Georgia and the Anatolian Turks in the 12th and 13th Centuries

Author(s): A. C. S. Peacock
Source: Anatolian Studies, Vol. 56 (2006), pp. 127-146
Published by: British Institute at Ankara
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20065551
Accessed: 27/01/2010 09:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=biaa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British Institute at Ankara is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anatolian
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
 Anatolian Studies 56 (2006): 127-146

Georgia and the Anatolian Turks

in the 12th and 13th centuries

A.C.S. Peacock

University of Cambridge

Abstract
This article presents a study of the political and military relations of the Kingdom of Georgia and the Muslims of
Anatolia from the 12th century AD up to the Mongol conquest of the region in the mid 13th century. Georgia's
expansion during the 12th century and the web of marriage alliance that theMuslim rulers of Anatolia wove to protect
themselvesdrew her into conflict even with distant principalities with which she shared no border, such as theArtukids
of Mardin. Meanwhile, Erzurum appears to have been obliged to acknowledge Georgian suzerainty for much of the
12th and early 13th centuries. In the 13th century, however, theMongol threat forced the Seljuks of R?m and Georgia
to form an alliance, and Georgians came to form a significant part of the Seljuk army. This alliance was sealed with
amarriage between the Seljuk sultan and amember of the Georgian ruling house, the Bagratids, and the Seljuks appear
to have derived prestige from their association with the Bagratid dynasty.

?zet
Bu makalede G?rcistan
Kralligi ile Anadolu M?sl?manlannin MS 12 y?zyildan 13. y?zyil ortalanndaki Mogol
istilasma kadar olan d?nemdeki siyasi ve askeri ili?kileri incelenmektedir. G?rcistan'in 12. y?zyil boyun?a s?regelen
yayilimi ve Anadolu'nun M?sl?man y?neticileri ile kendilerini koruma s?z? kar?ihgi yapilan evlilik anla?malan
G?rcistam, Mardin'deki Artuklular gibi sirnr payla?imi dahi olmayan uzak y?netimlerle bile anla?mazliga s?r?k
lemi?tir. Bu arada 12. ve 13. y?zyihn b?y?k bir diliminde Erzurum G?rcistan'in h?k?mdarhgini kabul etmi? gibi
-
g?r?nmektedir. 13. y?zyilda ortaya ?ikan M?gol tehdidi Sel?uklu G?rcistan ittifakim zorunlu kilmi? ve bu d?nemde
Sel?uklu ordusunun ?nemli bir b?l?m?n? G?rc? askerler olu?turmu?tur. Bu ittifak Sel?uklu sultani ile G?rcistan
hanedam Bagratilerin bir ?yesimn evlenmesi ile garanti altma ahnmi?tir. Bagrati hanedam ile kurulan bu ili?kinin
Sel?uklulara itibar kazandirdigi anla?ilmaktadir.

While relations between the medieval Islamic and entirely ignoredthe significant role that Georgia and
Christian worlds are popularly imagined to have Georgians played in medieval Muslim Anatolia. Over
been characterised by confrontation, research in many the 11th and 12th centuries, successive Georgian rulers
areas, and especially Anatolia, shows that the reality was unified their country and overthrew Muslim domination,
much more complex (see, for example, Balivet 1994). so that by the early 13th century, Georgia had become a

Plenty of Turks could be found in the service of major power in the Middle East, capable of attacking
Byzantium, and Christians often held senior posts under deep inside Iran and even causing alarm in Syria, as will
the Seljuks of R?m (Anatolia) (Wittek 1935; Bryer 1970; be discussed below. This was also the zenith of her
Brand 1989). Indeed, Christians made up a substantial Turkish neighbours, the Sultanate of R?m, which had
part of the population of Seljuk Anatolia, and in places a finally managed to depose or reduce to vassal status most
majority (Vryonis 1971: 182-83). However, while some of the other Turkish rulers of Anatolia and unify much of
research has been devoted to the relationship between the that land under its rule. Despite some inevitable rivalry,
Seljuks and their Greek neighbours in Byzantium, Nicaea the relationship between the two powers was not one of
andTrebizond (Vryonis 1971; Savvides 1981; Shukurov pure hostility. The Seljuks of R?m and the Bagratid
2001), scholarship in Turkey and the west has almost rulers of Georgia were linked by marriage, typically

127
 Anatolian Studies 2006

Muslim institutions became widespread in Georgia and Seljuks and the Georgians, some evidence suggests in
Georgians formed a significant part of the Seljuk army. fact both sides derived prestige from their close connec
It is characteristic of the ambiguous relationship between tions with one another, and the Muslims of Georgia
the two powers that at the battle of Kose Dag in 1243, were in reality a privileged community favoured by the
when the Seljuks of R?m met a disastrous defeat at the Bagratid kings (Minorsky 1949).
hands of the Mongols, Georgian soldiers could be found
fighting on both sides. Georgia and the Anatolian Turks during the 12th
An understanding of Georgia's relationship with the century
Turks of Anatolia is also of great importance to compre The Georgians first encountered the Islamic world in the
hending the history of theMiddle East on the eve of the seventh century with the Arab conquests. Tbilisi was
Mongol invasions. In the late 12th and early 13th occupied and became a Muslim city for 400
years.
centuries, eastern Anatolia became a battleground Nonetheless, much of Georgia remained under its own
fought over by every power in the region. Ahlat on Lake princes, and was finally unified by the Bagratid dynasty
Van, the rich capital of Armenia, had maintained a in the 11th century (Allen 1932: 79-84; Lordkipanidze
precarious independence under the Turkish Sh?h-i However,
1987). it was another century before the
Arman dynasty, but was regarded by every neighbouring Bagratids could reclaim Tbilisi, for throughout the 11th
state as the key to establishing its regional supremacy. century Georgia was subjected to the constant depreda
The Seljuks of R?m, Georgia, theAyy?bids of Syria, the tions of the Seljuk Turks who were particularly attracted

Ildeg?zids of Azerbaijan, the flimsy Khw?razmian to the south Caucasus by its ample summer and winter

empire based in the Caucasus, and ultimately the pastures, ideal for their nomadic lifestyle (Peacock
Mongols all competed for control of this vital city. So 2005). Yet, partly basing his power on the non-Muslim
while this article will focus on relations between the Kip?ak Turks he encouraged to settle in Georgia, the
Anatolian Turks and Georgia, itwill also consider more Bagratid king David IIAghmashenebeli (r. 1089-1125)
generally the context of Georgia's relations with the was able to seize contol of most of Caucasia by the end
Islamic world as it expanded at the Muslims' expense. of his reign, subjugating the local Muslim dynasties of
The period studied concludes in the mid 13th century, the region (Golden 1984). A lull in fighting ensued until
when the Middle East was transformed by the Mongol the middle of the 12th century when the Georgian
invasions and Georgia and Anatolia were incorporated monarchs started the offensive again. Georgia's
into the Mongol world empire. conquests in the east remained reasonably secure, but
This article concentrates almost exclusively on her territories to the south and west were fiercely
political relations between Anatolia and Georgia. This disputed with her Muslim
neighbours. Ildeg?zid The
area is particularly obscure as the foreign relations of atabeg dynasty of Azerbaijan, who originated from
theMuslim principalities of Anatolia were not a subject Nakhichevan, battled Georgia during the 12th and early
of great interest to pre-modern historians. However, 13th centuries(Bunyadov 1984: 51-59, 95-96, 102
enough references survive to make an attempt possible. 11), while Ani, the capital of the Muslim Shadd?did
Georgia's relationship with the Seljuks of R?m has dynasty which fell to the Georgians in 1124 and again in
been the subject of a study in Georgian (Shengelia 1161, was constantly threatened by the Turks (Minorsky
2003). Shengelia's work is not only inaccessible to 1953: 90-103).
most scholars for linguistic reasons, but is also based There is little evidence for any contacts between the
entirely on material available in Georgian, Persian or Seljuks of R?m and Georgia during the 12th century.
Turkish. However, much important information on For much of this period the Anatolian Seljuks were just
Georgia is preserved in Arabic
chronicles compiled one of many Turkish dynasties in Anatolia, and their
under the Ayy?bid and Maml?k rulers of Syria and borders were far away from Caucasian frontier towns

Egypt, and this is exploited in the present article. such as Ani. Although the Great Seljuks, rulers of Iran

Although this study is mainly restricted to those works and Iraq, were often drawn into fighting with the
it is possible that more such - one the
that have been published, Georgians Ganja, of principal appanages of
information exists in the numerous Arabic histories senior members of the family, was exposed to Georgian
extant only in manuscript form. Both Georgian and attacks - they received no assistance from their relatives
Islamic sources are somewhat problematic, consisting who ruled Anatolia. Quite apart from the physical
largely of chronicles composed for political ends. distance of the R?m Sultanate from the Georgian border,
Though the rhetoric of both medieval Christian and relations between the two Seljuk dynasties were often
Muslim historians - and sometimes the rulers' own poor, and the Anatolian Seljuks were descended from
- focused on the a cousin of the Great Seljuks who was killed
propaganda rivalry between the Kutlumu?,

128
 Peacock

in rebellion against his relatives (Peacock 2005: 217 stopping Georgian expansion in the Caucasus by the

20). Byzantium, the Crusaders and their Turkish rivals Great Seljuk Sultan Mahmud (r. 1118-1131) (Turan
in Anatolia such as the Dani?mendids were a much 1993: 91, 94, 161). Although based in the mountains to
greater concern to the Seljuks of R?m
than Georgia. the west of Lake Van, the Dilma?ids also seem to have
The early Seljuk sultans of R?m did launch campaigns secured a foothold in Dvin,
far away in the shadow of
to the east, but these tended to be aimed at the Dani? Mount Ararat, which was meant as a base from which to
mendid centre of Malatya in the southeast or territories attack Tbilisi (Minorsky 1953: 83, 85).
in the northern Jaz?rah, and none of them brought lasting The participation of so many different dynasties in

gains in these areas until the end of the 12th century, these Georgian campaigns may be partly explained as a
when the Dani?mendid dynasty collapsed (Cahen 1968: result of the marriage alliances that bound many of them
82, 96-106; ?remi? 2005: 59-138). Northeastern together, as well as the desire for plunder. Marriage was
Anatolia was the territory of the other Turkish dynasties as vital an element in diplomacy in the medieval Middle
that had established themselves there in the wake of the East as in Europe, and despite the differences of religion,

Byzantine defeat at Manzikert in 1071 - the Sh?h-i the Georgians too were drawn into contracting such
Arman dynasty inAhlat, the Meng?cekids in Erzincan alliances with theirMuslim neighbours. Such marriages
and Divrigi and the Saltukids in Erzurum. Thus played a large part in determining the structure of inter

Georgia's early dealings with the Turks of Anatolia national relations in Anatolia. The Saltukids, for
focused on these dynasties, although she also had an instance, were related by marriage to the Sh?h-i Arman

impact much further south. At Mayy?f?riqm (Silvan), dynasty, who in turn had intermarried with the Artukids
for instance, the army of the 11th century Marw?nid (Turan 1993: 92). The Saltukids had also formed
rulers contained a substantial Georgian component, and marriage alliances with the Artukids of Mardin and the
in the 12th century one local found employment as an Dilma?ids (S?mer 1990: 26, 45), while a daughter of
Arabic secretary to the Georgian king (al-F?riq?, S?kmen II of the Sh?h-i Arman dynasty had married
Ta'r?kh: 97-98; Minorsky 1949). Zang?, ruler of much of Syria (Hitti 1929: 118-19;
These eastern Anatolian dynasties often had closer S?mer 1990: 72). The political importance of such
links with the Great Seljuks in Iran and their vassals than marriages is underlined by an account of a dispute
with the Seljuks of R?m. The Saltukid N?sir al-D?n between Kih? Arslan II the R?m Seljuk and Yagi Basan
Muhammad (1168-1191?) struck a coin in 1189 in the the Dani?mendid over a Saltukid princess (Ibn al-Ath?r,
names of his Great Seljuk overlord, Sultan Tughril b. al-K?mil 11: 317).
Arsl?n, and Tughril's atabeg Kizil Arslan the Ildeg?zid
(S?mer 1990: 33). Likewise, when the Georgians In this year [560/1164] was the discord between Kih?
attacked the Ildeg?zid city of Ganja, Ildeg?z was able to Arslan b. Mas'?d b. Kih? Arslan, ruler of Konya and
count on the support of the Sh?h-i Arman of Ahlat in the its surroundings, and Yagi Arslan b. Dani?mend (i.e.
counter-attack (al-Husayn?, Akhb?r: 156-62). Indeed, Yagi Basan), ruler of Malatya and its surroundings,
most eastern Anatolian dynasties, even those as distant as and there was a fierce war between them. Its cause
the Artukids of Diy?r Bakr, participated at one point or was that Kili? Arslanhad married the daughter of
another in campaigns against Georgia. Even remote, king Saltuk b. 'AH '1-Qasim, who was sent to him
minor rulers, presumably not directly affected by with a trousseau of inestimable value. Yagi Arslan
Georgian aggression, were
caught up in Caucasian the ruler of Malatya raided it and seized the bride and
affairs. One such was
the Dilma?id lord of Bitlis, a her possessions, wanting to marry her to his nephew
vassal of the Sh?h-i Arman, who accompanied Ilghaz?, Dh? '1-N?n b. Muhammad b. Dani?mend. He
-
ordered her to repudiate Islam which she did - in
the Artukid who had been entrusted with the task of
order to invalidate her marriage to Kih? Arslan. Then
she converted back to Islam and he married her to his
1 nephew, so Kih? Arslan gathered an army and
I distinguish between the Great Seljuks and the Seljuks of
R?m or Anatolia up until the end of the 12th century, when the
marched against the Dani?mendid.
former collapse. Thereafter, Seljuk refers to the Seljuks of

