204 chapter four
the siege began in 1343 and lasted, on and off, until at least 1346, in
vain,249 but these repeated attempts do show how determined the khan
was to destroy the stronghold on the crimean coast. Özbek had created
caffa in 1313 to serve the Jochid-Mamluk alliance,250 and once this rela-
tionship with egypt was definitively dissolved, the town neither served
Sarai’s purposes nor obeyed its government.
the meaning of the military operations of 1343 is as clear as can be:
Janibek was attacking the city government by force, contesting the auton-
omy that his father had granted exactly thirty years before. the unspoken
nature of the original concession left the Genoese merchants without legal
recourse to prove the republic’s sovereignty over caffa. the Venetians
took advantage of this lacuna to consolidate their position in treaties with
their ancient rivals, who had become expedient allies,251 and the khan too
249 according to heyd, Histoire, II, pp. 187–188, 195–196, there were two attacks, in 1343
and 1346, the second ending “with no hope of return;” petti Balbi, “caffa,” p. 219, believes
that there were two further attempts after the initial siege in 1343, which the khan lifted in
1344, and that these were also fruitless; cf. also papacostea, “tana,” pp. 206 ff.
250 See chapter 4.2.4.
251 In the protocol drawn up in october 1344 by Marco ruzzini and Giovanni Steno,
Venetian envoys in caffa, we find the official Senate position on the conflict, namely that
whoever can settle the problems and prerequisites of commerce is the rightful ruler of
the town: Et si per vos dominos sindicos et ambaxatores comunis Ianuae vellet dicere quod
mercaciones possent fieri in Caffa, vollendo dicere ipsum Caffam esse communis Ianue et
non Imperatoris Çanibec, nos sindici et ambaxatores communis Veneciarum dicimus quod
hic dicere de racione non potestis, cum commune Ianue habeat terram Caffe ab Imperatore
cum certis condicionibus et pactis et quod ipse dominus Imperator teneat in Caffam suos
rectores et officialles qui faciunt iustixiam et racionem in omnibus gentibus excepto quam
in Ianuensibus, qui officialles etiam nomine ipsius domini Imperatoris exigunt in dicto Caffa
nomine comercli tria per centenario tam a Ianuensibus quam a quibuscumque alliis perso-
nis, sicut proprie ipsi faciunt in Tana, ita quod commune Ianue in dicta terra Caffa dicere
iurisdicionem habere inter suos Ianuenses tantum et non in aliqua allia persona. Et si per
vos dominos sindicos et ambaxadores commune Ianue vellet dicere quod vos in Caffa excuci-
tis comerclum, nos sindici et ambaxatores communis Veneciarum dicimus quod comerclum
quod excucitis est tantum solomodo a vestris Ianuensibus, quibus licitum est a vobis ipsum ab
ipsis excutere tamquam a vestris civibus, sed a nulla aliqua persona comerclum non excucitis
nec de racione facere non debetis, ita quod si aliquis vellet ipse Caffa non esset in Inperiio
Imperatoris Çanibec, hoc de ratione et cum veritate dicere non posset (Morozzo della rocca,
“Notizie,” p. 291); for the fundamental unsoundness of the Venetian attempt to compare
caffa with tana from a governmental perspective, despite some similarities, see p. 184;
on the course of Genoese-Venetian relations during the war with Janibek, see particularly
papacostea, “tana,” pp. 206 ff.; the only counterargument which the Genoese advanced
was the fait accompli, legitimised by its own past and certainly dating back to Özbek’s day.
the envoy Giovanni Steno reported to the senate: [.. .] allegantibus ipsis [= Genoese] quod
non habebant nec habent, quod locus predictus Gaffe sit et includatur in imperio Zanibechi
imperatoris predicti sed habebant et habent, quod sit ipsius domini Ducis et communis Janue
(DVL, I, pp. 329 ff.). In the absence of a written charter, the Genoese based their claim to
govern caffa on evidence which was as strong in 1344 as it had been in previous years, and