The Tuzūkāt-I Tīmūrī As A Source For Military History

Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung.
Volume 59 (4), 439 – 491 (2006)

DOI: 10.1556/AOrient.59.2006.4.3
THE TUZŪKĀT-I TĪMŪRĪ

AS A SOURCE FOR MILITARY HISTORY
GERGELY CSIKY
H-1132 Budapest, Visegrádi u. 53

e-mail: gergelycsiky@yahoo.com
The article investigates whether the Tuzūkāt-i Tīmūrī, a Persian work that became popular in Mughal
India, was translated from a Turkic original written during Timur’s reign. There are two possible hy-
potheses regarding the origin of the work: Abū Ṭālib really found a Turkic manuscript, he revised
and translated it into Persian, producing the work entitled Vāqi‘āt-i Ṣāḥib-Qirānī, which under the
titles of Malfūẓāt or Tuzūkāt enjoyed great popularity in Mughal India. The other, more likely hy-
pothesis is that no Turkic original did ever exist, as its existence cannot definitively be evidenced
by the analysis of the text. In this case Abū Ṭālib merely compiled his work by utilising Timurid
sources and his personal knowledge of contemporary Safavid Iran and Mughal India.
In the following, the article submits the Turco-Mongolian military terms of the work to a
thorough analysis on the basis of which three layers are distinguished in the work. The first layer
undoubtedly goes back to the Timurid period: the compiler knew and heavily drew on the Ẓafarnā-
ma of Šaraf al-Dīn ‘Alī Yazdī. The second layer of the work derives from Safavid Iran. Abū Ṭālib
Turbatī, the compiler of the work descended from Khorasan and may have been greatly impressed
by the reforms of Shah ‘Abbās I (1588 – 1629) the innovations of whom could be stimulating for him
in compiling his work. The third layer is represented by the Mughal India. That the work became so
widespread in India is a monument to the credit of the Mughal state-ideology, and it indicates how
vigorous the Timur-cult was even in the middle of the 17th century. Nevertheless, it is questionable
whether the contemporary readers considered the Tuzūkāt a serious historical work, or rather re-
garded it as a piece of popular fiction, the adventures and decrees of a well-known historical hero.
Key words: Timur, Timurid history, Safavid Iran, Mughal India, Tuzūkāt, military history.
History of research
The Persian source entitled Tuzūkāt-i Tīmūrī ‘The Institutes of Timur’ is a treatise
written in Persian which narrates the deeds of Timur and enumerates his institutes in
the first person singular. The work is in fact the supplement of his autobiography
0001-6446 / $ 20.00 © 2006 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
440 G. CSIKY
entitled Malfūẓāt-i Tīmūrī. On the evidence of its preface, it was originally written in
Eastern Turkic (Turkī), but only 17th-century Persian translations are extant today.
The Tuzūkāt-i Tīmūrī (henceforth Tuzūkāt) first appeared in the Mughal India,
where its cultural influence was significant. On the one hand, the work was first in-
vestigated by the means of source-criticism already at the court of Shāh Jahān (1629–
1659), while on the other, it created a new literary genre, in that in the following pe-
riod numerous autobiographical works were written under the title of Tuzūk. The Per-
sian word tuzūk comes from Turkic tüzük, which in turn is a derivative of the verb
tüz- meaning ‘to arrange, to put in order’. The original meaning of Turkic tüzük was
‘institute, order of battle’, and later in Mughal India it came to be used in the sense of
‘autobiography’. Probably, the reason for this is that under the influence of the Tuzū-
kāt some manuscripts of the work known as the Vāqi‘āt-i Bāburī or Bāburnāme also
bear the title Tuzak-i Bāburī. Not only Bābur (1526–1530) had a tuzūk, but also the
Mughal emperor Jahāngīr (1605–1627) (Tūzak-i Jahāngīrī, see Langlès 1787), who
died ten years before the official appearance of the Tuzūkāt-i Tīmūrī.
European scholars became acquainted with the work after the colonisation of
India. In 1779 a manuscript of the Malfūẓāt was bought by Major Davy, the Persian
chief secretary of the Bengal forces, which he published along with the English trans-
lation in 1783 under the title of “Institutes Military and Political of the Great Timour”
(Davy 1783). He died a year later in 1784 and left the manuscript to his son. In 1787,
Professor Langlès published his own annotated French translation of the text, his aim
being the correction of Davy’s mistakes. He also ascribed the work to Emir Timur
and emphasised that a certain Abū Ṭālib only translated it into Persian but did not
compile it (Langlès 1787, p. 5). It was not until 1830 that the Malfūẓāt was again
translated into English by Major Charles Steward (Steward 1830). In spite of the fact
that from the very beginning, the work aroused scepticism and was the subject of
heated disputes among European orientalists, in the early phase of research it was
handled as a veritable historical source, which, though containing some controversial
parts, is usable on the whole and reliable.
The Tuzūkāt was a popular reading in India, as evidenced, amongst others, by
the great number of its Indian manuscripts. In the 19th century when Persian had
already started to give way to Urdu, the Tuzūkāt still remained an interesting reading
as is shown by the fact that it was translated into Urdu. The first Urdu translation was
published by Subḥān-Bahš in 1845 in Delhi, and later in 1908 by M. Faḍl al-Ḥaqq in
Bombay. In addition to these books, the existence of numerous Persian lithographies
also testifies to the popularity of the Tuzūkāt in 19th-century India.
The work also spread extensively in Central Asia, where, similarly to India, the
Persian variant was often translated into the local language. The work Tuzūkāt thus
has several Eastern Turkic translations, the texts of which go back to the Persian
translation of Abū Ṭālib. The first re-translation into Turkic was made by Nabījān
Maḥmūd, the qadi of Hojand, on the order of Sayyid Muḥammad ‘Alī, the Khan of
Kokand (1821–1842). Afterwards, Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Rafī translated it in 1856–
57 in Khiva under the title of Tüzük-i Temüri, then Pahlavān Niyāz-dīvān in 1874 as
Malfūẓāt. The work has an Ottoman translation as well, entitled Timur ü tüzükāti,
Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

THE TUZŪKĀT-I TĪMŪRĪ AS A SOURCE FOR MILITARY HISTORY 441
which was made by Mustafa Rahmi on the basis of Langlès’s French translation and
was published in AH 1339 (AD 1920) in Istanbul at the Maṭba‘a-yi Āmire press.
When Elliot was editing a source-collection of Indian history, he used a chapter
from the Malfūẓāt about the conquest of India. He deemed the source authentic, more-
over, he thought that it had been copied by Šaraf al-Dīn ‘Alī Yazdī, and hence the bulk
of Timurid sources goes back to it (Elliot – Dowson 1867, Vol. III, pp. 390–394).
Similarly, the Hungarian scholar Arminius Vámbéry also argued for the authenticity
of the source both in his book ‘The history of Bokhara’ and in a review written in the
Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Vámbéry 1872, pp. 179,
188–189; 1897, pp. 215–232).
The first attack against the originality of the Tuzūkāt was launched by W. Bar-
thold in his work on Uluġ Beg, where he called the work a forgery. His main argu-
ment was that the Tuzūkāt claims Timur to have participated in the campaigns of
Amīr Qazaġan, about which the official chronicles say nothing (Barthold 1935, p. 20,
n. 4). Storey, who collected the manuscripts of the Tuzūkāt in his bio-bibliography of
the Persian literature, had knowledge of 53 manuscripts. He described the circum-
stances of the appearance of the writings, but added no source-critical remarks (Storey
1927–1939, pp. 280–284). Edward G. Browne was more critical in his History of
Persian Literature, where he presented it as an apocryphal source and emphasised
that the Persian variant first appeared at the court of the Mughal ruler Šāh Jahān
(1629–1659), and there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of the original
Turkic work (Browne 1951, pp. 183–184).
Western scholarly circles, in the wake of Barthold and Browne, received the
work with scepticism and disinterest. H. F. Hofman, author of the largest bio-bibliog-
raphy of Central-Asian Turkic literature, is also critical toward of the Tuzūkāt. He
stresses that the autobiography of Timur was not even mentioned by Šaraf al-Dīn
‘Alī Yazdī’s Ẓafarnāma, and he also questions the existence of an original Turkic
variant. Nevertheless, in addition to Storey’s list, he gives account of 22 further manu-
scripts (Hofman 1969, vol. VI, pp. 9–11).
The authenticity of the Tuzūkāt is rejected by historians working on Timur’s
biography, most of them even do not mention it. The latter attitude characterises Bea-
trice Forbes Manz (Manz 1989) and Tilman Nagel (Nagel 1993), the authors of the
two latest contemporary monographs on Timur. Neither of them mentions the Tuzūkāt,
and they do not list it in the bibliographies of their primary sources. The same holds
true for the work of İsmail Aka, whose bibliography mentions exclusively Turkish
primary and secondary sources. It must be mentioned that he actually never refers
to the Tuzūkāt in the text of his book, and obviously he does not know its content
(Aka 1991). In his later work (Aka 1994, pp. XV–XVI) he mentions the Tuzūkāt in a
critical tone.
The various editions of the Encyclopaedia of Islam also voice refusal. In the
earlier French version Bouvat presents it as a source of doubtful origin (Bouvat 1934,
p. 844); in the new edition Manz characterises it as a botch from the Mughal Period
(Manz 1999, p. 512); while in his book about the Turkic and Mongolian elements of

442 G. CSIKY
New-Persian (under the entry yasal) Gerhard Doerfer considers it unauthentic

(Doerfer IV, p. 92).
These above-mentioned refusals, however, are not based on source-criticism,
for none of their authors provided a thorough, non-preconceptional analysis of the
Tuzūkāt. The authenticity of a source can only be established by in-debth analysis
based on extensive investigations, without preconceptions.
As far as I know, Major Davy, the publisher of the Tuzūkāt had only one manu-
script at his disposal, which he had bought in 1779. This fact makes the analysis
more difficult as it is well known from the descriptions of the manuscripts that the
source-work has several shorter and longer variants, and there exists a manuscript in
Tashkent which contains Turkic passages.
Recently, two historians have argued for the authenticity of the source: the In-
dian Irfan Habib and the Uzbek Böri Ahmedov. Setting out from the historiography
of Mughal India, Habib analysed the circumstances of its appearance in details, and
collected the relevant historical sources. In his opinion the version of Abū Ṭālib nar-
rates the life of Timur until the age of 44, i.e. until AH 777/1375–1376 (version A),
in some manuscripts until AH 783 (1381–1382) (version AA), while version B is the
work of Muḥammad Afḍal, published by Major Davy, in which latter version ‘Ti-
mur’ described his own death. On the basis of its simple Persian style and the great
number of Turkic words contained in it, Habib considers the work a translation of an
original Turkic text, although he does not know Turkic. He holds the text of the source
to be authentic, and ascribes the mistakes in it to Muḥammad Afḍal (Habib 1997, pp.
305–309).
It is worth noting, however, that Habib’s method is too inflexible, because he
considers the manuscripts which were finished earlier as the original translation, deem-
ing the manuscripts that describe Timur’s death to be the result of rewriting. Compared
to Yazdī’s chronicle, the manuscript published by Davy has several inaccuracies, which
shows that it cannot be regarded identical with the version of Muḥammad Afḍal.
Ahmedov studied the Tuzūkāt from the view-point of Central Asian history.
After describing its destiny and presenting linguistic, geographic arguments and tribal
names, he argues in favour of the authenticity of the Tuzūkāt. His arguments are, how-
ever, of mixed value. For example, from the great number and extensive circulation
of manuscripts he concludes that the Tuzūkāt is authentic, although it proves nothing
else but its popularity. He dates the work to the age of Timur because of the occur-
rence and use in it of the ethnic name Uzbek, despite the fact that Uzbek attacks did
not take place before the second half of the 15th century (Ahmedov 1999, pp. 3–20).
In addition, it is noteworthy that the title of the work influenced even modern
Republican Turkish usage, in that during the language reform the Middle-Turkic word
tüzük was taken over into modern Turkish in the meaning ‘regulations (of a society
or institution)’ (TS 1998, p. 2270).
The recent indifference of European and American scholars towards the source
cannot be justified. Even if the work were in fact a mere forgery, it would still de-
serve some scholarly attention because of its early, 17th-century origin. In the latter
case it could provide us with important facts about the age in which it was written.

The authenticity or falsity of the work can only be decided by comparing it to

other Timurid sources, and by checking the personal and tribal names, the political
and military expressions and events appearing in it. In the following I will endeavour
to complete this detailed examination, trying to establish the real date and source-
value of the text.
The genesis of the Persian translation and its place

in the Mughal culture
Contemporary sources agree that the Tuzūkāt-i Tīmūrī was originally written in
Turkic (Turkī). The work consists of three parts: the autobiography of Timur, his
plans and his decrees. There are several sources about the circumstances of the trans-
lation, all of which point to Mughal India.
The first source is the preface of the Malfūẓāt, which briefly narrates how the
text was discovered in the library of Ja‘far pasha, the Ottoman governor of Yemen,
and how it was translated and presented to the Mughal emperor, Šāh Jahān. This was
the time of the emergence of the Zaydī movement, which fought for the independ-
ence of the country in the guise of religion. The leader of this movement was imam
al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad, better known as al-Qāsim al-Kabīr, who battled with Ja‘far
pasha shortly before his death in AH 1029/1620. Eventually the movement gained
victory, and the Zaydī Imamate was born and existed between 1636 and 1835. So
Ja‘far pasha was a real historical person in the 17th century.
There are two other contemporary sources reporting on the discovery of the
work, those of the Mughal historians Qazvīnī and Lāhūrī. Qazvīnī’s report is the more
detailed one: ‘As it seems from the book entitled Vāqi‘āt-i Ṣāḥib-Qirānī, written in
Turkic (Turk), preserved in the library of the governor of Yemen, and received by
Abū Ṭālib Turbatī in Yemen, and translated by him into Persian, it was written by the
order of Timur (ḥaḍrat-i Ṣāḥib-Qirānī), as it originated from the tongue of his
majesty. The story (dāstān) was addressed to Mīrzā Muḥammad, the son of the eldest
son of Timur, Mīrzā Jahāngīr, who was the governor of the capital of Sulṭān Maḥmūd
Ġaznavī. It was written in Turkic (simple) style, so that it should be deserving to his
power. In this time it was read to his majesty (Šāh Jahān). He praised it very well, and
he often repeated it with his inspired tongue in a comparison ordered by heaven. Its
copy was sent to the son of his majesty, to the high-ranking prince Sulṭān Aurangzib
Bahādur, who a few days earlier went to Davlatābād, and it exerted on him a great in-
fluence.’
According to the passage, Šāh Jahān did not think that the text had been writ-
ten by Timur’s own hand, but he thought that it had been edited on Timur’s order.
The work was greatly favoured both by the ruler and by prince Aurangzib.
Lāhūrī presents the story as follows: ‘These days came to our splendid knowl-
edge the content of the book entitled Vāqi‘āt-i Ḥaḍrat-i Ṣāḥib-Qirānī, which was
written in Turkic and was taken and translated by Mīr Abū Ṭālib Turbatī in the li-
brary of the governor of Yemen. It is a manual for rulers (dāstān-i nasāyiḥ), which

444 G. CSIKY
was dedicated in the time of his Majesty to Prince Pīr Muḥammad, the son of Jahān-
gīr, the governor of Kābul, Ġaznīn, Qandahār and others.’ (Lāhūrī 1865–1868, pp.
288–289).
Both of the above descriptions agree that the work’s title is Vāqi‘āt-i Ṣāḥib-
Qirānī, it was originally written in Turkic, and later translated into Persian by Abū
Ṭālib, who had received it from the library of the pasha of Yemen. They also agree
that the book was written in the name of Timur, and was dedicated to his grandson,
Prince Pīr Muḥammad.
Prince Pīr Muḥammad, the son of Prince Jahāngīr and the grandson of Timur
sat ‘on the throne of Maḥmūd Ġaznavī’ in AH 794/1392, which means that he was
the governor of Afghanistan and the prince of Qandahār (Roemer 1986, p. 70). Before
his death Timur designated Pīr Muḥammad as his successor, who ruled after Timur’s
death on 18th February 1405, but his rule did not last for long, because in AH
809/1407 he was murdered by his own vizier (Roemer 1986, p. 99). Considering
these facts mentioned above, it would be no wonder if Timur had dedicated his work
to Pīr Muḥammad, giving advice to him.
According to the two accounts the translator of the work was a certain Abū
Ṭālib Ḥusaynī Turbatī. Apart from his name, there is hardly anything known about
him. His name, however, can yield important information to us. The town of Turbat
is located in the Khorasan province of contemporary Iran, southeast of Mashad. In
the first half of the 17th century Khorasan was part of the Safavid Empire, although it
continuously suffered from the raids of the Uzbeks, who occasionally occupied its
eastern territories (Savory 1980, pp. 76–77). Hence Abū Ṭālib was a Safavid subject,
who, as a Khorasanian, could speak both Persian and Turkic, and knew the inner
structure, society and economy of the empire very well. It is after the analysis of the
work Tuzūkāt that these facts will gain great importance.
Abū Ṭālib went on a pilgrimage to Arabia, where he probably found a manu-
script of the original work in the library of Ja‘far pasha, the Turkish governor of
Yemen, and he took it with himself. He most probably travelled by ship, the fastest
way to get from Khorasan and India to Arabia. The continental route would have been
a long detour, whereas it was on the way by ship anyway, with landing places either
in Jidda or in Yemen itself.
Having received the Tuzūkāt, Abū Ṭālib set out for India. But what prompted
him to go to India? By the first half of the 17th century there was only one significant
Timurid dynasty: the Great Mughals in India, while Central Asia was ruled by the
Sheybanid Uzbeks, Iran by the Safavids and the Near-East by the Ottomans. In India,
the cult of Timur was still alive, so it is by no means accidental that Jahāngīr’s
(1605–1627) favourite reading was the Ẓafarnāme of Yazdī, a biography of Timur;
and from Muḥammad Afḍal’s work it can be inferred that Šāh Jahān could also have
been familiar with the Ẓafarnāme.
After translating the work into Persian, Turbatī presented it to Šāh Jahān at the
Mughal court of Agra, on 10th October 1637, in the 10th year of his reign, and simul-
taneously a copy was sent to Prince Aurangzib. At this point, however, some ques-
tions could be raised. As is known, both Šāh Jahān and Aurangzib could speak Turkic,

since every prince at the Mughal court was taught Turkic, the original tongue of the
Timurids. Why was it necessary to translate the Turkic text into Persian, and what
was the destiny of the Turkic version? One can imagine that the ruler was also given
the original Turkic version, and the reason for its translation into Persian was proba-
bly the desire to make the work widely known.
Šāh Jahān doubted the authenticity of the work, as he knew Šaraf al-Dīn ‘Alī
Yazdī’s Ẓafarnāma very well, and noticed that the texts of the two works do not cor-
respond to each other. Thus, he requested Afḍal Buhārī, a Bukharan scholar, to com-
pare the two texts, correct the mistakes of the translator, delete his interpolations,
extend the text in correspondence with the Ẓafarnāma and translate the untranslated
Arabic and Turkic passages. Being of Bukharan origin, Afḍal Buhārī presumably
spoke both Turkic and Persian. He fulfilled this request, and wrote a book with the
title of Malfūẓāt-i Ṣāḥib-Qirānī, which is an extended version of the Malfūẓāt-i Tī-
mūrī.
It is questionable why the Ẓafarnāma of Yazdī served as a model despite the
fact that Šāmī’s work with the same title had been written exactly twenty years ear-
lier, when Timur was still alive. From 1415 to 1435 Yazdī was in the service of Ibrā-
hīm Sultān, the son of Šāhruh. Ibrāhīm was one of Timur’s grandsons, who planned
to order a special historical work dedicated specifically to the life of his grandfather.
With this in view, in AH 822/1419–1420 he ordered the collection of all the avail-
able Turkic and Persian documents about Timur, and commissioned Yazdī to write
this work. The available sources were read before eye-witnesses, who either modified
or confirmed their contents (ZNY, pp. XXXVII–XXXIX).
It is probably due to the above-mentioned method that the biographies of Timur
were modelled on the work of Yazdī, and after a while the work came to be consid-
ered a major reference work in biographic literature. Yazdī’s great influence as an
author can be illustrated by the fact that the great poet, Mīr ‘Alī Šīr Navā’ī, the most
outstanding figure in Chagatay Turkic literature, assigned to Šaraf al-Dīn ‘Alī Yazdī
a prime place in the second assembly (majlis) of his collection of biographies of
poets, the Majālis al-Nafā’is, listing him among those, who had a great effect on him.
So Yazdī became a highly influential author, indeed.
In the course of my work, I had access only to Major Davy’s edition, the trans-
lation of Langlès and an 1890 Bombay facsimile lithography published by Ahmedov
in 1999. A new edition and translation, however, would necessitate a comparative
examination of further manuscripts, such as the expanded version of Muḥammad
Afḍal. In what follows I endeavour to make an attempt at providing a linguistic and
philological analysis of the Tuzūkāt.
Linguistic analysis of the Turkic and Mongolian terms
The language of the Tuzūkāt is simple Persian, in which the presence of a high num-
ber of Turkic and Mongolian words and expressions is very noteworthy. Among these
expressions not only political and military terms, but words of everyday life occur as

446 G. CSIKY
well. There are several calques, too, confirming the possibility that the work is a
translation from a Central-Asian Turkic original.
The Turkic character of the work is further emphasised by citations from let-
ters, for their language differs remarkably from their context. It is thus highly prob-
able that the compiler based his work on several different sources.
The Turkic and Mongolian expressions occurring in the text fall into several
groups: titles, tribal names, personal names, military and political expressions and
words of everyday life. In the following, the terminology of military and political life
and words of everyday life will be analysed. Our major objective is to examine
whether they occur in other Timurid sources or not, and to what extent they can be
regarded as traces of an original Turkic text.
The Tuzūkāt-i Tīmūrī contains 75 Turkic and Mongolian words. I do not in-
clude the personal and tribal names in my list, but include military terms such as ranks
and titles, and those ethnic names that functioned as nick-names or have a broader
meaning than an ethnic name. In my investigation I will explain the words, and ana-
lyse their frequency and distribution in the Tuzūkāt. Such an analysis of the distribu-
tion of words can reveal whether the text is homogeneous or goes back to several
diverse sources.
The army
The military ranks

onbašï. The word is a compound made up of the Turkic numeral on ‘ten’ and the noun
baš ‘head; commander’ in a Turkic genitive construction meaning ‘head of tens’, i.e.
‘corporal’. The word occurs in the decrees 26 times, and its Persian plural form (on-
bašiyān) is also very frequent. The Tuzūkāt informs us that the onbašï was in fact not
the commander of ten, but actually nine men (Davy 1783, p. 228).
The word does not occur in any other Timurid source, but there are data con-
cerning its use in Safavid Iran, where the commander of a unit of ten was also called
onbašï (Tadh. al-Mulūk, p. 36; Mans 1890, p. 154). In a similar fashion, commanders
of military units arranged in this decimal system were referred to with terms of Turkic
origin. Although the earliest extant data for this rank are from the 17th century, it had
undoubtedly been in use well before that time.
There is no direct evidence for the use of the term in the Timurid period, yet
the existence of the system of decimal military units makes its existence probable.
yüzbašï. The word is a compound of the Turkic numeral yüz ‘hundred’ and the noun
baš ‘head; commander’ in a Turkic genitive construction meaning ‘captain’. The word
occurs in the Tuzūkāt 27 times. It frequently occurs in the Persian plural as yüzba-
šiyān.
The word is not known from any other Timurid source, but similarly to onba-
šï, it is well known from Safavid sources (Tadh. al-Mulūk, p. 36). Its earliest occur-
rence is in a 14th-century Turkic diploma issued by Toqtamish, Khan of the Golden

Horde, where the commanders of decimal military units were called as on begi, yüz
begi and ming begi (Berezin 1851, p. 7). The expression yüzbašï is also known from
Abū’l-Ġāzī Bahādur Khān’s Šäjäre-i Türk (AG, p. 312). There are thus sufficient data
for this rank, and we have no reason to doubt its existence also in the Timurid period.
In that era, however, the name of this rank occurs only in the Persian form, as
amīr-i sada, in the works of Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, p. 5) as well as in the Ẓafarnāmas of
Yazdī and Šāmī. So this military title was well known in the age of the Timurids, and
its meaning was ‘captain’.
miŋbašï. (Davy 1783, p. 230/3, 8, 11; p. 232/1, 8, 13, 14; p. 272/7, 9, 11, 12; p. 274/6,
11; p. 288/8, 14; p. 290/9, 15; p. 310/3, 10; p. 328/7; p. 372/9). The word is a genitive
compound of the Turkic numeral miŋ ‘thousand’ and the noun baš ‘head; com-
mander’, and its meaning is ‘colonel’. Though not attested from the Timurid sources,
the expression occurs 21 times in the Tuzūkāt, and its Persian plural miŋ bašïyān is
also frequently used.
The rank was also well known in the territory of the Safavid Empire, its first
occurrence being in Iskandar beg (1616), but it also appears in the records of the
European travel accounts (Mans 1890, p. 25; Chardin 1811, p. 31; Olearius 1663,
p. 667). The form of miŋbašï, which occurs in the Tuzūkāt, is an archaic, Central-
Asian variant.
In the contemporary Timurid sources only its Persian translation, the phrase
amīr-i hazāra occurs, which is known from the work of Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 25, 95, 132,
273, 175, 235, 231), Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 22b, 30b, 33b, 34a, 73a, 80a, 106b, 136b, 141b,
142a, 151b, 153b, 173b, 175b, 189b, 207a) and Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, p. 5). Though the
Turkic etymology of the above-mentioned titles obviously points toward Turkic as
the original language, the question raised earlier still remains unanswered: are the
above-mentioned forms untranslated details of a Turkic text, or did the translator
convert them into the military terminology of his own age?
noyin (Davy 1783, p. 328/5). The word is of Mongolian origin, meaning ‘prince’, it
is of equal rank with the amīr in the Tuzūkāt. The rank is well known from the Timurid
sources of the age of Timur, it can be found in the works of Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 30b,
39a, 56b, 60a, 62ab, 63a, 64b, 77a, 86b) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 15, 19, 27, 45, 56, 57,
61, 62, 67, 68, 70, 71, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 126, 134, 139, 143, 150,
153, 160, 180, 214, 243).
In the Tuzūkāt it appears as a part of an enumeration: Va amīr al-umarā va
beglarbegiyān va umarā va noyīnān va sardārān […] ‘the commander-in-chief, the
beglerbegs, the emirs, the princes and the generals’. The title is the Mongolian equiva-
lent of Arabic-Persian amīr and Turkic beg in the contemporary sources.
beglerbegi (Davy 1783, p. 328/5; p. 384/5). It is a well-known Turkic word that

means ‘beg of the begs, lord of the lords’, but it is unattested from the Timurid Per-
sian sources of the age of Timur. In the Tuzūkāt it refers to the four emirs of the high-
est rank, who stood under the amīr al-umarā in dignity: Va amīr al-umarā va beglar-

448 G. CSIKY
begiyān va umarā va noyīnān va sardārān va amīrān-i ulus va tumanāt va qošunāt

va miŋbašiyān va yüzbašiyān va onbašiyān muṭābiq-i marātib-i hodhā taraf-i dast-i
čap julūs numāyand. ‘The amīr ul-umarā, the beglerbegis, the emirs, the noyons and
the generals, the emirs of the uluses, the tümens and the armies, the commanders of
thousand, hundred and ten, should sit on the left side in accordance with their rank in
the left side’ (Davy 1783, p. 328). In case of an army larger than 12,000 but smaller
than 40,000 men, the general was one of the princes (mīrzā), and Timur ordered two
beglerbegis to assist him (Davy 1783, p. 384).
According to the Tuzūkāt, the amīr al-umarā was the leader of the twelve
amīrs, and beside him there were four beglerbegis, which was a special military title
of the amīrs, a title of military leaders. So the two ranks are not identical. We can
find the best analogy of this title in the Safavid Empire, where the secondary line of
the military leaders were also called beglerbegi (Chardin 1811, II, p. 99; Kaempfer
1940, p. 127; cf. Doerfer II, pp. 406–410; Lambton 1953, p. 424).
kütväl (Davy 1783, pp. 300/4, 346/10). According to Doerfer the word derives from
Indian kōt ‘castle’, and the meaning of kōtvāl was ‘Festungskommander’, i.e. ‘com-
mander of a castle’. The word must have been borrowed into the Turkic languages at
an early stage in the form of kütäül/kütävül (Doerfer IV, p. 620). The term appears in
other Timurid sources as well, such as Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 175b, 179b, 231b, 235a,
236b, 240a, 252a, 258b, 264b, 271a, 383a, 389b, 392a, 452a) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 95,
130, 145), the latter using this term in the sense of ‘commandant d’un château, châte-
lain’, i.e. ‘commander of a castle, lord of a castle’ (ZNS, p. 296). Its meaning in the
Tuzūkāt is somewhat different: to each of the four sides of the camp a kütwäl was
appointed to take care of the order of the camp, to collect taxes from the merchants
of the bazaar and to prevent theft (Davy 1783, p. 300). The Tuzūkāt further mentions
that to every town a kütäül was appointed, who looked after the civilians and the sol-
diers, and was responsible for everything that was stolen (Davy 1783, p. 346). So the
function of the bearer of this title was more or less identical with that of a high-rank-
ing policeman. Considering the function of the kütväl described in the Tuzūkāt,
another explanation for the etymology of the word is also conceivable on the analogy
of čapavul: it can be a derivative in -A’Ul, a suffix of Mongolian origin, from the
Eastern Turkic verb küt- ‘take care of something, look after something’.
daruġa (Davy 1783, p. 118/12, p. 120/2; p. 250/9). A word of Mongolian origin des-
ignating ‘a governor, a commander of a district or town’, that appears relatively rarely
in the Tuzūkāt (Doerfer I, p. 319). The title is well known from the Golden Horde as
well and can rightly be regarded as the calque of Turkic basqaq (Vásáry 1978, pp.
201–206). The expression occurs extremely frequently in the sources of the Timurid
age. It appears in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 31b, 45b, 52b, 57a, 59a, 60a, 75b, 76ab, 107b,
115b, 141b, 147a, 154b, 169a, 193a, 195a, 229a, 232a, 239b, 240a, 284ab, 286a,
310ab, 315a, 327b, 363a, 366a, 367a, 377a, 393b, 418a, 421b, 436a, 439b, 443b,
452b, 455b, 456ab, 468a) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 171, 182). In the latter source work, its
meaning is ‘governor of a town or district’ (‘préfet d’une ville ou d’un district’)

(ZNS, p. 277). In the Tuzūkāt this title is specifically used for the governor of Iṣfahān
(Davy 1783, pp. 118, 120). Sometimes the terms ḥākim and vālī were used as its
synonyms, e.g. in the passage where Timur ordered that the despotic governors
(dārūġa u ḥākim) should be punished (Davy 1783, p. 250). Along with ḥākim, the title
also occurs in the Mu‘izz al-ansāb: ḥukkām u dārūġagān (Ando 1992, pp. 243, 245).
qaravul begi (Davy 1783, p. 328/15; p. 400/1). Its meaning is ‘head of the recon-
naissance’, and is the Turkic equivalent of Persian amīr-i qaravul. According to the
Tuzūkāt the bahādurs sat on the right side of the throne, and the qarāvul begiyān sat
on the left side (Davy 1783, p. 328). In the battle order they were positioned to the
right and left side of the advance-guard (hirävül) (Davy 1783, p. 400).
‘arḍbegi (Davy 1783, p. 304/9). The word is a compound of an Arabic and a Turkic
word. According to the Tuzūkāt the ‘arḍbegi was appointed to report on the state of
the army and the civil population, the desires of the people, and all the important
things which occurred in the empire (Davy 1783, p. 304). In this sense he could be
regarded as ‘the head of the intelligence service’.
dīvānbegi (Davy 1783, p. 20/18; p. 234/3; p. 304/6; p. 328/10). The term is a geni-
tive composition of a Persian and a Turkic word, its meaning is ‘the lord of the divan’.
It is not known from any other Timurid source, it is presumably a calque for the title
known as amīr-i dīvān. The title often occurs in the Safavid sources (Tadh. al-Mulūk,
pp. 42, 44, 50, 82, 87, 111, 112, 116, 119). In the Tuzūkāt it appears as the head of
the dīvān, and the official responsible for the finances. He was the superior of the
seven vazīrs in the public affairs: Īn haft vazīr tābi‘-i dīvānbegi bāšand, ki muhimmāt
u mu‘āmalāt-i umūr-i mālī-rā bi-iṭṭifāq-i dīvān begi anjām dāda bi-‘arḍ rasānand.
‘These seven viziers are subordinate to the dīvānbegi; and they deal with the
financial affairs in accordance with him, and report on them to me.’ (Davy 1783, p.
304); va barāyi dīvān begi u vuzarā dar muqābil-i taht jā-yi nišastan muqarrar kar-
dam. ‘And for the dīvānbegi and the viziers I appointed a seat opposite to the throne.’
(Davy 1783, p. 328).
In Timur’s age the divan was divided into two parts, the dīvān-i tuvāči and the
dīvān-i māl. At the meetings the tuvāči begleri sat on the right side of the ruler, and
the dīvān begleri (umarā-yi dīvān) on his left side. It is very probable that this rank is
linked to the dīvān-i māl (Ando 1992, pp. 224, 234–239). According to Roemer, in
the financial affairs decision was in the hands of the dīvān-i ‘ālī ‘the sublime divan’,
or in other words the dīvān-i buzurg-i amārat decided, the heads of which held the
title of dīvān begi (Roemer 1952, p. 170).
Order of battle
qaravul (Davy 1783, p. 50/4 (twice); p. 64/11; p. 298/16; p. 372/15; p. 382/1; p. 400/1;
p. 408/1). The word is a derivative of the Mongolian verb qara- ‘to look’ with a Mon-
golian suffix -AġUl, meaning ‘group of reconnaissance, riding patrol’ (Doerfer I,

450 G. CSIKY
p. 399) and ‘advance-guard, a corps before the advance-guard, courier’ (ZNS, p. 292).
The word is well attested from other Timurid sources, it occurs in the Ẓafarnāma of
Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 28a, 47b, 104b, 105b, 106a, 107a, 111a, 125a, 127a, 147a, 175b,
194a, 199ab, etc.) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 31, 43, 66, 95, 96, 107, 113,
114, 119, 120, 121, 123, 127, 129, 133, 138, 161, 202, 226, 229, 230, 232, 252). It ap-
pears eight times in the Tuzūkāt, which is not a great number compared to the abun-
dance of data in the Ẓafarnāma.
hirevül (hirāvul) (Davy 1783, p. 62/9; p. 76/1; p. 80/3; p. 124/4; p. 298/15; p. 298/6;
p. 328/17; p. 372/15; p. 372/17; p. 372/19; p. 378/14, 15, 16; p. 382/2, 3 (twice);
p. 388/3, 4, 8, 11, 12, p. 390/17, 19 twice), 20, p. 394/3, 4 (twice), 7 (twice); p. 398/4,
5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17 (twice); p. 400/2 (twice), 12 (twice), 13; p. 402/10, p. 408/2, 4
(twice), 8 (twice)). The term is of Mongolian origin (< Classical Mongolian hire’ül
‘dueller, forefighter’) and means ‘advance-guard’ (Doerfer I, p. 532). It is interesting
that in the Tuzūkāt the term manglay, also of Mongolian origin, does not occur, al-
though it was the official name of the advance-guard under the Timurids. In Yazdī
(ZNY, pp. 30a, 49a, 66a, 95b, 96b, 111a, 113a, 116a, 122a, 124b, 127b, 131b, 132a,
133b, 135b, 137a, 147b, 151ab, 154b, 157b, 175b, 188b, 194a, 198b, 199a, 209b,
213ab, 214b, 217a, 225b, 226ab, 227a, 230b, 231a, 247a, 256a, 273a, 317b, 332b,
365b, 367a, 370a, 376a) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30, 42, 44, 47, 52,
55, 57, 63, 66, 69, 71, 74, 84, 92, 104, 107, 108, 112, 113, 114, 119, 124, 130, 141,
142, 150, 158, 159, 189, 190, 198, 199, 200, 220, 232) the word manqlay/manġlay
often occurs with the meaning ‘advance-guard’ (‘avant-gard, corps que l’on envoie
en avant’: ZNS, p. 303). Of course, the term hirävül was also used by both Šāmī (ZNS,
pp. 28, 132) and Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 108b, 111a, 219a, 237a, 318a, 320a, 321b, 334b,
380b), but more rarely than manqlay.
The Bāburnāma used exclusively irävül for ‘advance-guard’, and the word also
appears in Chagatay dictionaries as well. The Tuzūkāt also gives only hirevül for ‘ad-
vance-guard’, where it occurs 49 times. There are some phrases too, such as hirävül-i
čapāvul, hirävül-i šiqāvul, hirävül-i barānġār ‘advance-guard of the right wing’, hi-
rävül-i javānġār ‘advance-guard of the left wing’.
čapavul (Davy 1783, p. 62/11, p. 372/18, 19; p. 388/7, 8, p. 390/19; p. 392/1, 2;

p. 394/4, 5, 6; p. 398/8, 9, 13; p. 402/2; p. 406/11; p. 408/4, 5). In the work the word
čapāvul means the ‘advance-guard of the right wing’. It does not appear with this
meaning in any other source, including the Timurid sources. According to Doerfer it
means ‘raid, attack, plundering’ (‘plötzlicher Überfall nach einem Streifzug’). It is
also known in the contemporary Uzbek language as čåpåvul ‘courier, messenger, ser-
vant’ (‘posyl’nyj, sluga, pobeguškah’: Doerfer III, pp. 1063/48–50). The term de-
rives from the Turkic verb čap- and a Mongolian suffix -AġUl, and it can mean ‘raid’
and ‘raider’ as well. The word occurs 18 times in the Tuzūkāt, always in pair with
šïqāvul ‘the advance-guard of the left wing’. I have hitherto not been able to find any
trace of a similar military corps either in the Timurid era, or in the later periods.

šïqavul (Davy 1783, p. 62/11; p. 372/18; p. 388/10, 11; p. 390/20; p. 392/1, 3; p.

394/4, 5, 6; p. 398/11, 12, 13; p. 402/5; p. 406/12; p. 408/4, 5). The word appears in
the text as the ‘advance-guard of the left wing’, and is not known with a similar mean-
ing or form from any Timurid source. Its only appearance from Timur’s lifetime is
known from the work of Ruy Gonzales de Clavijo, who mentioned it in the form
xagaul (šaġaul), and described it as a person who accompanies and takes care of the
ambassadors (Clavijo 1943, p. 226).
Its meaning is ‘host’ (‘Gastbegleiter’: Doerfer I, p. 355). According to Doerfer
the word derives from the Mongolian šiqaγa- ‘guetter, regarder par une fenêtre ou
par une fente, viser, mirer, couche en joue’ (‘look out for somebody, look across
a window, point, examine, keep an eye on somebody’) (Kowalewski 1844–1849,
p. 1467). However, I think it is more probable that it comes from the Classical Mon-
golian siga-‘presser, pressurer, exprimer, enfoncer, filtrer, s’approcher, atteindre à
peu près manques un peu’ (Kowalewski, p. 1466); ‘to press, squash, to strain (by
squeezing), to crowd, to oppress, to urge, force something upon somebody, to fatten
for slaughter’ (Lessing 1960, p. 721); see the contemporary Khalha šaxax ‘to com-
press, press, approach, fatten’ (‘összeszorít, összenyom, közel jár, megközelít, hízlal’:
Kara 1998, p. 704). There is another word šaax in the Khalha Mongolian with the
meaning ‘to hit, beat, beat with the fist, force something on somebody’ (‘üt, ver, ököl-
lel ver, ráerőltet’: Kara 1998, p. 693). The verb has a form with the -AġUl suffix as
well. So according to the data at our disposal, the word may have been formed from a
verb meaning ‘to hit, beat, force’, and thus it can be the Mongolian synonym of the
Turkic čapāvul. These ideas, however, are hypothetical, as, apart from for the Tuzū-
kāt-i Tīmūrī, we know of no other source, where it appears with a similar meaning.
For the meaning of šïqavul the following data are at our disposal: in Pavet de
Courteille’s dictionary it means ‘who accompanies the ambassadors’ (‘celui qui ac-
compagne les ambassadeurs’: PC 1870, p. 380); in Budagov’s dictionary ‘master of
ceremony, the person who leads the ambassadors to the audience in Khiva and Ko-
kand, nowadays it is used in the same sense’ (‘ceremonijmejster, tot kto vvodit po-
slannikov v audienciju v Hive i Kokande i v nastojaščeje vremja slovo êto upotre-
bljajetsja v tom že značenii’: Budagov 1871, p. 668). The word appears with the
same meaning in the dictionary of Šeyh Suleymān Efendi as ‘master of ceremony,
host, the name of a rank in Turkestan’ (‘tešrifatčï, mihmāndār, Türkistan’da bir rütbe
ismidir’: Kunos 1902, p. 177). Its meaning in the Abuška is ‘innkeeper’ (‘vendéglős,
fogadós’: Vámbéry 1862, p. 74).
In the text the term always (18 times) occurs in pair with čapāvul, but it does
not appear in any other source as a military unit.
javānġār (Davy 1783, p. 62/12; p. 132/19; p. 298/12; p. 372/15, 18; p. 378/16; p.

380/3; p. 382/3, 4, 5; p. 388/4 (twice), 10; p. 392/5, 8, 10; p. 394/7, 8, 9; p. 398/5, 6,
10; p. 402/15, 17; p. 404/1, 3; p. 406/12; p. 408/7, 8). The word is of Mongolian ori-
gin deriving from the compound of the nouns je’ün ‘left’ and ġar ‘arm’. According
to Doerfer it means ‘the left wing’ (Doerfer I, p. 297). In the Post-Mongolian sources
it was used as a term for the left wing by both the Turkic and Mongolian nomads.

452 G. CSIKY
It also appears in Yazdī’s (ZNY: 20a, 120b, 125a, 168a, 171b, 180b, 200a, 210b,
211a, 214b, 217b, 219a, 227a) and Šāmī’s Ẓafarnāma (ZNS: 84, 93, 127, 132, 146,
152, 172, 173, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 195, 201, 102, 207, 216, 224, 227, 232, 238).
In Šāmī it means ‘the left wing of the army’ (‘aile gauche de l’armée’: ZNS, p. 271).
These meanings of the word perfectly harmonise with the Tuzūkāt, in which the word
appears exclusively in the company of barānġār ‘right wing’. Its Arabic-Persian
synonym is the maysara, which is frequent in the Timurid souces as well. The word
appears 28 times in the text, always with the meaning ‘left wing’. In the respective
editions of the Tuzūkāt by Davy and Ahmedov, it occurs in the false form as ja-
rānġār.
baranġār (Davy 1783, p. 62/12; p. 134/2; p. 298/12; p. 372/14, 17; p. 378/16, 18;
p. 380/2; p. 382/3, 4, 5; p. 388/2, 3; p. 392/5, 8, 10; p. 394/7, 8, 9; p. 398/3, 4; p.
402/14, 17; p. 404/1; p. 406/12; p. 408/7, 8). The word is of Mongolian origin. It is
the compound of the words bara’an ‘right’ and ġar ‘arm’, its meaning is ‘right wing’
(Doerfer I, pp. 206–208). The term is widely used in the Post-Mongolian sources,
such as the Ẓafarnāmas of Yazdī (Doerfer I, pp. 206–208) and Šāmī (ZNS: 84, 114,
127, 146, 152, 163, 168, 172, 185, 156, 188, 189, 190, 195, 201, 207, 226, 232). The
word was used in the meaning of, meaning ‘aile droite de l’armée’ (right wing of the
army) by Šāmī in the latter (ZNS, p. 265). In the Tuzūkāt the term occurs 28 times,
always in pair with javānġār. Its Arabic-Persian synonym is maymana.
qol (Davy 1783, p. 134/5; p. 372/14; p. 382/6; p. 388/1; p. 392/13; p. 394/10; p.

396/15, 16, 17; p. 404/11; p. 406/4; p. 408/13). This word of Mongolian origin derives
from the Mongolian noun ġol ‘the centre of something, axis’. It was the general name
of the centre of the armies in the Post-Mongol Period. It appears in the Timurid Age
as well, it is used by Yazdī (ZNY: 56a, 108b, 111a, 112a, 125a, 131b, 135b, 154b,
170b, 171b, 203a, 208b, 214b, 217ab, 219a, 227a, 237ab, 238a, 250b, etc.) and Šāmī
too (ZNS: 16, 25, 26, 28, 45, 46, 47, 52, 54, 57, 69, 71, 92, 104, 116, 123, 127, 132,
133, 134, 144, 150, 159, 161, 179, 186, 188, 189, 190, 197, 199, 200, 213, 226, 232,
255). In Šāmī it means ‘the centre of an army or troop’ (‘centre de l’armée, troupe’:
ZNS, p. 293). Generally it occurs together with barānġār ‘right wing’ and javānġār
‘left wing’, altogether 12 times. Its Arabic synonym is qalb.
yasal (Davy 1783, p. 126/20). The word is of Mongolian origin, being a nominal de-
rivative of the verb jasa- ‘to arrange’. According to Doerfer it means: ‘order of the
state, order of battle, phalanx; course of procession, garland’ (‘staatliche Ordnung,
Schlachtordnung, Phalanx; Ordnung in einer Prozession, auch von Blumengewin-
den’: Doerfer IV, p. 82). Čahār farsang rāh yasāl basta īstāda būdand ‘They went in
battle order four miles’ (Davy 1783, p. 126). It appears only once in the text, the
order of battle order being referred to as ṣaff, a word of Arabic origin.

The units
tābīn (Davy 1783, p. 230/5, 12; p. 232/6; p. 274/6). The word has two possible ex-
planations. According to the first one, it derives from the Mongolian word tābīn
’fifty’, and it means ‘the special unit of the ruler’s body-guards, originally consisting
of 50 men’ (‘spezielle Leibgarde der Herrschern, ursprünglich aus 50 Mann beste-
hend’: Doerfer I, p. 241). In the Tuzūkāt it always appears in the environment of a
military rank: Ḥukm-i onbašiyān bar tābīnān jārī bāšad. ‘The order of a corporal
should be valid for his subordinates’ (Davy 1783, p. 230); Va ‘ulūfa-yi on bašï dah
barābar ‘ulūfa-yi tābīnān-i vey bāšad. ‘The pay of the corporal should has to be the
tenfold of the one of his subordinates’ (Davy 1783, p. 232); Va tābīnān-i on bašï-rā
dar šamšīr-i avval on bāšï kardānand.‘The subordinates of the corporal should have
to be appointed for the rank of corporal at the first sword’ (Davy 1783, p. 274). In the
Tuzūkāt it appears only in its Persian form. Judging by the context, its meaning is
‘subordinate’. It occurs only in two parts of the work: in the parts ordering the decrees
on the payment and in the parts on the advance of the troops.
I could not find this term in any other Timurid source but the Bāburnāma,
where the military escort of the ruler is called hāṣṣa tābīn, which was first mentioned
in connection with Abū Sa‘īd Mīrzā. According to the description, Abū Sa‘īd divided
this special force into two units: the Khorasanian and the Samarkandian units (Bābur
1946, p. 15). The tābīn were positioned in the battle order beside the ruler (Bābur
1946, p. 380).
According to another possible etymology of the term, it is not of Turco-Mon-
golian, but of Arabic origin. Accordingly, it would be an erroneous form of the Ara-
bic plural form (tābi‘īn) of tābi‘ ‘belonging to somebody, subordinate to’ (Steingass
1892, p. 272), with the letter ‘ayn omitted. Since the meaning of the word in the
Tuzūkāt is exclusively ‘subordinate, dependant’, and it never refers to a miliatary unit
of 50 men, I consider the Arabic explanation of this word more probable. Hence this
term can be deleted from the list of the Turco-Mongolian elements of the text.
qošun (Davy 1783, p. 28/12; p. 84/17; p. 92/8, 10; p. 132/10; p. 328/7; p. 384/6;
p. 396/12). According to Doerfer, this word is of Mongolian origin meaning ‘fighting
unit’ (‘Kampfgruppe’). The original meaning of Mongolian qosiġun was ‘Schwanze,
Schnabel, Spitze, Vorausabteilung’ (‘tail, bill, tip, advance-guard’), which later came
to mean ‘smaller military unit’ (Doerfer I, p. 282). It is also possible that qošun de-
rives from the Turkic verb qoš- ‘to join somebody, collect’ with an -n noun forma-
tive. The term appears in the Ẓafarnāmas of Yazdī (ZNY: 106b, 107b, 108a, 112a,
113a, 117b, 120b, 124b, 129ab, 164b, 169b, 171a, 173b, 175b, 176ab, 192b, 197a,
202a, 207b, 209a, 211a, 213a, 214b, 215a, 216ab, 217b, etc.) and Šāmī (ZNS: 25, 28,
30, 45, 49, 50, 79, 81, 92, 94, 95, 96, 115, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 134, 143,
159, 160, 173, 175, 178, 183, 185, 187, 188, 190, 194, 202, 205, 207, 230, 241, 252).
Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū also used this term (HA, pp. 7, 17). The meaning of the word according
to Šāmī is ‘troop, army’. In the Tuzūkāt, the qošūn appears eight times, always in the
plural qošūnāt. Several times it occurs together with tümen and ulus.

454 G. CSIKY
tümän (Davy 1783, p. 22/8; p. 92/8, 10; p. 282/13; p. 292/11; p. 306/18; p. 308/1, 7;
p. 328/7; p. 372/8; p. 384/6; p. 396/12). The original meaning of the word was a mili-
tary unit of ten thousand men, but in the Tuzūkāt it was used also with a slightly
different meaning. It is noticeable that it often appears together with the words such
as qošun, ulus, il and oymaq. The term occurs in other Timurid sources as well, such
as in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 20a, 30b, 31b, 33b, 34a, 45b, 47ab, 56a, 61a, 62a, 63a, 73b,
100a, 113a, 126a, 141b, etc.) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 16, 18, 30, 97, 101, 123, 179, 184,
188, 203, 205, 226, 230, 237, 239). It can also be found in the chronicle of Ḥāfiẓ-i
Abrū (HA, pp. 5, 13, 15, 17) where it means: ‘10.000, corps de 10.000 hommes, ter-
ritoire qui peut mettre 10.000 homme en campagne’ (ZNS, p. 270). The term occurs
17 times in the Tuzūkāt, four times together with the words qošun and ulus (pp. 306,
328, 384, 396), once together with il and qošun (p. 92), and once with oymaq (p. 372).
So tümen in the Tuzūkāt may stand for ‘a unit of ten thousand men; a territory which
could provide ten thousand men’.
Special forces, the guards

yasavul (Davy 1783, p. 234/4; p. 236/3; p. 328/18). Yasavul is the Turkic form of a
Mongolian word jasavul. The term derives from the Mongolian verb jasa- ‘to ar-
range, put in order’. According to Doerfer, yasavul means ‘guard of the khan, guard
(at court festivities, audiences, etc.), adjutant, officer (who arranges the battle order
and delivers messages’ (‘Leibwache beim Chan, Aufseher (bei Festen, Hofempfängen
usw.), Adjutant, Ordner (der die Schlachtreihen ordnet und Meldungen überbringt):
Doerfer IV, pp. 166–172). The term occurs in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 74b, 216b, 292b,
461b) and Šāmī (ZNS, p. 273) and in the work of Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, p. 17). In Šāmī it
means ‘arrangeur, intendant, chambellan’ (ZNS, p. 308), while in the Tuzūkāt it is
used as the name of a special security force, often occurring in pair with its Mon-
golian form jasavul. According to the decrees of the Tuzūkāt, the leader of the yasa-
vul had to sit opposite the throne at the entrance of the tent (dargāh) during the audi-
encies (Davy 1783, p. 328). Most probably its meaning was ‘policeman of the court’,
while elsewhere, for example in the camps, the policemen were called kūtvāl.
jasaul (Davy 1783, p. 234/4; p. 236/3). It is the Mongolian variant of the above-men-
tioned word yasavul (q.v.) (Doerfer I, p. 279).
qorčï (Davy 1783, p. 370/5). The word is of Mongolian origin, its original meaning
was ‘quiver-bearer’ (‘Köcherträger’), which later acquired the meaning ‘the ruler’s
body-guard’ (‘Leibgarde der Herrscher’: Doerfer I, p. 429). Va qūrčīyān bi-jihat-i
nigāhbānī-yi zirā‘at u ra‘īyat muqarrar namāyand. ‘And they should appoint qorčïs
to check supervie the plough-lands and the common people’ (Davy 1783, p. 370).
According to Tauer, the meaning of the term is: ‘armé, garde (à cheval)’ (ZNS, p. 293).
The word occurs also in the Timurid sources such as Šāmī (ZNS II, p. 114) and Ḥā-
fiẓ-i Abrū, the latter mentioning the qorčïs from 1408–1409, the period of Šāhruh’s
reign (1409–1447) (HA, pp. 415b, 435b).

qulluqčï (Davy 1783, p. 234/4; p. 236/3). The word is a derivative of the Turkic
noun qul ‘servant’. According to Doerfer it means ‘Leibsklave, Knappe, Trossknecht
(im persönlichen Dienst und zum persönlichen Schutz des Herrschers in Heerlager)’
(Doerfer IV, p. 558). Its meaning in the Tuzūkāt is ‘body-guard, the immediate staff
of the ruler’.
The word qulluqčï is used in the same way as qaučin in the Timurid sources
(see Ando 1992, pp. 262–270). In Timur’s age the body-guards of the ruler were
called qaučin, and this form often appears in the works of Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 134, 194)
and Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 238a, 328b). In the Tuzūkāt, qulluqčï always occurs together with
yasāvul and jasāul, its meaning is thus the ‘staff who are responsible for the security
of the ruler’. The term appears only in the decree on payments. Instead of qulluqčï,
the chapter of the Tuzūkāt on the body-guards uses the word qulčï in the same meaning.
qulčï (Davy 1783, p. 298/1, 4). Similarly to qulluqčï, qulčï is also a derivative of the
Turkic noun qul ‘servant’. According to Doerfer its meaning ‘slave’ (‘Sklave’: Doer-
fer IV, pp. 618–619). There are some problems with the etymology of the word, as
qul designates an occupation on its own, so the suffix +čI is superfluous.
The word occurs in the Tuzūkāt exclusively in the meaning ‘body-guard’, its
semantic content is the same as that of qulluqčï. Va davāzdah hazār qulčï-yi šamšīr-
bardār bā yarāq u ṣilāḥ dar yamīn u yasār pas u pīš dīvānhāna dar kušk ḥāḍir bā-
šand (‘Twelve thousand body-guards with swords in their right and left hands should
have to stand on alert in front of and behind the building of the dīvān in a kiosk’).
According to the Tuzūkāt, qulčï was the guard of the ruler. The terms qulluqčï and
qulčï probably belong together, the form qulčï being, to my mind, a scribal error of
qulluqčï. The latter term often appears in 16th–17th-century Safavid sources with the
meaning ‘guard, military escort’. Hence, these two words (or more precisely one word
with its ‘ghost-word’ variant), can be attributed to the activity of the translator, and
belongs to the Safavid layer of the work.
yatïš (Davy 1783, p. 296/12; p. 298/9). The word is of Turkic origin, being a nominal
derivative of the Turkic verb yat- ‘to lie’. It is a synonym of yataq ‘imperial night-
watch’ (Davy 1783, p. 298). The term does not occur in the Persian sources of the
Timurid era, but it can be found in Bābur’s autobiography. It appears only twice in
the text of the Tuzūkāt, both times in the listing of the special forces. The first occur-
rence is in a chapter-title: Tuzūk-i yātiš-i ḥuḍūr u majālis-i bazm u razm ‘Decree on
the guards and on the conferences in war and peace’ (Davy 1783, p. 296); Har šab
hazār kas az īšān dar yātiš ḥāḍir bāšand. ‘Every night one thousand people of them
should be present on night duty.’ These references clearly attest that the word means
‘night-watchman’.
čapqunčï (Davy 1783, p. 300/8; p. 350/6). The word is of Turkic origin, derives de-
riving from the verb čap- ‘to descend, attack’. According to Doerfer it means ‘light
equipped unit, ambushers, marauder’ (‘schnelle, leicht ausgerüstete Truppe, Teilneh-
mer an einem schnellen Überfall, Marodeur’: Doerfer III, p. 14). The term is known

456 G. CSIKY
to Timurid sources as well. The čapqun appears in Šāmī (in the form of čapqūn)
(ZNS, p. 231), and in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 148b, 252b, 353b, 388a, 399b, 418a, 420ab,
425a). The form čapqunčï, with the formative +čI, can only be found by in Ḥāfiẓ-i
Abrū (ZNS, p. 38). According to Tauer, the meaning of the word is ‘one who makes
an incursion’ (‘qui fait une incursion’: ZNS, p. 271).
In the Tuzūkāt, čapqunčï refers to a rapid military unit: Va amr numūdam, ki
čahār favj-i čapqunčï ta‘yīn namāyand, ki tā čahār farsangī laškar-rā bi-qayd-i ḍabṭ
dar āvadand ‘I ordered that they should form four units of čapqunčï to check the
army in a circle of four farsangs’ (Davy 1783, p. 300). The čapqunčï played great role
also in the collection of information, as described in the Tuzūkāt: Amr numūdam, ki
yik hazār nafr-i jamāza-savār va asp-savār-i čapqunčï […]ta‘yīn namāyand ki ah-
bār-i mamālik u sarḥadd u irāda u muqāṣid-i salāṭīn jivār-rā taḥqīq numūda u bi-
ḥuḍūr āmada habar rasānand ‘I ordered that one thousand camelmen and horsemen
should form a čapqunčï and they should gather intelligence from the provinces and
frontiers, about the intention and purposes of the sultans in the vicinity, and after
arriving to my presence they should inform me’ (Davy 1783, p. 350). In the Tuzūkāt,
therefore, čapqunčï refers to a special rapid military unit that was used for various
tasks.
Other military terms

oqčï (Davy 1783, p. 386/3; p. 388/13). The word of Turkic origin derives from the
noun oq ‘arrow’ with a nomen actoris +čI. It means ‘archer, bowman’. The word is
not known from any Timurid source, and is probably a Turkic common word in the
text. The term always appears in connection with weapon-services, as in a list: az
oqčï u šamšīrī u nayzadār […] ‘archers, sword-bearers, spear-bearers’. On the basis
of these data, it cannot be regarded as a special force.
nöker (Davy 1783, p. 50/5; p. 52/8, 10; p. 70/19; p. 90/11; p. 150/3; p. 268/3; p.
308/11; p. 312/12; p. 314/5, 8; p. 316/9, 14; p. 318/10; p. 320/1, 4, 10; p. 354/17).
The word is of Mongolian origin. According to Doerfer its meaning is ‘attendant,
servant’ (‘Gefolgsmann, Diener’: Doerfer I, p. 521). After the Mongol period, it was
borrowed by the Persian language, where it became a common word meaning
‘servant’. The word appears in the Timurid sources as well, such as in Šāmī (ZNS,
pp. 22, 27, 29, 35, 44, 50, 59, 67, 73, 88, 91, 92, 107, 109, 110, 115, 120, 122, 125,
128, 180, 194), with the meaning ‘servant, servitor’ (‘serviteur, hommelige’: ZNS,
p. 305). In the Tuzūkāt it signifies ‘servant’, the meaning ‘military escort’ had faded
by that time.
elči (Davy 1783, p. 70/9, 11, 13; p. 90/5; p. 114/13, 14, 15, 16; p. 116/2; p. 124/18, p.
126/3; p. 146/18; 148/13). The word is of Turkic origin, being a derivative in +čI
(nomen actoris) of the noun el ‘empire’. It means ‘envoy, state courier, ambassador’
(‘Gesandter, Staatskurier, Bote’: Doerfer II, p. 203). The term often appears in the
Persian sources of the Timurid period, such as in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 23b, 25ab, 29a,

32a, 34b, 38a, 40ab, 41a, 45a, 48a, 50a, 51a, 54a, 59ab, 61a, 73b, 97a, 100a, 110b,
117b, 118b, 142b, 158ab, 162a, 163b, 165a, 185b, 186b, 209a, 210a, 246b, 257a,
295a, 301a, 302a, 305b, 327b, 338ab, 340b, 348b, 362a, 363b, 365a, 368ab, 369a,
378a, 379b, 382a, 396a, 397a, 400b, 401a etc.) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 16, 18, 38, 62, 67,
75, 79, 82, 117, 157, 177, 193, 206, 217, 222, 230, 231, 243, 274), and Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū
also used the word (HA, pp. 17, 18, 19, 21, 26). In the Tuzūkāt it occurs relatively fre-
quently with the meaning ‘ambassador’.
kütel (Davy 1783, p. 74/1; p. 268/7, 8, 9; p. 396/8). There are three possible inter-
pretations of this word. First, according to Tauer it means: ‘cheval de main’ (ZNS, p.
296). Among the Timurid sources, it occurs in the work of Šāmī (ZNS, p. 40, 133).
Second, the dictionary of Zenker interprets it as ‘das worauf man steigt, Fahrzeug;
Reitthier, Handpferd’ (Zenker 1866, p. 766) The above-mentioned meaning, how-
ever, cannot be confirmed by the context of the word: va az barāyi har yikī kötelī
ta‘yīn kardam ‘because of this I appointed a kütel to all of them’ (Davy 1783, p. 74),
va az barāyi har yik kötel ta‘yīn kardam, agar yikī az īšān-rā mavt u favt pīš āyad, ān
kūtal jānišīn-i ū bāšad, va ān kūtal-rā muntaẓir-i amārat nām nahādam. ‘because of
this I appointed a kütel to all of them; when one of them would die, the kütel has to
sit in his place; and I gave to this kütel the title heir of the emirate’ (Davy 1783,
p. 268); va kūtal-i ū-rā, ki muntaẓir al-amārat bāšad, bi-jā-yi ū nasb kunand ‘and his
kütel, who is the heir to the emirate, should be appointed to his place’ (Davy 1783,
p. 396). Hence the meaning of the word is ‘heir to the emirate, deputy’. According to
a third supposition, the word may also derive from the Turkic verb küt- ‘to wait’.
Terms of warfare
čapqulaš (Davy 1783, p. 62/12; p. 82/2; p. 208/1). The word is of Turkic origin. The
nominal formative -qu was added to the verb čap- ‘to descend, attack’, then čapqu
was further augmented with the verbal formative +la, finally the word čapqulaš was
formed with the nominal formative -š. The meaning of the derived word means ‘an
’attack, fight, struggle’ (‘Kampf, Handgemenge’: Doerfer III, p. 5). Though čapqulaš
itself is not attested from other Timurid sources, other derivatatives of the root čap-
are frequently met with, such as čapqun ‘descent, attack’ and čapqunčï ‘attacker’.
ïlġar (Davy 1783, p. 68/9; p. 96/9; p. 112/9; p. 126/6; p. 266/6; p. 354/8). The word
is of Mongolian origin, according to Doerfer it means ‘ein Überfall auf den Feind
(meist auf eine Stadt) mit berittene Elitetruppen’ (Doerfer I, p. 193). The term often
occurs in the Persian sources of the Timurid period, in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 57a, 109b,
111a, 131b, 143b, 172b, 186a, 199b, 201ab, 202a, 203a, 204a, 208a, 231a, 232a,
234b, 243a), in Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 53, 66, 67, 86, 80, 115, 116, 121, 123, 130, 138, 150,
157, 161, 165, 181, 285, 286) and in Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, p. 12). In the latter it means
‘marche rapide, course, incursion, marche à le légère, troup qui fait un incursion’
(ZNS, p. 263). Since the word is commonly used in medieval Persian texts, it can-

458 G. CSIKY
not serve as a proof for the existence of a Turkic original which the Tuzūkāt was
based on.
yasaq (Davy 1783, p. 120/5; p. 140/14; p. 148/16; p. 208/11; p. 270/7; p. 292/15; p.

298/8; p. 308/2, 7; p. 312/8; p. 314/15); yasa (Davy 1783, p. 250). Although the term
is of Mongolian origin, it spread in its Turkic form. According to Doerfer it means
‘Gesetz Čiŋgis Chans; gesetzliche Ordnung; Gebot, Erlass eines Herrschers; Befehl
(in einer speziellen Angelegenheit); gesetzliche Strafe, im Normalfall: Hinrichtung;
Kriegszug (zur Wiederherstellung der ‚gesetzlichen Ordnung‘); (gesetzlich oder durch
Erlass vorgeschriebener) Tribut, Dienstleistung (insbesondere als eine Art Kriegs-
dienst bzw. Kriegssteuer); Aufstellung einer Phalanx; Berichtigung eines Irrtums,
Aufklärung eines Zweifels’ (Doerfer IV, p. 71).
The occurrences of the word appear in other Timurid sources as well: such as
in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 20b, 26a, 33ab, 34a, 49a, 50b, 56b, 57a, 59b, 64b, 70a, 71a, 75a,
97b, 100ab, 110b, 131a, 135b, 145a, 147ab, 153b, 157a, 173b, 179a, 198a, 215a,
240a, 253a, 258b, 288b, 309a, 312b, 318a, 343b, 349b, 356b, 357a, 365a, 381a,
384a, 418b), Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 9, 10, 14, 17, 19, 58, 60, 67, 95, 98, 121, 147, 188, 230,
291) and Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, pp. 15, 17, 19). In Šāmī it means ‘loi, ordre, arrange-
ment, service militaire, châtiment légal, bastonnade, peine capitale, être mis en mort’
(ZNS, p. 307), while in the Tuzūkāt it generally means ‘campaign’, but is also used in
the sense of death penalty.
kömäk (Davy 1783, p. 76/9; p. 390/14; p. 398/2; p. 402). The word is of Turkic ori-
gin; its meaning is ‘Reserve, Reservetruppe, Hilfstruppe, Hilfe, Stipendium’ (Doerfer
III, p. 1645/606). The word does not appear in the Persian sources of the Timurid pe-
riod, but it can be found in Bābur with the same meaning: Dar ‘ilāj-i ān muhtāj-i
komak kardam ‘in its treatment I needed help’. In the Tuzūkāt the meaning of kömek
is exclusively ‘help, support’ (and not ‘auxiliary troops, reinforcement’), madad being
its synonym: ’bi-har jā madad bāyad rasānīd, kūmak namāyand’ (‘You have to send
help to everywhere’) (Davy 1783, p. 398).
keŋäš (Davy 1783, p. 2/2, 3; p. 4/4; p. 6/16; p. 8/8, 12; p. 10/6, 9; p. 12/1, 6; p. 14/1,
3, 6, 12, 15; p. 16/1, 3; p. 18/1, 7, 14; p. 20/7; p. 22/1 (in the form keŋäč), 5, 10; p.
24/1; p. 30/17; p. 32/2, 8, 10; p. 34/13; p. 36/11; p. 38/12; p. 40/14; p. 42/1; p. 44/11;
p. 46/3, 9, 13; p. 48/4, 7; p. 54/12, 14, 16; p. 58/7; p. 60/4, 9, 17; p. 62/7; p. 64/1; p.
68/2, 14; p. 70/12, 14; p. 72/6; p. 74/10; p. 76/5, 8, 11, 13; p. 78/16; p. 80/1, 6, 18; p.
82/20; p. 84/1; p. 86/12; p. 88/1, 12; p. 94/5, 6; p. 100/1, 16; p. 104/6; p. 108/12, 17;
p. 110/6, 12; p. 112/5; p. 114/2, 7, 10, 13; p. 116/7, 16; p. 118/15; p. 120/10, 15; p.
122/10; p. 124/11, 17; p. 126/10, 16; p. 128/10, 12; p. 132/8, 15, 17; p. 134/13; p.
136/17; p. 138/6; p. 140/1, 11; p. 142/1, 6; p. 144/4, 17, 19, 20; p. 146/1, 19; p. 148/9,
18; p. 150/9; p. 152/9; p. 160/2; p. 204/11; p. 208/2; p. 282/6; p. 334/20; p. 354/6).
Used in various meanings, this word of Turkic origin appears most frequently in the
Tuzūkāt. The word is also known in other Persian sources as keŋäč, a variant of keŋäš
‘advice, council’ (Doerfer III, p. 613: ‘Beratung’; ZNS, p. 296: ‘déliberation’). It is

used with this meaning in the Ẓafarnāmas of Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 26b, 48a, 73a, 291a,
474b, 481a) and Šāmī (ZNS, p. 149).
yaraq (Davy 1783, p. 36/17; p. 298/1). The word is of Turkic origin, its meaning is
‘weapon, armoury, equipment’ (‘voll ausgerüstet, durchtrainiert, feldzugsbereit (be-
sonders vom Pferd), angemessen, geeignet, Ratschlag (das für angemessen Gehalte-
ne), Bedarf (für Hofhaushalt usw.), Austattung, Ausrüstung, Zubehör, Pferdegeschirr,
Juwelen, Bewaffnung’: Doerfer IV, pp. 143–144). The term occurs in other Timurid
sources as well, such as in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 96b, 253b, 369b, 432a, 476b, 477b, 478b,
486a) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 38, 117, 125, 147, 222, 229, 276). The meaning of the word
in Šāmī is ‘appareil, armure, provisions préparées’ (ZNS, p. 307). Aspān u yarāq-i
marā ḥāḍir āvardand. ‘They brought me my horses and my weapons.’ (Davy 1783,
p. 56); Va davāzdah hazār qulčï-yi šamšīr-bardār bā yarāq u ṣilāḥ dar yamīn u yasār
[…] ‘12,000 body-guards with weapons in their right and left hands’) (Davy 1783, p.
298). In the Tuzūkāt it often appears in pair with ṣilāḥ.
čārpalčār (Davy 1783, p. 230/10; p. 232/11; p. 272/8). It is a word of unknown ori-

gin and meaning. It appears three times in the work; and, I could not find any trace of
it in other sources. Va hamčanīn amr kardam ki dar čārpalčār u umūr-i salṭanat
ḥukm-i miŋbašï bar yüzbašï u ḥukm-i yüzbašï bar onbašï u ḥukm-i onbašï bar tābīnān
jārī bāšad. ‘Similarly I ordered that in the čārpalčār and in the affairs of the kingdom
the order of the colonel be above the captain, the order of the captain above the
corporal and the order of the corporal above the subordinates.’ (Davy 1783, p. 230);
Va ḥukm kardam ki har yik az sipāh ki dar čārpalčār kūtāhī namāyad, dah yik az
‘ulūfa-yi ū kam namāyand. ‘I ordered that every soldier who shows insufficiency in
the čārplčār, should be given one tenth less payment.’ (Davy 1783, p. 232); Va amr
kardam ki dar vaqt-i čārwplčār amīr ul-umarā bi-umarā u miŋbašïyān u yüzbašïyān
u onbašïyān habar rasānand. ‘I ordered that in time of čārwplčār the commander-in-
chief should inform the emirs, the colonels, the captains and the corporals.’ (Davy
1783, p. 272).
The word has no acceptable etymology, its tentative meaning may be ‘cam-
paign, war’. We cannot find it in any work of contemporary historiography or lexi-
cography (Persian, Turkic or Mongolian dictionaries). The explanation of Ahmedov
that čarpalčār derives from the Turkic verb čarp- ‘to descend, attack’, is not convinc-
ing at all. Maybe it is an erroneous form of the Persian čār nā čār or čār u nā čār
‘inevitable, of necessity, whether willing or not willing, nolens volens’ (Steingass
1892, p. 385).
jüldü (Davy 1783, p. 208/19; p. 276/5, 14; p. 282/2; p. 288/9). The word is of Mon-
golian origin, and means ‘Belohnung für eine verdienstvolle Tat’ (Doerfer I, p. 294),
‘présent, écompense, faveur’ (ZNS, p. 272). It can be found in Šāmī and Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū
(HA, p. 16). Va har sipāhī ki šamšīr zanad va zam bardārad, ū-rā jüldü bidahand.
‘Every soldier who distinguishes himself in the battle and is wounded, should be
given reward.’ (Davy 1783, p. 276). It often appears in pair with the word in‘ām

460 G. CSIKY
‘present’ (Davy 1783, pp. 208, 282). Illustrative of the degree of the presents is the
following statement: dar jüldü-yi onbašï ḥukūmat-i šahrī bidahand, va dar jüldü-yi
yüzbašï ḥukūmat-i mamlakatī arzānī dārand. ‘the reward of the corporal [in the case
of victory] should be the governorship of a town, the reward of the captain should be
the governorship of a province.’ (Davy 1783, p. 288).
yüriš (Davy 1783, p. 318/17). The word derives from the Turkic verb yürü-/ yorï- ‘to
go, to pass, to walk’, and it means ‘campaign’ (‘Feldzug, Raid, Sturmangriff’:
Doerfer IV, p. 217; ‘marche, campagne, expédition’: ZNS, p. 308). The word was
borrowed into the Persian, where it became a military term. The word often occurs in
the Persian sources of the Timurid period, such as in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 19b, 26b, 29a,
62ab, 65ab, 66b, 72a, 80a, 95a, 96, 101b, 110b, 113b, 115a, 147a, 154a, 207ab, 226b,
etc.), Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 64, 82, 171, 222, 243, 286) and Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, pp. 16, 19,
21). In the Tuzūkāt the term appears only once: ‘Agar dar ġayr-i vaqt-i kār u yūriš
āmada, mulāzamat iḥtiyār namāyad, ū-rā karāmī dārand. ‘If he [a servant] does not
come in the time of action and campaign, and presents his services, he should be re-
ceived with favour.’ (Davy 1783, p. 318).
Jurisdiction
yarlïġ (Davy 1783, p. 22/8; p. 26/10; p. 104/15, 18; p. 114/2, 5; p. 128/2; p. 136/11;
p. 140/11, 18; p. 234/15; p. 236/16; p. 238/1; p. 374/15; p. 400/5). It is a word of
Turkic origin, which is attested already in the runic inscriptions of Orhon with the
meaning ‘order, decree’. In the Mongol period and afterwards it was the official name
of an ‘imperial edict’ (‘kaiserlicher Erlass, Dekret; Bestallungsurkunde; Vollmachts-
urkunde’: Doerfer IV, pp. 153–158; ‘ordre royal, diplôme’: ZNS, p. 307). The term
generally used is frequent in the Timurid sources, such as in the works of Yazdī
(ZNY, pp. 5b, 28b, 30b, 44b, 49a, 57a, 59a, 60a, 67b, 71a, 73a, 74a, 77a, 114b, 126a,
145ab, 148b, 153b, 159a, 162b, 166a, 167a, 173a, 175b, 178b, 182b, 184b, 186b,
189ab etc.), Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 46, 125, 188, 223, 241) and Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, pp. 18,
26). In the Tuzūkāt it appears in the following compounds: yarlïġ u ‘ahd ‘decree and
contract’, yarlïġ-i ‘ulūfa ‘decree of payment’, yarlïġ-i fatḥ ‘decree of conquest’. The
word yarlïġ always referred to a written order or diploma.
tüzük (Davy 1783, p. 60/6; p. 64/9; p. 80/10; p. 102/6; p. 156/1; p. 158/1, 9, 11;
p. 160/6; p. 174/12, 19; p. 176/1, 2, 7; p. 178/14; p. 196/13, 14 (twice), 15; 198/2; p.
202/15; p. 204/1; p. 216/5; p. 220/1; p. 228/10; p. 230/16; p. 236/1; p. 252/8; p. 268/1;
p. 274/1; p. 282/1; p. 290/11; p. 292/15; p. 294/6; p. 296/12; p. 300/16; p. 306/17; p.
312/11; p. 326/16; p. 330/12; p. 344/3; p. 348/14; p. 354/12; p. 360/9; p. 362/5; p.
366/17; p. 372/4; p. 384/1, 12; p. 392/15; p. 396/1; p. 406/9). The word is of Turkic
origin, it is a derivative in -(I)k of the verb tüz- ‘to arrange’. (‘Regel, Vorschrift, ord-
nungsgemäss in Koran vorgeschriebene Nachlassanteile’: Doerfer II, p. 936/613). The
word tüzük is a synonym of Mongolian jasaq/yasaq, and it means ‘order, arrangement’.

The term occurs in the Bāburnāma, where it means both ‘order, law’, and ‘or-
der of battle’ (Bābur 1946, p. 659). It also often means the law of Chingis Khan (Bā-
bur 1946, p. 105), and is frequently used in pair with ḍabt (Bābur 1946, pp. 23, 26).
It also means ‘a well arranged battle-line’ (Bābur 1946, p. 232). In the sense of ‘auto-
biography’ the term first appeared during the reign of the Mughal Emperor Jahāngīr
(1605–1627), whose autobiography bore the title Tuzūk-i Jahāngīrī. The term was
generally used in Mughal India, and in Urdu tuzak became a common word. In the
Tuzūkāt, it is used in two senses: on the one hand it means ‘order, decree’, and on the
other, ‘arrangement of the troops of the army’.
törä (Davy 1783, p. 160/6, 7; p. 174/12, 19; p. 196/14; p. 198/1; p. 202/15). It is the
Mongolian variant of a word of Turkic origin. Its original form was törü, which can
be found in the Old Turkic inscriptions. After the Mongol period it gave way to the
Mongolian form töre, which meant ‘law, customary law’ (‘Recht, Gesetz, Gewohn-
heitsrecht’: Doerfer I, p. 264, ‘loi coutumière mongole, règle’: ZNS, p. 270). It appears
in the Timurid sources as well, in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 76b, 111a, 119b, 167a), Šāmī
(ZNS, pp. 147, 188) and Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, pp. 18, 19). In the Tuzūkāt it generally
occurs in pair with tüzük (q.v.).
Landed property
soyurġal (Davy 1783, p. 176/11; p. 234/8; p. 304/13). The word is of Mongolian

origin, and it means ‘fief, hereditary land grant’ (‘erbliches steuerfreies Lehen’:
Doerfer I, p. 351, ‘apanage, fief’: ZNS, p. 284). The word is frequently met with in
the Timurid sources, such as Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 5b, 99b, 175b, 177b, 193a, 194a, 252a,
259b, 280b, 292a, 419b, 449b, 451a, 1032, 1089, 116, 1119), Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 77, 89,
95, 97,101, 102, 107, 119, 122, 135, 145, 146, 153, 156, 164, 172, 207, 233, 262) and
Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, pp. 4, 16, 19). The Tuzūkāt makes mention of the soyurġals of the
sayyids, sheykhs and ulemas, whereas the estates of the secular and military leaders
are referred to as tiyūls. In the Timurid period the name of the divisible land grants
was soyurġal, while the tiyūl was a non-divisible estate in the post-Mongol period.
tiyūl (Davy 1783, p. 236/11; p. 238/14). This is a word of unknown origin, its mean-
ing is ‘a non-hereditary land grant for lifetime’ (‘Lehen auf Lebenszeit (nicht vererb-
lich)’: Doerfer II, p. 667; ‘Landgut’: Zenker 1866, p. 959). In the Tuzūkāt it always
appears in the form yatūl. Va bi-miŋbašïyān dar miyān-i vilāyat yatūl bidahand. ‘They
should give to the colonels estates from the provinces’ (Davy 1783, p. 236); Va har
mamlakat-rā ki yatūl bidahand du vazīr bidān mamlakat ta‘yīn namāyand ‘To every
province given as an estate two viziers have to be appointed’; Va bi-har amīrī ki ya-
tūl bidahand, tā si sāl bi-hāl nigāhdārand, wa ba‘d az si sāl mulāḥaẓa namāyand.
‘Every emir who received an estate, has to look after it for three years, and after the
third year the estate has to be inspected.’ (Davy 1783, p. 238). So tiyūl means a non-
divisible estate, it is the synonym of Arabic iqtā‘.

462 G. CSIKY
Insignia of rank
tuġ (Davy 1783, p. 282/5, 13; p. 290/14 (twice), 15; p. 298/5). Bar sar-i ṣad qulčï
yüzbāšï muqarrar namāyand, va tūqī bi-ū bidahand. ‘A captain has to be appointed
above a hundred body-guards, and should be given a tūq.’. This word is of Turkic
origin which means ‘standard made of horse or yak tail’ (‘Jakschweif- oder Ross-
schweifstandarte’: Doerfer II, p. 618; ‘queue de cheval, touc’: ZNS, p. 270). It was
generally widespread under Turkic dynastes. In the Tuzūkāt two types of banner ap-
pear, the čartuġ and tümentuġ. The term occurs in the Timurid sources, such as in
Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 28a, 112b, 236a, 238a, 274b, 324b, 392b, 404b, 409b, 438b, 477b,
487b) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 19, 30, 70, 127, 132, 145, 214, 241). Čatr ‘parasol’ appears
in Bābur as a badge of rank (BāburA, p. 146). Tümentuġ and čatrtuġ are well-known
banner-types in Mughal India, as their description appears in Abū ’l-faḍl Allāmī’s
work as well (Āyīn-i Akbarī, p. 52). The names of these special banners cannot be
found in the Persian sources of Timur’s lifetime, though their existence cannot be
excluded.
bayraq (Davy 1783, p. 308/6). The word is of Turkic origin, and it means ‘banner’
(‘Fahne’: Doerfer II, p. 385). It appears only once in the Tuzūkāt: bi-umarā-yi ulūsāt
burġū u bayraq bidahand ‘for the emirs of the ulus a horn and a banner has to be
given’ (Davy 1783, p. 308). The word is known from the Timurid sources, it occurs
in Yazdī’s Ẓafarnāma (ZNY, pp. 2a, 108b).
tamġa (Davy 1783, p. 308/10; p. 312/7; p. 360/5; p. 396/14, 16; p. 406/20; p. 408/14).
This word of Turkic origin means ‘stamp; tax’ (‘Brandmal, Siegel, Zoll’: Doerfer II,
p. 554). The term is known in the Timurid sources (ZNY, p. 20b, 70a, 101b, 208a; in
Bābur it is a type of tax: Bābur 1946, pp. 353–356). According to the Tuzūkāt, 12 of
the 40 tribes (oymaq) were given a tamġa, and these tribes fulfilled a special service
(Davy 1783, p. 308). The tribes without tamġa formed the rearguard (‘aqab) of the
centre (qol) (Davy 1783, p. 396).
otaġa/otaqa (Davy 1783, p. 208/5). Va ašja‘ān-i sipāh-rā az bahādurān u dil-āvarān

bi-otāġa u kamar u tirkiš-i hāssa sar-i buland sāhtam ‘I honoured the brave and the
heroic of the soldiers by giving with a peacock-feather, a belt and a special quiver to
them’; p. 290/7; Va amr kardam ki bahādur ki šamšīr zanad, kulung yā otāqa-yi mu-
raṣṣa‘ u kamar u šamšīr u asp bi-čildü-yi ū arzānī dārand. ‘I ordered that a hero,
who made a great exploit, should receive a peacock feather, a belt, a sword and a
horse.’). This is a word of Mongolian origin, and it means ‘peacock-feather’ (‘Pfauen-
feder an der Mütze als Würdenzeichen’: Doerfer I, p. 112). The term occurs in Bābur
as sač otaqasï ‘plume made of peacock-feather’ (Bābur 1946, p. 155).

Tribal organisation
ulus (Davy 1783, p. 28/3; p. 42/8; p. 68/21; p. 86/1; p. 90/3; p. 92/7; p. 124/9; p.
126/12; p. 128/1; p. 170/12; p. 282/18; p. 286/12; p. 306/17; p. 308/1, 14; p. 310/3, 5,
8, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21; p. 312/1, 3, 5, 8; p. 328/7; p. 330/10; p. 384/6, 12; p. 396/12; p.
404/11). The word ülüš/uluš is of Turkic origin, which originally meant ‘part, town’.
At an early period it was borrowed into the Mongolian as ulus ‘tribal confederation,
part of an empire’ (‘eine Koalition verschiedener Stammesgruppen, nicht vom Stand-
punkt ihren Angehörigen aus gesehen, sondern von der Person der Herrschers aus
betrachtet’, ‘Teilreiche’: Doerfer I, p. 175). It was then reborrowed by Turkic in its
Mongolian form ulus, which came to mean ‘land, tribe’ in Timurid Central Asia (‘tri-
bu, peuple’: ZNS, p. 263). The term often occurs in the Timurid sources, such as
Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 17ab, 19a, 22a, 23b, 30b, 59a, 66b, 73b, 78a, 79b, 80b, 81a, 82a,
91b, 92b, 94a, 96b, 97a, 99b, 100a, 102b, 103a, 107b, 130a, 135a, 143b, 144b, 146b,
151b, 157a, 186a, 197b, 202a, 203b, 204b, 205a, 243a, 245a, 270a, 276b, 278ab,
280b, 353ab, 408a, 456b, 465b, 490b, 1032), Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 13, 14, 140, 213) and
Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, pp. 5, 19). In the Tuzūkāt it frequently appears accompanied by
the words tümen and qošun, in the meaning of ‘tribe’. The following tribes were called
ulus in the work: ulūs-i Barlās (Davy 1783, pp. 92, 308), ulus-i Joči (Davy 1783, p.
126), ulus-i Urus Hān (Davy 1783, pp. 282, 286), ulus-i Tarhān, ulus-i Arġūn, ulus-i
Jalāyir, ulus-i Tülkči, ulus-i Dawladay, ulus-i Moġūl, ulus-i Suldūz, ulus-i Toġāy,
ulus-i Qipčāq, ulus-i Arlāt, ulus-i Tātār (Davy 1783, pp. 310, 312). In the former pas-
sage these tribes bore the name oymaq, so ulus and oymaq are synonyms in the Tu-
zūkāt.
el (Davy 1783, p. 68/4; p. 84/17; p. 128/1). The Turkic word el originally stood for
an organised tribal confederation or a nomadic empire, later it came to mean ‘tribe,
people’ (‘tribu, nation, peuple’: ZNS, p. 263). The word often occurs in the Timurid
sources, so it can be found in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 17b, 19a, 23b, 29ab, 30b, 31a, 35a,
43b, 44ab, 45a, 47b, 48ab, 50ab, 51b, 52a, 54b, 58b, 59a, 71a, 100a, 102b, 103a,
106a, 108a, 112b, 113ab, 126a, 130a, 135a, 143b, 144b, 151b, 152a, 155a, 157ab,
159b, 182a, 185b, 186a, 195a, 197b, 202a, 203b, 209b, 214ab, 221ab, 243a, 252ab,
253b, 259b, 270a, 280b, 281b, 303b, 304b, 310a, 328a, 353ab, 357b, 384a, 397a,
408a, 430b, 441b, 1024) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 21, 23, 30, 35, 46, 72, 76, 93, 106, 110,
113, 120, 125, 213, 275). In the Tuzūkāt it is usually used together with the words
ulus and qošun.
oymaq (Davy 1783, p. 90/9; p. 292/1; p. 308/9; p. 312/9; p. 372/8; p. 396/11, 12, 14;
p. 406/20; p. 408/14). This Mongolian word originally means ‘Stamm’ (Doerfer I,
p. 182). In the Timurid Period sources, such as Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 21, 23, 30, 35, 46,
72, 76, 93, 106, 110, 113, 120, 125, 213, 275) it is often used in the form of omaq.
It occurs in this form in Yazdī’s work (ZNY, pp. 21, 23, 30, 35, 46, 72, 76, 93, 106,
110, 113, 120, 125, 213, 275). According to Tauer it means: ‘race, clan, famille’
(ZNS, p. 263). In the Tuzūkāt it appears together with tribal names.

464 G. CSIKY
Tent
alačuq (Davy 1783, p. 66/10; p. 308/1–3). Amr numūdam ki amīr-i har ulūsī u tūmā-
nī dar hangām-i yasāq az har hargāhi yik savār va az dū alačūq yik savār va az sar
hāna yik savār muqarrar kardānand ‘I ordered that, in the time of campaign, the
emirs of the ulus and tümens should send one horseman from every tent, one horse-
man from two alačuqs and one horseman from every house’. It means a ‘small no-
madic tent (smaller than a hargāh)’ (‘Notzelt’: Doerfer II, p. 97). It often occurs in
the Timurid sources, such as in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 214a, 262a) and Šāmī (ZNS, p. 120).
In the latter a further derivative of the word appears: alačuqī ‘nomad’ (ZNS, 120;
‘habitant d’une tente, nomade’: ZNS, p. 261).
otaq (Davy 1783, p. 294/17; p. 296/3). This Turkic word means ‘big tent of a prince’
(‘grosses Zelt eines Fürsten’: Doerfer II, p. 66), and occurs also in Šāmī’s Ẓafarnāma
(ZNS, pp. 51, 54; ‘grande tente (d’un prince)’: ZNS, p. 262). In the Tuzūkāt, the emirs
received such tents, which varied in the number of baldachins (sāyabān).
The camp
yurt (Davy 1783, p. 54/6; p. 88/13; p. 320/14). This Turkic word means ‘habitat,
abode; homeland’ (‘Weidengebiet, Apanage (besonders eines Prinzen), Halteplatz,
Posten, Hütte, Jurte, Wohnort, Zimmer’: Doerfer IV, p. 212; ‘habitation, campement,
station, poste’: ZNS, p. 308). The term is well known among the Turkic peoples, and
it is often used in the Persian sources of the Timurid period, in the works of Yazdī
(ZNY, pp. 19b, 26b, 29a, 62ab, 65ab, 66b, 72a, 80a, 95a, 96a, 101b, 113b, 115a,
147a, 154a, 207ab, 226b, 231b, 241a, 242b, 251b, 270ab, 276b, 284a, 290a, 294b,
315a, 317a, 318ab, 334a, 342a, 345b, 352b, 353b, 400a, 402a, 407b, 430ab, 431a,
435a, 1103) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 85, 116, 182, 185, 187, 188, 199, 293). In the Tuzū-
kāt it means ‘habitation’: Va avval bi-manzil u yurt-i Amīr Ḥājī Barlās rafta … ‘First
I went to the habitation of emir Ḥājī Barlās’ (Davy 1783, p. 88); those emirs who left
their ruler and went over to the opponent’s side, īšān-rā dar yūrt orun nadahand
‘may not be given place in the camp’ (Davy 1783, p. 320).
ordu (Davy 1783, p. 214/6; p. 298/13, 14; p. 300/4, 5). This Turkic word first appears
in the runic inscriptions of Orkhon. Originally it meant ‘camp of the ruler’ (‘Palast-
zelt, Heerlager’: Doerfer II, p. 32; ‘campement, cour du prince surtout celui de Timur,
armée’: ZNS, p. 262), its other meaning was ‘army’. It often occurs in the Persian
sources in the Timurid period, such as in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 31b, 32b, 33a, 38b, 40ab,
43b, 45b, 47b, 55b, 59b, 60ab, 62ab, 64a, 67a, 68ab, 74b, 136b, 153a, 159b, 175b,
182a, 183a, 184ab, 185b, 186a, 189a, 202a, 210ab, 214b, 221b, 223a, 241a, 252b,
254a, 256a, 257a, 259a, 271a, 273b, 279a, 280a, 285a, 286b, 294b, 307a, 317b, 335a,
338a, 339b, 350b, 352b, 355b, 357a, 360a, 362ab, 367b, 371ab, 374b, 376ab, 379ab,
381b, 384b, 385b, 387a, 388a, 389ab, 390b, 391a, 394b, 395a, 396ab, 400b, 402b,

407b, 410a, 413a, 418b, 420b, 425b, 427ab, 429b, 431a, 433b, 436b, 439a, 441b,
445b, 447a, 448b, 449b, 451b, 468b, 477b, 1078, 1109, 1118), Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 17,
62, 71, 172, 210, 231, 236) and Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, pp. 1, 7, 15, 16, 17). In the
Tuzūkāt it appears three times: Dar ordū-yi hod īšān-rā orun dādam’ ‘I gave them a
place in my own camp.’ (Davy 1783, p. 214); favjī dar pīš-i ordū u favjī dar ‘aqab
ta‘yīn namāyand ‘I (ordered) to appoint a unit in front of the army, and one in the
rear.’ (Davy 1783, p. 298).
Musical instruments
burġu (Davy 1783, p. 98/20; p. 292/1; p. 308/6). This Turkic word means ‘horn,
trumpet’ (‘Trompete, Horn’: Doerfer II, p. 286; ‘Horn zum Blasen, Trompete’: Zen-
ker 1866, p. 216; ‘trompe, cor’: ZNS, p. 265). It frequently occurs as a name of a
musical instrument in the sources of the Timurid period, such as in Yazdī (ZNY, pp.
30a, 119a, 128a, 148a, 170b, 243b, 249b, 261b, 272b, 273b, 274b, 285a, 311b, 335b,
359b, 392b, 1053, 1112) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 39, 48, 67, 83, 88, 96, 143, 159, 160,
166, 201, 215, 241, 256, 267). We have no data for its use in the Mughal period. In
the text of the Tuzūkāt it is twice written in the erroneous form yrġū: Va karnā u
burġū kašīdand ‘They blew the trumpets and the horns’ (Davy 1783, p. 98); bi-
umarā-yi oymāq yrġūyī arzānī dāštam ‘I granted for the emirs of the tribes yrġū.
[formerly reference was made to the donation of drums and trompets]’ (Davy 1783,
p. 292); bi-umarā-yi ulūsāt yrġūyī u bayraq bedahand ‘The emirs of the tribes should
be given a banner and a horn’ (Davy 1783, p. 308). According to Sāmī Bey’s diction-
ary, the main difference between the burġu (burï in Sāmī) and the nefir is that the burï
was made of metal, and the nefir was made of horn: burï ‘dilsiz ve perdesiz olaraq
nefisle čalïnan bir čalġï āleti ki halezūnī al-šekl bir ma‘den burïdan ‘ibāretdir’ (Sāmī
Bey, p. 506); nefir ‘esasen ‘asker jem‘ čūn čalïnan büyük burï ki bašlïya büyük bir
boynuzdan ‘ibāretdir’ (Sāmī Bey, p. 1317).
Taxation
qonalġa (Davy 1783, p. 238/6). The meaning of this word of Mongolian origin is
‘night camp’ (‘Nachtlager’: Doerfer I, p. 420), while in the Tuzūkāt it means ‘acco-
modation’. Va amr numūdam ki umarā u miŋbašïyān dar taḥṣīl-i māl u jihāt az ra‘ī-
yat čīzī ziyāda az aṣl al-māl u sāvurī u qonalġa u šīlān bahā ṭalab nadārand. ‘I ordered
that the emirs and the colonels should not demand from the common people more
than the originally fixed tax, the presents, the fares for accommodation and food.’
(Davy 1783, p. 238).
šilän (Davy 1783, p. 238/6). A word of Mongolian origin which mens ‘royal banquet’
(‘Staatsbankett’: Doerfer I, p. 368; ‘table à manger du prince, festin royal’: ZNS, p. 286).

466 G. CSIKY
In the Tuzūkāt it is listed among the different types of taxes, so it can be translated as
‘food-service, food tax, fare’.
sāvurī (Davy 1783, p. 20/4, 10; p. 238/6). The primary meaning of this Mongolian
word is ‘present to the throne’, its secondary meaning is ‘present to the ruler when he
visits a town’ (‘Thron, Throngeschenk’, ‘Geschenk, meist an Lebensmitteln das man
dem Herrscher überreicht, wenn er eine Stadt besucht’: Doerfer I, p. 335; ‘Ehrenge-
schenk’: Zenker 1866, p. 494; ‘hommage d’un sujet à son souverain, présent offert en
hommage, place, rang’: ZNS, p. 282). The word was well known in the age of Timur,
it appears in both Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 5b, 20b, 93b, 142b, 193b, 241a, 251a, 254b, 283b,
287a, 290a, 292b, 340a, 345a, 352b, 432b, 441b, 446b, 457a, 461b, 1088), Šāmī (ZNS,
pp. 136, 206, 209) and Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū (HA, p. 17). In the Tuzūkāt this term occurs in the
list of taxes, so it means ‘present to the sovereign’.
Common words
Täŋri (Davy 1783, p. 6/17; p. 48/11; p. 50/8; p. 52/1; p. 78/8; p. 88/5; p. 98/21;
p. 130/19; p. 156/5; p. 166/1; p. 194/14; p. 330/16). This Turkic word which means
‘God’ (‘Gott’: Doerfer II, p. 577) rarely appears in the Persian sources of the Timurid
period, only once in Yazdī (ZNY, p. 40b) and Šāmī (ZNS, p. 4), but often (13 times)
appears in the Tuzūkāt. It could yield one of the arguments for the existence of an
original Turkic version.
čätä (Davy 1783, p. 34/10; p. 40/17; p. 50/6; p. 58/5, 16; p. 60/4, 6, 12; p. 62/14;
p. 64/3; p. 66/3, 10; p. 70/3, 5; p. 72/1; p. 76/14; p. 80/11; p. 104/8; p. 162/5). This
Turkic word originally meant ‘robber, raider’, and later became the general designa-
tion of the people of Moghulistan used by the population of Transoxania (‘Räuber-
bande, Bezeichnung für die Moghol des 15. und 16. Jh.’: Doerfer III, p. 1071/55–56;
‘incursion, pillage’: ZNS, p. 271). The term often occurs in the Timurid sources, such
as Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 106b, 107b, 109b, 111ab, 112b, 113ab, 115b, 126a, 127ab, 128ab,
131ab, 151b, 126a, 127ab, 128ab, 131ab, 151ab, 192b, 202b, 204a, 205a, 264a, 302a,
1021, 1022, 1026, 1028, 1121) and Šāmī. In the latter it appears in the compound
laškar-i Jete ‘the army of Jete’ (ZNS, pp. 25, 30, 31, 32). It is noteworthy that Šāmī,
similarly to the Tuzūkāt, already used this term for the army of Moghulistan.
oġrï (Davy 1783, p. 38/4). In the Tuzūkāt, this Turkic word appears once, and it
means ‘stealer, thief’. It also occurs in the work of Yazdī. In the Tuzūkāt it is used as
an element of the Turkmen language: when Timur arrived to the habitation of the
Turkmens, they shouted oġrï.
san (Davy 1783, p. 54/14). This Turkic word means ‘Anzahl, Zählung, Musterung
des Heeres, Parade’ (Doerfer III, p. 1219/232–233). It occurs in Yazdī’s Ẓafarnāma
(ZNY, pp. 465b, 466b), once as part of the expression sān-i laškar (ZNY, p. 207a),

and it can be found in Šāmī, where its derivative sānsīz (= sansïz) ‘innumerable’ ap-
pears (ZNS, pp. 186, 188). Similarly to Yazdī, the Tuzūkāt uses the expression sān-i
laškar which refers to the number of the army: čūn sān-i laškar-i hod dīdam, ki
hamigī si ṣad u sīzdah savār būdand … ‘When I saw the number of my troops that
all of them were only 313 horsemen …’ (Davy 1783, p. 54).
taġar (Davy 1783, p. 64/9). Čūn laškar-i hod-rā taġār dāda tūzuk kardam … ‘When
I gave provisions to my army and organised them …’. It is a word of Turkic origin
meaning ‘provision’ (‘Schlüssel, Mass, Proviant’: Doerfer II, p. 512). The word is
known from other Timurid sources as well, among others from the Ẓafarnāma of
Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 159a, 227b, 230b, 253a, 254b, 306a, 351b, 468b, 1122).
yol (Davy 1783, p. 82/5). Widespread in most Turkic languages, with the meaning
‘road’. It appears only once in the Tuzūkāt, in the autobiographical chapter, as a com-
mon word in a Turkic quote. After capturing Amīr Ḥusayn Timur releases him while
saying to him yol bolsun ‘Let there be a road (for you)’ [which means ‘Go on your
way, you are let free’].
aš (Davy 1783, p. 122; p. 358). This is a Turkic word that means ‘Speise, Volkspei-
sung’ (Doerfer II, p. 59).
yalmaq (Davy 1783, p. 122/1).
qazaqī (Davy 1783, p. 156/9). This Turkic word is a derivative in -ī from the verb
qaz- ‘to wander’. It means ‘Partisan, herumstreifenden Räuber, Landsknecht, der kei-
nem Fürsten für dauernd untertan ist, Landstreicher’ (Doerfer III, p. 462). The term
appears once in Yazdī’s Ẓafarnāma (ZNY, pp. 155a, 478a). In the Tuzūkāt it occurs
in an enumeration: bi-ranjhā u miḥnathā u qazāqīhā u janghā’ ‘the flounces, the
afflictions, the wanderings and the fights’ (Davy 1783, p. 156). Here Timur narrates
that in all difficulties and vicissitudes of his life he enjoyed divine support.
bavuli (Davy 1783, p. 160/11; p. 276/4). The Mongolian word means ‘Dressur,
Zucht (von Falken)’ (Doerfer I, p. 205). Umarā u sipāh-i hod-rā bāvulī dādam.
‘I chastened my emirs and army’ (Davy 1783, p. 160); va agar vāhima bar ū ġalaba
karda bāšad, ū-rā bāvulī bidahand ‘If terror overcomes him [a soldier], he has to be
chastened.’ (Davy 1783, p. 276).
orun (Davy 1783, p. 214/7; p. 216/13; 218/10; p. 320/14; p. 326/16; p. 328/17).

Ultimately this word is of Mongolian origin but it is widespread also among the
Central-Asian Turkic languages with the meaning ‘throne, place, room, rank’ (‘Thron,
Ort’: Doerfer I, p. 163). In the Tuzūkāt it appears in the expression orun dādan ‘to
give place’, dar yurt/ordu orun dādam.
ulaġ (Davy 1783, p. 348/8). This is a Turkic word that means ‘relay horse’ (‘Post-
pferd, Relaispferd’: Doerfer II, p. 102, ‘cheval de monture ou de somme surtout celui
468 G. CSIKY
qu’on riquiert pour le service d’un prince ou de courrier’: ZNS, p. 262). The term
occurs in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 55b, 113b, 121b, 393b, 456a) and Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 41, 45,
123, 200, 241). In the Tuzūkāt it appears only once: va čahārpāyān u ulāġ-i ra‘āyā
nagīrand ‘the livestock and the horses of the common people should not be taken
away’ (Davy 1783, p. 348).
uluġ (Davy 1783, p. 388/16). Uluġ sürän andāhta ‘He uttered a big shout’. This noun
meaning ‘big, great’ is quite common in Turkic.
sürän (Davy 1783, p. 388/16). This word is ultimately of Mongolian origin, and it
means ‘war-cry’ (‘Kriegsgeschrei’: Doerfer I, p. 344; ‘Krigsgeschrei (zum Angriff
oder während des Kampfes)’: Zenker 1866, p. 524). The word occurs in the Timurid
sources in the form sūrān (‘cri avant-coureur du combat’: ZNS, p. 284).
toy (Davy 1783, p. 54/6; p. 68/2). A Turkic word meaning ‘conviviality, banquet’
(‘fröhliches Gelage, Hochzeitsschmauss’: Zenker 1866, p. 328, ‘festin, banquet’:
ZNS, p. 287). The term occurs in the Ẓafarnāma of Šāmī (ZNS, pp. 17, 27, 46, 62, 68,
70, 74, 95, 127, 136, 138, 146, 169, 292), with the same meaning. ‘’Majlis sāhta toy
dādam ‘I made a conference and a banquet’. Its Arabic-Persian synonym is the
majlis, its Mongolian equivalent is šilän/šölän.
In sum, the Tuzūkāt contains 75 Turkic and Mongolian terms, 51 (i.e. 67.57%)
of which also appear in Yazdī’s and/or in Šāmī’s work. Eight words (onbašï, yüzbašï,
miŋbašï, qulčï, qulluqčï, qonalġa, šilän and tiyūl) of the remaining 32.43% are known
only from Safavid sources. Four other words (šiqāul, yatïš, otaġa, tüzük) occur in the
Bāburnāma so they must have been known in the Timurid Central-Asia. The words
qonalġa and šilän are attested as terms of taxation from the Ilkhanid Iran, and these
terms survived also in the Safavid period. Consequently, one may assume that these
terms were used in the Timurid period as well. The words kütel and čārīlčār/čārpl-
čār/čārwplčār are problematic; the meaning of the latter word is unknown.
The meanings of the words occurring in the work are mostly the same as in the
Timurid period, but there are some exceptions. Further, if we examine the rate of oc-
currences of these words, the preponderance of the Turkic synonyms is noticeable.
For example, Täŋri, the Turkic word for ‘God’, appears but once in the Ẓafarnāmas
of both Yazdī and Šāmī, contrary to the Tuzūkāt, a much shorter work than the two
former ones, in which the word occurs 12 times. On the whole, the Turkic words ap-
pearing in the Tuzūkāt may be indicative of its Turkic origin.
The most frequent Turkic word in the work is keŋäš ‘advice, counsel, plan,
thought’. The reason for this frequency may be that this is the title of the first part of
the work, and often repeated as a subtitle: first plan, second plan, etc. The second
most frequent Turkic word is tüzük ‘order, decree, arrangement’ which is not surpris-
ing, since it also appears as a subtitle like keŋäš.
Aside from words, wider contexts are also worth analysing. Far from being
homogeneous, the text of the Tuzūkāt seems to be a compilation, which contains

several quotations from different sources. For example, several ‘letters’ feature in it,
the phrasing, style and content of which differ from their contexts. These letters are
the following: a letter of Timur’s pīr (Quṭb al-Aqṭāb Šayh Zayn al-Dīn Abū Bakr) to
Timur (Davy 1783, p. 4), another letter of the pīr to Timur (Davy 1783, p. 16), the
fatvā of the ‘ulamā and shaykhs of Māvarā’al-nahr about Timur (Davy 1783, p. 29),
Timur’s epistle to Amīr Ḥusayn (Davy 1783, pp. 102–104), Timur’s epistle to Sultan
Yïldïrim Bāyazīd (Davy 1783, p. 146), Mīr Sayyid Šarīf’s letter to Timur (Davy
1783, pp. 180–194), the notes of the pīr written in connection with a former letter of
Timur (Davy 1783, p. 196), two letters of the pīr to Timur (Davy 1783, pp. 200–202,
338–342), the letter of the pīr to Timur (Davy 1783, pp. 338–342). Thus the Tuzūkāt
contains nine letters, the majority of which (5 letters) contains the correspondence of
Timur and his pīr, two letters were written by Timur to his enemies and two further
letters were written by the Muslim legal experts to Timur.
The styles of the letters differ from one another. The pīr’s letters are addressed
to Abū’l-Manṣūr Timur, i.e. ‘Timur, the father of victory’ (Davy 1783, pp. 4, 200);
and they end with the formula of farewell v’al-salām (Davy 1783, pp. 4, 202). The
letters are written in simple Persian, without Turkic words apart from keŋäš, but with
a lot of Arabic words. The use of the Arabic broken-plural forms (havādiṯ, salāṭīn,
aš‘ār, marātib, etc.) and religious benedictions (karamullāhi wa ḥubba, ayyaduhu’llāh
ta‘ālā, etc.) is frequent. The topics of the letters are various: e.g. there are answers to
the letters asking for Timur’s advice on what to do with Tuġluq Temür; the answer
was a parable. There is a letter about accepting the title muravvaj al-dīn v’al-šarī‘a,
and there are letters about the governance of the empire.
The fatvā of the Transoxanian ‘ulamā is more scholastic, less understandable
and full of flowery rhetoric; it abounds in Arabic words, compounds and structures,
and contains no Turkic element. This is also characteristic of the letter of another
shaykh, Mīr Sayyīd Šarīf, who wanted to prove, on the grounds of the ‘ilm, that Timur
was the eighth of the most important propagators and reformers of the Islam.
The tone of Timur’s letters to other rulers is rather threatening, and they are
written in a simple style. It is ascertainable that the style of the letters keenly differs
from the text of the autobiography and the decrees. In this moment it is unknown
whence the author copied these letters: are they taken from letter-collections or are
they simply ficticious?
Contents analysis
The title of the first part of the work is Kangāšhā u tadbīrāt, i.e. ‘deliberations and
plans’. The author describes the benefits of rational consideration and contemplation,
then depicts, in the first person singular, Timur’s road to power. As this part contains
a number of personal and tribal names along with detailed description of the events,
it offers a unique opportunity for checking the authenticity of the work.
There are twenty-eight decrees in the book, thirteen of which deal with the
army and warfare (construction of the army, payment, sending of the payment, ad-

470 G. CSIKY
vancement of the soldiers, donation of the kettle-drum and banner, equipment of the
army, the body-guards, the amīrs of the uluses, the qošuns and tümäns, the course and
the order of battle). In the following I will focus on these decrees and subject them to
a thorough analysis.
In his decrees Timur touches on all the important questions pertaining to the
army, so we can gain a relatively complete and clear insight into the Central Asian
army of the Timurid period. A considerable part of the military terms are of Turkic
origin, such as the military titles and ranks: onbašï (corporal), yüzbašï (captain) and
miŋbašï (colonel); the names of military units, such as the qošun, tümen and ordu.
There are also a number of Mongolian terms, like barānġār (right wing) and javānġār
(left wing). The third part of the military terminology is of Islamic-Persian origin.
Ranks and titles
The lower ranks, onbašï ‘corporal’, yüzbašï ‘captain’ and miŋbašï ‘colonel’ (Davy
1783, pp. 228–230) – all of which are of Turkic origin – are contained in the decree
(tüzük) on the structure of the army and the appointment of the amirs. In this decree
only the names of the lower ranks occur.
They are not known from the Persian sources of the Timurid period in which
only their Persian equivalents are attested: amīr-i ṣada ‘captain’ and amīr-i hazāra
‘colonel’. The Turkic names that occur in the Tuzūkāt crop up again only in Safavid
Iran of the 16th–18th centuries. As far as the Timurid period is concerned, we know
of Turkic titles only from the territory of the Golden Horde, where their forms were
on begi, yüz begi and miŋ begi (Vásáry 1986, p. 187). There are two options for solv-
ing this problem: Turbatī, the translator either left some Turkic words untranslated, or
he translated the terms of the original version by using the terminology of his own age.
The Tuzūkāt enumerates in detail the titles of the officers of high-ranking offi-
cers as well. According to the list Timur considered 313 persons suitable to the offi-
cer’s rank. Out of these 313 persons, he appointed one hundred persons to corporal,
one hundred to captain and another hundred to colonel. However, this statement is
contradictory as the army needs ten times more captains and a hundred times more
corporals than colonels. We cannot expect a mathematical error like this in an official
decree.
Twelve of the remaining thirteen persons were appointed to emir, and the thir-
teenth held the title amīr al-umarā’ ‘the emir of emirs, commander-in-chief’ (Davy
1783, pp. 268–272). The latter title is the highest of the four beglerbegis, who are
presumably form a part of the twelve emirs. Among the emirs the lowest rank is the
amīr-i avval ‘first emir’ and the highest is the amīr-i davāzdahum ‘the twelfth emir’.
The first emir was the commander of a thousand troop, and the second emir com-
manded a two thousand troop, etc., so the number of the subordinates grew each time
by one thousand. Finally, the twelfth emir was the commander of twelve thousand
people (Davy 1783, p. 270). The question, however, still remains: who was the com-
mander of the tümens?

If we compare the Tuzūkāt with the most detailed source for the Timurid emirs,
the Mu‘izz al-ansāb, we can see that the number of the emirs was much more than
twelve, e.g. under Timur there were 109 emirs (Ando 1992, pp. 66–68).
The lower-ranking officers could not immediately become emirs, and they
bore the title kütül or kütel before it. This title is not known from any other source. In
the text of the Tuzūkāt its Arabic synonym muntaẓir al-amārat ‘the heir of emirate’
also occurs. If an emir dies, the kütel takes his place (Davy 1783, p. 268).
Up to the rank of colonel, promotion depended on the personal capabilities,
the corporal distinguished himself with his courage, and the captain with his talent
and experience. However, reaching the rank of colonel was conditioned on descent;
thus only an amīrzāda could be appointed colonel, so descent played a great role in
attaining this rank (Davy 1783, pp. 228–230). A possible prerequisite to promotion
was the courage shown in the battle-field. According to the text, the first heroic deed
(šamšīr-i avval) could make a soldier a corporal, the second one could make him a
captain, the third one a colonel. If a colonel defeated a troop, he was appointed first
emir (Davy 1783, p. 274). Acts of heroism could earn the emirs the title of amīr al-
umarā’ (Davy 1783, p. 272).
These data, however, are somewhat contradictory: how could a soldier be-
come a colonel after his third heroic deed, once he did not belong to the class of the
amīrzādas?
The arrangement for substitutes for the soldiers, who died or deserted in the
battle was the duty of the officers: the corporal was responsible for the substitution of
the common soldiers, the captain for the corporals and the colonel for the captains.
Although this activity was the duty of the officers, every death and desertion had to
be reported to Timur. The inferiors had to obey their superiors both in military and
civil life (Davy 1783, p. 230).
However, several elements of the above system, such as the institute of kütel,
the twelve-stage arrangement of the emirs, or the four beglerbegis, are not known
from other sources of the Timurid period.
There are data for the title amīr al-umarā’ from the age of Timur, when it was
really the highest military rank. During Timur’s lifetime this position was filled by
Čäkü Barlās and Jahānšāh. Some emirs were appointed to the provinces with the
title amīr al-umarā’ (Manz 1989, p. 173). According to Shiro Ando there were two
amīr al-umarā’s, who headed the two wings of the army (Ando 1992, p. 258).
In connection with the analysis of the Mu‘izz al-ansāb, Shiro Ando wrote in
detail about the structure of the Timurid army. According to his data several types of
emirs can be distinguished, so there were emirs of tümens (umarā’-yi tūmān), whose
number in Timur’s lifetime was 21, emirs of the dīvān (in other words dīvān begleri),
tovačï emirs and qošun emirs (Ando 1992, pp. 252–262).
However, the system he described, does not correspond to the facts given in
the Tuzūkāt. The title beglerbegi does not occur in the Timurid sources in this form,
but it appears in the Safavid Iran. According to Chardin’s description the governors of
the highest rank were called beglerbegi, while the governors of the lower ranks were
called hāns (Chardin 1811, Vol. II, p. 99). This fact can be confirmed by other Euro-

472 G. CSIKY
pean travel accounts (e.g. Kaempfer) and the Persian sources (e.g. Tadhkirat al-
Mulūk) as well.
The payment of soldiers
The payment of the army was regulated by a decree in the Tuzūkāt. The payment was
referred to with the Arabic term ‘ulūfa, which is the plural form of ‘alaf. The original
meaning of the word was ‘fodder, forage’, and later in colloquial usage it acquired
the meaning ‘payment of soldiers’.
It needs to be decided at this point which meaning of the word, ‘fodder’ or
‘payment of soldiers’, was used in the text, as the soldiers received their ‘ulūfa ac-
cording to the number of their horses. As formulated by the decree, the measure of a
common soldier’s payment was determined in proportion to his horses: the common
soldiers (bahādur ‘hero’) received the price value of two to four horses, the corporals
received ten times more than their subordinates, the captains received twenty times
more than the common soldiers and the colonels sixty times more (Davy 1783, p. 232).
It is questionable whether the point of view was not at all easy to decide what
mattered: the price value of the horse or the cost of its fodder. Let us compare the
measure of payments of the various ranks respectively with the number of horses the
bearers of these ranks owned of the various ranks. A common soldier had to bring
two horses, a corporal five, a captain ten horses. We have no data for the number of
the colonel’s horses, but we know that the first emir brought with himself a hundred
and ten horses (Davy 1783, pp. 292–296). The number of horses thus grows accord-
ing to the rank: the higher the rank, the more the horses.
While it is not excluded that the above system of a soldier’s payment was
determined by the price of a horse, it seems more probable that the aim of the regula-
tion was the maintainance of the extant horses, and the soldier’s pay was determined
on the basis of the fodder for his horses.
A similar system existed in Mughal India. According to the Āyīn-i Akbarī the
soldiers received money for horse-keeping, the Turanians and Persians getting 25
rupees and, the Indians 20 rupees (Āyīn-i Akbarī, p. 241). The horses were divided
into seven groups, and their forage-dose was determined according to their value.
The value of the horses was also taken into consideration when determining the sol-
diers’ pay (Āyīn-i Akbarī, pp. 243–245).
In the Safavid Iran ‘ulūfa was a type of tax. The soldiers had to be given not
only accomodation (qonalġa), but food for them and forage for their horses. The name
of the food provided for the soldiers was called ‘alafa, and the forage for the horses
was called ‘ulūfa (Fragner 1986, p. 552).
The following diagram shows the rate of the raise of payment according to dif-
ferent ranks.

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
sipāhi bahādur onbašï yüzbašï miŋbašï
As can be seen, the curve of the diagram can be described as an exponential

function. Unfortunately, the payment of the emirs is not specified in the Tuzūkāt, and
we only know that the payment of the amīr ul-umarā’ was ten times more than that
of his subordinates. Thus the question still remains unanswered: to which payment
category did his subordinates belong?
Not only the payment of the officers was regulated in the Tuzūkāt, but also the
payment of other office-bearers who were not directly related to the army. The pay-
ment of the dīvān begi and the vazīr was ten times more than that of the emirs, but
even in this case unfortunately we do not know exactly how much money to correlate
to this data. The special forces, the yasavul ‘doormen’ and the qulluqčï ‘body-guards’
had received payment that ranged from one thousand to ten thousand. Regrettably,
however, in this case again we do not know in what unit to interpret the data (Davy
1783, p. 232). It is imaginable that the unit may have been the amount of money nec-
essary for feeding a horse, but we do not know it for certain.
The rank-and-file could get their money pay with the permission of their offi-
cers, while the emirs and the amīr ul-umarā’ with the assent (taṣdīq) of the viziers
and the dīvān begi. It is also the viziers and the dīvān begi who would report to Timur
the amount due to be paid out. Timur then would send the decree about the payment
in a yarlïġ to their troops, and commanded that the arrival of the payment should be
noted onto the back-side of the letter.
The special forces received their payment on an annual basis, while the other
corps on a semiannual basis. Common soldiers were paid from the treasury. The cor-
porals and captains were granted the revenues of towns or provinces. The tiyūls (tem-
porary donations) were given to the colonels, the treatment of which was supervised
by the central government. The emirs were given the revenues of the border-prov-
inces (Davy 1783, p. 232).
474 G. CSIKY
The tiyūl-system sketched above was characteristic of the late Safavid period.
The first mention of a tiyūl or tuyūl is known from the Qaraqoyunlu Empire, in
1466–1467. The essence of the system is that a tiyūl-estate was not heritable and
exempt from taxes, unlike the soyurġal-estates (Lambton 1953). The tiyūl-estate did
not give ownership to the grantee but only the right for levy. In the contemporary
sources the tiyūl-owners were called tiyūldār the majority of whom were soldiers, but
some members of the civil administration were also given tiyūl-estates (Lambton
1953; Fragner 1986, pp. 513–516). According to Savory, tiyūl-estates were granted
to high-ranking military officials and to members of the administration, while mem-
bers of the religious elite received heritable and tax-exempt soyurġal-estates (Savory
1980, pp. 185–186).
The Timurid period, however, was characterised by the soyurġal-estates which
were heritable and tax-exempt, because of the tarkhān rights enjoyed by the grantee.
The soyurġal-estates thus facilitated the formation and spread of heritable latifundia
(Subtelny 1979, pp. 6–9; 1988, pp. 479–505). The Safavids, on the other hand, in-
troduced the tiyūl-system specifically as a counter-action against the recruitment of
the latifundia. This type of estate spread slowly and gradually, and by the 17th cen-
tury only the members of religious elite owned soyurġals (Fragner 1986, p. 516).
In enumerating the different sources of revenue enjoyed by the land-owners,
the Tuzūkāt gives three types of taxes: the qonalġa ‘accomodation’, the šilän ‘ban-
quet’ and the sāvurī ‘present’ (Davy 1783, p. 238). Qonalġa referred to the free acco-
modation of the soldiers and state officials, šilän meant the obligation of providing
them with food, and sāvurī was a present given to the landlord or the ruler. The qo-
nalġa and the sāvurī date back to the Ilkhanid Period in Iran (Petrushevski 1968,
p. 535).
The land-owning system described by the Tuzūkāt fully corresponds to the that
of the 17th-century Safavid Iran. Abū Ṭālib, the translator of Tuzūkāt lived and
worked in this period and place, so it is highly probable that the data about the estate-
system are his elaboration.
Recompensation and punishment of the soldiers
Personal heroism displayed in the battle-field was rewarded with advancement; the
common soldier could become a corporal, the corporal a captain and the captain a
colonel. The expectations were higher from the emirs: the first emir had to break
through an entire battle-line of the enemy and to advance in the echelon, while other
emirs had to defeat an enemy troop. Injured soldiers received a jüldü, i.e. recom-
pense, irrespective of whether they suffered injury in attack or in flight.
The Tuzūkāt mentions only one type of punishment: the soldiers who retreated
were denied audience. Soldiers who panicked were also chastened, but it is not speci-
fied how. These sparse data are rather schematic and rough, but that is all we know
on the reward and punishment of common soldiers.

The chapter on the reward of the emirs contains more data. If an emir defeated
a hostile army or conquered a province, he was honoured with three kinds of insig-
nia: a eulogistic speech (hitāb), a horse-tailed banner (tuġ) and a drum (naqqāra).
Further, he was given the title (laqab) of bahādur, and got a place in the councils
(Davy 1783, p. 282).
The corporal was rewarded with the governance of a town, the captains and
the colonels with the governance of a province (Davy 1783, p. 288), i.e. they were
donated estates.
The chapter containing the decrees has some references to historical events.
Let us check their authencity. One of the decrees forbids the killing of the captive hos-
tile soldiers, and stipulates that if a nöker admits them, they should become his ser-
vants. The Tuzūkāt confirms this by the example of Timur who released 4000 Ottoman
(rūmī) war prisoners. The emirs who had originally served a hostile ruler, and went
over to Timur, should be admitted.
Here the Tuzūkāt recounts the story of Šēr Bahrām and Meŋli Buġa (Davy
1783, pp. 278–280). According to the description of the Tuzūkāt Šēr Bahrām, who
descended from Huttalān, joined Timur in Balh. He first distinguished himself in the
siege of Ulajū, where he wanted the commander of the castle Sulduz Meŋli Buġa to
come over to the side of Timur Lenk. However, his plans came to nothing, due to
Ilyās Hwāja’s loyalty to the ruler of Moghulistan (Davy 1783, p. 56).
After his campaign to Badahšān, Timur attacked Huttalān, while Šēr Bahrām
left Timur’s army and returned to his tribe. The ruler eventually lured him back with
different favours and the donation of a province. Šēr Bahrām continued to do great
services for Timur, e.g. when he warned him of the trap prepared by Amīr Ḥusayn
for which Amīr Ḥusayn put him to death (Davy 1783, p. 102).
Šēr Bahrām appears in other Timurid sources as well, both in the Ẓafarnāma
of Yazdī and Šāmī. His story can be described as a history of continuous intrigues
and desertions. Together with his kinsman, Kayhusraw, he controlled the province
Huttalān, situated in present-day Afghanistan. In the wars between the coalition of
Timur and Amīr Ḥusayn and the khans of Moghulistan (Tuġluq Temür and Ilyās
Hwāja), Šēr Bahrām fought on the side of Amīr Ḥusayn, while Kayhusraw sided with
Moghulistan. Thus they could ensure the rule of ensure their family domaine in this
province (Manz 1989, pp. 49–50).
Let us now check the accuracy of the report on Šēr Bahrām as found in the
Tuzūkāt by comparing it to the descriptions of the two Ẓafarnāmas given by Yazdī
and Šāmī, respectively. According to Yazdī our hero appeared in the siege of Ulajū.
He offered for Timur that he would convince the captain of the castle, Meŋli Buġa
from the Sulduz tribe to go over to Timur’s camp, but the captain chose to flee and re-
main loyal to Moghulistan (ZNY, p. 104b). This episode can be found in the chronicle
of Šāmī as well, where the name of the castle appears in the form Ūlājū (ZNS, p. 23).
All three descriptions agree that after Meŋli Buġa’s flight three hundred warriors
from the Dūlān Jāvūn tribe joined Timur (ZNY, p. 104b; ZNS, p. 23).

476 G. CSIKY
In what follows Šēr Bahrām began an unsteady policy after the conquest of the
khans of Moghulistan; in the conflict of the two former allies, Timur and Amīr
Ḥusayn, he often changed sides.
According to the Tuzūkāt Amīr Ḥusayn wanted to trap Timur by a dodge in
the valley called Čakčak, but the faithful Šēr Bahrām informed him of the scheme, so
he could go there ready for every emergency (Davy 1783, p. 102). This story can be
found in Šāmī as well: Amīr Ḥusayn and Šēr Bahrām collected an army, and Ḥusayn
decided to capture Timur in the Čakčak valley. Ḥusayn sent him a letter in which he
offered him to make peace in the Čakčak valley. The experienced and wise Timur,
however, did not believe him, and brought an army with himself. His intelligence of-
ficer was called Bahrām Käyäk (ZNS, p. 37). The story was also elaborated by Yazdī,
who stressed that Timur was saved by a servant (navkar) called Bahrām who was
warning the ruler of the danger (ZNY, p. 117a).
Hence it is truly a scout called Bahrām who saved Timur, but this Bahrām was
not identical with Šēr Bahrām the emir of Huttalān, who headed one of the a wings
of the hostile army. Obviously, the writer of the Tuzūkāt confused the two Bahrāms.
Šēr Bahrām was confused not only with Bahrām Kayak, but also with the emir
of the Jalāyir tribe, Bahrām Jalāyir. According to the author of the Tuzūkāt the chief
of the Jalāyir tribe was Šēr Bahrām (Davy 1783, p. 310). The name of the chief of the
Jalāyir tribe was really Bahrām who served Timur faithfully, and that is why the ruler
confirmed him in his rank after his father’s death (ZNY, p. 151a).
As could be seen, the Tuzūkāt contains some inaccuracies in the presentation
of historical events. While using Yazdī’s Ẓafarnāma as his basic source the author
contaminated three well-known persons into one.
Military insignia: banners and musical instruments
The Tuzūkāt also includes decrees on the bestowal of distinctive insignia to military
officers, such as different banners, drums and wind instruments. The various military
officers became various standards.
Each of the twelve emirs was given a banner (‘alam) and a drum (naqqāra).
The amīr ul-umarā’, i.e. the commander-in-chief was given a banner (‘alam), a drum
(naqqāra), a tümen tuġ and a čartuġ. The colonel (miŋbašï) was given a tuġ and a
trumpet (nafīr), the captain (yüzbašï) and the corporal (onbašï) were respectively
granted a kettle-drum (ṭabl). The emirs of the tribes were bestowed a horn (burġu).
The four beglerbegis were granted a banner (‘alam), a drum (naqqāra), a čartuġ and
a horn (burġu) (Davy 1783, pp. 290–292).
The Tuzūkāt refers to two types of flags, both known from Timurid sources:
the ‘alam and the tuġ. The ‘alam was made of textile, it was a banner similar to the
European flags, while the tuġ was a horse-tailed standard. Both types of flag are
known from the sources of the Timurid period. The work distinguishes between two
types of the tuġ: the čartuġ and the tümentuġ. The latter type of flag was something

special, as it belonged exclusively to the amīr al-umarā’, while the čartuġ could be
granted to the beglegbegis and the amīr al-umarā (Davy 1783, p. 290).
Analogues of the above-mentioned special types of flags can be found in
Mughal India. The correct original form of čartuġ was probably čatr-tuġ (čatr means
‘parasol’), which appears in the Āyīn-i Akbarī together with tumantuġ. According to
the description of the work both types of flag could be granted only to dignities of the
highest ranks (Āyīn-i Akbarī, p. 52). The parasol (čatr) was a status symbol of the
elite. Used by the Turkic people since the beginning of the Karakhanid period, it was
also known to the Timurids. Later, it was current both in the Safavid Empire and in
Mughal India (Andrews 1993, pp. 192–194).
The musical instruments were very important implements of the military music
of that era. In the Tuzūkāt two percussion instruments (the ṭabl and the naqqāra) and
two wind instruments (the nafīr and the burġu) are described. The ṭabl is a large
drum, and the naqqāra is a smaller kettle-drum, which was held by the musician un-
der his armpit. Both instruments are frequent in the Persian sources of the Timurid
period. The naqqāra can be found both in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 151b, 218b, 228a, 235b,
249b, 257b, 261b, 272b, 273b, 324b, 338a, 358b, 375a, 392b, 400b, 1112) and Šāmī
(ZNS, pp. 67, 83, 88, 96, 124, 162, 167, 132, 143, 159, 160, 166, 197, 199, 201, 204,
214, 215, 227, 241, 251, 256, 267, 268). The ṭabl also appears in Yazdī (ZNY, pp.
331a, 358b). The importance of the naqqāra is highlighted by the fact that the field
military bands of the age were called naqqārahāna. The prestige of the naqqāra sur-
passed that of the ṭabl, as only the emirs could have a naqqāra, while, according to
the Tuzūkāt, ṭabl was the instrument of the captains and the corporals (Davy 1783,
pp. 290–292).
Wind instruments were probably not as prestigous as drums, as these were
granted to colonels and tribal leaders, never to high-ranking emirs (Davy 1783, pp.
290–292). Nafīr originally meant trumpet, and later it was also used for horns, while
burġu stood for a larger horn. Both the nafīr as a wind instrument and the burġu ap-
pear in the Ẓafarnāmas of Yazdī and Šāmī (ZNY, pp. 228a, 249b, 270b, 335b, 359b;
ZNS, pp. 96, 124, 127, 132, 143, 160, 166, 192, 197, 199, 201, 205, 215, 241, 251,
256, 263, 268).
Since five of the six insignia can be found in Yazdī’s chronicle and one appears
in Šāmī, the instruments described in the Tuzūkāt can be authentically of Timurid
origin. It is noteworthy, however, that the names of special flags, like čatr-tuġ and tü-
mentuġ, do not appear in the Timurid sources, but belong to the Mughal period.
Military equipment
One of the decrees concerns military equipment and weaponry. The common soldiers
had the worst equipment. Each soldier had to have two horses, a bow (kamān), a quiver
(tīrkaš), a sable (šamšīr), a saw (arra), an awl (darafš), a saddlebag (čuvāl), an em-
broidered sack (čuvāl-i dūzī), an axe (tabartīša), ten pins (sūzan) and a leather bag
(čarm-i bast).

478 G. CSIKY
The equipment of the heroes (bahādur) was much better, and they did not have
tools, but only weapons and armours. Five heroes were assigned a tent, each of them
had a body armour (javšan), a helmet (hūd), a sable (šamšīr), a quiver (tīrkaš) and a
bow (kamān). They had to bring more than two horses to the campaigns.
Every corporal (on bašï) had his own tent (hayma), they wore coat-of-mail
(zirh), a quiver (tīrkaš), a sable (šamšīr) and a bow (kamān). They brought with them-
selves five saddle horses. Every captain (yüzbašï) had a tent, five good horses (sar
asp), a sable, a quiver, a bow, a mace (gurz) and a maul (kāskan), and they wore
coat-of-mail and breast-plate. Colonels had a baldachin (sāyabān), a tent, coat-of-
mail and breast-plate, helmet, spear (nayza), sable, quiver and a sufficient number of
arrows.
The first amir emir (amīr-i avval) had a big tent (otāq) with two baldachins.
He brought with himself a hundred horses, the second emir a hundred and twenty
horses. The number of horses grew by the ascent of the rank, finally the amīr al-uma-
rā’ having the highest number, three-hundred horses. And finally, the infantry had
carried a sable, and a bow with arrows (Davy 1783, pp. 292–296).
This weaponry described above can be compared to the preparations for the
campaign against Toqtamïš khan in 1390, as described in the chronicle of Ḥāfiẓ-i
Abrū. Accrording to this description every soldier had to bring with himself a bow,
thirty arrows, a quiver, a sable and a shield. Every second man had a led-horse. Every
ten soldiers had a tent, and everyone had two spades, a hack, a sickle, a saw, an axe,
an awl, a hundred pins, some thread and leather, and a kettle (Nagel 1993, p. 195).
As we can see, the two lists are not identical with each other. Especially note-
worthy is that the author of the Tuzūkāt overrates the number of the horses, and he
does not mention the spades and the hacks.
The body-guards
The Tuzūkāt contains decrees regarding the night duty and the body-guard. The build-
ing of the dīvānhāna was defended by 12,000 armoured body-guards (qulčï or qul-
luqčï), who were located in the kiosks on both sides of the building as well as behind
it. One thousand men of them served on night duty (yatiš) every night. The leaders of
the body-guards bore the title of a captain (Davy 1783, pp. 296–300).
The titles qulčï or qulluqčï found in the Tuzūkāt were used in the Safavid Iran,
where they referred to a military escort and the body-guards. These above described
units came about in the course of the military and administrative reforms of Shah
‘Abbās I (1587–1629): the number of qïzïlbaš units was reduced to half of the origi-
nal, and they were replaced by units called qullar. The qullar were equestrians and
comprised converted Christians, Armenians, Georgians, as well as Circassians and
other Caucasian peoples. The commander of the above-mentioned units was called
qullar aqasï, who had played a very important role in the Safavid Iran (Roemer
1986b, p. 265; Savory 1986, p. 365). Since the number of the qullar corps ranged from
10,000 to 15,000 men in the Safavid period, and the Safavid army was divided into

units of 12,000 men (Savory 1980, p. 79), the qullar found in Safavid sources can be
identified with the 12,000 qulčïs described in the Tuzūkāt (Savory 1980, p. 79).
The guards were called qaučïn in the Timurid period, a term already occurring
in the chronicles written in Timur’s lifetime (ZNS, pp. 134, 194; ZNY, pp. 207b, 238a,
290a, 328b, 475a). The term is of Mongolian origin, and it meant ‘old, veteran’, later
it came to mean ‘experienced fighter’. Whereas in Timur’s lifetime it was used in the
sense of ‘guards’, then it became a tribal name by the second half of the 15th century.
In that time its role and function was overtaken by the hāssa tābīn, i.e. a unit of fifty
men, which had existed since the reign of Abū Sa‘īd (for the Timurid body-guards
see Ando 1992, pp. 262–227; Manz 1989, pp. 161–163).
The term night-duty (yatiš) does not appear in Timurid sources, but it occurs
in the Bāburnāma, so it may have already existed earlier in Timurid lands. It is also
worth noting that the decimal system was characteristic not only of the army, but also
of the guards.
In case of war the defense of the ruler was the duty of the emirs, the colonels,
the captains and the corporals, so virtually all the officers. The above-mentioned 12,000
strong mounted body-guard was divided into four parts: right and left wing, advance-
guard and rear-guard. Interestingly, the rear-guard is only mentioned in this part of
the text, and only in its Arabic variant: ‘aqab. The Mongolian term used for the rear-
guard was čaġdavul, which was used very frequently in the Timurid sources, but it
does not occur in the Tuzūkāt.
The work further mentions that scouts (qaravul) and an advance-guard (hirä-
vül) had to be appointed from among the body-guards. In order to defend the camp
and prevent theft, Timur appointed a kotvāl to each of the four sides of the camp.
From every fourth unit a čapqunčï had to be appointed whose duty was to control the
area in a distance of one farsang. His duty was to bury the deceased soldiers and to
provide medical attendance to the injured soldiers (Davy 1783, pp. 298–300).
The above-mentioned terms are well known from the Timurid Period, but their
meanings were a bit different. Kotvāl was used exclusively in the sense of ‘castellan’
in the Timurid age. The original meaning of čapqunčï was ‘attacker, raider, rapid
military unit’, and it has never been used with the meaning ‘policeman, inspector’,
the function of the latter being designated by yasāvul.
The terms qulčï and qulluqčï deserve special attention, for their analogues are
known only from the Safavid Iran where Abū Ṭālib Turbatī was brought up and lived.
The question thus arises whether Turbatī was inspired by Shah ‘Abbās I’s reforms in
writing about the age of Timur or he only used the terminology of his own age?
The enumeration of the emirs
In the enumeration of the emirs the work describes forty tribes, twelve of which, the
tribes Barlās, Tarhān, Arġūn, Jalāyir, Tülkči, Dawladay, Moġul, Sulduz, Toġāy, Qip-
čāq, Arlat and Tātār, have special significance. These twelve tribes correspond to the
twelve emirs, who had respectively received tamġas from Timur (Davy 1783, p. 308).

