Euphrates (Pers. Ufratu, Heb. Phrat, Syr. Ephrat, Arab. Furat) is the largest river in Western Asia, and, with the Tigris, forms the most important river-system of that part of the Continent. It has its source in the heart of Armenia in two branches—the Kara-Su (270 miles) and the Murad (300 miles), of which the former rises a few miles NE. of Erzerum, and the latter over 130 miles to the east, near Lake Van—uniting in about 39° N. lat. and 39° E. long., close to Keban Maadin (2664 feet above the sea). From here the united stream flows in a general southerly direction, and breaks through the Taurus in a succession of rapids and cataracts for about 40 miles, emerging at Sumeysát (the ancient Samosata), and passing Bir, at which point it is 100 miles distant from the nearest shore of the Mediterranean. Flowing south, it separates for a considerable distance Mesopotamia from Syria and the deserts of Syrian Arabia; then curving to the south-east, it flows on to Kurna, where it is joined by the waters of the Tigris; and the joint river, taking the name of the Shat-el-Arab, empties itself by several arms (only one of which is navigable by large vessels) into the Persian Gulf, 60 miles below Basra, after a course of fully 1700 miles. The principal of its few tributaries after leaving the mountains are the Sajur on the right, and the Balik-su and Khabúr on the left bank, besides the Persian river Karún, which enters the estuary at Mohammara. The chief towns now on its banks are Sumeysát, Bir, Ana, Hit, and Hilla, Basra lying really on a creek a short distance from the main stream; the river between Ana and Hit is studded with islands, many of them inhabited. The Euphrates is more or less navigable for light craft as far as Bir (nearly 1200 miles); war-vessels can ascend to the junction at Kurna (120 miles), and Turkish government steamers make trips annually between Hilla and Balis while the river is in flood (April to August). In ancient times, when canals and embankments regulated the river's inundations, these exercised the same beneficial effect on the country as those of the Nile on Egypt; but barely a hundredth of the old system is maintained to-day. Numerous remains of ancient cities are still to be traced near the banks, such as the famous site of Babylon, and the Birs Nimrúd (see BABYLONIA).
EUPHRATES ROUTE TO INDIA.—Before the Suez Canal was constructed there was a difference of opinion which of the two ancient trade routes to India—that by Suez, or the other by way of Scanderoon and down the Euphrates Valley—was to be preferred. In 1830 Captain F. R. Chesney, R.A., reported to government that the connection of the Mediterranean and Red seas by the Suez Canal was practicable, in spite of the adverse verdict of Bonaparte's engineers. In 1831 he enlarged his survey by descending the Euphrates, and established the fact that the river was navigable for vessels of moderate draught, at least as high up as Ana. In a report (On the Navigation of the Euphrates, 1833) he maintained that this was the shortest possible route to Bombay, with less open sea than any other; that the country it would open out was rich in natural products, metals, wheat, cotton, silk, madder, &c.; and that there was little opposition to be apprehended from the Arab tribes. His conclusions were supported by men of influence, such as Sir Stratford Canning, Sir R. Gordon, Lords Lansdowne and Ripon; and in 1834 in the House of Commons Lord Althorp brought in a grant of £20,000, for the purposes of an expedition to survey the Euphrates route, to which the India Board added £5000. The expedition, comprising engineers, sappers and miners, and artillerymen, started under Chesney's command in 1835, and after encountering much opposition from Ibrahim Pasha, and overcoming the only serious natural obstruction on the route, the 140 miles of rocky, mountainous country between Scanderoon and the Upper Euphrates, they launched two iron steamers on the Great River at Birejik, and began the descent, in March 1836. The channel was found to be difficult, but not impracticable; and, though one steamer sank, its loss was due to a sinuum of unusual violence, and not to the obstacles presented by the river-bed or currents. The other steamer safely reached the mouth, and the survey justified Chesney's predictions. No further step, however, was taken, either by government or by private enterprise, until in 1856 a company was formed, chiefly by the energy of Sir W. Andrew, for the construction of a railway along the route already surveyed. Adapting himself to the new phase of his scheme, Chesney again went to the Levant, obtained a firman from the sultan, and with the help of Sir John Macneill laid down a practicable route for the railway, by which the passage from England to Karachi (Kurrachee), the nearest port of India, would be 1000 miles shorter than by way of Suez. The immense political importance of the scheme, by which Hither Asia would necessarily be subject to overwhelming British influence, was its destruction. Everything seemed settled, the concession was granted by the Porte, when, in deference, it is said, to the jealousies of foreign powers, Palmerston threw over the scheme. Another attempt in 1862, with a new company under the chairmanship of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, ended in a similar collapse, since government refused its countenance. As an alternative to the Suez Canal, and as an instrument for opening up a rich but neglected country, the Euphrates Valley route would still be a valuable channel of commercial and military communication for the British empire.
See Chesney, Expedition for the Survey of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris (1850); Narratives of the Euphrates Expedition (1868); Evidence before Select Commission (1872); also Life of General F. R. Chesney (1885); V. L. Cameron, Our Future Highway (2 vols. 1888); and W. F. Ainsworth, The Euphrates Expedition (1888).