I.e. Abu ’l-Qāsim ʿAlī Ibn al-Muslima, who had been vizier to al-Qāʾim and who was widely regarded as the principal agent in bringing Ṭoghrïl and the Seljuqs to Baghdad, hence attracting the hatred of al-Basāsīrī and the Turkish soldiery who hoped to dominate Baghdad. See on him EI2 art. ‘Ibn al-Muslima’ (Cl. Cahen). The vizier was thus subjected to public parading, obloquy and ill-treatment from the crowd, and ritual humilation (tash’hīr) before being gibbeted. Parallel sources (Ibn al-Jawzī, Ibn al-Athīr) state that Ibn al-Muslima was paraded through the streets of al-Karkh, whose Shiʿite inhabitants were especially hostile to the vizier, himself a Ḥanbalī or Shāfiʿī (see Cahen, above, n. 85) and a strong upholder of the Sunna. For tash’hīr in Seljuq times, including this instance involving Ibn al-Muslima, see Christian Lange, Justice, Punishment, and the Medieval Muslim Imagination,

136

87

88 89

90

91

92

93 94

95 96 97 98 99

The History of the Seljuq State

Cambridge 2008, 79ff., esp. 84–85; and on gibbeting (ṣalb, taṣlīb, not to be translated, in contexts like this, as ‘crucifixion’), ibid., 62–66. The term used derogatorily by Sunni authors for the Fatimids, referring to the founder of their fortunes in North Africa, ʿAbdallāh or ʿUbaydallāh al-Mahdī, and with an implicit denial of their claimed descent from the Prophet’s daughter Fāṭima. See H. Halm, Das Reich des Mahdi. Der Aufsteig der Fatimiden (875–973), Munich 1991, 216. Following N for the second word al-ḥabl [min], or simply ḥabl. Amongst dynasties such as the ʿAbbasids, Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Mamluks, etc., this was an emblem of sovereignty borne before the ruler on ceremonial occasions. See the references given in Bosworth, The History of Beyhaqi (The History of Sultan Masʿud of Ghazna, 1030–1041), III, Year 422 n. 62. al-Basāsīrī had latterly been abandoned by al-Mustanṣir and the Fatimids. See EI2 art.’al-Basāsīrī’ (M. Canard), and for Ibn al-Athīr’s account of his bid for power in Baghdad and his eventual downfall, see tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 92ff., 118–27. Although the caliph had married a daughter of Chaghrï Beg’s in 448/1056, al-Qāʾim was very reluctant to give a daughter of his to someone he must have regarded as a Turkish barbarian; not even the Buyids had demanded this of the caliphs they held in tutelage, and al-Qāʾim only acceded to it under pressure. See Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World,’ 48–49; A.K.S. Lambton, ‘The Internal Structure of the Seljuq empire’, in CHIr, V, 212; G. Makdisi, ‘The Marriage of Ṭughril Beg’, IJMES, I (1970), 259–75. The Sultan did not see his bride until he visited Baghdad in 455/1063 shortly before his death, and the marriage was never consummated. The reference must be to the founder of the Qarakhanid dynasty in Transoxania, Hārūn or Ḥasan Bughra Khān, who in 382/992 attacked and occupied temporarily the Samanid capital Bukhara, thus heralding the demise a few years later of the Samanid dynasty (see W. Barthold, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, 3rd. ed., London 1968, 259–60; O. Pritsak, ‘Die Karachaniden,’ Isl., XXXI [1953–54], 26; Bosworth, ‘Additions to The New Islamic Dynasties’, Living Islamic History. Studies in Honour of Professor Carole Hillenbrand, ed. Yasir Suleiman, Edinburgh 2010, 15, 20, no. 90), even though this would give Ṭoghrïl a life span of seventy-three lunar years. This tale of Ṭoghrïl’s dream is given by Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt al-aʿyān, English tr. Baron McGuckin de Slane, Ibn Khallikan’s Biographical Dictionary, Paris 1842–71, III, 228, citing Ibn al-Athīr. A burial place at Merv is mentioned on p. 41, where Alp Arslān is buried beside his father and uncle, and is also given in Ibn Khallikān’s biography of Ṭoghrïl, loc. cit., noting, however, that authorities place this at Ray; in fact, later, at I 32, N 81, the Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya mentions that he was buried at Ray and this is where, according to Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 134, the coffin of his wife Khāt̄ un was buried. For Ṭoghrïl’s career in general, see EI2 art. ‘Ṭoghrıl (I) Beg’ (C.E. Bosworth). I.e. the famed cotton material of Wadhār or Wādhār, near Samarqand. See Barthold, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, 94–95; Serjeant, Islamic Textiles, 101–02. Or, ‘nor did he commit dishonourable deeds (lā yahtik maḥraman)’. A more nuanced view of Ṭoghrïl’s character and policies is given by Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, op. cit., 144–45, see also Ibn Khallikān’s biography, in op. cit., tr. III, 224–29. This tale from Ṭoghrïl’s last days is also given by Nīshāpūrī; see The History of the Seljuq Turks, tr. Luther, 46. In fact, Ṭoghrïl seems before he died inexplicably to have designated as his successor Chaghrï Beg’s younger son Sulaymān, a nonentity who is hardly mentioned in the sources but who had the support of Ṭoghrïl’s vizier al-Kundurī. However, Alp Arslān’s adviser Niẓām al-Mulk and military commanders led by the Ḥājib Erdem, all of these concerned for the future of Seljuq authority, swiftly raised to power the elder, experienced son Alp Arslān, and Kundurī had speeedily to backtrack (although this did not save him; see

Notes

100 101

102 103 104 105 106 107 108

109 110 111

112

113 114

137

pp. 23–24). See Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, III, 230; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 54; EIr art. ‘Alp Arslān’ (K.A. Luther); Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 145. This was in Quhistān. See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 354; Ḥudūd al-ʿālam, tr. 103. I.e. the famed poet in both Arabic and Persian and stylist, author of a continuation of al-Thaʿālibī’s anthology, the Yatīmat al-dahr, sc. the Dumyat al-qaṣr (see below, n. 106), d. 467/1074–75. See on him ʿAlī Jawād al-Ṭāhir, al-Shiʿr al-ʿarabī fi ’l-ʿIrāq wa-bilād al-ʿAjam fi ’l-ʿaṣr al-saljūqī, Baghdad 1958–61, I, 152–72; EIr art. ‘Bākarzī, Abu’l-Qāsem ʿAlī’ (Z. Safa). On this famous Shāfiʿī scholar of Nishapur, see Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, 261–62. See ʿAbbās Iqbāl, Wizārat dar ʿahd-i salāṭīn-i buzurg-i saljūqī, Tehran 1338/1959, 42–43; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian Lands’, 54–55; EI2 art. ‘al-Kundurī’ (G. Makdisi). al-Bākharzī’s poem, beginning ‘He arrived from Kundur . . .’ appears in his Dumyat al-qaṣr wa-ʿuṣrat ahl al-ʿaṣr, ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ al-Ḥulw, Cairo 1388–91/1968–71, II, 234. Two verses of this poem are cited in ibid., II, 238. Professor Van Gelder points out that this last line is obviously inspired by one of al-Mutanabbī, see his Dīwān, ed. F. Dieterici, Berlin 1861, 483 l. 18. The whole of this famous poem is given in Dumyat al-qaṣr, II, 232–33, with these two verses also cited by Ibn Khallikān in his biography of al-Kunduri, tr. de Slane, III, 294 Cited in Dumyat al-qaṣr, II, 239. Cited by Ibn Khallikān, loc. cit. For this episode of al-Kundurī’s downfall, see Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 145–49, and Nīshāpūrī, tr. Luther, 47–48. For his career in general, see ʿAbbās Iqbāl, Wizārat dar ʿahd-i salāṭīn-i buzurg-i saljūqī, 42–43; Carla L. Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate. A Study in Civil Administration 1055–1194, Cambridge, Mass. 1971, 57–58, 105; EI2 art. ‘al-Kundurī’ (G. Makdisi). The location of this Qarābāgh (‘dark, verdant garden’) is uncertain but it must have lain in Bādghīs or Gharchistān; see Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, 25 and n. 72 there. I.e. when the Oghuz overran Khurasan and captured Sultan Sanjar, see above, pp. 82–83. For these events, and the roles in them of the Kakuyid ruler of Isfahan and of the Qarakhanid Khan (most probably Ibrāhīm b. Naṣr, Tamghach Khan, the Böritegin mentioned frequently in Bayhaqī’s History as Sultan Masʿūd’s implacable enemy in the upper Oxus lands and ruler over the Western Qarakhanid Qaghanate in Samarqand ca. 444–60/ca. 1052–68, see Pritsak, ‘Die Karachaniden’, 36–37, 44–46), see Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, 26. This refractory ruler of Khwarazm must have been a member of the Seljuq family to whom the province had been allotted after the final expulsion of the Oghuz Yabghu, Shāh Malik of Jand (see p. 12), in 432 /1043; see Bosworth ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 51–52, and Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 48–49. The name of the Qïpchaq ruler is unrecorded, and his action here was probably an isolated instance, since the mass conversion of this Turkish people (who as the Qïpchaq-Comans had moved westwards and southwards into the lands from which the Oghuz had migrated to within the eastern Islamic lands) came much later than this. See Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes, 182–86; Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, 276–78. This seems a probable rendering of the text’s Kashkā, well attested in Turkish as a personal name (of animals, ‘having a white blaze on the forehead’ > ‘brilliant, brave’); see Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, II, 444. For this final irredentist effort by Mawdūd, see Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, 26–27.

138

The History of the Seljuq State

115 Apparently the early Turkish title kül + sarï(gh) ‘pale complexioned, blonde’; see Rásonyi and Baski, op. cit., II, 389, 634–35. 116 See Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, 49. 117 See the appraisal of Chaghrï Beg in Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 129–30. 118 Qurʾān, LIV, 7. 119 According to Ḥamdallāh Mustawfī, Nuzhat al-qulūb, tr. G. le Strange, Leiden and London 1919, 169, this was a village on the road between Nishapur and Sarakhs. 120 For the name (saw ‘healthy, sound’), see Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, II, 644. 121 For the chatr of the Seljuqs (Ṭoghrïl’s apparently being originally red, but with black adopted as the colour of later sultans, perhaps under ʿAbbasid influence; cf. our author’s mention of the black chatr granted by Malik Shāh to a kinsman of his, above, p. 44), see Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı devleti teşkilâtına medhal, Istanbul 1941, 29–30, 478. 122 See on Quṭlumush’s revolt, Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 58; Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 36–37. 123 See above, nn. 101, 104–5. 124 For this office, supremely important in states like those of the Ghaznavids, Seljuqs and their successors in which the mounted cavalryman was the embodiment of military power, see E. Quatremère, Histoire des Sultans mamlouks de l’Égypte (= French tr. of al-Maqrīzī’s Kitāb al-Sulūk), Paris 1837–45, I/i, 119–20 n. 3; EI2 art. ‘Amīr Ākhūr’ (D. Ayalon). 125 Text here conjectural. 126 See Lane, Lexicon, Part 1, 240b. 127 During the reigns of Alp Arslān, Malik Shāh and Berk-yārūq, the governorship of Khwarazm was given to various Turkish amirs and Persian officials before Quṭb al-Dīn Muḥammad, son of Malik Shāh’s Turkish ghulām commander Anūshtegin b. Qochqār, began in 490/1097 the line of the last and most brilliant Khwarazm Shahs holding that title. See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 178–79 no. 89; EI2 art. ‘Khwārazm-Shāhs’ (C.E. Bosworth). 128 This seems to yield the best sense here, although one would expect the plural wuṣūlāt given the following adjective dīwāniyya. For this term of financial administration, wuṣūl ‘quittance, receipt; demand for payment of a sum to the treasury’, see R.P.A. Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes, Leiden 1881, II, 813a. 129 There is a death notice in Ibn al-Jawzī’s al-Muntaẓam, Hyderabad 1357–59/1938–41, IX, 128–29, mentioning his foundation and endowing of madrasas at Merv and Nishapur, the latter building containing his tomb, but our author seems to be the only major source mentioning the career of al-Nasawī, clearly a person of prominence in his time. 130 There is uncertainty about this prince’s place within the Seljuq ruling family; Ibn al-Athīr describes him, in different places, as the brother of Alp Arslān and his son. Cahen thought it possible that there were two persons of this same name; see his EI2 art. ‘Arslan-Arghūn’. 131 This lies in northwestern Azerbaijan midway between Tabriz and Khoy. See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 166–67; Barthold, An Historical Geography of Iran, tr. S. Soucek, Princeton 1984, 224. 132 Reading shahīr for the text’s masīr. 133 This is the Ṭughtegin (d. 522/1128) who later became Atabeg to the young Seljuq prince in Damascus, Duqāq b. Tutush, and later founded there and in southern Syria the Atabeg line of the Börids or Būrids (named after Ṭughtegin’s son and successor). See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 189 no. 92; EI2 art. ‘Ṭughtigin, Ẓahīr al-Dīn Abū Manṣūr’ (Anne-Marie Eddé). 134 This, the Armenian Surb Mari and later Sürmelü, lay in the Armenian district of Chakatkʿ on the upper Araxes river, to the south of Ānī. See E. Honigmann, Byzance

Notes

135

136

137 138 139 140

141 142

143 144

145 146 147 148

139

et les Arabes. III. Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071. Brussels 1935, 176, 186–87, and see his Map IV; V. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, London 1953, II. The Shaddādids of Ani (= material from inter alia Georgian sources and the sixth/twelfth century local historian of Mayyāfāriqīn in Diyārbakr, al-Azraqī), 88 and n. 4. Exact location unknown. Honigmann, op. cit., 187, and see his Map IV, thought the name was probably a corruption of Marmarashēn, a famous monastery in the district of Shīrak (between the Araxes and Kur valleys); Minorsky, op. cit., I. New Light on the Shaddādids of Ganja (= trs. from the eighteenth-century Ottoman historian Münejjim-Bashï’s Jāmiʿ al-duwal), 53, equated it with Surmārī, see above, n. 134. Safīna is of course a generic term for ‘ship’, but can also be used specifically for craft carrying cargoes like foodstuffs and military equipment; it may be that the craft here had keels and were used on swift-flowing, difficult-to-navigate rivers. The zawraq was a flat-bottomed boat much used on the Tigris and Euphrates in the Mesopotamian plains. See H. Kindermann, “Schiff” im Arabischen. Untersuchung über Vorkommen und Bedeutung der Termini, Zwickau-im-Sa. 1934, 37–38, 40–41. Reading mujammiz for the text’s m.j.z. Again, exact location unknown; Honigmann, op. cit., 187 and n. 4, equated it with a place mentioned in the Georgian sources which lay between Georgia and Kars; and cf. Minorsky’s speculations in Studies in Caucasian History, II, 97–98 and n. 2. Yet again, exact location unknown. See Honigmann, op. cit., 187 and nn. 9–10; Minorsky, loc. cit. These measurements seem rather strange. A wall of a hundred cubits’ height (here, ṭūl) would be from around fifty to eighty metres/160 feet to 250 feet high (the dhirāʿ varying from place to place in the central and eastern Islamic lands, see W. Hinz, Islamische Masse und Gewichte umgerechnet ins metrische System, Leiden 1955, 55ff.); a wall of this width seems hardly possible. On this latter name enük (‘cub of a predatory animal’), see Sir Gerard Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish, Oxford 1973, 183. al-Ḥusaynī’s account of Alp Arslān’s Georgian campaign is very similar to that of Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, 152–55. See also W.E.D. Allen, A History of the Georgian People, London 1932, 90–92; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World,’ 62; Cahen, ‘La première pénétration turque en Asie-Mineure’, 23–24. Unidentified; in Ibn al-Athīr’s account of this campaign (see below, n. 147) they appear as S.y.l W.rda and Nūra. This ancient Armenian capital, also the seat of the Catholicos of the Armenian Church, had passed from its last Bagratid ruler Gagik II to control by the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX Monomachos in 1045. See EI2 arts. ‘Ānī’ (W. Barthold–V. Minorsky), ‘Armīniya. II. History. 2. Armenia under Arab domination’ (M. Canard). Text obscure here. Qurʾān, IX, 29. For Ibn al-Athīr’s account of the conquest of Ānī, see tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 154–55, and see Bosworth, loc. cit. The Manghïshlāq (conceivably ‘the thousand winter pastures’) peninsula juts into the eastern side of the Caspian Sea in what is now the southwesternmost part of the Kazakh Republic. The contemporary Maḥmūd al-Kāshgharī describes it as ‘a place in the land of the Ghuzz’, and it was probably Oghuz Turks who migrated thither in the fourth/tenth century; these Manghïshlāq Oghuz were at this time hostile to the Seljuqs and their followers and long remained largely pagan. However, the name of the amir mentioned here could be rendered as *Qifshat, referring to the tribe rather than a person, and it is probable that Qïpchaq elements had been migrating southwards into the area. Bayhaqī mentions Qïpchaq auxiliaries in the forces of the rulers of nearby Khwarazm in the second quarter of the fifth/eleventh century, and al-Husaynī has previously mentioned Chaghrï Beg’s encounter with a Qïpchaq chief in Khwarazm,

140

149

150

151 152 153

154

155

156

157 158 159

The History of the Seljuq State p. 25. See Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, 277; Bregel, An Historical Atlas of Central Asia, 28 and Map 14; EI2 art. ‘Mangishlak’ (Yu. Bregel). This Jand expedition is also given, almost word for word, in Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 157; see also C.E. Bosworth, EI2 Suppl. art. ‘Djand’. Ṣabrān/Ṣawrān was one of the towns of the Oghuz along the lower course of the Syr Darya; see Barthold, Zwölf Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Türken Mittleasiens, 140, and Bregel, An Historical Atlas of Central Asia, loc. cit. Rāyikān or Rādkān lay to the north of Nishapur on the road to Qūchān; it was the birthplace of Niẓām al-Mulk and there is preserved there a famed Seljuq tomb tower, the Mīl-i Rādkān (‘of Rādkān East’) See W. Barthold, An Historical Geography of Iran, Princeton 1984, 109. See Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq State, 157–58. This seems to be the obvious interpretation of the ductus here, fāris.y.n, since the normal plurals for fāris are broken ones, fursān and fawāris, rather than a sound plural fārisūn/fārisīn. Cf. Barthold, An Historical Geography of Iran, 149 and n. 3, where are noted the facts that the Persians identified Solomon with their legendary king Jamshīd and that the (Turkish) Salghurid Atabegs of Fars (later sixth/twelfth and seventh/thirteenth centuries) called themselves wārith-i mulk-i Sulaymān ‘heir to Solomon’s kingdom’. For these campaignings in Kirman and Fars, see Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, 155, 160; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 59–60, and for Qāwurd’s first revolt specifically, Erdoğan Merçil, Kirman Selçukluları, Istanbul 1980, 40–42. This prince is the Shaddādid ruler from the main branch of the family, whose main centres were at Dvin and then, from 360/971 onwards, at Ganja in Arrān, Faḍl or Faḍlūn (II) b. Abi ’l-Aswār Shāwur, r. 459–66/1067–73. See Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History. I, 22–24, 64–67; Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 151–52 no. 73; EI2 art. ‘Shaddādids’ (C.E. Bosworth). For the town of Ganja, see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 214; Barthold, An Historical Geography of Iran, 214; EIr art. ‘Ganja’ (C.E. Bosworth). There seems to have been a confusion here by the Akhbār, and also by other sources like Ibn al-Athīr, of events around this time, involving the similar names of the Shaddādid lord of Ganja, Faḍl or Faḍlūn (II) (see above, n. 155) and the Shabānkāraʾī Kurdish lord of Fars Faḍlūn or Faḍlūya, who had just seized the province from the last Buyid ruler there, Fūlād Sutūn b. ʿImād al-Dīn Abī Kālījār (454/1062). Niẓām al-Mulk’s operations in Fars against the rebel Faḍlūn, which in fact ended with the capture and execution of Faḍlūn and his brother Ḥasan or Ḥasanūya, probably took place 461/1068–69 rather than in 464/1071, as stated in EI2 art. ‘Shabānkāra’ (V.F. Büchner and C.E. Bosworth). See Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mirʾāt al-zamān, tr. in Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 164–65 n. 10; Bowen, ‘The Last Buwayhids’, 240–41; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 59–60. I.e. Bagrat IV, son of Gorgi (r. 1027–72); see Allen, A History of the Georgian People, 88, 91. See for this town in Arrān, Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 227–28; Barthold, op. cit., 227–28; EIr art. ‘Bardaʿa’ (C.E. Bosworth). The Abkhazian people are a northwestern Caucasian people of the Abkhaz-Adighe linguistic group occupying a small region on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, but since their separate kingdom was in 1010 united with that of Georgia by the half-Georgian, half-Abkhazian king of Georgia Bagrat II, the Muslim sources tend to lump the two peoples and lands together as Abkhāz and to use this last term as a synonym for Georgia and the Georgians See EI2 art. ‘Abkhāz’ (W. Barthold–V. Minorsky); EIr art. ‘Abkāz’ (Dzh. Giunashvili).

Notes

141

160 These Faranj/Ifranj could possibly be Scandinavian Varangians, known to have been in the service of the Byzantines and the Georgian kings as mercenary troops, but Minorsky surmised that the reading might be al-Kurj, the Georgians; see his Studies in Caucasian History, I, 65. 161 Shakkī was a region in eastern Transcaucasia lying to the south of the Caucasus range and north of the Kur river, but Minorsky thought that, in this passage of the Akhbār (the Muslims being confused about the nomenclature of the Caucasian principalities anyway), the name is being applied to the name to the Georgian-dependent kingdom of Kakhetia to the northwest of Shakkī proper, which had in the later tenth and early eleventh centuries absorbed Shakkī. The ruler named here, whose line was said to be of Armenian origin, and who himself who became a Muslim, was Akhsitān/Akhsarṭān/ Aghsarʿan II, son of Gagik. See Minorsky, op. cit., 65 n. 1, and his A History of Sharvān and Darband in the 10th–11th Centuries, Cambridge 1958, 83–84. 162 The iḥna of I makes better sense in the context than the akhiyya ‘bond, tie’ of N. 163 Tiflis, the modern Georgian capital Tbilisi, had been in Muslim hands from early Islamic times till towards the mid-eleventh century, when Bagrat IV (r. 1027–52) had recovered it. See EI2 arts. ‘al-Kurdj’ (V. Minorsky and C.E. Bosworth) and ‘Tiflīs’ (Minorsky and Bosworth). 164 Text again, ṭūl, cf. above n. 140. 165 Although not specifically named in the Qurʾān, the tyrant ruler Nimrod is much mentioned in the exegetical literature and the ‘Tales of the Prophets’ as the antagonist of Abraham and the builder of a tower by means of which he attempted to reach up to God. See EI2 art. ‘Namrūd’ (B. Heller); EQ, III, 539–40, art. ‘Nimrod’ (H. Busse). 166 On these campaignings of Alp Arslān in Shakkī and Georgia, see Cehen, ‘La première pénétration turque en Asie-Mineure’, 24; Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, I, 65–67. 167 This must refer to the abdication in this year of the Qarakhanid Tamghach Khān (see above, n. 111, and below, n. 192), which resulted in a succession struggle amongst his sons until Shams al-Mulk Naṣr b. Ibrāhīm established his power in Samarqand. See Barthold, Turkestan, 314; Bosworth, ‘Additions to The New Islamic Dynasties,’ 16, 22, n. 90. 168 The battle of Manzikert/Malazgird is often treated as an instant catastrophe for the Byzantines, the decisive first step in the Turks’ overrunning of Anatolia, and as such has passed into the nationalistic state-building mythology of the modern Turkish republic; see Martin Strohmeier’s chapter ‘Die Schlacht von Malazgirt als Symbol für die Türkisierung und Islamisierung Anatoliens’ in his Seldschukische Geschichte und türkische Geschichtswissenschaft. Die Seldschuken im Urteil moderner türkischer Historiker, Berlin 1984, 197–205. The battle’s effects were, however, probably more significant in the longer than the short term, since Alp Arslān after his victory showed no desire to ram home his advantage in Anatolia but marched off to Transoxania at the far eastern end of his lands (see pp. 40–41). These considerations, and the varying accounts of the historians, Muslim (on which, specifically, Claude Cahen had written in his articles, ‘La campagne de Mantzikert d’après les sources musulmanes,’ Byzantion, X [1934], 613–42, and ‘La première pénétration turque en Asie-Mineure’, 29–31; the Arabic texts are given as pp. 1–69 at the end of Faruk Sümer and Ali Sevim, İslam kaynaklarına göre Malazgırt savaşı, Ankara 1971), Greek, Armenian, Syriac, etc. (only one of which historians, the Byzantine Michael Attaleiates, was actually present at the battle), are skilfully and exhaustively examined by Carole Hillenbrand in her Turkish Myth and Muslim Symbol. The Battle of Manzikert, Edinburgh 2007, with a translation of this section of the Akhbār at pp. 52–58, noting its historical value, containing as it does some details not found in other sources, and with a useful listing of modern, secondary accounts of the battle at pp. 22–23 n. 24. 169 These two places lie in western Azerbaijan to the north and north-west respectively of Lake Urmiya. See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 166; Barthold, An

142

170

171

172

173

174 175 176

177

178 179

The History of the Seljuq State Historical Geography of Iran, 224. If Alp Arslān had been at Aleppo in Syria, as an early source like the Damascus historian Ibn al-Qalānisī says (see Hillenbrand, op. cit., 30, 32), by marching eastwards to Azerbaijan he was going in the diametrically opposite direction from Anatolia. These ‘Franks’ of the multi-ethnic Byzantine army may well have included peoples of Western Europe, but might also have included Balkan Slavs and Russo-Scandinavian Varangians, whose presence in the imperial guard at Constantinople is well attested from the time of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus onwards. Presumably is meant the Patriarch of one of the Nestorian Eastern Syriac Church, with his seat in Baghdad under the eyes of the caliph; at this time this was Sabrīshōʿ III Zanbūr (in office 1064–72), although there were also Patriarchs at varying times for the Syrian Jacobites and Melkites of Iraq. See W. Baum and D.W. Winkler, The Church of the East. A Concise History, London and New York 2003, 64, 79–80, 174. However, our historian is obviously using the term vaguely; the Melkite Byzantines would hardly have wished to set up a Nestorian dignitary in the seat of the caliphate. I.e. these were, in the terminology of a Ghaznavid historian like Bayhaqī, one-horse troopers (yak-suwārān), as opposed to two-horsed ones (du-suwārān), troopers with a spare mount for carrying supplies, arms, etc., and for use when the first mount was incapacitated or put out of action Ibn al-Mawṣilāyā (d. 497/1105) was a very long-serving official of the caliphs, eventually becoming head of the chancery, the dīwān al-inshāʾ, or Chief Secretary; at this time, as his Syriac nisba would imply, he was a Christian and only converted to Islam towards the end of his life. See the laudatory death notices in Ibn al-Athīr, tr. D.S. Richards, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr for the Crusading Period, Part 1, Aldershot 2006, 82, and Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, II, 415; also Khayr al-Dīn al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām, qāmūs li-ash’har al-rijāl wa ’l-nisāʾ min al-ʿarab wa ’l-mustaʿribīn wa ’l-mustashriqīn, 2nd. ed., n.p. n.d., V, 45. Al-Qalqashandī in his Ṣubḥ al-aʿshā frequently cites his Tarassul (not, however, apparently extant as such) and places Ibn al-Mawṣilāyā on a level with Abū Isḥāq al-Ṣābiʾ; see W. Björkman, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Staatskanzlei im islamischen Ägypten, Hamburg 1928, 62, 76. Qurʾān, LXI, 10–11. Qurʾān, XXV, 77. This piece of bravura, chancery-style prose contains much assonance and paronomasia which cannot easily be conveyed in translation, and many turns of phrase for which the sense rather than the literal meaning is given here. On this particular genre of inshāʾ writing, i.e. the protocol of the duʿāʾ in mediaeval Arabic epistolary style, see Adrian Gully, The Culture of Letter-Writing in Pre-Modern Islamic Society, Edinburgh 2008, 166–74. Al-Ḥusaynī’s source for this duʿāʾ, and for other information on Alp Arslān’s reign, may have been a continuation of an abridgement of al-Ṭabarī’s History by an author writing in Ayyubid Syria towards the end of the sixth/ twelfth century, Abū Ghālib al-Shaybānī; this is no longer extant, but citations from it in Ibn al-ʿAdīm’s Bughyat al-ṭalab correspond very closely with what al-Ḥusaynī has written here. See Cahen, ‘The Historiography of the Seljuqid Period’, 63. Text, al-Zuhra. but the editors rightly suggest that this must be al-Rahwa (described in Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, III, 108, as a desert place near Akhlāṭ), especially as other sources like Ibn al-Jawzī and Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī have al-Rahwa (see Hillenbrand, Turkish Myth and Muslim Symbol, 49 n. 53). Hillenbrand, op. cit., 79 n. 26, notes that this day actually falls on a Sunday, the nearest Wednesday beng four days later, and wonders whether the day of the week has been moved to fit the timescale of the battle on a Friday. The term used is hudna, implying more of a truce or a temporary peace agreement rather than a definitive peace treaty (ṣulḥ), since permanent peace with infidels was in strict Islamic law not possible, though in practice allowed if such a peace was not inconsistent with the interests of the Muslims. See EI2 art. ‘Hudna’ (M. Khadduri).

Notes

143

180 I.e. the Byzantines would hurl back the Muslims as far as Ray before peace could be made. 181 Qurʾān, VIII, 10. 182 Normally carried by him as a symbol of Seljuq kingship; see p. 9. 183 Perhaps a hierarchy of size is implied here. The terminology of tents seems to vary with the age and the geographical location; see EI2 art. ‘Khayma’ (Ch. Pellat, etc.) and the exhaustive work of P.A. Andrews, Felt Tents and Pavilions. The Nomadic Tradition and its Interaction with Princely Tentage, 2 vols, London 1999. 184 nawāqīs, sing. nāqūs, originally denoting the wooden clappers used to summon the Dhimmī Christians to church; for the meaning ‘bells’ see Dozy, Supplément, II, 711b. 185 Cutting off the nose being an ancient way of dishonouring and abasing a captive or malefactor, practised e.g. in the Byzantine empire to render pretenders to the throne unfit to rule. In Ibn al-Jawzī’s account of preliminary clashes before the culminatory battle of Manzikert, a defeated Byzantine commander has his nose cut off by Alp Arslan, see Hillenbrand, op. cit., 38, 44. For a discussion of facial mutilation in Islam, with particular reference to the Seljuq period, see Lange, Justice, Punishment, and the Medieval Muslim Imagination, 72–73. 186 Qurʾān, XXII, 2. 187 ʿinda iṣfirār al-shams. Hillenbrand, op. cit., 80 n. 35, sees here an oblique reference to the name given to the Greeks in Muslim historical sources, Banu ’l-Aṣfar ‘Yellow Ones’, the colour yellow having connotations of cowardice and baseness. 188 This influential Seljuq commander (gawhar-āyīn ‘adorned with jewels’; he was possibly a eunuch) was originally a Turkish ghulām of the last Buyids. He became shiḥna or military governor of Baghdad and representative there of Malik Shāh, being killed in battle in 493/1100; see the death notice in Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Muntaẓam, IX, 115–16. 189 This reward of a grant of Ghazna appears also in other sources (al-Bundārī, Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Ibn al-ʿAdīm, see Hillenbrand, op. cit., 63, 70, 77) but cannot of course be correct. Ghazna was not Alp Arslān’s to give, being ruled at this time by a powerful Ghaznavid sultan, Ibrāhīm b. Masʿūd, with whom the Seljuq ruler had to treat on equal terms (see p. 18). The name Ghazna must be an early copyist’s mistake for some other place within the Seljuq territories, but there is no obvious candidate; thus Ganja was at this time firmly held by the Shaddādids (see p. 33). 190 This lay on the left bank of the Oxus just below the gorge of the Deve Burunu and was regarded as the first town of Khwarazm encountered when coming from Merv or Āmul; see Le Strange, The Eastern Lands of the Caliphate, 451–52. 191 The subsequent fate of Romanus, his return to Byzantium, his replacement by Michael VII Ducas and his death, are described briefly in other Muslim sources, such as Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 172. 192 This is the Qarakhanid Shams al-Mulk Naṣr b. Ibrāhīm Tamghach Khān, grandiosely styled Sulṭān al-Mashriq wa ’l-Ṣīn, r. over the Western Qaghanate 460–72/1068–80, see Bosworth, ‘Additions to The New Islamic Dynasties’, 16, 22, no. 90. The Tamghāj mentioned here refers to the title that Naṣr derived from his father, Tamghach Khān Ibrāhīm, for whom see above, n. 111. Concerning this abortive Seljuq expedition against the Qarakhanids, which provoked a retaliatory attack by the Khān on Tirmidh and Balkh, see Barthold, Turkestan, 314–15; Pritsak, ‘Die Karachaniden’, 46–47; İbrahim Kafesoğlu, Sultan Melikşah devrinde Büyük Selçuklu imparatorluğu, Istanbul 1953, 16, 19–20; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 65; Reşat Genç, Karahanlı devlet teşkilâtı (XI. yüzyıl), Istanbul 1981, 53. The element Tamghach (< Chinese T’o-pa) in the titulature of Naṣr and his father derives from the ancient Turkish usage, going back to Orkhon Turkic times, of Tabghach = ‘China, Chinese’, see Barthold, Zwölf Vorlesungen, 97–98, and Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, 72–76. Involved here, according to Barthold, are earlier contacts with Chinese civilization when the Turks were in Mongolia and a continued admiration for the Chinese imperial idea.

144

The History of the Seljuq State

193 In parallel sources (Rāwandī, Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī), the unnamed fortress is given as B.r.z.m., see e.g. The History of the Seljuq Turks, tr. Luther, 53–54; it is otherwise unknown but was probably somewhere in the vicinity of Tirmidh. 194 For Alp Arslān’s reign in general, see Morgan, Medieval Persia 1040–1797, 28–31; EIr art. ‘Alp Arslān’ (K.A. Luther). For his death and the succession of his son specifically, see Ibn al-Athīr’s account, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 176–68; Nīshāpūrī, tr. Luther, 53–54; Bosworth, op. cit., 65–66. The ms. of the Akhbār has at this point a fragmentary marginal tale ‘from certain history’ (I 55 n. 3, N 119) describing Alp Arslān’s love of the bow as a weapon, and how he punished a soldier who had been ill-treating a blind man by shooting an arrow at him and blinding him. 195 He had held this office since Alp Arslān’s time. See the death notice in Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam, IX, 128, and also Iqbāl, Wizārat dar ʿahd-i salāṭīn-i buzurg-i saljūqī, 54–55, and Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate, 72, 105. It is noted on p. 50, that he built a shrine at the tomb of Abū Ḥanīfa and founded and endowed a college or madrasa in Baghdad that pre-dated Niẓām al-Mulk’s own one there. For the office at this time of the dīwān al-istīfāʾ under its head, the mustawfī al-mamālīk, and its concerns with revenue assessment, collection and expenditure, see A.K.S. Lambton, ‘The Internal Structure of the Seljuq Empire’, in CHIr, V, 257–58. 196 N 122 reads the name thus as Temür + diminutive suffix, a name attested elsewhere in Seljuq historical sources; see Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, II, 736. 197 In other sources (Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Bundārī, Ibn al-Athīr), the date is given as Shaʿbān 465/April–May 1073; see EI2 art. ‘Ḳāwurd’ (C.E. Bosworth). 198 Professor Van Gelder notes that this is an ancient mathal, being mentioned by the Umayyad period poet al-Farazdaq, and refers to al-Maydānī, Majmaʿ al-amthāl, ed. and Latin tr. G.W. Freytag, Arabum proverba, Bonn 1838–43, II, 776–77, and al-Thaʿālibī, Thimār al-qulūb, ed. Muḥammad Abu ’l-Faḍl Ibrāhīm, Cairo 1985, 133–34. 199 See above, n. 27. 200 On strangling, as a speedy and discreet method of executing high-ranking persons, see Lange, Justice, Punishment and the Medieval Muslim Imagination, 27. On Qāwurd’s second revolt and death, see Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm, in M.Th. Houtsma, ‘Zur Geschichte der Selǵuqen von Kermân’, ZDMG, XXXIX (1885), 12–13; Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 180–81; Kafesoğlu, op. cit., 20–24; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 87–89; Merçil, Kirman Selçukları, 45–59. There was clearly much sympathy amongst the Turkmen element of what had been Alp Arslān’s army for the claims, according to the old Turkish principle of seniorate, of the older and more battle-experienced Qāwurd; Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm says that it was some of Malik Shāh’s amirs who invited Qāwurd to make a bid for the throne. However, the lavish distribution of money before the battle, the loyalty to Malik Shāh of ghulām commanders like Gawhar-Āyīn and Sawtegin, and the military value of the Arab and Kurdish troops brought from Iraq to Malik Shāh’s army by the ʿUqaylid Sharaf al-Dawla Muslim b. Quraysh and the Mazyadid Bahāʾ al-Dawla Manṣūr b. Dubays, were in the event decisive here and a pointer to what was to be the superior value to the Seljuq rulers of a salaried, professional army. 201 See Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, 54–55, 83, 90; the exact date of the marriage is unknown. She was probably the mother of the later sultan in Ghazna, Malik Arslān b. Masʿūd (III). 202 See Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian Lands’, 90. 203 I.e. Shams al-Mulk Naṣr b. Ibrāhīm, see above, n. 192. 204 This birth is recorded as taking place in Shaʿbān 474/January 1082. 205 See for Malik Shāh’s relations with Shams al-Mulk Naṣr at this time, Barthold, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, 314–15; Pritsak, ‘Die Karachaniden’, 46;

Notes

206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213

214 215

216

217 218 219

220

221

145

Kafesoğlu, op. cit., 28–29; Bosworth, op. cit., 91; Genç, Karahanlı devlet teşkilâtı, 53–54. In Ibn al-Athīr’s notice of these events, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 184, the Khāqān is wrongly named as ʿAlītegin. See p. 20. For the first of these two caliphal viziers, both from long-lasting lines of officials serving various rulers of the time, see above, n. 63, and for the second, EI2 art. ‘Djahīr (Banū)’ (Cl. Cahen). See on him the notice in Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 185–86, and EI2 art. ‘al-Ḳāʾim bi-amr Allāh’ (D. Sourdel). See on this caliph’s verse, al-Ṭāhir, al-Shiʿr al-ʿarabī fi ’l-ʿIrāq wa-bilād al-ʿAjam, II, 69. See on this small region at the southeastern corner of the Caspian Sea, on the borders of Ṭabaristān and Gurgān, Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 375; Barthold, An Historical Geography of Iran, 239. For these events involving the Qarakhanids, see the references above in n. 167, and for Ibn al-Athīr’s account (under the year 466/1073–74), tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 184–85. The narrative of this expedition is continued on p. 52. For Malik Shāh’s activities in northwestern Persia and Transcauscasia at this time, see Cahen, ‘La première pénétration turque en Asie-Mineure’, 49–50. On the attempt at rebellion by Tekish, and a further outbreak by him in 477/1084–85, in which he was defeated at Sarakhs and captured, eventually being killed by Berk-yārūq in 487/1094, see Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, 202, 215. 216–17, 276; Kafesoğlu, Sultan Melikşah devrinde Büyük Selçuklu imparatorluğu, 57–59. This rāwī or narrator, Ḥudhayfa al-ʿAbsī, was a Companion of the Prophet and, under ʿUmar, governor of al-Madāʾin or Ctesiphon in Iraq. See al-Ziriklī, al-Aʿlām, II, 180–81. Thus the surmise of N, al-atrāk al-khiṭāʾiyya, for the defective text here; the reference is apparently to the Qara Khitay, who famously defeated Sanjar at the battle of the Qaṭwān steppe in 536/1141, as the prophecy goes on to say, with its mention of ‘mighty armies from the East and China; see further, below, n. 296. Thus according to this spurious tradition, the place Sinjār (a town and a mountain ridge now in the north-westernmost part of Iraq, to the west of Mosul, see Le Strange, op. cit., 98) = the Turkish name Sanjar (‘he who thrusts, stabs’, see Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, II, 629). Shams al-Mulk had in fact died by this time and the ruler in the Western Qarakhanid khanate was now his nephew Aḥmad b. Khiḍr (r. 479–82/1086–89), see Bosworth, ‘Additions to The New Islamic Dynasties’, 17, no. 90. The narrative of this expedition is continued on p. 52. The Qaghan of the Eastern khanate, based on Kashghar and Balās̄ ghūn, was at this time Ḥasan or Hārūn b. Sulaymān b. Qadïr Khān Yūsuf (r. ?460–96/?1068–1103), with Kashghar itself in the hands of another member of the family, Jibrāʾīl b. ʿUmar. For this extension of Seljuq suzerainty into Transoxania and beyond, with its concomitant requirement of formal acknowledgement of Malik Shāh’s overlordship, see Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 239–42; Barthold, Turkestan, 316–17; Pritsak, ‘Die Karachaniden’, 42; Kafesoğlu, op. cit., 121–22; Genç, op. cit., 55–57 Bosworth, op. cit., 18–19 no. 90. See M.G.S. Hodgson, The Order of Assassins. The Struggle of the Early Nizârî Ismâʿîlîs against the Islamic World, The Hague 1955, 72–75; Farhad Daftary, The Ismāʿīlīs, their History and Doctrines, Cambridge 1990, 339–42. For the castles of the Alamut valley, see P. Willey, Eagle’s Nest. Ismaili Castles in Iran and Syria, London 2005, 103–46. Tāj al-Mulk was ṭughrāʾī or head of the correspondence department or chancery, the dīwān al-inshāʾ (for which see Lambton, ‘The Internal Stricture of the Seljuq Empire’,

146

222

223

224

225 226 227 228 229 230 231

The History of the Seljuq State 257) and was briefly appointed to succeed Niẓām al-Mulk as vizier, an appointment rendered abortive by the sultan’s own death, see Iqbāl, Wizārat dar ʿahd-i salāṭīn-i buzurg-i saljūqī, 93–100; Klausner, op. cit., 46–47, 106, 120; and for the opposition to Niẓām al-Mulk which gradually built up at court towards the end of Malik Shāh’s reign, see Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 75–76. There is a biography of Niẓām al-Mulk in Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, I, 413–15, and an estimate of his career in Ibn al–Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 255–58 (this historian states that, with the near-simultaneous deaths of Niẓām al-Mulk and Malik Shāh, ‘the state fell apart and the sword was unsheathed’). See also Iqbāl, op. cit., 46–53; Klausner, op. cit., 106–7 and index s.v.; EI2 art, ‘Niẓām al-Mulk’ (H. Bowen and C.E. Bosworth). The mystery surrounding Niẓām al-Mulk’s violent demise has caused much discussion. See Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, op. cit., 253–55; M.T. Houtsma, ‘The Death of Nizam al-Mulk and its Consequences’, Jnal. of Indian History, II (1924), 147–60; Kafesoğlu, op. cit., 196ff.; K. Rippe, ‘Über das Sturz Nizām-ul-Mulks’, 60. doğum yılı münasebetiyle Fuad Köprülü armağanı/Mélanges Fuad Köprülü, Istanbul 1953, 423–35; and most recently, Carole Hillenbrand, ‘1092: A Murderous Year’, in Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the Union Européenne des Arabisants et Islamisants, Budapest, 29th August – 3rd September 1988, ed. A. Fodor, Budapest 1995, II, 280–96. In this last article, she argues convincingly that, as al-Ḥusaynī explicitly states, Tāj al-Mulk (probably with the complicity of Terken Khātūn and possibly even of Malik Shāh himself) was the most likely instigator of the assassination, whether hiring Ismāʿīlī fidāʾīs or others to do his dirty work. Out of a considerable literature on the Niẓāmiyyas and on al-Shīrāzī’s part in the Baghdad one, see G. Makdisi, ‘Muslim Institutions of Learning in Eleventh-Century Baghdad’, BSOAS, XXIV (1961), 31–34, 56; Lambton, ‘The Internal Structure of the Seljuq Empire’, 214–17; Makdisi, ‘The Sunnī Revival’, in D.S. Richards (ed.), Islamic Civilisation 950–1050, Oxford 1973, 158–59; idem, The Rise of Colleges. Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West, Edinburgh 1981, 1–4, 31–56; EI2 arts. ‘Madrasa. I. The Institution in the Arabic, Persian and Turkish Lands. 4. The Origin and Spread of the madrasa Proper’ (J. Pedersen and G. Makdisi), and ‘Niẓām al-Mulk’. His friendship with the great vizier did not, however, preserve him in his own office of ṭughrāʾī when his son Sayyid al-Ruʾasāʾ, Kamāl al-Dīn’s deputy and one of Niẓām al-Mulk’s sons-in-law, fell from power in 476/1083; see Klausner, The Seljuk Vizierate, 45, 105, 127. This office was concerned with the auditing of finances and oversight of the collection of taxes and their disbursement. See Lambton, op. cit., 238–39. See above n. 195. On Abū Jaʿfar Masʿūd al-Bayāḍī al-Hāshimī (d. 468/1076), see his biography in Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, III, 355–56, and also al-Ṭāhir, op. cit., I, 223–24. See Introduction, pp. 5–6. See on this term, above, n. 128. See on this poet, al-Ṭāhir, op. cit., I, 228, II, 37. Professor Van Gelder notes that at the beginning of the second verse of this oft-quoted couplet, most sources have ʿazzat rather than al-Ḥusaynī’s jallat, with the same meaning. Whereas Ṭoghrïl’s favoured centre of power had been Ray, and Alp Arslān, when not engaged in the campaigning that filled so much of his reign, had felt most at home in Khurasan, the centre of gravity of the Great Seljuq state had clearly been moving westwards during their reigns. Accordingly, Isfahan had become the capital of the Seljuq empire during Malik Shāh’s reign, with the sultan usually spending summer there, even though he latterly tended to winter at Baghdad, as seems to have been his intention here. David Durand-Guédy, in his detailed study of the social and political

Notes

232

233 234

235 236 237

238

239 240 241 242 243

147

structures of the city under the Seljuqs, calculates that Malik Shāh spent 148 months of his twenty years’ reign in Isfahan, i.e. 62 per cent of it. Moreover, whereas his two predecessors had been buried at Ray and Merv respectively (see pp. 21, 41), it was here to Isfahan that Malk Shāh’s body was brought back from Baghdad for burial in the city that became, as it were, the Seljuqs’ royal mausoleum (it was also to Isfahan that the corpse of the murdered Niẓām al-Mulk was brought back from Burūjird). See Durand-Guédy, Iranian Élites and Turkish Rulers. A History of Isfahan in the Seljuq Period, London and New York 2010, 76–83. Al-Ḥusaynī’s bald statement that Malik Shāh fell ill and died requires further discussion. It is true that, in pre-modern times, people apparently healthy and in the prime of life might die suddenly from mysterious, undiagnosed maladies, and the conspiracy theorists of the age might accordingly suspect poisoning. The events surrounding the sultan’s death certainly arouse suspicions of the possibility of foul play here, and these are considered by Carole Hillenbrand in her ‘1092: A Murderous Year’, 290ff. She points out that Malik Shāh’s death cleared the way for Terken Khātūn to proclaim her infant son as sultan (see pp. 53–54), and also that the sultan’s removal relieved pressure on the caliph al-Muqtadī, threatened by the overbearing Seljuq sultan with dispossession from his office in favour of a young Seljuq prince; hence the possibility of the ʿAbbasid’s collusion in disposing of Malik Shāh cannot be discounted. See Cahen, ‘La première pénétration turque en Asie-Mineure, 49–50; idem, PreOttoman Turkey. A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History c. 1071–1330, London 1968, 73–78. I.e. the Turkmen commander, operating independently of the Seljuqs, Atsïz b. Uvak, who had conquered for himself much of southern Syria and Palestine from the Fatimids until Malik Shāh sent Tutush against him. See for his activities in Syria up to his death in 471/1079, Kafesoğlu, op. cit., 31–38; EI2 art. ‘Atsız b. Uvak’ (Cl. Cahen). Kafesoğlu, op. cit., 124–25. These are the last items of information al-Ḥusaynī gives about events in the Seljuq west, his interest henceforth being in the central and eastern lands of the empire. I.e. those dwelling in khargāhs ‘tents’. It sounds improbable that this ruler, most likely from the Qarluq or Qïpchaq, should bear an archetypal Iranian name like this (Suhrāb/ Surkhāb, the son of Rustam, in the Shāh-nāma, see F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg 1895, 312); but it seems impossible to determine the name’s true (Turkish?) form. As Barthold notes, Turkestan, 317 n. 1, al-Bundārī, Zubdat al-nuṣra. ed. M.T. Houtsma, Leiden 1889, 55, relates these events somewhat differently from al-Ḥusaynī, with more detail on the humiliation of the Qarakhanid Aḥmad b. Khiḍr (r. 479–82, 485–88/1086–89, 1092–95) and the sultan’s subsequent expedition being given the goal of Özkend, the ‘king of the infidel Turks’ encountered there being apparently a member of the Eastern Qarakhanid branch, Yaʿqūb b. Sulaymān. The date of this ultimatum to the Shirwān Shāh Farīburz b. Sallār (r. 455–ca. 487/ 1063–ca. 1094) may have been 471/1078–79. See Kafesoğlu, op. cit., 116; Minorsky, A History of Sharvān and Darband, 68. Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 261, specifies the exact location of this tower (and mentions a similar one built by the sultan in Transoxania), and cf. loc. cit., n. 120, for the locations given by Ibn al-Jawzī and al-Bundārī. I.e. the Eighth Imām, the name of whose shrine supplanted that of the older Ṭūs to become the modern city of Mashhad; see EĪ 2 art. ‘ʿAlī al-Riḍā’ (B. Lewis). There is a biography of Malik Shāh in Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, III, 440–46. For his death and estimates of his achievement, see Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, op. cit., 258–62; Kafesoğlu, op. cit., 208–13; EI2 art. Malik-Shāh (C.E. Bosworth). She was the daughter of the Qarakhanid Ibrāhīm b. Naṣr b. Tamghach Khān, having married Malik Shāh in 456/1074. For her role in politics at this time, see M.F. Sanaullah, The Decline of the Saljūqid Empire, Calcutta 1938, 9–13.

148

The History of the Seljuq State

244 For al-Muqtadī’s caliphate in general, see EI2 art. ‘al-Muḳtadī’ (Angelika Hartmann). With his focus on events in Persia, and western Persia in particular, al-Ḥusaynī has virtually nothing on the topic of Malik Shāh’s relation with the ʿAbbasid caliphate and the significant part played here by his minister Niẓām al-Mulk. Recent studies by e.g. George Makdisi on the Sunnī, or rather, traditionalist revival, after a century or more during which political Shiʿism had made much of the running in the central and western Islamic lands (see his ‘The Sunnī Revival’, in D.S. Richards (ed.), Islamic Civilisation 950–1150, Oxford 1973, 155–68), and on Ṭoghrïl Beg’s relations with the caliph over a marriage alliance between the two houses (see above, n. 91), together with the studies by Henri Laoust on the strength and influence of Ḥanbalism in Baghdad at this time, have cast strong doubt on the old, accepted view that Ṭoghrïl Beg’s first appearance in Baghdad in 447/1055 was a rescue bid by a protagonist of Sunnī orthodoxy, saving the caliphs from the tutelage of the Shiʿite Buyids. The heavy hand of the Seljuq sultans over the ensuing century, involving two sieges of Baghdad by Seljuq forces and possible complicity in the murder of two caliphs (see below, nn. 311, 333), must have been more onerous for the caliphs than the comparatively light yoke of the Daylamīs. In the earlier part of his reign, the policy of Malik Shāh and of Niẓām al-Mulk was one of reconciliation and restrained control over the caliphate, but the sultan became more and more determined to assert his will in Baghdad. He paid three visits to Baghdad from his capital Hamadan, and towards the end of his reign, in 484–85/1091–92, he demanded that al-Muqtadī should remove his eldest son, the future al-Mustaẓhir, from the ʿahd as designated successor in favour of Malik Shāh’s grandson Abu ’l-Faḍl Jaʿfar, al-Muqtadī’s younger son by a Seljuq princess, Malik Khātūn. He planned to evict al-Muqtadī from his capital and instal himself in Baghdad, but both of these intentions were aborted by his own death. In all these ups-and-downs of Seljuq–ʿAbbasid relations, Niẓām al-Mulk played a mediating role and liaised with the caliph’s viziers, and especially with the two Ibn Jahīrs. However, his death shortly before that of the sultan (see pp. 48–51) enabled al-Muqtadī to assume a more assertive role in the two remaining years of his life, although he had to agree to the accession of Berk-yārūq, the candidate of the Niẓāmiyya (see below, n. 249), as Seljuq sultan; al-Ḥusaynī nevertheless notes (p. 46) that the caliphate grew stronger under al-Muqtadī. See on Seljuq–ʿAbbasid relations at this time, Kafesoğlu, op. cit., 94–98, 123–25, 203, 205, 207–08, and Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 99–101; and specifically for Niẓām al-Mulk’s part in these, K.E. Schabinger, Freiherr von Schowingen, ‘Nisām ul-Mulk und das Abbasidische Chalifat’, Historische Jahrbücher, LXXI (1952), 91–136, and EI2 art. ‘Niẓām al-Mulk’. 245 For Maḥmūd’s ephemeral reign, during which Terken Khātūn’s ally Tāj al-Mulk acted as vizier, see Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 262–63; Sanaullah, op. cit., 10–12, 82–90; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 103–5. 246 I.e. the sultan’s chief bodyguard, often acting as an executioner. 247 The ms. has qatalahumā wa-ḥabasahumā, the first word presumably to be read as qātalahumā. 248 On ʿImād al-Dīn al-Kātib al-Iṣfahānī and his poetry, see al-Ṭāhir, op. cit., I, 24. 249 For the role in political and military affairs of Niẓām al-Mulk’s numerous descendants (on the whole inferior in talent to the founder of the family) and of the great vizier’s ghulāms and other partisans, see in general, EI2 art. ‘Niẓāmiyya’ (C.E. Bosworth). Muʾayyid al-Mulk was perhaps the most effective and competent of Niẓām al-Mulk’s descendants; see below, n. 268. 250 See Ibn al-Athīr, tr. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks, 265–67, 273–75, 278–79; Sanaullah, op cit., 85–95 ; Bosworth, op. cit., 105–7; EI2 art. ‘Tutush (I) b. Alp Arslān’ (C.E. Bosworth).

Notes

149

251 Muʾayyid al-Mulk was actually captured by Berk-yārūq and then executed, (apparently by the sultan’s own hands; see Lange, Justice, Punishment, and the Medieval Muslim Imagination, 32), the battle itself taking place in Jumādā II 494/April 1101, see Sanaullah, op. cit., 106–7. 252 This was a district of Jibāl lying between Hamadan and Nihāwand with its main urban centre at Karaj. See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 197; EI2 art. ‘Rūdhrāwar’ (C.E. Bosworth). 253 He was a great-grandson of Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd, hence a second cousin of Berk-yārūq and Muḥammad. 254 Dwīn or Dabīl was an ancient Armenian town in the valley of the Aras river near what is now Erivan in the Armenian Republic. See Le Strange, op. cit., 182–83; Barthold, An Historical Geography of Iran, 226; EI2 art. ‘Dwīn’ (M. Canard). For Ānī, see above, n. 144. 255 The Akhbār’s judgement on Berk-yārūq is mild compared with the accusations in other sources such al-Bundārī, Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī and Ibn al-Athir̄ , in which he is accused of various vices and defects, not least of them the accusation of Ismāʿīlī sympathies and the employment of Ismāʿīlī troops in his army. But Carole Hillenbrand is surely right that ‘Posterity has perhaps judged Barkiyāruq a litte harshly’; the sources are obviously much biassed in favour of his brothers Muḥammad Ṭapar and Sanjar. See Hillenbrand, ‘The Power Struggle between the Seljuqs and the Ismaʿilis of Alamūt, 487–518/1094–1124: the Seljuq Perspective’, in Farhad Daftary (ed.), Mediaeval Ismaʿili History and Thought, Cambridge 1996, 207–8. 256 Berk-yārūq’s authority was recognized in the Western Qarakhanid khanate, but there is no evidence that, during his highly eventful and contested reign, he ever personally went beyond Ray. The Qarakhanids mentioned here as imposed by Berk-yārūq are Sulaȳmān b. Dāwūd b. Ibrāhīm Tamghach Khān; Mahmūd, descendant of Ibrāhīm or of Manṣūr b. ʿAlī (?); and Hārūn or Ḥasan or Jibrāʾīl b. ʿUmar, descendant of Qadïr Khān Yūsuf, all holding power for very short periods until the succession was in 495/1102, after Sanjar’s defeat of this last ruler (see p. 63 and n. 288), firmly and lastingly established in the hands of Arslān Khān Muḥammad b. Sulaymān. See Barthold, Turkestan, 318–19; Pritsak, ‘Die Karachaniden’, 48–50; Bosworth, ‘Additions to The New Islamic Dynasties’, 17, no. 90. 257 There is no evidence in other Seljuq or Ghaznavid sources for this; Ibrāhīm had by these last few years of his long and successful reign achieved a position of great respect from neighbouring powers, see Bosworth, The Later Ghaznavids, 55. 258 The attempt to raise the four-year-old Malik Shāh to the throne, with Ayāz as his Atabeg, collapsed immediately once his uncle Muḥammad appeared on the scene in the Baghdad area, as al-Ḥusaynī goes on to relate. There is a brief biography of Berk-yārūq in Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, I, 251, and see for his reign in general, Sanaullah, op. cit., 91–113; Bosworth, op. cit., 103–11; EIr art. ‘Barkīāroq’ (Bosworth). 259 This would appear to be the meaning, according to Professor Van Gelder, although the idiom is unfamilar to him. 260 Further satirical verses cited in Iqbāl, Wizārat dar ʿahd-i salāṭīn-i buzurg-i saljūqī, 153 (‘Our vizier was an ass . . .’). Despite his limited abilities, Khaṭīr al-Mulk nevertheless went on to serve three other Seljuq rulers and princes after Berk-yārūq; see Iqbāl, Wizārat dar ʿahd-i salāṭīn-i buzurg-i saljūqī, 121, 150–54; Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate, 50, 80, 93, 106–07. 261 For Muḥammad’s campaigns against the Ismāʿīlīs in Fars and Daylam, see Hodgson, The Order of Assassins, 95–98; Daftary, The Ismāʿīlīs: their History and Doctrines, 354–6, 361–64; Hillenbrand, op. cit., 210–11. For the two fortresses near Isfahan mentioned here, see Willey, Eagle’s Nest, 206–12. On the origins of Ismāʿīlism there in the last thirty years or so of the fifth/eleventh century, and the leadership of Ibn ʿAṭṭāsh in Isfahan and perhaps in Persia as a whole before the arrival there of Ḥasan-i

150

262 263

264

265

266 267

268

269

270 271 272

The History of the Seljuq State Sabbāḥ, see Durand-Guédy, Iranian Élites and Turkish Rulers, 142–52–, and for these campaigns of Sultan Muḥammad and the overthrowing of local Ismāʿīlism, ibid. 162–71, including the detailed accounts of other sources (Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī, Rāwandī) on Ibn ʿAṭṭāsh’s execution. This lay halfway between Baghdad and Wāsiṭ; see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 37–38. See the biography of Ṣadaqa (I) in Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, I, 634–35; Sanaullah, The Decline of the Saljūqid Empire, 115, 122–27; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian Lands’, 115; EI2 arts. ‘Mazyad’, ‘Ṣadaḳa’ (C.E. Bosworth). Abu ’l-Fawāris al-Ḥusayn b. al-Khāzin (d. 502/1108–9) is mentioned as a poet of Iraq in ʿImād al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī’s Kharīdat al-qaṣr, section on the poets of Iraq, ed. M. Bahjat al-Atharī, Baghdad 1980, and has a brief biography in Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, I, 464 ; see al-Ṭāhir, al-Shiʿr al-ʿarabī fi ’l-ʿIrāq wa ’l-ʿAjam, II, 146. Professor Van Gelder has not found these verses in other sources. The Turkish personal name of this person (who had also the laqab of Fakhr al-Dawla and presumably held or had held the office of the sultan’s cupbearer, sāqī, saqqāʾ) is probably one of the numerous names for raptors, chavlï ‘kite, falcon’, much favoured amongst Turkish tribal chiefs and military leaders; see Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, I, 194. As appears from the mention here, he was a commander of Sultan Muḥammad b. Malik Shāh, nominally Atabeg of the sultan’s son Chaghrï and in practice governor of Fars, dying in 510/1116–17; see on his career Lambton, ‘The Internal Structure of the Seljuq Empire’, 240–41. He is to be distinguished from the jāndār Chāwlī prominent in the confused military manoeuvrings of Masʿūd b. Muḥammad’s reign, see pp. 74, 76–78. Daftary, op. cit., 363. There is a biography of Muḥammad in Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, III, 232–34. For Muḥammad’s reign in general, See Sanaullah, op. cit., 114–32 ; Abdülkerim Özaydın, Sultan Muhammed Tapar devri selçuklu tarihi: 498–511/1105–1118, Ankara 1990; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian Lands’, and EI2 art. ‘Muḥammad b. Malik Shāh’ (C.E. Bosworth). For his Turkish name Ṭapar ‘he who finds, acquires [fame, richness, etc.]’, see Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, II, 711. Muʾayyid al-Mulk is praised by al-Bundārī for his undoubted competence and for his integrity, but Ibn al-Athīr, obviously using a different source, stigmatizes him as highly efficient but brutal and avaricious. See G.E. Tetley, The Ghaznavids and Seljuk Turks. Poetry as a Source for Iranian History, London and New York 2009, 146–52 (Muʾayyid al-Mulk was the patron and mamdūḥ of the poet Muʿizzī). For this conspiracy of the qāḍī al-Khaṭībī and Abu ’l-Qāsim Maḥmūd al-Khujandī, who was most probably the raʾīs of Isfahan, against Saʿd al-Mulk (who was a Shiʿite but not an Ismāʿīlī), see Durand-Guédy, op. cit., 178–79; and on al-Khaṭịbī’s great influence with Sultan Muḥammad (Durand-Guédy calls him ‘the power behind the throne’), see ibid., 191–94. Saʿd al-Mulk had been mustawfī and then served as vizier 496–500/1103–7. There is a detailed account of his alleged misdeeds and consequent fate in Nīshāpūrī, tr. Luther, 76–77, and see Iqbāl, Wizārat dar ʿahd-i salāṭīn-i buzurgi saljūqī, 156–62; Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate, 50, 106. As with others of his family, Ḍiyāʾ al-Mulk seems to have obtained his post on the strength of his supposedly inheriting his father’s expertise and baraka, and served as vizier 500–504/1107–11. See Iqbāl, op. cit., 163–64; Klausner, op. cit., 76, 106. Including the former mustawfī Khaṭīr al-Mulk Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Maybudhī, an ineffectual vizier 504–11/1111–17, on whom see above, n. 260. and Anūshirwān b. Khālid in 511/1117, on whom see below, n. 321. Rabīb al-Dawla was another ineffectual vizier 511–12/1117–18, having previously served the caliph al-Mustaẓhir in this same office. See Iqbāl, op. cit., 171–74; Klausner, op. cit., 61, 107

Notes

151

273 The poet here is clearly not the well-known grammarian and philologist of Iraq, Abu ’l-Barakāt ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad Ibn al-Anbārī, who was not born until 513/1119, see al-Ṭāhir, op. cit., I, 23. Professor Van Gelder notes that the verses are cited in al-Iṣfahānī’s Kharīdat al-qaṣr, with the poet named as Sadīd al-Dawla Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Karīm, who died in 558/1162–63 after serving five caliphs and at what must have been an advanced age, being succeeded as chief caliphal munshiʾ by his son. 274 The spelling of this name by Ibn al-Athīr is qūd.n, so that it seems unlikely that it could be qadañ ‘speedy, quick’, for which the attestations are in any case late, see Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, II, 401. 275 For Arslān Arghūn’s relations with Berk-yārūq, see Sanaullah, op. cit., 97–100; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 105–6; EI2 arts. ‘Arslan-Arghūn’ (Cl. Cahen), ‘Būrī-Bars’ (Ed.). 276 Thus in the ms., but this fortress is not otherwise known; I 86 n. 4 suggests reading Shāwashkān, a village of the Merv oasis, see above, p. 13, whilst N 176 reads the phrase as qaṣr Marw al-Shāhijān. 277 This man, Ḥabashī b. Altuntāq was Berk-yārūq’s Amīr-i Dād ‘Chief Justiciar’, see Bosworth, op. cit., 107, and for his connections at this point with the Bāṭiniyya of Quhistān, Iqbāl, op. cit., 280ff. He was also a considerable patron of poets, being praised by, amongst others, Muʿizzī; Tetley suggests that it was through Ḥabashī that the Ismāʿīlī amir of Ṭabas, Ismāʿīl Gīlakī (see below, n. 280), became a patron of this poet, see The Ghaznavids and Seljuk Turks, 136–38. 278 Rásonyi and Baski, op. cit., I, 392, interpret this name as Kün-Deñiz, ‘day’ + ‘sea’. 279 Perhaps Er Qush ‘man, heroic person’ + ‘bird’, cf. ibid., I, 260. 280 Text, al-Kalkalī. The Gīlakīs were lords of Ṭabas for much of the fifth/eleventh and sixth/twelfth centuries, though little is known about them; however, Muʿizzī and other poets addressed odes to this Abu ’l-Muẓaffar Ismāʿīl b. Muḥammad, see Tetley, op. cit., 138–40. 281 For Berk-yārūq’s operations against the Ismāʿīlīs at this time, see Daftary, The Ismāʿīlīs, their History and Doctrine, 355–56; Hillenbrand, ‘The Power Struggle between the Seljuqs and the Ismāʿīlīs of Alamūt’, 208. 282 Ḥabashī had held power in Khurasan and Ṭabaristān for the three years 490–93/ 1097–1100; see on his bid for lasting power over western Khurasan and his nemesis, Bosworth, op. cit., 137. 283 This was so, but Sanjar’s position as the senior member of the Seljuq dynasty gave him, in the eyes of Turkish customary law, a special position. In the coins minted in the west by Maḥmūd, Sanjar’s name comes first, and Sanjar’s assumption, on the death of Muḥammad b. Malik Shāh, of their father’s honorific title of Muʿizz al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn, seems also to reflect this. When Maḥmūd died in 521/1131, it was Sanjar who judged between the claimants to the Seljuq throne in the west. See Bosworth. op. cit., 119–20. 284 Despite being notoriously corrupt and grasping, al-Darguzīnī (Darguzīn being a town and district to the north of Hamadan, see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 196) had a long administrative career: he was ṭughrāʾī or Chief Secretary and then ʿāriḍ al-jaysh or Head of the Department of the Army for Maḥmūd, before becoming the sultan’s vizier 518–21/1124–27 and 522–25/1128–31, and then vizier for Sanjar 526–27/1132–33 and for Ṭoghrïl b. Muḥammad 530–32/1136–38, who had him executed (p. 71). See Iqbāl, Wizārat dar ʿahd–i salāṭīn–i buzurg–i saljūqī, 265–74; Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate, 54–56, 90, 107–8. Several other members of this vizieral family served subsequent Seljuq sultans right down to the Jalāl al-Dīn b. al-Qiwām who was Arslān Shāh’s vizier 562–71/1167 to 1175–76, see Klausner, op. cit., 109–10. 285 al-Sumayramī (a native of Sumayram in Fars, see Le Strange, op. cit., 283) had served Muḥammad b. Malik Shāh and became mustawfī to Maḥmūd and then served as his

152

286

287

288 289

290

291 292 293

294

295

The History of the Seljuq State strong and vigorous vizier 512–15/1118–21 until his assassination (al-Ḥusaynī, p. 67, denounces his vizierate as one of disturbances and forcible confiscations). See Iqbāl, op. cit., 181–82 ; Klausner, op. cit., 42, 51, 54, 107–8. On this important adjunct of mediaeval Islamic kingship, which apparently involved various wind instruments and kettle drums, to be played at the times of Muslim worship, the ṣalāts, see EI2 arts. ‘Naḳḳāra-khāna’ (A.K.S. Lambton) and ‘Ṭabl-khāna’ (H.G. Farmer). A fivefold nawba was the supreme expression of sovereignty, whilst a threefold one implied a more restricted sphere of power. The significance of the colours red, white and black mentioned here is, however, unclear to me. Maḥmūd’s sphere of authority was thus considerably restricted by the failure of his attempts to keep Sanjar strictly within Khurasan itself and to incite the Qarakhanids against him: the north-western regions of Persia were now controlled by his brother Ṭoghrïl, whilst Sanjar retained the Caspian provinces and the strategic gateway to all the eastern lands, Ray. See Bosworth, op. cit., 120–21. For this abortive attack on Khurasan by Jibrāʾīl b. ʿUmar Qadïr Khān (r. before 492–95/ before 1099–1102), see Barthold, Turkestan, 318–19; Pritsak, ‘Die Karachaniden’, 49; Bosworth, op. cit., 138–39, and cf. p. 56 and n. 256, above. The principality of the Maliks of Sistan was at this time a client state of the Seljuqs. For Tāj al-Dīn Abu ’l-Faḍl’s part in this military campaign, see Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz (247/861 to 949/1542–3), Costa Mesa and New York 1994, 394. See Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian Lands’, 158–59; idem, The Later Ghaznavids 93–97. Al-Ḥusaynī’s account is somewhat confused: Bahram Shāh’s (half-)brother here was not Ibrāhīm but Arslān Shāh or Malik Arslān. Nor does he mention the fact that Arslān Shāh returned from India, whither he had fled before the Seljuq army, soon after Sanjar had left Ghazna and re-occupied the capital before retreating in the face of a threatened Seljuq return and being captured and killed (511–12/1117–18). See ibid., 97–98. See p. 52 and n. 236. Dr Deborah Tor suggests that the inference here is that, if it had not been for this kinship bond, Aḥmad Khān would have been much more roughly treated than being allowed to be confined in his private quarters. These events relate to 524/1130, when Aḥmad was acting as co-ruler of the western Qarakhanid Qaghanate with his ailing father Muḥammad b. Sulaymān towards the end of the latter’s long reign of almost thirty years. On the basis of numismatic evidence, Kochnev has fixed Muḥammad b. Sulaymān’s reign as 495–524/1102–30 , with Aḥmad coming in as co-ruler with his father 523–24/1129–30. On this analysis, the feats of the ‘Aḥmad Khān’ here in al-Ḥusaynī and in other Islamic sources of the period must in fact relate to his father in earlier years of his reign. See B.D. Kochnev, ‘La chronologie et la généalogie des Karakhanides du point de vue de la numismatique’, in Études karakhanides, Cahiers d’Asie centrale No. 9, Tashkent– Aix-en-Provence 2001, 56, 65, and on Sanjar’s expedition to Transoxania specifically, Barthold, Turkestan, 320–22; M.A. Köymen, Büyük Selçuklu imparatorluğu tarihi. II. İkinci imparatorluk devri, Ankara 1954, 158–63; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 139–40. Bahrām Shāh’s renunciation of allegiance to Sanjar and his refusal to continue paying the heavy tribute exacted by the Seljuqs occurred in 529–30/1135–36. He retreated to India but eventually returned, presumably as a Seljuq vassal once more. See Köymen, op. cit., 306–11; Bosworth, op. cit., 159; idem, The Later Ghaznavids, 100–1. This claim will need checking by a numismatist, but Dr Tor states that she has never encountered any coins for Mecca and Medina with Sanjar’s name (e.g. not in the collections of Tübingen, the British Museum, the Ashmolean Museum and the American Numismatic Society), unsurprisingly, since coins from the Hijaz are virtually non-existent.

