Latest / Tamerlane: The Conqueror Who Tried to Rebuild the Mongol Legacy — Fexingo History / Tamerlane's Indian Campaign: The Delhi Massacre of 1398
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've talked a lot about Tamerlane's campaigns in Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and the steppe. But one of his most devastating — and lucrative — campaigns was his invasion of India in 1398. Luna: I remember you mentioned Delhi briefly in the elephant corps episode. But we never really dug into the actual sack of the city. Lucas: Right. And it's a story that combines everything: brutal warfare, religious justification, massive plunder, and a complete reshaping of northern Indian politics. By 1398, the Delhi Sultanate was already in decline under Sultan nasir ud din Mahmud Shah Tughluq, a weak ruler facing rebellions from his own nobles. Tamerlane saw an opportunity. Lucas: He marched from Samarkand through the Hindu Kush in September, with about 90,000 cavalry and a contingent of war elephants. His official reason? He claimed the Delhi Sultanate was too tolerant of Hindus, and that he was coming to protect Muslims — a convenient excuse for a man who destroyed Muslim cities just as readily. Luna: So it's the same playbook he used against the Muzaffarids and the Sarbadars. Claim they're heretics or too lax. Lucas: Exactly. But in India, the religious justification had a particular edge. The chronicler Ibn Arabshah, who was hostile to Tamerlane, wrote that he consulted with Islamic scholars before the invasion. They issued a fatwa that it was permissible to attack because the sultan had failed to enforce sharia properly, especially by allowing Hindu temples and practices. So Tamerlane could present himself as a pious warrior. Lucas: The Delhi army, led by Sultan Mahmud and his general Mallu Khan, met Tamerlane outside the city on December 17, 1398. The battle was short and decisive. Tamerlane's tactics — using his cavalry to encircle and his elephants deployed in the front — terrified the sultan's war elephants, which stampeded back into their own lines. Luna: Wait, that's the opposite of what you'd expect. Elephants usually intimidate horses, not the other way around. Lucas: Right. Normally elephants are a great counter to cavalry because horses panic. But Tamerlane had prepared for this. He'd read about Alexander's tactics in the Punjab, and he had his men fasten sharp hooks onto the saddles of his camels, and he tied cloth over his horses' eyes. More importantly, he used his own elephants from earlier campaigns — because he'd taken them from the Delhi Sultanate in previous raids, he knew how they'd react. His elephants wore chainmail and carried archers. Lucas: The result: the Delhi army was routed. Sultan Mahmud fled, and Mallu Khan was captured. Tamerlane entered Delhi, and what followed was a three-day massacre. Luna: How many died? Lucas: Estimates vary wildly. Tamerlane's own chroniclers, in the Zafarnama, say about 50,000. Other sources go as high as 100,000. The city was systematically looted. But what's interesting is Tamerlane's justification even in the sack. He ordered that Hindus who had converted to Islam but then converted back be killed. But he also decreed that the majority of the population — Hindus who had never converted — should be left alone, because they were paying jizya, the protection tax. Luna: So the massacre wasn't random? It was targeted at certain groups? Lucas: In theory, yes. But in practice, the soldiers — many of whom were tribal nomads from Central Asia — didn't distinguish. They looted homes, destroyed temples, and killed anyone who resisted. Tamerlane did issue orders to spare the artisans and craftsmen, because he wanted to take them back to Samarkand. Thousands of stone carvers, masons, and weavers were marched across the Hindu Kush to help build his capital. Lucas: One of the most notorious images from the sack is the so-called 'tower of skulls' — or rather, several towers made of severed heads. After the battle, Tamerlane ordered his men to collect the heads of the slain and build pyramids outside the city gates. It was a terror tactic, common in his campaigns, meant to intimidate any who might resist in the future. Luna: And this is the same method he used in Isfahan, in Baghdad, in Herat. It's almost a signature. Lucas: Yes. But in India, the scale was especially grim because of the dense population. Ibn Arabshah claims the towers were taller than a man on horseback. The Zafarnama is more circumspect. But we know that even a century later, travellers commented on the heaps of bones still visible outside Delhi. Lucas: Now, the political aftermath is just as important. After the sack, Tamerlane didn't annex Delhi directly. He appointed Khizr Khan — a local noble who had submitted to him — as governor of the Punjab, effectively the ruler of what was left of the sultanate. Khizr Khan later founded the Sayyid dynasty, which lasted until 1451. So in a sense, Tamerlane created the next ruling house of Delhi. Luna: So he didn't want to rule India himself? He just wanted to loot it and leave? Lucas: That's the pattern. Tamerlane was never interested in administering distant provinces. He wanted tribute, plunder, and prestige. He also wanted to show the world — especially the Ming emperor — that he was the true heir to Chinggis Khan's empire. Invading India was a way to claim the legacy of the Mongol invasions of the 13th century, but with an Islamic flavour. Lucas: He also took something else back: war elephants. Hundreds of them. These were used in his later campaigns, and they became a symbol of Timurid power. When his descendants later built mosques in Samarkand, they carved elephant motifs into the stone. And of course, the Indian artisans transformed Timurid architecture. Luna: The Bibi-Khanym mosque, the Registan — those have Indian influences, don't they? Lucas: Definitely. The blue tiles, the intricate geometric patterns — many of those techniques were brought by Indian craftsmen. So Delhi's loss was Samarkand's gain. But it also caused a lasting rupture in Indian history. The Delhi Sultanate never fully recovered, and the vacuum helped pave the way for the Mughal Empire a century and a half later — ironically, a dynasty founded by Tamerlane's own descendant, Babur. Luna: So in a way, Tamerlane's invasion was a prelude to the Mughals. It's almost like he cleared the stage. Lucas: Exactly. And the Mughals themselves loved to trace their lineage to Tamerlane — they called themselves Gurkani, from the Persian for 'son-in-law', because Tamerlane married into Chinggisid royalty. So the Indian campaign of 1398, as brutal as it was, set in motion a chain of events that shaped the subcontinent for centuries. Lucas: One last thing: the memory of the sack became legendary. For later Indian historians, it was a symbol of destruction. But Tamerlane's own court historians painted it as a great victory over idolaters. Both sides exaggerated the numbers for their own purposes. Luna: I guess that's the challenge with any historical event — separating the propaganda from the reality. Lucas: Absolutely. But even the core facts — the battle, the massacre, the deportation of artisans, the political realignment — those are well established. And they tell us a lot about Tamerlane: his ruthlessness, his pragmatism, and his obsession with legacy. Lucas: If you've been coming with us through these conversations about Central Asia and the Timurid Empire, you might have noticed how much work goes into each episode. We dig through primary sources in multiple languages, we compare accounts, we try to give you a fresh angle every time. And this show is entirely listener-supported — no ads, no sponsors. A handful of listeners chip in monthly through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, and that's literally what funds making this many of these. Luna: Yeah, it's a small thing but it keeps the show independent. And we're grateful to everyone who does. Lucas: So back to Delhi — one detail I find striking is that after the sack, Tamerlane held a great feast outside the city. He invited the surviving nobles and made a show of clemency. But that same night, he ordered the execution of thousands of prisoners that his army had taken. Luna: That's awful. But also very Tamerlane — the combination of calculated mercy and calculated cruelty. Lucas: Exactly. And it worked. The local population was too terrified to rebel, and Khizr Khan ruled as a loyal vassal until Tamerlane died in 1405. Then he declared independence, but always paid lip service to the Timurid legacy. Lucas: So the Indian campaign really shows Tamerlane at the height of his power. He had just crushed the Ottoman sultan at Ankara in 1402. He was negotiating with European kings and Ming emperors. And then he added the wealth of India to his coffers. It's no wonder he thought he could conquer China. Luna: Which we know didn't happen — he died on the way. Lucas: Right. But the Indian campaign was the last great success before that final, failed project. And the stories from Delhi — the towers of skulls, the weeping artisans dragged across the mountains, the elephants marching into Samarkand — they became part of the Timurid legend. Lucas: So I think that's a good place to leave it. Next time, maybe we can talk about Tamerlane's cultural impact — how poets and artists remembered him, or how he was portrayed in European literature. Luna: I'd love that. There's so much more to explore.