ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

The history of their military successes has been for the most part, as that of Asiatic conquerors has generally been, but a chronicle of massacre and pillage. While they were led by such men as Saoud, the founder of their power, or his son Abdul-Azeez, or his son, the second Saoud, their military successes were almost uninterrupted; but under the feeble and avaricious Abd-Allah, son of the latter Saoud, they made an unskilful and ineffectual resistance to Ibrahim Pacha. Had the father of Abd-Allah, who died before the Egyptians invaded Nejd, survived to conduct the war, the result would probably have been disastrous to the Egyptian army.

Mr. Palgrave gives us in some detail, though in detached portions, a history of the Wahabys; but his information was collected orally, and as he did not take the trouble to consult, or did not choose to credit, any of the various authentic accounts that have been published, both here and on the Continent, he has failed to acquire anything approaching to an accurate knowledge of it. Of his own account he says

'That such an account may contain several discrepancies in dates, and even in persons, from what has been by others reported or published on these topics, I well know; nor yet do I intend to claim for it the merit of superior accuracy, though it seems to me in some points clearer, and possessed of greater intrinsic probability.'-Vol. ii. p. 37.

He thus not only recommends his own account to his readers, but, by implication, questions the intrinsic probability of what has been reported or published by others.

The history of the Wahabys, from the rise of their power under the first Wahaby chief, Saoud, till its overthrow by Ibrahim Pacha, extends over little more than seventy years, and embraces only four reigns. Saoud, the first chief, died in 1765, and was succeeded by his son, Abd-ul-Azeez, who was assassinated in 1803, and was succeeded by his son Saoud, who died in 1814, and was succeeded by his son Abd-Allah, who surrendered to Ibrahim Pacha in 1818, and was executed at Constantinople. The year in which the more remarkable events of each of those reigns occurred was well known to every one who had given attention to the subject, excepting Mr. Palgrave; but that gentleman, without any regard to facts which he could easily have ascertained, for they were already published, has chosen to give as history such a complication of errors as it would be impossible to correct by any general statement, and which must therefore be unravelled in detail.

The first Wahaby chief, Saoud, the founder of the Wahaby power, died, as we have stated, in 1765, and was succeeded by his son, Abd-ul-Azeez, whom he had nominated several years before, and whom the Wahabys had willingly recognised as his

[ocr errors]

destined successor. Mr. Palgrave represents Abd-ul-Azeez as having succeeded in 1800, or about that time;' but he had then been for thirty-five years, or about that time, ruler of the Wahabys. According to Mr. Palgrave's account, he could not have reigned more than five or six years, and he describes his reign as short; but he reigned thirty-eight years. Mr. Palgrave gives a highly rhetorical account of the short reign which he assigns to Abd-ul-Azeez, and attributes to it events which did not occur till long after the death of that prince; while, on the other hand, he ascribes to an imaginary successor the most memorable achievements of Abd-ul-Azeez's reign. These were the capture of Meshed Hoossein, or Kerbela, the most sacred of places in the eyes of the Persians, and other Mohammedans of the Sheeah sect, which was sacked in the spring of 1801; and the capture of Mecca, the place of pilgrimage of the whole Mohammedan world, in the spring of 1803. These events, both of them signal military successes, Mr. Palgrave attributes to Abd-Allah, the brother of Abd-ul-Azeez, whom he imagines to have succeeded to the sovereignty; but AbdAllah did not succeed to the sovereignty, neither did he lead the Wahaby army to Kerbela or to Mecca.

Of the latter of these events, the capture, or more properly the surrender, of Mecca, perhaps, in the estimation of Mussulmans, the most important in the recent history of the Mohammedan nations, Mr. Palgrave tells us, that when the Wahabys took the town they massacred the Turkish garrison; but we know, from better authorities, that the Shereef of Mecca, Ghaleb, having fled to Jeddah, after setting fire to the citadel where he resided, Saoud and his Wahabys quietly took possession, without committing any excesses. The shops were open the next day, and the Wahabys paid, in ready money, for what they obtained from them. We also know that when the Wahabys entered Mecca there was no Turkish garrison in the place. Such Turkish soldiers as Ghaleb had with him in the citadel or palace-these are often convertible terms in the East -he had carried away with him to Jeddah, to assist in the defence of that place, which, with their aid, he maintained successfully.

In the Précis de l'histoire des Wahabys, by M. Jomard, being an Appendix to M. Mengin's Histoire de l'Egypt sous le Gouvernement de Mohammed Ali, the following is the notice of the surrender of Mecca :

'Pendant ce temps, le cheryf Ghâleb quitta la Mekke et se rendit à Geddah. Avant de partir il mit le feu à la forteresse. Souhoud se porta sur cette première ville, où il entra sans coup férir; ensuit il attaqua Geddah.'

Sir Harford Jones Brydges, who was for many years resident at Bagdad, and was the Political Resident of the British Government at the time when these events occurred,-who gave opportune pecuniary aid to the unfortunate widows and orphans who escaped the massacre at Kerbela, and had for years maintained a courteous intercourse with the Wahaby chief, in order that the messengers bearing his despatches might be allowed to pass in safety, is able, in his Brief History of the Wahauby, by reference to his official correspondence at the time, to fix, with great precision, the dates of these events. The following is his account of the surrender of Mecca, and of the assassination of Abd-ul-Azeez :-

'It was in this year also (1802) that the Syrian caravan which departs from Damascus, and comprises the pilgrims from all parts of Asia Minor, Constantinople, and the two Irâks, Araby and Agemy, performed its pilgrimage for the last time; for in 1803 the Wahauby had effected the complete conquest of the Hedjaz, having in the early part of that year laid siege to Mecca, which was bravely defended by Shaik Ghaleb, the shereef; who at last contrived to leave the town with his family, having previously set fire to such part of the furniture of the palace as he could not carry away. Mecca then submitted to Abdul Aziz, whose troops, on entering the sacred city, committed no excesses. The shops were opened next day, and everything was purchased by the troops with ready money. These events took place in April and May; and on the 13th November following, Abdul Aziz was assassinated while at his prayers, by a Persian whose relations the Wahaubys had murdered at Kerbela. Abdul Aziz therefore did not live to see the complete conquest of Hedjaz, which was effected by his son Saoud.

'In speaking of these transactions, I speak of them as the transactions of Abdul Aziz, he being then the head of the Wahaubys; but they were principally conducted by his son Saoud, who succeeded him, and who placed at the head of the Meccan Government the brother of the fugitive Shereef Ghaleb.'

Mr. Palgrave gives a clever melodramatic sketch of the assassination of Abd-ul-Azeez by a fanatic Persian, who, he says, had been instigated by the Court of Teheran to commit the crime; and he asserts that on the body of the assassin was found the written engagement, countersigned by the Governor of Meshed Hoseyn.' He then tells how Abd-Allah, who was now Sultan of Nejd, swore that his first vengeance for his brother's death should be on the city that had harboured his assassin; how thereupon Abd-Allah led his army towards the sacred places of the Persians, Meshed Ali and Meshed Hoossein, or Kerbela; how he scattered the forces assembled to check his onset at Zobeir, at Sook-esh-Sheyookh, and at Samowah; how he laid siege to Meshed Ali, but having been

repulsed with considerable loss, he left Meshed Ali to its defenders, and marched northward with new rage against Meshed Hoseyn or Kerbelah, the main object of his hatred.'

Now, in this circumstantial account of an event, important in Oriental history, there is hardly one statement that is historically true.

There is nothing to justify the assertion that the assassination of Abd-ul-Azeez was instigated by the Court of Teheran; and Mr. Palgrave, so far as we are aware, is the first author who has alleged that a written engagement, bearing the signature of the Governor of Meshed Hoossein, was found on the corpse of the assassin, or anywhere else. Of the authorities who have given an account of the matter, founded on investigations conducted at the time of the occurrence, or not many years thereafter, by persons who had the best means of ascertaining the facts, there is not one, so far as we can discover, who alleges that a paper bearing any signature was found, while those who mention that a paper was found, state expressly and distinctly that it did not bear any signature.

Abd-ul-Azeez was not succeeded, as Mr. Palgrave asserts, by his brother Abd-Allah, who never even pretended to have a claim to the sovereignty. Neither did he lead the army to the attack of Kerbela, as Mr. Palgrave alleges. Abd-ul-Azeez, as already stated, was succeeded by his son Saoud, who led the Wahaby army to the attack of Kerbela.

The expedition to Kerbela could not have been undertaken to avenge the death of Abd-ul-Azeez, for the very sufficient reason that it took place during the life of that prince, and two years and a half before he was assassinated.

The Wahabys did not, as Mr. Palgrave states, attack Meshed Ali on their way to Meshed Hoossein. The attack and repulse which he alleges to have occurred in 1801, when Kerbela was attacked, did not occur till 1807. Neither do we believe that their advance on that occasion was opposed by troops collected at Zobeir, Sook-Sheiookh, or Somowah.

What is true is, that, on the 2d of April 1801, the Wahabys, under Saoud, the son of the then reigning sovereign, Abd-ul-Azeez, unexpectedly attacked Meshed Hoossein, or Kerbela, took it, massacred the greater part of the inhabitants, pillaged the town, plundered and destroyed the tomb and mausoleum of Hoossein, the grandson of Mohammed, and carried off a vast amount of jewels, treasure, and other articles of value; and that, on the 13th November 1803, Abd-ul-Azeez, then eighty-two years of age, was assassinated while at prayers in the Mosque of Derayeh, by a fanatical Persian Seyud, or descendant of Mohammed, whose family had been murdered by the

Wahabys at Kerbela in 1801, and who sacrificed his life to avenge the murder and the foul dishonour then done to the tomb and the memory of Hoossein, whose descendant he was.

That the history of the Wahabys should be written accurately, or at all, may be a matter of the greatest indifference to a vast majority of European readers, who cannot be expected to care much what was or what was not done by Abd-ul-Azeez, by Saoud, or by Abd-Allah; but there is another view of the matter, in which even careless readers may perhaps take some interest. We were not, nor were they, with Mr. Palgrave in Central Arabia, by much the larger portion of his information must have been obtained, as his Wahaby history was, from the Arabs, and we have no other means of determining what confidence is to be put in his account of what we do not know, than by ascertaining how far we can confide in his account of what we do know from authentic sources. We have put him to this test-we shall have occasion to do so againand certainly the result is not satisfactory. We have not in any instance controverted Mr. Palgrave's statements on any other than written and published authorities, which were as accessible to him as to us; and he cannot reasonably expect that we should, after that examination, extend to his account of his journey a greater amount of confidence than we have already expressed our readiness to accord.

It is time, however, that we should prosecute the journey to Central Arabia, which we can make with the greater ease and comfort, now that we have cast away a great proportion of the lumber with which these two volumes are burthened.

After crossing a desert, in which they encountered the dreaded Simoom, and after resting for a day with the Sherarat, the most miserable of Bedouins, at whose tents, however, they were hospitably entertained, the travellers arrived at the fertile valley and populous town of Djowf. With the exception of Dr. Wallin, we believe that Mr. Palgrave is the first European who has visited that valley. His account of the impression made upon him, as he emerged, after many days' journey, from the desert, by the first view of the houses, the well-watered gardens and fresh foliage of Djowf, extending several miles, is lively and graphic. Here they were hospitably received by one of the notable men of the district, who had even come out some way to meet the travellers with a seasonable and acceptable supply of admirable dates and pure water, luxuries which, after the privations they had endured, were duly appreciated.

At Djowf the travellers found themselves in what is described as the vestibule of Central Arabia, but still separated by a limb of the desert from Djebel Shomer, the first integral portion of

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »