The Kipchak Connection: The Ilkhans, the Mamluks and Ayn Jalut

Author(s): Charles J. Halperin

Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 63,
No. 2 (2000), pp. 229-245
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1559539 .
Accessed: 26/01/2015 12:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Kipchakconnection:the Ilkhans,the
MamluksandAynJalut'
CHARLES J. HALPERIN
Bloomington,Indiana

In 1260 an army of Egyptian Mamluks, led by Sultan Qutuz, defeated a

Mongol army from the Ilkhanate led by Ketbugha, at the battle of Ayn Jalut
(Ain Jalut), 'Goliath's Well', in Palestine. Because this campaign marked the
furthest advance of the Mongols in the Middle East, scholars have paid
considerable attention to its military and political significance. However, one
potential aspect of Ilkhanid-Mamluk relations has only been mentioned casu-
ally; examination of the role and image of the Kipchaks in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries may illustrate a much broader feature of the history of
the Mongol Empire and its successor states.
Hindsight provided an excuse for scholars to attribute to this battle the
destruction of the myth of Mongol invincibility in the Middle East, a view
first propounded by D'Ohsson in 1834.2 Although this conclusion is still
occasionally repeated, it has no foundation in the sources.3 Indeed, the
Ilkhanids continued to invade Syria until 1312; it was only when the Mongols
in Iran had given up any hopes of conquering Syria that they could make
peace with the Mamluks in 1323.
Much scholarly discussion has focused on the question of why the Mongols
were defeated at Ayn Jalut, and why they persisted for half a century thereafter
in trying to reverse that defeat. John Masson Smith has argued that the
Mamluks were superior soldiers, better trained and equipped, true profes-
sionals, in contrast to the amateurish levees of the Mongol nomads. To Smith,
the question should not be why the Mongols lost, but why the Mamluks won.4
David O. Morgan insisted that in the long run the Mongols could not conquer
Syria for logistical reasons. Like Hungary, as argued by Denis Sinor,i Syria
lacked sufficient pastures to supply Mongol horses, as Hulegu himself stated
in an epistle to King St. Louis of France in 1262. In addition, as Bar Hebraeus,
quoted by Morgan, noted, the Mongols and their horses suffered greatly from
summer heat; Syria lacked even sufficient water for their needs.6 However
Morgan weakened his case, or at least his analogy, when he later observed
that the Mongols, the inadequate ecology of the Alfoldi notwithstanding,
wintered in Hungary, and signified their intention to stay there after Batu's
campaign by issuing coinage in Hungary. Despite questioning Sinor's statistics
as improbably precise, however, Morgan still endorsed his conclusion: Hungary
had attractive pastures, but not enough to provide for a sufficiently large

1My thanks to Professor Devin DeWeese for reading an earlier draft of this essay. All
remaining errors are my responsibility alone.
2 Constantin D'Ohsson, Histoire des
Mongols despuis Tchinguiz Khan jusqu'd Timour Bey ou
Tamerlin(Le Haye-Amsterdam: Les freres Van Cleef, 1834), III,342.
3I have dealt with the myth of Mongol invincibility in East Asia, Eastern Europe and the
Middle East in 'Russo-Tatar relations in Mongol context', Acta OrientaliaAcademiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae, 51/3 (1998), 325-35.
John Masson Smith, 'Ayn Jalut: Mamluk success or Mongol failure?' Harvard Journal of
Asiatic Studies, 44/2 (December 1984), 307-45.
5 Denis Sinor, 'Horse and pasture in Inner Asia', Oriens Extremis, 19 (1972), 181-2.
6 David O. Morgan, 'The Mongols and Syria, 1260-1300', in Peter W. Edbury (ed.), Crusade
and settlement. Papers read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades
and the Latin East and presented to R.C. Smail (Cardiff: Cardiff Press, 1985), 231-5.

? School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 2000

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
230 CHARLES J. HALPERIN

Mongol occupationarmy.' To Morgan,the failureof the Mongols to return

to Hungary suggests that they tempered their ambitions with geographic
commonsense.8PeterThoraure-examinedthe strategyandtacticsof the battle
of Ayn Jalut, disputingthe common descriptionof its outcome as the result
of a Mamlukambushof the Mongols.9EdmondSchiitzemphasizedthe geo-
politicalsignificanceof the respectiveMamlukand Ilkhanidhinterlandsas the
explanationof Mamlukfailureto hold Syriaand Palestine.For the Mongols,
these areas were too far away from Iran, the interveningterrainwas hostile
and inhospitable,and the Ilkhanidsfaced majorthreatson the north-western
and north-easternbordersfromthe JuchidGoldenHordeandthe Chagatayids.
By contrast, Egypt, the primarymanpowersource for Mamlukcampaigns,
was closerto Syria,faced,afterneutralizingthe Crusaderfortresses,no inhibi-
tions to movingtroopsnorthwardthroughfriendlyterritory,and borderedno
rival on its south. In short, the deck was stackedagainstthe Mongols.'o
Reuven Amitai-Preisshas recentlyprovidedthe most extensivestudy of
the battleand its long aftermathin Ilkhanid-Mamluk relations."Amitai-Preiss
disputesMorgan'semphasis logistics,evaluatingHulegu'sletterto St. Louis
on
as an ex post facto rationalization.Fully one-thirdof the Mongol armywas
comprisedof non-Mongols,mainlyArmeniansand Georgians,who wouldnot
have requiredpasturefor theirhorses;neitherwould Ilkhanidinfantry.Fields
and supplies would have supplementednatural pasturage.Campaigningin
winterwould have avoided the summerheat, and providedsnow for water;
moreover,rivers,not just rainfall,also suppliedneededwater. More import-
antly, and unlike the Hungarianscenario, the Mongols did make further
attemptsto invadeSyriaaftertheirdefeat.12Amitai-Preissalso disagreedwith
Smith'sassessmentof the relativefightingabilitiesof the two armies.According
to Amitai-Preiss,Smith has exaggeratedMamluksuperiorityand minimized
Mongoltraining,equipment,andtactics.3 Huleguhadledthe Mongolinvasion
of Syria which occupiedAleppo and Damascus.However, he withdrewthe
bulk of his forcesbeforethe invasionof Palestine,eitherto repositionthem to
defendAzerbaijanfrom the rival Golden Horde, or to back up any political
moves he might make in supportof KhubilaiagainstAriq Boke in the civil
war which had alreadybroken out and which would permanentlyfragment
the world Mongol Empire,or simplybecauseof bad intelligenceof the size of
the Mamlukrelief force en route from Egypt.'4It is clear that both in 1260
and later, holding Syriawas more importantto the Mamluksthan annexing
it was to the Ilkhans;for this reason,the EgyptianArabicsourcesdevotemuch
more attentionto the warfaretherethan do the IlkhanidPersianchronicles.15
This makessense:to the Ilkhanids,the defenceof Azerbaijanand the Caucasus
remainedthe higher,if not theirhighest,priority.Effortsto expandinto Syria
7 According to Juvaini, if the 'diviners' had allowed it, the Mongols would have returned to
attack Hungary. John Andrew Boyle, 'The Mongols in Europe', History Today, 9/5 (1959), 340,
reprinted in John Andrew Boyle, The Mongol World Empire 1206-1370 (London: Variorum
Reprints, 1977), Essay v.
8 David O. Morgan, The Mongols (Cambridge, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 139-41.
9 Peter Thorau, 'The battle of 'Ayn Jalut: a reexamination', in Edbury (ed.), Crusade and
settlement, 236-41.
'o Edmond Schiitz, 'The decisive motives of Tatar failure in the Ilkhanid-Mamluk fight in the
Holy Land', Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 45 (1991), 3-22.
"Reuven Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995). Mamluks.
12 ibid., 26-9, 225-9.
13 ibid., 214-25.
14 Peter Jackson, 'The dissolution of the Mongol Empire', Central Asiatic Journal, 22 (1978),
186-244 sees the Mamluk-Golden Horde alliance as signifying the dissolution of the Mongol
Empire, not the succession dispute.
Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks, 137.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE KIPCHAK CONNECTION 231

could only be undertakenwhenrepulsingthe Juchidsand Chagatayidsdid not

have first claim on Ilkhanid resources.Nevertheless,the Ilkhanidsdid not
willinglyor quicklyabandontheir pretensionsto Mamlukterritory.Amitai-
Preiss attributesthis stubbornand ultimatelyfutile Ilkhanidpursuitof Syria
to vestigial Mongol imperialideology. Before Ayn Jalut the Mamlukshad
executedMongolenvoys,a gravediplomaticoffencein the InnerAsianworld.'6
The defeatof Ayn Jalutitself criedout for revenge.The mandateto Chinggis
from Tengrito conquer all those who lived in felt tents remained,Amitai-
Preissconcludes,an importantelementof Ilkhanidculture,significantenough
to motivate antagonismagainst the Mamluks for 60 years. The 'Mongol
imperialidea of manifestdestiny', he argues,continuedto animateIlkhanid
policy towardsSyrialong afterAyn Jalut."7
The Kipchaks in Mongol ideology
Whileit is true that by 1260the expansionof the GrandMongol Empirehad
alreadyfar exceededits originaldivine mandate-the East Slavs, conquered
1237-40, certainlydid not dwellin felt tents--Amitai-Preissis certainlycorrect
that the IlkhanidssharedChinggis'slegacy. But Amitai-Preissalso mentions
anothermatterwhichinfusedIlkhanidanimusagainstthe Mamluks.Thereis
a letterfromHuleguto Qutuzpreservedin the ArabicMamlukhistoriography,
originallyin Ibn al-Furat and from there to Maqrizi.The letter, obviously
writtenby a Muslim,was couchedin Islamictermsand repletewith quotations
from the Quranwhich the non-MuslimHulegu could hardlyhave mustered.
Despite its Islamictinge, the epistleexpressedthe Chingissidtheory of divine
right to rule the world. Rebels would be destroyed,there was no escape,
resistancewas futile. But the beginningof the letter gave voice to another
theme. It describedal-Malik al-MuzaffarQutuz as 'of the race of mamluks
who fled before our sword into this country,who enjoyedits comforts and
then killed its rulers'. Amitai-Preissanalysesthis rhetoricas a denigrationof
Qutuz'sservileand refugeeorigins,and the methodby which he came to the
throne.18
Qutuzwas, of course,a refugeefromKhwarazm,a memberof a mercenary
contingent which had fled the Mongols; he is variously described as a
Turkman,19 Turkman or Ghuzz,20or Kipchak.2' There is no doubt that
16 Denis Sinor, 'Diplomatic practices in medieval Inner Asia', in C.E. Bosworth, Charles
Issawi, Roger Savory and A.L. Udovich, (ed.), The Islamic worldfrom classical to modern times:
essays in honor of Bernard Lewis (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1989), 339-47; Halperin, 'Russo-
Tatar relations in Mongol context', 322-50.
17 Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks, 8-11, 128, 229-35. Cf. Devin DeWeese, Islamization
and native religion in the Golden Horde: Baba Tiikles and conversion to Islam in historical and epic
tradition (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994), 521-2, 526-7 for some
remarks upon the emphasis in Inner Asian studies on the Imperial, and Chingissid, traditions.
18 Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks, 36. The full text of the letter and the accompanying
narrative of the Ayn Jalut campaign have been translated into English from Maqrizi in Bernard
Lewis (ed. and tr.), Islam. From the Prophet Muhammed to the capture of Constantinople. Volume
1: Politics and war (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 84-9, letter 84-5.
19 Herbert M. J. Loewe, 'The Mongols', in Cambridge Medieval History Iv (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1936), 643; James Ross Sweeney, ' "Spurred on by the fear of
death ": refugees and displaced population during the Mongol invasion of Hungary', in Michael
Gervers and Wayne Schlepp (ed.), Nomadic diplomacy, destructionand religionfrom the Pacific to
the Adriatic (Toronto Studies in Central and Inner Asia No. 1), (Toronto: Joint Centre for Asia
Pacific Studies, 1994), 36.
20A.N. 'Le caractere colonial de l'Etat mamelouk dans ses rapports avec le Horde
d'Or', Revue Poliak,,
des Etudes islamiques, 35/3 (1935), 237-8.
21 Yuri Bregel, 'Turko-Mongol influence on Central Asia', in Robert L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-
Persia in historical perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 59-60. According
to Robert Irwin, The Middle East in the middle ages: the early Mamluk Sultanate, 1250-1382
(Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986), 13, as much as half of the Khwarazm
shah's army were Kipchaks.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
232 CHARLES J. HALPERIN

Baybars, commander-in-chief for and successor of Qutuz, not to mention the

ringleader of his assassination, was a Kipchak, probably from the Burchogli
tribe.22Amitai-Preiss writes that Baybars could not have withstood the Ilkhans
without 'a constant influx of mamluks, the majority of whom came from
territory under the control of the Golden Horde'. Efforts by the Ilkhans to
interdict this trade, or even to prevent direct trade between Iran and Egypt,
failed.23 Kipchaks dominated the Egyptian Mamluk corps during the Bahri
period (1250-1382), and did not relinquish that pre-eminence to the Circassians
until after the disintegration of the Ilkhanate. Berke, Muslim khan of the
Golden Horde, permitted his fellow Muslim, Baybars, Mamluk Sultan of Egypt
and ally against the Ilkhanids, to purchase slaves in Juchid territory: 200 in
1262, 1,300 in 1263, and more in 1264.24Kipchak Turkic became the spoken
and literary language of the Mamluk military-political el1ite, all of whose
members, even if not of Kipchak or even Turkic origin, took Turkish names
to distinguish them from their Arabic-named subjects and children. Kipchaks
were not 'recruited' as eunuchs in Egypt. When a Mamluk Sultan wanted to
praise his Turkman auxiliaries, he called them 'pure Kipchaks'.25 The
Mamluks knew full well that it was the Mongol conquest of Western Eurasia
which created the conditions under which Egypt could purchase adolescent
males to become Mamluks, and adolescent females to become their wives,
from the Kipchak steppe. Amitai-Preiss quotes Nuwayri from 1332 as the
earliest Mamluk historian to articulate this consciousness. After describing the
previous difficulty the Ayyubids suffered in procuring Kipchak Turkish
Mamluks, he wrote: 'The [Mongols] fell upon [the Qipchaqs] and brought
upon them death, slavery and captivity. At this time, merchants bought [these
captives] and brought them to the [various] countries and cities. The first who
demanded many of them and made them lofty and advanced them in the army
was al-Malik al-Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub '.26 Other Mamluk sources highlight
the role of the Mongol invasions of western Eurasia in setting into effect a
chain of events which led to the creation of an Egyptian Mamluk army
comprised of peoples-Turkic, Mongol, and others-who had previously lived
under Mongol rule, in Central Asia and the Pontic-Caspian steppes.27 Even
though the army of Qutuz contained Turkmen, Beduins and Kurds, the
22 Peter B. Golden, An introductionto the history of the Turkicpeoples. Ethnogenesis and state-

formation in medieval and early modern Eurasia and the Middle East (Turcologia, Band 9),
(Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1992), 349.
23 Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks, 78-91, 207-11. Quotation from p. 85.
24
The later division within the Golden Horde between Nogai and Khan Toqtu, coupled with
a steppe drought, led to an increase in the availability of Kipchaks to be sold to the Mamluks.
Irwin, The Middle East, 88.
25 Poliak, 'Le caractbre colonial', 231-48 argued that the Egyptian Sultanate was a vassal, or
colony, of the Golden Horde, and that the dominance of Egypt by Kipchaks was a function of
that status. For a running refutation of his argument see David Ayalon, 'The Circassians in the
Mamluk Kingdom', Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 69 (1949), 135-47, reprinted in his
Studies on the Mamluks of Egypt (1250-1517) (London: Variorum Reprints, 1977), Essay IV. See
also David Ayalon, 'The Muslim city and the Mamluk military aristocracy', Proceedings of the
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2 (1968), 311-29, rpt. Studies on the Mamluks of
Egypt, Essay vII; Ayalon, 'Names, titles, "nisbas" of the Mamluks', Israel Oriental Studies, v
(1975), 193-8, rpt. in his The Mamluk military society. Collected studies (London: Variorum
Reprints, 1979), Essay Iv; Ayalon, 'The eunuchs in the Mamluk sultanate', in Studies in memory
of Gaston Wiet (Jerusalem, 1977), 273-4, rpt. The Mamluk military society, Essay ili; Ayalon,
'The auxiliary forces of the Mamluk Sultanate', Der Islam, 65 (1988), 16, rpt. in his Islam and
the abode of war. Military slaves and Islamic adversaries (London: Variorum Reprints, 1994),
Essay vii.
26Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks, 18.
27 David Ayalon, 'The Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A re-examination. The position of the
Yasain the Mamluk sultanate. C,', Studia Islamica, 36 (1972), 117-23, reprinted in David Ayalon,
Outsiders in the Land of Islam: Mamluks, Mongols and Eunuchs (London: Variorum Reprints,
1988), Essay Ivc.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE KIPCHAK CONNECTION 233

EgyptianMamlukswere dominatedby a Kipchakmilitaryand political61ite.

