Please note, as always, to keep your comments on topic — any off-topic discussions should be kept on the previous thread.

In particular, please do your best to keep your questions to Dr. Cole focused on his book. (He does have a blog where he talks about Iraq every day, you know.) Thanks in advance for resisting temptation!

Incidentally, although he has to catch a plane late this afternoon — hence the special time for this Book Salon — I should note that Juan has graciously expressed his willingness to return to the thread later to answer questions posted after he leaves.

Hi, Swopa, hi everyone. Looking forward to your comments and questions.

Juan

Welcome, Prof. Cole!

Incidentally, one question that I have for Juan is, over the course of your research for this book, what surprised you the most? What did you find that you didn’t expect when you first thought about writing on the subject?

Welcome, Professor Cole. Thank you so much for being here today. And thank you, Swopa, for a great introduction.

Your blog always has detailed information about the doings in the Middle East that I don’t see in the MSM. May I ask what your primary sources are?

Thanks much for your daily analyses and for being here.

Thanks, Swopa. There are a lot of books in French on what they politely call the “expedition” to Egypt, but they are not very revealing about Egypt. Mostly the books were by French military historians, with the exception of recent giants such as Henry Laurens and Andre Raymond.

When I started reading the eyewitness accounts, the thing that surprised me was the detailed descriptions of interactions with living Egyptians, which the secondary literature had not paid so much attention to. Of course there were fights. But also romance, philosophical discussions, technological interchange, etc. It is very rich.

Juan Cole: I can’t wait to read your book. I too cross between these broad worlds in my academic research – mostly in an earlier period- and love Cairo. FWIW (and it is alot) the cover design is handsome and effective. Also, your title (I am sure it, like others, was a struggle in its own right and vis-a-vis the publisher) is a terrific one.

Professor Cole, thanks for being here to answer questions.

Taking into account any of the events that have transpired in Iraq since this book’s going to print, could you update any parallels you might draw between Napoleon in Egypt and the current American occupation of Iraq?

Welcome, Juan!

So glad you could join us, and just as glad the interface is working and easy enough to use.

We thought it would be, but after the site rollover, one never knows.

Now to read Swopa’s intro. . .

Am I the only one who is getting double comments?

So how much of this was an attempt to resurrect a romanticized vision of the Crusader tradition and how much of it was just to honk off the British?

Both in my work on Bonaparte in Egypt and at my blog, I make a contribution by reading carefully and taking seriously Arab writers. Of course, a historian is careful with any source, and you have to weight the value of the account, but I find an odd reluctance to accept information from sources that are not perceived as ‘friendly.’ Those are the most valuable sources, if read right. So for Iraq I read Iraqi and pan-Arab and Iranian newspapers. For Bonaparte in Egypt I used the Arabic chronicles of Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti, Niqula Turk and Hasan Izzet Darendeli, among others. Al-Jabarti’s first, brief chronicle is translated and in paperback by the way, from Shmuel Moreh.

Juan,

To what extent was Napoleon able to begin to accommodate some understanding of the people and the culture of Egypt as subjects in their own right, not merely as objects to be manipulated? Was he ever. I don’t know the history well.

Also, how did the people of Egypt adapt to Napoleon’s cultural imperialism, and how does the legacy of Napoleon’s Egypt manifest itself, if at all, in Egypt today?

Thanks.

The duplicate comments went away when I hit refresh.

With regard to the motives for the French invasion of Egypt, no, they weren’t related to the Crusader tradition explicitly. In fact, quite the opposite. Bonaparte was at that time committed to a secular, Jacobin rhetoric and he was terrified that the Egyptians would remember St. Louis’ Fifth Crusade and interpret him as just another such. He wanted to be seen as an Enlightenment liberator and friend of Islam and Muslims, since he felt that Islamic theology, being monotheistic, and the Islamic religion, in not having a priestly hierarchy or sacraments, were all much closer to Englightenment Deism than was Christianity.

The invasion was intended as a chess move against British naval superiority and the advantages bestowed on the British by having an overseas empire in India.

When I started reading the eyewitness accounts, the thing that surprised me was the detailed descriptions of interactions with living Egyptians, which the secondary literature had not paid so much attention to. Of course there were fights. But also romance, philosophical discussions, technological interchange, etc. It is very rich.