480 G. CSIKY
Tamġa originally meant ‘branding iron for marking the livestock’, and later it ac-
quired the meaning ‘distinctive sign’, hence ‘stamp, seal’.
The sequence of enumeration of the tribes suggests a sequence of importance
as well. According to the Tuzūkāt the three most significant tribes were the Barlās,
the Tarhān and the Arġūn. The Barlās tribe is really well known from the Timurid
period (ZNY, pp. 22a, 27a), which is not surprising, as Timur himself came from the
Barlās, an ancient Mongolian tribe which first appears in the form Barulas in the
Secret History of the Mongols (§ 46). The tribe was also mentioned by Rašīd al-Dīn
(pp. 531–532). The Barlas tribe features at the first place in the hierarchy among the
tribes in the Mu‘izz al-ansāb, and it was important in the age of Bābur as well.
The Tarhān tribe cannot be found either in Yazdī’s, or in Šāmī’s Ẓafarnāma,
but it appears in the chapter on the emirs of Timur in the Mu‘izz al-ansāb (Ando
1992, p. 67). In fact it was a privileged social group, the members of which were
exempt from taxes. The analogues of the system had parallels in the Golden Horde
and in the Ilkhanid Iran as well. The Tarhāns formed a well-defined group also in the
Bāburnama, though without tribal functions. Besides, the title Tarhān often occurred
as a component of personal names.
The name of the Arġūn tribe does not appear in Yazdī and Šāmī, but it can be
found in the name of ‘Alī Beg ibn Arġūnšāh, who once kidnapped Timur. According
to the Mu‘izz al-ansāb, Arġūnšāh was the leader of the Sanjarī Turkmen tribe (Ando
1992, p. 67). During the reign of Šāhruh, the Sanjarī Turkmān tribe lived under the
leadership of Arġūnšāh’s son (Ando 1992, p. 150). The Arġūn tribe appeared in 1449
in the army of Prince Abū Sa‘īd, while the Sanjarī Turkmen tribe disappeared (Ando
1992, p. 173). Later, during the reign of Ḥusayn Bayqara, the Sanjarī Turkmen ap-
peared again, together with the Arġūn tribe (Ando 1992, p. 194).
The Jalāyir is an ancient Mongolian tribe, which was first mentioned in the
Secret History of the Mongols (§ 120)), and often occurs also in the chronicles of the
Timurid period (Yazdī and Šāmī). The leader of the tribe was Bahrām Jalāyir, whom
the Tuzūkāt often confuses with the emir Šēr Bahrām Huttalānī. The Jalāyir tribe can
also be found in the Mu‘izz al-ansāb, from Timur’s age (Ando 1992, p. 109) down to
the reign of Bayqara (Ando 1992, p. 213) they are frequently mentioned.
The next tribal name, Tülkči, is rather enigmatic, as no such tribe is known
either from Timur’s age, or from the later periods. The Dawlalday tribe is already
better known, for it can be found in the Mu‘izz al-ansāb, where it first appeared as
a tribal name during Abū Sa‘īd’s reign (Ando 1992, 188). It occurs in the Bāburnā-
ma on several occasions, while Yazdī mentions it as a personal name in 1404 (ZNY,
p. 450b).
The Moġul as an ethnonym is very frequent in the Timurid sources, where
they are mostly referred to as an enemy (ZNY, pp. 17b, 18a, 19a, 21a, 22ab, 23a, 25a,
26a, 27a, 29b, 30ab, 32a, 33ab). Oddly enough, however, Timur honoured some of its
members with the title of emir. According to the data given by Shiro Ando, the Moġuls
appeared as a tribe giving an emir only under Abū Sa‘īd’s reign (Ando 1992, p. 173).
The Suldūz is a well-known tribe which played a significant role in Timur’s
lifetime (ZNY, pp. 136b, 153b, 211b, 220a) and in the later periods as well. In the

Mu‘izz al-ansāb, the Suldūz can be found in the chapters about the age of Timur
(Ando 1992, p. 115). The Toġāy tribe, on the other hand, cannot be found in the
Mu‘izz al-ansāb, but there are some data on them in Yazdī, who gives the form To-
qāyī for their name (ZNY, p. 173a).
The Qipčaq tribe often figures in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 19ab, 60b, 66a, 111a, 154b,
198a, 219a), but it does not occur in Šāmī’s work. According to the Mu‘izz al-ansāb
it played a significant role in Šāhruh’s time, as it held the fifth place in the hiearchy
of the tribes. As far as the last two of the twelve tribes are concerned, all the Timurid
sources present the Arlat as an important tribe already in Timur’s lifetime (ZNY, p.
92b). The Tatar tribe relatively often occurs in Yazdī (ZNY, pp. 17b, 19a, 21ab, 22b,
24a, 26ab, 27a, 29b, 452ab, 453a, 455b, 456a, 466b), but there is no reference to it in
Šāmī’s Ẓafarnāma and the Mu‘izz al-ansāb.
The majority of the tribes, nine out of the twelve, enumerated in the Tuzūkāt,
can be found also in the Mu‘izz al-ansāb. Three of them appeared under the rule of
Abū Sa‘īd: the Arġūn, the Dawladay and the Moġul. The list of tribal names pre-
sented here corresponds to the tribal system in Abū Sa‘īd’s reign (middle of 15th cen-
tury).
By controlling the names of the tribal emirs we can get closer to the age of the
Tuzūkāt. With regard to the Barlas tribe, the Tuzūkāt mentions the emirs Hodādād,
Čäkü, Eygü Temür, Sulaymān Šāh, Jalāl ad-Dīn Barlās and Abū Ṣa‘īd. In Yazdī’s Ẓa-
farnāma an emir called Hodādād Ḥusaynī, occurs, and four other emirs, Čäkü Barlās,
Jalāl ad-Dīn Barlās, Sulaymān Šāh ibn Dāvud and Abū Ṣa‘īd Barlās are mentioned as
well (ZNY, pp. 105a; 191b; 277a). The Mu‘izz al-ansāb, in turn, refers only to Hodāy-
dād and Čākū as the emirs of the Barlās tribe. According to the Mu‘izz Eygü Temür
came from the Belgüt tribe and Sulaymān Šāh from the Duġlāt tribe, while Jalāl al-
Dīn Barlās and Abū Ṣa‘īd are not mentioned at all (Ando 1992, pp. 66–67).
Thus among the six emirs of the Barlās tribe mentioned in the Tuzūkāt, only
four can be found in the Mu‘izz al-ansāb, but two of them, according to the Mu‘izz,
came from other tribes. The existence of two other emirs can be confirmed by Yaz-
dī’s data. The author of the Tuzūkāt probably relied on a source in which the tribal
identity of the emirs was not marked.
With reference to the Tarhān tribe, the Tuzūkāt mentions the seventh emir
Bāyazīd. We can find an emir called Bāyazīd in Yazdī’s chronicle (ZNY, pp. 248b,
264ab), who married the daughter of Tarmaširin khan (ZNY, p. 114b), but according
to Šāmī’s Ẓafarnāma he belonged to the Jalāyir tribe (ZNS, pp. 15, 16, 17, 18). His
name, however, does not occur in the Mu‘izz al-ansāb, where the leader of the
Tarhān tribe is given as Ġiyāth al-Dīn (Ando 1992, p. 62). We can thus conclude that
there certainly existed an emir called Bāyazīd during Timur’s lifetime, but he came
from the Jalāyir tribe.
As regards the Arġun tribe, the author of the Tuzūkāt mentions a certain Tāš
Hwāja. However, he cannot be found in the Timurid chronicles, which only refer to
an emir called Tāš Temür Oġlān (ZNS, pp. 161, 255; ZNY 218a, 277b, 469b). Neither
as a personal, nor as a tribal name does it occur in the Mu‘izz al-ansāb. The existence
and tribal identity of Tāš Hwāja thus remains a question.

482 G. CSIKY
The Tuzūkāt is seriously problematic with respect to its treatment of the Jalā-
yir tribe. The author confuses two Bahrāms: he presents Šēr Bahrām as the ninth emir
of the Jalāyir tribe, although we know, that Šēr Bahrām was the emir of Huttalān.
Nevertheless, at that time the leader of the Jalāyir was also called Bahrām (ZNS, pp.
21, 25, 34, 35, 46, 48, 64). The Tuzūkāt mentions another name, Tük Temür, which,
however, does not occur in the Timurid sources. It can be a scribal error for the name
Toq Temür, although a Jalāyir emir of the same name cannot be attested from the
sources.
The emir of the obscure Tülkči tribe mentioned above is given as Öljeytü
Apardï in the Tuzūkāt. This name occurs both by in Yazdī and in Šāmī with the laqab
Apardï (ZNS, pp. 15, 28, 41, 42, 50, 57, 60, 62, 63, 68); hence, the form Berdi is
probably a scribal error for Apardï. Neither the tribe nor the person can be found in
the Mu‘izz al-ansāb. The origin of the name Tülkči remains unknown.
According to the Tuzūkāt, Timur honoured Tābān Bahādur and Sān Bahādur
from the Dawladay tribe with the title of emir. The name of Tābān Bahādur is well
known from both Yazdī and Šāmī, but only Šāmī ascribes him the title emir (ZNS,
pp. 29, 62, 91; ZNY, pp. 112a, 139a, 141b, 142b, 164b, 169a), whereas the Mu‘izz al-
ansāb presents Tābān Bahādur as an emir from the Bilgüt tribe (Ando 1992, p. 67).
Sān Bahādur, on the other hand, is not mentioned in any of the contemporary sources.
In the treatment of the Moġul tribe, the Tuzūkāt states that it was Temür Hwāja
Oġlān who was honoured with the title of an emir. His name is known from Yazdī’s
Ẓafarnāma as well, but this work does not mention that he was an emir (ZNY, pp.
103a, 104a, 111a, 113a). The Mu‘izz al-ansāb, on the other hand, states that Temür
Hwāja was the leader of the Naymān tribe from the Ilčikdāy ulus (Ando 1992, p. 67).
The Tuzūkāt reports that Elči Bahādur was the emir of the Sulduz tribe. His
name is well known from both Yazdī and Šāmī, although the former writes his name
in the form Elči Buġa Bahādur (ZNS, pp. 23, 40, 45, 67; ZNY: 101a, 114a, 119b,
120b, 125a, 132b, 135a, 139a, 141b, 148a, 153b, 154a, 157a, 159a). The Mu‘izz al-
ansāb, however, does not include him in the list of the emirs of the Sulduz tribe
(Šayh Muḥammad, Davlat Temür, Böri), although there are several emirs called Elči,
e.g. Elči Qastama Bahādur from the Nüküz tribe and Elči Buqa Qawčin Bahādur
from the Bilgüt tribe (Ando 1992, p. 67).
According to the Tuzūkāt, ‘Alī Darvīš was appointed emir of the Toġāy tribe.
Šāmī and Yazdī depict ‘Alī Darvīš as the son of Bāyazīd Jalāyir, so he was belonging
to the Jalāyir tribe (ZNS, pp. 33, 35; ZNY, pp. 114b, 115b, 153b). The Mu‘izz al-an-
sāb, on the other hand, is silent over the name and emirate of ‘Alī Darvīš.
The Tuzūkāt presents Sarï Buġa as the emir of the Qïpčaq ulus. He is probably
identical with Sārī Buġa found in Šāmī and Yazdī, whose name, similarly to the
Tuzūkāt, was written in Yazdī without a final i (ZNS, pp. 28, 38, 39, 40, 45, 49, 67,
70, 92, 137; ZNY, pp. 111a, 118b, 119ab, 125a, 128ab, 135a, 139b, 141b, 153b, 154ab,
157a, 164b, 170b, 190b, 301b). The only difference is, however, that according to the
data of Yazdī and the Mu‘izz al-ansāb Sarï Buġa was the leader of the Jalāyir tribe
(Ando 1992, p. 67).

According to the Tuzūkāt, the amīr al-umarā Mu‘ayyad came from the Arlat
ulus, and he was one of Timur’s brother-in-laws. In fact, Yazdī depicts Mu‘ayyad as
the emir of the Arlāt tribe (ZNY, pp. 107a, 118a, 119a, 121b, 135ab, 139b, 148a, 155a),
and he was really Timur’s brother-in-law, through his wife Šīrīn Beg Aġa, a younger
sister of Timur (Manz 1989, p. 56; ZNS, pp. 55–57; ZNY, pp. 137–140). The Tuzukāt
names Slāyči Bahādur as the second emir of the Arlāt tribe, but unfortunately, no
data can be found about him in either of the Ẓafarnāmas.
The identification of the last emir is also difficult. While the Tuzūkāt claims
that the emir of the Tatar tribe was a certain Könek(?) Hān, this name is unknown
from other Timurid sources.
Eight of the twenty persons claimed by the Tuzūkāt to have been emirs in the
age of Timur, correspond to the data of the Mu‘izz al-ansāb. Four of them do not oc-
cur in the Mu‘izz, but since they occur in both Ẓafarnāmas, their historical existence
can be held authentic. Seven persons, on the other hand, cannot be found in the Timurid
sources. If we examine the tribal identity of the emirs, the situation is more problem-
atic: according to the data of the Mu‘izz al-ansāb, only in the case of two emirs of the
Barlās tribe both the name and the tribe correspond to those in the Tuzūkāt. Yazdī
gives one more emir, Bahrām Jalāyir, but in this case another problem arises since he
confused him with Šēr Bahrām.
The author of the Tuzūkāt probably relied on Yazdī in compiling the list of
emirs, as this is the only way to explain why it is specifically these emirs that occur
in the work, and why the author seems mostly ignorant of their tribal identity. The
list of the emirs gradually loses its accuracy as the work progresses. The differences
in the tribal names can perhaps be explained, but the inaccuracies in the list of the
emirs can only be interpreted as a result of copying.
The order of battle and the course of the combat
The last two decrees deal with the order of battle, of which the Tuzūkāt lists several
types. The order of battle as well as the person of the commander (sardār) varied in
proportion to the size of both the Timurid and the hostile army.
When the hostile army numbered less than 12,000 men, the Timurid army was
led by the commander-in-chief (amīr al-umarā’). In this case the army was divided
into nine units (favj). One unit was for the centre (qol), three for the right (baranġār)
and three for the left wing (javanġār). One unit was sent ahead for reconnaissance
(qaravul), and one to serve as advance-guard (hirävül) (Davy 1783, p. 372).
This account is problematic in that it does not give explanation how 12,000
men can be divided into nine equal divisions without a residue, and it contradicts the
decimal division of the military. At this juncture, we may recall that the number
twelve played an important role in the Tuzūkāt: there were twelve tribes obtaining
tamgas, twelve is the number of the grades of the emirs, and the number of the guards
(qulčï) was 12,000. Here we can find an interesting parallel with the Safavid army

484 G. CSIKY
called qullar, which, under the personal command of Shah ‘Abbās I (1587–1629),
ranged between 10,000 and 12,000 men (Savory 1980, p. 79).
This system corresponds to the Timurid order of battle, although there are
essential differences. The Tuzūkāt does not mention the rear-guard, which was called
čaġdawul in the contemporary sources (ZNY, pp. 44a, 108a; ZNS, p. 25). As this term
rarely occurs even in the sources of the Timurid period, the chroniclers probably did
not pay much attention to it. There are greater differences in connection with the
advance-guard, as in the Timurid era the advance-guard was called maŋġlay, and its
synonym, the hirävül was less frequent.
The order of battle in the age of Timur can be culled from the two Ẓafar-
nāmas. According to these texts the ground of the battle order was the five-division
yasāl which consisted of the centre, the right and left wing, the advance-guard and
the rear-guard. The advance-guard called maŋġlay stood in the forefront; in the centre
stood the qol, which was flanked by the right (baranġar) and left wing (javanġar) in
both sides; and the čaġdavul, the rear-guard was behind. This system was completed
by special flankers called qunbul (ZNY, pp. 111ab, 112a, 170b, 217b, 218a, 219b,
237a, 272a, 274b, 275b, 298a, 322ab, 373b, 409a, 410ab, 411a), the name of which is
not mentioned in the Tuzūkāt. The reconnaissannce (qaravul) played an auxiliary role
in this system, and was not a fighting unit.
The inner division of the wings as presented in the Tuzūkāt is rather problem-
atic, since it has no parallels elsewhere. Each of the two wings comprised an advance-
guard (hirävül), the čapāvul (right wing) and the šiqāvul (left wing). The main differ-
ence between the čapāvul and the šiqāvul them was in the sequence of the attack:
according to the Tuzūkāt, every time the čapāvul was the first to attack, only after-
wards did the šiqāvul enter into combat (Davy 1783, p. 372).
In Eastern Turkic the meaning of čapāvul was ‘raid, invasion, quick attack’
(Doerfer I, p. 532; Zenker 1866, p. 332; Budagov, p. 452; P. de Courteille, p. 271),
but it was never used in the sense of a military unit either in the Timurid period or
later.
This term šïqāvul meant ‘master of ceremony’ at the courts of Khiva and Ko-
kand (Budagov 1871, p. 668; Doerfer I, p. 380; Kunos 1902, p. 177; Vámbéry 1862,
p. 74). Its earliest occurrence, however, is dated to Timur’s lifetime: Clavijo reports
that the ambassadors were accompanied and supplied by so-called xagauls (Clavijo
1943, p. 226). The word xagaul can also be found in Navā’ī’s Muḥākamat al-Lu-
ġatayn in the list of the nouns ending in -avul (Levent 1968, p. 202; Devereux 1966,
p. 17).
The available information hitherto listed makes it highly questionable that
either čapāvul or šiqāvul have ever functioned as a military unit.
As stated in the Tuzūkāt, if the number of the enemy was between 12,000 and
40,000 men, Timur gave commandery over to one of his sons and ordered two
beglerbegis to assist him. The 40,000 strong army was divided into 14 units (favj).
The principle of the order of battle was identical with the former one but a bit more
complex. The centre, similarly to the advance-guard, was formed by one unit. The

right and the left wings were formed by three units each. The division before the
right wing was called čapāvul and the one before the left wing šiqāvul.
The larger divisions, such as the wings, the čapāvul and the šiqāvul, were
further divided into units. Each of them had its own advance-guard (hirävül).
In the course of a battle the individual attacks followed a set order (Davy 1783,
p. 384).
The most complex order of battle order was applied when the number of the
enemy exceeded 40,000 men. Twelve tribes that possessed a tamga formed 40 units
(favj), and the remaining 28 tribes without a tamga formed the rear-guard of the centre
(‘aqab). Timur’s sons and grandsons were assigned to the right side of the centre,
and his other relatives to the left side of it. These units served as a reserve (ṭarḥ)
which was put into action as an auxiliary (kömek) only in time of great necessity.
The right and left wing were composed of six units, both preceded by an
advance-guard (hirävül). Before the right wing a division of six units called čapāvul
was located, and in like fashion the left wing was preceded by a division of six units
called šïqāvul in this case.
Another six units were placed ahead of the čapāvul and the šïqāvul under the
leadership of experienced and battle-hardened emirs. This division was called the big
advance-guard (hirävül-i buzurg), and a cavalry unit called hirävül-i hirävül was
placed ahead of this. The advance-guard was flanked from both sides by two qaravul
begis, i.e. reconnaissance officers whose duty was to observe the hostile troops (Davy
1783, pp. 396–400).
An example for this order of battle is the battle of Ankara. Fortunately, there
are several contemporary reports which deal with the arrangement of the troops in
great detail. In addition to depicting the wings, they relate that the Timurid centre
(qol) was divided into two groups, and they also clearly define the places of the
princes and emirs within each group (ZNS, pp. 255–256; ZNY: 408b–410b).
According to the Tuzūkāt the leader of the right side of the centre was prince
Mīrānšāh; the leader of the left side was commanded by Sultān Maḥmūd Hān and
Amīr Sulaymān; the right wing of the reserve was formed by Abū Bakr’s units (Davy
1783, pp. 404–406). Šāmī’s Ẓafarnāma corresponds to the Tuzūkāt, in that he claims
that Mīrānšāh fought on the right side of the centre, but he disagrees with it by listing
an emir called Maḥmūd who fought only in the right or left wing, not on the left side
of the centre. He says nothing about Amīr Sulaymān’s position (ZNS, pp. 255–266).
Yazdī, however, depicts Mīrānšāh as having fought on the right wing, while Sulay-
mānšāh on the left wing (ZNY, p. 409a).
In relating one of his battles near Kābul, only Bābur describes an order of
battle similarly as difficult and intricate as the description of the Tuzūkāt. He stresses
that before this occasion no one arranged an army that way. According to the de-
scription Bābur divided his army into units of ten and divisions of fifty men (tābin).
The order of battle comprised a right (baranġar) and a left wing (javanġar), and a
centre (qol) the right and left wings of which he called oŋ qol and sol qol. The hāssa
tābīn, i.e. the special division consisting of fifty men, was located inside in the centre,
the right and left sides of which were called oŋ yan and sol yan. Behind the special

486 G. CSIKY
force division a boy was positioned which belonged still to the centre, and was divided
into right and left sides (oŋ and sol). Ahead of the centre was the advance-guard (ire-
vül), and behind the centre the rear-guard (čaġdavul).
According to Bābur’s description the baranġar, the oŋ qol, the oŋ yan and the
oŋ meant the same, as i.e. the right side or right wing, yet they did not refer to the
same thing, for the oŋ qol, the oŋ yan and the oŋ were parts of the centre, while the
term baranġar stood for the right wing (Bābur 1946, p. 232; 1995, pp. 209a–b).
This indicates that Bābur put a strong emphasis on strengthening the centre by
dividing it into divisions. There are no other data from this period for such a dispro-
portionate reinforcement of the wings as descibed in the Tuzūkāt.
The Tuzūkāt regulates in great detail how the individual units are sent into
combat. In the case of a 12,000 men strong army, first the advance-guard attacks,
then the advance-guard of the right wing and finally the advance-guard of the left
wing. The attack of the advance-guards was followed by that of the first unit of the
right wing and the second unit of the left wing, then the second unit of the right wing
and the first unit of the left wing took an offensive. Thus the sequence of the attack
followed a transversal pattern, with the centre put into action only if absolutely nec-
essary (Davy 1783, p. 378–380).
The principle of the sequence was the same in case of the 40,000 men strong
armies: first the advance-guard, then the čapavul and the advance-guard of the šiqā-
vul was sent into battle, to be followed by the first unit of the čapāvul and the second
unit of the šiqāvul; and, finally the second unit of the čapāvul and the first unit of the
šiqāvul attacked. If the attack did not bring the desired result, the advance-guards of
the right and the left wing made a second offensive against the enemy. This was fol-
lowed by the attack of the first unit of the right wing and the second unit of the left
wing, and then one of the second unit of the right wing and the first unit of the left
wing. If these thirteen attacks were unsuccessful, the fourteenth attack was launched
by the centre (Davy 1783, pp. 390–392).
It seems to be a general rule that the attack started always from the wings,
more precisely from the right wing. Another rule was the transversal sequence of the
attacks. The centre played in fact the role of the reserve. As the commander of the
army (sardār), and in some cases the ruler himself stayed with the centre, its move-
ments were restricted and confined to defense.
In the case of the largest armies, first the advance-guard was set in motion, to
be followed by the offensive of the big advance-guard. Thus in this case seven units
participated already in the first wave of attack. After this the units of the čapavul
launched an attack, followed by the units of the šïqavul. Finally came the attacks of
the advance-guards of the right and left wings.
The hostile army thus broken and confused was attacked by the units of the
right and left wings. If this did not bring the result, the reserve of the right and left
wing was put into action. If even these attacks proved unsuccessful, the troops of the
centre were mobilised, and finally, if the centre failed, eventually the ruler himself
started to fight (Davy 1783, pp. 400–404).

It seems that the author of the Tuzūkāt considered only the number of the
attacks effective enough to break the enemy. When the attack of a troop or division is
not enough, further troops had to be sent into combat against the hostile troops. If the
entire army was not enough, the army had to wait until reinforcements arrived.
Aside from the sequence of the attacks, the author of the Tuzūkāt gives other
strategic instructions as well. In the selection of the battle field four factors played an
important role: the hydrography of the terrain, its measures, the possibility locating
the army in a hill higher than the enemy, and securing a position to the army with the
sun behind its back (Davy 1783, p. 374). These are so common considerations, how-
ever, that had to be taken into account by different armies in different ages.
One day’s journey from the enemy, the soldiers had to be arranged in battle-
line, and they had to march in battle array until they reached the enemy. In the ab-
sence of Timur the measures taken by the commander were supervised by an ‘āriḍ
(‘inspector’), and when a sardār made a mistake, he was replaced.
Before starting the battle the number of the hostile army was estimated, and its
maneuvres observed. According to the decrees of the Tuzūkāt the army was not
allowed to initiate combat before the hostile enemy launched attacks (Davy 1783,
pp. 374–378). The work also warns against the possible false flight of the enemy
(Davy 1783, p. 386).
Though the latter orders are a bit more concrete and realistic, they are too rough-
and-ready and schematic. So the order of battle described by the Tuzūkāt is too vague
and can be considered nothing else but an oversimplified version of the contem-
porary reality. It pertains not only to the Timurid period, but to later periods as well.
Conclusion
According to the available data, the Tuzūkāt-i Tīmūrī was not written during the reign
of Timur Lenk. On the basis of our analysis several layers can be distinguished in the
work. The first of these layers undoubtedly goes back to the Timurid period. The
author of the Tuzūkāt certainly had access to Timurid sources: the data of the auto-
biographical chapter clearly indicate that the compiler knew and heavily drew on the
Ẓafarnāma of Šaraf al-Dīn ‘Alī Yazdī.
One could think that the work owes this multi-layer character to Muḥammad
Afḍal’s redaction, and that Davy’s edition is a revised version, similarly to Ahme-
dov’s edition. In my opinion the inaccuracies found in the two editions are based on
misunderstanding or superficial knowledge of Yazdī’s text. Thus this possibility
seems unlikely.
The second layer of the work derives from Safavid Iran. The story of Abū Ṭālib
would make one think first of the influence of Mughal India, but if we take into ac-
count that the translator was a Khorasani, this layer becomes obvious. Most traces of
this layer can be found in the decrees. The estate system described here, the guards,
the organisation of the dīvān, the military officers, the names and functions of admin-
istrative ranks, all point to Safavid Iran, to the reforms of Shah ‘Abbās I. (1588–1629).

488 G. CSIKY
The author of the work may have been greatly impressed by the reforms of Shah
‘Abbās I. the innovations of whom could be stimulating for him in compiling his work.
The third layer is represented by the Mughal India. The title of the work itself
might have come about there. Both Qazwīnī és and Lāhūrī claim that the original title
of the work was the Vāqi‘āt-i Ṣāḥib-Qirānī (Habib 1997, p. 305; Lāhūrī 1865–1868,
pp. 288–289). The autobiography of the Mughal ruler Jahāngīr was completed ten
years before the appearance of the Tuzūkāt in 1637, under the title of Tuzūk-i Jahāngī-
rī, and the autobiography of Bābur was also called Tuzūk. We also know of a literary
work entitled Tuzuk-i Āsāfī that appeared in 18th-century India; it was the Urdu trans-
lation of the Afghan ruler, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Hān’s biography. In the form tuzak, the
word tüzük acquired the meaning ‘autobiography’ (Urdu, p. 213), so it became the
appellation of a literary genre.
The autobiographical part of the Tuzūkāt contains several instances of actuali-
sation. One of the examples is the use of the ethnonym Uzbek. When used in Timur’s
lifetime, this ethnonym referred only to the population of the Golden Horde. The Tu-
zūkāt, however, used this term in connection with the raids of the population of
Moghulistan (Davy 1783, pp. 26–32). In Timur’s lifetime there were no Uzbeks in
Moghulistan, only in 1455–1456, under the leadership of the khans Jānibek and
Giray did some Uzbek tribes escape there from Abū’l-Hayr khan, but they were called
Qazaqs (Ahmedov 1965, p. 62). At the beginning of the 16th century three ethnic
groups (ṭā’ifa) were called Uzbek: the members of the Šeybān ulus, the Qazaqs and
the Manghits (Ahmedov 1965, p. 16). During the reign of Abū’l-Hayr khan, the
Uzbeks spoiled the cities along the Sir-Darya, then at the beginning of the 16th cen-
tury, some of them came to Moghulistan under the leadership of Muḥammad Šaybānī
Khan whence they occupied Transoxania till 1509 (Ahmedov 1965, p. 110).
The reason why the Uzbeks appear as the supressors in the work can be found
in these events. The translator Abū Ṭālib may personally have experienced the op-
pression of the Uzbeks, as at the beginning of the reign of Shah ‘Abbās I half of
Khorasan province was in the Uzbeks’ hands who overran the province of Sīstān as
well, which had until then been spared from the attacks. In 1598, after the death of
the Uzbek ruler ‘Abdullāh II, Shah ‘Abbās launched a campaign against the Uzbeks,
and on 29 July he freed Mašhad lying near Turbat (Savory 1980, pp. 83–84). It is
very likely that Turbatī was alive at the time of the campaign, or even if he was born
later, his family could have direct experiences about of the Uzbeks.
As can be seen, the work was greatly influenced by the conditions of the Safa-
vid Iran at the end of the 16th, beginning of the 17th centuries. There are two possible
hypotheses regarding the origin of the work: Abū Ṭālib really found a Turkic manu-
script, he revised and translated it into Persian, producing the work entitled Vāqi‘āt-i
Ṣāḥib-Qirānī, which under the titles of Malfūẓāt or Tuzūkāt enjoyed great popularity
in Mughal India. The other, more likely hypothesis is that no Turkic original did ever
exist, as the existence of this could not definitively be evidenced by the analysis of
the text. In this case Abū Ṭālib merely compiled his work by utilising Timurid sources
and his personal knowledge of contemporary Safavid Iran, in the hope of a well-pay-
ing job in Mughal India.

In addition to the above result, the investigation of the work was not without
benefits. For example, we could learn how an unemployed intellectual of Khorasan
could obtain a job in Mughal India, what the expecations were in the contemporary
book-market, and how important authenticity was in the spread of a historical work.
That the work became so widespread in India is a monument to the credit of the
Mughal state-ideology, and it indicates how vigorous the Timur-cult was even in the
middle of the 17th century. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether the comtemporary
readers did consider the Tuzūkāt a serious historical work, or rather regarded it as a
piece of popular fiction, the adventures of a well-known historical hero.
References
AG: Abū’l Gāzī Bahādur Hān (1871–1874): Histoire des Mogols et des Tatares par Aboul-Ghâzi
Behadour Khan. Ed. Desmaisons. 2 vols. St.-Pétersbourg.
Ahmedov, B. (1965): Gosudarstvo kočevyh uzbekov. Moskva.
Ahmedov, B. (1999): Uloženie Temura. Transl. by Hamidully Karomatova, preface by B. Ahme-
dov. Taškent.
Aka, I. (1991): Timur ve devleti. Ankara.
Aka, İ. (1994): Mirza Şahruh ve zamanı (1405– 1447). Ankara.
Amir Timur (1890 –1891): Amir Timur. Obstojatelstva ego žizni, pochody, obstanovki, sraženija
i miry. Tjurkskij tekst izdannyj pri posobii Turkestanskago General-Gubernatora Barona
A. B. Vrevskago. Taškent.
Ando, Sh. (1992): Timuridische Emire nach dem Mu’izz al-ansāb. Untersuchung zur Stammes-
aristokratie Zentralasiens im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. (Islamkundliche Untersuchungen
153). Berlin.
Andrews, P. A. (1993): Mizalla (čatr). In: The Encyclopedia of Islam. VII. Leiden – New York,
pp. 192 – 194.
Āyīn-i Akbarī (1927). Translated by H. Blochmann. Vol. I. (Bibliotheca Indica No. 61). Delhi.
Bābur, Gazi Zahirüddin Muhammed (1946): Vekayı. Babur’un hatıratı. I–II. Tercüme: Reşit Rah-
meti Arat. Ankara.
Bābur, Zahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad (1905): Bābur-nāma. Facsimile ed. A. S. Beveridge. Leiden – Lon-
don.
Bābur, Zahīr al-dīn Muḥammad (1995): Bábur-náma (Vaqáyi‘). Critical edition based on four
Chaghatay texts with introduction and notes by Eiji Mano. Kyoto.
Barthold, W. (1935): Uluġ Beg und seine Zeit. Deutsche Bearbeitung von Walther Hinz. Leipzig.
Berezin, I. N. (1851): Hanskie jarlyki. Kazan.
Bouvat, L. (1934): Timur. Encyclopedie de l’Islam.
Browne, E. G. (1951): A Literary History of Persia. Vol. III. The Tartar Domination (1265 – 1502).
Cambridge. First published in 1920.
Budagov, L. (1869): Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ turecko-tatarskich narečij I. St.-Peterburg.
Budagov, L. (1871): Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ turecko-tatarskich narečij II. St.-Peterburg.
Chardin (1811): Voyages du chevalier Chardin en Perse et en autres lieux de l’orient. Ed. L.
Langlès. Paris. 10 vols.
Clavijo, Ruy Gonzales de (1943): Embajada a Tamorlán. Ed. Fransisco Lopez Estrada. Madrid.
Courteille, Pavet de (1870): Dictionnaire turk-oriental. Destiné principalement à faciliter la lecture
des ouvrages de Bâbur, d’Aboul-Gâzi et de Mir-Ali-Chir-Nevâï. Paris.

490 G. CSIKY
Davy, Major (1783): Institutes Political and Military written originally in the Mogul Language, by
the Great Timour, improperly called Tamerlane. Oxford.
Devereux, R. (1966): Muhākamat al-Lughatain by Mīr ’Alī Shīr. Leiden.
Doerfer, G. (1963–1975): Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. I – IV. Wiesba-
den.
Elliot, H. M.– Dowson, J. (1867): The History of India as Told by its Own Historians. Vol. III.
London; 2nd edition: Calcutta, Susal Gupta, 1956.
Fragner, Bert (1986): Social and Internal Economic Affairs. In: Jackson, Peter (Ed.): The Cam-
bridge History of Iran. VI: The Timurid and Safavid Periods. Cambridge, pp. 491 – 568.
HA: Tauer, F. (1952): Le zail-i Džāmi‘u-t-tawārih-i Rašīdī de Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū et son édition par
K. Bayani. Archív Orientální 20, pp. 39 – 52; 21, pp. 206 – 217; 22, pp. 88 – 98, 531 – 543;
23, pp. 99 – 108.
Habib, I. (1997): Timur in the Political Tradition and Historiography of Mughal India. In: Cahiers
d’Asie Centrale No. 3 –4. (L’Héritage timouride Iran – Asie centrale – Inde XVe –XVIIIe
siècles. Red. Maria Szuppe.) Tachkent – Aix-en-Provence, pp. 297 – 312.
Hofman, H. F. (1969): Turkish Literature: A Bio-Bibliographical Survey. Section III. Moslim Cen-
tral Asian Turkish literature being in the main a list of ‘Chaghatayan’ authors and works in
‘Chaghatay’ as registered in Professor M. F. Köprülü’s article: Chagatay edebïyatï, A. vol.
III (270 – ) (with some additions, Navâ’ḥâna, however, excepted). 6 vols. bound as 2. Ut-
recht, Library of the University of Utrecht, Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Ireland. Utrecht.
Kaempfer, E. (1940): Am Hofe des persischen Großkönigs (1684-85). Das erste Buch der Amoeni-
tates exoticae. Ed. W. Hinz. Leipzig.
Kara Gy. (1998): Mongol – magyar kéziszótár. Budapest.
Kowalewski, O. (1844 – 1849): Dictionnaire mongole – russe – francaise. I – III. Kazan.
Kunos, I. (1902): Šejχ Sulejman Efendi’s Čagataj – osmanisches Wörterbuch. Budapest 1902.
Lāhūrī, A. (1865 – 1868): The Badshah Namah. (Bibliotheca Indica 56/1). Reprint of the Edition
Calcutta 1865 – 1868. Osnabrück 1983.
Lambton, A. K. S. (1953): Landlord and Peasant in Persia. A Study of Land Tenure and Land Re-
venue Administration. Oxford.
Lambton, A. K. S. (1999): Tiyūl. In: The Encyclopedia of Islam X. Leiden, pp. 530 –531.
Langlès, L. M. (1787): Institutes politiques et militaires de Tamerlan. Paris.
Lessing, Ferdinand D. (1960): Mongolian–English Dictionary. Los Angeles.
Levent, A. S. (1968): Ali Şir Nevai. IV. Divanlar ile Hamse dışındaki eserler. Ankara.
Mans, Raphael de (1890): Estat de la Perse en 1660. Ed. Ch. Schefer. Paris.
Manz, B. F. (1989): The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane. Cambridge.
Manz, B. F. (1999): Timur. In: Encyclopedia of Islam. Leiden.
Nagel, T. (1993): Timur der Eroberer und die islamische Welt des späten Mittelalters. München.
Olearius, A. (1663): Außführliche Beschreibung der kundbaren Reise nach Muscow und Per-
sien …. Schleswig.
PC: Pavet de Courteille (1870): Dictionnaire Turc-Oriental destiné principalement à faciliter la
lecture des ouvrages de Baber, d’Aboul-Gázi et de Mir- Ali-Chir Nevái. Paris.
Petrushevski, I. P. (1968): The Socio-Economic Condition of Iran under the Il-Khāns. In: The Cam-
bridge History of Iran. Vol. 5. The Saljuq and Mongol Periods. Ed.: J. A. Boyle. Cam-
bridge, pp. 483–537.
Poppe, N. (1955): Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies. MSFOU 110.
Rašīd al-Dīn: Rašīd ad-Dīn Džami’ at-Tavārīch I. Ed.: A. A. Ali-zade Moskva 1968.
Redhouse, J. W. (1890): A Turkish and English Lexicon. Constantinople.

Roemer, H. R. (1952): Staatsschreiben der Timuridenzeit. Das Šaraf-nāmä des ’Abdallāh Marwā-
rid in kritischer Auswertung. Wiesbaden.
Roemer, H. R. (1986): Timur in Iran. In: The Cambridge History of Iran. VI. The Timurid and Sa-
favid Periods. Ed. Peter Jackson. Cambridge, pp. 42 – 97.
Roemer, H. R. (1986a): The Successors of Timur. In: The Cambridge History of Iran. VI. The
Timurid and Safavid Periods. Ed. Peter Jackson. Cambridge, pp. 98 – 147.
Roemer, H. R. (1986b): The Safavid Period. In: The Cambridge History of Iran. VI. The Timurid
and Safavid Periods. Ed. Peter Jackson. Cambridge, pp. 189 – 351.
Savory, R. (1980): Iran under the Safavids. Cambridge.
Savory, R. M. (1986): The Safavid Administrative System. In: The Cambridge History of Iran. VI.
The Timurid and Safavid Periods. Ed. Peter Jackson. Cambridge 1986. pp. 351 – 372.
Spuler, Bertold (1985): Die Mongolen in Iran. Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanidenzeit
1220 – 1350. Berlin.
Steingass, F. (1892): A Comprehensive Persian – English Dictionary. London.
Stewart, Major C. (1830): The Mulfūzāt-i Timūry, or Authobiographical Memoirs of the Moghul
Emperor, Tīmūr. Translated by –. London.
Storey, C. A. (1927 –1939): Persian Literature. A Bio-Bibliographical Survey. Vol. I. Qur’ānic Lit-
erature, History and Biography. Part 1. London.
Subtelny, Maria Eva (1979): The Poetic Circle at the Court of the Timurid, Sultan Husain Baiqara,
and its Political Significance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard 1979.
Subtelny, Maria Eva (1988): Socioeconomic Bases of Cultural Patronage under the Later Timurids.
International Journal of the Middle East Studies 20, pp. 479 – 505.
Tadh. al-Mulūk: Tadhkirat al-mulūk. A Manual of Safavid Administration (Circa 1137/1725).
Persian text in facsimile. Transl. V. Minorsky, Cambridge 1943.
Thackston, W. M. (2002): Tūzūk. In: Encyclopedia of Islam. Leiden, p. 818.
Timur ü tüzükáti. Nihayette: Cengiz yasasi. Mütercimi: Mustafa Rahmi. Istanbul Matba‘a-i ‘Āmire
1339.
TS (1998): Türkçe Sözlük 2: K – Z. Ankara, Türk Dil Kurumu.
Tūzak-i Jahāngīrī. Translated from the original Persian by W. H. Low. Bibliotheca Indica. New Se-
ries No. 718. Fasc. 1. Calcutta 1889.
Urdu: Ferozsons Urdu – English Dictionary. A Comprehensive Dictionary of Current Vocabulary.
Lahore – Rawalpindi – Karachi s.a.
Vámbéry Á. (1862): Abuska csagatajtörök szöveggyűjtemény. Pest.
Vámbéry, H. (1872): Geschichte Bochara’s oder Transoxaniens von den frühesten Zeiten bis auf
die Gegenwart – Nach orientalischen benützten und unbenützten handschriftlichen Ge-
schichtsquellen. I. Band. Stuttgart.
Vámbéry Á. (1873): Bokhara története a legrégibb időktől a jelenkorig. Ismert és ismeretlen keleti
kézirati kútfők után. 1 – 2. Pest.
Vámbéry, A. (1897): Eine legendäre Geschichte Timurs. ZDMG pp. 215–232.
Vásáry, I. (1976): The Golden Horde Term Daruġa and its Survival in Russia. AOH 30, pp.
187–197.
Vásáry, I. (1978): The Origin of the Institution of Basqaqs. AOH 32, pp. 201 – 206.
Vásáry I. (1986): Az Arany Horda. Budapest.
Zenker, Julius Theodor (1866): Türkish – Arabish – Persiches Handwörterbuch. Leipzig.
ZNS: Tauer, F. (Ed.) (1937 – 1956): Histoire des conquêtes de Tamerlan intitulée Ẓafarnāma par
Nizāmuddīn Šāmī avec des additions empruntées au Zubdatu-t-tawārīh-i Bāysungurī de
Hāfiz-i Abrū. Monografie archiva orientálního 5. Prag. 2 vols.
ZNY: Urunbaev, A. (Ed.) (1972): Šaraf ud-Dīn ‘Alī Yazdī, Ẓafarnāma. Tashkent.

The Tuzūkāt-I Tīmūrī As A Source For Military History

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Tuzūkāt-I Tīmūrī As A Source For Military History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung.

Volume 59 (4), 439 – 491 (2006)

THE TUZŪKĀT-I TĪMŪRĪ

H-1132 Budapest, Visegrádi u. 53

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

New-Persian (under the entry yasal) Gerhard Doerfer considers it unauthentic

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

The authenticity or falsity of the work can only be decided by comparing it to

The genesis of the Persian translation and its place

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Linguistic analysis of the Turkic and Mongolian terms

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

The military ranks

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

beglerbegi (Davy 1783, p. 328/5; p. 384/5). It is a well-known Turkic word that

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

begiyān va umarā va noyīnān va sardārān va amīrān-i ulus va tumanāt va qošunāt

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

čapavul (Davy 1783, p. 62/11, p. 372/18, 19; p. 388/7, 8, p. 390/19; p. 392/1, 2;

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

šïqavul (Davy 1783, p. 62/11; p. 372/18; p. 388/10, 11; p. 390/20; p. 392/1, 3; p.

javānġār (Davy 1783, p. 62/12; p. 132/19; p. 298/12; p. 372/15, 18; p. 378/16; p.

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

qol (Davy 1783, p. 134/5; p. 372/14; p. 382/6; p. 388/1; p. 392/13; p. 394/10; p.

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Special forces, the guards

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Other military terms

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

yasaq (Davy 1783, p. 120/5; p. 140/14; p. 148/16; p. 208/11; p. 270/7; p. 292/15; p.

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

čārpalčār (Davy 1783, p. 230/10; p. 232/11; p. 272/8). It is a word of unknown ori-

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

soyurġal (Davy 1783, p. 176/11; p. 234/8; p. 304/13). The word is of Mongolian

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

otaġa/otaqa (Davy 1783, p. 208/5). Va ašja‘ān-i sipāh-rā az bahādurān u dil-āvarān

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

yalmaq (Davy 1783, p. 122/1).

orun (Davy 1783, p. 214/7; p. 216/13; 218/10; p. 320/14; p. 326/16; p. 328/17).

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Ranks and titles

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

The payment of soldiers

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

As can be seen, the curve of the diagram can be described as an exponential

Recompensation and punishment of the soldiers

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Acta Orient. Hung. 59, 2006

Military insignia: banners and musical instruments