Latest / Tamerlane: The Conqueror Who Tried to Rebuild the Mongol Legacy — Fexingo History / Tamerlane's Persian Poets: The Conqueror Who Commissioned Rival Histories
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've talked a lot about Tamerlane's battles, his cities, his wives. But one thing we haven't touched on is how he controlled the narrative. Tamerlane was illiterate — he couldn't read or write — but he understood the power of the written word better than almost any ruler of his time. Luna: Wait, illiterate? How do you run an empire without reading reports? Lucas: He had everything read to him, and he had an incredible memory. But more importantly, he commissioned histories. He hired poets and chroniclers to write his version of events. The most famous is the Zafarnama — the 'Book of Victory' — written by Sharaf al-Din Ali Yazdi. It's the official Timurid court history, written in ornate Persian prose, painting Tamerlane as a divinely chosen ruler, a sahib-i qiran, a lord of the auspicious conjunction. Luna: So basically his own propaganda machine. Lucas: Exactly. But here's the twist: he also tolerated — maybe even encouraged — a rival history. Ibn Arabshah, a Syrian scholar who had been captured and brought to Samarkand, wrote a scathing account of Tamerlane's cruelty, calling him a scourge from God. And both works survive. So we have two completely different portraits of the same man, written within a generation of his death. Lucas: If you've been stepping into history with us episode by episode, you know we rely on sources like these — and on listeners like you to keep this show ad-free. A couple of dollars a month is genuinely what keeps these going — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo, if you've gotten something out of our conversations about Central Asia. Luna: Yeah, it really does make a difference. We've had listeners tell us they actually learn something new each time. Lucas: So, back to the poets. Tamerlane's court in Samarkand was a magnet for Persian literary talent. He brought scholars from Baghdad, Shiraz, Herat. And he wasn't just interested in history — he wanted poetry too. Luna: Did he actually appreciate poetry, or was it just for show? Lucas: Hard to say, but there's a famous story about the poet Hafez. Hafez wrote a line: 'If that Shirazi Turk would take my heart in hand, I would give Samarkand and Bukhara for his Hindu mole.' Tamerlane was furious — he summoned Hafez and demanded, 'I conquered those cities with the sword, and you would give them away for a mole?' Hafez supposedly replied, 'That's why I'm a poor poet and you're a great conqueror.' Tamerlane laughed and let him go. Luna: That's a great comeback. So he did have a sense of humor. Lucas: At least when it suited him. But the real project was the Zafarnama. Yazdi spent years on it, weaving in Quranic references, Persian epic traditions, and flattery. He describes Tamerlane's campaigns as just wars to restore order, his massacres as necessary punishments. For example, the massacre at Isfahan — where towers of skulls were built — Yazdi frames it as a response to rebellion, not wanton cruelty. Luna: And Ibn Arabshah gives the opposite view? Lucas: Completely. Ibn Arabshah writes in Arabic, and he calls Tamerlane a 'plague' and a 'demon.' He describes the same events with horror, emphasizing the suffering of civilians. He even claims Tamerlane was a heretic who only pretended to be Muslim. So which one is true? Probably somewhere in between. But both were written by men who had reason to exaggerate. Lucas: What's fascinating is that Tamerlane's patronage didn't stop with his death. His grandson Ulugh Beg, who we've mentioned before, was a scientist and astronomer. He built an observatory in Samarkand and continued the tradition of court histories. The Timurid dynasty as a whole fostered what some historians call a 'Timurid Renaissance' in Persian art and literature. Luna: So the same guy who built pyramids of skulls also sponsored poetry. That's hard to reconcile. Lucas: It is. But that's the point — Tamerlane was complex. He saw himself as a restorer of the Mongol Empire under the Yassa, the traditional code, but also as a Muslim ruler who needed legitimacy from the ulama. He used Persian culture to appeal to the urban elites of Iran and Central Asia, while his army remained nomadic and Turkic. The poetry was part of his statecraft. Lucas: Let me give you a concrete example: the Bibi-Khanym Mosque in Samarkand. We covered that in episode 55. But it's worth noting that the mosque was built partly as a monument to Tamerlane's piety, partly as a showcase for Persian architects and craftsmen. The Zafarnama describes it in glowing terms. But Ibn Arabshah says the construction was so rushed that the building began to crack immediately. And indeed, it collapsed in an earthquake a few centuries later. Luna: So even his architecture was propaganda. Lucas: Absolutely. And the same is true of the histories. The Zafarnama wasn't just read at court — it was copied and distributed across the Islamic world, sent to the Mamluks, the Ottomans, even to the Ming. Tamerlane wanted to be remembered as a great ruler, and he controlled the narrative as much as he could. Lucas: But there's a twist: the Zafarnama was actually written after Tamerlane's death. Yazdi finished it around 1425, under Shah Rukh, Tamerlane's son. So it's also a legitimizing document for the Timurid dynasty. The portrait of Tamerlane as a just, divinely guided king served Shah Rukh's interests too. Luna: So it's like the court history of a dynasty, not just one man. Lucas: Exactly. And Ibn Arabshah's work, written in Arabic for a Mamluk audience, is also shaped by its context. He was writing in Cairo, under the Mamluks who had fought Tamerlane. So his hostility is partly political. But his account is invaluable because he includes details the Zafarnama omits — like the systematic destruction of irrigation systems in Syria, which caused long-term famine. Luna: That's the kind of thing you'd only get from a critic. Lucas: Right. And that's why historians use both. Together, they give us a more complete picture. For example, on the question of Tamerlane's religion: the Zafarnama portrays him as a devout Sunni Muslim who fought heretics. Ibn Arabshah calls him a crypto-Shiite or worse. Modern scholars see him as pragmatic — he used religion when it helped, but wasn't bound by it. Lucas: Let me read you a short passage from the Zafarnama, as translated by Wheeler Thackston. It describes Tamerlane's prayer before the Battle of Ankara: 'He raised his hands in supplication and said, O God, Thou art the King of kings and the Lord of lords. Thou hast given me dominion over the necks of the people. Grant me victory over this tyrant Bayezid.' So he frames himself as God's instrument against a tyrant. Luna: And Ibn Arabshah's version? Lucas: Ibn Arabshah says Tamerlane used tricks and sorcery, that he consulted astrologers and made sacrifices to idols. He calls him a 'slave of the stars.' So you see the contrast: divine instrument vs. demonic sorcerer. Lucas: This debate about Tamerlane's legacy continued for centuries. The Mughal emperors in India, who claimed descent from Tamerlane, used the Zafarnama as a model. Babur wrote his own memoirs, the Baburnama, in a similar style. So Tamerlane's self-image influenced later rulers. Luna: So he's not just a historical figure — he's a literary character too. Lucas: Exactly. And that's what makes studying him so fascinating. We're not just dealing with events; we're dealing with how he wanted to be remembered. The Zafarnama is a work of art as much as history. It's written in highly polished Persian with poetic devices, rhymes, and Quranic allusions. It's meant to be read aloud, to inspire awe. Lucas: One more thing: the Zafarnama is also a source of practical information. It includes details of troop movements, tactics, and logistics. For example, it describes how Tamerlane used a system of yam — relay horse stations — to communicate across his empire, something we talked about in episode 63. So even as propaganda, it's useful. Luna: So if you're a historian, you have to read it critically but not dismiss it. Lucas: Right. And that's the challenge with all medieval sources. But for Tamerlane, the contrast between the two main accounts is particularly stark. It reminds us that history is never just facts — it's always storytelling. And Tamerlane knew that better than most.