74 chapter three
1275 showed that the ilkhans were in no position to protect their loyal but
distant vassals. seen in the starkest terms, it is easy to understand that
the silk road was greatly threatened by the constantly shifting balance of
power between these great competitors.61
the prospects for the future were even more worrying than the state of
affairs in 1277. the renewed mamluk offensive in cilician armenia in 1279
was the earliest major initiative by the egyptian state62—proof that even
after the energetic sultan Baybars’ death two years earlier, capturing the
mediterranean terminus of the silk road was still cairo’s first priority.
the ilkhan abaqa took advantage of the temporary truce in the north-
east, and responded swiftly to his enemies’ actions: mongol troops entered
syria in 1280, together with contingents from the armenian kingdom, and
took damascus by fire and the sword.63 this raid was merely the prelude
to the larger campaign of 1281, when the entire mongol army returned to
syria, reinforced by georgian, armenian and crusader forces, intending
to crush the mamluk army of sultan al-malik al-mansur Qalāwūn in open
battle. a decisive battle was indeed fought near homs, which after initial
successes for the mongols and their auxiliaries, ended with a new and
decisive mamluk victory.64
the ilkhan abaqa, steadfast protector of the christians and fervent
advocate of an alliance with Western powers against egypt, died on
1st april 1282, still in shock from this disastrous turn of events.65 With his
61 canard, “royaume,” pp. 242–243, gives “la maîtrise d’une route vers l’anatolie cent-
rale” as one of the primary objectives of Baybars’ invasion of 1275, and this route is none
other than the silk road (cf. heyd, Histoire, ii, p. 112); the egyptians’ ultimate goal in the
region is well illustrated by the campaign of 1277 that followed, which spuler, Mongo-
len, p. 66, considers “ein versuch, die mongolen gänzlich vom Westen und vom meere
abzuschließen.” Well before these scholars, sanudo/Bongars, p. 7, explained: Item si petere-
tur, quare soldanus Babiloniae toties percurrit provinciam Armeniae [.. .], respondeo, prop-
ter tria. Primum est ut auferendo magnum cursum mercationum de Armenia in terra sua
trahat. the accuracy of marino sanudo’s judgement is also confirmed from the opposing
camp: “al-dawādārī berichtet von den plänen des nāẓir al-Khāṣṣ Karīm al-dīn, die als
reaktion auf das abendländische Bemühen, den handel mit Äypten zu boikotieren und
die handelsbeziehungen mit dem orient über die straßen durch mittelasien abzuwickeln,
zu verstehen sind. er wollte den hafen in latakia in syrien so aufbauen, dass er genauso
wichtig wie alexandrien würde. latakia sollte den armenischen Umschlagplatz lähmen.
das projekt scheiterte [.. .]” (labib, Handelsgeschichte, p. 67 note 67).
62 Qal‛at al-rūm, seat of the armenian catholicos, was laid waste (canard, “royaume,”
p. 243).
63 ibid., pp. 244–245.
64 ibid., and spuler, Mongolen, p. 67, soranzo, Papato, pp. 241–244.
65 according to spuler, Mongolen, p. 69, the ilkhan died “unter dem eindruck der nie-
derlage [.. .] im säuferwahn”; cf. ibid., pp. 185–92 (chapter ‘die verbindungen der mongo-
len zum abendlande’), and soranzo, Papato, pp. 241–244.