134 chapter three
venetian merchants suffered such great losses both by sea and on land
after 1320 that several times the senate decided to limit or even entirely to
ban trading ventures on the constantinople-trebizond-tabriz route.326
their patchy presence in the period 1320–1335 barely built upon venice’s
almost total absence in trade in the ilkhanate from 1290 to 1320, and these
periods taken together cover the whole period of the trebizond-tabriz-
ormuz route’s existence as a major trade artery. such a poor bottom line
lay well below the republic’s potential, and was largely due to the geno-
ese, who effectively blocked dealings between the two powers, even when
one or the other of them strongly desired a trading relationship.
from the historical perspective, partnership with the genoese was, vol-
ens nolens, a fundamental part of ilkhanid trade policy from the 1290s
onward. from the same perspective and in the same period, trebizond
played a crucial role. having become a mongol vassal in 1244, in the
first few decades the miniscule great comnenid empire—like cilician
armenia—enjoyed the lightest of overlordship.327 it seems that the two
states had such a strong shared interest in keeping the tabriz-trebizond
route open that the original relationship of force gradually gave way to
one of simple cooperation.328 a conclusive piece of evidence for this view
is the unification of the systems of weights and measures, which must
have been based on an agreement intended to facilitate trade.329
these external aspects of ilkhanid commercial policy necessarily had
corresponding internal effects—for the chinggisid dynasty on the throne
of persia were no less effective in internal policy than their rival kinsfolk.
326 Karpov, Impero, pp. 79–80.
327 Wyngaert, Sinica Franciscana, i, p. 167, rubruck/Jackson, p. 65, sets out the situation
in 1256; trebizond had exchanged seljukid for chinggisid sovereignty in 1243, when the
anatolian sultanate collapsed.
328 fallmerayer, Geschichte, pp. 118 ff., 121–124, 128 ff., 153–155, asserts that the mongol
protectorate ended in 1265, while spuler, Mongolen, p. 58, says that it lasted until at least
that year; Kuršanskis, “coinage,” uses numismatic arguments to stretch it out until 1282,
while Bryer, “fate,” p. 347, uses a questionable mention in rashīd al-dīn to push the date
as far as 1290; Zachariadou, “trebizond,” p. 352, gives evidence of the political arrange-
ment, while Karpov, Impero, p. 40, mentions the goods which were traded between the
two states. the only known instance of an ilkhan actively intervening in trebizond’s inter-
nal affairs came in 1280, when the emperor george allied himself politically with forces
hostile to the suzerain power and interrupted commerce; he was deposed on abaqa’s
orders and replaced by John ii, at a time when the tabriz route was being established
(cf. Bryer, “fate,” pp. 340 ff.).
329 golubovich, Biblioteca, ii, p. 265, pegolotti/evans; cf. Brătianu, Recherches, p. 190,
Bryer, “fate,” p. 339; it was probably the ilkhanate which took the initiative here, with
the standardisation being applied generally across all its territories (d’ohsson, Histoire, iv,
pp. 363–369, spuler, Mongolen, p. 254).