Gilan to chastise a refractory ruler. Having accomplished his end, he came back to his capital and remained there in Contest with Shaibani. comparative quiet till 1507.[1] Malcolm’s dates are somewhat at variance with the above, for he infers that Bagdad was subdued in that particular year; but the facts remain. All writers seem to agree that in 1508 the king’s attention was drawn to an invasion of Khorasan by Shaibani, or Shahi Beg, the Uzbeg, a descendant of Jenghiz and the most formidable opponent of Babar, from whom he had, seven years before, wrested the city of Samarkand, and whom he had driven from Turkestan to Kabul. Since these exploits he had obtained great successes in Tashkent, Ferghana, Hissar, Kunduz, and Khwarizm (Kharezm), and, at the time referred to, had left Samarkand intent upon mischief south and west of the Oxus, had passed the Murghab, and had reached Sarakhs (Serrakhs). Ismaʽil encamped on this occasion at Isfahan, and there concentrated the bulk of his army—strengthening his northern (and probably north-eastern) frontier with large bodies of cavalry, but maintaining an attitude of simple watchfulness. In 1510, when Shaibani had invaded Khorasan the second time, and had ravaged the Persian province of Kermān, Shah Ismaʽil asked for redress, referring to the land encroached on as “hereditary”; and Shaibani replied that he did not understand on what was founded the claim “to inherit.” Eventually the Persian troops were put in movement, and the Uzbegs, having been divided into small detachments scattered over the country, fell back and retreated to Herat. Their leader repaired to Merv, but Ismaʽil quickly followed him and enticed him out to battle by taunt and reproach. Shaibani was defeated and fled, but was overtaken in his flight, and put to the sword, together with numerous relatives and companions.
The next remarkable event in Ismaʽil’s reign is his war with Sultan Selim I. Its origin may be traced to the Ottoman emperor’s hatred and persecution of all heretical Moslems in his dominions, and the shah’s anger at the fanaticism which had urged him to the slaughter of 40,000 Turks suspected to have thrown off the orthodox War with Selim. Sunnite doctrines. The sultan’s army advanced into Azerbaijan and western Persia through Tokat and Erzingan. Ismaʽil had at this time the greater number of his soldiers employed in his newly-conquered province of Khorasan and was driven to raise new levies in Kurdistan to obtain a sufficient force to resist the invasion. It is asserted by some that his frontier then extended westward to Sivas, a city situated in a large high plain watered by the Kizil Irmak, and that hence to Khoi, 90 m. west of Tabriz, he followed the approved and often successful tactics of ravaging and retreating, so as to deprive his advancing enemy of supplies. There is good evidence to show that the Turkish janissaries were within an ace of open revolt, and that but for extraordinary firmness in dealing with them they would have abandoned their leader in his intended march upon Tabriz. In fine, at or near Khoi, the frontier-town of Azerbaijan, the battle (1514) was fought between the two rival monarchs, ending in the defeat of the Persians and the triumphant entry of Selim into their capital.
There are stirring accounts of that action and of the gallant deeds performed by Selim and Ismaʽil, both personally engaged in it, as well as by their generals.[2] Others maintain that Ismaʽil was not present at all.[3] It is tolerably certain that the Turks won the day by better organization, superiority of numbers, and more especially the use of artillery. On the side of the Persians the force consisted of little more than cavalry.
Selim remained at Tabriz no more than eight days. Levying contribution at that city of a large number of its skilled artisans whom he sent off to Constantinople, he marched thence towards Karabagh with intent to fix his winter quarters in those parts and newly invade Persia in the spring, but the insubordination of his troops rendered necessary his speedy return to Turkey. His expedition, if not very glorious, had not been unproductive of visible fruits. Besides humbling the power of an arrogant enemy, he had conquered and annexed to his dominions the provinces of Diarbekr and Kurdistan.[4]
From 1514 to 1524, although the hostile feeling between the two countries was very strong, there was no serious nor open warfare. Selim’s attention was diverted from Persia to Egypt; Ismaʽil took advantage of the sultan’s death in 1519 to overrun and subdue unfortunate Georgia, as Jahan Shah of the “Black Sheep” had done before him; but Suleiman, who succeeded Selim, was too strong to admit of retaliatory invasion being carried out with impunity at the cost of Turkey.
In 1524 Ismaʽil died[5] at Ardebil when on a pilgrimage to the tomb of his father. “The Persians dwell with rapture on his character,” writes Sir John Malcolm, for they deem him “not only the founder of a great dynasty, but the person to whom that faith in which they glory owes its establishment as a national religion.” And he quotes Ismaʽil’s Character. a note handed down by Purchas from a contemporary European traveller which reports of him thus: “His subjects deemed him a saint, and made use of his name in their prayers. Many disdained to wear armour when they fought under Ismaʽil; and so enthusiastic were his soldiers in their new faith that they used to bare their breasts to their enemies and court death, exclaiming ʽShiah! Shiah!’ to mark the holy cause for which they fought.”
Shah Ṭahmasp,[6] the eldest of the four sons of Ismaʽil, succeeded to the throne on the death of his father.[7] The principal occurrences in his reign, placed as nearly as possible in chronological order, were a renewal of war with the Uzbegs, who had again invaded Khorasan, and the overthrow of their army (1527); the recovery of Bagdad Shah Ṭahmasp. from a Kurdish usurper (1528); the settlement of an internal feud between Kizil-bash tribes (Shamlu and Tukulu), contending for the custody of the royal person, by the slaughter of the more unruly of the disputants (1529); the rescue of Khorasan from a fresh irruption, and of Herat from a besieging army of Uzbegs (1530); a new invasion of the Ottomans, from which Persia was saved rather by the severity of her climate than by the prowess of her warriors (1533); the wresting of Bagdad from Persia by the sultan Suleiman (1534); the king’s youngest brother’s rebellion
- ↑ Angiolello.
- ↑ Knolles, Malcolm, Creasy, Markham, &c.
- ↑ Zeno. Angiolello says that “the Sophi monarch had left for Tauris [Tabriz] in order to assemble more troops.” Krusinski infers much to the same effect, for he notes that “Selim came in person and took Tauris from Ismail, but at the noise of his approach was obliged to retreat with precipitation.” The battle must thus have been fought and the victory gained when the shah was himself absent. Yet Markham quotes a journal which thus records his feats of prowess: “It was in vain that the brave Shah, with a blow of his sabre, severed a chain with which the Turkish guns were fastened together to resist the shock of the Persian cavalry.”
- ↑ It was about this time that Persia again entered into direct relations with one of the states of western Europe. In 1510 and 1514 Alphonso d’Albuquerque, the governor of Portuguese India, sent envoys to Ismaʽil, seeking an alliance. In 1515, after occupying Hormuz, he dispatched a third embassy under Fernão Gomes de Lemos. His object was to utilize the Shiʽite armies in conjunction with the Portuguese fleet for an attack upon the Sunnite powers—Egypt and Turkey—which were then at war with Portugal in the East. See, for further details and authorities, K. G. Jayne, Vasco da Gama and his Successors, pp. 108–110 and App. A. (London, 1910).—Ed.
- ↑ Malcolm says 1523, Krusinski 1525; Angiolello heard of his death at Cairo in August 1524. Krusinski adds that he was forty-five years of age.
- ↑ Angiolello calls him “Shiacthemes.” As an instance of the absurd transliterating current in France as in England the word “Ach-tacon” may be mentioned. It is explained in Chardin’s text to mean “les hôpitaux à Tauris: c’est-à-dire lieux où l’on fait profusion de vivres.” Chardin’s editor remarks, “La dernière partie de ce mot est méconnaissable, et je ne puis deviner quel mot Persan signifiant profusion a pu donner naissance à la corruption qu’on voit ici.” In other words, the first syllable “ach” (Anglice ash) was understood in its common acceptance for “food” or “victuals”; but “tacon” was naturally a puzzler. The solution of the whole difficulty is, however, to be found in the Turco-Persian خسته خانه khastah khanah, pronounced by Turks hasta hona, or more vulgarly asta khon and even to a French ear ash-tacon, a hospital, literally a sick-house. This word is undoubtedly current at Tabriz and throughout northern Persia.
- ↑ The other brothers were Ilkhas, Bahram and Sam Mirza, each having had his particular appanage assigned him.
