Out of the Cage: The other side of Tamerlane
On rainy sunday morning, i have came across with this article written by Khairy Jamuluddin in the New Sunday Times dated 1/10/2006. I personally regard the article to be very interesting and it provided me with something new that never came to my acknowledgement previously. It tells the historically event and life pertaining one of the greatest muslim conqueror, king and army commander - TAMERLANE. I think there is no harm to share this article with you out there. Well it is quit lengthy though yet it is worth to be read. Now enjoy your reading as it should be...
HE was the last of the great conquerors of the world. He walked in the lineage of those with names that echo throughout history — Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan.Arguably he achieved much more than them in terms of geopolitical reach, military prowess and personal strength. But his life remains in the shadows of history.Even his name as recorded in the annals of Western literature is unglamorous — Tamerlane, derived from the Persian moniker Timur-e- Lang which means Timur the Lame. Lame because an injury to his right leg early in his life made it shorter than the left, leaving him with a pronounced limp. But lame he wasn’t on the battlefield.His military campaigns and conquests between 1370 and 1405 stretched from east of the Karakorum range (the present day border between China and Pakistan), across the Indus river to Delhi, to the Bosphorus covering all of the Ottoman lands and everything in between.He was a Muslim and didn’t hesitate to use the banner of Islam when it suited him. He conquered lands in the name of Islam riding under the standard of a crescent moon.Yet, he also rooted himself in customary laws of Genghis Khan, staking his claim as a spiritual if not biological heir of the great Mongol.Timur was responsible for some of the most wicked atrocities in history, leaving behind his trademark towers of human skulls amid the ash and debris of once-great cities plundered and crushed by his hordes. He did this to strike fear in the hearts of those who might dare to oppose him and to send a message to those that may try to resist his advance that it was far better to surrender than to face the his wrath in conquest.His military genius and traits of terror aside, Timur was a thoughtful intellectual who delighted in the company of scholars.He may have ruled with an iron fist but he respected and rewarded men of letters, something that has eluded many tyrants throughout history who think their ideas to be the best. His capital in Samarkhand was a centre of culture and learning with Timur as a despotic yet benevolent patron.No less an intellectual than Ibn Khaludn came away from his meeting with Timur with a profound respect for "one of the greatest and mightiest of kings".The success that met Timur in almost every battle he waged is testament to his brilliance as a leader of men.He knew that it would not be easy to retain the loyalty of nomadic tribes under his command. Only by keeping his men busy with raids and by equitably dividing the spoils of war could he continue to motivate those beneath him.Although generous as a leader, he did not tolerate corruption among those who served him, brutally punishing them as an example to others. For all his historical significance, Timur scarcely features in Western (even Islamic) history.In fact, his bloody massacres of fellow Muslims in repeated conquests has resulted in extremely unflattering accounts throughout Islamic historical records. In one of the best biographies I have ever read, Justin Marozzi brings Timur back to life in Tamerlane — Sword of Islam, Conqueror of the World. Not only has Marozzi provided us with a recent summary of historical accounts recording Timur’s life, he has also traced the steps of the great conqueror conjuring a magnificent travelogue of Timur’s empire as it is today. The lack of Western perspectives on Timur has motivated this textured and contextual recreation of his life which challenges caricatures based on Orientalist studies.In particular, Marozzi cites the "popular image of a … God-defying Oriental despot, fearless in conquest, unforgiving in triumph," as depicted in Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine the Great but dismisses that image by saying that "it is one of history’s small ironies that a man who took such care to ensure his place in posterity by having his civil and military record meticulously chronicled should find his posthumous reputation in the hands of an Elizabethan playwright with a taste for the sensational".What emerges from this book is the story of a man of his time. He was no more nor less brutal and oppressive than other leaders of his age.His religious and ethical compass that oscillated freely between the obligations of Islam and the tribal customs of Mongols is typical of leaders who appropriate symbols for their own ambitions. Marozzi says that "(Timur) was interested in either code insofar as it supported his designs of conquest".Ironically, more than 600 years after his death Islam Karimov, another Uzbek leader with similar ambitions but different capabilities, can be seen appropriating Timur’s image to give historical credibility to his presidency. But after having conquered all that he set his eyes on, Timur’s greatest failure was his system of government. Although unparalleled as a strategist employing divide and rule tactics, forging alliances with enemies and motivated by a sense of his own place in history, Timur never left behind any meaningful political apparatus in places he conquered.It was almost as if what happened post-conquest was not important. What emerged as important in Timur’s life itself was the conquest. Because he didn’t leave behind any organised political occupation that would cement his grip on these lands, Timur often found himself going back to conquer again the same territories that had once fallen to his army.As Marozzi puts it, "the structure of (Timur’s) government was less important than the fact that power was exercised personally, rather than through institutions. (Timur’s) life was spent in the saddle campaigning. His energies were not given over to formalising the mechanics of government."His lack of interest in creating a political legacy would also ensure the inevitable fratricide after his death. Without institutions that could codify and exert power on his behalf, what became important in the wake of his demise was personal strength. But leaders like Timur do not come every generation and it was not until his great-great-great grandson Babur that the Timurid dynasty saw continuum into the Mughal dynasty.Marozzi’s book ends with Timur’s last campaign. After conquering the Ottoman lands and Syria, he was already at the gates of Europe. Had he decided to cross the Bosphorus, there is no doubt that the ensuing conquest would have led to a completely different Western civilisation today. But for Timur, just as it is for us today, he was called by the destiny of conquering the Middle Kingdom. It was for him the ultimate service to his religion to claim China. But the ageing conqueror succumbed to the cold near his beloved Samarkand.Marozzi’s book is a delicious portrait of a man so misunderstood in history — vilified, cursed and feared — that seeks to put into context his motivations, ambitions and fears. It is not just a readable biography of one of the greatest conquerors in history but also a study of political strategy and warfare that continues to echo throughout history.
以上です。
HE was the last of the great conquerors of the world. He walked in the lineage of those with names that echo throughout history — Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan.Arguably he achieved much more than them in terms of geopolitical reach, military prowess and personal strength. But his life remains in the shadows of history.Even his name as recorded in the annals of Western literature is unglamorous — Tamerlane, derived from the Persian moniker Timur-e- Lang which means Timur the Lame. Lame because an injury to his right leg early in his life made it shorter than the left, leaving him with a pronounced limp. But lame he wasn’t on the battlefield.His military campaigns and conquests between 1370 and 1405 stretched from east of the Karakorum range (the present day border between China and Pakistan), across the Indus river to Delhi, to the Bosphorus covering all of the Ottoman lands and everything in between.He was a Muslim and didn’t hesitate to use the banner of Islam when it suited him. He conquered lands in the name of Islam riding under the standard of a crescent moon.Yet, he also rooted himself in customary laws of Genghis Khan, staking his claim as a spiritual if not biological heir of the great Mongol.Timur was responsible for some of the most wicked atrocities in history, leaving behind his trademark towers of human skulls amid the ash and debris of once-great cities plundered and crushed by his hordes. He did this to strike fear in the hearts of those who might dare to oppose him and to send a message to those that may try to resist his advance that it was far better to surrender than to face the his wrath in conquest.His military genius and traits of terror aside, Timur was a thoughtful intellectual who delighted in the company of scholars.He may have ruled with an iron fist but he respected and rewarded men of letters, something that has eluded many tyrants throughout history who think their ideas to be the best. His capital in Samarkhand was a centre of culture and learning with Timur as a despotic yet benevolent patron.No less an intellectual than Ibn Khaludn came away from his meeting with Timur with a profound respect for "one of the greatest and mightiest of kings".The success that met Timur in almost every battle he waged is testament to his brilliance as a leader of men.He knew that it would not be easy to retain the loyalty of nomadic tribes under his command. Only by keeping his men busy with raids and by equitably dividing the spoils of war could he continue to motivate those beneath him.Although generous as a leader, he did not tolerate corruption among those who served him, brutally punishing them as an example to others. For all his historical significance, Timur scarcely features in Western (even Islamic) history.In fact, his bloody massacres of fellow Muslims in repeated conquests has resulted in extremely unflattering accounts throughout Islamic historical records. In one of the best biographies I have ever read, Justin Marozzi brings Timur back to life in Tamerlane — Sword of Islam, Conqueror of the World. Not only has Marozzi provided us with a recent summary of historical accounts recording Timur’s life, he has also traced the steps of the great conqueror conjuring a magnificent travelogue of Timur’s empire as it is today. The lack of Western perspectives on Timur has motivated this textured and contextual recreation of his life which challenges caricatures based on Orientalist studies.In particular, Marozzi cites the "popular image of a … God-defying Oriental despot, fearless in conquest, unforgiving in triumph," as depicted in Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine the Great but dismisses that image by saying that "it is one of history’s small ironies that a man who took such care to ensure his place in posterity by having his civil and military record meticulously chronicled should find his posthumous reputation in the hands of an Elizabethan playwright with a taste for the sensational".What emerges from this book is the story of a man of his time. He was no more nor less brutal and oppressive than other leaders of his age.His religious and ethical compass that oscillated freely between the obligations of Islam and the tribal customs of Mongols is typical of leaders who appropriate symbols for their own ambitions. Marozzi says that "(Timur) was interested in either code insofar as it supported his designs of conquest".Ironically, more than 600 years after his death Islam Karimov, another Uzbek leader with similar ambitions but different capabilities, can be seen appropriating Timur’s image to give historical credibility to his presidency. But after having conquered all that he set his eyes on, Timur’s greatest failure was his system of government. Although unparalleled as a strategist employing divide and rule tactics, forging alliances with enemies and motivated by a sense of his own place in history, Timur never left behind any meaningful political apparatus in places he conquered.It was almost as if what happened post-conquest was not important. What emerged as important in Timur’s life itself was the conquest. Because he didn’t leave behind any organised political occupation that would cement his grip on these lands, Timur often found himself going back to conquer again the same territories that had once fallen to his army.As Marozzi puts it, "the structure of (Timur’s) government was less important than the fact that power was exercised personally, rather than through institutions. (Timur’s) life was spent in the saddle campaigning. His energies were not given over to formalising the mechanics of government."His lack of interest in creating a political legacy would also ensure the inevitable fratricide after his death. Without institutions that could codify and exert power on his behalf, what became important in the wake of his demise was personal strength. But leaders like Timur do not come every generation and it was not until his great-great-great grandson Babur that the Timurid dynasty saw continuum into the Mughal dynasty.Marozzi’s book ends with Timur’s last campaign. After conquering the Ottoman lands and Syria, he was already at the gates of Europe. Had he decided to cross the Bosphorus, there is no doubt that the ensuing conquest would have led to a completely different Western civilisation today. But for Timur, just as it is for us today, he was called by the destiny of conquering the Middle Kingdom. It was for him the ultimate service to his religion to claim China. But the ageing conqueror succumbed to the cold near his beloved Samarkand.Marozzi’s book is a delicious portrait of a man so misunderstood in history — vilified, cursed and feared — that seeks to put into context his motivations, ambitions and fears. It is not just a readable biography of one of the greatest conquerors in history but also a study of political strategy and warfare that continues to echo throughout history.
以上です。
posted by Anuar Fariz Shuaid at 10/01/2006 12:01:00 pm
Listen to audio blog
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home