CHAPTER I--THE CRUSADERS IN EGYPT

Produced by David Widger

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--ARCHÆOLOGICAL 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--Kléber

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--Palæolithic 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 mediæval 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 Cæsars. 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, Tataë, and fled to Syria with a large sum of

money; but he fell into the hands of the Crusaders, was returned to

Tataë, 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 Tataë, but his power was merely the shadow of sovereignty.

Tataë’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 Tataë’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 Fostât, 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 Châtillon. 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 Maillé, 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 Hittûn. A great number of Crusaders fell in

this conflict, and Guy de Lusignan, King of Jerusalem, and his brother,

Renaud de Châtillon, 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,

Cæsarea, Arsûr, 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.

Tyre was now again besieged and was on the point of capture when the

besieged were relieved by the arrival of Conrad, son of the Marquis

of Monferrat. The defence was now fought with such vigour that Saladin

abandoned it and made an attack upon Tripoli, but with no better

success, although he succeeded in forcing Bohemond, Prince of Antioch,

and ruler of Tripoli, to submit on terms favourable to himself. After

this, Saladin took part in the defence of the ever-memorable siege of

Acre, which called forth deeds of gallantry and heroism on both sides,

and which lasted for two years, during which it roused the interest

of the whole of the Christian world. The invading army were in time

reinforced by the redoubtable Richard Coeur de Lion, King of England,

and Philip II. of France, and, breaking down all opposition, they

captured the city, and floated upon its walls the banners of the cross

in the year 1191 A.D. Unfortunately for the good name of the Christians,

an act of ferocious barbarity marred the lustre of their triumph, for

2,700 Moslems were cut down in cold blood in consequence of the failure

of Saladin to fulfil the terms of the capitulation; and the palliative

plea that the massacre was perpetrated in the heat of the assault can

scarcely be urged in extenuation of this enormity. While many historians

have laid the blame on King Richard, the historian Michaud believes

it rather to have been decided on in a council of the chiefs of the

Crusade.

After a period of rest and debauchery, the army of the Crusaders, led on

by King Richard, began to march towards Jerusalem. Saladin harassed his

advance and rendered the strongholds on the way defenceless and ravaged

the whole country. Richard was nevertheless ever victorious. His great

personal bravery struck terror into the Moslems, and he won an important

victory over them at Arsûr. Dissensions now broke out among chiefs of

the Crusaders, and Richard himself proved to be a very uncertain

leader in regard to the strategy of the campaign. So serious were

these drawbacks that the ultimate aim of the enterprise was thereby

frustrated, and the Crusaders never attained to their great object,

which was the re-conquest of Jerusalem. At the time when the Christian

armies were in possession of all the cities along the coast, from Jaffa

to Tyre, and the hosts of Saladin were seriously disorganised, a treaty

was concluded and King Richard sailed back on the return journey to

England. The glory acquired by Saladin, and the famous campaigns of

Richard Cour de Lion, have rendered the Third Crusade the most memorable

in history, and the exploits of the heroes on both sides shed a lustre

on the arms of both Moslems and Christians.

Saladin died about a year after the conclusion of this peace, at

Damascus, A.D. 1193, at the age of fifty-seven. With less rashness and

bravery than Richard, Saladin possessed a firmer character and one far

better calculated to carry on a religious war. He paid more attention to

the results of his enterprises; more master of himself, he was more

fit to command others. When mounting the throne of the Atabegs, Saladin

obeyed rather his destiny than his inclinations; but, when once firmly

seated, he was governed by only two passions,--that of reigning and

that of securing the triumph of the Koran. On all other subjects he

was moderate, and when a kingdom or the glory of the Prophet was not

in question, the son of Ayyub was admired as the most just and mild of

Muhammedans. The stern devotion and ardent fanaticism that made him take

up arms against the Christians only rendered him cruel and barbarous

in one single instance. He displayed the virtues of peace amidst the

horrors of war. “From the bosom of the camps,” says an Oriental poet,

“he covered the nations with the wings of his justice, and poured upon

his cities the plenteous showers of his liberality.” During his reign

many remarkable public works were executed. The Muhammedans, always

governed by fear, were astonished that a sovereign could inspire them

with so much love, and followed him with joy to battle. His generosity,

his clemency, and particularly his respect for an oath, were often the

subjects of admiration to the Christians, whom he rendered so miserable

by his victories, and of whose power in Asia he had completed the

overthrow. Previous to his death, Saladm had divided the kingdom

between his three sons; El-Afdhal received Damascus, Southern Syria,

and Palestine, with the title of sultan; El-Aziz obtained the kingdom of

Egypt, and Ez Zahir the princedom of Aleppo.

El-Aziz undertook a campaign against Syria, but was defeated and obliged

to retreat to Cairo on account of a mutiny among his troops. El-Afdhal

pursued him, and had already pressed forward as far as Bilbeis, when

El-Adil, who had hitherto espoused his cause, fearing that he might

become too powerful, forced him to conclude a peace. The only advantage

he obtained was that he regained possession of Jerusalem and the

southern part of Syria. Soon after, El-Adil prevailed upon his nephew

Aziz, with whom he stood on friendly terms, to renew the war and to

take Damascus; El-Afdhal was betrayed, and only Sarchod was left to him,

whereas El-Adil occupied Damascus and forced Aziz to return to Egypt

again (June, 1196). After Aziz’s death, in November, 1198, El-Afdhal was

summoned by some of the emirs to act as regent in Egypt. Others called

upon El-Adil to adopt the same course. El-Afdhal, however, became master

of Egypt, and besieged Damascus, reinforced by his brother Zahir, who

feared his uncle’s ambition no less than himself. The agreement between

the brothers, however, did not last long; their armies separated, and

El-Afdhal was obliged to raise the siege and retreat to Egypt. He was

pursued by his uncle, and forced, after several skirmishes, to surrender

the capital and content himself once more with Sarchod and one or two

towns on the Euphrates (February, 1200). El-Adil ruled for a short time

in the name of El-Aziz’s son; he soon came forward as sultan, forced

Zahir to recognise him as his suzerain, and appointed his son El-Muzzain

as governor of Damascus; the towns which belonged to him in Mesopotamia

were distributed among his other sons, and he thus became, to a certain

extent, the overlord of all the lands conquered by Saladin. His son,

El-Ashraf, later became lord of Chelat in Armenia, and his descendant,

Masud, Kamil’s son, obtained possession of happy Arabia; so that the

name Malik Adil was pronounced in all the Moslem chancels from the

borders of Georgia to the Gulf of Aden.

[Illustration: 025.jpg VASE IN THE ABBOTT COLLECTION, NEW YORK]

El-Adil was so much engaged with wars against the Moslem princes,--the

princes of Nissibis and Mardin,--and also with repulsing El-Afdhal, who

wished to recover his lost kingdom, that he was unable to proceed with

any force against the Crusaders; he took unwilling measures against them

when they actually broke the peace, and was always ready to conclude

a new treaty. He took Jaffa by storm when the pilgrims, armed by Henry

VI., came to Palestine and interfered with the Moslem devotions, and

when the chancellor Conrad thereupon seized Sidon and Beirut, El-Adil

contented himself with laying waste the former town and hindering

the capture of the fortress Joron; Beirut he allowed to fall into

the enemy’s hands. Still later he permitted several attacks of the

Christians--such as the devastation of the town Fuah, situated on the

Rosetta arm of the Nile--to pass unnoticed, and even bought peace at

the expense of the districts of Ramleh and Lydda, which had formerly

belonged to him. It was not until the year 1206 that he acted upon the

offensive against the regent, John of Ibelin, and even then he contented

himself with slight advantages and concluded a new truce for thirty

years.

Shortly before his death, El-Adil, like his brother Saladin, narrowly

escaped losing all his glory and the fruits of so many victories. Pope

Honorius III. had successfully aroused the zeal of the Western

nations for a new Crusade. Numerous well-armed and warlike-minded

pilgrims--among whom were King Andreas of Hungary and Duke Leopold of

Austria--landed at Acre in 1217, and King John of Jerusalem led them

against the Moslems. El-Adil hastened from Egypt to the scene of action,

but was forced to retreat to Damascus and to give up the whole of the

southern district, with the exception of the well-fortified holy town,

to be plundered by the Christians. In the following spring, whilst

El-Adil was in Syria, a Christian fleet sailed to Damietta, and besieged

the town. The attacking forces were composed of Germans and Hungarians,

who had embarked at Spalato on the Adriatic for St. Jean d’Acre, where

they spent a year in unfortunate expeditions and quarrels with the

Christians of Syria. They were joined by a fleet of three hundred boats

furnished by North Germans and Frisians, who, leaving the banks of

the Rhine, had journeyed there by way of the Straits of Gibraltar,

prolonging the journey by a year’s fighting in Portugal.

The Christians then in Palestine had persuaded the Crusaders to begin

with an attack on Egypt, and they had therefore chosen to land at

Damietta. This was a large commercial town to the east of one of the

arms of the Nile, which was defended by three walls and a large tower

built on an island in the middle of the Nile, from which started the

chains that barred the river.

The Frisian sailors constructed a castle of wood, which was placed

between the masts of two ships, and from which the Crusaders were able

to leap to the tower, and thus they were able to blockade and starve

the town. The siege was long, and an epidemic breaking out among the

besiegers carried off a sixth of their number. The sultan tried to

succour the besieged by floating down the stream corpses of camels,

which were stuffed with provisions, but the Christians captured them. He

then offered to give the Crusaders, on condition they would depart,

the True Cross and all he possessed of the kingdom of Jerusalem; but

Pelagius, the papal legate,--a Spanish monk who had himself named

commander-in-chief,--rejected the offer.

El-Adil was so stunned by the news of the success of the Christians

that he died a few days after (August, 1218). El-Kamil, however, was not

discouraged; he not only defended Damietta, but also harassed the enemy

in their own camp by means of hordes of Bedouins. Not until he was

forced, by a conspiracy of his troops in favour of his brother El-Faiz,

to fly to Cairo, did the Christians succeed in getting across the Nile

and completely surrounding Damietta. Order was soon restored in

Egypt, owing to the arrival of Prince Muzzain, who had taken over the

government of Damascus on the death of his father. The rebels were

chastised, and both brothers proceeded towards Damietta: they could not

succeed, however, in raising the siege, and the garrison diminished

daily through hunger, sickness, and constant attacks, and the fortress

soon fell into the hands of the Crusaders, almost without a blow

(November 5, 1219). The Crusaders pillaged the town, taking from it four

hundred thousand gold pieces. The Italians also settled there, and

made it the seat of their commerce with Egypt. This conquest caused

excitement in Europe, and the Pope called Pelagius “the second Joshua.”

[Illustration: 027.jpg PUBLIC FOUNTAIN, CAIRO.]

If the Franks had been more at peace among themselves, they might

easily have pushed forward to Cairo after the fall of Damietta. But the

greatest discontent prevailed between the papal legate, Pelagius, and

King John of Brienne, so that the latter soon after left Egypt, while

Pelagius was forced to wait for reinforcements before he could get away

from Damietta.

El-Kamil, meanwhile, reinforced his army with the help of the friendly

Syrian princes, and, by destroying the channels and dams of the Nile

canals, so endangered the Christian camp that they were soon forced

to sue for peace, and offered to quit Damietta on the condition of an

unmolested retreat. El-Kamil, equally anxious for peace, accepted these

conditions (August, 1221). Scarcely had the Æyubites thus warded off:

the threatening danger when they proceeded to fall out among themselves.

After the death of El-Kamil, who in the end was generally regarded as

overlord, a new war broke out, in March, 1238, between his son El-Adil

II., who was reigning in Egypt, and his brother Ayyub, who occupied

Damascus. Ayyub conquered Egypt, but, in his absence, his uncle Ismail,

Prince of Balbek, seized upon Damascus and made a league with the Franks

in Palestine and several of the Syrian princes. Through this unnatural

league, Ismail, however, estranged not only the Moslem inhabitants of

Syria, but also his own army. Part of the army deserted in consequence

to Ayyub, who was thus enabled easily to subdue the allied army (1240).

Another coalition was formed against him a few years later, and this

time Da’ud of Kerak was one of the allies. Ayyub sent a strong army of

Egyptians, negroes, and Mamluks under the future sultan, Beybars,

to Syria. The Syrian troops fought unwillingly against their

fellow-believers in the opposite ranks, and the wild Chariz-mites,

who had also joined the ranks, inspired them with terror, so that they

deserted the field of battle in the neighbourhood of Gaza (October,

1244). The Christians, left to themselves, were not in a position to

resist the enemy’s attacks; and the Egyptians made themselves masters

of Jerusalem and Hebron, and in the following year obtained Damascus,

Balbek, Ascalon, and Tiberias. In 1248 Ayyub came again into Syria, in

order to chastise El-Malik en-Nasir, Prince of Aleppo, who had seized

upon Hemessa when he heard of the coming Crusaders under Saint Louis.

To this end he made peace with the natives of Aleppo, and returned to

Jerusalem in order to make the necessary preparations for defence. The

pilgrims, however, succeeded in landing, for Emir Fakhr ed-Din, the

Egyptian commander, had taken to flight after a short skirmish, and the

fortress was allowed to fall into the hands of the enemy (June, 1249).

Ayyub now established a firm footing in the town of Cairo--which his

father had founded--in a district intersected by canals, and harassed

the Christian camp with his light cavalry. Louis was expecting

reinforcements, but they did not arrive until the inundations of the

Nile made any advance into the interior almost impossible. At last, on

the 21st of December, the Christian army arrived at the canal of

Ashmum Tanah, which alone separated them from the town of Mansuria.

The Egyptians were now commanded by Emir Fakhr ed-Din. Ayyub had died

a month before, but his wife, Shejret ed-Durr, kept his death a secret

until his son Turan Shah should arrive from Mesopotamia. Fakhr ed-Din

did everything in his power to retrieve his former error. He attacked

the Christians when they were engaged in building a dam across

the canal, hindering their work on the southern bank with his

throwing-machines, destroying their towers with Greek fire; and when, in

spite of all discouragements, their toilsome work was nearly finished,

he rendered it useless by digging out a new basin, into which he

conducted the water of the Ashmum canal.

On the 8th of February, 1250, the French crossed the canal, but, instead

of collecting there, as the king had commanded, so as to attack the

enemy _en masse_, several troops pressed forward against the Egyptians,

and many, including the Count of Artois, the king’s brother, were killed

by the valiant enemy under Beybars. The battle remained long undecided,

for the Egyptians had barricaded Cairo so well that it could only be

stormed at the cost of many lives, and after the capture the army needed

rest. The Egyptians took advantage of this delay to bring a fleet up

in the rear of the Egyptian ships, which, in combination with the fleet

stationed near Mansuria, attacked and completely destroyed them. As soon

as they were masters of the Nile, the Egyptians landed troops below the

Christian camp, which was thus completely cut off from Damietta, and

soon suffered the greatest hardships from lack of provisions. Under

these circumstances, Louis opened negotiations with Turan Shah, and

when these proved fruitless, nothing remained for him but to return to

Damietta. Although they began their retreat by night, they did not thus

escape the vigilance of the Egyptians. The fugitives were overtaken on

the following morning, and so shut in by the enemy that resistance was

impossible. A large portion of the army was cut to pieces, in spite of

their surrender; the rest, together with the king and his brother, were

taken prisoners and brought in triumph to Cairo. Turan Shah treated the

king with consideration and hastened to conclude peace with the Bahritic

Mamluks,--so called because they had been brought up on the Nile (Bahr),

on the island Rhodha,--as soon as the ransom money of his prisoners

was assured. The Bahrites grumbled at this peace because it left the

Christians in Palestine in possession of their towns, and they forthwith

murdered Turan Shah, with the help of Shejret ed-Durr, whom he had

maltreated (May 2, 1250).

After Turan Shah’s death, his mother was proclaimed sultana, and the

Mamluk Aibek became general of the army. Later, when the caliph of

Baghdad revolted against the rule of a woman, Aibek assumed the title

of sultan and married Shejret ed-Durr. He ruled again after some time

in the name of a young descendant of Kamil, so as to be able to fight

against the Ayyubids in Syria, who, with En-Nasir at their head, had

taken possession of Damascus, with an appearance of right. A battle took

place between Aibek and the Syrians (February, 1251), which was decided

in favour of Aibek in consequence of the treachery of the Turks under

Nasir. Aibek again assumed the title of sultan after the victory, but

was soon after to be murdered by the Mamluks, who were unwilling to be

subject to any control. He anticipated their plot, however, and slew

their leader, the Emir Aktai, putting his followers to flight. He then

demanded the diploma of investiture and the insignia of his office

from the caliph, and also pressed the Prince of Mosul to grant him his

daughter in marriage. His own wife, unable to endure such perfidy, had

him murdered in his bath (April 10, 1257).

[Illustration: 032b]

When Beybars first ascended the throne, he assumed the name of Sultan

Kahir (the over-ruler), but afterwards, when he was informed that this

name had always brought misfortune to its bearer, he changed it to that

of Sultan Zahir (the Glorious).

Now that he was absolute master of Syria and Egypt, Beybars tried to

obliterate the remembrance of the misdeeds he had formerly been guilty

of by means of undertakings for the general good and for the furtherance

of religion. He had the mosques repaired, founded pious institutions,

designed new aqueducts, fortified Alexandria, had all the fortresses

repaired and provisioned which the Mongols had razed to the ground, had

a large number of great and small war-ships built, and established a

regular post between Cairo and Damascus. In order to obtain a semblance

of legitimacy, since he was but a usurper, Beybars recognised a nominal

descendant of the house of Abbas as caliph, who, in the proper course

of things, ought to invest him with the dominions of Syria and Egypt.

Beybars bade his governors receive this descendant of the house of the

Prophet with all suitable marks of honour, and invited him to come to

Egypt. When he approached the capital, the sultan himself went out to

meet him, followed by the vizier, the chief cadi, and the chief emirs

and notabilities of the town. Even the Jews and Christians had to take

part in the procession, carrying respectively the Tora and the Gospel.

The caliph made his entrance into Cairo with the greatest pomp, rode

through the town amidst the shouts of the multitude, and proceeded to

the citadel, where Beybars had appointed him a magnificent dwelling.

Some days afterwards the caliph had a reception of the chief cadi, the

most celebrated theologians and lawyers of Egypt, and many notables of

the capital. The Arabs who formed his escort and an eunuch from Baghdad

testified to the identity of the caliph’s person, the chief cadi

recognised their assertion as valid, and was the first to do homage to

him as caliph. Thereupon the sultan arose, took the oath of allegiance

to him and swore to uphold both the written laws of the Koran and

those of tradition; to advance the good and hinder the evil, to fight

zealously for the protection of the faith only, to impose lawful taxes,

and to apply the taxes only to lawful purposes. After the sultan had

finished, homage was done by the sheiks, the emirs, and the other chief

officers of the kingdom. The caliph invested the sultan with power over

all the kingdoms subject to Islam, as well as over all future conquests,

whereupon the people of all classes were admitted to do homage likewise.

Then command was sent out to all the distant princes and governors to do

homage to the caliph, who has assumed the name of El-Mustanssir, and to

place his name beside that of the sultan in their prayers and also on

their coins.

Beybars’ treatment of his viziers, governors, and other important emirs,

one or other of whom he either imprisoned or executed on every possible

occasion, was merciless, but he proceeded even more shamelessly against

Malik Mughith, Prince of Kerak and Shaubek, whom he feared so much as

one of the bravest descendants of the house of Ayyub that he stamped

himself publicly as a perjured assassin, in order to get him out of

the way. Beybars had at first, without any declaration of war, in fact,

without any notification of it in Egypt, suddenly sent a detachment of

troops under the leadership of Emir Bedr ed-Din Aidimri, which took the

fortress Shaubek by surprise, and placed the Emir Saif ed-Din Bilban

el-Mukhtasi in it as governor. In the next year, in order to win over

Mughith, he liberated his son Aziz, whom Kotuz had captured at Damascus

and imprisoned at Cairo; he also assured Mughith of his friendly

intentions towards him and repeatedly urged him to arrange a meeting.

El-Malik el-Mughith did not trust Beybars, and invented all kinds of

reasons not to accept his invitations. Beybars resolved at last to calm

the fears of his intended victim by means of a written oath. The fears

of Mughith, however, were not allayed, and he hesitated to fall in with

the wish of the sultan and to appear at his court. The following year,

when the sultan came to Syria and again urged a meeting, he was at a

loss for an excuse, and was forced either to acknowledge his mistrust

or risk everything. He sent his mother first to Gaza, where she was

received with the greatest friendliness by the sultan, and sent back

laden with costly presents; on her return to Kerak, corrupted by the

hospitality and generosity of the sultan, she persuaded her son to wait

on him, as did also his ambassador Alamjad with equal zeal. Finally he

set out from Kerak--when he had made his troops do homage to his son

El-Malik el-Aziz--on a visit to the sultan, who wras then in Tur. The

sultan rode out to meet him as far as Beisan. Malik Mughith wished to

dismount when he perceived the sultan, but he would not permit this, and

rode beside Mughith till he reached his own tent. Here he was separated

from his followers, thrown into chains, and brought into the citadel

of Cairo (a.h. 660). In order to palliate this crime, the sultan made

public the correspondence of the Prince of Kerak with the Mongols, which

it was thought would stamp the former as a traitor to Islam. The judges

whom he brought with him, and amongst whom we find the celebrated

historian Ibn Khallikan, who was then chief judge of Damascus, declared

him guilty, but we only have historical proof of the sending of his son

into Hulagu’s camp to beg that his province might be spared, at a time

when all the princes of Syria, seized with panic, threw themselves at

the feet of the Mongolian general. Be that as it may, he none the less

committed a piece of treachery, since he had sworn not to call him to

account for his former crimes. Beybars hoped, now that he had disposed

of Malik Mughith, that the fortress Kerak would immediately surrender to

his emissary, Emir Bedr ed-Din Beisari, but the governor of the fortress

feared to trust the promises of a perjurer and offered resistance.

Beybars therefore set out for Syria with all the necessary siege

apparatus, constructed by the best engineers of Egypt and Syria. The

garrison saw the impossibility of a long resistance and capitulated.

The son of Malik Mughith, El-Malik el-Aziz, a boy of twelve, was

honoured as prince and taken to Egypt, as also Mughith’s family. His

emirs and officials were treated with consideration, but the prince was

later thrown into prison. Nothing certain is known with regard to the

death of Mughith. According to some reports, because he offended the

wife of Beybars, when as a wandering Mamluk he once was staying with

him, he was delivered over to the sultan’s wives and was put to death by

them; another account says that he died of hunger in prison.

After the conquest of Shekif, the sultan made an attack on the province

of Tripoli because Prince Bok-mond, Governor of Antioch and Tripoli,

was his bitterest enemy and the truest ally of the Mongolians, and had,

moreover, at the time of Hulagu’s attack on Syria, made himself master

of several places which till then had belonged to the Mussulmans. The

whole land was wasted, all the houses destroyed, all Christians who fell

into the hands of the troops were murdered, and several strongholds in

the mountains conquered. Laden with rich booty, the Moslem army set out

for Hemessa. From here Beybars proceeded towards Hamah and divided the

army into three divisions; one division, under the Emir Bedr ed-Din

Khaznadar (treasurer), was to take the direction of Suwaidiya, the port

of Antioch; the second, under Emir Izz ed-Din Ighan, struck the route

towards Der-besak; the third, which he led himself, proceeded in a

straight line over Apamaa and Schoghr towards Antioch, which was the

meeting-place for the two other emirs, and would so be shut in from the

north, the west, and the south. On the 16th May the sultan found himself

in front of the town, which contained a population of over one hundred

thousand. Fighting soon ensued between the outposts of the sultan and

the constable who advanced against him at the head of the militia. The

latter was defeated, and the constable himself taken prisoner. On the 3d

of Ramadhan the whole army had united and preparations were made for

the siege. Meanwhile the sultan had already attempted to persuade the

imprisoned constable to return to the town and enduce them to surrender,

and to leave his own son behind as a hostage. But when several days had

passed in fruitless discussions, at last the sultan gave the word for

the attack. In spite of the resistance of the Christians, the walls

were scaled on the same day, and the garrison retired thereupon into the

citadel; the inhabitants were massacred or taken prisoner and all the

houses plundered. No one could escape, for Beybars had blocked all the

entrances. On the next day the garrison, women and children included,

which numbered eight thousand, surrendered on account of lack of water

and meal. The chiefs apparently made their escape during the confusion

and fled into the mountains. The garrison only saved their lives by

surrendering. Beybars had them chained and distributed as slaves amongst

his troops; he then had the other prisoners and the rest of the booty

brought together, and proceeded with the lawful distribution. When

everything had been settled, the citadel was set on fire, but the

conflagration was so great that the whole town was consumed.

Beybars died soon after his return from Asia Minor (July 1, 1277).

According to some reports his death was occasioned by a violent fever;

other accounts say that he died in consequence of a poison which he had

prepared for an Ayyubid and which he accidentally took himself. He had

designated the eldest of his sons as his successor, under the name

of El-Malik es-Said, and in order to give him a strong support he had

married him to the daughter of the Emir Kilawun, one of his best and

most influential generals. In spite of all this, however, es-Said was

not able to maintain himself on the throne for any length of time.

Kilawun conspired against his master, and was soon able to ascend the

throne under the title of El-Malik el-Mansur. His fame as a warrior was

already established, and he added to his successes during his ten

years’ reign. His first task was to quell disturbances in Syria, and he

despatched an army thither and captured Damascus. In the year 680 of

the Hegira he took the field in person against a large force of Tatars,

defeated them, and raised the siege of Rahabah. Eight years later he

laid siege to Tripoli, then rich and flourishing after two centuries of

Christian occupation, and the town was taken and its inhabitants killed.

Other expeditions were undertaken against Nubia, but the Nubians, after

they had been twice defeated, appear to have re-established themselves.

[Illustration: 038.jpg COURT IN THE MORISTAN OF THE KILAWUN]

The fortress of Acre was at this time the only important stronghold

still retained by the Christians, and for its conquest Kilawun was

making preparations when he died, on the 10th of November, 1290.

Kilawun, says the modern historian Weil, has been unduly praised by

historians, most of whom lived in the reign of his son. He was certainly

not so bloodthirsty as Beybars, and he also oppressed his subjects less.

He, too, cared more for the increase and establishment of his kingdom

than for justice and good faith. He held no agreement sacred, if he

could get any advantage by breaking it, as was shown by his behaviour

towards the Crusaders and the descendants of Beybars. The most beautiful

monument which he left behind him was a huge building outside Cairo,

which included a hospital, a school, and his own tomb. The hospital was

so large that every disease had a special room allotted to it; there

were also apartments for women, and large storerooms for provisions and

medical requirements, and a large auditorium in which the head doctor

delivered his lectures on medicine. The expenses were so great--for

even people of wealth were taken without compensation--that special

administrators were appointed to oversee and keep an account of the

necessary outlay. Besides these officers, several stewards and overseers

were appointed to control the revenues devoted to the hospital by

different institutions. Under the dome of the tomb the Koran and

traditional charters were taught, and both teachers and scholars

received their payment from the state. A large adjacent hall contained

a library of many works on the Koran, tradition, language, medicine,

practical theology, jurisprudence, and literature, and was kept in good

condition by a special librarian and six officials. The school building

contained four audience-halls for the teachers of the Islamite schools,

and in addition to these a school for children, into which sixty poor

orphans were received without any charge and provided with board,

lodging, and clothes.

Khalil, the son of Kilawun, who succeeded him, with the title of

El-Malik el-Ashraf, was able to begin operations in the spring of 1291

against Acre, and on the 18th of May, after an obstinate resistance, the

town was taken by storm. Those who could not escape by water were either

cut down or taken prisoner; the town was plundered, then burnt, and the

fortifications razed to the ground.

[Illustration: 043.jpg WINDOW IN THE MAUSOLEUM OF KILAWUN]

After the fall of Acre, towns such as Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, and others,

which were still in the hands of the Christians, offered no resistance,

and were either deserted by their inhabitants or given up to the enemy.

El-Ashraf, now that he had cleared Syria of the Crusaders, turned his

arms against the Mongols and their vassals. He began with the storming

of Kalat er-rum, a fortress on the Upper Euphrates in the neighbourhood

of Bireh, the possession of which was important both for the defence of

Northern Syria and for attacks on Armenia and Asia Minor. In spite of

many pompous declarations that this was only the beginning of greater

conquests in Asia Minor and Irak, he retired as soon as the Ilkhan

Kaikhatu sent a strong detachment of troops against him. Later on he

threatened the Prince of Armenia-Minor with war, and obliged him to hand

over certain border towns. He also exchanged some threatening letters

with Kaikhatu. But neither reigned long enough to make these threats

good, for Kaikhatu was soon after dethroned by Baidu, and Baidu in

his turn by Gazan (1295), after many civil wars which had continually

hindered him from carrying on a foreign war. El-Ashraf was murdered in

1294, whilst hunting, by the regent Baidara, whom he had threatend to

turn out of his office. Kara Sonkor, Lajin, El-Mansuri, and some of the

other emirs had conspired with Baidara in the hope that, when once the

deed was accomplished, all the chiefs in the kingdom would applaud their

action, since El-Ashraf had slain and imprisoned many influential emirs,

and was generally denounced as an irreligious man, who transgressed

not only against the laws of Islam, but also against those of nature.

Baidara, however, immediately proceeded to mount the throne, and a

strong party, with the Emir Ketboga at its head, was formed against him.

Ketboga called upon El-Ashraf’s Mamluks to take vengeance, pursued the

rebels, and killed Baidara. He then returned to Cairo, and, after long

negotiations with the governor of the capital, Muhammed, a younger

brother of El-Ashraf, was proclaimed sultan, with the title of El-Malik

en-Nasir.

Muhammed en-Nasir occupies such an important place in the history of

these times that the other Moslem princes may easily be grouped around

him. He was only nine years old when he was summoned to be ruler of the

kingdom of the Mamluks. Naturally he was the sultan only in name, and

the real power lay in the hands of Ketboga and Vizier Shujai. These two

lived in perfect harmony so long as they were merely occupied with

the pursuit of their rivals,--not only the friends and followers of

El-Ashraf’s murderer, but also the innocent ex-vizier of El-Ashraf,

because he had treated them with contempt and was in possession of

riches for which they were greedy. He shared the fate of the king’s

assassins, for, in spite of the intercession of the ladies of the royal

harem, he ended his life on the gallows. But as soon as the two rulers

had got rid of their enemies and appeased their own avarice, their

peaceful union was at an end, for each wished to have complete control

over the sultan. Shujai had the Mamluks of the late sultan on his side;

while Ketboga, who was a Mongol by birth, had with him all the Mongols

and Kurds who had settled in the kingdom during Beybars’ reign. A Mongol

warned Ketboga against Shujai, who had made all necessary preparations

to throw his rival into prison, and he immediately was attacked by

Ketboga and defeated after several attempts.

Ketboga’s ambition was not yet fulfilled, although he was now supreme

ruler. He first demanded homage as regent; as he met with no opposition,

he conceived the idea of setting the sultan, Nasir, aside; and he hoped

to carry out his plan with the assistance of Lajin and Kara Sonkor,

El-Ashraf’s murderers, and their numerous following. He had the pardon

of these two emirs proclaimed, whereupon they left their hiding-places

and joined Ketboga, for it was to their interest also that the sultan

should be put out of the way. This _coup d’état_ was a complete success

(December, 1294), but in spite of these plans, Ketboga’s reign was both

unfortunate and brief. The old emirs were vexed with him because he

raised his own Mamluks to the highest posts of honour, and the clergy

were displeased because he received favourably a number of Mongols,

although they were heathens. The people blamed him for the severe famine

which visited Egypt and Syria and which was followed by a terrible

pestilence. Several emirs, with Lajin again at their head, conspired

against him, and forced their way into his tent while he was on the way

to Syria; overpowering the guard, they attempted to get possession of

his person. He managed to escape, however, and so saved his life and

liberty, but Lajin obtained possession of the throne, with the agreement

of the other emirs. In spite of his advantages, both as man and as pious

Moslem, and in spite of his brilliant victories over the princes of

Armenia, Lajin was murdered, together with his successor, and Nasir, who

was then living in Kerak, was recalled as sultan (January, 1299).

Nasir was still too young to reign alone; he had to let himself be

ruled by the emirs who had already assumed a kind of regency before his

return. At the head of these emirs stood Sellar and Beybars Jashingir.

Distrust and uneasiness existed between these two, one of whom was

regent and the other prefect of the palace, for each wanted to assume

the chief power; but soon their private intrigues were put into the

background by a common danger. The Ilkhan Gazan was actively preparing

for war against the Mamluk kingdom because the Governor of Aleppo

had fallen upon Mardin, a town belonging to the Mongols, and brutally

maltreated the inhabitants; also because the refugees from Egypt and

Syria assured him that the moment was favourable for extending his

dominion over these lands.

The internal history of Egypt at this period offers nothing but tedious

strifes between different emirs, and specially between the two most

powerful, Beybars and Sellar, who would have often brought it to open

warfare had not their friends and followers intervened. They agreed,

however, on one point, namely, to keep the sultan as long as possible

from taking over the reins of government, and to keep him as secluded

as possible in order to deprive him of all influence. Whilst Sellar

was wasting immense sums, the sultan was in fact almost starving. When

Sellar went on a pilgrimage to Mecca, he paid the debts of all the

Moslems who had retired to this town; he further distributed ten

thousand malters of fruit amongst the poor people in the town, and so

much money and provisions that they were able to live on it for a whole

year. He also treated the inhabitants of Medina and Jiddah in an equally

generous way. The sultan, who was hunting in Lower Egypt, at the

same time tried in vain to obtain a small loan from the Alexandrian

merchants, to buy a present for his wife. Finally, his vizier, who had

granted him two thousand dinars ($5,060), was accused on Sellar’s return

of embezzling the public money, was led round the town on a donkey, and

beaten and tortured so long that he succumbed under his torments.

In the year 1307, when Nasir was twenty-three years old, though still

treated as a child, he attempted, with the help of the Emir Bektimur,

who commanded the Mamluks in the palace, to seize the persons of his

oppressors. The plan failed, for they had their spies everywhere, and

the only result was that the sultan’s faithful servants were banished to

Syria, and the sultan himself was more oppressed than ever. It was two

years before he succeeded in deceiving his tyrants. He expressed the

wish to make a pilgrimage to Mecca; this was granted, as the emirs saw

nothing dangerous in it, and, moreover, as a religious duty, it could

not be resisted. As soon as he reached the fortress Kerak, with the

help of those soldiers in his escort who were devoted to his cause,

and having deceived the governor by means of false letters, he obtained

possession of the fortress, and immediately declared his independence of

the guardianship of Sellar and Beybars. Sellar and Beybars, on hearing

this, immediately summoned the sultan to return to Cairo; but, even

before they received his answer, they realised that their rule was over,

and that either they must quit the field, or Nasir must be dethroned.

After long consideration amongst themselves, they proceeded to the

choice of another sultan, and the choice fell on Beybars (April, 1309).

Beybars accepted the proffered throne on the condition that Sellar also

retained his place. He confirmed the other emirs also in their offices,

hoping thereby to gain their support.

[Illustration: 049.jpg INTERIOR OF THE MOSQUE, KILAWUN]

The change of government met with no resistance in Egypt, where the

majority of the emirs had long been dependent on Beybars and Sellar.

In Syria, on the other hand, the emirs acting as governors refused to

acknowledge Beybars, partly from devotion to Nasir’s race, and partly

because the choice had been made without their consent. Only Akush,

Governor of Damascus, who was an old friend of Beybars, and like him a

Circassian, took the oath of allegiance. The governors of Aleppo, Hamah,

and Tripoli, together with the governors of Safed and Jerusalem, called

upon Nasir to join them, and, with the help of his other followers,

to reconquer Egypt. The cunning sultan, who saw that the time for open

resistance had not yet arrived, since Egypt was as yet too unanimous,

and Damascus also had joined the enemy, advised them to deceive Beybars

and to take the oath of allegiance, which they could break later, as

having been obtained by force. He himself feigned to submit to the new

government, and even had the prayers carried on from the chancel in

Beybars’ name. Beybars was deceived, although he knew with certainty

that Nasir carried on a lively intercourse with the discontented

emirs. He relied chiefly on Akush, who kept a strict watch over Nasir’s

movements. The spies of Akush, however, were open to corruption, and

they failed later to take steps to render Nasir harmless at the right

moment. Beybars believed Nasir to be still in Kerak, when he was well

on the way to Damascus; and when he finally received news of this, the

rebellion had already gone so far that some of the troops who had been

sent out against the sultan had already deserted to his side. The only

possible way of allaying the storm was for Beybars to put himself at the

head of his troops, and, joining forces with Akush, to offer battle

to Nasir. The necessary courage and resolution failed him. Instead of

having recourse to the sword, he applied to the caliph, who declared

Nasir an exile, and summoned all believers to listen to the Sultan

Beybars--whom he had consecrated--and to take part in the war against

the rebel, Nasir. But the summons of the caliph, which was read in all

the chancels, had not the slightest effect. The belief in the caliph had

long disappeared, except in so far as he was considered a tool of the

sultan on whom he depended. Even Beybars’ party mocked the caliph’s

declaration, and wherever it was read manifestations were made in favour

of the exile. Beybars, also, was now deserted by Sellar, and he at

length was obliged to resign. Beybars was then seized and throttled by

Nasir, and Sellar was starved to death.

Nasir, who now came to the throne, had grown suspicious and treacherous

on account of the many hardships and betrayals endured by him during

his youth. He was, however, favourable to the Christians, and to such an

extent that he received anonymous letters reproaching him for allowing

Moslems to be oppressed by Christian officials. He found them to be

experienced in financial matters, for, in spite of all decrees, they

had never ceased to hold secretaryships in different states: they were,

moreover, more unscrupulous than born Muhammedans, who always had

more respect for law, custom, and public opinion. Certainly the sultan

considered the ministers in whom he placed great confidence less

dangerous if they were wow-Moslems, since he was their only support,

whereas comrades in religion could always find plenty of support and

might easily betray him.

Nasir died on the 6th of June, 1341, at about fifty-eight years of age,

after a reign of forty-three years. His rule, which did not actually

begin until he mounted the throne for the third time, lasted thirty-two

years. During this period he was absolute ruler in the strongest sense

of the word; every important affair was decided by him alone. The emirs

had to refer all matters to him, and were a constant source of suspicion

and oversight. They might not speak to each other in his presence,

nor visit each other without his consent. The mildest punishment for

breaking such decrees was banishment to Syria. Nasir inspired them with

fear rather than with love and respect, and, as soon as it was known

that his illness was incurable, no one paid any further attention to

him. He died as a pious Moslem and repentant sinner in the presence

of some of his servants. His burial, which took place by night, was

attended by a few emirs, and only one wax candle and one lamp were

carried before the bier. As one of his biographers justly remarks, the

rich sultan, whose dominion had extended from the borders of Abyssinia

to Asia Minor and up the Euphrates as far as Tunis, and the father of

a large family, ended his life like a stranger, was buried like a poor

man, and brought to his grave like a man without wife or child. Nasir

was the last sultan who ruled over the Bahritic Mamluk kingdom with a

firm hand. After his death we read of one insurrection after another,

and the sultans were either deposed or became mere slaves of the emirs.

