S. Rappoport - History Of Egypt From 330 B.C. To The Present Time, Volume 12 (of 12)

S >> S. Rappoport >> History Of Egypt From 330 B.C. To The Present Time, Volume 12 (of 12)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21

HISTORY OF EGYPT

From 330 B.C. to the Present Time

By S. RAPPOPORT, Doctor of Philosophy, Basel; Member of the Ecole
Langues Orientales, Paris; Russian, German, French Orientalist and
Philologist

VOL. XII.

Containing over Twelve Hundred Colored Plates and Illustrations

THE GROLIER SOCIETY

PUBLISHERS, LONDON

[Illustration: Spines]

[Illustration: Cover]

[Illustration: Frontispiece] COLLECTION OF VASES, MODELLED AND PAINTED
IN THE GRAND TEMPLE PHILAE ISLAND.

[Illustration: 001.jpg PAGE IMAGE]

[Illustration: 002.jpg PAGE IMAGE]

_MODERN EGYPT_

_EGYPT DURING THE CRUSADES--RISE OF THE OTTOMAN POWER--NAPOLEON
IN EGYPT--THE RULE OP THE KHEDIVES--DISCOVERING THE SOURCE OF THE
NILE--ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY._

_Spread of Muhammedanism--Spirit of the Crusades--The Fati-mite
Caliphs--Saladin's brilliant reign--Capture of Damietta--Conquests of
Beybars--Mamluks in power--Wars with Cyprus--Turkish misrule--Napoleon
invades Egypt--Battle of the Pyramids--Policy of conciliation--Nelson
destroys the French fleet--Napoleon in Syria--Battle at Mount
Carmel--Napoleon returns to France--Negotiations for surrender--Kleber
assassinated--French army surrenders--Rise of Mehemet Ali-Massacre of
the Mamluks--Egyptian army reorganized--Ibrahim Pasha in Greece--Battle
of Navarino-Revolt against Turkey-Character of Mehemet Ali--Reforms
under his Rule--Ismail Pasha made Khedive--Financial difficulties
of Egypt--England and France assume control--Tewfik Pasha becomes
Khedive--Revolt of Arabi Pasha--The Mahdist insurrection--Death of
General Gordon--Kitchener's campaign against the Dervishes--Prosperity
of Egypt under English control--Abbas Pasha becomes Khedive--Education,
courts, and government of modern Egypt--The Nile; its valley, branches,
and delta--Ancient irrigation systems--The Suez Canal, its inception and
completion--The great dam at Aswan--Ancient search for the sources of
the Nile--Modern discoveries in Central Africa--The Hieroglyphs--Origin
of the alphabet--Egyptian literature--Mariettas discoveries--The
German Egyptologists--Jeremiah verified--Maspero, Naville, and
Petrie--Palaeolithic man--Egyptian record of Israel--Egypt Exploration
Fund--The royal tombs at Abydos--Chronology of the early kings--Steles,
pottery, and jewelry-The temples of Abydos--Seals, statuettes, and
ceramics._

[Illustration: 003.jpg PAGE IMAGE]

CHAPTER I--THE CRUSADERS IN EGYPT

_The Ideal of the Crusader: Saladin's Campaign: Richard I. in Palestine:
Siege of Damietta: St. Louis in Egypt: The Mamluks: Beybars' Policy._

The traditional history of the Christian Church has generally maintained
that the Crusades were due solely to religious influence and sprang from
ideal and moral motives: those hundreds of thousands of warriors who
went out to the East were religious enthusiasts, prompted by the pious
longings of their hearts, and Peter the Hermit, it was claimed, had
received a divine message to call Christendom to arms, to preach
a Crusade against the unbelievers and take possession of the Holy
Sepulchre. That such ideal reasons should be attributed to a war like
the Crusades, of a wide and far-reaching influence on the political and
intellectual development of mediaeval Europe, is not at all surprising.
In the history of humanity there have been few wars in which the
combatants on both sides were not convinced that they had drawn their
swords for some noble purpose, for the cause of right and justice. That
the motives prompting the vast display of arms witnessed during the
Crusades, that the wanderings of those crowds to the East during two
centuries, and the cruelties committed by the saintly warriors on their
way to the Holy Sepulchre, should be attributed exclusively to ideal
and religious sources is therefore quite natural. It is not to be
denied that there was a religious factor in the Crusades; but that the
religious motive was not the sole incentive has now been agreed upon
by impartial historians; and in so far as the motives animating the
Crusaders were religious motives, we are to look to powerful influences
which gradually made themselves felt from without the ecclesiastical
organisations. It was by no means a movement which the Church alone had
called into being. On the contrary, only when the movement had grown
ripe did Gregory VII. hasten to take steps to enable the Church to
control it. The idea of a Crusade for the glory of religion had not
sprung from the tenets of Christianity; it was given to mediaeval Europe
by the Muhammedans.

History can hardly boast of another example of so gigantic a conquest
during so short a period as that gained by the first adherents of Islam.
Like the fiery wind of the desert, they had broken from their retreats,
animated by the promises of the Prophet, and spread the new doctrine far
and wide. In 653 the scimitar of the Saracens enclosed an area as large
as the Roman Empire under the Caesars. Barely forty years elapsed after
the death of the Prophet when the armies of Islam reached the Atlantic.
Okba, the wild and gallant leader, rode into the sea on the western
shore of Africa, and, whilst the seething waves reached to the saddle
of his camel, he exclaimed: "Allah, I call thee as witness that I should
have carried the knowledge of Thy name still farther, if these waves
threatening to swallow me would not have prevented me from doing so."
Not long after this, the flag of the crescent was waving from the
Pyrenees to the Chinese mountains. In 711 the Saracens under General
Tarik crossed the straits between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic,
and landed on the rock which has since been called after him, "the hill
of Tarik," Jebel el-Tarik or Gibraltar. Spain was invaded and captured
by the Moslems. For awhile it seemed as if on the other side of the
Garonne the crescent would also supplant the cross, and only the victory
of Charles Martel in 732 put a stop to the wave of Muhammedan conquest.

Thus in a brief period Muhammedanism spread from the Nile Valley to the
Mediterranean. Muhammed's trenchant argument was the sword. He gave a
distinct command to his followers to convince the infidels of the
Power of truth on the battle-field. "The sword is a surer argument than
books," he said. Accordingly the Koran ordered war against unbelievers:
"The sword is the key to heaven and hell; a drop of blood shed in the
cause of Allah, a night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months
of fasting and prayer; whoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven,
and at the day of judgment his limbs shall be supplied with the wings
of angels and cherubim." Before the battle commenced, the commanders
reminded the warriors of the beautiful celestial houris who awaited the
heroes slain in battle at the gates of Paradise.

The first efforts having been crowned with success, the Moslems soon
became convinced of the fulfilment of the prophecy that Allah had given
them the world and wished them to subdue all unbelievers. Under the
Caliph Omar, the Arabs had become a religious-political community of
warriors, whose mission it was to conquer and plunder all civilised and
cultured lands and to unfurl the banner of the crescent. They believed
that "Paradise is under the shadow of the sword." In this belief the
followers of Muhammed engaged in battle without fear or anxiety, spurred
to great deeds, reckless in the face of danger, happy to die and pass
to the delights of Paradise. The "holy war" became an armed propaganda
pleasing to Allah. It was, however, a form of propaganda quite unknown
and amazing to Christendom. In the course of two centuries the crescent
had supplanted the cross. Of what avail was the peaceful missionary's
preaching if province after province and country after country were
taken possession of by the new religion that forced its way by means of
fire and sword?

Was it not natural that Christian Europe should conceive the idea
of doing for their religion what the Moslems did for Islam! and that,
following the example of Moslems in their "holy war," Christians should
emulate them in the Crusades?

