CHAPTER II
THE STORY OF ASIA MINOR
I
Asia Minor is the Hinterland to Syria, Palestine and Egypt on the one side, and to Mesopotamia on the other. With an area of about 206,378 square miles1 1Its greatest length is 720 miles along the northern edge and at the south edge 650 miles. The breadth varies from 500 to 420 miles. (a little larger than France and a little smaller than Germany) its distinctive features are (1) a series of high plateaus in the interior, sloping from 2000 feet at the western edge to over 4000 feet towards the eastern border, with (2) several mountain ranges traversing the region longitudinally, rising in the north to over 8000 feet and in the south to over 10,000 feet, (3) a deeply indented western coast line with a fringe of protecting islands and with deep gulfs affording plenty of harbors. In contrast, the bleak north coast on the Black Sea has few harbors and no islands, while the southern coast is marked by a broad bay and a deep gulf and a number of land-locked harbors. The rivers, though numerous, are of no great importance, and only a few are navigable for a short distance from their mouths. On the plateaus, broken by broad valleys in the west, the winters are long and cold, and the summers hot. The coast climate varies from cold winters and humid summer vegetation on the Black Sea to a moderate climate on the west coast, the summer heat being tempered by an almost daily north wind blowing off the sea, and reaching to extreme summer heat and mild winters on the south coast. Along the course of the rivers, vegetation is rich, aided by alluvial deposits to the soil, brought down by the streams as they pass through mountain gorges. The mineral wealth of Asia Minor is very great, and it would appear that iron was introduced as early as the second millennium before our era into the ancient East, through the working of the ore in the northeastern corner of Asia Minor.
The contrast presented by the coast land to that of the interior is paralleled by the totally different aspect of the earliest settlements along the Ægean Sea from the conditions that led to the rise of powerful states in the interior. The western coast of Asia Minor appears to have been settled in very early days through Ægean traders coming probably from Crete where, as the remarkable excavations of the last two decades have shown, a high degree of civilization, more commonly spoken of as Minoan, was developed between c. 3000 and 2500 B.C. It reached its height about 1600 B.C., but long ere this sent its offshoots to the Grecian mainland, notably to Argos. The great castles and palaces of Mycenae and Tiryns, excavated by Schliemann, are the works of these Ægeans coming from Crete, and there are traces of such settlements and influences elsewhere. The proto-Greek civilization, commonly spoken of as Mycenaean, thus turns out to be of Cretan origin. Similarly, these Ægeans came to the coast of Asia Minor, and in time a powerful kingdom with Troy as a centre was established in the northwestern corner, reaching its height between c. 1500 and 1200 B.C.2 2 The so-called sixth city of Schliemann's excavations. See Walter Leaf, Troy, pp. 85–101 and the map. The Homeric poems, commemorating the conflicts between Ægeans and Greeks, are thus brought nearer to us by the spade of the archæologist. These Ægeans belonged to the Indo-European stock, and, in passing, it may be noted that the Philistines who as traders settled on the Palestinian coast (and gave their name to the country) also came from Crete, and represent, therefore, a part of a general movement of the spread of Ægean civilization, though confined to coast lands. Whether the earliest settlers of the interior of Asia Minor belonged to this same general stock, designated by the unsatisfactory term "Aryan," is not certain, though possible, but in any case these settlers appear to have come from the steppes of southern Russia across the Caucasus Mountains. From this centre streams of migration radiated in various directions, some passing to the southeast and eventually reaching India where they developed the old Hindu civilization; others passed around the Black Sea on the north and moved along the Danube into central Europe, and still others entered Asia Minor somewhere near its northeastern border. Traces of very ancient routes along this southern coast of the Black Sea and running into the interior3 3See Ramsay's invaluable work, "The Historical Geography of Asia Minor" (London, 1890), chapters I-VII, for a full discussion of these old routes. show how early the settlement of the interior of Asia Minor must have begun.
II
A region like the interior of Asia Minor broken up by mountain ranges, with no large river as an avenue of transportation, is not conducive to the creation of a single state, uniting groups of population through common interests. Rivalry rather than permanent union would represent the natural tendency among the combinations that would be formed by the hordes moving from time immemorial across the Caucasus and from lands lying beyond to the north and northeast. An indigenous civilization arising under such conditions would be marked by a hardiness reflecting the traits of the region. The break-up of the population through natural barriers separating the various groups would tend to the unfolding of strength, in order to secure protection from attack and to safeguard an independent existence. Such peoples will build huge fortified castles and will create strong armies, actuated by the natural ambition to put their strength to a test. Asia Minor is thus adapted to develop powers marked by militarism.
Excavation and exploration in the interior of Asia Minor during the last thirty years have, as a matter of fact, revealed the existence of powerful military states organized by groups known as Hittites, and whose history reverts to the border of the third millennium before this era. Until archaeology had thus opened up the early history of Asia Minor, nothing was known of these Hittites beyond what could be gleaned from incidental notices in the Old Testament, where they appear chiefly as one of the groups like the Amorites, Perizzites and Canaanites with whom the Hebrews were forbidden to marry. Then, as Egyptian and Babylonian monuments released their secrets, references to the Khatti, whom scholars at first hesitatingly identified with the Hittites of the Old Testament, began to multiply in the records of Egyptian and Assyrian rulers. Gradually, it became evident that these Hittites must have been the most serious menace that the two great civilizations of the Near East had to encounter. Hittites loomed up larger and larger, as the written and pictorial material increased, but the full force of their position and achievements was not recognized until, through more thorough exploration, Hittite monuments and Hittite remains turned up in various parts of Asia Minor, dating back to the second millennium before this era.
The character of these monuments and remains scattered throughout Asia Minor and northern Syria is so marked that there can be no doubt of their belonging to the same civilization. Rock sculptures, stone reliefs and inscribed stones extend east to west from Sipylos, not far from Smyrna, to Malatia on the Euphrates, and north to south from Boghaz-Keui to Hama on the Orontes, all showing the same characteristics. Great fortresses and palaces of elaborate construction have been found at Boghaz-Keui and Eyuk in northern Asia Minor and in Sakje-Geuzi and Sendjerli in the southeast beyond the Taurus range. These sites represent some of the walled towns of the Hittites, of which there were many, scattered throughout the region at strategical points near the mountain passes and elsewhere along the main routes. The scale of the constructions and of the rock sculptures illustrate the power developed by the Hittites in the hey-day of their glory, which extends from c. 1500 to 1000 B.C. The entrance to the fort was through enormous gates flanked by lions or sphinxes. The city walls and the defences were constructed of large stones built in the most solid masonry. At Eyuk, some 20 miles to the north of Boghaz-Keui, on either side of the gateway, there is a long series of huge blocks on which scenes of a religious character, processions of priests and musicians, paying homage to a god and goddess, were sculptured in relief. Elsewhere the rocks portray vivid scenes of stag and lion hunts which were favorite sports of the Hittite rulers.
Finally, there are a large number of inscriptions in the peculiar Hittite hieroglyphic characters, accompanying the sculptures, and the many inscribed stones containing the explanation of the scenes or embodying votive dedications. By the side of these inscribed lapidary monuments, excavations at Boghaz-Keui conducted by the late Hugo Winckler in 1906–1907 have brought to light, to cap the surprise of scholars, thousands of clay tablets, like those found in Babylonian and Assyrian mounds, covered with cuneiform characters, but representing not the Sumerian (non-Semitic) or Akkadian (Semitic) language of the Euphrates Valley, but Hittite—the same language as that of the hieroglyphic inscriptions, transliterated into cuneiform.4 4A parallel would be to come across Egyptian inscriptions written not with any of the varieties of the Egyptian script, but with Greek letters. This proof of the adoption of the cuneiform script for writing Hittite, because more convenient and simpler for correspondence and business documents—and that as early at least as 1500 B.C—is one of the most notable results of archaeological activity in Asia Minor. It points to the intercourse that must have existed between Asia Minor and the Euphrates Valley in the second millennium before this era.
Although the Hittite hieroglyphics have not as yet been deciphered, the character of the language spoken by the Hittites has been established. It turns out to belong to the "Aryan" or more properly the Indo-European stock—a somewhat surprising discovery, and yet in keeping with the most plausible hypothesis of the origin of the Hittites from the steppes of southern Russia as the starting-point of successive waves of Aryan migration in various directions.
