Latest / The Story of Uzbekistan: Silk Road Kingdoms and Soviet Legacy — Fexingo History / The Siege of Jizzakh: Russia's Bloody Conquest of Uzbekistan
Transcript
- Lucas: So last time we talked about the cotton monoculture and its long shadow over Uzbekistan's Soviet legacy. Today I want to go back further, to a really violent turning point in the Russian conquest — the siege of Jizzakh in 1866. Luna: Jizzakh — that's the city in the Zarafshan Valley, right? Lucas: Exactly. It's about halfway between Tashkent and Samarkand, sitting at the entrance to the Zarafshan Valley, which was the breadbasket of the region. Whoever controlled Jizzakh controlled access to Samarkand and Bukhara. And in 1866, the Russians under General Dmitry Romanovsky decided they needed it. Lucas: Now, we've talked about the fall of Tashkent in 1865 under General Chernyayev — that was more of a daring assault. Jizzakh was different. It was a full-scale siege, and it became a byword for brutality. Luna: What made it so brutal? Lucas: First, the fortress itself was formidable. It had thick mud-brick walls, maybe about 10 meters high in places, and was defended by several thousand Uzbek and Tajik fighters, plus local volunteers. They were armed mostly with matchlock muskets, swords, and a few old cannons. The Russians had modern rifled artillery — 30 or so guns that could hit the walls from beyond the range of the defenders' weapons. Lucas: Romanovsky started the bombardment on October 17, 1866. For two days they shelled the city almost nonstop. The walls crumbled in sections. But the defenders didn't surrender. They even made a sortie — broke out of the fortress, attacked the Russian siege lines, but were driven back with heavy losses. Luna: So the defenders fought hard. Lucas: Very hard. On the third day, the Russians breached the walls and stormed in. And then it turned into a massacre. Eyewitness accounts from Russian officers — and we have a few of those — describe systematic killing. Soldiers went house to house. Some accounts say thousands of civilians were killed, not just fighters. The city was looted, and the survivors were expelled. Lucas: Romanovsky himself reported that 'the enemy lost no less than 2,000 men within the fortress,' but local sources put the death toll much higher, including women and children. The Russians lost about 100 dead and wounded. Luna: That's a huge disparity. Did the Russians face any consequences for that massacre? Lucas: Not really. Back in St. Petersburg, the government was eager to consolidate control. General Konstantin von Kaufman, who was appointed governor-general of Turkestan in 1867, essentially endorsed the tactics — he believed that overwhelming force would pacify the region faster. The siege of Jizzakh became a template: bombard, breach, then no quarter. Lucas: But there's also a story of resistance that's less known. A local poet, Ajzi, wrote a poem about the siege — in Tajik Persian, which was the literary language of the region at the time. He described the bravery of the defenders and the cruelty of the invaders. That poem survived and was passed down orally. Luna: Ajzi — I've heard that name. He was a Jadid poet, wasn't he? Lucas: Yes, he was active later in the early 20th century, during the Jadid reform movement we talked about in Episode 19. But his poem about Jizzakh was based on stories he heard from his elders. So the memory of that siege fed into the anti-colonial sentiment that later fueled the Basmachi revolt and even the Jadid movement. Lucas: Jizzakh itself never fully recovered from 1866. It remained a small provincial town under Russian rule. But its name became a symbol. When the Basmachi rose up in the 1920s, Jizzakh was one of the centers of the rebellion. Luna: So the siege had a long afterlife. Lucas: Exactly. And it's a reminder that the Russian conquest wasn't a smooth, inevitable march. It was violent, contested, and remembered. The siege of Jizzakh is one of those events that Uzbek historians point to as a turning point — the moment when the old order was shattered by industrial warfare. Lucas: Now, after Jizzakh fell, the road to Samarkand was open. Kaufman took Samarkand in 1868 without much resistance — the Emir of Bukhara had already withdrawn. But the resistance didn't end. The siege of Jizzakh became a rallying cry. Luna: It's interesting how a single battle can define so much. Lucas: Absolutely. And it's not just a military story. It's a story about colonialism, memory, and how violence shapes identity. The fact that we still have that poem by Ajzi, that local histories still recount the names of defenders — it shows that Jizzakh wasn't just a footnote. It's a scar. Lucas: Let's zoom out a bit. The conquest of Central Asia took about 30 years, from the 1860s to the 1890s. But the period from 1864 to 1868 was the most intense. Jizzakh was one of the bloodiest battles of that phase. And it set the tone for how the Russians would treat any resistance. Luna: What about the defenders? Do we know anything about their leaders? Lucas: We do, but the sources are frustrating. Russian accounts name a local commander named 'Fazil Bek' or something similar — but they don't give much detail. Local traditions mention a figure named Muhammad Karim, who was killed in the fighting. But it's hard to separate fact from legend. What's clear is that the defense was organized by the local elite — the beks and landowners — but also involved common people. Lucas: Interestingly, after the siege, the Russians tried to win hearts and minds. They rebuilt the city's bazaar, allowed some trade, and didn't forcibly convert anyone. But the memory of the massacre lingered. When the Bolsheviks came in the 1920s, they actually used the siege as propaganda — 'Look how the Tsarists treated you.' That's how powerful the memory was. Luna: So the siege was useful for the Soviets, too. Lucas: Yes, but in a cynical way. They used anti-colonial sentiment to gain support, but then they crushed the Basmachi with even more violence. So Jizzakh's story is layered. Lucas: To wrap up, I think the siege of Jizzakh deserves more attention. It's not as famous as the fall of Tashkent or Samarkand, but it reveals the brutality of the conquest and the resilience of the people. And it's a reminder that the history of Uzbekistan under Russian rule is not just about grand policy — it's about blood and memory. Luna: Thanks, Lucas. That was really eye-opening.