Part 9

This expedition may in all probability be dated in 121/739. A year or two later, Na_s_r collected his forces, which included levies from Transoxania, for an attack on Shāsh. Wellhausen considers that the first two expeditions were only stages of the third, but the expedition to Shāsh can hardly have taken place earlier than 122/740, in view of the fact that the armies of Shāsh and Farghāna were engaged with the Türgesh in 739, and of Narshakhī’s statement[101], which there is no reason to dispute, that _T_ughshāda was assassinated in the thirty-second year of his reign. Reckoning in lunar years this gives 122 (91-122), in solar years 123 (710-741), as the date. This is confirmed by the Chinese record of an embassy from Shāsh in 741 complaining that “Now that the Turks have become subject to China, it is only the Arabs that are a curse to the Kingdoms”[102]. 123 is also the date given for the return of the _S_ughdians[103]. It is most unlikely that the intervening year or years passed without expeditions altogether, and the most reasonable supposition is that they were occupied in the pacification of _S_ughd. The expedition marched eastward through Ushrūsana, whose prince, as usual, paid his allegiance to the victor on his passage, but on reaching the Jaxartes Na_s_r found his crossing opposed by the army of Shāsh, together with _H_ārith b. Surayj and some Turkish troops. It would seem that he was unable to come to blows with the main body of the enemy, but made a treaty with the king by which the latter agreed to accept an Arab resident and to expel _H_ārith, who was accordingly deported to Fārāb. As usual, later tradition magnified the exploits of the Arabs by crediting Na_s_r with the capture and execution of Kūr_s_ūl, the Türgesh leader who had been scarcely less redoubtable than the Khāqān himself. If the story has any foundation it is probably a legendary development from the capture of a Turkish chief Al-Akhram, related by _T_abarī in a variant account. The presence of Kūr_s_ūl with a Türgesh force on this occasion is not in itself impossible, but if his identification with Baga Tarkhan is sound, we know that he was executed by the Chinese in 744/126[104]. The expulsion of _H_ārith was probably the object for which the expedition had been undertaken; before returning, however, the Arabs entered Farghāna and pursued its king as far as Qubā before bringing him to terms. The negotiations were carried out between Sulaymān b. _S_ūl, one of the princes of Jūrjān, and the Queen-Mother. This invasion of Farghāna is related in three (or four) different versions, some of which may possibly refer to a second expedition mentioned by _T_abarī later. In the same year, on returning from the expedition to Shāsh, Na_s_r was met at Samarqand by the Bukhār Khudāh _T_ughshāda and two of his dihqāns. The nobles laid a complaint against the prince, but as Na_s_r seemed indisposed to redress their grievance, they attempted to assassinate both the Bukhār Khudāh and the Arab intendant at Bukhārā, Wā_s_il b. ʿAmr. The former was mortally wounded, and succeeded by his son Qutayba, so named in honour of the conqueror. The incident is related also by Narshakhī with some additional details which profess to explain the assassination. The two narratives present such a remarkable similarity of phrase, however, even though they are in different languages, that it is rather more likely that the Persian version has elaborated the story than that _T_abarī deliberately suppressed any offensive statements, as argued by van Vloten[105].

Except for a possible second expedition to Farghāna, no other campaigns into Transoxania are recorded of Na_s_r, unless Balādhurī’s tradition (from Abū ʿUbayda) of an unsuccessful attack on Ushrūsana refers to a separate expedition. This is unlikely, and the account conflicts with that given in _T_abarī. Ushrūsana, however, was never really subdued until nearly a century later. _T_ukhāristān, if it had not already been recovered by Asad, may have made submission of its own accord. Since the defeat of the Türgesh and the flight of _H_ārith it had ceased to hold any menace to the Arabs, and Na_s_r had accordingly retransferred the capital to Merv on his appointment.

The governor now turned his attention to restoring the prosperity of the country and developing a policy of co-operation with the subject peoples. Na_s_r was the first Arab ruler of Transoxania to realise that the government depended for support in the last resort on the middle classes and agriculturalists. Both these classes were of greater political importance perhaps in Transoxania, with its centuries of mercantile tradition, than any other were in the Empire. It was in the same way that in later years the _T_āhirids and Sāmānids established their ascendancy[106]. He was thus able not only to complete the work begun by Asad b. ʿAbdullah, but to settle it on more stable foundations. Shortly after his recapture of Samarqand he had sent an embassy to China. This was followed up in 126/744 by a much more elaborate embassy, obviously intended to regulate commercial relations in the most complete manner possible, in which the Arabs were accompanied by ambassadors not only from the Sogdian cities and _T_ukhāristān, but even from Zābulistān, Shāsh, and the Türgesh. Two other Arab embassies are also recorded in 745 and 747. There can be no doubt that it was not so much the justice of Na_s_r’s rule as his personal influence and honesty that reconciled the peoples of Transoxania. Even the _S_ughdian refugees, stranded after the dissolution of the Türgesh confederacy, trusted him to honour the conditions upon which they had agreed to return, and were not deceived although his concessions raised a storm of protest, and the Caliph himself was brought to confirm them only for the sake of restoring peace.

It is not surprising, however, that the princes were dissatisfied with the success which had attended the pacification of Transoxania. The people were “becoming Arabs” too rapidly and their own authority was menaced in consequence. They were still hopeful of regaining their independence, especially when Na_s_r’s position became less secure after the death of Hishām. We hear therefore of sporadic embassies to China, such as that sent from Ishtīkhan in 745 asking for annexation to China “like a little circumscription.” That the governor was aware of this undercurrent may be judged from the fact that he felt it necessary to have _H_ārith b. Surayj pardoned, in case he should again bring in the Turks to attack the government[107]. But the people as a whole held for Na_s_r. The respect and even affection which he inspired held all Transoxania true to him during the last troubled years. No tribute could be more eloquent than the facts that not a single city in Transoxania took advantage of the revolutionary movements in Khurāsān to withdraw its allegiance, that Abū Muslim’s missionaries went no further than the Arab colonies at Āmul, Bukhārā, and Khwārizm, and that the loyal garrison of Balkh found first support and then refuge in Chaghāniān and _T_ukhāristān. On these facts the various authorities whose narratives are related by _T_abarī completely agree, and by their agreement disprove the exaggerated account given by Dīnawarī (359 f.) that “Abū Muslim sent his envoys (duʿāt) to all quarters of Khurāsān, and the people rallied _en masse_ to Abū Muslim from Herāt, Būshanj, Merv-Rūdh, _T_ālaqān, Merv, Nasā, Abīward, _T_ūs, Naysābūr, Sarakhs, Balkh, Chaghāniān, _T_ukhāristān, Khuttalān, Kish, and Nasaf.” Dīnawarī himself states a little later that Samarqand joined Abū Muslim only after the death of Na_s_r. Abū Muslim’s main strength, in fact, was drawn from Lower _T_ukhāristān and the neighbourhood of Merv-Rūdh, several of the princes of which, including the ruler of Būshanj and Khālid b. Barmak, declared for him. But even here the people were not solidly against the administration. We are told that a camp was established at Jīranj (south of Merv) “to cut off the reinforcements of Na_s_r b. Sayyār from Merv-Rūdh, Balkh, and the districts of (Lower) _T_ukhāristān.” Herāt fell to Abū Muslim by force of arms. The Syrian garrison of Balkh, together with the Mu_d_arite party, were supported by the rulers of both Upper and Lower _T_ukhāristān, and twice recaptured the city from their stronghold at Tirmidh. An example of Abū Muslim’s efforts to gain over the Iranians is afforded by an incident when, having taken 300 Khwārizmian prisoners in an engagement, he treated them well and set them free[108].

The tradition of the enthusiasm of the Iranians for Abū Muslim is true only of the period after his success. In our most authentic records there is no trace of a mass movement such as has so often been portrayed. His following was at first comparatively so small that had the Arabs been more willing to support Na_s_r at the outset, it is practically certain that it would have melted away as rapidly as the following of _H_ārith b. Surayj at the first reverse. “Nothing succeeds like success,” and Abū Muslim, once victorious on so imposing a scale, and that with the aid of Iranians, became a heroic figure among the peoples of Eastern Khurāsān. The legend penetrated but slowly into Transoxania. When by 130/748, however, the whole of Eastern Khurāsān had fallen to Abū Muslim and Na_s_r no longer held authority, his governors in Transoxania were replaced by the nominees of Abū Muslim without outward disturbance. But the recrudescence of embassies to China shows that under the surface currents were stirring. Shāsh had already thrown off its allegiance and the Sogdian princes had by no means lost all hope of regaining independence in spite of the tranquillity of the last few years. As it happened, however, the first revolt was not on their part but by the Arab garrison of Bukhārā under Sharīk b. Shaykh in 133/750-751. The rising, which was due to their resentment at the seizure of the Caliphate by the ʿAbbāsids and the passing over of the ʿAlid house, was suppressed with some difficulty by Abū Muslim’s lieutenant Ziyād b. Sāli_h_ assisted by the Bukhār Khudāh. The fact that the Bukhār-Khudāh assisted the troops of Abū Muslim against Sharīk might be regarded as an indication that he belonged to the party of the former. This inference is more than doubtful, however. Of the 30,000 men, who, we are told, joined the rebels, probably the greater part were the townsmen, or “popular party,” of Bukhārā. The revolt thus assumed the domestic character of a movement against the aristocratic party, who, led by the Bukhār-Khudāh, naturally cooperated with the Government in its suppression. The events of the following year are sufficient evidence against any other explanation. According to Narshakhī, who gives by far the fullest account of this revolt, Ziyād had also to suppress a similar movement in Samarqand. In the same year an expedition was sent into Khuttal by Abū Dāwud, the governor of Balkh. Al-_H_anash at first offered no opposition; later in the campaign he attempted to hold out against the Arabs but was forced to fly to the Turks and thence to China where he was given the title of Jabghu in recompense for his resistance[109]. By this expedition Khuttal was effectively annexed to the Arab government for the first time.

Of much greater, and indeed decisive, importance were the results of an expedition under Ziyād b. Sāli_h_ into the Turkish lands beyond the Jaxartes. It is surprising to find no reference to this either in _T_abarī or any other of the early historians. A short notice is given by Ibn al-Athīr, drawn from some source which is now apparently lost. The earliest reference which we find in the Arabic histories seems to be a passing mention of Ziyād b. Sāli_h_’s expedition “into _S_īn” in a monograph on Baghdād by Ibn _T_ayfūr (d. 250/983)[110]. For a detailed account of the battle we are therefore dependent on the Chinese sources[111]. In 747 and 749 the Jabghu of _T_ukhāristān had appealed to China for aid against certain petty chiefs who were giving trouble in the Gilghit and Chitral valleys. The governor of Kucha despatched on this duty a Corean officer, Kao-hsien-shih, who punished the offenders in a series of amazing campaigns over the high passes of the Karakorum. Before returning to Kucha after the last campaign he was called in by the King of Farghāna to assist him against the king of Shāsh. Kao-hsien-shih at first came to terms with the king of Shāsh but when on some pretext he broke his word and seized the city, the heir to the kingdom fled to _S_ughd for assistance and persuaded Abū Muslim to intervene. A strong force was accordingly despatched under Ziyād b. Sāli_h_. The Chinese, with the army of Farghāna and the Karluks (who had succeeded the Türgesh in the hegemony of the Western Turks), gave battle at Athlakh, near _T_arāz, in July 751 (Dhuʾl-_h_ijja 133). During the engagement the Karluks deserted and Kao-hsien-shih, caught between them and the Arabs, suffered a crushing defeat. Though this battle marks the end of Chinese power in the West, it was in consequence of internal disruption rather than external pressure. Nothing was further at first from the minds of the princes of _S_ughd than the passing of the long tradition of Chinese sovereignty, indeed it blazed up more strongly than ever. For had not a Chinese army actually visited Shāsh on their very borders; even if the Arabs had won the first battle, would they not return to avenge the defeat? For the last time the Shao-wu princes planned a concerted rising in Bukhārā, Kish, _S_ughd, and Ushrūsana. But China gave neither aid nor encouragement; the presence of Abū Muslim at Samarqand overawed the _S_ughdians, and only at Kish did the revolt assume serious proportions. Abū Dāwud’s army easily crushed the insurgents in a pitched battle at Kandak, near Kish, killing the king Al-Ikhrīd and many of the other dihqāns. Amongst the treasures of the royal palace which were sent to Samarqand were “many articles of rare Chinese workmanship, vessels inlaid with gold, saddles, brocades, and other objects d’art.” The Bukhār-Khudāh Qutayba and the dihqāns of _S_ughd also paid for their complicity with their lives[112].

