The Wealth of Dynasties

The amirs of the Zanatah sent an embassy to the Sinhajah (Zirids) in Ifrigiyah. The latter presented gifts to that embassy as:

• large sums of money
• chests full of clothes
• many fine pack horses

The History of Ibn arRaqiq contains many stories of this kind.

The way the Barmecides gave allowances and gifts and spent their money was the same.

Whenever they provided for a needy person, it meant property, high office, and prosperity for that person for ever after. It was not just an allowance that was spent in a day or sooner.

The are many stories to this effect about the Barmecides. All of them reflect in the proper proportions the (power of the) dynasties to which they relate.

When Jawhar al-Katib as-Saqlabi, the general of the ‘Ubaydid(-Fatimid) army, set out on his conquest of Egypt, he was provided by al-Qayrawan with a thousand loads of money.

No dynasty today would be able to approach that.119 There exists in the handwriting of Ahmad b. Muhammad b. ‘Abd-al-Hamid a list showing the receipts of the treasury at Baghdad from all regions (of the realm) in al-Ma’mun’s day. I copied it from the book of Jirab ad-dawlah:120

Reliable Spanish historians have reported that ‘Abd-ar-Rahman an-Nasir left 5,000,000 dinars weighing altogether 500 hundredweight in his treasuries.

I have seen in one of the histories of ar-Rashid that in his day the income of the treasury was 7,500 hundredweight each year.

Regarding the ‘Ubaydid(-Fatimid) dynasty,

I have read in the History of Ibn Khallikan that the army commander al-Afdal b. Badr al-Jamali controlled the ‘Ubaydid(-Fatimid) caliphs in Egypt.

When he was killed, his treasury had:

• 600,000 dinars
• 250 irdabbs of dirhams
• a large amount of:
  • precious stones for rings
  • pearls
  • fabrics
  • household goods
  • riding animals
  • pack animals

The greatest dynasty of our own time is that of the Turks in Egypt. It became important in the days of the Turkish ruler an-Nasir Muhammad b. Qala’in.

At the beginning of his rule, the two amirs, Baybars and Sallar, had gained power over him. Baybars had deposed him and occupied his throne, with Sallar as his partner.

Then, shortly after an-Nasir regained the rule, he seized Sallar and cleaned out his treasury.

It also had a large amount of fabrics, household goods, riding animals, pack animals, (grain) crops, 152 cattle, male and female slaves, and estates.

In the treasury of the Merinid dynasty in Morocco, I came across an inventory in the handwriting of the Merinid minister of finance, Hassun b. al-Bawwaq.

It states that:

• the property left by Sultan Abu Sa’id in his treasury was over 700 hundredweight of gold dinars.
• he also had other property of a proportionately large amount
• his son and successor, Abu 1-Hasan, had even more than that.

When he took possession of Tlemcen154 he found more than 300 hundredweight of gold in coins and (gold) jewelry, and a correspondingly large amount of other property in the treasuries of the Sultan of (Tlemcen), the ‘Abd al-Wadud Abu Tashfin.

As to the Almohad (Hafsid) rulers of Ifriqiyah, I lived in the time of their 155 ninth ruler, Abu Bakr. He had seized 156 Muhammad b. al-Hakim, the commander of his armies, and had cleaned him out. He got 40 hundredweight of gold dinars and a bushel of precious stones for rings, as well as pearls. He took anamount close to that in carpets from his houses, and a correspondingly large amount of estates and other possessions.

I was in Egypt in the days of al-Malik az-Zahir Abu Sa’id Barquq, who had seized power from the descendants of Qala’un, when he arrested his minister of the interior, the amir Mahmud157 and confiscated his property. The man charged with the confiscation informed me that the amount of gold he cleaned out was 1,600,000 dinars. There was in addition a proportionately large amount of fabrics, riding animals, pack animals, livestock, and (grain) crops.

A 158 person who looks at these (data) should bear in mind the relative (importance) of the various dynasties. He should not reject (data) for which he finds no observable parallels in his own time.

Otherwise, many things that are possible would (be considered impossible by him and) escape his attention. 159 Many excellent men, hearing stories of this kind about past dynasties, have not believed them. This is not right.

The conditions in the world and in civilization are not (always) the same. He who knows a low or medium (level of civilization) does not know all of them. When we consider our information about the ‘Abbasids, the Umayyads, and the ‘Ubaydid(-Fatimids) and when we compare what we know to be sound in it with our own observations of the less important dynasties (of today), then we find a great difference between them.

That difference results from differences in the original strength of (those dynasties) and in the civilizations (of their realms). As we have stated before, all the monuments a dynasty (leaves behind it) are proportionate to the original strength (of that dynasty). We are not entitled to reject any such (information) about them.

Much of it deals with matters that are extremely well known and obvious. Part of it is traditional information known through a continuous tradition. Part of it is direct information based upon personal observation of architectural monuments and other such things.

One should think of the various degrees of strength and weakness, of bigness and smallness, in the various dynasties as they are known through tradition, and compare that (information) with the following interesting story.

In the times of the Merinid Sultan, Abu ‘Inan, a shaykh from Tangier, by name Ibn Battutah, 160 came (back) to the Maghrib. Twenty years before, he had left for the East and journeyed through the countries of the ‘Iraq, the Yemen, and India. He had come to the city of Delhi, the seat of the ruler of India, the Sultan Muhammad Shah,161 (The ruler) esteemed Ibn Battutah highly and employed him as Malikite judge in his domain.

He then returned to the Maghrib and made contact with the Sultan Abu ‘Inan. He used to tell about experiences he had had on his travels and about the remarkable things he had seen in the different realms. He spoke mostly about the ruler of India. He reported things about him that his listeners considered strange.

When the ruler of India went on a trip, he counted the inhabitants of his city, men, women, and children, and ordered that their requirements for (the next) six months be paid them out of his own income. When he returned from his trip and entered (the city), it was a festive day.

All the people went out into the open country and strolled about. In front of (the ruler), in the crowd, mangonels were set up on the backs of pack animals.

From the mangonels, bags of dirhams and dinars were shot out over the people, until the ruler entered his audience hall.

Ibn Battutah told other similar stories, and people in the dynasty (in official positions) whispered to each other that he must be a liar. During that time, one day I met the Sultan’s famous wazir, Faris b. Wadrar.

I talked to him about this matter and intimated to him that I did not believe that man’s stories, because people in the dynasty were in general inclined to consider him a liar. Whereupon the wazir Faris said to me= “Be careful not to reject such information about the conditions ofdynasties, because you have not seen such things yourself.

You would then be like the son of the wazir who grew up in prison. The wazir had been imprisoned by his ruler and remained in prison several years. His son grew up in prison. When he reached the age of reason, he asked his father about the meat which he had been eating.

His father told him that it was mutton, and he asked him what that was.

When his father described a sheep to him in all details, the son said, ‘Father, you mean, it looks like a rat?’

His father was angry with him and said, ‘What has a sheep to do with a rat?’ The same happened later about beef and camel meat. The only animals he had seen in prison were rats, and so he believed that all animals were of the same species as rats.”

People are often incredulous with regard to historical information, just as they exaggerate certain information in order to be able to report something remarkable. Therefore, a person should look at his sources and rely on himself.