Ancient Egyptian Government

The government of ancient Egypt was a theocratic monarchy as the king ruled by a mandate from the gods, initially was seen as an intermediary between human beings and the divine, and was supposed to represent the gods' will through the laws passed and policies approved.

 

A central government in Egypt is evident by c. 3150 BCE when King Narmer unified the country, but some form of government existed prior to this date. The Scorpion Kings of the Predynastic Period in Egypt (c. 6000-c. 3150 BCE) obviously had a form of monarchial government, but exactly how it operated is not known.

 

Egyptologists of the 19th century CE divided the country's history into periods in order to clarify and manage their field of study. Periods in which there was a strong central government are called 'kingdoms' while those in which there was disunity or no central government are called 'intermediate periods.' In examining Egyptian history one needs to understand that these are modern designations; the ancient Egyptians did not recognize any demarcations between time periods by these terms. Scribes of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2040-1782 BCE) might look back on the time of the First Intermediate Period (2181-2040 BCE) as a "time of woe" but the period had no official name.

 

The way in which the government worked changed slightly over the centuries, but the basic pattern was set in the First Dynasty of Egypt (c. 3150 - c. 2890 BCE). The king ruled over the country with a vizier as second-in-command, government officials, scribes, regional governors (known as nomarchs), mayors of the town, and, following the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c.1570 BCE), a police force. From his palace at the capital, the king would make his pronouncements, decree laws, and commission building projects, and his word would then be implemented by the bureaucracy which became necessary to administer rule in the country. Egypt's form of government lasted, with little modification, from c. 3150 BCE to 30 BCE when the country was annexed by Rome.

 

EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD & OLD KINGDOM

The ruler was known as a 'king' up until the New Kingdom of Egypt (1570-1069 BCE) when the term 'pharaoh' (meaning 'Great House,' a reference to the royal residence) came into use. The first king was Narmer (also known as Menes) who established a central government after uniting the country, probably by military means. The economy of Egypt was based on agriculture and used a barter system. The lower-class peasants farmed the land, gave the wheat and other produce to the noble landowner (keeping a modest portion for themselves), and the landowner then turned the produce over to the government to be used in trade or in distribution to the wider community.

 

Under the reign of Narmer's successor, Hor-Aha (c. 3100-3050 BCE) an event was initiated known as Shemsu Hor (Following of Horus) which would become standard practice for later kings. The king and his retinue would travel through the country and thus make the king's presence and power visible to his subjects. Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson comments:

 

The Shemsu Hor would have served several purposes at once. It allowed the monarch to be a visible presence in the life of his subjects, enabled his officials to keep a close eye on everything that was happening in the country at large, implementing policies, resolving disputes, and dispensing justice; defrayed the costs of maintaining the court and removed the burden of supporting it year-round in one location; and, last but by no means least, facilitated the systematic assessment and levying of taxes. A little later, in the Second Dynasty, the court explicitly recognized the actuarial potential of the Following of Horus. Thereafter, the event was combined with a formal census of the country's agricultural wealth. (44-45)

 

“The Shemsu Hor (better known today as the Egyptian Cattle Count) became the means whereby the government assessed individual wealth and levied taxes. Each district (nome) was divided into provinces with a nomarch administering overall operation of the nome, and then lesser provincial officials, and then mayors of the towns. Rather than trust a nomarch to accurately report his wealth to the king, he and his court would travel to assess that wealth personally. The Shemsu Hor thus became an important annual (later bi-annual) event in the lives of the Egyptians and, much later, would provide Egyptologists with at least approximate reigns of the kings since the Shemsu Hor was always recorded by reign and year.”

 

Tax collectors would follow the appraisal of the officials in the king's retinue and collect a certain amount of produce from each nome, province, and town, which went to the central government. The government, then, would use that produce in trade. Throughout the Early Dynastic Period, this system worked so well that by the time of the Third Dynasty of Egypt (c. 2670-2613 BCE) building projects requiring substantial costs and an efficient labor force were initiated, the best-known and longest-lasting being The Step Pyramid of King Djoser. During the Old Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2613-2181 BCE) the government was wealthy enough to build even larger monuments such as the pyramids of Giza.

 

The most powerful person in the country after the king was the vizier. There were sometimes two viziers, one for Upper and one for Lower Egypt. The vizier was the voice of the king and his representative and was usually a relative or someone very close to the monarch. The vizier managed the bureaucracy of the government and delegated the responsibilities as per the orders of the king. During the Old Kingdom, the viziers would have been in charge of the building projects as well as managing other affairs.

