On the death of Nasr ibn Ahmed, A.H. 279 (892), Isma`il became the acknowledged lord of Transoxiana and Khwarazm, with Bokhara as his capital. His succession was furthermore confirmed by a royal patent from the Caliph Mu`tadhid. The first recorded act of Isma`il’s reign was the ghaza, or Holy War, which he conducted against the Christian settlement of Taraz.230 The undertaking, according to Narshakhi,231 cost him no little trouble; but finally “the Amir and many of the Dihkans embraced Islam,” and opened the gates of Taraz to Isma`il, who immediately converted the principal church into a mosque and had prayers in the Caliph’s name. His troops returned to Bokhara laden with booty.232 In the meantime `Amr ibn Layth had reorganised his shattered forces,233 and set out on a fresh career of conquest. In 279 Mu`tadhid, on the death of his brother, succeeded to the Caliphate. `Amr ibn Layth, who had been the late Caliph’s bitterest enemy, now offered his services to his successor, who appointed him to the governorship of Khorasan. The Caliph doubtless thought that `Amr would act as a useful counterpoise to the Samanides, whose power was daily increasing in Transoxiana, and Rafi` ibn Harthama, who was in possession of part of Khorasan and Persian `Irak.234 In A.H. 283 (896) `Amr defeated Rafi` and took possession of Nishapur. Rafi` was cruelly murdered, and his head sent as a trophy of `Amr’s successes to Baghdad. `Amr’s ambition now knew no bounds. He insisted that the Samanides should be removed from Transoxiana, and that the province should be added to his governorship. The Caliph, in reply to these demands, urged him to attack Isma`il, and practically offered him the province should his expedition prove successful, while at the same time he confirmed Isma`il in his governorship, and encouraged him to withstand `Amr.235 He doubtless hoped, by provoking a conflict, to weaken the power of both men. These hostilities finally culminated in the siege and capture of Balkh, A.H. 288 (900), when `Amr fell into Isma`il’s hands.236 In this connection, again, wonderful stories are told of Isma`il’s generosity towards his fallen enemies. It is said, indeed, that he would have kept `Amr by him, and treated him with kindness and distinction, had not the Caliph demanded that his enemy should be delivered over to him for punishment. `Amr was therefore sent to Baghdad, where he remained a close prisoner until his death by the executioner’s hand in A.H. 290 (903).237 He was nominally succeeded by a son, Tahir, who, however, only held his post for one year.

As soon as `Amr arrived a prisoner in Baghdad the Caliph sent a royal patent confirming the appointment of Isma`il to the governorship of “Khorasan, Turkestan, Mavara-un-Nahr, Sind, Hind, and Jurjan.”238 Isma`il’s government is spoken of in the highest terms, and we are expressly told by Narshakhi that throughout his rule he owed implicit obedience to the Caliph. He chose Bokhara as his capital,239 and appointed separate governors for all the towns in his realms.

The last campaign in which he engaged was against the Turks in the modern Hazrat-i-Turkestan, whom in A.H. 291 (903) he drove back within their own frontiers, while Isma`il returned to Bokhara laden with plunder.

The last four years of Isma`il’s reign were characterised by internal peace and progress, which enabled him to devote much of his attention to the welfare of his beloved city of Bokhara, which now became a great centre of Mohammedan learning and culture.240 Many of the principal buildings in Bokhara date back to the days of Amir Isma`il, and among her children are to be reckoned some of the greatest theologians, jurisconsults, historians, and poets of the day. Bokhara was, moreover, the capital of an empire which included such famous and widely separated towns as Merv, Nishapur, Ray, Amul, Herat, and Balkh.241 At this date Bokhara fully deserved the title of Sherif or “the Noble,” which she has retained to the present time, when the memory alone of her ancient greatness survives.

Such was the inheritance which Isma`il, on his death242 in A.H. 295 (907), left to his son Ahmed.

While, on the other hand, the Buyide or Daylamite dynasty was becoming daily more powerful, and was gradually absorbing the whole of Persia and trespassing on the Western possessions of the Samanides, the representatives of this house had become mere puppets in the hands of their ministers, many of whom were Turks, who, like their kinsmen the Mamluks of Egypt, had risen from the position of slaves to the highest offices in the state.

Thus in the year A.H. 350 (961), on the death of `Abd el-Melik I., Mansur I., his brother and successor, met with serious opposition from a certain Turk named Alptagin, governor of Nishapur, who refused to recognise his claims. Resort was had to arms, and, after a battle at Balkh, the results of which are variously stated, Alptagin withdrew to Ghazna, where he established himself so strongly that he was able to repulse the army sent by Mansur to attack him. On the death of Alptagin in A.H. 366 (976) the leadership of those men who had accompanied him to Ghazna passed to another Turk named Sabuktagin. The choice was fortunate, for Sabuktagin proved himself to be a general of great talent; and by means of little frontier engagements he succeeded in rapidly extending his territories, and ultimately in founding a powerful dynasty which, under his successor, was to bring Northern India, Persia, and the East under its sway. Although Sabuktagin was the nominal vassal of the Samanides,243 he was in reality an independent ruler. This was, moreover, the case in a lesser or greater degree with many of the governors in Khorasan and the neighbouring dependencies.