The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c6.s1: The Qara Khitai
The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c6.s1
- Language
- English
The Qara Khitai
c6.s1.1
the latter district¹. In order to extend his influence over Transoxiana Il-Arslan, in 553/1116 readily agreed to intervene in the quarrel which again broke out between the Qarlughs and the Khan of Samarqand. The result, however, did not prove happy for him; for although the dispute ended peacefully, his siding with the Khan of Samarqand, led to an eventual rupture with his father's Qara-Khitai suzerain. By his refusal to continue the annual tribute, he even provoked them to invade his territories in 567/1172. In the engagement that followed the Khwarizm army was decisively beaten². This was a forcible reminder that no empire-building was possible in Central Asia until this infidel power was finally crushed; henceforth Khwarizm directed her policy to that end. Il-Arslan died early next year.
c6.s1.2
¹ Juwaini, II, p. 16.
c6.s1.3
² Ibnul Asir, XI, p. 168, Juwaini, idem, places the event in 565/1169, but Bartold upholds the above date.
c6.s1.4
In Khurasan the Khwarizm Shah failed to make much headway; the Ghuzz and, lately, the Qara-Khitai, arrested his efforts. His preoccupations, however, provided an opportunity to the rulers of the petty principality of Ghor to extend their power quietly at the cost of the war-leaders holding the province. From their insignificant position as the chiefs of the mountain fortress of Ghor, they came into prominence during the reign of the Ghaznawide Bahram, who perfidiously murdered Malik Qutbuddin Hasan, a Ghuride prince who had taken refuge at his court and been married to one of Bahram's daughters. This roused the wrath of Saifuddin Suri, brother of the murdered prince, who thereupon invaded Ghazni and drove Bahram from the
c6.s1.5
Rise of Ghor.
c6.s1.6
city. He soon returned in 543/1148 and, taking advantage of the absence of the Ghoride troops, sent home for the winter, seized Saifuddin and sent his head to Sanjar¹. Alauddin Hussain, Saifuddin's younger brother, then advanced on Ghazni and wreaked a terrible vengeance; after plundering the city he set fire to the buildings, which were left burning for seven days, and massacred the whole population². This action which earned him the unenviable nickname of *Jahan Soz* (the world-burner), combined with his refusal to pay the stipulated tribute due from Bahram, enraged Sanjar whom he had already provoked by unwarrantedly capturing Herat and Balkh³ during his preoccupation with Atsiz's rebellion. His consequent defeat and imprisonment has already been aluded to¹. His wit and refined intelligence, however, impressed his captor who restored him to his principality. Taking advantage of Sanjar's subsequent captivity, Alauddin later conquered Bamian, Tukharistan, the districts of Jarum and Bust, and reduced Garjistan in the valley of the Murghab river; he even made an inroad into Khurasan by capturing Tulak near Herat². His conquests in Balkh and Tukharistan, however, were soon lost to the Ghuzz while one of their allies, Aetigin, possessed himself of Herat. The 'world-burner' died in 1161³, and was succeeded by another of his brothers named Saifuddin who recovered and successfully defended a part of Herat against Muayyid's attack⁴. Following his death in an unsuccessful attempt to dislodge the Ghuzz from Balkh, Ghazni was also lost to them who occupied the city for twelve years⁵. Ghiyasuddin, succeeding to his cousin's throne in Ghor, however, resumed the struggle and is stated to have liberated Garmsir and Zamin Dawar⁶. The waning power of the Ghuzz enabled him to annex Faras, Kaliyun, Garjistan, Baghshor and Talqan and finally, in 568/1173-4, to recover Ghazni⁷. Sijistan also acknowledged his away and, four years later, Herat was delivered by the citizens who opposed the pro-Ghuzz policy of its ruler.¹ The Ghuzz chief of Kirman eventually accepted his vassalage; Balkh, and parts of Khurasan, adjacent to Herat, were thus gradually annexed to his growing empire.
c6.s1.7
¹ Guzidah i, p. 460; Rawandi: p. 175.
c6.s1.8
² Minhaj: p. 55ff. It is not certain who was the antagonist of Alauddin at Ghazni, for the accounts are not unanimous as to the date of Bahram's death and the accession of his son Khusrau. Minhaj, pp. 24-5, states that Bahram was driven out of Ghazni by Alauddin, and places his death in 552/1156. An anecdote on p. 115, however, implies that it was Khusrau who opposed Alauddin. Guzidah, i, p. 406, and Ibnul Asir, xi, p. 85, date Bahram's death in 544/1149 and 548/1153, respectively. Baizawi, f. 51a, states that Bahram died before Alauddin's march on Ghazni, which must have occurred soon after 544, the year on which Saifuddin's head was sent to Sanjar. Ibnul Asir, xi, p. 74, places Alauddin's sack of Ghazni after his defeat by Sanjar in 547, which seems improbable. He further states that Alauddin placed his brother Saifuddin on the throne of Ghazni and on Bahram subsequently murdering the latter, once again marched to sack the city. But Bahram had died in the meantime and his successor Khusrau had fled to the Punjab. Guzidah supports this but confuses Khusrau with his son Khusrau Malik, last of the Ghaznawides. According to Minhaj, Khusrau left Ghazni only on the approach of the Ghuzz who then occupied it for 10 years. The dates 552/1157 and 555/1160 for the accessions of Khusrau and his son, Khusrau Malik, quoted by Raverty: op. cit., p. 114, note—from their suppositions coins described in a manuscript entitled Tafsil-i-sikkah, do not prove anything, since the legends given therein are fictitious and the work was admittedly compiled late in the 18th century.
