Latest / Tamerlane: The Conqueror Who Tried to Rebuild the Mongol Legacy — Fexingo History / Tamerlane's Captive Mongol Chroniclers: The Two Histories of an Empire
Transcript
- Lucas: So we've spent a lot of episodes talking about the people Tamerlane captured — engineers, poets, astronomers, even elephants. But one group of captives we haven't touched on yet are the historians. The chroniclers he brought to Samarkand to write his story. Luna: Wait — he captured historians? That feels like a meta power move. Lucas: It really was. Tamerlane understood that if you control the narrative, you control your legacy. And he was obsessed with how he'd be remembered. So from cities like Damascus, Baghdad, and Tabriz, he brought scribes and scholars to his capital — and commissioned multiple histories of his reign. The most famous one is the Zafarnama, or 'Book of Victory', written by Sharaf al-Din Ali Yazdi. Luna: That's the one that paints him as a kind of divine conqueror, right? Lucas: Exactly. Yazdi — who had been captured after the sack of Shiraz — wrote it at the order of Tamerlane's grandson Ibrahim Sultan, decades after Timur's death. So it's a second-generation commission, but it draws on earlier court sources. The Zafarnama is not just a chronicle — it's a literary masterpiece in Persian, full of ornate prose, battle descriptions, and praise for Timur as the Sahib-i Qiran, the Lord of the Auspicious Conjunction, chosen by God and the stars. Luna: So it's basically a work of propaganda. But was there an alternative view? Lucas: Oh, absolutely. The counter-narrative comes from Ahmad ibn Arabshah, a Syrian scholar who was captured as a child during Tamerlane's campaign in Syria. He was brought to Samarkand, educated, and later escaped to the Mamluk Sultanate. And there, decades later, he wrote his own history titled Aja'ib al-Maqdur fi Nawa'ib al-Taymur — 'Wonders of Destiny in the Misfortunes of Timur'. It's a vicious polemic, calling Tamerlane a crippled tyrant, a source of calamity — not a lord of conjunction but a scourge of God. Luna: Hmm. So one historian he held captive, another who escaped — both writing competing versions of the same events. Lucas: That's the fascinating thing. And what makes it even trickier is that there's a third source: the so-called Malfuzat, or 'Memoirs of Timur', supposedly written by Tamerlane himself. Modern scholars are deeply divided on its authenticity. Some think it's a later fabrication, maybe from the 17th century. Others argue it contains genuine material from Timur's court. Either way, it presents Timur as a strategic genius, justifying his campaigns with detailed, almost bureaucratic rationale. Luna: So we've got a triumphalist court history, a bitter exile's critique, and a dubious autobiography. How do historians even begin to sort out the truth? Lucas: Well, they cross-reference. Where Yazdi and Ibn Arabshah agree — on basic facts like dates, places, major battles — those tend to be reliable. Where they diverge, you have to consider their biases. Yazdi, writing under Timurid patronage, downplays atrocities like the pyramids of skulls at Isfahan. Ibn Arabshah, writing for the Mamluks who feared and hated Timur, probably exaggerates them. The Malfuzat adds another layer, often giving Timur's own justifications. Luna: It sounds like trying to reconstruct history from court records and revenge memoirs. But also — these historians were literally captives. That must have shaped what they wrote. Lucas: That's a key point. Yazdi was captive, then freed and employed. Ibn Arabshah was captive, then escaped. Their freedom — or lack of it — directly influenced their work. And Tamerlane knew that. He deliberately collected scholars from conquered lands as a way of legitimizing his rule. By having Persian and Arabic chroniclers write his story in the high literary languages of the Islamic world, he positioned himself as a legitimate Islamic ruler, not just a steppe warlord. Luna: And he's drawing on Mongol traditions too, right? Like the Yassa and the idea of being a descendant of Chinggis Khan? Lucas: Exactly. The Yassa — the traditional Mongol law code attributed to Chinggis — is mentioned in both Yazdi and Ibn Arabshah. Timur styled himself as a restorer of the Mongol empire, but he also had to appeal to his Turkic and Persian subjects. So the chronicles blend Mongol steppe ideals with Islamic kingship. For instance, the Zafarnama constantly emphasizes Timur's lineage from Chinggis through the Chagatai line, while also showing him as a devout Muslim. Luna: But Ibn Arabshah would have none of that. He calls him an infidel, doesn't he? Lucas: Yes, he questions Timur's piety. He points out that Timur destroyed cities, massacred Muslims, and that his devotion was opportunistic. But even Ibn Arabshah can't deny Timur's military brilliance. He describes his strategies in detail, almost grudgingly admiring his cunning. So you get this complicated picture — a man who is both a monster and a genius, depending on who's writing. Luna: It reminds me of how modern historians deal with figures like this — you can't rely on any single source. Lucas: Right. And part of what makes the study of Timur so rich is that we have these competing voices. Most medieval conquerors are only recorded by their own court historians. For Timur, we have an external critique from someone who actually lived through his conquests. That's rare. And it allows us to see the same events through two completely different lenses. Luna: So this episode is kind of about how history gets written — not just what happened, but who gets to tell the story. Lucas: Exactly. And that's something that resonates beyond just Timur. You know, it takes a lot of work to dig into these sources, to compare them, to figure out what's really going on. And honestly, the research that goes into shows like this takes time and resources. If you've been enjoying these conversations, a couple of dollars a month genuinely makes a difference — it's what keeps these going. You can support the show at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Just a small way to say these histories matter. Luna: Yeah, it really does help. And it keeps us ad-free. Lucas: So, back to the chronicles. There's a specific example I want to walk through to show how these biases play out. Take the Battle of Ankara in 1402, where Tamerlane defeated the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I. The Zafarnama describes it as a brilliant masterstroke — Timur lured Bayezid into a trap, using the terrain and the heat. Ibn Arabshah, on the other hand, emphasizes the chaos and the suffering, and he points out that Timur had bribed some of Bayezid's troops. Both stories can be true, but the emphasis is totally different. Luna: And the Malfuzat? Does it cover that battle? Lucas: It does, but in a very different style. The Malfuzat presents Timur's own voice — or what's supposed to be his voice — explaining his tactical decisions in detail. It reads like a military memoir. But it's so detailed that some historians suspect it's a later addition, maybe written to model how a Timurid prince should think. There's a debate about whether it's a genuine autobiography or a 'how to be a conqueror' manual. Luna: Fascinating. So we have propaganda, polemic, and maybe a fake memoir. And yet, we still try to piece together history. Lucas: That's exactly what historians do. And it's worth remembering that these texts weren't just written — they were performed. The Zafarnama was often read aloud in court, especially on anniversaries of victories. Ibn Arabshah's work circulated in Mamluk circles as a warning against hubris. The Malfuzat, if genuine, may have been used to instruct Timur's descendants. Each text had a purpose beyond recording facts. Luna: So it's not just about what happened — it's about how the story was used. Lucas: Right. And for listeners who want to dive deeper, the Zafarnama has been partly translated into English by Wheeler Thackston, and Ibn Arabshah's work is available in an old translation by J.H. Sanders. I'd encourage anyone curious to read them side by side — it's a masterclass in historical perspective. Luna: That sounds like a great way to see history in action. Lucas: It really is. So next time someone asks what the 'real' Tamerlane was like, you can say: it depends who you ask — a court poet, an escaped prisoner, or the man himself. And maybe, the truth is somewhere in between.