Chapter XXIV

CONCERNING THE TARTARS OF THE PONENT AND THEIR LORDS.

The first lord of the Tartars of the Ponent was SAIN, a very great and puissant king, who conquered ROSIA and COMANIA, ALANIA, LAC, MENJAR, ZIC, GOTHIA, and GAZARIA; all these provinces were conquered by King Sain. Before his conquest these all belonged to the Comanians, but they did not hold well together nor were they united, and thus they lost their territories and were dispersed over divers countries; and those who remained all became the servants of King Sain.{1}

After King Sain reigned King PATU, and after Patu BARCA, and after Barca MUNGLETEMUR, and after Mungletemur King TOTAMANGUL, and then TOCTAI the present sovereign.{2}

Now I have told you of the Tartar kings of the Ponent, and next I shall tell you of a great battle that was fought between Alau the Lord of the Levant and Barca the Lord of the Ponent.

So now we will relate out of what occasion that battle arose, and how it was fought.

NOTE 1.—✛The COMANIANS, a people of Turkish race, the _Polovtzi_ [or
“Dwellers of the Plain” of Nestor, the Russian Annalist] of the old
Russians, were one of the chief nations occupying the plains on
the north of the Black Sea and eastward to the Caspian, previous
to the Mongol invasion. Rubruquis makes them identical with the
KIPCHAK, whose name is generally attached to those plains by
Oriental writers, but Hammer disputes this. [See a note, pp. 92–93
of _Rockhill’s Rubruck_.—H. C.]

ALANIA, the country of the Alans on the northern skirts of the
Caucasus and towards the Caspian; LAC, the Wallachs as above.
MENJAR is a subject of doubt. It may be _Májar_, on the Kuma
River, a city which was visited by Ibn Batuta, and is mentioned by
Abulfeda as _Kummájar_. It was in the 14th century the seat of a
Franciscan convent. Coins of that century, both of Majar and New
Majar, are given by Erdmann. The building of the fortresses of
Kichi Majar and Ulu Majar (little and great) is ascribed in the
_Derbend Nameh_ to Naoshirwan. The ruins of Majar were extensive
when seen by Gmelin in the last century, but when visited by
Klaproth in the early part of the present one there were few
buildings remaining. Inscriptions found there are, like the coins,
Mongol-Mahomedan of the 14th century. Klaproth, with reference to
these ruins, says that _Majar_ merely means in “old Tartar” a stone
building, and denies any connection with the _Magyars_ as a nation.
But it is possible that the Magyar country, _i.e._ Hungary, is here
intended by Polo, for several Asiatic writers of his time, or near
it, speak of the Hungarians as _Majár_. Thus Abulfeda speaks of the
infidel nations near the Danube as including Aulák, Majárs, and
Serbs; Rashiduddin speaks of the Mongols as conquering the country
of the Bashkirds, the Majárs, and the Sassan (probably Saxons of
Transylvania). One such mention from Abulghazi has been quoted in
note 2 to ch. xxii.; in the _Masálak-al-Absár_, the _Cherkes_,
_Russians_, _Aas_ (or Alans), and Majar are associated; the Majar
_and Alán_ in Sharifuddin. Doubts indeed arise whether in some
of these instances a people located in Asia be not intended.[1]
(_Rubr._ p. 246; _D’Avezac_, p. 486 _seqq._; _Golden Horde_, p.
5; _I. B._ II. 375 _seqq._; _Büsching_, IV. 359; _Cathay_, p. 233;
_Numi Asiatici_, I. 333, 451; _Klaproth’s Travels_, ch. xxxi.;
_N. et Ex._ XIII. i. 269, 279; _P. de la Croix_, II. 383; _Rein.
Abulf._ I. 80; _D’Ohsson_, II. 628.)

