nicoloudis (n.)_byzantine historians on the wars of timur in central asia and the middle east...

8/20/2019 Nicoloudis (N.)_Byzantine Historians on the Wars of Timur in Central Asia and the Middle East (Journal of Oriental and African Studies 8, 1996)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nicoloudis-nbyzantine-historians-on-the-wars-of-timur-in-central-asia-and 1/7

3 o u A W \ L O P Q £ l £ f\ f TA t AfNfl)Pf(kCAsJ h C45HG)

N. NICOLOUDIS

BYZANTINE HISTORIANS ON THE WARS OF TIMUR

(TAMERLANE) IN CENTRAL ASIA

AND THE MIDDLE EAST

The great c onque ror T imur alias Tam erlane (1356-1405) left his mark on

world history primarily as a merciless destroyer whose passage from any place

was almost certainly follow ed by geno cide and devas tation 1. His image inByzantine litterature however is mixed. Timur became known to Byzantinesby way o f his interference in the affairs of Asia Mino r, in the period 1399-1402,and his campaign a gainst the Ottom an Sultan Baya zid I 2. The latter’ s defeat inthe battle o f Anka ra (28 July 1402) prove d beneficia l for the Byzantine empireas it resulted in the dismantling o f an eight-year block ade o f Constantinop leby the Ottomans (1394-1402). The defeat and subsequent humiliation o f theOttoman Sultan was seen by contemporary Byzantine intellectuals as divinepunishment for his arrogance, although the general public in the empire seems

to have been as much impressed by Timur’s attrocities as by its unexpected

1. On Timur see his contemporary biography by lb n Ar ab sh ah , Tamerlane or

Timur the Great Amir, transl. J. H. Sanders (Lon don 1936). Also H . La mb , Tamerlane,

the Earth Shaker (London 1929); H . Hoo kh am , Tamburlaine the Conqueror (London

1962); ea de m, "Timur", Encyclopaedia Britannica, 18, Chic ago 1980, 424-425; L . Bo u-

v a t, "L ’cmpire mongol, deuxiime phase", Histoire du monde: VII I, 3: Paris 1927, 58-63; R.

G r o u s s e t , L'empire des Steppes (Paris 1939), 486; S. R un ci man ./ t History of the

Crusades , III: The Kingdom o f Acre and the Later Crusades (Cambridge 1955). 463; V.

B a r t h o l d , Fou r Studies on the History o f Central Asia , 2 vols, 1956-58; C. Br oc ke l-

mann . History o f the Islamic Peoples (N. York 1973), 270 ff.; P. Br en t, The Mongol Empire, Lon don 1976, 223 ff., 228 ff., 230 ff., 23X-238; S. Sh aw , History o f the Ottoman

Empire , I: Empire o f the Gazis: The Rise and Decline o f Ottoman Empire (Cambridge

1976), 32 ff.; Ph. Vl ac ho po ul ou , «Τιμούρ», ε γ ά λ η Γ ε ν ικ ή 'Ε γ κ υ κ λ ο π α ί δ ε ια Ύ ό ρ ί α .

50. 410-411, Prosopographisches Lexicon der Paîaiologenzeit [PLP ], XI , 187, no. 27565.

2. Timur’s name appears in various forms in Byzantine texts, such as Τεμήρης,

Ντεμήρης etc. (G . Mo ra vc si k, Byzantinoturcica , II, Berlin 1958, 304-305).



rcscuc through divin e inter vention 3. The view that Ba yazid’ s defeat was due to

his arrogance was further elaborated in the later (mid 15th century) historical

works o f Doukas and Laonikos Chalkokondyles who emphasize particularlyBayazid ’s insults to T imu r’s ambassadors4. Both historians had a vivid interest

in the affairs o f the East and as a result their work contains a number o freports seemingly unknown to other contemporary Byzantine writers onaspects of T imu r’s life and wars. These reports focus mainly on Timu r’s cam

paign in Asia Minor and understandably so, as it would have been easier toobtain inform atio n on this campaign rather than any o f his others to moredistant parts of the world.

The bulk o f in format ion on T imur lies in the w ork o f Cha lkokond yles.