R?m; however, among these two separate branches existed, in The forced apostasy of the Saltukid princess to inval
Erzurum (1201-1230) and Konya. idate her earlier marriage seems to be an extreme case,
2
As argued by Sakaoglu (2005: 57, 131), the reference to the
but a casual if not cavalier attitude to religion in the
conquest of 'Tifl?s' by Kih? Arslan I around 1122 in one
source erroneous
interests of political expediency was not unusual, as
medieval Persian must be (T?rlkh-i ?l-i
the word must a several marriages with the Georgian Bagratids indicate,
Salj?q: 80), and while his assertion that be

mangled form of Divrigi is more likely, it cannot be proven. as will be discussed below. Kih? Arslan lost this

129
 Anatolian Studies 2006

particular war, and there appear to have been few other clear from the events of 1161 when the Anatolian
attempts by the R?m Seljuks to form alliances with the Muslims gathered an army to avenge the fall of Ani to
eastern Anatolian Turkish
dynasties probably which the Georgians. Tzz al-D?n, along with the Sh?h-i Arman

explains their absence from warfare with Georgia during and the Dilma?ids, participated, but 'when the
most of the 12th century. A daughter of the same Kih? [Georgian] king [Giorgi] and his army arrived, the amir
Arslan IIwas married briefly to an Artukid (Ibn Jubayr, Saltuq fled and parted with the Muslims, because when
Rihlah: 185-86; Broadhurst 2001: 190; Turan 2002: 193, king Dimitri had captured him and let him go, he made
n. 108; ?remi? 2005: 130-33), and there were links with him swear that, as long as he was alive, he would not
the Zangids too, but most of the 12th century R?m Seljuk unsheathe his sword against him or his children, and
marriage alliances seem to have been with Byzantium or would not send troops against him or his children' (al
the Dani?mendids, too distant from Caucasia to affect F?riqi in Minorsky
1953: 90). In future, Tzz al-D?n

operations there. appears to have kept his word, for when in 1163 Ildeg?z,
The principal Turkish states in Anatolia bordering the Sh?h-i Arman and the Dilma?ids launched a

Georgia directly were thus the Saltukids of Erzurum and successful campaign against Georgia in revenge for the
the Sh?h-i Armans of Ahlat. Although the Saltukids sack of Dvin and Ganja the previous year, the Saltukid is
were (at least at one point) vassals of the Georgians' conspicuously absent from the list of participants (al
great rivals in Caucasia, the Ildeg?zids, they do not Husayn?, Akhb?r: 158-59; Minorsky 1953: 93; I can find
themselves seem to have formed a particularly formi no basis for the assertion in Turan 1993: 14 that Tzz al
dable threat to Georgia, whose suzerainty they more D?n did take part in this expedition).

usually recognised. In the early 12th century Saltukid The Saltukids managed to maintain a precarious
influence may have stretched as far as Dvin, and the autonomy until the beginning of the 13th century when
earliest member of the dynasty about whom we have any they were overthrown and replaced by a Seljuk prince.
evidence adopted the title gh?zl ('holy warrior') (Sumer Interestingly, it appears from Georgian sources that the
1990: 23-29), although this may well be nothing more Georgian queen Tamar had seriously considered
than a convention. Neither the Georgian nor the Islamic marrying the Saltukid Muzaffar al-D?n, Tzz al-D?n's
sources include the Saltukids among the participants in grandson, who wasbrought to the court at Tbilisi.
4
the Great Seljuk coalition of amirs led by Ilghaz? of According to the Georgian Chronicle, he converted to
Mardin that attempted to crush David Aghmashenebeli Christianity, which would have been in accordance with
and met with a decisive defeat at the Battle of Didgori in the practice in other instances, as we shall see. The date
1121 (Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil 10: 567; Walter the of this is not specified, but must have occurred between
Chancellor, Wars: 168-70; KC 1: 340-42;
Antiochene the banishment of Tamar's first husband, George
Minorsky 1949: 32; Thomson 1996: 332-34). This is Bogolyubskoi, in 1188, and her marriage to David

surprising given the Saltukids' proximity to the frontier, Soslan in 1189, while Erzurum was still nominally
and is possibly indicative of their obscurity even from independent, although probably within the Georgian
the point of view of the early 12th century. In the middle sphere of influence. According to the Chronicle, after
of the 12th century, the Shadd?dids asked the Saltukid some time, Tamar, 'finding such an alliance unsuitable,
Tzz al-D?n to buy Ani off them as it was impossible to gave wing to higher aspirations' (KC 2: 43-44; Vivian
defend it from the Georgians. However, the Shadd?dids 1991: 115-17). The Saltukid principality was already
betrayed 'Izz al-D?n to the Georgians, and he was taken sufficiently weak for such a marriage to offer little

captive along with a vast number of Muslim prisoners. political advantage to the Georgians, at least when a
Nonetheless, by now the Saltukids had some interna better offer could be found. Ibn al-Ath?r (al-K?mil 12:
tional influence through their own marriage connections. 451) makes it clear that the Saltukids were very much
Tzz al-D?n's or sister, Sh?h-B?n?, was married the Georgians' vassals.
daughter
to the Sh?h-i Arman, S?kmen II,who seems to have paid
his ransom (Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil 11: 190, 280; the

chronology and details are somewhat confusing, see also

3
Pace
Minorsky 1953: 136, it does not seem at all that 'Izz al
Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle: 277-78; Minorsky 1953: D?n's actions were or a sense of loyalty
inspired by 'chivalry'
87; Turan 1993: 9-10; theArtukids too may have helped to the Georgian king, as he had, after all, joined the Muslim

pay the ransom. be, as indicated by M?nec

It may campaign; his flight was probably induced by terror at his
possible fate at Giorgi's hands.
cimba?i, that Tzz al-D?n was actually captured and
41 refer to the collection of histories
known in Georgian as the
ransomed twice: J?m? al-Duwal2: 180 [Arabic]). The
K'art'lis C'khovreba of
Georgia') as the Georgian
('Life
Georgian king took advantage of the opportunity to Chronicle for the sake of convenience; however it should always
assure himself of the Saltukids' future quiescence, as is be borne in mind this is not a single work by a single author.

130
 Peacock

No one could resist [the Georgians]; this was the case it to 1137-1138, the ruler then being S?kmen II:Ahmad
with Erzurum, to the extent that its lord wore the of Nigde, al-Walad al-Shaftq: f. 155b). The Sh?h-i
Georgian monarch's khiVa and raised a standard with Arman dynasty reached its zenith under S?kmen II (r.
a cross at the top. His son converted to Christianity 1128-1185). Relations with some of the Artukids
desiring to marry the queen of Georgia, and out of improved, as themarriage of Najm al-D?n Alpi of Mardin
fear of them, in order to ward off the evil [they to S?kmen's sister in 1146 bore witness. However, the
threatened to him]. Artukid family was made up of two hostile branches, and
S?kmen was obliged to assist his brother-in-law against
Muzaffar al-D?n was consoled with marriage to 'a the rival Artukids of Hasankeyf (Turan 1993: 92-93). In
concubine's daughter, reputedly of [Georgian] royal turn, theArtukids of Mardin were drawn into Caucasian
blood' with whom he returned to Erzurum (KC 2: 44; affairs. Apart from the clash of 1125/1130/1137-1138,
Vivian 1991: 117). After this relations between the the Sh?h-i Arman's earliest involvement with Georgia
Saltukids and Georgiansdeteriorated rapidly, for in 1193 came when S?kmen paid off Tzz al-D?n Saltuk's ransom.
Erzurum was attacked by a substantial Georgian army After this, the rulers of Ahlat become much more
led by Tamar's husband David Soslan and her son Giorgi prominent in fighting with Georgia. In 1161, the Sh?h-i
Lasha (KC 2: 58-59; Vivian 1991: 123-25). The reason Arman and his allies were grievously defeated by the
for this expedition was in all likelihood to punish the - the
Georgians atAni occasion when, itwill be remem
Saltukids for supporting George Bogolyubskoi who bered, Tzz al-D?n Saltuk fled at the approach of King
invaded Georgia in 1190 attempting to seize the throne Giorgi. Alpi had been due to join this campaign too, but
for himself. He appears to have invaded by way of had made it no closer than Malazgirt when the Muslim
Erzincan and Erzurum, and so must have had at very armies were defeated (Minorsky 1953: 90-91). More
least the acquiescence, if not active help, of the local successful was the campaign of S?kmen, Fakhr al-D?n
Muslim dynasties, and subsequently he allied himself to the Dilma?id, Ildeg?z and the Great Seljuk sultan Arsl?n
the Ildeg?zids (KC 2: 49-55; Allen 1932: 103-05; Sh?h in 1163 which defeated
Giorgi and allowed the
Vivian 1991:
117-23). The Saltukids remained in Sh?h-i Arman to get away with an enormous booty
control of Erzurum for a few more years, although with (Minorsky 1953: 93-94). The Sh?h-i Arman joined the
how much independence is unclear. The 14th century Ildeg?zid-Great Seljuk forces campaigning inGeorgia in
author Ahmad of Nigde states (al-Walad al-Shafiq. f. 1174 and again in 1175 (N?shapur?, Salj?qn?mah: 117
147b) that when the Seljuks conquered the city, they 18; Minorsky 1953: 97-98; Luther 2001: 149-50).
seized it from the Georgians, making no reference to the It is not clear exactly how or why the Sh?h-i Armans
Saltukids (Arz al-R?m az Kurj sitadah). Ahmad is not initially became involved in the campaigns with
the most reliable source (on him see Peacock 2004), but Georgia. The dynasty's relationship with both the Great
it is likely that the Georgians kept a close eye on their Seljuks and the Ildeg?zids was extremely bad. A Great
Saltukid vassals in Erzurum. Seljuk claimant had attempted to seize Ahlat for himself,
A greater menace to Georgia was presented by the and the year before the campaign of 1163, S?kmen had
dynasty known after its ruler's title, Sh?h-i Arman, sent troops to support the ruler of Mar?gha who had
meaning 'King of Armenia'. This had been founded by opposed the accession of Arsl?n Sh?h that Ildeg?z had
a Turkmen soldier, S?kmen al-Qutb?, and controlled the orchestrated (Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil 11: 268-69). It is
surroundings of Lake Van, with the prosperous not immediately obvious why S?kmen would have
commercial centre of Ahlat as capital. In the early 12th wanted to support his former enemies. At this point
century relations with the Artukids were poor, and the Georgia did not present a direct threat to Ahlat, and it
Sh?h-i Arman did not
join in Ilgh?z?'s Georgian seems likely that the S?kmen's marriage alliance with
expedition of 1121 that ended in the defeat at Didgori at the Saltukids was at least partly responsible for entan
the hands of David Aghmashenebeli. Two Christian gling him with Georgia. However, strategic considera
sources report that the Georgians defeated the army of tions probably would have played an important part too.
one member of the dynasty, possibly in alliance with an Firstly, there was the risk that if the Georgians captured
Artukid, but the date and details vary (1125 under Erzurum, the north-south trade from which Ahlat had
Ibr?hfm b. S?kmen or 1130 under S?kmen II; KC 1: grown rich might be disrupted. the Sh?h-i
Secondly,
365-66; Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle: 236; Vivian Armans' territories were by this point expanding far
1991: 49-50; the sole Muslim source tomention it dates beyond the Lake Van area. At one point they may even
have held Tabriz, and S?rmeli, an important post on the
Georgian frontier was subject to Ahlat in the 13th
5
A robe of honour granted by a lord to a vassal. century, so may have been in the 12th too when the

131
 Anatolian Studies 2006

Sharwan
R0//\ Ganja
Kars ^
Oltu *Ani
-Basiani ^
0g? SALTUKIDS
* '
f&{ S?rmeli
^ &
Erzurum Dvin Mughan
M@* " "'" "
Erzincan
Divrigi -v\A^
&**?>* Caspian Sea

c^ Malatya Mayy?f?riq?n^v3
.
* Di+|:?
Konya Bitlis
O^ DiyarBakr#
Cilicia D/yar Bakr ??>
s^y Hasankeyf
<<?
WF Mardin

^
W
Aleppo Mosul

AYYUBIDS

Cities

Regions
Mediterranean EASTERNANATOLIA& THECAUCASUS
Sea INTHE LATETWELFTHCENTURY DYNASTIES

Fig. 1. Eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus in the late 12th century

Shah-i Armans were much stronger (Ibn al-Athir, al The prospect of such rewards was probably enough
K?mil 12: 414; Turan 1993: 90). Furthermore, the on its own to induce S?kmen to put aside former
Dilma?ids of Bitlis, nominally the vassals of the rulers enmities, and relations with the Ildeg?zids improved to
of Ahlat, but in fact virtually independent, seem to have the extent that S?kmen married the daughter of Ildeg?z's
had territories in the Caucasus. It was doubtless in son Jah?n Pahlaw?n (Lyons, Jackson 1982: 230). The
S?kmen's interests to keep tabs on their activities on this constant hostilities between Georgia and its Muslim
sensitive frontier. neighbours did not affect the lives of the Christian inhab
However, perhaps the most important motive for the itants of Muslim states. Saltuk, Ildeg?z and S?kmen are
Sh?h-i Armans' involvement in the Caucasus was explicitly praised by Armenian historian Vardan: 'God
plunder. This, at any rate, is the point that the medieval made the three of them friendly to Christians and solic
sources stress, not any strategic considerations (although itous for the country' (Thomson 1989: 204). However, it
the latter is not the sort of matter to which they would is also clear that some local Christians did convert to
generally give any attention). Warfare could be a very Islam and actively assisted the campaigns against their
lucrative business, and it seems thatAhlat did extremely former compatriots. Matthew of Edessa (Chronicle: 278)
well out of it. Al-Husayn? (Akhb?r: 158-59, 161) recounts the role played by Georgian renegades in one of
describes the horror of the soldiers and the Sh?h-i Arman S?kmen IPs campaigns against Georgia, capturing a
when Ildeg?z considered cancelling one campaign Christian Georgian commander.

having received a conciliatory embassy from the

Georgian king. The rich plunder they could hope to gain Now, at the rear of the Turkish army were Muslims
was much more
enticing than peace. Al-Fariq?
recounts who were Georgian by nation; these had joined the
how after the Georgian defeat of 1163 (Minorsky 1953: Turks, following the renegade Georgian Vasak, and
93-94), had served them as guides. These [Muslim
Georgians] came and surprised the dismounted
The Sh?h-Arman three separate loads, one of
seized [Georgian] cavalry commander, taking him prisoner
which contained gold and silver vessels, in the second and bringing him to the emir called the Sh?h-i-Armin.
of which there was the king's chapel with gold and They did nothing more to this Georgian officer, who
silver crosses set with gems, gospels illuminated with was called Kayi, than to take him prisoner.

gold and set with jewels of inestimable price the like

of which could not be found; the third contained the After the expedition of 1175, relations between
king's treasure of gold, silver and jewels, the price of Georgia and theAnatolian Muslims appear to have been
some of which could not be estimated in view of the generally calm, and the Georgian Chronicle records that
numbers. Ildeg?z 'sued for peace', although the date is not

132
 Peacock

specified, and a
subsequent Georgian plundering and east (Limper 1980: 44-46). The main threat from
expedition on Ganja and territories northeast of Erzurum Anatolia came less from theMuslim states than from the
is mentioned (KC 2: 15-16; Vivian 1991: 109). The Turkmen nomads who raided everywhere between
destruction of
the powerful Orbeliani family was to Georgia and the Diy?r Bakr at the beginning of Tamar's
occupy the last years of Giorgi's reign (Stephanos reign, and were as destabilising to the Turkish Muslim
Orbelian, Histoire: 222). S?kmen and the Ildeg?zids had states of Anatolia as to Georgia (Cahen 1960: 22-24).
to divert their attention to the south, for the rise of Cultural contacts between Georgia and the Anatolian
Saladin fundamentally altered the geopolitics of the Muslims were extremely limited and not of particular
region. Saladin aimed to unite all Syria and the Jaz?rah importance to either side. There are clear Caucasian
under his rule, and S?kmen and the Ildeg?zids were influences on the Saltukid tomb towers of Erzurum and
drawn into intervening on behalf of their allies and other monuments there (Rogers 1976: 316), but this may
relatives he threatened as far away as Mosul (Lyons, be the work of local Armenian or Georgian craftsmen,
Jackson 1982: 173-85, 188-89). On S?kmen's death in given Erzurum's proximity to Tao, rather than illus
1185, both Saladin and Ildeg?z's son Jah?n Pahlaw?n trative of the links with the Kingdom of Georgia.
attempted to gain control of Ahlat, but were thwarted by Georgian culture was profoundly influenced by Islamic
the cunning diplomacy of one of S?kmen's maml?ks, civilisation, but it does not seem that Muslim Anatolia
Bektimur, who managed to seize power for himself played a significant part in this. Rather, such influences
(Lyons, Jackson 1982: 229-33). However, S?kmen's came from the Georgians' own Muslim subjects as well
successors lacked his ability, and Saladin's intervention as Azerbaijan and Iran, for Iranian culture was tradi
in 1185 marks the start of the long struggle of the other tionally very prestigious in the Caucasus (on Muslim
powers in the region over Ahlat and the remnants of the and Iranian influence in Georgia see Eastmond 1998:
Sh?h-i Armans' state, once the most powerful in the 71-72, 90-92; Hitchens 2001).
region. Even after the Ayy?bids annexed the city in
1207, Ahlat remained a bone of contention. Rukn al-D?n S?leym?nsh?h and the Battle of Basiani
The 12th century, then, was marked by hostilities At the end of the 12th century, the Sultanate of R?m
between Georgia and its Muslim neighbours in descended into chaos, beset by the depredations of the
Azerbaijan and Anatolia. Although a very late source Turkmen, Crusaders, and a vicious power struggle
asserts that Meng?cek, founder of the eponymous between members of the Seljuk family to inherit the
principality around Erzincan, had started his career in throne of Kih? Arslan II (1156-1192), who in 1185 had
Anatolia by raiding the Georgians, as it does of Saltuk, divided his lands among his numerous sons. Eventually,
there is little other evidence for any relations between in 1197, the fifth-born of these sons, Rukn al-D?n
the Meng?cekids and Georgia until the 13th century S?leym?nsh?h, managed to seize Konya
and forced his
(M?neccimba?i, J?mV al-Duwal2: 179, 181 [Arabic]). brother, Ghiy?th al-D?n Kaykhusraw I (1192-1197,
Thus the Sh?h-i Armans and the Saltukids were 1205-1211) into exile in Byzantium. Rukn al-D?n then
Georgia's major rivals in the region, although the embarked on a policy of expansion, challenging
Meng?cekids must have collaborated with George Byzantium, Cilician Armenia and Georgia and uniting
Bogolyubskoi's invasion as it is specifically mentioned much of Anatolia under his rule (Savvides 2003).
in the Georgian Chronicle that he went by way of Byzantium and Cilicia were neighbours of the Sultanate
Erzincan. Georgia's policy towards Anatolia was of R?m, and their provocative actions rendered a Seljuk
generally cautious; it had enough difficulties keeping response inevitable (Savvides 1981: 117-19; 2003: 101,
hold of Ani without penetrating further into the region, 106-09). Georgia, however, was a distant land with
and was also preoccupied by the threat of the Ildeg?zids which the Seljuks of R?m had hitherto had no dealings,
in the south. For the initial stages of the reign of and thus was not an obvious target for Rukn al-D?n's

Giorgi's daughter, Tamar (1185-1212), Georgian policy aggression in the way that Byzantium and Cilicia were.
remained conservative and orientated towards the south Exactly how and why hostilities between the Seljuks
of R?m and Tamar started is unclear. As is often the
case, the Islamic and Georgian sources give wildly
6
According to the Georgian Chronicle, when Tamar captured divergent accounts of events; in both cases historiog
theMeng?cekid rulerBahr?msh?h in 1202, she imprisoned him to promote the legitimacy and political
raphy aimed
'in contrast to her former esteem and friendship for him' (KC
2: 140; Vivian 1991: 84). However, this is probably just a agendas of the historian's patron, in Georgia always the
rhetorical conceit to highlight theMeng?cekid 'shumiliation; at ruler, in the Islamic world often either the ruler or his
any rate it does not give sufficient grounds for thinking relations deputies, such as viziers. Nonetheless, it is clear that by
between the Erzincan principality and Georgia were friendly. the beginning of the 13th century, Tamar had adopted a

133
 Anatolian Studies 2006

much bolder and more aggressive policy towards her With a deceptive
pretence at friendship, [Rukn al
country's Muslim neighbours. Initially this largely D?n] repeatedly sent embassies to sue for peace, with
concentrated on the Ildeg?zids inArr?n, although Shirak, many handsome presents in return. Tamar repaid him
the province around Ani, was also occupied, and Ani in kind by sending her own embassies with presents
itself fell in 1199 (Limper 1980: 47-49). Two years later, in return. He, however, still concealing his perfidy
Rukn al-D?n was drawn into the region, occupying with vows of loyalty, wanted only to reconnoitre the
Erzurum and deposing the last Saltukid and replacing kingdom (KC 2: 132; Vivian 1991: 76).
him with his own brother, Mugh?th al-D?n Tughnlsh?h

(Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil 12: 169). This was a more Meanwhile Ibn al-Ath?r (al-K?mil 12: 452) claims

surprising move than is often given credit. R?m Seljuk that Georgian attacks (he gives no details of where)
in the east had previously been restricted to
interest provoked Rukn al-D?n to respond with force. Details of
Malatya and the northern Jaz?rah. With the exception of the ensuing hostilities are equally contradictory in the
Kih? Arslan IPs abortive marriage to the Saltukid extant sources. All that can be said with certainty is that,
princess and amarriage with theMeng?cekids, the rulers supported by his son-in-law Bahr?msh?h, the
of Konya had hitherto had no involvement in the Meng?cekid ruler of Erzincan, Rukn al-D?n advanced
northeast at all, and there is no evidence that they had east of Erzurum and encountered a Georgian army at
commercial interests in the region that needed to be Basiani, near Sankami?, where he met with a crushing
protected. It is not even clear whether Rukn al-D?n defeat. Bahr?msh?h fell prisoner to the Georgians and

occupied Erzurum as a necessary preliminary to going to was taken to captivity in Tbilisi, while Rukn al-D?n was
war with Georgia, or whether he was drawn into fighting forced to retreat back to Erzurum. The causes of the

Georgia as a result of its proximity to Erzurum. Ibn B?b? defeat are given variously in the sources. According to

(al-Aw?mir. 73; Duda 1959: 35) seems to imply the Ibn B?b?, the Seljuk army was on the point of victory
former, stating that the Saltukid 'Al?' al-D?n was deposed when the royal standard bearer's horse slipped and fell;
for his failure to muster troops for the Georgian the soldiers thought the battle was lost and fled (al

campaign, presumably fearful of the consequences of Aw?mir: 73-7A; Duda 1959: 35). Aqsara'? attributes it to

breaking his allegiance to the Georgian crown. However, the Seljuks' having fallen victim to an ambush
as is so often the case, Ibn B?b?'s account is dominated by (Mus?marat al-Akhb?r: 31-32; I?iltan 1943: 41), and
rhetoric. As was conventional among Muslim authors, predictably the Georgian Chronicle emphasises the
Tamar is depicted as inflamed by lust, which drives her bravery of the Georgian soldiers and God's aid, although
to beg the hand of Rukn al-D?n (Canard 1969). Incensed it does admit that the Georgians almost lost at one point
at this presumption on her part, Rukn al-D?n prepared an (KC 2: 137-39; Vivian 1991: 81-83).
army to march on Georgia with the intention of claiming Thus the rhetoric of the sources, as so often, does not
the country and converting it to Islam (Ibn B?b?, al allow us to analyse why the events they record occurred,
Aw?mir. 65-70; Duda 1959: 33-34). The Georgian although modern scholarship has nonetheless generally
Chronicle, on the other hand, claims that Rukn al-D?n taken them at face value (Turan 2002: 251-60; Shengelia
was infuriated by the acquiescence of Georgia's Muslim 2003: 164-68). Rukn al-D?n's casus belli is something of
neighbours in paying her tribute. At any rate, both the amystery; his campaigns against other foreign rulers were
Chronicle and Ibn B?b? record embassies between R?m undertaken because they directly threatened his interests,
and Georgia before the war. Ibn B?b? (al-Aw?mir: 69; with a Byzantine attempt to expand at the expense of the
Duda 1959: 33-34 n/a) mentions a Georgian embassy as Seljuk-occupied parts of the Black Sea coast, and the
presenting Tamar's marriage request, while according
to Cilician attacks on Seljuk fortresses in the Taurus
the Chronicle, (Savvides 1981: 2003:
117-19; 105-08). Pace

Lordkipanidze (1987: 151), it cannot at all have been the

case that Seljuk and Georgian interests collided on the
7 southern Black Sea coast, for Georgia only started to exert
For the benefit of readers without Persian, references to
Duda's German translation of Ibn B?b? are
given; however,
her influence subsequently, assisting in
in this direction
Duda based his translation not on the complete text given in the foundation of
the Empire of Trebizond in 1204.
Erzi's facsimile edition which is used here, but on a later Moreover, Rukn al-D?n had yet to achieve mastery over all
of the Persian, with some material of Kih? Arslan IPs lands. For instance, it was not until
abridgement supplemented
taken from the facsimile. Information given here is therefore
I have not noted
shortly before his death in 1204 that he finally defeated
not always available in Duda's translation.
a passage
his brother Muhyi al-D?n, ruler of Ankara. Attacking
minor differences of detail, but when is entirely
absent in Duda 1959, I refer the reader to the section in Duda Georgia does not seem tomake strategic sense when Rukn
where it should come, marking its absence with n/a. al-D?n had quite enough other external and internal

134
 Peacock

enemies with whom Of course, men do not

to contend. However, Basiani may have left a deeper impression
always act rationally, and this may be one of the points on the Seljuks of R?m than the scanty references to it in
that Ibn B?b? is trying tomake in his rather strange account the Islamic sources indicate. Shortly after the defeat,
of events. It is not my intention to attempt to offer a defin references to Anatolian Muslim rulers as being
itive answer to the question of Rukn al-D?n's intentions in 'conquerors of Georgia' appear regularly in literature.
the short space of a more general article, but rather to Often they are employed in contexts that seem inappro
point out, in contrast to previous scholars, that it is a priate, even ironic. Rawand? refers to Rukn al-D?n's
problem. According to one Christian source, he loathed successor, Ghiy?th al-D?n Kaykhusraw I, to whom he
his half-brother Ghiy?th al-D?n for his Christian
ancestry, dedicated the R?hat al-Sud?r around 1205, as a
and such prejudice may have encouraged his Georgian 'conqueror of Georgia', despite the fact that Ghiy?th al
campaign, although his orthodoxy as aMuslim does seem D?n is nowhere recorded to have engaged in any
to have been suspect (Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil 12: 196; campaigns against Georgia (R?hat al-Sud?r:
221).
Savvides 1981: 82). Another possible explanation for the Bahr?msh?h theMeng?cekid, captured by the Georgians
campaign may lie in the Turkmen who had ravaged the at Basiani, is given the title of gh?zi by Rawand?, who
region a few years previously; such unruly Turkmen says that he sacrificedhimself by falling captive to the
certainly formed a part of Rukn al-D?n's forces, and had Georgians in order to save his companions (R?hat al
been used in operations against Byzantium (Savvides Sud?r: 217). Bahr?msh?h even struck coins describing
2003: 100-01). The region around Kars and Ani was himself as a gh?zl,
although the dating of these is not
particularly attractive toTurkmen, with the possibilities of secure (Sakaoglu 2005: 84-85). Indeed, Bahr?msh?h
plunder from the great cities there and the yaylas (summer probably adopted such titles even before engaging on any
pastures) required by their nomadic lifestyle. Earlier campaigns against Georgia, for the Persian poet Nizam?
Seljuk sultans had appeased the Turkmen by diverting addresses him as 'conqueror of Georgians' (Abkh?z-glr)
them to the Caucasus, and it is possible that Rukn al-D?n in a poem dedicated to him around 1185 or possibly even
was hoping to do the same on this occasion - with good earlier, long before there is any evidence of Meng?cekid
reason as they were causing chaos throughout his own participation in attacks on Georgia (Nizam?, Makhzan al
territories and complicating his relations with Byzantium Asr?r. 33). A reputation for fighting the Georgians was
(see Peacock 2005 for a discussion of this phenomenon thus clearly something that added to Muslim rulers'
with reference to the 11th century). prestige, even if itwas more imaginary than real.
Scholarly opinions on the significance of the Battle of
Basiani have generally divided along nationalistic lines Georgia and eastern Anatolia 1204-1220
too. According to Lordkipanidze (1987: 152), it was a While the Seljuks of R?m may have escaped any political
battle that had repercussions throughout the entire Middle consequences of Basiani, in the wake of their victory the
East, an opinion echoed by Shengelia (2003: 168). Turan Georgians launched a series of bold campaigns against
(2002: 260) and S?mer (1990: 39) emphasise how little neighbouring Muslim states. In 1204-1205 they struck
importance it had for the Seljuks of R?m. Limper (1980: first at Azerbaijan, and then turned their attention to
48-49) is probably correct in surmising that it was of Anatolia, targetting the northern shores of Lake Van with
much greater importance to Georgia than it was to the raids around Ahlat, on Erci? and as far as Malazgirt.
R?m Sultanate. However, that the battle is not mentioned Since the death of S?kmen II,Ahlat had been ruled by a
at all by Ibn al-Ath?r, who would have been alive at the series of short-lived maml?ks, and its power rapidly
time and who is usually well informed about Anatolian declined with the constant internal power-struggles and
and Caucasian affairs, strongly suggests it did not have a external pressures. It was unable to offer any resistance

great international resonance. Indeed, few Islamic sources to the Georgian raids: 'Not a single Muslim went out to
mention it, other than Ibn B?b? and a brief notice in stop [the Georgians], and they went through the country
Aqsara'? (see Turan 2002: 259, n. 49). At any rate, Rukn plundering, taking captives and prisoners' (Ibn al-Ath?r,
al-D?n was
apparently able to plan a second 'revenge' al-K?mil 12: 204). However, after attacking a castle
expedition two years later which was prevented by his belonging to Ahlat near Erzrurum, the Georgians were
death (Aqsara'?, Mus?marat al-Akhb?r. 32; I?iltan 1943: defeated by forces from Ahlat and Erzurum (Ibn al-Ath?r,
41). Nor does the defeat at Basiani appear to have affected al-K?mil 12: 204-05). Undeterred, the Georgians
the internal politics of the Seljuk Sultanate, and Rukn al
D?n's brother, Mugh?th al-D?n, remained in control of 8
Turan (2002: 253) argues that Rukn al-D?n was impelled to
Erzurum, effectively as an independent ruler, despite its attack Georgia because of their constant attacks, but in fact this
proximity to the Georgian frontier and his own partici campaign in the year after that sultan's death is the first major

pation in the ill-fated expedition (Turan 1993: 21-22). Georgian expedition west of Ani.

135
 Anatolian Studies 2006

returned to plunder around Ahlat the following year, and 190; Ibn al-Fur?t, Ta'r?kh 5/i: 86). A large army led by
were again defeated, allegedly by divine intervention various Ayy?bid princes gathered at Harr?n, but the
(Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil 12: 240-41). Georgians fled when they heard of al-'?dil's advance. In
Such campaigns seem to have aimed purely at reality, the Ayy?bid was probably much more interested
plunder. The
following year, however, the Georgians in ensuring the submission of other Muslim rulers in the
were able to take advantage of the worsening political region than in invading Georgia, and he took the oppor
situation inAhlat. A revolution had made the maml?k tunity to threaten the Zangid stronghold of Sinj?r near
Balaban ruler, but the people of the town had offered it to Mosul, and to occupy Nis?b?n, much to Najm al-D?n's
an Artukid, while Najm al-D?n, the Ayy?bid ruler of disgust (Ibn W?sil, Mufarrij 3: 190-92; Ibn al-Fur?t,

Mayyafariq?n, attempted to revive his family's claim to Ta'r?kh 5/i: 87-89). For Ahlat was by no means safe
Ahlat and besieged it unsuccessfully. It was an ideal from Georgian attacks, and in 1210-1211 the Georgians

opportunity for Georgia to annex Kars, a dependency of organised another major campaign, this time seemingly
Ahlat, thus completing her conquests in Shirak (Ibn al with the aim of capturing the city. The forces were led by
Ath?r, al-K?mil 12: 253-56). However, Georgia Ivane Mkhargrdzeli, one of a powerful family who had
continued to be drawn into Ahlati affairs, which became been granted rule over Ani by Tamar shortly after the
the key to the regional balance of power. In 1207-1208, city's reconquest in 1199. The Mkhargrdzelis' position
Najm al-D?n (also known as al-Malik al-Awhad) renewed on the western frontiers of Georgia meant that they seem
his attempts to capture Ahlat, eventually succeeding. to have led many of the Anatolian campaigns of the
'The neighbouring rulers hated his possession of the city, period (on them see Rogers1976). According to the

fearing his father [al-Malik al-'?dil, theAyy?bid ruler of Syriac Anonymous Chronicle, the Georgians had hatched

Syria and Egypt]. Likewise the Georgians feared him a plot with the inhabitants of Ahlat - whose loyalties to
- that the
and attacked the region of Ahlat constantly' (Ibn al-Ath?r, any ruler appear to have been fairly fickle city
al-K?mil 12: 272-73). The Georgian attacks trapped would over to them (Anonymous Chronicle:
be handed

Najm al-D?n inside the city, leaving him unable to 164, wrongly dating events to 1208). However, in an
suppress revolts elsewhere in his territories. According incident that seems to have delighted Muslim historians,
to one contemporary source, the Georgians were
acting
as it is reported in sources that do not usually touch on
in concert with their erstwhile enemy, Mugh?th al-D?n Caucasian affairs, Ivane drunkenly rode around Ahlat one

Tughnlsh?h of Erzurum, whom Balaban had asked for day, and, as a result of his horse falling, became a
help against theArtukid but who betrayed and killed him prisoner of Najm al-D?n Ayy?b (IbnW?sil, Mufarrij 3:
(Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil 12: 272; Anonymous Chronicle: 201; Ibn al-Fur?t, Ta'r?kh 5/i: 104-05; Qazw?n?, ?th?r
163). Given that Mugh?th al-D?n had apparently been al-Bil?d 524; Minorsky 1953: 149-50). Najm al-D?n
imprisoned by the Georgians after Basiani, and only a naturally seized his opportunity to end the Georgian

couple of years before had been assisting the Sh?h-i menace in the popular manner of the times, and
Arman to fight off their attacks, this is a somewhat demanded the hand of Ivane 's daughter and a 30-year

surprising statement (Anonymous Chronicle: 159). It peace, in addition to a ransom of 100,000 dinars and the
may indicate the fear with which all rulers in the region release of 5,000 Muslim prisoners. A number of castles

regarded theAyy?bids, who had been planning to expand the Georgians had occupied were also returned to the
to the north since Saladin's time, but had hitherto been Muslims; these are most likely to have been in the
their ambitions by warfare with of Kars which had belonged to Ahlat until
prevented from realising vicinity
the Crusaders, which was a less prominent aspect of al recently. Although Najm al-D?n died the same year,
'?dil's rule than that of other Ayy?bids (Humphreys T'amt'a, the Mkhargrdzeli princess, remained in Ahlat
1977: 125-37). More likely, it indicates that like his and married his brother and successor as ruler of Ahlat,
Saltukid predecssors, Mugh?th al-D?n had been forced to al-Ashraf, instead.

become a Georgian vassal, as is later confirmed by other The peace treaty between the Ayy?bids and Georgia
sources. In any event, al-D?n's was so appears to have been a success, for while Georgian
Najm position
weak that the Georgians could raid nearby towns like attacks on Arr?n continued during the reign of Giorgi

Erci? with impunity as he did not dare leave Ahlat for Lasha (1212-1223), there are no further raids into
fear of rebellion (Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil 12: 279). Anatolia recorded. According to the Georgian Chronicle,

Georgian raids in fact served to broaden the conflict, Erzurum and Ahlat were both tributary to Georgia (KC 2:
for Najm obliged to write to his father for
al-D?n was 151; Vivian 1991: 97, 102), but in the latter case this is
help against them. In 1208-1209, al-'?dil set forth from likely to be a literary conceit. However, given Erzurum's
Damascus, and mustered an army 'giving the impression alliance with Georgia over Ahlat in 1207-1208, the close
that he was making for Georgia' (IbnW?sil, Mufarrij 3: relations with Georgia that are attested by the marriage of

136
 Peacock

Mugh?th al-D?n's son to Queen Rusudan, and the distance seems, at some point become
had a vassal of the
and isolation of Erzurum from other Seljuk centres, it is Ayy?bids rather than his relatives in Konya, presumably
likely that that Mugh?th al-D?n was indeed tributary to in addition to accepting Georgian suzerainty (al
Georgia for at least parts of his long reign (1202-1225), Hamaw?, al-Ta'r?kh al-Mansur?: 112). This shows a
despite hostilities at other points. This is confirmed by the certain continuity with Saltukid practice, as the
Armenian historian Kirakos, who did not have a vested Saltukids had likewise tried to ally themselves with the
interest in exaggerating Georgian power, unlike the Ayy?bids around 1190, presumably in the wake of the
Georgian Chronicle (Kirakos, Istoriya: 118). Georgian campaigns under David Soslan (Ibn Shadd?d,
There is no direct evidence for relations between the S?ratSalah al-D?n: 234; Richards 2001: 230). However,
main branch of the Seljuks of R?m at Konya and the the Fifth Crusade, which reached the Levant in 1217,
Georgians during this period, although their interests concentrated Ayy?bid attention firmly on Egypt and
must have clashed on the Black Sea coast around 1204 Syria. These circumstances meant that the Ayy?bids
when the trading city of Samsun, captured by the Seljuks had little interest in attacking Georgia as long as it
a decade earlier, fell to the Georgian-backed Comneni remained quiescent, while rich possibilities for plunder
who were founding a new Pontic state based inTrebizond were open to the Georgians in Arr?n and Azerbaijan,
(KC 2: 142; Bryer, Winfield 1985 1: 93; Vivian 1991: now under the incompetent rule of the Ildeg?zid ?zbek
87). The loss of Samsun and the Comneni's decision to (KC 2: 152-54; Minorsky 1932; Thomson 1989: 212;
close the Black Sea to Muslim shipping caused a Vivian 1991: 97-100).
commercial crisis in the emporium of Sivas, which led to In the third decade of the 13th century, the political
Ghiy?th al-D?n Kaykhusraw I's fruitless siege of situation in the Middle East was altered permanently by
Trebizond in 1205-1206 (Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil 12: 242; two sets of Central Asia invaders, the Khw?razmians and
Shukurov 2001:
89-90). A more successful attack on the Mongols. The Muslim Khw?razmians had occupied
Sinop in 1214 resulted in the capture of the Trapezuntine much of Iran since
the collapse of the Great Seljuk
emperor and the imposition of a peace treaty, which did Sultanate in the late 12th century, and they were respon
not, however, prove to be durable (Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir: sible for the Mongols' arrival in the Middle East. The
146-54; Duda 1959: 64-68; Shukurov 2001: 92-102). Khw?razmsh?h 'Al?' al-D?n Muhammad had provoked
The economic damage the Comneni threatened doubtless the Mongols'wrath by massacring a Mongol
embassy,
helps explain the Seljuk policy of expansion during the and was now pursued by them from Central Asia to Iran,
early 13th century to gain footholds on both theMediter dying in flight on a remote island in the Caspian Sea
ranean and Black Sea coasts (see Peacock 2006). Thus (Boyle 1968: 303-10). However, it seems the
Georgia and the Seljuks of R?m did not come into Khw?razmsh?h was not Genghis Khan's sole target, for
conflict directly, but only through Trebizond whose rulers theMongol troops used theMugh?n steppe inAzerbaijan
were linked by blood to the Georgian Bagratids who had as a base from which to attack Georgia, defeating a
helped establish their state (see Vasiliev 1936; substantial army mustered by Giorgi Lasha in 1221.
Toumanoff 1940).However, there is no evidencethat They came back with
impunity the following year, no
Trapezuntine policy was at all dependent on Georgia Georgian daring to stand against them, on their way to
after the state's foundation (Vasiliev 1936: 29-30). As attack southern Russia and ultimately return toMongolia
the Georgian kingdom does not seem to have played a (Limper 1980: 80-89).
significant role in Black Sea trade in this period, it is This first Mongol invasion of the Middle East forced
more likely that Trebizond's anti-Muslim policy was of a diplomatic realignment in the region. In the wake of
her own, rather than Georgian, devising, and Trebizond her defeat, Georgia sent embassies to both the Ayy?bids
cannot be regarded as a Georgian proxy in the struggle and her old enemies the Ildeg?zids asking for an alliance
with the Seljuks. against the Mongols. Al-Ashraf, the Ayy?bid lord of
Ahlat, had been summoned by his brothers to Egypt to
Georgia and Anatolia in the period of the fight the Fifth Crusade, and was preparing to depart
Khw?razmian and Mongol invasions when the Georgian embassy arrived, but promised them
The reign of the R?m Seljuk Tzz al-D?n Kayk?'?s the assistanceof his brother Shih?b al-D?n Ghaz?, to
(1210-1219) continued the expansionist policies of his whom he had assigned the eastern Ayy?bid territories
predecessors, even to the extent of threatening the (Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil 12: However, the
398-99).
Ayy?bids in northern Syria (Humphreys 1977: 159-60). Ayy?bid-Georgian alliance was disrupted by the actions
Ayy?bid and Seljuk interests had long clashed, but Tzz of the lord of S?rmeli, a dependency of Ahlat on the
al-D?n was probably particularly annoyed by the actions Georgian frontier, who fought against the Georgians,
of Mugh?th al-D?n of Erzurum. Mugh?th al-D?n, it capturing Shalva, the Mkhargrdzeli lord of Dvin. It is a

137
 Anatolian Studies 2006

testimony to both the importance of the Ayy?bids' Rusudan cannot, at any rate, have expected very
Anatolian possesions and of their alliance with Georgia substantial military aid from the traditionally rather feeble
that al-Ashraf intervened in person to restore the peace principality of Erzurum. Even if she had, there was

(Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil 12: 414-15). Indeed, it is probably little that could be done to resist the next wave
possible that Shih?b al-D?n Ghaz? sought the hand of of invaders. These were the Khw?razmians. 'Al?'al-D?n
Giorgi Lasha's sister, Rusudan, although unsuccessfully Muhammad's son, Jal?l al-D?n Mengubirni, had initially
(Brosset 1849: 495, n. 1). sought refuge from the Mongols in India, but with their
However, the shock of theMongol invasions seems to return to Mongolia, he felt safe to return to the Middle
have encouraged Georgia to search for allies through East. Afterinitially occupying Azerbaijan, he went on to
marriage alliances. At the beginning of her reign, conquer much of Georgia, Tiflis falling to him in 1226
Rusudan, who had succeeded Giorgi Lasha in 1223, after a century of Christian rule. He even captured
married the son of Mugh?th al-D?n Tughnlsh?h of Rusudan's husband, but the latter did not revert to Islam,
Erzurum. According to Ibn al-Ath?r (al-K?mil 12: 416 instead escaping to help the Georgian cause (Nasaw?,

17), who was clearly horrified, the proposal came from Histoire 1: 125). Jal?l al-D?n's short-lived empire
Mugh?th al-D?n, but was rejected by the Georgians on the stretched across much of Azerbaijan, eastern Anatolia and

grounds they could not have aMuslim king. Mugh?th al the Caucasus, although he only managed to dislodge the
D?n's son therefore converted to Christianity and the Ayy?bids from Ahlat in 1230. This victory drew 'Al?' al

marriage went ahead. The story is confirmed by the D?n Kayqub?d further into eastern affairs, and a joint
Georgian Chronicle (KC 2: 172; Brosset 1849: 501), Seljuk-Ayy?bid force defeated Jal?l al-D?n at Yassi
which records that Rusudan married the Seljuk 'to assure ?imen near Erzincan in 1230 (Boyle 1968: 322-35;
herself of his loyalty'. From this marriage were born Humphreys 1977: 214-20). The complexity of eastern
David Narin, the future king of Georgia, and a daughter, Anatolian politics is illustrated by the fact that Mugh?th
Tamar, who would marry a Konya Seljuk. Why Rusudan al-D?n's successor in Erzurum, Rukn al-D?n Jah?nsh?h,
chose to marry an Erzurum Seljuk is unclear. Although helped Jal?l al-D?n against an army that was sent by 'Al?'
Queen Tamar had dallied with the idea of marrying the al-D?n, his cousin, and al-Ashraf, at least until recently his
Saltukid prince, and themarriage of more junior members nominal overlord. Doubtless Rukn al-D?n Jah?nsh?h saw
of the Bagratid family to Muslims was by no means in Jal?l al-D?n's constant wars and in his defeat of the
unknown, this was that a reigning
the first occasion Georgians and Ayy?bids the best opportunity to preserve

Georgian monarch had married a Turkish Muslim, albeit a what independence he had in Erzurum. After the victory
convert to Christianity. Rusudan could not have hoped at Yassi ?imen, 'Al?' al-D?n deposed Rukn al-D?n
that this would improve relations with the Konya Seljuks, Jah?nsh?h and Erzurum was finally incorporated into the
who were expanding under 'Al?' al-D?n Kayqub?d (1219 territories of the Konya Sultanate (Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil

1237), for, as noted above, Mugh?th al-D?n's allegiance 12: 489-91; Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir. 406-16; Duda 1959:

appears to have been to the Ayy?bids not to his Seljuk 164-74). With the fall of Erzurum, eastern Anatolia was
relatives, even after the accession of 'Al?' al-D?n whom he divided between theAyy?bids and the Seljuks, and finally
had helped in an earlier civil war. At least between 'Al?' the Sultanate of R?m had a frontier with what remained of
al-D?n and Mugh?th al-D?n's son and successor, Rukn al Georgia after five years of Khw?razmian occupation.
D?n Jah?nsh?h
(1225-1230), there was 'deep-rooted The annexation of Erzurum may have been provoked

enmity' ((ad?wah mustahkamah, Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil by Rukn al-D?n Jah?nsh?h's alliance with the
12: 489). Nor was Erzurum a particularly powerful Khw?razmsh?h, but it occurred in the context of Konya's

principality, and despite the replacement of the Saltukids longstanding interest in its northern and eastern frontiers,
with a Seljuk, Erzurum remained tributary to Georgia in in contrast to the circumstances of Rukn al-D?n's

the early 13th century. Mugh?th al-D?n probably tried to expedition of 1201. Although there seem to have been no
maintain good relations with both the Ayy?bids and the previous attempts to subject Mugh?th al-D?n to Konya's
Georgians, his main neighbours. Perhaps, if anything, the sovereignty, the challenge to Muslim trade presented by
aimed to ensure Mugh?th al-D?n's adhesion to the foundation of the Empire of Trebizond in 1204 had
marriage
the Ayy?bid-Georgian alliance at a point when his encouraged every Seljuk sultan after this date to
'Al?' al-D?n, was threatening the region, culmi undertake expeditions against Trebizond or its depend
nephew,

nating in a siege of Trebizond in 1223 (Peacock 2006:

145-48). Mugh?th al-D?n was probably as worried as
anyone else at Konya's expansion, which could only limit 9
The question of Jal?l al-D?n's rule in Caucasia is too compli
his autonomy, already circumscribed by his powerful cated to be discussed here; I hope to deal with it on a future
Ayy?bid and Georgian neighbours. occasion.

138
 Peacock

Seljuks of Rum Bagratids of Georgia

Kih? Arslan II (156-1192) Tamar (1185-1212)

Rukn al-Din S?leym?nsh?h Ghiy?th al-D?n Mugh?th al-Din

(1197-1204) Kaykhusraw I (1192-7, Tughnlsh?h Giorgi Lasha (1212-1223)
1204-10)

Rukn al-Din son -Rusudan (1223-1247) David Ulu

'Izz al-Dln Kayka'us I 'Ala' al-Din Kayqubad I Jah?nsh?h (1249-1269)
(1210-1219) (1219-1237)

-Tamar
Ghiyath al-Dln Kaykhusraw II David Narin ( 1249-1293)
(1237-1246)

'Ala' al-Din Kayqubad II

(1249-57)

Fig. 2. The relationship between the Georgian Bagratids and the Seljuks of R?m

encies. However, it does not seem that the Seljuks' many fortresses in the region (see Edwards 1985), and the
eastward expansion was responsible for the ensuing clash proximity of Tao to Erzurum would make it an obvious
with Georgia. In 1231-1232, the Mongols made their target for a Seljuk attack. On the other hand, it is not
first appearance inAnatolia. Returning to the west under likely that Tao was directly under Bagratid control at this
the general Chormaghun, they were based in theMugh?n point (Edwards 1988: 139-40). Indeed, according to Ibn
a detachment at some - Oltu in
steppe again, from which raided into B?b?, least of the region southern Tao,
Anatolia as far as Sivas a -
(Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir: 418-20; along with few other castles had been granted to the
Duda 1959: 175-76). Rusudan is blamed by Ibn B?b? for Ayy?bid al-Ashraf as a reward for his help in
al-Malik
having encouraged theMongols to attack R?m, and 'Ala' defeating Jal?l al-D?n in 1230; he was to hold them as
al-D?n authorised a campaign against Georgia in revenge Al?' al-D?n's vassal (Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir: All; Duda
which captured 30 or 40 castles (Ibn B?b?, al
allegedly 1959: 174). However, much of the population of Tao
Aw?mir. 420-22; Duda 1959: 176-77). was ethnically Georgian, and it is likely that, while origi
There is no mention of such an expedition in the nally nominally part of the Saltukid and Seljuk principal
Georgian Chronicle, and a degree of scepticism is ities of Erzurum, the Georgian lords of Tao declared their
required as to how major an undertaking it actually was. allegiance to the Bagratids who, as we have seen,
Ibn B?b? has a tendency to exaggerate 'Al?' al-D?n's generally seem to have held sway in the region. Ibn B?b?'s
military achievements, as I have argued elsewhere assertion that the Mongol expedition to Anatolia was at
(Peacock 2006: 148-49). However, another Muslim Rusudan's instigation cannot be taken at face value either.
source does confirm that Seljuk campaigns against the

Georgians took place (Tar?kh-i ?l-i Salj?q: 89-90). Ibn

B?b? states that the fortresses at Kh?kh and N?kh?kh were 10
The term Gurjist?n, 'Georgia', is clearly used by IbnB?b? to
captured, and the Tar?kh-i ?l-Salj?q also mentions the mean Tao only in this instance, so it is reasonable to assume that
a it is also used in this restricted sense when he discusses
conquest of place named 'Kh?kh?'. Most probably, this the
1231-1232 campaign. Further, the Tar?kh-i ?l-Salj?q (90)
is a reference to southern Tao. An important Georgian
mentions an Argh?, malik-i of
Gurjist?n ('Argh?, king/prince
church and monastery existed at Khakhuli (Haho),
Georgia') whom Seljuk forces defeated. Argh? cannot be a
although it is difficult to reconcile this with the strongly error for Rus?d?n
copyist's by any stretch of the imagination,
fortified castle Ibn B?b? describes. However, there are but it may have been the name of a Georgian lord in Tao.

139
 Anatolian Studies 2006

With her country recently devastated by Khw?razmian defenders respectively of Islam and Christianity they
troops and the Mongols occupying the Mugh?n, the last sought to present. Ibn B?b? mentions the presence of
thing the Georgian queen needed was another hostile Georgians amongst the various nationalities that gathered
neighbour, although she doubtless sought to divert to watch the investiture of D?'?dsh?h, the Meng?cekid
Mongol troops as far away from her territories as possible. ruler of Erzincan, with a khiVa (robe of honour) by 'Al?'
In fact, theMongols may have entered Anatolia in pursuit al-D?n in 1225, when the Meng?cekid principality was
of the Khw?razmsh?h, as the Georgian Chronicle annexed by the Seljuks (Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir: 351; Duda
indicates (KC 2: 185; Brosset 1849: 511). Indeed, in an 1959: 145 n/a). Otherwise, however, literary evidence
earlier letter to Jal?l al-D?n, Al?' al-D?n had stressed the for links between the Seljuks and Georgia before 1231
necessity of making peace with the Mongols, doubtless 1232 is virtually non-existent. However, numismatic
aware of the risk that Jal?l al-D?n's presence inAnatolia evidence indicates clearly that ties were much closer than
might attract his enemies to the region (Ibn B?b?, al the sources suggest. Seljuk silver coinage already circu
Aw?mir. 377-78; Duda 1959: 160). lated widely in Caucasia, including Georgia, while
According to Ibn B?b?, the result of the campaign was Georgian copper seems to have been used in Seljuk
that Rusudan sued for peace, offering the hand of her coins. As one scholar has put it, 'the two coinages seem
daughter who was 'descended from Seljuk and David to be complimentary in terms of both metal and circu
[the Bagratid]' to 'Al?' al-D?n's son Ghiy?th al-D?n (Ibn lation areas, and were
probably part of the same
B?b?, al-Aw?mir. 421; Duda 1959: 177). The Georgian monetary system' (Kolbas 2006: 81). Some architec
Chronicle, as one might expect, instead has Ghiy?th al tural evidence also illustrates the ties between Anatolia
D?n supplicating Rusudan to be allowed to marry her and Georgia in this period: aMuslim master from Tbilisi
daughter, and sending rich gifts to persuade her (KC 2: was employed to build the monuments of the
172; Brosset 1849: 501-02). Although the Chronicle Meng?cekid town of Divrigi in the 1220s (Sakaoglu
claims that itwas a condition of the marriage that Tamar 2005: 159, 248-49).
did not have to convert to Islam, Ibn B?b? refers to her as Despite these common economic interests, officially
malikah-i 'Queen of Islam' even before
Islam the the Seljuks felt obliged to declare their hostility to
marriage had taken place (Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir: 484; Georgia. Jal?l al-D?n Khw?razmsh?h
had justified his
Duda 1959: 210 n/a). In all probability, the proximity of conquests in Caucasia as being part of a war
and Anatolia
theMongols made an alliance between the Bagratids and against the unbelievers, clearly meaning the Georgians
Seljuks inviting to both parties. Although R?m was (Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir. 369; Duda 1959: 155), and despite
much stronger than Georgia at this point, having not his hostility towards the Khw?razmians, 'Al?' al-D?n
suffered from the Khw?razmian invasions, any kind of praised him for attacking Georgia (Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir.
barrier between Anatolia and the Mongol base in the 377-78; Duda 1959: 160). Even Jal?l al-D?n's enmity to
Mugh?n would doubtless have been welcome. Georgia may have originally been purely for propaganda
Furthermore, 'Al?' al-D?n's policy of expansion meant purposes, for according to the Georgian Chronicle, he
the annexation of the Anatolian territories of the only sought an alliance with Rusudan against theMongols (KC
other significant regional power, the Ayy?bids, making 2: 172-73; Brosset 1849: 502-03). However, the
-
any kind of alliance with them impossible indeed, in marriage of Tamar and Ghiy?th al-D?n II appears to have
1234 the Ayy?bids attempted to annex the Seljuk state resulted in a change of attitude. Ibn B?b? records in detail
itself (Humphreys 1977: 224-27). Meanwhile, Georgia the lavish arrangements made for the marriage, which he
was completely exposed to the Mongols, and had no indicates did not in fact take place until after 'Al?' al-D?n's
other available ally, the Ildeg?zids having collapsed a death in 1237. If so, itmust have been celebrated just after
few years earlier. the main Mongol invasion of Georgia had started. As
Tamar progressed through Anatolia to Kayseri, where the
The Georgian-Seljuk alliance wedding was to be held, provincial officials vied with one
Although we may surmise that the threat presented by the another for the honour of kissing her hand. As part of the
return of the Mongols to the Caucasus was the catalyst celebrations, Georgian nobles (Ibn B?b? uses the term
for the marriage of Tamar and Ghiy?th al-D?n azn?r, from the Georgian aznaur) were granted great
Kaykhusraw II, links between the Seljuks and Georgia
must have predated this. There are, however, few
references in the sources to these, as it hardly suited the
However, Kolbas' argument that this 'monetary consortium'
purposes of Muslim and Christian court historians to resulted from the marriage of Rusudan to Mugh?th al-D?n's son

emphasise such contacts which ran rather contrary to the must be rejected, for as we have seen, relations between the

idealised picture of the Seljuk and Georgian rulers as Seljuks of R?m and Erzurum were hostile.

140
 Peacock

estates (iqt?'?t-i buzurg) by Ghiy?th al-D?n (Ibn B?b?, al quences in R?m. With the allotmentiqt?'s to the
of
Aw?mir. 483-85; Duda 1959: 210-11 n/a). Tamar was Georgian nobles came their participation in the Seljuk

accompanied to R?m by a Georgian Catholicos and by her military. Most prominent of these was a certain pisar-i
cousin David (wrongly called her brother in several Gurj? ('Georgian boy' or 'the Georgian's son') who had
sources; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography: 403). the title Zah?r al-Dawlah (also sometimes, probably
It is difficult to assess what effects this new Seljuk wrongly, given as Zah?r al-D?n). Around 1240, he

Georgian alliance had.

According to an Arabic commanded a detachment of the Seljuk army sent to
manuscript of Bar Hebraeus' Chronography used by suppress the revolt of B?b? Ras?l against the sultan (Ibn
Pococke in his 17th century edition, the most visible B?b?, al-Aw?mir: 502, 510; Duda 1959: 219, 222 n/a).
consequence was
to be seen on Seljuk coinage (Bar He was also one of the Seljuk generals at the Battle of
Hebraeus, Ta 'r?khMukhtasar al-Duwal: 487). Kose Dag in 1243, when the Seljuks were finally
defeated by the Mongols (Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir: 522;
Sultan Ghiy?th al-D?n was devoted to buffoonery and Duda 1959: 226-27; Tar?kh-i ?l-i Salj?q: 92). Another
wine drinking; he had an improper way of life and was Georgian commander on the Seljuk side at the battle was
immersed in sinful pleasures. He married the the son of Shalva, lord of Akhaltsikhe, who fled the field
daughter of the Georgian monarch (malik, sic), with in disgrace (Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir: 525; Duda 1959: 228;
whom he was infatuated. He was so enamoured of her KC 2: 192; Brosset 1849: 518). Of course, Georgians
that he wanted to depict her on dirhams, but he was were by no means the sole foreign element in the Seljuk
advised to have [instead] the image of a lion against a army; the Gurj? (Georgians) are mentioned alongside a
sun to refer to his good fortune and achieve his aim. variety of other races who fought with the Seljuks at
Kose Dag - Sh?ml (Syrians), Rum? (Greeks), Firang
Ghiy?th al-D?n II did indeed introduce the image of a (Franks) and Uj? (probably Turkmen nomads) (Ibn B?b?,
sun and lion (known as the sh?r u khwursh?d motif) onto al-Aw?mir: 525; Duda 1959: 228 n/a). Even before this,
silver dirhams in 1240 (Erketlioglu, G?ler 1996: 131-40; Franks had played a crucial role in the defeat of B?b?
see also Leiser 1998). However, one must be cautious Ras?l (Simon de Saint Quentin, Histoire: 64), so there
before giving undue credence to the passage cited above. was nothing particularly exceptional about the use of
Firstly, it does not occur in the Syriac version of Bar such a variety of nationalities - and these were probably
Hebraeus (compare Chronography: 403, 410), giving rise mercenaries, in addition to the slave troops (ghul?m),
to suspicion that itmay be a later interpolation. Secondly, often of Kip?ak origin.
such coinage is rather more likely to have been part of the The presence of Georgian troops on the Seljuk side
Seljuks' ongoing propaganda war with theMongols. The does not itself indicate a special relationship between
latter had just started tomint coins in silver, traditionally Georgia and the Seljuks, for it is clear that plenty of
a Seljuk prerogative in the region, and further appro Georgians also fought for the Mongols (Simon de Saint
priated Seljuk symbols on their coins (Kolbas 2006: 103 Quentin, Histoire: 78-79). Probably the mercenaries
to Kolbas, in fact, 'the sun represented their but Tamar - or
08). According kept religion, Gurj? Kh?t?n
heavenly power and blessing, which supported the Saljuq ('Georgian lady') as she became known to the Muslims
-
ruler, represented by the lion, who in turn could control eventually converted to Islam. Nor does this seem to
the world' (Kolbas 2006: 107). Furthermore, in consid have been amatter of duress, contrary to the allegation of
ering the passage above, one must bear in mind that the Georgian Chronicle (KC 2: 200; Brosset 1849: 524
Islamic historiography generally portrayed Ghiy?th al 25), for she subsequently became a committed S?f? and
D?n II in the worst possible light, distracted by pleasure member of the circle of Jal?l al-D?n Rum? (mur?dah-i
while the Mongol threat loomed over R?m, in order to hadratash, Aflak?, Man?qib: 263, see also, 425-26, 432,
explain how a pagan army could conquer one of the most 754, 915; O'Kane 2002: 292-93, 506-07, 553, 640, and
important Muslim states of the day. A parallel to this is see index). However, by no means every Georgian in the
the blackening of the reputation of Sultan Bayezid by later Seljuk lands did convert. The lord of Abkhazet'i, Dardan
Ottoman historians who needed to explain why the early Sharvashidze, who was in Ghiy?th al-D?n's service,
Ottoman state suffered its tremendous defeat by T?n?r at remained fervently committed to Christianity (KC 2:
Ankara in 1402 (Lowry 2003: 22-31). 192; Brosset 1849: 518), and even Tamar clearly
It does not seem that the Georgian-Seljuk alliance maintained strong contacts with her old faith, endowing
had any concrete benefits for Georgia in protecting her a church in Cappadocia long after she must have
from the Mongols, if that was the intention, for converted (Vryonis 1977; Vryonis believes this indicates
Chormaghun succeeded in reducing the Caucasus by that Gurj? Kh?t?n did not convert to Islam; however, the
1240. However, the alliance may have had greater conse evidence of both the Georgian Chronicle and Aflak? is

141
 Anatolian Studies 2006

persuasive and the fact that she was able to endow a overlooks the depression where Bayju and his army
church is probably illustrative of the tolerance of Chris were encamped. Sultan Ghiy?th al-D?n held council
tianity that was common inMuslim Anatolia; see Balivet with his senior amirs and advisors about confronting
1994: 45, 47-49, 147-49). the Mongols and fighting them. Everyone said what
Tamar's cousin, David, did not convert, and later was he thought, and amongst them were those who played
installed by the Mongols as King of Georgia, generally up the danger. The brother of Gurj? Kh?t?n, the
known as David Ulu (a Turkish word meaning Targe') to sultan's wife, grew angry, and said, 'These men are

distinguish him from Tamar's brother and his co-regent, cowards and are afraid of them. Separate them out,
David Narin. What effect his sojourn in R?m had on him and let the sultan give me the Georgians and Franks in
is unknown; he had little power in any event (see Limper his army and I shall confront theMongols even if they
1980: 149-69). According to the Georgian Chronicle, he may be [as they say].'
spent most of his time in R?m in prison. It records that
Rusudan had sent David, her nephew, to the Seljuk court Thus
according to this
account, the Georgian
with instructions to her son-in-law and daughter to commander at Kose Dag was none other than Giorgi
mistreat and kill him, so that her own son, David Narin, Lasha's son, David Ulu, and is to be identified with the
could inherit the throne unimpeded. Initially she failed to pisar-i Gurj? or Zah?r al-Dawlah of Ibn B?b?. The credi
persuade them to do so, but eventually managed to sow bility of Baybars' report is difficult to assess. He was
suspicions in Ghiy?th al-D?n's mind about the writing in Egypt in the late 13th century, so at some

relationship between Tamar and David Ulu. In his rage, remove from the events reported here. On the other hand,
the sultan forced Tamar to convert to Islam, and threw all the other details he gives accord with what we know
David into a pit of serpents, from which he miraculously from other sources (compare Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir: 522
escaped unharmed (KC 2: 179-80, 199-203; Brosset 23; Duda 1959: 226-27), and he had no obvious motive
1849: 508, 524-27). It is difficult to put much credence for inventing the story, which must derive from an as yet
in the Georgian Chronicle's account, although Bar unidentified earlier source. However, the Georgian
Hebraeus (Chronography: 402-03) briefly mentions that Chronicle indicates that the Georgian commander at Kose
both the Georgian Catholicos sent with Tamar and David Dag who did not convert to Islam was Dardan
were imprisoned by Ghiy?th al-D?n and released by the Sharshavidze 1849: 518).
(KC 2: 192; Brosset In the

Mongols. Unfortunately, only one Islamic source makes absence of independent evidence, it is not possible to

any reference to the presence of David at the Seljuk court, come to a definite conclusion as to whether Zah?r al
and it tells a very different story. As the account does not Dawlah is indeed to be identified with David Ulu.
seem to have received any notice in print to date, I quote Certainly it is chronologically possible: David must have
it in full (Baybars al-Mansur?, Zubdat al-Fikrah: 20-21). been born between 1212 and 1223, the year of his father's
death, and so could well have been of an age to fight B?b?
Then [the Mongols] made for Anatolia, and Sultan Ras?l and subsequently at Kose Dag. However, Ibn B?b?

Ghiy?th al-D?n gathered his armies from every region indicates that Zah?r al-Dawlah was already at the Seljuk
of his country. His father had married him to Gurj? court when Ghiy?th al-D?n came to the throne, whereas
Kh?t?n, daughter of the King of Georgia. When he the Georgian Chronicle says he arrived with his cousin
became sultan, he made her brother, who was a Tamar (Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir. 464; Duda 1959: 199).
Christian who had not converted
from his religion,
commander over the army. The amirs hated him, and Conclusion
they hated Ghiy?th al-D?n for preferring him to them, The defeat at Kose Dag did not signal the total collapse
so they started to disassociate themselves from him, to of the Seljuk state, and the Georgian kingdom also
be abusive and to show hostility to him away from the maintained a nominal independence under Mongol rule.

fighting, sometimes
giving him precedence, At least initially, economic ties continued, for Georgian
sometimes obstructing him. Sultan Ghiy?th al-D?n coinage issued in the early years of the Mongol
was confused as towhat was going on. When he heard occupation appears to be based on Anatolian Muslim
of theMongols' proximity and numbers, led by Bayju, models (Lang 1955: 35-39). However, there is little

Khoja-Noyan and their men, and that they were on the evidence for political links between Georgia and
border of Anatolia, having reached Ak?ehir [near] Anatolia - nor was there any reason for these to exist,
Erzincan and set up camp in the plain there, he with power having shifted to the Mongol centres
1258, western won a
gathered his army and set off to meet them. He took elsewhere. After Georgia
his harem to fight as women do and encamped atKose precarious independence but was too weak to be of major

Dag which means 'Bald Mountain'. That mountain significance (Limper 1980: 162-63). The regional

142
 Peacock

powers were now theMongol Ilkh?ns of Iran, their rivals presence lived far away in Egypt. Historians associated
the Golden Horde in southern Russia, with whom they with the Seljuks, such as Ibn B?b?, avoid mentioning him.
fought for control of Caucasia, and the Golden Horde's Likewise, the Georgian Chronicle is almost completely
allies, theMaml?ks of Egypt. What importance Georgia silent about Rusudan's Seljuk husband, despite his
and Anatolia had derived from the fact that both were conversion to Christianity. However, occasionally the
frontier provinces. Both the Seljuk and Georgian ?lites sources hint that political necessity was not the sole
tried to reach an accommodation with the new order. reason for
the marriage alliances of the Turks and
R?m was administered on behalf of the Ilkh?nate by Georgians. In some way, both sides seem to have derived
Mu'?n al-D?n S?leym?n, the son of the Ghiy?th al-D?n's prestige from marrying into the Seljuk or Bagratid
vizier; he married Gurj? Kh?t?n after the sultan's death families. Ibn B?b? has Rusudan boasting of her
(Vryonis 1977: 15-16). The Mkhargrdzelis married into daughter's mixed Bagratid and Seljuk lineage (az sulb-i
the most powerful family of the Ilkh?nate, the Juwayn?s. Salj?q u nasl-i D?'?d, Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir: 423; Duda
T'amt'a, the Mkhargrdzeli princess who had been 1959: 177). He reports that when Queen Tamar
married to the Ayy?bid al-Ashraf many years before, attempted to persuade Kih? Arslan to allow his son, Rukn
retained control of Ahlat as a vassal of the Mongols -
al-D?n, tomarry her, one of the inducements she offered
although that city had by now declined in importance, a was that by doing so, Rukn al-D?n would enter the
major earthquake adding to the ravages of the constant Bagratid family (kh?nd?n-i Da '?d, Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir:
wars over it (Rogers 1976: 320-21). There was now no 69; Duda 1959: 33 n/a). Of course, in reality such an
reason for the Georgians and Seljuks to seek alliances exchange of letters probably never took place, but it is
with one another. Even if they sought to plot against interesting that Ibn B?b? thought that the prospect of links
their Mongol overlords, they could only turn to the new to the Bagratids was a convincing argument to attribute
regional powers, the Maml?ks or the Golden Horde to Tamar. Equally, one of Rusudan's motives in seeking

(Amitai-Preiss 1995: 150-51, 157-78). to marry Mugh?th al-D?n's son was

quite possibly his
The relationship between Georgia and the Anatolian Seljuk lineage, given that Erzurum had little practical aid
Turks over the 12th and early 13th centuries was not to offer. Interestingly, a memory of the prestige of the

particularly unusual. Turkish dynasties intermarried with Bagratid house in R?m was preserved into the 14th
other Christian royal houses, such as the Byzantines, and century. Aqsara'?, commenting on Ghiy?th al-D?n IPs
Georgia, itself with a substantial Muslim population, was designation of his youngest son Al?' al-D?n as his
accustomed to making alliances with neighbouring successor, comments that 'he made him crown
prince;
Muslim rulers as well as
waging
war on them. There and the reason for this was that his mother was Gurj?
was, however, nothing inevitable about the alliance Kh?t?n, the Georgian queen, and on account of his
between the Seljuks and Georgia. When Georgia first mother's lineage he sought superiority over his [half]
found itself in need of Muslim allies with the Mongol brothers' (Aqsar?'i, Mus?marat al-Akhb?r: 36; I?iltan
invasion of 1221, she approached the Ayy?bids and the 1943: 42). One of his half brothers was of Greek descent,
12
Ildeg?zids, but not, as far as we know, the Seljuks. the other of Turkish. Thus despite the embarrassment
Although there were probably economic and cultural that the Seljuks' links with Georgia sometimes caused
links between the Seljuks and Georgia from at least the the medieval historians, in practice, at least in R?m,
1220s, if not earlier, it was only with Ala' al-D?n descent from the Bagratids seems to have served as a
Kayqub?d's occupation of Erzurum that a political source of legitimacy for members
of the Seljuk house,
relationship developed. The marriage of Ghiy?th al-D?n presumably particularly among their numerous Christian
II and Tamar was doubtless a response to the Mongol subjects. It is likely that in Georgia, the Bagratids' links
threat, even if the Georgian-Seljuk alliance proved to be to the Seljuks served a similar purpose among their
of little concrete use in practice. Indeed, the arguments Muslim subjects.
between Georgians and Muslims in the Seljuk army at
Kose Dag cannot have helped the Seljuk cause (Ibn B?b?, Acknowledgement
al-Aw?mir: 522-23; Duda 1959: 226-27). Iwish to express my thanks to Penny Copeland for the
Both Muslim and Christian historians seem to have accompanying map.

regarded the alliance between their rulers with some

embarrassment. Perhaps the most noteworthy example
of this is the failure of almost every Muslim historian to 12
In the event, Al?' al-D?n died aged not more than 17 in 1254
mention the presence of David Ulu at the Seljuk court. after a brief sultanate shared with his two brothers but when the
Whatever the truth of his circumstances there, it is inter state was run by the vizier 2002:
effectively Karatay (Turan
esting that the only Muslim author who alludes to his 466-74).

143
 Anatolian Studies 2006

? 1968. Pre-Ottoman
Bibliography Turkey. A General Survey of the
= Man?tib Ed. T. Material and Spiritual Culture and History c.
Aflak?, Man?qib al-?rif?n al-?rif?n.
Yazici. Ankara 1976 (tr. O'Kane 2002) 1071-1330. London
Ahmad of Nigde, al-Walad al-Shaf?q. S?leymaniye Canard, M. 1969: 'Les reines de la G?orgie dans l'his
K?t?phanesi, Istanbul, MS Fatih 4518 toire et la l?gende musulmanes' Revue des ?tudes
Allen, W.E.D. 1932: A History of the Georgian People. Islamiques 37: 3-20. Reprinted in idem,
London L'expansion arabo-islamique et ses
r?percussions.

Amitai-Preiss, R. 1995: Mongols and Mamluks: The London1974: Study XVIII

Mamluk-Ilkh?nid War, 1260-1281. Cambridge Duda, H. (tr.) 1959: Die Seldschukengeschichte des Ibn
=
Anonymous Chronicle Anonymi Auctoris Chronicon ad B?b?. Copenhagen
A.C. 1234 Pertinens, II. Tr. A. Abouna. Louvain Eastmond, A. 1998: Royal Imagery inMedieval Georgia.
1974 University Park, PA
Mus?marat al-Akhb?r = Mehmed ? 2004: Art and Identity in Thirteenth-Century
Aqsar?'i, Aksarayli
oglu Ker?m?ddin Mahmud, ??l-Ahb?r.
M?s?meret Byzantium: Haghia Sophia and the of Empire of
Ed. O. Turan. Ankara 1944 (tr. I?iltan 1943) Trebizond. Aldershot
Balivet, M. 1994: Romanie Byzantine et Pays de R?m Edwards, R.W. 1985: 'Medieval architecture in the Oltu
Turc. Istanbul Penek valley: a preliminary report on the march
Bar Hebraeus, Ta'r?kh Mukhtasar al-Duwal I Historia lands of northeast Turkey' Dumbarton Oaks Papers
Compendiosa Dynastiarum. Ed. and tr. E. Pococke. 39: 15-37
1663 ? 1988: 'The Vale of Kola: a final preliminary report on
Oxford
? The Chronography of Gregory Abu 'l-Faraj. Tr. the marchlands of northeast Turkey' Dumbarton
E.A.W. Budge. London 1932 Oaks Papers 42: 119-41

Baybars al-Mansur?, Zubdat al-Fikrah f? Ta'r?kh al Erketlioglu, H., G?ler, O. 1996: T?rkiye Sel?uklu
Hijrah. Ed. D.S. Richards. Beirut 1998 Sultanlari ve Sikkeleri. Kayseri
Bedirhan, Y. 2000: Sel?uklular ve Kafkasya. Konya al-Fariq?, Ta 'r?kh al-Fariq?: al-Dawlah al-Marw?niyyah.

Boyle, J.A. 1968: 'The dynastie and political history of Ed. B. A. 'Awad. Beirut 1984
the Il-Kh?ns' in J.A. Boyle (ed.), The Cambridge Golden, P. 1984: 'Cumanica I: the Qipcaqs in Georgia'
History of Iran, 5: The Salj?q and Mongol Periods. Archivum Eurasiae MediiAevi A: 45-87. Reprinted

Cambridge: 303-421 in idem, Nomads and their Neighbours in the

Brand, C. 1989: 'The Turkish element in Byzantium, 11th Russian Steppe: Turks, Khazars and Qipchaqs.
12th centuries' Dumbarton Oaks Papers A3: 1-25 Aldershot 2003: Study XI
Broadhurst R.J.C. (tr.) 2001 (1952): The Travels of Ibn al-Hamaw?, al-Ta'r?kh al-Mansur?. Ed. Abu 'l-'?d D?d?.

Jubayr. New Delhi Damascus 1402/1982

Brosset, M.-F. (tr.) 1849: Histoire de la G?orgie depuis Hitchens, K. 2001: 'Georgia II. History of Iranian

l'antiquit? jusqu'au XIX si?cle, 1: Histoire Georgian relations' Encyclopedia Iranica 10: 464-70
ancienne jusqu'en 1469 deJ.-C. St Petersburg Hitti, P.K. (tr.) 1929: An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and
? 1851: Additions et ?claircissements ? l'Histoire de la Warrior of the Time of the Crusades. Memoirs of
G?orgie depuis l'antiquit? jusqu'en 1469 deJ.C. St Us?mah ibn-Munqidh. New York
Petersburg Humphreys, R.S. 1977: From Saladin to theMongols:

Bryer, A. 1970: 'A Byzantine family: the Gabrades c. theAyy?bids of Damascus, 1193-1260. Albany, NY
919?c. 1653' University of Birmingham Historical al-Husayn?, Sadr al-D?n, Akhb?r al-Dawlah al
Journal 12: 164-87. Reprinted in idem, The Empire Salj?qiyyah. Ed. M. Iqbal. Beirut
1404/1984
of Trebizond and the Pontos. London 1980: Study Ibn al-Ath?r, al-K?mil fi 'l-Ta'r?kh. Ed. C. Tornberg.
Ilia Beirut 1966

Bryer, A., Winfield, D. 1985: The Byzantine Monuments Ibn B?b?, al-Aw?mir = ?bn-i B?b?, El-Ev?mir?'1-Al?'iyye
and Topography of the Pontos. Dumbarton Oaks fi'1-um?ri'l-Al?'iyye. Facsimile prepared by A.S.

Bunyadov, Z.M. 1984: Azdrbaycan Atabayleri D?vl?ti Erzi. Ankara 1956 (abridged tr. in Duda 1959)
(1136-1225-ci illdr). Baku Ibn al-Fur?t, Ta'r?kh al-Duwal wa-'l-Mul?k. Ed. H.M. al

Cahen, C. 1960: 'Selgukides, Turcomans et Allemands Shamm?'. Basra 1967

au temps de la troisi?me croisade' Wiener Zeitschrift Ibn Jubayr, Rihlat Ibn Jubayr. Ed. W. Wright. Leiden

f?r die Kunde des Morgenlandes 56: 21-31. 1852 (tr. Broadhurst 2001)

Reprinted in idem, Turcobyzantina et Oriens Chris Ibn Shadd?d, S?rat Sal?h al-D?n. Ed. J. Shayy?l. Cairo
tianus. London 1974: Study IX 1962 (tr. Richards 2001)

144
 Peacock

IbnW?sil, Mufarrij al-Kurub fi Akhb?r Ban?Ayy?b. Ed. Peacock, A.C.S. 2004: Ahmad of Nigde's al-Walad al
J. Shayy?l. Cairo 1953 Shafiq and the Seljuk past' Anatolian Studies 54:
I?iltan, F. (tr.) 1943: Die Seldschuken-Geschichte des 95-107
? 2005: in
Akser?yl Leipzig 'Nomadic society and the Selj?q campaigns
KC = K'art'lis C'khovreba. Ed. S. Qaukhch'ishvili. Caucasia' Iran and the Caucasus 9: 205-30
Tbilisi 1955-1973 trs. in Brosset ? 2006: 'The Salj?q campaign against the Crimea and
(partial 1849,
Vivian 1991, Thomson 1996) the expansionist policy of the early reign of Ala' al
Kirakos Gandzaketsi, Istoriya Armenii. Tr. L.A. D?n Kayqubad' Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
Khanlaryan. Moscow 1976 3rd series, 16: 133-49
Kolbas, J. 2006: The Mongols in Iran: Chingiz Khan to Qazw?n?, Zakariyy?, ?th?r al-Bil?d wa-Akhb?r al-Tb?d.
Uljaitu 1220-1309. London Beirut 1998
Lang, D.M. 1955: Studies in theNumismatic History of Rawand?, al-Sud?r wa ?y?t al-Sur?r. Ed. M.
R?hat
Georgia in Transcaucasia. New York Iqbal. London 1921
Leiser, G. 1998: 'Observations on the "Lion and Sun" Richards, D.S. (tr.) 2001: The Rare and Excellent History
coinage of Ghiyath al-Din Kai-Khusraw II' of Saladin. Aldershot
M?sogeios 2: 96-114 Rogers, J.M. 1976: 'The Mxargrdzelis between east and

Limper, B. 1980: Die Mongolen und die christlichen west' Bedi Kartlisa 34: 315-26
V?lker des Kaukasus: eine Untersuchung zur Sakaoglu, N. 2005: Turk Anadolu'da Meng?cekogullari.
politischen Geschichte Kaukasiens im 13. und Istanbul (2nd ed.)
beginnenden 14. Jahrhundert. K?ln Savvides, A. 1981: Byzantium in the Near East: its
Lordkipanidze, M. 1987: Georgia in the XI-XII Relations with the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum inAsia
Centuries. Tbilisi Minor, the Armenians of Cilicia and theMongols
Lowry, H.W. 2003: The Nature of the Early Ottoman AD c. 1192-1237. Thessalonike
State. Albany, NY ? 2003: 'Suleyman Shah of R?m, Byzantium, Cilician
Luther, K.A. (tr.) 2001: TheHistory oftheSelj?q Turks from Armenia and Georgia (A.D. 1197-1204)'
the Jami' al-Tawar?kh, an Ilkhanid Adaptation of the Byzantion 73: 96-111
Salj?q-n?ma of Zah?r al-D?n N?shap?r?. Richmond Shengelia, N. 2003: Mc'ire Aziis Selch'ukebi da
Lyons, M.C., Jackson, D.E.P. 1982: Saladin: the Politics Sak'art'velo XI saukunis ukaneskneli meot'khedi -
of theHoly War. Cambridge XIII saukune. Tbilisi
Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle - Armenia and the Shukurov, R.M. 2001: Velikie Komniny i Vostok (1204
Crusades. The Chronicle ofMatthew of Edessa. Tr. 1461). St Petersburg
A.E. Dostourian. Lanham 1993 Simon de Saint-Quentin, Histoire des Tartares. Ed. J.
Minorsky, V. 1932: 'Uzbek (?zbek) b. Muhammad Richard. Paris 1965
Pahlaw?n b. Ildegiz' Encyclopaedia of Islam A: Stephanos Orb?lian, Histoire de la Siounie. Tr. M-F.
1063-65 (1st ed.) Brosset. St Petersburg 1864-1866
? 1949: 'Cauc?sica in the history of Mayyafariq?n' S?mer, F. 1990: Dogu Anadolu'da Turk Beylikleri.
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Ankara
Studies 13: 27-35.
Reprinted in idem, The Turks, Tar?kh-i ?l-i Salj?q dar Anat?ll Ed. N. Jal?li. Tehran
Iran and the Caucasus in theMiddle Ages. London 1377/1999
1978: Study IV Thomson, R.W. (tr.) 1989: 'The historical compilation of
? 1953: Studies in Caucasian History. Cambridge Vardan Arawelc'i' Dumbarton Oaks Papers A3:
J?mV al-Duwal = Camiu'd-D?vel. 125-226
M?neccimba?i,
?
Sel?uklular Tarihi. Ed. A. ?ng?l. Izmir 2001 (tr.) 1996: Rewriting Caucasian History: theMedieval
Nasaw? = Nesawi, Histoire du sultan Djelal ed-Din Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles.
Mankobirti, prince du Kharezm. Ed. and tr. O. The Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian
Houdas. Paris 1891-1895 Adaptation. Oxford
N?shap?r?, Zah?r al-D?n, Salj?qn?mah. Ed. A.H. Morton. Toumanoff, C. 1940: 'On the relationship between the
London 2004 (a later adaptation of this text is trans founder of the Empire of Trebizond and the
lated in Luther 2001) Georgian Queen Thamar' Speculum 15: 299-312
Niz?m?-yi Ganjaw?, Makhzan al-Asr?r. Ed. W. Dastgird?. Turan, O. 1993 (1973): Dogu Anadolu Turk Devletleri
Tehran 1320 T?rihi. Istanbul
?
O'Kane, J. (tr.) 2002: The Feats of theKnowers of God. 2002 (1971): Sel?uklular Zamamnda T?rkiye.
Leiden Istanbul

145
 Anatolian Studies 2006

? note on
?remi?, A. 2005: T?rkiye Sel?uklularinin Dogu Anadolu 1977: 'Another the inscription of the
Politikasi. Ankara Church of St. George at Beliserama' Byzantina
Vasiliev, A.A. 1936: 'The foundation of the Empire of 9: 11-22. Reprinted in idem, Studies on
Trebizond' Speculum 11: 3-37 Byzantium, Seljuks and Ottomans. Malibu 1981:
Vivian, K. (tr.) 1991: The Georgian Chronicle: the Study VII
Period of Giorgi Lasha. Amsterdam Walter the Chancellor, The Antiochene Wars. Tr T.S.
Vryonis, S. 1971: The Decline ofMedieval Hellenism in Asbridge, S.B. Edgington. Aldershot 1999
Asia Minor and theProcess of Islamization from the Wittek, P. 1935: 'L'?pitaphe d'un Comn?ne ? Konia'
11th through the Fifteenth Century. Los Angeles Byzantion 10: 505-15

146