Timur, the barbarian

In the story that follows the reader may find the line between that which is fact and that which is fiction to be somewhat indistinct. There can be absolutely no doubt that the truth does fade into the apocryphal.

Timur, otherwise known as Tamerlane (a corruption of ‘Timur-i-lenk’, the Persian for ‘Timur the Lame’, because he limped from a battle wound), was one of the most brutal and aggressive conquerors in all history – at least up to the twentieth and present centuries. He rose from obscurity in a Turko-Mongolian tribe in the fourteenth century to establish an empire stretching from Anatolia to Delhi. His wars of conquest were marked by unbelievable brutality, butchery, carnage and wanton destruction. Timur falsely claimed to be a descendant of Genghis Khan, and openly modelled himself on that infamous conqueror. But Timur outdid his personal afflatus in all aspects of barbaric cruelty.

Timur besieged the City of Sivas – or ancient Sebasteia. For a time the inhabitants resisted. Then the soldiers agreed to surrender to Timur if he would shed no blood. Timur quickly agreed. The soldiers surrendered, and Timur shed no blood. He simply buried them alive!

What is the message: that black letter literalism is barbaric? Perhaps, but I must admit that this is not quite the message which I had in mind.