So ended the last attempt at restoring an independent Sogdiana under the old régime. For some years yet the princes of _S_ughd, Khwārizm, and _T_ukhāristān continued to send appeals to China. The Emperor, however, “preoccupied with maintaining peace, praised them all and gave them consolation, then having warned them sent them back to assure tranquillity in the Western lands.” Abū Muslim had also, it would seem, realised the importance of maintaining relations with the Chinese court, for a succession of embassies from “the Arabs with black garments” is reported, beginning in the year following the battle of the Talas. As many as three are mentioned in a single year. It is possible that these embassies were in part intended to keep the government informed on the progress of the civil wars in China, though the active interest of the new administration in their commerce would, as before, tend to reconcile the influential mercantile communities to ʿAbbāsid rule. The actual deathblow to the tradition of Chinese overlordship in Western Central Asia was given, not by any such isolated incident as the battle of the Talas, but by the participation of Central Asian contingents in the restoration of the Emperor to his capital in 757[113]. Men from the distant lands to whom China had seemed an immeasurably powerful and unconquerable Empire now saw with their own eyes the fatal weaknesses that Chinese diplomacy had so skilfully concealed. From this blow Chinese prestige never recovered.

The complete shattering of the Western Turkish empires by the Chinese policy had also put an end to all possibility of intervention from that side. Transoxania, therefore, was unable to look for outside support, while the reorganization of the Muslim Empire by the early ʿAbbāsid Caliphs prevented, not indeed sporadic though sometimes serious risings, but any repetition of the concerted efforts at national independence. The Shao-wu princes and the more important dihqāns continued to exercise a nominal rule until the advent of the Sāmānids, but many of them found that the new policy of the Empire offered them an opportunity of honourable and lucrative service in its behalf and were quick to take advantage of it. On the other hand the frequent revolts in Eastern Khurāsān under the guise of religious movements show that the mass of the people remained unalterably hostile to their conquerors[114]. In none of these, however, was the whole of Transoxania involved until the rising organized by Rāfiʿ b. Layth three years after the fall of the Barmakids. The extraordinary success of his movement may partly be ascribed to resentment at their disgrace, but it perhaps counted for something that he was the grandson of Na_s_r b. Sayyār. Though the revolt failed it led directly to the only solution by which Transoxania could ever become reconciled to inclusion in the Empire of the ʿAbbāsids. Whether by wise judgment or happy chance, to Maʿmūn belongs the credit of laying the foundations of the brilliant Muhammadan civilisation which the Iranian peoples of Central Asia were to enjoy under the rule of a dynasty of their own race.

NOTES

[99] _Cf._ _T_abarī 1594. 14: 1613. 3: Chavannes, Documents 142.

[100] The details of this measure are discussed by Wellhausen, Das Arabische Reich 297 ff., and van Vloten, Domination Arabe 71 f. Note that _T_ab. 1689. 5 expressly refers to them as “conditions of peace.”

[101] Narshakhī 8. 19.

[102] Chav., Doc. 142.

[103] _T_ab. 1717 f.

[104] Chav., Doc. 286.

[105] Van Vloten, _op. cit._ 20. _Cf._ _e.g._ _T_ab. 1694. 1 with Narsh. 60. 3-5.

[106] Barthold, Turkestan 219.

[107] _T_ab. 1867.

[108] _T_ab. 1956. 17; 1966.10; 1997 ff. (this passage is unfortunately defective and has been supplemented by the editor from Ibn al-Athīr); 1970. 9. The popularity of Na_s_r is demonstrated also by the growth of a tradition round his name. This appears in _T_abarī somewhat unobtrusively in isolated passages, unfortunately without quotation of Madāʾinī’s authorities. According to the “Fihrist” (103. 12) Madāʾinī wrote two books on the administrations of Asad b. ʿAbdullah and Na_s_r b. Sayyār, a fact which confirms the special importance of these two governors in the history of Khurāsān. Probably Asad was more popular with the dihqāns and Na_s_r with the people.

[109] Chav., Doc. 168: _cf._ Marquart, Ērānshahr 303.

[110] Kitāb Baghdād, Band VI ed. H. Keller, p. 8. 12.

[111] Chav., Doc. 297 f.; Wieger, Textes Historiques 1647.

[112] _T_ab. III. 79 f.: Narsh. 8 fin.: Chav., Doc. 140, Notes Addit. 86 and 91.

[113] Wieger 1684 ff.: Chav., Doc. 158 n. 4 and 298 f. _Cf._ my article “Chinese records of the Arabs in Central Asia” in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, II. 618 f.

[114] A full account of these risings is given by Prof. E. G. Browne in “Literary History of Persia” vol. I, 308 ff.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CHIEF WORKS CITED.

A. ORIENTAL AUTHORITIES.

Al-Balādhurī: (1) (_Kitāb al-Ansāb_) _Anonyme Arabische Chronik_, Band XI, ed. W. Ahlwardt, Greifswald, 1883.

—— (2) _Kitāb Futū_h_ al Buldān_, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leyden, 1865.

Ad-Dīnawarī: _Kitāb al-Akhbār a_t_-_T_iwāl_, ed. V. Guirgass, Leyden, 1888.

_Fragmenta Historicorum Arabicorum_, vol. I, from Kitāb al-ʿUyūn, ed. M. J. de Goeje and P. de Jong, Leyden, 1869.

Ibn al-Athīr: _Taʿrīkh al-Kāmil_, 12 vols., Cairo 1290 A.H.

Ibn Khalliqān, _Biographical Dictionary_, trans. by Baron MacGuckin de Slane, 4 vols., Paris, 1842-1871.

Ibn Khūrdādhbih: _Kitāb al-Masālik wal-Mamālik_, ed. M. J. de Goeje, (Bibl. Geog. Arab. VI), Leyden, 1889.

Ibn Qutayba: _Kitāb al-Maʿārif_, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen, 1850.

Al-I_st_akhrī: _Kitāb Masālik al-Mamālik_, ed. M. J. de Goeje, (Bibl. Geog. Arab. I), Leyden, 1870.

An-Narshakhī: _Description Topographique et Historique de Boukhara par Mohammed Nerchakhy_, ed. C. Schefer, Paris, 1892.

A_t_-_T_abarī: (1) _Annales quos scripsit Abū Jaʿfar ... a_t_-_T_abarī_, ed. M. J. de Goeje et alii, 15 vols., Leyden, 1879-1901.

—— (2) _Chronique de Tabari traduite sur la version persane de ... Belʿami par H. Zotenberg_, 4 vols., Paris, 1867-1874.

Al-Yaʿqūbī: (1) _Kitāb al-Buldān_, ed. M. J. de Goeje, (Bibl. Geog. Arab. VII), Leyden, 1892.

—— (2) _Ibn Wadhih qui dicitur Al-Jaʿkubi Historiae_, ed. M. Th. Houtsma, 2 vols., Leyden, 1883.

Yāqūt: _Geographisches Wörterbuch_, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, 6 vols., Leipzig, 1866-1873.