I was particularly amused by your juxtaposition of the French and Eqyptian accounts with each looking down haughtily on the other culture’s immorality.

This area of the world has been the locus of empire forever. It is interesting over time, to see the reasons change, yet the prize remains the same.

Juan Cole, Do the quasi-French states in Africa, such as Niger and others correlate to Napolean’s Egyptian conquest? Or are they a result of later imperialistic adventures by others?

Juan: In the same way that the French government went on to ban the descendants of Napoleon from holding political office, any chance we could get them to do the same thing with the Bushes (only half in jest).

Juan

Looking forward to reading the book–I did a fair amount of work on the failed French attempts to invade Ireland at the same time. I’m wondering if you can address the question of target: to what degree was Napoleon’s commitment to invading Egypt about crazy orientalism that won out over what might have been a more efficacious military target closer to home?

This is a great discussion for emptywheel: she’s a Napoleon, er. . . maven.

If there were one or more key lessons we could learn and apply today from Napoleon in Egypt, what would they be? Or conversly, how do you see the mistakes made then still being made today?

Juan Cole and Emptywheel are here! Two voices of reason in a world gone mad. Bravo to both of you!

thanks so much Richmond. I hope you enjoy it.

Pachacutec, Bonaparte read a lot of Middle Eastern history in his youth and even wrote a fantastic short story about a messiah figure, the ‘veiled prophet’ who gave trouble in Khurasan to one of the Abbasic caliphs. The young Bonaparte, being a secularist, saw the veiled prophet as a symbol of irrationality. Ironically enough, when he got into trouble in Egypt at one point he claimed exactly the same sort of supernatural powers as had the veiled one (al-Muqanna`) in Khurasan!

So Bonaparte, being from Corsica and so having a Mediterranean outlook, was not such a stranger to Islamic culture, and he tried hard to be knowledgeable and present himself as sympathetic.

The Egyptian Muslims, however, were horrified by most of his ideas, which did not sound Muslim at all to them! And of course for them religion anyway wasn’t mostly about ideas, but rather about how you practice daily rituals and so forth, which Bonaparte obviously did not!

But ironically the first modern European invasion of a Middle Eastern country was far more knowledgeable about Islam than was that of the Bush administration.

Professor Cole,

Many thanks for both your blogging, and for your book-writing. Both make our lives more reality-based.

Egypt, of course, has one of the longest histories of any nation-state, but it is rarely mentioned in the same breath as that of the “Western Civilization Founders” like Greece or Rome.

Most know only of “the Pyramids”, and not of the real “center of the universe” position with regard to “civilization” that Egypt truely deserves.

Using Egypt as the example, what have been in your view the primary detrimental aspects of “colonialism” on the evolution of the ME nation-states?

One of the many things I find so provocative and enlightening about your book is how it demonstrates that Napoleon saw the campaign as enlightened liberation. The resonances with neocon ideas about spreading what they call democracy are profound.

My take is that as Twain observed history may not repeat itself, but it rhymes.

Hi, Emptywheel.

Bonaparte was sent up to the Channel after being relieved in Italy, in winter 1798, by the Directory to look into an attempted crossing of the Channel. He decided that the French navy would be crushed and it would be a huge disaster.

He, Talleyrand and Desaix had been influenced by owning Italian real estate on the Adriatic, though, and had become aware of how much the British empire depended on the Ottomans making an accommodation with them and indeed favoring London over Paris. Some urgent dispatches (i.e. and command and control) came quickest from India to London through the Red Sea, overland to Alexandria, and thence through the Mediterranean.

Taking Egypt would be a way of interfering in British command and control of the India empire, and might help level the playing field. Talleyrand thought that the French loss of its overseas possessions in the 7 years war had given the British and advantage, which taking Egypt would be one step toward neutralizing.

Just curious, Dr. Cole…how much do you think writing on a blog on a regular basis affected the tone of your book? As Swopa notes, it’s “well-informed” though “scarcely academic.” Do you think writing and interacting with people every day had an impact on that?

Interesting, and it makes sense in a way, since Napolean was a man of letters, and vitally focused on culture, particularly secular culture, whereas Bush abhors reading, is terminally incurious and given to genuine messianic fantasies of his own.

I wonder, though, based on your comment, how much both case examples suggest that, in order to attempt to maintain a patina of control and legitimacy with such an imperialist endeavor, it becomes necessary to posture with self-conscious deception. Napoleon did so in the way you describe, and if Bush didn’t do so from the very outset (and I believe he did), he certainly got there pretty quickly. One need only read your blog for copious evidence.

With regard to lessons learned, the primary one is that European (and North American) Christian rulers always face severe problems of legitimacy in trying to rule Muslim Middle Eastern societies. Bonaparte at least saw the problem and tried to deflect it, though unsuccessfully. Basically, a foreign empire can incorporate the Muslim Middle East through sheer force, but finds it difficult actually to gain legitimate authority (what Gramsci calls ‘hegemony.’) If you just have sheer force, it works well only against illiterate disorganized villagers. Under postmodern conditions, where people in the global south are organized, literate, connected, and savvy, sheer force is not enough. I think the old 19th century kind of empire is over with. Bonaparte couldn’t attain dominance because Western Europe still wasn’t that far ahead of the Ottoman empire with regard to military technology and organization, and because he also faced a British enemy. Bush couldn’t pull it off because the Middle Easterners now have asymmetrical military and organizational tools to level the playing field.

Well my last comment just got disappeared.

Bonaparte was at that time committed to a secular, Jacobin rhetoric and he was terrified that the Egyptians would remember St. Louis’ Fifth Crusade and interpret him as just another such. He wanted to be seen as an Enlightenment liberator and friend of Islam and Muslims

Given Napoleon’s later history, it is debatable if he was ever that much of a Jacobin. Bush too with his policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East could claim to be an Enlightenment liberator. It doesn’t mean that either he or Napoleon were, or that they weren’t in the Crusader tradition. I am not sure that it matters to a people whose country is invaded whether the Western Christian army doing the job is “secular” or not.

Prof. Cole

It’s an honor to have you here. Can you tell us anythig about how the local population reacted to the looting of their cultural legacy, art etc.?

Pardon the dust…
The double or disappearing comment issue can be solved with a hard-refresh.
Working on all this now.
Thanks!

Was Bonaparte a mystical Christian? Did he depart Egypt with any bits of Middle Eastern mysticism attached to his beliefs?

Hi, Jane! Oh, certainly, becoming a public intellectual and being thrown into the spotlight, with a massive daily email correspondence with the public, oriented me toward wanting to reach a broader audience. But it wasn’t just the blog. I worked as a journalist/translator in Beirut for a newspaper in my 20s, and in the early 90s I tried my hand at a couple of novels and many short stories. When that did not work out (it is *much* more difficult to get a short story published than it is to do a Ph.D.), I expressed my literary bent by translating three books of the early 20th century Arab-American author, Kahlil Gibran.

So I had been looking for a way to write for a larger public anyway.

Then the other issue is that the public wasn’t interested in the Middle East much in the old days. If you didn’t have a book directly on some crisis on the front page, it had a hard time getting noticed. Both I and my publisher decided that the time was right to test the water with a trade book that was not about the Iraq War.

It is hard to tell, but I think it is doing well.

If you just have sheer force, it works well only against illiterate disorganized villagers.

Not to be contrarian but the British were able to do it in Egypt for more than a century, mostly because they kept some of the old Ottoman structure while subverting it. Their experience in Iraq by contrast was considerably later, involved sheer force, and was far less successful.

With regard to Bonaparte and Jacobinism, it is a mixed picture. On Corsica, the Bonapartes were viewed by the old landed elite as dangerous radicals. Bonaparte had no interest in traditional Catholicism whatsoever. But of course he hated the Robespierre faction and was instrumental via the Tuileries incident in bringing about Thermidor and the bourgeois Directory.

His later Concordat with the Church was purely political. I argue in my conclusion that it may have been influenced by his similar attempt to have an accommodation with the Muslim clergy of al-Azhar Seminary when he was in Cairo.

In Egypt, he at one point claimed mystical powers, but I think he was just trying to play on the superstitions of Egyptians. Remember that at that time most were Sufis and followers of soothsayers and not literate urban Muslims of the orthodox tradition. Bonaparte knew this.

The British conquered Egypt in 1882. During WW I, they faced increasing popular opposition, as the Wafd Party organized both urban and rural populations for Egyptian nationalistic purposes. In 1920 there was a significant urban revolt in Alexandria. By 1922 Egypt was independent in important respects, and Saad Zaghlul, whom the British wanted to sideline, eventually became prime minister.

So it wasn’t a century, it was 40 years. And the last 7 or so were touch and go.

Again, what changed was the rise of a modern, mass incorporating political party, the Wafd.

With regard to the French over-taxation and sometimes looting of the country, there were many village and urban tax revolts. The people of Mansoura, a major Delta depot town, massacred the French garrison of 100 troops in August of 1798. Niqula Turk suggests that the French announcement of heavy new taxes had something to do with it. Likewise al-Jabarti tends to blame the October, 1798, great Cairo revolt on French taxation policy, with Islamic outrage at foreign rule a secondary factor.

Juan: I was struck in Cairo by the continuing imprint of the Fatamids (western North Africa) along with the Ottomans (originally Turkey), as well as the continuing influence of southern Coptic alongside Arabic cultural primacy. Do you think Egypt’s unique history as a religious/political cross-roads (N,S,E & W) impacted their engagement with the West in Napoleon’s era- and today.

One of the surprises Bonaparte got was that the Coptic Christians, who were 6 to 10 percent of the population, were not necessarily close allies of the French. Of course, there were Copts who were perfectly happy to serve as tax collectors and get rich. But Bonaparte complains in one letter that the Coptic agents of the deposed Ottoman-Egyptian government declined to tell him where their former masters’ treasure was, whereas the Muslim clergy had provided much more of that kind of information!

So the degree to which the Ottoman Beylicate of Egypt was a multicultural enterprise showed a certain degree of regional pride that the French could not easily overcome.

The British conquered Egypt in 1882. During WW I, they faced increasing popular opposition, as the Wafd Party organized both urban and rural populations for Egyptian nationalistic purposes. In 1920 there was a significant urban revolt in Alexandria. By 1922 Egypt was independent in important respects, and Saad Zaghlul, whom the British wanted to sideline, eventually became prime minister.

So it wasn’t a century, it was 40 years. And the last 7 or so were touch and go.

Again, what changed was the rise of a modern, mass incorporating political party, the Wafd.

Well, perhaps not a century, but the British had made their intentions clear when they acquired Ismail Pasha’s shares in the Suez Canal in 1875. They removed Ismail Pasha in 1879 so they already had considerable power and influence in Egyptian affairs. And the strategy of control through indebtedness goes back at least to the 1860s. I would argue too that effective British control of Egypt did not end until after World War II, so something like 70-80 years.

Thanks, Juan. Also, interesting issues of French vs/and English engagement here. Again, can’t wait to read your book.

Prof. Cole, could you explain a little bit about the letters being posted on the Napoleon’s Egypt Blog, particularly the one entitled “Kleber Condemns Bonaparte in Letter to the Directory.” Thanks.

Hugh: Of course you are right that the British had a great deal of influence even after Egypt became nominally independent. But that is my point. The first British viceroy of Egypt, Cromer, had no equally powerful successors, and the British had to exert their influence after 1922 in much more indirect ways. I am saying that colonial occupation and direct rule of a sort that Bremer tried in Iraq is impossible once the population becomes mobilized. Informal empire is of course still possible.

In a way, Bonaparte also recognized this, which is why he created an Egyptian “government” mainly composed of Egyptian Sunni Muslim clergymen. But that did not stop the Egyptians constantly revolting against the French. I found one manuscript at the Bibliotheque Nationale that indicated that as late as 1800 a French engineer could not ride around the Delta countryside without taking sniper fire.

That the French inhabited a multi-polar world in which they had a major superpower rival, the British, on the seas, helps to explain why the Egypt thing ended after only 3 years. The Neoconservatives in Washington correctly perceived that the US has a 15-year window during which it is the sole superpower and can engage in adventures such as the Iraq War without being checked by another great Power. The only opposition it has faced has been from Iraqi local forces or from a relatively small number of jihadi volunteers from the region. There is no equivalent of Admiral Nelson haunting the US Fifth Fleet.

Juan: What a difference there would have been if Blair, Chirac, or Putin had challenged the Bushies on Iraq. Alas, with the oligarchy (oilgarchy?) running today’s global economy for their short and long term economic gain, the powers that be were in with Bush for their own potential profits. And, there again is the rub with 9/11. It offered an all too convenient excuse to go “postal” on Islam, bring more profits to Halliburtan and run a land grab in the M.E. at the same time.

However, America has shot its wad in Iraq and in a very short time will no longer be able to afford to push the world around.

Her military has been reduced to shock and awe destruction and she no longer pay or steal what she needs.

We are fast being reduced to a rogue nation, soon to be owned by our creditors, lock stock and barrel, with our wealthy feudal lords living offshore.

The Neoconservatives in Washington correctly perceived that the US has a 15-year window during which it is the sole superpower and can engage in adventures such as the Iraq War without being checked by another great Power.

Or going broke. Empire seems the counterpart of financial bubbles. Empire builders love them because on the upside they get rich, but then the empire becomes more and more expensive to maintain. It distorts and undermines the economy of the empire’s hegemon. And then it crashes because the costs of empire invariably outstrip its benefits.

With regard to the Napoleon’s Egypt blog, it is an experiment. There are lots of English-language primary sources (letters, eyewitness accounts, etc.) available in research libraries about the French in Egypt. I have long been frustrated that there is so little historical content on the Web. If you think about it, 99% of the material that comes up in a google search has been generated since 1995. Google books is an important and very useful effort to change all this, and I’m grateful for it. (There is far more there than most people realize, already).

But the tiff front pages are a little clunky, and the scanning is full of errors, which limits accurate and comprehensive searchability.

So as an adjunct to the book, for its real fans, I started this blog and hired an undergraduate, David Boyle, to post some primary sources in HTML, editing and cleaning up the text.

The first thing he’s put up is a 3-volume set of letters from French officers and civilians stuck in Egypt back home to France. These letters went on French ships from Damietta or Alexandria, which were trying to avoid the British and Ottoman naval blockades. But many ships were stopped and boarded, and the French correspondence was captured.

The British obviously took some delight in printing and translating this treasure trove of candid French impressions of their plight in Egypt (as well as confessions of all their romantic and financial personal problems).

The three volumes are rare now, and you’d need to go to a research library to get them, so it is nice of David to put them up for everyone.
A faithful readership of that blog has grown up, and I’m sure the material will be used for e.g. college term papers. Primary sources are Good.

The letter from Gen. Kleber expresses his outrage that Bonaparte slipped out of Egypt in August, 1799, suddenly and without warning. Kleber just got a letter informing him he was now commander in Egypt. He felt deeply betrayed and shocked, as did all the officers.

Bonaparte went back to France, pretended the whole thing had been a glorious victory (Rove has nothing on this guy) and made a coup, coming to power.

Have to run to the airport. Will check in from there, and also once I reach my destination. More replies to come and do check back later.

Thanks everyone!

cheers Juan

Ah, but we are only at the beginning of our fall from grace.

Check back in another 5-7 years to best answer that question.

It has been said that when jumping off a cliff, the flight is enjoyable…until one finally hits the ground.

Mr Cole,
One of my courses in college was in military history. The professor felt that Napoleon and Alexander were the two greatest generals in history. Was there any feeling in your research from either side that Napoleon was attempting in some ways to emulate Alexander by going to Egypt?

As an aside, it is my view that the burning of the Library at Alexandria, supposedly by Caesar, is one of the greatest losses ever to mankind.

Thanks so much Juan for making time in your schedule and travels today.

I felt like a spectator here, but have been learning a lot.

Thanks for your reply to my query on this. Agreed, a great primary source to make readily available online!

Thank you for visiting with us today, Dr. Cole. Will come back for more upon your return!

Professor Cole, are you familair with Youssef Chahine’s Adieu Bonaparte starring Patrice Chereau as Napoleon?

Thanks so much for being here today, Dr. Cole. We really appreciate your time and I hope many people are inspired to read the book.

Thank you!

Those interested in following up on the Napoleon/Egypt vs Bush/Iraq analysis might find this excerpt from Prof Cole interesting — published at TomDispatch.com

404, Scarecrow

As an aside, it is my view that the burning of the Library at Alexandria, supposedly by Caesar, is one of the greatest losses ever to mankind.

While Prof. Cole is getting to the airport, a little OT can’t hurt. Here’s an interesting link on the spec about the burning of the library @ Alexandria, “the ancient world’s single greatest archive of knowledge”:

The Burning of the Library of Alexandria
by Preston Chesser

Sorry about the bad link to TomDispatch. I can’t seem to fix it.

The TomDispatch article is:

Tomgram: Juan Cole, The Republic Militant at War, Then and Now

August 23, 2007.

Can’t get the link to work.

That’s weird, link worked for me, just checked it again, & have already sent it to friends who are reading Prof. Cole’s book.

Thanks, Scarecrow.

Scarecrow,

Perhaps this linky works?

A reminder for anyone dropping by at the usual Book Salon — the schedule was moved up to accommodate Prof. Cole’s travel schedule, but he will be returning later to respond to comments he missed, so if you have any questions about the book please post them here. Thanks!

A reminder for anyone dropping by at the usual Book Salon

I mean the usual Book Salon time, of course.

About Bonaparte and Alexander, yes. Bonaparte read a lot about Alexander, and was intrigued by his methods.

But Bonaparte conquered Egypt for economic and geopolitical reasons, not from a romantic preoccupation with the East (though he did talk that way).

My guess is that if the Egypt conquest and occupation had gone well, Bonaparte would have had a small fleet built down on the Red Sea at Qena and would have sent some of his army to help Tippoo Sultan fight the British around Madras in India. But the occupation did not go well and this plan became impossible of execution.

Bonaparte then thought seriously of using a French camel corps to imitate Alexander’s Eastern campaign. He would have gone through Syria to Baghdad then up to Kermanshah and over to Qandahar, then down to the Punjab. British intelligence was very worried about this possibility.

In order to have enough men for such a campaign, Bonaparte would have had to be able to attract freebooters from each territory he conquered along the way, creating a polyglot army. That was what Alexander (and in the 18th century Nadir Shah of Iran) had done.

But when Bonaparte could not reduce Acre in Palestine, this Alexander-like campaign to the east also became impossible.

So I think Alexander was there as an inspiration and sometimes as a model, but Bonparte was perfectly happy to copy other models, as well.

The Caliph Umar certainly did not burn the library at Alexandria, which was long gone by the time the Arab Muslims conquered the city.

Every evidence is that the Muslims just took over the Greek-language bureaucracy and ran it that way for a while, so they would, like most conquerors, have very much wanted a nice library to mine for information about their new holding. Egypt was a great prize in the ancient and medieval worlds because the Nile valley, with its natural system of annual crop fertilization, made it a breadbasket for the greater Mediterranean.

The French lamented the decline and decadence of ancient Alexandria and blamed the Muslims. Of course what really happened was earthquakes. Much of the ancient city, and probably the library too, is under water.

Ironically, much of the French fleet joined its new conquest down there.

Earthquakes certainly makes more sense than any of the explanations in the Preston Chesser link upthread.

Thanks for your insight & for coming on FDL today; posted in the next thread up top that you are back here answering questions again.

Earthquakes certainly makes more sense than any of the explanations in the Preston Chesser link upthread.

Thanks for your insight & for coming on FDL today; posted in the next thread up top that you are back here answering questions again.

To me, it makes more sense that the Christians burned the library. There is much historical evidence that early Christians had exhibited less tolerance (and much disdain) for science and knowledge than early Muslims. For example: The Moors in Spain were quite tolerant of other religious groups (which begat the downfall of the Moors). The fate of Galileo and other early scientists support my assertion.

I was curious about the way Napoleon returned to France after his Eyptian invasion.

Is it true the English Navy gave Napoleon a ride home once they burned his ships in Egypt? No prison time? or Gitmo time? ;-)