of them is now a ruined stump, and the other was incorporated several centuries ago into the structure of a Greek Orthodox church. Today the towers, and the gateway that lies between them, are separated from the Nile by several hundred metres. But at the time when the fortress was built the river flowed directly beside it: the reason why the towers were so solidly constructed is that they served asBabylonâs principal embankment against the annual Nile flood. In the early years of Babylonâs history, the towers were flanked by a port. As the centuries advanced and the conurbation around the fortress grew in size and importance, the river retreated westwards and the docks and warehouses gradually expanded along the newly emerged lands on the bank.In Ben Yijuâs time the port was one of the busiest in the Middle East; it was said to handle more traffic than Baghdad and Basra combined.
Today there is a steel gate between Babylonâs twin towers, and millions of visitors pour through it every year. But the fortâs second great gateway, in its southern wall, is no longer in use: its floor is deep in water now, swamped by Cairoâs rapidly rising water-table. A thick film of green slime shimmers within its soaring, vaulted interior, encircling old tyres and discarded plastic bottles. Incredible as it may seem, this putrefying pit marks the site of what was perhaps the single most important event in the history of Cairo, indeed of Egypt: it was through this gateway that the Arab general âAmr ibn al-âÃis thought to have effected his entry into Babylon in 641 AD âthe decisive event in the futû, the Muslim victory over the Christian powers in Masr.
For Babylon, ironically, the moment of capitulation marked its greatest triumph for it was then that this tiny fortress fixed the location of the countryâs centre of gravity, once and for all. It was Alexandria that was Egyptâs most important city at the time of the Arab invasion; founded by Alexander the Great in 332 BC it had served as the countryâs capital for almost a thousand years. Babylon, on the other hand, was a mere provincial garrison, a small military outpost. By rights therefore, it was Alexandriaâs prerogative to serve as the funnel for the assimilation of the newcomers.
But the conquering Muslim general, âAmr ibn al-âAs, broke with the usual practice of invaders by electing to base his army not in the countryâs capital, but in an entirely new city. The location he chose was the obvious oneâthe site the Arab army had used for its camp while laying siege to Babylon. The fortress was thus the promontory that served to anchor the Cairo archipelago: ever afterwards Egyptâs capital, Masr, Egyptâs metaphor for itself, has lain within a few miles of Babylon.
The legend goes that on the morning when âAmr was to lead his army against Alexandria he woke to find a dove nesting on top of his tent. Loath to invite misfortune by disturbing the bird, he left the tent behind and upon returning to Babylon after his successful assault on Alexandria, laid out his new city around the nest-topped tent. The legend is universally believed in Cairo, and everyone who repeats it adds that the name of âAmrâs city, al-Fusâ, was derived from the Arabic for tent. But in fact the story came into circulation long after the event and is almost certainly apocryphal. It is possible that the name does not come from an Arabic source at all, being related instead to the Latin-Greek wordâfossatonâ, which is also the parent of an archaic and unglamorous English word, âfosseâ, or ditch.
Fustat served as Egyptâs capital for more than three centuries, but then a new invasion and a new set of conquerors moved the centre of power a couple of miles northwards. The new rulers were the Fatimids, a dynasty which had its beginnings in North Africa, in an esoteric Shîâa sect whose