Tahqiqāt-e Târix-e Eqtesâdi (Economic History Studies of Iran)

Economic Sanctions against Khurasan, the Dasht-i Qipchaq, and China Based on the Historical Memory of Transoxiana’s Sanctioning: Timur’s Retaliatory Policy during the Ilkhanid Period

Articles in Press

Document Type : .

Author

Maryam Khosroabadi

Assistant Professor of History, Faculty of Law, Political Science and History, Yazd University

10.30465/ehs.2026.54963.2118
Abstract
While some scholars portray Timur as a ruler who prioritized urban development and economic organization—especially in Samarkand and its surrounding areas—this research argues that such a view requires revision. Although Timur governed both Persia and Transoxiana, he did not pursue a uniform economic policy across his empire. While Transoxiana received significant support, many cities south of the Amu Darya faced stagnation.



This article explores this disparity, suggesting that Timur’s focus on Transoxiana was deeply rooted in the historical memory of the region’s economic isolation during the Chinggisid era. To counter this, Timur worked to elevate Transoxiana’s status while deliberately diverting major trade routes away from Iran and the Qipchak Steppe. Consequently, contrary to theories regarding the revival of the “Great Khorasan Road,” this route experienced further decline under Timur. This strategy represented a calculated shift of economic and political power in favor of his native land at the expense of historical Iran.

Keywords

The Great Khorasan Road
Transoxiana
Economic Sanction
Dasht-i Kipchak
Timur’s Economic Policy
Subjects
Tahqiqāt-e Târix-e Eqtesâdi (Economic History Studies of Iran)

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 23 September 2026

  • Receive Date 15 July 2026
  • Revise Date 22 August 2026
  • Accept Date 23 September 2026

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us