Notes

153

296 The Qara Khitay were not, of course, Turks, though one could hardly expect al-Ḥusaynī to be aware of the ethnic complexities of Inner Eurasia. The Kitan/Khitay were probably of Mongolic origin, and the name, whatever their original ethnos, can be traced, in Chinese sources, to the early Christian centuries. The immediate stimulus for the appearance of the Khitay in Transoxania is well known: the invasion of northern China by a fresh wave of barbarians, the Tungusic Jürchen people. who in the early twelfth century pushed the Khitay westwards and then southwards into the Turkish steppelands, into contact with the Qarakhanids and thence with Sanjar and the Seljuqs. Of recent writing on them, see D. Sinor, ch. ‘The Kitan and the Kara Khitay’, in UNESCO History of the Civilizations of Central Asia. IV. The Age of Achievement A.D. 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century. Part One. The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, ed. M.S. Asimov and C.E. Bosworth, Paris 1998, 227–42, and Michal Biran, The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History. Between China and the Islamic World, Cambridge 2005; for older writing, see EĪ 2 art. ‘Ḳarā Khiṭāy’ (C.E. Bosworth) and its Bibl. The Gür or ‘Universal’ Khān whom Sanjar came up against was Yeh-lü Ta-shih/Yelü Dashi, see Sinor, op. cit., 234ff.; Biran, op. cit., 19ff. 297 Reading this for the text’s improbable Īlaq. For the name Ayaq ‘foot’, ‘cup, beaker’, see Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, I, 19–20. 298 This name is thus registered in Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, I, 334, without a suggested etymology for the first element. Another possibility for it might be (y)ürüñ with the general sense of ‘white’, see Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary, 237, hence ‘white bird’. 299 On this momentous battle, which led to the establishment of something like a Qara Khitay protectorate over Transoxania and Khwarazm almost till the Mongol invasions and which had resonances in distant Christendom, see Barthold, Turkestan, 326–37; Köymen, op. cit., 323–36; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 148–49; Biran, The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History, 41–45. For Ibn al-Athīr’s account, see tr. Richards, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr for the Crusading Period, Part 1, 362–63. 300 Professor Van Gelder has been unable to identify the author or to find any parallel citations. 301 The Qaṭwān steppe was in Ushrūsana, to the south of the southernmost bend of the Syr Darya and to the east of Samarqand, and Dargham was a district of Samarqand. See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 466; Barthold, op. cit., 92–93, 129. 302 The last of these three executed scholars was a notable member of the line of Ṣudūr or religious leaders of the Āl-i Burhān family in Bukhara, a city which apparently showed opposition to the incoming Qara Khitay. See on the Ṣadr ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, a noted legist, O. Pritsak, ‘Āl-i Burhān’, Isl. XXX (1954), 87–88; EIr art. ‘Āl-e Borhān’ (C.E. Bosworth). 303 In Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, II, 451, s.v. Dargham, these lines (with slight variants, including the better dawāmī ‘bleeding’ for the text’s niyāmī in the second hemistich of the second line) are attributed to Khālid b. Rabīʿ al-Mālikī. But again, Professor Van Gelder has been unable to identify the poet. 304 See for Sanjar’s campaign of 538/1143 against Atsïz, Barthold, op. cit., 327–38; Köymen, op. cit., 336–45; İbrahim Kafesoğlu, Harezmşahlar devleti tarihi (485–617/1092–1229), Ankara 1956, 55–57. 305 This seems to be the correct rendering for this name (chawush = ‘warrant officer, guard commander, etc.’, see Rásonyi and Baski, op. cit., I, 194) rather than the ductus in various sources that looks something like juyūsh ‘armies’, adopted e.g. in Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 121. 306 This is the poet and stylist, famous as author of the lāmiyyat al-ʿajam, who had served the Seljuqs as a secretary since Malik Shāh’s time; see EI2 art. ‘al-Ṭughrāʾī’ (F.C. de Blois).

154

The History of the Seljuq State

307 This is apparently ögey ‘person in a step relationship’, which would fit here if Maḥmūd and Masʿūd had different mothers, i.e. were half-brothers. See G. Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, Wiesbaden 1963–75, II, 159–60 no. 615; Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish, 119. 308 al-Shihāb (? Shihāb al-Dawla) al-Asʿad was chief secretary under various viziers for the whole of Maḥmūd’s reign; see Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate, 49, 107–8. 309 In de Blois’s view (see above, n. 306), this probably took place in 515/1122; he further notes that al-Ṭughrāʾī’s death was avenged in the next year when one of his former slaves assassinated Kamāl al-Mulk in Baghdad. 310 The estrangement and then warfare between Maḥmūd and Masʿūd fell in 513–14/ 1119–20, see Bosworth. ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 121. 311 This strife was part of the growing assertiveness of the ʿAbbasid caliphs of this period against Seljuq pressures in Iraq; al-Mustarshid had recently defeated and driven out of Ḥilla and Iraq his enemy the Shiʿite Mazyadid Dubays b. Ṣadaqa. See Köymen, op. cit., 91–112; Bosworth, op. cit., 121–22; EI2 art. ‘al-Mustarshid’ (CaroleHillenbrand); Deborah Tor, ‘A Tale of Two Murders: Power Relations between Caliph and Sultan in the Saljūq Era’, ZDMG, CLIX/2 (2009). 312 Hamadan, situated as it was at a meeting place of several roads leading to further areas, such as Azerbaijan, the Caspian provinces and Khurasan, and also nearer to Baghdad, from this time onwards became the capital, the dār al-mulk of the Seljuqs, in preference to Isfahan, although the city continued to be of high importance under Turkish governors appointed by the sultan; see Durand-Guédy, Iranian Élites and Turkish Governors, 207–10. 313 Clearly not Muḥammad b. Malik Shāh’s commander Shīrgīr, killed by the sultan, see p. 58. 314 This was a fermented drink, like beer, possibly flavoured with fruit juices; see EI2 art. ‘Mashrūbāt. II’ (J. Sadan). 315 This story from ʿImād al-Dīn appears almost verbatim in al-Bundārī, Zubdat al-nuṣra, 255–56. See Bosworth, op. cit., 124, on Maḥmūd’s reduced sources of finance and his consequent parlous financial situation, necessitating the confiscations by his officials mentioned above, and the imposition of new taxes to pay for troops and armaments in the endemic fighting. 316 Muʿizzī addressed poems to Maḥmūd, probably on the occasion when the latter married one of Sanjar’s daughters and was formally recognized by Sanjar as the covenanted heir to his father Sultan Muḥammad, i.e. before Muḥammad’s death. See Tetley, The Ghaznavid and Seljuk Turks, 186–87. 317 This is not in fact true, since Malik Shāh (III) b. Maḥmud held power briefly in Baghdad and Iraq 547–48/1152–53, see Bosworth, op. cit., 133, and Nīshāpūrī, tr, Luther, 121–23. See the biography of Maḥmūd in Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, III, 337–38, and for accounts of his reign, see Köymen, op. cit., 27–148, 164–74; Bosworth, The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World, 119–24; EI2 art. ‘Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad b. Malik-Shāh’ (idem). 318 sāyarahu waḥdahu; for this sense, see Dozy, Supplément, I, 712a. 319 Aq Sonqor Aḥmadīli was presumably a freedman of the Kurdish commander of the Seljuqs, Aḥmadīl b. Ibrāhīm, whose centre of power was at Marāgha in eastern Azerbaijan. Aq Sonqor’s descendants formed a petty dynasty at Marāgha, warding off the dominant power in Azerbaijan, the Eldigüzids (see below, n. 376), apparently until the appearance of the Mongols in the early seventh/thirteenth century. See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 198 no. 98; EI2 art. ‘Aḥmadīlīs’ (V. Minorsky). 320 This passage confirms what is deducible from other sources (see e.g. the Kitāb al-Hadāyā wa ’l-tuḥaf, probably dating from the fifth/tenth century, Eng. tr. Ghāda al-Ḥijjāwī al-Qaddūmī, Book of Gifts and Rarities, Cambridge, Mass. 1996, 154 §163), that a khilʿa was not necessarily a single garment but could be a whole outfit of component robes and their appurtenances.

Notes

155

321 Anūshirwān b. Khālid al-Kāshānī (d. 522 or 523/1137–39) served Muḥammad Ṭapar and his sons in various administrative posts, but is also famed for his literary talents. He was the dedicatee of al-Ḥarīrī’s Maqāmāt and the author of a history in Persian of contemporary events which was translated into Arabic by ʿImād al-Dīn al-Kātib al-Iṣfahānī, now known to us from al-Bundārī’s abridgement, the Zubdat al-nuṣra. (see Introduction, pp. 5–6). See E.G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, II, From Firdawsí to Saʿdí, London 1906, 360–62; Iqbāl, Wizārat dar ʿahd-i salāṭīn-i buzurg-i saljūqī, 164; Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate, 49, 50, 106–08; EIr art. ‘Anūšervān Kāšānī’ (C.E. Bosworth). 322 Shortly after this, ʿAyn al-Dawla is actually given the title of Khwarazm Shah. This particular laqab does not seem to be attested for the Shah of Anūshtegin Gharchaʾī’s line, Atsïz b. Muḥammad b. Anūshtegin, who had succeeded his father six years before this time, i.e. in 521/1127 and who is mentioned elsewhere by al-Ḥusaynī (see p. 66) with his usual laqab of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn, see Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 179 no. 89, 4. The name accordingly remains mysterious. 323 With the basic meaning either of ‘well, spring’ or ‘broad-backed horse’; this last sense seems more probable for a warrior’s name. See Clauson, op. cit., 336; Rásonyi and Baski, op. cit., I, 173–74. 324 Alwand or Arwand was a mountain and its surrounding district to the south-west of Hamadan; see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 195–96. 325 There emerges from a further mention of this place, p. 79, that these pasture grounds were just one stage (marḥala) outside Hamadan. 326 He is named in al-Bundārī as ʿAli, and was in fact the ruler of the Ispahbadhiyya line of Bāwandids of Ṭabaristān and Gīlān, ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla ʿAlī b. Shahriyār (511–ca. 536/1118–ca. 1142); see Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 164–65 no. 80. Ṭoghrïl was at this period in a parlous situation because his patron, the one who had pushed his claims to the sultanate, Sultan Sanjar, had been for some time distracted by events in Transoxania, requiring his intervention there; see Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 140. 327 More correctly, his death occurred a year later, in Muḥarram 529/October–November 1134, thus giving him a reign of two-and-a-half years from the accession date given above at p. 69. 328 For the events of Ṭoghrïl’s brief reign, see Nīshāpūrī, tr. Luther, 103–4; Köymen, op. cit., Bosworth, op. cit., 124–25; EI2 art. ‘Ṭoghrıl (II)’ (Bosworth). 329 See p. 68. 330 See Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate, 108. 331 Aq Sonqor had been a mamlūk of the important commander of the early Seljuq sultans, Bursuq (see p. 52), and functioned as shiḥna in Baghdad, with a personal power base in Mosul which passed after his murder by the Bāṭinīs in 520/1135 to ʿImād al-Dīn Zangī. See Lambton, ‘The Internal Structure of the Seljuq Empire’, 242; EI2 art. ‘Aḳ Sunḳur al-Bursuḳī’ (Cl. Cahen). 332 Reading ahraba for the text’s haraba. 333 For estimates of al-Mustarshid’s reign, see the references in n. 311 above, where the circumstances around his murder (which the Akhbār here glosses over) are also discussed. Although some sources blame for this Ismāʿīlī fidāʾīs, acting on instructions from Alamūt (a standard explanation at this time for the killing of notable figures), others accuse the Seljuq sultans or their allies and agents (these last possibly including Ismāʿīlīs) of being behind it, as seems not improbable; see the detailed examination of the question by Tor, ‘A Tale of Two Murders’, 288–91. 334 As Professor Van Gelder notes, these anonymous lines are cited (with the phrase shawqan qadīman in the second hemistich of the first line, and ṣurūf al-radā in the second hemistich of the second line, both followed here) in al-Jāḥiẓ’s Kitāb al-Ḥayawān and in Ibn Khallikān’s biography of Sultan Maḥmūd of Ghazna, tr. de Slane, III, 330.

156

The History of the Seljuq State

335 The physician and philosopher Abu ’l-Barakāt Hibat Allāh al-Baghdādī, of Jewish origin (d. after 560/1164–5), served various caliphs and sultans in the capital, becoming a convert to Islam towards the end of his life; see EI2̄ art. ‘Abu ʾl-Barakāt’ (S. Pines). 336 Zangī, son of the Seljuq commander Qasīm al-Dawla Aq Sonqor (see p. 52), had been made governor of the murdered Aq Sonqor al-Bursuqī’s fief of Mosul (see above, n. 331) by Sultan Maḥmūd and Atabeg to two of his sons, thus founding what became an important Turkmen dynasty, enduring for a century or so, in al-Jazīra and Syria. See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 190–91, no. 93; Lambton, ‘The Internal Structure of the Seljuq Empire’, 243; EI2 arts. ‘Zangī’, ‘Zangids’ (S. Heidemann). 337 As recorded above at p. 71, the Mazyadid Dubays (II) b. Ṣadaqa (I) had been a military ally of Sultan Ṭoghrïl and thus Masʿūd’s enemy. 338 This famous fortress was situated on Mount Sablān in eastern Azerbaijan. See Ḥamdallāh Mustawfī, Nuzhat al-qulūb, tr, Le Strange, 1919, 85; Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 164–65. 339 The second component of this name being yürek ‘stout-hearted, brave’, see Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary, 966. 340 Masʿūd’s successful ousting of al-Rāshid from the caliphate marks the high point of Seljuq influence in Iraq. For the latter’s brief reign, see EĪ2 art. ‘al-Rāshid’ (Carole Hillenbrand). 341 In other sources we have the installation and homage date as 530 (see e.g. Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam, X, 61: Wednesday, 18 Dhu ’l-Qaʿda 530/18 August 1136). 342 According to Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, IV, 489, this was a place near Hamadan where a battle between Sanjar, Berk-yārūq and Muḥammad, the sons of Malik Shāh, had previously taken place. 343 For this amir, who now came to control the province of Fars after Mengü Bars, see EI2 art. ‘Būz-Abeh’ (Cl. Cahen), boz aba meaning literally ‘grey father’, see Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, I, 1, 164. 344 These lands were on the northern and eastern peripheries the heartland of what was for over two centuries the Artuqid amirate based on Diyār Bakr, of which Sukmān/ Sökmen had been ruler some two or three decades before this time. See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 194–96 no. 96; EI2 art. ‘Artuḳids’ (Cl. Cahen). 345 He is named just below as Ghuzoghlu (see on this name, Rásonyi and Baski, op. cit., I, 278) and must have held the office of silāḥ-dār or armourer to the sultans. 346 See Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate, 108. Durand-Guédy regards al-Khāzin’s brief vizierate (533/1139–40) as marking the last attempt to restore the Seljuq sultanate to its former prestige and glory; see his Iranian Élites and Turkish Rulers, 224. 347 This lay in western Fars adjacent to the shiʿb or valley of Bawwān, famed for its beauty and fertility; the town itself had benefited much from the building activities of the governor of Fars Chāwlī Saqqāʾū (for whom see p. 58 and n. 265). See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 264–65. 348 This ‘white fortress’, later to undergo a famous siege by Timur, lay in the vicinity of Nawbandajān; see Le Strange, loc. cit. 349 Palang-eri ‘leopard/panther man/heroic warrior’ was the form tentatively adopted for this name b.l.n.g.r.y by the present writer in his chapter ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’. Köymen wrote Belengerî in his Büyük Selçuklu imparatorluğu tarihi. II, presumably with the north Caucasian town of the Khazars, Balanjar (for which see EI2 art. ‘Balandjar’ [D.M. Dunlop]), in mind; but the difficulty here is that this place is last mentioned by the traveller Ibn Faḍlān over two centuries before the later Seljuq age, disappearing from historical mention in the intervening period. Accordingly, this name remains enigmatic. 350 Reading this phrase with dual instead of singular pronouns and verbs. 351 Possibly Khuṭlugh/Quṭlugh Aba.

Notes

157

352 Whilst not impossible for a man (see Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, 303), this name seems improbable here. Read Shīrzīl? 353 A small town in the Sulṭāniyya district of northern Jibāl; see Le Strange, op. cit., 223. 354 This lay to the east of Sulṭāniyya; see ibid., loc. cit. 355 This seems to be the sense here of this phrase. 356 This was in southeastern Azerbaijan on the river of the same name, an affluent of the Safid Rud. See ibid., 170. 357 Professor Van Gelder surmises that this (apparently otherwise unattested) verse could be by the son of someone mentioned in al-Bākharzī’s Dumyat al-qaṣr, ed. al-Ḥulw, I, 481–83, as Abū ʿAlī Hilāl b. al-Muẓaffar al-Zanjānī, said to be still alive in al-Bākharzī’s time. 358 More generally known in the sources as Aq Sonqor (II), son of the Aḥmadīlī Aq Sonqor (I), and lord of Marāgha c. 528–c. 570/c. 1134–c. 1175; see Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 198, no. 98. 359 Raʾīs or mayor of Isfahan and head of the Shāfiʿīs there; the founder of the influential Khujandī line in the city had been brought from Khurasan by Niẓām al-Mulk to direct the Niẓāmiyya madrasa there founded by the great vizier. See on the family Durand-Guédy, Iranian Élites and Turkish Rulers, 230–46; EIr art. ‘Isfahan. vi. Medieval Period’ (Hossein Kamaly). 360 ʿAwn al-Dīn Yaḥyā served the ʿAbbasids for a total of sixteen years, continuing under al-Muqtafī’s successor al-Mustanjid; he was both a noted Ḥanbalī scholar and an exponent of the caliphs’ resurgent temporal power, during whose time the Seljuqs were permanently excluded from Baghdad. See H. Mason, Two Statesmen of Mediaeval Islam, Vizir Ibn Hubayra (499–560 AH/1105–1165 AD) and Caliph an-Nâṣir li Dîn Allâh (553–622 AH/1158–1225 AD, The Hague and Paris 1972, 13–66; EI2 art. ‘Ibn Hubayra’ (G. Makdisi). 361 Abu ’l-Qāsim Hibatallāh is better known as Ibn al-Qaṭṭān, oculist and poet, d. 558/1163. See his biography in Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, III, 583–89; al-Ṭāhir, al-Shiʿr al-ʿarabī fi ’l-ʿIrāq wa-bilād al-ʿajam, I, 201–2; EI 2 art. ‘Ibn al-Ḳaṭṭān’ (Ch. Pellat). Professor Van Gelder notes that the verses quoted here by al-Ḥusaynī are to be found also in Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿa’s biographical entry on him, ʿUyūn al-anbāʾ, ed. Nizār Riḍā, Beirut n.d., 380–89. Ḥayṣ Bayṣ was the nickname of the Baghdad poet and stylist Shihāb al-Dīn Saʿd b. Muḥammad al-Tamīmī, who eulogized various caliphs and Seljuq sultans, including Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad, d. 574/1179. See his biography in Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, I, 559–62; also al-Ṭāhir, al-Shiʿr al-ʿarabī fi ’l-ʿIrāq wa-bilād al-ʿajam, I, 207–20; EI 2 art. ‘Ḥayṣa Bayṣa’ (J.W. Fück). 362 This would be Abu ’l-Najīb al-Darguzīnī, who had formerly been Khāṣṣ Beg’s personal vizier; see Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate, 109. 363 See a biography of Masʿūd in Ibn Khallikān, tr. de Slane, III, 355–56, and for accounts of the complex events of his reign, see Nīshāpūrī, tr. Luther, 105–19; Köymen, Büyük Selçuklu imparatorluğu tarihi. II, 250–305; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 124–34; K.A. Luther, The Political Transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and Western Iran 1152–1187, Princeton University Ph.D thesis 1964, 17–24; EI 2 art. ‘Masʿūd b. Muḥammad b. Malik Shāh’ (C.E. Bosworth). 364 I.e. of Abu ’l-Qāsim al-Darguzīnī, vizier to Sultans Maḥmūd, Sanjar and Ṭoghrïl, who had the honorific of Qiwām al-Dīn; see above, n. 284. 365 I.e. without the muṣādara, forcible mulcting, by means of which officials were forced to disgorge their often illicit gains. 366 See for Masʿūd’s viziers and other officials, Klausner, The Seljuk Vezirate, 108–9. 367 Not in fact mentioned there; see above, n. 74. 368 This date for Sanjar’s capture, rather than that of Jumādā I, i.e. two months later, given below, seems to be the most authentic one. 369 After Sanjar’s death, this former ghulām of Sanjar was able to achieve a dominating power in Khurasan for some eighteen years from his base of Nishapur and Ṭūs,

158

370

371 372

373

374

375

376

The History of the Seljuq State driving out the Ghuzz from the towns of that province; his contemporary, the historian of Bayhaq Ibn Funduq styles him Khusraw Khurāsān Malik al-Mashriq. When the Qarakhanid Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad (whom Sanjar’s army had recognized as its leader in Khurasan after Sanjar’s capure by the Ghuzz) was recognized as sultan in Khurasan, Ay Aba managed to overthrow him and also kept out the Khwarazm Shah Il Arslān, but was finally killed in 569/1174 by the latter’s successor Tekish. See Barthold, Turkestan, 330, 334–35, 337–38; Bosworth, op. cit., 155–56; and pp. 107–8, 129. The episode of Sanjar’s captivity amongst the Ghuzz is treated very cursorily by the Akhbār. It may be read in detail in Köymen, op cit., 399–459, and in two articles of his, specifically on this topic and on the havoc wrought by the Ghuzz in Khurasan during the three years of the sultan’s captivity, in Turkish with German translation and detailed in the Bibl. of the above book at p. 497; and see also on this period, Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 151–57. For general accounts of Sanjar’s whole reign, see ibid., 135–57, and EI2 art. ‘Sandjar’ (Bosworth). This celebrated, massive mausoleum is extant at Merv. See R. Hillenbrand, Islamic Archtecture. Form, Function and Meaning, Edinburgh 1994, 278–80; EI2̄ art. ‘Ḳubba’ (E. Diez*) at V, 293 and Pl. XXV.3. A former student of al-Ghazālī, head of the Shāfiʿīs in Nishapur and director of the Niẓāmiyya madrasa there, he was subsequently the most illustrious of the victims of the Ghuzz, brutally murdered by them, along with many others of the ulema and urban notables, when they sacked Nishapur in 550/1155. See e.g. Ibn al-Athīr, X, 178, 201, also Köymen, Buyuk Selçuklu imparatorluǧu tarihi. II, 439–41, and R.W. Bulliet, The Patricians of Nishapur. A Study in Medieval Social History, Cambridge, Mass 1972, 77, 255. The chroniclers cite elegies on Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā by such poets as ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm al-Kātib (Ibn al-Athīr) and Khāqānī (Rāwandī, Rashīd al-Dīn). Since al-Ḥusaynī’s interest is henceforth centred on events in western Iran and Iraq, he has nothing about the chaotic state into which Khurasan fell after Sanjar’s death, already presaged by the violence of the Ghuzz at Merv and Nishapur after the sultan’s capture and lamented by the poet Anwarī in his famous ‘Tears of Khurasan’ poem, addressed to the Qarakhanid prince of Samarqand; cf. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, II, 384–89. Such a ‘grant of subsistence’ from state lands was at most for a lifetime only, reverting to the grantor on the holder’s death, and was thus to be distinguished from a hereditary qaṭīʿa. See Bosworth, ‘Abū ʿAbdallāh al-Khwārazmī on the Technical Terms of the Secretary’s Art. A Contribution to the Administrative History of Mediaeval Islam,’ JESHO, XII (1969), 133. As Qibla Ayaz noted, the author’s account of events during these turbulent and chaotic years up to 556/1161 is very confused and compressed. It seems that, after Masʿūd’s death, his nephew Malik Shāh b. Maḥmūd enjoyed a brief reign in Hamadan of three or four months during 547/1152–53 before his alleged hedonism and incompetence (but perhaps, in reality, because the amirs feared he would be too competent!) led these amirs, avid for real power in the state, headed by Khāṣṣ Beg, to depose and imprison him. They then invited Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd from Khuzistan and set him up as sultan in Hamadan in 548/1153. The new sultan soon disposed of the overmighty Khāṣṣ Beg, but Malik Shāh managed to escape and to make his way back to Khuzistan. For an attempt to sort out these events and arrange them as coherently as possible, see Luther, The Political Transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and Western Iran, 26–43, and also Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 169, 175. Originally a Qïpchaq mamlūk, Ildegiz or Ildeñiz is said by Ibn al-Athīr to have been a ghulām in the service of the vizier Kamāl al-Mulk Sumayramī, entering the sultan’s

