Shirazi Article Proofs

7/30/2019 Shirazi Article Proofs

1/22


2/22

Author queries:


3/22


4/22

Mongol News: The Akhbar-i Moghul an dar Anbaneh

Qutb by Qut.b al-D n Mah. mud ibn Masud Shr az

1

2

GEORGE LANE3

Abstract4

The recent unearthing of this thirteenth century collection of notes pertaining to the political history of5

the early Ilkhanate has thrown some light on events and attitudes of that time. Though the manuscript6

was actually penned by Qutb al-Din Shirazi of the Rasadkhana in Maragha, it is not certain that he7

was the author of the work. Rather than comprising one continuous narrative of events, the manuscript8

is a collection of notes and observations, occasionally detailed but other times very sketchy. However9

stamped with the seal of the Raba al-Rashidi there is evidence that this text was used selectively as10

a source for Rashid al-Dins Jama-ye Tavarikh. What is particularly interesting is that some of the11

events that are quoted in Rashid al-Dins chronicles are only partially reported and it is obvious that12

for whatever reasons parts of Shirazis accounts are omitted in the re-telling.13

14

The Akhbar-i Moghul an dar Anbaneh Qutb, penned though not necessarily authored by Qutb15

al-Dn Shraz (12361311),1 recounts the rule of Hulegu Khan and his son Abaqa and16

the travails and ultimate demise and death of Abaqas brother and would-be successor,17

Ahmad Tegudar. It is an original and independent source and although it covers well-known18

events and personalities, it throws new light on these events and makes some startling and19

controversial claims concerning other matters that are only lightly touched upon elsewhere.20

Qut.b al-Dn Mah. mud ibn Masud Shraz (634-710/1236-1311) is best known for his21

association with Nas.r al-Dn T. us (d.1274) and his work at the famous observatory of22

Maragha. Born into a cultured and educated family, Qut.b al-Dn received medical training23

from his father, Zia-al-Din Masud Kazeruni, a well-known physician and Sufi, who died24

when the boy was only fourteen, leaving his sons schooling in the hands of some of Shirazs25

leading scholars. Shraz left Shiraz in 1260 and is believed to have finally arrived at the26

Rasadkhana in 1262.27

From its inauguration the observatory attracted scholars from all over Iran and beyond, and28

Shraz resumed his education under T. us adding astronomy to medicine, ophthalmology,29

Avicennas Qanun and the other sciences in which he had already been schooled. Religion30

1Sayyed Abd-Allah Anwar, QOT. B-AL-DIN SIRAZI, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online edn, 2005, >

JRAS, Series 3, 22, 2 (2012), pp. 119 C The Royal Asiatic Society 2012

doi:10.1017/S1356186312000375


5/22

2 George Lane

had of course comprised a major element of his early education and he had received his31

Kherqa, a Sufi robe, from Najib-al-Dn Ali b. Bozgosh Shiraz. His father had received32

his own Kherqa from the renowned Shehab-al-Din Omar Sohravardi. Shraz had been a33

precocious and avid student of theology, but he was a true polymath and he matched T. uss34

passion for the stars, becoming instrumental in the composition of the astronomical tables35(Zij) for which the Maragha observatory became justly celebrated. A revealing anecdote36

from the comparatively short time that Shraz stayed in Maragha recounts how the Ilkhan,37

Hulegu, revealed to the young scholar on a visit to the royal court that the only reason that38

he did not have T. us executed was that he needed him to finish the Zij. The earnest Qut.b39

al-Dn responded by assuring Hulegu that he should not fear because he would be quite40

capable of finishing the tables for him. When T. us asked his star pupil if this story were41

true, the guileless Qut.b assured him that it was. Warned that Hulegu was unlikely to have42

appreciated Shrazs ironic banter, Qut.b assured his master that he had not been joking.2 It43

is worth noting that in T.

uss later records of the Rasadkhana, Shrazs name is absent from44

the list of his assistants despite the vast amount of important work that he had devoted to the45

composition of the tables. Rashd al-Dn and Wassaf similarly omit mention of Qut.b al-Dn46

in their accounts of the Maragha observatory. However, confirmation of Shrazs crucial47

contribution to the Zijis attested to indirectly when, in his will, the was.iya, T. us advises his48

son, As.il-al-Din, to work with Shraz on the completion of the astronomical tables.49

As well as erudite and voluminous commentaries and analyses of T. uss astronomical and50

occasional astrological calculations, Shraz produced his own novel mathematical solutions51

to the problems with which this learned elite at the Rasadkhana were grappling, along with52

his own ideas on among other things, the motion of the planets and other heavenly bodies.53

However, his stay in Maragha ended after he travelled to Khorasan with T. us and then54decided against returning, instead remaining in Jovein to study under Najm-al-Din Katebi55

Qazvini.3 Sometime after 1268 it is recorded that he travelled widely around the country56

ending up in Anatolia where it is known that he encountered the Sufi-poet Jalal al-Dn57

Rum.4 In Konya he again resumed his studies, with S. adr-al-Din Qunaw (d. 1274) guiding58

his progress. When the governor of Rum, the Parvana Moin-al-Din Solayman, appointed59

Qunaw judge of Sivas and Malatya, Shraz went with him, all the time increasing his circle60

of friends and contacts. It was Qut.b al-Dn who was chosen by the Ilkhan, Ahmad Tegudar,61

to travel to Egypt in 1282 as his representative to the court of Sayf-al-Din Qalawun (r.62

12791290) to whom he was described as the Ilkhans chief judge. It was on his return63

from Egypt that he began work on the Akhbar-i-Moghal an. After settling in Syria where he64

taught the two celebrated works of Avicenna, the Qanun on medicine and the Shefa on65

philosophy, he moved to Tabriz, where that he died at the age of 75 and was buried in the66

Charandab Cemetery, close to the tomb of Qazi Bayzaw.567

Qut.b al-Dn Shraz is remembered as an intellectual giant in an age of exceptional68

scholars. However, he is famous not only for his prolific intellectual output and the passion69

with which he acquired knowledge but for his good-nature and humour, a zest for life and70

2K

wandamir (III, pp. 116117), tr. Thackston, p. 65.3H

.afez

.H.

osayn Kerbela, vol. I, p. 324.4H. afez. H. osayn Kerbela, vol. I, pp. 326327.5Qasani, pp. 118119; H. afez. H. osayn, I, pp. 324, 331; Fas.ih. K

afi, III, p. 18.


6/22

Mongol News 3

a generosity of spirit. Khwandamr records that his major characteristic was mirth, and he71

constantly told jokes and pleasantrie.6 He was known as a proficient chess player and as a72

musician who entertained with the rabab, and he cultivated a wide circle of diverse friends73

and acquaintances. Hitherto he had not been noted as an historian, but his many contacts74

in the political world and his influence with the movers and shakers of the Ilkhanate made75him an ideal commentator and observer. However Qut.b al-Dn has now been credited with76

the transcription rather than the authorship of this newly edited, short history of the early77

Ilkhanate though the extent of his input of the content is certainly debateable..78

The actual date of writing is given early in this annotated chronology as 680/1280, where79

on the first page of the manuscript (folio 22b) listing the rulers of the house of Jochi and80

their dominion over the Qipchaq steppe (Khifjaq in text), it states that after him [Monku81

Timur], Tuta Monku who is padeshah at this time (saat), that is the year 680.782

Known more for his thoughts on astronomy and theology, Qut.b al-Dns work as83

a calligrapher is often overlooked. In fact a considerable number of mediaeval Persian84

manuscripts from collections around the world are written in the hand of Shraz including85

the codex from which the present historical chronicle is taken. This codex is currently in the86

library of the Ayatollah al-Uz.ma Marash Najaf in Qom (MS Marash 12868) and remains87

accessible for researchers. For many years the codex had been broken up and dispersed before88

being collected, collated and rebound and eventually acquired by the current library in Qom.89

A detailed study of the Marash codex by Reza Pourjavady and Sabine Schmidtke appeared90

in 2007 in Studia Iranica. As well as a careful itemised analysis of the contents of the codex91

Schmidtke and Pourjavady revealed the extent of Shrazs work as a copyist, demonstrating92

that he penned not only many of his own works but those of his contemporaries, including93

his colleague Nasir al-Dn T. us.94The Shraz codex containing this short history of the early Ilkhanate, comprises 14795

leaves and originally belonged to the library of Rashd al-Dn in the Rab-e Ras d , Tabriz, as96

indicated by stamps on some of the leaves bearing the insignia waqf-e-ket abkhana Rashd .97

The folios are incomplete and there are leaves missing from many sections including from98

the beginning and the end of the codex itself. The codex has undergone various preservation99

measures and now contains fourteen sections whose disparate contents throw much light100

on the intellectual interests of Qut.b al-Dn Shraz and the cultural milieu in which he101

lived. There are various Persian and Arabic quatrains and poems including verse by Umar102

Khayyam, fragments of works on philosophy, extracts from the sayings of Plato, extensive103

fragments from the work of Taj al-Dn Shahrestan, various quotations from pre-Islamic104

Persian and Greek thinkers, large tracts by his contemporary, the Jewish philosopher Ibn105

Kammuna and Samawal al-Maghribs Silencing the Jews (Ifh. am al-Yahud) and also the106

anonymous Mongol chronicle currently under review.107

The chronicle was composed between 1281 and 1285 but gives no indication as to its108

authorship or whether it was a collaborative project, although the repetition of certain109

phrases and verb forms throughout the work suggests one author. No irrefutable evidence110

exists to prove the argument either way. Iraj Afshar, the editor, suggests that there are111

6Khwandmir, p. 116; tr. Thackston, p. 66.7Shraz, p. 20.


7/22

4 George Lane

various external reasons for presuming that Qut.b al-Dn is the actual author, but at the same112

time he cites two reasons for doubting Shrazs authorship. First, there is inconsistency in113

the spelling of certain names found throughout the chronicle. This, however, was not an114

uncommon phenomenon at this time and since no system of efficient proofreading existed115

it is hardly surprising. Afshar points out that variations in spelling within a single document116were common at this time. Second, there is the claim by the author of this chronicle that he117

had been at Hulegus court very often [bisiyar uqat]8 whereas, the editor recalls, there is118

only one recorded meeting between Shraz and Hulegu Khan when in 660 AH T. us took119

his colleague to the Ilkhanid court. Despite these many visits of the author of the chronicle120

to Hulegus court, there remains only this one cited reference to Sh raz meeting Hulegu, a121

discrepancy which at best constitutes flimsy evidence either way. 9122

The present pagination of the folios no longer corresponds to the original order of writing.123

As he explains in his introduction to the Akhbar-i Mughul an, Iraj Afshar is responsible for124

re-ordering the folios and arranging them in the correct chronological sequence. Both125

the original and the chronological order of the folios are given in the introduction along126

with a summary of each section and sheet. However, whether by loss or through design, the127

chronology of these early decades of Ilkhanid rule do not flow smoothly and gaps of differing128

lengths occur intermittently. Four years between the years 658 and 662, and the eight years129

between 667 and 675 are missing. Other gaps then appear throughout the remainder of the130

history. The sevenyear gap between the years 667 through to 675 is the longest omission and131

the final year, 683, receives the fullest and most detailed treatment. As well as the problem132

with the erroneous rebinding of the original folios, the editor has also had his own problems133

with his edited version. The page for the year 656 has inexplicably appeared on page 41,134

whereas it should appear as page 35.135The appearance of this previously littleknown volume of chronological notes dating136

from the second half of the thirteenth century, detailing among other events the fall of137

Alamut, the siege of Baghdad, and the collapse of relations between Ahmad Tegudar and his138

nephew, Arghun Khan, is both welcome and very exciting. Published in Qum, Iran, this139

slender tome contains a short introduction with a skeletal outline of the chronology and the140

corresponding events, an edited text, and also a facsimile copy of the original manuscript.141

Why someone of Qut.b al-Dn Shirazs stature should task himself with such a work and142

why he has not been awarded any acknowledgment for his efforts remains a mystery, but his143

contributions to our knowledge of this turbulent and controversial period of Iranian history144

are undoubtedly valuable and offer insights on major events and characters some details of145

which are not found elsewhere despite the possible use of this manuscript as a source for146

Rashd al-Dns J ama al-Tav ar kh or the use of a common source by both histories. The147

extent of Shrazs involvement in the authorship of the manuscript remains uncertain and148

this controversy is explored in the introductory pages, but it must be presumed that Sh raz149

harboured sympathy for the views expressed in this record and the greatest respect for the150

author or even authors of the chronicle.151

8Shraz, p. 22.9Shraz, pp. 910.


8/22

Mongol News 5

Iraj Afshar presents the text with a minimal amount of commentary and there is also152

very little scholarly analysis; this factor therefore invites future study and research on this153

important text. The language of the chronology is plain, direct and stripped of the usual154

Persian excesses and hyperbole so characteristic of the style of that time although various155

idiosyncrasies do occur: for example, to specify just one, the use of na-mandan to signify156death and bir un na-manad meaning not to remain living that is, to die.157

The beginning of the Mongol government and the advent of Chinggis Khan the title158

of the short introductory chapter, opens with the names of the Great Khans forefathers159

and the date of Chinggis Khans emergence which is given in five calendars: The Arab160

calendar at AH599, the Rumiyan calendar1514 [sic], the Zoroastrian calendar of Yazdegerd161

III 572 and both the Uyghur calendar and the Chinese calendar recording the year of the162

Pig10 corresponding to 1202/3 CE. However, it is not clear to exactly which events the163

dates refer: 1202/3 being a year prior to Temujins enthronement. This generous serving of164

dates, which reflects a cosmopolitanism and a global awareness and attitude in the author,165

is mirrored in certain other textual sources from this era and is in striking contrast to the166

more parochial outlook commonly found at this time in the local sources whether Arab,167

Persian, or Armenian. Other examples of the use of multiple calendars, such as the early168

fourteenthcentury Persian tombstone unearthed in Hangzhou belonging to a amir and169

merchant resident in the former Song capital along with a mid-fifteenth-century mosque170

stele, while no doubt reflecting the same sophisticated and worldly nature, can be more readily171

explained by their location far from home on the other side of the planet. These men were172

ex-patriots, far from their homes, and who were truly part of an international community.173

The use of these multiple calendars in Iran suggests either that the small community residing174

at the Rasad-knana of Maragha was itself international or that it was composed members175of the Toluid elite, men who travelled from west to east and back again and who regarded176

themselves as citizens of a dynamic and growing empire where the traditional limitations177

and labels of identity no longer applied, and the old restrictions of religion, class and family178

could no longer constrain.11179

With the dates establishing the authors attitude and world view rather than a historically180

precise moment in time, the tone of the chronicle is set. Chinggis Khan is introduced with181

an anecdote from the lean years when at Baljuna his core supporters pledged their loyalty182

and fidelity. The story, or rather the topos, relates how Chinggis Khan along with 70 of his183

faithful followers were stranded in the desert at Wadi Balchuneh (Baljuna) without food.184

One of his soldiers manages to shoot down a desert sparrow and the bird is then roasted and185

offered to the Khan. The Khan orders that the bird be divided into 70 parts from which186

he then took his share, no larger than any one of the other portions. As a result of such187

righteousness and exemplary behaviour, the text continues, all the people became devotees188

and followers of Chinggis Khan and gave their souls to his cause. So starts Qut.b al-Dns189

history of the Mongols and the Ilkhans up until the ascension of Arghun Khan on Friday,190

10Shraz, p. 19.11See George Lane,The Phoenix Mosque of Hangzhou and A.H. Morton, Muslim gravestones

in the Phoenix Mosque in Hangzhou , Qinghua Yuanshi , no.1, edn I, (2011).


