the disintegration of the empire 95
the sarai-constantinople-cairo axis and played a key role in maintaining
it,151 with a single rumble of discontent between 1288 and 1290.152
this “loyalty” did not prevent them from serving ilkhanid interests at
the same time, with much mutual profit.
3.3.2 The Ilkhanid-Genoese Alliance
When the citizens of genoa responded so enthusiastically to the ilkhan
arghun’s call to arms against the mamluks in the winter of 1287/8, they
initiated—probably without their knowledge—an alliance which would
last nearly half a century. though neither the maximum nor even the
minimum victory conditions in the common effort could be attained—
the sultan was not overthrown, nor even was the final stretch of the silk
road brought back under the allies’ control153—the failure of the military
campaign in 1288–1290 did not mean that the combatants stood down.
on the basis of their strained political relationship, the mongols of persia
and the genoese collaborated on an alternative solution, which would lead
to one of the most far-reaching changes in eurasian trade: the silk road and
the spice route, choked off in cilicia, were redirected via the Black sea.154
3.4 The Commercial Implications: Connecting the Black Sea to the
Eurasian Trade Network
the powerful rivalries centered around tabriz and ayas155 had other
results than merely at the political level, where they led to the constella-
tion of forces described above.156
151 ehrenkreutz, “implications,” p. 342: “genoa’s supremacy in the Black sea, combined
with egypt’s demand for slaves from the crimea, put her in an extremely strong bargaining
position. one may go so far as to state that in the second half of the thirteenth century
the genoese held the key to the survival of the mamluk sultanate, a development which
genoa welcomed; and as long as her leverage remained effective, she pursued a policy of
cooperation with the masters of egypt;” it may be mentioned here that the genoese ships
involved in the bulk slave trade were in flagrant breach of the stipulation in the Byzantine-
mamluk treaty whereby the emperor had restricted trade to “fragile goods” (for the whole
problematic here, see caro, Genua, i, pp. 104–113, cessi, “tregua,” p. 2, Brătianu, Recherches,
pp. 83 ff., labib, Handelsgeschichte, p. 73, Balard, Romanie, i, pp. 45–68, papacostea, “tana,”
pp. 201–205).
152 see above, pp. 77 ff.
153 see chapter 3.2.
154 see chapters 3.2., 3.4.2.
155 see chapters 3.1 and 3.2.
156 see chapter 3.3.