288 (900), when `Amr fell into Isma`īl’s hands.[236] In this connection, again, wonderful stories are told of Isma`īl’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 Baghdād, 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, Tāhir, who, however, only held his post for one year. As soon as `Amr arrived a prisoner in Baghdād the Caliph sent a royal patent confirming the appointment of Isma`īl to the governorship of “Khorāsān, Turkestān, Māvarā-un-Nahr, Sind, Hind, and Jurjān.”[238] Isma`īl’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 Bokhārā 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-Turkestān, whom in A.H. 291 (903) he drove back within their own frontiers, while Isma`īl returned to Bokhārā laden with plunder. The last four years of Isma`īl’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 Bokhārā, which now became a great centre of Mohammedan learning and culture.[240] Many of the principal buildings in Bokhārā date back to the days of Amīr Isma`īl, and among her children are to be reckoned some of the greatest theologians, jurisconsults, historians, and poets of the day. Bokhārā was, moreover, the capital of an empire which included such famous and widely separated towns as Merv, Nīshāpūr, Ray, Āmul, Herat, and Balkh.[241] At this date Bokhārā fully deserved the title of _Sherīf_ 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`īl, on his death[242] in A.H. 295 (907), left to his son Ahmed. While, on the other hand, the Būyide or Daylamite dynasty was becoming daily more powerful, and was gradually absorbing the whole of Persia and trespassing on the Western possessions of the Sāmānides, 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 Mamlūks of Egypt, had risen from the position of slaves to the highest offices in the state.