1904.] W. Haig —Some Notes on the Bahmani Dynasty. 5 
Major King in the genealogical table given by him on p. xxxiv of his 
-book. The author whom he translates nowhere says that Ahmad was 
the youngest son, and Firishta, who, although not entirely trustworthy 
in questions of genealogy, should be followed when he cannot be proved 
to be wrong, distinctly says that Mahmud was the youngest. So far, 
therefore, we have Muhammad the eldest, and Mahmud the youngest, 
with Ahmad somewhere between them. 
Authorities differ as to the parentage of Da’ud. Both Firishta 
and Khafi Khan make him a son of Bahman Shah, the only difference 
between them being that the former places the sons in the order—(1) 
Muhammad, (2) Da’ud, (3) Mahmud; while the latter places Muhmud 
before Da’ud, without saying, however, that Mahmud was the elder. 
In the Tabaqdt-i-Ahbari 1 Da’ud is described as the first cousin of 
Mujahid Shah, son of Muhammad Shah I, according to which state¬ 
ment he would be a grandson and not a son of Bahman Shah. The 
author of the Burhdn-i-Ma'dsir says in one place 2 that Da’ud was “ a 
younger brother, or according to one history, a cousin of Mujahid,” 
but afterwards 3 says, “ according to the most authentic accounts, Sultan 
Da’ud Shah was son of Mahmud Khan, son of Sultan ‘Ala’u-d-dln 
Hasan Shah Bahmani (sul. Bahman Shah). Although Firishta is gener¬ 
ally an untrustworthy genealogist his account of Da’ud’s parentage must 
be preferred to that of other authorities. It is possible that the word 
(“son”) in Nizamu-’d-din Ahmad’s description of him as the first 
cousin of Mujahid is an interpolation. The statement in the 
Burhdn-i- Madsir that Da’ud was the son of Mahmud Khan, the son 
of Bahman Shah, cannot be accepted. Firishta, who is not contradicted 
on this point, makes Mahmud, as has been said, the youngest son of 
Bahman Shah. He says that at the time of Bahman Shah’s death 
(A.H. 759) Mahmud was a schoolboy, reading Sa‘di’s Bustdn. He was 
probably, therefore, thirteen or fourteen years of age at that time, and 
can hardly have been the father of Da’ud, who held an important 
command in the expedition against the Raya of Yijayanagar in 
Mujahid’s reign (A.H. 776-779). For these reasons I am inclined to 
complete the tale of Bahman SRah’s four sons by adding to them 
Da’ud, and this assumption, supported by Firishta’s authority, what¬ 
ever that may be worth, not only fills the gap left by the authors of 
the Burhan-i-Ma dsir and the Tabaqdt-i-Akbari, but accounts satisfac¬ 
torily for Da’ud’s anger when he was rebuked by Mujahid for neglect 
of his military duty. Da’ud might have borne a rebuke from a brother 
or a cousin older than himself who was also his king, but a rebuke 
1 King, p. 410. 
8 King, p. 29. 
8 King, p. 31, 
