Journal of Asian History 48.2 (2014): 263-279.

Bayan of the Bārin’s Persian Wife, And Other Perplexities

Stephen G. Haw
(Tarragona, Spain)

Bayan of the Bārin is a well-known figure in the history of the Mongol conquests. He was not
among those who campaigned with Činggis Qan, belonging to a later generation, but his
fame has been perpetuated in history as the commander of the Mongol armies that finally
subjugated the Song Empire of southern China.1 As the conqueror of Quinsai (modern
Hangzhou), Marco Polo recorded his name, so that he became one of a small number of
Mongols known to Europeans as early as about 1300. It is therefore not really surprising that
a number of myths should have grown up around him. Marco relates the story of how it was
foretold that only a man with a hundred eyes could conquer the Song Empire. Bayan’s name,
in Chinese, sounds like “a hundred eyes”, so that the prophecy was fulfilled, if with a some-
what oblique twist.2 What is more surprising, however, is that some of the myths about
Bayan originated quite recently, in scholarly circles.
“Bayan … had spent his formative years in Iran and had an Iranian wife and family”.3 This
startling claim is apparently derived from the biography of Bayan by Hsiao Ch’i-ch’ing in In
the Service of the Khan. Hsiao, however, says only that Bayan had a wife in Persia, but not that
she was Iranian: “Bayan married three times. His wife in Persia, whose name is not known,
bore him a son called Noqai who may have remained in Persia”.4 Unfortunately, there are no
precise references for the statements in this biography, only a list of sources consulted. It has,
therefore, been difficult to ascertain exactly what the original source for this statement was.

1 Francis W. Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan of the Bārin in the Yüan Shih”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic
Studies 19.3–4 (1956), p. 186; Igor de Rachewiltz et al. (eds.), In the Service of the Khan: Eminent
Personalities of the Early Mongol-Yuan Period (1200–1300) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993), p. 584;
Paul Pelliot, Notes on Marco Polo: Ouvrage Posthume, vol. 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale,
Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1959), pp. 67–68.
2 A. C. Moule and Paul Pelliot, Marco Polo: the Description of the World, vol. 1 (London: Routledge, 1938),
pp. 310–312; Pelliot, Notes on Marco Polo, p. 68.
3 George Lane, “Whose Secret Intent?”, in Morris Rossabi (ed.), Eurasian Influences on Yuan China
(Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2013), pp. 21–22.
4 De Rachewiltz et al., In the Service of the Khan, pp. 585, 603

Journal of Asian History 48.2 (2014)

264 Stephen G. Haw

One thing, however, seems to be quite clear: there is nothing in any Chinese source about
Bayan having a wife in Persia, before he was given a wife by Qubilai Qaγan.5 It seems, there-
fore, that it is the Persian sources that must be searched for information.
In his list of sources, Hsiao cites only two Persian works, the important histories of Ju-
vainī,6 and of Rashīd al-Dīn.7 I have been unable to find any relevant information in Juvainī.
In Rashīd al-Dīn, however, there is a very brief and rather cryptic passage:
When Hülägü Khan set out for Iran, he (Bayan) was with him. … When Bayan came be-
fore Qubilai Qa’an, he was rewarded and given a command. Achuqan … was made a liege
man to him, and they were sent … to wage war on the Nankiyas. They went there and
within seven years took the entire realm of the Nankiyas. Bayan’s son Tuqai was in this
land.8
“Tuqai” should probably read “Noqai”, as Hsiao gives the name.9 It seems that this brief
statement regarding a son of Bayan being in “this land”, that is, Iran, is the only basis for
Hsiao’s claim that Bayan had been married while he was in Persia. As already seen, Hsiao
admits that the name of the “wife in Persia” is not known. This is scarcely surprising, as there
is really absolutely no evidence that she existed.
First of all, having a son does not necessarily imply also having a wife. Bayan was appar-
ently involved in the Mongol conquest of Persia. In a war situation, rape was no doubt not a
rare occurrence: women from conquered regions were commonly enslaved by the Mongols.
Perhaps the son was born to a slave girl. An incident recorded by Rashīd al-Dīn is possibly
enlightening:

5 Francis W. Cleaves has provided translations of most of the major Chinese sources relating to Bayan in
his article “The Biography of Bayan of the Bārin”, but he makes no mention of any wife in Persia.
6 ‘Ala-ad-Din ‘Ata-Malik Juvainī, The History of the World-Conqueror, trans. J. A. Boyle, 2 vols.
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958).
7 Rashīd al-Dīn, Sbornik letopiseĭ, vol. 1, part 1, trans. L. A. Khetagurov (Moscow: Akademia Nauk SSSR,
1952); = Рашид ад-Дин, Сборник летописей, том 1, книга 1, пер. с персидского Л. А.
Хетагурова (Москва: Издательство Академии Наук СССР, 1952); Rashīd al-Dīn. The
Successors of Genghis Khan, trans. J. A. Boyle (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971).
8 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles, trans. W. M. Thackston, 3 vols.
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, 1998–1999),
vol. 1, p. 105; see also Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi’ al-Tavārīkh, vol. 1, part 1, Kriticheskii Tekst, ed. A. A.
Romaskevich, L. A. Khetagurov and A. Ali-zade (Moscow: Akademia Nauk SSSR, 1965); = Рашид ад-
Дин, Джами’ ат-Таварих, том 1, книга 1, Критический Текст, ред. А. А. Ромаскевич, Л. А.
Хетагуров и А. Али-заде (Москва: Издательство Академии Наук СССР, 1965), pp. 522,
524.
9 Following Khetagurov; Rashīd al-Dīn, Sbornik letopiseĭ, vol. 1, part 1, p. 188.
Bayan of the Bārin’s Persian Wife, And Other Perplexities 265

Jochi Qasar had another son named Qaralchu. His history is as follows. Jochi Qasar had a
slave named Tuminai who had a good-looking wife named Kökchir. Jochi Qasar saw her
once in the fields and was taken by her good looks. He slept with her … . After nine
months she gave birth to a son … .10
The mere fact of having a son who was “in this land”, therefore, does not necessarily imply
that Bayan had a wife in Persia. It certainly does not indicate that he had a wife in Persia who
was Iranian.
It is known that Bayan married two wives after he went to the Yuan Empire. It was of
course perfectly normal for a Mongol to have more than one wife at the same time, but it is
not clear if this was so in Bayan’s case. The first was a niece of Qubilai Qaγan’s Empress Ča-
bi,11 and the younger sister of the Senior (literally “Right”) Chief Chancellor of the Central
Secretariat,12 Antong 安同 / 安童. Her name was Besüǰin.13 She may have died early. There is
no record of her bearing any children to Bayan. In 1276,14 when she, or perhaps Bayan’s
second wife, made her way to see her husband while he was still completing his campaign
against Song, he rebuked her and told her to go back.15 The second wife was called Diunu.
She bore three sons. The middle son was called Nanggiatai.16 Here, I think, is a possible ex-
planation of Rashīd al-Dīn’s report regarding Bayan’s son in Persia. There is no indication of
when the son was “in this land”: it might have been at any time before Rashīd al-Dīn wrote
the Jāmi’ al-Tavārīkh. It must at least be possible that “Noqai” is a corrupt version of “Nang-
giatai”, and that this son was in Persia, perhaps as an envoy, at some time between about 1290
and 1310. The eldest son, Maidi, was appointed Junior Assistant Director of the Bureau of

10 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 1, p. 136.

11 It must be noted that Cleaves is in error in apparently making her into a niece of Qubilai Qaγan himself:
“Chao-jui shun-sheng huang-hou” (Pinyin Zhaorui shunsheng huanghou) was Čabi’s title – see Song Lian
宋濂 et al. (eds.), Yuan shi 元史 (hereafter YS; Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976), vol. 10, j. 114, p. 2871 –
and this princess was the daughter of Čabi’s elder sister, not “his” (i.e. Qubilai’s) elder sister, as Cleaves
states. Hsiao explains this correctly. See de Rachewiltz et al., In the Service, p. 585.
12 Translations of titles generally follow David M. Farquhar, The Government of China under Mongolian
Rule: a Reference Guide (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990), except where otherwise noted.
13 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, pp. 199, 206, 276, 285; Yuan Mingshan 元明善, Chengxiang Huaian
Zhongwu wang bei 丞相淮安忠武王碑, in Li Xiusheng 李修生 (ed.), Quan Yuan wen 全元文, vol. 24
(Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 2001), pp. 347, 350.
14 Cleaves says 1277, but this is an error, perhaps a misprint.
15 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, pp. 191–192; Liu Minzhong 劉敏中, Ping Song lu 平宋錄,
(Shoushange congshu 守山閣叢書 ed, reprinted in Zhongguo yeshi jicheng 中國野史集成, vol. 12, Chengdu:
Bashu shushe, 1993), j. zhong, p. 115.
16 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, pp. 199, 285; Yuan Mingshan, Chengxiang Huaian Zhongwu wang
bei, p. 350.
266 Stephen G. Haw

Military Affairs on the day Bingshen of the fifth month of the first year of the Yuanzhen
reign-period (6 July 1295).17 It must be quite likely that his younger brother Nanggiatai was,
by that time or shortly afterwards, old enough to have been entrusted with some mission or
other to the Ilkhanate. Nanggiatai was an Assistant Director of the Bureau of Military Af-
fairs.18 Yuan Mingshan, who chronicled the history of Bayan and his descendants,19 died in
1322.20 He records that Nanggiatai had married and had one son and one daughter. The son,
Senggeširi, Bayan’s grandson, was appointed a Deputy Assistant Director of the Bureau of
Military Affairs.21 All this must, of course, have happened before 1322. If, before then, a
grandson of Bayan was already holding high office, then it must be likely that, twenty or so
years earlier, Nanggiatai was old enough to have travelled to the Ilkhanate. Perhaps, as an
official of the Bureau of Military Affairs, he went there in connection with his office.
There has also been confusion regarding where Bayan was brought up, which perhaps
bears some relation to the issue of his “wife in Persia”. This confusion can be traced back at
least as far as the 1830s, when D’Ohsson wrote that Bayan “avait passé sa jeunesse en Perse”.22
The Chinese sources, however, do not specify Persia, but use the much less precise term
“Western Regions” (Xi Yu 西域).23 Cleaves has already noted that it seems clear that Bayan
could not have grown up in Persia,24 for Rashīd al-Dīn says that he accompanied Hülegü
when he “set out for Iran”.25 His grandfather, Alaq, fighting with Činggis Qan, had been
awarded land for his support in “Huchan 忽禪”, because of his merit during the taking of the
town.26 It seems likely, therefore, that Bayan’s family may have settled in this area. The ques-
tion is, where was “Huchan”? Cleaves says that it was Quǰan, a town near Tūs.27 Hsiao, on

17 YS, vol. 2, j. 18, p. 394.

18 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, p. 285; Yuan Mingshan, Chengxiang Huaian Zhongwu wang bei,
p. 350.
19 Ibid., pp. 346–352; Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, pp. 275–292.
20 YS, vol. 14, j. 181, p. 4173.
21 Yuan Mingshan Chengxiang Huaian Zhongwu wang bei, p. 351; Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”,
p. 285. These titles are somewhat confusing. Assistant Director of the Bureau of Military Affairs (shumi
fushi 樞密副使) was the highest of them in rank, immediately superior to Junior Assistant Director
(qianshu shumiyuan shi 僉書樞密院事); Deputy Assistant Director (tong qianshu shumiyuan shi 同僉書樞
密院事) was one grade lower still (Farquhar, The Government of China, p. 247).
22 Baron C. D’Ohsson, Histoire des Mongols, depuis Tchinguiz-Khan jusqu’à Timur Bey ou Tamerlan, vol. 2
(The Hague and Amsterdam: Van Cleef, 1834), p. 397.
23 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, p. 205; YS, vol. 10, j. 127, p. 3099.
24 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, p. 205 n16.
25 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 1, p. 105.
26 YS, vol. 10, j. 127, p. 3099.
27 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, p. 204 n10.
Bayan of the Bārin’s Persian Wife, And Other Perplexities 267

the other hand, identifies it with Khojend.28 It is clear that Alaq took part in the capture of
Khojend.29 It is also clear that Quǰan had been destroyed during the first Mongol conquest of
the area, and had remained ruined from that time, until Hülegü ordered it to be rebuilt, in
the late 1250s.30 It would therefore appear to be probable that Hsiao is right, and that
“Huchan” is indeed Khojend. This was an important town in the period after the first Mon-
gol campaign against Khwārazm. Mahmūd Yalavač, who was appointed head of the Mongol
administration of Turkestan by Ögödei Qaγan, seems to have based himself there.31 It may
well be, then, that Bayan was brought up in or near Khojend, on the Syr-Darya. Khojend was
not in Persia. It had been within the western half of the Qarakhanid realm (under Qara
Khitay overlordship after 1141), before being brought under Khwārazmian rule in the early
thirteenth century, shortly before the Mongol invasions.32 Khojend (Khujand) had appar-
ently been a Sogdian city,33 but by the twelfth century Sogdian as a language was almost
extinct and the Sogdians had become largely Turkicized.34
Nowhere in the sources is Bayan’s year of birth given. The exact day of his death is, how-
ever, known, as well as his age at the time. It might be thought to be a simple matter, therefore,
to calculate his year of birth. Unfortunately, there are a number of complicating factors. The
Chinese sources give the date of his death as 11 January 1295, and his age at death as 59.35
From this, Cleaves calculates that he must have been born in 1237.36 The usual Chinese way
of calculating age uses inclusive reckoning, so that a child is one when born, but Bayan’s age is
not given in sui 歲 (the common Chinese term for years of age). The Yuan shi says his “years
(nian 年)” were 59, while Yuan Mingshan gives “59 springs and autumns (chunqiu 春秋)”.

28 De Rachewiltz et al., In the Service, p. 584.

29 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 1, pp. 243–244; Juvainī, History of the World-Conqueror,
vol. 1, pp. 91–93.
30 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 3, p. 482; Juvainī, History of the World-Conqueror, vol. 1,
p. 146.
31 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 97, 107, 110–111; De Rachewiltz et al., In the Service, pp. 123–124.
32 Michal Biran, The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: between China and the Islamic World
(Cambridge: University Press, 2005), pp. 41–42; Yuri Bregel, An Historical Atlas of Central Asia (Leiden
and Boston: Brill, 2003), pp. 28–34.
33 Étienne De La Vaissière, Sogdian Traders: a History, trans. J. Ward (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005),
pp. 161–162.
34 Valerie Hansen, “New Work on the Sogdians, the Most Important Traders on the Silk Road, A.D. 500–
1000”, T’oung Pao, 2nd series, 89.1–3 (2003), p. 159.
35 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, pp. 198, 272; YS, vol. 10, j. 127, p. 3116; Yuan Mingshan,
Chengxiang Huaian Zhongwu wang bei, p. 350.
36 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, p. 198; Hsiao, however, gives 1236 (De Rachewiltz et al., In the
Service, p. 585; at the head of the biography on p. 584, however, Bayan’s years are given as 1237–1295).
268 Stephen G. Haw

One incomplete year of his life may well have been counted in full. As he died in January, just
a few days before the Chinese New Year, which fell on 17 January 1295,37 it is not certain
whether a year was added for the Chinese year 1295–1296 or not. Some margin of error is
therefore likely. A further complication is that, having spent his early life in the “Western
Regions”, it is possible that his first twenty years or so might have been counted according to
the Muslim calendar. Muslim years, of course, were short (without the intercalary months
used to keep the Chinese calendar more or less in accord with the solar year), so it may well be
that Bayan’s actual years were less than had been counted. The best that can be said with
certainty is that he must probably have been born at some time in the period 1236–1238. It
appears that he did not go to Persia until the time of Hülegü’s conquest, when he would
already have been about 20 years old. Since he travelled to Qubilai Qaγan’s court in the early
1260s, probably arriving in 1264,38 he cannot have spent more than about five or six years in
Persia.
After Bayan’s arrival at the court of Qubilai Qaγan (which, in the 1260s, must have been
at Shangdu 上都, as the new capital at Dadu 大都 had not then been built), he quickly re-
ceived appointment to high office. His first appointment, in August-September 1265, as
Junior Chief Chancellor of the Central Secretariat, was not a military position, although it
was one of the highest posts in the empire.39 Two years later, he was promoted to Senior
Chief Chancellor. In 1270, he was moved to the post of Overseer of the Bureau of Military
Affairs.40 This placed him in overall control of the entire military establishment of the Yuan
Empire, a position of great power and responsibility. It gave him the opportunity to become
familiar with the various military operations of the Empire. At the time, one of the most
important of these was the continuing siege of Xiangyang 襄陽. Much has been written

37 Fang Shiming 方詩銘 and Fang Xiaofen 方小芬 (eds.), Zhonguo shi liri he Zhong Xi liri duizhaobiao 中國
史歴日和中西歴日對照表 (Shanghai: Renmin chubanshe, 2007), p. 562.
38 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, pp. 205, 276; YS, vol. 10, j. 127, p. 3099; Yuan Mingshan,
Chengxiang Huaian Zhongwu wang bei, p. 347.
39 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, p. 207; YS, vol. 10, j. 127, p. 3099; Farquhar, The Government of
China, p. 170.
40 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, p. 207; YS, vol. 10, j. 127, p. 3099; Cleaves says “he was promoted”,
but the YS uses the word qian 遷, which does not imply promotion. In fact, this post was probably
roughly equal in rank to that of Senior Chief Chancellor. At the time, it was the highest position in the
Bureau of Military Affairs, and was newly-created (see YS, vol. 7, j. 86, p. 2155; Farquhar, The
Government of China, p. 247). I have deleted the word “Associate” from Farquhar’s translation of the title
of the post, as it was not an associate position until later.
Bayan of the Bārin’s Persian Wife, And Other Perplexities 269

already about the Mongol siege of Song Xiangyang.41 There is little need here to go over
details of the operations. The only really significant point in the present context is that, ac-
cording to Rashīd al-Dīn, Bayan was involved in the siege. He includes this in his account of
the assassination of Aḥmad.42 His story differs considerably from accounts in the Chinese
sources, as also from that of Marco Polo. Here, I shall consider how much credence can be
given to Rashīd al-Dīn’s version of events, particularly insofar as Bayan is concerned.
During Qubilai Qa’an’s time Amir Ahmad Fanakati Finjan was the qa’an’s vizier. A
Cathaian named Gau Finjan was also vizier. Since Amir Ahmad had total authority, they
called him shu finjan, meaning “awake vizier”. Shu is a title for great finjans. Gau Finjan
had many followers, and he was jealous of Amir Ahmad.43
There is considerable confusion here. Finjan is the Persian version of the Chinese title
pingzhang 平章, Privy Councillor, but this was not the highest rank in the Yuan Empire,
being subordinate to Chancellor (chengxiang 丞相).44 Aḥmad, indeed, was officially junior to
the Chancellor Antong, and apparently chafed at this, as, in 1262, he tried to obtain the right
to report directly to Qubilai Qaγan.45 Later, in 1270, he succeeded in persuading the Qaγan
to create a Secretariat for State Affairs (Shangshu sheng 尚書省; sometimes translated “Presi-
dential Council”), so that he was no longer subordinate to the Central Secretariat. His rank
was still that of pingzhang, however.46 I know of no explanation for Rashīd al-Dīn’s “shu
finjan”,47 nor is it possible to identify anyone who may have been the basis for Gau Finjan.

41 See, for example, A. C. Moule, Quinsai, With Other Notes on Marco Polo (Cambridge: University Press,
1957), pp. 80–88; Peter Lorge, War, Politics and Society in Early Modern China, 900–1795, (London
and New York: Routledge, 2005), pp. 83–86.
42 On which see, for example, Moule, Quinsai, pp. 70–79; Pelliot, Notes on Marco Polo, pp. 10–11; De
Rachewiltz et al., In the Service, pp. 550–555.
43 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 449; see also Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 289.
44 Farquhar, The Government of China, p. 170.
45 De Rachewiltz et al., In the Service, p. 540; YS, vol. 12, j. 157, p. 3696.
46 De Rachewiltz et al., In the Service, p. 543; YS, vol. 15, j. 205, p. 4558.
47 See Gerhard Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit, Band
III, Türkische Elemente im Neupersischen, ğīm bis kāf (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1967), p. 327; Rashīd al-Dīn,
Djami el-Tévarikh, Histoire générale du monde, Tome 2, Contenant l’histoire des empereurs mongols
successeurs de Tchinkkiz Khaghan, ed. by E. Blochet (Leyden: Brill; London: Luzac, 1911), p. 477n,
appendice 51. Blochet rejects the possibility that Rashīd al-Dīn might have misunderstood Zhongshu
pingzhang, privy councillor of the Central Secretariat, or Shangshu pingzhang, and for some reason
dropped the zhong or shang. He suggests shou pingzhang 首平章 (“head privy councillor”), which might
perhaps be possible: there is a single occurrence of this term in the YS, vol. 15, j. 205, p. 4586, but relating
270 Stephen G. Haw

There was a Gao who was involved in the assassination of Aḥmad (see below), but he held no
position in the central government, and was certainly never a close subordinate of Aḥmad. It
is, in fact, possible to identify this Gao with someone described, but not named, by Rashīd al-
Dīn, who was clearly different from Gau Finjan. The only conclusion that can be drawn is
that Rashīd al-Dīn’s version of events is confused and inaccurate.
Rashīd al-Dīn claims that Gau Finjan, having failed in an early plot against Aḥmad, fled
to Xiangyang, then still under Song control.48 Again, this seems very unlikely. He also says
that Xiangyang was on the banks of the Yellow River, half on one side and half on the other,
and that it had paid taxes half to the Jin Empire and half to the Song Empire, but that Song
had taken full control of the town after the Mongols had seized north China.49 None of this
is correct. Xiangyang is on the Han 漢 River, a major tributary of the Yangtze, far to the
south of the Yellow River. Xiangyang was on one side of the river, facing Fancheng 樊城 on
the other side. Both these towns had been well within the Southern Song Empire, the border
with the Jin Empire being a considerable distance further north, along the Huai 淮 River.
Clearly, Rashīd al-Dīn’s information about the Yuan Empire was extremely defective. It can
therefore be safely assumed that his story about Gau Finjan, which includes the claim that
“the qa’an [Qubilai] ordered Bayan to go in pursuit of him with a troop”, is false. So are the
further claims that Gau Finjan was instrumental in procuring the fall of Xiangyang, and, even
more astonishingly, that the Song Emperor was in Xiangyang, and fled when it fell, but “was
unable to make a stand anywhere against the qa’an’s army, and so all the realm of Manzi
capitulated and was conquered”50. He does, however, say that it was nine years after the fall of
Xiangyang that Aḥmad was assassinated.51 He does not give any actual dates: Xiangyang fell

to the year 1355, long after the time of Aḥmad. I have been unable to find it anywhere else. It could not
mean “awake vizier”, or anything similar.
48 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 449; Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 290.
49 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, pp. 449–450; Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 290.
50 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 450; Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 291. There are
several Chinese sources relating to the siege and fall of Xiangyang, including not only the YS, but also Liu
Yiqing 劉一清, Qiantang yishi 錢塘遺事, in Zhongguo yeshi jicheng, vol. 10, pp. 194–254; and Zhou Mi’s
account of the “Two Zhangs”. See Zhou Mi 周密, Qi dong ye yu 齊東野語, in Biji xiaoshuo daguan 13 bian
筆記小説大觀 13 編, vol. 4, pp. 2033–2354 (Taibei: Xinxing shuju, 1983), j. 18, pp. 2321–2323; for an
English summary, see Stephen G. Haw, “Cathayan Arrows and Meteors: the Origins of Chinese
Rocketry”, Journal of Chinese Military History 2 (2013), pp. 39–40. Zhou Mi wrote in about 1290, and
states that his information came from old soldiers who had taken part in this campaign. Then, of course,
there are all the biographical materials relating to the major participants. Many of these were among the
sources of the YS.
51 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 450; Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 291.
Bayan of the Bārin’s Persian Wife, And Other Perplexities 271

in 1273 and Aḥmad’s assassination was in 1282.52 Of course, by inclusive reckoning, normal-
ly used by Chinese and Mongols at the time (and later), this would have been ten years. The
statement that Aḥmad “held the post of vizier honorably for nearly twenty-five years”53 is
also somewhat inaccurate:54 he was first given a high appointment in 1262, and was assassi-
nated in 1282.55 Even more questionable is Rashīd al-Dīn’s assessment that the assassination
of Aḥmad resulted from jealousy and the “old grudges and hatreds” of his rivals for office.56
The conspirators against Aḥmad were not, in fact, his close colleagues. It has already been
noted that: “The plot against Aḥmad did not originate among his political adversaries”.57 It
was one Wang Zhu 王著 and a monk called Gao 高 who were the leaders of the conspiracy.
Wang Zhu was a chiliarch (qianhu 千户) in Shandong. Gao is not reported to have held any
official position, although it is said that he had been with the army, to use his magical powers,
but had failed. He left the army and then faked his own death.58 It is this latter incident that
Rashīd al-Dīn reports with reference to “a certain Cathaian”.59 Clearly, then, his “Gau Fin-
jan” cannot be the same person as the monk Gao.
It would seem reasonable to conclude that Aḥmad’s unpopularity had spread far beyond
his colleagues in the central government. Neither Wang Zhu nor Gao held any high office.
For them to have conspired successfully against Aḥmad, there must have been widespread
feeling against him, extending well beyond the capital cities and reaching more or less to
grass-roots level. Whatever may be said in his defence, it seems likely that the judgment of the
compilers of the History of the Yuan Dynasty (Yuan shi) was probably one with which at least
many, if not most, of Aḥmad’s contemporaries in the Yuan Empire would have agreed. In
this regard, it is worth noting that Marco Polo, who recounts the story of Aḥmad’s assassina-
tion much more correctly than does Rashīd al-Dīn,60 concurs with the condemnation of
him.61 Marco’s account, as a personal witness, is independent of the Chinese sources (the
Yuan shi, certainly, was compiled several decades after Marco’s book had been written).

52 YS, vol. 1, j. 8, p. 148; j. 12, p. 241.

53 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 450; Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 291.
54 I am not sure that Moule was right to calculate a total of 34 years (25 plus 9) (Moule, Quinsai, p. 77): it is
not clear to me that this is in accord with Rashīd al-Dīn’s meaning.
55 YS, vol.15, j. 205, pp. 4558, 4563.
56 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 449; Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 288–289.
57 De Rachewiltz et al., In the Service, p. 550.
58 YS, vol. 15, j. 205, p. 4563; De Rachewiltz et al., In the Service, pp. 550–551.
59 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 450; Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 291.
60 Stephen G. Haw, Marco Polo’s China: a Venetian in the realm of Khubilai Khan (Abingdon and New
York: Routledge, 2006), pp. 160–161.
61 Moule and Pelliot, Marco Polo, pp. 214–216.
272 Stephen G. Haw

It may be remarked that Rashīd al-Dīn’s comparatively favourable treatment of Aḥmad is

very likely a consequence of the fact that they were both Muslims. This bias in favour of
coreligionists seems to be persistent in Muslim accounts of history. As a further example, Ibn
al-Athīr, when writing about the Mongol conquest of Islamic lands, bewails events in the
strongest terms: “Perhaps humanity will not see such a calamity, apart from Gog and Magog,
until the world comes to an end and this life ceases to be”.62 Some of the Mongols “crossed
into Khurasan and thoroughly dealt with it, conquering, destroying, slaughtering and plun-
dering. … Subsequently they attacked Azerbayjan and Arran, which they ruined and most of
whose people they killed. Only the rare fugitive survived”.63 Yet a little later, when Jalāl al-
Dīn and his army ravaged Georgia, and took the city of Tiflis, where “all the Georgians …
were put to death … except for those who accepted Islam …”,64 he was clearly delighted. “Tif-
lis is one of the strongest and best-defended cities, situated on both banks of the River Kura, a
great river. This conquest was much celebrated and produced a great impression in the lands
of Islam and amongst the Muslims …”.65 It seems that Mongols slaughtering Muslims was a
disaster, but Muslims massacring Christian Georgians was something to celebrate. Historical
writings always have their biases, of course.
Finally, before moving on from the affair of Aḥmad, there is one further point that de-
serves comment, the identity of Marco Polo’s “Cogatai”.66 It has never been thought possible
to find anyone of that name who might have been involved.67 However, Rashīd al-Dīn men-
tions someone called Hoqotai, who was one of Qubilai Qaγan’s “great officers (or emirs)”
and the “commander of [the] four gäzigs (kezigs)”.68 Marco’s “Cogatai” must surely be this
man: according to Marco, Cogatai was “captain of twelve thousand men with whom he kept
continual guard over the city (Dadu)”.69 Twelve thousand was the number of Qubilai
Qaγan’s kešigten, according to Marco,70 so that it seems very likely that these were the guards
intended here. This would agree exactly with Rashīd al-Dīn. The important role that Marco
gives Cogatai in suppressing the rebellion that, he alleges, was intended to follow the assassi-

62 ’Izz al-Dīn ’Alī Ibn al-Athīr, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil f’il-
Tarikh, Part 3, The Years 589–629/1193–1231: The Ayyubids after Saladin and the Mongol Menace,
trans. D. S. Richards (Farnham: Ashgate, 2008), p. 202.
63 Ibid., p. 203.
64 Ibid., pp. 269–270.
65 Ibid., p. 270.
66 Moule and Pelliot, Marco Polo, pp. 215–216.
67 Moule, Quinsai, pp. 78–79; Pelliot, Notes on Marco Polo, pp. 395–396; Haw, Marco Polo’s China, p. 160.
68 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 453–454; Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 297.
69 Moule and Pelliot, Marco Polo, p. 215.
70 Ibid., pp. 216–217.
Bayan of the Bārin’s Persian Wife, And Other Perplexities 273

nation of Aḥmad, would fit with the position of leader of the four kešigs. It may well be that
Marco’s account is not far off the truth.
Cleaves quotes Moule in such a way as to make it possible to understand that he says that
Xiangyang did not surrender until 1276.71 Actually, Moule was referring to Yingzhou 郢州,72
but Cleaves omits mention of this town. Moule cites a short passage from the Yuan shi which
seems to suggest that Bayan was, in fact, at Xiangyang before it fell. It appears that the events
in question took place early in 1273, just before the fall of Xiangyang, as Fuzhou 复州 is said
to have fallen the following year.73 Fuzhou was surrendered to the Mongol armies in 1274.74
Moule translates the Yuan shi as saying that “Yeh-su-tai-êrh accompanied the Ch’eng-hsiang
Po-yen (Bayan) to Hsiang (i.e. Xiangyang)”, although this is not quite accurate: “followed”
would be a more correct rendition of the original than “accompanied”. Either the supposed
involvement of Bayan is an error, or “followed the Chancellor Bayan (cong chengxiang Baiyan
從丞相伯顔)” here means “followed the orders of …”. Bayan must have been in Dadu (or
perhaps Shangdu, as Dadu was still under construction) in spring 1273, at about the time
that Xiangyang fell, for he played a leading role in the ceremony to install Zhenjin 眞金 as
heir apparent.75 He was not ordered to attack Song until the first month of 1274,76 and took
his leave of Qubilai in the seventh month; the armies assembled at Xiangfan77 in the ninth
month.78 As seen above, however, from 1270 Bayan was in charge of the Bureau of Military
Affairs, so he might well have given orders relating to the siege of Xiangyang.
Again, Rashīd al-Dīn’s accounts of the final campaigns against the Song Empire are not
very accurate. They are no more than outlines, filling just a couple of pages. Chinese accounts,
of course, provide far more detail. Even as far as Rashīd al-Dīn goes, he is often wrong. “Dur-
ing Möngkä Qa’an’s time, the ruler of that country (the Song Empire) maintained a firm
friendship with Möngkä, and emissaries were always coming and going between them …”.79
This is scarcely true, as there was almost constant warfare between the Mongols and Song
during Möngke’s reign. Indeed, if Möngke had not died when he did (in 1259), and if there

71 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, p. 195.

72 A. C. Moule, “The Siege of Saianfu and the Murder of Achmach Bailo (Two chapters of Marco Polo)”,
Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 58 (1927), p. 15; Moule, Quinsai, p. 87.
73 YS, vol. 11, j. 133, p. 3238.
74 YS, vol. 1, j. 8, p. 157.
75 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, p. 207; YS, vol. 10, j. 127, p. 3099.
76 That is, the first month of the Chinese year which began on 9 February 1274.
77 That is, at Xiangyang and Fancheng, which, in fact, are today merged into a single conurbation called
Xiangfan. Here, the Ping Song lu anticipates this merger.
78 Liu Minzhong, Ping Song lu, j. shang, pp. 107–108.
79 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 438; see also Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 270.
274 Stephen G. Haw

had been no dispute between Qubilai and his younger brother Ariq Böke for the Qaγanate,
then the Mongols might well have conquered the Song Empire earlier. By the end of 1259,
Qubilai had led an army to the Yangtze River, crossed it, and laid siege to Ezhou 鄂州 (mod-
ern Wuchang).80 He was met by another army, led by Uriyangqadai, which had advanced
from Annam (northern Vietnam) to Changsha 長沙. Then Qubilai heard of Ariq Böke’s
intentions, and withdrew northwards.81 Rashīd al-Dīn’s account of this campaign, during the
reign of Möngke, is very confused, and, although Uriyangqadai is mentioned, very little is said
about his epic march from Annam.82 There is a mention of Uriyangqadai leading an army
“against the other side of Nangiyas” (or “from one side of Nankiyas”), but without any indi-
cation of which “side” was meant.83
Not until several years later was it possible to resume the campaign against the Song Em-
pire. It was decided that the main attack would take place along the Han River towards the
Yangtze. This meant that it would first be necessary to take Xiangyang and Fancheng. A long
siege of these twin towns ensued.84 It was after they had fallen that Bayan took personal
command of the armies that advanced against Song. The Yuan shi records that:
In spring, on the first day of the first month of the eleventh year [of the Zhiyuan reign-
period] (9 February 1274), it was reported that the palaces [in Dadu] had been completed.
The Emperor (Qubilai Qaγan) first graced the main palace with his Imperial presence,
and received the empresses, the princes and the various officials in congratulatory audi-
ence. … On the 28th of the month (9 March) … Ariq Qaya said: “The Jing and Xiang re-
gion (in eastern Hubei and northern Hunan) has been a battlefield since ancient times.
Now the upper Han River is already in our possession, if we move rapidly along the river,
it must be possible to pacify Song.” Aǰu also said: “Your servant has taken control of [part
of] the Jiang-Huai region (from the Huai River to the Yangtze), and it is clear to see that
the Song armies are weaker than ever before. If we do not take it (the Song Empire) now,
such an opportunity will not occur again.” The Emperor called for Shi Tianze 史天澤 to
give his opinion. Tianze replied: “This is a matter of supreme national interest. A single
eminent official, such as Antong or Bayan, should be ordered to take overall command of
all the armies. Then [all within] the Four Seas will be united; it will be possible to count
the days until it happens. Your servant is old, if I am given a secondary command, it will be
enough for me to do.” The Emperor said: “Bayan can take charge of this affair for me.”

80 Wuchang is now part of the great conurbation of Wuhan, on both banks of the Yangtze.
81 Stephen G. Haw, “The Deaths of Two Khaghans: a Comparison of Events in 1242 and 1260”, Bulletin
of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76.3 (2013), pp. 365–366.
82 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 414–415; Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, pp. 225–227.
83 Ibid., Successors, p. 248; Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 425.
84 Moule, Quinsai, pp. 82–84; YS, vol. 10, j. 128, pp. 3124–3125.
Bayan of the Bārin’s Persian Wife, And Other Perplexities 275

Thereupon Aǰu and Ariq Qaya said: “When our armies attack southwards, they must be
divided into three. The old armies are insufficient. If they are not increased to one hun-
dred thousand soldiers, it will be no good.” The Central Secretariat was commanded to
enlist one hundred thousand men.85
By comparison, Rashīd al-Dīn apparently truncates the time-scale of events, so that Bayan is
given command immediately after his arrival in China. He seems to conflate the siege of
Xiangyang with the campaign that followed its fall, implying that Bayan and Aǰu were in
command throughout. He makes no mention of Ariq Qaya, but correctly states that Shi
Tianze (“Semeke Bahadur”) “remained behind en route because of illness”.86 He relates what
must certainly be an apocryphal story about thousands of men being raised for the army from
prisoners in north China:
Being unable to procure troops quickly, the Qa’an issued a yarligh that all the prisoners in
the kingdom of Khitai should be brought before him. They were nearly twenty thousand
men. He spoke to them as follows: “You are all destined to die and be killed. … I will …
send you to the army …”. And he trained them, … and sent them to join the main army.87
There is no such story in any of the Chinese sources. The Yuan shi records that, in the year
that Bayan began the final campaign against Song (1274), because it was feared that newly-
registered soldiers from the north-east would not be able to tolerate too much heat, they were
stationed at Shangdu. In the same year, 15,000 men were sent to attack Japan.88 This would
suggest that there was no shortage of soldiers for the army. Moreover, the Yuan legal system
was comparatively lenient, so it would seem highly unlikely that there were almost 20,000
men awaiting execution in 1274. Indeed, during the reign of Qubilai Qaγan, only some
ninety executions were approved each year, on average, and amnesties were frequent.89 It
should also be noted that 100,000 men was the total strength required: as there was already a
large army in existence, the number of new recruits needed was considerably less than this.
Aǰu and Ariq Qaya asked for the strength of the army to be increased to 100,000.
After this apocryphal tale about the prisoners, Rashīd al-Dīn completes his account of the
conquest of the Song Empire in a few lines:

85 YS, vol. 1, j. 8, p. 153.

86 There is a biography of Shi Tianze in De Rachewiltz et al., In the Service, pp. 27–45.
87 Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 271; see also Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 439.
88 YS, vol. 1, j. 8, pp. 154–155.
89 Paul Ratchnevsky, “Jurisdiction, Penal Code, and Cultural Confrontation under Mongol-Yüan Law”,
Asia Major, 3rd series, 6.1 (1993), p. 176.
276 Stephen G. Haw

In the seventh year from the time they went to that country they gave battle on the banks
of the Gang Mürän River [Yangtse], beating seven tümens of Nankiyas soldiers and cap-
turing the country. They killed the Emperor, Shaoju [shao-chu] by name, and conquered
the countries of Kandar, [I-ch’i-pu-hsieh], Maquman, Kalang, Kyay, Kafjih-Guh, and
others.90
There is no problem here with identifying Kandar, which is Yunnan, the former Kingdom of
Dali, and Kafjih-Guh, Marco Polo’s Caugigu, which is Annam or Jiaozhi guo 交趾國 (north-
ern Vietnam).91 “I-ch’i-pu-hsieh” (Pinyin Yiqibuxue 亦乞不薛) is mentioned several times in
the Yuan shi.92 An Yiqibu or Yixibu 亦奚部, almost certainly identical, is recorded in a geo-
graphical work of the Yuan period. It was apparently somewhere in north-east Yunnan.93
“Maquman” seems very likely to be Baiwuman 白烏蠻, the Mongolian Čaγān- and Qara-
ǰang, the White and Black “southern barbarians” who were the principal inhabitants of the
Kingdom of Dali.94 During the thirteenth century, the character now pronounced bai may
often have been pronounced with a final -k, as it had been earlier.95 This would explain the
initial “Maq-”, the alternation of b- or p- and m- being common in Persian (for example,
Persian “Keminfu” for Kaipingfu 開平府).96 “Kalang” and “Kyay” remain seemingly inexpli-
cable.97 All of this is anachronistic, of course, as the conquest of both Yunnan and Annam
had taken place during the 1250s.98 The young Song Emperor was not killed at that time, but
survived until 1323.99

90 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 2, p. 439; see also Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 272.
91 Pelliot, Notes on Marco Polo, pp. 177, 233.
92 A translation of one of the longest relevant passages can be found in Francis W. Cleaves, “The Lingǰi of
Aruγ of 1340”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 25 (1964–1965), p. 77.
93 Liu Yingli 劉應李, Da Yuan hunyi fangyu shenglan 大元混一方輿勝覽, rev. Zhan Youliang 詹友諒
(Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2003), p. 466.
94 On the Qara-ǰang and Čaγān-ǰang, see Pelliot, Notes on Marco Polo, pp. 169–177.
95 Bernhard Karlgren, Grammata Serica Recensa (Stockholm: Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 1964),
p. 207 [character no. 782a]; Axel Schuessler, ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese (Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i Press, 2007), pp. 153–154.
96 See Pelliot, Notes on Marco Polo, p. 238.
97 It seems likely that these places are to be sought somewhere in South-east Asia. I would very tentatively
suggest that “Kalang” might be a corruption of a Persian version of Zhancheng 占城, Champa (central
Vietnam). The other obvious omission from the list is Mian 缅, Burma (modern Myanmar). Could
“Kyay” be a corruption of “Mian”?
98 Haw, “The Deaths of Two Khaghans”, pp. 364–365.
99 Herbert Franke and Denis Twitchett (eds.), The Cambridge History of China, vol. 6, Alien Regimes and
Border States, 907–1368 (Cambridge: University Press. 1994), p. 434.
Bayan of the Bārin’s Persian Wife, And Other Perplexities 277

In the light of all this, it can be concluded that J. A. Boyle’s assessment of Rashīd al-Dīn’s
knowledge of the Yuan Empire is excessively sanguine. He claims, for example, that “the story
of the twenty thousand criminals released from jail by the Great Khan’s decree to take part in
the conquest of the South is too circumstantial not to have some foundation in fact”. As just
seen above, however, it is extremely unlikely that there is much, or even any, truth in it at all.
Again, Boyle identifies Rashīd al-Dīn’s “Gau Finjan” with “the historical Kao Ho-chang (sic)
(Gao heshang 高和尚, that is, the monk Gao) involved in the murder of the vizier Aḥmad of
Fanākat”, although, as I have shown above, such an identification is impossible. He further
claims that Rashīd al-Dīn’s accounts of Qubilai’s campaigns are valuable because they “add
considerable detail and color to the somewhat laconic narrative of the Chinese chronicles”.100
As he could not read Chinese, and therefore was unacquainted with the Chinese chronicles
(scarcely any of which have been translated), he was clearly not qualified to make such a
judgment. The often very brief accounts given by Rashīd al-Dīn certainly do not add any
detail to the much fuller Chinese versions of events. Whatever information Rashīd al-Dīn
was able to obtain about the Yuan Empire from Bolad Chingsang101 was very obviously
inadequate. To claim, as Boyle has done, that Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jāmi’ al-Tavārīkh “constitutes
our chief authority on the origins of the Mongol peoples and the rise of the Mongol World
Empire”102 is certainly erroneous. The material that it contains relating to “the origins of the
Mongol peoples” consists almost entirely of folk etymologies and legends, and dates from
long after the event.103 For contemporary, or near-contemporary, information relating to the
Mongols before the time of Činggis Qan, the only extant sources are Chinese.104 Boyle’s
further claims, that “Chinese history … is fully integrated into Rashīd al-Dīn’s work” and that
“[o]n the rise and growth of the Mongol Empire it remains incomparably our richest and
most authoritative source”105 are gross exaggerations. Of course, the Jāmi’ al-Tavārīkh is an
extremely important work, but it cannot equal the Chinese sources in accuracy and detail.106

100 Rashīd al-Dīn, Successors, p. 12.

101 Ibid., p. 11.
102 Ibid., Successors, p. 10.
103 These are not without value and interest, of course, but they are not history.
104 On the Mongols before Činggis Qan, see Louis Hambis, “L’Histoire des Mongols avant Gengis-Khan
d’après les sources chinoises et mongoles, et la documentation conservée par Rašīdu-d-’Dīn”, Central
Asiatic Journal 14.1–3 (1970), pp. 125–133.
105 John A. Boyle, “Rashīd al-Dīn and the Franks”, Central Asiatic Journal 14.1–3 (1970), pp. 62, 67.
106 It seems apparent to me that scholars of Persian, and, indeed, other scholars with no knowledge of
Chinese, usually have no conception of the sheer quantity of Chinese materials relating to the Mongols.
David Morgan, for example, has dismissed the claim that “most of the material dealing with the
Mongols is written in Chinese” (David Morgan, “The Mongol Empire: a Review Article”, Bulletin of
the School of Oriental and African Studies 44.1 [1981], p. 124), but it is certainly true. In contrast, Joseph
278 Stephen G. Haw

Its principal utility is in supplying information about events in western Asia, especially the
Ilkhanate, which are often poorly covered by Chinese sources.107
Incidentally, this also suggests that Marco Polo could not have obtained all his infor-
mation about the Yuan Empire from Persian sources, as has been suggested.108 It must also
call into serious question claims that there was a large number of Persians in China during
the Yuan period and that their language was widely spoken there.109 If that had been so,
surely there would have been better knowledge of China in Persia than Rashīd al-Dīn was
aware of. It also suggests that Rashīd al-Dīn cannot have made extensive use of native in-
formants when writing the Jāmi’ al-Tavārīkh.110 If he did, then the Chinese among them
must have been extremely ignorant about their own country and its history and geography.
Yet another issue with the Jāmi’ al-Tavārīkh is that it entirely confuses Turks and Mon-
gols: “The Mongols were a nation of the Turks …”.111 It must be assumed, therefore, that
Rashīd al-Dīn had no knowledge of either Turkic or Mongolian languages; otherwise, pre-
sumably, he would have known how different they were.112 Strangely, such confusion has
apparently persisted until recent times, for Bayan of the Bārin has been described as “a Turk
descended from a long line of military officers who had served under the Great Khans”.113
This statement has been picked up and copied into popular writings, so it seems worthwhile

Fletcher referred to “the Persian histories and the more voluminous but less exploited material in
Chinese …” (J. Fletcher, “The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic
Studies 46 [1986], p. 27). The YS alone is probably more voluminous than the works of Juvainī, Rashīd
al-Dīn and Waṣṣāf put together, but it is far from being the only Chinese source for the Mongols.
107 It should be noted, however, that Rashīd al-Dīn also appears to have had good information about the
Mongols themselves, from the time of Činggis Qan onward. Most of the material incorporated into the
Shengwu qinzheng lu 聖武親征錄 was evidently available to him, for example. See I. de Rachewiltz, “On
the Sheng-wu Ch’in-cheng Lu”, East Asian History 28 (2004), p. 35.
108 Frances Wood, Did Marco Polo Go to China? (London: Secker & Warburg, 1995), pp. 143–145.
109 See, for example, David Morgan, “Persian as a Lingua Franca in the Mongol Empire”, in B. Spooner
and W.L. Hanaway (eds.), Literacy in the Persianate World: Language and the Social Order
(Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2012),
pp. 166–168; Hyunhee Park, Mapping the Chinese and Islamic Worlds: Cross-Cultural Exchange in
Pre-modern Asia (Cambridge: University Press, 2012), p. 97.
110 Thomas T. Allsen, Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia (Cambridge: University Press, 2001),
pp. 84–85.
111 Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh, vol. 1, p. 26.
112 Of course, it may also be that Rashīd al-Dīn used “Turk” in a sense different from its modern usage, to
mean (roughly) a “steppe nomad”, or something similar, but there are problems with that possibility,
too, for not all Turkic peoples were nomadic.
113 Morris Rossabi, Khubilai Khan: his Life and Times (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of
California Press, 1988), p. 87.
Bayan of the Bārin’s Persian Wife, And Other Perplexities 279

to contradict it. Bayan’s Chinese biographies make it quite clear that the Bārin were Mongols.
For example, the Yuan shi biography says that he was a “Meng-ku Pa-lin [Pinyin Menggu
Balin] 蒙古八鄰”,114 that is, a Mongγol Bārin. As a rule, Chinese sources do not confuse
Turks and Mongols.
In conclusion, it can be said that there is no evidence at all that Bayan of the Bārin had a
wife in Persia. It seems that one of his sons was in Persia, but there is no evidence to indicate
exactly when, or for how long. Certainly, nothing suggests that this son was born in Persia.
Bayan himself very probably did not grow up in Persia. Far more likely, he was brought up
somewhere in or near Khojend, and spent no more than five or six years in Persia during his
entire lifetime. His exact date of death is known, but all that can be said about his date of
birth is that it must have been somewhere within a year or two either side of 1237. After he
went to the court of Qubilai Qaγan, he was quickly appointed to very high office. It is very
unlikely that he was at Xiangyang before it was forced to surrender to the Mongols; most
probably, he went there for the first time in 1274, as commander of the large army that had
been assembled for the final campaign against the Song Empire. His name was put forward
for appointment to this command by the veteran Chinese general, Shi Tianze, but along
with other names, including that of Antong. It was Qubilai Qaγan himself who made the
decision to give overall command to Bayan. Shi Tianze was originally supposed to act as his
associate commander, or advisor, but was too old and infirm, and withdrew from the cam-
paign shortly after it had begun. Bayan was of Bārin origin, and the Bārin were Mongols, not
Turks. Finally, Rashīd al-Dīn was clearly not very well informed about the Yuan Empire, and
committed very serious errors regarding its geography and history. As a general rule, the Jāmi’
al-Tavārīkh cannot be taken to be entirely reliable for events that happened outside the
boundaries of the Ilkhanate, and is frequently erroneous regarding the Yuan Empire and
China. Like all historical sources, it must be used with due regard for its limitations.

114 Cleaves, “The Biography of Bayan”, p. 201; YS, vol. 10, j. 127, p. 3099.