c6.s1.9
³ Ibnul Asir, xi, pp. 66 and 74. Rawandi, p. 176, and Guzidah, i, p. 460, add that Alauddin also entered into an alliance with Ali Chatri, Sanjar's rebellious Governor of Herat, who was, however, executed at the time of Alauddin's defeat. See Minhaj (tr. p. 237) for an ambiguous allusion to this fact.
c6.s1.10
¹ Supra p. 20. See also Nizami Uruzi: *Chahar Maqala*, p. 29, for an eye-witness account of the event.
c6.s1.11
² Minhaj, p. 62ff.
c6.s1.12
³ Ibnul Asir: xi, p. 121. *Guzidah*, i, p. 408, and *Baizawi*, 68b, however respectively, date the event in 551/1156 and 558/1163. Raverty: *op. cit.* p. 363, note, also supports *Guzidah*, but in view of the fact that Nizami Uruzi dedicated his *Chahar Maqala*, finished, according to Browne, in 1156/7, to Alauddin, who is referred to as living, Ibnul Asir's date must be regarded as correct. Browne: translation of *Chahar Maqala*, p. 37.
c6.s1.13
⁴ Ibnul Asir: p. 126.
c6.s1.14
⁵ Ibid, p. 131.
c6.s1.15
⁶ *Fasihi*, quoted by Raverty *op. cit.* p. 374, note 3; Minhaj, p. 71.
c6.s1.16
⁷ *Ibid*, p. 72 ff.
c6.s1.17
¹ Raverty: op. cit. p. 192, Minhaj, p. 73; Ibnul Asir: xi, p. 77.
c6.s1.18
This advance into Khurasan brought the Ghoridas into open rivalry with the Khwarizm Shah. Il-Arslan's death was followed by a civil war between his two sons, Takash and Sultan Shah, in which the former, by agreeing to pay an annual tribute, obtained help from the Qara-Khitai in expelling his brother. Sultan Shah took refuge with Muayyid who soon lost his life fighting for him with Takash. Sultan then fled to Dihistan and eventually to Ghor². His ambition thus introduced a new factor into the complex political situation of Khurasan. Takash soon quarrelled with his Qara-Khitai suzerains with whom Sultan now found it expedient to enter into alliance³. With their help he succeeded in wresting Merv, Sarakhs and Tus from the Ghuzz chieftain, Malik Dinar, and also in dislodging Tughan Shah, Muayyid's successor, from Neshapur. The latter then accepted vassalage under Takash who allowed him to hold Nessa till his death⁴. Following Takash's capture of Neshapur in 583/1187, the two brothers entered into an agreement by which Sultan was permitted to retain sovereignty over Merv, Sarakhs and a few other towns⁵. His ambition however, gave him no rest and led him to open conflict even with his erstwhile Ghoride friends. Allying himself with Tughril, an adventurer who siezed and for a brief period, held sway over Herat, Sultan now “invested Fushanj and made raids upon the territories of Ghor and created tumult and disorder”¹.
c6.s1.19
² Juwaini, ii, pp. 17-19; Raverty: op. cit. pp. 245 and 378.
c6.s1.20
³ Ibnul Asir: xi, p. 169; Juwaini, ii, p. 19f.
c6.s1.21
⁴ Bartold: Turkestan, p. 340. Juwaini, ii, p. 22, adds that he vainly appealed to the Ghorides for help against Sultan.
c6.s1.22
⁵ Juwaini, ii. pp. 24-25.
c6.s1.23
¹ Minhaj. p. 73-4.
c6.s1.24
Beginning of Ghoride hostility to Khwarizm.
