Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/666

 636 PERSIA [MODERN 1514-1561. certain that the Turks won the day by a better organization of the arms of the military service, superiority of numbers, and more especially the use of artillery. On the side of the Persians the force consisted of little more than cavalry. Salim remained at Tabriz no more than eight days. Levying a contribution at that city of a large number of its skilled artisans, whom he sent off to Constantinople, he marched thence towards Karabagh with intent to fix his winter quarters in those parts and newly invade Persia in the spring, but the insubordination of his troops rendered necessary his speedy return to Turkey. His expedition, if not very glorious, had not been unproductive of visible fruits. Besides humbling the power of an arrogant enemy, he had conquered and annexed to his dominions the pro vinces of Diarbekir and Kurdistan. From 1514 to 1524, although the hostile feeling between the two countries was very strong, there was no serious- nor open warfare. Salim s attention was diverted from Persia to Egypt ; Isma il took advantage of the sultan s death in 1519 to overrun and subdue unfortunate Georgia, as Jahan Shah of the &quot;Black Sheep&quot; had clone before him ; but Sulaiman had not won without cause his attri bute of &quot;great,&quot; and was too strong a successor to the imperial throne to admit of retaliatory invasion being carried out with impunity at the cost of Turkey. Ismail s In 1524 Isma il died 1 at Ardabil when on a pilgrimage character. to the tomb o f j^ father. &quot; The Persians dwell with rapture on his character,&quot; writes Sir John Malcolm, for they deem him &quot; not only the founder of a great dynasty, but the person to whom that faith in which they glory owes its establishment as a national religion. He is styled in their histories Shah Shian, or king of the Shiahs, an appellation which marks the affection Avith which his memory is regarded. Though he may not be entitled to their extravagant praises, he certainly was an able and valiant monarch.&quot; And he quotes a note handed down by Purchas from a contemporary European traveller which reports of him thus. &quot; His subjects deemed him a saint, and made use of his name in their prayers. Many dis dained to wear armour when they fought under Ismail ; and so enthusiastic were his soldiers in their new faith that they used to bare their breasts to their enemies and court death, exclaiming, Shiah ! Shiah ! to mark the hply cause for which they fought.&quot; The proposition has been already laid down that Oriental celebrities, whether heroes or tyrants, as depicted by native limners, bear commonly so strong a family resemblance one with another that the European reader is unable to discriminate between the Abbases and Akbars, the Timurs and the Nadirs ; and it cannot be pleaded that Isma il Shah Sufi is an exception to the rule. He is belauded and reviled according to the lights or prejudices of his historian. &quot; Reputed one of the greatest and most famous kings that ever ruled in the East,&quot; 2 he is at the same time charged with acts of the greatest cruelty and most flagrant vice. 3 Purchas, apparently guided by the &quot; Italian mer chant &quot; and Angiolello, has described him as &quot; of faire countenance, of reasonable stature, thicke and large in the shoulder, shauen al but the mustaches ; left-handed, and stronger than any of his nobles.&quot; SMIi Shah Tahmasp, 4 the eldest of the four sons of Isma il, Tahmasp. 1 Malcolm says 1523, Krusinski 1525 ; Angiolello heard of his death at Cairo in August 1524. Krusiuski adds that he was forty- five years of age. 2 Krusinski. 3 See chaps, xiv. and xxii. of Travels of a Merchant in Persia, Hak- luyt reprint, 1873. 4 Angiolello calls him &quot;Shiacthemes. &quot; As an instance of the absurd transliterating current in France as in England the word &quot; Ach-tacon &quot; maybe mentioned. It is explained in Chardin s text to mean &quot;les hopitaux a Tauris : c est-a-dire lieux on Von fait profusion de vivres.&quot; Chardin s editor remarks, &quot;La dernM-re partie de ce mot succeeded to the throne on the death of his father. 5 The principal occurrences in his reign, placed as nearly as possible in chronological order, were a renewal of war with the Uzbeks, who had again invaded Khurdsan, and the overthrow of their army (1527); the recovery of Baghdad from a Kurdish usurper (1528) ; the settlement of an internal feud between Kizil-bash tribes (Shamlu and Tukulu), contending for the custody of the royal person, by the slaughter of the more unruly of the disputants (1529); the rescue of Khurasan from a fresh irruption, and of Herat from a besieging army of Uzbeks (1530); a new invasion of the Ottomans, from which Persia was saved rather by the severity of her climate than by the prowess of her warriors (1533) ; the wresting of Baghdad from Persia by the emperor Sulaiman (1534) ; the king s youngest brother s rebellion and the actual seizure of Herat, necessitating the recovery of that city and a march to Kandahar (1536) ; the temporary loss of Kandahar in the following year (1537), when the governor ceded it to Prince Kamran, son of Babar ; the hospitable reception accorded to the Indian emperor Humaiyim (1543); the rebellion of the shah s brother next in age, llkhas, who, by his alliance with the sultan, brought on a war with Turkey (1548) ; 6 and finally a fresh expedition to Georgia, followed by a revengeful incursion which resulted in the enforced bondage of thousands of the inhabitants (1552). Baiyazid, a son of the Turkish emperor, rebelled, and War his army was beaten in 1559 by the imperial troops at ^ vith Ivoniah in Asia Minor. He fled to Persia and took refuge T with Shah Tahmasp, who pledged himself to give him a permanent asylum. Sulaiman s demand, however, for extradition or execution was too stern and peremptory for refusal ; the pledge was broken, and the prince was delivered up to the messengers sent to take him. Another account ignores the pledge and makes the surrender of the guest to have been caused by his own bad con duct. Whatever the motive, the act itself was highly ap preciated by Sulaiman, and became the means of cement ing a recently-concluded peace between the two monarchs, which theretofore, perhaps, had been more formal than real. Perhaps the domestic affliction of the emperor and the anarchy which in his later years had spread in his dominions had, however, more to do with the maintenance of tranquillity than any mere personal feeling. It is to be feared that at this time not only was there religious fana ticism at work to stir up the mutual hatred ever existing between Sunni and Shi ah, but the intrigue of European courts was probably directed towards the maintenance of an hostility which deterred the sultan from aggressive operations north and west of Constantinople. &quot; Tis only the Persian stands between us and ruin &quot; is the reported saying of Busbecq, ambassador at Sulaiman s court on the part of Ferdinand of Austria ; &quot; the Turk would fain be upon us, but he keeps him back.&quot; In 1561 Anthony Jenkinson arrived in Persia with est meconnaissable, et je ne puis deviner quel mot Persan signifiant profusion a pu donner nais.sance a la corruption qu on voit ici.&quot; In other words, the first syllable &quot; ach &quot; (Anglice ash) was understood in its common acceptance for &quot;food&quot; or &quot;victuals&quot; ; but &quot;tacon&quot; was naturally a puzzler. The solution of the whole dilliculty is, however, to be found in the Turco-Persian &)[. &&amp;gt;^- khastah klianah, pro nounced by Turks hasta hona, or more vulgarly asta khon and even to a French ear asli-tacon, a hospital, literally a sick-house. This word is undoubtedly current at Tabriz and throughout northern Persia. 5 The other brothers were llkhas, Bahrain, and Sam Mirza, each having had his particular apanage assigned him. 6 Professor Creasy says that &quot;Suliman led his armies against the Persians in several campaigns (1533, 1534, 1535, 1548, 1553, 1554), during which the Turks often suffered severely through the difficult nature of the countries traversed, as well as through the bravery and activity of the enemy.&quot; All the years given were in the reign of Tahmasp I.