CHAPTER IX.

(2.)“Ternowa.”—Trnovo or Ternov, the capital of Eastern Bulgaria, was taken and destroyed by the Turks in 1393, at a moment that Shishman happened to be absent. Turkish authors have recorded, that at Nicopolis he surrendered at discretion, and died, according to some, in confinement, and at an advanced age; others, however, state that he was beheaded, which, judging by the narrative in the text, would appear doubtful. Alexander, Shishman’s eldest son, having turned Mahomedan, was appointed governor of Saroukhan, as we are informed by Rehm (Gesch. d. Mittelalt., iv, 2, 584); and it is possible that he was transferred to Samsoun after the conquest of the province of Janyk, in the province-general of Trebizond. His younger brother Fruzin remained a Christian, and died at Kronstadt in 1460.—Bruun.

(1.)“Wurchanadin.”—It has already been noticed that Bourhan uddin was prince of Sebaste or Sivas. The Turkish lord named Otman in this chapter, was Kara Yelek, chief of the Turkoman Horde of the White Sheep.—Bruun.

(2.)The death of Bourhan uddin.—Oriental writers are at issue as to the date of the death of Bourhan uddin, and of the incorporation of his domains with those of Bajazet. Saad uddin (Weil.,Gesch. d. Chalifen, ii, 60, note i) observes, that various dates are given, from the year 794 to 799 of the Hegira = 1391–96. In his History of the Ottoman Empire (i, 226), Hammer expresses himself in favour of the opinion of Nishandi, an Arabian author, who fixes the date at 795 = 1392. This opinion is supported by Zinkeisen (Gesch. d. O. R., i, 353), who states he has no doubt that “the course of events and the most reliable authorities testify in favour of the year 1392”, although Weil makes it clear, that the death of Bourhan uddin could not have taken place before the year 800 = 1398. German historians are guided by the statements of Oriental writers, who have apparently confounded two wars between Bajazet and the sovereign of Sebaste, the one having taken place before, and the other after the battle of Nicopolis. Indeed we learn from Schiltberger, that previously to the war in which he himself was engaged (seepage 17), the younger son of Bajazet had driven Bourhan uddin out of “Marsüany”, a city which, from being situated on the borders of Karaman, must have been identical with Marsivan (Viv. de Saint-Martin,Desc. de l’A. M., ii, 448) or Merzyfoun, as it was called by Hadjy Khalpha (Jihan-Numa, etc., ii, 407), and was perhaps the village of Morivazou, the birth-place of St. Stephen of Sougdaia (Zap. Odess., v, 625). In the introduction to his edition of 1859, Neumann submits that Amasia is here intended; but he is in error, because that place had already been taken by Bajazet, not from Bourhan uddin, but from Bajazet the “Impotent”, together with Samsoun, Kastamouny, and Osmandjyk (Hammer, i, 312–315).Neumann is certainly not justified in supposing that Schiltberger would have alluded upon two occasions to the campaign in which he took part—first, in chap. 5, casually; again in chap. 9, wherein we have all the details as they are related by an eye-witness; for, in reference to this, the second campaign, we are informed that it was conducted by the eldest son of Bajazet, and that this son was not Mouhammed; indeed, we are previouslytold by Schiltberger, that Mouhammed was appointed by the sultan to command the forces sent to “Marsüany”, it being the first expedition of that prince, who was aged 14 in 1392, for he died in 1421, in his 43rd year.—Bruun.

Neumann is certainly not justified in supposing that Schiltberger would have alluded upon two occasions to the campaign in which he took part—first, in chap. 5, casually; again in chap. 9, wherein we have all the details as they are related by an eye-witness; for, in reference to this, the second campaign, we are informed that it was conducted by the eldest son of Bajazet, and that this son was not Mouhammed; indeed, we are previouslytold by Schiltberger, that Mouhammed was appointed by the sultan to command the forces sent to “Marsüany”, it being the first expedition of that prince, who was aged 14 in 1392, for he died in 1421, in his 43rd year.—Bruun.

(1.)“Malathea.”—Malatia, the ancient Melitene, on the Euphrates, was the station of the xiith Legion. Marcus Aurelius surnamed it “Fulminatrix”, in consequence of a miracle that was there operated (Ritter,Die Erdkunde, etc., x, 860). Hammer (Hist. de l’E. O., 345), and Zinkeisen (Gesch. d. O. R., 356), assert, on the authority of Saad uddin, that the Ottomans took this and other cities subject to the sultans of Egypt, between the years 798 and 800 of the Mahommedan era. Weil (Gesch. d. Chalifen, 70–73), however, does not think that this occupation could have taken place earlier than 801, founding his opinion on the authority of Arabian writers, who have recorded Turkish aggression as having occurred after the advent to the throne, of Faradj, who succeeded his father in 801 = 1399 (June 20). In support of this argument, Weil quotes the testimony of one of those writers who had himself seen the letter, in which was announced to Itmish, the atabek of the new sultan, the capture of Malatia; but it is also possible that the great dignitary had received this same letter in the time of Barkok, by whom he must have been highly esteemed, for, when on his death-bed, the sultan nominated him his executor. This view of the case agrees with Schiltberger’s recital, whilst his observations, towards the end of this chapter, on the taking of Adalia, will serve to explain the strange passage that occurs in the Italian translation of the book of Saad uddin. “Et havendo spedito al Conquisto di Chianchria” (Kiankary the ancient Gangra) “Timurtas-Bassa” (Bajazet’s general) “però tutto quel Paese insieme con la Città d’Atena (la qual’ è patria de’ Filosofi) col suo Distretto pervenne in poter del Rè; il quale prese anco dalle mani de’ Turcomani la Città di Bechsenia” (Behesna) “e diMallatie”, etc. “There is clearly a mistake in the text or in the translation”, says Weil (70), after showing that Hammer and Zinkeisen are greatly in error in supposing, upon the authority of this defective passage, that the city of Socrates could have been taken by the Turks in the course of the same campaign as that in which Malatia fell into their hands; but there would have been nothing extraordinary in the fact of their attacking Angora after the fall of this city, and then Satalia, near the ruins of the ancient Attalia in Pamphylia, in which Neumann fancies that he recognises the Adalia of Schiltberger, because it was situated on the sea-shore opposite to the island of Cyprus. In support of this, the esteemed editor of the edition of 1859 might have quoted another passage, from theActa Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani(Zap. Odess., v, 966), wherein we find it asserted, that the city of Satalia, having been occupied by the Infidels in 1400, the bishop of that city took his departure for Aenos. Notwithstanding these arguments, it appears to me that the Adalia of Schiltberger could not have been Satalia, but rather Adana in Cicilia, for the following reasons.This city of Adana, Adena, or Adan, is nearer to the island of Cyprus than is Satalia, although not actually on the sea-shore, a situation not attributed to his Adalia by Schiltberger. It belonged to the sultans of Egypt, which was not the case with Satalia, a city that from the year 1207 had been subject to the sultans of Iconium, to the Seljouk principality of Tekke, and to the kingdom of Cyprus, and was already incorporated in the Ottoman Empire (Weil, i, 505; Heyd, xviii, 714). Finally, Schiltberger’s notice that the people about Adalia were exclusively employed in the rearing of camels, is applicable to Adana rather than to Satalia; for in those days it was one of the chief centres of commerce in the East, and was encircled by the superb gardens for which it is so celebrated in our own times. It may, I think, be conceded that Saad uddin, or Bratutti his translator, have possibly confounded Athens with Attalia or Adana, and that this very city might have been subjugated by Timour Tash, soon after his reduction of Behesna, Malatia, and other cities in Cilicia.—Bruun.

This city of Adana, Adena, or Adan, is nearer to the island of Cyprus than is Satalia, although not actually on the sea-shore, a situation not attributed to his Adalia by Schiltberger. It belonged to the sultans of Egypt, which was not the case with Satalia, a city that from the year 1207 had been subject to the sultans of Iconium, to the Seljouk principality of Tekke, and to the kingdom of Cyprus, and was already incorporated in the Ottoman Empire (Weil, i, 505; Heyd, xviii, 714). Finally, Schiltberger’s notice that the people about Adalia were exclusively employed in the rearing of camels, is applicable to Adana rather than to Satalia; for in those days it was one of the chief centres of commerce in the East, and was encircled by the superb gardens for which it is so celebrated in our own times. It may, I think, be conceded that Saad uddin, or Bratutti his translator, have possibly confounded Athens with Attalia or Adana, and that this very city might have been subjugated by Timour Tash, soon after his reduction of Behesna, Malatia, and other cities in Cilicia.—Bruun.

(1.)“Thus Joseph expelled his rival, and became a powerful king.”—Upon the death of the Sultan Barkok, his son Al-Melyk Al-Nazr Abou-Saadat Faradj, aged thirteen, ascended the throne. Schiltberger pronounces one of the names of this monarch after his own fashion, and calls him Joseph, and elsewhere Jusuphda, evidently in place of Abou-Saadat. This prince, soon after his accession, was under the necessity of contending in arms with Itmish (who has already been noticed), one of his father’s dependants, as Schiltberger represents Joseph to have done. Faradj perished, as did Jusuphda, for he was made a prisoner and beheaded in 1412 (Weil,Gesch. d. Chalifen, ii, 124).Eastern writers make no mention of the assistance rendered to Faradj by Bajazet, upon the occasion of his struggle with his father’s vassal at the commencement of his reign; but their silence on this point is by no means conclusive as throwing doubt on the statement, twice repeated, of Schiltberger, who was himself serving in the force despatched by Bajazet to the support of the sultan, in whom he hoped to secure an ally against Timour, whose power menaced the safety of both. Had the two sultans been indeed of one accord, the conqueror might have received a check. According to Aboul-Mahazin (Weil, ii, 71), Timour is reported to have said, on hearing of the death of Barkok: “Bajazet is an excellent general, but his troops are not worth much; the Egyptians and Syrians, however, are good soldiers, but they are badly handled”. It is very certain that Bajazet, in his turn, soon afterwards (1400) appealed for assistance to the sultan of Egypt, who refused to grant it, because the former’s venture against Malatia was not forgotten (Weil, 81, note 42); but the necessity he was under of keeping his troops for protection at home, was the truer cause.—Bruun.

Eastern writers make no mention of the assistance rendered to Faradj by Bajazet, upon the occasion of his struggle with his father’s vassal at the commencement of his reign; but their silence on this point is by no means conclusive as throwing doubt on the statement, twice repeated, of Schiltberger, who was himself serving in the force despatched by Bajazet to the support of the sultan, in whom he hoped to secure an ally against Timour, whose power menaced the safety of both. Had the two sultans been indeed of one accord, the conqueror might have received a check. According to Aboul-Mahazin (Weil, ii, 71), Timour is reported to have said, on hearing of the death of Barkok: “Bajazet is an excellent general, but his troops are not worth much; the Egyptians and Syrians, however, are good soldiers, but they are badly handled”. It is very certain that Bajazet, in his turn, soon afterwards (1400) appealed for assistance to the sultan of Egypt, who refused to grant it, because the former’s venture against Malatia was not forgotten (Weil, 81, note 42); but the necessity he was under of keeping his troops for protection at home, was the truer cause.—Bruun.

(1.)“took the city by force, although there were in it five thousand horsemen sent by Weyasit.”—The walls of Sebaste, originallyconstructed by Aladin Kekobady, a Seljouk king, were of extraordinary strength, being twenty cubits in height, and ten cubits in thickness at the base, narrowing to six cubits at the top. The place was stubbornly defended, the besieged being well supplied with munitions of war; but the besiegers constructed towers of greater height than the town, and planted upon them machines for hurling huge stones, so that, at the expiration of 18 days (the text says 21 days), the besieged sued for quarter. Timour spared all the Mussulmans, but the Christians were sent into slavery. The 4000 horsemen (5000 horsemen in the text) being Armenians, were flung alive into pits and covered with earth (Petis de la Croix,Histoire de Timur Bec, liv. v, 268).—Ed.

(2.)“There were also nine thousand virgins taken into captivity by Tämerlin to his own country.”—The contemporary historians, Aboul-Mahazin and Arabshah (Weil, 81), describe in like manner the cruelties practised on the inhabitants of Sebaste in 1400, by Timour, whose admirer even, Shereef uddin, differs but slightly in the horrible details (Hammer,Hist. de l’E. O., ii, 59).—Bruun.

(1.)“Scarcely had Tämerlin returned to his own country.”—After the fall of Sebaste, Timour proceeded to Syria, where he took several cities, Damascus being of the number; and having recrossed the Euphrates, he entered Baghdad. Bajazet had in the meantime seized upon Erzingan, which belonged to Taharten, who had already acknowledged the supremacy of Timour; an act on the part of the sultan which accelerated the struggle between himself and Timour, and to which Schiltberger alludes in this chapter. In chapters 14–19, he depicts the above-mentioned campaigns and other expeditions of Timour, imagining that they were conducted after the battle of Angora; but as he reports from hearsay only, he was not in a position to form a correct idea of the chronological order in which they occurred.—Bruun.

(2.)“Tarathan.”—It is by the name of Tabarten that Eastern writers know this prince, who, at that time, possessed the city of Erzingan; whilst Clavigo, who enters into numerous details on the private affairs of the “gran Caballero”, calls him Zaratan. The residence of this ruler was near the Kara-sou, at that time the great western arm of the Euphrates, at a place called by the Turks, Erznga or Eznga, a name derived from the Armenian, Eriza, as I am informed by Bishop Aïvazoffsky of the Armenian church at Theodosia. According to Marco Polo, who called it Arzinga (Yule, 2nd edit., i, 47), it was the capital of Greater Armenia, Sis being that of Lesser Armenia. The apparent contradiction in our author’s statements arises from the fact that, in another chapter, he represents Sis, Erzingan, and Tiflis, as being the chief towns of the three divisions of Armenia. The first belonged to the sultan of Egypt; the others to the Timourides, actually to Shah Rokh, the son of Timour. In ancient times, Erzingan was celebrated for the temple of Anaïtis (Strabo, xi, 14, 16), destroyed by St. Gregory the Enlightener. Procopius calls the place, Aurea Comana, and tells us that it contained a temple of Artemis, founded, according to tradition, by Orestes and Iphigenia; a temple already transformed into a Christian church at the time he wrote (De Bell. Pers., i, 177; Ritter,Die Erdkunde, etc., x, 774).In quoting, together with Arzes and Erzingan, the fortress of Chliat and Percri, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De Adm. Imp., 44, 8) referred to Akhlat or Gelath, and the modern town of Pergri on the Bandoumaky, and not, as supposed by Ritter, to the village of Bagaran or Pacaran, near the ruins of Ani, the ancient capital of Armenia, close to the river Arpa-tchaï. Erzingan was destroyed by the Mongols in 1242; in 1387, Taharten acknowledged the suzerainty of Timour, and in 1400 he was expelled by Bajazet, who, in his turn, lost the city to the Tatars. It had not risen out of its ruins in the time of Barbaro, and now they are scarcely to be traced.Etiam periere ruinæ!—Bruun.

In quoting, together with Arzes and Erzingan, the fortress of Chliat and Percri, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De Adm. Imp., 44, 8) referred to Akhlat or Gelath, and the modern town of Pergri on the Bandoumaky, and not, as supposed by Ritter, to the village of Bagaran or Pacaran, near the ruins of Ani, the ancient capital of Armenia, close to the river Arpa-tchaï. Erzingan was destroyed by the Mongols in 1242; in 1387, Taharten acknowledged the suzerainty of Timour, and in 1400 he was expelled by Bajazet, who, in his turn, lost the city to the Tatars. It had not risen out of its ruins in the time of Barbaro, and now they are scarcely to be traced.Etiam periere ruinæ!—Bruun.

(3.)“but he died on the way.”—Schiltberger’s silence with regard to the cage in which Timour confined his captive, agrees, says Neumann, with the result of the researches of Hammer, whoseeks to prove that the tale is the invention of a sworn enemy of Timour. The Baron’s opinion is supported by the Russian Academician Sresneffsky, in his quotation from a Russian chronicler (Nikitin, inHojdenye za try Mory’a), a contemporary of Timour, who, in alluding to the fate of Ilderim, has not thought it necessary to speak of the cage in which he was made to follow his conqueror. Hammer’s argument does not appear to have satisfied Weil (ii, 96), on the grounds that the story of the iron cage does not emanate from Arabshah only, but also from other Arabian chroniclers. Weil equally disputes the assertion that the term cage was intended to signify a litter, and disagrees with Rehm (iv, 3, 151) in his interpretation of the wordkafass, that it implied a litter as well as a cage, the Arabian word for the former beinghandedj,mahaffah, andkubbet; and concludes by saying, that if Bajazet was not really carried about in a cage, his litter must have been of most peculiar construction.—Bruun.

(1.)“The cities I have named are chief cities in Syria.”—These cities in Syria fell into Timour’s hands in the year 1400, but the order of their conquest, as given in the text, differs from the records of Eastern writers. Aboul-Mahazin and Arabshah (Weil,Gesch. d. Chalifen, ii, 82) state, that the first to surrender was Behesna, “Wehessum”; then the tower of Aïntab, “Anthap”, whence Timour proceeded to Haleb, “Hallapp”, now Aleppo, which was taken and dealt with as described by Schiltberger. According to Shereef uddin, Timour Tash, the Egyptian amir and commander of the place, met with the same fate as did the garrison; but Arabshah says, that his life was not only spared, but he also received a robe of honour. Finally, the conqueror seized upon the fortress of Kalat Erroum—Fortress of the Romans—called “Hrumkula” in the text.—Bruun.(1A.) Hrhomgla, for “Hrumkula”, is the Armenian, as Ourroum Kaleh is the Turkish, name of a now miserable village, situated on the western bank of the Euphrates, at the confluence ofthe river Marzeban. It is surmounted by a castellated building on a high hill. It was a place of some importance from 1150 to 1298, as being the residence of the patriarchs of Armenia. Quoting from Arabshah, Petis de la Croix (Histoire de Timur Bec, liv. v, 285) inserts a note to the effect that Timour left Calat Erroum without attacking it, which he dared not do, because the place was very strong.Having regard to the geographical position of the places in this part of Mesopotamia, taken by Timour in 1400, his road to conquest must have lain thus—Behesna, Aïntab, Aleppo, Ourroum Kaleh.—Ed.

(1A.) Hrhomgla, for “Hrumkula”, is the Armenian, as Ourroum Kaleh is the Turkish, name of a now miserable village, situated on the western bank of the Euphrates, at the confluence ofthe river Marzeban. It is surmounted by a castellated building on a high hill. It was a place of some importance from 1150 to 1298, as being the residence of the patriarchs of Armenia. Quoting from Arabshah, Petis de la Croix (Histoire de Timur Bec, liv. v, 285) inserts a note to the effect that Timour left Calat Erroum without attacking it, which he dared not do, because the place was very strong.

Having regard to the geographical position of the places in this part of Mesopotamia, taken by Timour in 1400, his road to conquest must have lain thus—Behesna, Aïntab, Aleppo, Ourroum Kaleh.—Ed.

(2.)“And the city was pillaged.”—The Arabian authors, Aboul-Mahazin and Ibn Khaldoun (Rashid-eddin,Hist. des Mongols, etc.; by Quatremère, 286), the latter being an eye-witness, are agreed that Timour himself ordered the incendiarism of the mosque at Damascus, but they make no mention of the cruelties imputed to him by Schiltberger; they assert, on the contrary, that he very graciously received the deputation headed by the kady, Taky uddin ibn Mouflyk. Other writers have recorded, that Timour was even anxious to save the mosque from the fire which had broken out accidentally and destroyed the entire city. The magnificence of the great “temple” at Damascus, as shown in the text, is confirmed on the testimony of Eastern writers (Quatremère, ii, 262) who state, that this edifice, considered as one of the wonders of the world, had four gates. In saying that there were as many as forty outer gates, Schiltberger no doubt included those of the annexes which, together with the main building, were surrounded by a wall having several entrances; this appears conclusive on consulting an Arabian record quoted by Quatremère (283), which represents that in front of the mosque were many spacious porches, each of which conducted to a large gate, etc. “The view of the buildings, of the domes, of the three minarets, and water courses, as seen from the court, is admirable, and a sight to startle the imagination.” There can be little doubt that the gates were numerous, and that Schiltberger should have estimated their number at forty is not to be wondered at, when we consider the practice among Orientals of designating any largenumber by the numeral forty, as, for instance, Kyrkyer, Kyrkeklesy, etc.—Bruun.(2A.) In Ibn Haukal’s time (10th century), the mosque at Damascus was considered one of the largest and most ancient in the land of the Mussulmans. Walid ben Abd-el-Melyk (the sixth Omniade caliph, 705–715) had beautified it with pavements of marble, and pillars of variegated marble the tops of which were ornamented with gold and studded with precious stones. The ceiling was covered with gold, and so great was the cost that the revenues of Syria were expended on the work. Porter (Five Years in Damascus, ii, 62) describes the quadrangle as being 163 yards in length, 108 yards wide, and surrounded by a lofty wall of fine masonry. The three sides of the cloister, in an adjoining court, are supported by arches resting on pillars of limestone, marble, and granite, and on the south side of the court is theharem(sacred place), whose interior dimensions are 431 ft. by 125 ft. Two rows of columns, 22 ft. in height, extend the whole length of the building and support the triple roof. A transept across the middle, is supported by eight massive piers of solid masonry, each 12 ft. square, and a splendid dome, nearly 50 ft. in diameter and about 120 ft. in height, stands in the centre. The interior of the mosque has a tesselated pavement of marble, and the walls of the transept and the piers are coated with marble in beautiful patterns. According to Arabshah (Vattier edition, v, 169), it was the Raphadites or Shyites (see chap. xxxiii,note 3, for this sect) of Khorasan who set fire to this noble mosque, Timour being credited by various authors, as stated in the preceding paragraph, with having wished rather to save the edifice from destruction. Much as records may differ, Schiltberger’s relation, so graphic and detailed, merits the fullest consideration.—Ed.

(2A.) In Ibn Haukal’s time (10th century), the mosque at Damascus was considered one of the largest and most ancient in the land of the Mussulmans. Walid ben Abd-el-Melyk (the sixth Omniade caliph, 705–715) had beautified it with pavements of marble, and pillars of variegated marble the tops of which were ornamented with gold and studded with precious stones. The ceiling was covered with gold, and so great was the cost that the revenues of Syria were expended on the work. Porter (Five Years in Damascus, ii, 62) describes the quadrangle as being 163 yards in length, 108 yards wide, and surrounded by a lofty wall of fine masonry. The three sides of the cloister, in an adjoining court, are supported by arches resting on pillars of limestone, marble, and granite, and on the south side of the court is theharem(sacred place), whose interior dimensions are 431 ft. by 125 ft. Two rows of columns, 22 ft. in height, extend the whole length of the building and support the triple roof. A transept across the middle, is supported by eight massive piers of solid masonry, each 12 ft. square, and a splendid dome, nearly 50 ft. in diameter and about 120 ft. in height, stands in the centre. The interior of the mosque has a tesselated pavement of marble, and the walls of the transept and the piers are coated with marble in beautiful patterns. According to Arabshah (Vattier edition, v, 169), it was the Raphadites or Shyites (see chap. xxxiii,note 3, for this sect) of Khorasan who set fire to this noble mosque, Timour being credited by various authors, as stated in the preceding paragraph, with having wished rather to save the edifice from destruction. Much as records may differ, Schiltberger’s relation, so graphic and detailed, merits the fullest consideration.—Ed.

(3.)“Scherch.”—On March 19, 1400, Timour proceeded from Damascus by way of Roha (the ancient Edessa near Orfa), Mardin, and Mosoul to Baghdad (Weil,Gesch. der Chal., v, 91), after having despatched flying columns hither and thither to forage, some of his people reaching even to the neighbourhood of Antioch. A portion of his forces must therefore have crossed the Antilibanus, called Jabal—mountain—alsoShurky, which may have been the “Scherch” mentioned in the text.—Bruun.

(1.)“and the king kept his treasure there.”—This, in all probability, is the fortress of Alinjy or Alindsha, some miles to the south of Nahitchevan. In 1394, Ahmed ben Oweis sent thither his family and treasure, and it was not until the year 1401 that this fortress was taken by Timour’s troops, whilst he himself was laying siege to Baghdad with the bulk of his army. Faradj, who had been left in command by Ahmed, was forced to surrender, after a valorous defence of forty days. All the inhabitants were massacred, and the place was completely destroyed with the exception of the schools, mosques, and hospitals (Weil,Gesch. der Chal., 93). After taking Baghdad, July 9, 1401, Timour passed through Tabreez, on his way to Karabagh, where he purposed spending the winter, occupying the cities of Roha, Mardin, and Mosoul on his march. It would appear that it is to these places Schiltberger refers, but he has fallen into error in saying that they were taken after the capture of Baghdad—a mistake to be accounted for, from his not having served in the expedition.1—Bruun.

1See chapter xxxiii,note 12.—Ed.

(1.)“Lesser India.”—Under this name Schiltberger includes the northern portion of the peninsula on this side of the Ganges, giving to the southern part the designation of Greater India. Marco Polo (Yule, ii, 416, 417) employs the same names, but in another sense. His Lesser India included Kesmacoran (Kij-Makrau,i.e., Makran), to the whole Coromandel coast inclusive. Greater India extended from the Coromandel coast to Cochin China—Middle India being Abyssinia. Timour’s expedition into India (1398)was conducted to the banks of the Indus from Samarkand, by way of Inderab and Cabul. On crossing the river near Kalabagh, he passed by way of Mooltan to Delhi, which he occupied, conducting himself as was his custom on such occasions; but Schiltberger makes no allusion to the cruelties he practised. Perhaps because the details of the expedition were related to him by the Mongols themselves, and not by their enemies, the Arabs and Persians.—Bruun.

(2.)“and it is of half a day’s journey.”—We are evidently given to understand here, that the narrow defile through which Timour had to pass, was the famous Iron Gate, at all times considered the frontier limit of India and Turania. In the year 328B.C., Alexander of Macedon made his way through this passage, described by his historians in language identical to that of Schiltberger ... “sed aditus specus accipit lucem, interiora obscura sunt”.... (Curtius, viii, 8, 19). Very similar is the testimony of the several Oriental writers quoted in theCentralasiatische Studien (Sitzungsberichte d. Kais. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, lxxxvii, 1, 67, 184) by M. Tomaschek, who has availed himself of the results of the Russian expedition to Hissar (Ysvest. Imp. Geog. Obshtchest., xii, 70, 1876, 349–363) to determine the exact locality of the Iron Gate. There may have been near the Iron Gate, in Schiltberger’s time, as there is now, a “Winterdorf” (Tomaschek, l. c.) called Darbend or Derbent, but it is not of this “kishlak”, but rather of the city of Derbent, in the Caucasus, that Clavijo observes, after stating that the possessions of Timour extended from the Iron Gates situated near Derbent, to those in the land of Samarkand:—“E Darbante es una muy gran ciudad que se cuenta su señorio con una grande tierra, é las primeras destas puertas, que son mas cerca de nos, se llaman las puertas del Fierro de cerca Darbante, é las otras postrimeras se llaman las puertas del Fierro cerca Termit, que confinan con il terreno de la India menor.” I prefer giving this extract in the original.—Bruun.

(3.)“the lord Tämerlin is come.” The correct rendering of this passage is “Amir Timour gheldy.”—The Amir Timour is come.—Ed.

(4.)“and of the elephants many were killed.”—This incident is corroborated by Clavijo (Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 153), who places at fifty the number of armed elephants opposed to Timour in the battle near Delhi. The contest being renewed on the second day, “Timour took many camels, and loaded them with dry grass, placing them in front of the elephants. When the battle began, he caused the grass to be set on fire, and when the elephants saw the burning straw upon the camels, they fled. They say that the elephants are much afraid of fire because they have small eyes.”—Ed.

(1.)“Soltania.”—Or Soultanyà—Royal city—so named by Oljaïtou, son of Arghoun Khan, the founder (1305), once the metropolis and largest city in the kingdom. Chardin (Langlès edition, ii, 377) tells us that there were not many cities in the world where vaster ruins were to be seen; and in Kinnear’s time (Geog. Mem. of the Persian Emp., 123) the place was reduced to a few wretched hovels. Colonel Yule (Marco Polo, ii, 478) reproduces from Fergusson an illustration of the tomb built for himself by Oljaïtu, or as his Moslem name ran, Mahomed Khodabandah, at Soultaniah, “the finest work of architecture that the ‘Tartars of the Levant’ have left behind them.” Kinnear describes it as being a large and beautiful structure ninety feet in height, built of brick, and covered with a cupola—an edifice that would do honour to the most scientific architect in Europe.This tomb of Oljaïtou was still magnificent, and especially noted for its colossal gates of damasked steel, even so late as the seventeenth century. “The city was reoccupied by some of the Persian kings in the sixteenth century, till Shah Abbas transferred the seat of government to Ispahan. John XXII set up an archbishopric at Sultaniah in 1318, in favour of Francis of Perugia, a Dominican, and the series of archbishops is traced down to 1425.” (Cathay, and the Way Thither, Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 49, note 3.)—Ed.

This tomb of Oljaïtou was still magnificent, and especially noted for its colossal gates of damasked steel, even so late as the seventeenth century. “The city was reoccupied by some of the Persian kings in the sixteenth century, till Shah Abbas transferred the seat of government to Ispahan. John XXII set up an archbishopric at Sultaniah in 1318, in favour of Francis of Perugia, a Dominican, and the series of archbishops is traced down to 1425.” (Cathay, and the Way Thither, Hakluyt Soc. Publ., 49, note 3.)—Ed.

(1.)“and they were all trampled upon.”—This atrocious conduct on the part of Timour, is not the creation of Schiltberger’s brain, but it cannot have reference to the capture of Ispahan in 1387, although it is possible that the evolutions of Timour’s horsemen against children, was repeated after the fall of Ephesus in 1403; this act of cruelty being imputed to him by several Oriental authors. His return to Samarkand from Ephesus, actually took place after an absence of at least seven, if not twelve years (Rehm,Gesch. d. Mittelalt., iv, 3, 78); and he went there immediately after taking Ispahan in 1387. Schiltberger’s details on the revolt of that city under the farrier, Aly Koutchava, and on the construction of the tower of human heads by order of Timour, agree with similar accounts from other sources.—Bruun.

(1.)“because it was very cold in that country.”—Timour was desirous of adding China to the rest of his conquests, and had even embarked on an expedition, placing himself at the head of a large army; but he fell ill of fever upon reaching Otrar, and died February 19, 1405.—Bruun.(1A.) Other authorities state Timour’s death to have occurred the 17 Shabran, 807 (February 17, 1405).—Ed.

(1A.) Other authorities state Timour’s death to have occurred the 17 Shabran, 807 (February 17, 1405).—Ed.

(1.)“with whom I also remained.”—Pir Mohammed, son of Jehangir, the eldest son of Timour, died in 1375. Shah Rokh was the youngest of the two sons mentioned by Schiltberger. After the death, in 1410, of Khoulyl son of Miran Shah, the successor of Pir Mohammed who died in 1407, Shah Rokh annexed Transoxana and Samarkand to his possessions, and reigned until 1446. After saying that he had remained with this sovereign at Herat, Schiltberger adds that it was under Miran Shah he served; but heafterwards tells us that he only went over to the latter after Shah Kokh had vanquished Kara Youssouf, ruler of the Turkomans of the Black Sheep.—Bruun.

(1.)“Scharabach.”—According to Bishop Aïvazoffsky, this plain of “Scharabach” is to be identified with the plain of Karabagh, near the town of Bajazid, in Asiatic Turkey. Neumann is of a different opinion, and points to the district of Karabagh, which extends to the east of Shirwan, as far as the junction of the Kour with the Araxes, anciently called Arzah by the Armenians. Whether the battle of “Scharabach” was fought in Georgia or in Turkey, there is every probability that Schiltberger was made a prisoner upon the occasion, as was also his “lord”. It would never otherwise have occurred to him to say, that he was turned over to Aboubekr after the execution of Miran Shah.—Bruun.

(2.)“so that Mirenschach also was put to death.”—Miran Shah actually succumbed in his struggle with Youssouf or Joseph (Dorn,Versuch. einer Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch., VI, iv, 579). His eldest brother, Miszr Khodja (Weil,Gesch. der Chal., v, 46) had defended the city of Van against Timour in 1394, but contemporary authors do not say whether it was he who put Jehangir to death in 1375. Miszr Khodja may have caused the death of another son of Timour, whom Schiltberger has confounded with Jehangir. Perhaps that of Omar Sheykh, upon the nature of whose death authors are not agreed; Rehm (Tab. gen. des Timurides, v. iv) stating that he died in 1427 only, and Hammer (Hist. de l’E. O., ii, 37) alluding to his sudden death, as having taken place at about the time of the conquest of Van, by Timour,circa1394.—Bruun.

(1.)“Achtum.”—The author says nothing of the neighbourhood of Nahitchevan, for which Neumann gives him credit, norof that of Erzeroum, which Bishop Aïvazoffsky believes to be the site of the battle of “Achtum”, upon which occasion the Ilkhan Ahmed was defeated by Kara Youssouf. In the plain of “Achtum” we recognise the environs of Aktam, where Timour halted when returning from his last expedition against Toktamish (Dorn,Versuch. einer Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch., 567; Price,Chron. Retros., iii, 206, who says of Acataem or Actem, that it is a station to the eastward of Moghaun). Neumann agrees with Hammer that Ahmed ben Oweïs was beheaded in 1410, and this is also the opinion of Weil (Gesch. der Chal., v, 141); but Dorn (ibid., 573) has it, that his conflict with Kara Youssouf did not take place until the year 815 = 1412.—Bruun.

(1.)“Abubachir had also a brother called Mansur.”—Besides this Mansour, for whose name I have searched in vain in the various works I have been able to consult, Aboubekr had another brother named Mirza Omar, upon whom Timour bestowed the throne of Houlakou, and who fell out with his elder brother, the said Aboubekr, and had him confined in a fortress (Dorn,Versuch. einer Gesch. d. Schirwan-Sch., 570). Aboubekr afterwards obtained his freedom, and succeeded in ridding himself of “Mansur”, to punish him, in all probability, for making common cause with Omar.—Bruun.

(1.)“Samabram.”—Ibn Haukal describes Shabran as being, in his time, a small place, but “pleasant, and well supplied with provisions”. This town appears as Sabran, in Castaldo’s map, 1584, and De Wit’s atlas, 1688, and is called Schabran by Olearius (Voyages, etc., 1038). It has now totally disappeared, its ruins being on the Shabran-tchaï, a small river flowing into the lake Ak-Sibir on the Caspian shore.Schiltberger states that the prince passed through “Strana”, “Gursey”, “Lochinschan”, “Schurban”, “Samabram”, and “Temurtapit”;but as the king’s son was sent for, to return forthwith to his own country, it is more probable that he selected a short route, in which case he would have travelled, if the names are here correctly interpreted, through Astara, Shirwan, Shabran, Georgia, Lezghistan, and the Iron Gate, undoubtedly Derbent, which divided Persia from Tatary.“Strana” I take to be intended for Astara, for the following reasons. It is stated in the last chapter, that Aboubekr took a country called “Kray”; probably Kars, which had been occupied by Timour in 1393, after laying siege to the fortress of Alindsha. Aboubekr than proceeded to “Erban”, Erivan, where he seized upon his brother “Mansur”, and strangled him. “Zegra”, being with Aboubekr, was therefore apparently in Armenia, and must have travelled northwards by keeping close to the Caspian, instead of traversing the heart of the Christian kingdom of Georgia.—Ed.

Schiltberger states that the prince passed through “Strana”, “Gursey”, “Lochinschan”, “Schurban”, “Samabram”, and “Temurtapit”;but as the king’s son was sent for, to return forthwith to his own country, it is more probable that he selected a short route, in which case he would have travelled, if the names are here correctly interpreted, through Astara, Shirwan, Shabran, Georgia, Lezghistan, and the Iron Gate, undoubtedly Derbent, which divided Persia from Tatary.

“Strana” I take to be intended for Astara, for the following reasons. It is stated in the last chapter, that Aboubekr took a country called “Kray”; probably Kars, which had been occupied by Timour in 1393, after laying siege to the fortress of Alindsha. Aboubekr than proceeded to “Erban”, Erivan, where he seized upon his brother “Mansur”, and strangled him. “Zegra”, being with Aboubekr, was therefore apparently in Armenia, and must have travelled northwards by keeping close to the Caspian, instead of traversing the heart of the Christian kingdom of Georgia.—Ed.

(2.)“Temurtapit.”—According to Sprengel (Gesch. der wichtigsten Geog. Entd., etc., 362, 99), the Iron Gate through which the author passed when on his way from Persia into Tatary, was not the Iron Gate at Derbent, in the Caucasus, but the Caspian Gate in Khorasan. Malte Brun (Précis de la Géog. Univ., i, 188) and Sreznevsky (Hojdenye za try mory’a, etc., 241) are of similar opinion, while Neumann has no doubt that the Gate of Derbent, called Demyr kapou, Iron Gate, by the Turks, is the “ysen tor” of the text, which, had it been other than that at Derbent, would hardly have been described as being near Georgia and Shabran.—Bruun.

(3.)“a river called Edil.”—Neumann attempts, but in vain, to identify the city of “Origens”, described as being in the middle of the river “Edil”, with Astrahan, although it is clear that the author was not ignorant of the real name of the latter place, Hadjy-tarkhan being included among the cities he visited in Tatary (“Haitzicherchen”, seeChapter 36). It is not even necessary to conclude that “Origens”, like Astrahan, was bathed by the waters of the Volga, though the Turk name of that river is actually Etel, or Edil, a designation that may have been applied to some otherriver, because Schiltberger states elsewhere (Chap. 36) that “Orden”, Ourjenj, the chief town of “Horosaman”, Khwarezm, was situated near the “Edil”, and it cannot be doubted that he there alludes to the Jyhoun, or Oxus, and not to the Volga.The first large river the author got to after leaving Derbent, was the Terek; we are, therefore, at liberty to suppose that “Origens” was in the delta of that river. Güldenstadt (Reisen durch Russl., i, 166) informs us that the vestiges of the ancient cities of Terki and Kopaï-Kala—now known as Guen-kala, the Burnt Fortress, were close to that locality, and that near the mouth of the river were other ruins, which he took to be those of the cities of Tumen and Bortchala, or “the town of the three walls”. It is certain that in these parts must have been the residence of the Khozar kings, called Semender, or Saraï-Banou—the lady’s palace—Hammer,Gesch. d. G. H., 8) distant a four days’ journey only from Derbent, but a seven days’ journey from the Itil (Dorn,Géog. Cauc.inMém. de l’Ac. de St. P., vi, ser. vii, 527), which is equal to the twenty farsangs that separated this city from the great river Varshan, or Orshan, alluded to in the celebrated letter of the king of the Khozars to the minister of Abdor-Rahmen III. (D’Ohsson,Des Peup. du Cauc., Par. 828, p. 208.) In these same parts, also, should be placed the residence of the Tchamkal, known to the natives by a name that it was found impossible to pronounce. This name, so difficult of pronunciation, may have been transformed by Schiltberger into “Origens”, seeing that Russian annalists have construed it into Ornatch or Arnatch, evidently to be identified with Tenex or Ornacia (Ornatia, Oruntia, Cornax, Tornax). The monk Alberic (Rel. de Jean du Plan de Carpin, 114) tells us that this city was taken by the Mongols in 1221, upon the occasion of their irruption into the territory of the Comans and Russians, a city apparently identical with Ornas, “civitas Ornarum”, inhabited by Russians, Alans, and other Christians, but belonging to the Saracens. It was completely destroyed by the hordes of Batou, before their invasion of the country of the Russians and Turks (Turcorum, Taycorum, and Tortorum), as we learn from Giovanni dal Piano di Carpine and his travelling companion.It is to be regretted that, whilst admitting the identity of this city under its various denominations, authors are unable to agree as to its site. Karamsin, D’Avezac, and Kunik are in support of Thunmann’s theory, that it was Tana, the modern Azoff. Others, Leontief (Propilei, iv), for instance, are in favour of Frachn’s (Ibn Foszlan, 162) opinion that the Oruntia of Alberic, the Ornas of Giovanni dal Piano di Carpine, and the Arnatch of the Russian chroniclers, were all identical with the Ourjenj of Khorasan. I did at one time support these views, but have since sought to prove (Sitzungsberichte d. Kön. Bay. Akad., 1869, ii, 276et seq.) that the city in question was equidistant from Azoff and Ourjenj, or, in other words, that it coincided with “Origens”, situated, as we read in the text, on the “Edil”, a great river, viz., the Terek. It is pretty clear that “Origens”, and Ornatch or Arnatch of the Russians, are corruptions of Anjadz or Anjak, which, according to Khanikoff (Mémoire sur Khâcâni, vi, v) was a port in the Caspian Sea near Astrahan, of which the people of the eastern provinces near the Caspian might have availed themselves for the purpose of penetrating into Southern Russia.There can scarcely, however, be a doubt that the city of “Origens” must be looked for near the Caucasus, seeing that Schiltberger quitted it just before entering the mountains of “Setzulet”, manifestly the “Zulat”, which we are told in Chapter 36 was the chief city of the mountainous country of “Bestan”. We cannot fail to recognise in this “Setzulet”, or “Zulat”, the city of Joulad, where Timour, in 1395, gained a signal victory over Toktamish, after having annihilated a body of Kaitaks near Terky or Tarkou. Little enough is left to attest to the ancient splendour of Joulad, situated on the Terek, at no great distance from Yekaterynograd; but Güldenstadt found in its neighbourhood numerous remains, including Christian monuments, chiefly at a place called Tatar Toup—Hill of Tatars. Klaproth (Voy. au Caucase et en Géorgie, ii, 161) saw three minarets standing, that greatly resembled others at Joulad; also the ruins of two churches, which he attributes, as does Güldenstadt, to the 16th century, and to the Greek faith, whilst admitting the assertion of the Circassians, that those edifices were constructed by Franks, that is to say, byEuropeans from the West, who had taken up their residence among the Tatars. This is confirmed by Barbaro (Ramusio edition, 109). “Caitacchi i quali sono circa il monte Caspio ... parlano idioma separate da gli altri. sono christiani molti di loro: dei quali parte fanno alla Greca, parte all’Armena, et alcuni alla Catholica.” In the face of such evidence, it is not strange that Schiltberger should have met, to the north of the great range of the Caucasus, a Christian bishop and Carmelites who worshipped in the Tatar tongue, although the Carmelites, an order of friars originated at Mount Carmel, were not introduced into Europe by St. Louis until the year 1328; and in alluding to the mountainous country of “Bestan”, in which was the city of Joulad, the Bishtag—Five mountains—where Ibn Batouta (Lee edition, 76) met the Khan Uzbek, Schiltberger must have had in view the environs of Yekaterynograd, still called Beshtamak, because the country is watered by five tributaries to the Terek (Klaproth, i, 327).—Bruun.