9/22

6 George Lane

27 Jumada I. 683 (11 August 1285) and it is clear the regard in which the author holds the191

grandfather of the regime under which he served.192

The authors and by implication, Shirazs sympathetic view of the Chinggisids is made193

clear from the start. This was a regime of which he felt himself a part and an empire in which194

he saw himself as both a player and a beneficiary. He summarises the Chinggisid conquests195and the individual rulers before observing that with the ascension of Mongke Qaan The196

wolf and the sheep drank water together12,13 a sentiment expressed also by Sad in the197

introduction to his Gulistan.14 Echoing Juwayn, who was also particularly effusive in his198

praise for the new Qaan, Mongke, the author, (hereafter Shiraz to denote the man whose199

opinions are expressed), portrays the Toluid ascendancy in very positive terms typified in200

such statements as The like of the days of justice and equity that dominated during his201

[Mongkes] days are few15 , but he adds that after taking measures such as killing, beating,202

shackling and the like not one person from among those that had been co-conspirators in203

opposition remained alive but not one innocent person suffered loss.16 His final observation204

claims: When the work of those provinces, Turkestan, and Khitai, and Oxiana, and Tibet,205

and Tangut, and many other provinces were put in order [r ast kard], he sent his own brother206

Hulegu in the direction of [the river] Jayhun that is to say the provinces of the Arabs and of207

the Persians in order to put them in order [r ast konad].17208

The vast extent of the conquests is repeatedly emphasised and the ambitions for total209

conquest that were still harboured as Hulegu moved westward are underlined with the210

explicit threats made to the still unconquered Arabs also recorded. Coupled with the threats211

of violence are reminders of the justice which l [obedience and submission] can bring and212

the fact that word of these conquests and the justice of the Mongol edicts had even reached213

the lands of the Franks and the Rumiyan.18214Hulegus first appointment after crossing the Jayhun (Oxus) was with the despised215

mul ahadeh, the Ismals, though the language used in reference to these feared heretics has216

none of the loathing and almost pathological hatred evident in the writing of Juwayn and217

other Sunni commentators. The writer goes into great detail in describing the preparation218

that had gone into the planning of Hulegus advance. After a summary of the many countries219

that had submitted to Hulegus forces and an account of the justice that had been delivered220

as these lands were liberated [mastakhlas], witnessed by the author on his many trips to221

Hulegus court, a detailed description is given of the armaments that Hulegu had brought222

with him to deal with the perceived threat from the mul ahadeh. The precise picture that223

emerges of the giant Kaman-ha-ye Cherkh or crossbow recalls Juwayns Kaman-i-Gavand the224

illustration from the Wu Jing Zong Yao ( )19 of1044 of a lethal machine quite capable225

of delivering explosive devices. These powerful crossbows were able to deliver heavily re-226

enforced arrows wrapped in leather with deadly precision over great distances to hit moving227

14Sadi of Shiraz, tr.Francis Gladwin, intro & ed Kamal Haj Sayyed Javadi, The Gulistan orRose Garden, al-Hoda,Tehran, 1379/2000, p. 14.

15Shraz, p. 20.16Shraz, p. 20.17Shraz, p. 21.18Shraz, p. 22.19Collection of the Most Important Military Techniques was a Chinese military compendium written in 1044 AD,

by Zeng Gongliang ( ), Ding Du ( ), and Yang Weide ( ).


10/22

Mongol News 7

targets, a vulture [or] eagle in flight high in the mountains or strapped together to pound a228

castles walls and ramparts. Whether the Chinggisid forces were employing explosives at this229

stage, a view strongly supported by the Yuan scholar Stephen Haw,20 and that the word batan230

or possibly panbeh refers to some kind of explosive material is an intriguing possibility.To231

sustain the slow-moving army that accompanied these massive machines, provisions had232already been put in place by Arghun Aqa and other commanders, as reported by Juwayni233

in his history of these events, emirs and local rulers . . . began to prepare provisions (ul ufa)234

and get togethertuzghu or offerings of food; and they set down their offerings at every stage235

(of the armys advance.).21 Shraz itemises some of the preparation that was in place to236

meet the demands of this vast body of men who were launched onto the Iranian plateau.237

And from all the provinces they brought out provisions and supplies without limit and beyond238

compare. They set off by donkey, camel and cow and asses (long ears) and such like. They had239

brought limitless noodles and cooked porridge (Tatum ash, Tatumaj),22 and pounded millet (g avrus-240

i kufteh) from the provinces of Khitai and Uyghorestan to the foot of Alamut and Mimundaz and241that castle, and every half farhang they had stacked ample flour and rice and necessities /ingredients242

(staples) in bags of fine linen so that everywhere was found great hills [of provisions].23243

The huge war machine that is so precisely described had been transported from Turkestan244

along with trained experts, and upon its arrival on the borders of Khorasan written orders and245

messengers were dispatched to the maluk and padeshahan of the provinces. In these messages246

Hulegu Khan solemnly pledged that if the royal recipients of his messages should undertake247

to assist him with troops, armaments and military supplies in his forthcoming confrontation248

with the mul ahadeh, he would be under an obligation to provide peace and security for them249

and their provinces. Should they decline his invitation Hulegu would deal with them after250he was free from the Ismaili business and that later any excuses that they might offer him251

would not be accepted. The menace lurking in his messages was almost palpable and the252

author of this history itemises the response to Hulegus request. The Atabeg of Shiraz, the253

sultans of Rum, the kings of Khorasan, Sistan, Mazanderan, Kerman, Rustamdar, Shirwan,254

Gorjestan, Iraq, Azerbayjan, Arran, and Luristan and some other representatives all came.255

Others sent their brothers or relatives and they all sent men, military supplies, provisions,256

and gifts and placed themselves at his service.24257

The writers point is clear. Hulegu Khan operated with the support of the rulers of the258

whole country. The account of Hulegus slow negotiations with Alamut culminating in the259

young Rukn al-Dns final surrender do not differ from other accounts in any significant260

ways although there is the suggestion that cholera (waba)25 proved a factor in the reluctant261

surrender of Lamasar.26 The scale of the military operation is stressed from the start with262

the claim that the siege of the first castle, Girdkoh, was such as nobody had ever seen263

20See Stephen Haw, Gunpowder and the Mongols, JRASforthcoming.21Juwayni, vol. III, p. 94; tr. Boyle, p. 609.22See Paul Buell, Soup for the Qan, p. 298.23Shraz, p. 24.24Shraz, pp. 2223.25See Lawrence I. Conrad, Taun and Waba Conceptions of Plague and Pestilence in Early Islam, Journal

of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 25, No. 3 (1982), pp. 268307.26Shraz, p. 28.


11/22

8 George Lane

[before].27 The castle set a formidable task for the assailants. A moat had been dug around264

the fortified outer walls which protected the houses which lay between the outer walls265

and another inner wall and moat, with this whole structure surrounding and protecting the266

innermost buildings access to which was restricted by these moats and walls. After a day267

or two with the operation proving more difficult than anticipated, Hulegu ordered his top268commanders to initiate a prolonged siege which resulted after a year more or less in the269

deaths of a great many of the besieged from cholera. News was brought to the Ism al leader270

the Khwarshah Ala al-Dn to inform him that not a man remained in Girdkoh and that271

the castle was lost. His response was to order the mobilisation of a hundred men under the272

command of Moqdam al-Dn Mohammad Mobaraz who was able to lead his troop through273

enemy lines and into the castle itself suffering only one casualty a man who fell into the274

moat and broke his leg. Though this story appears in Rashd al-Dn, there are important275

embellishments: for example, that Mobaraz and his men each carried two maunds of henna276

and three maunds of salt for the sick of Girdkoh in the belief that henna was a cure for277

cholera. Other slight differences and additions suggest that Rashd al-Dn had additional278

sources of information.28 Once in the castle Mobaraz and his men were able to strengthen279

the defences and continued to defy the enemy for another 20 years. Shraz adds that280

finally after twenty years the defiant Ismailis surrendered and came down from their fortress281

only to be seized and summarily executed.29282

The text does not dwell on the suspicious murder in 653 of Ala al-Dn Mohammad and283

the assumption of power by his young son, Rukn al-Dn, known as the Khwarshah. The284

short opening paragraph for this year, 653, simply states that a trusted and close servant of285

Ala al-Dn Mohammad killed him, describing the man as a shakhs -ye mortad, an apostate,286

the standard derogatory term for an Ismaili.30 Rashd al-Dn repeats the widely held belief287that the Khwarshah was indirectly responsible for his fathers death and Juwayn provides the288

detail and background to the complex fatherson relationship.31 Shrazs account is shorter289

than both Rashd al-Dns and Juwayns, but the inclusion of slight differences suggests that290

it might have had an independent source. Shraz relates that Hulegu thundered down291

unexpectedly fast to surround the area where the Khwarshah was camped but that his arrival292

was hampered by extremely heavy rain. If there had not been such heavy rain that night293

it was possible that they would have captured Rukn al-Dn at the foot of the castle. Rukn294

al-Dn became aware and in the morning went into the castle.32 The grip of the besieging295

army was tightened as troops from all directions converged in the manner of a nerge33296

engulfing the whole area in less than 24 hours for six farsang around the castle so densely297

that a single man could not walk through those ranked soldiers.34 Cholera (waba) is also298

credited with finally destroying the castle of Lamsar which the Khwarsh ahs relatives held299

27Shraz, p. 25.28Rashd al-Dn, p. 982, tr. Thackston, p. 481.29Shraz, pp. 2526.30Shraz, p. 27.31Juwayn, vol. III, pp. 253260; pp. 707712; Rashd al-Dn, pp. 981983, tr. Thackston, pp. 481482.32Shraz, p. 28.33The Mongols hunt described by many including Juwayn, vol. I, pp. 1920; tr. Boyle, pp. 2728; see George

Lane, Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule, (London, 2004), pp. 157161.34Shraz, p. 28.


12/22

Mongol News 9

onto for more than a year, a fact which is not mentioned by Juwayn . The warm reception300

afforded the young Rukn al-Dn gladdened and encouraged him to call for the surrender301

of his remaining strongholds, most of which duly surrendered. The killing of Rukn al-Dn302

on his trip east to Mongkes court followed by the extermination of his extended family, his303

harem and his retainers is reported coldly and factually without comment in striking contrast304to Juwayns exuberant version of events.35305

Shraz or whoever authored this chronicle does not share the antipathy felt towards306

the Ismailis commonly found in the works of Sunni commentators. The standard offensive307

epithets for the Ismailis are used almost by convention, but the author perhaps reveals the308

true direction of his sympathises later when discussing the appointment of Shia governors to309

Damascus. The incident occurs in the year651 following the death of the Caliph in 656. The310

conquest of Syria is dealt with summarily with Aleppo, which endured a massacre, contrasted311

with Damascus, which escaped the formers fate after having sent envoys to Hulegu bearing312

gifts. Rashd al-Dn explains the background to the welcome laid out for Hulegu by the313

grandees of Damascus and the two accounts agree on at least the names of the two Persian314

governors appointed to the city, Ala al-Dn Jast and Qadi Shams al-Dn Qum, although315

Rashd al-Dn names another Persian governor, Jamal al-Dn Qaraqa Qazvn, and claims316

that a Mongol shahna was sent to oversee the three Tajiks.36 Shrazs account comments on317

the surprisingly warm welcome afforded the envoy from the people of Damascus, explaining318

first that the two Persians were Shia from the holy city of Qom. Shraz is amazed that319

the two Shia-ye Qum were greeted so warmly and that no adverse incidents or emotions320

emerged during their tenure. However, what marks this passage as significant is the epithet321

used by the author to describe the people of Damascus. Shraz states that many people322

of Damascus are generally Yazd,37 a reference to the second Umayyad Caliph Yazd ibn323Muawiya ibn Ab Sufyan (645-683CE/60-63AH) who is held in contempt by all Muslims324

but who is particularly hated by the Shia who hold him responsible for the murder of Imam325

Husein bin Al. Referring to Sunnis as Yazidis would be considered both provocative and326

insulting and its use here also suggests that the audience for this chronicle must have been327

limited or restricted. The acknowledged presence of the chronicle in Rashd al-Dns library328

is therefore noteworthy.329

The four short pages devoted to the fall of Baghdad contain one significant addition to330

the usual accounts of what has since been described both as a disastrous calamity for Islamic331

civilisation and as final liberation from Arab dominance. The addition is the role of cholera332

in swelling the final death toll of Baghdad and revealing the use of the Tigris for the disposal333

of bodies. Otherwise, the account of events leading up to the momentous confrontation334

between what has been depicted as the forces of good against the forces of evil, the battle335

between ancient foes, the Arabs and the Persians, or even the pitting of the steppe versus336

the sown, is here outlined and summarised in non-committal terms. Once again, the author337

stresses the united front that the Iranian forces were able to present in the build-up to the338

attack on Baghdad.339

35Shraz, p. 29.36Rashid al-Dn, p. 1027; tr. Thackston, p. 503,.37Shraz, p. 35.