Looking, however, at the types of Hittite as pictured on their sculptures, one cannot escape the comparison with Mongoloid types, and this impression is confirmed by the representation of Hittites on Egyptian monuments which give us distinctly the high cheek-bones and retreating forehead, characteristic of the Tartar races. To these features is to be added the pig-tail,5 5The pig-tail is, however, not confined to the Tartars and Chinese. depicted on Egyptian monuments and so consistently portrayed on Hittite sculptures. By the side of this type, however, we find also on the Egyptian monuments, portraying scenes and expeditions in Asia Minor, another which is more Indo-European in character, and we encounter this type also in some of the figures in the religious processions and in the ceremonial designs on tombstones throughout the Hittite region. Such indications point again to the supposition which, on a priori grounds, is plausible that what we call the Hittite civilization is the result of a commingling of different ethnic groups. Culture seems to be the spark that ensues when two different elements meet and combine, though in time one of the elements predominates.
III
It will be evident from this survey that the term Hittite is to be regarded as a very general one to mark a type of civilization in which the Hittite became the predominating element, but in which, as a product of the mixture of Hittites with other ethnic elements, others than Hittites participate. It is natural, therefore, to find various centres of Hittite culture. We find several Hittite states of considerable power in northern Syria, while further north, Boghaz-Keui became the capital of a Hittite state, which in the middle of the fifteenth century B.C. acquired a commanding position over a large part of Asia Minor, including northern Syria.
Now the historical significance of these Hittite states lies entirely in their geographical position, which made them a menace to Egypt on the one hand and to Babylonia on the other, while Palestine as the unfortunate buffer state between these two civilizations was even more at the mercy of the warlike Hittites. The early history of Asia Minor is linked to the fortunes of these three lands. The key to the understanding of the political development of the ancient East, accompanying the rise of a high order of civilization in the two fertile valleys—the Nile and the Euphrates—lies in an appreciation of the fact that Egypt and Babylonia could only maintain themselves by successfully holding in check the rugged mountaineers of Asia Minor. Attracted by the allurements of a far higher culture than their own, the Hittites would be tempted, as their strength increased to break through their natural barriers and to seek the plains of Mesopotamia and the lowlands of Egypt, with Palestine as a natural passageway too insignificant ever to unfold any considerable power of her own. Once the mountain passes of the Anti-Taurus and Amanus ranges were crossed, there was nothing to prevent the rugged mountaineer forces from marching along to the Mediterranean coast, to Palestine and Egypt, or eastwards to the Euphrates—the avenue to both Babylonia in the south and to Assyria towards the north. Assyria could also be reached by direct routes from eastern Asia Minor, following river courses and through mountain passes to Diarbekr and thence along the Tigris. That this was the actual part played by the Hittite groups from very early days down to their final dissolution at the close of the eighth century before this era, when new forces made their appearance in Asia Minor, is shown by Egyptian and Babylonian and Assyrian records stretching from before 2000 B.C. to the fall of Assyria herself in 606 B.C. It is surprising to find that as early as 1900 B.C. Hittites actually invaded the Euphrates Valley. We have the official record of a Hittite occupying at this time the throne of Babylon. The Hittite occupation did not last long, but the fact of its having been accomplished for a short period shows the power which these doughty warriors must have acquired by the beginning of the second millennium. The danger of an attack from the region to the north and northwest of the Euphrates Valley must have been realized by the Babylonian rulers, for we find them establishing an outpost against the Hittites as early as 2400 B.C. beyond the Anti-Taurus range in what is now known as Cappadocia. On this supposition we can account for the discovery of numerous cuneiform tablets near Cæsarea. The contents of these tablets are of a business nature. They deal with commercial transactions, and the language is a kind of patois, Babylonian mixed with foreign words that will probably turn out to be Hittite. Since they are dated after the fashion of Babylonian documents, we are in a position to determine their age as ranging from about 2400 to 2000 B.C. The proof which they furnish of active business transactions between the Euphrates Valley and Asia Minor is of the greatest value in illustration of trade routes that must have been established through the heart of Asia Minor at this early period. Trade and war are close bedfellows in antiquity, as they are in modern days. Trade in this instance must have been incidental to the garrison established by Babylonian rulers at a strategic point far north, to ward off an advance of Hittites across the mountain passes of the Anti-Taurus and the Amanus ranges in the direction of the Euphrates Valley—precisely the menace that overwhelmed the Euphrates Valley some centuries later. The Euphrates Valley could not be held without the Hinterland, which in itself is the continuation of the "Fertile Crescent" that starts at the Persian Gulf and stretches in a semi-circle around a desert region to the Mediterranean. We accordingly find a great conqueror like Sargon I (c. 2700 B.C.), under whom the Akkadians (or Semites) gain their first definite triumph over the Sumerians, leading his armies
AN ANCIENT HITTITE AND HIS MODERN ARMENIAN DESCENDANT
MONOLITH OF A HITTITE RULER WITH INSCRIPTION (METROPOLITAN MUSEUM) northward and obtaining a firm hold to the shores of the Mediterranean. Sargon's predecessors were satisfied with being kings of Sumer and Akkad,6 6Sumer is the designation of the southern part of the Valley, Akkad, to which the Semitic settlers were driven back by the Sumerians, the designation of the northern part. comprising the Euphrates Valley, but he and his successors aspire to the grandiloquent title of "King of the Four Regions." It was, however, military necessity rather than an original greed of conquest that led these early rulers to become conquerors and to convert their empire into a military power.
Under such conditions, the destiny of Babylonia lay inevitably in the direction of becoming a strong military state, with its chief aim to secure control of as large a territory as possible to the north and northwest, so as to maintain itself against encroachments of Hittite groups from these directions. When Babylonia waxed strong, the Hittites were kept in suppression, when it grew weaker, we find the Hittites acquiring greater strength. A period of decline set in in the Euphrates Valley at the end of the eighteenth century, when the control passes for five centuries into the hands of a people known as the Cassites and whose origin is still doubtful.
The weakness of Babylonia furnishes the favorable opportunity for the unfolding of greater strength in Assyria to the north. The admixture of Hittite elements in the population of Assyria stamped Assyria as more naturally warlike from the start than Babylonia, but her rulers likewise had to fortify themselves against invasions from Asia Minor along routes that led along the eastern extremity of that region, identical in part with the march of the Russian army in the present war from Trebizond to Erzerum southwards in the direction of Mosul—opposite which lay Nineveh, the later capital of Assyria, and a little to the south Ashur, the older capital. Assyria was unable, however, to prevent the rise of a powerful Hittite kingdom in northern Asia Minor with its centre at Boghaz-Keui, c. 1500 B.C., and which succeeded in obtaining a dominant position over Hittite centres and settlements throughout eastern and central Asia Minor and beyond the Anti-Taurus range in northern Syria, close to the borders of Mesopotamia.
IV
Turning to Egypt, we find this region during the first period of her most ancient history, the so-called Pyramid Age, extending from about 3000 to 2500 B.C., marked by high achievements in art, notably the building of the great pyramids on the outskirts of the capital, Memphis. Egypt like Babylonia was a cultural power, and as such advanced through peaceable progress rather than by the force of arms. Civilizations that arise in valleys and in islands do not develop military strength, except for purposes of defence; they are essentially pacific. The centre of the Egyptian kingdom was in the north. There were, to be sure, encounters with the south, as a natural result of the extension of Egyptian culture, but there were no attempts at conquest beyond the natural borders. It was not till the close of the Feudal Age (c. 2500 to 1800 b.c), that we find standing armies organized, though on a moderate scale, with the help of which Nubia was conquered and Palestine, as the coastland immediately adjoining Egypt and a natural bulwark, brought under the control of the Pharaohs. An entirely different aspect is assumed by Egyptian history with a new line of rulers, marked by extraordinary energy, who come upon the scene about 1600 B.C. A new capital is established at Thebes, about 400 miles to the south of Memphis. The change is significant as indicative of the larger extent of the empire, which brought with it a transfer of the seat of government nearer to the centre of the dominion. No doubt a contributing factor also in the change was the need of a powerful bulwark closer to the southern frontier, which at all times needed to be protected against attacks from the population in central Africa. What led to the decline of the Pharaohs of the Feudal Age, so named because of the position which the nobles, owning large estates under royal agents, acquired, is still a mystery. The age was marked by progress in literature, leading to collections of papyrus rolls that assumed the dimensions of libraries, as well as by an advance in ethical standards. Was it perhaps a long period of intellectual development that softened the virile qualities of the Egyptians so that they fell an easy prey to foreigners who seized the throne?
These are the so-called Hyksos or "shepherd" kings, a traditional designation whose identification is still a matter of dispute among Egyptologists. The designation points to an identification of these invaders with the Semitic nomads from Arabia and Palestine who at frequent intervals passed into Egypt, attracted by the higher civilization, just as the Euphrates Valley proved a magnet for Bedouin groups coming into Babylonia by way of the Euphrates. The movement of some of the Hebrew groups into Egypt as depicted by the traditional narratives of Genesis furnishes an illustration of such an invasion, prompted in part also by economic conditions. Large settlements of these Semitic nomads were made in the outlying districts of Egypt bordering on and near the Red Sea. It is, however, on the face improbable that such loosely organized bands, not particularly warlike and occupying a grade of culture only some degrees removed from primitive conditions, should have been capable of taking hold of the government of Egypt. Some stronger factor must be assumed that may have utilized these nomads in a serious attack on Egypt. Recalling that as early as 1900 B.C. the Hittites invaded Babylonia, and that Biblical tradition reports the presence of Hittites in southern Palestine at this same early date, it is a reasonable conjecture that the leaders of the invasion were the powerful Hittites, who in alliance with the nomads wrested the throne of Egypt from the native rulers and occupied it for a time until they were once more replaced by a native dynasty.7 7See Garstang, Land of the Hittites, p. 324, who agrees in associating the Hyksos with Hittite influences.
However this may be, we soon find the Pharaohs of the new empire turning their faces in the direction of Asia, and under Thutmose III (c. 1500–1450 B.C.) these efforts at bringing Palestine and the Mediterranean coast and northern Syria well into the interior of Asia Minor under subjection reached their culmination. The motive, however, which originally prompted this military policy, was not greed of conquest but the necessity of maintaining the Egyptian empire unimpaired in her strength—the same condition, therefore, that changed Babylonia from a naturally pacific to a military power. The land of the Nile could not be held without keeping in check the constant menace of an invasion from the north. The coast cities along the Mediterranean and the interior of Palestine had to be converted into Egyptian garrisons under the control of governors subject to the Pharaohs. Palestine and Syria thus became vassal states of Egypt, and this step was necessarily followed by an extension of military activities northward and eastward into the strongholds of the Hittites. Success brought with it the enlargement of ambitions, and under Thutmose III Egypt definitely enters upon a career of military conquest.
It is not accidental that this new epoch of military activity in Egyptian history is coincident with the period when the Hittites reached the height of their power under the kingdom which had its centre in Boghaz-Keui. The great strength developed by the Hittites had to be counterbalanced by the putting forth of the strongest effort on the part of Egypt. This was all the more important because Babylonia under the rule of the Cassites was unable to hold the Hittites in check, and Assyria in the north had not developed sufficient strength to do so. In the century following upon Thutmose III, we find Assyrian kings taking up the challenge and Shalmaneser I succeeds (c. 1300 B.C.) in sweeping the Hittites back from the Euphrates. In this period we encounter also the first alliances between Egypt and Babylonia, reinforced by intermarriages between the two courts, in order to present a united front against the Hittite forces.
The reign of Amenhotep IV, or Ikhnaton, famous in Egyptian history as a religious reformer, gave the Hittites a breathing spell, for this remarkable ruler was more interested in reforms of the cult, in the encouragement of the new art,8 8See on this reformer the note on p. 156. and in other internal problems than in extending the sway of Egypt. A new line of kings succeeded Ikhnaton that took up the former military policy, and under Rameses II the crisis in the test of strength with the Hittites came. The Hittite ruler Mursil and the Egyptian Pharaoh locked arms at Kadesh on the Orontes (c. 1295 B.C.). The battle proved to be one of the decisive events in ancient history. All portions of Asia Minor were represented in the tremendous force that Mursil had gathered for the encounter. Rameses II, who gives us a detailed account of the battle, illustrated by numerous pictured representations, on the temple walls at Abu Simbel, at Abydos, at Luxor and Karnak, recounts how at first the battle went favorably for the Hittites. The king confesses that at one stage in the encounter he was in danger of being captured. In the end, however, the Egyptians secured the advantage and, if we may trust the Egyptian chronicler, the Hittites were driven off the field. Had the fortune of battle gone against the Egyptians, a Hittite invasion of Egypt would have been inevitable and the course of Egyptian history would have been radically changed. As it was, the battle of Kadesh merely marked the zenith of Hittite power, and Egypt could hereafter breathe more freely. Her safety, however, was always dependent upon her holding as a minimum foreign possession southern Syria to act as a bulwark against Hittite advance. The Hittites under Mursil again undertook an offensive against Egypt, aided by Amorites and other groups of Palestine. The tide of war flowed and ebbed until c. 1280 B.C., when an offensive and defensive treaty between Hattusil, the Hittite ruler of Boghaz-Keui, and Rameses II was drawn up, of which by a fortunate chance we now have both the Egyptian and the Hittite accounts. On the temple walls of Karnak Rameses records the fact of the reception of the Hittite treaty sent by Hattusil on a silver tablet. Some years later, c. 1266 B.C., to further mark the friendship now existing between the two empires, a Hittite princess was added to the harem of Rameses. She was escorted to Egypt by her royal father, accompanied by a retinue worthy of so extraordinary an occasion. Thus Hittites and Egyptians actually met in the Valley of the Nile.
One is reminded of the jealousies and suspicions of modern powers when one reads on cuneiform documents of an inquiry directed by the king of Babylonia to Hattusil as to the meaning of this alliance between Egyptians and Hittites. Was this ancient "Entente Cordiale" aimed against the Babylonian Empire? Hattusil's answer is as diplomatically correct and non-committal as possible. "The King of Egypt and I have made an alliance and have become brothers. Brothers we are and will be against any common enemy." The implication, however, is clear, and Hattusil made use of the situation to exert pressure upon Babylonia. Thus the game of diplomacy was played thousands of years ago.
The power of Egypt declined with the end of the nineteenth dynasty at the turn of the thirteenth century. The succeeding dynasties were occupied with protecting themselves against encroachments from the south. Even their hold on Palestine and the Phœnician coast was relaxed so as to permit of the establishment of an independent state by the Hebrews in the interior, and by the Philistines and Phœnicia's on the coast. We hear no more of Egyptian encounters with Hittites to whom freer scope was thus given by the decline of the military strength of the Empire of the Nile.
A steady stream of hordes passing into Asia Minor brought new groups into the fields that established independent states in the mountain recesses and beyond in northern Syria. These come into conflict more particularly with Assyria, whose rulers from the twelfth century on find themselves obliged to undertake expedition after expedition against one group or the other. Now it is a group known as the Muski who hold a dominant position over the southern portions of Asia Minor, now the Phrygian Kingdom, founded probably by "Ægeans" who passed into the interior during the period of Hittite decline and who dominated a large portion of the western plateau, and some centuries later, newcomers across the Caucasus, known as the Cimmerians, who overran Asia Minor and put an end to Phrygian independence, and against whom the Assyrian rulers were obliged to lead their forces in order to maintain their own position. Tiglathpileser I (c. 1130–1100 B.C.) of Assyria is one of the names that looms up large in this effort to keep the hordes and groups of Asia Minor in check, but though successful in part, his successors are unable to prevent the rise of a powerful Hittite state in northern Syria with Carchemish on the Euphrates as the centre, that maintains itself till 717 B.C. when it is finally overcome by Sargon II of Assyria. With this decisive event, the way was open to Assyria for the complete control of the lands around the Mediterranean. Palestine, the Phœnician coast, northern Arabia and Egypt fall into Assyria's hands. Ashurbanipal, the "Grande Monarque" of Assyria (668–626 B.C.), under whom the Assyrian Empire reaches its climax, receives the homage of the Lydia's, who had established an independent kingdom in Asia Minor after the overthrow of the Hittites and the Phrygia's. The removal of the Asia Minor menace was the condition needed to make Nineveh the mistress of the ancient world.
V
The earliest history of Asia Minor thus foreshadows the rôle which the control of the highway leading from Constantinople to Bagdad was destined to play in subsequent ages down to our own days. Asia Minor as the Hinterland to Egypt and Mesopotamia forced these empires to become military powers in order to secure their position against attacks from the north to which they were exposed, though what was originally a matter of necessity became through the allurements of conquest a growing ambition. L'appitit vient en mangeant.
