Share Story
AMMAN — Faced with a formidable threat from the East, Pope Innocent IV dispatched an embassy to the Tatars, led by the Roman Catholic diplomat Simon of Saint Quentin. After months of arduous travel and numerous setbacks, the envoys were received at the headquarters of Baiju, a prominent Mongol commander.
However, tensions soon escalated due to the papal ambassadors’ insistence on the supremacy of Pope Innocent IV among Christians, alongside their refusal to acknowledge the authority of Güyük Khan, the Great Khan of the Mongol Empire.
Stephen Pow, a Canadian historian, explained: “A further refusal to show Baiju, the Great Khan’s representative, the customary respect of kneeling caused extreme offence to the Mongols. Baiju intended to execute the Dominicans, but his wrath was eventually tempered by the persuasion of a close associate and his senior wife.”
Following the refusal by Ascelin, one of the friars, to continue the journey to meet Güyük Khan personally, the Dominicans were detained at Baiju’s headquarters for two months. They were only released after the arrival of ArghunAqa, appointed by Güyük as fiscal administrator of Georgia. Arghun brought Baiju’s approval to demand the submission of all “rebellious” peoples on behalf of the Khan.
The mission’s most perilous moment came on the first day when the friars met Baiju’s courtiers in Sisian, Armenia. According to Pow, “The friars immediately offended the Mongols by ignoring their customs. They insulted the Khan and Baiju by claiming ignorance of them. They declared the Pope the greatest ruler on Earth and failed to offer gifts, a customary diplomatic gesture, instead simply handing over the Pope’s letters. They refused to bow to Baiju and even urged him to convert to Christianity if he wished to receive their respect.”
Baiju reportedly declared three times that the friars should be put to death. Fortunately for them, a guest-reception officer intervened, threatening to flee to Mongolia and report Baiju as a criminal, recalling the Khan’s fury the last time an ambassador was killed. Baiju’s wife also dissuaded him, warning that future emissaries would avoid his camp, resulting in the loss of valuable gifts.
“The death sentence was cancelled, but the friars remained half-starved with the Mongol army for two months,” Pow said. “After ArghunAqa’s arrival, they received a letter from Baiju and a message from Güyük Khan, which they memorised before being allowed to leave.”
The detailed descriptions of regions such as Georgia, Armenia, and the Seljuk Empire (part of the Levant) in the friars’ report were drawn from their own experiences and information Simon of Saint Quentin gathered at Baiju’s headquarters. The Dominicans departed on 25 July 1247, carrying Baiju’s response to Innocent IV, which demanded that the Pope personally submit himself at Baiju’s camp.
“They also carried a Latin translation of Güyük Khan’s letter addressed to Baiju, endorsing his authority to demand submission from all unconquered peoples,” Pow noted. The Dominicans returned accompanied by two of Baiju’s envoys, Aybeg and Sargis. The group made a detour to Tabriz to present a Papal bull to Simeon, also known as Rabban-ata, appointed by Ögödei Khan as superintendent of Christians in the South Caucasus.
From Tabriz, the friars travelled through Anatolia, pausing in Konya, where they learned of a recent miracle involving a Christian cross in a palace the previous June.
Arriving in Acre around mid-autumn 1247, the Dominicans stayed in the capital of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. It was during this period that Friar Simon finalised the main part of his report, adding finishing touches upon reaching Lyon in autumn 1248.
Pow added that none of the party appear to have participated in further diplomatic missions, although the Pope sent a letter to Baiju via his envoys Aybeg and Sargis.
The mission was a public relations failure, which partially explains why Simon of Saint Quentin’s account remained overlooked for centuries. His report was hidden from scholars and the public alike until recently, when Pow translated it from Latin into English.
“The reason other scholars avoided translating Simon’s report is unclear,” Pow remarked. “One possibility is that its decidedly negative tone towards the Mongols made it politically unpalatable in the late 20th century. Another is that Carpini’s account was considered far more engaging, leaving Simon’s work neglected.”