 

FIRST INTERMEDIATE PERIOD & MIDDLE KINGDOM

The kings still ruled from their capital of Memphis at the beginning of the First Intermediate Period, but they had very little actual power. The nomarchs administered their own regions, collected their own taxes, built their own temples and monuments in their honor, and commissioned their own tombs. The early kings of the First Intermediate Period (7th-10th dynasties) were so ineffectual that their names are hardly remembered and their dates are often confused. The nomarchs, on the other hand, grew steadily in power. Historian Margaret Bunson explains their traditional role prior to the First Intermediate Period:

 

“The power of such local rulers was modified in times of strong pharaohs, but generally they served the central government, accepting the traditional role of being First Under The King. This rank denoted an official's right to administer a particular nome or province on behalf of the pharaoh. Such officials were in charge of the region's courts, treasury, land offices, conservation programs, militia, archives, and store-houses. They reported to the vizier and to the royal treasury on affairs within their jurisdiction. “

 

During the First Intermediate Period, however, the nomarchs used their growing resources to serve themselves and their communities. The kings of Memphis, perhaps in an attempt to regain some of their lost prestige, moved the capital to the city of Herakleopolis but were no more successful there than at the old capital.

In  2125 BCE an overlord known as Intef I rose to power at a provincial city called Thebes in Upper Egypt and inspired his community to rebel against the kings of Memphis. His actions would inspire those who succeeded him and finally result in the victory of Mentuhotep II over the kings of Herakleopolis c. 2040 BCE, initiating the Middle Kingdom.

 

Mentuhotep II reigned from Thebes. Although he had ousted the old kings and begun a new dynasty, he patterned his rule on that of the Old Kingdom. The Old Kingdom was looked back on as a great age in Egypt's history, and the pyramids and expansive complexes at Giza and elsewhere were potent reminders of the glory of the past. One of the old patterns he kept, which had been neglected during the latter part of the Old Kingdom, was duplication of agencies for Upper and Lower Egypt as Bunson explains:

 

“In general, the administrative offices of the central government were exact duplicates of the traditional provincial agencies, with one significant difference. In most periods the offices were doubled, one for Upper Egypt and one for Lower Egypt. This duality was carried out in architecture as well, providing palaces with two entrances, two throne rooms, etc. The nation viewed itself as a whole, but there were certain traditions dating back to the legendary northern and southern ancestors, the semi-divine kings of the predynastic period, and to the concept of symmetry.”

 

The duplication of agencies not only honored the north and the south of Egypt equally but, more importantly for the king, kept tighter control of both regions. Mentuhotep II's successor, Amenemhat I (c. 1991 - c.1962 BCE), moved the capital to the city of Iti-tawy near Lisht and continued the old policies, enriching the government quickly enough to begin his own building projects. His shifting of the capital from Thebes to Lisht may have been an attempt at further unifying Egypt by centering the government in the middle of the country instead of toward the south. In an effort which curbed the power of the nomarchs, Amenemhat I created the first standing army in Egypt directly under the king's control. Prior to this, armies were raised by conscription in the different districts and the nomarch then sent his men to the king. This gave the nomarchs a great degree of power as the men's loyalties lay with their community and regional ruler. A standing army, loyal first to the king, encouraged nationalism and stronger unity.

 

Amenemhat I's successor, Senusret I (c. 1971 - c. 1926 BCE) continued his policies and further enriched the country through trade. It is Senusret I who first builds a temple to Amun at the site of Karnak and initiates the construction of one of the greatest structures of Egyptian religion ever built. The funds the government needed for such massive projects came from trade, and in order to trade the officials taxed the people of Egypt. Wilkinson explains how this worked:

“When it came to collecting taxes, in the form of a proportion of farm produce, we must assume a network of officials operated on behalf of the state throughout Egypt. There can be no doubt that their efforts were backed up by coercive measures. The inscriptions left by some of these government officials, mostly in the form of seal impressions, allow us to re-create the workings of the treasury, which was by far the most important department from the very beginning of Egyptian history. Agricultural produce collected as a government revenue was treated in one of two ways. A certain proportion went directly to state workshops for the manufacture of secondary products - for example, tallow and leather from cattle; pork from pigs; linen from flax; bread, beer, and basketry from grain. Some of these value-added products were then traded and exchanged at a profit, producing further government income; other were redistributed as payment to state employees, thereby funding the court and its projects. The remaining portion of agricultural produce (mostly grain) was put into storage in government granaries, probably located throughout Egypt in important regional centers. Some of the stored grain was used in its raw state to finance court activities, but a significant share was put aside as emergency stock, to be used in the event of a poor harvest to help prevent wide-spread famine. “

 

The nomarchs of the Middle Kingdom cooperated fully with the king in sending resources, and this was largely because their autonomy was now respected by the throne in a way it had not been previously. Egyptian art during the Middle Kingdom period shows a much greater variation than that of the Old Kingdom which suggests a greater value placed on regional tastes and distinct styles rather than only court-approved and -regulated expression. Further, letters from the time make clear that the nomarchs were accorded a respect by the 12th Dynasty kings, which they had not known during the Old Kingdom. Under the reign of Senusret III (c. 1878-1860 BCE) the power of the nomarchs was decreased and the nomes were reorganized. The title of nomarch disappears completely from the official records during Senusret III's reign suggesting that it was abolished. Provincial rulers no longer had the freedoms they had enjoyed earlier but still benefitted from their position; they were now just more firmly under the control of the central government.

