Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome Compared

Roman Civilization Endured as an Empire Because of Self Identity

© Michael Streich

Dec 26, 2008

The temptation to compare and contrast two great ancient civilizations must be tempered with the fact that Greece and Rome were uniquely different communities.

Why did Rome succeed as an empire yet Greece did not? The answer to this question may well begin with the fact that Ancient Greece never was an empire in the strictest sense of the definition. Other than a brief “imperial” period under Athens – which did not involve all of the Greek city-states, and Philip of Macedonia’s unification of the Greek peninsula followed by his illustrious son’s Asian conquests, Greece could never compare with the centralized structure of Ancient Rome. Hellenisation disseminated Greek culture throughout the Mediterranean world, but this hardly constitutes an empire.

Roman Hegemony during the Republican Period

After defeating their one-time Etruscan masters, the Romans moved to consolidate power in Italy. This was accomplished through war, diplomacy, and the granting of Roman citizenship. The extent of these successes became evident during the Second Punic War when the Italian city-state allies of Rome remained loyal, denying Hannibal the support he needed to decisively defeat Rome.

The Punic Wars determined whether Rome or Carthage would dominate the Mediterranean. The result of the Third Punic War was the destruction of Carthage, recounted by Livy in brutal detail. Following the Punic Wars, Rome turned toward Greece, in part because of the Macedonian-Carthaginian Treaty. Unlike Egypt, which sent the Roman Senate congratulatory remarks following the victory over Carthage, the Macedonians were in league with Hannibal.

By the time Octavian became the first augusti, all of Greece was under the domination of Imperial Rome. Rome’s success was based on many factors that included a willingness to learn strong lessons from defeats and co-opt the ideas of its enemies. The Roman legion owed much to the Greek phalanx of earlier decades and her navy was modeled on Carthaginian designs and strategies. From Greece, Rome took culture and religion. Finally, Rome never interfered with provincial beliefs and customs unless they posed a threat to the core tenets of Roman ideology and practice.

Greek Limitations in the Ancient World

The voluntarily unity of Greek city-states occurred only when outside forces threatened the disparate civilization such as the invasion of Darius I and later Xerxes during the Persian Wars. Yet after these threats were eliminated, the city-states withdrew into their own spheres. Sparta, for example, was more concerned with internal security and control rather than empire building. Even the rise of an imperial Athens seemed motivated more by commercial interests and less by conquest.

The very nature of self interest among the Greek city-states may have been one factor among many in the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, a series of conflicts and changing alliances that ultimately left a power vacuum filled by Macedonia. Unlike the rise of Rome, there was no central, powerfully competent state able to forge an empire with lasting ramifications. The successes of Philip of Macedonia and his son, Alexander, were built upon the personalities of the leaders so when Alexander died, the empire he forged fell apart.

Unlike Rome, no lasting institutional entities tied together an imperial or pre-imperial community of states. Rome had its period of civil wars such as the contest between Marius and Sulla and the conflicts within the triumvirates, yet the cogent example of Cincinnatus reminded the Romans what had made them a great people, an ideal Cato and Cicero kept in the forefront of Roman identity.

:

Mary T. Boatwright, Daniel J. Gargola, and others, The Romans From Village to Empire: A History of Ancient Rome from Earliest Times to Constantine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)

Michael Grant, History of Rome (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1978)

Srah B. Pomeroy, Stanley M. Burstein, and others, Ancient Greece: A Political, Social, and Cultural History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999)

The copyright of the article Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome Compared in Ancient History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome Compared in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Roman Emperor Hadrian

Roman Aqueduct in S.France

Photos by Michael Streich

 Survival of the Early Christian Church

First and Second Century Christians Chart a Triumphant Future

© Michael Streich

Dec 26, 2008

The early Christian church faced many internal and external struggles in the first centuries of the Roman Empire but ultimately prevailed as a powerful institution.

The endurance of Christianity during the first centuries of the Roman Empire may be the greatest “miracle” of the faith tradition beyond the resurrection of the founder, Jesus. Attempts to eradicate the sect by a number of emperors merely strengthened the movement and provided it with heroic martyrs that modeled individual faith for neophytes while sharing in the death of Christ. Despite internal conflicts and external pressures, Christianity emerged as the predominant faith, able to preserve key elements of Roman culture once the empire dissolved in the fifth century.

