Download PDF | Download PDF | Power, Politics, And Tradition In The Mongol Empire And The Ilkhanate Of Iran By Michael Hope (Author), Oxford University Press 2016.
Pages: 251
Acknowledgements
The present study has been made possible through the help and advice of my teachers, colleagues, and family. I would like to express special thanks to Professor Narangoa Li and Professor Robert Cribb for imparting some of their great wisdom and experience to me. Their belief and humour have been a constant source of motivation throughout my research. I am grateful to Doctor Igor de Rachewiltz for patiently listening to many of my ideas and assisting me with source material and translations for Mongolian terminology.
The present book has also benefited greatly from the thoughtful advice and assistance of the editorial team at Oxford University Press. I am particularly grateful for the support provided by Assistant Commissioning Editor Cathryn Steele and Commissioning Editor Terka Acton. My sincere thanks also go to Professor Adrian Jones for igniting my interest in Mongolian studies during my undergraduate degree, and for his advice and friendship to the present date. Lastly, I would like to express my eternal gratitude and love to my family, both in Australia and Iran. I thank my wife Matin for her forbearance and support throughout the course of my studies. I dedicate the present work to my daughter Diana Mary Hope. Her presence has been a source of comfort and relief throughout the writing of this book.
Introduction Political authority within the Mongol Empire can be traced back to its founder, Chinggis Khan, who by 1206 had united the previously warring peoples to the north of the Great Wall under his rule, thereby creating the Yeke Mong γol Ulus (the Great Mongol Realm).1 From the year 1206 until his death in 1227 Chinggis Khan led the Mongols on a series of military campaigns from China to Iran which resulted in the creation of the largest contiguous land empire the world has ever seen. The great scope of Chinggis Khan’s military, social, and political achievements gave him an unrivalled influence and authority over the Mongols. His rule came to represent the ideal Mongol polity, in which its people could attain the highest standard of satisfaction and well-being.
All subsequent leaders of the Mongol Empire sought to legitimate their authority by appealing to the symbols and traditions of Chinggis Khan’s charisma. The present study will provide a new interpretation of how political authority was conceived and exercised in the early Mongol Empire (1227–59) and its successor state in Iran, the Īlkhānate (1258–1335). In what follows, it will be shown that two streams of political authority emerged after the death of Chinggis Khan: the collegial and the patrimonialist. Each of these streams represented the economic and political interests of different groups within the Mongol Empire, respectively, the propertied aristocracy—made up by commanders, queens, and junior princes—and the central government—consisting of the khan, his bureaucracy, and household staff. The supporters of both streams claimed to adhere to the ideal of Chinggisid rule, but their different statuses within the Mongol community led them to hold divergent views of what constituted legitimate political authority.
This book will detail the origin of, and the differences between, these two streams; analyse the role that these streams played in the political development of the early Mongol Empire; and assess the role that ideological tension between the two streams played in the events leading up to the division of the empire. This study has used Max Weber’s discussion of ‘the routinization of charisma’ to interpret the evolution of political authority in the early Mongol Empire and the Īlkhānate. Weber used the term ‘routinization’ to describe the process of transition from a temporary political association built around the charismatic leadership of an individual (e.g. Chinggis Khan) to a permanent government supported by laws and traditions.2 Weber argued that this transition was a necessary measure to sustain a charismatic community beyond the death of its leader, who acts as the source of all political authority and unity. The death of the charismatic leader deprives the community of political cohesion and threatens to cause its collapse. Routinization was the means through which this shortfall was addressed, that is by ‘institutionalizing’ charismatic authority in the form of permanent offices, laws, and traditions.
The community attains stability and security by shifting loyalty away from an individual to an institution. Weber argued that the routinization process is both driven and defined by the material interests of the ‘charismatic disciples’ whose titles, incomes, and powers are all dependent upon their proximity and service to the leader. The death of the leader compromises the livelihood of these charismatic disciples, who have a vested interest in preserving the existing social order. Routinized authority is, therefore, derived from the ability of a ‘chief’ (ruler, government) to protect the material welfare of their subjects. This principle implies a balance in a routinized polity between the material demands of the disciples and the power of the chief that protects them. Weber argues that solidarity of interest between the chief and the disciples is at its height when the economic needs and social status of the disciples depend upon the chief remaining in power. The chief’s authority is undermined if the needs of the disciples are not met.
The routinized social order is then dissolved. This study has also been strongly influenced by Hamid Dabashi’s use of Weberian social theory to explain the evolution of political authority within the early Islamic Empire.3 Dabashi’s study discusses the emergence of the Sunni and Shī‘ite madhāhib (religious creeds) in terms of two streams of ‘routinized’ authority derived from the Prophet Muhammad’s charisma: one advocating that the supreme leadership of the ̣ Islamic community should be chosen through council elections, the other arguing for the incumbent’s designation of an heir from amongst the Prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt).4 In accordance with Weber’s theory, Dabashi highlighted the economic and social differences between adherents of the two factions as the reason behind their ideological divergence. The present study has sought to follow Dabashi’s lead by using the theory of routinization to interpret the evolution of political authority within the Īlkhānate.
There is, however, an important distinction that insofar as Dabashi was using Weber’s theory to explain a historically recognized schism, the present study will identify an ideological divergence within the Īlkhānate which has yet to be recognized or understood. This study will argue that two streams of routinized authority emerged to serve the interests of the two leading social groups within the Īlkhānate. The patrimonialists and collegialists both claimed to be the political successors of Chinggis Khan based upon a routinized form of his original charismatic authority. Yet the two streams developed completely different interpretations of the Chinggisid tradition based upon their unique position within the Mongol community. This difference led to their forming divergent opinions on questions such as what constituted the Mongol community, what purpose the Mongol Empire served, and how it was to be administered.
The patrimonial faction viewed authority over the Īlkhānate as a hereditary right which belonged to the descendants of Chinggis Khan (the altan uruq, golden kin), specifically the descendants of his fourth son Tolui. They conceived of Chinggis Khan’s charisma passing through his bloodline/bone5 to his children and their offspring. According to this view, only the family of Chinggis Khan could legitimately claim to rule his empire. Land, resources, cities, people, and animals were all thought of in terms of property that had been captured by Chinggis Khan and would pass to his children on a hereditary basis. This concept of patrimonial kingship was later combined with ideas of absolute monarchy which were introduced to the Mongols by scholar-bureaucrats who were recruited to serve the Empire in Iran. These bureaucrats identified their interests with the creation of a strong centralized state under the rule of an autocratic king.
They hoped that the centralization of authority in the hands of the khan would be accompanied by the growth of the imperial administration, thereby providing them with increased influence over the running of the Empire.6 The ‘collegial’ faction, on the other hand, qualified imperial authority in terms of custom and precedent. In the mind of the collegialists, Chinggis Khan had not only conquered an empire, he had also instituted a programme of social reform in which a new series of laws and policies had been introduced to regulate political behaviours and relationships. The most prominent members of the collegial faction were drawn from Chinggis Khan’s senior commanders (the noyat; singular noyan),7 who had been appointed from amongst his most trusted companions (the nököt; singular nökör). The collegialists believed that their expertise in these laws (jasaq) and principles/customs (yosun), combined with their former proximity and service to Chinggis Khan, qualified them to have a share in the wealth and government of the Empire.
They sought to use the quriltai (council of notables), amongst other institutions, to protect their economic and political status within the Īlkhānate. Membership of the collegial or patrimonial faction was by no means static. Political affiliation within the Īlkhānate was determined by a variety of contingencies and relationships that were in a constant state of flux. Senior figures within the Īlkhānate were not obliged to adhere dogmatically to the principles of one stream of Chinggisid authority. Rather, their views would change to accommodate shifts in the balance of power at the centre of the realm. Loyal household retainers of apatrimonialist monarch were consequently often obliged to adopt a more collegial interpretation of authority when their master died and a new ruler threatened their position. Similarly, Persian bureaucrats in the service of the Īlkhān would almost inevitably work for the concentration of power in the household of the ruler, whereas those in the service of senior commanders often strove to erode central control and protect the interests of their lord.
The advocacy of certain groups and individuals for either patrimonial or collegial models of rulership was, therefore, contingent upon a variety of circumstances in addition to social status. Social differentiation was, nevertheless, a central component in the emergence of rival political traditions within the Īlkhānate. Whether one was born a Chinggisid or not was one of the most important factors in determining individual rights and entitlements within this system. We can, for example, state with some certainty that a member of the non-Chinggisid military aristocracy would never have been able to claim supreme power over the Īlkhānate on the basis of hereditary authority. The Īlkhān throne was reserved for members of the dynasty and was off-limits to the non-Chinggisid aristocracy. Yet there was nothing preventing the military aristocracy from using the laws and customs of Chinggis Khan to impose their will upon the Īlkhān. The demarcation of social roles did not, therefore, preclude the non-Chinggisid elites from participating in government, but it did mean that they had a different relationship to the state than the Chinggisids. Contrasting attitudes towards power, authority, and rights within Īlkhān society were informed by these differences. It should also be stressed that, whilst the collegialists and patrimonialists held very different views about the way that the Īlkhān polity should be constituted and governed, they did derive their arguments from the same source, namely Chinggisid political tradition. For example, both sides made reference to the jasaq and yosun (laws and customs) of Chinggis Khan to support their claims to authority; and both sides derived their property and status from their association with Chinggis Khan. Conflict between the groups was, therefore, occasioned by their divergent interpretation of the same Chinggisid symbolism. For instance, despite the fact that both the collegialists and patrimonialists used the laws and customs of Chinggis Khan to support their positions, they strongly differed on what these laws included. As we shall see, the collegialists believed that the jasaq (laws) empowered them to depose a khan when the latter transgressed the rights of the community. The patrimonialists, on the other hand, claimed that the jasaq forbade the non-Chinggisid soldiery from harming any of his descendants. Of course, these two interpretations were bound to clash if the military aristocracy sought to depose an Īlkhān for perceived violations of their rights. The primary focus of this study is the Īlkhānate (1258–1335), the successor to the Mongol Empire’s territories in the Middle East. Spanning from the Oxus River in the east, to the Euphrates River in the west, the Īlkhāns ruled an area roughly coterminous with some of the earliest Iranian empires, such as the Parthian and Sasanian. This territory was gradually brought under Mongol control as a result of three campaigns launched in 1220, 1236, and 1256. The great qa’ans were forced to cede control of this region to Hülegü (d. 1265), a grandson of Chinggis Khan, during a civil war that engulfed the Empire between 1259 and 1264. Hülegü was the first of the Īlkhāns and all subsequent Mongol rulers of Iran were descended from him. The unique composition of the Īlkhān court makes it an ideal candidate for a case study into different interpretations of Mongol political tradition. The Īlkhān court was characterized by the existence of a very strong non-Chinggisid military aristocracy. Their prominence can largely be explained by the great distance separating the Īlkhānate from the political centre of the Mongol Empire. The relative remoteness of the Īlkhānate in relation to the ordu (court/capital) of the Great Qa’an in Mongolia meant that there were far fewer Chinggisid princes willing to undertake the arduous journey west in search of wealth and office. Rather, the Chinggisids were quite happy to work through agents, drawn from amongst the non-Chinggisid elites and their own household servants, to ensure their control of revenues and people. The hostility of the Īlkhāns’ neighbours in the Pontic steppe, Syria, and Central Asia further reduced the number of Chinggisid princes, as the Īlkhāns either expelled or exterminated rival family members. With fewer royal princes in Iran, the Īlkhāns relied heavily upon the non-Chinggisid aristocracy, the noyat, to administer their territories and command their armies. The consequent importance of the noyat within the Īlkhānate, as opposed to some of the other Chinggisid successor states, placed them in a more favourable position to impose their will upon the Hülegüid rulers. The historical tension between the interests of the Hülegüid dynasty and their senior commanders provides the perfect environment to explore the social and political tensions that gave rise to rival interpretations of Chinggisid authority and tradition. Other successor states to the Mongol Empire will only be mentioned in this study insofar as they are relevant to the history of the Īlkhānate. This parameter was determined partly by the paucity of information contained in the sources concerning other parts of the Mongol Empire, and partly by the author’s linguistic limitations. The Persian, Arabic, Turkish, and Russian sources that discuss the history of the Golden Horde and the Chaghadai Ulus provide little insight into the internal dynamics of their courts. Later chronicles and biographies written in the Temürid and Ottoman empires contain much more information on the political history of these regions in the fifteenth century, but these lie outside the periodization of this study, which looks at the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. By contrast, the Mongol Yuan dynasty, which ruled almost all of East Asia between 1264 and 1368 produced voluminous records of its political structure and the role that individual officials and leaders played within this system. Even a cursory look at the history of the Yuan Empire suggests that the noyat played an important role in the administration of China. For instance, the well-documented arrogation of power by several senior noyat around the middle of the fourteenth century suggests that the non-Chinggisid aristocracy played a much more important part in the history of the dynasty than they are typically given credit for. Unfortunately, a detailed study into the relationship between the Yuan and their noyat will have to wait for a historian with a greater mastery of Chinese than this author can muster.