 

The 12th Dynasty of Egypt's Middle Kingdom (c. 2040-1802 BCE) is considered the 'golden age' of government, art, and Egyptian culture when some of the most significant literary and artistic works were created, the economy was robust, and a strong central government empowered trade and production. Mass production of artifacts such as statuary (shabti dolls, for example) and jewelry during the First Intermediate Period had led to the rise of mass consumerism which continued during this time of the Middle Kingdom but with greater skill producing works of higher quality. The 13th Dynasty (c. 1802-c. 1782 BCE) was weaker than the 12th. The comfort and high standard of living of the Middle Kingdom declined as regional governors again assumed more power, priests amassed more wealth, and the central government became increasingly ineffective. In the far north of Egypt, at Avaris, a Semitic people had settled around a trading center and, during the 13th Dynasty, these people grew in power until they were able to assert their own autonomy and then expand their control of the region. These were the Hyksos ('foreign kings') whose rise signals the end of the Middle Kingdom and the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt.

 

SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD & NEW KINGDOM

The later Egyptian writers characterized the time of the Hyksos as chaotic and claimed they invaded and destroyed the country. Actually, the Hyksos admired Egyptian culture and adopted it as their own. Although they did conduct raids on Egyptian cities such as Memphis, carrying statuary and monuments back to Avaris, they dressed as Egyptians, worshiped Egyptian gods, and incorporated elements of Egyptian government in their own.

 

Alexander Nevsky

Prince of Russia

 

“Whoever comes to us with a sword, from a sword will perish…” Every Russian student learned these famous words of Aleksandr Nevsky in primary school. He uttered the famous sentence after accomplishing a series of crucial victories over German and Swedish invaders. The Grand Prince of Novgorod and Vladimir did a lot for his country during the most challenging times in its history.

 

Alexander Nevsky, Russian Aleksandr Nevsky, original name Aleksandr Yaroslavich (born c. 1220, Vladimir, Grand Principality of Vladimir—died Nov. 14, 1263, Gorodets; canonized in Russian Church 1547; feast days November 23, August 30) prince of Novgorod (1236–52) and of Kiev (1246–52) and grand prince of Vladimir (1252–63), who halted the eastward drive of the Germans and Swedes but collaborated with the Mongols in imposing their rule on Russia. By defeating a Swedish invasion force at the confluence of the Rivers Izhora and Neva (1240), he won the name Nevsky, “of the Neva.”

 

Alexander was the son of Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich, grand prince of Vladimir, the foremost among the Russian rulers. In 1236 Alexander was elected prince—a figure who functioned as little more than military commander—of the city of Novgorod. In 1239 he married the daughter of the Prince of Polotsk.

 

When in 1240 the Swedes invaded Russia to punish the Novgorodians for encroaching on Finnish tribes and to bar Russia’s access to the sea, Alexander defeated the Swedes at the confluence of the Rivers Izhora and Neva. His standing enhanced by his victory, he apparently began to intervene in the affairs of the city and was expelled a few months later.

 

When, urged by Pope Gregory IX to “Christianize” the Baltic region, the Teutonic Knights shortly thereafter invaded Russia, Novgorod invited Alexander to return. After a number of battles, Alexander decisively defeated the Germans in the famous “massacre on the ice” in April 1242 on a narrow channel between Lakes Chud (Peipus) and Pskov. Alexander, who continued to fight both the Swedes and Germans and eventually stopped their eastward expansion, also won many victories over the pagan Lithuanians and the Finnic peoples.

 

In the east, however, Mongol armies were conquering most of the politically fragmented Russian lands. Alexander’s father, the grand prince Yaroslav, agreed to serve the new rulers of Russia but died in September 1246 of poisoning after his return from a visit to the Great Khan in Mongolia. When, in the ensuing struggle for the grand princely throne, Alexander and his younger brother Andrew appealed to Khan Batu of the Mongol Golden Horde, he sent them to the Great Khan. Violating Russian customs of seniority, the Great Khan appointed Andrew grand prince of Vladimir and Alexander prince of Kiev—probably because Alexander was Batu’s favourite and Batu was in disfavour with the Great Khan. When Andrew began to conspire against the Mongol overlords with other Russian princes and western nations, Alexander went to Saray on the Volga and denounced his brother to Sartak, Batu’s son, who sent an army to depose Andrew and installed Alexander as grand prince. Henceforth, for over a century, no northeastern Russian prince challenged the Mongol conquest. Alexander proceeded to restore Russia by building fortifications and churches and promulgating laws. As grand prince, he continued to rule Novgorod through his son Vasily, thus changing the constitutional basis of rule in Novgorod from personal sovereignty by invitation to institutional sovereignty by the principal Russian ruler. When, in 1255, Novgorod, tiring of grand princely rule, expelled Vasily and invited an opponent of Mongol hegemony, Alexander assembled an army and reinstalled his son.

