Contrary to Oromos & Somalis, the Masriyin (Christian or Muslim Egyptians), as subjects of the Mamluks and the French, have had no National Identity – Part V

With the present article, I complete the publication of my extensive response to a US-based Oromo scholar, intellectual and activist, who asked my opinion about the possibility of the Oromo liberation movements to cooperate systematically with the government of Egypt on the basis of a plan providing for the liberation of Biyya Oromo and for the cancellation of the disastrous dam built on the Blue Nile in Benishangul province (Abyssinia, Fake Ethiopia). The first four articles are here:

Oromos, Egypt, the Nile, Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia), and the True Essence of Colonialism – Part I

The Enemies of Oromos & their Deeds: First & Second Colonization, Jesuit Reductions, Renaissance, and the Historical Revisionism of Racist Colonials – Part II

Intellectual Colonialism in Egypt: How Egyptian Fake Universities & Obsolete Education destroy Cairo’s Chances to ally with Oromos & Sudan’s Arabic-speaking Cushites – Part III

Egyptians: Deaf to the Oromo Insurrection against Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia) and Blind to Abyssinian Prophecies about Egypt’s Annihilation – Part IV

In this -fifth and last- part, I give historical examples of the degradation and the transformation of Masr (Egypt) from a fully-fledged Ottoman province to a shameful, disgusting and miserable colony of France, England and America during the 19th, 20th and 21st c. What happened in the Nile Valley ever since Napoleon disembarked in Abuqir/Alexandria predetermined to the slightest details all the developments that took place and all the disastrous, colonial, socio-economic, academic-educational-intellectual-cultural conditions that prevailed in that unfortunate land.

In other words, in this part of my response, I will explain historically what inevitably led Egypt to the current ignorance and obscurantism that prevail across the country’s universities and educational system in general only to prevent the Egyptians (average people, elites and governments) from even knowing about real threats against their own existence.  

I. The Long and Heavy Shadow of the Mamluks: ‘Misir’ (Egypt) as ‘Land of the Turks’

Before Napoleon arrived in Masr (Egypt) the local population identified themselves as Ottomans, pretty much like the then ‘Tunisians’, ‘Yemenites’, ‘Syrians’, ‘Iraqis’, ‘Greeks’ and many others. Misir (Mısır) was known as Mısır Eyaleti or Mısır Beylerbeyliği, which are terms of the Ottoman administrative organization. Here you have all the names of the Ottoman administrators of Misir and of Arabistan:ısır_Eyaletiı_Arabistanı

The Ottoman province of Misir (‘Egypt’) had particular problems that originated from situations generated long before the Ottoman occupation of Misir (1517, by Sultan Selim I, who became the first Ottoman to the Caliph of Islamic Caliphate). As one can easily find in books, articles and entries to encyclopedias, before the Ottoman arrival, Misir (‘Egypt’) was ruled successively by two Mamluk dynasties.

When today’s idiotic pro-Western Egyptian journalists, politicians and pseudo-academics distort the historical truth, saying that ‘Egypt’ was a colony of the Ottoman Empire, they are talking nonsense, being evidently bribed by criminal French, English and American diplomats in order to precisely diffuse the lies that their colonial masters want to impose in order to promote their historical falsification and revisionism. The easier answer to today’s Egyptian monkeys of anti-Ottoman and anti-Turkish propaganda is that, before the arrival of Misir’s liberator Sultan Selim I, Misir (Egypt) had already been ruled for hundreds of years by Turanian (Turkic) foreigners, who tyrannized the local population and were extremely loathed by them, namely the Mamluks.

The two Mamluk dynasties ruled Misir for more than 250 years (1250-1517); but before these two dynasties were established, Mamluks had existed in Misir (Egypt) for hundreds of years and ruled the country repeatedly. Mamluk soldiers were numerous in the camps of the Ayubid dynasty (1171-1260) and in the army of the Fatimid Caliphate (909-1171) that were both headquartered at Cairo for most of their duration. Basic bibliography can be found here:

Earlier and quite similarly, the Ikhshidid dynasty (935–969) and the Tulunid dynasty (868–905) were launched by Mamluks, again with capital located at the area of Cairo. Search bibliography here:



Ibn Tulun Mosque, Cairo

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid

The fragmentation of the Abbasid Caliphate

Fatimid Cairo

Mamluk of the Fatimid times

Fatimid Art

The Walls of the Ayyubid rulers of Cairo

DRAMCJ Cairo, Egypt – The Tombs of the Mamluks

Western colonial historians erroneously call ‘Mamluks’ only the Bahri (1250-1382) and the Burji (1382-1517) dynasties.

Mamluk embroidery

Diagram of a Mamluk parade ground

Mamluk calligraphy

Mamluk horsemen depicted in a miniature

Mamluk essay on cavalry

Mamluks with lance-heads between each other’s shoulder-blades

Sultan al-Ghuri’s mausoleum – After Selim I invaded Cairo (1517), the Mamluk military class remained in power as these experienced soldiers and officers guaranteed social security and imperial integrity. There was no Mamluk dynasty anymore, but Mamluk military force.

Venitian embassy in Mamluk Damascus – 1511

The Ottoman Mamluk Ibrahim Bey: 18th-19th c.

Ibrahim Bey’s mansion on Al-Rudah Island


The Mamluks did not appear first in Misir; they constituted a significant part of the army of the Abbasid Caliphate since the early establishment of the second Islamic Caliphate in 750. The need for well-experienced soldiers and officers across the vast Caliphate allowed the Turanian (Turkc) Mamluks to spread throughout its almost infinite territories: from Central Asia and the Indus River Valley to Misir (Egypt) and the African Atlas. The Turanian (Turkc) Mamluks came to the Abbasid Caliphate form today’s NE Iran, Central Asia and Eastern Turkestan (Xinkiang, NW China), Siberia, and the plains of today’s Russia, Ukraine and Eastern Europe where various Turanian (Turkc) nations had already migrated to.

Unlike the Seljuks, the Timurids and many others, the Mamluks were not one family or nation that migrated to a new location and obtained local power in the area of their final settlement. The Mamluks were a rather unorganized class of Muslim soldiers of mainly Turanian (Turkic) origin. Turkic languages were their means of military communication and organization; Farsi was their cultural language; and Arabic was their religious language. Initially, they were a means of Abbasid military strength, as soldiers-slaves.

But when Baghdad became the capital of an unprecedentedly large empire, compared to which the Iranian Achaemenid Empire of Darius I the Great or the Roman Empire of the time of Trajan appeared as minor kingdoms, the structure at the elite of the Caliphate changed dramatically. With the rise of the Turanian-Iranian family of the Barmakian in power, the imperial control went out of the hands of the Caliph; the administration, the trade, the military affairs, the internal security, the foreign affairs, and above all, the progress in sciences, exploration, knowledge, wisdom, spirituality, arts and architecture were impossible to be supervised by one human being.

It was then that experienced Turanian military officers, sent by the Baghdad administration, arrived in various provinces of the Caliphate for some military reasons and, after settling troubles for local security, they became the de facto local rulers; they were paying tribute to, and recognizing the supreme authority of. the Caliph whose power was however only nominal. The phenomenon occurred in many provinces of the Abbasid Caliphate and after the second half of the 9th c., the Caliph was merely a decorative figurehead.

The Mamluks were formed following the progressive, independent arrival of various soldiers or small groups of soldiers, who intended to capitalize on their military skills and were therefore wholeheartedly accepted by a Mamluk ruler. Consequently, they functioned as an independent military class, which gradually acquired self-consciousness in defending common interests, looting common targets, and increasing their common wealth. Their initially small number increased over time, because more soldiers and officers were arriving from other countries to places where there was an important demand.

This development happened for various reasons, as no one had borders to cross when traveling from today’s Northern India, Eastern Europe, Siberia and China to Iraq, Yemen, Misir or the African Atlas. Some moved across great distances to spend a soldier’s life before establishing a wealthy family in faraway lands, because they were just looking for a prosperous job; others left their countries because of attacks and invasions undertaken by other Turanians with whom they did not have good relations; furthermore, local youth enrolled in their military organization, and actually in Misir many Copts accepted Islam in order to have an outstanding future as member of the Mamluk class. There were certainly intermarriages with the local populations in the Valley of the Nile, in the Indus River Valley, and in many other provinces of the Caliphate, but this did not affect the local population ethnically. The Copts, Muslim or Christian, remained the outright majority of Misir.

One must not confuse the military class of the Mamluks with the names of the Islamic times’ local dynasties of Misir. Some of the Mamluks did indeed found dynasties to rule the country as hereditary rulers recognizing the Caliph’s authority (as I already said), but in fact these sultans or emirs or khans were merely the most influential officers among the local group of Mamluks in every place/province of the Caliphate. Western colonial historians, Islamologists and Orientalists confuse the average reader with their erroneous and exclusive appellation of the Bahri dynasty (1250-1382) and the Burji dynasty (1382-1517) as “Mamluk dynasties”.

In fact, the Ikhshidid dynasty and the Tulunid dynasty were also “Mamluk dynasties”. And more importantly, after the fall of a Mamluk dynasty, the Mamluks -as a military class- were not dissolved, because they were absolutely necessary for the defense or the expansion of the local territory by the following dynasty. That’s why, when Selim I invaded Misir and eliminated the Burji dynasty (1517), he kept the main force of the Mamluks as an organized military unit for the local – regional defense and imperial expansion.

So, in fact, when it comes to Misir (‘Egypt’), from ca. 850 until 1798 (when Napoleon arrived there), for no less than 950 years, the Mamluks constituted the main local force of military and administrative rule. If one puts aside the colonial propaganda, forgery and fallacious historiography and if one examines the historical sources and the terminology that they use, one gets greatly astonished with the unprecedented, and enormous colonial distortions. All Arabic historical sources called the state of the Bahri dynasty “Dawlat al Atrak” (the state of the Turks / دولة الاتراك‎) and the Burji dynasty “Dawlat al Djarakisa” (the state of the Çerkeş or Circassians / دولة الجراكسة). Egypt was a ‘Turkic’ (Turanian) state.î_Memlûklerî_Memlûklerûk_sultanları_listesiûk

II. The Death of Kemet (Ancient Egypt) at the Hands of the Christian Copts

In fact, there was no ‘Egyptian’ nation in the historical sense as the term was used during the Christian and Islamic times by the Iranians, the Turanians, the Eastern Romans, the Georgians, the Cushitic Makurians (of Christian Sudan/Ethiopia), and many others at the time. However, for this fact neither the Turanians nor Islam can be held responsible. During the Islamic times (642-1798) all the local populations identified themselves as Christians or Muslims of Masr (Kemet / ‘Egypt’). However, the loss of the Ancient ‘Egyptian’, i.e. Kemetian, Heritage and Identity was of absolutely Coptic Christian responsibility.

This topic goes out of the scope of my present response, but I have to stress here the point that you must forget once for all the fake presentation of the History of Egypt by Western colonial Orientalists, who depict the Ancient Egyptians as a ‘peaceful’, ‘tolerant’ and ‘moderate’ nation. Kemet (Masr / ‘Egypt’) was always a land of extreme violence, overwhelming polarization, civil strives, religious wars, and much bloodshed; and it was very good like that, because this is Human History and this happened everywhere. Today’s soft power is an execrable and evil monstrosity that irreversibly destroys and corrupts all the nations, thus turning humans to useless inhuman beasts.

The same concerns also Christianity, which shed much more blood -in order to be diffused and imposed as official religion throughout the Roman Empire- than Islam. Vicious English, French and American historians and bribed, pathetic, Zionist journalists, acting like the world’s worst gangsters, persistently propagate their fallacy about Islam, as the religion that was spread by the sword; but they commit a Crime against the Mankind, hiding the historical truth about the extreme persecution to which were subjected a) followers of all ancient religions (Aramaean, Anatolian, Phoenician, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Jewish and other), who were dealt with extreme prejudice as deniers of the divine salvation, b) Arians, Marcionists, Docetists, Christian Gnostics, Monophysists, Nestorians and many others, who were considered as ‘heretics’ by the official Christian Churches, and c) Gnostics, Manichaeans, Iconoclasts, Paulicians, and all those, who were viewed as magicians, astrologers, alchemists and experts in spirituality and prohibited sciences.

One of the Roman Empire’s worst cases of bloodshed took place in Kemet (Egypt), when the Christians, after having been terribly persecuted (during the 2nd and the 3rd c.), started oppressing their opponents ferociously, killing the followers of Ancient Egyptian religions indiscriminately, and burning or demolishing temples (during the 4th, 5th, and 6th c.). Bibliography can be found here:

The diffusion of Christianity in Kemet (Egypt) was one of World History’s worst cases of extreme and paranoid fanaticism and it caused a detrimental local disaster in terms of national identity preservation, cultural heritage appreciation, moral value veneration, and historical grandeur commemoration. The Copts hated their country’s past that they erroneously and self-catastrophically assessed as entirely polytheistic; they rejected three and half millennia of Kemet’s (Egypt’s) unequalled civilizational mastership and unmatched spiritual supremacy. Among all ancient nations, only the Sumerians and the Akkadians (: Assyrians and Babylonians) can be compared to the Ancient Egyptians in terms of determinant historical impact on all the other -spiritually, culturally and intellectual inferior- nations, like the Greeks, the Hebrews and the Romans.

Coptic Christianity obliterated Kemet (Ancient Egypt) more resolutely than the Aramaeans and the Phoenicians destroyed their pre-Christian past, more decisively that the Greeks erased their idolatrous barbarism, and more overwhelmingly than the Romans annihilated their polytheistic heritage. This is very easy to assess by means of an astounding comparison: Aramaeans and Aramaized Babylonians, Phoenicians and Palestinians retained their Aramaic writing after they accepted Christianity; Greeks preserved their Greek writing after becoming Christian; and Romans maintained their Latin alphabet after adopting the official Roman Christianity.



Coptic manuscript: already the Coptic writing consists in a resolute and irrevocable rejection of 3400 years of Ancient Kemetian / Egyptian Civilization and Cultural Heritage

Coptic Art

In Kemet (Egypt), Christianization meant the absolute rejection of Ancient Pharaonic Heritage

Coptic wall painting

The Temple of Isis at Philae (5 km south of Aswan) became a Coptic church after 537 CE

Coptic wall painting from Wadi Natrun monasteries

Robert Trewick, Hypatia: a typically Western European delusion about the period of clashes between the Christened Copts and the Ancient Kemetians / Egyptians and Greeks of Alexandria

Typical 19th c. colonial misrepresentation of the historical truth about the assassination of Hypatia by Christian Copts who rejected the evil pansexualism and the execrable immorality of the degraded and demented followers of ancient cults


However, Copts rejected all forms of Ancient Egyptian writing (hieroglyphic, hieratic and demotic) and adopted the Coptic alphabet, which was incepted in the beginning of the 2nd c. BCE. The Coptic alphabet was composed mainly on the basis of the Greek alphabet, with the addition of extra characters derived from Demotic writing for phonemes that did not exist in Greek. Following the 4th c. extensive massacres perpetrated by Christian Copts against their compatriots, who firmly preserved their faiths, i.e. the different religions of Ancient Kemet (Egypt) and the various other spiritual systems (notably Manichaeism, Hermetism, and various Gnostic systems, Christian or not), and after the interdiction of all ancient cults and temples across the Roman Empire by the Roman Emperor Theodosius (391), the hieroglyphic and demotic writings were limited among the remaining believers of the various forms of religion of Ancient Kemet (Egypt). The last hieroglyphic text seems to have been written in 394; this is the famous graffito of Esmet-Akhom from the Temple of Isis at Philae Island, 5 km south of Aswan. The inscription and bibliography can be found here:

The last demotic text was written in 452, again at the Temple of Isis at Philae Island.


The last hieroglyphic and demotic inscriptions (end of 4th and middle of 5th c. CE) are saved on the walls of the Isis Temple at the Island of Philae, 5km south of Aswan

All the same, when Justinian I, emperor of the Roman Empire, issued a decree (537) to close down the last non-Christian temple that was still functioning in the empire, namely the Temple of Isis at Philae Island, the prohibition of sacrifices was viewed as the final termination of all forms of spirituality and religion of Ancient Kemet (Egypt) and at the same time, as the irrevocable end of the Ancient Kemetians (Egyptians) as a historical nation (at the spiritual, academic, cultural, intellectual and socio-behavioral levels). Ethnically and linguistically, the Kemetians remained absolutely the same nation – as Christian Copts. Texts and bibliography can be found here:

In fact, the ethnic composition did not change and the language was preserved (Coptic being the latest phase of the language of Ancient Kemet / ‘Egypt’), although written in a different writing, but the cultural identity of pre-Christian Kemet had totally disappeared before the arrival of Islam few decades later. There was no major achievement, among Ancient Kemet’s majestic contributions to World Civilization, of which a Christian Copt would feel proud in the year 600. When the Islamic armies arrived in Alexandria, the Copts were a Christian nation with no pre-Christian past. This determined most of the developments that followed until the arrival of Napoleon in Misir (Egypt).

III. Kemet – Misir (‘Egypt’): a Permanent, Secret Destination for Western Europeans after the End of the Crusades

The previous two units help explain quite well why modern Masriyin (‘Egyptians’) did not constitute a nation like others; this situation was not a secret for Western Europeans. During the period 1400-1800, many dozens of Western European explorers, travelers, agents, pilgrims, researchers, merchants, antiquaries, and diplomats (or persons cumulating two or more of the aforementioned functions) traveled in the Orient, because of the tolerance and the naivety of the Ottoman Sultans, the Iranian Shahs, and the Great Mughal Emperors.

The independent Western European travelers were fewer during the 14th c. and scarce during the Crusades (1095-1291), but at that time many theologians, authors, priests, monks, and chronicle-writers moved to the Orient along with the Crusaders. Contrarily, during the period 632-1095, the travelers, pilgrims and writers, who moved from Western Europe to the Orient and wrote about it, were extremely rare.

An idea about the 14th c. Western European travelers and their description of Misir, one can get here:

When it comes to Western European travelers in Misir (Voyageurs occidentaux en Égypte) during the period 1400-1800, only the Cairo-based IFAO (Institut français d’archéologie orientale) has published about 25 works written by some of them.

Approximately 250 authors have published reports about their travels to Misir before the 18th c.; indicatively:

The aforementioned points and plenty of other indicators demonstrate that different Western European circles and centers of power never forgot the Crusades and, after being kicked out of the Orient, they always wanted to return in a form; certainly there were diverse perceptions of the Orient and of its value and use by -the often opposite to one another- Western European elites. The illustrious, 17th – 18th c. German sage Gottfried Wilhelm (von) Leibniz is historically the first to be credited with the idea of a French invasion of ‘Egypt’ and of a re-opening of the Old Suez Canal; this was merely an attempt to divert the then French king Louis XIV from an impending attack against the small German states. The idea was submitted to the Elector of Mainz, who was one of the seven Princes of the Holy Roman Empire; however, the end result is that the French king was not convinced. In this regard, it is mere historical irony that Napoleon came to learn about this suggestion, which is recorded in the German states’ archives, only after his return from Egypt to Western Europe.

Leibniz’s design in his legendary “Dissertatio De Arte Combinatoria”

The situation in 18th c. Misir was almost out of the hands of the sultans whose constant wars against Iran, Russia and the Holy Roman Empire (later known as Austria-Hungary) prevented them from focusing on other provinces of their vast empire. The Mamluks as the military force, the appointed Vali {as local governor and supreme administrator:} and the local Mufti (reporting to the Grand Mufti at Constantinople) along with the theological administration of Al Azhar Mosque constituted the provincial elite. But in reality, the omnipotence of the Mamluk officers was almost uncontrollable and uncontainable.

Many of the Western European travelers, who acted as colonial agents, reported the insightful details, described the prevailing situation, determined the feasibility of an invasion, and suggested the various transformations and the possible changes that the French could trigger in order to both, destabilize and progressively demolish the Ottoman Empire and also continue competing with the English in their ferocious colonial antagonism. Particularly after the Treaty of Paris (1763), which marked the end of the Seven Years’ War, the antagonism became fierce, and the French wanted to stop the English colonial advance in ‘India’ (after the three Carnatic wars). It was common for various French officers to presumably offer their services to the stupid sultans, hypocritically convert to Islam, and subsequently send key info back to France. A typical case was Claude Alexandre de Bonneval who died as Humbaracı Ahmet Paşa, after helping the Ottomans to win over the Austrians (something that was also desirable for the French) and flooding the French kings with nauseating details and military assessments of the Ottoman army. This was indeed only a minor episode within the very wide context of the so-called Franco-Ottoman alliance (started in 1536), which was a vicious colonial trickery to infiltrate and erode the Ottoman enemy from within. 

Humbaraci Ahmed Pasha’s tomb

In the year Napoleon was born (1769), Choiseul (Étienne François, Marquis de Stainville, Duc de Choiseul), chief minister of Louis XV, considered the possibility of a colonial invasion of Egypt as the correct alternative to an eventual loss of France’s colonial possessions in America. Talleyrand (Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord), Foreign Minister of Directoire’s France and adherent to Choiseul’s diplomatic practices and methods, described the details of the plan to Napoleon several months before the preparations for the campaign started in 1797.

Louis Michel Van Loo’s portrait of Choiseul

Only 21 years before Napoleon’s expedition to Misir (Egypt; 1798), an obscure figure of Hungarian origin, French birth, evil duplicity, and utmost hypocrisy, François Baron de Tott, after having mendaciously helped the Ottoman Empire against Russia, undertook a 2-year travel across many provinces of the Caliphate, under various pretexts, only to spy and report the conditions of daily life, social organization, military defense, and many other detailed observations that were carefully used later, during the preparation of Napoleon’s expedition. His voluminous memoirs (Sur les Turcs et les Tartares / On the Turks and the Tatars) were published already before the French revolution. Here you can read them:

François Baron de Tott underscored what was already obvious long ago: Misir was the weak ring of the Ottoman chain. Any French attack or military expedition against the N-NW African provinces of the Caliphate would be a relatively easy success, but of minor importance. Any attack against Phoenicia-Syria or Palestine would be very difficult and eventually a failure. In the Balkans and in the East (Caucasus and Mesopotamia), the Ottomans concentrated the bulk of their most experienced and best trained forces against the Austrians, the Russians and the Iranians.  

However, in Misir (Egypt), the prevailing local discontent with the Mamluks, the minimal imperial control, and the absence of special forces made of the area a relatively easy military target. Even more importantly, every army that would disembark in Alexandria would automatically be at only 300 km distance from the Red Sea, thus having the ability to further sail free and unhindered to the vast lands of South and Southeast Asia. The concept of what we now call the Suez Canal appears in François Baron de Tott’s texts, but this was not new; one can find it even in his readings!

And this characterized always the case of Western colonials: before traveling, they had already read all the Ancient Greek and Latin texts, descriptions and references pertaining to the Orient. Then, when they were moving across parts of the Orient, they were trying -with their sick minds- to find what they had read, which is sheer paranoia, if one takes into consideration the millennia that had meanwhile passed. More specifically, in his case, the reading was about the Old Suez Canal that was linking the Eastern Delta with the Red Sea, which was initially built by Senusret III and successively re-opened by Nechao II (of the 26th so-called ‘Libyan’, i.e. Berber, dynasty) and the Achaemenid Iranian Darius I the Great.

Darius the Great’s Suez Inscriptions: Birth Certificate of the Silk Roads

Darius I the Great

IV. The True Target of Napoleon’s Campaign in Misir (‘Egypt’) – 1798

The identification of the French campaign’s main target has long been a matter of debate; historical sources do not always reveal and at times conceal the truth. Based on most of the existing documentation, one gets the idea that the main reason for the campaign were the antagonism with England and the then rising presence of English colons in the ‘East Indies’; furthermore, many accept that a certain concern for the promotion of the French commercial interests triggered the expedition to Misir (Egypt). It is clear that any ‘commercial interest’ of a Western European country in Egypt was tantamount to the idea of a double port in the Mediterranean and in the Red Sea. Less than one year before the campaign begun (in 1797), Napoleon wrote to the Directoire: “to destroy England truly, we shall have to capture Egypt”.  

However, all these elements were interwoven with intensive readings about Alexander’s expedition (2100 years earlier!) and the (totally misinterpreted by the French and, in general, the Western European colonial academics) invasion of the Achaemenid Iranian Empire; in this regard, one has to take into consideration the fact that the French colonials erroneously and preposterously pretended to be the descendants of the Romans and the heirs of the Ancient Macedonians. Consequently, as per their evil and distorted minds, they had the ‘right’ to ‘return’ and occupy the Orient. This was an overwhelming self-indoctrination of absolutely racist, colonial character.  

Important military efforts undertaken by Napoleon in parts of the Ottoman Empire, as well as well-documented diplomatic contacts and dispatches testify to a vivid interest and eventual plan to attack the English colonial possessions in India by advancing on land through the Ottoman and the Qajar Iranian territories, after getting permission from the sultan and the shah. The advance from Misir (Egypt) to Sinai and Palestine (el Arish, Gaza, Jaffa, Acre) and up to Mount Tabor, which ca. 150 km north of Kudüs (القدس الشريف/al Quds ash Sharif/Jerusalem) shows clearly a French interest to establish a solid base in the Orient in order to further advance toward an area where the English were then fast expanding, namely the ‘East Indies’.

However, risky military campaigns and overseas adventures can eventually be inefficient or fail. Napoleon underwent several defeats in Egypt and Palestine; despite the fact that he survived and returned to Europe and later the French army was repatriated to France in English ships, after the Capitulation of Alexandria (August 1801), the campaign was undoubtedly undertaken with due consideration of all possible developments. With this in mind and taking into account the historically known involvement of other empires, notably the Ottoman Empire, which reacted to Napoleon’s campaign and fought to keep its territorial integrity, and England, which helped and stood by the Sultan in order to prevent a meteoric rise of the French colonial power in the Orient, we can conclude that, if the campaign comprised only its military component, the result of this majestic enterprise would almost be nil. 

As it can already be assessed from the aforementioned, beyond its military dimension, Napoleon’s campaign had another well-programmed, scrupulously prepared, and superbly manned section: the scientific expedition. The military part was numerically superior: no less than 40000 soldiers and 10000 sailors moved from Toulon to the SE Mediterranean confines; the fleet was composed of 400 transport ships, 13 ships of the line, and 14 frigates. The great number of the combatants cannot however duly counterbalance academically and intellectually the illustrious scholars who participated in the scientific expedition: ca. 170 leading academics and a larger group of assistants and supporting staff members formed the greatest expeditionary team of scholars that Western European countries had ever established until that date or managed to set up during the entire 19th c.

Some of France’s most important academics, scientists and intellectuals were present: Vivant Denon, Gaspard Monge (founding member of the École polytechnique and mathematician), Henri-Joseph Redouté, Déodat Gratet de Dolomieu (the country’s leading geologist), Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (naturalist and deist philosopher, known for his theory “unity of composition”), Alire Raffeneau-Delile (then young botanist), Nicolas-Jacques Conté (a distinguished and award-winning engineer, inventor the modern pencil lead, pioneer in aeronautics, and balloonist, whose deeds were also planned to greatly impress the local population), Étienne-Louis Malus (physicist), Claude Louis Berthollet (chemist), Jean-Joseph Fourier (mathematician) and many others, engineers and artists, members of the Commission des Sciences et des Arts, and their assistants.



Vivant Denon

Gaspard Monge

Henri-Joseph Redouté

Déodat Gratet de Dolomieu

Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire

Alire Raffeneau-Delile

Nicolas Conte (1755-1805) was a mechanical genius who designed an engraving machine that allowed the Description de l’Egypt to be printed.

Nicolas-Jacques Conté

Étienne-Louis Malus

Claude Louis Berthollet

Jean-Joseph Fourier


Despite the multiple efforts undertaken by colonial historians, diplomats and journalists to conceal or undermine the importance of the scientific expedition, it is now -223 years later- very clear that the main impact made on Misir (Egypt) and worldwide by Napoleon’s campaign in Egypt was that left by the works of the scientists. When colonial forgers fail to hide facts, they distort and misinterpret them.

Fallaciously enough, the scientific expedition is then attributed to Napoleon’s dedication to the French Lumières (Enlightenment), which was an 18th c. intellectual – academic – political Western European movement that followed Classicism (17th c.) and Renaissance (15th – 16th c.). For general bibliography:

There is no doubt that Napoleon ascribed to the values of the Enlightenment, but the attempt to impose one nation’s or state’s values on others, after even denigrating the others for not knowing or acknowledging or accepting those values, is the epitome of colonial gangsterism, the embodiment of cultural racism, and the quintessence of Western European barbarism. Consequently, the reason for the scientific expedition was not mere embracement of the Lumières, but a dictatorial decision to impose this Western European movement and its concepts and ‘values’ on others.

Mistakenly enough, other scholars present the scientific expedition as a tool of Napoleon’s propaganda machine and hypothetical intention to posture as an ‘enlightened monarch’; but that’s preposterous. France’s leading scholars, although promoting, defending and propagating the same ideas as Napoleon, would never accept to become the tool of his political ambitions. Furthermore, Napoleon’s ascension to power was never explained or justified as a consequence of his, otherwise nonexistent, success in ‘Egypt’. After all, the totality of the results of the deeds of the scientific expedition started appearing in printed form only after Napoleon was proclaimed ’emperor’ in 1804; actually, their publication lasted 20 years (1809-1829) as it was one of 19th century’s most monumental printed editions.

The Battle of the Pyramids

The ‘Battle of the Nile’

Henri Levy, Bonaparte at the Great Mosque in Cairo

Others ‘explain’ the presence of the scientific expedition in Napoleon’s campaign as proof of an existing secret plan to re-open the Old Suez canal or to open a new one; this may have been possible, although after the naval defeat at Abuqir, it would have appeared as meaningless and finally it was never done during the said campaign. However, the unprecedented magnitude of the scope that the works of the scientific expedition have had is such that exceedingly eclipses the eventually programmed but obviously not executed works of a canal construction between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

V. Historical Antecedents of Napoleon’s Scientific Expedition (1798) in Ancient Assyria and Kemet (Egypt)

Nowadays, even authors of leftist and presumably anti-colonial background are victims of the Western propaganda and sick Euro-centrism. Read: “For the first time in military history, an army set forth with martial as well as academic intentions”.

The ignorant author of this paper, which is published on the site of Louisiana State University, seems to be unaware of the great academic opus Hortus Malabaricus, which was composed by the Dutch and Dravidian scientists Hendrik Van Rheede and Itty Achuthan Vaidyar (and an entire team under their command) at the end of the 17th c. (1678-1693), involving 12 voluminous tomes (500 p. each) and 794 copper plate engravings. Online editions and bibliography can be found here: As a matter of fact, Hendrik van Rheede was a naturalist, a Dutch officer, and the chief administrator of the Dutch East India Company; the Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie) had “martial as well as academic intentions” indeed. About:

As a matter of fact, many military expeditions were undertaken in History with parallel targets, intentions, activities and outcomes: academic and military. A typical example of a campaign with overwhelmingly academic and explorative, as well as military and invasive character was the Eighth Campaign of Sarrukin (Sargon II), Emperor of Assyria and Emperor of the Universe, one of the World History’s greatest monarchs of all times, at 714 BCE. The Assyrian ruler was accompanied by a great number of scribes and scholars, who gathered and wrote numerous details about the nations conquered by the Assyrian army and their cultures and royal families. About:’s_eighth_campaign_of_714_BC

The Eighth Campaign of Sarrukin (Sargon II) – 714 BCE: the narrative of a military, explorative and academic expedition of the Ancient Assyrians

Sargon II of Assyria (722-705 BCE)

The sack of Musasir by Sargon II during his eighth campaign (714 BCE) across territories of today’s NW Iran

More than 750 years before Sargon II of Assyria, the sole ruler of Kemet (Egypt), Queen Hatshepsut (explicitly described as product of Theogamy), sent (around 1475 BCE) her admiral Nehesy to Punt (today’s NE Somalia, also known as Ta Netsher, Land of God) with five ships of the pharaonic fleet to collect frankincense, myrrh trees (scrupulously transported in baskets), earth of the holy land of Punt, metals and various other products. The hieroglyphic inscriptions of the second colonnade (southern part) of Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple at today’s Deir el Bahari (Thebes West, Luxor) bear witness to the advanced level of horticulture and natural sciences among the Ancient Kemetians (Egyptians) of the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE.

About Hatshepsut’s expedition to Punt:

(outdated translation of the 19th c. when the name of Queen Hatshepsut was falsely transliterated as ‘Hatasu’)

Hatshepsut established the trade networks that had been disrupted during the Hyksos occupation of Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, thereby building the wealth of the eighteenth dynasty.

She oversaw the preparations and funding for a mission to the Land of Punt. The expedition set out in her name with five ships, each measuring 70 feet (21 m) long bearing several sails and accommodating 210 men that included sailors and 30 rowers. Many trade goods were bought in Punt, notably myrrh.

Most notably, however, the Egyptians returned from the voyage bearing thirty-one live myrrh trees, the roots of which were carefully kept in baskets for the duration of the voyage. This was the first recorded attempt to transplant foreign trees. It is reported that Hatshepsut had these trees planted in the courts of her Deir el Bahri mortuary temple complex.

She had the expedition commemorated in relief at Deir el-Bahri, which is also famous for its realistic depiction of the Queen of the Land of Punt, Queen Iti, who appears to have had a genetic trait called steatopygia (a large amount of fat accumulating around the buttocks). Hatshepsut also sent raiding expeditions to Byblos and Sinai shortly after the Punt expedition.

Military and Scientific Expedition of Hatshepsut to Punt (Somalia)

VI. French Academic Forgers, Stupid Ottomans, Ignorant Masriyin, Idiotic Sheikhs, and the Non-Egyptian ‘Institut d’Égypte’

The scientific expedition that followed Napoleon’s fleet deployed immediately a totally independent array of activities that fully demonstrate that from the very beginning of the preparations, the scientific, explorative, academic, and intellectual aspects of the campaign were viewed by all the members of the French elite involved in the enormous project as of the same importance and value as the military aspect.

The ‘savants’ (term traced on the Anti-Christian Ancient Greek word ‘Gnostics’) founded the Institut d’Égypte almost as a copy of the Institut de France, i.e. the French Academy (, which was established few years earlier (1795) thus merging three separate French Academies (Académie française; Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres; Académie des sciences) that were initiated earlier (respectively in 1635, 1663, and 1666) with a newly incepted one (Académie des sciences morales et politiques) on the same year (1795) under one roof.

J C Protain, Salle dans l’Institut d’Egypte

André Dutertre, Les jardins de l’ Institut d’Égypte

The ominous and calamitous Institut d’Égypte (renamed as ‘The Egyptian Society’ in 1836, transferred to Alexandria in 1859, re-baptized later as ‘Institut Égyptien’, relocated to Cairo in 1880, and currently known as ‘Egyptian Scientific Institute’) was geared to become the scientific-academic-educational-intellectual epicenter of French propaganda, world view, scientific orthodoxy, political philosophy, socio-economic corruption, educational guidance, and imposition of socio-behavioral change on the local, unsuspecting population, which was detrimentally exposed to unprecedented cultural-intellectual contamination without even knowing it.

The notorious Institut d’Égypte

The disastrous Institut d’Égypte was a venue for Western European scholars, who had no idea about, but much hatred for, the Islamic civilization and sciences, which they did not want to rediscover through objective search and benevolent representation of the material record and of the historical sources. On the contrary, the biased French scholars intended to viciously denigrate the Islamic sciences as lower than the modern Western European ‘sciences’, and also to venomously insult them by describing the the Islamic scientific discoveries, achievements and conclusions as ‘indebted’ to Ancient Greek and Roman sciences.

The Anti-Ottoman, anti-Islamic, anti-Christian, anti-Coptic, anti-Oriental, and anti-Kemetian (anti-Egyptian) Institut d’Égypte would therefore become and actually became the headquarters for the diffusion of ideas and theories that came out of three centuries of Western European distortion, dementia, criminality, colonialism and inhumanity. Involving vast inter-disciplinary work, pioneering research, publications, diffusion, and tyrannical imposition of its curriculum across the invaded and occupied country, the ill-fated Institut d’Égypte functioned therefore as the focal instrument for the distortion of Kemet (Egypt) and generally the entire Orient worldwide. It is noteworthy that at any possible moment of ‘Modern Egyptian History’ more than 99.99% of the Egyptians did not even know about its existence.

It is quite logical to conclude that the hub for the enslavement of the Egyptians should not be known to them. Execrably enslaved to their Western masters, the Egyptian governments took good care of the issue. That’s why the Egyptians burnt the Institut d’Égypte during the 2011-2013 period of upheaval (more specifically, in December 2011) without even knowing what they were burning! Of ca. 200000 volumes of enormous antiquarian value, less than 30000 books were lucky enough to avoid the all-consuming incineration caused by the inevitable conflagration of the God-damned edifice. More:

Institut d’Égypte, 2011: Someone should have set a match to this place long ago!

The fact that Napoleon disembarked in Alexandria on 1st July 1798 and, although significant military events took place as early as 21st July (the Battle of the Pyramids where the French won over the Mamluks) at a distance of 220 km from Alexandria and 3rd August (the naval Battle of the Nile at the Abuqir Bay where the French fleet was defeated and destroyed by the English), the Institut d’Égypte was founded by Napoleon in Cairo on 22nd of August and the first academic meeting of the ‘Savants’ was held two days later, means automatically that the academic-intellectual-cultural targets of Napoleon’s campaign were at least as high and as groundbreaking as the purely military ones.

The scientific expedition was incredibly well prepared thanks to a comprehensive team of technical experts in many fields; a printing press was setup and the Courrier de l’Égypte was the first publication that appeared in Egypt – as early as the 29th August 1798. More:

A scholarly publication, the Décade égyptienne, was also launched (see copies here:;2). In addition, many independent publications were printed initially in French, Arabic and Greek. A number of scientific laboratories were also established by the members of the Institut for their respective fields of research. Last, many libraries were formed following the expansive activities of the French scholars.

The entire situation was unprecedented worldwide because of the enormous scope of the Savants’ activities, explorations, researches and publications: to describe it in brief, it was as if the French considered the land as inhabited only in the past and as if they wanted to turn Cairo and Alexandria into a small Paris. It was a typically colonial attitude and mentality as per which the local inhabitants were not viewed as humans except only if they were susceptible to bribery and docile enough to become servants of the French. Beyond that level of consideration, the indigenous people were thought to be simply nonexistent. Even worse, in the eyes of the French, who believed utterly in the delusion that they were the offspring of the Romans and the heirs of the Roman Empire, the Masriyin (modern Egyptians) were totally deprived of any past and, because of this ‘fact’, they were almost unreal. In fact, what the Palestinians were for the Zionist aliens, who arrived in Palestine during the numerous aliyah movements from 1881 until 1948 (and even later) and demanded the land of the rightful occupants, were the Masriyin (modern Egyptians) for the criminal and illegal French colonials. The two events (1798 and 1948) are actually interconnected; in fact, ‘1798’ heralded ‘1948’. Simply, the stupid sultan and the silly muftis and qadis did not understand anything.

It would be a terrible mistake to imagine that the French presence was accepted positively and with due consideration by the totality of the population. The Masriyin did not know what the French believed about them, but they judged them on the basis of their hypocritical words, spectacular deeds, and totally unsubstantiated pretensions. An early example is what happened on the 1st December 1798 (initially arranged for the 22nd September 1798, which was the pathetic and short-lived New Year Day of the French atheists, Freemasons, and revolutionaries). Nicolas-Jacques Conté was called to demonstrate his skills and ‘convince’ the local people about the value of the Western science; he tried to launch an aerostat, but the balloon burned and this attempt failed. However, a last effort with a larger balloon was successful and the spectacle at the Cairo suburb of Uzbekiyah (أزبكية‎) was attended by 100000 people. General info about the suburb:

A military hot air balloon under his protective tent, 1794-1795, illustration by Nicolas-Jacques Conte, France, 18th century.

Nicolas Jacques Conte’s military aerostat

However, the 18th–19th c. Masri (Egyptian) scholar Al Jabarti, who wrote two treatises about the French occupation of the Ottoman province of Misir and about the depravity of the colonials, commented with contempt about Nicolas-Jacques Conté’s aerostat the following: “Their claim that this apparatus is like a vessel in which people sit and travel to other countries in order to discover news and other falsifications did not appear to be true”. Actually, Al Jabarti was later so vociferous in his denigration of the French puppet Muhammad Ali and in his denunciation of the French-inspired Muhammad Ali’s reforms that his books were totally banned in Egypt for several decades and were circulating only in well-hidden manuscripts:

A military hot air balloon under his protective tent, 1794-1795, illustration by Nicolas-Jacques Conte, France, 18th century.

Abd al-Raḥmān al-Jabartī’s world

VII. “Description de l’Égypte”: the Monumental Publication that delegitimized the Presence of the Masriyin in the Nile Valley   

The major professional activity of the Institut d’Égypte was an absolutely incredible undertaking of disproportionate dimensions, which until now remains academically unmatched. They moved across Egypt, despite the highly dangerous conditions that they encountered, and they collected, observed and drew all specimens of the local flora and fauna; furthermore, they designed all the historical monuments that they encountered irrespective of their size (without however unearthing them: most of them were sunk in the sand), and they copied meticulously all the numerous bas-reliefs’ hieroglyphic inscriptions, despite the fact that the sacred writing of the Ancient Kemetians (‘Egyptians’) was totally incomprehensible to them. In addition, they copied inscriptions written in several other writings as well.

Based on their monumental work, designs of monuments, and collection-publication of texts, Jean-François Champollion was able at last to decipher the hieroglyphics, surpassing the efforts of other Orientalists; however, he was also solidified in his demarche by his perfect knowledge of Coptic, which was indispensable at the level of Vocabulary, Grammar, Syntax and Linguistics (because it is, practically speaking, the latest stage of the same language as the Ancient Kemetian/Egyptian), and his command of Ancient Greek, which was necessary for parallelisms in bilingual or trilingual inscriptions.

The prodigious work was first presented in an abridged form (4 volumes published in the period 1798–1801) under the title “Mémoires sur l’Égypte”; it was printed in Cairo, reprinted in Paris (1799-1803) and translated to English (vol. 1 only) in 1800. The full title in French reads: “Mémoires sur l’Égypte, publiés pendant les campagnes du Général Bonaparte dans les années 1798 and 1799”.

As the works were progressing, the Savants took the decision already in 1799 to go ahead with the complete publication. This demanded an extra work of no less than 400 engravers and 2000 artists and technicians in order to publish the existing vast documentation. The uniquely monumental publication by far eclipsed the Hortus Malabaricus of Hendrik Van Rheede’s and Itty Achuthan Vaidyar’s team; until now, it remains the most majestic publication of all the branches of Orientalism, and of Humanities in general. The in-situ exploration and the first drafting of notes were completed before the repatriation of the French soldiers and scholars in France. Then, the colossal effort to finalize the texts, drawings, designs, and maps, and finally print the enormous documentation started in Paris. The complete title was: “Description de l’Égypte, ou Recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Égypte pendant l’expédition de l’armée française” (Description of Egypt, or the collection of observations and researches made in Egypt during the French Army’s expedition).

The first edition of monumental series of huge folio volumes comprises 9 volumes of text, 1 volume for the description of the plates, and 10 volumes of plates; two extra volumes of plates and one volume of maps (in Mammutfolio size: 1m x 81cm) were also added to thus complete the opus that totals 23 volumes. The full list of the volumes (and each volume’s contents) is available here:

In real terms, the magnificent publication consists in the complete expropriation of historical heritage and natural environment from the indigenous population of the Nile Valley. Whereas the French military occupation deprived the local inhabitants only of their freedom and their association with their country, i.e. the Ottoman Empire, the French scientific-academic-intellectual occupation deprived them of their heritage, past and identity.

It then appeared clearly and incomparably that the French ‘cared’ for, protected, explored and managed to interpret the past of the Masriyin, who had disregarded and abandoned their Kemetian (Egyptian) ancestry. In a way, by so doing, the French ‘justified’ their pretension to be the heirs of the Roman Empire. When the Description de l’Égypte was published, the real Kemet (Egypt) was in fact taken away from the Masriyin (Egyptians), who had failed to revere, respect, study, understand, interpret and incorporate the monuments of their ancestors in their lives. At this point, I have to guide every reader to the correct understanding of my text: the meaning of this paragraph hinges on the verb ”appeared” on the first line.

Although nothing justifies the stance of the Masriyin (Egyptians) toward the monuments of their ancestors, the French stance only ‘appeared’ to be as I describe. In fact, it was not, because they were not honest. The intention of the French to preserve, publish and thus help decipher and understand the material record of Kemet (Egypt) was not benevolent, but exactly the opposite. There were many back thoughts in the minds of the French savants, who wanted to usurp the monuments of Kemet only to justify their preconceived ideas and historical distortions via a systematic alteration and misinterpretation of the Kemetian (Egyptian) Antiquity.

With the Description de l’Égypte finally published, the historical monuments were primarily located within the volumes of the monumental series; since the material remnants of Kemet were saved for the posterity, the Masriyin were delegitimized as occupants of their own land. This was the profound meaning of the French scientific expedition that plunged the Masriyin into 223 years of nonexistence. More:مصر/الحكام/محمد-على/


Download the article in Word doc:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s