13/22

10 George Lane

From the province of Pars to the province of Rum, one body of men beyond borders and beyond340

number, descended on Baghdad.38341

The position and role of each provinces troops are then specified, along with the position342

and role of Hulegus top commanders and noyans, but the political intrigues and shenanigans343

which occupy so much space in other, fuller accounts of this pivotal event are barely touched344

upon. Subtle differences between the words of Rashd al-Dn and Shrazs account shape345

the readers understanding of events. Shraz describes the armies of Pars and Kirman346

coming from the road of Khuzistan and Shishtar in such a way that their left hand came347

[along] the shores of the Omani sea,39 whereas Rashd al-Dn refers to Ket Buqa Noyan,348

Qudsun, and Elgai entering the left wing from Luristan, [Dezful] Khuzistan, and Bayat as349

far as the shore of the gulf.40 In Shrazs account, the reader is given a picture of Persian350

armies massing and then moving towards Baghdad where Mongol commanders directed351

them into battle, whereas with Rashd al-Dn the emphasis is on the Mongol commanders;352

the fact that they had Persian soldiery under their command is almost ignored. Rash d al-353Dn repeats certain details that suggest that he had access to, and was willing to use, parts354

of Shrazs work. For example, both accounts observe that when the supply of mangonel355

stones in Baghdad was exhausted, rocks were brought in from Jalula and Jabal Khamrin356

and then date palms were cut down and hurled instead of stones. 41 What is interesting,357

however, is not what Rashd al-Dn copied but rather what he possibly chose to ignore or358

to deliberately leave out.359

Certain rather unedifying details are included, such as the report of the dispatching of360

12000 ears belonging to the defeated army of the Caliphs Daw atd ar (secretary of state) to361

Hulegu; the massacre of unarmed civilians after they had surrendered and gathered outside362

the city walls; the lack of space for burial of the dead, compounded by the dearth of porters363

to dispose of the bodies; and the eventual donation by the Caliph of his own private grounds364

to be used for the burial of the growing numbers of putrefying corpses. The use of ears to365

verify the number of those slain has a long history and is recorded by the European witnesses366

to the Mongol campaigns in Liegnitz and eastern Europe, with one account recording Batu367

being presented with nine sacks of ears.42 The destruction of the city and citizens of Baghdad368

was caused to a large extent by the bombardment from massed mangonels, a 16-to-1 tower369

and their 5-to-100 mann43 payloads. These awesome machines, Persian Towers (Borj-e370

Ajam) which had been erected by the Aleppo Gate and the Triumphant Gate, rained terror371

on the city day and night, pulverising its battlements and defences.44372Most interesting however is the significance the writer attributes to cholera for swelling373

the reported numbers of the dead. Possibly because of his background in science, Sh raz374

seems more aware of the direct and indirect role that cholera ( waba) played in warfare and375

especially its devastating effect on cities under siege. In Baghdad many people, particularly376

38Shraz, p. 30.39Shraz, p. 30.40Rashid al-Dn, tr. Thackston, p. 493,.41Rashid al-Dn, tr. Thackston, p. 496; Shraz, p. 32.42See James Chambers, The Devils Horsemen, (London,1979), p. 99.431 mann = 3 kilos approx.44Shraz, p. 32.


14/22

Mongol News 11

the Sunnis, had flooded into the city from the suburbs and from Suwab at the approach of377

the Mongols. Whereas the Shia had come to an accommodation with Hulegu, and their378

religious spokesman, Ibn Tavvus, had pleased the new king with his fatwa endorsing the379

rule of a just infidel over an unjust Muslim,45 the Sunnis were represented by the Caliph380

al-Mustasim who had rejected all overtures for peace made by Hulegu.381

Cholera struck and many people died. The number of deaths got to the point that the treasurys382

(bayt al-mal) priority was to provide the necessary equipment as well as burying the dead.383

Meanwhile it got to the point that they could not cope with ablutions and burying the dead so384

they threw the bodies into the Tigris. In the end it got so bad that they could not even carry the385

dead to the Tigris as the porters did not have time to even carry the corpses to the Tigris. At386

this point the Caliph ordered each area to assign an empty property in which to put the dead.387

When it became full they would carry them and as they got the opportunity they would bury388

them. Even when the army arrived they could not cope. 46389

Cholera struck not only the citizens of Baghdad but their invaders as well, and the chronicle390

claims that a great many Mongols fell ill with the pestilence and great numbers died and391

that Hulegu Khan himself was among those struck down. However, after 20 days the Ilkhan392

recovered and was able to spend the winter recuperating in Arran and Mughan. 47393

The Caliph is awarded little space in the text other than the final paragraph for the year655394

and his slaughtered generals even less. It is acknowledged that many civilians were murdered395

in cold blood after demanding that the Caliph make peace and be l on their behalf, and396

that those who had not accepted the promises of safe conduct and had hidden in the dark397

nooks and crannies, and even in bath-stoves, within the city had survived. A couple of short398

sentences for the following year, 656, disposes of the Caliph and his family. Three words399suffice for the Caliph himself, khal feh-r a shahd kardand (they martyred the Caliph).48400

There is uncertainty whether the Caliphs two sons died before or after their father. The401

whole episode concludes with the observation that the warm weather that year caused a402

dreadful stench from the putrification prevailing in Baghdad. Shrazs chronicle paints an403

incomplete and sketchy portrait of the besieged city but added to other far fuller accounts it404

fills in some very important gaps and provides an independent and personal narrative with405

details not found elsewhere.406

Both the Mamluks and the beginnings of the conflict with the Qipchaq Khanate are407

briefly dealt with in the entries for the year 658, once again with chance remarks providing408

important insight into the development of the Ilkhanate. The year opens with a eulogy409

to Ket Buqa, who is described as being the mod ar, the pivot, the central cog of the army410

while acknowledging that at the same time there were in fact amirs and other officers of411

greater and higher rank than he. Ket Buqas demise is acknowledged as signalling the end412

of Mongol military victories, bad az u lashg ar-i moghul-r a beh hch j aneb-i fath [unreadable]413

etafaq niyoft ab49 and indeed the Battle of Ayn Jalut in 1260/658 though militarily of no414

45Ibn Taqtaqani, al-Fakhri, tr. Whiting, p. 14.46Shraz, p. 32.47Shraz, p. 34.48Shraz, p. 34.49Shraz, p. 36.


15/22

12 George Lane

great consequence had profound symbolic significance, recognised by Shraz. Rashd415

al-Dn describes the battle in considerably more detail, along with Ket Buqas last stand and416

his brave last words before his death at the command of the Mamluk Quduz. Shraz417

includes a short exchange between Ket Buqa and the amir Baydar, who retreated before418

Qutuz to await his commander. Ket Buqa demands to know why he had not stood his419ground. Why did you not stand until in this very place you were killed? Baydar replied,420

I couldnt stand; you should have.50 The following day at dawn those of his army who421

stood their ground were killed; while the remnants of his army including Ket Buqa himself,422

were chased down and massacred on the banks of the river As near the Syrian town of423

Homs. Ket Buqas wives, sons and concubines were captured in Balbak. Shrazs report424

of the Battle of Ayn Jalut is followed by a short account of the succession of Rukn al-Dn425

Bunduqdar Baybars to the Egyptian throne in which he explicitly accuses the Mamluk sultan426

of murdering his predecessor. He considers Baybars to be unique and his judgement and427

order (r a va tart b) unrivalled, as exemplified in the Sultans first edicts forbidding wine and428

also forbidding assembly and consultation between grandees, especially between the military429

and the Turks.51430

Rashd al-Dn makes no reference to any of this, dwelling instead on Ket Buqas final431

moments. In Rashd al-Dns account the Mamluk sultan upbraids the Mongol general for432

his pride, accusing the Mongols of relying on magic and artifice. Speak not so proudly433

of the horsemen of Turan, for they perform deeds with trickery and artifice, not with434

manliness like Rustam. (K ar-ha-ye beh nrang va dast an mkonand).52 The word nrang435

has connotations of miracles, sorcery and otherworldiness, bringing to mind the Mamluks436

rebuking the Ottomans for their use of firearms and the Polish accusations of magic and437

sorcery when they witnessed the Mongols use of explosives. Shraz does not recount this438exchange, but when he reports the use of subterfuge and deception by the Franks in the439

following story, the word he employs is hiylat kar rather than nrang.440

Seven hundred Franks appeared before the Muslims, although names, dates and places are441

not specified, claiming that in a dream they had become Muslims and that in their hearts442

they feared the religion and faith of the Franks. They had come to offer their service to the443

sultan (beh khidmat-i sult an amadeh m) in order that the Muslims might present the religion444

of Islam to them and teach them in a school so that they could learn the Qoran. The Franks445

wished to have a waqfcreated to cover their instruction in the Sunna and the Shariah.446