The 10,000or so Royal Mamluks,stationedin the Cairofortress,suppliedthe
majorgovernmentalofficialsas well as generals.AlthoughHulegu'sput-down
pointed directlyat Qutuz and not at the Mamluksin general,it would still
reflectthe abilityof Mongolintelligencegatheringto uncovervital information
about its foes. If Hulegu knew of Qutuz'sorigin, then the Ilkhanatesurely
knewthat Baybarsandthe majorityof the MamlukswereKipchaks.Therefore,
althoughsimilarallusionsto the Mamluks'ethnicitydid not apparentlyrecur
in any furtherexchangesof insultsbetweenthe Ilkhanateand Egypt, we can
still conclude that the Ilkhanidswould have perceivedthe Mamlukel1iteas
Kipchaks.And thereinlies a possibletale, sincethe Kipchaksand the Mongols
by 1260certainlyhad a definitehistory.
The Kipchaksbefore the Mongol Conquest
The Kipchaks,usuallycalledPolovtsyin East Slavicsources,Cumans/Kumans
in Latin and Greeksources,if they can all be consideredreferencesto a single
ethnos,28 constitutedone of the most widespreadTurkicpastoral nomadic
confederacies29 ever to occupythe Ponticand CaspianSteppes.Accordingto
Peter Golden they were 'one of the most importanttribal confederationsof
medievalEurasia,whoserepresentatives areto be foundeverywhere:Danubian
Europe, Byzantium,Ayyubidand Mamluk Syria and Egypt, Transcaucasia,
Rus', Xwarazmand CentralEurasia,India and China'."?Golden'sidentifica-
tion of the five main tribal or supratribalzones of the Kipchakstestifiesto
their dispersion:Central Asia-Kazakhstan;Volga-Ural river Mesopotamia;
Don river; Dniepr river; and Danubian.31Because of their predominantly
militaryroles,typicalof Turkicnomads,Irwintermsthe Kipchaksthe Ghurkas
of the MiddleAges.32
Beginningin the eleventhcentury,before the arrivalof the Mongols, the
Kipchaksengagedin an especiallywide varietyof intimatecontactswith the
Kievan Rus'. Tradeconsistedin the exchangeof Kipchakhorses, hides and
sheep for East Slavic furs, cloth, grain, slaves and artisanal goods.
Intermarriagereachedsuch proportionsamong the princelylines that some
twelfth-centuryprinces were literally seven-eighthsTurkic by blood. While
marriagesof Riurikidprincesto Kipchakwomen(who convertedto Orthodox
Christianity)were the norm, there was even one case of a Rus' princess
marryinga Kipchakleader.The nexus of allianceand warfareincludedboth
Kipchakaid to one East Slavicprinceagainstanother,and coalitionsof East
Slavic princesembarkingupon major campaignsinto the steppe againstthe
Kipchaks.The Kievansknewthe Kipchaktribesand clans,chieftainsand clan
eldersby name and geographiclocation.
Bilingualismcould be found on both sides of the steppe/sowndivide,
especiallyin Rus' princelyhouseholdswith Kipchakwomen,or on the frontier,
and createdconditionsconduciveto culturalexchange.Kipchak oral epics,

28 Peter B. Golden, 'The peoples of the South Russian

steppe', in Denis Sinor (ed.), The
Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 278,
concludes that in current scholarship the relationship of the Cumans to the Kipchaks remains
unclear.
29 Even the term 'confederation' implies a greater degree of unity among the Kipchak clan
and tribal groupings than actually occurred, but substituting 'supratribe' would not help
matters much.
30 Peter B. Golden, 'Cumanica I: The Qipiaqs and Georgia', ArchivumEurasia Medii Aevi, 4
(1984), 47.
3' Golden, 'The peoples of the South Russian steppe', 280.
32 Irwin, The Middle East, 17.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
234 CHARLES J. HALPERIN

notablythe tale of Otrokand the wormwood,found expressionin East Slavic

chronicles. The unsuccessfulcampaign of prince Igor Sviatoslavovichof
Novgorod-Severskof 1186 against the Kipchakswas commemoratedin the
famousepic, Slovoo polkuIgoreve.The Rus' copiedmilitaryweapons(swords,
taut bows) and horseaccoutrements(saddlesand stirrups)from the Kipchaks.
The Polovtsy were a major factor in the history of the Kievan Rus' for far
longerthan any otherTurkicor steppepeople.33
The Kipchakscould not remainentirelyoutsidethe Byzantineorbit.In the
eleventhcenturyEmperorAlexius ComnenusenrolledKipchaksas foederati
or hiredthemas mercenaries,and used themagainstthe Patzinaks(Pechenegs)
in 1091.He settledsome of them in the Balkans,and may have grantedsome
pronoia. Despite this alliance, the Kipchaks continued to attack Byzantine
Balkanterritorythroughthe 1160s.34
In the Caucasus,Kipchakinfluencewasno lessvisible.Davut'II of Georgia,
who was marriedto a Kipchak,invited Atrak (Otrok) and 40,000 warriors,
perhaps200,000-225,000people, to settle in Georgia,wherethey constituted
part of a regular standing army. Many Georgianizedand Christianized.
However,when the Rus' pressureon theirnativePonticsteppesrelaxed,many
returnedthere; later, others left for eastern Anatolia. In the later twelfth
century, under Queen T'amar, Kipchaks remainedprominentin Georgian
politics. Qubasarwas loyal to the Bagratiddynasty,and helpedGiorgi III to
put down a rebellionin 1177,whereasQutluArslan,the LordHigh Treasurer,
supportedthe aristocraticopposition.The GeorgianKipchakswho had not
returnedto the steppefought againstKipchakelementsservingrival Muslim
Caucasianstateletsin Azerbaijan.The Kipchakghulam Il-Dengis (1133-72)
even founded his own, albeit brief, dynasty, under Seljukoverlordship.The
twelfth-centuryAzerbaijanpoet al-Nizami had a Kipchak wife. All these
Kipchaksin the Caucasuswerelateroverrunby Jebeand Subudai,and by the
resurgentJalalad Din, beforebeingincorporatedinto the ChinggisidEmpire.
Some may have contributedto the formationof later Muslimpeoplesin the
Caucasus.Armeniansfleeing the Seljuksfounded a colony in the Crimea,
where they eventuallyadopted the Kipchak Turkic language and, in their
Polishand Ukrainianexile, left a rich Armeno-Kipchakliterature.35
Kipchaks also appeared in the history of Central Asia, specifically
33 For a summary with bibliography to date, see Charles J. Halperin, Russia
and the Golden
Horde: the Mongol impact on medieval Russian history (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press, 1985), 14-20. More recent bibliography includes S. A. Pletneva, Polovtsy (Leningrad:
Nauka, 1990), 66-70, 67, 92-3, 103-4 (mother of Bashkord was Rus), 144-5; Peter Golden,
'Aspects of the nomadic factor in the economic development of Kievan Rus' ', in I. S. Koropeckyj
(ed.), Ukrainian economic history. Interpretive essays (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ukrainian
Research Institute, 1991), 52, 65, 68, 71, 77-9, 83, 86, 97-101; Thomas S. Noonan, 'Rus',
Pechenegs, and Polovtsy: economic interaction along the steppe frontier in the pre-Mongol Era',
Russian History, 19/1-4 (1992), 301-26; 0. Pritsak, 'The Polovcians and Rus", ArchivumEurasiae
Medii Aevii, 2 (1982), 321-80; Peter B. Golden, 'Cumanica III: Urusoba', in Denis Sinor (ed.),
Aspects of Altaic civilizationim(Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, V. 145); (Bloomington,
IN: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1990), 33-46; Peter B. Golden, 'The peoples of
the south Russian steppe', 277-84; Peter B. Golden, 'The Qip'aqs of medieval Eurasia: an
example of stateless adaptation in the steppes', in Gary Seaman and Daniel Marks (ed.), Rulers
from the steppe: state formation on the Eurasian periphery (Los Angeles: Ethnographics Press,
University of Southern California, 1991), 132-57; Peter B. Golden, 'Cumanica. Iv: the tribes of
the Cuman-Qip aqs', ArchivumEurasiae Medii Aevii, 9 (1995-1997), 99-122.
34George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, tr. Joan Hussey (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1968), 366-7, 370; Irwin, The Middle East, 16; Omeljan Pritsak, 'Cumans', in
A. Kazhdan, (ed.), Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press,
1991), 1,563-4.'Cumanica
1 Golden, I', 50-86; Peter B. Golden, 'The Turkic peoples of the Caucasus', in
Ronald Grigor Suny (ed.), Transcaucasia.Nationalism and social change. Essays in the history of
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, Department of
Slavic Languages and Literatures, 1983), 59-61, 56 n. 37; Pletneva, Polovtsy, 140.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE KIPCHAK CONNECTION 235