 

In 1257 the Mongols, in order to levy taxes, took a census in most of Russia. It encountered little opposition, but when news of the impending enumeration reached Novgorod an uprising broke out. In 1258 Alexander, fearing that the Mongols would punish all of Russia for the Novgorodian revolt, helped force Novgorod to submit to the census and to Mongol taxation. This completed the process of imposing the Mongol yoke on northern Russia.

 

In 1262 uprisings broke out in many towns against the Muslim tax farmers of the Golden Horde, and Alexander made a fourth journey to Saray to avert reprisals. He succeeded in his mission, as well as in obtaining exemption for Russians from a draft of men for a planned invasion of Iran. Returning home, Alexander died on Nov. 14, 1263, in Gorodets on the Volga. After his death Russia once more disintegrated into many feuding principalities. His personal power, based upon support of the princes, boyars, and clergy, as well as the fear of Mongols, could not be transmitted to any other man, including his weak sons.

 

Whether Alexander was a quisling in his dealings with the Mongol conquerors is a question seldom posed by Russian historians, because some Russian princes had for centuries concluded alliances with Turkic steppe nomads in order to gain advantage in domestic rivalries. Because Alexander was a willing collaborator, he may have reduced the common people’s suffering by interceding for them with the Khan. He was supported by the church, which thrived under Mongol protection and tax exemption and feared the anti-Mongol princes who negotiated with the papacy. For these reasons, Alexander by 1381 was elevated to the status of a local saint and was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1547. Alexander’s son Daniel founded the house of Moscow, which subsequently reunited the northern Russian lands and ruled until 1598. Alexander was one of the great military commanders of his time, who protected Russia’s western frontier against invasion by Swedes or Germans. This image of him was popular in northwestern Russia and has in succeeding centuries been adduced for propaganda purposes. Thus, after the conclusion of the war with Sweden, the Order of Alexander Nevsky was created in 1725, and during World War II (in July 1942), when Germany had deeply penetrated into the Soviet Union, Stalin pronounced Alexander Nevsky a national hero and established a military order in his name.

 

Charlemagne's Saxon Wars

The Saxon Wars were the campaigns and insurrections of the more than thirty years from 772, when Charlemagne first entered Saxony with the intent to conquer, to 804, when the last rebellion of disaffected tribesmen was crushed. In all, eighteen battles were fought in what is now northwestern Germany. They resulted in the incorporation of Saxony into the Frankish realm and their forcible conversion from Germanic paganism to Catholicism.

 

Despite repeated setbacks, the Saxons resisted steadfastly, returning to raid Charlemagne's domains as soon as he turned his attention elsewhere. Their main leader, Widukind, was a resilient and resourceful opponent and accepted a peace offering from Charlemagne in a perilous situation, not losing his face and preventing Charlemagne from continuing a bothersome war. This agreement saved the Saxons' leaders' exceptional rights in their homeland. Widukind was baptized in 785 and buried in the only Germanic church without a spire.

 

……………………………………………………………………..

 

 

Charlemagne was engaged in almost constant warfare throughout his reign, often at the head of his elite scara bodyguard squadrons, carrying his legendary sword Joyeuse. In the Saxon Wars, spanning thirty years and eighteen battles, he conquered Saxonia and proceeded to convert it to Christianity.

 

The Germanic Saxons were divided into four subgroups in four regions. Nearest to Austrasia was Westphalia and furthest away was Eastphalia. Between them was Engria and north of these three, at the base of the Jutland peninsula, was Nordalbingia.

 

In his first campaign, in 773, Charlemagne forced the Engrians to submit and cut down an Irminsul pillar near Paderborn. The campaign was cut short by his first expedition to Italy. He returned in 775, marching through Westphalia and conquering the Saxon fort at Sigiburg. He then crossed Engria, where he defeated the Saxons again. Finally, in Eastphalia, he defeated a Saxon force, and its leader Hessi converted to Christianity. Charlemagne returned through Westphalia, leaving encampments at Sigiburg and Eresburg, which had been important Saxon bastions. He then controlled Saxony with the exception of Nordalbingia, but Saxon resistance had not ended.

 

Following his subjugation of the dukes of Friuli and Spoleto in Italy, Charlemagne returned rapidly to Saxony in 776, where a rebellion had destroyed his fortress at Eresburg. The Saxons were once again defeated, but their main leader, Widukind, escaped to Denmark, his wife's home. Charlemagne built a new camp at Karlstadt. In 777, he called a national diet at Paderborn to integrate Saxony fully into the Frankish kingdom. Many Saxons were baptised as Christians.

 

In the summer of 779, he again invaded Saxony and reconquered Eastphalia, Engria and Westphalia. At a diet near Lippe, he divided the land into missionary districts and himself assisted in several mass baptisms (780). He then returned to Italy and, for the first time, the Saxons did not immediately revolt. Saxony was peaceful from 780 to 782.

 

He returned to Saxony in 782 and instituted a code of law and appointed counts, both Saxon and Frank. The laws were draconian on religious issues; for example, the Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae prescribed death to Saxon pagans who refused to convert to Christianity. This led to renewed conflict. That year, in autumn, Widukind returned and led a new revolt. In response, at Verden in Lower Saxony, Charlemagne is recorded as having ordered the execution of 4,500 Saxon prisoners, known as the Massacre of Verden ("Verdener Blutgericht"). The killings triggered three years of renewed bloody warfare (783–785). During this war the Frisians were finally subdued and a large part of their fleet was burned. The war ended with Widukind accepting baptism.

 

Thereafter, the Saxons maintained the peace for seven years, but in 792 Westphalia again rebelled. The Eastphalians and Nordalbingians joined them in 793, but the insurrection was unpopular and was put down by 794. An Engrian rebellion followed in 796, but the presence of Charlemagne, Christian Saxons and Slavs quickly crushed it. The last insurrection occurred in 804, more than thirty years after Charlemagne's first campaign against them, but also failed. According to Einhard:

 

    “The war that had lasted so many years was at length ended by their acceding to the terms offered by the King; which were renunciation of their national religious customs and the worship of devils, acceptance of the sacraments of the Christian faith and religion, and union with the Franks to form one people.”

 

The Egyptian tale of the ship wrecked sailor

In a Russian museum, at the beginning of the 20th century, an Egyptian text of enormous interest was found, which had gone unnoticed until then. It recounts what happened to a sailor who lost his boat and his crew on an official mission. It is full of fantastic stories that are identifiable with some myths from thousands of years ago, but the most interesting thing is that it specifies facts related to navigation that are of great interest, despite the fact that traditional historiography has hardly taken them into account.

 

In the past, an Egyptian sailor from Pharaonic times had to navigate the high seas to fulfill a mission and his ship was wrecked. He managed to save himself and reached a magical island. The text recounts the trip, the shipwreck, the events experienced on the lost island and his return to the port from which he left.

 

The departure

 

The boat used was quite large and, according to what is said, it was suitable for sea navigation. It was more than 62 meters long by 21 meters wide and had a crew of one hundred and twenty men, who were among the best in the kingdom, capable of foreseeing the most adverse weather conditions: "they watched the sky and the coast, they were braver Like lions, they predicted a gale before it came and a storm before it broke.

At that time, navigation through the Red Sea was, according to the story, the most used means to reach Punt. Today we know that it started from the Nile valley and embarked at the seaport through Mersa Gawasis.

 

 

Destiny

 

The pharaoh sent the ship to Bia, an imprecise place name that refers to lands rich in minerals and stones to build buildings. It is usually identified with Sinai and is also directly related to Punt (which could be located in various areas such as Sudan, Northern Ethiopia, Eritrea, Southeast Arabia or Yemen).

 

The storm and the shipwreck

 

Already on the high seas, a strong storm occurred, the wind rose and waves of more than four meters were suffered. In a short time the ship sank, the narrator hit the mainmast, grabbed a log and the waves dragged him to the beach of an island. When he woke up he realized that all of his companions had perished. He spent three days alone, during which he made himself a small hut to sleep in. When he went to look for some food he found grapes, all kinds of vegetables and fruits, ripe and green sycamore figs, cucumbers "as if they had been cultivated", fish and ducks. He looked for firewood and with it he lit a fire.

 

Shortly after, he heard a huge noise, which he attributed to the waves of the sea crashing against the coast, and he noticed tremors, until he realized that a snake of about 15 meters was approaching, which had a beard of more than two, its His body was covered with gold and his eyebrows with lapis lazuli.

At first the snake seemed threatening, but after listening to the castaway he calmed down and even wanted to comfort him. He prophesied that after four months a ship would arrive on the island that would take him to his land. And as the story goes, that's how it happened. The serpent ended up telling him that he was the king of Punt and offered him many gifts for his sovereign, such as monkeys, incense and resins. In return he only asked her to speak well of her.

 

Brief analysis

 

The vocabulary used in the text is accessible and the syntax relatively simple, which is why it is called a short story and it is also usually the first literary text that students of the classical Egyptian language encounter. And this is possibly the reason why the scientific world has paid so much attention to this story, although hardly to the maritime facet it offers.

 

The observation of the sky and the recognition of the coastline of the sea, the description of the outstanding qualities in the crew, the very specific measurements of the ship, as well as making reference to waves of more than four meters in height are circumstances typical of the environment. sailor, which makes us suppose that the author was a navigator or had close knowledge of the circumstances that surrounded him.

 

 

The document can be dated to the 12th Dynasty (19th century BC). It was rediscovered in the Saint Petersburg Museum by W. Golénischeff at the beginning of the 20th century, although it is currently in Moscow. It is called "Saint Petersburg 1115", but it is better known as the "Golénischeff papyrus".

 

This content of the text is closely linked to the expedition that centuries later would be carried out by a female pharaoh, Hatshepsut, of which there are quite detailed wall paintings, in which you can see the products they obtained and also characteristic features of the inhabitants of those regions’ foreigners.

 

The legend of Prester John, the Christian King of the East who faced Genghis Khan

The existence of Prester John is one of the great enigmas of the Middle Ages. Marco Polo's words may perhaps indicate that he really happened

«Master John by the grace of God, almighty King over all Christian kings, we salute the Emperor of Rome and the King of France, my friends. We make ourselves known about ourselves and our state and the government of our land. Know that we have the highest crown in the whole world, as well as gold and silver and precious stones, and cities, castles and towns. Know that we also have in our power 42 almighty kings and good Christians. Our Empire extends, on the one hand, four months; but no one knows how far our dominance reaches on the other side.'

This fragment belongs to a letter that in 1177 reached the main European courts. It was signed by a certain Prester John. His kingdom was marvelous and his power unlimited. No one knew that Christian King who lived in the East. Why had everyone ignored him until now? There was no answer. Let us bear in mind that at that time the ignorance of distant lands was normal. Communication was very scarce and no one doubted the existence of Prester John.

The Christian King of the Far East

Almost a century after that letter, Marco Polo speaks of Prester John in his travel book. According to the account of Genghis Khan and Prester John they faced each other: «After two days, the two parties armed and fought hard, and it was the greatest and fiercest battle that the human race had ever seen. And there were heavy casualties on both sides, but in the end Genghis Khan won the battle and in it Prester John perished and was dispossessed, and Genghis Khan continued his conquests."

 

From the chronicles we know that Genghis Khan was elected King in 1187. In the year 1200, according to Marco Polo, Genghis Khan asked to marry the daughter of Prester John. Request that was denied. As a result of this they clashed. Thus we have a letter sent in 1187 and his death in 1200. Was Prester John a real person?

 

Did Prester John really exist?

There are various theories about it. In Kerait there was a King named Yeliutaschi. He came to power in 1126. He was a Christian King. He came to have a great empire in Central Asia. He starred in one of the great battles of that time, that of Samarkand. The chronicles place his death in the year 1143. Taking into account what Marco Polo explained and that the letter was sent in 1187, we must rule it out.

In the year 1145 the Bishop of Gabula met Otto with Freising, half-brother of the German Emperor Conrad III. It is during this meeting that the reference to Prester John appeared for the first time. The bishop assured him that he was a Nestorian Christian. This means that he considered Christ radically separated into two persons, one human and the other divine, who form two independent entities, two persons united in Christ, who is God and man at the same time, but made up of two different persons. Otto von Fresing recounts what he heard from Bishop Gabula:

«After the battle, the aforementioned John headed his army on the way to Jerusalem in order to help the Church of this city. But when he reached the banks of the Tigris he could not cross it for lack of boats so he headed north, where this river froze in winter, as he had heard. Now, after waiting a few years for the ice to appear and never reaching his object as a result of the mild climate, he was forced to return to his homeland.

Despite what was said and the words of von Fresing, nothing was known about Prester John. Supposedly, Genghis Khan had killed him. Now, why did he decide to send that letter to the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I, Pope Alexander III, and the German Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa? It's a mystery. It is noted that the origin is European. Some have attributed it to Bishop Christian of Mainz. If his will was to arouse the interest of some and explain to them that Christianity was spreading in the East, he succeeded. Now, little more. The letter stayed there and they never had contact with him again. Little by little they forgot the name and went on with their lives.

His name appeared again in 1221. The Bishop of Akkon wrote a letter to Pope Honorius III in which he commented that Prester John had set out to "exterminate the doctrinal pestilence of the infidel Muhammad." The so-called Prester John was none other than Genghis Khan. The above did not occur. Prester John broke into Georgia with violence and left it devastated. Genghis Khan's advance was halted in southern Russia. In the following years he invaded all of Russia and in 1242 he reached Vienna.

 

Nickname for Defender of Christianity

Some travelers, such as Pietro Carpani and Wilhelm von Rubruk, traveled to distant lands to learn about Prester John. They couldn't find anything. Only Marco Polo brings us closer to his figure. Marco Polo, among others, assumed that the kingdom of Prester John would be located in Abyssinia, called African India. That is why during the 14th and 15th centuries he came to be called Prester John of Ethiopia. The letters were repeated in 1530. Pope Clement VII and Emperor Charles V received letters signed by Prester John. That is the latest news about the character.

The existence of Prester John is one of the great enigmas of the Middle Ages. Marco Polo's words can tell us that he really existed. Now, he also names Genghis Khan that way. The hypothesis can be launched that this was the name given to that King or Emperor who had a great empire and fought against the Muslims. That no one ever saw him and that he did not appear before anyone can prove what we have said. In other words, he was a nickname for the defender of Christianity. Be that as it may, myth, legend or nickname, the word Prester John has survived for a thousand years in our memory.

 

Byzantine – Arab frontiers

For miles, the earth lay barren. Soldiers and the occasional daring soul were the only ones that crossed this zone of lifelessness. This could easily describe the Western Front in the First World War, but it was also the reality along the Byzantine-Arab frontier for not just four years, but centuries. The Byzantine Empire and the Arab Caliphates and successor states bordered each other in eastern Anatolia. This boundary between the two leading powers of the day, the beleaguered defender of Christianity and the nascent house of Islam, became a constant zone of conflict for three centuries and fundamentally changed Byzantium.

 

Before Islam, the Byzantine Empire had settled down into a long, normally cold – sometimes hot – war with its then superpower rival, the Sassanid Empire of Persia (224–651). The border between the two superpowers in Mesopotamia was largely stagnant for the Sassanid Empire’s entire existence, and was agrarian with no real natural border. Byzantine-Persian relations included regular contact and dedicated trade towns for merchants from the two empires. The Byzantine seventh-century historian Theophylact Simocatta emphasized the importance of maintaining the bipolar world of Byzantium and the Sassanid Empire. It was all those living in either empire had known for generations and the status quo was respected.

 

However, in the early seventh century, the Persians launched a massive campaign into the Byzantine Empire, which captured large swaths of territory. The Byzantines eventually triumphed and restored their empire, but both empires were extremely weakened. This opened a power vacuum into which stepped the Arabs, recently united through Muhammad’s proselytization of Islam. The swift and hardy Arab armies destroyed the Persian army at the Battle of Qadisiyyah in 636/37, removing Byzantium’s long-time neighbor from existence. The Arabs similarly thrashed the Byzantine army at the Battle of Yarmuk in 636. In the aftermath, the Arabs captured Byzantine territory up to the Taurus Mountains in Cilicia, behind which the Byzantines retreated to shore up what remained.

 

Adjusting to a new world

 

Unlike the Byzantine-Persian relationship, the Byzantines were constantly on the defensive against the Arabs. The Arab Umayyad Caliphate twice launched an all-out assault on the Byzantine capital at Constantinople in 674–678 and 717–718. However, Constantinople, with the most famous walls in history, was impregnable and turned away the would-be Arab conquerors.

The Arabs, giving up hope of taking the fortress-city of Constantinople, settled into a war of attrition with the Byzantines. The Byzantine-Arab border wrapped around the mountains and hills in eastern Anatolia, but despite this natural boundary, the Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) and its successor, the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258), forcibly made it a permeable border. The caliphs led annual raids into Byzantine Anatolia, causing the Byzantines living in the countryside to flee for protection. The Byzantine population had already been reduced by several bouts of plague during the sixth and seventh centuries, as well as the Persian invasion, and was now put under continuous pressure by the Arab raids. While these raids were usually smaller and focused on taking captives and loot from the country, the Umayyads and Abbasids occasionally led grand campaigns that struck deep into the heart of Anatolia, such as those in 782, 806, and 838.

 

In earlier centuries, Byzantine Anatolia had been a prosperous and heavily urbanized landscape. Under the onslaught of Arab raids, Byzantine towns declined in size and transformed into heavily fortified bases. While Byzantine farmers remained, they also became militarized under the theme system, which allotted land to soldiers in exchange for military service. The border was depopulated, left barren, and fortified to watch for approaching Arab armies.

 

From a peaceful and prosperous province to a fiery theater of war, Byzantine Anatolia was now practically unrecognizable. The borderlands became semi- lawless, with the Byzantines giving authority to the akritai, border guards who protected against the Arabs. The Byzantines developed a yearly routine in response to Arab raids where Byzantine farmers would retreat into the fortified towns while soldiers tracked the invading Arabs. The Byzantines, reduced in strength, were hardly a match for the Arabs in the open field, so the Byzantines would track the invading force, let them pillage the countryside, and then, when they were weighed down with their booty, they would strike in the mountain passes and fight them off. These yearly skirmishes were life on the frontier from the seventh through the mid-ninth centuries.

 

 

 

The Byzantines strike back

 

After the reign of the great Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809), of Arabian Nights fame, the Abbasid Empire began to decline. The Byzantines took advantage of this weakness and a series of strong Byzantine emperors began to challenge the Arabs on a more even footing. Despite a devastating sack of the major Byzantine city of Amorium in 838 by the Abbasids, Basil I (r. 867–886) strengthened the frontier by capturing Tephrike, capital of the heretical sect known as the Paulicians, which was backed by the Abbasid Caliphate.

 

The Byzantine frontier remained strong under Basil’s successors, and was then used as a springboard by a series of some of the greatest military commanders in Byzantine history during the tenth century. By this time, the Abbasid Caliphate’s authority barely stretched outside of the walls of its capital at Baghdad. The Byzantines were now engaging with smaller, more centralized Muslim successor states along its eastern frontier.

 

This situation fostered the most famous piece of fiction in Byzantine history, the tale of Digenes Akritas. Digenes was a border lord who served the Byzantine Empire, regularly interacted with Byzantines and Muslims, and protected the border from Muslim incursions. The prominence of Digenes’ tale demonstrates the importance of the Byzantine-Arab border in Byzantine memory.

 

The Byzantine general John Kourkouas (fl.915–946) gained the first major blow against the Muslims in the 930s, when he conquered the powerful emirate of Melitene in southeastern Anatolia. Kourkouas built up a powerful offensive army rather than the mostly defensive force of the theme armies. It was his successors in the east, the future emperors Nikephoros II Phokas (r. 963–969) and John I Tzimiskes (r. 969–976), who would build on this progress and end the war of attrition between the Byzantine Empire and the Muslims in Anatolia.

 

The 940s to 960s were dominated by battles between the leading Muslim ruler, Sayf al-Dawla (916–967) of Aleppo, and the powerful Byzantine Phokas family, led by Bardas Phokas and later his son Nikephoros II. Nikephoros and Sayf faced off in an epic rivalry of giants of their time. Sayf al-Dawla was an honorific meaning “Sword of the Dynasty” while Nikephoros received his epithet, “White Death of the Saracens,” from his Arab enemies. Nikephoros launched a calculated multi-pronged offensive against Sayf, pushing the long-held border back at three separate points. Nikephoros’ attacks completely reversed the reality of the past centuries; the Byzantines were no longer enduring, but were now the ones striking annually into enemy territory. Nikephoros’ assault whittled away at Sayf’s emirate and authority.

 

 

 

The epic battle between the heroes of Byzantium and Islam was effectively finished after Nikephoros sacked Sayf’s capital of Aleppo in 962. When Sayf died in 967, the Muslims of Syria splintered and Nikephoros and his successor, John I Tzimiskes, pushed completely into Syria all the way down to modern Lebanon and turned Aleppo into a vassal state. By the time the Byzantine Empire reached an apogee under Basil II (958–1025), the centuries-long war of attrition between Byzantium and the Arabs was in the past and the Byzantine Empire, for the moment, stood alone at the top.

 

Border war no more

 

It was almost with unbelievable speed that Byzantium fell from these dizzying heights. In 1071, the Seljuk Turks, having only recently arrived in the Middle East, crushed the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert. Byzantine political intrigue turned a bad defeat into an irreversible one.

 

The old Byzantine defensive structure that had existed against the Arabs was gone. After the Byzantines began their offensives against the Arabs, the theme system lapsed, the border zone was settled, and the Byzantine population of Anatolia returned to a mostly peaceful way of life. When Seljuk raiders poured over the frontiers, there was neither a border to defend, nor a Byzantium capable of defending it. By 1090, the Byzantines were practically driven out of Anatolia all together.

 

While the Byzantines retook some of Anatolia following the First Crusade, they were never able to establish the same staunch border they had held during their conflict with the Arabs. The Seljuk Turks now held the mountains and plateaus that were the basis of Byzantine defenses. The Byzantine-Arab conflict established a harsh new system of life along the border, but this structure allowed the Byzantines to maintain Anatolia and eventually build up enough strength to regain lost lands. By extending beyond the border and letting it fall into disrepair, the Byzantines allowed the Turks to strike a deep blow from which the Byzantine Empire would never fully recover.