The position of Babylon, as the capital of the united Euphrates states, on the Euphrates, at a point where it runs closest to the Tigris, was chosen because the Euphrates was the natural avenue along which the hordes of Asia Minor after having passed through the Cilician gates and the Amanus range would swoop down upon the Mesopotamian plain. The continuity of the historical relationship of Mesopotamia to Asia Minor is well illustrated by the persistency of the site, constituting the natural centre of the Euphrates Valley. Seleucid (founded by Seleucus I in 312 B.C.), the capital in the days of Greek occupancy, Ctesiphon in the later Parthian period (founded c. 129 B.C.) and Bagdad in Arabian times (founded about 763 A.D.) are all within seventy miles from Babylon. The only significant change brought about by time and different circumstances is the transfer of the capital of the region from the banks of the Euphrates to that of the Tigris.9 9Seleucid, 50 miles north of Babylon, lies on the western bank of the Tigris, Ctesiphon directly opposite on the eastern bank, and Bagdad, 15 miles further north, originally on the western bank, but now and for centuries chiefly on the eastern bank. This was due to the growth of commerce which made for a position on the Tigris as the avenue of commerce10 10The Euphrates is only navigable in parts, and as it approaches the Persian Gulf loses itself in swamp and marshes. from the Persian Gulf up to the northern confines of Assyria. Seleucid was selected as the most favorable site on the Tigris, where that river runs closest to the Euphrates, so that the capital might serve the same purpose as ancient Babylon did in being at a strategic point to ward off an attack from Asia Minor, while the change from Seleucid to Bagdad—only 15 miles apart—appears to have been due to a deviation in the course of the Euphrates which brought it nearest to the Tigris, at some remove from Seleucid. The choice of Nineveh as the capital of Assyria was similarly dictated by strategic considerations to offset the Asia Minor menace.11 11The older capital at Ashur (represented by the mound Kaleh Shergat) is only some 40 miles further south. It lay at the northern limit of navigation on the Tigris, which forms the avenue of approach to Mesopotamia from the eastern end of Asia Minor along the routes from Sinope and Trebizond that converge at Diarbekr, near the source of both the Tigris and Euphrates. For Assyria, lying to the north at the outskirts of the Anti-Taurus range, the danger lay in a direct attack from the region of Diarbekr. We find the Assyrian rulers establishing an outpost at or near this point, and placing monuments of themselves there with records of their achievements, in order to inspire terror among their inveterate enemies in the strongholds of northern and eastern Asia Minor. The history of Babylonia and Assyria thus moves along the centuries under the shadow of this menace from Asia Minor.
For Egypt, the possession of Palestine formed the natural bulwark against the north. We have seen that already towards the close of the Feudal Age, efforts were directed towards this end which culminated in the fifteenth century B.C., in placing officials under Egyptian suzerainty in the important towns of Palestine, Gaza, Byblos, Sidon and Jerusalem. All these towns attain their rank because of their strategic location. In the reports which these governors send to the Pharaohs of existing conditions, the Hittites are portrayed threatening the Egyptian control of Palestine and the coast. These troublesome groups appear to have overrun Palestine, coming down from their mountain strongholds across the great highway of Asia Minor that led to the plains of northern Syria through the passage of the Cilician gates. They intermingle freely with the native population—with the Amorites in the north, and with the Canaanitish settlers and the semi-nomadic groups further south. The Hebrew tradition of Hittites as far south as Hebron 12 12 See note to p. 52 at the end of the volume. at the time when the Hebrews first make their appearance in the land reflects this state of affairs. The same tradition represents Esau as marrying Hittite women.13 13Genesis 26, 34. True to their warlike character, we find Hittites forming a contingent in the Hebrew armies of later days. Hebrew chroniclers take it as perfectly natural that among David's followers there should be Hittites, like Ahimelech14 14I Samuel 26, 6. It is presumably his son Abiathar, who is one of David's priests (I Samuel 30, 7). and the unfortunate Uriah,15 15II Samuel, Chapters 11–12. whose wife Bathsheba arouses David's passion and on whom the king practises a dastardly deception in order to secure possession of the woman. Solomon, the offspring of the marriage, may thus himself have been half-Hittite. This close association between Hebrew and Hittites, as also with the Amorites, must have continued on a considerable scale so that centuries afterwards the prophet Ezekiel, rebuking the people for their boasted superiority, could say of Jerusalem "the Amorite was thy father and the Hittite thy mother."16 16Ezekiel, 16, 3. Biblical writers find it necessary to issue a warning against intermarriages with Hittites.17 17Deuteronomy, 7, 3. In the enumeration of the nations of Palestine whom the Hebrews found in possession, whom they are called upon to exterminate, but whom they never succeeded in entirely driving out, the Hittites are invariably included. The Jebusites who hold the heights of Jerusalem till the days of David appear to have been Hittites; and it is significant that the rise of the Hebrews to power under David and Solomon (c. 1000–950 B.C.) coincides with the decline of Hittite power in Asia Minor through the constant encounters with the well-organized armies of the Assyrians. While still maintaining their independent existence for another two centuries, they were no longer strong enough to take the offensive nor to prevent other hordes from passing into Asia Minor, and so the opportunity came for the Hebrews to create a kingdom out of tribes that had hitherto been joined in a loose confederacy.
VI
Passing down the ages we find the Assyrian power, exhausted by incessant warfare, succumbing to a combination formed against her by Asia Minor hordes, abetted by Babylonia, that saw in the downfall of Assyria the possibility of a renewal of her own independence. Nineveh fell in 606 B.C. and the Neo-Babylonian Empire enjoyed a short but illustrious respite. Nebopolassar (625–604 B.C.) who begins his career as a governor of Babylonia under Assyrian suzerainty, makes himself independent and hands the throne to his son, the famous Nebuchadnezzar (604–561 B.C.) who is fired with the ambition to make himself, in imitation of the Assyrian rulers, the master of the ancient world. Less than forty years after Nebuchadnezzar's death, however, a new aspirant to world-conquest appears in Cyrus who, coming from Persia, puts an end to the Neo-Babylonian kingdom in 539 B.C.
It is significant that Cyrus begins his career by an expedition to Asia Minor. The powerful kingdom in the sixth century in that region was Lydia, which succeeded to Phrygia and held a considerable part of Asia Minor. The final overthrow of the Hittites by Sargon at the close of the eighth century gave the opportunity for other groups to secure a dominant position in Asia Minor. The Lydia's were an Aryan people and possibly, like the Phrygia's allied to the Ægeans, some of whom appear to have passed inwards from the coast. Cyrus, with the instinct of a great general, realizes that the conquest of the Hinterland was a necessary condition to the establishment of an empire in the East. Accordingly, he proceeds to Asia Minor and obtains the supremacy over this region by the defeat of Croesus, King of Lydia, in 546 B.C. His armies pass over the historic highway through the Cilician gates, along which Ashurbanipal had led his soldiers. With this highway safely secured, he has no difficulty in conquering Babylonia, which indeed yields to him without a struggle in 539 B.C. Palestine also falls into his hands, and his successor Cambyses passes on in triumph to Egypt. The whole ancient world, or at least all of it that seemed worth holding, falls at the feet of the Persian rulers who pass from the interior of Asia Minor to the coast and cross over to Greece, besides taking possession of important islands of the Ægean Sea like Cyprus. At the end of the following century (401 B.C.) the younger Cyrus, son of Darius II, likewise passes through Asia Minor and seizes the Cilician gates as a preliminary to an attempt to wrest the empire of the east from out of the hands of his elder brother Artaxerxes II. Cyrus was slain in the battle of Cunaxa, on the Euphrates, and soon thereafter the famous retreat of the "Ten Thousand" Greeks in the army of Cyrus through Asia Minor begins, to end successfully, after many hardships, at Trebizond on the Black Sea.
VII
Two centuries later the Persian Empire is threatened by a new force which likewise advances from the north. A new epoch in the world's history begins with the exploits of Alexander the Great (334-323 B.C.), who, after subduing Greece, begins his eastern campaigns at the northwestern corner of Asia Minor. On the river Granicus he defeats the Persian army that attempted to impede his passage. He passes along the same historic highway, on a route largely identical with the course of the Bagdad Railway, and emerging through the Cilician gates encounters the vast force which Darius had gathered at Issus. There he wins one of the decisive battles of the world's history. Master of Asia Minor, Alexander repeats the exploits of his Persian predecessors. Palestine and Egypt acknowledge his rule. He passes on to Mesopotamia, and after another sharp and victorious encounter with an army of Darius at Arbela, not far from Nineveh, the land of Assyria and Babylonia is added to his Empire.
The possession of Asia Minor is also the key to India. Alexander, whose ambition passes beyond the dreams of former conquerors, marches on to the river Indus, and is only checked in his progress by the opposition of his troops against a further advance. Still occupied with schemes of further conquest, he dies in Babylon by a strange fate in the huge palace which Nebuchadnezzar had erected for himself, with its terraced gardens, giving the impression of "hanging gardens," that were hailed as one of the wonders of the age.
Dissensions that broke out among Alexander's generals after his death led to a division of the vast empire. Seleucus (323–281 B.C.), who obtained Mesopotamia as his share, succeeded in bringing under his authority the entire eastern part of Alexander's Empire as far as the Jaxartes and Indus. It was evident, however, that Seleucus could not hold Mesopotamia without the Hinterland to the north and northwest, and so we find him and his successors striving for the possession of Asia Minor. At Ipsus in Asia Minor a decisive victory is won by Seleucus in 301 over his antagonist Antigonus, and with the Hinterland sufficiently secured to prevent an attack from this region, Syria and eventually Palestine and the coast towns fall under the Seleucid dynasty. Yet it was again from the north that the dominions of the Seleucids were threatened. In 278 B.C. the Gauls breaking into Asia Minor menaced the "Fertile Crescent," as the Hittites had done in their day. Antiochus I successfully blocked their advance and won for himself the title of soter, i.e., "savior." It is significant that by driving the enemy out of Asia Minor, he is supposed to have saved the East. In the division of Alexander's conquests Egypt fell to the share of Ptolemy (323–283 B.C.) and a rivalry naturally ensued between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. The former felt the need of holding Palestine as a bulwark, precisely as in the days of the Pharaohs, while the latter could content themselves generally, though not always, with acting on the defensive against Egypt, with the northern and eastern part of the "Fertile Crescent" in their control, backed by the Hinterland. Palestine became a ball tossed now to the Ptolemies, now to the Seleucids, until in the days of Antiochus III, surnamed the Great (223–187 B.C.), the Seleucids secured a more permanent possession of it, and proceed to the invasion of Egypt. The reign of this Antiochus represents both the climax of the Seleucid dynasty and the beginning of its decline. Once more the die is cast in Asia Minor. This region had been lost to the Seleucids in the reign of Seleucid II (246–227 B.C.), partly through internal dissension, and in part through the rise to power of the Pergamon Kingdom in the northwestern part of Asia Minor and which under its ruler. Attalus I (241–197 B.C.), had become a formidable rival.
The decline of Greek rule in the East thus begins with the loosening of the hold upon Asia Minor, as illustrated more particularly by the rise of the Pergamon Kingdom. The Romans with a shrewd recognition of the importance of obtaining a foothold in Asia Minor as the starting-point for the development of a Provincia Asia allied themselves with the new kingdom. Through this Roman policy, the rulers of Pergamon added to their dominions most of western and a part of central Asia Minor.18 18Phrygia, Lydia, Pisidia, Lycaonia and Pamphylia become subject to Pergamon. The capital, Pergamon, became one of the most magnificent cities of the East, but only to fall into the hands of the Romans on the death of Attalus III in 133 B.C. This marks the advent of Roman supremacy in the East. Pergamon retained its position for a long time as the focusing point of military and commercial routes of Asia Minor, traces of which are still to be seen. From holding western Asia Minor, Roman domination gradually spread until under Pompey (64 B.C.) the entire region became subject to Rome, though certain provinces were permitted to retain a nominal independence.
Since Alexander's days, however, Asia Minor had become thoroughly Hellenized through the infusion of Greek civilization. So strong was this impress as to efface the traces of the old Hittite culture completely. Only the ruins of buildings and the rock sculptures remained to tell the tale of the earlier days. Roman influence is to be seen in the building and improvement of new roads through the country, and in the erection of aqueducts as well as of garrisons with strong fortifications at strategic points. The Greek spirit made for culture, the Roman for the unfolding of strength, but through both commerce was encouraged and followed in the wake of the Greek and Roman occupation. Greek settlements in Asia Minor can be followed by traces of the theatre which formed a focus of Greek intellectual life. The Romans, true to their genius, added the amphitheatre for gladiatorial contests of strength.
VIII
Holding Asia Minor firmly, Rome fell heir to the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia. Until the end of the sixth century she remained the undisputed mistress of the East. Her weakness began to show itself, however, by the increasing difficulties she encountered in holding the pole at the one end of the historic highway—at the Persian Gulf. She reversed the position that had hitherto prevailed, for the Persians strongly entrenched at the southern end of the highway, stretching from Constantinople to the Persian Gulf, were weak in their hold of the northern end. A general of Darius Hystaspes held Byzantium for a while, but the Greeks succeeded, c. 478 B.C., in regaining a hold on the important site, the foundation of which goes back to the seventh century B.C. During Greek supremacy of the East, the same conditions prevailed. The Seleucidian rulers were always strong in their control of the region of the Persian Gulf, but weakest in their hold of the other pole. Following the example set by Alexander, his successors devoted themselves to the maintenance of the network of canals of the Euphrates and Tigris, which constituted one of the greatest achievements of the older rulers of Babylonia.Babylonia is the gift of the two rivers of Mesopotamia, as Egypt is the gift of the Nile. In both regions a high order of civilization developed as a result of the favorable conditions under which agriculture could be carried on in lowlands through artificial irrigation. The partnership between nature and man thus produced the culture and wealth of Mesopotamia. Nature provided the soil, man directed the outflow of the rivers through canals and irrigation ditches into the fields, changing the curse of an annual deluge into the blessings of the fields. Under Persian and Greek rulers this system of irrigation requiring constant supervision was maintained, and Babylonia retained her position, though under foreign rule. Rome, on the other hand, strongly entrenched herself at the northern pole of the current stretching across Asia Minor, but neglected the other pole. Byzantium as the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, changing its name to Constantinople in 330 A.D., became a mighty bulwark, ensuring Roman control of the highway up to the Cilician gates, but in order to hold the plains and regions beyond—the "Fertile Crescent"—the grasp on the other pole should have been equally firm. Her failure to do so was a fatal error. Hinterland and "Fertile Crescent" stand and fall together. An empire in the East requires firm possession of both as the condition of permanence. The force of the Roman power, so tenacious where its energy was at its height, appears to have spent itself by the time it had reached Mesopotamia.
It is significant that Pompey was unable to suppress the Parthian Empire, founded by Mithridates I (c. 170–138 B.C.), which succeeded in wresting Babylonia from Seleucidian rulers; and though this Parthian Empire never attained to the position of the old Persian Empire, of which it claimed to be the continuation, it retained possession of Mesopotamia against Roman attempts to seize it, though finally obliged in the days of Augustus to recognize a nominal Roman suzerainty. In 226 A.D. the Arsacid rulers were forced to submit to Ardashir I, a descendant of Sasan, from whom these rulers derived their designation as Sassanians. This new power, originating in Persia, represents a genuine revival of the national Iranian element. It maintained itself till the middle of the seventh century when the rise of the Arabs put an end to it. During this period conflicts between the Sassanian rulers and the Eastern Roman Empire took place almost incessantly. The prize for which the Sassanians fought was northern Mesopotamia (which had remained in Roman hands) and Asia Minor. The tide of war flowed and ebbed during the following centuries but without a decisive issue, because neither the Emperors of Byzantium nor the Sassanians, holding southern Mesopotamia, were able to control the entire stretch of the highway across Asia Minor. Finally, at the beginning of the seventh century Chosroes II penetrated as far as Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople, and by virtue of this success, was, for a short period, master of the East. During the rule of the Parthia's and Sassanians, moreover, Mesopotamia lost much of her former strength and prosperity owing to the state of neglect into which the canal system had been allowed to fall. The greater interest of the rulers lay in the region to the east of the Tigris. Although they continued to reside in Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, the chief monuments of their reigns are to be found in Persia. The Iranian character of the empire, thus emphasized, became the source of its strength, but its rise to a world power would only have been possible had the rulers recognized the region adjacent to the Persian Gulf as the prop of their empire. With only an indifferent hold on this region and allowing it to fall into decay, they could not avail themselves of their temporary success in controlling Asia Minor up to Constantinople. A few years after Chosroes II had secured Chalcedon, the counter movement began and by 627 A.D. the Eastern Emperor Heraclitus had driven the Sassanians back to the Persian Gulf.
IX
The long-continued struggle between Rome and Persia for the possession of Asia Minor as the key to the East thus ended in enfeebling both empires, and making room for a force of an entirely different character that emerges from a region whence one least expected it—Arabia. Mohammed, the Apostle of Allah (c 570–632 A.D.), founds the religion of Islam, and inspiring the scattered Arab tribes also with a national ideal unites them into a solid mass. Under remarkably able generals, Arabic armies pour forth out of Arabia to win the world for the propagation of the gospel of their prophet. The region of the Persian Gulf marks their first conquest, and Constantinople at the other end their goal. Within a year of Mohammed's death, the Moslem hosts make their appearance in southern Mesopotamia and put an end to the Sassanian Empire. Palestine and Egypt fall into their hands. The necessity, however, of holding the Hinterland also in order to maintain an Arab Empire is recognized by their leaders. Under the banner of the prophet, Islam forces its way through Asia Minor, and in 668 A.D. Constantinople was besieged by the Arabs and again in the year 674. Had the Arabs, who now held the one pole at the Persian Gulf, succeeded in capturing and retaining Constantinople in their hands, the entire East would have remained at their mercy. The check which they received in France through Charles Martel at Tours in 732 A.D. is generally regarded as marking the definite limitation to Arabic advance. It had this result merely because the Arabs failed to keep the two poles, across which ran the highway the possession of which meant the sway over the East. The real failure of Islam was in the East. The Arabs were forced back from the gates of Constantinople, and another attempt in 718 to take Constantinople was successful for a short time only. In contrast to the Romans who held Constantinople at the one end of the chain but could not maintain the other, the Arabs held the region of the Persian Gulf but not the other. For this reason the building up of a great united Arabic empire commanding the East was impossible. Portions of Asia Minor along the main roads were in their possession, but never the whole of it. The Eastern Empire kept its hand on the northwestern end.
The conquests of the Arabs carried out with such remarkable rapidity soon split up into groups. Instead of a central authority in Mecca, rival caliphates arose in Mesopotamia, Egypt and Spain. The strongest of these was the one which had its seat in Bagdad founded by the Caliph Mansur in 763 A.D., close by the site of Ctesiphon and not far from ancient Babylon. A glorious day dawned once more for this time-honored region which reached its high-noon in the days of Harun al-Rashid (786–809 A.D.), but again we note the fateful verdict of history that without the control of the Hinterland, sharply defined limitations are prescribed to the extension of any Mesopotamian power. The caliphs of Bagdad could not regain Egypt, nor could they always quell disturbances in Syria. Realizing the importance of Asia Minor in order to make their own position secure, the Abbasid rulers of Bagdad made frequent expeditions in that direction. In the year 833 A.D., it looked as though the ambition to hold Constantinople would be finally realized. With such success had the caliph Mamun penetrated into the heart of Asia Minor that the Byzantine Emperor Theophilus sued for peace. Mamun refused the offer, and death alone prevented him from carrying out his design to seize the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. It was the last effort of the kind. In another century a new force came to the front in Asia Minor which, while it postponed the downfall of the Eastern Roman Empire, also blocked the Arabic advance. Nor was it long before it gathered sufficient strength to threaten both the Arabs and the Emperors at Constantinople. These new aspirants for control of Asia Minor with the ambition to secure both poles of the current were the Turks.
X
Asia Minor, we have seen, was destined by her geographical position to be at the mercy of hordes pouring into the region from time immemorial from Central Asia. Wave after wave surges across the Caucasus or by a more direct route. It was thus that the Hittites came, and possibly the Ægeans, the Cimmerians and other hordes, while the Gauls came across the Hellespont,—and now the region is threatened by two other motley groups—the Turks and the Mongols. Into the ethnic problem suggested by these new invaders we need not enter. An ultimate connection between the two seems probable, but as they come upon the horizon of history they appear quite distinct, the Turks being far more capable of assimilating the culture of the region into which they came or were driven, than the Mongols, who appear more in the light of raiders, and after accomplishing their purpose pass back to whence they came. The Turks are the first to appear.
We hear of them towards the middle of the sixth century of our era occupying a district on the Oxus and victorious over opponents. In the following century they assist the Byzantine Emperor Heraclitus (610–641 A.D.) in his campaigns against the Sassanian empire. Splitting up into smaller groups their trend is westward, and they gradually spread over a large region. A branch advances into Asia Minor, driven perhaps by waves behind it. This advance guard becomes known as the Seljuk Turks, though the name does not appear till the eleventh century, when we find them firmly established in Asia Minor and in control of most of it, as far east as Cappadocia and south to Cilicia. In 1071 they defeat the Byzantine Emperor, and in 1080 take Nicæa which brings them close to the Bosporus.
The Seljuk Turks had become Moslems as had other branches of the Turks when coming into contact with Arabs and Persians. They thus added to the strength of Mohammedan control of the East. We find them spreading in all directions until by the thirteenth century there was scarcely any part of the Nearer East in which Turks were not to be found, serving as mercenaries or otherwise engaged in the service of the various caliphates. The sultans of Rum, as the dominion of the Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor came to be called, with their capital at Iconium (modern Konia) were patrons of art, and remains of Seljuk constructions in Asia Minor testify to the distinction and grace acquired by this branch of the Turkish race in architecture and decoration.
But while Turks thus commingled with the subjects of the Arabic caliphates, they never formed a union with them and contributed rather to the further splitting up of Asia Minor and the region of the "Fertile Crescent" into independent sections. The Abbasid caliphs were left in possession of their authority, though the Seljuk Sultans were the masters of the situation. They held Syria and threatened Egypt at various times. On the other hand, the Seljuk Turks, though a constant menace to the Byzantine Empire, lacked the background necessary to the establishment of a strong world empire in the East. The control of Asia Minor by the Seljuk Turks, moreover, coincides with the age of the Crusades, which begins in 1096 and continues till 1291, when the last of the strongholds on the Phœnician coast fell into Moslem hands. This long-continued attempt on the part of Christian Europe to secure possession of the Land illustrates again the thesis suggested by the history of Asia Minor, that without this region no grasp on the Near East can be effective.
XI
On the surface, the Crusades were undertaken to rescue the Holy Sepulchre and other sites sacred to Christians out of Moslem hands, but their deeper significance lies in the endeavor that they represent to save the Near East for Christendom. Despite the split between Eastern and Western Christendom, the Western Crusaders in reality came to the aid of the Byzantine Empire, and while the Crusades failed ultimately in their purpose, they, like the coming of the Turks, postponed the downfall of Constantinople for two centuries and more. It has been properly pointed out that the Crusades can only he understood when considered as a part of Eastern History,19 19So by Stevenson in his admirable work, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge, 1907). more particularly of that part of the East covered by Asia Minor and those countries for which it forms the Hinterland. The Crusades represent a struggle for possession of the East, precisely of the same order as the various struggles which we have rapidly set forth in this survey of the salient features of the history of the highway from Constantinople to the Persian Gulf. The religious motive underlying the Crusades does not offset their real meaning when viewed from the broader standpoint of human history as largely dominated by three factors, climate, geographical position and economic pressure, or the reaction from such pressure. The recovery of holy sites is an incidental feature of the Crusades. The essential feature is the endeavor to secure the Near East as necessary for the normal development of the West in all directions—in commerce, in religious thought, in cultural stimulus, in art and even in science.
The Crusades are, therefore, a part of the "trend towards the East" which has always been a motive power in western lands and has in our own days given rise to the Bagdad Railway as its latest manifestation. The course that the Crusades take, likewise furnishes another illustration of the impossibility of holding Palestine—the goal of the religious hosts—without the Hinterland. Strange and yet natural that the first battles of the Crusades should be waged in Asia Minor. Nicæa falls into their hands in June, 1097, Antioch in June, 1098, and Jerusalem in July, 1099. A Latin Kingdom was established amidst great enthusiasm with Godfrey of Bouillon as King. It lasted amid great difficulties till 1187, when Jerusalem was captured by Sultan Saladin. The surprise is that it endured so long, for surrounded as the Crusaders were by enemies, no power could possibly be established in Palestine with Asia Minor still held largely by the Seljuk Turks, and the rest of it broken up into little states. The dissensions among the Crusaders were no doubt a factor in leading to the weakness of their hold on other centres like Antioch and Odessa, which were made the capitals of little principalities, but the main reason for their failure was the lack of the Hinterland. They passed through Asia Minor but never held it. A Latin control was effected for a time at Constantinople from 1204 to 1261, but this victory over the Greek element in the Byzantine Empire was of little avail, with the highway that starts opposite Constantinople in control of Moslem groups, or at the mercy of the hordes that again began to pour into the region from Central Asia.
The Seljuk Turks, as well as other branches that had established themselves in Syria, Khorassan, Karman, Irak and up to Afghanistan and had made themselves independent, were all swept away by the surge of a Mongol invasion under Jenghis Khan in 1219. History repeats itself once more in the manner in which Jenghis Khan and his successors overrun Asia Minor, and then obtain possession of the lands lying beyond the Cilician gates and the Amanus range. The Bagdad caliphate falls before the attack of Hulagu Khan, the brother of Jenghis, in 1258. Syria and Palestine yield to the invader two years later and Egypt is threatened.