Khwarazm,as objects of religious warfare or as political allies supplying

militaryaid, mercenariesor ghulams.The first mention of Kipchakscame in
1032, the last on the eve of the Mongol invasion, c. 1216. Eventuallytheir
centre,Sighnaq,was incorporatedinto the empireof the Khwarazmshah.The
Kipchaksattainedtheir greatestprominenceduringthe reignof Tekash(died
1200), the father of Muhammed,Khwarazmshah, who faced the wrath of
Chinggis.The Kipchaksper se impingedonly on the fringesof MuslimCentral
Asia, althoughas elementsof the Qanli confederationthey were to be found
even in the middleSyr Darya;the influenceof the Ghuzz far outweighedthat
of the Kipchaks.36
In the twelfthcenturyKipchakcontingentsenteredthe militaryserviceof
the Delhi sultanateas ghulams.They werejoined by more fellow Kipchaks
fleeing the Mongols. Supposedly30,000 Kipchaksfrom Afghanistanbriefly
ruledthe Delhi sultanate.37
A large contingentof Kipchaksunder Kotan, supposedly40,000 archers
(an exaggeration,perhaps;some lower estimatessay 17,000-20,000families),
fled the Mongols into Hungaryafter the Battle on the river Kalka in 1223,
wherethey becameembroiledin disputesbetweenKing Bela IV and his nobles,
and their herds rode roughshodover the peasants' agriculturalfields. This
infestation merely capped off prior Hungarian-Kipchakcontacts. In 1085
Salomon had marriedthe daughterof the KipchakPrince Kutesc and used
Kipchakaid to attackhis cousin, St. Ladislas.Salomonwas defeatedand the
Kipchaksdriven from the country. In 1219 Mstislav of Novgorod brought
Kipchakallies into his campaignagainstHungarian-ruled Halicz. Hungarian
missionarieshad long strivento convertthe Kipchaks.Theirfirst Provincial,
PaulusHungaricus,enduredmartyrdomfor his efforts.In 1227Archbishopof
EsztergomRobert baptized the Kipchak prince Barc, his son, and 15,000
people.Soon afterhis accessionBelaIV had takenthe title' King of Comania';
he had probablyhad close contactswith the Kipchaksof the lower Danubian
plain while still prince of Transylvania.The Kipchak immigrationhas left
manytoponymsandmuchfascinatingarchaeologicalevidenceof its presence.38
More Kipchaksfled to the Byzantineempire in the wake of the Kalka
disaster.TheodoreLascaris,Emperorof Nicea, settledsome in Asia Minor.39
The firstcontactbetweenthe Mongolsand the Kipchakscreatedbad blood
betweenthem. The reconnaissancein force of Jebe and Subudai,whichbroke
throughthe Caucasus,encountereda joint force of Kipchaksand Alans. The
Mongols invoked their common nomadic heritageto suborn the Kipchaks
away from the Kipchak-Alanalliance, promisingto give the Kipchaks the
spoils after defeatingthe Alans. The Kipchaks,for the first and last time,
believedthe Mongol propagandaand broke off, permittingthe Mongols to
quash the Alans. Unfortunatelyfor the Kipchaks,the Mongols, instead of
keepingtheir promise,then turnedon the Kipchaks.The defeatedKipchaks
fled,and eventuallymadea secondalliancewith the KievanRus'. The Mongols
tried anothervariantof the same divide-and-conquer ploy, tellingthe Kievan
princes:
36W. Barthold, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion (fourth ed.; Philadelphia: Porcupine
Press, 1977), 179, 296, 320, 328, 330, 340-1,..342-4, 349, 356-8, 369-71.
37 Peter B. Golden, 'Cumanica II: The Olberli (Olperli):
the fortunes and misfortunes of an
Inner Asian nomadic clan', ArchivumEurasiae Medii Aevi, 8 (1986) [1988], 26-8.
38 Denis Sinor, History of Hungary (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1959), 66-7;
Andras
Paloczi-Horvath, Pechenegs, Cumans, lasians: steppe people in medieval Hungary (Budapest:
Corvina, 1989), 39-61, 68-119; Laszlo Makkai, 'Chapter IV. Transformation into a Western-type
State, 1196-1301', in Peter Sugar (ed.), A history of Hungary (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1990), 25.
39Irwin, The Middle East, 17.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
236 CHARLES J. HALPERIN

We hear that you are coming against us, having listened to the Polovtsy,
and we have no designs on your land, nor your cities, nor your villages,
and we are not marching against you. We come only at God's will against
our slaves (kholopy) and our cattle-herders (koniusy), the pagan Polovtsy.
And you should make peace with us; if they run to you, you can defeat
them and have their goods. Because we have heard that they have done
much evil to you, for which we will defeat them.
Burnt once by this diplomatic gambit, the Kipchaks did not permit the East
Slavs to become its victims. Instead, they persuaded the East Slavs to murder
the Mongol envoys, thus guaranteeing war, which eventuated in the Mongol
victory which sent refugee Kipchaks into Hungary and elsewhere.40 The
Kipchaks thus bore the burden of guilt for executing Mongol envoys. More
importantly, this text establishes that even before the Mongols and the
Kipchaks had properly been introduced, the Mongols had already subsumed
them under the rubric of 'all those who live in felt tents ', which they were, of
course. Therefore, by the decision of Tengri the Mongols felt entitled to treat
the Kipchaks as their slaves, despite the disingenuous, to say the least, fraternal
sentiments expressed on the eve of a possible Kipchak/Alan battle.
Moreover, we have further confirmation of this Mongol claim that the
Kipchaks should be subordinate to the Mongols, and that anyone who aided
the Kipchaks to avoid this fate ipso facto became enemies of the Mongols.
This confirmation comes from a message from Batu to King Bela IV of
Hungary, preserved in the epistle to the bishop of Perouse, apostolic legate in
Hungary, by a Hungarian Dominican missionary, Julian, who had visited the
Pontic steppe and ran into Mongols in 1237. Batu excoriated Bela for giving
sanctuary to the Kipchaks, the Mongols' slaves (Comanos servos nostros sub
tua protectione suscepisti). In Sinor's summary, 'The reason for Mongol griev-
ances was also plainly stated: the asylum given by Bela to the Comans, fleeing
before the Mongols'. According to the Mongol ultimatum, only if Bela
'returned' the fugitive Kipchaks to their rightful rulers could he spare his
kingdom a Mongol invasion.41

The KipchaksunderMongol rule

While the Mongols did not permanently occupy Hungary, their conquest of
the Kipchak demographic heartland, the Pontic and Caspian steppes, exercised
a profound and ultimately decisive influence upon the Kipchaks' later fate.
The Mongols altered some previous processes of Kipchak history. According
to Khazanov, the Mongols terminated the gradual transformation of the
Kipchak economy to an agricultural, cattle-breeding complex with a semi-
sedentary way of life, which had begun in the twelfth century.42The adoption
of East Slavic Orthodox Christianity and agriculture were long viewed in
Russian historiography as evidence of the influence of 'superior' East Slavic
culture over that of the nomads. The Mongols rewrote the ethnic map of
central and western Eurasia, virtually extinguishing the independent existence
40On the Tale of the Battle on the river Kalka, see Charles J. Halperin, The Tatar Yoke
(Columbus, OH: Slavica Press, 1986), 26-34. The quotation is from A.N. Nasonov (ed.),
Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis' starshego i mladshego izvodov (Moscow-Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo
Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1950), p. 62 (complete tale pp. 61-3).
41 Denis Sinor, 'Un voyageur du treizieme siecle: le Dominican Julien de Hongrie', BSOAS,
14 (1952), 591, 593-5; reprinted in Denis Sinor, Inner Asia and its contacts with medieval Europe
(London: Variorum Reprints, 1977), Essay xi; Sinor, History of Hungary, 66.
42 A.M. Khazanov, 'Characteristic features of nomadic communities in the Eurasian steppe',
in Wolfgang Weissleder (ed.), The nomadic alternative. Modes and models of interaction in the
African-Asian deserts and steppes (The Hague: Mouton, 1978), 121.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE KIPCHAK CONNECTION 237

of Kipchakclans and tribes. Accordingto Schamiloglu,Mongol population

transfersresultedin the replacementof Volga Bolgar, closer to the Chuvash
language,with KipchakTurkiclanguagescloserto Bashkir,Kazakh,Kirghiz,
and Noghay, in the MiddleVolga,whichcame to predominateand ultimately
led to the formationof the modernKazan'Tatarlanguage.43Bartholdwrote
that the Kipchaksceased to be heard of 'as a people' (kak narodbol'shene
upominaetsia)after the Mongol conquest.44However,the Kipchaksdid not
disappearthat quicklyor without trace. In the short run, they continuedto
exist in their homeland;in addition,the Mongol conquestcreated,in Irwin's
again apt phrasing,a (new and bigger)KipchakDiaspora.45
It is easy to overlooktwo facets of the disintegrationof Kipchaksociety:
first, it did not take place overnight,so that groups of Kipchaksremained
autonomous,or at least self-conscious,duringthe remainderof the thirteenth
century,even when underdirectMongol rule. Indeed,DeWeesespeaksof the
'growingconsciousnessof the assimilationand common identity among the
nomadic population' of the Juchid ulus, the lack of separateMongol and
Kipchakethnic loyalties, evidencedby the attributionto Idigu (Edigei) of a
decree forbiddingTatarsto sell their childrenas slaves, thus decreasingthe
numberof slaves in Egypt and Syria. Even if this prohibitionis ascribedto
khanJani-Bekas an Islamizingmeasure,it illustratesthe durabilityof Kipchak
ethnic separatismin the Golden Horde well into the second half of the four-
teenthcentury,if not the turnof the fifteenthcentury.46Second,some Kipchak
elementshad fled, escapingdirect Mongol rule, temporarilyor permanently
and, to one degreeor another,remainedactive, if secondary,playerson the
political scene. The Kipchak confederacyhad never risen to the level of a
nomadicempire,no 'KipchakKhanate' everexisted,47and the widelydistrib-
uted Kipchak subclans,clans and tribes never co-ordinatedtheir activities,
before or after the Mongol incursions.Nevertheless,over a broad expanseof
territory,Kipchaks remainedhighly visible in the second half of the thir-
teenthcentury.
During the Mongol invasion of Hungary,the presenceof Kipchaksin
Batu's army further inflamedpopular and noble Hungarianopposition to
Kotan and his people. Kotan, compromisedas well by previousties to anti-
Hungarian East Slavic princes, was murdered,which led the Hungarian
Kipchaksto revolt,plunderthe regionsof Hungaryin whichthey had settled,
and flee to the lowerDanubianplainin Bulgaria.Afterthe departureof Batu's
army,Bela boughttheirreturnto repopulateand defendhis ravishedrealmin
part by marryinghis son StephenV to Kotan's daughter.Many Kipchaks
resettledin Hungary.They enjoyed royal privilegesand rights, which were
much resented,and were supposedto convertto Catholicism.But their con-
tinued paganism,the interestof Kipchak men in Hungarianwomen, which
could not be reciprocatedby Hungarianmenwho found Kipchakwomenugly,
and the incursionof Kipchakherdsonto Hungarianfarmland,led to continued
tensions and problems.Yet again some Kipchaks emigratedin the 1280s.
StephenV's half-Kipchakson LadislasIV the Cumaninfuriatedmuch of his
43 Uli Schamiloglu, 'The formation of a Tatar historical consciousness: $ihabaddin Marcani
and the image of the Golden Horde', Central Asiatic Survey, 9/2 (1990), 41.
44 V.V. Bartol'd
(W. Barthold), 'Kipchaki', Sochineniia v (Moscow: Nauka, 1968), 551 (from
a contribution to the Encyclopedia of Islam).
45Irwin, The Middle East, 17.
46 DeWeese, Islamization and native
religion, 339-40; Pletneva, Polovtsy, 186, dates the effective
completion of Mongol assimilation of the Kipchaks to the middle of the fourteenth century.
The absence of a 'Kipchak Khanate' of Kipchaks motivates my reservations at using that
term to describe the Juchid ulus, in preference to the anachronistic term the 'Golden Horde'. The
East Slavic sources for the Mongol period never reference a 'polovetskoe tsarstvo'.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
238 CHARLES J. HALPERIN

countryby his preferencefor Kipchakways. Fleeinghis libertineand domin-

eeringKipchakmother,he moved in with her Kipchakrelatives,dressedlike
a Kipchakand marrieda Kipchakbeautyin a pagan ceremony-or at least
took heras his mistress(to scandalizedCatholics,prettymuchthe samething).
Oppositionto LadislasIV led to his eventualassassinationby Kipchaks,either
as a defensivemove or as hiredhitmen.As freementhe Kipchakscould bear
arms,whichthey used to supportthe King, who in turn defendedtheirrights
and libertiesagainstHungarianaristocratsandlandlordswho wantedto reduce
them to servilestatus,a battle the Kipchakslaterlost. Kipchakscontinuedto
fight as separateunits in the Hungarianarmy through the thirteenthand
fourteenthcenturies,before assimilatingand disappearing.However, from
1260 on, they seem mostly to have been employed against other Catholic
CentralEuropeanrulers.Thereweresome GoldenHorderaidsinto Hungary,
but no major hostilitiesbetweenthe Juchidsand the renegadeKipchaks.In
the fourteenthcentury the HungarianKipchaks did fight fellow Kipchaks
allied with voivode Basarabaof Wallachia;on the other hand, in 1284 the
Hungarianking called in Kipchakaid againsthis own people. Obviouslythe
Kipchakscontributedto the anarchyand disorderin the realm, which was
primarilydrivenby the antagonismbetweenthe King and his nobles.48
OtherrefugeeKipchakgroupingsplayeda majorrole in the historyof the
Balkansin the thirteenthcentury.The Asenid and perhapsTerteriddynasties
of the SecondBulgarianEmpirewereof Kipchakorigin.Kipchaksin Bulgaria
reinforcedthe aristocracy,formedthe cuttingedge of the Bulgarianarmy,and
remainedvisibleand active.Bulgariapaid tributeto Nogai of the Juchidulus,
whose son Chaku married into the Bulgarianhouse and briefly ruled it.
MercenaryKipchaksand TatarsdefendedBulgariaagainst the Ottomans.49
Greg Rogers has speculatedthat there is a connectionbetweenthe Kipchak
presencein Bulgaria,which includeddirect refugeesfrom the Pontic steppe
and double-refugeesfrom Hungary,and the salientfact that Bulgariawas the
only countryin east centralEuropefrom which the Mongols did not entirely
withdrawafter the great Europeancampaignof 1241-42; Bulgariaremained
tributary.50
Other Kipchaks turned again to Byzantiumfor employment.John III
Vatatzesreputedlysettled 10,000refugeeKipchaksin Thraceand Macedonia
in the Balkans,and in Asia Minor,as soldier-farmers(stratiotai).MichaelVIII
PaleologusemployedKipchakmercenariesin defeatingthe Latinsat Pelagonia
in 1259in orderto recoverConstantinoplefrom the Latin Empirecreatedby
the FourthCrusade,despitean unfortunateexperiencein 1256when Kipchaks
had desertedthe Byzantineson the field of battle and switchedsides to the
Bulgarians.5'
Most Kipchaksbecamethe subjectsof the Mongol Empirein the Eurasian
steppes.We know somethingabout theirassimilationby the Mongols52in the
GoldenHorde,whichoccupiedthe Kipchakheartland,the Ponticand Caspian
steppes.During the fourteenthand fifteenthcenturiesthe Mongols gradually
'turkicized',adoptingthe Kipchaklanguage.Contemporarieswerequite well
48
Sinor, History of Hungary, 68-81; Makkai, 'Transformation', 31.
49 Charles J. Halperin, ' Bulgars and Slavs in the First Bulgarian Empire: a reconsideration of
the historiography', ArchivumEurasia Medii Aevi, 3 (1983), 199-200.
50Greg Rogers, 'An examination of historians' explanations for the Mongol withdrawal from
east Central Europe', East European Quarterly, 30/1 (1996), 21-2.
5 Ostrogorsky, History, 442; Pritsak, 'The polovcians and Rus',' i: 563-4; Irwin, The Middle
East, 16-7.
52 Perhaps 'Mongols' would be preferable here; I am using 'Mongol' as a political, not ethnic,

term, to encompass all Mongol and Turkic peoples integrated into Batu's invasion force and
occupation 'army'.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE KIPCHAK CONNECTION 239
aware of the ethnic continuityin the west Eurasiansteppe,and continuedto
designatethat zone as the Desht-i Kipchak,the Kipchaksteppe.The Mongols
had encounteredseriousoppositionfromthe Kipchaks,amongothers,prepar-
atoryto launchingtheircampaignsagainstthe East Slavsand EasternEurope;
they surelywantedto ensurethat they neverfaced such problemsagain.53For
this reason, or as part of their habitualsocial engineeringin the steppe, the
Mongols restructuredthe Kipchak tribes, relocatingthem from their native
haunts to unfamiliarareas, reconstitutingthem into new militaryand later
tribal groupings with Mongol names.54During the thirteenthcentury the
Kipchaksstill retaineda good deal of their ethnic identity and language.A
synaxarionfrom Sudak in the Crimeadiscriminatedbetween Kipchak and
Tatar(= Mongol) convertsto OrthodoxChristianityas late as the secondhalf
of the fourteenthcentury.55Indeed, as we have alreadyseen, the Kipchaks
remainedsufficientlydifferentiatedfrom the Mongols for the Juchidsto sell
Kipchaksinto slaveryto their EgyptianMamlukally.
There were Kipchaksin the Chagatayidulus,althoughthey wereneveras
numerousas they werefurtherwest in the Juchidrealm.Accordingto Beatrice
Forbes Manz, there were a fairly large numberof Kipchakemirs in Timur's
service,but thereare few referencesto the Kipchaktribe which,perhapsas a
subjecttribe,does not seemto havepossessedits ownterritory.56 As Khwarazm
fluctuatedbetween Juchid and Chagatayidrule, more Kipchaks might fall
under Chagatayidrule. It is difficultto tell if the presenceof the ethnonym
'Kipchak' among the later Bashkirs,Uzbeks, Kazakhs and Karakalpaks,
reflectsethniccontinuityof genuinelyKipchakelements.57It is not surprising
that Babur, the Timurid who wrote his autobiographyat the end of the
fifteenthand the beginningof the sixteenthcenturiesas he lost CentralAsia
to the Uzbeks and foundedthe MughalEmpirein Egypt, shouldoccasionally
mention Kipchakamirs,the Kipchaktribe, a KipchakRoad in Afghanistan,
a KipchakPass, and a KipchakGate in Herat in Khorasan.58
The Mongolstypicallyemployedsubjectpeoplesfar awayfromtheirnative
habitats, and it was standardoperatingprocedureto incorporatesubjected
nomadicpeoplesinto the 'Mongol' armies.Therefore,it is not surprisingthat
Kipchaks appearedvery early, even after their initial encounterwith the
Mongols, in Mongolia.Subudai,accordingto the Yiianshi, was accompanied
back from the reconnaissancewhich culminatedin the battle on the river
Kalka, by Kipchaks,who he incorporated,with the permissionof Chinggis,
into a new, special,corps with Merkitsand Naimans.59Kipchaksappeared,
accordingto Juwainiand Rashidal-Din, in Karakorumin the reignof Ogodei.

53 Thomas T. Allsen, 'Prelude to the Western campaign: Mongol military operations in the
Volga-Ural region, 1217-1237', ArchivumEurasiae Medii Aevi, 3 (1983), 5-24.
54On this process, see the two classic studies of G. A. Fedorov-Davydov, Obshchestvennyi
stroi Zolotoi Ordy (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1973), and Kochevniki
VostochnoiEvropy pod vlast'iu zolotoordynskikh khanov: Arkheologicheskiepamiatniki (Moscow:
Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta, 1986).
55 Istvin Visary, 'Orthodox Christian Qumans and Tatars of the Crimea in the 13th and 14th
centuries', Central Asiatic Journal, 32 (1988), 260-71.
56 Beatrice Forbes Manz, The rise and rule of Tamerlane(Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989), 163.
5' Khazanov, 'Characteristic features of nomadic communities', 123; K. Shanijazov, 'Early
elements in the ethnogenesis of the Uzbeks', in The Nomadic Alternative, 147, 150-1; R.G.
Kuzeev, 'Historical stratification of generic and tribal names and their role in the ethnogenetic
study of Turkic peoples of Eastern Europe, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia', in ibid., 161-3.
Wheeler M. Thackston (ed. and tr.), The Baburnama:memoirs of Babur,prince and emperor
(New York: Oxford University Press; Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, the
Smithsonian Institute, 1996), 44-5, 63, 168, 288, 280.
59E. Bretschneider, Medieval researchesfrom eastern Asiatic sources (London: K Paul, Trench,
Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1910), Vol. I, 298.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
240 CHARLES J. HALPERIN

An obviously 'pagan' Kipchak paid with his life for denouncing a Muslim to
Ogodei for slaughtering a sheep in the Islamic manner, presumably forbidden
at that time. Ogodei was said to enjoy watching wrestlers, including Kipchaks,
Mongols and Khitans. Finally, Tolui's son Qutuqtu possessed a Kipchak
concubine, Buta Egechi.60
Kipchaks were widely employed in China under the Mongols. Most were
recruited in the 1220s and 1230s, but their descendants resided in China and
retained their Kipchak identity. Even relying only upon Chinese sources, de
Rachewiltz identified numerous prominent Kipchaks, mostly generals, in YOan
service. His statistics, chronologically, illustrate the continuing presence of
Kipchaks in China. From c. 1200-59, he found four Kipchaks, of whom one
was a darugachi (governor); 1260-94, 12, including three darugachi;uncertain
dating from 1280-1330, 13, with four darugachi; 1295-1368, 15, with eight
darugachi; no data, 16; for a total of 60 Kipchaks, including 16 darugachi.61
At the very minimum, these data establish that the Kipchak contribution to
the Yuan did not diminish over the entire history of that dynasty in China. In
1286 the Kipchak Guard regiment was formed. Tugh Tugha, of whom more
in a moment, was entitled to make soldiers of all Kipchaks serving as slaves
but, according to the Yiianshi, he exceeded his mandate and took many plain
people as well. This accusation indicates that rank-and-file Kipchaks in China
included both slaves and civilians. A 'Seal of the Kipchak Battalion of the
Imperial Army', with inscriptions in Mongolian in 'Phags-pg script and in
Chinese, was discovered in north-eastern Inner Mongolia in an ancestral home-
land of the M1iongolsand the site of cities founded by Chinggis Khan's brothers
and descendants. By 1322 the Kipchak Guard regiment comprised 35 chilia-
rchies, and was divided into Right and Left Kipchak regiments, with eighteen
and ten chiliarchies respectively. These units were assigned teachers of
Confucianism and Mongolian script. In 1328 the General Commandery of the
Lung-I Attendant and Imperial Army was formed from Kipchak Turks, to
which in 1330 nine chiliarchies from the Left Kipchak Guards were transferred.
These three regiments were also assigned land for agricultural colonies. Not
surprisingly, individual Kipchaks rose to positions of great prominence under
the Ytian. Tugh Tugha proposed the creation of ethnic armies in China,
including Kipchaks, Karlukh and Kangli. He became commander of the
Kipchak Guards, a position inherited by his son Chonggur. A second son
Temur-Buga also made a career. Chonggur's son El-Temur greatly eclipsed
both his father and grandfather. He became khan-maker and iminence grise,
masterminding the coups which determined the dynastic succession in 1308
and 1328-30; as sole chancellor, he was the most powerful man in China after
the Emperor. The suppression of the Kipchak court clique in 1335 might have
ended El Temur's ascendency, but not the Kipchak presence in China. Indeed,
as late as 1397 Ming decrees specifically permitted the Chinese to marry
Kipchaks, described as blue-eyed blondes, and tried to regulate un-Chinese
Kipchak marriage customs, such as the levirate, suggesting that as an ethnic
group Kipchaks survived the overthrow of the Ytian.62According to the YiMan
60John Andrew Boyle (tr.) Al Juwaini, The history of the World Conqueror (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1958 [reprint Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997]), Vol. I,
206-7; John Andrew Boyle (tr.), Rashid al-Din, The successors of Genghis Khan (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1971), 78, 89, 312.
61 Igor de Rachewiltz, 'Turks in China under the Mongols: a preliminary investigation of
Turco-Mongol relations in the 13th and 14th centuries', in Morris Rossabi (ed.), China among
equals: the Middle Kingdom and its neighbors, O10th-14thcenturies (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1983), 285, 289, 290-1.
62Golden,' Cumanica II ', 8-12; David M. Farquhar, Thegovernmentof ChinaunderMongolian
Rule. A reference guide (Miinchener ostasiatische Studien, Band 53), (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner,

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE KIPCHAK CONNECTION 241

shi biographyof Tugh Tugha,black mare'smilk (kumiss)was importedfrom

the Kipchak steppe to the Mongol court in China because of its especially
pleasant taste.63

TheKipchaksandtheIlkhanate
Therefore,when the Ilkhanidsencountereda largelyKipchakMamlukpower
in Egyptand Syria,the effectmusthave been similarto that of wavingmultiple
red flags at an alreadyenragedbull. The Kipchakswere themselvessupposed
to be Mongol slaves; by definitiontheir opposition to Mongol sovereignty
constituted rebellion. Above and beyond that, these Kipchaks derived, if
involuntarily,fromthe GoldenHorde,the Ilkhans'fiercestand fraternalrival.64
The Ilkhanate'sMongolssurelyrecognizedin the MamlukKipchaksthe same
peoplewho constitutedthe bulkof the GoldenHorde'smanpower.The Ilkhans
also knewthemas militaryauxiliariesof Ilkhanidvassalstatesin the Caucasus.
The Ilkhanate'smajor Catholic contacts were with the Crusaderstates and
their sponsorsincludingthe Papacy,not with Hungary,and the Ilkhanate's
primaryBalkanneighbourwas Byzantiumbecauseof its role in Asia Minor
and as a conduit of Golden Horde/Mamlukcommunication.It is therefore
not very likely that the IlkhanidMongols would have been even peripherally
aware of the Kipchak presencein Hungary and the Balkans. Ilkhan-Yiian
relations were particularlyfavourableat this time, since Hulegu supported
KhubilaiagainstAriq Boke and the Ilkhansrecognized,at least symbolically,
their dependenceon the Yiian Khagan.Ilkhanidsretainedfiefs in China and
MongoliaunderYiiancontrol;senttribute;andin returnreceivedambassadors,
Nestorian monks and Chinggisidprincesses.Despite the distancesinvolved,
therefore,the extensiverelationsbetweenthe Ilkhansand the Yiuancreatethe
very real possibilitythat the Ilkhansknew of the role of Kipchaksin China
as well.The loyaltyof Kipchaksto the Mongolsuccessorstatesonlyhighlighted
the effrontery of the Egyptian Mamluk Kipchaks in opposing Ilkhanid
expansion.
Two additionalfactorscomplicatedMamluk-Ilkhanate relationssomewhat.
First, regardlessof the fact that the Mongols wereportrayed,then as now, as
infideldestroyersof Islam,the Mamluksrespectedthe Ilkhanateand borrowed
Mongol institutionsand customs.Unfortunately,the strongestcase for such
influencewas made in two articlesby Poliak,65who is describedby Ayalonas
a 'misguidedgenius',66 So it is necessaryto separatehistoricalfact fromfantasy
on the topic. Poliak substantiatedhis theory that the MamlukSultanatewas
a vassal of the Golden Horde by assertingthat Baybar'sson was namedfor