3. An indication of the impression caused to the Byzantine public is given by the

anonymous lament Θρήνος περί Ταμυρλάγγου, ed. W. Wagne r, Medieval Greek Texts,

Part I (Lon don 1870), 105-109. The litera ry view is expressed in Manuel Pala iolo gos’ Τίνας άν είπε λόγους ό τών Περσών καί ΣκνΘών έξηγούμενος τφ τνραννοΰντί τών Τούρκων,

μεγάλα τε καί σοβαρά φθεγγομένφ και άφορήτφ δντι ταΐς άπειλαϊς, ήνίκα εν έπραττε

χραπέντι δέ ηρός τούν αντίονμ ετά τ ήν νίκην, Patrologia Graeca, 156, cols. 579-582 (Eng lish

translation in J. W. Ba rk er ’ s, Manuel II Palaeo/ogue (1391-1425): A study in late Byzan tine Statemanship (N. Jersey 1696), Appendix XX, pp. 513-515) and in a work formely

attributed to John Chortasmenos: Διήγησις περί τοΰ γεγονότος θαύματος παρά τής ύπε- ραγ ίας Θε οτό κο υ έ ν ταϊ ς ή μέρ αις τοΟ εύ σε βε στά του βα σιλ έω ς κ ΰρ Μ αν ουή λ τοΰ Πα λα ι

ό λόγ ου, ήνίκα, τής μ εγα λου πόλ εως ύπό τών 'Αγ αρ ηνώ ν άλώ ναι κινδ υνευ ούση ς, έπε λθών έξαίφνης κατά τών 'Αγαρηνών ό Πέρσης καί, πολέμου μεγάλου συγκροτηθέντος έν Άγκ ύρç τής Γαλατίας, τό τε τών Αγαρη νών στράτευμα διελύθη άκόσμως καί ό τούτων

έξαρχος έάλω Παγιαζήτης, ή τε πόλις έλευθερίας έτυχε παντελούς καί τών έπηρτημένων αυτή φόβων άπηλλάγη προνοίςι τή ς ύπεραγίας Θεοτόκου καί άειπαρθένου Μαρίας, ed. Ρ .

Ga ut i er , "Une r£cit in6dit du sifcge de Constantinople par les Turcs (1394-1402)*, Revue des Ûtudes Byzantines[REB ], 23 (1965), 100-117 (Gree k text wi th Fr. transl. in pp. 102-117).

Bayazid’s defeat and Constantinople's deliverance are also the subject of a work (in the form

of a thanking prayer to the Virgin Mary) of Demetrios Chrysoloras (ed. P. Gautier, "Action

des grâces de D£m6trius Chrysoloras k la Theotokos, pour l'anniversaire de la bataille

d’ Ankara (28 Juillet 1403)", REB, 19 (= M61anges R. Janin, 1961) 340-357: Greek text andFrcnch translation in pp. 348-357).

4. Doukas, Historia Turcobyzantina, ed. V. Grec u, Istoria Turco-bizantina (1341-1462), Scriptores Byzantini I (Bucharest 1958) chapt. XV , 4, pp. 87-89; L. C h a l

k o k o n d y l e s , Historiamm Demonstrationes, ed. E. Dark ö (2 vols., Budapest 1922-27),

book II, pp. 97-100. Chalkokondyles*s lengthy analysis in particular emphasizes Bayazid’s

insult which is presented in the form of an ΰβρις that lead to his eventual downf all. C f. C . J .

G . T ur ne r, "Pages from the late Byzantine Philosophy of History", Byzantinische Ze itsch -

rift [BZJ, 57 (1964), 361; S. W . Re in er t, "Timur", Oxford Dictionary o f Byzantium [ O D B ] (Washington 1991), 2088.

Indeed, whereas Doukas makes only passing references to Timur amidst thebuildup of events that led to the fall o f Constantinople, Chalkokondyles*description o f Timu r’s life and wars covers a large section of book II and the

whole o f book I II o f his work which account for a little more than one tenth ofits total volume. Th is fact is primarily due to the different perspective of thetwo works. Both writers lived mostly outside the limits of the Byzantineempire thus developing a more "cosmopolitan " out look of events, but Doukas

is primarily concerned with the affairs o f the Balkans and Asia M inor whereasChalkokondyles, fo llowing the pattern of Herodotu s, expands on the history

and ethnography o f various peoples of the then known world. Indeed althoughChalkokondyles appears to be giving a full account on Timur’s life he is in fact

presenting nothing more than a rough scetch that serves as a framework for a

series of disgressions on various peoples and countries, such as the Tatars o fthe Golden Horde, the nations in the area of the Caspian Sea, the Arabs, theMamelukes, Russia, Prussia, Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania, Cyprus and India.

