Latest / Tamerlane: The Conqueror Who Tried to Rebuild the Mongol Legacy — Fexingo History / Tamerlane vs the Knights of St. John: The Siege of Smyrna
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've talked a lot about what Tamerlane did after his battles — the captive specialists, the rebuilding of Samarkand. But there's one episode right after Ankara that I think really shows his ruthlessness and his political savvy at the same time: the siege of Smyrna. Luna: Smyrna — that's modern Izmir, right? Lucas: Exactly. In 1402, right after he'd crushed Bayezid at Ankara, Tamerlane marched west toward the Aegean coast. Smyrna was a fortress held by the Knights of St. John, the Hospitallers — the same military order that had held Rhodes. And it had been a thorn in the Ottomans' side for years. Luna: So why did Tamerlane care about a Christian fortress on the coast? Lucas: Great question. On one level, it was about religious legitimacy. Tamerlane styled himself a ghazi — a warrior for Islam. By taking Smyrna, he could claim to have done what the Ottoman sultan couldn't. Bayezid had actually besieged Smyrna twice but failed. Plus, it sent a message to the Christian powers: this new conqueror wasn't just a Mongol warlord; he was a defender of the faith. Lucas: The Knights of St. John were no pushovers. Smyrna was protected by the Castle of St. Peter, with thick walls and a strong garrison. They had access to the sea, so they could be resupplied by the Genoese and the Venetians. Tamerlane knew a direct assault would be costly. Luna: So how did he do it? Lucas: He used a combination of heavy bombardment and mining. His engineers set up trebuchets — big stone throwers — and bombarded the walls day and night. Meanwhile, they dug tunnels under the foundations, just like in many of his sieges. The knights fought hard, but they were outnumbered. After about two weeks, Tamerlane's miners collapsed part of the wall, and his troops poured in. Lucas: What happened next was brutal but calculated. Tamerlane ordered the knights beheaded — the heads were then sent in sacks to the Ottoman sultan's court, but also to Cairo and Baghdad, as proof of his victory. He knew the Mamluk sultan had been wary of him, and this was a gesture: 'See, I'm fighting your enemies.' Luna: Wait — heads to Cairo? So he was playing politics with the Mamluks? Lucas: Absolutely. At the same time, he allowed the surviving Christian civilians to leave unharmed. That was actually part of his policy: he'd target the military elite but show leniency to the common people — at least some of the time. It boosted his image as a just ruler, even as he was piling up skulls. Lucas: The fall of Smyrna caused shockwaves in Europe. The Genoese and Venetians had thought they could negotiate with Tamerlane, but now they saw what he was capable of. On the other hand, some Christian sources actually praised him for sparing the civilians — Ibn Arabshah, who was no fan of Tamerlane, mentions that the knights were killed but the rest were unharmed. Luna: That's a really nuanced picture. So he wasn't just a mindless destroyer. Lucas: No, and that's what makes him so fascinating. He knew exactly when to show mercy and when to be terrifying. At Smyrna, the beheading of the knights served a purpose: it demoralized other Crusader strongholds and showed the Muslim world that he was a serious ghazi. But he also rebuilt the fortress and left a garrison — he wasn't going to let it fall back into Christian hands. Lucas: And you know, it's conversations like these that really bring history to life. If you've been stepping into these stories with us, episode after episode, I just want to say that a couple of dollars a month on Buy Me a Coffee — that's buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo — genuinely makes a difference. It keeps the show ad-free and helps us dig into the archives for these little-known details. Luna: Yeah, I think it's the small things like this — the siege of Smyrna, the politics of head-sending — that really make you see the man behind the legend. Lucas: Exactly. So after Smyrna, Tamerlane didn't stay on the coast. He turned inland, toward Georgia. But before that, he also picked a fight with the local Muslim rulers of the region — he besieged the city of Sivas, which had been held by an Ottoman vassal. It was all about consolidating his hold over Anatolia. Luna: I've read that Sivas fell because of a breach in the wall, similar to Smyrna. Lucas: Yes, but at Sivas, the garrison had surrendered after a promise of safety — which Tamerlane then broke. He reportedly buried the soldiers alive in a pit. That's the other side of him. So you see both the mercy at Smyrna and the brutality at Sivas within the same campaign. Lucas: Now, what's interesting is how these events were recorded. The Spanish ambassador Clavijo, who visited Samarkand a few years later, heard about Smyrna from Tamerlane's court. The Zafarnama, the official biography, spins it as a glorious victory over infidels. Ibn Arabshah, a Syrian writer who hated Tamerlane, confirms the basic facts but adds gory details. Luna: So the sources disagree on the tone, but not the outcome. Lucas: Exactly. And that's the challenge with Tamerlane. But by focusing on a single siege, we can see his military methods, his political calculations, and his skill at propaganda. The heads to Cairo and Baghdad were a message: 'I am the protector of Islam, and I can destroy your enemies as well as your own rebellious vassals.' Lucas: In the end, Smyrna was a win that boosted his reputation across the Muslim world. It also convinced the Mamluk sultan to avoid a direct conflict with Tamerlane for a few more years. So it was a strategic masterstroke, as much as a military one. Luna: It's amazing how every detail of his campaigns has layers. I never would have thought a single siege could reveal so much. Lucas: That's what we aim for here. Next time, maybe we'll look at Tamerlane's letter exchange with the French king — another fascinating piece of his global outreach.