[The following Notes are reprinted from the old volume of 1849, with such additions and notes as were added to them by Sir H. Elliot in his private copy.]
The Nasíbín,* mentioned in the text (suprà, p. 152), is the Nisibis of classical authors, the position of which, on the frontier of the Persian and Roman Empires, made its occupation of so much importance in the estimation of the contending parties, from the time that Lucullus plundered it, till its capture by the Arabs, when it continued as frequent a source of contention between them and the Greeks as between them and the Persians at a later period. It was surrounded by a treble inclosure of brick walls defended by a deep ditch, and was considered so impregnable that Asiatics, as will be presently seen, are fond of resorting to supernatural means to account for its capture. Sapor made three separate attacks upon the town A.D. 338, 346, 350, and the disappointed monarch, after urging his attacks above sixty, eighty, and a hundred days, was repulsed each time with loss and ignominy;* but it was at last ceded to him by Jovian* in 363, and it remained henceforth with the Persians (if we except two short intervals), as it had remained for the two previous centuries with the Romans, a strong bulwark against hostile encroachments.
On the third occasion of Sapor's attack, unusual means were resorted to, to obtain possession of the place. At the stated season of the melting of the snows in Armenia, the course of the river Mygdonius was, by the labour of the Persians, stopped below the town, and the waters were confined on every side by solid mounds of earth. On this artificial lake, a fleet of armed vessels, filled with soldiers and heavy engines of war, was launched, and the accumulated pressure of the waters made a portion of the walls give way. Nevertheless, the monarch failed of success, and Nisibis retained its character as an inexpugnable stronghold.*
Under one of his predecessors, Sapor I., the Sháhpúr of the Persians, Mírkhond informs us that a miracle placed the town in the hands of the Persian Monarch. Wearied with the siege, Sháhpúr commanded his army to unite in supplication to the Supreme Being for its conquest, and while they were imploring the aid of heaven, the wall fell down before them, and their faith and devotion received a signal reward.*
Nisibis is now but a small and insignificant place, with scarcely more than one hundred houses, but it is surrounded with ruins which attest its former magnificence.*
The facts above related, with reference to the many obstinate defences of Nasíbín, show how natural it was that a credulous Oriental writer should resort to the marvellous to account for such unusual success as attended the arms of the Arabs in the seventeenth year of the Hijrí.
The passage against which the captious opponent of 'Abdu-l Kádir took exception runs thus in the Táríkh-i Alfí, in the Annals of the seventh year after the death of Muhammad. Very few of the Arabic historians notice the circumstance recorded in it, nor do Ockley, Gibbon, or Marigny mention it.*
“The army of Islám sat eight months before the fort of Nasíbín. Now, in and around that city, there were exceedingly large black scorpions, and no man who was bitten by them escaped with his life. The Arab General consequently gave orders that a thousand small jars should be filled with these reptiles, inclosed in loose mould around them, and that they should be thrown at night into the city by the engines. As the jars broke when they fell on the ground, the scorpions crawled out, and killed every one whom they stung. In the morning the garrison were so dispirited, and found themselves reduced to such extremities, that they could no longer hold the fort. The Musulmáns, taking advantage of their consternation, made a sudden assault, broke open the gates, and slew several who had escaped the venom of the scorpions. It is said that in the time of Noshírwán, the fort of Nasíbín was captured in precisely the same way.”
If we concur with the objector, and hesitate to receive this narrative as true, we may perhaps be able to explain it in some other more rational manner. In the first place, it may occur to us as not altogether improbable, that this story owes its origin to the use of the propelling machine called the “Scorpion,” which we learn from Vegetius* was so called, because it threw small javelins with fine points which occasioned death. Others say because the darts were poisoned.*
Later writers may have copied the statement, and put an interpretation upon it suited to their own comprehensions. It is to be observed that the Scorpion was used, even in Europe, as late as 1428 A.D.*
There seems to be another way of accounting for this improbable story, if we reject the literal meaning of the words, by supposing that a combustible composition, formed of some bituminous substances, was used upon the occasion. We know from several excellent authorities, that for many years before the invention of gunpowder, such substances were used in warfare, and, what is still more remarkable, that the cases in which they were enveloped were known by the name of Scorpions. Casiri* gives us the following extract from aṇ Egyptian Geographer, called Shahábu-d dín,* who flourished about A.D. 1250. “Bodies, in the form of Scorpions, bound round, and filled with nitrous powder, glide along, making a gentle noise, then they explode, and throw out flames.* But there are others which, cast into the air, stretch along like a cloud, roaring horribly as thunder roars, and on all sides vomiting out flames, they burst, and burn, and reduce to cinders whatever comes in their way.”* It is also a very curious coincidence, that the ancient Indian weapon, or rocket, called sataghní, with the etymological meaning of the hundred-slayer, should also signify a Scorpion.*
As there will be occasion again to allude to the early use of gunpowder in the East, there is no need to dwell upon this passage from the Egyptian author with any reference to that subject. It is merely adduced here, to show the undoubted use at an early period of a combustible called a Scorpion.
Now, it is remarkable that Dion Cassius, in speaking of the expedition of Alexander Severus against Atra, which was close to Nisibis, says that, in the last extremity, the Atreni defended themselves by throwing naphtha* both upon the besiegers and upon their engines, by which they were burnt and destroyed. According to Price, naphtha was discharged in pots at Khwárizm.*
Three hundred years before this, the same author tells us, that when Lucullus was besieging Tigranocerta, not fifty miles* from Nisibis, “the barbarians” defended themselves by throwing naphtha balls against the engines. “This substance is bituminous, and so inflammable that it burns to ashes everything on which it impinges, nor is it easily extinguished by anything wet.”*
Nor can we wonder that these noxious implements “fed with naphtha and asphaltus” should have been so frequently and so early used in Mesopotamia; for from the Persian Gulf to the Euxine, from the Dead Sea, where asphaltum floats on the water, to Bákú on the Caspian,* where naphtha streams spontaneously through the surface of the soil, and where a boiling lake emits constant flames, the whole country is impregnated with bituminous matter, which is especially abundant on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates* —so that if the Scorpions alluded to by 'Abdu-l Kádir were combustible, there would be no great improbability in the narrative.
But if we reject these solutions as too elaborate and remote, we must fall back upon the literal interpretation, and, improbable as it is, there are many reasons to encourage us to maintain that it is strictly true.
In the first place, the application of living scorpions to such an improbable purpose would not be altogether a novel stratagem. The Táríkh-i Yamíní tells us, that Khalaf defended himself in the fort of Ark* by throwing from his catapults wallets of snakes upon the besieging army.
M. de Sacy,* in abstracting the passage from the translation of Jarbádkháni, says, “ils lançoient sur les troupes de Hossain des cruches remplies de scorpions et de reptiles venimeux.” For this I can find no authority in the original; but Rashídu-d dín also says in his Jámi'u-t Tawáríkh, that scorpions, as well as snakes, were used upon the occasion. At folio 8 of his History of Sultán Mahmúd we read: “When Khalaf had borne down the ‘riders of crocodiles’ (nihang-sawar) and the footmen, he continued to harass the besiegers with crafty arts and stratagems. Wherever they established themselves, he, with slings and catapults, cast upon them pots full of snakes and scorpions, and their places of security he converted into places of ambush.”*
Abú-l Fidá, Mírkhond, and the Tabakát-i Násirí have nothing on the subject.
Cornelius Nepos and Justin inform us, that by means precisely similar Hannibal dispersed the superior fleet of Eumenes:
“Imperavit (Hannibal) quam plurimas venenatas serpentes vivas
colligi, easque in vasa fictilia conjici. Harum cum confecisset mag-
Then again we find the Atreni, noticed above, making use of this very mode of defence against the troops of the Roman Emperor. Herodian says* (and Gibbon* has declared his account of this reign to be rational and moderate, and consistent with the general history of the age), “They cast upon them large birds and poisonous animals* which fluttered before their eyes, and penetrated every part of their bodies that was exposed,” * * * “so that more perished by these means than by direct attacks of the enemy.”*
Frontinus also speaks of this mode of warfare in his book of stratagems;* and we read of something like it being practised by the Soanes, a people of Colchis, near Caucasus, who endeavoured to suffocate, with poisonous exhalations, those enemies, with whom they could not contend in close combat;* this was done at Nice in the first Crusade, and again at Antioch.* At the sieges of Jotopata and Jerusalem, dead bodies of men and horses were thrown by the war-machines on the besieged.*
Moreover, we know from unquestionable testimony, that scorpions abound so much in the neighbourhood of Nasíbín as to be the object of special remark by Oriental Geographers.
Istakhrí, or the author translated by Ouseley, speaking of Kurdan, close to Nasíbín, says, “It produces deadly scorpions; and the hill on which it stands abounds in serpents, whose stings occasion death.”* Abú-l Fidá, quoting Azízí, says, “At Nasíbín there is an abundance of white roses, but a red rose is not to be seen. There are also deadly scorpions.”* Edrísí also notices, in his geographical work, the deadly scorpions of Nasíbín.*
Taking, therefore, into consideration these concurrent testimonies to the fact of venomous reptiles being sometimes used in warfare, and to their abundance in the vicinity of Nasíbín, we may pronounce in favour of 'Abdú-l Kádir and his Arab authorities, and declare him justified in exclaiming, “that he had not been guilty of any fabrication, that he had seen the anecdote in books, and had written accordingly; and that, as the accuracy of his statement has been fully verified, he is, by God's grace, relieved from the charge of invention.”