c6.s1.25
The Ghorides found their ambition thwarted for Khwarizm reimposed her domination in Khurasan; Sultan only aggravated a situation in which a recourse to arms seemed unavoidable. Owing to their preoccupations with the Ghaznawides at the moment and Ghiyasuddin’s brother, Muizzuddin’s projected Indian expedition, the Ghorides, however, could hardly open hostilities and sought to negotiate with Takash regarding matters in Khurasan; Ghiyasuddin was even anxious to obtain the latter’s help against Sultan Shah, and in a letter dated in 1183 he offered armed assistance in return². Minhaj speaks even of a treaty of alliance between the two sovereigns³, and makes some reference to, possibly, a resultant, Ghoride conflict with the Qara-Khitai the termination of whose unwelcome suzerainty the Khwarizm Shah desired by all means. After Takash’s above-mentioned agreement with his brother, the alliance, directed against Sultan, naturally became inoperative; the Ghorides were thus left to deal single handed with Sultan. When they were in a position to move against him in 586/1190-91⁴, they had, however, a freer hand, for the Ghaznawide enemy had been entirely eliminated. Both Sultan, and his ally, Tughril of Herat, were easily defeated, and Herat most probably annexed to Ghor¹. Sultan died next year but his possessions were at once occupied by Takash².
c6.s1.26
² Bartold: *Turkestan*, p. 340-42.
c6.s1.27
³ Minhaj; p. 329. Raverty, *op. cit.* pp. 243, 245 and 382.
c6.s1.28
⁴ Ibnul Asir: xii, p. 28. Juwaini, ii, p. 28, places some events which happened subsequently, in 586/1190. Minhaj p. 74, dates these in 588/1192 but in this year Muizzuddin could not have been present in this battle as he is reported to have been, since in that year he was engaged in preparations for his second expedition against Prithviraja.
c6.s1.29
¹ Ibnul Asir: xii, p. 64, also mentions the fact that in 594, Takash beseiged Herat which would show that the city was not included in his empire See also Minhaj, p. 329.
c6.s1.30
² Juwaini, ii, p. 30.
c6.s1.31
Inspite of his victory over Sultan, Ghiyasuddin was thus unable to extend his dominions, for Takash controlled the whole of Khurasan. In 578/1182, he sent an expedition to Bukhara to consolidate his possessions in Transoxania; he also reduced the turbulent tribes of Qipchaq on the northern boundary of his empire. On the west he successfully intervened in the last Seljuq, Tughril's conflict with his rebellious vassal, the Atabek Inanaj and in the battle that followed the Atabek's head was sent as a present to the Caliph at Baghdad³. He thus became the virtual successor to the Seljuq emperors. But with their empire he also inherited their traditional enmity to the Caliph. This had the most disastrous consequence not only for his empire but also for the whole of Muslim Asia. It converted the political situation into a triangular conflict which facilitated the easy advance of the Mongols a few years later. For the time being, Takash's advance into Iraq offered a prospect to the Caliph of realising his ambitions of temporal power, so long thwarted by the Seljuqs. But his hopes were frustrated when Takash paid scanty respect to his Wazir and did not show any inclination to share the sovereignty of Iraq with him⁴. As a result, the Caliph became bitterly hostile and henceforth devoted himself exclusively to fomenting enmity against the Khwarizm Shah. Minhaj records the arrival at Ghor of emissaries from Baghdad urging Ghiyasuddin to make immediate war on Takash¹.
c6.s1.32
³ Bartold: Turkestan, p. 341. For the details of Tughril's conflict with the Atabeks, see Rawandi: pp. 435 441; Ibnul Asir, xii, pp. 12 44-50; Guzidah, i, pp. 475-6.
c6.s1.33
⁴ The Caliph Nasir-le-dinellah, in support of the Atabek against Tughril, sent along with Inanaj's letter, a similar invitation to Takash to intervene in the quarrel. Ibnul Asir: xii, p. 45; Bartold: Turkestan, 346-7; Juwaini, ii, p. 33.
c6.s1.34
¹ Raverty: op. cit. p. 243. A similar letter from the Caliph urging him even to enter into an alliance with the ‘infidel’ Qara-khitais against Takash, was discovered at Ghazni, in 1215; Juwaini, ii, p. 86. See also Ibnul Asir, xii, pp. 51 sq.
c6.s1.35
Inspite of their ambition, the Ghorides were however, not strong enough to comply immediately with the request. But on Takash’s death in 596/1200, they at once took advantage of a civil war that broke out between his son and grand son, Alauddin and Hindu Khan. Ghoride troops entered Khurasan and captured Neshapur, Merv, Sarakhs and Tus early next year², Territories as far as Jurjan and Bistam were brought under their sway; Kohistan, the stronghold of the Mulahidah heretics was plundered, and the whole of Khurasan for the first time was occupied by the Ghorides.
c6.s1.36
² Juwaini, ii, p. 48-49.
