Monarch Profile: Queen Mavia of the Tanukh

One of the results of the triumph of the feminist movement has been the rediscover and emphasis on significant female leaders of ancient history. Female leaders of more recent centuries have not been emphasized in the same way because, figures like Queen Victoria, Empress Maria Theresa or Queen Isabella of Castile, had very traditional and non-feminist worldviews. In the ancient world, however, figures like Boudicca in Britannia or Queen Zenobia of Palmyra were more attractive to them since they were pagans, they were rebels against the existing Imperial Roman power structure and they were far enough distant that some degree of mystery still surrounds them and so modern feminists can fill in the gaps of their stories with speculation that fits their narrative. All of that is also why you have probably never heard of another dynamic female leader of Roman times, Queen Mavia of the Tanukh, sometimes also referred to as the “Queen of Syria” though the people she ruled over were fairly recent arrivals to that part of the world and lived only in and around what is today southern Syria.

Perhaps even more than Boudicca or Zenobia, much about Queen Mavia remains a mystery and our accounts of her come from only a couple of ancient sources. Nonetheless, though she was a strong leader who fought successfully against the dominant power of the Roman Empire, the rest of her story makes her a subject that most modern writers would not want to touch. In the first place, she was an Arab, which would not in itself be a problem but she was an Arab from the pre-Islamic era and an Arab woman ruling over Arab men is something likely to offend modern Islamic sensibilities. To make matters worse for the modern, politically correct types, she was an Arab Christian, a convert from paganism and a very staunch, Orthodox/Catholic (before those were different) Christian at that. Moreover, the military campaign she fought against the Romans was a rebellion that was not a rebellion. She did not fight to bring down Rome or usurp Roman power, but rather she was fighting a war in defense of her faith and that is something the modernists simply cannot handle. She was not anti-Roman, she was pro-Christian.

We do not know exactly when or where she was born, her given name in Arabic is usually rendered as “Mawiyya” and she came to prominence through her marriage to one al-Hawari, the King of the Tanukhids, a confederation of Arab tribes who had left the Arabian peninsula and eventually settled in southern Syria. She and her husband had no sons and when King al-Hawari died in 375 it was Queen Mavia who took over the leadership of the Tanukhids. They were a sort of subsidiary national group within the Roman Empire and, early on, there was no trouble about this. The Romans were seen by the Arabs as protectors or allies against the Sassanian empire of Persia (Iran). However, a problem arose over the matter of religion, even though the Roman Empire was not yet officially a Christian empire at this point, it was largely Christian and, with a notable exception, the Roman emperors had been Christian for some time. However, this was also the period when the Arian heresy held sway and the Emperor Valens, while a Christian, was also an Arian. Queen Mavia was not and she would not have Arianism for her people and requested an orthodox bishop be appointed over them.

Emperor Valens, however, insisted on an Arian bishop and so Queen Mavia left Aleppo for the deep desert and began preparing for war. She showed considerable diplomatic skill as she gained the support of numerous other nomadic tribes in the area to join her coalition. However, she also sent word to the Romans that this rebellion was about having an orthodox bishop and nothing more. Mavia told them that as soon as a proper bishop was given to them, her resistance would end and the former, cordial relations could be immediately restored. This was not a struggle for power but a struggle for what Queen Mavia regarded as the true faith. By the spring of 378 AD all was prepared and the war began. Historical accounts agree that the campaign of Queen Mavia was quite successful and that she was leading it personally, ‘from the front’ and was quite a formidable military commander.

The Arab forces Mavia commanded had been used extensively by the Romans in their fight to suppress the previous uprising in Syria led by Queen Zenobia and as such the Tanukhids were very familiar with Roman tactics and were able to counter them and make use of them for their own side. The local Roman governors proved unable to mount an effective defense. Their own forces were quite limited and whereas in the past they had been able to organize the loyal elements of the local population to increase their numbers, this time it was those very tribes that they were fighting against and so the Romans were quite isolated. Queen Mavia and her armies swept south and east, driving the Romans from southern Syria, Palestine and finally all the way to the Egyptian border. Being hard pressed in other areas and with no hope of victory in sight, Emperor Valens finally had no choice but to relent before the vital province of Egypt was invaded and he agreed to appoint the orthodox, non-Arian cleric Moses as the first Bishop of the Arabs. According to Socrates of Constantinople, Bishop Moses was a “Saracen” (Arab) himself and was quite a successful and well regarded churchman.

Emperor Valens

With this, as promised, Queen Mavia suspended her campaign and reverted back to the previous relationship her people had had within the Roman Empire. To bond the two sides together, Queen Mavia gave her daughter, Princess Chasidat, in marriage to a prominent Roman commander in the area named Victor, also a Christian, a Catholic of course, and a man who had been appointed Consul in 369 AD. In fact, he had confronted Emperor Valens himself because of the imperial preference for Arianism so this would seem to have been a good match. However, the ending of the story of Queen Mavia was not entirely a happy one though Emperor Valens certainly had the worst of it. Once peace had been restored, the Emperor quickly called on Queen Mavia to assist him in his war against the Goths who were rampaging into the heart of the Eastern Roman Empire. Queen Mavia dispatched forces to aid the Romans as required but they were less successful in Europe. Along with the Romans, they were defeated, pushed back and finally wiped out at the Battle of Adrianople where Emperor Valens himself was killed. Few Tanukhids survived to return to their homeland.

There was another revolt by the Tanukhids against the Romans but it is unknown and perhaps unlikely that Queen Mavia was involved at all with it. This revolt was swiftly crushed and the Romans abandoned the Tanukhids as an ally and made a new alliance with the Salih, a rival Arab tribe. All that remains known of Queen Mavia after her assistance to the doomed Emperor Valens is that she died in Anasartha, east of Aleppo, sometime in 425 AD. Today, she is remembered by few due to the nature of her exploits and the fact that her story does not fit the preferred narrative of today. Nonetheless, she was a significant figure of some admirable qualities who deserves to be better known.

The More Things Change, The More Things Stay the Same for Syria

As most know, recently, for the first time (or at least the first time officially admitted to) the United States has taken direct action against the Syrian government of eye-doctor turned Ba'athist dictator Bashar al-Assad. On its own, it was not terribly significant, a strike of about 60 cruise missiles from two offshore U.S. Navy destroyers on one Syrian air base near Khan Shaykhun but it was certainly not welcome news to me as I very much fear it will lead to further U.S. involvement in the Middle East and (as the archives will show) I have been against any American involvement in Syria since Obama first started toying with the idea in 2013. It is none of America's business, has no impact on American national security or national interests at all. Yes, civilians were killed, children were killed and that is sad but the "intelligence community" that is certain Assad is the guilty party ran out of credibility with me a long time ago. I wouldn't take their word that night is dark and water is wet. As far as I'm concerned, it's just the latest example of our new faith-based government where the line is, "we have the evidence, we just can't show it to you but, trust us, it's damning!"

Does that mean I am signing up to the Bashar al-Assad fan club? Not by a long shot and, frankly, I'm amazed at the likes of some of those gushing over the guy. Mr. "I invented the Alt-Right" Richard Spencer has nothing but nice things to say about Assad. For anyone on the "right" end of the political spectrum at all, this seems quite odd. Assad is the leader of the Ba'athist Party, officially described as an Arab *socialist* party and part of a coalition called the National *Progressive* Front. This is the same party that denounced Saddam Hussein (also a Ba'athist dictator) as a "fascist" when he went to war against their beloved co-religionists in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Socialist progressives who consider the word "fascist" an insult would seem rather out of step with the "Alt-Right" crowd from what I've seen. However, a little confusion is probably to be expected. People seem to be trying to fit this entire region into a western frame of mind when that just does not work and has never work as the Ba'athist regime itself and its problems illustrate. It is also why the most stable countries in the region are absolute monarchies that tend to offend liberal sensibilities.

This is because these countries operate in the traditional way for their people and culture. They are tribal, Islamic fundamentalist absolute monarchies just as they have always been going back many, many centuries, they just have private jets instead of camels these days. No matter what changes others have tried to bring to the region, the old patterns continue to prevail and only those states which have remained within those patterns have survived unscathed. Once upon a time, the whole region was one of Arab tribal monarchies ruled by Sunni princes. However, that was too old-fashioned for some and an era of leftist, socialist Arab nationalism swept the region. This was perhaps best illustrated by the United Arab Republic which consisted of Egypt and Syria coming together under one socialist government. Obviously, that little experiment did not last very long since, for one things, socialism never works and the Arabs of Egypt and the Arabs of Syria actually did not feel like they were exactly the same people after all.

The aforementioned bad blood between the socialist Ba'ath party of Syria and the socialist Ba'ath party of Iraq is another example. Why was there not ironclad solidarity between the socialist Arabs of Syria and the socialist Arabs of Iraq against the totally alien Persian theocrats? Because, once again, despite the effort at secular Arab nationalism, the older divisions remained more important. Many Syrians, particularly the Alawites (from whence the al-Assad family hails) are Shia Muslims just like the Iranians. Most Iraqis are Shia Muslims too but Saddam Hussein was not and he was in charge. Such is why Syria and Iran have been such good friends since the Sunni Muslims were removed from power and replaced by Shia Muslims. This is also why the Arab monarchies all want to see the end of Bashar al-Assad. They are Sunni Muslims and this is part of the Sunni-Shia feud that has been going on almost since Mohammed kicked off. They can get rid of their monarchies and replace them with republics, they can try to ignore past tribalism and promote Arab nationalism but the old tribal and religious divisions still persist. They are not going to change and the United States cannot force them to. The British, to their credit, had the good sense not to try.

For Russia to back the Shia and the United States to back the Sunni doesn't seem like a smart move for either country. Particularly in the west, modern liberal thinking has put religion aside but the Islamic world doesn't see it that way and the west is still the "Crusader states" as far as they're concerned. Similarly, they were calling America "the Great Satan" back in the days when Ricky and Lucy slept in twin beds and Archbishop Sheen had the highest rated show on television. What is going on the Middle East and particularly Syria today is the latest manifestation of very old tribal and sectarian conflict that all outsiders would do well to stay out of. Even if the problem could be solved, the leaders we have in the western world today, with their liberal mentality, are definitely not the ones capable of doing it. And, even if you do what seems to be the "right" thing, you will never gain any credit for doing it. When the U.S. and NATO came to the rescue of the Muslim Albanians and bombed the Christian Serbs on their behalf, there was no wave of gratitude from the Muslim world. When the U.S. led a coalition to drive out a secular dictator and put the Emir of Kuwait back on his throne, it didn't mean the Islamic radicals were going to decide America wasn't all that bad after all. I still think the best thing to do is stay out of the region and keep it quarantined as best as possible.

------------------Additional Info-----------------
The Attempt at a Royalist Syria

Bombing Syria

The word reached me on Monday night that, for the first time, bombs were falling on the areas of Syria dominated by the terrorist group ISIS. The military effort includes no Europeans with only France participating in the bombing of ISIS targets in Iraq but wanting no part of any attacks on the Syrian side of the border (at least not yet, others may join if they think it prudent later on). The coalition includes the United States of America, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Emirate of Qatar. Yes, ‘one of these things is not like the other’ and, certainly in my opinion, ‘one of these things just doesn’t belong’. An officially secular democratic republic fighting alongside five Islamic absolute monarchies. Why the United States is involved at all is beyond me. It is certainly not because it takes a military superpower to take on ISIS. The lavishly wealthy gulf states have the means to do the job all by themselves and being fellow Arab Muslims also have some advantages that America lacks. In terms of equipment, much of their military tech was purchased from the United States anyway. I would be pleased if the United States stayed out of this Islamic civil war and focused on keeping terrorists off of American soil and weeding out there sympathizers already in residence (which I think would also be good advice for Europe though Europe has more reason to be interested than America being as they are closer to the region and have economic ties with the areas involved).

Standard of Iraq

Having a look back at my posts on Syria last year, I see that nothing has really changed. My position is still that this is none of America’s business and the U.S. President remains bewilderingly inconsistent. ISIS is not a direct threat to America or Europe and bombing Syria and Iraq into little pieces will do nothing to benefit American or European security, only preventing terrorists from gaining access to these countries and weeding out their sympathizers already in residence will do that. However, ISIS does pose a very real threat to the monarchies of the region and I am glad to see them taking at least a partial role in the campaign against them. The problem here, as I see it, is that there is no way to fight one group of bad guys without inadvertently assisting another group of bad guys. The ISIS fanatics are so nuts that they pose a danger to everyone in the region, whether it is the secular republics in Syria and Iraq, the religious monarchies or even the theocratic state in Iran. ISIS has threatened Europe, America and Russia as well as all of their co-religionists whom they deem ‘not Muslim enough’. Taking down ISIS means taking down a major threat to the Assad regime in Syria (which last year Obama told us was so terrible) and would also be doing a big favor for Iran and their allies that have been in control of Iraq ever since Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Standard of Saudi Arabia

This is why I think it is prudent for Europe to stay out of it and would have preferred for America to do the same. No matter who wins, you still lose. What is most concerning is the threat posed to the monarchies of the region and I say that not simply as a monarchist but because these have been the most stable regimes in an otherwise very violent and chaotic region. They are under threat, they should be maintained and they should take responsibility for their own security and handle this problem themselves. There is at least some small excuse for optimism in the fact that, aside from America, all the current participants are Islamic monarchies. It holds out hope that they understand their situation and can, perhaps, offset any temptation by the Obama administration to try some idealistic nonsense that will only make things worse. This is also something that Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular should have a hand in because they must accept at least some of the responsibility for the fact that it has come to this. Each have been in competition with the other in promoting their own brand of religious extremism and lately they have begun to feel the consequences of that. Qatar has been a major supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood that has helped destabilize the whole region and for that reason the other monarchies have put Qatar on the “naughty” list. The Saudis too have been spreading fundamentalism and, one must assume inadvertently, inspired a crop of fanatics who see even their kingdom as ‘not Muslim enough’.

King & Queen of Jordan

Many liberal critics of the “War on Terror” in the west liked to point out that Osama bin Laden and most of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. What they failed to mention was that these same people are not loyal to the government there and want the monarchy overthrown in favor of something similar to what ISIS has tried to establish; a fundamentalist theocracy. Through a combination of force and the largesse their oil wealth gives them, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states have been able to fend off any radical unrest within their own borders but Jordan has had a more difficult time. They have long been the most politically moderate regime in the neighborhood but they also lack oil wealth and bad economic times have been seized on by religious radicals to stir up trouble. This adds further stress to a system already pushed to the limit by refugees flooding into Jordan every time there is a crisis and the Syrian civil war certainly counts. For many in the country, the close ties between the monarchy and the United States and Great Britain and social things like the Queen being best buddies with Oprah and the like all work against them. This places Jordan, and to a lesser degree the other states in the region, in a difficult position. If they try to please the west, they anger the radicals which makes them dependent on western goodwill all the more whereas trying to please the radicals angers the west who then might not come to the rescue if there is trouble.

Prince Ra'ad bin Zeid of Iraq & Syria

These countries need to make up their minds what sort of countries they want to be and forge ahead boldly. Trying to play both sides of the fence has not worked to their advantage. The west, particularly America, would also be well advised, in my view, to stop meddling and drop the conceit that they are responsible for any of this or have any solution to the problems in the region. As someone else recently said, speaking of Iraq, if money and military force could solve the problems there the country would be a paradise by this point. Right now, the only goal is (at least insofar as one can interpret the inconsistent rhetoric of Obama) to defeat ISIS and not to bring down Assad in Syria or do anymore nation-building. However, all the ingredients are present for “mission creep” in Iraq and arming Syrian rebels who started this war by fighting Assad and expecting them to drop that ambition in favor of focusing only on ISIS would be, in my view, unrealistic. What I would like to see would be for the west to wash its hands of the whole nasty business in the region and let the locals handle things. Sell the legitimate monarchies all the weapons they ask for but make it clear that they have to do the fighting. Iraq, like all the others, needs to put on their big boy pants and stop expecting American military power to come to their rescue whenever there is a crisis.

The Emir of Qatar

So, by all means, let the ISIS killers be wiped out but the Sunni monarchies need to take care that what follows does not end up strengthening the hand of Iran and their pliant friends in Iraq and Syria. That would set things up for further instability and conflict. My preference would be for the monarchies to take a more broad-based approach, let the minorities (ethnic and religious) know that they will be better off with them than with the Iranians or their puppets. If Assad should fall, I would not shed a single tear for the vicious tyrant, but would hope that what replaces him would be a restored Kingdom of Syria under the Hashemite heir. Perhaps they might even expel the Iranian puppets from Iraq and redraw some borders to extend some of the existing countries and more of the old Kingdom of “Greater Syria” under the said monarch. There is an opportunity here for something better for the Middle East but I do wish the western world would learn that it has to be something they take in hand themselves, it cannot be imposed by force. That is not to say it couldn’t be done but most western countries as well need to decide what they are going to be first just like those in the Middle East (and other parts of the world for that matter). At this point, all one can do is hope though, under the circumstances, that is a rather difficult thing to do. The idea that any of the countries mentioned above, certainly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, acting in accordance with any of my preferences seem extremely remote indeed.

Talking Politics: To Bomb or Not to Bomb in Syria

Last night U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama made his case for an American missile strike on Syria, sometime, at some undetermined point in the future which will be limited in scale, limited in scope but still terrible enough to strike fear into the hearts of tyrants all over the world who might think of using chemical weapons. Frankly, I found the speech baffling, with more twists than a pretzel factory. His attempt to explain how it was in the vital, national security interests of the United States to attack Syria failed to impress me. It was entirely speculative; this could cause something that could cause someone else to possibly do something that would be a threat to the United States. Not good enough Mr. President. Not good enough. I was less than thrilled with the last war in Iraq but at least then it was against a man who was actually shooting at American aircraft on an almost daily basis. It also does not help that the only thing Obama has been consistent on throughout all of this is his inconsistency. He was against taking down a Ba’athist dictator in Iraq who gassed his own people but finds it vitally necessary to take down a Ba’athist dictator in Syria who gassed his own people. He was just about to strike, but then decided to wait a while. He didn’t need to go to Congress, then he did go to Congress. Syrian dictator Assad “had to go” but then it wasn’t about “regime change”. He wants an attack that will send a message but will also be extremely small. It is positively bewildering.

As most know, though I do not recall saying it here, I am very much opposed to the United States getting involved in the Syrian civil war. I have heard nothing about how any of this has anything to do with American interests or American security and I am not at all confident that American involvement would make things better rather than worse. In saying so, I have, of course, upset some who think the U.S. is the policeman of the world and it is up to the President of the United States to decide who lives and who dies around the world. Assad is a bad guy it is the duty of America, as the exceptional nation, to take him down! No, no, no. I will agree that Assad is a bad guy but I do not think there is anything he is, has or can do that would in any way affect American prestige, power or anything of the sort. There are actually far worse characters holding power around the world and others I would like to take down first. However, I do want Assad to be taken down. I do want his regime to be dismantled, I do want to see the whole Ba’athist Party and its revolutionary, socialistic ideology swept from the world forever. Read up on them if you care to; they embody just about every political idea which I totally despise. I would love to see Assad taken down but I want to be equally clear in saying that the United States of America should not be the one to do it. I would also be worried that, as much as I would like to see Assad go the way of Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi, that what succeeds him might be far worse.

The argument in the American halls of power has focused a great deal on the moderate rebels, which are all saintly, secular, progressive-minded people committed to democracy, versus the extremist rebels who are all a bunch of bloodthirsty, religious fanatics and terrorists. Well, frankly, I don’t much care for either of them. Some people have said we have to support the pro-democracy rebels so that the terrorist rebels do not come out ahead. Sorry, but the pro-democracy rebels scare me just as much as the terrorist rebels do. Whether it was President Woodrow Wilson or President George W. Bush, efforts by America to bring democracy to people around the world, in my opinion, has not worked out to the benefit of America or the peoples in question. Suppose the pro-democracy rebels overthrow Assad and then the terrorist rebels win the first election and Syria becomes another Egypt. Would there be another civil war then to oust the democratically elected religious tyrant? Perhaps a military coup to replace him with a secular, tyrant from the army? None of this will improve the situation in Syria. Not of it, I will add again, has anything to do with the United States of America.

When I say that if something should be done, it should not be America that does it, I am not, I assure you, speaking from a knee-jerk reaction as some sort of isolationist. I am certainly not an isolationist. I am speaking from the position of someone who has studied history for many years and who has seen the historical record that should be obvious to everyone: when it comes to these types of situations, the United States really has a terrible record at picking “winners”. America has been stabbed in the back by people or movements originally under American sponsorship more than probably any other country in the world. Saddam Hussein himself, as most know, was once supported by the United States because both opposed Iran. He turned out not to be the most faithful ally in the world obviously. Osama bin Laden, the arch-terrorist of them all, first learned his trade in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets when the U.S. was giving money, arms and training to the Taliban militia fighting the Russians. How did that work out for America? Not to skip over Iran either. The Shah had been a stalwart ally of the United States but President Jimmy Carter decided he would not support such an autocratic monarch and he was overthrown, by moderate rebels of course. Those moderates were then promptly replaced by the ghastly regime of the Ayatollah.

In Vietnam, the Viet-Cong that so bedeviled the American and ARVN military was actually an American invention. Before that, they had been the Vietminh bedeviling the French colonial forces and the Vietminh had been organized, armed and trained by the United States during World War II because they promised to fight the Japanese. Obviously, that was a stupid move. It happened every time the U.S. tried to win rebel support by throwing over a European colonial ally, thinking that the grateful rebels would side with America instead of the Soviet Union. It happened from Indonesia to Egypt and every time the people who gained power either joined the Soviet side anyway or, at best, remained somewhat neutral. This has never been a winning system for the United States, nor for the countries involved. Call it a quirk of human nature, the natural desire to bite the hand that feeds you, or simply call it astoundingly bad judgment on the part of the United States in deciding which faction to support in someone else’s war. Whatever you call it, the record says the U.S. needs to just stop trying to play this game.

I also do not think it helps the United States to keep antagonizing Russia. This does not mean America should always agree with Russia on everything. I will not be able to give my wholehearted support to any Russian government that does not have a Romanov reigning over it. However, I think America should focus on the Americas and stop trying to meddle in every other part of the world. Right now the Iranians are establishing networks of terrorists in South and Central America, in the very backyard of the United States, while Washington DC is focused on fanatical goatherds in central Asia. Right now, Red China owns controlling interest in the Panama Canal and is growing in influence, buying up resources all over South America. The U.S. should be more concerned with Central and South America than with the Caucasus, Syria or Turkmenistan. If, as was seen in the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. will not tolerate any other country interfering in the Americas, we have to ask what right the U.S. has to interfere in Europe, Africa or Asia? Most importantly to my mind though, every time the U.S. does something to annoy Russia, it pushes the Russians ever closer into the arms of their former enemies the Red Chinese. Now, I hasten to add that I think it is monumentally stupid for Russia to do this, they will come out the loser in such an embrace, but it is nonetheless happening and yet I have seen Presidents Bush and Obama act as though they want to make these two formidable powers which do not care that much for America, become better and better friends instead of enemies.

Finally, I am against America getting involved in Syria because I am a monarchist. History also teaches us that where American intervention goes, monarchy does NOT tend to follow; and the results have been disastrous. The U.S. held off intervening in World War I until the Tsar was overthrown -the Bolsheviks took over and a Russia that had been a friend of the United States became an enemy. The U.S. intervened in World War I, Germany and Austria-Hungary all became republics and the result was another world war twenty years later. In World War II the United States, by intervening, enabled some monarchies in Western Europe to be restored, but it also meant that monarchies in Italy and Eastern Europe were lost. It meant the fall of monarchies in Korea, Manchuria and Vietnam all in 1945. When the U.S. intervened in Korea it did not result in a restored monarchy. When the U.S. intervened in Vietnam, American agents helped bring down the former monarch a second time. In Afghanistan, where there was every good reason to hope for a restoration of the monarchy after the defeat of the Taliban, it did not happen. There was less hope for Iraq and it did not happen there either. I would like to see the governments in Syria and Iraq replaced by Hashemite monarchies like Jordan, as both were originally intended to be, but that is not likely to happen. If the U.S. is involved, it would not only be unlikely but impossible.

The Attempt at a Royalist Syria

Today, with all of the controversy over Syria, it is worth remembering that Syria, as we know it today, was originally a monarchy even if only a short-lived legal formality. Why is this worth remembering? The answer should be self-evident. When one looks at all of the confusion, disorder and violence that has accompanied the so-called “Arab Spring” all of the worst bloodshed and all of the governments that have actually been overthrown have been republics. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt (all republics) have had upheavals and now Syria though it remains to be seen, at this point, if the government will survive or not. Monarchies have known turmoil during this time but none have fallen and none of the unrest has occurred on the same level as that seen in republics. The Kingdoms of Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and, to a lesser extent, the Gulf micro-monarchies have all been shaken but none have fallen nor have they degenerated into civil war. It should be obvious to any impartial observer that monarchy has been good for the Middle East and North Africa whereas republics have only caused confusion and disorder. Even when the republics have been stable it has only been because of the rule of barbaric tyrants who enforced such stability through the butchery of their own people. So, what about the original, Syrian monarchy? To understand the situation, as is not uncommon, one must go back to the First World War.

King Hussein

For centuries prior to that conflict Syria, like most of the rest of the region, was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. As soon as the Ottoman Empire entered the war on the side of the Central Powers, the Allies, primarily Great Britain, began to make diplomatic overtures to the Arab population. This campaign proved to be a resounding success with the Arabs, armed and equipped by the British, rising up against the Turks and fighting alongside the Allies, primarily Britain and France. The Arabs were led by Hussein bin Ali, Emir and Sharif of Mecca since 1908. Although not a nationalist by nature, Sharif Hussein had grown alienated from the Ottoman Empire since the takeover of the “Young Turks” in Constantinople and the subsequent effort to restructure and modernize the empire. When the British reached out to him, he first demanded their support in the creation of what amounted to an Arab empire that would include all the territory between Egypt, Turkey and Persia and with himself supplanting the Ottoman Sultan as the new Caliph of Islam. The British would not agree to all of this but nonetheless Sharif Hussein led the Arabs in revolt against the Turks in 1916 on the understanding that there would be an independent Arab state when the war was over and the Ottoman Empire was carved up. However, his aims ran contrary to the Sykes-Picot Agreement made by Britain, France and Russia to partition the territory of the Ottoman Empire between them.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was secret, at least until the Bolsheviks took over Russia and made it public, to the embarrassment of all concerned. It ran rather contrary to what the western Allies at least had been saying about national self-determination as one of their justifications for war. Contrary to what some may think, that idea was not invented by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, though he certainly made it worse by emphasizing it even more than Britain and France did (Wilson himself later admitting that he had spoken in ignorance when he did so. Oops. Yeah, thanks for that Woody). What is today southern Iraq, Jordan, Palestine and points south were claimed by Britain (with promises of a Jewish state in Palestine coming as early as 1914) with northern Iraq, Lebanon and Syria being claimed by France (Russian gains were to have been in northern Turkey and around Constantinople). The British, with the Balfour Declaration, tried to invalidate the agreement but also renounced any promises made to the Arabs. In any event, under a different name, most of the territorial claims made in the Sykes-Picot Agreement became a reality after the war was over with Palestine, Jordan and Iraq becoming British mandates and Lebanon and Syria becoming French mandates. At the time, of course, there were no such countries and pretty much everything between what is now Saudi Arabia and Turkey was referred to at the time as Syria. The Arabs also had considerable forces on the ground and were determined to claim the territory they wanted regardless of what the Allies in Paris thought.

King Faisal

The problem was that the Arabs were not very united, nationalism still not having replaced the more prevalent tribalism of the region. In Mecca, Sharif Hussein was declared “King of All the Arabs” by the clerics there but it was an empty title. In Damascus a congress was convened but the feuding Arabs were crippled by internal divisions and the situation stagnated. Finally, the idea of an outright Arab empire was dropped but what was hoped for next almost amounted to the same thing. The region was to be divided up between Sharif Hussein and his sons. This is when the Kingdom of Syria came into being, the first independent state of Syria as we know it today though, at the time, it was much larger than modern Syria. Sharif Hussein reigned as King of the Hejaz though he was in a constant struggle against the House of Saud and their Wahhabi supporters (a struggle, obviously, he would eventually lose -ironically the fight had predated World War One but, in those days, the Ottoman Turks had helped keep the Saudis and the Wahhabis in check). What is today Syria, Palestine and northern Iraq were declared the Arab Kingdom of Syria under King Faisal I (son of King Hussein) with Prince Zeid (another son of King Hussein) declared regent of Iraq. Another son, Abdullah, became King of Transjordan.

This was not exactly the Arab empire some had originally envisioned but it was not far removed with Hashemite monarchs reigning over the entire region, though Palestine was never going to remain as the British were intent on keeping the promises they had made to the Zionist movement in 1914. There was simply no way to reconcile the agreements made by Britain and France with the promises for a “Greater Syria” made to the Arabs. Because of this, neither Britain or France recognized Faisal as King of Syria and this would prove problematic since France insisted on exclusive influence and certain controls over Syria. Having been on the throne for only a few months and with chaos still reigning throughout much of the region, King Faisal felt he had little choice but to agree to the conditions of the French republic. This, however, proved unacceptable to the fiery, pro-independence faction which demanded defiance to any limitations on Syrian independence. It was an embarrassing situation for King Faisal who, under intense pressure from his people, was obliged to denounce the agreement he had just made and assert complete independence for the Kingdom of Syria. The French republic responded by announcing their intention to rule directly and dispatched troops to enforce French authority.

French troops in Syria

On July 14, 1920 French General Henri Gouraud sent an ultimatum to King Faisal, demanding that he surrender. With no foreign powers recognizing his government and with his own military lacking heavy weapons, King Faisal felt he had no choice but to surrender rather than see his people butchered in a fight they had no realistic chance of winning. In spite of this, his minister of war decided to defy the King and confront the French army. The result was the disastrous battle of Maysalun in which the Syrian forces were easily crushed. Damascus fell a few days later and the remnants of the Syrian army fled the country or surrendered to the French. King Faisal was officially deposed and forced out of the country, going into exile in Great Britain. There were rebellions later on, none of which were successful, and under one name or another direct or indirect French rule was maintained in Syria until 1946, a Republic of Syria having been created along the way. The exiled King of Syria was not out of the picture however. When the British effort at direct rule over Iraq proved rather problematic, King Faisal I of Syria was brought back to the Middle East and enthroned as King Faisal I of Iraq. Hashemite rule and the Kingdom of Iraq lasted until 1958 when King Faisal II was murdered in a military coup. As an aside, only one of the Hashemite monarchs was able to persevere. The Kingdom of Syria was brought down by the French, the Kingdom of Iraq was brought down by nationalist radicals and the Kingdom of the Hejaz was overthrown and replaced by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Only the Emir of Transjordan, later the Kingdom of Jordan, under King Abdullah remained and the Hashemite dynasty still reigns in Jordan to this day.

As most know, the subsequent history of Syria (and Iraq for that matter) stands in stark contrast to the relative peace and stability of the Kingdom of Jordan. After the departure of the French the Syrian Republic was rocked by numerous coups, rebellions and disastrous wars. In 1958 Syria was merged with Egypt to form the United Arab Republic but another military coup in 1961 took Syria out of that union. It was one coup after another for a short time until a dictatorship was established by the Arab Socialists of the Ba’ath Party (which had branches in Syria and Iraq). There were still coups and factional feuds within the Ba’ath Party that ruled Syria which, of course, further ruined the country. This was a dictatorship where the trains did not run on time, so to speak. Stability, but certainly not peace and calm, came for a time with the coming to power of Hafez al-Assad in 1970. He held power until his death in 2000 when he was succeeded as President by his son, the currently embattled Bashar al-Assad. Again, the contrast could not be more stark between the republics of Syria and Iraq, both of which ultimately fell to brutal Ba’athist dictatorships, compared to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which has maintained order and stability, with friendly relations with countries all over the world and which is a respected country by almost everyone in the region.

Consort Profile: Queen Zenobia of Palmyra

From Hannibal of Carthage and Attila the Hun to Queen Boudicca in Britain it often seems that Romans attributed as much fame to their enemies as to their own heroes and one of those famous for her opposition to the power of Rome was Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. Born in 240, in Palmyra (in what is now Syria) Zenobia was known for her beauty, intelligence and athletic physique. Mostly of Arabian descent she was also extremely proud of Ptolemy connection through her mother, a relative of the famous Cleopatra of Egypt and who taught the young Zenobia to speak fluent Egyptian. The country was to play a major part in her future and her first step on the road to world fame came when she entered into an arranged marriage with King Odaenathus of Palmyra. The country took its name from the wealthy merchant city of Palmyra which had broken away from the Roman Empire and tried to grow to rival them with their own Palmyrene empire.

Queen Zenobia fully embraced this vision of the future and was just as aggressive and determined as her husband was. She was also known for accompanying the King on hunting trips and bagging more than her share of game. However, she was less enthusiastic about accompanying her husband to bed and would only share his company for the purposes of procreation. Widely revered and respected among her people there was no controversy when she took control of Palmyra herself following the assassination of the King and his son by his first wife in 267. Officially ruling on behalf of her own son by the King, Vaballathus, she showed her ambition by assuming the titles of Augusta and Augustus for herself and her son. Determined to carry on the goals of expansion and greatness, Queen Zenobia shocked the world when she invaded Egypt, a shock which only increased when she succeeded in conquering the ancient country and making herself Queen of Egypt.

The Romans had been wary but hopeful about Zenobia and the rising power of Palmyra. Early on she had taken the Palmyrene line that their goals were benevolent towards the Romans; to protect the Eastern Empire from their old enemy the Sassanids. However, her violent conquest of Egypt (carried out with the aid of a faction of Egyptian sympathizers) and her defeat of the Roman prefect, who was captured and beheaded, caused horror and outrage across the Roman Empire. The Romans tried to make peace with her and bring her back on side, but Queen Zenobia was having none of that, she was doing quite well all on her own. With her realm already stretching from Syria to Egypt she launched further campaigns north, eventually reaching as far as Ankara, Turkey. She marched with her infantry and rode with her cavalry and became quite a celebrity by the standards of the day. After taking control of what is now Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, half of Turkey and the vital trade routes that passed through this area the warrior Queen of Palmyra finally attracted the attention of the Emperor himself.

The Roman Emperor Aurelian had been fighting Gaul, defeating the Alamanni in northern Italy and the Goths in the Balkans. Deciding to take the situation in hand himself, he embarked his legions and headed for Syria. Queen Zenobia was determined to meet them despite an oracle warning her that her forces would be driven off by the Romans like doves chased by hawks. Nonetheless, she led her troops into battle herself against Emperor Aurelian near Antioch. The result was a crushing defeat for Zenobia and another victory for the Romans. Her forces fled and Zenobia was taken prisoner. Turning on the charm, she pretended to be no more than beautiful dupe, an innocent used as a figurehead by her advisors who were responsible for the war. Sadly for her, the Emperor was not so gullible. He took her back to Rome and draped her in gold chains and heavy jewels as he paraded the captured queen consort in his celebratory triumph. What became of the famous Queen of Palmyra after that low point is a matter of some dispute.

Some say the Romans had her beheaded, others that the proud queen starved herself to death rather than live with defeat. Probably the most accepted account, however, is not so dramatic. According to this story she was released by Emperor Aurelian who had mercy on the beautiful, brave queen and gave her a villa in Trivoli. She later married a Roman senator and lived the good life for the rest of her days as a popular socialite and dabbling in philosophy. She had several daughters by her husband and died of natural causes sometime after 274 AD. This would have been quite a step down for a woman who had once dominated the near east, but compared to most of those who set themselves against the Roman Empire and lost, she came out pretty well.