XII
The tide is turned through a fortunate chance which brings another branch of the Turkish race to the front. In 1227 a horde of several thousand Turks are driven from their settlements in Khorassan through the pressure of the Mongol invasion. They first seek refuge near Erzerum and afterwards pass on towards Angora, under the leadership of Ertoghrul. These are the Ottoman, or, perhaps more properly, the Osmanli Turks who become the founders of the present Turkish Empire. They take their name from Osman or Othman,20 20According to H. A. Gibbons, The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire (New York, 1916), p. 6, Osman is the pronunciation in Constantinople, Othman in Asia Minor. the son of Ertoghrul. Ertoghrul and his followers come to the aid of the Seljuk Turks and near Angora (1260 A.D.) inflict a crushing blow on Hulagu, who in view of the menace abandons the attempt to advance to Egypt and hurries back to the north. The Mongol generals left in command in Syria are defeated by Sultan Kutuz of Egypt about the same time that the forces of the Greeks and the Mongols under Hulagu are pursued to the Hellespont. The danger of the Mongolian invasion had passed, but it is again significant that it is their defeat in Asia Minor which decides the fate of the East. The victory being due to Ertoghrul, he receives as his reward the district around Eskishehr (ancient Dorylaeum) in the northwest of Asia Minor. With this as a starting-point, the power of the Ottoman Turks develops under Osman (1289–1326) and his successors, Orkhan (1326–1359), Murad I (1359–1389), and Bayezid (1389–1403), to a commanding position in the East, though not as yet dominant. They devoted their efforts towards obtaining control of the region in northwestern Asia Minor up to the Bosporus. In 1338 they reach Hadar Pasha directly opposite Constantinople, and the starting-point of the Bagdad Railway. It should always be remembered that the foothold of the Turks in Europe was secured through the court quarrels at Constantinople, which led John Cantacuzenus who had himself proclaimed Emperor, to call in the aid of Orkhan against Anna, the widow of Andronicus III, whose counsellor Cantacuzenus had been. This was in 1341. In a few years the Ottomans aid in capturing Adrianople, which becomes the capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1367. Thrace falls into their hands, Macedonia is colonized by Moslems, and by the end of the fourteenth century they hold a preponderant position in the Balkan Peninsula. The Balkan question which was the immediate cause for the war of 1914 thus takes its rise over five centuries ago.
The victory of Murad at Kossovo in 1389 puts an end to Serbian independence. Under Bayezid, raids are made into Hungary. Constantinople is besieged in 1391 and again in 1395, and Bayezid defeats a force composed of the best European chivalry, co-operating with Sigismund of Hungary, at Nicopolis in Bulgaria in 1396. Greece is invaded in the following year. But while the Osmanli were thus making themselves the peers of the Byzantine Empire in Europe, they were neglecting to strengthen themselves in Asia Minor. Content with holding a small section of it, the remainder was split up into a large number of independent states or Emirates.21 21See Appendix B to Gibbons' work, Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, who gives a full list of such states, and adds an interesting summary of the results of his investigation of the state of Asia Minor during the fourteenth century. It is not until the reign of Bayezid that we find an attempt made to put an end to this condition by a vigorous campaign which, beginning in 1392, lasted for several years but only resulted in obtaining possession of the northern part of Asia Minor. Whether due to the feeling of security inspired by the final defeat of the Latin Crusaders in 1291, or to a reliance on the Moslemization of Asia Minor as a guarantee against dangers from this side, the policy of the Ottoman Turks in striking for the control of Eastern Europe instead of making themselves masters of Asia Minor was a fatal error, which came near resulting in their complete extinction through another Mongol invasion, as terrific in its onslaught as the previous one under Jenghis Khan.
The leader was Timur, who after a remarkable sweep which brought a wide stretch from western India to Armenia and which included Persia, Mesopotamia and the steppes between the Black and Caspian seas under subjection, between 1399 and 1402 overran Asia Minor and made Bayezid his prisoner. By the irony of fate the decisive defeat of Bayezid took place at Angora—the strategic point where the Ottomans 140 years previous had gained their first victory which started them on their career. By the end of 1402 when Smyrna fell into his hands, Timur had established his position as the heir of the Ottoman Empire. He is hailed by Christian Europe as the savior of Europe from Moslem domination, and the hope is expressed by Henry IV of England that he may by conversion to Christianity become the champion of the Cross. But Timur, like Jenghis Khan, was after all a raider rather than an invader. The Mongols, in contrast to the Turks, left no indelible impress of their astonishingly rapid conquests beyond the work of destruction in their wake. There was no constructive element in either of the Mongolian invasions, and having finished his work of destruction Timur leaves Asia Minor as suddenly as he came, and dies in 1405 while on his way to further raids upon China.
XIII
Had Timur followed up his defeat of Bayezid by an effort at organization, the empire of the Ottomans would have disappeared, or had the states of Christian Europe availed themselves of the interregnum (1403–1413) between the defeat of Bayezid and the revival of Ottoman power under Mohammed I, a son of Bayezid (1413–1421), to restore the Eastern Roman Empire—now reduced to a pitiful extreme—the history of the world might have taken a different turn. Instead, after the sudden departure of Timur, the Emperor Manuel Palaeologus appeals to Mohammed I who had established himself at Brusa, for aid against another son of Bayezid, who after seizing Adrianople laid siege to Constantinople. Mohammed defeats his brother Mussa in 1413, and before his death succeeds in regaining all the territory over which his father had ruled—an amazing renaissance, indicative of the recuperative powers of the Turks. The Turkish navy was organized in his days as an adjunct to the army. Mohammed I carries out a more energetic policy in strengthening his hold on Asia Minor. His son and successor Murad II (1421–1451)22 22Murad II abdicated in 1444 in favor of his son (then only 14 years old), but was forced by turbulent conditions to resume his throne. continues this policy, and it is not until he knows the Hinterland to be secure that he felt free to direct in person the further conquest of Europe. Salonica is taken in 1428, further advances are made into Servia and Hungary but are checked by troubles that had broken out in Asia Minor. After his son Mohammed II (1451–1481) had finally succeeded in quelling the revolts that were constantly breaking out, the final act in the drama of the contest between Cross and Crescent that had been going on for centuries was staged by the taking of Constantinople on the 20th of May, 1453. The last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine Palaeologus, fell among the defenders of the last bulwark.
The taking of Constantinople is one of the decisive events in history, because it symbolizes the final triumph of the Crescent in the East. The durability of this triumph is illustrated by the futility of all efforts during the succeeding centuries down to our days to change the aspect of the Near East as a Mohammedan possession, which even the energetic missionary efforts of the various bodies of the Christian church, praiseworthy and useful as they have been in promoting education, have been unable to affect to any material extent. The reason for this is once more to be sought in the possession of the highway stretching across Asia Minor which, after the definite control of the one end by the Ottomans, was gradually made equally firm at the other end—at the Persian Gulf. Before Mohammed II passed away, Asia Minor had been completely subjugated, and under his successor, Selim I (1512–1520), Persia, Hindustan, Egypt, Syria and the coastline of Arabia became part of the Turkish Empire. The control of the Hinterland made the Ottoman Sultans masters of the East—precisely as this control had been a decisive factor ever since the days of antiquity. The rise of the Ottoman Turks to the rank of a world-power having been thus brought about by the firm grasp of the historic highway, its permanency was conditioned upon maintaining its hold. Once more we note that the key to the Eastern situation lies not in the Balkan Peninsula nor in the possession of Constantinople, but in the strategic character of the route connecting Constantinople with Bagdad—as illustrated by the constant repetition of events, though under changed outward circumstances from the times of Mursil, the Hittite, in the middle of the thirteenth century before this era to Mohammed II, the Osmanli Turk in the middle of the fifteenth century of our era—an astonishing example of historical continuity for over 2700 years, as a result of the geographical position of Asia Minor.
The taking of Constantinople, marking the control of the highway of which it forms the starting-point, meant the raising of an impassable barrier to the East, erected against any further efforts of Christian and Western Europe to break through it. The year 1453 marks the real end of the Crusades, viewed in their broader historical significance as the endeavor to save the access to the East for Europe. A direct consequence of the capture of Constantinople was the stimulus given to navigation to find a new route to the East by sea. Columbus sailed west in the hope of making good by a water route to India what had been lost through the failure of the Crusades to keep the land highway to the East open to western nations. A new continent is discovered by accident in the search for this route in 1492, and the Cape of Good Hope is rounded by Vasco da Gama in 1477 in the endeavor to find a more direct sea route to the East. The "trend towards the East," manifesting itself in such a variety of forms, appears to be an ineradicable longing that the West received when it fell heir to the high culture that arose in the ancient East. The "call of the East" still resounds in the ears of contemporary Europe, and America. It is the impelling force behind commercial exploitation and the construction of railways to the East. So closely intertwined is the fate of the West upon access to the East that the taking of Constantinople leads to the discovery of America. One is inclined to put it strongly that after the closing up of the highway across Asia Minor, there was nothing for Columbus to do but to discover America—and he did it.
XIV
The Ottoman rulers, however, failed to recognize that their position in the world depended upon their being and remaining an eastern power. In their endeavors to become also a western power, they sinned, as it were, against their own destiny and brought about the downfall of a great empire. They tried like Janus to face in both directions, instead of keeping their gaze steadily turned toward the East. Actuated by ambitions to overstep natural barriers to their extension, they became, as has always been the inevitable fate of attempts at world power, a menace to the world.
The height of the Turkish Empire was reached in the reign of Suleiman I (1520–1566), whose surname "the Magnificent" symbolizes the climax attained. Belgrade was captured in 1521, Budapest in 1528. The gates of Vienna are reached in 1529, and Suleiman prepared for a contest at arms with the Emperor Charles V. The Moslemization of Europe seemed imminent, and when Suleiman died in 1566, the Turkish Empire extended close to the frontiers of Germany.
The decline may be dated from the battle of Lepanto in October, 1571, when Don John of Austria destroyed the menace of the Turkish fleet, which had secured control of the African coast to Morocco and had endangered Italy, Spain and France. Worn out by almost continuous wars in Europe and the suppression of revolts in Asia Minor and Persia for a stretch of over thirty years, the Turks concluded a peace at Sitvatorok (in Hungary) in November, 1606, which put an end to their period of conquest. From now on, the efforts of the Ottoman Sultans are directed towards maintaining their dominions with a steady decline of their power in Europe, though it was not until well towards the close of the eighteenth century that the defensive power of the Empire was broken to the extent of forcing upon her onerous terms of peace. The treaty of Kutchuk Kainarji (in Bulgaria) signed in July, 1774, between Russia and Turkey marks another turning-point which definitely gave to Russia the ascendancy. In 1792 the Crimea was added to Russia by the treaty of Jassy. The next century saw the struggle of Turkey to retain possession of the states of the Balkan Peninsula, with the gradual loss of one after the other until her European possessions were reduced to the comparatively small corner at the southeastern extremity, which now represents all that is left of what was once a formidable dominion. But Turkey was still an Eastern power after having been shorn of her European possessions. Despite uprisings and revolts in Persia and Syria and Egypt, she had managed to retain her control of the Nearer East by holding the highway across Asia Minor. During the seventeenth century, however, her hold on the one end at the Persian Gulf was loosened. She was forced to make a supreme effort to put down independent movements that were taking place in Mesopotamia to throw off the yoke. Since the days of Suleiman more particularly, the Mesopotamian plain had been neglected. The canal systems were not kept in repair, and Bagdad itself lost its prestige and its magnificence. The country went backward steadily. Turkish misrule completed the havoc wrought by the submerging of large districts through the annual overflow of the two rivers, now no longer directed into the fields. Though still strong at one end of the chain, the links at the other end grew weaker and affected the resistance power of the chain as a whole. A situation arose as in the days of the Roman occupancy, which similarly began to fail with the loosening of the grip at the Persian Gulf.
XV
The possibility of a decided break in the current stretching from Constantinople and Bagdad was foreshadowed by Napoleon's expedition to Egypt in 1798, which came as a complete surprise to Turkey herself. With the keen insight of a military genius, Napoleon, dreaming of the exploits of world conquerors of the past—Cyrus, Alexander and their successors to Mohammed II—saw that the East was to be conquered and Turkey eliminated not by way of Europe, but through the East. His occupation of Egypt was merely the preliminary step. His design as shown by his siege of Acre on the Palestinian coast was to make himself master of Syria, and thence to threaten the possession of the Asia Minor Highway—to cut the chain as it were at a strategic point. Egypt was merely a passage-way to Palestine which, as we have seen, had always played the part of a bulwark for Egypt against attacks from Asia Minor. Napoleon was hastily called back to Egypt, and after the battle of Abukir returned to France where disturbing conditions had arisen during his absence. He was thus forced to abandon further designs. It is, of course, somewhat precarious in default of definite evidence to speculate as to what was in his mind, but the expedition to Syria is significant as an index of his plans. In the case of a military genius it is not essential to assume that he forms his plans through a conscious knowledge of past history, though Napoleon was a student of the past. Insight often anticipates the conclusions of the investigator. As an expert in strategy, he would have had no difficulty in recognizing that a successful attack on the highway leading from Constantinople to Bagdad would have spelled the end of Ottoman domination of the East.However this may be, the expedition to Egypt marks the beginning of the attempt on the part of Europe to recover the direct access to the East. It is the first turn in the unwinding of the chain of those events which in the past had led to the triumph of the Crescent over the Cross. The barrier set up by the grasp of the route from Constantinople to Bagdad in the hands of a Moslem power was to be thrown down, and the route to be restored to Christian Europe. This European struggle for the control of the East which thus begins with Napoleon is in a manner a new crusade, though the meaning of the symbols have changed, and the Cross stands for the restless spirit of progress marked by commercial and political expansion, and the Crescent for the fatalistic conservatism of an incrustated civilization. As in the Middle Ages, all the great European Powers are participating in this new crusade—France, England, Russia, Austria, Italy, and as the last comer the resuscitated Germany, reunited into a mighty empire in 1871.
The history of Europe since the end of the eighteenth century is largely taken up with the ambitions of the Powers to secure a slice of the Near East, though before the process of dissolution in the Near East sets in we find the historic highway once more playing a decisive rôle. In 1833 the Ottoman Empire virtually lost its control of Egypt through the treaty of Kutaia (Asia Minor) with Mehemet Ali, which not only recognized the latter's authority as hereditary Pasha of Egypt, but made him also master of Syria up to the Cilician gates. The treaty followed upon the successful campaign which Ibrahim Pasha, the son of Mehemet Ali, waged in 1831–1832 against the Sultan Mahmud II. Ibrahim Pasha led the Egyptian troops victoriously through the historic highway to Konia—once the residence of the Seljuk Sultans—where he inflicted a crushing defeat on the Turkish army and captured its commander, Reshid Pasha. At the Cilician gates, as the strategic point, he erected fortifications which are still to be seen. The control of this highway was thus lost for the Turkish Empire, and the loss would have been absolute but for the intervention of Russia. In 1839 the Sultan made an attempt to regain his prestige in Asia Minor, but Ibrahim was victorious at Nisibin near Birejik on the Euphrates.23 23 It is interesting to note that the famous Moltke was present at this battle as adviser to Hafiz Pasha, and wrote an account of it in his "Letters from Turkey," which he published in 1841 ("Briefe Aus der Türkei) of which a French translation appeared in 1872 and an Italian one in 1877. The Ottoman Empire was once more in a critical position, from which this time it was saved by the European Powers whose intervention now became more active—and intervention meant partition.
England established her protectorate over Egypt, France definitely took Algiers, Russia made her peace with England to share in the domination over Persia, Austria acquired a sphere of influence over Palestine and snatched Bosnia and Herzegovina as stepping-stones leading to the great highway. Italy has seized Tripoli, and France obtained a dominant position over Syria through railway concessions, while England with keen foresight secured navigation control at the Persian Gulf to Bagdad. Lastly, Germany by a master stroke obtained the concession of a railway across the historic highway from Constantinople to Bagdad—with the privilege of extension to the Persian Gulf, and with important branch roads at various points of commercial and strategic importance. The control of this highway by any European power—whether Germany, England or France—must lead to the end of Ottoman domination of the Near East. It would mark in every sense of the word the close of an era and the opening of a new one, that would have its effect on the entire world. The force of the change would sweep away all endeavors of any modern power, engaged in world commerce, to remain in a state of political isolation. The fate of the Near East once more lies in the hands of Western nations. Its future will be determined by the disposition that will be made of the highway across Asia Minor.
XVI
The course of events in the Near East since the entering wedge represented by Napoleon's expedition to Egypt is thus to be interpreted as the irresistible onslaught of the West to break down the barrier created in 1453. As we survey the successive steps in this onslaught, the struggle between France and England culminating in the convention of 1904, which gave France a dominant position in Morocco in return for allowing England a free hand in Egypt, the attempts of France and Russia to hedge in England in India, 24 24 See below, p. 89. followed by England and Russia, in dividing up their "spheres of influence" in Persia, the commercial and railway concessions secured by England, France and Russia from Turkey, sinking ever deeper into a slough of desperate weakness, we see how these struggles, conventions and partnerships all lead up to the dramatic climax—the struggle for the historic highway which is the key to the Nearer East. Its possession will mean in the future as it always has in the past—domination over Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt and probably Arabia; and the Near East points its finger directly towards the Farther East. Under the modern symbol of railway control, Asia Minor, true to the genius of its history, once more looms up as a momentous factor in the world history. The war of 1914 has brought the events of the past to another turning-point in the political kaleidoscope. The story of the Bagdad Railway is thus crucial for an understanding of the crisis that was a large factor in bringing on the great war, even though at the time it appeared to be a hidden feature because of the accidental occurrence that brought the European crisis to an issue. The murder at Sarajevo was merely the match applied to the pile all ready to be kindled.