Qarachar Noyan

The first historian to question the narratives presented by Timurid histories was Constantine d'Ohsson in 1834, who stated that they were falsified, with the character of Qarachar being an invention due to an apparent lack of mention in the works of Rashid-al-Din Hamadani.[17][18] This assumption was later disproved by Vasily Bartold, who discovered a comment by Hamadani regarding Qarachar. However, he was only described as being one of Chagatai's military chiefs as opposed to an all-powerful vizier, leading to an implication that his position and exploits had been greatly exaggerated.[19] This is a view shared by Yuri Bregel, who adds that there is no evidence that Qarachar enjoyed any special power.[20]

Zeki Velidi Togan attempted to dispute this claim, revealing that early versions of Hamadani's Jami' al-tawarikh contain two mentions of Qarachar's son Ichil, who was stated by the Timurids to have inherited Qarachar's premier position. Togan also states that the general importance of the Barlas among the Chagatai tribes was proved by the influential marriages made by Timur and his sisters prior to the former's ascension.[21] His findings are confirmed by the writings of Jean of Sultaniyya and Clavijo.[22] Beatrice Forbes Manz argues that this does not prove that the Barlas were the most important tribe in the khanate, which is the suggested view of the Timurid histories. Such influence, she states, would have led to marriages between the imperial clan and the Barlas, of which there is no evidence of from the time of Qarachar to Timur.[23] In relation to this, Eiji Mano adds that while he believes that the tribe had a shared origin with Genghis Khan, by Timur's time the Barlas had become relatively unimportant. He further says that Qarachar's position likely did not exceed that of a Majordomo.[24][25][15]

John E. Woods extensively discussed the matter of Timur's ancestry, including Qarachar, and stated his belief that the conqueror had manipulated his genealogy for political means. Woods relates that as a non-member of the imperial clan, Mongol law dictated that Timur was unable to rule under his own name, instead being forced to make use of a puppet-Chagatai Khan. This arrangement was solemnised by the marriages of himself and his sons with Mongol princesses. However, other regional warlords, many of whom were Timur's rivals, also used similar tactics to support their own authority. To justify his own paramountcy being more legitimate, Woods argues that Timur used the genealogical traditions of Qarachar to suggest that he had a hereditary right to govern the khanate. Such a position therefore diminished his opponents to usurpers to the will of Genghis Khan.[26] This view was made clear in Nizam al-din Ali Shami's version of the Zafarnama, which portrays that Timur "revived the house of Chagatai" by enthroning his puppet-Khan, thus vindicating the trust Genghis Khan had placed in Qarachar.[6]

However, Maria Subtelny contends that the exalted position ascribed to Qarachar does in fact have basis in Mongol tradition. She notes that Woods did not take into account that the Yuan Shih, the official history of the Yuan dynasty, specifically mentions that the Barlas belonged to the imperial guard corps, the Kheshig. These corps, which combined the roles of an elite military division, imperial bodyguards and supervisors of the imperial household, were a central institution for the Mongols, under whom the leadership was hereditary. Subtenly suggests that based on the Timurid descriptions of Qarachar's duties under Chagatai Khan, it can be deduced that he would have been the head of the latter's personal division of the Kheshig. She therefore believes that the contingent of Qarachar which had been assigned to Chagatai by Genghis Khan, unspecified in Mongol histories, would have been this division. She further states that since members of the corps were traditionally given administrative roles, this would tie in with the influence in government attributed to Qarachar. Subtenly specifically identifies his position as the yarghuchi (chief judge), given his association with legislative powers mentioned in the Mu'izz al-Ansab. Thus Qarachar's military, administrative and legislative functions would be explained by his positions as yarghuchi and head of the Kheshig. She posits that the Kheshig role is not explicitly acknowledged in Timurid sources because it was a "submerged" institution, finding little mention in post-Mongol Persian works, which instead prefer circumlocutions.[27]

• Bartold, Vasily Vladimirovich (1928), Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion (Second ed.), London: Luzac & Co., ISBN 978-0-906094-00-6
• Bartold, Vasilii Vladimirovitch (1963), Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, 2, Brill Archive
• Binbaş, İlker Evrim (2016), Intellectual Networks in Timurid Iran: Sharaf al-Dīn 'Alī Yazdī and the Islamicate Republic of Letters, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-05424-0
• Boyle, John Andrew (1963), "The Mongol commanders in Afghanistan and India according to the Tabaqāt-i Nāsiri of Jūzjānī'", Islamic Studies, Islamabad: Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University, 2 (2), JSTOR 20832685
• Bregel, Yuri (1982), Marcel Erdal (ed.), "Tribal Tradition and Dynastic History: The Early Rulers of the Qongrats according to Munis", Asian and African Studies, Israel: The Institute of Middle Eastern Studies, University of Haifa, 16 (3)
• Ghiasian, Mohamad Reza (2018), Lives of the Prophets: The Illustrations to Hafiz-i Abru's "Assembly of Chronicles", BRILL, ISBN 978-90-04-37722-6
• Haidar, Mansura (2004), Indo-Central Asian relations: from early times to medieval period, Manohar, ISBN 978-81-7304-508-0
• Keene, H. G. (2001) [1879], The Turks in India (Reprinted ed.), The Minerva Group, Inc., ISBN 978-0-89875-534-3
• Mano, Eiji (1976), "Amir Timur Kuragan – Timur ke no keifu to Timur no tachiba", Toyosho-Kenkyu, 34 (4)
• Manz, Beatrice Forbes (1999), The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-63384-0
• d'Ohsson, Constantin Mouradgea (1834), Histoire des Mongols, 2, The Hague: Les Frères van Cleef
• Sneath, David (2007), The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, & Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia, Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-14054-6
• Subtelny, Maria (2007), Timurids in Transition: Turko-Persian Politics and Acculturation in Medieval Iran, BRILL, ISBN 978-90-04-16031-6
• Togan, Zeki Velidi (1955), S. M. Abdullah (ed.), "Tahqiq-i nasab-i Amir Timur", Professor Mohamed Shafi Presentation Volume, Lahore
• Woods, John E. (1990), Martin Bernard Dickson; Michel M. Mazzaoui; Vera Basch Moreen (eds.), "Timur's Genealogy", Intellectual Studies on Islam: Essays Written in Honor of Martin B. Dickson, University of Utah Press, ISBN 978-0-87480-342-6CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
• Woods, John E. (1991), The Timurid dynasty, Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies