While the picture of the history of Syria that emerges from the excerpts copied below from H.G. Wells' Outline of History (rev. 3rd ed., 1921) is doubtless unreliable in many details, it does make apparent that the peoples of that land have for millennia been pawns in games played by foreign imperialists.[1]  --Mark]


From THE OUTLINE OF HISTORY (revised 3rd edition, 1921)

By H.G. Wells


. . . [S]ome 10,000 or 12,000 years ago . . . there were elephants in Mesopotamia and Syria, and a fauna in Algeria that was tropical African in character (p. 75).

* * *

North and Central Europe and Asia did not become sufficiently temperate for agriculture until quite recent times, times that is within the limit of 12,000 or possibly even 10,000 years, and a dense forest period intervened between the age of the hunter and the agricultural clearings.

This forest period was also a very wet period. . . . 

The Persian Gulf extended very far to the north of its present head, and combined with the Syrian desert to cut off the Semitic peoples from the eastern areas, while on the other hand the south of Arabia, much more fertile than it is to-day, may have reached across what is now the Gulf of Aden towards Abyssinia and Somaliland (pp. 125-26).

* * *

For centuries Assyria was restrained from expansion towards Egypt by a fresh northward thrust and settlement of another group of Semitic peoples, the Arameans, whose chief citiy was Damascus, and whose descendants are the Syrians of to-day.  (There is, we may not, no connection whatever between the words Assyrian and Syrian.  It is an accidental similarity.)  Across these Syrians the Assyrian kings fought for power and expansion south-westward.  In 745 B.C. arose another Tiglath Pileser, Tiglath Pileser III, the Tiglath Pileser of the Bible (II Kings sv.29 & xvi.7 et seq.).  He not only directed the transfer of the Israelites to Media (the 'Lost Ten Tribes' whose ultimate fate has exercised so many curious minds) but he conquered and ruled Babylon, so founding what historians know as the New Assyrian Empire.  His son, Shalmaneser IV (II Kings xvii.3), died during the siege of Samaria, and was succeeded by a usurper, who, no doubt to flatter Babylonian susceptibilities, took the ancient Akkadian Sumerian name of Sargon, Sargon II.  He seems to have armed the Assyrian forces for the first time with iron weapons.  It was probably Sargon II who actually carried out the deportation of the Ten Tribes.

Such shiftings about of population became a very distinctive part of the political methods of the Assyrian new empire.  Whole nations wh owere difficult to control in theri native country would be shifted en masse to unaccustomed regions and amidst strange neighbours, where their only hope of survival would lie in obedience to the supreme power (p. 139).

* * *

The story of the Tigris and Euphrates civilizations, of which we have given as yet only the bare outline, is a story of conquest following after conquest, and each conquest replaces old rulers and ruling classes by new; races like the Sumerian and the Elamite are swallowed up, their languages vanish, they interbreed and are lost, the Assyrian melts away into Chaldean and Syrian, the Hittites become Aryannized and lose distinction, the Semites who swallowed up the Sumerians give place to Aryan rulers, Medes and Persians appear in the place of the Elamties, the Aryan Persian language dominates the empire until the Aryan Greek ousts it from official life.  Meanwhile the plough does its work year by year, the harvests are gathered, the builders build as they are told, the tradesmen work and acquire fresh devices; the knowledge of writing spreads, novel nthings, the horse and wheeled vehicles and iron, are introduced and become part of the permanent inheritance of manking; the volume of trade upon sea and desert increases, men's ideas widen, and knowledge grows.  There are set-backs, massacres, pestilence; but the story is, on the whole, one of enlargement.  For four thousand years this new thing, civilization, which had set its root into the soil of the two rivers, grew as a tree grows; now losing a limb, now stripped by a storm, but always growing and resuming its growth.  After four thousand years the warriors and conquerors were still going to and fro over this growing thing they did not understand, but men had now (330 B.C.) got iron, horses, writing and computation, money, a greater variety of foods and textiles, a wider knowledge of their world (pp. 140-41).

* * *

Thereafter there was a brief Syrian conquest of Egypt, a series of changing dynasties, among which we may note the XIXth, which included Ramses II, a great builder of temples, who reigned seventy-seven years (about 1,317 to 1,250 B.C.), and who is supposed by some to have been the Pharaoh of Moses, and the XXIInd, which included Shishak, who plundered Soomon's temple (circa 930 B.C.) (p. 146).