The First Century Christian Church

The early followers of Jesus were Jews that were forced to worship in private homes after growing opposition by Pharisees and Sadducees. These early believers worshiped Jesus as Christ, the promised Messiah. Central in this worship was the re-enactment of the Last Supper, a celebration that would come to be seen as the Eucharist.

The three “missionary” journeys made by St. Paul over a 13 year period universalized the church. By the turn of the century, Christian communities flourished in Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Christianity also made significant progress in Spain and North Africa.

Roman religion was an eclectic body of mystery cults, schools of philosophy, a pantheon of deities often borrowed from other cultures (such as Greece), and traditional Roman household worship that dated back to Etruscan times. Christianity, however, was monotheistic and its followers refused to participate in Roman religious rituals such as offering sacrifices to the emperors.

The Appeal of Early Christianity and Roman Responses

Christianity taught that all people could experience a relationship with God through Christ. The message was simple and easily understood. It offered a hope to those in the lowest social stratum. The Christian message attracted both the illiterate and the educated. Christians valued all life, taking in orphans and, through a sense of corporate solidarity, took care of each other.

The social values and morality flowing out of Christianity stood in direct contrast to Roman beliefs and practices. Further, Christians – at least the early Christians, met in secret. The Eucharist was not understood by Romans who heard tales of eating flesh and drinking blood. Much like the excesses of some mystery cults like that of Dionysus, which had been suppressed in the late Republic, Christianity was viewed with great caution and suspicion.

When Christians refused to worship the emperor as a divine being the unity of the Roman state appeared to be threatened. Some Christians refused to serve in the army and opposed the use of violence. Numerous persecutions ensued, ending with the “Great Purge” of AD 303 under Diocletian and Galerius.

The Christian church, however, persevered and grew. A common body of sacred literature, compiled by “church fathers” and endorsed as inspired texts, assisted in church organization. At the same time, hierarchical structures enabled the church to provide methods of defense against internal conflicts associated with heresies, some of which made their appearance as early as the second century.

Triumph of the Christian Church

Although the egalitarian nature of Christian social justice in the early centuries enhanced its appeal among peoples longing for a belief that offered Utopian directions rather than the turmoil following the death of Marcus Aurelius, there were many other factors that contributed to the triumph of Christianity.

The third century saw a waning of oriental mystery cults as well as average Romans seeking truth amidst economic and political breakdowns. The apocalyptic nature of Christianity also provided a particular hope that spoke of a new heaven and a new earth. Christians appeared to be united, even during times of great stress and persecution. Thus did this minority group survive to grow into a mighty institution during the centuries following Roman dissolution.

Sources:

Basic Sources of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, Fred Berthold, Jr., Alan E. Carlsten, and others, editors (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1962)

W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church 3rd Ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970)

The copyright of the article Survival of the Early Christian Church in Roman History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Survival of the Early Christian Church in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Basilica of St. Paul

 Ancient Views of Religion Affected by Geography

The Gods and the Afterlife Reflected Natural Environments

© Michael Streich

Jan 26, 2009

Significant geographical differences between the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations affected popular religious development and views of an afterlife.

Religious belief, mankind’s relationship with a higher force – God or “the gods,” and the afterlife, has always been linked to geographic considerations. This is most evident in the ancient world and can be contrasted in Mesopotamian civilizations with Ancient Egypt. Since the gods controlled the natural world, disasters were often linked with the displeasure of the gods. This idea can be traced back to prehistory when nomadic groups relied upon positive life forces in nature to provide food and shelter.

Geography, Natural Disasters, and the God Force

Immediately after the calamitous effects of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, fundamentalist American preachers used the storm as a jeremiad to drive home the argument that God was displeased with New Orleans, the “sin city” that seemed to epitomize all that was wrong with America. These preachers might as well have lived in the ancient world.

In the Ancient Middle East, the two great, sustaining rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris, frequently inundated civilizations built along the river banks. Unpredictable, the rivers added credibility to the many ancient “flood myths,” of which the Noah story in Genesis is but one example. When the gods were angry, the forces of nature responded with ferocious vengeance. It didn’t help that the region was barren with no stones or trees, an open, unprotected, arid land mass generally inhospitable to people living there.

The gods were perceived as capricious and uncaring. In the Gilgamesh Epic, the gods undermined the hero’s endeavors, reminding him that mortals can never attain deity. Even the afterlife was dismal: an eternal existence in darkness. Mesopotamian prayers beseeched the “known and unknown god” and asked why the gods gave no answers. The bleak existence in a vulnerable land paralleled the uncaring pantheon of gods.

In Egypt, however, religion was very positive. Osiris, perhaps the most popular god, represented the resurrection from death to life in the remarkable story of his rebirth after being murdered by his evil brother. Osiris presided over the afterlife and in death, all righteous Egyptians became Osiris.

But it was the Nile River that gave life to Egypt and remained for centuries the ultimate fact of life. The earliest gods grew out of this Nile miracle that once a year turned Egypt green. Egypt’s relationship with deity was positive because the gods protected Egypt and made the civilization prosperous. It was the gods, specifically Ptah, who formed Egypt out of a primordial mass into a civilization. And it was Osiris who took Egyptians from cannibalism, gave them the laws, and taught them to grow wheat and barley.

Spiritual Forces from Above

Until mankind fully understood the patterns of weather and climate, the forces of nature were attributed to other worldly machinations. In the Medieval period, priests took the Blessed Sacrament out of the church and held it up to the sky to ward off potentially devastating storms. The great Reformer, Martin Luther, made his decision to pursue religious life in the midst of a thunderstorm during which he almost lost his life.

The primitive view of nature and geographical forces affecting mankind can be traced back to the earliest days of Paleolithic development. Though refined over centuries, such views are still prevalent and many religious traditions teach an end of the world when the forces of nature would once again rebel. For the Ancient Egyptians, it was the return of the snake.

Sources:

R.T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt (Thames and Hudson, 1959)

Aidan Dodson, The Hieroglyphs of Ancient Egypt (Barnes and Noble, 2001)

Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt (Barnes and Noble, 1988)

Sigrid Hodel-Hoenes, Life and Death in Ancient Egypt Cornell University Press, 2000)

John Ray, Reflections of Osiris: Lives from Ancient Egypt (Oxford University Press, 2002)

Kaj Birket-Smith, Primitive Man and His Ways: Patterns of Life in Some Native Societies (World Publishing Company, 1957)

Daniel C. Snell, Life in the Ancient Near East (Yale University Press, 1997)

The copyright of the article Ancient Views of Religion Affected by Geography in Egyptian History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Ancient Views of Religion Affected by Geography in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Nile River

 

Christianity and the Fall of Rome

Gibbon's Argument Evaluated Relative to Other Consideration

Jan 27, 2009 Michael Streich

The transformation of the Roman Empire took several centuries and was the effect of numerous causes traced back to the 2nd Century but did not include Christianity.

In 1776 Edward Gibbon published The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. A product of Enlightenment rationalism and empirical thinking, Gibbon argues, in part, that Christianity helped weaken the Roman Empire, contributing to the eventual “fall.” Although that thesis is no longer fully accepted, the view that Christianity threatened the unity of Rome by virtue of its exclusionary beliefs is often still listed as one of many possible factors contributing to the dissolution of the Empire. The argument, however, is abstract.

Early Christianity and the Roman Empire

The argument that Christians, on a wide scale, refused to serve in the legions is often cited in support of the broader thesis that Christianity had a weakening affect on Imperial Rome, Yet, as Giuseppe Ricciotti documents in his book The Age of Martyrs: Christianity from Diocletian to Constantine (Barnes and Noble, 1992), at the start of Diocletian’s Great Purge, many of the martyrs had served in the legions and included a prominent Centurion.

Further, Christians comprised a relatively small minority, representing perhaps 30% of the total population at the time of Diocletian and mostly settled in the eastern empire. Comparatives figures for the western empire are below 25%. These figures represent a sect that had existed in the empire for almost three hundred years, indicating slow growth.

Christians, at the time of Diocletian, worked in high government positions and could be found in Diocletian’s own household and imperial court. The last significant persecution had been under Decius in the mid-century and prior to that under Marcus Aurelius who died in 180 C.E. It is difficult to correlate the influence of Christianity with the fall of Rome. Further, following the Diocletian/Galerian persecution, Constantine the Great ended persecution of Christianity, paving the way to growth of the religion.