1990), 272-3; Adam T. Kessler, Empires beyond the Great Wall. The heritage of Genghis Khan
(Los Angeles: Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, 1993), 165, 167 fig. 114; Henry Serruys,
'Remains of Mongol customs in China during the Early Ming', M6langes chinois et bouddhiques,
16 (1957), 184 n. 132; ibid., The Mongols in China during the Hung-wu period (1368-1398)
(Brussels: L'Institut Belge des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1959 = M~langes chinois et bouddhiques,
V. 11 [1956-1959]), 55 n. 61, 172-5. Bretschneider, Medieval researches, V. II, 72, cited a passage
from the Chinese annals Kang mu sub anno 1237 that the Kipchaks had blue eyes and red hair.
Pletneva, Polovtsy, 179-88 surveys the fate of the Kipchaks after the Mongol conquest, but
does not mention Kipchaks in China.
63 Bretschneider, Medieval researches, I, 94 n. 244.
64 Sultan al-Nasir Muhammed ibn Qalawun
(1310-41) even managed briefly to marry a Juchid
Chingissid princess, Tulubiyya, after a series of unsuccessful missions to the Golden Horde to
seek a bride. Irwin, The Middle East, 108.
65 Poliak, 'Le caract're colonial ', 231-48; N.A. Poliak, 'The influence of Chingiz Khan's Yasa
upon the general organization of the Mamluk State', BSOAS, 10 (1940-1942), 862-76.
66 David Ayalon, 'Regarding population estimates in the countries of medieval Islam', Journal
of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 28 (1985), 16, reprinted in Ayalon, Outsiders in
the Land of Islam, essay v.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
242 CHARLES J. HALPERIN

Berke Khan of the Golden Horde, his maternal grandfather, that the Mamluk
Sultan bore the title 'Khan', and that the Khan of the Golden Horde sent
reinforcements to Egypt. These claims and much more must be rejected. If
Berke Khan's name was read in the Friday khutba in Cairo and elsewhere, this
was temporary, a diplomatic courtesy during embassies and negotiations, and
in any event Baybar's name came first. Baybar's son was named after a
Khwarazmian and was the only Mamluk Sultan to use the title 'Khan'. The
Golden Horde reinforcements were either refugee Juchid troops who escaped
to Egypt, or Ilkhanid defectors, to which we will return.67On the other hand,
Ayalon rejects the opposite extremist position, by Tyan, that since the Mongols
never occupied Egypt and ruled Syria only briefly, there could have been no
Mongol influence on the Mamluks at all.68
Sultan Baybars was, it appears, a great admirer of the Mongols. It was he
who supposedly copied many Mongol institutions and customs. But Ayalon
expresses great scepticism in this regard. He concedes the borrowing only of
drinking kumiss, eating horsemeat,69using tent-mosques, and wearing certain
types of Mongol dress. That the Sultanate copied its mounted postal service,
the Barid, from the Mongol jam, Ayalon considers not conclusively shown.
The Mamluks may have borrowed the tarkhan, a grant of fiscal and judicial
immunity (often with a land grant, iqta), from the Ilkhanate; in an exceptional
case, an Ilkhanate envoy to the Mamluks received tarkhan grants from both
sides. However, Ayalon emphasizes the significant changes in tarkhan after its
importation. Eventually the Mamluks characterized the Mongols, 'Tatars', as
another branch of the same Turkic race as the Kipchaks.70
After scrupulous study of the references in Mamluk sources to the Yasa of
Chingiz Khan, Ayalon has seriously revised his previous attitude toward several
famous passages which emphasized Mongol influence on the Sultanate.
Al-Maqrizi, a late Mamluk source (1364-1442), railed that the Mamluk cham-
berlains in his own time were trying civilians on matters which should have
fallen within the purview of Muslim religious law, Sharl'a, on the basis of the
Satanic, oppressive and forbidden Yasa of Chingiz Khan, which contradicted
Sharl'a and should never have been consulted at all. Poliak, and earlier Ayalon,
had lent credence to the notion that disputes among the Mamluks themselves
were judged, without complaint, on the basis of the Yasa. Ayalon now doubts
that anyone in the Sultanate had access to the Yasa in any language or script,
and considers this passage a rhetorical excess against real administrative aggres-
sion by the chamberlains against the qadis, which had nothing at all to do
with the Yasa.71Similarly, Ayalon discounts the evidence of al-Taghribirdithat
67
Among other places, see Ayalon's fullest critique of Poliak in David Ayalon, 'The great
Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A re-examination. The position of the Yasa in the Mamluk Sultanate.
C1', Studia Islamica, 36 (1972), 136-56, reprinted in Ayalon, Outsiders in the Land of Islam,
Essay Ivc.
68Ayalon, 'The great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A re-examination. Al-Maqrizi's passage on the
Yasa under the Mamluks (C2)', 120 n. 2.
69 Did youths raised as Kipchaks in the Pontic and Caspian steppe need to 'borrow' the
custom of drinking kumiss and eating horseflesh? I owe this query to Devin DeWeese.
70 David Ayalon, 'Studies on the structure of the Mamluk army', BSOAS, 16 (1954), 68-9,
rpt. Studies on the Mamluks of Egypt, Essay I; Ayalon, 'The Muslim City', 323-4; Ayalon, 'On
one of the works of Jean Sauvaget', Israel Oriental Studies, I (1971), 300-1, rpt. The Mamluk
military society, Essay vii; Ayalon, 'Discharges from service, banishments and imprisonment in
Mamluk Society', Israel Oriental Studies, 2 (1972), 29-33, rpt. The Mamluk military society,
Essay v; Ayalon, 'The European-Asiatic Steppe: a major reservoir of power for the Islamic
world', Proceedings of the 25th Congress of Orientalists (Moscow, 1960), V. ii (Moscow, 1963),
47-52, rpt. The Mamluk military society, Essay VIII;Ayalon, 'The Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan.
A re-examination. The position of the Yasa in the Mamluk Sultanate. C1', 130-6.
71 For this passage, David Ayalon, 'The Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A re-examination. The
basic data in the Islamic sources on the Yasa and its contents', Studia Islamica, 33 (1971), 97-140,
especially 105-6, reprinted in Ayalon, Outsiders in the land of Islam, Essay Iva; refutation of

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE KIPCHAK CONNECTION 243

Utamysh(Aitamysh,of whommore below)judgedhis bodyguardon the basis

of the Yasa,becauseit is a distortedplagiarismfromal-Safadi,who wrotethat
Utamysh read not the Yasa,but the biographyof Chinggis.72It is instructive
in this connectionto note that the only MuslimMongol rulerreported,in an
unfortunatelylate source,even to recognizea contradictionbetweenMongol
and Muslimreligiouslaw, was the ChagatayidTarmashirinKhan.73In corres-
pondencewith IlkhanAbaghain 1269,Baybarshimselfassertedthe superiority
of the Mamluks'Yasa,here obviouslya referenceto Sharifa,over the Yasaof
ChinggisKhan whichAbaghahad extolled.74ThereforeAyalondismisseseven
the possibilityof the influenceof the Yasain the Sultanate,except perhaps
ephemerallyand superficially.Furtherresearchmay uncoverwhy late Mamluk
historians had such a penchant for baseless interpolationsof extravagant
attributionsof Mongol influenceto the early Mamluks,especiallysince, as
Ayalon points out, by the time those Mamlukhistorianswrote, the Ilkhanate
had fallen on very hard times.75
Secondly,therewere Mongolsin MamlukEgypt.These includedMongols
in the Mamlukcorps, that is Mongols who had been bought as non-Muslim
slaves or prisoners-of-warand then co-optedinto the 61ite.They were valued
for their linguisticskills or intelligenceinformation,but they had no impact
upon the ethnic or culturalidentity of the corps. For example,Aitamys, a
Mongol slavepurchasedas a Mamluk,becauseof his familiaritywith Mongol
language,customs,andpolitics,was sent as an Egyptianenvoyto the Ilkhanate
in the first three decadesof the fourteenthcentury.Little has identifiedfour
Mongol Mamlukswho knew 'Tatar', which might mean Mongol, Kipchak
Turkic,or both, and servedas 'Mongol' interpreters.This foursomedid not
exhaustall Mongol-speakers,however.76On the whole, Mamluksof Mongol
al-Maqrizi, Ayalon, 'The Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A re-examination. Al-Maqrizi's passage
on the Yasa under the Mamluks (C2)', Studia Islamica, 38 (1973), 107-27, reprinted in Ayalon,
Outsiders in the Land of Islam, Essay Ivd.
72 Ayalon, 'The great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A re-examination. Al-Maqrizi's passage on the
Yasa under the Mamluks (C2)', 131-40. Even in Mongol, what 'biography' of Chinggis Khan
could someone have read in the Middle East at this time? Surely not the 'Secret History'! Even
in the Ilkhanate Rashid al-Din was not permitted to read the Altan Debter; could Utemysh in the
Sultanate have had access to a text even Rashid al-Din was denied? (On the Altan Debter as
distinct from the 'Secret History' see Morgan, The Mongols, 11-2.) The version of Chingiz's
origin preserved in Ibn ad-Dawadari smacks of oral transmission: see Ulrich Haarmann,
'"Grosser Vater Mond" und "Schwarzer Ldwenjunge"--eine mongolisch-kiptschakische
Ursprungssage in arabischer Iberlieferung', in Stephan Conermann and Jan Kusber (ed.), Die
Mongolen in Asien und Europa (Kieler Werkstifcke, Reihe F: Beitrage zur osteuropaischen
Geschichte, Band 4), (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997), 121-38.
7 David Ayalon, 'The great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A re-examination. The attitude of the
Mongols, and particularly of the Mongol Royal family, to the Yasa', Studia Islamica, 34 (1971),
178-80, rpt. Outsiders in the Land of Islam, Essay Ivb.
74 Ayalon, 'The great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A re-examination. Al-Maqrizi's passage on the
Yasa under the Mamluks (C2)', 129-30.
75 Donald Presgrave Little, An introduction to Mamluk historiography. An analysis of Arabic
annalistic and biographical sources for the reign of al-Malik an-Nasir Muhammed ibn Qala'un
(Freiburger Islamstudien, Band II), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1970), 118-36, especially
127-8, argues for the mutual penetration via 6migres of influences and institutions between the
Sultanate and the Ilkhanate, as testified by the traffic of those very same migrants. Irwin, The
Middle East, 52-3, takes a position closer to Ayalon's later views, as does Peter Thorau, The Lion
of Egypt: Sultan Baybars I and the Near East in the Thirteenthcentury (tr. P.M. Holt), (London:
Longman, 1992), 256-8, 261. Thorau, The Lion of Egypt, 103-105, does not even mention a
possible Mongol source for the postal system (Barid), which he sees as a revival of earlier Muslim
institutions.
76 The four included Qusun, who arrived in Cairo in 1330 and died 1349, and assumed
responsibility for correspondence with the Golden Horde; he may have been more of a Juchid
official on detached duty than an 6migre; but did not include the amir Qipgaq, who was also
fluent in Mongol but chose not to work as a translator. Donald P. Little, 'Notes on Aitamys, a
Mongol Mamluk', in U. Haarmann and Peter Bachmann (ed.), Die Islamische Welt zwischen
Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Festschrift fiir Hans Robert Roemer zum 65. Geburtstag (Beirut: Franz
Steiner, 1979), 387-401, reprinted in Little, History and historiographyof the Mamluks (London:

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244 CHARLES J. HALPERIN

origin were decided rareties. More numerous were tribal Mongols who sought
asylum in Egypt. The first Mongols to enter Egypt were contingents sent by
Berke, khan of the Golden Horde, to aid Hulegu; when war broke out between
the two Mongol khanates, Berke instructed those of his troops who could to
flee, and some succeeded in reaching Egypt. Under Baybars, 200 Mongol
horses arrived in 1282, more than 1,300 in 1283 and more in 1284. A total of
3,000 Mongols entered Egypt during Baybars' reign. After that, the rate
slackened off, 19 in 1304, 300 in 1313. Irwin calls Badr ad-Din Janbala in 1303
the last great Mongol immigrant; he became an Amir of 100, and his daughter
married the sultan's son. A few of these Mongols entered the Royal Mamluks,
but the great majority did not. The Mongols were esteemed higher than
Turkmans, Kurds, or beduin as free auxiliaries; many settled in Cairo, many
served Mamluk amirs, many intermarried with the Mamluks, but most were
assigned to the halqa, a military unit of lower status because its members had
not entered Egypt as infidel slaves who were then converted to Islam and
trained as Mamluks. The halqa, as well as service to amirs, did not create
many opportunities for advancement to rival those of Mamluks of the sultan.
But apparently from the Mongols who did enter the Royal Mamluks came an
Oirat Sultan, Kitbugha. In 1317 Turghay, son-in-law of Hulegu, led either
10,000 or 18,000 Oirats to Egypt and was warmly greeted and favoured by
Kutbugha. Many Mamluks married Oirat women. But these Oirats were not
slaves, and the Mamluks resented Kutbugha's favouritism. When Kutbugha
attempted to accord Oirat chieftains equal status with Mamluk amirs, the
Mamluks reacted, first, in part for this reason, by overthrowing Kutbugha,
and then repressing Turghay's revolt, executing him and his chieftains. No one
could be permitted to threaten the principles of Mamlukdom. When 16 Mongol
commanders defected to the Sultanate they were assigned to the Palestinian
coast, far from the centre of power in Cairo, and never heard from again. A
few more crossed the border during periods of famine in Ilkhanid territory.
Mongols rarely rose higher than Amir of 40, but after the numeric threat of
Turghay's Oirats had passed, some even made it to Amir of 100. But Mongols
who entered the Sultanate as freemen or Muslims, barring subterfuge (which
did happen in other cases), could not become Mamluks, and therefore could
not progress to membership of the 61ite,which remained, during the period of
Mamluk-Ilkhanid warfare, overwhelmingly Kipchak.77Indeed, it is difficult to
distinguish among Kipchaks and other Turks, Turkicized Mongols, and 'pure'
Mongols among the slaves purchased in Golden Horde territory to become
Mamluks.78 Ayalon concluded that the later Mamluk historians exaggerated
both the numbers and influence of Mongol immigrants to Egypt, part and
parcel of their dubious views of the utilization of the Yasa in the Sultanate.
The Ilkhanate would probably have been indifferent to Mamluk borrowing
of Mongol institutions. The presence of Mongol emigrants in Egypt could
only have exacerbated relations between the two states.79 However, no matter

Variorum Reprints, 1986), Essay vI. (Pages 399-400 strike me as inconsistent with Little's views
on Mongol influence on the Mamluks cited in the previous note.)
" David
Ayalon, 'The Wafidiya in the Mamluk Kingdom', Islamic Culture (Hyderabad,
1951), 89-104, rpt. Studies on the Mamluks of Egypt, Essay ii (this article contains another
running refutation of Poliak's theory that the Mamluks were vassals of the Golden Horde); Irwin,
The Middle East, 108.
78 David Ayalon, 'The Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A re-examination. The position of the
Yasa in the Mamluk Sultanate. C1', 117-30.
79 There was also a smaller flow of Mamluks to the pre-Islamic Ilkhanate; David Ayalon,
'The Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A re-examination. The position of the Yasa in the Mamluk
Sultanate. C1', 136 n. 1. See Little, 'Notes on Aitamy ', 100-36, for a biography of Qarasunqur,
who supposedly introduced Mamluk institutions into the Ilkhanate; Irwin, The Middle East, 66,

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE KIPCHAK CONNECTION 245
how many Mongols served the Egyptian Mamluk Sultans, the Mamluk
Kipchaksretainedtheirvirtualmonopolyon powerwhilethe Ilkhanateexisted,
and the Mamlukface whichmet the IlkhanidMongols in battlein Syriawas
decidedlyKipchak.
The Ilkhanatedid not persistin tryingto conquerSyriabecauseits rulers
wereKipchakMamluks.But this phenomenoncertainlywould have provided
a rationalefor doing so which resonatedwith elementsof Mongol imperial
ideology, and probably contributed to the stubbornnesswith which the
Ilkhanidsrefusedto concedethat they lackedthe abilityto bring Syriaunder
their control. Finally, the Kipchakconnectionin Mamluk-Ilkhanidrelations
throwsinto focus the pervasiveinfluenceof the Kipchaks,aftertheirconquest
by the Mongols, upon the fates of other Eurasianpeoples from China to
Hungary.When the Mongols mobilizedthe vast Kipchakpopulationat the
imperiallevel, whichthe Kipchakshad neverdone on theirown, in some ways
they magnifiedKipchak militaryand political influenceacross the Eurasian
steppewithinand withoutthe Pax Mongolica.How ironicthat Kipchaks,who
providedthe excusefor invadingthe East Slavicterritoriesand Hungary,who
providedtroops and cadres for the Juchidsand the Yiian, should also have
suppliedthe militarymuscleto stop the Ilkhanidsfromfurtherexpansioninto
the MiddleEast.
99-101, 106 on Sunqar, a Mamluk captive who married a Mongol girl, Qipjaq, who defected,
fought the Mamluks for the Mongols, and later re-defected, and Qarasunqur.

This content downloaded from 193.255.248.150 on Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:40:20 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions