Latest / Tamerlane: The Conqueror Who Tried to Rebuild the Mongol Legacy — Fexingo History / Tamerlane's Captive Poets and the War of Words
Transcript
- Lucas: We've talked a lot about Tamerlane's captives — the artisans, the engineers, the astronomers. But there's one group we haven't really touched on yet: the captive historians. And not just any historians — two men who wrote competing accounts of Tamerlane's life, and their rivalry shaped how the world remembers him. Luna: Wait, competing histories? Like, written at the same time? Lucas: More or less. One was Sharaf al-Din Ali Yazdi, a Persian scholar who wrote the Zafarnama — the 'Book of Victory' — which is basically a hagiography. It portrays Tamerlane as the Sahib-i Qiran, the Lord of the Auspicious Conjunction, a divinely chosen conqueror fulfilling a cosmic destiny. The other was Ibn Arabshah, an Arab scholar from Damascus, who wrote the 'Aja'ib al-Maqdur — the 'Wonders of Destiny' — which is a scathing critique, calling Tamerlane a tyrannical scourge sent by God to punish the world. Luna: So one is a fan and one is a critic. But both were captives? Lucas: Exactly. Both were taken prisoner during Tamerlane's campaigns and brought to Samarkand. Yazdi was captured in his hometown of Yazd in Persia, probably around 1393, when Tamerlane swept through. He ended up working in Tamerlane's court, writing poetry and eventually the Zafarnama under the patronage of Tamerlane's grandson, Ibrahim Sultan. Ibn Arabshah was taken as a child during the sack of Damascus in 1400, and he was raised in Samarkand, educated in the Chagatai and Persian traditions, but he never forgot his roots. Luna: I remember that Damascus siege — the one with the fire and the Umayyad Mosque. That must have left a mark. Lucas: It did. Ibn Arabshah's account is filled with bitterness. He describes Tamerlane as a 'bloodthirsty wolf' and a 'destroyer of cities'. But here's the fascinating thing: both historians were writing decades after Tamerlane's death, and both were writing for specific patrons. Yazdi's Zafarnama was commissioned by the Timurid prince Ibrahim Sultan, who wanted to glorify his grandfather's legacy. Ibn Arabshah wrote his book later, in the 1430s, under the patronage of the Ottoman Sultan Murad II, who had his own reasons to paint Tamerlane as a monster — especially since the Ottomans had been crushed by Tamerlane at the Battle of Ankara in 1402. Luna: So the rivalry was political too. It wasn't just personal. Lucas: Not at all. These texts were propaganda weapons. The Zafarnama became the official Timurid history, used to legitimize the dynasty. It's written in a flowery Persian style, full of poetic flourishes, and it emphasizes Tamerlane's justice, his piety, and his military genius. It even claims he had a direct line to divine guidance. Ibn Arabshah's work, on the other hand, is in Arabic, and it's written in a deliberately ornate, rhymed prose style called saj', which makes it sound almost like a sermon. He accuses Tamerlane of hypocrisy, of using religion as a cover for his ambition. Luna: Which one is considered more accurate by historians today? Lucas: That's a tricky question. Both are biased, but in different ways. The Zafarnama is full of exaggerations — battle numbers are inflated, defeats are glossed over. Ibn Arabshah is more critical, but he also has his own agenda. He blames Tamerlane for everything, even things that might have been beyond his control. Most modern historians use both, cross-referencing them with other sources like the Ming shilu or the accounts of European ambassadors like Clavijo. But one thing is clear: without these two captive historians, we'd have a much poorer understanding of the Timurid period. Luna: It's amazing that both survived and wrote such detailed accounts, given their circumstances. Lucas: It really is. And it speaks to Tamerlane's complex relationship with learning. He sacked cities and slaughtered scholars, but he also collected them. He brought Yazdi and Arabshah to Samarkand, and he gave them the education that allowed them to write these histories. In a way, he created the very tools that would be used to judge him. Luna: There's something poetic about that. Almost like a tragedy. Lucas: Absolutely. And this tension — between destruction and creation, between the conqueror and the patron — is at the heart of the Timurid legacy. But we should also mention that both historians wrote other works. Yazdi was a poet and a mathematician as well. He wrote a treatise on astronomy. Ibn Arabshah wrote a famous biography of the Ottoman sultan Mehmed I, and his history of Tamerlane is actually just one part of a larger chronicle. Luna: So they were more than just Tamerlane's biographers. Lucas: Much more. And their works influenced later historians across the Islamic world. The Zafarnama, in particular, was widely copied and illustrated, becoming a model for later dynastic histories. Ibn Arabshah's work was used by Ottoman historians to frame Tamerlane as a divine punishment, and it shaped how the Arab world viewed the Mongol-Timurid legacy. Even today, in some parts of the Middle East, Tamerlane is remembered primarily through Ibn Arabshah's lens. Luna: Which lens do you think is more common in popular culture? Lucas: Probably the Zafarnama, because it's more accessible and it feeds the image of Tamerlane as a world conqueror, like Alexander or Genghis. But in academic circles, there's been a push to reconsider both sources critically. For instance, the Zafarnama's account of the Battle of Ankara is quite different from Ottoman sources. And Ibn Arabshah's descriptions of atrocities — like the towers of skulls — have been corroborated by other accounts, so they can't be dismissed as mere propaganda. Luna: It sounds like we need both to get a complete picture. Lucas: Exactly. And that's the value of history: we don't have to choose one narrative. We can hold both in our minds and understand that truth is often messy. Speaking of which, if you've been enjoying these deep dives into Tamerlane's world, and if today's episode was worth a coffee to you, you can support the show at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a small way to keep these conversations ad-free and independent. Luna: Yeah, it really helps. And we appreciate everyone who does. Lucas: So, back to the historians. One more thing I find remarkable: both Yazdi and Ibn Arabshah died in the 1450s, within a few years of each other. Yazdi in Samarkand, Ibn Arabshah in Cairo. They never met, as far as we know, but their books have been in dialogue ever since. Luna: It's like they're still arguing, centuries later. Lucas: They are. And that argument is a gift to historians. It reminds us that every history is a perspective, shaped by the writer's experience and audience. The captive historians of Samarkand didn't just record events — they created the competing myths that still define Tamerlane today. Luna: I wonder if Tamerlane himself would have cared about how he was remembered. Lucas: Oh, I think he cared immensely. He built monuments, commissioned inscriptions, and cultivated an image of himself as the Shadow of God on Earth. He would have been furious at Ibn Arabshah — and probably delighted by Yazdi. But in the end, both accounts survive, and both are part of his legacy.