* * *

The struggle between palace and temple came into Egyptian history, therefore, at a different angle from that at which it came into Babylonia. Nevertheless, it came in. Professor Maspero (in his New Light on Ancient Egypt) gives a very interesting account of the struggle of Amenophis IV with the priesthoods, and particularly with priests of the great god, Ammon Ha, Lord of Karnak.  The mother of Amenophis IV was not of the race of Pharaoh; it would seem that his father, Amenophis III, made a love match with a subject, a beautiful Syrian named Tii, and Professor Maspero finds in the possible opposition to and annoyance of this queen by the priests of Ammon Ra the beginnings of the quarrel.  She may, he thinks, have inspired her son with a fanatical hatred of Ammon Ra.  But Amenophis IV may have had a wider view.  Like the Babylonian Nabonidus, who lived a thousand years later, he may have had in mind the problem of moral unity in his empire.  We have already noted that Amenophis III ruled from Ethiopia to the Euphrates, and that the store of letters to himself and his son found at Tel-Amarna show a very wide range of interest and influence.  At any rate, Amenophis IV set himself to close all the Egyptian and Syrian temples, to put an end to all sectarian worship throughout his dominions, and to establish everywhere the worship of one god, Aton, the solar disk.  He left his capital, Thebes, which was even more the city of Ammon Ra than later Babylon was the city of Bel-Marduk, and set up his capital at Tel-Amarna; he altered his name from "Amenophis," which consecrated him to Ammon (Amen) to "Akhnaton," the Sun's Glory; and he held his own against all the priesthoods of his empire for eighteen years and died a Pharaoh (pp. 192-93).

* * *

The first *merchants* in the world were shipowners like the people of Tyre and Cnossos, or nomads who carried and traded goods as they wandered between one area of primitive civilization and another.  In the Babylonian and Assyrian world the traders were predominantly the Semitic Arameans, the ancestors of the modern Syrians.  They became a distinct factor in the life of the community; they formed great households of their own.  Usury developed largely in the last thousand years B.C.  Traders needed accommodation; cultivators wished to anticipate their crops.  Sayce (op. cit.) gives an account of the Babylonian banking-house of Egibi, which lasted through several generations and outlived the Chaldean Empire (pp. 206-07).

* * *

The position of the land of Judea and of Jerusalem, its capital, is a peculiar one.  The country is a band-shaped strip between the Mediterranean to the west and the desert beyond the Jordan to the east; through it lies the natural high-road between the Hittites, Syria, Assyria, and Babylonia to the north and Egypt to the south.  It was a country predestined, therefore, to a stormy history.  Across it Egypt, and whatever power was ascendant in the north, fought for empire; against its people they fought for a trade route.  It had itself neither the area, the agricultural possibilities, nor the mineral wealth to be important.  The story of its people that these scriptures [the Old Testament] have preserved runs like a commentary to the greater history of the two systems of civilization to the north and south and of the sea peoples to the west (pp. 217-18).

* * *

The tale of wars, of religious conflicts, of usurpations, assassinations, and of fratricidal murders to secure the throne [of King Solomon] goes on for three centuries.  It is a tale frankly barbaric.  Israel wars with Judah and the neighbouring states; forms alliances first with one and then with the other.  The power of Aramean Syria burns like a baleful star over the affairs of the Hebrews, and then there rises behind it the great and growing power of the last Assyrian empire.  For three centuries the life of the Hebrews was like the life of a man who insists upon living in the middle of a busy thoroughfare, and is consequently being run over constantly by omnibuses and motor-lorries. . . . 

. . . Then when Necho, after pushing as far as the Euphrates, fell before Nebuchadnezzar II, Judah fell with him (604 B.C.).  Nebuchadnezzar, after a trial of three puppet kings, carried off the greater part of the people into captivity in Babylon (586 B.C.), and the rest, after a rising and a massacre of Babylonian officials, took refuge from the vengeance of Chaldea in Egypt. 

'And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king, and of his princes; all these he brought to Babylon.  And they burnt the house of God and brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof.  And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia.' (II. Chron. xxxvi. 18, 19, 20.) 

So the four centuries of Hebrew kingship comes to an end.  From first to last it was a mere incident in the larger and greater history of Egypt, Syria, Assyria, and Phoenicia.  But out of it there were now to arise moral and intellectual consequences of primary importance to all mankind (pp. 229-30).

* * *

Cyrus was succeeded by his son Cambyses, who took an army into Egypt (525 B.C.).  There was a battle in the delta, in which Greek mercenaries fought on both sides.  Herodotus declares that he saw the bones of the slain still lying on the field fifty or sixty years later, and comments on the comparative thinness of the Persian skulls.  After this battle Cambyses took Memphis and most of Egypt. 

In Egypt, we are told, Cambyses went mad.  He took great liberties with the Egyptian temples, and remained at Memphis 'opening ancient tombs and examining the dead bodies.'  He had already murdered both Croesus, ex-king of Lydia, and his own brother Smerdis before coming to Egypt, and he died in Syria on the way back to Susa of an accidental wound, leaving no heirs to succeed him.  He was presently succeeded by Darius the Mede (521 B.C.), the son of Hystaspes, one of the chief councillors of Cyrus. 

The empire of Darius I was larger than any one of the preceding empires whose growth we have traced.  It included all Asia Minor and Syria, that is to say, the ancient Lydian and Hittite empires, all the old Assyrian and Babylonian empires, Egypt, the Caucasus and Caspian regions, Media, Persia, and it extended, perhaps, into India to the Indus.  The nomadic Arabians alone of all the peoples of what is nowadays called the Near East, did not pay tribute to the satraps (provincial governors) of Darius (pp. 274-75).

* * *

Xerxes was murdered in his palace about 465 B.C., and thereafter Persia made no further attempts at conquest in Europe.  We have no such knowledge of the things that were happening in the empire of the Great King as we have of the occurrences in the little states of Central Greece.  Greece had suddenly begun to produce literature, and put itself upon record as no other nation had ever done hitherto.  After 479 B.C. (Platsea) the spirit seems to have gone out of the government of the Medes and Persians.  The empire of the Great King enters upon a period of decay.  An Artaxerxes, a second Xerxes, a second Darius, pass across the stage; there are rebellions in Egypt and Syria; the Medes rebel; a second Artaxerxes and a second Cyrus, his brother, fight for the throne.  This history is even as the history of Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt in the older times.  It is autocracy reverting to its normal state of palace crime, blood-stained magnificence, and moral squalor (pp. 289-90).

* * *

All the accounts of Alexander after this battle [Battle of Issus, 333 B.C.] show him at his best.  He was restrained and magnanimous.  He treated the Persian princesses with the utmost civility.  And he kept his head; he held steadfastly to his plan.  He let Darius escape, unpursued, into Syria, and he continued his march upon the naval bases of the Persians -- that is to say, upon the Phoenician ports of Tyre and Sidon (p. 322).

* * *

We have already drawn a comparison between the brief four centuries of Roman imperialism and the obstinate vitality of the imperialism of the Euphrates-Tigris country.  We have glanced very transitorily at the Hellenized Bactrian and Seleucid monarchies that flourished in the eastern half of Alexander's area of conquest for three centuries, and told how the Parthians came down into Mesopotamia in the last century B.C.  We have described the battle of Carrhae and the end of Crassus.  Thereafter for two centuries and a half the Parthian dynasty of the Arsacids ruled in the east and the Roman in the west, with Armenia and Syria between them, and the boundaries shifted east and west as either side grew stronger.  We have marked the utmost eastward extension of the Roman Empire under Trajan, and we have noted that about the same time the Indo-Scythians poured down into India (pp. 537-38).

* * *

So we give briefly the leading events in the history of the Persian as of the Byzantine Empire.  What is more interesting for us and less easy to give are the changes that went on in the lives of the general population of those great empires during that time.  The present writer can find little of a definite character about the great pestilences that we know swept the world in the second and sixth centuries of this era.  Certainly they depleted population, and probably they disorganized social order in these regions just as much as we know they did in the Roman and Chinese empires. 

The late Sir Mark Sykes, whose untimely death in Paris during the influenza epidemic of 1919 was an irreparable loss to Great Britain, wrote in *The Caliph's Last Heritage* a vivid review of the general life of Nearer Asia during the period we are considering.  In the opening centuries of the present era, he says:  'The direction of military administration and imperial finance became entirely divorced in men's minds from practical government; and notwithstanding the vilest tyranny of sots, drunkards, tyrants, lunatics, savages, and abandoned women, who from time to time held the reins of government, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, and Syria contained enormous populations, huge canals and dykes were kept in repair, and commerce and architecture flourished, in spite of a perpetual procession of hostile armies and a continual changing of the nationality of the governor.  Each peasant's interest was centred in his ruling town; each citizen's interest was in the progress and prosperity of his city; and the advent of an enemy's army may have sometimes been looked on even with satisfaction, if his victory was assured and the payment of his contracts a matter of certainty. 

'A raid from the north [Ruranians from Turkestan or Avars from the Caucasus], on the other hand, must have been a matter for dread.  Then the villagers had need to take refuge behind the walls of the cities, from whence they could descry the smoke which told of the wreck and damage caused by the nomads.  So long, however, as the canals were not destroyed (and, indeed, they were built with such solidity and caution that their safety was assured), no irreparable damage could be effected. . . . 

'In Armenia and Pontus the condition of life was quite otherwise.  These were mountain districts, containing fierce tribes headed by powerful native nobility under recognized ruling kings, while in the valleys and plains the peaceful cultivator provided the necessary economic resources. . . . Cilicia and Cappadocia were now thoroughly subject to Greek influence, and contained numerous wealthy and highly civilized towns, besides possessing a considerable merchant marine.  Passing from Cilicia to the Hellespont, the whole Mediterranean coast was crowded with wealthy cities and Greek colonies, entirely cosmopolitan in thought and speech, with those municipal and local ambitions which seem natural to the Grecian character.  The Grecian Zone extended from Caria to the Bosphorus, and followed the coast as far as Sinope on the Black Sea, where it gradually faded away. 

