The Nāṣirī Generations 248.2
Tabakat-i-Nasiri 248.2
- Language
- English
248.2.1
The rest agrees with what has been already stated, and Kar-kir or Kar-kiz is evidently a mistake for Khar-khez—also written Khar-kher—of the I-ghurs, which is generally used in conjunction with Tungut in the history of the Chingiz Khan. Abu-l-Ghazi however mentions, with regard to those who escaped the massacre, that they were taken captive by the Tattars, but, subsequently, escaped from the solitary guard placed over them. The Khan of Kar-kir or Kar-kiz, in this account, would seem to be meant for Tur of the I-rani authors. Abu-l-Ghazi however constantly falls into error, for, after having given this account of the destruction of the Mughals by the Tattars, he, in another place, makes "the tribe of Tattars" an entirely new subject, as though another, and distinct tribe. See also the translation of that work "History of the Turks, Moguls, and Tatars," page 38, vol. i. London, MDCCXXX.
248.2.2
Mirza Muhammad Hasan Sian, otherwise Mirza Muhammad Haidar, son of Muhammad Husain, Doghlati, who preceded Abu-l-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, by about a century, says, that the country and tribes of Mughalistan had become so utterly ruined and dispersed a hundred years or more before his time even—he wrote in 951 H.—that not a sign or trace remained of men capable of writing history, and mentions this as the reason of his own inability to furnish better accounts of them than he has done. I mention this to show that Abu-l-Ghazi, although he did possess eighteen books on the subject—including the Tarikh-i-Ghazani—written by Turks and Tajziks, preferred, it seems, rather to collect oral traditions, many centuries old, than refer to his written authorities. Abu-l-Fazl, the author of the Akbar Namah, who conceals everything that he fancies does not tend to the glorification of his master, Akbar, smoothes over this total overthrow and almost extinction of the Mughal-I-mak, from which his master traces his descent, gives a cock and bull story to begin with, and says that, "after putting Tur, and Sundz Khan, and the I-ghurs to flight, they played the part of the fox upon the Mughals," and winds up with excuses and apologies for the disaster, where none are required, and the unction of consolation that it was "all for the best," &c., &c. If the Mughals had been the triumphant party, what a flourish of trumpets we should have been treated to!
248.2.3
Thus it was then that the Mughal i-mak was exterminated, with the exception of two males, Kayan and Naguz, and two females, their wives, and, hence, all Mughals whatsoever are descended from them—with the exception of those of the i-mak who followed the uncles of Aghuz into the farther east, according to the traditions contained in some works—and are not Tattars, although they are, by descent, Turks. From what has just been stated, and what has been previously mentioned, it will now be clearly seen why such hostility existed—and continues to exist to boundaries of Rum and Sham, fell into the hands of the this day—between the Turks of the Tattar I-mak, from that time known in the writings of Oriental historians under the general name of Turks as well as Tattars, and the descendants of the two Mughals who escaped this general massacre, and who were destined to become the progenitors of that sanguinary conqueror, the Chingiz Khan. This enmity, doubtless, burnt in the breasts of himself and his tribe, when he invaded and attacked the dominions of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, besides the provocation he had received through the treatment of his envoys and merchants, that Sultan being a Turk of the Tattar I-mak, and also allied to them by marriage.
248.2.4
We cannot fail to perceive the same enmity existing from the pages of our author. The great Turk Maliks of the Dihli kingdom, and the Dihli sovereigns, were Turks of the Tattar I-mak, and, consequently, natural foes of the Mughal I-mak, and our author, probably taking the cue from his patrons, invariably styles the latter “the infidel Mughals,” and hence too the refusal of Sultan I-yal-timish, to hold any communication with the emissaries of the Mughal Khans, the descendants of the Chingiz Khan, and of Barkah Khan in particular, although he was a Musalman like himself, and his emissaries likewise were of the same faith, and the Sultan’s sending them to the fortress of Gwaliyur; and afterwards, by command of his daughter, Sultan Raziyyat, they were confined at Kanauj, beyond which city they were not allowed to go, and there they subsequently died, as will be found farther on. Ulugh Khan’s own tribe—the Ilbari—too had to fly before the Mughals when they acquired predominance over Turkistan, and the tribes of Khafchak, and his little brother, afterwards the Amir-i-Hajib of Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, fell into the hands of the Mughals, and was sold by them as a slave, as previously related, at page 800, which see.
248.2.5
The same natural enmity probably influenced Timur in some way, in after years, in his hostility towards the ’Usmanli Sultan, Bayazid, for Timur was of the Mughal I-mak, and of the royal tribe of the Mughals, whilst Bayazid was of the Tattar I-mak. To call a Turk, or a Tattar Turk, a Mughal was the greatest insult that could be offered him, or to call a Mughal a Tattar, but several European writers have held peculiar ideas respecting these two I-maks. I extract the following as a specimen, from a work entitled “Travels in the Steppes of the Caspian Sea, the Crimea, the Caucasus, &c.,” by Xavier Hommaire de Hell. London, 1847. “Perhaps no people has given occasion to more discussions than the Tatars and Mongols, nor is the problem of their origin completely solved in our day, notwithstanding the most learned investigations. Some admit that the Tatars and Mongols formed but one nation, others allege that they are two essentially different races. According to Levesque, D’Herbelot, and Lesur, the Tatars are but Turks. Klaproth, while he asserts that the Tatars and Mongols spring from the same stock, nevertheless regards the White Tatars whom Genghis [Chingiz?] Khan conquered, as Turks.”
248.2.6
The first three authors mentioned were quite correct in their statements, and Klaproth is both right and wrong, for his “white Tatars,” like all other Tattars, are undoubtedly Turks. The statement of D’Ohsson is the most astonishing, and totally incorrect: “Lastly, D’Ohsson, in his remarkable history of the Mongols, treats the Mongols and Tatars as distinct races, but does not admit the theory [!] of the Turkish origin.” The writer continues: “The same uncertainty that hangs over the Moninfidel Mughals, and not a trace of the Muhammadan Mongol and Tatar hordes of the fourteenth century, prevails with regard to the people who, under the name of Tatars, now dwell in the southern part of the Russian empire; and they have been considered sometimes as descendants of the Turkish tribes that occupied those regions previously to the twelfth century, sometimes as remnants of the conquering Mongol Tatars.
248.2.7
This last compound is an utterly impossible name. There is no uncertainty, and no theory, whatever, in the matter, as might have been seen had the Oriental writers been correctly read, and the difference between the Turks of the two i-maks of Tattar and Mughal been properly understood. I hope I have clearly demonstrated the fact now, because, according to compilers of Indian history, who merely draw their inspirations from Dow, Briggs, and some few others, the Turks with other wholly different races have formed their “Pathan or Afghan Dynasties,” so-called— the Dehli Pathans,” “Jounpoore Pathans,” “Ghori Pathans,” “Khilji Pathans,” “Tughluk Pathans,” &c., of the Oriental Congress of 1874—and which fantastic names, I am lately informed, signify, or, are meant to signify, "Pre-Mughal” dynasties!
248.2.8
The same writer continues to show into what a state of utter confusion this simple genealogy has been thrown by the writers themselves: “The Chinese writers for the first time make mention of the Tatar people in the eighth century of our era, under the name of Tata, and consider them as a branch of the Mongols. The general and historian, Meng Koung [Klaproth: Asia Polyglotta], who died in 1246, and who commanded a Chinese force sent to aid the Mongols against the Kin, informs us in his memoirs that a part of the Tatar horde, formerly dispersed or subdued by the Khitans [who, in the same work, are said to have occupied the country north of the Chinese provinces of Tschy Li and Ching Ching, watered by the Charamuin [Kara Muran?], or Liao Ho and its confluents], quitted the In Chan mountains, where they had taken refuge, and joined their countrymen who dwelt north-east of the Khitans. The white Tatars and the savage or black Tatars then formed the most important tribes of those regions.” Here undoubtedly the issuing forth of the descendants of Kaian and Naguz is referred to, which I shall presently mention.
248.2.9
The author continues in the same strain, making similar blunders, while the truth lies under his very nose, but he fails to see it, and here is a very rich specimen:—“The princes of this empire [Kaptshak—Khafchak?] were Mongols or Tatars, but the majority of their subjects were Turks”! ! He also states, taking his information from different European writers, that Genghis Khan, though born in the tribe especially designated as black Tatars, yet adopted the denomination of Mongols for his people; and “that the appellation Tatar lost all signification in Asia under the destroying power of Ghenghis (sic) Khan, and has ever since existed only in the European vocabulary!”