Napoleon in Egypt

by Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti, Shmuel Moreh (Translator), Robert L Tignor (Introduction)

Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt in 1798 was the first contact between a Western power with imperial goals and an ancient regime of an African society. Sheik Al-Jabarti’s chronicle is a unique combination of historical narration and reflection combined with daily observations about the atmosphere in Cairo and the mood among the local population. The book is an Arab view of a turning point in modern history. This expanded edition celebrates the 250th anniversary of Al-Jabarti’s birth. The French view of these events is described by Napoleon’s secretary; Edward W. Said, Columbia University, provides a stinging critique of French preoccupation with Egypt and the resulting cultural “Orientalism”; Robert Tignor (Princeton University) provides a scintillating introduction. An additional chapter by editor Shmuel Moreh examines the Arabic interpretation of Al-Jabarti’s writings. Illustrated.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Middle East, Egypt, France

218 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1798

Reviews

[Peiman E iran · Rating 3 out of 5]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، چکیده ای از لشگرکشی «ناپلئون بناپارت» به سرزمینِ مصر و فریبِ و دروغِ جالب توجه وی و آنچه در مصر پیش آمد را در زیر برایتان مینویسم، که فکر میکنم برایتان جالب خواهد بود
---------------------------------------------
‎عزیزانم، هنگامی که ارتشِ ناپلئون در اول ژوئیه سال 1798 در نزدیکِ اسکندریه گام بر خاکِ سرزمینِ مصر نهاد، ناپلئون در اعلامیه ای که با عنوان: بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم و لا اله الاالله محمد رسول الله... آغاز میشد، خطاب به مردم مصر چنین گفت: ای مردمِ مصر، دشمنانِ ما به شما خواهند گفت که من آمده ام تا دینِ شما را از میان بردارم. به آنان گوش مکنید، زیرا که من بیشتر از خودِ شما به خداوند و رسول الله و قرآن احترام میگذارم و اساساً به خواستِ خداوندِ رب العالمین به این سرزمین آمده ام. از بزرگان و قاضیان و امامان میخواهم به مردم اطمینان بدهند که ما فرانسویان مسلمان هایِ راستینی هستیم که همین چند وقت پیش پاپ را به دلیلِ آنکه مسیحیان را به جانِ مسلمین انداخته بود، سخت گوشمالی دادیم
‎بله دوستان من، پس از مدتِ کوتاهی ناپلئون، در مصر نامش را به «علی بناپارت» تغییر داد و روزِ جمعه با لباسِ عربی و عمامه به مسجد رفت و حتی یکی از ژنرال هایِ فرانسویِ سپاهِ خویش را پس از ختنه کردن به دینِ اسلام دعوت کرد و نامِ آن ژنرال بیچاره را «عبدالله» نهاد
‎البته در این میان انگلیس بیکار ننشست و برایِ مقابله با رقیبش فرانسه، دست به سلاحِ خطرناکش یعنی ملّا و آخوندهایِ مسلمان و بی اصل و ریشه برد و با پرداختِ پول به آنها باعث شد تا این آخوندها مثل همیشه با فتواهایِ دروغین و کثیفشان، مردم ساده لوح را به بازی بگیرند... بنابراین فتواهایِ آخوندهای مصری سبب شد تا ماه عسلِ «ژنرال علی بناپارت پاشا» با مسلمانهایِ مصر در قاهره به پایان برسد و یکروز که وی به خارج از شهر برای سرکشی از سپاهیانش رفته بود. شورشی عمومی به تحریکِ آخوندهایِ بیشرف در قاهره صورت گرفت و مردم از جامع "الازهر" به خیابان ها و کوچه ها ریختند و در راهِ جهاد با فرانسوی هایِ مشرک و ملحد، هرچه توانستند خراب کردند و آتش زدند و بسیاری از مصریانی که با فرانسوی ها همکاری کرده بودند را گردن زدند و ژنرال برجستۀ ناپلئون را نیز به قتل رساندند