'Syria was broken up into a curious quilt-like pattern of principalities and municipal kingdoms; beginning with the almost barbarous states of Commagene and Edessa (Urfa) in the north.  South of these stood Bambyce, with its huge temples and priestly governors.  Towards the coast a dense population in villages and towns clustered around the independent cities of Antioch, Apamea, and Emesa (Homs); while out in the wilderness the great Semitic merchant city of Palmyra was gaining wealth and greatness as the neutral trading-ground between Parthia and Rome.  Between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon we find, at the height of its glory, Heliopolis (Baalbek), the battered fragments of which even now command our admiration. . . . Bending in towards Galilee we find the wondrous cities of Gerasa and Philadelphia (Amman) connected by solid roads of masonry and furnished with gigantic aqueducts. . . . Syria is still so rich in ruins and remains of the period that it is not difficult to picture to oneself the nature of its civilization.  The arts of Greece, imported long before, had been developed into magnificence that bordered on vulgarity.  The richness of ornamentation, the lavish expense, the flaunting wealth, all tell that the tastes of the voluptuous and artistic Semites were then as now.  I have stood in the colonnades of Palmyra and I have dined in the Hotel Cecil, and, save that the latter is built of iron, daubed with sham wood, sham stucco, sham gold, sham velvet, and sham stone, the effect is identical.  In Syria there were slaves in sufficient quantity to make real buildings, but the artistic spirit is as debased as anything made by machinery.  Over against the cities the village folk must have dwelt pretty much as they do now, in houses of mud and dry stone wall ; while out in the distant pastures the Bedouin tended their flocks in freedom under the rule of the Nabatean kings of their own race, or performed the office of guardians and agents of the great trading caravans. 

'Beyond the herdsmen lay the parching deserts, which acted as the impenetrable barrier and defence of the Parthian Empire behind the Euphrates, where stood the great cities of Ctesiphon, Seleucia, Hatra, Nisibin, Harran, and hundreds more whose very names are forgotten.  These great townships subsisted on the enormous cereal wealth of Mesopotamia, watered as it then was by canals, whose makers' names were even then already lost in the mists of antiquity.  Babylon and Nineveh had passed away; the successors of Persia and Macedon had given place to Parthia; but the people and the cultivation were the same as when Cyrus the Conqueror had first subdued the land.  The language of many of the towns was Greek, and the cultured citizens of Seleucia might criticize the philosophies and tragedies of Athens; but the millions of the agricultural population knew possibly no more of these things than does many an Essex peasant of to-day know of what passes in the metropolis.' 

Compare with this the state of affairs at the end of the seventh century. 

'Syria was now an impoverished and stricken land, and her great cities, though still populated, must have been encumbered with ruins which the public funds were not sufficient to remove.  Damascus and Jerusalem themselves had not recovered from the effects of long and terrible sieges; Amman and Gerash had declined into wretched villages under the sway and lordship of the Bedouin.  The Hauran, perhaps, still showed signs of the prosperity for which it had been noted in the days of Trajan; but the wretched buildings and rude inscriptions of this date all point to a sad and depressing decline.  Out in the desert, Palmyra stood empty and desolate save for a garrison in the castle.  On the coasts and in the Lebanon a shadow of the former business and wealth was still to be seen; but in the north, ruin, desolation, and abandonment must have been the common state of the country, which had been raided with unfailing regularity for one hundred years and had been held by an enemy for fifteen.  Agriculture must have declined, and the population notably decreased through the plagues and distresses from which it had suffered. 

'Cappadocia had insensibly sunk into barbarism; and the great basilicas and cities, which the rude countrymen could neither repair nor restore, had been leveled with the ground.  The Anatolian peninsula had been ploughed and harrowed by the Persian armies; the great cities had been plundered and sacked' (pp. 540-44).

* * *

From time immemorial Arabia, except for the fertile strip of the Yemen to the south, had been a land of nomads, the headquarters and land of origin of the Semitic peoples.  From Arabia at various times waves of these nomads had drifted north, east, and west into the early civilizations of Egypt, the Mediterranean coast, and Mesopotamia.  We have noted in this history how the Sumerians were swamped and overcome by such Semitic waves, how the Semitic Phoenicians and Canaanites established themselves along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, how the Babylonians and Assyrians were settled Semitic peoples, how the Hyksos conquered Egypt, how the Arameans established themselves in Syria with Damascus as their capital, and how the Hebrews partially conquered their 'Promised Land.'  At some unknown date the Chaldeans drifted in from Eastern Arabia and settled in the old southern Sumerian lands.  With each invasion first this and then that section of the Semitic peoples comes into history.  But each of such swarmings still leaves a tribal nucleus behind to supply fresh invasions in the future. 

The history of the more highly organized empires of the horse and iron period, the empires of roads and writing, shows Arabia thrust like a wedge between Egypt, Palestine, and the Euphrates-Tigris country, and still a reservoir of nomadic tribes who raid and trade and exact tribute for the immunity and protection of caravans.  There are temporary and flimsy subjugations.  Egypt, Persia, Macedonia, Rome, Syria, Constantinople, and again Persia claim some unreal suzerainty in turn over Arabia, profess some unsubstantial protection (pp. 567-68). 

* * *

It was in Mecca about the year A.D. 570 that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was born.   He was born in considerable poverty, and even by the standards of the desert he was uneducated; it is doubtful if he ever learnt to write.  He was for some years a shepherd's boy; then he became the servant of a certain Kadija, the widow of a rich merchant.  Probably he had to look after her camels or help in her trading operations; and he is said to have travelled with caravans to the Yemen and to Syria.  He does not seem to have been a very useful trader, but he had the good fortune to find favour in the lady's eyes, and she married him, to the great annoyance of her family.  He was then only twenty-five years old.  It is uncertain if his wife was much older, though tradition declares she was forty.  After the marriage he probably made no more long journeys.  There were several children, one of whom was named Abd Manif -- that is to say, the servant of the Meccan god Manif, which demonstrates that at that time Muhammad had made no religious discoveries. 

Until he was forty he did indeed live a particularly undistinguished life in Mecca, as the husband of a prosperous wife.  There may be some ground for the supposition that he became partner in a business in agricultural produce.  To anyone visiting Mecca about A.D. 600 he would probably have seemed something of a loafer, a rather shy, good-looking individual, sitting about and listening to talk, a poor poet, and an altogether second-rate man. 

About his internal life we can only speculate.  Imaginative writers have supposed that he had great spiritual struggles, that he went out into the desert in agonies of doubt and divine desire.  'In the silence of the desert night, in the bright heat of noontide desert day, he, as do all men, had known and felt himself alone yet not in solitude, for the desert is of God, and in the desert no man may deny Him.' [Mark Sykes]  Maybe that was so, but there is no evidence of any such desert trips.  Yet he was certainly thinking deeply of the things about him.  Possibly he had seen Christian churches in Syria ; almost certainly he knew much of the Jews and their religion, and he heard their scorn for this black stone of the Kaaba that ruled over the three hundred odd tribal gods of Arabia.  He saw the pilgrimage crowds, and noted the threads of insincerity and superstition in the paganism of the town.  It oppressed his mind.  The Jews had perhaps converted him to a belief in the One True God, without his knowing what had happened to him. 

At last he could keep these feelings to himself no longer.  When he was forty he began to talk about the reality of God, at first apparently only to his wife and a few intimates.  He produced certain verses, which he declared had been revealed to him by an angel.  They involved an assertion of the unity of God and some acceptable generalizations about righteousness.  He also insisted upon a future life, the fear of hell for the negligent and evil, and the reservation of paradise for the believer in the One God.  Except for his claim to be a new prophet, there does not seem to have been anything very new about these doctrines at the time, but this was seditious teaching for Mecca, which partly subsisted upon its polytheistic cult, and which was therefore holding on to idols when all the rest of the world was giving them up.  Like Mani, Muhammad claimed that the prophets before him, and especially Jesus and Abraham, had been divine teachers, but that he crowned and completed their teaching.  Buddhism, however, he did not name, probably because he had never heard of Buddha.  Desert Arabia was in a theological backwater. 

For some years the new religion was the secret of a small group of simple people, Kadija, the Prophet's wife, Ali, an adopted son, Zeid, a slave, and Abu Bekr, a friend and admirer.  For some years it was an obscure sect in a few households of Mecca, a mere scowl and muttering at idolatry, so obscure and unimportant that the leading men of the town did not trouble about it in the least.  Then it gathered strength.  Muhammad began to preach more openly, to teach the doctrine of a future life, and to threaten idolaters and unbelievers with hell fire.  He seems to have preached with considerable effect.  It appeared to many that he was aiming at a sort of dictatorship in Mecca, and drawing many susceptible and discontented people to his side; and an attempt was made to discourage and suppress the new movement. 

Mecca was a place of pilgrimage and a sanctuary; no blood could be shed within its walls; nevertheless, things were made extremely disagreeable for the followers of the new teacher.  Boycott and confiscation were used against them.  Some were driven to take refuge in Christian Abyssinia.  But the Prophet himself went unscathed because he was well connected, and his opponents did not want to begin a blood feud.  We cannot follow the fluctuations of the struggle here, but it is necessary to note one perplexing incident in the new Prophet's career, which, says Sir Mark Sykes, 'proves him to have been an Arab of the Arabs.'  After all his insistence upon the oneness of God, he wavered.  He came into the courtyard of the Kaaba, and declared that the gods and goddesses of Mecca might, after all, be real, might be a species of saints with a power of intercession. 

His recantation was received with enthusiasm, but he had no sooner made it than he repented, and his repentance shows that he had indeed the fear of God in him.  His lapse from honesty proves him honest.  He did all he could to repair the evil he had done.  He said that the devil had possessed his tongue, and denounced idolatry again with renewed vigour.  The struggle against the antiquated deities, after a brief interval of peace, was renewed again more grimly, and with no further hope of reconciliation. 

For a time the old interests had the upper hand.  At the end of ten years of prophesying, Muhammad found himself a man of fifty, and altogether unsuccessful in Mecca.  Kadija, his first wife, was dead, and several of his chief supporters had also recently died.  He sought a refuge at the neighbouring town of Tayf, but Tayf drove him out with stones and abuse.  Then, when the world looked darkest to him, opportunity opened before him.  He found he had been weighed and approved in an unexpected quarter.  The city of Medina was much torn by internal dissension, and many of its people, during the time of pilgrimage to Mecca, had been attracted by Muhammad's teaching.  Probably the numerous Jews in Medina had shaken the ancient idolatry of the people.  An invitation was sent to him to come and rule in the name of his God in Medina. 

He did not go at once.  He parleyed for two years, sending a disciple to preach in Medina and destroy the idols there.  Then he began sending such followers as he had in Mecca to Medina to await his coming there; he did not want to trust himself to unknown adherents in a strange city.  This exodus of the faithful continued, until at last only he and Abu Bekr remained. 

In spite of the character of Mecca as a sanctuary, he was very nearly murdered there.  The elders of the town evidently knew of what was going on in Medina, and they realized the danger to them if this seditious prophet presently found himself master of a town on their main caravan route to Syria.  Custom must bow to imperative necessity, they thought; and they decided that, blood feud or no blood feud, Muhammad must die.  They arranged that he should be murdered in his bed; and in order to share the guilt of this breach of sanctuary they appointed a committee to do this, representing every family in the city except Muhammad's own.  But Muhammad had already prepared his flight; and when in the night they rushed into his room, they found Ali, his adopted son, sleeping, or feigning sleep, on his bed. 

The flight (the Hegira) was an adventurous one, the pursuit being pressed hard.  Expert desert trackers sought for the spoor to the north of the town, but Muhammad and Abu Bekr had gone south to certain caves where camels and provisions were hidden, and thence he made a great detour to Medina.  There he and his faithful companion arrived, and were received with great enthusiasm on September 20, 622.  It was the end of his probation and the beginning of his power (pp. 570-74).

* * *

. . . The battle [of Yarmuk or Yarmouk, 636 A.D.] was never in doubt after the defection of the irregular cavalry. An attempt to retreat dissolved into a rout and became a massacre.  The Byzantine army had fought with its back to the river, which was presently choked with its dead. 

Thereafter [the Byzantine Emperor] Heraclius slowly relinquished all Syria, which he had so lately won back from the Persians, to his new antagonists.  Damascus soon fell, and a year later the Moslems entered Antioch.  For a time they had to abandon it again to a last effort from Constantinople, but they re-entered it for good under Khalid (p. 585).

* * *

But this direct thrust of the Turkish peoples against Christendom to the north of the Black Sea was, in the end, not nearly so important as their indirect thrust south of it through the empire of the Caliph.  We cannot deal here with the tribes and dissensions of the Turkish peoples of Turkestan, nor with the particular causes that brought to the fore the tribes under the rule of the Seljuk clan.  In the eleventh century these Seljuk Turks broke with irresistible force not in one army, but in a 

group of armies, and under two brothers, into the decaying fragments of the Moslem Empire.  For Islam had long ceased to be one empire.  The orthodox Sunnite Abbasid rule had shrunken to what was once Babylonia; and even in Bagdad the 

Caliph was the mere creature of his Turkish palace guards.  A sort of mayor of the palace, a Turk, was the real ruler.  East of the Caliph, in Persia, and west of him in Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, were Shiite heretics.  The Seljuk Turks were orthodox Sunnites; they now swept down upon and conquered the Shiite rulers and upstarts, and established themselves as the protectors of the Bagdad Caliph, taking over the temporal powers of the mayor of the palace.  Very early they conquered Armenia from the Greeks, and then, breaking the bounds that had restrained the power of Islam for four centuries, they swept on to the conquest of Asia Minor, almost to the gates of Constantinople.  The mountain barrier of Cilicia that, had held the Moslem so long had been turned by the conquest of Armenia from the north-east.  Under Alp Arslan, who had united all the Seljuk power in his own hands, the Turks utterly smashed the Byzantine army at the battle of Manzikert, or Melasgird (1071).  The effect of this battle upon people's imaginations was very great.  Islam, which had appeared far gone in decay, which had been divided religiously and politically, was suddenly discovered to have risen again, and it was the secure old Byzantine Empire that seemed on the brink of dissolution.  The loss of Asia Minor was very swift.  The Seljuks established themselves at Iconium (Konia), in what is now Anatolia.  In a little while they were in possession of the fortress of over against the capital (p. 636).

* * *

The setting up of Latin kingdoms in Syria and the Holy Land, in religious communion with Rome, after the First Crusade, marked the opening stage of a conquest of Eastern Christianity by Rome that reached its climax during the Latin rule in Constantinople (1204-1261) (p. 661).

* * *

The reader will already have an idea of the gradual breaking up of the original unity of Islam.  In the beginning of the thirteenth century there were a number of separate and discordant Moslem states in Western Asia.  There was Egypt (with Palestine and much of Syria) under the successors of Saladin, there was the Seljuk power in Asia Minor, there was still an Abbasid caliphate in Bagdad, and to the east of this again there had grown up a very considerable empire, the Kharismian empire, that of the Turkish princes from Khiva who had conquered a number of fragmentary Seljuk principalities and reigned from the Ganges valley to the Tigris.  They had but an insecure hold on the Persian and Indian populations (p. 667). 

* * *

Mangu Khan became the Great Khan in 1251, and he nominated his brother Kublai Khan as Governor-General of China.  Slowly but surely the entire Sung empire was subjugated, and as it was subjugated the eastern Mongols became more and more Chinese in their culture and methods.  Tibet was invaded and devastated by Mangu, and Persia and Syria invaded in good earnest.  Another brother of Mangu, Hulagu, was in command of this latter war.  He turned his arms against the caliphate and captured Bagdad, in which city he perpetrated a massacre of the entire population.  Bagdad was still the religious capital of Islam, and the Mongols had become bitterly hostile to the Moslems.  This hostility exacerbated the natural discord of nomad and townsman.  In 1259 Mangu died, and in 1260 for it took the best part of a year for the Mongol leaders to gather from the extremities of this vast empire, from Hungary and Syria and Scind and China Kublai was elected Great Khan.  He was already deeply interested in Chinese affairs; he made his capital Pekin instead of Karakorum, and Persia, Syria, and Asia Minor became virtually independent under his brother Hulagu, while the hordes of Mongols in Russia and Asia next to Russia, and various smaller Mongol groups in Turkestan became also practically separate.  Kublai died in 1294, and with his death even the titular supremacy of the Great Khan disappeared (p. 674).

* * * 

The nature and development of the empire of the Ilkhans in Persia, Mesopotamia, and Syria is perhaps the most interesting of all the stories of these Mongol powers, because in this region nomadism really did attempt, and really did to a very considerable degree succeed in its attempt to stamp a settled civilized system out of existence.  When Jengis Kahn first invaded China, we are told that there was a serious discussion among the Mongol chiefs whether all the towns and settled populations should not be destroyed.  To these simple practitioners of the open-air life the settled populations seemed corrupt, crowded, vicious, effeminate, dangerous, and incomprehensible; a detestable human efflorescence upon what would otherwise have, been good pasture.  They had no use whatever for the towns.  The early Franks and the Anglo-Saxon conquerors of South Britain seem to have had much the same feeling towards townsmen.  But it was only under Hulagu in Mesopotamia that these ideas seem to have been embodied in a deliberate policy.  The Mongols here did not only burn and massacre; they destroyed the irrigation system that had endured for at least eight thousand years, and with that the mother civilization of all the Western world came to an end.  Since the days of the priest-kings of Sumeria there had been a continuous cultivation in these fertile regions, an accumulation of tradition, a great population, a succession of busy cities, Eridu, Nippur, Babylon, Nineveh, Ctesiphon, Bagdad.  Now the fertility ceased.  Mesopotamia became a land of ruins and desolation, through which great waters ran to waste, or overflowed their banks to make malarious swamps.  Later on Mosul and Bagdad revived feebly as second-rate towns.

But for the defeat and death of Hulagu's general Kitboga in Palestine (1260), the same fate might have overtaken Egypt.  But Egypt was now a Turkish sultanate; it was dominated by a body of soldiers, the Mamelukes, whose ranks, like those of their imitators, the Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, were recruited and kept vigorous by the purchase and training of boy slaves.  A capable Sultan such men would obey; a weak or evil one they would replace.  Under this ascendancy Egypt remained an independent power until 1517, when it fell to the Ottoman Turks. 

