The Arab conquests in Central Asia

by H. A. R. Gibb

The First Invasion of Bukhārā and Sughd.

Although at this junction Ziyād himself died, his policy was carried on by his sons, in particular by ʿUbaydullah. Scarcely any governor, not even Hajjāj, has suffered so much at the hands of the traditionists as the “Murderer of Husayn,” though his ability and devotion to the Umayyads are beyond question. It is not surprising therefore that his earlier military successes should be so briefly related, in spite of their importance. Yet as he was no more than 25 years of age when appointed by Muʿāwiya to the province of Khurāsān on probation, and only two years later was selected to fill his father’s position in ʿIrāq, his administration must have been markedly successful. The policy of Ziyād had now firmly secured Khurāsān and made it feasible to use it as a base for the extension of the conquests into the rich lands across the river. On his arrival at Merv, therefore, in the autumn of 53/673, the new governor began preparations for an invasion of Bukhārā.

The Shao-wu principality of Bukhārā was at this time second in importance only to Samarqand. It included not only the greater part of the oasis (“al-Bukhārīya”) then much more thickly populated than now, but also the great emporium of Paykand, which controlled the trade route across the Oxus at Āmul. Of its early history we have two accounts, both confused, inaccurate in detail, and often conflicting. From these it may be gathered that the prince, who held the high Turkish title of Shād[25], resided at Paykand, the citadel of Bukhārā being either founded or restored by the Bukhār Khudāh Bidūn, probably in consequence of the Arab invasions. This prince at his death left a son only a few months old on whose behalf the regency was exercised by the Queen-Mother. This princess, known under the title of Khātūn (a Turkish form of the Sogdian word for “lady”) became the central figure in the local traditions, which represent the Arab invasions as occurring precisely during the period of her regency. This version is the one accepted by Balādhurī, Yaʿqūbī, and Narshakhī, but though not altogether devoid of historical value, it is certainly misplaced, and the true account of the early conquests must, for cogent reasons, be sought in the brief and widely divergent narratives of Tabarī. In the first place the Khātūn-legend, like all such legends, has grown by natural elaboration of detail, as in the account given by Narshakhī of Khātūn’s administration of justice and by continual accretions from other streams of tradition, as seen, on comparing the narratives of Balādhurī and Narshakhī, in the introduction of episodes of Ibn Khāzim and Muhallab. Critical examination also reveals alternative traditions and chronological inconsistencies, as, for example, the birth of Tughshāda after the invasion of Saʿīd b. ʿOthmān, Khātūn’s reign of 15 years, and others mentioned below. There is clear evidence of the late compilation of the tradition in the frequent references to “Tarkhūn, King of Sughd,” though his reign did not begin until considerably after 696[26]. It may be noticed that in the variant account of the conquests prefixed to the Persian edition of Narshakhī and ascribed to An-Naysābūrī there is no reference at all to Khātūn. Moreover there are indications that Tabarī was aware of the local tradition and completely rejected it; this, at least, would account for the unusual practice of specifying Qabaj-Khātūn as “the wife of the king” in 54 A.H. Even Balādhurī rejects the more fantastic developments of the legend. Tabarī’s narratives, however, require to be collated with the additional material in Balādhurī, who has not relied entirely on the local tradition. The germ of the native version is probably to be found in a confusion of the Arab conquests with the later war between Bukhārā and Wardāna[27], whose echoes are heard in Qutayba’s invasions thirty years after.

In the spring of 54/674 ʿUbaydullah b. Ziyād crossed the river and marched directly on Paykand. After a partial success, he led his forces forward towards Bukhārā and severely defeated the army of the Bukhār Khudāh. From Tabarī’s narrative, which relates only that two thousand men of Bukhārā, skilful archers, were taken by ʿUbaydullah to Basra, where they formed his personal guard, it is left to be inferred that a treaty was concluded under which the Bukhār Khudāh became tributary. The local tradition magnifies the expedition by adding a siege of Bukhārā (during the winter) and bringing in an army of Turks to assist Khātūn, but confirms the success of the Arabs. ʿUbaydullah’s practice on this occasion of forming a bodyguard or retinue of captives appears to have been a common one. ʿAbdur-Rahmān ibn Samura had previously brought captives from Sijistān to Basra, where they built him a mosque, and later governors of Khurāsān continued the practice, as will be seen. In this may be recognised perhaps the germ of the Turkish guards recruited by the later ʿAbbāsid Caliphs.

ʿUbaydullah’s successor, Aslam b. Zurʿa, remained inactive, but in 56/676 Saʿīd b. ʿOthmān, who had obtained the governorship of Khurāsān by importuning Muʿāwiya, carried the Arab arms more deeply into Transoxania, defeated the Sughdians in the open field and reduced their city. Taking fifty young nobles as hostages, he retired from Sughd and subsequently occupied Tirmidh, an important fortress on the Oxus controlling the main North and South trade route, having presumably marched through the Iron Gate. The conquest of Sughd was thus definitely co-ordinated with that of Chaghāniān. Tabarī’s narrative is strangely vague and abrupt; it contains no mention of Bukhārā nor any definite reference to Samarqand, except for the statement that it was the objective of Saʿīd’s expedition. Using this narrative alone, one would be inclined to suspect that the city captured by Saʿīd was not Samarqand but Kish (since it has been established by Marquart that Kish was formerly called Sughd), and that the reference to Samarqand was due to a later misunderstanding of the name[28]. On the other hand, both the local tradition and Abū ʿUbayda speak of a siege of Samarqand by Saʿīd, though their narratives are far from being in agreement in detail, and there are other indications of confusion between Saʿīd and Salm b. Ziyād. All accounts except Narshakhī’s, however, agree that the hostages who were carried by Saʿīd to Madīna and there murdered him were Sughdians[29]. Balādhurī’s tradition of Saʿīd’s expedition is as follows. On his crossing the river, Khātūn at first renewed her allegiance, only to withdraw it again on the approach of an army of Turks, Sughdians, and men of Kish and Nasaf, 120,000 strong. Saʿīd, however, completely defeated the enemy and after a triumphal entry into Bukhārā, marched on Samarqand, his forces swelled by Khātūn’s army, besieged it for three days and made it tributary. On his return he captured Tirmidh and while there received the tribute due from Khātūn and the allegiance of Khuttal. Narshakhī’s account is the same in essentials, adding only a number of imaginative details.

Saʿīd was unable to retain his position in Khurāsān, and for five years the conquests were stayed (except for summer raids) under the indolent Aslam b. Zurʿa and the avaricious ʿAbdur-Rahmān b. Ziyād. In 61/680-681 Yazīd I appointed Salm, another son of Ziyād, to Khurāsān and Sijistān. Eager to emulate his brother, Salm, even before leaving Basra, announced his intention of renewing the expeditions into Transoxania and enlisted a picked force on the spot, including such tried leaders as Muhallab b. Abī Sufra and ʿAbdullah b. Khāzim. From a poem preserved in the Hamāsa of Abū Tammām[30] it would appear that somewhat unwilling levies for this expedition were raised even in Mesopotamia. Towards the close of the winter a surprise attack was made on Khwārizm, with some success. Tabarī gives two versions of this expedition, the first of which is a highly embroidered one from the Muhallabite tradition. During the same year, Salm marched into Sughd and occupied Samarqand, where he appears to have made his headquarters over the winter. Balādhurī mentions a subsidiary raid on Khujanda under Aʿshā Hamdān, in which, however, the Muslims were defeated, and a Sughdian revolt which was crushed with the loss of its leader, here called Bandūn. The name is almost certainly to be read as that of the Bukhār-Khudāh, Bīdūn[31], and in view of the silence of Tabarī raises rather a difficult problem. It may be conjectured that what Balādhurī intended was a revolt of the Bukhariots, combined with Sughdian forces. The origin of this statement may perhaps be sought for in the Bukhārā tradition, which Balādhurī does not follow in his general account of the expeditions of Salm, but which he may have tried to work in with the other. On the other hand he nowhere refers to Bīdūn as the Bukhār Khudāh. As related by Narshakhī and Yaʿqūbī Salm’s expedition is directed solely against Bukhārā. Khātūn, on promising her hand to Tarkhūn, receives a reinforcement of 120,000 men from Sughd, and Bīdūn (here still alive) recruits an army in “Turkistān,” including the “Prince of Khotan.” After severe fighting, the Muslim forces, numbering 6,000, kill Bīdūn and rout the unbelievers, taking so much booty that the share of each horseman amounts to 2,400 dirhems. Khātūn, thoroughly humbled by this decisive proof of Arab invincibility, sues for peace and pays a heavy tribute. Beyond the fantastic exaggerations and incoherencies of the legend, there is nothing inherently improbable in a Bukhariot revolt. In support of this view, it may be remarked that the death of Bīdūn at this point would agree with the slender data we have for the internal wars which probably formed the original basis of the Khātūn-legend, and would also provide a foothold for the later developments of the tradition. Without fuller evidence, however, we can get no further than reasonable conjecture.

After the conquests made by Salm, which probably occupied the years 682 and 683, it seemed as though the Arabs were on the verge of imposing their rule on Transoxania when civil war broke out in the heart of the Empire. Even allowing for the fact that these expeditions were little more than raids, the comparative ease with which the Arabs held to ransom the richest cities in the country is astonishing. The explanation can lie only in their mutual exclusiveness. There is not a hint of united action in the field in Tabarī’s accounts[32]. A factor which may have exercised some influence was that Sogdiana was completely isolated during these years and unable to look for support from without. The power of the Western Turks was broken by the Chinese armies between 645 and 658; Chinese forces are said to have reached as far west as Kish, and the Emperor Kao-Tsung had officially annexed all the territories formerly included in the Turkish dominions. In the latter year the provinces of Sogdiana and the Jaxartes were organized in sixteen districts, including a “Government of Persia” under the Pērōz already mentioned, situated apparently in Sijistān, possibly even in Eastern Khurāsān[33]. The immediate practical effect of this change of status was of little moment, but her nominal annexation gave China a prestige which was destined to exercise immense influence in determining the attitude of the peoples of Sogdiana to the Arabs. From 670 to 692, however, the new power of Tibet held the Chinese armies in check in the Tarim basin and cut off all possibility of Chinese intervention in the West. The Sogdian princes were thus thrown on their own resources, and, ignorant as yet of the danger behind the Arab raids, they seem to have bowed to the storm. It must not be forgotten that the cities had never before met such an enemy as the Arabs. They had been accustomed to plundering raids by Turks, who disappeared as quickly as they came, and who, disliking to undertake a lengthy siege, were easily appeased by a ransom. Familiar with such nominal annexations, they would naturally adopt the same tactics against the new invaders. Had the Arabs maintained their pressure, there was thus every prospect that Transoxania would have been colonised with a tithe of the expense and loss incurred in its reconquest and would have become as integral a part of the Muslim dominions as Khurāsān. But the opportunity was lost in the fratricidal struggles of the factions, and when the Arabs recommenced their encroachments, the determined resistance offered to their advance showed that the lessons of the first invasion had not been lost on the native princes.

The Withdrawal of the Arabs.

The tribal feuds which occupied the Arabs of Khurāsān left the princes of Transoxania free to regain their independence. It would seem even that Lower Tukhāristān was not only in part lost to the Arabs but that local forces took the offensive and raided Khurāsān. On the gradual restoration of order under Umayya, however, Lower Tukhāristān again recognised, at least in name, the Arab suzerainty[34]. Meanwhile, a strange episode had occurred in Chaghāniān. Mūsā, the son of ʿAbdullah ibn Khāzim, sent by his father to secure a safe place of retreat, had captured the strong fortress of Tirmidh, from which he continually raided the neighbouring districts. His exploits were worked up in popular story into an epic of adventure, in which legend has almost overlaid historical fact. The most fantastic exaggerations were devised in order to provide a suitable background for the incredible deeds of valour indulged in by the hero. But in truth his actual exploits were sufficiently amazing, and all the efforts of the forces of the local rulers (magnified in the legend to huge armies of “Turks and Haytal and Tibetans”), although aided on one occasion by a force of Khuzāʿites, were unable to dislodge him. For fifteen years he remained in secure possession of his stronghold, a refuge for the disaffected from all sides, and a standing example of the helplessness of the rulers across the river.

In 77/696 Umayya re-opened the campaigns into Transoxania. An expedition to Khwārizm was successful[35], another across the Oxus narrowly escaped destruction. Balādhurī mentions, with doubtful accuracy, a successful raid on Khuttal, which may, however, only be a variant on this. An expedition directed against Bukhārā, which is said to have had Tirmidh as a second objective, was hurriedly abandoned on the fresh outbreak of revolt under Bukayr b. Wishāh in Khurāsān. Though the revolt failed in its immediate object, a most serious situation had been created. Bukayr had endeavoured to rally the Persians to his side by promising all converts remission of Kharāj. The opportunity was undoubtedly seized by large numbers, and the pacification occasioned some negotiations between Umayya and Thābit b. Qutba, an influential noble who acted as spokesman for the mawālī of Eastern Khurāsān. Umayya’s reimposition of Kharāj, however, caused widespread unrest[36] and made prompt action necessary. ʿAbdul-Malik at once recalled his hapless kinsman (in 78) and made Khurāsān a dependency of ʿIrāq under the government of Hajjāj. This far-sighted governor had already dealt with a desperate situation of the same sort in ʿIrāq and reduced it to outward tranquillity. The same extreme measures that had been adopted there were not necessary in Khurāsān; its troubles were due less to insurgent mawālī than to the factions of Qays. Hajjāj was himself a strong Qaysite, but he was not the man to put party before the interests of the State. The first necessity was to appoint a governor who could be trusted to repress both forms of anarchy and in Muhallab such a man was available. His tribe of Azd was not yet strong enough in Khurāsān to cause the risk of opening a new channel for factional strife, and his military reputation fitted him for carrying out Hajjāj’s policy of active campaigning as an antidote to internal dissension. It is possible that Hajjāj had in mind from the first a definite conquest of Transoxania, but for a few years nothing more than sporadic raids took place.