The myth of the origin of the Darley Arabian
[This article is work in progress jointly between Kate McLachlan and I]
Kate and I are have serious doubts about the Darley Arabian being from the Fad’aan tribe, as modern lore has it. There were no Fad’aan Anazah Bedouins in the area of the Syrian desert between Aleppo and Palmyra around 1700 CE, where the Darley Arabian is said to have been acquired from. It was not until the 1800s — at least a century later — that the Fad’aan left the vicinity of the oasis of Khaibar in the Hijaz (Central Arabia) and moved north to the Syrian desert, a thousand miles to the north.
Kate tells me that the only primary source about the Darley Arabian is a letter by Thomas Darley to his brother, printed on pp. 21f. of Richard Frederick Meysey-Thompson’s 1911 The Horse: Its Origin and Development Combined with Stable Practice. The letter, reproduced below in full, makes no reference to the Fad’aan Bedouins or to the ‘Anazah for that matter, and only speaks of a horse of the “Mannicka” race (reference bolded in the letter).
ALEPPO, Ye 21st December, 1703.
DEAR BROTHER, Your obliging favour of the 7 Aprill came to my hands the 16th October, by our convoy, and by whom I assygne these, wth hope will have better success in arriving safe than the many letters wrote you, besydes I have never been favoured with any letters from you but that I immediately answered ye first conveyance that succeeded after receipt thereof, being very desirous of maintaining a punctuall correspondence, for nothing is more gratefull to me than to hear the welfare of my Relations & friends, and more particularly your good Self. I take notice what discourse you have had with my Father & its very true he has ordered my returning, wch I should gladly obey would my affaires permit, therefore hope he will be pleased to excuse my delay untill a more propper season, for I assure I am not in Love with this place to stay an hour longer than is absolutely necessary. Since my Father expects I shld send him a stallion I esteem myself happy in a colt I bought about a year and a half agoe, with a desygne indeed to send him ye first good opportunity. He comes four the latter end of March or the beginning of Aprill next; his colour is Bay & his near foot before with both his hind feet have white upon them, he has a blaze downe his face something of the largest. He is about 15 hands high, of the most esteemed race amongst the Arabs both by Syre & Dam, and the name of the said race is called Mannicka. The only fear I have at present about him is that I shall not be able to get him aboard this war time, though I have the promise of a very good & intimate friend the Honble & Revnd Henry Bridges, son to La Chandoes, who embarks on the Ipswich, Captain William Waklin, who presume will not refuse taking in a horse for him since his brother is one of ye Lords of ye Admiralty ; besides I desygne to go to Scand” to assist in getting him off. Wch if I can accomplish & he arrives in safety, I believe he will not be disliked, for he is esteemed here where could have sold him at a considerable price if I had not designed him for England. I have desired Bridges to deliver him to my brother John or Cozen Charles who he can find first & they are to follow my Father’s orders in sending him into ye country. For ye ffreight & all charges to his landing I will order payment of, tho’ am not certain wt it may amount to. Am told by a friend who sent home a horse last year, it cost him incve 100 £ Stg. When you see Coz Peirson pray tender him my humble salutes, & since his Daughter is ready I shall endeavour with all speed to prepare myself. With Mr. Brailsford I am acquainted & were he not of too ficle a humour it wd be happyer for him ; yet I wish him success in his voyage to Portug¹. I am sorry for the death of Lawrence, as of all ffriends. I have given my friend Mr. Bridges 2 chequuens to drink with you (in case you are in towne) & Brother John, & Coz Charles, wh I wd call to mind is a present worth yr notice . I heartily wish you health and prosperity (& as the season invites) a merry Xmas with many succeeding. I respectfully remain dear brother,
Your most affece Brother
THOMAS DARLEY.
Kate and I are now considering the possibility that the reference to the ‘Anazah and more specifically the Fad’aan Bedouins was made up by the British later on, as part of the mythology surrounding the horse. Major Roger Upton, in his book Newmarket and Arabia, made the Darley Arabian into a Kuhaylan Ras al-Fidawi, and associated him with the Anazah, and their seasonal migrations to the north.