The first large river the author got to after leaving Derbent, was the Terek; we are, therefore, at liberty to suppose that “Origens” was in the delta of that river. Güldenstadt (Reisen durch Russl., i, 166) informs us that the vestiges of the ancient cities of Terki and Kopaï-Kala—now known as Guen-kala, the Burnt Fortress, were close to that locality, and that near the mouth of the river were other ruins, which he took to be those of the cities of Tumen and Bortchala, or “the town of the three walls”. It is certain that in these parts must have been the residence of the Khozar kings, called Semender, or Saraï-Banou—the lady’s palace—Hammer,Gesch. d. G. H., 8) distant a four days’ journey only from Derbent, but a seven days’ journey from the Itil (Dorn,Géog. Cauc.inMém. de l’Ac. de St. P., vi, ser. vii, 527), which is equal to the twenty farsangs that separated this city from the great river Varshan, or Orshan, alluded to in the celebrated letter of the king of the Khozars to the minister of Abdor-Rahmen III. (D’Ohsson,Des Peup. du Cauc., Par. 828, p. 208.) In these same parts, also, should be placed the residence of the Tchamkal, known to the natives by a name that it was found impossible to pronounce. This name, so difficult of pronunciation, may have been transformed by Schiltberger into “Origens”, seeing that Russian annalists have construed it into Ornatch or Arnatch, evidently to be identified with Tenex or Ornacia (Ornatia, Oruntia, Cornax, Tornax). The monk Alberic (Rel. de Jean du Plan de Carpin, 114) tells us that this city was taken by the Mongols in 1221, upon the occasion of their irruption into the territory of the Comans and Russians, a city apparently identical with Ornas, “civitas Ornarum”, inhabited by Russians, Alans, and other Christians, but belonging to the Saracens. It was completely destroyed by the hordes of Batou, before their invasion of the country of the Russians and Turks (Turcorum, Taycorum, and Tortorum), as we learn from Giovanni dal Piano di Carpine and his travelling companion.

It is to be regretted that, whilst admitting the identity of this city under its various denominations, authors are unable to agree as to its site. Karamsin, D’Avezac, and Kunik are in support of Thunmann’s theory, that it was Tana, the modern Azoff. Others, Leontief (Propilei, iv), for instance, are in favour of Frachn’s (Ibn Foszlan, 162) opinion that the Oruntia of Alberic, the Ornas of Giovanni dal Piano di Carpine, and the Arnatch of the Russian chroniclers, were all identical with the Ourjenj of Khorasan. I did at one time support these views, but have since sought to prove (Sitzungsberichte d. Kön. Bay. Akad., 1869, ii, 276et seq.) that the city in question was equidistant from Azoff and Ourjenj, or, in other words, that it coincided with “Origens”, situated, as we read in the text, on the “Edil”, a great river, viz., the Terek. It is pretty clear that “Origens”, and Ornatch or Arnatch of the Russians, are corruptions of Anjadz or Anjak, which, according to Khanikoff (Mémoire sur Khâcâni, vi, v) was a port in the Caspian Sea near Astrahan, of which the people of the eastern provinces near the Caspian might have availed themselves for the purpose of penetrating into Southern Russia.

There can scarcely, however, be a doubt that the city of “Origens” must be looked for near the Caucasus, seeing that Schiltberger quitted it just before entering the mountains of “Setzulet”, manifestly the “Zulat”, which we are told in Chapter 36 was the chief city of the mountainous country of “Bestan”. We cannot fail to recognise in this “Setzulet”, or “Zulat”, the city of Joulad, where Timour, in 1395, gained a signal victory over Toktamish, after having annihilated a body of Kaitaks near Terky or Tarkou. Little enough is left to attest to the ancient splendour of Joulad, situated on the Terek, at no great distance from Yekaterynograd; but Güldenstadt found in its neighbourhood numerous remains, including Christian monuments, chiefly at a place called Tatar Toup—Hill of Tatars. Klaproth (Voy. au Caucase et en Géorgie, ii, 161) saw three minarets standing, that greatly resembled others at Joulad; also the ruins of two churches, which he attributes, as does Güldenstadt, to the 16th century, and to the Greek faith, whilst admitting the assertion of the Circassians, that those edifices were constructed by Franks, that is to say, byEuropeans from the West, who had taken up their residence among the Tatars. This is confirmed by Barbaro (Ramusio edition, 109). “Caitacchi i quali sono circa il monte Caspio ... parlano idioma separate da gli altri. sono christiani molti di loro: dei quali parte fanno alla Greca, parte all’Armena, et alcuni alla Catholica.” In the face of such evidence, it is not strange that Schiltberger should have met, to the north of the great range of the Caucasus, a Christian bishop and Carmelites who worshipped in the Tatar tongue, although the Carmelites, an order of friars originated at Mount Carmel, were not introduced into Europe by St. Louis until the year 1328; and in alluding to the mountainous country of “Bestan”, in which was the city of Joulad, the Bishtag—Five mountains—where Ibn Batouta (Lee edition, 76) met the Khan Uzbek, Schiltberger must have had in view the environs of Yekaterynograd, still called Beshtamak, because the country is watered by five tributaries to the Terek (Klaproth, i, 327).—Bruun.

Back to Index Next