Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Early Selj¯uqHistory

This book investigates the early history of the Selj¯uqTurks, founders of one of the most important empires of the mediaeval Islamic world, from their origins in the Eurasian steppe to their conquest of Iran, Iraq and Anatolia. The first work available in a western language on this important episode in Turkish and Islamic history, this book offers a new understanding of the emergence of this major nomadic empire. Focusing on perhaps the most important and least understood phase, the transformation of the Selj¯uqsfrom tribesmen in Central Asia to rulers of a great Muslim Empire, the author examines previously neglected sources to demonstrate the central role of tribalism in the evolution of their state. The book also seeks to understand the impact of the invasions on the settled peoples of the Middle East and the beginnings of Turkish settlement in the region, which was to transform it demographically forever. Arguing that the nomadic, steppe origins of the Selj¯uqs were of much greater importance in determining the early development of the empire than is usually believed, this book sheds new light on the arrival of the Turks in the Islamic world. A significant contribution to our understanding of the history of the Middle East, this book will be of interest to scholars of Byzantium in addition to Middle Eastern studies and anthropology.

A.C.S. Peacock is currently Assistant Director of the British Institute at Ankara, Turkey. Previous publications include Mediaeval Islamic Historiography and Political Legitimacy (2007) and, as editor, The Frontiers of the Ottoman World (2009). Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Routledge studies in the history of Iran and Turkey Edited by Carole Hillenbrand University of Edinburgh

This series publishes important studies dealing with the history of Iran and Turkey in the period 1000–1700 AD. This period is significant because it heralds the advent of large numbers of nomadic Turks from Central Asia into the Islamic world. Their influence was felt particularly strongly in Iran and Turkey, territories which they permanently transformed. The series presents translations of medieval Arabic and Persian texts which chronicle the history of the medieval Turks and Persians, and also publishes scholarly monographs which handle themes of medieval Turkish and Iranian history such as historiography, nomadisation and folk Islam.

Mediaeval Islamic Historiography and Political Legitimacy Bal’ami’s Tarikhnama A.C.S. Peacock History of the Seljuq Turks The Saljuq-nama of Zahir al-Din Nishapuri Translated by Kenneth Allin Luther, edited by Edmund Bosworth The Annals of the Saljuq Turks Selections from al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’rikh of Ibn al-Athir D.S. Richards Early Mongol Rule in Thirteenth-Century Iran A Persian renaissance George Lane The Ghaznavid and Seljuk Turks Poetry as a source for Iranian history G.E. Tetley

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Iranian Elites and Turkish Rulers A history of Isfahan in the Saljuq period David Durand-Guédy Early Seljuq History A new interpretation A.C.S. Peacock Early Selj¯uqHistory A new interpretation

A.C.S. Peacock Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 First published 2010 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2010 A.C.S. Peacock Typeset in Times New Roman by Glyph International Printed and bound in Great Britain by The MPG Books Group All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Peacock, A. C. S. (Andrew C. S.) p. cm. – (Routledge studies in the history of Iran and Turkey; 7) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Seljuks. I. Title DS27.P33 2010 956.014–dc22 2009034985

ISBN 10: 0-415-54853-5 (hbk) ISBN 10: 0-203-85695-3 (ebk)

ISBN 13: 978-0-415-54853-3 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-0-203-85695-6 (ebk) Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 For Liz Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Contents

List of figures viii List of abbreviations ix Acknowledgements x A note on transliteration xi

Introduction: the early Selj¯uqsin mediaeval and modern historiography 1

1 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs:Western Eurasia and Transoxiana, c. 900–1025 16

2 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 47

3 Warfare, conquest and migration: the Selj¯uqsin Central Asia, Iran and Iraq to 1055 72

4 The Selj¯uqsand Islam 99

5 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions: Anatolia and the Middle East, 1029–71 128

Conclusion 165 Bibliography 169

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Index 185 List of figures

0.1 Map of the Selj¯uqempire at the end of Alp Arsl¯an’sreign 2 1.1 The Eurasian steppe and Islamic Central Asia in the second half of the tenth century 22 1.2 Diagram of the postulated relationship between sources reliant on the Malikn¯ama 32 1.3 Major waves of migrations of Selj¯uqsand associated Türkmen 39 2.1 Family tree of the Selj¯uqdynasty 64 5.1 Anatolia: major cities and provinces mentioned in the text 130 5.2 Main invasion routes into Anatolia and Caucasia and major towns and fortifications in eastern Anatolia mentioned in the text 136 5.3 Major Selj¯uqcampaigns and concentrations of summer and winter pastures 147 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 List of abbreviations

AEMAe Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies EI2 Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition EIr Encyclopedia Iranica IA˙ Islam˙ Ansiklopedisi IJMES International Journal of Middle East Studies JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society REArm Révue des Études Arméniennes REB Révue des Études Byzantines REI Révue des Études Islamiques WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenländes ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the funding provided by the British Institute at Ankara, which facilitated research for this book, especially Chapter 5. The Institute librarian, Yaprak Eran, and administrator, Gülgün Girdivan, deserve special mention for their help. I am also grateful to Bilkent University Library, the Türk Tarih Kurumu and the School of Oriental and African Studies, who all assisted in supplying obscure materials. Penny Copeland drew the accompanying maps. David Durand-Guédy in Tehran supplied me with a copy of the relevant portions of Is.fah¯an¯ı’s Nus.rat al-Fatra, for which I am very grateful, as well as otherwise unobtainable Iranian publications. I am much indebted to him for his assistance. Deborah Tor kindly provided me with copies of some of her work on Selj¯uqhistory in advance of publication, and commented on some sections of this book. I am indebted to the series editor, Carole Hillenbrand, for including the book in Studies in the History of Iran and Turkey, and the team at Routledge for seeing it through the press. All errors are of course my own. As ever, I am most grateful to my family for their support, and especially to my wife Liz, to whom this book is dedicated. Ankara, March 2009 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 A note on transliteration

The usual conventions for transliterating Arabic and Persian which should be self-explanatory to anyone acquainted with those languages have been applied. However, eleventh-century Turkish names in Arabic script present a more difficult problem. To transliterate using only the classical Arabic vowels a, i, u risks rendering them incomprehensible and masks their pronunciation to all but the experienced Turcologist. The transliterations favoured in modern Turkey are not wholly satisfactory either. Somewhat reluctantly, I have adopted a compromise in which Turkish vowels are approximately represented, combined with – as far as possible – a transliteration of the Arabic. For this reason the form Selj¯uqis preferred to the arabising Salj¯uq,or the reconstructed Turkish form Seljük, which has not caught on even among the vowel-harmony purists of Turkey. Selj¯uqmay be an awkward hybrid, but it at least represents roughly how the word was pronounced and written. I trust critics will appreciate a perfect solution was elusive. Personal names are also somewhat confusing. Chaghr¯ı,for instance, was also known as D¯a’¯ud.I have referred to early Selj¯uqsultans by the names they are best- known today, Chaghr¯ı,T. ughril, and Alp Arsl¯an,but when quoting from primary sources which use different names or titles for them, I have retained these adding the more common form in brackets. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Introduction The early Selj¯uqsin mediaeval and modern historiography

The subject of this book is the rise of a group of Turks from their origins as an obscure tribe living in the west Eurasian steppes to rulers of an empire that dominated the Middle East and Central Asia. Led by the descendants of the chief Selj¯uqb. Duq¯aq,in the first half of the eleventh century the Turks captured the established centres of civilisation of the Islamic world – the great cities of Transoxiana, Iran and Iraq – and reached far into Anatolia and the Caucasus. The Ghaznavid, B¯uyidand Byzantine Empires that dominated Central Asia, Iran and Iraq, and Anatolia all met defeat at the hands of the armies of Turkish nomads.1 This book examines how this sudden transformation from tribe to empire came about, concentrating on the little-known but formative period up to the death of the second sultan, Alp Arsl¯an,in 465/1072. The period of Selj¯uqrule, the eleventh and twelfth centuries, marks a turning point in demography, religion and administration in the Middle East. The demography of the region changed permanently, for the invasions of the Selj¯uqs were accompanied by – indeed were part of – significant migrations. Ultimately these led to the formation of Turkish populations in Anatolia, Azerbaijan and the Caucasus that exist there today. The Selj¯uqperiod also marks the reassertion of Sunni domination in the Middle East, which had been eclipsed by the rise of the Shi‘ite B¯uyiddynasty in Iran and Iraq and the Ism¯a‘¯ıl¯ıF¯at.imid Empire in Syria, Egypt and North Africa in the tenth century. It was under Selj¯uqrule that scholars like al-Ghaz¯al¯ıreconciled Sufism with orthodox Islam, and it was then that the madrasa or religious school came to prominence. Both developments were to shape the subsequent religious and intellectual history of the Middle East. The Selj¯uqs,nomads by origin, relied on Persian administrators who could assist them in governing their territories in the Irano-Islamic tradition, most famously the vizier Niz. ¯amal-Mulk (d. 485/1092). Although Selj¯uqadministrative practice

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 thus drew on older traditions, such as those of their predecessors the Ghaznavids

1 A certain confusion exists in the usage of the terms Turk, Türkmen and Selj¯uq,as it is discussed in Chapter 2. For our purposes, Turk, Turkish and Türkmen are treated as synonyms. 2 Introduction

Figure 0.1 Map of the Selj¯uqempire at the end of Alp Arsl¯an’sreign.

and the B¯uyids,it developed them into their classic form which often remained current for centuries to come. The best example of this is the iqt.¯a‘ or land grant. This had existed under the ‘Abb¯asidsand B¯uyids,but it was only in Selj¯uq times that the system was refined in all its complexity, and it remained in use in Iran in something resembling its Selj¯uqform until the Q¯aj¯arperiod in the nineteenth century. However, the Selj¯uqsare also significant for another reason: they were the first of the nomadic conquerors who were to dominate the Middle East in the eleventh to fifteenth centuries. They were to be followed in the early thirteenth century by the Khw¯arazmians,who formed a transient state in the Caucasus. The Khw¯arazmians– whose army and followers were largely nomadic, even if the rulers themselves

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 were not – were destroyed by their much better-known successors, the Mongols. Mongol domination lasted until the mid-fourteenth century, and was followed by the rise of T¯ım¯ur,the last of the great nomad conquerors, who by the beginning of the fifteenth century ruled from Anatolia and Syria to Central Asia – a smaller empire than the Mongols’ at its height, but none the less a world power that had defeated some of the greatest rulers of western Asia, notably the Ottoman sultan B¯ayaz¯ıd. Introduction 3 The short-lived Khw¯arazmianshave received little scholarly attention,2 but both the Mongols and T¯ım¯urhave been the subject of numerous detailed studies.3 Yet the Selj¯uqshave been almost entirely neglected by modern scholars, despite the vast territories that they ruled and the longevity of the Selj¯uq Empire (approximately one and a half centuries for Selj¯uqrule in Iran and Iraq as opposed to around 90 years for their more famous Mongol successors). There is not a single book-length study of the Selj¯uqEmpire in the Middle East in a western language; the only usable accounts of it are parts of larger works and concentrate on giving a chronological narrative rather than providing much analysis for the reasons behind the nomads’ outstanding success. More detailed accounts have been written by Turkish scholars, but they rarely analyse the nature of Selj¯uqconquests and rule. Some studies exist of individual aspects or areas of the Selj¯uqperiod, especially those by Carole Hillenbrand,4 Anne Lambton,5 and George Makdisi.6 However, none of these concentrate on the formation of the Selj¯uqEmpire, and not only are the Selj¯uqsthe least understood of the nomadic dynasties, but the least understood of all major Islamic empires. The period before 1072 witnessed the Selj¯uqs’transformation from obscure tribesmen to sultans, rulers of an empire that inherited the synthesis of Islamic and Iranian ideals of government and culture. Yet despite the obvious interest of this theme, there exists only a handful of articles studying the conquests, mainly those written by Claude Cahen between the 1940s and the 1960s.7 This book is thus an attempt to fill this black hole in our knowledge of the mediaeval Islamic world and the beginnings of Turkish domination in the Middle East. Unlike most scholarship to date, it is not a narrative history. Rather, it is intended to provide an analysis of key problems in early Selj¯uqhistory, which, in the opinion of the author, are crucial to understanding this formative period but have been neglected or misunderstood by the few scholars to have glanced at the field. For scholarly perceptions of the Selj¯uqsare still dominated by three main theses: that the Selj¯uqs sought to be rulers in the Perso-Islamic tradition, and that consequently, the Selj¯uq

2 For the moment see Ibrahim˙ Kafesoˇglu, Harezm¸sahlar Devleti Tarihi (485–617/1092–1229), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956. 3 For a summary of recent scholarship on the Mongols see David Morgan, The Mongols, Oxford: Blackwell, 2007; on T¯ım¯ursee, for example, Beatrice Forbes Manz, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 4 Most recently, Carole Hillenbrand, Turkish Myth and Muslim Symbol: The Battle of Manzikert, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. 5 For example, A.K.S. Lambton, Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia: Aspects of Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Administrative, Economic and Social History, Eleventh to Fourteenth Centuries, London: I.B. Tauris, 1988; and some of the articles in eadem, Theory and Practice in Medieval Islamic Government, London: Variorum Reprints, 1980. 6 See the articles gathered in George Makdisi, History and Politics in Eleventh Century Baghdad, Aldershot: Variorum Reprints, 1991; idem, Religion, Law and Learning in Classical Islam, Aldershot: Variorum Reprints, 1991. 7 Most of these are collected in Claude Cahen, Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianus, London: Variorum Reprints, 1974. 4 Introduction sultans found their nomadic subjects an embarrassment; and that the Selj¯uqs were committed to Sunni Islam and supported it vigorously.8 It is the contention of this book that these theses do not explain the early history of the Selj¯uqs satisfactorily. In the first chapter, I assess the steppe environment from which the Selj¯uqs emerged, stressing they must be seen as part of a much wider series of migrations that fundamentally altered the political make-up of western Eurasia, and arguing that the Selj¯uqsmay have originally had their roots in the Khazar empire of south Russia, a connection most scholars have dismissed. The role of the Türkmen tribes in the Selj¯uqconquests is discussed in Chapter 2. All scholars have recognised that the tribes were the key to the Selj¯uqvictories, but the question of the relationship between the tribesmen and the Selj¯uqdynasty has rarely been explored. Rather, there is usually an assumption that when the Selj¯uqchief T. ughril conquered N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,the capital of Khur¯as¯an,in 431/1040 and proclaimed himself sultan, the tribes became an embarrassment that he sought to distract by sending them to raid Byzantine territory. As such, the tribes are usually implicitly seen as mindless auxiliaries to their cleverer leaders. In contrast, I explore the complex relationship between the tribes and the Selj¯uqfamily, arguing that the early years of the dynasty were dominated by a fierce struggle among the descendants of the eponymous founder of the dynasty, Selj¯uq,to secure tribal support. As is observed in Chapter 5, this dynamic continued even after the Selj¯uqconquest of Baghdad in 447/1055 and T. ughril’s army started to employ slave soldiers. Despite the plethora of studies on the ways of war among other nomads like the Mongols, and in other times and places in the Islamic world, there have been few attempts to understand how the early Selj¯uqsfunctioned as a military force.9 As a result, scholars have often considered that the Türkmen lacked discipline.10 Yet they brought about the collapse of the Ghaznavid state in Central Asia and Khur¯as¯an,the B¯uyidsof Iran and Iraq and the virtual destruction of Byzantine power in Anatolia. Chapter 3 examines the Selj¯uqs’tactics and strategy, the numbers of their forces, and the start of the transformation from a largely tribal army to one with a substantial professional component after the mid-eleventh century, arguing that the steppe army was more sophisticated than scholars have often believed.

8 On the view of the Selj¯uqsas religiously orthodox, see Omid Safi, The Politics of Knowledge in Premodern Islam: Negotiating Ideology and Religious Enquiry, Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006, pp. 1–9, for their relationship with the caliph, ibid., pp. 35–42; on the Selj¯uqsas rulers in the Perso-Islamic tradition, see A.K.S. Lambton, ‘The internal structure Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 of the Saljuq Empire’ in J.A. Boyle (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran,V,:The Saljuq and Mongol Periods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968 pp. 206–19; on relations between the tribesmen and the Selj¯uqdynasty, see Chapter 2. 9 An exception is C.E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran 994–1040, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1963, pp. 241–68, which examines the Selj¯uq conquests in Khur¯as¯anfrom the Ghaznavid perspective. 10 For example, Michael Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1205, London: Longmann, 1997, p. 119; cf. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 224. Introduction 5 Chapter 4 focuses on the Seljuqs and religion. Traditionally, the Selj¯uqshave been seen as the upholders of Sunni Islam par excellence. Scholars now recognise that the so-called Sunni Revival of the eleventh century had its roots long before the arrival of the Selj¯uqsin Iraq, in the efforts of Caliphs like al-Q¯a’imand al-Q¯adir to lead an intellectual challenge to the Shi‘ite B¯uyids.11 Nonetheless, the Selj¯uqs are still perceived as committed Sunnis, and above all as fanatical followers of the H. anaf¯ılaw-school, whose opponents they are said to have persecuted through a famous inquisition at N¯ısh¯ap¯ur.In this chapter, I explore the Selj¯uqs’commitment to Sunnism, arguing that in fact their religious policies varied at different times and places according to the political circumstances; far from fanatically adhering to Sunnism, there is evidence that pre-Islamic beliefs remained important among the tribes, and even a degree of sympathy for Shi‘ism. In Chapter 5 I seek to reassess the Selj¯uqpenetration and conquest of Byzantine Anatolia, in which the Battle of Manzikert in 463/1071 is usually seen as a crucial turning point, marking the collapse of Byzantine power in the east. I argue that Selj¯uqincursions, which had started at least 40 years before Manzikert, were motivated more by the exigencies of a nomadic existence than by the desire for jihad against unbelievers or even the alleged desire of the sultans to divert their followers away from ravaging the prosperous lands of Iran and Iraq. I also attempt to assess the impact of the invasions, arguing that like many other regions in the Middle East, the decline in the economy and population of much of Byzantine Anatolia had started before the appearance of the Selj¯uqs.The latter’s success was in part because large areas of Anatolia were sparsely populated, poorly defended, and ill-equipped to cope with any invasion coming from the east; the failure of Byzantium to deal with the Türkmen from 1040 onwards suggests that Manzikert was more of symbolic importance than a turning point in its own right. In short, then, this book attempts to revise the traditional image of the early Selj¯uqs.Instead of putting the sultans and his viziers at the forefront of the analysis, it aims to focus on the dynamics of tribal society, of which the early sultans remained a part. For the Selj¯uqinvasions were not the triumphant progress of a miraculously – and suddenly – Persianised tribal chief, but a migration of lasting demographic and political consequences. As our sources are much scantier than those for later periods, such as the Mongols, some of the argument relies on analogies with what is known of other Eurasian nomads in other periods, ranging from antiquity to modern times. This approach is not without its problems. Is it reasonable, for instance, to attempt to calculate the size of an eleventh-century Selj¯uqTürkmen’s immediate family (kh¯ana) on the basis of what we know of Kazakh and Kirghiz nomads in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as it is

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 done in Chapter 3? I am the first to admit that this comparison does not prove anything, but it does suggest a rough figure that we might accept as a basis for discussion. Given that the sources for the early Selj¯uqsare rather thinner than

11 The classic statement is George Makdisi, ‘The Sunni revival’ in D.S. Richards (ed.), Islamic Civilisation 950–1150, Oxford: B. Cassirer, 1973, pp. 155–68. 6 Introduction one would like – although perhaps better than is often imagined – this book does not, in the main, aim to prove anything categorically about the Selj¯uqsand their followers. Rather, I seek to offer a more sophisticated and thorough interpretation of the subject than has appeared in print to date.

The sources for early Selj¯uqhistory Attempting to write the history of any nomadic people presents the historian with immense challenges. Our sources are largely the mediaeval Arabic and Persian chronicles, although I use Armenian and Georgian sources more extensively than has generally been done to date, as well as some archaeological material (see especially Chapter 5). However, if our documentary sources are not much richer than they were nearly a century ago when Barthold wrote the seminal work on mediaeval Central Asia, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Period, our understanding of them has improved. Recent scholarship has emphasised that Arabic and Persian historical works are part of a literary tradition, and must be read as such.12 Equally, Islamic historiography was often closely associated with politics, works often being written at the behest of or to gain the attention and favour of a ruler or his ministers. Historical works were thus often designed to bolster the political agenda, especially the legitimacy, of a dynasty. Facts were valued less as an accurate record of the past, but as a means of helping the author achieve his aims, whether political or literary.13 As no significant archival records survive from any mediaeval Islamic state, we are dependent on these texts as our main source for the period. When dealing with nomadic states, we have the further difficulty that the main sources for their history – with very rare exceptions like The Secret History of the Mongols – were written by the settled people they conquered. Whether hostile or not, they inevitably offer a slanted and often uncomprehending view of these alien invaders. Essentially, if one is not to abandon entirely the attempt to write the political history of the mediaeval Middle East, there is little that can be done to counteract this bias other than considering carefully the literary and political agenda of a given author before using his work, and where possible checking it against other sources. I therefore offer a brief evaluation of our principal sources for the early Selj¯uqs. This is not intended to be a comprehensive survey, but rather to alert the reader to the problems of these literary texts.14

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 12 Julie Scott Meisami, Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999. 13 See the discussion in A.C.S. Peacock, Mediaeval Islamic Historiography and Political Legitimacy: Bal‘am¯ı’s T¯ar¯ıkhn¯ama,London: Routledge, 2007, pp. 1–4. 14 A comprehensive study of Selj¯uqhistoriography has yet to be written. For now, see Claude Cahen, ‘The historiography of the Selj¯uqidperiod’ in Bernard Lewis and P.M. Holt, Historians of the Middle East, London: Oxford University Press, 1962, pp. 59–78; Meisami, Persian Historiography, pp. 141–280. Introduction 7 T¯ar¯ıkh-iMas‘¯ud¯ı of Bayhaq¯ı Our earliest Persian source for the emergence of the Selj¯uqsis the T¯ar¯ıkh-iMas‘¯ud¯ı by the Ghaznavid historian Bayhaq¯ı(385/995–470/1077).15 The surviving por- tions of his work cover the years 421/1030–431/1040 of the reign of sultan Mas‘¯ud, whom he served in the Ghaznavid chancery as a senior bureaucrat. The complete work appears to have been much more comprehensive, but its vast size meant that it must have been uneconomical to copy and so most of it is lost. Nonetheless, what survives must count as one of the most remarkable – and to modern tastes most readable – works of Islamic historiography. It provides an unparalleled insight into Ghaznavid politics, the personality of sultan Mas‘¯udand his ministers, and the constant intriguing at court even as inept political and strategic decisions handed control of the Ghaznavids’ richest province, Khur¯as¯an,to the Selj¯uqs.Especially valuable for the historian are the many official documents to which Bayhaq¯ıhad access as a senior bureaucrat and incorporated in his work. Particularly important from our point of view are the reports of Ghaznavid spies at the Selj¯uqs’camp and the copies of petitions from the Selj¯uqleaders to Sultan Mas‘¯ud.Bayhaq¯ı also provides many eyewitness accounts of fighting between the Ghaznavids and the Türkmen, and provides an unparalleled insight into the decline of Ghaznavid power. He himself seems to have drafted the peace treaty between the Selj¯uq Chaghr¯ıand the Ghaznavids.16 Thus Bayhaq¯ıis of outstanding importance for the emergence of the Selj¯uqs; his history is one of the few sources for the Selj¯uqsin Central Asia and Iran which does not ultimately derive in some way from the pro-Selj¯uq Malikn¯ama tradition (discussed below), and he was a contemporary of the events he describes. However, although the surviving parts of the T¯ar¯ıkh-iMas‘¯ud¯ı record in great detail events of some of the most crucial years in the rise of the Selj¯uqs,from their incursions into Khur¯as¯anin the reign of Mas‘¯udto their great victory at Dand¯anq¯anover the Ghaznavids and T. ughril’s seizure of the Khur¯as¯an¯ı capital N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,there are limitations in their scope, both chronologically and in focus, dominated as they are by the perspective of the Ghaznavid court. Although Bayhaq¯ı’swork is not a conventional dynastic history, it is shaped by the author’s literary aim to use history to teach moral lessons. In this respect, the T¯ar¯ıkh-iMas‘¯ud¯ı bears a closer relationship to the Arabic Taj¯aribal-Umam by the philosopher and historian Miskawayh than it does to the more directly legitimatory histories commissioned by many rulers.17 However, this does not mean that Bayhaq¯ı’s narrative can always be taken at face value. Although Bayhaq¯ı was still in office when he Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 15 For more details see Meisami, Persian Historiography, pp. 79–108; M.R. Waldman, Toward a Theory of Historical Narrative: A Case Study in Perso-Islamicate Historiography, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1980; C.E. Bosworth, ‘An Oriental Samel Pepys? Abu ’l-Fadl Bayhaqi’s memoirs of court life in eastern Iran and Afghanistan 1030–1041’, JRAS 3rd series, 14 (2004), pp. 13–25. 16 Meisami, Persian Historiography,p.80. 17 Ibid., pp. 81–82. 8 Introduction started composing the work, and some of the documents he includes are probably originals, not all of them necessarily are. Many were destroyed during his disgrace during the reign of ‘Abd al-Rash¯ıd(440/1049–443/1052).18 As Jürgen Paul has demonstrated,19 even a passage which may seem to be simply a transcription of a spy’s report may serve to point a more general lesson or maxim in keeping with the author’s purpose. Thus even when the ‘facts’ presented are true, they take on ‘a function which differs from a simple historical narrative that is reported for its own sake.’20

Gard¯ız¯ı’s Zayn al-Akhb¯ar The Persian history of Gard¯ız¯ı,written for the Ghaznavid sultan ‘Abd al-Rash¯ıdin c. 443–44/1051–5221 also includes information about the Selj¯uqs,especially their dealings with the Ghaznavid sultans Mah.m¯ud and Mas‘¯ud.Parts of it were written, as the author himself tells us, to glorify the Ghaznavid dynasty.22 However, even if it is not quite the dry factual history it may at first seem, it still offers a fairly sober account of the first Selj¯uqmigration into Khur¯as¯anthat is broadly supported by other sources. As discussed in Chapter 3, the figures it gives for the numbers of Selj¯uqmigrants seem reasonable.23 The antiquity of the source makes it especially valuable, but the passages dealing directly with the Selj¯uqsare quite limited.

The Malikn¯ama tradition For all the merits of Bayhaq¯ıand Gard¯ız¯ı,our two extant contemporary sources, we would know next to nothing of the Selj¯uqs’origins without the accounts derived from the Malikn¯ama,24 a work originally dedicated to Alp Arsl¯an.25 The Malikn¯ama is no longer extant, but extracts from it are preserved in several later works. The most complete version is in the fifteenth-century Persian compilation by M¯ırkhwand,the Rawd.at al-S.af¯a. The Malikn¯ama was also the major source for Bar Hebraeus’ section on the Selj¯uqsin his Syriac Chronography, written in the thirteenth century.26 Two important sources, both dating from the early thirteenth

18 Ibid., p. 80. 19 Jürgen Paul, ‘The Selj¯uqconquest(s) of Nishapur: a reappraisal’, Iranian Studies 38 (2005), pp. 277–78. 20 Ibid., p. 278. 21 Gard¯ız¯ı, Zayn al-Akhb¯ar, Rah.¯ımRid. ¯a-z¯adaMalik (ed.), Tehran: Anjuman-i Ath¯arva¯ Maf¯akhir-i Farhang¯ı,1384/2005, Editor’s Introduction, pp. 65–69. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 22 Ibid., pp. 252–53. 23 See Chapter 3, pp. 84–5. 24 This is discussed at length in Claude Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nameh et l’histoire des origines seljukides’, Oriens 2 (1949), pp. 31–65. 25 Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım, Bughyat al-T. alab f¯ı-Ta’r¯ıkhH. alab, Ali Sevim (ed.), Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1976, p. 32; cf. Cahen, ‘Malik-nameh’, p. 33. 26 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, Ernest A. Wallis Budge (tr.), London: Oxford University Press, 1932, I, pp. 195–96. Introduction 9

century, the first parts of the Akhb¯aral-Dawla al-Salj¯uq¯ıya attributed to H. usayn¯ı (an identification which will be followed here for the sake of simplicity without necessarily placing undue credence on it) and some of the sections on the early Selj¯uqsin the vast annals of Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amilf¯ı’l-Ta’r¯ıkh, derive substantially from the Malikn¯ama as well.27 The Malikn¯ama seems to have focused on the origins of the Selj¯uqs,28 although it is unclear whether it continued up to Alp Arsl¯an’sown times; certainly, it seems to have covered T. ughril’s reign. The material has been imperfectly preserved, and there are sometimes wide variations between the accounts of different sources reliant on the Malikn¯ama. For instance, in contrast to the Muslim chronicles that depict T. ughril as an obedient servant of the Caliph, the account of the priest Bar Hebraeus shows T. ughril responding to the Caliph’s demands for him to rein in his followers in an arrogant, uncompromising manner.29 Whether this reflects Bar Hebraeus’ own hostility to the Selj¯uqs,or whether at Alp Arslan’s court where the Malikn¯ama was written a more openly hostile attitude towards the Caliph was acceptable than was the case subsequently, is impossible to prove. In Chapter 1, it is argued that the original text composed for Alp Arsl¯anwas edited in the later eleventh or twelfth centuries to associate the Selj¯uqsmore closely with Islam. We also know that an Arabic translation of the Malikn¯ama was made, but this has not survived either.30

Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı’s Mir’¯atal-Zam¯an The Mir’¯atal-Zam¯an is another thirteenth-century Arabic text containing much older information and is a particularly valuable source for events in Baghdad and Iraq. A complete edition has not yet been published, but the sections dealing with the Selj¯uqshave been edited by Ali Sevim. These derive, according to Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı’sown testimony, from the work of the Baghdad historian Ghars al-Ni‘ma (416/1025–480/1088).31 Ghars al-Ni‘ma was an eyewitness to many of the events he described, and is a particularly valuable witness for the reigns of the first three Selj¯uqsultans that he lived through: T. ughril, Alp Arsl¯anand Maliksh¯ah.Much of his information is unique, but again interpretation is difficult, as the sole source for Ghars al-Ni‘ma, Sibt., has come down to us in two very different recensions not fully represented by the published text.32 Thus while it is clear that much of Sibt.’s information does derive from this early source, it is unknown to what extent it has been altered in the intervening period.

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 27 Cahen, ‘Le Maliknameh’, pp. 33–36. 28 Ibid., p. 36. 29 Bar Hebreaus, Chronography, I, pp. 203–04, 215; cf. Safi, Politics of Knowledge, pp. 27–28, 37. 30 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, Tehran: Khayy¯am-P¯ır¯uz,1338, IV, pp. 235, 258, see also Chapter 1, p. 27. 31 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯atal-Zam¯an, Ali Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1968, p. 1, Turkish introduction, pp. 5–9. 32 Ibid., Introduction, pp. 31–32; cf. Cahen, ‘Historiography’, p. 61. 10 Introduction Is.fah¯an¯ı’s Nus.rat al-fatra The late twelfth-century chronicle of ‘Im¯adal-D¯ınIs.fah¯an¯ı,the Nus.rat al-Fatra, is currently unpublished, surviving in a unique manuscript in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, MS arabe 2145. It has generally been consulted by scholars in its thirteenth-century abridgement by Bund¯ar¯ı,the Zubdat al-Nus.ra, published by Houtsma in 1889. Although Bund¯ar¯ıradically abbreviated many sections of the Nus.ra, the first 48 folios which deal with Selj¯uqhistory up to the beginning of Maliksh¯ah’sreign are reproduced virtually verbatim. To allow easy reference, I therefore refer to Houtsma’s edition rather than the manuscript original, as the few differences are insignificant. Much of the rest of the Zubda itself derives from the memoirs of the Selj¯uqvizier An¯ushirw¯anb. Kh¯alid,written c. 527/1133 in Baghdad. The sources of the early part have not, however, been identified; clearly, though, they were well-informed about events in Baghdad, which is the focus of the account of T. ughril’s and Alp Arsl¯an’sreign. Quite possibly these sources derived from the Selj¯uqcourt itself. Although Is.fah¯an¯ıand An¯ushirw¯anshared a negative view of Selj¯uqhistory, influenced by personal bitterness, it is difficult to draw any more concrete conclusions about the accuracy and biases of their account of the early period, before either was politically active (or in Is.fah¯an¯ı’scase, alive). In any event, Is.fah¯an¯ı/Bund¯ar¯ıtells us little about the Türkmen themselves, although 33 he is informative about T. ughril and his relations with the Caliph.

These, then, are the main Islamic historical sources, although further fragments of information can be found in other Arabic and Persian historical works. These range from the numerous discussions of the Battle of Manzikert, many of which 34 are late and of questionable value, to the memoirs of the contemporary F¯at.imid missionary, al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı’l-D¯ın,who provides a valuable if biased account of his efforts to promote Ism¯a‘¯ılismin Iran and Iraq in the face of the Selj¯uqadvance.35 However, most later Persian historians relied on the Salj¯uqn¯ama of Z. ah¯ıral-D¯ın N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı(late twelfth century), a fairly undistinguished work which is extremely cursory in its treatment of early Selj¯uqhistory.36 Perhaps the greatest regret must be that the work on the Turks written by one Ibn H. ass¯ulfor T. ughril has been

33 On Is.fah¯an¯ı,see David Durand-Guédy, ‘Un fragment inédit de la chronique des Salˇguqidesde ‘Im¯ad al-D¯ınal-Is.fah¯an¯ı:le chapitre sur Taˇgal-Mulk’, Annales Islamologiques 39 (2005), pp. 205–22; idem, ‘Mémoires d’exilés: lecture de la chronique des Salj¯uqidesde ‘Im¯adal-D¯ınIs.fah¯an¯ı’, Studia Iranica 35 (2006), pp. 181–202; I would like to reiterate my gratitute to David Durand-Guédy for making the relevant portions of the manuscript of the Nus.ra available to me. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 34 See Hillenbrand, Turkish Myth and Muslim Symbol. 35 Mu’ayyad f¯ı ’l-D¯ın al-Sh¯ır¯az¯ı, S¯ırat al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı ’l-D¯ın D¯a‘¯ı al-Du‘¯at:tarjamat h.ay¯atihi bi-qalamihi, Muh.ammad K¯amilH. usayn (ed.), Cairo: D¯aral-K¯atibal-Mis.r¯ı, 1949; the text is difficult to find, but an English abridgement and commentary has been published: Victoria Klemm, Memoirs of a Mission: The Ismaili Scholar, Statesman and Poet al-Mu’ayyad fi ’l-Din al-Shirazi, London: I.B. Tauris, 2003. 36 See the assessment in T. ah¯ıral-D¯ınN¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı, Salj¯uqn¯ama, A.H. Morton (ed.), np: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004, Introduction, pp. 50–56. Introduction 11 completely lost apart from its introduction, for it might have revealed much about 37 how T. ughril wished to be perceived. Local histories occasionally contain some useful information, but unquestionably the most significant additional work is Ibn al-Ath¯ır’streatment of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaTürkmen, which derives from an unknown source, presumably separate from the Malikn¯ama tradition.38 The early Selj¯uq period presents a peculiar problem, for in many respects it is surprisingly well- documented, and rather better so than some later periods of Selj¯uq history. Alongside two intact contemporary accounts, those of Gard¯ız¯ıand Bayhaq¯ı,we have the testimony of the eleventh-century Malikn¯ama preserved in different forms in several distinct textual witnesses and the evidence of Ghars al-Ni‘ma as transmitted by Sibt.. Yet it is often difficult or indeed impossible to tell which parts date back to the eleventh century, and which are the result of later reworkings. Although it is fair to assume that the Malikn¯ama presented the Selj¯uqsin the best possible light if it was written for Alp Arsl¯an,its complex textual history seems to reflect the grinding of many other axes, the nature or purpose of which is not entirely clear today.39 Although these problems in the sources mean that any interpretation of the period is open to challenge, the reconstruction that I offer can to some extent be tested against other evidence, as is done in Chapter 5. For the Selj¯uqconquests and settlement in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus we have Greek and, most importantly of all, contemporary or near-contemporary Armenian and Georgian chroniclers to supplement the Islamic sources. These, of course, have their own problems and biases. The main contemporary Armenian source for the Selj¯uqs, Aristakes Lastiverttsi, viewed them as a punishment from God visited on the Armenian people, and nearly as much of his work is taken up with lamentations for their fate as it is recording events. Furthermore, the Armenian historiographical tradition did not exist in complete isolation, with some authors relying on Muslim histories for their information on the Selj¯uqs.40 The Georgian chronicles, which are especially valuable for their descriptions of Selj¯uqsettlement in Caucasia, were written for the Georgian court and are anxious to portray the legitimacy of the rule of certain kings, while others are almost entirely whitewashed from the historical memory.41 However, for all their imperfections these sources offer an alternative perspective on the Selj¯uqsfrom the Muslim sources, one which also often dates back to the eleventh century. In addition, we have a growing body of archaeological

37 Ibn H. ass¯ul, Kit¯abTafd.¯ılal-Atr¯ak‘ala S¯a’iral-Ajn¯ad (Ibni˙ Hassulün Türkler hakkındaki eserinin arapça metni), A. Azzavi (ed.), Belleten 4 (1940). Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 38 For a discussion of Ibn al-Ath¯ırand his historiographical technique see D.S. Richards (tr.), The Annals of the Saljuq Turks: Selections from al-K¯amilfi ’l-Ta’r¯ıkh of ‘Izz al-D¯ın Ibn al-Ath¯ır, London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 2–8 and the references therein. 39 See further Chapter 1, pp. 27–31, 43–4. 40 D.K. Kouymjian, ‘Mxit‘ar (Mekhithar) of Ani on the rise of the Selj¯uqs’, REArm NS 6 (1969), pp. 351–53. 41 See Stephen Rapp, Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts, Louvain: Peeters, 2003. 12 Introduction evidence about eleventh-century Anatolia, although its interpretation is often problematic, and its coverage patchy. Archaeological research from Central Asia, western Iran, Iraq and Syria also sheds some light on the context of the Selj¯uq conquests. Nomads are, however, notoriously elusive in the archaeological record, so this evidence tends to be more informative about the societies the Selj¯uqs encountered than about the Türkmen tribesmen themselves.

Modern historiography on the early Selj¯uqs As remarked above, the quantity of modern scholarship on the Selj¯uqsis meagre. The publication in the late nineteenth century of the Recueil des texts relatifs à l’histoire des Seldjoucides in four volumes was perhaps the most important landmark in establishing a basis for scholarship on the dynasty, but the four texts edited by Houtsma – the works of Bund¯ar¯ı,Kirm¯an¯ı,a Persian abridgement of Ibn B¯ıb¯ı,and parts of the Ottoman adaptation of the latter – have little information of relevance to the early period under discussion here, with the exception of the first pages of Bund¯ar¯ı.Barthold’s monumental Turkestan, first published in 1900 and of value to this day, represents the first significant scholarly work on the early Selj¯uqperiod.42 However, the Selj¯uqsplay a surprisingly small role in Turkestan, and are certainly overshadowed by the S¯am¯anids,Ghaznavids and Qarakh¯anids. Barthold’s main interest in them was with regard to his eighth thesis that ‘the principle of unity of power was being weakened by the principle of clan ownership prevailing among the nomads.’43 Unlike most subsequent writers, and in contrast to the Islamic historiographical tradition, Barthold emphasised the Selj¯uqdynasty’s attachment to its nomadic roots and its rejection of the ideals of rulership and culture in the Perso-Islamic tradition, but he did conceive of the early Selj¯uqrulers as thoroughly religious,44 an opinion echoed by later writers. In Western languages, the standard study of the Selj¯uqsis the chapter by Bosworth in volume V of the Cambridge History of Iran.45 Here the Selj¯uqs are treated along with other eleventh-century dynasties, and the chapter provides an admirable narrative history to which readers of this volume should refer for a chronological outline. Rather more in the way of analysis is given in the same author’s study of the early Ghaznavid state.46 Chapters 7 and 9 of this discuss the Selj¯uqsin the context of Ghaznavid history, the former dealing with the emergence of the Selj¯uqs,the latter with the warfare between the Selj¯uqsand Ghaznavids in Khur¯as¯an.Bosworth proposed that the migration of the Selj¯uqs with their followers into Transoxiana, the event which marks the beginning of the dynasty’s rise, may have been sparked off by a lack of pastures, and the Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

42 W. Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial, 1958. 43 Ibid., p. Xx. 44 Ibid., pp. 305–09. 45 C.E. Bosworth, ‘The political and dynastic history of the Iranian world (AD 1000–1217)’ in Boyle, The Cambridge History of Iran, V, 1968, pp. 1–202. 46 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids. Introduction 13 desire for economic opportunity by serving in the military of the Qarakh¯anid and Ghaznavid states which had arisen to replace the S¯am¯anidsin Central Asia, although he admits that migrations are complex and cannot easily be pinned down to individual factors.47 The early Selj¯uqsare depicted by Bosworth as ‘barbarians’ and ‘a band of desparadoes’,48 and his account of them emulates the judgement of his Ghaznavid sources. Thus the arrival of the Türkmen in Khurasan is described as a ‘tragedy’ and they are condemned for their ‘irresponsible attitude towards nature and the land’.49 However, the Selj¯uqsthemselves are not likely to have seen their own arrival as a tragedy, and the difference between nomadic and sedentary ways of life is hardly best characterised as one of responsibility or irresponsbility. Thus while Bosworth’s study is extremely valuable for helping us understand the failures in Ghaznavid administration and military tactics that cost them Khur¯as¯an, it is of limited use in understanding the aims of the Selj¯uqsor the nature of their society. To be fair to Bosworth, as the title of his study indicates, this was not his purpose. The work on early Selj¯uqhistory by the French scholar Claude Cahen is also of prime importance.50 Cahen sought to analyse the sources for early Selj¯uqhistory and to reconstruct their emergence and invasion of Anatolia. While Cahen’s work was largely concerned with political history, he was well aware of the crucial role of the Türkmen tribesmen. However, Cahen did not really attempt to examine the reasons for the rise of the Selj¯uqs,nor to examine in depth the relationship between the Selj¯uqfamily and the tribes. The astounding success of the Selj¯uqs in conquering vast areas of the Middle East is taken for granted rather than explained. The most comprehensive work to date on the Selj¯uqsis by the Soviet scholar S.G. Agadzhanov.51 His ‘Studies on the History of the Oghuz and Türkmen of Central Asia, ninth to thirteenth centuries’52 has not, however, received much notice in the west. The same is true of his later study on the Selj¯uqstate in Central Asia, even though it has been translated into German.53 Both works are essentially attempts at reconstructing a chronological narrative history, in the first book that of the Türkmen tribes and in the second of the Selj¯uqstate in the east. The Studies does, however, contain a lengthy section on the social structure of the Türkmen tribes.54 Unfortunately, it is precisely this section that shows its age, dominated as it

47 Ibid., pp. 222–23. 48 Ibid., pp. 266–67. 49 Ibid., p. 259. 50 Collected in Cahen, Turco-Byzantina, and see also idem, ‘Le Maliknameh.’ Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 51 For a critique of Agadzhanov’s major works see Carole Hillenbrand’s review in JRAS 3rd series 6/ii (1996), pp. 253–57. 52 S.G. Agadzhanov, Ocherki Istorii Oguzov i Turkmen Srednei Azii: IX –XIII vekov, Ashkhabad: Ilım, 1969; Turkish translation, S.G. Agacanov, Oˇguzlar, Istanbul: Selenge Yayınları, 2004. 53 S.G. Agadzhanov, Gosudarstvo Seldzhukidov i Srednyaya Asiya v XI–XII vekov, Moscow: 1991; German translation S.G. Agadshanow, Der Staat der Seldschukiden und Mittelasien im 11. –12. Jahrhundert, Berlin: Reinhold Schletzer Verlag, 1994. 54 Agadzhanov, Ocherki, pp. 86–121. 14 Introduction is by outdated Soviet theoretical concepts, especially its insistence on the ‘feudal’ nature of the tribes. Chapter 2 of the present book considers Türkmen society, but it suffices to note here that ‘feudalism’ is hardly useful for understanding the society of nomadic pasturalists as it implies the holding of land as a vassal, a completely alien concept to a nomad. Agadzhanov’s work is valuable for its use of an extremely wide range of sources – although some of his references are difficult to verify, referring to manuscripts in Russian collections even when printed texts exist – but his conclusions are rendered suspect by his failure to adopt any kind of critical approach to the source material. Thus information from fourteenth- and even seventeenth-century sources is used as if it is of equal value to the testimony of Bayhaq¯ıor Gard¯ız¯ı. Turkish scholarship has long been interested in the Selj¯uqs,although little of this work has reached even an academic audience outside Turkey. A detailed chronological narrative of the Selj¯uqconquest of Anatolia was provided by Yınanç in 1944, and has been widely cited in subsequent works.55 Other notable Turkish scholars like Ibrahim˙ Kafesoˇglu56 and Mehmet Köymen57 have written detailed studies of the Selj¯uqs,which do not, however, address any of the questions that are central to this book. The nationalist school of historiography that grew up in the wake of Atatürk’s foundation of the Turkish Republic simply assumed that the Turks had a natural genius for state formation of which the Selj¯uqswere one example,58 meaning little further explanation was required. This is not a thesis that will satisfy many today. In recent years, some work by Turkish scholars has started to offer alternative perspectives on the Selj¯uqs,going beyond the chronological narratives favoured by earlier generations, although it remains to be seen whether this will attract widespread acceptance even in Turkey.59 In particular, the work of Said Polat, which draws on a wide range of comparative anthropological and ethnographic materials, marks a fresh approach. Mention should also be made of the thorough study of the mediaeval Türkmen by Faruk Sümer, which does not, however, focus on the Selj¯uqs.60

55 Mükrimin Halil Yınanç, Türkiye Tarihi, Selçuklular Devri,I:Anadolu’nun Fethi, Istanbul: Istanbul˙ Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1944. Unfortunately, Yınanç gives references to his sources only erratically making the work rather difficult to use. 56 For an introduction in English to Turkish scholarship on the Selj¯uqs,see Gary Leiser (tr. and ed.), A History of the Seljuks: Ibrahim˙ Kafesoˇglu’sInterpretation and the Resulting Controversy, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988. 57 For example, Mehmet Altay Köymen, TuˇgrulBey ve Zamanı, Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlıˇgı,1976; Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 idem, Büyük Selçuklu ImparatorluˇguTarihi˙ , Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954, 1979. 58 See for example Leiser, A History of the Seljuks,p.89 59 M. Said Polat, Selçuklu Göçerlerinin Dünyası: Karacuk’tan Aziz George Kolu’na, Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2004; Sencer Divitçioˇglu, Oˇguz’dan Selçuklu’ya: boy, konat ve devlet, Ankara: Imge,˙ 2005.The latter work sometimes contains interesting ideas, but makes no reference to primary sources in the original; it is also marred by the author’s love for neologisms. 60 Faruk Sümer, Oˇguzlar (Türkmenler): Tarihleri, Boy Te¸skilatı,Destanları, Istanbul: Türk Dünyası Ara¸stımarlarıVakfı, 1999 (5th printing). Introduction 15 Recently, some western scholars have published research which contributes to aspects of this book, notably the studies of the famous Battle of Manzikert by Carole Hillenbrand and Speros Vryonis.61 A recent work by Omid Safi has challenged the image of the Selj¯uqsas benevolent Muslim rulers, explaining how this image was promoted by later Selj¯uqrulers to bolster their legitimacy.62 However, Safi’s work focuses on Selj¯uqhistoriography and especially religious literature, less so Selj¯uqhistory itself. Our understanding of the Selj¯uqswill always be partial and unsatisfactory because of the limitations of the sources, although these repay reading and rereading for their potential has scarcely begun to be exploited. Researching the rise of the Türkmen also has implications beyond a better comprehension of the Selj¯uqdynasty. It can help us to understand both the process of islamisation among the Turks and the means by which nomadic dynasties gained dominion over the Middle East. The broader context of the success of dynasties of Turkish, nomadic, origin – Selj¯uqs,Akkoyunlu, Timurids, Ottomans, to name a few – at dominating the eastern Islamic world for 900 years is a topic for further research, in particular with regard to how these later dynasties were influenced by steppe traditions. Our aim here, however, is solely to provide a better understanding of the context of these larger questions by examing the emergence of the first and least known of the nomadic dynasties of the Islamic Middle East, the Selj¯uqs.This work is intended, then, in part as a contribution to our knowledge of the processes of nomadic state formation in the Middle East. First, however, we must turn to the most obscure element of Selj¯uqhistory, the dynasty’s origins. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

61 Hillenbrand, Turkish Myth and Muslim Symbol; Speros Vryonis Jr, ‘A personal history of the Battle of Manzikert’ in He Byzantine Mikra Asia, Athens, 1998, pp. 225–44; idem, ‘The battles of Manzikert (1071) and Myriocephalum (1176). Notes on food, water, archery, ethnic identity of foe and ally’, Mésogeios 25–26 (2005), pp. 49–69; a monograph on Manzikert by Vryonis is said to be in preparation. 62 Safi, Politics of Knowledge. 1 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs Western Eurasia and Transoxiana, c. 900–1025

The history of the Middle East is intertwined with that of the Eurasian steppe. Long before the emergence of the Selj¯uqs,the ‘Abb¯asidshad sought to exploit Turkish manpower for their armies. Byzantium, too, relied on its Turkish allies, the Khazar empire, to guard its frontiers to the north of the Black Sea. Geographers, travellers and historians from Byzantium and the Islamic Middle East preserve valuable fragments of information regarding the steppe. At the other extremity of Eurasia, Chinese sources recount the Middle Kingdom’s efforts to deal with its difficult – and often powerful – nomadic neighbours. These sources allow us to discern the broad outlines of the great migratory movements of the late first millenium from which the Selj¯uqsemerged. The Selj¯uqswere by no means the first group of Turks to come to Islamic Central Asia and Khur¯as¯an;1 nor were they the first nomadic invaders to reach the borders of Byzantium, which had been penetrated by Huns as early as the fourth century, by Sabirs, Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Pechenegs and other Altaic or Turkish groups.2 Indeed, the Selj¯uqswere not even the first to reach Anatolia, where Huns and Sabirs had preceded them,3 although they had not stayed. Compared to other Altaic peoples, the Selj¯uqs’migration was on a fairly small scale, at least initially, and even their success at seizing political power was not unique, for the Ghaznavids and Qarakh¯anidswere also Muslim, Turkish dynasties who took over the Central Asian lands of the S¯am¯anidstate, heir to ‘Abb¯asidand Iranian traditions of rulership, which collapsed at the end of the tenth century. The historical significance of the

1 Richard N. Frye and Aydın M. Sayılı, ‘The Turks in the Middle East before the Salj¯uqs’, JAOS 63/iii (1943), pp. 194–207. 2 The extent to which these groups can be described as Turkish varies, as ‘Turk’ implies a desire to be associated with the Gök Türk empire of the sixth–eighth centuries. See Peter B. Golden, ‘Imperial Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 ideology and the sources of political unity amongst the pre-Cinggisidˇ nomads of Western Eurasia’, AEMAe II (1982), pp. 39–42 (reprinted in idem, Nomads and their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe: Turks, Khazars and Qipchaqs, Aldershot: Variorum, 2003). 3 Denis Sinor, ‘Réflexions sur la presence turco-mongole dans la monde méditerranéen et pontique à l’époque pré-ottomane’, Acta Orientalia Hungariae 36 (1982), p. 495 (reprinted in idem, Studies in Medieval Inner Asia, Ashgate: Variorum, 1997); Peter B. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992, pp. 90, 105–06. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 17 Selj¯uqslies in their success at dominating the central lands of the Islamic world – the majority of the Nile to Oxus region described by Marshall Hodgson as the Islamic oikumene4 – in contrast to the Ghaznavids and Qarakh¯anidswho held sway over remote, recently converted frontier regions. However, the heritage of the steppe was to play a decisive role in early Selj¯uqpolitics and society. In this chapter, we shall review the evidence for the origins of the Selj¯uqsand their early migrations. The term Selj¯uqsrefers here to the immediate family of the dynasty’s ancestor Duq¯aq,his son Selj¯uq,and the latter’s children and grandchildren, of whom the most prominent were T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı.

Selj¯uqorigins: the Oghuz connection The meaning and pronunciation of the word Selj¯uqis obscure,5 and it first occurs as the name of an individual, not a people or tribe. Selj¯uqis said to have been the son of a chief named Duq¯aqor Tuq¯aq,6 who was probably based in the steppes lying between the Aral Sea and the Volga in the tenth century. Selj¯uqand his family are said to have belonged to the Qiniq tribe of the Oghuz, hence the common description of the Seljuqs and their supporters as al-ghuzz or al-atr¯akal-ghuzz¯ıya (ghuzz being the Arabic version of Oghuz).7 The Oghuz are encountered in the eighth-century Orkhon River inscriptions in early Turkic from Mongolia.8 However, the term Oghuz did not originally denote a people, but was rather a political term meaning a ‘tribal union’.9 Groupings called Oghuz played an important role in an earlier Central Asian Turkish empire, the Second Gök Türk Khanate, but we cannot be sure that these necessarily had any ethnic connection with the Selj¯uqsor even with the Oghuz we encounter in the tenth century around

4 Marshall G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, I: The Classical Age of Islam, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974, pp. 50, 60–2, 109–110. 5 For theories about the pronunciation and meaning of the word, see Gary Leiser (tr. and ed.), A History of the Seljuks: Ibrahim˙ Kafesoˇglu’sinterpretation and the resulting controversy, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988, pp. 21–2, 175; Golden, Introduction, p. 217. 6 Some of the tales of Selj¯uqancestry recorded in Islamic sources are reviewed with undue credulity by S.G. Agadzhanov, Ocherki Istorii Oguzov i Turkmen Srednei Azii, IX –XIII vv., Ashkhabad: Ilım, 1969, pp. 161–70 (Turkish translation, S.G. Agacanov, Oˇguzlar, Istanbul: Selenge, 2004); the genealogy tracing Selj¯uq’sdescent back to one Karakuch¯ıKhw¯aja,a maker of tents for the Turkish Khans, clearly does not derive from N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ıas Agadzhanov thought (cf. Z. ah¯ıral-D¯ınN¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı, Saljuqn¯ama, A.H. Morton (ed.), np: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004, p. 5: the ancestry is traced back no further than Selj¯uqb. Luqm¯an).It is almost certainly an Ilkh¯anidinvention, perhaps designed to Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 denigrate the prestige of the Selj¯uqfamily; for an example of the elaborated Ilkh¯anidgenealogy see Rash¯ıdal-D¯ın, J¯ami‘ al-Taw¯ar¯ıkh, II, Part 5, A. Ate¸s(ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1960, p. 5. 7 For details, see the discussion in Chapter 2. 8 Faruk Sümer, Oˇguzlar (Türkmenler): Tarihleri, Boy Te¸skilatı,Destanları, Istanbul: Türk Dünyası Ara¸stırmalarıVakfı, 1999 (5th printing), pp. 20–24. 9 Peter B. Golden, ‘The migrations of the Oˇguz’, Archivum Ottomanicum 4 (1972), p. 47 (reprinted in idem, Nomads and their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe). The Oghuz are to be distinguished from the group known to Islamic sources as the Toghuz Oghuz, who are the Uyghurs. 18 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs the Aral Sea.10 A report by an unnamed Khur¯as¯an¯ıhistorian cited by Ibn al-Ath¯ır discussing the Oghuz of twelfth-century Transoxiana who kidnapped the Selj¯uq sultan Sanjar provides one of the few pieces of evidence for their origins: ‘These Ghuzz are a people who migrated from the border region of the furthest lands of the Turks to Transoxiana in the days of al-Mahd¯ıand converted to Islam.’11 The original lands of this Oghuz grouping were thus probably in Mongolia, home to several Turkish empires. A migration into Transoxiana (or more probably the Syr Darya steppe to its north) around 158/775–169/785, the dates of the ‘Abb¯asid Caliph al-Mahd¯ı’sreign, is supported by some circumstantial evidence.12 At any rate, the eighth and early ninth centuries witnessed a chain of migrations across Eurasia; with the collapse of the Second Gök Türk Khanate in 744, a power struggle among the Turks ensued, and the movement of the Oghuz and other confederations like the Qarluqs into western Central Asia forced out the existing Turkish population, the Pechenegs, into the Ural-Itil region.13 According to Sharaf al-D¯ın Marvaz¯ı, a physician who served at the Selj¯uq court, a second major wave of migrations was precipitated by events in southern Manchuria:

To [the Turks] belong the Q¯un;they came from the land of Qit¯ay,fearing the Qit¯akh¯an.They (were) Nestorian Christians, and they had migrated from their habitat, being pressed for pastures … The Q¯unwere pursued by a people called the Q¯ay,who being more numerous and stronger than they drove them out of these [new] pasture lands. They then moved on to the territory of the Sh¯ar¯ı, and the Sh¯ar¯ımigrated to the land of the Türkmäns who in their turn shifted to the eastern parts of the Ghuzz country. The Ghuzz Turks then moved to the territory of the Bajan¯ak[Pechenegs], near the shores of the [Black]14 Sea.15

This valuable but problematic report has provoked much scholarly debate about the identity of the tribes and the date of the migrations.16 The Qit¯akh¯anis clearly

10 Golden, ‘Migrations’, pp. 48–54. 11 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amilf¯ı’l-Ta’r¯ıkh, C. Tornberg (ed.), Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,1965, XI, p. 178; c.f. Golden, Introduction, pp. 206–07. 12 Golden, ‘Migrations’, pp. 54–6. 13 Ibid., pp. 58–9. 14 Reading, as suggested by Golden, ‘The migrations of the Oˇguz’,p. 8, al-Bah.r al-R¯um¯ıya for Minorsky’s clearly erroneous Bah.r Armin¯ıya. 15 Sharaf al-Zam¯anT. ¯ahirMarvaz¯ıon China, the Turks and India, V. Minorsky (ed. and tr.), London: Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Royal Asiatic Society, 1942, p. 30. 16 See the discussion in Golden, Introduction, pp. 273–77. A useful survey of some of the older theses relating to the migrations, drawing on a wide range of Islamic sources, is to be found in Mehmet Fuad Köprülü, ‘Osmanlı Imparatorluˇgu’nunEtnik˙ Men¸seiMeseleleri’, Belleten 7 (1943), pp. 219–313, and idem, ‘Kayı Kabilesi Hakkında Yeni Notlar’, Belleten 8 (1944), pp. 421–52. Unfortunately, Köprülü’s conclusions are marred by his determination to prove that the Ottomans were of Oghuz descent and that they migrated to Anatolia in the eleventh century – propositions for which the evidence is somewhat tenuous. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 19 the Khitan ruler and the Q¯ayare generally accepted to be the people called Hsi in Chinese. The date for the Khitan attack on the Q¯ayhas been put as early as 870,17 but the Khitans – also known by their Chinese dynastic name of Liao – are generally agreed to have emerged as a major power in the first decade of tenth century.18 On the other hand, the movement of the Pechenegs into the region of the Black Sea is attested by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, a well-informed tenth- century Byzantine source;19 his account cannot refer to events any later than c. 900, and it has been argued that they should be placed around 825–865.20 It is difficult to imagine that the rise of the Khitans could have more or less simultaneously precipitated a chain reaction thousands of miles away at the other extremity of Eurasia, let alone one which may have preceded their appearance by more than 50 years. Pritsak attempted to solve the chronological difficulties by suggesting that Marvaz¯ı’s report conflates two separate but connected migratory movements westwards, the first occuring in the late ninth century, the second precipitated by the rise of the Tanguts on the eastern borders of Tibet, around 1000–1050.21 The evidence for this is complex and not wholly satisfactory, but the core of Marvaz¯ı’s information, that the rise of the Khitan dynasty set off a chain of westward migrations, is likely to be true,22 even if they cannot be held responsible for the Oghuz move into the Black Sea steppe. However, the extent and nature of these migrations is debatable, and other factors may have been at work. Evidence discussed below indicates increased aridity in Central Asia from c. 900 onwards. This may also have contributed to these migrations as sources of pasture, essential

17 Omeljan Pritsak, ‘Two migratory movements in Eurasian steppe in the 9th–11th centuries’, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Congress of Orientalists, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1964, II, pp. 157–8. 18 See in general Karl A. Wittfogel and Feng Chia-Sheng, A History of Chinese Society: Liao, 907– 1125, Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1949; Chinese chronicles note a Khitan attack on Hsi in 906, ibid., p. 574. 19 See Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, Gy. Moravcsik (ed.), R.J.H. Jenkins (tr.), Dumbarton Oaks: Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967, pp. 166–8. Further on the Pechenegs ın eastern Europe see Victor Spinei, The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century, I: Hungarians, Pechenegs and Uzes, Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 2006, pp. 161–66; Akdes Nimet Kurat, IV –XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Karadeniz Kuzeyindeki Türk Kavimleri ve Devletleri, Ankara: Murat Kitabevi, 1992, pp. 44–68. 20 Constantine states that the Oghuz made common cause with the Khazars to expel the Pechenegs from the river Itil region ‘fifty years ago’, and De Administrando Imperio was completed between 948 and 952 (De Administrando Imperio, General Introduction, p. 11); the Pechenegs’ land is Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 described as ‘neighbour to the district of Cherson’ (ibid., pp. 48–9), i.e. the Black Sea steppe near the Crimea. For the earlier date, see Mark Whittow, The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600–1025, London: MacMillan, 1996, p. 233. 21 Pritsak, ‘Two migratory movements’, p. 163; for comments on Pritsak’s hypothesis and more information on the Q¯aysee Peter B. Golden, ‘Cumanica II: The Ölberli (Ölperli): the fortunes and misfortunes of an Inner Asian nomadic clan’, AEMAe 6 (1985), pp. 16–22 (reprinted in idem, Nomads and their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe). 22 Cf. Golden, Introduction, p. 194. 20 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs for feeding the animals on which a nomadic lifestyle relies, dried up. Chinese sources record that some tribes in the tenth century starved due to drought.23 However, it is not possible to reconcile the precise details given by Marvaz¯ıwith other historical facts. Thus over the eighth to tenth centuries there were probably several migrations of groups known as Oghuz who were gradually pushed westwards from Mongolia into Central Asia, and then towards the Volga. This series of migrations lies behind the confusion in the sources about the original homeland of the Oghuz groups, which is placed by some not in Mongolia but in the area approximating the south of modern Kazakhstan and northern Kyrghyzstan, stretching from Lake Issyk Kul to Yangikant on the western extremity of the Syr Darya River, near the Aral Sea,24 and by others around Issyk Kul itself.25 Mas‘¯ud¯ıand the anonymous H. ud¯udal-‘Alam¯ (both tenth-century sources) put some Oghuz even further east on the River Irtysh, a region more generally associated with the Kimek Turks.26 All these regions are presumably ones where groups called Oghuz settled in the course of their move westwards. These waves of migrations were of the utmost significance in Eurasian history, and their effects were felt in Byzantium and eastern Europe. They are generally believed to have resulted in the establishment of an Oghuz state around the Aral Sea, between the Khazar Empire of the South Russian steppe and the Muslim S¯am¯aniddynasty in Transoxiana, bordered in the east by the Qarluq confederation that would give birth to the Qarakh¯anids,the first Muslim Turkish empire of Central Asia. With the rise of the Oghuz state an ‘essentially new ethnic grouping’ came into being,27 based on the Oghuz confederation, but incorporating other tribes or tribal unions, including groups of Qarluq and Pechenegs who had been 28 defeated by the Oghuz. Mah.m¯ud K¯ashghar¯ı,the eleventh-century lexicographer of Turkish dialects whose work is a mine of information on the Turks, claims

23 Wittfogel and Chia-Sheng, History of Chinese Society, p. 384. 24 Golden, ‘Migrations’, p. 56. 25 Agadzhanov, Ocherki, p. 127. 26 H. ud¯udal-‘Alam,¯ ‘The Regions of the World’: a Persian Geography 372 AH–982AD, V. Minorsky (tr.), Cambridge: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial, 1970, p. 75; Mas‘¯ud¯ı, Kit¯abal-Tanb¯ıh wa-’l-Ishr¯af, ‘Abdall¯ah Ism¯a‘¯ıl al-S. ¯aw¯ı (ed.), Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Ta’r¯ıkh¯ıya, 1953, p. 55; idem, Mur¯uj al-Dhahab, C. Pellat (ed.), Beirut: Université Libanaise, 1966, § 226; see discussion in Golden, ‘Migrations’, p. 71, n. 97, 98. 27 S.G. Agajanov, ‘The states of the Oghuz, the Kimek and the Kipchak’ in M.S. Asimov and C.E. Bosworth (eds.), History of Civilizations of Central Asia, IV: The Age of Achievement: A.D. 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, Delhi: Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Motilal Banarsidass, 1999, p. 64; cf. S.P. Tolstov, Po Sledam Drevne Khorezmiyskoi Tsivilizatsii, Moscow/Leningrad: Izd. Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1948, pp. 244–6; Tolstov’s thesis that the Oghuz mixed with a Hephthalite people who inhabited the region is unproven, but there is no reason why Oghuz should not have intermarried with the pre-existing peoples of the region. 28 Golden, ‘Imperial ideology’, pp. 52, 66–7, 73; Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, pp. 168–9; cf. Maqr¯ız¯ı, Kit¯abal-Sul¯ukli-Ma‘rifat Duwal al-Mul¯uk, Muh.ammad Mus.t.af¯a Ziy¯ada(ed.), Cairo: D¯aral-Kutub al-Mis.r¯ıya, 1934–72, I/i, p. 30, who describes the Oghuz as akhl¯at. min al-turk, ‘a mixture of Turks’. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 21 that the Oghuz were made up of 22 subtribes,29 of which the Qiniq of the Selj¯uqs was one. K¯ashghar¯ırates it first in prestige, but this may be a back projection from the vantage point of the late eleventh century when Selj¯uqdominance in the Middle East was assured. His comment reads, ‘The chief of [the Oghuz subtribes] is Qiniq to which our present sultans belong’.30 Given that K¯ashghar¯ıwas writing in Selj¯uqBaghdad, he was hardly likely to give the Qiniq anything other than first place. In fact, in earlier times the leading tribe among the Oghuz may have been the Salghur,31 although Selj¯uqclaims to a more illustrious lineage than other tribesmen seem to have been widely recognised even in the eleventh century (see Chapter 2, pp. 61–2). The history of the Oghuz state is almost totally obscure;32 we cannot even say with certainty when it was founded or when it disappeared: it is usually thought to have existed between the ninth and early eleventh centuries. Even the extent of the state – if we can really describe it as such33 – is debatable. It seems that by the first third of the tenth century the Oghuz occupied a broad area stretching as far west as the Volga, which was under Khazar control,34 and probably there were many Oghuz groups who were not subject to the authority of the Yabgh¯u,as the Oghuz ruler was known. It is not all clear how far the latter’s influence spread. For example, the ‘desert of the Ghuzz [i.e. Oghuz]’ in the tenth century extended as far south as the towns of Dihist¯anand Far¯ava,‘frontier post[s] against the Ghuzz’, inside the territory of Jurj¯an,a S¯am¯anidvassal principality on the Caspian.35 On the

29 Mah.m¯ud al-K¯ašgar¯ı[K¯ashghar¯ı], Compendium of the Turkic Dialects, R. Dankoff (ed. and tr.), Harvard University, 1982, I, p. 101; Minorsky, Sharaf al-Zaman, p. 29, has only 12, see also Golden, ‘Migrations’, p. 57. The statement repeated by Agadzhanov (‘The states of the Oghuz’, p. 65, Ocherki, p. 102) that there were 24 subtribes is based on K¯ashghar¯ı, Compendium, II, p. 363, but K¯ashghar¯ıspecifically states here that although in origin they were 24 tribes they should only be considered as 22, the two Khalaj¯ıyatribes being markedly different. 30 K¯ashghar¯ı, Compendium, I, p. 101. 31 Agadzhanov, Ocherki, pp. 135–7. 32 The standard, if flawed, work remains Agadzhanov, Ocherki, pp. 122–62; see also Sümer, Oˇguzlar, pp. 61–90, and C.E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids: their empire in Afghanistan and eastern Iran 994– 1040, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1963, pp. 210–18; the earliest detailed account of the Oghuz is the account of the Arab traveller Ibn Fad.l¯an dating to c. 921: see Ibn Fad.l¯an, Ris¯ala, S¯am¯ıal-Dahh¯an(ed.), Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,1993, pp. 91–106. 33 Sencer Divitçioˇglu(Oˇguz’dan Selçuklu’ya: boy, konat ve devlet, Ankara: Imge,˙ 2005, p. 23) has argued that the Oghuz political system cannot be described either as an ‘empire’ or as a ‘state’ as earlier scholars have; rather, power was shared among the component Oghuz tribes. However, the use of the title yabgh¯u does seem to indicate some pretensions to leadership, and therefore I have continued to use the term ‘state’ with the caveat that there are significant doubts as to how extensive Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 the Yabgh¯u’sauthority was. Certainly the Oghuz ‘state’ must have had a much looser structure than the S¯am¯anids,and it is unlikely that it possessed a sophisticated bureaucracy; no known numismatic evidence attests its existence. None the less, Ibn H. awqal does refer to the Oghuz ruler as if he was a conventional prince with territories and subjects, not all of them nomads: La Configuration de la Terre, J.H. Kramers and G. Wiet (tr.), Paris: Maisonneuve, 1964, II, pp. 489–90. See also n. 45 below. 34 Golden, ‘Migrations’, pp. 73–4. 35 H. ud¯ud, pp. 133–4; Ibn H. awqal, Configuration, II, pp. 373, 431. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

Figure 1.1 The Eurasian steppe and Islamic Central Asia in the second half of the tenth century. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 23

other hand, the tenth-century Arab traveller Ibn Fad.l¯an travelled in the opposite direction to reach the ‘land of the Turks’, northwest from Gurg¯anjin Khw¯arazm, the S¯am¯aniddependency closest to the Yabgh¯u’slands, and it was only after 15 days’ journey that he first encountered the Oghuz.36 Gurg¯anjwas the main trading point for the Oghuz with the outside world, yet there is no indication it was subject to the Yabgh¯u.37 On the other hand, Jand on the Syr Darya is described as one of three towns where the Yabgh¯uheld sway,38 yet in the early eleventh century was ruled by a vassal of the Khw¯arazmsh¯ah,as is discussed below. Thus there was probably no unambiguous frontier between Oghuz and Khw¯arazmian (and hence S¯am¯anid)territory, but rather a series of towns on the edge of the steppe that may have been subject to both Oghuz and Khw¯arazmianinfluence to varying degrees. At the same time, Oghuz were to be found far beyond the confines of lands that were even nominally subject to the Yabgh¯u,inside Transoxiana and Khur¯as¯anthemselves.39 Any lines on maps delineating the extent of the Yabgh¯u’s lands should be regarded as hypothetical and approximate, and probably mask a much more complex situation. The tenth century was marked by continuing hostilities between the Oghuz and the Pechenegs, some of whom probably remained in the Aral Sea region.40 Khw¯arazmwas also forced to build defences against seasonal Oghuz raids.41 However, the Oghuz also had more peaceful relations with the Muslim peoples of Transoxiana, to whom they supplied meat.42 Indeed, according to one source, there were numerous merchants among the Oghuz,43 and Idr¯ıs¯ıeven claims their animal products were exported as far away as Byzantium and Armenia.44 We have few details about the internal workings of the Oghuz state. Its ruler laid claim to steppe traditions of authority ultimately derived from the Gök-Türks through his adoption of the title Yabgh¯u,which may also have indicated his subservience to the Khazars, who claimed the supreme title of Qaghan.45 In any event, much power remained in the hands of other chiefs, bearing titles like In¯al/Yin¯al.46 According to Agadzhanov, the Oghuz state lost support due to the introduction of oppressive taxation policies in the second half of the tenth century, and this dissatisfaction was

36 Ibn Fad.l¯an, Ris¯ala, pp. 89–91. 37 Ibn H. awqal, Configuration, II, p. 460. 38 Ibid., I, pp. 48–90; C.E. Bosworth, ‘Djand’, EI 2, Supplement, pp. 244–5. 39 Frye and Aydın, ‘Turks in the Middle East’, pp. 199–201. 40 Sümer, Oˇguzlar,p.35. 41 Golden, ‘Migrations’, p. 78, n. 129; B¯ır¯un¯ı, al-Ath¯aral-B¯aq¯ıya‘an¯ al-Qur¯unal-Kh¯al¯ıya, E. Sachau Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 (ed.), Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1928, p. 236. 42 Is.t.akhr¯ı, Mas¯alikal-Mam¯alik, M.J. de Goeje (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 1927, p. 388; Ibn H. awqal, Configuration, II, pp. 434, 447. 43 H. ud¯ud, p. 100. 44 Idr¯ıs¯ı, Opus Geographicum, E. Cerulli et al. (eds.), Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1972, p. 839. 45 Golden, ‘Imperial ideology’, pp. 66–7. 46 Ibn Fad.l¯an, Ris¯ala, pp. 97, 101, 103. 24 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs one of the factors that precipitated the Selj¯uqrebellion.47 However, as Agadzhanov himself observes, the Oghuz state was certainly not a centralised political entity,48 and the evidence for such a taxation system is slight (see below, pp. 26, 38), although doubtless the Yabgh¯udid find ways to profit from trade. To pinpoint a precise location associated with the Selj¯uqsin the enormous region the Oghuz are known to have settled is difficult, as the clues are contradictory. If we accept the evidence of the Malikn¯ama which associates the Selj¯uqs’origins with the Khazar empire (discussed below), they are likely to have been active in the Khazar–Oghuz borderland to the northwest of the Aral Sea.49 Other evidence, however, would place Selj¯uqorigins at the eastern extremity of the Syr Darya, especially the region of the Qarachuq mountains (today the Kara Tau). This is suggested by references to the name Qarachuq in the Turkish heroic tales known as Dede Korkut, which were recorded in Anatolia in the fifteenth century but clearly retain reminiscences of the early history of the Turks in the wake of their conversion to Islam.50 The thirteenth-century king of Armenian Cilicia – a neighbour of the Selj¯uqsof R¯um– passed by Qarachuq on his return from an embassy to the Mongol Great Khan, and remarked that it was the place from which the Selj¯uqsoriginated.51 Despite the vast distances involved, the Selj¯uqsmay have migrated seasonally between both regions: this is what Maqr¯ız¯ı,a fifteenth-century source, tells us.52 Ibn al-Ath¯ıralso mentions eleventh-century Turks whose summer pastures were in Bulgh¯arand winter ones in Bal¯asagh¯un,a comparable distance.53 However, the sources associating the Selj¯uqswith the eastern Syr Darya are fairly late, and they may simply place them there because of the area’s traditional association with the Oghuz. The Oghuz state collapsed in the late tenth or early eleventh century in circumstances which remain obscure.54 Pritsak’s widely accepted argument suggests that the Oghuz state fell because of pressure from the Qipchaqs, who in the mid-eleventh century became the main power in the western steppe. His evidence for this is that Ab¯u’l-Faw¯arisSh¯ah-Malikb. ‘Al¯ı,ruler of Khw¯arazm, was forced to flee his lands in 1041, to take refuge in Iran. Pritsak, like Agadzhanov

47 Agadzhanov, Ocherki, p. 154. 48 Ibid., p. 139. 49 See Claude Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nameh et l’histoire des origins seldjukides’, Oriens 2/i (1949), p. 42; Agadzhanov would rather locate the Selj¯uqhome further east, in the middle reaches of the Syr Darya (Ocherki, p. 174–5). 50 Sümer, Oˇguzlar, p. 63; Dede Korkut Oˇguznameleri, S. Tezcan and H. Boeschoten (eds.), Istanbul: Yapı Kredi, 2001, pp. 50, 51, 243, 244; Geoffrey Lewis (tr.), The Book of Dede Korkut, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974, p. 43. 51 J.A. Boyle, ‘The journey of Hetum I, King of Little Armenia, to the court of the Great Khan Möngke’, Central Asiatic Journal 4/iii (1964), p. 184; K¯ashghar¯ı, Compendium, I, p. 362 confirms Qarachuq town (F¯ar¯ab)belonged to the Oghuz. 52 Maqr¯ız¯ı, Kit¯abal-Sul¯uk, I/i, p. 30. 53 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 520–1. 54 Omeljan Pritsak, ‘Der Untergang des Reiches des O˙guzischenYab˙gu’, Mélanges Fuad Köprülü, Istanbul: Ankara Dil ve Tarih-CoˇgrafyaFakültesi, 1953, pp. 397–410. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 25 later,55 identified Sh¯ah-Malikb. ‘Al¯ıas the son of the last Yabgh¯u,and suggested that he had been unable to succeed his father because of Qipchaq expansion. The identification of this ‘Al¯ıand Sh¯ah-Malikwith the family of the Oghuz yabgh¯us is suggested by Rash¯ıd al-D¯ın’s fourteenth-century J¯ami‘ al-Taw¯ar¯ıkh56 and Ab¯u’l-Gh¯az¯ı’sseventeenth-century ¸Secere-iTer¯akima, which relies substantially on the former.57 The evidence of Bayhaq¯ıleaves no doubt that Sh¯ah-Malikwas an historical personage, who was governor of Jand on behalf of the Khw¯arazmians, and who did indeed have a deep-rooted hostility to the Selj¯uqs.58 However, as Sümer has observed, there is nothing in the early sources that warrants linking the Sh¯ah-Malikof Jand with the Oghuz Yabgh¯u,or that explains how the latter would end up as a Khw¯arazmiangovernor.59 The identification is probably a typical attempt of later sources to iron out the obscurities of the traditions they inherited. While Rash¯ıdal-D¯ın’swork is an invaluable repository of Turkish lore and legends, this section is full of mythological and ahistorical elements, such as the stories of the Oghuz khan and his campaigns throughout the Muslim world, as far as Kurdistan, Iraq and Anatolia. Rash¯ıdal-D¯ın’sconflation of the Sh¯ah-Malik of Jand with the Oghuz ruler cannot be accepted as historical fact, and consequently Pritsak’s argument is greatly weakened. The other supposed element in the Oghuz state’s collapse was the Selj¯uqs,60 for which some evidence is offered by Marvaz¯ıin his account of the migrations of the Turkic tribes, if one understands the Selj¯uqsand their followers to be implied by the term Türkmen:

When [the Ghuzz] came into contact with Muslim countries some of them embraced Islam; these were called Türkmäns. Open war broke out between them and the others who had not accepted the faith, but in the end the Muslims became numerous, made an excellent profession, and overwhelmed the infidels and drove them out. The latter quitted Khw¯arazmand migrated to the region of the Bajan¯ak(Pechenegs). The Türkmän spread throughout the Islamic lands and there displayed an excellent character, so much so that they ruled over the greater part of these territories, becoming kings and sultans.61

As in the previous passage discussed, Marvaz¯ı’saccount does contain an element of truth. Non-Muslim Oghuz did migrate towards the Black Sea steppe, pushing

55 Agadzhanov, Ocherki, pp. 151–3. 56 Rash¯ıdal-D¯ın, J¯ami‘ al-Taw¯ar¯ıkh:T¯ar¯ıkh-iUgh¯uz, Muh.ammad Rawshan (ed.), Tehran, M¯ır¯ath-i Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Makt¯ub,1384, pp. 90–96; A. Zeki Velidi Togan, Oˇguz Destanı: Re¸sideddinOˇguznamesi,Tercüme ve Tahlili, Istanbul, Ahmed Sait Matbaası, 1972, pp. 71–5. 57 Ebulgazi Bahadır Han, ¸Secere-iTer¯akime(Türkmenlerin Soykütüˇgü), Zuhal Kargı Ölmez (ed.), Ankara: Simurg, 1996, pp. 196–205. 58 Bayhaq¯ı, Tar¯ıkh, Khal¯ılKhat.¯ıbRahbar (ed.), Tehran: Intish¯ar¯at-iMiht¯ab,1376, pp. 1115–6. 59 Sümer, Oˇguzlar, pp. 85–6. 60 Agadzhanov, Ocherki, p. 154. 61 Minorsky, Sharaf al-Zam¯an,p.29. 26 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs the Pechenegs out, probably in the late tenth to early eleventh century; this, at any rate, is when the Pechenegs started appearing in the Balkans.62 Much more problematic is Marvaz¯ı’sstatement that the Türkmen forced the Oghuz to migrate. The distinction between the two groups is, as Marvaz¯ıhimself says, that the Türkmen were Ghuzz/Oghuz who had embraced Islam (although see further Chapter 2, pp. 48–53).63 However, there had long been Muslim Oghuz, who are mentioned by Ibn Fad.l¯an, Ibn H. awqal and Mas‘¯ud¯ı,although the name Türkmen is only attested in the later part of the tenth century.64 A simple distinction between non-Muslim Oghuz and Muslim Türkmen is not supported by the evidence, and no other source indicates Türkmen were behind the Oghuz migrations westwards. Therefore, although there is some historical basis to this passage – the migrations of the Pechenegs under Oghuz pressure – the Türkmen connection is unproven and indeed unlikely. A clue as to Marvaz¯ı’sintention is given by the last line, where he refers to the Türkmen becoming ‘kings and sultans’ in the lands of Islam. We know from the author’s own testimony that he was associated with the Selj¯uqsultan 65 Maliksh¯ahand his vizier Niz. ¯amal-Mulk, and thus the Selj¯uqcourt. This passage, coming at the start of Marvaz¯ı’ssection the Turks, is clearly intended to defuse any awkwardness about the pagan ancestry of the Selj¯uqdynasty by stressing the heroic struggle of the Türkmen against the non-Muslim Oghuz, and cannot be taken at face value. In short, we have no solid evidence that the Selj¯uqswere involved in the collapse of the Oghuz state, or even that they had much connection with the Yabgh¯uat all. They may have encountered him or his agents in Jand, but on the other hand the Oghuz yabgh¯usmay have already been defunct by then, as the presence of a Khw¯arazmiangovernor attested by Bayhaq¯ıindicates. In fact, we have no clear evidence about how the Oghuz state collapsed; perhaps the most likely explanation is Pritsak’s Qipchaq one, but it remains a surmise. The Oghuz of the eastern Syr Darya were probably absorbed by the Qarakh¯anids, but elsewhere, on Manqishlaq for instance, pagan Oghuz groups survived into the twelfth century.66 The migration of pagan Oghuz towards the Black Sea and eastern Europe in the early eleventh century may also have been connected with Qipchaq pressure and the fall of the Yabgh¯u,but possibly was entirely unrelated, at least to the latter event, for Oghuz on the Volga would not necessarily have been affected by developments in Yangikant with which they may have had few links. However, it is also quite likely that the Oghuz state, such as it was, just disintegrated of its own accord and was not immediately replaced by a clear political entity;

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 62 Spinei, The Great Migrations, I, pp. 175–6, 188, 283–4; Golden, ‘Migrations’, pp. 80–83; however, see Whittow, The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, pp. 231–3. 63 Minorsky, Sharaf al-Zam¯an,p.29. 64 Golden, ‘The migrations’, p. 74; idem, Introduction, p. 211; Ibn Fad.l¯an, Ris¯ala, pp. 92, 97–8; Ibn H. awqal, Configuration, II, pp. 488–90; Mas‘¯ud¯ı, Mur¯uj, § 223. 65 Albert Z. Iskandar, ‘A doctor’s book on zoology: al-Marvaz¯ı’s T. ab¯a’i’al-H. ayaw¯an (Nature of Animals) reassessed’, Oriens 27 (1981), pp. 271–2. 2 66 Yu. Bregel, ‘Mangishlak.’, EI , VI, pp. 415–6. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 27 the Oghuz did not have to have a state to survive, as the example of Manqishlaq suggests.

The origins of the Selj¯uqs:the Khazar connection Early sources link the Selj¯uqs to the Khazar empire, a state based in the South Russian steppe which was largely ethnically Turkish but Jewish in faith, at least among the elite. The Malikn¯ama tradition affirms this, as does an independent reference in Ibn H. ass¯ul’swork on the virtues of the Turks. M¯ırkhw¯andoffers the most detailed account:

The compiler of the book of the Malikn¯ama has related that the Turks of the Khazar steppe called [Du]q¯aqTemüryaligh, which means strong bow. He possessed penetrating judgement and sound advice, and his total courage and boldness was famous. The king of the Khazars, known as the Yabgh¯u,67 would never give orders regarding any important matter for his people without consulting him. One day by chance Yabgh¯udesired to harm a group of Turks who had committed no crime. When Duq¯aqheard about this, he went in anger to the king and addressed him furiously. He spoke harshly and the king’s heart was overcome by anger. He brandished a sword at Duq¯aq,and when the sword struck him, blood was shed. In a total fury, Duq¯aqthrow a mace [‘am¯ud]at the Yabgh¯uso that his head split, and he fell off his horse. The translator of the book of the Malikn¯ama68 relates that ‘this was in the presence of an assembly of Turks and a meeting of their elders and leaders, and their wise nobles and chiefs.’69 As it was the custom of the Khazar people that no one, weak70 or strong, noble or low, should be killed without an investigation, although the king of the Khazars had mounted his horse and ordered Duq¯aqto be captured and killed, the notables hesitated. Duq¯aqshouted out to the gathering, ‘My only crime is that I prevented the Yabgh¯ufrom an evil deed which would harm many Turks and the famous people of the kingdom. I kept him from doing that which would unquestionably lead to the destruction of the country and the end of his kingship [salt.anat]… 71

The notables managed to calm down the Yabgh¯u,and Duq¯aqemerged from the affair with increased prestige. Soon afterwards, Duq¯aq’sson Selj¯uqwas born. After Duq¯aq’sdeath, the Yabgh¯uhonoured Selj¯uqand promoted him to s¯ub¯ash¯ı,

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 67 The text has Baygh¯u,which was also a Turkish title and is frequently confused with Yabgh¯u,which is graphically very similar. As the protagonist is clearly the Khazar leader, I prefer Yabgh¯uasthe senior title. 68 The original has kit¯ab-imalik N¯as.ir, which makes no sense. I assume N¯as.ir is a mistake for the graphically close n¯ama. 69 This passage is quoted in Arabic in the original. 70 Reading d.a‘¯ıf for the clearly erroneous d.¯ı‘at of the text. 71 M¯ırkhw¯and, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, pp. 235–6. 28 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs meaning the commander of the army. Selj¯uq’sstatus increased day by day until he became the object of envy on the part of the notables and even the family of the Yabgh¯u.The latter’s wife, upset that Selj¯uqwas favoured above her and her children, insinuated to him that Selj¯uqwas plotting his overthrow. ‘Selj¯uq got wind of this and thought about how to save himself; he decided to flee into exile, and when he had come to his decision, he set off in the direction of Samarqand.’72 The Selj¯uqs’early association with the Khazars is mentioned, albeit it much more briefly, in other sources which draw on the Malikn¯ama. Bar Hebraeus writes:

When the Khak.ân of the Khazars burst forth, he had with him in his service a certain warrior whose name was Tuk.âk., who because of his strength, was called Temuryaligh, that is to say ‘Iron bow’. There was a son born to this man and he was called by the name of Saljuk.. And after a short time the Amir Tuk.âk. died and Khak.ân took Saljuk. and he was reared in his palace and he loved him greatly.73

In Bar Hebraeus’s account too, the Kh¯aq¯an’swife’s jealousy forces Selj¯uqto flee; however, the tale of Duq¯aq’sfight with the Khazar ruler is omitted. Nor is there any mention of it in Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım(d. 1262), who states that the author of the Malikn¯ama’s source was the Am¯ırIn¯anjBeg, ‘the eldest of the people [i.e. the Turks or the Selj¯uqs]and the most knowledgeable about their lineages and descent’. In¯anjBeg is quoted as saying, ‘the am¯ırSelj¯uqb. Duq¯aqwas one of nobles of the Khazar Turks (min a‘y¯anTurk Khazar)’, and that Duq¯aqwas also known as Temüryaligh. His son Selj¯uqhad the title s¯ub¯ash¯ı, and four sons, M¯ık¯a’¯ıl, M¯us¯a,Arsl¯anYabgh¯uand another who died in his youth.74 The Khazar story is also mentioned briefly by Ibn T. iqt.iq¯a,also writing in the thirteenth century:

[The Selj¯uqs’]origin is from the Khazar Turks, and they served with the kings of the Turks. Their ancestor Selj¯uqgrew up with evident signs of his nobility, and indications of good fortune apparent in his movements. He drew near to the king of the Turks, who favoured him and gave him the title of s¯ub¯ash¯ı, which means commander of the army in their language.

The story of the ‘wife of the king of the Turks’ and her jealousy, missing in Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım,is repeated here.75 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

72 Ibid., IV, p. 236. 73 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, Ernest A. Wallis Budge (tr.), London: Oxford University Press, 1932, I, p. 195. 74 Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım, Bughyat al-T. alab f¯ıTa’r¯ıkhH. alab, Ali Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1976, p. 32. 75 Ibn al-T. iqt.iq¯a, al-Fakhr¯ıf¯ı ’l-¯ad¯abal-sult.¯an¯ıyawa-’l-duwal al-isl¯am¯ıya, Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,1966, p. 292. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 29 The Khazars are also alluded to in a slightly different form by a very early source indeed, Ibn H. ass¯ul,who wrote in the mid-eleventh century. In the extant introduction to his lost Tafd.¯ılal-Atr¯ak, Ibn H. ass¯ulremarks:

As for the genealogy of this sultan [T. ughril]: its honour does not go back to a low slave and someone completely obscure, as others’ do [meaning the Ghaznavids]. Among his ancestors is Sarjuq who struck the king of the Khazars with his sword, and crushed him with a mace [‘am¯ud] which was in his hand, so that [the king’s] horse sank to the ground and he fell on his face. This is something that could only be done by a free spirit, and an ambition that rises above [the star] Capella. From this the Selj¯uqstate began, and their mission was born.76

Sarjuq, a form attested in Armenian sources but not other Islamic ones,77 is clearly Selj¯uq.The story of Duq¯aq’sattack on the Khazar ruler is here transposed to Selj¯uq, but other details remain the same, such as the ‘am¯ud or mace used to fell the king. However, a significant group of sources derived from the Malikn¯ama have similar stories of Selj¯uqorigins, but make no mention of the Khazars. H. usayn¯ıand Ibn al-Ath¯ırare examples of this. In places their accounts are almost word-for-word the same as the version preserved by M¯ırkhwand.For example, M¯ırkhwandwrites of Duq¯aq:

Dar tanz.¯ım-imas. ¯alih.-i mulk, r¯ay-ith¯aqibva tadb¯ır¯ı-yis. ¯a’ibd¯ashtva kam¯al-i shaj¯a‘at va shah¯amat-i¯udar alsina d¯ayirb¯ud78

H. usayn¯ıhas: Wa-k¯anaDuq¯aqrajulan shahman s. ¯ah.ib ra’y wa-tadb¯ır79 Ibn al-Ath¯ırhas: Wa-k¯anashahman, dh¯ara’y wa-tadb¯ır80

M¯ırkhw¯and’sversion is somewhat elaborated, in keeping with the literary style of his day, but it is probable that the original Malikn¯ama text described Duq¯aqas shahm and s. ¯ah.ib ra’y wa-tadb¯ır, or a similar phrase, as this vocabulary is common to all three later texts. Given these striking resemblances, it is intriguing that that the Khazar references are entirely omitted by H. usayn¯ıand Ibn al-Ath¯ır.Instead, Duq¯aqis said to have had a dispute with the Yabgh¯u,who is described as malik al-Turk, king of the Turks. There is no mention of the episode with the mace found Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

76 Ibn H. ass¯ul, Kit¯abTafd.¯ılal-Atr¯ak‘al¯as¯a’ir al-ajn¯ad (Ibni˙ Hassulün Türkler hakkındaki eserinin arapça metni), A. Azzavi (ed.), Belleten 4 (1940), pp. 49–50. 77 D.K. Kouymjian, ‘Mxit‘ar of Ani on the rise of the Seljuqs’, REArm NS 6 (1969), pp. 347–8. 78 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, p. 225. 79 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯aral-Dawla al-Salj¯uq¯ıya, Muh.ammad Iqb¯al(ed.), Beirut: D¯aral-Af¯aqal-Jad¯ıda,¯ 1984, p. 1. 80 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 473. 30 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs

in Ibn H. ass¯uland M¯ırkhwand’sversion of the Malikn¯ama; rather, the dispute came about because the Yabgh¯uwished to invade the Muslim lands (bil¯adal-Isl¯am), and Duq¯aqtried to stop him. The story of the king’s wife’s jealousy is, however, preserved rather awkwardly in Ibn al-Ath¯ırand H. usayn¯ı,as is the claim that Selj¯uq was given the title s¯ub¯ash¯ı. The elements regarding the Yabgh¯u’sinvasion of the Islamic lands are clearly a later addition from a common source, as is demonstrated by the similar phraseology in H. usayn¯ıand Ibn al-Ath¯ır:

H. usayn¯ı: Fa-’ttafaqa annahu ‘abb¯a‘as¯akirahudh¯atyawmin li-yatawajjaha tilq¯a’a bil¯adal-isl¯amfa-nah¯aal-am¯ırDuq¯aq‘an dh¯alika. Ibn al-Ath¯ır: Yabgh¯ujama‘a ‘as¯akirahuwa-ar¯adaal-mas¯ıril¯abil¯adal-isl¯amfa-nah¯ahu Duq¯aq‘an dh¯alika.

The common elements of vocabulary – ‘as¯akirahu,bil¯adal-isl¯am,nah¯a… ‘an dh¯alika – must derive from a common source for H. usayn¯ı and Ibn al-Ath¯ır’s Khazarless version. We may postulate that the original version of the Malikn¯ama contained the references to the Khazars. This is supported by Ibn H. ass¯ul’seleventh-century text, and the later references in Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım,Bar Hebraeus and M¯ırkhwand,all of whom explicitly quote the Malikn¯ama as their source. Both H. usayn¯ıand Ibn al-Ath¯ırwere writing in the first third of the thirteenth century; sometime in the intervening period, a variant text of the Malikn¯ama must have come into circulation. The new text clearly aimed to associate the Selj¯uqswith Islam from the earliest times, even before they had converted, and so had a legitimatory purpose. It is tempting to suggest that the Selj¯uqsthemselves were closely involved with the decision to rewrite their early history. Very little Selj¯uqhistoriography survives, and what does comes from the end of the Selj¯uqperiod. It is nonetheless revealing. N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı’s Salj¯uqn¯ama, composed before 581/1186 and written for the last Selj¯uqsultan 81 T. ughril b. Arsl¯an, entirely jettisons the Malikn¯ama account, and even gives the dynasty a new genealogy, calling them ‘the house of Selj¯uqb. Luqm¯an’.N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı offers no information about their early history except to say that they came from the land of the Turks to Transoxiana with many horses and possessions.82 R¯avand¯ı, whose family had served in Selj¯uqcourt circles in Iran and who dedicated his R¯ah.at al-S.ud¯ur to the Selj¯uqsultan of R¯um,Ghiy¯athal-D¯ınKaykhusraw I, around 601/1204–5,83 is no more forthcoming, although he drops Luqm¯anfrom the Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

81 N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı, Salj¯uqn¯ama, Introduction, pp. 2, 45, 48; Persian text, p. 3. 82 Ibid., p. 5. 83 Julie Scott Meisami, Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999, pp. 238–9. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 31 84 85 genealogy. Although H. usayn¯ıwas writing after T. ughril b. Arsl¯an’sdeath, he looked back on Selj¯uqrule as a golden age of justice,86 and his work may therefore be considered a type of legitimatory history. The history of Is.fah¯an¯ı,who drew on the memoirs of the Selj¯uqvizier An¯ushirw¯anb. Kh¯alid(d. 532/1137–8 or the following year), is more difficult to assess, because although the author saw Maliksh¯ah’sreign as a period of justice, after which decline had set in, he was distinctly hostile to the Turks who first invaded Iran. An¯ushirw¯an’sview of the Selj¯uqs,from whom he was forced to flee into exile, was doubtless coloured by the 87 failure of his political career. So although Is.fah¯an¯ıclearly had access to detailed information originating from the Selj¯uqcourt, he and his sources are completely uninformative on Selj¯uqorigins. In sum, texts associated with the Selj¯uqcourt and Selj¯uqlegitimacy from the twelfth century onwards avoid any mention at all of the Khazars, and are silent on the pre-Transoxianan period. Indeed, post-eleventh-century references to the Khazars, even when recorded in works reliant on the Malikn¯ama, are only ever found in works by authors who were not associated with the Selj¯uqs.Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım, Bar Hebraeus, Ibn al-T. iqt.iq¯a(all writing in the thirteenth century) and M¯ırkhwand had no connection with the Selj¯uqcourt at all. At some point, perhaps in the later eleventh or twelfth century, the Khazar connection was felt to be no longer relevant or perhaps even desirable, and a revised version of Selj¯uqorigins, reflected in H. usayn¯ıand Ibn al-Ath¯ır’scommon source, was circulated. In this the Khazar ruler became simply the king of the Turks and the story of Duq¯aq’sattempt to prevent him attacking the Muslims was inserted. Finally, by the late twelfth century, any mention of the early history of the Selj¯uqswas banished from Selj¯uq historiography, as is reflected in N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı’stext, and an attempt was made to link the dynasty to the figure of Luqm¯an.The latter, alluded to briefly in the Qur’¯an, was a popular hero, sage and ascetic, and was probably intended to bolster Selj¯uq claims to legitimacy by linking the dynasty to a Qur’¯anicfigure.88 However, the older version of the Malikn¯ama’s text remained available, and this was used by writers like Bar Hebraeus, M¯ırkhwandand Ibn al-T. iqt.iq¯a(see Figure 1.2). This must remain a hypothesis unless variant versions of the Malikn¯ama’s text come to light, although we know from other examples that it was common practice both for the original author and later copyists to rework texts, especially historical texts, to suit contemporary political requirements.89 However, the evidence of

84 R¯avand¯ı, R¯ah.at al-S.ud¯urwa-Ay¯atal-Sur¯ur¯ , Muh.ammad Iqb¯al(ed.), London: Gibb Memorial Series, 1921, pp. 86–7. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 85 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar, pp. 194–5. 86 Ibid., p. 196. 87 On this see David Durand-Guédy, ‘Mémoires d’exilés: lecture de la chronique des Salj¯uqidesde ‘Im¯adal-D¯ınIs.fah¯an¯ı’, Studia Iranica 35 (2006), esp. pp. 196–7. 2 88 On him see B. Heller and N.A. Stillman, ‘Luk.m¯an’, EI , V, pp. 811–3. 89 In general, see A.C.S. Peacock, Mediaeval Islamic Historiography and Political Legitimacy: Bal‘am¯ı’s T¯ar¯ıkhn¯ama, London: Routledge, 2007, esp. pp. 141–66; idem, ‘Utb¯ı’s al-Yam¯ın¯ı: composition, patronage and reception’, Arabica 54/iv (2007), pp. 520–21. 32 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs

Figure 1.2 Diagram of the postulated relationship between sources reliant on the ∗ Malikn¯ama. Entirely lost sources are marked with . For the purposes of simplicity, it is assumed that the Arabic authors Ibn T. iqt.iq¯aand Ibn al-Ad¯ım had access to the Malikn¯ama through the Arabic translation mentioned by M¯ırkhwand. However, it is not impossible the original Persian was available to them. Similar uncertainty concerns Bar Hebraeus’ Syriac text.

Ibn H. ass¯uland later versions of the Malikn¯ama indicates that in the mid-eleventh century, the Selj¯uqsbelieved – or at the very least wanted others to believe – they had been associated with the Khazars. It remains open to debate whether this reflects historical reality. Cahen, for example, has cast doubt on how the term Khazar in the Malikn¯ama should be interpreted: ‘Par ‘khazar’ il ne faut sans doubte pas entendre une appartenance ethnique ou politique précise’.90 Rather, he suggests, we should envisage the Khazar Yabgh¯uas being a non-Muslim Turkish chief, perhaps nominally subject to the Khazar empire, somewhere in the Volga to Aral region. However, the evidence of Ibn H. ass¯uldoes not support this interpretation. Clearly, Selj¯uq’sachievement in felling the Khazar king is meant to be an event of huge significance, not an attack on some obscure nomadic tribal leader. Both Ibn H. ass¯ul’s Tafd.¯ıl al-Atr¯ak and the Malikn¯ama were legitimatory texts, dedicated to T. ughril and Alp Arsl¯an,respectively. The audience is surely meant to admire the audacity and bravery of Selj¯uq/Duq¯aqin overthrowing a great ruler. By Khazar, we are clearly meant to understand the

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Khazar empire. However, just because the Selj¯uqswanted people to believe they had been associated with the Khazars, it does not mean they actually were. New dynasties frequently forged genealogies to bolster their legitimacy by associating themselves

90 Cahen, ‘Le Maliknameh’, p. 42. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 33 with a more illustrious ancestor. The Ghaznavids claimed descent from the last S¯as¯anian shah, Yazdagird III, and the Qarakh¯anids were said to be the descendants of Afr¯as¯ıy¯ab,the Turanian (i.e. Turkish) king famous from Firdaws¯ı’s Sh¯ahn¯ama.91 In Bosworth’s judgement, ‘the tale [of the Khazar connection] may have arisen in order to connect the Selj¯uqclan, part of a tribal group that was, amongst the Turks of Central Asia, at a particularly low social and cultural level, with a powerful and well-known group like the Khazars of South Russia’.92 However, it would be quite a strange story to invent in the eleventh century, after the fall of the Khazar empire, for it probably did not have any particular resonance in mid-eleventh-century Iran and Iraq when the Malikn¯ama and the Tafd.¯ılal-Atr¯ak were composed. All other contemporary Islamic sources avoid any mention of the Khazar connection. For instance, Gurg¯an¯ı’s V¯ısuR¯am¯ın was composed around 432–6/1040–45, making it roughly contemporary with the Tafd.¯ıl. Despite a long introduction in praise of T. ughril vaunting the Selj¯uqs’superiority to the S¯as¯anians and the S¯am¯anids,there are no Khazar references.93 B¯akharz¯ı,an official in the ret- inue of T. ughril’s vizier Kundur¯ı,is also completely silent about the Khazars in his 94 encomium addressed to T. ughril, and such examples from panegyric poetry could be multiplied. Thus while the story of Duq¯aq/Selj¯uq’sattack on the Khazar king was clearly meant to impress its original audience with this feat of daring against a great ruler, this audience was not the elite of eleventh century Iran or Iraq. If the Selj¯uqshad wanted to invent a connection to some ancient dynasty to bolster their legitimacy in the mid-eleventh century, there were plenty of alternatives available to them which would have made a much greater impression on their subjects than a tale connected with a distant, defunct and largely unknown Jewish empire. It is possible, however, that the Khazar story was designed to strengthen the Selj¯uqs’credibility among their own tribal supporters. The Khazars saw themselves as the legitimate successors to the imperial traditions of the Gök-Türks, and indeed their qaghans may have been descended from the same Ashina clan that that had ruled the Gök-Türk empire.95 At least a nod towards the continuation of these steppe political traditions among the Selj¯uqsis suggested by the title Yabgh¯u, which appears among members of the family as a personal name (M¯us¯aYabgh¯u, Arsl¯anYabgh¯u).96 Yet unlike many other Turkish Muslim dynasties, including

91 See C.E. Bosworth, ‘The heritage of rulership in early Islamic Iran and the search for dynastic connections with the past’, Iran 11 (1973), pp. 51–62. 92 Ibid., p. 62. 93 Fakhr al-D¯ınGurg¯an¯ı, V¯ısuR¯am¯ın, Muh.ammad Rawshan (ed.), Tehran, S. ad¯a-yiMu‘¯as.ir, 1377, pp. 24–8. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 94 B¯akharz¯ı, D¯ıw¯an, Muh.ammad al-T¯unj¯ı(ed.), Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,1994, pp. 134–7. 95 Golden, ‘Imperial ideology’, pp. 58–61. 96 For the use of this title among the Khazars see Peter B. Golden, Khazar Studies: An Historico- philological Inquiry into the Origins of the Khazars, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980, I, pp. 187–90. M¯ırkhwand,as cited above, refers to the Khazar ruler as Yabgh¯u,a position junior to the Kh¯aq¯an.Whether this reflects some a genuine confusion in the terminology or anything more profound is impossible to tell, as Bar Hebraeus uses Kh¯aq¯aninstead of Yabgh¯u.Which was used in the original text of the Malikn¯ama, let alone the oral traditions of In¯anjBeg, is impossible to tell. 34 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs the Qarakh¯anids,the Selj¯uqsnever lay full claim to the Gök-Türk inheritance by adopting the supreme title of Qaghan (or Kh¯anin its more familiar Persianate guise). Even more telling, perhaps, is the fact that K¯ashghar¯ıdoes not mention the Khazars at all in his account of the Turkish tribes, casting doubt on their relevance even from a Turkish point of view in the eleventh century. This may suggest that the tales of the Selj¯uqsand the Khazars are not a later legitimatory fiction, but rather a genuine reminiscence from the tenth century, when the Khazar empire was indeed a force to be reckoned with. Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım’sevidence that the tale was related by In¯anjBeg, an expert in Turkish genealogies, clearly points to the existence of a Turkish oral tradition upon which the author of the Malikn¯ama drew.97 Certainly, there is nothing intrinsically improbable about such a Selj¯uq–Khazar connection. Mas‘¯ud¯ı– a tenth-century author writing before the rise of the Selj¯uqs, with no legitimatory axe to grind – records Oghuz attacks on the Khazar capital in winter,98 while Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentions an Oghuz–Khazar alliance against the Pechenegs.99 Furthermore, the Khazar connection may be represented by the names of Selj¯uq’ssons, M¯ık¯a’¯ıl(Michael), M¯us¯a(Moses), Y¯usuf(Joseph) and Isr¯a’¯ıl (Israel).100 Although these can also be Muslim names, some more common (like M¯us¯a),some less so (like Isr¯a’¯ıl),it is certainly striking that all these names are so redolent of the Old Testament, and this may well indicate some kind of association with Judaism through the Khazars. These names were replaced in future generations either with ones which were unambiguously Turkish 101 (Qutlumush, Ert¯ash,Alp Arsl¯an)or Muslim (Muh.ammad, ‘Uthm¯an). Given the dubious nature of the sources associating the Selj¯uqswith the Oghuz Yabgh¯u,the lack of any obvious reason to invent the Khazar story, and the names of Selj¯uq’ssons, we must conclude that the extant evidence suggests that the origins of the Selj¯uqsdid indeed lie in the Khazar empire. The Khazars succumbed to an attack by the Rus’ which destroyed their capital Itil in 965.102 Most probably Selj¯uq or Duq¯aqwas a local chief who perhaps split away from the empire around the time

97 In¯anj is a fairly common Turkish name, but this was perhaps the In¯anj Beg who initially administered the oath of allegiance as sultan for Sulaym¯anon T. ughril’s death, but emulated the vizier Kundur¯ıin changing sides to support Alp Arsl¯an(see Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯atal-Zam¯an, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-CoˇgrafyaFakültesi, 1968, pp. 108–11). Whether he is identical with the In¯anjBaygh¯uto whom Alp Arsl¯anawarded M¯azand¯ar¯anis more debatable (Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, X, p. 50). 98 Mas‘¯ud¯ı, Mur¯uj, §458. 99 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, pp. 166–7. 100 See Dunlop, History, pp. 260–61; Cahen, ‘Le Maliknameh’, pp. 42, 45–6. Selj¯uq’ssons are Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 recorded differently in the sources: Ibn al-Ath¯ır (al-K¯amil, IX, p. 474) has Arsl¯an,M¯ıka’¯ıl and M¯us¯a,as does H. usayn¯ı, who adds that Arsl¯anwas called Isr¯a’¯ıl; M¯ırkhwand, however, records them as M¯ıka’¯ıl, M¯us¯a,Arsl¯ancalled Yabgh¯uand one unnamed son. Bar Hebraeus (Chronography, I, p. 196) also records four sons: M¯ık¯a’¯ıl,Yabghu, M¯us¯aand Arsl¯an.Gard¯ız¯ı mentions Isr¯a’¯ılb. Selj¯uq(Zayn al-Akhb¯ar, Rah.¯ımRid.a-z¯adaMalik (ed.), Tehran: Anjum¯an-i Ath¯arva¯ Maf¯akhir-iFarhang¯ı,1384, p. 272). 101 See the genealogical table in Leiser, A History of the Seljuks, pp. 198–9. 102 Dunlop, History, pp. 241–2. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 35 of its collapse in the late tenth century, which shortly preceded the migration of the Selj¯uqsto Transoxiana. Arabic sources indicate that Turks were also involved in the fall of the Khazars, and by Turks, the Oghuz are clearly meant.103 It is far from impossible that the Selj¯uqswere among, indeed may even have led, this group of Oghuz. Perhaps this is the historical basis for the tale of the Selj¯uqsplit with the Khazar ruler which is recalled in the traditions of the Malikn¯ama and Ibn H. ass¯ul. Our evidence does not at present allow further room for speculation, but clearly the Khazar connection of the Selj¯uqsshould be taken much more seriously than it generally has been. The destruction of Itil may not have completely wiped the Khazars off the map,104 but although some small successor entity may have survived into the eleventh and possibly even as late as the thirteenth century, it was of limited importance. The fall of the Khazars removed a major bulwark against unbridled nomadic expansion into Eastern Europe. Over the early eleventh century, especially after 1043, Byzantium’s Balkan provinces would be flooded with waves of Pechenegs, pushed from the south Russian steppe by the Oghuz, who in turn were under pressure from their eastern neighbours, the Kimek and Qipchaqs. This seems to have affected settlements of the Oghuz in the Volga region the most; a significant Oghuz population remained in Central Asia. However, by 1064, Oghuz elements had reached Byzantine Europe too, where some were recruited into the Byzantine forces.105 Yet the movement of the Selj¯uqsand their followers into the Muslim world was to be of even greater consequence.

Central Asia on the eve of the Selj¯uqmigrations The upheaval of the late tenth century was not limited to the steppe world, and the fall of the Khazar empire coincided with a broader process of political change in Muslim Central Asia, in which the Selj¯uqswere to play an important part. The most momentous event was the decline of the S¯am¯anidstate based in the Transoxianan city of Bukh¯ar¯a,which had exercised a loose hegemony from Khur¯as¯anto Fargh¯ana throughout the century. Internal factors unquestionably played a part in the end of the S¯am¯anids.The silver crisis of the last quarter of the tenth century, with the loss of important silver mines on the Zarafsh¯anRiver,106 probably undermined the S¯am¯anideconomy, while the S¯am¯anidrulers (am¯ırs) of the period tended to be weak and dominated by their soldiery, usually of slave and often Turkish origin.

103 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, VIII, p. 565; Golden, ‘Migrations’, p. 78–9. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 104 For a useful survey of the literature, see Kevin Alan Brook, The Jews of Khazaria, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006, pp. 149–61; also Dunlop, History, pp. 237–63. 105 See Golden, ‘Migrations’, pp. 80–4; Spinei, The Great Migrations, I, pp. 281–91; Paul Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 81–2, 89–98. 106 See Robert P. Blake, ‘The circulation of silver in the Moslem east down to the Mongol period’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 2/iii–iv (1937), pp. 291–338; Andrew Watson, ‘Back to gold – and silver’, The Economic History Review NS 20/i (1967), pp. 1–34. 36 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs Disputes over the S¯am¯anidsuccession had led one of these slaves, Alpteg¯ın,to seek exile in Ghazna where he laid the foundations for the Ghaznavid state that would be brought into existence by his successor Sebükteg¯ınand the latter’s son Mah.m¯ud. The Ghaznavids would inherit S¯am¯anidterritories to the west and south of the River Oxus. However, developments on the surrounding steppe were also of the utmost importance in reconfiguring Islamic Central Asia. From its inception, the S¯am¯anid state had been surrounded by Turks, from whom rebels against the am¯ıroften sought and received aid. In addition, the S¯am¯anidsrelied heavily on the steppe to supply them with military slaves, many of whom were often sold on to the west, especially to the ‘Abb¯asidcaliphate. Quite who these Turks were is obscure; it is usually conjectured that the most significant group of Turks on the eastern S¯am¯anidborder were the Qarluqs, who gave rise to the Qarakh¯aniddynasty.107 However, we have also noted a significant Oghuz presence along the Syr Darya and around Lake Issyk Kul. Probably the Turks of the S¯am¯anidfrontiers were of various tribes who were absorbed by the Qarakh¯anids.The latter started to become a serious rival to the S¯am¯anidsafter the conversion to Islam of large numbers of Turks in the second half of the tenth century.108 The history of the Qarakh¯anidsis often difficult to follow, as rival members of the family constantly vied with one another for power, although in theory until the mid-eleventh century there was a single head of the dynasty.109 By 389/999 they had managed to seize the S¯am¯anid capital. The key to the Qarakh¯anidexpansion into Transoxiana was their adoption of Islam, allowing them to gain the acceptance of the populace of Bukh¯ar¯aas rulers in place of the S¯am¯anids.110 A final effort to revive the S¯am¯anidstate by the am¯ırIbr¯ah¯ımal-Muntas.ir met its end in 395/1005, and most of the Transoxianan territories of the dynasty fell under various Qarakh¯anidrulers, notably ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ın of Bukh¯ar¯a(from 405/1014–15) and Samarqand (from 407/1016–17).111 To the west, in Khw¯arazm,in 408/1017 Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna installed as governor the slave soldier Alt¯unt¯ashwho adopted the ancient title of Khw¯arazmsh¯ah,and whose descendants attained a considerable degree of autonomy from the Ghaznavids. This completed the dismemberment of the S¯am¯anidterritories and established Muslim Turks in control of virtually all of Islamic Central Asia. Nonetheless, the Qarakh¯anidand Ghaznavid dynasties were very different. The former seems to have remained closer to steppe traditions of joint sovereignty, with

107 On the Qarakh¯anids and the S¯am¯anids see D.G. Tor, ‘The Islamization of Central Asia in the S¯am¯anid era and the reshaping of the Muslim world’, BSOAS 72/ii (2009), Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 pp. 279–99. 108 See ibid., and Jürgen Paul, ‘Nouvelles pistes pour la recherche sur l’histoire de l’Asie central à l’époque karakhanide’, Études Karakhanides (Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 9 [2001]), pp. 19–22. 109 E.A. Davidovitch, ‘The Karakhanids’ in Asimov and Bosworth (eds.), History of Civilizations of Central Asia, IV, pp. 122–3. 110 W. Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial, 1928, pp. 267–8. 111 Omeljan Pritsak, ‘Die Karachaniden’, Der Islam 31 (1953), p. 34. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 37 a division into eastern and western branches, and in time promoted the literary use of the Turkish language, especially in the east. The Ghaznavids, on the other hand, sought to identify themselves with the political and cultural traditions of Iran and of the S¯am¯anids,and power was – in principle at least – vested in a single strong ruler. Despite the considerable differences, both states shared a need to recruit soldiers from the steppe. A wide range of Turkish tribes, including some Oghuz, served in the Ghaznavid army,112 while the Qarakh¯anidsalso incorporated a considerable variety of Turkic peoples.113 The tumult on the Eurasian steppe ensured the ready availability of many tribesmen. The Selj¯uqs,then, could well assume they might find a niche in Muslim Central Asia fighting for one or other power, such as the S¯am¯anidsthemselves. This indeed seems to have been how they were at first employed, although the Malikn¯ama tradition, as we shall see, is somewhat reticent on this subject.

The migration of the Selj¯uqsto Transoxiana and Khur¯as¯an With the departure of Selj¯uqand his followers from the Khazar lands towards Transoxiana, they start to emerge more clearly into the historical light, although the Malikn¯ama remains the sole notable source for their activities for the first quarter of the eleventh century. A reconstruction of the early migrations of the Selj¯uqswas proposed by Cahen.114 He suggests that Duq¯aq’srelationship with the Khazars must be dated to the early fourth/tenth century, as Selj¯uqis presented as a young man then, but is reported to have died a centenarian at the beginning of the fifth century AH/late tenth or early eleventh century. Selj¯uqmust have reached the Islamic world in the late tenth century. An otherwise unknown historian, one Ab¯u’l-‘Al¯a’cited by the fourteenth-century author H. amdall¯ahMustawf¯ı,states that he migrated to the city of Jand on the Syr Darya in 375/985–6,115 where M¯ık¯a’¯ılb. Selj¯uqis thought to have died sometime after 385/994.116 Cahen puts the first involvement of the Selj¯uqsin Transoxiana in 383/992, when they assisted the S¯am¯anidsagainst the Qarakh¯anidH¯ar¯un.T. ughril was born around 380/990– 385/994. Over the following decade, the S¯am¯anidempire was replaced by the Qarakh¯anidTurks led by Nas.r b. ‘Al¯ı,and Cahen suggests that it may have been

112 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 109–10. 113 The most detailed discussion of the component tribes of the Qarakh¯anidsis Ekber N. Necef, Karahanlılar, Istanbul: Selenge, 2005, pp. 61–123; see also Golden, ‘The Karakhanids and early Islam’, pp. 354–8, and idem, Introduction, pp. 197–201, 214; on the various tribes serving in the Qarakh¯anidforces specifically see Re¸satGenç, Karahanlı Devlet Te¸skilatı, Istanbul: Kültür Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Bakanlıˇgı,1981, pp. 295–6. 114 Cahen, ‘Le Maliknameh’, p. 41ff. 115 H. amdall¯ahMustawaf¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh-i Guz¯ıda, E.G. Browne (ed.), London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial, 1910–13, p. 434; Cahen (‘Le Maliknameh’, pp. 37–8) has suggested that Ab¯u’l-‘Al¯amight be identified with Ibn H. ass¯ul;however, this seems unlikely as the information provided by Mustawf¯ı (apart from this date) is virtually identical to that provided by N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı, and Ibn H. ass¯ul’sdistinctive spelling of Selj¯uqas Sarjuq is absent. 116 Cahen, ‘Le Maliknameh’, p. 43. 38 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs

as a result of pressure from Nas.r that T. ughril and Chaghr¯ıabandoned Jand, which would date their migration to Transoxiana to before 401 when Nas.r died (recte 403/1013).117 However, he also says they may not have left Jand until the aftermath of their fighting with its governor Sh¯ah-Malik,dated by Bayhaq¯ıto 425/1033–4.118 Alternatively, Cahen suggests that sometime before 416/1025 T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı joined forces with the Qar¯akh¯anidruler of Bukh¯ar¯a,‘Al¯ıTegin, in whose service their relative Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ılwas already employed.119 Cahen’s reconstruction of the chronology might be queried in places, but our sources are so sparse and problematic that a detailed discussion would add little to our knowledge. Certainly, it is unwise to take the sources at face value when they say that Selj¯uqwas 100 or older when he died, and use this as a basis to calculate that Duq¯aqmust have been alive in the early tenth century. However, the broad outline of the rest of Cahen’s reconstruction may be accepted: sometime in the late tenth century, the Selj¯uqsreached Jand, from where they moved to Bukh¯ar¯a,and served in turn the S¯am¯anidsand the Qarakh¯anids.At some point, a division arose between branches of the family, while the numbers of their tribal followers grew considerably during the Central Asian interlude, in circumstances that will be investigated in Chapter 2. There were at least two principal Selj¯uqmigrations from Transoxiana into Khur¯as¯an:the first was that of the followers of Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ılb. Selj¯uq,known as the ‘Iraq¯ıya,who moved into Khur¯as¯an,apparently with Ghaznavid approval, c. 415/1025; the second is that of Chaghr¯ıand T. ughril, sons of Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl’sbrother M¯ık¯a’¯ılb. Selj¯uq,along with their followers, c. 425/1033–4. In the remainder of this chapter, I wish to consider how the Selj¯uqs’own traditions reflected the story of their migration, and the light they shed on the reliability of the Malikn¯ama and the ways in which it was revised and rewritten.

The Malikn¯ama’s account of the Selj¯uqs’early migrations The most detailed account of the early migrations is given in M¯ırkhwand’sversion of the Malikn¯ama. Fleeing from the Khazars, Selj¯uqcame with a hundred followers to Jand.120 Here he and his people are said to have converted to Islam, and protected the populace from the demands the tax demands of the ‘infidel’ king; this is the basis of Agadzhanov’s claim that the Selj¯uqsrebelled against the Oghuz Yabgh¯u,121 who is not named in any of the sources, but is likely to have been the most significant non-Muslim ruler in the vicinity – if indeed the Oghuz state still existed at this point. Selj¯uqwon a great victory over his enemies, who fled. This was the start of his rise to power in the region: ‘People made for his court from Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

117 On him see Boris D. Kotchnev, ‘La chronologie et la généalogie des Karakhanides du point du vue de la numismatique’, Études Karakhanides (Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 9 [2001]), p. 62. 118 See Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, pp. 1115–16. 119 Cahen, ‘Le Maliknama’, p. 49–50. 120 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, pp. 236–7; cf. H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar, p. 2; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 474. 121 Agadzhanov, Ocherki, p. 154, and see above p. 24–5. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

Figure 1.3 Major waves of migrations of Selj¯uqsand associated Türkmen. 40 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs all parts of Turkestan, and neighbouring kings needed his help and turned to him, like Ibr¯ah¯ımthe S¯am¯anidwho took refuge with him when he was defeated by the Ilek-khan¯ [the Qarakh¯anids].’Selj¯uqhelped Ibr¯ah¯ım,and ‘the banner of Selj¯uq’s fortune was raised above the top of Capella and he made the region of Bukh¯ar¯a the camping-ground of his state [i.e. its base].’122 After the death of M¯ık¯a’¯ılin battle, Selj¯uqbrought up his grandsons. The latter, T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı,were so strong that after Selj¯uq’sdeath, a Qarakh¯anidruler, Ilek-kh¯an(identified¯ by 123 Cahen as the historical Nas.r b. ‘Al¯ı) sought an alliance with them; at the same time he feared them and plotted against them. Hearing of his plan to attack them, the sons of M¯ık¯a’¯ılfled to the rival Qarakh¯anid,Bughr¯akh¯an.However, the latter also attempted to capture T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı,successfully imprisoning T. ughril who was only released after heavy fighting between Bughr¯akh¯anand Chaghr¯ı. The two brothers then fled to Samarqand, which was ruled by ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ın,who sought the help of other rulers of Turkestan against the Selj¯uqs.Chaghr¯ı then led an expedition into Armenia and Anatolia, which passed through Ghaznavid territories via T. ¯usin Khur¯as¯an.This incited the enmity of Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna. After raiding Byzantine territory, Chaghr¯ıreturned to Central Asia, where more Türkmen settled around Bukh¯ar¯ajoined him. The success of T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı provoked the envy of their uncle Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl.Meanwhile, enmity between the Qarakh¯anidsdrew the Ghaznavids into Transoxiana in alliance with Qadir Kh¯an against Ilek-Kh¯an,who¯ fled Samarqand for the desert. Qadir Kh¯anmeanwhile persuaded Mah.m¯ud that he should move the Selj¯uqsto the other side of the Oxus. Mah.m¯ud sent a messenger to ask the Selj¯uqsto move into Khur¯as¯an.Chaghr¯ı and T. ughril refused, but Arsl¯an[Isr¯a’¯ıl] went over to Mah.m¯ud who promptly imprisoned him. On the departure of the Ghaznavids and Qadirkh¯an, Ilek-Kh¯an¯ retook Bukh¯ar¯aand started plotting against the Selj¯uqs.When this failed, he sent an army under one Alp Qir¯ayagainst them. Encouraged by the auspicious birth of Chaghr¯ı’sson Alp Arsl¯anat this juncture, Chaghr¯ıand T. ughril emerged victorious. They were invited to Khw¯arazmby the Khw¯arazmsh¯ah,a Ghaznavid vassal who was at odds with Mah.m¯ud. However, the Khw¯arazmsh¯ahsecretly instructed his general Sh¯ah-Malikto wage war on the Selj¯uqsas they approached and to kill them all. Chaghr¯ıand T. ughril decided to escape by crossing the Oxus and taking refuge in Ab¯ıwardand Nis¯a,where they planned to attempt to ally themselves with the new Ghaznavid sultan Mas‘¯udb. Mah.m¯ud, who allowed them to cross the Oxus ‘out of desire for their wealth’ (t.am‘-i m¯al-i¯ısh¯an), despite his advisors’ objections. The Selj¯uqsoffered Mas‘¯udtheir allegiance, but he soon realised his mistake and sent his general Begtoghdi to fight them, inaugurating the hostilities between the Ghaznavids and the Selj¯uqsthat would culminate in the crushing Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

122 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, p. 237. 123 Cahen, ‘Le Maliknameh’, p. 48; however, in other instances the Ilek-Kh¯anof¯ M¯ırkhwandis clearly ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ın.See M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, pp. 239, 241: h. ¯akim-iSamarqand ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ınkih bi-Ilek-Kh¯anishtih¯ard¯asht¯ . The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 41 Ghaznavid defeat at Dand¯anq¯anin 1040, which left the way into Iran open before the Selj¯uqs.124 Much-abbreviated versions of this material are given by several other sources reliant on the Malikn¯ama, although Bar Hebraeus entirely omits any references to the Qarakh¯anids.H. usayn¯ı’saccount is also extremely brief, telescoping all these events into a few lines. Ibn al-Ath¯ır’sversion contains significant differences from M¯ırkhwand’s. Both Ibn al-Ath¯ırand H. usayn¯ısay that Selj¯uqdied in Jand before the move into Transoxiana, according to Ibn al-Ath¯ırat the age of 117, and that 125 it was his sons, not Selj¯uqhimself, who migrated to Transoxiana. Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna, according to H. usayn¯ı,attacked the tribe of Qiniq and their tents when he crossed the Oxus on his way to Bukh¯ar¯a.He invited M¯ık¯a’¯ılb. Selj¯uqto move to 126 Khur¯as¯an,which he later regretted. Is.fah¯an¯ı’saccount follows the same lines. Ibn al-Ath¯ır,on the other hand, remarks simply that M¯ık¯a’¯ıl‘raided the lands of the Turkish infidels, and fought … and was martyred [fighting] in God’s path’.127 In this version, it was M¯ık¯a’¯ıl’ssons, Yabgh¯u,T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı,who moved to Bukh¯ar¯a,settling 20 farsakhs from it. Another major difference is that Ibn al-Ath¯ır mentions the alliance between Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıland the Qar¯akh¯anid‘Al¯ıTeg¯ınwhom he helped to capture Bukh¯ar¯a,128 an event dated by other evidence to 411/1020– 129 21. It was only when Mah.m¯ud came to Transoxiana to wage war against ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ın(c. 416–17/1025–6) that he managed to capture Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl.130 An interesting feature of the different versions of the Malikn¯ama is a persistent confusion over which member of the dynasty was responsible for defining events in Selj¯uqhistory. They agree that Selj¯uqwas the first to convert to Islam,131 but on other major issues they are contradictory. Just as M¯ırkhwandand Ibn H. ass¯uldiffer over whether it was Duq¯aqor Selj¯uqwho broke with the Khazars, so M¯ırkhwand and Ibn al-Ath¯ırdisagree over whether it was Selj¯uqor T. ughril and Chaghr¯ıwho first led the Selj¯uqsfrom Jand into Transoxiana. Further confusion is added by H. usayn¯ıand Is.fah¯an¯ı,who claim M¯ık¯a’¯ılwas still alive when Mah.m¯ud came to Transoxiana. The significance of these differences is not clear today, but they are clearly more than accidental slips, and give further evidence for efforts to rewrite Selj¯uqhistory, most likely in the later eleventh or twelfth century.

124 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, p. 238–45. 125 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 474; H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.2. 126 Is.fah¯an¯ı/Bund¯ar¯ı, Zubdat al-Nus.ra, M. Th Houtsma (ed.) in Recueil de Textes Relatifs à l’Histoire Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 des Seldjouqides, II, Leiden: Brill, 1889, p. 5. 127 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 474. 128 Ibid., IX, p. 475. 129 Boris D. Kotchnev, ‘Histoire de ‘Ali Tegin, souverain qarakhanide de Boukhara (XIe siècle) vue à travers les monnaies’, Boukhara la Noble (Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 5–6 [1998]), pp. 20–3. 130 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 475–6; for Mah.m¯ud’s expedition see Bosworth, Ghaznavids, p. 236. 131 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, pp. 236–7, Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 474; H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.2. 42 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs Alternative accounts of the rise of the Selj¯uqs: Gard¯ız¯ıand Bayhaq¯ı It might be tempting to dismiss the Malikn¯ama as too unreliable or too poorly preserved to be of any value. However, some of the Malikn¯ama’s traditions are supported by other sources, most notably the near-contemporary Ghaznavid authors Bayhaq¯ı and Gard¯ız¯ı. For example, Gard¯ız¯ı remarks that Ibr¯ah¯ım the S¯am¯anidtook refuge with a certain Yabgh¯uof the Ghuzz who converted to Islam around this period (393/1003).132 A good deal of confusion in the secondary literature has been spawned by Gard¯ız¯ı’s use of the term Yabgh¯u,which has generally been interpreted as a personal name by which two of Selj¯uq’ssons, Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıland M¯us¯a,were known.133 Bosworth, on the other hand, suggests it was the Oghuz Yabgh¯uwho was meant.134 Gard¯ız¯ı’stext read ‘Yabgh¯utheir leader became a Muslim’ (yabgh¯umihtar-i ¯ısh¯anmusulm¯anshud), and I agree with Bosworth that Yabgh¯ushould be interpreted here as a title not a personal name. However, a much more likely candidate for this Yabgh¯uis Selj¯uq,even if he is not recorded to have adopted this title by other sources, for both Ibn al-Ath¯ır and M¯ırkhw¯andagree it was he who helped Ibr¯ah¯ımthe S¯am¯anid(the episode is 135 not mentioned by Bar Hebraeus or H. usayn¯ı). The story of Mah.m¯ud’s involvement in bringing the Selj¯uqsto Khur¯as¯anis also supported by Gard¯ız¯ı,who seems to confirm that [Arsl¯an]Isr¯a’¯ılwas an ally of 136 ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ın. He states that when Mah.m¯ud went to Transoxiana campaigning against ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ınin 416/1020, he was met by the Türkmen who begged him to provide land for them in Khur¯as¯anbecause of ‘the oppression of their leaders [umar¯a-yi¯ısh¯an] and the difficulties they were in’. They pleaded, ‘let us cross the river [Oxus] and make a homeland in Khur¯as¯an.We will help [sultan Mah.m¯ud] and will give him provisions for we are a people of the desert and have many 137 sheep, and many of our men can serve in his army’. Mah.m¯ud allowed these ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyato settle around Sarakhs, the desert of Far¯ava,and B¯avard,which he soon regretted. Our other main source, Bayhaq¯ı,dates the migration of the followers of T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı into Khur¯as¯anto 426/1034–5, during the reign of Mah.m¯ud’s son Mas‘¯ud.138 According to Bayhaq¯ı,the Selj¯uqswere allies of ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ınof Bukh¯ar¯a. After his death and the accession of his two sons, they were prevented from going to

132 Gard¯ız¯ı, Zayn, p. 256. 133 See Pritsak, ‘Untergang’, p. 47; Cahen, ‘Le Maliknameh’, p. 44; Barthold, Turkestan, p. 269. 134 Bosworth, ‘Djand’, p. 245. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 135 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, p. 237; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 374. 136 Gard¯ız¯ı’stext (Zayn, p. 272) is laconic in the extreme here. He states that when ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ınheard of Mah.m¯ud’s alliance with Qadirkh¯an,he fled into the desert. Mah.m¯ud appointed spies to inform him about ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ın.Then Mah.m¯ud found out where [Arsl¯an]Isr¯a’¯ılwas hidden, and had him brought to Ghazna. The implication seems to be that Isr¯a’¯ılwas one of ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ın’sallies who fled with him to the desert (cf. M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, pp. 241–2). 137 Gard¯ız¯ı, Zayn, p. 273. 138 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, pp. 669, 693–4. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 43 their traditional winter pastures at N¯ur-iBukh¯ar¯a,and forced to move to Khw¯arazm, where they formed an alliance with the Khw¯arazmsh¯ahH¯ar¯un.139 However, it seems from another passage in Bayhaq¯ı that they may have been involved in Khw¯arazmmuch earlier. He attributes to the Selj¯uqsthemselves the words, ‘every winter the Khw¯arazmsh¯ahAlt¯unt¯ashgave us and our people and beasts space in his province’.140 Alt¯unt¯ashdied in 423/1032,141 which suggests that the Selj¯uqswere using Khw¯arazmas a pasture even before the death of ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ın,who remained in power until 426/1035.142 Bayhaq¯ıinforms us in some detail as to the exact places where the Selj¯uqssettled in Khw¯arazm:Rib¯at.-i M¯asha,Shar¯ah-Kh¯an,and Gh¯avkhv¯ah.Here, however, they were attacked by their old enemy, Sh¯ah-Malikof 143 Jand; Bayhaq¯ıdates this attack to Dh¯u’l-H. ijja 425/October–November 1034, confirming the migration had occurred before ‘Al¯ıTegin’s death. Moreover, we are told that Alt¯unt¯ash’ssuccessor, H¯ar¯un,was furious with the attack, for the Selj¯uqsserved in his army, and he had hoped to use them in his planned campaign to capture Khur¯as¯an.He ordered them to be settled in Dargh¯an‘which is the border of Khw¯arazm’,and sent them south as an advanced guard for his planned attack on Marv.144

The Malikn¯ama tradition reconsidered Certain elements common to the Malikn¯ama and Bayhaq¯ı may be accepted as historical fact, for there is no reason why they should be invented in two independent works written for completely different audiences. For example, the hostile relations between the Selj¯uqsand Sh¯ah-Malikseem certain. Likewise, it seems probable that T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı’sfollowers migrated from Bukh¯ar¯a to Khw¯arazmand thence into Khur¯as¯an,and this is given further credence by Bayhaq¯ı’snaming of precise villages where they were settled, probably derived from contemporary Ghaznavid intelligence reports. However, the picture of relations between the Selj¯uqfamily and the other rulers they encountered in Transoxiana differs significantly according to the source. While Gard¯ız¯ıhas the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya begging Mah.m¯ud to allow them into Khur¯as¯an,the Malikn¯ama and Is.fah¯an¯ıportray Mah.m¯ud as pleading with T. ughril to migrate to Ghaznavid lands. It is interesting that M¯ırkhwand’sversion of the Malikn¯ama stresses the hostility felt towards the Selj¯uqsby the Ghaznavids, Qarakh¯anidsand the Khw¯arazmsh¯ahs. This is strongly contradicted by the evidence of contemporary sources independent of the Malikn¯ama, especially Bayhaq¯ı, who emphasises the Selj¯uqs’friendly relations with the Qarakh¯anid‘Al¯ıTeg¯ınand the Khw¯arazmsh¯ahsAltunt¯ashand H¯ar¯un. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

139 Ibid., pp. 1114–5. 140 Ibid., p. 694. 141 C.E. Bosworth, ‘Khw¯arazm-sh¯ahs’, EI 2, IV, p. 1067. 142 Kotchnev, ‘Ali-Tegin’, p. 27. 143 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 1115. 144 Ibid., p. 1117. 44 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs The Malikn¯ama’s text may have been influenced by the historical circumstances of its composition. Both the Qarakh¯anidand Ghaznavid empires still existed in some form when the original recension of the Malikn¯ama was put together for Alp Arsl¯an.Even after the Battle of Dand¯anq¯an,the Ghaznavids and Selj¯uqs continued to clash, with hostilities over S¯ıst¯ancontinuing into the 1050s.145 Much of Transoxiana remained under Qarakh¯anidrule until Maliksh¯ah’sreign, when the Qarakh¯anidsbecame vassal to the Selj¯uqs.Alp Arsl¯anled campaigns into Central Asia which impinged on Qarakh¯anidinterests, although relations were also friendly enough for Maliksh¯ahto be married to a Qarakh¯anidprincess, Terken Kh¯at¯un.146 It is easy to see why it may have been politic for the compiler of the Malikn¯ama to gloss over the Selj¯uqs’previously subordinate status to these two rival powers. The descendants of Alt¯unt¯ashhad lost control of Khw¯arazm, which was incorporated into the Selj¯uqstate, but it is entirely likely that the Selj¯uqswould not have been gratified by a version of their history that presented them as hired mercenaries of the Khw¯arazmsh¯ah.The Selj¯uqs’pride in the fact they had no slave ancestry, underlined by Ibn H. ass¯ul,would be undermined if their earlier position of dependence on those of slave origin, the Ghaznavids and Khw¯arazmsh¯ahs,was brought out. It is also interesting to note that while Bayhaq¯ımakes it quite clear that T. ughril and Chaghr¯ıhad been in ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ın’s service, Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ılis the only member of the family a Malikn¯ama-based source confirms was associated with ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ın.At the beginning of Alp Arsl¯an’sreign, Qutlumush, Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl’sdescendant, had rebelled and tried to seize the sultanate for himself,147 and thus it may be that his ancestor was excluded from the dynasty’s desire to gloss over what it evidently found to be an embarrassing Qarakh¯anid association. The forgoing discussion illustrates the pitfalls of trying to extract a core of reliable information from the sources. While the Malikn¯ama has an interest in emphasising hostility between the Selj¯uqsand Transoxianan rulers, Bayhaq¯ı and Gard¯ız¯ıfrom their Ghaznavid perspective are above all preoccupied by the Selj¯uqs’relationship with Mah.m¯ud, Mas‘¯udand their agents. None of this really sheds any light on what actually precipitated the migration of Selj¯uqand his family, first to Jand, and then into Transoxiana and Khur¯as¯an.However, some of the mediaeval sources do offer more practical explanations for the migration. N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı states, ‘the Selj¯uqscame to the region of Transoxiana because of great numbers of people and lack of pastures; their [new] winter quarters were N¯ur [near] Bukh¯ar¯a,their summer quarters Sughd [around] Samarqand’.148 The Malikn¯ama specifically refers to a conflict over pastures in Jand: while Selj¯uqwas away fighting, ‘his enemies seized the opportunity to drive Selj¯uq’scamels off Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

145 C.E. Bosworth, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz, Costa Mesa: Mazda, 1994, pp. 380–6. 146 See A. Sevim and C.E. Bosworth, ‘The Seljuqs and the Khwarazm Shahs’, in Asimov and Bosworth, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, IV, pp. 157–8. 147 See Chapter 2, pp. 68, 70–1. 148 Nish¯ap¯ur¯ı, Salj¯uqn¯ama,p.5. The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs 45 the pastures’.149 Conflict over pastures is certainly a common reason for nomads to migrate. The question of population pressure cannot be verified independently (although see the discussion of some figures in Chapter 3), but it is likely that the changing climate of the period did reduce the amount of available pasture. Around the Aral Sea, both summer and winter temperatures appear to have dropped in the period c. 900–1200,150 while in the region as a whole they rose;151 however, the consequence – aridity – is thought to have been the same. The picture is thus somewhat complex, but the increased aridity across Central Asia might have been a factor in precipitating nomadic migrations as tribes sought pasture for their animals. The Selj¯uqmove away from the region of the Aral Sea could be understood in this context, although it is very likely that other factors were at play, for the region they moved into was also apparently suffering from aridity. Therefore, a simple connection between climate change and migration is not tenable; in any event, additional factors to climate change are always required to precipitate migration, rather than just adaptation.152 Admittedly, the population pressure N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı mentions may have been one influential factor, but the opportunities for military service in Transoxiana with the competing Ghaznavids, Qarakh¯anidsand S¯am¯anidsmay have been another, as Bosworth argued.153 Yet it is also necessary to bear in mind the broader perspective of political crisis and upheaval across western Eurasia, with the collapse of the Khazars and the S¯am¯anidsaccompanied by the rise of the Qarakh¯anidsin Central Asia and the migration of Pechenegs and pagan Oghuz into Byzantium’s Balkan provinces. As the H. ud¯ud makes clear,154 cities on the edge of Khur¯as¯anhad been subject to Oghuz attacks long before the Selj¯uqsor the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaappeared on the scene. The Oghuz tribes were anyway spread out over a broad area reaching from the Irtysh to the Volga, and as far south as Khur¯as¯an.At the beginning of the eleventh

149 M¯ırkhw¯and, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, p. 237. 150 Hedi Oberhänsli et al., ‘Climate variability during the past 2000 years and past economic and irrigation activities in the Aral Sea basin’, Irrigation and Drainage Systems 21 (2007), pp. 173, 179; Philippe Sorrel et al., ‘Climate variability in the Aral Sea basin (Central Asia) in the late Holocene based on vegetation changes’, Quarternary Research 67 (2007), pp. 357–70; I. Boomer et al., ‘Advances in understanding the late Holocene history of the Lake Aral region’, Quarternary International 194 (2009), pp. 79–90. 151 Anson Mackay et al., ‘1000 years of climate variability in Central Asia: assessing the evidence using Lake Baikal (Russia) diatom assemblages and the application of a diatom-inferred model of snow-cover on the lake’, Global and Planetary Change 46 (2005), pp. 281–97; Bao Yang et al., ‘Late Holocene climatic and environmental changes in arid central Asia’, Quarternary International 194 (2009), pp. 68–78. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 152 A rather dated discussion of the possible connection is B. Brentjes, ‘Nomadenwanderungen und Klimaschwankungen’, Central Asiatic Journal 30/i–ii (1986), pp. 7–17; cf. also Gareth Jenkins, ‘A note on climatic cycles and the rise of Chinggis Khan’, Central Asiatic Journal 18/iv (1974), pp. 217–26. See more recently, William B. Meyer, ‘Climate and migration’ in Andrew Bell- Fialkoff (ed.), The Role of Migration in the History of the Eurasian Steppe: Sedentary Civilization vs. ‘Barbarian’ and Nomad, New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000, pp. 287–94. 153 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 222–23. 154 H. ud¯ud, p. 100, and see pp. 21, 23 above. 46 The origins and early history of the Selj¯uqs century, the Selj¯uqsconstituted little more than one family and a small number of followers who were just one small part of this tumult. To understand the rise of the Selj¯uqswe must examine how they gained leadership over many of the Türkmen of Central Asia, laying the foundations for their conquests in the Islamic world. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 2 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty

At the heart of Selj¯uqhistory lie the tribes, who are the key to understanding the early development of the Selj¯uqempire. In particular, the relationship between the Selj¯uqfamily and their tribal followers is of critical importance. As the late eleventh-century Selj¯uqvizier Niz. ¯amal-Mulk famously pointed out, ‘[The Türkmen] have a claim on this dynasty because in its beginnings they rendered services to it and suffered and they are kinsmen to it’.1 Although this quotation is found in nearly every modern work dealing with the Selj¯uqs,few scholars have investigated the nature of the Türkmen tribesmen’s relationship with the dynasty, although it has been recognised that they remained a prominent force until the end of the Selj¯uqstate.2 Rather, scholars have tended to assume that with the Selj¯uqconquest of Khur¯as¯an,T. ughril and Chaghr¯ısought to distance themselves from the tribes who became a constant irritation to them. As Bosworth puts it, referring to the Selj¯uqcapture of the Khur¯as¯an¯ıcapital, N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,in 431/1040, ‘the division between the supreme leader and his entourage on one side, and the mass of tribesmen on the other, which was to bedevil the Sultanate of the Great Selj¯uqs,existed already in embryo’.3 In this chapter, we shall investigate the relationship between the tribes and their leaders with particular reference to the first half of the eleventh century. Based on a comparison of anthropological and historical studies of other Eurasian tribes and steppe empires, along with a detailed reading of the primary sources, we shall suggest that the formation of the Selj¯uq empire was bedevilled less by a struggle between the tribes and their leaders than between members of the Selj¯uqfamily for leadership of the tribes who themselves were far from being a homogenous block.

1 Niz. ¯amal-Mulk, Siy¯asatn¯ama, J. Shi‘¯ar(ed.), Tehran: Intish¯ar¯at-i‘Ilm¯ıva Farhang¯ı,1377, p. 125; Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 tr. Hubert Darke, The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960, p. 105. 2 2 C.E. Bosworth, ‘Saldj¯uk.ids’, EI , VIII, p. 939. 3 C.E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran 994–1040, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1963, p. 268; cf. Speros Vyronis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, Berkeley, CA: University of Caifornia Press, 1971, pp. 82–84, and J.M. Smith, ‘Turanian nomadism and Iranian politics’, Iranian Studies 11 (1978), p. 65. 48 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty Ghuzz, Turks, Türkmen and Selj¯uqs The obscurity of early Selj¯uqhistory is reflected in the terminology used to refer to the dynasty and its followers in the Islamic sources. The basic terms used are ghuzz (Turkish Oghuz), turk (pl. atr¯ak), turkm¯an (pl. tar¯akima) and, more rarely, salj¯uq¯ıya. The distinctions (if any) between these are unclear, and this is reflected in their often rather arbitrary usage by modern scholars.4 However, there is a certain tendency to see an opposition between the Ghuzz on the one hand and the Selj¯uqsultans and Türkmen on the other.5 Indeed, this originates in mediaeval Islamic historiography, which sought to portray the first Selj¯uqsultan T. ughril as a model Islamic ruler and to deflect blame from him for the plundering and destruction that accompanied the Selj¯uqconquests.6 It is certainly true that the sources mention some groups called Ghuzz who were hostile to the authority of T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı.However, as I shall argue below, the terminology is at no point used in such a way as to allow one to distinguish between Selj¯uq,Türkmen and Ghuzz as a general rule. The simplest of the terms under discussion is turk. Turk has a general meaning, referring to the Turkish peoples and tribes in general. In addition, the Turkish slave soldiery in Baghdad is usually called turk. In some instances, the term can have more specific applications, occasionally being used to refer to the Kh¯aq¯an¯ıTurkish tribe.7 It is also commonly used in conjunction with an adjective to designate a partticular tribe or group of Turks, such as al-atr¯akal-ghuzz¯ıya, ‘the Oghuz Turks’.8 However, the earlier mediaeval sources do not usually use the term turk to describe the tribes associated with the Selj¯uqconquests.9 Sometimes turk is used to contrast the Turkish soldiers of Baghdad with the invaders.10 The three other terms much more commonly describe the Selj¯uqsand their followers, but in ways that vary greatly according to the source.

4 For example, C. Cahen ‘The Turkish invasion: the Selchükids’ in A History of the Crusades, K. Setton (ed.), I: The First Hundred Years, M. Baldwin (ed.), Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969, pp. 140–1, where the author refers first to ‘Selchükid Oghuz’ then to ‘Turkomans’; cf. A.K.S. Lambton, Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia: Aspects of Administrative, Economic and Social History, Eleventh to Fourteenth Centuries, London: I.B. Tauris, 1988, pp. 4–6, where Ghuzz and Türkmen are used as synonyms. 5 For example, B. Spuler, ‘Ghuzz’, EI 2, II, p. 1109: ‘Whereas the Turcomans, led by the Saldjukids, had founded an empire, the Oghuz/Ghuzz of this period [twelfth century] merely helped to spread anarchy throughout Khur¯as¯an’. 6 Cf. Omid Safi, The Politics of Knowledge in Premodern Islam: Negotiating Ideology and Religious Enquiry, Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006, pp. 26, 28. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 7 R. Genç, Ka¸sgarlıMah.m¯ud’a Göre XI. Yüzyılda Türk Dünyasi, Ankara: Türk Kültürünü Ara¸stırma Enstitüsü, 1997, p. 86. 8 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amilfi’l-Ta’r¯ıkh, ed. C. Tornberg, Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,1965, IX, pp. 158, 188, 191. 9 An exception is the poetry of Qat.r¯an-i Tabr¯ız¯ı, an eyewitness to the invasion of Azerbaijan, who uses ghuzz¯an and turk¯an as synonyms. This, however, can be explained as reflecting the exigencies of rhyme. See Ah.mad Kasrav¯ı, Shahriy¯ar¯an-iGum-n¯am, Tehran: Am¯ırKab¯ır,1377, pp. 169, 171. 10 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 603. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 49 The term Türkmen first appears in the Islamic sources in the late tenth century. It is used by the traveller and geographer al-Muqaddas¯ı,who refers to the frontier forts constructed against ‘the Türkmen who converted to Islam as a group’ (al- Turkm¯an¯ıy¯ınalladh¯ınaaslam¯urahbatan).11 B¯ır¯un¯ıstates that Türkmen is the term used by the Oghuz to refer to a convert to Islam,12 and modern scholars often favour 13 this explanation. However, variant interpretations exist, and Mah.m¯ud K¯ashghar¯ı defines Türkmen as deriving from the Persian Turkm¯an-and, ‘like a Turk’,14 while modern etymologies derive the word from Türk plus the strengthening suffix men.15 Nor do the Arabic historians invariably use the term with a clear distinction between non-Muslim Oghuz and Muslim Türkmen. Indeed, K¯ashghar¯ıdefines the Oghuz as ‘a tribe of the Turks; the Türkmen’.16 Nonetheless, Ghuzz/Oghuz and Türkmen are not necessarily synonyms, although both may refer to the same people. The usage of these terms varies according to author, but at least sometimes ghuzz seems to be used pejoratively. For instance, 17 H. usayn¯ı’s Akhb¯aral-Dawla al-Salj¯uq¯ıya which evinces a pro-Selj¯uqattitude uses both the words ghuzz and turkm¯an. However, when discussing the rise of the Selj¯uqs,the author avoids using either, preferring the terms al-atr¯ak and al-salj¯uq¯ı.18 The term turkm¯an, tar¯akima and turkm¯an¯ıya are used to refer to the tribesmen, and seem to be fairly neutral. There are eight uses of this term in the Akhb¯ar,19 and in most of them the subject under discussion is who they are supporting in the power struggles of the twelfth-century Selj¯uqstate.20 Only 21 rarely are they depicted as a wantonly destructive force. As H. usayn¯ıputs it, ‘the Türkmen served [the Selj¯uqfamily] in Khur¯as¯anand joined with them’.22 In contrast, however, the term ghuzz is only ever used by H. usayn¯ıwith negative connotations, such as when they captured the Selj¯uqsultan Sanjar, or when the

11 Muqaddas¯ı, Kit¯abAh.san al-Taq¯as¯ımf¯ıMa’rifatal-Aq¯alim, M.J. de Goeje (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 1906, p. 274. 12 B¯ır¯un¯ı, Kit¯abal-Jam¯ahirfi Ma‘rifat al-Jaw¯ahir, Hyderabad: D¯a’iratal-M¯a‘arifal-‘Uthm¯aniya, 1355, p. 205. 13 Peter B. Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State- formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992, p. 212. This was, however, rejected by I.˙ Kafesoˇgluin his ‘A propos du nom Türkmen’, Oriens 11 (1958), pp. 146–50, who argues it was by no means necessarily synonymous with the Oghuz. 14 Mah.m¯ud al-K¯ašgar¯ı[K¯ashghar¯ı], Compendium of the Turkic Dialects, R. Dankoff (ed. and tr.), Harvard University, 1982, II, p. 363. 15 Golden, Introduction, p. 213. 16 K¯ashghar¯ı, Compendium, I, p. 101, II, p. 362. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 17 On the work see C. Cahen, ‘The historiography of the Selj¯uqidperiod’ in B. Lewis and P.M. Holt (eds.), Historians of the Middle East, London: Oxford University Press, 1962, pp. 69–72. 18 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯aral-Dawla al-Salj¯uq¯ıya, Muh.ammad Iqb¯al(ed.), Beirut: D¯aral-Af¯aqal-Jad¯ıda,¯ 1992, pp. 3–5. 19 Ibid., pp. 35, 85, 128, 131, 159, 177, 179, 194. 20 Ibid., pp. 85, 128, 131, 179. 21 Ibid., p. 179 (the Türkmen start destroying the land during T. ughril III’s rebellion). 22 Ibid., p. 194. 50 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty soldiers in Romanus Diogenes’ army are described as ‘a rabble (awb¯ash) of Greeks, Armenians, Persians, Pechenegs, Ghuzz and Franks’.23 A similar usage is found in the earliest extant Persian history of the Selj¯uqs,the 24 Salj¯uqn¯ama of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı, composed for the Selj¯uqsultan T. ughril b. Arsl¯an. The term ghuzz is only found when referring to the Oghuz rebellion against Sanjar,25 although N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ıdefines the ghuzz as ‘a tribe of the Türkmen’ (khayl¯ı az turkm¯an¯an)26 – the reverse of the usual usage of the mediaeval sources which tends to see the Türkmen as a subset of the Oghuz. Elsewhere, N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ıuses the term turkm¯an. Thus the followers of the Selj¯uqchief Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ılb. Selj¯uq, known to Ibn al-Ath¯ıras ghuzz, appear in N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ıasturkm¯an.27 This usage of turkm¯an and tendancy to avoid ghuzz is followed by R¯avand¯ıin his R¯ah.at al-S.ud¯ur, which is in parts largely derived from N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı’swork and was also dedicated to a Selj¯uqruler.28 Referring to the early history of the Selj¯uqfamily and their followers in Transoxiana, both N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ıand R¯avand¯ıprefer the term salj¯uq¯ıyan. Likewise, in the account of Selj¯uqorigins in M¯ırkhwandwhich derives from the Malikn¯ama, the terms Al-i¯ Salj¯uq, ‘the Saljuq dynasty’ or salj¯uq¯ıya are generally used, along with turkm¯an, which is rather less common.29 It is is interesting to compare this usage with that of Ibn al-Ath¯ır.Ibn al-Ath¯ır was not writing for a Selj¯uqmaster, although as noted in Chapter 1, parts of his account of Selj¯uqorigins seem to have derived from the revised version of the Malikn¯ama made in the late eleventh or twelfth century. However, the portions which deal rather critically with the depredations of the Selj¯uqsin Iran and Iraq are not likely to have derived from any such legitimatory source. Significantly, and in contrast to the other sources, Ibn al-Ath¯ırdoes not use the term Türkmen when discussing the early Selj¯uqs,nor does he generally use atr¯ak, which he reserves for the soldiery of Baghdad. Indeed, he offers very few references at all to turkm¯an and tar¯akima until the late eleventh century. The one major exception to this is provided by a letter cited by Ibn al-Ath¯ırwhich purports to be from T. ughril to the B¯uyid Jal¯alal-Dawla, which he wrote to apologise for the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya’sbehaviour, saying ‘these Türkmen (h¯a’¯ul¯a’ial-tar¯akima) were formerly our slaves and servants’.30 Whether or not the text is genuine, it is significant in that a later author like Ibn al-Ath¯ırcould not credibly have T. ughril referring to his followers as ghuzz even though this is the term Ibn al-Ath¯ırhimself uses in every other instance for this period. So for Ibn al-Ath¯ırtoo, ghuzz seems to have had negative connotations. It is also interesting to note that when Ibn al-Ath¯ırdoes start to use the term Türkmen,

23 For references to the ghuzz, see ibid., pp. 26, 47, 123–5, 134. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 24 N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı, Salj¯uqn¯ama, A.H. Morton (ed.), np: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004, Introduction, p. 47. 25 Ibid., pp. 60–5, 67. 26 Ibid., p. 61. 27 Ibid., pp. 8–9. 28 Julie Scott Meisami, Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999, p. 239. 29 M¯ırkhw¯and, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, Tehran, Khayy¯am-P¯ır¯uz,1338, IV, pp. 240, 244 (t.¯a’ifaaz tar¯akima); IV, p. 249 (daf‘-i sharr va d.arr-i tar¯akima). 30 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 389. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 51 it is usually in connection with events in Syria and Tutush’s establishment there with Türkmen assistance.31 On the other hand, the term ghuzz is generally used in reference to the eleventh-century invaders of Iran and Iraq, whether or not associated with the followers of T. ughril or with the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya.Alongside the term ghuzz on its own, the phrase al-atr¯akal-ghuzz¯ıya ‘the Oghuz Turks’ is found,32 and on one occasion even al-turkm¯anal-ghuzz¯ıya, ‘the Oghuz Türkmen’.33 The phrase like al-ghuzz al-salj¯uq¯ıya, ‘the Selj¯uqOghuz’, also occurs,34 sometimes in contrast to other groups of Oghuz like the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya,discussed below.35 The term salj¯uq¯ıya, ‘the Selj¯uqs’on its own is occasionally used.36 Thus there is some flux in Ibn al-Ath¯ır’sterminology, as demonstrated by the rare al-turkm¯anal-ghuzz¯ıya, which probably reflects the usage of his sources. However, in general, ghuzz is used to refer to what Ibn al-Ath¯ırsaw as the rough and ready invaders of the early to mid eleventh centuries, while from the 460s/1070s groups of nomadic origin, but rather more respectable behaviour, are called turkm¯an. Thus while Ibn al-Ath¯ır’s usage is slightly different from H. usayn¯ı’s,it confirms that the associations of the word ghuzz are more negative than turkm¯an. However, Türkmen was not always used as a synonym for Oghuz, even Muslim Oghuz. K¯ashghar¯ı,for instance, refers to al-turkm¯anal-qarluq¯ıya ‘Qarluq Türkmen’ in addition to al-turkm¯anal-ghuzz¯ıya, stating that the Qarluqs were Türkmen but not Oghuz.37 Likewise, Ibn al-Ath¯ır contrasts al-turkm¯an al- khalaj¯ıya with al-turkm¯anal-ghuzz¯ıya.38 It may be that Türkmen in these instances indicates Qarluq and Khalaj Turks who had converted to Islam, but there can be no certainty about this. Even more confusing is the fact that some sources appear to mix the terms turkm¯an and ghuzz indiscriminately with no obvious difference of meaning, as occurs with Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı.Sometimes ghuzz is used in a negative way, in association with plundering and destruction.39 At other times its associations are positive, as when Sibt. reports on the ghuzz who have gone 40 to wage the jihad against Byzantium – a praiseworthy Muslim act. Sibt. also seems to imply a distinction between ghuzz and turkm¯an when he talks of an army made up of cavalry of atr¯ak, ghuzz and turkm¯an, but what the nature of this difference was is unknown.41 His use of turkm¯an is equally varied. It may refer to the marauding followers of Selj¯uqchiefs like Ibrahim Yin¯alor Qutlumush,42 but

31 Ibid., X, p. 111 (Türkmen accompany Tutush’s conquest of Damascus); X, p. 115 (a Türkmen lord of a castle near Aleppo); X, p. 134 (fighting between Türkmen and Bedouin); X, p. 136. 32 Ibid., IX, pp. 100, 158, 191, 377. 33 Ibid., IX, p. 188. 34 Ibid., IX, pp. 457, 513. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 35 Ibid., IX, p. 391. 36 Ibid., IX, pp. 475 (‘quwwat al-salj¯uq¯ıya’), 477 (‘‘as¯akiral-salj¯uq¯ıya’). 37 K¯ashghar¯ı, Compendium, I, pp. 82, 172. 38 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 188. 39 For example, Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯atal-Zam¯an, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-CoˇgrafyaFakültesi, 1968, pp. 34, 73–4. 40 Ibid., pp. 132–33. 41 Ibid., p. 10. 42 Ibid., pp. 44, 107, 110. 52 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 43 even the term turk is used in this sense by Sibt.. Indeed, while turkm¯an is often found in a neutral sense in the Mir’¯at, it is also sometimes used by Sibt. to refer to groups of nomads ravaging the countryside and operating outside of the Selj¯uqs’ control44 – the sort of groups described by other writers as ghuzz. In other words, Sibt. does not observe the distinction between ghuzz, turkm¯an and even atr¯ak that is found in other authors, especially those writing for the Selj¯uqdynasty. Nor does he use the term salj¯uq¯ı much. This is not wholly surprising, for Sibt. was a Baghdadi writing for an urban audience to whom all Turks were doubtless equally appalling and all a cause of destruction, whether slave soldiers or nomads. The avoidance of the term ghuzz except in negative contexts by H. usayn¯ı, N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ıand R¯avand¯ı,all sources close to the Selj¯uqcourt, the latter two writing for a royal Selj¯uqaudience, provides firm evidence that ghuzz was seen by some as having derogatory connotations. Admittedly, K¯ashghar¯ıgives no hint that the ghuzz were by any means disreputable from his perspective. However, it is noteworthy that the surviving fragments of Ibn H. ass¯uland the Siy¯asatn¯ama of Niz. ¯amal-Mulk, written for the Selj¯uqsultans T. ughril and Maliksh¯ahrespectively, both avoid the term ghuzz. The former refers simply to the Selj¯uqs’descent from the ummat al-turk, ‘the Turkish nation’, while the latter discusses the tribesmen in the Selj¯uq army using the term turkm¯an¯an.45 A completely different usage is found in the eleventh-century Ghaznavid sources. Gard¯ız¯ı very occasionally uses the term turk¯an-ighuzz and turk¯an-i salj¯uq¯ı, Oghuz and Selj¯uq Turks, respectively.46 More often, however, he describes them as turkm¯an¯an.47 Bayhaq¯ı generally uses the terms turkm¯an¯an and salj¯uq¯ıyan, sometimes together as in turkm¯an¯an-isalj¯uq¯ıyan.48 Elsewhere, Bayhaq¯ı distinguishes between the salj¯uq¯ıyan who took the Khur¯as¯an¯ı city of Nis¯aand turkm¯an¯an who were already there.49 Although neither Bayhaq¯ı nor Gard¯ız¯ıevince any sort of sympathy for the invaders, the neutral term turkm¯an is not replaced with the more hostile ghuzz. It is probable, then, that this distinction did not exist in eleventh-century Persian, and only came into existence later, in the west, as N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı’susage shows. However, Ghaznavid sources did distinguish between two different dialects of Turkish, an Oghuz (ghuzz¯ı) one and a turk¯ı one, presumably that of the Qarakh¯anids.50

43 Ibid., p. 77 on Qutlumush. 44 For example, ibid., p. 131. 45 Ibn H. ass¯ul, Kitab Tafd.¯ılal-Atr¯ak‘al¯as¯a’ir al-ajn¯ad (Ibni˙ Hassulün Türkler hakkindaki eserinin arapça metni), A. Azzavi (ed.), Belleten 4 (1940), p. 39; Niz. ¯amal-Mulk Siy¯asatn¯ama, p. 125; tr. Darke, p. 105. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 46 Gard¯ız¯ı, Zayn al-Akhbar, Rah.¯ımRid. ¯az¯adahMalik (ed.), Tehran: Anjum¯an-i Ath¯arva¯ Maf¯akhir-i Farhangi, 1384, pp. 254, 273. 47 Ibid., pp. 277–8, 285, 287–8. 48 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, Khal¯ılKhat.¯ıbRahbar (ed.), Tehran: Intish¯ar¯at-iMiht¯ab,1376, p. 693. 49 Ibid., p. 572. 50 Tourkhan Ganjeï, ‘Turkish in pre-Mongol Persian poetry’, BSOAS 49/i (1986), p.68; cf. Robert Dankoff, ‘Kashgari on the tribal and kinship organization of the Turks’, Archivum Ottomanicum 4 (1972), pp. 23–4. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 53 Ghuzz and Türkmen thus generally refer to the same groups of peoples, although not invariably, as the distinction between Qarluq and Oghuz Türkmen drawn by K¯ashghar¯ıimplies. In any event, the lifestyles and customs of many Central Asian Turkish tribes were probably very close,51 so not too much should necessarily be read into these distinctions. However, the nuances and implications of the terms vary according to different authors. Arabic and Persian authors do not usually distinguish between non-Muslim Oghuz and converted Türkmen, although this may have been the origin of the derogatory implications of ghuzz. For the purposes of this book I shall therefore refer to the tribesmen who accompanied the Selj¯uqfamily to the west as Türkmen, as this appears to be the most neutral term available, except where quoting from primary sources where the original term will be preserved. I shall also use the term Türkmen to refer to the tribesmen who were not directly associated with the Selj¯uqfamily or who acted in opposition to them, such as the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya.The difference should be clear from the context and to use another term would be to introduce a distinction that is absent from the primary sources. Where necessary, the phrase ‘Selj¯uqTürkmen’, often used in the mediaeval sources, will be used to distinguish the tribal allies of the Selj¯uqfamily from other Türkmen. The term Oghuz will be used only to refer to the pre-Islamic Oghuz state, the broader Oghuz tribal union, and its pagan members who migrated into eastern Europe in the eleventh century.

On the nature of the Türkmen I: nomads and sedentaries Who, then, were these Türkmen? Traditionally, the nomadic nature of the Selj¯uqs and their followers has been stressed, and there is plenty of evidence in the sources to support this. The Malikn¯ama describes the migration of Selj¯uqand his hundred followers from Khazaria to Transoxiana in unmistakably nomadic terms: they were accompanied by 500 camels and 50,000 sheep.52 In the early eleventh century, Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna encountered Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıland his tribal followers living in the Transoxianan steppe, whose ‘tents’ (khark¯ah¯at) he attacked.53 Even more striking is Ibn al-Ath¯ır’s tale of the behaviour of T. ughril and the Türkmen when they captured the Khur¯as¯an¯ıcapital of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,which is designed to underline how they were unaccustomed to the comforts of settled life:

It is said that [T. ughril] saw an almond-cake and ate it, saying, ‘This is a good piece of meat, but there’s no garlic in it’. The Ghuzz saw camphor [for the first time], and thought it was salt, and said, ‘this salt is bitter!’ Many other things like this are related of them.54 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

51 Golden, Introduction, pp. 195–6. 52 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, p. 236; cf. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, E.A.W. Budge (tr.), London: Oxford University Press, 1932, I, p. 195. 53 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 377, 378. 54 Ibid., IX, p. 483. 54 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty No doubt the Türkmen did strike contemporary observers as uncouth, although the image of the Turks as an alien, barbaric people had become firmly entrenched among Islamic authors long before the time Ibn al-Ath¯ırwas writing.55 Ibn al- Ath¯ır’saccount may well be indebted to some such literary topos, for by no means all Türkmen were nomads even before the eleventh century, and there is evidence that among the Selj¯uqTürkmen who migrated westwards were some of a sedentary background. Certainly, the Oghuz Yabgh¯u’sstate of the ninth to tenth centuries was far from purely nomadic. Yangikant, or ‘New Town’ (Persian Dih-i Naw), served both as the capital and as the winter residence of the Yabgh¯u.56 Archaeological evidence suggests a continuous history of urbanism on the eastern shores of the Aral Sea,57 and a significant proportion of the Oghuz population were town dwellers.58 It seems that this was also the case with the Türkmen of Transoxiana (whether they were Qarluq or Oghuz), and the sedentary or semi-sedentary element was significant in the eastern extremities of the region. Muqaddas¯ımentions the town of Ordu in eastern Transoxiana, which was the residence of ‘the Türkmen king’ (malik al-Turkm¯an). ‘It has a fortress, a moat filled with water and a palace (d¯ar al-mulk) in the inner city (quhand¯ız)’.59 The same Türkmen king – presumably a minor local potentate – paid tribute to the lord of Isfij¯ab.Other towns, such as the nearby H. arr¯an,are mentioned by Muqaddas¯ı as having a population of kuff¯ar – unbelievers – which most likely means unconverted Oghuz or Qarluqs.60 Rash¯ıdal-D¯ınwas likewise well aware that the early Turks dwelled ‘in steppes, in 61 villages and in forests’. Mah.m¯ud K¯ashghar¯ımentions several Oghuz cities on the lower Syr Darya and his dictionary attests the influence of contact with Persianate urban life on the Oghuz dialect of Turkish.62 The evidence of the literary sources is solidly supported by archaeology, which confirms that, at least along the Syr Darya,

55 Yehoshua Frenkel, ‘The Turks of the Eurasian Steppes in medieval Arabic writing’ in Reuven Amitai and Michal Biran (eds.), Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, Leiden: Brill, 2005, esp. pp. 223–9. 56 H. ud¯ud, p. 122; Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 212–3; Agadzhanov, Ocherki, p. 134–5. The suggestion (loc. cit.) that the Oghuz state may have had at some point another centre in the east at near the western foothills of the Tien-Shan Mountains seems to rely on putting rather too much weight on a single phrase in Idr¯ıs¯ı(Opus Geographicum, E. Cerulli et al. (ed.), Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1972, p. 841), pointing to the existence in the region of al-mad¯ına al-ghuzz¯ıyaal-qad¯ıma, ‘the old Ghuzz city’. 57 S.P. Tolstov, Po Sledam Drevne Khorezmiyskoi Tsivilizatsii, Moscow/Leningrad: Izd. Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1948, p. 234ff. 58 On Oghuz urbanism see ibid., pp. 238–49; idem, ‘Goroda Guzov’, Sovyetskaya Etnografya 3 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 (1947); the most detailed source on Oghuz towns is Idr¯ıs¯ı, Opus, pp. 837–42; see also Mas‘¯ud¯ı, Mur¯ujal-Dhahab, C. Pellat (ed.), Beirut: Université Libanaise, 1966, § 224. 59 Muqaddas¯ı, Ah.san al-Taq¯as¯ım, p. 275. 60 Loc. cit. 61 Rash¯ıdal-D¯ın, J¯ami‘ al-Taw¯ar¯ıkh, M. Rawshan and M. Musaw¯ı(eds.), Tehran: Nashr-i Alburz, 1373, I, p. 40. 62 Safi, The Politics of Knowledge, pp. 10, 12; cf. K¯ashghar¯ı, Compendium, I, pp. 329, 333, 353, 362. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 55 many of the tenth- and eleventh-century inhabitants were sedentary or semi- sedentary.63 Information about the relationship between the settled and nomadic Türkmen is sorely lacking. It is claimed that the nomadic Türkmen despised the settled ones,64 but the evidence for this is weak. Muqaddas¯ıdescribes Transoxiana as the last redoubt against the nomads – ‘a barrier against the Turks and a shield against the Oghuz’ (sadd al-turk wa-taras al-ghuzz)65 – but there must have been interaction between the nomadic and settled Türkmen. All nomads need to interact with settled peoples, to sell their products and to obtain foodstuffs necessary for a healthy diet that a purely nomadic existence cannot provide,66 and as early as the Gök Türks, agriculture was seen as important.67 The conversion of some Türkmen to Islam and their sedentarisation may partly have been a result of this interaction with settled Muslim communities. Nonetheless, these sedentarised Türkmen may well have maintained some links with the nomadic world, just as was the case with the Qashq¯a’¯ı,a major nomadic confederation in Iran, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The confederation’s leaders lived in towns and only occasionally visited their followers,68 even though the latter were the basis of their power and identity. In fact, a significant number of the Selj¯uqTürkmen may have been of sedentary or semi-sedentary origin.69 Faruk Sümer argued that they brought with them to Anatolia loanwords relating to settled life, especially with regard to foodstuffs and agriculture, many of which would not be known by nomadic Turks.70 Sedentary participation in nomadic forces is known from other examples, most obviously the Mongols who often recruited from the settled population.71 However, it is doubtful whether the early Selj¯uqspossessed the administrative means or will to muster the settled Türkmen. Any sedentary Türkmen among the Selj¯uqranks are likely to have joined them voluntarily. In any event, the distinction between sedentary and nomad can be more blurred than is often believed. Studies of comparable societies show that nomadic and sedentary groups may be complementary, and an entire community or tribe may alternate between nomadism and sedentarism. The nomadic and sedentary sectors of a tribe may be interchangeable according to

63 S.G. Agadzhanov, Ocherki Istorii Oguzov i Turkmen Srednei Azii IX–XIII vv., Ashkhabad: Ilım, 1969, p. 86; V.M. Jirmunskiy, ‘Sirderya boyunda Oˇguzlara dair izler’, Belleten 25 (1961), pp. 470–83, translated from Turkologicheskiy Sbornik 1 (1951). 64 Sümer, Oˇguzlar,p.71. 65 Muqaddas¯ı, Ah.san al-Taq¯as¯ım, p. 240. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 66 Anatoly M. Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World, Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1994, pp. 48–53, esp. 52, pp. 202–12, esp. 204–05; cf. the evidence presented above, p. 23, for Oghuz interaction with Transoxiana. 67 F. Sümer, ‘Anadolu’ya’, p. 568. 68 Thomas Barfield, The Nomadic Alternative, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993, p. 112. 69 Sümer, ‘Anadolu’ya’, p. 591. 70 Ibid., p. 577, and see the list of words on pp. 579–91. 71 J.M. Smith, ‘Mongol manpower and Persian population’, JESHO 18/iii (1975), pp. 271–99. 56 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty economic need.72 We have no hard evidence for this in eleventh-century Central Asia, but if, as is sometimes argued, nomadism is a response to conditions of environmental and political instability,73 then we would expect to find a growing tendency towards nomadisation in this period. Evidence for the superior lifestyle nomadisation could offer is hinted at by a phrase in H. usayn¯ı,who remarks that ‘when Chaghr¯ı Beg saw how the Muslims in [the city of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur]suffered from high prices, he returned to the desert of B¯avardand exchanged a difficult lifestyle for happiness and luxury’.74 Admittedly, some of this economic crisis was doubtless caused by the depredations of the Türkmen on agricultural land, but we should not assume that sedentary quality of life was invariably superior to a nomadic one. It is a credible hypothesis that renomadised, formerly sedentary Türkmen, escaping economic difficulties in the towns, formed part, perhaps a significant part, of the followers of the Selj¯uqfamily.75 Thus neither Oghuz nor Türkmen are synonymous with nomad, but our evidence for the relationship between the settled or semi-sedentary and nomadic Türkmen is scant. Sedentarisation is seen by Khazanov as resulting in the dissolution of the tribe,76 and later nomads like the Mongols sometimes feared their identity would be lost if they settled in towns.77 However, settled members of nomadic tribes have sometimes been able to maintain strong links with their original tribe, as we have seen with the Qashq¯a’¯ımentioned above. The Oghuz ruler, with his residence in Yangikant, was at least semi-sedentarised, but many of his followers were tribesmen.78 Therefore, while the sedentary Turks may well have had relatively weak links with nomadic life, in that they did not necessarily have an immediate kinship group that was still nomadic, they probably maintained a sense of belonging to a greater tribe or tribal confederation. This is clearly indicated by K¯ashghar¯ı’s careful division of the Turks into different groups such as Kh¯aq¯an¯ı,Oghuz and so on, even though many of these were clearly sedentary. The survival of a certain sense of identity derived from membership of a tribal union must have made incorporating such sedentaries into the Selj¯uqtribes a good deal easier. There could also be positive relations between nomads and non-Turkish sedentary groups. The Oghuz/Türkmen (al-atr¯akal-ghuzz¯ıya) are said to have

72 Roger Cribb, Nomads in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, p. 25. 73 Ibid., pp. 62–4. As Khazanov argues, there is no single cause of nomadisation (Nomads, pp. 200–01), but this seems to be accepted to be a common one. A recent example of this is Mongolia in the immediate post-communist period, when economic collapse resulted in significant numbers of the population fleeing the cities for a traditional life in the steppe. 74 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.7. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 75 On renomadisation, see Cribb, Nomads in Archaeology, pp. 120–1. 76 Khazanov, Nomads, pp. 83, 198–202. 77 Joseph Fletcher, ‘The Mongols: ecological and social perspectives’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 46/i (1986), pp. 49–50. 78 S.G. Agajanov, ‘The states of the Oghuz, the Kimek and the Kipchak’ in M.S. Asimov and C.E. Bosworth (eds), History of Civilizations of Central Asia IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century. Part One. The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999, pp. 64–7. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 57 been supporters of the S¯am¯aniddynasty.79 Perhaps this support was rooted in the fact that the S¯am¯anidsallowed them to settle in their territories, granting them winter pastures near Bukh¯ar¯aand their summer pastures around Samarqand,80 close to the political heart of the S¯am¯anidstate. It is interesting to note that when the Qarakh¯anidBughr¯akh¯anwas forced to abandon Bukh¯ar¯aafter occcupying it briefly in 383/993, the Türkmen joined the local populace in looting the Qarakh¯anid soldiery in the city.81 In other words, we find the Türkmen siding with the settled population in opposition to other Turks. Positive relations between townsman and nomad can be found even after the start of the Selj¯uqconquests, as is analysed in more detail in the following chapter. Both Marv and N¯ısh¯ap¯urwere surrendered to the Selj¯uqsby their inhabitants without a fight.

On the nature of the Türkmen II: what was a Türkmen tribe? Frustratingly little information survives about the tribes that participated in the Selj¯uqinvasions. One might assume that other members of the Selj¯uqs’tribe of Qiniq played a part in the conquests, but no firm evidence to support this survives.82 Later historians mention the Döger in the Diy¯arBakr, the Salghur in F¯ars,the Iv¯a’¯ıin Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Jaz¯ıraand the Avshar in Kh¯uzist¯an,but this is usually with reference to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries.83 Some caution needs to be observed in attributing their migrations to the first half of the eleventh century, for there was a tendency, most readily observable among the Ottomans, to claim that one’s tribe had come west with the Selj¯uqsand thus to emphasise its respectability and lineage. Some relatively early sources record the presence of a tribe called the N¯awuk¯ıorY¯awuk¯ıin Anatolia and Syria, but it soon disappears from the historical record.84 Furthermore, what is meant by ‘tribe’ is ambiguous. There is a tendency among historians of the Middle East to use the term as a shorthand for anything that does not fit into the established patterns of sedentary society – even if there is no necessary contradiction between sedentarisation and tribalism.85 The confusion over what constitutes a tribe originates in the primary sources, which present a proliferation of terms relating to tribalism of various origins. Perhaps the most common in the early Arabic and Persian sources is t.¯a’ifa, from the root t.-w-f meaning ‘to move around’, but signifying roughly a ‘group’.

79 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 221; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 158. Cf. J¯uzj¯an¯ı, T. abaq¯ıtal-N¯as.ir¯ı, ‘A. H. ab¯ıb¯ı(ed.), Tehran: Duny¯a-yiKit¯ab,1363, I, p. 245. 80 N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı, Salj¯uqn¯ama,p.5. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 81 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 100. 82 C. Cahen, ‘Les tribus turques de l’Asie Occidentale pendant la période seljukide’, WZKM 51 (1951), pp. 179–80. 83 Ibid., pp. 180–4. 84 Ibid., pp. 185–6. 85 See the discussion in Richard Tapper, ‘Anthropologists, historians, and tribespeople on tribe and state formation in the Middle East’ in Philip S. Khoury and Joseph Kostiner, Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990, pp. 48–73. 58 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty The term ‘ash¯ıra, pl. ‘ash¯a’ir, approximates the English ‘tribe’ more closely, or sometimes ‘clan’, and is also used for the Bedouin, as are the words qab¯ıla, pl. qab¯a’il and qawm, pl. aqw¯am. Some sources use the Turkish word il, and K¯ashghar¯ı,presumably our best-informed author, uses the Turkish and Mongol words boy/bodun, oba and kök/gök.86 Despite this wealth of possible terms, it is debatable whether they represent different nuances. For instance, in some periods, il, t.¯a’ifa and the Mongol aymaq were used interchangeably as terms for ‘tribe’, but also to refer to the subdivisions of a tribe. Furthermore, although K¯ashghar¯ı’s work may seem to be an authoritative source, we must bear in mind that nomads themselves are often inconsistent in usage.87 However, we cannot dismiss the differentiation between the tribe and its subdivisions as purely a theoretical construct of anthropologists, for it is well attested both among contemporary and historical tribes. As our information about the early Selj¯uqsis fragmentary, our discussion of what constituted the Selj¯uq tribes must draw heavily on our general knowledge of the social organisation of other Central Asian Turkic tribes in history. It will be seen that the broad outlines agree with what we know of the formation of the Selj¯uqtribes in the early eleventh century. Among the nomads of Eurasia, the basic social group was the household, made up of the family which tended to be relatively small and not self-sufficient.88 For protection and economic advantage, small groups of households – usually two to four, and rarely more than eight – would group together to share pastures, to migrate together, and to assist one another.89 These communities might then form links with other nomadic groups to form a larger unit, again for similar reasons. In this manner a tribe would be formed. Thus a tribe is not a territorial unit, nor even the basic ethno-linguistic or political unit of nomadic societies;90 that was the household and the small groups of households linked to one another for reasons of mutual aid. Tribes tended to form when political or economic circumstances meant that a larger group was desirable to confront the outside world.91 This so-called segmentary system, in which the political structure of the community was made up of successively larger units, might cumulate finally in a nomadic confederation which brought together unrelated tribes under the leadership of a single figure. The small groups of households that were the basis of nomadic society would be linked by kinship, although such links might often be invented for reasons of political convenience. When tribes were formed this was a particularly necessary step. As Khazanov puts it, ‘genealogies ideologically enable many groups of nomads smoothly to incorporate and adopt outside groups into their own Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

86 Agadzhanov, Ocherki, p. 104; on K¯ashghar¯ı’sterminology see Dankoff, ‘Kashgari on the tribal and kinship organization of the Turks’. 87 See Khazanov, Nomads, pp. 120–1. 88 Ibid., pp. 129, 130–1. 89 Ibid., pp. 131–2, 175. 90 Ibid., pp. 149, 151. 91 Ibid., p. 151. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 59 ranks without making any essential structural changes’.92 Individual households or groups of households could easily join with one another and their common interests be justified, ex post facto, by a supposed common lineage.93 Sedentary groups could easily be incorporated into nomadic ones through just the same rationalisation. In a tribal confederation, the pretence that its constituent parts are related by kinship is abandoned,94 as with the Mongols of the thirteenth century. The Turks who gathered round the Selj¯uqs may have perceived themselves as sharing kinship through their membership of the Oghuz supertribe,95 or even through some shared relationship to Selj¯uqb. Duq¯aq.However, it is also possible that rather than stressing their Oghuz links, the Selj¯uqsused the Khazar connection discussed in Chapter 1 as a means of uniting disparate tribesmen around them. The prestige of the Oghuz was in part a result of fourteenth-century efforts to find a way of unifying Turks and Mongols.96 Although K¯ashghar¯ıemphasises the importance of the Oghuz, he was writing in Selj¯uqBaghdad in the later eleventh century, and we cannot be sure this truly reflects the processes at work 50–70 years earlier. Certainly there is no evidence of boasting of Oghuz descent among the Selj¯uqs in the way that was to become popular in Ottoman times.97 At any rate, any kinship ties the Selj¯uqsand their followers purported to have were doubtless based more on fiction than fact.98 Just as the Oghuz themselves were a confederation which subsumed pre-existing groups, such as Pechenegs, so too there were non- Oghuz Turks who were incorporated into the Selj¯uqtribes, such as Qipchaqs who lived in the Syr Darya region.99 Likewise, defectors from the Ghaznavids served with the Selj¯uqs,fighting on their side at the Battle of T. alkh¯ab,where they volunteered to serve in the advance guard of the Selj¯uqforces to prove their loyalty.100 Even men who were not Turkish at all might participate in a Selj¯uqwarband. In 438/1039, the Kurdish prince Sa‘d¯ıb.Ab¯ı ’l-Shawk joined up with Ibr¯ah¯ım Yin¯al,cousin of T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı, in raiding the Jib¯alin bitterness at a family inheritance dispute.101 In eleventh-century Anatolia, the Norman freebooter Hervé who had originally been fighting for the Byzantines changed sides and joined a Türkmen group led by a certain Samouch raiding in

92 Ibid., p. 143. 93 Cf. Dankoff, ‘Kashgar¯ıon the tribal and kinship organization of the Turks’, pp. 33–4. 94 Barfield, The Nomadic Alternative, p. 108. 95 Indeed, as will be recalled, Oghuz originally meant ‘tribal union’. For the component tribes of the Oghuz see K¯ashghar¯ı, Compendium, I, pp. 101–02. 96 Jean-Paul Roux, La Religion des Turcs et des Mongols, Paris: Payot, 1984, p. 36; Barbara Fleming, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 ‘Political genealogies in the sixteenth century’, Osmanlı Ara¸stırmaları 7–8 (1988), p. 123. 97 Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995, pp. 37, 96, 122, 184–5. 98 Cf. Barfield, The Nomadic Alternative, p. 149. 99 S.G. Agadschanow, Der Staat der Seldschukiden und Mittelasien im 11.–12. Jahrhundert, Berlin: Reinhold Schetzler Verlag, 1994, pp. 29–30. 100 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, pp. 901–02. 101 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 532 and see p. 154 below. 60 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty eastern Anatolia.102 The flexibility of Turkish tribes is reflected in the comments made by one Gurbugha, a Turkish commander in Anatolia, to envoys of the First Crusade:

It surprises us that you should put forward a claim on these lands, for we have taken them from effeminate people. Are your lords willing to become Turks, to renounce their God and religion? If so, they may stay here. We will give you cities and horses, you will become horsemen like us, and we will always extend our friendship to you. Otherwise, we will put you in chains, take you to Khorasan or kill you.103

New Selj¯uqallies were not restricted to soldiers seeking military advantage. Bayhaq¯ıtells us that the Selj¯uqs’ambassador in negotiations with the Ghazanavids was ‘a learned and eloquent elder of Bukh¯ar¯a’(mard¯ı-yip¯ır-iBukh¯ar¯ıd¯anishmand va sukhan-g¯u¯ı).104 The men who participated in the Selj¯uqconquests were not, then, exclusively either nomads or even Turks.105 These were, however, the predominant elements in them. Khazanov argues that the very nature of a Eurasian nomadic tribe was internally contradictory. As a political unit, a tribe necessarily restricts the freedom of action of its subsections, yet at the same time these very subsections – whether household, group of households or larger – need freedom to be able to exploit pastures according to their needs. This explains both the frequent emergence of nomadic polities and their tendency to fragment swiftly.106 This fragmentation was noted by Rash¯ıdal-D¯ın,who wrote that, ‘with the passage of time the tribes split into many branches, and in every period [other] branches appeared from [each] branch’.107 For the same reason, we cannot speak of the Türkmen associated with the Selj¯uq family as a coherent unit, acting of one accord either in harmony with or against the wishes of the Selj¯uqs.The units that came together to form what we may call the Selj¯uqtribes had their own self-interest at heart first and foremost.

The descendants of Selj¯uqand the competition for leadership The need to unite against threats from the outside world in a period of upheaval and the desire to secure plunder and pasture encouraged tribesmen to gather under

102 Jean Skylitzès, Empereurs de Constantinople, B. Flusin (tr.), Paris: P. Lethielleux, 2003, pp. 399–401. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 103 Histoire anonyme de la Première Croisade, L. Brehier (ed.), Paris: Librairie Ancienne, 1924, pp. 150–1, quoted in Osman Turan, ‘The idea of world domination among the medieval Turks’, Studia Islamica 4 (1955), pp. 86–7. 104 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 712. 105 For further evidence of settled administrators recruited into Selj¯uqservice at an early date, see Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 268. 106 Khazanov, Nomads, p. 152. 107 Rash¯ıdal-D¯ın, J¯ami‘ al-Taw¯ar¯ıkh, Rawshan and Musav¯ı(eds.), I, p. 40. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 61 the leadership of the Selj¯uqfamily. Nomads would always tend to join with the leader who could best defend their interests, by definition the most successful.108 The role of members of the Selj¯uqfamily as tribal leaders is described with regard to T. ughril’s cousin, Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al,by Ibn al-Ath¯ır:

A large group of Türkmen from Transoxiana came to Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al,and he said, ‘My territories are too small for you and to support your needs. The best thing is to go to attack Anatolia, fight in God’s path, plunder, and I will come in your wake and assist you’.109

Pasture had to be secured both for the horses which were the basis of a nomadic host,110 and the herds of sheep and other beasts on which they relied for animal products, the basis of a nomad’s diet. The nature of the nomadic economy made nomads extremely vulnerable. The Selj¯uqsdepended on being able to exploit the summer and winter pastures around Samarqand and Bukh¯ar¯a,as the later S¯am¯anidshad permitted them to do. Yet this right could easily be withdrawn, leaving the nomads in danger of losing their flocks and hence starvation. It is probably for this reason as well as their initially small numbers that H. usayn¯ıhas the Ghaznavid general S¯ub¯ash¯ıremark of the Selj¯uqs, ‘They were formerly the weak of our lands’.111 At the same time, the very presence of nomads could provoke a deeply hostile reaction from existing rulers. Thus when, after the death of M¯ık¯a’¯ılb. Selj¯uq,the Selj¯uqsapproached Bukh¯ar¯a,‘its governor feared them and thought ill of them being in the neighbourhood, and wanted to destroy them and kill them’.112 Selj¯uqand his family probably had some position of leadership even before their migration to Jand,113 as the tales of Duq¯aq,Selj¯uqand the Khazar ruler indicate. Hereditary differentiation had long been established among the Oghuz,114 and the prestige of the Selj¯uqdynasty among the Türkmen is reflected in a tale told by Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı about a group of Türkmen in Syria in a slightly later period. In 467/1074, in the wake of fighting with Atsiz, the leader of the Türkmen in Syria, one of the other Türkmen chiefs, Shakl¯ı,wrote to Sulaym¯an,the son

108 Rudi Paul Lindner, ‘What was a nomadic tribe?’ Comparative Studies in History and Society 24/ii (1982), p. 693. Linder’s thesis has been criticised by Tapper for stressing the role of shared interest in recruitment to tribal groups at the expense of kinship ties (see Tapper, ‘Anthropologists, historians and tribespeople’, pp. 58–60). However, the importance of genuine kinship ties in this Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 period is uncertain. 109 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 546. 110 On this see Denis Sinor, ‘Horse and pasture in Inner Asian history’, Oriens Extremus 19/i–ii (1972), pp. 171–83 (reprinted in idem, Studies in Medieval Inner Asia, Ashgate: Variorum, 1997). 111 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.8. 112 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 474. 113 Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nameh’, p. 43. 114 Khazanov, Nomads, p. 179. 62 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty of Qutlumush, asking him to assume leadership of the Türkmen in the area, saying,

You are of the Selj¯uqdynasty and the royal house. If we obey you and serve you we will be honoured by you and we will be proud. Atsiz was not from the royal house so we did not like to follow and obey him.115

Other Türkmen outside the group which had migrated to Jand subsequently joined the Selj¯uqs,posing a threat to other powers in the region. As Ibn al-Ath¯ır notes, when Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna encountered Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl and his group of nomads in the desert ‘he saw the Saljuqs’ strength (quwwat al-salj¯uq¯ıya), their force (al-shawka) and their great numbers’.116 Even if we do not take the figures given in the sources literally, the tens of thousands of Türkmen who are mentioned as participitating in the conquests in the 1030s indicate a substantial increase in numbers from the small band of a hundred or so that accompanied Selj¯uqto Jand.117 The words attributed by Ibn al-Ath¯ırto Chaghr¯ıon his deathbed reflect this development:

You know that we met our enemies when we were at the head of thirty men and they were three hundred and we defeated them, and we did the same when we were three hundred and they three thousand, and again when we were three thousand and they thirty thousand. We defeated in the past Sh¯ah-Malik who commanded many numerous men and seized his realm of Khw¯arazm… and we gained mastery over Khur¯as¯an,T. abarist¯anand S¯ıst¯anand became kings with many subjects, when before we had been insignificant subjects ourselves.118

Although shared kinship, whether real or perceived, was doubtless a factor in attracting support, as was the prestige of the Selj¯uqname, it was probably above all the simple fact that the Selj¯uqsrapidly achieved initial success that secured the fragile allegiance of many Türkmen. However, inside the Selj¯uqfamily itself, leadership over these followers became the subject of an intense struggle. It has been suggested that the Selj¯uqs,in accordance with Turkic tradition, saw leadership of the tribe (and, subsequently, the sultanate) as vested not in one individual but in the dynasty as a whole.119 Collective sovereignty can be observed in mediaeval Turkish states like the Qarakh¯anids(although it does not seem to have existed in dynasties like the Ghaznavids or the Delhi sultanate founded by Turkish slave soldiers). Certain events do seem to suppport such an Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

115 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 174. 116 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 474. 117 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 220, 245, 303, n. 13; M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, p. 236; Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, pp. 693, 900. 118 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil,X,p.7. 119 Golden, Introduction, p. 220; Lambton, Continuity and Change, p. 225. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 63 interpretation in the Selj¯uqcase, such as the partition of the empire after the conquest of N¯ısh¯ap¯urand the institution of a system of dual rulership whereby Chaghr¯ı ruled Transoxiana and the east and T. ughril held the west (discussed below). However, collective sovereignty was by no means invariably the rule among Eurasian nomadic confederations. In a confederation’s formative stages there was a tendency for a single, charasmatic leader to emerge, often after extensive infighting. This process was accompanied by the formation of a military aristocracy. Members of this aristocracy would struggle among themselves for power. The successful ones were distinguished by, as Nicola di Cosmo puts it, ‘individual ambition, sheer military ability, personal charisma, and a contemptuous disregard for traditional rules of seniority’.120 This phenomenon occurred among nomadic confederations of many different periods, ranging from the Xiong-nu to the Mongols, where Chinggis Khan represents the ultimate example of such a charismatic leader.121 The early eleventh century, far from seeing the establishment of collective sovereignty among the Selj¯uqfamily, witnessed the outbreak of precisely the kind of infighting that characterised the struggle to become the paramount leader. Historiography both modern and mediaeval has tended to depict the leadership of Chaghr¯ıand T. ughril of the Türkmen tribes as inevitable; as Ibn al-Ath¯ırlaconically puts it when discussing the rise of the dynasty, ‘[M¯ık¯a’¯ıl]left behind as sons [M¯us¯a] Yabgh¯u,T. ughril-beg Muh.ammad, and Chaghr¯ı-begD¯a’¯udand their tribes obeyed them and assented to their authority ( fa-at.¯a‘ahum‘ash¯a’iruhumwa-waqaf¯u‘inda 122 amrihim wa-nahyihim)’. H. usayn¯ıconcurs (leaving M¯us¯aYabgh¯uand Chaghr¯ı out of the picture), stating that, ‘the tribes and the Turks (al-qab¯a’ilwa-’l-atr¯ak) 123 agreed on Ab¯uT. ¯alibT. ughril-beg [as their leader]’. However, other sources suggest that the M¯ık¯a’¯ılids’ascendancy was contested. Rash¯ıdal-D¯ınalludes to the problem that confronted the early Selj¯uqs(even if his genealogy is wrong): ‘[Selj¯uq]had five sons, Isr¯a’¯ıl,M¯ık¯a’¯ıl,M¯us¯aYabgh¯u,Y¯usufand Y¯unus,and each one was fit to be leader and senior (har yak shay¯asta-yiam¯ır¯ıva darkhvar-i mihtar¯ı b¯ud)’.124 Regrettably, the contradictions of the sources over the relationship of various members of the family to one another make the exact nature of this dynamic difficult to follow;125 however, sufficient information is preserved for us to understand in broad terms the struggle for leadership among the Selj¯uqs. The most significant source of opposition to the brothers Chaghr¯ıand T. ughril from within the dynasty came from their uncle Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ılb. Selj¯uq,who may

120 Nicola di Cosmo, ‘State formation and periodization in Inner Asian history’, Journal of World Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 History 10/i (1999), p. 19. 121 Cf. Fletcher, ‘The Mongols’, pp. 22–3. 122 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 474. 123 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.4. 124 Rash¯ıdal-Din, J¯ami‘ al-Taw¯ar¯ıkh, II, Part 5, A. Ate¸s(ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1957, pp. 5–6. 125 See Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nameh’, pp. 44–46 for a reconstruction of the relationships which is broadly followed here. 64 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty

Figure 2.1 Family tree of the Selj¯uqdynasty, showing the relationship of major Selj¯uqs mentioned in this book.

have adopted at some point the title of yabgh¯u.126 Although the precise significance of the term is debatable,127 there is no doubt that Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ılwas a leading, if not the leading, member of the Selj¯uqfamily in the early eleventh century. Later tradition indicates that, at least by his own descendants, Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ılwas perceived as ‘the best and most senior of the tribe’.128 It is doubtful, however, whether this seniority rested on primogeniture, for this was uncharacteristic of Eurasian nomads.129 Traditionally among the Turks, seniority was passed from elder to younger brother – this had been the case with the Gök-Türks, for example.130 The survival of this custom is illustrated by the revolt of Q¯avurton Alp Arsl¯an’s death, who claimed the sultanate on the basis that he was the late sultan’s brother, while Maliksh¯ahwas only his son.131 If M¯ık¯a’¯ılwas the eldest son of Selj¯uq,as tradition records, Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ılwould have felt himself entitled to succeed him in leadership of the tribes, not M¯ık¯a’¯ıl’ssons Chaghr¯ıand T. ughril.

126 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 221–2. 127 For example, Bayhaq¯ı,a roughly contemporary source, consistently refers to M¯us¯aas Yabgh¯u Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 (cf. Ibn al-Ath¯ır, n. 122 above), and depicts M¯us¯a,Chaghr¯ı and T. ughril as acting together, apparently of roughly equal status. See Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, pp. 693, 714–5, and see further the discussion below. 128 Rash¯ıdal-D¯ın, J¯ami‘ al-Taw¯arikh, II/5, ed. Ate¸s,p. 28. 129 Khazanov, Nomads, p. 174. 130 Thomas Barfield, The Perilous Frontier, p. 134. 131 C.E. Bosworth, ‘The political and dynastic history of the Iranian world (1000–1217)’, in Boyle, The Cambridge History of Iran,V,p.88. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 65 Moreover, Arsl¯an Isr¯a’¯ıl had widespread support among the tribesmen, as Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna noted on his travels in Transoxiana, perhaps partly because of his seniority; however, he must also have been able to cater to the needs of his tribal followers by providing them with pasture and plunder, as discussed above (p. 61). This success must be the reason why Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ılwas perceived as a nuisance to the Ghaznavid authorities, and he was imprisoned by Mah.m¯ud in 416/1025, held in a castle in distant India.132 The Ghaznavids hoped not merely to discourage Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl’sfollowers from their depredations by imprisoning him, but also to use his position in the tribe to influence other members of the Selj¯uqdynasty. Thus when Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl’srelatives begged the Ghaznavid sultan Mas‘¯udfor his release, Mas‘¯udagreed, but ‘summoned him [Arsl¯an]before him in Balkh and ordered him to correspond with the tribe of his brother [M¯us¯a]Yabgh¯u,T. ughril-beg and D¯a’¯ud [Chaghr¯ı],to command them to act properly and to cease from evil’.133 The imprisonment of Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl,the most senior Selj¯uq,contributed to the battle for precedence among the family, which was manipulated by the Qarakh¯anid ‘Al¯ı Teg¯ın of Bukh¯ar¯a, according to the Malikn¯ama. Both Ibn al-Ath¯ır and M¯ırkhwand record that ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ınsought to split the Selj¯uqsby appointing Y¯usufb. M¯us¯ab. Selj¯uq,the cousin of T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı,as leader of the tribe. Ibn al-Ath¯ır says, ‘his motive was to get help from him [Y¯usuf],his tribe (‘ash¯ıratihi) and his supporters (as.h. ¯abihi) against T. ughril-beg and D¯a’¯ud[Chaghr¯ı]and his two cousins and to sow discord and for them to fight one another.’134 The position to which Ali Teg¯ınsought to appoint Yusuf is described by Ibn al-Ath¯ıras ‘leadership over all the Turks subject to him (al-taqaddum ‘ala jam¯ı‘al-atr¯akalladh¯ınaf¯ıwil¯ayatihi)’, with the title of Am¯ırInanj Yabgh¯u,135 while M¯ırkhwanddescribes it simply as ‘chiefdom of the Türkmen’ (riy¯asat-itar¯akima), or ‘leadership and governance of the Türkmens’ (im¯aratva h.uk¯umat-iturkm¯an-r¯a).136 The two sources differ on the outcome of this, Ibn al-Ath¯ır indicating that Y¯usufsimply refused to acquiesce in the Qarakh¯anid’sscheme, while M¯ırkhwandsays he accepted and was subsequently killed fighting his cousins. More significant than this, however, are the implications of the story. Of course, as was argued in Chapter 1, the Malikn¯ama is a legitimatory text and cannot be taken at face value. Nonetheless, reading between the lines, some light is shed on tribal politics. First, the Selj¯uqfamily had clearly already established itself as having an entitlement to leadership of at least some of the Türkmen of Transoxiana; it was not in ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ın’spower to change this, even though he feared the Selj¯uqs.Second, ‘Al¯ıTeg¯ınhad some power to appoint the beg or am¯ır of the tribes loyal to the Selj¯uqs.M¯ırkhwandindicates that this was accepted by the tribesmen, for Yusuf started to arrange the affairs Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

132 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, p. 242; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 475; Cahen, ‘Le Malik- nameh’, p. 52. 133 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 478–9. 134 Ibid., IX, p. 476. 135 Loc. cit. 136 M¯ırkhwand,loc. cit. The title am¯ır is used by Persian and Arabic sources as an equivalent for the Turkish beg. 66 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty the affairs of ‘il and ulus’ (i.e. the tribes) and ‘the flag of his fortune was raised (‘¯alam-i dawlat-i ¯uirtif¯a‘y¯aft)’.137 With the imprisonment of Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıland the death of Y¯usuf,the M¯ık¯a’¯ılids, T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı,acquired a tenuous hold on the chiefdom of the Salij¯uq¯ıya – tenuous because their authority was to be challenged both by other members of the Selj¯uqfamily and other Türkmen tribesmen, and because the relationship between Chaghr¯ıand T. ughril was probably not as amicable as the later sources would like one to think. Even the Türkmen who followed the M¯ık¯a’¯ılidswere not necessarily a block that acted in unison, as Bayhaq¯ımakes clear when describing the failed negotiations between the Ghaznavids and the Selj¯uqsin 426/1034 that sought to co-opt the latter as clients of Sultan Mas‘¯ud:‘there were three ambassadors from the Türkmen [sih ras¯ulaz turkm¯an¯an], one from those [Türkmen] of [M¯us¯a] 138 Yabgh¯u,one from those of T. ughril and one from those of Da’¯ud[Chaghr¯ı]’. Mas‘¯udsent all three of them a robe of honour, and not one of them was especially singled out for favours above the others, indicating their equal status at this stage. Further evidence of their ability to act independently of one another is presented by Ibn al-Ath¯ırin his account of Mas‘¯ud’scampaign against the Selj¯uqsin 429/1038, in which M¯us¯aYabgh¯uresponded positively to Mas‘¯ud’speace overtures whereas 139 T. ughril and Chaghr¯ırejected them. The tensions between the competing relatives seem to have come to the fore with the conquest of the major Khur¯as¯an¯ıcity of N¯ısh¯ap¯urin 431/1040. It was at this point that T. ughril is said to have been granted the title of Sultan of East and West (Sult.¯anal-Mashriq wa-’l-Maghrib),140 illustrating his desire to be seen as an Islamic sovereign rather than a tribal chief. However, whatever titles T. ughril might appropriate, he had to make some concessions to his relatives. As a result, at N¯ısh¯ap¯urT. ughril drew up a pact that sought to divide up both those lands already conquered and those yet to be attacked. Central Asia was granted to his brother Chaghr¯ı,while Armenia and Azerbaijan went to Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl’sson, 141 Qutlumush. T. ughril may well have had little choice in this, as the penetration of these regions by the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya Türkmen was probably beginning around this point, and the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya,originally followers of Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl,may have regarded Qutlumush as a more natural leader than the usurping M¯ık¯a’¯ılids.142 Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al was granted Quhist¯anand Jurj¯an,likewise yet to be conquered, while Ab¯u‘Al¯ı al-H. asan b. M¯us¯ab. Selj¯uqwas allotted Herat, B¯ushanj,S¯ıst¯anand the Gh¯urid 143 lands. It will be noted that only T. ughril and Chaghr¯ıreceived territories that

137 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, p. 237. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 138 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 714. 139 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 481–2. 140 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.18. 141 A.C.S. Peacock, ‘Nomadic society and the Selj¯uqconquest of Caucasia’, Iran and the Caucasus 9/ii (2005), pp. 217–8, n. 59. On Qutlumush see also C. Cahen, ‘Qutlumush et ses fils avant l’Asie Mineure’, Der Islam 39 (1964), pp. 14–17. 142 Peacock, ‘Nomadic society’, pp. 218–9. 143 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.17. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 67 were securely under Selj¯uqcontrol, so it was hardly an act of great generosity to their relatives. The Islamic historiographical tradition certainly gives the impression that T. ughril acheived superiority over other members of his family. It is supported by some evidence in Bayhaq¯ı,who already in 429/1038 has Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯alrefer 144 to T. ughril as ‘the senior one of us’ (mihtar-i m¯a). However, in practice this superiority was contested. T. ughril may have adopted symbols of kingship such as sitting on a throne and arrogating to himself the traditional S¯am¯anidtitle of Am¯ır of Khur¯as¯an,145 but it is not at all clear that this meant very much to his other relatives. Numismatic evidence bears witness to a struggle between T. ughril and his brother Chaghr¯ı,ruler in the east, for the symbols of power and authority.146 Other members of the family such as Ertash and M¯us¯aYabgh¯uwere also involved in this struggle for power in Herat and S¯ıst¯an.147 A further threat 148 to T. ughril’s authority came from Ibr¯ah¯ım Yin¯al. Bayhaq¯ı indicates that the followers of Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯alwere distinct from those of T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı.He describes the former as the Yin¯aliy¯an, as opposed to the Saljuq¯ıy¯an who were – presumably – the M¯ık¯a’¯ılids, even if, as we have argued, the latter were not necessarily a homogenous block.149 Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯aloften acted in collaboration with the M¯ık¯a’¯ılids;in a letter to the people of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,he described himself as 150 the ‘forerunner’ (muqaddima) of the three brothers, and T. ughril on occasion gave him orders regarding where to attack.151 However, the Yin¯al¯ıy¯anremained a significant political force in their own right, at least until the death of Ibr¯ah¯ım, who rebelled against the M¯ık¯a’¯ılidson more than one occasion and was finally only captured and executed with some difficulty.152 Clearly his tribal support was a major factor in this, for as Bar Hebraeus explains, T. ughril feared him precisely because of his ability to appeal to this constituency. ‘The Sultan [T. ughril], being afraid that Ibrahim would make himself master of Persia, and cause

144 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 883. 145 Ibid., p. 959. 146 Richard W. Bulliet, ‘Numismatic evidence for the relationship between T. ughril Beg and Chaghr¯ı Beg’ in Dickran K. Kouymjian (ed.), Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1974, pp. 294–5; Osman G. Özgüdenli, ‘Yeni Paraların I¸sıˇgındaKurulu¸sDevri Selçuklularında Hâkimiyet Münasebetleri Hakkında Bazı Dü¸sünceler’, Belleten 65 (2001), pp. 547–70. 147 Özgüdenli, ‘Yeni Paraların I¸sıˇgında’,pp. 555–8. 148 The relationship of Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯alto T. ughril and Chaghr¯ıis, like that of Yabgh¯u,confused in the sources. Ibn al-Ath¯ırrefers to him consistently as T. ughril’s brother (e.g. Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 385, 510), whereas other sources indicate he was T. ughril’s mother’s brother. However, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 he was probably actually the cousin of T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı,the brother of Y¯usufb. M¯us¯ab. Selj¯uqwho was manipulated into leadership by the Qarakh¯anids,as is confirmed by the coin dated 439/1047–8 which was struck in his name, on which he is referred to as Ibr¯ah¯ımb. M¯us¯a In¯anj.See Özgüdenli, ‘Yeni Paraların I¸sıˇginda’,p. 555, and Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nameh’, p. 58. 149 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 693; see also Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 226. 150 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 881; cf. ibid., pp. 900, 936. 151 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 528. 152 Ibid., IX, pp. 556, 639–40; H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.19. 68 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty the armies of the Ghuzzaye [Ghuzz] to rebel with him, marched off hurriedly into Persia [to crush his final revolt]’.153 The ancient title Yin¯almay denote some hereditary right within the tribe which Ibr¯ah¯ım and his followers were anxious to uphold.154 The sole coin that has come to light struck in Ibr¯ah¯ım Yin¯al’sname does not make any mention of T. ughril, and includes the bow and arrow motif that symbolised sovereignty, suggesting Ibr¯ah¯ım’s own claims.155 On T. ughril’s death in 455/1063, another power struggle broke out, with the sultanate disputed by two sons of Chaghr¯ı, Alp Arsl¯anand Sulaym¯an.Even these two candidates were not universally accepted, for Qutlumush seized the opportunity of T. ughril’s death to launch his own, ultimately unsuccessful, bid for power.156 This constant competition between members of the family suggests that in the early Selj¯uqperiod the concept of joint or collegiate sovereignty was not widely accepted. Rather, members of the Selj¯uqfamily constantly competed with one another for leadership, hoping to have their authority recognised both by their relatives and by the tribesmen,157 in much the same way that in the late twelfth century Chinggis Khan was able to establish himself as supreme chief of the Turko- Mongol tribes of Mongolia. The tribesmen played an active role in this political 158 struggle. Sibt. remarks that ‘the Türkmen and the Turks’ joined Qutlumush, who in any event drew much of his support from the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya,and we have seen how Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al’stribal followers allowed him to challenge T. ughril. Tribal support was crucial to winning political battles.

The relationship of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaTürkmen with the Selj¯uqfamily In time, the Selj¯uqfamily adhered to Khazanov’s description of the distancing of the upper echelons of the tribe from their followers: ‘the ruling segment ceases to be a replica of the other segments, fully or partially falls away from the genealogical cliché of the given society, acquires distinct laws of leadership and descent and, most importantly, turns into a distinct estate’.159 It is not at all evident, however, that this was the case in the first half of the eleventh century, or indeed until the reign of Maliksh¯ahor later, culminating in the twelfth century in the capture of sultan Sanjar by the Türkmen, whom later tradition saw the Selj¯uqsas having betrayed.160

153 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography,I,p.213 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 154 V. Minorsky, ‘Aïnallu/Inallu’, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 17 (1951–3), pp. 5–8. 155 Özgüdenli, ‘Yeni Paraların I¸sıˇgında’,pp. 558–9. 156 Peacock, ‘Nomadic society’, pp. 219–20. 157 Cf. the concept of ‘tanistry’ discussed by Fletcher, ‘The Mongols’, pp. 17, 19. 158 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at p. 77. 159 Khazanov, Nomads, p. 146. 160 Ibid., p. 267; Ebulgazi Bahadir Han, ¸Secere-iTer¯akime(Türkmenlerin Soykütüˇgü), Zuhal Kargı Ölmez (ed.), Ankara: Simurg, 1996, p. 206. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 69 Thus opposition to the Selj¯uqsdid not necessarily originate in tribal resentment of the family’s attempts to enhance its status based on some romantic idea of equality. Rather, it seems to have been connected with the family politics of the Selj¯uqs and the competition for leadership. For the most vigorous and consistent opposition to the M¯ık¯a’¯ılidsoriginated in one specific group of Türkmen, Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl’s followers, the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya.161 Bereft of their leader, they started to plunder and cause destruction in Khur¯as¯an,to the fury of the Ghaznavids who launched a number of expeditions to suppress them. Each army sent against them seems to have pushed them further westward, from Khur¯as¯anto Is.fah¯an and then on to Azerbaijan. A further substantial group remained in Khur¯as¯an,turning their attention to pillaging Khw¯arazmbefore finally being chased to Jurj¯an.A third group joined the first, plundering their way through Iran to Azerbaijan and beyond.162 According to the account given by Ibn al-Ath¯ır,163 our main source for their activities, they were responsible for much of the pillaging and destruction in Iran and the Caucasus that is associated with the Selj¯uqconquests, and he makes an explicit distinction between them and the Salj¯uq¯ıya164 – the latter meaning, apparently, the M¯ık¯a’¯ılids and their followers. Even these groups of ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyawere not an uncontrolled rabble, and established local Iranian rulers like the Raww¯adidVahs¯ud¯anof Tabr¯ız and Ab¯uK¯al¯ıj¯ar of Hamad¯anintermarried with them (s. ¯aharahum), doubtless to try to harness them for their own purposes.165 The ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyahad their own leaders or generals (muqaddam), of whom there must have been a fair number, for Mas‘¯udof Ghazna apparently executed around 50 of them at N¯ısh¯ap¯urwithout putting a stop to their activities. There were also chiefs (am¯ırs), at least of the second group of ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya,whose names are recorded: Göktash, B¯uq¯a,Qizil, Yaghmur, N¯as.ughli 166 and Mans. ¯ur. It is not entirely clear what the distinction between the am¯ırs and the muqaddams was, but we are may be dealing with various subdivisions of the tribe, which might split up to act as an independent warband or reunite to defend its interests. Hostility between the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya and the M¯ık¯a’¯ılids was fierce. In 433/1041–2, the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya were forced to flee into the mountains of Azerbaijan, ‘because they could not remain there as a result of what they had done to its people, and because Ibr¯ah¯ım Yin¯alwas behind them, whom they feared because they were subjects [ra‘¯ıya] to him and his cousins T. ughril-beg and 167 D¯a’¯ud[Chaghr¯ı]’. The letter from T. ughril to the B¯uyidJal¯alal-Dawla about

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 161 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 377, 379, 391. See also the discussion in Cahen, ‘Le Malik-nameh’, pp. 56–7. 162 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 378. 163 Ibid., IX, pp. 377–91. 164 Ibid., IX, pp. 379, 391. 165 Ibid., IX, pp. 381, 382. 166 Ibid., IX, pp. 379, 386. 167 Ibid., IX, p. 386. 70 The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty the Türkmen is further testimony to this enmity between between the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaand the Selj¯uqleadership:168

These Türkmen (al-turkm¯an) were our slaves, servants, subjects and followers. They were obedient and served our court, and when we arose to arrange the affairs of the Ghaznavid house and we were charged with dealing with Khw¯arazm,they headed off to Rayy where they created havoc and destruction. We mustered our armies from Khur¯as¯anagainst them, determined that they should seek mercy and take refuge in forgiveness. Pride took posses- sion of them and decency deserted them, and we must return them humble to our banners and give them a taste of our harshness as a reward for rebels.169

Much of Ibn al-Ath¯ır’saccount is clearly derived from the later historiographical tradition that set out to portray T. ughril as an ideal Muslim monarch. It is unlikely that the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyawould have seen themselves as being T. ughril’s subjects – ra‘¯ıya – in any conventional definition of the term. Indeed, Ibn al-Ath¯ır’srecord of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya’sresponse to T. ughril’s attempts to summon them to his presence illustrates this point:

We know that your aim is to gather us together to capture us, and fear of you has made us go far from you. We have settled here [Diy¯arBakr] and if you come after us we will make for Khur¯as¯an,or Byzantium, and we shall never gather together with you.170

The hostility between T. ughril and the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyawas probably rooted less in the fact that the latter disrupted the former’s attempts to portray himself as a reputable Islamic monarch than in the ongoing tension between various elements of the Selj¯uqfamily discussed above. With the imprisonment of Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl,it is likely that his followers lost out in the quest for pasture and plunder as T. ughril and Chaghr¯ısought to consolidate their position with their own followers. This would explain why the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyadid not simply join with the M¯ık¯a’¯ılids:the resources of Central Asia were limited, particularly with the increasing aridity. Furthermore, the M¯ık¯a’¯ılidleadership of the tribes was not universally accepted. As discussed above (p. 68), on T. ughril’s death, Qutlumush sought to seize leadership for himself. Qutlumush, it will be recalled, had been granted at N¯ısh¯ap¯urin 431/1040 the territories in Azerbaijan and Caucasia where the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyawere so heavily settled, and evidence from other sources confirms he remained active in the region much later, besieging cities like Kars and Ganja.171 We know too that much of the Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

168 Ibid., IX, p. 389. 169 Ibid., IX, p. 389. 170 Ibid., IX, p. 508. 171 Cahen, ‘Qutlumush’, p. 20; Peacock, ‘Nomadic society’, pp. 218–9; ‘Az.¯ım¯ı, Ta’r¯ıkh, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988, pp. 6, 10. The tribes and the Selj¯uqdynasty 71 support for Qutlumush’s attempt to seize power came from the Türkmen, and many of these were probably ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya.According to Sibt., no fewer than 50,000 Türkmen flocked to his standard, and although this figure is doubtless considerably exaggerated, it is indicative of the broad extent of his support.172 It seems very likely then that the hostility of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyato T. ughril derived from the fact that they simply did not accept his claims to leadership, and that they were losing out in the struggle for resources to his supporters. The hostility between the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya and the M¯ık¯a’¯ılids is probably the origin of the perception of an opposition between Selj¯uqsand ‘Ghuzz’. Although the sources emphasise this enmity, a couple of clues suggest that the reality may have been more complex. According to Bar Hebraeus, for example, Qizil, known to us from Ibn al-Ath¯ıras one of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya’smain leaders,173 was the ‘kinsman’ of 174 T. ughril by marriage, being the husband of either T. ughril’s or M¯ık¯a’¯ıl’ssister. Furthermore, Bar Hebraeus says that when T. ughril proclaimed himself sultan in N¯ısh¯ap¯urand Chaghr¯ıestablished himself in Central Asia, this same Qizil ‘sat down [i.e. established himself] … in the city of Râî [Rayy]’.175 Rayy was one of the main cities of Khur¯as¯an,and T. ughril must presumably have had good reason to allow Qizil to occupy this rich prize. Ibn al-Ath¯ırconfirms Qizil’s presence at Rayy in 420/1029, long before T. ughril arrived on the scene, but even more interestingly sub anno 432/1041, he remarks that ‘Qizil, amir of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya ghuzz, died in Rayy and was buried in one of its districts’.176 This suggests a long-standing connection with the city, and perhaps, as Bar Hebraeus indicates, T. ughril allowed his ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya kinsman to control the city even after he himself had secured control of Khur¯as¯an. If so, this fact – like that of Qizil’s kinship to T. ughril – must have been deliberately omitted by the Islamic sources to avoid tainting the Selj¯uqsultans with association with the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya. The evidence serves to underline that relationships between the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaand the M¯ık¯a’¯ılidswere undoubtedly much more complex than the sources would often have us believe, reinforcing points made earlier in the chapter. The tribes were not a homogenous body that acted uniformly either with or against the Selj¯uqfamily, while the Selj¯uqfamily itself was not a single unit but was split by struggles for leadership. By origin, the Selj¯uqtribes were not purely nomadic, but comprised sedentary and semi-sedentary elements. Among the tribes there was a constant tendency for groups to break off and form new units. This tendency towards fragmentation was even reflected in the Türkmens’ military tactics, the subject of the next chapter. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

172 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 110; Peacock, ‘Nomadic society’, p. 220. 173 Ibid., IX, pp. 379, 381, 384, 385. 174 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, tr. E.A. Wallis Budge, London: Oxford University Press, 1932, I, p. 198. Budge’s translation is ambiguous as to whose sister she was. 175 Ibid., I, p. 199. 176 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 381, 494. See also above, n. 169, for further evidence of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya association with Rayy. 3 Warfare, conquest and migration The Selj¯uqsin Central Asia, Iran and Iraq to 1055

Warfare, traditionally, was the main skill with which the nomads of Central Asia were associated in the eyes of their neighbours.1 For this reason, when the ‘Abb¯asidsneeded to recruit a slave force whose loyalty to the dynasty could be assured (in theory, if not in practice), their choice fell on Central Asian Turks, although there were also smaller components of other peoples.2 Byzantine armies also often contained a significant number of mercenaries of Turkish origin.3 Both Byzantium and the Middle East were long since accustomed to attacks by Turkic nomads. Byzantine territories in the Crimea and eastern Europe were often the target of attacks by various Turkic groups such as the Pechenegs.4 For Iran, the conflict with Turan, the steppe world, is one of the great themes of its history, immortalised by Firdaws¯ıintheSh¯ahn¯ama. As early as the fifth century, the Sasanian emperors had built a great wall on the edge of the Caspian steppe, designed to keep marauding Turks out of the riches of Iran.5 That the Byzantines were well aware of the nature of steppe warfare is demonstrated by the detailed account of it included in the eleventh-century military treatise known as the Strategikon.6

1 Peter B. Golden, ‘War and warfare in the pre-Cinggisidˇ western steppes of Eurasia’ in Nicola di Cosmo (ed.), War and Warfare in Inner Asian History (500–1800), Leiden: Brill, 2002, pp. 123–8. 2 Étienne de la Vaissière, Samarcande et Samarra: élites d’Asie centrale dans l’empire abbasside, Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 2007; Matthew S. Gordon, The Breaking of a Thousand Swords: A History of the Turkish Military of Samarra (AH 200–275/ 815–889CE), Albany, NY: SUNY, 2001, pp. 21–3; see, however, the comments of Deborah Tor, who queries both the extent of these slave forces and their effectiveness, Deborah G. Tor, ‘The Mamluks in the military of the pre-Seljuq Persianate dynasties’, Iran 46 (2008), pp. 213–25. 3 Charles Brand, ‘The Turkish element in Byzantium, eleventh to twelfth centuries’, Dumbarton Oaks Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Papers 43 (1989), 1–25. 4 Byzantine relations with the Pechenegs are discussed at length in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, Gy. Moravcsik (ed.), R.J.H. Jenkins (tr.), Dumbarton Oaks: Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967. 5 Jebrael Nokandeh et al., ‘Linear barriers of northern Iran: the Great Wall of Gorgan and the Wall of Tamishe’, Iran 44 (2006), pp. 121–73; Hamid Omrani Rekavandi et al., ‘An imperial frontier of the Sasanian Empire: further fieldwork at the Great Wall of Gorgan’, Iran 45 (2007), pp. 96–136. 6 Golden, ‘War and warfare’, pp. 124, 134, 137, 149. Warfare, conquest and migration 73 Turkish invasions were thus not a new problem for the settled states of western Asia, and both Byzantium and Iran had centuries of experience at dealing with nomads. To date, the latter had only on very rare occasions proved a threat to the centre of the state. The damage they had done rarely proved to be permanent, for they would generally return to the steppes satisfied with looting and perhaps some imperial honours.7 There were, of course, political reasons why Byzantium, the Ghaznavids and the Buyids all failed to resist the Selj¯uqseffectively. However, this failure cannot be ascribed solely to these states’ own internal weaknesses, for all three proved militarily successful against other groups in the same period. Although the Pecheneg and Oghuz advance into eastern Europe presented Byzantium with a major problem it did not always cope with particularly effectively, these groups of Turks never seriously threatened the viability of the empire,8 and Byzantium had continued expanding towards Syria throughout the eleventh century.9 Despite defeat in Khur¯as¯an,the Ghaznavid campaigns into India continued successfully,10 and even the declining B¯uyidsas late as 426/1034 were able to recapture Kirm¯an from the Ghaznavids.11 Although both Byzantium and the Ghaznavids were probably overstretched by fighting on several fronts, this suggests that the problem was not purely one of internal decline leading to military failure. To understand the reasons for the Selj¯uqs’success, this chapter presents a study of Selj¯uqmilitary capability and tactics. At the same time, the study of Selj¯uq warfare is of more than purely military interest. Warfare was a way of life, and the Selj¯uqconquests were intimately bound up with – indeed, almost indistinguishable from – the migrations of the Türkmen westwards. As I argue below, in the first half of the eleventh century, the Selj¯uqforces were overwhelmingly traditional steppe armies. A radical change occurred after the conquest of Baghdad in 1055, when the Türkmen were supplemented and to a certain extent displaced by ghul¯am troops (slave soldiers), transforming T. ughril’s armies from largely nomadic warbands to a more conventional, professional army. Nonetheless, as will be examined in Chapter 5, the bulk of the conquests in Anatolia and the Caucasus were undertaken by the Türkmen rather than ghul¯am troops and reflect their style of warfare. For this reason, this chapter concentrates on a detailed study on the period before ghul¯am influences became evident – the period of the original Türkmen conquests in Central Asia, Iran and Iraq.

7 See Dmitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, 500–1453, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1971, pp. 235–8, 278–9; Paul Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 pp. 80–115; on the advantages of buying off rather than fighting the nomads, see Golden, ‘War and warfare’, p. 111. 8 Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier, pp. 82–3, 89–91, 115. 9 See the discussion in Chapter 5. 10 C.E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran, 994–1040, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1963, p. 235. 11 Heribert Busse, Chalif und Grosskönig: die Buyiden im Irak (945–1055), Beirut: Ergon Verlag, 2004, p. 103. 74 Warfare, conquest and migration Selj¯uqtactics In most respects, the tactics used by the Selj¯uqswere typical of those of the Eurasian steppes, which have been surveyed by Peter Golden. According to Golden, these tactics remained fairly static over the period 350–1200, with little technological innovation.12 Although steppe armies may have appeared to be a collection of ‘loosely flowing forces, seeming to extemporize tactics as they went along, the Eurasian nomad armies were highly organized and disciplined’.13 As we have suggested in the previous chapter, we cannot look on the Selj¯uqarmies as invariably forming a single unified force, for the tribes would tend to coalesce around one or other of the Selj¯uqleaders, or, in the case of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya,a number of commanders. On occasion these might come together to fight a common enemy if that was in their mutual interest, but they did not invariably act as a single force with a single purpose as the Mongols’ armies later did. Yet despite the political divisions between the Selj¯uqleaders as they vied for leadership of the tribes, Türkmen armies could exhibit a surprising degree of discipline and cohesiveness. When the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyain the Jaz¯ırawere threatened by the Arab ‘Uqaylids, ‘they sent to the Ghuzz in Diy¯arBakr led by N¯as.ughl¯ıand B¯uq¯aand asked help from them against the Arabs; they [the Ghuzz of Diy¯arBakr] came [to help] them’.14 As is discussed below, councils-of-war (majlis) were held to discuss strategy, and, although the Türkmen sometime presented a rather ragged and disorganised appearance, such as when Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al’smen entered N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,15 this belied a significant degree of discipline and coordination.

Feigned retreat The classic nomad tactic of feigned retreat, luring the enemy into feeling they had secured a victory and then attacking unexpectedly,16 was used by the Selj¯uqsto great effect. Indeed, one of their earliest major victories over the Ghaznavids was won by this means, in a battle near Nis¯ain 426/1034.17 Initially, the Ghaznavids killed several hundred nomads and sent reports of a famous victory to Mas‘¯ud, but they were drawn into a trap with disastrous consequences. Bayhaq¯ıquotes an eyewitness describing in detail how the Ghaznavid commander Begtoghd¯ı’sarmy was destroyed despite his initial victory:

If they had obeyed Begtoghd¯ı’sorders, this disaster would not have happened, but they did not, and everyone acted according to his own desires, for there Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 12 Golden, ‘War and warfare’, pp. 107, 157. 13 Ibid., p. 129. 14 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amilfi ’l-Ta’r¯ıkh, C. Tornberg (ed.), Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,IX, p. 390. 15 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, Khal¯ıl Khat.ib Rahbar (ed.), Tehran: Intish¯ar¯at-iMiht¯ab,1376, p. 883; tr. in Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 255. 16 See Golden, ‘War and warfare’, pp. 134–6. 17 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar, pp. 4–5; Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, pp. 706–08; in general on the Ghaznavid army see C.E. Bosworth, ‘Ghaznevid military organisation’, Der Islam 36/i–ii (1960), pp. 37–77; idem, The Ghaznavids, pp. 98–128. Warfare, conquest and migration 75 were many commanders. Until they departed from here, they acted with prudence and circumspection and each stage they advanced in formation. The centre, right and left wings, [other] wings, the camp-followers, rear and advance-guard all moved correctly. When they reached the tents [of the Selj¯uqs],they saw a few empty tents, beasts and shepherds, and the commander said, ‘Be careful that nothing goes wrong, and keep your formation so that our advance-guard can proceed and assess the situation properly, for the enemy are on the edge of the steppe and have made ambushes’. They did not obey, and so our advance-guard moved off and fell on the tents, the linen goods [in them] and sheep, and killed many people. This was [the reason for] the first report that the Türkmen had been defeated. When the commander saw the situation – that things were not working out – he forced the centre [of the army] to move. They became embroiled too, and the formation was broken up. When the kh¯as.s.a [elite troops] reached the village where the enemy had laid ambushes, they did battle. They set to fighting, with Khw¯ajaH. usayn on an elephant. The fighting was as fierce as can be, for the enemy were valiant and fought well, and it was contrary to what they had thought, that the enemy would flee at the first attack. The day became warm, and the sand became hot, and the army and their beasts became weary from thirst. There was a river behind them and some of the inexperienced commanders said, ‘The army must withdraw, fighting and fleeing, so that it can reach water’. They did not realise that withdrawing is tantamount to defeat. The ordinary soldiers could not understand what it meant to retreat without the commander’s knowledge. When the enemy saw that, they broke out of their hiding places and advanced in earnest. The commander Begtoghdi was in confusion, his hopes broken, sitting powerless on a female elephant; by the time he understood what was going on, the army had fled and the enemy had arrived in strength and had gained the upper hand. When the enemy surrounded his elephant, his ghul¯ams brought him to the ground and seated him on a horse and took him away fighting. Had they not done so he too would have been captured. As for the river and the way down to it! Nobody helped anyone else, each man took his life in his hands. The enemy captured a huge amount of splendid materials and equipment. Our people all fled, each group by a different route.18

On this occasion, then, it was the Ghaznavid troops who behaved like an undisciplined rabble lured on by the prospect of booty. A variety of factors caused them to break ranks and fall into the trap. They were clearly unable to cope with the climate as well as the Selj¯uqs.Whether this was because of their heavier equipment,

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 or because the Selj¯uqswere better prepared than them, having the advantage by choosing where to lay their ambush, or simply because the Selj¯uqswere better used to fighting in desert conditions is unclear. Above all, however, it was inexperience combined with indiscipline that led to junior Ghaznavid commanders fleeing the field of battle.

18 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 708. 76 Warfare, conquest and migration The technique of feigned retreat could also be combined with siege warfare. For instance, H. usayni describes concisely how Chaghr¯ıtrapped Mas‘¯udinside Balkh: ‘Every time the sultan came out of the town, Chaghr¯ı-beg,Yaghb¯uand [their] troops retreated, and every time the sultan went back into the town Chaghr¯ı-beg and his troops surrounded it’.19 This made it especially difficult for the Ghaznavids to mount an effective counter-attack, for the enemy just melted away into the desert.

Selj¯uqweapons Although it is the Mongols who have gone down in history as the ‘nation of archers’, the same might equally well be said of the eleventh-century Türkmen, for the bow and arrow were the nomads’ archetypical weapon.20 It has been argued that the bow was ‘the decisive advantage’ that allowed the Selj¯uqsto overcome the Byzantine armies and conquer Anatolia.21 There were numerous other factors that contributed to the fall of Anatolia, but there can be no doubt either of the Türkmen’s prowess at archery or of the terror it inspired in their enemies. Their bows allowed them to engage in combat without actually coming close to the enemy, especially as they were mounted.22 The danger presented by their archery skills was noted by Gard¯ız¯ı,recording how the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaasked Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna to allow them to settle in Khur¯as¯an.The Ghaznavid general Arsl¯anJ¯adhib,horrified at Mah.m¯ud’s mistake, pleaded with him to reverse his decision, saying, ‘Either kill them, or allow me to cut off their thumbs so that they cannot shoot arrows’.23 Alongside the bow and arrow, the Türkmen probably had access to other weapons, although these are rarely mentioned in the sources. Many were probably gained by plunder or purchase, although there were blacksmiths and armourers among some Eurasian nomads, including those who migrated to Anatolia.24 The long, curved sword known as the qal¯ach¯ur was popular not just among the Ghaznavid forces, but was also considered a typical Turkish weapon, although the Türkmen’s swords were probably of poor quality.25 The lasso was another characteristic nomad’s weapon,26 but we only have records of it being used by the Ghaznavids against the Selj¯uqs.27 It seems likely, however, that the

19 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.10. 20 Golden, ‘War and warfare’, p. 151; cf. Denis Sinor, ‘Inner Asian warriors’, JAOS 101 (1981), pp. 139–40. 21 Walter Kaegi, ‘The contribution of archery to the Turkish conquest of Anatolia’, Speculum 34 (1964), p. 96. 22 Ibid., pp. 102, 104–07. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 23 Gard¯ız¯ı, Zayn al-Akhb¯ar, Rah.¯ımRid.a-z¯adaMalik (ed.), Tehran: Anjum¯an-i Ath¯arva¯ Maf¯akhir-i Farhang¯ı,1384, p. 273; cf. H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.3. 24 Sinor, ‘Inner Asian warriors’, p. 143; cf. Jürgen Paul, ‘The state and the military – a nomadic perspective’, p. 35 (Mitteilungen des Sondersforschungsbereich ‘Differenz und Integration’ Halle, 2002, published at www.nomadsed.de/publications.html). 25 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 120, 245; idem, ‘Ghaznevid military organisation’, pp. 66–7. 26 Sinor, ‘Inner Asian warriors’, pp. 141–2. 27 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 120. Warfare, conquest and migration 77 Türkmen also knew how to use it. Rarely did they wear armour, although the party that accompanied T. ughril into N¯ısh¯ap¯urin 429/1039 apparently had chain-mail (zirih-p¯ush), as did the cavalry who fought alongside Chaghr¯ıat 28 T. alkh¯ab.

Siege warfare The idea that nomadic armies avoided fortifications is quite common in scholarship. With regard to the conquest of Khur¯as¯an,Bosworth has remarked that the Selj¯uqs ‘did not waste time trying to reduce towns or strong points, a process for which they were ill-equipped both militarily and psychologically. Instead, they by- passed them and devastated the surrounding agricultural areas, thereby starving out the larger concentrations of population in towns and fortresses’.29 Byzantium’s reliance on a network of fortresses to protect its frontier has been compared to the Maginot line by more than one scholar, presumably on the assumption that these fortifications could easily be avoided by nomadic armies.30 Yet perhaps the clearest corrective to the notion of the Selj¯uqsas an undisciplined, purely destructive force is that fact from early times, they proved able to take and – when they wished – hold cities and fortifications. Indeed, the idea that steppe armies were reluctant to undertake sieges is not borne out by the evidence. Even if nomads themselves lacked siege technology, a range of steppe armies from antiquity to the Middle Ages often made use of foreign expertise in this field, either bringing in experts from the outside or employing captives or defectors. Thus in 626 an Avar army was able to undertake a sophisticated siege of Constantinople.31 Evidence for Selj¯uqattacks on fortifications dates back to long before anything resembling a ‘professional’ army was formed. The Malikn¯ama’s account of Chaghr¯ı’s Armenian expedition specifically states he attacked fortifications: ‘When Chaghr¯ıarrived in the region of Rum he was joined by a group of Türkmen (tar¯akima), and they undertook ghaz¯a and took some castles (ba‘d.¯ıqil¯a‘-r¯afath. karda)’.32 Ibn al-Ath¯ırrecords numerous successfully sieges of castles or fortified cities by forces he describes as ghuzz. Thus around 439/1047, Ibr¯ahimYin¯alcarried out a series of campaigns in western Iran capturing the castles of Kinkiw¯arand

28 Ibid., p. 245, Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, pp. 884, 906. 29 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids,p.248 30 For arguments that the Selj¯uqsin Anatolia avoided fortifications and infiltrated around them, see J.C. Cheynet, ‘La conception de la frontier orientale (IXe–XIIIe siècles)’ in Anthony Eastmond Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 (ed.), Eastern Approaches to Byzantium, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001, p. 63; Robert Edwards, ‘Medieval architecture in the Oltu-Penek valley: a preliminary report on the marchlands of northeastern Turkey’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39 (1985), p. 37; Hélène Ahrweiler, ‘La frontière et les frontières de Byzance en Orient’ in M. Berza and E. St˘anescu(eds.), Actes du XIV Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Bucharest, 1971, II, p. 228 (reprinted in eadem, Byzance: les pays et les territoires, London: Variorum, 1976). 31 Golden, ‘War and warfare’, pp. 151–2. 32 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, Tehran: Khayy¯am-P¯ır¯uz,1338, IV, p. 240. 78 Warfare, conquest and migration Surkh¯ab,among others, sometimes after sieges, always with much looting and destruction.33 Cities might often be subjected to long sieges. Chaghr¯ı’s forces surrounded Marv for seven months after the townspeople revolted against his rule.34 Likewise, Herat, which threw off Selj¯uqdomination in 432/1041 at the time of Mas‘¯ud’s death, was besieged for a long time by Chaghr¯ı.35 Balkh too only surrendered after a siege.36 Other cities in Khur¯as¯anfell without a fight, such as N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,37 and apparently Marv (discussed below), but Qutlumush besieged Ganja in the 38 Caucasus for a year and a half in 439/1047, albeit unsuccessfully, and T. ughril 39 reduced Is.fah¯anafter a siege. Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al’s waz¯ır Ah.mad b. T. ¯ahirshowed a similar persistence in his siege of Shahraz¯ur,maintaining it for a year despite the spread of disease among his men.40 However, it must be admitted that rarely during this early period is any mention made of siege equipment, such as mangonels. Presumably the sieges were carried out principally by cutting off food supplies to the city. However, when the Selj¯uqs’Türkmen army left Baghdad after their first occupation of it in 447/1055, they took with them mangonels,41 indicating that although the army was still largely made up of nomads, they nonetheless had access to siege technology. An interesting snippet of information is given by the Armenian historian Aristakes Lastiverttsi, who claims that when T. ughril besieged Manzikert in 1054–5, he used a huge siege machine known to the Turks as a baban. Apparently this required 400 men to move it and was used to propel rocks over the city walls.42 It might be tempting to attribute the use of siege technology to the Türkmen’s exposure to urbanisation, or to the presence of non-nomadic elements in the Selj¯uq ranks. However, Türkmen had been employed in the Ghaznavid armies in India, where they would have become acquainted with the siege warfare that was one of

33 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 437–8. 34 Ibid., IX, p. 481. 35 Ibid., IX, pp. 488, 506. 36 Ibid., IX, p. 483. 37 See Jurgen Paul, ‘The Selj¯uqconquest(s) of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur:a reappraisal’, Iranian Studies 38/iv (2005), pp. 575–85. 38 ‘Az.¯ım¯ı, Ta’r¯ıkh, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988, p. 6. H. as.ada of the text clearly needs to be emended to h.as.ara. 39 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 534; see also the contemporary, if highly poetic, description of the capture of the city in Fakhr al-D¯ınGurg¯an¯ı, V¯ısuR¯am¯ın, Muh.ammad Rawshan (ed.), Tehran: S. ad¯a-yiMu‘¯as.ir, 1377, pp. 30–3. 40 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 545. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 41 Ibid., IX, p. 627. 42 Aristakes Lastiverttsi, History, pp. 29–34 (this has been translated into Russian as Povestvovanie Vardapeta Aristakesa Lastiverttsi, tr. K. Yuzbashian, Moscow: Izd. Nauka, 1968; into French as Récit des Malheurs de la Nation arménienne, tr. M. Canard and H. Berberian, Brussels: Editions de Byzantion, 1973; and into English by Robert Bedrosian, History, New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1985, also published at www.rbedrosian.com. Page references given here refer to the Classical Armenian text published by Yubzashian in Yerevan in 1963, which is cross- referenced in all the above translations). Warfare, conquest and migration 79 the Ghaznavids’ principal tactics against the Indian cities they sought to subject.43 For example, when Sultan Mas‘¯udfaced a manpower shortage he called on the leaders of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya,Qizil, B¯uq¯a,and Gökt¯ash,to join his forces and deployed them as far afield as Makr¯anon the coast of Sindh.44 Perhaps, however, the most telling piece of evidence in favour of the Selj¯uqs’use of siege warfare comes in the account of the civil war between Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯aland T. ughril in 441/1049. Ibr¯ah¯ımtook refuge in the castle of Sarm¯aj,in which he was besieged by T. ughril, who captured it after four days ‘although it was one of the strongest and most impregnable castles’.45 Thus even a battle between two Türkmen chiefs could centre on a castle and a siege.

Manoeuvrability Ghaznavid forces tended to be heavily armed and slow-moving, with a preference for using elephants,46 which were meant to terrify their opponents, although this does not always seem to have worked. When the Ghaznavid commander T¯ash Fir¯ashwas sent to do battle against the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyain Khur¯as¯anaround 419/1028, the Türkmen succeeded in killing his elephant, and dismembered it in revenge for those of their comrades they had lost in fighting.47 At the battle of Nis¯a,the Ghaznavid commander Begtoghd¯ıhad to be lowered from his elephant by his ghul¯ams in order to flee. Thus elephants may at times have been more of a hindrance than anything else: at Dand¯anq¯an,the fleeing Ghaznavids abandoned them to make a swifter escape.48 Horses were the key to the Selj¯uqs’manoeuvrability. As T. ughril himself is said to have expressed it, ‘We have cavalrymen who restrict [the Ghaznavids’] movements, while the sultan has soldiers who take refuge in fleeing’.49 Indeed, cavalry (suv¯ar) are the only type of soldiery mentioned by Bayhaq¯ıin association with the Selj¯uqs,in contrast to the infantry ( piy¯ada) employed by the Ghaznavids in addition to cavalry.50 The Selj¯uqsalso tended to be much less encumbered by equipment and baggage than their opponents, and were well aware of the advantage this gave them. The Battle of T. alkh¯abin 430/1039, although a Ghaznavid victory, demonstrates the inability of their tactics to deal with the Türkmen. On this occasion, Mas‘¯udhad made every preparation to ensure his troops did not break ranks and leave themselves open to ambush as had happened so disastrously at Nis¯a four years earlier. Indeed, he himself successfully orchestrated an ambush on the

43 For an account of Ghaznavid sieges of Indian cities and forts, see Muh.ammad N¯az.im, The Life and Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Times of Sultan Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931, pp. 99–122. 44 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh,p.56. 45 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 556. 46 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 115–19. 47 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 380 48 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 955. 49 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.10. 50 See Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 903: b¯am¯a piy¯ada-yibisy¯ar. 80 Warfare, conquest and migration Selj¯uqsfrom behind as they attempted to close in on Ghaznavid forces. However, Mas‘¯ud’svictory was left incomplete, for ‘the fighting was very heated, when a black standard moved off from above [the fighting] with 2000 chain-mail-wearing cavalry. They said this was D¯a’¯ud[Chaghr¯ı]and he headed for the desert’.51 The Ghaznavid attempt to chase the Türkmen in ‘the sand and desert’ was decidedly half-hearted, the troops committed to this soon returning with the excuse that they lacked equipment for the desert (¯al¯at-ib¯ı¯ab¯annab¯ud).52 As so often, the Türkmen faded away to fight another day, leaving the Ghaznavids’ victory incomplete. Bayhaq¯ıreports from spies in the Selj¯uqcamp the enemy’s view of the defeat:

It is unwise to seek a pitched battle (mas.s. ¯af ) with this sovereign. Let us keep to our own way [of fighting] and not be burdened with baggage and implementa. In this way we will gain the preponderance. We will not disperse, unless some difficulty arises, so let him [sc. Mas‘¯ud]go backwards or forwards, just as he wishes (?). Winter has passed and summer has begun; we are steppe dwellers and are able to endure extremes of heat and cold, whereas he and his army cannot, and after suffering this distress for a while, will have to turn back.53

Just as the Selj¯uqspredicted, the Ghaznavid army was unable to operate in desert conditions in summer for long. Heat and lack of fodder for animals forced the Ghaznavids to come to terms with the Türkmen, recognising their greater powers of endurance, abandoning much of Khur¯as¯anto them.54 The Türkmen’s tolerance for extremes of climate and their manoeuvrability also enabled them to catch the Ghaznavid army unawares. At T. alkh¯ab,they disappeared into the desert, while at ‘Al¯ı¯ab¯adin 430/1039 they emerged unexpectedly from the steppe to do battle with Mas‘¯ud’sforces.55 Chaghr¯ıhimself commented:

I have seen how the [Ghaznavid] army fought at ‘Al¯ı¯ab¯ad;they have all the men and equipment you could want, but their baggage is heavy for they cannot separate themselves from it as they cannot live without it. Their weakness is that they must either protect themselves or their baggage. But we are lightly-armed (mujarrad¯ım) and without baggage. What befell [the Ghazanavid generals] Begtoghd¯ıand Sub¯ash¯ıwas a result of the heaviness of their baggage, but our baggage is thirty farsangs behind us.56

Furthermore, the Ghaznavid army seems to have been largely immobilised during the harsh Central Asian winter. In 429/1039, for example, letters reached Mas‘¯ud Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

51 Ibid., p. 906. 52 Ibid., p. 907. 53 Ibid., p. 908; translation from Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 248. 54 Ibid., pp. 909–10. 55 Ibid., p. 899. 56 Ibid., p. 901. Warfare, conquest and migration 81 from Ghaznavid provincial officials informing him that the Türkmen had come in the depths of winter when his army could not move (presumably because of 57 snow and ice), raiding the towns of T. ¯aliq¯anand F¯ary¯ab,among other places. Likewise, the Ghaznavid government was disinclined to believe reports from their intelligence officials (n¯a’ib-i bar¯ıd) that Chaghr¯ı,accompanied by some 4,000 cavalrymen, was making his way from Rib¯at.-i Razn to Ghazna, because the road was closed by snow.58

Structure and command in the Selj¯uqforces If we accept that the Selj¯uqforces were capable of acting in a coherent, disciplined manner, we must consider what structures of command they had to enforce this. As discussed in Chapter 2, Türkmen were liable to break away at any moment that was advantageous to them, and the only really effective way of keeping together a steppe army was continued success, which it was the task of the tribal leader to deliver. The extent to which there were any formal intermediaries between the leader and his followers is questionable, but the Selj¯uqforces were not an entirely haphazard conglomeration of tribesmen. It is well known that Chinggis Khan arranged the Mongol armies into decimal units, the largest of which was the tümen, consisting of 10,000 men, although whether the tümens were always in practice at full strength is debatable.59 However, the minqan or unit of 1,000 was the basic unit of tribal and military organ- isation. This system of decimal organisation was common among other empires in eastern Central Asia, such as the Khitans and the Jurchen.60 Unfortunately, as ever, we are much less well-informed about the situation with the early Selj¯uq forces. However, Bar Hebraeus – who, it should be remembered, drew on the eleventh-century Malikn¯ama as one of his main sources – gives an intriguing hint that a comparable system existed in the Selj¯uqnomadic army. He writes of T. ughril after his final capture of N¯ısh¯ap¯urthat, ‘his [T. ughril’s] troops used to come, company by company, to do homage before him, each company consisting of two thousand men’ [my italics].61 If this was so, there certainly must have been more manageable smaller units too, but details of their size have not come down to us. The Ghaznavid official Sub¯ash¯ıexplained his failure to defend Khur¯as¯anbecause of this tactic of fragmentation: ‘They [the Selj¯uqs]divided up into three groups; if I followed the group in front of me, there were two more behind doing as they pleased’.62

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 57 Ibid., p. 757. 58 Ibid., p. 728. 59 Reuven Amitai, ‘Whither the Ilkhanid army? Ghazan’s first campaign into Syria (1299–1300)’ in di Cosmo, Warfare in Inner Asian History, p. 236. 60 Timothy May, The Mongol Art of War: Chinggis Khan and the Mongol Military System, Barnsley: Pen and Sword, 2007, pp. 31–32, 40. 61 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, I, p. 202. 62 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 481. 82 Warfare, conquest and migration It is, however, unlikely the Selj¯uqs possessed at this period a formalised command structure as in the Mongol army. There is something of a contradiction between the evidence of Bar Hebraeus and the notion of the fluidity of a nomadic tribe and steppe army. Perhaps there was a gradual transformation of T. ughril’s forces from a ‘warband’ into a ‘tribal host’ as described by Jürgen Paul.63 A warband may be defined as the relatively small group of warriors, bound by ties of personal loyalty and sometimes real or invented kinship to a leader. For example, when T¯ım¯urstarted his career in the fourteenth century, he formed his own warband of largely non-tribal followers; the fact that they were not, on the whole, fellow tribesmen meant they could be relied on in adversity. Their numbers were limited – between 40 and 300 – but it was with their support that T¯ım¯urwas able to establish himself as a sufficiently successful leader to attract the loyalty of his own tribe.64 The broader ‘tribal host’ was a much larger force, and this was something that could be arranged into tümens. We should not, then, envisage the Selj¯uqforces as always having been divisible into these units of 2,000; it was probably only the success of the Selj¯uqsattracting larger numbers of tribesmen to their cause that allowed such a division to be instituted, if Bar Hebraeus’s report is to be given credence.

Selj¯uqstrategy Even if the Selj¯uqsmust have had some command structures, the question remains of whether their advance was directed by a coherent strategy agreed by some or all of their leaders, or whether it was a series of largely aimless westwards migrations that eventually happened to reach Anatolia and Iraq, plundering and looting any cities that happened to be in their way. Evidence exists for both propositions. It is certainly true that the Türkmen did not march west in a single advance, and it can be hard to discern any coherent strategy in accounts that often simply record that a given town or region was looted by the Türkmen who then left. Thus we find Selj¯uqsraiding around Mosul in northern Iraq, in western Iran, in Kirm¯anas well as Azerbaijan, Anatolia and the Caucasus. The fact that M¯us¯aYabgh¯uaccepted Mas‘¯ud’sefforts to make peace while T. ughril and Chaghr¯ırejected them hints at a divided leadership lacking a sense of purpose. Bosworth argues that ‘in so far as there was any central direction at all’, it was came from Chaghr¯ıand T. ughril, but the main aims of the Türkmen were merely to gain security from enemies, find pasture and plunder.65 However, strategy actually may have been decided by a majlis – a council of the Türkmen. Our evidence for this comes from Bayhaq¯ı,who relates that after the

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Battle at Nis¯a,the Türkmen held a majlis to decide what to do, and neither T. ughril

63 Paul, ‘The state and the military’, pp. 40–2; cf. Sencer Divitçioˇglu, Oˇguz’dan Selçuklu’ya: boy, konat ve devlet, Ankara: Imge,˙ 2005, passim. 64 On this see Manz, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, pp. 43–57. 65 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 245–6. Warfare, conquest and migration 83 nor Chaghr¯ı,nor any other leader, is mentioned by name. Rather, as Bayhaq¯ıputs it, ‘the notables, generals and elders [of the Türkmen] (a‘y¯anva muqaddim¯anva p¯ır¯an) sat in a tent and deliberated’.66 The intelligence reports used by Bayhaq¯ı indicate that Selj¯uqstrategy was by no means incoherent. Spies at a meeting of T. ughril, Chaghr¯ıand Yabgh¯uin Sarakhs in 430/1039 reported a debate between 67 the leaders as to how to proceed. T. ughril advocated abandoning Khur¯as¯anto the Ghaznavid sultan, owing to the size of his army, in favour of moving west to the Jib¯aland the southern Caspian. Among the places singled out for future advances is Darband-i R¯um, ‘the pass of Anatolia’. T. ughril’s suggestion was rejected in favour of Chaghr¯ı’sview that they should stay and fight the sultan, taking advantage of his army’s lack of manoeuvrability, lest he should subsequently come after them and defeat them. A similar debate was held before Dand¯anq¯an,where again Chaghr¯ı’s view that Mas‘¯udshould be defeated in Khur¯as¯anprevailed over T. ughril’s desire to move westwards.68 This suggests that Selj¯uqmovements were dictated by strategic necessity rather than chance and the whims of tribesmen, and that even at this early date, from the distance of Central Asia, Anatolia was seen as an attractive target, because it was left undefended (b¯ı-khas.m ast). This is particularly valuable evidence, for Bayhaq¯ıwas writing before the major Selj¯uqpenetration of Anatolia, and is one of the few authors we have whose account is not affected by the benefit of hindsight. If T. ughril had already identified Anatolia as an attractive, undefended target, he must have been receiving intelligence reports about distant regions. These may have come from Türkmen who had joined the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyawho were already in these territories, but the source may in fact have been Chaghr¯ıif, as the Malikn¯ama suggests, he did indeed campaign in Armenia.

Numbers of the Selj¯uqforces and migrations Calculating the numbers of pre-modern armies on the basis of chroniclers’ accounts is notoriously difficult at the best of times. Chroniclers had a tendency to exaggeration, and so estimating the size of the much better-documented Mongol armies has been a subject of extensive debate.69 The following discussion is somewhat speculative, relying as it must solely on the evidence of literary sources. As in other steppe armies, every adult male was a soldier: no distinction between civilians and military existed,70 and indeed neither Turkic nor Mongol languages contain a native word for soldier.71 The only difference was between those able to fight and those not, i.e. women and children. It appears that the latter often accompanied the Türkmen: in 426/1035, the Ghaznavid army under Begtoghd¯ı, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

66 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 712. 67 Ibid., pp. 900–01. 68 Ibid., pp. 949–50. 69 See May, Mongol Art of War, pp. 27–8; see also Amitai, ‘Whither the Ilkhanid army?’, pp. 236–7. 70 Paul, ‘The state and the military’, pp. 47, 51–2. 71 Denis Sinor, ‘The Inner Asian warriors’, p. 135. 84 Warfare, conquest and migration failing to find the armed Türkmen, raided their camp instead, killing their women and children.72 As the Selj¯uqinvasions were as much nomadic migrations as military manoeuvres, this is hardly surprising. However, the Türkmen would often only be joined by their families at a later stage. As Sibt. explains, when T. ughril was planning a campaign against Syria, ‘he ordered his army [in Iraq] to prepare and to send for their tents, children and families to come to Iraq, while they should go with him to Syria’.73 Primary sources usually only give figures for horsemen or cavalry (f¯aris/suv¯ar), and I assume that this excludes any dependents. An exception is Gard¯ız¯ı’saccount of the first migration of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyahouseholds into Khur¯as¯an, in which we are told exactly what they were composed of: ‘men, women, children, possessions, sheep, camels, horses and cattle’.74 Estimates of the numbers vary considerably. Kasrav¯ıhas calculated the total number of ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaalone as no less than 40,000, of whom he believes 10,000 came to Azerbaijan with the first wave of migrations around 1029.75 In the eleventh century, a Georgian chronicler commented that it seemed as if ‘all Turks of the whole world’ had settled in Georgia.76 In Anatolia, Greek sources describe Türkmen groups of some 2,000–10,000 in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, while at the time of the Third Crusade (1190), 100,000 Türkmen are reported in southwestern Anatolia by an awed western chronicler.77 Ibn Sa‘¯ıd records Türkmen encampments of 30,000 tents around Kastamonu in the mid-thirteenth century, and 200,000 north of Antalya.78 According to Nasaw¯ı,writing of the early thirteenth century, the Türkmen swarmed like ants over Arr¯anand M¯ugh¯an.79 In the same period, Y¯aq¯utremarked that ‘M¯ugh¯anis a region where there are many villages and pastures which the Türkmen, who comprise most of its people, occupy for their flocks’.80 Azerbaijan and Kurdistan appear to have had a significant population of Iv¯a’¯ıTürkmen.¯ 81 However, it is unclear how representative these

72 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 712. 73 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯atal-Zam¯an, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih- CoˇgrafyaFakültesi, 1968, p. 5. 74 Gard¯ız¯ı, Zayn, p. 273. 75 Ah.mad Kasrav¯ı, Shahriy¯ar¯an-iGum-n¯am, Tehran: Am¯ırKab¯ır,1377, p. 159. 76 Robert W. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History: The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicle: The Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, p. 323. 77 Speros Vryonis, Jr, ‘Nomadization and islamization in Asia Minor’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29 (1975), pp. 49–50. 78 Claude Cahen, ‘Ibn Said sur l’Asie Mineure seldjuqide’, AÜDTC Fakültesi Tarih Ara¸stırmaları Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Dergisi 6 (1968), pp. 42, 48 (reprinted in ibid., Turcobyzantina et Oriens Chistianus); Ibn Sa‘¯ıd, Kit¯abal-Jughrafiya, Ism¯a‘¯ılal-‘Arab¯ı(ed.), Beirut: Mansh¯ur¯atal-Maktab al-Tij¯ar¯ı,1970, pp. 185, 195. 79 Mohammed en-Nesawi, Histoire du Sultan Djelal ed-Din Mankobirti, O. Houdas (ed.), Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1895, p. 225. 80 Yaqut, Mu‘jam al-Buld¯an, Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,1993, V, p. 225, s.v. M¯uq¯an. 81 Faruk Sümer, ‘Yıva Oˇguzboyuna dair’, Türkiyat Mecmuası 9 (1951), pp. 156–60; see also idem, ‘Azerbaycan’ın Türkle¸smesiTarihine Umumi bir Bakı¸s’, Belleten 21 (1957), pp. 421–52; Warfare, conquest and migration 85 figures are. Lambton has suggested that Turkish settlement in Iran was slight until the Mongol invasions in the thirteenth century,82 perhaps because for most of the eleventh century Türkmen did not settle in Azerbaijan, but went on to Anatolia.83 However, there were significant tribal movements in the late twelfth century too.84 We cannot assume that the scale of settlement was uniform throughout the areas that fell under Selj¯uqcontrol, or that figures for later periods are representative of the eleventh century. The figures we do have for the eleventh century tend to be rather conservative, certainly compared to the thirteenth-century ones cited above. The ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyawho begged Mah.m¯ud to let them settle in Khur¯as¯anare put at ‘4,000 households’ 85 (kh¯ana) by Gard¯ız¯ı. When a group of split off from these and made for Is.fah¯an and then Azerbaijan, Ibn al-Ath¯ırputs their numbers at ‘more than 2,000 men’.86 However, the numbers of these early migrants were soon swelled by others, such as the group that passed through Rayy, Damagh¯anand Simn¯anin 419/1028 leaving a trail of destruction behind them on their way to Azerbaijan to join the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya who had preceded them there.87 When T¯ashFir¯ashdid battle with them, their numbers were put at some 5,000.88 When ‘Al¯a’al-Dawla the Kak¯uyidsought an alliance with the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyain 420/1029, he was joined by 1,500 of them under Qizil, which seems to have been only a small part of the total number, for the rest went to Azerbaijan.89 In the same year, Qirw¯ash,the ruler of Mosul, claimed to have killed 3,000 ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya,while Ibn al-Ath¯ırquotes the ruler of Urm¯ıyaas putting the total number of ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaincluding their families (ma‘a laf¯ıfihim) at 30,000, of whom he had killed all but 5,000.90 The Türkmen associated with T. ughril, Chaghr¯ıand Yabgh¯ugrew considerably in strength as others were attracted to joining them. Bayhaq¯ıputs their original strength when they crossed the river Oxus at a mere 700 horsemen, ‘but after that many people joined with them’.91 Indeed, the three foremost Selj¯uqshad themselves warned the Ghaznavids of this danger when they had originally offered to act as guards against further Türkmen migrations into Khur¯as¯anin return for being granted lands around Nis¯aand Far¯ava.92 When S¯ur¯ı,Ghaznavid governor of Khur¯as¯an,pleaded to Mas‘¯udin 426/1035 for help against the Selj¯uqs,he wrote

Claude Cahen, ‘Les tribus turques de l’Asie occidentale pendant la période seldjukide’, WZKM 51 (1948–52), p. 118. 82 A.K.S. Lambton, ‘Aspects of Saljuq-Ghuzz settlement in Persia’ in D.S. Richards (ed.), Islamic Civilisation, 950–1150, Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1973, p. 124. 83 X. de Planhol, ‘Azerbaijan: Geography’, EIr, III, p. 206. 84 Cahen, ‘Les tribus turques’, pp. 182–3. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 85 Gard¯ız¯ı, Zayn, p. 273. 86 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 476. 87 Ibid., IX, p. 379. 88 Ibid., IX, p. 380. 89 Ibid., IX, p. 381. 90 Ibid., IX, p. 391. 91 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 1120. 92 Ibid., p. 694. 86 Warfare, conquest and migration that ‘Ten thousand Salj¯uqiy¯an and Yin¯aliy¯an have come from Marv to Nis¯a. The Selj¯uqspushed the Türkmen who were already there and other groups of Khw¯arazmiansin front of them and would not let them stay’.93 Thus the arrival of one group of Türkmen could force further migrations among other nomadic groups. This explains the disparity in the numbers given by Bayhaq¯ı.When B¯uNas.r Mishk¯anfirst heard of the Türkmen infiltration into Khur¯as¯anin 424/1033, he calculated their numbers at around 3,000–4,000 cavalry, and commented that it 94 was impossible to strike back against such a number. At the Battle of T. alkh¯ab in 430/1039, Bayhaq¯ıputs the numbers of the Türkmen at 4,000–5,000 strong, of whom 200 were killed in battle.95 Around 428/1037, Ghaznavid agents (n¯a’ib-i bar¯ıd) in Herat, Badghis and Gharchist¯anwarned of Chaghr¯ı’sadvance in the region, estimating his forces at 4,000 cavalry.96 A much smaller detachment of 2,000 cavalry was sent by Chaghr¯ıto raid the region of Balkh in 430/1039, but even this was enough to cause Mas‘¯udserious concern, although they seem to have restricted themselves to raiding a couple of villages.97 However, in the wake of the Battle of ‘Al¯ı¯ab¯ad,a Ghaznavid intelligence report quoted by Bayhaq¯ı indicates that the combined forces of T. ughril, Chaghr¯ıand Yabgh¯uamounted to some 20,000 horsemen.98 The advance-guard (t.al¯ı‘a) alone of the Selj¯uqforces 99 at T. alkh¯abwas some 300 strong. Although we do not have precise figures for Dand¯anq¯an,just before the battle Ghaznavid intelligence estimated Selj¯uq strength at 16,000, and this in the wake of a famine that had affected the Selj¯uqs badly.100 The Ghaznavid armies in Khur¯as¯anwere probably comparable to the numbers of fighting Türkmen. When T¯ashFir¯ashsought to bring a halt to the destruction wrecked by the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyain 419/1029, he had 3,000 cavalry, plus an unspecified number of elephants.101 The Ghaznavid army gathered at ‘Al¯ı¯ab¯adwas clearly very substantial, comprising 6,000 palace ghul¯ams quite apart from other troops, which included 30 elephants and around 500 cavalry.102 S¯ub¯ash¯ıwas sent with an army 10,000 strong to defend Khur¯as¯anagainst the Türkmen. Three thousand of these were based in N¯ısh¯ap¯uralone.103 This is credible, but the figure of 100,000 cavalry quite apart from irregulars given by H. usaynı for the size of the Ghaznavid army with Mas‘¯udin Balkh when he was besieged there by Chaghr¯ıis clearly

93 Ibid., p. 693. Khw¯arazm¯ıyan here probably means Türkmen who had settled in Khw¯arazm. 94 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 626. 95 Ibid., p. 904. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 96 Ibid., p. 728. 97 Ibid., p. 898. 98 Ibid., p. 900. 99 Ibid., p. 902. 100 Ibid., p. 950. 101 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 389. 102 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, pp. 899–900. 103 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.5. Warfare, conquest and migration 87 greatly inflated.104 Bosworth has estimated that the Ghaznavid army in Khur¯as¯an was probably no larger than 20,000 men.105 Thus the Ghaznavids were not defeated by overwhelming odds; 20,000 as the maximum size for both Selj¯uqand Ghaznavid forces seems credible, but generally operations were carried out by smaller detachments. Even 2,000 cavalry was enough to cause serious trouble. However, these figures mask the total number of Türkmen migrants. To arrive at a conservative estimate, if we assume that a Türkmen family was small, in total four individuals,106 of whom only one is included in these figures, then we have a figure of something in the region of 80,000 Türkmen in Khur¯as¯anassociated with T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı. This of course excludes earlier migrations such as the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaand later ones, and is given credibility by the only reference in a primary source to the total size of a Türkmen migration, the figure of 30,000 given for the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaby the ruler of Urum¯ıya. This is a significant migration by any standards. Unfortunately, calculating the population of Khur¯as¯anto any degree of accuracy is impossible as we have no idea what its rural population was. Some measure of comparison may be derived from calculations of the population of N¯ısh¯ap¯uritself, the largest city in Khur¯as¯an,which generous estimates calculate at around 100,000.107 A much more conservative figure given by Bosworth puts the size of N¯ısh¯ap¯urin the early eleventh century at 30,000–40,000.108 Considering these admittedly tentative figures, the destruction and looting with which the Selj¯uqsare associated is hardly surprising. They were competing to feed a Türkmen population that approached N¯ısh¯ap¯uritself in size, even if we accept Bulliet’s more generous figure. On the basis of Bosworth’s figures, the Türkmen would have greatly outnumbered the population of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur, which was one of the most important cities in the Islamic world. Whichever figure is correct, we can be confident that a migration of this size would have put the economy of Khur¯as¯anunder immense and probably intolerable pressure,109 as is suggested by the famine of 430/1039 which affected the Selj¯uqsbadly as well.110 In addition, as Gard¯ız¯ı states, the Türkmen were accompanied by a large number of animals ranging from sheep to camels. Calculating the numbers of

104 Ibid., p. 10. 105 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 245. 106 The nomadic household or nuclear family was generally small; quite how small is not clear, but the figures cited by Khazanov for Kazakh, Mongol and Kalmuck families between the eighteenth and early twentieth centuries indicate that they were typically made up of between four and six individuals (Anatoly M. Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World, Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1994, p. 30; cf. ibid., pp. 126–30). That the estimates here are conservative Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 will be seen by considering the Mongol census of 1241. This shows there were 97,575 Mongol troops and a population of 723,910, or put another way, about one in seven of the population was a soldier (May, The Mongol Art of War, p. 28). 107 Richard W. Bulliet, The Patricians of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur:A Study in Medieval Islamic Social History, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972, pp. 9–10. 108 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 161–2. 109 On the shortage of supplies in Khur¯as¯anin this period, see ibid., pp. 250–2. 110 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, pp. 949–50. 88 Warfare, conquest and migration these with any certainty is impossible, as the minimum number of animals needed for subsistence varies greatly according to a complex combination of ecological, 111 economic, biological and cultural factors. Ibn Fad.l¯an records that a rich Oghuz might own 10,000 beasts (i.e. horses, camels) and 100,000 sheep, which seems excessive unless it is the total figure for a tribe or subtribe.112 However, if we assume that an average nomad family needed around 100 head of sheep for subsistence, which seems to be a reasonably conservative figure,113 then a migration of a mere 4,000 households would have been accompanied by 400,000 sheep, quite apart from the larger livestock such as camels of whom smaller – although still significant – numbers were required. Although all these figures are very tentative and rely on analogies with what we know of other nomadic societies as well as the accuracy of the figures given in the original Arabic and Persian chronicles, they do serve to make one point clear: even a small migration would have a huge impact and would inevitably be drawn into conflict over the limited pasturage available in Khur¯as¯an.Thus it may be no exaggeration when Bar Hebraeus writes that:

In every place where [T. ughril’s] troops meet together they plunder and destroy and kill. And no one district (or, quarter) is able to support them for more than a week because of their vast number. And from sheer necessity they are compelled to depart to another quarter in order to find food for themselves and their beasts.114

Whether greed or necessity was behind the Türkmen’s looting, they soon became notorious for it. Bayhaq¯ıstates that one of Mas‘¯ud’smain reasons for rejecting T. ughril and Chaghr¯ı’splea for lands and vassalage was his determination not to repeat his father’s mistake in allowing the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyato settle in Khur¯as¯an.115 The reaction of the Ghaznavid minister B¯uNas.r Mishk¯anon hearing of the Selj¯uq arrival in Khur¯as¯anin 424/1032 gives some impression of the horror they caused: he immediately sold all the sheep on his Khur¯as¯an¯ıestates, explaining to Bayhaq¯ı that, ‘[the Türkmen] have entered Khur¯as¯an,and they plunder all the cattle they see and cause much chaos’.116 The following year, he was proved right, as the Türkmen depredations ( fas¯adh¯a-yib¯ı-ifr¯at.) reached the regions of Marv, Sarakhs, Badgh¯ıs and B¯avardand local officials proved incapable of offering any opposition.117

111 Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World,p.29. 112 Ibn Fad.l¯an, Ris¯ala,S¯ami Dahh¯an (ed.), Beirut: D¯ar S. ¯adir, 1993, p. 106. He also remarks (pp. 99–100) that when an Oghuz died, his herds were slaughtered, ranging in number from Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 one beast to a hundred to two hundred; however, it seems that only a portion of the herd was slaughtered (qatal¯uminh¯a), but what proportion this was is unknown. 113 Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World,p.30. 114 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, Ernest A. Wallis Budge (tr.), London: Oxford University Press, 1932, I, p. 292. 115 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 696. 116 Ibid., p. 626. 117 Ibid., pp. 627, 657. Warfare, conquest and migration 89 Looting also had a military purpose, depriving enemies of food supplies. Thus the Selj¯uqsstopped the Ghaznavid troops from campaigning in Khur¯as¯anby blocking up wells.118 When the Selj¯uqsentered Baghdad in 447/1055 they systematically devastated a vast area surrounding the city, causing prices to double:

The Selj¯uqTürkmen (al-ghuzz al-salj¯uq¯ıya) spread out in the rural areas around Baghdad; in the west they plundered from Tikr¯ıt to al-N¯ıl119 and in the east to Nahraw¯anand the lower provinces. They went so far in their plundering that the price of a bull in Baghdad rose from five to ten qir¯at.s,a donkey from two qir¯at.s to five and the agricultural land was destroyed and its people expelled.120

Looting was, of course, practised by all mediaeval armies and was not the exclusive preserve of the Türkmen, although it was perhaps more usually intended simply to reward or pay troops than as a tactic in itself. Nonetheless, the Türkmen’s activities do seem to have made a particular impression on their contemporaries, and are attested by chroniclers as diverse as Ibn al-Ath¯ır,Bayhaq¯ıand Aristakes Lastiverttsi. However, they were by no means the sole group to enrich themselves in the chaotic conditions resulting from the breakdown in Ghaznavid government in Khur¯as¯anover the 1030s. Ibn al-Ath¯ırmentions this sub anno 424/1033:

When the situation with the Turks in Khur¯as¯anbecame severe … many mischief-makers and corrupt and evil people came together (tajamma‘a kath¯ır min al-mufsid¯ınwa-ahl al-‘ayth wa-’l-sharr). The first to arouse evil were the people of Ab¯ıwardand T. ¯us,with whom many people gathered and went to N¯ısh¯ap¯urto sack it when its governor had left [to go] to sultan Mas‘¯ud.121

Thus neither the wholesale looting of the urban centres of Khur¯as¯an,nor the Ghaznavid army’s difficulties in finding provisions, which was doubtless one of the primary reasons for its ultimate defeat, can be attributed solely to the Selj¯uqs.

The Selj¯uqsand urban populations Despite their reputation for looting, the Selj¯uqsoften managed to establish positive relations with urban populations. Among the accounts of sieges, plundering and resistance to the Selj¯uqsare ones in which urban notables voluntarily put themselves under Selj¯uqprotection. Urban society in Khur¯as¯an was rent by divisions and factionalism, expressed as religious divisions between members of Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

118 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 249–52. 119 On al-N¯ıl, south of Baghdad near H. illa, see G. Le Strange, Lands of the Eastern Caliphate: Mesopotamia, Persia and Central Asia from the Moslem Conquest to the Time of Timur, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930, pp. 72–3. 120 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 613. 121 Ibid., IX, p. 434. 90 Warfare, conquest and migration

the H. anaf¯ıand Shafi‘¯ılaw schools, but which probably in reality reflected deep- seated social conflicts.122 Thus cities’ reactions to the coming of the Selj¯uqswere determined not only by political opportunism but also their own internal disputes. Both Marv and N¯ısh¯ap¯urprovide examples of this. The Marv oasis had been an important centre of urbanism since antiquity, and contains the remains of several distinct cities. Its location on the edge of the desert also meant that it had always historically stood at the fringes of the Iranian world, guarding against incursions from the steppe.123 Marv was seen by Mas‘¯ud’s advisors as a key base for opposing the Selj¯uqs.The garrison at Marv had the task of preventing the Selj¯uqsfrom penetrating into Khur¯as¯an,124 and the Ghaznavid vizier Ah.mad ‘Abd al-S. amad had suggested making Marv the centre of operations 125 against them. Again, in 428/1037, B¯uNas.r Mishk¯anadvised Mas‘¯udto abandon his planned Indian campaign and to come to Marv instead and spend one or two years putting down the disturbances ( fitna) in Khur¯as¯an.126 It was also of particular strategic importance to the Ghaznavids as it lay on the road linking Khur¯as¯anwith Ghazna. The surrounding waterless deserts made the journey to Marv dangerous, especially in summer,127 but the fertile oasis made it a centre for provisioning armies: thus in 426/1035, in advance of ‘Abd al-S. amad’s abortive plan to eradicate the Selj¯uqsfrom the region, a certain Khw¯ajaH. usayn was sent to Marv to gather provisions for the campaign.128 The Selj¯uqappearance in Marv after their defeat by Sh¯ah-Malik(dated by both Bayhaq¯ıand Ibn al-Ath¯ırto 426/1035) does not seem to have met with any serious resistance.129 Although the Khw¯arazmsh¯ahHar¯unhad intended to use the Selj¯uqs as an advanced guard in his planned conquest in Khur¯as¯an,the campaign never seems to have been realised, and it is unclear at exactly which point the city left Ghaznavid hands. Bayhaq¯ınever directly mentions the fall of Marv, and he records a strong Ghaznavid garrison (lashgar-i qavv¯ı) there under the general S¯ub¯ash¯ıin 428/1037.130 By the following year, however, both Chaghr¯ıand Yin¯alwere in Marv.131 The nearest Bayhaq¯ıcomes to alluding to the fall of the city is his remark that, ‘When Ab¯uSahl reached N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,the h. ¯ajib-ibuzurg S¯ub¯ash¯ıwas already there. The Türkmen (Turkm¯an¯an) were in Marv and both sides were fighting’.132 The Malikn¯ama, discussed below, indicates that this marked the end of Ghaznavid sovereignty in the city.

122 For the classic work on this see Bulliet, The Patricians of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur, and the discussion in Chapter 4. 123 Hugh Kennedy, ‘Medieval Merv: an historical overview’ in Georgina Herrmann, Monuments of Merv: Traditional Buildings of the Karakum, London: Society of Antiquaries, 1999, p. 27. 124 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, pp. 662, 664, 665, 667. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 125 Ibid., p. 665. 126 Ibid., pp. 744, 758. 127 Ibid., pp. 944, 947. 128 Ibid., p. 666. 129 Ibid., pp. 664, 693; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 477. 130 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 753. 131 Ibid., pp. 883, 900. 132 Ibid., p. 758. Warfare, conquest and migration 91 After the first Ghaznavid defeat at Nis¯ain 426/1035, Mas‘¯udwas forced to grant the Selj¯uqleaders the title of dihq¯an and possession of territories in Khur¯as¯an; although Bayhaq¯ırecords that Chaghr¯ıwas granted Dihist¯an(in Jurj¯an),133 Ibn al- Ath¯ırrecords that ‘D¯a’¯ud[Chaghr¯ı]resided at the city of Marv’.134 After S¯ub¯ash¯ı had launched a sudden counter-attack on Marv which was followed by fighting in the region between his forces and the Türkmen, Chaghr¯ıapparently returned to the city and treated its population well (ah.sana al-s¯ıraf¯ıahlih¯a), indicating, perhaps, an attempt to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the populace. At this point he chose to have the khut.ba made in his name and arrogated to himself the title of malik al-mul¯uk (king of kings, presumably translating the Persian sh¯ahansh¯ah).135 Ibn al-Ath¯ır’saccount is supported in most of its details by H. usayn¯ı,who dates Chaghr¯ı’sreturn to Marv and the khut.ba to him there to Rajab 428/April–May 1037. H. usayn¯ıalso indicates a degree of support for Chaghr¯ıfrom the populace – ‘they all assented to him with a display of obedience and love (mah.abba) that pleased him’.136 The account in the Malikn¯ama as recorded by M¯ırkhwandstresses the role of the local population in surrendering the town. According to this, the only source to dwell on the fall of Marv at any length,137 Chaghr¯ıfirst plundered the villages surrounding the city, causing the ulema to call on S¯ub¯ash¯ıfor help (implying he was not in the city at the time).138 S¯ub¯ash¯ı was defeated outside the city and retreated inside, and a Ghaznavid relief party led by the governor of J¯uzj¯an¯anwas also wiped out by Chaghr¯ı.S¯ub¯ash¯ıthen left for N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,apparently in response to the complaints from across Khur¯as¯anof the Türkmen’s behaviour. As soon as the Selj¯uqsrealised he had fled, they besieged the city. During the siege, a party of three ulema came out and addressed Chaghr¯ıon behalf of the populace, recognising Selj¯uqsovereignty: ‘we know that the Selj¯uqfamily is supported by God and its success is rendered by its royal nature’.139 The ulema did, however, openly criticise the destruction caused in the region by the Selj¯uqforces. They then made their offer: ‘We will surrender possession over Marv to you and your companions on condition that your army does not harm the people’.140 Chaghr¯ı and T. ughril accepted this condition and both entered the city, and Chaghr¯ı,acting on T. ughril’s instructions, appointed officials to repair the damage and encouraged the population that had fled to return. The khut.ba was then made in the name of T. ughril, and Chaghr¯ıwas appointed army commander. When S¯ub¯ash¯ılaunched a counter-attack, the three ulema who had negotiated with the Selj¯uqswent out and told him that the population preferred Selj¯uqrule.

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 133 Ibid., p. 715. 134 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 479 (aq¯amaD¯a’¯udbi-mad¯ınatMarw). 135 Ibid., IX, pp. 479–80. 136 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar, pp. 8–9. 137 M¯ırkhwand, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, IV, pp. 248–51. 138 Ibid., IV, p. 248. 139 Ibid., IV, p. 250. 140 Loc. cit. 92 Warfare, conquest and migration Clearly, there are some problematic elements in the Malikn¯ama’s account as recorded by M¯ırkhwand.The fact that this version has the khut.ba being read in the name of T. ughril, as opposed to Chaghr¯ıas given by H. usayn¯ı,while Ibn al-Ath¯ır makes no mention of the khut.ba at all, is reminiscent of the persistent confusion in the Malikn¯ama tradition over the deeds of various members of the dynasty, which may reflect the updating of the text in accordance with the political exigencies of the day, as discussed in Chapter 1. It is significant that these reports suggest that Chaghr¯ıwas attempting to portray himself as a traditional Iranian monarch to the populace of Marv several years before T. ughril’s better-known attempt to do the same at N¯ısh¯ap¯ur.Of course, it is possible that this is a later embellishment designed to legitimise the accession to the sultanate of Alp Arsl¯an,son of Chaghr¯ı, or to stress the Selj¯uqs’early adoption of Islamic norms. From the lack of references to Ghaznavid resistance to the Selj¯uqs,it seems that Marv fell because Sub¯ash¯ıhad abandoned it. If so, then very likely it was indeed the ulema who took the initiative in handing over Marv to the Selj¯uqs, while trying to obtain good terms. The sources concur that, at least initially, the Selj¯uqstook seriously the need to placate their new subjects. This is confirmed by the absence of any reports of widespread looting or destruction resulting from the Selj¯uqtakeover. However, Chaghr¯ı’srule did meet with opposition from some local inhabitants. When he left the city to confront Mas‘ud around 429/1039, he returned to find the city gates barred against him and only managed to retake Marv after a siege of seven months. Interestingly, H. usayni indicates that the opposition to Chaghr¯ıcame from the ‘rabble’ (awb¯ash) and while the notables (wuj¯uh)of Marv were still allied with the Selj¯uqs.141 Events seem to have followed a similar course at N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,the history of which has been much more thoroughly studied than Marv and so shall only be touched on briefly here. Again, there is some ambiguity about the date of the first Selj¯uqcapture of Marv, numismatic evidence pointing towards 428/1037 while the literary sources put it in the following year.142 We have a detailed account of the first occupation, allegedly in the form of an intelligence dispatch that purports to have been written by a Ghaznavid spy in the city.143 Again, N¯ısh¯ap¯urhad apparently been abandoned by Ghaznavid government officials even before the arrival of the advance party of the Selj¯uqs,led by Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al.It seems that only very limited areas of the city were surrounded by defensive walls, the quhand¯ız (citadel) and shahrist¯an (inner city). However, much of the city, including its Friday mosque, administrative centre, living quarters and bazaars had spread beyond this, to the rabad., the outer town, which was undefended.144 Thus the notables of the city had every interest in preventing destruction of their property. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

141 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar, p. 11; cf. Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 481. 142 Paul, ‘The Selj¯uqconquest(s) of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur’,p. 575; Bulliet, The Patricians of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur, p. 18, n. 25. 143 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, pp. 881–5, translated with further references in Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, pp. 252–8. 144 Paul, ‘The Selj¯uqconquest(s) of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur’,p. 583; cf. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 159. Warfare, conquest and migration 93 As at Marv, the ulema played an important role in the surrender: the notables consulted with the q¯ad.¯ı,who agreed with their decision to surrender. The q¯ad.¯ı, accompanied by relatives and pupils, was the first to formally receive T. ughril into the city. The fall of N¯ısh¯ap¯urwas accompanied by the reading of the khut.ba in T. ughril’s name, although this met with some popular resistance. At both Marv and N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,the elite accepted Selj¯uqoccupation with little resistance after the Ghaznavids had abandoned them. Sometimes, however, we read of what seems to be popular enthusiasm for Selj¯uqrule. Gard¯ız¯ı,for instance, who wrote for the Ghaznavid sultan ‘Abd al-Rash¯ıdand thus is hardly a pro-Selj¯uq source, records that ‘the people of B¯avardhanded over their fortress (h.is. ¯ar)to the Türkmen and made a compact with them’ (b¯a¯ısh¯anmut.¯abaqatkardand).145 Certainly, some sections of Khur¯as¯an¯ısociety would have had reason to welcome a change of government as Ghaznavid administration was notorious for its grasping nature. Furthermore, T. ughril seems to have taken a hard line against the bands of ‘ayy¯ars (factional gangs) that played such a prominent role in society and particularly urban factionalism, and as a result they ‘were in dread of him and gave up their evil deeds, which brought peace and security to the populace’.146 It may be, as Paul has suggested, that reports of T. ughril’s crackdown on the ‘ayy¯ars are meant to represent him as a man of law and order, although in this instance, this interpretation would seem to be contradicted by the fact the passage is immediately preceded by one describing the looting of N¯ısh¯ap¯uron its second occupation by T. ughril in 431/1040. It does seem, however, there was a significant popular element that would actively resist Selj¯uqrule given the right circumstances. Paul has argued convincingly that the ‘people of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur’who rebelled and threw off Selj¯uq authority when Mas‘¯udlaunched his campaign to recapture Khur¯as¯anin 431/1040 147 were ‘ayy¯ars. It is tempting to imagine that the people H. usayn¯ıdescribes awb¯ash (rabble) who rebelled against the Selj¯uqsin Marv were also ‘ayy¯ars, and in Balkh, the Ghaznavid commander relied on ‘ayy¯ars to help him defend the city.148 Slightly later, in Syria, ah.d¯ath, comparable to ‘ayy¯ars, opposed the Türkmen presence in Aleppo.149 Thus the factional politics of Khur¯as¯an’s towns, and the resulting lack of leadership, seem to have played a role in their reaction to the Selj¯uqs.150 However, at both Marv and N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,elements of the ulema did take charge and made peace; the problem was that this was by no means accepted by the awb¯ash or ‘ayy¯ars. Nonetheless, some chronological problems cast doubt on how real Selj¯uq control actually was. For instance, in 429/1038, after Chaghr¯ı’scapture of Marv, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

145 Gard¯ız¯ı, Zayn, p. 293. 146 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 483. The translation is Paul’s – see ‘The Selj¯uqconquest(s) of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur’,pp. 580–1 on this issue. 147 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 463; Paul, ‘The Selj¯uqconquest(s) of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur’,pp. 578–9, 581. 148 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 976, first cited by Paul in ‘The Selj¯uqconquest(s) of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur’,p. 575, n. 1. 149 See below, Chapter 5, p. 155. 150 Paul, ‘The Selj¯uqconquest(s) of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur’,pp. 584–5. 94 Warfare, conquest and migration Ibn al-Ath¯ırrecords that it was briefly occupied by Mas‘¯ud.151 Again, Mas‘¯ud was able to make his way to Ghazna by way of Marv (whether the town or the oasis is meant is unclear) after his disastrous defeat at Dand¯anq¯an.152 This seems to suggest that we should understand Selj¯uq‘control’ of a town in a very flexible way. The Selj¯uqsdid try to maintain some kind of administrative system in conquered cities. For instance, the Selj¯uqgovernor (w¯al¯ı )ofJ¯uzj¯anwas crucified by Mas‘¯udwhen he retook the city,153 and indeed when the Selj¯uqsoriginally demanded that Mas‘¯udgrant them Marv, Sarakhs and B¯avardin 428/1037, they insisted that the Ghaznavid network of officials be left in place, but that they, not the Ghaznavids, should be the beneficiaries of the taxes raised.154 The Selj¯uq forces were still largely nomadic or semi-nomadic, and long-term residence in a city would have meant abandoning their lifestyle, so they themselves did not generally try to maintain permanent control of urban centres. When in 429/1038 the Türkmen around Sarakhs and Marv heard of a Ghaznavid attempt to dislodge them – presumably Mas‘¯ud’sadvance alluded to above – they did not bother to contest it, but rather fled, abandoning their possessions in the desert.155 Thus doubts over the dating of the conquest of cities, that apply even to the most important centres of Khur¯as¯an,N¯ısh¯ap¯urand Marv, may be attributed to the very impermanence of Selj¯uqoccupation. Once Selj¯uqforces had entered a town, they might fade away again into the desert to seek plunder elsewhere. The situation is perhaps comparable to that in fourteenth-century Central Asia, in which the nomads ‘made free use of’ cities which could serve as a ‘refuge’ for them,156 rather than cities suddenly becoming their permanent bases after their conquest.

The end of the Türkmen dominance in the Selj¯uqmilitary The Selj¯uqsdid not have a monopoly on the use of nomads as soldiers – as is noted in Chapter 1, one of the very reasons for their migration to Transoxiana may have been the plentiful opportunities for military service available to nomads. Indeed, the ghul¯ams employed by the Ghaznavids were often themselves of steppe origins, and Ghaznavid poets occasionally mention the tribes from which they came, such as the Qarluq or the Kirghiz.157 However, ghul¯ams were recruited at a young age and it seems unlikely they retained much more steppe heritage than the name of their tribe; certainly, they were very different indeed from the Selj¯uqsboth in lifestyle and fighting technique. Other nomadic peoples employed

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 151 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 481. 152 Gard¯ız¯ı, Zayn, p. 294. 153 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 481. 154 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 727. 155 Ibid., p. 873. 156 Beatrice Forbes Manz, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 38. 157 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 109. Warfare, conquest and migration 95 by the Ghaznavids were the Kurds and the Arabs,158 but even though the Kurds were traditionally used to defend Khur¯as¯anfrom steppe invaders there are only a few records of them being directly involved in fighting the Selj¯uqsin this area (although, as we shall see in Chapter 5, they certainly did clash with the Selj¯uqs in their home territories of Kurdistan).159 However, by the time of the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, Alp Arsl¯anhad a substantial ghul¯am army which, according to some reports, proved to be considerably more reliable than the traditional steppe army.160 In some ways, the Selj¯uqs’employment of ghul¯ams is a far more convincing marker of when they started to behave as rulers according to Middle Eastern, Islamic norms than is their adoption of the title of sultan or the proclamation of the khut.ba in their names. Even if we accept the accuracy of the mediaeval sources’ representation of T. ughril as an Islamic ruler, it is still questionable as to whether this was intended to appeal to all his subjects; was it merely aimed to convince the established Muslim, urban populations of T. ughril’s legitimacy, or was it really symptomatic of a wholehearted embrace of the political traditions of Iran and Iraq? Such questions will always remain debatable unless new evidence comes to light. However, like the symbolism of the khut.ba and sikka (minting coins), the employment of ghul¯ams was the hallmark of every established state in the Middle East. In contrast to the ‘Abb¯asids,S¯am¯anidsand Ghaznavids, the use of military slavery is not attested among the steppe peoples of Eurasia, such as the Qarakh¯anids.If it can be established roughly when the Selj¯uqleaders decided to supplement their Türkmen followers with ghul¯ams, it would help us to understand when they ceased to act as leaders of nomadic groups and started to adopt the trappings of established states. In additional, as the use of ghul¯ams was a purely practical matter with no symbolic connotations, facts relating to their employment are much less likely to have been doctored by historians seeking to legitimise the Selj¯uqdynasty. The Selj¯uquse of ghul¯ams has been studied by David Ayalon.161 He has concluded that the first record of ghul¯ams in Selj¯uqservice occurs in 451/1060, when T. ughril was fighting the F¯at.imid pretender Bas¯as¯ır¯ıfor control of Baghdad. The total size of the ghul¯am army is unknown, but T. ughril was able to send 2000 to divert Bas¯as¯ır¯ı(alfay ghul¯ammin al-‘askar), implying that the total number was rather larger. As we have seen, Mas’¯udemployed 6,000 palace ghul¯ams at the Battle of Dand¯anq¯an, but even 2,000 was a very substantial

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 158 Ibid., pp. 111–12. 159 See Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 380 for one example of Kurdish forces employed by the Ghaznavids in Khur¯as¯an. 160 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 148; cf. David Ayalon, Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans: A Study of Power Relationships, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1999, pp. 144–5. 161 Ayalon, Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans, pp. 144–65. Much the same material is treated in idem, ‘The Mamluks of the Seljuks: Islam’s military might at the crossroads’, JRAS 3rd series 6/iii (1996), pp. 305–33. 96 Warfare, conquest and migration number – enough, for example, to ensure the effective independence of the rulers of Khw¯arazm.162 No source tells us unambiguously when this ghul¯am-based army was introduced, but two Arabic chroniclers, Ibn al-Ath¯ırand Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı,offer clues. Both indicate that the soldiers that accompanied T. ughril into Baghdad in 447/1055 were 163 Türkmen; Ibn al-Ath¯ırspecifically calls them al-ghuzz al-salj¯uqiyya, while Sibt. states they were Turks who had come from Khur¯as¯an.164 Although the Selj¯uqentry into Baghdad was not opposed, a good deal of trouble ensued, with some parts of the populace attacking the Türkmen. As discussed in the next chapter, this may have been connected with Sunni-Shi‘ite religious disputes, but it was also doubtless a result of the bad behaviour of the Türkmen who were billeted on the 165 people and whom T. ughril was – or claimed to be – unable to control. The Caliph in vain begged T. ughril to restrain his followers. However, Ibn al-Ath¯ırdescribes how T. ughril was moved to make a decisive break with previous custom and rein in the Türkmen.

He saw the Prophet in a dream by the Ka‘ba. He seemed to be greeting the Prophet who turned away from him and shunned him, saying, ‘God has made you ruler over His lands and His servants, but you do not treat them well out of fear for Him, nor do you feel embarrassed in front of His majesty in your treatment of them, but you are overweening in neglecting Him through your oppression of them’.166

T. ughril immediately woke up and wrote to the Caliph informing him he was stopping the practice of billeting his soldiers on the populace and soon withdrew them from Baghdad entirely. The story of T. ughril’s dream need not, of course, be taken literally. What it does indicate clearly is that in the eyes of Ibn al-Ath¯ıror his unknown source, a radical change had taken place in T. ughril’s behaviour that could only be explained by divine intervention. Sibt. does not include the dream narrative, but he offers unequivocal evidence of tense relations between T. ughril and the Türkmen who had accompanied him into Baghdad. In a passage that significantly follows immediately after his description of the Caliph’s marriage to T. ughril’s niece in great splendor, Sibt. relates how T. ughril ordered the Türkmen to return to Khur¯as¯an, and remained deaf to their entreaties to change his mind.167 As a result, the majority

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 162 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids, p. 105. 163 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 613. 164 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at,p.3. 165 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 626. 166 Ibid., IX, pp. 626–7. 167 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 3. The Türkmen are called al-atr¯ak here, but it is clear that T. ughril’s army not the Baghdad ghul¯ams is meant as they are described as alladh¯ınaakhadh¯uBaghd¯ad, ‘the ones who took Baghdad’. Warfare, conquest and migration 97 of the Türkmen in Baghdad were forced to leave for Khur¯as¯an.168 Later in the same year, Sibt. reports ‘Turks’ (al-turk) who joined with Ab¯u’l-Ghan¯a’imb. Fas¯anjis, governor of W¯asit., in rebellion against T. ughril: ‘they had fled from the sultan because he had killed a group of them’.169 Although al-turk is an ambiguous term, as discussed in the previous chapter, here it clearly means Türkmen, for they described themselves to Ab¯u’l-Ghan¯a’imin the following terms:

We are obedient servants of the sultan, but he has no need for us and does not care about us. He has many different soldiers some of whom we despise. We have seen what happened to our brothers in Baghdad who were stronger than us: how their lands and property was taken away, command of the army was stolen from them, some of them were killed and they were thrown out onto the streets. Our hearts detested this. If he was content with having the khut.ba read for him, striking coins (in his name) and gaining possessions without appointing a Khur¯as¯an¯ıover us, then we would be obedient. Otherwise, we will refuse obedience.170

This passage points to the beginning of the breakdown in the relationship between T. ughril and the nomads. The reference to their hostile relationship with some members of T. ughril’s varied army suggests that a decision had already been made to recruit non-Türkmen into the Selj¯uqarmy; indeed, to be able to dispense with so many of the Türkmen steps must have already been afoot to provide an alternative basis for the army, which could only have been ghul¯ams. The reference to the ‘Khur¯as¯an¯ı’T. ughril attempted to impose on his army probably indicates a move towards a more professional army. The passage is also richly illustrative how little the nomads were impressed by T. ughril’s assumption of the khut.ba and the sikka, the symbols of Islamic kingship. Thus the evidence of both Sibt. and Ibn al-Ath¯ır strongly suggests that the beginnings of ghul¯am recruitment to the Selj¯uqarmy can be dated to around 447/1055, and accompanied the dismissal of many of the Türkmen who had secured the Selj¯uqstheir conquests to date, including Baghdad itself. The exact motives for this are unclear. The positioning of the first mention of the fall of the Türkmen in the Mir’¯at is evidently meant to suggest that after T. ughril’s attendance at the Caliph’s opulent marriage he felt his nomadic followers were an embarrassment best dispensed with; it is followed by a description of T. ughril’s efforts to rebuild the walls of Baghdad that presents him acting as a respectable monarch. Ibn al- Ath¯ır,on the other hand, explains T. ughril’s decision by reference to his dream, showing him behaving as conscious-stricken Muslim. Both these accounts are

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 clearly intended to stress that T. ughril made a clean break with his past and now started behaving according to norms of civilised Muslim society. As such, they

168 Ibid., p. 6. 169 Ibid., p. 7. 170 Ibid., p. 7. 98 Warfare, conquest and migration are rhetorical and need to be treated with some suspicion. However, that these two independent sources indicate a rupture between T. ughril and his followers in this year strongly suggests that some kind of break did happen. Further, while these accounts are rhetorical, it is quite likely that the fall of Baghdad and looting of its agricultural hinterland did prompt T. ughril to consider replacing some of the Türkmen with a more reliable and biddable force. The capture of Baghdad, then, seems to mark the beginning of tension between T. ughril’s desire to behave like a conventional Islamic monarch and the behaviour of his nomadic followers. However, it should be stressed that T. ughril certainly did not entirely dispense with the Türkmen, who remained a significant military force until the end of the Selj¯uqdynasty, if not always as readily controllable as the sultans and their bureaucrats would have wished. Indeed, in the year 448/1055–6 we read in Sibt. that T. ughril sent an army of 2,000 cavalry under Qutlumush to 171 fight around W¯asit., which consisted of atr¯ak, ghuzz and turkm¯an. No other groups are mentioned. Clearly, T. ughril’s aim was not to destroy the Türkmen, but to reduce their role and supplement them with other forces. In any event, even this more professional, ghul¯am-based army was at times no more reliable the Türkmen: in 452/1060, T. ughril was forced to abandon a winter siege of Tabr¯ızbecause of his troops’ protests at the conditions.172 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

171 Ibid., p. 10. 172 Ibid., p. 74. 4 The Selj¯uqsand Islam

The eleventh century was a turning point in the history of Islam. It was then that Sunnism started to take a recognisable form, defined by the creed of the ‘Abb¯asidCaliph al-Q¯adir(381/991–422/1031), and affirmed by his son al-Q¯a’im.1 Shi‘ism, backed by Fatimid Egypt and by the Ism¯a‘¯ıl¯ıstates that started to emerge in Syria and Iran, remained a powerful force. It was an era of intellectual dynamism, with theologians like Im¯amal-H. aramayn al-Juwayn¯ıand, most famously of all, al-Ghaz¯al¯ıactive in the Selj¯uqterritories. Perhaps the period’s most lasting legacy was the rise of that characteristic Muslim institution of learning, the madrasa, while the Sunni law-schools (madhhab, pl. madh¯ahib) were also transformed. Conventionally these were considered to consist of the M¯alik¯ı,Sh¯afi‘¯ı,and H. anaf¯ı schools, named after their founders, but by the end of the tenth century, the prevalence of followers of the traditionalist imam Ibn H. anbal in Iraq was already 2 notable. The rise of the H. anbal¯ıs– in part a law school, in part a theological group – supported by the popular piety of the Sunni masses, was to define the religious atmosphere of eleventh-century Baghdad. H. anafism is also thought to have come to much greater prominence in this period, although it had been favoured by earlier ‘Abb¯asidCaliphs and by the S¯am¯anids. Passionate, often vicious and violent, theological debate characterised both intellectual and social life. Sunnis and Shi‘ites lived in distinct quarters of Baghdad, and civil strife ( fitna) regularly broke out between the two sides. Religious fanaticism (ta‘as.s.ub) was the spirit of the age, and was by no means restricted to fighting between Sunni and Shi‘a. Few major towns in the eastern Islamic world seem to have been exempt from it. The Selj¯uqsare often thought to have played an important role in the growth of this fanaticism and civil strife by favouring H. anafism, but the details of their involvement have never been explored, with the exception of one event which is often taken to be axiomatic of early Selj¯uqreligious Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

1 George Makdisi, Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl et la Résurgence de l’Islam traditionaliste au XIe siècle, Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1963, pp. 303–8. 2 Muqaddas¯ı, Kit¯abAh.san al-Taq¯as¯ımf¯ıMa’rifat al-Aq¯al¯ım, M.J. de Goeje (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 1906, p. 126. 100 The Selj¯uqsand Islam policy: the persecution (mih.na) of the Ash‘arite theological school initiated in N¯ısh¯ap¯urin 445/1053 on the orders of T. ughril and his vizier, Kundur¯ı. However, scholarship on religion under the Selj¯uqsis much more detailed than that on any other aspect of the period. We have numerous studies of the life and works of the great Ghaz¯al¯ı3 and even lesser-known figures such as Juwayn¯ıhave received monograph treatment.4 George Makdisi was the first scholar to investigate eleventh-century religion in depth, with his monumental studies of the H. anbalite Baghdadi theologian Ibn ‘Aq¯ıland his articles on the development of religious institutions and the Ash‘arite theological school. It was Makdisi who overturned the scholarly orthodoxy of his day that the Selj¯uqshad brought about the Sunni Revival by pointing out the simple fact that it had started long before the Selj¯uqs had reached Baghdad – indeed with the Q¯adir¯ıcreed that was declared even before they had emerged into the light of history.5 Makdisi was also the first to note that the Selj¯uqswere far from acting as saviours of the Caliphate from the Shi‘ite B¯uyids, and that relations between the Selj¯uqsultans and the Caliphs were often frosty and sometimes downright hostile,6 a line of enquiry that has been more recently pursued and extended by Eric Hanne who has not, however, significantly changed Makdisi’s conclusions for the early Selj¯uqperiod under consideration here.7 Alongside Makdisi’s studies stand those of Richard Bulliet on Iran, who sought to understand the perplexing intercommunal strife in the city of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur.8 He concluded that behind the labels of Sh¯afi‘¯ıand H. anaf¯ıhid two different political parties who vied for power in the city, thus suggesting that the differences between the madhhabs were not the real root of the problem, but social and political tensions. Although Bulliet’s thesis was expressed rather tentatively initially, it received widespread acceptance. Another detailed study of religion and politics in Selj¯uqIraq was undertaken by Erika Glassen,9 whose work does not, however, appear to have been consulted by any of the three scholars who have subsequently worked on religion under the Selj¯uqs– Ephrat, Safi and Hanne. In 2000, the first of these, Dana Ephrat, published a study of the social role and identity of

3 Major studies include William Montgomery Watt, Muslim Intellectual: A Study of al-Ghazali, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1963; Richard Frank, Al-Ghazali and the Ash‘arite School, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994. 4 Tilman Nagel, Die Festung des Glaubens: Triumph und Scheitern des islamischen Rationalismus im 11. Jahrhundert, Munich: C.H. Beck, 1998. 5 George Makdisi, ‘The Sunni revival’ in D.S. Richards (ed.), Islamic Civilisation 950–1150, Oxford: B. Cassirer, 1973, pp. 155–68. 6 George Makdisi, ‘The marriage of Tughril Beg’, IJMES 1/iii (1970), pp. 259–75; idem, ‘Les rapports Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 entre Calife et Sultane à l’époque Saljuqide’, IJMES 6/ii (1975), pp. 28–36. 7 Eric J. Hanne, Putting the Caliph in his Place: Power, Authority and the Late Abbasid Caliphate, Madison, WI: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007. 8 Richard Bulliet, The Patricians of Nishapur: A Study in Medieval Islamic Social History, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972; idem, ‘The political–religious history of Nishapur in the eleventh century’ in Richards, Islamic Civilisation, pp. 71–91. 9 Erika Glassen, Der Mittlere Weg: Studien zur Religionspolitik und Religiosität der späteren Abbasiden-Zeit, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1981. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 101 Sunni ulema of Baghdad.10 Ephrat stressed how weak ties between the ulema and the rulers were, and that the madrasa did not train bureaucrats or play a particularly important role in the formation of madhhabs. This was followed by Omid Safi’s book, The Politics of Knowledge, which sought to investigate the relationship between the Selj¯uqrulers and religious figures, especially Sufis. In contrast to Ephrat, Safi believes that the madrasa was a ‘state apparatus’, set up by Niz. ¯amal-Mulk, which succeeded in restoring social order and the balance between the competing madhhabs, training at least some bureaucrats and ‘contributing to the reestablishment of Muslim social unity’.11 Safi also argues that the Selj¯uqs supported Sufi kh¯anq¯ahs as a way of ingratiating themselves with Sufis who in return would support the regime.12 For all the merits of these studies, the relationship between politics and religion in the Selj¯uqperiod remains obscure. It is not even clear whether the vizier Niz. ¯am al-Mulk’s religious policy (if it can be called a consistent policy) was that of his Selj¯uqmasters. Niz. ¯amal-Mulk is usually credited with having promoted Sh¯afi‘ismthrough the foundation of institutions such as the Niz. ¯am¯ıyamadrasa in Baghdad, yet the growth of H. anafism in the central Islam lands is attributed by 13 a scholar as distinguished as Madelung to the H. anaf¯ıfanaticism of the Selj¯uqs. As we shall see, the religious history of the whole period is filled with similarly extreme contradictions. In this chapter I shall suggest that these contradictions are too numerous and too consistent to be explained away. I shall argue that in so far as the Selj¯uqsor their viziers had a religious policy, it was often capricious and contradictory. It was not rooted in either theological or legal considerations, and far from unambiguously promoting Sunnism, it at times supported Shi‘ism. Furthermore, whatever policies were espoused by the vizier and sultan did not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the Türkmen tribesmen, which I shall explore at the end of the chapter.

The madhhabs, civil strife and the Selj¯uqs The society the Türkmen found in Khur¯as¯anwas marked by intense factionalism, based on local, even neighbourhood, loyalties, or on theological or legal differ- ences.14 The Selj¯uqsswiftly became embroiled in these disputes, which we must untangle if we are to understand the nature of Selj¯uqreligion and religious policy.

10 Daphna Ephrat, A Learned Society in a Period of Transition: The Sunni ‘ulama’ of Eleventh-century Baghdad, Albany, NY: SUNY, 2000. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 11 Omid Safi, The Politics of Knowledge in Premodern Islam: Negotiating Ideology and Religious Enquiry, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2006, pp. 90–104, esp. 96–7. 12 Ibid., pp. 97–100. 13 W. Madelung, ‘The spread of Maturidism and the Turks’ in Actas do IV Congresso de Estudos arabes e islamicos, Coimbra-Lisboa, 1968, Leiden: Brill, 1971, pp. 124–9 (reprinted in Wilferd Madelung, Religious Schools and Sects in Medieval Islam, London: Variorum, 1985). 14 Roy Mottahedeh, Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society, London: I.B. Tauris, 2001, pp. 158–67. 102 The Selj¯uqsand Islam The extent to which the factions were cohesive groups and a positive focus for loyalties is debatable and anyway varied from region to region;15 what cannot be doubted, however, is that this factionalism could result in widespread bloodshed, indeed ultimately in the destruction of the city of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur.16 The balance of these factions varied according to region. In Baghdad, it was the H. anbal¯ısand Shi‘ites who were behind much of the strife, although Ash‘arism and even Mu‘tazilism played a role at times.17 Iran tended to be divided in madhhab between Sh¯afi‘¯ısand H. anaf¯ıs,and fitna between these groups was widespread in Is.fah¯anand N¯ısh¯ap¯ur. The latter city was the stronghold of Ash‘arism. Further east, Transoxiana was solidly H. anaf¯ı(barring a few Sh¯afi‘¯ıpockets around Sh¯ash),and theologically it was largely M¯atur¯ıd¯ı, although Khw¯arazmand Balkh remained strongholds of Mu‘tazilism.18 Although in the tenth century factionalism had been rife in Transoxiana,19 in our period tensions appear to have been greatest in the cities of Iran and in Baghdad, although fitna, fuelled by ah.d¯ath and ‘ayy¯ars – popular movements of youths – was to be found elsewhere.20 The growth of the law schools whose names stand behind so much of this unrest had initially resulted from state patronage under the ‘Abb¯asids,who had sought 21 to appoint loyal H. anaf¯ı q¯ad.¯ıs where possible. By the eleventh century, in some cities, notably Baghdad, specific positions seem to have been allocated according to membership of madhhab: thus H. anaf¯ıstended to hold the q¯ad.¯ıship,while Sh¯afi‘¯ıs tended to be teachers in the newly founded madrasas.22 Elsewhere, however, there seems to have been intense competition between madhhabs for the spoils of office – positions such as the town ra’¯ıs (head), and the q¯ad.¯ıship.Bulliet’s suggestion that theological and legal differences between the madhhabs are inadequate to account for the bloodshed and destruction caused in their name has much to commend it.23 A man could belong to a given law-school without it dominating his every deed. Plenty of H. anbal¯ıs,for instance, had studied subjects other than fiqh with

15 Daniella Talmon-Heller, ‘Fidelity, cohesion, and conformity within madhhabs in Zangid and Ayyubid Syria’ in Peri Bearman, Rudolph Peters and Frank E. Vogel (eds.), The Islamic School of Law: Evolution, Devolution, and Progress, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005, pp. 94–5. 16 Bulliet, Patricians, pp. 76–81. 17 For an example of disturbances caused in Baghdad by Mu‘tazil¯ı preaching, see Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am f¯ı’l-Ta’r¯ıkh, Hyderabad: D¯a’iratal-Ma‘¯arifal-‘Uthm¯an¯ıya,1357, VIII, pp. 235–6. 18 Wilferd Madelung, Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran, Albany, NY: Bibliotheca Persica, 1988, pp. 18, 26–31, 38. On Balkh’s Mu‘tazilism, see Serge de Beaurecueil, Khwadja ‘Abdallah Ansari (396–481H./1006–1089), Beirut: Imprimérie catholique, 1965, p. 107. 19 Claude Cahen, ‘Mouvements populaires et autonomisme urbain dans l’Asie musulmane du moyen Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 âge –II’, Arabica 6/i (1959), p. 28. 20 See ibid., passim on these. 21 Wael B. Hallaq, The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 178–93; Nurit Tsfarir, The History of an Islamic School of Law: The Early Spread of H. anafism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004, pp. 44–7, 89–91, 116–20. 22 Daphna Ephrat, ‘Madhhab and madrasa in eleventh century Baghdad’ in Bearman, Peters and Vogel, The Islamic School of Law,p.78. 23 Bulliet, Patricians, pp. 38–9. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 103 Sh¯afi‘¯ıscholars – Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl,for instance, had been a student of the Sh¯afi‘¯ıAb¯u T. ayyib al-T. abar¯ıas well as the H. anaf¯ıal-Damagh¯an¯ı,was himself from a H. anaf¯ı 24 family and even appears to have started his career by studying H. anaf¯ı fiqh. Although theological disputes – such as Ash‘arism and Mu‘tazilism – were often expressed in vicious terms, relationships between ulema of rival madhhabs could be good, even friendly. There were even friendships between ulema from the two most hostile parties, the H. anbal¯ıs and Ash‘ar¯ıs, united by their common 25 enmity to Mu‘tazilism. Plenty of scholars were Sh¯afi‘¯ıinf¯ıqh but H. anbal¯ıin theology. Furthermore, there could be intense rivalry between members of a single madhhab.26 It is only natural, then, that scholars have treated accounts of fitna and ta‘as.s.ub with some suspicion and have sought to attribute their causes to more mundane reasons. However, we cannot entirely dismiss the role of genuine religious differences in stoking the strife. H. anbal¯ıs, for instance, tended to avoid public office, so it is unlikely they were purely motivated by simple political competition. The differences between madhhabs were not necessarily minor either in principle or practice,27 while the distinctions between theological schools could be intensely emotive. Baghdad’s leading H. anbalite, al-Shar¯ıf Ab¯u Ja‘far, put the matter succinctly to Niz. ¯amal-Mulk when the latter was trying to calm down a particularly vehement dispute between the H. anbalites and Ash‘arites:

How can there be peace between us? There can be peace between parties fighting over secular power, worldly goods, or an inheritance. But those people [the Ash‘arites] claim that we are unbelievers, while we claim that anyone who does not believe what we believe is an unbeliever. So how can there be peace between us?28

Even in cities where fitna was not particularly prominent, due to the preponderance of a single madhhab and theological group, tensions could run high. The famous H. anbalite Sufi of Herat, ‘Abdall¯ahAns.¯ar¯ı,was twice exiled by the decision of a majlis or council of the townsmen, although H. anbal¯ıswere a distinct minority in the city. Indeed, H. anaf¯ısand Sh¯afi‘¯ısof Herat, elsewhere so vehemently opposed, came together to solicit Selj¯uqintervention against the holy man.29 Any means was seen as legitimate to discredit one’s theological opponents. Ans.¯ar¯ı’senemies, playing on the traditional association of H. anbalism with anthropomorphism in its opponents’ eyes, tried to persuade Alp Arsl¯anthat he was an idolator, even

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 24 Makdisi, Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl, pp. 412–5; cf. Ephrat, ‘Madhhab and madrasa’, p. 86. 25 Seyfullah Kara, Büyük Selçuklular ve Mezhep Kavgaları, Istanbul: Iz˙ Yayıncılık, 2007, pp. 306–11. 26 Ephrat, ‘Madhhab and madrasa’, p. 84. 27 Hallaq, Origins and Evolution, p. 151. 28 Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, VIII, p. 306; Ibn Rajab, Kit¯abal-Dhayl ‘al¯aT. abaq¯atal-H. an¯abila, Henri Laoust and S¯am¯ıDahh¯an(eds.), Damascus: al-Ma‘had al-Farans¯ıli-’l-Dir¯as¯atal-‘Arab¯ıya, 1370/1951, p. 27. 29 Ibn Rajab, Dhayl ‘al¯aT. abaq¯at, p. 69; Beaurecueil, Khwadja ‘Abdullah Ansari, pp. 103–04. 104 The Selj¯uqsand Islam going to the lengths of leaving an idol in the mih.r¯ab of his mosque, which they 30 claimed to the sultan’s men was the object of his veneration. When Ans.¯ar¯ı was exiled to Balkh, a largely Mu‘tazil¯ıand H. anaf¯ıcity, the populace planned to stone him.31 Protagonists in these disputes were not content with an intellectual victory through the mun¯az.ara, the disputation, often held in front of one of the wielders of secular power. Victory for right belief was often conceived of in very physical and worldly terms – the exile or imprisonment of one’s opponents.32 In general, we find few examples of sultans or their viziers initiating persecutions during the period; most of their actions were as a result of pressure from below. Thus when in 460/1067 Alp Arsl¯ancondemned Mu‘tazilism as unbelief, this was a response to the outraged traditionalists gathered at the Caliphal council (d¯ıw¯an), demanding that the Q¯adir¯ı-Q¯a’im¯ıcreed that defined Sunnism and H. anbalism be proclaimed in response to the renewed Mu‘tazil¯ıpreaching of Ibn al-Wal¯ıd.33 Elsewhere in the Selj¯uqdomains, the Mu‘tazilites were left undisturbed and even flourished.34 In Rayy, the noted Mu‘tazil¯ıtheologian Ism¯a‘¯ılb. ‘Al¯ıal-Samm¯anwas able to teach openly under T. ughril, and Ab¯uBakr al-N¯as.ih¯ı,another Mu‘tazilite, held the positions of q¯ad.¯ıinN¯ısh¯ap¯urand Rayy during the second half of the eleventh century.35 Selj¯uqpolicy can thus be seen as responsive to local circumstances: Rayy was a traditional stronghold of Mu‘tazilism,36 so theologians of that ilk were acceptable to local opinion, whereas the H. anbal¯ımasses of Baghdad demanded its denunciation.37 This pragmatic approach was well decribed by Niz. ¯amal-Mulk, the Sh¯afi‘¯ıvizier of Alp Arsl¯anand Maliksh¯ah.He had been approached by Ab¯uIsh. ¯aqal-Sh¯ır¯az¯ı,the leading Ash‘ar¯ıin Baghdad, complaining of the H. anbalites with whom there had been fierce clashes leading to deaths when the Ash‘arite Ab¯uNas.r b. al-Qushayr¯ı had been allowed to preach at the Niz. ¯am¯ıya.Niz. ¯amal-Mulk wrote back to Sh¯ır¯az¯ı as follows:

The policy of the sultan and fairness require that we do not incline towards one madhhab more than another. It is more fitting for us to uphold the sunna than to ignite fitna. We proceeded with building this madrasa [the Niz. ¯am¯ıya]only with a view to protecting scholars and the public interest, not for disagreement

30 Ibn Rajab, Dhayl ‘al¯aT. abaq¯at, pp. 70–1. 31 Beaureceuil, Khwadja ‘Abdullah Ansari, p. 108. 32 Thus after the ‘fitna’ of 469 in Baghdad between Ash‘arites and H. anbalites, some of the latter were forced into exile (such as Ab¯u’l-Q¯asimb. Ab¯ıYa‘l¯a,see Ibn Rajab, Dhayl ‘al¯aT. abaq¯at, p. 17), Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 or were imprisoned (like al-Shar¯ıfAb¯uJa‘far, ibid., p. 28). 33 Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, VIII, p. 249. 34 On Mu‘tazilism under the Selj¯uqs,see Margaretha T. Heemskerk, Suffering in the Mu‘tazilite Theology: ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s Teaching on Pain and Divine Justice, Leiden: Brill, 2000, pp. 62–5. 35 Ibid., p. 65; Bulliet, Patricians, p. 206. 36 Madelung, Religious Trends,p.30. 37 On H. anbalism’s appeal in Baghdad, see Simha Sabari, Mouvements populaires à Bagdad à l’époque ‘abbasside, IXe–XIe siècles, Paris: J. Maisonneuve, 1981, pp. 101–20. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 105 and arguing. When things developed contrary to our wishes in this respect, we had no choice but to close the gate. We do not have the power to overcome Baghdad and its surroundings and to alter forcibly [its people’s] established customs, for the majority here belong to the madhhab of the Im¯amAb¯u 38 ‘Abdall¯ahAh.mad b. H. anbal.

Alp Arsl¯analso attempted to reconcile warring Shi‘ite and H. anbalite factions, doubtless in the interests of public order, as is attested by the contemporary diarist 39 Ibn al-Bann¯a’. Yet the allegations of the Selj¯uqs’fanatical H. anafism and the mih.na against the Ash‘arites in Ash‘arite-dominated Nishapur would seem to contradict this policy, or at the very least indicate that T. ughril’s attitude was radically different from that of his successors.

The Selj¯uqsand H. anafism Modern and mediaeval sources agree almost unanimously that the Selj¯uqswere H. anaf¯ıs. Certainly, as Madelung has documented convincingly, H. anaf¯ıs were leading figures in the conversion of the Turks – which is hardly surprising 40 given that H. anafism was the dominant madhhab of Central Asia. Madelung 41 also sees Turkish H. anafism as ‘militant and intolerant’. As he puts it, ‘The militant H. anafism of the Turks, rulers as well as common soldiers, their dislike of Šafi‘ism, their distinct hostility towards Aš‘arism, and the powerful Šafi‘ite reaction are basic factors in the religious situation of the Selj¯uqage.’42 According to Madelung, T. ughril took several measures in favour of H. anafism, most importantly the persecution of the Ash‘arites at N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,43 which is discussed in detail below. Here we examine the other evidence for Selj¯uqH. anaf¯ı fanaticism. Authors such as R¯avand¯ı praise the Selj¯uqsultans for promoting H. anafism 44 and educating H. anaf¯ı scholars. Certainly, under Maliksh¯ahand later sultans 45 a degree of patronage for the H. anaf¯ıs can be detected. One must wonder, however, to what extent the often subtle differences between the madhhabs were really appreciated by the Türkmen – or even by their leaders, given that, as we shall see, Qutlumush was involved with some fairly unorthodox religious practices, and even T. ughril, for all his alleged piety, hardly treated the Caliph

38 Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, VIII, p. 313. 39 George Makdisi, ‘Autograph diary of an eleventh century historian of Baghdad – II’, BSOAS 18/ii Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 (1956), p. 254. 40 Madelung, ‘The spread of Maturidism’, pp. 119–24. 41 Ibid., pp. 124–5. 42 Ibid., p. 126. 43 Ibid., pp. 127–9. 44 R¯avand¯ı, R¯ah.at al-S.ud¯urfi Ay¯atal-Sur¯ur¯ , Muh.ammad Iqb¯al(ed.), London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial, 1921, pp. 16–9, 84. 45 Madelung, ‘The spread of Maturidism’, pp. 131–8, 146–52. 106 The Selj¯uqsand Islam with respect when it did not suit him.46 Indeed, as Madelung himself points out, precisely one of the attractions of H. anafism may have been that Ab¯uH. an¯ıfahad accepted as Muslims even those who are wholly ignorant of the Qur’¯anand the religious duties of Islam.47 Ignorance, of course, does not necessarily preclude prejudice. The evidence for fanatical H. anafism on the part of T. ughril or Alp Arslan consists of two main points (aside from the mih.na): the construction of H. anaf¯ı 48 mosques and the appointment of H. anaf¯ıofficials. It is true that a new H. anaf¯ı mosque was built at Rayy and H. anaf¯ıswere appointed in the place of Sh¯afi‘¯ısat N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,Hamad¯anand Is.fah¯an,but this may just as well have been connected with local politics. As Madelung notes, H. anaf¯ıswere a majority in Rayy before the Selj¯uqsarrived.49 Elsewhere, the evidence of sultanic patronage of new H. anaf¯ıinstitutions is uncompelling. T. ughril founded a madrasa in N¯ısh¯ap¯urwhich 50 was being constructed when N¯as.ir-i Khusraw passed through in 437/1046, and presumably was H. anaf¯ı,but in Baghdad and other cities Selj¯uqpatronage of madrasas is conspicuously absent. For example, the construction of a new dome over the tomb of Abu H. an¯ıfa was undertaken not by the sultan or even a member of his court or family, but rather by an obscure Türkmen emir. Admittedly, this may have occurred before the Selj¯uqtakeover of Baghdad, but when restoration was required in 459/1066, again this prestigious project was undertaken not by the sultan himself, but by his chief revenue official, Ab¯uSa‘d al-Mustawf¯ıSharaf al-Mulk.51 This individual was also responsible for founding the earliest H. anaf¯ı madrasa in the city, by the tomb, around the same date as 52 the Niz. ¯am¯ıya. No other H. anaf¯ımadrasas seem to have been founded until the reign of Maliksh¯ah.Even then, none of the H. anaf¯ımadrasas in Baghdad were founded directly by the Selj¯uqsultan, but only by members of his household – 53 maml¯uks,wives, children. In terms of appointments, T. ughril did indeed appoint aH. anaf¯ıas Chief Q¯ad.¯ıin Baghdad over better qualified Sh¯afi‘¯ırivals. This was the noted scholar Damagh¯an¯ıbut, significantly, he had opposed the anti-Ash‘ar¯ı mih.na.54 Similarly, there is little evidence for public patronage of H. anafism under Alp Arsl¯an.It is true that he was advised by a H. anaf¯ıq¯ad.¯ı before the Battle of Manzikert,55 and, like his predecessor and successors, he brought with him to

46 Safi, Politics of Knowledge, pp. 27, 35–42. 47 Madelung, ‘The spread of Maturidism’, pp. 122–3. 48 Ibid., pp. 126–8, 141–5. 49 Ibid., p. 127, n. 42. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 50 N¯as.ir-i Khusraw’s Book of Travels, Wheeler M. Thackston (ed. and tr.), Costa Mesa: Mazda, 2001, p. 3; Bulliet, Patricians, pp. 74, 252. 51 Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, VIII, p. 245. 52 Makdisi, ‘Muslim institutions of learning in eleventh century Baghdad’, BSOAS 24/i (1961), pp. 19–20. 53 See ibid., pp. 28–9, for a list of madrasas in Baghdad with details of their affiliation and founder. 54 Madelung, ‘The spread of Maturidism’, p. 122, n. 10. 55 Ibn al-Athir, al-K¯amil,X,p.65. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 107 the central lands of Islam a group of Transoxianan ulema who were rewarded with appointments in Iran, Iraq and Syria. However, this does not in itself mean that the ulema were rewarded for being H. anaf¯ı.It may equally well have been that they were part of a Transoxianan clique that the Selj¯uqrulers trusted, and because they were Transoxianan were H. anaf¯ı.The q¯ad.¯ıat Manzikert, for instance, had the nisba Bukh¯ar¯ı,indicating he was part of this Central Asian group. Stronger testimony to an extreme H. anafism is Niz. ¯amal-Mulk’s account that the sultan was such a 56 fanatical H. anafi that his Sh¯afi‘¯ıvizier feared for his own safety. However, the Siy¯asatn¯ama cannot be read literally, but is a complex work of rhetoric, full of ‘inherent paradoxes’ and ‘implicit ironies’.57 Alp Arsl¯an’ssupposed hostility to Sh¯afi‘ismdid not prevent Niz. ¯amal-Mulk from reversing the anti-Ash‘arite policy of T. ughril’s reign, from founding the Niz¯am¯ıyawhich was explicitly designed by its endowment charter to promote Sh¯afi‘ism,58 or from allowing the appointment 59 of Sh¯afi‘¯ıq¯ad.¯ısagain in N¯ısh¯ap¯ur. Indeed, Juwayn¯ı,one of the leading Sh¯afi‘¯ıs of N¯ısh¯ap¯urwho was forced into exile by the mih.na, does not seem to have been much put off the Selj¯uqdynasty by his experiences, for later he wrote his Ghiy¯ath al-Umam which goes so far as to suggest the Selj¯uqsshould take the Caliphate for themselves.60 Evidently Juwayn¯ıwas not too concerned by Alp Arsl¯an’salleged anti-Sh¯afi‘ismeither, for he makes a point of praising Alp Arsl¯anas a leader of holy war against the Byzantines.61 It is unfortunate that no early H. anaf¯ısources have yet been uncovered which might give us an impression of the scholars of the madhhab towards the Selj¯uqs.Our earliest known H. anafi biographical dictionary is the Maml¯uk-period al-Jaw¯ahiral-Mud.¯ıyaf¯ı’l-T. abaq¯atal-H. anaf¯ıya by Ibn Ab¯ı’l-Waf¯a’,which does, however, draw on earlier sources. Even given its comparatively late date, it is intriguing to note that Ibn Ab¯ı’l-Waf¯a’rarely mentions the Selj¯uqs,and when he does, he is often at pains to stress the distance between them and the H. anaf¯ı ulema. For example, the scholar al-Khat.¯ıb,a Transoxianan who was made q¯ad.¯ı of Is.fah¯anby T. ughril and who acted as an emissary to Baghdad for him in the 440s/1048ff is described as ‘an ascetic, a hermit who rarely frequented sultans’, and Ibn Ab¯ı’l-Waf¯a’states that after his embassy he ‘did not seek out T. ughril

56 Niz. ¯amal-Mulk, Siy¯asatn¯ama, J. Shi‘¯ar(ed.), Tehran: Intish¯ar¯at-i‘Ilm¯ıva Farhang¯ı,1377, p. 115; tr. Hubert Darke, The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960, p. 96. 57 Neguin Yavari, ‘Mirrors for princes or a hall of mirrors? Nizam al-Mulk’s Siyar al-Mul¯uk reconsidered’, al-Mas¯aq 20/i (2008), pp. 47–69, esp. p. 69. 58 Makdisi, ‘Muslim institutions of learning’, p. 37. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 59 Bulliet, Patricians, pp. 153, 210, 236. 60 Juwayn¯ı, Ghiy¯athal-Umam, Mus.t.afa H. ilm¯ıand Fu’¯ad‘Abd al-Mun‘im Ah.mad (eds.), Alexandria: D¯ar al-Da‘wa, 1979, pp. 246–55; Wael B. Hallaq, ‘Caliphs, jurists, and the Saljuqs in the political thought of al-Juwayni’, Muslim World 74/i (1984), pp. 26–41. Nagel’s thesis that Juwayn¯ıthought that Niz. ¯amal-Mulk should become Caliph (Die Festung des Glaubens, pp. 272–85) solves this problem, but is not widely accepted by scholars. See Madelung’s review in BSOAS 53/i (1990), pp. 130–1. 61 Juwayn¯ı, Ghiy¯athal-Umam, pp. 252–3. 108 The Selj¯uqsand Islam 62 again and maintained his silence’. ‘Al¯ıb. al-H. asan ‘Al¯ıal-S. andal¯ıofN¯ısh¯ap¯ur, 63 son of the H. anaf¯ıleader of the mih.na, entered Baghdad with T. ughril, ‘but when he returned to N¯ısh¯ap¯urhe cut off relations and lived as an ascetic and did not enter into the presence of sultans’. Ibn Ab¯ı’l-Waf¯a’describes this Mu‘tazil¯ı’s disputations with the famous Ash‘ar¯ıJuwayn¯ı,but gives no hint of any Selj¯uq 64 interest in them. Another account of Sh¯afi‘¯ı-H. anaf¯ıdisputes related under the biography of Ab¯u’l-H. ¯arithMuh.ammad b. al-Fad.l Muh.ammad al-Sarakhs¯ıgives no indication of any Selj¯uqinvolvement.65 The evidence, then, for a fanatical H. anafism on the part of the Selj¯uqsis weak. The appointment of a few H. anaf¯ıofficials does not offer a sufficient basis for such a thesis, for since early ‘Abb¯asidtimes rulers had sought to promote the H. anaf¯ı madhhab where circumstances allowed, doubtless because of the H. anaf¯ıs’loyalty to the government and attachment to the notion that the ruler should be obeyed no 66 matter how unjust. Even the appointment of Damagh¯an¯ıas Chief Q¯ad.¯ıwas not, technically, made by the Selj¯uqsbut by the caliphal administration.67 Damagh¯an¯ı was succeeded in post by a Sh¯afi‘¯ı,Ab¯uBakr al-Sh¯am¯ı,in 478/1085, during the reign of Maliksh¯ah68 – who, as we observed, was nonetheless the first sultan under whom patronage of H. anaf¯ıinstitutions by the Selj¯uqsis clearly attested. By this date a pattern had started to emerge whereby H. anaf¯ımadrasas appear to be sponsored by the sultan’s court, Sh¯afi‘¯ımadrasas by viziers and H. anbal¯ıones by the caliphal court.69 The precise significance of this division is unclear, and it has not been proved that these institutions served to support politically their founders. In any event, the limited evidence of favouritism to H. anafis is surely outweighed by Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl’stestimony that he had to abandon his studies (presumably of H. anafite law) in the B¯abal-T. ¯aqquarter of Baghdad where Ab¯uH. an¯ıfa’stomb was and which was the centre of H. anafi teaching. This was, he tells us, because the area had been so thoroughly devastated by the Türkmen (al-ghuzz) during their occupation of 70 the city in 447/1055, and as a result he was obliged to study H. anbal¯ılaw instead. Although the B¯abal-T. ¯aqarea was heavily populated by Shi‘ites, the disruption to H. anaf¯ıteaching is testimony to wanton looting which must cast in severe doubt the attachment to H. anafism of the ordinary tribesmen.

62 Ibn Ab¯ı’l-Waf¯a’, al-Jaw¯ahiral-Mud.¯ıyaf¯ı’l-T. abaq¯atal-H. anaf¯ıya, ‘Abd al-Fatt¯ah. Muh.ammad al-H. ulw (ed.), Cairo: Hajar, 1993, II, pp. 577–8. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 63 On him, see Bulliet, Patricians, pp. 236–7, 252–3. 64 Ibn Ab¯ı’l-Waf¯a’, al-Jaw¯ahir, II, pp. 554–9. 65 Ibid., II, p. 305. 66 Tsfarir, The History of an Islamic School of Law, passim, but see esp. pp. 20–7. 67 Makdisi, Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl, p. 173. 68 Ibid., pp. 223–5. 69 See the list in Ephrat, A Learned Society, pp. 28–9. 70 Makdisi, Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl, pp. 388, 410–1; Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, IX, pp. 212–3. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 109 The Selj¯uqsand the anti-Ash‘arite mih. na We are left, then, with the anti-Ash‘arite mih.na as evidence for Selj¯uqH. anaf¯ı militancy. The deununciation of the doctrines of the tenth-century theologian al-Ash‘ar¯ı from the pulpits of N¯ısh¯ap¯urin 445/1053 was accompanied by the banning of Ash‘ar¯ısfrom preaching in public, and is often explained by the fact that Ash‘arism was associated with the Sh¯afi‘¯ımadhhab, which may have been the real target. The mih.na did indeed result in the replacement of the city’s traditionally predominant Sh¯afi‘¯ıelite with a H. anaf¯ıone, albeit temporararily, for the policy was reversed by Niz. ¯amal-Mulk and Alp Arsl¯an.Among the victims were some of the leading theologians and intellectuals of the day, Ab¯u’l-Q¯asimal-Qushayr¯ı, Juwayn¯ı,Ab¯u’l-Fad.lAh.mad al-Fur¯at¯ıand Ab¯uSahl Muh.ammad b. Im¯amal- Muwaffaq.71 In total, some 400 Ash‘ar¯ıs were forced into exile, if Subk¯ı, the fourteenth-century Ash‘ar¯ıwhose account is our main source for the mih.na,isto be believed.72 Superficially, it is a convincing story of Selj¯uqbigotry, inspired by T. ughril’s fanatically H. anaf¯ıvizier, Kundur¯ı.However, on closer examination, much evidence contradicts this interpretation. The nature of the evidence is itself suggestive. Later Selj¯uqcourt sources such as Is.fah¯an¯ı/Bundar¯ıand R¯avand¯ıavoid mentioning the mih.na, while the Malikn¯ama tradition is also silent on the subject. It would seem, then, that historians associated with Selj¯uqcourt regarded the episode as rather embarrassing, even when, like 73 R¯avand¯ı, they keenly espoused H. anafism themselves. Our sources – Subk¯ı, drawing on earlier works such as local biographical dictionaries of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur, and contemporary documents by Ash‘ar¯ıscomplaining of their mistreatment74 – only offer an insight into the persecution from its victims’ point of view. Subk¯ı’s occasionally hysterical tone, such as the passage in which he accuses Kundur¯ıof instigating the mih.na because he was simultaneously a Shi‘ite heretic (r¯afid.¯ı), a Mu‘tazil¯ı,a Karr¯am¯ıandaH. anbal¯ı,has rightly raised scholars’ suspicions about 75 his reliability. H. anbalism was known for its vehement hostility to Shi‘ism and any kind of speculative theology, of which Mu‘tazlism was, along with Ash‘arism, the leading representative, which suggests that Subk¯ıwas throwing every abusive epithet he could muster at the vizier regardless of its suitability. Thus there is scarcely a shred of evidence from the side of T. ughril, the H. anaf¯ısor Kundur¯ı to balance the rather suspect information of Ash‘ar¯ıprovenance. The account of

71 Bulliet, Patricians, p. 122. 72 Ibid., p. 123. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 73 Although R¯avand¯ıdoes explicitly criticise ta‘as.s.ub between H. anafis and Sh¯afi‘¯ıs(R¯ah.at al-S.ud¯ur, p. 84), there can be little doubt of his anti-Sh¯afi‘¯ıand anti-Ash‘ar¯ıinclinations: see Madelung, ‘The spread of Maturidism’, p. 140 n. 74. 74 These are the letters by Ab¯uBakr Bayhaq¯ı (Subk¯ı, T. abaq¯atal-Sh¯afi‘¯ıya al-Kubr¯a, Mah.m¯ud Muh.ammad Tanah.¯ıand ‘Abd al-Fatt¯ah. Muh.ammad H. ulw (eds.), Cairo: ‘Is¯aal-B¯ab¯ıal-H¯ . alab¯ı, 1964, III, pp. 395–8) and al-Qushayr¯ı(ibid., III, pp. 399–423). 75 Subk¯ı, T. abaq¯at, III, p. 390; Glassen, Der Mittlere Weg, p. 46; Madelung, ‘The spread of Maturidism’, p. 130, n. 53. 110 The Selj¯uqsand Islam Ibn al-Jawz¯ıserves to confirm the basic facts, but offers no information on the motivation for the mih.na. Furthermore, it is unclear why the Selj¯uqsshould wait more than a decade before instituting such a persecution, if it was indeed based on prejudice. Some of T. ughril’s most valued officials were N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ıSh¯afi‘¯ıs and Ash‘ar¯ıs, men like Ibn al-Muwaffaq.76 Indeed, it was the Im¯amal-Muwaffaq who had handed 77 over N¯ısh¯ap¯urto T. ughril, and although he probably never attained the office of vizier, he was unquestionably extremely influential for the first few years of Selj¯uqrule, and is described by N¯as.ir-i Khusraw as T. ughril’s khw¯aja or 78 agent. The H. anaf¯ıcontingent in N¯ısh¯ap¯urin contrast at first tried to avoid any 79 involvement with the Selj¯uqs. Even the evidence for H. anaf¯ıprejudice on the part of Kundur¯ıis debatable. It is true that Ibn al-Ath¯ırdescribes him as ‘fanatically anti- Sh¯afi‘¯ı’(shad¯ıdal-ta‘as.s.ub ‘al¯a’l-Sh¯afi‘¯ıya),80 but as Ibn Khallik¯annoted, this contradicts the testimony of the biographer Sam‘¯an¯ı.Indeed, Ibn Khallik¯anwrote that ‘Kundur¯ı had no virtue other than his friendship with Im¯amal-H. aramayn al-Juwayn¯ı’81 – the very target of his persecution! This might be explained by suggesting that Ibn Khallik¯an’sevidence refers to al-Kundur¯ı’syouth, when all sources agree he was a Sh¯afi‘¯ıand frequented Sh¯afi‘¯ıcircles in N¯ısh¯ap¯ur.However, Ibn Khallik¯anwrites (quoting Sam‘¯an¯ı)that this friendship was based in Baghdad after he had left N¯ısh¯ap¯ur(tanaqquluhu f¯ı ’l-bil¯ad), ‘and he [Juwayn¯ı] would meet in his [Kundur¯ı’s] presence with senior ulema and would dispute with them’.82 Further evidence of this surprisingly open-minded attitude on Kundur¯ı’s part is provided by Is.fah¯an¯ı/Bund¯ar¯ı, who reports that the vizier accompanied the funeral procession of Ab¯uT. ayyib al-T. abar¯ı, the leading Sh¯afi‘¯ı scholar of 83 Baghdad, in 450/1058. Is.fah¯an¯ıspecifically notes that Kundur¯ımoderated his views later in life: ‘He was of the H. anaf¯ımadhhab and was a fanatical partisan of his madhhab … then he abandoned factionalism and brought together the two groups’.84 The mih.na seems to have been limited to N¯ısh¯ap¯uritself. Qushayr¯ı,for instance, though notorious as an Ash‘arite, was still invited to preach in T. ¯usjust near N¯ısh¯ap¯urby a Sh¯afi‘¯ı colleague while the persecution was ongoing.85 Indeed,

76 Subk¯ı, T. abaq¯at, III, p. 391. 77 Bayhaq¯ı, Tar¯ıkh, Khal¯ılKhat.¯ıbRahbar (ed.), Tehran: Intish¯ar¯at-iMiht¯ab,1376, p. 883; Bulliet, Patricians, pp. 119–20. 78 N¯as.ir-i Khusraw’s Book of Travels,p.3 79 Bulliet, ‘Nishapur in the eleventh century’, pp. 78–82. 80 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil,X,p.33. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 81 Ibn Khallik¯an, Wafay¯atal-A‘y¯anwa-Anb¯a’Abn¯a’al-Zam¯an,Y¯usuf ‘Al¯ıT. aw¯ıland Maryam Q¯asim T. awil (eds.), Beirut: D¯aral-Kutub al-‘Ilm¯ıya,1419/1998, IV, pp. 374–5. 82 Loc. cit. 83 Is.fah¯an¯ı/Bund¯ar¯ı, Zubdat al-Nus.ra, M. Th. Houtsma (ed.) in Recueil des Textes Relatifs à l’Histoire des Seldjoucides, II, Leiden: Brill, 1889, p. 23. 84 Ibid., p. 30; for further discussion of Kundur¯ıand the weakness of the evidence for his fanaticism, see Glassen, Der Mittlere Weg, pp. 46–9. 85 Bulliet, Patricians, p. 160; Subk¯ı, T. abaq¯at, V, p. 157. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 111 although Subk¯ıindicates that the mih.na was also instituted in Khur¯as¯an,Syria, the H. ij¯azand Iraq – except for Khur¯as¯an,all territories outside of Selj¯uqcontrol at this date – no other sources support this.86 Even in N¯ısh¯ap¯uritself, some Sh¯afi‘¯ıscontinued to hold prominent positions. Most significant was the Sh¯afi‘¯ı shaykh al-isl¯am Ab¯u‘Uthm¯anal-S. ¯ab¯un¯ı,whose preaching in the congregational mosque appears to have continued uninterrupted for some 60 years.87 Ab¯uBakr Ah.mad al-F¯urak¯ı,certainly a Sh¯afi‘¯ıand in his youth an Ash‘ar¯ı,seems to have wavered between provoking riots through his Ash‘ar¯ıpreaching and at the same time appeasing the H. anaf¯ısand H. anbal¯ıs.He acted as an ambassador for T. ughril 88 in 451/1059. Likewise, Ab¯u‘Abd al-Rah.man ‘Amr al-Bah.¯ır¯ı,another Sh¯afi‘¯ı, continued teaching h.ad¯ıthat the congregational mosque in N¯ısh¯ap¯uruntil he died in 446/1054.89 In fact, the figures who were arrested or who fled were all known Ash‘ar¯ıs,while some Sh¯afi‘¯ısescaped unscathed. A persecution that targetted just one city would be peculiar indeed, and makes an interpretation based on local circumstances attractive. This has been attempted by Bulliet, who has linked Selj¯uqsupport for H. anafism directly to local politics in N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,and the need to secure alliances with the local population. The attack on Ash‘arism was thus a cover for promoting a new elite at the expense of the Sh¯afi‘¯ıs,who had previously held power in N¯ısh¯ap¯ur:H. anaf¯ıswere rewarded with favoured positions in the religious hierarchy in N¯ısh¯ap¯urand in return gave their 90 support to the Selj¯uqs,in particular the vizier Kundur¯ı. This powerbase of H. anaf¯ı 91 support then allowed Kundur¯ıto revolt, attempting to overthrow T. ughril himself. Alternatively, Bulliet has suggested that the mih.na may have been inspired by personal reasons: Kundur¯ıhad risen to his position of power from humble origins through the patronage of the powerful Sh¯afi‘ifaction, and bitterness against his former associates may have led him to wish to destroy them.92 Thus according to this interpretation, Selj¯uqsupport for H. anafism, at least in N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,was less a result of H. anafi fanaticism than Realpolitik or a personal vendetta. T. ughril is almost entirely excluded from Bulliet’s depiction of the anti-Ash‘arite mih.na which he sees as largely Kundur¯ı’screation; a similar view is held by Heinz Halm, who

86 Subki, T. abaq¯at, III, p. 391. The only other city he mentions by name to be affected is Marv, with a similar lack of other evidence (ibid., III, p. 393), although it is true that Sh¯afi‘¯ı-H. anaf¯ıfighting in that city seems to have been a problem slightly later in the Selj¯uqperiod. See Madelung, ‘The spread of Maturidism’, p. 138, n. 72. 87 Bulliet, Patricians, pp. 135–7. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 88 Ibid., p. 161; for the angry reactions Ibn Fur¯ak’sespousal of speculative theology could provoke, see George Makdisi, ‘Autograph diary of an eleventh century historian of Baghdad’, BSOAS 18/ii (1956), p. 249; BOAS 19/ii (1957), p. 302. 89 Bulliet, Patricians, pp. 193–4. 90 Ibid., pp. 71, 210; Bulliet, ‘Nishapur in the eleventh century’, pp. 81–3. 91 Bulliet, ‘Nishapur’, p. 84. 92 Richard W. Bulliet, Islam: The View from the Edge, New York: Columbia University Press, 1994, pp. 123–6. 112 The Selj¯uqsand Islam

wrote a substantial article on Kundur¯ıand the mih.na in which T. ughril is scarcely mentioned.93 However, this view is not supported by the evidence. Subk¯ı,for instance, starts by praising T. ughril in the same conventional terms as the other chroniclers for his piety, fasting and so forth, but changes his tune rather quickly.94 In his view, T. ughril bore responsibility for the mih.na: he ignored the appeals of the Ash‘ar¯ıs who attempted to explain to him that the theologian had been misrepresented, and his death, Subk¯ıhints with more than a touch of chronological inventiveness, was punishment from God: ‘Despite this sultan’s good works and faith, after the cursing [of Ash‘ar¯ı]and the imprisonment of Qushayr¯ı,God did not give him long to live. He survived only a little while after this ugly affair …’.95 Ibn al-Jawz¯ıconfirms the 96 tale that T. ughril refused to listen to the Ash‘arites, and the contemporary letters of both the leading Sh¯afi‘¯ısAb¯uBakr Ah.mad al-Bayhaq¯ıand Qushayr¯ımention 97 T. ughril’s role in the persecution. If the mih.na was launched by Kundur¯ı to build his own powerbase among the H. anaf¯ıs of the city and to support his bid for power, then we are at a loss to explain why, according to both Sam‘¯an¯ı and Is.fah¯an¯ı, he reversed this policy later. Moreover, even when he did rebel (in 450/1058 in support of the claim to the sultanate of An¯ushirw¯an,during Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al’srevolt), there is no evidence he went anywhere near N¯ısh¯ap¯ur.98 Rather, the plot seems to have been entirely Baghdad-centred. However, this still leaves open Bulliet’s and Halm’s interpretation that the mih.na was in some sense related to local power struggles in N¯ısh¯ap¯ur.This is certainly possible, although it remains to be explained why the Selj¯uqssuddenly turned on their Sh¯afi‘¯ıallies, and why the persecution was instigated only in N¯ısh¯ap¯urwhen local power struggles masquerading under the name of disputes between legal or theological schools were a fact of life throughout the Iranian world. In other words, it is unclear what was unique about N¯ısh¯ap¯ur that meant that Sh¯afi‘¯ıs,and especially the Ash‘ar¯ıs,were targetted there but not apparently elsewhere. Even more peculiar is the fact that even that fanatically Ash‘ar¯ı-Sh¯afi‘¯ıwriter, Subk¯ı,preserves evidence that some of the leading Ash‘arites were in fact assisted by the Selj¯uqsin escaping the persecution: ‘[Juwayn¯ı]was forced to travel and leave the town, so he went with the elders [mash¯ayikh] to the [sultan’s] camp. He went to Baghdad and went around with the camp, meeting leading ulema and

93 Heinz Halm, ‘Der Wesir Al-Kunduri und die fitna von Nishapur’, Die Welt des Orients 6 (1970– Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 71), pp. 205–33. 94 Subk¯ı, T. abaq¯at, III, pp. 389–90. 95 Ibid., III, p. 393. T. ughril did not die until ten years after the mih.na had started. 96 Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, VIII, p. 157. T. ughril’s role is ignored, however, by Ibn ‘As¯akir,who had political reasons not to wish to draw attention to the sultan’s anti-Ash‘arism. See Madelung, ‘The spread of Maturidism’, p. 129, n. 49. 97 Subk¯ı, T. abaq¯at, III, pp. 296, 403. 98 Makdisi, Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl, pp. 106–08. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 113 holding disputations with them’.99 It is likely that Qushayr¯ıwas also in this group, for he seems to have come to Baghdad and was presented to the Caliphal court around this date.100 So we have a persecution whose victims were assisted by its instigators, whose own motive remains on the face of it unfathomable. However, Ab¯uBakr Ah.mad al-Bayhaq¯ıoffers us hint as to the background to the mih.na of which he was a victim:

[The sultan], may God strengthen his victory, turned his exalted attention to aiding God’s religion and suppressing God’s enemies, after his good belief had been demonstrated to all by the decision to curse the heretics [ahl al-bid‘a] who merited it for their heresy. Deviants despaired that he would deviate from the truth and be diverted from his target. Then there was suggested to him something that was damaging to all the Sunnis and was a disaster for the 101 mass of H. anaf¯ıs,M¯alik¯ısand Sh¯afi‘¯ıs…

This suggests that the mih.na actually started with a completely different target from the Ash‘arites, and was only later diverted towards them. We know that non-Ash‘ar¯ı groups like the Karr¯am¯ıs were also persecuted102 (the mention of H. anaf¯ıs,Sh¯afi‘¯ısand M¯alik¯ısat the end of the quotation from Bayhaq¯ıis probably meant to indicate Ash‘ar¯ıs,for Ash‘arism based its claim to support on its appeal to all mainstream madhhabs103). As F¯aris¯ıdescribed, ‘the persecution led to the splintering of the Sh¯afi‘¯ısinto smaller factions, the annihilation of the Ash‘ar¯ıs, and the suppression of the Karr¯am¯ıya’.104 It is easy to see why the Selj¯uqsmay have wished to target the Karr¯am¯ıya.The latter had been patronised by the Ghaznavids,105 and their loyalty was doubtless suspect. Furthermore, as Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna had shown when he conquered Rayy,106 a persecution could be useful in proclaiming one’s religious credentials and one’s loyalty to the Caliphate, and the Selj¯uqsmay have intended to emulate this.107 However, this type of state-initiated persecution was comparatively rare

99 Subk¯ı, T. abaq¯at, V, pp. 170, 176; cf. Nagel, Die Festung des Glaubens, pp. 79–82, 85. 100 Subk¯ı, T. abaq¯at, V, p. 157. 101 Ibid., III, p. 273. 102 Bulliet, Patricians, p. 210. 103 Indeed, Makdisi has suggested that Ash‘arism’s inroads into H. anafism, not Sh¯afi‘ism,was the reason for the mih.na – a view which is unlikely given that it was evidently Sh¯afi‘iswho started to lose their positions to H. anafis. See George Makdisi, ‘Ash‘ari and the Ash‘arites in Islamic Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 religious history – I’, Studia Islamica 17 (1962), p. 47. 104 ‘Abd al-Ghafir al-F¯aris¯ı, Kitab al-Siy¯aq, f. 68a-b, facsimile in Richard N. Frye, The Histories of Nishapur, The Hague, Mouton, 1965; translation from Bulliet, Patricians, p. 210. 105 C.E. Bosworth, ‘The rise of the Karamiyya in Khurasan’, Muslim World 50/i (1960), pp. 8–11. 106 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 372. 107 For Mah.m¯ud’s anti-heresy activities, see C. E. Bosworth, The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran 994–1040, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1963, pp. 52–4; cf. Nagel, Die Festung des Glaubens,p.85. 114 The Selj¯uqsand Islam in the eleventh century. The complexity of the religious situtation in the Selj¯uq period was exacerbated by the fact that policy – whether that of the sultan or the Caliph – was formulated largely in response to individual complaints. Thus when the Caliphal d¯ıw¯anmoved against the H. anbal¯ıIbn ‘Aq¯ılbecause of his Mu‘tazil¯ı views, this was a response to a complaint made against him by the leading H. anbal¯ı 108 al-Shar¯ıfAb¯uJa‘far, probably for personal reasons. Episodes such as Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna’s persecution and the Caliph al-Q¯adir’sinsistence that q¯ad.¯ısaccept his creed in a bid to assert his authority may seem to contradict this,109 but they were exceptions rather than the rule. Religious policy tended to be ad hoc and ad hominem. This is why Ans.¯ar¯ı,for instance, was protected by Alp Arsl¯an,then exiled by Niz. ¯amal-Mulk to Balkh; yet the vizier also sent Ans.¯ar¯ırobes of honour at a later date.110 It is evident from the Selj¯uqs’assistance to Juwayn¯ıthat their heart was not really in the mih.na, which suggests they were encouraged to it by some outside force, as Ab¯uBakr Bayhaq¯ıalso hints. If the anti-Ash‘arite mih.na was suggested to T. ughril by a faction which had a vested interest in the destruction of the Ash‘arites, who can this have been? Clearly, it was the H. anaf¯ıswho benefited in N¯ısh¯ap¯ur, but it is not clear how this would have helped the Selj¯uqs,and it is unlikely that the hitherto weak and powerless H. anaf¯ıcommunity of N¯ısh¯ap¯urwould have had such clout. In what follows, I explore alternative explanations for the mih.na.

The Selj¯uqsand the Ash‘ar¯ıs’enemies The eleventh century saw a great expansion in Ash‘arism’s popularity and the Ash‘ar¯ıs’ growing boldness may have brought their misfortunes on them. Ash‘arism sought to portray itself as a broad church – broad enough to include all Sunni Muslims except Mu‘tazilites, a claim which could only be substantiated if Ash‘ar¯ıwas widely accepted by the Muslim community. Ironically, this very search for acceptance led the Ash‘arites down the road to factionalism. According to Subk¯ı,as early as 436/1044, Ab¯u’l-Q¯asimal-Qushayr¯ıhad circulated a fatwa declaring that ‘anyone who attacks [Ash‘ar¯ı], slanders him or insults him is insulting all Sunnis’, a document which was signed by some of the leading figures of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,and, if Subk¯ıis to be believed, was supported by that leading H. anaf¯ıof Baghdad, Damagh¯an¯ı.111 It is easy to see how a decree like this would exacerbate tensions. Two groups in particular are likely to have been incensed by it, the Mu‘tazila and the H. anbal¯ıs.Both were fierce enemies of Ash‘arism. Admittedly, as Subk¯ı very conspicuously mentions before quoting Qushayr¯ı’s letter on the 112 persecution, Ash‘arism did filter into even the traditionalist H. anbal¯ıschool. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

108 Makdisi, Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl, pp. 433–4, 438–9. 109 Ibid., p. 300. 110 Beaurecueil, Khwadja ‘Abdullah Ansari, pp. 100–04, 107–08, 112. 111 Subk¯ı, T. abaq¯at, III, p. 375. 112 Ibid., III, p. 400; see also ibid., III, p. 373, which states that: al-M¯alik¯ıyawa-’l-Sh¯afi‘¯ıyawa-’l- H. anaf¯ıyawa-fud.al¯a’al-H. an¯abila‘Ashar¯ıy¯un. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 115

However, despite this dalliance of some H. anbal¯ıswith Ash‘arism, H. anbalism on the whole tended to be vehemently opposed to Ash‘arism, especially at the level 113 of popular religion, where H. anbal¯ısavoided any contact with Ash‘ar¯ıs. The year of the Selj¯uqentry into Baghdad, 447/1055, was marked by vicious clashes between the Ash‘ar¯ısand the H. anbal¯ısin the city, in which the latter definitely got the upper hand.114 Although Makdisi has attributed the persecution in N¯ısh¯ap¯ur to Mu‘tazil¯ı 115 pressure, at first sight neither the idea of Mu‘tazil¯ıorH. anbal¯ıinfluence leading to the anti-Ash‘ar¯ıcrack down are very persuasive. Although Mu‘tazilism was able to breathe more freely in Selj¯uqKhur¯as¯anthan under the Ghaznavids, the school was relatively weak and declining in popularity. H. anbalism, on the other hand, did command significant popular support, but only in Baghdad, which was not yet part of the Selj¯uqdomains. It is probably fair to dismiss the idea that the mih.na might have been inspired by Mu‘tazil¯ıs;they were doubtless glad enough to be free of the persecutions of the Ghaznavid era without needing to seek a new set of enemies. Moreover, there are some clues in the sources that there may have been political incentives for the Selj¯uqsto pander – albeit briefly – to H. anbalism. Khur¯as¯an was not exclusively Sh¯afi‘¯ı and H. anaf¯ı, although they were the predominant schools there. There were groups that had sympathy for H. anbal¯ı 116 ideas even if they were not always called H. anbal¯ıs. Most prominent was the famous Sufi H. anbal¯ı,‘Abdall¯ahAns.¯ar¯ıof Herat. Ans.¯ar¯ıwas a vehement enemy of the Ash‘arites, against whom he wrote a treatise, the Kit¯abal-dhamm ‘al¯a ’l-kal¯am, and was also on bad terms with both H. anaf¯ısand Sh¯afi‘¯ıs.Interestingly, Ans.¯ar¯ı’seducation had not been in the great H. anbal¯ıcentre of Baghdad, but in that supposed stronghold of Ash‘arism, N¯ısh¯ap¯ur.117 An anecdote recounted by Ans.¯ar¯ı and preserved by the H. anbal¯ı biographer Ibn Rajab is revealing of the status of H. anbalism in Khur¯as¯an.Ans.¯ar¯ıwanted to go to Rayy, to see Ab¯uH. ¯at.im b. Kh¯am¯ush,a famous preacher – the sole one, indeed, who had been licensed to preach after Mah.mud of Ghazna had cleared the town of ‘heretics’. The people of Rayy challenged Ans.¯ar¯ıabout his beliefs, and on hearing his reply that he was aH. anbal¯ı,wondered if this was some kind of heresy. However, Ab¯uH. ¯at.im told 118 them, ‘Anyone who is not a H. anbal¯ıis not a Muslim’. Furthermore, although the H. anbal¯ıulema of Baghdad were mostly born in that city, a significant number

113 Cf. Daniella Talmon-Heller, ‘The shaykh and the community: popular H. anbalite Islam in Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 12th–13th century Jabal Nablus and Jabal Qasyun’, Studia Islamica 79 (1994), p. 108. 114 Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, VIII, p. 163. 115 Makdisi, Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl, p. 348; cf. Bulliet, Patricians, p. 38, who casts doubt on this. 116 Furthermore, although H. anafism and H. anbalism were quite distinct, at least some pious H. anaf¯ısof N¯ısh¯ap¯uragreed with H. anbalism’s generally uncompromising rejection of speculative theology. See Madelung, ‘The spread of Maturidism’, pp. 114–5. 117 Beaurecueil, Khwadja ‘Abdullah Ansari, pp. 46–8, 103–06. 118 Ibn Rajab, Dhayl ‘al¯aT. abaq¯at,p.67. 116 The Selj¯uqsand Islam came from Khuras¯an¯ıfamilies,119 and as al-Shar¯ıfAb¯uJa‘far, one of the great H. anbal¯ıleaders of Baghdad, put it, the Q¯a’im¯ı-Q¯adir¯ıcreed which was the defining document of H. anbalism ‘was borne by Khur¯as¯an¯ısand pilgrims to the ends of the 120 earth’. The rivalry between Khur¯as¯an¯ıAsh‘ar¯ısand H. anbal¯ısis reflected in Subk¯ı’sstory that Ans.¯ar¯ı’spartisans in Herat bestowed on him the title of shaykh al-isl¯am as an outraged response to the Sh¯afi‘¯ıAb¯u ‘Uthm¯anal-S. ¯ab¯un¯ı’sadoption of the same honorific.121 Thus Khur¯as¯an,while not a centre of H. anbalism, was certainly home to a good number of H. anbalite sympathisers. At times, the Selj¯uqsand their officials evinced tolerance and even sympathy for this group. Alp Arsl¯anprotected Ans.¯ar¯ıfrom his detractors, who attempted to prove he was an anthropomorphist and even an 122 idolator. Ans.¯ar¯ıwas also admired by certain Selj¯uqofficials, notably the poet B¯akharz¯ıwho made his career as a secretary to Kundur¯ı.123 While it is difficult to believe that the Selj¯uqsultans – let alone their tribesmen – were particularly interested in the fine detail of the theological disputes of the age, it is not impossible that they might have been impressed by the simple yet forceful H. anbal¯ıcreed as expressed in some verses which originally circulated in Persian:124

Our God can be seen, is established on his throne/his speech is eternal, his prophet Arab,

Anyone who says anything other than this is an Ash‘ar¯ı/ourmadhhab is the H. anbal¯ımadhhab.

That we do not find H. anbal¯ıstaking the places of the Sh¯afi‘¯ısin N¯ısh¯ap¯uris hardly surprising, for H. anbal¯ısavoided public office or any association with the rulers. Very occasionally H. anbal¯ıs(or their sympathisers) did take office in the east from more established madhhabs, as is attested by the case of Ab¯u’l-‘Al¯a’Sa‘¯ıdb. Sayy¯ar,who was appointed by the Selj¯uqsto take up the q¯ad.¯ıshipof Herat when 125 his H. anaf¯ıbrother was disgraced and hanged in 446/1054. However, there is little reason why T. ughril or Kundur¯ı,neither of whom is suggested by the sources to have had H. anbal¯ıinclinations, should have seen it advantageous to pander to the small community of Khur¯as¯an¯ıH. anbal¯ısympathisers. Alternatively, we must consider the possibility that T. ughril was responding to the more powerful Baghdad H. anbal¯ıcommunity. H. anbalism was much favoured

119 Ephrat, A Learned Society, p. 47; Madelung, Religious Trends, pp. 22–3. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 120 Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, VIII, p. 307; Ibn Rajab, Dhayl ‘al¯aT. abaq¯at,p.27. 121 Subk¯ı, T. abaq¯at, IV, pp. 271–2. 122 See above, p. 103–4. 123 Beaurecueil, Khwadja ‘Abdullah Ansari, p. 97; on B¯akharz¯ıand Kundur¯ısee Harold Bowen, ‘Notes on some early Selj¯uqidviziers’, BSOAS 20/i (1957), p. 110; Z. Safa, ‘B¯akarzi Kor¯as¯ani’, EIr, III, p. 534. 124 Ibn Rajab, Dhayl ‘al¯aT. abaq¯at,p.67. 125 Beaurecueil, Khwadja ‘Abdullah Ansari,p.97. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 117 in the Caliph’s court, particularly by the vizier Ibn Muslima who had insisted 126 on the appointment of the H. anbal¯ıAb¯u Ya‘l¯aasq¯ad.¯ıto the Caiph, and if it is true that Damagh¯an¯ı sided with the Ash‘arites, as Subk¯ı claims, H. anbalites would have had every reason to feel under threat. Ibn Muslima also had strong connections with the Selj¯uqs.He received a gift of 2000 dinars from T. ughril when the latter was awarded titles by the Caliph in 443/1051, indicating he was 127 already a useful ally of the sultan. Indeed, the F¯at.imid missionary al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı ’l-D¯ınindicates a link between Ibn Muslima and the Selj¯uqsdating back even further: he held Ibn Muslima responsible for his own expulsion from the court of Ab¯uK¯al¯ıj¯arin Sh¯ır¯az,where he had been spreading Ism¯a‘¯ıl¯ıpropaganda. At some point between 433/1041–2 and 435/1043,128 Ibn Muslima came in person to Sh¯ır¯az bearing a letter from the Caliph, ‘threatening [Ab¯uK¯al¯ıj¯ar]with T. ughril-beg the 129 Türkmen’ if he did not take action against the F¯at.imid agent. Several authors, ranging from the F¯at.imid sources to Ibn al-Ath¯ır,confirm it was Ibn Muslima’s initiative to invite T. ughril to Baghdad in 1055, and that he essentially engineered the Selj¯uqentry to the city.130 How long this was in the planning we do not know, but Ibn Muslima’s ambitions would have been well-served by any power who could counteract the Turkish general Bas¯as¯ır¯ı,his main rival.131 It may well be that he persuaded T. ughril that a gesture in favour of H. anbalism would make him popular both with the Caliph and the H. anbal¯ımasses of Baghdad, and prepare the ground for an eventual Selj¯uqtakeover. Ibn Muslima seems to have been widely 132 loathed in Baghdad despite his H. anbalism, so he would have been in dire need of shoring up support for his coup. On other occasions he certainly showed a readiness to stoke the fires of communal tensions in Baghdad by pandering to 133 the H. anbalites’ anti-Shi‘ism. It is perhaps signficant that the mih.na started in exactly the year that Ibn al-Jawz¯ırecords that the first major Türkmen inroads into Iraq were made.134 Furthermore, although Ash‘arism was to become Sunni orthodoxy, some hotheaded Ash‘ar¯ıs were sufficiently extreme to flirt, at least

126 On Ibn Muslima see Makdisi, Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl, pp. 91–101; Cl. Cahen, ‘Ibn al-Muslima’, EI 2, III, p. 891; on Abu Ya‘l¯aand his stringent conditions for taking office see Makdisi, Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl, p. 235. 127 Ibn al-Athir, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 580. 128 Victoria Klemm, Memoirs of a Mission: The Ismaili Scholar, Statesman and Poet al-Mu’ayyad fi ’l-D¯ınal-Sh¯ır¯az¯ı, London: I.B. Tauris, 2003, pp. 51–2. 129 S¯ırat al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı ’l-D¯ın D¯a‘¯ı al-Du‘¯at:tarjamat h.ay¯atihibi-qalamihi, Muh.ammad K¯amil H. usayn (ed.), Cairo: D¯aral-K¯atibal-Mis.r¯ı, 1949, p. 64. 130 Ibid., p. 155; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 609; Is.fah¯an¯ı/Bund¯ar¯ı, Zubda, pp. 9–10, 16; Idr¯ıs‘Im¯ad al-D¯ın, The Fatimids and their Successors in Yaman: The History of an Islamic Community. Arabic Edition and English Summary of Idr¯ıs‘Imad al-Din’s ‘Uy¯unal-Akhb¯ar,Ayman Fu’ad Sayyid Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 with Paul E. Walker and Maurice A. Pomerantz (eds.), London: I.B. Tauris, 2003, p. 45 (Arabic text). 131 On Bas¯as¯ır¯ıand Ibn Muslima, see Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, VIII, pp. 160–01, 163; Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯atal-Zam¯an, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coˇgrafya Fakültesi, 1968, pp. 39–41; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 608. 132 See Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at,p.40. 133 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 576; Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, VIII, p. 171. 134 Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, VIII, p. 157. 118 The Selj¯uqsand Islam

in jest, with the F¯at.imids – presumably because of the Caliphal sympathy for H. anbalism, or at least so H. anbal¯ısources suggest. For example, in Alp Arsl¯an’s reign, Ab¯uNas.r b. al-Qushayr¯ıwas allowed to preach in Baghdad; after the sermon his supporters called out the name of the F¯at.imid Caliph al-Mustans.ir as a means 135 of abusing the ‘Abb¯asidCaliph. Indeed, Ibn al-Qushayr¯ı’sNiz. ¯am¯ıyasermon had concentrated on attacking the H. anbalites, suggesting that for Ash‘arites these were the real enemy. Perhaps the most telling piece of evidence, however, is the fact that in the same year the mih.na started, 445/1053, Ibn Muslima used his position to attack the Ash‘arites of Baghdad, which, as Makdisi argued, must surely be linked to 136 the persecution in N¯ısh¯ap¯ur. The H. anbal¯ıq¯ad.¯ıAbu Ya‘l¯a,the victim of fierce attacks from the Ash‘arites in previous years, was brought to the Caliphal palace, 137 where the vizier vindicated him by publicly professing the H. anbal¯ı creed. However, at the same time as anti-Ash‘arite measures were being implemented in Baghdad and N¯ısh¯ap¯ur,two of the leading Ash‘arites, Juwayn¯ıand Qushayr¯ı,were in the sultan’s retinue and seem to have taken advantage of their enforced visit to Baghdad to present their views in disputations. Behind this apparently bizarrely contradictory behaviour lies the probable distinction, as so often in the Islamic Middle Ages, between what was acceptable for the debates of the elite and what was intended for public consumption. This support for H. anbalism does not seem to have bought T. ughril much popularity, but perhaps the Türkmen’s plundering of the Sunni quarters of Baghdad doomed any such attempt to failure. Interestingly, although Alp Arsl¯anwas much more tolerant towards the Ash‘arites, he seems to have been quite popular in H. anbal¯ıcircles: Ibn al-Bann¯a’,the Baghdadi diarist, tells us of a dream he had which he interpreted as meaning Alp Arsl¯anwould bring ‘great benefits’ and remarks on another occasion that ‘the sultan spoke in terms which edified the 138 company and the [H. anbalite] school’. Traditionally, the mih.na is believed to have been abolished as mysteriously as it was begun by Niz. ¯amal-Mulk. Even if the change in policy was not formally announced until Alp Arsl¯an’sreign, it may well have been effectively abandoned earlier, as the tales of Kundur¯ı’srevocation of factionalism indicate. Although later Selj¯uqsdid not support any further persecutions, it was precisely during the reigns of Alp Arsl¯anand Maliksh¯ahthat H. anbalism reached the apogee of its power, spreading to Is.fah¯an,Herat and Syria, where it was patronised by Tutush, Maliksh¯ah’sbrother.139 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

135 Ibid., VIII, p. 305; Ibn Rajab, Dhayl ‘al¯aT. abaq¯at,p.25. 136 Makdisi, Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl, pp. 347–8. 137 Ibid., pp. 342–8. 138 Makdisi, ‘Autograph diary – II’, pp. 249–50, 254; for more approving remarks about the sultan see Makdisi, ‘Autograph diary – V’, p. 442. 139 H. Laoust, ‘Le Hanbalisme sous le Califat de Baghdad (241/855–656/1258)’, REI 27 (1959), pp. 105–07. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 119 The Selj¯uqsand Shi‘ism The Selj¯uqs’commitment to Sunnism has generally been accepted in the scholarly literature, and is widely touted in the primary sources too. However, as has been observed by Erika Glassen, by the eleventh century the dichotomy between Sunni and Shi‘ite was complex: the F¯at.imids had plentiful Sunni supporters, at least in Egypt, while Shi‘ites were to be found backing the Selj¯uqs.140 Moreover, there is some evidence that some Turks shared Shi‘ite sympathies. Most of this information comes from a late Selj¯uqsource, ‘Abd al-Jal¯ılQazv¯ın¯ı’s Kit¯abal-Naqd., written by a Shi‘ite scholar seeking to rebut Sunni accusations against the Shi‘ites. From there we learn, for example, of the proclivities of Turkish soldiers for listening to tales 141 of ‘Al¯ıb.Ab¯ıT. alib in the bazaar, and that in the time of sultan Muh.ammad b. Maliksh¯ahSunni ulema were bribed to give fatwas stating that Shi‘ite officials were actually Sunni or H. anaf¯ı,while by the end of the twelfth century, Shi‘ism was rife among Turks too.142 Certainly, the Kit¯abal-Naqd. indicates that in later times the reign of Maliksh¯ahwas seen by some as a period of oppression of Shi‘ism, although Qazv¯ın¯ıis at pains to present evidence showing the toleration of Maliksh¯ahand 143 his son Muh.ammad. Instances of the Selj¯uqs’toleration for Shi‘ism and even Ism¯a‘¯ılismare recorded relatively frequently.144 For example, after the conquest of Tyre by the Türkmen Atsiz in 468/1075, the khut.ba remained in the name of the Fatimid caliph.145 Indeed, Maliksh¯ahand his successor Berky¯aruqare even accused of having had Ism¯a‘¯ıl¯ısympathies.146 Qazv¯ın¯ıscarcely refers to the reigns of T. ughril and Alp Arsl¯an.That of Mah.mud of Ghazna is mentioned as another bleak time for Shi‘ism,147 but the first two Selj¯uqsare almost entirely ignored. However, other evidence suggests that in early Selj¯uqtimes, Shi‘ism benefited from Selj¯uqsupport. Particularly important in this respect is Ibn al-Ath¯ır’saccount of T. ughril’s conquest of Baghdad with

140 Glassner, Der Mittlere Weg,p.2. 141 ‘Abd al-Jal¯ılal-H. usayn b. Ab¯ı’l-Fad.l al-Qazv¯ın¯ı, Kit¯abal-Naqd. ma‘r¯ufbi-ba‘d. math¯alibal- naw¯as.ib f¯ınaqd. ba‘d. fad. ¯a’ih. al-Raw¯afid., Jal¯alal-D¯ınH. usayn¯ıUrmav¯ı(ed.), Tehran: Chapkh¯ana-i Sipihr, 1371AH/1331AHS, pp. 77–8. In general on the text see Jean Calmard, ‘Le Chiisme imamite en Iran à l’époque seldjoukide d’après le Kitab al-Naqd’, Le monde iranien et l’islam: sociétés et cultures 1 (1971), pp. 43–66. 142 Qazv¯ın¯ı, Kit¯abal-Naqd.,p.81. 143 Ibid., 46–7, 50–1. 144 For some further examples see Antonio Jurado Aceituno, ‘The Seljuk jihad against Fatimid Shi’ism: an observation on the Sunni Revival’ in Essays in Ottoman Civilization (Archív Orientální, suppl. 8, 1998), pp. 173–8. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 145 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 178. 146 For Maliksh¯ah,see A.K.S. Lambton, Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia: Aspects of Administrative, Economic and Social History, Eleventh to Fourteenth Centuries, London: I.B. Tauris, 1988, p. 237. For an assessment of the ‘ambivalent’ evidence on Berky¯aruq,see Carole Hillenbrand, ‘The power struggle between the Salj¯uqsand the Isma‘ilis of Alamut, 487–518/1094– 1124: the Salj¯uqperspective’ in Farhad Daftary (ed.), Medieval Isma’ili History and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 207–08. 147 Qazv¯ın¯ı, Kit¯abal-Naqd.,p.52. 120 The Selj¯uqsand Islam his Türkmen soldiers. The people of Baghdad, expecting a B¯uyidcounter-attack, started fighting the Türkmen. In Ibn al-Ath¯ır’swords:

[The people] killed any Ghuzz they found in Baghdad, except for the people of al-Karkh, for they did not oppose the Ghuzz but took them in and protected them.148

Karkh was the Shi‘ite quarter of Baghdad, so this passage indicates that the Türkmen were helped and protected by the Shi‘ites from the Sunnis. T. ughril ordered the people of Karkh to be well treated and specifically summoned the naq¯ıb al-‘Alawiy¯ın, the chief of the descendants of ‘Al¯ı, to thank him for the community’s assistance to the Türkmen. Indeed, the Türkmen plundered the area 149 where Ibn Muslima himself lived, along with the S¯uqYah.y¯a. Doubtless the Türkmen were attracted to these areas because of their wealth, but the effect may well have been that the Sunni areas of Baghdad were worse affected by the Selj¯uq occupation, at least initially, than Shi‘ite Karkh. The Malikn¯ama tradition records that ‘because of the harm done to them by the Türkmen, the Sunnis (ahl-i sunnat va jam¯a‘at) and supporters of the Caliph fled the city’.150 Further evidence of a sympathetic stance towards Shi‘ism is provided by the actions of Kundur¯ı,who protected the population of Karkh from Ibn Muslima’s attempts to drape the quarter with black banners – a calculated insult, as these were the colour of the ‘Abb¯asids 151 and thus Sunnism. Nonetheless, later in 447/1055, T. ughril had the Sunni call to prayer introduced in Karkh.152 Why, then, did the Shi‘ites initially help the Türkmen? The answer may well be that, at the time, they had no reason to believe that the Turks posed a threat to their beliefs. An intriguing laconic comment in ‘Az.¯ım¯ı’schronicle states simply:

Year 447/1055. T. ughril converted to Sunnism (tamadhhaba T. ughril-bak bi-’l-sunna wa-’l-jam¯a‘a).153

The colour symbolism adopted by T. ughril is also suggestive of a less than wholehearted commitment to the Sunni Caliphate. A tradition probably derived from the Malikn¯ama records that T. ughril had a penchant for wearing

148 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 611. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 149 Ibid., IX, p. 615; see also George Makdisi, ‘The topography of eleventh-century Bagdad: materials and notes – I’, Arabica 6/ii (1959), pp. 186–7. Widespread destruction in Karkh was caused by a fire in 449/1057, see idem, ‘The topography of eleventh century Baghdad – II’, Arabica 6/iii (1959), pp. 283–5. 150 M¯ırkhw¯and, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, Tehran: Khayy¯am-P¯ır¯uz,1338, IV, p. 262. 151 Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am, VIII, p. 171. 152 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 614. 153 ‘Az.¯ım¯ı, Ta’r¯ıkh, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988, p. 10. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 121 white robes.154 White was the colour associated with Shi‘ism, and with the 155 F¯at.imids, in contrast to ‘Abb¯asidblack. We even read of the Selj¯uqs’enemies donning Sunni black when going out to fight them.156 Another instance of this symbolism is found in Is.fah¯an¯ı’saccount of Kundur¯ı’snegotiations with the Caliph over T. ughril’s proposal that he should marry the former’s daughter. When the Caliph attempted to resist, Kundur¯ıremarked threateningly that the sultan ‘has taken off black robes and donned white ones’157 – clearly hinting at a possible change in allegiance to the F¯at.imids if necessary. Furthermore, Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯aleven went so far as to ally himself with Bas¯as¯ır¯ıand the F¯at.imids in his power struggle 158 against T. ughril. Even Kundur¯ıhimself was seen as a candidate for luring into the F¯at.imid camp, as the correspondence of the F¯adtimidemissary al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı ’l-D¯ınal-Sh¯ır¯az¯ıattests.159 None of this evidence proves that the Selj¯uqsor their followers were Shi‘ites, although some may indeed have had Shi‘ite sympathies. Quite how this can be reconciled with the evidence for H. anbal¯ısympathies discussed above is, of course, a problem. Clearly, if the population of Karkh were willing to help the Türkmen, they cannot have felt the Selj¯uqalliance with Ibn Muslima presented a threat to them – unless they recognised it as a flimsy political expedient and sought to win the sympathy of their new rulers. Kundur¯ı’sdefence of the Karkh¯ısfrom the Caliph’s vizier does indicate they may have had some success at this, until T. ughril reversed the policy later in 1055. All in all, we must admit that the problem of Selj¯uqreligious policy is unresolved, but is clearly much more complex than a simple and fanatical adherence to H. anafism. What the sources do underline is how religion was often a matter of political expediency for the Selj¯uqs;how chiefs such as Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯aland even T. ughril himself were willing to contemplate flirting with the F¯at.imids for political advantage. The image of the Selj¯uqsas the protectors of Sunnism is far removed from reality.

154 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯aral-Dawla al-Salj¯uq¯ıya, Muh.ammad Iqb¯al(ed.), Beirut: D¯aral-Af¯aqal-Jad¯ıda,¯ 1984, p. 22; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, Ernest A. Wallis Budge (tr.), London: Oxford University Press, 1932, I, p. 201; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil,X,p.28. 155 For a discussion of colour symbolism in earlier ‘Abb¯asidtimes, see Khalil ‘Athamina, ‘The Black Banners and the socio-political significance of flags and slogans in medieval Islam’, Arabica 36/iii (1989), pp. 307–26. For evidence of the correlation of white with the F¯at.imids and black with the ‘Abb¯asidsin Selj¯uqtimes, see Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, I, p. 214; see also H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 p. 20, where on the takeover of Baghdad by Bas¯as¯ır¯ıand the F¯at.imids, ‘they took off black robes and donned white’. 156 ‘Az.¯ım¯ı, Ta’r¯ıkh, p. 4 (s.a. 435AH). It is possible that the text is corrupt, but Sevim’s interpretation agrees with mine, see ibid., Turkish translation, p. 6. 157 Is.fah¯an¯ı/Bund¯ar¯ı, Zubda,p.20. 158 S¯ırat al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı’l-D¯ın, pp. 174–5; Klemm, Memoirs of a Mission, pp. 83–4; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 640. 159 S¯ırat al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı’l-D¯ın, pp. 96, 154; Klemm, Memoirs of a Mission, pp. 79, 83. 122 The Selj¯uqsand Islam Selj¯uqIslam and traditional Turkish religion Tradition would have us believe that T. ughril personally was a model of piety. H. usayn¯ı’scomments are representative:

He was brave, mild and obedient (to God). He prayed on Friday and fasted on Monday … he was extremely tolerant, but stern in speech, and gave much charity. He was enthusiastic for building mosques, and used to say, ‘I would be ashamed before God to build a palace and not build next to it a mosque’.160

How pious T. ughril actually was is another question, of course. As Omid Safi has shown, stories like those recounted by R¯avand¯ı that seek to associate T. ughril 161 with Sufi figures like B¯ab¯aT. ¯ahir‘Ury¯anhad a legitimatory purpose. The documentary evidence that Sufis were involved in converting the Turks in the first place is slim,162 and R¯avand¯ı’saccount is the sole shred of evidence adduced 163 by modern scholars for any interest in Sufism on T. ughril’s part. It is true that 164 Niz. ¯amal-Mulk did patronise kh¯anq¯ahs, Sufi lodges, but these may equally well have been acts of personal piety, rather than signs of official support. At any rate, enough has been said above to cast doubt on these conventional expressions of piety. The supposedly H. anaf¯ıTürkmen sacked the H. anaf¯ıheart of Baghdad; the supposedly fanatically Sunni Selj¯uqssupported Shi‘ism at certain times and places. T. ughril and Kundur¯ıpersecuted Ash‘arites but offered victims of their inquisition refuge in the sultan’s camp. What beliefs the ordinary tribesman held will never be known for certain, but it seems unlikely they were particularly bothered by Ash‘arism or other theological questions. That they had very recently converted to Islam is agreed by all sources. The Malikn¯ama tradition preserved by Bar Hebraeus even associates the Selj¯uqs’conversion with their design of conquest in the Muslim world. According to this account, when the Selj¯uqssaw Iran,

160 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar, pp. 22–3. Cf. Bar Hebraeus, Chronology, I, p. 201; Is.fah¯an¯ı/Bund¯ar¯ı, Zubda, p. 27; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, X, p. 28; Ibn Khallik¯an, Wafayat al-A‘y¯an, IV, p. 315. 161 R¯avand¯ı, R¯ah.at al-S.ud¯ur, pp. 98–9; Safi, Polıtics of Knowledge, pp. 132–6. 162 Deborah Tor, ‘The Islamization of Central Asia in the S¯am¯anidera and the reshaping of the Muslim world’ BSOAS 72/ii (2009), pp. 288–9. See also W. Madelung, ‘The spread of Maturidism’, pp. 117, n. 30 and 199, n. 32. 163 In addition to Safi, Dabashi has examined the relationship between politics and Sufism. While there are some further sources attesting Niz. ¯amal-Mulk’s interest in Sufism, he cites nothing Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 else for T. ughril or Alp Arsl¯an.Hamid Dabashi, ‘Historical conditions of Persian Sufism during the Seljuk period’ in Leonard Lewisohn (ed.), The Heritage of Sufism: Classical Persian Sufism from its Origins to Rumi (700–1300), Oxford: Oneworld, 1999, pp. 153–69. Safi asserts (Politics of Knowledge, p. 97) that ‘the khanaqah proved to be a crucial institution for the Saljuq state in patronizing certain Sufis’, but he does not provide concrete examples of the foundation or endowment of kh¯anq¯ahs by Selj¯uqsultans. See also ibid., pp. 141–4. 164 In addition to the references above, see Margaret Malamud, ‘Sufi organizations and structures of authority in medieval Nishapur’, IJMES 26/iii (1994), p. 436. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 123 They took counsel together and said, ‘If we do not enter the Faith of the people of the country in which we desire [to live] and make a pact with them (or conform to their customs), no man will cleave to us, and we shall be a small and solitary people’.165

Before Islam, shamanism was central to Oghuz religion, as the anonymous H. ud¯udal-‘Alam¯ explains: ‘[They] greatly esteem the physicians [i.e. shamans] and whenever they see them, venerate them, and these doctors have command over their lives and property’.166 Elements of shamanism must have survived among the Selj¯uqs,as they have among many Muslim Turkic peoples to this day. In southern Anatolia, research on the beliefs of two Türkmen tribes, the Yörük and the Tahtacı, undertaken in the 1960s by Jean-Paul Roux, revealed the persistence of many pre- Islamic elements, to such an extent that Roux was able to declare that, ‘Nous nous croyons donc authorisé à dire que, sans nier l’influence médiéval de l’islam, les croyances et les rites des Yörük et des Tahtacıs sont essentiellement un résidu des croyances et des rites des anciens Turcs’.167 Turkic beliefs in the sacred nature of trees, animals and the stars were still prevalent,168 as some demonstrably had been throughout the mediaeval and Ottoman periods. For instance, shamans were thought to be able to turn themselves into deer, an idea seen in Anatolia in numerous legends about popular saints and Sufis (dedes).169 Although the most obviously unislamic of these practices had been somewhat altered – sacrifices were limited to animals, not to humans, for instance – many beliefs and practices of shamanistic origin remained.170 Roux observed traces of the shamanistic belief that animals’ bodies contained supernatural forces and that the arrangement of flocks and herds mirrored those of the human world, with similar divisions into clans (oba).171 Roux’s work also emphasises that, putting aside links with a shamanistic past, the nature of the Islam of these two tribes was very different. The Yörük were Sunnis, and in many ways more strict and orthodox than the settled Turks, while the Tahtacı were Shi‘ites (although they did not themselves use the term). Practices like the aversion to mosques they share with other Alevis meant they were not universally accepted as Muslims by other Turks and some scholars.172 Roux’s work underlines the difficulty of generalising about Selj¯uqreligion. The Islam of the Türkmen tribesmen who had converted only 50 or so years

165 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, I, p. 195. 166 H. ud¯udal-‘Alam,¯ ‘The Regions of the World’: a Persian Geography 372 AH–982 AD, V. Minorsky (tr.), Cambridge: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial, 1970, p. 100; on shamanism among the Turks see Jean-Paul Roux, La Religion des Turcs et des Mongols, Paris: Payot, 1984, pp. 61–98. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 167 Jean-Paul Roux, Les Traditions des Nomades de la Turquie méridionale: contribution à l’étude des représentations religieux dans les sociétés turques d’après les enquêtes eféctuées chez les Yörük et les Tahtacı, Paris: Maisonneuve et Larosse, 1970, p. 360. 168 See ibid., pp. 117–9, 180ff. 169 Ibid., pp. 281–6. 170 Ibid., pp. 255–7. 171 Ibid., pp. 226–8. 172 Ibid., pp. 87–9, 110–11. 124 The Selj¯uqsand Islam before entering Baghdad must also have contained numerous traces of pre-Islamic beliefs and practices – and perhaps more than traces. That does not mean every Türkmen tribesman or even tribe held identical beliefs, and the nature of their faith and practices may have been as varied as those of the twentieth-century Yörük and Tahtacı. Sadly, the evidence for what their beliefs actually were is sketchy in the extreme. Naturally, Muslim chroniclers of the Selj¯uqdynasty did not wish to dwell on such unsavoury matters, and ethnographic observation was not a preoccupation of either the Selj¯uqs’Christian or Muslim opponents. Even the prevalence of shamanism among the mediaeval Turks has been questioned on the basis of the absence of unambiguous references in K¯ashghar¯ı’s D¯ıw¯anLughat al-Turk173 – although if K¯ashghar¯ı’swork was written to impress an Iraqi, Arabic- speaking audience as it seems to have been, that is hardly surprising.174 However, Ibn S¯ına’sdescription of a shamanistic ceremony among the Turks underlines that it did remain important. It may well be derived from his own experience of the Türkmen, for he was born near Bukh¯ar¯ain 370/980 and thus grew up in just the period when the Selj¯uqsfirst arrived in the region:

When they go to consult the shaman to get a prophecy from him he starts running very fast in all directions, gasping until he goes into a trance. In this state he utters what his imagination represents to him, and those present collect his words in order to make their arrangements accordingly.175

In all likelihood, these were Türkmen associated with the Selj¯uqs,who had their pastures around Ibn S¯ına’shome town of Bukh¯ar¯a,roughly around the time they first embraced Islam.176 However, shamanism does not, as Devin DeWeese has observed, itself answer everyday religious needs, but is rather something that is called on in times of crisis.177 It could therefore easily exist in Muslim communities without necessarily penetrating every aspect of life. In any event, Muslim identity was sometimes debatable. In the sixteenth century, for instance, when the Shayb¯an¯ı ruler of Bukh¯ar¯awanted to make war on the Kazakhs, he asked for a fatwa from the ulema. Some accepted that the Kazakhs

173 Robert Dankoff, ‘Kašgari on the beliefs and superstitions of the Turks’, JAOS 95/i (1975), pp. 76–7. 174 The work was dedicated to the ‘Abb¯asidCaliph al-Muqtad¯ı,and seems to have been intended to promote a knowledge of Turkish among Arabic speakers: see Mah.m¯ud Kašgar¯ı[K¯ashghar¯ı], Compendium of the Turkic Dialects, Robert Dankoff (tr. and ed.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982, I, pp. 70–1. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 175 Julian Baldick, Animal and Shaman: Ancient Religions of Central Asia, New York: New York University Press, 2000, p. 49, citing Ibn Sina, Le Livre des directives et remarques, tr. Anne-Marie Goichin, Paris: J. Vrin, 1951, p. 517. 176 For other references to shamanism in Islamic sources, see J.A. Boyle, ‘Turkish and Mongol shamanism in the Middle Ages’, Folklore 83/iii (1972), pp. 177–93; Roux, La Religion, pp. 68–71. 177 Devin DeWeese, Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde: Baba Tükles and Conversion to Islam in Historical and Epic Tradition, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994, pp. 32–5. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 125 were Muslims ‘although their actions are not in accordance with the shar¯ı‘a’, whereas the majority regarded them as idolators and thus as suitable targets of holy war.178 Conversion to Islam was certainly still an ongoing process in eleventh- century Central Asia. Ibn al-Ath¯ır,for instance, reports that in 435/1043, 10,000 179 tents of Turks embraced Islam. In 458/1066, Alp Arsl¯anwrote to Niz. ¯amal-Mulk from Central Asia informing him of his victories in the region, which mainly seem to have been over disruptive Türkmen. He noted that the Türkmen had ‘mixed with the unbelievers’ (k¯ana al-Turkm¯anqad ikhtalat.¯ubi-’l-kuff¯ar) to carry out raids on merchants, which suggests they were joining up with as yet unconverted tribesmen.180 Pagan Oghuz are recorded on the Manqishlaq peninsula in the twelfth century.181 One of the very few insights we are given into the beliefs of the elite comes from the Ghaznavid historian Bayhaq¯ı,who records the reaction of T. ughril, Chaghr¯ı and Yabgh¯uon encountering a munajjim (astrologer) who had predicted the fall of Khur¯as¯anto them before the Battle of Dand¯anq¯an.‘All three generals dismounted and prostrated themselves and immediately gave this noble youth [i.e. the munajjim] several thousand dinars’.182 Although Muslims too could be interested in astrology, this reaction seems rather excessive. Further testimony to the prestige of the ‘science of the stars’ among the Selj¯uqsis reflected in stories that Qutlumush b. Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ılwas a munajjim. Ibn al-Ath¯ırreports:

It is remarkable that Qutlumush knew astrology (‘ilm al-nuj¯um) and was excellent at it, although he was a Turk, and knew other sciences of the scholars. His descendants [i.e. the Selj¯uqsof Rum] still seek out these sciences of the ancients (al-‘ul¯umal-awwal¯ıya) and are close to those who profess expertise in it. This is a blot on their faith (fa-n¯alahumbi-h¯adhaghad.d. ¯ad.af¯ıd¯ınihim).183

This is a curious passage indeed, for it is hard to believe that Qutlumush – whom there is no reason to think was anything other than an illiterate tribesman – had really mastered the Hellenistic knowledge sought by a rarified audience of scholars. However, it may be that Qutlumush did indeed have some knowledge of astrology and other occult matters from traditional Turkish beliefs. One of the shaman’s roles is to interpret knowledge from the heavens184 – essentially, just what a munajjim does. At any rate, whatever knowledge it was that Qutlumush had mastered, it was evidently unacceptable to conventional Muslim religiosity.

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 178 Abdülkadır Inan,˙ Tarihte ve Bugün ¸Samanizm, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954, p. 206, n. 235, citing Mihm¯ann¯ama-iBukh¯ar¯a. 179 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 520–1. 180 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 131. 2 181 Yu. Bregel, ‘Mangishlak.’, EI , VI, p. 415. 182 Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, p. 958. 183 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil,X,p.37. 184 Roux, La Religion, pp. 92–3, 123–4. 126 The Selj¯uqsand Islam A few other sources hint at a lack of respect for Islam. Whether due to outright paganism, a mindless thirst for destruction or the persistence of a hostility to the outward symbols of Islam as found among the modern Tahtacı, the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya who reached Mar¯aghain Azerbaijan in 429/1037 distinguished themselves by 185 setting alight the town’s congregational mosque. Indeed, T. ughril himself is said to have been responsible for burning down the congregational mosque at Sinj¯ar.186 A certain lack of adherence to the precepts of Islam is reflected in al-F¯ariq¯ı’sobservation that the ‘Iraq¯ıyaleaders B¯uq¯aand N¯as.ughl¯ıdied fighting one other in a drunken drawl.187 Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım relates a tale of Alp Arsl¯an’s uncontrollable drunkeness during his siege of Aleppo.188 However, Aristakes Lastiverttsi’s allegation that T. ughril ordered the Armenian chief T‘at‘ul to be a human sacrifice as a result of the death of a prominent Türkmen’s son in battle189 may well be an exaggeration or misinterpretation by this hardly sympathetic author. T. ughril kept to the traditional Turko-Mongol custom of avoiding shedding royal blood when he had Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯alstrangled with a bow string,190 but of course there is nothing intrinsically unislamic about that, as the custom’s persistence in Ottoman times demonstrates. The extent to which Islam had penetrated the world view of the Turks is open to debate. Certainly, it had wrought some changes. Efforts to legitimise Turkish dominion through h.ad¯ıthwere made by K¯ashghar¯ı,although this was probably aimed mainly at his ‘Abb¯asidaudience.191 The figure of Dh¯u’l-Qarnayn, the Islamic Alexander, was subsumed into Turkish mythology by the eleventh century too.192 K¯ashghar¯ıemulated earlier Muslim writers like Bal‘am¯ıin ascribing to the Turks descent from Japheth, another means of incorporating them into Muslim sacred history. However, even among the Muslim Turks, the legend of their descent from a wolf was widely circulated. A version of it was certainly current in the thirteenth century, for it is mentioned by Bar Hebraeus and seems to have been included in the original text of the Malikn¯ama.193 Very little Arabic vocabulary had penetrated Turkish by the eleventh century – even the name for God remained

185 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 382. 186 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at,p.22. 187 Al-F¯ariq¯ı, Ta’rikh al-F¯ariq¯ı:al-Dawla al-Marw¯an¯ıya, Badaw¯ı‘Abd al-Lat.¯ıf‘Awad. (ed.), Beirut: D¯ar al-Kit¯abal-Lubn¯an¯ı,1974, p. 160. 188 Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım, Bughyat al-T. alab f¯ıTa’r¯ıkhH. alab, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1976, pp. 27–9; see the discussion by Carole Hillenbrand, ‘Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım’sbiography of the Seljuq sultan, Alp Arslan’ in Concepción Vázquez de Benito and Miguel Rodriguez (eds.), Actas XVI Congreso UEAI, Salamanca: Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional, 1995, pp. 240–2. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 189 Aristakes Lastiverttsi, History, p. 87 (see chapter 3 note 42 on this text). 190 Sibt., Mir’¯at,p.49. 191 Robert Devereux, ‘Al-Kashghari and early Turkish Islam’, Muslim World 49/ii (1959), pp. 134–5; K¯ashghar¯ı, Compendium,I,p.70. 192 Devereux, ‘Al-Kashghari’, p. 137. 193 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, I, p. 196. Mark Dickens, ‘Medieval Syriac Historians’ Perceptions of the Turks’, Unpublished MPhil thesis, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Cambridge, 2004, pp. 56–7. The Selj¯uqsand Islam 127 the traditional Tenri rather than the Arabic All¯ah.K¯ashghar¯ı’smap of the world also bears evidence of older ways of thinking. Traditional Muslim cartography would put Mecca at it its centre, but for K¯ashghar¯ıthe centre of the world was still the Qarakh¯anidcapital of Bal¯asagh¯un,and the Holy Cities of the H. ij¯azare not marked at all.194 Although al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı’l-D¯ınwas hardly an unbiased witness, he certainly had a point when he declared that ‘the Türkmen have not come to these lands to help the Caliph, but in search of worldly possessions (mulk)’.195 Even more telling is the testimony of Michael Attaleiates, an eyewitness to the Battle of Manzikert. Pagan Oghuz and Pechenegs participated on the Byzantine side, and Attaleiates remarked that they ‘resembled the Turks [i.e. the Selj¯uqs]in everything’.196 Any changes Islam had wrought were not evident to the outside observer, and pagan Turks had no hesitation about defecting to the Muslim side, which apparently had no qualms about accepting them. In sum, pagan beliefs were still widespread in parts of Central Asia long after the Selj¯uqshad converted, Türkmen could and did ally themselves with their unconverted relatives, and there can be no certainty that all of the various different Turks who joined the Selj¯uqshad embraced Islam any more than nominally, and sometimes not even that. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

194 Devereux, ‘Al-Kashghari’, pp. 137–8; K¯ashghar¯ı, Compendium, I, between pp. 82 and 83. 195 S¯ırat al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı’l-D¯ın,p.65. 196 Carole Hillenbrand, Turkish Myth and Muslim Symbol: the Battle of Manzikert, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007, p. 232; Michael Attaleiates, Historia, I. Bekker (ed.), Bonn: Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 1853, pp. 156–7. 5 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions Anatolia and the Middle East, 1029–71

The fall of Byzantine Anatolia to the Turks must surely count as one of the most dramatic events in the history of the Middle East. The empire, which had survived incessant wars with the Sasanians and then with the Arabs, succumbed to the Turks in the decade 1071–81, leaving Byzantium with nothing of Asia Minor other than a foothold along its coasts. Nor was this the result of the Selj¯uqsultan pouring the resources of his new Middle Eastern possessions, of Iran, Iraq and Syria, into a new endeavour to destroy the last major Christian power in the region. Rather, the conquest and settlement of Anatolia was undertaken almost entirely by the Türkmen tribesmen, with only very limited involvement by the Selj¯uqs’new ghul¯ams. Analyses of this disaster for Byzantium have concentrated on the empire’s internal problems, and above all the Battle of Manzikert (1071) and its con- sequences. To be sure, both Muslim and Christian writers saw the battle as a turning point. The Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes’ humiliating capture by Alp Arsl¯anand the desertion of much of his army at Manzikert were indeed important symbolic moments. Yet as scholars have recognised, Manzikert does not in itself explain very much. The peace terms offered by Alp Arsl¯anwere lenient, and the collapse of Byzantine authority in Anatolia has been attributed to the civil war the broke out between Romanus and his enemies in the wake of the battle rather than to the fiasco of Manzikert itself.1 However, comparatively little attention has been devoted to events leading up to the battle in eastern Anatolia, above all the preceding 40 years of Turkish incursions which are usually dismissed in a sentence or two in the scholarly literature. Historians and even some archaeologists have devoted such attention to the important topic of the Byzantine frontiers with the Arabs in the seventh to tenth centuries that the question of how Byzantium’s eastern frontiers were defended in the eleventh century has been largely neglected,

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 particularly after the reign of Basil II (976–1025) which saw the empire’s expansion

1 See J.-C. Cheynet, ‘Mantzikert: une désastre militaire?’ Byzantion 50 (1980), pp. 410–38; cf. Michael Angold, ‘The Byzantine state on the eve of the Battle of Manzikert’, Byzantinische Forschungen 16 (1991), p. 9. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 129 in the Balkans and Armenia.2 Valuable studies of the administration of Byzantine Armenia in the eleventh century have not been accompanied by advances in our knowledge of its archaeology. Our ignorance of Byzantium’s eastern frontier means that statements about the Turkish invasions tend to be based on surmise rather than fact. The date and role of the extant fortifications in eastern Anatolia has never been investigated, with a couple of exceptions. The mediaeval archaeology of Anatolia north of Lake Van is almost entirely terra incognita, except for the city of Ani, yet this region suffered some of the best-documented Selj¯uq attacks.3 This chapter offers a fresh examination of the Selj¯uqincursions into Anatolia, concentrating on the decades before Manzikert. We shall suggest that the military infrastructure of the Byzantine east was relatively weak, but much more importantly, it was designed to meet completely different threats, leaving large regions only lightly defended. In any event, fortifications may have been of little use, not because the Selj¯uqscould avoid them, but because they were uninterested in holding territory permanently. Rather than occupying forts or towns, they sought to secure the pastures in which Anatolia and neighbouring Caucasia are so rich and are essential for a nomadic lifestyle. We shall then attempt to assess the impact of the Selj¯uqinvasions, drawing on comparative data from Iran, Iraq and Syria as well as Anatolia. Although the lack of archaeological research means that many of these conclusions are only provisional, we are fortunate in the rich documentation of contemporary or near-contemporary Armenian and Georgian sources which have often been neglected by scholars of the Islamic world but which are invaluable for understanding the Selj¯uqinvasions. We shall suggest that Türkmen domination was facilitated by long-term trends of depopulation and economic decline that affected much of the Middle East as well as Anatolia.

The Byzantine East and its defences Scholars have often wondered why the Selj¯uqsmet with such stunning success against Byzantium in contrast to the Arabs who, despite having a permanent foothold in Cilicia until the tenth century, never managed to hold territory in the Anatolian interior for long.4 Indeed, noting that the conquest of eastern cities like

2 For a convenient survey of archaeological evidence for the Byzantine–Arab frontier, see Michael Decker, ‘Frontier settlement and economy in the Byzantine east’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 61 (2007), pp. 217–67. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 3 Work has been conducted in this neglected region by the Australian North-east Anatolian Project, but so far the published results are fairly uninformative for the mediaeval period. See Antonio Sagona and Claudia Sagona, Archaeology at the North-east Anatolian Frontier, I: An Historical Archaeology and a Field Survey of the Bayburt Province, Leuven: Peeters, 2004. 4 The widespread theory (e.g. John Haldon, Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204, London: UCL Press, 1999, p. 77) that Arab penetration of the interior was limited because the Bedouin could not bear the Anatolian winter is clearly unsatisfactory. Dvin in the heart of Armenia has winters as biting as any in Anatolia, yet was the Arab capital of the region. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

Figure 5.1 Anatolia: major cities and provinces mentioned in the text. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 131 Antioch (1084) and Edessa (1086) took place after the fall of Smyrna and Nicaea in the distant west (1081), the Byzantinist Warren Treadgold went so far as to claim that this was ‘a preposterous result’ which ‘makes no sense in terms of military geography, economics, or demographics … Anatolia was defensible, rich, and populous, but it fell because the Byzantines scarcely defended it’.5 Internal reasons have often been adduced for Byzantine collapse, such as economic and social breakdown, along with the constant civil wars between emperors and rebels.6 The empire was also distracted by affairs in eastern Europe, with wars in Bulgaria and Serbia in addition to the Pecheneg encroachment. However, overexpansion in the east, which started in the early eleventh century under Basil II and continued under his successors, is often thought to lie behind Byzantium’s inability to defend Anatolia. The Armenian Artsruni dynasty that ruled Vaspurakan was deprived of its lands around Lake Van, and resettled in Sebastia (Sivas). Likewise, Ani fell into Byzantine hands in 1045 after King Gagik ceded his rights in return for lands in Cappadocia.7 The Georgians also lost out to the Byzantine advance. On the death of David Curopalates, Prince of Tao, Basil II seized not only his recent conquests from the Muslims such as Theodosioupolis (Erzurum) and Manzikert, but also his hereditary lands of Tao. These Armenian and Georgian conquests formed the basis for a new military district, the theme of Iberia, with its capital first at Theodosioupolis, then at Ani. By the middle of the eleventh century, the sole Armenian principalities that maintained some sort of independence were Siunik‘ and Tashir in Caucasia and Sasun to the west of Lake Van. Attempts by Giorgi I of Abkhazia to claim the inheritance of David Curopalates were rebuffed in a series of campaigns. The growing Byzantine political influence in Caucasia is reflected in the Georgian King Bagrat IV’s (1027–72) adoption of a Byzantine design for his coins in contrast to the ‘Abb¯asidmodels used by his predecessors.8 Thus the dismantlement of the Armenian kingdoms of Vaspurakan and Ani has been seen as removing a crucial ‘buffer’ that protected the empire from invaders.9

5 Warren Treadgold, Byzantium and its Army 284–1081, Stanford, CT: Stanford University Press, 1995, pp. 218–9. 6 Speros Vryonis, Jr, The Decline of Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1971, pp. 70–80. 7 See Nina Garsoïan, ‘The Byzantine annexation of the Armenian kingdoms in the eleventh century’ in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, I: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1997, pp. 188–93; Gérard Dédéyan, ‘L’immigration arménienne en Cappadoce au XI siècle’, Byzantion 45 (1975), Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 pp. 43–58. 8 David M. Lang, Studies in the Numismatic History of Georgia in Transcaucasia, New York: American Numismatic Society, 1955, pp. 19–20. 9 A common theme in twentieth-century historiography, we find this theory as early as the twelfth century: see Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: the Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, Ara E. Dostourian (tr.), New York: University Press of America, 1993 [henceforth, Matthew, Chronicle], p. 96: ‘Removing the throne of the Armenian kingdom, [the Greeks] in effect destroyed it and thus demolished the protective wall which was provided by its troops and generals’. 132 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions In addition, Byzantium has often been accused of mismanaging its eastern conquests. Its persecution of non-Chalcedonian Christians is claimed to have forfeited the sympathy of much of the Armenian and Syrian population, who were consequently more willing to assist the Selj¯uqs.10 The decision of Constantine Monomachus to tax the army of the Iberian theme has been generally condemned as weakening the empire’s defences at a critical time.11 The Byzantine defences of the east have been condemned as a permeable Maginot line which the Türkmen could easily avoid.12 Nonetheless, the traditional picture of Byzantium as a cumbersome, inept and monolithic power has been modified in recent years.13 In place of economic col- lapse, some recent scholarship argues that the eleventh-century empire prospered, including its eastern portions.14 Although much of the Armenian nobility was uprooted from its traditional lands, this applied only to the non-Chalcedonian Armenians. In fact, Orthodox Armenians played a crucial part in Byzantium’s eastern defence, and many of them held senior positions in the military structure of the frontier–6ofthe10governors of Iberia were Orthodox Armenian.15 It also seems that the role of confessional conflict between the Chalcedonian Byzantines and non-Chalcedonian Armenians has been exaggerated.16 Indeed, the fall of eastern Anatolia to the Turks has been attributed not to Byzantium’s failure to collaborate with local communities, but to the excess of autonomy it granted them, meaning that the Byzantine presence was too limited to withstand the Selj¯uqinvasions.17 Certainly, as far as Byzantium was concerned, the real problem in the northeast was not Muslims but other Christians, who had shown an alarming propensity to support rival claimants to the imperial throne.18 Thus, despite his annexation of Georgian Tao and Armenian Vaspurakan, Basil II left the Muslim emirates 19 of the region unmolested. The emirs of Akhl¯at., Artze and Bitlis were able to

10 Michael Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025–1204: A Political History, London: Longman, 1997, pp. 32–3, 42. 11 Vryonis, Decline, pp. 74–5. 12 See Chapter 3, p. 77, n. 30; cf. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, pp. 41–2. 13 For an overview of debates on eleventh-century Byzantium, see Angold, The Byzantine Empire, pp. 15–23. 14 For a general survey of the Byzantine economy in the period, see Angeliki E. Laiou and Cécile Morrisson, The Byzantine Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 90–165 (see, for example, p. 104 for eastern Anatolia); J.-C. Cheynet, ‘Basil II and Asia Minor’ in Paul Magdalino (ed.), Byzantium in the Year 1000, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 72–5. 15 V. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, ‘Some aspects of the military-administrative districts and of Byzantine Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 administration in Armenia during the 11th century’, REArm NS 20 (1986–7), pp. 314–5. 16 Catherine Holmes, ‘ “How the east was won” in the reign of Basil II’ in Eastmond, Eastern Approaches, pp. 53–6. 17 Holmes, ‘ “How the east was won” ’, p. 56. 18 Cheynet, ‘Basil II and Asia Minor’, pp. 98–102. 19 On these in general see Aram Ter-Ghewondyan, The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia, Nina G. Garsoïan (tr.), Lisbon: Livraria Bertrand, 1976, and ibid., pp. 114–8 on their relations with Byzantium in the period. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 133 send armies to relieve Edessa from the Byzantine general Maniaces as late as 1031–2, while Berkri remained in Muslim hands until c. 1036–7.20 In contrast, Basil was vigorous in his pursuit of Giorgi, adopting a scorched-earth policy until the Georgian surrendered the parts of Tao to which the Byzantines laid claim.21 A further threat to Byzantine policy seems to have been the Armenian population of Ani and Vaspurakan, who did not readily acquiesce in their kings’ abdication.22 There was also the problem of the occasional errant Byzantine governor, such as Nicephoros Comnenus of Vaspurakan, who allied himself with Giorgi I.23 The northeastern frontier thus did not pose an existential threat to Byzantium, although it might to the power and throne of individual emperors. The Muslim powers beyond the borders, the Shadd¯adidsand the Raww¯adids,did not present any significant risk either, being relatively weak dynasties of only local importance. The fall of Ani to Byzantium in 1045 was accompanied by ambitious Byzantine campaigns that ranged as far as Dvin and Ganja in Caucasia, evidently aimed at weakening their erstwhile allies and main competitors for Ani, the Muslim Shadd¯adids.24 However, northeastern Anatolia remained a region of only limited strategic importance. This is reflected in the rather lax Byzantine arrangements for its defence. Theodiosioupolis served as the main military base in the region,25 but there was little effort to maintain its defensive capabilities. The Byzantine historian Michael Attaleiates reports that when Romanus Diogenes passed through the city on his way to Manzikert, its populace had moved to undefended Artze and the Emperor had to rebuild Theodosioupolis’ walls and moat.26 When faced with a major Turkish offensive around 1048, the general Aaron had to recommend fortifying cities and strongholds,27 implying that the region’s defences were inadequate. In places, however, the situation differed. Manzikert itself was well-defended, successfully withstanding a siege by T. ughril in 446/1054–5, although Aristakes attributes this to T. ughril’s impatience, stating that the town would have fallen had he persisted for another 10 days.28 In Ani, repair work was undertaken on the

20 Matthew, Chronicle, pp. 53–4, 60–1 and see notes thereto. 21 See the Georgian chronicle of Smbat Davitis-dze, translated in Stephen H. Rapp, Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts, Leuven: Peeters, 2003, pp. 363–4; and Aristakes Lastiverttsi, History, pp. 29–24 (see above Chapter 3 note 42 on this text). 22 Dédéyan, ‘L’immigration arménienne’, pp. 51, 55–6. 23 K. N. Yuzbashian, ‘L’administration byzantine en Arménie aux X–XI siècles’, REArm NS 10 (1973–4), pp. 148–9. 24 See Vladimir Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 1953, pp. 52–64; Jonathon Shephard, ‘Scylitzes on Armenia in the 1040s’, REArm NS 11 (1975–6), pp. 269–311. 25 Cheynet, ‘La conception militaire’, p. 61. 26 Michael Attaleiates, Historia, I. Bekker (ed.), Bonn: Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 1853, p. 148. 27 Jean Skylitzès, Empereurs de Constantinople, Bernard Flusin (tr.), Paris: P. Lethielleux, 2003, p. 374. 28 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 599; Matthew, Chronicle, pp. 86–8; Aristakes, History,p.88. 134 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions impressive defences erected in the late tenth century by Smbat II.29 According to an inscription, the height of the city walls was raised under the Byzantine governor Aaron in 1055–6. This was accompanied by the alleviation of local taxes and the improvement of Ani’s water supply system. Further tax relief was arranged by the last Byzantine governor of Ani before the fall of the city to the Selj¯uqsin 1064.30 This suggests that Byzantium was indeed attempting to win over the hostile local populace, but not that it was preparing for major military operations in the area or a fight for its survival, in which case it surely would have postponed work on the water-supply system, redoubled its efforts to fortify the area, and perhaps raised taxes to pay for this rather than reducing them. That most of the smaller fortifications around Ani date to a later period31 underlines the fact that Byzantium was unprepared for the Selj¯uqinvasions and did little to counteract them. Anyway, it is questionable whether the region’s fortifications were of much use in guarding against the Türkmen whatever their state of repair. For instance, like the rest of Tao, the Oltu-Penek valley is strongly fortified with at least 10 castles.32 These protect the northern and western approaches to the valley. Clearly the expectation was that attacks would come from the north or west,33 rather than the south, the direction from which the Selj¯uqscame. In any event, attempts to defend Tao may have been fairly half-hearted, for the last Byzantine garrison as the last garrison at the strategic fort of Oltu that guarded the way from Theodosioupolis into the province is recorded in 1044.34 Likewise, in Vaspurakan, fortifications seem to have been concentrated on the southern side of Lake Van, perhaps because in other directions the kingdom had relied on its natural defences.35 This may seem perverse, as the southern shore of the lake is far more mountainous and inaccessible than any other approach, despite the towering but isolated extinct volcano of Süphan Da˘gıon the northern shore. It is possible that future research in this understudied region will bring to light further military structures, especially in the east where the approaches from Kh¯uyleave Van itself open to easy attack.36

29 For Smbat’s (977–88) fortification work, see Philippe Dangles and Nicholas Prouteau, ‘Sondages archéologiques sur l’enceinte nord d’Ani’, REArm NS 29 (2003–4), pp. 503–04. 30 Yuzbashian, ‘L’administration’, pp. 162, 165; H. Bartikian, ‘L’Énoikon à Byzance et dans la capitale des Bagratides, Ani, à l’époque de la domination byzantine (1045–1064)’, REArm NS 6 (1969), pp. 288, 293–4, 297. 31 On these see Philippe Dangles and Nicholas Prouteau, ‘Observations sur quelques fortresses de la région d’Ani’, REArm NS 30 (2005–7), pp. 273–99. 32 Based on the surveyed and unsurveyed castles depicted in the map in Robert Edwards, ‘Medieval architecture in the Oltu-Penek valley: a preliminary report on the marchlands of northeastern Turkey’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39 (1985). Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 33 Ibid., pp. 35–6. 34 Ibid., p. 17. 35 Michel Thierry, ‘Notes de géographie historique sur le Vaspurakan’, REB 34 (1976), pp. 168–73; for the region in general, see T.A. Sinclair, Eastern Turkey: An Architectural and Archaeological Survey, London: Pindar Press, 1989, I, pp. 175–290. 36 On the route between Van and Persia, see Sinclair, Eastern Turkey, I, p. 261. Other than Van itself, the only fortifications from the period to the east of the lake mentioned by Sinclair are Amiuk (north of Van, ibid., I, pp. 265–6) and Ho¸sapwhich, although Ottoman, may have been built on The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 135 However, it seems on current evidence that the defences were orientated to protect Vaspurakan from threats from the Muslim base of Bitlis in the west. No evidence has come to light that in the Byzantines added significantly to the fortification of the region after they annexed Vaspurakan in 1018. As in Tao, the regions targeted by the Selj¯uqs– the northern shores of the lake – were left only lightly defended (see Figure 5.2). North of Lake Van, Manzikert was the main fortress guarding the approaches from Iran, along with a group of fortresses in the plain of Pasin to the east of Theodosioupolis, such as Kaputru, site of a major battle between the Selj¯uqsand the Byzantines and their Georgian allies.37 Much of the Pasin region had been laid waste by Basil II during his campaigns against Giorgi I, especially the area around Okomi (modern Ügümü north east of Pasinler).38 However, Aristakes does mention that the Selj¯uqsconsidered Avnik in Pasin impregnable,39 and he remarks that the only people who survived were those who took refuge in strongholds.40 Clearly some of the military infrastructure continued to serve its purpose. Work has yet to be undertaken in studying and dating the large number of extant remains of fortifications in the region. However, even the substantial castles at Hasankale and Manzikert did not stop the Selj¯uqsreturning repeatedly to the region, sacking Theodosioupolis, and time after time raiding deep into Tao.41 Again, the problem was perhaps in part the nature of the defensive arrangements. The concentration of fortifications in the region between Erzurum and Kars attested by Aristakes and the extant remains suggests that this was a militarily sensitive area, probably as it formed the border between Byzantium and the Armenian kingdom of Kars until the mid-eleventh century. However, the Selj¯uqattacks came from the southeast, so many of these fortifications were irrelevant. Byzantium’s southern border was rather better defended, as most external threats the empire had faced in Anatolia had come from Syria.42 Much of southeastern Anatolia had been under Arab control from the seventh to tenth centuries,

the site of an Armenian structıre (ibid., I, p. 215). Both of these could easily have been avoided, particularly as Ho¸sapis not on the mediaeval route described by Sinclair. 37 On Kapatru and Okomi, see Skylitzes, Empereurs, pp. 375–6; for a catalogue of the extant remains, see Gürsoy Yılmaz, Ortaça˘g’daErzurum-Kars Kaleleri, Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2000; Sagona and Sagona, Archaeology at the North-east Anatolian Frontier, I, p. 288; Claudia Sagona, ‘An archaeological survey of the Erzurum province, 1999: the region of Pasinler’, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 36 (1999), pp. 108–31. 38 See Aristakes, History, esp. pp. 27–8, 34; for the identification, see Sagona and Sagona, Archaeology at the North-east Anatolian Frontier, I, pp. 64–5. 39 Aristakes, History, pp. 88–9. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 40 Ibid., pp. 102. 41 See below, nn. 109–12. 42 While the Syrian frontier was based on well-defined themes centred on strongly-fortified cities, in the northeast of Anatolia the military bases seem to have been much smaller, limited to what were presumably small castles. See N. Oikominidès, ‘L’organisation de la frontière orientale de Byzance aux X–XIe siècles et le Taktikon de l’Escorial’ in M. Berza and E. St˘anescu(eds.), Actes du XIV Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1975, II, p. 294. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

Figure 5.2 Main invasion routes into Anatolia and Caucasia and major towns and fortifications in eastern Anatolia mentioned in the text. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 137 until a series of Byzantine emperors managed to regain control over the region. For both Byzantines and Arabs, this was the frontier zone par excellence, and even after the reconquest, the area was surrounded by Muslim rulers and lacked natural frontiers. The Marw¯aniddynasty, whose lands at times stretched as far 43 north as Akhl¯at. on the northern shores of Lake Van, was based in the towns of Mayy¯af¯ariq¯ın, Diyarbakir and Hasankeyf, which were culturally part of the world of Mesopotamia rather than Anatolia. In the south was Aleppo, capital of the Mird¯asidswho had succeeded the Byzantines’ adversaries of the tenth century, the H. amd¯anids.To the west of the Marw¯anidstate and the north of the Mird¯asid one, a series of strongly fortified cities guarded the Byzantine frontline with Syria. Edessa and Antioch were its centres, as part of a policy of concentrating on the control of strategic points with a sort of no-man’s land in between.44 Even in the eleventh century, Byzantine campaigns in the region continued, with the Emperor Romanus III launching an attempt to capture Aleppo itself in 1030,45 and Edessa itself did not come under Byzantine control until 1031.46 However, even here, evidence for Byzantium’s defensive policy in the eleventh century is contradictory, and further research is needed. There are certainly some indications of a more proactive defensive policy than in the northeast, with investment in the late tenth and early eleventh century in new fortifications of various shapes and sizes. In Edessa, the walls were repaired,47 and were apparently still formidable around 1070–1,48 while smaller sites in the region like Gritille were fortified in the early eleventh century.49 In Harput a whole new fortress and town was established in the tenth and eleventh centuries, accompanied by a number of strong fortifications in the surrounding region.50 In Syria, the Byzantines are to be found building new fortifications as late as 454/1062, when they constructed castles at Qast¯unand ‘Ayn al-Thamr near Aleppo.51 There is also plenty of evidence of neglect. While Harput and surroundings had been fortified, Malatya, traditionally the key frontier city of southeastern Anatolia, was left without walls, and was subjected to a Selj¯uqsack.52 Around 1062–3 the Selj¯uqswere reported to have found the area around Arkni and T’lkhum (Tulkhum

43 Ter-Ghewondyan, Arab Emirates, p. 117. 44 Hélène Ahrweiler, ‘La frontière et les frontières de Byzance en Orient’ in Berza and St˘anescu, Actes, II, p. 220 (reprinted in eadem, Byzance: les pays et les territoires, London: Variorum, 1976). 45 E. Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des byzantischen Reiches, Brussels: Institut de philologie et histoire orientales, 1935, pp. 109–14 for Byzantine operations in Syria. 46 On Byzantine Edessa see J.B. Segal, Edessa: The Blessed City, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970, pp. 217–9. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 47 Honigmann, Ostgrenze, p. 136. 48 Matthew, Chronicle, pp. 131–2. 49 Scott Redford, The Archaeology of the Frontier in the Medieval Near East: Excavations at Gritille, Turkey, Philadelphia, PA: University Museum Publications, 1998, p. 270. 50 Sinclair, Eastern Turkey, III, pp. 18, 147–50. 51 Honigmann, Ostgrenze, p. 117. 52 Matthew, Chronicle, p. 92; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, Ernest A. Wallis Budge (tr.), London: Oxford University Press, 1932, I, pp. 212–3. 138 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions in the Diy¯arBakr, see further below) unprepared for war – ‘the whole land and region [was] unfortified’53 – perhaps a result of this policy of concentrating defences on certain cities and neglecting the areas in between. However, there is more evidence of a concerted effort to defend the region than is the case in the northeast, for when Alp Arsl¯anpassed by a few years later, the fort at Tulkhum was at first impregnable and only fell because of its defenders’ negligence.54 Whether it was local elites or the Byzantine state behind these efforts to resist the Selj¯uq incursions is unclear. Byzantium’s investment in the region in the eleventh century was not vast. Proximity to the Marw¯anidsand the Mird¯asidscontinued to give the empire something to worry about, but not enough to provoke the large-scale fortification programmes of the tenth century. Thus in both the northeast and southeast, we are presented with a somewhat ambiguous picture of the state of Byzantine defences. On the one hand, some fortified locations, like Manzikert and Edessa, and even smaller places like Tulkhum and some of the castles of Pasin, appear to have been reasonably well fortified, at least sometimes, and able to withstand Selj¯uqattacks. On the other hand, these fortifications did not deter the Selj¯uqs from returning repeatedly to the surrounding region, and even major centres like Theodosioupolis and Malatya were left completely undefended. The defences of the east were not entirely neglected, but it is likely that investment was generally inadequate. However, it is questionable whether the defensive system as a whole (as opposed to individual castles) would have been any use whatever the state of repair and fortification. Byzantine defences were built to guard against attacks from Syria, which is why Edessa and Antioch fell so much later than cities considerably further west. Arab campaigns had invariably originated to the south of the Taurus. This is well demonstrated by the tenth-century treatise On Skirmishing Warfare, which names the mountain passes through which attacks were most likely to come: all are in the Taurus.55 On the whole, conflict between Muslims and Byzantium in Armenia tended to be less intense than on the Syrian border, although Theodosioupolis was an important Muslim base until the tenth century.56 The Byzantine obsession with the threat from the south is perhaps reflected in al- Mu’ayyad f¯ı’l-D¯ın’sallegation that the Byzantines attempted to cut a deal with 57 T. ughril that would leave them in control of Syria. In reality, in the eleventh century the danger came from the east, where such defences as existed were orientated to meet the demands of local warfare, or at best against the Georgians or local Muslim principalities. Their location meant

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 53 Matthew, Chronicle,p.97. 54 Ibid., p. 130. 55 George T. Dennis (ed. and tr.), Three Byzantine Military Treatises, Dumbarton Oaks: Center for Byzantine Studies, 1985, pp. 230–31, §23; Honigmann, Ostgrenze, pp. 80–92. 56 See Constantine Pophyrigenitus, De Administrando Imperio, Gy. Moravcsik (ed.), R.J.H. Jenkins (tr.), Dumbarton Oaks: Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967, pp. 205–15. 57 al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı ’l-D¯ın al-Sh¯ır¯az¯ı, S¯ırat al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı ’l-D¯ın D¯a‘¯ı al-Du‘¯at:tarjamat h.ay¯atihi bi-qalamihi, Muh.ammad K¯amilH. usayn (ed.), Cairo: D¯aral-K¯atibal-Mis.r¯ı, 1949, pp. 94–5. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 139 that many were of limited use in defending Anatolia against an attack from the east, and there was little to stop an invader continuing west or south down to the Diy¯arBakr. Likewise, the only significant obstacle before an invader coming from Iran before Manzikert itself was the fortress at Berkri, which had been at least partly demolished by the Byzantines themselves around 1034–41.58 The supposedly ‘preposterous’ nature of the fall of Anatolia is at least in part explained by the fact that its defences were built for completely different threats. One can hardly chide the Byzantines for negligence, however. The last time there had been a significant danger from Iran was the early seventh century, when Persian armies poured through Armenia to ravage Anatolia up to the gates of Constantinople. The fall of the Sasanian empire had removed Byzantium’s archenemy. Since Iran’s incorporation into the Caliphate, the minor dynasties who ruled on its borders, such as the S¯ajidsof Azerbaijan, had been no threat to Byzantium. Neither the rise of the Raww¯adidsand the Shadd¯adidsnor Byzantium’s expansion in the northeast altered the fact of the comparative weakness of the other border powers of the region. Thus it was a perfectly reasonable calculation that the main threats there to Byzantium were local, not existential, given limited resources and a need to prioritise. Unfortunately, it proved to be completely wrong.

Settlement and conquest in Anatolia and Caucasia The first frontier region of Byzantium to be affected by the Selj¯uqswas Vaspurakan, lying on the borders of Azerbaijan. The date of the first incursion is a matter of some dispute.59 The ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya’spresence in Azerbaijan is first mentioned by Ibn al- Ath¯ırsub anno 420/1029, when they also apparently undertook a major raid against Armenia.60 This is confirmed by an Armenian church inscription which states that Vahram Pahlavuni, patron of the church, fell fighting the Turks in 1029.61 This is the earliest securely attested Türkmen incursion beyond Azerbaijan.62 Vahs¯ud¯an, the Raww¯adidruler of Tabr¯ız,had initially welcomed the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya,presumably hoping to use them against his enemies,63 but by 432/1040 he had had enough, massacring a large number of them.64 The chronology of Türkmen attacks in the intervening years is confused, as events relating to the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaare all mentioned by Ibn al-Ath¯ır,our principal source, sub anno 420. However, the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyatook the opportunity to launch several more attacks both across the border into Byzantium

58 Aristakes, History,p.48. 59 Ibrahim˙ Kafeso˘glu,‘Do˘guAnadolu’ya ilk Selçuklu akını (1015–1021) ve tarihi ehemmiyeti’ in Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Mélanges Fuad Köprülü, Istanbul: Ankara Dil ve Tarih-Co˘grafyaFakültesi, 1953, pp. 259–74, and see the criticisms in Claude Cahen, ‘A propos de quelques articles du Köprülü Arma˘ganı’, Journal Asiatique (1954), pp. 275–9. 60 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 381–3. 61 Réné Grousset, Histoire de l’Arménie des origins à 1071, Paris: Payot, 1947, p. 551, n. 4. 62 Earlier dates are given in the Armenian chronicles, but are probably spurious, see n. 59 above. 63 Ah.mad Kasrav¯ı, Shahriy¯ar¯an-iGum-n¯am, Tehran: Amir Kabir, 1377, p. 159. 64 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 384–5. 140 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions and south into the Diy¯arBakr and Hakkari, while more Türkmen were forced to move to Azerbaijan as a result of Mas‘¯ud’sattack on them in 1038.65 Bar Hebraeus reports a major Türkmen attack on Armenia in 1037,66 and by the following year, the Türkmen had become a sufficient nuisance that the Georgians were forced to abandon the siege of Muslim-held Tbilisi for fear of them.67 The slaughter of another group of Türkmen in the regions of Mosul c. 1043–4 encouraged further migrations.68 From the 1040s onwards we have more detailed information. We do not need to trace the details of every campaign, the courses of which have been outlined by Cahen.69 Increasing boldness on the part of the Türkmen is evident from the 1040s; in 434/1042–3, the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyalaunched a major attack on the Diy¯arBakr, 70 allegedly with the encouragement of T. ughril. In 1044, only thick fog prevented the Türkmen from marching on Theodosioupolis,71 but by 1048 Türkmen under Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯alranged across eastern Anatolia at will, attacking Theodosioupolis and its surroundings as far north as Ispir, Tao, and Trebizond, and southwest of Lake Van into Taron.72 Indeed, it is claimed they came within 15 days of Constantinople itself.73 In Caucasia, Ganja and Dvin were besieged by Qutlu- mush b. Arsl¯anIsr¯a’¯ıl74 – apparently the first significant clash between Byzantium and the Selj¯uqs.75 As early as the 1040s the rulers of Shirw¯an,the Shirw¯ansh¯ahs, had built a wall around their capital Yaz¯ıd¯ıyato keep out the Turkish tribesmen,76 and their neighbours the Shadd¯adids‘had no peace … because of the attacks of the Ghuzz and other enemies’.77 Attacks continued with ever greater ferocity in the 1050s, most significantly with T. ughril’s Anatolian campaign of 1054–5. Key to understanding the nature of both warfare and of early Selj¯uqhistory more generally is the question of who undertook the campaigns. It has often been argued that the sultans saw these campaigns as a diversionary measure, or that

65 Bar Hebraeus, Chronology, I, p. 199. 66 Ibid., I, p. 198. 67 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 536. 68 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, I, pp. 202–03. 69 Cl. Cahen, ‘La première pénétration turque en Asie Mineure’, Byzantion 18 (1946–8), pp. 5–67 (reprinted in ibid., Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianus, London: Variorum, 1974) and see also the list of campaigns in A.C.S. Peacock, ‘Nomadic society and the Selj¯uqcampaigns in Caucasia’, Iran and the Caucasus 9/ii (2005), pp. 227–8. 70 Al-F¯ariq¯ı, Ta’r¯ıkhal-F¯ariq¯ı, Badaw¯ı‘Abd al-Lat.¯ıf‘Awad. (ed.), Beirut: D¯aral-Kit¯abal-Lubn¯an¯ı, 1973, p. 160. 71 Aristakes, History,p.64. 72 Ibid., p. 66; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 546. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 73 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 546. 74 ‘Az.¯ım¯ı, Ta’r¯ıkh, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988, p. 10; Aristakes, History, p. 82. 75 A clash between Aaron, Byzantine governor of Vaspurakan, and Qutlumush is recorded (Skylitzès, Empereurs, p. 371), but the chronology is too confused to make sense of Scylitzes’ version of events. 76 V. Minorsky (ed. and tr.), A History of Sharvan and Darband in the 10th and 11th centuries, Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1958, pp. 33, 35–37. 77 Minorsky, Studies on Caucasian History,p.18. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 141 the Türkmen operating in Anatolia were in rebellion against the sultan.78 Cahen divided the Anatolian campaigns into four classes: those of the sultan himself; those of his lieutenants more or less consistently with the sultan’s wishes; those undertaken by his lieutenants to supply the Türkmen with their needs and to distract them from pillaging; and those undertaken by Türkmen in rebellion to the sultan with no regard to his policy.79 This recalls Lambton’s suggestion that one should distinguish between the Selj¯uqsand ‘other Ghuzz leaders’ on the basis that the Selj¯uqsgenerally controlled their followers. For example, she remarks that the Ghuzz in S¯ıst¯anwere destructive, but when Y¯aq¯ut¯ı,a Selj¯uq,arrived, he behaved impeccably.80 Her information, however, derives from the anonymous T¯ar¯ıkh-i S¯ıst¯an, a source that tends to be sympathetic to the Selj¯uqsand which should be treated with caution. The distinction between loyal and rebellious Türkmen Lambton and Cahen make is not easy to maintain. Firstly, there is the case of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya.T. ughril claimed authority over them, describing them as his ra‘¯ıya, or subjects, and this claim was recognised by other rulers such as Jal¯alal-Dawla the B¯uyidand Nas.r al-Dawla the Marw¯anid,who wrote to him to complain of them.81 However, this did not mean that T. ughril was able to prevent their looting and killing, and Ibn al-Ath¯ırrecords that their depredations across Iran were such that, as he puts it, ‘they did not pass by a [single] village without looting it until they reached ... Azerbaijan’.82 Certainly the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya did not make a distinction between Muslim and Christian in their plundering, ravaging Muslim Diy¯arBakr and Christian Armenia and R¯umalike.83 The connection of other leaders with the Selj¯uqsis more uncertain. Some of the Anatolian campaigns were led by non-Selj¯uqidamirs, such as Dinar who attacked 84 Malatya, and Samouch, a Turk of obscure origins who had accompanied T. ughril on his first Anatolian campaign. On the sultan’s return to Iran, Samouch had stayed in Armenia, operating independently with some 3,000 men.85 Such individuals are 86 often connected by Christian writers with T. ughril, but it is not certain this was so, for they may well have been operating under their own initiative. However, from the 1050s many Anatolian campaigns can be linked directly to the Selj¯uq family itself. An unnamed relative of T. ughril preceded Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯alto the region

78 C.E. Bosworth, ‘The political and dynastic history of the Iranian world (1000–1217)’, p. 43; A.K.S. Lambton, ‘The internal structure of the Saljuq Empire’, p. 246, both in J.A. Boyle (ed), The Cambridge History of Iran V: The Saljuq and Mongol Periods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968; Angold, The Byzantine Empire,p.41. 79 Cahen, ‘La première pénétration’, p. 12. 80 A.K.S. Lambton, ‘Aspects of Saljuq-Ghuzz settlement in Persia’ in D.S. Richards (ed.), Islamic Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Civilisation, 950–1150, Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1973, pp. 112–3. 81 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 385, 388, 508, cf. Chapter 2, p. 69–70 above. 82 Ibid., IX, p. 379. 83 Ibid., IX, p. 391. 84 Matthew, Chronicle, p. 92; for further details of the attack see Aristakes, History, p. 114. 85 Skylitzès, Empereurs de Constantinople, p. 399. For more on Samouch’s activities, see Matthew, Chronicle,p.95. 86 For example, see Matthew, Chronicle,p.97. 142 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions in 1048, although without much success,87 and the activities of Y¯aq¯ut¯ıb. Chaghr¯ı 88 provoked a complaint by a Byzantine ambassador. Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al,T. ughril, Alp Arsl¯anand Maliksh¯ahall participated in Anatolian and Caucasian campaigns in person, as is discussed further below. Furthermore, it is far from clear that members of the Selj¯uqfamily themselves behaved any better than the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya, even in Muslim lands. When Herat was besieged by Chaghr¯ıand his cousin Ert¯ash(c. 434/1042), ‘its people fought them and protected their city despite the ruin of their agricultural lands; fear of the Ghuzz impelled them to fight’.89 Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯alseems to have been particularly destructive, repeatedly attacking Hamad¯anand other towns in western Iran.90 This is how Ibn al-Ath¯ırdescribes his activities in H. ulw¯an:‘Its people had evacuated [the town] and dispersed, and Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯allooted it, burned it, and set fire to the palace of [the local ruler] Ab¯u’l-Shawk, and after he had devastated and destroyed it, he left’.91 When in 440/1048 a force from Baghdad came to relieve another siege of H. ulw¯anby Ibr¯ah¯ım’s‘vizier’ Ah.mad b. T. ¯ahir,they found that ‘the entire province had been ruined’, presumably by the Türkmen.92 Six years later another Selj¯uqforce under Ibr¯ah¯ımb. Ish. ¯aqcaused further destruction, ‘plundering in the most ugly way, striking women and children’.93 Indeed, Alp Arsl¯anhimself as a young prince is said to have launched a surprise raid across the desert on the city of Fas¯ain 442/1050, taking 3,000 prisoners.94 The surviving Muslim accounts naturally do not implicate T. ughril directly in the Türkmen’s reign of terror in Iran,95 but many of Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al’sexpeditions are 96 reported to have been carried out on T. ughril’s instructions. Ibn al-Ath¯ırreports an interesting exchange between T. ughril and Chaghr¯ıas the latter was dying and recriminations for state of their territories flew between them. Chaghr¯ı is said to have accused T. ughril of ruining the land he had conquered, to which T. ughril replied:

O my brother, you owned Khur¯as¯anwhich used to be a productive land and you have ruined it although when you occupied it you should have made it prosper. But I came to a land which had been destroyed and ravaged by those who preceded me, and I could not make it prosper while enemies surround it.97

87 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 536–7. 88 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at al-Zam¯an, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Co˘grafyaFakültesi, 1968, pp. 19–20. 89 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 506. 90 Ibid., IX, pp. 507, 528. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 91 Ibid., IX, p. 529. 92 Ibid., IX, p. 545. 93 Ibid., IX, p. 602. 94 Ibid., IX, p. 564. 95 The phrase is justified, I believe, by the repeated references in Ibn al-Ath¯ırto citizens defending their towns ‘out of fear of the Ghuzz’ (khawfan min al-ghuzz). See, for example, ibid., IX, pp. 506, 507; cf. S¯ırat al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı’l-D¯ın,p.96. 96 See for example, Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 510, 528. 97 Ibid., X, pp. 6–7. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 143

The exchange is probably apocryphal, but in any event it is unlikely that T. ughril would have been able to prevent looting and destruction even if he had wanted to. With the flexible nature of the tribe examined in Chapter 2, any nomads who felt they were not getting ‘value for money’ in terms of plunder and pasture from their association with the Selj¯uqswould simply have detached themselves and joined another group – an ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyacommander, for example. Both Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯aland Qutlumush, two of the major figures in the Anatolian and Caucasian campaigns, were at times obedient to and at times rebellious against the sultan. Qutlumush, for instance, was ordered to fight the Byzantines at Dvin 98 and to campaign in Iraq by T. ughril, but at other times he seems to have attempted to use his father’s links with the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyato form his own powerbase, launching 99 an attempt to seize the sultanate for himself on T. ughril’s death. Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al sometimes acted as T. ughril’s herald and forerunner (as with the fall of N¯ısh¯ap¯ur), but three times fought T. ughril in open rebellion, going so far as to ally himself with Bas¯asir¯ıand the F¯at.imids. Conversely, as was remarked in Chapter 2, a leader of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyacould apparently live peacefully in Selj¯uqRayy, and F¯ariq¯ıalleges that the Diy¯arBakr was even granted in iqt.¯a‘ to the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyachiefs B¯uq¯aand N¯as.ughl¯ıby 100 T. ughril. It is even more difficult to assess what the relationship of a leader like 101 Qutlumush’s brother, Ab¯uMalik, was to T. ughril and his policy. Furthermore, we have cases such as that of Aris¯ıgh¯ıwho was Alp Arsl¯an’sbrother-in-law,102 and for some obscure reason was forced to flee into Anatolia accompanied by a group of N¯awuk¯ıya Türkmen (his own tribe presumably), pursued by Afsh¯ın, another Türkmen tribesman loyal to Alp Arsl¯anbut not, as far as we know, related to the Selj¯uqfamily.103 Afsh¯ınand Aris¯ıgh¯ıreached Constantinople, where the rebel had taken refuge with the Byzantines. Afsh¯ın wrote to the emperor saying:

There is a peace treaty (hudna) between you and us, and when I entered your land I did not threaten anyone. These N¯awuk¯ıya are enemies of the sultan who have plundered your land and ruined it; you should hand them over to us, otherwise I will destroy your land, and there will be no peace between us.104

The distinction between well-behaved Selj¯uqsand rebellious tribesmen that Afsh¯ın hints at here, and which is so often reflected in the secondary literature, must be treated with great suspicion. At some point Aris¯ıgh¯ı had been sufficiently Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 98 ‘Az.¯ım¯ı, Ta’r¯ıkh, p. 5; Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, pp. 8–12. 99 Peacock, ‘Nomadic society’, p. 220; Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 77; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil,X, pp. 36–7; H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar, pp. 30–2. 100 Al-F¯ariq¯ı, Ta’r¯ıkh, p. 160 and see p. 71 above. 101 For Abu Malik (Gr. Abimelek) see Skylitzès, Empereurs, p. 384. 102 On him see Cahen, ‘La première pénétration’, p. 27, n. 3. 103 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, pp. 144, 146–7. 104 Ibid., p. 148. For another version of Aris¯ıgh¯ı’sactivities, see Matthew, Chronicle, p. 129. 144 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions

acceptable to marry T. ughril’s sister, while Afsh¯ın, who presents himself here as the voice of civilisation, was leader of a Türkmen band settled on the borders of Anatolia and Georgia and was responsible for plunder and destruction far into Byzantine territory.105 As described in Chapters 2 and 3, a nomadic tribe or army might fragment into smaller sections, just as Aristakes Lastiverttsi describes of T. ughril’s 1054–5 campaign against Manzikert: on reaching the city, raiding parties were dispatched north and south.106 Some parties, like that of Samouch, might choose to stay to profit from the possibilities for plunder and pasture offered by the region. Others, like a group recorded as being trapped in Tao one winter, might be prevented from returning to the sultan by a combination of enemy forces and the climate.107 In such cases one cannot attribute their actions either to sultanic policy or rebellious instincts. Even where the tribesmen (such as the N¯awuk¯ıyadiscussed above) were clearly opposed to the sultan, this was by no means necessarily a permanent state, but was probably based on a simple calculation of self-interest, according to whether their needs as nomads were being fulfilled satisfactorily by the sultan, or whether there was another chief that might help them better. The nature of Selj¯uq military activity in Anatolia and Caucasia was, as I shall argue below, intimately connected with the nature of Türkmen society.

The targets and nature of the Anatolian campaigns Perhaps the most striking feature of the record of Selj¯uqattacks is that they tend to return to the same places irrespective of the commander. Manzikert was attacked in 1048, 1054–5 and 1071.108 Tao was attacked repeatedly, in 1048,109 1054–5,110 1056–7,111 and 1064.112 In the Diy¯ar Bakr, a similar pattern of attacks can be observed at Tulkhum.113 Attacks occurred in 1045–6,114 1062–3,115 1065–6,116 1066–7,117 and 1070–71.118 Nearby Siverek (Sevenerek) was attacked

105 See below, p. 151. 106 Aristakes, History, pp. 83–4. 107 Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, p. 324. 108 On the 1048 attack: Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 546; 1054–5 attack: ibid., IX, p. 599, Aristakes, History, p. 83; for 1071, see Carole Hillenbrand, Turkish Myth and Muslim Symbol: The Battle of Manzikert, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007, and below pp. 150–1. 109 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 546; Aristakes, History, pp. 66–7. 110 Aristakes, History,p.84. 111 Ibid., p. 106. 112 Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, p. 298. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 113 The T’lkhum of Matthew of Edessa is probably the Tulkhum of Gertude Bell, Amurath to Amurath, London: William Heinemann, 1911, p. 328, n. 1, northwest of Diyarbakır, described as ‘located a mile to the left of the road by a big mound’. 114 Matthew, Chronicle,p.74. 115 Ibid., p. 97. 116 Ibid., p. 107. 117 Ibid., p. 125. 118 Ibid., p. 130. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 145 in 1035–6,119 1065–6120 and 1070–71.121 These places may not at first seem to be the most obvious targets for attack. Tulkhum is otherwise barely known from the historical record, Tao is a remote and inaccessible region, while the repeated sieges of Manzikert may seem perplexing given that the Selj¯uqsshowed no interest in holding larger and much richer towns like Ani and Theodosioupolis (discussed further below). Yet the pattern recurs irrespective of the commander: the attack of 1062–3 on Tulkhum was conducted by an otherwise obscure Türkmen chief named Y¯usuf,122 that of 1066–7 by a senior figure from the Selj¯uqcourt, Alp Arsl¯an’s h. ¯ajib Gümüshteg¯ın,and that of 1070–1 by Alp Arsl¯anhimself.123 The attacks on Manzikert were undertaken by Ibr¯ah¯ımYinal, T. ughril and Alp Arsl¯an, while the first campaigns in Tao were conducted by detachments from Ibr¯ah¯ım Yinal’s forces, later ones from T. ughril’s and Alp Arsl¯an’s. It is interesting to contrast this with the fate of the heartland of Vaspurakan, the southern shore of Lake Van. This was a rich if mountainous land, containing many monasteries that one might have thought would have been an obvious target for plundering. In addition, the major towns of the old Armenian kingdom of Vaspurakan, only recently abolished, Van and Vostan, were located here. Yet, there is scarcely any record of Selj¯uqattacks here despite the area’s history being well-documented in this period. A local mediaeval Armenian historian strikes an uncharacteristically positive note when he remarks of Amiuk and the island of Aghtamar, the most important fortress and monastery in Vaspurakan, that in this period of attacks, ‘For them was accomplished the saying of the inspired psalmist David: “The islands shall be happy and all the inhabitants therein”; they rejoiced in delight according to Soloman’s exhortation’.124 A hint of the explanation for these peculiar patterns of activity is given by Aristakes Lastiverttsi, who remarks after describing the devastating plundering of eastern Anatolia in 1053:

The year after this … [in] the same month and the same date of the month [as the previous year] … the Sultan advanced … Skipping over Archesh [Erci¸s] and Berkri, they [the Selj¯uqs]came and camped near the city called Manazkert [Manzikert] in the Apahunik‘ district, seizing all the extensive places in the fields [i.e. pasturelands].125

119 Ibid., p. 55. 120 Ibid., p. 107. 121 Ibid., p. 130. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 122 Ibid., p. 101. 123 Loc. cit. 124 Thomas Artsruni, History of the House of the Artsrunik‘, Robert W. Thomson (tr.), Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1985, pp. 371–2. According to the same anonymous continuator of Thomas Artsruni, Van was indeed attacked once. Given the importance and prosperity of the city, this is surprisingly little in comparison to the repeated attacks on Erci¸sand Manzikert, for example, in the north. 125 Aristakes, History, pp. 83–4. 146 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions This strongly suggests that the campaigns were linked to the exigencies of a nomadic lifestyle. Nomads require pastures, as well as chiefs to help secure them.126 They must change these pastures seasonally, with high cool yaylas for the summer, and warmer lower-lying kı¸slaks for the winter, as is well described by the Georgian chronicler who has bequeathed to us perhaps the best mediaeval description of Türkmen nomadism:

They would settle … in all those beautiful winter quarters, where in winter, as in the season of spring, grass is mowed and wood and water are found in abundance. A multitude of all kinds of game exists there and there is every sort of recreation. In those regions they would settle with their tents; of their horses, mules, sheep, and camels there was no reckoning. They led a blessed existence; they would hunt, relax, take their pleasure, and they experienced no lack of anything. They would engage in commerce in their cities, but would invade our borders for their fill of captives and plunder. In spring they would ascend the mountains of Somkhiti and Ararat. Thus during summer they would have ease and recreation on the grass and pleasant fields, with springs and flowering meadows. So great was their strength and multitude that you could say: ‘All Turks of the whole world are here’.127

If the need to secure pastures is taken into account, the pattern of Selj¯uqcampaigns becomes much more readily comprehensible (see Figure 5.3). Tao, for example, is the gateway to Mount Barhal, whose high cool mountains make an ideal yayla. The Georgian chronicler notes how the Turks appeared in Tao and other nearby yaylas in mid-summer and ‘remained in those lands until the coming of the snow’.128 As Aristakes notes, the plain of Manzikert also contains rich pastureland, and although no other source explicitly states that the area was used as a yayla by the Selj¯uqs,we know that it was in Mongol times, especially the area around Alada˘g.129 While northern Anatolia was the heartland of yaylas, the northern Jaz¯ırawas a popular kı¸slak.Again, explicit evidence of this for the eleventh century is slight, but it is well attested from later times. In the fourteenth century, the Akkoyunlu Türkmen used the area around Bayburt in northeastern Anatolia as their main yayla, while their winter pastures were in the south, centred on the Diy¯ar Bakr.130

126 See Chapter 2 for further discussion. 127 Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, p. 323; see also the discussion in Michael F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300–1450, Cambridge: Cambridge University Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Press, 1985, pp. 115–6. 128 Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, p. 310. 129 Sinclair, Eastern Turkey, I, p. 273; Charles Melville, ‘The itineraries of Sultan Öljeitü, 1304–16’, Iran 28 (1990), p. 56 and fig. 1: 58; John Masson Smith, Jr, ‘Mongol nomadism and Middle Eastern geography: qishlaqs and tümens’ in Reuven Amitai-Preiss and David Morgan (eds.), The Mongol Empire and its Legacy, Leiden: Brill, 1999, pp. 42–3, 47. 130 John E. Woods, The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire, Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 1999, pp. 29–31. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

Figure 5.3 Major Selj¯uqcampaigns and concentrations of summer and winter pastures. 148 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions In the sixteenth century, the Bozulus Türkmen had their summer pastures in the plain of Pasin, and in the area stretching from Hınıs on the western fringes of the plain of Manzikert to Kars, while their winter pastures were in the area known as the Berriye, between Diyarbakir, Mardin and Urfa (Edessa).131 A comparable situation also seems to be attested among the Dani¸smendidTurks of the twelfth century, whose principality had centres in Amasya in the north and Malatya in the south.132 Similar migration patterns were evidently at work in the eleventh century, with the exception that Georgia was still available as an alternative kı¸slak;as Georgia grew to be an important regional power under King David the Builder (1089– 125), the Türkmen were prevented from using the Kur valley in winter.133 Thus Selj¯uqattacks were carefully targeted to ensure that the yaylas and kı¸slakscould be used without threat from surrounding settlements. This is evidently the point of Aristakes’ comment that T. ughril ‘skipped over’ Erci¸sand Berkri; the latter is entirely and the former partially cut off by mountains from the Manzikert plain, so the Türkmen must have felt themselves safe enough from attack. Likewise, the almost complete absence of attacks on the prosperous southern side of Lake Van may be explained by the fact that much of the land there is unsuitable for pastures, but is made up of steep, barren, waterless mountains and valleys.134 For this reason, the Selj¯uqswere not attracted to the region. Further south, the concentration of attacks on the broad and fertile plain of Tulkhum suggests that this was the centre of the Türkmen kı¸slaks,just as the region was in Akkoyunlu and Ottoman times. Selj¯uqattacks on barren and rocky Taron can probably best be explained by the need to secure migration passages between the kı¸slaksand yaylas.135 The fact that these campaigns were led not just by obscure tribal chiefs but by leading figures in the Selj¯uqfamily, including the sultans themselves, is of prime importance for our understanding of the functioning of the early Selj¯uqstate. As will be recalled from Chapter 2, one of the main duties of the tribal chief was to secure plunder and pasture for his followers.136 In later Selj¯uqtimes, the provision of pasturage was one of the principle tasks of the shih.na or government official 137 appointed over the Türkmen, but it seems that in the reigns of T. ughril and Alp Arsl¯anthis was still to some extent a task for the ruling family.

131 Tufan Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen A¸siretleri: Bozulus Türkmenleri 1540–1640, Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2007, pp. 77–84. 132 On the Danishmendids see Mükrimin H. Yınanç, ‘Dani¸smendliler’, IA˙ , III, pp. 468–79. 133 See Peter B. Golden, ‘Cumanica I: The Qıpˇcaqsin Georgia’, AEMAe 4 (1984), pp. 45–87 (reprinted in idem, Nomads and their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe: Turks, Khazars and Qipchaqs, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Aldershot: Variorum, 2003). 134 Sinclair, Eastern Turkey, I, p. 224. 135 For attacks on Taron, see for example, Aristakes, History, p. 66; Matthew, Chronicle, p. 93. See Gündüz, Anadolu’da Türkmen A¸siretleri, pp. 79–81, for a map of the sixteenth-century migration paths leading through Taron. 136 See above p. 61. 137 A. K. S. Lambton, ‘The administration of Sanjar’s Empire as illustrated in the ‘Atabat alkataba’, BSOAS 20 (1957), p. 382. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 149 Alp Arsl¯an’sCaucasian campaign of 1064 serves to illustrate this point. The sultan, accompanied by his son Maliksh¯ahand the vizier Niz. ¯amal-Mulk, marched north following roughly the course of the river Aras, attacking Sürmeli, Sap¯ıdshahr, Marmashen, Akhalkalaki, Kars and Ani, while allowing raiding parties to spread out into Tao.138 This represents the first major campaign in the region undertaken by a sultan since the military reforms instituted by T. ughril in 1055 aimed to reduce the tribal component of the army. Certainly, slave soldiers took part in this 139 expedition, for H. usayn¯ımentions the presence of ‘ghul¯ams of the sultan’. The Muslim sources present Alp Arsl¯anand his army in conventional terms of holy war: the sultan builds mosques in the place of churches, and the unbelieving Christians are subjected to the jizya (poll tax).140 Tidings of the fall of the city of Ani, one of the great emporiums of the east, were sent back to the Caliph in Baghdad. However, on closer inspection of these Muslim accounts, certain curious features emerge. The Selj¯uqswere not interested in retaining control of the territory they captured. Maliksh¯ahwished to destroy the castle of Sum¯ar¯ı(Sürmeli) when it fell, and had to be persuaded by Niz. ¯amal-Mulk to hand it over to the amir of Nakhichevan instead. Akhalkalaki was burned down by the Selj¯uqs,141 and Ani was given to the 142 Shadd¯adidAb¯u’l-Asw¯ar. Indeed, according to H. usayn¯ı’saccount, the Selj¯uq army seems to have contained a dedicated unit of naff¯at.¯un whose job was to spread destruction by fire. Both in this and other campaigns, fire was the hallmark of a Selj¯uqadvance. The Georgian chronicler comments that ‘fire, an unaccustomed adversary, destroyed all dwellings’; Aristakes Lastiverttsi frequently mentions it; and Scylitzes records the dramatic conflagration that destroyed Artze.143 Why would Alp Arsl¯aninvest this effort in a major campaign, but destroy or give away his gains? Again, the answer probably lies in the importance of the area for the Türkmen due to its rich pastureland. Several of the areas attacked in 1064 feature in the Turkish epic, the Book of Dede Korkut, which although written down much later seems to preserve some older traditions about the coming of the Turks to Anatolia. Indeed, Dede Korkut is largely set in northeastern Anatolia on the Georgian frontier. There we read of the Türkmen pitching their tents around Sürmeli A˘gçakale.144 Sürmeli was one of the places captured by

138 For a detailed study of this campaign see M. Canard, ‘La campagne arménienne du sultan sal˘guqide Alp Arsl¯anet la prise d’Ani en 1064’, REArm NS 2 (1965), pp. 239–59 (reprinted in idem, L’expansion arabo-islamique et ses répercussions, London: Variorum, 1974). 139 H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯ar,p.39. 140 Ibid., p. 39; Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, X, pp. 37–8. 141 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, X, pp. 40–1. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 142 Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History,p.21. 143 Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, p. 311; Aristakes, History, pp. 77–8 (Artze), 84 (Kars), 110–11, 117; Skylitzès, Empereurs, p. 375. 144 Dede Korkut O˘guznameleri, S. Tezcan and H. Boeschoten (eds.), Istanbul: Yapı Kredi, 2001, p. 114 ; The Book of Dede Korkut, Geoffrey Lewis (tr.), Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974, p. 106. The identification of the Surm¯ar¯ıof Ibn al-Ath¯ırand H. usayn¯ıwith Sürmeli seems uncontroversial. In identifying Sap¯ıdshahrwith A˘gçakale,I follow Bunyatov in Sadr ad-Din Husayni, Akhbar ad-daulat as-Seldzhukiyya, ed. and tr. Z. M. Bunyatov (Moscow: Nauka, 1980), p. 180. 150 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions Alp Arsl¯an;A˘gçakale,‘white castle’, is close in meaning to Sap¯ıdshahr,another of the castles noted by Ibn al-Ath¯ır’s report of the 1064 campaign, and may well be identical with it. Although Akhalkalaki does not feature, the nearby town of Akhaltsikhe does (probably because it was much more important in the fifteenth century when Dede Korkut was written down). Mention is made of the ‘sixteen thousand black-mailed infidels’ who bore down on the nomadic Türkmen in the surrounding yaylas.145 The details of this particular episode may be legendary, but it clearly reflects the dangers of the Christian towns to the nomadic Turks. Thus the presence of extensive yaylas may well have underlain Alp Arsl¯an’s interest in the region; this becomes even clearer when we consider the precise places the Georgian chronicle mentions in its account of the campaign. Shavsheti, Klarjeti, Tao and Trialeti, where apparently the sultan campaigned in person, are all regions of yayla.146 It is also interesting to note that Alp Arsl¯anundertook this campaign immediately in the wake of defeating his rival for the sultanate, Qutlumush, who is known to have commanded widespread support among the Türkmen – in all probability, the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyawho had first settled the area.147 Alp Arsl¯an’scampaign of 1064 may well have been motivated by his need to assert his authority among the tribesmen, precisely by performing the traditional task of a tribal chief – providing his followers with pasturage, destroying or neutralising any possible threats from surrounding towns and fortresses by dismantling them or handing them over to allies. If this interpretation is valid, then it casts an interesting light on the Selj¯uqs’ ghul¯am army: on this occasion, at least, the latter was used to secure territory for the Türkmen. In 1070–1, in the prelude to Manzikert, Alp Arsl¯anhad led a campaign into the kı¸slaksof Tulkhum.148 The battle of Manzikert itself has been the subject of extensive analyses which it is not my aim to supplement here.149 It suffices to note that even in the aftermath of his victory and the capture of the Byzantine emperor, Alp Arsl¯anwas not interested in annexing significant territory. According to Ibn al-Ath¯ır,he demanded only a ransom, the release of prisoners and military aid 150 when he required it. The more detailed account of Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ıappears to be the only Muslim account which specifies territorial concessions to be made by the Byzantines: Antioch, Edessa, Manbij and Manzikert are to be surrendered ‘for they were taken from the Muslims recently’.151

145 Dede Korkut O˘guznameleri,p.98;Book of Dede Korkut,p.90. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 146 Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History, p. 298. 147 Peacock, ‘Nomadic society’, pp. 219–20. 148 Matthew, Chronicle, p. 130; Alp Arsl¯an’scampaign in the Diy¯arBakr is confirmed by Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil,X,p.64. 149 For a detailed study of the Islamic sources see Hillenbrand, Turkish Myth and Muslim Symbol, and the bibliography therein for further references in the secondary literature. 150 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil,X,p.67. 151 Hillenbrand, Turkish Myth and Muslim Symbol, p. 71; Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 150. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 151 The civil war that ensued as Romanus was toppled may have caused the collapse of the Byzantine military infrastructure,152 but even before Manzikert, Byzantium was clearly hard pressed to stop the Türkmen penetrating deep into its territories, far beyond the newly annexed Caucasian provinces. Matthew of Edessa, for example, reports that Sivas was sacked in 1059–60,153 and we have already noted that Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al’scampaign of 1048 is said to have come within 15 days’ march of Constantinople. Indeed, even as Romanus Diogenes was campaigning in the east, the Türkmen chief Afsh¯ın, Alp Arsl¯an’sally, raided as far Amorium in western Anatolia, killing 100,000 people according to Ibn al-Ath¯ır’s doubtless 154 exaggerated account. As Sibt. puts it, ‘In this year 461[/1068], news came that Afsh¯ınthe Turk – who was one of Alp Arsl¯an’scomrades (min as.h. ¯abAlb Arsl¯an)– and the Ghuzz who were with him, who were settled on the borders of Anatolia in the region of Georgia,155 reached Amorium’.156 Other cities plundered were Caesarea (Kayseri) and Niksar.157 Therefore, Manzikert did not suddenly lay Byzantine Anatolia open to attack, for it was already a regular target of raids. However, the collapse of Byzantine authority meant that the Türkmen could now start settling the region without hindrance. This process roughly coincided with David the Builder’s expulsion of the Türkmen from Georgia, and it is tempting to imagine that many moved from their accustomed pastures in Caucasia to settle inner Anatolia.

The impact of the Türkmen Scholars differ on the effects of the nomadic invasions in Iran and Anatolia. For Lambton, the Selj¯uqinvasions were a positive development for Iran, and the number of nomads involved was limited, avoiding any negative repercussions for agriculture. Indeed, Lambton even suggested that the nomads actually contributed to the prosperity of Iran, by providing milk products, meat and wool from their flocks for the towns.158 Scholars of Anatolia usually paint a radically different picture, although even here the occasional fragment of evidence suggests that there were certain benefits to the Türkmen presence: in the twelfth century, Attaleia/Antalya paid tribute to the Türkmen ‘so as to have a trade in the necessities of life’ with them.159 More typical, however, is the view of Vryonis, for whom the

152 Cheynet, ‘Une désastre militaire’. 153 Matthew, Chronicle, pp. 94–6. 154 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, X, p. 413, who appears to date the events to 463/1070–1; Sibt. b. al-Jazw¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 137, dating the Amorium attack to 461/1068. For more information on Afsh¯ın’sactivities Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 in this period, see Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle, p. 125. 155 Muq¯ımanbi-at.r¯af al-R¯ummin nah.¯ıyatal-Khazar: as is often the case, a copyist has confused graphically similar Khazar with Jurz, meaning Georgia; cf. Minorsky, Studies in Caucasian History, p. 32, n. 20. 156 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 139. 157 See Cahen, ‘La première pénétration’, pp. 25–6. 158 Lambton, ‘Aspects of Saljuq-Ghuzz settlement in Persia’, p. 124. 159 William of Tyre, cited in Hendy, Studies, p. 117. 152 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions Selj¯uqinvasions were an unmitigated disaster, bringing to Anatolia large numbers of nomads and leaving a trail of destruction and burnt cities in their wake.160 This difference is reflected in many of the primary sources. Understandably, authors like N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı, writing for a Selj¯uqaudience, tend to gloss over the deeds (or misdeeds) of the tribesmen, while Armenian and Byzantine authors like Aristakes Lastiverttsi, Matthew of Edessa and Anna Comnena emphasise the destructiveness of the nomads. The difference is probably not just one of perspective or sources, but also of geographical and demographic realities. Lambton argues that widespread Turkish settlement in Azerbaijan did not occur until the Mongol period,161 but there was undoubtedly a substantial Turkish population in Anatolia by the thirteenth century, which may have been reinforced and strengthened by further migrations under the Mongols, but clearly was significant in its own right.162 Studies based on archaeology as well as literary sources indicate that there was not, in general, sudden devastation in Iran or Iraq in the period, in contrast to what is usually thought to have been the case in Anatolia. This section examines and compares evidence for the Selj¯uqimpact on Anatolia, Caucasia and the Middle East more generally, looking first at their impact on pre-existing nomadic groups, then at their relations with settled and urban populations.

The Selj¯uqsand other nomadic groups The Selj¯uqinvasions are often depicted as destructive waves of nomads breaking on an unsuspecting Middle East. Yet the whole region was long accustomed to nomadism. The interaction between the settled and the nomad is a theme recorded by written sources in Syria as early as the second millennium BC.163 Nomadic lifestyles have been attested in eastern Anatolia since prehistoric times.164 There is no necessary antithesis between nomadism and wider prosperity. The most significant nomadic populations in pre-Selj¯uqeleventh-century Middle East were Bedouin Arabs and Kurds. Often these were politically organised and had sometimes established their own principalities based in cities, such as the Kurdish Shadd¯adidsof Caucasia and the Marw¯anidsof the Diy¯arBakr. Other nomadic groups formed confederations in Iran. Particularly prominent were the Shab¯ankaraof F¯ars,165 who came to prominence in the later eleventh century with the Shab¯ankarawars which are said to have devastated the province. However,

160 Vryonis, Decline, pp. 143–84. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 161 Lambton, ‘Aspects of Saljuq-Ghuzz settlement’, p. 124. 162 See Chapter 3 pp. 84–5. 163 Victor Matthews, Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari Kingdom (ca 1830–1760 BC), Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978. 164 Aynur Özfırat, Do˘guAnadolu Yayla Kültürleri (M.Ö. Binyıl), Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2001. 165 It is questionable whether the Shab¯ankarawere actually Kurdish, see V. Minorsky, ‘Kurds, Kurdistan’, EI 2, V, p. 430. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 153 Lambton denies any connection between these wars and competition by rival sets of Türkmen nomads; for her, the Shab¯ankara–Selj¯uqrivalry was a purely political matter, a struggle over central government control over the province.166 In F¯ars,the Türkmen were led by Q¯avurtb. Chaghr¯ı,and as the local historian Ibn al-Balkh¯ıwrote at the beginning of the twelfth century, ‘with the raiding of the Shab¯ankaraon the one hand and the Turks and Türkmen on the other’ the province 167 was ruined. Later, however, the Shab¯ankaraleader Fad.l¯uya was granted F¯ars by Alp Arsl¯an.168 In Kirm¯an,Lambton detects similar contests for political control 169 between local Baloch and Q¯ufs. tribesmen and the Selj¯uqs. Nonetheless, as in F¯ars, we have evidence of damage done to the local economy by the Türkmen, who seized ‘camels, mules and provisions’,170 presumably belonging to the local nomadic population. Neither F¯arsnor Kirm¯anfeature prominently in accounts of early Selj¯uqhistory, supporting Lambton’s assertion that Türkmen settlement was limited there (although later Kirm¯anexperienced extensive Türkmen incursions). The Türkmen probably had little interest in such areas when better pastures were to be found elsewhere, and southern Iran was not conducive to the type of nomadism the Selj¯uqsand their followers practiced. The latter relied on Bactrian camels, which are resilient to cold but dislike heat and humidity171 – precisely the climate of southern Iran. However, in the more northerly areas of Iran and the Jaz¯ıra, the Türkmen had a much greater impact. The first recorded Türkmen–Kurdish clashes came soon after the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya reached Azerbaijan, which had a significant Kurdish population. Indeed, the ruling Raww¯adiddynasty, although claiming Arab descent, had itself become ‘Kurdicised’ as is shown through its adoption of Kurdish names like Maml¯an.172 Hostilities appear to have been sparked off by the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya’s attack on Mar¯aghain and around which Hadhb¯an¯ıya Kurds were settled. The Hadhb¯an¯ıleader, Ab¯u’l-Hayj¯a’b. Rab¯ıbal-Dawla, and the Raww¯adidVahs¯ud¯an made a peace that enabled them to chase the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya from Azerbaijan, albeit temporarily.173 However, after a raid on Armenia, one group returned to the Lake Urm¯ıyaregion ‘and the lands of Ab¯u’l-Hayj¯a’the Hadhb¯an¯ı,and the Kurds there fought them because of their bad neighbourly behaviour which they disliked … many people were killed and the Ghuzz plundered the agricultural districts (saw¯ad al-bil¯ad) and they killed many Kurds’.174 As so often, competition for limited land

166 Lambton, ‘Aspects of Saljuq-Ghuzz settlement’, p. 122. 167 Ibn al-Balkh¯ı, F¯arsn¯ama, G. Le Strange and R. Nicholson (eds.), London: Gibb Memorial Trust, 1921, p. 133. 168 Ibid., p. 166. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 169 Lambton, ‘Aspects of Saljuq-Ghuzz settlement’, p. 123. 170 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 510. 171 Claude Cahen, ‘Nomades et sedentaires dans le monde musulman du milieu du moyen age’ in Richards, Islamic Civilisation, p. 102: Xavier de Planhol, Les fondements géographiques de l’histoire de l’islam, Paris: Flammarion, 1968, pp. 30–2. 172 C.E. Bosworth, ‘Raww¯adids’, EI 2, VIII, pp. 469–70. 173 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 382; Bar Hebreaus, Chronography, I, p. 198. 174 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 383. 154 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions resources seems to have been at the core of the conflict. Vahs¯ud¯an’smassacre of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyain Tabriz in 432/1040–1 prompted further clashes with the Hadhb¯an¯ıya, for the Türkmen fled south to Hakkari where they seized the Kurds’ women and goods, forcing them to take in the mountains. Eventually, however, Ab¯u ’l-Hayj¯a’managed to defeat them175 as ‘the tribes of the mountain Kurds gathered together’.176 The ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya were no more popular elsewhere, and Kurdish groups made a number of alliances to try to fend them off. Qirw¯ash,leader of the Bedouin ‘Uqaylids of northern Iraq, who himself maintained a nomadic lifestyle, was allied with the Bashnaw¯ıyaKurds against the Türkmen. In both the Diy¯arBakr and the northern Jaz¯ıra,local rulers like the Kurdish Marw¯anidsdesperately sought the cash to bribe them to stay away.177 The arrival of Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯alin Iran offered no respite. Hamad¯anwas an area with a major Kurdish population,178 and its Daylamite ruler the Kak¯uyidGarshasf was forced to take refuge from Ibr¯ah¯ım with the Kurds who themselves became one of the Türkmen’s targets.179 Hamad¯an seems to have been a popular area for Türkmen settlement,180 which may be why it was of such interest to Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al.Selj¯uqcampaigns against the Kurds are, however, sometimes given a more positive gloss by the Muslim chroniclers, such as Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı,who records that Alp Arsl¯antook action against the Kurds of Lor as a result of the latter’s proclivity for highway robbery.181 Elsewhere, as far away as Shirw¯an,‘the settlements of the Kurds’ were subject to Türkmen looting.182 The close proximity of the highly desirable pasturage of M¯ugh¯ancan hardly be coincidental. Clearly, the fact that places like Hamad¯an,Azerbaijan and Shirw¯anwere suitable for a nomadic economy and were favoured by both Kurds and Türkmen for settlement was a significant factor in the clashes between these groups. However, there were also plenty of occasions when Kurds assisted the invaders. The most notable example is the ‘Ann¯azid,Sa‘d¯ıb.Ab¯ı ’l-Shawk, who joined forces with the Türkmen in 438/1046–7. ‘The reason for this was that [Sa‘d¯ı’s]uncle had married his mother, neglected his interests and despised him. Furthermore he had swindled him in the matter of the pastures of the Sh¯adhinj¯anKurds’.183 To get even, Sa‘d¯ı and the Sh¯adhinj¯anKurds joined Ibr¯ah¯ımYinal’s raiding party. The following year, the Kurds of Lor, subsequently to be the target of Alp Arsl¯an’swrath, had sufficient common interest with Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯alto deliver into his hands Surkh¯ab,

175 Ibid., IX, p. 384. 176 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, I, p. 198. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 177 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 386–7. 178 Minorsky, ‘Kurds, Kurdistan’, p. 450; cf. Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 320. 179 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, pp. 528–9; ibid., IX, pp. 538 for another example of Türkmen raiding on Kurdish areas. 180 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at,p.31. 181 Ibid., p. 144. 182 Minorsky, History of Sharvan and Darband,p.35. 183 Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amil, IX, p. 532. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 155 another of Sa‘d¯ı’suncles.184 Indeed, Kurds even helped the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya,guiding them across the mountains of Azerbaijan into the northern Jaz¯ıraand Diy¯arBakr when they were fleeing Ibr¯ah¯ımYinal’s advance,185 although a degree of self-interest at having the unwelcome visitors move on was doubtless also at work. Relations between nomadic Arabs and the Türkmen were equally varied. Mosul was a particular focus of fighting as Mu‘tamid al-Dawla, the local ruler, sought to dispel the Türkmen.186 According to Cahen, it was precisely out of fear for their pastures that the Bedouin joined the cause of Bas¯as¯ır¯ı,hoping he would help rid them of the menace.187 However, this is debatable: Arab and Turkish nomadism are very different, relying on different types of camel, the dromedary and the Bactrian respectively, which operate in different environments. In the words of de Planhol, ‘Les Turcs sont des nomads d’altitude, de hautes terres et de steppes froides. Les arabes restent des nomads de plain et des déserts chauds’.188 Even in areas where the two groups do meet, such as the Zagros mountains, their lifestyles are sufficiently different that there is not necessarily any conflict over pasturage which can be rotated between them seasonally.189 However, even if in contrast to the Kurds there was no reason for conflict over pastureland, the Türkmen were not a wholly welcome presence to the Arabs. A group of Türkmen led by one Ibn Kh¯anoperated around Mird¯asid-ruledAleppo, into the factional politics of which they became drawn.190 ‘At¯ıyab. al-Ru’ql¯ıya granted Ibn Kh¯an’smen 11,000 dinars per month and ‘settled them in the cultivated areas (al-h. ¯ad.ir) outside Aleppo. They wandered around this border area, sustained by what they took from the Byzantines’.191 ‘At¯ıya’saim was to use the Türkmen against his nephew, Mah.m¯ud b. Nas.r Shibl al-Dawla, but he subsequently took fright and ordered the ah.d¯ath, the gangs, of Aleppo to kill the Türkmen in the town. As a result, Ibn Kh¯anand the survivors went over to ‘At¯ıya’senemy Mah.m¯ud, eventually securing victory for him and the surrender of Aleppo citadel by ‘At¯ıya. The Türkmen’s popularity in the city remained at rock bottom, however, and its citizens insisted they be barred from the town. Although Ibn Kh¯analong with his men was apparently granted the town of Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘m¯an,he was forced to seek help from Iraq against the ah.d¯ath.192 This overview suggests that for other nomadic groups in the Middle East, both Arab and Kurdish, the Türkmen presented both a threat and an opportunity. They were a threat in that they represented competition for land – a problem that was

184 Ibid., IX, p. 536. 185 Ibid., IX, p. 385. 186 Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, I, pp. 202, 209. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 187 Cahen, ‘La première penetration’, p. 19; Cahen’s source is not entirely clear but is perhaps Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, pp. 4–5, which although it attests to Kurds and Arabs joining forces with Bas¯as¯ır¯ıto protect their lands does not specifically mention pastures. 188 De Planhol, Fondements,p.41. 189 Loc. cit. 190 On the Mirdasids, see Th. Bianquis, ‘Mird¯as,Ban¯u’, EI 2,VII, pp. 115–23. 191 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 122. 192 Ibid., p. 124. 156 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions more acute for Kurdish groups in Caucasia and Azerbaijan whose transhumant pastoralism was much more similar to that of the Türkmen than the Bedouin of the desert. Nonetheless, the reception of Ibn Kh¯anand his small band in northern Syria suggests that here too the Türkmen’s arrival was unwelcome. At the same time, the Türkmen offered contenders in power struggles a chance to tip the balance in their favour, often against their own relatives.

The Türkmen impact on settled life Whatever Selj¯uqimpact on other nomadic groups, literary sources are replete with tales of the Türkmen’s plundering and destruction of settlements. The account of Aristakes of the destruction wrought on Armenia is typical of response of eastern Christian authors to the Turks:

Who can record the evils which [the Selj¯uqs]then visited upon the land? Whose mind is able to enumerate them? The entire land was full of corpses – cultivated and uncultivated places, roads and desolate places, caves, craggy spots, pine groves and steep places – and [the Selj¯uqs]set on fire and polluted all the cultivated places, homes and churches. And the flame of that fire rose higher than [the flame of] the furnace of Babylon. In this way, they ruined the entire land, not once but three times, one after the other, until the country was totally devoid of inhabitants and the bellowing of animals ceased.193

Armenia had become ‘a country laid waste and empty of inhabitants, destroyed cities, uncultivated fields which produce thorns, reflecting frightful, terrible neglect’.194 The literary evidence for destruction in Anatolia has been laid out in extenso by Vryonis,195 and there is no need to repeat it here. However, as Vryonis points out, the destruction was neither complete nor universal, despite the long list of settlements pillaged which seems to comprise almost every major town in Anatolia.196 Furthermore, there was a certain tendency among Christian chroniclers to attribute unrelated misfortunes to the deeds of the Türkmen. Thus the end of the Armenian kingdom of Vaspurakan through its surrender by Senekerim to the Byzantine Emperor Basil II is attributed by Matthew to the pressure of the Turks, who forced Senekerim to seek Byzantine aid.197 In fact, it is debatable whether the Turks had got anywhere near Armenia as early as 1018. Even if we do accept there may have been a raid at this date, then it was very much a one-off, and there cannot have been any significant pressure on Vaspurakan until the first ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyamoved to neighbouring Azerbaijan around 1029. The fall of Armenian Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

193 Aristakes, History,p.84. 194 Ibid., p. 103. 195 Vryonis, Decline, pp. 143–216. 196 Ibid., pp. 164–9. 197 Matthew, Chronicle, pp. 44–5. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 157 Vaspurakan was thus the result of Byzantine rather than Selj¯uqpressure.198 This sort of distortion applies equally to information about economic conditions, and is present in Crusader sources for Anatolia as much as Greek ones.199 Muslim authors are rarely quite as explicit – or rhetorical – as Christian authors in their condemnation of the Selj¯uqs,although as we have seen there are numerous reports that recount misdeeds ranging from massacres to burning down mosques. There are even some allusions in texts to the economic consequences of the Selj¯uq invasions: Y¯aq¯ut,for example, mentioning the decline of the Diy¯alaregion in Iraq, says that the Nahraw¯ancanal in Iraq fell into disrepair because of the constant passage of Selj¯uqhorses – although this need not be a reference to nomadic military activity and may refer to a later Selj¯uqperiod.200 However, other sources do not support this picture of decline. N¯as.ir-i Khusraw found both Is.fah¯anand Tabr¯ız flourishing when he passed through in the mid-eleventh century,201 even though the latter lay at the heart of Azerbaijan, one of the main targets of the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıya.At the same time, other evidence from Azerbaijan supports the picture of destruction. The contemporary poet Qat.r¯an-i Tabr¯ız¯ıwrote of the Selj¯uqsthat, ‘Because of their plundering, no one was secure in his property, no one could be content about his wealth’.202 He also remarked that, ‘Their intention was always plundering and killing’.203 It would be desirable to adduce some archaeological evidence to assess the impact of the Selj¯uqinvasion to try to balance out the literary evidence, so subject to the biases of its authors. Unfortunately, Islamic archaeology has lagged far behind other fields of enquiry, and is anyway most useful for understanding trends over the longue durée rather than specific events. Moreover, the limited amount of work done to date makes any conclusions drawn on the basis of archaeological evidence extremely tentative. In what follows, no attempt is made to be comprehensive: our knowledge of the archaeology of the period is far too limited to allow this. However, I discuss a variety of sites in the Middle East and Anatolia which have been investigated archaeologically to give some indication of the variety of evidence available. Only one work has attempted to synthesise the archaeological and literary evidence for decline in Iran, The Decline of Iranshahr by Peter Christensen, which deals with the period 500–1500.204 Archaeologists tend to find its handling of

198 Cf. Dédéyan, ‘L’immigration’, p. 51. 199 See Hendy, Studies,p.54. 200 Y¯aq¯ut, Mu‘jam al-Buldan, Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,1993, I, p. 181 (sv. ‘Isk¯af’). Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 201 N¯as.ir-i Khusraw’s Book of Travels, Wheeler M. Thackston (ed. and tr.), Costa Mesa: Mazda, 2001, pp. 6, 125–6. Indeed, Nasir-i Khusraw praises Selj¯uqefforts to alleviate the famine which had struck Is.fah¯an. 202 Kasrav¯ı, Shahriy¯ar¯an-iGum-n¯am, p. 160; D¯ıv¯an-iQat.r¯an-i Tabr¯ız¯ı,H. usayn Ah¯ı(ed.),¯ Tehran: Mu’assasa-yi Mat.b¯u‘¯at¯ı-yiKhazar, n.d., p. 167. 203 Kasrav¯ı, Shahriy¯ar¯an-iGum-n¯am, p. 169; D¯ıv¯an-iQat.r¯an-i Tabr¯ız¯ı, p. 318. 204 Peter Christensen, The Decline of Iranshahr: Irrigation and Environments in the History of the Middle East, 500 BC to AD 1500, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1993. 158 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions archaeological evidence partial and unsatisfactory, while philologists object to the author’s indiscriminate use of translations of primary sources.205 However, given the lack of a more sophisticated work, it is worth taking account of the author’s conclusions and then comparing them with information from elsewhere. Christensen argues that there is no general picture of decline over the millennium he surveys. Be that as it may, he is surely correct that the economic and agricultural development of each province was markedly different. As far as the rather slender evidence he presents for the eleventh century goes, where decline occurs it does not seem to correlate with the Selj¯uqconquests. S¯ıst¯an,for instance, is the area where evidence for the start of decline in the eleventh century is most obvious; but S¯ıst¯anwas not settled in significant numbers by the Turks, and indeed its climate is unsuitable for pastoral nomadism. The decline must have been caused by other factors. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, does not provide any clear evidence of decline even though this was a region greatly affected by the Selj¯uqmigrations (although Christensen follows Lambton in rejecting the idea that significant numbers of Turks settled here before the Mongol period).206 Two areas where more detailed studies have been undertaken are the Diy¯ala plains in Iraq and Kh¯uzist¯an in western Iran. Adams’ diachronic study of the rural hinterland of Baghdad suggests a varied picture even in this limited area. By the time of the Mongol conquests, some places had gone out of cultivation, while in some the inhabitants had been forced to nomadise or emigrate; elsewhere, a considerable amount of land was still settled and under cultivation.207 Occasionally Adams does suggest that the Selj¯uqsmay have been responsible for destruction in individual settlements or waterways,208 but it is clear that the decline long predated their arrival, dating back to the tenth century and earlier.209 A similar picture is presented by the sole study that has attempted to assess the Selj¯uqimpact on a specific region. The doctoral dissertation of Nanette Pyne on Kh¯uzist¯anuses archaeological, numismatic and literary evidence with considerable sensitivity, and it is regrettable it has not had the impact it deserves, never having been published. Pyne’s conclusions support those of Adams. Decline had started in the tenth century and accelerated after 1000,210 with climatic conditions disastrous for agriculture in 418/1027, 420/1029, 421/1030, 423/1031211 – before the Selj¯uqsappeared on the scene. Warfare was endemic in the region from 407/1016.212 Thus there was

205 See the reviews by Alastair Northedge in BSOAS 62/i (1999), pp. 127–8 and Michael Morony in Iranian Studies 32/iii (1999), pp. 421–3. 206 Christensen, Decline, pp. 209–10. 207 Robert M. Adams, The Land behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1965, p. 106. 208 Ibid., pp. 91–2, 87. 209 Ibid., pp. 84–6, 103–05. 210 Nanette Pyne, ‘The impact of the Selj¯uq invasion on Khuzestan: an inquiry into the historical, geographical, numismatic and archaeological evidence’, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Washington, 1982, p. 267. 211 Ibid., p. 109. 212 Ibid., p. 117. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 159 no sudden collapse, and as Pyne puts it, ‘by the time the Selj¯uqstook control in Kh¯uzist¯an(in 446/1054), the agricultural reverses may have been too drastic to repair’.213 As in Iraq, government failure to maintain irrigation works, climatic conditions and the B¯uyidpolicy of parcelling out the land as iqt.¯a‘ to military chiefs who were concerned more to realise a quick profit rather than to invest in long-term productivity all contributed to the economic decline of Kh¯uzist¯an. The evidence from these two regions suggests that T. ughril’s claim that he had inherited a ruined land he was unable to revive may well be true, at least in part. However, neither central Iraq nor Kh¯uzist¯anare suitable for supporting a large Turkish nomadic population in the long term. These studies’ conclusions may not, therefore, be valid for regions which were centres of nomadic settlement. For this, it would be desirable to adduce some evidence from Azerbaijan, but its settlement history and archaeology remain largely unknown for the eleventh century. We must therefore turn to Anatolia, which has been much more thoroughly, if still inadequately, studied. The situation seems at first sight relatively simple. Numerous Byzantine sites, both minor and major, give credence to a picture of devastation in the later eleventh century, disrupting the gradual economic recovery from the Arab invasions of the tenth century. The major Byzantine city of Amorium, for instance, subject to many devastating Arab raids in earlier periods, seems to have been largely abandoned in the wake of the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert, although it was reoccupied later in the Selj¯uqperiod.214 The excavators conclude that the Selj¯uqinvasions had ‘a profound effect on prosperity’ from which the city never recovered.215 A rather different Byzantine settlement was the town at Bo˘gazköy,east of Ankara, built among the ruins of the Hittite captial Hattusa and its rural hinterland. Here too, the site was abandoned in the wake of Manzikert, and this can be reasonably securely dated from the numismatic evidence.216 Even in instances where settlements remained under Byzantine control in the long term, such as the Lycian coast, evidence points to destruction caused by the Türkmen in the late eleventh century, followed by a gradual recovery.217 Research on climate and agriculture in Cappadocia appears to bear out the literary sources, with pollen samples from Nar Gölü that provide evidence for the region’s vegetation suggesting a period of destruction and agricultural collapse in the seventh century (the Arab invasions), a recovery in the tenth century, and another sudden dowturn

213 Ibid., pp. 267–8. 214 C.S. Lightfoot, ‘Amorium: the history and archaeology of an ancient city in the Turkish period’ in Uluslararası Dördüncü Türk Kültürü Kongresi (4–7 Kasım 1997, Ankara), Ankara: Atatürk Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Kültür Merkezi Yayınları, 2000, II, pp. 79–89. 215 Ibid., p. 89. 216 Peter J. Neve, ‘Bo˘gazköy-Hattusain byzantinischer Zeit’ in V. Kavari, J. Lefort and C. Morrison (eds.), Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin, Paris: P. Letthielleux, 1991, II, pp. 91–111. 217 Clive Foss, ‘Strobilos and related sites’, Anatolian Studies 38 (1988), p. 149 (reprinted in idem, History and Archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor, Aldershot: Variorum, 1990); idem, ‘The Lycian coast in the Byzantine age’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 48 (1994), p. 50 (reprinted in idem, Cities, Fortresses and Villages of Byzantine Asia Minor, Aldershot: Variorum, 1996). 160 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions around AD 1100, which is interpreted as evidence for the destructiveness of the Selj¯uqs.218 However, this evidence is less conclusive than at first appears. General surveys of the Byzantine economy that assume prosperity in the eleventh century usually rely on disparate fragments of information gathered from different corners of the empire. In fact, there was considerable regional variation, and indeed variation within regions: the coast was always more prosperous than the Anatolian interior. Much of the latter was unpopulated and uncultivated, not through any activities of the Turks, but because of factors like the arid climate, which was the real reason that Crusaders often had difficulty in finding provisions.219 For example, the letters of the bishop of Euchaita (Avkat, Mecitözü in modern Çorum province) composed around 1050, before there is any indication that the Turks had arrived, stress the wildness and poverty of the land, where survival was a constant struggle, at least in winter.220 This picture of desolation in much of Anatolia before the Selj¯uqsarrived is supported by information from several areas. Survey work done on the mountainous interior of Lycia indicates that when the Türkmen arrived, the land was already deserted, having been largely abandoned over the eleventh century owing to a decline in regional trade.221 Paphlagonia in northern Anatolia was undergoing a long-term decline. In the words of the team that surveyed the province, ‘by the eleventh century at the latest, much earlier in some regions, the urban experiment in Inner Paphlagonia had totally collapsed’.222 From about 700 AD onwards there is ‘a pattern of steady rural collapse’,223 with the population starting to take refuge in fortified hilltop sites, which can be dated to the period 800–1200. Although the situation is perhaps more ambiguous than this would suggest,224 by the eleventh century ‘the interlude of classical urbanism was over’225 – before any Turks had arrived. Furthermore, in the case of Paphlagonia,

218 John Haldon, “Cappadocia will be given over to ruin and become a desert’: environmental evidence for historically-attested events in the 7th and 10th centuries’ in Klaus Belke et al. (eds.), Byzantina Mediterranea: Festschrift Johannes Koder zum 65. Geburtstag, Vienna: Bohlau, 2007, pp. 215–30. 219 Hendy, Studies, pp. 54–7. 220 Ibid., pp. 138–41. 221 Pamela Armstrong, ‘Selj¯uqsbefore the Selj¯uqs:nomads and frontiers inside Byzantium’ in Eastmond, Eastern Approaches, pp. 277–86, esp. 279. Full results of the survey of Balboura edited by Jim Coulton will be published by the British Institute at Ankara, monograph 43. On population in decline in parts of Lycia in the mid Byzantine period, see Hansgered Hellenkamper and Friedrich Hild, Tabulae Imperii Byzantini VIII: Lykien und Pamphylien, Vienna: Verlag der Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004, I, pp. 212–5. 222 Roger Matthews and Claudia Glatz, At Empire’s Edge: Project Paphlagonia Regional Survey in North-central Turkey, London: British Institute at Ankara, 2009, p. 191. 223 Ibid., p. 193. 224 See James Crow, ‘Alexios Komnenos and Kastamon: castles and settlement in middle Byzantine Paphlagonia’ in Margaret Mullett and Dion Smith (eds.), Alexios I Komnenos, Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Texts, 1996, pp. 23, 31. 225 Ibid., p. 35. The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 161 the main literary evidence for the region’s destruction by the Turks has been misinterpreted: Vryonis indicates that the Crusaders who passed through the region in 1101 found it ‘partly deserted, and the earth scorched’.226 However, examining Vryonis’s main source, the Crusader chronicler Albert of Aachen, it becomes clear that it was in fact the Crusaders themselves who caused the destruction.227 So in Paphlagonia, there was no sudden disjunction caused by the Selj¯uqinvasions, but a general trend of urban decline which may have started as much as 500 years earlier, but had certainly set in by the eve of the Turkish invasions. Doubtless the early Türkmen contributed further to this in some measure, but perhaps not decisively or even as much as the Crusaders. It is regrettable that northeastern Anatolia has been almost entirely neglected by archaeologists and so we must leave it out of the picture. For the old Byzantine frontier with the Arabs in the southeast, both in Syria and Cilicia, there is rather more evidence, in part because of the rescue work caused by the construction of dams, although scholarship has been more interested in earlier periods than that under consideration here.228 In general, research supports the pattern of decline in the seventh and eighth centuries with recovery in the ninth and tenth.229 One of the few sites which has been studied with attention to the eleventh century is Gritille, near the heart of the kı¸slaksof the Diy¯arBakr. Here there appears to have been contraction of rural settlement in the early eleventh century, as the rural population took refuge in the fortified settlement. However, there is no clear evidence to associate this with the coming of the Turks, or indeed of depopulation and nomadisation in the wake of the Selj¯uqinvasions. It is only with the Mongols in the thirteenth century that a significant decline in population at Gritille can be observed.230 Further south, archaeologically northern Syria is notorious for ‘two hundred missing years’ – the period between c. 950 and 1150, when there is apparently little evidence of settlement and urban life.231 In some instances, the evidence for settlement (or its absence) has evidently been misinterpreted through the misdating of ceramics,232 and the study by Stefan Heidemann has shown that in fact the policies of Selj¯uqrulers contributed to ‘the renaissance of towns’ in the region in

226 Vryonis, Decline, p. 162. 227 Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana: history of the journey to Jerusalem, Susan B. Edgington (ed. and tr.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007, pp. 596–7. 228 See Decker, ‘Frontier settlement’. 229 Ibid., pp. 249–64. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 230 Redford, Archaeology of the Frontier, pp. 255, 263, 270. 231 Stefan Heidemann, Die Renaissance der Städte in Nordsyrien und Nordmesopotamien: Städtische Entwinklung und wirtschaftliche Bedingungen in ar-Raqqa und Harran von der Zeit der beduinischen Vorherrschaft bis zu den Seldschuken, Leiden: Brill, 2002, pp. 1–12; cf. Karin Bartl, ‘The Balih Valley, northern Syria during the Islamic period: remarks concerning the historical topography’, Berytus 41 (1993–4), pp. 29–38. 232 Robert K. Faulkner, ‘Jordan in the early Islamic period: the use and abuse of pottery’, Berytus 41 (1993–4), pp. 39–52. 162 The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions the reign of Maliksh¯ahand subsequently.233 However, the decline in settlement that did occur (largely in rural areas) started under nomadic Arab dynasties in the tenth century, and thus cannot be laid at the door of the Türkmen. In striking contrast, the literary sources indicate an increase in population in the tenth and eleventh centuries, at least in the cultivated western parts of Syria, and indeed an increase in agricultural productivity.234 The picture is one of prosperity, notwithstanding the inevitable damage caused by political disorder both before and after the arrival of the Selj¯uqs.235 Where economic decline and a reduction in cultivated land did occur, in the areas adjacent to the desert near H. ims., it seems to have been caused by the activities of the Bedouin.236 Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘m¯an, granted briefly to the Türkmen chief Ibn Kh¯an,did decline in the twelfth century, but probably because of its location on the frontline between Crusaders and Muslims.237 On occasion, though, as at Ramla, the Türkmen were responsible for destruction, but again this fits into a pattern of long-term decline that had started before the arrival of the Selj¯uqsand was exacerbated by natural disasters 238 like earthquakes. Indeed, Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ıreports that the Türkmen actively sought to restore the agriculture of Ramla in 464/1071–2, forcibly repopulating the town and making the population tend the olive trees, from which they then derived a substantial profit.239 This superficial survey allows us to put the Selj¯uqinvasions in some context. Although the details vary from region to region, it seems fair to suggest that significant areas of the Middle East were suffering from depopulation before the Selj¯uqsarrived on the scene. From Kh¯uzist¯anto Lycia, the fragments of evidence suggest that the Türkmen did not themselves cause the failure of the rural economy; it must remain a cause for speculation as to whether it is a coincidence that so many areas of the region were clearly suffering from chronic insecurity, or whether the economic failure of the region is related to the extreme weather conditions so frequently noted by chroniclers in the period. However, it does not seem credible in our current state of knowledge to suggest that the Türkmen were positively beneficial to the economy, as Lambton does for southern Iran. This is not to suggest that the chroniclers are lying. No doubt in some instances the Türkmen were extremely destructive, and it is very likely they did bring about the end of some rural settlements like Bo˘gazköy.However, as with Matthew of Edessa’s account of the surrender of the kingdom of Vaspurakan to Byzantium,

233 Heidemann, Renaissance, pp. 290–305. 234 Muhsin D. Yusuf, Economic Survey of Syria during the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries, Berlin: Klaus Schwartz Verlag, 1985, pp. 52–3. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 235 Ibid., pp. 173–5, 177–95. 236 Ibid., pp. 169, 171–2. 237 Ibid., pp. 174–5. 238 Ibid., pp. 169–70. 239 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯at, p. 153. See also Jean-Luc Krwczyk, ‘The relationship between pastoral nomadism and agriculture: northern Syria and the Jazira in the eleventh century’, JRUR 1 (1985), p. 13 (reprinted in Michael Morony (ed.), The Formation of the Classical Islamic World, XII: Production and the Exploitation of Resources, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002). The nature and impact of the Turkish invasions 163 the Turks are often made to bear responsibility by the chroniclers for disasters which did happen in the period, but for which they were not necessarily the cause. The picture of devastation that Aristakes and Matthew paint in eastern Anatolia may well be accurate, but that does not mean it was all the Türkmen’s fault. Byzantium’s problem was not restricted to the repair and orientation of its eastern border defences, although these clearly did not help its cause; significant areas of Anatolia, like much of the rest of the Middle East, were undergoing economic decline and depopulation, which the Türkmen were able to turn to their advantage in their search for new pastures and areas to settle. Even if Romanus had won the Battle of Manzikert and the ensuing Byzantine civil wars had never occurred, it is unlikely he would have been able to change these long-term trends on the ground. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Conclusion

The road from tribe to empire is a well-trodden one. From antiquity to the fifteenth century, the nomadic tribes of the Eurasian steppe, united by economic necessity or lust for the luxuries of the settled world beyond the steppe, were brought together from time to time into confederations that terrified the settled world but were usually short-lived. From China to Europe, settled peoples feared the predations of groups such as the Huns, the Xiong-Nu, and the Mongols. The Middle East had its own indigenous traditions of nomadism and transhumant pasturalism, but had had less contact with the world of the Eurasian steppe, and the Türkmen were regarded with a similar contempt and hostility. Tales of their ragged appearance, their unfamiliarity with civilised ways, and their barbarity need to be heavily discounted, as they represent what Byzantine and Muslim authors expected to see at least as much as what they actually did. The emergence of the Selj¯uqsfollows the typical patterns of steppe state formation, of internal strife leading to the rise of a leader, even if T. ughril never attained the unchallenged supremacy of, say, Chinggis Khan. This book’s thesis is, quite simply, that early Selj¯uqhistory should be understood in this steppe context. The requirements of tribal society and the ecology of the Middle East were of fundamental importance in determining the nature of the Selj¯uqconquests. However, these steppe influences should not be considered ‘primitive’. Selj¯uq military achievements would have been unfeasible without discipline, and victories were secured as much by sieges as by bow and arrow, the typical nomad’s weapon. If at times the Selj¯uqsignored fortified places, this reflects their own strategic priorities of securing pasture and plunder, the twin necessities upon which a leader’s success was based. Campaigns in Anatolia and Caucasia were thus far from being a diversionary measure, designed to keep the troublesome tribesmen away from Iran and Iraq.

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Muslim settlements were hit just as hard as Christian ones, and Vahs¯ud¯anof Tabr¯ız’sexperience of the Türkmen was no more positive than that of the Christian rulers of Byzantium or Armenia. It is hard to believe that T. ughril would have prevented the tribesmen from ravaging Iran if he had seen it as advantageous to do so. However, the richer opportunities of Anatolia and Caucasia, above all the fact that they were the main regions in the Middle East where climate and topography allowed the Turks’ nomadic lifestyle to be maintained, resulted in the concentration 166 Conclusion of Türkmen attacks there. Yet the relationship between the Selj¯uqfamily and the Türkmen tribesmen was fraught with difficulty. On the one hand, T. ughril, Alp Arsl¯anand the young Maliksh¯ah,as well as other senior members of the Selj¯uq family, played their traditional roles as tribal chiefs. On the other, a split between the ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaand the M¯ık¯a’¯ılidsmust have occurred while the Selj¯uqswere still in Transoxiana, and after the conquest of Baghdad T. ughril attempted at least to supplement his tribal followers with ghul¯am troops, presumably in the hope they would prove more biddable. The complexity of tribal politics is underlined by T. ughril’s apparently positive relationship with some ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaleaders, like Qizil. Sometimes the tribesmen suited T. ughril’s ambitions, and sometimes they did not; doubtless they felt the same about T. ughril. At the same time, they remained a force which could not be ignored in the early Selj¯uqstate, hence their ‘claim’ upon the dynasty famously alluded to by Niz. ¯amal-Mulk. However, it would be a mistake to suggest that Selj¯uqsociety was in some sense static, trapped in the steppe world even in the very different circumstances of the Middle East. Clearly, by the end of Alp Arsl¯an’sreign, the Selj¯uqfamily’s position in the eyes of the outside world was transformed from what it had been c. 1000 when they were leaders of a small band. The adoption of Islamic titles like sultan, the minting of Arabic coins and the occupation of great cities such as Baghdad and N¯ısh¯ap¯urmeant they had become – to some degree, at least – Islamic monarchs. Yet alongside this, the traditions of the steppe, the role as tribal chief, persisted. Probably it was under Maliksh¯ahand his successors that this tribal role was squeezed out at the expense of Perso-Islamic political traditions, with the appointment of a shih.na to guard over, and provide for, the tribesmen. The imprisonment of Sultan Sanjar by the ‘Ghuzz’ in 548/1153 demonstrates the ultimate failure of the Selj¯uqsto devise a satisfactory policy towards the tribes, but this must be a subject for future research. The increasing discomfort of the Selj¯uqswith their steppe traditions is demonstrated by our reconstruction of the fate of the Malikn¯ama, the tales of their origins composed for Alp Arsl¯anbased on Turkish oral tradition. By the late twelfth century, all links to the Khazars and even any mention of the period before the Selj¯uqs’arrival in Transoxiana had been removed from Selj¯uqhistoriography. However, in the reigns of T. ughril and Alp Arsl¯an,the Khazar connection remained potent. By stressing their links to the Khazars, and by using ancient titles like Yabgh¯u,the Selj¯uqslaid claim to steppe political traditions stretching back to the Gök-Türks. By the twelfth century, these had either been forgotten or were deliberately discarded. Doubtless this process was linked to Islamisation. As Islam took root, there was less need for the Selj¯uqsultans to propagate a dual identity: one Islamic, one

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 steppe. However, this was not the case as late as the reign of Alp Arsl¯an.There must be some doubt whether all the tribesmen who came west with the Selj¯uqs were Muslims, and their leaders too may have been only lightly touched by Islam. Given incidents such as T. ughril’s role in the burning down of the congregational mosques in Sinj¯ar,the widespread looting and devastation he allowed to the agricultural lands surrounding Baghdad, and indeed the destruction of that city’s most strongly Sunni and most sacred H. anafite areas, the veracity of his image as Conclusion 167

a devout Muslim is questionable. The evidence for H. anaf¯ıfanaticism on the part of the Selj¯uqsis unfounded, and their religious policy was based on pragmatism, varying according to time, place and political advantage, which probably led to their flirtation with H. anbalism. By the time the Selj¯uqsoccupied Baghdad in 1055, T. ughril was evidently anxious to be accepted as a legitimate ruler by the wider Muslim community. It is no coincidence that ‘Az.¯ım¯ımentions his ‘conversion’ to Sunnism in the same year, nor that the ghul¯am army was formed at the same point to counterbalance the tribesmen. Neither step revolutionised the nature of Selj¯uq rule, and the precise meaning of ‘Az.¯ım¯ı’sstatement is debatable, but they do at least point to the perception of a significant shift in T. ughril’s modus operandi. Yet the success of the Selj¯uqscannot be attributed to any one factor. Selj¯uq domination of much of the Middle East was complete even before the ghul¯am army was created, and while the tribal forces were significantly more sophisticated than is often imagined, this alone is not sufficient explanation for their achievements. Internal decline in the other powers the Selj¯uqsencountered doubtless facilitated their victories, but both Byzantium and the Ghaznavids survived despite the loss of vast tracts of territory. Without doubt, the Selj¯uqswere lucky in that their move into the Middle East coincided with the decline of so many major powers, but even so, the rapidity with which Ghaznavid Khur¯as¯an,B¯uyidIran and Iraq, and Byzantine Anatolia collapsed before the Selj¯uqadvance was not to be anticipated. Further research into the widespread, long-term economic decline combined with political instability and collapse in significant areas of the Middle East on the eve of the Selj¯uqinvasions may help us better to understand the dramatic events of the eleventh century. The Selj¯uqsthemselves, even if their commitment to Islam was still only skin deep, would probably have assented to the Qur’¯anicverse so often used to justify the transfer of power, which T. ughril is reported to have appended to the end of a letter sent to Mas‘¯udof Ghazna: ‘[God] gives rule to whom he wills, and takes it from whom he wills, and makes great whom he wills and reduces whom he wills’.1 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017

1H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯aral-Dawla al-Salj¯uq¯ıya, Muh.ammad Iqb¯al(ed.), Beirut: D¯aral-Af¯aqal-Jad¯ıda,1984,¯ p. 5, citing Qur’¯an,s¯urat Al¯ ‘Imr¯an,verse 26. Bibliography

Primary Sources Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem, Susan B. Edgington (ed. and tr.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007. Aristakes Lastiverttsi, History. Russian tr. K. Yuzbashian, Povestvovanie Vardapeta Aristakesa Lastiverttsi, Moscow: Izd. Nauka, 1968; French tr. M. Canard and H. Berberian, Récit des Malheurs de la Nation arménienne, Brussels: Editions de Byzantion, 1973; English tr. Robert Bedrosian, History, New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1985, also published at www.rbedrosian.com. Artsruni ghul¯am Thomas, History of the House of the Artsrunik‘, Robert W. Thomson (tr.), Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1985. Attaleiates, Michael, Historia, I. Bekker (ed.), Bonn: Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, 1853. ‘Az.¯ım¯ı, Ta’r¯ıkh, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1988 (published as Azimi Tarihi: Selçuklularla ilgili bölümler (H. 430–538 = 1038/39–1143/44)). B¯akharz¯ı, D¯ıw¯an, Muh.ammad al-T¯unj¯ı(ed.), Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,1994. Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, Ernest A. Wallis Budge (tr.), London: Oxford University Press, 1932. Bayhaq¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh, Khal¯ılKhat.¯ıbRahbar (ed.),Tehran, Intish¯ar¯at-iMiht¯ab,1376. B¯ır¯un¯ı, al-Ath¯aral-B¯aq¯ıya‘an¯ al-Qur¯unal-Kh¯al¯ıya, E. Sachau (ed.), Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1928. ——, Kit¯ab al-Jam¯ahir fi Ma‘rifat al-Jaw¯ahir, Hyderabad: D¯a’irat al-Ma‘¯arif al-‘Uthm¯an¯ıya,1355. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, Gy. Moravcsik (ed.), R.J.H. Jenkins (tr.), Dumbarton Oaks: Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967. Dede Korkut O˘guznameleri, S. Tezcan and H. Boeschoten (eds.), Istanbul: Yapı Kredi, 2001; Geoffrey Lewis (tr.), The Book of Dede Korkut, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974. Dennis, George T. (ed. and tr.), Three Byzantine Military Treatises, Dumbarton Oaks: Center for Byzantine Studies, 1985. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Ebulgazi Bahadır Han, ¸Secere-iTer¯akime(Türkmenlerin Soykütü˘gü), Zuhal Kargı Ölmez (ed.), Ankara: Simurg, 1996. F¯ariq¯ı, Ta’r¯ıkh al-F¯ariq¯ı: al-Dawla al-Marw¯an¯ıya, Badaw¯ı ‘Abd al-Lat.¯ıf ‘Awad. (ed.), Beirut: D¯aral-Kit¯abal-Lubn¯an¯ı,1974. Frye, Richard N. The Histories of Nishapur, The Hague: Mouton, 1965 (facsimile edition). Gard¯ız¯ı, Zayn al-Akhb¯ar, Rah.¯ım Rid.a-z¯ada Malik (ed.), Tehran: Anjum¯an-i Ath¯ar¯ va Maf¯akhir-iFarhang¯ı,1384. 170 Bibliography

Gurg¯an¯ı,Fakhr al-D¯ın, V¯ısuR¯am¯ın, Muh.ammad Rawshan (ed.), Tehran: S. ad¯a-yiMu‘¯as.ir, 1377. H. amdall¯ahMustawf¯ı, T¯ar¯ıkh-iGuz¯ıda, E. G. Browne (ed.), London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial, 1910–13. H. ud¯udal-‘Alam,¯ ‘The Regions of the World’: a Persian Geography 372 AH–982 AD, V. Minorsky (tr.), Cambridge: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial, 1970. H. usayn¯ı, Akhb¯aral-Dawla al-Salj¯uq¯ıya, Muh.ammad Iqb¯al (ed.), Beirut: D¯ar al-Af¯aq¯ al-Jad¯ıda,1984. Ibn Ab¯ı ’l-Waf¯a’, al-Jaw¯ahir al-Mud.¯ıya f¯ı ’l-T. abaq¯at al-H. anaf¯ıya, ‘Abd al-Fatt¯ah. Muh.ammad al-H. ulw (ed.), Cairo: Hajar, 1993. Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım, Bughyat al-T. alab f¯ıTa’r¯ıkhH. alab, Ali Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1976. Ibn al-Ath¯ır, al-K¯amilf¯ı’l-Ta’r¯ıkh, C. Tornberg (ed.), Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,1965; D.S. Richards (tr.), The Annals of the Saljuq Turks: Selections from al-K¯amilf¯ı’l-Ta’r¯ıkh of ‘Izz al-D¯ın Ibn al-Ath¯ır, London: Routledge, 2002. Ibn al-Balkh¯ı, F¯arsn¯ama, G. Le Strange and R. Nicholson (eds.), London: Gibb Memorial Trust, 1921. Ibn Fad.l¯an, Ris¯ala,S¯am¯ıal-Dahh¯an(ed.), Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,1993, pp. 91–106. Ibn H. ass¯ul, Kit¯abTafd.¯ılal-Atr¯ak‘al¯aS¯a’ir al-Ajn¯ad (Ibni˙ Hassulün Türkler hakkındaki eserinin arapça metni), A. Azzavi (ed.), Belleten 4 (1940). Ibn H. awqal, La Configuration de la Terre, J.H. Kramers and G. Wiet (tr.), Paris: Maisonneuve, 1964. Ibn al-Jawz¯ı, al-Muntaz.am f¯ı ’l-Ta’r¯ıkh, Hyderabad: D¯a’iratal-Ma‘¯arifal-‘Uthm¯an¯ıya, 1357. Ibn Khallik¯an, Wafay¯atal-A‘y¯anwa-Anb¯a’Abn¯a’al-Zam¯an,Y¯usuf ‘Al¯ıT. aw¯ıland Maryam Q¯asim T. awil (eds.), Beirut: D¯aral-Kutub al-‘Ilm¯ıya,1998. Ibn Rajab, Kit¯abal-Dhayl ‘ala T. abaq¯atal-H. an¯abila, Henri Laoust and S¯am¯ıDahh¯an(eds.), Damascus: al-Ma‘had al-Farans¯ılil-Dir¯as¯atal-‘Arab¯ıya,1951. Ibn Sa‘¯ıd, Kit¯ab al-Jughraf¯ıya, Ism¯a‘¯ıl al-‘Arab¯ı (ed.), Beirut: Mansh¯ur¯at al-Maktab al-Tij¯ar¯ı,1970. Ibn Sina, Le Livre des directives et remarques, tr. Anne-Marie Goichin, Paris: J. Vrin, 1951, p. 517. Ibn al-T. iqt.iq¯a, al-Fakhr¯ıf¯ı ’l-¯ad¯abal-sult.¯an¯ıyawa-’l-duwal al-isl¯am¯ıya, Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir, 1966. Idr¯ıs ‘Im¯ad al-D¯ın, The Fatimids and their Successors in Yaman: The History of an Islamic Community. Arabic Edition and English Summary of Idr¯ıs‘Im¯adal-D¯ın’s‘Uy¯un al-Akhb¯ar,Ayman Fu’ad Sayyid with Paul E. Walker and Maurice A. Pomerantz (eds.), London: I.B. Tauris, 2003. Idr¯ıs¯ı, Opus Geographicum, E. Cerulli et al. (eds.), Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1972. Is.fah¯an¯ı, Nus.rat al-Fatra, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MS arabe 2145. Isfah¯an¯ı/Bund¯ar¯ı, Zubdat al-Nusra, M. Th Houtsma (ed.) in Recueil des Textes Relatifs à

Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 . . l’Histoire des Seldjoucides, II, Leiden: Brill, 1889. Is.t.akhr¯ı, Mas¯alikal-Mam¯alik, M.J. de Goeje (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 1927. Juwayn¯ı, Ghiy¯athal-Umam, Mustafa H. ilm¯ı and Fu’¯ad‘Abd al-Mun’im Ah.mad (eds), Alexandria: D¯aral-Da’wa, 1979. J¯uzj¯an¯ı, T. abaq¯atal-N¯as.ir¯ı, ‘A. H. abibi (ed.), Tehran: Duny¯a-yiKit¯ab,1363. Mah.m¯ud al-K¯ašgar¯ı[K¯ashghar¯ı], Compendium of the Turkic Dialects, R. Dankoff (ed. and tr.), Harvard University, 1982. Bibliography 171

Maqr¯ız¯ı, Kit¯abal-Sul¯ukli-Ma‘rifat Duwal al-Mul¯uk, Muh.ammad Mus.t.af¯aZiy¯ada(ed.), Cairo: D¯aral-Kutub al-Mis.r¯ıya, 1934–72. Mas‘¯ud¯ı, Kit¯abal-Tanb¯ıhwa-’l-Ishr¯af, ‘Abdall¯ahIsm¯a‘¯ılal-S. ¯aw¯ı(ed.), Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Ta’r¯ıkh¯ıya,1953. ——, Mur¯ujal-Dhahab, C. Pellat (ed.), Beirut: Université Libanaise, 1966. Matthew of Edessa, Armenia and the Crusades, Tenth to Twelfth Centuries: The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa, Ara E. Dostourian (tr.), New York: University Press of America, 1993. Minorsky, V. (ed. and tr.), A History of Sharvan and Darband in the 10th and 11th Centuries, Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1958. M¯ırkhw¯and, Rawd.at al-S.af¯a, Tehran: Khayy¯am-P¯ır¯uz,1338. Mu’ayyad f¯ı’l-D¯ınal-Sh¯ır¯az¯ı, S¯ırat al-Mu’ayyad f¯ı’l-D¯ınD¯a‘¯ıal-Du‘¯at:tarjamat h.ay¯atihi bi-qalamihi, Muh.ammad K¯amilH. usayn (ed.), Cairo: D¯aral-K¯atibal-Mis.r¯ı, 1949. Muqaddas¯ı, Kit¯abAh.san al-Taq¯as¯ımf¯ıMa‘rifat al-Aq¯al¯ım, M.J. de Goeje (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 1906. N¯as.ir-i Khusraw’s Book of Travels, Wheeler M. Thackston (ed. and tr.), Costa Mesa: Mazda, 2001. en-Nesawi, Mohammed, Histoire du Sultan Djelal ed-Din Mankobirti, O. Houdas (ed.), Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1895. N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı, Z. ah¯ır al-D¯ın, Salj¯uqn¯ama, A.H. Morton (ed.), np: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004. Niz. ¯amal-Mulk, Siy¯asatn¯ama, J. Shi‘¯ar(ed.), Tehran: Intish¯ar¯at-i‘Ilm¯ıva Farhang¯ı,1377; tr. Hubert Darke, The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960. Qat.r¯an-i Tabr¯ız¯ı, D¯ıv¯an-i Qat.r¯an-i Tabr¯ız¯ı,H. usayn Ah¯ı¯ (ed.), Tehran: Mu’assasa-yi Mat.b¯u‘¯at¯ı-yiKhazar, n.d. Qazv¯ın¯ı,‘Abd al-Jal¯ılal-H. usayn b. Ab¯ı’l-Fad.l, Kit¯abal-Naqd. ma‘r¯ufbi-ba‘d. math¯alib al-naw¯as.ib f¯ınaqd. ba‘d. fad. ¯a’ih. al-Raw¯afid., Jal¯alal-D¯ınH. usayn¯ıUrmav¯ı(ed.), Tehran: Chapkh¯ana-iSipihr, 1371AH/1331AHS. Rash¯ıdal-D¯ın, J¯ami‘ al-Taw¯ar¯ıkh, II, Part 5, A. Ate¸s(ed.), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1960. ——, J¯ami‘ al-Taw¯ar¯ıkh, M. Rawshan and M. M¯usaw¯ı(eds.), Tehran: Nashr-i Alburz, 1373. ——, J¯ami‘ al-Taw¯ar¯ıkh:T¯ar¯ıkh-iUgh¯uz, Muh.ammad Rawshan (ed.), Tehran: M¯ır¯ath-i Makt¯ub,1384; tr. A. Zeki Velidi Togan, O˘guz Destanı: Re¸sideddinO˘guznamesi,Tercüme ve Tahlili, Istanbul: Ahmed Sait Matbaası, 1972. R¯avand¯ı, R¯ah.at al-S.ud¯urwa-Ay¯atal-Sur¯ur¯ , Muh.mmad Iqb¯al(ed.), London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series, 1921. Sharaf al-Zam¯anT. ¯ahirMarvaz¯ıon China, the Turks and India, V. Minorsky (ed. and tr.), London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1942. Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı, Mir’¯atal-Zam¯an, A. Sevim (ed.), Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Co˘grafyaFakültesi, 1968. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Skylitzès, Jean, Empereurs de Constantinople, B. Flusin (tr.), Paris: P. Lethielleux, 2003. Subk¯ı, T. abaq¯atal-Sh¯afi‘¯ıyaal-Kubr¯a, Mah.m¯ud Muh.ammad Tanah.¯ıand ‘Abd al-Fatt¯ah. Muh.ammad H. ulw (eds.), Cairo: ‘Is¯aal-B¯ab¯ıal-H¯ . alab¯ı,1964. Thomson, Robert W. (tr.), Rewriting Caucasian History: The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicle: The Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Y¯aq¯ut, Mu‘jam al-Buld¯an, Beirut: D¯arS. ¯adir,1993. 172 Bibliography Secondary Literature Aceituno, Antonio Jurado, ‘The Seljuk jihad against Fatimid Shi’ism: an observation on the Sunni Revival’ in Essays in Ottoman Civilization (Archív Orientální, suppl. 8, 1998), pp. 173–8. Adams, Robert M., The Land behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Agadzhanov, S.G., Ocherki Istorii Oguzov i Turkmen Srednei Azii, IX-XIII vv., Ashkhabad: Ilım, 1969. Turkish translation, S.G. Agacanov, O˘guzlar, Istanbul: Selenge, 2004. —— [Agadschanow, S.G.], Der Staat der Seldschukiden und Mittelasien im 11.–12. Jahrhundert, Berlin: Reinhold Schetzler Verlag, 1994. —— [Agajanov, S.G.], ‘The states of the Oghuz, the Kimek and the Kipchak’ in Asimov and Bosworth (eds), History of Civilizations of Central Asia, IV, pp. 61–76. Ahrweiler, Hélène, ‘La frontière et les frontières de Byzance en Orient’ in M. Berza and E. St˘anescu(eds.), Actes du XIV Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1975, II, pp. 209–30 (reprinted in eadem, Byzance: les pays et les territoires, London: Variorum, 1976). Amitai, Reuven, ‘Whither the Ilkhanid army? Ghazan’s first campaign into Syria (1299– 1300)’ in di Cosmo, Warfare in Inner Asian History, pp. 221–64. Angold, Michael, ‘The Byzantine state on the eve of the Battle of Manzikert’, Byzantinische Forschungen 16 (1991), pp. 9–34. ——, The Byzantine Empire 1025–1204: A Political History, London: Longman, 1997. Armstrong, Pamela, ‘Selj¯uqsbefore the Selj¯uqs:nomads and frontiers inside Byzantium’ in Eastmond, Eastern Approaches, pp. 277–86. Arutjunova-Fidanjan, V., ‘Some aspects of the military-administrative districts and of Byzantine administration in Armenia during the 11th century’, REArm NS 20 (1986–7), pp. 309–20. Asimov, M.S. and C.E. Bosworth (eds.), History of Civilizations of Central Asia, IV: The Age of Achievement: A.D. 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999. ‘Athamina, Khalil, ‘The Black Banners and the socio-political significance of flags and slogans in medieval Islam’, Arabica 36/iii (1989), pp. 307–26. Ayalon, David, ‘The Mamluks of the Seljuks: Islam’s military might at the crossroads’, JRAS 3rd series 6/iii (1996), pp. 305–33. ——, Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans: A Study of Power Relationships, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1999. Baldick, Julian, Animal and Shaman: Ancient Religions of Central Asia, New York: New York University Press, 2000. Barfield, Thomas, The Perilous Frontier: Nomadic Empires and China 221 BC to AD 1757, Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. ——, The Nomadic Alternative, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993. Barthold, W., Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 1958. Bartikian, H., ‘L’Énoikion à Byzance et dans la capitale des Bagratides, Ani, à l’époque de la domination byzantine (1045–1064)’, REArm NS 6 (1969), pp. 283–98. Bartl, Karin, ‘The Balih Valley, northern Syria during the Islamic period: remarks concerning the historical topography’, Berytus 41 (1993–4), pp. 29–38. Bayat, Fuzuli, O˘guz Destan Dünyası: O˘guznamelerin Tarihi, Mitolojik Kökenleri ve Te¸sekkülü, Istanbul: Ötüken, 2006. Bibliography 173 Bearman, Peri, Rudolph Peters and Frank E. Vogel (eds.), The Islamic School of Law: Evolution, Devolution, and Progress, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. de Beaurecueil, Serge, Khwadja ‘Abdallah Ansari (396–481H./1006–1089), Beirut: Imprimèrie catholique, 1965. Bianquis, Th., ‘Mird¯as,Ban¯u’, EI 2, VII, pp. 115–23. Blake, Robert P., ‘The circulation of silver in the Moslem east down to the Mongol period’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 2/iii–iv (1937), pp. 291–338. Boomer, I., et al., ‘Advances in understanding the late Holocene history of the Lake Aral region’, Quarternary International 194 (2009), pp. 79–90. Bosworth, C.E., ‘Ghaznevid military organisation’, Der Islam 36/i–ii (1960), pp. 37–77. ——, ‘The rise of the Karamiyyah in Khurasan’, Muslim World 50/i (1960), pp. 5–14. ——, The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran 994–1040, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1963. ——, ‘The heritage of rulership in early Islamic Iran and the search for dynastic connections with the past’, Iran 11 (1973), pp. 51–62 (reprinted in Iranian Studies 9 (1978), pp. 7–34). ——, ‘The political and dynastic history of the Iranian world (1000–1217)’, in Boyle, The Cambridge History of Iran V, pp. 1–202. ——, ‘Khw¯arazm-sh¯ahs’, EI 2, IV, pp. 165–9. ——, The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz, Costa Mesa: Mazda, 1994. ——, ‘Raww¯adids’, EI 2,VIII, pp. 469–70. 2 ——, ‘Saldj¯uk.ids’, EI , VIII, pp. 936–59. ——, ‘Djand’, EI 2, Supplement, pp. 244–6. ——, ‘An Oriental Samel Pepys? Abu ’l-Fadl Bayhaqi’s memoirs of court life in eastern Iran and Afghanistan 1030–1041’, JRAS 3rd series, 14 (2004), pp. 13–25. Bowen, Harold, ‘Notes on some early Selj¯uqidviziers’, BSOAS 20/i (1957), pp. 105–10. Boyle, J.A., ‘The journey of Hetum I, King of Little Armenia, to the court of the Great Khan Möngke’, Central Asiatic Journal 4/iii (1964), pp. 175–89. —— (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran V: The Saljuq and Mongol Periods, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. ——, ‘Turkish and Mongol shamanism in the Middle Ages’, Folklore 83/iii (1972), pp. 177–93. Brand, Charles, ‘The Turkish element in Byzantium, eleventh to twelfth centuries’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 43 (1989), pp. 1–25. 2 Bregel, Yu., ‘Mangishlak.’, EI , VI, pp. 415–7. Brentjes, B., ‘Nomadenwanderungen und Klimaschwankungen’, Central Asiatic Journal 30/i–ii (1986), pp. 7–17. Brook, Kevin Alan, The Jews of Khazaria, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006. Bulliet, Richard W., The Patricians of Nishapur: A Study in Medieval Islamic Social History, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 ——, ‘The political–religious history of Nishapur in the eleventh century’ in Richards, Islamic Civilisation, pp. 71–91. ——, ‘Numismatic evidence for the relationship between T. ughril Beg and Chaghr¯ıBeg’ in Dickran K. Kouymjian (ed.), Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1974, pp. 290–5. ——, Islam: The View from the Edge, New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. 174 Bibliography Busse, Heribert, Chalif und Grosskönig: die Buyiden im Irak (945–1055), Beirut: Ergon Verlag, 2004. Cahen, Claude, ‘La première pénétration turque en Asie Mineure’ Byzantion 18 (1946–8), pp. 5–67 (reprinted in idem, Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianus, London: Variorum, 1974). ——, ‘Le Malik-nameh et l’histoire des origins seldjukides’, Oriens 2/i (1949), pp. 31–65. ——, ‘Les tribus turques de l’Asie occidentale pendant la période seljukide’, WZKM 51 (1951), pp. 178–87. ——, ‘A propos de quelques articles du Köprülü Arma˘ganı’, Journal Asiatique (1954), pp. 275–9 (reprinted in idem, Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianus). ——, ‘Mouvements populaires et autonomisme urbain dans l’Asie musulmane du moyen âge’, Arabica 5/iii (1958), pp. 225–50; 6/i (1959), pp. 25–56; 6/iii (1959), pp. 233–65. ——, ‘The historiography of the Selj¯uqidperiod’ in B. Lewis and P.M. Holt (eds.), Historians of the Middle East, London: Oxford University Press, 1962, pp. 59–78. ——, ‘Qutlumush et ses fils avant l’Asie Mineure’, Der Islam 39 (1964), pp. 14–27 (reprinted in idem, Turcobyzantina et Oriens Christianus). ——, ‘Ibn Sa‘id sur l’Asie Mineure seldjuqide’, AÜDTC Fakültesi Tarih Ara¸stırmaları Dergisi 6 (1968), pp. 41–50 (reprinted in idem, Turcobyzantina et Oriens Chistianus). ——, ‘The Turkish invasion: the Selchükids’ in A History of the Crusades, K. Setton (ed.), I: The First Hundred Years, M. Baldwin (ed.), Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969, pp. 135–76. ——, ‘Nomades et sedentaires dans le monde musulman du milieu du moyen age’ in Richards, Islamic Civilisation, pp. 93–104. ——, ‘Ibn al-Muslima’, EI 2, III, p. 891. Calmard, Jean, ‘Le Chiisme imamite en Iran à l’époque seldjoukide d’après le Kitab al-Naqd’, Le monde iranien et l’islam: sociétés et cultures 1 (1971), pp. 43–66. Canard, M., ‘La campagne arménienne du sultan sal˘guqideAlp Arsl¯anet la prise d’Ani en 1064’, REArm NS 2 (1965), pp. 239–59 (reprinted in idem, L’expansion arabo-islamique et ses répercussions, London: Variorum, 1974). Cheynet, J.C., ‘Mantzikert: Une désastre militaire?’ Byzantion 50 (1980), pp. 410–38. ——, ‘La conception de la frontière orientale (IXe–XIIIe siècles)’ in Eastmond, Eastern Approaches, pp. 57–69. ——, ‘Basil II and Asia Minor’ in Paul Magdalino (ed.), Byzantium in the Year 1000, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 71–108. Christensen, Peter, The Decline of Iranshahr: Irrigation and Environments in the History of the Middle East, 500 BC to AD 1500, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1993. di Cosmo, Nicola, ‘State formation and periodization in Inner Asian history’, Journal of World History 10/i (1999), pp. 1–40. —— (ed.), Warfare in Inner Asian History (500–1800), Leiden: Brill, 2002. Cribb, Roger, Nomads in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Crow, James, ‘Alexios Komnenos and Kastamon: castles and settlement in middle Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Byzantine Paphlagonia’ in Margaret Mullett and Dion Smith (eds.), Alexios I Komnenos, Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Texts, 1996, pp. 12–36. Dabashi, Hamid, ‘Historical conditions of Persian Sufism during the Seljuk period’ in Leonard Lewisohn (ed.), The Heritage of Sufism: Classical Persian Sufism from its Origins to Rumi (700–1300), Oxford: Oneworld, 1999, pp. 153–69. Dangles, Philippe and Nicholas Prouteau, ‘Sondages archéologiques sur l’enceinte nord d’Ani’, REArm NS 29 (2003–4), pp. 503–33. Bibliography 175 ——, ‘Observations sur quelques fortresses de la région d’Ani’, REArm NS 30 (2005–7), pp. 273–99. Dankoff, Robert, ‘Kashgari on the tribal and kinship organization of the Turks’, Archivum Ottomanicum 4 (1972), pp. 23–43. ——, ‘Kašgari on the beliefs and superstitions of the Turks’, JAOS 95/i (1975), pp. 68–80. Davidovich, E.A., ‘The Karakhanids’ in Asimov and Bosworth (eds), History of Civilizations of Central Asia, IV, pp. 119–43. Decker, Michael, ‘Frontier settlement and economy in the Byzantine east’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 61 (2007), pp. 217–67. Dédéyan, Gerard, ‘L’immigration arménienne en Cappadoce au XI siècle’, Byzantion 45 (1975), pp. 41–117. Devereux, Robert, ‘Al-Kashghari and early Turkish Islam’, Muslim World 49/ii (1959), pp. 133–8. DeWeese, Devin, Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde: Baba Tükles and Conversion to Islam in Historical and Epic Tradition, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994. Dickens, Mark, ‘Medieval Syriac Historians’ Perceptions of the Turks.’ Unpublished MPhil thesis, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Cambridge, 2004. Divitçio˘glu,Sencer, O˘guz’dan Selçuklu’ya: boy, konat ve devlet, Ankara: Imge, 2005. Dunlop, D.M., The History of the Jewish Khazars, New York: Schocken, 1967. Durand-Guédy, David, ‘Un fragment inédit de la chronique des Sal˘guqidesde ‘Im¯adal-D¯ın al-Is.fah¯an¯ı:le chapitre sur Ta˘gal-Mulk’, Annales Islamologiques 39 (2005), pp. 205–22. ——, ‘Mémoires d’exilés: lecture de la chronique des Salj¯uqidesde ‘Im¯adal-D¯ınIs.fah¯an¯ı’, Studia Iranica 35 (2006), pp. 181–202. Eastmond, Anthony (ed.), Eastern Approaches to Byzantium, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. Edwards, Robert, ‘Medieval architecture in the Oltu-Penek valley: a preliminary report on the marchlands of northeastern Turkey’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39 (1985), pp. 15–37. Ephrat, Daphna, A Learned Society in a Period of Transition: The Sunni ‘Ulama’ of Eleventh-century Baghdad, Albany, NY: SUNY, 2000. ——, ‘Madhhab and madrasa in eleventh century Baghdad’ in Bearman, Peters and Vogel, The Islamic School of Law, pp. 77–93. Faulkner, Robert K., ‘Jordan in the early Islamic period: the use and abuse of pottery’, Berytus 41 (1993–4), pp. 39–52. Fleming, Barbara, ‘Political genealogies in the sixteenth century’, Osmanlı Ara¸stırmaları 7–8 (1988), pp. 123–37. Fletcher, Joseph, ‘The Mongols: ecological and social perspectives’, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 46/i (1986), pp. 11–50. Foss, Clive, ‘Strobilos and related sites’, Anatolian Studies 38 (1988), pp. 147–74 (reprinted in idem, History and Archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor, Aldershot: Variorum, 1990). ——, ‘The Lycian coast in the Byzantine age’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 48 (1994), pp. 1–52 (reprinted in idem, Cities, Fortresses and Villages of Byzantine Asia Minor, Aldershot: Variorum, 1996). Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Frank, Richard, Al-Ghazali and the Ash‘arite School, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994. Frenkel, Yehoshua, ‘The Turks of the Eurasian steppes in medieval Arabic writing’ in Reuven Amitai and Michal Biran (eds.), Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, Leiden: Brill, 2005, pp. 201–41. Frye, Richard N. and Aydın M. Sayılı, ‘The Turks in the Middle East before the Salj¯uqs’, JAOS 63/iii (1943), pp. 194–207. 176 Bibliography Ganjeï, Tourkhan, ‘Turkish in pre-Mongol Persian poetry’, BSOAS 49/i (1986), pp. 67–75. Garsoïan, Nina, ‘The Byzantine annexation of the Armenian kingdoms in the eleventh century’ in Richard G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, I: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1997, pp. 187–98. Genç, R., Karahanlı Devlet Te¸skilatı, Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlı˘gı,1981. ——, Ka¸sgarlı Mahmud’a Göre XI. Yüzyılda Türk Dunyası, Ankara: Türk Kültürünü Ara¸stırmaEnstitüsü, 1997. Glassen, Erika, Der Mittlere Weg: Studien zur Religionspolitik und Religiosität der späteren Abbasiden-Zeit, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1981. Golden, Peter B., ‘The migrations of the O˘guz’, Archivum Ottomanicum 4 (1972), pp. 45–84 (reprinted in idem, Nomads and their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe: Turks, Khazars and Qipchaqs, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003). ——, Khazar Studies: An Historico-philological Inquiry into the Origins of the Khazars, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1980. ——, ‘Imperial ideology and the sources of political unity amongst the pre-Cinggisidˇ nomads of Western Eurasia’, AEMAe II (1982), pp. 37–76 (reprinted in idem, Nomads and their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe). ——, ‘Cumanica I: The Qıpˇcaqsin Georgia’, AEMAe 4 (1984), pp. 45–87 (reprinted in idem, Nomads and their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe). ——, ‘Cumanica II: The Ölberli (Ölperli): the fortunes and misfortunes of an Inner Asian nomadic clan’, AEMAe 6 (1985), pp. 5–29 (reprinted in idem, Nomads and their Neighbours in the Russian Steppe). ——, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State- formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992. ——, ‘War and warfare in the pre-Cinggisidˇ western steppes of Eurasia’ in di Cosmo, War and Warfare, pp. 105–72. Gordon, Matthew S., The Breaking of a Thousand Swords: A History of the Turkish Military of Samarra (AH 200–275/815–889CE), Albany, NY: SUNY, 2001. Grousset, Réné, Histoire de l’Arménie des origins à 1071, Paris: Payot, 1947. Gündüz, Tufan, Anadolu’da Türkmen A¸siretleri:Bozulus Türkmenleri 1540–1640, Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2007. Haldon, John,Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204, London: UCL Press, 1999. ——, ‘ “Cappadocia will be given over to ruin and become a desert”: environmental evidence for historically-attested events in the 7th and 10th centuries’ in Klaus Belke et al. (eds.), Byzantina Mediterranea: Festschrift Johannes Koder zum 65. Geburtstag, Vienna: Bohlau, 2007, pp. 215–30. Hallaq, Wael B., ‘Caliphs, jurists, and the Saljuqs in the political thought of al-Juwayn¯ı’, Muslim World 74/i (1984), pp. 26–41. ——, The Origins and Evolution of Islamic Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 2005. Halm, Heinz, ‘Der Wesir Al-Kundur¯ıund die Fitna von Nishapur’, Die Welt des Orients 6 (1970–71), pp. 205–33. Hanne, Eric J., Putting the Caliph in his Place: Power, Authority and the Late Abbasid Caliphate, Madison, WI: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2007. Heemskerk, Margaretha T., Suffering in the Mu‘tazilite Theology: ‘Abd al-Jabbar’s Teaching on Pain and Divine Justice, Leiden: Brill, 2000. Bibliography 177 Heidemann, Stefan, Die Renaissance der Städte in Nordsyrien und Nordmesopotamien: Städtische Entwinklung und wirtschaftliche Bedingungen in ar-Raqqa und Harran von der Zeit der beduinischen Vorherrschaft bis zu den Seldschuken, Leiden: Brill, 2002. Hellenkamper, Hansgered and Friedrich Hild, Tabulae Imperii Byzantini VIII: Lykien und Pamphylien, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2004. 2 Heller, B. and N.A. Stillman, ‘Luk.m¯an’, EI , V, pp. 811–3. Hendy, Michael, F., Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300–1450, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Hillenbrand, Carole, ‘Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım’s biography of the Seljuq sultan, Alp Arslan’ in Concepción Vázquez de Benito and Miguel Rodriguez (eds.), Actas XVI Congreso UEAI, Salamanca: Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional, 1995, pp. 237–42. ——, ‘The power struggle between the Salj¯uqsand the Isma‘ilis of Alamut, 487–518/1094– 1124: the Salj¯uqperspective’ in Farhad Daftary (ed.), Medieval Isma’ili History and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 205–20. ——, Turkish Myth and Muslim Symbol: The Battle of Manzikert, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007. Hodgson, Marshall G.S., The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, I: The Classical Age of Islam, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Holmes, Catherine, ‘ “How the east was won” in the reign of Basil II’ in Eastmond, Eastern Approaches, pp. 41–56. Honigmann, E., Die Ostgrenze des byzantischen Reiches, Brussels: Institut de philologie et histoire orientales, 1935. Inan,˙ Abdülkadır, Tarihte ve Bugün ¸Samanizm, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954. Iskandar, Albert Z., ‘A doctor’s book on zoology: al-Marwaz¯ı’s T. ab¯a’i‘al-H. ayaw¯an (Nature of Animals) reassessed’, Oriens 27 (1981), pp. 266–312. Jenkins, Gareth, ‘A note on climatic cycles and the rise of Chinggis Khan’, Central Asiatic Journal 18/iv (1974), pp. 217–26. Jirmunskiy, V.M., ‘Sirderya boyunda O˘guzlaradair izler’, Belleten 25 (1961), pp. 470–83, translated fromTurkologicheskiy Sbornik 1 (1951). Kaegi, Walter, ‘The contribution of archery to the Turkish conquest of Anatolia’, Speculum 34 (1964), pp. 96–108. Kafadar, Cemal, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995. Kafeso˘glu, Ibrahim,˙ ‘Do˘gu Anadolu’ya ilk Selçuklu akını (1015–1021) ve tarihi ehemmiyeti’ in Mélanges Fuad Köprülü, Istanbul: Ankara Dil ve Tarih-Co˘grafya Fakültesi, 1953, pp. 259–74. ——, ‘A propos du nom Türkmen’, Oriens 11 (1958), pp. 146–50. ——, Harezm¸sahlarDevleti Tarihi (485–617/1092–1229), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1956. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Kara, Seyfullah, Büyük Selçuklular ve Mezhep Kavgaları, Istanbul: Iz˙ Yayıncılık, 2007. Kasrav¯ı,Ah.mad, Shahriy¯ar¯an-i Gum-n¯am, Tehran: Am¯ırKab¯ır,1377. Kennedy, Hugh, ‘Medieval Merv: an historical overview’ in Georgina Herrmann, Monuments of Merv: Traditional Buildings of the Karakum, London: Society of Antiquaries, 1999, pp. 25–44. Khazanov, Anatoly M., Nomads and the Outside World, Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1994. 178 Bibliography Klemm, Victoria, Memoirs of a Mission: The Ismaili Scholar, Statesman and Poet al-Mu’ayyad fi l-Din al-Shirazi, London: I.B. Tauris, 2003. Kotchnev, Boris D., ‘Histoire de ‘Ali Tegin, souverain qarakhanide de Boukhara (XIe siècle) vue à travers les monnaies’, Boukhara la Noble (Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 5–6 [1998]), pp. 19–36. ——, ‘La chronologie et la généalogie des Karakhanides du point du vue de la numismatique’, Études Karakhanides (Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 9 [2001]), pp. 49–75. Köprülü, Mehmet Fuad, ‘Osmanlı Imparatorlu˘gu’nunEtnik˙ Men¸seiMeseleleri’, Belleten 7 (1943), pp. 219–313. Kouymjian, D.K., ‘Mxit‘ar (Mekhitar) of Ani on the rise of the Seljuqs’, REArm NS 6 (1969), pp. 331–53. ——, ‘Kayı Kabilesi Hakkında Yeni Notlar’, Belleten 8 (1944), pp. 421–52. Köymen, Mehmet Altay, Tu˘grulBey ve Zamanı, Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlı˘gı,1976. ——, Büyük Selçuklu Imparatorlu˘guTarihi˙ , Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1954, 1979. Krwczyk, Jean-Luc, ‘The relationship between pastoral nomadism and agriculture: northern Syria and the Jazira in the eleventh century’, JRUR 1 (1985), pp. 1–22 (reprinted in Michael Morony (ed.), The Formation of the Classical Islamic World, XII: Production and the Exploitation of Resources, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002). Kurat, Akdes Nimat, IV-XVIII. Yüzyıllarda Karadeniz Kuzeyindeki Türk Kavimleri ve Devletleri, Ankara: Murat Kitabevi, 1992. Laiou, Angeliki E. and Cécile Morrisson, The Byzantine Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 90–165. Lambton, A.K.S., ‘The administration of Sanjar’s empire as illustrated in the ‘Atabat alkataba’, BSOAS 20 (1957), pp. 367–88 (reprinted in eadem, Theory and Practice in Medieval Persian Government, London: Variorum Reprints, 1980). ——, ‘The internal structure of the Saljuq Empire’ in Boyle, The Cambridge History of Iran, V, pp. 203–82 (reprinted in eadem, Theory and Practice in Medieval Persian Government). ——, ‘Aspects of Saljuq-Ghuzz settlement in Persia’ in Richards (ed.), Islamic Civilisation, pp. 105–25 (reprinted in eadem, Theory and Practice in Persian Islamic Government). ——, Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia: Aspects of Administrative, Economic and Social History, Eleventh to Fourteenth Centuries, London: I.B. Tauris, 1988. Lang, David M., Studies in the Numismatic History of Georgia in Transcaucasia, New York: American Numismatic Society, 1955, pp. 19–20. Laoust, H., ‘Le Hanbalisme sous le Califat de Baghdad (241/855–656/1258)’, REI 27 (1959), pp. 67–128. Le Strange, G., Lands of the Eastern Caliphate: Mesopotamia, Persia and Central Asia from the Moslem Conquest to the Time of Timur, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930. Leiser, Gary (tr. and ed.), A History of the Seljuks: Ibrahim˙ Kafeso˘glu’sInterpretation and the Resulting Controversy, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Lightfoot, C.S., ‘Amorium: the history and archaeology of an ancient city in the Turkish period’ in Uluslararası Dördüncü Türk Kültürü Kongresi (4–7 Kasım 1997, Ankara), Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayınları, 2000, II, pp. 79–89. Lindner, Rudi Paul, ‘What was a nomadic tribe?’ Comparative Studies in History and Society 24/ii (1982), pp. 689–711. Mackay, Anson et al., ‘1000 years of climate variability in Central Asia: assessing the evidence using Lake Baikal (Russia) diatom assemblages and the application of a Bibliography 179 diatom-inferred model of snow-cover on the lake’, Global and Planetary Change 46 (2005), pp. 281–97. Madelung, W., ‘The spread of Maturidism and the Turks’ in Actas do IV Congresso de Estudos arabes e islamicos, Coimbra-Lisboa, 1968, Leiden: Brill, 1971, pp. 109–68 (reprinted in idem, Religious Schools and Sects in Medieval Islam, London: Variorum, 1985). ——, Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran, Albany, NY: Bibliotheca Persica, 1988. Makdisi, George, ‘Autograph diary of an eleventh century historian of Baghdad’, BSOAS 18/i (1956), pp. 9–31; 18/ii (1956), pp. 239–60; 19/i (1957), pp. 13–48; 19/ii (1957), pp. 426–43 (reprinted in idem, History and Poltics in Eleventh Century Baghdad, Aldershot: Variorum, 1991). ——, ‘The topography of eleventh-century Bagdad: materials and notes’, Arabica 6/ii (1959), pp. 178–97; 6/iii (1959), pp. 281–309 (reprinted in idem, History and Poltics in Eleventh Century Baghdad). ——, ‘Muslim institutions of learning in eleventh century Baghdad’, BSOAS 24/i (1961), pp. 1–56 (reprinted in idem, Religion, Law and Learning in Classical Islam, Aldershot: Variorum Reprints, 1991). ——, ‘Ash‘ari and the Ash‘arites in Islamic religious history’, Studia Islamica 17 (1962), pp. 37–80; 18 (1963), pp. 19–39 (reprinted in idem, Religion, Law and Learning in Classical Islam). ——, Ibn ‘Aq¯ılet la résurgence de l’Islam traditionaliste au XIe siècle, Damascus: Institut Français de Damas, 1963. ——, ‘The marriage of Tughril Beg’, IJMES 1/iii (1970), pp. 259–75 (reprinted in idem, History and Poltics in Eleventh Century Baghdad). ——, ‘The Sunni Revival’ in Richards (ed.), Islamic Civilisation, pp. 155–68 (reprinted in idem, History and Poltics in Eleventh Century Baghdad). ——, ‘Les rapports entre Calife et Sultane à l’époque Saljuqide’, IJMES 6/ii (1975), pp. 28–36 (reprinted in idem, History and Poltics in Eleventh Century Baghdad). Malamud, Margaret, ‘Sufi organizations and structures of authority in medieval Nishapur’, IJMES 26/iii (1994), pp. 427–42. Manz, Beatrice Forbes, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Matthews, Roger and Claudia Glatz, At Empire’s Edge: Project Paphlagonia Regional Survey in North-central Turkey, London: British Institute at Ankara, 2009. Matthews, Victor, Pastoral Nomadism in the Mari Kingdom (ca 1830–1760 BC), Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1978. May, Timothy, The Mongol Art of War: Chinggis Khan and the Mongol Military System, Barnsley: Penn and Sword, 2007. Meisami, Julie Scott, Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999. Melville, Charles, ‘The itineraries of Sultan Öljeitü, 1304–16’, Iran 28 (1990), pp. 55–70. Meyer, William B., ‘Climate and migration’ in Andrew Bell-Fialkoff (ed.), The Role of Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Migration in the History of the Eurasian Steppe: Sedentary Civilization vs. ‘Barbarian’ and Nomad, New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000, pp. 287–94. Minorsky, V., Studies in Caucasian History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. ——, ‘Aïnallu/Inallu’, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 17 (1951–3), pp. 1–11. ——, ‘Kurds, Kurdistan. iii. History’, EI 2, V, pp. 447–64. Mottahedeh, Roy, Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society, London: I.B. Tauris, 2001. 180 Bibliography Nagel, Tilman, Die Festung des Glaubens: Triumph und Scheitern des islamischen Rationalismus im 11. Jahrhundert, Munich: C.H. Beck, 1998. N¯az.im, Muh.ammad, The Life and Times of Sultan Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931. Necef, Ekber N., Karahanlılar, Istanbul: Selenge, 2005. Neve, Peter J., ‘Bo˘gazköy-Hattusain byzantinischer Zeit’ in V. Kavari, J. Lefort and C. Morrison (eds.), Hommes et richesses dans l’Empire byzantin, Paris: P. Letthielleux, 1991, II, pp. 91–111. Nokandeh, Jebrael et al., ‘Linear barriers of northern Iran: the Great Wall of Gorgan and the Wall of Tamishe’, Iran 44 (2006), pp. 121–73. Oberhänsli, Hedi, et al., ‘Climate variability during the past 2000 years and past economic and irrigation activities in the Aral Sea basin’, Irrigation and Drainage Systems 21 (2007), pp. 167–83. Obolensky, Dmitri, The Byzantine Commonwealth, 500–1453, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1971. Oikominidès, N., ‘L’organisation de la frontière orientale de Byzance aux X–XIe siècles et le Taktikon de l’Escorial’ in M. Berza and E. St˘anescu(eds.), Actes du XIV Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1975, II, pp. 285–302. Özfırat, Aynur, Do˘guAnadolu Yayla Kültürleri (M.Ö. Binyıl), Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2001. Özgüdenli, Osman G., ‘Yeni Paraların I¸sı˘gındaKurulu¸sDevri Selçuklularında Hâkimiyet Münasebetleri Hakkında Bazı Dü¸sünceler’, Belleten 65 (2001), pp. 547–70. Paul, Jürgen, ‘Nouvelles pistes pour la récherche sur l’histoire de l’Asie central à l’époque karakhanide’, Études Karakhanides (Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 9 [2001]), pp. 13–34. ——, ‘The Selj¯uqconquest(s) of Nishapur: a reappraisal’, Iranian Studies 38/iv (2005), pp. 575–85. ——, ‘The state and the military – a nomadic perspective’ (Mitteilungen des Sondersforschungsbereichs ‘Differenz und Integration’ Halle, 2002, published at www.nomadsed.de/publications.html). Peacock, A.C.S., ‘Nomadic society and the Selj¯uqconquest of Caucasia’, Iran and the Caucasus 9/ii (2005), pp. 205–30. ——, Mediaeval Islamic Historiography and Political Legitimacy: Bal‘am¯ı’s T¯ar¯ıkhn¯ama, London: Routledge, 2007. ——, “Utb¯ı’s al-Yam¯ın¯ı: composition, patronage and reception’, Arabica 54/iv (2007), pp. 500–25. de Planhol, Xavier, Les fondements géographiques de l’histoire de l’islam, Paris: Flammarion, 1968. ——, ‘Azerbaijan: geography’, EIr, III, pp. 205–15. Polat, M. Said, Selçuklu Göçerlerinin Dünyası: Karacuk’tan Aziz George Kolu’na, Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2004. Pritsak, Omeljan, ‘Der Untergang des Reiches des O˙guzischenYab˙gu’, Mélanges Fuad Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Köprülü, Istanbul: Ankara Dil ve Tarih-Co˘grafya Fakületesi, 1953, pp. 397–410 (reprinted in English in idem, Studies in Medieval Eurasian History, London: Variorum, 1981). ——, ‘Von den Karluk zu den Karakhaniden’, ZDMG 101 NF 26 (1951), pp. 270–300 (reprinted in idem, Studies in Medieval Eurasian History). ——, ‘Die Karachaniden’, Der Islam 31 (1953), pp. 17–68 (reprinted in idem, Studies in Medieval Eurasian History). Bibliography 181 ——, ‘Two migratory movements in Eurasian steppe in the 9th–11th centuries’, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Congress of Orientalists, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1964, II, pp. 156–63 (reprinted in idem, Studies in Medieval Eurasian History). Pyne, Nanette, ‘The impact of the Selj¯uqinvasion on Khuzestan: an inquiry into the historical, geographical, numismatic and archaeological evidence’. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Washington, 1982. Rapp, Stephen, Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts, Louvain: Peeters, 2003. Redford, Scott, The Archaeology of the Frontier in the Medieval Near East: Excavations at Gritille, Turkey, Philadelphia, PA: University Museum Publications, 1998. Rekavandi, Hamid Omrani, et al., ‘An imperial frontier of the Sasanian Empire: further fieldwork at the Great Wall of Gorgan’, Iran 45 (2007), pp. 96–136. Richards, D.S. (ed.), Islamic Civilisation, 950–1150, Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1973. Roux, Jean-Paul, Les Traditions des Nomades de la Turquie méridionale: contribution à l’étude des représentations religieux dans les sociétés turques d’après les enquêtes eféctuées chez les Yörük et les Tahtacı, Paris: Maisonneuve et Larosse, 1970. ——, La Religion des Turcs et des Mongols, Paris: Payot, 1984. Sabari, Simha, Mouvements populaires à Bagdad à l’époque ‘abbasside, IXe–XIe siècles, Paris: J. Maisonneuve, 1981. Safa, Z., ‘B¯akarzi Kor¯as¯ani’, EIr, III, p. 534. Safi, Omid, The Politics of Knowledge in Premodern Islam: Negotiating Ideology and Religious Enquiry, Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2006. Sagona, Antonio and Claudia Sagona, Archaeology at the North-east Anatolian Frontier, I: An Historical Archaeology and a Field Survey of the Bayburt Province, Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Sagona, Claudia, ‘An archaeological survey of the Erzurum province, 1999: the region of Pasinler’, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 36 (1999), pp. 108–31. Segal, J.B., Edessa: The Blessed City, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970. Sevim, A. and C.E. Bosworth, ‘The Seljuqs and the Khwarazm Shahs’, in Asimov and Bosworth, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, IV, pp. 145–75. Shephard, Jonathon, ‘Scylitzes on Armenia in the 1040s’, REArm NS 11 (1975–6), pp. 269–311. Sinclair, T.A., Eastern Turkey: An Architectural and Archaeological Survey, London: Pindar Press, 1989. Sinor, Denis, ‘Horse and pasture in Inner Asian history’, Oriens Extremus 19/i–ii (1972), pp. 171–83 (reprinted in idem, Studies in Medieval Inner Asia, Ashgate: Variorum, 1997). ——, ‘The Inner Asian warriors’, JAOS 101 (1981), pp. 133–44. ——, ‘Réflexions sur la presence turco-mongole dans la monde Méditerranéen et Pontique à l’époque pré-ottomane’, Acta Orientalia Hungariae 36 (1982), pp. 485–501 (reprinted in idem, Studies in Medieval Inner Asia). Smith, John Masson, ‘Mongol manpower and Persian population’, JESHO 18/iii (1975), Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 pp. 271–99. ——, ‘Turanian nomadism and Iranian politics’, Iranian Studies 11 (1978), pp. 57–81. ——, ‘Mongol nomadism and Middle Eastern geography: qishlaqs and tümens’ in Reuven Amitai-Preiss and David Morgan (eds.), The Mongol Empire and its Legacy, Leiden: Brill, 1999, pp. 39–56. Sorrel, Philippe, et al., ‘Climate variability in the Aral Sea basin (Central Asia) in the late Holocene based on vegetation changes’, Quarternary Research 67 (2007), pp. 357–70. 182 Bibliography Spinei, Victor, The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century, Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 2006. Spuler, B., ‘Ghuzz’, EI 2, II, pp. 1106–11. Stephenson, Paul, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Sümer, Faruk, ‘Yıva O˘guzBoyuna Dair’, Türkiyat Mecmuası 9 (1951), pp. 151–67. ——, ‘Azerbaycan’ın Türkle¸smesi Tarihine Umumi bir Bakı¸s’, Belleten 21 (1957), pp. 429–47. ——, ‘Anadolu’ya Yalnız Göçebe Türkler mi Geldi?’ Belleten 24 (1960), pp. 567–94. ——, O˘guzlar (Türkmenler): Tarihleri, Boy Te¸skilatı,Destanları, Istanbul: Türk Dünyası Ara¸stırmalarıVakfı, 1999 (5th printing). Talmon-Heller, Daniella, ‘The shaykh and the community: popular H. anbalite Islam in 12th–13th century Jabal Nablus and Jabal Qasyun’, Studia Islamica 79 (1994), pp. 103–20. ——, ‘Fidelity, cohesion, and conformity within madhhabs in Zangid and Ayyubid Syria’ in Bearman, Peters and Vogel, The Islamic School of Law, pp. 94–116. Tapper, Richard, ‘Anthropologists, historians, and tribespeople on tribe and state formation in the Middle East’ in Philip S. Khoury and Joseph Kostiner (eds.), Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990, pp. 48–73. Ter-Ghewondyan, Aram, The Arab Emirates in Bagratid Armenia, trans. Nina G. Garsoïan, Lisbon: Livraria Bertrand, 1976. Thierry, Michel, ‘Notes de géographie historique sur le Vasuprakan’, REB 34 (1976), pp. 159–73. Tolstov, S.P., ‘Goroda Guzzov’, Sovetskaya Etnografya 3 (1947), pp. 55–102. ——, Po Sledam Drevne Khorezmiyskoi Tsivilizatsii, Moscow/Leningrad: Izd. Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1948. Tor, Deborah G., ‘The Mamluks in the military of the pre-Seljuq Persianate dynasties’, Iran 46 (2008), pp. 213–25. ——, ‘The Islamization of Central Asia in the S¯am¯anidera and the reshaping of the Muslim world’, BSOAS, 72/ii (2009), pp. 279–99. Treadgold, Warren, Byzantium and its Army 284–1081, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995. Tsfarir, Nurit, The History of an Islamic School of Law: The Early Spread of H. anafism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Turan, Osman, ‘The idea of world domination among the medieval Turks’, Studia Islamica 4 (1955), pp. 77–90. de la Vaissière, Étienne, Samarcande et Samarra: élites d’Asie centrale dans l’empire abbasside, Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 2007. Vyronis, Speros, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, Berkeley, CA: University of Caifornia Press, 1971. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 ——, ‘Nomadization and islamization in Asia Minor’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29 (1975), pp. 41–71. ——, ‘A personal history of the Battle of Manzikert’ in He Byzantine Mikra Asia, Athens, 1998, pp. 225–44. ——, ‘The battles of Manzikert (1071) and Myriocelaphum (1176): notes on food, water, archery, ethnic identity of foe and ally’, Mésogeios 25–26 (2005), pp. 49–69. Bibliography 183 Waldman, M.R., Toward a Theory of Historical Narrative: A Case study in Perso-Islamicate Historiography, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1980. Watson, Andrew, ‘Back to gold – and silver’, The Economic History Review NS 20/i (1967), pp. 1–34. Watt, William Montgomery, Muslim Intellectual: A Study of al-Ghazali, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1963. Whittow, Mark, The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600–1025, London: MacMillan, 1996. Wittfogel, Karl A. and Feng Chia-Sheng, A History of Chinese Society: Liao, 907–1125, Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1949. Woods, John E., The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire, Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 1999, pp. 29–31. Yang, Bao, et al., ‘Late Holocene climatic and environmental changes in arid central Asia’, Quarternary International 194 (2009), pp. 68–78. Yavari, Neguin, ‘Mirrors for princes or a hall of mirrors? Nizam al-Mulk’s Siyar al-Mul¯uk reconsidered’, al-Mas¯aq 20/i (2008), pp. 47–69. Yılmaz, Gürsoy, Ortaça˘g’da Erzurum-Kars Kaleleri, Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2000. Yınanç, Mükrimin Halil, Türkiye Tarihi, Selçuklular Devri,I:Anadolu’nun Fethi, Istanbul: Istanbul˙ Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1944. ——, ‘Dani¸smendliler’, IA˙ , III, pp. 468–79. Yusuf, Muhsin D., Economic Survey of Syria during the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries, Berlin: Klaus Schwartz Verlag, 1985. Yuzbashian, K. N., ‘L’administration byzantine en Arménie aux X–XI siècles’, REArm NS 10 (1973–4), pp. 139–88. Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Index

‘Abb¯asids2, 16, 18, 36, 72, 95, 99, 102, Attaleiates, M. 127, 133 108, 121 Ayalon, D. 95 ‘Abd al-Rash¯ıd,Ghaznavid sultan 8, 93 Azerbaijan 1, 66, 69, 70, 82, 84, 85, 126, Aceituno, A.J. 119 139, 141, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159 Adams, R.M. 158 ‘Az.¯ım¯ı120, 121, 140, 143, 166 Afsh¯ın143, 144 Azzavi, A. 52 Agadzhanov, S.G. 13–14, 17, 20, 21, 23–4, 25, 38, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59 Baghdad 4, 9, 10, 48, 50, 52, 59, 73, 78, Ahrweiler, H. 137 89, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, Albert of Aachen 161 103, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 113, 114, Alp Arsl¯an1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 34, 44, 64, 68, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119–20, 124, 142, 92, 95, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 114, 149, 158, 165, 166 116, 118, 119, 125, 126, 128, 138, 143, B¯akharz¯ı33 145, 148, 149–50, 151, 153, 154, 165–6 Baldick, J. 124 Amitai, R. 81 Balkans 26, 35, 45, 129 Anatolia 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 24, 40, 55, Balkh 65, 76, 78, 86, 93, 102, 104, 114, 153 59–60, 61, 73, 76, 82, 83, 85, 123, Barfield, T. 55, 59, 64 128–63, 164, 166; settlement and Bar Hebraeus 8, 9, 28, 30, 31, 32, 67, 68, conquest in 139–44; targets and nature 71, 81, 82, 88, 123, 126, 140, 154, 155 of Anatolian campaigns 144–51 Barthold, W. 6, 12, 36 Angold, M. 128, 132 Bas¯as¯ır¯ı95, 117, 121, 143, 155 Ani 129, 131, 133–4, 145, 149 Basil II, Byzantine Emperor 128, 131, 132, Ans.¯ar¯ı114, 115, 116 133, 135, 156 An¯ushirw¯an31 Battle of ‘Al¯ı¯ab¯ad86 Arabs 32, 57, 65, 74, 85, 96, 128, 129, 135, Battle of Dand¯anq¯an7, 44, 95, 125 137, 152, 153, 155, 159, 160, 161, 162 Battle of Manzikert 5, 10, 14, 15, 95, 106, Aris¯ıgh¯ı143–4 107, 127, 128, 144, 145, 150, 151, Aristakes Lastiverttsi 78, 89, 126, 133, 159, 163 135, 139, 140, 144, 145–6, 152, 156, 163 Battle of Nis¯a74, 79, 91 Armenia 11, 23, 40, 66, 77, 129, 131, 132, Battle of T. alkh¯ab59, 79, 86 133, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145, 152, B¯ayaz¯ıdI, Ottoman sultan 2 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 153, 156, 164 Bayhaq¯ı7–8, 11, 14, 25, 26, 38, 42–3, 44, Armstrong, P. 160 52, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 74, 75, 79, 80, Artsruni, T. 145 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, Arutjunova-Fidanjan, V. 132 94, 110, 112, 113, 114, 125 Ash‘arism 100, 102, 103, 104, 105; de Beaureceuil, S. 104, 114, 115, 116 anti-Ash‘arite mih.na 106, 109–14; Bedouin 58, 152, 154, 155, 156, 162 Ash‘ar¯ıs’enemies 114–18 Begtoghd¯ı74–5, 83 Atatürk 14 Bell-Fialkoff, A. 45 186 Index Bianquis, Th. 155 Cribb, R. 55, 56 B¯ır¯un¯ı49 Crow, J. 160 Blake, R.P. 35 Crusaders 60, 84, 157, 160, 161, 162 Book of Dede Korkut 149–50 Bosworth, C.E. 7, 12, 13, 33, 37, 42, 43, 45, Dabashi, H. 122 47, 54, 56, 57, 60, 62, 64, 73, 74, 76, 77, Dangles and Prouteau 134 79, 80, 82, 87, 89, 94, 96, 113, 141, 153 Dankoff, R. 52, 59, 124 Boyle, J.A. 12, 24, 64 Davidovitch, E.A. 36 Brand, C. 72 David the Builder, King of Georgia Bregel, Y. 26, 125 148, 151 Brehier, L. 60 Decker, M. 129 Brentjes, B. 45 Dédéyan, G. 131, 133, 157 Brook, K.A. 35 Dennis, G.T. 138 Bukh¯ar¯a36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 57, 60, Devereux, R. 126, 127 61, 124 DeWeese, D. 124 Bulliet, R.W. 67, 87, 90, 100, 102, 107, Dh¯u‘l-Qarnayn 126 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113 Divitçioˇglu,S. 21 Busse, H. 73 Diy¯arBakr 57, 70, 74, 138, 139, 140, 141, B¯uyids 1, 2, 4, 5, 73, 100, 120, 159, 166 143, 144, 146, 151, 152, 154, 161 Byzantium 1, 4, 5, 16, 20, 23, 35, 40, 45, Dunlop, D.M. 34, 35 59, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 107, 127, 128–9, Duq¯aq27, 29, 31, 34, 37, 38, 41, 61 152, 156, 157, 159–61, 162–3, 164, 166; Durand-Guédy, D. 10, 31 defences 129–39 see also Anatolia Ebulgazi Bahadır Han 25, 68 Edwards, R. 134 Cahen, C. 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 24, 32, 37, 38, 40, Ephrat, D. 100, 101, 102, 103, 108, 116 48, 49, 57, 61, 70, 84, 85, 102, 140, 143, Eurasia 1, 4, 5, 11, 16–35, 37, 45, 47, 49, 151, 153, 155 54, 58, 60, 63, 64, 72, 74, 76, Caucasus 1, 2, 11, 69, 70, 73, 82, 129, 131, 95, 135, 164 133, 136, 140, 142, 144, 149–51, 152, 156, 164 F¯ariq¯ı140, 143 cavalry 51, 71, 79–80, 84, 86–7, 98 F¯at.imids 1, 118, 121, 143 Central Asia, Selj¯uqsin, to 1055 72, 73, Faulkner, R.K. 161 80, 81, 83 Feudalism 13–14 Central Asia on eve of Sel¯uqmigration Firdaws¯ı33, 72 35–7 Fletcher, J. 56, 63, 68 Chaghr¯ı17, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, Foss, C. 159 56, 62, 63, 64, 66–8, 70, 76, 77, 78, 80, Frenkel, Y. 54 81, 82, 83, 85, 86–7, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, Frye and Aydın 23 125, 142–3, 153 Frye and Sayılı 16 Cheynet, J.-C. 128, 132, 133, 151 Chinese sources 16, 19–20 Ganjeï, T. 52 Chinggis Khan 63, 68, 81, 164 Gard¯ız¯ı8, 11, 14, 42, 43, 44, 52, 76, 84, 85, Christensen, P. 157–8 87, 93, 94 Christians 18, 124, 128, 132, 141, 149, Garsoïan, N. 131, 132 150, 156, 164 see also Crusaders Georgia 6, 11, 84, 129, 131, 132–3, 135, Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Cilicia 24, 129, 161 138, 140, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151 climate change 45 Ghaz¯al¯ı1,100 Comnena, A. 152 Ghaznavids 1–2, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, Constantine Monomachus, Byzantine 29, 33, 36–7, 40–1, 42, 43, 44, 45, 52, Emperor 132 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 69, 70, 73, 74–6, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Byzantine 78–81, 83, 86–9, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, Emperor 19, 34, 72, 138 113, 115, 166 di Cosmo, N. 63, 72, 81 ghul¯ams 94, 95–6, 97, 98, 128, 149, 166 Index 187

Ghuzz 17, 21, 25–6, 42, 48–53, 54, 55, 56, Ibn al-T. iqt.iq¯a28, 31, 32 68, 71, 74, 77, 85, 89, 96, 98, 108, 120, Ibn ‘Aq¯ıl100, 103, 114 140, 141, 142, 151, 152, 153, 165 see Ibn B¯ıb¯ı12 also Oghuz; Türkmen Ibn Fad.l¯an 23, 26, 88 Giorgi I, King of Abkhazia 131, 133, 135 Ibn H. ass¯ul10–11, 29, 30, 32, 35, 44, 52 Glassen, E. 100, 110, 119 Ibn H. awqal 21, 23, 26 Gök Turks 17, 18, 23, 33, 34, 55, 58, Ibn Khallik¯an110 64, 165 Ibn Kh¯an155, 156 Golden, P.B. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 28, Ibn Muslima 117, 118, 120, 121 31, 33, 35, 37, 49, 53, 62, 72, 74, 76, Ibn Rajab 103, 104, 115, 116 77, 148 Ibr¯ah¯ımYin¯al see Yin¯al,Ibr¯ah¯ım Grousset, R. 139 Idr¯ıs¯ı23 Gündüz, T. 148 Inan, A. 125 Gurg¯an¯ı23, 33 In¯anjBeg 28, 32, 33, 34 India 65, 73, 78, 79 Hadhb¯an¯ıKurds 153 Iran 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 31, 33, 37, 41, 51, 55, Haldon, J. 129, 160 69, 72–3, 77, 82, 85, 95, 100, 102, 122, Hallaq, W.B. 102, 103 128, 139, 151, 152, 153, 157, 158, 162, Halm, H. 111, 112 164, 166 Hamad¯an154 Iraq 1, 4, 9, 12, 33, 51, 73, 82, 84, 95, 111, H. amdall¯ahMustawf¯ı37 128, 143, 154, 157, 158, 159, 164, 166 H. anafism 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, see also Baghdad 105–8, 115, 122, 166; anti-Ash‘arite ‘Ir¯aq¯ıyaTürkmen 42, 51, 66, 68, 69–71, mih.na 109–14 74, 76, 79, 84, 85, 87, 126, 139, 140, H. anbal¯ıs102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 141, 143, 153–5, 156, 157, 165 114–17, 118 Is.fah¯an67, 69, 78, 118, 157 Hanne, E. 100 Is.fah¯an¯ı/Bund¯ar¯ı10–12, 31, 41, 43, 109, Heidemann, S. 161 110, 121 Heller and Stillman 31 Iskandar, A.Z. 26 Hendy, M.F. 157, 160 Islam 1, 6, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 30, Herat 66, 67, 78, 86, 103, 115, 116, 36, 38, 41, 42, 49, 51, 55, 99–127, 157, 118, 142 164, 165–6 see also Shi’ites; Sunnis Hervé 59–60 Hillenbrand, C. 3, 10, 15, 119, 127, 150 Jenkins, R.J.H. 138 Hij¯az111, 127 Juwayn¯ı100, 107, 114 Hodgson, M. 17 Holmes, C. 132 Honigmann, E. 137, 138 Kaegi, W. 76 H. ud¯udal-‘Alam¯ 20, 123 Kafadar, C. 59 Huns 16, 164 Kafesoˇglu,I. 3, 14, 139 H. usayn¯ı29, 30, 31, 32, 41, 49, 51, 56, 61, Kalmuck families 87 63, 66, 74, 76, 79, 86, 91, 92, 121, 122, Kara, S. 103 149, 166 Karkh 120 Karr¯am¯ıs113 Ibn Ab¯ı’l-Waf¯a107, 108 K¯ashghar¯ı,Mah.m¯ud 20–1, 34, 49, 51, 52, Ibn al-‘Ad¯ım28, 31, 33, 34, 126 53, 58, 59, 124, 126, 127 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Ibn al-Ath¯ır9, 11, 18, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, Kasrav¯ı,A. 84, 139, 157 35, 41, 48, 50, 51, 53–4, 57, 59, 61, 62, Kazakh nomads 5, 87, 124–5 63, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 74, 78, 79, 81, 85, Kennedy, H. 90 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 110, Khazanov, A.M. 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 64, 68, 113, 117, 119–20, 125, 126, 133, 139, 87, 88 140, 141, 142, 144, 150, 151, 153, 154 Khazars 4, 24, 27–35, 41, 45, 59, 165 Ibn al-Jawz¯ı103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 112, Khitans 19, 81 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 142, 155 Khoury and Kostiner 57 188 Index Khur¯as¯an4, 7, 12, 13, 16, 38, 40, 42, 43, Mas‘¯udof Ghazna 7, 8, 40, 66, 69, 74, 76, 44, 45, 47, 53, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80–1, 82, 83, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88–9, 93, 94, 95, 140, 166 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 111, 115, 116, Mas‘¯ud¯ı20, 26, 34 125, 142, 166 Matthew of Edessa 131, 133, 137, 138, Kh¯uzist¯an158–9, 162 141, 144, 150, 151, 152, 156, 162, 163 Khw¯arazmians2, 3, 23, 24, 25, 26, 36, 43, Matthews and Glatz 160 44, 69, 70, 86, 96 May, T. 81, 83 Kimek Turks 20, 35, 56 Mecca 127 Kirghiz tribe Turks 5, 94 Meisami, J.S. 6, 7, 30, 50 Klemm, V. 117 Meyer, W.B. 45 Kotchnev, B.D. 38, 41, 43 migration 1, 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, Kouymjian, D.K. 11, 29 21, 26, 35, 37–46, 53, 57, 61, 73, 82, Köprülü, M.F. 18 83–9, 94, 140, 148, 152, 158 Köymen, M. 14 M¯ık¯a’¯ılids63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 165 Kundur¯ı109, 110, 111, 112, 116, 120, 121 Minorsky, V. 25, 26, 68, 133, 140, 149, Kurds 95, 152, 153–6 152, 154 Mird¯asids138 Laiou and Morrisson 132 M¯ırkhw¯and27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, Lake Van 129, 131, 134, 135, 137, 140, 38, 40, 41, 45, 50, 53, 65, 66, 77, 91, 145, 148 92, 120 Lambton, A. 3, 85, 119, 141, 148, 152–3, Mongols 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 20,24, 56, 58, 59, 63, 158, 162 68, 74, 76, 81, 82, 83, 85, 87, 126, 146, Lang, D.M. 131 152, 158, 161, 164 Laoust, H. 118 Morgan, D. 3 Laoust and Dahh¯an103 Morony, M. 158 Law-schools, see madhhabs Mottahedeh, R. 101 Liao, see Khit¯ans,Qit.¯akh¯an Mu’ayyad f¯ı’l-D¯ınal-Sh¯ır¯az¯ı10, 117, 121, Lewis and Holt 6 127, 138, 142 Lightfoot, C.S. 159 Muqaddas¯ı49, 54, 55, 99 Lindner, R.P. 61 Mu’tazilism 102, 103, 104, 109, 114, 115 livestock 87–8, 153 Nagel, T. 100 Mackay et al. 45 N¯as.ir-i Khusraw 106, 110, 157 Madelung, W. 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 115 N¯awuk¯ıya143, 144 madhhabs 99, 100, 101–5, 116 N¯azim, M. 79 Mah.m¯ud of Ghazna 8, 36, 40, 41, 42, 53, Necef, E.N. 37 62, 65, 113, 114, 115, 119 en-Nesawi, M. 84 Makdisi, G. 3, 5, 99, 100, 103, 105, 106, Neve, P.J. 159 107, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118 N¯ısh¯ap¯ur4, 5, 7, 47, 53, 56, 63, 66, 67, 70, Malamud, M. 122 74, 78, 81, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92–4, 100, M¯alik¯ıs99, 113 102, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, Malikn¯ama 8–9, 11, 24, 27–32, 37, 38–41, 114, 115, 116, 118, 165 42, 43–6, 50, 65, 77, 81, 83, 90, 91, 92, N¯ısh¯ap¯ur¯ı,Z. ah¯ıral-D¯ın10, 30, 31, 50, 52, 109, 120–1, 122, 165 57, 152 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Maliksh¯ah9, 26, 31, 52, 64, 68, 104, 105, Niz. ¯amal-Mulk 1, 26, 47, 52, 101, 103, 106, 108, 118, 119, 149, 161, 165 104, 107, 114, 118, 125, 149, 165 Manchuria 18 Niz. ¯am¯ıya104, 106, 107, 118 Manz, B.F. 82, 94 Nokandeh et al. 72 Maqr¯ız¯ı24 Northedge, A. 158 Marw¯anids137, 138, 152 Marv 78, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 Oberhänsli et al. 45 Marvaz¯ı18, 19, 25–6 Obolensky, D. 73 Index 189 Oghuz 17–27, 35, 37, 38, 48–53, 54–5, S¯am¯anids12, 13, 23, 33, 35–6, 37, 40, 45, 56–7, 59, 73, 88, 123, 125, 127 see also 57, 61, 95 Ghuzz Samarqand 44, 57, 61 Ottomans 2, 15, 57, 59, 123, 148 Selj¯uqb. Duq¯aq1, 27–8, 32, 34–5, 41, 59 Özfirat, A. 152 Selj¯uqs,descendants 60–8; family tree 64 Özgüdenli, O.G. 67, 68 Selj¯uqs,term 48–53, 55 settlement 55–7, 59 and conquest in Paphlagonia 160–1 Anatolia and Caucasia 139–44; Selj¯uqs pasture 44–5; 145–51, 153, 154, 155–6, and other nomadic groups 152–6; 158–9, 162 Türkmen impact on settled life 156–63 Paul, J. 8, 36, 78, 82, 83, 92, 93 see also urban populations, Selj¯uq Peacock, A.C.S. 6, 31, 66, 68, 140, relationship with 143, 150 Sevim, A. 9 Pechenegs 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 34, Shab¯ankara152–3 35, 45, 50, 59, 72, 73, 127, 131 Shadd¯adids139, 140, 152 Persia 12, 30, 32, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 57, 65, Sh¯adhinj¯an154 67–8, 88, 91, 134, 139 Sh¯afi’ism99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 107, Planhol, X. de 85, 155 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116 Pritsak, O. 19, 24–5, 26, 36 Sh¯ah-Malikb. ‘Al¯ı24–5, 38, 40, 43, 62, 90 Pyne, N. 158–9 shamanism 123, 124 Shephard, J. 133 Q¯adir 99, 100 Shi’ites 5, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102, 117, Q¯aj¯arperiod 2 119–21, 123 Qarakh¯anids12, 13, 17, 20, 26, 33, 34, Sh¯ır¯az117 36–8, 40, 43, 44, 45, 52, 57, 62, 65, 95 Shirw¯an154 Qarluqs 18, 20, 36, 51, 54, 94 Sibt. b. al-Jawz¯ı9, 11, 51, 52, 61, 62, 68, Qashq¯a’¯ı55, 56 84, 95, 96, 97, 98, 117, 126, 143, 150, Qat.r¯an-i Tabr¯ız¯ı157 151, 154, 155, 162 Qazv¯ın¯ı119 Sinclair, T.A. 134, 137, 146, 148 Qiniq 17, 21, 41, 57 Sinor, D. 16, 61, 76, 83 Qipchaqs 24–5, 26, 35, 56, 59 Skylitzes, J. 60, 133, 135, 141 Qit¯akh¯an18–19 Smbat II, Armenian king of Ani 134 Qizil 71, 165 Smith, J.M. 55 Q¯un 18 Sorrel et al. 45 Qushayr¯ı109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 118 Spinei, V. 26 Qutlumush 66, 68, 70, 78, 98, 105, 125, Spuler, B. 48 140, 143, 150 Stephenson, P. 73 S¯ub¯ash¯ı90, 91 Ramla 162 Subk¯ı109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116 Rapp, S. 11 Rash¯ıd-al-D¯ın25, 54, 60, 63, 64 Sufism 1, 101, 103, 115, 122, 123 R¯avand¯ı30, 31, 50, 52, 105, 109, 122 Sulaym¯anb. Qutlumush 61–2, 68 Raww¯adids139, 153 Sümer, F. 14, 17, 24, 25, 55, 84 Rayy 70, 71, 85, 104, 106, 113, 115, 143 Sunnis 4, 5, 96, 99, 101, 113, 114, 117, Redford, S. 137, 161 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 166 Richards, D.S. 11 S¯ur¯ı,Ghaznavid governor of Khur¯as¯an85 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017 Romanus Diogenes 50, 128, 133, 151, 163 Syr Darya 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 36, 54, 59 Roux, J.-R. 59, 123, 125 Syria 2, 12, 73, 111, 118, 128, 132, 135, Russia 4, 20, 27, 33, 35, 45 137, 138, 152, 161, 162 Russian scholarship 13–14 Tahtacı 123, 124, 126 Sabari, S. 104 Talmon-Heller, D. 102, 115 Safi, O. 15, 48, 54, 100, 101, 122 T. an¯ah.¯ıand H. ulw 109 Sagona and Sagona 129, 135 Tanguts 19 190 Index Tapper, R. 57 Vryonis, S. 15, 84, 131, 132, 151–2, Ter-Ghewondyan, A. 137 156, 161 Theodosioupolis 131, 133, 134, 135, 138, 140, 145 Waldman, M.R. 7 Thierry, M. 134 warfare, Selj¯uqsin Central Asia, Iran and Thomson. R.W. 144, 146, 149, 150 Iraq 72–98; end of Türkmen dominance Tibet 19 in Selj¯uqmilitary 94–8; feigned retreat T¯ım¯ur2, 3, 82 74–6; manoeuvrability 79–81; numbers Tolstov, S.P. 54 of Selj¯uqforces and migrations 83–9; Tor, D. 122 Selj¯uqrelationship with urban Transoxiana 1, 12, 18, 20, 23, 30, 31, populations 89–94; siege warfare 77–9; 35, 36, 37–8, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, strategy 82–3; structure and command 50, 53, 54–5, 61, 63, 65, 94, 102, 81–2; weapons 76–7 107, 165 warfare, Turkish invasions, Anatolia and Treadgold, W. 131 Middle East 128–63; Byzantine East and Tsfarir 108 its defences 129–39; impact of the T. ughril 4, 7, 9, 10–11, 29, 33, 37, 40, 41, Türkmen 151–63 (Selj¯uqsand other 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 51, 53, 63, 64, 66–8, nomadic groups 152–6; Türkmen impact 70, 71, 77, 79, 82–3, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, on settled life 156–63); settlement and 91, 92, 93, 95, 96–8, 100, 105–6, 107, conquest in Anatolia and Caucasia 108, 109–10, 111, 112, 116, 117, 118, 139–44; targets and nature of Anatolian 119–21, 122, 125, 126, 133, 138, 140, campaigns 144–51 141, 142–3, 144, 145, 148, 149, Watt, W.M. 100 165, 166 William of Tyre 151 Turk, term 48 Wittfogel and Chia-Sheng 19 Turkestan 6, 12, 40 Woods, J.E. 146 Turkish religion, traditional 122–7 Turkish scholarship 14, 39 Xiong-nu 63, 164 Türkmen: nature of 47, 53–60 (defining Türkmen tribe 57–60; nomads and Yabgh¯u,use of term 33, 42, 64, 165 sedentaries 53–7); term 1, 25–6, 48–53 Y¯aq¯ut84, 157 see also Ghuzz, Yörük Yavari, N. 107 Yin¯al,Ibr¯ah¯ım59, 61, 64, 66, 67, 68, 78, urban populations, Selj¯uqrelationship with 90, 112, 121, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 89–94 see also settlement 151, 154, 155 Yinanç, M.H. 14, 148 Vahs¯ud¯anof Tabr¯ız153, 164 Yörük 123, 124 Vaspurakan 131, 132–3, 134–5, 139, 140, Yusuf, M.D. 162 145, 156, 162 Yuzbashian, K.N. 133, 134 Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 11:59 17 March 2017