The Rashīdī History 4.4
The Tarikh-i-Rashidi (Elias, Ross) 4.4
- Language
- English
4.4.1
Just at this point the histories of the period are discordant. As remarked above, the identity of Isan Bugha is to some extent uncertain. He is known to have been a son of Dava Khan, and is believed to have had some brothers. Abul Ghazi Khan, the historian King of Khwarizm of the seventeenth century, speaks of him as "Il Khwaja, surnamed Isan Bugha." On the other hand, Khwandamir makes Isan Bugha continue to reign over the western branch of the Chaghatai until his death, and alludes to one Imil Khwaja (apparently another son of Dava) as having established himself in Moghulistan. It is possible that Imil, or Il, may denote one and the same person; but however this may be, if the usually accurate Abu-l Ghazi be followed, we learn that: "As there remained no longer in Kashghar, Yarkand, Alah-Tagh or Uighuristan, any prince descended from Chaghatai Khan, whose authority was acknowledged, the Moghul Amirs held a council, at which it was decided to summon Isan Bugha from Bokhara; and they proclaimed him Khan of Kashghar, Yarkand, Alah-Tagh, and of Moghulistan." This would make it appear that Isan Bugha was still reigning in Mavara-un-Nahr when summoned by the Dughlat Amirs; but the point is doubtful, for we have just been told that he had fled to Moghulistan. In any case, the dates of the two events agree, for the disappearance of Isan Bugha from Mavara-un-Nahr is recorded by one author to have taken place in 721 H.
4.4.2
(1321 A.D.), and this is just the year when he is said, by the other, to have been summoned to Kashghar and made Khan of Moghulistan, with (it may be assumed) its dependencies.
4.4.3
Thus, although the chronology and even some of the events of the times are uncertain, the final division of the Chaghatai Khanate appears to have taken place in or about the year 1321, and it resulted in two separate lines of Khans being established which were never afterwards united. The western branch was, a little later, superseded by Timur, whose descendants, through Baber, gave the ruling house to India, which has gone, for three centuries, by the name of "Moghul"; though, as we shall see from Mirza Haidar's narrative, it was, in its early days, known — and perhaps more correctly — as the "Chaghatai." The history of the eastern branch — that of the true "Moghuls" of Central Asia — we may now leave to be told, in detail, by our author; but as this line was several times broken, or subdivided, and as the subject is a complicated one, it may aid the reader to give (immediately below), in the form of an epitomised statement, a general view of the succession of the Moghul Khans from the time of Isan Bugha onwards. It is extracted almost entirely from Erskine's History of India, and was compiled by him from the Tarikh-i-Rashidi; but it contains some emendations from the Chinese history of the Ming dynasty, as translated by Dr. Bretschneider, for the period immediately succeeding the reign of Khizir Khwaja, and a few other alterations besides.
4.4.4
It is about this period that Mirza Haidar's chronicle is at its weakest; and it is also a period where some of the best of the Musulman authors fail us. The Rauzat us Safa of Mir Khwand and the Zafar-Nama of Sharaf-ud-Din, both differ from the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, and the Ming history is at variance with all three. Thus between Khizir Khwaja and Vais Khan, the Rauzat us Safa and the Zafar-Nama show two reigning Khans of Moghulistan, and the Tarikh-i-Rashidi also gives accounts of two only, though the names in the last-mentioned work are not the same as in the other two histories. But the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, in another place, relates that six Khans, including Khizir Khwaja and Vais, were raised to the throne by the Dughlat Amir, Khudaidad, thus placing four between them. These Khans are— Shama-i-Jahan, Nakhsh-i-Jahan, Muhammad, Shir Muhammad, and the author states them in this order; so that the three which correspond with the names of those given in the Chinese histories, do not fall in the same succession. Again none of the Musulman authors supply the date of succession for any of the intermediate Khans whom they mention. The Chinese annals show three Khans for the period between Khizir Khwaja and Vais, and furnish the year of succession for each of them, besides giving dates of other contemporary occurrences, which indicate that a particular Khan was reigning at a particular time.
4.4.5
The annals chiefly refer to tributary missions and appeals for assistance addressed to the Chinese Emperor, but it is precisely such occurrences as these that the Chinese chroniclers record with care and exactness. Their dynastic histories are believed to be not always trustworthy, but they are, at any rate, compilations, more or less methodical, from State documents and are not based merely on tradition, as are most of the Musulman histories. As mere records of events and dates, therefore, the Chinese accounts are likely to be the best guides; and I should be inclined to substitute their data, regarding this period, for those of Mirza Haidar. I have, however, shown both in amending Mr. Erskine's epitome, as will be seen (at p. 46). A full extract from Dr. Bretschneider's translation of the Chinese history is also appended immediately below. The three lists just spoken of, stand as follows:— (A.)—The Rauzat us Safa and the Zafar-Nama. (1.) Khizir Khwaja . . died 1399 (2.) Muhammad Khan . . . . No date (3.) Nakhsh-i-Jahan . . . . „ (4.) Vais Khan . . . . „ (B.)—The Chinese Annals of the Ming dynasty. (1.) Khizir Khwaja . . . . died 1399 (2.) Shama-i-Jahan . . . . „ 1408 (3.) Muhammad Khan . . „ 1416 (4.) Nakhsh-i-Jahan . . . . „ 1418 (5.) Vais Khan . . . . „ 1428
4.4.6
(C.)—The Tarikh-i-Rashidi. (1.) Khizir Khwaja . . . . died 1420 (2.) Shama-i-Jahan . . . . No date (3.) Nakhsh-i-Jahan . . . . „ (4.) Muhammad Khan . . . . „ (5.) Shir Muhammad . . . . „ (6.) Vais Khan . . . . died 1428-9 Of the two dates furnished by the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, the one indicating the year of Khizir Khwaja's death is certainly incorrect, for there is evidence to show, in addition to the concurrence of the authorities named above, that this Khan did not reign up to the year 1420. The portion of the Matla' Asaadin, of Abdur Razzak, translated by Quatremere, though it contains no list of these Khans, makes mention of ambassadors having been sent to Shah Rukh, of Mavara-un-Nahr, in 819 H. (1416), by Nakhsh-i-Jahan, who is described as a son of Shama-i-Jahan of Moghulistan; thereby implying, it would seem, that Nakhsh-i-Jahan was reigning in that year in Moghulistan. This date accords with the Chinese indication for the accession of Nakhsh-i-Jahan—or the year when he would most probably have despatched envoys to his neighbours. The same work mentions also that in 823 H. (1420) Shah Rukh's ambassadors, then on their way to China, learned that disorder prevailed in Moghulistan in consequence of Vais Khan, who was then reigning, having attacked Shir Muhammad Oghlan. This statement stands by itself;
4.4.7
but it has some resemblance to that of Mirza Haidar, who relates that between Vais Khan and "Shir Muhammad Khan there arose great disputes." It also appears, from the Matla' Asaadin, that in 1425 Shir Muhammad held powers of some kind in Moghulistan, though he may not have been the reigning Khan. It is stated, at any rate, that in that year Mirza Ulugh Beg, who was ruling in MAvard-un-Nahr, undertook an expedition into Moghulistan and defeated Shir Muhammad. Yet, according to the Chinese, Vais Khan was then reigning, he having slain Nakhsh-i-Jahan in 1418. On the subject of Shir Muhammad, therefore, the Matla' Asaadin and the Tarikh-i-Rashidi would seem to be at one, in so far that they both name him as living at a period immediately previous to the accession of Vais, though neither states precisely that he was a reigning Khan of the dynasty. As I have placed in juxtaposition above, the lists of reigning Khans, according to the various authorities, it may be useful also to show how they vary in their statements regarding the sons of Khizir Khwaja, some of whom reigned, though some did not. Thus the Rauzat us Safa has— (1.) Shama-i-Jahan, (2.) Shir Ali, (3.) Shah Jahan Oghlan. The Zafar-Nama gives:— (1.) Shama-i-Jahan, (2.) Muhammad Oghlan, (3.) Shir Ali, (4.) Shah Jahan, while the Tarikh-i-Rashidi mentions:— (1.) Muhammad Khan, (2.) Sham-i-Jahan, (3.) Nakhsh-i-Jahan, "and others." The passage taken from Dr. Bretschneider's version of the Ming history runs thus:—
4.4.8
"After Yung-lo acceded to the throne he sent an envoy with a letter and presents to the King of Bie-shi-ba-li. But at that time Hei-di-rh-ho-djo had died, and had been succeeded by his son Sha-mi-cha-gan. The latter sent in the next year an embassy to the emperor, offering as tribute a block of rude jade and fine horses. The envoy was well treated and rewarded. At that time it had happened that An-ko Tie-mu-rh, Prince of Hami, had been poisoned by Gui-li-chi, Khan of the Mongols, and Sha-mi-cha-gan made war on the latter. The emperor was thankful, and sent an envoy with presents to him, exhorting the King to be on good terms with To-to, the Prince of Hami.