At the straits leading into the Great Sea, on the west side, there is a hill called the Faro.—But since beginning on this matter I have changed my mind, because so many people know all about it, so we will not put it in our description, but go on to something else. And so I will tell you about the Tartars of the Ponent, and the lords who have reigned over them.
The first lord of the Tartars of the Ponent was Sain, a very great and puissant king, who conquered Rosia and Comania, Alania, Lac, Menjar, Zic, Gothia, and Gazaria; all these provinces were conquered by King Sain. Before his conquest these all belonged to the Comanians, but they did not hold well together nor were they united, and thus they lost their territories and were dispersed over divers countries; and those who remained all became the servants of King Sain.{1}
After King Sain reigned King Patu, and after Patu Barca, and after Barca Mungletemur, and after Mungletemur King Totamangul, and then Toctai the present sovereign.{2}
Now I have told you of the Tartar kings of the Ponent, and next I shall tell you of a great battle that was fought between Alau the Lord of the Levant and Barca the Lord of the Ponent.
So now we will relate out of what occasion that battle arose, and how it was fought.
Note 1.—✛The Comanians, a people of Turkish race, the Polovtzi [or “Dwellers of the Plain” of Nestor, the Russian Annalist] of the old Russians, were one of the chief nations occupying the plains on the north of the Black Sea and eastward to the Caspian, previous to the Mongol invasion. Rubruquis makes them identical with the Kipchak, whose name is generally attached to those plains by Oriental writers, but Hammer disputes this. [See a note, pp. 92–93 of Rockhill’s Rubruck.—H. C.]
Alania, the country of the Alans on the northern skirts of the Caucasus and towards the Caspian; Lac, the Wallachs as above. Menjar is a subject of doubt. It may be Májar, on the Kuma River, a city which was visited by Ibn Batuta, and is mentioned by Abulfeda as Kummájar. It was in the 14th century the seat of a Franciscan convent. Coins of that century, both of Majar and New Majar, are given by Erdmann. The building of the fortresses of Kichi Majar and Ulu Majar (little and great) is ascribed in the Derbend Nameh to Naoshirwan. The ruins of Majar were extensive when seen by Gmelin in the last century, but when visited by Klaproth in the early part of the present one there were few buildings remaining. Inscriptions found there are, like the coins, Mongol-Mahomedan of the 14th century. Klaproth, with reference to these ruins, says that Majar merely means in “old Tartar” a stone building, and denies any connection with the Magyars as a nation. But it is possible that the Magyar country, i.e. Hungary, is here intended by Polo, for several Asiatic writers of his time, or near it, speak of the Hungarians as Majár. Thus Abulfeda speaks of the infidel nations near the Danube as including Aulák, Majárs, and Serbs; Rashiduddin speaks of the Mongols as conquering the country of the Bashkirds, the Majárs, and the Sassan (probably Saxons of Transylvania). One such mention from Abulghazi has been quoted in note 2 to ch. xxii.; in the Masálak-al-Absár, the Cherkes, Russians, Aas (or Alans), and Majar are associated; the Majar and Alán in Sharifuddin. Doubts indeed arise whether in some of these instances a people located in Asia be not intended.[1] (Rubr. p. 246; D’Avezac, p. 486 seqq.; Golden Horde, p. 5; I. B. II. 375 seqq.; Büsching, IV. 359; Cathay, p. 233; Numi Asiatici, I. 333, 451; Klaproth’s Travels, ch. xxxi.; N. et Ex. XIII. i. 269, 279; P. de la Croix, II. 383; Rein. Abulf. I. 80; D’Ohsson, II. 628.)
[“The author of the Tarikh Djihan Kushai, as well as Rashid and other Mohammedan authors of the same period, term the Hungarians Bashkerds (Bashkirs). This latter name, written also Bashkurd, appears for the first time, it seems, in Ibn Fozlan’s narrative of an embassy to the Bulgars on the Volga in the beginning of the 10th century (translated by Fraehn, ‘De Bashkiris,’ etc., 1822).... The Hungarians arrived in Europe in the 9th century, and then called themselves Magyar (to be pronounced Modjor), as they do down to the present time. The Russian Chronicler Nestor mentions their passing near Kiev in 898, and terms them Ugry. But the name Magyar was also known to other nations in the Middle Ages. Abulfeda (ii. 324) notices the Madjgars; it would, however, seem that he applies this name to the Bashkirs in Asia. The name Madjar occurs also in Rashid’s record. In the Chinese and Mongol annals of the 13th century the Hungarians are termed Madja-rh.” (Bretschneider, Med. Res. I. pp. 326–327.)—H. C.]
Zic is Circassia. The name was known to Pliny, Ptolemy, and other writers of classic times. Ramusio (II. 196 v) gives a curious letter to Aldus Manutius from George Interiano, “Della vita de’ Zychi chiamati Circassi,” and a great number of other references to ancient and mediæval use of the name will be found in D’Avezac’s Essay, so often quoted (p. 497).
Gothia is the southern coast of the Crimea from Sudak to Balaklava and the mountains north of the latter, then still occupied by a tribe of the Goths. The Genoese officer who governed this coast in the 15th century bore the title of Capitanus Gotiae; and a remnant of the tribe still survived, maintaining their Teutonic speech, to the middle of the 16th century, when Busbeck, the emperor’s ambassador to the Porte, fell in with two of them, from whom he derived a small vocabulary and other particulars. (Busbequii Opera, 1660, p. 321 seqq.; D’Avezac, pp. 498–499; Heyd, II. 123 seqq.; Cathay, pp. 200–201.)
Gazaria, the Crimea and part of the northern shore of the Sea of Azov, formerly occupied by the Khazars, a people whom Klaproth endeavours to prove to have been of Finnish race. When the Genoese held their settlements on the Crimean coast the Board at Genoa which administered the affairs of these colonies was called The Office of Gazaria.
Note 2.—The real list of the “Kings of the Ponent,” or Khans of the Golden Horde, down to the time of Polo’s narrative, runs thus: Batu, Sartaḳ, Ulagchi (these two almost nominal), Barka, Mangku Timur, Tudai Mangku, Tulabugha, Tuktuka or Toktai. Polo here omits Tulabugha (though he mentions him below in ch. xxix.), and introduces before Batu, as a great and powerful conqueror, the founder of the empire, a prince whom he calls Sain. This is in fact Batu himself, the leader of the great Tartar invasion of Europe (1240–1242), whom he has split into two kings. Batu bore the surname of Sain Khan, or “the Good Prince,” by which name he is mentioned, e.g., in Makrizi (Quatremère’s Trans. II. 45), also in Wassáf (Hammer’s Trans. pp. 29–30). Plano Carpini’s account of him is worth quoting: “Hominibus quidem ejus satis benignus; timetur tamen valde ab iis; sed crudelissimus est in pugnâ; sagax est multum; et etiam astutissimus in bello, quia longo tempore jam pugnavit.” This Good Prince was indeed crudelissimus in pugnâ. At Moscow he ordered a general massacre, and 270,000 right ears are said to have been laid before him in testimony to its accomplishment. It is odd enough that a mistake like that in the text is not confined to Polo. The chronicle of Kazan, according to a Russian writer, makes Sain succeed Batu. (Carpini, p. 746; J. As. sér. IV. tom. xvii. p. 109; Büsching, V. 493; also Golden Horde, p. 142, note.)
Batu himself, in the great invasion of the West, was with the southern host in Hungary; the northern army which fought at Liegnitz was under Baidar, a son of Chaghatai.
According to the Masálak-al-Absár, the territory of Kipchak, over which this dynasty ruled, extended in length from the Sea of Istambul to the River Irtish, a journey of 6 months, and in breadth from Bolghar to the Iron Gates, 4 (?) months’ journey. A second traveller, quoted in the same work, says the empire extended from the Iron Gates to Yughra (see p. 483 supra), and from the Irtish to the country of the Nemej. The last term is very curious, being the Russian Niemicz, “Dumb,” a term which in Russia is used as a proper name of the Germans; a people, to wit, unable to speak Slavonic. (N. et Ex. XIII. i. 282, 284.)
[“An allusion to the Mongol invasion of Poland and Silesia is found in the Yuen-shi, ch. cxxi., biography of Wu-liang-ho t’ai (the son of Su-bu-t’ai). It is stated there that Wu-liang-ho t’ai [Uriangcadai] accompanied Badu when he invaded the countries of Kin-ch’a (Kipchak) and Wu-la-sz’ (Russia). Subsequently he took part also in the expedition against the P’o-lie-rh and Nie-mi-sze.” (Dr. Bretschneider, Med. Res. I. p. 322.) With reference to these two names, Dr. Bretschneider says, in a note, that he has no doubt that the Poles and Germans are intended. “As to its origin, the Russian linguists generally derive it from nemoi, ‘dumb,’ i.e., unable to speak Slavonic. To the ancient Byzantine chroniclers the Germans were known under the same name. Cf. Muralt’s Essai de Chronogr. Byzant., sub anno 882: ‘Les Slavons maltraités par les guerriers Nemetzi de Swiatopolc’ (King of Great Moravia, 870–894). Sophocles’ Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100: ‘Nemitzi’ Austrians, Germans. This name is met also in the Mohammedan authors. According to the Masálak-al-Absár, of the first half of the 14th century (transl. by Quatremère, N. et Ext. XXII. 284), the country of the Kipchaks extended (eastward) to the country of the Nemedj, which separates the Franks from the Russians. The Turks still call the Germans Niemesi; the Hungarians term them Nemet.”—H. C.]
It was in the year 1261 of Christ’s incarnation that there arose a great discord between King Alau the Lord of the Tartars of the Levant, and Barca the King of the Tartars of the Ponent; the occasion whereof was a province that lay on the confines of both.{1}
⚜ (They exchange defiances, and make vast preparations.)
And when his preparations were complete, Alau the Lord of Levant set forth with all his people. They marched for many days without any adventure to speak of, and at last they reached a great plain which extends between the Iron Gates and the Sea of Sarain.{2} In this plain he pitched his camp in beautiful order; and I can assure you there was many a rich tent and pavilion therein, so that it looked indeed like a camp of the wealthy. Alau said he would tarry there to see if Barca and his people would come; so there they tarried, abiding the enemy’s arrival. This place where the camp was pitched was on the frontier of the two kings. Now let us speak of Barca and his people.{3}
Note 1.—“Que marcesoit à le un et à le autre;” in Scotch phrase, “which marched with both.”
Note 2.—Respecting the Iron Gates, see vol. i. p. 53. The Caspian is here called the Sea of Sarain, probably for Sarai, after the great city on the Volga. For we find it in the Catalan Map of 1375 termed the Sea of Sarra. Otherwise Sarain might have been taken for some corruption of Shirwán. (See vol. i. p. 59, note 8.)
Note 3.—The war here spoken of is the same which is mentioned in the very beginning of the book, as having compelled the two Elder Polos to travel much further eastward than they had contemplated.
Many jealousies and heart-burnings between the cousins Hulaku and Barka had existed for several years. The Mameluke Sultan Bibars seems also to have stimulated Barka to hostility with Hulaku. War broke out in 1262, when 30,000 men from Kipchak, under the command of Nogai, passed Derbend into the province of Shirwan. They were at first successful, but afterwards defeated. In December, Hulaku, at the head of a great army, passed Derbend, and routed the forces which met him. Ábáká, son of Hulaku, was sent on with a large force, and came upon the opulent camp of Barka beyond the Terek. They were revelling in its plunder, when Barka rallied his troops and came upon the army of Ábáká, driving them southward again, across the frozen river. The ice broke and many perished. Ábáká escaped, chased by Barka to Derbend. Hulaku returned to Tabriz and made great preparations for vengeance, but matters were apparently never carried further. Hence Polo’s is anything but an accurate account of the matter.
The following extract from Wassáf’s History, referring to this war, is a fine sample of that prince of rigmarole:
“In the winter of 662 (A.D. 1262–1263) when the Almighty Artist had covered the River of Derbend with plates of silver, and the Furrier of the Winter had clad the hills and heaths in ermine; the river being frozen hard as a rock to the depth of a spear’s length, an army of Mongols went forth at the command of Barka Aghul, filthy as Ghúls and Devils of the dry-places, and in numbers countless as the rain-drops,” etc. etc. (Golden Horde, p. 163 seqq.; Ilchan. I. 214 seqq.; Q. R. p. 393 seqq.; Q. Makrizi, I. 170; Hammer’s Wassáf, p. 93.)
⚜ (Barca advances with 350,000 horse, encamps on the plain within 10 miles of Alau; addresses his men, announcing his intention of fighting after 3 days, and expresses his confidence of success as they are in the right and have 50,000 men more than the enemy.)
⚜ (Alau calls together “a numerous parliament of his worthies”[1] and addresses them.)
⚜ (Description of the Battle in the usual style, with nothing characteristic. Results in the rout of Barca and great slaughter.)
You must know there was a Prince of the Tartars of the Ponent called Mongotemur, and from him the sovereignty passed to a young gentleman called Tolobuga. But Totamangu, who was a man of great influence, with the help of another Tartar King called Nogai, slew Tolobuga and got possession of the sovereignty. He reigned not long however, and at his death Toctai, an able and valiant man, was chosen sovereign in the place of Totamangu. But in the meantime two sons of that Tolobuga who was slain were grown up, and were likely youths, able and prudent.
So these two brothers, the sons of Totamangu, got together a goodly company and proceeded to the court of Toctai. When they had got thither they conducted themselves with great discretion, keeping on their knees till Toctai bade them welcome, and to stand up. Then the eldest addressed the Sovereign thus: “Good my Lord Toctai, I will tell you to the best of my ability why we be come hither. We are the sons of Totamangu, whom Tolobuga and Nogai slew, as thou well knowest. Of Tolobuga we will say no more, since he is dead, but we demand justice against Nogai as the slayer of our Father; and we pray thee as Sovereign Lord to summon him before thee and to do us justice. For this cause are we come!”{1}
(Toctai agrees to their demand and sends two messengers to summon Nogai, but Nogai mocks at the message and refuses to go. Whereupon Toctai sends a second couple of messengers.)
Note 1.—I have not attempted to correct the obvious confusion here; for in comparing the story related here with the regular historians we find the knots too complicated for solution.
In the text as it stands we first learn that Totamangu by help of Nogai kills Tolobuga, takes the throne, dies, and is succeeded by Toctai. But presently we find that it is the sons of Totamangu who claim vengeance from Toctai against Nogai for having aided Tolobuga to slay their father. Turning back to the list of princes in chapter xxiv. we find Totamangu indeed, but Tolobuga omitted altogether.
The outline of the history as gathered from Hammer and D’Ohsson is as follows:—
Noghai, for more than half a century one of the most influential of the Mongol Princes, was a great-great-grandson of Chinghiz, being the son of Tatar, son of Tewal, son of Juji. He is first heard of as a leader under Batu Khan in the great invasion of Europe (1241), and again in 1258 we find him leading an invasion of Poland.
In the latter quarter of the century he had established himself as practically independent, in the south of Russia. There is much about him in the Byzantine history of Pachymeres; Michael Palaeologus sought his alliance against the Bulgarians (of the south), and gave him his illegitimate daughter Euphrosyne to wife. Some years later Noghai gave a daughter of his own in marriage to Feodor Rostislawitz, Prince of Smolensk.
Mangu- or Mangku-Temur, the great-nephew and successor of Barka, died in 1280–81 leaving nine sons, but was succeeded by his brother Tudai-Mangku (Polo’s Totamangu). This Prince occupied himself chiefly with the company of Mahomedan theologians and was averse to the cares of government. In 1287 he abdicated, and was replaced by Tulabugha (Tolobuga), the son of an elder brother, whose power, however, was shared by other princes. Tulabugha quarrelled with old Noghai and was preparing to attack him. Noghai however persuaded him to come to an interview, and at this Tulabugha was put to death. Toktai, one of the sons of Mangku-Temur, who was associated with Noghai, obtained the throne of Kipchak. This was in 1291. We hear nothing of sons of Tudai-Mangku or Tulabugha.
Some years later we hear of a symbolic declaration of war sent by Toktai to Noghai, and then of a great battle between them near the banks of the Don, in which Toktai is defeated. Later, they are again at war, and somewhere south of the Dnieper Noghai is beaten. As he was escaping with a few mounted followers, he was cut down by a Russian horseman. “I am Noghai,” said the old warrior, “take me to Toktai.” The Russian took the bridle to lead him to the camp, but by the way the old chief expired. The horseman carried his head to the Khan; its heavy grey eyebrows, we are told, hung over and hid the eyes. Toktai asked the Russian how he knew the head to be that of Noghai. “He told me so himself,” said the man. And so he was ordered to execution for having presumed to slay a great Prince without orders. How like the story of David and the Amalekite in Ziklag! (2 Samuel, ch. i.).
The chronology of these events is doubtful. Rashiduddin seems to put the defeat of Toktai near the Don in 1298–1299, and a passage in Wassáf extracted by Hammer seems to put the defeat and death of Noghai about 1303. On the other hand, there is evidence that war between the two was in full flame in the beginning of 1296; Makrizi seems to report the news of a great defeat of Toktai by Noghai as reaching Cairo in Jumadah I. A.H. 697 or February–March, 1298. And Novairi, from whom D’Ohsson gives extracts, appears to put the defeat and death of Noghai in 1299. If the battle on the Don is that recounted by Marco it cannot be put later than 1297, and he must have had news of it at Venice, perhaps from relations at Soldaia. I am indeed reluctant to believe that he is not speaking of events of which he had cognizance before quitting the East; but there is no evidence in favour of that view. (Golden Horde, especially 269 seqq.; Ilchan. II. 347, and also p. 35; D’Ohsson, IV. Appendix; Q. Makrizi, IV. 60.)
The symbolical message mentioned above as sent by Toktai to Noghai, consisted of a hoe, an arrow, and a handful of earth. Noghai interpreted this as meaning, “If you hide in the earth, I will dig you out! If you rise to the heavens I will shoot you down! Choose a battle-field!” What a singular similarity we have here to the message that reached Darius 1800 years before, on this very ground, from Toktai’s predecessors, alien from him in blood it may be, but identical in customs and mental characteristics:—
“At last Darius was in a great strait, and the Kings of the Scythians having ascertained this, sent a herald bearing, as gifts to Darius, a bird, a mouse, a frog, and five arrows.... Darius’s opinion was that the Scythians meant to give themselves up to him.... But the opinion of Gobryas, one of the seven who had deposed the Magus, did not coincide with this; he conjectured that the presents intimated: ‘Unless, O Persians, ye become birds, and fly into the air, or become mice and hide yourselves beneath the earth, or become frogs and leap into the lakes, ye shall never return home again, but be stricken by these arrows.’ And thus the other Persians interpreted the gifts.” (Herodotus, by Carey, IV. 131, 132.) Again, more than 500 years after Noghai and Toktai were laid in the steppe, when Muraview reached the court of Khiva in 1820, it happened that among the Russian presents offered to the Khan were two loaves of sugar on the same tray with a quantity of powder and shot. The Uzbegs interpreted this as a symbolical demand: Peace or War? (V. en Turcomanie, p. 165.)
⚜ (They carry a threat of attack if he should refuse to present himself before Toctai. Nogai refuses with defiance. Both sides prepare for war, but Toctai’s force is the greater in numbers.)
⚜ (The usual description of their advance to meet one another. Toctai is joined by the two sons of Totamangu with a goodly company. They encamp within ten miles of each other in the Plain of Nerghi.)
⚜ (The whole of this is in the usual formula without any circumstances worth transcribing. The forces of Nogai though inferior in numbers are the better men-at-arms. King Toctai shows great valour.)
⚜ (The deeds of Nogai surpass all; the enemy scatter like a flock, and are pursued, losing 60,000 men, but Toctai escapes, and so do the two sons of Totamangu.)
And now ye have heard all that we can tell you about the Tartars and the Saracens and their customs, and likewise about the other countries of the world as far as our researches and information extend. Only we have said nothing whatever about the Greater Sea and the provinces that lie round it, although we know it thoroughly. But it seems to me a needless and useless task to speak about places which are visited by people every day. For there are so many who sail all about that sea constantly, Venetians, and Genoese, and Pisans, and many others, that everybody knows all about it, and that is the reason that I pass it over and say nothing of it.
Of the manner in which we took our departure from the Court of the Great Kaan you have heard at the beginning of the Book, in that chapter where we told you of all the vexation and trouble that Messer Maffeo and Messer Nicolo and Messer Marco had about getting the Great Kaan’s leave to go; and in the same chapter is related the lucky chance that led to our departure. And you may be sure that but for that lucky chance, we should never have got away in spite of all our trouble, and never have got back to our country again. But I believe it was God’s pleasure that we should get back in order that people might learn about the things that the world contains. For according to what has been said in the introduction at the beginning of the Book, there never was a man, be he Christian or Saracen or Tartar or Heathen, who ever travelled over so much of the world as did that noble and illustrious citizen of the City of Venice, Messer Marco the son of Messer Nicolo Polo.