B. EUROPEAN WORKS.

W. Barthold: (1) _Turkyestan v’Epokhu Mongolskavo Nashyestviya_, St. Petersburg, 1898.

—— (2) _Zur Geschichte des Christenthums in Mittel-Asien bis zur Mongolischen Eroberungen_, German trans. by R. Stübe, Tubingen and Leipzig, 1901.

—— (3) See under Radloff.

—— (4) Articles in _Encyclopaedia of Islām_.

L. Caetani: _Chronographia Islamica_, Paris, 1912-(proceeding).

Léon Cahun: _Introduction à l’Histoire de l’Asie: Turcs et Mongols des Origines à 1450_, Paris, 1896.

E. Chavannes: (1) _Documents sur les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux_, St. Petersburg, 1903.

—— (2) _Notes Additionnelles sur les Tou-Kiue Occidentaux, T’oung Pao_, vol. V (1904).

H. Cordier: _Histoire Générale de la Chine_, tome I, Paris, 1920.

M. A. Czaplicka: _The Turks of Central Asia_, Oxford U.P., 1918 (contains a very full bibliography).

_Encyclopaedia Britannica_, Eleventh Edition, 1910-1911.

_Encyclopaedia of Islām_, Leyden and London, 1913-(proceeding).

O. Franke: _Beiträge aus Chinesischen Quellen zur Kenntnis der Türkvölker und Skythen Zentralasiens_, Berlin, 1904.

I. Goldziher: _Muhammandanische Studien_, Band I, Halle, 1888.

A. von Kremer: _Culturgeschichte des Orients unter den Chalifen_, 2 vols., Vienna, 1875-1877.

G. Le Strange: _The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate_, Cambridge, 1905.

J. Marquart: (1) _Die Chronologie der Alttürkischen Inschriften_, Leipzig, 1898.

—— (2) _Historische Glossen zu den Alttürkischen Inschriften_, W.Z.K.M., vol. XII (1898) pp. 157-200.

—— (3) _Ērānshahr ..._, Berlin, 1901, with notices by:—

W. Bang, in Keleti Szemle III (1902).

E. Chavannes in J.A. Ser. IX t. XVIII (1901).

M. J. de Goeje, in W.Z.K.M. XVI (1902).

Th. Nöldeke, in Z.D.M.G. LVI (1902).

Sir W. Muir: _The Caliphate, its Rise, Decline, and Fall_: New edition, ed. T. H. Weir, Edinburgh, 1915.

Th. Nöldeke: _Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden ..._, Leyden, 1879.

_Pauly’s Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Neue Bearbeitung_, Stuttgart, 1895-(proceeding).

T. Peisker: “The Asiatic Background,” _Cambridge Mediaeval History_, vol. I (1911).

W. Radloff: (1) _Die Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei, Neue Folge_, St. Petersburg, 1897: with appendix by—

W. Barthold: _Die Historische Bedeutung der Alttürk. Inschr._

—— (2) _Die Alttürkischen Inschriften der Mongolei, Zweite Folge_, St. Petersburg, 1899: with appendices by—

W. Barthold: _Die Alttürk. Insch. und die Arabischen Quellen_.

Fr. Hirth: _Nachworte zur Inschrift des Tonjukuk_.

E. Sachau: _Zur Geschichte und Chronologie von Khwārizm_, 2 parts, Vienna, 1873 (S.B.W.A.).

K. Shiratori: _Über den Wu-sun-stamm in Centralasien, Keleti Szemle_ III (1902), pp. 103-140.

F. H. Skrine and E. D. Ross: _The Heart of Asia_: A History of Russian Turkestan, etc., from the Earliest Times. London, 1899.

M. A. Stein: (1) _Ancient Khotan_, Oxford, 1907.

—— (2) _Serindia_, vol. I, Oxford, 1921.

E. Thomas: _Contributions to the Numismatic History of the Early Mohammedan Arabs in Persia_, J.R.A.S. First Series, vol. XII (1850), pp. 253-347.

W. Tomaschek: _Centralasiatische Studien_: I. _Soghdiana_, Vienna, 1877 (S.B.W.A.).

A. Vámbéry: _History of Bokhara from the Earliest Period down to the Present_, London, 1873.