the disintegration of the empire 65
of an unshakeable rivalry between the Jochids and the ilkhanids,20 tabriz
was at the centre of the conflict.21
despite all his omissions and oversights, al-‛Umarī’s version of events,
setting out a short history of the dispute, has the merit of locating the heart
of the matter and identifying it as an economic conflict: once “nationa-
lised” by hülegü, the commercial and artisanal centre of transcaucasia
became the chief object of Jochid demands, from Berke’s time onward.22
since tabriz was the fixed focus of the conflict, there can be no doubt that
“the problem of eastern trade was the real cause of the enmity” between
the two Western hordes.23
the casus belli was the subject of propagandist efforts at the time, and
has been deliberately (and accidentally) misrepresented in both medi-
eval chronicles and modern historiography. there can be no denying that
other factors also contributed to the start of the war and its development,
but when taken together with the principle cause, these were simply
accessory elements, whether lasting or ephemeral. such ideas included
the legal situation,24 the quality of the pastureland in the transcaucasus,25
20 cf. pp. 88–89.
21 on its value as a source of revenue for the chinggisid monarchs, cf. pp. 47–49.
22 an account of the conflict can be found at al‛Umarī (tiesenhausen, Sbornik, i,
pp. 217–218; ‛Umarī/lech, p. 144).
23 the remark is originally by p. pelliot, quoted by Brătianu, “vénitiens,” p. 154.
24 cf. p. 47. according to the mamluk chronicler ibn Kathīr (tiesenhausen, Sbornik, i,
p. 273), Berke exclaimed when he saw those who had fallen in the fight against the ilkha-
nids: “i am saddened that mongols are killing one another, but what else is there to say
about the one who betrayed even chinggis Khan?”—meaning hülegü, who ignored the
instructions in the founding father’s will about the transcaucasia.
25 35 years after the outbreak of the war between Berke and hülegü, marco polo
(polo/Benedetto, p. 360) reported merely that it was fought over a province which both
rulers wished to have. in turn, the persian chronicler Waṣṣāf wrote that the interest of
the golden horde mongols in the lands between derbent and arran was due to rev-
enues they would bring but also to the abundance of pastureland, ideal for wintering-
over their flocks and herds, and that this was the cause of their war against the ilkhanids
(tiesenhausen, Sbornik, ii, pp. 80–81; cf. d’ohsson, Histoire, iii, p. 379). the same reason-
ing is found in grekov, Yakubovskiy, Orda, p. 76; Zakirov, Otnosheniya, p. 5, underlines
the economic aspects and particularly “the geographic situation and favourable climate,
the natural riches” without mentioning the commercial significance of tabriz; we should
remark here that the value of the pastureland was not the determining factor that
made the Jochid khans fight so long and so fiercely for the transcaucasia, as is proven
by the circumstance that even when they held the pastures they did not spend their
time there.