in number; the bulk of the Coptic people scorned them and their new-found religion alike, ... (page 279)

But when the Roman general found that the Muslim army was in close proximity, his heart failed, and abandoning army and fleet he took flight in a boat to Alexandria. Finding themselves thus betrayed by their leader, the garrison flung away their arms and rushed down into the canal in a mad endeavour to cross it or to reach the boats. But the panic spread to the boatmen, who, thinking of their own safety, unmoored with all speed and fled in disorder down the Nile, each man making for his own village. Meanwhile the Arabs came up, and falling on the defenceless Roman soldiers in the water put every man to the sword, with the single exception of Zachariah, a man who showed extraordinary valour, and was perhaps spared for that reason. The entry of the Arabs into the town was unopposed: there was not a soldier left to offer resistance. Nevertheless they signalized their victory by a cruel massacre. "They slew every one whom they encountered in the streets, and those who had taken refuge in the churches, sparing neither men nor women nor little children. From Nikiou they went to other places round about, plundering and killing all before them. In the town of Sauna they found Scutaeus and his people (who were related to Theodore) hiding in a vineyard, and they put them to the sword. But it is time to cease: for it is impossible to recount the iniquities committed by the Muslims after their capture of the island of (page 284)

Nikiou on Sunday, the eighteenth day of the month Genbot, in the fifteenth year of the cycle," which date corresponds to May 13, 641. [John of Nikiou, p. 568] ...

At the same time it is clear that division and disorder were spreading like a plague through the country, and it was not long before civil war was added to the calamities of the time. Lower Egypt was split into two camps, one party siding with the Romans, while the other wished to join the invaders. Whether the dividing lines were those of race or creed, or, as seems probable, of faction, is a question left unanswered. But battle and pillage and burning of towns were common incidents in the conflict of the two parties, while the Arabs looked with contempt and distrust on these unconvenanted partisans. (page 285)...

Although the Roman army had been greatly dejected by the fall of Babylon and Nikious, and by the treason and cowardice displayed by some of its leaders, yet even the Muslim writers admit that during this phase of the struggle it fought with obstinate valour. It was strong in numbers, large reinforcements having come over-sea from Constantinople. Theodore himself, though totally incompetent as general, was not wanting in courage or fighting spirit. (page 288)...

... there can be no doubt that at the end of the ten days the Muslims were so far victorious that they captured the town and fortress of Kariun, driving back the Roman army. Whether the Romans were chased in headlong flight to the gates of Alexandria, or whether Theodore retreated in good order, cannot be determined, although the impartial record of John of Nikiou seems in favour of the latter alternative. (page 290)...

... but nothing can have prepared them for the extraordinary magnificence of the city which now rose before them, as they passed among the gardens and vineyards and convents abounding in its environs. Alexandria was, even in the seventh century, the finest city in the world: which the possible exception of ancient Carthage and Rome, the art of the builder has never produced anything like it before or since. Far as the eye could reach ran that matchless line of walls and towers which for centuries later excited the enthusiasm of travellers. Beyond and above them gleamed domes and pediments, columns and obelisks, statues, temples, and palaces.... (page 291)

The space between was filled with outlines of brilliant architecture: and in the background, towering from the sea, stood that stupendous monument known as the Pharos, which rightly ranked one of the wonders of the world. Even these half-barbarian warriors from the desert must have been strangely moved by the stateliness and grandeur, as well as by the size and strength, of the city they had come to conquer.

The garrison amounted at the time to not less than 50,000 men: the place was amply provisioned, (page 292)...

and when Amr launched his troops in a mad tilt against the walls, the Roman catapults on the battlements hurled such a rain of heavy stones upon them that they were driven back out of range, nor could they again face the fire delivered by that artillery. All that the Muslims could do was to maintain their camp at a respectful distance in the hope that the enemy might be unwise enough to sally out and give battle.

There is no trustworthy record of any such engagement. (page 293)...

It was now about the end of late June. The Arab leader was not the man to cherish illusions with regard to the chances of storming the city. ... Therefore, as the Nile was now about to rise, he resolved to leave an adequate army in the camp, and to take such troops as could be spared across the Delta before the country became impassable. (page 295)

But as the Romans had abandoned the country round Alexandria, all the pleasant houses and wealthy villas outside the walls fell a prey to the Saracens. They secured an immense booty, and pulled most of the dwellings to pieces, merely for the sake of the wood and the iron, which they sent by barges on the Nile to Babylon for use in bridging operations there against some hitherto inaccessible city. (page 296)...

Its object was to burn the crops now ripening for harvest, and it achieved no other result. No progress was made in the task of reducing the Delta to subjection, a task in which the Muslims had now been occupied for twelve months, and Amr, after many futile acts of violence and pillage, brought his column back to the fortress of Babylon. The number of points at which Amr encountered resistance throughout the Delta, and his almost total failure against the more northern provinces, add one more to the many proofs destructive of the two current fallacies-- that "Egypt surrendered almost without striking a blow," and that "the Egyptians hailed the invaders as deliverers." (page 298)...

The Emperor died on Sunday, February 11, 641, in the thirty-first year of his reign, aged sixty-six, two months before the surrender of Babylon. (page 300)

... Before he died, he made all arrangements for the succession, and he made his son Constantine swear to show mercy to all prisoners and exiles, and to recall those whom he had banished. The Emperor was buried in the church of the Holy Apostles, and his tomb was left open for three day: ... (page 301)

Constantine, whose health had been failing ever since his accession to the throne, was seized by a fatal illness. He died on May 25, 641, after a reign of about a hundred days. Whether he died a natural death, or whether he suffered from foul play at the hands of Martina, is uncertain: but the charge of murder was openly made by Constans against the Empress, and the suspicion of it haunts the records of the time.

Martina profited by the death of Constantine to proclaim Heraclonas sovereign of the Roman Empire. ... When Valentine heard of the death of Constantine and of the Philagrius' disgrace which followed, he came with his army to Chalcedon, where Martina was, and demanded Philagrius' reinstatement. (page 304)...

... but, not content with this measure of success, Valentine crossed with Domentianus and other patricians to the capital, and there crowned the son of Constantine, known as Constans II, in association with Heraclonas.

It seems certain that before this revolt of Valentine broke out, Heraclonas had already arranged for the restoration of Cyrus to his charge in Alexandria.... (page 305)

It is clear too that he had won over Martina to his pusillanimous counsels, that the party of Martina was the party of peace at any price with the Muslims, and that her policy was the policy of surrender incessantly preached by Cyrus....

Upon the ruins of the Empire Cyrus was building new schemes for the aggrandizement of the patriarchate of Alexandria. Such at least seems the most probable theory of his action, the theory which best explains his mysterious relations with Amr and his betrayal of the Roman cause. (page 306)

He was a traitor to the State in the imagined interest of the Church.... For the plots of Valentine were as unscrupulous and as far-reaching as those of Cyrus. He had already sounded the depth of the army's affection for the Empress, and found it, at least in places, very shallow. All the treasure of Philagrius he squandered in bribing the soldiers in Egypt, and he so divided the forces there, that they ceased fighting the Muslims and turned their arms against each other. Civil war therefore had already broken out, and that not between Copts and Romans, but (page 307) between different portions of the imperial army. (page 308)

...
But Cyrus had not forgotten his hatred against the native Church of Egypt. He was ready to hand over the country to the enemy, and to make peace with the unbeliever; but for the Copts there was no peace and no forgiveness. The sword was again drawn: and so far from being softened by his own adversity, Cyrus hardened his heart and renewed his reign of violence and oppression against those who were not beyond his reach.... (page 317)

The Patriarch said that in order to put an end to the war, the people would be willing to pay tribute, adding, "God has given this country to you: let there be no more enmity between you and the Romans." One may well believe that negotiations and consultations were spun out over several days in oriental fashion; but in the end an agreement was reached on all points, and a treaty was signed on November 8, 641. (page 319)

This treaty-- which may be called the Treaty of Alexandria, both to distinguish it from the former Treaty of Babylon and because it turned mainly on the surrender of Alexandria-- sealed the Arab conquest of Egypt. Its terms are somewhat variously reported, but the principal covenants are given by John of Nikiou as follows:--

(1) Payment of a fixed tribute by all who came under the treaty.
(2) An armistice of about eleven months, to expire the first day of the Coptic month Paophi, i.e. September 28, 642.
(3) During the armistice the Arab forces to maintain their positions, but to keep apart and undertake no military operations against Alexandria; the Roman forces to cease all acts of hostility.
(4) The garrison of Alexandria and all troops there to embark and depart by sea, carrying all their possessions and treasure with them: but any Roman soldiers quitting Egypt by land to be subject to a monthly tribute on their journey.
(5) No Roman army to return or attempt the recovery of Egypt.
(6) The Muslims to desist from all seizure of churches, and not to interfere in any way with the Christians.
(7) The Jews to be suffered to remain at Alexandria.
(8) Hostages to be given by the Romans, viz. (page 320)

150 military and 50 civilian, for the due execution of the treaty. ... (page 321)

Amr, speaking once from the pulpit, said, "I have taken my seat in this country without a compact with one of the Copts. If I please, I can kill them or sell them as slaves." These words, if rightly reported, could only mean that the Copts had no voice in the matter-- that the only parties to the treaty were the Arabs and the Romans.... So too he quotes a son of Zubair as saying, "I lived seven years in Egypt and married there. The people were taxed above their means and were in distress, although Amr had made a treaty with them with fixed conditions."... (page 324)

The Treaty of Alexandria was signed at Babylon on Thursday, November 8, 641. (page 329)...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But this is not the end of the story, there is more good stuff coming in the next installment from this book.