The Great Arab Conquests (28 page)
Read The Great Arab Conquests Online
Authors: Hugh Kennedy
It was around the beginning of September 640 that Amr began his investiture of the fortress. It has been suggested that there was a garrison of 5,000 or 6,000 men, well provided with supplies to withstand a siege. Against these mighty walls, the Arabs could only muster some puny siege engines and attempt to scale the ramparts using ladders. If there had been hope of relief or widespread support from the people of the surrounding countryside, it might well have held out. But no Byzantine army came to the rescue and Cyrus’s oppressive policy towards the Copts had ensured that they looked on his fate with indifference or even hostility.
Meanwhile, in Babylon, the defenders still held out. There is no coherent account of the siege and we have only a few improving anecdotes, intended to show the warlike puritanism of the Muslims. In one of these Zubayr and Ubāda were surprised by the enemy when they were praying, but they leapt on their horses and drove their attackers back to the fortress. As they retreated, the Byzantines threw off their valuable belts and ornaments in the hope that the Arabs would pause to pick them up. The Muslims, however, showed their customary scorn for worldly wealth, pursuing their enemies to the city walls, where Ubāda was injured by a stone thrown from the ramparts. The two heroes then returned to their devotions, leaving the valuable spoils untouched.
In March 641 news came of the death of the emperor Heraclius and a succession crisis in the empire. This event would certainly have depressed the defenders and raised the morale of the Arabs, who still seem to have regarded the old emperor with a certain awe. With no prospect of relief in sight, the end could not be far off. On Easter Monday, 9 April 641, the Byzantines finally surrendered the great fortress to the Muslims and left, taking some of their gold but abandoning their considerable military equipment.
36
36
According to one version, it was Zubayr who finally took the city. He brought ladders to climb the walls and shouted out ‘God is great’, on hearing which there was a mass assault and the defenders gave up hope and surrendered.
37
On the face of it, this is a classic narrative topos, suspiciously similar to the account of how Khālid b. al-Walīd stormed the walls of Damascus. On the other hand, the Muslims of Egypt certainly took the story seriously. Zubayr’s ladder was kept as a relic. Balādhurī, writing in the second half of the ninth century, records that Zubayr built a house, later inherited by his son and descendants, in which the ladder was still preserved in his day.
38
A later source says that it survived until it was destroyed in a house fire in the year 1000, more than three and a half centuries later.
39
37
On the face of it, this is a classic narrative topos, suspiciously similar to the account of how Khālid b. al-Walīd stormed the walls of Damascus. On the other hand, the Muslims of Egypt certainly took the story seriously. Zubayr’s ladder was kept as a relic. Balādhurī, writing in the second half of the ninth century, records that Zubayr built a house, later inherited by his son and descendants, in which the ladder was still preserved in his day.
38
A later source says that it survived until it was destroyed in a house fire in the year 1000, more than three and a half centuries later.
39
The facts of the story are also important because the surrender of Babylon was a catastrophic blow for Byzantine power in Egypt, ‘a source of great grief to the Romans’, as the contemporary Coptic historian John of Nikiu put it with considerable
schadenfreude
. He had no doubts about the reasons: ‘They had not honoured the redemptive passion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave his life for those who believe in Him.’ In particular they had persecuted the Orthodox Christians (by whom, of course, he meant his fellow Copts). Throughout the siege it seems that Coptic leaders had been kept imprisoned in the fortress. On Easter Sunday the prisoners were released but ‘enemies of Christ as they were they [the Byzantines] did not let them go without first ill-using them; but they scourged them and cut off their hands’.
40
schadenfreude
. He had no doubts about the reasons: ‘They had not honoured the redemptive passion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave his life for those who believe in Him.’ In particular they had persecuted the Orthodox Christians (by whom, of course, he meant his fellow Copts). Throughout the siege it seems that Coptic leaders had been kept imprisoned in the fortress. On Easter Sunday the prisoners were released but ‘enemies of Christ as they were they [the Byzantines] did not let them go without first ill-using them; but they scourged them and cut off their hands’.
40
It was probably at this time that the document known as the Treaty of Misr (Egypt) between the Muslims and the Byzantine authorities was drawn up, though the exact context of this document remains unclear.
41
It is in many ways similar to the treaty Umar had made with Jerusalem and was presumably modelled on it. It begins with a general clause safeguarding the people their religion (
millat
), their property, their crucifixes, their lands and their waterways. They would be obliged to pay the
jizya
(tribute) every year when the rise of the Nile (
ziyādat nahrihim
) was over.
42
If the river failed to rise properly, payment would be reduced in proportion. If anyone did not agree to it, he would not pay the tribute but he would not receive protection. Romans and Nubians who wanted to enjoy the same terms might do so and those who did not were free to leave. There are more clauses which specifically relate to the Nubians: they were not to be settled in people’s houses and those who had accepted the treaty would contribute so many slaves and so many horses. In return, they would not be raided and their trade would not be interrupted. The treaty was witnessed by Zubayr and his sons Abd Allāh and Muhammad and was written by Wardān.
41
It is in many ways similar to the treaty Umar had made with Jerusalem and was presumably modelled on it. It begins with a general clause safeguarding the people their religion (
millat
), their property, their crucifixes, their lands and their waterways. They would be obliged to pay the
jizya
(tribute) every year when the rise of the Nile (
ziyādat nahrihim
) was over.
42
If the river failed to rise properly, payment would be reduced in proportion. If anyone did not agree to it, he would not pay the tribute but he would not receive protection. Romans and Nubians who wanted to enjoy the same terms might do so and those who did not were free to leave. There are more clauses which specifically relate to the Nubians: they were not to be settled in people’s houses and those who had accepted the treaty would contribute so many slaves and so many horses. In return, they would not be raided and their trade would not be interrupted. The treaty was witnessed by Zubayr and his sons Abd Allāh and Muhammad and was written by Wardān.
This treaty is just one of a number of slightly differing accounts which we have of the terms that were made with the people of Egypt.
43
In many of them the tax to be paid was assessed at 2 dinars per adult male except for the poor. Some also said that the Egyptians should provide the Muslims with supplies.
44
Each landowner (
dhī ard
) was to provide 210 kilos of wheat,
d
4 litres of oil, 4 litres of honey and 4 litres of vinegar (but, of course, no wine).
e
They were also to get clothing: each Muslim was to be given a woollen
jubba
, a
burns
or turban, a pair of trousers (
sarāwīl
) and a pair of shoes. It may be that many of these south Arabians had arrived very ill prepared for the coolness of an Egyptian winter.
43
In many of them the tax to be paid was assessed at 2 dinars per adult male except for the poor. Some also said that the Egyptians should provide the Muslims with supplies.
44
Each landowner (
dhī ard
) was to provide 210 kilos of wheat,
d
4 litres of oil, 4 litres of honey and 4 litres of vinegar (but, of course, no wine).
e
They were also to get clothing: each Muslim was to be given a woollen
jubba
, a
burns
or turban, a pair of trousers (
sarāwīl
) and a pair of shoes. It may be that many of these south Arabians had arrived very ill prepared for the coolness of an Egyptian winter.
Now that Babylon was in Muslim hands, Amr hastened to make preparations for the inevitable assault on Alexandria. It was only three months before the rising of the Nile would make mobility very difficult. The walls of the fortress were repaired and put in order. Then he ordered the restoration of the bridge of boats across the Nile. According to a story lovingly preserved in the Arabic tradition, a dove made her nest in Amr’s tent just before it was to be taken down for the expedition. He ordered that she be left in peace: ‘She has taken refuge under our protection [
taharamat bi jawrin
]. Let the tent stand until she has hatched her brood and they are flown away.’ The story is further embellished by having a sentry stand guard so that the dove was not disturbed.
