104 chapter three
trade was therefore interrupted, and the sources once more fall silent,186
until 1313, when Özbek Khan restored relations with genoa and returned
to the towns from which they had been expelled in 1308.
though the sources are typically silent about the state of the northern
route in the last years under toqta, they are—justifiably—vocal about
his successor’s reign. Özbek created an exceptionally good basis for trade,
laying the foundation for the fullest use of the cuman steppe route; fore-
most among his measures were the ideal conditions offered to the geno-
ese when they returned to caffa in 1313, and the opening of the tana trade
to the venetians in the following decade.187 it is no mere coincidence that
in this khan’s time, the east-West route across the steppe became a veri-
table via magna, attractive enough to necessitate its inclusion in hand-
books written for merchants. the most famous of these, the florentine
francesco Balducci pegolotti’s La pratica della mercatura, highlights the
route’s importance by giving it first place, in an ambitious and compendi-
ous manual that aims to give a complete picture of eurasian trade and
to a great extent succeeds.188 the description of the route is more infor-
mative than any commentary could be, studded as it is with practical
186 marino sanudo showed exceptional discretion in composing his treatise between
1306 and 1313, where the great trade routes and the mamluk blockade are the main topics
(cf. sanudo/Bongars, passim). heyd, Histoire, ii, p. 189, noted this odd silence and won-
dered whether it was not a form of silent boycott, given that these routes were genoese-
controlled, but answers his own question by absolving the venetian author of any such ill
will: “ce serait la preuve d’une telle petitesse d’esprit que nous nous refusons à y croire,
surtout sachant qu’il se faisait l’interprète de toute la chrétienté.” certainly sanudo calls on
all christendom to intervene in cilician armenia to retake the terminus of the asian trade
route which the mamluk sultan had captured in 1285. the great strategist does not men-
tion however that a colony of his fellow-countrymen continued to trade in the armenian
kingdom despite the considerable downturn in trading conditions once it became sub-
ject to cairo. the venetian merchants hardly had any choice; after the loss of acre, their
principal levantine trading post, and the thwarted attempt to find some substitute in the
Black sea when they lost the war of 1294–1299 against the genoese, their only access was
via occupied armenia. marino sanudo’s unspoken view was that an anti-mamluk crusade
could in the first instance serve venice’s interests. this idea, rooted in the circumstances
around the “armenian variant,” necessarily excluded any mention of Black sea trade, dom-
inated as it was by the rival genoese.
187 see chapter 4.2.4.
188 pegolotti/evans; according to the editor, the work was written in 1340 (ibid.,
pp. xiii–xiv); Bautier, “relations,” pp. 311–313, argues that the florentine manual shares a
common source with an anonymous compilation, which he dates “autour de 1315, avec une
approximation maxime d’une dizaine d’années” using rather elastic arguments; he pub-
lishes extracts from this other work on pp. 313 ff.; english translation from Yule, Cathay,
ii, pp. 287–295. the related text published by Bautier, “relations,” pp. 315–316 does not
vary significantly; for commentaries see heyd, Histoire, ii, p. 189–190, Bautier, “relations,”
pp. 286–292.