They planned to gain the Muslims trust and then during Eid Qorban when all Muslims447

would be outside and standing in prayer they could put hand to sword and strike down448

the Musselman.53 However, Bunduqdars suspicions were aroused and he ordered the men449

seized and their persons inspected. It was soon discovered that beneath their clothes they450

were wearing jerkins and chain mail and each man possessed a small sword of fine Damascus451

steel (nmcheh-ye abd ar). The story had a satisfactory ending with prayers met and wishes452

granted. The Franks were bound and carried to the square for public prayer and then their453

request for instruction in the rites of Islam was granted. Tell them, first you must learn to454

50Shraz, pp. 3637.51Shraz, p. 37.52Shraz, p. 37.53Shraz, pp. 3738.


16/22

Mongol News 13

stand for prayer. Then we will teach you the qurban, the sacrifice.54 When the congregation455

of Muslims had prayed, the Franks were ordered to be prepared in the manner of a sacrificial456

animal and their throats were cut with a knife in the same way as an animal was sacrificed.457

When their clothes were removed all of them were seen to be wearing the finest jerkins and458

the finest chain mail and the congregation realised the true nature of their guests. From that459time on great fear was instilled in the hearts of the Franks and when on the few occasions460

Hulegu sent his armies into Syria the Franks did not respond.55461

It was in the north rather than with the Franks or the Mamluks that Hulegu found himself462

embroiled. The fate of three Jochid princes, Bulgha, Tutar and Tul, complicated an already463

tense situation upon which Shraz fails to throw new light.56 Berke, the brother of Batu464

who had died shortly before the attack on Baghdad, had openly challenged the legitimacy465

of Hulegus presence in Iran and had instigated hostilities. Both Hulegu and his brother the466

Great Khan Qubilai had opposed Berkes claim to the Jochid throne and Berke in turn had467

backed Ariq Buqas challenge to his older brother for the Qaanate itself. Shraz explicitly468

states Berkes position as regards Iran. Berkes shahnas and governors and his people had the469

finest and the best of the choice provinces of Khorasan, Iraq, Azerbaijan. Arran, Georgia,470

and they claimed that our special land was their inju [land].57471

The story of Jalal al-Dn, the son of Baghdads daw atd ar, is another episode found in other472

accounts of the time, but again the significance of Shrazs account is not the information473

common to the other histories but rather the details which the other historians chose to474

ignore. The dashing figure of Jalal al-Dn is dealt with in the entries for the years 656 and475

662. He immediately brings to mind another Jalal al-Dn who was also a controversial and476

ambiguous figure who excited passion and conflicting reaction. For Juwayn, Jalal al-Dn477

Khwarazmshah was the romantic symbol of Persian bravery and steadfastness, standing against478the irresistible tide of Turanian brutality58 although for most the final Khwarazmshah was479

a duplicitous bandit who fully deserved his fate on a lonely Kurdish hilltop when he was480

waylaid and murdered for his fine clothes.59 It was Jalal al-Dn in Shrazs chronicle who481

survived the fate of his father, the lesserdaw atd arof the Caliph al-Mustasim, only to be very482

publicly awarded a position of great trust and power under Hulegu Khan.483

Hulegu had been humiliated by Berke after his disastrous adventure in the Caucasus484

where according to Shraz his armies had suffered a serious defeat. In Shrazs account,485

Hulegus reaction to this defeat is emphasised and the subject of his health once again is486

mentioned. He felt such great stress that he became sick, but every time he began to recover487

the same stressful thoughts would return and he suffered a relapse.488

It was while Hulegu was nursing his wounds and contemplating the form his retaliation489

should take that he heard reports of the young Jalal al-Dn. According to Shraz there490

was no one spoken off so highly and graciously in all Hulegus lands or in his armies.491

Jalal al-Dn claimed that in the Caliphs domains at that time there were several thousand492

54Shraz, p. 37.55Shraz, p. 39.56Shraz, pp. 39, 41.57Shraz, p. 40.58Juwayn, pp. 126201; tr. Boyle, pp. 396468.59Juwayn, pp. 19092; tr. Boyle, pp. 459460.


17/22

14 George Lane

Qipchaq Turks who were intimately acquainted with the land and the culture (shveh) of493

the Qipchaq steppes. He then offered to assemble these Turks and to lead them into battle494

against Berkes armies still occupying the strategically and politically important Caucasus.495

Much to the discomfort of the Perso-Mongol elite Jalal al-Dn was first given the ear of the496

king who he had advised on the sensitive issue of the Jochid princes and then given sweeping497powers to assemble his own armies and supplies with the full co-operation of all and without498

interference from anyone.60 Jalal al-Dn arrived in Baghdad in 662 and he struck everyone as499

a man with a mission. In secret he told his troops that the king had sent him to recruit men500

for the frontline who would die there or who would make a name for themselves. If you501

are killed in that place, in your place, you others will continue the very same work.61 The502

wording is close enough to that found in Rashd al-Dn to presume either a common shared503

source or possibly that Shraz is Rashd al-Dns source. Jalal al-Dn continues, Now you504

all know who I am and whose son I am and that I would not allow you to become sword505

fodder for the infidel. He reveals that Hulegu had been admonishing him and he now506

wanted to abandon this state and fortune of the infidels . . . let us cast ourselves away from507

the hand of the Mongols.62 To the roll of the drums Jalal al-Dn led his army across the508

bridge and away from Baghdad, raided the Khafaja Arabs for plunder, including a few camels509

and a few buffalo, and with supplies from Baghdads treasuries he announced his intentions510

of visiting the holy shrines, but his true plans and destination were soon made plain to his511

troops.512

He then famously betrayed that great trust placed in him by Hulegu and defected to the513

Mamluks with many of the men under his command. However, Sh razs account credits514

the whole incident with far greater significance than it is given elsewhere and suggests that515

Hulegu suffered deeply from this betrayal, wringing his hands and gnashing his teeth, 63516so much so that he became gravely ill with a malady which defied the treatment and517

knowledge of a variety of doctors. Yet again Shraz, who had seen Hulegu in person on518

many occasions, focuses on Hulegus health and his mental state in particular. The account519

quotes the anguished Hulegu, who it suggests regarded the young Jalal al-Dn as almost a son,520

as crying, a child cannot play with me like this. There is even the hint that by immediately521

following the report of this incident with the account of the Ilkhans death on the banks of522

the river Jaghatu in 663 Hulegu never recovered from the trauma and died soon afterwards.523

Rashd al-Dn recounts this same incident64 though mentioning only that it left the king524

furious. Once again, it is likely that this was the source or there was a shared source for the525

later story. Both accounts refer to Hulegu using the men as sword fodder ( alof-i-shamshr)526

and both repeat the need to cast off the Mongol yoke (dast-i- n moghol an br un afkonam).527

The two accounts also refer dismissively to Jalal al-Dns diversionary attacks on the Khafaja528

Arabs. A decision must have been taken to reject the details of Hulegus severe reaction to529

the treachery.530

60Shraz, p. 41.61Shraz, p. 42.62Shraz, p. 42.63Shraz, p. 43.64Rashid al-Dn, pp. 104951; tr. Thackston, pp. 513514,.


18/22

Mongol News 15

The comparatively short space given to Abaqa Khans reign is concerned chiefly with the531

conspiracy against the Juwayn brothers although some space is also given to the Mamluk532

invasion of Anatolia.533

In 675 Baybars Bunduqdar brought his army to Rum where at Ablastan he confronted the534

Ilkhanid army commanded by the grand amirs Tuqu bin Alka and Tudavan bin Sodun. The535Ilkhanid army suffered a defeat and the two amirs were killed. Rash d al-Dn covers these536

events but in far more detail and with slight variations, suggesting that the two accounts are537

completely independent.65 Both accounts include Baybars, to whom they both refer as either538

Bunduqdar or Rukn al-Dn Bunduqdar, occupying Kayseri for a week and his armies539

suffering deprivation as a result of his strict discipline, restrictions on expenditure ( nafqeh540

bar shan tang shod)66 and orders forbidding looting and pillaging. He called on Muin al-Dn,541

the Parvaneh, to attend him at court, offering the governor of the Ilkhanid- dominated542

Saljuq Sultanate of Rum the kingship of Rum if he would overcome his fear of the Mongols543

and come to Kayseri. Shraz reports only that the Parvarneh failed to go to Bunduqdars544

court and that the Mamluk sultan eventually abandoned his short-lived occupation and left545

Anatolia. Shraz makes no mention of the rumours of Muin al-Dns treachery sown546

by the frustrated Mamluk ruler, nor of his execution, nor of the dreadful claim made by547

Armenian chroniclers that he was ordered to be eaten by his Ilkhanid jailers. 67 Eventually548

Abaqa himself marched on Syria and, after appointing him commander, he dispatched his549

brother Mongke Timur, son of Ulja Khatun, along the Diyarbakir road in the direction of550

Syria. Mongke Timur encountered the Mamluk army in the vicinity of Homs and Hama551

and the two armies clashed, with the young and inexperienced Mongke Timur suffering an552

ugly defeat. Abaqa Khan was so angry at Mongke Timurs ignominious rout that, Shraz553

claims, he could not look his brother in the face. He announced that the situation should554not present a problem and that the following year he would go to Syria himself to see what555

could be done.68 That winter Abaqa remained in Baghdad. Shrazs last word on this556

matter is the observation that Bunduqdar died during these events and that the throne was557

passed to Malek Alf, a Qipchaq (Qifj aq) who was also a slave of the sultans of Syria, that is558

the people of Salah al-Dn.69559

The travails of the Juwayn brothers occupy the rest of the entry for 675 and are the sole560

topic for the entry for the year 679, the intervening years remaining unrecorded by Shraz.561

Once again the repetition of small snatches of the narrative and the use of common phrases562

suggest that Shraz was Rashd al-Dns source or, perhaps more likely, the two shared a563

common source. Shraz claims that Ala al-Dn was arrested, his property confiscated,564

his palaces and houses pillaged and he himself placed in the cangue. This had come about565

after the wily Majd al-Mulk had forced himself into the kings presence (beh khidmat-i-Abaqa566

and akhteh)70 to make his accusations which had then been compounded by the smears567

and attacks by 40 or 50 writers and notables. Once started, the campaign gathered pace568

65Rashd al-Dn, pp. 11011102; tr. Thackston, p. 537.66Shraz, p. 48.67Hetoum, Glenn Burger (ed.), A Lytell Cronycle(London, 1988) p. 46.68Shraz, p. 49.69Shraz, p. 49.70Shraz, p. 49.


19/22

16 George Lane

and the Juwayns were abandoned; and it is their isolation that Shraz stresses. Mustawf569

fleetingly covers these events although he does not dwell on the details. What makes his570

account noteworthy is his obvious high regard for Majd al-Mulk who elsewhere is treated571

at best neutrally. While acknowledging the misfortune that Majd al-Mulk caused Shams572

al-Dn, whose family were of course fierce rivals of the Qazvin-based family of the generally573objective and highly respected historian, Mustawfs sentiments are made clear. There was574

a man of Yazd who was wise, liberal, and eloquent, full of knowledge and nobly born. .. on575

the 20th Jammad avval that great man met destruction.71576

It is unclear exactly when these events surrounding At.a Malik took place since the year577

675, under which the editor Iraj Afshar places them, is clearly too early. A later entry578

for 679, referring to Majd al-Mulks audience with Abaqa in the public disrobing room579

of the bathhouse (moslikh-i-garmaveh) of the Ribat-i Musallim opens with the words To580

continue. .. in the season of spring of the year 679, suggesting more realistically that these581

tumultuous events occurred around the latter part of 678. This would concord with Rashd582

al-Dns account even though the two versions differ substantially in the detail. Though the583

two Juwayn brothers were fearful and extremely downcast, broken (shekasteh shodand) in584

Shrazs words, Shams al-Dn did not show any outward sign of this and his inner turmoil585

was not apparent. Summoned from Baghdad, he was confronted in Siah Koh and ordered586

to surrender all the money and material (mal) he had taken from the king. It was his former587

colleague, his nawab Majd al-Dn ibn Athr, who confronted him, demanding that he reveal588

what he had obtained from such and such a person and from such and such a place. 72589

Shraz and Rashd al-Dn, in almost identical words, record Shams al-Dn advising his590

brother not to deny anything until forced to do so, beh hch bab (vojeh) ankar makon ke (t a)591

tu-r a be-ranj anand (zah. mat naresad).73 Shraz adds that the money is not worth the592loss of honour, while both commentators agree that At.a Malik was forced to pay three593

million pieces of gold. Shraz concludes his account of the unfortunate minister with the594

observation that before Abaqas death in 680, At.a Malik was subjected to a further mulct.595

Rashd al-Dn elaborates on this development with the claim that the fallen minister was596

forced to sell everything he had, including his children.597

Majd al-Mulks own personal triumph finds similar treatment in both sources and598

once again the wording is almost identical, with Abaqa, in Maraghas Buddhist temple599

in the presence of all his relatives, nobles, wives, ministers and amirs, ordering the public600

proclamation of his edict concerning Majd al-Mulk. Never have Mongol kings given such601

a decree to a Persian (anybody).74 Shraz quotes more from the edict than Rashd al-602

Dn, but both convey the significance of the decision and its implications for the Juwayn s.603

Shrazs account has Abaqa being far more extreme in his regard for Majd al-Mulk. The604

king declared his kingdom, his property, the treasury, his flocks all that he possessed 605

should henceforth be shared with Majd al-Mulk, and that their duties would be borne by606

the minister and his deputies (naw ab), those who are friends of you are my friends. After this607

71Mustawf, 1999, p. xxx; tr. Ward, pp. 262, 269. Initially, Majd al-Mulk is mistakenly referred to as Majdal-Dn.

72Shraz, p. 50; Rashd al-Dn, p. 1115; Thackston, p. 544.73Shraz, p. 50; Rashd al-Dn (bracketed), p. 1115; Thackston, p. 544.74Shraz, p. 51(bracketed); Rashd al-Dn, p. 1114.