Upton seems to have doubled down on the Kuhaylan Ras al-Fidawi story and the ‘Anazah association in his other book Gleanings from the Desert of Arabia:
Turns out there is no reference to the Fad’aan re the Darley in Thoroughbred Racing Stock (very grateful to Michael Bowling for sharing the relevant passages with me). Lady Wentworth there gives the strain as Managhi Hedruj, possibly suggesting that it was the branch of Ibn Sbeyli; she cites as her authority her mother’s enquiries, attributing the information to Mutlak Battal and to Sheikh Mijuel el Mizrab (p. 179).
Lady Wentworth also knows of the certificate drawn up for Thomas Uxgate/Usgate, which is reproduced in this blog post here:
https://daughterofthewind.org/a-hujjah-from-1722/
Lady Wentworth dates it to 1702, but is incorrect; she says that Thomas Darley refers to a brother of the Darley Arabian being imported in 1702 (not certain of her source of information for this, as only the Darley is mentioned in the December 1703 letter), so possibly misread the 1722 date given in the certificate, thanks to both horses being Ma’naqi.
or deliberately misread..
I hope to have some time to breath from work over the next couple of weeks. I need to go digging, but I’ve seen two different tribes named, though I seem to recall they are related. There is also additional correspondence on TD visiting the tribe on multiple occasions. I don’t want to err on the details – so will hunt down the info and post to add to the discussion.
So far the earliest reference I have found to the Darley Arabian coming from the Fad’aan is in Rebecca Cassidy’s 2003 article, Turf Wars, in Anthropology Today Vol. 19, where she says, without citing her source, as far as I can see (p. 15):
“The Darley Arabian was taken from the Fedan Bedouin in the Syrian desert outside Aleppo. The horse was owned by Sheikh Mirza II when British consul Thomas Darley caught sight of him and arranged to buy him for 300 gold sovereigns. Apparently the sheikh backed out of the deal and so Darley arranged for British sailors to steal the horse and smuggle him out via Smyrna. He arrived in England in 1704 and was sent to the family seat at Aldby Hall, Buttercrambe, near Leeds, to be managed by Darley’s brother Richard. He was named Manak or Monica in reference to the Muniqui strain of Arab, thought to be very fast.”
I have found an earlier reference to Sheikh Mirza in connection with the Darley Arabian, in Judith Campbell’s 1974 Royalty on Horseback, pp. 30f.:
“But none [of the imported Arabian and Barb stallions] were to have the same influence on the race-horses of the future as the animal that inspired a letter to Queen Anne in 1704.
“This epistle, which was to say the least a slight travesty of the truth, was sent by Sheikh Mirza II, and contained a bitter complaint about those of the queen’s subjects who had ‘foully stolen’ the sheikh’s priceless Arabian horse. In fact the British consul in Aleppo, a Mr Darley, after handing over the stallion’s agreed price of 300 golden sovereigns to the sheikh, had then been denied access to it by order of that wily ruler. Eventually he only gained possession if his purchase through the enterprise of British sailors, who overpowered the guards and brought the horse back to their ship by night.”
I have so far not found any earlier mention of this letter.
There are four points which lead me to believe that Campbell’s story is a fabrication (the real “travesty of the truth”, to be snarky). Firstly, none of this drama is mentioned in the 1703 letter from Thomas Darley, who says he has owned the colt for a year and half; he was clearly not in a rush to get the horse out.
Secondly, Thomas Darley’s letter says the horse is to be shipped from Scanderoon. This is modern İskenderun, in Hatay Province, in southern Turkey. Campbell’s story says the horse was smuggled out via Smyrna, i.e. modern İzmir, around 1,000 km away to the north-east, as the crow flies. İskenderun historically served as the port of Aleppo, which is just over 100 km away from it; smuggling a horse out via Smyrna when Scanderoon is right there is illogical, and frankly, if the horse is already 1,000 km away, I’m not sure that embarking at Smyrna counts as smuggling.
Third of all, Mirza was historically an Iranian title, granted to royalty and later to nobility. Is it impossible for a sheikh of the Fad’aan to have an Iranian aristocratic title as his name? No. Is it probable? I tend to suspect not. To me, this suggests a European origin for the story, supported by the clear unfamiliarity with the geography of the Ottoman empire: it’s all Oriental and exotic and differences in language and culture and location can all be handwaved.
Peter Good’s book, The East India Company in Persia, mentions, interestingly enough, a Mirza Nasser, in connection with a letter from Queen Anne (pp. 67f.):
“The mission of Mirza Nasser was dispatched by Shah Soltan Husayn with orders to negotiate with the President at Bombay and then to go on to England if he failed to get a desirable response. Mirza Nasser was charged with carrying letters to the President and Council at Bombay in order to negotiate for Company assistance in combatting the increasing threat of Muscati piracy to Persia’s southern coast. This exchange had been prompted by a letter sent by Queen Anne to Shah Soltan Husayn which was delivered by the Company’s Agent, Alexander Prescott, to Persian dignitaries who were being entertained at the Company’s garden at Afseen.”
However, Mirza Nasser is Persian, not Fad’aan, he is not the author of the letter, and the letter has nothing to do with a horse being smuggled out of Ottoman Smyrna.
Finally, the fourth point, is that the price paid for the Darley Arabian, according to Campbell, used currency that had not been minted in a century in 1703. The sovereign was reintroduced in 1816, so at very best, the story of the Darley Arabian being bought for 300 gold sovereigns is a nineteenth century fiction. So far, I have yet to find anything earlier than Judith Campbell’s garbled account from 1974, including any earlier evidence of Sheikh Mirza II’s letter to Queen Anne, while I have found the Thomas Darley letter printed in part on pp. 11f. of the Sporting Magazine, November 1830, Vol. 2 of the second series.
However, Campbell doesn’t mention the Fad’aan, while Rebecca Cassidy does, so I am missing either an earlier source or a link in the transmission.
At any rate, the Sheikh Mirza story seems to me to be a European concoction, made up pretty much whole cloth, much as Eugene Sue made up the story of the Godolphin Arabian pulling a cart in Paris and being a teaser for Hobgoblin. (And do not get me started on the subsequent conflation of the Godolphin Arabian with the two Godolphin Barbs; I swear the next paper I see that talks about the Godolphin Barb will have me writing in to ask if they meant the Brown or the Grey Barb, or perhaps they meant the horse always referred to in the Godolphin stud book as the Arabian?)
Ok, let’s put the story of Al-Mu’naqi aside, and let’s go back to the ancient roots of the Anza tribe in Syria so as not to put all the eggs in the basket at once.
Allow me then as kind of code extraction to clear things up And to put dots on the letters. But it requires a long reading if you allow me to enumerate it, because it contains many sources and arguments.
1 – Many Western orientalists and Arab authors agree, including (Ahmed Wasfi Zakaria, Oppenheim, Niebuhr, Lady Anne Blunt, Sheikh Ahmed Al-Khalidi (on the history of Fakhr al-Din al-Ma’ni), Burckhardt, Abdullah bin Abar al-Fada’ani al-Anazi, known as Ibn Abbar, Mahmoud al-Firdaws al-Azm, Fayez al-Ruwaili. , Hassan Al-Khudair Al-Muqbel, Dr. Osama Abu Nahl, the manuscript of Muhammad Ibn Juma in Berlin, the manuscript of Khulasat Al-Athar, Muhammad Al-Muhabi, Dr. Ismail Al-Salamat, and many others unanimously agree that the arrival of the Anaza, especially the tribes of Walad Ali, to the north (Syria) specifically occurred in the sixteenth century CE
2 – According to the evidence and sources that we read and obtained the Al-Tayyar family from Anaza, is a Hijazi family of origin and source, Hashemite in its roots and lineage and has been united with the Anaza tribe for more than a thousand years (i.e. since the Saffin War) and their waged war against each other, that is, Anaza and Al-Tayyar are alongside Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib, ever since they settled in the land of Khaybar, and this clash remained attached to them until the advent of the ninth century AH, when Ibn Bassam mentions in his book Tuhfat al-Mushtaq fi Akhbar Najd, Hijaz, and Iraq, that Al-Tayyar family was at the forefront of the battles waged by the Anaza tribe, whether it was the one fighting to defend itself or to defend others (whom one of the tribes seeks help to share with them, being the strongest Hijazi tribe).
3- Lady Anne Blunt herself mentioned in her book The Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates and A Journey to the Land of Najd. She said that Aanza’s stay in the north had reached 200 years, that is, since the sixteenth century CE.
5- Dr. Ismail Al-Salamat, a researcher in Arab genealogy and Saudi anthropology who holds a doctorate, explains in “Bedouin” Sociology and Anthropology, Department of Sociology – University of Damascus. He is from the Al-Salamat Al-Anziyya family in Houran and specializes in the genealogy of the Walad Ali tribe from Anaza, especially (the Al-Tayyar family). He has published a book he produced and authored called (The Genealogy of the Al-Tayyar Al-Jaafir Hashemite Family in arabian countries ): When the Feast of Sacrifice arrived, the captain of Aleppo, Muhammad Ibn Qudaib al-Ban, went and prayed with the Supreme Sultan and asked him to intercede for a pardon for his sister’s son, Qaseta, but the Sultan refused. When the calamity occurred with the killing of the governor of the Levant, Muhammad ibn Ghanman al-Tayyar, the news became widespread, and people were saddened and the Arabs revolted, so the “Anaza tribe” entered the cities of the Levant and began crushing the neighborhoods and the homes of the soldiers. Then, when the Ottoman Empire sensed the danger from its governor al-Tayyar, it executed him, and what appears from the text of the manuscript is that it will intercede. His noble uncles, “the Al-Ashraf Ghosn Al-Ban family in Aleppo,” were with the Ottoman Sultan, and the pardon was not granted, as Sheikh Al-Tayyar was executed in the year 1067 AH, so the Anaza tribe took revenge on him by entering the Levantine cities. What is included in this research: (Amir Anza, governor of Damascus in the year 1067 hijri
6 – it was stated on page: 172 in the second part of the manuscript of the history of the governors of Damascus that: ((Muhammad Pasha al-Tayyar entered Damascus in the year 1067, and its people loved him. The Sultan soon summoned him and the people objected to his removal.)
7- It was stated on page: 541 of the author of the history of Damascus and of the kings, princes and presidents who ruled it, the following: ((Muhammad Pasha Al-Tayyar appointed Damascus in the year 1067 hejri and resided there (…) and nothing noteworthy happened during his time in Damascus. Then came the order to dismiss him by appointing Mustafa Pasha)).
8- It was stated on page 99 of the book: These Ruled Damascus by Professor Dr. Suleiman Al-Madani:
((Muhammad Al-Tayyar took over Damascus in the year 1067 hejri for a year, and the governor, Mustafa Pasha, took over after him))
9- It was stated on page: 5 of the manuscript of Al-Dhahiria: The Great Breasts in the Events of the Dreams by Wali al-Din al-Dimashqi No. 4682 ((…And these are the most influential over the Ottomans. The governor of Basra, the Bedouin prince Rashid bin Mughamis. And the governor of Jeddah, Prince Hussein al-Kurdi, and this was killed by the Sharif of Mecca, Barakat bin Yahya. And the Mamluk prince Barsabuwi, and this was appointed by the Ottoman Sultan Selim as governor of Yemen after the governor of Aden, the Bedouin prince Marjan al-Amiri, supported him. The noble guardian of Damascus was Fahd Ibn al-Tayyar, the Emir of Araban al-Anaza, the Emir of the Chouf, Fakhr al-Din al-Maani, and the Emir of the Kurds, Jan Boulad, and…)
10 – It is stated on page: 7 of the same manuscript: ((The Ottomans recognized the power of the Bedouin princes, so they caused strife among them. Thus, when Prince Jan Boulad requested tribute from the people of Aleppo, Hama, and Beirut, he clashed with the Bedouin prince, Ibn al-Tayyar, on the outskirts of Hama, who rejected Jan Boulad’s request, and a major conflict occurred among the people of Aleppo, Hama, and Beirut.) Jan Boulad and Ibn Maan Al-Darzi…)).
11- It was stated on page 83 of the book The Arabs and the Ottomans by Professor Dr. Abdul Karim Rafiq, Professor of the Chair of Modern and Contemporary Arab History at the University of Damascus. Quoted from Ibn Tulun’s manuscript, A’lam al-Wari of the Turks in Damascus, the Levant, on page: 228-231 (The danger of the Bedouins in the Levant was not limited to the Hajj route, but rather extended to the countryside and the outskirts of the cities. In the year 1526 CE /927 hejri, the Bedouins of Al Ali launched an attack on the Al-Marj area. On the outskirts of Damascus, the governor of the Levant, Lutfi Pasha, went out and fought them and executed two of their leaders, but this violence did not end the rebellion of these Bedouins.
13- It was mentioned in the papers: 14b/15b from the Berlin manuscript by Ibn Jumah, (preserved in the city of Berlin) No.: 418/9785 – WE II: In the year 1067 AH, corresponding to 1656 AD, two important events occurred with their consequences: The Ottoman Sultan appointed as his successor Prince Muhammad Pasha, son of Fahd Al-Tayyar.? This was a major victory for the Janissaries.
A – The governor of Aleppo appointed Abaza Hassan Pasha as commander-in-chief (military force) over the soldiers of the Levant and Aleppo. The governor of Damascus, Prince Muhammad Ibn al-Tayyar, and its Janissaries joined him.
B – Ibn al-Tayyar and the Janissaries of Damascus supported Hassan Pasha in his disobedience, and finally the governor of Aleppo was able to kill Hassan Pasha on Jumada al-Awwal 24, 1069, corresponding to February 17, 1659, after he deceived him by giving him safety. The Ottoman Sultan removed Prince Muhammad Pasha, Ibn al-Tayyar, from the governorship of Damascus because of his support for Hassan. Pasha and ordered the killing of him along with his successor after that. The new governor, Abdul Qadir Pasha, also killed on Ramadan 27, 1069, a number of the senior Janissaries of Damascus who supported Hassan Pasha, and among them were: Abdul Salam al-Marashli, Abdul Baqi al-Yazji, and Muhammad al-Turkmani…)).
14 -From the above, the following can be can reached:
1 – Previous references have proven the Anazi presence in the Levant and Egypt in the tenth century and the beginning of the eleventh century AH, and that the Al-Tayyar family has been present on Syrian lands since the time of Prince Fakhr al-Din al-Maani, as mentioned by Sheikh Ahmed al-Safadi al-Khalidi in his book (Lebanon during the Reign of Prince Fakhr al-Din al-Maani) that Anazah have been present in Syria since the year 1030 AH, albeit in small numbers.
2- What was reported in the Zahiri manuscript by Judge Wali al-Din al-Dimashqi on page 13 of the manuscript of the Great Sadour: When the calamity occurred with the killing of the governor of the Levant, Muhammad Ibn Ghanman al-Tayyar, the news became widespread, and souls were saddened and the caravans revolted, so a goat entered the cities of the Levant and began crushing the neighborhoods and the homes of the soldiers. However, in this manuscript, it was not mentioned who was meant by Anaza, who took revenge on the governor of the Levant, Sheikh Al-Tayyar, but of course, his clan, the Walad Ali, and their tribes, and their cousins from Anaza.
3- Although the Al-Tayyar family joined Anaza, assimilated there, and followed their ranks more than 1,000 years ago, they still have a kind of closeness, lineage and kinship with their cousins from the Banu Hashim of the Hijazis from the Al-Ashraf Ghosn Al-Ban family in Aleppo, and they are related to Ibn Ghneiman Al-Tayyar, and they sought to intercede. He was held by the Ottoman Sultan, but he was not pardoned, as the sheikh was executed in the year 1067 AH. 4- In the year 1526 AD / 927 AH, the first incident of attack was recorded on the Walad Ali tribe, and it is considered an accident (the Bedouins of the Ali family carried out an attack in the year 1526 on the Al-Marj area on the outskirts of Damascus. The governor of al-Sham, Lutfi Pasha, went out and fought them and executed two of their leaders, but this violence did not end the rebellion of these Bedouins..) The prince of Anza in the year 927 AH was the governor of Damascus, and he was Prince Fahd – bin Jasser – Al-Tayyar.
Ahmad,
This is very convening, but to me, it only means that al-Tayyar, as a noble family
from Khaibar and descending from Ja’far al-Tayyar, brother of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, and associated with Anazah, was present in Damascus, with some of their followers, while the rest of the Wuld Ali and the rest of Anazah was still in the Hijaz. No?
I will answer you through several points, and I consider it a progressive matter since the ninth century:
It was stated in (Al-Bayan wal-A’rab) by Al-Maqrizi in the year (841 hijri): The Banu Jaafar Al-Tayyar in Egypt had 13 clans and a number of Anza, Faraza, and Bin Uthman, the Umayyads of Quraysh, Banu Khalid, Banu Maslama, Banu Dhabab, Banu Askar, Banu Nada…). Among the things mentioned in Tuhfat al-Mushtaq are the news of Najd, Hijaz, and Iraq by Ibn Bassam about the events of that period.
Among what he mentioned about the events of the year 835 hijri: That in this year/Al-Manakh (the climate) of the Anza tribe on the one hand, and a group of tribes on the other side, he allied with other gorubs in (Nafi) region of Najd, and the leader of Anza at that time was Jassem Al-Tayyar, and they stayed in their Manakh for twenty days. Among the famous people killed in this battle were Jassim Al-Tayyar and Lahim bin Hisn from Anza.
Then the year 845 hijri entered, and in this year Sheikh Fahd bin Jasser Al-Tayyar determined to avenge the previous alliance for the killing of his father, Sheikh Jasser Al-Tayyar. Concerning this, Ibn Bassam tells us: In this year (845), the Anza tribe took place in the well-known Al-Dhalafah region, near the Qassim region, where the Anza tribe flocked and gathered around Sheikh Fahd Jasser Al-Tayyar..).
Then Ibn Bassam tells us: Then the tribes of Anza mobilized their men in the year 861 hijri in the (Al-Sir) region of Najd and fought against that alliance of tribes: Among the famous people of Anza who were killed in this battle: Sunaitan bin Bakr, Nayef Al-Dadeb (Al-Dadeb: the companions of Abiyat Al-Dadeb), and Hisn. Al Qaed.
Ibn Bassam points out that in the year 965 hijri : the climate of the Anza tribe on the one hand, and the same alliance on the other hand, and they stayed in their climate for several days, and they fought intensely, and several men were killed on both sides. Among the famous people of Anza who were killed: Dhuwayhi al-Tayyar and Fahd bin Bakr.
In the year 966 hijri : the climate of Anza on the one hand and the previous alliance on the other hand (and other tribes had entered into that alliance in confrontation with Anza) in the days of spring in (Al-Mastiwi) Najd and with Anza, so the Masoud family and Rajih bin Nashi from the Shammar tribe joined forces. They stayed in their climate for ten days. They fought fiercely, and several men from both groups were killed: Among the famous people of Anza: Nasser al-Tayyar and Fahd bin Majlad from al-Dhamsha, from Anza.
In the year 1032 AH: A battle for Anza in (Al-Sir) in Najd, which is the climate of Anza and one of the tribes. A severe fight took place between them, as the circle revolved around that tribe and they left their property, and Anza took it as spoils. Among the famous people of Anza in this battle were Ghaniman al-Tayyar and Lotam bin Majlad.
In the year 1141 hijri, Anza Al-Arid and the sheikh of Anza at the time besieged Al-Tayyar.
In the following year, 1142 hijri: Al-TayyarAl captured one of the tribes in Al-Arma, along with the rest of the other tribes. In the following year, Al-Tayyar besieged some of the tribes in Al-Arid and took many camels from them.
And what was reported in the apparent manuscript by Judge Wali al-Din al-Dimashqi on page 13 of the manuscript of the Great Sadour: When the calamity occurred with the killing of the governor of the Levant, Muhammad ibn Ghanman al-Tayyar, the news became widespread, and the souls were saddened and the caravans revolted, so (enaza) entered the cities of the Levant and began to crush the neighborhoods and the homes of the soldiers, which appears from the text The apparent manuscript intercedes with his al asrhraf uncles, “the family of al Ashrafs Ghosn al-Ban in Aleppo” with the Ottoman Sultan, and the pardon was not granted, as Sheikh al-Tayyar was executed in the year 1067 hijri, so the “Anaza tribe” avenged him by entering the Levantine cities. From these events we conclude:
1- Al-Tayyar never fought alone, but rather fought in the name of Anza and on behalf of every Anza and with Anza. Rather, the formation of tribal alliances and military confrontations only came with his advice and respect among all members of the Anza tribe.
2- It is clear from the history and events that the Al-Tayyar tribe was the one who first bring them (Anza) and brought them down to Najd, and it was the one who led them to the north, and it is originally considered a respectable tribe, with strength and numbers to be reckoned with.
3-It is clear that Ghneiman Al-Tayyar, the father of the governor of Aleppo, Sheikh Muhammad bin Ghneiman, was still in Najd until the year 1032 AH, alongside Latam bin Majlad Al-Dahmashi, and I believe the decision was made to leave his son, Sheikh Muhammad bin Ghneiman, to the Levant (Syria) after this date.
4- On page No. 13 of the manuscript of the Great Books of Judge Wali al-Din al-Dimashqi: (The Arabs revolted and (Anaza) entered the cities of the Levant) and in the same manuscript: (A pardon was not completed, as Sheikh al-Tayyar was executed in the year 1067 hijri, so (the tribe of Anza) avenged him by entering the cities. Al-Shamiya) Note that it is clear that the author deliberately used the plural form, for example (and the Arabs revolted) (and Anza entered the cities of the Levant) and also (so the Anza tribe avenged him), and he did not use the singular form, and this is as clear as the clarity of the sun in the middle of the sky that the matter did not come in the singular. If that were the case, he would have used the singular form, and if he had been satisfied with saying… the family of (Ghneiman Al-Tayyar) only, or he would have been satisfied with saying only his uncles from the Al-Ashraf Ghosn Al-Ban family. Rather, the word (‘anza) is the plural of all (‘anza) without the specific purpose, and it is clear that the number is not small in order to have this fierce confrontation (i.e. in the number of a tribe) and not in the number of individuals that are counted on the finger so that they crush the neighborhoods and the homes of the soldiers, just as revenge is a characteristic of the people of the desert. As a result of this revenge, they entered all the cities, i.e. (the Levantine neighborhoods) as we see and find them today.
5 – Thus, we find that the leadership of Al-Tayyar tribe and his leadership of Anza witnessed, over centuries, many events in order to control areas of influence. (Abdullah Al-Abbar Al-Fadaani Al-Anaz
Note on No. 5: I liked the information and the sentence, so I took it from the book of Abdullah Al-Abbar Al-Fadaani Al-Anzi.
Yes, it is in his summary of the history of the Tayyar family of Wuld Ali. I read the book last week.
Can I participate and inform you of the results of the investigation into the matter of Al-Manaqi, but my coments requires it to be lengthy? Is this normal for you?
of course, always welcome