shah empire city turkish asia afterwards time arslan malik minor
SELINUS (E€Xtvoi33), one of the most important of the Greek colonies in Sicily, near the rivers Hypsas and Selinus on the south-west coast, was founded, probably about 628 B.C., by colonists from Megara Hybla in the east of Sicily and others from the parent city of Megara on the Saronic Gulf of Greece (see Thuc., vi. 4, vii. 57, and Strabo, vi. p. 272). The name of the city and the little river (see H in fig.) on which it stands was derived from the wild parsley (0-acvov) which grew there in abundance (comp. vol. xvii. p. 639). Many autonomous coins of Selinus exist, dating from the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. The tetradrachms have on the obverse a youth, representing the river Selinus, sacrificin,g at an altar,' and, in the field, a parsley leaf, - legend, EEA1NOE ; on the reverse, Apollo and Artemis in a biga, - legend, EEAINONTION (retrograde). Didrachms have a similar obverse with the river Hypsas, - legend, HYTAE ; reverse, Heracles slaying a bull, - legend, MAINONTION. As early as 580 B.C. the citizens of Selinus were at war with the adjoining people of Segesta, a non-Hellenic race who occupied the province north of Selinus ; the success of the Segestans on this occasion was mainly owing to aid given them by colonists from Rhodes and Cnidus. Little is known about the early history of Selinus ; but the city evidently grew rapidly in wealth and importance, and soon extended its borders 15 miles west-wards to the river Mazarus and eastwards as far as the Halycus (Diod., xiii. 54 ; Herod., v. 46). Thucydides (vi. 20) mentions its power and wealth and especially the rich treasures in its temples. From its early oligarchical form of government Selinus passed to a short-lived despotism under the tyrant Pithagoras who was deposed soon after 510 B.C. In 480 B.c., when the barthaginian Hamilcar invaded Sicily, the city took his side against their fellow Hellenes. In 416 B.C. a new dispute Jpetween Selinus and Segesta was eventu-ally the cause of the fatal Athenian expedition against Sicily, the Athenians acting as allies of Segesta and the Syracusans as allies of Selinus. The conclusion of this expedition (see SYRACUSE) left Segesta. at the mercy of the Selinuntines, whose rapacity and cruelty soon brought about their own destruction, through the aid which the Segestans obtained from Carthage. In 409 B.C. Hannibal, with an overwhelm-ing force, took and destroyed the city, the walls of which were razed to the ground. He killed about 16,000 of the inhabitants, took 5000 prisoners, and only a remnant of 2600 escaped to Agrigentum (Diod., xiii. 54-59). The sur-vivors were afterwards allowed to return and to rebuild Selinus as a city subject to the Carthaginians, under whose yoke, in spite of their attempts to regain freedom, the Selinuntines remained till c. 250, the close of the First Punic War ; after this the Carthaginians transferred the inhabitants of Selinus to Lilybum, and completely de-stroyed the city (Diod. xxiv.). It was never rebuilt, and is mentioned by Strabo (vi. p. 272) as being one of the extinct cities of Sicily.2 The ancient city occupied two elevated plateaus at the edge of the sea and also part of the surrounding plain. The western of these elevations formed the acropolis ; on the other was the agora. The walls of the acropolis can still be traced round the whole cir-cuit ; the only entrance was on the north-east. Remains also exist of long walls connecting the city and its port. The chief glory of Selinus was its double group of great temples, - three on the acropolis and three in the agora, one of which was the largest peripteral temple in. the world. All are completely ruined, but the materials of each still remain almost perfect, though scattered in confused heaps of stone ; the extraordinary completeness of these fragments is owing to the fact that the site has never been occupied since the final transference of the inhabitants in 250 me., and thus the scattered blocks have never been taken as materials for later structures. Of all the six temples3 none are later than the 5th century B.C., and those ou the acropolis probably date from about 628 B.C., soon after the first settlement. The sculptured metopes from three of the temples are among the most important examples of early Hellenic art (see ARCILEOLOGY, V01. p. 349, and Beun-dorf, Die Irletopen von Selinunt). The buildings themselves are of the highest interest, being the earliest known examples of the Doric style, and differing in many important details from all other examples, even such early ones as the temples at Corinth aud Syracuse.
The three temples on the acropolis (A, C, D in fig.) stand side by side, with their axes north-west to south-east ; all are hexastyle and peripteral, with either thirteen or fourteen columns on the sides.
Their stylobates have four high steps along the sides, with an easier approach of more steps at the north-west fronts. To the middle one of the three belong the very archaic metopes described in vol.
p. 349. All have a rather narrow cella with pronaos and opisthodo-mus. Their archaic pecu-liarities are the rapid di-minution of the columns, the absence of entasis, the narrow mutules over the metopes, and especially a curious cavetto or neck-ing under the usual hypo-trachelia. No other ex-ample of this feature was known till 1884, when Dr Schliemann and Dr Dorpfeld discovered a similar Doric capital among the ruins of the citadel of Tiryns. The Tiryns capital dates probably from a little before 600 B.C. and appears to be nearly contemporary with that at Selinus. Between temples A and C are remains of a small prostyle tetrastyle redicula (B) of the Doric order.* The second group of three Doric temples (E, F, G) belongs to a rather later date, - probably 500 to 440 33.c. The first two (E and F) have very narrow cellm, so that they are pseudo-dipteral. They also are hexastyle, with fourteen columns on the sides. Though still early in detail, they are without the curious necking of the acropolis temples. The sculptured metopes of temple E are of extraordinary beauty and interest, and appear to date from the finest period of Greek art - the age of Phidias or perhaps that of Myron. The chief subjects are Zeus and Hera on Mount Olympus, Artemis and Actaeon, and Heracles defeating au Amazon. They are of the noblest style, simple and highly sculp-turesque in treatment, and full of grace and expression. One remarkable peculiarity in their technique is that the nude parts of the female figures (heads, feet, and hands) are executed in white marble, while the rest of the reliefs are in the native grey tufa, which originally was covered with marble-dust stucco and then painted. The whole of the stonework of all the temples was treated in a similar way, and gives most valuable examples of early Greek coloured decoration. Recent excavations at Selinus have shown that in many cases the cornices and other architectural features were covered with moulded slabs of terra cotta, all richly coloured (see Diirpfeld, Die Vcricendung von Terracolien, Berlin, 1881, and TERRACOTTA). The great temple of Zeus' (G in fig.) was the largest peripteral temple of the whole Hellenic world, being almost exactly the same size as the enormous pseudo - peripteral Olympe•eum at the neighbouring Agrigentum. It was octastyle, pseudodipteral, with seventeen columns on the sides, and measures 360 by 162 feet; the columns are 10 feet 7i inches at the base and were 48 feet 7 inches high. This gigantic building was never quite completed, though the whole of the main .structure was built. Most of the columns still remain unfluted. In spite of the proportional narrowness of its cella, it had an internal range of columns, probably two orders high, like those within the cella at Paestum. The axes of these last three temples have exactly the same inclination as those on the acropolis. The great temple of Zeus possesses some of the curious archaisms of the acropolis temples, and, though never completed, it was probably designed and begun at an earlier date than the two adjacent buildings. These peculiarities are the ungracefully rapid diminution of the shaft and the cavetto under the necking of the capitals. The whole of these six massive build. ings now he in a complete state of ruin, a work of evidently wilful destruction on the part of the Carthaginians, as the temple at Segesta, not many miles distant, has still every column and its whole entablature quite perfect ; so it is impossible to suppose that an earthquake was the cause of the utter ruin at Selinus. Few or no marks of Sre are visible on the stone blocks. (J. H. M.) SELJUliS is the name of several Turkish dynasties, issued from one family, which reigned over large parts of Asia in the 1 1 tb, 12th, and 13th centuries of our era. The history of the Seljuks forms the first part of the history of the Turkish empire. Proceeding from the deserts of Turkestan, the Seljaks reached the Hellespont; but this barrier was crossed and a European power founded by the Ottomans (Osmanli). The Seljas inherited the traditions and at the same time the power of the previous Arabian empire, of which, when they made their appearance, only the shadow remained in the person of the 'Abbasid caliph of Baghdad. It is their merit from a Mohammedan point of view to have re-established the power of orthodox Islam and delivered the Moslem world from the supremacy of the caliph's Shiite competitors, the Fatimites of Egypt, and from the subversive influence of ultra-Shiite tenets, which constituted a serious danger to the duration of Islam itself. Neither had civilization anything to fear from them, since they represented a strong neutral power, which made the intimate union of Persian and Arabian elements possible, almost at the expense of the national Turkish, - literary monuments in that language being during the whole period of the Seljnk rule exceedingly rare.
The first Seljak rulers were Toghrul Beg, Chair Beg, and Ibrahim Niyal, the sons of Mikail, the son of Seljak, the son of Tukik (also styled TimaryililF, " iron bow "). They belonged to the Turkish tribe of the Ghuzz (0i5CoL of Const. Porphyr. and the Byzantine writers), which traced its lineage to Oghuz, the famous eponymic hero not only of this but of all Turkish tribes. There arose, however, at some undefined epoch a strife on the part of this tribe and some others with the rest of the Turks, because, as the latter allege, Ghuzz, the son (or grandson) of Yafeth (Japhet), the son of Nii4 (Noah), had stolen the genuine rain-stone, which Turk, also a son of Yafeth, had inherited from his father. By this party, as appears from this tradition, the Ghuzz were not considered to be genuine Turks, but to be Turkmans (that is, according to a popular etymology, resembling Turks). But the native tradition of the Ghuzz was unquestionably right, as they spoke a pure Turkish dialect. The fact, hOwever, remains that there existed a certain animosity between the Ghuzz and their allies and the rest of the Turks, which increased as the former became converted to Islam (in the course of the 4th century of the Flight). The Ghuzz were settled at that time in Transoxiana, especially at Jand, a wellknown city on the banks of the Jaxartes, not far from its mouth. Some of them served in the armies of the Ghaznavids Sebuktegin and Mabiund (997-1030); but the Seljaks, a royal family among them, had various relations with the reigning princes of Transoxiana and Kharizm, which cannot be narrated here.2 But, friends or foes, the Ghuzz became a serious danger to the adjoining Mohammedan provinces from their predatory habits and continual raids, and the more so as they were very numerous. It may suffice to mention that, under the leadership of Israil or Pigu Arslan, they crossed the Oxus and spread over the eastern provinces of Persia, everywhere plundering and destroying. The imprisonment of this chieftain by Mas'nd, the son and successor of Maljmud, was of no avail : it only furnished his nephews with a ready pretext to cross the Oxus likewise in arms against the Ghaznavids. We pass over their first conflicts and the unsuccessful agreements that were attempted, to mention the decisive battle near Mery (1040), in which Mas'ad was totally defeated and driven back to Ghazna (Ghazni). Persia now lay open to the victors, who proclaimed themselves independent at Mery (which became from that time the official capital of the principal branch of the SeljUks), and acknowledged Toghrul Beg as chief of the whole family. After this victory the three princes Toghrul Beg, Chakir Beg, and Ibrahim Niyal separated in different directions and conquered the Mohammedan provinces east of the Tigris ; the last-named, after conquering Hamadan and the province of Jebel, penetrated as early as 1048, with fresh Ghuzz troops, into Armenia and reached Melazkerd, Erzernin (Erzeroum), and Trebizond. This excited the jealousy of Toghrul Beg, who summoned him to give up Hamadan and the fortresses of Jebel ; but Ibrahim refused, and the progress of the Seljakian arms was for some time checked by internal discord, - an ever-recurring event in their history. Ibrahim was, however, compelled to submit.
At this time the power of the 'Abbasid caliph of Baghdad (Al-liaim bi-amr illah) was reduced to a mere shadow, as the Shiite dynasty of the Bayids and afterwards his more formidable Fatimite rivals had left him almost wholly destitute of authority. The real ruler at Baghdad was a Turk named Basasiri, lieutenant of the last Bayid, Al-Malik ar-Rahim. Nothing could, therefore, be more acceptable to the caliph than the protection of the orthodox Toghrul Beg, whose name was read in the official prayer (khotba) as early as 1050. At the end of the same year the Seljtik entered the city and after a tumult seized the person of Malik ar-Rabint. Basasiri had the good fortune to be out of his reach ; after acknowledging the right of the Fatimites, he gathered fresh troops and incited Ibrahim Niyal to rebel again, and be succeeded so far that he re-entered Baghdad at the close of 1058. The next year, however, Toghrul Beg got rid of both his antagonists, Ibrahim being taken prisoner and strangled with the bowstring, -while Basasirf fell in battle. Toghrul Beg now re-entered Baghdad, re-established the caliph, and was betrothed to his daughter, but died before the consummation of the nuptials (September 1063). Alp Arslan, the son of Chakir Beg, succeeded his uncle and extended the rule of his family beyond the former frontiers. He made himself master, e.g., of the important city of Aleppo ; and during his reign a Turkish emir, Atsiz, wrested Palestine and Syria from the hands of the Fatimites. Nothing, however, added more to his fame than his successful expeditions against the Greeks, especially that of 1071, in which the Greek emperor Romanus Diogenes was taken prisoner and forced to ransom himself for a.
large sum. The foundation of the Seljtik empire of Rum (Asia Minor, see below) was the immediate result of this great victory. Alp Arshin afterwards undertook an expedition against Turkestan, and met with his death at the hands of a captured chief, Jusof Barzami, whom he had intended to shoot with his own hand.
Malik Shah, the son and successor of Alp Arsfan, had to encounter his uncle littwurd, founder of the Selkikian empire of Kerman (see below), who claimed to succeed Alp Arslan in accordance with the Turkish laws, and led his troops towards Hamadan. However, he lost the battle that ensued, and the bowstring put an end to his life (1073). Malik Shah regulated also the affairs of Asia Minor and Syria, conceding the latter province as an hereditary fief to his brother Tutush, who established himself at Damascus and killed Atsiz. He, however, like his father Alp Arslan, was indebted for his greatest fame to the wise and salutary measures of their vizier, Nizam al-Mulk. This extraordinary man, associated by tradition with 'OMAR KHAYYAM (q.v.), the well-known mathematician and freethinking poet, and with Hasan b. Sabbei.h, afterwards the founder of the Ismaelites or Assassins, was a renowned author and statesman of the first rank, and immortalized his name by the foundation of several universities (the Nizamiyah at Baghdad), observatories, mosques, hospitals, and other institutions of public utility. At his instigation the calendar was revised and a new era, dating from the reign of Malik Shah and known as the Jelalian, was introduced. Not quite forty days before the death of his master this great man was murdered by the Ismaelites. He had fallen into disfavour shortly before because of his unwillingness to join in the intrigues of the princess Turkan Khatun, who wished to secure the succession to the throne for her infant son Mahmdd at the expense of the elder sons of Malik Shah.
Constitution and Govern?neat of the Self* Empire. - It has been already observed that the Seljuks considered themselves the de- fenders of the orthodox faith and of the 'Abbasid caliphate, while they on their side represented the temporal power which received its titles and sanction from the successor of the Prophet. All the members of the Seljuk house had the same obligations in this respect, but they had not the same rights, as one of them occupied relatively to the others a place almost analogous to that of the great khan of the Mongols in later times. This position was inherited from father to son, though the old Turkish idea of the rights of the elder brother often caused rebellions and violent family disputes. After the death of Malik Shah the head of the family was not strong enough to enforce obedience, and consequently the central government broke up into several independent dynasties. Within the limits of these minor dynasties the same rules were observed, and the same may be said of the hereditary fiefs of Turkish emirs not belonging to the royal family, who bore ordinarily the title of atabek (properly "father bey"), e.g., the atabeks of Fars, of Adharbaijan (Azerbijan), of Syria, &c. The title was first given to Nizam al-Mulk and expressed the relation in which he stood to the prince, - as lala, "tutor." The affairs of state were managed by the divan under the presidency of the vizier ; but in the empire of Rime its authority was inferior to that of the pervdn,e1a, whom we may name "lord chancellor." In Ram the feudal system was extended to Christian princes, who were acknowledged by the sultan on condition of paying tribute and serving in the armies. The court dignitaries and their titles were manifold ; not less manifold were the royal prerogatives, in which the sultans followed the example set by their predecessors, the Bnyids.
Notwithstanding the intrigues of Turkan Khatiin, Malik Shah was succeeded by his elder son Barkiyarok (1092- 1104), whose short reign was a series of rebellions and strange adventures such as one may imagine in the story of a youth who is by turns a powerful prince and a miserable fugitive.1 Like his brother Mohammed (110.1-1118), formidable political power by the organization of bands of fidthvi8, who were always ready, even at the sacrifice of their own lives, to murder any one whom they were commanded to slay (see ASSASSINS).
Mohammed had been successful by the aid of his brother Sinjar, who from the year 1097 held the province of Khorasan with the capital Merv. After the death of Mohammed Sinjar became the real head of the family, though 'Irak acknowledged Mahmnd, the son of Mohammed. Thus there originated a separate dynasty of `Irak with its capital at Hamadan ; but Sinjar during his long reign often interfered in the affairs of the new dynasty, and every occupant of the throne had to acknowledge his supremacy. In 1117 he led an expedition against Ghazna and bestowed the throne upon Behram Shah, who was also obliged to mention Sinjar's name first in the official prayer at the Ghaznavid capital, - a prerogative that neither Alp Arslan nor Malik Shah had attained. In 1134 Behram Shah failed in this obligation and brought on himself a-fresh invasion by Sinjar in the midst of winter ; a third one took place in 1152, caused by the doings of the Ghurids (Husain Jihansnz, or " world-burner "). Other expeditions were undertaken by him against Kharizm and Turkestan ; the government of the former had been given by Barkiyarok to Mohammed b. Anushtegin, who was succeeded in 1128 by his son Atsiz, and against him Sinjar marched in 1138. Though victorious in this war, Sinjar could not hinder Atsiz from afterwards joining the gurkhan (great khan) of the then rapidly rising empire of the Karachitai, at whose hands the Seljnk suffered a terrible defeat at Samarkand in 1141. By the invasion of these hordes several Turkish tribes, the Ghuzz and others, were driven beyond the Oxus, where they killed the Selja governor of Balkh, though they professed to be loyal to Sinjar. Sinjar resolved to punish this crime; but his troops deserted and he himself was taken prisoner by the °buzz, who kept him in strict confinement during two years (1153-55), though treating him with all outward marks of respect. In the meantime they plundered and destroyed the flourishing cities of Mery and Nishapnr ; and when Sinjar, after his escape from captivity, revisited the site of his capital be fell sick of sorrow and grief and died soon afterwards (1157). His empire fell to the Karachitai and afterwards to the shah of Kharizm. Of the successors of Mohammed in 'Irak we give only the names with the date of the death of each : - Mahmtid (1131); Toghrul, son of Mohammed, proclaimed by Sinjar (1134) ; Mas`nd (1152) ; Malik Shah and Mohammed (1159), sons of Mahmnd ; Sulaiman Shah, their brother (1161); Arslan, son of Toghrul (1175); and Toghrul, son of Arslan, killed in 1194 by Inanej, son of his atabek, Mohammed, who was in confederation with the Kharizm shah of the epoch, Takash. This chief inherited his possessions ; Toghrul was the last representative of the Seljnks of 'Irak.
The province of Kerman was one of the first conquests of the Seljnks, and became the hereditary fief of IS.-6.wurd, the son of Chakir Beg. Mention has been made of his war with Malik Shah and of his ensuing death (1073). Nevertheless his descendants were left in possession of their ancestor's dominions ; and till 1170 Kerman, to which belonged also the opposite coast of 'Oman, enjoyed a well-ordered government, except for a short interruption caused by the deposition of Iran Shah, who had embraced the tenets of the Ismaelites, and was put to death (1101) in accordance with a fatwa of the ulema. But after the death of Toghrul Shah (1170) his three sons disputed with each other for the possession of the throne, and implored foreign assistance, till the country became utterly devastated and fell an easy prey to some bands of Gliuzz, who, under the leadership of Malik Dinar (1185), marched into Kerman after harassing Sinjar's dominions. Afterwards the shahs of Kharizm took this province.' The Seljalfian dynasty of Syria came to an end after three generations, and its later history is interwoven with that of the crusaders. The first prince was Tutush, men-tioned above, who perished, after a reign of continuous fighting, in battle against BarkiyarolF near Rai (1095). Of his two sons, the elder, Ridhwan, established himself at Aleppo (died 1113); the younger, Du44, took possession of Damascus, and died in 1103. The sons of the former, Alp Arslam and Sultan Shah, reigned a short time nomi-nally, though the real power wa-s exercised by Dila till 1117. We cannot, however, enter here into the very complicated history of these two cities, which changed their masters almost every year till the time of Zengi and NAr ed-din.
After the great victory of Alp Arslan in which the Greek emperor was taken prisoner (1071), Asia Minor lay open to the inroads of the Turks. Hence it was easy for Sulaiman, the son of Kutulmish,2 the son of Arslan Pfgu (Israil), to penetmte as far as the Hellespont, the more so as after the captivity of Romanus, two rivals, Nicephorus Bryennius in Asia and another Nicephorus named Botoniates in Europe, disputed the throne with one another. The former ap-pealed to Sulaiman for assistance, and was by his aid brought to Constantinople and seated on the imperial throne. But the possession of Asia Minor was insecure to the SeljOs as long as the important city of Antioch belonged to the Greeks, so that we may date the real foundation of this Seljt* empire from the taking of that city by the treason of its commander Philaretus in 1084, who afterwards became a vassal of the Seljalp. The con-quest involved Sulaiman in war with the neighbouring Mohammedan princes, and he met his death soon after-wards (1086), near Shaizar, in a battle against Tutush. Owing to these family discords the decision of 3lalik Shah was necessary to settle the affairs of Asia Minor and Syria ; he kept the sons of Sulaiman in captivity, and committed the war against the unbelieving Greeks to his generals Bursul (Hpoo-ovx) and Buz6.n (IlovCavos). Barki-yarcN, however, on his accession (1092), allowed Kilig Arslan, the son of Sulaiman, to return to the dominions of his father. Acknowledged by the Turkish emirs of Asia Minor, he took up his residence in Nima, and defeated the first bands of crusaders under Walter the Penniless and others (1096); but, on the arrival of Godfrey of Bouillon and his companions, he was prudent enough to leave his capital in order to attack them as they were besieging Nima. He suffered, however, two defeats in the vicinity, and Nima surrendered on 23d June 1097. As the cru-saders marched by way of Dorylmum and Iconium towards Antioch, the Greeks subdued the Turkish emirs resid-ing at Smyrna, Ephesus, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, Lampes, and Polybotus ;3 and Kilig Arslan, with his Turks, retired to the north-eastern parts of Asia Minor, to act with the Turkish emirs of Sivas (Sebaste), known under the name of the Danishmand.
The history of the dynasty of the Danishmand is still very ob-scure, notwithstanding the efforts of Mordtmann, Schlumberger, Kambaiek, Sallet, and others to fix some chronological details, and it is almost impossible to harmonize the different statements of the Armenian, Syriac, Greek, and Western chronicles with those of the Arabic, Persian, and Turkish. The coins are few in nurnber, very difficult to decipher, and often without date. The founder of the dynasty was a certain Tailu, who is said to have been a schoolmaster (danishmand), probably because he understood Arabic and Persian. His descendants, therefore, took the style of " Ibn Danishmand," often without their own name. They took possession of Sivas, Toktit, Siesta, Ablastin, Malatieli, probably after the death of Sulaimtin, though they may have established thezu-selves iu one or more of these cities much earlier, perhaps in 1071, after the defeat of Romanus Diogenes. During the first crusade the reigning pima was Kumuslitegin (Ahmed Glifizi), who defeated the Franks and took prisoner the prince of Antioch, Bohemond, afterwards ransomed. He died probably iu 1106, aud was succeeded by his sou Mohammed (d. 1143), after whom reigned Jaghi Bastin ; but it is very probable that other members of the same dynasty reigned at the same time in the cities already named, and in some others, e.g., Kastamuni.
Afterwards there arose a natural rivalry between the Seljul.s and the Danishmand, which ended with the ex-tinction of the latter about 1175. Kilig Arslan took possession of 3losul in 1107, and declared himself independ-ent of the Seljns of (Iralg ; but in the same year he was drowned in the Chaboras through the treachery of his own emirs, and the dynasty seemed again destined to decay, as his sons were in the power of his enemies. The sultan Mohammed, however, set at liberty his eldest son Malik Shah, who reigned for some time, until he was trea,cher-ously murdered (it- is not quite certain by whom), being succeeded by his brother 31as'lld, who established himself at Konieh (Iconium), from that time the residence of the Seljtilp of Rim. During his reign - he died in 1155 - the Greek emperors undertook various expeditions in Asia Minor and Armenia ; but the Seljtil was cunning enough to profess himself their ally and to direct them against his own enemies. Nevertheless the Seljaian dominion was petty and unimportant and did not rise to significance till his son and successor, Kilig Arslan II., had subdued the Danishmands and appropriated their possessions, though he thereby risked the Nvrath of the powerful atabek of Syria, Nur ed-din, and afterwards that of the still more powerful Saladin. But as the sultan grew old his numerous sons, who held each the command of a city of the empire, embittered his old age by their mutual rivalry, and the eldest, Kotb ed-dfn, tyrannized over his father in his own capital, exactly at the time that Frederick I. (Barbarossa) entered his dominions on his way to the Holy Sepulchre (1190). Konieh itself was taken and the sultan forced to provide guides and provisions for the crusaders. Kilig Arslin lived two years longer, finally under the protection of his youngest son, Kaikhosrau, who held the capital after him (till 1199) until his elder brother, Rokn ed-dfn Sulaiman, after having vanquished his other brothers, ascended the throne and obliged Kaikhosrau to seek refuge at the Greek emperor's court. This valiant prince saved the empire from destruction and conquered Erzeriim, which had been ruled during a considerable time by a separate dynasty, and was now given in fief to his brother, Mughft ed-din Toghrul Shah. But, marching thence against the Georgians, Sulaiman's troops suffered a terrible defeat ; after this Sulaiman set out to subdue his brother Mas`lid Shah, at Angora, who was finally taken prisoner and treacherously murdered. This crime is regarded by Orien-tal authors as the reason of the premature death of the sultan (in 1204); but it is more probable that he was murdered because he displeased the Mohammedan clergy, who accused him of atheism. His son, Kilig Arslan III., was soon deposed by Kaikhosrau (who returned), assisted by the Greek Maurozomes, whose daughter he had married in exile. He ascended the throne the same y-ear in which the Latin empire was established in Constantinople, a cir-cumstance highly favourable to the Turks, who were the natural allies of the Greeks (Theodore Lascaris) and the enemies of the crusaders and their allies, the Armenians. Kaikhosmu, therefore, took in 1207 from the Italian Aldobmndini the important harbour of Attalia (Adalia); but his conquests in this direction were put an end to by his attack upon Lascaris, for in the battle that ensued he perished in single combat with his royal antagonist (1211).
His son and successor, Kaiktivas, made peace with Lascaris and extended his frontiers to the Black Sea by the con-quest of Sinope (1214). On this occasion he was fortunate enough to take prisoner the Comnenian prince (Alexis) who ruled the independent empire of Trebizond, and he compelled him to purchase his liberty by acknowledging the supremacy of the Seljalp, by paying tribute, and by serving in the armies of the sultan. Elated by this great success and by his victories over the Armenians, Kaikavas was induced to attempt the capture of the important city of Aleppo, at this time governed by the descendants of Saladin ; but the affair miscarried. Soon afterwards the sultan died (1219) and was succeeded by his brother, Ala ed-dfn Kaikobad, the most powerful and illustrious prince of this branch of the Seljalp, renowned not only for his successful wars but also for his magnificent structures at Konieh, Alaja, Sivas, and elsewhere, which belong to the best specimens of Saracenic architecture. The town of Alaja was the creation of this sultan, as previously there existed on that site only the fortress of Candelor, at that epoch in the possession of an Armenian chief, who was expelled by Kaikobad, and shared the fate of the Armenian and Frankish knights who possessed the fortresses along the coast of tbe Mediterranean as far as Selefke (Seleucia). Kaikobad extended his rule as far as this city, and desisted from further conquest only on condition that the Armenian princes would enter into the same kind of relation to the Seljalp as had been imposed on the Comnenians of Trebi-zond. But his greatest military fame was won by a war which, however glorious, was to prove fatal to the Seljal empire in the future : in conjunction with his ally, the Eyyabid prince Al-Ashraf, he defeated the Kharizm shah Jelal ed-din near Arzengan (1230). This victory removed the only barrier that checked the progress of the Mongols. During this war Kaikobad put an end to the collateral dynasty of the Seljillp of Erzeriim and annexed its pos-sessions. He also gained the city of Khelat with depend-encies that in former times had belonged to the Shah-i-Armen, but shortly before had been taken by Jelal ed-dfn ; this aggression was the cause of the war just mentioned. The acquisition of Khelat led, however, to a new war, as Kaikobad's ally, the Eyyabid prince, envied him this conquest. Sixteen Mohammedan princes, mostly Eyyabids, of Syria and Mesopotamia, under the leadership of Al-Malik al-Kamil, prince of Egypt, marched with considerable forces into Asia Minor against him. Happily for Kaiko-bad, the princes mistrusted the power of the Egyptian, and it proved a difficult task to penetrate through the mountainous well-fortified accesses to the interior of Asia Minor, so that the advantage rested with Kaikobad, who took Kharput, and for some time even held Harran, Ar-Roha, and RalFla (1232). The latter conquests were, however, soon lost, and Kaikobad himself died in 1234 of poison administered to him by his son and successor, Ghiyats ed-din Kaikhosrau II. This unworthy son in-herited from his father an empire embracing almost the whole of Asia Minor, with the exception of the countries governed by Vatatzes (Vataees) and the Christian princes of Trebizond and Lesser Armenia, who, however, were bound to pay tribute and to serve in the aruaies, - an empire celebrated by contemporary reports for its wealth.' But the Turkish soldiers were of little use in a regular battle, and the sultan relied mainly on his Christian troops, so much so that an insurrection of dervishes which occurred at this period could only be put down by their assistance. It was at this epoch also that there flourished at Konieh the greatest mystical poet of Islam, and the founder of the order of the Mawlawis, Jelal ed-din Rami (d. 1273 ; see Rami), and that the dervish fraternities spread throughout the whole country and became power-ful bodies, often discontented with the liberal principles of the sultans, who granted privileges to the Christian merchants and held frequent intercourse with them. Not-withstanding all this, the strength and reputation of the empire were so great that the biongols hesitated to invade it, although standing at its frontiers. But, as they crossed the border, Kaikhosrau marched against them, and suffered a formidable defeat at Kuzadag (between Arzengan and Sivas) in 1243, which forced him to purchase peace by the promise of a heavy tribute. The independence of the Seljalcs was now for ever lost. The Mongols retired for some years ; but, Kaikhosrau dying in 1245, the joint government of his three sons gave occasion to fresh in-roads, till one of them died and Hulagu divided the empire between the other two, `Izz ed-clin ruling the dis-tricts west of the Halys and Rokn ed-din the eastern provinces (1259). But the former, intriguing with the Mameluke sultans of Eg,ypt to expel his brother and gain his independence, was defeated by a Mongol army and obliged to flee to the imperial court. Here he was im-prisoned, but afterwards released by the Tatars of the Crimea, who took him with them to Sarai, where he died. Rokn ed-din was only a nominal ruler, the real power being in the hands of his pervaneh, Mufti ed-dfn Sulaiman, who in 1267 procured an order of the Mongol Khan Abaka for his execution. The minister raised his infant son, Ghiyats ed-din Kaikhosrau III., to the throne, and governed the country for ten years longer, till he was entangled in a conspiracy of several emirs, who proposed to expel the Mongols with the aid of the Mameluke sultan of Egypt (Beybars or Bibars). The latter marched into Asia Minor and defeated the Mongols in the bloody battle of Ablastan (1277); but, when he advanced farther to Ccesarea, the pervaneh retired, hesitating to join him at the very moment of action. Beybars, therefore, in his turn fell back, leaving the pervaneh to the vengeance of the khan, who soon discovered his treason and ordered a barbarous execution. Ghiyats ed-din continued to reign in name till 1284, though the country was in reality governed by a 14f ongol viceroy. Mas'ad, the son of `Izz ed-dfn, who on the death of his father had fled from the Crimea to the Mongol khan and had received from him the government of Sivas, Arzengan, and Erzeram during the lifetime of Chiyats ed-dfn, ascended the SelA throne on the death of Ghiyats. But his authority was scarcely respected in his own residence, for several Turkish emirs assumed independence and could only be subdued by Mongol aid, when they retired to the mountains, to re-appear as soon as the Mongols were gone. Mas'ad fell, probably about 1295, a victim to the vengeance of one of the emirs, whose father he had ordered to be put to death. After him Kaikobad, son of his brother Faramarz, entered Konieh as sultan in 1298, but hi,s reign is so obscure that nothing can be said of it ; some authors assert that he governed only till 1300, others till 1315. With him ended the dynasty of the Seljalp ; but the Turkish empire founded by them continued to exist under the rising dynasty of the Ottomans. (See TURKEY.) Bibliography. - The best, though insufficient, account of the Sel-jiiks is still De Guignes, Histoire Gindrale des Huns, bks.
froin whom Gibbon borrowed his dates. Among translations from original sources (of which the most trustworthy are yet unedited), comp. Mirkhond's Geschichte der Seldschuken (ed. Vullers), Giessen, 1838; Tarikh-i Guzicich, French translation by Defremery in the Journal Asiatique, 1848, i. 417 sq., ii. 259 sq., 334 sq. ; Seid Locmani, ex Libro Tunica qui Oghuzname inscribitur Excerpta (ed. J. H. W. Lagns), Helsingfors, 1854 (on the Seljill:s of Asia Minor exclusively, but of little value). Information respecting certain periods is given incidentally in the well-known works of Von Hammer and D'Ohsson. (M. T. H.)