Abu Bekr, whom Nasir had appointed his successor, did not hold his own

for quite two months, because he maltreated the discontented emirs

and put his favourites in their places. An insurrection, with the Emir

Kausun at its head, was formed against him; he was dethroned and his

six-year-old brother Kujuk was proclaimed sultan in his stead. The

dethroned sultan was banished to Upper Egypt, whither his elder brother

Ahmed should have been brought; Ahmed, however, refused to leave his

fortress of Kerak, and, finding support among the Syrian emirs, he

conspired against Kausun, who was at this moment threatened also with an

insurrection in Cairo. After several bloody battles, Kausun was forced

to yield, and Ahmed was proclaimed sultan (January, 1342). Ahmed,

however, preferred a quiet, peaceful life to the dangerous post

of sultan, and not until he had received the most solemn oaths of

allegiance did he proceed to his capital, where he arrived quite

unexpectedly, so that no festivities had been prepared. After some time,

he had all the Syrian emirs arrested by his Mam-luks, because they tried

to usurp his powers; he then appointed a regent, and himself returned to

Kerak, taking with him everything he had found in the sultan’s palace,

and there he remained in spite of the entreaties of the faithful emirs,

and lived simply for his own pleasure.

The natural consequence of all this was Ahmed’s deposition in June,

1342. His brother Ismail, a good-hearted youth of seventeen years, sent

troops to Kerak to demand an oath of allegiance from Ahmed, but

they could effect nothing, as the fortress was well fortified and

provisioned, and, moreover, many of the emirs, both in Syria and Egypt,

were still in league with Ahmed. Not until fresh troops had been sent,

and Ahmed himself betrayed, did they succeed in taking the fortress;

and Ahmed was put to death in 1344. Ahmed’s death made such a deep

impression upon the weak sultan that he fell into a fit of depression

which gradually increased until he died in August of the following year.

[Illustration: 055.jpg FRIEZE IN MOSQUE OF SULTAN HASAN]

His brother and successor, Shaban, was an utter profligate, cruel,

faithless, avaricious, immoral, and pleasure-loving. Gladiators

played an important part at his court, and he often took part in their

contests. Horse-racing, cock-fights, and such like amusements occupied

him much more than state affairs, and the whole court followed his

example. As long as Shaban did not offend the emirs, he was at liberty

to commit any atrocities he pleased, but, as soon as he seized their

riches and imprisoned and tortured them, his downfall was certain.

Ilbogha, Governor of Damascus, supported by the other Syrian emirs,

sent him a list of his crimes and summoned him to abdicate. Meanwhile an

insurrection had broken out in Cairo, and, although Shaban expressed

his willingness to abdicate, he was murdered by the rebels in September,

1346. His brother Haji met with a similar fate after a reign of fifteen

months, though some accounts affirm that he was not murdered but only

exiled.

Haji was succeeded by his brother Hasan, who was still a minor; the

emirs who ruled in his name competed for the highest posts until

Baibagharus and his brother Menjik carried off the victory. These two

ruled supreme for a time. The so-called “black death” was ravaging

Egypt; many families were decimated, and their riches fell to the state.

The disease, which differed from the ordinary pest in the blood-spitting

and internal heat, raged in Europe and Asia, and spread the greatest

consternation even amongst the Moslems, who generally regarded disease

with a certain amount of indifference, as being a divine decree.

According to Arabic sources, the black death had broken out in China and

from there had spread over the Tatar-land of Kipjak; from here it took

its course towards Constantinople, Asia Minor, and Syria on the one

hand, and towards Greece, Italy, Spain, France, and Germany on the

other, and was probably brought to Egypt from Syria. Not only men,

but beasts and even plants were attacked. The ravages were nowhere

so fearful as in Egypt; in the capital alone in a few days as many

as fifteen or twenty thousand people were stricken. As the disease

continued to rage for two years, there was soon a lack of men to plough

the fields and carry on the necessary trades; and to increase the

general distress, incursions were made by the tribes of Turcomans

and Bedouins, who plundered the towns and villages. Scarcely had this

desperate state of affairs begun to improve when court intrigues sprang

up afresh, and only ended with the deposition of the sultan in August,

1351. He was recalled after three years, during which his brother had

reigned, and he was subsequently deposed and put to death in March,

1361. Finally the descendants of Nasir, instead of his sons, began to

rule. First came Muhammed Ibn Haji, who, as soon as he began to show

signs of independence, was declared to be of unsound mind by his chief

emir, Ilbogha; then Shaban, the son of Husain (May, 1363), who was

strangled in March, 1377; and finally Husain’s eight-year-old son Ali.

After repeated contests, Berkuk and Berekeh, two Circassian slaves,

placed themselves at the head of the government. Berkuk, however, wished

to be absolute, and soon put his co-regent out of the way (1389). He

contented himself at first with being simply regent, and, even when Ali

died, he declared his six-year-old brother Haji, sultan. The following

year, when he discovered a conspiracy of the Mamluks against him, and

when many of the older emirs were dead, he declared that it was for the

good of the state that no longer a child, but a man capable of directing

internal affairs and leading an army against the enemy, should take over

the government. The assembly, whom he had bribed beforehand, supported

him, and he was appointed sultan in November, 1382.

The external history of Egypt during this time is but scanty. She

suffered several defeats at the hands of the Turcomans in the north of

Syria, lost her supremacy in Mecca through the influence of the princes

of South Arabia, and both Alexandria and several other coast towns were

attacked and plundered by European fleets. This last event occurred

in Shaban’s reign in 1365. Peter of Lusignan, King of Cyprus, had, in

league with the Genoese, the Venetians, and Knights of Rhodes, placed

himself at the head of a new Crusade, and since his expedition was a

secret even in Europe,--for he was thought to be advancing against the

Turks,--it was easy for him to take the Egyptians by surprise, and all

the more so because the Governor of Alexandria happened to be absent at

the time. The militia tried in vain to prevent their landing, and the

small garrison held out for but a short time, so that the prosperous and

wealthy town was completely sacked and many prisoners were taken before

the troops arrived from Cairo.

[Illustration: 059.jpg INSIDE THE MOSQUE OF HASSAN]

The Christians living in Egypt suffered from this attack of the King of

Cyprus. They had to find ransom money for the Moslem prisoners and to

provide means for fitting out a new fleet. All negotiations with Cyprus,

Genoa, and Venice were immediately broken off. This event, however, had

the effect of reconciling the Italian traders again with Egypt, and an

embassy came both from Genoa and Venice, expressing regret at what had

happened, with the assurance that the government had had no hint of the

intentions of the King of Cyprus. Genoa also sent back sixty prisoners

who had fallen to them as their share of the Alexandrian booty. As

Egypt’s trade would also be at a standstill if they had no further

negotiations with the Franks, who imported wood, metal, arms, oil,

coral, wool, manufacturing and crystal wares in exchange for spices,

cotton, and sugar, the former trade relations were re-established. The

war with Cyprus continued, however; Alexandria was again threatened

and Tripoli was surprised by the Cyprian fleet, whereupon a number of

European merchants in Egypt were arrested. In the year 1370, after the

death of Peter of Lusignan, peace and an exchange of prisoners were

finally brought about. After this peace the Egyptians were able to

concentrate their whole force against Leo VI., Prince of Smaller

Armenia, who was brought as a prisoner to Cairo; and with him the

supremacy of the Christians in this land was at an end: henceforth Egypt

was ruled by Egyptian governors.

Faraj, Berkuk’s son and successor, had to suffer for his father’s

political mistakes. He had scarcely ascended the throne when the

Ottomans seized Derenda, Albustan, and Malatia. Preparations for war

were made, but given up again when it was seen that Bayazid could not

advance any farther south. Faraj was only thirteen years old, and all

the old intrigues amongst the emirs broke out again. In Cairo they

fought in the streets for the post of regent; anarchy and confusion

reigned in the Egyptian provinces, and the Syrians wished to revolt

against the sultan. When at last peace was re-established in Egypt, and

Syria was reduced, the latter country was again attacked by the hordes

of Tamerlane.

Tamerlane conquered the two important cities of Aleppo and Hemessa, and

Faraj’s forces returned to Egypt. When the sultan’s ally, Bayazid, was

defeated, Faraj concluded a peace with Tamerlane, at the price of

the surrender of certain lands. In 1405 Tamerlane died, and Faraj was

collecting troops for the purpose of recovering Syria when domestic

troubles caused him to flee from Egypt, his own brother Abd el-Aziz

heading the insurrection. In the belief that Faraj was dead, Aziz was

proclaimed his successor, but three months later Faraj was restored,

and it was not until 1412 that he was charged with illegal practices and

beheaded, his body being left unburied like that of a common malefactor.

The fact that criminal proceedings were brought against the sultan is

evidence of a great advance in the spirit of civilisation, but the

event must be regarded more as a proof of its possibility than as a

demonstration of its establishment.

[Illustration: 063.jpg MOSQUE OF BERKUK]

The Caliph El-Mustain was then proclaimed sultan, but after some months

he was dethroned and his former prime minister, Sheikh Mahmudi, took

over the reins of government (November, 1412). Although Sheikh had

obtained the throne of Egypt so easily, he experienced great difficulty

in obtaining the recognition of the emirs. Newruz, Governor of Damascus,

in league with the other governors, made a determined resistance, and

he was obliged to send a strong army into Syria to put down the rebels.

Newruz, after suffering one defeat, threw himself into the citadel of

Damascus and capitulated, when Sheikh had sworn to keep the terms of

the capitulation. Newruz’s ambassadors, however, had not a sufficient

knowledge of Arabic to perceive that the oath was not binding, and

when Newruz, trusting to this oath, appeared before Sheikh, he was

immediately thrown into chains, and afterwards murdered in prison

because the cadis declared the oath was not binding. In the next year

(1415) Sheikh was obliged to make another expedition against Syria to

re-conquer some of the places of which the smaller princes had taken

possession during the civil war. One of these princes was the Prince

Muhammed of Karaman, who had taken the town of Tarsus. Sheikh was

summoned by Muhammed’s own brother to overcome him, which he easily

succeeded in doing. Many other princes were forced to submit, and

finally the town of Malatia, which the Turcoman Husain had stormed, was

recaptured. The war against Husain and the Prince of Karaman was to have

been continued, but Sheikh was forced to return home, owing to a wound

in his foot. As soon as certain misunderstandings between Sheikh and

Kara Yusuf had been cleared up, another army was despatched into Asia

Minor, for Tarsus had been recaptured by the Prince of Karaman, who had

driven out the Prince of Albustan, whom Sheikh had installed. Ibrahim,

the sultan’s son, took command of this army, and occupied Caasarea,

Nigdeh, and Kara-man. Whilst he was occupied in the interior of Asia

Minor, the Governor of Damascus had defeated Mustapha, son of the Prince

of Karaman, and the Prince Ibrahim of Ramadhan, near Adana, which latter

town, as well as Tarsus, he had re-conquered.

The Prince of Karaman, who now advanced against Caasarea, suffered a

total defeat. Mustapha remained on the field of battle, but his father

was taken prisoner and sent to Cairo, where he lingered in confinement

until after the death of the sultan.

[Illustration: 065.jpg THE TOMB OF BERKUK]

Once again was Syria threatened by Kara Yusuf, but he was soon forced

to return to Irak by the conspiracy of his own son, Shah Muhammed, who

lived in Baghdad. As soon as this insurrection was put down, Kara

Yusuf was obliged to give his whole attention to Shah Roch, the son of

Tamerlane, who had raised himself to the highest power in Persia, and

was now attempting to re-conquer the province of Aderbaijan. Kara Yusuf

placed himself at the head of an army to protect this province,

but suddenly died (November, 1420) on the way to Sultania, and his

possessions were divided among his four sons, Shah Muhammed, Iskander,

Ispahan, and Jihan Shah, who all, just as the descendants of Tamerlane

had done, immediately began to quarrel among themselves.

The sultan was already very ill when the news of Kara Yusufs death

reached him. The death of Ibrahim, his son, whom he had caused to be

poisoned, on his return from Asia Minor, weighed heavily upon him

and hastened his death, which took place on January 13, 1421. He

left immense riches behind him, but could not obtain a proper burial;

everything was at once seized by the emirs, who did not trouble

themselves in the least about his corpse. He had been by no means a good

sultan; he had brought much misery upon the people, and had oppressed

the emirs. But in spite of all he had many admirers who overlooked his

misdeeds and cruelty, because he was a pious Moslem; that is, he did

not openly transgress against the decrees of Islam, favoured the

theologians, and distinguished himself as an orator and poet; he also

founded a splendid mosque, a hospital, and a school for theology. His

whole life abounds in contrasts. After he had broken his oath to Newruz,

he spent several days in a cloister to make atonement for this crime,

and was present at all the religious ceremonies and dances. Although he

shed streams of blood to satisfy his avarice, he wore a woollen garment,

and bade the preachers, when they mentioned his name after that of

Muhammed, to descend a step on the staircase of the chancel. Under a

religious sultan of this stamp, the position of the non-Muhammedans was

by no means an enviable one. The Jews and Christians had to pay enormous

taxes and the old decrees against them were renewed. Not only were they

forced to wear special colours, but the length of their sleeves and

head-bands was also decreed, and even the women were obliged to wear a

distinctive costume.

[Illustration: 067.jpg A TITLE-PAGE OF THE KORAN OF THE TIME OF SHABAN]

Sheikh appointed his son Ahmed, one year old, as his successor, and

named the emirs who were to act as regents until he became of age.

Tatar, the most cunning and unscrupulous of these emirs, soon succeeded

in obtaining the supreme power and demanded homage as sultan (August

29, 1421); but he soon fell ill and died after a reign of about three

months. He, too, appointed a young son as his successor and named the

regents, but Bursbai also soon grasped the supreme power and ascended

the throne in 1422. He had of course many insurrections to quell, but

was not obliged to leave Egypt. As soon as peace was restored in Syria,

Bursbai turned his attention to the European pirates, who had long been

harassing the coasts of Syria and Egypt. They were partly Cypriots and

partly Catalonians and Genoese, who started from Cyprus and landed their

booty on this island. Bursbai resolved first to conquer this island.

He despatched several ships with this object in view; they landed at

Limasol, and, having burnt the ships in the harbour and plundered the

town, they returned home. The favourable result of this expedition much

encouraged the sultan, and in the following year he sent out a large

fleet from Alexandria which landed in Famagosta. This town soon

surrendered and the troops proceeded to plunder the neighbouring places,

and defeated all the troops which Prince Henry of Lusignan sent out

against them. When they had advanced as far as Limasol, the Egyptian

commander, hearing that Janos, the King of Cyprus, was advancing with

a large army against him, determined to return to Egypt to bring his

enormous booty into safety. In July, 1426, a strong Egyptian fleet set

out for the third time, landed east of Limasol, and took this fortress

after a few days’ fighting. The Moslem army was, however, forced to

retreat. But the Cypriots scattered instead of pursuing the enemy, and

the Mamluks, seeing this, renewed their attack, slew many Christians

and took the king prisoner. The capital, Nicosia, then capitulated,

whereupon the Egyptian troops returned to Egypt with the captive king

and were received with great jubilation. The King of Cyprus, after

submitting to the greatest humiliations, was asked what ransom he could

pay. He replied that he possessed nothing but his life, and stuck to

this answer, although threatened with death. Meanwhile, Venetian and

other European merchants negotiated for the ransom money, and the

sultan finally contented himself with two hundred thousand dinars (about

$500,000). Janos, however, was not set at liberty, but sent to Cyprus

as the sultan’s vassal. After the death of Janos in 1432, his son, John

II., still continued to pay tribute to Egypt, and when he died (1458)

and his daughter Charlotte became Queen of Cyprus, James II., the

natural son of John II., fled to Egypt and found a friendly reception at

the sultan’s court.

[Illustration: 069.jpg PRAYER-NICHE IN THE MOSQUE OF THE SULTAN MAHMUDI]

The sultan then ruling was Inal, and he promised to re-install James as

King of Cyprus. Meanwhile messengers arrived from the queen, offering a

higher tribute, and Inal allowed himself to be persuaded by his emirs

to acknowledge Charlotte as queen, and to hand James over to

her ambassadors. But as soon as the ambassadors had left the

audience-chamber, a tumult arose; the people declared that the sultan

had only the advantage of the Franks--especially of Prince Louis of

Savoy--in view, and they soon took such a threatening attitude that

Inal was forced to declare himself for James again and renew his former

preparations. In August, 1460, an Egyptian fleet bore James to Cyprus,

and with the help of the Egyptian troops he soon obtained the island,

with the exception of the fortress Cerines, which Queen Charlotte still

had in her power. The majority of the Egyptian troops now returned to

Egypt, and only some hundred men remained with James. Later, when the

Genoese declared themselves on the side of Charlotte, fresh troops had

to be sent out from Egypt, but, as soon as James had taken Famagosta and

had no further need of them, he dismissed them (1464).

Bursbai despised no means by which he might enrich himself; he

appropriated the greater part of the inheritance of the Jews and

Christians; he even taxed poor pilgrims, in spite of the fact that he

was a pious Moslem, prayed much, fasted, and read the Koran. He turned

Mecca into a money-market. At the very moment when pious pilgrims

were praying for the forgiveness of their sins, one of his heralds was

proclaiming: “Whoever buys wares and does not pay toll for them in Egypt

has forfeited his life.” That is to say, all wares bought in Mecca or

Jiddah had to go out of their way to Egypt in order to be laid under

toll in this land.

[Illustration: 071.jpg ORNAMENTAL PAGE FROM A KORAN OF THE FOURTEENTH

CENTURY]

In appointing his son Yusuf to the consulship, Bursbai counted on the

devotedness of his Mamluks, and the Emir Jakmak, whom he appointed as

his chief adviser, and, in fact, Yusuf’s coronation, in June, 1438, met

with no resistance. After three months, however, Jakmak, feeling

himself secure, quietly assumed the sultan’s place; at first he had much

resistance to put down, but soon his prudence and resolution established

him safely in spite of all opposition. As soon as the rebels in the

interior had been dealt with, Yusuf, as a good Muhammedan, wished to

attack the Christians, and chose the island of Rhodes as the scene of

the Holy War, hoping to obtain this island as easily as Bursbai had

obtained the island of Cyprus. But the Order of St. John, to whom this

island belonged, had its spies in Egypt, so that the sultan’s intentions

were discovered and preparations for defence were made. The only

result of the sultan’s repeated expeditions was the devastation of some

unimportant coast towns; all attempts on the capital failed, so that

the siege was soon raised and peace concluded with the chief master of

Rhodes (1444).

Jakmak’s relations with the foreign chiefs were most friendly. He

constantly exchanged letters and gifts with both Sultan Murad and Shah

Roch. The sons of Kara Yelek and the princes of the houses of Ramadhan

and Dudgadir submitted to him; also Jihangir, Kara Yelek’s grandson and

Governor of Amid, tried to secure his friendship, as did the latter’s

deadly enemy, Jihan Shah, the son of Kara Yusuf.

[Illustration: 073.jpg MOSQUE OF KAIT BEY, CAIRO]

Jakmak’s rule was mild compared with that of Bursbai, and we hear less

of extraordinary taxes, extortions, executions, and violence of the

Mamluks. Although he was beloved by the people and priests on account

of his piety, he could not secure the succession of his son Osman, in

favour of whom he abdicated fourteen days before his death (February,

1453). Osman remained only a month and a half on the throne; he made

himself odious to the emirs who did not belong to his Mamluks. The

Mamluks of his predecessors conspired against him, and at their head

stood his own Atabeg, the Emir Inal, a former Mamluk of Berkuk.

Osman was warned, but he only mocked those who recommended him to

watchfulness, since he believed his position to be unassailable. He

had forgotten that his father was a usurper, who, although himself a

perjurer, hoped to bind others by means of oaths. His eyes were not

opened until he had lost all means of defence. He managed to hold out

for seven days, after which the citadel was captured by the rebels, and

he was forced to abdicate on the 19th of March. Inal became, even more

than his predecessors had been, a slave to those Mamluks to whom he owed

his kingdom. They committed the greatest atrocities and threatened

the sultan himself when he tried to hold them in check. They plundered

corpses on their way to the grave, and attacked the mosques during the

hours of service in order to rob the pilgrims.

They were so hated and feared that, when many of them were carried off

by the plague, their deaths were recorded by a contemporary historian as

a benefit to all classes of society.

In the hour of his death (26th February, 1461), Inal appointed his son

Ahmed as his successor, but the latter was no more able to maintain

himself on the throne than his predecessors had been, in spite of his

numerous good qualities. He was forced to submit in the strife with his

emirs, and on the 28th of June, 1461, after a reign of four months and

three days, he was dethroned, and the Emir Khosh Kadem, a former slave

of the Sultan Sheikh, of Greek descent, was proclaimed in his stead.

Khosh Kadem reigned for seven years with equity and benignity, and under

one of his immediate successors, El-Ashraf Kait Bey, a struggle was

begun with the Ottoman Turks. On the death of Muhammed II., dissensions

had arisen between Bayazid II. and Jem. Jem, being defeated by Bayazid,

retired to Egypt, which led to the invasion and conquest of Syria,

hitherto held by the Sultan of Egypt. On surrendering Tarsus and Adana

to Bayazid, Kait Bey was suffered to end his days in peace in A.D. 1495.

After many dissensions, the brave and learned El-Ghuri ascended the

throne, and Selim I., the Turkish sultan, soon found a pretext for an

attack upon the Mamluk power. A long and sanguinary battle was fought

near Aleppo, in which El-Ghuri was finally defeated through treachery.

He was trampled to death by his own cavalry in their attempt to escape

from the pursuing Ottomans. With his death, in A.D. 1516, Egypt lost her

independence. Tuman Bey, a nephew of the deceased, fiercely contested

the advance of the Ottomans, but was defeated and treacherously killed

by the Turks.

[Illustration: 076.jpg WADI FEIRAN, IN THE SINAI PENINSULA]

A long period of Turkish misrule now opened for the ill-fated country,

though some semblance of conciliation was attempted by Selim’s

appointment of twenty-four Mamluk beys as subordinate rulers over

twenty-four military provinces of Egypt. These beys were under the

control of a Turkish pasha, whose council was formed of seven Turkish

chiefs, while one of the Mamluk beys held the post of Sheikh el-Beled or

Governor of the Metropolis.

[Illustration: 077.jpg MAUSOLEUM OF EL-GHURI]

For nearly two centuries the Turkish pashas were generally obeyed in

Egypt, although there were frequent intrigues and quarrels on the part

of competing Mamluk beys to secure possession of the coveted post

of Sheikh el-Beled. Towards the middle of the eighteenth century the

authority of the Turkish pashas had become merely nominal, while that

of the beys had increased to such an extent that the government of Egypt

became a military oligarchy. The weakness of the Turks left the way open

for the rise of any adventurer of ability and ambition who might aspire

to lead the Mamluks to overthrow the sovereignty of the Porte.

In the year 1768 the celebrated Ali Bey headed a revolt against the

Turks, which he maintained for several years with complete success. A

period of good but vigorous government lasted Curing the years in which

he successfully resisted the Ottoman power. Ali’s generals also gained

for him considerable influence beyond the borders of Egypt. Muhammed Abu

Dhahab was sent by him to Arabia and entered the sacred city of Mecca,

where the sherif was deposed. Ali also despatched an expedition to the

eastern shores of the Red Sea, and Muhammed Bey, after his successes in

Arabia, invaded Syria and wrested that province from the power of the

sultan. The victorious soldier, however, now plotted against his master

and took the lead in a military revolt. As a result of this, Ali Bey

fell into an ambuscade set by his own rebellious subjects, and died from

poisoning m 1786. Thus terminated the career of the famous Mamluk, a man

whose energy, talents, and ambition bear a strong resemblance to those

of the later Mehe-met Ali.

Muhammed Bey, the Mamluk who had revolted against Ali Bey, now tendered

his allegiance to the Porte. To the title of Governor of the Metropolis

was also added that of Pasha of Egypt. He subdued Syria, and died during

the pillage of Acre.

[Illustration: 080b.jpg Bonaparte in Egypt]

From painting by M. Orange

After his death violent dissensions again broke out. The Porte supported

Ismail Bey, who retained the post of Governor of the Metropolis (Sheikh

el-Beled) until the terrible plague of 1790, in which he perished.

His former rivals, Ibrahim and Murad, now returned; and eight years

later were still in the leadership when the news was brought to Egypt

that a fleet carrying thirty thousand men, under Bonaparte, had arrived

at Alexandria on an expedition of conquest.

[Illustration: 080.jpg]

[Illustration: 081.jpg PAGE IMAGE]