Part 240

EGYPT: B. C. 80-48. Strife among the Ptolemies. Roman pretensions.

The throne of Egypt being disputed, B. C. 80, between Cleopatra Berenice, who had seized it, and her step-son, Ptolemy Alexander, then in Rome, the latter bribed the Romans to support his claims by making a will in which he named the Roman Republic as his heir. The Senate, thereat, sent him to Alexandria with orders that Berenice should marry him and that they should reign jointly, as king and queen. The order was obeyed. The foully mated pair were wedded, and, nineteen days afterwards, the young king procured the death of his queen. The crime provoked an insurrection in which Ptolemy Alexander was slain by his own guard. This ended the legitimate line of the Ptolemies; but an illegitimate prince, usually called Auletes, or "the piper," was put on the throne, and he succeeded in holding it for twenty-four years. The claim of the Romans, under the will of Ptolemy Alexander, seems to have been kept in abeyance by the bribes which Auletes employed with liberality among the senatorial leaders. In 58 B. C. a rising at Alexandria drove Auletes from the throne; in 54 B. C. he bought the support of Gabinius, Roman pro-consul in Syria, who reinstated him. He died in 51 B. C. leaving by will his kingdom to his elder daughter, Cleopatra, and his elder son, Ptolemy, who, according to the abominable custom of the Ptolemies, were to marry one another and reign together. The Roman people, by the terms of the will were made its executors. When, therefore, Cæsar, coming to Alexandria, three years afterwards, found the will of Auletes set at nought, Ptolemy occupying the throne, alone, and Cleopatra struggling against him, he had some ground for a pretension of right to interfere.

_S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 11._

EGYPT: B. C. 48-47. Civil war between Cleopatra and Ptolemy. Intervention of Cæsar. The rising against him. The Romans besieged in Alexandria. Their ruthless victory.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

EGYPT: B. C. 30. Organized as a Roman province.

After the battle of Actium and the death of Cleopatra, Egypt was reduced by Octavius to the rank of a Roman province and the dynasty of the Ptolemies extinguished. But Octavius "had no intention of giving to the senate the rich domain which he tore from its native rulers. He would not sow in a foreign soil the seeds of independence which he was intent upon crushing nearer home. … In due time he persuaded the senate and people to establish it as a principle, that Egypt should never be placed under the administration of any man of superior rank to the equestrian, and that no senator should be allowed even to visit it, without express permission from the supreme authority."

_C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 29._

EGYPT: A. D. 100-500. Roman and Christian.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47 to A. D. 413-415; and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.

EGYPT: A. D. 296. Revolt crushed by Diocletian.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

EGYPT: A. D. 616-628. Conquest by Chosroes, the Persian.

The career of conquest pursued by Chosroes, the last Persian conqueror, extended even to Egypt, and beyond it. "Egypt itself, the only province which had been exempt since the time of Diocletian from foreign and domestic war, was again subdued by the successors of Cyrus. Pelusium, the key of that impervious country, was surprised by the cavalry of the Persians: they passed with impunity the innumerable channels of the Delta, and explored the long valley of the Nile from the pyramids of Memphis to the confines of Æthiopia. Alexandria might have been relieved by a naval force, but the archbishop and the præfect embarked for Cyprus; and Chosroes entered the second city of the empire, which still preserved a wealthy remnant of industry and commerce. His western trophy was erected, not on the walls of Carthage, but in the neighbourhood of Tripoli: the Greek colonies of Cyrene were finally extirpated." By the peace concluded in 628, after the death of Chosroes, all of his conquests were restored to the empire and the cities of Syria and Egypt evacuated by their Persian garrisons.

_E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 46. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

EGYPT: A. D. 640-646. Moslem conquest.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

EGYPT: A. D. 967-1171. Under the Fatimite Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.

EGYPT: A. D. 1168-1250. Under the Atabeg and Ayoubite sultans.

See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

EGYPT: A. D. 1218-1220. Invasion by the Fifth Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229.

EGYPT: A. D. 1249-1250. The crusading invasion by Saint Louis of France.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517. The Mameluke Sultans.

The Mamelukes were a military body created by Saladin. "The word means slave (literally, the possessed'), and … they were brought in youth from northern countries to serve in the South. Saladin himself was a Kurd, and long before his accession to power, Turkish and Kurdish mercenaries were employed by the Caliphs of Bagdad and Cairo, as the Pope employs Swiss. … Subsequently, however, Circassia became the country which most largely furnished this class of troops. Their apprenticeship was a long and laborious one: they were taught, first of all, to read the Koran and to write; then followed lance-exercise, during which time nobody was allowed to speak to them. At first they either resided in the castle, or were exercised living under tents; but after the time of Sultan Barkouk they were allowed to live in the town [Cairo], and the quarter now occupied by the Jews was at that time devoted to the Circassian Mamelukes. After this period they neglected their religious and warlike exercises, and became degenerate and corrupt. … The dynasty of Saladin … was of no duration, and ended in 648 A. H., or 1250 of the Christian era. {760} Then began the so-called Bahrite Sultans, in consequence of the Mamelukes of the sultan Negm-ed-din having lodged in Rodah, the Island in the Nile (Bahr-en-Nil). The intriguer of the period was Sheger-ed-dur, the widow of the monarch, who married one of the Mamelukes, Moez-eddin-aibek-el-Turcomany, who became the first of these Bahrite Sultans, and was himself murdered in the Castle of Cairo through this woman. … Their subsequent history, until the conquest of Egypt by Sultan Selim in 1517, presents nothing but a series of acts of lust, murder and rapine. So rapidly did they expel each other from power, that the average reign of each did not exceed five or six years. … The 'fleeting purple' of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire is the spectacle which these Mameluke Dynasties constantly present."

_A. A. Paton, History of the Egyptian Revolution, volume 1, chapters 3-5._

EGYPT: A. D. 1516-1517. Overthrow of the Mameluke Sultans. Ottoman conquest by Sultan Selim.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799. The French conquest and occupation by Bonaparte.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST), and 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799. Bonaparte's organization of government. His victory at Aboukir. His return to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST), and 1799 (NOVEMBER).

EGYPT: A. D. 1800. Discontent and discouragement of the French. The repudiated Treaty of El Arish. Turkish defeat at Heliopolis. Revolt crushed at Cairo. Assassination of Kleber.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

EGYPT: A. D. 1801-1802. Expulsion of the French by the English. Restoration of the province to Turkey.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811. The rise of Mohammad 'Aly (or Mehemet Ali) to power. His treacherous destruction of the Mamelukes.

"It was during the French occupation that Mohammad 'Aly [or Mehemet Ali] came on the scene. He was born in 1768 at the Albanian port of Kaballa, and by the patronage of the governor was sent to Egypt in 1801 with the contingent of troops furnished by Kaballa to the Ottoman army then operating with the English against the French. He rapidly rose to the command of the Arnaut or Albanian section of the Turkish army, and soon found himself an important factor in the confused political position which followed the departure of the British army. The Memluk Beys had not been restored to their former posts as provincial governors, and were consequently ripe for revolt against the Porte; but their party was weakened by the rivalry of its two leaders, El-Elfy and El-Bardisy, who divided their followers into two hostile camps. On the other hand, the Turkish Pasha appointed by the Porte had not yet gained a firm grip of the country, and was perpetually apprehensive of a recall to Constantinople. Mohammad 'Aly at the head of his Albanians was an important ally for either side to secure, and he fully appreciated his position. He played off one party against the other, the Pasha against the Beys, so successfully, that he not only weakened both sides, but made the people of Cairo, who were disgusted with the anarchy of Memluk and Turk alike, his firm friends; and at last suffered himself, with becoming hesitation, to be persuaded by the entreaty of the populace to become [1805] their ruler, and thus stepped to the supreme power in the curious guise of the people's friend. A fearful time followed Mohammad 'Aly's election—for such it was—to the governorship of Egypt. The Turkish Pasha, Khurshid, held the citadel, and Mohammad 'Aly, energetically aided by the people of Cairo, laid siege to it. From the minaret of the mosque of Sultan Hasan, and from the heights of Mukattam, the besiegers poured their fire into the citadel, and Khurshid replied with an indiscriminate cannonade upon the city. The firing went on for weeks (pausing on Fridays), till a messenger arrived from Constantinople bringing the confirmation of the popular vote, in the form of a firman, appointing Mohammad 'Aly governor of Egypt. Khurshid shortly afterwards retired, and the soldiery amused themselves in the approved Turkish and (even worse) Albanian fashion by making havoc of the houses of the citizens. Mohammad 'Aly now possessed the title of Governor of Egypt, but beyond the walls of Cairo his authority was everywhere disputed by the Beys. … An attempt was made to ensnare certain of the Beys, who were encamped north of the metropolis. On the 17th of August, 1805, the dam of the canal of Cairo was to be cut, and some chiefs of Mohammad 'Aly's party wrote informing them that he would go forth early on that morning with most of his troops to witness the ceremony, inviting them to enter and seize the city, and, to deceive them, stipulating for a certain sum of money as a reward. The dam, however, was cut early in the preceding night, without any ceremony. On the following morning these Beys, with their Memluks, a very numerous body, broke open the gate of the suburb El-Hosey-niyeh, and gained admittance into the city. … They marched along the principal street for some distance, with kettle-drums behind each company, and were received with apparent joy by the citizens. At the mosque called the Ashrafiyeh they separated, one party proceeding to the Azhar and the houses of certain sheykhs, and the other party continuing along the main street, and through the gate called Bab-Zuweyleh, where they turned up towards the citadel. Here they were fired on by some soldiers from the houses; and with this signal a terrible massacre commenced. Falling back towards their companions, they found the by-streets closed; and in that part of the main thoroughfare called Beyn-el-Kasreyn, they were suddenly placed between two fires. Thus shut up in a narrow street, some sought refuge in the collegiate mosque of the Barkukiyeh, while the remainder fought their way through their enemies, and escaped over the city wall with the loss of their horses. Two Memluks had in the meantime succeeded, by great exertions, in giving the alarm to their comrades in the quarter of the Azhar, who escaped by the eastern gate called Bab-el-Ghureyyib. A horrible fate awaited those who had shut themselves up in the Barkukiyeh. Having begged for quarter and surrendered, they were immediately stripped nearly naked, and about fifty were slaughtered on the spot; and about the same number were dragged away. … The wretched captives were then chained and left in the court of the Pasha's house; and on the following morning the heads of their comrades, who had perished the day before, were skinned and stuffed with straw before their eyes. {761} One Bey and two other men paid their ransom, and were released; the rest, without exception, were tortured, and put to death in the course of the ensuing night. … The Beys were disheartened by this revolting butchery, and most of them retired to the upper country. Urged by England, or more probably by the promise of a bribe from El-Elfy, the Porte began a leisurely interference in favour of the Memluks; but the failure of El-Elfy's treasury, and a handsome bribe from Mohammad 'Aly, soon changed the Sultan's views, and the Turkish fleet sailed away. … An attempt of the English Government to restore the Memluks by the action of a force of 5,000 men under General Fraser ended in disaster and humiliation, and the citizens of Cairo had the satisfaction of seeing the heads of Englishmen exposed on stakes in the Ezbekiyeh. Mohammad 'Aly now adopted a more conciliatory policy towards the Memluks, granted them land, and encouraged them to return to Cairo. The clemency was only assumed in order to prepare the way for the act of consummate treachery which finally uprooted the Memluk power. … Early in the year 1811, the preparations for an expedition against the Wahhabis in Arabia being complete, all the Memluk Beys then in Cairo were invited to the ceremony of investing Mohammad 'Aly's favourite son, Tusun, with a pelisse and the command of the army. As on the former occasion, the unfortunate Memluks fell into the snare. On the 1st of March, Shahin Bey and the other chiefs (one only excepted) repaired with their retinues to the citadel, and were courteously received by the Pasha. Having taken coffee, they formed in procession, and, preceded and followed by the Pasha's troops, slowly descended the steep and narrow road leading to the great gate of the citadel; but as soon as the Memluks arrived at the gate it was suddenly closed before them. The last of those who made their exit before the gate was shut were Albanians under Salih Kush. To those troops their chief now made known the Pasha's orders to massacre all the Memluks within the citadel; therefore having returned by another way, they gained the summit of the walls and houses, that hem in the road in which the Memluks were, and some stationed themselves upon the eminences of the rock through which that road is partly cut. Thus securely placed, they commenced a heavy fire on their defenceless victims, and immediately the troops who closed the procession, and who had the advantage of higher ground, followed their example. … 470 Memluks entered the citadel, and of these very few, if any, escaped. One of these is said to have been a Bey. According to some, he leaped his horse from the ramparts, and alighted uninjured, though the horse was killed by the fall. Others say that he was prevented from joining his comrades, and discovered the treachery while waiting without the gate. He fled and made his way to Syria. This massacre was the signal for an indiscriminate slaughter of the Memluks throughout Egypt, orders to this effect being transmitted to every governor; and in Cairo itself, the houses of the Beys were given over to the soldiery, who slaughtered all their adherents, treated their women in the most shameless manner, and sacked their dwellings. … The last of his rivals being now destroyed, Mohammad 'Aly was free to organize the administration of the country, and to engage in expeditions abroad."

_S. Lane-Poole, Egypt, chapter 8._

ALSO IN: _A. A. Paton, History of the Egyptian Revolution, volume 2._

EGYPT: A. D. 1807. Occupation of Alexandria by the English. Disastrous failure of their expedition.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

EGYPT: A. D. 1831-1840. Rebellion of Mehemet Ali. Successes against the Turks. Intervention of the Western Powers. Egypt made an hereditary Pashalik.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869. Mehemet Ali and his successors. The khedives. The opening of the Suez Canal.

"By the treaty of 1840 between the Porte and the European Powers, … his title to Egypt having been … affirmed … Mehemet Ali devoted himself during the next seven years to the social and material improvement of the country, with an aggregate of results which has fixed his place in history as the 'Peter the Great' of Egypt. Indeed, except some additions and further reforms made during the reign of his reputed grandson, Ismail Pasha, the whole administrative system, up till less than ten years ago, was, in the main, his work; and notwithstanding many admitted defects, it was at his death incomparably the most civilised and efficient of then existing Mussulman Governments. In 1848, this great satrap, then verging on his eightieth year, was attacked by a mental malady, induced, as it was said, by a potion administered in mistaken kindness by one of his own daughters, and the government was taken over by his adopted son, Ibrahim Pasha, the hero of Koniah and Nezib. He lingered till August 1849, but Ibrahim had already pre-deceased him; and Abbas, a son of the latter, succeeded to the viceregal throne. Though born and bred in Egypt, Abbas was a Turk of the worst type—ignorant, cowardly, sensual, fanatic, and opposed to reforms of every sort. Thus his feeble reign of less than six years was, in almost everything, a period of retrogression. On a night in July, 1854, he was strangled in his sleep by a couple of his own slaves,—acting, it was variously said, on a secret order from Constantinople, or at the behest of one of his wives. To Abbas succeeded Said, the third son of Mehemet Ali, an amiable and liberal-minded prince who retrieved much of the mischief done by his predecessor, but lacked the vigorous intelligence and force of character required to carry on the great work begun by his father. His reign will be chiefly memorable for the concession and commencement of the Suez Canal, the colossal work which, while benefiting the trade of the world, has cost so much to Egypt. Said died in January 1863, and was succeeded by his nephew Ismail Pasha, the second son of Ibrahim. As most of the leading incidents of this Prince's reign, as also the chief features of his character, are still fresh in the public memory, I need merely recall a few of the more salient of both. Amongst the former, history will give the first place to his creation of the huge public debt which forms the main element of a problem that still confronts Europe. {762} But, for this the same impartial judge will at least equally blame the financial panderers who ministered to his extravagance, with exorbitant profit to themselves, but at ruinous cost to Egypt. On the other hand, it is but historical justice to say that Ismail did much for the material progress of the country. He added more than 1,000 to the 200 miles of railway in existence at the death of Said. He greatly improved the irrigation, and so increased the cultivable area of the country; multiplied the primary schools, and encouraged native industries. For so much, at least, history will give him credit. As memorable, though less meritorious, were the magnificent fetes with which, in 1869, he opened the Suez Canal, the great work which England had so long opposed, but through which—as if by the irony of history—the first ship that passed flew the English flag, and to the present traffic of which we contribute more than eighty per cent. In personal character, Ismail was of exceptional intelligence, but cruel, crafty, and untrustworthy both in politics and in his private relations. … It may be mentioned that Ismail Pasha was the first of these Ottoman Viceroys who bore the title of 'Khedive,' which is a Perso-Arabic designation signifying rank a shade less than regal. This he obtained in 1867 by heavy bribes to the Sultan and his chief ministers, as he had the year before by similar means ousted his brother and uncle from the succession, and secured it for his own eldest son,—in virtue of which the latter now [1890] nominally reigns."

_J. C. M'Coan, Egypt (National Life and Thought, lecture 18)._

_J. C. M'Coan, Egypt under Ismail, chapters 1-4._

EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883. Conquest of the Soudan. Measures for the suppression of the slave-trade. The government of General Gordon. Advent of the Mahdi and beginning of his revolt.