‎ناپلئون با شنیدن این خبر، شتابزده به قاهره بازگشت و شبانه آرایشِ جنگیِ ارتشِ خویش را سازمان داد و توپهایش را از بلندایِ قلعۀ معروف قاهره، به سمت "الازهر" نشانه گرفت... فردایِ آنروز سربازانِ فرانسوی به دنبالِ شورشیان و مردم افتادند و آنها را همچون گوسفند به سمتِ آغل و طویله هایِ اسلام یعنی "الازهر" هدایت کردند و کاری کردند که همه برای فرار به آنجا پناه ببرند، چنانچه تا نیمروز چیزی حدود 70 هزار نفر همچون گوسفند در آنجا وول میخوردند و در یکدیگر جمع شده بودند... این عده پس از برپا داشتنِ نماز ظهر با شنیدنِ خطبه های آتشین و حکم جهادِ امام جماعتِ بیخرد و بیشعور و از گوساله کمتر، خواستند به خیابان ها بریزند که با درهایِ بستۀ جامع "الازهر" مواجه شدند و در آنجا گیر افتادند... سپس ناپلئون دستورِ آتش داد و توپ هایِ فرانسوی، مثلِ مور و ملخ مردم احمق و ساده لوح را به هلاکت رساند و تا عصرِ آن روز، حدودِ 30 هزار جنازه به روی هم انباشته شده بود... مردم التماس میکردند که آنها را رها کنند و درها را باز کنند... سپس ناپلئون درها را گشود و مردم را آزاد کرد.. ولی سردمدارانِ این شورش را اعدام نمود و همهٔ آن بیشعورهایِ ابله را به هلاکت رساند
‎حال عزیزانم، دقت کنید که عکس العملِ مجتهد بزرگِ اسلام و مفتی اعظمِ موش صفتِ "الازهر" برای نجاتِ جان کثیف و بی ارزشِ خویش و دیگر آخوندها چه بود... این بی پدر و مادر در خطبهٔ نماز صبح به مردم گفت: شبانه خوابنما شدم و در خواب "رسول اکرم" با لحنی غضبناک به من گفت: شما به چه حقی با این «ناپلئون بناپارت» که کمربستۀ من است عناد و دشمنی کردید؟؟ او از جانب خداوند مأمور است تا مردمِ مصر را بابتِ معصیت و گناهانشان مجازات و کیفر دهد، پس همۀ شما باید بخاطرِ جسارت ها و بی احترامی هایی که به «ناپلئون بناپارت» کرده اید، استغفار کنید... سپس این مجتهد حرام زاده و بیشرف، لقبِ «خلیفة الله» را به ناپلئون چسباند
‎به هرحال ناپلئون آنجا ماندگار نشد... چراکه چندی بعد، خبرهایِ نگران کننده از پاریس به وی رسید.. و او به سمت فرانسه رهسپار شد و دیگر به مصر بازنگشت
---------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما دوستانِ اهلِ خرد، مفید بوده باشه و سبب شود تا آنرا از جهت هایِ گوناگون در ذهنتان تحلیل کنید و در آن بیاندیشید و سرنوشتِ بیچاره هایِ مصر را با بیخردهایِ ساکن در سرزمینمان که آلتِ دستِ ملاها و مجتهدهایِ دروغگو و بیشرف شده اند، مقایسه کنید... این مردمِ بیچاره و ناآگاه که اسیرِ دین و مذهب میشوند، همیشه قربانیِ دینفروشانِ کثیف بوده اند.. فرقی ندارد که در کجایِ این کرهٔ خاکی زندگی کنند... عزیزان و نورِ چشمانم، هیچ بیماری و هیچ طاعونی، به اندازهٔ ایمان و اعتقاداتِ دینی و مذهبی، در این کرهٔ خاکی، جانِ انسانها را به قتلگاه نکشانده است و نخواهد کشید... همیشه اعتقاداتِ دینی و مذهبی این مردمِ بیچاره، وسیله ای بوده است تا قدرتطلبان، از آنها بهره برده و مردمِ ساده لوح را همچون گوسفند به این سو و آن سو بکشند... ولی این بیچاره هایِ خرافاتی و ساده لوح نمیدانند که رفاقتِ گوسفند با قصاب، عاقبتِ خوبی نخواهد داشت
‎«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»

[Bob Newman · Rating 3 out of 5]

a very mixed bag

True confession---I only made it through 55-60% of this book. I didn’t read steadily after some time, but skipped around. There are three main sections besides the introduction, which initiates readers into the general historical background of the French invasion of Egypt in 1798. Napoleon wanted to control Egypt because 1) it was a major trading partner of France at the time, 2) it suited his sense of glory to be ruler of the ancient center of civilization and to expand Western knowledge of history, geography, and natural resources, and 3) to thwart British efforts to expand in the Middle East and to threaten their hold on India from which the French had been expelled not long before. This was not the first and definitely not the last attempt by a strong power to bring a weaker power under control for “the best of reasons” which prove historically to be weak justification.

The first section consists of an account by an Egyptian eyewitness. This is rare in historical annals because it has almost always been the Invader who writes the history of a particular conquest. How many Aztec or Maya accounts do we have of the Spanish invasions? What about Native American accounts from the first century of European invasion of North America? There are no Aboriginal accounts of invasion from Australia. What did the many African societies write about the conquest of their lands? Did they have a chance to write? That said, what Al-Jabarti wrote was aimed more at an Egyptian audience. There are lists of people who acted in a certain way, lists of people who said this or that, and short mentions of battles that occurred in places not found on the very skimpy map provided. The Egyptian author also devoted several pages to pointing out the grammatical mistakes in Arabic made in the French proclamations issued to the population. I’m afraid I skipped those pages. There are some interesting observations and negative comments on French behavior and the later inferiority complex of colonial days is entirely absent. While generally disliking the French (not surprisingly), Al Jabarti does admire their superior organization and their intellectual curiosity.

The second and third sections were easier for a Western reader, but much shorter. The second section is an account by a French aide to Napoleon of the same times, while the third is a reflection on the long-term effect of the brief occupation by none other than Edward Said of “Orientalism” fame, written around the same time as his famous book.

People engaged in the study of Napoleon, of Egypt or of European expansion will find this book very useful. For the merely curious reader, the prospect is not so wonderful. Once I read a book on the travels of Ibn Batutta (14th century). The author of the book DESCRIBED the travels with many a quote from the actual work. He did not try to translate directly because, as he noted, the concerns of that time are not the concerns of modern readers. I think the same tack might have been taken in this book too. It would have been a more successful gambit.

[Skallagrimsen]

An eyewitness account of the Napoleonic conquest of Egypt from the point of view of the conquered. Unsurprisingly, Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti disliked the French. He scorned their self justifying declaration to be liberating the people of Egypt from Mamluk tyranny. He scoffed at their disingenuous claim to admire the Muslim religion. He mocked at great (and rather pedantic) length their lack of facility in Arabic. He deplored the repressive and extortive policies of the colonial French government. He considered them filthy barbarians, atheists and thieves.

Yet at the same time, al-Jabarti also couldn't help paying the invaders some compliments. He admitted to the great learning and ingenuity of French scientists and scholars. He was impressed, if dismayed, by the discipline and efficiency of Napoleon's fighting forces: al-Jabharti even went to far as to compare them the Ghazi of old, the zealous warriors of the faith who fought beside the Prophet himself. He lamented the decrepit state of an Islamic civilization that could no longer boast their like.

Al-Jabarti's chronicle records a keen, objective intelligence grappling with the unwelcome realization that his own civilization had been surpassed. It's an essential document of the Napoleonic era from an all-too-often overlooked perspective.

[Phrodrick slowed his growing backlog · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am way short of being a scholar of things Egyptian. Over the years I have read a sampling of works by Middle Eastern authors, ancient and contemporary. Al Jabarti may have written important history. Those would be other books. His portion of the collection published here under the title Napoleon in Egypt, Al-Jabarti’s Chronicle was more of a diary. AS a history it is primitive. As much a collection of rumors and broadly linked events than a coherent narrative. “ And on that day” may work as a notation to yourself, or it may have been a period formulation but it makes for jarring reminders that history could be better written.
Because of the introduction and later included essays it can be understood that Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt was France’s first colonial attack on Africa, and was for the purpose of creating a path to attack England’s empire in India. Historian Al Jabarti likely had no way of knowing why the invasion happened, and may never have had a chance to learn it.

For all of its weaknesses there is a value in reading the contemporary observations of an occupied people. As a non-Western voice Al Jabarti is an important reminder that Euro-Centric is not the only POV nor does the world exist to serve Euro-Centric narratives. In this instance he is the voice of an invaded people, taken from whatever was a normal life into one under the control of strangers, with a strange language, possibly no religion and in general” Not like us”. Al Jabarti found much to criticize, some things worth thinking about and a preference for keeping life as it had been, if only because that was what was familiar.

A basic history needs to be a clear and consistent relation of what event happened in what order , if possible why they happened and what was the outcome. It should be clear what can be documented or at least what was rumored to have happened over what can be proved to have happened. My sense was that AL J was as willing to repeat rumor as to report fact. Clearly, he had no entred into Napoleons’ inner circle, but he gives little evidence that he had entree into any of the power centers working for or against the invaders. At one point he had a role in one of the governing bodies created by Napoleon, but these were poorly reported.

Al Jabarti was not impressed with Napoleon’s cover story that he was pro-Muslim. He admired the military discipline of the French army even as he reports, fact and rumors about the thievery and rapaciousness of many of its soldiery. We can credit Al Jabarti the historian for making some effort to credit the invaders as well as disparage them. He was in a difficult position where being fair in the name of history and avoiding the cost of being thought an apologist or worse a collaborator.

Providing a contrast with AlJaparti’s notations about the event of this seven-month period there is an essay by a French Officer, Napoleon Private Secretary Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne. The contrast in both style and content are worth pondering. Fauvelet de Bourrienne reports the same events but through entirely different eyes. F de B is a friend of the court and while he would defend at swords point the integrity of his version; his was the view from the center of French power structure and blind to the event on the streets. More critically blind to and ignorant of the various major players among the contending Egyptian elites.

Most frustrating was the essay by Edward W. Said. I have read his book on Orientalism. I agree with much of his hypothesis. Much if not all western studies of the East are distorted by the various effects of prior and frequently painfully biased western scholars. Even so I was frustrated with his refusal to see beyond his bête noire and failing to suggest alternatives or to provide positive examples.

In this case he was very bitter about the biased scholarship that had inspired Napoleon to invade Egypt and ugly about the way the scholars, or savants chosen to accompany the invaders, willingly helped to re-create Egypt as in orbit around the naturally European center of civilization. At no point does he mention that Egypt had been subjugated by what was then a dying Turkish Empire, who had subordinated the local narrative to the needs of the Ottoman Empire or that before the Ottoman, Egypt had been invaded and re-written to suit the needs of what Said calls, the Islamic religion.

This point is made explicit in the final essay by Israeli scholar (and translator of Al Jabarti’s Chronical) Shmeul Moreh.

There is a lot in this Expanded Edtion of Napoleon in Egypt by Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti. It is also generously illustrated. However this version of the Al Jabarti history of this period is of limited value . This is one person’s view point. His POV is aware of how it might be received in an Egyptian Court of review and is too jumbled to be much more than a list of impression. The rest of the included material helps but the readership for this book is going to be smaller than it could have been.

[Murtaza · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of those rare glimpses into the experience of colonialism from the side of the colonized. France's invasion of Egypt in 1798 was the opening salvo in a long battle for control of the Middle East which continues to rage on in varied forms to this day. Al-Jabarti was an Egyptian chronicler of this episode, and his account is like a time capsule of a world no longer in existence.

One thing that comes across in this account is the absence of the inferiority complex which the East now feels towards the West. Jabarti represents is self-assured and generally scathing and contemptuous towards the French. He excoriates them for hygiene, godlessness and for killing their "Sultan", though he expresses admiration and at times awe for their military esprit de corps and scientific knowledge. Much the same animated later Islamic thinkers who advocated adoption of Western technological advances and methods of organization while wanting to maintain their own culture, this was the experience which first triggered it.

Another thing that was striking were how many similarities there were between this encounter and America's essentially colonial war in Iraq. An almost messianic yet self-interested focus on wiping out the old regime of the Mamluks (read: Baathists), hubris, self-exaltation, sense of a civilizing mission, the organization of governing subcommittees among the natives, the breakdown in law and order, the heavy-handed brutality of the occupiers - its all played out here.

As it is said in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun. History has repeated itself again and again since that first moment French ships landed on the shores of late-19th century Egypt.

[Derek · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite Al-Jabarti's ubiquitous elitism (the poor are almost unanimously "rabble" or "riff-raff" or "mobs" and other derogatory terms, although this may be partially the result of translation), he is very humorous and presents a very lucid description of the complexities and dynamics involved in Napolean's conquest of Egypt. There were times I literally laughed out loud at Jabarati's comments, even if he may have not intended them to be humorous. An example can be seen when Al-Jabarti is criticizing the document presented to the Egyptian people by the French during Napoleon's occupation (1798):

"His statement 'waa Hasratan' (unfortunately), probably it is 'wa-khuSuSan' (especially), because this word has no place here, for 'waa Hasratan' is a word expressing affliction and the context does not permit it here. Its occurrence here is like animal droppings on the road or a boulder in a mountain pass, may God afflict the man who composed it with break-bone fever and may God expose him to all sorts of destruction."

I couldn't help but think I hope my friends who speak Arabic fluently don't think of me the same way when I try to articulate my broken Arabic into written sentences!

Another example is when Jabarati is describing the uprising that took place by certain segments of the 'ulama and the poor in Cairo against Napoleon:

"They [the common people] did and said all kinds of unheard of things. They fabricated all sorts of lies. It happened that someone would start a lie or invent a falsehood in which they would rejoice without any proof of its validity. Then they would applaud it by clapping and making noises with their hands under their armpits."

LOL! He clearly wasn't fond of people making noises with their armpits. Despite Jabarati sounding like a cranky old man, his account of Napoleon's conquest is profoundly human, and he presents it as such an encounter. It's a great read.

[Brandon · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting chronicle about the French invasion of Egypt under Napoleon. The best parts of the book have nothing to do with him, and often little to do with the French at all. Rather, Jabarti successfully documents legal and financial processes within the Egyptian state during the period of French domination, and opens a window into life for Egyptians at the conclusion of the 18th century.

I would recommend this to my friend Carter.

[Sloane Deterding · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this for class. Honestly it was a really solid historical account and not difficult to understand, its just not my kind of book.

[Victoria Vetterl · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a primary source, this was excellent. It's not often that we get to see the perspective of the conquered people during a momentous period of time, and I found it fascinating at how detailed al-Janarti's accounting of Napolean's occupation of Egypt actually was.

I did read this for school, and I appreciate what it was meant to be for. 3/5 stars, because I could not handle another page and half of listed names (very similar to some of the Roman histories I've had to read in the past).

[Kenneth Meyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Essential for the student of the Middle East, but interesting for everyone.
When I was an exchange student in Egypt (eons ago), one of my professors said, "The modern history of Egypt begins with the invasion of Napoleon." At the time, I wondered why. After all, he was only there for one year (1798-99). But when you take a look at this volume, which very usefully has al-Jabarti and the account of Napoleon's secretary, Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne, side by side, you begin to see why modern Egypt (and we might say the modern Middle East--that strange concept) begins with this invasion.
Napoleon was a gambler and this is nowhere more clear than in this invasion, in which he barely evaded the British navy and got the troops ashore, then smashed the Mameluke forces repeatedly, using the then-current formations of infantry in square and other tactics, with superior rifles, and cannons, against horsemen with outmoded long rifles. That invasion was a wake-up call for the Egyptians, the Ottomans, and, well, everyone in that region. The fact that later Napoleon fled, his fleet was destroyed, and his men captured, did not alter the long-term effects of his invasion. In fact, it can be argued that the French "won" the war for long-term influence, since when Muhammad Ali (ruled 1805-1848) held Egypt under his sway he consistently used French military instructors, French doctors, French city-planners, and so on.
The arrangement of this volume, with its Egyptian and French accounts together, is intelligent and useful. From de Bourriene's account we see that the French forces were harried constantly, but also Napoleon's clever PR announcements, as in, "I'm Muslim too!" Etc. Such pronouncements, if not convincing in the long-term, nevertheless kept the population off-balance. Al-Jabarti, on the other hand, is having none of this invasion from the beginning. He criticizes the bad Arabic of the French announcements, is not impressed with most of French science, and wishes the invaders would be gone. Generally, he blames the Mamelukes for their incompetence and continuing disarray.
Not least of the interesting points of this volume are the notes on Napoleon's casual thinking, as shared with his secretary: "If we had 50,000 more men, we could march through Iran!" etc. There was nothing small-scale about Napoleon's plans or idle thoughts.
A useful work to include in a course on the history of the modern Middle East. But also, just plain fascinating. Enjoy.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent collection not only of Abd' Al-Rahman Al-Jabarti's Chronicle of the First Seven Months of the French Occupation of Egypt, but also the accompanying French perspective in the memoirs of Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne (Napoleon's private secretary), as well as an excellent excerpt from Edward Said's Orientalism and an unfortunately orientalist essay by Shmuel Moreh.

Al-Jabarti's Chronicle provides an excellent and often unconsidered perspective of how Egyptians actually felt about Napoleon's colonial expedition and peculiar orientalist mission in Egypt.

Putting Al-Jabarti's Chronicle together with Bourrienne's memoirs paints a fascinating portrait of Napoleon as an opportunist who viewed religion only as a tool of political control. In his decree to the Alexandrians, Napoleon pronounces the bismillah and renounces the divinity of Christ, proclaims the French as true muslims, and vows to defend Islam. Further, Bourrienne notes that it was entirely possible that Napoleon would have "changed his religion had the conquest of the East been the price of that change." Next to 'what if Napoleon had chosen to ally himself with Toussaint Louverture rather than invading Haiti,' 'what if Napoleon had strategically converted to Islam in order to form an Egyptian sister republic/cosplay as Alexander in an invasion of British India' is probably one of the most interesting alternative histories to me.

[Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I read this book in a 'funny order', as I was using it for research purposes, I have consumed a lot of this book. It's interesting and authentic to have the two parts of this book written by people who were on the ground at the time. The writing by Bourrienne is easily available online, but it makes for striking reading alongside the Arab view.

[Emily Gambrel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for class. The French perspective was very interesting, but I have to say Al-Jabarti’s section was very dry. Overall, though, a very solid read on history from both the French and Egyptian perspective of the French occupation.

[Rachel]

My class tonight came to the consensus that reading this chronicle was like sitting down on the bus and an 80 year old man just starts rambling to you about his life and you just keep nodding but you don't understand anything

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting book. Has two interesting accounts from both sides. I’ve never read about this event before. I learned a lot.

[Lauren Hegedus · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a thing I can now say that I’ve read, but please for the love of humanity do not ask me a single thing about this book.

[Rachel Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting to see the difference in perspective -- colonized vs. colonizer.

[Ctny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although Al-Jabarti is pervasively used as a source by Napoleon scholars, many overlook the grievances he documents and broaches about the unprovoked French occupation from 1798-1801. Part of this I feel is the Western habit of disregarding societal complaints made by non-Westerners, especially Muslims. I found the backstories and descriptions of the French tax and civil reforms fascinating. The blatant hypocrisy of the French military administration, freshly baptised by their own revolution based on the ideas of equality and liberty from the Enlightenment, to invade and subjate another nation in the name of imperial competiton made me reconsider what I thought I knew about this era and its history. Al-Jabarti is a must read for the historiographies of the Levant, Napoleon,Modern Egypt, or Franco-Islamic relations.

[Mary Wyman · Rating 2 out of 5]

I only read this book for my history class.
Still good, but very long and, personally, boring.
But to all those who like to read history . . . Enjoy :)

[Yvonne O'Connor · Rating 3 out of 5]

* Read for Class

This book, written from a Muslim's viewpoint, details Napoleon's years in Egypt in the 1800's (before he proclaimed himself ruler of France.). We learn how the French planned to use Egypt to access India and attempt to defeat the English - reopening trade routes. We see the tactics employed, and, how the British convinced the Turks over to their side, ultimately dooming the French (and the Egyptians as Britain occupied until the 1950's.). The book also has a short excerpt written by a French soldier which defends Napoleon.

We rarely study any of this part of history, so it was interesting to see what Napoleon had done prior to coming to true power.

[Dillon Tatum · Rating 5 out of 5]

Primary source on French Colonialism in Egypt, written by an Egyptian witness to the event. Covers the first 6 months of the occupation. The translation is fantastic, and included in the book is an account of Napoleon's private secretary, a great introduction, and an essay by Edward Said, all of which are very stimulating.

[Zachary Hudson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book was fairly decent as it explored French involvement in Egypt toward the late 18th century. There was a great deal of raping and pillaging, but the author used far too many ambiguous cases like "they" "them" etc.

[Siv · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fascinating historical work written in a style I had never read before. It provides such a fun glimpse into what this specific moment meant for the history of Egypt and the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately, it’s not a very captivating reading (at least I didn’t find it to be).

(3.5/5)

[Megan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really interesting primary source, but as someone who knows zero Arabic, I got a little lost at times with terminology and names.

[Tefa Salem · Rating 5 out of 5]

thanks

[Kk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for a class.. its great if you want to read a first hand account of Napoleons invasion of Egypt. al-Jabarti was rather critical of the French.

[Mimi · Rating 5 out of 5]

good