45
taharamat bi jawrin
]. Let the tent stand until she has hatched her brood and they are flown away.’ The story is further embellished by having a sentry stand guard so that the dove was not disturbed.
45
According to the Egyptian tradition, the campaign was greatly helped at this stage by the Copts who went with the army and ‘made the roads safe and constructed bridges and established markets. The Copts were a help to them in their fight against the Romans’.
46
46
As usual the actual course of the campaign is confused. The first objective seems to have been Nikiu, home of the bishop-chronicler. It was a strong fortress on the western branch of the Nile near modern Manuf. The Roman commander Theodore had left one of his subordinates, Domentianus, in command of the garrison and the fleet of river boats, but he panicked on the approach of the Arab army and fled by boat to Alexandria. Finding their leader gone, the garrison threw down their arms and attempted to escape by boat, but the boatmen had already fled to their villages. The hapless soldiers were caught by the Arabs as they stood by the water and were all put to the sword apart from one man called Zacharia, who is said to have been spared for his bravery. The Muslims entered the city unopposed on 13 May 641 and, according to John, ‘slaughtered everyone they found in the streets and churches, men women and infants and showed mercy to none’.
47
47
The Muslims now followed the Roman army under Theodore as it retreated northwards towards Alexandria. It was not always plain sailing for the Arabs. At one point the commander of the Muslim vanguard, Sharīk b. Shuway, was surrounded by Roman troops and in danger of being overwhelmed. He ordered one of his men, who had a bay horse renowned for its speed, to gallop to find Amr, 26 kilometres in the rear at Tarnūt, to tell him of the danger. The Romans set off in pursuit of the messenger but were unable to catch him up. On hearing of Sharīk’s plight, Amr advanced as quickly as possible and the enemy retreated, being unwilling to face him in battle. Ever after that, the place was known as Kūm Sharīk (Sharīk’s Hill).
The Arab forces continued to advance. There was another fierce encounter at Karyūn in the delta. It seems that here Romans and Copts fought together and reinforcements came from all the surrounding towns and villages.
48
Theodore’s forces were routed but only after a fierce struggle, and Amr ‘prayed the prayer of fear’.
49
It was in this conflict that Amr’s son was seriously injured fighting in the advance guard. In the end Theodore and his surviving troops were forced to retreat to Alexandria.
48
Theodore’s forces were routed but only after a fierce struggle, and Amr ‘prayed the prayer of fear’.
49
It was in this conflict that Amr’s son was seriously injured fighting in the advance guard. In the end Theodore and his surviving troops were forced to retreat to Alexandria.
The Arab forces now approached the great city. Butler gives us a lyrical description of what they must have seen.
50
50
Many of the soldiers in that [Arab] army must have seen beautiful cities in Palestine, like Edessa, Damascus and Jerusalem;
51
some may even have gazed on the far famed splendours of Antioch or the wonders of Palmyra; but nothing can have prepared them for the extraordinary magnificence of the city which now rose before them, as they passed among the gardens and vineyards and convents abounding in its environs. Alexandria was, even in the seventh century, the finest city in the world: with the possible exception of ancient Carthage and Rome, the art of the builder has never produced anything like it before or since. As far as the eye could reach ran that matchless line of walls and towers which for centuries later excited the enthusiasm of travellers. Beyond and above them gleamed domes and pediments, columns and obelisks, statues, temples and palaces. To the left [as the Arabs approached from the south-east] the view was bounded by the lofty Serapeum with its gilded roofs, and by the citadel on which Diocletian’s Column stood conspicuous: to the right the great cathedral of St Mark was seen, and further west those great obelisks called Cleopatra’s Needles,
52
which even then were over 2,000 years old, or twice as old as the city’s foundation. The space in between was filled with the outlines of brilliant architecture: and in the background, stood that stupendous monument known as the Pharos, which rightly ranked as one of the wonders of the world. Even these half-barbarian warriors from the desert must have been strangely moved by the stateliness and grandeur, as well as by the size and strength, of the city they had come to conquer.
Archaeological evidence suggests, however, that some of the glory of classical Alexandria had long since departed.
53
The Pharos was still intact, lighting up the entrance to the harbour, and the main street of the city still ran along the course of the ancient Via Canopica, but much of the eastern part of the ancient city had been abandoned. Furthermore the important southern harbour on Lake Mareotis had been ruined by fighting between the supporters of the emperor Phocas and his rival Heraclius in 608-10, which had destroyed the canal systems. In the aftermath of this destruction, much of the southern part of the city was also abandoned. When the Abbasid caliph Mutawwakil (847-61) ordered the building of a new set of city walls in the ninth century, they enclosed only about a third of the ancient city. Earthquakes, the destruction of the city by Crusader raiders from Cyprus in 1365 and the rebuilding of the city on the orders of Muhammad Ali in the early nineteenth century have obliterated most of ancient and early medieval Alexandria. The sparse archaeological evidence does suggest, however, that the city the Arabs conquered had shrunk within its ancient walls and that many areas were abandoned. The fortifications, dating from the heyday of the city in Ptolemaic times, may have been much too lengthy for the diminished population to defend effectively.
53
The Pharos was still intact, lighting up the entrance to the harbour, and the main street of the city still ran along the course of the ancient Via Canopica, but much of the eastern part of the ancient city had been abandoned. Furthermore the important southern harbour on Lake Mareotis had been ruined by fighting between the supporters of the emperor Phocas and his rival Heraclius in 608-10, which had destroyed the canal systems. In the aftermath of this destruction, much of the southern part of the city was also abandoned. When the Abbasid caliph Mutawwakil (847-61) ordered the building of a new set of city walls in the ninth century, they enclosed only about a third of the ancient city. Earthquakes, the destruction of the city by Crusader raiders from Cyprus in 1365 and the rebuilding of the city on the orders of Muhammad Ali in the early nineteenth century have obliterated most of ancient and early medieval Alexandria. The sparse archaeological evidence does suggest, however, that the city the Arabs conquered had shrunk within its ancient walls and that many areas were abandoned. The fortifications, dating from the heyday of the city in Ptolemaic times, may have been much too lengthy for the diminished population to defend effectively.
Despite these problems, the city of Alexandria might have held out for months or even years, especially if it was supplied from the sea, but this was not to be. The empire as a whole and Alexandria in particular were torn apart by rivalry and jealousies. For details of this we are entirely dependent on the narrative of John of Nikiu, for the Arab authors tell us nothing of the conflicts.
The emperor Heraclius had died on 11 February 641, two months before the surrender of Babylon. He had ordained that imperial authority should be shared between his two sons, Constantine and Heraclius. It was never a workable scheme, and Constantine took effective charge. He summoned Cyrus back from exile and the military commander in Egypt to a conference, at which he agreed that he would send more troops to Egypt. Preparations for the expedition were already under way when, on 24 May, Constantine suddenly died. Power now passed to his younger half-brother Heraclius and his ambitious mother, Martina. The new government seems to have been determined to make peace with the Muslims and Cyrus was now sent back to Alexandria, not to strengthen the resistance but to see what terms could be negotiated. The new rulers in Constantinople may have felt that they needed all their military resources to maintain their position in the capital. Cyrus may have hoped that he could re-establish the tribute arrangements he had put in place before 639. After all, the Byzantines had often paid subsidies to barbarians to keep out of their territory before, and this small group of marauders might be prepared to accept terms.
Other books
The Night Dance by Suzanne Weyn
The Swiss Family RobinZOM (Book 5) by Perrin Briar
Ahriman: Hand of Dust by John French
The Ancient Alien Question by Philip Coppens
A Spotlight for Harry by Eric A. Kimmel
Forever Love (Fghter Club 1) by Marie Dominique
Through the Dom's Lens by Doris O'Connor
Breakup by Dana Stabenow
Magic Hands by Jennifer Laurens
The Bullfighter Checks Her Makeup by Susan Orlean