c6.s1.37
Their triumph was however short-lived, for Alauddin, who ultimately succeeded to Takash’s throne, proved to be of the same metal as his father. He soon recovered Neshapur and other Ghoride conquests; even Herat capitulated to him in 598/1201³. Inspite of his easy success Alauddin appears to have been anxious for peace with Ghorides, in order to deal finally with his hated Qara-khitai suzerain⁴. But they gave him no rest. Impatient to recover Khurasan, they opened the attack and after obtaining a victory near the Merv-ar-rud, beseiged Tus and Sarakhs. Herat easily fell before them Alauddin however, taking advantage of Muizzuddin's brief absence from Herat on the occasion of his brother, Ghiyasuddin's death in 599/1202, defeated the Ghoride troops under Kharnak beseiging Merv, and relieved the city¹. The long standing rivalry between the two dynasties thus came to a head and a decisive conflict could no longer be postponed.
c6.s1.38
³ Ibnul Asir, xii, p. 81-82.
c6.s1.39
⁴ Minhaj, p. 75, refers to a request made by Alauddin for the conclusion of an agreement wth Ghor even on condition of his vassalage. Ibnul Asir, idem, also refers to a similar request made by the Khwarizm Shah in 598/1201.
c6.s1.40
¹ Minhaj, p. 77.
c6.s1.41
With a view to striking a final blow, Muizzuddin accordingly advanced to besiege Gurganj, Alauddin's capital. The latter then hastily returned and was compelled to appeal for help to his Qara-khitai suzerains². This turned the table and Muizzuddin, on the news of the letter's approach had to beat a hasty retreat. The Qara-khitais pursued and on the banks of the Oxus signally defeated his forces and on his escaping with the remnant of his beaten army, was surrounded at Andhkhud in 601/1204³. It was only through the intercession of Takash's vassal, Usman, the Khan of Samarqand, that he was able to obtain a safe retreat to his capital. Thus beaten most decisively, Muizzuddin could hardly refuse to conclude a defensive alliance with his former enemy Alauddin⁴. Of their late conquest Alauddin allowed the Ghorides to retain possession only of Herat and Balkh.
c6.s1.42
² Juwaini, ii, p. 55. *Guzidah*, i, p. 411, adds that he also summoned to his assistance his vassal, the Khan of Samarqand on this occasion.
c6.s1.43
³ Minhaj, p. 123; Ibnul Asir, xii, p. 86.
c6.s1.44
⁴ Juwaini, ii, p. 58. *Guzidah*, i, p. 412.
c6.s1.45
The Khwarizm Shah thus clearly beat his rival not only in war but also in diplomacy. In vain he had
c6.s1.46
Ghoride defeat at Andhkhud.
c6.s1.47
sought Ghoride assistance against the *Qara-khitais*; all he had achieved was merely to increase the ambition of the opportunist Muizuddin. In compelling the latter to make peace and even enter into an alliance with him, he now used the same enemy whose destruction was his ultimate aim. But neither the Ghorides nor the *Qara-khitais* realised the significance of Alauddin's policy. His ignominious defeat hung heavily on Muizzuddin's mind and the destruction of the infidel power became his immediate objective¹. "Vainly did the Caliph of Baghdad entreat him to finish with the Khwarizm Shah first and even to conclude an alliance with the *Qara-khitais* for the purpose²." Hostilities were commenced with the latter by Muizzuddin's governor of Balkh who captured Tirmiz³. Before he could follow this up by a full scale invasion of their territory in Transoxiana, the rising in the Punjab, however compelled Muizzuddin to make a hasty expedition thither in order to "put the affairs of the treasury and armory in order⁴." On his way back he despatched orders to the ruler of Bamian to prepare for the ensuing campaign and to arrange for the building of a bridge over the Oxus. From Lahore he granted leave to his troops to return to their homes for a short while after which they were to assemble for the campaign which he proposed to carry on for three years⁵.
c6.s1.48
¹ Minhaj, p. 121; Juwaini, p. 58.
c6.s1.49
² Bartold: *Turkestan*, p. 352.
c6.s1.50
³ Ibnul Asir, xii, p. 96.
c6.s1.51
⁴ Juwaini, ii, p. 58.
c6.s1.52
⁵ Minhaj, p. 123.
c6.s1.53
This, he was never able to commence, for he died before he could reach his capital. With him died his empire across the Hindu Kush. Within a few years Mahmud, his nephew and successor at Ghor, was compelled to acknowledge the Khwarizm Shah’s suzerainty; after his death the Shansabani kingdom was practically absorbed within the Khwarizmi empire. The dissolution of Ghor was complete when in 612/1215 Yalduz, Muizzuddin’s viceroy, was driven out and Ghazni was attached to the appanage of Alauddin’s crown prince, Jalaluddin. In his scheme of empire-building, Muizzuddin’s Indian conquests appeared to have a secondary importance. And yet they survived the destruction of his own principality. Had not the Khwarizmi empire gone down before the Mongols, the infant state of Delhi would probably have met with a similar fate.
Linked texts (1)
- Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī — Minhāj al-Dīn Jūzjānī