text:
Fakhr al-Din II

Fakhr al-Din Ma'n (فَخْر ٱلدِّين مَعْن; c. 1572 – March or April 1635), commonly known as Fakhr al-Din II or Fakhreddine II (فخر الدين الثاني), was the paramount Druze emir of Mount Lebanon from the Ma'n dynasty, an Ottoman governor of Sidon-Beirut and Safed, and the strongman over much of the Levant from the 1620s to 1633. For uniting modern Lebanon's constituent parts and communities, especially the Druze and the Maronites, under a single authority for the first time in history, he is generally regarded as the country's founder. Although he ruled in the name of the Ottomans, he acted with considerable autonomy and developed close ties with European powers in defiance of the Ottoman imperial government.

Fakhr al-Din succeeded his father as the emir of the Chouf mountains in 1591. He was appointed over the sanjaks (districts) of Sidon-Beirut in 1593 and Safed in 1602. Despite joining the rebellion of Ali Janbulad in 1606, Fakhr al-Din remained in his post and the Ottomans recognized his takeover of the Keserwan mountains from his rival Yusuf Sayfa. Seven years later, an imperial campaign was launched against him for allying with Tuscany and garrisoning the strategic fortresses of Shaqif Arnun and Subayba. He escaped and became an exile in Tuscany and Sicily. Upon his return in 1618, he resumed control of his former domains and within three years took over northern Mount Lebanon, which was predominantly Maronite. After Fakhr al-Din routed the governor of Damascus at the Battle of Anjar in 1623, he extended his control to the Beqaa Valley, the stronghold of his rivals, the Harfush dynasty. Fakhr al-Din proceeded to capture fortresses across central Syria, gained practical control of Tripoli and its eyalet, and acquired tax farms as far north as Latakia. Although he frequently attained government favor by timely forwarding of tax revenue, bribing officials, and using opportunities of mutual interest to eliminate local rivals, his outsized power and autonomy were considered a rebellion by the imperial government. A near-contemporary historian remarked that "the only thing left for him to do was to claim the Sultanate". He surrendered to the Ottomans during a siege of his Chouf hideout in 1633 and was executed in Constantinople two years later. In 1697 Fakhr al-Din's grandnephew was awarded a tax farm spanning southern Mount Lebanon. It was gradually expanded by the Ma'ns' marital relatives, the Shihabs, in 1711, and was a precursor to the Lebanese Republic.

According to the historian Kamal Salibi, Fakhr al-Din "combined military skill and eminent qualities of leadership with a keen business acumen and unusual powers of observation". During a period when the empire was in a long economic crisis, Fakhr al-Din's territories thrived, and Sidon in particular attained political significance for the first time in its modern history. He protected, promoted, and helped modernize commercial agriculture in his domains, inaugurating the lucrative silk trade of Mount Lebanon. By opening his port towns for European commerce, he facilitated the most significant European political and economic penetration of the Levantine coast since the 13th century. Fakhr al-Din's wealth, derived mainly from his tax farms, but also from extortion and counterfeiting, enabled him to invest in the fortifications and infrastructure needed to foster stability, order, and economic growth. His building works included palatial government houses in Sidon, Beirut and his Chouf stronghold of Deir al-Qamar, caravanserais, bathhouses, mills, and bridges, some of which remain extant. Tax farming financed his army of sekban mercenaries, which after 1623 mostly replaced the local peasant levies on which he previously depended. Christians prospered and played key roles under his rule, with his main enduring legacy being the symbiotic relationship he set in motion between Maronites and Druze, which proved foundational for the creation of a Lebanese entity.

Origins and early life

Fakhr al-Din was born c. 1572, the eldest of at least two sons of Qurqumaz ibn Yunus, the other son being Yunus. They belonged to the Ma'n dynasty, a Druze family of Arab stock established in the Chouf area of southern Mount Lebanon from before the Ottoman conquest of the Levant in 1516; traditional accounts date their arrival in the Chouf to 1120. The Chouf was administratively divided into a number of nahiyas (subdistricts). They were part of the Sidon Sanjak, a district of Damascus Eyalet. The Chouf, together with the neighboring mountainous nahiyas of the Gharb, the Jurd and the Matn, all south or east of Beirut, were commonly referred to in contemporary sources as "the Druze Mountain" due to their predominantly Druze population.

Like other Ma'nids before him, Qurqumaz was a muqaddam, a local rural chieftain in charge of a small area. He was also a multazim—a holder of a limited-term tax farm known as an iltizam—over all or part of the Chouf. He was referred to as 'emir' by local chroniclers, but the title reflected the traditional prominence of his family in the community and was not an official rank. Fakhr al-Din's mother, Sitt Nasab, belonged to the Tanukh, a princely Druze family established in the Gharb from at least the 12th century. In the words of the historian Kamal Salibi, Fakhr al-Din's paternal ancestors "were the traditional chieftains of the hardy Druzes" of the Chouf, and his maternal kinsmen "were well acquainted with commercial enterprise" in Beirut (see family tree below).

The Druze were officially considered Muslims by the Ottomans for taxation purposes, though they were not viewed as genuine Muslims by the authorities. Members of the community had to pretend to be of the Sunni Muslim creed to attain any official post, were occasionally forced to pay the poll tax known as jizya which was reserved for Christians and Jews, and were the target of condemnatory treatises and fatwas (religious edicts). In countering their incorporation into the Ottoman administrative and fiscal system, the Druze benefited from rugged terrain and possession of muskets, making it difficult to impose Ottoman authority in the Druze Mountain. Ottoman efforts to tax and disarm the Druze manifested in a series of punitive expeditions between 1523 and 1585. During the summer 1585 expedition, hundreds of Druze elders were slain by the vizier Ibrahim Pasha and the Bedouin chief Mansur ibn Furaykh of the Beqaa Valley, and thousands of muskets were confiscated. Qurqumaz refused to surrender and died in hiding shortly after the expedition.

The period between Qurqumaz's death and Fakhr al-Din's emergence in local politics is obscure. According to the historian William Harris, the chiefs of the Druze, "long disobedient and fractious, again became ungovernable" after Qurqumaz's death. The 17th-century historian and Maronite patriarch Istifan al-Duwayhi, who was an associate of the Ma'n, holds that Fakhr al-Din and Yunus were afterward taken in by their maternal uncle Sayf al-Din, the Tanukhid chief of Abeih in the Gharb, for about six years.

Appearance and personality
Most contemporary descriptions of Fakhr al-Din's appearance note his small stature. He had an olive complexion, a ruddy face, and black eyes, described as "brilliant" by Eugène Roger, a Nazareth-based Franciscan who served as Fakhr al-Din's physician in 1632–1633. His practical court historian, Ahmad al-Khalidi, referred to him as latif al-hamah, roughly translating as 'one with a kind face'. The French consul in Sidon and traveler Chevalier d'Arvieux commented on his appearance:

Fakhr al-Din was of mediocre height, brown in face; he had a colored complexion, large eyes full of fire, an aquiline nose, a small mouth, white teeth, a beautiful face, a chestnut-blond beard, a very majestic air, of wit infinitely male and a harmonious voice.

According to Harris, the English traveler George Sandys, a contemporary of Fakhr al-Din, offered the "best description" of his personality, calling him "great in courage and achievements ... subtle as a fox, and a not a little inclining to the Tyrant [Ottoman sultan]". Sandys further noted that he was "never known to pray, nor ever seen in a mosque" and only made major decisions after consulting his mother. Roger remarked that he had "invincible courage" and was "learned in astrology and physiognomy".

Governor of Sidon-Beirut and Safed
Around 1590 Fakhr al-Din succeeded his father as the muqaddam of all or part of the Chouf. Tax records indicate that he had gained the iltizam of the Sidon and Beirut nahiyas and the port of Beirut from 14 July 1589. Unlike his Ma'nid predecessors, he cooperated with the Ottomans who, though able to suppress Mount Lebanon's local chiefs with massive force, were unable to pacify the region in the long term without local support. When the veteran general Murad Pasha was appointed beylerbey (provincial governor) of Damascus, Fakhr al-Din hosted and gave him expensive gifts upon his arrival at Sidon in September 1593. He appointed him the sanjak-bey (district governor), of Sidon-Beirut in December. While his ancestors were locally referred to as emirs, Fakhr al-Din had attained the official rank of emir or its Turkish equivalent, bey.

The Ottomans' preoccupation with the wars against Safavid Iran—between 1578 and 1590 and again between 1603 and 1618—and the war with Habsburg Austria afforded Fakhr al-Din the space to consolidate and expand his semi-autonomous power. Between 1591 and 1594 government records indicate that Fakhr al-Din's tax farms grew to span the Chouf, Matn, Jurd, the southern Beqaa Valley, the Shaqif and Tibnin nahiyas in Jabal Amil—in present-day South Lebanon—as well as the salt profits from the ports of Acre, Sidon, and Beirut. Most of his tax farms were renewed by the Ottoman imperial government between 1596 and 1598.

Coinciding interests between Fakhr al-Din and the Ottomans frequently recurred in his career through which he advanced against his local rivals. In 1594 or 1595 Murad Pasha executed Ibn Furaykh and ordered Fakhr al-Din to kill Ibn Furaykh's son Qurqumaz. The sources attribute the measures to Fakhr al-Din's influence over Murad Pasha, though his role was exaggerated according to the historian Abdul-Rahim Abu-Husayn. Nonetheless, the elimination of the Furaykhs, known for their exactions on the local population and harassment of the Druze, had been a mutual interest of Fakhr al-Din and the government.

Their interests coincided again in 1598 when Fakhr al-Din was commissioned by the beylerbey of Damascus, Seyyed Mehmed Pasha, to drive out Yusuf Sayfa Pasha, the beylerbey of Tripoli and local chief of Akkar, from the nahiyas of Beirut and the Keserwan. Fakhr al-Din had been wary of Yusuf's growing proximity to his domains, while Damascus, to which Beirut and the Keserwan administratively belonged, opposed Tripoli's encroachment into its jurisdiction. Fakhr al-Din routed Yusuf's forces at the Nahr al-Kalb river and took control of the two nahiyas for a year before returning them to Yusuf in return for payment. The battle inaugurated a rivalry between Fakhr al-Din and the Sayfas, which lasted for the remainder of his career.

In July 1602, after his patron Murad Pasha became a vizier in Constantinople, Fakhr al-Din was appointed the sanjak-bey of Safed. Shortly before, he had gained the iltizam of the Acre, Tiberias and Safed nahiyas. With the Druze of Sidon-Beirut and Safed under his authority, he effectively became their paramount chief. Although the Druze were often in conflict with the Ottomans, in principle the community was loyal to the ruling Sunni Muslim states, in contrast with the Shia Muslims, who formed a large component of the population of the Safed sanjak. Fakhr al-Din, his military talents proven, may have been appointed to the post to leverage his Druze power base against the Shia.

He cultivated close ties with Safed's Sunni religious scholarly class, known as the ulema. Among them was Khalidi, who was mufti of the city's Hanafis, the madhab—Islamic school of law—favored by the Ottoman state. Foreseeing that he would benefit from Khalidi's close ties to the Damascene authorities and ulema, Fakhr al-Din entered him into his service. Fakhr al-Din was careful to present himself as a Sunni to the Ottoman government.

Janbulad rebellion and aftermath
In 1606 Fakhr al-Din made common cause with the Kurdish rebel Ali Janbulad of Aleppo against Yusuf; the latter had been invested as commander-in-chief of the Ottoman armies in the Levant to suppress Janbulad. Fakhr al-Din, "who no doubt shared Canpolad's [Janbulad's] thirst for greater regional autonomy", according to the historian Stefan Winter, had ignored government orders to join Yusuf's army. Yusuf's rout by Janbulad and his sekbans at Hama demonstrated the weakness of the government's troops in the Levant; after the battle, Fakhr al-Din united forces with the Kurdish rebel near Hermel. According to Khalidi, Fakhr al-Din's motive was to defend his territory from Yusuf, though Abu-Husayn maintains that he also aimed to take over Beirut and Keserwan, both held by Yusuf.

The rebel allies advanced through the Beqaa Valley toward Damascus where Yusuf was headquartered. Fakhr al-Din and Janbulad gathered the Shihabs of Wadi al-Taym, old allies of the Ma'ns, and besieged Damascus. They defeated Yusuf's troops outside the city and sacked its suburbs for three days, demanding Yusuf's surrender. Yusuf escaped after bribing the city's officials, and Fakhr al-Din and Janbulad withdrew after the officials bribed them with Yusuf's money to lift the siege. Janbulad pursued Yusuf to his redoubt at the Krak des Chevaliers castle where the latter sued for peace, but Fakhr al-Din did not join him. In the course of the fighting, Fakhr al-Din took over the Keserwan.

Murad Pasha, who had become grand vizier in 1606, moved against Janbulad in late 1607 and demanded that Fakhr al-Din join his imperial forces at Payas off the Gulf of Alexandretta. The contemporary Damascene historian al-Burini reported that Fakhr al-Din ignored the summons, waiting for the outcome of the war to decide his position. When Janbulad was defeated, Fakhr al-Din immediately dispatched three hundred men under his son Ali with considerable gifts in the form of 150,000 piasters and 150,000 piasters' worth in silk to appease Murad Pasha in Aleppo. The high amount was a testament to the Ma'ns' wealth and demonstrated why Murad Pasha was invested in their alliance, according to the historian Alessandro Ossaretti. The Grand Vizier had been petitioned by a Damascene delegation to punish Fakhr al-Din for joining Janbulad and damaging their city, but Murad Pasha left him alone, promising the Damascenes he would deal with Fakhr al-Din at a later time. The Aleppine historian al-Urdi (d. 1660) and Sandys attributed Murad Pasha's favorable treatment of Fakhr al-Din in the aftermath of Janbulad's defeat to Fakhr al-Din's large bribes and their cordial ties during Murad Pasha's governorship of Damascus.

Fakhr al-Din was kept as sanjak-bey of Safed, his son Ali was appointed to Sidon-Beirut, and their control of the Keserwan was recognized by the Ottoman imperial government. In early 1610 Fakhr al-Din was instructed by Murad Pasha to assist the new beylerbey of Tripoli, Husayn Pasha al-Jalali, with the collection of the eyalet's taxes amid the interference of Yusuf, who had been dismissed from his post but still held practical control of Tripoli's countryside.

Alliance with Tuscany

Toward the close of the 16th century, the Medici grand dukes of Tuscany had become increasingly active in the eastern Mediterranean, pushed for a new crusade in the Holy Land, and began patronizing the Maronite Christians of Mount Lebanon. Fakhr al-Din rebuffed two Tuscan requests to meet between 1599 and 1602, while the Grand Duke Ferdinand I did not act upon his adviser's suggestion in 1605 to communicate with Fakhr al-Din about a new crusade and trade relations with Beirut. The Tuscans focused instead on Janbulad, with whom they signed a treaty stipulating his assistance in a new crusade and special interests for the Tuscans in the Levantine ports months before Janbulad was defeated.

After Janbulad's defeat, the Tuscans shifted focus to Fakhr al-Din, sending him an arms shipment originally bound for Janbulad. In 1608 they promised him sanctuary in Tuscany if he backed a future crusade. Fakhr al-Din and Tuscany forged a treaty that year. It stipulated military aid and support from the Maronite clergy to Fakhr al-Din against the Sayfas, who controlled predominantly Maronite northern Mount Lebanon, in return for supporting a future Tuscan conquest of Jerusalem and Damascus.

After the Tuscans' Ottoman ally, the pretender to the throne Sultan Yahya, proved incapable of mustering sufficient support within the Empire in 1609, Fakhr al-Din became Tuscany's "last hope for an ally of the region", according to Ossaretti. The Tuscans, their Papal allies, and Fakhr al-Din maintained correspondence between then and 1611. In mid-1609 Fakhr al-Din gave refuge to the Maronite patriarch Yuhanna Makhlouf upon the latter's flight from northern Mount Lebanon. In a 1610 letter from Pope Paul V to Makhlouf, the Pope entrusted Fakhr al-Din with the protection of the Maronite community. Sandys noted in 1610 that Fakhr al-Din had reactivated the port of Tyre for clandestine exchanges and trade with the Tuscans. The following year, he dispatched a Maronite bishop to be his representative in the court of Grand Duke Cosimo II and in the Holy See.

Ottoman expedition of 1613 and flight
Fakhr al-Din lost favor in Constantinople with the death of Murad Pasha in July 1611 and the succession of Nasuh Pasha. By then, the Ottoman imperial government, freed up from the wars with Austria and Iran and the Jelali revolts in Anatolia, had turned its attention to affairs in the Levant. The authorities had become wary of Fakhr al-Din's expanding territory, his alliance with Tuscany, his unsanctioned strengthening and garrisoning of fortresses, and his employment of outlawed sekbans. Nasuh Pasha had old grievances with Fakhr al-Din stemming from the latter's assistance to the Damascus janissaries in their standoff with imperial troops in Aleppo when the Grand Vizier had been governor there. In 1612 Fakhr al-Din sent his chief aide, or kethuda, Mustafa with 25,000 piasters to gain the goodwill of the Grand Vizier, who may have been offended by the gesture when compared with the much larger gift presented to his predecessor by Fakhr al-Din's son Ali in 1607. The Grand Vizier demanded Fakhr al-Din disband his sekbans, surrender the strategic fortresses of Shaqif Arnun and Subayba, and execute his ally, the chieftain of Baalbek, Yunus al-Harfush; the orders were ignored. Not long after, Fakhr al-Din repulsed an assault by the beylerbey of Damascus, Hafiz Ahmed Pasha, against Yunus al-Harfush and Ahmad Shihab.

To check Fakhr al-Din, the Ottomans appointed Farrukh Pasha to the neighboring sanjaks of Ajlun and Nablus, and drove out two of his allied Bedouin chiefs from Ajlun and the Hauran, both of whom took refuge with Fakhr al-Din. The latter avoided direct conflict with the Ottoman government by deferring the Bedouin chiefs' requests for assistance while awaiting the imperial authorities' response to a gift of money and goods he sent. Nonetheless, at the urging of his Damascene janissary ally Hajj Kiwan, Fakhr al-Din moved to restore his allies to their home regions, sending with them his son Ali at the head of 3,000 men. With help from the Sayfas, who sought to mend ties with the Ma'ns, Ali defeated Farrukh Pasha and the faction of Damascene janissaries opposed to the Ma'ns at Muzayrib on 21 May 1613. In response, Nasuh Pasha appointed Ahmed Pasha at the head of 2,000 imperial janissaries and the troops of some sixty beylerbeys and sanjak-beys to move against Fakhr al-Din.

Fakhr al-Din garrisoned Shaqif Arnun and Subayba, both containing five years' worth of provisions and ammunition, with his sekbans under the commanders Husayn Yaziji and Husayn Tawil, respectively. He sent Ali to take safety with his Bedouin allies in the desert, while sending a Sunni delegation to Damascus led by Khalidi with a peace proposal entailing large payments to the authorities. The proposal was rejected, and on 16 September, Ahmed Pasha had all the roads from Mount Lebanon into the desert blocked and the port of Sidon blockaded to prevent Fakhr al-Din's escape by land or sea. He sent a new sanjak-bey to Safed, where Fakhr al-Din was headquartered at the time, prompting Fakhr al-Din's flight to Sidon. He bribed the deputy admiral of the blockade to allow his escape and boarded a European ship for Livorno, Tuscany.

Fakhr al-Din's sekbans defected to Ahmed Pasha during the campaign, and most of Fakhr al-Din's allies and other local chiefs, namely the Shihabs, Harfushes, Turabays, Hayars, and Qansuhs, also joined the Ottomans, with the exception of his Bedouin ally, the Mafarija chief Amr ibn Jabr, who refused to surrender Fakhr al-Din's son Ali. Abu-Husayn explains their defections as a reflection of "the precariousness of the alliances made by Fakhr al-Din" and the Ottomans' ability to reassert control over the Levant when they were "seriously challenged" there. The Sayfas used the campaign to restore their ties with the Ottoman imperial government and revive their former power. Yusuf's son Husayn backed Ahmed Pasha's siege of Shaqif Arnun and proceeded to burn Deir al-Qamar, the headquarters village of the Ma'ns. In the invasion of the Chouf, Ahmed Pasha and the Sayfas were helped by Druze rivals of Fakhr al-Din. The Ma'ns led by Fakhr al-Din's brother Yunus sued for peace, sending Sitt Nasab and a delegation of thirty Druze religious notables to Ahmed Pasha with a 25,000-piaster payment to him personally and a promised payment of 300,000 piasters to the Ottoman imperial authorities. Ahmed Pasha accepted and ordered Husayn to halt the burning of Deir al-Qamar.

Exile in Tuscany and Sicily

Shortly after his arrival in Livorno on 3 November, Fakhr al-Din went to Florence. His arrival surprised the Medici, who offered to escort him back to Mount Lebanon and were irked by his refusal. Later that month, Pope Paul V informed the Medici of his opposition to military aid for Fakhr al-Din to avoid provoking a naval war with the Ottomans. The Medici also sought to avoid conflict and in correspondence with Nasuh Pasha in 1614 the latter offered to pardon Fakhr al-Din in return for restricting the port of Sidon to domestic trade with the Ottoman ports of Constantinople, Alexandretta and Alexandria. Ottoman–Tuscan negotiations about Fakhr al-Din's fate continued through 1615. After Nasuh Pasha's death in 1614, Fakhr al-Din also began direct attempts to reconcile with the Ottoman government.

Khalidi's chronicle omits Fakhr al-Din's time in Tuscany, mentioning only his departure and return. A supplement attributed to Khalidi by his chronicle's 20th-century editors provides a detailed account of Fakhr al-Din's time in exile, based in large part on Fakhr al-Din's narrations to Khalidi; Abu-Husayn calls its author "unknown", considering Khalidi's authorship to be "doubtful". Livorno remained Fakhr al-Din's primary residence, but during stays in Florence he was housed in the apartment of the late Pope Leo X in the Palazzo Vecchio. He signed a letter in May requesting permission to remain in Tuscany until it was safe for him to return to Mount Lebanon, after which he relocated to the Palazzo Medici where he remained until July 1615.

Afterwards, Fakhr al-Din moved to Messina in Sicily at the invitation of its viceroy, Pedro Téllez-Girón of the Spanish Habsburgs. The Spanish Habsburgs, who were the strongest advocates of a new crusade, probably held Fakhr al-Din against his will for the next two years, possibly to threaten the Ottomans, according to Olsaretti. The viceroy allowed him a reconnaissance visit to Mount Lebanon later in 1615. He was not permitted to disembark; instead, Yunus and other kinsmen and supporters greeted him on board and informed him that "all of the people of the Shuf [Chouf]" awaited his return. On his return to Sicily he stopped in Malta. When the viceroy moved, in succession, to Palermo and Naples, Fakhr al-Din accompanied him.

Reestablishment of the Ma'nid domains
In June 1614 the Ottomans administratively reorganized Fakhr al-Din's former domains to curtail Ma'nid power, combining the sanjaks of Sidon-Beirut and Safed into a separate eyalet called Sidon and appointing to it a beylerbey from Constantinople. The new appointee redistributed control of the Druze Mountain's iltizam among pro-Ottoman Druze chiefs, restricting the Ma'ns' iltizam to the Chouf. Political circumstances in the Empire soon after shifted to the Ma'ns' favor, beginning with the replacement of the executed Nasuh Pasha in November 1614, the dissolution of the Sidon Eyalet in early 1615, and the dismissal of Ahmed Pasha in Damascus in April 1615. The Ottoman–Safavid wars resumed about the same time, siphoning Ottoman troops from the Levant to the Iranian front. The authorities appointed Ali to the governorships of Sidon-Beirut and Safed in December 1615 in return for large payments. The imperial government's principal objective, the dismantlement of the Ma'nid-held fortresses of Shaqif Arnun and Subayba, was carried out in May 1616.

Despite their official appointments, the Ma'ns faced continued opposition from their traditional Druze rivals, who were backed by the Sayfas. The Ma'ns defeated them in four engagements in the heart of the Druze Mountain. In the course of the fighting, the Ma'ns recaptured Beirut and the Keserwan from the Sayfas. Ali granted the iltizam in his sanjak mainly to his uncle Yunus and the Ma'ns' allies from the Tanukh and Abu al-Lama families. Growing opposition to the Ma'ns by the Shias of Safed Sanjak culminated with their support for Fakhr al-Din's former sekban commander Yaziji's efforts to replace Ali as sanjak-bey and their alliance with the Shia Harfushes in 1617–1618. Yaziji was killed after taking up office in Safed in June 1618, and Ali was restored to the post.

The Ottomans pardoned Fakhr al-Din and he returned to Mount Lebanon, arriving in Acre on 29 September 1618. From that point there was no further active Druze opposition to Fakhr al-Din. In Acre Fakhr al-Din held a reception for the rural chieftains across the Levant arriving to greet him, which included all those who joined the 1613 expedition against the Ma'ns. Uneasy about the growing ties between the Harfushes and the Shia chiefs of Safed, he moved to supervise the collection of taxes in the predominantly Shia Bilad Bishara area in December. This prompted the Shia notable families of Ali Saghir, Munkir, Shukr, and Daghir to take refuge with Yunus al-Harfush and evade payment. Fakhr al-Din responded by destroying their homes. In response to the flight of the Jallaqs, a Shia family from Safed city, to Afiq, he captured Afiq, killed fifteen Shia refugees there and took captive the Jallaq women. Afterward, the Shia chiefs of the sanjak agreed to return and concede to Fakhr al-Din's rule; he subsequently released the captives. Shia levies thereafter joined his army in his later military campaigns.

War with the Sayfas and control of the Maronite districts

During his reception of the Levantine chiefs in Acre, Fakhr al-Din had berated the Sayfas for their hostility in the preceding five years. In 1618 or 1619, he moved against the Sayfas with imperial sanction under the guise of assisting Tripoli's beylerbey Umar Kittanji Pasha with the collection of taxes in his eyalet, which continued to be controlled by the Sayfas. On 4 February 1619 he captured and looted their stronghold of Hisn Akkar and four days later besieged Yusuf and the latter's Druze allies in the Krak des Chevaliers.

During the siege, word had reached Fakhr al-Din that the Ottoman imperial government, probably seeking to avoid a total victory by the Ma'ns, reappointed Yusuf to the governorship of Tripoli. Fakhr al-Din pressed on with the siege and demanded a payment of 150,000 piasters from the Sayfas, while he sent a detachment to burn the Sayfas' home village of Akkar and gained the defection of the Sayfas' men in the forts of Byblos and Smar Jbeil. The beylerbeys of Damascus and Aleppo mobilized their troops in Homs and Hama, respectively, in support of Yusuf, who afterward persuaded Fakhr al-Din to accept a promissory payment of 50,000 piasters and lift the siege in March. Fakhr al-Din's control of the Byblos and Batroun nahiyas and his earlier leasing of their iltizam from Umar Kittanji was recognized by Yusuf in May in lieu of the promised payment.

Fakhr al-Din was charged by the imperial authorities with collecting tax arrears from Yusuf in June/July 1621, thereby giving him imperial cover to assault the Sayfas once again. He captured the Bahsas fort on Tripoli's southern outskirts and besieged the Citadel of Tripoli. Under pressure, Yusuf agreed to sell Fakhr al-Din his properties in Ghazir and Antelias, both in the Keserwan, and Beirut, in return for cancelling Yusuf's personal debts to him. The siege was maintained pending Yusuf's payment of the tax arrears to the government, until Yusuf persuaded the authorities that Fakhr al-Din was using his imperial commission to annex Tripoli. Upon the imperial government's orders, Fakhr al-Din withdrew from Tripoli on 2 October 1621. Yusuf was dismissed again in October/November 1622 after failing to remit the promised tax payments, but refused to hand over power to his replacement Umar Kittanji, who in turn requested Fakhr al-Din's military support. Fakhr al-Din complied in return for the iltizam of the Tripoli nahiyas of Dinniyeh, Bsharri and Akkar. Once Fakhr al-Din set out from Ghazir, Yusuf abandoned Tripoli for Akkar.

Fakhr al-Din thereafter sent his Maronite ally Abu Safi Khazen, the brother of his fiscal and political adviser and scribe, or mudabbir, Abu Nadir Khazen, to occupy Maronite-populated Bsharri, thereby ending the rule of the local Maronite muqaddams established since the late 14th century. The dismissed muqaddam and his son were soon after executed by Fakhr al-Din in connection to the son's raid of a Maronite monastery near Hasroun. The Maronites of Bsharri are likely to have welcomed the end of the muqaddams, the last several of whom failed to protect the interests of their church and community.

Fakhr al-Din secured the defection of Yusuf's son Beylik and their combined forces reentered Tripoli on 13 March 1623. An imperial order arrived a few days later reappointing Yusuf to the eyalet. Umar Kittanji attempted to resist his dismissal, but Fakhr al-Din, by then in practical control of most of the eyalet, insisted that the imperial government's orders be followed. He subsequently escorted the outgoing beylerbey to Beirut and ordered Beylik to return to his father. In May/June, Fakhr al-Din mobilized his forces in Bsharri in support of Yusuf's rebellious nephew Sulayman, who controlled Safita. Yusuf had moved against Sulayman, but relented after Fakhr al-Din's attempted intervention, thereby confirming the Ma'ns as the practical overlords of Safita. Meanwhile, Beylik, who had been appointed by his father to govern Akkar, expelled Yusuf's sekbans from the nahiyas and declared support for Fakhr al-Din.

Battle of Anjar and aftermath

In 1623, Yunus al-Harfush prohibited the Druze of the Chouf from cultivating their lands in the southern Beqaa, angering Fakhr al-Din. In August/September 1623 he stationed sekbans in the southern Beqaa village of Qabb Ilyas and evicted the Harfushes. Meanwhile, in June or July, the imperial authorities had replaced Fakhr al-Din's son Ali as sanjak-bey of Safed and replaced his other son Husayn and Mustafa Kethuda as the sanjak-beys of Ajlun and Nablus respectively with local opponents of Fakhr al-Din. The imperial authorities soon after restored the Ma'ns to Ajlun and Nablus, but not to Safed. The Ma'ns thereupon moved to assume control of Ajlun and Nablus, prompting Yunus al-Harfush to call on the janissary leader Kurd Hamza, who wielded significant influence over the beylerbey of Damascus, Mustafa Pasha, to block their advance. Kurd Hamza then secured Yunus al-Harfush's appointment to Safed, followed by a failed attempt by Fakhr al-Din to outbid him for the governorship.

Fakhr al-Din launched a campaign against the Turabays and Farrukhs in northern Palestine, but was defeated in a battle at the Awja River near Ramla. On his way back to Mount Lebanon from the abortive Palestine campaign, Fakhr al-Din was notified that the imperial government had reappointed his sons and allies to Safed, Ajlun, and Nablus. The reversal was linked to the successions of Sultan Murad IV ((r. 1623 – 1640)) and Grand Vizier Kemankeş Ali Pasha, the latter of whom had been bribed by Fakhr al-Din's agent in Constantinople to restore the Ma'ns to their former sanjaks. Mustafa Pasha and Kurd Hamza, nonetheless, proceeded to launch an expedition against the Ma'ns. Fakhr al-Din arrived in Qabb Ilyas on 22 October, and immediately moved to restore lost money and provisions from the Palestine campaign by raiding the nearby villages of Karak Nuh and Sar'in, both held by the Harfushes.

Afterward, the Damascenes, the Harfushes, and the Sayfas set out from Damascus, while Fakhr al-Din mobilized his Druze fighters, sekbans, and Shia levies. He sent the Shihabs to serve as his vanguard in the tower of Anjar, but by the time Fakhr al-Din arrived there in early November 1623, the Shihabs had been driven off and the Sayfas and Harfushes had taken over the tower. Fakhr al-Din immediately routed the Damascene janissaries at Anjar and captured Mustafa Pasha, while Kurd Hamza and Yunus al-Harfush escaped to Aleppo. Fakhr al-Din extracted from the beylerbey confirmation of the Ma'ns' governorships, his appointment over Gaza Sanjak, his son Mansur over Lajjun Sanjak, and Ali over the southern Beqaa nahiya. The appointments to Gaza, Nablus and Lajjun were not implemented due to the opposition of local powerholders.

Fakhr al-Din plundered Baalbek soon after Anjar and captured and destroyed its citadel on 28 March, after a months-long siege. The Aleppine historian Utayfi observed in 1634 that "the city of Baalbek ... was in ruins ... destroyed by Fakhr al-Din Ibn Ma'n in his war with Banu al-Harfush". Yunus al-Harfush was imprisoned by the beylerbey of Aleppo and executed in 1625, the same year that Fakhr al-Din gained the governorship of the Baalbek nahiya, according to Duwayhi. The imperial government had replaced Mustafa Pasha in January 1624, but without Fakhr al-Din's agreement, the new beylerbey could not assume office in Damascus. Mustafa Pasha remained in place and Fakhr al-Din secured from him the governorship of the Zabadani nahiya for his Shihab proxy Qasim ibn Ali. By March, Fakhr al-Din turned against Mustafa Pasha in favor of his replacement, but the new beylerbey died soon afterward, and Mustafa Pasha was reinstated in April. Relations between Fakhr al-Din and Mustafa Pasha subsequently soured.

Takeover of Tripoli and zenith

Information about the career of Fakhr al-Din after 1624 is limited due to the deaths of his main contemporary chroniclers and the increasing silence of known Ottoman government sources. Most information about his post-1624 years are provided by Duwayhi. The claim by the local 19th-century chroniclers Haydar al-Shihabi and Tannus al-Shidyaq that Murad IV, powerless against Fakhr al-Din's de facto control over large parts of the Levant, recognized him as sultan al-Barr ('ruler of the Land [of the Levant]') in 1624, is a fabrication, according to Abu-Husayn.

In 1624, Fakhr al-Din lent his backing to Umar Kittanji after the latter was denied entry into Tripoli by Yusuf, who resisted Umar Kittanji's reappointment to the eyalet that year. After mobilizing in support of Umar Kittanji in Batroun in April, Fakhr al-Din stalled from further military action while negotiating with Yusuf over fiscal concessions. Fakhr al-Din secured another four-year iltizam over Byblos, Batroun and Bsharri. Yusuf was restored as beylerbey in August, but his practical control was limited to Tripoli city, the Krak des Chevaliers, the Koura nahiya, and the Jableh sanjak, while most of the remaining areas, including Homs, were held by Fakhr al-Din or his allies and sons-in-law among Yusuf's sons and nephews.

A few months after Yusuf's death in July 1625, Fakhr al-Din launched an abortive assault against Tripoli. He cooperated with its new beylerbey, Mustafa Pasha ibn Iskandar, in the latter's offensive against the Sayfas in the eyalet. He forced out his old ally Sulayman Sayfa from the Safita fortress and was later ceded the fortresses of Krak des Chevaliers and Marqab by Yusuf's sons. In return, Fakhr al-Din influenced the beylerbey to leave the Sayfas undisturbed. In September 1626, he captured the fortress of Salamiyah, followed by Hama and Homs, appointing his deputies to govern them.

Following the appointments of two more beylerbeys to the eyalet, Fakhr al-Din was appointed beylerbey of Tripoli in 1627, according solely to Duwayhi. The near-contemporary Aleppine historian Ramadan al-Utayfi noted that Fakhr al-Din controlled Tripoli until his downfall, but does not specify whether he held office. Ottoman government records affirm that he held the iltizam of the Tripoli nahiyas of Arqa, Akkar, Dinniyeh, Safita, Krak des Chevaliers, Byblos, Batroun, in addition to the iltizam of Sidon-Beirut, Safed and Baalbek, for most of 1625–1630. His iltizam were expanded to Jableh and Latakia in 1628–1629. By the early 1630s, Muhibbi noted that Fakhr al-Din had captured many places around Damascus, controlled thirty fortresses, commanded a large army of sekbans, and that the "only thing left for him to do was to claim the Sultanate".

Fall and execution

In 1630 or 1631, Fakhr al-Din denied the attempted winter housing of imperial troops returning from a failed campaign against the Safavids in territory under his control. The early 18th-century Ottoman historian Mustafa Naima held that Fakhr al-Din's growing army and power by this point induced fear among the Ottomans that he would take over Damascus. Murad IV was alarmed at his growing presence in northern Syria, near the Empire's Anatolian heartland. Numerous complaints about Fakhr al-Din were submitted to the Sultan. The Ottomans' victories against the Safavids in 1629 are likely to have freed up their forces to deal with Fakhr al-Din and other rebels across the Empire.

The imperial authorities appointed the veteran general Kuchuk Ahmed Pasha to the governorship of Damascus and promoted him to the high rank of vizier in 1632 for the purpose of eliminating Fakhr al-Din. Kuchuk led a large army toward Mount Lebanon, defeating the Ma'ns led by Ali, who was slain, near Khan Hasbaya in Wadi al-Taym. Fakhr al-Din and his retinue subsequently took refuge in a cave in Niha in the southern Chouf or further south in Jezzine. Unable to access the cave, Kuchuk started fires around it to smoke out Fakhr al-Din. He and his men consequently surrendered to Kuchuk. His sons Mansur and Husayn, the latter of whom was stationed in Marqab, had already been captured by Kuchuk. His sons Hasan, Haydar, and Bulak, his brother Yunus and nephew Hamdan ibn Yunus were all executed by Kuchuk during the expedition.

Kuchuk confiscated the money and goods in Fakhr al-Din's possession. A 1634 document from the Sharia Court in Damascus, which recorded the confiscation and disposal of his estate, referred to Fakhr al-Din as "a man well known for having rebelled against the sublime Sultanate". Kuchuk escorted him, chained on a horse, through Damascus where the local poets sang Kuchuk's praises for toppling Fakhr al-Din. Afterward, Fakhr al-Din was sent to Constantinople. There, he was imprisoned in Yedikule, while his two sons were sent to the Galatasaray.

In March or April 1635, Fakhr al-Din was beheaded and Mansur was strangled and tossed into the sea on the orders of Murad IV. Fakhr al-Din's body was displayed in the Hippodrome. The executions may have been prompted by complaints against the Ma'ns, particularly the operations of Fakhr al-Din's nephew Mulhim ibn Yunus against Fakhr al-Din's government-appointed replacement in the Chouf, Ali Alam al-Din. After his execution, his wives, all of whom were imprisoned in the Citadel of Damascus, were hanged. His maternal kinsmen, the Tanukh, were all killed by Alam al-Din. Husayn, still a youth, was spared execution and went on to have a career as a high-ranking imperial official and diplomat.

In the assessment of Olsaretti, "more profound causes than a string of military events were responsible for Fakhr al-Din's fall". Among the contributing factors were the unstable relations between Constantinople and the Levantine provinces with every change of sultan and grand vizier; Fakhr al-Din permanently fell out of imperial favor with Murad IV's accession in 1623. Fakhr al-Din's victories over his local rivals, such as the Sayfas and Mustafa Pasha, removed any serious checks on his power by local forces, eventually provoking an imperial backlash. His increased dependence on mercenaries in the late 1620s allowed and financially necessitated him to raise more revenue from the local population, risking their goodwill towards him. Duwayhi noted that in 1631 Fakhr al-Din sold large quantities of grain to foreign merchants during a period of scarcity, which increased food prices and burdened the inhabitants of his territories. Moreover, social and political conditions in general began to favor stronger, centralized states at the expense of local actors, such as the Ma'nid emirate.

Economic policies

Fakhr al-Din's basic governing policy was based on the collection of sufficient revenue to satisfy the exorbitant demands of the Ottoman imperial government and to elicit the goodwill of the pashas of Damascus through bribes. To raise revenue, he introduced more productive agricultural methods to his territories and promoted commerce. Sandys, who visited Sidon in 1611, observed that Fakhr al-Din had amassed a fortune "gathered by wiles and extortion" from locals and foreign merchants, counterfeited Dutch coins, and was a "severe justice", who restored the ruined structures and repopulated the once-abandoned settlements in his domains. The tax farms which Fakhr al-Din and his family held practically undisturbed from the 1590s were the principal source of his income. The price the Ma'ns paid the imperial authorities for the tax farms remained fixed despite their increasing value, enabling Fakhr al-Din to keep the greater part of their revenue.

Fakhr al-Din protected commercial agriculture in his tax farms and encouraged the growing of cash crops, which were purchased by foreign merchants at a relatively high cost. Special attention was paid to silk production due to high demand in Europe. The Levantine raw silk market had developed in the mid-16th century due to fluctuations in the Iranian silk supply. Mount Lebanon became a center of production by 1550 and its silk exports became an important commodity in Venetian trade by the 1570s. Once in control of Tripoli Eyalet in 1627, Fakhr al-Din planted 12,000 or 14,000 mulberry trees in Tripoli's outskirts and another large mulberry grove in nearby Hisah. As part of his efforts to foster the export of silk, he sent a gift of silk to Tuscany, which reciprocated the following year by sending him five vessels of goods. Significant profits were also derived from cotton, grain, olive oil, and wine. In Safed, where political and economic conditions in the sanjak had deteriorated in the years preceding Fakhr al-Din's appointment, the imperial authorities lauded him in 1605 for "guarding the country, keeping the Bedouins in check, ensuring the welfare and tranquility of the population, promoting agriculture, and increasing prosperity", a state of affairs affirmed by Khalidi.

The Ottoman naval defeat by a Spanish–Venetian coalition at Lepanto in 1571 had increased European economic and political influence in the eastern Mediterranean, including a revival of European–Levantine trade. Towards the end of the 16th century and during the early 17th century, the Ottoman Empire experienced a long-term economic crisis characterized by high inflation, heavy taxation, and political instability. Fakhr al-Din turned the changing economic circumstances to his advantage by opening the ports of Sidon, Beirut and Acre to European trade ships, building hostel-warehouses—known as khans—for merchants there, and establishing friendly ties with European powers. In contrast to the extortion of foreign merchants by the Assafs and Sayfas, the contemporary Arabic, Venetian, and Tuscan sources all emphasized the close relations between Fakhr al-Din, the French, English, Dutch, and Tuscan merchants and the English and French consuls in Sidon.

Fakhr al-Din used a local merchant as his representative in negotiations with foreign traders. In 1622, he secured the release of French traders captured by Moroccan pirates in Acre and assisted the completion of their activities in the town. In 1625, before Fakhr al-Din's capture of Tripoli, the governor of Aleppo had that city's fortifications dismantled to sway foreign merchants there to operate in Aleppine ports; instead, the mostly French and Flemish traders relocated to Fakhr al-Din's Sidon. Under his watch, Sidon was poised to continue prospering at the expense of Aleppo and its Mediterranean ports. In 1630, the Medici granted Fakhr al-Din's request to post a permanent representative to Sidon by dispatching an unofficial consul who operated under the French flag to avoid violating Ottoman capitulation agreements. In the assessment of Salibi, at a time when the Empire "was sinking to destitution because of its failure to adapt to changing circumstances, the realm of Faḫr al-dīn Maʿn [sic], in the southern Lebanon [range] and Galilee, attracted attention as a tiny corner into which the silver of Europe flowed".

Fortifications and troops
Fakhr al-Din spent the surpluses from his iltizam mainly on fortifications and other infrastructure, which promoted the order and stability required for agriculture and trade to thrive. He obtained and strengthened fortresses throughout his early career, starting with the Chouf redoubt of Niha in 1590, followed in 1594 by fortifications in Beirut, Sidon's inland fort, and the fort guarding Sidon's port. After his appointment to Safed, he obtained Shaqif Arnun in Jabal Amil, formerly held by the Shia Sa'b family and which he heavily provisioned and garrisoned, and Subayba in Mount Hermon. Sandys noted that Fakhr al-Din's "invincible forts" were equipped for a lengthy war. After returning from exile in 1618, he strengthened the fortifications of Acre. The coastal forts of Sidon, Beirut, and Acre were "remarkable for both their strength and the fact they incorporated storage for merchandise", according to Olsaretti. He built watchtowers to guard the mulberry groves he planted in and around Tripoli.

Fakhr al-Din kept the costs of his private army relatively low during his early career as he relied mainly on local peasant levies. Although generally less skilled than professional soldiers, their permanent presence made them readily available in times of war. European government estimates of his local forces between 1605 and 1614 ranged from 10,000 to 30,000, while Sandys estimated the number to be 40,000 Muslims and Christians. Local levies constituted the bulk of the Ma'nid army until the Battle of Anjar in 1623. The peasants' principal responsibility was agriculture, which limited the amount of time and the distance in which the Ma'ns could deploy them during campaigns. As their territories and agricultural production grew, the Ma'ns' use of peasant armies decreased. Khalidi noted that in 1617 the Ma'ns were not able to mobilize more than a small number of troops because the bulk of the levies were needed to work the mulberry groves.

According to Khalidi and a Tuscan agent sent to Sidon, in 1614 Fakhr al-Din employed 1,500 professional infantry and 150 mounted sekban musketeers, who accounted for his largest single expense. The sekbans were a mobile force used in small-scale engagements, sieges, patrols over key roads, and against pirates and brigands. From the 1620s onward, Fakhr al-Din relied on increasing numbers of sekbans. He compensated for the higher cost of their employment by taking larger shares of the surplus from his iltizam at the expense of the peasantry.

Assessment
Fakhr al-Din's political ambitions spanned well beyond the Druze Mountain and he attached equal importance to controlling the sanjaks and eyalets of Sidon-Beirut, Safed, Tripoli, and Ajlun. Harris places Fakhr al-Din, along with the heads of the Janbulad, Assaf, Sayfa, and Turabay families, in a category of late 16th–early 17th-century Levantine "super chiefs ... serviceable for the Ottoman pursuit of 'divide and rule' ... They could war among themselves and even with the governor of Damascus ... but were in deep trouble if the Ottomans became agitated about revenue or loyalty". In the assessment of the historian Adnan Bakhit, Fakhr al-Din was a Syrian strongman who was afforded space by the Ottomans to suppress and eliminate other local strongmen until he was destroyed by the Ottomans to facilitate their centralized rule over the Syrian eyalets. The Sunni Muslim establishment in Ottoman Damascus generally considered Fakhr al-Din as a tyrant, rebel, and infidel.

Salibi held that in the "annals of Ottoman Syria" Fakhr al-Din "stands out as a brilliant figure by any standard". In his assessment, Fakhr al-Din "was a born adventurer who combined military skill and eminent qualities of leadership with a keen business acumen and unusual powers of observation". The 17th-century English academic and clergyman Henry Maundrell remarked that Fakhr al-Din was "a man much above the ordinary level of a Turkish [Ottoman] genius".

Salibi further noted that although Fakhr al-Din was "a rapacious tyrant who weighed his subjects down with taxes", he was "enlightened enough to realize that the better the condition of a people, the more they can pay". Sidon, Beirut, Acre and their mountainous countryside prospered under Fakhr al-Din. He helped modernize agriculture in his territories with Italian expertise and was the first to promote silk as a cash crop in Mount Lebanon at a time of global demand. Through his ties with the French, the Tuscans and the Papacy, he fostered the most significant European political and economic penetration of Sidon and Beirut since the collapse of the Crusader states in the late 13th century.

Under his stewardship, the city of Sidon attained political significance for the first time in its modern history. The Lebanese nationalist and Arab nationalist histories of Sidon written in the 1960s by Munir al-Khuri and Abd al-Aziz Salim, respectively, both commend Fakhr al-Din and note his rule was a golden age for the city.

Legacy

After Fakhr al-Din's downfall, the Ottomans attempted, unsuccessfully, to undo the unity of the Druze-dominated Chouf and the Maronite-dominated Keserwan forged under Fakhr al-Din. In 1660, the Ottomans reestablished the Sidon Eyalet and in 1697, awarded Fakhr al-Din's grandnephew Ahmad ibn Mulhim the iltizam of its mountain nahiyas of the Chouf, Gharb, Jurd, Matn, and Keserwan. The singular rule over the mountain nahiyas by Ahmad and his successors from the Shihab clan inaugurated what became known to later historians as the "Lebanese emirate", a term that was not used until the days of the Shihab ruler Bashir II ((r. 1789 – 1840)). Nonetheless, the system of fiscal cantons in Mount Lebanon introduced by the Shihabs in 1711 was the precursor to the Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate established in 1861, which in turn, was a precursor of the modern Lebanese Republic.

Although he did not actually establish a Lebanese state, Fakhr al-Din is regarded by the Lebanese people as the founder of their modern country because he united the Druze and Maronite districts of Mount Lebanon, the neighboring Mediterranean coastal cities, and the Beqaa Valley under a single authority for the first time in history. According to Salibi, Fakhr al-Din's only "enduring" political legacy was the tenuous, symbiotic union of the Maronites and the Druze, which became a significant development throughout Mount Lebanon's later history. In the view of Harris, Fakhr al-Din inaugurated the continued interaction among the Druze, Maronite, Shia, and Sunni communal elites of the constituent regions of modern Lebanon, namely Mount Lebanon, Jabal Amil, the Beqaa Valley and the coast. From the establishment of the French Mandatory state of Greater Lebanon in 1920, Lebanese schoolchildren have been taught that Fakhr al-Din was the country's historical founder.

Under Fakhr al-Din's leadership, Maronite, Greek Orthodox, and Greek Catholic Christians began migrating to the Druze Mountain in large numbers; the devastation wrought on the Druze peasantry during the punitive government campaigns of the 16th century had probably caused a deficit of Druze farm labor for the Druze landowners, which was partly filled by the Christian migrants. Christians were settled in Druze villages by the Druze tribal chiefs in the days of Fakhr al-Din to stimulate agricultural production, centered on silk, and the chiefs donated land to the Maronite Church and monastic institutions to further facilitate Christian settlement. Fakhr al-Din made the first such donation in 1609. Although the Druze chiefs owned much of the Chouf lands on which the silk crop was grown, Christians dominated every other aspect of the silk economy there, including production, financing, brokerage to the markets of Sidon and Beirut, and its export to Europe. Fakhr al-Din's religious tolerance endeared him to the Christians living under his rule. According to Duwayhi, "Under Emir Fakhr al-Din the Christians could raise their heads high. They built churches, rode horses with saddles, wore turbans of fine muslin and belts with precious inlays, and carried jeweled rifles. Missionaries from Europe came and established themselves in Mount Lebanon. This was because his troops were Christians, and his stewards and attendants Maronites."

Nationalist historiography
Modern Lebanese historians from the country's different religious communities have interpreted Fakhr al-Din's emirate, or collection of tax farms, according to their own community's conception of the Lebanese state, generally omitting divergent views. Nationalist narratives by Lebanese Druze and Maronites agree on Fakhr al-Din's "decisive influence and contribution to Lebanon's history", according to the historian Yusri Hazran, though they differ significantly in determining Fakhr al-Din's motives and the historic significance of his rule. Druze authors describe him as the ideal ruler who strove to achieve strong domestic unity, build a prosperous economy, and free Lebanon politically from Ottoman oppression. Making the case that the Ma'nids worked toward Lebanon's integration into the Arab regional environment, the Druze authors generally de-emphasize his relations with Europe and portray his drive for autonomy as the first forerunning of the Arab nationalist movement. On the other hand, Maronite authors viewed the legacy of Fakhr al-Din as one of isolation from the Arab–Islamic milieu. Fakhr al-Din himself has been adopted by a number of Maronite nationalists as a member of the religious group, citing the refuge he may have taken with the Khazen family in the Keserwan during his adolescence, or claiming that he had embraced Christianity at his deathbed.

In the view of the historian Philip Hitti, Fakhr al-Din's "long career stood between Lebanon past and Lebanon future. It pointed to the Lebanese their destiny and established a clear-cut break between their country and Syria." According to the historian Christopher Stone, Fakhr al-Din was utilized by the Rahbani brothers in their Lebanese nationalist play, The Days of Fakhr al-Din, as "a perfect historical predecessor for Lebanon's Christian nationalism of the twentieth century".

Building works

Toward the end of his career Fakhr al-Din requested assistance from the Medici in building modern fortifications in his territory. Tuscan experts, including the architect Francesco Cioli and the builder Francesco Fagni, arrived in Sidon in 1631. D'Arvieux noted that Fakhr al-Din had a significant interest in the arts, poetry, and music. Nonetheless, the modern historian Elie Haddad holds that his communications with Tuscany indicate that Fakhr al-Din's primary concern was utilitarian, namely the defense of his territory, facilitation of movement for his soldiers, and raising the living standards of the inhabitants.

Fakhr al-Din's palace in Beirut, possibly built by Cioli, combined Arabic and Tuscan architectural influences, and contained a marble fountain and extensive gardens. It was no longer extant by the end of the 19th century. Fakhr al-Din's palace in Deir al-Qamar was built in the Mamluk architectural style with little ornamentation, except its arched doorway entrance with its alternating yellow and white bands of limestone, a style known as ablaq.

Haddad assumes that Fagni oversaw the construction of water works and bridges at Nahr al-Kalb, Sidon, and Beirut, as well as the palace in Deir al-Qamar. Fakhr al-Din's building works in Sidon, Acre, and Deir al-Qamar "stand as a permanent tribute to the power and wealth that the Ma'ns achieved under his [Fakhr al-Din's] leadership and to their role in the re-emergence of the Levantine coast", according to Olsaretti.

Sidon
Fakhr al-Din had his government house—known as a saray—built in Sidon as early as 1598. It consisted of a large courtyard, an iwan on the ground floor, several rooms, including roofed reception areas known as qa'as, a fountain, and gardens. It was positioned immediately south of a large square in the city, today called 'Saray Square' after Fakhr al-Din's construction. Other than the entrance of the building, which is characterized by ablaq masonry and a type of ornamented vaulting known as muqarnas, the rest of the original structure had been gradually replaced through the early 19th century, when it was converted into a school; the courtyard is now a schoolyard and the garden is a playground. In its original form it was the tallest structure in Sidon and its garden had a wide variety of plants.

The expansion of commercial activity and increasing wealth in Sidon overseen by Fakhr al-Din is architecturally testified by his construction of the khans and mosques he built in the city. Fakhr al-Din is commonly, though erroneously, credited with the construction of the Khan al-Franj caravansary complex. It housed the French consul around 1616 until the consul relocated to a neighboring, formerly Ma'nid-owned property, the Dar al-Musilmani, in the 1630s. The Dar al-Musilmani was built by Fakhr al-Din, who may have used it as his original residence in the city and that of his wives. Following the capture of Fakhr al-Din by Kuchuk, the latter confiscated all of the Ma'ns' properties in Sidon, Tyre, Banias, and other places. He initially endowed the family's properties in Sidon, sixty-nine in total and mostly owned by Fakhr al-Din, his son Ali, and brother Yunus, in an endowment—known as a waqf—administered from Damascus for the benefit of the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Among the properties were dozens of houses and shops, two khans, several mills, a soap factory, a coffeehouse, and a bathhouse (or hammam).

Fakhr al-Din's two khans in Sidon were the Khan al-Ruzz (the Caravansary of Rice) and the Khan al-Qaysariyya, both built directly on the Mediterranean shore of the old city. The first was observed by d'Arvieux as having large stores for the storage of rice and other commodities on the ground floor, a covered gallery for the rooms housing visitors on the top floor, a large courtyard, and a small mosque. Today, the Khan al-Ruzz is in a poor state, with the lower floor used for small workshops and the upper floor permanently housing Sidonian and Palestinian families, while the mosque has been replaced by a different structure. The smaller, neighboring Khan al-Qaysariyya, which abutted the Bahri Mosque, had a small, square courtyard with four stores, a second floor with a covered gallery leading to twelve rooms for visitors. D'Arvieux considered it the most beautiful of three khans of Sidon, including the Khan al-Franj. It is a sandstone structure and at present the courtyard has been built on, the lodging rooms and half of the stores have been subdivided and their structure changed. Two of the larger original stores of the Khan al-Qaysariyya remain intact and are used as shops. Fakhr al-Din built dozens of shops in the markets of Suq al-Ars and Suq al-Harir, around the three khans. A number of them continue to function in the Saray Square.

Marriages and children

Fakhr al-Din married at least four women. The sources generally omit their names, identifying them instead by their male relatives. His first wife was the sister of Muhammad ibn Jamal al-Din, a chief of the Arslans of Choueifat in the Gharb. The marriage was arranged c. 1590 by Fakhr al-Din's mother and uncle Sayf al-Din to reconcile tensions with the Yamani Druze faction of which the Arslans were part. She was known in the sources by the honorific term 'Sultana', as Sitt Nasab was also known. She gave birth to Fakhr al-Din's eldest son Ali. His second marriage was to a woman from the Qaysi Druze faction, to which the Ma'ns belonged, and nothing further is known about her.

In a series of peace settlements with the Sayfas, Fakhr al-Din established marital ties with the family. In 1613, he wed Alwa, a daughter of Yusuf's brother Ali Sayfa, who gave birth to his sons Husayn and Hasan in 1621 and 1624, respectively, and a daughter, Sitt al-Nasr. Sitt al-Nasr was married to Yusuf's son Hasan before 1618, and when Hasan died in 1623 she was remarried to his brother Umar in January 1624. Another of Fakhr al-Din's daughters was wed to Yusuf's son Beylik in 1620, while Fakhr al-Din's son Ali was wed to Yusuf's daughter in the same year. In 1617, one of Fakhr al-Din's daughters was officially wed to Ahmad, a son of Yunus al-Harfush who negotiated with the Ottomans on behalf of the Ma'ns to reinstate them as the sanjak-beys of Sidon-Beirut and Safad in 1615; the daughter was not sent to join Ahmad until December 1620. After Ahmad's death, she was married to his brother Husayn.

Fakhr al-Din's fourth wife was Khasikiyya bint Zafir, the sister of Fakhr al-Din's friend Ali al-Zafiri, who controlled Sidon before Fakhr al-Din's governorship. Known for her intelligence and beauty, she became his favorite wife. She continued to live in Sidon where Fakhr al-Din renovated a palace for her. She was the mother of his sons Haydar and Bulak, and daughter Fakhira. While Fakhr al-Din's other wives were sent for safety in Shaqif Arnun and Subayba, Khasikiyya accompanied him during his exile. She maintained social relations with the women of the Medici household, as indicated by a letter she sent to the Tuscan grand duchess Maria Maddalena in March 1616. Fakhr al-Din also had a concubine, who bore him his son Mansur.

Family tree
{{legend|#F9E79F|Paramount Emir of the Druze}} {{legend|white|Dynasties: Ma'n—Outlined in Black; Tanukh—Outlined in Red; Shihab—Outlined in Purple |outline=white}} {{legend|white|Italic text denotes females |outline=white}} {{legend|white|Dashed lines denote marriages |outline=white}}

title: Fakhr al-Din II


text:
Talk:Theodorid

"Under his reign the Visigoths were enemies of the Roman Empire"

Something tells me this isn't right since the Visigoths aided the Romans in the Battle of Chalons. Anyone know more about this?

Theodorid was the illegitimate son of Alaric? Where does that come from? I know they were from the same clan, but I didn't think their exact relationship was ever specified.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Theodorid


text:
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health

The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) is a United States government agency which explores complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). It was initially created in 1991 as the Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), and renamed the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) before receiving its current name in 2014. NCCIH is one of the 27 institutes and centers that make up the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

NCCIH has been criticized for funding and marketing pseudoscientific medicine.

Overview
The Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM) was established in October 1991 by the United States Congress. The OAM was expanded from an office into a center and renamed the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) in October 1998. It is one of several centers within the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The founding director of the center was Stephen Straus. In 2008, Josephine Briggs became the second director of NCCAM. The NCCAM was renamed the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) in December 2014. In August 2018, Helene Langevin was named director of the NCCIH.

The 2014 name change to NCCIH has been described by critics as an attempt by the center to mitigate criticism by avoiding the term "alternative" and distancing itself from having funded studies of questionable merit.

The 2001 mission statement of the NCCAM stated that it was "dedicated to exploring complementary and alternative healing practices in the context of rigorous science; training complementary and alternative medicine researchers; and disseminating authoritative information to the public and professionals."

As NCCIH, the mission statement is "to define, through rigorous scientific investigation, the usefulness and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions and their roles in improving health and health care".

As the OAM (1991–1998)
Joseph J. Jacobs was appointed the first director of the OAM in 1992. Jacobs' support for rigorous scientific methodology caused friction with Democrat U.S. Senator Tom Harkin and other OAM patrons. Harkin believed his allergies had been cured by bee pollen pills and expressed frustration with the "unbendable rules" of randomized clinical trials, saying, "it is not necessary for the scientific community to understand the process before the American public can benefit from these therapies." Harkin's office reportedly pressured the OAM to fund studies of favored theories, including the use of bee pollen and antineoplastons as treatments. OAM board member Barrie Cassileth publicly criticized the office as a purveyor of nonsense and described it as a "place where opinions are counted as equal to data". After Harkin appeared on television in 1994 with cancer patients who blamed Jacobs for blocking their access to antineoplastons, Jacobs resigned from the OAM in frustration. In an interview with Science, Jacobs criticized Harkin and other politicians for pressuring his office, promoting certain therapies, and, he says, attempting an end-run around objective science."

Harkin drew support from Iowa Democrat Representative Berkley Bedell, who believed that cow colostrum had cured his Lyme disease.

The OAM's budget grew in the 1990s. The office drew increasing criticism for its perceived lack of rigorous scientific study of alternative approaches favoring uncritical boosterism. Paul Berg, a Nobel laureate in chemistry, wrote to the Senate that "Quackery will always prey on the gullible and uninformed, but we should not provide it with cover from the NIH," and called the office "an embarrassment to serious scientists". Allen Bromley, then-president of the American Physical Society, similarly wrote to Congress that the OAM had "emerged as an undiscriminating advocate of unconventional medicine. It has bestowed the considerable prestige of the NIH on a variety of highly dubious practices, some of which clearly violate basic laws of physics". Leon Jaroff, writing for The New York Times in 1997, described the OAM as "Tom Harkin's folly".

In 1995, Wayne Jonas, a promoter of homeopathy and political ally of Harkin, became the director of the OAM, and continued in that role until 1999. In 1997, the NCCAM budget was increased from $12 million to $20 million annually. From 1990 to 1997, use of alternative medicine in the US increased by 25%, with a corresponding 50% increase in expenditures. The OAM drew increasing criticism from eminent members of the scientific community with letters to the Senate Appropriations Committee when discussion of renewal of funding OAM came up. In 1998, the President of the North Carolina Medical Association publicly called for shutting down the OAM.

In 1998, NIH director and Nobel laureate Harold Varmus came into conflict with Harkin by pushing to have more NIH control of alternative medicine research. The NIH Director placed the OAM under stricter scientific NIH control. Harkin responded by elevating OAM into an independent NIH "center", just short of being its own "institute", and renamed it the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). NCCAM had a mandate to promote a more rigorous and scientific approach to the study of alternative medicine, research training and career development, outreach, and "integration".

Stephen Strauss was the director of NCCAM from 1999 to 2006. He tried to bring more scientific rigor to the organization. In 1999 the NCCAM budget was increased from $20 million to $50 million. The United States Congress approved the appropriations without dissent. In 2000, the budget was increased to about $68 million, in 2001 to $90 million, in 2002 to $104 million, and in 2003, to $113 million.

As NCCAM (1998–2014)
In 2008 Josephine Briggs was appointed as director of NCCAM. She was "a nephrologist with impeccable scientific credentials". The appointment was considered surprising since she did not have a complementary and alternative medicine background or integrative medicine background. Writing for Science-Based Medicine, David Gorski states Briggs was in an impossible position: "She was a real scientist trying to impose scientific rigor on an enterprise that was inherently resistant to such an imposition." She attempted to impose a more scientific approach with two long-term strategic plans. The plans used "one of the most harmful tactics of quacks to legitimize their quackery under the banner of 'integrative medicine,' the co-opting of the opioid crisis as an excuse to claim all nonpharmacological treatments for pain as being 'integrative.' The results are threatening great harm to chronic pain patients by misguided governments wanting to force them to undergo quack treatments like acupuncture as a means of getting them off opioids." However, she was able to eliminate studies on homeopathy and tried to counter anti-vaccine beliefs. Energy healing was "relegated to the fringes, if not eliminated". Most of the studies became centered around nutrition, exercise, pharmacognosy, "and other modalities within the realm of science-based medicine".

In 2009, after 17 years of government testing for $2.5 billion, almost no clearly proven efficacy of alternative therapies had been found. Senator Harkin complained, "One of the purposes of this center was to investigate and validate alternative approaches. Quite frankly, I must say publicly that it has fallen short. I think quite frankly that in this center and the office previously before it, most of its focus has been on disproving things rather than seeking out and approving." Members of the scientific community criticized this comment as showing Harkin did not understand the basics of scientific inquiry, which tests hypotheses, but never intentionally attempts to "validate approaches". In 2009, the NCCAM's yearly budget was increased to about $122 million. Overall NIH funding for CAM research increased to $300 million by 2009. By 2009, Americans were spending $34 billion annually on CAM.

In 2012, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a criticism that NCCAM had funded study after study, but had "failed to prove that complementary or alternative therapies are anything more than placebos". The JAMA criticism pointed to large wasting of research money on testing scientifically implausible treatments, citing "NCCAM officials spending $374,000 to find that inhaling lemon and lavender scents does not promote wound healing; $750,000 to find that prayer does not cure AIDS or hasten recovery from breast-reconstruction surgery; $390,000 to find that ancient Indian remedies do not control type 2 diabetes; $700,000 to find that magnets do not treat arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or migraine headaches; and $406,000 to find that coffee enemas do not cure pancreatic cancer." It was pointed out that the public generally ignored negative results from testing, that people continue to "believe what they want to believe, arguing that it does not matter what the data show: They know what works for them". Continued increasing use of CAM products was also blamed on the lack of FDA ability to regulate alternative products, where negative studies do not result in FDA warnings or FDA-mandated changes on labeling, whereby few consumers are aware that many claims of many supplements were found not to be supported.

As NCCIH (2014–present)
In 2014, while Josephine Briggs was the director, the NCCAM was renamed the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). Briggs retired in October 2017.

On August 29, 2018, the NCCIH announced Helene Langevin as the new director. She was previously the director of the Osher Center and professor-in-residence of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Her medical interests involve connective tissue. Langevin "believes that the stretching of connective tissue is how several CAM modalities 'work,' such as chiropractic, massage, and ... acupuncture". Langevin has been studying acupuncture since the 1990s. At the time of her appointment, Gorski expressed concern that the balance of power at NCCIH would "shift back towards pseudoscience" with a massive budget to fund the shift.

Operations
The NCCIH operates under a charter set by the National Advisory Council for Complementary and Integrative Health (NACCIH). The charter states that: "Of the 18 appointed members (of the council) 12 shall be selected from among the leading representatives of the health and scientific disciplines (including not less than 2 individuals who are leaders in the fields of public health and the behavioral or social sciences) relevant to the activities of NCCIH, particularly representatives of the health and scientific disciplines in the area of complementary and alternative medicine. Nine of the members shall be practitioners licensed in one or more of the major systems with which the Center is involved. Six of the members shall be appointed by the Secretary from the general public and shall include leaders in public policy, law, health policy, economics, and management. Three of the six shall represent the interests of individual consumers of complementary and alternative medicine."

Directors
Past directors 1999 - present

Research focus
NCCIH funds research into complementary and alternative medicine, including support for clinical trials of CAM techniques. The four primary areas of focus are research, research training and career development, outreach, and integration. NCCIH divides complementary and alternative medicine into natural products, including dietary supplements and herbal supplements; mind and body practices, including meditation, yoga, qigong, acupuncture and spinal manipulation (both chiropractic and osteopathic); and other approaches, such as homeopathy, naturopathy, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), and ayurveda.

Funding trajectory
Since 1999, the division's funding increased more than six-fold. By 2012, OAM and NCCAM spent $1.6 billion in grant funding. Between 1999 and 2009, NCCAM supported approximately 50% of the National Cancer Institute spending on CAM, with the total amount spent on CAM during that time frame $2.856 billion.

The NCCIH budget for 2005 was $123 million. For fiscal year 2009 (ending September 30, 2009), it was $122 million.

The NIH has also conducted research in alternative medicine at the National Cancer Institute by the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine which, in 2009, had the same $122 million budget as NCCIH. For FY 2009; NIH's total budget was about $29 billion.

The NCCIH budget for 2015 was $124.1 million. They requested a $3,459,000 funding increase for their 2016 budget.

Examples of NCCAM research projects funded prior to 2012
Of 52 CAM clinical trial studies on HIV and Cancer, only 8 reported results.

Education
NCCAM also funds education and outreach programs. Despite the negative findings on the effectiveness of distance healing, NCCAM awarded $180,000 to a consultant to develop an Internet-based wellness program on the healing by Qigong.

Criticism
NCCIH has been criticized by Steven E. Nissen, Stephen Barrett, and Kimball Atwood among others, for funding, along with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute a study of EDTA chelation therapy for coronary artery disease, which lasted about 10 years and cost about $31 million, even though smaller, controlled trials found chelation ineffective. Other NCCIH-funded studies have included the benefits of distant prayer for AIDS, the effects of lemon and lavender essential oils on wound healing, "energy chelation", and "rats stressed out by white noise".

In 2006, NCCIH was criticized in Science with the comment "NCCAM funds proposals of dubious merit; its research agenda is shaped more by politics than by science, and its charter structures it in a manner that precludes an independent review of its performance." The authors suggested that, while it was appropriate to study alternative therapies, the quality of its research was lower than other NIH institutes and that these studies could be performed under the auspices of other institutes within the NIH. As an example, the authors described a trial of gemcitabine with the Gonzalez regimen for stage II to IV pancreatic cancer, in the belief that a deficiency of pancreatic proteolytic enzymes causes cancer. Severe adverse effects were associated with the Gonzalez regimen, and no evidence in peer-reviewed journals supported the plausibility or efficacy of the regimen or chelation therapy.

A 2012 study published in the Skeptical Inquirer examined the grants and awards funded by NCCIH from 2000 to 2011, which totaled $1.3 billion. The study found no discoveries in complementary and alternative medicine that would justify the existence of this center. The authors argued that after 20 years and an expenditure of $2 billion, the failure of NCCIH was evidenced by the lack of publications and the failure to report clinical trials in peer-reviewed medical journals. They recommended that NCCIH be defunded or abolished and the concept of funding alternative medicine be discontinued.

In 2019, an analysis by the Center for Inquiry found that NCCIH was continuing to fund questionable science and that "there is little hope of reforming the NCCIH as it is currently incorporated". It concluded that "There is no legitimate function that the NCCIH can serve that could not be better carried out by other existing organizations within the NIH umbrella."

Writing for Quackwatch in 2023, William London criticized the NCCIH and its article "6 Things To Know When Selecting a Complementary Health Practitioner" for "misleading consumers" and promoting—rather than warning against—complementary health, which "is often a euphemism for quackery."


text:
Bryan Allen (ice hockey)

Bryan Nigel Allen (born August 21, 1980) is a Canadian former professional ice hockey defenceman who played in the National Hockey League (NHL) between 2001 and 2014.

Playing career
Allen was the fourth overall selection in the 1998 NHL Entry Draft to the Vancouver Canucks. A big, bruising defender with a mean streak, Allen earned comparisons to Derian Hatcher at the time of his selection.

Allen made the Canucks at age 18 in his first camp, but was unable to reach a contract with the team's management and returned to the Ontario Hockey League (OHL)'s Oshawa Generals, his junior team. Despite being limited to 37 out of his team's 66 games, his strong leadership style of play earned him OHL First All-Star Team honours. He was also selected to represent Canada at the 1999 World Junior Championships.

After missing substantial parts of the two previous seasons due to injury, he missed virtually all of the 1999–00 campaign following surgery.

Allen would play most of his first two professional seasons in minor-pro before earning a regular roster spot in the 2002–03 season, appearing in 48 games and scoring 5 goals. With the departure of Murray Baron in the summer of 2003, Allen became a regular for the Canucks and did a fine job of replacing Baron's size and physical play. He was especially a standout on the penalty kill, logging heavy minutes as the Canucks finished near the top of the NHL in that category. On November 5, Allen was suspended for two games following an incident on November 3 in which he slashed Detroit Red Wings forward Henrik Zetterberg, breaking his leg.

During the 2004–05 NHL lockout, Allen suited up for Khimik Voskresensk of the Russian Superleague (RSL) to stay in game shape. Back in Vancouver for the 2005–06 season, with the departures of Marek Malík and Brent Sopel, as well as long-term injuries to several other defenders, Allen's icetime skyrocketed and he became one of the team's most important defenders, finishing with career highs of 7 goals and 17 points.

On June 23, 2006, Allen was involved in a multi-player trade that sent him, Todd Bertuzzi and Alex Auld to the Florida Panthers in exchange for Roberto Luongo, Lukáš Krajíček and a sixth-round draft pick. The 2006–07 season would be the best of his career to date, as he set career highs with 21 assists and 25 points and established himself as one of the Panthers' top defenders.

A knee injury caused Allen to miss all but two games of the 2008–09 season with the Panthers.

On February 28, 2011, Allen was traded to the Carolina Hurricanes in exchange for forward Sergei Samsonov.

On July 1, 2012 Allen signed a three-year contract as a free agent with the Anaheim Ducks. On November 20, 2014 during the 2014–15 season, the final year of his contract, Allen was traded to the Montreal Canadiens in exchange for forward Rene Bourque.

International play
Allen represented Canada at the World Junior Championships. He recorded one goal and three points in 7 games to help Canada to a silver medal. His goal was a huge one, the tying goal late in the final against Russia, but Russia would ultimately win in overtime.

Allen was expected to be a leader for Canada at the 2000 World Junior Championships, but was unable to play as he was recovering from injury.

title: Bryan Allen (ice hockey)


text:
Buckingham Palace Garden

Buckingham Palace Garden is a large private park attached to the London residence of the British monarch. It is situated to the rear (west) of Buckingham Palace, occupying a 17 ha site in the City of Westminster and forms the largest private garden in London. It is bounded by Constitution Hill to the north, Hyde Park Corner to the west, Grosvenor Place to the south-west, and the Royal Mews, King's Gallery, and Buckingham Palace itself to the south and east.

The royal connection to the site of the garden dates from 1609 when James I purchased four acres of land "near to his palace of Westminster for the planting of mulberry trees". The garden covers much of the area of the former Goring Great Garden, named after Lord Goring, occupant of one of the earliest grand houses on the site. In 1664 Goring's mansion, and the lease on the grounds, was bought by Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington. In 1674 the house was destroyed by fire and Arlington built a replacement, named Arlington House, on the site. This house was sold by Arlington's daughter to John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave. Created Duke of Buckingham and Normanby in 1703, Buckingham commissioned a new mansion for the site, named Buckingham House. His architect was William Talman and his builder William Winde. Similar attention was paid to the landscape, where Buckingham engaged Henry Wise to lay out an elaborate garden in the French style, with parterres and a central canal. In the late 18th century, Buckingham House was acquired by George III whose heir, George IV used John Nash to remodel the house which was renamed Buckingham Palace. Nash engaged William Townsend Aiton to implement designs for a new garden. Aiton's work forms the basis of the garden that exists today.

Buckingham Palace Garden is the setting for monarch's annual garden parties. In June 2002, Queen Elizabeth II invited the public into the garden for entertainment for the first time during her reign. As part of her Golden Jubilee Weekend thousands of Britons were invited to apply for tickets to Party at the Palace where the guitarist Brian May of the band Queen performed his God Save the Queen guitar solo on top of Buckingham Palace. This concert was preceded the previous evening by a Prom at the Palace. During the Queen's 80th birthday celebrations in 2006 the garden was the scene of Children's Party at the Palace.

The garden is Grade II* listed on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. The planting is varied and exotic, with a mulberry tree dating back to the time of James I. Notable features include a large 19th-century lake which was once graced by a flock of flamingoes, and the Waterloo Vase. There is also a summerhouse attributed to William Kent, a helicopter landing pad on the great lawn below the West Terrace, and a tennis court. Unlike the nearby Royal Parks of London, Buckingham Palace Garden is not usually open to the public. However, when the palace is open during August and September, visitors have access to part of the garden, which forms the exit, via a gift shop in a marquee, at the end of the tour.

History
The garden at Buckingham Palace was formed from that created for the palace's predecessor, Buckingham House. The landscape design for the earlier garden was by Henry Wise. He constructed an elaborate formal garden with a long central canal running south from the rear of the house. Wise was paid the substantial sum of £1,000 per year for his services. Subsequently, work was undertaken by Capability Brown, who planned more than was achieved. The garden was redesigned at the time of the palace rebuilding by William Townsend Aiton of Kew Gardens and John Nash for George IV. The great manmade lake was completed in 1828 and was supplied with water from the Serpentine Lake in Hyde Park.

Beyond the lake is an artificial rise, called The Mound, made partly from soil that was excavated to build the lake. It was constructed to obscure the view of the Royal Mews from the palace. During the Victorian era, Prince Albert had a pavilion built on the mound. Known as the Milton, or Comus Pavilion, it was decorated with scenes from John Milton's masque Comus, painted by some of the leading artists of the day. Derelict after World War I, the pavilion was pulled down in 1928.

The garden is maintained by approximately eight full-time gardeners, with two or three part-timers. The trees include plane, Indian chestnut, silver maple, and a swamp cypress. In the south-west corner, there is a single surviving mulberry tree from the plantation installed by King James I of England when he unsuccessfully attempted to breed silkworms in the Mulberry Garden on the Buckingham Palace site. The garden now holds the UK's national collection of mulberry trees, housing some 40 varieties.

The garden is regularly surveyed for its moths by staff from the Natural History Museum, and occasionally visited by the Queen's swans. A tennis court was constructed in the garden in 1919 and, in the 1930s, the future George VI played Fred Perry on the court. In 2006 the garden was the site of the "Big Royal Dig" by the Time Team of archaeologists led by Tony Robinson. The results were televised, with some live streaming. Timed to help celebrate the 80th birthday of Queen Elizabeth II, this marked Time Team's 150th dig.

The garden is not generally open to the public but visitors to the palace during its summer opening exit through the garden. Private tours are occasionally available.

Garden parties
The garden was the setting for the Royal Garden Parties held by Queen Elizabeth II. Although earlier Royal owners had held entertainments in the garden, the tradition of large, formal, garden parties was established by Victoria, for whose Golden and Diamond Jubilees, two particularly lavish parties were held in 1887 and 1897. Three garden parties are held at Buckingham Palace, and one at the Palace of Holyroodhouse (in Scotland) each summer. The Queen also gives permission for additional garden parties to be held; in 2008, parties were held for the Centenary of the Royal Charter to the British Red Cross, the Territorial Army, the Not Forgotten Association and for those attending the Lambeth Conference. Some 30,000 guests attend the parties each year, which recommenced in 2022, after a two-year abeyance due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nominations for invitations to the garden parties are made by the Lord-lieutenants, government departments, the armed forces, the Diplomatic corps and a range of charities and societies. The nominations, which are intended to acknowledge public service, are approved by the Lord Chamberlain, who then issues the invitations in the name of the Queen.

Guests take tea and sandwiches in marquees erected in the garden. Just prior to 4.00 p.m. the Queen and accompanying members of the Royal Family emerge from the Bow Room in the palace, as a band plays the National Anthem. The royal party then process through ranks of assembled guests towards the Royal Tea Tent, greeting those previously selected for the honour. A second private tea tent is reserved for diplomatic guests, while all other attendees make use of the general tent. Two military bands alternate in playing a "continuous supply of festive music".

The site and the trees
The garden, the largest in London, covers 17 ha and contains over 1,000 trees, 325 specimens of wild plants and 35 different species of birds. The largely-flat site forms a rough triangle with Buckingham Palace at the apex. The western (rear) facade opens on to a long terrace, the West Terrace, which overlooks a large lawn, known as the Main Lawn. Beyond the lawn is the lake. The whole is surrounded by a wall and, internally, by a gravel path which runs around the garden's perimeter, with branches diverting around the lawns, lake and island flowerbeds. The dominating species of tree is the London Plane, Platanus × acerifolia. There are a large number of commemorative trees, planted to celebrate royal occasions, which continues a tradition begun by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. 24 trees within the garden are designated as "Champion Trees" on the Tree Register of the British Isles.

Architectural features
The garden has a number of architectural features. Among the most notable is the Waterloo Vase, a great urn commissioned by Napoleon to commemorate his expected victories, which in 1815 was presented unfinished to the Prince Regent. After the King had had the base completed by sculptor Richard Westmacott, intending it to be the focal point of the new Waterloo chamber at Windsor Castle, it was adjudged to be too heavy for any floor (at 15 ft high and weighing 15 tons). The National Gallery, to whom it was presented, finally returned it in 1906 to the sovereign, Edward VII. King Edward then solved the problem by placing the vase outside in the garden where it now remains. A pair of ornamental cranes which stand by the lake were presented to Edward when on a tour of India as Prince of Wales in 1875-6.

Summerhouse and statuary
A summerhouse stands opposite the Waterloo Vase, which was removed from the old Admiralty garden at the other end of The Mall. The structure is in the form of a small temple, with a pediment supported by four Atlantes. Peter Coats, in his study of 1978, The Gardens of Buckingham Palace, notes stylistic similarities to the work of William Kent. Much of the statuary in the garden, including vases and urns on the West Terrace, was designed by Nash, and constructed in Coade Stone, a form of artificial stone popular in the Regency and Victorian periods.

Lake, Tennis Court, Lawn and Stonework
There is also a lake and a tennis court, the latter dating from 1919. The lake is 400 ft long and 150 ft across and used to be home to a colony of flamingo until they were killed by foxes. The lake was originally fed from The Serpentine in Hyde Park, but is now sourced from a bore hole in the garden. The water is aerated by a waterfall, installed by Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, to replace a cascade constructed by the Queen's parents, George VI and Queen Elizabeth. The large island in the lake houses four beehives where, since 1983, honey has been produced. Helicopters land on the great lawn in front of the West Terrace. The garden contains a number of examples of another type of artificial stonework, Pulhamite, including two bridges to the islands in the lake and a large rockery.

Critical views
Simon Bradley, in the 2003 revised edition of the Pevsner Buildings of England, London 6: Westminster, describes the garden at Buckingham Palace as "beautiful", noting particularly the "irregular lake and artful Picturesque planting". The design of the garden has also been criticised; suggesting that, after Wise, no major designer was employed, a writer for Country Life concluded that it lacked any of the features of a truly great garden, "originality, surprise, vista, architecture, statuary, planting", although they acknowledged the garden's utility as a "helicopter landing pad".

Listing designations
The garden is Grade II* listed on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens of special historic interest in England. The Waterloo Vase and the Kent Summerhouse are Grade I listed structures. Structures on the perimeter of the garden which are also listed at Grade I include the surrounding boundary wall; the garden entrance screen to the front right of the palace, the screen to the Ambassadors' Court to the left and the main entrance to the Ambassadors' Court on Buckingham Palace Road; the wall enclosing the royal riding school, and the riding school itself; the Royal Mews; and two flanking lodges. A secondary section of the mews, and four lampposts in front of the riding school are listed at Grade II.

title: Buckingham Palace Garden