It must not be forgotten also that the Arabs, almost from the first
appearance of Muhammedanism, were under the refining and elevating
influences of art and science. While the rest of Europe was in the
midnight of the Dark Ages, the Moorish universities of Spain were the
beacon of the revival of learning. The Christian teacher was still
manipulating the bones of the saints when the Arab physician was
practising surgery. The monachal schools and monasteries in Italy,
France, and Germany were still grappling with poor scholastic knowledge
when Arab scholars were well advanced in the study of Aristotle and
Plato. Stimulated by their acquaintance with the works of Ptolemy and
Euclid, Galenus and Hippocrates, they extended their researches into the
dominions of astronomy, mathematics, and medicine.

[Illustration: 007.jpg ARABIC DECORATIVE PAINTING]

The religious orders of the knights, a product of the Crusades, found
their antitype in similar organisations of the Moslems, orders that had
exactly the same tendencies and regulations. Such an order established
for the spread of Islam and the protection of its followers was that of
the Raabites or boundary-guards in the Pyrenean peninsula. These knights
made a vow to carry, throughout their lives, arms in defence of the
faith; they led an austere existence, were not allowed to fly in battle,
but were compelled either to conquer or fall. Like the Templars or the
Hospital Knights their whole endeavour was to gain universal dominion
for their religion. The relation existing between the Moslems and
the Christians before the Crusades was much closer than is generally
imagined. Moslem soldiers often fought in the ranks of the Christian
armies; and it was by no means rare to see a Christian ruler call
upon Moslem warriors to assist him against his adversary. Pope Gregory
rescued Rome from the hands of his imperial opponent, Henry of Germany,
only with the aid of the Saracen soldiers.

When, therefore, the influence of Muhammedanism began to assert itself
throughout the south of Europe, it was natural that in a crude and
stirring age, when strife was the dominant passion of the people, the
idea of a holy war in the cause of faith was one in which Christian
Europe was ready to take an example from the followers of Islam. The
political, economical, and social state of affairs, the misery and
suffering of the people, and even the hierarchy and the ascetic spirit
of the time certainly made the minds of the people accessible to the
idea of war; the spirit of unrest was pervasive and the time was ripe,
but the influence of Islam was a prominent factor in giving to it an
entirely religious aspect.

But even in the means employed to incite the Christian warriors and
the manner in which the Crusades were carried on, there is a great
similarity between the Christian and the Muhammedan procedure. The
Church, when espousing the cause of the Crusader, did exactly what
Muhammed had done when he preached a holy war. The Church addressed
itself to the weaknesses and passions of human nature. Fallen in
battle, the Moslem, so he was told, would be admitted--be he victor
or vanquished--to the joys of Paradise. The same prospect animated
the Crusader and made him brave danger and die joyfully in defence of
Christianity. "Let them kill the enemy or die. To submit to die for
Christ, or to cause one of His enemies to die, is naught but glory,"
said Saint Bernard. Eloquently, vividly, and in glowing colours were
the riches that awaited the warriors in the far East described: immense
spoil would be taken from the unbelievers. Preachers did not even shrink
from extolling the beauty of the women in the lands to be conquered.
This fact recalls Muhammed's promise to his believers that they would
meet the ever-beautiful dark-eyed houris in the life after death. To the
material, sensual allurements, the Church added spiritual blessings and
eternal rewards, guaranteed to those who took the red cross. During the
Crusades the Christians did their utmost to copy the cruelties of the
Moslems. That contempt for human life, that entire absence of mercy and
the sense of pity which is familiar in all countries where Islam has
gained sway is characteristic also of the Crusades.

Although the narrative of the Crusades belongs rather to the history of
Europe than of any one country, it is so closely intertwined with the
history of Egypt at this period that some digression is necessary. About
twenty years after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Turks, in 1076, the
Holy Sepulchre was visited by a hermit of the name of Peter, a native of
Amiens, in the province of Picardy, France. His resentment and sympathy
were excited by his own injuries and the oppression of the Christian
name; he mingled his tears with those of the Patriarch, and earnestly
inquired if no hope of relief from the Greek emperors of the East could
be entertained. The Patriarch exposed the vices and weakness of the
successors of Constantine. "I will rouse," exclaimed the hermit, "the
martial nations of Europe in your cause;" and Europe was obedient to the
call of the hermit. The astonished Patriarch dismissed him with epistles
of credit and complaint; and no sooner did he land at Bari than Peter
hastened to kiss the feet of the Roman pontiff. Pope Urban II. received
him as a prophet, applauded his glorious design, promised to support it
in a general council, and encouraged him to proclaim the deliverance
of the Holy Land. Invigorated by the approbation of the pontiff, this
zealous missionary traversed with speed and success the provinces of
Italy and France. He preached to innumerable crowds in the churches, the
streets, and the highways: the hermit entered with equal confidence the
palace and the cottage; and the people of all classes were impetuously
moved by his call to repentance and arms.

The first Crusade was headed by Godefroy de Bouillon, Duke of Lower
Lorraine; Baldwin, his brother; Hugo the Great, brother of the King of
France; Robert, Duke of Normandy, son of William the Conqueror; Raymond
of St. Gilles, Duke of Toulouse; and Bohemond, Prince of Tarentum.
Towards the end of 1097 A.D. the invading force invested Antioch, and,
after a siege of nine months, took it by storm. Edessa was also captured
by the Crusaders, and in the middle of the summer of 1098 they reached
Jerusalem, then in the hands of the Fatimites.

El-Mustali b'Illah Abu'l Kasim, son of Mustanssir, was then on the
throne, but he was only a nominal ruler, for El-Afdhal, a son of
El-Gemali, had the chief voice in the affairs of the kingdom. It was the
army of Kasim that had captured Jerusalem. The city was besieged by the
Crusaders, and it surrendered to them after forty days. Twice did new
expeditions arrive from Egypt and attempt to retake the city, but with
disastrous results, and further expeditions were impossible for some
time, owing to the internal disorders in Egypt. Mustali died after
a reign of about four years; and some historians record, as a truly
remarkable circumstance, that he was a Sunnite by creed, although he
represented a Shiite dynasty.

The next ruler, El-Amir, was the five-year-old son of Mustali, and
El-Afdhal conducted the government until he became of age to govern.
His first act was to put El-Afdhal to death. Under El-Amir the internal
condition of Egypt continued unsatisfactory, and the Crusaders, who had
been very successful in capturing the towns of Syria, were only deterred
from an advance on Egypt by the death of their leader, Baldwin. In
a.h. 524, some of the surviving partisans of El-Afdhal, it is said,
put El-Amir to death, and a son of El-Afdhal assumed the direction of
affairs, and appointed El-Hafiz, a grandson of Mustanssir as caliph.
Afdual's son, whose name was Abu Ali Ahmed, perished in a popular
tumult. The new caliph had great trouble with his next three viziers,
and at length abolished the office altogether. After reigning twenty
years, he was succeeded by his licentious son, Dhafir, whose faults led
to his death at the hand of his vizier, El-Abbas.

For the ensuing six years the supreme power in Egypt was mainly the bone
of contention between rival viziers, although El-Faiz, a boy of five,
was nominally elected caliph on the death of Dhafir. El-Abbas was
worsted by his rival, Tatae, and fled to Syria with a large sum of
money; but he fell into the hands of the Crusaders, was returned to
Tatae, and crucified.

[Illustration: 013.jpg ENAMELLED GLASS CUP FROM ARABIA]

The last of the Fatimite caliphs, El-Adid, in 555 a.h., was raised to
the throne by Tatae, but his power was merely the shadow of sovereignty.
Tatae's tyranny, however, became so odious that the caliph had him
assassinated a year after his accession, but he concealed the fact that
he had instigated the murder. The caliph appointed Tatae's son, El-Adil,
as vizier in his stead. The governorship of Upper Egypt was at this time
in the hands of the celebrated Shawir, whom El-Adil dispossessed, but
in a test of battle, El-Adil was defeated and put to death. In his turn,
Shawir yielded to the more powerful Ed-Durghan, and fled to Damascus.
There he enlisted the aid of the Atabeg Sultan Nur ed-Din, who sent his
army against Ed-Durghan, with the result that Shawir was reinstated in
power in Egypt. He thereupon threw off his promised allegiance to Nur
ed-Din, whose general, Shirkuh (who had led the Damascenes to Egypt),
took up a strategic position. Shawir appealed for aid to the Crusaders,
and with the help of Amaury, King of Jerusalem, Shawir besieged his
friend Shirkuh. Nur ed-Din was successfully attacking the Crusaders
elsewhere, and in the end a peace was negotiated, and the Damascenes
left Egypt.

Two years later, Nur ed-Din formulated a plan to punish the rebellious
Shawir. Persecuted by Shirkuh, Nur ed-Din sent him with his army into
Egypt. The Franks now joined with Shawir to defend the country, hoping
thereby to baffle the schemes of Nur ed-Din. The Christian army was
amazed at all the splendour of the caliph's palace at Cairo. Shawir
retreated to entice the invaders on, who, advancing beyond their base,
were soon reduced to straits. Shirkuh then tried to come to terms with
Shawir against the Christians as a common foe, but without success.
He next thought of retreating, without fighting, with all his Egyptian
plunder. Persuaded at length to fight, he defeated the Franks and
finally came to terms with Shawir, whereby the Franco-Egyptian alliance
came to an end, and he then left Egypt on receiving an indemnity, Shawir
still remaining its ruler.

[Illustration: 015.jpg GATE OF EL FUTUH AT CAIRO]

The peace, however, did not last long, and Nur ed-Din sent Shirkuh again
with many Frankish free-lancers against the ill-fated country. On the
approach of the army towards Cairo, the vizier set fire to the ancient
city of Fostat, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the
invaders, and it burned continually for fifty days. El-Adid now sought
aid of Nur ed-Din, who, actuated by zeal against the Franks, and by
desire of conquest, once more despatched Shirkuh. In the meantime
negotiations had been opened with Amaury to raise the siege of Cairo on
payment of an enormous sum of money. But, before these conditions
had been fulfilled, the approach of the Syrian army induced Amaury
to retreat in haste. Shirkuh and Saladin entered the capital in
great state, and were received with honour by the caliph, and
with obsequiousness by Shawir, who was contriving a plot which was
fortunately discovered, and for which he paid with his life. Shirkuh
was then appointed vizier by El-Adid, but, dying very shortly, he was
succeeded in that dignity by his nephew Saladin (A.D. 1169).

Saladin inaugurated his reign with a series of brilliant successes.
Egypt once again took an important place among the nations, and by the
wars of Saladin it became the nucleus of a great empire. Military glory
was never the sole aim of Saladin and his successors. They continued
to extend to letters and the arts their willing patronage, and the
beneficial effects of this were felt upon the civilisation of the
country. Though ruler of Egypt, Saladin gained his greatest renown
by his campaigns against the Crusaders in Syria. The inability of Nur
ed-Din's son, El-Malik es-Salih Ismail, to govern the Syrian dominions
became an excuse for Saladin's occupation of Syria as guardian of the
young prince, and, once having assumed this function, he remained in
fact the master of Syria. He continued to consolidate his power in these
parts until the Crusaders, under Philip, Count of Flanders, laid siege
to Antioch. Saladin now went out to meet them with the Egyptian army,
and fought the fierce battle of Ascalon, which proved to be disastrous
to himself, his army being totally defeated and his life endangered.
After this, however, he was fortunate enough to gain certain minor
advantages, and continued to hold his own until a famine broke out in
Palestine which compelled him to come to terms with the Crusaders, and
two years later a truce was concluded with the King of Jerusalem, and
Saladin returned to Egypt.

In the year 576 a.h., he again entered Syria and made war on
Kilidj-Arslan, the Seljukide Sultan of Anatolia, and on Leon, King of
Armenia, both of whom he forced to come to terms. Soon after his return,
Saladin again left Egypt to prosecute a war with the Crusaders, since it
was plain that neither side was desirous of remaining at peace. Through
an incident which had just occurred, the wrath of the Crusaders had been
kindled. A vessel bearing fifteen hundred pilgrims had been wrecked
near Damietta, and its passengers captured. When the King of Jerusalem
remonstrated, Saladin replied by complaining of the constant inroads
made by Renaud de Chatillon. This restless warrior undertook an
expedition against Eyleh, and for this purpose constructed boats at
Kerak and conveyed them on camels to the sea. But this flotilla was
repulsed, and the siege was raised by a fleet sent thither by El-Adil,
the brother of Saladin, and his viceroy. A second expedition against
Eyleh was still more unfortunate to the Franks, who were defeated and
taken prisoners. On this occasion the captives were slain in the valley
of Mina. Saladin then threatened Kerak, encamped at Tiberias, and
ravaged the territory of the Franks. He next made a futile attempt to
take Beirut. He was more successful in a campaign against Mesopotamia,
which he reduced to submission, with the exception of Mosul. While
absent here, the Crusaders did little except undertake several forays,
and Saladin at length returned towards Palestine, winning many victories
and conquering Aleppo on the way. He next ravaged Samaria, and at last
received the fealty of the lord of Mosul, though he did not succeed in
actually conquering the city.

In the year 1186 war broke out again between Saladin and the Christian
hosts. The sultan had respected a truce which he had made with
Baldwin the Leper, King of Jerusalem, but the restless Renaud, who had
previously attacked Eyleh, had broken through its stipulations. His
plunder of a rich caravan enraged Saladin, who forthwith sent out orders
to all his vassals and lieutenants to prepare for a Holy War. In the
year 1187 he marched from Damascus to Kerak, where he laid close siege
to Renaud. At the same time a large body of cavalry was sent on
towards Nazareth under his son El-Afdhal. They were met by 730 Knights
Hospitallers and Templars, aided by a few hundred foot-soldiers.
Inspired by the heroic Jacques de Maille, marshal of the Temple,
they defied the large Saracen army. In the conflict which ensued, the
Crusaders immortalised themselves by fighting until only three of their
number were left alive, who, after the conflict was over, managed to
escape.

Soon after this, Saladin himself approached with a great army of eighty
thousand men, and the Christians with all their forces hastened to meet
him upon the shores of Lake Tiberias. The result of this battle proved
to be the most disastrous defeat which the Christians had yet suffered.
They were weakened by thirst, and on the second day of the conflict a
part of their troops fled. But the knights nevertheless continued to
make a heroic defence until they were overwhelmed by numbers and forced
to flee to the hills of Hittun. A great number of Crusaders fell in
this conflict, and Guy de Lusignan, King of Jerusalem, and his brother,
Renaud de Chatillon, were among the prisoners of war. The number of
those taken was very great, and Saladin left an indelible stain upon
a reign otherwise renowned for mercy and humanity by allowing the
prisoners to be massacred. Tiberias, Acre, Nabulus, Jericho, Ramleh,
Caesarea, Arsur, Jaffa, Beirut, and many other places now fell into the
hands of the conqueror.

[Illustration: 019.jpg ARAB DRINKING-VESSELS]

Tyre successfully resisted Saladin's attacks. Ascalon surrendered on
favourable conditions, and, to crown all, Jerusalem itself fell a prey
to his irresistible arms. The great clemency of Saladin is chronicled
on this occasion by Christian historians, but the same was an offence to
many of the Moslems and is but little referred to by their historians.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21