The first destructive vigor of Hulagu's Mongols soon subsided, but in the fifteenth century a last tornado of nomadism arose in Western Turkestan under the leadership of a certain Timur the Lame, or Timurlane.  He was descended in the female line from Jengis Khan.  He established himself in Samarkand, and spread his authority over Kipchak (Turkestan to South Russia), Siberia, and southward as far as the Indus.  He assumed the title of Great Khan in 1369.  He was a nomad of the savage school, and he created an empire of desolation from North India to Syria.  Pyramids of skulls were his particular architectural fancy; after the storming of Ispahan he made one of 70,000.  His ambition was to restore the empire of Jengis Kahn as he conceived it, a project in which he completely failed.  He spread destruction far and wide; the Ottoman Turks it was before the taking of Constantinople and their days of greatness and Egypt paid him tribute; the Punjab he devastated; and Delhi surrendered to him.  After Delhi had surrendered, however, he made a frightful massacre of its inhabitants.  At the time of his death (1405) very little remained to witness to his power but a name of horror, ruins and desolated countries, and a shrunken and impoverished domain in Persia. 

The dynasty founded by Timur in Persia was extinguished by another Turkoman horde fifty years later (pp. 690-91).

* * * 

We have sketched in broad outlines the early beginnings of Christianity, and we have shown how rapidly that difficult and austere conception of the Kingdom of God, which was the central idea of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, was overlaid by a revival of the ancient sacrificial idea, a doctrine more difficult indeed to grasp, but easier to reconcile with the habits and dispositions and acquiescences of everyday life in the Near East.  We have noted how a sort of theocrasia went on between Christianity and Judaism and the cult of the Serapeum and Mithraism and other competing cults, by which the Mithraist Sunday, the Jewish idea of blood as a religious essential, the Alexandrian importance of the Mother of God, the shaven and fasting priest, self-tormenting asceticism, and many other matters of belief and ritual and practice, became grafted upon the developing religion.  These adaptations, no doubt, made the new teaching much more understandable and acceptable in Egypt and Syria and the like.  They were things in the way of thought of the dark-white Mediterranean race; they were congenial to that type.  But as we have shown in our story of Muhammad, these acquisitions did not make Christianity more acceptable to the Arab nomads; to them these features made it disgusting.  And so, too, the robed and shaven monk and nun and priest seem to have roused something like an instinctive hostility in the Nordic barbarians of the North and West.  We have noted the peculiar bias of the early Anglo-Saxons and Northmen against the monks and nuns.  They seem to have felt that the lives and habits of these devotees were queer and unnatural (pp. 708-09). 

* * *

The Tsar of Russia, Nicholas I, was the first to move towards war.  He resumed the traditional thrust of Peter the Great towards Constantinople.  Nicholas invented the phrase of the "sick man of Europe" for the Sultan, and, finding an excuse in the misgovernment of the Christian population of the Turkish empire, he occupied the Danubian principalities in 1853.  European diplomatists found themselves with a question of quite the eighteenth-century pattern.  The designs of Russia were understood to clash with the designs of France in Syria, and to threaten the Mediterranean route to India of Great Britain, and the outcome was an alliance of France and England to holster up Turkey and a war, the Crimean War, which ended in the repulse of Russia.  One might have thought that the restraint of Russia was rather the business of Austria and Germany, but the passion of the foreign offices of France and England for burning their fingers in Russian affairs has always been very difficult to control (pp. 966-68).

* * *

French imperialism during the period of the Armed Peace in Europe was naturally of a less confident type than the German.  It called itself "nationalism" rather than imperialism, and it set itself, by appeals to patriotic pride, to thwart the efforts of those socialists and rationalists who sought to get into touch with liberal elements in German life.  It brooded upon the Revanche, the return match with Prussia.  But in spite of that preoccupation, it set itself to the adventure of annexation and exploitation in the Far East and in Africa, narrowly escaping a war with Britain upon the Fashoda clash (1898), and it never relinquished a dream of acquisitions in Syria.  Italy, too, caught the imperialist fever; the blood-letting of Adowa cooled her for a time, and then she resumed in 1911 with a war upon Turkey and the annexation of Tripoli.  The Italian imperialists exhorted their countrymen to forget Mazzini and remember Julius Caesar; for were they not the heirs of the Roman Empire?  Imperialism touched the Balkans; little countries not a hundred years from slavery began to betray exalted intentions; King Ferdinand of Bulgaria assumed the title of Tsar, the latest of the pseudo-CaBsars, and in the shop-windows of Athens the curious student could study maps showing the dream of a vast Greek empire in Europe and Asia (p. 1025).