Amir Temur Gurgan

[King of Atlantis]

Note: This is an article I have written for personal pleasure. I do hope you enjoy reading it while learning some things on Temur. If you see incorrect info feel free to point it out.

Amir Temur Gurgan
Scourge of God

Introduction:
Of all the mighty conquerors of the ages Temur is the most neglected by western society. When the word conqueror is muttered one may image the mighty Genghis Khan with his Mongol hordes descending upon the Chinese. Or perhaps ones imagines the innumerable phalanxes of the richly Alexander as they annihilate the forces of Darius. Very few however would think of perhaps the greatest conqueror of them all, Amir Temur ibn Taraghay ibn Bargul ibn Aylangir ibn Ichil ibn Al-Amir Karachar Noyan, or as we in the west know him, Tamberlane. It his story that shall now be told.

The Winds of Change:
The story of Temur is invariably tied to that of Genghis for it is out of the shattering of his empire that Temur’s would be born. Upon his death the Empire of Genghis would be divided amongst the four sons of his chief wife. Jochi the eldest would receive the lands of the fringe steppe. Through conquest of Batu this would eventually become the mighty Golden Khanate, but at the time it was much more modest in size and fortunes. The second son Chataghay would receive the lands of central Asia. The Second son, Ogedey would become the Great Khan and rule the lands of Northern China. The youngest son, Tolui would receive the mongolian homelands. The Ulus of Jochi as previously stated would grow to become the Golden Horde, or Kipack Horde. The Ulus of Chataghay would more or less remain constant in size. Both the Ulus of Ogedey and Tului would eventually be ruled as one and extend dominion over all of China. A fourth Khanate would be created by the conquests of Hulagu. This Khanate would be Ilkhanate( roughly subordinate Khante) which signifies its subordinate relationship with the Great Khanate. One by one these Khanates would descend into chaos. In the Ilkhanate troubles arose in 1335 with the death of Abu Sa’id. After his death wars of succession would rage until the last claimant was assassinated in 1353. Similarly the Golden Horde would plunge into secularism, which led to two separate Khanates, the White Horde and the Blue Horde. Most importantly to the subject at hand was the disintegration of Chataghay Khanate. Conflicts here would arise from the differences of the more sedentary west and the nomadic east. Unresolved disputes would lead two separate states, Mawarannahr in the west and Moghulstan in the east. This is the world that young Temur was born into.

Rise to Greatness:
In the year 1336 Temur(meaning iron) was born to Taragahy, a minor noble of the Barlas Clan. His early life would not be exceptional or of much significance. Young Temur was simply a boy raised on the steppe in the same tradition of countless others across the vast Eurasian Steppe. He would be trained at an early age the art of riding a horse and shooting a bow, skills which would prove very useful to him in latter life. These years would be interrupted when in 1360 the Moghul Khan Haji Beg would invade with the intentions of uniting the fragmented Ulus of Chataghay. The leader of the Barlas clan would choose flight of fight, but Temur would give a daring alternative. He would take a group of men and fight of the Moghul army. With his offer accepted Temur marched to the Moghula army, but rather the fight he cunningly chose to offer his services to the Moghuls. This risky offer was accepted and Temur would become a vassal. This did not last long however. Quickly an alliance with Amir Husayn of Balk the two would become outlaws. Temur would then roam Asia as a mercenary. It is in these days that he would receive serious wounds to his right limbs that would coin him the name, Temur the lame. Eventually through tactical genius Temur’s insurgency would prove victorious and the Moghuls would flee Mawarannahr. This victory however would be short lived for there was not enough room in southern Mawarannahr for the ambitions of Temur and Amir Husayn. While Husyan held the higher rank, Temur held the great skill and his following steadily increased. Open war would eventually ensue with Temur rising to the top. Killing Husyan Temur would take his wife Saray of the Genghis line and from then on he would take the title Gurgan, son-in-law of the Great Khan. With the defeat of Husyan Temur was the undisputed ruler of Mawarannahr and his reign of conquest was about ready for initiation.

The Tide of War:
Temur's conquests are so numerous that for the most part detail is impossible and altogether unnecessary. In the years following Temur’s ascension to ruler of Mawarannahr he lead two campaigns that ensured regional hegemony. The first was to the north against the Sufi Kingdom of Khorezm and the second was against his old enemy the Moghuls. Both enemies were defeated with ease and it was with this that Temur began to worry about bigger fish to fry. To the southwest lay the wealth of Persia awaiting a man strong enough to take it. Before this however Temur had to ensure his borders. With the defeat of the Moghuls his eastern border was secure, but the mighty Urus Khan of the White Horde posed a serious threat to the north. Urus had ambitions to restore the former glory of the Golden Horde, which included Temur’s new lands of Khorezm. To avoid a major conflict with his northern neighbor Temur opted to support a young Prince Tokhtamish who also desired a reunited Golden Horde. After several setbacks and the undaunting support of Temur, Tokhatmish was able to defeat Urus and crowned himself Khan of the White Horde. With his close ally securely in power Temur moved on a thunder campaign in Persia where he devastated cities and hordes their amassed their wealth. The once mighty cities such as Heart lay in ruins. Temur would moved further in taking Tabriz, Isfahan, and laid waste to the cities of the proud Georgians. Amidst all this glory Temur would receive terrible news. As he conquered the realms of the west his protégé Tokhatmish had led a raid into the empires heart, Mawarannahr. Having moved through all of Persia with relative ease Temur would now have an adversary of considerable skill and might. Temur’s ability would be put to the test for the first time since Amir Husyan.

of Ice and Steel:
Temur had used Tokhatmish as a method of weaking Urus’s power in the North, yet Tokhatmish was too successful. Instead of creating internal friction in the Northern realm Tokhatmish had successfully united the entire Golden Horde. As Khan of the Golden Horde Tokhatmish had but three options. He could attack the lands of Europe, the Ming, or the lands of Temur. To not attack anywhere would bring certain mutiny from his followers whom like any steppe army were dependent on spoils. The Ming were simply out of the question by mere equation of logistics and statistics and Europe was simply relatively poor. The only real option then was for Tokhatmish to attack his former master. Tokhatmish thus led several lightning raids into Temur’s territories while Temur was off campaining in the East. While Temur’s response was furious. After wintering in Taskent his army marched north into the vast steppes of central Asia. With masterful maneuvering Tokhatmish would avoid the Tartar army for five long months. Temur’s men were hungry, tired, and ready to be picked off. Only the personal charisma of Temur could keep the army moving. Eventually in the rim lands of Siberia Temur would manage top trap Tokhatmish and the battle of Kunduzcha would commence. Both armies had similar composition and similar numbers though Tokhatmish had the slight superiority. Also his men were in their homelands had been in much better supply throughout the months of marching. The two hordes would do battle and it would appear that Tokhatmish would win the day, but just as Temur’s forces were being overwhelmed Tokhatmish fled the battlefield for his life. This proved fatal for his army and they mimicked him shortly after spreading across the corners of the steppe. Tokhatmish was alive, but his power base destroyed. The victory was greatly celebrated, but the celebrations were not long lived. As soon as the next campaigning season came Timur prepared a new campaign in Persia. He would again conquer Persia while also stopping by Georgia to give the Christians a good hammering. Amazingly during this time Tokhatmish would resume his power and initiate raids in the Caucus as a defying blow to Temur. This adversary had to be defeated for good. Temur marched up to the lands of the Golden Horde once again for battle. This time Tokhatmish would have much less room to maneuver and he was promptly defeated. He was able to escape, so Temur had to make sure his empire could never return to power. Full of fiery wrath Temur rampaged through the prominent cities of Tana, Saray, and Astrakhan. The purpose was two-fold. Tokhatmish lost his power base and the massive trade that had passed through these cities was forced now to take the southern route through Temur’s lands. With only a brief stop to crush Georgia again Temur would return triumphantly to his capital of Samarkand. Here he would stay for two long years.

Temur the Man :
Of all the great conquerors Temur is one of the few who had not only the power of destruction, but the gift of creation as well. Temur was a magnificent patron of the arts and sciences. Temurid architecture is often viewed as the pinnacle of Muslim culture and his empire would become a hub of intellectuals of the era. While he was a strong builder of fine culture, Temur certainly lacked in governmental organization. For this he has been harshly criticized, yet this criticism is largly unjust. Temur did not focus on forming an organized empire, his empire was based soley around his person. Temur faced several revolts, but none that would threat the security of his empire. Revolts could easily be promptly put down by the Tartar army. This army fought in the traditional steppe style with a left wing, center, right wing, and vanguard. Through out his entire life Temur would be personally active in the campaigns and in his younger years he won renown not only as a commander of men, but as a mighty warrior despite the injuries of his right limbs. Another very common criticism of Temur is his cruelty and not stop conquest. Conquest was the only thing that kept Temur's soldiers loyal as they depended on the spoils of war for a living. Cruelty was to keep the loyalty of the populace. Terror was not a play toy of Temur, it was simply a tool necessary to maintain a peaceable empire. Entire cities were slaughtered, and Temur was very creative with methods to achieve this. In one instance he cemented the citizens into a tower as they were still living. This however meant that several cities would decide not to fight and save the conqueror much time from being bogged down in lengthy sieges. Temur was thus not only a mindless savage as some would have you to believe, but a brilliant tactician, a patron of the arts and intellect, fierce warrior, and an effective administrator. After two years stay in Samarkand this Renaissance man was ready for new conquests. The Uluses of Hulagu and Chataghay were his, with the Ulus of Jochi in ruins. The last fragments of the once mighty Mongolian empire lay to the east in China, and Temur had his sights dead set on them.

Land of Elephants and Gold:

Being ever a pragmatist Temur would alter his plans for China for that of India. The once mighty Sultanate of Delhi was plagued by internal strife and Temur could not pass such a resisting opportunity. Not only did Delhi hold great wealth, but there were plenty of infidels do kill as well. So the armies were prepared and Temur went on a journey through one of the world’s most extreme climates. Upon reaching Delhi Temur used an old age trick. By devastating the local area he forced the defenders out of their gates for battle. While Temur held the mightier army, Dehli had one weapon of unparalleled power, 100 armored War Elephants. Not only could these creatures inflict heavy causalities, they also were a serious psychological weapon. To overcome this gargantuan opponent Temur would use another trick. He placed straw on camels backs and set it on fire. The camels were sent into the ranks of Elephants and scared them back. In retreat these Elephants trampled many of their own men. The battle was won and the gates of Delhi open. The people would be spared, but they would rebel and ensure their own deaths. The once mighty city of Delhi was reduced to ruins. With the wealth of Delhi Temur would thus return again triumphantly to Samarkand and spared no expense to show off his new play toys, the War Elephants of Delhi. Like always however victory processions would be short lived. News that his long time enemy Sultan Barquq of Egypt and Syria had died and the succession problems that followed were like Delhi, an offer too tempting to decline. Once again Temur would round up the troops prepare once again for the long marches of war.

The Road to Damascus and the world beyond:
After returning from the exotic lands of India Temur would consript an army for a seven year long campaign. The march to Syria would be a very long one. Upon arrival Temur set the wheels of conquest quickly in motion. The great cities of Allepo and Silvas were defeated with the usual ease and Temur moved to the prime target, Damascus. Damascus was once the capital of the Islamic Caliphate and was of astonishing size, wealth, and beauty. While the defenses of Damascus could hold up to siege well not defenses could hold up to Temur’s army indefinatly. Finally the walls would be breached and the city was torched, and much to the dismay of Temur many of the Uyyamid structures were destroyed. With Syria under the heel of Temur the ten-year-old Sultan of Egypt had no choice but to swear his loyalty to Temur. The mighty empire that had repelled the Crusades and Mongol incursions was thus conquered by Temur in a matter of years. Having the Southern lands secure Temur would then turn to his biggest challenge yet, the mighty Ottoman Sultan Bayazid. Bayazid was an expert conqueror in his own right. It was his forces that crushed the Last Crusade at Nicopolis and it was his forces that evoked great fear throughout Europe. After a quick winter in the pastures of Qarabagh Temur was ready to test his might against this skilled adversary. With news of Temur’s arrival Bayazid would pull his troops away from the siege of Constantinople and head to the high ground at Ankara were his troops would have excellent advantage. Temur would however pull from his arsenal of deceit to make the battle on his terms. He marched his army not towards Ankara, but rather the heart of Asia minor where whole scale destruction was guaranteed to occur. Bayazid, determined to stop the devastation to his lands, led his army away from their defensive fortifications. Demonstrating masterful maneuvering Temur ended up camping on the same ground that Bayazid had just left. Temur prepared defensive fortifications and Bayazid had no choice, but to accept the battle. The Ottomans would have in the field of 120,000 men, while Temur had something in the ballpark of 80,000. It would be the climatic pinnacle of both conquerors careers and decide which was to carry the legacy of greatness beheld by only a few. The tartar drums would pound and the horde of Temur would descend onto the Ottomans. Bayazid’s forces would hold on till nightfall, but they could not resist the momentum of Temur. Bayazid’s forces began to crumble and the day was won. Temur was victorious and the Tartars would celebrate their finest hour. It was a day that would echo forever more throughout the ages.

Legacy:

As the fever if triumph cleared Temur was faced with two serious setbacks. His most loved grandson, heir to his throne, Mohammed Sultan died from wounds in battle and his honored adversary had died in captivity. Temur ruled the lands of Chataghay and the Ilkhanate, as well as domination of his vassals the Golden Horde, the Sultan of Syria and Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, and the Byzantines, yet his plans for succession had come to not. Mohammed Sultan was brilliant and fierce on the battlefield and his death simply devastated the aging emperor. Despite these setbacks Temur was determined for one final campaign against Ming China. Victory here would bring abundant wealth, honor, and was the perfect opportunity to convert the infidels of China to Islam. If his ambitions were to be achieved Temur would become the undisputed greatest conqueror of all time. Age however would not permit such dreams. On march to China the sickly emperor would finally fall prey to his illness. Age would bring Temur defeat no mortal man had ever gotten close too. Temur, the man whom the lives of millions hung on in a fragile balance was gone and a new age of the world was in order. Before his death Temur named Pir Mohammed his successor and warned that his sons and grandsons should not make war with each other for it will only serve to weaken them to their enemies. Unfortunately for the empire Temur’s descendants would not heed his words. Pir Mohhammed would be killed before he could receive his titles and a span of inter family war broke out. In the end the last of Temur’s sons, Shahrukh would finally stabilize the empire and continue the cultural legacy his father had begun. Within a century Temur’s empire would be gone and the only remnant of his power would be revived through Babur and the founding of the Moghul dynasty in India. In modern times the name Temur is often forgotten in the West, but in the East he has become an icon, especially in Uzbekistan where he is a symbol of nationalism in a post soviet land looking for identity. Amir Temur Gurgan was truly a conqueror in the ranks of Genghis and Alexander, and a man of personal character that most men can only aspire too. Born a small boy in the steppe, he would grow to change the course of history forever.

[Orb]

very interesting stuff, I can say that I didn't know about him previously (then again, the only teacher we've had by GCSE year that did anything medieval deducted marks for my statement that the Saxon Housecarls were better soldiers than the Norman cavalry - damned British education system)

[Duke of Gloucester]

the only teacher we've had by GCSE year that did anything medieval deducted marks for my statement that the Saxon Housecarls were better soldiers than the Norman cavalry

Quite right too, if you did not qualify what you meant by better and justify the satement with reference to evidence!

[Randarkmaan]

the only teacher we've had by GCSE year that did anything medieval deducted marks for my statement that the Saxon Housecarls were better soldiers than the Norman cavalry

How do you know that they were better? They were beaten and in a way it shows that in the medieval period an army which included cavalry as well as infantry was much more powerful than one which consisted solely of infantry.

[The Wizard]

Great article! Timur-i-Lenk was a great and innovative commander, certainly, and a fearsome ruler.

But greater than Chingis Khan? Hardly. Half the man's campaigns were him doubling back to crush a revolt in his rear. His cruelty knew no bounds and many of the myths of Mongol evil stem not from the Mongols themselves but from Timur's ruthless armies. The mountains of skulls, for instance, were his idea -- not that of Chingis.

Yet for all the fear he attempted to put into those he conquered he could not keep them placid. Timur could not do what the Mongols had done with terror, and was forced to exact multiple revenges on places he had conquered before, each renewed act of vengeance more brutal than the last, to no avail. His empire crumbled the moment word got out he was dead -- crumbled as it had been for all his life, with only his iron will and iron fist to give it a semblance of unity.

No, Timur was in no way what Chingis Khan was. He was quite arguably a better tactician, and perhaps Chingis' equal in strategy, but whatever he did was for the short-term. Unlike Chingis, Timur enjoyed his acts of barbarity, taking pleasure out of crushing those who had opposed him, where Chingis was only hard when it availed the stability of the empire he was building. What Timur had conquered was fractured to begin with, and the only legacy he left was his squabbling sons in place of the Turko-Mongol lords he had defeated. What is that compared to the Mongol Empire?

[L'Impresario]

Unlike Chingis, Timur enjoyed his acts of barbarity, taking pleasure out of crushing those who had opposed him, where Chingis was only hard when it availed the stability of the empire he was building.

Well, of that we can't be sure. Like the Mongols, he also liked to minimize his losses and gave preferential treatment to those that surrendered. Life was cheap in those times anyway - not to say that there weren't infinately more humane leaders than him, but he was betrayed a hundred times over heh

Timur started from a more precarious position than the one Temujin enjoyed and with less resources. He also faced an enemy that no European army could hope beating at the time: the Ottomans. His period wasn't the 13th century and many things had changed. It wouldn't be long before the great steppe empires became a thing of the past.
Timur's empire afterall wasn't strictly a "steppe empire", but tried to have more sedentary elements, a fine balance that he pursued in all areas of politics and economy. He tried to please the nomad warlords and at the same time make himself look "civilized", and become the leader of the Muslim world.

Furthermore, Timur and his descendants left behind unique works of art, even if it was financed by the blood and money of his beaten foes. Not bad though for a barbarian, one can only wonder where he acquired such fine tastes. Samarkhand after all is recognised a place of mystique and exoticism in the minds of many.
A controversial figure indeed, not lacking neither in majesty nor in cruelty.

[King of Atlantis]

But greater than Chingis Khan?

Greater? Don't get me wrong, Genghis is a hero of mine, and I often view him as one of the greatest men to ever live. In many ways Temur fell short of Genghis, but I was trying to stress exactly what you just said.

He was quite arguably a better tactician, and perhaps Chingis' equal in strategy, but whatever he did was for the short-term.

As for the revolts etc, I agree it demonstrates his lack of ability to make a functional empire, but again, a calm empire is not something he seemed to aspire too. He was always on the road of battle and under his leadership it worked for him. It was an Empire centered around a strong center and need that strong center to continue. If Mohammed Sultan had not died shortly after Ankara I think he would have been able to stablize the empire, of course though that is simply conjecture.

As for his cruelty, yes he did do things that were very gruesome(cementing people into a tower alive), but I dont see any indications he enjoyed it. Death was the penalty for rebellion or simply not submitting and Temur was consistant in exacting the punishments he promised. Not to mention he soldiers were dependant upon loot otherwise their loyalty to him would vaporize very quickly.

But, no I do agree that as a man in whole Genghis was the superior.

[The Wizard]

Well, of that we can't be sure. Like the Mongols, he also liked to minimize his losses and gave preferential treatment to those that surrendered. Life was cheap in those times anyway - not to say that there weren't infinately more humane leaders than him, but he was betrayed a hundred times over heh

Which was his own fault. He lacked the diplomatical ability in Chingis that allowed the latter to carve out a lasting empire. Timur's empire was all blood and fire and steel, held together by a standing army that was second to none at the time -- but that was all. Compared to the Yeke Mongol Ulus it was not much at all.

Timur started from a more precarious position than the one Temujin enjoyed and with less resources. He also faced an enemy that no European army could hope beating at the time: the Ottomans. His period wasn't the 13th century and many things had changed. It wouldn't be long before the great steppe empires became a thing of the past.
Timur's empire afterall wasn't strictly a "steppe empire", but tried to have more sedentary elements, a fine balance that he pursued in all areas of politics and economy. He tried to please the nomad warlords and at the same time make himself look "civilized", and become the leader of the Muslim world.

More precarious position? Perhaps if you are referring to Timur's younger days, when he struggled for control of Transoxania and its arguable capital Samarkand, but not after he had done that. Those early struggles were no more (or, better formulated, as) dramatic than those of the young Temuçin, and afterwards the rich grasslands, loyal tribes and thriving trade routes, not to mention the weak and divided enemies surrounding his realm, gave Timur an undoubtedly strong position from which to strike out.

As said before, his army was the most formidable fighting force of his day, and there were few enemies indeed that could have matched his. Timur himself was probably the principle strategical and tactical mind of his day as well, as demonstrated outside Delhi. The Ottomans were fine, yes, and powerful, indeed, but one must remember that they were not yet what they would become. Moreover, Timur was hundreds of kilometers from anywhere near his control and cut off from his supply lines as Baghdad had risen against him in his rear. He made the gamble that Hulegu had not dared to make and won, making use of the tribal politics of Asia Minor that the Ottomans had not yet fully mastered.

Furthermore, Timur and his descendants left behind unique works of art, even if it was financed by the blood and money of his beaten foes. Not bad though for a barbarian, one can only wonder where he acquired such fine tastes. Samarkhand after all is recognised a place of mystique and exoticism in the minds of many.

Timurid art was indeed fine, but it reached its zenith not under Timur himself but under his sons and descendants. Most notable of these was Husayn Bayqara, the lord of Herat. Also, Timur was the son of a Turko-Mongol chieftain, and could read and write. These men were no savages, my friend, but quite educated. Not half as educated as men like Babur would become, but a world away from the products of the 13th-century Mongol steppe.

Timur was great, yes. Yet he was that only in military matters. Purely from a military point-of-view he ranks amongst the very best of them all. Yet when one takes into account his useless cruelty, his failure to exploit his prowess on campaign, and his failure to set up a working state (Timur was interested only in Samarkand, explaining his lack of compassion for those he conquered, but even Samarkand was a constant center of strife between the Timurids), he falls short of belonging to the truly greats.

[Orb]

Randark and DoG - I agree with you, but if said teacher said that William 'cheated a bit' by drawing the Saxons down the hill... Amusingly, virtually all similar unqualified statements got marks.

My citation was Dyrrachium, where the Varangian guard (mostly English ex-Huskarls) repelled a Norman cavalry charge. I never disputed that a combined force of infantry, cavalry and archers was stronger than one of simple infantry.

Still, I won't spam this nice article anymore.

The sum of what I have been taught in school on medieval history was a loose misrepresentation of Hastings which we did without any sources being given (or indeed required). Pah. Thanks to King of Atlantis for writing it.

And according to said teacher, by a simple system of getting the class to choose who to support, said that it's obvious who the best candidate was...

Still, it must have been three years ago, I must forget...

[The Wizard]

If well-trained and motivated (those Anglosaxon Varangians hated the Normans with a deep passion), well-armed infantry -- say, armed with the stout Danish war axe -- could stop even the mighty charge of the couched lance and the destrier. Durazzo was the first time the Normans had ever been turned back in full charge; it was enough to make them flee in terror. Too bad Sichelgaita was there to rally them... Alexius might have won the field that day if not for her.

But we digress.

[L'Impresario]

Which was his own fault. He lacked the diplomatical ability in Chingis that allowed the latter to carve out a lasting empire. Timur's empire was all blood and fire and steel, held together by a standing army that was second to none at the time -- but that was all. Compared to the Yeke Mongol Ulus it was not much at all.

The funny thing is that not many can substantiate "his lack of diplomatic skills" by mentioning concrete examples and comparing them to the relevant mongol ones. For example one can mention his handling of the Tokhtamysh affair and how he failed to gain a more lasting allegiance from his allies and vassals, but this was not the 13th century. Great kingdoms had been dissolved in the meantime, powerful strongmen were ruling the rich central asian and middle eastern cities but no meaningful central authorities were to be found around there for a long time. Everyone fought for a place under the sun.
This may have initially aided Timur, but afterwards it meant that he had no founding stones upon which a lasting political structure could be established. The Mongols were luckier in this aspect and they started their conquests from an area that may have been the subject of foreign political interventions but was not a place one would prioritize in a spree of conquests.
And as I mentioned before, while Genghis could found his empire on meritocracy, Timur had to play with other concepts, gain legitimisation and followers in a place where theoretically one could find more suitable candidates, and also acquire prestige in the eyes of both muslims and "pagans". Should he become too soft, his allies from the steppes will happily supplant him. Should he favour them too much and overly engage in the tribal politics, he can lose support from the increasingly important part of his army who were serving under lords not very eager to see their positions undermined by steppe barbarians.

The Ottomans were fine, yes, and powerful, indeed, but one must remember that they were not yet what they would become.

Yes, but after Nicopolis one had to be careful not to draw the ire of Yıldırım, he gained a lot of respect and fear and faced no serious opposition in the west. Timur played his hand brillianty in the campaign that culminated with the Battle of Ancara. Doubledealings and backstabbings complemented his tactical skills.

Timurid art was indeed fine, but it reached its zenith not under Timur himself but under his sons and descendants. Most notable of these was Husayn Bayqara, the lord of Herat. Also, Timur was the son of a Turko-Mongol chieftain, and could read and write. These men were no savages, my friend, but quite educated. Not half as educated as men like Babur would become, but a world away from the products of the 13th-century Mongol steppe.

I know he wasn't a "barbarian", but try convincing the learned men of Syria of that small detail ;)

Anyway, how could Timurid art reach its zenith with Timur, since he was the one who initiated the whole period. Usually it takes some time for artistic movements to reach maturity and "fullness", but I'll limit myself to one word here: Registan. Nevertheless, periods of relative peace and prosperity helped Timurid art in many ways.

Still, I don't like comparing leaders, generals, personas etc as if they were a set of stats for a computer game. Each have their own place in history and "comparative greatness", or even "greatness" at all, is not something I'm fond of commenting. Now, for example, if someone makes a comparison to the short-lived napoleonic empire and another one retorts with Napoleon's lasting contribution to a lengthy list of domains, then I don't think a greater understanding of the person in question will be achieved. Humans work inside the personal and systemical restrictions of their time and place, and an absolute qualificative standard usually leaves me less wise (and goes in rounds).
Some people also say that a genious is a genious, you either have it or you don't, although the nature of ingeniousness differs.

[Justiciar]

Very few however would think of perhaps the greatest conqueror of them all, Amir Temur ibn Taraghay ibn Bargul ibn Aylangir ibn Ichil ibn Al-Amir Karachar Noyan,

No bloody wonder, with a name like that.

[edyzmedieval]

Really nice article.

And by the way, you cannot compare Saxon Huskarls with Normal Cavalry. Saxons are on foot, Normans are on horseback.

[The Wizard]

The funny thing is that not many can substantiate "his lack of diplomatic skills" by mentioning concrete examples and comparing them to the relevant mongol ones. For example one can mention his handling of the Tokhtamysh affair and how he failed to gain a more lasting allegiance from his allies and vassals, but this was not the 13th century. Great kingdoms had been dissolved in the meantime, powerful strongmen were ruling the rich central asian and middle eastern cities but no meaningful central authorities were to be found around there for a long time. Everyone fought for a place under the sun.
This may have initially aided Timur, but afterwards it meant that he had no founding stones upon which a lasting political structure could be established. The Mongols were luckier in this aspect and they started their conquests from an area that may have been the subject of foreign political interventions but was not a place one would prioritize in a spree of conquests.

I remind you that the Mongols built up a working, centralized state from nothing at all, a state that was arguably more advanced than any of its contemporaries. Chingis achieved this from a background of centuries of tribal strife.

Moreover, the conquests of the Mongols demanded that any potential enemies or rally points of resistance towards their might should be eliminated. What this entailed was that nobility was exterminated, massacred in droves when the Mongols took a city. What does that have to do with this? The following: it means that the Mongols had to start from scratch everywhere, having wiped the former administatrive structure off the face of the earth.

That was not the case with Timur-i-Lenk. He was Turko-Mongol and he faced Turko-Mongols wherever he went. His folly was that he viewed whatever he conquered as mere quarries for the greater glory of Samarkand and Transoxania. Unlike with the Mongols, where each part was equal under the dominance of the Golden Family and their tumen, the empire that Timur had conquered was basically Samarkand -- and the regions from which it drew its wealth. Timur apparently seemed to think of everything outside of his Transoxanian home as a place to strip of wealth and intelligentsia and bring it to Samarkand. Anyone that disagreed was mercilessly slaughtered in ways more brutal than those of the Mongols ever were.

And as I mentioned before, while Genghis could found his empire on meritocracy, Timur had to play with other concepts, gain legitimisation and followers in a place where theoretically one could find more suitable candidates, and also acquire prestige in the eyes of both muslims and "pagans". Should he become too soft, his allies from the steppes will happily supplant him. Should he favour them too much and overly engage in the tribal politics, he can lose support from the increasingly important part of his army who were serving under lords not very eager to see their positions undermined by steppe barbarians.

Incorrect. The hard foundation upon which Timur's empire was built -- as was his army, but that is only natural since Timur's empire waxed and waned depending on his force of arms -- was that of the Turko-Mongol nomads of Transoxania and the Chaghatay Khanate. The Chaghataid tribesman was the pillar upon which the entire Timurid empire, that is to say Samarkand and the rest, rested.

Yes, but after Nicopolis one had to be careful not to draw the ire of Yıldırım, he gained a lot of respect and fear and faced no serious opposition in the west. Timur played his hand brillianty in the campaign that culminated with the Battle of Ancara. Doubledealings and backstabbings complemented his tactical skills.

Indeed. Yet for each time he was the master of the tribal politics of the Turkic world of the Middle Ages, there is an equal amount of times that he was its victim. Unlike Chingis Timur was unable to extract himself from the vicious fraternal strife of the steppe, which had been exported to everywhere that the Turks held sway, and that, added to the fact that to him everything he conquered was a quarry with which to enrich and better Samarkand, meant that his empire was no stable construct. It was not meant to last. Timur had no long-term vision -- unlike Chingis Khan. That is very simply why he falls short of the latter's greatness.

I know he wasn't a "barbarian", but try convincing the learned men of Syria of that small detail ;)

Yes, the "learned men", who lacked the knowledge to be able to seperate the 13th-century Mongol tumen from the 15th-century Timurid army.

Anyway, how could Timurid art reach its zenith with Timur, since he was the one who initiated the whole period. Usually it takes some time to reach for artistic movements to reach maturity and "fullness", but I'll limit myself to one word here: Registan.

Built after Timur's death

Still, I don't like comparing leaders, generals, personas etc as if they were a set of stats for a computer game. Each have their own place in history and "comparative greatness", or even "greatness" at all, is not something I'm fond of commenting. Now, for example, if someone makes a comparison to the short-lived napoleonic empire and another one retorts with Napoleon's lasting contribution to a lengthy list of domains, then I don't think a greater understanding of the person in question will be achieved. Humans work inside the personal and systemical restrictions of their time and place, and an absolute qualificative standard usually leaves me less wise (and goes in rounds).

I disagree. Within the confines of his time Timur had greater opportunity and a better base from which to start out, yet he achieved far less than did Chingis Khan from far more meager beginnings. The only thing excusing that was Timur's age: he started his conquests outside Transoxania at a surprisingly advanced age. He was no young god, like Alexander -- which becomes him.

[Tamur]

Well-written article! This is definitely not a fellow you hear much about, nice for him to get some exposure.

No bloody wonder, with a name like that.

ha! good point. For some odd reason, though, I happen to like his name

[Orda Khan]

Nice article. I would only question the summary of the various Khanates (in particular, the so-called Golden, White, Blue Hordes), though perhaps it is less possible to describe the Mongol picture in a short paragraph. It made good reading.

Chingis clawed his way from an outcast with only a few siblings to his position. The Wizard has done a fine analysis of both situations

......Orda

[L'Impresario]

I remind you that the Mongols built up a working, centralized state from nothing at all, a state that was arguably more advanced than any of its contemporaries. Chingis achieved this from a background of centuries of tribal strife.

Moreover, the conquests of the Mongols demanded that any potential enemies or rally points of resistance towards their might should be eliminated. What this entailed was that nobility was exterminated, massacred in droves when the Mongols took a city. What does that have to do with this? The following: it means that the Mongols had to start from scratch everywhere, having wiped the former administatrive structure off the face of the earth.

The chinese states and Khwarezm weren’t the pinnacle of unruly lands, and even if you completely remove the aristocracy (which ofcourse wasn’t always the case), you don’t magically transform the local social structures overnight. Bureaucracies, even the most basic ones, are resistant to radical change and can provide the framework for decentralised systems, as here we ‘re talking about the disintegration of traditional authority and its incorporation to a multiethnic empire. Everyday administration found continuation in the carcasses of the great states that tried to resist the Mongols. Karakorum (in a figurative sense, a great capital for nomads is more or less an oxymoron) didn’t act as a guiding centre for bureaucratic issues, but for grand strategy and high politics. Leave and let leave may not be exactly what the Mongols did, on the other hand they were surely more interested in getting their due, maybe forming a new local elite as well, but outright engineering of new “pastures” for their newly acquired human herds…no.

Although they definitely loved cherry-picking specialists and human resources just like Temur, the lame guy sure took this pastime to new heights – he could use some Chinese, nevertheles he was afraid of the Ming up till the point he took care of the threats from the newly established Burji line, the Ottomans and his meddling into White Horde affairs (up until the Battle of Vorskla River strong powers in that region could create him headaches, but afterwards the tatar/turkic ability to loot eastern Russian lands and then project their forces to Central Asia was terminally hampered).

Incorrect. The hard foundation upon which Timur's empire was built -- as was his army, but that is only natural since Timur's empire waxed and waned depending on his force of arms -- was that of the Turko-Mongol nomads of Transoxania and the Chaghatay Khanate. The Chaghataid tribesman was the pillar upon which the entire Timurid empire, that is to say Samarkand and the rest, rested.

What I mentioned is a common theme, encountered in quite a few recent historical biographies of Temur. Turkic and mongolic ethnicities are quite general as terms. And amalgamating them into the word “turco-mongol” doesn’t remove the issues that were already encountered in the Chagatai lands, with Mongols forming a new population layer and in the process adding a few extra ones as integration went on. Common roots existed, no doubt about it, but the Mongols there remained more or less “purists” regarding their way of life (something that constitutes a reversal from the usual procedure nomad populations experience), while their subjects were more diverse and in time even more sedentary elements conflicted with the traditional establishment, something that left the region in a pretty bad shape; culture and religion created quite a fuss back then. Future statesmen in the area surely took note of what happened in the 13th century.

Drawing nearer to the close of the 15th century you definately had the tribesmen that rode through the steppes like nothing ever changes, but you had the sedentary folk playing a vertebral role in the state affairs and providing military and “industrial” assets to Temur. Their importance was on the rise from Kebak’s tumulteous rule and as usual, opposing forces surfaced and reaffirmed to some extent pastoralism in the east and central Chagatai lands despite the fact that elsewhere attempts like this did not last long. Past administrative reforms in the land, that had support from the soft (according to the hardened nomads) “quranna” people, could be described as successful and the safest way to power consolidation when ruling over settled populations. Still, no love lost between the traditionalists and the sedentaries, the former opposing any detachment from the “ancien régime” practices (so it wasn’t actually that “ancien” at that point heh). Here’s where promoting a delicate balance appeared necessary.

By the 15th century you had another attempt to infuse back some traditional values, but this time not the “mongol”, yasa-friendly ones. They were turkic-based and the inhabitants, especially the city folk, of Ma wara'an-nahr, a divided land, felt the –threatening - expansion (once again) of Persian influence towards the east, ofcourse not in the same way as in the Il-khanid period. Consequently, this created and reaffirmed identities, and that’s why you’ll see boiling literary movements during those years, with Nava'i acting as the torch-bearer in matters pertaining to turkic civilisation. With Temur’s conquests, the amalgation didn’t stop. Turkic civilisation gained though in the process the ability to interact in more favourable terms with outside influences.

And returning to the discussion on personal similarities and such, after all, you said it yourself; he was working for the greater glory of Samarkand. How true to his steppe blood was this attachment to a single place? His goals weren’t the same with Genghis Khan’s, nor was his environment – at many levels – or the general political situation. And to be short, his world was until relatively recently rocked violently by the Mongol’s actions, but soon the waves turned into ripples and that which remained was disunity and in some places hateful remembrance of the Houses’ rule.



Might it be that Genghis was blessed with an entourage of charesmatic personalities while Temur’s designated heirs, the ones the warlord himself found worthy enough of preserving his legacy, died before him, maybe a perverse game of genes? What the Mongols were to face a few generations later happened to Temur earlier. After all he was a single person who managed to grab most of some ulus that were administered by different branches of the not-so-united Mongol Empire. On this, one should mention that a significant achievement of the Khanates was warfare without great interruptions to other activities. Temur saw “other activities” as an expedient for his campaigns and personal glory, maybe a bit more than the other “boyz from the steppe”.
As I said before, I’m not advocating any candidatures for this guy’s “greatness” or the other’s, but why should infatuation with how one handles posterity take indirectly so many pages in relevant discussions? Genghis didn’t enjoy optimal PR, but Temur definitely wasn’t spared a bit. Don’t you wonder sometimes what’s the difference between slaughtering whole cities and letting the bodies rot and slaughtering whole cities and building towers of skulls (vengeance and submission through terror being always the reason)? Yes, the wall idea was a bit too much, but it wasn’t like standard practice, and Temur had to bring some originality to being cruel, after all the Mongols had set the standard at a pretty good level.
I believe Temur had a vision. But he was a very complicated, contradicting and multi-dimensional personality, and therefore his aims are not that clear. Uniting the mongol heritage, styling himself a continuation of the Great Khans, the notion of an islamic empire, becoming recognised as the mightiest defender of the faith, engineering the rise of the greatest city in the world, initiating a period of artistic bloom, making himself known as a great conqueror, a random journey of oportunism, all these themes blend and show parts of the dissimilar images of himself he promoted and the conflicting mantles he forced himself to take.

I disagree. Within the confines of his time Timur had greater opportunity and a better base from which to start out, yet he achieved far less than did Chingis Khan from far more meager beginnings. The only thing excusing that was Timur's age: he started his conquests outside Transoxania at a surprisingly advanced age. He was no young god, like Alexander -- which becomes him.

This also shows another thing that doesn’t help the justification of meaningful comparisons (or attempts to do that) between people from different times with a single set of tools. One is locked into a circle of achievement semi-quantification, (something similar to what controversial Dr. Modis does, but for other purposes heh) and it’s funny somehow to bring some determinism into the play. I mean, for example, people mention that Genghis started from zero and climbed to the top. But does anyone doubt Genghis’ fate had he not possessed all these valuable early experiences that formed his character? A sine qua non actually, encountered countless times; you can’t have the same board for all players, so better evaluate them in their unique context.
If it’s such a necessity to make comparisons, why not start with some of the Mongol successor states? After all, they are the ones that set the stage for Temur’s appearance. Their internal fights didn’t get any of them very far, yet the bandit conquered or ruled through puppets most of the grounds that used to belong to 3 of them.

Built after Timur's death

Heh, that’s why I said “one word”. More people know it and it evokes a powerful image. Eitherway, Temur’s lifetime was full of similar accomplishments and setting the tone for the future: Aq-Saray, Gur-e Amir, Cathedral Mosque, Bibi-Khanüm Mosque etc And splendid architectural feats and legendary gardens were not the sole forte of Timurid art…

[Orda Khan]

Timur was no steppe nomad.
The Chagadai Ulus did not exist after 1251.
There was an area roughly where it had originally been but any claims that Timur in any way subjugated the Chagadaids are altogether spurious and inaccurate. This is the trouble with most historians, they generalise....ie it was the Chagadai Ulus area so therefore it was ruled etc, etc. Another is the White, Blue and Golden Hordes which are a simplification so as to designate certain areas to certain peoples. They never existed and only cause confusion

..........Orda

[L'Impresario]

Yep, that's the point, Temur was no steppe nomad;)

Well, all these designations are made out of conveniance. Political geography is challenged when the object is state entities founded by nomads, even if they were not actually "founded" at all heh
Eitherway, Chagatai can refer to other things apart from the particular ulus (like the language, so it transcends the strict realm of political geography terms), and I see no problem with it as a generic description of an area (an admitedly vast one), nor with Moghulistan or Ma wara'an-nahr. Borders were not exactly that obvious.

[Watchman]

I'm under the impression the folks in the area Timur started out in ran the gamut from straight nomads of the old school to more settled seminomads to fully settled farmers and well-developed urban centers. Kinda varied, that part of Central Asia.

Anyway, Timur tends to get mostly remembered for the spectacular bloodbaths that usually marked his passing; even by the standards of the time and the notoriously rapacious pastoral empire-builders it is difficult to avoid the impression the man had a bloodthirsty streak a mile wide. Even if he was trying the Assyrian gambit he went a bit overboard. Be that as it may, by what I've read he may also have unwittingly given Constantinopole a half-century longer to live by forcing Bayezid to lift the siege and come fight him instead. Bayezid presumably was slightly frustrated by this turn of events.

If you count the Mughals of India to be a part of Timur's legacy I'd say his was more durable than Genghis'. Or at least it didn't start coming apart at the seams within decades of its founder's death the way the far-flung Khanate did...

[Orda Khan]

Or at least it didn't start coming apart at the seams within decades of its founder's death the way the far-flung Khanate did...

No it did this while he was still very much alive. To claim he was anything more than a tyrant with an army that was usually larger than the ones he fought would be pushing things IMO. Anyone who has to keep re-doing what he has already done is lacking something.
Chingis took that area from the most powerful empire in Islam at its time. Timur tried but nothing he did brought him close to the one he tried to emulate; because he just did not possess the same qualities.

Well, all these designations are made out of conveniance.

Convenient for the author only, if indeed the person who invented these terms actually knew something about the subject. And the pathetic attempts to explain these titles and their origins is even more proposterous. As for Chagadai being used as a description of the language of the area (????) Why would that be the case? Qaidu (an Ogodeid) had taken over long before Timur. Any remaining minor Chagadai princes were his puppets and later too weak to be of any importance

.......Orda

[King of Atlantis]

Nice article. I would only question the summary of the various Khanates (in particular, the so-called Golden, White, Blue Hordes), though perhaps it is less possible to describe the Mongol picture in a short paragraph. It made good reading.

Thank you. Yes I had to simplify the various khanates alot as that was not the main focus of my article.

[Silver Rusher]

very interesting stuff, I can say that I didn't know about him previously (then again, the only teacher we've had by GCSE year that did anything medieval deducted marks for my statement that the Saxon Housecarls were better soldiers than the Norman cavalry - damned British education system)

Quit yer complaining. I had a teacher once who thought Ivan the Terrible lived 2000 years ago.

[beauchamp]

Timur was amazing, but I think that the conqueror most unrecognized was Nadir Shah, the conqueror from Afganistan who conqered Persia during their decline in the 1750's, deafeated the Uzbeks, Ottomans, and Indians, sacking Dehli and taking the Khoor-I-Noor diamond. He was also a madman, spending his entire funds and those of the state to sponser his gigantic army and navy. He even fought in his own battles, causing tons of havic with his tabar (axe). Im surprised that he's so unrecognized, but I think that he is up their with Timur in terms of empire size and sheer military strength.

[Silver Rusher]

Timur was amazing, but I think that the conqueror most unrecognized was Nadir Shah, the conqueror from Afganistan who conqered Persia during their decline in the 1750's, deafeated the Uzbeks, Ottomans, and Indians, sacking Dehli and taking the Khoor-I-Noor diamond. He was also a madman, spending his entire funds and those of the state to sponser his gigantic army and navy. He even fought in his own battles, causing tons of havic with his tabar (axe). Im surprised that he's so unrecognized, but I think that he is up their with Timur in terms of empire size and sheer military strength.

If only he had lived longer, maybe then his omfg army would have conquered the world.

[King of Atlantis]

but I think that he is up their with Timur in terms of empire size and sheer military strength.

On that account I disagree. In terms of actual borders they were probably on about equal footing, however Temur's actual borders do not properly represent his conquests. He forced the Ottomans, Abbasids, and Golden Horde to all pay homage to him. Truth is while he had utterly defeated this peoples on the battlefield he was too ineffective as an administrator to ever hope to rule these lands directly. Thus a system of vassal rulers was widely used.


If you take into account this map it makes Temur's conquests seem much more grandeur.

[DukeofSerbia]

I just read one historical text and Timur is often mentioned.

Konstantin Mihailovic “Janissary’s memories or Turkish chronicle – Description of events related to Turkish questions from Konstantin Mihailovic, Rascian (Serbs) from Ostrovica, who Turks took into Janissaries”

This primary source is from XVI century, but there is no original unfortunately, only copies.

Chapter XIX
…
And when he wanted to conquer town Kapli, he first send in town Tatar’s merchants with goods, like hides from sable, marten and other expensive hides to sell those goods cheap. And when those people see how they are cheap, everybody bought it for everything they had. And when merchants brought money from sell, then he started siege of town. And he did it because to prevent people to dig their treasuries. Then he conquered this town and took hides back. And when he besieged towns, first day he had white tents, second red and third black. And that means: if the first day people or town gives up, he left them alive in their property. If they did it second day, then he ordered that all slaughter or stamp by horses. And if they even didn’t surrender third day, then he ordered that whole town burn. He left two sons behind him, who fought against each other for rule and that’s why their country didn’t expanded.