[“The author of the _Tarikh Djihan Kushai_, as well as Rashid and
other Mohammedan authors of the same period, term the Hungarians
_Bashkerds_ (Bashkirs). This latter name, written also _Bashkurd_,
appears for the first time, it seems, in Ibn Fozlan’s narrative
of an embassy to the Bulgars on the Volga in the beginning of the
10th century (translated by Fraehn, ‘De Bashkiris,’ etc., 1822)....
The Hungarians arrived in Europe in the 9th century, and then
called themselves _Magyar_ (to be pronounced Modjor), as they do
down to the present time. The Russian Chronicler Nestor mentions
their passing near Kiev in 898, and terms them _Ugry_. But the
name Magyar was also known to other nations in the Middle Ages.
Abulfeda (ii. 324) notices the _Madjgars_; it would, however,
seem that he applies this name to the Bashkirs in Asia. The name
_Madjar_ occurs also in Rashid’s record. In the Chinese and Mongol
annals of the 13th century the Hungarians are termed _Madja-rh_.”
(_Bretschneider, Med. Res._ I. pp. 326–327.)—H. C.]

ZIC is Circassia. The name was known to Pliny, Ptolemy, and other
writers of classic times. Ramusio (II. 196 _v_) gives a curious
letter to Aldus Manutius from George Interiano, “_Della vita de’_
Zychi _chiamati Circassi_,” and a great number of other references
to ancient and mediæval use of the name will be found in D’Avezac’s
Essay, so often quoted (p. 497).

GOTHIA is the southern coast of the Crimea from Sudak to Balaklava
and the mountains north of the latter, then still occupied by a
tribe of the Goths. The Genoese officer who governed this coast
in the 15th century bore the title of _Capitanus Gotiae_; and a
remnant of the tribe still survived, maintaining their Teutonic
speech, to the middle of the 16th century, when Busbeck, the
emperor’s ambassador to the Porte, fell in with two of them,
from whom he derived a small vocabulary and other particulars.
(_Busbequii Opera_, 1660, p. 321 _seqq._; _D’Avezac_, pp. 498–499;
_Heyd_, II. 123 _seqq._; _Cathay_, pp. 200–201.)

GAZARIA, the Crimea and part of the northern shore of the Sea of
Azov, formerly occupied by the _Khazars_, a people whom Klaproth
endeavours to prove to have been of Finnish race. When the Genoese
held their settlements on the Crimean coast the Board at Genoa
which administered the affairs of these colonies was called _The
Office of Gazaria_.

NOTE 2.—The real list of the “Kings of the Ponent,” or Khans of
the Golden Horde, down to the time of Polo’s narrative, runs thus:
BATU, _Sartaḳ, Ulagchi_ (these two almost nominal), BARKA, MANGKU
TIMUR, TUDAI MANGKU, _Tulabugha_, _Tuktuka_ or TOKTAI. Polo here
omits Tulabugha (though he mentions him below in ch. xxix.), and
introduces before Batu, as a great and powerful conqueror, the
founder of the empire, a prince whom he calls _Sain_. This is in
fact Batu himself, the leader of the great Tartar invasion of
Europe (1240–1242), whom he has split into two kings. Batu bore
the surname of _Sain Khan_, or “the _Good_ Prince,” by which name
he is mentioned, _e.g._, in Makrizi (_Quatremère’s Trans._ II.
45), also in Wassáf (_Hammer’s Trans._ pp. 29–30). Plano Carpini’s
account of him is worth quoting: “Hominibus quidem ejus satis
benignus; timetur tamen valde ab iis; sed crudelissimus est in
pugnâ; sagax est multum; et etiam astutissimus in bello, quia longo
tempore jam pugnavit.” This Good Prince was indeed _crudelissimus
in pugnâ_. At Moscow he ordered a general massacre, and 270,000
right ears are said to have been laid before him in testimony to
its accomplishment. It is odd enough that a mistake like that in
the text is not confined to Polo. The chronicle of Kazan, according
to a Russian writer, makes _Sain_ succeed _Batu_. (_Carpini_, p.
746; _J. As._ sér. IV. tom. xvii. p. 109; _Büsching_, V. 493; also
_Golden Horde_, p. 142, note.)

Batu himself, in the great invasion of the West, was with the
southern host in Hungary; the northern army which fought at
Liegnitz was under Baidar, a son of Chaghatai.

According to the _Masálak-al-Absár_, the territory of Kipchak,
over which this dynasty ruled, extended in length from the Sea
of Istambul to the River Irtish, a journey of 6 months, and in
breadth from Bolghar to the Iron Gates, 4 (?) months’ journey. A
second traveller, quoted in the same work, says the empire extended
from the Iron Gates to _Yughra_ (see p. 483 _supra_), and from
the Irtish to the country of the _Nemej_. The last term is very
curious, being the Russian _Niemicz_, “Dumb,” a term which in
Russia is used as a proper name of the Germans; a people, to wit,
unable to speak Slavonic. (_N. et Ex._ XIII. i. 282, 284.)

[“An allusion to the Mongol invasion of Poland and Silesia is
found in the _Yuen-shi_, ch. cxxi., biography of Wu-liang-ho t’ai
(the son of Su-bu-t’ai). It is stated there that Wu-liang-ho t’ai
[Uriangcadai] accompanied Badu when he invaded the countries of
_Kin-ch’a_ (Kipchak) and _Wu-la-sz’_ (Russia). Subsequently he
took part also in the expedition against the _P’o-lie-rh_ and
_Nie-mi-sze_.” (_Dr. Bretschneider, Med. Res._ I. p. 322.) With
reference to these two names, Dr. Bretschneider says, in a note,
that he has no doubt that the Poles and Germans are intended. “As
to its origin, the Russian linguists generally derive it from
_nemoi_, ‘dumb,’ _i.e._, unable to speak Slavonic. To the ancient
Byzantine chroniclers the Germans were known under the same name.
Cf. _Muralt’s Essai de Chronogr. Byzant., sub anno_ 882: ‘Les
Slavons maltraités par les guerriers _Nemetzi_ de Swiatopolc’ (King
of Great Moravia, 870–894). Sophocles’ Greek Lexicon of the Roman
and Byzantine periods from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100: ‘_Nemitzi_’
Austrians, Germans. This name is met also in the Mohammedan
authors. According to the Masálak-al-Absár, of the first half of
the 14th century (transl. by Quatremère, _N. et Ext._ XXII. 284),
the country of the Kipchaks extended (eastward) to the country of
the _Nemedj_, which separates the Franks from the Russians. The
Turks still call the Germans _Niemesi_; the Hungarians term them
_Nemet_.”—H. C.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] This doubt arises also where Abulfeda speaks of _Majgaria_ in the
far north, “the capital of the country of the _Madjgars_, a Turk
race” of pagan nomads, by whom he seems to mean the _Bashkirs_.
(_Reinaud’s Abulf._ I. 324.) For it is to the Bashkir country
that the Franciscan travellers apply the term Great Hungary,
showing that they were led to believe it the original seat of the
_Magyars_. (_Rubr._ 274, _Plan. Carpin._ 747; and in same vol.,
_D’Avezac_, p. 491.) Further confusion arises from the fact that,
besides the Uralian Bashkirs, there were, down to the 13th century,
Bashkirs recognised as such, and as distinct from the Hungarians
though akin to them, dwelling in _Hungarian territory_. Ibn Said,
speaking of Sebennico (the cradle of the Polo family), says that
when the Tartars advanced under its walls (1242?) “the Hungarians,
the Bashkirs, and the Germans united their forces near the city”
and gave the invaders a signal defeat. (_Reinaud’s Abulf._ I. 312;
see also 294, 295.) One would gladly know what are the real names
that M. Reinaud renders _Hongrois_ and _Allemands_. The Christian
Bashkirds of Khondemir, on the borders of the Franks, appear to be
Hungarians. (See _J. As._, sér. IV. tom. xvii. p. 111.)