Tekish[337] was, in A.H. 588 (1192), firmly settled on the throne of Khwārazm. Confident in the devotion of an army which he had led to victory, he grew ambitious and forgot the obligations under which the Kara-Khitāy had placed him. He incurred the wrath of that powerful tribe by putting to death one of their envoys who had come to claim the annual tribute, and brought them into the field against him. On learning that his brother was sorely beset, Sultan Shāh left the protection of the Ghūrides and joined the Kara-Khitāys, whose queen he persuaded that the Khwārazmians were anxious for his return to the throne. As the Queen-Gūr-Khān was incensed against Tekish, she allowed herself to be gained over by Sultan Shāh, and sent her husband Karmā[338] with a large force into Khwārazm to defend the rights of Sultan Khān. Tekish, hearing of their advance, commanded the waters of the Jīhūn (Oxus) to be diverted across their line of march, so that the progress of the Kara-Khitāys was rendered almost impossible. Meanwhile he busied himself with military preparations. Karmā, seeing clearly that Sultan Shāh’s pretensions to the esteem of the Khwārazmians were unfounded, led his army home. Sultan Shāh, with his own followers and a small body of Kara-Khitāys, marched to Sarakhs, and, evicting its governor, established himself there.
In A.H. 576 (1180) we find him at the head of 10,000 horsemen, and lord of Nīshāpūr. In A.H. 582 (1186) Tekish set out for Khorāsān with a large army; while Sultan Khān hastened to Khwārazm by another road. These hostilities between the two brothers continued with only short intermissions until the death of Sultan Shāh in A.H. 589 (1192), when Tekish became master of all Khorāsān and Khwārazm.[339]
In A.H. 590 (1194) he entered Persian `Irāk and overthrew Toghrul III., the last of the great Seljūks of Persia.[340] After adding Ray, Isfahān, and other important towns to his dominions, he obtained an investiture from Caliph Nāsir li Dīn-illāh of all the countries which he had conquered.
From this epoch-time till his death Tekish appears to have paid tribute regularly to the Gūr-Khān, and retained his friendship. He recommended his son and successor to follow the same policy, for the Kara-Khitāy were a bulwark against the dreaded hordes of the East.[341]
In A.H. 596 (1200) Tekish died, and was succeeded by his famous son, `Alā ud-Dīn Mohammad, who soon made himself master of Khorāsān, Balkh, Herāt, Māzenderan, and Kirmān.[342] He now considered himself sufficiently powerful to assert his independence of the Gūr-Khān, to whom, like his three predecessors, he had paid an annual tribute. He was encouraged to resist his liege lord by `Othmān, prince of Samarkand and Transoxiana, who was also a vassal of the Gūr-Khān, who promised to pay him the same allegiance as he had rendered to the Kara-Khitāys in return for his assistance against the common enemy.[343] An occasion for the rupture of friendly relations between the Khwārazm-Shāh and the Gūr-Khān was soon found. It was identical with the method employed by Tekish,—the slaughter of one of the receivers of tribute.[344]
After perpetrating this outrage, Mohammad entered the Kara-Khitāy territory, A.H. 605 (1208), where he suffered a crushing defeat and barely escaped capture.[345]
In the following year Mohammad made a second incursion into the land of the Kara-Khitāy. Crossing the Jaxartes at Fināket, he gained a signal success over their general, Tanigū, beyond Tarāz, pushed his conquests as far as Otrār[346] (Fārāb), and returned in triumph to Khwārazm. But the tangled knot of Central Asian politics was soon to be cut by a conqueror whose annals are as devoid of complexity as his career. In the place of paltry struggles for supremacy in isolated states, attended by obscure and ever-changing fortunes, we have the triumphant advance of one who, like Alexander of Macedon, was destined to give a new impulse to the world’s history.
CHAPTER XXI
Chingiz Khān
It is not within the scope of the present work to trace in any detail the meteor-like path of Chingiz; for we are concerned with it only in so far as it affected the internal affairs of Central Asia. His career has exercised a peculiar fascination for students of Oriental history, though by no means all the available evidence has yet been marshalled in elucidation of the controversies which still rage round that mighty name.[347]