Notes

377

378 379 380 381 382 383 384

385 386 387

388

159

service after the vizier was killed (see Luther, op. cit., 137–38). He had been made governor of Arrān and Azerbaijan by Sultan Masʿūd, becoming virtually independent there, with his military strength honed by frequent warfare with the resurgent Georgians; this power enabled him to found a dynasty which lasted almost a century until overwhelmed by the Khwarazm Shahs. See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 199–200 no. 99; EI2 arts. ‘Ildeñiz’ (Mirza Bala), ‘Ildeñizids or Eldigüzids’ (C.E. Bosworth); and for the name Il-deñiz (el/il ‘people, land’ + deñiz ‘sea’, with the idea of universality of power?), see Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, I, 296. Ïnanch Sonqor (ïnanch ‘belief, trust, confidence’, see ibid., I, 318–19) built up a power base at Ray and was to play a leading role in the clashes and intrigues of the 1150s and 1160s over control of northern Persia. See Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 177–78, and pp. 93, 96ff. This lay to the south-west of Baghdad, towards the border with Khuzistan and the edge of the Zagros range (liḥf ‘foothill, piedmont’); see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 63. Further down, and in parallel sources like Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Bundārī and Ibn al-Athīr, he is given the more plausible name of Sallār. A barque used especially on the Lower Mesopotamian waterways; see Kindermann, “Schiff” im Arabischen, 42–43. al-Masʿūdī mentions the Jāwāniyya as a Kurdish tribe of Jibāl without further localising it; see his Murūj al-dhahab, tr. Ch. Pellat, Les prairies d’or, Paris 1962–97, II, 423 § 1118. The Gharrāf was a canal running south-eastwards from Wāsiṭ to Basra, hence part of the Baṭāʾiḥ or southern marshlands. See Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, IV, 190; EI2 art. ‘al-Baṭīḥa’ (M. Streck–Saleh El Ali). Reading uncertain. Other sources, e.g. al-Bundārī, locate the battle at Bajimzā, a place between Baghdad and Baʿqūbā, hence to the north of the capital. This battle, and the unsuccessful siege of Baghdad which came soon after it (see pp. 89–93), mark the nadir of Seljuq fortunes in Iraq. The victorious caliph was now able to exclude permanently a Seljuq shiḥna from Baghdad, and he appropriated iqṭāʿs and sources of revenue of the Seljuqs in Iraq, a process accentuated by al-Muqtafī’s successors al-Mustanjid, al-Mustaḍīʾ and al-Nāṣir. Already after Sultan Masʿūd’s death, al-Muqtafī had ceased to place the Seljuq sultan’s name on coins minted by him in Baghdad. For the events of this period, see Nīshāpūrī, tr. Luther, 125–33; Luther, The Political Transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and Western Iran, 45–62; see also Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 175–76. For these various members of the Ildegizid family, see EI2 art. ‘Ildeñizids or Eldigüzids’. The Shammāsiyya quarter lay across the Tigris to the north-north-east of the Round City, with the Gate leading to it by the bridge crossing to Tigris to the quarter. See Le Strange, Baghdad under the Abbasid Caliphate, London 1900, 168–70, 199–204. ʿAlī Küchük (d. 563/1178) rose to power from the Turkmen entourage of Zangī b. Aq Sonqor, lord of Mosul (see above, n. 331), with a base in the Kurdish territories around Irbil, but in 539/1145 Zangī made him governor of Mosul, and from here Zangī and his descendants formed a semi-independent principality in al-Jazīra, that of the Begtiginids, which endured for nearly a century. See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 192 no. 94; EI 2 art. ‘Begtiginids’ (Cl. Cahen). The Akhbār seems to be the sole source explicitly citing Sultan Muḥammad’s message to al-Muqtafī and the vizier Ibn Hubayra’s eloquent message to the sultan’s amirs; ʿAwn al-Dīn was himself a learned Ḥanbalī scholar and patron of scholars as well as being a supremely confident administrator and successful military commander. See Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 167–68; Mason, Two Statesmen of Medieval Islam, 39ff.

160

The History of the Seljuq State

389 Text unclear; Iqbal suggests reading kayfiyya. 390 This transverse canal connected the Euphrates, from a point just south of Anbār through the town of Ṣarṣar just to the south of Baghdad, with the Tigris near al-Madāʾin; see Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 32, 67–58. 391 According to Yāqūt. op. cit., II, 450, this was a large village on the western bank of the Tigris below Baghdad. 392 The other historical sources give details of the caliph’s successful instigation of a diversionary attack by Ildegiz on the Seljuq position in Jibāl during Sultan Muḥammad’s absence, involved a savage sacking of Hamadan (although, contrary to what our history implies here, efforts to suborn Ïnanch of Ray failed, and Ïnanch seems to have restored Muḥammad’s name in the khuṭba at Hamadan before the sultan returned there from Baghdad). See Luther, The Political Transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and Western Iran, 88–94, 95–97. 393 The sources give differing dates for this siege of Baghdad, but a date of late 551/late 1156 for Sultan Muḥammad’s march from Hamadan to Baghdad and the actual siege during the first part of the next year 552/1157 (thus in such contemporary sources as Ibn al-Jawzī’s al-Muntaẓam and ʿImād al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī, in al-Bundārī), seems likely. See Luther, op. cit., 63–68, 82–94; Bosworth, op. cit., 176. 394 Apparently to attack the Atabeg there, Ildegiz, who had shown signs of disloyalty through his support for Sultan Muḥammad’s brother, Malik Shāh b. Maḥmūd, ephemeral ruler in Isfahan before Muḥammad established firmly his power in Jibāl; see p. 79. 395 Sulaymān Shāh had already before his appearance at Baghdad played a part in the events of western Persia as a wandering fugitive after Sultan Masʿūd’s death; at one point, in late 548/1153–54, he was in Khurasan and recognized briefly by Sanjar’s amirs as sultan (Sanjar having been made captive by the Ghuzz). His reception now at Baghdad was a very low-key affair, with Sulaymān Shāh very much in the role of a suppliant; he was forced to dismount and kiss the threshold of the caliph’s palace. Al-Bundārī, Zubdat al-nuṣra, 241, gives fuller details of this event, commenting that ‘no Seljuq sultan before Sulaymān kissed the threshold and no Daylamī malik (i.e. Buyid)’. See Luther, op. cit., 35–44, 68–75 and Appendix on Sulaymān Shāh’s activities at 268–75, for these episodes. 396 Professor Van Gelder notes that the poet here is probably the Qāḍī Abu ’l-Qāsim ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Tanūkhī, d. 342/953, see on him Sezgin, GAS, II, Poesie bis ca. 430 H., Leiden 1975, 521–22, since these verses are quoted by Abū Hilāl al-ʿAskarī, d. after 395/1005; this Abu ’l-Qāsim ʿAlī was the father of the better-known al-Muḥassin al-Tanūkhī, author of al-Faraj baʿd al-shidda and Nishwār al-muḥāḍara. 397 Reading, with Ayaz, istaqallat for the text’s istaʿlat. 398 For other accounts of this battle, see Luther, op. cit., 78–82. 399 This death date seems to be too early; from other sources, a date at the end of 554/1159–60 or beginning of 556/1160 seems more probable; see Luther, op. cit., 97–103. 400 See for this, above, n. 89. 401 There seem to have been extensive discussions amongst the great amirs of state as to which of the three Seljuq princes, Sulaymān Shāh b. Muḥammad Ṭapar, Malik Shāh b. Maḥmūd and Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl, should be chosen as what was expected to be a puppet sultan, before Ïnanch came and gave the lead in installing Sulaymān Shāh, the senior surviving menber of the dynasty, at Hamadan for his brief reign of six or seven months. See Luther, op. cit., 103–05, 114–19, ; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 176–77. 402 For the deposition and death of Sulaymān Shāh and the installation of Arslān Shāh, see Luther, op. cit., 120–27, 268–75; Bosworth, op. cit., 177. 403 The sources seem to point to various locations for these pasture grounds between Hamadan and Isfahan, but not necessarily at the marj of Qarategin earlier mentioned

Notes

404

405

406 407 408 409 410

411 412 413 414

415 416

417

161

as being one stage from Hamadan, see above, n. 325. Luther, op. cit., 132 n. 87, opted for Karaj Abū Dulaf (which apparently lay to the southeast of Hamadan almost halfway to Isfahan, see EI 2 art. ‘(al-)Karadj’ [Ed.]) as being the most likely spot. I.e. the region to the south-east of the Caspian Sea and to the north of the course of the Atrek river, now in the Turkmenistan Republic. In early Islamic times, the settlement of Dihistān was a frontier post or ribāṭ against incursions from the Inner Asian steppes. See Barthold, An Historical Geography of Iran, 117–19; Bregel, An Historical Atlas of Central Asia, Maps 13–16; EIr art. ‘Dehestān’ (C.E. Bosworth). Around this time, ca. 556/1161, Dihistān’s Oghuz chief Ikhtiyār al-Dīn Aytaq had been forced to flee to Il Arslān. When he returned with Khwarazmian help, Dihistān and also Gurgān to its south now came under Il Arslan’s suzerainty. See Kafesoğlu, Harezmşahlar devleti tarihi, 77–78; EIr art. ‘Il-Arslān (C.E. Bosworth). The remainder of the Akhbār, covering the reigns of the last two Great Seljuq sultans, is concerned almost wholly with events in the western part of Persia and its fringes, so that from this point onwards, ‘Iraq’ may be taken as invariably meaning ʿIrāq ʿAjamī, Persian Iraq, western Persia. This correspondence seem to date from the later 560s/early 1160s, apparently before Gird-bāzū’s death known from other sources to have occurred in 561/1165–66. See pp. 104–7 on Ildegiz’s relations with the Georgians. The name has an undotted consonant ductus, and Ayāz Beg is a surmise by the editor Iqbal, see I 148 n. 4. This also has an undotted ductus, but given the Qara Khitay protectorate over Transoxania at this time, Khitan seems more likely than the tentative reading Khotan of Iqbal’s n. 5. This seems to be a confused reference to the long-established discord within the Western Qarakhanid khanate, whose Transoxanian centres were at Samarqand and Bukhara, between the khans and Qarluq tribal elements, the khans being at this time, like the Khwarazm Shahs, vassals of the Qara Khitay. This discord culminated in 551/1156 with the murder by the Qarluq of Tamghach Khān Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad of Samarqand. Attempts to avenge his death by his successor Chaghrï Khān ʿAlī brought the Khwarazm Shāh Il Arslān into Transoxania as an ally of the Qarluq (invasion of 553/1158), but the conflicts with the Qarluq continued into the reign of the new Qarakhanid ruler, Chaghrï Khān’s brother Qïlïch Tamghach Khān Masʿūd (556 to 561 or 562/1161 to 1166–67). See Barthold, Turkestan, 335–37; Kafesoğlu, op. cit., 80–83; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian Lands’, 187–88; Biran, The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History, 53–55. Reading muṣāfāt for maṣāff, as in Iqbal’s I 149 n. 2. The text here seems confused, and Ayaz declined to attempt a translation; hence the translation here is rather tentative. Reading here lammā taʾakhkhara for an undotted and uncertain consonant ductus. This was probably the fortress at Ray, frequently mentioned in the chronicles, of Ṭabarak; it was destroyed in 588/1192 by the last Great Seljuq Ṭoghrïl b. Arslān Shāh but rebuilt in Mongol times. See Barthold, An Historical Geography of Iran, 122–26; EI2 art. ‘al-Rayy’ (V. Minorsky–C.E. Bosworth). Text here illegible, but probably juzʾan. The Akhbār’s account of the relations between Ildegiz and Ïnanch is somewhat confused, but it seems to be the only source giving such a circumstantial and detailed account of Ïnanch’s death; thus the account in Nīshāpūrī, tr. Luther, The History of the Seljuq Turks, 148, is much briefer. This final battle for Ray between Ildegiz and Ïnanch apparently took place in 564/1168–69; see Luther, The Political Transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and Western Iran, 174–83. The Turkmen amir Sonqor b. Mawdūd had established himself in Fars in 543/1148 on the death of Boz-aba (see p. 80). When Sonqor died in 556/1161, his brother Muẓaffar al-Dīn Zangī took his place, so that the line of Salghurid Atabegs secured a permanent

162

418 419 420 421

422 423

424 425 426

427 428

429 430

431

The History of the Seljuq State hold on Fars which lasted well into Il-Khanid times. See Erdoğan Merçil, Fars Atabegleri Salgurlular, Ankara 1975, 35–45; Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 207–8 n. 103; EI2 art. ‘Salghurids’ (Bosworth). Identified by Professor Van Gelder as a quotation from Abū Tammām, in a satire on ʿAyyāsh b. Lahīʾa. See on him EI2 art. ‘al-Muḳtafī’ (K.V. Zetterstéen). The reference here in the Akhbār to his death is, however, anachronistic since the caliph had died just before the accession in Hamadan of Sultan Sulaymān Shāh b. Muḥammad in 555/1160 (see p. 102). I.e. from the region of what is now Saudi Arabia on the shores of the Persian Gulf, near the modern oil centre of Dhahran; see EI2 art. ‘al-Ḳaṭīf’ (G. Rentz). Our author gives an especially detailed and valuable account of these relations between the sultan, Ildegiz and the Salghurid amir. Other sources, including Rāwandī and Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī, are briefer but give the date of the meeting as 560/1165 and locate it at Marghzār Hazār Thānī or Khānī, probably a place between Isfahan and Shiraz. See in general on these relations, Luther, op. cit., 164–68. Baylaqān, like Ganja and Bardhaʿa, lay in Arrān to the south-west of the Kur river valley. See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 178; Barthold, An Historical geography of Iran, 214, 228–29; EIr art. ‘Baylaqān’ (C.E. Bosworth). See for this Turkish term above, n. 307. Suqmān or Sökmen (II) b. Ibrāhīm was the third and last generation of Turkmen rulers at Akhlāṭ or Khilāṭ in the region of Lake Van in eastern Anatolia, having taken over this role from local Armenian princes. See Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 197 no. 97; EI2 art. ‘Shāh-i Arman’ (Carole Hillenbrand). The text here is uncertain, hence the translation is tentative. Reading here, with Nūr al-Dīn, istikmālihi for Iqbal’s isbālihi. The date of this seems rather to have been two years later than this, in 558/1163; as is described on pp. 99–101, Ildegiz was in this year engaged in Jibāl and at Ray in an attempt finally to master Ïnanch. The stimulus for the expedition against the Georgian king Giorgios III (r. 1156–84) was apparently the king’s capture of Ānī in 556/1161 and his sack of Ganja and Dwīn. After this victory over the Georgians, Ildegiz entrusted Ānī to the Shaddādid prince Shāhanshāh b. Maḥmūd, but in this period of Georgian resurgence, Ānī and other cities of Arrān were subsequently on several other occasions threatened and attacked by the Christians. See Allen, A History of the Georgian People, 100–2; Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History. II. The Shaddādids of Ānī, 90–101; Luther, op. cit., 145–51; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 178–79. Lacuna in the text here. This descendant of the Imām Abū Ḥanīfa (whence the family nisba of ‘al-Kūfī’) was Chief Qāḍī of Nishapur. He merited mention by the subsequent historian Jūzjānī as the person who originally purchased the later founder of the line of Muʿizzī or Shamsï Kings in Delhi, Quṭb al-Dīn Aybak, Aybak passing from the Qāḍī’s ownership to that of the Ghurid sultans; see his Ṭabaqāt-i nāṣirī, English tr. H.G. Raverty, London 1881–99, I, 513. On Il Arslān’s attempts to extend Khwarazmian control over Khurasan, see Kafesoğlu, Harezmşahlar devleti tarihi, 76–80; Luther, op. cit., 174–77; Bosworth, op. cit., 177–78. According to the local historian of Kirman Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm, Ṭoghrïl Shāh b. Muḥammad died in 565/1169–70, leaving four sons, Arslān Shāh, Tūrān Shāh, Bahrām Shāh and Terken Shāh, of whom all but the last eventually achieved the throne. See Houtsma, ‘Zur Geschichte der Selǵuqen von Kermân’, 378; Merçil, Kirman Selçukları, 116–17. I.e. Bardasīr, the Sasanid Weh-Ardashīr and the modern Kirman city, became the capital city of the province in Buyid times, having replaced the older capital of the Arabs, Sīrjān, See Le Strange, op. cit., 303–4; Barthold, op. cit., 137–40.

Notes

163

432 Lacuna in the text here, but it is probably Bahrām Shāh who is meant, cf. Luther, op. cit., 187–89. 433 In the succession disputes, Ildegiz aided Arslān Shāh whilst Muʾayyid Ay Aba of Nishapur gave military help to Bahrām Shāh; in the end, these two brothers divided up Kirman into spheres of power, Arslān Shāh taking two-thirds and Bahrām Shāh the eastern third. The result of these operations seems to have made Kirman into something like a satellite state of the Great Seljuq sultanate in western Persia. See Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm, in Houtsma, op. cit., 378–86; Luther, op. cit., 183–92; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian Lands’, 173; Merçil, op. cit., 120ff. 434 See Luther, op. cit., 137–44, on this dual power system or dyarchy during Ildegiz’s time. 435 See on his reign, EI2 art. ‘al-Mustandjid’ (Carole Hillenbrand). 436 Nakhchiwān was in fact at this time particularly associated with the Ildegizids, as attest several fine buildings of theirs still extant, including a tomb built in 582/1186 by Ildegiz for one of his queens, the malika Jalāl al-Dunyā wa ’l-Dīn Muʾmina Khātūn, whom Minorsky surmised was probably the former wife and widow of Sultan Ṭoghrïl b. Muḥammad, whom he had married and who died in 568/1172–73. See R. Hillenbrand, Islamic Architecture. Form, Function and Meaning, 286, 528, 535; EI2̄ art, ‘Nakhčiwān’ (V. Minorsky–C.E. Bosworth). 437 It seems more probable that Arslān Shāh died in Jumādā II of the following year, 571/ beginning of December 1175, as recorded by the contemporary historians Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī, see The History of the Seljuq Turks, tr. Luther, 150, and Rāwandī, see Houtsma, ‘Some Remarks on the History of the Saljuks’, 140. As often happened with sudden and apparently inexplicable deaths, there were rumours, mentioned e.g. by al-Bundārī, and hinted at by Rāwandī, that the sultan had been poisoned, in this case by agents of Muḥammad Pahlawān; Houtsma thought that there was very likely some substance in these accusations, see op, cit., 140–42. 438 See on this final attempt of Arslān Shāh to break away from Ildegizid tutelage, Luther, op. cit., 201–04; Bosworth, op. cit., 179–80. 439 This is the modern Kirmānshāh, the main town of Persian Kurdistan, lying to the west of Hamadan on the road to Ḥulwān and the plain of Iraq and Baghdad; the Akhbār seems to use both names for this place indifferently, see p. 117. See Le Strange, op. cit., 187–88; Barthold, op. cit., 195–98; EI2 art. ‘Kirmānshāh’ (A.K.S. Lambton). 440 This looks like an attempt to render the name Qïpchaq. 441 Amīrān’s father, Aytoghdï or Shumla, a Turkmen from the Afshār tribe of the Oghuz, had established his power in Khuzistan during the sultanate of Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd, and Amīrān held on to this till his death in 591/1195; see Bosworth, op. cit., 171–72. 442 This lay to the east of al-Ḥilla on the canal of the same name connecting the Euphrates wth the Tigris; see Le Strange, op. cit., 73–73. 443 These events probably took place in 572/1176–77; see Luther, op. cit., 206–9. 444 It seems that the prolonged hostility of the older order of Turkish slave amirs in Western Persia, those who led the opposition to the Ildegizids’ attempts to achieve total control in the lands of the sultanate (seen most notably in Ildegiz’s time by the activities of his great rival for power, Ïnanch of Ray), now led Pahlawān to embark on a policy of dislodging these older amirs and replacing them by his own circle of amirs, those with personal loyalties to himself; these ‘new men’ are specifically called by Ibn al-Athīr al-Bahlawāniyya. Our historian only hints at this policy, but it emerges clearly from the pages of Rāwandī’s more detailed account of the reigns of the last two Great Seljuq sultans. See Luther, The Political Transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and Western Iran, 214–17; idem, ‘Rāvandī’s Report on the Administrative Changes of Muḥammad Jahān Pahlavān’, in C.E. Bosworth (ed.), Iran and Islam. In Memory of the Late Vladimir Minorsky, Edinburgh 1971, 393–406.

164

The History of the Seljuq State

445 See for his undistinguished caliphate, EI2 art. ‘al-Mustaḍīʾ’ (K.V. Zetterstéen). Luther notes that al-Mustaḍīʾ was not very active in relations with the Seljuqs, although he refused the Atabeg Muḥammad Pahlawān’s request to have the khuṭba made in Baghdad for Ṭoghrïl, and it was either he or al-Nāṣir who refused to have the Seljuqs’ palace in Baghdad restored; see The Political Transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate in Iraq and Western Iran, 224–26 . 446 This raid should apparently be placed in 572/1176–77 or the next year, but the sources do not give explicit details of it. See Luther, op. cit., 209–10, 226; he notes, p. 205, that the sources give hardly any reliable chronology for all the events of Ṭoghrïl’s reign. 447 Luther observes, op. cit., 232–35, that Shirwān should be added to this list, since the Shirwān Shāh placed Ṭoghrïl’s name on his coins, but that Mosul’s position here was equivocal, since the Atabeg ʿIzz al-Dīn Masʿūd was under pressure from the Ayyubid Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn, who claimed some of Mosul’s territory and besieged the town in 580/1184–85. 448 I.e. to Tekish b. Il Arslān, r. 567–96/1172–1200. 449 The inshāʾ collection al-Tawassul ilā ’l-tarassul of Bahāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad Baghdādī, head of Tekish’s chancery (see C.A. Storey, Persian Literature, a Bio-Bibliographical Survey, I, London 1927–53, 260, 1272; documents from the years 578–79/1182–84), contains four letters from the Shah to Muḥammad Pahlawān (ed. Aḥmad Bahmanyār, Tehran 1315/1936, 165ff.) with fulsome expressions of these friendly relations. 450 This is also the date given by Ibn al-Athīr, but some sources (Rāwandī and Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm’s Dhayl, concerning which see below, n. 468) place Pahlawān Muḥammad’s death in the last month of 581/February–March 1186. 451 It seems that the fact that this kushk is described as being ʿatīq implies a more permanent structure here than a royal tent or pavilion, although persistent steppe tradition meant that the Seljuq sultans often did lead a peripatetic existence in tents; in Bayhaqī’s History, Sultan Masʿūd’s kūshk-i naw is a building on which much time and money had been lavished. 452 Dr Tor points out out this second tranche of tribute could be interpreted as being either other denominations of coins, e.g. dirhams, fulūs, etc., or as a disparate collections of coins of all denominations and types (which could include other gold ones). This seems most probable, although a further, somewhat theoretically possible, explanation might be that we have here a distinction between a first sum in dinars minted by the Seljuqs themselves (gold dinars being the majority of coins in precious metals struck by the dynasty, cf. R.E. Darley-Doran, EI2 art. ‘Saldjūḳids. VII. Numismatics. 1. In Persia and ʿIrāḳ) and a second sum in dinars struck by other powers like the ʿAbbasids, Ghaznavids, etc. 453 This Ay Aba is not, of course, Muʾayyid al-Dīn Ay Aba of Nishapur, who had died in 569/1173–74, see above, n. 369. 454 See for this name, Rásonyi and Baski, Onomasticon turcicum, II, 822–23; it may refer to the Rūs/Russians or have an indigenous Turkish meaning ‘battle, fight’. 455 See on Ismāʿīlī activities in Qūmis, and in particular, on the fortress there of Girdkūh, Willey, Eagle’s Nest, 147ff. 456 See al-Maydānī, Majmaʿ al-amthāl, ed. and tr. Freytag, II, 482 no. 269, with a slightly different wording of the saying. 457 See Lane, Lexicon, part 8, p. 2967a, for various fanciful explanations of this proverbial saying. 458 The Ḥanbalī scholar of Baghdad Abu ’l-Muẓaffar ʿUbaydallāh b. Yūnus was appointed by al-Nāṣir as his vizier in 583/1187, but given his failure against Ṭoghrïl’s army, as detailed below, he held office for only a year. See Mason, Two Statesmen of Medieval Islam, 92–93; Angelika Hartmann, an-Nāṣir li-dīn Allāh (1180–1225). Politik, Religion, Kultur in der späten ʿAbbāsidenzeit, Berlin–New York 1975, 181–84. 459 This lay in the vicinity of Hamadan.

Notes

165

460 I.e. from the Īwā/Ivä mentioned by Maḥmūd al-Kāshgharī as the fourth of the twentytwo component tribes of the Oghuz; the Īwā played a prominent role in the Turkmen presence in northwestern Persia, Armenia, eastern Anatolia and al-Jazīra during the Seljuq period. See M.Th. Houtsma, ‘Die Ghuzzenstämme’, WZKM, III (1888), 226; Cl. Cahen, ‘Les tribus turques d’Asie centrale pendant la période seljukide’, WZKM, LI (1948–52), 181. 461 This battle apparently took place in the year after the date given here by the Akhbār, Ibn Yūnus having actually set out from Baghdad in Ṣafar 584/April 1185. See Luther, The Political Transformation of the Seljuq State of Iraq and Western Iran, 241–48; Mason, op. cit., 96–97; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 180; Hartmann op. cit., 72–73. 462 See ibid., 74. 463 These places all lay in western Azerbaijan, to the west of Lake Urmiya. See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 160ff.; Barthold, An Historical Geography of Iran, 224. 464 As the name implies, the Amīr-i Bār was a high court office, held by a Turkish military commander; al-Bundārī equates him with the Amīr Ḥājib who regulated access to the ruler and was in charge of court ceremonial, and who transmitted the ruler’s commands to the vizier. See Uzunçarşılı, Osmanlı devleti teşkilâtına medhal, 48; Lambton, ‘The Internal Structure of the Seljuq Empire’, 226. 465 This battle appears to have taken place in 585/1189, the year before Ṭoghrïl was captured by Qïzïl Arslān, see p. 119. See Luther, op. cit., 251–52. 466 According to Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, IV, 450, Karkhīnī was a fortress between Daqūqā and Irbil, i.e. in what is now Iraqi Kurdistan. 467 See p. 110, 114, 115. 468 This was in Ramaḍān 586/October 1190. Other historical sources name this place of imprisonment of Ṭoghrïl and also of his son Malik Shāh as a stronghold on or near the banks of the Araxes to the north of Tabriz, Dizmār (Rāwandī) or Kahrān (Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm, Dhayl-i Saljūq-nāma, English tr. by Luther in The History of the Seljuq Turks from The Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh, 160. 469 On Qïzïl Arslān’s mysterious murder (which Ibn al-Athīr places in Shaʿbān 587/ August–September 1191, see Hartmann, op. cit., 74), see Houtsma, ‘Some Remarks on the History of the Seljuqs’, 142–44, suggesting that one motive for this could have been Qïzïl Arslān’s preference for his nephew Abū Bakr over his half-brothers, the sons of Ïnanch Khātūn by Pahlawān. See also Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 181. 470 For Alanjār/Alanjah/Alanjik, see Le Strange, op. cit., 167. 471 This detail presumably to emphasize that he was not a ghulām or slave. 472 Concerning this battle, to be placed specifically in Jumādā II 588/June–July 1192 by Rāwandī and merely in that same year by Ibn al-Athīr and Juwaynī, see Houtsma, ‘Some Remarks on the History of the Saljuks’, 151; Luther, The Political Transformation of the Seljuq State of Iraq and Western Iran, 253. It was just after Ṭoghrïl’s victory that the Khwarazm Shah Tekish moved westwards to Ray, at the invitation of Qutlugh Ïnanch Maḥmūd, with the obvious intention of intervening in Western Persia, but had to return to Khwarazm to combat his brother and rival for power, Sulṭān Shāh. See Juwaynī, Tārīkh-i Jahān-gushāy, English tr. J.A. Boyle, Manchester 1958, I, 299; Barthold, Turkestan, 346; Kafesoğlu, Harezmşahlar devleti tarihi, 119. 473 Ṭoghrïl’s complicity in her death is asserted in Rāwandī and some later sources; see Houtsma, op.cit., 143, 144. 474 This must have been a Shirwān Shāh of the more recent Kasrānid Shahs of the original Yazīdī line, but the genealogy of the Shahs in the later sixth/twelfth century is very obscure and confused. See Minorsky, A History of Sharvān and Darband, 135–36; Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 140–42 no. 67; EI2 art. ‘Shīrwān Shāh’ (W. Barthold–C.E. Bosworth).

166

The History of the Seljuq State

475 This is Thamar or Tamara, daughter of Giorgios III, r. 580–609/1184–1212, under whom the resurgence of the Georgian monarchy in the later sixth/twelfth century and early part of the following century reached its apogee. See Allen, A History of the Georgian People, 103; Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 179 ; EI2 art. ‘al-Kurdj’ (V. Minorsky). 476 These events at Ganja seem to have taken place in the first part of 589/first part of 1193, after the death of Ïnanch Khātūn, which occurred around the end of the previous year 477 Lacuna in the text. Possibly this person was Pīshkīn (‘Foremost in hatred’), mentioned in Georgian sources on the warfare of this period as ‘Prince Beshken the Brave’ and the original dedicatee, with his father Abū Bakr, of the second part of Niẓāmī’s Iskandar-nāma; see Minorsky, ‘Caucasica II. 1. The Georgian Maliks of Ahar’, BSOAS, XIII (1949–51), 871–72. 478 The Georgians had thus crossed the Araxes from Arrān and penetrated into northern Azerbaijan (see the map in Minorsky, op. cit., 877). 479 These activities of the Georgians took place over a period of several years, around 589–605/1193–1208. See Allen, A History of the Georgian People, 106–8; Minorsky, op. cit., 873–74; EI2 art. ‘al-Kurdj’ (Minorsky). 480 This was in Qūmis, between Ray and Dāmghān and on the route from Iraq and the West to Khurasan and Central Asia. See Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 366; Barthold, An Historical Geography of Iran, 119–20. 481 This was in the westernmost part of Qūmis, between Ray and Simnān. See Le Strange, op. cit., 367; Barthold, op. cit., 121. 482 Regarding this informant of al-Ḥusaynī and his information on Sultan Ṭoghrïl’s last days, see the Introduction, p. 6. 483 Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, V, 135, locates this village or small town at two stages from Ray on the Sāwa road. 484 Some two centuries previously, the geographer Ibn Ḥawqal had called this gate on the eastern side of the side the Bāb Hishām; see Le Strange, op. cit., 214. 485 For this last battle and death of Ṭoghrïl, see Juwaynī, op. cit., tr. Boyle, I, 302–3 (with what seems to be the authentic date of the battle, 29 Rabīʿ I 590/24 March 1194); Barthold, Turkestan, 346–47; Houtsma, ‘Some Remarks on the History of the Saljuks’, 151–2; Kafesoğlu, Harezmşahlar devleti tarihi, 123–26; Luther, The Political Transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and Western Persia, 255–57. The house of the Great Seljuqs did not become entirely extinct at this point, since two young sons of Ṭoghrïl survived in Khwarazmian capivity till the time of the Mongol invasion, see Houtsma, op. cit., 152 n. 1; and, of course, the Seljuqs of Rūm were to endure till the beginning of the eighth/fourteenth century. On Ṭoghrïl’s reign in general, see Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 180–82; EI2 art. ‘Ṭoghrıl (III)’ (M.T. Houtsma–C.E. Bosworth). For Rāwandī’s very important account of his reign (the historian had been a member of Ṭoghrïl’s court circle and his Rāḥat al-ṣudūr was in large part composed for Ṭoghrïl, though finally presented, after the latter’s death, to the Seljuq sultan of Rūm, Kay Khusraw b. Qïlïlich Arslān), see Julie S. Meisami, Persian Historiography, to the End of the Twelfth Century, Edinburgh 1999, 238–39, 248–52, 255–56, and eadem, ‘The Collapse of the Great Seljuqs’, in Texts, Documents and Artefacts. Islamic Studies in Honour of D.S. Richards, ed. Chase F. Robinson, Leiden and Boston 2003, 265–80. The desperate straits to which Ṭoghrïl was reduced, caught as he was between the powers of the Ildegizids, the ʿAbbasid caliphs and the Khwarazm Shahs, perhaps go towards explaining why he was apparently never able to mint his own coins. According to Stephen Album, A Checklist of Islamic Coins, 2nd ed., Santa Rosa, Calif. 1998, his name figures on the issues of various Atabegs, including the Ildegizids (and perhaps the Salghurids?), but not on any coins of his own; Dr Deborah Tor (pers. comm.), does not know of any coins that have turned up in the last decade to invalidate this conclusion.

Notes

486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497

167

Ṭoghrïl was marked off from most of the earlier Seljuq sultans, many of whom were probably at best literate in Turkish only (if literate at all) by his interest in scholarship and literature and his patronage of poets (though al-Ḥusaynī praises Maḥmūd b. Muhammad’s deep knowledge of Arabic literature and history, see above, p. 68, and al-Bundārī praises Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd for his learning, see Bosworth, ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World’, 169). Rāwandī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr, 346, gives a du-bayt allegedly recited by Ṭoghrïl before his last battle. The later literary biographer Muḥammad ʿAwfī in his Lubāb al-albāb, ed. Saʿīd Nafīsī, Tehran 1335/1956, 42–43, cites other Persian verses attributed to the sultan. See also Houtsma, ‘Some Remarks on the History of the Saljuks’, 151–52; Luther, op. cit., 217–18. See above, nn. 25, 34. There is an apparent lacuna here. His death date is given on p. 51 as 16 Shawwāl 485 [/19 November 1092], and this appears to be correct, confirmed e.g. in Ibn al-Athīr and Ibn al-Jawzī; see Kafesoğlu, Sultan Melikşah devrinde Büyük Selçuklu imparatorluğu, 208. Reading, with Ayaz, mughdiq for the text’s maʿdhūq. See above, n. 336. See above, nn. 319, 358. Aq Sonqor’s line in Syria and al-Jazīra was that of the Zangids; see above, n. 331. Anūshtegin Gharchaʾī was Malik Shāh’s slave commander and founder of the line of Shahs in Khwarazm that endured till the coming of the Mongols; see Bosworth, The New Islamic Dynasties, 178–80 no. 89. For Ṭughtegin and his line, that of the Börids or Būrids, see above, n. 133. I.e. the Shāh-i Armanids, see above, n. 423. See above, n. 376. See on this fifth and last Ildegizid Atabeg, who died in 622/1225, EI 2 art. ‘Özbeg b. Muḥammad Pahlawān’ (C.E. Bosworth), and for Alanjah, above, n. 470.

Bibliography

Note. This Bibliography does not include works which are mentioned only once or so in the text and are of peripheral interest to al-Ḥusaynī’s work, but where such items occur in the book full bibliographical details are given there.

1. Texts and translations Anon. Ḥudūd al-ʿālam, English tr. and commentary V. Minorsky as Ḥudūd al-ʿālam ‘The Regions of the World’, a Persian Geography 372 A.H. – 982 A.D., 2nd ed. C.E. Bosworth, GMS N.S. XI, London 1970. ʿAwfī, Sadīd al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad, Lubāb al-albāb, ed. Saʿīd Nafīsī, Tehran 1335/1956. al-Bākharzī, Abu ’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan, Dumyat al-qaṣr wa-ʿuṣrat ahl al-ʿaṣr, ed. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ al-Ḥilw, 2 vols. Cairo 1388–91/1968–72. al-Bundārī, al-Fatḥ b. ʿAlī, Qiwām al-Dīn, Zubdat al-nuṣra wa-nukhbat al-ʿuṣra, ed. M.T. Houtsma in Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seljoucides, II, Leiden 1889. Bayhaqī, Abu ’l-Faḍl Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn, Tārīkh-i Masʿūdī, ed. ʿAli Akbar Fayyāḍ, Mashhad 1350/1971, English tr. and commentary C.E. Bosworth as The History of Beyhaqi (The History of Sultan Masʿud of Ghazna, 1030–1041), 3 vols. Cambridge, Mass. 2011. Gardīzī, Abū Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Ḥayy b. Ḍaḥḥāk, Zayn al-akhbār, partial English tr. C.E. Bosworth as The Ornament of Histories: a History of the Eastern Islamic Lands AD 650–1041. The Persian Text of Abū Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Gardīzī translated with a commentary by C. Edmund Bosworth, London 2010. Ḥamdallāh b. Abī Bakr Mustawfī Qazwīnī, Nuzhat al-qulūb, partial edn. and English tr. G. Le Strange as The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat-al-qulūb composed by Ḥamd-Allāh Mustawfī of Qazwīn in 740 (1340), GMS XXIII/1–2, 2 vols., Leiden-London 1916–19. al-Ḥusaynī, Abu ’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Nāṣir, Ṣadr al-Din, Akhbār al-dawla al-saljūqiyya, ed. Muhammad Iqbal, Panjab University Oriental Publications, Lahore 1933; ed. Muḥammad Nūr al-Dīn as Zubdat al-tawārīkh. Akhbār al-umarāʾ wa ’l-mulūk al-saljūqiyya, Beirut 1406/1986; English tr. Qibla Ayaz as An Unexploited Source for the History of the Saljūqs: a Translation of and Critical Commentary on the Akhbār al-dawlat al-saljūqiyya, Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh University, 1985, unpublished. Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz al-Dīn Abu ’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Muḥammad, al-Kāmil fi ’l-taʾrīkh, 13 vols., Beirut 1385–87/1965–67; partial English tr. D. S. Richards, The Annals of the Seljuq Turks. Selections from al-Kāmil fī’l-Taʿrīkh of ʿIzz al-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr, Studies in the History of Iran and Turkey 1000–1700 A.D., London 2002, and The Chronicle of Ibn

Bibliography 169 al-Athīr for the Crusading Period from al-Kāmil f ī’l-taʾrīkh, Part 1, The Coming of the Franks and the Muslim Response, Crusader Texts in Translation, Aldershot 2006. Ibn al-Jawzī, Abu ’l-Faraj ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAlī al-Ḥanbalī, al-Muntaẓam f ī taʾrīkh al-mulūk wa ’l-umam, 6 vols., Hyderabad, Deccan 1357–59/1938–40. Ibn Khallikān, Abu ’l-ʿAbbas Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Irbilī, Wafayāt al-aʿyān wa-anbāʾ abnāʾ al-zamān, ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās, 8 vols., Beirut 1968–72; English tr. Baron McGuckin de Slane as Ibn Khallikan’s Biographical Dictionary, 4 vols., Paris 1842–71. al-Iṣfahānī, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad, ʿImād al-Dīn al-Kātib, Kharīdat al-qaṣr wa-jarīdat al-ʿaṣr, section on the poets of Iraq, ed. Muḥammad Bahjat al-Atharī, Baghdad 1980. Juwaynī, ʿAṭāʾ-Malik b. Muḥammad, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn, Tārīkh-i Jahān-gushāy, English tr. J.A. Boyle as The History of the World-Conqueror, 2 vols., Manchester 1958. al-Maydānī, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Nīshābūrī, Majmaʿ al-amthāl, ed. and Latin tr. G.W. Freytag, as Arabum proverbia, 3 vols., Bonn 1838–43. Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm, Abū Ḥāmid, Dhayl-i Saljūq-nāma, English tr. K.A. Luther in The History of the Seljuq Turks from the Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh. An Ilkhanid Adaptation of the Saljūq-nāma of Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī, Richmond 2001. Nīshāpūrī, Ẓahīr al-Dīn, Saljūq-nāma, ed. A.H. Morton as The Saljūqnāma of Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī, GMS, Chippenham 2004; English tr. K.A. Luther, ed. C.E. Bosworth as The History of the Seljuq Turks from the Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh. An Ilkhanid Adaptation of the Saljūq-nāma of Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī, Richmond 2001. Rāwandī, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, Rāḥat al-ṣudūr wa-āyat al-surūr, ed. Muḥammad Iqbál, GMS N.S. II, London 1921. Yāqūt, Abū ʿAbdallāh Yaʿqūb b. ʿAbdallāh al-Ḥamawī, Irshād al-arīb li-maʿrifat al-adīb, ed. D.S. Margoliouth, GMS VI/1-7, 7 vols., Leiden-London 1907–26. ——, Muʿjam al-buldān, 5 vols., Beirut 1374–76/1955–57.

2. Secondary works Allen, W.E.D., A History of the Georgian People, London 1932. Barthold, W., Zwölf Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Türken Mittelasiens, Beiband zu der Zeitschrift ‘Die Welt des Islams’ Band 14 bis 17, 1932/1935, Berlin 1935. ——, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, English tr. [by Sir E. Denison Ross], GMS N.S. V, 3rd. ed. by C.E. Bosworth, London 1968. ——, An Historical Geography of Iran, tr. S. Soucek, ed. C.E. Bosworth, Modern Classics in Near Eastern Studies, Princeton 1984. Biran, Michal, The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History. Between China and the Islamic World, Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization, Cambridge 2005. Bosworth, C. E., The Ghaznavids, their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran 994:1040, History, Philosophy and Economics 17, Edinburgh 1963; 2nd ed. with additional bibliography, Beirut 1973. ——. ‘The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000–1217)’, in The Cambridge History of Iran, V, The Seljuq and Mongol Periods, ed. J.A. Boyle, Cambridge 1968, 1–202. ——, ‘The Early Ghaznavids’, in The Cambridge History of Iran, IV, From the Arab Invasion to the Seljuqs, ed. R.N. Frye, Cambridge 1975, 162–97. ——. The Later Ghaznavids: Splendour and Decay. The Dynasty in Afghanistan and Northern India 1040–1186, Edinburgh 1977. ——, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz (247/861 to 949/1542-3), Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies 8, Costa Mesa and New York 1994.

170

The History of the Seljuq State

——, The New Islamic Dynasties. A Chronological and Genealogical Manual, Edinburgh 1996. ——, ‘The Origins of the Seljuqs’, in The Seljuqs: Islam Revitalised?, ed. C. Lange and Songül Mecit, Edinburgh 2010, 1–17. ——, ‘Additions to the New Islamic Dynasties’, in Living Islamic History. Studies in Honour of Professor Carole Hillenbrand, ed. Yasir Suleiman, Edinburgh 2010, 14–31. ——, and Sir Gerard Clauson, ‘al-Xwārazmī on the Peoples of Central Asia’, JRAS (1965), 2–12, repr. in Bosworth, The Medieval History of Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia, Variorum Reprints, London 1977, no. XX. Bowen, H., ‘The Last Buwayhids’, JRAS (1929), 225–45. Bregel, Yuri, An Historical Atlas of Central Asia, HdO, Section 8, Central Asia, Vol. 9, Leiden-Boston 2003. Browne, E.G., A Literary History of Persia, [II,] From Firdawsí to Saʿdí, London 1906. Bulliett, R.W., The Patricians of Nishapur. A Study in Medieval Islamic Social History, Harvard Middle Eastern Studies 16, Cambridge, Mass. 1972. Cahen, Cl., ‘La première pénétration turque en Asie-Mineure (seconde moitié du XIe siècle)’, Byzantion, XVIII (1946–48), 5–67, repr. in Cahen, Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianus, Variorum Reprints, London 1974, no. I. ——, ‘Le Malik-nâmeh et l’histoire des origines seljukides’, Oriens, II (1949), 31–65. ——, ‘Les tribus turcs d’Asie centrale pendant la période seljukide’, WZKM, LI (1948–52), 178–87. ——, ‘The Historiography of the Seljuqid Period’, in Historians of the Middle East, ed. B. Lewis and P.M. Holt, Historical Writing on the Peoples of Asia, London 1962, 59–78. ——, ‘Qutlumush et ses fils avant l’Asie-Mineure’, Isl., XXXIX (1964), 14–27, repr. in Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianus, no. V. ——, Pre-Ottoman Turkey. A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History c. 1071–1330, English tr. J. Jones-Williams, London 1968. Clauson, Sir Gerard, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish, Oxford 1972. Daftary, Farhad, The Ismāʿīlīs, their History and Doctrines, Cambridge 1990. Doerfer, G., Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit, II-IV, Türkische Elemente im Neupersischen, 4 vols., Wiesbaden 1963–75. Dozy, R.P.A., Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes, 2 vols., Leiden 1881. Durand-Guédy, D., Iranian Élites and Turkish Rulers. A History of Iṣfahān in the Saljūq Period, Routledge Studies in the History of Iran and Turkey, London and New York 2010. Genç, Reşat, Karahanlı devlet teskilâtı (XI. yüzyıl) (Türk hâkimiyet anlayısı ve Karahanlılar), Kültür Bakanliği Yayinlari 373, Arastirma ve Inceleme Eserleri Serisi 9, Istanbul 1981. Golden, P.B., ‘The Karakhanids and Early Islam’, in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. D. Sinor, Cambridge 1990, 343–70. ——, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples, Turcologica 9, Wiesbaden 1992. Grousset, R., The Empire of the Steppes. A History of Central Asia, English tr. Naomi Walford, New Brunswick, N.J. 1970. Hartmann, Angelika, an-Nāṣir li-Dīn Allāh (1180–1225). Politik, Religion, Kultur in der späten ʿAbbāsidenzeit, Berlin-New York 1975. Hillenbrand, Carole, ‘1092: A Murderous Year’, in Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the Union Européenne des Arabisants et Islamisants, Budapest, 29th August –

Bibliography 171 3rd September 1988, ed. A. Fodor, The Arabist. Budapest Studies in Arabic 13–14, 2 vols., Budapest 1995, II, 281–96. ——, ‘The Power Struggle between the Seljuqs and the Ismāʿīlīs of Alamūt, 487– 518/1094–1124: The Seljuq Perspective’, in Mediaeval Ismāʿīlī History and Thought, ed. Farhad Daftary, Cambridge 1996, 205–20. ——, Turkish Myth and Muslim Symbol. The Battle of Mantzikert, Edinburgh 2007. Hillenbrand, R., Islamic Architecture. Form, Function and Meaning, Edinburgh 1994. Hodgson, M.G.S., The Order of Assassins. The Struggle of the Early Nizârî Ismâʿîlîs against the Islamic World, The Hague 1955. Honigmann, E., in A.A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, III, Byzance et les Arabes. III. Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 nach griechischen, arabischen, syrischen und armenischen Quellen, Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae 3, Brussels 1935. Houtsma, M.T., ‘Zur Geschichte der Selǵuqen von Kermân’, ZDMG, XXXIX (1885), 362–402. ——, ‘Die Ghuzzenstämme’, WZKM, III (1888), 219–33. ——, ‘Some Remarks on the History of the Saljuks’, AO, III, 136–52. Iqbāl, ʿAbbās, Wizārat dar ʿahd-i salāṭīn-i buzurg-i saljūqī az tārīkh-i tashkīl-i īn silsila tā marg-i Sulṭān Sanjar, Intishārāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān 529, Tehran 1338/1959. Justi, F., Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg 1895. Kafesoğlu, İbrahim, Sultan Melikşah devrinde Büyük Selçuklu imparatorluğu, İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınlarından 569, Istanbul 1953. ——, Harezmşahlar devleti tarihi (485–617/1092–1229), Türk Tarihi Kurumu Yayınlarından. VII Seri, No. 29, Ankara 1956. Kindermann, H. “Schiff” im Arabischen. Untersuchung über Vorkommen und Bedeutung der Termini, Zwickau-im-Sa. 1934. Klausner, Carla, The Seljuk Vezirate. A Study of Civil Administration 1055–1194, Harvard Middle Eastern Monograph Series XXII, Cambridge, Mass. 1973. Kochnev, B.D., ‘La chronologie et la généalogie des Karakhanides du point de vue de la numismatique’, in Études karakhanides, Cahiers d’Asie centrale No. 9, TashkentAix-en-Provence 2001, 49–75. Köymen, Mehmed Altay, Büyük Selçuklu imparatorluğu tarihi. II. İkinci imparatorluk devri, Türk Tarihi Kurumu Yayınlarından, VII. Seri, No. 23, Ankara 1954. Lambton, A.K.S., ‘The Internal Structure of the Seljuq Empire’, in The Cambridge History of Iran, V, The Seljuq and Mongol Periods, ed. J.A. Boyle, Cambridge 1968, 203–82. Lane, E.W., An Arabic-English Lexicon, 8 parts, London 1863–93. Lange, C., Justice, Punishment and the Medieval Muslim Imagination, Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization, Cambridge 2008. Le Strange, G., Baghdad under the Abbasid Caliphate from Contemporary Arabic and Persian Sources, London 1900. ——, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate. Mesopotamia, Persia, and Central Asia from the Moslem Conquest to the Time of Timur, Cambridge Geographical Series, Cambridge 1905. Luther, K.A., The Political Transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and Western Iran: 1152–1187, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton 1964, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor 1977. ——, ‘Rāvandī’s Report on the Administrative Changes of Muḥammad Jahān Pahlavān’, in Iran and Islam. In Memory of the Late Vladimir Minorsky, ed. C.E. Bosworth, Edinburgh 1971, 393–406. Makdisi, G., ‘Muslim Institutions of Learning in Eleventh-Century Baghdad’, BSOAS, XXIV (1961), 1–56.

172

The History of the Seljuq State

——, ‘The Sunnī Revival’, in Islamic Civilisation 950–1150, ed. D.S. Richards, Papers on Islamic History III, Oxford 1973, 155–68. ——, The Rise of Colleges. Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West, Edinburgh 1981. Mason, H., Two Statesmen of Medieval Islam. Vizir Ibn Hubayra (499–560 AH/1105– 1165 AD) and Caliph an-Nâṣir li Dîn Allâh (553–622 AH/1158–1225 AD), The Hague and Paris 1972. Meisami, Julie S., Persian Historiography, to the End of the Twelfth Century, Edinburgh 1999. ——-, ‘The Collapse of the Great Seljuqs’, in Texts, Documents and Artefacts. Islamic Studies in Honour of D.S. Richards, ed. C.F. Robinson, Islamic History and Civilization, Studies and Texts 45, Leiden and Boston 2003, 265–300. Merçil, Erdoğan, Fars Atabegleri Salgurlular, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları XIX. Dizi, Sa. 6, Ankara 1975. ——, Kirman Selçukluları, Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları 366. Araştırma ve Inceleme Eserleri Serisi 8, Istanbul 1980. Minorsky, V., ‘Caucasica. II. 1. The Georgian Maliks of Ahar. 2. The Princes Orbeli in Persia’, BSOAS, XIII (1949–51), 868–77, repr. in Minorsky, The Turks, Iran and the Caucasus in the Middle Ages, Variorum Reprints, London 1978, no. V. ——, Studies in Caucasian History. I. New Light on the Shaddādids of Ganja, II. The Shaddādids of Ani, III. Prehistory of Saladin, Cambridge Oriental Series 6, London 1953. ——, A History of Sharvān and Darband in the 10th-11th Centuries, Cambridge 1958. Morgan, D.O., Medieval Persia 1040–1797, A History of the Near East, London and New York 1988. Nāẓim, Muḥammad, The Life and Times of Sulṭān Maḥmūd of Ghazna, Cambridge 1931. Özaydın, Abdülkerim, Sultan Muhammad Tapar devri selçuklu tarihi 498–511/1105– 1118, Ankara 1990. Pritsak, O., ‘Die Karachaniden’, Isl. XXXI (1953), 17–68, repr. in Pritsak, Studies in Medieval Eurasian History, Variorum Reprints, London 1981, no. XVI. Rásonyi, L., and Baski, I., Onomasticon turcicum. Turkic Personal Names, Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Studies 172, 2 vols., Bloomington, Ind. 2007. Sanaullah, Mawlawi Fadil, The Decline of the Saljūqid Empire, Calcutta 1938. Serjeant, R.B., Islamic Textiles. Material for a History up to the Mongol Conquest, Beirut 1972. Storey, C.A., Persian Literature, a Bio-Bibliographical Survey. I. Qurʾānic Literature; History and Biography, 2 parts, London 1927–53. al-Ṭāhir, ʿAlī Jawād, al-Shiʿr al-ʿarabī fi ’l-ʿIrāq wa-bilād al-ʿAjam fi ’l-ʿaṣr al-saljūqī, 2 vols., Baghdad 1958–61. Tetley, G.E., The Ghaznavid and Seljuk Turks. Poetry as a Source for Iranian History, Routledge Studies in the History of Iran and Turkey, London and New York 2009. Tor, Deborah G., ‘A Tale of Two Murders. Power Relations between Caliph and Sultan in the Saljūq Era’, ZDMG, CLIX (2009), 279–97. Uzunçarşılı, Ismail Hakkı, Osmanlı devleti teskilâtına medhal. Büyuk Selçuklîler, Anadolu Selçuklîler, Anadolu Beylikleri, Ilhânîler, Karakoyunlu ve Akkoyunlularla memlûklerdeki devlet teskilâtına bir bakış, Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından VIII. Seri, no. 10, Istanbul 1941. Willey, P., Eagle’s Nest. Ismaili Castles in Iran and Syria, London 2005. al-Ziriklī, Khayr al-Dīn, al-Aʿlām, qāmūs li-ash’har al-rijāl wa ’l-nisāʾ min al-ʿarab wa ’l-mustaʿribīn wa ’l-mustashriqīn, 2nd ed., 10 vols., n.p. n.d.

Index of persons, peoples and tribes

ʿAbbās, amir 76–7, 79 ʿAbbās, amir, son of 79–80 ʿAbd al-Raḥīm b. Muḥammad. Ghaznavid prince 16–17 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad, Ghaznavid prince 16 ʿAbd al-Rashīd b. Maḥmūd, Ghaznavid sultan 17, 134n65 Abū Bakr b. Pahlawān Muḥammad, Ildegizid 114–15, 118–25 Abu ’l-Barakāt Hibat Allāh b. Malkā al-Baghdādī, physician 73, 156n335 Abū Dharr 4, 36 Abu ’l-Faḍl, Tāj al-Dīn, Amir of Sistan 63, 65, 152n289 Abu ’l-Hayjāʾ, see al-Bakrī Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī 49 Abū Kālījār, ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla, Kākūyid ruler in Isfahan 25 Abū Naṣr b. al-Ṣabbāgh 49 Abu ’l-Qāsim Hibat Allāh b. al-Faḍl al-Baghdādī, called Ibn al-Qaṭṭān, poet and physician 80, 157n361 Abū Saʿd al-Khwārazmī, mustawfī 42 Abū Saʿd al-Ṣūfī 49–50 Abū Tammām, poet 4 Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Ṣamad al-Shīrāzī, Ghaznavid vizier 11, 16, 133n37 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad, Qarakhanid Khan 64, 152n293 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd, Ghaznavid prince 16 Akhsitān, King of Shakkī 34–5 ʿAlī (II) b. Dubays (II), Mazyadid amir 91 ʿAlī Bār b. ʿAmr, Ḥājib 61–2, 67 ʿAlī b. Mūsā al-Riḍā, Eight Imam of the Shiʿa 53, 147n241 Alp Arslān b. Chaghrï Beg, Seljuq Sultan 3–4, 20, 23–41, 128, 135n82, 144n194

Alp Arslān b. Ṭoghrïl (II), Seljuq prince 72 Alp Qush, amir 87–8 Altuntāq, Ḥājib 16, 27 Altuntāsh, Seljuq amir in Khurasan 60 Amīr Amīrān Muḥammad b. Pahlawān Muḥammad, Ildegizid 114, 116, 120–4 Amīr-i Bār 118, 165n464 Amīr-i Bār, son of 121 Amīrak al-Bayhaqī, Shaykh 25 ʿAntar al-Jawānī, amir 75 Anūshirwān b. Khālid, caliphal vizier 5, 70, 81, 155n321 Anūshtegin Gharchaʾī, Khwarazm Shah 2, 129, 138n127, 167n493 Aq Qush, Nāṣir al-Dīn Aḥmadīlī, amir 96, 104 Aq Sonqor (I) Aḥmadīlī 70–1, 73, 129, 154n319 Aq Sonqor (II) b. Aq Sonqor (I) Aḥmadīlī 74, 95, 157n358 Aq Sonqor al-Bursuqī, amir 72, 74, 129, 155n331 Aq Sonqor al-Fīrūzkūhī, amir 79 Aq Sonqor, Qasīm al-Dawla, governor of Aleppo 52, 54, 129 al-Aqsīs = Atsïz b. Uvak 52, 147n234 Armenians 36 Arslān Arghūn b. Alp Arslān, Seljuq prince 28–9, 32, 41, 60–1, 138n130 Arslān [b.] Isrāʾīl b. Seljuq, Yabghu 10–11, 128, 132n35 Arslān Jādhib, amir 10, 132n31 Arslān Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl (II), Seljuq sultan 72, 87–9, 93, 96–7, 102–12, 129, 163n437 al-Athīr Abū ʿĪsā 78 Atsïz (ʿAyn al-Dawla?), Khwarazm Shah 66, 69–71, 73, 77, 155n322 Atsïz b. Uvak, see al-Aqsīs

174

The History of the Seljuq State

ʿAṭṭāsh, Aḥmad b. ʿAbd al-Malik 56, 149–50n261 ʿAwfī, Muḥammad, littérateur 5, 131n15 Ay Aba, Ildegizid mamlūk 115–16, 164n453 Ay Aba, Muʾayyid al-Dīn, post-Seljuq ruler in Khurasan 82, 107–8, 129, 157–8n369 Ay Būqā, amir 27 Ayāq, amir 65 Ayāz, Atabeg of the Seljuq prince Dāwūd b. Maḥmud b. Muḥammad 75, 77 Ayāz, Atabeg of the Seljuq prince Malik Shāh b. Berk-yārūq 56 Ayāz b. Alp Arslān, Seljuq prince 41, 43 Ayāz Beg, Shams al-Mulk, amir 98 Ayaz, Dr Qibla 7–8 Badr al-Dīn Muẓaffar b. Ḥammād, lord of al-Gharrāf 87–8, 91–3 Bagrat, Baqrāṭ, Baqrāṭīs, king of Abkhāz, i.e. Georgia 34–6, 140n157 Bahāʾ al-Dīn Sharaf al-Dawla, lord of Abhar 116 Bahrām Shāh b. Masʿūd (III), Ghaznavid sultan 63–4, 152n294 Bahrām Shāh b. Ṭoghrïl Shāh, Kirman Seljuq 110, 163n432 al-Bākharzī, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan, poet 6, 22–4, 27, 34, 137n101 al-Bakrī, Abu ’l-Hayjāʾ. poet 51, 146n230 Barghūsh (? Erghūsh), amir 63 Barhebraeus, Ibn al-ʿIbrī, historian 5 al-Basāsīrī, Arslān 19–21, 135n80, 136n90 Bāṭiniyya, Ismāʿīlīs 48, 56, 58–9, 61, 67, 71, 76 al-Bayāḍī, Masʿūd, poet 4, 50, 146n227 Begtughdī, Ḥājib 11 Berk-yārūq b. Malik Shāh, Seljuq sultan 28, 53–6, 58, 60–1, 128, 149n255 B.l.dājī, amir 27 Bôri Bars b. Alp Arslān, Seljuq prince 28, 41, 44, 60 Boz Aba, governor of Fars 74–80, 156n343 Bozan, governor of Edessa 54 Bulāq, amir 70–1, 155n323 al-Bundārī, al-Fatḥ b. ʿAlī, historian 6 Bursuq, commander 52, 155n331 al-Burūjirdī, ʿIzz al-Mulk Abu ’l-ʿIzz, vizier 76, 82 Byzantines 36, 38–40, 46–8, and see al-Rūm, Byzantium, Anatolia

Catholicos 36, 142n171 Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq 11–16, 18–19, 21, 24–6, 28, 60, 128, 138n117 Chāwlī, jāndār 74, 76–8 Chāwlī Saqqāʾū, amir 58, 150n265 Chāwūsh Beg, Atabeg 67, 153n305 ak-Darguzīnī, Abu ’l-Najīb, vizier 81, 157n362 al-Darguzīnī, ʿImād al-Dīn Abu ’l-Barakāt, vizier 81 al-Darguzīnī, Qiwām al-Dīn Abu ’l-Qāsim, vizier 61–2, 68, 70–2, 81, 157n364 al-Darguzīnī, Shams al-Dīn Abu ’l-Najīb, vizier 82 Dāwūd b. Maḥmūd (II) b. Muḥammad (I), Seljuq sultan 68, 70, 74–6, 81 Daylamīs 57, 86 Ḍiyāʾ al-Mulk Aḥmad b. Niẓām al-Mulk, vizier 58–9, 150n270 Dubays (II) b. Ṣadaqa (I), Amīr al-ʿArab, Mazyadid 71, 73 Enük al-Khāṣṣ 31, 139n141 Erghān, amir 75 Erghūsh, amir 61, 151n279 Faḍlūn or Faḍl (II) b. Abī Kālījār, Shaddādid 33–4, 140n155 Faḍlūn or Faḍlūya, Shabānkāraʾī chief 140n156 Fakhr al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Toghā(n) Yürek, amir 76–9 Fakhr al-Dīn al-Kūfī, Qāḍī 108, 162n428 Fakhr al-Dīn al-Mālikī, Shaykh 66 Faranj, Ifranj (Varangians, Franks?) 34, 36, 141n160, 142n170 Farrukh-zād b. Masʿūd (I), Ghaznavid sultan 18, 25–6, 134n69 Gawhar-āyīn, Saʿd al-Dawla, amir 39, 41, 62, 143n188 Georgia, the king of, Georgians (al-Kurj) 31, 58, 79, 94, 98, 104–7, 122–5 Ghaznavids 10–18, 25–6, 63–4 Ghuzoghlu al-Silāḥī, amir 75–6, 156n345 Gird-bāzū, Sharaf al-Dīn, amir 95–8 Gümüshtegin, jāndār 54 Gūr Khān, of the Qara Khitay 65–6 Ḥabashī b. Altuntāq, Amīr-i Dād 61, 151n277

Index of persons, peoples and tribes 175 al-Ḥamdūnī, Abū Sahl, Ghaznavid governor 10, 12, 132n32 Ḥanafīs 3, 83 al-Ḥasan b. Mūsā b. Seljuq 19 Ḥasan al-Muṭrib, amir 91 Ḥasan b. Qifjāq, ʿIzz al-Dīn, amir 118–19 al-Ḥasan b. al-Sabbāh, Ismāʿīlī dāʿī or propagandist 48, 145n220 Ḥasan or Hārūn Bughra Khān, Qarakhanid 21, 136n92 Ḥasan or Hārūn b. Sulaymān b. Qadïr Khān, Qarakhanid 145n219 al-Ḥayṣ Bayṣ, poet 80–1, 157n361 Hazārasp. amir 34 Ḥudhayfa b. al-Yamān 47, 145n214 al-Ḥusayn b. al-Ḥusayn, called Jahān-sūz, Ghurid sultan 12, 133n46 al-Ḥusaynī, Ṣadr al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Nāṣir, historian 4–6, 9 Ibn al-ʿAdīm, historian 5 Ibn al-Anbārī, Sadīd al-Dawla, poet, 59, 151n273 Ibn Bābā al-Kāshānī, littérateur 134n65 Ibn al-Bāzdār, amir 96 Ibn Dārust, Tāj al-Dīn, Seljuq vizier 69, 79, 81–2 Ibn Funduq, Zayd b. ʿAlī, historian 6, 131n20, 133n50 Ibn Hubayra, ʿAwn al-Dīn Yaḥyā, caliphal vizier 80, 86, 88–92, 157n360 Ibn Jahīr, Fakhr al-Dawla Muḥammad, ʿAbbasid vizier 46, 145n207 Ibn Kākūya, ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla Muḥammad, Kākūyid 12, 133n45 Ibn al-Khāzin, al-Ḥusayn, poet 4, 57, 150n264 Ibn al-Mawṣilāyā, Abū Saʿd, caliphal secretary 3, 37, 142n173 Ibn al-Muslima, Abu ’l-Qāsim ʿAlī, Raʾīs al-Ruʾasāʾ. caliphal vizier 20, 45–6, 135–6nn85–6 Ibn Salama al-Qummī, amir 88 Ibn Yūnus, Jalāl al-Dīn ʿUbaydallāh, caliphal vizier 117–18, 164n458 Ibrāhīm b. Masʿūd (I), Ghaznavid sultan 18, 44, 56, 134–5nn71–3 Ibrāhīm b. Masʿūd (III), Ghaznavid sultan (recte Arslān Shāh b. Masʿūd (III)) 63, 152n290 Ibrāhīm b. Naṣr, Böritegin, Tamghach Khān, Qarakhanid, 137n111, 143n192 Ibrāhīm b. Yïnāl, Seljuq 19–20

Il Arslān, Khwarazam Shah 84, 97–9, 107–8, 110 Ildegiz, Shams al-Dīn, Ildegizid 85, 89, 93–112, 129, 158–9n376 Ildegizids 2 ʿImād al-Dīn Aḥmad b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn, amir 82–3 ʿImād al-Mulk Abu ’l-Qāsim b. Niẓām al-Mulk, vizier 60 Ïnanch Khātūn bt. Înanch 114–16, 118, 121, 125 Înanch Qutlugh Maḥmūd b. Pahlawān Muḥammad, Ildegizid 114, 116–18, 120–2, 125, 127 Ïnanch Sonqor, amir 85, 93, 96–101, 114, 159n377 al-Iṣfahānī, Abū Ḥamīd ʿAzīz al-Islam 68, 72 al-Iṣfahānī, ʿImād al-Dīn al-Kātib, poet and littérateur, 4–6, 50, 54, 68, 148n248 Ismāʿīl b. Altuntāsh, ruler in Khwaraazm 12, 133n43 Ismāʿīl b. Muḥammad al-Gīlakī, lord of Ṭabas 61, 151n280 Ismāʿīl al-Ṭoghrīlī (? al-Tughrāʾī) 62 Ismāʿīlīs, see Bāṭiniyya Ispahbad ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla ʿAlī, Bāwandid 71, 155n326 Ispahbadh of Kabūd-Jāma 47 Īwā, Īvā 165n460 ʿIzz al-Dīn Faraj, eunuch 121, 125 Jahān Pahlawān Muḥammad, Nuṣrat al-Dīn b. Ildegiz, Ildegizid 89, 93, 96–9, 101, 104, 110–14, 129 Jalāl al-Dīn al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Ṣadaqa, caliphal vizier 67 Jalāl al-Dīn Mingburnu, Khwarazm Shah 5, 129 Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Nāṣir al-Dīn Aq Qush, Aḥmadīlī 104, 109–10 Jawānī Kurds 87, 159n381 Jawhar, eunuch 76 Jawhar Khātūn, Gawhar-Mulk, Mahd-i ʿIrāq 18, 44 Jibrāʾīl b. ʿUmar, Qadïr Khān, Qarakhanid 48, 56, 63, 145n219, 152n288 Kamāl al-Dīn Abū Riḍā Faḍl Allāh b. Muḥammad, secretary 43, 50, 146n224 Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Khāzin al-Rāzī, Seljuq vizier 75, 81 Khāqān of the Turks = Tamghach Khān Ibrāhīm b. Naṣr, Qarakhanid 36, 141n167

176

The History of the Seljuq State

Khāṣṣ Beg b. Palang-eri 76–7, 79–81, 84–5, 156n349 Khaṭīr al-Mulk Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn al-Maybudhī, Seljuq visier 56, 59, 149n260 Khiṭā, Kitan, see Qara Khitay Khwarazm Shahs of Anūshtegin Gharchaʾī’s line 2 Khwarazmians 98–9, 125, 127, 129 Kül-sarïgh, Quṭb al-Dīn, amir 26–7, 138n115 Kündigüz, amir 61 al-Kundurī, ʿAmīd al-Mulk, Seljuq vizier 4, 6, 21–4, 137n108 Kurds 29, 57, 87, 89 Maḥmūd b. Anas-oghlu, amir 119–20 Maḥmūd al-Kāshānī, amir 65 Maḥmūd (I) b. Malik Shāh, Seljuq sultan 53–4, 148n245 Maḥmūd (II) b. Muḥammad (I) b. Malik Shāh, Seljuq sultan 58–62, 66–8, 154n317 Maḥmūd al-Qāshānī, Ḥājib 83–4 Maḥmūd b. Sebüktegin, Ghaznavid sultan 10–11, 83 Maḥmūd b. ? Tamghach Khān Ibrāhīm, Qarakhanid 56, 149n256 Maḥmūd b. T.j.r.w (?) al-Īwāʾī, amir 117 Majdūd b. Masʿūd (I), Ghaznavid prince 12 al-Malik al-Raḥīm Abū Naṣr, Buyid amir 19 Malik Shāh (I) b. Alp Arslān, Seljuq sultan 18, 28–30, 33, 41–2, 44, 47–53, 60, 128, 147nn232, 242 Malik Shāh (II) b. Berk-yārūq, Seljuq sultan 56–9, 149n248 Malik Shāh (III) b. Maḥmūd, Seljuq sultan 68, 76, 79–81, 84–5, 154n317 Manṣūr (I) b. Nūḥ (I), Samanid Amir 65–8 Manṣūr b. Qutlumush, Seljuq in Rūm 132n36 Masʿūd al-Bilālī 86–8 Masʿūd b. al-Ḥusayn, Shihāb al-Dīn, amir 126 Masʿūd (III) b. Ibrāhīm, Ghaznavid sultan 44 Masʿūd (I) b. Maḥmūd, Ghaznavid sultan 11–17, 128 Masʿūd b. Mājar, amir 69 Masʿūd b. Muḥammad b. Malik Shāh, Seljuq sultan 58, 67–82, 95, 129, 157n363

Mawdūd, Amir of Mosul 72 Mawdūd b. Ismāʿīl, Seljuq prince 55, 149n253 Mawdūd b. Masʿūd (I), Ghaznavid sultan 12, 16, 24–5 Mawdūd b. Zangī b. Aq Sonqor 109, 111 Mazyadids or Banū Asad 91 Mengü-bars, amir 62, 70–2, 74–5 Mengü-bars al-Mustarshidī, amir 87–8 Mengütirek, Ḥājib 99 Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq 10–11, 128 Muʾayyid b. Yarïn Qush, amir 82 Muʾayyid al-Dīn Abū Ismāʿīl al-Ṭughrāʾī, Seljuq vizier 67, 153n306 Muʾayyid al-Dīn al-Marzubān al-Iṣfahānī, Seljuq vizer 82 Muʾayyid al-Mulk ʿUbaydallāh b. Niẓām al-Mulk, Seljuq vizier 54–5, 58, 61, 150n268 Muhalhil, leader of Jawānī Kurds 87–8 Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Malik al-Burhānī al-Ḥanafī, Imam 38 Muḥammad b. Aq Sonqor, amir 75 Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm, historian of Kirman 162n430 Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd, Ghaznavid sultan 16–17 Muḥammad (II) b. Maḥmūd (II) b. Muḥammad (I) 68, 76–7, 80, 84–7, 89 Seljuq sultan Muḥammad b. Muḥammad (I) b. Malik Shāh, Seljuq prince 78 Muḥammad (I) Tapar b. Malik Shāh, Seljuq Sultan 44, 55, 61, 63–4, 128, 150n267 Muḥammad b. Ṭoghrïl (II), Seljuq prince 97, 112–13 Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā, Shaykh 83–4, 158n372 Muḥammad al-Zanjānī, Amīn al-Dīn 126, 166n482 Muhārish, ʿUqaylid 20 Muʿizzī, poet, 154n316 Mujāhid al-Dīn Khāliṣ, amir 117–18 al-Muqtadī, ʿAbbasid caliph 46, 54, 148n244 al-Muqtafī, ʿAbbasid caliph 74, 80, 85–92, 95, 102, 162n419 Mūsā b. Seljuq 10 Musharraf al-Shīrāzī, Khwāja Imam 39 Muslim b. Quraysh, Amir al-ʿArab, ʿUqaylid 42 al-Mustaḍīʾ, ʿAbbasid caliph 111, 113, 164n445

Index of persons, peoples and tribes 177 al-Mustanjid, ʿAbbasid caliph 102, 111, 163n435 al-Mustanṣir, Fāṭimid caliph 19–20 al-Mustarshid, ʿAbbasid caliph 67–70, 73, 155n333 al-Mustaẓhir, ʿAbbasid caliph 54–5, 58, 66 al-Muwaffaq al-Naysābūrī, Imam 22, 137n102 al-Muẓaffar b. Sayyidī al-Zanjānī 78, 157n357 al-Nasawī, Muḥammad b. Manṣūr, ʿAmīd of Khurasan 27–9, 32, 138n129 al-Nāṣir, ʿAbbasid caliph 4, 116–18 Nāṣir al-Dīn Kh.ṭ.l.bā al-Bāzdārī, amir 77, 156n351 Naṣr b. Aḥmad, Qarakhanid 64, 152n293 Naṣr b. Muʾayyid al-Mulk b. Niẓām al-Mulk, Seljuq vizier 58 al-Naysabūrī, Qāḍī Abū Bakr 21 Nimrod, son of Canaan 36, 141n165 Nīshāpūrī, Ẓahīr al-Dīn 2 Nīst andar Jahān 72 Niẓām al-Mulk, al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī al-Ṭūsī, Seljuq vizier 4, 22–4, 26–30, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 48–51, 146n222 Nūr al-Dīn the Qurʾān reader 121 Nūshtegin, ghulām of Sultan Masʿūd (I) of Ghazna 17–18 Nūshtegin al-Maʿmarī 45 Oghuz, Ghuzz 36, 82–3 Öner, amir 55 Öner, Muʿīn al-Dīn, amir 88 Özbeg b. Jahān Pahlawān Muḥammad, Ildegizid 5, 114, 167n497 Pahlawān Muḥammad, see Jahān Pahlawān Muḥammad Pahlawān Sh.n.k.l.wā, amir 27 Pāk-rūb, Ḥājib 13, 133n50 Pechenegs 36 ? Pīshkīn, amir 124, 166n477 al-Qāʾim, ʿAbbasid caliph 4, 19–21, 40, 45–6, 145n208 Qara, Nūr al-Dīn, amir 118, 120, 126–7 Qara Khitay 47, 64–6, 145n215, 153n296 Qarakhanids, al-Khāqāniyya 21, 44–5, 47–8, 53, 56, 63–4 Qara Sonqor, amir 68, 70–3, 75–6, 81 Qarācha al-Sāqī, Atabeg 63, 69–71, 75, 81 Qarategin al-Qaṣṣāb, amir 62 Qarluq 65, 98, 161n410

Qashqā, amir 25, 137n113 Qawurd, Qara Arslān b. Chaghrï Beg, Seljuq ruler in Kirman 4, 32–3, 42–3, 144n200 Qayï Aba al-Qumāchī, amir 82 Qaymaz, Sirāj al-Dīn, amir 118, 121 Qïpchaq, chief of 25, 137n112 Q.f.sh.d b. Qaymaz al-Ḥarāmī, amir 112 Q.f.sh.d (? Qïpchaq), amir 32 Qïzïl, amir 78 Qïzïl Arslān, Muẓaffar al-Dīn ʿUthmān b. Ildegiz, Ildegizid 89, 93, 96, 110, 113–20, 129, 165n469 Qodun, amir 60, 150n274 Qufshūd, sons of, lords of Zanjān 116, 120 Qumāch, amir 65, 69 al-Qummī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Abu ’l-Qāsim, caliphal vizier 74 Quraysh b. Badrān, ʿUqaylid 19–20, 135n78 Quraysh b. Zangī, amir 65 Quṭb al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Anūshtegin, Khwarazm Shah 138n127 Qutlugh, amir, leader of the Pilgrimage 52 Qutlugh Bars, amir 87–8 Qutlughtegin, Rukn al-Dawla, amir 43 Qutlumush b. Arslān Isrāʾīl b. Seljuq 19, 26–7, 128, 132n36, 135n77, 138n122 Qumaydān, amir 87–8 Rabīb al-Dawla Abū Manṣūr b. Abī Shujāʿ, Seljuq vizier 59, 150n272 al-Rāshid, ʿAbbasid caliph 73–4, 156n340 Rāwandī, historian 2 Romanus Digenes (Armānūs), Byzantine emperor 36, 38–40, 143n191 Sābiq al-Dīn Rashīd, amir 73 Sābūr, eunuch 68 Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ashall, vizier of Ïnanch 99–101 Saʿd al-Mulk Saʿd b. Muḥammad al-Ābī, Seljuq vizier 58–9, 150n269 Ṣadaqa (II) b. Dubays (II), Sayf al-Dawla, Amīr al-ʿArab, Mazyadid 75 Ṣadaqa (I) b. Manṣūr, Sayf al-Dawla, Malik al-ʿArab, Mazyadid 56–7, 150n263 Ṣadr al-Dīn b. al-Khujandī, Raʾīs of Isfahan 79, 157n359 Ṣafī al-Dīn, mustawfī 70 Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn (Saladin), Ayyubid ruler 129 Saljūq Shāh b. Muḥammad (I) b. Malik Shāh, Seljuq prince 58, 63, 69, 75–6

178

The History of the Seljuq State

Sallārjūr al-Zuhayrī al-Kurdī, amir 86, 159n379 al-Samarqandī, amir 65 Sanjar b. Malik Shāh, Seljuq sultan 18, 28, 53, 55, 59, 61–6, 68–9, 76, 81–4, 128 Sāra Khātūn bt. Qadïr Khān Yūsuf 17 Ṣārim al-Dīn, amir 95 Satmaz b. Qaymaz al-Ḥarāmī, ʿIzz al-Dīn, amir 96, 103 Sawtegin, amir 27, 42, 45–6 Sayyidī Khātūn bt. Malik Shāh 58 Seljuq b. Tuqāq 9–10, 132n29 Shāfiʿīs 3, 83, 157n359 Shāh Malik of Jand 12 Shams, eunuch 32 Shams al-Mulk Naṣr b. Ibrāhīm Tamghach Khān, Qarakhanid 41, 43–8, 143n192, 144–5n205, 145n217 Sharaf al-Dawla ʿUmar b. Shīrgīr, amir 69 Sharaf al-Dīn, eunuch 81 Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Rajāʾ, Seljuq vizier 72 Sharaf al-Dīn Amīrān Shumla, Atabeg 112 Sharaf al-Mulk Abū Saʿd al-Khwārazmī, mustawfī 42, 144n195 Sharaf al-Mulk, Khwāja, head of the dīwān al-ishrāf 50, 146n225 Sharaf al-Zamān al-Īlāqī, Imam 66 al-Shihāb Asʿad, secretary 67, 154n308 Shīrgīr, amir of Sultan Muḥammad (I) b. Malik Shāh 56, 58 Shīrgīr, Atabeg 68–9, 154n313 Shīrīn (?) b. Aq Sonqor 77, 157n352 Shirwān Shāh, Farīburz b. Sallār 52, 147n239 Shirwān Shāh, of a later period 122, 165n474 Shujāʿ b. Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd, Ghaznavid prince 17, 134n66 al-Silāḥī, Atabeg 75 al-Ṣīnī, Qāḍī 11 S.k.r (?) Khān, amir 98 Solomon, son of David 33, 35, 140n153 Sonqor, amir, lord of Zanjān 71, 74–5 Sonqor al-ʿAzīzī, amir 65 Sonqor b. Mawdūd, Salghurid Atabeg 97, 101–2, 161–2n417 Sonqorcha, Ḥājib 27 Sübashï, Ḥājib 12–14, 133n47 Sukmān or Sökmen b. Artuq, Artuqid 75, 146n344 Sulaymān b. Dāwūd b. Ibrāhīm b. Tamghach Khān, Qarakhanid 56, 149n256 Sulaymān b. Masʿūd b. Maḥmūd, Ghaznavid prince 17, 134n66

Sulaymān b. Qutlumush 52, 132n36, 147n233 Sulaymān Shah b. Muḥammad (I) b. Malik Shāh, Seljuq sultan 58, 77–8, 93, 95–6, 160nn395, 402 al-Sumayramī, Niẓām al-Dīn Kamāl al-Mulk, Seljuq vizier 62, 67, 151–2n285 Suqmān (II) b. Ibrāhīm, Shāh-i Arman 104–5, 107, 129, 162n423 Sūrī, Abu ’l-Faḍl b, Muʿtazz, ʿAmīd of Khurasan 12 Surkhāb, lord of Ṭarāz 52, 147n237 Tāj al-Mulk, Abu ’l-Ghanāʾim, secretary and vizier 48–50, 145–6n221 Tamara or Thamar, Queen of Georgia 12, 166n475 al-Tanūkhī, Qāḍī ʿAlī b. Muḥammad 4, 93–4, 160n396 Tāsh Farrāsh 12 Tāshiyya, Khwaja 95 Tatār, Ḥājib 76, 78, 80 Tekish b. Alp Arslān, Seljuq prince 41, 43, 45–7, 53 Tekish b. Il Arslān, Khwarazm Shah 5–6, 113–14, 121, 125–8, 129 Temürak, amir 42–3, 144n196 Temür Ḥājib. amir 31 Terken Khātūn, wife of Malik Shāh 53–4, 147n243 Terken Khātūn, wife of Sanjar 64–5 Tirshek, amir 52 Toghā(n) Yuurek, amir 74 Ṭoghrïl Beg (I) Muḥammad b. Mīkāʾīl b. Sejuq 11, 14–15, 19–22, 24, 27–8, 44, 128, 136nn97–8 Ṭoghrïl (II) b. Muḥammad (I) b. Malik Shāh, Seljuq sultan 58, 63, 68–72, 112, 155n328 Ṭoghrïl (III) b. Arslān Shāh, Seljuq sultan 2, 112–21, 125–9, 166n485 Ṭoghrïl Bozan, ghulām 17–18, 134n67 Ṭoghrïl Shāh b. Muḥammad, Seljuq ruler in Kirman 198, 162n430 Tughtegin, Ẓahīr al-Dīn, Arabeg 29, 129, 138n133 Tuqāq, Duqāq 9, 131n24 Tutush b. Alp Arslān, Seljuq ruler in Syria 41, 52, 54–5 ʿUbaydallāh al-Khaṭīb, Qāḍī 59 – al-Dīn b. Burhān al-Dīn, ʿUmar Ḥusam Ṣadr 66, 153n302

Index of persons, peoples and tribes 179 ʿUmar b. Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd, Ghaznavid prince 16 ʿUmar b. Öner, amir 65 ʿUmar b. Qarategin, amir 59 ʿUmar b. Shīrgīr, amir 58 Urus, Ildegizid mamlūk 115–16, 164n454 ʿUthmān b. Chaghrï Beg Dāwūd, Amīr al-Umarāʾ, Seljuq prince 44, 46 ʿUthmān b. Muḥammad b. Mahmūd, Ghaznavid prince 16 Yabghu, King of the Turks 9–10, 131n25 Yabghu or Bïghu b. Mīkāʾīl b. Seljuq 11, 15, 132n34 ? Yaghmā 65 Yaʿqūb b. Yïghā(n)tegin Sulaymān, apparently an Eastern Qarakhanid 52, 147n238 Yarïn Qush al-Bāzdārī, amir of malik Dāwūd 70, 72–4

Yarïn Qush al-Qārī, amir of Sanjar 65, 153n298 Yūsuf al-Chāwūsh, amir 69 Yūsuf al-Khwārazmī 41 Zāhida Khātūn, Ildegizid 119, 124 Ẓahīr al-Din, treasurer 83 Zangī, jāndār 79, 84–5 Zangī b. Aq Sonqor, ʿImād al-Dīn, Atabeg in Mosul 73, 129, 156n336 Zangī b. Mawdūd, Muẓaffar al-Dīn, Atabeg in Fars 101–4, 109, 113, 161–2n417 al-Zanjānī, Amīn al-Dīn Muḥammad, official 6, 126 al-Zanjānī, al-Muẓaffar b. Sayyidī, poet 78, 157n357 Zayn al-Dīn ʿAlī Küchük, amir 89–90, 95, 159n387 Zubayda Khātūn, mother of Berk-yārūq 54–5 Zubayda Khātūn bt. Berk-yārūq, 72

Index of places

ʿAbdallāhābād 27 Abhar 63, 116 Abkhāz 34–5, 47, 140n159 Aghāk Lāl 30, 139n139 Akhlāṭ, Khilāṭ 38, 75, 85, 113, 156n344 Aksaray 52 Alamūt 48, 56, 58, 71 Alanjār, Alanjah, fortress 119, 129 Aleppo 5, 36, 52, 54, 129 Ānī 31–2, 139n144 Ansābād 72 Antioch 46, 47, 50–1 Araxes river 36, 93 Ardabīl 70, 71, 79, 96, 104, 125 Armenia, Armenians 3, 19, 79, 113, 129 Arrān 1, 4, 47, 52, 55, 64, 68, 76, 79, 85, 93, 94, 98, 104, 113, 114, 119, 122, 125 Arwān, Alwand, 71, 155n324 Arzan 75, 156n344 Āwa 63 Azerbaijan 1, 19, 64, 69–74, 76, 79, 84, 89, 93, 95–6, 98, 100, 104, 108, 111, 113–14, 116, 118–19, 121, 128, 129 Azkā 13, 133n48 Bāb al-Ṭāq, at Baghdad 50 Bādghīs 44 Baghdad, the City of Peace 19–22, 49, 51, 53, 55–6, 58–9, 64, 67, 73–4, 76, 79–81, 86–93, 113–14, 117–18, 121 Balkh 12, 14, 16, 19, 24–6, 43–6, 59–61, 66, 82 Bardhaʿa 36, 140n148 Basāsīr, Basā, Fasā 19, 135n80 Basra 27, 87–8 Baṭīḥa 91–2 Bāward 12 Bayhaq 6, 25 Baylaqān 104, 123, 125, 162n422

Bisṭām 97, 108 B.r.z.m 144n193 Bukhara 19, 25 Burūjird 72, 104 Bust 12, 18 Byzantium, see al-Rūm China 65 Constantinople 52 Damascus 53, 72, 88, 128 Dāmghān 61, 63, 74, 116, 125 Dandānqān 5, 10, 15–16, 128 Darghām 66, 143n190 Darghān 39 Darguzīn 72, 151n284 Darzījān 82 Dāshīlū 55 Dāy Margh 117, 164n459 Daylam 63 Demavend 63 Dihistān 11, 13, 98, 161n404 Dīnawar 69 Diyār Bakr 66–7, 85, 109, 128, 156n344 Diyār Muḍar 19, 129 Diyār Rabīʿa 64, 129 Dwīn, Dabīl 55, 125, 149n254 Edessa 46, 52, 54 Euphrates river 36, 86 Farāwa 11 Fars 1, 33, 36, 43, 63, 70, 76, 78, 82, 103, 109, 113, 128 Fatḥābād 17 “Fortress of the Cross”, in Abkhāz 35 Ganja 33–4, 36, 58, 76, 104, 107, 119, 123–5, 140n155

Index of places 181 Georgia, Gurjistān, Georgians 2, 4, 6, 29–31, 36, 58, 79, 85, 89, 94, 98, 104–7, 113, 122–5 Gharchistān 44 al-Gharrāf 91–2, 159n382 Ghazna 11–12, 14, 16–18, 25, 44, 56, 63–4, 128 Ghūr 19, 44 Gīlān 63 Girdkūh 27, 61, 116 Gīrī 17 Gurgān 19, 89, 98, 108 Gurgānj 25, 32 Guwāshīr, Bardasīr 109, 162n431 Gūzgānān, Jūzjānān 13, 15 al-Ḥadītha 20 Hamadan 1, 20, 38, 43, 54–6, 60–1, 64, 67–72, 75–9, 81, 84–6, 93, 95–8, 104, 108–10, 112, 114–15, 117, 119, 121, 127, 154n312 Ḥaramayn 64 Hazārasp 25, 66 Herat 13–15, 19, 26, 44, 46, 60 al-Ḥilla 57, 86–7, 91 Ḥulwān 29, 73 India 18 ʿIrāq-i ʿAjam, Jibāl, Western Persia 49, 59, 66, 73, 81, 95, 99, 111, 113, 128, 135n72 ʿIrāq-i ʿArab, Iraq, Mesopotaia 1, 19–20, 49, 86–8, 90, 93 Isfahan 12, 18, 25, 32–3, 42, 52–4, 59, 61–4, 71, 74, 97, 100, 102, 112, 114, 125, 127 Isfīd Diz 76, 156n348 Isfizār 18 Iṣṭakhr 33 Jand 10, 12, 32 al-Jazīra 47, 72, 109 Jerusalem 46 Kabūd-Jāma 47, 145n210 al-Karkh 135n86 al-Karkhānī 118, 165n466 Kashghar 48 Kayseri 52 Khākistar 27, 138n119 Khān Lanjān 56, 149n261 Khilāṭ, see Akhlāṭ Khiṭā 65, 153n296 Khotan 65

Khoy, Khūy 36, 118, 141n169, 169n463 Khurasan 1–2, 5, 10, 13, 18–20, 24–9, 42, 45, 47, 49, 55, 59–62, 66, 69–73, 81, 128 Khurasan Gate, of Ray 127, 166n484 Khuwār 126, 166n481 Khuzistan 1, 76, 80, 84–5, 112–13, 121 Khwarazm 5, 12, 19, 25, 28, 32, 39, 70, 126, 128–9 Kirman 1, 32–4, 42–3, 64, 109–10, 128 Kirmānshāh, see Qirmīsīn Konya 52 K.ʾ.r.b.n (?) 27 Kundur 22, 137n100 Kūrshanba 74, 156n342 Lahore 64 al-Liḥf 86, 159n378 Manqishlāq, Manghïshlāq 32, 139n148 Mantzikert, Malāzgird, Manāzgird 2–3, 38, 75, 141n168, 156n344 Marāgha 70, 72–3, 76, 89, 95, 116, 129 Marand 29, 125, 138n131 Mārīkala 17 Marj Qarategin 71, 79–80, 97, 160n403 Marw al-Rūd 22 Maryam-nishīn 30, 139n135 Māzandarān 63, 128 Merv 1, 13–15, 19, 21, 26, 33, 41–2, 52, 60, 66, 82–3 Miyānij 78, 157n356 Mosul 19, 64, 67, 72–3, 85, 89, 93, 95, 107, 111, 113, 129 Murghāb 46 Mushkūya 126, 166n483 Naghar 16 Nakhchiwān 85, 93, 104, 107, 111–12, 119, 121, 123–5, 163n436 Nakhshab 47 Nasā 11, 128 al-Nawbandajān 75 Nihāwand 69 al-Nīl 113, 163n442 Nishapur 3, 11–14, 19, 22–3, 26, 28, 42, 60–1, 82–4, 107–9 Niṣībīn 20 Niẓāmiyya colleges 49, 146n223 al-Nuʿmāniyya 57, 150n262 Nūr of Bukhara 128 Nūra 31, 139n143

182

The History of the Seljuq State

Oman 42–3 Oxus river 10, 19, 25, 28, 39, 41, 47, 50, 63, 74, 82 Pūshang 19 Qarābāj, Qarābāgh 24, 137n109 Qarābulī Pass 77, 95 Qārṣ, Kars 31 al-Qaṭīf 102, 162n429 Qaṭwān 65, 153n301 Qazwīn 63, 70, 120, 126 Qirmīsīn, Kirmānshāh 112, 117, 163n439 Qubādiyān 25 Quhistān 19 Qum 96 Qūmis 63 Rād al-Rūdh (?) 87, 159n383 al-Raḥba 19 al-Rahwa 38, 142n177 Ray 2, 6, 19, 27, 38, 42–5, 54–5, 62–4, 68–9, 71, 76–9, 81, 85, 89, 93, 96–101, 108, 114–16, 120, 125–7 Rāyikān 33, 140n150 Rūdhrāwar 55, 149n252 Rūdhbār 15, 134n55 al-Rūm, Byzantium, Anatolia 1–2, 26, 29–32, 34, 38–40, 49, 52 Rūwin Diz 73, 156n338 Ṣabrān, Ṣawrān 32 Sādkān, castle at Merv 60–1, 151n276 Safīdh Shahr 30, 139n138 Salmās 36, 118, 141n169, 165n463 Sāmān 63 Samarqand 40, 45, 49, 52, 56, 61–2, 64–5, 98, 128 Sapīdh Shahr 30, 139n138 Sarakhs 14–15, 44 Sarjahān 78, 113, 116, 121, 157n354 Ṣarṣar canal 92–3, 160n390 Sāruq 63 Sāwa 27, 63, 98–9, 126 Shāh Diz 56, 149n261 Shakkī 34–5, 141n161

Shamkūr 125 Shammāsiyya Gate, of Baghdad 89, 159, 386 Shāwashkān 13, 133n48, 151n276 Shiraz 75, 97, 113 Shink al-ʿAbbādī 15, 133n54 Shirwān 52, 122 Simnān 125, 166n481 Sinjār 47, 145n216 Sistan 19–20, 64–5 Sujās 77, 157n353 Sumayram 151n285 Surmārī 30, 138n134 Syria 36, 46–7, 52, 67, 128–9 Ṭabarak 19, 125, 161n414 Ṭabaristān 61, 63, 71 Ṭabas 61, 151n280 Tabriz 70, 73–7, 119–21, 124 Takrīt 87 Ṭālaqān 63 Ṭamghāj 41, 143n192 Ṭarāz 52 Teginābād 12–13 Tiflis 35, 104, 141n163 Tigris river 91 Tirmidh 24–5, 45, 47, 60, 82 Transoxania 3, 19, 21, 47–8, 56, 63–5, 98, 128 T.s.l W.r.da 31, 139n143 Ṭukhāristān 12, 25, 43 Ṭūs 11, 53 Urmiya 118, 165n463 Ushnuh 118, 165n463 Wādī al-Milḥ 27 Wakhsh 25 Walwālij 25, 44 Wāsiṭ 87–8, 92, 112–13 W.r.yān.s 36 Yemen 46, 52 Zāb river 118 Zanjān 63, 70–1, 74, 78, 112, 116, 120, 125–6

Index of technical terms

ākhur-sālār, amīr ākhur 28, 78, 138n124 amīr al-ḥujjāb 110 amīr al-silāḥ 96 aṣḥāb al-nawba 60–1 awbāsh 15, 36, 45 chatr 27, 43, 44, 63, 67, 103, 138n121 dār al-ḥaram 64 dihqān 11, 63 dīwān al-inshāʾ 50 dīwān ishrāf al-mamālīk 50, 146n225 fuqqāʿ 68, 154n314 fusṭāṭ 38, 143n183 ghāshiya 21, 52, 95, 115, 136n89 ḥalqa 120 ḥasham 98 ḥashar 41 al-ḥusbānāt wa ’l-marāsīl 32 ījī, ögey 62, 105, 154n307 iqṭāʿ , qaṭīʿa 43, 49, 60, 61, 72, 73, 75, 86, 87, 93, 98, 101, 110, 125 isfahsālār 54, 57 jāliya 52 jāmakiyyāt 100 jāndār 54, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 84, 85, 148n246 jārūkh, chārūkh 91 jizya 31, 48

kharkhāwāt 52, 64, 147n236 kushk 84, 115, 164n451 marghzār 97 al-mawkab al-sharīf 118 mulḥam 17, 134n61 mulḥid 67 muṣādara 67 mustawfī 42, 144n193 nafaqāt 100 naffāṭūn 32 nawba 44, 62, 152n286 qubba 83, 158n371 ṣalb, taṣlīb 135–6n86 ?sarfasārāt 103 shiḥna 60, 86, 159n384 al-sufun wa ’l-zawārīq 30, 139n136 sumayriyya 86, 159n380 surādiq 62, 103 tash’hīr 135n86 tawqīʿ 92 ṭughrāʾī 145n221 ṭuʿma 84, 158n374 ʿulūm al-awāʾil 58 Wadhārī cloth 22, 136n95 wuṣūl 28, 138n128 yabghu 9, 131n25, 132n34

kharkhāwāt 52, 64, 147n236 kātib al-inshāʾ 59