Other Factors in the “Fall” of Rome

By the third century, the empire was already weakened by a number of factors. The imperial frontiers were fracturing as barbarians sought to cross the Rhine and the Danube into Roman territory. The growing self sufficiency of provinces disturbed trade patterns as did changes in climate that altered agricultural output. Fewer slaves were available and the empire had gone through several disease epidemics in the mid to latter second century.

Politically, the death of Marcus Aurelius ushered in an extended period of poor leadership, allowing a strong Praetorian Guard to dictate leadership by making and unmaking emperors. In order to payoff the men responsible for bringing emperors to power, the imperial coinage was debased, creating commercial problems and weakening the overall economic base.

An argument can be made that these difficult conditions in the third century actually enhanced Christianity by offering a belief system that was more promising, contained a strong element of hope (the belief that Christ’s kingdom was imminent), and equalized all members. If the gods of Rome had failed, the Christian god had not.

Christian Social Teachings

Christianity followed and facilitated certain practices that were un-Roman such as the opposition to abortion, care for widows and orphans, a social network that ensured compassion for the neediest members, and an aversion to the more blood thirsty entertainments enjoyed in Roman coliseums. Yet these practices in no way affected the political realm. During all of the imperial persecutions, it was difficult to prove directly that Christians were guilty of treason.

In some cases, the persecutions resulted from other reasons. Nero used Christians as scapegoats for the burning of Rome. Marcus Aurelius had a personal dislike of Christians based on philosophic ideology. Diocletian was practically forced into promoting the Great Purge by Galerius, who also had an intense personal hatred of Christianity. Very little evidence points to Christianity as a significant factor in the so-called fall of Rome.

Sources:

Frend, W.H.C., The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984)

Gibbon, Edward, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1960)

Ricciotti, Giuseppe, The Age of Martyrs: Christianity From Diocletian to Constantine (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1992)

Riddle, John M., Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992)

Walsh, Michael, The Triumph of the Meek: Why Early Christianity Succeeded (New York: Harper and Row, 1986)

[copyright owned by Michael Streich. Any republishing in any form requires written permission from the author]

The First Crusade Preached by Pope Urban II

Michael Streich

December 14, 2008

Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade at the council of Clermont in France November 27, 1095. A holy endeavor to expel a people “enslaved by demons” would serve many purposes: the Seljuk Turks had successfully occupied the holy lands, once part of the Byzantine Empire. Since the pontificate of Gregory VII and the fateful Battle of Manzikert in which Byzantine forces were defeated, the eastern emperor had sent appeals to Rome for help. Now the pope would act, sensing an opportunity that went far beyond sending a few mounted knights.

 

A Mighty Army Serves Many Goals

 

Europe was a battlefield of incessant conflict and endless war. Uniting feudal factions against a common enemy would mitigate the likelihood of further wars and redirect resources and energy against the Muslims. “Let those who are accustomed to wage private wars wastefully even against Believers, go forth against the Infidels in a battle worthy to be undertaken…” Pope Urban II declared a plenary indulgence, the first of its kind, to those “struggling against the heathen.” To medieval man fearing the flames of purgatory, this was a powerful absolution.

 

A successful Crusade would greatly enhance the prestige of the papacy and perhaps even end the schism that had developed between the eastern and western Christian churches. And although Emperor Komnenus requested a comparatively smaller number of professional soldiers – mounted knights, Urban called upon all Christians: knights, footmen, “rich and poor,” and even “plunderers.” Although a mighty army, it would not be led by any kings of note; both Philip I and Henry VII had been excommunicated.

 

Immediate Rewards and Immediate Consequences

 

Landowning crusaders had their holding protected and guaranteed by the Church, lest interlopers attempted to steal their lands while the Lords were in distant lands fighting for Christ. Those taking up the cross had their debts forgiven. Since usury was forbidden, many of these debts had been incurred through Jewish money lenders.

 

The Jews in Europe, however, were not taken into account, even when crusaders began to slaughter them mercilessly throughout Europe, equating the Jews with the so-called Infidels they would soon encounter beyond the confines of Constantinople. Jews appealed to the church for help. Some courageous bishops opened their gates to Jews seeking asylum, yet many others turned a deaf ear to their cries.

 

Nicea would be liberated from Muslim control in 1097 and by 1099 the crusader army was at the gates of Jerusalem. The ensuring battle was a bloodbath as thousands were beheaded. Fulcher of Chartres recounts that, “If you had been there, your feet would have been stained up to the ankles with the blood of the slain. Not one of them was allowed to live. They did not spare the women and children.”

 

Legacy of the First Crusade

 

In March 2000, Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins committed in the name of the Church, including the Crusades. The First Crusade would lead to approximately 150 years of crusading activity both official and unofficial. A Peasant’s Crusade, led by Peter the Hermit, ended in whole scale slaughter beyond the safety of Constantinople while the ill-begotten Children’s Crusade ended when ship’s captains ferried the youths to North Africa instead of the Middle East, there to be sold as slaves.

 

The Crusade did not end the schism nor did it end Europe’s “private wars.” It did spur a new age of commerce and trade, a significant benefit that would help pave the way toward great prosperity for emerging Italian city-states.

 

Sources:

 

Fulcher of Chartres, Chronicle of the First Crusade, M.E. McGinty, trans. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941), pp. 15-17 and 66-69, in The Middle Ages, Vol. I: Sources of Medieval History, 5^th Ed., Brian Tierney, ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1992) pp.159ff.

 

See also:

 

Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusade and the Foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge University Press, 1951).

[First published in Suite101. Copyright Michael Streich. Written permission required for reprints of any kind]

Christianity's Violent History

Michael Streich

June 16, 2010

 

The two thousand year history of Christianity is repeatedly marked by violence and bloodshed, often on a large scale. Although the religion’s founder, Jesus of Nazareth, preached peace and told the Roman Governor Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world…,” the later beliefs and actions of Christians often sought to destroy kingdoms and replace them with their own.

 

This was true when the first Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, it was true during the European post-Reformation wars of religion, and it was true of men like Columbus, Cortes, and Pizarro. Killing in the name of Christ, at least on a grand scale, slowed with the coming of the Enlightenment and secular reasoning.

 

The Christian Crusades against the Muslims and Heretics

 

The capture of Jerusalem was recorded by Fulcher of Chartres [1]. After the Crusaders entered the city, a great bloodletting began: “On the top of Solomon’s Temple, to which they had climbed in fleeing, many were shot to death with arrows and cast down headlong from the roof. Within this Temple about ten thousand were beheaded.”

 

Another kind of Crusade was carried out under Pope Innocent III in 1209 in southern France against the Cathari. This “Albigensian Crusade” resulted in the extermination of thousands of men, women, and children. When the crusaders besieged Beziers, there was some concern that good Catholics should be spared. The papal legate, representing Rome, however, replied, “Kill all! Kill all, for God will know his own.” [2]

 

The Post-Reformation Wars of Religion

 

The century after Martin Luther’s death witnessed unprecedented violence between Catholics and Protestants, culminating in the devastating Thirty Years’ War. In Bohemia, Protestants were all but eliminated and those that survived went into hiding, later to form the Moravian Church. In the Netherland’s, Dutch Calvinists were slaughtered by the orders of Spain’s Philip II whose sincere desire was to root out all Protestantism.

 

The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in France in 1572 represented widescale slaughter. Writing about those events in Paris, Mack P. Holt [3] details the example of Francoise Lussault: “They then took her and dragged her by the hair…She was then impaled on a spit and dragged through the streets…before she was eventually dumped into the Seine.” Another Huguenot woman about to give birth “…was stabbed in the abdomen and then hurled into the street below, as her nearly-born infant, with its head already protruding from its mother’s corpse, eventually died in the gutter.”

 

Conquest of the Americas

 

From the very first contact with Europeans in what would be called New Spain, Native Americans were compelled to become Christians or face death. Historian Howard Zinn, in his People’s History of the United States, cites examples from Columbus to Cotton Mather in Puritan New England. Native beliefs were forced underground but were never entirely eradicated.

 

In New Mexico the 1680 Pueblo Revolt represented a violent dissatisfaction with a local government closely tied to the Catholic Church in its operations. Historian Alan Taylor [4] states that, “The Pueblo Revolt of 1680 was the greatest setback that natives ever inflicted on European expansion in North America.” Although Spanish reprisals ended the revolt and the Pueblo accepted the rites of Catholicism, they continued their own traditional practices in secret.

 

In New England, Puritan leaders had no moral qualms in exterminating neighboring Native Americans. Puritans believed that these native peoples were already damned to hell and that the Old Testament promises given to God’s chosen were their own. Thus, God blessed their actions in taking native land.

 

Other Historical Examples of Violent Christianity

 

The history of the Christian Church is full of bloody examples of violence. Historians still debate how many hundreds of thousands of women lost their lives during the witch hunts. Protestant violence against Irish Catholics persisted for centuries and in Northern Ireland violent clashes were still common in the last decade. On June 15, 2010, British Prime Minister David Cameron apologized for the shooting of 13 Catholics protesting in Londonderry, Northern Ireland in 1972.

 

Religions often breed the seed of violence when adherents depart from the original messages of peace, love, and brotherhood. Christianity, in this respect, is no different. Resurgent fanaticism and intolerance should never be equated with the ethical nature almost all world religions were founded upon. In this regard, reformation and renewal have, in the course of history, attempted to realign misguided interpretations with foundational truths.

 

[1] Brian Tierney, The Middle Ages: Volume I, Sources of Medieval History (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992)

[2] Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300-1475, 5^th Edition (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992)

[3] Mack P. Holt, The French Wars of Religion, 1562-1629 (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

[4] Alan Taylor, American Colonies (Viking, 2001)

[First published in Suite101. Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Written permission to republish required]

The Arab Spring Brought an Icy Chill and U.S. Miscalculations a Decade Ago

 Michael Streich, February 14, 2011

Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak stepped down February 11, 2011, ending the so-called Egyptian Revolution. American President Barack Obama exclaimed that Egypt would never be the same even as the Egyptian military suspended Parliament and the Constitution in preparation for new elections within six months. But few pundits are exposing Air Force General Mubarak for who he really was: a valuable U.S. ally in the Middle East who rose to power upon the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat. Keeping that alliance alive can be traced to billions in military assistance awarded to both Egypt and Israel in order to facilitate the Camp David Peace accords.

 

The Many Revolutions of Egypt Stoke Militant Extremists

 

Long before the Nasser revolution of 1956, Anwar el-Sadat saw the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat. Referring to the sermons of Sheikh al-Banna, Sadat wrote that, “He never dealt with questions of ‘government,’ or ‘power’ in general, but always focused on Islam as both a religion and a way of life, equally essential for a healthy spirit and a healthy government.”

 

Following the assassination of Sadat and the consolidation of power by General Mubarak, renewed fears of extremism centered on the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Stanley Reed (Foreign Affairs, September/October 1993), “…American policymakers ask whether the enormous political and economic capital that they have invested in Egypt, including $35 billion in aid since 1975, is in danger of being swept away.”

 

The notion that democracy and Islamic states are somehow compatible was also addressed by Andrew McCarthy in The National Review (February 12, 2011). McCarthy writes that, “In Egypt, a self-consciously devout Islamic country, nothing is secular and Islamist-free, and therefore nothing is truly democratic, not in the Western sense.”

 

Revolutions Cloud the Realities of Changing Civilizations

 

The western media has portrayed the Mubarak regime as despotic yet even Sadat, writing about the 1970 revolution following the death of Nasser, admits to violations of human rights. In December 1997, Egypt’s highest court upheld a government ban on female circumcision, arguing that, “There is nothing in the Qur’an that authorizes it.”

 

Contrary to statements made in Congress by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the Muslim Brotherhood is not an umbrella term for various movements that are secular in nature. Clapper’s explanation obfuscates the conventional definition of “secular,” furthering western misjudgments and erroneous assumptions.

 

Samuel P. Huntington correctly identified the “Islamic Resurgence” as new and older world civilizations transform the 21^st Century. This “resurgence” “…embodies acceptance of modernity, rejection of Western culture, and recommitment to Islam as the guide to life in the modern world.”

 

The same transformation can be seen in other Middle East countries like Turkey. Secularization, as understood by the West, is viewed as self-serving jargon benefiting Western goals while stifling Islamic principles.

 

The Latest Egyptian Revolution Built on Centuries of History

 

Referring to the Egyptians, President Sadat once declared that, “…they never lose their sense of identity however hard the circumstances might be.” Egypt is custodian of one of the world’s oldest civilizations. Egypt was already old when the Roman Emperor Hadrian sailed up the Nile. Today the lure of Egypt transcends history; it is a nation poised to assert a new direction of regional power.

 

Sources:

 

Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin books, 1997)

Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington, editors, Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress (Basic Books, 2000)

Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Simon & Schuster, 1996)

Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac, Kingmakers: The Invention of the Modern Middle East (W. W. Norton & Company, 2008)

Anwar el-Sadat, In Search of Identity (Harper & Row, 1978)

Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Republishing requires written permission.

 Ten Years Ago...

Egypt and the Consequences of Middle East Regime Changes

By Michael Streich

Published Jan 28, 2011

President Obama Speaks to Hosni Mubarak in Egypt
White House Photo by Peter Souza

digg

Middle East unrest in Tunisia and Yemen has spread to Egypt, a far more important nation in relation to Western response to Iranian-led extremism.

On January 28, 2011, riots in Egypt escalated and the Egyptian army finally patrolled Cairo, protecting museums and taking over from the police, hated by Egyptian protesters. Although it is no secret that the U.S. government considers Egypt a vital Middle East ally and supports the regime annually with millions in military foreign assistance, it did not help matters that tear gas canisters used against the mobs were labeled “made in the USA.” The Clinton led State Department faces a quandary: to make good on the human rights imperative, or to risk losing a long-term ally in the struggle against terrorism.

Middle East Views toward Recent Events among Arab Regimes

The Israeli government prefers the more rigid and tyrannical Egyptian regime under Hosni Mubarak, fearful of the Muslim Brotherhood. At the same time, the incarceration of Nobel Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei may offer a potential leadership resolution if Mubarak should leave Egypt, although ElBaradei is 68 years old. (see Spiegel International, January 28, 2011) The Muslin Brotherhood is "the most popular political movement in Egypt" and the greatest threat to Israel (Spiegel, January 28, 2011).

The Iranian newspaper Kayhan (January 26, 2011) states that Iran is responsible for the current efforts in the Middle East to divorce Western influences from regimes such as Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt.

Saudi sources, following newspaper analysis from January 26 and 27, 2011, noting the events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Lebanon, conclude that U.S. reactions will force acceptance of regime changes while Israel will be thrown into a panic: “…its fat years are now over and its lean years are about to begin…” (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London) January 27, 2011) (quoted in Middle East Media Research Institute, January 27, 2011, Special Dispatch 3540).

Palestinian Hopes Tied to Potential Middle East Changes

Writing in the Palestine Chronicle (January 28, 2011), Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh of Bethlehem University, states that, “The Arab world is in revolt. The fire is spreading. Responsible people need to step forward with courage and conviction.” The January 28, 2011 Electric Intifada reported that the January 25, 2011 “Day of Anger” has escalated into a major movement designed to remove the pharaoh “Mubarak.”

While the convoluted view of the United States is known, European response has been slower. An Op-ed piece in Israel National News by American professor Phyllis Chesler insinuates that Britain is inherently anti-Semitic and a staunch supporter of Mubarak.

Images

This may be tied to a long historical relationship with Egypt, strongest in the 19th Century when Sir Evelyn Baring, Lord Cromer, represented British interests in the Middle East from Cairo, sharing that influence with Lord Curzon in India.

If pro-Arab efforts in Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, and Lebanon are successful, new governments, more radical than the pro-Western regimes, may reinvigorate the Palestinian cause but may also undermine the continued leadership of Mahmoud Abbas who has been too prone to compromise.

Egyptians Cutoff from the Outside World

Late in the day on January 28, 2011, the Egyptian regime cutoff cell phone service and internet use. This lesson was well learned from past rioting in Teheran. NPR’s Morning Edition (January 28, 2011) demonstrated police efforts to isolate western journalists, banning them from covering police responses to protests.

Robert Naiman, writing for Thruthout (January 28, 2011), quotes Egypt's Elbaradei asking, “If not Now, When?” The success of Egypt’s political firestorm will reshape Middle East policy and create entire new paradigms of power circles. These new regimes may distance themselves from the U.S., pose a greater threat to both Israel and Saudi Arabia, and seek regional direction from Iran.

In the 1950s, the chief foreign policy question was, “who lost China?” Today, the partisan question in Congress may well be, “who lost the Middle East?” On January 28, 2011, President Barak Obama finally addressed the on-going unrest in Egypt: “…all governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion…” The U.S. administration is walking a fine line between supporting the goals of protest, reform efforts, and the legitimacy of governments like the Mubarak regime.

Copyright Michael Streich. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.