The Bābur-nāma

Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, on reaching Ḥiṣār, settled down at once to besiege it. There was no rest, day nor night, from the labours of mining and attack, of working catapults and mortars. Mines were run in four or five places. When one had gone well forward towards the Gate, the townsmen, countermining, struck it and forced smoke down on the Mīrzā’s men; they, in turn, closed the hole, thus sent the smoke straight back and made the townsmen flee as from the very maw of death. In the end, the townsmen drove the besiegers out by pouring jar after jar of water in on them. Another day, a party dashed out from the town and drove off the Mīrzā’s men from their own mine’s mouth. Once the discharges from catapults and mortars in the Mīrzā’s quarters on the north cracked a tower of the fort; it fell at the Bed-time Prayer; some of the Mīrzā’s braves begged to assault at once but he refused, saying, “It is night.” Before the shoot of the next day’s dawn, the besieged had rebuilt the whole tower. That day too there was no assault; in fact, for the two to two and a half months of the siege, no attack was made except by keeping up the blockade,[283 - siyāsat. My translation is conjectural only.] by mining, rearing head-strikes,[284 - sar-kob. The old English noun strike, “an instrument for scraping off what appears above the top,” expresses the purpose of the wall-high erections of wood or earth (L. agger) raised to reach what shewed above ramparts. Cf. Webster.] and discharging stones.

When Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and whatever (nī kīm) troops had been sent with him against Khusrau Shāh, dismounted some 16 m. (3 to 4 yīghāch) below Qūndūz,[285 - Presumably lower down the Qūndūz Water.] Khusrau Shāh arrayed whatever men (nī kīm) he had, marched out, halted one night on the way, formed up to fight and came down upon the Mīrzā and his men. The Khurāsānīs may not have been twice as many as his men but what question is there they were half as many more? None the less did such Mīrzās and such Commander-begs elect for prudence and remain in their entrenchments! Good and bad, small and great, Khusrau Shāh’s force may have been of 4 or 5,000 men!

This was the one exploit of his life, – of this man who for the sake of this fleeting and unstable world and for the sake of shifting and faithless followers, chose such evil and such ill-repute, practised such tyranny and injustice, seized such wide lands, kept such hosts of retainers and followers, – latterly he led out between 20 and 30,000 and his countries and his districts (parganāt) exceeded those of his own ruler and that ruler’s sons,[286 - aūz pādshāhī u mīrzālārīdīn artīb.]– for an exploit such as this his name and the names of his adherents were noised abroad for generalship and for this they were counted brave, while those timorous laggards, in the trenches, won the resounding fame of cowards.

Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā marched out from that camp and after a few stages reached the Alghū Mountain of Tāliqān[287 - sic. Ḥai. MS.; Elph. MS. “near Tāliqān”; some W. – i-B. MSS. “Great Garden.” Gul-badan mentions a Tāliqān Garden. Perhaps the Mīrzā went so far east because, Ẕū’n-nūn being with him, he had Qandahār in mind. Cf. f. 42b.] and there made halt. Khusrau Shāh, in Qūndūz, sent his brother, Walī, with serviceable men, to Ishkīmīsh, Fulūl and the hill-skirts thereabouts to annoy and harass the Mīrzā from outside also. Muḥibb-‘alī, the armourer, (qūrchī) for his part, came down (from Walī’s Khutlān) to the bank of the Khutlān Water, met in with some of the Mīrzā’s men there, unhorsed some, cut off a few heads and got away. In emulation of this, Sayyidīm ‘Alī[288 - i. e. Sayyid Muḥammad ‘Alī. See f. 15 n. to Sherīm. Khwāja Changāl lies 14 m. below Tāliqān on the Tāliqān Water. (Erskine.)] the door-keeper, and his younger brother, Qulī Beg and Bihlūl-i-ayūb and a body of their men got to grips with the Khurāsānīs on the skirt of ‘Aṃbar Koh, near Khwāja Changāl but, many Khurāsānīs coming up, Sayyidīm ‘Alī and Bābā Beg’s (son) Qulī Beg and others were unhorsed.

At the time these various news reached Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, his army was not without distress through the spring rains of Ḥiṣār; he therefore brought about a peace; Maḥmūd Barlās came out from those in the fort; Ḥājī Pīr the Taster went from those outside; the great commanders and what there was (nī kīm) of musicians and singers assembled and the Mīrzā took (Bega Begīm), the eldest[289 - f. 27b, second.] daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā by Khān-zāda Begīm, for Ḥaidar Mīrzā, his son by Pāyanda Begīm and through her the grandson of Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā. This done, he rose from before Ḥiṣār and set his face for Qūndūz.

At Qūndūz also Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā made a few trenches and took up the besieger’s position but by Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā’s intervention peace at length was made, prisoners were exchanged and the Khurāsānīs retired. The twice-repeated[290 - The first was circa 895 AH. -1490 AD. Cf. f. 27b.] attacks made by Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā on Khusrau Shāh and his unsuccessful retirements were the cause of Khusrau Shāh’s great rise and of action of his so much beyond his province.

When the Mīrzā reached Balkh, he, in the interests of Ṃāwarā’u’n-nahr gave it to Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā, gave Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā’s district of Astarābād to (a younger son), Muz̤affar Ḥusain Mīrzā and made both kneel at the same assembly, one for Balkh, the other for Astarābād. This offended Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and led to years of rebellion and disturbance.[291 - Bābur’s wording suggests that their common homage was the cause of Badī‘u’z-zamān’s displeasure but see f. 41.]

(d. Revolt of the Tarkhānīs in Samarkand).

In Ramẓān of this same year, the Tarkhānīs revolted in Samarkand. Here is the story: – Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā was not so friendly and familiar with the begs and soldiers of Samarkand as he was with those of Ḥiṣār.[292 - The Mīrzā had grown up with Ḥiṣārīs. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii, 270.] His favourite beg was Shaikh ‘Abdu’l-lāh Barlās[293 - As the husband of one of the six Badakhshī Begīms, he was closely connected with local ruling houses. See T.R. p. 107.] whose sons were so intimate with the Mīrzā that it made a relation as of Lover and Beloved. These things displeased the Tarkhāns and the Samarkandī begs; Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān went from Bukhārā to Qarshī, brought Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā to Samarkand and raised him to be supreme. People then went to the New Garden where Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā was, treated him like a prisoner, parted him from his following and took him to the citadel. There they seated both mīrzās in one place, thinking to send Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā to the Gūk Sarāī close to the Other Prayer. The Mīrzā, however, on plea of necessity, went into one of the palace-buildings on the east side of the Bū-stān Sarāī. Tarkhānīs stood outside the door and with him went in Muḥammad Qulī Qūchīn and Ḥasan, the sherbet-server. To be brief: – A gateway, leading out to the back, must have been bricked up for they broke down the obstacle at once. The Mīrzā got out of the citadel on the Kafshīr side, through the water-conduit (āb-mūrī), dropped himself from the rampart of the water-way (dū-tahī), and went to Khwājakī Khwāja’s[294 - i. e. Muḥammad ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh the elder of Aḥrārī’s two sons. d. 911 AH. See Rashaḥāt-i-‘ain-alḥayāt (I.O. 633) f. 269-75; and Khizīnatu’l-aṣfīya lith. ed. i, 597.] house in Khwāja Kafshīr. When the Tarkhānīs, in waiting at the door, took the precaution of looking in, they found him gone. Next day the Tarkhānīs went in a large body to Khwājakī Khwāja’s gate but the Khwāja said, “No!”[295 - Bū yūq tūr, i. e. This is not to be.] and did not give him up. Even they could not take him by force, the Khwāja’s dignity was too great for them to be able to use force. A few days later, Khwāja Abu’l-makāram[296 - d. 908 AH. He was not, it would seem, of the Aḥrārī family. His own had provided Pontiffs (Shaikhu’l-islām) for Samarkand through 400 years. Cf.Shaibānī-nāma, Vambéry, p. 106; also, for his character, p. 96.] and Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg and other begs, great and small, and soldiers and townsmen rose in a mass, fetched the Mīrzā away from the Khwāja’s house and besieged Sl. ‘Ali Mīrzā and the Tarkhāns in the citadel. They could not hold out for even a day; Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān went off through the Gate of the Four Roads for Bukhārā; Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā and Darwesh Muḥ. Tarkhān were made prisoner.

Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā was in Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg’s house when people brought Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān in. He put him a few questions but got no good answer. In truth Darwesh Muḥammad’s was a deed for which good answer could not be made. He was ordered to death. In his helplessness he clung to a pillar[297 - i. e. he claimed sanctuary.] of the house; would they let him go because he clung to a pillar? They made him reach his doom (siyāsat) and ordered Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā to the Gūk Sarāī there to have the fire-pencil drawn across his eyes.

(Author’s note.) The Gūk Sarāī is one of Tīmūr Beg’s great buildings in the citadel of Samarkand. It has this singular and special characteristic, if a Tīmūrid is to be seated on the throne, here he takes his seat; if one lose his head, coveting the throne, here he loses it; therefore the name Gūk Sarāī has a metaphorical sense (kināyat) and to say of any ruler’s son, “They have taken him to the Gūk Sarāī,” means, to death.[298 - Cf. f. 45b and Pétis de la Croix’s Histoire de Chīngīz Khān pp. 171 and 227. What Tīmūr’s work on the Gūk Sarāī was is a question for archæologists.]

To the Gūk Sarāī accordingly Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā was taken but when the fire-pencil was drawn across his eyes, whether by the surgeon’s choice or by his inadvertence, no harm was done. This the Mīrzā did not reveal at once but went to Khwāja Yahya’s house and a few days later, to the Tarkhāns in Bukhārā.

Through these occurrences, the sons of his Highness Khwāja ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh became settled partisans, the elder (Muḥammad ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh, Khwājakī Khwāja) becoming the spiritual guide of the elder prince, the younger (Yahya) of the younger. In a few days, Khwāja Yahya followed Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā to Bukhārā.

Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā led out his army against Bukhārā. On his approach, Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā came out of the town, arrayed for battle. There was little fighting; Victory being on the side of Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā sustained defeat. Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg and a number of good soldiers were taken; most of the men were put to death. Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg himself the slaves and slave-women of Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān, issuing out of Bukhārā, put to a dishonourable death on the charge of their master’s blood.

(e. Bābur moves against Samarkand.)

These news reached us in Andijān in the month of Shawwāl (mid-June to mid-July) and as we (act. 14) coveted Samarkand, we got our men to horse. Moved by a like desire, Sl. Mas’ūd Mīrzā, his mind and Khusrau Shāh’s mind set at ease by Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā’s retirement, came over by way of Shahr-i-sabz.[299 - i. e. over the Aītmak Pass. Cf. f. 49.] To reinforce him, Khusrau Shāh laid hands (qāptī) on his younger brother, Walī. We (three mīrzās) beleaguered the town from three sides during three or four months; then Khwāja Yahya came to me from Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā to mediate an agreement with a common aim. The matter was left at an interview arranged (kūrūshmak); I moved my force from Soghd to some 8m. below the town; Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā from his side, brought his own; from one bank, he, from the other, I crossed to the middle of[300 - Ḥai. MS. ārālighīgha. Elph. MS. ārāl, island.] the Kohik water, each with four or five men; we just saw one another (kūrūshūb), asked each the other’s welfare and went, he his way, I mine.

I there saw, in Khwāja Yahya’s service, Mullā Binā’ī and Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ;[301 - See f. 179b for Binā’ī. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā Khwārizmī is the author of the Shaibānī-nāma.] the latter I saw this once, the former was long in my service later on. After the interview (kūrūshkān) with Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā, as winter was near and as there was no great scarcity amongst the Samarkandīs, we retired, he to Bukhārā, I to Andijān.

Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā had a penchant for a daughter of Shaikh ‘Abdu’l-lāh Barlās, she indeed was his object in coming to Samarkand. He took her, laid world-gripping ambition aside and went back to Ḥiṣār.

When I was near Shīrāz and Kān-bāī, Mahdī Sl. deserted to Samarkand; Ḥamza Sl. went also from near Zamīn but with leave granted.

902 AH. – SEP. 9th. 1496 to AUG. 30th. 1497 AD.[302 - Elph. MS. f. 27; W. – i-B. I.O. 215 f. 30b and 217 f. 25; Mems. p. 42.]

(a. Bābur’s second attempt on Samarkand.)

This winter, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā’s affairs were altogether in a good way. When ‘Abdu’l-karīm Ushrit came on Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s part to near Kūfīn, Mahdī Sl. led out a body of Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā’s troops against him. The two commanders meeting exactly face to face, Mahdī Sl. pricked ‘Abdu’l-karīm’s horse with his Chirkas[303 - i. e. Circassian. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ (Sh.N. Vambéry p. 276 l. 58) speaks of other Aūzbegs using Chirkas swords.] sword so that it fell, and as ‘Abdu’l-karīm was getting to his feet, struck off his hand at the wrist. Having taken him, they gave his men a good beating.

These (Aūzbeg) sult̤āns, seeing the affairs of Samarkand and the Gates of the (Tīmūrid) Mīrzās tottering to their fall, went off in good time (āīrtā) into the open country (?)[304 - aīrtā yāzīghā. My translation is conjectural. Aīrtā implies i. a. foresight. Yāzīghā allows a pun at the expense of the sult̤āns; since it can be read both as to the open country and as for their (next, aīrtā) misdeeds. My impression is that they took the opportunity of being outside Samarkand with their men, to leave Bāī-sunghar and make for Shaibānī, then in Turkistān. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ also marking the tottering Gate of Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā, left him now, also for Shaibānī. (Vambéry cap. xv.)] for Shaibānī.

Pleased[305 - aūmāq, to amuse a child in order to keep it from crying.] with their small success (over ‘Abdu’l-karīm), the Samarkandīs drew an army out against Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā; Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā went to Sar-i-pul (Bridge-head), Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā to Khwāja Kārzūn. Meantime, Khwāja Abū’l-makāram, at the instigation of Khwāja Munīr of Aūsh, rode light against Bukhārā with Wais Lāgharī and Muḥammad Bāqir of the Andijān begs, and Qāsim Dūldāī and some of the Mīrzā’s household. As the Bukhāriots took precautions when the invaders got near the town, they could make no progress. They therefore retired.

At the time when (last year) Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā and I had our interview, it had been settled[306 - i. e. with Khwāja Yahya presumably. See f. 38.] that this summer he should come from Bukhārā and I from Andijān to beleaguer Samarkand. To keep this tryst, I rode out in Ramẓān (May) from Andijān. Hearing when close to Yār Yīlāq, that the (two) Mīrzās were lying front to front, we sent Tūlūn Khwāja Mūghūl[307 - This man is mentioned also in the Tawārikh-i-guzīda Naṣratnāma B.M. Or. 3222 f. 124b.] ahead, with 2 or 300 scouting braves (qāzāq yīkītlār). Their approach giving Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā news of our advance, he at once broke up and retired in confusion. That same night our detachment overtook his rear, shot a mass (qālīn) of his men and brought in masses of spoil.

Two days later we reached Shīrāz. It belonged to Qāsim Beg Dūldāī; his dārogha (Sub-governor) could not hold it and surrendered.[308 - Ḥ.S., on the last day of Ramẓān (June 28th. 1497 AD.).] It was given into Ibrāhīm Sārū’s charge. After making there, next day, the Prayer of the Breaking of the Fast (‘Īdu’l-fit̤r), we moved for Samarkand and dismounted in the reserve (qūrūgh) of Āb-i-yār (Water of Might). That day waited on me with 3 or 400 men, Qāsim Dūldāī, Wais Lāgharī, Muḥammad Sīghal’s grandson, Ḥasan,[309 - Muḥammad Sīghal appears to have been a marked man. I quote from the T.G.N.N. (see supra), f. 123b foot, the information that he was the grandson of Ya‘qūb Beg. Zenker explains Sīghalī as the name of a Chaghatāī family. An Ayūb-i-Ya‘qūb Begchīk Mughūl may be an uncle. See f. 43 for another grandson.] and Sl. Muḥammad Wais. What they said was this: ‘Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā came out and has gone back; we have left him therefore and are here for the pādshāh’s service,’ but it was known later that they must have left the Mīrzā at his request to defend Shīrāz, and that the Shīrāz affair having become what it was, they had nothing for it but to come to us.

When we dismounted at Qarā-būlāq, they brought in several Mughūls arrested because of senseless conduct to humble village elders coming in to us.[310 - baẓ’ī kīrkān-kīnt-kīsākkā bāsh-sīz-qīlghān Mughūllārnī tūtūb. I take the word kīsāk in this highly idiomatic sentence to be a diminutive of kīs, old person, on the analogy of mīr, mīrāk, mard, mardak. [The Ḥ.S. uses Kīsāk (ii, 261) as a proper noun.] The alliteration in kāf and the mighty adjective here are noticeable.] Qāsim Beg Qūchīn for discipline’s sake (siyāsat) had two or three of them cut to pieces. It was on this account he left me and went to Ḥiṣār four or five years later, in the guerilla times, (907 AH.) when I was going from the Macha country to The Khān.[311 - Qāsim feared to go amongst the Mughūls lest he should meet retaliatory death. Cf. f. 99b.]

Marching from Qarā-būlāq, we crossed the river (i. e. the Zar-afshān) and dismounted near Yām.[312 - This appears from the context to be Yām (Jām) – bāī and not the Djouma (Jām) of the Fr. map of 1904, lying farther south. The Avenue named seems likely to be Tīmūr’s of f. 45b and to be on the direct road for Khujand. See Schuyler i, 232.] On that same day, our men got to grips with Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā’s at the head of the Avenue. Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal was struck in the neck by a spear but not unhorsed. Khwājakī Mullā-i-ṣadr, Khwāja-i-kalān’s eldest brother, was pierced in the nape of the neck[313 - būghān buyīnī. W. – i-B. 215, yān, thigh, and 217 gardan, throat. I am in doubt as to the meaning of būghān; perhaps the two words stand for joint at the nape of the neck. Khwāja-i-kalān was one of seven brothers, six died in Bābur’s service, he himself served till Bābur’s death.] by an arrow and went straightway to God’s mercy. An excellent soldier, my father before me had favoured him, making him Keeper of the Seal; he was a student of theology, had great acquaintance with words and a good style; moreover he undertook hawking and rain-making with the jade-stone.

While we were at Yām, people, dealers and other, came out in crowds so that the camp became a bazar for buying and selling. One day, at the Other Prayer, suddenly, a general hubbub arose and all those Musalmān (traders) were plundered. Such however was the discipline of our army that an order to restore everything having been given, the first watch (pahār) of the next day had not passed before nothing, not a tag of cotton, not a broken needle’s point, remained in the possession of any man of the force, all was back with its owners.

Marching from Yām, it was dismounted in Khān Yūrtī (The Khān’s Camping Ground),[314 - Cf. f. 48.] some 6 m. (3 kuroh) east of Samarkand. We lay there for 40 or 50 days. During the time, men from their side and from ours chopped at one another (chāpqū-lāshtīlār) several times in the Avenue. One day when Ibrāhīm Begchīk was chopping away there, he was cut on the face; thereafter people called him Chāpūk (Balafré). Another time, this also in the Avenue, at the Maghāk (Fosse) Bridge[315 - Khorochkine (Radlov’s Réceuil d’Itinéraires p. 241) mentions Pul-i-mougak, a great stone bridge thrown across a deep ravine, east of Samarkand. For Kūl-i-maghāk, deep pool, or pool of the fosse, see f. 48b.] Abū’l-qāsim (Kohbur Chaghatāī) got in with his mace. Once, again in the Avenue, near the Mill-sluice, when Mīr Shāh Qūchīn also got in with his mace, they cut his neck almost half-through; most fortunately the great artery was not severed.

While we were in Khān Yūrtī, some in the fort sent the deceiving message,[316 - From Khwānd-amīr’s differing account of this affair, it may be surmised that those sending the message were not treacherous; but the message itself was deceiving inasmuch as it did not lead Bābur to expect opposition. Cf. f. 43 and note.] ‘Come you to-night to the Lovers’ Cave side and we will give you the fort.’ Under this idea, we went that night to the Maghāk Bridge and from there sent a party of good horse and foot to the rendezvous. Four or five of the household foot-soldiers had gone forward when the matter got wind. They were very active men; one, known as Ḥājī, had served me from my childhood; another people called Maḥmūd Kūndūr-sangak.[317 - Of this nick-name several interpretations are allowed by the dictionaries.] They were all killed.

While we lay in Khān Yūrtī, so many Samarkandīs came out that the camp became a town where everything looked for in a town was to be had. Meantime all the forts, Samarkand excepted, and the Highlands and the Lowlands were coming in to us. As in Aūrgūt, however, a fort on the skirt of the Shavdār (var. Shādwār) range, a party of men held fast[318 - See Schuyler i, 268 for an account of this beautiful Highland village.], of necessity we moved out from Khān Yūrtī against them. They could not maintain themselves, and surrendered, making Khwāja-i-qāẓī their mediator. Having pardoned their offences against ourselves, we went back to beleaguer Samarkand.

(b. Affairs of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā and his son, Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā.)[319 - Here Bābur takes up the thread, dropped on f. 36, of the affairs of the Khurāsānī mīrzās. He draws on other sources than the Ḥ.S.; perhaps on his own memory, perhaps on information given by Khurāsānīs with him in Hindūstān e. g. Ḥusain’s grandson. See f. 167b. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii, 261.]

This year the mutual recriminations of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā and Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā led on to fighting; here are the particulars: – Last year, as has been mentioned, Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and Muz̤affar Ḥusain Mīrzā had been made to kneel for Balkh and Astarābād. From that time till this, many envoys had come and gone, at last even ‘Alī-sher Beg had gone but urge it as all did, Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā would not consent to give up Astarābād. ‘The Mīrzā,’ he said, ‘assigned[320 - bāghīshlāb tūr.Cf. f. 34 note to bāghīsh dā.] it to my son, Muḥammad Mū‘min Mīrzā at the time of his circumcision.’ A conversation had one day between him and ‘Alī-sher Beg testifies to his acuteness and to the sensibility of ‘Alī-sher Beg’s feelings. After saying many things of a private nature in the Mīrzā’s ear, ‘Alī-sher Beg added, ‘Forget these matters.’[321 - Bū sozlār aūnūlūng. Some W. – i-B. MSS., Farāmosh bakunīd for nakunīd, thus making the Mīrzā not acute but rude, and destroying the point of the story i. e. that the Mīrzā pretended so to have forgotten as to have an empty mind. Khwānd-amīr states that ‘Alī-sher prevailed at first; his tears therefore may have been of joy at the success of his pacifying mission.] ‘What matters?’ rejoined the Mīrzā instantly. ‘Alī-sher Beg was much affected and cried a good deal.

At length the jarring words of this fatherly and filial discussion went so far that his father against his father, and his son against his son drew armies out for Balkh and Astarābād.[322 - i. e. B.Z.’s father, Ḥusain, against Mū‘min’s father, B.Z. and Ḥusain’s son, Muz̤affar Ḥusain against B.Z.’s son Mū‘min; – a veritable conundrum.]

Up (from Harāt) to the Pul-i-chirāgh meadow, below Garzawān,[323 - Garzawān lies west of Balkh. Concerning Pul-i-chirāgh Col. Grodekoff’s Ride to Harāt (Marvin p. 103 ff.) gives pertinent information. It has also a map showing the Pul-i-chirāgh meadow. The place stands at the mouth of a triply-bridged defile, but the name appears to mean Gate of the Lamp (cf. Gate of Tīmūr), and not Bridge of the Lamp, because the Ḥ.S. and also modern maps write bīl (bel), pass, where the Turkī text writes pul, bridge, narrows, pass.The lamp of the name is one at the shrine of a saint, just at the mouth of the defile. It was alight when Col. Grodekoff passed in 1879 and to it, he says, the name is due now – as it presumably was 400 years ago and earlier.] went Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā; down (from Balkh) came Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā. On the first day of Ramẓān (May 2nd.) Abū’l-muḥsin Mīrzā advanced, leading some of his father’s light troops. There was nothing to call a battle; Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā was routed and of his braves masses were made prisoner. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā ordered that all prisoners should be beheaded; this not here only but wherever he defeated a rebel son, he ordered the heads of all prisoners to be struck off. And why not? Right was with him. The (rebel) Mīrzās were so given over to vice and social pleasure that even when a general so skilful and experienced as their father was within half-a-day’s journey of them, and when before the blessed month of Ramẓān, one night only remained, they busied themselves with wine and pleasure, without fear of their father, without dread of God. Certain it is that those so lost (yūtkān) will perish and that any hand can deal a blow at those thus going to perdition (aūtkān). During the several years of Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā’s rule in Astarābād, his coterie and his following, his bare (yālāng) braves even, were in full splendour[324 - Khwānd-amīr heard from the Mīrzā on the spot, when later in his service, that he was let down the precipice by help of turban-sashes tied together.] and adornment. He had many gold and silver drinking cups and utensils, much silken plenishing and countless tīpūchāq horses. He now lost everything. He hurled himself in his flight down a mountain track, leading to a precipitous fall. He himself got down the fall, with great difficulty, but many of his men perished there.331 (#cn_326)

After defeating Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā moved on to Balkh. It was in charge of Shaikh ‘Alī T̤aghāī; he, not able to defend it, surrendered and made his submission. The Mīrzā gave Balkh to Ibrāhīm Ḥusain Mīrzā, left Muḥammad Walī Beg and Shāh Ḥusain, the page, with him and went back to Khurāsān.

Defeated and destitute, with his braves bare and his bare foot-soldiers[325 - yīkīt yīlāng u yāyāq yālīng; a jingle made by due phonetic change of vowels; a play too on yālāng, which first means stripped i. e. robbed and next unmailed, perhaps sometimes bare-bodied in fight.], Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā drew off to Khusrau Shāh in Qūndūz. Khusrau Shāh, for his part, did him good service, such service indeed, such kindness with horses and camels, tents and pavilions and warlike equipment of all sorts, both for himself and those with him, that eye-witnesses said between this and his former equipment the only difference might be in the gold and silver vessels.

(c. Dissension between Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā and Khusrau Shāh.)

Ill-feeling and squabbles had arisen between Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā and Khusrau Shāh because of the injustices of the one and the self-magnifyings of the other. Now therefore Khusrau Shāh joined his brothers, Walī and Bāqī to Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and sent the three against Ḥiṣār. They could not even get near the fort, in the outskirts swords were crossed once or twice; one day at the Bird-house[326 - qūsh-khāna. As the place was outside the walls, it may be a good hawking ground and not a falconry.] on the north of Ḥiṣār, Muḥibb-‘alī, the armourer (qūrchī), outstripped his people and struck in well; he fell from his horse but at the moment of his capture, his men attacked and freed him. A few days later a somewhat compulsory peace was made and Khusrau Shāh’s army retired.

Shortly after this, Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā drew off by the mountain-road to Ẕū’n-nūn Arghūn and his son, Shujā‘ Arghūn in Qandahār and Zamīn-dāwar. Stingy and miserly as Ẕū’n-nūn was, he served the Mīrzā well, in one single present offering 40,000 sheep.

Amongst curious happenings of the time one was this: Wednesday was the day Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā beat Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā; Wednesday was the day Muz̤affar Ḥusain Mīrzā beat Muḥammad Mū‘min Mīrzā; Wednesday, more curious still, was the name of the man who unhorsed and took prisoner, Muḥammad Mū‘min Mīrzā.[327 - The Ḥ.S. mentions (ii, 222) a Sl. Aḥmad of Chār-shaṃba, a town mentioned e. g. by Grodekoff p. 123. It also spoils Bābur’s coincidence by fixing Tuesday, Shab‘ān 29th. for the battle. Perhaps the commencement of the Muḥammadan day at sunset, allows of both statements.]

903 AH. – AUG. 30th. 1497 to AUG. 19th. 1498 AD.[328 - Elph. MS. f. 30b; W. – i-B. I.O. 215 f. 34 and 217 f. 26b; Mems. p. 46.The abruptness of this opening is due to the interposition of Sl. Ḥusain M.’s affairs between Bābur’s statement on f. 41 that he returned from Aūrgūt and this first of 903 AH. that on return he encamped in Qulba.]

(a. Resumed account of Bābur’s second attempt on Samarkand.)

When we had dismounted in the Qulba (Plough) meadow,[329 - See f. 48b.] behind the Bāgh-i-maidān (Garden of the plain), the Samarkandīs came out in great numbers to near Muḥammad Chap’s Bridge. Our men were unprepared; and before they were ready, Bābā ‘Alī’s (son) Bābā Qulī had been unhorsed and taken into the fort. A few days later we moved to the top of Qulba, at the back of Kohik.[330 - i. e. Chūpān-ātā; see f. 45 and note.] That day Sayyid Yūsuf,[331 - Aūghlāqchī, the Grey Wolfer of f. 22.] having been sent out of the town, came to our camp and did me obeisance.

The Samarkandīs, fancying that our move from the one ground to the other meant, ‘He has given it up,’ came out, soldiers and townsmen in alliance (through the Turquoise Gate), as far as the Mīrzā’s Bridge and, through the Shaikh-zāda’s Gate, as far as Muḥammad Chap’s. We ordered our braves to arm and ride out; they were strongly attacked from both sides, from Muḥammad Chap’s Bridge and from the Mīrzā’s, but God brought it right! our foes were beaten. Begs of the best and the boldest of braves our men unhorsed and brought in. Amongst them Ḥāfiẓ Dūldāī’s (son) Muḥammad Mīskin[332 - A sobriquet, the suppliant or perhaps something having connection with musk. Ḥ.S. ii, 278, son of Ḥ.D.] was taken, after his index-finger had been struck off; Muḥammad Qāsim Nabīra also was unhorsed and brought in by his own younger brother, Ḥasan Nabīra.[333 - i. e. grandson (of Muḥammad Sīghal). Cf. f. 39.] There were many other such soldiers and known men. Of the town-rabble, were brought in Diwāna, the tunic-weaver and Kālqāshūq,[334 - This seeming sobriquet may show the man’s trade. Kāl is a sort of biscuit; qāshūq may mean a spoon.] headlong leaders both, in brawl and tumult; they were ordered to death with torture in blood-retaliation for our foot-soldiers, killed at the Lovers’ Cave.[335 - The Ḥ.S. does not ascribe treachery to those inviting Bābur into Samarkand but attributes the murder of his men to others who fell on them when the plan of his admission became known. The choice here of “town-rabble” for retaliatory death supports the account of Ḥ.S. ii.] This was a complete reverse for the Samarkandīs; they came out no more even when our men used to go to the very edge of the ditch and bring back their slaves and slave-women.

The Sun entered the Balance and cold descended on us.[336 - “It was the end of September or beginning of October” (Erskine).] I therefore summoned the begs admitted to counsel and it was decided, after discussion, that although the towns-people were so enfeebled that, by God’s grace, we should take Samarkand, it might be to-day, it might be to-morrow, still, rather than suffer from cold in the open, we ought to rise from near it and go for winter-quarters into some fort, and that, even if we had to leave those quarters later on, this would be done without further trouble. As Khwāja Dīdār seemed a suitable fort, we marched there and having dismounted in the meadow lying before it, went in, fixed on sites for the winter-houses and covered shelters,[337 - awī u kīpa yīrlār.Awī is likely to represent kibitkas. For kīpa yīr, see Zenker p. 782.] left overseers and inspectors of the work and returned to our camp in the meadow. There we lay during the few days before the winter-houses were finished.

Meantime Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā had sent again and again to ask help from Shaibānī Khān. On the morning of the very day on which, our quarters being ready, we had moved into Khwāja Dīdār, the Khān, having ridden light from Turkistān, stood over against our camping-ground. Our men were not all at hand; some, for winter-quarters, had gone to Khwāja Rabāt̤ī, some to Kabud, some to Shīrāz. None-the-less, we formed up those there were and rode out. Shaibānī Khān made no stand but drew off towards Samarkand. He went right up to the fort but because the affair had not gone as

Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā wished, did not get a good reception. He therefore turned back for Turkistān a few days later, in disappointment, with nothing done.

Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā had sustained a seven months’ siege; his one hope had been in Shaibānī Khān; this he had lost and he now with 2 or 300 of his hungry suite, drew off from Samarkand, for Khusrau Shāh in Qūndūz.