20/22

Mongol News 17

if a person should plot against you, I will be with you. He urged the minister to take care608

of himself and never to leave him. Shrazs account of this incident suggests that Abaqa609

Khans behaviour is extremely eccentric, whereas Rashd al-Dn dilutes the hyperbole and610

modifies the context. Reactions to Abaqas extraordinary edict were predictable, with all the611

amirs and notables switching sides and deferring to the newly promoted minister Majd al-612Mulk, whose deputies were immediately dispatched to oversee the notables and tax districts613

of all the provinces from inside Rum to the ends of Khorasan, from the deserts of Arabia to614

Darband of Saqsn.75 In obvious admiration, Shraz notes that in one particular project615

Majd al-Mulk raised an edifice the likes of which no one could remember and in the616

space of seven or eight months somebody who was of no account anywhere should manage617

a project of such greatness.76 Though he is generally portrayed in a negative light, in618

Shrazs account Majd al-Mulk surprisingly accrues some credit with an acknowledgment619

that his achievements amazed every living creature.77 Shraz delivers a balanced account620

of one of the most emotive events in Ilkhanid history, a story from which nobody emerged621

untainted or blame-free. In any final analysis or conclusive summary of Shraz, his stance622

on the plight of the Juwayns must hold some significance.623

Two brief entries are recorded for 680 and 681, outlining Abaqas infamous end from624

an excess of alcohol. There is a suggestion that the king fell drunkenly from a lavatory625

(kurs ), a rare reference to such an object,78 after having had to go outside for his needs (beh626

hajat). There is no mention of any croaking ravens or dramatic visions forewarning him of627

his imminent death that so many of the accounts of his death include. Since his body was628

showing some signs of life, they carried him back inside the house, but he died on the way.629

He was laid to rest near the bodies of his father and some brothers on the island of Sh ahiyeh,630

today renamed Islamiyeh Island, near the village of Dehkhwarqan.79 Both Rashd al-Dn631and Mustawf convey the apprehension felt at Abaqas demise and both accounts express632

admiration for the king and the justice of his reign: When he passed by his crown and633

throne, fortune turned its face from the Mongols, as a result.80 Rashd al-Dn quotes a634

contemporary chronogram of his death which begins, Tyranny became apparent and justice635

went into obscurity with the death of Abaqa, king of the world.81 In contrast Shraz636

remains unemotional and non-committal.637

The entries for the years 682 and 683, running to just over12 edited pages, are concerned638

with the prolonged conflict between Ahmad and his nephew Arghun Khan. The wealth of639

dated detail, along with the names of the main players, their wives and associates, makes640

this account an immensely valuable primary source of late thirteenth-century Ilkhanid Iran.641

What makes this a particularly interesting account is that it can be readily compared and642

contrasted with other detailed versions of the conflict between these two major figures, in643

particular the accounts found in Rashd al-Dns J ami al-Tav ar kh, Mustawfs Zafarnama and644

even Khwandamrs H. abb al-Siyar. Again, it is not so much what these accounts share in their645

75Shraz, p. 51.76Shraz, p. 51.77Shraz, p. 51.78Shraz, p. 52, beh h. ajeb bir un raft va az sar kars dar oft ad va wafat kard.79Shraz, p. 52.80Mustawf, vol. II, p. 264.81Rashd al-Dn, tr. Thackston, p. 545.


21/22

18 George Lane

reports or how some details differ but more their omissions which are potentially significant.646

For example, whereas Rashd al-Dn and other contemporary sources remark on Ahmads647

relationship with the mysterious figure of Ishan H. asan Mangl, this disreputable influence is648

not once mentioned in Shrazs account of Ahmads reign. Shrazs own trip to Egypt as649

Ahmads ambassador to the Mamluk court is neither discussed nor even referenced in the650Akhbar-i-Moghul an, an omission which perhaps suggests that the author of this chronicle was651

not Shraz himself.652

The two final events that are described and scrutinised in this chronicle are first, the653

execution of Ahmad on the night of Thursday 9 August 1284 (25th Jumada I, 683) after his654

refusal to answer the charges concerning the murder/execution of his brother Qonghurba,655

and second, following this, Arghun Khans coronation on 11August 1285 (27th Jumada I,656

683). Sultan Ahmad was executed in the same manner that he had killed his own brother,657

after a yarghu court in both instances had declared the guilt of the accused party. The658

edicts of Chinggis khan laid down that those who damage the posht-i-molk (back of the659

country) national security must in turn have their own backs (posht) broken.82 However,660

Prince Qonghurbas fellow defendant, Kuchak Unuqchi, initially escaped the fate of his661

partner in crime and was asked by Ahmads yarghu court to detail the conversations between662

Qonghurba and the royal fugitive, Arghun Khan. He claimed to have no knowledge of this663

and remained silent despite being subjected to 100 strokes of the cane. Ahmads response to664

his silence was to declare him a sly old bastard (mardak pr gozbuzand) and to order his665

execution along with that of his son.83666

This detailed final section of the chronicle; concentrating exclusively on the bitter conflict667

between the two royal princes Ahmad and Arghun, poses some intriguing questions and668

conveniently lends itself to comparison with other Ilkhanid accounts of this divisive dispute.669Developments are tracked on an almost daily basis and most of the leading amirs are identified670

according to their allegiance and the level and nature of their support. It is possible that671

Shraz had realised the fundamental nature of this split that was emerging at the core of672

the ruling elite and he understood that the repercussions from this conflict would reverberate673

long after the death or victory of the leading protagonists. An analysis and exploration of674

this final episode in Shrazs chronicle is beyond the scope of the present study, but the675

subject will be engaged with fully in a follow-up paper. This paper will contain a translation676

of the entries for the year 682 and year 683 and an assessment of the characters and their677

relationship to the main players, Ahmad Tegudar and Arghun Khan.678

This edited version of Shrazs previously almost unknown chronicle adds to our679

knowledge of a period of Iranian history which has only recently come under the intense680

scrutiny of scholars eager to reassess an exciting four decades which until recently was idly681

dismissed as lost to dark barbarian rule. In fact, the creation of the Ilkhanate gave birth to a682

Persian renaissance and a period of spiritual and cultural regeneration as Iranians looked east683

and opened their horizons to the potential stirring in Yuan China. These early decades of the684

Ilkhanate oversaw the blossoming of a Toluid empire where Persian was fast becoming the685

lingua franca, and individual Persians were assuming power and influence far beyond what686

82Shraz, p. 55.83Shraz, p. 55.


22/22

Mongol News 19

was justifiable by their numbers. In Iran also the glory of the once-reviled Mongol century687

is being recognised and old texts are not only being re-edited, reissued but are being edited,688

translated and even discovered for the first time. In 2002 Ibn Fowat.s history of Baghdad689

(626700) was translated into Persian from Arabic, while new editions of Rash d al-Dns690

lesser-known works have regularly appeared over the last decade. Volume I of Shabankaras691Majma-ansab was published in 2002, and most exciting of all the discovery and publication in692

2003 of the magnificent literary compendium, the Safneh-ye Tabr z, painstakingly copied out693

by Abu al-Majd, cast the whole culture and literary milieu of Ilkhanid Iran in a new, far more694

sophisticated light. From its opening lines establishing Iran as part of a global, transcultural695

empire through its chronology underlining the intimacy which existed between Turk and696

Tajik, this history at least penned by Qut.b al-Dn Shraz will prove crucial in establishing a697

greater understanding of Mongol rule in Iran. [email protected]

George Lane

School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Shirazi Article Proofs

Documents

Transcript of Shirazi Article Proofs