In his work, the "Demon stration s of His tories", there are references to Timu r’s

wars against various peoples of Asia : the "Hyrcan es" and "Cadusians", the

Arabs, t he "people o f the Khatai a", the "Scythians" and the Indians.Chalko kondyl es narration o f Tim ur’ s war against the "Hyrca nes" and

"Cadusians" is br ief and combined with a description o f the Caspian Sea. His

exact passage is as follows:

"Subsequently [i.e. after taking power], he [Timur] campaigned againstthe Hyrcanes. He subjected many peoples who inhabited the coast o f theHyrcanian [i.e. Caspian] Sea... Timur subjected the Hyrcanes, killed their kingand marched against the Cadusians. They assembled a large army and prepared to resist lest Timu r attack. When he realized that they were campaigningagainst him, he sent Khaydar to besiege and take their city as quickly as

possible. He camped near the Cadusians. When they heard that the enemy wasapproaching their city, they retreated to it in disorder. Timur attacked them

during their retreat. He fell upon them while they were in disorder and putthem to flight. He pursued them to the city. He besieged it and after some time

he occup ied it "3.In Chalkokondyles’ text it is not clear what nations the "Hyrcanes" and

"Cadusians" are. The "Hyrcanes" are mentioned by Herodotus and the "Cadusians" by Xenophon. Later Byzantine writers also use these names seemingly

5. Ch al ko ko nd yl es , book III, pp. 109, 110-111. N. Ni co lo ud is , Laonikos Chalkokondyles. A Translation and Commentary of the mDemonstrations o f Histories*

(books l-UI), (Athens 1996), 271-275.



to refer to a Turkish and a Hunnic tribe respect ively6. The combined ref erence

of the location of the two nations and Timur’s war against them indicates that

Chalk okondy les is actually describing Tim ur’ s campaign o f 1386/7 against the

peoples of the Caucasus7. The identity o f Khayd ar is not known. Cha lkokondyles seems to be the only Byzantine writer who mentions him and perhapsconfuses him with the son-in-law of the emir Uz un Hasan w ho bor e the samename and died in 1488 fighting against the AkkoyunluV

Chalkokondyles* brief report on Tim ur’s war against the '"people o f theKhataia " is probably a distant echo o f Timur’ s many campaigns against

Kamar-al-Din , the usurper Khan o f the state o f the nomads Chaghatai(Moghulista n), in northern China, in the period 1370-1390’. Chalk okondylesdescribes these campaigns in the following way:

"He marched speedily against the people o f the Khataia. It is said thatthey were once Massagetai. They crossed the Araxes, occupied the country on

this side of the river and settled there. He prepared to attack them. He raised

an army of eight hundred thousand, campaigned against them and defeate d

them. He marched into their "market" and capital, brought it to terms, hired

the services of ma ny of their bravest men and took hostages fro m the sons oftheir nobles. The y agreed to pay an annual tax and he lef t"10.

6. M o r a v c s i k , Byzantinoturcica, II, 146, 331; R. Sy me , “The Cadusii in Historyand Fiction*. Journal o f Hellenic Studies [JUS], 108 (1988), 137-150.

7. Hoo k ham, Tamburlaine, 109-113; Grousse t, 508-509; Sh a w, 32. For the cxact

location of the "Hyrcanes" and the "Cadusians" see Murray's small Classical Atlas, ed. G .B. G r un dy (L ondon 1932), map I.

8. A . N i m c t , Die tilrkische Prosopographie bei Laonikos Chalkokondyles (Ham

burg 1933), 80. On the latter Kha yda r see the Encyclopaedia o f Islam [E l], new series, III,315-316.

9. On Timur’ s campaigns against Moghulistan sec H oo k ha m, Tamburlaine, 87-90;Gr ou ss et , 499-504; S ha w, 32. The name "Khataia" seems to be of Arabian or Persian

origin (see the review of Darko’s edition of the "Demonstrations of Histories", by M or av c-

s i k , in Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher, 8 (1929-30), 366; idem, Byzantinoturcica, II, 342.

10. Cha l koko ndyl es , I I I, 118; Nic o lou d is , Chalkokondyles, 283-285. The

River Araxes is the present Aras. The word "market" points to the term "horde" which

originally signified the headquarters or camp of either the Mongolian Khan or of members

of his family or o f leaders of large military units. It later came to mean "commu nity" or

"commune" (G. Vern adsk y, The Mongols and Russia (N. Have n 1953), 225; F.

G r a b l e r - G . S t ö k l , Europa i m X V Jahrhundert von Byzantinern gesehen, Byzanti-

nische Geschichstschreiber II, (Graz-Vienna-Cologne 1954), 91 n. 3; M or av cs i k, Byzan -

Chalkok ondyles’ description of Timur’ s four-month Indian campaign of

1398 is equally vague and contains inaccuracies. Chalkokondyles confuses this

campaig n with the wars against the state o f Chaghatai and dates it erroneouslyin 1403, describin g it immediate ly after Tim ur’ s Ana tolia n one against Bayazid

I. He also errs when claiming that Timur was attacked by the Indians, when infact Timur invaded India taking advantage of the disarray o f the Indian states.Furthermore he displays insufficient knowledge o f the terrain of the campaignby rcfcring to the River Araxes as the border between India and Timur’sdomin ions whilst elsewhere he mentions that it flows int o the Caspian Sea .

Als o on this occasion the narration o f hostilities is interrupted by the account

o f the circumstances of Bayazid’ s death in caprivity. T he latter is interruptedin turn by a description of India which forms the focal point of the whole

passage:"A t the beginning of spring [o f 1403] he [Timu r] was informed that an

embassy from the Indian king had gone to Kesh followed by a large force. It

had destroyed a great deal, raided the King’s treasures and departed. The

ambassadors warned that the Indian king would not abide by the treaty. When

Tim ur heard this, he feared that once the embassy had reached the Indian

king, the King would invade his country while he was waging war with theforeigners [the Ottomans]. At the same time he realised that human affairs are

never free from care. He complained o f the shameless effrontery o f the Indian

ambassadors to him, and marched towards Kesh as quickly as he could. Hehad Bayazid and his son with him... [There follows the description of Baya-zid's death on 9 March 1403]... The K ing o f India, who is King of nine Kings iscalled Chaghatai. He became King of the nine Kings and sent a large armyagainst Tim ur on account o f the Massagetai. It is said that he crossed theAraxes, invaded most of the country and returned home... [There follows the

interpolation o f the description of India]... T imur was told by the envoy about

the king of K hata ia’ embassy and marched towards Kesh as swiftly as hecould. Bayazid was overcome by grief and died on the way, as has beenrelated. His son, Musa, was released by Timur and returned to his own country. Ki ng Tim ur returned to his capital, attended a ffairs o f state as well as he

could and declared war on the Indian king. Afterwards they made peace and

signed a treaty o f frien dship "12.

tinoturcica, II, 237). The Horde was also a place for commercial transactions. Chalkokon

dyles* rendering of the term as "market" howe ver is probably an exaggera tion of the extent of

transactions which took place there (cf. below , n. 14).

11. Cha lko kond yle s , I I I , 110; Nico l oud i s , Chalkokondyles, 273.

12. C ha lk oko ndy le s, III, 151-155; Ni col oud is , Chalkokondyles, 329-333.



Chalkokondy les* skctchy accounts o f Timu r’s various wars against thepeoples o f central Asia may be due to his assumed premature death which didnot allow him to com plete his work 1*. They are more prob ably due however tothe lack o f sufficient infor mation. If so, this seems also to be the case with hismore extensive but no less vague passage on Timur’s campaigns against the"Scythians", i.e. the Tatars of the Golde n Horde. Ther e too Chalkokond ylesgives, in his usual manner, a thoroug h analysis o f the customs and lifestyle o f

the Tatars and the neighbouring Russians ("Sarmatians"), Permians, Prus

sians, Zhemaitians and Lithuanians before proceeding with the description of

both Ti mu r’s and the Tatar s’ preparat ions for the ensuing struggles14. Then hecontinues with the actual narration o f a three-stage war which took place in

the period 1386-1395 and was directed against Tokhtam ish, Kha n o f the

Golden Horde. The cause o f this war was the claim o f sovereignty over A zer

baijan and Khoresm by both Timur and Tokhtamish. Chalkokondyles describes it as follows:

"Timur marched against the Scythians with his Asian troops. They heardo f his march. Their king had everyone in the market conscripted. His campwas very large. He put his troops in order and closed in on the enemy. He sentpart of his army fo rwar d to occupy the pass through which king Tim ur wouldcome. He or dered them to hold up Timur wherever they could and to fight himas fiercely as possible. He stayed in command o f his own unit. Timu r led his

army directly towards Tanais [Don], with the Caucasus on his right. Heinvaded Scythia and found the Scythians encamped. They heard o f his marchand prepared to fight. Timur also drew his troops in battle order. They fought

13. See N. Ni co lo ud i s, « Ή ζο>ή toO ΙστορικοΟΛαόνικου Χαλκοκονδύλη ύπότό

πρίσμα νεωτέρωνέρευ νών», Τετράμηνα (Amphissa), 49 (1992), 3387; Ni co lo ud is , Chal- kokondyles , 75, idem, Βυζαντίου "Αλωσις (Athens 1997), 15.

14. Chal koko ndyl es , I I I, 119; Nico l oudis , Chalkokondyles, 285-287: Tim ur

employed many tough Persians who had had experience with the Scythians, because he

intended to campaign against them and their "market", called Horde... He settled soldiers

and nobles fro m Samarkand in the large and prosper ous city o f Kesh, as it is called, t o be

nearer to them. The King and his nobles spent some time there and the Asian army

assembled in the city... [Timur] intended to campaign against Egypt, the Scythians and theircamp called Horde. He raised a large army, took troops from Khataia along and marched

against Tanais"; ibid, 120; Ni co l ou di s, Chalkokondyles, 287: "The Scythians heard that

King Timur was leading a large army against them so they sent troops to occupy the

mountain passes which Timur’i army was going to use". For the description of the Tatars

and their neighbours see Cha lk ok on dy le s, III, 120-128; Nic ol ou di s, Chalkokon dyles, 287-297.

a battle at the pass but Timur achieved nothing. He camped and the followingday prepared for battle again. The Scythians drove him back so effectively thathe could not return and invade the country again. They destroyed a large parto f his army. Subsequently, Timu r was prevented from overrunning the coun

try and led his army home. The foll owi ng summer he collected a large a rmy. He intended to invade

Egypt but instead campaigned against the Scythians again. He managed toinvade Scythia and engag ed a unit which had hurried out against him. He put

it to flight but did not achieve anything noteworthy. (The Scythians have the

following great quality. When they retreat they turn sharply and attack theenemy. Thus they do not suffer during the retreat). Then Timur marched

against the Scythian King and put his troops in battle order. The Scythians

retreated one hundred and twenty stades overnight. Tim ur marched during the

day but the Scythians continued to retreat during the night. Thus Timur’s

army suffered. He challenged the Scythian King to fight and encamped. The

following day he deployed his troops in companies. His battle order had greatdepth. On his right he had Khaydar with the Massagetai and on his left his son,Shahrukh, with the Persians, Assyrians and those troops from Khataia whofollowed him. The armies engaged and fought fiercely. The Scythians achievednothing and were driven back. They persisited with the fight but failed todefeat Timur’s army and were put to flight. They lost many men in that battle

as did the Persian army. Afterwards, the Scythians achieved nothing fighting Tim ur’ s army and retreated fur ther in order to fight the enemy in the interior. Timu r turned back and reached Tanais. Then he marched toward the AsiaticIberia and Colchis and crossed the River Phasis, which flows from Caucasusinto the Black Sea. He attacked Armenia and marched towards Kesh. This is

how his army fared in this campaign against the Scythians. In the third year

the Scythians prepared to defend themselves against King Timur and raidedthe country beyond Assyria. After this, Timur sent envoys to the Horde’s King

and the whole "market". He asked for peace and promised intrmarriages. They

signed a treaty o f frie ndship"15. The first part of the passage relates to Timur ’s response to the conquest of

Ta bri z by To khtamis h in the winter o f 1385/6. Tim ur responded by invading

Daghestan (on the west coast of the Caspian Sea) the foll owi ng winter andclashing with the Tatars. This cam paign constituted the first stage of the war

which ended without any substantial gains for Timur. Contrary to Chalko-

15. Cha lko kon dyl es, III, 128-130; Nico lo udi s, ChaJkokondyles, 297-301.



kondyles* implication however it was not Timur who retreated first but the Tata rs16.

The description o f the second campaign is probab ly a vague echo o f

Tim ur’s campaign o f 1395 which constituted the third phase of the war. Du r

ing this Timur marched through Daghestan, engaged the Tatars on 15 April,defeated them and raided the regions of the Don and the lower Vo lga and thecountry o f the Circassians17. This campaign is also reported b y Douk as who ismore explicit abo ut Timu r’s Caucasian alli es'1. Doukas* description howev eris otherwise just a passing remark and associates erroneously Timur’s cam

paign o f 1395 against Tokhtamish with his later one against Bayazid. Chal-kokondyles’ reference to the activity of Shakhrukh, Timu r’s youngest son,during this campaign is not confirmed by any other source on Timur. Chalkokondyl es seems unaware of the second phase o f the war which took place in1391 and carried Timur t o the regions o f Kazakhstan and the V olg a19.

The most accurate, though brief, descriptions o f Tim ur’ s wars in Byzantine sources are those refering to his campaigns against the Arabs. Indeed

Tim ur’ s campaign against the Arabs o f Syria is recorded by both Ch alko kon

dyles and Doukas as well as by a Byzantine short chronicle. Chalkokondyles

also makes a passing reference to Timur’s earlier campaigns against the Dja-layrids o f Baghdad and the conquest of that city20.

16. Ver na ds ky , 269-270; Ho ok ha m, Tamburlaine, 108-109. 110-112, 126;Cir ouss et , 516-517.

17. H . D i 11 e n , "Bemerkungen zu Laoniko s Chalkokondy les* Nachr ichten (i ber die

l.ttnder und Völker an den europaischen Küsten des Schwarzen Meeres (15. Jahrhundert u.

/.)". Klio, 43-45 (1965), 224; Ve rn ad sk y , 274-277; Ho o kh am , Tamburlaine, 156-162;Gr ous set , 521-522.

18. "A t the coming of Spring, lo, Temir-Khan went from Persia to the regions of the

Don and gathered the Tauro-Scythiaris and Zykhians and Abasgians...", Decline and Fa ll o f

Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks, by Doukas, ed. H. J. Ma go ul ia s, Detroit 1975,chapter X VI , 1, p. 90.

19. On this phase see Ve rn ad sk y, 271-273; Ho ok ha m. Tamburlaine, 129-141;

G ro u s s e t, 518-520. A distant memory of this phase of the war survives in the 16th century

rhetorical work o f the Cretan Manuel Moros, Δημηγορία τοΟ Περσών βασιλέως Τεμύρη,

ήν έδημηγόρησεν, δτ *ίμελε η ολεμήσειν πρός Τακταμύσην, τό ν τώνΣκνΟώνβασιλέα, ed.

Μ . T r e u , "Eine Ansprache Tamerlans", Β Ζ, 19 (1910) , 15-28 (G ree k text in pp. 15-20).

20. "I t is said that he engaged his enemies and put them to flight . He pursued them to

Babylon, Bagdad as it is now called. He besieged it and sent for his sovereign, the King...

When he took power, he attacked Bagdad and Samarkand and besieged them... When he

became ruler of Samarkand, he subjugated Babyl on by treachery using fo r this the services

Tim ur’ s campaign against Syria (then under Mameluke cont rol) look

place in the autum o f 1400 and was complet ed earl y in 1401, after the destruc

tion o f Damascus whose inhabitants were deported to Samarkand. The short

Byzantine chronicle gives the date o f the campaign and its main targets:"In the year επη [6909, i.e. 1400 in contemporary ch rono logy ] he took

Damascus together with other cities which in the Saracen language are called

Haleb, Edessa or Beirut and the city o f Sammos"21.Doukas* description is a more elaborate and places this campaign in its

proper chronolog ical context, after the early stages of Timu r’s war with Baya

zid and the fall o f Sebasteia, on 26 Augu st, 1400:"A fter he had completely destroyed the city [o f Sebasteia], he went to the

region o f Phoenicia and, advan cing as far as Damascus, burned and pillagedand seized countless riches and many captives. H e left Damascus desolate andcrossed to Haleb (Aleppo) and razed it. He transported many craftsmen to

Persia. After he had terrified the Arabs, he returned to Samarkand, the metro

polis o f Per sia"22.Chalk okon dyle s’ report is again more vague and fragmented. His first

reference to hostilities between the two sides appears in the midst of a descrip

tion of Arabia:"Tim ur accused the Arabs o f allying with enemies, the Cadusians, and

attacked them. He fought the Arabian army twice but failed to defeat it. He

then sent an embassy and asked the Arabs to p rovid e him with tro ops and payhim a yearly tribute. He signed a treaty with them. Arabian ambassadors

asked him not to raid the hero’s [Moham med’ s] country "23.On this, as on other occasions, Chalkokondyles’ comment lacks any

chronological or other references (locations, persons, etc.) thus making an

of Khaydar" (Cha lko kond yl es , I I I, 105; Ni co l oudis , Chalkokondyles, 265-267).

Timur is known to have taken Bagdad twice: firstly in 1392/3, when the city surrendered

pcuccfully t o him and esaip cd with littl e damuge. and then again in the summer of 1401,

after a six-week siege which led to the storming o f the city and the massacre of its population

( H o o k h a m , Tamburlaine, 148-149,241-242; G r o u s s e t , 493; A . A . D u r i , "Bagdad",

£/\ I, 903).

21. Chronica Byzantina Breviora, ed. P. Schrein er, Die byzantinische Kleinchro -niken, vol. I (Corpus Fonrium Historiae Byzantinae XXII: 1, Series Vindobonensis),

(Vie nna 1975), Chronic le 12/9, p. 111. Edessa and Beirut are, of course, two comple tely

different cities. The "city o f Sammos" is Samosata which together with Edessa, were at the

time under Turkoman control ( CBB, II, 368).

22. D o u k a s , Decline and Fall, XV, 90.

23. Chal koko ndyl es , I I I , 112; Nico l oudi s , Chalkokondyles, 275.



evaluation o f its validit y impossible. Its real significance seems to lie mainly inthe fact that it serves as a starting point for a disgression on Islamic principles

and customs. Chalkokondyles however returns to Timur’s campaign further inhis text to describe its focal poi nt, the fall o f Damascus:

"When he settled the Scythian affair, he campaigned against Coelesyriaand besieged Damascus. He brought siege engines to the wall and stormed thelarge and very prosperous city. He carried o ff prisoners and eight thousandcamels. He gained great wealth from that city and returned home carrying

much rich booty. H e sent envoys to the King o f Memphis [Cai ro], the Sultan,

as he is respectfully called. He asked him to widthdraw from Coelesyria, sign atreaty and make peace with him. He achieved nothing and after he hadstormed and reduced the prospreous city o f Damascus to slavery hewithdre w"24.

The city o f Damascus surrendered peacefully in the beginning o f 1401 butthe defenders o f its citadel surrendered only after a m onth’ s siege. Timur at

first demanded a huge ransom from the citizens but after it had been deliveredhe ordered the city to be sacked. Prio r to the beginning of the campaign Timur

had not demanded from the Mameluke Sultan Faradj to abandon Syria but to

issue coins with Timur’s name on them, to order that Timur’s name be mentioned in all Friday prayers throughout the Mameluke kingdom and to liberateone o f his envoys who had been held captive by the Mamelukes. The weak

state of the Mameluke kin gdom made the final acceptance o f these termsinevitable while defections in the Mameluke army on its way to assist Damascus forced its return to E gypt and opened the way to the sack o f the city23.

The conquest o f Alep po, o n 30 October, 1400, is also briefly mentioned ata later point in Chalkokondyles’ text. Like in Doukas’ text however there is noreference to the precedin g battle out side the city walls there eithe r26.

Given the nature of infor mati on on Tim ur’ s wars in the texts of both

Doukas and Chalkokondyles it is extremely difficult to identify its origion. Aslias already been shown especially Chalkokondyles’ references to Timur’s wars

in central As ia are vague and erroneous or , in the best of circumstance, of

24. Cha lk oko ndy le s, III, 131-132; Nico lo udi s, Chalkokondyles, 301.

25. On the fall of Damascus see H oo k ham, Tamburlainc, 223-224, 230, 231-232;i rousset, 528; E l \ II, 285-286. On Timur’s Syrian campaign in general see Hookham,p. cit., 230-235, 282-283; G r o us se t , 526-528.

26. "When Timur campaigned against Damascus, he subjugared Alep po and a large

art of Coelesyria" (C ha lk ok on dyl es , III, 134-135; Ni col oud is , Chalkokondyles,

07). On the fall o f Aleppo sec CBB, II, 368; Hookham, Tamburlainc, 225-228;i rousset, 527; Shaw, 35.

dubious historical value, although his references to Tim ur’ s campaigns againstthe Arabs are more precise and detailed. On the other hand our knowledge ofthe lives o f both historians, limited though it is, allows ro om fo r the hypothesisthat they might have both received information on Timur from similar sour

ces27. Such sources might have been either Tu rks w ho might have heard about Tim ur’s campaigns in their milieu, or possibly merchants trading in the MiddleEast and the Black Sea who could have been aware of the survival o f Timu r’sreputation and memory o f his activities in the areas of Syria, southern Russiaand the Caucasus, or even certain Byzantines with a similar awareness21. Dou

kas is not only known to have spoken Italian and Turkish but due to his

posit ion as secretary to the Genoese of Ne a Phok aia and later as a diplomat inthe service of the Genoese rulers o f Lesbos, he would have had goo d contactsas well as access to state documents29. Chalkokondyles on the other hand

seems to have possessed some knowledge o f Turkish and the possibility o f his contactswith merchants or mariners for the purpose of receiving informa tion may not

be ruled out*0.

N. NICOLOUDIS

27. Cf. N. Tomadakes* view that Doukas "had taken into consideration a source

unknown to us but common to both Chalkokondyles and G. Phrantzes" (N . T o m a

dakes, "Δούκας, 6 Ιστορικός τής Άλ ώσ εω ς έκ τοΟ Ιδίου του Εργου", Άθηνά, 54 (1950),

ρ. 49).28. Cf. for example the case of Demetrios Athenaios, identified as a Greek emissary of

the Metropolitan of Kiev and the Grand Duke of Moscow to Constantinople, who is

mentioned in the introduction o f Manuel Moros* work as the reporter of a testimony of

Edegu, a Tatar chieftain who participated in the war(s) between Timur and Tokhtamish (see

Treu, pp. 15 (text ) and 24-25; cf. also n. 19).29. Cf. for example his description of the Genoese embassy to Timur (X V, 5, 107-109)

during his siege of Smyrna.30. An in dicati on o f this is provi ded by his references to the sea ports of the North Sea

in the context o f his disgressions in b. II, or to the Venetian commercial bases in Cyprus (b.Ill , p. 134; Nic ol oud is , Chalkokondyles , 305) etc. Fo r the theory o f his knowledge o f

Turkish see S . B a ş t a v , "Die türkisehe Quellen des Laonikos Chalkokondylas", Acts o f the Xlt h international Byzantine Congress, M unich (Munich 1960), pp. 35, 38; Mo ra v c-

s i k , Byzantinoturcica, I, 393; H . Hung er , Die hochspraechliche Profane Literatür der

Byzantinem, I (Munich 1978), 489.



R l i SUM

Le poi nt de w e des histohens Byzantins sur les guerres de Tim our (Ta merla n) en Asie

cent rale et a u Moye n O rient

Les ocvres des historiens Byzantins Laonikos Chalkokondyles et Doukas qui se

characterise™ par un int£r£t pour les affaires de I'Est, contiennent asscz d'£l£ments en

ce qui concerne les campagnes de Timour (Tamerlan) cn Asie centrale et au Moyen

Orient. Chalkokondyles mentionne les campagnes de Timour contre les "Hyrcanes" et

les "Cadusiens" (peuples de la region de Caucase et dc la Mer Caspienne), contre les

"habitants des Khataia" (e’est â dire des nomads Chaghatai), contre les "Scythes" (qui

sont des Tatares de I’Ho rde d’ Or), et contre les Indus ct les Arabes dc Syrie, En plus

Doukas se reftre aux campagnes de Timour contre les Tatars et les Arabes de Syrie,

mais de façon plus resum£e. Les renseignements de Chalkokondyles sont assez vagues

et ind6termines, principalement cn ce qui concerne les guerres de Timour en Asie

centrale, et il parait qu'en r6alit6 ces renseignements servaient comme cadre pour les

digressions de Chalk okon dyles â Phisto ire et â 1’ethn ograph ie des peuples contre les-

quelles Timour est entr£ en conflit. Les deux historiens ont probablement obtenu ces

renseignements par des commerça nts, des marins ou des officicers d ’ Etat.

nicoloudis (n.)_byzantine historians on the wars of timur in central asia and the middle east...

Documents