Khitay and Khotan, thinking to take advantage of his helpless state, advanced with an enormous host to attack his dominions. But, on hearing of the approaching invasion, the Khan miraculously recovered his health and forthwith set out to oppose his enemies. We are told that they retreated without striking a blow as soon as they learnt that their quarry had regained his strength, but were hotly pursued and harassed by the Khan for three months.

Toghan Khān died in A.H. 408 (1018). He is spoken of in terms of the highest praise, both on account of his piety and his learning. His successor was Arslan Khan, who, however, was unable to preserve the integrity of his kingdom. Coming into conflict with Sultan Mahmud, he was defeated and killed in the year A.H. 410 (1020).

Kādir2 Khān, who now ascended the throne at Samarkand, is said to have brought the whole of Kashghar and Khotan under his subjection. He died in A.H. 423 (1031), and was succeeded by his son Arslān Khan. During his reign he received a deputation from some Turks of Tibet, who, hearing of his justice and clemency, asked permission to settle in the neighbourhood of Balāsāghūn. He granted their request, and when they arrived he tried to compel their acceptance of Islam. This they refused, but as they were otherwise loyal and obedient he gave way and allowed them to remain in a state of heathenism.3 Arslan Khān was overthrown in A.H. 425 (1033) by his brother Boghrà Khan, during whose reign the immigrant Turks embraced

1 They advanced within three stages of Balāsāghūn. They are spoken of as coming from Sīn (China), but they were probably not Chinese but Eastern Uighurs (cf. Bretschneider, i. 253).

2 His name is often given in Oriental histories as Kadr. See Raverty, Tabakat-i-Näsiri.

3 Cf. Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, p. 234.

Islām (A.H. 432). He died by poison in A.H. 439 (1047), and was succeeded by his son Ibrāhīm-the last chief of the house of Boghra Khan.2

The kingdom of Kashghar seems shortly afterwards to have fallen into the hands of another branch of the Eastern Uighurs, called by Narshakhi the Tufghāj,3 the first of whose representatives, Ibrāhīm, was killed in battle against Alp Arslan, the Seljuk, in A.H. 472 (1079), and was succeeded by his brother Khidhr Khan.* He apparently died in the same year, when his son Ahmed Khan came to the throne. The latter, in A.H. 482 (1089), was attacked and defeated by Melik Shāh, and sent prisoner to Isfahan; but soon afterwards he was reinstated as governor of Transoxiana. In 488 he was condemned to death by the mullas or doctors of Samarkand, on the ground that he professed heretical tenets acquired during his residence in Persian 'Irāk. After him Mas'ud Khān reigned for a short period, and was succeeded by Kadir Khan, who in A.H. 495 (1101) perished in an insurrection fomented by him against Sanjar, the then governor of Khorāsān.

The next ruler of Samarkand was Mohammad Khān ibn Sulayman, who in A.H. 503 (1109) success

1 We are told by this same author that they had caused much depredation among the Mohammedans, which seems inconsistent with what has been said of them before.

2 S. Lane-Poole gives the date of Boghra Khan's death as 435, and makes no mention of his son Ibrāhīm.

3 Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, reads this name Tumghach.

4 S. Lane-Poole (loc. cit.) says Ibrāhīm died in 460, and was succeeded by his son Nasr, who died in 472. It will be seen that great confusion exists with regard to these Khāns. Major Raverty, in his translation of the Tabakāt-i-Nasiri, furnishes a long list of Ilik Khāns; but it is hard to reconcile any two accounts, so much do the names and dates differ.

5 S. Lane-Poole (Mohammedan Dynasties, p. 135) says Mahmud Khān 11. 6 S. Lane-Poole (loc. cit.) reads Mahmud Khan III., and from this point the list he gives no longer corresponds with Narshakhi's account.

fully defended his capital against the attack of a large Turkish force under a certain Saghir Beg. He held this post until his death, and apparently continued in his loyalty to Sanjar, who, as we have seen, ascended the throne of the Seljuks in 511. We are not told when he died, but Narshakhi says that his son Nasr Khan was killed during a revolt in Samarkand in A.H. 523 (1128). On the death of his father, Nasr's son Mohammad Khān wrote to inform Sanjar of what had passed. Sanjar thereupon set out with a force to establish order in Samarkand, but when he approached the town Mohammad Khan sent him an insolent message that the Sultan would do well to retreat, inasmuch as he (Mohammad) had subdued his opponents. Sanjar was much incensed, and promptly invested the city. After a protracted siege he captured Samarkand and took Mohammad prisoner, A.H. 524 (1129). A new governor was now appointed, but he died two years later, when the reins of power were given to Mahmūd Khān, the son of Mohammad.1

In the meanwhile another mighty host was advancing on Transoxiana; but before describing their progress we must retrace our steps and recount the downfall of the Ghaznavides and the rise of the great Seljuk dynasty of Persia.

1 Mirkhwand (Vüllers, Historia Seldschukidarum, p. 176), and Vambéry following him, say that Mohammad was reinstated.

CHAPTER XVII

THE GHAZNAVIDES AND THE RISE OF THE

SELJŪKS

THE struggles between Mahmud of Ghazna and Ilik Khan of Kashghar continued till the year A.H. 401 (1010), when the latter, owing to a quarrel with his brother Toghān, was obliged to withdraw his troops, and a long period of peace ensued, with but slight interruptions, during which the Oxus continued to be regarded as the frontier of their respective realms.

Before the actual downfall of the Sāmānides the province of Khwārazm,1 which lay between the states of the Turkish Khāns and the Ghaznavides, had become practically independent. On the final overthrow of the Sāmānides, the Khwārazm Shah, as their ruler was called, had thrown in his fortunes with the Ghaznavides. In A.H. 407 (1017) the then ruler was murdered by rebels, whereupon Mahmud marched into the country at the head of a large force and conquered it, setting up a governor of his own creation named Altuntash.

Great difficulties attend an attempt to define the ethnographic affinities of the Turks. A similarity of language forces one to associate the Tartars of Southern Russia, the Turkomans of the Oxus countries, and the Uzbegs of Transoxiana. This race, in the broadest

1 The modern Khiva.

2 See chap. XX.

sense of the word, may be divided into three

(1) The Northern Turks, comprising the Siberian nomads, such as the Yakuts, etc.

(2) The Eastern Turks, including those of Chinese Turkestan and the Uzbegs of Russian Turkestan, to whom are related the Tartars of the Crimea and the Volga.

(3) The Western Turks, comprising the Osmanlis, or Ottoman branch, the Azerbayjānīs of Persia, and the Turkomans, in fact, what we commonly in Europe understand by the word Turk.

The habitat of the original Turks was in the Altar, whence they migrated in large numbers at an early period towards China and Turkestan. It was in this latter direction that they met with least resistance, and thither, therefore, they wandered in the greatest numbers.

But, apart from these lesser migrations, two great Turkish waves poured, at an interval of two hundred years, over Western Asia and Southern Europe-the Seljuks and the hordes of Chingiz Khan.

The former, composed of what we now call Western Turks, of whom the Ghuz and the Turkomans were the predominant element, swept over the Oxus-lands into Armenia and Asia Minor. From them sprang, at a later date, the Osmanlis, who finally overthrew the Byzantine Empire. A portion, however, of the Seljuks either remained in the Oxus country, or were pressed across that river by the advances of the Eastern Turks into modern Turkomania.

The second great migration spread simultaneously in two directions. The larger body penetrated north of the Sea of Aral into Southern Europe, where they carried all before them until their progress was stayed by Western skill at the memorable battle of Leignitz