Anyhow, Oosh is not without interest to our antiquarians. The ruins themselves, and particularly the columns, as they were described to me, lead to the suspicion of a Grecian origin; and if we were searching for the most eastern colony founded by Alexander, we might readily suppose Oosh to be the very spot where the daring Macedonian marked by some monument the most easterly frontier of his gigantic empire. [Footnote 136]
[Footnote 136: Appian mentions (De Rebus Syriacis, lvii.) many cities founded by the Greeks and by Seleucus, amongst others one [Greek text], of which Pliny (vi. 16) seems to speak when he says: 'Ultra Sogdiana, oppidum Tarada, et in ultimis eorum finibus Alexandria ab Alexandro magno conditum.' That point or its vicinity seems to have marked the extreme limit of progress on that side of all the great conquerors of classical antiquity; for there, says Pliny, were altars placed by Hercules, Bacchus, Cyrus, Semiramis, and Alexander: 'Finis omnium eorum ductus ab illâ parte terrarum, includente flumine Jaxarte, quod Scythae Silin vocant.' And indeed with respect to the city 'Alexandreschata' Arrian (Exped. Alexand. 1. iv. c. i. 3, and c. iv. 10), agrees with Pliny, telling us that this great hero intended it as a barrier against the people on the further bank of the river, and colonised it with Macedonian veterans, Greek mercenaries, and such of the adjacent barbarians as were so disposed. This city was built on the banks of the Jaxartes, and most consider it to be the modern Khodjend. What if Oosh should have been the spot where stood the columns of Alexander (Curtius, vii. 6)? And yet the supposition that Alexander firmly possessed himself of any land beyond the Jaxartes is hardly consistent with the account of Arrian. Curtius (1. vii. 9) describes the remains of the altars of Bacchus as 'monuments consisting of stones arranged at numerous intervals, and eight lofty trees with their stems covered with ivy.']
With respect to the political position of the Khanat of Khokand, its independence dates as far back as that of Bokhara and Khiva. The present reigning family pretends to descend in a direct line from Djenghis Khan, which is very improbable, as his family was dethroned by Timour; and after Baber, the last descendant of Timour in Khokand, the Sheïbani, as well as other chieftains from the races Kiptchak and Kirghis, seized alternately the reins of government. The family at present on the throne, or perhaps, I should rather say, now disputing its claim to it with Bokhara, is of Kiptchak origin, and has only been 80 years at the head of affairs. The institutions in Khokand bear very slight traces of Arabian or Persian elements, and the Yaszao Djenghis (code of Djenghis) is the legal authority which they follow. Here also a singular ceremonial deserves notice. The Khan at his coronation is raised in the air upon a white felt, and shoots arrows to the north, south, east, and west. [Footnote 137]
[Footnote 137: It is singular that this custom exists even in the present day at the coronation of kings in Hungary. The king on the Hill of Coronation, on horseback, and invested with all the insignia of royalty, is required to brandish his sword respectively to the four points of the compass.]
A.
THE WAR BETWEEN BOKHARA AND KHOKAND IN THE TIME OF THE EMIR NASRULLAH.
The animosity between Khokand and Bokhara is of ancient date. After the Sheïbani family began to take the head of affairs in Turkestan, Khokand, with the exception of some cities still held by the Kiptchaks, was incorporated into the Khanat of Bokhara. It tore itself away again afterwards, and during its independence attached itself to its neighbours, Kashgar, Yarkend, and Khoten, then also still independent; but after these latter States had been themselves incorporated by the Emperor of China into his dominions, Khokand, as its enemies to the east seemed too powerful, thought itself bound to recommence its differences with Bokhara, and the war that was going on during our stay in Central Asia was only a continuation of the struggle that Mehemmed Ali, Khan of Khokand, and his rival the Emir Nasrullah, had begun.
Mehemmed Ali Khan is termed by the Khokandi their greatest monarch in recent times. Whilst this prince, by extending the frontiers and by advancing internal prosperity, had on the one hand contributed much to lend a certain splendour to his Khanat, yet on the other he had in the same degree stimulated the envious cupidity of the wicked Emir Nasrullah. [{389}] But what most displeased the latter was that the Khan should have formed a friendly alliance with Khiva, the principal enemy of Bokhara, and should have given a friendly reception to the Emir's own uncle and rival, who had fled to Khokand for safety. Others also assign as an additional cause the hospitality they had shown to Captain Conolly; but in any case abundant ground of dissension existed, and a rupture was regarded as inevitable.
In 1839, Mehemmed Ali, having defeated the Russians at Shehidan, [Footnote 138] considered a contest with the Emir as near at hand; and, himself preferring to be the assailant, marched towards the frontiers of Bokhara in the vicinity of Oratepe, and was already threatening Djizzak and Samarcand, when the Emir, after vainly trying intrigues, marched against him with a superior force of Özbeg horsemen and 300 of the newly-formed militia (Serbaz), under the conduct of their chief and organiser Abdul-Samed Khan. Upon this Mehemmed Ali held it prudent to retreat. Nasrullah laid siege to Oratepe, which, after three months, he took; but his treatment of the inhabitants made them his bitterest enemies: and scarcely had he returned to Bokhara, when, having a secret understanding with Mehemmed Ali, they fell upon the Bokhariot garrison and massacred all, soldiers as well as officers.