It should also be acknowledged that the four main khanates to emerge from the Mongol Empire ruled territories that were ethnically, culturally, geographically, and socially very different, so there is no reason to assume that their histories converged either before or after the dissolution of the Mongol Empire in 1259–64. We should, therefore, avoid the temptation to assume that the relationship which existed between the Īlkhāns and their noyat was mirrored in other parts of the Mongol Empire. It is, nevertheless, hoped that the work done to elucidate the role of the noyat in this volume will contribute to further studies into their influence throughout the Empire. Indeed, one of the motivations behind this study is to provide a new perspective on the role of the noyat in the Īlkhānate. Until recently, the influence of the noyat on the political history of the Īlkhānate has been largely neglected. Historians of the Īlkhānate have traditionally focused on the relationship between the Chinggisids, the Īlkhān bureaucracy (dīvān), and their Persian subjects (ra‘īyyat). The noyat, on the other hand, are usually only mentioned insofar as they help or hinder the cause of the khans. They appear most widely in discussions of military histories which document the campaigns of the Mongols. Such analysis is of limited utility since it focuses on the role of the noyat outside the Īlkhānate under exceptional circumstances (i.e. war), as opposed to their normal role within the state. The noyat were a distinct social group within the Mongol Empire, a fact which meant that their aspirations and interests did not always coincide with those of their Chinggisid rulers. Their social and political autonomy within the Empire demands that more research be devoted to understanding their position in relation to other groups in the Mongol polity. Previous research into the nature of Mongol rule has traditionally emphasized the extent to which the Golden Kin (Chinggisids) determined the administrative and political direction of the Mongol Empire. This emphasis has led to the belief that the people, animals, cities, goods, and land incorporated within the Mongol Empire were the property of its founder, Chinggis Khan, who subsequently distributed them amongst his children as hereditary patrimonies.8 This view is not entirely inaccurate, yet it minimizes the role of the noyat in the Mongol polity after Chinggis Khan’s death. The patrimonialist notion that the Golden Kin were the source of all authority and power was an ideal through which Persian and Chinese bureaucrats interpreted life in the Mongol Empire. But the degree to which this ideal corresponded with historical reality depended heavily on the turbulent fortunes of its adherents. The present study will differentiate between the various streams of political tradition that existed in the Īlkhānate to provide a more complete account of how the Mongol polity operated.
This book will also provide a new analysis of the language and symbolism employed by Persian sources documenting the Mongol Empire and the Īlkhānate. The first two decades of the fourteenth century saw a dramatic rise in the number of histories devoted to the Chinggisid dynasties. Such is the importance of the histories written during this period that it would not be an exaggeration to say that they have defined the way that contemporary historians understand Īlkhān history. They were, however, predominantly published by bureaucrats in the service of the Īlkhāns, Ghazan (r. 1295–1304) and Öljeitü (r. 1304–16). Thus, the authors of these works manipulated their historical narratives to accommodate social attitudes and messages which supported the policies of their patrons. This is particularly true of histories documenting Ghazan’s conversion to Islam. It will be demonstrated that the discourse and symbolism employed by the historians of the later Īlkhān court was primarily directed towards promulgating the patrimonialist conception of Chinggisid authority. An understanding of the political environment in which these histories were written is, therefore, essential if their significance is to be fully appreciated. This study has ancillary significance for historians seeking to understand the political development of Iran in the centuries following the collapse of Īlkhān rule. Historians have long argued for the deep social, political, and economic impact of Mongol rule in the Islamic world.9 This book will contribute to the existing body of work on this topic by briefly outlining the way that principles associated with the two streams of Chinggisid authority influenced the dynasties that succeeded the Mongols in Iran and Central Asia. It will be shown that the dissolution of the Īlkhānate after the death of its last effective ruler, Abū Saʻīd Ba’atur Khan, in 1335 was a product of the collegial faction achieving a permanent ascendency over the state. During this time several noyat established autonomous rule over various parts of the former Īlkhānate, installing puppet-khans to demonstrate their continued adherence to the jasaq and yosun of Chinggis Khan. In this context, during the 1360s and 1370s, the amīr Temür (Tamerlane) began a campaign to achieve control of Transoxiana and Iran. Despite Temür himself being a charismatic leader, he was initially forced to operate within the boundaries of Chinggisid authority. His court histories, and those of his son Shāh Rūkh, portray Temür as a revivalist seeking to reconstitute the laws, customs, and empire of Chinggis Khan. Temür believed that the Mongol Empire and its successor states had fallen because the jasaq and yosun of Chinggis Khan had been allowed to lapse. As a hereditary member of the noyat, Temür claimed an intimate knowledge of the jasaq and yosun and promised to revive the Mongol Empire in accordance with their mandates. Adherence to traditions and symbols of Chinggisid authority also continued well into the modern era in Iran. The Ṣafavid dynasty (1501–1724) showed a particular fondness for the patrimonialist conception of political and spiritual authority. The Ṣafavids, like the Īlkhāns before them, struggled with their military aristocracy (the qizlbāsh) for political ascendency.10 It is, therefore, not surprising to find a large number of sixteenth-century historians linking the Ṣafavid founder, Shaykh Ṣafī al-Dīn, with the Īlkhān court.11 Still more significant is the existence of semi-fictitious accounts documenting the conversion of the Īlkhāns to Islam which were composed during the first century of Ṣafavid rule (1501–1601).12 These conversion narratives seek to re-emphasize patrimonialist notions of hereditary rule and divine mandate, first advocated at the start of the fourteenth century by the Īlkhāns, Ghazan and Öljeitü. Īlkhān ideas of political authority continued to hold currency into the nineteenth century, when the scholarbureaucrat, Ḥasan Fasa‘ī, began his history of the Qājār dynasty (1794–1925) by pointing out that the Qājār were Mongols whose ancestor, Qājār Noyan b. Sartaq Noyan, had served as the atabeg (steward, guardian) of the Īlkhān Arghun.13 Fasaʻī’s history contains a jubilant account of the supposed discovery of Arghun’s tomb and the treasure contained within it in an attempt to provide the Qājār with the relics of Īlkhān authority.14 It is evident from this brief summary that Mongol ideas of political authority retained their popularity in Iran until the eve of the twentieth century. A thorough understanding of how the Mongols saw their own political environment is therefore essential to understanding the issue of political authority in Iranian history more generally.
The Sources
The Jām‘i al-Tavārīkh (the Collection of Histories) of Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Ṭabīb is easily the most valuable primary source employed in this study. After initially serving as the royal physician of the Īlkhān Geikhatu (r. 1291–5), Rashīd al-Dīn subsequently joined the court of the latter’s nephew, Ghazan Khan (r. 1295–1304), who appointed him as his chief minister (vizier).15 Rashīd continued in this position during the rule of Ghazan’s brother, Öljeitü (r. 1304–17), but was executed by Abū Sa‘īd Ba’atur Khan in 1318.16 Rashīd al-Dīn was one of the most powerful figures in the Īlkhānate during the time that he was in office. He amassed a great personal fortune which permitted him to construct entire neighbourhoods in the cities of Tabrīz and Sultaniyya.17 Rashīd al-Dīn’s contemporaries believed that he had a great influence over the Īlkhāns, and he was undoubtedly at the heart of legislation introduced to regulate coinage, property ownership, trade, the taxation system, and government salaries during the reign of Ghazan.18 He also seems to have had a very personal relationship with the Īlkhāns he served. It was said that Ghazan refused to speak Persian with anyone except Rashīd al-Dīn and several sources mention Rashīd providing Öljeitü with spiritual advice.19 Ghazan commissioned Rashīd al-Dīn to write a history of the Mongols at the end of the thirteenth century. For this task he relied heavily upon the Altan Debter (Golden Records), a now lost history of the Mongols and their rulers written in the Uighur-Mongol script. According to Rashīd, the Altan Debter was kept in the royal treasury and only members of the altan uruq were permitted to read it.20 It is for this reason that J. A. Boyle concluded that Rashīd al-Dīn probably never read the Altan Debter himself and that he was much more likely to have learned its contents by speaking with Mongols at the Īlkhān court.21 Rashīd does indeed state that he relied heavily upon the expertise of the noyan named Bolad-Chingsang (Pulad in the Persian sources).22 Bolad had a unique knowledge of Mongol history and his title, ‘chingsang’ (ch’eng-hsiang), was reserved for senior ministers and governors during the Mongol Yuan dynasty.23 Bolad arrived in the Īlkhānate in 1267 to act as the official representative of the Great Khan Qubilai of China to the Īlkhān Abaqa, a job which would have required both eloquence and intelligence.24 Rashīd may have also balanced Bolad’s account of the early Mongols with that of Ghazan himself, since the Īlkhān took a keen interest in his family’s history and traditions.25 These various sources combined with Rashīd al-Dīn’s own experience of events in the Īlkhānate produced a history of such detail that David Morgan has dubbed it the ‘most important single historical source for the Mongol Empire’.26 Rashīd al-Dīn’s history was expanded during the reign of Öljeitü, who asked him to continue his work to include an account of all the people with whom the Mongols had come into contact. These separate volumes were combined to create what became known as the Jām‘i al-Tavārīkh, ‘the Collection of Histories’.27 Rashīd al-Dīn’s history of the Mongols is easily the most detailed and expansive of its time, and includes an account of the emergence of the first Mongol polity; the ancestors of Chinggis Khan; the rise and conquests of Chinggis Khan; the rule of his immediate successors; the division of the Empire; and the reign of the Īlkhāns from the time of their founder, Hülegü (r. 1258–65), to the reign of Ghazan. As Beatrice Manz has pointed out, the Jām‘i al-Tavārīkh was written for the Īlkhān court as much as it was for Ghazan personally.28 It therefore contains a detailed account of the lineages and histories of the leading Īlkhān noyat. The noyat’s genealogies are traced back to the time of Chinggis Khan and provide much information about the traditions which connected them to the founder of the Mongol nation. But Rashīd al-Dīn did not record all traditions indiscriminately. As the Īlkhān’s vizier, Rashīd al-Dīn identified his interests with the creation of a strong monarchy supported by a large bureaucracy. Indeed, Ghazan’s reign saw the revival of the patrimonialist social order, in which Rashīd al-Dīn played an influential role. His history of Ghazan’s rule in particular is therefore underscored by his strong advocacy for patrimonial kingship.29 The third volume of his history, the Tārīkh-i Ghāzānī, which covers the life of Ghazan, served as a model of patrimonialist history upon which later court historians based their works.30 It portrayed the Īlkhān as a superhuman hero, whose success had been ordained by God and under whom the Empire would achieve full prosperity. Rashīd al-Dīn’s work has been utilized throughout the present study for its extensive subjectmatter, although other sources have been used to balance his accounts.
The Tāziyyat al-Amṣār wa-Tāziyyat al-A‘ṣār also known as the Tārīkh-i Vaṣṣāf (History of Vasṣ āf) provides an alternative source of information on the Īlkhānate ̣ to that of the Jām‘i al-Tavārīkh. The history was composed by the scholar-bureaucrat Abd Allāh ibn Faḍl Allāh al-Shīrāzī, also known as Vasṣ āf-i H ̣ ̣aḍrat; a resident of Fārs and a contemporary of Rashīd al-Dīn. Vasṣ āf sought to write his account ̣ to complement the earlier work of ‘Alā al-Dīn ‘Atā’ Malik Juvaynī, the ̣ Tārīkh-i Jahāngushāy (History of the World Conqueror), which documents the history of the Mongol Empire from the time of Chinggis Khan to the creation of the Īlkhānate (1206–58). Vasṣ āf’s history focusses on the period between 1252 and ̣ 1335 and therefore encompasses the entire lifespan of the Īlkhānate. The preface to the Tārīkh-i Vaṣṣāf is dated April–May 1300 (Sha‘abān 699 ah) and a rough copy was presented, along with the author, to the Īlkhān Ghazan in 1303 and the latter provided Vasṣ āf with a pension to help him continue his work. ̣ 31 Four volumes were completed by 1312 when he submitted them for the approval of Öljeitü and a fifth volume was completed during the reign of Abū Sa‘īd at an unknown date.32 The fact that his history was written contemporaneously with that of Rashīd al-Dīn leaves his work independent of the other’s influence—a rarity amongst Īlkhān histories, which generally copied heavily from both Rashīd al-Dīn and Juvaynī. Indeed, Vasṣ āf’s history often demonstrates a remarkable disassociation from the ̣ views of the Īlkhān court. When discussing the numerous wars between the Īlkhāns and the Mamluks, Vasṣ āf seems to have a sympathetic view of the Egyptians. He ̣ refers to them as the ‘Army of Islam’ and even goes so far as to publish the fatḥnāma (declaration of victory) of Sultan Qalāwūn after his triumph over the Īlkhānid prince, Möngke-Temür, in 1281.33 The fatḥnāma, a document of Mamluk propaganda, had no place in other Īlkhān histories of the time which denigrated the Egyptian rulers as unruly slaves, in line with official Īlkhān policy.34 Vasṣ āf’s ̣ seeming detachment from the Īlkhān court also renders him ambivalent towards the ideological struggle between the patrimonialists and collegialists. This ambivalence is reflected in his account of Ghazan’s conversion to Islam. Whereas Rashīd al-Dīn attributes the conversion to divine inspiration (ilhām) and the superior intellect of the Īlkhān, Vasṣ āf attributes his conversion entirely to the influence of ̣ a noyan, Nawrūz, who later became a dangerous enemy of Ghazan.35 Whereas Rashīd al-Dīn seeks to attack the reputation of Nawrūz, Vasṣ āf praised him for his ̣ piety and heroism.36 This objectivity was no doubt a product of Vasṣ āf’s distance ̣ from the Īlkhān court in Azerbaijan. Vasṣ āf remained in Fārs throughout his career ̣ and described himself as a client of the native Salghūrid dynasty, which ruled that province. His history also includes detailed information about the administration of Fārs and of the trade network between southern Iran and India, which serve to demonstrate his strong association with the region, as opposed to the north where Mongol influence was far more prominent.37 The independence and detail of Vasṣ āf’s account make him a valuable source for the history of the Īlkhānate. ̣ The Tārīkh-i Jahāngushāy of ‘Alā al-Dīn ‘Atā Malik Juvaynī, upon which the ̣ history of Vasṣ āf was based, is concerned with the first five decades of the Mongol ̣ Empire from 1206 to 1254. Juvaynī was descended from a line of bureaucrats who claimed Faḍl b. Rabī, the vizier of Caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd, as their ancestor.38 Both Juvaynī’s grandfather and his father were employed in the court of the Khwārazmshāh dynasty which ruled Transoxiania and Iran.39 When the Mongols conquered Iran the Juvaynīs remained in their native Khurāsān in the east of the country until they were betrayed to a Mongol governor, Chin-Temür, in 1232–3. Chin-Temür offered ‘Alā al-Dīn’s father, Bahā al-Dīn, the post of sahīb dīvān (chief minister); a position which he held for two decades before he died.40 Bahā al-Dīn’s eldest son, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad, inherited his father’s title, whilst his younger son ‘Alā al-Dīn was appointed to govern the provinces of Arab Iraq and Khūzistān during the reign of the first Īlkhān, Hülegü (d. 1264). Juvaynī’s history is divided into three volumes which deal primarily with the conquests of Chinggis Khan and the reign of his first three successors; the history of the Khwārazmshāh dynasty; and the history of the Nizamī-Shī‘ite sect known as the Ismāʻīlīs and their defeat at the hands of Hülegü. Juvaynī does not describe the creation of the Mongol state or the rise of Chinggis Khan in great detail, but rather focuses on the latter’s conquest of Iran, which had far more significance for his own career. The section concerning the creation of the Īlkhānate is also teasingly short and does not mention the conquest of Baghdad or the Mongol invasion of al-Shām (the Levant). This study has made most use of Juvaynī’s account of the years between Chinggis Khan’s death and the rise of the Īlkhānate (1227–54). It is fortunate that Juvaynī provides much detail on the situation of the Empire under Chinggis Khan’s successors. His history is the most important source of information regarding the method of political succession, the division of the empire, the growth of the imperial bureaucracy, and the conflict which defined the nature of patrimonial authority. A good knowledge of Juvaynī’s history is therefore essential to understanding both the transmission and transformation of Chinggisid authority. If Juvaynī is the chief source of information concerning the transmission of Chinggisid authority, then the Secret History of the Mongols (Yuan chao bi shi) is the most important source of information on the origin of this authority. The book is a biography of Chinggis Khan’s life and career, written in twelve chapters (chuan), of which the last two provide a concise account of his son Ögödei’s reign (1229–41). The colophon of the Secret History records that it was completed ‘in the year of the Rat’, a date which might correspond to the years 1228, 1240, 1252, or 1264.41 The author of the Secret History is also unknown. The three leading candidates have been named as Shighi-Qutuqu, Chinggis’s adopted brother who had learned to write the Uighur script and had a keen knowledge of both Chinggis’s life and his reforms; Chinqai Noyan, one of Chinggis’s nököt and the chamberlain of his successors, Ögödei and Güyük; and Tata-Tunga, a Uighur seal-bearer who had entered Chinggis’s service after 1204.42 Yet Igor de Rachewiltz has made the point that the search for an individual author may be pointless since the Secret History could just as easily have been written by a team of researchers or a narrator who told his story to a secretary.43 The subject matter of the Secret History has led some historians to describe the author as a revivalist, who uses the Chinggis Khan epic to encourage his contemporaries to restore old traditions.44 Indeed, the ideas expressed in the Secret History fall under the umbrella of collegialism as interpreted in the present volume. Despite accepting Chinggis Khan’s divine mandate and good fortune, the history also has a very collegialist interpretation of monarchy in the Mongol Empire. The Secret History accepts Chinggis Khan’s supremacy, but also reports his weaknesses in some detail. It records how he was ‘frightened’ of dogs and also by his one-time friend, Jamuqa;45 it recalls that Chinggis had murdered his younger brother Bekter and that he was subsequently scolded by his mother, Ho’elün.46 More significantly, Paul Ratchnevsky has noted that the Secret History shows a strong tendency to aggrandize the deeds of Chinggis Khan’s army and his nököt.47 Their valour and devotion to Chinggis Khan are recorded at length in passages describing battles which act as proof of their loyalty and commitment to the state. On the other hand the Secret History portrays the altan uruq as troublesome misfits. It tells of how Chinggis squabbled with all three of his brothers, Joči-Qasar, Temüge Otčigin, and Belgütei (a half-brother by a different mother).48 Similarly, Chinggis’s sons are chastised as a group on two occasions for fighting amongst each other and for violating Chinggis’s jasaq.49 Perhaps these two stories were designed to condemn similar behaviour by the altan uruq during the time of the Secret History’s composition, which might favour the later dates of 1252 and 1264 for its completion.50 Of course it is not possible to confirm positively that the Secret History was written by a proponent of either collegialism or patrimonialism, since the identity of its author remains a mystery. It is, however, important to stress the apparent sympathies of the source before it is applied to the present work. With this in mind, the Secret History remains the most important source of information for the career of Chinggis Khan. No other source provides the same level of detail on his social reforms, his conflict with the aristocratic houses of Inner Asia, or the names and positions of his supporters. The climax of Chinggis Khan’s story is the creation of the Mongol Nation, with the policies Chinggis Khan introduced to organize his state and the rewards given to those who helped achieve it taking up easily the largest portion of the book. Much attention is also given to explaining the success of Chinggis Khan’s movement, which is attributed to his divine mandate. The Secret History is, therefore, the most important source available for analysing the nature of Chinggis Khan’s ‘charismatic authority’ and the creation of his state. Abū’l Qāsim Abd Allāh b. Muḥammad Qāshānī, one of Rashīd al-Dīn’s deputies, recorded the situation in the Īlkhānate at the start of the fourteenth century in great detail in his Tārīkh-i Pādshāh Saʻīd Ghiyāth al-Dunyā wa al-Dīn Ūljāytū Sultan Muḥammad Ṭayyib Allāh Marqada (History of Ūljāytū). Qāshānī wrote his history as the continuation of the Jām‘i al-Tavārīkh, which Qāshānī himself claims to have helped write.51 Thus, the Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū continues to develop the patrimonialist concept of authority presented in Rashīd al-Dīn’s history. Qāshānī portrays the Īlkhān Öljeitü as a superhuman source of spiritual power, which he attributes directly to a divine mandate.52 Indeed, Qāshānī’s preoccupation with Öljeitü’s spiritual authority dominates his work to an extent which is not evident in other accounts. This emphasis was, no doubt, a result of the increasing number of Muslims at the Īlkhān court after the conversion of Öljeitü’s predecessor, Ghazan, to Islam in 1295.53 Islam, therefore, had to be married to the patrimonialist conception of Chinggisid authority to avoid alienating the new Muslim elite. The Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū represents one of the first significant attempts to reconcile the twin principles of Chinggisid and Islamic patrimonialism in order to legitimate the rule of an Īlkhān. Qāshānī’s political–spiritual symbolism mirrors that employed in several building projects carried out during Öljeitü’s reign. He therefore plays an important role in defining the nature of patrimonial authority during the reign of Öljeitü. The Rawḍat Ūlī al-Albab fī Tavārīkh al-Akābir wa al-Ansāb (the Garden of the Intelligent, on the Histories of the Great, and on Genealogies) of Fakhr ad-Dīn Abū Sulaymān Dāvūd Banākātī provides further examples of patrimonialist thought in the later Īlkhānate. Banakati claims to have been an official panegyrist at the court of Ghazan, who gave him the title malik al-shuʻarā (king of poets).54 Indeed, Banākātī’s poetry is what makes his work significant for the present study. His history, known more widely as the Tārīkh-i Banākātī, was composed at the court of Ghazan’s nephew, Abū Sa‘īd Ba’atur Khan, in 1317–18.55 The text itself is essentially an abbreviated transcription of the Jām‘i al-Tavārīkh, which suggests the enduring influence which Rashīd al-Dīn’s work held in the later Īlkhān court.56 It may also betray a great deal about Banākātī’s own political beliefs and sympathies since he was a contemporary of Rashīd al-Dīn at Ghazan’s court. The wholesale copying of entire sections of the Jām‘i al-Tavārīkh does, however, reduce the utility of his account. Fortunately, Banākātī has interjected his own account of events in which he was present, or for which he had reliable information which differs from that provided by Rashīd al-Dīn. This independence is most evident in Banākātī’s account of Ghazan’s reign, during which he provides a unique, though somewhat short, account of a ceremonial banquet which he attended.57 Banākātī was not a historian of any great talent, but he has provided several examples of his poetry which he claims to have read in honour of the Īlkhān. Such readings were carried out at official ceremonies, during which the leaders of the Īlkhān army, bureaucracy and royal family were present. Banākātī’s poems represent a form of political pageantry which the Īlkhāns employed to convey their interpretation of political authority. Numerous regional histories have survived from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries which document events in cities and provinces on the periphery of the Īlkhānate. The Tārīkh-i Sīstān (History of Sīstān), Tārīkhnāmaye Harāt (Chronicle of Herat), Tārīkh-i Shāh-i Qarakhatāyan (History of the Qarakhatāyan Kings), the Georgian Chronicle, and the Musāmarat al-Akhbār va Musāyarat al-Akhyār (Nighttime Narratives and Keeping up with the Good) are amongst this group. Because the regional histories often focus upon characters and territories which were not constantly in contact with the Īlkhānate they often mention their Mongol rulers sparingly. Yet they remain a good source of information on the impact of Mongol rule in their respective territories. Indeed, the parochial interest of some of the regional histories means that they actually contain more detail on certain events which occurred within their territory. The Tārīkhnāmaye Harāt and the Tārīkh-i Sīstān, for example, document the events of Eastern Iran between 1286 and 1295 when Ghazan governed the region. This means that they provide particularly interesting information on his struggle with the noyan Nawrūz in Khurāsān and Sīstān during the 1280s and 1290s. In the case of the Tārīkhnāmaye Harāt, there is also a revealing insight into the character of Öljeitü who devoted much time to fighting with the Kart dynasty of Herat in Central Khurāsān. History writing in Iran suffered a lean period in the decades immediately after the disintegration of the Īlkhānate in 1335. The paucity of sources composed during this period is particularly stark when compared with the start of the fourteenth century, which was one of the most prolific and brilliant periods in Iranian literary history. The division of the Īlkhānate amongst a handful of unstable dynasties and the repeated assault of both disease and warfare meant that there was limited patronage for the type of literary projects carried out at the former Īlkhān court. Indeed, the majority of sources completed between 1335 and 1404 were begun during the reign of the last Īlkhān, Abū Sa’īd (r. 1318–35). The Persian financial administrator, Ḥamd Allāh Mustawfī Qazvīnī, was the most prolific author at the time of the Īlkhānate’s disintegration. He was appointed as the financial director of his home town of Qazvīn by Rashīd al-Dīn in 1311, and the latter served as an inspiration for his later writing.58 In approximately 1320, Ḥamd Allāh began work on his Ẓafarnāma (Book of Victory), a history of Iran from the Arab conquest until the reign of Abū Sa‘īd. The Ẓafarnāma is a continuation of Firduwsī’s poetic history of pre-Islamic Iran, the Shāhnāma (Book of Kings), which became particularly popular in the later Īlkhān court.59 The Ẓafarnāma was created as an exposition of the Persian language and so its importance lies in its representation of political attitudes at the end of the Īlkhānate, rather than in its historical accuracy.60 Qazvīnī is also noted for publishing two other works during the last decade of the Abū Sa‘īd’s rule. The first is the Tārīkh-ī Guzīdeh (Select History), which provides a concise history of Iran from the rise of Islam to the reign of Abū Sa‘īd. The Tārīkh-i Guzīdeh was completed in 1330 and relies upon previously mentioned sources for its information, which somewhat diminishes its utility.61 Qazvīnī’s most valuable work is, however, the geographical treatise which he completed in 740 AH/1339–40 ce, known as the Nuzhat al-Qulūb (Journey of the Hearts).62 The Nuzhat al-Qulūb is a survey of the population centres in the former Īlkhānate and includes valuable information about population density, economic activity, and administrative divisions in the first half of the fourteenth century. The Nuzhat al-Qulūb also provides profiles for several cities which are relevant for the present study. The Majma‘ al-Anṣāb (Collection of Genealogies) of Muḥammad b. ‘Alī Shabānkāra’ī is another example of a history begun during the reign of Abū Sa‘īd and finished after his death. A poet of Kurdish origin, Shabānkāra’ī dedicated the original copy of his history to Abū Sa‘īd’s vizier, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh in 733 ah/1332–3 ce. This work was, however, destroyed when the vizier’s home was ransacked during the troubles following the death of Abū Sa‘īd. Shabānkāra’ī completed a second version in 1337, from which two recensions were derived. The Majma‘ al-Anṣāb is of particular value for its account of the reign of Öljeitü and Abū Sa‘īd, for which he is an independent source and a contemporary of the events he describes. The Majma‘ al-Anṣāb also provides the only account of events within the author’s homeland of Shabānkāra, which fell under Mongol domination in 1259.63 The Majma‘ al-Anṣāb is, however, an unreliable source of information regarding Mongolian political tradition. Shabankaraʻī borrowed from a range of histories written during the later Īlkhānate and after its fall, which has resulted in the indiscriminate transmission of both patrimonialist and collegialist accounts. The Tārīkh-i Shaykh Uways (History of Shaykh Uways) which was completed around 1360 stands out as an example of a history written well after the division of the Īlkhānate. Little is known about its author, Abū Bakr al-Qutbī al-Ahrī. His ̣ nisba (title of origin) suggests that he was from the town of Ahar in Azerbaijan (also Adharbāījān) where he must have spent much of his life, but no biographical information has been found in any of the contemporary literature.64 Al-Ahrī dedicated his history to the Jalayirid Sultan, Shaykh Uways b. Shaykh Ḥasan-i Buzurg (r. 1356–74) in an attempt to link the latter’s dynasty to that of the Īlkhāns. Thus, al-Ahrī devoted a chapter of his history to each of the Īlkhāns up until the fall of the dynasty. Most of his information on the period between 1258 and 1304 is derived directly from Rashīd al-Dīn, and he also borrows heavily from the Tārīkh-i Öljeitü for the period up to 1317. Al-Ahrī does, however, provide an independent source of information for the reign of Abū Sa‘īd and his account of the fall of the Īlkhānate is of critical importance as it documents the continuation of the collegial stream of Chinggisid authority well into the middle of the fourteenth century. Several histories written during the first half of the fifteenth century in Temüriddominated Khurāsān and Transoxiana have been used in this study as a supplementary source of information for the later Īlkhānate. Most of the histories composed during the early fourteenth century exaggerated the significance of Ghazan’s reign at the expense of his successors, for whom much less information was provided. To some extent, both Öljeitü and Abū Sa‘īd encouraged this trend in an attempt to perpetuate the patrimonialist model of kingship which Ghazan embodied. Their focus on Ghazan is in itself important for understanding the nature of political authority after his death, but it has also resulted in a significantly smaller pool of information regarding the reign of the last two Īlkhāns. This shortage is compounded by the above mentioned decline in history writing during the second half of the fourteenth century. Fortunately, the Temürids eagerly compiled and recorded information pertaining to the later Īlkhānate in order to portray themselves as the continuators of the Mongol political tradition. Shāh Rūkh b. Temür (r. 1405–46) was the member of his family most determined to link the Temürid dynasty to that of the Īlkhānids. The histories he commissioned provide valuable information regarding the last three decades of Īlkhān rule and go a long way towards compensating for the shortfall in primary source material covering this period. Ḥāfiẓ Abrū was the most distinguished Temürid historian to document the later Īlkhānate. Abrū was initially included in Temür’s suite because of his talent for chess before joining the court of the latter’s son, Shāh Rūkh, and his grandson, Baysunqur.65 His first historical work was the Ẕayl-i Jām‘i al-Tavārīkh (Tail of the Collection of Histories), which was intended as a continuation of Rashīd al-Dīn’s Collected Histories of the Mongol Empire. Abrū picks up Rashīd’s narrative from the death of Ghazan and provides a full account of the reign of Öljeitü and Abū Sa‘īd before documenting the division of the Īlkhānate and the fate of Iran before the first invasion of Temür in 1380. Abrū subsequently authored the Zubda al-Tavārīkh, the ‘Cream of Histories’, which documents the career of Temür and the early years of his patron, Shāh Rūkh, before terminating in the year 1426–7; the year in which the history was completed.66 The Zubda al-Tavārīkh is the continuation of the biography of Temür known as the Ẓafarnāma, composed by the courtier Nizām al-Dīn Shāmī, and was designed to link the Temürid dynasty ̣ into the political tradition of their Chinggisid predecessors, the Īlkhāns. Abrū’s account served as the primary source for the first chapter of Kamāl al-Dīn ‘Abd al-Razzāq Samarqandī’s later work, Maṭla‘-i Sa‘dayn va Majma‘-i Baḥrayn (Dawn of the Two Auspicious Planets and the Junction of the two Seats), which commemorates the rule of Abū Sa‘īd Ba’atur Khan and documents the rise of Temür in Transoxiana.67 The Zubda al-Tavārīkh has been employed more sparingly in this study, and only in relation to the rise of collegialism in Iran and Transoxiana. Abrū is a strong and independent source of information on the early Temürids whom he served and, in many instances, witnessed the events he describes, such as Temür’s invasion of al-Shām in 1401.68 His expertise on the Temürid state and the extent of their empire is demonstrated by a geographical survey which he began in 1414–15.69 The geography contains information which Abrū utilized in his subsequent two works, but also provides a much more detailed history of each of the regions and cities which had been absorbed into the Temürid Empire. Since Abrū’s geography has minimal relevance to the present study, however, a broader enumeration of its contents and history will not be provided here. Other sources written during the fifteenth century will be utilized to chart the triumph of the collegial stream of authority in the Ulus Chaghadai. One of the most informative sources for this transition is the Muntakhab al-Tawārīkh-ī Mu’īnī (Choice History of Mu’īnī) of Mu’īn al-Dīn Natanzī. Na ̣ tanzī wrote his history in ̣ Fārs during the reign of Mirza Iskandar Sultan (812–17 ah/1410–15 ce), who along with several other Temürid governors of Fārs had spent time serving in Andijan, in the far east of the Empire.70 It was there, in Andijan, Beatrice Manz suggests, that Iskandar Sultan was introduced to a distinctly Temürid historical tradition which was separate from that of the Persians, who largely ignored Transoxiana.71 Natanzī draws on this independent source to provide the most ̣ detailed history of the period between 1334 and 1346, during which time the collegialists achieved complete ascendancy over the Ulus Chaghadai. The centrality of these Chaghadaid sources in Natanzī’s account caused him to write a distinctly ̣ collegialist version of events, which often jeopardizes the veracity of his account. It does, however, provide a unique insight into the collegialist conception of Chaghadai history and society in the middle of the fourteenth century. Reference has also been made to Arabic histories written predominantly in al-Shām (the Levant) and Egypt. In many cases these Arabic sources provide detailed information on events in the Mongol Empire which is independent of the accounts provided by Īlkhān court histories. The growing popularity of biographical encyclopaedias in the Mamluk Empire during the thirteenth century was one factor which caused Arabic authors to record important facts about their eastern neighbours.72 Writers such as Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-‘Umarī (d. 749 ah/1349 ce) and Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 852 ah/1449 ce) sought to include information on the most important figures of their time in their biographical dictionaries and encyclopaedias and were therefore compelled to devote some space, however short, to the Īlkhān rulers. The constant state of conflict between the Mamluks and the Īlkhānate also forced Arabic chroniclers to make reference to the battles and negotiations carried out between the two sides. Mamluk chroniclers such as Ibn ‘Abd al-Ẓāhir and Baybars al-Mansūrī document several confrontations between ̣ their sovereign, Baybars, and the Īlkhān army. Both authors also provide valuable information about the court of the Golden Horde, the Mongol khanate on the northern border of the Īlkhānate, which was transmitted to them by Mamluk diplomats who frequented the northern Mongol court.73 The Ayyubid prince, ‘Imād al-Dīn Abū al-Fidā’, ruled over the town of Ḥamāh which lay on the road going south from Aleppo to Ḥims and was, therefore, in the line of assault for ̣ Mongol armies invading al-Shām.74 His chronicle provides a beautifully detailed account of relations between the Mamluks and the later Īlkhāns (i.e. 1295–1335), which he gleaned from his many trips to the Mamluk court at Cairo. Abū al-Fidā’ also gives accurate reports of events within the Īlkhānate itself, such as the coup which brought Ghazan to power in 1295.75 Moreover, the war between the Īlkhāns and the Mamluks forced the latter to confront and, where possible undermine, concepts of Chinggisid authority. With this in mind, Mamluk propaganda such as the fatwa (religious ruling) of Ibn Taymīyah76 and the generally dismissive reaction afforded to the conversion of Ghazan and Öljeitü to Islam in the histories of Ibn Kathīr and al-‘Aynī77 provide an interesting insight into the way that Mongol ideology was interpreted by outside powers. This study has made use of the observations of European travellers and non-Persian peoples subject to the Īlkhānate when discussing the early institutionalization of Chinggisid authority in the Mongol Empire. Mongol armies pushing west through the Kipchaq Steppe in 1236 annihilated the Rurikid principalities of Rus’ and began a short yet devastating campaign into Eastern Europe in 1241. The threat of more Mongol invasions prompted Pope Innocent IV to dispatch three diplomatic missions to the East, ostensibly on fact-finding missions.78 The most famous of these three missions was led by the Franciscan friar, John of Plano Carpini (Giovanni del Pian di Carpini), who arrived at the Qa’an’s ordu (camp/court) in 1246.79 Carpini’s impressions of the Mongol ordu, its newly crowned ruler Güyük Khan, the Dowager Empress Töregene Khatun, the Mongol army and the Mongol way of life were provided to Innocent IV on his return and have survived as one of the most important sources of information on the early Mongol Empire. Carpini was fortunate to have arrived at the Mongol ordu during the coronation of Güyük, and he therefore provides some brief observations on the quriltai that elected him. This information renders his account a valuable source of information on the institutionalization of Chinggisid authority. Another Franciscan, William of Rubruck, visited the Mongol ordu in December 1253 as an unofficial representative of King Louis IX of France.80 Rubruck spent a little over six months at the ordu and met with its ruler Möngke Qa’an on several occasions before returning to Europe. His account is generally far more detailed than that of Carpini regarding the arrangement of the Qa’an’s suite and the etiquette required in his presence. Möngke’s rule marked a new phase in the transmission of Chinggisid authority and tradition, which renders Rubruck’s account even more valuable for this study. The imperial bureaucracy of the Mongols was staffed mostly by members of ethnic and religious minorities to prevent larger population groups attaining any significant power. This policy prompted the Īlkhāns to maintain a strong relationship with the Armenian, Nestorian, and Jacobite/Syrian Christian communities in Iran and Mesopotamia, who in turn provided several accounts of their interactions with the Mongols. These sources generally (although not universally) provide a far more positive account of the Īlkhān government. One such account is that of the Nestorian patriarch Mar Yahballaha III, translated from Persian to Syrian by an unknown author at the beginning of the fourteenth century.81 Yahballaha’s grasp of the Mongol and Persian languages meant that he was regularly employed as a bridgehead between the Īlkhāns and their Christian neighbours and subjects.82 Yahballaha’s close proximity to the Īlkhān ordu provided him with an insight into the relationship between religion and authority in the Mongol Empire which he reports with a great deal of candour. The information recorded by Mar Yahballaha III is confirmed by the Jacobite (Syrian) Catholicus, Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286), in his Mukhtaṣar al-Tārīkh-i al-Dāwal (Abridgement of the History of Dynasties). The history of Bar Hebraeus covers the rule of the ten great dynasties from the time of Adam and the Kings of Israel up to the Mongols. His account terminates in 1284, but an anonymous continuator has carried the story up until the early years of Ghazan’s reign (1295–1304). Despite much of his history being borrowed from the Tārīkh-i Jahāngushāy of Juvaynī, Bar Hebraeus also provides independent information derived from his own experience of Mongol rule as well as reports he garnered from Christians at the Īlkhān court. Bar Hebraeus’ discussion of the coups and rebellions against Īlkhān rule carried out by various leading noyat and royal princes is particularly informative. The thirteenth century is also notable for the large number of Armenian sources which document Īlkhān rule. The Hetoumid rulers of Cilicia were counted amongst the Īlkhāns’ most powerful vassals and several accounts of their relationship emerged during this period. The Armenian constable, Smbat, himself a member of the Armenian royal family, is thought to be responsible for a chronicle documenting the submission of King Hetoum I to Möngke Qa’an in 1253 and of the subsequent history of the Īlkhānate until 1267.83 Smbat’s nephew, Hetoum, also penned a history of the Īlkhānate and the Armenians of Cilicia in 1307. Hetoum wrote an account of Mongol rule from the time of Chinggis Khan until the reign of Öljeitü (r. 1304–17) during a supposedly self-imposed exile from his homeland.84 In addition to these sources the History of the Nation of Archers, written by the monk known as Grigor of Akanc, documents the initial invasion of Iran by Chinggis Khan and the military administration which ruled Azerbaijan up until the year 1274. Akanc’s history is most valuable for his observations on the creation of the Īlkhānate and his impression of Mongol administration in the provinces. The Catholicos of Greater Armenia, Stéphannos Orbélian (1250–1304), has also provided an account of his church’s fortunes, and those of his family, under Mongol rule. His history, whilst lacking the detail of Hetoum and Akanc, still reveals much about the nature of Īlkhān rule, as Orbélian was personally acquainted with no less than three of the Īlkhān rulers.85 But perhaps the most useful Armenian source for the present study has been The History of the Armenians, penned by the monk Kirakos Gandzakets’i (1201–72).
His history provides a detailed account of early Mongol rule in Iran, which he obtained through his experiences, first as a captive and then as a scribe in the Mongol garrison army deployed to Azerbaijan in 1229.86 Kirakos relied upon senior commanders in this army for his information on the Mongol Empire and, as a direct result, his history includes a list of Mongolian terms which J. A. Boyle described as ‘one of the earliest monuments of the Mongol language’ in existence.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق