The administrative divisions of Syria during the Roman period varied greatly at different times. Hadrian made three provinces of it, Syria, Syria Phoenice and Syria Palestina. At the beginning of the 5th century we find the following: (I) Syria Euphratensis, which had for its capital Hierapolis (q.v.). (2) Syria I., or Coelesyria, having Antioch as its capital. The name Coelesyria (7) KotAiIvpia), no doubt, was applied originally to the valley ("hollow") between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, but was after wards extended to the district stretching eastwards from the latter range. (3) Syria II., or Syria Salutaris, with Apameia as capital. (4) Phoenice Maritima; capital, Tyre. (5) Phoenice ad Libanum; capital, Emesa (Horns). To this division Damascus and Palmyra belonged. (6, 7, 8) Palestina I., II. and III. (9) Arabia (capital, Bostra), which embraced all the region from the Hauran to the Arnon, and skirted the Jordan valley, stretching southwards to Petrae. Through the kingdom of the Nabataeans Roman influence penetrated from Syria far into northern Arabia.
In A.D. 616 Syria was subjugated for a brief period by the Persian Chosroes II. ; from 622 until 628 it was again Byzantine; 636 and the immediately following years saw its conquest by the Mohammedans (see CALIPHATE). During the struggles of the Mohammedan dynasties for the possession of Syria the country still enjoyed a considerable degree of prosperity.
In the period of the crusades the kingdom of Jerusalem, whose rulers were never able to establish a foothold to the east of the Jordan, extended northwards to Beirut ; next to it lay the count ship of Tripoli on the coast ; and beyond that in north Syria was the principality of Antioch. Syria suffered severely from the Mongol invasions (1260), and it never recovered its former pros perity. In 1516 the Ottomans took it from the Egyptian Mame lukes (see TURKEY: History). Its mediaeval importance as an intermediary of trade between Europe and the East was im paired by the opening of the Red sea route, and abolished by the Suez Canal. For the archaeology of Syria see ASIA MINOR : Archaeology. (D. G. H.; X.) Syrian Nationalism.—.One result of the Turkish revolution of 1908 was to give an impetus to the Nationalist movement which had begun, some years before, to gain ground in the Arabic speaking provinces of the Turkish empire, and especially in Syria.
It was not until 1912, when Turkey was reeling under the shock of the Balkan wars, that it was thought that something should be done to conciliate the Arabs. Kiamil Pasha, who became grand vizier towards the close of the year, allowed a national assembly to be convened at Beirut for the purpose of formulating the Syrian demands. The assembly met in Jan. 1913, but its proceedings were annulled by Mohammed Shevket Pasha, who succeeded Kiamil a few weeks later. In June 1913 a so called Arab congress was held in Paris. The members were drawn mainly from what may be called the French sphere of influence in the Lebanon and Beirut. The congress adopted a comparatively moderate programme, including the usual demand for decentrali zation, and resolved that it should be communicated, not only to the Turkish Government, but to foreign Powers in friendly rela tions with Turkey.
The Turkish Government was sufficiently impressed to invite three Muslim members of the congress to visit Constantinople. Another conciliatory gesture was the recall of the Vali of Beirut, an uncompromising opponent of concessions to the Arabs and the appointment of a more liberal-minded successor. A little later a number of Arabs, including some of the militant reformers, were given seats in the Turkish Senate or lucrative appointments in the civil service. By these means the Turks succeeded in buying off some of their opponents, but on the main points at issue they continued to temporize, and the Syrian demands received no sub stantial satisfaction. The situation in Syria was watched with spe cial vigilance in Paris. On Dec. 21, 1912, the prime minister, M. Poincare, declared in the Senate that "we have traditional inter ests in the Lebanon and Syria, which we intend to have respected." On the eve of the World War France was busily engaged in strengthening her position in the Levant against German competi tion, and was negotiating for the acknowledgment, on a do at des basis, of her prior claim to concessions in Syria and Palestine.
When Turkey entered the war, in Oct. 1914, France promptly asserted her claims in the Levant, and so far as Syria was con cerned, as distinct from Palestine, they were never questioned. As between Great Britain, France and Russia the matter was dis posed of in the spring of 1916 by a tripartite agreement, which was elaborated as between Great Britain and France by the so called Sykes-Picot agreement. This agreement, which was con cluded on May 16, 1916, gave France virtually a free hand on the Syrian coast, with a veiled protectorate over the interior.